Skip to main content

Review of the Bureau of Reclamation's Corrosion Prevention Standards for Ductile Iron Pipe (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Appendix B: Dissenting Statement
Pages 151-154

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 151...
... Such a situation falls far short of that of a properly maintained and operated cathodic protection system, and the author deems it not relevant to the conditions of interest. Also as indicated in Chapter 3, the Akron, Ohio, failure occurred at a spot where the presence of intersegment electrical bond, necessary for proper cathodic protection, could not be confirmed.
Read the entire page →
From page 152...
... The second issue concerns this author's disagreement with the analysis methodology used in Chapter 4 to compare evidence of field failures with the expectations from the benchmark of 0.000044 failures per mile per year stated by Reclamation, which will be considered as an agency-specified parameter in the following. The author contends that because of the very sparse DIP with PE and CP failure data set, interpretation of those data to calculate a nominal fail ure frequency for comparison to that of the benchmark is not appropriate, as it is akin to comparing over a short period of time the nominal death rate from a small community to that of a large city.
Read the entire page →
From page 153...
... Thus the single qualified failure could be easily dismissed as an event that would have been frequently observed in other surveys of comparable pipe length and duration in the benchmark system. On the other hand, if even two of the failures had merited qualification, the probability would have dropped to the much smaller ~5 percent value, while if all three of the failures considered  J.H.
Read the entire page →
From page 154...
... Hence the meaning of those calculated values, at least as far as they concern field performance, is deemed by the author to be too limited to support or oppose the conclusions in the report derived from other considerations. In summary, the author shares the committee view that the scientific under standing of corrosion mechanisms casts serious doubt that DIP with PE and CP can guarantee a long service life in highly corrosive soils.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • ductile iron
  • failure data
  • corrosion prevention
  • cathodic protection
  • issue concerns

  • prevention standards
  • california city
  • linearized corrosion
  • qualified failure
  • alternative benchmarks

  • diminished performance
  • author proposes
  • localized penetration
  • field performance
  • supporting evidence

  • field data
  • provide conclusive
  • correcting steel
  • sensitivity analysis
  • corrosion rates

  • engineering principles
  • failure occurred
  • short period
  • single qualified
  • discussions based

  • situation falls
  • benchmark set
  • failure events
  • benchmark rate
  • highly corrosive


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.