Pile Repair and Cathodic Protection of Chem Marine Pier

Ports 2010: Building on the Past, Respecting the Future 2010 ASCE
Pile Repair and Cathodic Prot e c t i o n o f C h e m M a r i n e Pi e r
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MASS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 09/24/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Shannon Graeber, E.I.T, LEED AP1

Ali Akbar Sohanghpurwala2
Nevin Matutina3
1
Project Engineer; Collins Engineers Inc., 1180 Sam Rittenberg Blvd., Suite 105,
Charleston, SC 29407; Ph (843) 763-1576; Email sgraeber@collinsengr.com
2
President; CONCORR, Inc., 45710 Oakbrook Court, Suite 160, Sterling, VA 20166;
Ph (571) 434-1852; Email ali@concorr.
3
Project Engineer; Fluor Enterprises, Inc., 3575 Highway 52, Goose Creek, SC
29445; Ph (843) 572-5312; Email Nevin.matutina@alcoa.com
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a case study of the design and construction of a cathodic
protection system on a pier in North Charleston, SC while the pier remained fully
operational.
The Chem Marine Terminal which is jointly operated by Chem Marine and Alcoa in
North Charleston, SC was built in 1979, and its primary use is to unload alumina
from cargo ships. The pier is a concrete structure that is located in brackish water.
The salinity of the water produces a very corrosive environment for reinforced
concrete elements, particularly for the 425 prestressed concrete piles. Over the last
ten years, two repairs were made to the substructure elements to address corrosion
induced damage. The repairs only treated the symptoms, not the cause; therefore,
corrosion continued to occur and resulted in additional damage. Subsequently a
repair plan that included cathodic protection was proposed to ensure at least a 20 year
service life extension.
A galvanic cathodic protection system was selected due to its compatibility with
repairs, simplicity of design, lower maintenance, and avoidance of hydrogen
embrittlement. Although an impressed current system would have afforded more
control on the level of protection, hydrogen embrittlement would have been a
significant concern and would have required significantly more monitoring effort and
maintenance. The cathodic protection system chosen uses a fiberglass jacket with a
cathodic protection system built into the jacket. The jacket serves as a form for
concrete to be placed around the existing pile. The jacket size can be increased to
allow space for reinforcing for a structural repair. The overall design included
structural repair designs for different anticipated field conditions.
As part of the design criteria, the pier had to remain in operation during the entire
construction period. Cargo ships dock at the pier and therefore the pier had be able to
withstand the berthing forces. An Unloader on the pier also had to remain operational
so that the ships could be unloaded. The forces from both ships and the Unloader are
considerable and vastly limited the number of piles that could be repaired at any
given time.
Ports 2010
339
A challenge with this project was that the design had to include variability to allow
for changing field conditions. A limited sample set was obtained for testing during
the design phase as many of the piles were encased in jackets and field conditions
were expected to vary from the findings during testing. As construction progressed
and unsound concrete removed, the amount of corrosion induced damage was greater
than anticipated. Therefore, the number of structural repairs increased. This and
other problems encountered during construction illustrate the challenges of repair
work to existing piers. The 15 month construction period was an integral part of the
design since the design team was involved in checking and possibly altering the
design to address the unexpected field conditions.
BACKGROUND
The Chem Marine Terminal was built to its present configuration in 1979 by
expanding an existing pier for the current use of unloading alumina, used to make
aluminum, from container ships. The pier is located in the Cooper River in
Charleston, SC. The Cooper River is brackish because it is located a few miles
upstream from the Charleston Harbor estuary. The salinity of the water causes
corrosion of the reinforcement of the concrete elements as chloride ions in the water
are able to permeate the concrete. This in particular affects the prestressed concrete
piles that are located in the water. There are 425 prestressed piles of which 374 are
18 inch by 18 inch and the rest are the original 14 inch by 14 inch piles. The other
reinforced concrete elements of the pier are also exposed to chloride ions in the air.
However, the exposure is lower than at the piles. The piles, therefore, are the most
vulnerable element of the pier for corrosion induced from the chloride ions in the
brackish water.
The first known inspection of the pier occurred in 1992 and corrosion-induced cracks
were observed at that time. The first set of repair plans were created in 1997. It is
believed that this repair never occurred. Repairs were designed and executed in 1998
and 2002. The repairs addressed cracks and concrete spalls and delaminations.
Fiberglass wraps were applied to 250 piles. Another 20 piles received fiberglass
jackets with additional reinforcing bars and corrosion inhibitor admixed grout. In
2002 and 2004, follow-up inspections occurred and discovered that both the repaired
piles and the piles that had not been repaired were exhibiting corrosion. A regular
maintenance program to repair piles as necessary was put in place.
The maintenance program lasted for several years; however, the repairs continued to
fail. Rust staining was visible through the fiberglass wraps as shown in Figure 1 and
there was delamination at the patch repairs. The cost to continue the maintenance
program was excessive based on the unsatisfactory results. The decision was made to
conduct a business case analysis to determine if Alcoa should continue to spend
money on the pier.
Ports 2010
340
Figure 1. Photograph of rust staining and crack in fiberglass wrap.

CASE STUDY
First, the necessity of the Chem Marine Terminal was evaluated. The closest Alcoa
facility that can accommodate the large cargo ships is located in Maryland. It was
determined that it would cost Alcoa 200% more annually to reroute the ships to that
facility due to the increased railway costs to transport the alumina to a processing
facility. In addition, the facility is smaller than the North Charleston facility and
upgrades would have to be made to be able to increase the capacity of the Maryland
facility. Next, the idea of performing a partial shutdown of the pier was considered in
order to rebuild the pier in segments. Because the cargo ships that use the pier would
not change, the berthing forces would be spread over fewer piles and that may pose a
danger to the structure. In addition, an Unloader as shown in Figure 2, which travels
on rails over the length of the pier, is used to remove the alumina from the ships.
Trying to perform a strategic demolition and rebuilding while still maintaining the use
of the Unloader would be cost prohibitive. Other outside the box ideas such as
installing sheet piling around the pier and filling it with soil were rejected since it
would be almost impossible to get a permit. Finally, a rehabilitation of the existing
pier was considered. CONCORR, Inc. (the cathodic protection designer) was
retained to perform an evaluation of the pier and give recommendations on how the
pier could be repaired to last at least 20 years. The cathodic protection designer
produced a letter report which determined that concrete repairs with a cathodic
protection system would be the best way to rehab the pier in order for it to last
another 20 years. Fluor (the construction manager) determined that based on
feasibility, time, and life cycle cost, a rehabilitation of the pier which included a
cathodic protection system would be the best solution.
Ports 2010
341
Figure 2. Photograph of the Chem Marine Terminal and the Unloader used to
unload the cargo ships.
The cathodic protection was determined to be necessary since chloride ions are
permeating all surfaces of the piles from mean low water, MLW, up to an average 7.2
feet above MLW. The chloride diffusion suggests that the rate of the corrosion of the
reinforcing and prestressed strands will increase significantly in the near future. If
only concrete repairs are performed, the chlorides ions will still be present in the
concrete adjacent to the repaired areas. Therefore, the chloride ions will continue to
present a hazard to the piles. Cathodic protection systems will halt the corrosion of
the prestressed strands in the piles.
REPAIR PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION
Once a solution of rehabilitating the pier was determined, the cathodic protection
designer was retained to design the repairs and cathodic protection system. First, they
decided to use a galvanic cathodic protection system instead of an impressed current
system. An impressed current system can polarize the prestressing strands and cause
hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen embrittlement can cause the prestressing strands
to fail. Even though an impressed current system is more effective, the costs to
design a system and monitor it for the hydrogen embrittlement were too expensive.
Galvanic cathodic protection systems do not cause hydrogen embrittlement and they
are reliable over a long length of time. The galvanic cathodic protection system
works by providing a sacrificial anode at each pile. This anode will corrode before
the prestressed strands, therefore preventing further corrosion of the strands. Next, a
jacket system that uses galvanic cathodic protection within the jacket was chosen.
The jacket system selected has over a decade of proven results with minimal
maintenance. In addition, the jacket serves as a form for the concrete and can easily
be modified to add a reinforcing steel cage if a structural repair is necessary.
The cathodic protection designer created a set of repairs and specifications that
addressed the unique features of the project. Part of the design was that the pier had
to remain operational during the construction period. If the pier was to remain in
operation, the pier had to be able to withstand the berthing forces from cargo ships
Ports 2010
342
docking and the Unloader traveling over the pier. Both of these forces are
considerable and limited the number of piles that could be worked on at any one time.
In addition, the design also included a structural repair. This repair was designed to
account for piles that had significant loss of the prestressed strand. The structural
repair includes adding additional reinforcing around the pile inside the jacket. The
exact number of these repairs could only be estimated prior to construction based on
the small sample investigated for the design.
The design documents were bid. Structural Preservation Systems (the contractor) was
selected to perform the construction. For the construction the cathodic protection
designer provided an on-site corrosion specialist to oversee the installation of the
cathodic protection system. The construction manager retained Collins Engineers,
Inc. (the structural engineer) to provide a structural engineer to oversee the
construction on as-need basis.
The construction began by removing unsound concrete in order to determine the
amount of loss of the prestressed stands. It was quickly discovered that the amount of
corrosion of the strands was greater than anticipated. A pile with significant
corrosion of the strands is shown in Figure 3. A reinforcing cage for a structural
repair is shown in Figure 4. The number of piles that required structural jackets
quickly increased. However, the lead time to fabricate the jackets was approximately
two months. This was a significant problem during the entire construction process. It
was difficult to determine exactly what piles were going to require structural repairs
and the number of piles that could be worked on at a given time was restricted due to
the ships docking at the pier. This problem slowed work considerably at the start of
the construction. As the construction continued, the contractor was able to better
estimate the number of structural jackets required based on the area of delaminated
sounding concrete at a pile.
Another problem that occurred near the start of construction was that the plans that
the design team had of the original design of the pier did not correspond to the field
conditions. The strand layout was different. The plans showed five 7/16 inch
diameter strands with a tensile strength of 250 ksi on each face. However, the actual
strands were 1/2 inch diameter. The piles were symmetrical with two faces having
three strands and the other two faces having four strands. The faces with four strands
were usually oriented in the direction of highest loading. It was unknown what the
stress in the strands was. Since this was discovered at all 18 inch square piles, it was
determined that the new layout was an approved change at the time of the original
design and construction.
Ports 2010
343
Figure 3. Photograph of corrosion of the prestressing strands in a pile requiring

a structural jacket.
Figure 4. Photograph of a reinforcing cage for a pile requiring a structural

jacket.
A new problem occurred at about a third of the way through the construction. The
contractor had removed unsound concrete on a number of piles and was waiting for
structural repair jackets to arrive to finish the repair when a part on the Unloader
broke and had to be fixed. To fix it, the part had to be placed on a semi-trailer truck
and driven onto the pier. The part weight was known, but the type of truck was
unknown. The portion of the pier that had the piles with removed concrete was
Ports 2010
344
analyzed to determine if the piles could support the extra load. Since the part would
be placed on the truck and then the truck would travel on state roads without an overweight permit, an AASHTO HS20 truck and a tandem truck with 25 kip axles was
considered for the loading. In addition, a live load factor of 1.75 was applied to the
truck loads. The truck was only allowed to drive on the pier while a ship was not
docked at the pier since that would increase the lateral loads on the piles. The truck
was required to maintain low speeds of less than 10 mph to again decrease lateral
loads. The truck was only allowed on the pier when the wind was less than 15 mph
and the waves were at normal conditions. With these conditions, the concrete of
compromised piles was analyzed for axial loads without taking into account the
prestressed strands. All lateral loads were assumed to be resisted by the noncompromised piles. The truck was allowed on the pier for this special case.
The selected jacket system was easy to install. The jackets came in two halves that
were connected on either side of the pile. Holes were built into the jackets which
allowed the contractor to attach a pump in order to fill them with pumpable grout or
concrete. The structural jackets received pumpable concrete while the non-structural
jackets received pumpable grout. The cathodic protection system involved braising
wires to all prestressing strands. Those wires ran out of the jacket at a special port at
the top of the jacket. The wires were then connected to a junction box that allowed
for testing and maintenance of the system. Figure 5 shows the jackets without the
junction box installed and Figure 6 shows the junction box installed. Brazing the
wires to the prestressing strands also resulted in problems at the beginning of
construction. The brazing temperature was too hot and caused the prestressing
strands to snap. This was corrected and was only occasionally an issue as the
construction progressed.
Figure 5. Photograph of the jackets without the junction box installed.
Ports 2010
345
Figure 6. Photograph of the jackets with the junction box installed.

The fifteen month construction period is still being anticipated to be met by the
contractor despite the problems during construction. To complete the work on time,
another crew was added five months prior to the finish of the project and the 40-hour
work week increased to 50 hours. The project encountered a number of problems that
could only be solved by a willingness of the design team to work with the
construction team. The design team was required to play an integral part in the
construction in order to keep the construction on track.
CONCLUSION
The Chem Marine Terminal had significant corrosion of the reinforcing, particularly
at the piles, and concrete repairs did little to relieve the problem. After conducting a
comprehensive business case analysis, it was decided that adding a cathodic
protection system to the pier was the most cost effective solution based on time and
feasibility. The cathodic protection system will add approximately 20 years to the life
of the pile and reduce the corrosion of the reinforcing. The pier remained in
operation during the installation of the cathodic protection system which restricted the
amount of construction that could occur at a given time. The problems that occurred
during construction were solved with quick responses of both the design and
construction teams.
Ports 2010
346

Pile Repair and Cathodic Protection of Chem Marine Pier

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Pile Repair and Cathodic Protection of Chem Marine Pier

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ports 2010: Building on the Past, Respecting the Future 2010 ASCE

Pile Repair and Cathodic Prot e c t i o n o f C h e m M a r i n e Pi e r

Shannon Graeber, E.I.T, LEED AP1

Figure 1. Photograph of rust staining and crack in fiberglass wrap.

Figure 3. Photograph of corrosion of the prestressing strands in a pile requiring

Figure 4. Photograph of a reinforcing cage for a pile requiring a structural

Figure 5. Photograph of the jackets without the junction box installed.

Figure 6. Photograph of the jackets with the junction box installed.

Você também pode gostar