Proceedings of the 2022 14th International Pipeline Conference

IPC2022
September 26 – September 30, 2022, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2022-86173

ASSESSING SOIL CORROSIVITY FOR BURIED STRUCTURAL STEEL: FIELD STUDY

Yannick Beauregard Andrea Mah Lexya Hansen

Julie Lehew TC Energy Matthew Neuner
NOVA Chemicals Calgary, Alberta, Canada Ecometrix
Calgary, Alberta, Canada Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta,
Canada

ABSTRACT variable and a function of numerous interconnected parameters

The corrosion of steel structures in soils has been a topic of
industrial research for many decades. Research has shown that
the corrosivity of a soil is highly variable and a function of
numerous interconnected parameters including soil resistivity,
moisture content and pH. Despite the complexity of the soil
environment, methods have been developed to evaluate soil
corrosivity and guidelines for corrosion control during the design
phase and lifetime of a steel structure. An opportunity exists to
apply this understanding to optimize the corrosion protection and
capital expenses for new projects. For example, the identification
of regions of low corrosivity where coatings are not required
could lead to cost savings without compromising the long-term
integrity of the structure.
This paper presents work conducted to assess the
applicability of three soil-corrosivity standards, AASHTO R27-
01 [1], DIN 50929-3:2018 [2], ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 [3] for
this purpose. A field study was conducted which involved
collecting buried structural steel samples and soil samples from
eight pipeline meter stations and one light industrial facility
located across Alberta. The corrosion damage of the buried
structural steel samples was assessed through visual examination
and pit depth measurements. The soil corrosivity was determined
with the three soil-corrosivity standards using soil properties
(e.g., pH, resistivity, sulphide and chloride concentration)
collected in the field and measured in the laboratory. The
corrosion damage was compared to the soil corrosivity
predictions to evaluate the standards.
The results demonstrate that these standards provide a
conservative assessment of soil corrosivity, with a tendency to
overpredict corrosivity at the locations studied. Practical and
economic considerations for the application of these standards to
decisions on the need to coat buried structures are discussed.
1. INTRODUCTION
Corrosion of steel structures in soils has been a topic of
industrial research for many decades (e.g., Romanoff, 1957 [4]).
The research has shown that the corrosivity of a soil is highly
including soil resistivity, moisture content, and pH. Despite the
complexity of the soil environment, methods to evaluate soil
corrosivity and guidelines for corrosion control during the design
phase and lifetime of a structure have been developed (e.g., as
reviewed by Beauregard and Mah, 2020 [5]).
An opportunity exists to adopt soil corrosivity assessment
methods for selecting appropriate corrosion mitigation strategies
for below ground structural steel (e.g., structural beams). For
example, certain companies specify that below ground structural
steel (e.g., pipe supports and/or assemblies) must be coated to
protect against corrosion. However, coating a structure may not
be required in areas where soil corrosivity is low, leading to cost
savings without compromising the integrity of the structure. To
support such a decision, a method to evaluate soil corrosivity
during a project’s design phase is required.
Previous work identified AASHTO R27-01 [1], DIN 50929-
3 [2] and ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 [3] as candidate standards
for assessing soil corrosivity of buried structural steel for this
purpose (Beauregard and Mah, 2020 [5]). The current work
evaluates the field applicability and the accuracy of these soil
models. It aims to provide guidance on their use to interested
individuals within the industry.
2. APPROACH
2.1 Overview
Buried structural steel and soil samples were collected from
pipeline facilities and a light industrial building from across
Alberta during decommissioning or maintenance activities in
2021. Corrosion damage assessments were conducted on the
structural steel components, as described further in section 2.2.
Soil properties were analyzed in the field and the laboratory and
used to assess local soil corrosivity using the AASHTO R27-01
[1], DIN 50929-3 [2] and ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 [3]
standards, as described in sections 2.3 and 2.4. The soil corrosion
assessments were then compared to the corresponding damage
assessments to evaluate the applicability and the accuracy of the

1 © 2022 by ASME
standards and provide guidance to future users, such as design
engineers and geotechnical service providers.
2.2 Analysis of Structural Steel Samples
Table 1 provides an overview of the structural steel samples
analyzed in this work, with additional details provided in
Appendix section 8.1. Structural components consisting of
I-beams, piles, pile caps, chance anchors, blowdown supports,
nuts/washers/bolts, and building support columns were
examined. As indicated in Table 1, certain structures had
corrosion protection (e.g., cathodic protection, tape coating,
and/or paint coating). These aspects are taken into consideration
in the evaluation of the soil corrosivity model performance.
Table 1: Type and number of structural components analyzed
from each site.
Structural Steel Damage Assessment and
Corrosion Rate Calculations
First, visual examination and photographs of the as-received
samples was conducted, as exemplified in Figure 1A. Then,
structures and areas of interest (i.e., with the greatest corrosion
damage), were identified for further analysis. The samples were
cut into subsamples and cleaned by sandblasting. A grid was then
drawn on the area of interest and pit depth measurements were
taken in each square using an electronic pit depth gauge, as
shown in Figure 1B. The deepest pit depth measured in each
square was recorded and the corrosion rate was calculated by
dividing the pit depth by the years in service. The average,
maximum, and minimum corrosion rates were reported. The
nominal thickness of the sample was determined by averaging
three sample thickness measurements. The average wall loss and
average remaining wall thickness were calculated using nominal
wall thickness and average pit depth measurements.
Figure 1A: Meter Station F Figure 1B: Meter Station
samples as received G pit depth measurements
Figure 1: Visual appearance of selected structural steel samples.
The damage on the support columns exposed in the light
industrial building was examined visually, but the columns were
not removed for detailed examination as described above
because they were being repaired in place. Metal loss
assessments were based on in-situ visual examination and the
site’s engineering report.
2.3 Soil Sampling and Measurements
Field measurements and sampling procedures were similar
from site to site, with slight variations to the procedure at Meter
Station G and the light industrial building. The general procedure
used at most sites is as follows:
• Soil measurements and soil samples were collected at a
depth of ~0.3 m [~ 1 ft] and ~1.0 m [~ 3.3 ft] (from ground
grade) and as close as possible to the structures of interest.
The soil samples were tested in the field and/or in the
laboratory for the physical and chemical parameters listed in
Table 2.
• Resistivity surveys were completed in the field using the
four pin Wenner method along a minimum of two transects
(e.g., north-south and east-west) and typically multiple pin
spacings at each site.
Electrical potential of the buried structural steel was
measured against copper-copper sulfate (Cu:CuSO4) reference
electrodes. In addition, a standard 1 cm 2 [0.155 in2] corrosion
coupon was temporarily installed at each site with initial and
final potential readings collected using Cu:CuSO4 reference
electrodes. Assessment of groundwater presence at steel burial
depth was conducted through visual observations of groundwater
seepage, soil sloughing, visible water in trenches/test pits
(presence of sump pumps, etc.), and by a desktop search for
shallow groundwater (<20 m depth) within 5 km of the site using
the Alberta Water Well Information Database (Government of
Alberta, 2021 [6].
When groundwater was not observed during the field visit,
the desktop search provided data for a professional opinion on
whether groundwater presence is either temporary (i.e., seasonal
presence), or never (i.e., always dry).
Sulfide, pH, and oxidation reduction potential (ORP)
measurements in the field were completed using calibrated
electrodes in soil slurries prepared with deionized, de-
oxygenated water following the U.S. EPA SW-846 Method
9045D [7]. Attempts to also measure these parameters in-situ by
pressing the electrodes into the soil were unsuccessful due to the
2 © 2022 by ASME
fragile electrode tips and poor soil contact. Electrical Excel using Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications (VBA)
conductivity and moisture content were measured in-situ using code. The tool consists of a data input tab and model output tabs.
pen-type sensors. Sulfate reducing bacteria were enumerated Once data is entered into the tab, it is run through a series of
semi-quantitatively using 3M Rapid Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria if/else statements to obtain the model results.
(SRB) Detection Pouches. Laboratory analyses were completed
Table 3: Comparison of approach, outcome, and data
by ALS Environmental laboratories in Edmonton.
requirements of the industry guidelines (first published in
Table 2: Field and laboratory measurements of soil properties. Beauregard and Mah, 2020) [5]
DIN50929- ANSI/ AASHTO
3:2018-03 AWWA R27-01 [1]
[2] C105/A21.5
[3]
Intended structures Buried Ductile iron Steel pilings
pipelines pipe for for non-marine
and water and applications
structural wastewater
components
Approach
Point-based criteria ✓ ✓ -

Decision tree - - ✓
Table of corrosion rates ✓ - -

Outcome
Qualitative Soil Corrosivity ✓ ✓ ✓
Rating
Estimated Soil Corrosion Rate ✓ - -

Recommended Mitigation - ✓ ✓
Model Input
Electrical and electrochemical properties
Resistivity ✓ ✓ ✓
Oxidation Reduction Potential - ✓ -
(ORP)
Structure to Soil Potential ✓ - -

The soil sample from Meter Station G was analyzed in the Physical soil characteristics
laboratory only. The soil sample consisted of a mixture of soil Soil Texture, Type and/or ✓ - ✓
Composition
collected at various locations on-site as well as soil recovered Soil Compaction - - -
from the received steel structures. Mixing these soil samples was
necessary to obtain the required volume for analysis. The soil Soil Homogeneity ✓ - ✓
analysis was conducted approximately eight months after field Presence and location of soil water
sampling due to limitations of the original soil sample volume. Ground Water Level at Buried ✓ - ✓
Position
Soil samples from the light industrial building were Moisture Content ✓ - -
analyzed in the field and in the lab. Fewer properties were
measured in the field; only the electrical potential of the Drainage - ✓ -
structure, moisture content of the soil, and SRB concentration Soil water chemistry
were measured. The laboratory analysis was consistent with that pH ✓ ✓ ✓
performed for other sites. As requested by the laboratory, gravel, Sulphate Concentration ✓ - -
which made up a large proportion of the soil matrix, was sifted Sulphide Concentration ✓ ✓ -
from the soil prior to sending samples for analysis.
Chloride Concentration ✓ - -
2.4 Soil Corrosivity Analysis
Alkaline buffering capacity ✓ - -
The soil properties were analyzed to assess local soil
corrosivity using the AASHTO R27-01 [1], DIN 50929-3 [2] and Acid buffering capacity ✓ - -
ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 [3] standards. While the aim of these
standards is similar, their approach, outcome, and input data 3. RESULTS
requirements differ, as summarized in Table 3 and described in 3.1 Structural Steel Damage and Corrosion Rate
further detail in Beauregard and Mah (2020) [5]. Observations
A Microsoft Excel-based tool was developed to efficiently
The corrosion rates and metal loss measured on each sample
analyze field and laboratory soil measurements within the
are reported in the Appendix 8, section 8.2. For most of the
corrosion models mentioned above. The tool was developed in

3 © 2022 by ASME
buried steel samples collected at the decommissioned facilities,
the damage manifested itself as relatively small areas of minor
general metal loss. The Meter Station F I-beam sample Figure
2A) showed the highest metal loss of the buried components at
meter stations. Even so, there remained significant wall
thickness on the I-beam (> 86 % wall thickness). The structural
beams in the light industrial building were more heavily
corroded and in one location a through hole was observed
(Figure 2B). The range of sample metal loss and corrosion rates
are presented in Table 4 by the two broad structure types
investigated (i.e., the buried structural steel samples from
decommissioned facilities and the structural supports in the light
industrial building). The corrosion rates are compared to rates
reported in literature for different corrosion mechanisms (Figure
3). The measured corrosion rates generally fall within the lower
to mid-range of those reported in literature except for the rate
associated with the through hole in the structural beam of the
light industrial area. Interestingly, Figure 3 shows that many
samples without CP (e.g., piles, I-beams) have a large range in
corrosion rate, with some lower than those from samples with CP
(e.g., blowdown stack supports).
Figure 2A: Meter Station Figure 2B: Structural beam,
F I-Beam Light Industrial Building
Central
Figure 2: Visual appearance of selected structural steel samples.
Table 4:Range of Average sample metal loss, remaining wall
thickness and corrosion rates.
3.2 Soil Corrosivity Model Results
Table 5 shows the general corrosivity predicted by each
standard for each soil sample, detailed results are provided in
Appendix 8 section 8.3. Most of the locations were predicted to
have low to medium general corrosion by the models, except for
Meter Station B and the light industrial building. Meter Station
B was predicted to have higher corrosion rates due to its
relatively low resistivity (625 ohm-cm [46 ohm-in]) compared to
other sites. The biggest drivers for the high corrosion rate for the
light industrial building were the low resistivity (218 ohm-cm
[86 ohm-in] to 342 ohm-cm [135 ohm-in]) and high amounts of
sulphide (6.2 and 4.0 mmol/kg [2.81 and 1.81 mmol/lb]), sulfate
(9.8 and 27.4 mmol/kg [4.45 and 12.43 mmol/lb]) and neutral
salts (13.9 and 33.1 mmol/kg [6.30 and 15.01 mmol/lb]). The soil
matrix consisted of medium to coarse grain particles (including
gravel) which increased the prediction of the corrosion rate.
The results also demonstrate that the DIN 50929-3 [2] model
typically provides the most conservative assessment, which is
consistent with the case studies presented by Beauregard and
Mah (2020) [5].
Figure 3: Measured corrosion rates compared to soil corrosion
rates reported by Jack et al. (2011) [8].
3.3 Comparison of Soil Corrosivity Model Results
to Observed Damage
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show an overlay of the measured
corrosion rates and the results from the AASHTO R27-01 [1] and
DIN 50929-3 [2] soil corrosivity assessments, respectively.
Table 6 quantifies the number of model results that predict
correct, higher, and lower corrosion rates compared to the
measured corrosion rates. Table 7 shows summary statistics of
measured corrosion rates compared to the model thresholds.
Note that, while the AASHTO R27-01 [1] methodology is not
quantitative, a corrosion rate threshold of 0.0254 mm/yr [0.001
in/yr] between ‘Not Significant Corrosion’ and ‘Significant
Corrosion’ classes was used, as proposed in the original research
paper that led to the development of this standard (Durr and
Beavers, 1998 [9]). ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 [3] was not
included in these comparisons because of its qualitative nature.
4 © 2022 by ASME
 Table 5: Heat map of the general corrosivity of soil samples
assessed using different models.
Figure 4: Overlay of the measured corrosion rates and the
results from the AASHTO R27-01 [1] standard. (The threshold
of > 0.0254 mm/yr [0.001 in/yr] shown by the dotted line is
based on that reported by Durr and Beavers (1998) [9]).
The results demonstrate that these standards typically
provide a conservative assessment, with a tendency to
overpredict corrosivity. Further, based on the case of the light
industrial support beams, the results also show that the models
appropriately identify soils of elevated corrosion rates where
additional corrosion mitigation is required. However, two
corrosion rate measurements, taken on either side of the same
I-beam sample from Meter Station F were higher than those
anticipated by the models (by a factor of ~1.4 in the AASHTO
R27-01 [1] model and ~1.8 in the DIN 50929-3:2018 [2] model).
When considering the implication of this result, it is important to
note that the measured corrosion rates are themselves
conservative compared to the actual general corrosion rate. The
measured corrosion rates are representative of a relatively
localized area and are calculated based on the average of the
deepest measurements in the grid. Further, the results are within
the tolerance given in the DIN 50929-3:2018 [2] standard (factor
of two). Therefore, this result should not discount the otherwise
conservative model performance.
Figure 5: Overlay of the measured corrosion rates and the
results from DIN 50929-3:2018 [2]. Note: the ‘Little to No
corrosion’ region on graph is not specified in DIN. Instead, the
lowest corrosion rate threshold is 0.005 mm/yr [0.0002 in/yr].
Table 6: Count of the number of soil corrosivity assessments
that predict correct, higher, and lower corrosion rates compared
to the measured values. The total number of predictions and
those associated with sites where CP was absent are presented
in the following format: Total # (non-CP #).
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Guidance for Soil Data Collection
The field and laboratory procedures described in the
standards and herein provide an excellent starting point for future
soil corrosivity assessments. Improvements to the procedure can
5 © 2022 by ASME
be drawn from the insight gained from this work. Specifically,
guidance on the use of laboratory or field measurement
techniques can be drawn from comparing the data collected from
both settings, as summarized in Table 8.
Table 7: Measured corrosion rate observed compared to soil
prediction model rates.
in/yr]). Therefore, a soil corrosion assessment is required to
determine a reasonable corrosion rate for design purposes. For
soils assessed using the AASHTO R27-01 [1] model as having
‘not significant corrosion’, the value of 0.0254 mm/yr [0.001
in/yr], first proposed by Durr and Beavers (1998) [9], could be
adopted as a threshold since it was conservative for most steel
samples examined in this study. For finer corrosion rate
resolution, the corrosion rates proposed in DIN 50929-3:2018 [2]
could also be adopted, since they too tend to overestimate the
measured corrosion rates. They also provide rates for high
corrosion, which are not explicitly provided by Durr and Beavers
(1998) [9]. The statistical analysis of the measured corrosion
rates presented in Table 7 can also be used to guide decisions
about corrosion rates used in a design. When adopting these
values, conservatism is also established since it is assumed that
the structure corrodes uniformly when in fact the corrosion
observed is non-uniform with many sections of lower damage.

Table 8: Guidance on use of laboratory or field technique based

on average difference between field and laboratory results and
potential impact to soil corrosivity assessments. Model ranges
are provided to inform the impact of these differences on the
model.

Guidance for sulphide concentration measurements is not

included in Table 8 since this parameter was primarily measured
on-site. The practice of on-site measurement should be
maintained since sulfide can be readily oxidized when exposed
to air which results in underestimates from laboratory
measurements (Beauregard, 2021[10]).
Further, when assessing the soil corrosivity for a new site,
no structural steel will be present to measure the structure to soil
potential required for the application of DIN 50929-3:2018 [2].
In this work, the applicability of using a buried steel coupon for
that purpose was evaluated. Figure 6 compares the potential
measured on a buried steel coupon to the potential measured on
the nearby buried structure. As can be seen, the coupon potential
was typically more electropositive than the structure’s potential
and that difference shrank with increased coupon burial time. In
the measurements shown in Figure 6, the measurement period
was limited to five hours due to field time limitations.
Subsequent measurement periods should be extended such that
measurements reach a steady state that would be more closely
representative of the potential on the buried structural steel. If
this is done, then coupon measurements would offer reasonable
estimates of a structure’s potential and could be used for *Note: The results do not consider Meter Station F and Meter Station D
assessing soil corrosivity for a new site. Resistivities. Meter Station F data resistivity was extremely high and appeared
as an outlier. Meter Station D data was taken on frozen ground and is therefore
4.2 Guidance on the use of Corrosion Rates for not an appropriate representation of the parameter.
Design Purposes
The corrosion rates presented Table 7, as well as those from 4.3 Cost Benefit Analysis
previous studies (e.g., reviewed by Beauregard and Mah, 2020 The cost of coating underground structural steel is thousands
[5]), indicate that soil corrosion rates can vary by orders of of dollars for an average measurement and compression project.
magnitude (0.002 mm/yr [7.9e-5 in/yr] to > 0.2 mm/yr [0.008 The cost is driven by activities including shop coating

6 © 2022 by ASME
application, inspector cost and coordination, field coating to
touch up field weld locations and general repairs. Further, there
are indirect costs from scheduling and material requirements for
fabrication and field coating. In addition, there are internal costs
associated with documenting and storing the inspection and
testing records for the coating application.
On the other hand, conducting a soil corrosivity assessment
to determine the need to coat a structure would result in a
relatively small cost increase to current geotechnical analysis
while offering the potential to save on the coating costs described
above. The costs associated with a soil corrosivity assessment
would include:
• Additional scope of work for site geotechnical analysis.
Based on the experience gained in this work, this would
result in approximately three additional days of labour (field
and office work) and laboratory testing costs on the order of
a few hundred dollars per sample. These activities would
likely result in a relatively small cost increase to the
geotechnical scope of work.
• Additional internal scope of work would include application
of the soil data to the standards to determine corrosivity and
assess the results. The application of the models can be done
quickly using an automated tool, such as the one described
in section 2.4. The time for internal assessment could vary
depending on the perceived risk. Further time would be
required to update drawings and alignment sheets where
coated or uncoated steel components must be used,
including engineering acceptance.
Figure 6: Comparison of potential measurements taken using a
coupon (in deionized water) and measured directly on the
structure.
Based on this qualitative analysis, the potential cost
avoidances achieved by allowing uncoated buried structural steel
components would likely justify the upfront soil corrosivity
assessment costs.
5. CONCLUSION
The work demonstrates that AASHTO R27-01 [1], DIN
50929-3 [2] and ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 [3] standards can be
practically used in the field to provide a conservative soil
corrosivity assessment. The models tend to overpredict corrosion
rates at locations assessed to have low or medium soil corrosivity
while accurately identifying locations of high soil corrosivity
where additional corrosion protection would be warranted.
Companies wishing to adopt these standards into their
decision-making process for the coating requirement of buried
steel should collect the required soil properties in the planning
phase of the project (e.g., as part of a site’s geotechnical
assessment). The field and laboratory procedures described in
the standards and the insight gained from this work provide a
good starting point for such work. For many projects, the upfront
soil corrosivity assessment costs would likely justify the cost
avoidances achieved by allowing uncoated buried structural steel
components.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank: TCE’s Technology &
Innovation Management Office (TIMO) for funding this study,
TCE field staff and site construction managers for facilitating
steel and soil sample collection, TCE’s Aissa Van Der Veen and
Nora Zhao for their technical inputs, Kristina Montesa of NOVA
Chemicals for laboratory support and Sai Rajajayavel and Jillian
Mitton of Ecometrix for their work conducting site sample
collection and coordinating laboratory analysis.
7. REFERENCES
[1] AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials). “Standard Practice for Assessment of
Corrosion of Steel Piling for Non-Marine Applications.”
AASHTO R 27-01 (2019). AASHTO, Washington, D.C. 2019.
[2] DIN (Deutsche Institut für Normung). “Corrosion of
metals – Corrosion likelihood of metallic materials when subject
to corrosion from the outside – Part 3: Buried and underwater
pipelines and structural components.” DIN 50929-3. Berlin,
Germany. 2018.
[3] American National Standards Institute (ANSI) American
Water Works Association (AWWA). “American National
Standard for Polyethylene Encasement for Ductile-Iron Pipe
Systems.” Catalog No. 43105. AWWA, Denver, CO. 2010.
[4] Romanoff, Melvin. “Underground Corrosion U.S.
Department of Standards.” National Bureau of Standards
(NBS) Circular 579. Gaithersburg, MD. 1957. Available online:
https://archive.org/details/circularofbureau579roma
7 © 2022 by ASME
 [5] Beauregard, Yannick and Mah, Andrea. “Assessing Soil
Corrosivity for Buried Structural Steel.” Proceedings of the 2020
13th International Pipeline Conference (IPC). IPC2020-9285:
Online, Virtual. September 28 – October 2, 2020.

[6] Government of Alberta. “Water Well Information

Database. 2021.” Available online:
http://groundwater.alberta.ca/WaterWells/d/

[7] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

“SW-846 Test Method 9045D: Soil and Waste pH.” Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846-test-method-
9045d-soil-and-waste-ph

[8] Jack, Thomas R. and Wilmott, Martin. “Corrosion by

Soils.” Uhlig’s Corrosion Handbook 3rd Edition. R. Winston
Revie Ed. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ. 2011: pp.333-
349.

[9] Durr, Carolyn L. and Beavers, John A. “Techniques for

Assessment of Soil Corrosivity.” Paper no. 667. NACE
International (NACE) Corrosion 1998., San Diego, CA. 1998.

[10] Beauregard, Yannick. “Optimizing Stress Corrosion

Cracking Management – Field and Economic Study. Pipeline
Research Council International (PRCI) Report.” PR261-193604-
R01. Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI), Houston,
TX. 2021.

8 © 2022 by ASME
8. APPENDIX
Table A-2: Description of decommissioned sites Meter Station
8.1 Site Description E, Meter Station F, Meter Station G and Light Industrial
Table A-1 and Table A-2 describe the decommissioned sites Building examined in this study.
examined in this study.
Meter Station E Meter Station F Meter Station G Light Industrial
Description
Building
Table A-1: Description of decommissioned sites Meter Station
D, Meter Station B, Meter Station A, Meter Station H and Area Overview

Meter Station C examined in this study. Location in Central Alberta Northern Alberta Northern Alberta Central Alberta
Alberta
Meter Meter Meter Meter Meter Station
Description Immediate Cropland Primarily Primarily Primarily
Station D Station B Station A Station H C
Surrounding surrounds work undeveloped forest undeveloped forest. developed
Area area to west, N Highway 2.5 km E industrial
Area Overview and S of site. buildings

Location in Northeast Southern Alberta Southern Central Alberta Central Alberta Broader Includes Includes oil & gas Includes oil &gas Includes developed
Alberta Alberta Alberta Surrounding agricultural land facilities facilities urban living spaces
Area and farmyards
Immediate Primarily Primarily Primarily Primarily Primarily
Surrounding undeveloped undeveloped undeveloped agricultural agricultural Distance to 3.9 km E of 500 m S of Unnamed 4.2 km SE of large 1.4 km S of small
Area forest pastureland. pastureland. land. Oil & gas land. Oil & gas Closest Whitford Lake Creek waterbody lake.
Wetland 1.8 km Wetland 220 m facility N of facility S of Surface Water 12.5 km south of 5 km N of the Bow
NE of site NW of site site. Wetland site. Bodies The North River.
175 m E of site Saskatchewan River

Broader Includes oil & Includes oil & gas Includes oil & Includes Includes Likely Shallow Water level records Water level Water appears Technical report
Surrounding gas facilities, facilities, CFB gas facilities, agricultural land agricultural land Groundwater within 5 km of site records indicate present in the ditch indicates presence
Area Janvier Suffield CFB Suffield and farmyards and farmyards Depth1 indicate groundwater is on certain images. of ground water,
Hamlet groundwater is present at a depth moisture in soil.
present at a depth of of 1.5 m - 3 mbgs.
Distance to 1 km E of 39 km S of The 16.5 km S of 9.8 km W of 5 km SW of The 27 ft (8 m).
Closest Christina Lower Red Deer The Lower Red The Lower Red North
Surface Water River. 3.2 km River. 12 km SE Deer River Deer River Saskatchewan Site Specific Details
Bodies W of of Tide Lake River
Bohn Lake
Date of Site July 30, 2021 September 22, 2021 February 22, 2021 August 30 & 31
Visit 2021
Likely Shallow 2 - 5 mbgs Groundwater in the upper 3 m is Groundwater Water level
Groundwater likely, no water level records present at 1m records within 5
Site A sump pump was Gravel fill saturated Winter conditions. Structure was
Depth1 were found within 5 km radius at blowdown km of site
Observations observed at pipe with rainwater. Soil generally originally covered
of the sites. Water level records support. Wet indicate
depth (<3 m) at the Underlain by Sandy appears clayey/sandy by a layer of
for the town of Brooks found soils noted on groundwater
time of clay with some larger concrete, underlain
shallow (1.5 to 2.0 m) water west side of present at a
the site visit. rocks near surface. by gravel and clay.
levels. site at similar depth of 26 ft -
depth (~1m). 46 ft (8 m -
14m). Soil Silty Clay Fill with Sandy Clay, fine- No description from Gravel and rocks.
Characteristics organics, fine- grained, moist to wet, site. Soil below gravel
– Approx. 0.3 grained, low plastic, low plastic, brown, sandy silt, dry,
Site Specific Details
m brown firm to soft brown.
Date of Site April 4 & 5, April 9 & 10, April 9 & 10, July 9, 2021 July 19, 2021
Soil Silty Clay Fill and Sandy Silty Clay, No description from Clayey sand, very
Visit 2021 2021 2021
Characteristics sand, trace organics trace hard silt site. moist, brown to
– Approx. 1.0 and gravel, fine to pockets, non to low black.
Site Gravel fill Gravel Fill Mixtures of Gravel fill Gravel fill m coarse-grained, low plastic, dry to damp
Observations saturated from underlain by Silty Clay and Sand, underlain by underlain by to medium plastic,
rainfall Clay frozen patches Silty Clay Silty Clay damp
underlain by of clay present to moist, brown
frozen ground onsite as deep as
1m
Steel 1 - blowdown 1 - pile 1 – pile 2 – support
Structures of support 2 - pile 2 – I-beam columns
Soil Sandy Silty, Sandy Silty Clay, Sand, trace silt Silty Clay & Sandy, Silty Interest 2 - blowdown 3 - I beam 3 – pile cap
Characteristics fine-grained, fine-grained, & clay, fine- organics, firm, Clay & organics, support
– Approx. 0.3 frozen, brown damp, cohesive, grained non-to low plastic, fine-grained,
m medium plastic, low plastic, damp, brown low plastic
brown damp, brown with black

Soil Silty Clay, Sandy Silty Clay, Clayey sand, Sandy Silty Clayey Sand,
Characteristics some sand, fine-grained, fine-grained, Clay, fine- some organics,
– Approx. 1.0 fine-grained, damp, cohesive, trace organics, grained, firm, fine-grained, low
m damp, medium plastic, non to low damp to wet, to medium
medium brown plastic, damp, medium plastic, plastic
plastic, brown brown dark brown

Steel 1 - piles 1- blowdown 1- blowdown 1 - pile 1 - pile

Structures of 2- pipe support support 2 - blowdown 2 - blowdown
Interest support 1- blowdown support support
support

9 © 2022 by ASME
8.2 Summary of Measured Corrosion Rates and Remaining Wall Loss
The corrosion rates were calculated from the measured pit depths and the years in service for each surface analyzed. Minimum,
maximum, and average corrosion rates are tabulated in Table A-3.

Table A-3: Corrosion rates calculated in each sample.

Corrosion Rate (mm/yr) % Remaining Wall
Site* Min Max Average Min Max
M.S. G I-Beam (1) 0.00045 0.012 0.0046 91.33 99.67
M.S. G I-Beam (2) 0.00227 0.023 0.0067 83.24 98.32
M.S. G P6 0.00287 0.005 0.0027 96.84 99.71
M.S. G Washer 0.00205 0.0073 0.0037 90.3 97.27
M.S. G Bolt 0.00409 0.0061 0.0054 98.86 99.24
M.S. D Square Outer Surface (2) 0.00231 0.0067 0.0044 95.53 98.53
M.S. B Receipt, Lateral & Tie-In 0.00212 0.0161 0.0068 88.48 98.48
M.S. A Receipt, Lateral & Tie-In 0.00576 0.0158 0.01 87.11 95.29
M.S. H Chance Anchor Nut 0.00237 0.005 0.0036 - -
M.S. H Chance Anchor Middle 0.00079 0.005 0.0023 96.83 99.5
M.S. H Chance Anchor Bottom A 0.00184 0.018 0.0103 88.34 98.8
M.S. H Chance Anchor Bottom B 0.00658 0.015 0.0104 95.33 97.92
M.S. H Blowdown Support Top 0.00053 0.01 0.0044 93.67 99.67
M.S. H Blowdown Support Middle 0.00316 0.005 0.0042 96.85 98.01
M.S. H Blowdown Support Bottom 0.00263 0.005 0.0041 96.83 98.33
M.S. E East (1) Top 0.00174 0.0076 0.0044 91.03 97.95
M.S. E East (1) Middle 0.0037 0.013 0.0082 85 95.75
M.S. E East (1) Bottom 0.00217 0.007 0.0053 91.65 97.39
M.S. E West (2) Top 0.00174 0.01 0.0048 88.31 97.97
M.S. E West (2) Middle 0.00283 0.012 0.0071 86.02 96.69
M.S. E West (2) Bottom 0.00239 0.014 0.0058 84.1 97.18
M.S. C Tower Pile Top 0.00103 0.0087 0.0032 91.5 99
M.S. C Tower Pile Middle 0.00128 0.0095 0.005 94.61 99.27
M.S. C Tower Pile Bottom 0.00538 0.017 0.011 89.95 96.8
M.S. C Blowdown Support Top – Orange 0.00231 0.0074 0.0048 92.02 97.52
M.S. C Blowdown Support Middle 0.00256 0.0069 0.0038 93.19 97.48
M.S. C Blowdown Support Bottom 0.00256 0.011 0.0068 89.04 97.39
Light Industrial Building Central** 0.00513 0.1231 - 0 95.83
Light Industrial Building East** 0.00513 0.0462 - 62.5 95.83
M.S. F Pile 2 Top 0.00704 0.0278 0.015 94.29 98.55
M.S. F Pile 2 Middle 0.00185 0.0093 0.0056 97.61 99.52
M.S. F Pile 9 Top A 0.00037 0.0033 0.002 99.29 99.92
M.S. F Pile 9 Top B 0.00444 0.0278 0.0162 92.99 98.88
M.S. F Pile 9 Bottom 0.0011 0.0059 0.0037 98.53 99.72
M.S. F Pile 15 Top A 0.0122 0.0633 0.0357 86.61 97.42
M.S. F Pile 15 Top B 0.0148 0.043 0.0298 91.19 96.96
M.S. F Pile 15 Middle 0.00111 0.0044 0.0025 98.92 99.73
M.S. F Pile 16 Top 0.00593 0.033 0.0168 93.22 98.78
M.S. F I - Beam A 0.00333 0.0081 0.0045 97.31 98.9
M.S. F I - Beam B 0.00556 0.0233 0.0111 95.12 98.84
*M.S. = meter station, BD = blowdown
**Below ground portion of structural supports

10 © 2022 by ASME
8.3 Results from Corrosion Models
Table A-4 to and Table A-6display the results obtained from each of the sites from DIN 50929-3 [2] (Table A-4), ANSI/AWWA
C105/A21.5 (Table A-5), and AASHTO R27-01 [1] (Table A-6) corrosion models

Table A-4: Results from the DIN 50929-3 [2] model.

General Pitting General Pitting
Probability of Probability of
Corrosion Corrosion Corrosion Corrosion
Macrogalvanic Macrogalvanic
Site Corrosivity Rate Rate Rate Rate
Corrosion Corrosion
(mm/yr) - (mm/yr) - (mm/yr) - (mm/yr) -
(Pitting) (General)
B0 B0 B1 B1
Meter Station G I-Beam (1) Medium - - 0.02 0.2 - -
Meter Station G I-Beam (2) Medium - - 0.02 0.2 - -
Meter Station G P6 Medium - - 0.02 0.2 - -
Meter Station G Flat Pipe Support Medium - - 0.02 0.2 - -
Meter Station G P3 Cap Medium - - 0.02 0.2 - -
Meter Station G P5 (pile) Medium - - 0.02 0.2 - -
Meter Station D Square Outer Surface (2) low - medium medium - high low - medium 0.01-0.02 0.05-0.2 0.02-0.06 0.2-0.4
Meter Station D Round Outer Surface (1) low - medium medium - high low - medium 0.01-0.02 0.05-0.2 0.02-0.06 0.2-0.4
Meter Station B Receipt, Lateral & Tie-In medium - high medium - high low - medium 0.02-0.06 0.2-0.4 0.02-0.06 0.2-0.4
Meter Station A Receipt, Lateral & Tie-In low - medium high medium 0.01-0.02 0.05-0.2 0.06 0.4
Meter Station H Chance Anchor Nut low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station H Chance Anchor Top A low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station H Chance Anchor Top B low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station H Chance Anchor Middle medium high medium 0.02 0.2 0.06 0.4
Meter Station H Chance Anchor Bottom A medium high medium 0.02 0.2 0.06 0.4
Meter Station H Chance Anchor Bottom B medium high medium 0.02 0.2 0.06 0.4
Meter Station H BD Support Top low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station H BD Support Middle medium high medium 0.02 0.2 0.06 0.4
Meter Station H BD Support Bottom medium high medium 0.02 0.2 0.06 0.4
Meter Station E East (1) Top very low low very low 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05
Meter Station E East (1) Middle low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station E East (1) Bottom low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station E West (2) Top low low very low 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05
Meter Station E West (2) Middle low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station E West (2) Bottom low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station C Tower Pile Top low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station C Tower Pile Middle low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station C Tower Pile Bottom low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station C BD Support Top - White low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station C BD Support Top - Orange low medium low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station C BD Support Middle medium medium low 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.2
Meter Station C BD Support Bottom medium medium low 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.2
Light Industrial Building Central High - - 0.06 0.4 - -
Light Industrial Building East High - - 0.06 0.4 - -
Meter Station F Pile 2 Top Low Medium Low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station F Pile 2 Middle Medium High Medium 0.02 0.2 0.06 0.4
Meter Station F Pile 9 Top A Low Medium Low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station F Pile 9 Top B Low Medium Low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station F Pile 9 Bottom Very Low Low Very Low 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05
Meter Station F Pile 15 Top A Low Medium Low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station F Pile 15 Top B Low Medium Low 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.2
Meter Station F Pile 15 Middle Low High Medium 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.4

11 © 2022 by ASME
Table A-5: Results from the ANSI/AWWA C105/A21.5 [3] Table A-6: Results from the AASHTO R27-01 model.
model.

12 © 2022 by ASME