implementing and managing a large water utility’s ... · mitigate the corrosion to buried water mains. Properly designed, installed, and maintained CP systems can add years of additional

56 JULY 2012 | JOURNAL AWWA • 104 :7 | KLOPFER & SCHRAMUK

Public water facilities face a significant economic burden created by the deterioration of their buried water piping systems. AWWA has tracked the critical issues facing the water industry since 2004. In a 2011 report (Murphy), AWWA described that failing water infra-structure and financing water system rehabilitation are the top

issues facing the water industry in the United States.As water system facilities are reaching their financial life expectancy, the

need to rehabilitate or replace water mains is increasing.• In 2001, AWWA estimated that by 2030, US water utility systems will

have to spend on average nearly four times as much per year (in 2001 dollars) to replace water piping that will have reached the end of its economic life (AWWA, 2001). • In 2002 the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) warned that

community water systems and not-for-profit water systems in the 50 states, US territories, and tribal areas faced a major funding gap. The USEPA’s worst-case analysis (with no revenue growth) estimated a total payment gap for operations and maintenance and capital expenses of $263 billion or about $13 billion per year through 2019 (USEPA, 2002).

The Des Moines, iowa, waTer

works has iMpleMenTeD an

unDergrounD corrosion

conTrol prograM To MiTigaTe

corrosion by using caThoDic

proTecTion To reDuce iTs

waTer Main breaks.

implementing and managing a large water utility’s underground corrosion control program

Danny J. klopfer anD Jeff schraMuk

distribution systems

2012 © American Water Works Association

KLOPFER & SCHRAMUK | 104 :7 • JOURNAL AWWA | JULY 2012 57

• This year AWWA projected that restoring the nation’s existing water piping and building new water sys-tems will cost more than $1 trillion over the next 25 years (about $40 billion per year through 2035) and nearly double this cost by 2050 (AWWA, 2012).

As can be seen by these data, deferring water main investments in the short term will only increase the challenge in the coming years—mak-ing budgeting for water main repairs and/or pipe replacements a major budget concern for water utilities in the United States.

CORROSION AND MAIN BREAKSCorrosion is a phenomenon that

concerns most water utilities in North America, where about two thirds of the installed water main net-work consists of various forms of ferrous pipes, including cast iron, ductile iron, and steel pipes. Studies have shown that the predominant deterioration mechanism of the exte-rior of cast and ductile pipes is elec-trochemical corrosion (Rajani & Kleiner, 2004). Pipe of the same material has been shown to last from as little as 15 years to more than 100 years depending on the soil charac-teristics alone. Recent studies con-firm that that pipe material, diameter, installation date, and soil type are the most important variables in influenc-ing main breaks (Wood et al, 2009). Although many physical actions influence the breakage of a buried water main, the corrosion process

often contributes to reducing a water main’s structural resiliency and leads to main breaks (Kleiner & Rajani, 2000). It has been shown that corro-sion pits on ductile iron or graphi-tized zones on cast iron are generally the failure mechanisms that can cause metallic water mains to break—sometimes in as little as 5 to 10 years after their installation (Kleiner & Rajani, 2004).

Cathodic protection (CP) of cast- and ductile-iron mains is a mitiga-tive measure that can reduce prema-ture breaks because of water main corrosion. Although experience sug-gests that the effectiveness of an individual water utility’s CP pro-gram will vary with the area’s unique site conditions, Ontario, Canada, has proven that CP is a cost-effective method of reducing main breaks by protecting and extending the life of its buried mains. On the basis of the results dating back to the mid-1980s, Ontario has expanded its CP pro-gram to consist of hot spot, reac-tive, proactive, and routine corro-sion monitoring for both ductile cast-iron and gray cast-iron pipes (Ontario Centre for Municipal Best Practices, 2008).

With consideration of the success-ful application of CP by several major North American water utili-ties, Des Moines (Iowa) Water Works (DMWW) implemented a CP program for select water mains, new water transmission mains, and select smaller distribution mains. This arti-

cle summarizes four CP programs that are reducing failures and ex -tending the service life of DMWW’s water mains.

HOW DMWW DEALS WITH UNDERGROUND CORROSION

Both visual and metallurgical examinations indicate that most of the water main breaks in the DMWW distribution system can be directly or indirectly related to cor-rosion. With 521 mi (838 km) of its 1,380-mi (1,609-km) water distri-bution system (excluding 380 mi [612 km] of rural water piping) having reached its financial life expectancy and another 99 mi (159 km) reaching its life expectancy by 2020, DMWW is budgeting aggres-sively for water main replacements.

Since 1994 there has been a grad-ual increase in cast-iron water main failure rates for DMWW (Figure 1). Data through the end of 2011 indi-cate that there are now about 300 main breaks apportioned over about 747 mi (1,202 km) of its metallic water mains each year—or roughly 40 breaks per 100 mi (161 km) per year. As a comparison, AWWA has suggested that a “reasonable goal” for water system main breaks in North America is 25 to 30 breaks per 100 mi (161 km) of main per year (Deb et al, 1995).

Although the number of system failures has been rising, the cost of main breaks has also been rising each year. In 2003, the average cost per water main break for DMWW



was approximately $3,788, but by 2011 the average cost had increased to $5,372. The increasing number and costs of water main breaks cou-pled with inadequate funding for water main replacement resulted in DMWW implementing in 2004 a cor-rosion mitigation program to reduce the number of water main breaks and extend the service life on its buried metallic water mains.

DMWW’S ASSET MANAGEMENT AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT PRACTICES

Water main breaks have been called routine and just an opera-tional inconvenience; however, this

view is short-sighted—water main breaks can create adverse effects with regard to the public’s health, damage to the environment, eco-nomic damages for the business community and the water utility, and can be a detriment to public safety (USEPA, 2005). When the risk of main breaks is reduced, the water utility directly benefits its customers by reducing its operating costs.

Asset management is defined as an optimization process that attempts to meet the competing objectives of cost minimization and reliability maximization (Rubin, 2011). A sim-ple framework (Figure 2) of best practices has been established by the USEPA to allow water utilities to implement an effective asset manage-ment program (USEPA, 2008).

As part of its asset management program, DMWW maintains an accurate database of its water piping network through a geographic infor-mation system. DMWW routinely updates its hydraulic model data-

bases. These databases are used for the risk assessment of main breaks. Acknowledging the probability of a failure and weighing this probability are part of DMWW’s overall risk management program. Collecting his-torical data and pipeline characteris-tics, using soil corrosivity tests to identify areas with the greatest likeli-hood for corrosion, directly examin-ing physical defects requiring pipe repair or replacement, and evaluating these data are also part the process consistent with recommended water infrastructure management practices (Marlow et al, 2010).

CORROSION DEFINITIONS AND CPCorrosion of a buried water main

is defined as the electrochemical deg-radation of the metal as a result of its reaction with its environment. Four components of an electrochem-ical cell are required to have corro-sion take place. Remove any one of the four components: the anode (cor-roding), the cathode (noncorroding),

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

01994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f B

reak

s

Trends in total main breaksDMWW break data

FIGURE 1 DMWW’s long-term main break data (1994–2011)

DMWW—Des Moines Water Works



the anode–cathode connection, or the soil or water (electrolyte) that surrounds the buried pipe, and cor-rosion will be stopped. However, this is not an easy task because the pipe contains both anodes and cath-odes bound into a metallic matrix that cannot be altered. In corrosive environments, water utilities typi-cally attempt to isolate their buried water mains by applying bonded coatings and/or tape to the pipe or by sheathing the pipe in an unbonded plastic film. The theory is that restricting water and oxygen access to the metal surface will reduce the corrosion, but unfortunately, no method to isolate a buried pipe from its electrolyte is perfect, and third-party damage after burial is also a long-term concern many years after the main is installed. Because of these limitations, CP is installed to mitigate the corrosion to buried water mains. Properly designed, installed, and maintained CP systems can add years of additional service life to water mains.

CP APPLICATION CRITERIAThe criteria used by DMWW to

apply CP has many operational con-siderations such as critical water ser-vice customers (large industrial, commercial facilities, hospitals), critical water main surroundings (under major roadways or in con-gested public utility corridors), and the ability for crews to quickly repair main breaks and restore service on large water transmission mains. With this rationale, the following sections of this article describe four examples of the application of CP as an economical means to mitigate corrosion on DMWW’s existing dis-tribution water mains and new dis-tribution and transmission mains.

DMWW’s CP anode retrofit program. This program has continued uninter-rupted since 2004 and the design for 2012 installation has been com-pleted. The sites considered for each year’s installations are selected using several criteria including pipe mate-rial, pipe age, the number of failures

on the pipe, the condition of the pipe, the ease of installation of the anodes, soil characteristics, traffic disruption, inconvenience to custom-ers, and excavation and restoration

costs. Water mains that do not meet DMWW’s customer standards for water service are not considered for the anode retrofit program (ARP). Using an objective ranking model, a short list is created of water main sections to consider for the installa-tion of anodes based on the annual CP retrofit budget.

Early into the ARP, DMWW per-formed the entire installation includ-ing vacuum soil excavation for each anode, attachment of the anode to primarily spin cast-iron pipe via stud arc-welding, installation of both anodes and test wires, and backfilling the anodes with native soil. As the

ARP advanced, vacuum excavation (Figure 3) and pavement core drilling were subcontracted while DMWW connected the anodes to the pipe using a battery-operated exothermic

welding tool that allowed secure anode connections to be made to pit (sand) cast-iron pipe. DMWW com-pleted test station installations and also made site restorations. Anode holes are now routinely backfilled with a flowable cementitious material in lieu of sand or native soil above the anode. As the ARP has evolved, the Engineering and Public Works Department of the city of Des Moines and the Iowa Department of Trans-portation have seen a reduction in the number of main breaks beneath their pavement infrastructure.

The selection of a CP criterion to significantly reduce corrosion rates

1. What is the current state of your assets?

3. Which assets are critical to sustainability?

4. What are minimum cycle costs?

5. What is the long-term funding strategy?

Water utility asset management

2. What level of sustainable service is required?

FIGURE 2 Asset management: The core framework

USEPA, 2008

recent studies confirm that that pipe material, diameter,

installation date, and soil type are the most important

variables in influencing main breaks.



for a bare cast-iron water main does not require the same conservative NACE International criteria that are applied to well-coated steel pipelines that convey hazardous gases or liquids (NACE Interna-tional, 2002). Using data from sev-eral Canadian water utilities (Ray-mond, 1998; Wright & Nicholson, 1991), studies have shown that after a relatively short transition period (Rajani & Kleiner, 2006), the ARP significantly reduces the rate of corrosion on existing water mains during the life of the CP sys-tem. Field data indicate that a 25-year-life-extension for water mains installed with the ARP is a realistic expectation.

Cost analysis: ARP versus water main replacement. Between 2004

and 2011, CP anodes were installed on approximately 82,700 ft (25,207 m) of 6- (15-cm) through 16-in. (41-cm) pipe at a cost of more than $1 million. This amount includes both the costs for the anode instal-lation as well as indirect costs such as periodic maintenance and under-ground locating costs. Assuming that the life expectancy of a new water main is 100 years and the life expectancy of the CP system is 25 years, the net annualized savings of using ARP are 86% of water main replacement costs. After imple-menting the ARP in 2004, DMWW has achieved an average reduction of 90% in the number of water main breaks at a cost of less than 10% of main break repair or replacement (Figure 4).

Cost analysis: ARP versus water main repairs. Because capital budgets are not avail-able to replace all the water mains needing to be replaced, an alternative scenario is presented that ignores that the pipe has reached its financial life expectancy and needs to be replaced. In this case, it is useful to compare the cost of DMWW’s ARP installations with the ongoing cost of main break repairs, which otherwise could be significantly reduced through CP. Using DMWW’s 2011 main break repair cost of $5,400, the total cost to continue repairing these mains over 25 years would have been nearly $3 million. Using an anode life estimate of 25 years, DMWW’s ARP installations would lower the number of main breaks by at least 90% (on pipes with CP), yielding a net annualized savings of 63% ver-sus the “repair-main-break-only” op tion. A summary of the costs associated with DMWW’s 2004–11 ARP versus the repair-only alterna-tive is shown in Figure 5.

Hot-spot CP anodes at water main breaks. With an average cost of more than $5,000 to excavate, repair, and restore the site at a water main break, in 2005 DMWW began to install sacrificial anodes at main breaks. This reactive practice, which DMWW calls the Hot Spot Program, is consistent with recom-mendations provided by the Water Research Foundation to document all water main break repairs and install a sacrificial anode every time the main is exposed for repairs (Awwa Research Foundation, 1995). To alleviate connection problems on various pipe materials in a wet environment, DMWW uses a proprietary connection device to securely attach the anode lead wires to all types of ferrous water mains.

After implementing the Hot Spot Program in 2005, DMWW found that more than 50% of the current from a 32-lb sacrificial anode placed within 3–5 ft (0.9–1.5 m) of the water main will be picked up within

Finished joint fill and caulk

joints

Concrete

Varies

8 in

. min

imu

m

14 in.

Pavement repair (meets city of Des Moines

and IDOT specifications)

Existing pavement

Fill with 50 psi controlled density concrete

Mansand

32-lb high potentialmagnesium anode with 75/20/5 backfill

Number 12 AWG/TW copper wire to attach anode to pipe usingexothermic weld

CI/DI water main

12 in.

6 in

. m

inim

um

AWG—American Wire Gauge, CI—cast iron, DI—ductile iron, IDOT—Iowa Department of Transportation, TW—thermoplastic wet

FIGURE 3 Typical anode retrot installation method



15–25 ft (4.6–7.6 m) on each side of the anode. In

most soils, a sacrificial anode will provide CP current

to mitigate at least 90–95% of new corrosion on the water main at a cost of about 3% of an average water main break.

CP for new water transmission mains. Prestressed concrete cylinder pipe, poly-wrapped ductile-iron pipe (DIP), and coated welded-steel pipe were approved by DMWW for new large-diameter (≥ 24 in. [61 cm]) water transmission mains. Normally, prestressed concrete cyl-inder pipe is installed with joint bonding and corrosion monitoring test stations. In recent years, only about 5,000 ft (1,524 m) of welded-steel pipe has been installed by DMWW for a new transmission main; the pipe is then installed with CP. In addit ion, s ince 2005 DMWW has installed approxi-mately 75,000 linear ft (22,860 m) of large-diameter, poly-wrapped DIP with sacrificial anodes installed parallel to the pipeline.

Corrosion of ductile pipe used to construct water transmission and distribution systems has gained wider publicity in the water utility industry (Rajani & Kleiner, 2003). The water industry, corrosion engi-

neers, and pipe manufacturers often disagree, however, when discussing the most appropriate corrosion con-trol measures for this pipe material (Bonds et al, 2005; Dechant & Smith, 2004; Spikelmire, 2002). When confronted with aggressive soil environments for new ductile-iron water mains, many civil engi-neers will specify that the pipe be encased with loose polyethylene sheathing (poly wrap) per AWWA standards (AWWA, 2009). Although many corrosion engineers consider

poly wrap to be an ineffective means of corrosion protection on DIP (Szeliga, 2007, 2005), the National Academy of Sciences has stated that if manufactured and installed correctly, polyethylene

encasement with CP provides a “betterment” to bare and as-manu-factured versus ductile-iron pipe without CP in highly corrosive soils (NRC, 2009).

To estimate the CP requirements for a new transmission main, prede-sign drawings that describe the pro-posed main’s overall routing plan and profile are reviewed. A preconstruc-tion soil resistivity survey is per-formed along the proposed right-of-way. Examination of the soil environment is currently considered

FIGURE 4 DMWW economics: Water mains installed with ARP

ARP—Anode Retrofit Program, DMWW—Des Moines Water Works

15.00

14.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

8.002004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

AR

P C

ost

ver

sus

New

Pip

e—

%

Arp

Un

it C

ost

—$

/ft

ARP Installation—Year

6.0

9.00

ARP cost versus new pipeARP unit cost

when the risk of main breaks is reduced, the water

utility directly benefits its customers by reducing

its operating costs.



the best approach to evaluating cor-rosion on an unprotected pipeline (USEPA, 2009) and is also used to determine the alloy, size, and spacing of the CP design.

Low-resistivity soils are consid-ered to be more corrosive than high-resistivity soils, and although no national standard exists, most corrosion engineers and the US government consider soil resistivity values less than 2,000 and between 2,000 and 5,000 Ω-cm to be seri-ously corrosive and very corrosive, respectively, to buried ferrous pip-ing (USDOD, 2005). Many of DMWW’s new water transmission mains are installed in soils having resistivity values of between 1,500 and 3,000 Ω-cm at pipeline depth.

After requiring that CP be installed on all new large-diameter, polyethylene-wrapped ductile-iron water transmission mains, the pro-gram has shown that the total initial cost to install a CP system is less than about 3% of the total con-

struction cost of the new main. When calculated using a 25-year life expectancy of the CP system, this approach has shown that the annu-alized cost is less than 0.2% of the total construction cost.

CP for small metallic water distribu-tion mains. DMWW began using C-900 Standard polyvinyl chloride for its distribution water mains in the 1980s. As a result, many antici-pated problems with corrosion of smaller water mains have been man-aged successfully. However, because polyvinyl chloride pipe and its joints are susceptible to permeation by petroleum-contaminated soils or groundwater, DMWW also installs polyethylene-wrapped DIP with hydrocarbon-resistant gaskets in the plume areas of contamination from leaking underground petroleum storage tanks.

DMWW protects these ductile-iron installations with CP using sac-rificial anodes at predetermined intervals along the new water mains.

Pipe joints are rendered electrically continuous during construction with all service laterals and piping tie-ins being electrically isolated. Because of their simplicity, these CP installa-tions have been inexpensive.

CP operation and maintenance. DMWW’s CP installations do not require rigorous monitoring other than to confirm that test stations remain in place, that all wiring con-nections remain intact, and that all electrical isolation devices continue to function properly. Using inexpen-sive test equipment, DMWW uses its employees and summer engineer-ing interns to measure pipe-to-soil potentials and anode direct current outputs at all test stations using standardized color-coded test wires and simple test diagrams and data sheets. During this monitoring, DMWW staff members are usually able to make minor repairs to the CP test points. Any data anomalies are reported to a NACE-certified CP specialist for interpretation.

ARP—Anode Retrofit Program, DMWW—Des Moines Water Works

FIGURE 5 DMWW main break comparison: ARP versus no ARP

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

140.0

120.0

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0

No ARP (ARP year, 1985)With ARP (ARP year, 2012)Logarithmic trend line (no ARP; ARP year, 1985)Logarithmic trend line (with ARP; ARP year, 2012)

Year

Cu

mu

lati

ve S

um

of

Mai

n B

reak

s



THE BOTTOM LINEDMWW’s Underground Corrosion

Control Program has shown that the various CP installations can extend the service life of its water piping net-work at a cost that is much lower than either pipe repairs or main replacement. By installing CP as a good engineering practice, DMWW has increased the service life of its water mains, maintained a more reli-able water service to its customers, and augmented the health and secu-rity of its water supply infrastructure.

ABOUT THE AUTHORSDanny J. Klopfer is the infrastructure planning manager at Des Moines Water Works (DMWW), 2201 George Flagg

Pkwy., Des Moines, IA 50321; [email protected]. He is responsible for developing and coordinating DMWW’s utilities asset management and

infrastructure reinvestment program, developing and reviewing engineering studies related to water systems, and coordinating infrastructure projects with other agencies. Jeff Schramuk is a certified cathodic protection specialist with CP Solutions Inc., Bartlett, Ill.; [email protected].

REFERENCESAWWA, 2012. Buried No Longer: Confronting

America’s Water Infrastructure Chal-lenge. AWWA, Denver.

AWWA, 2001. Dawn of the Replacement Era, Reinvesting in America’s Drinking Water Infrastructure. AWWA, Denver.

AWWA, 2009. Manual M41. Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings. AWWA, Denver.

Awwa Research Foundation, 1995. Reducing Main Failures in Brown Deer, Wisconsin. Report DS-54/95-8, Denver.

Bonds, R.; Barnard, L.M.; Horton, P.E.; & Oli-ver, G.L., 2005. Corrosion Control Statis-tical Analysis of Iron Pipe. Materials Performance, 44:1:30.

Deb, A.K.; Hasit, Y.K.; & Grablutz, F.M., 1995. Distribution System Performance Eval-uation. Awwa Research Foundation, Denver.

Dechant, D. & Smith, G., 2004. Present Lev-els of Corrosion Protection on Ferrous Water Piping in Municipal Infrastruc-ture: A Manufacturer’s Perspective. Materials Performance, 43:1:54.

Kleiner, Y. & Rajani, B., 2004. Quantifying the Effectiveness of Cathodic Protection in Water Mains: Theory, National Research Council of Canada. NRCC-38457, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.

Kleiner, Y. & Rajani, B., 2000. Considering Time-dependent Factors in the Statistical Prediction of Water Main Breaks. National Research Council of Canada. NRCC-42663, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.

Marlow, D.; DeSilva, D.; Beale, D.; & Marney, D., 2010. Effective Management of Large-diameter Pressure Pipes. Jour. AWWA, 102:4:104.

Murphy, M., 2011 State of the Industry Report: Economic Stagnation Dampens

Industry Outlook. Jour. AWWA, 103:10:42.

NACE, 2002. Standard Practice SP0169. Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems. NACE International, Houston, Texas.

NRC (National Research Council), 2009. Review of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Corrosion Prevention Standards for Ductile Iron Pipe, National Materials Board: Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. The National Acad-emy of Science, Washington.

Ontario Centre for Municipal Best Practices, 2008. Best Practice Summary Report, Water Loss Management—Cathodic Protection. Toronto, Ont., Canada.

Rajani, B. & Kleiner, Y., 2006. Quantifying Effectiveness of Cathodic Protection in Water Mains: Case Studies. National Research Council of Canada. NRCC 47739, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.

Rajani, B. & Kleiner, Y., 2004. Non-Destruc-tive Inspection Techniques to Deter-mine Structural Distress Indicators in Water Mains. National Research Coun-cil of Canada. NRCC-47068, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.

Rajani, B. & Kleiner, Y., 2003. Protecting Duc-tile Iron Water Mains: What Protection Method Works Best for What Soil Con-dition? Jour. AWWA, 95:11:104.

Raymond, D., 1998. Cathodic Protection Pro-gram, Water Division, Water Distribu-tion Branch Region’s Experience. Ottawa-Carleton Utilities Commission, Ottawa-Carleton, Ont., Canada.

Rubin, S., 2011. A Call for Reliability Stan-dards. Jour. AWWA, 103:1:22.

Spikelmire, B., 2002. Corrosion Consider-ations for Ductile Iron Pipes. Materials Performance, 41:7:16.

Szeliga, M.J., 2007. Analysis of Ductile Iron Corrosion Data From Operating Mains. Materials Performance, 46:2:22.

Szeliga, M., 2005. Case Histories: Ductile Iron Pipe Failures. Materials Perfor-mance, 44:5:26.

USDOD (US Department of Defense), 2005. Unified Facilities Criteria, Cathodic Protection, Manual UFC 3-570-02A. U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers, Washington.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2009. Condition Assessment of Ferrous Water Transmission and Dis-tribution Systems, State of the Technol-ogy Review Report. EPA/600/R-09/055, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Laboratory, Water Supply and Resources Division, Washington.

USEPA, 2008. Asset Management: A Best Practices Guide. EPA 816/F-08/014, Office of Water, Washington.

USEPA, 2005. White Paper on Improvement of Structural Integrity Monitoring for Drinking Water Mains. EPA/600/R-05-038. Office of Research and Development, Washington.

USEPA, 2002. The Clean Water and Infra-structure Gap Analysis. EPA-816-R-02-020. Office of Water, Wash-ington.

Wood, A. & Lence, B.J., 2009. Using Water Main Break Data to Improve Asset Management for Small and Medium Utilities: District of Maple Ridge, B.C. Jour. Infrastructure Systems, 15:2:111.

Wright, A. & Nicholson, J., 1991. A Report on the Efficiency of the Cathodic Protec-tion System Installed on the Water Mains in Peterborough. Peterborough, Ontario Utilities Commission: Peterbor-ough, Ont., Canada.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2012.104.0082


Documents

implementing and managing a large water utility’s ... · mitigate the corrosion to buried water mains. Properly designed, installed, and maintained CP systems can add years of additional