N Technical \ Report No. 36. Corrosion Engineering Association | \ es Report of a joint Concrete Society and Corrosion Engineering Association Working Party a7271Concrete Society Technical Report No 36 TR.036 Published 1989 ISBN 0.946691 34.7 Published by The Concrete Society Devon House, 12-15 Dartmouth Street, London SW1H 9BL. Further copies may be obtained from Publication Sales, The Concrete Society © The Concrete Socicty 1989 All rights reserved, except as permitted under current Iegislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, per- formed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be addressed to The Concrete Society. Although The Concrete Society (limited by guarantee), the Corrosion Engin- ering Association, the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (USA) and the Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology do their best to ensure that any advice, recommendations or information they may give either in this publication or elsewhere is accurate, no liability or responsibility of any kind (including liability for negligence) howsoever and from whatsoever cause arising, is accepted in this respect by these bodies, their servants or agents.‘Concrete Society Technical Report No 36 Cathodic Protection of Reinforced Concrete Report of a joint Concrete Society and Corrosion Engineering Association Working PartyMembers of the Joint Working Party Chairman: Secretary: Members: B S Wyatt BSc CEng MIM FiCorrST Tarmac Structural Repairs D G John BSc PhD CChem MRSC MICorsST CAPCIS - University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology K GC Berkley CEng FIM FiCorrST Concrete Corrosion Consultants Partnership KJ Boam CEng MICE MIHT AMICorrST G Maunsell & Partners N R Buenfeld MSc PhD DIC CEng MICE Imperial College of Science and Technology & Institution of Structural Engineers AT Davidson BSc(Eng) CEng MICE MIStrut£ AMICorrST University of Dundee P Langford MSc PhD 3M United Kingdom PLC CD Lawrence BSc PhD CChem MRSC British Cement Association D A Lewis BSc(Eng) CEng MIChemE FiCorrST Spencer and Partners R McAnoy BSc MBA CEng MICE Euring (Previously } P Broomfield BA(Chem) PhD MICorST) Taywood Engineering Ltd PJ Moreland BSc PhD ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd C Naish BSc DPhil (Previously N W J Wilkins BSc FICorrST) Harwell Corrosion Services CL Page MA PhD CEng MIM MICorsST University of Aston K B Pithouse BA(Chem) DMS Raychem Lid AM Showan BSc CEng MICE MIStrutE Jenkins and Potter & Institution of Civil Engineers JA Stillwell BSc(Eng) CEng MICE Wimpey Laboratories K WJ Treadaway MSc CChem FRSC Building Research Establishment /Taywood Engineering MJ Walker CEng MICE FINT Concrete Society M A Warne MA FiCorrST MIMF Marston Palmer Ltd/ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd 2CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1, CHOICE OF REMEDIAL ACTION FOR REINFORCEMENT CORROSION 1.1 Reinforced concrete 1.2 Prestressed concrete 13 Choice of repair method 14 Chloride-induced corrosion - options for repair 1.4.1 No action, other than monitoring of the structure 14.2 Repair of defective areas 1.43 Removal of chloride-contaminated concrete 1.44 Replacement of deteriorated structural elements 2, HISTORY OF CATHODIC PROTECTION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE 2.1 Protection of buried concrete 2.2 Above-ground protection - conductive overlays 23 Sacrificial anodes. 2.4 Conductive coating anode systems 2.5 Wire and mesh anodes 2.6 Recent developments 3, CORROSION OF STEEL IN CONCRETE: AN OVERVIEW OF MECHANISMS, 3.4 Understanding of corrosion 3.2 Carbonation 3.3 Chloride-induced corrosion 3.4 Concrete quality 4. CATHODIC PROTECTION 4.1 Cathodic protection - background 4.2 Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete 4.3 Applicability of cathodic protection to structures 5. DIAGNOSIS, INSPECTION AND CONCRETE REPAIRS 5.1 General 5.2 Deterioration diagnosis and inspection 5.3 Inspection methods 5.3.1 Potential survey 53.2 Delamination survey 5.3.3 Loss of steel section 5.3.4 Cover survey 5.3.5 Reinforcement continuity 5.3.6 Concrete resistivity 5.3.7 Chloride content measurement 5.3.8 Carbonation depth measurement 5.3.9 Other aspects 5.4 Repairs to structures before cathodic protection is installed 5.5 Summary 6. ANODE SYSTEMS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES Page No 13 16 277. POWER SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, TESTING AND MAINTENANCE 7.4 Power supplies 7:2 Connections 73 Cables 7.4 Test equipment 7.4.1 Reference electrodes 7.4.2 Meters 7.4.3 Other probe types 7.5 Operation and Maintenance 8 CRITERIA FOR DESIGN AND PROTECTION 8.1 Design criteria 8.2 Criteria for protection 8.2.1 Review of current practice 8.2.2 Discussion 9. CONCLUSIONS GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX A: REVIEW OF ANODE MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS A. Conductive coatings Add Anode description ‘A12 Anode operating parameters A113. Anode installation requirements A14 Maintenance and repair procedures A.2 — Sprayed zinc coating 1 Anode description A.22 Anode operating parameters A.23 Anode installation requirements A.24 Maintenance and repair procedures A3 Titanium mesh with electrocatalytic coating A. Anode description A3.2 Anode operating parameters A33 Anode installation requirements A4 Conductive polymer anode A.A. Anode description A.4.2 Operating parameters A443 Anode installation requirements AS Conductive overlays A.6 Conductive resins (FHWA polymer) A7 Conductive ceramic surface mounted anode AZ Anode description ‘A7.2 Operating parameters A.73 Anode installation requirements AS — Cementitious overlays APPENDIX B: BIBLIOGRAPHY ON CATHODIC PROTECTION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE Page No 29 34 39 40 a7 2INTRODUCTION This Technical Report has been prepared by the Corrosion Engineering Asso- ciation (CEA) in conjunction with the Concrete Society. The CEA is formed between the Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology with headquar- ters in Leighton Buzzard, England, and the National Association of Corrosion Engineers with headquarters in Houston, USA. ‘The working party which prepared the report comprises members of the CEA and others who are specialists in cathodic protection, supplemented by spe- cialists with particular expertise in concrete, corrosion of reinforcement in concrete, design and assessment of reinforced concrete structures and repair of reinforced concrete. Working party membership includes representatives from UK consultants, contractors, manufacturers, research organisations, universities, the Concrete Society, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the In- stitution of Structural Engineers and the British Cement Association. This document is published by the Concrete Society in conjunction with the CEA. Its purpose is to provide up to date and technically well founded information on cathodic protection to assist civil and structural engineers, and others responsible for structures and buildings, to decide whether cathodic protection is an appropriate remedy for reinforcement corrosion problems. ‘The Report provides guidance in the specification of cathodic protection for reinforced concrete. It is intended to provide an objective, concise technical review of cathodic protection of reinforcement including its merits and possible demerits. The Report deals primarily with reinforced concrete structures above ground, although reference is also made to the foundations of such structures which are buried or submerged. ‘A Model Specification to be read with this report has also been prepared by the working party (Concrete Society Technical Report No 37). This is intended to provide sufficient information to allow a cathodic protection specification to be prepared for tender purposes. It has been based on the Institution of Civil Engineers (London, England) Conditions of Contract (5th Edition) as the majority of current and forthcoming cathodic protection systems for rein- forced concrete are for civil engineering applications. ‘The Working Party strongly recommends that all cathodic protection work should be the subject of detailed design and assessment by specialist engineers from the structure owner's organisation, a consultant or the contractor. Be- cause of the requirement for both cathodic protection and concrete repair expertise in the design, installation and monitoring of cathodic protection of reinforced concrete it is recommended that only suitably qualified engineers, consultants and contractors are engaged for these works.1. CHOICE OF REMEDIAL ACTION FOR REINFORCEMENT CORROSION 14 Reinforced concrete Cathodic protection may be appropriate for reinforced concrete structures that have begun to show signs of distress due to chloride-induced corrosion of steel reinforcement. Before 1977, calcium chloride was permitted in the UK as an accelerator in Portland cement concretes and if it was used it may be expected to be present throughout the concrete member. The aspect of most concern at present are chlorides which enter concrete by diffusion or absorption from external sources, such as de-icing salts and sea water exposure. The suitability of a structure to receive cathodic protection should be assessed. Other repair methods should also be considered: these may appear to be cost effective but may not completely control the corrosion. Cathodic protection is not recommended where reinforcement corrosion has occurred solely as a result of carbonation of concrete. This is because the increased electrical resistivity of carbonated concrete makes it difficult to impress current to the reinforcement. Carbonation usually affects only limited areas of structures where the cover to reinforcement is low and there are many proprietary repair systems suitable for durable and economical repairs, in such cases. 1.2 Prestressed concrete Because there is a danger that the high strength steels used in prestressing could be embrittled by hydrogen which can be evolved at the higher end of the range of cathodic protection voltages, cathodic protection should only be considered for a prestressed concrete structure after particular attention has been paid to this risk. Prestressing steel is typically loaded to 80% of its strain ‘capacity and consequently any loss of strength could be catastrophic. In the ase of post-tensioned concrete the tendons are likely to be contained within a duct and with much greater concrete cover than normal reinforcing bars, thus reducing the effectiveness or even making cathodic protection unusable. 1.3 Choice of repair method Providing corrosion of reinforcement has not impaired structural integrity, only minimal concrete repairs are normally required before a cathodic protec- tion system is installed. Thus, where chloride induced corrosion is identified as the cause of structural deterioration, then cathodic protection can offer the most cost effective control option. However, cathodic protection is only one of the procedures available for repair and other repair methods should be given consideration before deciding whether or not to adopt cathodic protec- tion. If, as is usual, cost is the criterion by which the choice of repair method is to be made, then it should be remembered that a cathodic protection system will require some maintenance. In particular, the anode system may require repair or replacement during the life of a structure. The necessary preliminary work prior to the application of cathodic protection is described in the report, including the need to ensure reinforcement conti- nuity and avoid anode /cathode short circuits. The critical nature of anode overlays, if used, is described as are the requirements for operation of the system during its life. Due to the limited track record of many anode systems, including overlays, their life is difficult to assess at present.1.4 Chloride-induced corrosion - options for repair A number of options other than cathodic protection can be considered for the repair of structures affected by chloride-induced corrosion, as follows: 1.4.1 No action, other than monitoring of the structure If the appearance of a structure is not of primary concern and a structural assessment indicates there is a reserve of strength in the deteriorated struc- ture, it may be possible to do nothing other than monitor the structure pro- vided other aspects of public health and safety can be met. Such an approach could be viable in instances where only a limited future life is required from the structure. However, present monitoring techniques are not capable of accurately measuring the rate of deterioration of the structure and its integrity. Although developments are taking place in this field it is presently difficult to judge when a structure becomes unsafe. 1.4.2 Repair of defective areas Repairing areas which are seen to be defective, e.g. delaminated, spalled or cracked, is still practised by some authorities in the belief that such repairs will be durable. ‘This will not be the case where chloride contaminated con- crete remains adjacent to repaired areas. Corrosion will be initiated in the areas bounding the repairs and evidence of further deterioration will soon manifest itself. The procedure will not therefore produce durable repairs. Providing this is recognised and allowance is made for the cost of carrying out further repairs, it can provide a cost effective approach, particularly where access to the structure can be gained easily and inexpensively. 1.4.3 Removal of chloride-contaminated concrete Removing chloride-contaminated concrete and replacing it with fresh concrete is more likely to produce a durable repair than simply repairing what is seen to be wrong. However there is still no guarantee that the procedure will be one hundred per cent successful. This is because it is extremely difficult to identify precisely how much concrete needs to be removed to ensure that future corro- sion sites are eliminated. Also it is very difficult to remove all chloride contamination from the reinforcement, particularly where pitting corrosion has occurred. The use of overlays, sealers, dewatering, chloride scavengers and inhibitors is presently under investigation but none of these techniques is yet a proven method of repair. Where the degree of chloride contamination is high, removal is likely to be expensive due to the need for temporary support. Much of the concrete that needs to be broken out is often sound and thus costly to remove. Also, replacement concretes for most large repairs usually have to incorporate high- ly specialised proprietary materials, which are expensive. Repair methods usually involve specialist techniques which further add to the cost. The cost of the repair and the amount of concrete that has to be removed may result in the cost of this procedure exceeding the cost of total replacement of a deteriorated structural element. 1.4.4 Replacement of deteriorated structural elements While completely replacing a deteriorated structural element is likely to be expensive, it can be more economical than carrying out extensive concretereplacement repairs. Where corrosion of the reinforcement has progressed to the extent that structural integrity has been impaired, this may be the only viable approach to repair. The procedure is likely to provide a “once and for all" approach and should result in a durable structure providing, of course, not; that further chloride contamination is prevented.2, HISTORY OF CATHODIC PROTECTION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE 2.1 Protection of buried concrete Cathodic protection of stee! in sea water has been practised since 1824 [1] and, during the past 50 years, it has been extensively and very successfully used for the protection of steel in water and soils. The earliest applications of cathodic protection to reinforced concrete were to prestressed concrete water pipelines [2,3] with reported applications before 1955 to buried reinforced concrete water tanks, steel reinforcement and linings of nuclear reactor containment vessels and concrete coated piling [4]. Most of the early applications are strictly outside the scope of this Technical Report as they relate to reinforced concrete buried in soils. Such applications allowed the use of conventional buried pipeline cathodic protection design principles and anode systems. 2.2 Above-ground protection - conductive overlays The earliest developments of cathodic protection of above ground reinforced concrete were in the protection of bridge decks in the late 1950s [5]. These systems used simple high silicon cast iron anodes in an asphalt overlay made conductive by the addition of coke. In the period 1973-1980 some 35 of these systems were installed and many were reported as still operating satisfactorily in 1983-1985 [6,7]. A variation of these conductive overlay systems, with added sand and stone aggregates to improve the mechanical properties, is now a standard repair option for the Canadian Province of Ontario which has installed some 40 systems [8,9]. The conductive overlay system is widely used for bridge decks without water- proofing membranes . The system adds up to 80 mm to the deck thickness and imposes a substantial dead weight load penalty. This is particularly important if the system is used on car park decks. The conductive overlay system is not appropriate for vertical or soffit surfaces. Attempts were made to avoid the thickness and weight penalties of conductive overlays by using anode systems installed in slots cut into the concrete. An- odes of platinum-clad niobium wire and graphite fibres, set in a conductive polymer grout, were applied to some 30 bridge decks [10]. Early systems failed due to acid attack of the concrete adjacent to the anodes and this has given rise to concern about the life expectancy of existing systems which are not overlaid with concrete, due to the high anode/concrete current density. 2.3 Sacrificial anodes Another system which has been used in trials and is not considered elsewhere in this Technical Report, is the use of sacrificial anodes for cathodic protection of above ground reinforced concrete [11]. Due to their low driving voltage, sacrificial anodes provide insufficient current for protection when embedded in relatively electrically resistive concrete. However, they have been used extensively for the protection of submerged reinforced concrete and may be considered appropriate for buried or submerged reinforced concrete founda- tions. Conventional buried or submerged cathodic protection design practice would be appropriate in such applications and this is well documented else- where [12].2.4 Conductive coating anode systems It was the advent of conductive coating anode systems around 1980 that first provided a practical anode system for vertical and soffit surfaces of reinforced concrete [13], allowing cathodic protection of structures and buildings in addition to bridge deck applications. Conductive coating anode systems, using platinum clad niobium or titanium as the primary anode, have seen wide application to car park deck soffits, highway bridge and support struc- tures and have been used to protect some 30.000 square metres of above ground reinforced concrete. Their successful application requires 2 hig ard of surface preparation and inspection [14, 15] 2.5 Wire and mesh anodes In 1983 a conductive polymer wire, sometimes preassembled into a mesh array, was introduced as an anode for reinforced concrete as a development of its previous use as an anode in soils and waters. This anode has been exten- sively used in the cathodic protection of highway bridge and car park decks with some 100,000 square metres of application being reported. In deck appli- cations it is overlaid with a conventional concrete pavement which has advant- ages of strength and longevity over the conductive asphalt overlay required by earlier systems [16]. ‘The polymer wire system has also been used with a sprayed concrete overlay for vertical and soffit surfaces of bridge support and other structures. The successful application requires the highest standard of concrete surface prep- aration and gunite application [17]. In 1985 titanium expanded mesh anodes, coated with various metal oxides by different manufacturers, were introduced concurrently in UK and USA for applications to reinforced concrete. They are used in the protection of bridge and car park decks, overlaid with concrete pavement, and in vertical or soffit tions, overlaid with gunite or a sprayed or hand placed cementitious render [18]. As for the conductive polymer wire anode system, successful application requires the highest standard of preparation and application. 2.6 Recent developments Since 1975 there have been considerable advances in anode material develop: ment and cathodic protection design for cathodic protection of above ground reinforced concrete structures. It has only been since 1980 that anode systems have been available for applications other than the surface of bridge decks. During this period, parallel developments and studies have been undertaken to prove the efficacy of cathodic protection of reinforced concrete {4, 8, 16-22], and to determine which of various electrical systems for measurement of the protection achieved is the most effective and practical for field use [6, 23-25] Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete above ground. has been used for bridge decks for more than a decade. Recent developments in anode systems have extended the practical application to other structures and buildings. There remain unanswered questions regarding the justification for an empiri- cally derived criterion of protection, longevity of installed anode systems, and the various, possibly deleterious, secondary effects suggested from time to time. These questions are considered elsewhere in this Technical Report Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete above ground remains an attractive solution to chloride-contaminated reinforced concrete structures, as an alter- native to replacement, massive concrete removal or a continuous programme of patch repairs throughout a structure's life. 10References in Section 2 1. Davey Sir H. Proc Royal Soc. 22 January and 17 June 1824 2. Unz, M. Corrosion, Vol 11, No. 2, p80, 1955; Vol 12, No. 10, p526, 1956 3. Heuze, B. Cathodic protection of steel in prestressed concrete, Materials Protection, Vol 4/11, 57-62, November (1965) 4, National Cooperative Highway Research Programme Report 180 5. Stratfull R F. Progress report on inhibiting the corrosion of steel in concrete bridge decks. Corrosion, Vol 15, 65-68, (1959) 6. Federal Highway Administration Report, RD-83/048, 1983, 7. Stratfull R F. Eleven years of success for coke breeze c.p. pavement. Proceedings of conferences on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 66-81 (1985) 8. Fromm H]J. Paper 40, NACE Corrosion 81, Toronto, 1981, 9. Ontario Ministry of Transport and Communications, Bridge Deck Rehabilitation Manual (Manning D.G., Bye D.H.) 10, Clear K C. Paper 11, AASHTO/FHWA/NACE Seminar, San Antonio, 1985 11, Whiting D and Stark D. Galvanic cathodic protection for reinforced concrete bridge decks field investigation, NCHRP Report No 234, ‘Transportation Research Board, 61pp, June 1981. 12. BS, CP 1021: 1973 (1979), Code of practice for cathodic protection. 13. Brown RP and Kessler R J, Paper 179, NACE Corrosion ‘83 Anaheim, 1983, 14, Wyatt BS, Corrosion in Concrete - Practical aspects of control by cathodic protection, GCC Seminar, London, May 19870 15, Broomfield JP, Langford P and McAnoy R. Corrosion in Concrete - Practical aspects of control by cathodic. protection, GCC Seminar, London May 1987 16. Kendell K. The cathodic protection of reinforced concrete using polymeric anodes in the European context. UK/Corrosion ‘86, Birminghamn, November 1986 17. Kendell K. Corrosion in Concrete - Practical aspects of control by cathodie protection, GCC Seminar, London, May 1987 18, Schell HC. Keynote Lecture, UK/Corrosion ‘87, Brighton, Oct 1987 19, Strafull RF. Experimental cathodic protection of a bridge deck, Transportation Research Record, 500, 1-15, 1974 20. Anderson G H. Cathodic protection of a bridge deck with silicon iron anodes and. ‘coke-breeze overlay. Proceedings of converence on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas, NACE, 82-88, (1985). 21. Manning D G and RyellJ., Ontario Mi ry of Transportation and Communications, Report 203, 1976 2. Fromm HJ and Wilson G P, Cathodic protection of bridge decks a study of three Ontario bridges. Transportation Research Record, Vol 604, p38-48, 1976 23. McKenzie M. IHT National Workshop, Leamington, 1986 um4. 25, Schell H C and Manning D G, Materials Performance, p18, July 1985. Schell HC, Manning D G and Pianca F. A decade of bridge deck cathodic protection in Ontario. Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 65-78, (1987). R3. CORROSION OF STEEL IN CONCRETE: AN OVERVIEW OF MECHANISMS 3.1 Understanding of corrosion A brief review of the basic principles of corrosion of steel in concrete and protection from corrosion is given in this section of the report. It should be noted that it is not intended to give a detailed description of corrosion or the underlying principles in this report - for further information consult the refer- ences to this section [1-3]. The steel /concrete composite system has been in use and proved its worth for over 100 years. It has the twin advantages of being structurally versatile and very durable when properly used. The development of high alkalinity (in the range pH 12.6 - 13.5) as the cement hydrates, which in the presence of oxygen stabilises the oxide film on the surface of any embedded steel, ensures conti nuing protection while the alkalinity is retained. The potential of the steel relative to the concrete is determined by the intensities of the anodic and cathodic reactions taking place at the steel /concrete interface. The normal passivated condition for steel in concrete ensures very low intensities for both Processes, although the potential is ill-defined and can vary over a wide range. There are two major situations in which corrosion of reinforcement can take place; where concrete has carbonated and where concrete has been contami- nated by chloride. 3.2 Carbonation As concrete is a microporous material, the hydrated cement matrix is open to gaseous diffusion between the external atmosphere and the air within the pores. This allows the introduction of carbon dioxide within the matrix and, the carbon dioxide being an acidic gas, in the presence of even a small amount of moisture, acid/base reaction occurs with the neutralisation of alkalinity which is termed carbonation. The pH is reduced to approximately 8-9 and the oxide film is no longer stable. Given adequate supplies of oxygen (for cathodic depolarisation) and moisture, corrosion will start, The extent of subsequent corrosion will depend on the ease with which half-cell reactions (anodic and cathodic processes) can progress. Since the process of carbonation neutralises hydroxyl ions and reduces the pore size it is likely to lead to an increase in resistivity of the affected concrete. For corrosion reactions to proceed, local conductivity has to be re-established within the carbonated zone. Thus the presence of moisture in the carbonated zone is critical. The rate of carbonation will be dependent essentially on the rate of gaseous interchange and the quantity of cement available. Thus a more permeable microstructure will be more vulnerable to carbonation than will one which is essentially impermeable and devoid of liquid water. Generally reinforced concrete components are designed and manufactured to ensure that the pro- cess of carbonation does not extend to the full depth of cover within the anticipated life of the structure. However, misplacement of the reinforcement relative to the concrete surface, inappropriate grading of the aggregates, low cement /aggregate ratio, high water /cement ratio, and inadequate compaction or curing can all lead to situations where the finished concrete is more per- meable and thus more vulnerable to carbonation than that specified. Repair of carbonation induced corrosion can be accomplished by conventional repair techniques, see Concrete Society Technical Report No.26, "Repair of concrete damaged by reinforcement corrosion’[4]. 33.3 Chloride-induced corrosion While loss of alkalinity is a significant cause of reinforcement corrosion, steel can also be at risk from the presence of aggressive ions, particularly chloride, in the concrete. The role of chloride in inducing reinforcement corrosion in concrete is complex and not, as yet, fully understood, but its effect is undis- puted and widespread. It is believed that chloride contained within the pore solution in concrete is able to enhance the dissolution of steel by disruption of the passive film. Intermediate compounds are believed to be formed which readily hydrolyse when in contact with alkaline material. The products include insoluble iron hydroxides (the corrosion product) and hydrogen ions, which locally reduce the alkalinity. Simultaneously a reduction of oxygen occurs as a cathodic process develops to balance the anodie corrosion reactions elsewhere on the steel surface. Thus chloride-induced corrosion leads to local attack, with the areas not attacked acting as cathodes. The efficiency of the cathodes will be governed by their ability to sustain oxygen-reduction reactions and the res tivity of the electrolytic paths between anodes and cathodes. The former will depend on the gaseous permeability of the concrete and the latter on the chloride and moisture contents of the concrete. If cathodic efficiency is high, or conductivity allows less effective cathodes to operate over large arcas (Go-called macro-cells), the rate of corrosion may be determined by the extent of polarisation of the anodic half-cell. As corrosion proceeds the anodic zone becomes larger and more anodic and the potential more negative. The development of more negative potentials at the most active sites is signi- ficant because less active sites elsewhere on the steel surface may lose corro- sion activity leading to a form of cathodic protection, the most actively corroding sites protecting the steel elsewhere. The repair of those sites will eliminate this protection and will stimulate other sites into activity. The repair of chloride-induced corrosion therefore poses a complex electrochemical prob- em which may only be resolved by the control of the potential of the reinforce- ment by cathodic protection. The chloride which induces corrosion is contained in the pore liquid. Relative- ly speaking this is "free" chloride. The major part of the chloride in the concrete is combined with the cement hydrates, the amount depending, for example, on the composition of the cement. These chlorides only remain combined, mainly as chloroaluminates, and are available for corrosion, in uncarbonated concrete. The reduction in alkalinity associated with carbona- tion is sufficient to destabilise the chloroaluminate compounds thus releasing chloride into the pore liquid. Thus the combination of carbonation and the presence of chloride can exacerbate corrosion risk relative to the effect of the individual factors. 3.4 Concrete quality Cracks and concrete quality can have an effect on the initiation and propaga- tion of corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete. Cracks occur in reinforced concrete due to loading induced tension, thermal movement, shrinkage, etc. Normally the reinforcement will restrain the cracks so that they are small and do not contribute to reinforcement corrosion. But if large cracks form, perhaps due to mechanical damage, loss of reinforcement by corrosion, or under-de- sign, then they may act asa channels to the reinforcement creating “short cuts” which will allow free passage of chloride ion, carbon dioxide, oxygen and water to reinforcing steel. The presence of two or more such crack sites may allow early initiation of corrosion and accelerate the rate of corrosion. “The effect of poor quality concrete, from honeycombing, low cover, low ce- ment content, porous aggregates etc, again leads to a condition where the corrosion process can be initiated readily and whereby the corrosion rate is generally unrestrained. References in section 3 1 2 3. Corrosion basics - an introduction, NACE, Houston USA. Fontana M G and Green ND. Corrosion engineering, MeGraw Hill, 1978. Sheir L, Corrosion, Butterworths, 1985. Concrete Society Technical Report No 26. Repair of concrete damaged by reinforcement corrosion. The Concrete Society, London (1984). 15CATHODIC PROTECTION 4.1. Cathodic protection - background It has been known for many years that it is possible to protect a metal from corrosion in an ionically conducting environment by connecting it to a current source of negative polarity, i. a current source which will supply electrons to the metal (a source which causes a current to flow through the environment and onto the metal). The current is passed into the (electrically conducting) environment via a second electrode (anode) and passes through the solution by electromigration, achieving corrosion control by cathodic protection. current electrons S D.C.SUPPLY ANODE ~» #veions - PROTECTED STRUCTURE, © -ve ions (Steel - Cathode) Figure 1 Only parts of the metal which are in contact with the electrolyte, thereby completing the electrical circuit, can be protected by cathodic protection. The most common application is the control of the corrosion of steels in aqueous environments such as natural waters or moist soil. Cathodic protection has proved particularly effective in cases such as buried pipelines, ships or fixed marine structures. ‘The basis of cathodic protection is to reduce the potential of the metal (eg steel) structure which is to be protected. There are two ways of achieving this reduction in potential. One is to use an external direct current source (im- pressed current cathodic protection) and an auxiliary anode. The other is to Connect the structure to a metal such as aluminium, magnesium or zinc, which takes up more negative potential than steel and which will naturally corrode to provide cathodic protection current (sacrificial anode cathodic protection) (4). 4.2 Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete In the majority of cathodic protection situations, the cathode to be protected is steel in an electrolyte, such as the earth, ground water, sea water, or a mixture of these. The bulk electrolyte is usually near neutral (pH 6-8). The stecl may bear an insulating paint or coating but is otherwise in direct contact with an electrolyte whose dimensions are so large that the anode may be located remote from the cathode. Reinforcing steel in concrete is in contact with relatively inert sand and coarse aggregate and the highly alkaline hydrated Portland cement paste which form the concrete, in which some chlorides may be present. This electrolyte has finite boundaries (the principal dimensions of the structure) which are effec- tively insulated from earth by the atmosphere. 16When the structure is fully immersed in an electrolyte it can be provided with anodes remote from the structure. If the structure is neither immersed nor buried, but is in the air, the anode has to be applied TO THE STRUCTURE ITSELF in order that the current can be passed through the electrolyte to the cathode. Not only is concrete an inhomogeneous material, but in the construction of large members there will be areas of localised differences in permeability due to variations of compaction, for example, which will produce differences in resistivity and diffusivity. The principal differences between the cathodic protection of reinforcing steel in concrete and the “conventional” case of steel in ground or water are as follows: + the electrolyte is contained in a rigid structure, highly alkaline and of low diffusivity to water and oxygen ‘+ the cathodic protection anode must be distributed over the surface Of the electrolyte (structure) and is relatively close to the steel cathode + _ the nature of the cathodic polarisation differs markedly from steel in soil or water + the established protection criteria for steel in near neutral aqueous solutions are inappropriate due to the different electrolyte and difficulty in accurate measurement of potentials in concrete. Cathodic protection is applicable to the reinforcement of any structure or part of any structure where it is in continuous contact with the concrete electrolyte and where the concrete itself is continuous, i. the concrete is not delaminated and the reinforcement is not in unfilled ducting. However, in the nature of reinforced concrete there are certain secondary effects which might occur and which might produce damage to either the elements of the cathodic protection system or to parts of the structure. Itis expected that in most reinforced concrete structures the reinforcement is sufficiently continuous electrically for the passage of electronic current to be preferred to electrolytic conduction. Where reinforcement is not continuous and electrolytic conduction can occur, then a local anode and local cathode may be produced under the influence of the impressed current, increasing the corrosion risk at the local anodic site. For this reason, it is extremely important to ensure that the reinforcement is satisfactorily electrically continuous. The action of cathodic polarisation is to produce hydroxyl ions and increase the pH at the cathode. It is conceivable that if there are aggregates present which could react with high levels of alkali, then although they may not have reacted in the same concrete in the absence of chloride, the increase in alka- linity due to cathodic protection might initiate action. This action might have a deleterious effect on the bond with the reinforcement, because it occurs principally at the steel/concrete interface. There is, at present, no evidence that this has ever occurred and the likelihood of serious effects is regarded as low. A further cathodic product could be hydrogen gas. Should the cathode poten- tial exceed the hydrogen over-voltage potential of that particular cathode in that particular electrolyte, then hydrogen could be evolved. It follows that this hydrogen could conceivably enter the steel structure under stress with resul- tant embrittlement and cracking to steel grades which are sensitive to the wmagnitude of hydrogen absorbed. For this reason, the negative stecl/conercte potential has to be carefully limited. ‘The remaining secondary effects are principally anode effects. The primary anodic reaction would be expected to produce products having a low pH and some chlorine could be produced. Since the anode is usually placed directly onto an alkaline material, it must be expected that some reaction may occur. Inevitably, this reaction will be near the anode/structure interface and could bbe expected to promote detachment of the anode or rupturing at the interface between any anode embedment material and the structure, or the anode. Under the gradients produced by the cathodic protection voltage there will be some movement of ions with a tendency for chlorides to move towards the anode and possibly water may move away from the anode. These are aspects of time dependent polarisation that may both increase anode/conerete resist- ance and decrease steel corrosion rate and cathodic protection current density. 4.3. Applicability of cathodic protection to structures Only impressed current cathodic protection is used, at present, for structures above the ground. Sacrificial anode systems have been used in trials but, so far, their use has not been completely successful [5]. In recent years effort has been devoted to the development of the technology surrounding the cathodic protection of atmospherically exposed reinforced concrete structures with particular emphasis being placed upon bridge decks The work has been largely limited to conventional mild steel and high yield steel reinforcement used in reinforced concrete construction, not high strength wire strands used for prestressed concrete. Far less information is available on the effects of cathodic protection on high strength steel, particularly as it relates to the consequences of hydrogen evolution on the steel surface. This section of the Technical Report applies to reinforced concrete structures and is not intended to apply to the cathodic protection of prestressed concrete. Cathodic protection has been applied to many types of structure including bridge decks and substructures, parking facilities, wharves and chemical plants. The technology is applicable to both in situ and precast concrete. The vast majority of systems to date have been installed to mitigate further corro- sion of existing structures. In order for the cathodic protection system to be effective, certain physical requirements pertaining to the structure are necessary. One of these is electri- cal continuity of the reinforcing steel network. The areas of the structure to be protected should either be continuous throughout or configured so that dis- Crete zones can be identified within the cathodic protection system. Where electrical discontinuity is found or suspected, bonding or connection by cable can be provided to ensure electrical continuity throughout. The consequences of discontinuity in the reinforcing steel are that some areas would not reccive adequate cathodic protection and may experience an increase in corrosion activity due to the effects of stray currents. Consideration should also be given to the anticipated location of anode materi- als relative to the reinforcing steel. Direct electrical contact between anode materials and reinforcing steel creates electrical short circuits which will ad- versely affect the performance of the cathodic protection system particularly in the vicinity of the shorted area. Placement of anode materials should take into account the probability of encountering such shorts due to tie wires or rogue steel. Removal of these items, electrical insulation or provision of additional cover may be necessary prior to installation of the anode materials. 18The total surface area of the reinforcing steel to be protected should be calcu- lated. Depending upon the size of the reinforcing steel and the design of the reinforcing steel network, the ratio of the reinforcing steel area to external concrete surface area can vary considerably. This ratio is important because the current density available at the surface of the reinforcing steel may be limited by the maximum current density allowable at the concrete to anode interface. Limiting of the current density is intended to avoid deleterious effects on the concrete surrounding the anode, which might be caused by the generation of acid in the vicinity of the anode. Consideration should also be given to the general condition of the structure in question. Where spalling of the concrete has occurred, the patching materials must be compatible with the application of cathodic protection by allowing the passage of protective current. Old patch repairs of non-conductive materi- als may need removal. Delaminations must also be repaired, using compatible materials, to facilitate protection of the steel in these areas. It is important to determine the nature and extent of the reinforcing stecl corrosion problem for the structure under consideration. Cathodic protection will not replace steel which has already been lost nor will it solve problems which do not relate to corrosion, such as alkali-silica reaction. Where corro- sion of the reinforcing steel is the primary problem, caused for example by chloride ions de-passivating reinforcing steel embedded in concrete, consider- ation should be given to the use of cathodic protection. If the primary problem is from some other source, such as the chemical physical deterioration of the concrete itself or stray currents, cathodic protection may not be an appropriate solution. References in Section 4 1, Morgan J H. Cathodic protection (2nd Edition), NACE, Houston, USA, 1987 2. Peabody AW. Control of pipeline corrosion, NACE, Houston USA. 3. Ashworth V and Booker C L, (Editors), Cathodic protection theory and practice, Ellis Horwood, London, 1983, 4, BS, CP 1021: 1973 (1979) Code of practice for cathodic protection. 5. Whiting D and Stark D. Galvanic cathodie protection for reinforced concrete bridge decks, NCHRP Report No 234, June 1981, 9DIAGNOSIS, INSPECTION AND CONCRETE REPAIRS 5:1 General. Before undertaking any form of repair on a structure it is important to define: (a) the present conditions, (b) the cause and extent of deterioration to date, (©) what is required in terms of repair, (4) the requirements for the chosen repair option, (e) any possible side effects of the repair. 5.2 Deterioration diagnosis and inspection Cathodic protection can only be successful in arresting deterioration of struc- tures that are suffering from reinforcement corrosion. Hence, prior to decid- ing on cathodic protection, routine tests should be carried out to ascertain the causes of the deterioration of the structure. Chloride content and carbonation depth measurements (see below) should indicate whether the corrosion is due to one of these causes. Having established that reinforcement corrosion is the primary cause of the problem the following investigations should be carried out in order to deter- Inine both the work required before a cathodic protection system can be applied and the scale and type of cathodic protection system to be used. Any Iistis bound to be non-exhaustive, as specific structures have specific require- ments and new techniques are becoming available... However the following list is considered the minimum necessary for any structure: + Steel/concrete potential survey of the area to be protected + Delamination survey. + Cover survey and surface electrical short circuit checks, + Reinforcement, and other steel embedment, continuity measurements. + Concrete resistivity measurements. + Chloride content measurements. + Carbonation depth measurements. + Identification of non-conducting patch repairs. Inaddition to these investigations, the following factors should be considered: + Power availability + Measurement of concrete surface area. + Calculation of ‘steel surface area to be protected.+ Possible stray current interference. + Loss of steel section. + Load bearing capacity. + Access. 5.3 Inspection methods 5.3.1 Potential survey At present the only comprehensive standard available for potential mapping is ASTM C876-80 and its revision C876-87 [1]. A British Standard is in prep- aration but until this is available the ASTM Standard may be used, in which case the following points should be noted. The use of the Standard’s recommended reference electrode (copper-copper sulphate) has been questioned because of the possibility of the copper sulphate solution contacting the alkaline concrete and reacting to give non-repre- sentative potential values. Rugged silver/silver chloride/ potassium chloride electrodes are now commercially available and are considered to be more suitable for use on concrete (See Section 7.4). ‘The Standard’s method of interpretation of the mapping results, in terms of defined potential values indicating degree of corrosion, is highly questionable especially in structures where there may be water saturation or restricted ‘oxygen access. In such cases the existence of negative potentials, which ac- cording to the ASTM Standard would suggest significant corrosion, would be quite normal and no significant corrosion would necessarily be occurring. The magnitude of potential gradients is probably as important as the level of measured potential. 5.3.2 Delamination survey Delamination is usually determined by sounding with a hammer. Other tech- niques such as chain drag, impulse radar, thermography and ultrasound may be appropriate on larger structures. All delamination must be repaired prior to installation of cathodic protection. 5.3.3 Loss of steel section If there are any indications of significant loss of steel section then the advice of a structural engineer should be sought to confirm the integrity of the structure. Cathodic protection will not restore lost metal. Any structural repairs should be carried out prior to the installation of cathodic protection and with the requirements of the system in mind. 5.3.4 Cover survey Concrete cover and reinforcement position measurements are required, to determine comparative current flow through high and low cover and dense areas of reinforcement which may require high current anodes. Any shielding of reinforcement to be protected, caused by embedded mesh or plates, should be determined. Short circuits between reinforcing steel and anodes must be prevented. A careful examination for tie wire, nails etc. at the surface should be carried out. Measurement of actual reinforcement position and sizes should be checked against drawings (BS 1881, Part 204: 1988 [2)). a5.3.5 Reinforcement continuity It is important that all the steel embedded in the concrete is connected to the negative terminal of the transformer rectifier. Whilst it is impossible to guar- antee this without exposing all of the steel, checks should be made at intervals across the structure to ensure reinforcement continuity. It is necessary to check electrical continuity between precast units, across construction joints etc. Checks should also be made on metal mounted on the surface: such metal should be connected to the negative terminal or clectrically isolated from both anode and reinforcement. Continuity can be checked by measuring the resistance between bars with reversal of the polarity of a DC resistance meter to see if there is a diode effect suggesting a metal /semiconductor interface in the circuit. Criteria for accept- able resistance between exposed bars can be developed on a structure, by ‘comparison of bars known to be connected with those where discontinuity is suspected. A bar to bar resistance of 1 ohm or less is generally considered to indicate adequate continuity. Another technique is to locate a reference clec- trode (half cell) in a fixed position and to move the reinforcement connection. A change in potential (say greater than 10 mV for a stable cell reading) indicates a galvanic couple caused by a discontinuity in the reinforcement. 5.3.6 Concrete resistivity Concrete of particularly low electrical resistivity creates local high current demand, or “current dumping", adversely affecting the performance of the cathodic protection system. Similarly, if the resistivity of the concrete cover is too high, the reinforcement may be insulated from the protective current. Resistivity may be measured in-situ on a structure or in the laboratory on cored or cast specimens. The most widely used apparatus is a 4-probe Wenner array with a commercially available meter based on balancing an AC electrical resistance bridge, or driving a constant AC current and measuring the voltage drop. Polarisation effects are minimised if measurements are made using an alternating current with a frequency of at least 50 Hz. Proprietary 2 - probe meters are also available. To ensure no distortion of readings due to the proximity of embedded steel, measurements should not be made directly above a reinforcing bar. To mi mise errors due to varying aggregate distribution the array spacing should be greater than the maximum aggregate size and readings should be taken at a number of points in a given area. A high resistivity carbonated surface layer is often present, which may have to be removed prior to the application of the cathodic protection system. Va- rying the array spacing gives an indication of the variation of resistivity with depth. Suitable array spacings are in the range 10 to 50 mm. Resistivity can range from 5000 to 50,000 ohm-cm, without detrimental effects to the cathodic protection system, and systems have been installed where concrete resistivity was up to 100,000 ohm-cm. Coneretes coated with low permeability surface treatments, or containing additives such as pulverized fuel ash, ground granulated blastfurnace slag or silica fume, may give very high resistivity values. However, large variations in resistivity may cause more problems than a uniformly high resistivity, due to the effects of variable levels of protection.5.3.7 Chloride content measurement Measurement of chloride levels should be made by taking cores, or drillings, and carrying out a chemical analysis (see BS 1881, part 124: 1988 [3)). The chloride level measured by this technique gives an estimate of the total chloride in the concrete. The chloride is present as a mixture of “bound” chloride, which is incorporated into the solid cement phases and is not nor- mally available in solution to cause corrosion, and "free" chloride, which is the dissolved chloride present in the water in the pores of the concrete. It is the latter which is important in deciding the likelihood of corrosion occurring, Chloride added during construction will have a higher proportion incorpor- ated as “bound” chloride. Chloride entering a structure post-cure, eg as a de-icing salt, will be essentially all "free" chloride. Different concretes have varying ability to bind chloride: the same level of chloride accelerator added to a range of concrete formulations will result in different levels of free chloride in the pore water and hence a variation in the likelihood of corrosion occurring. At present no standard test exists to determine free chloride con- tent and it is accepted practice to express only the acid soluble (total) chloride content. ‘The critical level of chloride to initiate corrosion is related to the hydroxide ion concentration in the concrete pore water, therefore variation in cement and concrete chemistry will result in different critical levels of chloride ion ex- pressed as per weight of cement. From the above it can be seen that the level of chloride likely to cause corrosion can only be estimated approximately and will vary according to the environ- ment, cement type and concrete cover. BRE Digest 264 [4] contains informa- tion on diagnosis and assessment of corrosion-cracked concrete. In this Digest it is suggested that risks of corrosion are low below 0.4% chloride by weight of cement, medium between 0.4% and 1.0% and high above 1%. These ca- tegories have been derived from the study of concrete structures where the chloride was incorporated as an accelerator at the mixing stage in the form of calcium chloride. In these circumstances some of the chloride is chemically bound up in the cement matrix as chloroaluminates whilst the remainder is free and will contribute to reinforcement corrosion. In the case of hardened concrete contaminated by chloride from an external source, the free chloride content is generally equal to the total chloride content and consequently the total chloride content at which corrosion will be sus- tained is much lower than is the case when the chloride was added at construc- tion, Other work suggests that significant corrosion can occur in these cases at chloride levels less than 0.4% by weight of cement and that any level above 0.1% can sustain corrosion. Cement content of concrete can be determined by the methods described in 181861, Part 124: 1988 [3]. However, it should be noted that the results obtained may only be accurate to some £20%. 5.3.8 Carbonation depth measurement Carbonation depths can be determined using phenolphthalein indicator on freshly exposed concrete, the area that remains colourless indicating the car- bonated zone (BRE IS/14/78 (51).5.3.9 Other aspects Power availability Power will be required for survey and repair. Permanent power is required to run the impressed current cathodic protection system. This is usually pro- vided by mains but can come from solar panels or batteries in some cascs. Measurement of stray current The risk of stray current effects from neighbouring cathodic protection sys- tems or power distribution lines should be considered. Careful measurement of potentials during survey and commissioning may be necessary to detect anodic shifts in potentials associated with other electrical sources. The detec- tion and remedy of such problems should be undertaken by a specialist ca- thodic protection engineer. Examination of records: surface area of steel A detailed examination of reinforcement drawings, structural layout and de- tailing will be required to ensure good design of the system. The age of the structure and any history of repairs and modification should be noted. ‘An on-site determination of surface area of steel and concrete for anode specification and placement, as well as checks of reinforcement position and size, is also recommended. Additional loading The application of a cathodic protection system to a structure may result in added loading and a loss of clearance between levels in the structure. These factors should be considered when selecting the system, and may, if either factor is near its limit, influence the choice of system. 5.4 Repairs to structures before cathodic protection is installed Providing the loss of reinforcement cross-section due to corrosion has not impaired structural integrity, then making good any areas of spalled or de- laminated concrete is the only concrete repair required before a cathodic protection system is installed. Problems associated with incipient corrosion at the boundaries of repaired areas, if only damaged areas are repaired, are avoided by the use of cathodic protection. ‘As a cathodic protection current cannot be passed through an air gap all delaminated areas need to be identified before applying cathodic protection Delaminations can be detected simply by sounding with a hammer and should be broken out to a sound concrete surface. Unlike conventional repairs, there is no need to cut back concrete behind the reinforcement, although for repairs to the soffits of members it is recommended that approximately 10% of the area of each repair should be taken back behind the reinforcement to provide the repair with a mechanical key. Exposed reinforcement should have any loose scale removed to ensure good contact between the steel and the repair material, but there is no need to clean reinforcement to bright metal. When delaminated areas are broken out, the opportunity should be taken to carry out checks for reinforcement continuity and to measure any loss of section from the reinforcement so that structural integrity can be assessed, 4‘To avoid short circuiting the cathodic protection system any tie wire, nails, etc. visible on the surface of the concrete which might be in contact with the reinforcement should be removed to a depth that ensures no possible anode/cathode short circuit. For cathodic protection, materials used for concrete repairs must be electri- cally conductive and they should have a similar resistivity to that of the parent concrete so that a reasonably uniform current distribution can be achieved. There will however be wide variations in the resistivity of any reinforced concrete member; areas that are wet and contaminated with chloride will have a much lower resistivity than dry, uncontaminated areas. Resin modified cementitious repair materials, such as epoxy or acrylic resin bound systems, should not be used for repairs as they have high electrical resistivities. Generally repair materials containing cement replacements such as silica fume, PFA or GGBS should have the replacement content limited to approxi- mately 5% by weight of cement for the same reason. A proprietary cementi- tious repair mortar is likely to provide the best material for repair. Most Proprietary repair mortars contain polymers, to improve bond and reduce shrinkage. It must be noted that the polymers can also increase the electrical resistivity. While manufacturers are beginning to appreciate the importance of the electrical properties of repair materials, it is unlikely that many will be able to quote resistivity values. Repair materials containing metal (either fine powder or stee! fibres) should not be used as they will probably lead to an electrical short circuit. Where there is any doubt about the resistivity of a material it is a relatively simple matter to cast cubes and measure the resistivity using a 4-probe Wen- ner array or other suitable procedure. Measurement conditions should reflect the anticipated exposure conditions for the in-situ materials, in particular the appropriate temperatures and humidity. The use of proprietary curing membranes should be avoided as these are also likely to have an adverse effect on the electrical properties of repairs. ‘The last process in the repair procedure will be to prepare the concrete surface to accept the cathodic protection anode. The type of preparation will depend ‘on the anode system to be used but will usually necessitate roughening of the concrete surface. 5.5 Summary Cathodic protection is generally recognised as a remedy to chloride induced corrosion. It will not reverse the loss of steel, nor will it be effective in structures deteriorating for any other reason unrelated to corrosion. It is therefore important to examine all likely causes of deterioration and ensure that cathodic protection can prevent further deterioration before its applica- tion is seriously considered. Once corrosion has been identified as the cause of the deterioration then the techniques outlined above should be applied to allow the specification of the correct system for the structure under consider- ation,References in Section 5 1 ASTM C876-87, Test method for half-cell potentials of uncoated reinforcing steel in concrete BS 1881, Part 204: 1988, Recommendations on the use of electromagnetic covermeters, BS 1881, Part 124: 1988, Methods for analysis of hardened concrete. BRE Digest 264, Durability of stee! in concrete: Part 2, diagnosis and assessment of corrosion - crack patterns in concrete. 1982, BRE 15/14/78, Carbonation of concrete made with dense natural aggregate.6. ANODE SYSTEMS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES The most significant difference between cathodic protection as applied to buried or submerged structures, (for example, pipelines, jetties, offshore plat- forms, ships etc.) and cathodic protection applied to reinforced concrete struc- tures which are neither submerged nor buried, is in the anode system used. This is because, for cathodic protection to non buried structures, the anode has to be applied directly to the concrete surface. Thus the anode system must be easily constructible, durable and capable of operating in the particular condi- tions appertaining in/on concrete structures. Anodes for reinforced concrete structures have been developed over the past 10 years or so, to overcome these specific problems. The earlier developed anodes were designed specifically for bridge decks or car park decks. More recently some of the original systems, and some new anode systems, have been developed to be applied to any type of concrete surface including vertical and soffit areas. A review of generic anode materials and systems for the most widely used anode systems currently on the market has been included as Appendix A. These include: + Conductive asphalt (coke breeze) * Distributed wire systems (FHWA polymer) * Conductive paint systems + Sprayed metallic coatings + Conductive polymeric wire anodes laid in a cementitious overlay + Metal oxide coated expanded titanium mesh laid in a cementitious overlay. It is emphasised that those anode materials that require a cementitious overlay in order to constitute an anode system are vulnerable to performance prob- lems of the overlay. The performance of the overlay in respect of adhesion to substrate, long term durability and electrical properties is critical to the per- formance of the anode system. ‘The advantages and disadvantages for the different anodes depend upon the nature of installation. Conductive asphalt overlays provide, for example, a hard wearing surface, suitable for use on bridge deck or car park deck but they are impractical for application to vertical or soffit surfaces. On the other hand, conductive paint systems and sprayed metal systems are relatively easy to apply to vertical and soffit surfaces but are not practical to be applied to wearing surfaces. Thus, which particular anode system is viable for any particular installation has to be considered on a case by case basis. Inaddition to the anode systems noted above, there are some additional types of anode which are being developed. These include:~ + Conductive ceramic tiles. + Conductive polymeric strip + Metal oxide coated titanium strip + Surface mounted prefabricated anode assemblies. 7‘At present these systems have only been used in a limited number of trials, carried out by the developing companies and on selected structures, but they are likely to be available soon for consideration as reliable anode systems. Developments are constantly taking place on both the newer surface mounted materials and improving the more traditional systems, which have track rec ords of several years. It is important that for any modification or new system, the technical basis and experience both in the ficld and in trials should be taken into account as part of the general consideration of the anode system.7. POWER SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, TESTING AND MAINTENANCE 7.4 Power supplies The power required for a cathodic protection control zone is typically in the range 40 - 150 watt. The power source is usually mains AC but in remote or difficult locations solar, wind or hydropower could be used with battery storage. The output is generally a few amps at a low voltage (range 5-48 volts), sufficient to overcome the resistive drops in the cabling, reinforcement and concrete as well as the electrochemical potential across the anode/concrete and steel /concrete interfaces. The unit capacity is generally determined by calculation from the steel current density required for protection while mak- ing allowances for the voltage drops listed above. For reasons of economy and ease of control, the transformer-rectifier units are generally constructed with multiple outputs each providing an individually adjustable direct current. Control may provide constant current with voltage limit or constant voltage with a current limit. Automatic systems to maintain constant reinforcing steel/concrete reference potentials are available but, as sufficiently stable permanent reference electrodes are not available and there is no agreed absolute potential criteria for steel in concrete, their use is NOT recommended. Overload protection is required both on the AC and DC sides of transformer-rectifier units. Units must be mounted in a weather - and vandal-proof enclosure preferably with a window to monitor operation with- out opening the enclosure. Transformer-rectifier units are often mounted such that they are operating in extreme environmental conditions and care must be taken either to cool the unit or specify adequate temperature limits. Transfo mer-rectifiers are available which provide essentially only “half wave rectifi cation” with limited filtering. This type of rectifier outputs a very noisy signal including transient "spikes" which can lead to peaks of potential on the rebar to upward of + 2.5 volt wrt Ag/AgCI/KCI, for up to 1 msec at a time, but at 50 times a second. During the transients a completely different electrochemical process could be taking place. Whilst it is not known whether these transients are detrimental, it is normally considered prudent to incorporate sufficient filtering in the transformer-rectifier so that a maximum noise output of 100mV or 10% of total output, which ever is the lower, is provided. Inputs, outputs, fuses and controls MUST be clearly labelled as it cannot be assumed that skilled personnel will be monitoring the equipment operation. Provision should be made to measure the steel/concrete potentials for each controlled area (to verify adequate protection) and also to measure current and voltage from each output. The voltmeter and ammeter provision may be a portable digital voltmeter /ammeter used in conjunction with permanently installed measurement sockets and shunts or may be permanently installed indicators, or both. A means of breaking the DC output current must be provided to allow measurement of “instantaneous-off” potentials. 7.2 Connections The number of connections to anodes and to reinforcement must have suffi- cient redundancy to allow for operation with one or more breaks. The anode connections should comply with the anode manufacturer's recommendations and should be made accessible for inspection /repair. The cathode connection to the reinforcement will require the exposure and cleaning of the reinforcing bar. Connections may be made mechanically (by drilling and tapping or clamping), by thermal, gas or pin brazing. The copper/steel junction is a potential source of galvanic corrosion and must be adequately protected by suitable coatings; particular care should be exercised with mechanical rather than metallurgical connections. »7.3 Cables Under most circumstances the mechanical strength of any cable will be equally as important as the electrical parameters. The currents used in cathodic pro- tection installations are normally such that a stranded tinned copper cable of nominal cross sectional area 4.0 mm? (typically referred to as CSA 4, or AWG 7) is electrically sufficient. Each application should use appropriately sized cables. Because of the possibility of abrasive damage during any repair or over-lay application, double insulated cables are recommended. Insulation materials of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chloro-sulphonated polyethylene (CSP), high density polyethylene (HDPE) or chemically cross linked polyethylene (XLPE) are adequate for most applications. Care should be exercised in the selection of cable insulation, which may be subject to abrasion by, for example, sprayed concrete application and where cable insu- lation is likely to come into direct contact with the anode surface. In this latter case XLPE or a more durable insulation such as poly vinylidene flouride (PVDF) should be considered. Similar remarks apply to any cable attachments to reference electrodes or test coupons and where extremely severe conditions are likely to apply during installation or long term service, when additional protection in the form of small non-metallic ducts or conduits should be considered. Where there are long cable runs electromagnetic interference, from high ten- sion power cables or other sources, may be created. This can Iead to excessive noise on any measurement of potential and, depending on the method of measurement and the type of equipment, can lead to erroneous results. In these cases screened cables for reference electrode signals should be con- sidered, although the use of screened cables which run directly into reference electrodes is not recommended due to difficulties in long term integrity of cable joints and the insuation over the screening, 7.4 Test equipment The minimum test equipment required for any cathodic protection application to reinforcing steel consists of reference electrodes and a high input imped- ance digital voltmeter (DVM). Other items occasionally used include pick-up probes and electrical resistance probes. 7.4.1 Reference electrodes Reference electrodes are used to measure the potential of the reinforcing steel and can be either permanently embedded in the concrete or can be port- able/surface mounted for application to the external concrete face. Surface mounted reference electrodes are normally either copper/copper sulphate (Cu/CuSOx, also referred to as CSE) or silver/silver chloride (Ag/AgC)) Embedded reference electrodes are normally of the silver /silver chloride/po- tassium chloride (Ag/AgCI/KC)) double junction type, however other types including molybdenum/molybdenum trioxide (Mo/MoOs), graphite, plati- num and activated titanium have also been used. Cu/CuSOg, and Ag/AgCI/KCI reference electrodes are "standard reference electrodes", that is they exhibit a fixed and known potential at all times which enables the potential of the steel to be determined. Graphite, platinum, Mo/MoOs and titanium electrodes exhibit potentials dependent upon the redox reaction on their surface, consequently the potentials of these electrodes will vary from environment to environment and from day to day. However, whilst these potentials are not fixed they are generally stable over a 6-10 hour 30period which is sufficient to allow short term depolarisation tests to be con- ducted. For surface measurements of the potentials Cu/CuSOi reference electrodes are generally considered mechanically robust but are sensitive either to contami- nation of the electrolyte within the reference electrode or the porous mem- brane, or to poor maintenance. Either factor can result in the potential of the reference electrode shifting by some +20 mV. Errors of up to 120 mV may arise due to Cu SO, contamination of the concrete surface during potential measure- ment, Ag/AgCl/KCI double junction reference electrodes are much more stable and are less prone to misuse than Cu/CuSO, and their use is recom- mended. For obtaining potential readings across the surface of a structure, in addition to “single” reference electrodes, proprietary systems incorporating either a number of reference electrodes connected together or a “wheel” system all connected to a suitable data logger are also available. These allow a large amount of data to be obtained in a relatively short period but do require generally free access to the concrete surface. Generally these types of proprie- tary system are not suitable for use with conductive coatings and sprayed zine anode systems. In these two cases measurements using an external (surface mounted) reference electrode can only take place through pre-established ‘windows" in the anode. Typically these windows are some 50 x 50mm square. When obtaining potential readings through windows extreme care is required to ensure that there is no shorting of the anode or any electrolyte leakage from the "sponge" used in the reference electrode to the anode. Generally there are two types of embeddable Ag/AgC1 reference electrode ‘namely the "junction type" and the “non-junction type’. The non-junction type has been used principally in North America, but also elsewhere, and consists of a piece of silver with an AgCI/KCI coating deposited upon it. The silver element panel coating is then cast to a mortar plug containing a high chloride content. The junction type also incorporates a silver element with electrically deposited AgCI/KCI coating on the surface, with the element then encapsu- lated in a proprietary gel mix, consisting of a fixed concentration of AgCI/KCI and gelling agent. The assembly is fitted with a porous plug (typically a glass frit or similar). This type of system allows the chloride content at the sil- ver /silver coating interface to be maintained, thus ensuring a stable potential. The potential of the reinforcing steel is then “seen” via the porous membrane and hence the term "junction" type reference electrode. One drawback of this type of reference electrode is that, if the porous membrane dries out, then a high resistive barrier is set up between the reference electrode and the steel being measured. For embedded reference electrodes care is required to ensure that the active element or test membrane of the reference electrode is in intimate contact with the bulk concrete. For the graphite, platinum ete type of reference electrode which generally has a large working surface area, this is not normally a problem. For the Ag/AgCI/KCI double junction reference electrodes which incorporate a “porous frit’ care should be taken to ensure that the porous frit is in intimate contact with the main concrete, This is sometimes achieved by pre-potting the electrode assembly into a mortar plug and then installing the mortar plug into the concrete structure. Reference electrode location should be at representative points on the struc- ture. These are normally sites selected as being “typical” for the exposure, construction, orientation and other factors leading to the present condition of the structure. They may be located by simple repetition or random selection, or are anodic (corroding) sites selected by a potential survey. The method of 31selecting "representative locations" is influenced by the particular structure, its accessibility and size. Normally at least 3 and as many as 10 locations per system zone would be selected which would then be used for "permanent measurements" (for inaccessible structures more permanent locations would be used). In these areas suitable reference electrodes would be embedded close to the steel to allow the potential of the reinforcing stecl to be deter- mined. Representative points for monitoring should avoid locations of repair, or areas within 0.5 to 1.0 metre of repairs. Recently repaired arcas will have signifi- ciantly different chemistry (generally passivating or passivated chloride-free concrete) corresponding to the original concrete and consequently repaired areas will not, in general, achieve 100mV potential decay values (see Section 8.2.2), even if all non-repaired, possible corroding, areas are fully protected. In smaller/easily accessible structures, in addition to the permanently mounted reference electrodes, potentials can be obtained using hand held reference electrodes over a representative grid. In these cases it is important that the exact location of the reference clectrode on the structure is noted (typically using a permanent marker) so that potentials at exactly the same point can be measured throughout the test program and for the life time of the cathodic protection system. Since a measurement taken even a few centime- ters to one side can lead to a significant error in the potential measurement. Inall cases permanent reference electrodes should not be located at or near an area of recent repair as this will not be representative of the structure. 7.4.2 Meters Digital voltmeters (DVMs) are required to measure the potential of the ste! with respect to a reference electrode. Because of the inherent resistivity of the system, DVMs with an input impedance of at Ieast 20 Mohms should be used, VMs are available with an input impedance of greater than 100 Mohms and these should be used wherever possible. Generally DVMs should be capable of obtaining potentials in the range 25 V to a resolution of at least +1 mV and an accuracy of 21 digit. Recently multi-channel /automated data logger systems have become avail- able which are eminently suitable for obtaining data from a large number of reference electrodes at one time. 7.43 Other probe types Pick-up probes, also referred to as macro-cell probes, have also been used, particularly in early trial applications of cathodic protection to reinforced concrete structures. Generally they consist of a short length of reinforcement either cut from the existing reinforcement or a small sample from elsewhere. These are embedded in the concrete, typically in a repair mix (which often includes a high level of chloride), and are electrically connected to the rein- forcement cage using either a shunt resistor or a zero resistance ammeter. Prior to application of cathodic protection the pick-up probe will generally be anodic with respect to the rest of the reinforcement cage and consequently it will provide electrons for the cathodic reaction taking place elsewhere. Fol- lowing application of cathodic protection, providing sufficient protection cur- rent is being generated, the pick-up probe will no longer be anodic and the electron flow will be reversed. Measurement of the size and direction of the small currents flowing to/from the pick-up probe therefore provides a simple demonstration of the cathodic protection application and an estimate of the amount of current provided and shows that anodes can provide current to that point in the structure. 32Electrical resistance probes are used in a variety of industries to determine the rate of corrosion occurring in metal components. The probes are specially designed so that the internal resistance of the metal component can be measured. As the probe corrodes the cross-sectional thickness is reduced and ‘consequently the internal resistance increases. By measuring the change in resistance with time, the rate of corrosion can be determined. Their use in cathodic protection applications is similar to pick-up probes in that the probes would be earthed to the reinforcement cage and, with the application of cathodic protection, the measured corrosion rate would be negligible. 7.5 Operation and maintenance One very important aspect to be considered with regard to all cathodic protec- tion systems is the need for regular operation checks and maintenance of the system, particularly of the transformer-rectifier. Inadequate maintenance is the main cause of impressed current cathodic protection system failure. Often systems have not worked because they have not been switched on! The transformer-rectifier should be checked regularly for operation, normally ‘once a week but up to once a month if site access is difficult. This “functioning check", typically requires a confirmation of the integrity of the transformer- rectifier, that there is AC power being supplied to the transformer-rectifier and that DC current is being passed to the anode zone(s). Unfortunately transfor- mer-rectifiers and their associated power supplies, casings and conduits are subject to damage from vandalism, theft, lightning strikes and mechanical damage. Also it has been known for the transformer-rectifiers to be left switched off after carrying out tests and inspections . The full performance characteristics of the system should also be determined on a regular but less frequent basis . This "performance monitoring” would typically be undertaken every 3-4 months in the first 1-2 years of the system’s life and typically every 4-6 months thereafter. The performance monitoring would include recording the output parameters of the transformer-rectifiers (output voltage and output current), the measured potentials of the reinforc- ing steel (both on, instantaneous off and after depolarisation) at the embedded reference electrodes or at predetermined locations. Measurements of any other permanent monitoring or measurement system, eg pick up probes, elec- trical resistance probes, if installed, should also be included. A survey of the anode, including noting any delamination and/or cracks (for cementitious overlays) or anode deterioration and/or shorts (for conductive overlays), would also be carried out at this time. Results should be compared to both the agreed performance criteria (see section 8) and the results history of the particular system. Based on these, it may be decided to modify the output settings of the transformer-rectifier. Every 1-2 years a full "system review" should be carried out. As well as the regular testing this would include recalibation of embedded reference electrodes if these are installed. Preventa- tive maintenance of the transformer-rectifier components (if applicable) might also be carried out at this time. If anode surveys are not carried out during the performance monitoring then an anode survey should also form part of the system review. The use of remote controlled systems, via computer modems, can make the regular weekly /quarterly checks easier, allowing operation and control to be done from the operator's office. This enables more frequent checks to be performed and consequently provides for more detailed control of the system. However, regular visual inspections as noted above are also necessary. The interpretation of the performance data and determination whether the ca- thodic protection system is operating satisfactorily should be done by an experienced cathodic protection specialist.8, CRITERIA FOR DESIGN AND PROTECTION 8.1 Design criteria The requirements for current for the cathodic protection of reinforced concrete structures are dependent on both the extent and layout of the reinforcing stee! together with factors affecting the corrosion rate. These include chloride concentration at the steel surface, concrete quality and environmental aspects. The design should take into account all of these factors and in all cases the total current required and the current per unit arca of steel should be specified. Total stecl area and layout can be assessed by reference to as-built drawings (where available). Total surface area should be calculated allowing for vai ations in surface roughness (e.g. as caused by standard deformed reinforce- ment, typically a 10% allowance would be made) together with all associated connection stee!; this should include links but would not normally include tie wires. The actual layout and complexity of the reinforcing steel should be taken into account. This should cover whether there is a single layer, or double or multiple layers of reinforcement and whether any particular areas have a higher concentration of steel than others e.g. in corners or laps. For systems where there is more than one layer or a mat of reinforcing steel and access is only available from one surface, then current drain to the deeper layer of reinforcement should be taken into account, whether or not it is felt necessary to polarise that particular steel. Experience has indicated that generally most of the current will distribute to the nearest reinforcing layer, the remainder to the deeper steel The protection current density requirement depends upon the particular struc- ture and the nature of the corrosion damage. There is no definitive guidance for current density requirements in the various international standards and codes of practice presently being drafted. It is known that for buried or submerged structures, steel current densities of 5 mA/m? (reinforcement sur- face area) or less are generally considered sufficient [1] and that current densities of 10-20 mA/m? are sufficient for non buried /non submerged struc- tures [2]. Whether 10, 15 or 20 mA/m? is used is presently a matter of judge- ment. The choice is dependent on whether the present rate of corrosion and/or potential for future corrosion is considered "low", "medium’ or "high’, Using the selected current density and the calculated steel area , the total current per square metre of concrete surface can be calculated. ‘Thus, the expected current and power requirements for anode systems, transformer-rec- tifiers, etc. can be assessed. The electrochemical reactions which take place at the anode surface, for those anode materials normally used for reinforced concrete systems, generate acid and oxygen during activation. Some anodes used for reinforced concrete systems may also generate chlorine and stimulate carbonation depending on type of anode, mode of operation and environment. It has been suggested that excessive evolution of acid and other aggressive species at the anode/cement interface has been responsible for failures of the anode system, either by attack of the anode/cement interface or by spalling of the anode. Based on some experimental results of work carried out by the Federal Highways Authority in the USA, on the FHWA resin anode system, a maximum anode current density of 10 mA/ft? (110 mA/m?) was recommended. However, whilst this has been stated as being a maximum current density, there are systems which are routinely operated at much lower current densities than this, e.g. conduc- tive coatings. More recently, based on some unpublished work, suggestions have been made that some anodes (particularly the titanium type) may be 4capable of operating at up to 400 mA/m? without significant short term deterioration of the anode/concrete interface. When further studies have been ‘conducted on the effects of different current densities for the different anode systems it may be possible to recommend higher values. Current densities which during normal operation exceed 110 mA/m? or the manufacturer's recommended maximum current density, whichever is the lower, should not be used without detailed support from laboratory or field trials. The required operating voltage for a system is determined by the overall circuit resistance, which consists of the linear resistance of the cables, the anode to concrete resistance, the concrete resistance itself, the steel to concrete resistance and the linear resistance of the steel reinforcement. In most cases, where the anode covers the whole, or nearly the whole of the concrete surface, calculations of resistance are unlikely to be required and a terminal voltage of typically less than 12 Vis sufficient to provide the current for required polari- tion. However, some structures do tend to exhibit a considerable variation in concrete and/or anode to concrete resistance according to variations occur- ring in atmospheric humidity, precipitation and temperature. Operating volt- ages are normally only limited by considerations of safety and the characteristics of the anode as provided by the manufacturer. 8.2 Criteria for protection 8.2.1 Review of current practice Despite there being no universal consensus regarding a single criterion, it is relevant to note that cathodic protection of buried steel pipelines is widely practised and is successful in either totally preventing corrosion or sufficiently preventing corrosion to significantly extend the life of pipelines. Six criteria for pipelines have received review in the USA [3], five are allowed as alter- nates in the relevant NACE Recommended Practice [4]. Only one is addressed in the relevant British Standard Code of Practice [5] and this is applied with significant errors which are often ignored by pipeline operators [2]. British Gas, the most extensive pipeline operator in the UK, uses yet other criteria [6] ‘Some of these criteria are of dubious theoretical origin and yet, despite all these variations, cathodic protection of buried pipelines is so well established and perceived that it is a requirement of the UK licencing authorities that buried steel pipelines carrying gas or petroleum products should have ca- thodic protection. For reinforced concrete, early studies in the laboratory were extensively undertaken using saturated calcium hydroxide solutions to simulate the pore moisture which is the electrolyte in concrete [7]. These studies were reviewed and extended by Vrable et al [8, 9] who concluded that complete cathodic protection can be achieved at -0.770 volts wrt Cu/CuSOs. Vrable also suggested that -1.170 volts wrt Cu/CuSQx should not be exceeded due to hydrogen evolution and possible steel/concrete bond deterioration. This latter suggestion was specifically queried by the advisory panel respon- sible for this work [10] as being based minimally on project results. It is likely that the grossly excessive cathodic current densities used in this study (517 - 10,333 mA/m? compared with practical values of 2-10 mA/m?) further flaw the suggestion. 300 day tests at 517 mA/m? caused only a 0.9% variation in measured bond strength, which is insignificant compared with the scatter of the test results. Other research in this area indicates that practical values of cathodic protection current density do not cause loss of bond [11, 12]. Further work is quoted to show that voltages in the range 2-48 volts required 315 amp-hr/m? (3400 amp-hr/ft? in original text) to cause 25% loss of bond and that the loss of bond was insensitive to voltage but roughly proportional to the 35applied current density [13]. This capacity of 315 amp-hr/m? is equivalent to some 2089 years at a cathode current density of 2 mA/m?, Based on this information, loss of bond due to cathodic protection at 2 mA/m? over 100 years would be some 1.2%; this is presumably insignificant compared with the corrosion damage that would otherwise occur. Therefore loss of bond strength by cathodic protection does not appear to be a valid concern under realistic cathodic protection conditions. A concurrent review of criteria [14] suggested that a protection criterion of -0.850 volts wrt Cu/CuSOx was a conservative approach but also discussed the use of 100 millivolt polarised potential shift and the E-log I curve determin tion for reinforced concrete, both being criteria drawn from the buried pi- peline codes [4]. A later evaluation of six criteria including -0.770 volts and -0.850 volts wrt Cu/CuSO4, 100 millivolt polarised potential decay, 300 millivolt potential shift and E-log I determination techniques, concluded that use of any of these criteria will give an indication if corrosion has stopped [10]. In the particular testing undertaken, the E-log I, 100 millivolt polarised potential decay and the 300 millivolt potential shift are reported to give similar current requirements, whereas achieving -0.770 volts or -0.850 volts wrt Cu/CuSO¢ over the whole structure resulted in overprotection and excessive current. This report sug- gested yet another criterion, developed from a statistical analysis of informa- tion collected during the study: a 400 millivolt potential shift with a negative limit of -1.1 volts wrt Cu/CuSOs. It also concluded that the E-log I determina- tion appeared to be suitable for use in reinforced concrete. A recent review of protection criteria for buried pipelines [15] is critical of the E-log I determination criterion in applications to steel in aerated electrolytes. A distinct initiation of the straight Tafel slope (necessary for the interpretation of data) may be masked by the controlling rate of diffusion of oxygen to the cathodic surface. Most reinforced concrete applications can be considered to constitute an aerated electrolyte. It is widely accepted that, even where E-log I determination may be a useful criterion, its interpretation requires consider- able experienced judgement. A slightly earlier detailed full scale evaluation of the available criteria by Schell and Manning [16], concluded that the -0.770 and -0.850 volt wrt Cu/CuSO, criteria may be unrealistic and may lead to excessive current pro- visions. E-log I determinations were inconsistent and some did not show a clearly defined Tafel slope. The 300 millivolt potential shift criterion was indicated as being a practical, if slightly conservative, commissioning proce- dure. The 100 millivolt polarised potential decay was concluded to be the most reliable long-term monitoring criterion. 8.2.2 Discussion Steel, which is polarised to a sufficiently negative potential of -0.730 volts wrt ‘Ag/AgCl/KCI, -0.770 volts wrt Cu/CuSOs, will be fully protected in chloride contaminated concrete. However, achievement of this level of potential over an entire structure is only practical if the entire structure was undergoing active corrosion prior to the application of cathodic protection. Application of this criterion of -0.730 volts wrt Ag/AgCl/KCI, -0.770 volts wrt Cu/CuSOu, to areas of a structure which were not previously corroding will generally result in significant over-protection of the previously corroding areas. It is not considered that an absolute potential criterion is of practical value in the cathodic protection on all real, structures due to difficulties of measure- ment, instability of permanent reference electrodes, and the variability of 36“natural” or “as found" potentials. However it may be viable for submerged, buried or fully saturated structures. The criterion based upon statistical analysis of "as found” steel /concrete potentials before the application of cathodic protection, generally appears from the data reported to result in an effective polarised potential decay of approximately 100 millivolts. ‘The E- log I technique is considered to be inappropriate as a protection crite- tion but is possibly of some value in initial energisation of a system. The establishment of macro-cells or the placement of electrical resistance probes in the structure are considered of some value in "setting up" the system and providing support data during operation; they are not considered appropriate as protection criteria. The criterion for protection recommended by the Working Party is therefore as follows: A minimum of 100 mV potential decay over all representative points within the area of the structure being protected, subject to a most negative limit of -1.10 volts wrt Ag/AgCl/KCl (approx--1.150 volts wrt Cu/CuSOs "instantaneous off” potential. “Instantaneous off" is defined as the potential obtained not less than 0.1 and not more than 1.0 seconds following interruption of DC power to the anode system. The potential decay is to be determined as the difference between the IR free (estimated from “instantaneous off") potential and the potential measured at the location on the structure, after a period during which the cathodic protec- tion system remains off. ‘The period between measurement of the "instantaneous off" and the decayed potential is often reported as typically 4 hours. This period is derived from US bridge deck data. However, it should be noted that the rate at which the structure depolarises is dependent upon the rate at which oxygen diffuses back to the reinforcing steel. This in turn would be primarily a function of the concrete quality, the geometry, access of air to the structure and the degree of local water saturation. Therefore the rate of depolarisation will vary from place to place and from structure to structure. Structures that have been protected for many months (or those which are water saturated) are likely to depolarise more slowly than those recently polarised or in a drier condition. Periods of potential decay in excess of 4 hours, for instance up to 25 hours, could be appropriate in some cases. In some instances it may be necessary to combine potential decay data and the values of instantaneous off potentials in order to determine the effectiveness of a cathodic protection system, using engineering judgement. References in Section 8 1 Gourley JT. Corrosion Australasia, 3, p4, 1978. 2. Wyatt BS. UK Corrosion ‘85, Harrogate, November 1985. 3. US Dept of Transportation Technical Report OPS-TR-71-001, 1971 210 n 2 13 “4 15 16 NACE RP-01-69 (1976 Revision) BS, CP 1021: 1973 (1975), Code of practice for cathodic protection British Gas, BGC/PS/ECPI : 1985. Hausmann D A. Criteria for cathodie prote: Materials Protection Vol 8, No. 10, p. 23, 1969. 19 of steel in concrete structures, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 180, 1977, Vrable J Band Wilde BE. Electrical potential requirements for cathodic protection of steel in concrete, NACE Corrosion 79, Atlanta, March 1979, FHWA Report RD-83/048, 1989, Mole G. Engineering, p453, November 1948. US Corps of Engineors, Investigation CW311, 1954. Ewing 5 P. Jersey Research, Company Report WC-IR-60, 1960 Slater JE. Criteria for adequate cathodic protection for steel in concrete NACE Corrosion’79, Atlanta, March 197. Gummow R A. Paper No 343, NACE Corrosion ‘86, Houston, March 1986. Schell H C and Manning DG, Materials Performance, p18 July 1985.9. CONCLUSIONS This document contains much of the available information relating to cathodic Protection of reinforced concrete. It is essentially a state of the art report. There is an emerging consensus that cathodic protection of reinforced concrete which has been significantly contaminated by chloride is: + a practical and viable technique, + economic compared with large scale removal of sound but chloride contaminated concrete, * capable of significantly reducing and probably stopping corrosion of steel in concrete, + applicable to reinforced concrete, above ground, in all geometric orientations, ‘+ proven as reliable for "top of deck” applications if the design, material selection and execution are adequate * effective for vertical and soffit surfaces, but the longevity of the systems (either conductive coatings or other anodes involving overlays) is, as yet, unproven due to their relatively recent intro- duction. However, properly executed systems have provided sev- eral years of successful operation to date. However, cathodic protection may not be the most economic nor the only repair strategy for all distressed reinforced concrete structures. For some structures the required life or the distribution of chlorides may result in patch repairs being viable. For other structures environmental conditions may limit the practicability or serviceability of cathodic protection systems. Each struc- ture and its deterioration should be assessed to determine the appropriate action. This document is intended to present the engineer who is not a corrosion specialist with sufficient background information to judge whether the poten- tial merits of cathodic protection fulfil the requirements of the structure and whether the structure is suitable for cathodic protection. Complementary to this Technical Report is a Model Specification (Concrete Society Technical Report No 37) which is intended to provide the non corro- sion specialist engineer with the basis from which a specification can be prepared for the necessary repair, installation, commission and maintenance work involved. It should be noted that cathodic protection of reinforced concrete is at a point of significant commercial growth and technical development. Neither the Technical Report nor the Model Specification is intended to preclude any new, well developed and tested techniques or materials from being introduced. In such a period of growth and development it is advisable for all potential users of cathodic protection of reinforced concrete to ensure that all aspects of the work, survey, design, repair, installation, commissioning and maintenance are undertaken by suitably qualified consulting engineers and specialist contrac- tors in both reinforced concrete and /or cathodic protection, as necessary. 39GLOSSARY OF TERMS Ag/AgCl: Silver/silver chloride reference electrode. Potential (vs. SHE) de- pendent on concentration of chloride ions within the electrode system. Sil- ver/silver chloride reference electrodes can be either open (sea water electrodes) or sealed. When sealed, chloride concentration is either saturated or at one molar. Ag/AgCUKCI: Silver/silver chloride/potassium chloride junction reference electrode. Contains a fixed concentration of silver chloride and potassium- chloride salts. A porous plug acts as a junction between the fixed chloride solution and the outside electrolyte. Aerated Electrolyte: An electrolyte (in this case the concrete) which is freely exposed to Anode: The part of an electrolytic cell at which the anodic (oxidation) reaction takes place. Anode Overlay: The normally cementitious cover applied to embedded an- odes to allow the anodes to function. Anode overlay may be either ordinary cast in-situ concrete, sprayed concrete, sprayed mortar, pumped concrete grout or hand applied mortar. In order to function as an anode overlay the resistivity of the material must allow ionic current to flow, typically maximum workable resistivity of anode overlays is 50,000 ohm cm (minimum conductiv- ity of 20 nS/cm), Anodic Polarisation: The polarisation by which the electrochemical state of the metallic component is moved in an anodic (corroding) direction, Anodic Reaction: The electrochemical (oxidation) reaction in which electrons are freed into the electric circuit and oxide species formed, typically as: MoM" + ne eg. Fe — Fe* + 2e 40H + Oz + 2H:0 + 4e° 2cr + Ch + 2€ Automatic Potential Control: Whereby the output current and voltage of the transformer-rectifier is automatically adjusted so that the potential of the reinforcing steel as measured by a fixed (embedded) reference electrode is constant. Because of the nonhomogeneity of concrete systems this control mode is not normally used in reinforced concrete structures. Also referred to as potentiostatic control. Cathode: The part of an electrolytic cell at which a cathodic (reduction) reaction occurs. Cathodic Polarisation: The polarisation produced by which the electrochemi- cal state of the metallic component is moved in a cathodic (non corroding) direction. Cathodic Protection: A process of applying direct current (DC) from an external anode to a reinforcement system so that corrosion is progressively inhibited by polarising the steel! cathodically. This anode may generate its own current (sacrificial protection) or be externally driven (impressed cur- rent).Cathodic Reaction: The electrochemical (reduction) reaction by which elec- trons are consumed. This reaction is typically either the hydrogen evolution reaction or the oxygen reduction reaction. x + ne 9X eg. 2H" + 20° He O2 + 2H2O + de" > 40H Conductive Coating: A paint or mastic which is heavily loaded with an electrically conducting compound. Conductive Concrete: Concrete containing sufficient high conductance com- pounds to permit current flow. Conductivity: The reciprocal of resistivity. Normally measured as microsei- mens per centimetre (uS/cm). Constant Current Control: Whereby the output of a transformer-rectifier is set at constant current with the output voltage of the transformer-rectifier auto- matically adjusting to provide same. Constant Voltage Control: Whereby the current output of a transformer-rec- tifier is automatically adjusted so that the output voltage of the transformer- rectifier is constant as set. Often a current override facility would also be incorporated in this control mode. Continuity Bond: A method of metallically joining two or more normally adjacent pieces of reinforcement so that current flow between sections is not restricted. Corrosion: The spontaneous process whereby an anodic reaction and a corre- sponding cathodic reaction take place on the same metallic component in an electrolyte leading to production of metal ionic species. For corrosion to proceed, both the anodic reaction and the cathodic reaction must be thermo- dynamically capable of proceeding and must balance (i.e. an equal number of electrons must be produced and consumed) Coupon: See test coupon. CSP: Choro sulphonated polyethylene: used for cable insultation. CulCuSO4: Copper /Copper sulphate reference electrode (also referred to as CSE) The concentration of copper species is determined by the saturation of the copper sulphate crystals in distilled water. Normal potential vs. SHE is 320 mV. Current: A measure of the rate of flow of electricity in a conductor and usually expressed in amperes (A) or milliamps (mA). Current Density: Current passing across unit area of surface. Usually ex- pressed as milliamps per square metre (mA/m”) or as milliamps per square foot (mA/fe). DC Power Supplies: See transformer-rectifiers. Dissipators: See primary anode. aDVM: Digital voltmeter. For reinforced concrete systems a high input imped- ance (greater than 20 Mohms) is used to measure the potential of the reinforc- ing steel vs. suitable reference electrode. Also used as a test meter for determining output characteristics of power supplies. Electrical Resistance Probe: A technique whereby the resistance of a suitable shaped material is monitored so that any change in the electrical resistance of the probe can be related to changes in cross sectional area of the probe and thereby related to loss of material and hence corrosion rate. Electrochemical Cell: The circuit between an anode and a cathode in the electrically conducting media. Electrochemical Seric 1: See galvanic series. Electrode: In this context refers to either the positive or negative conductor in an electrochemical cell Electrode Potential: The potential of an electrode within a electrolyte measured with respect to a reference electrode. Measurement indicates whether the electrochemical reactions taking place at the electrode surface are predominantly anodic or cathodic and thus can give an indication of the condition of the electrode material. Also referred to as half cell potential. Electrolyte: A solution or solid which conducts electric current by the trans- port of ionic species. In this case the concrete, contaminated or otherwise, through which the corrosion and cathodic protection currents flow. E-Log I Determination: Method for determining the required current to effect protection. A potential current relationship of the system is determined and plotted on Potential as Log on this current. The protection current is defined as the current at which the Tafel (linear) response break down, i.e. the current after which a straight line is not observed. Embedded Reference Electrode: Reference electrode which is permanently ed within the concrete structure close to, but not touching the reinforcing steel. Galvanic Anode: See sacrificial anode. Galvanic Series: This refers to a gradation of metals or alloys related to their degree of activity in a given environment. In the presence of moisture, this ranges from highly reactive sodium to non-reactive gold. Mild stecl is usually about the middle of most series which are based on commercially used alloys in water. Gunite: Sprayed concrete with a maximum aggregate size of less than 10mm. Half Cell: See reference electrode. Half Cell Potential: See electrode potential. HDPE: High density polythene used for cable insulation. Also referred to as HMWPE. Impressed Current: The current produced in the process whereby a direct, current circuit is created between the reinforcement and an external anode made of material which is relatively non-reactive. Current can only flow onto the reinforcement if a voltage is externally applied between the anode and the 2steel reinforcement system, as distinct from a sacrificial anode where this voltage is self generative. HMWPE: High molecular weight polythene, see HDPE. Half Cell Mapping; See isopotential mapping. Instantaneous Off Potential: The potential of the reinforcing steel at the location of measurement which is recorded not less than 0.1 and not more than 1.0 seconds following complete disruption of DC power to the system. It is used as an estimate for the IR (ohmic) free potential of the reinforcing steel. IR Drop: The voltage drop due (in this case) to the concrete resistance between the reinforcement surface and the location of the reference electrode. Also teferred to as Ohmic drop. Isopotential Mapping: Whereby the electrode potential of the reinforcing steel over an area of the concrete structure is obtained at regular intervals to enable lines of equal potential (contours) to be drawn. The presence of pre- dominantly high or low potential areas is used to indicate possible areas of corrosion. See ASTM C876-87. Also referred to as half cell mapping. Linear Polarisation Resistance: A technique used to determine the instanta- neous corrosion rate of test electrodes. The technique requires that the polari- sation shift created by the passage of a small DC electric current between test electrodes is determined. The resulting linear polarisation resistance is then related inversely to the corrosion rate by the Stern Gearey equation: AE= AIRp X= kB RA change in potential (mV) change in current (mA) polarisation resistance (ohm) test electrode area (cm’) constant (1.15 x 10") to convert mA/cm? to wm/yr. Stern Gearey constant (typically 50 mV) corrosion rate (um/yr) Link: Steel reinforcement in the form of a close loop, placed around the main reinforcing bars. ‘Macro-Cell Probe: See Pick-up Probe. Monitoring System: A system of test items fitted where concrete structures are exposed to varying physical conditions. Examples are wind and water lines on piling or means of checking long term effects in more static environments, such as a series of permanent reference electrodes being installed either to plot any variation in steel potential or to sense conditions for an automatic current adjustment system. Ohmic drop: See IR drop.pH: The negative logarithmic value (to the base 10) of the hydrogen ion concentration. Used to express the acidity/alkalinity of a solution. Values below 7 are progressively more acidic, 7 is neutral and values above 7 are progressively more alkaline. Pick-up Probe: Embedded stecl or reinforcement connected to the reinforce- ment cage via a current measuring device. Used to determine the level of current supplied to a particular area. Also referred to as a Macro-Cell probe. Polarisation: An application of current causes the potential of an electrode to increase from its static or theoretical decomposition potential as the current is increased. This potential change, termed polarisation, is the result of several changes which occur due to the passage of the current. The most influential of these changes are the build up of thin films of relatively higher resistance at electrochemical interfaces and a change in the concentration of reacting species at the surfaces of the electrode. Portable Reference Electrode: Suitable reference electrode normally incorpor- ating a sponge or soft wooden plug used on the outside surface of the rein- forced concrete structure to obtain the potential of the reinforcing steel. Also referred to as surface electrode. Post-tensioning: A method of prestressing concrete in which the tendons are tensioned after the concrete has hardened. This method is usual for bridges and heavy structures which are cast in place. Potential: in this context, the same as Electrode Potential. Potential Decay: In this context the extent of depolarisation from the po- larised (IR free) condition following complete disruption of DC current. This will normally be associated with an anodic polarisation (qv) and will lead to an increase in the potential (i.e. move more positive). Potential Shift: In this context the extent of polarisation from the natural (as found) potential to the operating potential. This will normally be associated with a cathodic polarisation (qv) and will be a reduction in potential (i.e. move more negative). Precast concrete: Concrete clements which are cast on site or in a factory before being lifted into their position into a structure. Prestressed concrete: Concrete in which cracking and tensile forces are elimi- nated or greatly reduced by compressing it, usually by stretched high tensile steel tendons within it. Pre-tensioning: A method of prestressing concrete involving stressing wires prior to precasting the concrete members, usually in a factory or works . Primary Anode: Used with conductive anode materials (for example conduc- tive asphalt, conductive paint, sprayed metal anodes) to deliver current to the conductive anode. Also referred to as dissipator. Probe: Sce Reference Electrode. More correctly, refers to an inserted coupon or half cell. Protection Current Density: The current density required to be applied by cathodic protection to the reinforcing steel, so that the corrosion of the rein- forcing steel is controlled.PVC: Polyvinyl chloride: cable insulator, typical material for junction box construction. PVDF: Poly vinylidene fluoride, high quality cable insulator. Redox: Oxidation reduction reaction Reference Electrode: The standard test cell against which potential movement on a surface is measured. In concrete testing, one half of the electrochemical cell is the reference electrode, usually silver/silver chloride, with the other half of the cell being that between the steel of the reinforcement and the surrounding concrete. Also referred to as a half cell, and see also Probe. Rendering: Covering of surfaces; in the case of cement rendering, with a mortar. Resistivity: Value of the electrical resistance of an electrolyte per unit length across a unit cross sectional area. Usually expressed in ohm centimetre (ohm em). Resistivity is the reciprocal of the conductivity. SHE: Standard hydrogen electrode. Sacrificial Anode: Based on the electrochemical series of metals whereby a metal, more positive than the one with which it is in intimate contact, will generate protective current and so corrode. Alloys of magnesium, zinc and aluminium are commercially used to provide current to protect steel in high conductivity environments, but do not have sufficient driving voltage to over- come the relatively high resistance of even wet concrete, except when fully immersed. However, they are being increasingly used for earthing systems rather than copper which, because it is lower than steel in the electrochemical series, induces corrosion on the steel. Also referred to as galvanic anode. Sacrificial Protection: Involves a metal or alloy higher in the electrochemical series than steel, having sufficient driving voltage to supply current in the desired quantity and for a prescribed time, when connected to the reinforce- ment. Secondary Anode: The active portion of a conductive anode system (e.g. conductive asphalt, conductive paint, sprayed metal anodes). The portion of the conductive anode which delivers current to the concrete surface (see also primary anode). Shotcrete: Sprayed concrete with a maximum aggregate size of at least 10mm. Soffit: The underside of a slab or beam, Standard Hydrogen Electrode (SHE): Electrode comprising of platinum black ina unit activity solution of hydrogen ions (1.05M HCl acid with hydrogen at 101,000 N/m? pressure). Defined as zero and used as a base reference for all electrochemical reactions. Also referred to as Normal Hydrogen Electrode (NHE). ‘Stray Current: In concrete structures, usually a form of induced electrical pick up which affects the natural potentials of the reinforcement, possibly increas- ing the existing corrosion rate. Stray Current Corrosion: Corrosion induced from stray current pick up flow- ing through uncontrolled paths. 45Structure to Electrode Potential: The formal way of defining the potential of the steel at the point of reference electrode application in conjunction with the type of reference electrode used. Surface Reference Electrode: See portable reference electrode, Tafel Response: The portion of the potential current relationship for an elec- trochemical system, which follows an essentially logarthemic response, viz: E=a+blogi where E = potential (mV) a= Tafel constant (mV) b = Tafel slope (mV per decade of current) current density (mA/m?) Tafel Slope: See tafel response. Test Coupon: A specifically inserted section of metal, generally the same in specification and cross sectional area as the steel reinforcement , being used as a comparison piece for longer term measurement purposes, ‘Transformer-Rectifier: An electrical power unit which transforms and rec- tifies AC line voltages to the required DC output voltages, also referred to as DC power supplies. Transformer-rectifiers can be manufactured to operate under any conditions of AC voltage and frequency and to any required output current and voltage (within reason) Transformer-rectifiers can be operated in cither constant current, constant voltage, or constant potential mode. UPVC: Ultraviolet resistant PVC, used for junction box construction. Voltage: A potential difference expressed in volts. In the context of cathodic protection is normally used to refer to the output of power supply. XLPE: Cross linked polythene: cable insulator. 46APPENDIX A: REVIEW OF ANODE MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS Al Conductive coatings A. Anode description a. Anode materials are proprietary paints comprising a graphite con- ductive filler within a carrier and binder system which in one propric tary system is a single pack evaporative solvent acrylic and in another proprietary system is a chlorinated rubber. b. Typical physical dimensions The conductive coating is applied to the external concrete surface to a thickness of approximately 400 microns. Primary anode feed wires of platinum coated titanium or niobium, precious metal oxide coated titanium or carbon fibre are laid into the coating, often with a glass fibre tissue reinforcement. Typical anode feed wire spacings are every 3 metres for coatings applied to 400 microns dry film thickness and having a bulk electrical resistivity of less than 3 ohm-cm. Thinner or more resistive coatings may require closer spacing between anode feed wires to ensure adequate current distribution. ¢. Typical physical properties Conductive coatings are a lightweight addition to reinforced concrete, adding weight at only 0.5 kg/m? of surface coated. They are generally black in colour, due to the graphite conductive filler, but may be over-coated with a range of colours, typically white or grey. For systems exposed to sunlight it may be advantageous to overcoat with a light colour to reduce solar gain. Conductive coatings are not particularly abrasion resistant and are therefore not directly suitable for wearing surfaces. Some applications are reported with a wearing surface overcoat for car park decks but this practice is in its infancy. However, being a fully conductive tot surface cover, localised surface damage due to impact or abrasion is not a significant problem as surrounding coating should continue to provide cathodic protection current. d. Life expectancy Conductive coatings are normally designed with sufficient graphite filler to provide a theoretical life expectancy in excess of 25 years at 20 mA/m? anode current density. Graphite content is not likely to be the life determining factor. Life is likely to be determined by failure of the cohesive bond between the concrete and the coating which may be accelerated by acid forma- tion at the coating/concrete interface. Optimum life can only be an- ticipated if concrete surface preparation, in particular in respect of cleanliness and freedom from dust and moisture, is of the highest order. Optimistic life expectancy at 10 mA/m? anode current density is esti- ‘mated to be 10-15 years after which coating repairs can be expected to be required. Life may be reduced in applications to wet structures or may be extended at lower current densities. The discrepancy between "7Al2. AIS theoretical life due to graphite content and actual life expectancy is caused by the failure mechanics due to deterioration of the paint film/concrete bond, not consumption of the conductive graphite filler. e. Application techniques Conductive coatings are applied by airless spray, roller or brush. Ap- plication to the manufacturer's recommended dry film thickness may require more than one coat. No cementitious overlay is required. Over-coating with a decorative protective coat is possible and advantageous if exposed to sunlight. Anode operating parameters Range of normal operating current density 2-20 mA/m? anode surface. b. Equivalent to 2-20 mA/m® concrete surface current density as the conductive coating covers the entire concrete surface c. Maximum short term (transient, during commissioning) operating current density 30 mA/m? anode surface. d. Possible consequences of exceeding this maximum, early disbond- ment/ breakdown of coating possibly within months. ©. This type of anode is not recommended for wearing surfaces, for wet structures, or for structures with extreme variations in chloride con- tent. Anode installation requirements a. The structure is required to be sound prior to application. ‘The surface is required to be reasonably free of cracks and holes and free of exposed steel reinforcement, to avoid the possibility of short circuits between the conductive coating and the steel reinforcement. ‘The concrete surface should be grit blast cleaned to remove all surface contamination, previous coatings or sealants, and to present a clean, dry, dust free surface. b. All ancillary steel or deliberately exposed reinforcing steel must be masked before application. Areas of non-coated concrete to be used for future surface potential measurement points can be achieved by the use of masking tape. Exposed reinforcing steel at cracks, holes, ete., which are not required. to be repaired for structural reasons, can be masked with an insulating coating, such as a rapid curing two pack epoxy. Fixings for cable conduits and junction boxes can be provided prior to the coating and masked or the coating can be drilled after application if adequate precautions are taken to ensure no metallic connections are made to the coating by the fixings, boxes or conduits. c. The conductive coating is applied to the surface as in A.1.1.¢ above. 4. The only, optional, over-coating i by the decorative coating refer- enced above. (A.1.le) 48Aas A2 AL Over-coating with a wearing surface has been reported but results are too limited for conclusions to be drawn. e. Itis normal to allow a minimum of 24 hours between installation and energisation. Maintenance and repair procedures Inspection and assessment of the achievement of cathodic protection is referenced elsewhere in the Technical Report. ‘The conductive coatings are amenable to the provision of untouched "windows" in them, allowing the placement of portable reference elec- trodes on the concrete surface for steel /concrete polarised potential decay surveys. It will be necessary to carry out localised repair of any disbonded coating areas that occur during service. Surface preparation and coat- ing application requirements are as above. (A.1.3) Sprayed zinc coating Anode description a. Materials of construction The anode material consists of a pure zinc coating which may be over-coated with a decorative protective coat. b. Physical dimensions The sprayed zinc is applied to the external concrete surface to a thick- ness of approximately 200 microns. Primary anode feed connections of titanium, stainless steel! or brass plates are fixed onto the concrete surface with an insulating bed of epoxy prior to coating. One anode connection is required for an area of some 9m? c. Physical properties The physical properties of the zinc coating are similar to those of a conductive coating, being only a lightweight addition to reinforced concrete. The zine coating is grey in colour but can be over-coated with a range of colours. The coating is not suitable for wearing surface although some localised surface damage can be tolerated as the surrounding coating will con- tinue to provide cathodic protection current. d. Life expectancy Assuming the zinc is consumed and no deleterious effects shorten the electrical efficiency or bond of the material, a life of some 10 years may be achieved with a 200 micron coating thickness. Life may be extended at lower current densities. Reduction in durability may occur in applications to wet structures where self-corrosion of the zine may occur. Over-coating may limit this self-corrosion. As for any coating, the standard of concrete sur- 9A22 A23 Ad face preparation and coating application parameters will be critical in determining its durability. ¢. Application techniques The pure zinc is applied by either Arc Spray or an oxygen/propane or oxygen/acetylene gun. Over-coating with a decorative protective coat can be carried out by airless spray, roller or brush. Anode operating parameters Operating currents are likely to be similar to those in A.1.2. The zinc coating is not recommended for wearing surfaces, for wet structures, for structures with extreme variation in chloride content or structures where the cover concrete is porous . Anode installation requirements a. The structure is required to be sound prior to application. ‘The surface should be reasonably free of cracks and holes. No steel reinforcement must remain exposed on the surface, to avoid the possi- bility of short circuits between the conductive coating and the steel reinforcement. The concrete surface should be grit blast cleaned to remove all surface contamination, previous coatings or sealants, and to present a clean, dry, dust free surface. b. All ancillary steel or deliberately exposed reinforcing steel must be masked before application. Areas of non-coated concrete to be used for future surface potential measurement points can be achieved by the use of masking tape. Exposed reinforcing steel at cracks, holes, etc., which are not required to be repaired for structural reasons can be masked with an insulating coating, such as a rapid curing two pack epoxy. Fixings for cable conduits and junction boxes can be provided the coating and masked or the coating can be drilled after application if adequate precautions are taken to ensure no metallic connections are made to the coating by the fixings, boxes or conduits. ¢. The zinc coating and over-coat are applied as above. Particular attention should be given to preventing ingress of the flame sprayed zinc into porous areas or defects in the concrete, which might result in short circuits to the steel. ‘The system can be energised one hour after application of the zine coating. If an over-coat is applied, this time should be extended, de- pending on the material used. Maintenance and repair procedures It will be necessary to carry out localised repair of any disbonded coating areas. These areas can be repaired using the procedures noted in A.14 above.AS AB. Titanium mesh with electrocatalytic coating Anode description a. Materials of construction, physical dimensions, physical properties The anode consists of a lightweight metal mesh made from expanded titanium. ‘The material has a high linear expansion ratio, in the range 10-30, and typically has strand width and thickness in the range 0.5-2 mm. Mesh apertures (short-way and long-way diamond pitch) are typically in the range 30 x 70 mm to 100 x 200 mm. Typical weight of mesh is 0.1-0.25 kilograms/square metre. Material is usually supplied in roll form at widths of 1-1.2 metres and lengths of 50-200 metres. The active electrocatalytic coating is applied by thermal decomposi- tion of, normally, precious metals in association with oxides of other metals, notably the “noble” metals. The titanium metal may have various pre-treatments before the application of the active coating, The exact nature of the coating process differs between manufacturers and is proprietary. The physical properties of the material are as would be expected from a strong, ductile metal, ie. it can be bent or formed to conform to the contour of the concrete. It can be cut with metal shears to tailor around awkward shapes or to avoid metallic objects protruding from the concrete surface. With suitable precautions it can be welded to itself or to titanium (coated or uncoated) strips or wires as current connec- tors. Ductility is adequate for making reliable compression joints, using titanium, niobium or tantalum materials for the joint. The resistivity of the titanium material is 48 micro ohm cm, i.e. a moderately conductive metal. When translated into mesh terms, this ‘conductivity results in two dimensional surface resistivity of less than 0.1 ohms per square (surface resistivity is dimensionless) for either of the mesh orientations, ie. parallel to or at right angles to the long way of the mesh diamond. Current carrying properties of the active coating are such that the anode/ concrete current density limit is normally determined by the properties of the cementitious overlay provided that the consumption ate and thickness of the coating are adequate for the intended service life. b. Life expectancy The consumption rate of the active coating is low and the life of the anode may be determined by other factors. Some coating may be lost by mechanical abrasion during installation, e.g. during application of overlay. Local exposure of titanium is of no consequence as the anodic passivation properties of this material will provide a self-healing mechanism provided that excessive voltages are not applied. Ata current density on the mesh surface of 200 mA/m’, the life expectancy. of the anode material itsclf (determined by extrapolation of accel- erated laboratory tests) of a typical product is some 10-50 years, de- pending on coating consumption and thickness. However, the system life may be determined by deterioration of the concrete/anode interface by the anode reaction products. Present de- 51AB2 signs have tended to limit the anode /concrete interface current den sity to an arbitrary 110 mA/m? but research information from anode ‘manufacturers indicates that higher current densities may not be dele- terious. cc. Application technique ‘The material is designed to be totally encapsulated within a cementi- tious overlay. Optional methods of application are to pin directly to the prepared concrete surface or to space away from the surface by a short distance, e.g. 6-10 mm. The latter method ensures that all of the anode surface is in a homogeneous environment without the possibility of local voidage and development of a potential plane of weakness at the concrete/overlay interface. The amount of total cover will depend on whether the mesh is surface mounted or spaced, and on the ability of the coating contractor to provide uniformly thin layers. A minimum cover of 10 mm, preferably 15 mm, over the outside of the mesh is recommended. Anode operating parameters The normal range of operating current densities is some 50-200 mA/m? of anode/concrete interface. Typically this results in concrete surface, current densities of 10-50 mA//m? at an operating limit of 110 mA/m? anode current density depending on mesh form and size. A possible consequence of exceeding these current densities would be an unacceptably fast degradation of the cement layer in contact with the anode surface by acidic anodic reaction products . No harm to the anode material itself is likely unless excessively high voltages are used (greater than 10 volts across the anode concrete interface with bare titanium exposed in the presence of chloride). NOTE, The system voltage would need to be appreciably higher than 10 volts to result in this latter voltage appearing across bare titanium. at the anode interface. ‘The active precious metal coating is normally applied to the entire surface of the mesh. Where this is not the case then the current rating, of the mesh should be reduced proportionately to avoid exceeding the maximum anode/concrete surface current density li Environmental structural limitations Precautions that are recommended for titanium based anodes in con- crete protection are: Do not use overlay materials containing any appreciable fluoride ions as these can attack anodically polarised titanium. To prevent unsightly stains produced by anodic reaction with com- bined iron in the cement or aggregate either use more than the normal overlay cover or use low-iron materials in the overlay. The cementitious overlay which forms part of the anode system may present dead weight problems for some structures. See also section AB.A.33° Anode installation requirements a. Surface preparation The final treatment should be such that a uniform overlay can be applied by an appropriate method, e.g. spraying or trowelling, with the maximum prospect of long term high level of adhesion without cracking, spalling or sagging. The surface preparation is dictated sole- ly by the requirements for adhesion of the cementitious overlay eg; grit blast cleaning, to remove laitance and expose aggregate. . Provision of fixings or masking, Proprietary anode fixings are usually provided by the anode supplier and are driven into holes drilled into the concrete in appropriate places. These fixings should be nonmetallic to prevent accidental electrical contact with, or close approach to, the reinforcement. Drill- ing templates may assist in placing the pre-drilled holes, although the flexible nature of the mesh will allow considerable freedom of loca- tion. Masking is not required with this form of anode except to pre- vent over spray of the sprayed cementitious overlay. . Fixing of anode to concrete Depending on the type of fixing attachments, the mesh is unrolled on site and progressively secured to the fixtures. The mesh may be folded back on itself or snipped away to provide clearance from foreign objects or to tailor the spread of current. Connections at appropriate intervals are made to current feeders, either by welding or crimping to strip or wire. Cross connections between adjacent strips of mesh may also be made, either using strip connectors or by crimping together the mesh strands using corrosion resistant crimps, e.g. niobium. Due to the relatively good conductivity of the mesh material, and the relatively low currents involved, the frequency of connection points is not a major design factor. A knowledge of the mesh resistivity will allow rough calculations to be made of voltage loss in the mesh materi- al. Prudence would dictate that more connections are made than needed, strictly on voltage-drop grounds, to provide a measure of redundancy in the event of breakage of strands or other accidental disconnection. Where two layers of mesh intersect, then mesh-to-mesh jointing is normally undertaken at every 2-3 metres. One electrical feed connec- tion for every 10 square metres of area should prove entirely adequate unless zoning demands more frequent connections. d. Application of overlay Application of the overlay should follow established good practice. ‘The mesh can be locally constrained at the point of application to prevent high spots from protruding beyond the minimum designed cover thickness. Trowelling or spraying technique should ensure com- plete encapsulation of the mesh without underlying voids. €. Time between installation and energisation Power can be applied to the system as soon as the overlay has cured to an extent where it is mechanically stable. If full cure and drying out has not been achieved, then the voltage/current readings will not be 53Aa Aad representative of the long term condition and the electrical parameters will require resetting once this condition is reached. 4, Maintenance procedures No routine maintenance is necessary on the buried mesh anode. If mechanical damage has severed connections to the mesh, then local access may be gained by chipping away the overlay, the connection remade by welding or crimping to exposed mesh strands and the overlay made good. Conductive polymer anode Anode description a. Materials of construction These anodes are based on a proprietary carbon loaded polymeric formulation anode material coated onto a copper conductor. The anode is fixed onto the concrete surface with proprietary clips of either similar conductive material or inert plastic. b. Typical physical dimensions The anode strand has a typical diameter of 7-8 mm. With proprietary clips, the total installed thickness is typically 10-12 mm. ¢. Life expectancy Because the anode contains active carbon, the electrochemical reac- tions occurring at the anode oxidise the carbon. As the outer surface is oxidised, the electrochemical reaction take place progressively deeper into the anode. If it reaches the copper conductor, or if crack ing of the polymer material allows exposure of the core, then rapid attack of the conductor takes place, causing the electrical continuity of the anode to fail. Another failure mechanism is by the build up of high resistance components in the outer layers of the polymer anode, lead- ing to higher operating voltage requirements. Early applications limited the anode/concrete current density to 80mA/m* and claimed an expected operational life of some 30 years. Recently, the maximum operating anode/concrete current density has been reduced to 54 mA/m? (5 mA/ft? in original text). Particular attention should be given to ensuring a uniform cementitous overlay to the anode, to avoiding local wet areas and to proper distribution of anode to reflect stecl density, as all these factors can lead to “current dumping" and accelerated anode consumption. d. Application techniques The material is designed for operation when totally surrounded by overlay material. Two distinct methods of overlay application are available. The anode can be secured to an existing or repaired concrete surface by means of plastic mechanical fixings and encased in the overlay by casting or spraying. A second application method is to secure the anode to new or exposed reinforcement by means of plastic stand-off clips and then to cast or spray the cementitious material around the stecl and anode in one process. Thickness of cover over the anode is recommended to be some 25mm. 54A42 Operating parameters Aas For design purposes the maximum current density per unit area of anode surface adopted for conductive polymer anodes was originally in the range of 80-100 mA/m? but it is now limited to 54 mA/m: (mA/ft). The anode is normally supplied as a continuous length of cable so the amount of anode per unit area of concrete can be varied on site. The amount of anode installed can be adjusted to provide differ- ent concrete surface current densities although the manufacturer has recently limited the quantity of anode material to 10 m/m? (3ft/ft2) of concrete: this limits the concrete surface current density to 13 mA/m?. The cementitious overlay which forms part of the anode system may present dead weight problems for some structures. See also section AB. Anode installation requirements a. Surface preparation The final treatment should be such that a uniform overlay can be applied by an appropriate method, e.g. spraying or trowelling with the maximum prospect of long term high level of adhesion without crack- ing, spalling or sagging. The surface is dictated solely by the require- ments for adhesion of the cementitious overlay eg; grit blast cleaning to remove laitance and expose aggregate. b. Provision of fixings The anodes are fixed to the concrete with an all-plastic construction. Where reinforcing steel is exposed, these fixings are secured direct to the reinforcement using all-plastic clips. c. Fixing of anode to concrete The anode is woven onto the structure in a continuous manner and fixed into the cleats (clips). The weave pattern is tailored to the indi- vidual needs of the structure under protection. Factors taken into account include the density of the underlying steel, the environmental conditions prevailing, and the maximum allowable voltage drop in the conductive polymeric wire anode itself. A minimum bend radius should be observed to prevent environmental cracking of the conduc- tive polymeric material 4. Application of overlay Application of the overlay is dictated by standard construction prac tice. Techniques that can be successfully used include, but are not limited to, guniting, pumping etc. (See section A. on cementitious overlays). e. Time between installation and energisation The manufacturers recommend that a minimum of 14, preferably 28 days, elapse between installation of the overlay and energising of the system. This is primarily to allow the resistivity of the overlay to stabilise. They do not consider that early energisation will produce any specific degradation of the system (ie. affect the bond between anode and overlay or between overlay and substrate). 55AS f, Maintenance procedures ‘The manufacturers state that no maintenance on the embedded anode will be required during its working life. However, the quality of the overlay and in particular its bond to the concrete substrata may de- grade with time (as for any embedded anode). Repairs to the overlay may therefore be necessary. Conductive overlays a. Materials and construction These anodes are formed by an asphalt which has been modified to be electrically conductive by the addition of carbonaceous material, nor- mally metallurgical coke. Variations to the material include the addi- tion of sand and/or coarse aggregate to improve mechanical and wearing properties. The primary anode material, i.c. the contact anode between the posi- tive supply cable and the conductive overlay, is generally a high silicon cast iron (14% silicon, 4.25% chromium). b. Typical physical dimensions The conductive overlay is appropriate for the top surface of a rein- forced concrete bridge deck, car park deck or similar facility, and is applied to a thickness of approximately 40 mm. Depending upon the particular wearing characteristics of the conduc- tive asphalt a further layer of conventional aggregate filled asphalt may be applied as a wearing surface. The primary anodes are generally installed within the conductive as- phalt, either directly onto the prepared concrete surface or flush with the surface in previously prepared recesses cut into the concrete sur- face. These recesses would normally be precoated with a non conduc- tive coating to ensure avoidance of short circuits and to. improve current distribution. The advantage of recessing the primary anodes is that subsequent resurfacing and replacement of the conductive over- lay can proceed without replacement of the entire cathodic protection system. c. Typical physical properties Conductive overlays are a significant weight addition to reinforced concrete. The weight will depend upon thickness and the actual mix design but attention is drawn to the necessity to ensure that the dead weight increase can be accommodated by the structure. Conductive overlays may have wearing, freeze thaw and water trans- mittal properties that are inferior to those of conventional aggregate filled asphalts. 4d. Life expectancy Conductive overlays have been in use in North America, on bridge decks, for over 20 years. It has been reported that some of the early systems have operated satisfactorily for over 10 years. Mechanical properties are likely to be the life determining factor. Experience 56AG indicates that conductive overlays need to be replaced after 10 to 15 years depending on environment, service conditions, and traffic in- tensity. e. Application techniques Conductive overlays are applied by conventional asphalt road laying techniques. f. Anode operating parameters ‘The normal range of anode operating current density is to 2-20mA/m? of anode surface. g: Anode installation requirements A structure requires to be sound prior to application and to have been assessed as sufficiently strong to carry the extra weight of the overlay. Surface preparation is generally by conventional highway planing machines removing previous overlay and exposing the underlaying concrete. The concrete requires to be sound and reasonably free of cracks and holes. All delaminations should be repaired. The surface must be free of exposed steel reinforcement to avoid the possibility of short circuits between the conductive overlay and the steel reinforce- ment. The surface should present a clean, dry and dust proof surface for the application of the overlay. The only over-coating to the conductive overlays is the optional appli- cation of an asphalt wearing surface. It is normal to allow a minimum of 24 hours between installation and energisation, h. Maintenance and repair procedures Some operators monitor the potential between the (carbon based) anode system and the reinforcing steel, essentially using the anode as the half cell in the measurement of stecl/concrete potential. It is not easy to provide uncoated areas (windows) in the asphalt surface, neither is it possible to cut large numbers of cores through the conduc- tive asphalt to place portable reference electrodes on the concrete surface for accurate potential measurement. Access to the undersides (soffits) of bridges is often difficult. In view of these monitoring difficulties it is necessary to supplement permanent reference elec- trodes with additional monitoring devices which should be installed in the bridge deck prior to the application of the conductive overlay. To facilitate ease of repair /replacement the primary anodes are some- times recessed, so that the top surface is flush with the original con- crete surface. Conductive resins (FHWA polymer) The descriptions of this category of anode materials are more brief than the preceeding descriptions as the application has not been ex- tended to Europe. Inclusion in this document is simply advisory in respect of North American practice. 37AT Aga Anode materials are blends of resins and graphite, generally fine par- ticles of petroleum coke. ‘These materials have been developed as part of the Federal Highways Authority research programme and have been used both in slotted systems and incorporated into overlays. Their performance has been reported to be poor, primarily due io attempts to operate at anode current densities in excess of 100 mA/m? of anode surface. In slotted systems the resins have been used in slots, some 25-30 mm wide and deep, with the primary anode being either a platinum coated titanium or niobium wire or carbon fibres. Resin anode systems have also been placed on the surface of the concrete, forming mounds, and then covered with a standard cementi- tious overlay. In both cases the anode is laid out in a grid pattern, with the carbon fibre containing strips running perpendicular to the inert wire contain- ing strips. Typically the inert wire strips are laid out at 3 m centres and. the carbon sirips are laid out at not more than 300 mm centres. The resin used is mixed on site and applied immediately. Problems have been reported with the short pot life of the system, requiring, consideration of the pot life that is possible on site. Conductive ceramic surface mounted anode Anode description a, Discrete anode system ‘These discrete anodes are individual conductive ceramic tiles, The proprietary ceramic is a suboxide of titanium which is highly resistant to acid and alkaline environments. Electrical connection to the indi- vidual tiles is made via titanium strips and associated hardware. b. Typical physical dimensions The individual tiles are approximately 50 x 50 x 2.5mm. The titanium conductor strips are 12mm wide by 0.5mm thick with cutouts of the appropriate size and spacing to accommodate the self tapping tita: nium screws and washers used to make electrical contact to the anode tiles. ¢. Typical physical properties Weight per unit area of concrete surface 0.29 kg/m? (ceramic anodes: plus connection materials) Installation Temperature 13°C to 35°C Coefficient of thermal expansion 6 x 10¢/°C 4d. Life expectancy As this anode material is relatively new in cathodic protection applica tions for reinforced concrete, its life expectancy has not yet been deter- mined in the field. Laboratory trials are underway to determine the life expectancy through accelérated testing. 58AT2 AT3 . Application techniques The discrete anodes have been designed for installation onto concrete surfaces using commercially available grout materials to create suffi- cient electrolytic contact to the original surface. To further ensure adequate mechanical bond to the surface, titanium self tapping screws are inserted through a centre hole in the individual tiles. Approxi- mately 50% of the total anode surface area is exposed to the environ- ‘ment to allow ingress and egress of moisture through the anode itself. Operating parameters Although the ceramic anode material has been operated in under- ground and soil environments successfully at current densities of 215A/m?, the maximum allowable current density of the material far exceeds the actual operating current densities which would be en- countered in cathodic protection applications for atmospherically ex- posed concrete, The normal operating range for a cathodic protection system for reinforcing steel is of the order of 10-20 mA/m? which translates to 60-120 mA/m? of anode surface area. Anode installation requirements a, Structural requirements Any structure for which the installation of cathodic protection is being, considered must be in sound condition and capable of meeting the structural requirements for its intended use. The application of ca- thodic protection is not a means of restoring the reinforcing steel to its. original condition. . Surface preparation Patching materials should be selected to be compatible with the ca- thodic protection system. Preparation of the concrete surface should ensure that no reinforcing steel directly contacts the discrete anode tiles or electrical conductor hardware and that adequate bond can be established between the original concrete surface and the grout placed between the tile and concrete. Cleaning of the surface may be required via sand or grit blasting. c. Placement of anode tiles and conductor hardware ‘The design of the system must take into consideration the total surface area of reinforcing steel to be protected as well as the surface geometry of the structure. The anode tiles are initially attached to the concrete surface via a cementitious grout material which has suitable properties for use in a cathodic protection system. Once the anode tiles are in place, titanium conductor strips are attached to the anode tiles using self tapping titanium screws and washers. Should the concrete cover be insufficient to ensure no direct contact between the titanium screws and the embedded steel, electrical insulation must be accomplished by placing plastic raw! plugs at the predetermined anode tile locations. Care should be taken to prevent contact between the titanium strips and the concrete surface as such contact may have deleterious effects on the strips.As d. Energisation Energisation of the installed system may generally be done immedi- ately following installation. It is recommended that the operating levels be inspected after approximately thirty days of operation. Al- though the grout materials used to initially attach the anode tiles tend to be fast curing, moisture present in the environment may affect the time to completion of the curing reaction. The total power required to achieve the desired operating parameters may also change during the first thirty days of operation due to polarisation of the reinforcing steel and ion movement within the concrete electrolyte. These same factors ill tend to affect the system performance over the life of the installa- tion and should be considered in future inspections, periodic monitor- ing and subsequent evaluations. Cementitious overlays A cementitious overlay is not of itself an anode system but is used in conjunction with certain anodes, particularly conductive polymer anode and expanded titanium mesh anode, as an integral part of the anode system. The importance of the overlay in respect to adhesion to sub-strate, long term durability and clectrical properties is critical for the performance and life of the anode system. A cementitious overlay may be mortar or concrete and may contain polymers to increase adhesion, shrinkage compensators and materials to promote electrical conduction. Overlays can be poured, sprayed or hand-trowelled according to the orientation of the structure and the mechanical requirements of the surface. The following materials and application procedures are generally used:- a, Materials Cementitious overlays consist of cement based materials and may or may not contain admixtures or additives. They can be applied in a number of ways depending on the orientation of the structure and the mechanical requirements of the surface. These are outlined below. Poured concrete overlay. "Normal" concrete overlay, consisting of cement and aggregate suitable for the hardness/strength required. Only applicable to horizontal surfaces, such as bridge decks, car park decks, etc. Sprayed concrete. Special designed concrete mixes which can be pumped and sprayed onto the surface. Also referred to as gunite or shotcrete and the process as guniting or shotcreting. May be applied to all surfaces, i.e. horizontal, vertical and soffit surfaces. Sprayed renders. Cementitious render, possibly bearing significant modifications to a simple sand /cement mix, including the addition of polymers to promote early adhesion and other additions to promote conductivity, may be used as overlays to anodes, particularly titanium mesh anodes. May be applied to all surfaces, i.e. horizontal, vertical and soffit surfaces.Flowing concrete. Recent developments in repair techniques using highly flowable and shrinkage compensated concretes can be adapted to overlays for anodes. Hand trowelled mortar. Ordinary mortar used for plastering /hand finishing, containing suitable additive to promote adhesion without effecting resistivity, may be used, particularly with titanium mesh anodes. A prior application of a bonding agent to the concrete surface should NOT be used. b. Applica n procedures All of the above materials are more widely used in non-cathodic pro tection applications than for cathodic protection. Detailed specifica- tions are available for these non-cathodic protection applications and should be adopted when the materials are being used as anode over- lays. However, there are some significant differences in the use of such overlays for cathodic protection and these differences require to be reflected in the application specification. ‘The most important of the differences is that the anode is considered to be a significant reinforcement for the overlaid material. Therefore the overlay material will be more vulnerable than in its normal appli- cation to both shrinkage cracking and to debondment from the surface, both of which are normally restrained by "secondary reinforcement” or other keying techniques employed where these materials are used without cathodic protection anodes. Further, the presence of the anode at the substrate /overlay interface may itself produce a plane of weakness, including overlay debondment. To minimise these prob- Jems, particular attention must be paid to the surface preparation of the substrate, to wetting of the substrate prior to placement of the overlay and to adequate mechanical fixing of the anodes in order that their location is correct and fixed in respect to the substrate/overlay interface and that no movement or vibration of the anode can occur during placement of the overlay. The second significant difference in the use of these overlays for ca- thodic protection purposes is that materials require to be sufficiently electrically conductive to carry the current from the anode into the substrate. It is therefore necessary that items which are commonly used with such overlays for non-cathodic protection applications, bonding agents and polymer additions, are rigorously assessed and confirmed not to increase the electrical resistance beyond approxi- mately 50,000 ohm cm. It is emphasised that those anode materials that require cementitious overlay in order to constitute an anode system are vulnerable to per- formance problems of the overlay. The performance of the overlay in respect to adhesion to substrate, long term durability and electrical properties is critical to the performance of the anode system. As with all overlays, proper provision for curing is a necessary prereq- uisite to longevity. If failures do occur, on or within the overlay, repairs are much more difficult than with conductive coatings. Any removal of the overlay may result in anode damage, which then re~ quires to be repaired prior to replacement of the overlay. Very limited overlay debondment can be repaired using suitably formulated, fine aggregate, free flowing grouts. More extensive repairs can be achieved by replacement of the material with either hand placed com- patible materials or by the original application techniques. aAPPENDIX B BIBLIOGRAPHY ON CATHODIC PROTECTION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE (See also references at the ends of Sections 2, 3,4, 5 & 8) Anderson GH Cathodic protection of a reinforced concrete bridge deck. Concrete International Design and Construction, 2, 32-36, (1980) Andrade C P et al. Guard ring possibilities of confining the electrical signal in the on-site measurement of reinforcement concrete. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 387 (1989) Apostolos J A Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete by using metallized coatings and conduc- tive paints. Transportation Research Record 962, 22-29, (1985) ‘Apolstolos J A Progress report: cathodic protection using a metallic-sprayed anode. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas, NACE, 113-120, (1985) Apostolos J A, Parks D M and Carcllo RA Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete using metallised zinc. Materials Performance, 26(12), 12-21, (1987) Apostolos J A, Carello R A and Howell K M Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks, 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 113-120, (1985). Apostolos, Parks D M and Carello R A Cathodic protection using metallised zine. Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 168-181, (1987) Arup H Galvanic action of steel in concrete. Korrosionscentralen ATV, August (1977) Arup H Galvanized steel in concrete. Materials Performance, 18, 41-44, (1979) ‘Ashwood V and Googan CG Cathodic protection of concrete reinforcement. Corrosion Prevention and Control 34, 5-10, (1987) Bashenini M, Bhandari B M and Davies KG Trials of corrosion control procedures for underground reinforced concrete power manholes. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 389 (1989) Benedict RL Corrosion protection of concrete cylinder pipe. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 368 (1989) Bennett J Corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete and its prevention by cathodic protection. Anti-corrosion Methods and Materials, 33(11), 12-15, (1986) 6Bennett J E and Mitchell T Depolarisation testing of cathodically protected reinforcing steel in concrete. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 373 (1989) Berke N and Sundberg K ‘The effects of admixtures and concrete mix designs on long term concrete durability in concrete environments. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 386 (1989) Berkeley KG.C Recent developments in the cathodic protection of reinforced concrete structures. ‘The Failure and Repair of Corroded Reinforced Concrete Structures. Oyez, 49-58, (1981) Berkeley K GG Recent developments in the cathodic protection of reinforced concrete structures. ‘Symposium on International Corrosion and Protection Offshore. Paris 7/11 May (1979) Bijen J M Protection of steel in concrete. ‘Tijdschr. Opperviaktetech. Mat., 32 (2), 30-34, (1988) In Dutch Boam K, Impact of cathodie protection on civil engineer. Paper 22 presented at cathodic protection theory and practice, 2nd International Conference, Stratford-upon-Avon, June 1989. Broomfield J P, Langford P E and McAnoy R Cathodic protection for reinforced concrete: its application to buildings and marine structures. Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 222-235, (1987), Brown J P Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete using conductive coating anodes. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 156-158, (1985) Brown R P, Ragland J A and Berryman B Rehabilitation and cathodic protection of reinforced concrete in the chemical industry. Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 145-151, (1987) Brown RP What is the Corrosion Engincor’s Role Today? Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 375 (1989) Brown RP Fundamentals of cathodic protection. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 25-28, (1985) Cady PD A study of policies for the protection, repair, rehabilitation and replacement of con- ‘crete bridge decks. Department of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvanis Penn State University, 83pp (1981) Carassiti F et al. Cathodic protection of concrete reinforcing steel from chlorides. L'industria Italiana del Cemento, 52, 855-860, (1982)Chang GHC et Cathodic protection studies on reinforced concrete. California Department of Transportation. Microfiche FHWA/CA-TL 81/02, 97pp age1) Cherry B. Cathodic protection of buried prestressed concrete pipes Paper 25 presented at cathodic protection theory and practice, 2nd International Conference, Stratford-upon-Avon, June 1989. Cherry BW ‘Quantifying the conditions necessary for corrosion induced damage in reinforced concrete, Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 377 (1989) Cherry BW and Kashmiria AS Cathodic protection of steel embedded in porous concrete. British Corrosion J, 18, 194-199, (1983) Cherry B W and Price SM Cathodic protection of steel in concrete. Corrosion Science, 18, 1091-1094, (1978) Chou GK Cathodic protection: an emerging solution to the rebar corrosion problem, Concrete construction 29, 561pp, 563, 565, 566, (1984) Chou GK Rebar corrosion and cathodic protection. Wire Ind., 52(6), 359-360, (1985) Chou G K and Hoover KC Cathodic protection for prestressed structures. Concrete International Design and Construction 9, 26-30, January, (1987) Cigna R and Fumei O ‘On the cathodic protection of reinforcement bars in reinforced concrete. L'Industria Italiana del Cemento, 51, 595-600, (1981) Clear KC Gost effective rigid concrete construction and rehabilitation in adverse environments, FCP Annual Report. Year ending September 1981 Clear KC Growth and evolution of bridge deck cathodic protection. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texax. NACE, 55465, (1985) Clear KC Time to corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete slabs. Vol 4 Galvanized reinforcing steel. FHWA/RD-82/028 (1981) Clemena GG Electrically conductive Portland cement concrete, Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 9-10, (1987) Clemena GG A slotted cathodic protection system for bridge decks. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 89-103, (1985)Daily SF Results of an experimental cathodic protection installation using conductive coating systems, Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 145-151 (1987) De Rincon © T, De Carruyo AR and Garecia Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete structures by sacrificial anodes. Rev Tec Fac Ing Univ Zulia, 10 (1), 13-27, (1987) In Spanish. Deskins RL Cathodic protection of a mortar coated stect water distribution system. Materials Protection, 35-37, September (1966) Desking RL Cathodic protection requirements for concrete pipes. Materials Performance, 18,501,979) Drachnik KJ Application of a polymeric anode mesh for cathodic protection to a reinforced concrete structure. ASTM Special Technical Publication, 906, 31-42, (1986) Drachnik KJ and Kumar S Investigation of current distribution in cathodic protection of reinforced concrete structures - an experimental study. Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 152-158, (1987). Drake B Cathodic protection - a concrete answer to salt. Contract J, 22-25, September, (1986) Escalante E and Ito $ Aa bibliography onthe corosion and protection of sea! in concrete National Bureau of Standards. Special Publication, 550, (1979) Fairweather V Clearing the decks. Civil Engineering ASCE 55, 56-59, (1985) Fidjestol P and Nilsen N Field tests of reinforcement corrosion in concrete. Environments, 205-236, (1980) ACI SP65 Performance of Concrete in Fidjestol P, Ronning Band Roland BT Criteria for cover and crack control in the permanently wet part of marine concrete structures, Concrete in the Oceans, Phase Il, (1986). Fontana J J and Webster RP Electricaly conductive polymer-concrete overlays. Transportation Research Record 1041, 1-10, (1986). Fromm HJ Cathodic protection for concrete bridge restoration. Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Ontario. SP-81-01, 36pp (1981) Fromm HJ and Pianca F Evaluation of platinized niobium wire anodes for cathodic protection of bridge sup- ort structures. ‘ransportation Research Record, 860, 40-45, (1982) Fromm HJ Successful application of cathodic protection to a concrete bridge deck. ‘Transportation Research Record, 762, 9-13, (1980)Garrity KC Corrosion evaluation of two eighty year old concrete transit viaducts. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 369 (1989) Garrity KC Physical maintenance of cathodic protection systems for reinforced conerete bridge decks. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced eonerete bridge decks 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 141-149, (1985) Gjorv OE and Vennesland O Cathodic protection of steel in offshore concrete platforms. Corrosion 79. Paper 139 Atlanta (1979) Gjorv OE and Vennesland O Cathodic protection of stec! in offshore concrete platforms. Materials Performance, 19, 49-52, (1980) Grimaldi G and Languehard JC Experimental application of an electrochemical method of extracting chlorides from concrete Bull Liason Labo P and Ch No 143, May/June, 79-84, (1986) Hagen MG. ige deck deterioration and restoration - final report. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Microfiche FHWA/MN/RD-83/01 46pp 1982) Hall SC Cathodic protection of prestressing wire in concrete pipe. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 376 (1989) Halverson A D and Korfhage G R Bridge deck cathodic protestion using the strip and overiay systems Prockedingo of conference on cathode protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks, 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas, NACE, 104-112, (1985) Halverson A D and Korfhage GR Bridge deck rehabilitation by using cathodic protection with a low-slump concrete overlay. ‘Transportation Research Board 1041, 10-16, (1986) Halverson AD and Korfhage GR Cathodic protection of a four-lane divided continuously reinforced concrete pavement Transportation Research Record 1041, 16-23, (1986) Hartt W H and Brown R P Cathodic protection of steel in concrete. NACE Seminar. Solving rebar corrosion problems in concrete Chicago, September, 16/1-16/12, (1983) Hartt W H and Narayanan P ‘Assessment of prestressing stecl embrittlement by constant extension rate testing. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana, NACE Paper No 382 (1989) Hausmann D A Electrochemical behaviour of steel in concrete. ACI Journal, 61, 171-187, (1964) Hay RE and Virmani YP North American experience in concrete bridge deterioration and maintenance. Concrete bridges - investigation maintenance and repair. Concrete Society, ‘September, (1985). 66Hayfield PCS Corrosion prevention in concrete. The cathodic protection of reinforcing steel bars using platinized-type materials Platinum Metal Review, 30(4), 158-166, (1986) Heidersbach R H, et alia Foilure analysis of concrete structures. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 390 (1989) Hej J, John G and Sullivan R K Protection of the reinforced concrete seawater cooling systems at Jubail, Saudi Arabia. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 388 (1985) Heuze B Cathode protection on concrete offshore platforms. Materials Performance, 19, 24-38, May (1380) Hover KC Cathodic protection for reinforced concrete structures. ACI SP85, 175-208, (1985) Hull TJ Economic aspects of the corrosion problem. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 1-3, (1985) IbiN Current distribution. Comprehensive treatise of electrochemistry. Vol 16, chapter 4, edited by Yeage E, Bockris SOM, Conway B F and Sarangapani S. Plenum, (1983) Jackson D R ‘The cost/benefit of cathodic protection for reinforced concrete bridge decks. Corrosion ‘82, NACE Houston (1962) John DG, Davies K G, Leppard N W and Messham MR Corrosion of reinforced concrete marine structures in the Middle East and options for control. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisians. NACE Paper No 623 (1989) John DG and Messham MR. Design and specification of cathodic protection for reinforced concrete. Paper 24 presented at cathodic protection theory and practice, 2nd International Conference, Stratford-upon-Aven, June 1989 Juchniewiez R , Walaszkowski J , Bohdanowicz W and Widuchowski A Operational problems of impressed current cathode protection anodes fainz, 2, 1008-1013, (1981) Jurach PJ ‘An evaluation of the effectiveness of cathodic protection on seven bridge decks. California Department of Transportation. Microfiche FHWA/CA/SD-80/1 169pp agai) Katawaki K Cathodic protection of reinforcing steel in concrete. Transactions of the Japan Concrete Institute, 3, 127-132, (1981) Kessler RT and Powers RG Cathodic protection of concrete bridge substructures in a marine environment. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 374 (1989) oKing RA , Nabizadeh H and Ross TK Corrosion Prevention and Control, 31, April 11-13, (1977) Korthage GR Cathodic protection of continuously reinforced concrete pavement. Transportation Research Record, 860, 36-40, (1982) Kotowski §, Busse B and Bedel R Titanium anodes for the cathodic corrosion prevention of steel reinforcements in concrete. Metall, 42 (2), 133-140, In German Kroon D H Cathodic protection apparatus and method for steel reinforced concrete structures. US Patent No 4255, 241, 12pp (1981) Kunjapur MM Cathodic protection of a reinforced concrete bridge substructure using conductive paint system anodes. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 371 (1989) Lankard DR, Clear K C and Schull T Cathodic protection for overhead construction. Concrete Construction 32, 193-195, February, (1987) Lankes J B Cathodic protection of reinforcing bars. Journal ACI 73, 191-192, (1976) Lehmann J A Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete structures. Materials Performance, 26(12), 79-81, (1987) Lehmann J A Cathodic protection for concrete structures (other than bridge decks). Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks, 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 150-155, (1985) Louzier M Contribution a Vetude de la protection cathodique des conduites en beton arme. Corrosion et Anticorrosion, 11, 325-329, (1963) Manning D Gand Bye DH Bridge decks rehabilitation manual. Part 2: Contract preparation Ontatio Ministry of Transportation and Communication, SPO16, 21pp, (1988) Manning D G, Clear K C and Scholl HC Cathodie protection of bridge substructures: Burlington Bay Skyway test site, design and construction phases. ‘Transportation Research Record 962, 29-97, (1985) Manning DG and Ryell J Decision criteria for the rchabilitation of concrete bridge decks. Transportation Research Record, 762, 1-9, (1980) Manning D G and Schell H.C Early performance of eight experimental cathodic protection systems at the Burlington Bay Skyway test site p s Transportation Research Record 1041, 23-32, (1986) Manning D G and Schell HC Cathodie protection of bridges. ‘ACI SP93, 585-608, (1986) 68Manson J A, Slutter R G, Vanderhoff J W , Cady PW and Weyers RE Long-term rehabilitation of salt contaminated bridge decks. NCHRP Project 18-26). Transportation Research Board 300pp (1982) Martin BL and Bennett J E ‘An activated titanium mesh anode for the cathodic protection of reinforcing steel in concret Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 255-264, (1987) McKay WB Cathodic protection of offshore structures. Civil Engineering, pp 36, 38, 39, 4, January, (1980) McKenzie SG Techniques for monitoring corrosion of steel in concrete. Corrosion Protection and Control, 11-15 February, (1987) Miller FH Cathodic protection of stee! in concrete. Bibliography CACA, (1985) Mudd CJ et al New developments in mixed metal oxide activated net for cathodic protection of stel inconcrete, Proceedings ofa conference symposium on corrosion of highway bridges. XP April, New Orleans, Loulslans. NACE Paper No 168 (1989) Nicholson J P Current output of a cathodic protection system as related to concrete moisture content, Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 383 (1989) Nicholson J P New approach to cathodic protection of bridge decks and concrete structures. ‘Transportation Research Record, 762, 13-17, (1980) Ormsby WC Bridge maintenance and corrosion protection. FCP annual progress report. Project 5Q. Year ending September, (1984) Ormsby WC Bridge maintenance and corrosion protection. FCP annual progress report. Project 5Q. Year ending September, (1985) PageCL. Corrosion and corrosion control of steel in concrete. Paper 21 presented at cathodic ffotslgn tory and pracce, 2nd International Conference, Stratford-upon-Avor june 1989. Perenchio W F, Landgren J R, West RE and Clear KC Cathodic protection of concrete bridge substructures. NCHRP Report 278. Transportation Research Board, 60pp, (1985) Phillips D K Bridge deterioration: statement of problem. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 4-10, (1985) Pianca F Solar power for cathodic protection of bridge decks. ‘Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communication. MSP-82-05, 26pp (1982) Pithouse K B Cathodic protection steel reinforcement Civil engineering, August 37-41, (1986) oPithouse K B The cathodic protection of stecl reinforcement in concrete. Bahrain Society of Engineers (CIRIA), 2, 201-217, (1986) Pithouse K B Cathodic protection of steel reinforcement in concrete. Corrosion Prevention Control, 33 (5), 113-119, (1986) Pithouse K A review of cathodic protection systems currently available to combat rebar corrosion caused by chloride ingress in concrete. Anti corrosion Methods and Materials, 34 (8), 12-13, (1987) Pourbaix M Applications of electrochemistry in corrosion science and in practice. Corrosion Science, 14, 25-82, (1974) Pressley D W Grid densities of structure to electrolyte potentials as compared to ASTM-876. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 384 (1989) Ravindrarajah R and Ong K Corrosion of steel in concrete in relation to bar diameter and cover thickness. ACI, SP 100, 1667-1677, (1987) Robinson RC Cathodic protection of steel in concrete. ACI SP49, 83-93, (1975) Robinson RC Design of reinforced concrete structures for corrosive environments. Materials Protection and Performance, 11, 15-19, (1972) Rog J W et alia Cathodic protection prevents corrosion damage on reinforced concrete parking structures Parking, Winter, 65-68, (1982) Rog J W and Swiat WJ Guidelines for selection of cathodic protection systems for reinforced concrete Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 246-254, (1987) Roper H Reinforcement for concrete structures subject to fatigue. TABSE Colloquium, Lausanne, 239-245, (1982) Scannell W T and Hartt WH Cathodic polarisation and fracture property evaluation of a pretensioned steel tendon in concrete. Materials Performance, 26 (12), 12-21, (1987) Scannell W T and Hartt WH Cathodic polarization and fracture property evaluation of a pretensioned tendon in concrete. Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California, NACE, 86-98, (1987) Schell HC Research direction in corrosion protection for reinforced concrete - Ontario Ministry of, Transportation. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 385, (1989) nm‘Schell HC, Manning D G and Clear KC Cathodic protection of bridge substructures: Burlington Bay Skyway test site, performance of systems 1104 ‘ransportation Research Record 962, 38-50, (1985) ‘Schiessl P Influence of the composition of concrete on the corrosion protection of the reinforcement, ACL, SP100, 1633-1650, (1987) Schmidt W, Greuner E and Gressman R Cathodic protection of reinforcing steel. Korr Figy patentanmeld 1 Jan (1987) In English ‘Schutt KC Cathodic protection applied to bridge decks. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 46-54, (1985) Schutt WR, Practical Corrosion speriances with bridge deck cathodic protection, '8. Paper 74, Houston (1978) Simon PD Status report on the development of a field instrument using the polarisation resist- ance method for measuring the corrosion rate of corrosion of reinforcing steel in ‘concrete. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 380 (1989) Slater J E, Lankard DR and Moreland PJ Electrochemical removal of chloride from bridge decks. Transportation Research Record, 604, 6-15, (1976) Iman DL and Stratfull R F ‘orrosion control of steel in concrete. California Department of Transportation. Microfiche FHWA/CA-77-5352-76-40, 43pp, (1976) Stratfall RE Experimental cathodic protection ofa bridge deck California Department of Transportation Janvary (1974) Stratfull RF Criteria for the cathodic protection of bridge decks. Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrote Construction. Society of Chemical Industry, 287-331, (1983) Tanner FE Corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete. Schweitz Ing Archit, 105 (16), 432-435, (1987) In German. ‘Thalman EH Cathodic protection against corrosion Consulting Engineer, 19, 122-126, (1961) ‘Thompson N G, Lawson K M and Beavers J A. Monitoring cathodically protected concrete structures with electrochemical impedance techniques. Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 182-199, (1987) Tinnea Pre-design considerations for cathodic protection of reinforced concrete structures. Proceedings of conference on cathodic protection of reinforced concrete bridge decks. 12/13 February, San Antonio, Texas. NACE, 121-130, (1985)Tracy RG Cathodic protection for continuously reinforced conerete pavement ‘Transportation Research Record, 762, 17-22, (1980) Minnesota. ‘Transportation Research Board Rehabilitation and replacement of bridges on secondary highways and local roads. NCHRP Report 243 (1982) Unz M Cathodic protection of prestressed concrete pipe. Corrosion, 16, 123-131, (1960) Van der Wegen GJ L and Polder R B Cathodic protection of reinforcing stec! in concrete, Cement, 40 (6), 21-27, (1989) Vassie P Reinforcement corrosion and the durability of concrete bridges Proceedings of Institution Civil Engineers, 76, 12-723, 1984), Vassie P Reinforcement corrosion and the durability of concrete bridges - Discussion. Proceedings Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1, 78, 1253-1256, (1985) Vassie P Corrosion of reinforcement and assessment of twelve concrete bridges after 50 years. TRRL Research Report 78, (1986) Vrable J B Cathodic protection for reinforcing steel in concrete. ASTM STP 629 Chloride Corrosion of Stecl in Concrete, 124-149, (1977) Vrable J B Cathodic protection for reinforced concrete bridge decks: laboratory phase. NCHRP Report 180. Transportation Research Board, 135pp (1977) Vrable J B and Wilde BE Electrical-potential requirements for cathodic protection of steel in simulated concrete environments. Corrosion, 36, 18-23, (1980) Virmani YP Corrosion protection and bridge maintenance FCP Annual Progress Report. Project 5Q. Year ending September 1983 Virmani Y P Cost effective rigid concrete construction and rehabilitation in adverse environments. FCP Annual Progress Report. Project 4K. Year ending September 1982 Virmani Y P and Clear KC Time to corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete. Vol 5. Federal Highways Administration. FHWA/RD-83/102, September, (1983) Ward PM Cathodic protection: a user's perspective. ASTM STP 629, 150-163, (1976) Warne MA Use of embedded coated titanium mesh anodes in the cathodic protection of rebars in concrete, Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete. 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 372 (1989) Waubke NV Corrosion prevention of underground pipelines of steel and steel-reinforced concrete. ‘VDI-BEr 653 263-83 (1988) In German nWeed R M Evaluation of several bridge deck protective systems. New Jersey State Dept of Transportation. FHWA/N}-1/003. Report 81-003-7783 August (1980) Wheat HG An investigation of the effect of the cathode area/anode area in the corrosion of steel in concrete. Proceedings of conference on corrosion of metals in concrete. 9/10 March, San Francisco, California. NACE, 25-29, (1987) Whites A Erectrochemical censors to monitor the corrosion of reinforcing stel in concrete Proceedings ofa conference symposium on corrosion of highway bridges, 17 April, New Orleans, Louisiana, NACE Paper No 124 (1389), Whiting D , Perenchio W F and Stark D A galvanized cathodic protection system for reinforced concrete bridge decks - interim results. Corrosion ‘79. Paper 137, Atlanta (1979) Wilde BE and Williams E The use of current/voltage curves for the study of localised corrosion and passivity breakdown on stainless steels in chloride media, Electrochimica Acta, 16, 1971-1985, (1971) Wiley RE Conductive cathodic protection compositions and methods ‘Ausz. Eur. Patentanmeld 1 Jan (1987) In English Wyatt BS. Anodes for concrete - old and new. Paper 23 presented at cathodic protection theory and practice, 2nd International Conference, Stratford-upon-Avon, June 1989 Wyatt BS and Irvine DJ A Teview of eathodic protection of reinforced concrete Materials Performance, 26 (12), 22-28, (1987) Wyatt BS and Irvine D J Cathodic protection of reinforced concrete. Proceedings of a conference on cathodic protection, Corrosion Science and Materials Selection. 17-19 Nov, Birmingham UK, Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology Vol 2, 17°38, (1986). Wyatt BS and Lothian A Dunoon RO/RO facility: cathodic protection engineering and economic factors in selection, installation and operation. Proceedings of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete 18/19 April, New Orleans, Louisiana, NACE Paper No 378 (1989) Wyers RE and Cady PD Cathodic protection of bridge decks. ACI Journal, 618-622, (1984) Zayed A and Sagour A A 18 of epoxy coated stecl in concrete. 1gs of a conference symposium on corrosion of metals in concrete 18/19 ‘April, New Orleans, Louisiana. NACE Paper No 379 (1989)