IMPRESSED CURRENT CATHODIC PROTECTION:

A CORROSION MITIGATION TECHNIQUE

FOR T RANSITIONAL S TEEL ­F RAME

MASONRY­CLAD BUILDINGS

GINA L. CREVELLO AND

PAUL A. NOYCE

ECHEM CONSULTANTS LLC

72 Boodle Hole Road, Accord, NY 12404

Phone: 845­626­1205 • E­mail: gcrevello@e2chem.com

SYMPOSIUM ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012 CREVELLO • 39

ABSTRACT

Impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) has been used to mitigate corrosion damage in historic steel-frame
buildings since the early 1990s. This specific application of the technology originates from its use in concrete (1970s);
however, the discovery of cathodic protection dates to 1824.
The process of ICCP is the intentional application of current to a corroding piece of steel through an electrolyte. As
a redox reaction, oxidation and reduction occur simultaneously. The anodic reaction or oxidation is the loss of elec-
trons, which causes the steel to revert to rust. The volume of the rust can be as great as ten times the amount of steel
section loss. The accumulation of scale damages the exterior masonry cladding where the tensile forces of the corrosion
are greater than the masonry can withstand. Prior to large-scale losses and cracking, minor damages become appar-
ent, such as hairline cracking and open joints.
Simultaneous to this anodic reaction is the reduction reaction at the cathode site. The cathode reaction is harm-
less, and the cathode gains electrons that have been lost at the anode site. The electrons pass from the anode as ionic
current through the masonry, moisture, or mortar electrolyte to the cathode site. The electrons return to the anode site
as electrical current, creating a full circuit. This reaction is the basis of cathodic protection, whereby the corrosion cell
is controlled, thus limiting damage to historic building fabric and providing a life extension to steel-frame structures.
The presentation will discuss corrosion reactions, investigative procedures, design challenges, and installation
requirements to help the audience understand the applicability of this technique as a means of corrosion control.
The paper will cover the steel-frame construction, corrosion onset, corrosion reactions, and installation and design
requirements needed for successful installations, as well as case studies.

SPEAKER
GINA L. CREVELLO — ECHEM CONSULTANTS LLC

GINA CREVELLO is the principal of Echem Consultants. She was professionally trained in architectural materials
conservation, having studied at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture Planning and Preservation.
Upon completing her master’s of science, she completed the postgraduate certificate in Conservation of Historic
Buildings and Sites as the program’s first graduate. Crevello has 15 years experience in building diagnostics, with seven
years of experience in electrochemical treatments and corrosion engineering. Now she exclusively focuses on corrosion
failures of steel-frame and reinforced-concrete structures and material degradation. This work includes corrosion diag-
nostics, nondestructive testing, life cycle assessments, durability engineering, and electrochemical remediation.
Crevello has been involved with the majority of installed impressed current cathodic protection systems on land-
mark structures in the U.S. to date. Her work has included iconic structures, such as the Guggenheim Museum and
the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

NONPRESENTING COAUTHOR
PAUL A. NOYCE — ECHEM CONSULTANTS LLC

Paul Noyce is vice president and chief electrochemist for Electro Tech CP, LLC. Paul is professionally trained in elec-
trical and electronic engineering from the University of Bristol and received a diploma in electrochemistry 1991. He has
since been practicing corrosion engineering, and is regarded as a pioneer in the field of concrete and steel-frame cor-
rosion diagnostics and electrochemical corrosion remediation. Noyce was instrumental in the first use of ICCP for her-
itage structures in both the United Kingdom and the United States and has extensive experience in galvanic cathodic
protection, electro-osmotic pulse, concrete realkalization, and electrochemical chloride extraction. He has been an advi-
sor on and designed electrochemical treatments for one-of-a-kind landmarks such as the Cutty Sark Clipper Ship, the
Thames Barrier, and Uxbridge Station. His traditional work includes transportation, civil, and industrial structures.
Noyce has designed and provided engineering oversight on the largest industrial and heritage ICCP protection systems
to be installed in the U.S to date. Noyce is chairman of NACE Committee NACE TG044 – (SP0290) Impressed Current
Cathodic Protection of Reinforcing Steel in Atmospherically Exposed Concrete, NACE TG460 – Testing and Evaluation
of Corrosion on Steel-Framed Buildings; vice chair of NACE TG048 – (SP0408) Reinforced Concrete Cathodic Protection
of Underground or Underwater Elements; and a member of NACE STG01 Reinforced Concrete, NACE TG047 – Sacrificial
Cathodic Protection of Reinforced Concrete Elements, NACE TG043X – Reinforced Concrete Cathodic Protection, ACI
201- Guide to Durable Concrete, ACI 365 – Service Life Prediction, and ACI 563 – Evaluation, Repair and Rehabilitation
of Concrete Buildings.

40 • C REVELLO SYMPOSIUM ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012

 IMPRESSED CURRENT CATHODIC PROTECTION:

A CORROSION MITIGATION TECHNIQUE

FOR T RANSITIONAL S TEEL ­F RAME

MASONRY­CLAD BUILDINGS

INTRODUCTION masonry, or surface moisture as an elec- struction could be from 1) the use of deicing
The use of impressed current cathodic trolyte through which corrosion current salts at the sidewalk, thereby only affecting
protection has been employed on masonry- flows. The corrosion reaction will be depen- the base; 2) marine mist, affecting coastal
clad steel-frame heritage buildings since the dent upon various elements: oxygen, mois- buildings; and 3) the use of calcium chlo-
mid-1990s. The work originated out of ture, chlorides, and temperature, to name a rides or other curing agents used in “winter”
England, when the Department of the few. To halt the corrosion reaction, the envi- construction. These would most likely be
Environment, English Heritage, and ronment or the reaction must be changed. found in concrete floors or roof slabs tied
Historic Scotland sought alternative treat- The conceptual aspect of the ICCP as into a steel frame.
ments to large-scale stripping of “listed”1 applied to historic buildings is the same as To control corrosion, the anode, the
steel-frame heritage buildings for corrosion when ICCP is applied to reinforcing steel in cathode, or the environment must be con-
mitigation. This endeavor employed the concrete. Construction details and cladding trolled. If the steel cannot be protected by a
knowledge base used by the corrosion engi- materials differ, though the corrosion barrier (coating), corrosion will occur in the
neering community. Applicable investigative process is the same. It is most often a gen- presence of oxygen and moisture. To paint
methods and electrochemical treatments eral carbonation-related (drop in pH), the steel, significant amounts of masonry
traditionally used for corrosion of reinforc- atmospheric corrosion reaction that affects are required to be removed. As this further
ing steel in concrete were studied over a steel-frame construction. damages landmarked buildings and expen-
three-year period. The results were the first Chlorides are very important as corro- sive cladding, ICCP was tested for its use in
use of impressed current cathodic protec- sion accelerants. While chlorides have the steel-frame construction.
tion (ICCP) for steel frames embedded in ability to break down the oxide layer and Cathodic protection is the intentional
masonry structures. cause accelerated reactions, they are not a application of DC current to the steel. This
Steel embedded in a highly alkaline primary cause of steel-frame corrosion. The provides electrons from an external source.
environment, such as new mortar or con- presence of chlorides in steel-frame con- This is called the anode. Thus, the anodic
crete, is in a “passive” state and protected
by the formation of an oxide layer.
Additionally, steel is “immune” from corro-
sion at specific voltages, e.g., -500 mV vs.
standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) for steel
in an aqueous solution. Pourbaix diagrams
can help better explain the relationship of
pH vs. Eh (voltage) and its significance to
corrosion, immunity, and passivity of steel
within a specific environment, as seen in
Figure 1.
The onset of corrosion of steel in a mor-
tar/concrete electrolyte occurs after the
passive oxide layer breaks down. The
breakdown of the oxide layer occurs
through a neutralizing reaction with carbon
dioxide, called carbonation, which lowers
the concrete pH.2 As moisture and oxygen
enter the concrete matrix at cracks in the
concrete or through diffusion, corrosion ini-
tiation has begun. A corrosion reaction gen-
erates a chemical change as well as an elec-
trical potential change (electrochemical).
The electrochemical reaction that occurs at
the steel surface utilizes the backup mortar, Figure 1 – Pourbaix diagram for steel in an aqueous environment.

SYMPOSIUM ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012 CREVELLO • 41

 Figure 2 – 1884 Home Insurance Building, Chicago, IL,
since demolished. Architect William Le Barron Jenney.
Source: Library of Congress, Chicago Architectural
Photographing Company.

Figure 3 – 1889 Rand McNally Building, Chicago, IL,

early steel-framed building demolished in 1911.
Architects Burnham and Root. Source: Birds Eye
View and Guide to Chicago, Rand McNally.

nology were the cladding, as well as damages (i.e., loss of

reaction at the steel’s surface is halted, and
the entire steel frame becomes the cathode,
which is the harmless hydroxyl-generating
reaction. Like the corrosion cell, the electro-
chemical treatment requires both the anod-
ic and cathodic reactions to occur simulta-
neously. This reaction, key to the concept of
cathodic protection, is that steel is flooded
with electrons. The voltage or potential of
the steel is being pushed into immunity.
The steel will not corrode while it is in this
state.
Since its inception in 1824 by Sir
Humphry Davy, the use of cathodic protec-
tion3 has grown to include ships’ hulls; tank
bases; pipelines; reinforcing steel in con-
crete in bridges, docks, cooling towers, and
balconies; and, more recently, as a corro-
sion mitigation technique for historic steel-
frame buildings.
Historic Construction
The use of masonry surrounding the
steel in historic building construction was
meant to provide fireproofing to the steel
frame. These changes in construction tech-
result of numerous
devastating fires that
struck cities around
the country. These include, but are not lim-
ited to, the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and
the Great Boston Fire of 1872. Both confla-
grations caused significant loss of life, as
well as the loss of wooden civil and residen-
tial structures. As a consequence, the fires
were catalysts for change in construction
technology that emerged out of the late
1800s.4
Steel-frame systems utilize the frame to
bear the load of the structure. For fireproof-
ing purposes, the masonry was tightly built
around the steel, encasing the entire frame.
This could either be terra cotta or brick or a
combination of both. The decorative façade
cladding was built around this backup
material. The exterior cladding and mason-
ry were either keyed into the structure
through “header” courses of masonry or tied
back with an anchoring system, which was
often the case with terra cotta. In many
instances, the backup or infill (electrolyte) is
loose, deteriorated, or poorly constructed.
The condition and relation of the backup
materials to the steel frame can have a
bearing on future damages to the exterior
section, scale, oxide jacking) to the steel.
Early examples of steel-frame buildings can
be seen in Figures 2 and 3; both have since
been demolished.
Background
Corrosion problems in early steel-
framed buildings were inherent due to the
nature of early designs. Unlike modern
buildings, which utilize cavity wall con-
struction to prevent moisture from collect-
ing on the steel surface, early buildings had
their external masonry tightly notched
around the steelwork with cavities and
voids crudely infilled with mortar, bricks, or
other porous rubble. This type of construc-
tion enabled moisture to collect within the
masonry (or infill material), which is in con-
tact with the steel, making the initiation of
corrosion inevitable.
The steel frame was rarely protected
against corrosion. Engineers and architects
of the time considered that the stone
cladding, which often exceeded a thickness
of 6 in., would prevent moisture ingress and
prevent corrosion problems.
The earliest guidance5 covering steel
frames specified minimal methods of corro-
sion protection such as coating the steel

42 • CREVELLO SYMPOSIUM ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012

with boiled oil, tar, or
paint. The act also
states, “Where metal
work is embedded or
encased in brickwork,
terracotta, stone, tiles,
or other incombustible
matter, one coat of
Portland cement of
adequate consistency
can be applied in lieu
of coats of oil, tar, or
paint.” As this was the
cheapest option and
was equivalent to infill-
ing the voids between
the steel and stone
with mortar, this treat-
ment became the norm
for early buildings.
Unfortunately, the
assumption that the
external cladding
would prevent mois-
ture ingress and corro-
sion problems was not
true. Sufficient levels
of moisture for corro- Figure 4 – Corrosion-related cracking where backup masonry is in intimate contact with the steel
sion easily penetrated frame.
the façade through the
various routes described below: remaining steel-frame building stock attests ed degree of protection would have occurred
• Directly through porous cladding to durability of well-maintained steel-frame at the time of construction through the nat-
materials structures. ural passivation of the steel in an alkaline
• Through open or degraded mortar Steel-frame construction is prone to environment. However, after a period of
joints deterioration based on the availability of time, the protective qualities of these envi-
• Through faulty, damaged, or degrad- oxygen and moisture to the steel frame. As ronments would be lost due to the natural
ed services such as cracked rainwa- the building cracks in its early life—perhaps process of carbonation. Therefore, as a gen-
ter downspouts and gutters and due to settlement, thermal dynamics, or eral assumption, it can be stated that a
through damaged asphalt coverings general movement—the damage is not short period exists when the steelwork
and flat roofing corrosion-related. Over time, oxygen and remains protected against corrosion.
moisture can penetrate through the cracks The time period for protection through
Unlike reinforced concrete, the steel in of the masonry and electrolyte encasing the passivation is difficult to assess due to the
masonry-clad steel-frame buildings can steel. Where mortar is surrounding the variability in construction and designs of
have a slower onset of corrosion-related steel, it will carbonate, as with concrete, the time. However, it is reasonable to make
deterioration. General atmospheric corro- and have a lower pH than when the struc- the following assumptions:
sion caused by the onset of carbonation and ture was initially built. This leaves the steel 1. The average cover of a mortar infill is
exposure to oxygen and moisture primarily in an environment where it is neither pas- 10-40mm.
affect steel-framed structures. In most early sive (i.e., encased in an alkaline environ- 2. The mortar will have very similar
skyscrapers and steel-framed buildings, ment) nor immune (at a voltage level where properties to a C10 concrete.
general age-related deterioration of the steel it will be protected). 3. The environment in which the mor-
frame is exhibited by cracking on the As the corrosion process begins to accel- tar exists is ideal for carbonation.
cladding after 60 to 80 years.6 There are erate, the tensile forces exerted by the
recorded incidents of buildings exhibiting expansive corrosion scale, crack, and dam- Making the above assumptions, the
corrosion-related failures early on in the age the masonry cladding. See Figure 4. time for carbonation can be estimated using
building’s life. This was the subject of much the general equation:
debate at the turn of the century. Architect Corrosion Onset Carbonation = (d/k)2 where:
George Post discussed corrosion-related As steelwork was generally embedded in d = Cover
failures as early as 1895,7 when steel-frame low-quality, poorly compacted mortar and k = Constant (mm/yr. ½) = 7 to 10
technology was in its infancy. However, the concrete (or coated with OPC wash), a limit- for a C10 concrete

SYMPOSIUM ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012 CREVELLO • 43


Figure 5 – Carbonated mortar backup.
Therefore, using the above, the time in
which carbonation will occur and loss of
corrosion protection is approximately
between 16 and 32 years. See Figure 5.
Following the onset of corrosion, the
rate of corrosion is initially dominated by
the resistivity of the stonework or mortar in
contact with the steelwork. However, the
situation changes as the corrosion process
proceeds and a layer of corrosion product
(iron oxide) forms on the steel surface. Iron
oxide generally has a significantly lower
resistivity than that of the surrounding
masonry; the rate of corrosion can be
expected to accelerate as rust forms on the
steel surface.
For corrosion to occur, it is essential
that oxygen and water are present.
Unfortunately, oxygen is always present,
and the levels of moisture required to sup-
port corrosion are relatively low. It is gener-
ally found that moisture content of 2% by
weight of the masonry or mortar in contact
with the steel will support significant corro-
sion. A moisture level of less than 2% is dif-
ficult to achieve by waterproofing measures,
and it is unlikely that the environment can
be significantly altered to halt corrosion.
Additionally, once a layer of iron oxide
exists on the steel surface, the environment
changes and it is possible for corrosion
rates to accelerate.
As the level of moisture cannot be con-
44 • C R E V E L L O SYMPOSIUM
profile pits
trolled to a suitable level to prevent corro-
sion, only two practical methods of treat-
ment are possible:
1. Treat the steel and change the envi-
ronment.
2. Electrochemically halt the corrosion
process.
An Introduction to Cathodic Protection
In a steel-framed building, it is both
impractical and expensive to remove the
thick outer cladding to enable the treatment
of corrosion by methods such as painting or
concrete encasement. As such, corrosion
engineers have been steadily developing the
use of cathodic protection (CP) techniques
for these structures. The use of CP technol-
ogy is highly applicable to steel-framed
structures that are analogous to carbonat-
ed concrete buildings for which CP is now a
proven repair technique. CP offers many
benefits over traditional repairs, requiring
less masonry replacement and including
substantial cost savings, which is vital to
the preservation of listed buildings.
CP techniques are directly applicable to
steel-framed, masonry-clad buildings by
virtue of the mortar and masonry contact
between the steelwork and cladding, which
acts as a suitable electrolyte to conduct the
protective current to the corroding steel-
work.
The corrosion of steel in cement-based
ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012
materials is an electrochemical process.
Dissolution of steel (oxidation reaction) lib-
erates electrons and forms anodic sites.
Fe Fe2 + 2e-
In order to maintain charge neutrality, a
reduction reaction occurs at an adjacent
area called the cathode:
½ O2 + H2O + 2e- 2 OH-
The oxidation reaction is the first step in
the process of forming rust. It is initiated
where acidic conditions on the steel surface
(resulting from carbonation) are sustained
within the incipient anodic sites and result
in lowering the steel potential locally. This
causes an electrical potential difference
between the incipient anodes and the adja-
cent cathodic areas and results in current
flow between them. Subsequently, corro-
sion of steel proceeds when the following
conditions are maintained:
1. Acidity or lower pH within surface
2. Lower potential within the surface
profile pits
3. Electrical potential difference
between the anodic and cathodic
areas
Both oxidation and reduction reactions
occur simultaneously, and the corrosion
rate is reduced and/or stopped when one of
these reactions is controlled and/or ceased.
As the conditions are mostly ideal for both
oxidation and reduction reactions, external
control is required.
To stop the corrosion process, the anod-
ic reaction must be suppressed. CP arrests
the corrosion process by
1. Lowering the steel potential in the
negative direction to a level at which
an oxidation reaction cannot recur
2. Lowering the electrical potential dif-
ference between the anodic and
cathodic areas
3. Generating alkalinity at the steel
surface as a result of reduction reac-
tions
4. Removing aggressive ions, such as
chlorides, from the steel surface.
Feasibility of Cathodic Protection for
Steel­Framed Buildings
There are several important factors that
must be assessed before concluding that CP
is a viable option for a steel-framed building:
• Continuity of the steel frame, fix-
ings, and other metallic items
 • Contact between steel and mortar
• Current distribution (controlled by
mortar and stone resistivity)
• Location of anodes (joint details and
steel work detailing)
• Aesthetic constraints (installation
details)
Each of these items, as explained in the
following paragraphs, is assessed during a
site evaluation. While cathodic protection is
a viable solution to arrest steel-frame corro-
sion, it is not suitable for every structure. A
thorough analysis involving corrosion con-
dition testing and feasibility trials, and a
thorough understanding of details and pre-
vious repairs are required prior to moving
forward to a design.
Continuity
Early 20th-Century steel-frame build-
ings contain a large variety of metallic ele-
ments in their construction. Typical details
often include at least two of the following
items and often more:
• Steel beams and columns
• Fixings that are bronze, iron, steel,
or galvanized steel
• Iron, steel, galvanized steel, or
bronze cramps between stone ele-
ments
• Steel reinforcement bars hooked
over the top flanges of spandrel
beams in concrete floor construction
• Small steel reinforcement wires con-
nected to the top and bottom flanges
of beams to form a cage for the con-
crete encasement of the inner faces
of steel beams
• Chicken wire meshes to aid in the
internal works such as concreting
and plastering
• Cast-iron rainwater downspouts
and copper water pipes
Failure to ensure the electrical continu-
ity of all metallic elements in a steel-framed
building can result in stray current interac-
tions among the various elements of the
structure, resulting in accelerated corrosion
of discontinuous items. The importance of
electrical continuity is well-established in
concrete CP, and early investigations and
site trials have shown the importance of elec-
trical continuity in steel-framed buildings.
Ensuring electrical continuity of the
steel-frame, stonework, and masonry fix-
ings and reinforcement bars is, therefore,
an essential element to the application of
SYMPOSIUM ON B U I L D I N G E N V E L O P E T E C H N O L O G Y • O C T O B E R 2 0 1 2 CREVELLO •
cathodic protection systems for steel-
framed buildings. Designers and engineers
involved with the development of steel-
framed buildings should therefore be fully
acquainted with
• All common design details
• Historical methods of building con-
struction
• Testing and inspection methods for
checking continuity and the identifi-
cation of discontinuous metallic
items
Electrolyte
Corrosion prevention in historic steel-
framed buildings is possible by cathodic
protection techniques since the protective
current can be passed through the
stonework or masonry via a mortar or con-
crete connection with the steel frame.
Although details often exist of the steel and
masonry layout, knowledge of the mortar or
concrete connection between the two ele-
ments is not always known. It is often found
that the quality and consistency of the mor-
tar infill between the steel-frame and
masonry façade is highly variable. The mor-
tar infill contains large voids and, in certain
circumstances, is completely absent. This is
particularly true for regions of the façade
that would have been difficult to fill during
construction, such as behind the stonework
of window heads, etc. As the mortar infill is
essential for ensuring the passage of the
protective current to the steel beam, it is
vitally important to ensure adequate con-
sideration for voids in any CP design.
Knowledge of historic building construc-
tion methods is essential when establishing
the possibility of voids. Expert knowledge of
steel-frame construction enables a rapid
risk assessment of voids and enables areas
requiring further inspection to be pinpoint-
ed. Following risk assessments and inspec-
tion, it is often reasonable to make one of
the following choices:
1. A large, consistent void exists
(greater than 25mm) in which corro-
sion rates are minimal and protec-
tion is not required.
2. A large void exists in which corro-
sion is occurring at a significant rate
and treatment is required. The void-
ed cavity must therefore be grouted
to ensure protection.
3. Small voids exist (less than 10mm)
in which corrosion has occurred.
Resistivity
The resistivity of most masonry materi-
als is in a suitable range for the application
of cathodic protection when containing
more than 2% moisture by weight. However,
as with any porous material, it is important
to understand the behavior of moisture con-
tent on resistivity. Most masonry materials
have resistivity that exceeds 1MΩ.cm when
moisture contents fall below 2%; therefore,
the placement of anodes and rating of power
supply output voltage must be correctly
chosen to ensure adequate protection of the
steelwork.
Particular care is required when design-
ing CP systems for use in materials such as
terra cotta, faience, and glazed bricks. In
these materials, the glazing or fire skin layer
will effectively act as an insulator, making it
impossible to throw protective currents to
the steel surface. Protection is possible,
however, if the anode materials are made to
contact the underlying porous material
beyond the surface layer. To ensure effec-
tive contact, anode materials must be laid
directly within the main body of the mason-
ry block work. In the case of listed or land-
marked buildings, it is essential that dam-
age to the façade is not incurred during the
installation of anode materials and that the
outward appearance remains unaltered.
CATHODIC PROTECTION MATERIALS
Anodes
A number of anodes are applicable in
the protection of steel-framed buildings.
However, the most suitable types are dis-
crete rod anodes. These can either be
ceramic- or titanium-coated, with a mixed-
metal oxide coating. Expanded mesh probe
anodes are particularly useful for insertion
into the backup masonry at the fine jointing
of stonework and the mortar joints of brick-
work. Theses anodes are generally installed
using a specialized cathodic-protection
grout, which is then pointed over using tra-
ditional masonry pointing techniques. All of
the anodes are installed and interconnected
with a feeder wire. The anodes are then ter-
minated at the positive terminal of the DC
power supply unit.
As all exterior components are installed
within the backup and never through the
façade stone, the particular advantages of
this system are
• The anodes are not visible.
• Anodes can be installed using stan-
dard grouting and masonry pointing
techniques at the time of external
45

Figure 6 – ICCP schematic.
repairs.
• Anodes are usually situated parallel
to beam and columns.
• There is minimal internal disturbance.
Cathodes
While anodes are installed to provide
electrons to the steel, the areas of the steel
frame targeted for treatment become the
cathode. Wire connections to the steel frame
provide a return path to the power supply
unit, as the negative portion of the circuit.
Monitoring Cells
Reference electrodes or half-cell poten-
tial electrodes are permanently embedded
as part of the system. All systems require
performance evaluations according to the
National Association of Corrosion Engineers
(NACE) and British Standards European
Norm (BSEN) standards, and all perfor-
mance is based upon the native potentials
and changes in Ecorr once the system is
commissioned.
Power Supplies
All external wiring is brought into the
building and routed to the power supply
units (PSU) or where most suitable for the
structure, roof, etc. PSUs are generally
placed on the interior of a building in a
maintenance closet, drop-ceiling space,
basement, etc.
PSUs or transformer rectifiers (T/Rs)
utilized in steel-frame cathodic protection
require finite control of current output and
voltage limitation. The systems require so
little current to polarize the steel that there
must be adequate control measures to en-
46 • C R E V E L L O SYMPOSIUM
sure that over-
protection and
hydrogen em-
brittlement do
not occur. Power
supplies with
multiple chan-
nels can provide
protection to a
number of
“zones,” as each
zone requires
independent
power. All units
must have ad-
justable control,
accommodate
monitoring cells,
record and store sion, minimize masonry removal, and pro-
data, and they
must provide power interruptions for test-
ing requirements. Units can be independent
of one another or be linked to a main con-
trol that manages and stores the collective
data from the independent units.
A schematic is provided below in Figure
6, showing the layout of a system in a
masonry-clad, steel-frame building. The rod
anodes are attached to the [+] of the power
supply (red), and the steel frame (cathode) is
connected back to the [-] of the power supply.
TRACK RECORD AND CASE
STUDIES
The first cathodic protection system for
the prevention of steel beam corrosion in a
masonry structure was designed by
Taywood Engineering Ltd. and completed in
1991. The CP system provided protection
for the entrance colonnade of the Royal
College of Science, Dublin. The entrance
colonnade is a limestone structure contain-
ing two parallel structural I-beam members.
Since its completion in 1991, regular
remote monitoring via embedded reference
electrodes has shown no corrosion prob-
lems. This has also been confirmed via
annual visual inspections. Since the devel-
opment of this first CP system for masonry,
over 150 systems have been designed and
installed for masonry buildings in the UK.
Commercial Department Store,
Chicago, IL
In 2003, UK corrosion engineers8 were
engaged to carry out corrosion investiga-
tions and testing, design services, and
installation support for an ICCP system on
the Marshall Field’s Building in Chicago, IL.
ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012
This was the first historic building in the
United States to have ICCP installed. The
area protected was the 1914 Wabash build-
ing’s pilaster colonnade at the Randolph
and Wabash Street elevations at the 11th to
13th floors. The work on Daniel Burnham’s
Marshall Field’s flagship store in Chicago
came about from the engineers’ previous
corrosion investigations and ICCP system
design carried out on Selfridges’ Depart-
ment Store in London, also designed by
Burnham. Both buildings had the same
detailed pilaster colonnades along the
façade; both buildings were suffering from
corrosion of the embedded steel columns.
The engineers working on the repair
scope of the Marshall Field’s flagship store9
were looking for a method to mitigate corro-
vide the owner with a long-term corrosion
solution. This was the third repair cycle for
the pilaster columns. Any further damages
sustained to the terra cotta could have
caused irreparable damage requiring full
replacement and posed a life safety risk for
pedestrians. The estimated cost savings to
the client was $500,000.00 where the ICCP
was installed.
In keeping with standard design proto-
col, the system was designed to have four
“zones” or independently powered areas.
Zones are defined by the amount of steel
surface area to be protected, the proximity
of the steel elements to one other, and the
even distribution of current within the zone.
Each zone has two monitoring cells to pro-
vide data for polarization and potential
decay. All wiring was routed internally and
distributed to the power supply units,
which were then linked by a communica-
tions cable to a main control unit (MCU).
The MCU has an independent phone line,
providing dial-up access for remote moni-
toring.
The project posed a unique installation
challenge, as the materials and installations
procedures require a DC electrical system
to be embedded in masonry. This crosses
“union-owned” work, and it required full-
time installation support. Though the
anodes and wiring should be installed by an
electrician, the components are embedded
within mortar and grout, which is “owned”
by the masonry union. The design engineers
were on site full-time to assist in the train-
ing and installation process in order to
appease the trades, the owner, and to
ensure that all work was carried out seam-
lessly. The design team worked on the
swing stages, providing
guidance for bonding of
the terra cotta anchors,
installing the anodes,
and running the wires
within the joints back
to the through-wall
holes. The design team
then assisted the elec-
trical team with the
internal splicing and
wiring layout to both
the PSU and the MCU.
To date, the system
is still running.

U.S. Government
Museum Adminis­
tration Building,
Washington, DC
The Ross Admin-
istration Building at Figure 7 – Image of cornice to be protected.

the United States Holo-

caust Memorial Museum (USHMM) is a masonry, the masons were instructed to Collegiate Gothic Dormitory,
1905 load-bearing brick building with a remove the corrosion product from the New Haven, CT
terra cotta cornice. As typical of cornice underneath side of the outriggers. The To date, the largest ICCP system
detailing, the terra cotta armature com- removal of corrosion product (oxide) is not installed in the U.S. is on a Collegiate
prised steel channels, outriggers, J hooks, required for successful CP installations, but Gothic dormitory at Yale University. In
etc. to anchor the cornice and parapet in it was felt that the pressure exerted on the 2008, the owners required a 50-year design
place. In 2005, the building was undergoing masonry was a health and safety risk life for the complete restoration and renova-
an exterior restoration campaign. The eval- should a modillion crack and fall. tion of the 1931 masonry-clad steel-frame
uating team noticed corrosion of the steel A cost benefit analysis was easily made, building. Prior to restoration, a thorough
outriggers, which were causing downward and the prices of individual terra cotta units exterior building envelope investigation was
displacement on the terra cotta modillions ranged from $3,000 to $5,000, with three to carried out. Water infiltration of the exterior
and cracking of the soffit stones. Being one five verticals units that would be affected walls had put the steel frame at risk, and
of the United States’ preeminent museums, per outrigger location. areas near water tables, gables, and water-
the facility maintenance team at the The system was installed in 2005 and shedding elements were showing corrosion-
USHMM took a proactive approach to the commissioned in 2006. Quarterly monitor- related deterioration.
building’s upkeep and required a 25-year ing has been carried out by the authors The building was constructed between
life extension. since commissioning, and the system has 1931 and 1932 and is part of the central
Cornices are challenging elements, with achieved NACE and BSEN criteria for pro- core of the campus. Situated at the corner
many electrically discontinuous metallic tection for the last seven years. The benefit of College and Elm Streets in New Haven,
items, so a detailed inspection was of the system is that it provides remote CT, it is an exquisite example of the
required. The trial allowed the team to access so that the engineers can access Neogothic architecture found at Yale. The
determine the best technique to bond the data without having to make multiple site residential building houses students, class-
discontinuous elements and to provide a visits. In 2011, the five-year visual inspec- rooms, entertainment facilities, and the
mock-up of anode arrangements. After an tion was carried out. Each modillion and headmaster’s house. The details seen in
investigation and trials, the decision was terra cotta unit in the area of cathodic pro- some of the masonry represent the ideals of
made to install an ICCP system at the pre- tection was inspected and documented. All the college at the time of construction. Built
sent time rather than risk further corro- changes to the structure were noted and in a remarkably short time frame, the build-
sion-related damage to the masonry. compared to the previous year’s ground- ing was constructed with a steel frame to
The cornice system of the Ross building side inspections. There was evidence of carry the floor loads, as well as to increase
differed from the majority of the previous movement in the area of previous cracking productivity during construction. The build-
steel-frame building projects as it was pos- and repairs; however, this was due to the ing was erected in just five months after
sible to access the majority of the corroding removal of the building’s diaphragm when breaking ground.
steel outriggers from a large masonry joint. the building was converted from a printing The building is a quadrangle with eight
The internal steel elements of the cornice facility to the Administration Building of the unique elevations—all different heights—
armature were in very good condition. To USHMM. See Figure 7. clad in a variety of materials. The Gothic
remove the downward stresses to the towers, gables, balconies, and turrets are all

SYMPOSIUM ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012 CREVELLO • 47

 Figure 8 – Dormitory with various masonry
configurations.

Figure 9 – Internal courtyard elevations.

ornately detailed masonry

units. The steel frame of the
building was not meant to
exclusively carry the mason-
ry load; thus, it is acting as
an armature. The infill
materials between the steel
frame and cladding are
tightly compacted around
the steel. The steel is in inti-
mate contact with masonry.
As such, the corrosion prod-
uct was causing cracking of
the masonry.
The author was engaged
by the architects of record to simultaneously controlling corrosion. Due All work was carried out by specialist
engage in a corrosion condition analysis. to the success of the feasibility investiga- contractors, masons, and electricians, with
The corrosion rate testing indicated that tions, commercial viability, and conserva- oversight from the design team. The anode
areas that had not begun to show signs of tion benefits, a full-scale CP design was car- electrodes were wired back to the positive
corrosion would crack within six to ten ried out. In the end, the upper two floors of terminals of an intelligent power supply and
years. After the survey, the facilities man- the entire building, which were prioritized monitoring system. The steel was wired sep-
agement department engaged the team to as high-risk, were protected, equaling over arately to the negative terminals. Protective
carry out a CP feasibility trial. As there are 6000 LF of steel. The design comprised currents were then applied to the steel via
multiple masonry types on the building, drawings, specifications, and material the masonry using a computer system to
three trials had to be carried out: one each schedules, detailing the safe extra-low-vol- control the intelligent power supplies. Each
on sandstone, granite, and brick elevations. age electrical circuits, 110V AC electrical “zone” has four monitoring cells that pro-
As a result of the trial, it was concluded circuits, and masonry installation works. In vide the client with data to ensure the sys-
that a CP system could be developed as a total, there were 35 independently powered tem is working according to specifications.
masonry conservation technique while “anode zones.” See Figures 8, 9, and 10.

48 • CREVELLO SYMPOSIUM ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012

Figure 10 – Installation details at gable.
CONCLUSIONS
Since the 1990s, ICCP has been used on
hundreds of heritage buildings in the U.K.
and numerous historic buildings in the U.S.
These systems have shown the possibility of
protecting full-building façades and the ver-
satility of CP systems for listed and land-
marked buildings. Where ICCP has been
installed, it has been found to have a cost-
saving in excess of 50% in comparison with
traditional approaches of repair involving
the removal of masonry and steel painting.
Additionally, the cost of ICCP at targeted
locations, determined by thorough corro-
sion investigations to be at risk, is usually
in the range of 10% of the overall exterior
envelope repair scope.
The following conclusions can be made
from the brief discussions presented:
• Steel-framed buildings constructed
prior to 1940 are prone to corrosion-
related problems such as the crack-
ing and displacement of masonry.
SYMPOSIUM ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012
• Impressed current cathodic protec-
tion systems have been shown as an
appropriate method of repair for the
prevention of corrosion in early-
20th-Century steel-framed build-
ings.
• Cathodic protection systems for
masonry-clad steel-framed buildings
require specialist knowledge of his-
torical construction techniques.
• A corrosion survey with in­situ trials
is necessary prior to moving forward
with a design.
• The overall investment in a long-
term corrosion mitigation system
provides economic incentive to a
proactive approach.
• The loss of historic masonry and
façade damage can be minimized
with a proactive, long-term repair
strategy.
• ICCP is specifically tailored to each
building.
• ICCP adheres to preservation and
conservation guidelines.
The design life of the systems range
from 25 to 50 years, and this is dictated by
the power supply technology and internal
wiring systems. While the design life of the
anode and titanium wiring can exceed 40
years, based on the amount of current
passed (i.e., lower current density, longer
anode life), the design life of the control sys-
tems will change as rapidly as technology
allows.
The ICCP systems will require mainte-
nance in the form of monitoring and system
review. It is advisable to report quarterly on
the data, and this is a requirement in NACE
and BSEN standards.
REFERENCES
D. Friedman, “Early Predictions of Steel-
Frame Deterioration: Permanency in
High-Rise Construction,” Proceed­
CREVELLO • 49
 ings of the Third International
Congress on Construction History,
May 2009, Bath, England.
P.A.J. Gibbs, “Corrosion in Masonry-
Clad Early-20th-Century Steel-
framed Buildings,” Historic Scotland,
2000, Edinburgh, Scotland.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge
prior work carried out by colleagues Peter
A.J. Gibbs and Paul Andrew Noyce. Their
early studies and trials made this work pos-
sible, and the case studies in this paper all
came to fruition from efforts based on the
track record established by Gibbs and
Noyce in the United Kingdom.
FOOTNOTES
1. English Heritage and Historic
Scotland, like the National Register
of Historic Places, has the following
categories of building significance:
Grade I buildings are of exceptional
interest, sometimes considered to be
internationally important; Grade II*
buildings are particularly important
buildings of more than special inter-
est; Grade II buildings are national-
50 • C REVELLO
ly important and of special interest.
2. Chlorides can also affect the oxide
layer, though they do not always
affect pH.
3. Cathodic protection as it was first
discovered was galvanic. A less
noble metal was used to provide
electrons, thus sacrificing itself in
order to protect a more noble metal.
This is based on the Galvanic Series
of Metals. Still used today, sacrificial
zinc and zinc alloys are applied in
bulk, thermal spray, and mesh
underlay for protection of steel in
concrete and atmospherically
exposed steels. Due to the low resis-
tivity of the concrete electrolyte in
the presence of moisture and salts
(i.e., marine environment in particu-
lar), galvanic CP can be less expen-
sive than ICCP. It does not have the
same design life and must be reap-
plied when the sacrificial alloy is
consumed.
For historic steel-frame buildings,
the high resistivity of the stone
cladding requires a higher driving
voltage than provided by a galvanic
cell. Thus, an external power source
SYMPOSIUM ON BUILDING ENVELOPE TECHNOLOGY • OCTOBER 2012
is required. ICCP systems are gener-
ally considered permanent installa-
tions, whereas galvanic systems are
considered shorter term.
4. Donald Friedman discusses changes
in building technologies and applic-
able codes in relation to disasters in
Historic Building Construction: De­
sign, Materials, and Technology.
5. In the UK, the LCC (General Powers)
Act 1909 covers steel frame con-
struction. U.S. documentation is
slightly earlier.
6. P.A.J. Gibbs. Corrosion in Masonry­
Clad Early­20th­Century Steel­
Framed Buildings. Historic Scotland,
2000, Edinburgh, Scotland.
7. D. Friedman, “Early Predictions of
Steel Frame Deterioration: Perman-
ency in High Rise Construction,”
Proceedings of the Third Inter­
national Congress on Construction
History, May 2009, Bath, England.
8. Paul Noyce and Peter Gibbs of
Electro Tech CP, Ltd.
9. Construction dates are 1893, 1907,
and the 1920s. There were various
construction stages and expansions
of the department store.