Paper No.

08301

CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND CATHODIC PROTECTION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COOLING TOWER Zia Chaudhary and Fahad M. Al-Mutlaq SABIC Technology Center Jubail P.O. Box 11669, Al-Jubail Industrial City 31961 Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia E-mail: chaudharyz@sabic.com, & Ali A. Al-Beed Saudi Petrochemical Company (SADAF) P.O.Box 10025, Al-Jubail Industrial City 31961 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT Investigations were conducted to assess condition and determine root cause of the ongoing concrete deterioration of the cooling tower. The beams, columns, wall panels of end walls, roof slab, bund wall, and louvers, were visually exhibiting severe concrete deterioration in many areas across the entire structure. In some areas, the concrete deterioration was very advanced and posing serious threat to integrity of the structure. Chloride had penetrated to full depth of the concrete cover in concentrations significantly higher than threshold level. Electrochemical measurements showed that the reinforcing steel was actively corroding under the sound concrete in >50% areas of the entire structure. The visual condition of the exposed steel and the survey results concluded that the deterioration of concrete resulted due to chloride-induced corrosion of the reinforcing steel. There was no risk of carbonation-induced corrosion of steel and sulfate attack on concrete. Patch repair and cathodic protection (CP) repair method was recommended to arrest the ongoing corrosion of the steel reinforcement. The CP system design, installation, and initial commissioning and monitoring results are also described and discussed. Key Words: concrete deterioration, delamination, chloride, sulfate, half-cell potential measurements, probability of corrosion, patch repairs, cathodic protection, titanium mesh anode.
Copyright
2008 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole must be in writing to NACE International, Copyright Division, 1440 South creek Drive, Houston, Texas 777084. The material presented and the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association. Printed in the U.S.A.

INTRODUCTION The cooling tower provides potable water supply (cooling system) for plants in a petrochemical company located in Jubail industrial city, Saudi Arabia. The cooling tower structure comprises pre-cast concrete units mounted on a reinforced structural frame. The cooling tower structure is 27.45 m long, 24 m wide and 18.22 m in height. The cooling tower was built in 1981. Major parts of the structure are as follows: End Walls (north and south elevation), are comprised of reinforced concrete in-situ cast columns and pre-cast beams and wall panels. Roof Slab, it contains pre-cast slab panels, fan plinths, and parapet walls. Bund wall, built all around the tower to contain the water (2.97 m high) Reinforced concrete Louvers units, (east and west elevation)

A schematic illustration of the cooling tower with major components identified is given in Figure 1 and a view of south elevation is shown in Figure 2. The cooling tower was commissioned in 1981 and was showing signs of concrete distress in the form of cracking and spalling of concrete for the last few years, believed to be caused by corrosion of the reinforcement. In some areas, the extent of deterioration was very severe and posing a safety hazard to personnel and plant below. A condition survey was conducted to determine the cause and extent of deterioration and recommend appropriate repair methods for the rehabilitation of the structure. This paper describes and discusses the condition survey results, available repair options, and design, installation, and monitoring of the recommended patch repair and cathodic protection (CP) repair method.

CONDITION SURVEY Standard condition survey techniques were employed throughout this investigation, which includes the following: Visual Inspection & Hammer tapping survey of concrete surface Chemical Analysis for chloride and / or Sulfate content determination Cement content & compressive strength analysis Depth of carbonation & reinforcement Half-cell potential & Corrosion rate measurements

Visual Inspection South & North End Walls (External):- The extent of concrete deterioration on south elevation was relatively more significant than on other parts of the structure. The cracking, delamination, and spalling of concrete was visible and noted at many locations. At some locations, the condition of concrete elements was posing safety hazard threat to personnel working in that area. Several water leaks were also visible.

Large and wide cracks were visible on many reinforced concrete beams. At some locations, propagation of cracks had already converted into spalling of concrete and exposing the steel bars, which were severely corroded, hence confirming the cause of concrete cracking & spalling. Whitish salt deposits were found on beams. Several columns were also exhibiting signs of cracking of concrete. At some locations, the cracks were very long and extremely wide as shown in photo 3. The crack pattern appears to be in line with reinforcing steel. Water leaks were noted on column / beam joints at many locations, particularly on the central row of columns. Rust staining and longitudinal as well as horizontal cracks in concrete were found in some areas of columns close by the leakage points. Scale deposits were noted at many locations. Wall panels were showing by far the highest degree of concrete deterioration. Large sections of concrete repairs were also visible on many panels. Extensive cracking and delaminated concrete was visible on about 12 panels out of the total of 20. On the north elevation, visible signs of concrete deterioration were relatively less and few in numbers. However, where visible the extent of deterioration was quite advanced and had already led to spalling of concrete. Beams and columns on top east side of the elevation were exhibiting extensive cracking and at some points spalling of concrete. Water leakage was also underway at many locations. It was occurring either at the beam/wall panel joint or beam/column joint. The exposed steel bars were severely corroded hence confirming that deterioration of concrete is associated with corrosion of the reinforcing steel. East & West End Walls (External):- The top beams on both east and west elevations were showing signs of concrete distress. At some locations, the cracking was highly advanced and had already resulted in concrete spalling. The exposed rebars were severely corroded. Cracking and delamination was also visible on both columns and wall panels, but relatively at less no. of locations. Louvers:- Several louvers from both east and west elevations are showing advanced concrete deterioration. At many locations, the cracks were very long and extremely wide (>5 mm). The delaminated concrete was also visible. At some points, spalling of concrete had already occurred and rebars were exposed. The exposed rebars were extensively corroded and had significant section loss. End Walls Internal :- Internally, the visual condition of columns, beams, and wall panels was generally good except the top and upper wall portion, which was subject to frequent wet and dry cycles. Cracks were visible on beams and wall panels located in the uppermost chamber of the tower, just under the fans. The beams were exhibiting advanced stage of concrete cracking. Long and very wide longitudinal cracks were visible on many beams, which were in line with the reinforcing steel and appear to resulting due to corrosion of steel. The jointing mortar between the beams and top roof slab was also broken out. Roof Slab (Top & Soffit):- The roof slab top and fan plinth foundations were generally in good condition. The edges of the roof slab panels were repaired throughout the entire roof slab top, which were also visible on the soffit side as well. Some cracks and delaminated concrete sections were visible on parapet walls. Old repairs were also noted at several locations. The slab panel soffit was severely cracked and delaminated around the opening points and also in areas close by these openings. Exposed bars were severely corroded. The jointing mortar between the slab panels and between the slab and beams was either eroded or broken out at several locations. Most of the beams, which are supporting the roof slab panels, were severely cracked. The cracks are very long and generally wider than 2 mm. The

exposed steel showed that cracks were in line with the reinforcing steel. The exposed steel was severely corroded hence confirming that cracking has resulted due to corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Bund Wall:- The coating on external side of the bund wall was severely deteriorated and peeled off throughout the wall length. However, the concrete underneath was visually in good condition except the top of the wall, which was cracked at many locations. In summarizing the visual inspection records, the reinforced concrete elements of the cooling tower are exhibiting advanced stage of concrete deterioration on the external side of the structure. At many locations, it has already resulted in spalling of concrete and posing safety hazard to personnel at number of other locations. The exposed rebars are severely corroded and confirm that deterioration of concrete is associated with corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Chloride Contents Concrete powder samples were taken from each concrete element for chloride content analysis. The acid soluble chloride content of concrete powder samples was determined in the laboratory using conventional titration method by BS 1881: Part 124. The results are given in Table 1 below. South & North Elevations (Beams, Columns, & Wall Panels):- The average chloride content and profile is shown in Figure 6 below. The chloride contents showed a decreasing profile with depth, which is indicative of ingress from an external source. The results show that chloride had penetrated into each concrete element beyond the external steel reinforcement depth and its chloride concentration at the external rebar level was well in excess of the threshold limit (0.03%) for chloride-induced corrosion in OPC concrete1-3. Bund Wall:- The chloride content profile is shown in Figure 6 below. The results show that chloride content at the external steel depth is 0.21%, which is significantly (7 times) higher than the threshold limit (0.03%). The profile also indicates that the chloride penetration was mainly from the external side of the bund wall, however, some penetration from the internal side could also be possible and the chloride content could also be higher at the internal steel depth. Roof Slab:- The chloride profile is shown in Figure 7 below. The chloride content at the top and bottom reinforcing steel depths (0.17% and 0.06% respectively) are higher than threshold level. The profile shows that chloride penetration was mainly from the external top of the slab, however, it appears that chloride penetration might also be from the soffit side as well though at relatively much less rate and in quantity. Roof Slab Beam:-The chloride profile is shown in Figure 7 below. The results show that chloride penetration had been from both sides of the beam and their concentration at the steel depth on both sides is significantly higher than threshold level. Louvers:- The average chloride content profile is shown in Figure 7 below. The results show that chloride content at the external steel depth is 0.25%, which is significantly (8 times) higher than the threshold limit (0.03%). The profile also indicates that the chloride content was higher on the external side of the both louvers.

Sulfate Content The acid soluble sulfate content of concrete powder samples was determined in the laboratory using conventional titration method by BS 1881: Part 124. The results are given in Table 3 below. Most of the results from all different elements showed that sulfate content was generally less than the threshold limit of 0.6% sulfate by weight of concrete1. Only one result value from south elevation column (2% at 0-20 mm depth) was significantly higher than the threshold limit and some 6 results from 5 different locations were slightly higher than the threshold limit and ranged between 0.65% and 0.77%. Each profile has shown that sulfate penetration into the concrete was from the external side of each element. Cement content & Compressive Strength The cement content and compressive strength of concrete was determined from three cores CM1, CM3, and CM4, extracted from south elevation beam, column and roof slab respectively. The testing was carried out using CaO method in accordance with BS 1881: Part 124. The cement content in each core was >16.4% and the compressive strength was >35 N/mm2. These results suggest that both the cement content and the compressive strength of the concrete were sufficient. Carbonation The carbonation depth was determined using phenolphthalein solution spray on three cores CM1, CM3, and CM4, extracted from south elevation beam, column and roof slab respectively. No colorless zone was found in all three samples, which suggests there was no carbonated concrete at all. Half cell potentials The free corrosion potential of the reinforcing steel was measured in selected areas on the concrete surfaces of two beams and wall panels, one column and roof slab using hand held Ag/AgCl reference electrode. The half-cell survey results are summarized in Table 4 below. The interpretation of half-cell survey results was carried using the Van Daveer criteria and in accordance with ASTM C876-91 standard. The results indicated 90% risk of corrosion of the reinforcing steel in 19%, 50% and 100% areas of the north & south elevations and top of the roof slab respectively. Whereas, 50% risk of corrosion was also evident in 61% and 50% areas of north and south elevations. This implies that risk of corrosion of the reinforcing steel was very high throughout the entire cooling tower structure and widespread corrosion activity is occurring underneath the sound concrete areas though this has not yet transpired as visible damage. . Corrosion Rate The corrosion rate of the reinforcing steel was measured in selected areas using Gecor 6 linear polarization device. The interpretation of the results was carried out in accordance with the following criteria4: 0.1 to 0.5 uA/cm2 Low to moderate corrosion: Icorr 0.5 to 1.0 uA/cm2 Moderate to high corrosion Icorr >1.0 uA/cm2 High corrosion rate Icorr Using the above criteria, the summary of corrosion rate results is given in Table 5 below. The results showed that >50% of the reinforcing steel in south elevation concrete elements and in roof slab was

actively corroding at moderate to high corrosion rates. At north elevation, the corrosion rate in most of the areas (~66%) is in low range.

DIAGNOSIS Cause of Concrete Deterioration There are five classes of concrete deterioration that are recognized by ACI Committee 2014. In the Arabian Gulf environment, most commonly reported 5 causes of concrete deterioration are; a) Corrosion of the steel reinforcement and b) sulfate attack. Corrosion of steel in concrete occurs due to chloride attack and/or carbonation of concrete6. Carbonation of concrete is not very common in the Gulf environment. It is evident from the visual condition of the exposed steel bars (resulted due cracking and spalling of concrete at many locations throughout the structure) that deterioration of concrete is associated with corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Corrosion of steel in concrete occurs due to either chloride attack or carbonation of concrete. The chemical analysis of concrete samples has shown that the carbonation depth of concrete was negligible, and the sulfate content was mostly lower than threshold level of 0.6% by weight of concrete. Extensive chloride penetration was, however, found in all test samples from all different concrete elements. This confirms that the cause of concrete deterioration is chloride-induced corrosion of the reinforcing steel. The chlorides profile in all different elements shows that chloride penetrated into the concrete externally. Since the deterioration has occurred in areas that are well above the grade level the source of chloride ions appear to be the cooling tower water, i.e. being sprayed onto the concrete from top of the cooling tower. The chloride concentration in the cooling tower water varies between 300 and 500ppm. The continuous water spray and subsequent evaporation due to high temperatures can result in gradual build-up of chloride concentration in the concrete.

Extent of Damage It is evident from the chloride profiles that chloride penetration was very deep and its concentration at all depths was significantly higher than the threshold limit. This shows that not only external steel layer but also the internal steel layer would also be subject to chloride attack. According to the half-cell potential data, the risk of corrosion appears to be greater than 95% in about 50% area of the entire structure, whereas in remaining areas, likelihood of corrosion is between 5% and 50%. The corrosion rate data has confirmed that steel is actively corroding at moderate to high corrosion rates in about 50% areas of the structure. This implies that the extent of concrete deterioration is well spread and deep across the whole structure and therefore there is an urgent need for remedial works to arrest this ongoing concrete deterioration. Based on the above-mentioned observations, it was diagnosed that deterioration of the concrete has resulted due to chloride-induced corrosion of the reinforcing steel. The reinforcing steel is also actively corroding in several other areas of the structure where concrete apparently is in good condition.

SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE REPAIR METHOD The pros and cons and feasibility of the following three options were compared in selecting the most appropriate and durable repair method for the cooling tower structure. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Local Patch Repairs Re-Skinning or Traditional Repairs Patch Repairs and Cathodic Protection

The option 1 was very economical, as this method would involve breakout and removal of only delaminated concrete and reinstatement. However, past experience has shown that in chloridecontaminated structures this method provides only a temporary or short-term solution since it deals with only the damaged areas and not the cause6. It could result in enhancing the corrosion activity and/or developing incipient anodes in the adjacent un-repaired areas. By comparison, the re-skinning of the structure (option 2) would provide durable and well-extended service life, as it involves removing all delaminated and chloride-contaminated concrete. But it would require extensive concrete breakout (20 mm beyond the main external reinforcement), which was not desirable considering the operations constraints and the time required. Due to extensive concrete breakout/removal and also concrete coating for durable repairs, this method was not likely to be an economical option when compared with option 3, which would involve patch repairs of the delaminated areas and installation of cathodic protection (CP) system to the concrete surfaces. Since, only delaminated concrete would be broken out and removed, risk of operational constraints would also be minimum or negligible. The ongoing chloride-induced corrosion of the reinforcing steel would be arrested or controlled when the steel is sufficiently cathodically polarized. Hence, it was concluded that option 3 method, would provide a durable and longterm solution for rehabilitation of the cooling tower structure. Therefore, for overall repairs of the structure, patch repair and impressed current cathodic protection repair method was recommended. The major and minor defects of different elements and recommended repairs are summarized in Tables 6-7 below. CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM Design Based on literature guidance8-10 and exposed condition of the reinforcing steel in different elements of the structure, a design current density of 20 mA/m2 of steel surface area was used in calculating the current requirement for the protected steel in the cooling tower structure. The selected anode system comprised expanded titanium mesh anode with cementitious overlay. This selection was based on extensive and good track record of mesh overlay anode system in Middle East region. The overlay thickness was limited to 25-30 mm in order to keep the dead load onto the structure within acceptable levels. For effective performance, assessment, and control, the whole protected area of the structure was split into 16 CP anode zones, which both current and voltage outputs can be controlled independently. Multiple anode feeder and current return (steel) connections were allowed for each anode zone to

acquire good and uniform current distribution and also ensuring 100% redundancy. The precise number and positioning of these connections was based on design calculations that ensured minimum and acceptable level of voltage drops across the anode current distributors and mesh. About 2 to 5 embeddable reference electrodes (Ag/AgCl / 0.5M KCl) were allowed for different anode zones to monitor the system performance. More design details are given in Table 8 below. Installation All concrete surfaces of all different elements of the structure that were to be protected, were hammer tapped in order to identify the delaminated areas. Subsequently, all delaminated concrete was removed. In some areas, particularly upper elements of the south elevation (extending down to 3-5 meters from top of the structure, extent of damage was very significant and deep. The reinforcing steel was severely corroded with a section loss of >10-20%. Therefore, a lot of steel replacement was made in such areas. As the structure was made up of pre-cast elements, a comprehensive electrical continuity testing was conducted. All exposed steel was utilized for this testing and additional concrete breakouts were also made where needed. The reinforcing steel bar was considered electrically discontinuous when any individual resistance reading; was greater than 1 ohm or it changed more than 1 ohm in 15 seconds or when the instrument leads were reversed. In general, the reinforcing steel in all different elements, i.e. wall panels, columns and beams, was not electrically continuous. Similarly, the steel in top slab panels and parapet walls was also electrically discontinuous. The testing also identified about 150-200 discontinuous steel rods in the bund wall that were probably used to hold the scaffolding platform during the construction. The electrical continuity of all different elements within each anode zone was established using welded rebar links as shown in Figure 9. Double junction Ag/AgCl /0.5 M KCl reference electrodes (REs) were installed preferably at sites where risk of corrosion was high or steel was already actively corroding. In general, REs were located in a manner that whole area within each zone would be appropriately represented. Some REs were also embedded close to the rear layer of the steel reinforcement. All steel connections were made and then all exposed areas were repaired using cementitious material to the original concrete profile. All cables were secured and repaired areas were cured using wet hessian for a minimum period of 7 days. After curing, pull-off tests were conducted using 50 mm diameter dollies to determine bond strength between the repair material and the parent concrete. The pull-off tests were carried out at a rate of 1 set (3 no. per set) for the first 50 m2 and then 1 set per 100 m2. The repair approval criteria was that the point of fracture should occur within the substrate or if it occurred at the repair / substrate interface it should exceed the mean value of 1.5 N/mm2 with no individual value below 1 N/mm2. The reinstatement of expansion and mortared joints was also completed at this stage. Two part polysulfide flexible sealant was applied to both type of joints using gun. Following this concrete surfaces were cleaned and abraded by mechanical scrabbling (using hatching tool) to acquire roughened surface for good bond between the substrate and CP overlay. Prior to overlay placement, electrical continuity testing was conducted to ensure all components of the anode system are electrically continuous within each zone and also there are no short circuits between the anode and the steel. All connection cables were appropriately tied to the mesh anode and carried to terminate in the nearest junction box. The overlay was installed in small sections to keep the shrinkage cracking under control and minimum. Special attention was given to the joint locations between the columns and walls and beams. The overlay was cured using wet hessian for a minimum period of 14 days. After curing pull-off tests were

carried out (as described above) to determine bond strength between the substrate and overlay. Commissioning & Monitoring Four transformer rectifiers (T/Rs) enclosures were installed, each containing multiple independent outputs (T/Rs) and placed at four different locations around the structure. All dc output and monitoring cables were run between the associated T/Rs and junction boxes. Prior to energizing of the CP system, steel natural potentials were established at the location of all embedded reference electrodes and precommissioning checks were conducted to verify the circuit wiring and steel polarization in negative direction. The CP system was powered after the completion of 28 day curing of the overlay. All zones were initially energized at a steel current density of 5mA/m2 and then current was gradually increased to achieve a current-on potential shift of 100-200 mV. After 7 days of system operation, instant-off steel potentials were measured and the applied current was increased in each zone to a level of 15 mA/m2 of steel surface area. The natural and instant off steel potentials, and potential decay measurement results are summarized in Table 9 below. In general, the polarization growth in the negative direction increased steadily with increase in applied current and time and was noted quite uniform in all areas within each anode zone and also overall in all zones. After 9 months operation of the CP system, the monitoring results have shown that 100 mV decay criterion was met at all the 50 monitoring locations except at two, i.e. RE-8-4 and RE-14-2. These two reference electrodes appear to have gone faulty, as the potential readings were not stable. This implies that the CP system is affording the required protection and reinforcing steel is adequately protected. Based on these results it can be inferred that the CP system has been successfully commissioned and operating satisfactorily, and meeting its design objectives in controlling the chloride-induced corrosion of the reinforcing steel of cooling tower structure. CONCLUSIONS 1. The deterioration of the cooling tower concrete occurred due to chloride-induced corrosion of the steel reinforcement. The chlorides are present in the concrete cover in excess of the threshold limit of 0.03% by wt. of concrete, which poses a very high risk of corrosion of the reinforcing steel. The chloride penetration was from the external side and resulted due to continuous cooling tower water spray. 2. There was no risk of carbonation-induced corrosion of steel and sulfate attack on concrete. 3. The electrochemical measurements showed that the reinforcing steel was actively corroding under the sound concrete in >50% areas of the entire structure. Therefore, repair works should not be limited to the damaged areas only. 4. Patch repairs and CP repair method offer durable, long-term & economical solution with no or much less installation constraints for rehabilitation of the structure. Therefore, this method was recommended. 5. The CP system has been successfully installed and commissioned. The 9 month system operation & monitoring results have shown that the 100 mV day criterion was met at 48 monitoring locations out of the total of 50. This shows that CP system is affording required protection to all protected areas and meeting its design objective in controlling the ongoing corrosion of the reinforcing steel.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author would like to thank the management of SABIC Technology Center and SABIC R & T for the encouragement and approval for the preparation and presentation of this paper. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. M.S., Eglinton, Concrete and its Chemical Behaviour Pub. Thomas Telford Ltd. 1987 ACI 224, Causes, Evaluation, and Repair of Cracks in Concrete American Concrete Institute, Detroit, USA, 1987. BS 8110: Part 1, The Structural Use of Concrete British Standards Institution, 1985. ACI 201, Guide to Durable Concrete American Concrete Institute, Detroit, USA, 1987. O.S.B. Al-Moudi, Durability of Reinforced Concrete in Aggressive Sabkha Environments ACI Materials Journal, May-June 1995. J.P. Broomfield, Corrosion of Steel in Concrete Pub. E & FN Spon, 1997. Rasheeduzzafar, S.E. Hussain, and S.S. Al-Saadoun, Effect of tricalcium aluminate content of cement on chloride binding and corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete ACI Materials Journal, January-February, 1992. Concrete Society/CEA Technical Reports No. 36. Corrosion Engineering Association, 1989. U.K. NACE Standard RP0390-90, Item No. 53072, Cathodic Protection of Reinforced Steel in Atmospherically Exposed Concrete Structures.

8. 9.

10. European Standard BS EN 12696, Cathodic Protection of Steel in Concrete Atmospherically exposed concrete 2000.

10

TABLE 1:- Chloride content analysis results. Dust sample increment depths (mm) Element/Face Beam/South Elev. Beam/Nort Elev. Column/South Elev. Column/North Elev Wall/South Elev. Wall/South Elev. Wall/North Elev. Bund Wall/East Elev. Roof Slab Roof Slab Beam Louver/East Elev. Louver/East Elev. 0-20
0.09 0.1 0.69 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.28

20-40
0.07 0.07 0.24 0.07 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.23

40-60
0.06 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.16 0.07 0.21

60-80
0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07

80-120
0.06

120-170
0.07

170-220
0.06

Chloride concentration % by Wt. of concrete sample

0.18

0.15

0.12

0.13

0-20
0.18 0.18 0.25 0.38

20-40
0.17 0.15 0.21 0.29

40-60
0.11 0.12 0.19 0.26

60-80
0.07 0.09

80-100
0.05 0.11

100-150
0.06 0.13

TABLE 2:-Sulphate content analysis results. Dust Sample increment depths (mm) 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-120 120-170 Sulfate content % by wt. of concrete sample
0.45 0.50 0.77 0.40 0.53 0.47 0.36 0.55 0.43 0.39 0.53 0.39 0.54 0.42 0.33 0.47 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.36 0.44 0.40 0.38 0.41

Element/Face Beam/South Elev. Beam/Nort Elev. Column/South Elev. Column/North Elev Wall/South Elev. Wall/South Elev. Wall/North Elev. Bund Wall/East Elev. Roof Slab Beam Roof Slab Louver/East Elev. Louver/East Elev.

0-20
0.47 0.56 2.00 0.44 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.64

170-220
0.47

0-20
0.68 0.73 0.57 0.65

20-40
0.51 0.60 0.53 0.55

40-60
0.43 0.49 0.51 0.45

60-80
0.32 0.40

80-100
0.38 0.55

100-150
0.41 0.66

11

Table 3:- Cement content and compressive strength test results.

CORE IDENTIFICATION CM1 CM3 CM4

Cement Content (%) Corrected Compressive Strength N/mm

16.6 46.6

16.8 47.2

16.4 38.5

TABLE 4: Summary of half cell potentials

North Elevation <-200 -201 to >-351 -350 South Elevation <-200 -201 to >-351 -350 Roof Slab -201 to >-351 -350

Half-cell potentials (mV)

<-200

% of values within each potential range Beam Column Wall Roof Slab Total* 36 20 63 61 1 19 0 60 40 0 0 0 0 30 0 65 50 70 100 35 50 0 0 0 0 100 100

* Totals are based on all data from each elevation

TABLE 5:- Summary of corrosion rate results.

North Elevetion Corrosion Rate Beam Column Wall Roof Slab Total* 66 17 17 27 18 55 34 33 33 Low Moderate High Low South Elevetion Moderate High Low Roof Slab Moderate High

% of values within each corrosion rate range 100 0 0 0 100 17 33 0 17 67 0 66 33 33 67 67

* Totals are based on all data from each elevation.

12

TABLE 6:- Repair methods for End wall concrete elements. Defect Concrete repairs Supplementary protection

A. External South & North Elevations and Top Suspended Walls on East & West Elevations (Beams, Columns & Wall panels). B. Internal South & North Elevations, (Only upper portion of beams, columns, & wall panels) and Internal West & East Elevations. Spalls and concrete. delaminated Break out only delaminated concrete and patch repair (repair material to be suitable for CP repairs). Evaluate loss of steel section, replace as required. Local breakout and inspect steel, inject or reinstate mortar. Replace mortar fillets externally and sealant internally.

Cracks >0.3mm.

Leaks.

Old repairs.

Weathering

Impressed current CP system (ICCP), Breakout to remove existing comprising mixed metal repair material and reinstate oxide (MMO) coated using material suitable for CP. expanded titanium mesh and cementitious overlay Apply a coating to reduce rate of anode system. weathering.

Cavities, and Cracked and broken mortar sealant in joints.

Breakout old mortar at corner joints and reinstate mortar.

Electrical discontinuity of Test and establish electrical reinforcing steel in continuity of reinforcing steel in different concrete all different concrete elements. elements.

13

TABLE 7: Repair methods for roof slab, louvers, and bund wall. Defect Concrete repairs Supplementary protection

Roof Slab (Top & Soffit), Parapet walls & Bund wall. Spalls and delaminated concrete, Cracks >0.3mm, Old repairs. Cavities, and Cracked and broken mortar sealant in joints. As recommended in table 6 above.

Breakout old mortar at corner Impressed current CP joints and reinstate mortar. system (ICCP), comprising mixed metal oxide (MMO) coated Remove coating from all expanded titanium mesh Cracked and peeled off concrete surfaces. and cementitious overlay coating anode system. Electrical discontinuity of Test and establish electrical reinforcing steel in continuity of reinforcing steel in different concrete all different concrete elements elements. Louvers units of East & West Elevations. Spalls and delaminated Replace all damaged units with All new units shall have concrete, Cracks >0.3mm, new units. New units shall have polyurethane coating. Old repairs. epoxy-coated steel. Weathering Apply a coating to reduce rate of weathering. .

14

TABLE 8:- Summary of CP system design details Design Current Anode Capacity Amps Bund Wall North Bund Wall East Bund Wall South Bund Wall West Bund Roof Slab South Bund Roof Slab North South End Wall, Lower South End Wall, Upper North End Wall, Lower North End Wall, Upper West End Wall, Upper East End Wall, Upper Upper- Inner Beams, Columns & WallsNorth Upper- Inner Beams, Columns & WallsSouth Roof Slab West Roof Slab East 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 5 2.04 3.54 3.40 0.88 5.15 1.87 2.41 2.41 2.04 3.54 3.40 5.15 5.10 2.47 5.10 5.10 1.26 6.56 2.26 2.91 2.91 2.47 5.10 5.10 6.56 6.27 3A, & 10V 5A, & 10V 5A, & 10V 2A, & 10V 7A, & 10V 3A, & 10V 3A, & 10V 3A, & 10V 3A, & 10V 5A, & 10V 5A, & 10V 7A, & 10V 7A, & 10V

Cooling Tower Area

Anode Zone

RE (Nos.)

TR Output Ratings

14 15 16

5 4 4

1.87 0.87 5.10

2.26 1.26 6.27

3A, & 10V 2A, & 10V 7A, & 10V

15

TABLE 9:- Summary of CP system monitoring results.

TR Anode Encl. Zone #
3 4 1 1 2 3 4 2 5 6

RE No.
RE 1-1 RE 1-2 RE 2-1 RE 2-2 RE 3-1 RE 3-2 RE 4-1 RE 4-2 RE 5-1 RE 5-2 RE 6-1 RE 6-2 RE 7-1 RE 7-2 RE 7-3 RE 7-4 RE 8-1 RE 8-2 RE 8-3 RE 8-4 RE 9-1 RE 9-2 RE 9-3 RE 9-4 RE 10-1 RE 10-2 RE 10-3 RE 10-4 RE 11-1 RE 11-2 RE 12-1 RE 12-2 RE 13-1 RE 13-2 RE 13-3 RE 13-4 RE 13-5 RE 14-1 RE 14-2 RE 14-3 RE 14-4 RE 14-5 RE 15-1 RE 15-2 RE 15-3 RE 15-4 RE 16-1 RE 16-2 RE 16-3 RE 16-4

Natural

After After 6M 9M Instant-off Steel Potential mV Ag/AgCl

-578 -562 -474 -572 -619 -734 -567 -588 -474 -289 -407 -233 -396 -513 -485 -637 -447 -346 -424 -339 -716 -526 -616 -538 -467 -454 -658 -414 -315 -443 -361 -357 -309 -308 -267 -298 -375 -536 -409 -351 -314 -317 -457 -443 -484 -402 -392 -338 -323 -375 -655 -617 -286 -574 -543 -746 -572 -609 -539 -212 -416 -164 -405 -563 -437 -692 -429 -322 -593 -179 -783 -513 -657 -599 -487 -486 -651 -437 -537 -372 -345 -331 -338 -304 -267 -269 -404 -405 -428 -565 -457 -463 -577 -578 -409 -548 -548 -493 -578 -496 -562 -452 -587 -613 -790 -524 -503 -401 -290 -328 -406 -372 -516 -441 -643 -435 -410 -379 -23 -723 -540 -648 -604 -557 -466 -557 -403 -505 -347 -326 -386 -399 -400 -412 -396 -396 -447 -86 -510 -476 -441 -585 -546 -528 -473 -523 -550 -527 -572

After 3M

After After After 3M 6M 9M 24 Hour decay mV

232 260 161 160 226 183 188 266 356 120 335 186 216 184 352 376 229 180 226 244 296 171 238 353 272 196 219 294 190 374 250 252 191 168 149 227 174 408 260 246 182 202 257 286 114 302 231 170 122 175 298 302 103 175 159 217 187 316 430 91 351 97 243 204 299 419 193 145 336 99 312 168 237 396 320 189 394 299 302 119 247 214 204 165 133 217 178 302 248 330 294 293 378 156 325 329 343 268 302 178 218 129 130 211 206 146 188 263 109 236 296 220 155 315 335 221 178 208 9 286 189 253 406 126 193 166 265 325 216 215 234 254 124 267 249 145 224 32 254 251 216 202 321 121 274 320 296 264 286

7 1 8

9 3 10

1 4

11 12

13

14

15

16

-326 -259 -318 -364 -351 -474 -343 -307 -147 -252 -105 -162 -230 -233 -192 -187 -248 -188 -292 -131 -259 -351 -352 -190 -355 -199 -313 -187 -179 -230 -203 -174 -185 -238 -151 -166 -246 -145 -138 -198 -187 -359 -269 -262 -445 -172 -282 -250 -236 -289

16

FIGURE 1:- A schematic illustration of cooling tower shows major components of end walls.

FIGURE 2:- View of south elevation and east side of the cooling tower.

17

FIGURE 3: Large & wide cracks on beam, water leakage and corroded bar.

FIGURE 4: Extensive cracking of wall panel and edge column (A safety hazard).

FIGURE 5: Severe cracking of internal beam and roof slab soffit.

18

Beam (Aver.)

Column (Aver.)

Wall Panel (Aver.)

Bund Wall

Threshold Value

0.45 0.4 Chloride Conc. (% by Wt. of Concrete) 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-120 120-170 170-220 Concrete Powder Samples Depth (mm)

FIGURE 6: Chloride profile in the End Wall elements and Bund Wall.

Roof Slab 0.35

Roof beam

Louver (Aver.)

Threshold Value

Chloride Conc. (% by Wt. of Concrete)

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 100-150 Concrete Powder Samples Depth (mm)

FIGURE 7:- Chloride profile in the Roof Slab, Beam and Louvers.

19

Compliance
100%

Non-Compliance

90%

80%

70% Decay Criteria Compliance

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Bund Wall Roof Slab South Elevation North Elevation West/East Elevations Internall Walls

FIGURE 8:- Summary of 100 mV decay criterion compliance.

FIGURE 9:- Continuity links between the columns and beams.

20