Experimental Study on the Effect of Cathodic Protection System for Concrete Slab Specimens with Zn-Mesh Sacrificial Anode in Marine Environment

Abstract:

This study is to acquire the confirmation data regarding the cathodic protection (CP) characteristics for slabs in marine bridges and piers exposed to hash seawater environments. It was possible to confirm the performance of CP only by the measurement of CP potentials for the slab specimens applied with zinc mesh sacrificial anode CP system. The CP current density for the cathodic protection (CProt) that CP started after a repair of corrosion was 2 times higher than that for the cathodic prevention (CPrev) that CP commenced from the beginning of experiment, and the most of protection current density (87.0-91.5%) flew to the closer top rebar in slab specimens. 4 hour depolarization potentials were higher in the CPrev system than in the CProt one, and it was confirmed that the CPrev has more protection effect with less protection current, comparing to the CProt. It was also confirmed that the CP of both CPrev and CProt by means of zinc mesh sacrificial anode for reinforced concrete structures were very effective corrosion protection technology in marine environment.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 785-786)
• Pages: 264-272
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.785-786.264
• Online since: September 2013
• Authors: Jin A Jeong, Chung Kuk Jin
• Keywords: Cathodic Prevention, Cathodic Protection (CP), Corrosion, Marine, Slab

References

[1] M. Saleem, M. Shameem, S.E. Hussain, M. Maslehuddin, Effect of moisture, chloride and sulphate contamination on the electrical resistivity of Portland cement concrete, Construction and Building Materials 10(1996) 209-210.

DOI: 10.1016/0950-0618(95)00078-x

[2] NACE Standard, RP0290, Standard Recommend Practice for Impressed Current Cathodic Protection of Reinforcing Steel in Atmospherically Exposed Concrete Structures, (2000).

[3] J.P. Broomfield, Corrosion of Steel in Concrete second ed., Taylor & Francis, London and New York, (2007).

[4] Bennet, J.E. and Broomfield, J.P., Analysis of Studies on Cathodic Protection Criteria for Steel in Concrete, MP, 36, (1997).

[5] D.G. Enos, A. J. Williams, Jr., G.G. Clemena, and J.R. Scully, Impressed-Current Cathodic Protection of Steel-Reinforced Concrete Pilings Protection Criteria and the Threshold for Hydrogen Embrittlement, Corrosion 54(1998) 389.

DOI: 10.5006/1.3284867

[6] P. Pedeferri, Cathodic Protection and Cathodic Prevention", Construction and Building Materials 10(1996) 391-402.

DOI: 10.1016/0950-0618(95)00017-8

[7] F.J. Presuel-Moreno, S.C. Kranc, and A. A. Sagues, Cathodic Prevention Distribution in Partially Submerged Reinforced Concrete, Corrosion 61(2005) 548.

DOI: 10.5006/1.3278190

[8] ASTM C876-91, Standard Test method for Half-Cell Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in Concrete, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03. 02. (1994).

[9] CMS100 Framework Software Operator's Manual, Gamry Instruments, Inc, (1994).

[10] L. Bertolini, E. Redaelli, Throwing Power of Cathodic Prevention Applied by Means of Sacrificial Anodes to Partially Submerged Marine Reinforced Concrete Piles: Results of Numerical Simulations, Corrosion Science 51(2009) 2218-2230.

DOI: 10.1016/j.corsci.2009.06.012

[11] A.M. Hassanein, G.K. Glass, N.R. Buenfeld, Protection Current Distrubution in Reinforced Concrete Cathodic Protection Systems, Cement & Concrete Composites 24(2002) 159-167.

DOI: 10.1016/s0958-9465(01)00036-1

[12] T, Pastore, P. Pedeferri, L. Bertolini, F. Bolzoni, Current Distribution Problems in the Cathodic Protection of Reinforced Concrete Structure, Rehabili tation of Concrete Structures, Melbourne, p.189~200, (1992).

DOI: 10.1016/0010-938x(93)90393-u

[13] NACE Standard SP0290, Impressed current cathodic protection of reinforced steel in atmospherically exposed concrete structures, (2007).