Limitations of soil investigations for

corrosion assessments of buried

steel
Dr Gareth John
Senior Consultant.
Intertek-CAPCIS, Manchester, UK

1
Corrosion in soils – what is the problem?
• Corrosion of cast iron, ductile
iron and steels in soils can lead
to a range of failures especially
for pipelines / buried storage
tanks.
• Either due to
– Through wall pitting,
– General corrosion
– Fracture
• Corrosion issues also relate to
structure elements such as
sheet steel & tubular steel
piles, ground stabilization (soil
nails, ground anchors, etc)

2
 Consequence of corrosion
• As usual with all corrosion the
metal loss may be trivial but the
effect could be dramatic
• Effects can range from:
– Minor water leaks – increased
maintenance
– Total washout, collapse of ground
and flooding
– Gas leak leading to explosions (for
example)
• 1980, Ortuella, near Bilbao, Spain
Butane pipe leak (46 children and
5 teachers killed)
• 1999, Larkhall, Scotland, ductile
iron gas pipe leak (family of 4
killed)
• 2003, ICL Plastics, Glasgow, LPG
pipe leak (9 killed)

3
 Corrosion in soils
• Whilst corrosion in soils follows the same general principles as
corrosion in natural conditions, there are several aspects that
are unique and which differentiate it from corrosion in
seawater / fresh water.
• The main issue associated with corrosion in soil, is its
complexity.
– The soil the component is buried in (i.e. its type, resistivity,
chemical composition and external factors) controls the corrosion
process.
– Some of the parameters are inter-dependent, so that an increase
in one parameter that would make the soil more corrosive may be
offset or mitigated by another parameter.
• The majority of information relating to corrosion in soils comes
from the work of Romanoff (1), at National Bureau of
Standards, USA, in the 1950’s.

(1) Romanoff, M; Underground Corrosion, NBS Circular 579 (1957). Republished by NACE (1989) 4
Background
• Integrity assessment of buried steel components, whether
they be pipelines, sheet steel piles, ground anchors etc.
whether for existing or planned structures / facilities,
requires an understanding of the local conditions.
• Extensive investigation work carried out worldwide over the
past 60 years provides a firm basis for determining corrosion
in soils.
• However experience has shown that unless a dedicated
corrosivity assessment is specified the “routine” soil
assessments carried out are typically inadequate to allow any
corrosion review to be conducted!

5
Current Site Practice
• The majority of soil assessments called for by Civil Engineers
relate to one or both of:
– Assessment for sulfate attack on concrete (BRE SD-1 : 2005)
– Contaminated land (BS 10175 : 2001)
• However, whilst both are suitable for their intended purpose,
neither gives sufficient information to allow a soil corrosivity
assessment to be made, identify overall corrosion risk and
hence what corrosion protection measures are required.
• Typically such investigations would only provide; pH, chloride
and sulfate content.

6
 Soil Characterisation (2)
• Most soils are divided into
different classes depending on
their clay, silt and sand content
(defined by particle size): 
– Clay: colloidal size to 0.005 mm
– Silt: 0.005 to 0.07 mm
– Sand: 0.07 to 2 mm.
• Sands are generally well drained 
and high resistivity
• Clays are generally poorly drained
and moderate / low resistivity

• Soil with 50% clay, 30% silt and 20% sand (location
) is a “clay”,
• Soil with 15% clay, 5% silt and 80% sand (location )
is a “sandy loam” etc.
Sandy loam /
clays
gravel
(2) http://soils.usda.gov/technical/manual 7
Romanoff
• The most extensive study was carried out in the 1950’s by
national bureau of standards in the USA.
• Over 20 different metals / alloys tested in 60 different test
sites over a period of up to 13 years.
• Showed that generally for corrosion rate for iron (wrought,
cast & ductile) and low alloy carbon and carbon manganese
steels was a function of the soil - not the alloy.
• Also showed that aeration and resistivity the two most critical
issues.
• Separate study on piles confirmed that for a given soil it was
more aggressive if “disturbed” (i.e. dug up).
– that is difference when component is driven into the soil (piles,
nails, etc) as opposed to placed (most pipelines, some foundations)

8
 Romanoff
• Showed that for disturbed soils metal loss / pitting generally
followed:

P k 
T n ; W k '
Tu
– P depth of pit at time T
– W weight loss per unit area (or metal loss) at time T
– k, k’, n, u constants dependent on metal / alloy and soil type.

• Mainly divided soils into 4 classes based on aeration

– Good aeration loams / sands
– Fair aeration loams
– Poor aeration peat / clay
– Very poor aeration clay / muck

In the original work Romanoff reported weight loss (general corrosion) in oz/ft2 and pit depth in mil (0.001 inch). 1 oz/ft2 = 3.05 gm/dm2 0.4 mm (For iron and steel) and 1 mil  0.025 mm 9
 Data Analysis
Romanoff - Poor Aeration Poor Aeration

1000
200 5.0

4.0
150
Maximum Pit De pth [m il]

Max imum Pit Depth [mm]

Ma ximum Pit Depth [mil]
100

3.0

100

2.0
10

50
1.0

1 0 0.0
1.0 10.0 100.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Exposure time [yr] Exposure time [yr]

• Plotting data on log-log scale gives good linear relationship log( P) K n 

log(T )
• Which gives the following exponential relationship (k = 10K)
P k 
Tn
• Error bars is the 95% prediction limit (1.96
) on pit depth

- standard error on pit depth 10

 Corrosion of ferrous alloys

• Romanoff found that corrosion of iron and low alloy steels was
dependent on the soil not the alloy, with predicted metal loss / pit
depth (mm)

12.5 5.0 160 4.0

clay clay

10.0 4.0
weight loss [oz/ft2]

120 3.0

metal loss [mm]

pit depth [mm]

pit depth [mil]
7.5 3.0

80 2.0
5.0 2.0

2.5 1.0
40 1.0

sand sand
0.0 0.0
0 0.0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
exposure time [yr] exposure time [yr]
wrought iron open hearth steel bessemer steel 0.22% Cu steel wrought iron open hearth steel bessemer steel 0.22% Cu steel

MLclay = 0.040 
T0.702 and MLsand = 0.014
T0.809
Pit clay = 0.652 
T0.495 and Pitsand = 0.960
T0.087

11
 Romanoff Assessment
Good Aeration Fair Aeration

Romanoff 20.0 0.8 20.0 0.8

considered that
the soil aeration 15.0 0.6 15.0 0.6

(drainage) had

Weigt Loss [oz/ft2]

Weigt Loss [oz /f t2]

Metal Loss [mm]

Metal Loss [mm]

most effect
10.0 0.4 10.0 0.4

5.0 0.2 5.0 0.2

0.0 0 0.0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Exposure time [yr] Exposure time [yr]

Poor Aeration Very Poor Aeration

20.0 0.8 20.0 0.8

15.0 0.6 15.0 0.6

Weigt Loss [oz/ft2]

Weigt Loss [oz/ft2]

Metal Loss [mm]

Metal Loss [mm]

10.0 0.4 10.0 0.4

5.0 0.2 5.0 0.2

0.0 0 0.0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Exposure time [yr] Exposure time [yr]
12
 Alternative Assessments
Very low resistivity (< 1,000 ohm cm) Low Resistivity (1,000 to 3,000 ohm cm)

Same data – 20.0 0.8 20.0 0.8

grouped by
resistivity 15.0 0.6 15.0 0.6

Weigt Loss [oz/ft2]

Weigt Loss [oz/ft2]

Metal Loss [mm]

Metal Loss [mm]

Typical Corrosivity 10.0 0.4 10.0 0.4

assessment based 5.0 0.2 5.0 0.2

on resistivity only
0.0 0 0.0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Exposure time [yr] Exposure time [yr]
Resistivity Corrosivity
(cm)
Medium resistivity (3,000 to 10,000 ohm cm) High Resistance (> 10,000 ohm cm)
1,000 Very severe
20.0 0.8 20.0 0.8
1,000 to 2,000 Severe
2,000 to 5,000 Moderate
15.0 0.6 15.0 0.6
5,000 to 10,000 Mild
Weigt Loss [oz/ft2]

Weigt Loss [oz/ft2]

Metal Loss [mm]

Metal Loss [mm]

> 10,000 Very mild
10.0 0.4 10.0 0.4

5.0 0.2 5.0 0.2

0.0 0 0.0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Exposure time [yr] Exposure time [yr]
13
Main Corrosion factors
• Soil type
• Resistivity
• Moisture content
• Chemistry (pH, Cl-, SO42-, alkalinity / acidity, redox)
• Bacteria
• External factors
– Differential aeration / resistivity / chemistry (“long-line”
corrosion)
– External stray currents (dc or ac)

14
Soil texture & structure
• Soil type & structure directly affect soil corrosivity.
– Soils which are predominately made up of clay, peat, organic
material, are very corrosive
– Soils that are predominately loams or sandy loams are less
corrosive
– Sands and limestone marls are generally benign.
– Contaminated soils (either from chemicals, coal / coke, sanitary
waste etc) are very corrosion.
• Disturbed / Non-disturbed soils
– Soils which have been disturbed, (e.g. to lay a pipe) are more
corrosive that non-disturbed soils (e.g. for driven piles)

15
Aeration and Oxygen diffusion.
• Whilst oxygen is required for corrosion to occur, a counter-intuitive effect
is that the worst corrosion is often associated with anaerobic conditions.
• This is because of macro-cells (also called long line corrosion cells), where
the oxygen reduction reaction may take place some distance from the anode,
and the more or less anaerobic anode is surrounded by particularly
aggressive ions, resulting in excessive metal loss.
• Also where the structure enters concrete, as in tower legs, where the
embedded section in concrete is the cathode.

16
 Chemical properties of the soil:

• Soil pH
– For most soils have a pH in the range 6 to 8.
– In some cases more acidic conditions (down to pH < 4) or very alkaline (pH > 9)
can occur.
• In addition the soil can contain chlorides and/or sulfates that will promote
corrosion.
– Particular problem in desert areas (Sabkha) as well as coastal sites (salt marsh)
or
– Areas adjacent to trunk roads (due to de-icing salt run off)
• However, the soil chemistry can be complex and many soils contain strong
buffering agents, which restrict the ability of the soils’ pH to change.
• The presence of micro-organisms, especially Sulfate Reducing Bacteria
(SRB) can also make the conditions corrosive leading to Microbiologically
Influenced Corrosion (MIC).
– SRB’s flourish in anaerobic soils.
– Risk can be assessed by either direct bacterial assay, site redox measurement
or presence of sulfides.
– Care must be taken to prevent exposure to air of samples for SEB analysis
• otherwise any assessment is likely to underestimate the bacteria population.
17
 Site Investigation & Sampling
• When on site principle measurements are:
– Site resistivity (normally using 4-pin Wenner probe) at different
spacing
– Redox (to estimate extent of aeration / deaeration)
– Lead Acetate test (to detect sulfides)
• Soil Samples
– Typically a minimum of ca 1 kg (~ ½ L) ideally ca 2 kg (~ 1 L) of
material required.
– Sample should full an air tight container that is sealed to minimise
interaction with air
• plastic sandwich boxes are ideal.
• alternately use double heavy duty plastic bags with air excluded.
– Need to take samples from different areas
• in particular where soil colour / texture is noticeably different

BS 1377-3:1990 Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. Chemical and electro-chemical tests
BS 1377-9:1990 Methods for test for soils for civil engineering purposes. In-situ tests 18
 Corrosivity / Aggressivity Assessment
• Based on the different aspects several systems have been developed
to allow an assessment of the corrosivity / aggressivity of soils.
• Following work by Romanoff, NBS developed a pitting model (Rossum
(3)) relating depth of pit (P) to extent of aeration, pH, resistivity (,
.cm) and time (t, yrs)

z t 
P K n 
n

10 pH
z
soil
• Where Kn and n are dependent on aeration condition:
– Poor aeration (heavy clays) n = 1/2 Kn = 8.9 mm
– Fair aeration (clays, silty sands) n = 1/3 Kn = 5.6 mm
– Good aeration (sands, gravels) n = 1/6 Kn = 4.3 mm

(3) Rossum, JR. Prediction of pitting rates in ferrous metals from soil parameters J. AWWA, 61, pp305-310 (1969) 19
 Soil Corrosivity / Aggressivity Methods
• An alternative approach to develop general aggressivity was
initially developed in Germany by the DVGW (4)
• This basic method has since been modified as Eyre & Lewis
system (5) which in turn has been revised and adopted by the
Highway Agency in their Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
(6)

• However, in our view, most comprehensive method is detailed in

DIN 50 929 part 3 (7).

(4) DVGW- Arbeitsblatt GW9 (detailed in Shrier 3rd ed)

(5) D Eyre & D A Lewis Soil Corrosivity Assessment (Contractor Report 54). TRRL (1987)
(6) DMRB BD 42/00 Volume 2 Section 1 Part 2, UK Highways Agency (2000) http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk
(7) DIN 50 929 Part 3. Probability of corrosion of metallic materials when subject to corrosion from the outside. Buried and underwater
pipelines and structural components Sep-1985 20
 Original assessment method (DVGW 1960’s)

Assign marks for each

category
Add up marks to give
overall score

Total Score Assessment

>0 non-corrosive
0 to -4 slightly corrosive
-5 to -10 corrosive
< -10 very corrosive

21
Modified Eyre & Lewis System (as adopted in HA DMBR (6))
Item Characteristics Points
Item Characteristics Points
> 10,000 +2
3,000 to 10,000 +1
Soil Backfills meeting requirements for Resistivity
1 +2 1,000 to 3,000 -1
Type structural backfills (ohm.cm)
100 to 1,000 -3
Backfills containing<10% of particle s < 100 -4
2 +2
passing 63 m sieve
< 200 0
Backfills containing <75% passing 63 m Sulfate 200 to 500 -1
3 0
sieve and <10% passing 2 m sieve (mg/kg) 500 to 1,000 -2
> 1,000 -4
Any grading backfill with PI fraction
4 -1
passing 435 m sieve > 6, >15 < 50 0
Chloride 50 to 250 -1
Any grading, backfill with PI of fraction
5 -2 (mg/kg) 250 to 500 -2
passing 425μm sieve > 15
> 500 -4
Soils having an organic content of > 2%
6 -4 No discolouration of lead acetate paper 0
(other than cinder or coke)
Slight darkening of lead acetate paper -2
Sulfides
Contaminated soils (Including those Moderate blackening of lead acetate paper -3
7 (*)
containing cinder, coke)
Rapid blackening of lead acetate paper -4

Above ground water 0

Ground
At / variable ground water level -4
water Original Eyre & Lewis system (5) includes site Redox
Below ground water 0
measurement and had different method of describing soil type
pH of soil / >5 0 Redox Potential > +400 mV +2
ground-
water <5 -3 (normalised to pH7 & SHE) +200 to +400 mV 0
0 to +200 mV -2
(*) seek specialist advice < 0 mV -4

Again add up points. Same criteria

22
DIN 50 929 Part 3. Probability of corrosion of metallic materials when subject to corrosion
from the outside. Buried and underwater pipelines and structural components” Sep-1985

• DIN 50 929 Part 3 is the updated DVGW procedure.

• The aggressiveness of soil is determined by consideration of:
– soil type and extent of contamination / pollution (if any),
– resistivity,
– pH,
– moisture content,
– soil condition (i.e. disturbed/undisturbed),
– total alkalinity/acidity (buffer capacity),
– combined chloride/sulfate content (aqueous extract),
– sulfate content (acid extract),
– sulfide content (*),
– presence of ground water,
– vertical/horizontal homogeneity (#) and
– external stray current.
• Based on defined criteria each parameter is assigned a value ranging from +4
(non-aggressive) to -12 (strongly aggressive).
• The sum of the various items can range from a best case of +4 to a worst case
of -47, and from this the overall corrosivity (aggressivity) is assessed.

(* ) Sulfide measurement used to assess risk of MIC (as opposed to either redox or bacteria assay)
(#) Used to determine long-line corrosion (differential aeration / chemistry) risks.. 23
Soil Corrosivity / Aggressiveness (Carbon Steel)
Risk Deep/ Wide Risk General
Total Score Soil Corrosivity
Pitting Corrosion

0 Ia Virtually not corrosive Very low Very low

-1 to -4 Ib Slightly corrosive Low Very low

-5 to -10 II Corrosive Medium Low

< -10 III Highly corrosive High Medium

General Corrosion Range Localised Range

Total Score Rate (Pitting) Rate
mm/yr mm/yr

0 Ia 0.005 0.0025 – 0.01 0.03 0.015 – 0.06

-1 to -4 Ib 0.01 0.005 – 0.02 0.06 0.03 – 0.12

-5 to -10 II 0.02 0.01 – 0.04 0.2 0.1 – 0.4

< -10 III 0.06 0.03 – 0.12 0.4 0.2 – 0.8

24
 Other Approaches
• In the US a modification of the
original DVGW model, was developed
by DIPRA (8)
– more widely known as the “AWWA 10-
point” method.
– this has been used in the UK
• Method only identifies corrosion
threat for extremely aggressive
conditions which are rare.
– Note – resistivity range which ignores
conditions > 3000 Ωcm but is also
based on saturated conditions
• It is often misused, since the effect
of soil type and external effects
(which are included in the procedure
but not in the table) is normally
overlooked.
• A update has been developed -Design
Decision Model (DMM™) which
includes a risk assessment stage (9) .
– But DMM is based on analysis of
propriety data and hence is only
available as a commercial service.

(8) ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5-05 Polyethylene Encasement for Ductile-Iron Pipe Systems Dec-2005 (Appendix 1)
(9) The Design Decision Model™ for corrosion control of ductile iron pipelines “DIPRA DDM/7-06/5M, July 2006. http://www.dipra.net 25
 MTBF (mean time before failure) method,

• Described in ASTM G158 (10)

– Methodology to determine the likely time to failure (through wall pitting in this case)
of buried storage tanks
– Based on a statistical assessment of various soil parameters. The parameters used in
the assessment are obtained either directly on site or from samples analyzed in a
laboratory and compared to a data set of corrosion rates from a number of other
sites, so as to be able to demonstrate a statistical confidence level of 99%.
– The standard indicates that a multivariate non-linear regression analysis that
contains the following minimum essential variables may used.

Where:
E ( age) f 
R , M , Cl , pH , S , SC, TS , P 
– E(age) = unconditional predicated age to corrosion failure
– R = resistivity
– M = moisture content
– Cl = chloride ion content
– pH = soil pH
– S = sulfide content
– SC = stray current magnitude
– TS = tank size
– P = tank structure-to-soil potential.
• Problem with this method (like DMM™) is that it can only be used if you already have a body of
data to allow an assessment to be carried out. Again offered by some consultancy organisations
in the US as a commercial service.

(10) ASTM G158-98 (2004) Standard Guide for Three Methods of Assessing Buried Steel Tanks 26
 {last and defiantly least!} European Standard EN 12501-2 (11)
• Provides some guidance as to
determine “corrosion load” in
soils
– but does not give any
practical definition of what
“corrosion load” means!
• Considers:
– Type of soil,
– external effects (stray
current),
– pollution and others
(including Toponomy)
• For analysis just compares pH
and resistivity.
– Grey areas are
“intermediate” / seek
specialist advise! medium low

• My personal opinion is that EN 12501 is

insufficient to provide a practical soil high
corrosivity assessment as part of an
integrity assessment.

(11) EN 12501-2: 2003 Corrosion likelihood in soil - Part 2: Low alloyed and non alloyed ferrous materials 27
Other metals and alloys
• Other metals and alloys are also used for underground services
/ facilities.
• Zinc, lead, stainless steels, copper alloys, aluminium alloys, etc.
• Performance varies by metal/alloy and soil condition.
• There are some guidance available for different alloys but not
as extensive as for iron / carbon steel.
• As would be expected the more corrosion resistant materials
provide better resistance in the same soil.

28
In summary
• Corrosion of metals in soils is complex and can lead to serious
problems for pipework and other buried facilities.
• The key parameters are:
– Soil type (clay, silt, sand, muck)
– Gross contamination (coal, coke, chemical waste, sanitary waste)
– Resistivity
– Chemistry (pH, chloride, sulfate, sulfide, buffer capacity /
carbonate)
– Bacteria (mainly SRB, but also GRB)
– Local factors (variations in resistivity, aeration / moisture
content, etc)
– External effects (stray current).

29
• However, despite the issues relating to corrosion in soil being
well characterised for over 60 years, most soil analysis that is
called for in the UK is still not focused on corrosion risk
assessment for metals.
– Aimed at concrete deterioration or contaminated land assessment.
• What is needed is a clear understanding by Engineers as to
what the issues are (as described above) and ensuring minimum
test data is obtained to give a reliable assessment for use with
buried steel
• There are several different methods available and should be
adopted.
– Whilst there are variations between the different methods most
enable good indication of corrosion threat to be developed and
hence allow corrosion control decisions /integrity assessments to
be made.

30
Additional References / Reading
• Stott J F D and John G “2.19 Corrosion in Soils”.
– Richardson J A et al. (eds.) “Shreir’s Corrosion”, volume 2, pp. 1149-1168 (2010) Elsevier.
• Chaker, V.; Palmer, J. D., Eds.; ”Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion”;
– ASTM STP 1013 (1989),
• Littlejohn, G. S., Ed. ”Ground Anchorages and Anchored Structures in Service”,
– Institute of Civil Engineers; Thomas Telford Publishing: London, 2008, ISBN 978–07277–
3561–4.
• Romanoff, M. “Underground Corrosion”,
– National Bureau of Standards, Circular 579 (April 1957);
– Republished by NACE International: Houston, TX, USA, (1989). ISBN 0–915567–47–4.

31