Cathodic Protection For Masonry Buildings Incorporating Structural Steel Frames (24244-SG)

Item No.
24244
NACE International Publication 01210
This Technical Committee Report has been prepared

By NACE International Task Group 329,* “Reinforced Concrete:
Steel-Framed Buildings.”
Cathodic Protection for Masonry Buildings Incorporating

Structural Steel Frames
© November 2010, NACE International
This NACE International (NACE) technical committee report represents a consensus of those
individual members who have reviewed this document, its scope, and provisions. Its acceptance
does not in any respect preclude anyone from manufacturing, marketing, purchasing, or using
products, processes, or procedures not included in this report. Nothing contained in this NACE
report is to be construed as granting any right, by implication or otherwise, to manufacture, sell, or
use in connection with any method, apparatus, or product covered by Letters Patent, or as
indemnifying or protecting anyone against liability for infringement of Letters Patent. This report
should in no way be interpreted as a restriction on the use of better procedures or materials not
discussed herein. Neither is this report intended to apply in all cases relating to the subject.
Unpredictable circumstances may negate the usefulness of this report in specific instances. NACE
assumes no responsibility for the interpretation or use of this report by other parties. Users of this
NACE report are responsible for reviewing appropriate health, safety, environmental, and
regulatory documents and for determining their applicability in relation to this report prior to its use.
This NACE report may not necessarily address all potential health and safety problems or
environmental hazards associated with the use of materials, equipment, and/or operations detailed
or referred to within this report.
Users of this NACE report are also responsible for establishing appropriate health, safety, and
environmental protection practices, in consultation with appropriate regulatory authorities if
necessary, to achieve compliance with any existing applicable regulatory requirements prior to the
use of this report.
CAUTIONARY NOTICE: The user is cautioned to obtain the latest edition of this report. NACE
reports are subject to periodic review, and may be revised or withdrawn at any time without prior
notice. NACE reports are automatically withdrawn if more than 10 years old. Purchasers of NACE
reports may receive current information on all NACE International publications by contacting the
NACE FirstService Department, 1440 South Creek Drive, Houston, Texas 77084-4906 (telephone
+1 281-228-6200).
Foreword
The cracking, displacement, and spalling of stone and masonry because of the corrosion of steelwork is becoming
increasingly common in masonry-clad steel-framed buildings constructed between the late 1800s and the 1950s.
This is a serious condition that results in significant deterioration and loss of the original facade, necessitating
methods of treatment that are costly and disruptive. In recent years, the problems of corrosion-related
deterioration of the steel frame and associated fixing details have led not only to costly cycles of repair, but also a
risk of serious injury and even death caused by masonry spalling from the building.
This technical committee report presents a state-of-the art review of cathodic protection (CP) technology used in
both Europe and the United States over the past decade to combat corrosion deterioration of masonry buildings with
structural steel frames.
____________________________
*Chair Peter Alan John Gibbs, Electro-Tech CP Limited, Grantham, Lincolnshire, U.K.
Jose Herrera Torres - Invoice INV-1169193-B6C6P1, downloaded on 4/26/2017 1:27PM - Single-user license only, copying/networking pr
NACE International
This report:
• Gives an introduction to the subject;
• Details issues of importance in applying CP to heritage buildings;
• Provides examples of applications;
• Provides information on specific issues relating to heritage buildings;
• Provides considerations for planning work, based on the current state of the art; and
• Lays the foundations for developing a NACE standard on this subject.
This report is intended to be useful to architects, structural engineers, architectural conservators, masons, and
consulting engineers/contractors who are engaged in refurbishing steel-framed masonry buildings. A glossary that
includes many of the terms used in this report is provided in Appendix A.
This report was prepared by NACE Task Group (TG) 329, “Reinforced Concrete: Steel-Framed Buildings,” in
association with the Corrosion Prevention Association (CPA).(1) This TG is administered by Specific Technology
Group (STG) 01, “Reinforced Concrete.” It is issued by NACE International under the auspices of STG 01.
NACE technical committee reports are intended to convey technical information or state-of-the-art knowledge
regarding corrosion. In many cases, they discuss specific applications of corrosion mitigation technology, whether
considered successful or not. Statements used to convey this information are factual and are provided to the reader
as input and guidance for consideration when applying this technology in the future. However, these statements are
not intended to be recommendations for general application of this technology, and must not be construed as such.
History
Prior to the late 1700s, masonry buildings were constructed with load-bearing masonry walls to support floor
loads. Construction was slow and the higher the structure, the thicker the walls became. This form of
construction limited the development of large structures, and prior to this period large structures were built only for
military or religious use. This form of construction did not meet the needs of the industrial revolution, with its
requirements for large manufacturing facilities and warehouses.
The late 1700s saw the development of mill structures using cast iron columns and timber beams to support floor
loads in lieu of thick masonry walls. Eventually, cast iron columns were mixed with wrought iron beams to form a
cage structure. These structures contained minimal internal walls and the external walls had the outer
elements of the frame incorporated in the masonry. By the mid 1800s, iron frame construction was applied to
commercial office buildings, and increasingly taller buildings evolved in inner-city locations.
However, cast iron proved to be a brittle material, limiting its use, and wrought iron was an expensive material with
variable properties. As such, building heights became restricted. It was not until the invention of the Bessemer
steelmaking process in 1856 and the more important basic open-hearth processes of 1868 that building technology
progressed. The development of steel had a marked effect on design, and the inner-city landscape became rapidly
populated with stronger structures having increased heights and wider window openings.
The construction of the Home Insurance Building in Chicago by William Le Baron Jenney in 1884-5 marked the
development of steel-framed construction techniques and the modern era of multistory buildings. Regarded as
(1)
Corrosion Prevention Association (CPA), Kingsley House, Ganders Business Park, Kingsley, Bordon, Hampshire GU35
9LU, U.K.
NACE International
the first skeleton-framed building, the top six of its ten stories used a Bessemer steel cage with the lower frame
adopting cast iron columns in combination with wrought iron beams. However, the full load-bearing potential of
the steel frame was not fully exploited in this early design, and the external walls were partially load-bearing
masonry. In 1889 the Chamber of Commerce Building, Chicago, marked the next major step toward modern steel-
framed design as the structural frame carried all loads without the need for structural masonry.1
In the United Kingdom, engineers looked to the development of skyscrapers in the United States and constructed
Selfridges Department Store in 1908, modeled on the Marshall Field’s building in Chicago. This first
application of non-load-bearing masonry in the United Kingdom led to the introduction and acceptance of the
London Building Act of 1909, and linked construction techniques across the Atlantic.2
During the development of steel-framed buildings, both British and American engineers did not fully appreciate the
destructive nature and risks of corrosion when steel was built into a porous masonry wall. At the time,
experience with cast and wrought iron built into thicker load-bearing walls had not shown major corrosion
problems. As such, it was assumed that the masonry surrounding the steelwork with a cover often exceeding 150
mm (6 in) would prevent moisture ingress and avoid corrosion problems.
Although problems with corrosion were not fully understood, publicized, or addressed, problems had become
evident. George Post, an early American designer of steel-cage buildings, even questioned the design life of a
steel structure embedded in masonry as early as 1894. Post was particularly concerned with the move toward
thinner cladding, which offered a minimal cover of only 100 mm (4 in), as in his experience, he had found it
necessary to remove corroded beams from brickwork encasement. However, despite some early and isolated
concerns, building codes (e.g., 1892 New York Building Code) allowed reduced thickness of cladding systems with
minimal corrosion protection applied to the steel. Even forensic investigations of pioneering buildings failed to
fully highlight the potential for corrosion-related problems. For example, a 1914 demolition study of the Tower
Building, New York, constructed in 1888, noted severe corrosion but dismissed it as being caused by defective
flashing.
It was inevitable that the early lack of appreciation for corrosion in steel-framed buildings would lead to the current
problems of cracking, displacement, falling masonry, and structural losses in steel sections.
Even modern-day engineers often fail to appreciate the causes of steel frame corrosion. Corrosion problems are still
often wrongly assigned as being solely caused by defective detailing as in the 1914 Tower Building study.
Ineffective detailing, neglected maintenance of gutters and downpipes, and similar factors are not the only
issues of concern; basic corrosion caused by water ingress through mortar joints and porous masonry facing
materials are major contributors to this problem.
All too often, modern engineers fail to sufficiently address corrosion repairs effectively in steel-framed buildings.
Repairs continue to involve the injection of sealants (caulk) into cracks or the isolated removal of defective
masonry, the application of a coating system, and alteration of the assigned faulty building detail. These repair
methodologies, although providing some immediate benefit, are expensive, requiring continued maintenance and
damage to the historic fabric of the building, and do not provide a solution to the cause of the problem.
In the early 1990s, as an alternative to damaging repair techniques, impressed current cathodic
protection (ICCP) was developed as a tool for assisting in the repair of steel-framed buildings. The technique
has been developed to provide an approach to the repair strategy that is suitable for heritage buildings and mitigates
the major ongoing and underlying cause of deterioration, namely corrosion.
Corrosion
The early stone and steel buildings were constructed such that any space between the masonry and the frame
was filled with rubble or with mason’s mortar. This practice itself has led to problems in buildings in which water has
penetrated the weathering and has soaked the rubble or mortar and allowed development of ideal conditions for the
initiation and continuation of corrosion. Problems then only become obvious when either the spread of dampness
NACE International
through the fabric becomes visible, when corrosion products cause staining of the building, or worse, when
expansive corrosion products cause cracking and other physical damage to the stone.
In early steel-framed buildings, it was uncommon to protect the steel frame from corrosion in service by
painting or other means; it was thought that the masonry would provide sufficient protection. Some examples
exist in which a bitumen coating or a red lead paint has been applied. However, such examples are rare and
are not typical. The use of cement mortars could assist to some small extent in inhibiting corrosion because of the
alkaline environment produced by the cement itself. However, because such mixes, particularly when a
rubble/mortar combination was used, were generally not adhered to the steel members, a crevice often exists
between the infill and the steel, allowing any moisture to penetrate and to collect. Nor was the infill fully
compacted and consolidated, allowing moisture paths through the body of the infill itself. After long periods of such
moisture penetration, any minor passivation effects are lost, and corrosion takes its course.
In later buildings and certainly in modern steel frames with stone cladding, a cavity is generally maintained
between the stone and the frame. Steel (or iron in early examples) fixings are used to support the cladding, and
a ventilation cavity is maintained to allow the drying out of any ingressing moisture. However, even with this
design, detailing and ventilation may not be adequate if large amounts of water are present. Also, there are
many locations, particularly at floor levels, where the cavity may be bridged by major stone supports, insulation
materials, or materials designed to inhibit the spread of fire and smoke between floors.
Other aspects of many steel-framed, stone-clad buildings that influence the onset of corrosion in the frame are
the very features used to demonstrate the “solidity” of the organization housed within. Many of the buildings
present solid yet ornate features, which themselves can lead to problems. Cornices are often used, and to
avoid waterfalls of rainwater onto the pavement beneath, are sloped inward to the building. While any
waterproofing measures such as asphalt and rainwater management systems such as gutters and downpipes
are in their as-new condition, the problem is contained. However, failure or cracking in asphalt caused by
weathering or building, thermal, or other (earthquake, traffic, etc.) movements or vibration can allow water to
penetrate into the fabric of the building and reach the steel frame. Similarly, failure to ensure that gutters and
downpipes remain unblocked can cause water ingress by the overtopping of upstands or flashings. When
downpipes are constructed within the structure, problems can be caused by internal (and therefore unseen)
damage sustained during building movement or by corrosion of the downpipe itself.
The fallacy that stone cladding is impermeable to water also has allowed damage to occur from neglect or
ignorance. In fact, some stones act like sponges in absorbing rainwater and allowing saturation. Mortar or lime
putty bedding, if incomplete, can also allow penetration. When either of these occurs in severe exposure
conditions, the results can be catastrophic. Stone/mortar combinations can allow moisture that penetrated to
evaporate, when external conditions allow. However, the balance between these can be upset by inappropriate
replacements or repairs, such as cases in which lime mortar pointing has been replaced by a cement mortar.
The use of hard cement mortars in pointing generally has the effect of increasing, rather than decreasing, the risks
of water penetration.
Intricate stone detailing also can allow the collection of moisture and the subsequent entry to the fabric caused by
the stone being constantly wet.
It is typical to find 2 to 10 mm (0.08 to 0.40 in) of corrosion product on structural steel members, and greater levels of
corrosion are not uncommon. Because rust generally occupies a volume greater than that of the consumed steel,
these levels of corrosion do not usually represent widespread structural problems, although isolated areas of high
section loss leading to structural deterioration do occur.
The expansive nature of the rust is usually the most common and major issue of concern in corrosion-related
building deterioration. The resultant stresses of the expansion process cause cracking (see Figure 1),
displacement (see Figure 2), and spalling (see Figure 3), leading to the need for restoration and repair of the
external masonry. In circumstances in which structural problems (see Figure 4) have been found, strengthening,
steel replacement, or both by specialists has been used in addition to general corrosion protection and facade
repair.
NACE International
Figure 1: 25 mm (1 in) wide cracking of brick corner detail

caused by corrosion of the underlying steel column.
Figure 2: 15 mm (0.6 in) displacement of the limestone

facing block caused by beam corrosion.
NACE International
Figure 3: Spalling of terra cotta facing masonry caused

by corrosion of the underlying beam.
Figure 4: Significant loss of beam section requiring

remedial strengthening.
Corrosion of steel framing embedded in masonry walls is an electrochemical process in which a metal reacts with its
environment to form an oxide or other compound analogous to the ore from which it was extracted. The
electrochemical cell that causes the corrosion process consists of an anodic area where the metal is corroded, an
electrolyte that is the corrosive medium, and a cathodic area that is not consumed despite the corrosive medium.
The basic reactions that occur are shown in Equations (1), (2), and (3):
At the anode:
Fe → Fe2+ + 2e– (1)
At the cathode:
O 2 + 2H 2O + 4e – → 4OH – (2)
The combination of these two reactions produces ferrous hydroxide:
2Fe2+ + 4OH– → 2Fe(OH)2 (3)
NACE International
The ferrous hydroxide formed oxidizes to a range of various complex hydrated ferrous oxides commonly termed
“rust,” which occupies a significantly larger volume than that of the original parent steel.
For the corrosion reactions to take place, both oxygen and water must be present simultaneously. In the absence
of either, corrosion will not occur. The corrosion rate depends on the availability of oxygen and water but will
vary considerably with the site of exposure.
For steelwork embedded in exterior walls, sufficient quantities of oxygen and water exist to support corrosion.
Unfortunately, controlling water and oxygen availability in an external facade to a sufficiently low level to halt or
significantly mitigate corrosion is not practically possible.
The time of wetness of steelwork in interior walls is so short that corrosion is usually insignificant for the
majority of buildings, with most components exhibiting negligible superficial rusting with minimal effects on
structural stability.
The condition of steelwork contained within an external wall varies widely depending on the severity of the
environment, the effectiveness of prior protection, and maintenance procedures carried out on the building
facade. Often, the corrosion rates are negligible in clean, dry areas, whereas in industrial areas, the corrosion
rate of steel may be approximately 75 µm/y (3 mpy). However, in general, it is often found that corrosion rates are
in the range of 5 to 20 µm/y (0.2 to 0.8 mpy).
Steelwork at basement and foundation level is usually encased in concrete. In an alkaline concrete
environment, the steel becomes passive because of the formation of a stable oxide film on the steel surface and
does not usually corrode. In older buildings, corrosion can occur if the alkalinity of the concrete is lost from
carbonation of the concrete or the steel becomes depassivated through the ingress of chloride ions present in
deicing salts or coastal environments. However, corrosion problems at these locations are rare.
Corrosion in exterior walls is normally caused by the type of construction, with tightly bonded porous masonry in
contact with poorly coated (if any coating at all is used) steel frames (Figure 3). The masonry is usually
bonded to the steel using a weak mortar material, and because of the poor quality of the mortar and its low
thickness, the masonry rapidly carbonates. The porous facing materials exposed to the environment create a high
humidity/damp carbonated mortar environment for the steel, and corrosion initiates.
Cathodic Protection
Introduction
Two practical methods of treatment are available to prevent steel frame corrosion:
(a) Treating the steel and changing the environment (e.g., removing the facade, applying protective coatings to
the steel, and preventing moisture ingress to the facade); or
(b) Controlling the corrosion process electrochemically (e.g., with CP).
The former is the current standard method of treatment; however, the widespread stripping of a facade is often
impractical and prohibitively expensive because of the necessity of removing large sections of masonry to allow
access to the steel frame. The removal of masonry is also of particular concern when heritage buildings are
involved. In such applications, a conservation strategy for the facade adds considerable value.
The principal electrochemical process for controlling corrosion is CP. CP offers many benefits over traditional
repairs, including substantial cost savings, minimal disruption to the building occupants, and conservation benefits
that are of particular importance in heritage buildings. The CP of steel-framed buildings is possible because the
protective current can be passed through the stonework or masonry to the steel through the mortar/masonry
contact. However, although the steel and masonry layout details often exist, it is not always easy to determine the
connection between the two elements.
NACE International
Track Record of Cathodic Protection
The first CP system for the prevention of steel corrosion in a masonry structure was installed in 1991. This
system protects the entrance colonnade at the Royal College of Science, Dublin, a limestone structure containing
two parallel structural I-beam members. Regular remote monitoring and annual visual inspections have confirmed
that corrosion has been arrested.
Further applications in the early 1990s included two Grade I listed sites with the protection of iron cramps in
the Inigo Jones Gateway, Chiswick House, London, and iron staircase supports embedded in the brickwork of
Kenwood House, Hampstead.
The first application of CP systems to complete steel-framed building facades took place in 1996-7.
Examples of these early systems include the faience facade of Gloucester Road Underground Station, which is
protected by a discrete rod anode system, and the Joshua Hoyle Building, Manchester, a brickwork and terra cotta
facade protected using mixed metal oxide (MMO)-coated titanium (Ti) mesh ribbon anodes inserted in the mortar
joints. These systems demonstrated the possibility of protecting full building facades and the versatility of CP.
To date, a number of buildings have been treated using CP, or have trial CP systems installed to develop a CP
system in the future. Examples of buildings treated with or evaluated for CP to date are provided in Appendix B.
Appendix C provides case histories of work performed on five buildings.
The early approaches adopted in the examples in Appendix B have varied widely, with both effective and
ineffective examples of protection. Generally, ineffective examples have been a result of the lack of an
experienced multidisciplinary team, in particular, inadequate knowledge of conservation principles and heritage
building construction. Practices resulting from little knowledge have included the following:
• Cutting of anode wire chases directly through masonry units (see Figure 5);
• Failure to address the discontinuity of fixings, brick ties, anchors, and other ancillary metalwork,
presenting high risks of stray-current corrosion (see Figure 6);
• Poor preparation of masonry joints leading to the damage of heritage masonry; and
• Staining and acid etching of masonry work through poor installation and design, and poor control from
simple course rectifier units or large current zones.
NACE International
Figure 5: Examples of appropriate quality (top) and inappropriate quality (bottom)

joint preparation for anode wiring on a heritage building.
NACE International
½ in J Hook
½ in Hook Rod in
Internal Web of Block
Isometric View
Showing Form of
Construction and
Location of CP
Components
Failure to bond the discontinuous metal may result in either (i)

cracking of the terra cotta modillion unit, or (ii) accelerated corrosion
of the J hook support and potential spalling to ground level.
Figure 6: Design drawing showing discontinuous metal required to be bonded in CP

system installation.
Trials on the development of CP for steel-framed buildings have shown that installation is complex and, if not
carried out correctly, could result in irreparable damage. Examples of damage include:
• Staining (see Figure 7);
• Acid damage to mortar joints from ribbon anode byproducts;
• Acid damage to masonry; and
• Stray-current-induced cracking and spalling.
Possible side effects are known and considered during the design and installation stages.
10
NACE International
Contaminated ribbon
slots. Iron filings used
to simulate deposits
from slot cutting tools.
Figure 7: Staining to masonry units around ribbon anodes, embedded within mortar
joints, thought to be caused by the presence of iron inclusions (left) and iron filings
within the pointing mortar (right).
Despite the complexity of designing and installing a CP system for a heritage building, success is fully achievable,
and the rewards are high. Benefits are normally received both in terms of preservation and cost. However, the
primary driver is conservation; cost is a secondary consideration.
Because of the complexity of such designs, a multidisciplinary team with knowledge of masonry, corrosion, CP,
historical building construction, and conservation principles typically is the most successful.
When developing a CP system for steel-framed buildings, normally the specialist team carries out a full
assessment of the structure. The following paragraphs describe the elements of the assessment.
The Masonry Electrolyte
For CP to work, an electrolyte through which the CP current is able to pass to a level that is sufficient to mitigate
the corrosion problem must exist. However, the quality and consistency of mortar infill between the frame and
facade is often highly variable, frequently containing large voids. In some cases, infill is completely absent.
Expert knowledge of steel-framed building construction and inspection is desired to make an accurate risk
assessment of the extent of voids.
The encasement of steel is often found to be sufficient, with the exception of areas where the construction
processes prevented the filling of cavities between the steel and stone, such as above window heads or at the
tops of columns.
Although the presence of voids is considered in relation to CP, the aim of CP is not to provide a complete
corrosion solution to a building. The aim is to prevent corrosion-related cracking, displacement, and spalling of
the masonry facing.
In assessing the issues of corrosion deterioration, CP, and voids, the following general findings are typically
considered:
• Corrosion rates are generally in the range of 5 to 20 µm/y (0.2 to 0.8 mpy) for steel embedded in
masonry. However, higher corrosion rates are possible and can be greater than 75 µm/y (3 mpy).
• Corrosion rates for steel located in large cavities are in general approximately 11 µm/y (0.43 mpy).
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that in a large cavity (if direct water penetration is prevented through correct
detailing or maintenance to waterproof coverings) steel losses would be minimal. However, assumptions do not
replace investigation through actual inspection of the steel. Following inspection, the need for grouting of voids is
typically considered.
11
NACE International
When conducting investigations involving opening up a heritage steel-framed building, a sufficient number of
openings are made to fully establish the form of construction. Significant variations may exist in the quality of
infilling on the details of a single building (see Figure 8). For example, locations around cornices, above window
heads, and on keystones may be particularly prone to high levels of voids because of the original methods of
construction and the practical difficulties of grouting.
Figure 8: Variations in infill electrolyte possible on a single building.
Conservation work strives for a balance between work necessary for information gathering and irreversible damage to
original fabric. Because of the importance of conservation, the following principles are typically observed:
• The project conservator or overseeing heritage body is fully informed of work to be carried out and the
necessity of the investigations is fully justified;
• Opening-up work is carried out in a manner that minimizes damage to original fabric and, when
possible, allows removed materials to be reused or repaired;
• The level of work is sufficient to meet the overall goals of the conservation work;
• Repairs to any investigated area are planned prior to the initiation of any investigation work;
• Any investigative openings are sufficiently large to enable full assessment without the requirement for
further work or damage;
• All work is performed by a competent mason with training in restoration and a full understanding of
conservation; and
12
NACE International
• A structural engineer checks steel section losses and other structural issues, bearing in mind that a
structure that was built 100 years ago will not conform to current building design and structural codes.
Limitations of Cathodic Protection
There are several limitations to the applications of CP. These include:
• Finding and connecting all metalwork within the CP zone when there are multiple ties and extraneous steel
or other metalwork, heavily corroded steel, or very variable construction practice. Loosely bolted beams
have also been found; these allow “play” as stones were fixed by the masons. These can make the
connection work complex.
• Certain stones and other materials and equipment used in the construction or repair process may leave
deposits of iron or steel that oxidize as a result of the CP current and lead to superficial rust staining.
• If extensive stone replacement work is being undertaken, much of the vulnerable steel frame can be
accessed and suitably protected from corrosion. If it is possible to seal joints and deflect water from the
facade with lead flashing, waterproofing, etc., considerable life extension may be possible without a CP
system.
Nondestructive and Semidestructive Testing
Many of the techniques used for assessing reinforced concrete structures are used to assess steel frames
embedded in mortar, stone, brick, etc. (see NACE SP03083). Electrical resistivity of the stone or brickwork,
corrosion potential measurements (see ASTM(2) C8764) and electrical continuity measurement between exposed
areas of steelwork have been particularly useful. However, care is generally taken when considering the
interpretation of results as they may be very different from those found for steel in concrete.
Visual inspection by insertion of endoscopes into cavities in the stonework is often used and radar is sometimes
used to ensure that all steelwork is identified so that it can be made electrically continuous in the CP zones.
Investigation of the masonry includes its conductivity or resistivity. Normally, it is found that the electrical resistivities
of most masonry materials are in a suitable range for the application of CP when containing more than 2%
moisture by weight (see Figure 9). However, as with any porous material, the behavior of moisture content on
resistivity is typically considered.
Most masonry materials have resistivities that exceed 1,000 kΩ.cm when moisture content falls below 2% and
resistivities in the range of 100 to 300 kΩ.cm at higher moisture content. Therefore, the resistivity of the masonry is
taken into account for determining the placement of anodes and rating of power supplies for adequate protection
of the steelwork.
(2)
ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
13
NACE International
kΩ.cm
1,000
500
Brick
Portland Stone
Figure 9: Example of resistivity change with moisture content.
External cladding material such as terra cotta, faience, and glazed bricks, in which the glazing or fire skin layer
acts as insulation, often makes it difficult to distribute protective currents to the steel surface. However, protection
is normally possible in the majority of cases if, for example, the anode materials are in contact with the
underlying porous material beyond the insulating surface layer.
Anodes
On steel-framed buildings, two main choices of anode have been used to date: MMO/Ti mesh ribbon anodes and
discrete rod anodes (see Figure 10).
Figure 10: Examples of anodes, from left: MMO/Ti mesh ribbon,

MMO/Ti tube, MMO/Ti mesh tube, MMO/Ti mesh tube with
special head for overhead grouting, conducting ceramic tube.
Anodes are supplied in a range of diameters and lengths.
14
NACE International
Expanded MMO-coated mesh anodes have several features that potentially make them of interest in heritage
building work:
• The anodes are not visible in mortar joints;
• The anodes are typically installed using standard masonry pointing techniques at the time of external
repairs;
• The anodes can often be situated parallel to beams and columns; and
• They cause minimal internal disturbance.
However, as described earlier, care is used with mesh ribbon anodes to avoid staining and acidification damage
to the masonry or mortar joints.
It is often not possible to install discrete rod anodes externally because of their size and their unwanted visibility
on the facade, although in the case of brickwork with larger joints or at high levels, they can be suitable.
Discrete rod anodes do have advantages over mesh ribbon anodes:
• They can be inserted internally and require no external access;
• Anodes are placed deep within the structure, making them less susceptible to wetting and drying cycles on the
building surface; and
• Anodes placed deep within the building are unlikely to suffer from acidification issues unless high current
densities are applied to the anode.
With discrete anodes, a consideration is the operational current densities applied. High current densities stated
by anode manufacturers of 900 mA/m2 (90 mA/ft2) for concrete applications are not generally used; instead,
anode current densities of approximately 110 mA/m2 (11 mA/ft2) or less are preferred to minimize the acidification
of the mortar or grout around the anode.
With both anode types, the production of acidity at the anode surface is typically a significant issue. Operating
anodes at very low current densities, especially in the case of anode ribbons run in the mortar joints of carbonate-
based masonry (e.g., limestone), normally mitigates this risk.
Current densities applied to the steel typically are approximately 5 mA/m2 (0.5 mA/ft2). However, designs carried
out following trials and investigations suggest that capacity is provided to apply 10 mA/m2 (1 mA/ft2). When these
protective currents are applied, acidification damage to mortar bedding is usually prevented by limiting current
densities to less than 10 mA/m2 (1 mA/ft2) on discrete anodes and running ribbon anodes at approximately
20 mA/m2 (2 mA/ft2).
Because high driving voltages might be required, avoiding bare titanium components and insulating all wires and
current distribution elements are typical methods used to protect against risks of pitting as a result of exceeding the
breakdown potential for titanium. The breakdown potential of bare titanium is typically stated as 8 V for chloride-
contaminated environments. This value is considered by the designer and the designs demonstrate, by calculation, that
potentials equal to or greater than this value cannot be generated at any exposed or potentially exposed titanium
surfaces. Alternatively, in the absence of chlorides, the pitting potential might be significantly increased.
15
NACE International
Continuity
Early steel-framed buildings may contain a large variety of metallic elements, and often include two or more of the
following:
• Steel beams and columns;
• Fixings that are either bronze, iron, steel, or galvanized steel;
• Cramps between stone elements;
• Steel reinforcement bars of concrete floors hooked over the top flanges of spandrel beams;
• Small steel reinforcement wires used to form a cage for the concrete encasement of the internal
faces of the steel beams and columns;
• Chickenwire mesh to aid internal works such as concreting and plastering; and
• Cast iron rainwater downpipes and copper water pipes.
Failure to ensure the electrical continuity of metallic elements in the vicinity of the CP system can allow stray-
current interactions between the various elements of the structure, resulting in the accelerated corrosion of the
discontinuous items. Because of the risk of masonry spalling caused by stray-current corrosion, this may be a
safety issue.
Generally, the quantities of isolated fixings are low. However, in certain materials such as terra cotta, anchors
can be found in large quantities. Before any CP design and installation, all anchors usually are located and
bonded as required. Specialist tools and bonding methods are normally required for continuity bonding and a range
of methods including pin brazing, drilling and tapping, cadwelding, arc welding, standard brazing, and conductive
adhesives are often used.
System Performance
System performance is normally monitored using silver/silver chloride reference electrodes embedded in the
structure. System performance is based on achieving a 100 mV depolarization 4 to 24 hours after the current to
the CP system is interrupted. This criterion is therefore the same as that adopted for reinforced
concrete.3 The application of the 100 mV criterion is considered acceptable because of the analogy of the
mortar contact and the cement matrix of concrete.
To date, more than 50 building facades have been protected using CP and the majority have successfully
mitigated corrosion by using the 100 mV criterion.
In addition to monitoring potentials, voltage and current are also typically monitored continually. This monitoring is
performed to ensure that constant power is supplied to the system and to detect any obvious, sudden changes in
output. This aspect is usually considered in a building environment where accidental damage such as the cutting of
a CP wire could easily occur during building general maintenance activities or minor work.
Power Supply, Monitoring, and Software
Steel-framed buildings suffer from extreme variations in resistivity, which has the effect of poor distribution of
current when an ICCP system is operated. Using a design engineer who is fully conversant with the building, and
taking into consideration key elements that have an effect on the resistivity of the building’s masonry, help to
overcome these problems. The amount of variation on the steel frame can be vast, and this influences CP system
designs.
16
NACE International
This information relative to the building’s behavior can then be assessed to enable the design engineer to divide
the building into uniform anode zones. This is the first phase of maximizing the effectiveness of current
distribution on the ICCP system. In most instances, this provides many small zones requiring separate power
supplies to provide accurate current distribution. When small zones are used, accurate current control is
typically required, as the amount of current needed to protect the steel structure may be as low as 10 mA.
In essence, this means that the power supply equipment suitable to operate an ICCP system usually includes a
programmable current control source with a programmable voltage limit. In the event that the system circuit varies,
the system is also able to automatically adjust the voltage in order that the current is controlled to within 1 mA.
Monitoring of the power supply outputs continuously enables automatic adjustment when needed.
The power supplies can have networking facilities (e.g., RS485, fiberoptic, wireless) to enable them to be distributed
around the structure to avoid long cable runs and similar problems. The ICCP system then forms a network of
distributed power supplies that are interconnected to a central server. Access to the system is provided at the
central server to enable ease of operation.
At this central server, the system provides access to a remote site by connecting to either a phone line (fixed or
mobile) or asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) connection. This provides full remote control and operation
of the ICCP system in real time at the remote location. However, manual systems have been used successfully
(see case histories 1 and 2 in Appendix C) and zone sizes have been based on the variability of steelwork and
environment.
Conservation Procedures
Owners and users of stone-clad, steel-framed buildings, particularly older buildings, implement strategies and
procedures for dealing with maintenance issues (e.g., a framework of inspection and rep or tin g proced ures
th a t e nsures ti me l y identification and location of developing problems, backed by procedures to ensure
followup action when necessary). The foundation for such systems rests initially in a risk assessment of the
property, considering the likelihood of various maintenance or damage scenarios. This typically allows necessary
immediate actions to be prioritized and establishment of frequency of future inspections for particular problems.
Similarly, potential problems are typically classified as “maintainable,” “repairable,” or “replaceable” to allow
appropriate and timely arrangements to be made. For example, gutters and downpipes are generally
maintainable: regular inspection, cleaning, and painting can be performed. However, at some point in their life,
they may need repair rather than maintenance, perhaps because of movement, cracking, or corrosion, and at yet
later stages might need replacement.
The maintenance regime allows for all these eventualities by owners and users developing an understanding of
the durability and life of individual building components and systems, and monitoring them to ensure timely
preventive measures, or that items needing repair are identified before major problems arise.
The starting point for any such regimen usually is ascertaining the current state of all the various elements and
the possible causes of problems. The major causes of problems in stone-clad, steel-framed buildings usually
relate to water penetration from outside rather than inside sources (although leaks in plumbing systems are
possible). Rainwater ingress is the most likely source of problems and its entry routes can be many. It can enter
through cracks in the structure, through porous stone, or through mortar joints; may bypass or overtop flashings
and upstands; or can be forced through small crevices by wind pressure or by thermal pumping.
Data and records on what is known about the building, its history, and its structure and constituents are typically
collected, and from that basic information, records are maintained and updated. With this basis, any future repairs
or replacements are then confirmed as appropriate, and a determination made whether they will place the
structure at further risk of deterioration. Repairs to pointing typically use materials that ensure the mortar is softer
than the stone, as well as ensuring that the appearance of replacement mortar does not impair the visual aspects
of the facade.
17
NACE International
Records and Data Collection
With any property asset, ideally, the maximum amount of information is available. This often takes the form of
drawings; photographs or sketches (even paintings, which may show original detail that has been obscured or
removed); and any written notes or descriptions of the building and its surroundings. In addition to these historic
records, it is often useful to catalog and record the existing situation, perhaps at the time the building passes into
new hands, and to then collect information as to the problems occurring, the solutions and remedial measures
adopted, and any information that relates to the sources of replacement materials for appropriate repairs or
refurbishments.
Such information is usually updated regularly as programmed (or unplanned) inspections and repairs are
undertaken. When repairs are of such a magnitude or consequence that they require listed building or other planning
approvals, the information is needed for the application itself, and handy records facilitate the preparation of the
applications.
Computer spreadsheets and other packages are useful tools in the logging of information so that retrieval is
simple, and such packages also often play a major part in the coordination of maintenance and repair activities.
Replacement Materials
For older historic buildings, the principle guiding repair or refurbishment activities for original or period items is to
repair rather than replace whenever possible. When later and inappropriate repairs or replacements have been
made, such items have often been replaced with items in keeping with the original style of the building. Often
quarries used for the original construction have long since closed, and replacements are aimed at being the
closest achievable match. Even if the original quarry is still open (or can be reopened), stone from different
faces or areas of a quarry can differ significantly.
Similar principles apply in situations such as those in which stone facades have eroded or otherwise degraded
and some of the detail has been lost. Here, a balance is usually sought between a natural desire to achieve or
recapture the original detail and using replacement stone that becomes obtrusive and detracts from the
appearance. Similarly, replacements may be of slightly different composition from the original, and may cause
accelerated weathering or deterioration of the adjacent original material.
Another such problem occurs with items such as pointing, which if poorly executed or incorporating incorrect materials
(or mortar mix), can cause physical damage to the fabric of the building. It can also radically alter the
appearance of the building and diminish its character. Great care is usually taken to ensure that the materials and
standards of workmanship are appropriately specified and monitored. A concealed area is often used as both a trial
panel and an example to set the standard for all the work.
Cathodic Protection
For heritage buildings, ICCP often meets the major requirements of conservation. The use of ICCP is fully
supported by both the major statutory heritage bodies in the United Kingdom, Historic Scotland(3) and English
Heritage.(4).
Work aims for minimal intervention, retention of original fabric, and reversibility. During a conservation risk
assessment, all alternative methodologies of repair usually are considered prior to the installation of ICCP.
The ICCP system usually requires future maintenance, although minimal, to ensure protection of the building.
Such maintenance regimens are usually specified in detail, in advance. To ensure protection of the building, a
full operation and maintenance manual is produced as part of the design process.
(3)
Historic Scotland, Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh EH9 1SH, Scotland.
(4)
English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138-142 Holborn, London EC1N 2ST, U.K.
18
NACE International
Design Considerations
After the building is initially inspected and investigated and a report issued, the following design
considerations usually are detailed:
• The area of steel to be protected;
• Continuity bonding;
• Distribution of anodes and zoning;
• Electrical calculations;
• Monitoring and control; and
• Masonry removal and replacement.
The above elements of an application of ICCP are normally addressed before work begins in a design document
produced by engineers with the appropriate skills in conservation, electrochemistry, and electrical installations.
Usually, details about the sensitivity of the structure and its architectural importance are determined. Steel-framed
buildings are, in most instances, extremely valuable assets and are far more intricate than a concrete structure.
Mistakes or failures with steel-framed buildings can lead to extremely high repair costs and, in severe cases, injury
to the public. Because the majority of steel-framed building construction is in busy cities, health and safety is a
priority when ICCP work is performed.
Area of Steel to Be Protected
The initial inspection and investigation typically detail the areas recommended for ICCP, and this information
often forms the basis for this calculation. The historic drawings that detail the steelwork are consulted and
calculations produced to identify the current requirements for the structure.
The scope of the initial inspection usually covers structural steelwork and any additional metal objects such as
pins, cramps, or handrailings. These will form part of the ICCP system, and are normally detailed within the
design document.
Continuity Bonding
Although the steel frame is generally one large continuous structure, continuity bonding to all the metalwork
within the ICCP area is frequently necessary.
Extraneous metal items come in many forms and, where masonry work could have been previously performed,
fixing or locating pins might have been used to perform dutchman repairs. A qualified conservator would note the
occurrence and fixing methods of all previous repairs in addition to identifying the type of masonry.
Distribution of Anodes and Zoning
Once the area of steelwork and extraneous metal items have been detailed, a series of anode zones are
designed to account for varying steel sizes, geometry, micro- and macroclimates, electrical resistivity, electrical
calculations, and output current.
Maintaining all anode zones at a small output current (which could be less than 200 mA in small zones) has
helped ensure proper levels of protection where the electrolyte varies. Ensuring that the anode current density
19
NACE International
does not exceed 110 mA/m2 (11 mA/ft2) has helped mitigate the risk of excessive acidification of the mortar or
grout around the anode.
Electrical Calculations
Because ICCP primarily consists of an electrical installation, the design document accommodates all local electrical
codes including alternating current (AC) distribution, electrical safety, direct current (DC) distribution, and anode
voltage drop. The ICCP system is powered by an AC electrical supply; consequently, a qualified engineer typically
provides details within the design document associated with this supply. The ICCP system on a steel-framed
structure falls within an electrical category known as “protected electrical low voltage” (PELV), because the steel
frame forms part of the electrical earth in the building. Taking adequate measures within the design can avoid
damage to the control equipment operating the ICCP system.
In addition to the AC infrastructure, care is taken to ensure that the DC distribution is installed in accordance with
local electrical codes. As a minimum, consideration usually is given to voltage drop and cable insulation type.
All cabling installed within a building envelope would normally be required to be of low smoke and fume rating and,
when buried within mortar joints, would be suitably chemically resistant using cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE),
polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), or high-molecular-weight polyethylene (HMWPE) insulation. In addition, building
regulations concerning cable route restrictions, such as the avoidance of elevator shafts and elevator motor
rooms, affect decisions at this stage.
The other item usually considered with electrical calculations is voltage drop within the anode string. Detailing
this within the design document indicates the effectiveness of the system and compliance with electrical codes
(which rely on a minimal voltage drop within the anode string). This is usually a concern when small-diameter,
high-resistance titanium cable feeds are used for corrosion resistance.
The incorporation of these electrical calculations into the design document facilitates the operation and long-term
performance of the ICCP system.
Monitoring and Control
Monitoring and control are a part of the long-term successful use of the ICCP system and are normally detailed
within the design document.
Depending on the zone size, the current control source for the ICCP power supply is sometimes required to have a
minimum of 1 mA control. This ensures that the small anode zones are adequately controlled without spiking.
Constant voltage systems do not offer this advantage.
To demonstrate and ensure adequate protection is being provided, monitoring sensors in the form of reference
electrodes are often specified, usually with at least two per zone.
Masonry Work
To prevent damage to the masonry, the design document usually specifies that all work associated with repairs or
masonry removal be performed by a qualified stonemason under the supervision of a conservator.
In nearly all projects, repair and removal is usually involved, and the design consultant is usually responsible for
adequately detailing this within the design document. This might cover the type of fixing arrangement for the
repairs and the methods to be used that ensure the performance of the ICCP system is not affected.
Mortar materials used for the encapsulation of anodes and anode wiring in the building envelope are often suitable for
heritage work without compromising performance of the ICCP system (e.g., the mortar and repair materials have
suitable acid resistance but are not harder than the surrounding masonry).
20
NACE International
Conclusions
CP of masonry facades has a successful track record. However, making CP work in practice is a specialist skill
involving:
• An understanding of building construction techniques and masonry;
• Knowledge of heritage building legislation and requirements;
• Practical knowledge of CP installation methodologies, especially continuity bonding;
• Technical knowledge of CP; and
• Understanding of the first and life cycle costs of CP and its alternatives.
Before CP for a steel-framed building is initiated, the following factors are assessed:
• Continuity of the steel frame, fixings, and other metallic elements;
• Level of contact between the steel and masonry facing;
• Current distribution (controlled by anode position, mortar and stone resistivity, and geometry of the steel
section);
• The impact of anode location and type; and
• Aesthetic considerations (installation details).
The design and installation team for installation of an ICCP system typically includes:
• Qualified corrosion engineer;
• Professional conservator;
• Electrical engineer;
• Expert in heritage construction techniques;
• A CP installer experienced in dealing with historic structures; and
• Reputable materials supplier experienced in dealing with historic structures.
21
NACE International
References
1. Friedman, D., Historical Building Construction: Design, Materials, and Technology, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: W.W.
Norton and Company, 2010).
2. Gibbs, P., “Corrosion in Masonry Clad Early 20th Century Steel Framed Buildings,” Historic Scotland,
Technical Advice Note 20, 2000.
3. NACE SP0308 (latest revision), “Inspection Methods for Corrosion Evaluation of Conventionally Reinforced
Concrete Structures” (Houston, TX: NACE).
4. ASTM C876 (latest revision), “Standard Test Method for Corrosion Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing
Steel in Concrete” (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM).
5. NACE Standard TM0294 (latest revision), “Testing of Embeddable Impressed Current Anodes for Use in
Cathodic Protection of Atmospherically Exposed Steel-Reinforced Concrete” (Houston, TX: NACE).
6. NACE SP0290 (formerly RP0290) (latest revision), “Impressed Current Cathodic Protection of Reinforcing
Steel in Atmospherically Exposed Concrete Structures” (Houston, TX: NACE).
Bibiography
Broomfield, J.P. “Choosing the Right Anode for Cathodic Protection of Historic Steel-Framed Buildings.” MP 47, 1
(2008): pp. 34-39.
Gibbs, P. “Cathodic Protection for Masonry Buildings Incorporating Structural Steel Frames.” CORROSION/2004,
paper no. 04349. Houston, TX: NACE, 2004.
Gibbs, P. “Cathodic Protection of Early Steel Framed Buildings.” Corrosion Prevention Association, Technical Note
7. Surrey, U.K.: Corrosion Prevention Association, 2005.
Gibbs, P. “The Preservation of Terra Cotta in Buildings.” The Building Conservation Directory, 2002.
http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles.htm.
Lambert, P., and C. Atkins, Cathodic Protection of Historic Steel Framed Buildings. Structural Studies, Repairs and
Maintenance of Heritage Architecture, IX 419. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, vol. 83.
Southampton, U.K.: WIT Press, 2005.
Lambert, P., P.S. Mangat, F.J. O'Flaherty, and Y.Y. Wu, “Cathodic Protection of Steel Framed Masonry Structures -
Experimental and Numerical Studies,” Materials and Structures 41, 2 (2008): pp. 301-310.
Lambert, P., P.S. Mangat, F.J. O'Flaherty, and Y.Y. Wu, “Influence of resistivity on current and potential distribution
of cathodic protection systems for steel framed masonry structures,” Corrosion Engineering, Science and
Technology 43, 1 (2008): pp.16-22.
Mathew, I., B. Wiskel, and P. Buscovich. “Cathodic Protection Of Masonry-Clad, Steel-Framed Building In San
Francisco.” CORROSION/2004, paper no. 04350. Houston, TX: NACE, 2004.
22
NACE International
Appendix A
Glossary of Terms Used in this Report
This appendix is intended to provide supplementary information only, although it may contain mandatory or
recommending language in specifications or procedures that are included as examples of those that have been
used successfully. Nothing in this appendix shall be construed as a requirement or recommendation with regard
to any future application of this technology.
Acid: Containing an excess of hydrogen ions over hydroxyl ions.
Alkaline: Containing an excess of hydroxyl ions over hydrogen ions.
Anode: The electrode of an electrochemical cell at which oxidation occurs. (Electrons flow away from the anode
in the external circuit. It is usually the electrode where corrosion occurs and metal ions enter solution.)
Anodic Area: The part of the metal surface that acts as an anode.
Bond: A piece of metal conductor, either solid or flexible, usually of copper, connecting two points on the same
or on different structures, to prevent any appreciable change in the potential of the one point with respect to the other.
Carbonation: The chemical reaction between carbon dioxide and the calcium hydroxide present in Portland
cement.
Carraraware: Building cladding made of fired white clay to resemble marble from Carrara, Italy.
Cathode: The electrode of an electrochemical cell at which reduction is the principal reaction. (Electrons flow
toward the cathode in the external circuit.)
Cathodic Area: The part of the metal surface that acts as a cathode.
Cathodic Protection: A technique to reduce the corrosion rate of a metal surface by making that surface the
cathode of an electrochemical cell.
Cell: See Electrochemical Cell.
Conductor: A substance (mainly a metal or carbon) in which electric current flows by the movement of electrons.
Continuity Bond: A connection, usually metallic, that provides electrical continuity between structures that can
conduct electricity.
Copper/Copper Sulfate Reference Electrode: A reference electrode consisting of copper in a saturated copper
sulfate solution.
Corrosion: The deterioration of a material, usually a metal, that results from a chemical or electrochemical
reaction with its environment.
Corrosion Interaction: The increase or decrease in the rate of corrosion, or tendency toward corrosion, of a
buried or immersed structure caused by the interception of part of the cathodic protection current applied to another
structure or current from another source.
Cramp: A piece of iron with bent ends for holding together building stones or similar material.
Current Density: The electric current flowing to or from a unit area of an electrode surface.
Dutchman: A piece or wedge inserted to hide the fault in a badly made joint, to stop an opening, etc.
23
NACE International
Electrochemical Cell: (1) an electrochemical reaction involving two half reactions, one of which involves
oxidation of the reactant (product) and the other of which involves reduction of the product (reactant). (The
equilibrium potential of the electrochemical cell can be calculated from the change in free energy for the overall
electrochemical reaction. The equilibrium potential of the electrochemical cell can be measured by separating
the oxidation and reduction half reactions into individual compartments and measuring the voltage that develops
between them under conditions that virtually no charge passes between them [thermodynamic use]); (2) An
electrochemical system consisting of an anode and a cathode in metallic contact and immersed in an electrolyte.
(The anode and cathode may be different metals or dissimilar areas on the same metal surface [common use]).
Electrode: A material that conducts electrons, is used to establish contact with an electrolyte, and through which
current is transferred to or from an electrolyte.
Electrolyte: A chemical substance containing ions that migrate in an electric field.
Fabric: A structural material, such as masonry or timber.
Facade: Any important face of a building, usually the principal front with the main entrance.
Faience: Glazed earthenware finish.
Fixing: Restraint that attaches to something or holds something in place; fastener.
Impressed Current: An electric current supplied by a device employing a power source that is external to the
electrode system. (An example is direct current for cathodic protection.)
Infill: A substance or material used to fill in a space, as inside a wall.
Ion: An electrically charged atom or group of atoms.
Macroclimate: The climate typical of a large area or entire structure.
Microclimate: The climate of a small area as contrasted with the climate of the entire area, as a result of various
factors such as local topography of a structural member and variations in the surface characteristics.
pH: The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity

written as:
pH = –log10 (aH+) (1)
where:
aH+ = hydrogen ion activity = the molar concentration of hydrogen ions multiplied by the mean ion-activity
coefficient.
Pitting: Localized corrosion of a metal surface that is confined to a small area and takes the form of cavities called pits.
Pointing/Repointing: The process of placing or replacing mortar in the joints between bricks, stones, etc., to maintain
a weatherproof seal and acceptable finish.
Polarization: The change from the corrosion potential as a result of current flow across the electrode/electrolyte
interface.
Polarization Cell: A DC decoupling device consisting of two or more pairs of inert metallic plates immersed in an
aqueous electrolyte. The electrical characteristics of the polarization cell are high resistance to DC potentials and low
AC impedance.
24
NACE International
Protection Current: The current made to flow into a metallic structure, with respect to a specified reference electrode
in an electrolytic environment, to effect cathodic protection of the structure.
Protective Coating: A coating applied to a surface to protect the substrate from corrosion.
Reaction: A process of chemical or electrochemical change, particularly taking place at or near an electrode in an
electrochemical cell.
Reference Electrode: An electrode having a stable and reproducible potential, which is used in the measurement of
other electrode potentials.
Rust: Corrosion product consisting of various iron oxides and hydrated iron oxides. (This term properly applies only to
iron and ferrous alloys.)
Silver/Silver Chloride Reference Electrode: A reference electrode consisting of silver, coated with silver chloride,
in an electrolyte containing chloride ions.
Spalling: The spontaneous chipping, fragmentation, or separation of a surface or surface coating.
Spandrel: The space between two arches or between an arch and a rectangular enclosure.
Stanchion: An upright pole, post, or support.
Steelwork: Articles or parts made of steel.
Stray Current: Current flowing through paths other than the intended circuit.
Upstand: A ridge or ledge designed to deflect water.
Weathering: Material used as a weather strip; weatherstripping.
25
NACE International
Appendix B
Cathodic Protection Examples
Table B1
Buildings Treated with or Evaluated for Cathodic Protection
Project Details Date

Royal College of Science, Dublin, Steel beams in limestone-clad entrance
Republic of Ireland 1991
colonnade
Inigo Jones Gateway, Chiswick
Iron fixings embedded in lead 1992
House, London, U.K.
Iron staircase supports embedded in
Kenwood House, Hampstead, U.K. 1993
brickwork
St. Andrews House, Edinburgh,
Limestone 1995-2001
Scotland
Gloucester Road Underground
Glazed terra cotta (faience) 1997
Station, London, U.K.
Joshua Hoyle, Manchester, U.K. Terra cotta and brick 1997
Floor beam ends embedded in stone
Light House, Orfordness, U.K. 1998
facade
Arkwright House, Manchester, U.K. Limestone/brick 1999
Kendal Milne Building, Manchester,
Limestone/brick 1999
U.K.
Blackfriars Bridge Hotel, London, Carraraware (terra cotta resembling
1999
U.K. marble)
The Light, Leeds, U.K. Retained limestone facade 2000
Summit House, London, U.K. Glazed terra cotta and brick 2000
Beehive Mill, Bolton, U.K. Wrought iron filler joist floor slab 2000
Boots Building, Nottingham, U.K. Glazed terra cotta 2001
Selfridges, London, U.K. Limestone 2001/2008

Phoenix House, Manchester, U.K. Limestone/glazed brick 2001
Georges Dock Building, Liverpool,
Limestone 2001
U.K.
Chestergate Department Store,
Glazed terra cotta/brick 2002
Stockport, U.K.
26
NACE International
Table B1
Buildings Treated with or Evaluated for Cathodic Protection (continued)
Project Details Date

Paramount House, Soho, London,
Glazed brick and limestone 2002
U.K.
Cavendish House, Birmingham, U.K. Limestone/brick 2002
St. John’s Chambers, Manchester,
Limestone/glazed brick 2002
U.K.
Islington Town Hall, Islington,
Limestone 2002
London, U.K.
Orient House, London, U.K. Limestone 2002
Eye Hospital, Glasgow, Scotland Sandstone 2002
5 Wigmore Street, London, U.K. Limestone and glazed brick 2002
GMBU Building, Newcastle, U.K. Limestone 2002
Northcliffe House, London, U.K. Artificial stone 2002
2-3 Old Broad Street, London, U.K. Limestone 2003
9 Old Broad Street, London, U.K. Limestone 2003
51-53 Threadneedle Street, London,
Limestone 2003
U.K.
Galvanic CP system for scheduled
Buxton Memorial, London, U.K. 2003
monument
Colemore Row, Birmingham, U.K. Limestone 2003

1950s steel frame encased in
Norwich House, Leicester, U.K. 2003
concrete
The Jam Factory, London, U.K. Brick 2003
Marshall Field’s, Chicago, USA Terra cotta 2001-2004
School 14x, Bronx, New York, USA Brick 2004

Pricebusters, Blackpool, U.K. Brick and terra cotta 2004
27
NACE International
Table B1
Buildings Treated with or Evaluated for Cathodic Protection (continued)
Project Details Datee

Grosvenor House, London, U.K. Brick and limestone 2005
Romney House, London, U.K. Brick 2005
Debenhams, Glasgow, Scotland Limestone 2005
Town Hall, Lancaster, U.K. Sandstone clock tower 2005
Cavendish House, Birmingham, U.K. Limestone and brick 2005
Terra cotta building elements and
St. Martin’s Lane, London, U.K. 2005
small brick building
Theatre wall lateral restraint beams
St. Martin’s Theatre, London, U.K. 2005
encased in brickwork
Stylo Matchmaker Building,
Artificial stone and brick 2005-2006
Northampton, U.K.
Bromyard Avenue, East Acton, U.K. Artificial stone 2005-2006
Wellington Bandstand, Ramsgate, Terra cotta cladding to steel columns
2006
U.K. and radius beam of bandstand
Wellcome Trust Building, Euston Entablature support beam encased in
2006
Road, London, U.K. limestone
U.S. Holocaust Museum,
Terra cotta cornice 2006-2007
Washington, DC, USA
Waterloo House, London, U.K. Carraraware 2006-2007
Ship Canal House, Manchester, U.K. Limestone and glazed brick 2006-2007
85 Fleet Street, London, U.K. Limestone 2008
St James Buildings, Manchester,
Limestone/glazed brick 2008
U.K.
28
NACE International
Appendix C
Case History Examples
Case History 1—A Small Brick Building in St. Martin’s Lane, London
This system consists of four zones running from the bottom of the first floor to parapet level on the four exposed
corners of the building (Figure C1). The system was installed and commissioned in September 2005. It was a
subcontract package to control the vertical cracking of external brickwork around the vertical steel columns at
the four corners of the building. Typical damage is shown in Figure C2. Each column is a separate zone
running at less than 10 V DC and a few tens of milliamperes per zone.
Figure C1: Zone and reference electrode locations—

Front elevation.
Each zone consists of a MMO/Ti expanded metal ribbon in the mortar joints running down one side and up the
other side of the column. The ribbon is 10 mm (0.4 in) wide by 0.9 mm (0.04 in) thick with a current rating of 3
mA/m (1 mA/ft) of length. There is a reference electrode approximately one-third and two-thirds of the way
down each zone. A ring conduit behind the roof parapet collects the wires from the anode, the steel
29
NACE International
column, and the reference electrodes and connects them to the monitoring system located in a steel cabinet
inside the cupboard beside the elevator motor room on the roof.
Figure C2: Example of cracking of brickwork

caused by the expansive corrosion of the
corner steel column. This is reflected on all four
corners of the building.
Case History 2—Balcony of Theatre Building, St. Martin’s Lane, London
This building is located next to the recently renovated Coliseum Theatre and was originally part of architect Frank
Matcham’s 1904 theatre building. It has an elaborate terra cotta stone balcony at the second floor level.
At all levels, the terra cotta was cracking because of corrosion of the steel frame. Upper levels were dismantled,
steelwork repaired, and stonework replaced or renewed. However, the second floor level was considered to be too
intricate, so ICCP was installed using MMO/Ti ribbon anodes. Figure C3 shows the balcony with horizontal cracks
in the terra cotta stones caused by corrosion of the steel beam. Two vertical steel columns have also caused
cracking of the terra cotta columns. Figure C4 shows the installation of ribbon anode in the joints between stones
and a reference electrode being installed.
The ICCP system consists of a single zone running across the front of the building at the second level and up
the columns of the balcony. The system was commissioned in October 2005 and is running at less than 10 V DC
and a few tens of milliamperes.
30
NACE International
Figure C3: The balcony, showing damage.
Figure C4: Closeup of ribbon in

joints, new stone, and installation of
a reference electrode.
Case History 3—Marshall Field’s, Chicago
Marshall Field's flagship store, on South State Street, is probably the most important store in downtown Chicago,
with an international reputation. It is one of the world's first department stores and the cornerstone of the city of
Chicago. The building was designed by Daniel Burnham, a renowned Chicago architect and city planner, who was
responsible for the plan of the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition. The neoclassical building is a tribute to the
31
NACE International
prominence and wealth of Chicago at the end of the 19th century. Marshall Field spared no luxury during the
construction of his store. It was the first building ever to have a Tiffany favrile glass mosaic ceiling.
The first building was erected in 1893, with further additions beginning in 1907. As the company expanded, the
structure grew through the 1920s to its current configuration.
The importance of the Marshall Field's building is demonstrated by the fact that Selfridges Department Store on
Oxford Street, London (recognized as the United Kingdom’s first true steel-framed building) was a copy of the
Marshall Field's store, also designed by Burnham. Marshall Field's is also the first American building to have an
ICCP system installed.
The Marshall Field's building is composed of a semirigid, structural-steel skeleton frame encased in granite up to
the third floor, and white glazed terra cotta on the remaining 10 stories (see Figure C5). The form of construction is
typical of the period, with the terra cotta bonded to the steel frame with a mortar or brick infill (see Figure C6).
The white terra cotta blocks are individually tied back to the infill material using 6 mm (0.25 in) square section
anchor bars approximately 150 mm (6 in) long. The anchors are located in preformed holes at the corner of
each terra cotta block.
As commonly found in this type of construction, the steel frame was corroding. The expansive forces
generated by the corrosion process were causing deterioration of the terra cotta in the form of cracking and
spalling, representing ongoing maintenance and safety issues for the building owner.
Figure C5: Terra cotta pilasters, Randolph Street elevation.
32
NACE International
Figure C6: Terra cotta pilasters.
The contractor was commissioned to conduct a CP feasibility trial of the fluted terra cotta columns between
the 11th and 13th floors of Marshall Field's North Wabash building, constructed circa 1914. The trial was
conducted in May 2002.
The aim of the CP feasibility trial was to examine the possibility of installing a CP system that would prevent
continued corrosion of embedded structural steel stanchions and associated steel/iron masonry anchors. In
the trials, the following issues were addressed:
• Method of construction and presence of voids in the infill masonry;
• Corrosion rates for the steelwork;
• pH and chloride levels of the infill mortar in contact with the steel frame;
• Conductivity of the masonry;
• Level of continuity in the steel frame and associated masonry anchors;
• Level of difficulty in establishing electrical continuity with electrically discontinuous metal

components;
• Ease of polarizing the steel with a cathodic current, indicating the suitability of CP techniques; and
• Ability to train local masonry workforce in the application of CP.
As a result of the trial, it was concluded that a CP system could be developed as a terra cotta conservation
technique. The application of CP would control corrosion and allow in situ stabilization of deteriorated terra cotta.
33
NACE International
In addition to the conservation benefits of this approach, the costs were significantly lower, saving approximately
50% in comparison to repairs involving widespread terra cotta replacement.
Because of the success of the feasibility trial, the contractor was commissioned to design a full-scale CP system
to protect the fluted columns between the 12th and 14th floors (see Figure C7). In addition, supervision of both
local masonry and electrical contractors was to be provided, to ensure all design requirements were fulfilled by
the contractors, who were unfamiliar with the technology.
Figure C7: Terra cotta pilasters during ICCP

installation.
34
NACE International
Case History 4—Lancaster Town Hall, U.K.
Lancaster Town Hall is the local government’s administrative center for the County of Lancashire in the United
Kingdom. The building was constructed circa 1920 and involves a structural steel frame with ornate sandstone
facing masonry to the front elevations (see Figure C8).
Figure C8: Town Hall, Lancaster, U.K.
As commonly found with the majority of early steel-framed buildings, expansive corrosion of the steel frame had
led to deterioration of the sandstone facing masonry. Of particular concern was deterioration of the ornate
clock tower and supporting dome, located above the debating chamber of the Town Hall. As described by the
structural engineer in 1997,“The clock tower is built of load-bearing brick, with ashlar stone facing. At various
levels, walls are supported on heavy steel plate girders, to accommodate the stepping in of the walls with
increasing height. There are five levels of steel within the tower. These are horizontal “I” beams of different
dimensions, some with steel plates riveted to the bottom flange. Where they are embedded into stone, brick,
and concrete, there is loss of section and cracking of the masonry.”
The structural engineer decided that the application of CP could be a suitable conservation strategy for the clock
tower, allowing sympathetic repair with minimal disruption to the operations of the Town Hall. To assist in the
appraisal of CP, a CP company was appointed to provide technical advice.
The company initially carried out trials and testing on the suitability of CP and confirmed it as a viable repair
strategy for the clock tower. In 2004, the company was commissioned by the government to design a CP
system for the clock tower and produce all necessary drawings, specifications, and pricing documents to allow
competitive bidding by specialist repair contractors. A contractor was subsequently chosen to install the CP
system.
The CP system was installed from the interior of the clock tower without the requirement for external scaffolding.
This was achieved by the use of small discrete rod anodes drilled into the wall beyond the position of the steel.
Anodes were installed on 0.3 m (1 ft) centers along the corroding steel members to allow an even distribution of
protective current along the external surface of the corroding steel.
The CP system was split into six separate control zones, allowing corrosion to be controlled at the differing
macroclimates that existed within the six levels of steelwork in the clock tower. The CP zones were then
controlled using a state-of-the-art, computer-based CP power supply and data acquisition system, with full user-
friendly menu and computer-aided drafting (CAD)-based layouts of the CP design.
35
NACE International
The CP system was designed so that access to and control of the system could be achieved either directly on
site, via modem dial-up, or through the Internet, allowing remote technical support from a corrosion specialist in
the contractor’s office.
The design consisted of drawings, specifications, and material schedules, detailing the safe, extra-low voltage
electrical circuits, 110 V AC electrical circuits, and masonry installation works.
The final design consisted of 13 mm (0.5 in) diameter by 100 mm (4 in) long inert anode electrodes installed in the 9
mm (0.4 in) mortar joints. These were interconnected by a small 16 American wire gauge (AWG) Ti wire buried in
the mortar joint and a separate wired connection to the steel frame. A monitoring sensor was installed in each
column, and discrete connections to the terra cotta anchors were made to ensure their protection by the CP system.
The anode electrodes were wired to the positive terminals of an intelligent power supply and monitoring system.
The steel was wired separately to the negative terminals. Protective currents were then applied to the steel
through the terra cotta masonry using a computer system to control the intelligent power supply.
This CP system provided data in real-time CAD layouts on the embedded computer screen in the main control
unit. The system used touch-screen computer technology, allowing the user to access and understand the CP
system layout simply by touching menus and drawings/images on the personal computer screen.
The CP system installation was completed in August 2004. In August 2005, a full survey and inspection of the
building were made. The visual inspection of the terra cotta and data collected by the CP system both
confirmed successful control of the underlying corrosion problems.
The Marshall Field's 2002 CP project demonstrated it is possible to successfully provide CP technology to high-
rise buildings. The key to successful application was detailed design supervision of the local contractors employed
to carry out the installation of the system.
Case History 5—Building, San Francisco
This building considered for CP in San Francisco was built in the 1920s, following the typical design and detail
used in high-rise construction even though it is only a five-story building. The design and detailing used in high-
rise buildings (concrete floor) was chosen as superior to the typical design used in low-rise buildings (wood
floors). As such, this is a unique example of repair technique used on a smaller scale but appropriate and
scalable to much larger buildings.
The building’s construction is classic high-rise construction, which required a more restrictive fire rating than
would have been required under the existing San Francisco building code. The skeleton of the building is a
complete structural steel frame using rolled I-beam shapes with riveted connections. The steel frame is designed
to carry all gravity (dead + live) loads. The floors are reinforced concrete slabs spanning between the steel
beams. The concrete encases the steel beams to provide fire protection. This wrapping of the steel beams also
occurs on all perimeter steel beams. The exterior walls are 325 mm (13 in) thick brick masonry. The brick sits 225
mm (9 in) on the concrete-encased beams and cantilevers 100 mm (4 in) beyond the beam. This allows for a
brick veneer on the face of the concrete-encased beams to give a continuous brick elevation. The brick wall also
wraps around the exterior columns for fire protection on the inside and weather protection on the outside. None of
the steel was protected with paint.
The building underwent normal repairs in the 1990s to address water intrusion. This included repointing of the
deteriorated mortar joints and painting/caulking. This started on the western elevation. During this work, it was
noted that the southwest corner had extensive vertical cracks on the south and west face, corresponding to the
steel column behind. Additional investigation showed this situation to be present on the southeast corner, in single and
double cracks in the middle column brick faces (between the end columns) and the horizontal brick veneer
cracks at the floor/steel beam locations. The two corner locations were addressed first because of the extensive
nature of the cracks, the location adjoining sidewalks, and, more importantly, the discontinuity of the corner with
cracking on two faces causing a stability problem. In addition, the repair of the two columns would provide in situ
36
NACE International
data on the repair of the other nine columns. The corner columns were repaired by removing the brick, cleaning rust
off the steel, repairing the steel columns, coating the steel, and reinstalling the brick exterior veneer. Corrosion of
one of the columns had created holes approximately 75 mm (3 in) in diameter in the column flange. The south
elevation was then investigated further, and it was determined that the middle columns could be repaired using a
similar technique, refined during the repair of the end columns. The biggest challenge was salvaging old brick to
blend with new brick to match the color and shine of the existing brick wall.
The major problem of the south wall was the repair of the floor beams. Investigation showed that these beams had
minor corrosion that had not compromised their structural integrity and capacity. However, the areas of corrosion
were encapsulated in the concrete fireproofing. Removing the concrete in the areas of rust was very
problematic because of the brick wall sitting on the beam/concrete, thus increasing the repair cost. Because it was
determined that the steel beams were still adequate to carry loads and the cost to remove the concrete, clean the
steel, and patch the concrete was so expensive (the cost estimate to repair the beams substantially exceeded
the cost to repair the columns), it was decided to leave the rust on the steel beam in place and provide CP to
prevent further corrosion. The south exterior wall was repointed, and a siloxene coating was applied to help repel
water. This work was done in conjunction with the repair of the nine middle columns. The work was successfully
coordinated between the contractor doing the brick work and the CP contractor/consultant. The work is now one
year old and, to date, the south facade has performed exactly as expected. More importantly for the client, the
work is invisible to the untrained eye.
An investigation involving field and laboratory tests was undertaken to establish the corrosion mechanism(s) that
had adversely affected the integrity of the external structural steel members associated with this San Francisco
building. Tests included visual inspection of the brick facade for cracking, buckling, and spalling, and visual
inspection of the structural steel columns, beams, and associated concrete at accessible locations. Tests were
also performed to determine carbonation (pH) and chloride content of mortar/concrete, and corrosion
potential of the steel. The results of the testing led to the following conclusions:
• In the case of the structural steel columns, the observed corrosion on the external portion of the column
had occurred in the absence of any bonded concrete;
• The corrosion was determined to be atmospheric;
• It appeared that rainwater entered the building exterior and traveled along the columns and beams; and
• In the case of the structural steel beams, the corrosion occurred in the presence of concrete in the web
and at locations without concrete on the top of the beam.
At three locations, the exterior bricks were removed, exposing the beam or the beam and column connection for
inspection, which revealed severe corrosion and cross-section loss. An air gap was noted between the brick
facade and the structural steel. The concrete in the beam web was cracked from tensile forces caused by the
corrosion product. At numerous locations along the beams, the brick facade had been deformed outward. In
many cases, the mortar joints were cracked. It was believed that the condition was caused by the
expansion of the concrete in the web of the beam, also caused by tensile forces exerted by corrosion products. If
an air gap did not exist between the brick facade and structural steel, more damage to the brick facade would have
occurred. pH testing in the field and laboratory confirmed that carbonation of the concrete in the web of the
beam as well as the mortar joints had occurred. Electrical potential testing along each beam in the vicinity of the fire
escapes confirmed that the steel beam was actively corroding throughout the sections tested. Because the
structural steel columns were not encapsulated in concrete, no conductive electrolyte was present. As a result, CP
could not be considered for the columns. Therefore, a coating system was recommended to prevent any further
oxidation of the columns. A water seal was also recommended to prevent any water entering a column from
traveling along the associated beams. Because the external portion of the structural beams was encapsulated in
concrete, a CP system was recommended as the most cost-effective method to prevent further corrosion of the
beams.
37
NACE International
Factors Affecting Cathodic Protection
Several factors are normally considered before CP is implemented as a viable option for masonry-clad, steel-framed
buildings. These include:
• Electrical continuity of the steel frame, anchors, and other embedded metallic items;
• Contact between the steel frame and mortar (effect that voids have on protection levels);
• Current distribution, which is controlled by anode spacing, and mortar and stone resistivity;
• Position of anodes (joint details and steel framing design); and
• System installation details and how the aesthetics of the structure are affected.
These items were assessed during a pilot installation (mockup) on the building. The pilot installation was
performed on a representative portion of the steel beams. The pilot installation allowed the determination of the
current density required for CP, current distribution patterns to the steel surface, anode spacing, continuity bonding
procedures, and the type of CP system most appropriate from both a construction standpoint and an aesthetics
standpoint. The CP system was powered with a portable test rectifier. Current distribution and protection levels
on the steel surface were evaluated using embedded and portable reference electrodes. The pilot installation and
testing indicated that CP could be effectively used for protecting the top portion of the steel beams, where corrosion
control was needed.
Ensuring electrical continuity of the steel frame, angles, anchors, and reinforcing and other embedded metallic
items is typically necessary in the application of CP. Failure to ensure electrical continuity will not only prevent
current from being received on steel that is discontinuous, but may lead to stray-current corrosion of the
discontinuous items. A thorough understanding of the common design details and the methods of building
construction assists in continuity assessment.
A preliminary analysis of electrical continuity between the embedded items was made during the pilot
installation. Standard test methods consist of DC resistance and DC voltage drop techniques. A stable reading
of less than 1 Ω (after reversing the polarity of the test leads) or a potential difference less than 1 mV are values that
indicate electrical continuity exists between metallic components embedded in concrete or mortar. Change in
potential of the steel structure through the application of CP current, as measured using an embedded or portable
reference electrode, is another way of assessing electrical continuity.
Continuity tests conducted at the building indicated that the riveted beam-to-column connections did not provide
adequate electrical continuity across the connections because of the presence of thick corrosion products at
those locations. Therefore, all beam-to-column connections and column-to-column splices were welded to
ensure electrical continuity.
CP of masonry-clad, steel-framed buildings is feasible because DC can pass through the more mortar fill, which is
in contact with the steel frame. The masonry and mortar fill is therefore considered an electrolyte through
which protective current can flow. Although details of the steel and masonry layout often exist, knowledge of the
mortar connection is not always possible. It is rare that embedded metal items in these cladding systems are
completely embedded in mortar.
More often, the mortar fill contains large voids and in certain cases the mortar is completely absent. Knowledge of
the infill consistency can be obtained through borescope analysis, or by direct inspection as in this case. The
quality, type, and application of mortar fill between the steel and external facade varies greatly, both between buildings
and within a single building. However, despite this variability, mortar infills are generally composed of a wet mix
containing varying quantities of cement, sand, and brick rubble.
38
NACE International
Building Construction
Knowledge of the historic building construction methods facilitates analyzing infill areas for voids. Voids can be
large openings (i.e., > 25 mm [1 in]) where corrosion is minimal and no protection is required, or corrosion can be
significant in the void, and grouting is typically required to ensure protection. Voids can also be small openings
(i.e., < 10 mm [0.4 in]) in which corrosion has occurred but grouting is not required, because corrosion products tend
to fill the small voids and act as an electrolyte for protective current. If the void area contains water, CP current
conducts across this area.
In the building in San Francisco, air gaps to 25 mm (1 in) were noted between the brick facade and the concrete on
the steel beam. Because of this, cement grout was used to make contact to the concrete on the steel beam and
encapsulate the anode. One row of bricks was removed near the beams for installation of the anode and grout. The
bricks were then replaced.
The anode is one of the key components for a CP system. It is used to distribute protective current to the steel
embedded in masonry and provides locations for anodic reactions to take place in lieu of the steel. By using
relatively inert anode materials, such as catalyzed Ti, anode consumption is minimized. One of the main benefits of
catalyzed Ti is that its life expectancy can be determined through accelerated life testing. NACE Standard
TM02945 gives procedures for accelerated life testing of these anodes. Based on test results using this method,
it has been found that the life of catalyzed Ti anodes can readily exceed 75 years.
The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)(5) has conducted extensive testing with catalyzed Ti anode mesh
for CP of reinforcing steel in concrete bridge decks. To provide the maximum life expectancy for this anode, the
FHWA recommends a maximum limit of 110 mA/m2 (10 mA/ft2) for current density at the anode/concrete interface.
Ti ribbon mesh anodes are usually suited for installation in the fine mortar joints of stone or brick cladding material.
Ribbon mesh anodes are available in 13 mm (0.50 in) and 19 mm (0.75 in) widths. Ribbon anodes are generally
installed using standard masonry pointing techniques and are recessed as deeply as possible in the joint, where
resistivities are lowest, while ensuring that the ribbon mesh is fully encapsulated by the cementitious mortar.
Particular advantages of the ribbon mesh installation include:
• Nondestructive method of installation;
• Ribbon can easily be installed in mortar joints using standard pointing techniques at the time of repair;
• Ribbon anodes are usually installed parallel to the steel beams and columns; and
• Ribbon anode is not visible after installation, and installation restores integrity and aesthetics to the building.
Current densities (based on concrete surface area) for CP of steel embedded in carbonated concrete have been
reported to be 10 mA/m2 (1.0 mA/ft2) or less. These levels are somewhat lower than those for chloride-contaminated
concrete. However, the main consideration in designing a CP system for masonry-clad, steel-framed buildings is
to provide sufficient current to protect the steel beneath the facade, so that the outward expansion of corrosion
products is greatly reduced or eliminated. Current distribution from the anode to these areas of steel surface is
therefore usually a consideration in the design of a CP system. For the San Francisco building, the larger 19 mm
(0.75 in) wide Ti ribbon mesh anode was selected to ensure adequate current capacity, based on the pilot
installation test. Each beam was provided with one anode ribbon extending the full length of the beam.
Reference electrodes are used to evaluate CP levels. They can be small, portable devices or permanently
embedded probes in the masonry structure. Reference electrodes are installed at locations to evaluate system
performance where effective corrosion control is critical. The most commonly used embedded reference
electrodes for concrete structures are silver/silver chloride. Pseudo reference electrodes, such as MMO/Ti rods or
graphite probes, are used for short-term differential measurements (i.e., depolarization tests) but are not used to
(5)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC
20590.
39
NACE International
measure absolute values because of a tendency for potentials to drift as environmental conditions change.
However, pseudo reference electrodes have significantly longer life expectancy than silver/silver chloride
reference electrodes. A potential can be obtained if reference electrodes have a separate ground connection to
the steel frame. To help facilitate testing of the CP system, the reference electrode lead and ground wires can be
terminated at a junction box or inside the rectifier enclosure.
Power Supply and Monitoring
A rectifier is used to convert AC to DC. A rectifier works on the same principle as an AC adapter for a
computer or a battery charger. In an ICCP system, the rectifier provides the power (i.e., low-voltage DC) and
controls the amount of power to each anode zone. Usually, for masonry-clad, steel-framed buildings, the CP
system is divided into a series of isolated anode zones. For example, a beam or column line on the face of a building
may be a single zone.
Rectifiers are available in many types and operating outputs (i.e., constant current, constant voltage, and
potential control). The process of CP for masonry-clad, steel-framed structures surprisingly requires little power.
Experience has shown that maximum voltage limits for rectifiers on masonry-clad, steel-framed buildings is 20
to 40 V DC. Distributed rectifier systems, which consist of a master control unit and small local rectifier units
(LRUs), are typically suited for larger building installations. This technology not only minimizes DC wiring, but also
allows for the complete remote monitoring and control of the CP system via a telephone line, modem, and personal
computer (PC). To ensure continued operation of the CP system, the rectifier is usually monitored on a quarterly
basis.
The life of an ICCP system depends on the performance of individual items installed within the building. With the
exception of the anodes and reference electrodes embedded in the structure, all component parts can be
maintained and replaced as required. As stated earlier, the operational life of a catalyzed Ti anode is in excess
of 75 years. However, the electronics associated with the power supplies and remote monitoring system are
expected to have a life in excess of 20 years. With appropriate maintenance and repair of the electronic circuitry,
this could readily exceed 30 years.
Based on the results from the feasibility study and the pilot installation discussed above, a CP system was
designed for corrosion control of the structural beams of the building in San Francisco. The CP system was
divided into four distinct zones: A, B, C, and D. Each CP zone consisted of Ti mesh ribbon anodes installed in the
mortar joint of the brick facade, near the concrete-encased steel beams on the 4th, 5th, and 6th floors of the building.
One monitoring probe (Ti rod with MMO coating) was also installed on each floor of each CP zone for testing
purposes.
The anodes and monitoring probes were grouted using a nonshrink cement grout. All the cables for anodes,
monitoring probes, and structure and test connections for each CP zone were routed to junction boxes in the utility
room within the building to facilitate future monitoring. Each CP zone was powered by a rectifier with maximum
output capacity of 40 V, 5 A.
The CP system was installed in conjunction with other repair work at the building. One row of bricks was removed
near the top of the beams for installation and grouting of the anode ribbon. The bricks were then replaced and
the anodes, monitoring probes, and cables were not visible.
The CP energization test was performed after allowing a minimum of one month to cure the grout. The test was
performed by powering the anodes using the rectifiers, and then measuring the potential shifts of the steel
beams using the permanent monitoring probes installed. Potential shifts were also measured using a portable
copper/copper sulfate reference electrode placed at the mortar joints on the surface of the wall, where they were
accessible from the fire escapes in CP zones B and C. The current output was adjusted to obtain the optimum CP
levels. The rectifier output voltage and current were documented. The individual anode currents were also
documented using the shunts provided in the anode junction box.
40
NACE International
Before application of CP current, the “static” (baseline) potentials of the steel beams were measured using the
monitoring probe terminals at the junction box and a portable copper/copper sulfate reference electrode placed on
the surface of the wall near the beams. The current “on” potentials were measured with the CP current applied,
and the current “off” potentials were measured with the CP current momentarily interrupted. The potentials
were measured using a high-impedance digital voltmeter. The difference between “off” and “static” potential is
referred to as polarization shift. It is the net protective effect on the steel caused by the application of CP current.
Polarization was documented after 30 minutes and 18 days of CP.
The criterion for CP of steel in concrete/mortar is a minimum of 100 mV of cathodic polarization (formation or
decay), as established by NACE SP0290.6 The potentials measured after 30 minutes and again after 18 days of
CP system activation considerably exceeded the minimum required polarization shift of 100 mV, indicative of
adequate corrosion control. The initial rectifier current required to obtain this polarization ranged from 88 to 128
mA for the four CP zones, with corresponding anode current densities ranging from 95 to 135 mA/m2 (8.8 to 12.5
mA/ft2).
After one year of CP system operation, another survey was performed to ensure that adequate corrosion control
was being achieved. The tests included documentation of the rectifier outputs and measurement of current “on” and
current “off” potentials. Subsequently, the CP systems were deactivated and the potential decay (depolarization)
was documented at 30 min, 2 h, and 4 h intervals. The average depolarization was measured using a portable
copper/copper sulfate reference electrode placed at the mortar joints on the surface of the wall. The potential
decay considerably exceeded the minimum required depolarization shift of 100 mV within the 4 h period,
indicative of adequate corrosion control. The average depolarization shifts after the 4 h period were 434 mV and
512 mV for Zones B and C, respectively. The rectifier current required (after one year of operation) to obtain this
depolarization ranged from 25 to 54 mA for the four CP zones, with corresponding anode current densities
ranging from 23 to 82 mA/m2 (2.1 to 7.6 mA/ft2). This indicates a significant reduction in the current required for
adequate CP compared to the initial current requirement.
41

Cathodic Protection For Masonry Buildings Incorporating Structural Steel Frames (24244-SG)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Cathodic Protection For Masonry Buildings Incorporating Structural Steel Frames (24244-SG)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cathodic Protection For Masonry Buildings Incorporating Structural Steel Frames (24244-SG)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Item No.

This Technical Committee Report has been prepared

Cathodic Protection for Masonry Buildings Incorporating

• Gives an introduction to the subject;

• Details issues of importance in applying CP to heritage buildings;

• Provides examples of applications;

• Provides information on specific issues relating to heritage buildings;

• Lays the foundations for developing a NACE standard on this subject.

Figure 1: 25 mm (1 in) wide cracking of brick corner detail

Figure 2: 15 mm (0.6 in) displacement of the limestone

Figure 3: Spalling of terra cotta facing masonry caused

Figure 4: Significant loss of beam section requiring

Fe → Fe2+ + 2e– (1)

The combination of these two reactions produces ferrous hydroxide:

2Fe2+ + 4OH– → 2Fe(OH)2 (3)

(b) Controlling the corrosion process electrochemically (e.g., with CP).

Track Record of Cathodic Protection

Figure 5: Examples of appropriate quality (top) and inappropriate quality (bottom)

Failure to bond the discontinuous metal may result in either (i)

Figure 6: Design drawing showing discontinuous metal required to be bonded in CP

• Staining (see Figure 7);

• Acid damage to mortar joints from ribbon anode byproducts;

• Acid damage to masonry; and

• Stray-current-induced cracking and spalling.

The Masonry Electrolyte

Figure 8: Variations in infill electrolyte possible on a single building.

Limitations of Cathodic Protection

There are several limitations to the applications of CP. These include:

Nondestructive and Semidestructive Testing

Figure 9: Example of resistivity change with moisture content.

Figure 10: Examples of anodes, from left: MMO/Ti mesh ribbon,

• The anodes are not visible in mortar joints;

• They cause minimal internal disturbance.

• They can be inserted internally and require no external access;

• Steel beams and columns;

• Fixings that are either bronze, iron, steel, or galvanized steel;

• Cramps between stone elements;

• Cast iron rainwater downpipes and copper water pipes.

Power Supply, Monitoring, and Software

Records and Data Collection

• The area of steel to be protected;

• Distribution of anodes and zoning;

• Monitoring and control; and

• Masonry removal and replacement.

Area of Steel to Be Protected

Distribution of Anodes and Zoning

Monitoring and Control

• An understanding of building construction techniques and masonry;

• Knowledge of heritage building legislation and requirements;

• Practical knowledge of CP installation methodologies, especially continuity bonding;

• Technical knowledge of CP; and

• Continuity of the steel frame, fixings, and other metallic elements;

• Level of contact between the steel and masonry facing;

• The impact of anode location and type; and

• Aesthetic considerations (installation details).

• Qualified corrosion engineer;

• Expert in heritage construction techniques;