Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322789632

Galvanic Cathodic Protection for Power Transmission Tower Grillage


Foundations

Article  in  Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance · December 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 51

1 author:

Peyman Taheri
Matergenics
29 PUBLICATIONS   468 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Corrosion in Telecom Utility Strucutres View project

Corrosion in Power Utility Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peyman Taheri on 30 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


CATHODIC PROTECTION

Galvanic Cathodic Protection


for Power Transmission Tower
Grillage Foundations
Peyman Taheri, Matergenics Cathodic protection (CP) of under- Widely used conventional CP design
Engineering, Vancouver, British ground steel structures is a mature methods are based mainly on empirical for-
Columbia, Canada mulas and designer experience. Such
technology for structures with simple
mehrooz zamanzadeh, FnaCe, design methods, although very useful, were
Exova Group, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania geometries, such as pipelines and
primarily developed for piping systems and
storage tanks. Nevertheless, this
are not optimal for structures with more
technology is not well-adapted to
complex configurations. They fail to incor-
structures with irregular geometries, porate all design factors and often require
where application of conventional the use of relatively large safety factors. To
anode bed designs are formidable address this issue, an electrochemical sim-
due to the interplay of geometrical ulation tool was developed for designing
and electrochemical effects. A simu- efficient CP systems for buried compo-
lation-based approach is presented nents of transmission structures. Grillage-
to design optimized galvanic anode type foundations were selected to highlight
beds for complex structures in soil some capabilities of the proposed approach
environments by considering exact because these types of foundations are
geometry and factual design data. To common in transmission structures, and
their geometrical irregularities (e.g., edges,
showcase some unique capabilities
holes, bends, and joints) pose a recognized
of the design methodology, CP sys-
CP design challenge that requires further
tem designs for grillage-type founda- investigations.
tions for power transmission struc-
tures are considered. Steel Grillage Foundations
Transmission tower foundations are

U
required to stabilize the towers by transfer-
Underground corrosion of structures ring the structural loads to the under-
supporting power transmission and distri- ground environment. They must be
bution (T&D) lines is the primary cause of designed to resist movements such as set-
in-service equipment degradation. Each tlement, uplift, and lateral displacement.1
year, utility companies allocate increased Among different types of foundations,
corrosion mitigation budgets to refurbish a steel grillage foundations are the preferred
large population of aging and corroded choice for four-legged lattice towers when
structures. Accordingly, effective and footing conditions allow their application.
economically feasible corrosion mitigation Grillage foundations include a horizontal
techniques, such as cathodic protection grillage base plate constructed from struc-
(CP) systems specifically designed for T&D tural steel (usually galvanized angles,
structures, are in great demand. beams, and channels), and some vertical

30 DECEMBER 2016 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 55, NO. 12


members, which are extensions of a tower
leg. Common grillage foundation con-
figurations that connect the tower leg to
the grillage plate include pyramid sup-
ports, a single tubular member, and a
single leg stub.
The main advantages of grillage foun-
dations are their low cost and ease of
installation. They are entirely shop-fabri-
cated and typically can be purchased with
the tower. Furthermore, grillage founda-
tions require minimal installation time and
allow immediate tower assembly. They usu-
ally do not need a concrete pour, so con-
crete-related transporting and curing time
is not required.2
The major drawback of grillage founda-
tions is the necessity of relatively deep
excavations for their installation. Some-
times, due to variations in soil environ-
ments along the power line route, tower
foundations need to be enlarged by pouring
a concrete base around the grillage if actual
soil conditions are not as good as those
assumed in the original design. In addition,
large grillages are difficult to set and
require accurate adjustments for tower
FIGURE 1 A sample of a computational soil domain for electrochemical simulation of a CP system
installation.2
for a grillage foundation with two vertical anodes.

Cathodic Protection Model


The primary goal of the proposed CP TABLE 1. STRUCTURE VS. POLARIZED SOIL POTENTIAL AND
design tool is to determine detailed distri-
bution of potential and current density
CORROSION CONDITION FOR STEEL
(CD) on the surfaces of grillage founda- Potential (vs. CSE) Corrosion Condition
tions. Such information allows examina- More electropositive than –500 mV Severe corrosion
tion and optimization of the anode bed –500 to –600 mV Corrosion
design so the structure can be sufficiently
–600 to –700 mV Mild corrosion
polarized in accordance with the NACE
International criteria for CP.3 –700 to –850 mV Slow corrosion
–850 to –1,100 mV Cathodically protected
Three-Dimensional More electronegative than –1,100 mV Overprotected
Geometry Model
Since CP is a geometry-related matter,
inclusion of more details in the geometry tions varies from ~60 ft2 (~6 m2) to ~260 ft2 sample computational soil domain is
leads to a more accurate design. Three- (~24 m2) depending on the size and design depicted.
dimensional (3-D) geometry models for of the grillage plate.
grillage foundations are used in CP model- A soil hemisphere with a radius of a few Input Data:
ing. Such detailed geometry models enable feet is considered the main soil domain for Field Survey and Lab Tests
accurate calculation of the total surface electrochemical simulations. Another soil For the sake of modeling accuracy, cer-
area and allow precise predictions of domain, which surrounds the main soil tain tests must be performed to character-
under-protected and overprotected areas. domain, accounts for the effects of the ize the soil environment and collect rele-
The surface area for grillage founda- infinite soil environment. In Figure  1, a vant electrochemical data. These include:

NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 55, NO. 12 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE DECEMBER 2016 31


CATHODIC PROTECTION

once the bare surface area is calculated/


TABLE 2. TYPICAL CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR CP OF BARE STEEL
approximated.
Current Density Anodic and cathodic Tafel equations
2
Environment mA/m mA/ft2 were used to model electrochemical pro-
Neutral soil 4.3 to 16.1 0.4 to 1.5 cesses at the surfaces of sacrificial anodes
and steel structures (cathodes). This
Highly acidic soil 32.3 to 161.4 3 to 15
required laboratory voltammetry tests to
Heated soil 32.3 to 269 3 to 25 evaluate the relevant kinetic parameters
Wet concrete 32.3 to 161.4 3 to 15 (i.e., exchange CD and Tafel slopes for
anode and cathode materials at a sample
soil collected at the tower footing). 8 The
TABLE 3. SAMPLE KINETIC PARAMETER VALUES USED IN kinetic parameters can vary with factors
such as soil resistivity, pH level, oxygen
ELECTROCHEMICAL SIMULATION
concentration, metal ion concentration,
Anodic Tafel slope +50 mV vs. CSE surface area of electrodes, temperature,
Cathodic Tafel slope –160 mV vs. CSE chloride contamination, and organic mat-
Anodic exchange CD 100 mA/m2 ter content.
Examples of values for kinetic parame-
Cathodic exchange CD 1 mA/m2
ters are listed in Table 3. The listed coeffi-
Anodic equilibrium potential –1,750 mV vs. CSE (Table 4) cients are provided for demonstration pur-
Cathodic equilibrium potential –600 mV vs. CSE (Table 1) poses—considerably different values may
be obtained in different soil environments.

TABLE 4. SPECIFICATION OF HIGH-POTENTIAL MAGNESIUM ANODES System Selection and


(M1 TYPE) Primary Calculations
In contrast to pipelines, which are con-
Nominal potential –1,750 mV vs. CSE (in packaged backfill)
tinuous structures with large surface
Current efficiency (E) 50% areas, foundations of T&D towers are sep-
Utilization factor (U) 85% arate structures with relatively small sur-
Theoretical capacity (QMag) 0.251 (A-y/kg) or 0.114 (A-y/lb) face areas. Accordingly, it is preferred to
Theoretical consumption rate 3.98 (kg/A-y) or 8.76 (lb/A-y) install individual galvanic CP systems for
each tower and implement the same for
each tower within a group that share com-
• Soil resistivity test Based on field experience, the electro- mon characteristics.
• Soil-to-structure electrochemical chemical potential of a directly buried Magnesium and zinc anodes are gener-
potential test structure, measured with respect to a refer- ally recommended for soil application;
• CP current requirement test ence electrode (e.g., copper/copper sulfate nonetheless, use of zinc anodes is suggested
• Voltammetry tests [Cu/CuSO4] electrode [CSE]), indicates the only for low soil resistivity conditions.
While the first three tests must be per- corrosion condition, as listed in Table 1.7 High-potential magnesium alloy
formed on-site, voltammetry tests require Note that this potential and the corrosion anodes (Type M1, per ASTM B843 9) were
laboratory facilities. rate will change during different seasons selected for the example (Table 47).
Soil resistivity measurements can be mainly due to variations of soil tempera- The required capacity of the CP system
performed either on-site or in a laboratory ture and moisture content. (QCP) can be calculated from Equation (1):
per ASTM G1874 and AASHTO T2885 stan- The required current to cathodically
dards. It is recommended, however, to use protect a grillage foundation can be mea- QCP = ICP × Life (1)
the Wenner four-pin method, ASTM G57,6 sured on-site by the current interruption
to perform in situ soil resistivity tests, technique, which uses temporary anodes where ICP (A) is the required protection cur-
which allows identification of soil layers, if and a portable direct current power sup- rent obtained from on-site testing or
any. Since distribution of protection cur- ply. Based on soil resistivity and bare sur- approximated from Table 2. A minimum life
rent in soil environments strongly depends face area at the foundation, the required of 20 years is considered for the CP system.
on the soil resistivity, the presence of soil current may vary from a few mA to a few Once the capacity of the CP system is deter-
horizons with different resistivity values hundred mA. Where CP current require- mined, the minimum mass of the anode
can make a considerable difference in the ment tests are not possible, the required (m Mag) for the system can be calculated
performance of a CP system. current can be estimated from Table  2 7 from Equation (2):

32 DECEMBER 2016 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 55, NO. 12


Galvanic Cathodic Protection for Power Transmission Tower Grillage Foundations

Q CP
m Mag =
Q Mag ×E×U
(2)

where Q Mag (A-y/kg) is the theoretical


capacity of anode material, E is the current
efficiency, and U is the utilization factor, as
listed in Table 4.
In general, CP systems with distributed
anodes provide lower anode-bed resistance
and better protection coverage for founda-
tions with irregular geometries; but the
cost for excavation and installation is a lim-
iting factor. The objective of the proposed
CP design method is to compare different
anode arrangements to find an optimum
design in terms of cost and performance.

Numerical Analysis and


CP Design Optimization FIGURE 2 IR-free potential distributions (V) on buried surfaces of the grillage foundation are
shown for different anode arrangements. The top and bottom rows correspond to soil resistivities
A finite element solver, COMSOL
of 5,000 and 2,000 Ω-cm, respectively. White cylinders around the foundation represent the
MULTIPHYSICS† (Version 5.2), was used to anodes.
solve the governing electrochemical equa-
tions. In this example, CP simulations were
developed for a foundation with a single leg trate the effects of soil resistivity on CP per- Conclusions
stub. Two brace angles of the structure are formance, simulation results at a slightly These simulations confirm that areas
also partially buried (Figure 2). acidic soil with a resistivity of 2,000 Ω-cm with geometric features (corners and
In this example, the foundation is are presented in the bottom row. To pro- edges) located in the vicinity of anodes
uncoated and buried in a neutral soil with a vide a fair comparison between these cases, receive the maximum protective current
resistivity of 5,000  Ω-cm. From the 3-D the anode size is the same. The required CP while flat surfaces, particularly when
geometry model, the buried surface area is current obviously increases as the soil cor- shielded, are least polarized/protected. As
calculated as 70 ft2 (6.5 m2). rosivity increases, which in turn increases a result of geometrical complexities, mul-
Current requirement tests in neutral the required mass for anodes for a certain tiple anodes for CP of the grillage founda-
soils indicate that 37 mA would be required CP system life. tion are required. Furthermore, in soils
for CP of the buried members. Alterna- Distribution of polarized potentials on with high resistivities, it is necessary to
tively, the information in Table  2 can be buried surfaces of the foundation was consider a greater number of anodes bur-
used to estimate the required current. investigated to assess the performance of ied close to the structure ( <~ 2  ft [0.6 m]
After using Equations (1) and (2), the each anode bed design. According to the away) to achieve a good level of protection.
minimum mass of magnesium anodes for NACE standard, 3 a minimum surface For large grillage foundations, horizon-
20 years of CP in neutral soil can be calcu- potential of –0.850 V vs. CSE is required for tally buried anodes are preferred to protect
lated as 15.3 lb (7 kg). Cylindrical 5, 9, and CP of steel (Table 1). In Figure 2, dark-red the horizontal members of the grillage,
17 lb (2.3, 4, and 7.7 kg) magnesium anodes areas are protected portions of the founda- while vertically buried anodes are recom-
were considered for CP modeling. Accord- tion, while orange, yellow, green, and blue mended for protection of vertical (leg)
ingly, anode beds with one 17-lb anode, areas, in that order, represent surfaces components. Nonetheless, it is always rec-
two 9-lb anodes, or three 5-lb anodes were with decreasing levels of protection. The ommended to provide full CP to critical
selected to investigate different CP design results show that anode beds provide bet- load-bearing members of the foundation—
scenarios. ter protective current distribution in soils usually the legs—thus, a combination of
In Figure 2, simulation results for differ- with lower resistivity and that highly dis- vertical and horizontal anodes might be
ent CP system designs are shown. Four dif- tributed anode beds provide more uniform required.
ferent anode bed designs with horizontal coverage. For galvanized structures, the equilib-
anodes are presented in each row. Results Only a few anode bed designs are dis- rium potential of the structures gradually
in the top row correspond to neutral soil cussed here; but the design tool allows shifts toward electropositive values as the
with soil resistivity of 5,000 Ω-cm. To illus- investigation of various designs, and its zinc layer is consumed and corrosion pro-
high-resolution results provide the basis gresses into the steel substrate. Accord-

Trade name. for sound decisions. ingly, the design of CP systems for two

NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 55, NO. 12 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE DECEMBER 2016 33


CATHODIC PROTECTION

identical galvanized foundations in the 5 AASHTO T288, “Standard Method of Test for systems. His industrial experience includes
same soil environment depends on their Determining Minimum Laboratory Soil Re- corrosion inspection and corrosion risk
sistivity” (Washington, DC: AASHTO). mitigation in power and telecom utility
age and the quality of the remaining galva- structures, with emphasize on risk analysis
nized coating. 6 ASTM G57, “Standard Test Method for Field and field surveys.
Highly distributed anodes improve the Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the
Wenner Four-Electrode Method” (West Con- M. ZAMANZADEH (Dr. Zee), FNACE, has
performance of a CP system, but the higher over 30 years of experience in failure
shohocken, PA: ASTM).
construction costs should be considered. analysis, corrosion risk assessment/
7 NACE CP3 Course Manual, “Cathodic Pro- management, materials selection, CP, and
tection Technologist” (Houston, TX: NACE, coatings. He has worked in the oil and gas
References and electric power utility industries
2014).
1 “Management of Transmission Line Struc- throughout his career and has resolved/
8 V. E. Perez, “Soil Corrosion Behavior of Hot- provided a wide range of materials and
ture Foundations,” Electric Power Research
Dipped Galvanized Steel in Infrastructure corrosion engineering solutions for these
Institute, Report 1013783, 2007. industries. He holds four certifications
Applications” (Ph.D. thesis, University of
2 IEEE Standard 691-2001, “IEEE Guide for from NACE International that include
British Columbia, 2014). Materials Selection and Design Specialist,
Transmission Structure Foundation Design
9 ASTM B843, “Standard Specification for C o r ro s i o n S p e c i a l i s t , a n d C o a t i n g
and Testing” (New York, NY: IEEE, 2001). Specialist. He is the author of over 60
Magnesium Alloy Anodes for Cathodic Pro-
3 NACE SP0169, “Control of External Corro- technical papers and currently holds 34
tection” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).
sion on Underground or Submerged Metallic patents in materials, some of which are
being produced by major manufacturers.
Piping Systems” (Houston, TX: NACE Inter- P. TAHERI, a member of NACE International
national). and ASME, is the director of engineering
at Matergenics Engineering, Ltd. He has a
4 ASTM G187, “Standard Test Method for
Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and is an
Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the expert in testing, characterization, and
Two-Electrode Soil Box Method” (West modeling of electrochemical systems Editor’s note: Learn more about cathodic
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International). including CP systems and battery storage protection for steel structures buried in soil in
this new Materials Performance quarterly
special feature, “The Science Behind It.” Now
that you’ve read the MP article about protect-
ing underground steel grillage power transmis-

THANK YOU
sion tower foundations, explore the science
behind the corrosion problem, which is
presented in these related CORROSION
articles:
W.J. Schwerdtfeger, O.N. McDorman, “Potential
and Current Requirements for the Ca-
thodic Protection of Steel in Soils,”
Corrosion 8, 11 (1952): pp. 391-399. http://
corrosionjournal.org/doi/abs/10.5006/
0010-9312-8.11.391
A.W. Peabody, “Use of Magnesium for Cathodic
Protection of Pipe Lines in High Resistivity
Soil,” Corrosion 15, 9 (1959): pp. 65-70.
http://corrosionjournal.org/doi/abs/
10.5006/0010-9312-15.9.65
M.T. Walsh, A.A. Sagüés, “Steel Corrosion in
Submerged Concrete Structures—Part 1:
Field Observations and Corrosion Distri-
bution Modeling,” Corrosion 72, 4 (2016):
pp. 518-533. http://corrosionjournal.org/
doi/abs/10.5006/1945

Proud sponsor of 30 Below networking event


M. Purcar, B. Van den Bossche, L. Bortels,
J. Deconinck, P. Wesselius, “Numerical 3-D
Simulation of a Cathodic Protection Sys-

at CORROSION Conference & Expo tem for a Buried Pipe Segment Surrounded
by a Load Relieving U-Shaped Vault,”
Corrosion 59, 11 (2003): pp. 1,019-1,028.

for more than 8 years. http://corrosionjournal.org/doi/abs/


10.5006/1.3277520
M.E. Orazem, J.M. Esteban, K.J. Kennelley,
R.M. Degerstedt, “Mathematical Models
for Cathodic Protection of an Under-
ground Pipeline with Coating Holidays:
Part 1—Theoretical Development,”
Corrosion 53, 4 (1997): pp. 264-272. http://
corrosionjournal.org/doi/abs/10.5006/
1.3280467

34 DECEMBER 2016 MATERIALS PERFORMANCE NACE INTERNATIONAL: VOL. 55, NO. 12

View publication stats

S-ar putea să vă placă și