Corrosive Ground Water Treatment for Center Pivots

Charles V. Privette
MEMBER
ASAE

ABSTRACT
ORROSIVE ground water can drastically reduce the
C useful life of a center pivot irrigation system. A
number of treatment systems were reviewed as potential
solutions to the corrosive water problem. Based on this
evaluation, a treatment system was developed and tried
on three irrigation systems. The treatment systems
injected hydrated lime or dolomitic limestone into the
water according to the buffering capacity needed to
reduce the acidity. Farm B

INTRODUCTION
The installation of center pivot irrigation systems in
the upper Coastal Plain of central and north central
South Carolina began in 1977. (Privette, 1986) This area
is located just below the Fall Line where the Piedmont
meets the Coastal Plain (Fig. 1). Ground water is
abundant with well yields of more than 3800 L/min from
100 to 150 m deep. The quality of the water is considered
excellent by the industrial and municipal users except for
a low pH (range of 4.8 to 6.0). The low pH was of some
concern to irrigators but was not considered to be a
significant problem for water used in center pivots
because the systems were galvanized, and the
manufacturers had 10-year warranties on their
equipment.
The need for testing water (pH) was recognized prior
to the time when the center pivots were used in the state
in order that proper materials could be used in the
construction of the wells. Since the major source of
irrigation water is from sand aquifers, screens are used in
the wells. The use of stainless steel screens was
recommended in all cases when the tests indicated low
pH.
The composition of ground water varies markedly
from one area to another because it dissolves minerals
from the variety of soils and rocks with which it comes in
contact. The dissolved minerals exist as ions (i.e.,
electrically charged particles). These charged particles
affect corrosion by contributing to the electrical
conductivity of the water.
If the pH of the water is below 4.5 because of mineral
and organic acids, or between 5 and 6 or slightly higher
as a result of inorganic acid (such as carbonic acid),
corrosion of iron or steel will occur. Free carbon dioxide
in excess of 20 mg/L will support significant localized
damage (corrosion) to iron and steel if the water is poorly
buffered and the carbonic acid dissociates (Clarke,
Article was submitted for publication in November, 1986; reviewed
and approved for publication by the Soil and Water Div. of ASAE in
June, 1987. Presented as ASAE Paper No. 86-2107.
The author is: CHARLES V. PRIVETTE, Professor, Agricultural
Engineering Dept., Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
Fig. 1—Corrosive ground water region along fall line in South
Carolina.
1980). Corrosion of iron, steel, and other active metals
such as zinc in water is an electrolytic process which
involves anodic and cathodic areas. Corrosion areas can
result from differences in temperature, flow rate, or
concentrations of dissolved substances as well as from
joining dissimilar metals.
For corrosion to take place these items must be present
in the system: (a) metals at different energy levels, (b) an
electrolyte, and (c) a conductor. Where these are
present, a galvanic cell is formed. There is an electrical
current with electrons flowing between the anode and
cathode. A metal that is higher on the list of the Galvanic
Series of Metals will release electrons to one that is lower
on the list. The list (Butler and Ison, 1966) in order from
top to bottom is: Mg, Zn, Al, Fe, Pb, Cu, Ni, Ag, C, Pt
and Au. If you have two metals in contract with a
solution, the higher metal on the list reacts at the anode,
and the lower reacts at the cathode. As the anode
corrodes, the released electrons are absorbed by ions in
the electrolyte around the cathode. Hydrogen ion (H + ) in
low pH water takes up the electron and forms hydrogen
gas (H2). Low pH water are highly registive (low dissolved
solids) and form anodic conditions. Alkaline waters have
a lower resistivity and form cathodic conditions.
PROBLEM
The problem of corrosive water is its effects on center
pivots manifested itself when a center pivot failed
structurally after being in operation for only 4 years.
Other pivot owners in the area checked their pivots and
found their systems to be corroding at an excessive rate.
All of the affected systems were constructed of
galvanized steel pipe. Even though only five systems that
failed required replacement under warranty, others in
the region faced the same fate in time.

Vol. 3(2):November, 1987 © 1987 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 0883-8542/87/0302-0281S02.00 281
 10 REM PROGRAM TO CALCULATE THE LANGELIER AND AGGRESSIVE WATER INDICIES
Water analyses indicated that the ground water used 100 V= 0
110 CLS
in the irrigation systems was corrosive (Butler and Ison, 115 INPUT "ENTER SAMPLE NUMBER";0
120 INPUT "ENTER DATE SAMPLED";D$
1966). A saturation index called Langelier index (De 130 PRINT "IS YOUR TEMPERATURE":PRINT "MEASURED IN"
135 PRINT "(C)ELSIUS OR":PRINT "(F)AHRENHEITH"
Martini, 1938) was used to indicate water quality. This 140 PRINT
142 PRINT "ENTER (C) OR (F) CAPITAL LETTER "
index is based on the relation between the water's actual 145 INPUT T$
147 PRINT
pH and the pH it would have if saturated with calcium 150 INPUT "ENTER DEGREES";A
155 IF T$="C" THEN 170
carbonate. The Langelier index is defined as: 160 IF T$o"F" THEN 130
165 A=(A-32)/1.8
170 IF A>=80 THEN 590
SI = p H a - p H s 180 IF A> = 60 THEN 630
185 V= 8.600001-(A-25)*8.600001/35
190 IF A>=50 THEN 650
195 IF A>=40 THEN 670
200 IF A>=30 THEN 690
where: 205 IF A>=25 THEN 710
210 IF A>=20 THEN 740
SI is the Langelier (saturation) index which may be 215 IF A>=16 THEN 770
220 IF A>=12 THEN 800
either a positive or negative number. 225 IF A>=8 THEN 830
230 V=l
pHa is the actual or measured pH of the water sample. 240 IF A>=4 THEN 860
250 IF A>=0 THEN 860
pHs is the measured calculated pH of the same water 255 PRINT "INAPPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE
260 STOP
saturated with CaC0 3 at the same temperature. 270 INPUT "ENTER PH";P
280 INPUT "ENTER TDS IN MG/L";B
If the Langelier Index is a negative number, no 290 IF B>=1000 THEN 900
300 IF B>=800 THEN 920
protective scale will form and the water will be corrosive. 310 IF B>=400 THEN 940
320 IF B>=200 THEN 960
A positive index indicates a scale will probably be formed 330 IF B>=100 THEN 980
340 IF B>=0 THEN 1000
and protect against corrosion. A very small positive 350 STOP
360 INPUT "ENTER CAL. HARDNESS ";C
number (fraction) indicates best protection because it 370 CI = LOG(C)/2.303
380 INPUT "ENTER TOTAL ALK. ";D
minimizes corrosion but prevents formation of a scale 390 Dl = LOG(D)/2.303
400 L=P-(A1+B1-C1-D1)
that could eventually plug a system. Inputs from a water 405 LR = INT(L*100+.5)/100
410 PRINT
analysis test necessary to calculate the Langelier index 420 PRINT
425 CLS
are: (a) temperature, (b) total dissolved solids (residue 430 PRINT "FOR SAMPLE NO.";0
440 PRINT "SAMPLED ON ";D$
dissolved), (c) calculated hardness, (d) total alkalinity, 450 PRINT
460 PRINT " LANGELIER INDEX IS ";LR
and (e) pH. The Langelier index does indicate whether 470 GOSUB 1060
480 PRINT :PRINT
the water is corrosive or non-corrosive, but another index 490 W=P+C1+D1
495 WR=INT(W*100+.5)/100
the Aggressive Water index expresses the same 500 PRINT "AGGRESSIVE WATER INDEX IS ";WR
510 IF WR< 10 THEN 1020
characteristics but in a different form. A BASIC 520 IF WR>=12 THEN 1040
530 PRINT "WATER IS MODERATELY ":PRINT "AGGRESSIVE"
computer program for calculating both of these indices is 540 PRINT -.PRINT
listed in Fig. 2. 550 L=V+L
555 LR=INT(L*100+.5)/100
560 PRINT "LANGELIER INDEX AT 60C";LR
The Aggressive Water Index (Demartini, 1938) is 570 GOSUB 1060
571 PRINT :PRINT
calculated from the same inputs as the Langelier index. 57 2 INPUT "ANOTHER SAMPLE (Y)es (N)o";K$
573 IF K$="Y" THEN 100
An index less than 10 means that the water is highly 580 END
590 Al = 1.15
aggressive, if greater than 10 but less than 12 the water is 600 GOTO 270
moderately aggressive, if greater than or equal to 12 the 610 Al = 1.25-(A-70)*(1.25-1.15)/10
620 GOTO 270
water is not aggressive. 630 Al = 1.4-(A-60)*(1.4-1.25)/10
640 GOTO 270
650 Al = 1.55-(A-50)*(l.55-1.44)/10
The quality of water from wells on three farms are 660 GOTO 270
670 Al = 1.7-A(A-40)*(1.7-1.55)/10
shown in Table 1 (Lagman, 1982). These were 680 GOTO 270
690 Al = 1.9-A(A-30)*(1.9-1.7)/10
representative of the corrosive water in the study area. 700 GOTO 270
710 Al = 2-(A-25)*(2-1.9)/5
The Langelier index for Farm A of —5.83 indicated 720 V = .6-(A-25)*.6/35
730 GOTO 270
the water was corrosive and an Aggressive Water index of 740 V = .7-(A-20)*(2.1-2)/5•
750 V = .7-(A-20)*(.7-.6)/5
6.09 indicated the water was highly aggressive. Farms B 760 GOTO 270
770 Al = 2.2-(A-16)*(2.2-2.1)/4
and C had similar results with a Langelier Index of 780 V = .8-(A-16)*(.8-.7)/4
790 GOTO 270
—5.37 and —4.59 Aggressive Water Index of 6.44 and 800 Al = 2.3-(A-12)*(2.3-2.2)/4
810 V = .9-(A-8)*(.9-.8)/4
7.2, respectively. 820 GOTO 270
830 Al = 2.4-(A-8)*(2.4-2.3)/4
840 V = l-(A-8)*(l-.9)/4
850 GOTO 270
SITUATION 860 Al = 2.5-(A-4)*(2.5-2.4)/4
870 GOTO 270
The farmers having center pivots which had corroded 880 Al = 2.6-A*(2.6-2.5)/4
890 GOTO 270
to the point of failure were faced with a serious problem. 900 Bl = 9.899999
910 GOTO 360
The manufacturer had agreed to replace the pipe which 920 Bl = 9.890001 + (B-800)*(9.899999-9.89000D/200
930 GOTO 360
940 Bl = 9.859999+(B-400)*(9.890001-9.859999)/400
950 GOTO 360
960 Bl = 9.83+(B-200)*(9.859999-9.83)/200
970 GOTO 360
TABLE 1. WATER QUALITY LABORATORY ANALYSIS 980 Bl = 9.770001+(B-100)*(9.83-9.770001)/100
990 GOTO 360
1000 Bl = 9.7-B*(9.770001-9.7)/100
Farm A FarmB Farm C 1010 GOTO 360
1020 PRINT "WATER IS HIGHLY ":PRINT "AGRESSIVE"
1030 GOTO 540
Temperature, °C 18.0 18.0 18.0 1040 PRINT "WATER IS NOT ":PRINT "AGRESSIVE"
1050 GOTO 540
pH 5.7 5.4 6.8 1060 IF LR>0 THEN 1100
1070 IF LR<0 THEN 1120
Acidity, ppm* 10.34 7.99 7.05 1080 PRINT "WATER IS AT EQUILBRIUM"
Alkalinity, ppm* 1.0 1.0 1.0 1090 RETURN
1100 PRINT "WATER IS NON-CORRESSIVE"
Hardness calculated, ppm* 2.48 10.94 2.52 1110 RETURN
Total dissolved solids, ppm 100. 56. 1120 PRINT "WATER IS CORRESSIVE"
83. 1130 RETURN
Langelier index -5.83 -5.37 -4.59
Aggressive water index 6.09 6.44 7.2
Fig. 2—BASIC program to compute Langelier and aggressive water
*Expressed as CaC03 indices.

282 APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE

 had corroded but would not warrant the replacement SOLUTION
pipe unless corrective measures were taken to prevent the
An injection system for hydrated lime and dolomitic
excessive corrosion. The manufacturer was also faced
limestone was selected as the method best suited to
with a serious problem in that other systems in the area
reduce corrosion problem of the center pivots. This was
would have to be replaced unless a solution to solve the
partly due to the fact that the local municipal water
problem was found. The area suspected to have highly
system had installed a commercial hydrated lime injector
aggressive ground water covered parts of eight counties
for correcting a low pH problem and the farmers could
in the region below the Fall Line (Lagman, 1982).
see firsthand what was involved. One of the problems
A review of methods used in the water and wastewater
associated with the commerical injector of hydrated lime
treatment industries, as well as others, offered several
that was used involved the cleaning of the injector pump.
alternatives for treating the corrosive ground water. The
The commercial injector has a metering auger which
methods that appeared feasible were: (a) epoxy coated
feeds the hydrated lime into a slurry tank where the lime
pipe, (b) cathodic protection using zinc wire anode, (c)
was kept in suspension by stirring. The lime reacts with
water flow through a tank filled with rock limestone, (d)
the carbon dioxide in the ground water to precipitate
aeration to release free carbon dioxide, (e) anhydrous
calcium carbonate. Every other day the pump had to be
ammonia injection, and (f) injection of a hydrated lime
disassembled and the impeller cleaned with an acid
or limestone slurry. The local irrigation dealer, center
solution to remove the calcium carbonate scale. A batch
pivot manufacturing representative, farmers, South
type method was designed so the amount of hydrated
Carolina Water Resources Commission ground water
lime added would not precipitate and would stay in
specialist, and Clemson University Extension personnel
suspension. The mixture in the batch tank would be
worked together to select the most appropriate method to
classified as a slurry because all of the hydrated lime
use. The manufacturer wanted a tried and proven
would not dissolve in the water. The reactions involved in
method in order to warrant the new pipe. The farmers
the process of injection hydrated lime and dolomitic
desired a simple, safe, and low cost method which the
limestone into the water are:
manufacturer would accept. Time was a crucial element
that limited the options as to which method to implement
because of the continued corrosion of existing systems Hydrated lime Ca(OH 2 ) + C 0 2 - CaC0 3 + H 2 0
and the need to quickly replace and operate failed
systems. Dolomitic limestone CaC0 3 + H 2 + C 0 2 ^ Ca + 2 + 2HC0 3 ~
The epoxy coated pipe appeared to be a good solution
MgC0 3 + H 2 + C 0 2 - M g + 2 + 2HC0 3 ~
for those pivots that had to be replaced but it did not
provide a good solution for the other existing systems in
the problem area. The manufacturer expressed concern The MgC0 3 component is neglected in the chemical
with using a coated pipe because it was more costly and reaction for the corrosive treatment. The calcium
did not guarantee freedom from corrosion especially if bicarbonate is highly soluble but calcium carbonate is
the coating cracked. not. The calcium carbonate will precipitate and form a
The cathodic protection method using a zinc wire deposit on the pipe whereas the calcium bicarbonate will
anode was not a tried and proven method in the region remain in solution.
(Sherman, 1983). The only information available was The batch system consisted of a 3800 L tank with a
through commerical literature. This method could have mechanical or hydraulic agitation device and an injector
merit, but the time required to run a feasibility test pump. The first system was set up as shown in Fig. 3 and
precluded its acceptance. used an agitation pump and injection pump. The second
The limestone filled tank was not a proven method. Its was set up as in Fig. 4 using only one pump.
concept was to react the corrosive water with the The injection rate was based on the water acidity and
limestone rock in order to raise the pH and buffer the the ground water pumping rate. Equation [1] was used to
water. This was a desirable characteristic because most calculate the total amount of acidity per minute that has
irrigation wells discharge directly into the center pivot to be neutralized.
and a pressurized tank could be located between the well
pump and the center pivot. Total Acidity (kg of CaC0 3 /min)
On one farm the well water was being discharged into
a pond and then pumped to the center pivot. This = Pumping Rate (L/min x Acidity
provided aeration and release of free carbon dioxide. (mg as CaC0 3 /min) x 1 ( H (kg/mg) [1]
There was no indication that this pivot was suffering
from significant corrosion. Although this method is an
CENTER PIVOT
alternative solution for new installations, it was not
feasible on the existing system because of space AGITATION 3hp 227.1 l/m
requirements for a pond. PUMP 289 KPQ
The injection of anhydrous ammonia would raise the ^ 3 7 8 5 LITER TK.
pH but would not provide any buffering capacity.
Potential safety problems in using anhydrous ammonia
and lack of a metering device to inject ammonia into a
pressurized system also made this method less desirable. ^— 6813
Even though anhydrous ammonia contains nutrients, the l/min WELL
small amount to be injected would not be beneficial as a INJECTOR PUMP
1/2 hp
fertilizer and anhydrous application through a sprinkler
system is not recommended. Fig. 3—Schematic of a lime injector using two pumps.

Vol. 3(2):November, 1987 283

 CENTER PIVOT 3800 liter tank,
/
CONTROL VALVE
I ,__., ^ 37851 TK. Feed Pump Rate = 3800 L + 720 min
= 5.27 L/min
The amount of lime to add to the tank was calculated
by the equation:
FLOW METER 5hp PUMP
Amount of Lime or limestone added to tank (kg)
174.1 l/min 482.6 KPa
Fig. 4—Schematic of a lime injector using one pump. = Injection Rate (kg/min) x Run time (min) . . . . [4]
Applying results of equation [2] with a run time of 720
Applying the information for Farm C (Table 2) to min,
equation [1],
Amount of Lime = 0.038 kg/min x 720 min
6
Total acidity = 6800 L/min x 7.05 mg/L x 10~ (kg/min) = 27.6 kg
= 0.048kgasCaCO 3 min Table 2 gives the inputs for calculating the lime or
limestone injection rate for the three farm situations
The limestone used in this study was 200 mesh
listed in Table 1 and the results.
dolomitic agricultural grade limestone (85% calcium
carbonate (CaC0 3 ) equivalent) and the lime was
RESULTS
commercial grade, hydrated builder's lime with a 125%
CaC0 3 equivalent (Harriger, 1983). Hydrated lime is The injection of hydrated lime and dolomitic limestone
manufactured with various acid neutralizing capabilities into the irrigation water reduced the corrosive effect of
ranging from 125% to 146.9% CaC0 3 equivalent. the ground water and satisfied the manufacturer under
Equation [2] was used to calculate the feed rate at which their warranty conditions. Both were suspended in a
lime or limestone was injected based on the percent slurry by mechanical mixing in 3800 L tanks. No calcium
CaC0 3 equivalent. carbonate was deposited on the interior of the center
pivot pipe using the calculated amount of the dolomitic
Feed Rate (kg/min) limestone for neutralization of the water. Some concern
was expressed over the lack of residual protection in case
= Total Acidity (kg as CaC0 3 /min) the injector was off for some period of time. This concern
-r Neutralizing Capacity (percent as CaCC^) x 100 does merit further study in using a material like finely
ground limestone instead of hydraded lime.
.[2]
Hydrated lime is considered slightly soluble in water.
The use of a 3800 L tank was an attempt to use a dilute
Applying the results of equation [1] for the lime: mixture of lime and water. This mixture reduced the
problem of having to clean the pump impeller. It created
Feed Rate = 0.048 kg as CaC0 3 -M25 as CaC0 3 x 100 a problem of having to inject all of the lime slurry out of
Feed Rate = 0.038 kg/min the tank before the agitation pump and/or injector
pump could be cut off. Failure to remove all of the lime
The total amount of lime needed per day was slurry before cutting off the pumps resulted in the
calculated, and this amount was added to the batch tank remaining material changing to limestone because of
in split applications. The split applications were made in exposure to atmospheric C0 2 . At the recommended rate
order to have a very dilute surry which reduced the of injection a layer of calcium carbonate was found on
scaling and deposits of CaC0 3 on the impeller of the the interior of the center pivot pipe. The slight deposit
injector pump. This enabled the farmers to reload their found after a complete season of irrigating was proof that
batch tank two or three times a day depending upon their the system could be protected from corrosive water. It
preference. The feed pump injection rate was determined also gave added protection in case the injector pump
by the equation: failed and the system had to continue running to meet
the crop-water demand or if a new batch was not
Feed Pump Rate (L/min)
prepared at the end of the run.
= tank volume (L) -r pump time (min) [3]
References
Using loading two times (pump run time 720 min) and a 1. Butler, G. and H. C. K. Ison. 1966. Corrosion and its prevention
in waters. Robert E. Kriegea Publishing Company, Huntington, NY.
pp. 6, 162.
TABLE 2. LIME INJECTION RATE INPUTS AND RESULTS 2. Clarke, F. E. 1980. Corrosion and encrustation in water wells.
FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. 34 23-36.
Farm A Farm B FarmC 3. DeMartini, F. E. 1938. Corrosion and the Langelier calcium
carbonate saturation index. Journal of American Water Works Assoc.
Acidity, mg as CaC03/L 10.34 7.99 7.05 30(1)85-111.
Well pumping rate, L/min 6800 6400 6800 4. Harriger, R. D. 1983. Manager Technical Service, Allied
Neutralizing capacity percent, Chemical. Personal communication.
CaCC>3 85 125 125 5. Lagman, L. H. 1982. Chief Chemist, South Carolina Water
Feed rate, L/min 0.082 0.041 0.038 Resources Commission. Personal communication.
Mixing tank capacity, L 3800 3800 3800 6. Privette, C. V. 1986. Corrosive ground water effect on center
Feed pump rate, L/min 5.25 7.87 5.27 pivots. ASAE Paper No. 86-2107, ASAE. St. Joseph, MI 49085.
Lime or limestone per batch, kg 59.04 19.74 27.65 7. Sherman, R. M. 1983. President, RMS Irrigation. Personal
communication.

APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE