A06A11 7 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LAB (ARMY) CHAMPAIGN IL F/G. 13/a780 COATINGS AND CATHODIC PROTECTION OF PILING IN SEAWATER: REGULTS--ETC(UI

AUG 82 J GUKOWSKI, A KUMARUNCLASSIFIED CERLTM-322 N L

soi

constructionUM tfAr

Oengineering00 research TEC"HNICAL REPORTM-2

Slaboratory Apt18

COATINGS AND CATHODIC PROTECTION OF PILINGIa~ IN SEAWATER: RESULTS OF 10-YEAR EXPOSUREAT LACOSTA ISLAND, FL

byJ. Bukowski

A. Kumar

DTICSOCTi 19820A

82 ~ ~007H~l

Approved for public release; distrbution unlimited.

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, opromotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute anofficial indorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Departmentof the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN ITIS NO LONGER NEEDEDDO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINA TOR

UNCLASS IFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ffm b. .0 Pa.0

REPORT DOCUMEWTATgQ.4 PACE ____________________

1. REPORT NUMBER II ACCEJ4NN 00:S RECIPIENT'S1 CATALOG Plus$*

CERL-TR-M+-321 A__/__01__-7__to___

4. TITLE (and S.*ittle) S. TYPE OF REPORT IPERIOD COVERED

COATINGS AND CATHODIC PROTECTION OF PILING IN FINALSEAWATER: RESULTS OF 10-YEAR EXPOSURE AT______________LACOSTA ISLAND, FL 4. PERFORMING MRE REPORT MummaR

7. AUTHgOR(s) 6. CONTRACT OR GRANT NMNSE&TA

J. BukowakiA. Kumnar

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKU.S. ARMY AREA A WORK UNIT NUMURS

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY CWIS 31204P.O. BOX 4005, CHAMPAIGN, IL 61820

It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

August 198213. NUMBER OF PAGES

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(if dliffergnt from, controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of Stle owport)

IS. DECL ASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADINGSCHEDULE

t6. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Repout)

Approved f or public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (*I the abstract entered i, Block 20, It dlffewmi from Report)

1S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Copies are obtainable from the National Technical Information ServiceSpringfield, VA 22151

IS. KEY WORDS (Conftnue an, reverse aide HI mmee mE idenify by block .,inber)

steelpile structuressea water corrosioncathodic protectionprotective coatings_

26, ASSRACr (b~m aw- W b 0sf 000@ V Mdemi j I It6?Wek moo&-)

The objective of this study was to ass,.(1) ie rate of corrosion of bare steel withand without cathodic protection, and (2) the effectivenes of various commerciallyavailable coatn sstems n preventingcorrosion of steel piesIn sater~nt LaCostaWsand, FL~Icue we 25 coatings and four Sacrificial anode cahoic protectionsystems.

DO lIe F073 13 a551750W 1 No IMVS sOaLaTS UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLaSSIFICATIOR Of THIS PAGS (Whme 0&*t En fea*

UNCLASSIFIEDECUOITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGSlUm Data 1a6m

BLOCK 20. (Cont'd)

"ATwenty-nine (two piles per set) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)A36 or ASTM 690 steel H-piles were exposed for 10 years. Most of the piles were coatedor had cathodic protection. In 1981, the piles were pulled out and inspected visually.Performance ratings were then established for the following coatings: organic, metal-filled, organic over metal-filled, metallic, organic over metallic, and organic with cathodicprotection.

Based on this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

I. The corrosion rates-determined by flange thickness measurements in the im-mersion zone-were 7 and 6 mils (0.18 and 0.15 mm) per year respectively for barecarbon (A36) and mariner (690) steel. Sacrificial zinc or aluminum anodes effectivelyreduced the corrosion in the immersed zone to less than 0.1 mil (0.003 mm) per year.(Adding sacrificial anodes to a coated steel piling also protects steel in the immersed zoneif the coating is damaged.)

2. A polyester glass flake coating (System 29) was the top performer. Epoxies overzinc-rich primers (Systems 20, 10, and 18) and vinyl-sealed, flame-sprayed aluminum andzinc (Systems 14 and 16) coatings performed very well after 10-years' exposure.

UNCLASIFIED99CUmITY CLASSIPICATION OF THIS PAGSflSM Dam,

......................................... ""1................ :"".....,

FOREWORD

This investigation was conducted for the Directorate of Civil Works, Office of theChief of Engineers (OCE) under CWIS 31204, "Corrosion Mitigation in Civil WorksProjects." Mr. J. Robertson, DAEN-CWE-E, was the OCE Technical Monitor.

The work was performed by the Engineering and Materials Division (EM) of the U.S.Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL). Dr. R. Quattrone isChief of EM.

Appreciation is extended to CERL personnel who participated in the inspections:Mr. C. Hahin, Mr. F. Kisters, Mr. J. Aleszka, Ms. R. Hannan, Mr. W. Gordon, and Mr.F. Kearney.

COL Louis J. Circeo is Commander and Director of CERL, and Dr. L.R. Shaffer isTechnical Director.

\ %5

1copy 1INSPETO

J CONTENTS

DO0FORM 1473 1FOREWORD 3LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 5

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................... 7Backgrn

Mods of Technology Transfer

2 LACOSTA ISLAND FIELD STUDY ............................... S8Test SiteTest PilingAnnual InspectionTen-Yw Inspection

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................. 14Visual Observations of Protective Coating SystmsCategories of CoatingsElectrochemical MeasurementsCPI Measu retPolarization MessuraweetsFlange Thickness Profiles

4 CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 2

REFERENCES 25

APPENDIX: Charts of Corrosion Behavior of Ste piling at LaCost Islan 26

DISTRIBUTION

3 4

TAALES

Numbsr Page

I Test Pile Details. LaCosta Island Test Site 9

2 Scale and Description of Rust Grades 15

3 Visual Evaluation of Coating Performance After 5- andI 0-Years' Exposure 16

4 Potential Measurements: Piling With SacrificialAnode Cathodic Protection 18

5 Cathodic Protection Indices of Coated Piling 19

FIGURES

I LaCosta Island Test Site 8

2 Dimensions of H-piles 12

3 Dimensions of Pipe Piles 12

4 Plan of LaCosta Island Test Piles 13

5 Elevation of Pile Set for LaCosta Island Test Site 13

6 Circuit Diaqram for Measurement of Cathodic ProtectionIndex and Polarization Measurements 14

7 Cathodic Protection Indices Versus Time 20

8 Polarization Curves-Bare Carbon Steel 21

9 Polarization Curves-Bare Mariner Steel 21

10 Flange Thickness for Pile I B, Bare Carbon Steel 22

11 Flange Thickness for Pile 23B, Bare Mariner Steel 22

12 Flange Thickness for Pile 2B, Bare Carbon SteelWith Zinc Anodes 23

13 Flange Thickness for Pile 3D, Bare Carbon SteelWith Aluminum Anodes 23

14 Flange Thickness for Pile 24B, Bare Mariner SteelWith Zinc Anodes 24

15 Flange Thlckns,. for Pile 5B, Coal-Tar EpoxyWith Zinc Anodes 245i

* COATINGS AND CATHODIC PROTECTION installed near Dam Neck, VA. Every 5 yeam, oneOF PILING IN SEAWATER: row of piling was to be extracted and examined forRESULTS OF 10-YEAR EXPOSURE AT corrosion damage; all piles have now been removedLACO6TA ISLAND. FL and are being evaluated by NBS.

To determine the effects of geography and tem-perature, the Coastal Engineering Research Center

I INTRODUCTION (CERC) selected two more sites, Buzzards Bay, MA,and LaCosta Island, FL. The U.S. Army ConstructionEngineering Research Laboratory (CERL) was respon-

Backnroud sible for installing piling at Buzzards Bay in OctoberThe Directorate of Civil Works, Office of the Chief 1974, and conducted the first inspection in July

of Engineers, has jurisdiction over many coastal struc- 1975.1 Annual inspections of the piles have beentures such as bridges and buildings which are supported conducted since then.? The first set of piling wason pilingS. The design life of these structures can range extracted in 1979 and evaluated.' The Buzzards Bayfrom a few years to 100 years. Steel pipes and steel phase of the study will be completed in 1989.H-piling have been used most often for foundations incoastal areas, but prestressed concrete pl, s also have The installation of 31 sets of piling (three per set)been tried, at LaCosta Island was completed in January 1971, and

inspections have been conducted since then. CERCCoating systems are available to protect steel piling. evaluated the pilings through June 1974, when the

And in brackish water or saltwater applications, where inspection responsibility was transferred to CERLthe life of even the best available coatings can be One row of piling was removed in 1976; the results ofsomewhat limited, cathodic protection can provide the 5-year inspection have been previously published.$supplemental protection. In addition, the chemical The LaCosta Island piles were extracted and evaluatedindustry continually develops new coatings which may in 1981, as this report explains.be used in seawater. Zinc-rich primers and 4wne-sprayed metallic undercoats can also improve the When the Dam Neck, Buzzards Bay, and LaCostaperformance of coating systems.1 Island studies are finished, the data from all three sites

will be analyzed to draw conclusions and developThe designers of coastal structures can choose recommendations about pile coatings.

from many protective coating systems for steel piling.For rapid screening of these coatings and primers, Objectivenondestructive measurement techniques capable of The objective of this report is to assess (1) the ratepredicting long-life (50-year) performance based on of corrosion of bare steel with and without cathodictests of shorter duration are extremely valuable, protection, and (2) the effectiveness of various com-However, such tests performed in the laboratory, mercially ave/able coating systems in preventing cor-though indicative of coating performance, do not rosion of steel piles in seawater at LaCosta Island, FL.simulate actual field exposures. Field tests at variousgeographic locations ae necessary because environ-mental effects such as marine growth, temperature,and tidal conditions are important parameters whichcannot be simulated easily in the laboratory. 2A. Kumar ad C. Habin, Mrt Annual IflpWe*5 of

Burano beJil Peliny, Technical Report M-1721ADA034381(CERL, 1976).

In response to this prob'm, the U.S. Army Corps 3F. Kearney, oroion of Steel Plbt In searn, w: *us.of Engineers and the National Bureau of Standards j By-1975-1978. Ineim Rprt M-27S1ADA078626(NBS) began a field study of piling corrosion in 1967, (CERL, 1979).

when 31 sets of piles (three identical piles per set) were 4A. Kumar, f. Lampo, A. Deltena, C Contl

of Pllinp In Seawater: Buznw* Boy. Technical Report M-286/ADA097086 (CERL, 1981).

'A. Kumar and D. Wittiner, "Coatings and Cathodic 5A. Kumar and D. Wittmer, "Coatings and Cathodic"hotection of Pilings in Seawater: Results of 5-Year Exposmre," Protection of Pilings In Seawater: Results of 5-Year Exposr,"Akterr Perfommnrce. Vol 18, No. 12 (1979). p 9-19. Matel al PevrormAnce, Vol 18, No. 12 (1979), p 9-19.

A7

Approach .

Twenty-nine sets (two pilings per set) of AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A36 orASTM 690 steel H-piles were exposed in seawater for10 years. Most of the piles were coated or had cathodicprotection. The piles were pulled out and inspected -visually. CERL then established performance ratingsfor the following coatings: organic, rmutal-f'lled, or- oganic over metal-filled, metallic, organic over metallic,and organic with cathodic protection. sew

Mode of Technology TranerWoThe information in this study will be incorporated " . "**h

into Corps of Engineers Guide Specification CW-09940,Painting: lydraulic Structures and Appurtenant Works;Technical Manual (TM) 5-811-4, Electrical Design: • J6 • mCorrosion Control; and Engineer Manual (EM) 1110-2- fta,3400, Paint ng: New Construction and Maintenance.

Figire 1. LaCosta Island test site (metric conversionfactor: I nautical mile - 1.852 In).

2LACOSTA ISLAND FIELD STUDY

identified by raised weld beads near the top. SixTest Ste prestressed concrete piles were also installed.

Figure 1 shows the LaCosta Island test site. Theyearly surface water temperature ranges from 55* to Figures 2 and J show the detail sections of the H-90°F (13* to 32*C), with an approximate mean yearly and pipe-piling. Some piles were installed withouttemperature of 75*F (240C). The salinity fluctuation coatings or sacrificial anodes, while others had bothdue to tidal flushing at the site is approximately 30 coatings and cathodic protection. Table 1 is a completeparts per thousand at low tide to 36 parts per thousand listing of the coatings used and their sources. Some ofat high tide. Mean tide level at the site is 1.3 ft ,;.4 m), the protective coating systems included in the LaCostawith a spring tide range of 2.6 ft (0.8 m). Wave action Island study are the same as those tested at the Damis light, and the bottom material is composed of Neck and Buzzards Bay sites. The systems includeapproximately equal proportions by weight of silica organic, organic with cathodic protection, metallic,sand and shell.' metal-filled organic, and organic over metal-filled

coatings. These were applied after the base metal wasTest Piling sandblasted to near "white metal" according to Steel

The test piles included H- and pipe-piling made of Structures Painting Council (SSPC) Specificationeither American Society for Testing and Materials SSPC-SP-10-63T.(ASTM) 436 or ASTM 690 (mariner steel). The steelH-piles were 6 in. x 6 in. x 30 ft (152 mm x 152 mm The piles were water-jetted into place in three rowsx 9.2 m) and weighed 25 lb/ft (37.2 kg/m). Stainless parallel to the shoreline (as shown in Figures 4 and 5).steel rods were welded between the inside flanges of The rows were designated A, B, and C, with A beingeach pile so that electrical contact could be made nearest the beach and C farthest. Of the 31 sets offor electrochemical measurements. The piles were three piles. three were bare carbon or mariner steel,

two were prestressed concrete, and the rest werecoated steel. One set of coated steel pilings was cathod-ically protected. The coated piles in row A were

6A. KLma and D. Wittmer, "Cotap and Cathodic completely coated; those in row B also were entirelyProtection of Pibp In Seawater: Rmults of 5-Year Exposure," coated, except for seven 6-In. x I-in. (15 2 mr x 25mm)

8

Table ITest Pile Details, LaCosta Island Test Site

No. Dy CoatingSystem Type of of Thickness, Coating

No. pow Descrption of Coating System Coats milsee (mm) Source Remarks

H Bare carbon steel ---

2 H Bare carbon steel with zinc anodes 2 anodes

3 H Bare carbon steel with aluminum anodes - - 2 anodes

4 H Coal-tar epoxy 2 16-20 United StatesFormula C-200 (0.41-0.51) Steel (U.S.S.)

Chemicals

5 H Coal-tar epoxy with zinc anodes 2 16-20 U.S.S. 2 anodesFormula C-200, polyamide-cured (0.41-0.51) Chemicals

6 H Coal-tar epoxy, amine-cured 2 16-20 U.S.S.Tarset (0.41-0.51) Chemicals

7 H Coal-tar epoxy, aluminum-oxide-armored 2 16-20 U.S.S. (Third coat +at Formula C-200 (0.41-0.51) Chemicals garnet to be

applied between 11Formula C-200 + aluminum oxide 1 10-11 and 17 ft (3.3(No. 30 grit) broadcast into (0.25-0.28) and 5.2 m) fromwet final coat bottom of pile

8 H Aluminum-pigmented epoxy-tarCarbomastic #3 1 8-9 Carboline

(0.20-0.23) Co.Carbomastic #12-14 1 7-8

(0.18-0.20)Carbomastic #5-140 1 4

(0.10)

9 H Coal-tar epoxy U.S.S.Chemicals

U.S.S. epoxy primer 1 3(0.08)

Tarset Standard 1 8-10(0.20-0.25)

Tarset Standard 1 8-10(0.20-0.25)

10 H Epoxy over inorganic ceramicPlas-Chem Zlnc-ite G primer 1 3-4 Plas-Chem

(0.8-0.10) Corp.Plas-Chem's Ceram-ite #101 1 5-6

(0.13-0.15)Plas-Chem's 2140 Z high-build epoxy 1 7-8

(0.18-0.20)

*Steel H-piles are 30-ft (9.1 m) lengths of 6 in. x 6 in. (152 mm x 152 mm) wide flange (25 lb/ft 137.2 kg/ml) mild carbon steel.Systems 23, 24, and 25 ar mariner steel H piles. Systems 26, 27, and 28 are pipe pies, mild carbon steel, 6 in. (152 nun) diameter,schedule 40, 0.280 in. (0.7 mm) wall thickness. Prestressed concrete pile ar stated in this column.

**Film thickness tolerance per coat may be plus or minus I S percent of given thickness per coat, except where a range h given.Geanem NotesAl surfaces were blast-cleaned ro near-white metal before coating. Systems 28 and 29 were supplied in the near-white condition.Specimens wee numbered A. B, c C. which corresponded to their position (A faced the shore, B in the center, and C faced the Gulfof Mexico), and had a numeric prefix which designated the way they were coated.

9

£

Tabl I (Cont'd)

No. Dry CoatingSyab.s Type of Of Thickises, Coed.1No. P11101 Daeurpton of Coalsil Syates. costs ubf (mm) source ROasAKIs

II H Epoxy overlinorganic zinc primaZincor #11 primar 1 1-1.5 PlaChem

(0.03-0.04) Corp.Chem-Pon 2310X Red 1 9-9

(0.20-0.23)

12 H SaranWsAhcost primer, MLL-P-15328B 1 0.4(Formula 117) (0.01) Navy stock Alternate coatFormula 113/54; MIL-L-l 8389 7 6-7 white and orange

(0.15-0.18)

13 H Aluminum, flameoaprayed (wire) 1 6 Metalweld, Steel wire flash(0.15) Maeo, or bonding coat,

other 1 mil (0.03 -1)

14 H Aluninum, flamne-sprayed (wire) Metalweld,vinyl topcoat Maeo, or

Flame~erayed aluminum (wire) 1 6 other Steei '..(0.15) bonding

Waahcost primer, Formula 117, 1 0.4 1 mil (0.0MIL-P-1532811 (0.01)

Alum, vinyl, Metcoscal-A V (Alum, Vinyl) 2 2 Maeo, Inc.(0.05)

is H Zinc, flame-eprayed, with saran topcoat 1 I Maeo, Metal-Steel wire flash bond coat (0(i3) weld, or otherFlame-sprayed zinc (wire) 1 6Saran, Formula 11I3/S4, alternate (0.15)

white and orange; finish coat, white 7 6-7 Navy stock(0.15-0.18)

16 H Zinc, flame-aprayed, with Navy vinyl 1 6 Mteo, Metal- Steel wire flashtopcoat, flame-srayed zinc (wire) (0.15) weld, or other bonding coat,

Washcoat primer, MIL-P-15328D1 1 0.4 Navy stock I mil (0.03 mm)(0.01)

Vinyl red-lead, Formula 119, 5 4-5MIL-P.15929 (0.10-0.13)

17 H Phenolic MasticPhenoline 300 (orange) 1 8 Carbofinc

(0.20) Co.Phenoline 300 (gpay) finish coat I

(0.20)

18 H Vinyl over inorganic zinc-rihU.S.S. zinc-net No. 220 1 3 U.S.S.

(0.08) ChemcalsU.S.S. high-build vinyl 1 7

(0.18)

19 H Coal-tar epoxy over organic zinc-richU.S.S. sine-ich epoxy No. 110 1 3 U.S.S.

(0.08) ChemicalsCoal-tag epoxy, C-200 2 12

(0.30)

10

Table I (Cont'd)

No. Dry CoatingiSystem Type of Of Thickness, Coating

*NO. P111114 Descriptiont of Costing Systemr Coats MilB (Mm) source Remars

20 H Epoxy-polyamide over inorganic zinc-richCarbozine *11 1 3 Carboline

(0.08) CO.Hrigh-build epoxy polyamide 190 1111 2 12

(0.30)

21 H Epoxy-tar over inorganic zinc-richCarbozine #11 '3 Carboline

(0.08) Co.Carbomastic #14 18

(0.20)

22 H Vinyl mastic over inorganic zinc-richDimetcote #3+D3 Curing Solution 1 3 Amercoat Curing solutic..

(0.08) Corp. to be removed#54 Tic Coat II by freshwattf

(0.03) washVlnylmastic #87 1 10

(0.25)

23 H Blare mariner steel ----

24 H Blare mariner steel withzinc anodes 2 - anodes

25 H Coal-tar epoxy on mariner ateelFormula C-200 2 16-20 U.S.S.

(0.41-0.51) Chemi~as

26 Pipe Bare carbonasteel - -.

27 Pipe Coal-tar epoxy 2 16-20 U.S.S.F~ormula C-200 (0.41-.0.51) Chemicals

28 Pip Coal-tar epoxy, garnet-armored at mud lineFormula C-200 2 16-20 U.S.S. Third cost and

(OA1-0.Sl) Chemicals aluminum re'ideto be arpied

Formula C-200+ lumiinum oxide 1 10 bitween 11 and 17(#30 grit) broadcast into wet tina! coat (0.25) ft (3.3 and 5.2 m)

from bottom of pil

29 H Polyester glassflake, Carbogjas 1601, 2 40 Carboline Blast material tospray grade (1.02) CO. provide 3 to 4ml

(0.08 to 0.10 mm)auraco profile

30 Prestressed concrete10 in.

31 (254 mm)

square31 Prestressed concrete

l0 in.(254 mmt)Octagon

windows at 2, 7, 14, 17, 20, 22, and 27 ft (0.6, 2.1,4.3, 5.2, 6.1, 6.7, and 8.2 m) from the bottom of thepile on the surface facing the beach. The C piles,removed in 1976 after 5-years' exposure, were com-pletely coated except for the embedded zone.*

Top of pile The sacrificial anodes for the cathodically protectedt -piling were mounted near the sand-swept zone. The

zinc anodes were 4 in. x 4 in. x 36 in. (101 mm x

o = J2 9/t6"#ondling hole 10 1 mm x 914 mm) and weighed about I50 lb (68.0= 6 6" WF 25 kg) when new: and aluminum anodes were 4 in. x 4 in.

x 38 in. (101 mm x 101 mmx 967 mm) and weighed60 lb (27.2 kg) when new. Two zinc or aluminumanodes were installed on each pile to be cathodically

•>Delail A-wielded protected.0 316 L stainiess

Annual InspctionAfter placement in 1971, the piling had five annual

inspections consisting of visual observations andelectrochemical measurements. From 1977 to 1980,coating performance was inspected only visually. In

5 5/1s" :1981, CERL performed electrochemical measurements- - - - and a visual inspection, including a complete evaluation

DetaoI A of coating deterioration in accordance with ASTMStandard Methods for Evaluating Degree of Rusting onPainted Steel Surfaces (Table 2).

Figure 2. Dimensions of H piles (metric conversionfactors: I in. = 2r 4 min; I ft = 0.3048 in). Three types of electrical measurements were taken:

pile corrosion potential, cathodic protection index(CPI), and polarization. Electrical contact with thestainless steel rods on the pilings was made with viseclamps connected to the cable wires. The protectionoffered by sacrificial anodes was assessed by pilepotential measurements. A Miller Model M-3D Multi-

wk= Wmeter, or the equivalent, was used to measure the

V ftsdlole potential with respect to a copper-copper sulphateI ILIreference immersed in seawater.

• I

I The CPI of a coated piling was determined by- forming a galvanic couple between it and a bare pile,

:1A and measuring the potential of the coated pile withzero applied current. The current was then increased

-- einie to lower the initial potential to -0.85 volts (V) for the0e.111 A coated pile. The current was constantly adjusted to

keep the coated pile at -0.85 V during a 5-minute4 period. The initial and final values of the current and

*For this study, each 30-ft (9.1-m) length of piling can bedivided into four zones: the atmospheric zone (0 to 6 ft. or0 to 18 nam). the immersed zone (6 ft to 17 ft, or 1.8 m toFiwe 3. Dimensions of pipe piles (metric conversion 5.2 m), the sand-swept zone (17 ft to 21 ft, or 5.2 in to 6.4 m).

factor: 1 in. 25.4 mm). and the embedded zone (21 ft to 30 ft, or 6.4 in to 9.1 in).

12

4

- - - - -4. - - - -

00

00

U) Jill Jil

I 401pans SISS lid 1Iogot) '3o us pe"dt g @IN it

7 x zzzxizzrzrzMXXXXXXXXXXr r 0 OO '4

0 goIL xxi xxxxxxxxxxxxxx~u0 (I

ILJ 0 N

113I

lawp

potential were then used to calculate the CP! value IiItI %with Eq 1:

CPl = AV/AI [Eq I1

where AV change in voltage TEST

The corrosion rate measurements were conducted byFAMILSchwerdtfeger and McDorman's "polarization break"method, which uses breaks in the anodic and cathodi • ulm n

polarization curves to identify the corrosion rate by a To POLE C.".504 CuocuSO4 TO AUX. IL.

caculated corrosion current, Ic* . can be calculated 1 3 P OR 14440..1SISTANCZ VIA; USED FOR Wfrom the following relationship, which was derived by p,•LnOtTEMT.ALVOLTMEwS,,v OP TE.S IE.lm. v ueFoeomm

Pearson and confirmed by Holler. s I I 10 AUWLAR PI WLTAE

(p)(iIq) [Eq 21 Figure 6. Circuit diagram for measurement of cathodicc (I + l) protection index and polarization

measurements.where Ip and lq equal the tangent intersection ofthe portions of the anodic and cathodic curves, respec-tively. These curves were obtained by increasing thecurrent from zero in small increments at 3-minute hand-scraping and water wash when necessary. Chartsintervals. After each time period, both the current and were drawn to display the corrosion behavior of thethe test pile potential (with respect to copper-copper piling (see the appendix), and the coated -les weresulphate reference cell) were nuted. rated in accordance with ASTM D 610-68 (Tab'-! 2).

Figure 6 is the circuit diagram of the instrument The bare steel piles and the coated steel piles withused for the polarization and CPI measurements, cathodic protection had to be sandblasted before their

flange thicknesses could be measured along the length

Ten-Yew In sp -01- of each pile and a profide made.Most piles in rows A and B were removed in March

1981 after 10-years' exposure. All piles were removedby hooking a crane onto the pull-holes provided. Waterjetting was used to loosen the bottom material around 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONthe piling to prevent damage to the coating systems.After removal, the piles were transported by barge toa storage area where they were unloaded onto wood Visual Observations of Protective Coating Systemssupports and spaced to allow easy access and room to Table 3 presents the ASTM D 610-68 visual evalu-turn the piling for inspection of all surfaces. The piles ation results for the coated steel piling after the 5- andwere cleaned of guano and marine organisms by 10-year exposures. Charts of coating degradation after

10-years' exposure are shown in the appendix; a briefdescription of the coating systems' performance ispresented below. (The degradation noted in the piling's

7W. J. Schwerdtfeger and 0. N. McDorman, "Measurement atmospheric zone was caused by salt spray.)of Corrosion Rate of Metal From Its Polarizing Charcter-istics," Journal of the Electrochemical Society, Vol 99 (1952), 1. System 4 was a C-200 coal-tar epoxy coating.p 407. This system showed some rusting in the atmospheric

'J. M. Pearson, "'Null' Methods Applied to Corrosion zone. Rusting and pitting with loss of coating, es-Measurements," Tranctfons of the Electrochemikel Society, pecially at the flange, was present In the ImmersedVol S1 (1942), p 485; H. D. Holler, "Studies om GalvanicCouples," Journal of the Electrochemical Society, Vol 97 zone edge. fit the immersed zone, there was attached(1950), p 277. marine growth.

14

.. . . ."I. .I I l .. . I

Table 2Scale and Description of Rust Grades*

SBPC-ABlhPhotogaphic

Rua Grads** Descdptkn Standard

10 No rusting or less than 0.01 percent of surface rusted unnecessary9 Minute rusting, Ik than 0.03 percent of surface rusted No. 98"** Few isolated rust spots, less than 0.01 percent of surface rusted No. 87 Less than 0.3 percent of surface rusted none6"*0" Extensive rust spots but les than I percent of surface rusted No. 65 Rusting to the extent of 3 percent of surface rusted none4+ Rusting to the extant of 10 percent of surface rusted No. 43++ Approximately one-sixth of the surface rusted none2 Approximately one-third of the surface rusted noneI Approxiw'ately one-half of the surface rusted none0+++ Apptoxim&t.'v 100 percent of the surface rusted unnecessary

Reprinted, with permission, 'om the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part #27. Copyright,American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

**Simar to Earopean Scale of Degree of Rusting for Anti-Corrosive Paints (1961) (black andwhite).

***Corresponds to SSPC Initial Surface Conditions (0 to 0.1 percent) and BISRA (British Iron andSteel Research Association) 0.1 percent.

****Corresponds to SSPC Initial Surface Conditions F (0.1 to 1 percent) and BISRA (1.0 percent).+Corresponds to SSPC Initial Surface Condition G (I to 10 percent).

++Rust grades below 4 are of no practical importance in grading performance of paints.++-Corresponds to SSPC Initial Surface Condition H (50 to 100 percent).

2. System 5 was a C-200 coal-tar epoxy/polyamide- 7. System 10 was a coating consisting of a zinc-cured coating with zinc anodes. Light rust and scale rich primer, a ceramic intermediate coat, and a high-were present in atmospheric zone, with some loss of build epoxy topcoat. The coating system showed light

the coating in the immersed zone. staining in both the atmospheric and immersed zones,but overall was in good condition.

3. System 6 was a coal-tar epoxy/amine-curedcoating. Severe loss of coating in the immersed zone 8. System 11 consisted of a zinc. nch primer with anoccurred. Some rust and scale were in the atmospheric epoxy topcoat. The coating in the immersed andzone. atmospheric zones was degraded, causing severe rusting

and pitting on the steel piling.

4. System 7 was a C-200 coal-tar epoxy coatingwith aluminum oxide grit added to the final coat of 9. System 12 consisted of a washcoat primer with aC-200 coal-tar epoxy along the mudline. Light rust saran topcoat. This coating system gave fair protectionand scale were in the atmospheric zone, with some in the atmospheric zone, where light rust and scaleloss of coating in the immersed zone. were present, but was completely removed in the

immersed zone, where the piling showed rustingf 5. System 8 consisted of an aluminum pigmented and pitting.

epoxy-tar applied over two coats of epoxy tar. Therewas light rusting along the flange edges in the atmos- 10. System 13 was a flame-sprayed aluminum

pheric zone. The immersed zone was severely rusted coating. Light scale and rusting, present along the

and pitted. length of the piling, was most severe at the splashzone, where there was no sacrificial protection.

6. System 9 was an epoxy primer/coal-tar epoxy.This coating system was in excellent condition in the 11. System 14 consisted of a flame-sprayed alumi-

atmospheric zone. There was some rusting of flange num coating with a vinyl topcot. Staining and rust

edges in the immersed zone. were present in the atmoeptieric zone. The coating was

15

A Tabl 3ViaWa Eydalaton of Coaft Perfoeencea After 5- and 10-Ye.,' Eiipoeure

5-Year EXPOO.* JO-year xpo.,e"Zoom Evelualei Z=0 Evdustd

Sy"Mu System SystesChI Type Numabs, Abtam4Wbuic Isimed Ateawlseaic Immesed

organic Coal-tar (Target) 9 10 8 108Coal-tar/armored 7 6 8 6 7Cog-tar on mariner 25 9 4 7 3Coal-tar (rset) 6 7 3 6 3Coal-tar (C-200) 4 9 4 8 3

Sara 12 10 0 7 0

Phenolic 17 7 8 6 4Mastic

Polyester 29 10 10 10 10glass flake,Carboglas 1601

Metal-fied Aluminume 8 9 3 8 3pigmentedepoxy-tar

organic Epoxy over Zn-rich 20 9 6 9 6ova Epoxy/cerrmtemetal- VInyl/inorgankc Zn-rich 10 10 9 a 9filled Coal-tar over Za-dch 18 10 9 4 6

Epoxy/Inorganic Zn-iich 11 6 1 2 0Epoxy tar/inorgnIc Zn-rich 21 9 1 8 0Vinyl mastic/norganic Zn-jrich 22 7 2 9 0

Metallic Flame-spayed, AL 13 7 8 3 5

organic Vinyl (At) 14 8 7 5 7ove Vinyl (Zn) 16 10 8 9 7metallic Saraft(Zn) 15 5 1 5 1

Organic coal-tar 5 10 9 8 9coating with epoxy withcathodic zinc anodesprotection

ORow C pilings with seven windows."Row A piltng were completely costed.+Values refer to rust grades in Table 2.

16

excellent in the immersed and embedded zones, 21. System 29 was a polyester Stan flake 40-milsindicating that the flame-sprayed aluminum was still (1.02 mm) thick. No rust stains were observed in theproviding sacrificial protection. tidal and atmospheric zones. The pile was left intact.

12. System 15 was a flame-sprayed zinc coating Categories af Coatingswith a saran topcoat. Staining and light rust were For discussion, the protective coating systems usedpresent in the atmospheric zone. The saran topcoat in this study can be divided into six categories: organic,was completely gone from the immersed zone, but the organic with cathodic protection, metal-fflled, organicflame-sprayed zinc still provided protection, over metal-filled, metallic, and organic over metallic.

The condition of these coating systems after 10-years'13. System 16 consisted of a flame-sprayed zinc exposure is outlined below.

coating with a vinyl topcoat. Rust was present in thesplash zone. The vinyl topcoat had peeled off in the Organic Coatings (Systems 4,6, 7, 9, 12,17,27and29)immersed zone, and there was some light staining. In this class of coatings, the polyester glass flake

(System 29) made by Carboline Co. was the top14. System 17 was a phenolic mastic coating. Light performer. According to Carboline, this coating resists

rust and staining were present in the atmospheric zone. "severe chemicals including hypochlorites and freePitting on steel flange edges and severe loss of coating chlorine... A 40 m film contains.. .about 160 layershad occurred in the immersed zone. of Flakeglas making the film very resistant to pene-

tration in many aggressive environments. Tight adhesion

15. System 18 consisted of an inorganic zinc-rich is maintained even after long aging. The coating...primer with a high-build vinyl topcoat. Scale and rust [resistsi abrasion and impact. The standard system iswere present in the atmospheric zone, and some light two 20 mil coats, spray applied. No primer is required.rust and staining had occurred in the immersed zone. Carboglas 1601 SG can be readily applied by con-

ventional spray. Rolling or brushing after application16. System 19 was a coal-tar epoxy with organic is not required.""

zinc-rich primer. Some rust and blistering were presentin the atmospheric zone. In the immersed zone, there Coal-tar epoxy over epoxy primer (System 9)was severe loss of coating, with rusting and pitting. provided good protection, as did the coal-tar epoxy

with aluminum oxide armor (System 7) and coal-tar17. System 20 consisted of an inorganic zinc-rich epoxy over mariner steel (System 25). The phenolic

primer with a high-build epoxy-polyamide. Light rust mastic (System 17) offered fair protection, whileand scale were present in the tidal zone. Overall, the C-200 coal-tar epoxy (System 4), Tarset coal-tarcoating's condition was very good. (System 6), and saran (System 12) provided poor

protection. Most of the damage to the organic coatings18. System 21 was an epoxy-tar over an inorganic in the immersed zone seemed to be caused by barnacles

zinc-rich primer. Some light rust was present along the and other marine organisms.flange edge in the atmospheric zone. There was com-plete loss of coating in the immersed zone, with severe Organic With Cathodic Protection (System 5)rusting and pitting. The coating had blistered in the System 5 was a coal-tar epoxy coating with zincembedded zone. anodes. The organic coal-tar epoxy coating provided

adequate protection to the exposed pile in the atmos-19. System 22 was a vinyl mastic topcoat over an pheric zone. The immersed zone suffered severe loss

inorganic zinc-rich primer. Light staining was present of the organic coating, but the steel pile was in ex-in atmospheric zone; complete loss of coating occurred cellent condition because of the cathodic protectionin the immersed zone; dense blistering and rusting provided by the sacrificial zinc anodes.were present in the embedded zone.

20. Coating system 25 was a C-200 coal-tar epoxyon mariner steel (ASTM 619). This coating exhibitedthe same characteristics as system 4, which was C-200 9"Carboglas 1601 Spray Grade (SG)," Product Dataon carbon steel A36. Sheet (Saint Louis, MO: Carboline Co.).

17

Metd-FOd (System 8) Orgac Over Metic (Systems 14. 15 and 16)The one system in the metal-filled class-aluminum Overall, this classification was rated very good. In

pigmented epoxy-tar-performed poorly in the im- the vinyl system, the aluminum fame-sprayed under-mersed and sand-swept zones. This was a three-coat coat (System 14) provided better protection in thesystem in which two coats of epoxy-tar electrically immersed and sand .wept zones than the zinc flame-insulated, thus preventing the outer coat containing sprayed undercoat (System 16). Saran over zincthe aluminum pigment from sacrifically protecting flame-sprayed undercoat also provided very goodthe steel pile. The coating was perforated by barnacles, protection in the immersed and the sand-swept zones.which caused severe pitting in the immersed zone. Vinyl over flame-sprayed zinc provided excellent

protection in the atmospheric zone. Potential measure-Ogwuic Over Metal-Filled (Systems 10, 11, 18, 19, ments indicated that the flame-sprayed metals in20, 21 and 22) Systems 14 and 15 still offered sacrificial protection

The effectiveness of this coating class usually after 10-years' exposure.depends on the metal-filled primers' providing sacri-ficial protection to any exposed steel in the immersed Elentoem M mentszone of the piling. After 10 years of exposure, Systems The potentials of the cathodically protected piles20, 10, and 18 were rated excellent; potential measure- were measured with respect to a copper-copper sulfatements indicate that the zinc-rich primers of these reference cell (Table 4). The results of the 1972, 1976,systems were still providing sacrificial protection. Sys- and 1981 inspections showed that no significanttems 19, 11, 21 and 22 were all rated poor in the changes in potentials have occurred, and that theimmersed and sand-swept zones after 10-yeas' ex- sacrificial anodes were providing protection in theposure. Potential measurements indicated that the s ed zne.sacrificial metal-filled primers were gone; therefore, thebare steel was no longer being protected. CPI Meremntm

The CPI indicates the current required to cathod-Metallic (System 13) ically protect a pile's bare area in the immersed zone.

The flame-sprayed aluminum coating of System 13 The index reflects the amount of current required toprovided fair protection in the atmospheric zone, shift the potential of the pile in the cathodic directionwhere sacrificial aluminum is not advantageous. The to attain -0.85 V with respect to a copper-copperprotection provided by this coating was rated good in sulphate reference cell. Table 5 shows the CPI for thethe immersed and sand-swept zones. coated piling at the LaCosta Island test site.

Table 4Potential Meamunements: Pin With Secifidal Anode Cadt lic Proteetiom

AodesymM Voltage, voltae, VOlage, Caplonm

System Type Number 1972 1976 MI b/yr)

Bare carbon 2A 1.080 1.11 1.094 2.1steel (A36) with 2B 1.080 1.05 1.000 1.8zinc anodes 2C 1.080 1.10 - -

Baze carbon 3A 0.990 1.09 1.043 1.7

stel (A36) with 3B 0.990 1.05 1.035 1 jalunium anodes 3C 0.995 1.05 - -

C-200 coal-tar SA 1.080 1.09 1.105 <0.1epoxy on A36 SB 1.100 1.10 1.108 <0.1with zinc 5C 1.090 1.09 - -anodes

Bare mainer 24A 1.075 1.10 1.091 2.72stee (690) with 241 1.080 1.10 M.090 2.2zinc anodes 24C 1.080 1.10 - -

18

,"x'

Table 5 Plotting the cathodic protection indices versus timeCathodic Protection Indices of Coated Piling on log-log plots (Figure 7) permits predic'ions of the

AV deterioration of the coatings over a long period of

Atime. Deterioration of the coatirs generally causesa drop in CPI, as demonstrated by a negative slope.

pa, However, some coatings, such as flame-sprayed metal-Number lics, have a completely flat slope or a slightly positive

and Raw 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1981 one, indicating formation of protective corrosion

4A 8.95 3.61 1.6 1.14 1.72 0.41 products, such as aluminum oxide or zinc oxide.4B 2.38 1.72 1.1 0.71 1.63 0.296A 7.00 2.21 1.3 0.76 1.54 0.50 Polarization Measuremonts6B 1.45 0.930 0.68 0.59 1.89 0.34 The corrosion rate or rate of metal loss is a function7A 13.0 9.10 7.2 5.67 5.06 2.23 of the average corrosion current density. The higher7B 3.02 2.46 2.0 1.98 2.43 1.17 the corrosion current density of a metal in water, the8A 21.7 3.76 1.7 0.92 1.72 0.608B 2.48 1.48 1.1 0.59 4.59 0.28 higher the metal loss. The corrosion current densities-9A 19.7 15.5 11.0 8.42 7.23 2.80 based on Schwerdtfeger's equation (Eq 2)--for bare9B 1.97 1.94 1.6 1.46 2.11 0.87 carbon steel (System i) and bare mariner steel (System

11A 0.30 0.14 0.12 0.11 1.37 0.19 23) were 14.2 and 16.2 mA/sq ft (152.7 and 174.21iB 0.26 0.14 0.11 0.11 1.30 0.29 mA/m 2 ), respectively. The corrosion rates as measured12A 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.11 1.40 0.1812B 0.51 0.23 0.15 0.13 1.36 0.26 by Schwerdtfeger's equation for bare carbon steel13A 3.85 5.17 5.4 4.69 4.59 0.57 (A36) and bare mariner steel (A690) were 7.1 and 813B 3.66 5.12 5.7 6.00 5.00 1.39 milt (0.18 and 0.2 mm) per year, respectively. lp and14A 6.45 3.23 0.2 13.64 16.30 6.00 Iq were determined by extending the tangents of14B 4.20 5.36 5.6 7.50 5.25 2.03 linear portions of the polarization curves and deter-15A 0.52 0.79 0.81 1.13 2.34 2.00158 0.43 0.59 0.75 1.07 2.54 0.26 mining their intersection, as shown in Figures 8 and 9.16A 0.73 0.89 1.5 2.11 3.49 2.0516B 0.99 0.94 0.13 1.97 4.69 0.0 Flange Thickness Profiles17A 11.3 4.11 2.9 1.47 2.04 0.58 Figures 10 through 15 give flange edge thickness17B 2.27 1.88 1.3 1.03 1.74 0.48 profiles for piles that were bare, bare with cathodicIA 34.2 17.4 10.0 6.30 0.46 1.3818B 2.47 2.2 1.6 1.30 1.91 0.64 protection, and coated with sacrificial anodes. The19A 2.18 0.33 0.21 0.19 1.50 0.22 flange thickness was measured I in. (254 mm) from19B 0.98 0.28 0.17 0.16 1.32 0.17 the edge, and reflected the corrosion on both surfaces

.20A 70.80 46.90 21.0 23.08 16.85 0.0 of the piling flange. The corrosion rates determined20B 2.63 2.73 3.7 4.05 5.67 0.98 from these measurements are 7 and 6 mils (0.179 and21A 53.6 39.0 24.0 48.39 16.00 0.2221B 2.05 1.41 0.65 0.35 1.35 0.18 0.15 mm) per year respectively for bare carbon (A36)22A 1.98 2.13 0.32 0.18 1.34 0.14 and bare mariner (A690) steel.22B 2.79 2.03 0.50 0.27 1.33 0.1725A 15.4 5.00 1.7 1.07 18.91 0.39 All piling of bare carbon and mariner steel showed258 2.52 1.53 0.78 0.62 1.74 0.32 perforation of the web in the atmospheric zone. No29A 17.9 12.50 10.0 7.92 7.69 5.8029A 2.44 2.38 2.0 2.14 2.88 1.92 significant differences in corrosion rates were notedbetween the bare carbon and mariner steel after

10-years' exposure at the LaCosta Island test site.The bare steel piles were severely corroded directlyabove the high tide (splash) zone and just below the

A direct correlation exists between bare steel area low tide area. A zone of severe corrosion also wasand the amount of current required to shift the bare found at or just below the piling's mud line. Thesteel to a fixed potential. Since CPI is inversely pro- bare steel piling exhibited very little corrosion in theportional to the change in current (Eq 1), a direct embedded zone.correlation exists between the CP! and a bare steelsurface in water. A decrease in CPI indicates a larger Using sacrificial zinc or aluminum anodes on barearea of bare steel exposed to water, and is therefore steel piling (Figures 12, 13, and 14) effectively reduceda measure of coating deterioration, the corrosion rate in the immersed and embedded

.191 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"__ _' 19

@ 29 FOLYE5T OLASUPLAME&I? Pt4VMau MASTI

1 7 COAL-TAN Epox

30.

2 0 - 0

56 0ASTM -1

L)A

2 DAITh-?

ASM-

04

03

Q2

12 24 3 4660 eo

TIM OF EXPOSURE, MONTHS

PFgm 7. Cathodic protection indices versus time.

zones to less than 0.1 ml (0.00.3 mm) per year, but and 6 mils (0.179 and 0.15 mm) per year respectivelyhad no effect on corrosion in the atmospheric and for bare carbon (A36) and bare mariner (690) steel.splash zones. Sacrificial zinc or aluminum anodes effectively reduced

Adding a coating (Figure 15) to a cathodically corrosion in the immersed zone to less than 0.1 milprotected system reduced the corrosion in the atmos- (0.003 mm) per year. (Adding sacrificial anodes to apheric zone; anode consumption rates wer als coated steel piling protects steel in the immersed zonereduced. A coated, cathodically protected system is if the coating Is damaged.)advantageous because the steel is protected when thecoating in the immersed zone is damaged. 2. The polyester glass flake coating (System 29) was

the top performer. Epoxies over zinc-rich primer(Systems 20, 10 and 18) and vinyl-sealed, flme.

4 CONCLUSIONS sprayed aluminum and zinc (Systems 14 and 16)coatings also performed very well aftr 10-years'

1. The corrosion rates-determined by flange thick- exposure at the L&Costa Island test ito. IMe reultswass meare.enta in the immersion zone -were 7 are summarized in Table 3.

20

-09

.00

.05 OI1,NI),l,). 340 NA

.4

cLmffN. mA b ao

Figure 8. Polarization curves-bare carbon steel.

SYSIM 3MK maSSES STEEL ISOMS

-as

41M

Flgsae9. POIAriZation curve-bare mariner steel.

21

0

00

222

1 0 a AIE

-m 1-0F.

23g

0-

Cu .0:

4d

- - - -- -.-- --.- - IL

F6*5I

s9 ..

24p

REFERENCES Kumar, A. and D. Wittmer, "Coatings and CathodicProtection of Pilings in Seawater: Results of5-Year Exposure," Materials Performances, Vol18, No. 12 (1979), p 9-19.

"Carboglas 1601 Spray Grade (SG)," Product DataSheet (Saint Louis, MO: Carboline Co.) Kumar, A., R. Lampo, and A. Beitelman, Corrosion

Control of Pilings in Seawater.- Buzzards Bay,Holler, H. D., "Studies on Galvanic Couples," Journal Technical Report M-286/ADA097086 (CERL,

of the Electrochemical Society, Vol 97 (1950), 1981).p 277.

Pearson, J. M., "'Null' Methods Applied to CorrosionKearney, F., Corrosion of Steel Pilings in Seawater: Measurements," Transactions of the Elect ro-

Buzzards Bay-1975-1978, Interim Report M-275/ chemical Society, Vol 81 (1942), p 485.j

ADA0 8626(CER , 19 9).Schwerdtfeger, W. . and 0. N. McDorman, "Measure-Kumar, A. and C. Hahin, First Annual Inspection of ment of Corrosion Rate of Metal From Its Polariz- I

Buzzards Bay Pilings, Technical Report M-172/ ing Characteristics," Journal of the Elect rochemicalADA024381 (CERL, 1976). Society, Vol 99 (1952), p 407.

25

"Crols10 paLrd S)"PoutDt

* APPENDIX:CHARTS OF CORROSION BEHAVIOROF STEEL PILING ATLACOSTA ISLAND

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A 1IS C D 2 E 3 F 6 H 4 -

C- - r

SOME RUST - --- -- _ ATMOSPHERICSTAINING 4 ZN

TIDAL ZONE

SEVERE RUSTBLISTEING 3IMMERSED

13 ZONE

SAND-SWEPT

23-

10 26ZONE

PILE NO. 4A

-. SHOWS RUSTING

26

AMTMCOMMENTS RATING A IS6 C 0 2 E 3 F 6 14

7 3ATMOSPNICZONE

4-

T IDAL ZONE

EDGE GONERUSTY SPOTS 4 1

IMMERSED13 ZONE

14

1052

17

22-

23

24 - ~ SOSRS N

2727

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A 1IS C 0 2 E 3 F G 4

I -Af-_

LIGHT STAINING ATMOSPHERICAND RUST a - ZONE

4

ATTACHED MARINE 1GROWTHSOME LOSS OF 9 --2-ACOAT ING IMRE

9 I - -- ZONE

I0

22--

228

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A 1 c DR 0 £ 3P 6 9N4

2i

SOME RUST 3 TOSPERIAND STAININGZ

Or COATING IIMRE

T ZONE

PILE NO. 53

W! SHOWS RUST INS

29

... . i--. .. '' I I I -- * I I ~lIF ...... . .. III10l

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A 1IS C D 2 E 37F H 4

C - - -

- - - _ ATMOSPHERIC6 ZONE

6

T IDAL ZONE

EDGES GONE 3 1IMMERSED

13 ZONE

SAND-SWEPT3 19 ZONE

00

230

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A I I C 029 E 3 F 0 H 4

-- - ATMOSPHERICSOME RUST 7 ZNAND SCALE4

7 TIDAL ZONE

LOSS OF 1 1COAT ING IMRE13 ZONE

SAND-SWEPT19 ZONE

25 EMUEDOED,10 ZONE

PILE NO. 66

qW --a SHOW$ RUST INS

31

ASYMCOMMENTS RATING A 1II C 0 2 E 37F 0 H 4

- ATMOSPHERIC6 ZONE

Al -Z:: T IDAL ZONE

LOSS OF

FLANGE EDGES IMMERSED13 ZONE

SA1SWP

- s9, SAN-SEP

AMYMCOMMENTS NATINI

-3 ATMO*WNERIC8 ZONE

7 TIDAL ZONE

ALUMINUM 1OX iDE IMMERSED

13 ZONE

I0

17

tIs

W 19 SHOWS UST IN

233

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A 1 8 C 0 2 E 3 F 6 4

3 ATMOSPHERICZONE

T IDAL ZONE

EDGE GONE 3 12IMERE

13 ZONE

SAND-SWEPT

3 19 ZONE

9 ZONE

P#LE NO. IIA

.14

ASTMCOMMENTS RATUOS A 1IS C D 2 E 3 F 0 14

LOSS OF -3 - - - _ ATMOSPHERICTOP COAT 8 ZON

SEVERE LOSSIOF COATING IMMERSED

ZONE

SAND-SWEPT3 ZONE

20

23-3-

24 - -- '~

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A 1B8C D2 E 3 F__H

10 0

VERY- GOO 3 ATMOSPHERIC

COATING 10 4ZN

SOME RUSTINGOF EDGE FLANGE 8 2

IMMERSED- - -

13 ZONE

SAND-SWEPT19 ZONE

23

EMBEDDED10 25ZONE

236

......................................-,~ .2.

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A IS C 0 2 E 3 F 6 14

0- 0 0

3 - - - - - - - ATMOSPHERIC9 Zorn

100-

EDGE ISEXTREMELY 4 12 IMRE

ZONE

SAPID-SWEPT

10 1 ZONE

SNW AUS IN

2337

A3TMCOMMENTS RATING A 1 8 C D 2 E 3P G H 4

00

ATMOSPHERICSOME STAINING aS- ZN

TIDAL ZONE

9 12- --- -ZN

IESED

10

Is-.

24--

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A IS8 C D 2 E 3 F S H 4

3 - ATMOSPHERIC

LIGHT STAINING 9 ZONE

7 TIDAL ZONE

IMMERSED3 ZONE

SAND-SWEPT

10 1 -ZONE

1 39

EMEDE

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A IS8 C 0 2 E 3 F 6 H 4

- - - - - __ ATMOSPHERIC2 ZONE

4-

T IDAL ZONE

IMMERSED13 ZONE

SAND-SWEPT

10 19ZONE

04

A3TM

COMMENTS RATW" A I S C D 2 E 3P F 0 W 4

3 ATMOSPHERIC4 ZONE

T T IDAZONE

SADSWa

9

141

AITM

COMMENTS RATING A I S C D 2 E 3 F 6 H 4

3 - ATMOSPHERIC7 ZONE

5 A

00

; - --_ --O':.Z:: .0 TIAZONE

0IMEDOEDo 3 ZONE

isi

f 1 SANN-UWEPT ZONE

211

25 EMBEDDED9 2If ZONE

PILE NO. 12 A

It -eSHIOWS RUSTING

42 , ?

ASTMCOkMNT$ RATIOS1

31 AThMERICD8 ZONE

TDZONE

I0

PIL IMO.RSED

143

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A 1IS C D02 E 3 F S H 4

I--

- - - ATMOSPHERICRUST BSCALE 3 ZONE

5

7 T IDAL ZONE

STAIN ING 5 1IMMERSED

13 ZONE

SADSWEPT5 19 ZONE

25-- 11EMBEDDED6 ZONE

PILE NO. 13A

-. SHOWS RUSTING

______ .44_ _ _ _

ASTMCOMMENTS RATUO$ A ISI C DR I 3 I 0 114

3 ATMOSPHERIC5 ZONE

T DZONE

2

14

21

21

22

3,

1145

*2 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

COMMENTS ASTMCOMNS RATING A 1IS C 0 2 E 37F 0 4

3-. ATMOSPHERIC

5 ZONE

TI[DAL ZONE

IMMERSEDZONE

to 19SAND-SWEPTZONE

I00

21 - -SOS UTN

24-6

COMMENTS IIAM A ISI C 029 E 3 F 0 H 4

SOME RUSTING ATOPEI& STAINING ZONE

T IDAL ZONE

RUSTING SkSTAINING 1ATTACHED MARINEGROWTH It

13 - -- ZONEVERYMALLmc -- 14

SARNACLI

ZONE

21 - - - - - -

247

EMtK

ASTMCOMMENT$ RATING A IS0 C DR2 E 37F 6 H 4

10 0

- -- - - _ ATMOSPH4ERIC5 3 -.ZONE

54L

7~T IDAL ZONE

TOP COAT GONEFLAME SPRAY a-STILL PRESENT IMRE

SAND-SWEPT8 jr-9- ZONE

22 - --- -Z

7 ZN

30-

PILE NO. I5A

W -~ SHOWS RUSTING

48

ASThCOMMENTS RATING A ISI C 0 2 E 3 F 0 H 4

0 0l 11 02- ai I ATMOSPHERIC

5 3-ZONE4

TIDAL ZONE

S I-*- ZONE

144

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING 0A 1IS C 0 2 E 3F 0 14

3 - -- - -- ATMOSPHERIC9 ZONE

4S

IMMERSED13 - .- ZONE

SAND-SWEPT

21 - -

95 -1 EMBEDDEDGLISTERING aS 6 - ZONE

PILE NO. ISA

SHOWS RUST ING

50

ASTMCOMMENTS RATIN A 1I8 C D 9 E -3F 0 H 4

00

ATMOSPHERICSOME STAINING 9 ZONE

I I.

BL ISTER ING IAND RUSTING IMMRSE

13 ZONE

isi

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING6 A 1IS C D 2 E 3 F 6 H 4

3 ATMOSPHERIC6 ZoN

SEVERE LOSSOF COATING 4 12

IMMERGED13 ZONE

SA40-SWEPT

4 0 ZONE

25

ASYMCOMMENTS RATING A 1IS C D 2 E 37 F 0 H 4

3 VINATMOSPHERIC6 ZONE

7 ::: T DAZONE

IMMERSED13 ZONE

144

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A IS8 C 0 2 E 3 F H 14

3 1 1ATMOSPHERIC

4 4 n -0-ZONE61T IDAL ZONE

6 12 IMMERSED13 ZONE

SAND-SWEPT

6 19 ZONE

20

244

AITMCOMMENTS RATISS A IS8 C 0 2 E 3 F 0 H 4-

1 110 10

2 1

1 1 -1 - - ATMOSPI4ERC

7 ZONE

7 T IDAZONE

10- - -0 MSDE

PI1 S. O

w 19W US N

IMERE

~~1 ZONE.- z

AIYMCOMMENTS NATWI A IS C 029 E 3 F S H4

3 ATMOSPHERIC

17 -- TIAZONE

T DZONE

10 0SSE

SOLE NO.SISOF~ SOAOIS 0R1STINGNU

13 ZONE

31

ASTMCOMMENTS RATIN A3@C60 E3F

ATTACTEOSMAEINE

RUTN 4- ZONE

7 :::: TDAZONE

10 O0

RUTN 13 SZWSRUTEW>5,PITTING

ASTUCOMMENTS RATING A 1I8 C D02 E 3SF 0 H 4

- - - ATMOSPHERIC9 ZONE

4 -

TIDAL ZONE

IMMERSED13 ZONE

SADSWEPT19 - ZONE

20

25 EMKEOED

PILE NO. R0A

58

ASiMCOMMENTS RATIG A 19 C DR 9 3F 0 H4

C - -

- - - - -ATMOSPIHERIC

9 3 - ZONE

7 00...o - T IDAL ZON4E

IMMERSEDZONE

SANO-SWEPTis MNE

000

POLE NO. 209

1111WM RUST ING

59

II

COMMETS RAIOS 0 ~ m CA2T1 SP0 11

ZONE

4 - EMSOOE

06

144

COMMENTS RAOS A IS C 0 2 E 3F H 14000

- - - -ATMOSPHERIC

3 ZONE4

TIDA ZONE

IMMERSED13 ZONE

to SAND-SWEPTZONE

PIENO11

131

ASTMCOMMENTS RATING A 1 8 C D E3F 6 H4

3 ATMOSPHERIC9 ZONE

T DZONE

13 ZONE

4624Is *

COMMENTS RATING A IS C 09 E 3F 6 H4

31 ZONE

T OZONE

It

171

ASTMCOMMENTS RATSS A 1I8 C I 2 9 3F 6 N 4-

r - -- - - - - - ATMOSPHERIC6 ZONE

9 TI-DA ZONE

I0

16 -6 4

......................................

111AD-MET*9 19 ZONE

COMMENT$ RATING -A 13 C 0t 9 3 F 6 14

ATMOSPHERICZONE

7 H ~z:TIDAZONE

100

4 - ~SOSRS N

6 65

COMMENTS ASTM

COMETS RATING A 1 8 C 0 2 3 0 114

I o

ATMOSPHRIC8 ZONE

4

T10A ZONE

P9ENO T

-iSOW US N9 113 IMMERSE

(CIlL D1ISTRIBUT1ON

Chief of 4"ere Gth 034. KaooN=AI lTh "matter ATTU, £ 11 94271 AIIM: 41m-A 2015AIIM:t DARM-681-L (2) AIM WS-1? 94259 AM,3 Factilities RolloverAmiM D483-CC? AIM: SAPS-? 9621 Oakland4 Am,7 ae 14424

AIIM: DAKU-CVUoiac.i. ot. oo 40 0M NOT8 01 64

AT AINS, BECV8-4 Combine Far--@Ie"f Coma" 6301., AistM 5804 114AITM& DAZE-Ca ATNAITMs VAB1P- USA Japan (vow9.)AITN& DAIM-40 Ch. I. AiIM-U 96243 TANCWl. Fee. Div. 48090ATT13I DABV-OWC pt OWt (Ao"Jim) 96343AIrm, DALI-I Pat batr (08*....) 96331 1CDE. AIIM: ouIR -14-t *O0ATTM: DAW*4ftATIM: DAZMNlWI.A Rocky t At,.eol, UWJF51S 8022 IMAVOC

AIM, DAE-RD Eq. T&AW.C £118: AIM-PgATF: 0691-60 Area Ballarat. LDC-AZ.O Of fite ATIM: Facilities SagismarAIIM:I 3418434 AIt..l Air Fort.e5Sta1.., TO 37189 Fort Belvoir 22040

ATTNM& DAM-i port Remains 31905AMDA1.. at&"M At". Of fic., CK Fort fil.& 7996

ATIMt DuAlZECZ vandesbers An., Ch 93437 Cartiale Barratks 17013

AIM: DAZ-ZCI Fort Chaff.e 72902ArIM: DAWZZ0 414tb Engineer Coasted 60623 tort Ott 08440

AIIN. Facilities logineor yort Battle 23404lISA, AIM: Library 2204 Fort Gordon 30905

US littiry Acaemy 10996 fort Saallto. 11252VISA, AIIM: OTT 111 79906 AIIM: P.riltles lAlnoor Fort Benjamino Matisou 46216

ATTM: Dept of Geography A tort Jackso 29207US Army Rolloer Ditrit@ Coputer Sciece fort tont 4012tATTN: Library AIIM,% DSCIA/MM-k tort t..a-o.,tch 66027

Alaska 90501 fort Loa 23801Al Rt:. 0914 sAgr. Studies Ceoter 20315 tort MCelan 34205Alboquarqoe N710 AIIM: Lllrory Poart Mor. 23651Baltimore 21203 por tRorcket 36342Buffalo 14207 AWRC, A1WN1 3511-VS 02172 Fort s-t1 73503Charleston 29602 tort LtAr.rd Nood 45473CkArog 60600 USA 4*5104 61299Detroit 48231 AIIM: bCgI-1 TSAZIH, AIM : S1548-1 43120For tost 96301 ,.IIE: ORSAR-IStort North 74102 U10CCsitoo 77530 DARCON - Oir. * lost., 4 Mor6. ATTM: tactiitti*4 Soag r

ligtieglo. 25721 AIIM: Fotttles Cusome.r Fort 100.1190 83413Jachsoet.i1la 32232 455*0CM 07801 port Ritchie 21719japs 106343 Aberde Proving; Gro.0d 21003Koo... city 44104 Amy7 MAt.s. and Merhoolce Re. Ctt. WESTCONLittle lack 72203 Corpus Chrieti Amy7 Depot 76419 AIIM: Fac~lititonglosartoa "alesa 90013 Barry Diamood Laboratories 20783 tor t Shafter 94858Looteotlie 40201 segay Pro.iog Ground S4022Neupi. 38103 iefforse Prong Ground 47230 SHAPE 09053Motle 54428 tort Monmoth 07703 ATTM: Survivability Section. CCIIOti

Nashville 37202 Lettakkmany As"y Depot 17201 infrastructure vreorh. LAMA

aM Orleans 70140 Natick R&D Ctr. 01740new Tort 10007 mew Cumerland Army Depot 17070 HiQ u555CM 04128

Norfolk 23510 Pueblo AM. Depot 81001 AIIM: 512 417-LOEOmaha 48102 Rod Rtver Away Depot 73501Philadelphia 19106 Redtone Arsenal 35809 port Rlnoir, VA 22040Pittsburgh 13222 Rock Island Arveaa 4129" AIIM: 412A-11114

Portland 97208 so.....e Am~y Depot 41074 ATTN: AIZA-OOKSW

Riyadh 093 Sharp* Amy Depot 95331 ATTN; 412*-fl

Rock Is1and 61201 leaves Army Depot 14541 AIIM: togr. Librarytorr.eeto 95814 Tobyh.Ao Army Depot 18444 AIIM: Canadian Liatelo Office (2)too Promrisrs 94105 T0as1. Ar.y Depot 84074 ATIM: 13: LibrarySavannah 31402 Mst~rvliet Arenal 1189Seattle 98124 moe proving Crou04 85344 Cold R.Sl006 S.#tvtlI EoSt-rtto Lbk A3755

St. Lot. 43101 white Seed$ "testl to Se 88002 AIIM: LibraryIt. Paul $5101Tolsa 74102 DIA AIIM: SLA-vi 22314 ZTL, AIM: Library 2204O

VirheorS 39180Malt. W011. "9342 P0R8CM waefto teport... Sott.. 3918:

tilmington 24401 POISCO Engineer, ATTM: APSE-Ft ATTN: LibrayArIm:t Prtlttits lasissair

Lis Army tngineer btoiio.o tort sucue. 00934 NIQ, 10111 Airborne Corps and 241307

AIIM: Library Fort atg 28307 It. $fall

Serape n9757 Fort Campbell 42223 AT71N: AFZA-FE-1tHuntsvileI SSt f50ort care" 80913Loer Mississitppi valley 39180 tort Dcoe 01433 Chanute AlE, IL 61818

of1441. rest 09038 Fort Drum 13401 3345 CdO/It, Stop 27middle test (Root) 22601 tort Mood 74544MI ..oIrl Siver 48101 tort 1.41501mms GOP 17003 Morto" 011 92409

71e0 EoglO4

02154 tort Irwin 92311 ATIM: APCIMI/OttErth Atlantic 10007 tort 8.. Branton 78234North Central 40605 port Leis 9S433 Tyodoit All. FL 32403

North Pacif ic 97206 tort McCoy 34434 6S~oI.ro ooe a0400 River 45201 tort Mirorhetee 30330 cPacific ocean 965 tort Geors. 6. reade 20755 MAT" tSCitnsOfcSouth Atlantic 20303 tort Ord 93941 Alanti Div4ison~ 21%1ceSooth Pactfit 94111 Fort Peil, 71459 Atle.oot 9tvielon 13511sothwetar 75202 ar to t Sirson 96505 ep h.Dtlo 207

Ttalla 6.14 442 Rootbha DtetlE'* 11411

US Arof Erope P"01,410 of Rea Frantiaco 94129 Pacifi iviiotl 94840nq. 7th Art" Tratning Command 09114 tort Sheridan 40037 Northern Dtotstom 1112

41182 AV 1113 (05 tort Stewart 3132 maters "ol"ieS 06144

dy, itit Army OOC5/for. 09402 fort Msloreight 99103 ATIM: Sr. lTh. IPC031 22552

ATIM: ARAW-818 (4) Vanc.evr sks. 9160 AIIM: aet. CR W. 7103 22552V. Corp@ 09079 O qW

ATIM: AZMIM (S) MCS 904Ill. Corps 091154 AM =LU- 78254 AIIM: Library (Cad. LUA)

AIM A15MM (5) AIIM: Platilitiae gftiF@21e .0 Ropt ommad 0923 Pise.1e85m Amd 80340 Defat. lechmigal lae. oetr fl3l4

AIM: Raw9 (M Walter amid AW 22 AIM 01A (12)

ATIM: 5558-48 (2) 18C -ch, bosti. Div. Sge~~SRr~tuLba 61Rother. orop~s look tort* 09144 AIIM: pooritles BAINNIee NewYor, nl£111: AB5R-sm6 (S) Arlington Veit station (2) 22212

["cltaio le. opport Activity 943 flat Kil t station. 226 Naetional swrd a6.06.0 20,10

A4"4% AVARS-RI Ietallettem Maise

$ch US. RO ATTM$ taellittGO Vollmer us aOgomt 911ati6 Ofitce IRV%

NI SAFE (83 96301 towere ftattoo 2214 Ro.41n2e swrteleIep~t-tS,~ e

ArIms K£8991 0611 Fort i.V.1. MEveni 20310AITM: £81146 94224 Fort MyPr 22211

210 1-02

EMIM Team Distribction

Director of Facilities Engineering US Army Engineer DivisionMiami, FL 34004 New EnglandATTN: Chief, NEDED-T

West Point, NY 10996 North AtlanticATTN: Dept of Mechanics ATTN: Chief, NADEN-TATTN: Library South Atlantic

ATTN: Chief, SADEN-TSChief of Engineers HuntsvilleATTN: DAEN-MPO-U ATTN: Chief, HNDED-CSATTN: DAEN-MPZ-A ATTN: Chief, HNDED-SRATTN: DAEN-MPR Ohio RiverATTN: DAEN-RDL ATTN: Chief, Engr Div

SouthwesternFort Belvoir, VA 22060 ATTN: SWDED-TMATTN: Kingman Bldg. Library Pacific OceanATTN: Canadian Liaison Officer (2) ATTN: Chief, Engr Div

North PacificFort Leavenworth, KS 66027 ATTN: Chief, Engr DivATTN: ATZLCA-SA

AFESC/PRTFort McPherson, GA 30330 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403ATTN: AFEN-CD

Tinker AFB, OK 73145Fort Monroe, VA 23651 2854 ABG/DEEEATTN: ATEN-AD (3)

Patrick AFB, FL 32925USA-WES ATTN: XRQATTN: C/Structures

McClellan APB, CA 956526th US Army 2852 APG/DEATTN: AFKC-EN

Naval Air Systems Command7th US Army ATTN: LibraryATTN: AEf-M-HRD-EHD WASH DC 20360

US Army Science & Technology Naval Facilities Engr CommandCenter - Far East Office' ATTN: Code 04

Alexandria, VA 22332

US Army Engineer DistrictPhiladelphia Port Hueneme, CA 93043

ATTN: Chief, NAPEN-1l ATTN: Library (Code LOBA)

8aitimoreATTN: Chief, Engr Div Washington, DC

Norfolk ATTN: Transportation Research BoardATTN: Chief, NAOEN-D ATTN: Library of Congress (2)

Wilmingtin ATTN: Dept of Transportation LibraryATTN: Chief, SAWEN-D

Charleston National Defense HeadquartersATTN: Chief, Engr Div Director General of Construction

Savannah Ottawa. OntarioATTN: Chief, SASAS-L Canada KIA O(2

JacksonvilleATTN: Const Div Airports and Construction Services Dir

Mobile Technical Information Reference CentreATTN: Chief, SAMEN-C Ottawa, OntarioATTN: Chief, SAMEN-D Canada KlA ON8

MemphisATTN: Chief, LM4ED-DM 64

VicksburgATTN: Chief, Engr Div

LouisvilleATTN: thief, Engr Div

St. PaulA:,N: Chief, ED-D

OmahaATTN: Chief, Engr Div

New OrleansATTN: Chief, LMMED-DG

Little RockATTN: Chief, Engr Div

San FranciscoATTN: Chief, Engr Div

SacramentoATTN: Chief, SPKED-D

PortlandATTN- Chief. 08-6

SeattleATTN: Chief, NPSCO

Walla WallaATTN: Chief. Engr Div

AlaskaATTN: Chief, NPASA-R

Bukowski, JohnCoatings and cathodic protection of piling in seawater: results of 10-year

exposure at LaCoste Island, nL / by J. Eukowski, A. Kumr -Champaign, ILConstruction Engineering Research Laboratory ;available from NTIS, 1982.

66 p. (Technical Report ; *-321)

1. LaCose Island, 1L. 2. Steel piling -corrosion. 3. Seawatercorrosion. 1. Kumar, Ashok. 11. Title. 111. Seie: Technical Report(Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (U.S.)) * )-321.