Analysis of Pipeline Steel Corrosion

Data From NBS (NIST) Studies

Conducted Between 1922-1940 and

Relevance to Pipeline Management

Richard E. Ricker

Materials Performance Group

Metallurgy Division

Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

®£

/ &o

#7Y/5

2^0 0 J

NIST

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

NISTIR 7415

Analysis of Pipeline Steel Corrosion

Data From NBS (NIST) Studies

Conducted Between 1922-1940 and

Relevance to Pipeline Management

Richard E. Ricker

Materials Performance Group

Metallurgy Division

Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

May 2, 2007

U.S. Department of Commerce

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary

Technology Administration

Robert Cresanti, Under Secretary> of Commerce for Technology’

National Institute of Standards and Technology
.
Analysis of Pipeline Steel Corrosion Data From NBS (NIST) Studies

Conducted Between 1922-1940 and Relevance to Pipeline Management

Executive Summary

Between 1911 and 1984, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) conducted a large number

of corrosion studies that included the measurement of corrosion damage to samples exposed to real-world environments. One of these studies was an investigation conducted between 1 922 and

1940 into the corrosion of bare steel and wrought iron pipes buried underground at 47 different

sites representing different soil types across the Unites States. At the start of this study, very little was known about the corrosion of ferrous alloys underground. The objectives of this study were

to determine (i) if coatings would be required to prevent corrosion, and (ii) if soil properties

could be used to predict corrosion and determine when coatings would be required. While this

study determined very quickly that coatings would be required for some soils, it found that the

results were so divergent that even generalities based on this data must be drawn with care. The

investigators concluded that so many diverse factors influence corrosion rates underground that

planning of proper tests and interpretation of the results were matters of considerable difficulty

and that quantitative interpretations or extrapolations could be done "only in approximate

fashion" and attempted only in the "restricted area" of the tests until more complete information

is available.

Following the passage of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act in 2002 and at the urging of

the pipeline industry, the Office of Pipeline Safety of the U.S. Department of Transportation

approached the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NBS became NIST in 1988) and

requested that the data from this study be reexamined to determine if the information handling

and analysis capabilities of modern computers and software could enable the extraction of more

meaningful information from these data. This report is a summary of the resulting

investigations.

The data from the original NBS studies were analyzed using a variety of commercially

available software packages for statistical analysis. The emphasis was on identifying trends in

the data that could be later exploited in the development of an empirical model for predicting the

range of expected corrosion behavior for any given set of soil chemistry and conditions. A large

number of issues were identified with this corrosion dataset, but given the limited knowledge of

corrosion and statistical analysis at the time the study was conducted, these shortcomings are not

surprising and many of these were recognized by the investigators before the study was

concluded. However, it is important to keep in mind that complete soil data is provided for less

than half of the sites in this study. In agreement with the initial study, it was concluded that any

differences in the corrosion behavior of the alloys could not be resolved due to the scatter in the

results from the environmental factors and no significant difference could be determined between

alloys. Linear regression and curve fitting of the corrosion damage measurements against the

measured soil composition and properties found some weak trends. These trends improved with

multiple regression, and empirical equations representing the performance of the samples in the

tests were developed with uncertainty estimates. The uncertainties in these empirical models for

the corrosion data were large, and extrapolation beyond the parameter space or exposure times of

these experiments will create additional uncertainties.
It is concluded that equations for the estimation of corrosion damage distributions and rates can be developed from these data, but these models will always have relatively large

uncertainties that will limit their utility. These uncertainties result from the scatter in the

measurements due to annual, seasonal, and sample position dependent variations at the burial

sites. The data indicate that more complete datasets with soil property measurements reflecting

the properties of the soil and ground water directly in contact with the sample from statistically

designed experiments would greatly reduce this scatter and enable more representative

predictions.
Analysis of Pipeline Steel Corrosion Data From NBS (NIST) Studies

Conducted Between 1922-1940 and Relevance to Pipeline Management

Richard E. Ricker

Materials Performance Group

Metallurgy Division

Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Technology Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

I. Introduction

Currently, the U.S. has over 3.7 million kilometers (2.3 million miles) of pipelines crossing

the country transporting natural gas and hazardous liquids from sources such as wells, refineries,

and ports to customers. It is estimated that almost 2/3 of the energy consumed in the U.S. passes

through a pipeline at some point between its origin and the point of consumption and that

pipelines account for about 20 % of the total mass-distance that oil and natural gas are transported [1,2]. Clearly, the maintenance of an uninterrupted energy supply to the public

requires the operation of these pipelines in such a manner that corrosion does not result in an unscheduled interruption to the flow of these energetic materials to the nation, as occurred

recently in Alaska [3]. This task is accomplished by pipeline operating companies, who follow

standards, codes, and practices set out by a variety of regulatory agencies, industrial consortia,

and standards developing organizations. The Pipeline Standards Developing Organizations

Coordination Council (PSDOCC) coordinates the activities of these groups, and the Department

of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is the main regulatory agency with final

responsibility over this system of codes and practices [2].

Following pipeline accidents in Carlsbad, NM [4] and Bellingham, WA [5], the U.S.

Congress passed the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (PSIA). The objective of this act was to improve public safety by stimulating improvements in pipeline technologies, regulations,

and standards. This act resulted in the formation of the PSIA Coordination Council, which

communicates and coordinates pipeline relevant research in four government agencies: The

Department of Energy, The Department of Transportation, The Department of Interior, and The

Department of Commerce. This project is a result of this collaboration. The objectives of this

project were to (1) reexamine the original NBS underground bare pipe corrosion studies to determine if the results from this study could be used to develop better empirical models for

prediction of bare pipe corrosion rates and (2) to seek new in-sights that could lead to the

development of pipeline external corrosion prediction models, or soil corrosivity indexes, that

could be used in the future for computer-aided pipeline management.

Since the mileage of existing pipelines greatly exceeds that of new construction, the average

age of the U.S. pipeline infrastructure is increasing steadily [6], Penetration of the pipeline wall

NISTIR 7415 1 May 2, 2007
H Fracture, Fatigue, and SCC

13 External Corrosion

El Other

Figure 1

- Attributed failure mechanisms for reported pipeline failures.

as a result of corrosion of the external surface is responsible for a significant portion of pipeline

failures as shown in Figure 1 [6]. Assuming that corrosion rates are greater than zero, this

means that the threat of corrosion-induced failures is actually increasing steadily each year.

Considering this, it is surprising that this industry has been able to actually reduce or hold failure rates constant over recent years as shown in Figure 2 [6], This feat has been accomplished

through the accumulation of pipeline operation experience, and improvements in technologies

including inspection, repair, coating, and information technologies. This industry openly shares

their experience through a number of different consortia and standards developing organizations.

As a result, the practices, codes, and standards developed reflect this experience and evolve as pipelines age and new technologies are developed. This has enabled this industry to make

improvements and repairs before failures actually occur. This industry can be expected to make

further improvements as better inspection, repair, and information technologies are developed

that allow this industry to monitor, measure, and track changes in their pipelines to even greater

resolutions and detail.

500 250

<t> 5

150 0

3

100 (Q

50 S

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Figure 2 - Statistics from the Office of Pipeline Safety on pipeline accidents

NISTIR 7415 2 May 2, 2007
It is conceivable that in the future pipeline operators will have computer systems that provide

data on every meter of the pipelines in their system at their fingertips. Ideally, one of the

parameters for each increment of the pipe will be an indicator of the corrosivity of the local

environment to the steel of the pipeline wall. This measure may be based on sensor readings or estimated from measures of soil properties and chemistry. This parameter will give the operator

information on how long the steel pipe should be able to contain its contents without catastrophic

failure should the coating and/or cathodic protection systems fail. Ideally, this parameter will

help the operator schedule inspections and plan shutdowns for repairs so that the energy supply

is uninterrupted. The quality of the decisions that operators will make based on this parameter

will depend on the accuracy or the uncertainty in the estimate of this parameter. Currently,

operators are required to use the same "corrosion allowance" for all corrosion rate based

decision-making unless they can prove that a lower corrosion rate can be expected.

The value used for the current corrosion allowance was determined by analysis of

underground corrosion measurements taken by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) during a study conducted between 1920 and 1947 [7, 8], The same value is to be used for all soils and

underground pipeline environments without regard for the specific soil chemistry of each site and local conditions. There is a provision for exceptions when an operator can demonstrate that

lower rates can be expected for a particular section. This is a conservative approach at present

that grows more conservative as information and other technologies improve. Advances in

computers, sensors, chemical property measurements, and computer modeling of chemical

reactions and transport can be expected to make this an overly conservative approach in the near

future. These emerging technologies will make the acquisition and manipulation of increasingly

detailed information on increasingly smaller increments of a pipeline possible. The first step

toward accomplishing this next level of corrosion allowance determination should be the

establishment of a link between some measurable property of the pipeline soil environment and

the resulting corrosion rate. There are essentially three different approaches that can be taken to establish this link: (1) empirical correlations to actual measurements of corrosion damage in

steel pipes exposed to representative soils, (2) development of laboratory measurements and

models for estimation, and (3) detailed computer models with valid assumptions for rate determining processes. Each of these different approaches has advantages and drawbacks, but

all three will require verification with actual data from exposure tests on samples in

representative soil environments. Therefore, the first of these is the logical starting point

especially since it will help one identify the critical issues for the other two.

Information and data on the corrosion behavior of steels in underground environment is rather limited, and many studies into underground corrosion rely on the data from the studies

conducted by NBS between 1920 and 1947 [7, 8], The data from these studies have been used

for underground corrosion decision making over a wide range of fields from underground

utilities to nuclear waste disposal. These studies actually began in 1911 when Congress asked

NBS to conduct studies into electrolysis failures caused by the operation of electric streetcars. In conducting this study it was noted that very little was known about how steels and other metals

should corrode underground in the absence of induced electric currents induced from the

operation of streetcars. As this study was nearing completion, it was noted that the emerging

pipeline industry had a critical need for this type of information. As a result, a workshop was

NISTIR 7415 3 May 2, 2007
held at NBS with participants from industry and an underground corrosion research program was

proposed. The Department of Agriculture was asked to identify locations with representative

soils and to participate in the characterization of the soils at the sites. Industry was asked to provide samples and to participate in sample burials, removals, and inspections. Workshops

were convened at regular intervals to keep everyone updated and were attended by corrosion

experts from all over the world. This study lead to a large number of similar studies of corrosion

in real world conditions and eventually into the development of related laboratory research

programs in corrosion measurement methods at NBS that evolved over time into the present

programs in the Metallurgy Division of NIST.

Figure 3 - Map of the US showing the locations of the burial sites and the 8 major soil groups identified

in the study.

The original NBS bare pipe underground corrosion studies incorporated 47 sites across the

United States as shown in Figure 3. In this figure, the 8 basic soil types are identified as they were in the 1957 summary report. Since the 1957 report was prepared, the Department of

Agriculture has subdivided soil groups and currently lists 13 major soil groups in the United

States [9]. Detailed soil maps with these updated classifications can be obtained from the

Department of Agriculture [9], Samples were retrieved from sites at periodic intervals, with the

last samples removed between 12 and 17 years after burial depending on the site. Figure 4 is a photograph of the samples from this study laid out in the NBS laboratory for examination. The

bare pipe corrosion study was the first of a long series of studies of corrosion in real world

situations conducted by NBS [7, 8].

VIII. Gray Desert Soils\j

Soils of Pacific Valleys

i—

i

Mountainous Areas

i—

\

Nebraska Sand Hills Areas

* NBS (NIST) Sample Burial Site

i—

i

IV. Prairie Soils

V. Chernozem Soils

VI. Dark Brown Soils

VII. Brown Soils

NISTIR 7415 4 May 2, 2007
Figure 4 - Samples being examined in the laboratories at NBS.

When NBS began the underground corrosion studies of bare steel pipes (1922-24), the

Department of Agriculture identified sites for the placement of coupons and conducted soil

surveys to characterize the soils. Soil samples were then analyzed by NBS to determine the

composition and properties of the soils at the sites. Soil surveys and taxonomy were new

concepts just being developed in the 1920s [9], The soil property measurements and chemical

analyses were also state-of-the-art for the time the study was conducted. Statistical analysis was

not a well developed and appreciated part of metrology when these studies were designed. The

NBS underground corrosion studies have been criticized for the poor statistical design of the

experiments including neglecting the distribution of the samples at the sites [10]. That is, soil

horizons, while mostly parallel to the surface, frequently vary in depth even over the short

distance of a burial trench. As a result, samples from opposite ends of the same trench could be

exposed to different conditions. A well designed experiment for statistical analysis would have

the samples distributed in the trenches in a manner that avoids this spatial bias. In addition,

seasonal and annual bias can result from variations in starting dates, exposure times (fractional

years), and the use of average annual data for conditions rather than measurements.

The original NBS underground pipeline corrosion study appears to have attempted to mimic

the pipeline burial conditions and practices of the day for each location (e.g. burial depth varies

with location). In this manner, the results would represent the uncertainties inherent in these

practices and conditions rather than just fundamental information on the influence of soil

chemistry and properties on corrosion rates. For example, the annual rainfall given for each site

is actually the average annual rainfall for the location closest to the burial site with rainfall data

and not an average for the actual site or the years of burial. At the time of the study, this was the

only kind of information that would be available to a pipeline operator and remote sensing,

recording, or monitoring was not to be a consideration for decades. In addition, many soil properties were measured in the laboratory rather than in the field. Removing soils from the

ground will alter the activity of important species such as water, carbon dioxide and oxygen and

NISTIR 7415 5 May 2, 2007
alter the activity of biological species and the properties of the soils. The impact of these factors on pH was recognized by the 1950s and Romanoff attempted to correct the pH values [8]. In addition, cost appears to have been a factor during the studies limiting site selection, sample

layout, and examination. Of particular concern is the fact that chemical analyses were conducted on soils from only 26 of the 47 sites. Today, statistical analysis considerations would dictate that

all sites should be characterized or that the 26 sites should be selected at random. However, the

sites with soil chemistry data are the 26 with the lowest measured electrical resistivity; and

therefore, the highest concentrations of soluble salts. These issues should not be considered the

fault of the original investigators because their importance in obtaining data for statistical analysis was not fully appreciated at the time these studies were designed. It appears that the

original study decided to emulate the buried pipeline conditions, soil characterization data, and

the associated uncertainties inherent in the information that would be available to pipeline

operators. This would mean that the resulting data would have greater scatter than might result

for more controlled conditions, but this scatter would represent the "real-world" uncertainties that

pipeline regulators and operators would confront when making decisions. Including this scatter

in the data insured the data would be representative and that decisions made would be

conservative for the prevailing conditions of the day. Decades later, this seems to be an overly

conservative approach that inhibits statistical analysis, interpretation, and the development of

performance prediction models.

In the near future, information technologies, sensors, and global information systems (GIS)

will make it possible to characterize or even monitor environmental chemistries and soil properties at closely spaced intervals along a pipeline. Not only will pipeline operators have

larger quantities of better soil characterization measurements, they will have better tools for

manipulating and interpreting this information. Computer aided monitoring, data manipulation,

and operation decision-making is becoming standard practice. All of these possibilities were not even a consideration in the 1920s when the original NBS study was initiated. In fact, when the

study initiated it was not even clear that coatings would be required to protect pipes from

corrosion. Today, cathodic protection and coatings are used extensively. One of the most

significant impacts of the original study may have been to determine that coating would be

required and to stimulate coatings research and development. Coatings for pipeline protection

and pipeline coating technologies are still a major area of research and development today [11].

For the analyses of this study, it will be assumed that the soils removed from the trench were

used for backfill and that the chemical and physical properties given in the summary reports

accurately represent the soil in physical contact with the samples at each site [7, 8]. Since there

is no information on uncertainty or variability in the reports [7, 8], thorough homogenization to these precise values must be assumed. Similarly, without seasonal data, it must be assumed that

there are no seasonal variations in conditions and corrosion rates that would allow for the exact

dates of placement and retrieval and fractional years of exposure to have an influence on the

results. Also, it must be assumed that the years of burial were typical years so that the annual

rainfall, temperature, and other soil characteristics are properly represented by the data. The

additional uncertainty imposed by these assumptions should be kept in mind along with the

conclusion in the 1957 summary report that the statistical variability in the data was too great to make reliable predictions possible [8].

NISTIR 7415 6 May 2, 2007
II. Burial Site Characterization

The term soil is usually used to describe any of the naturally occurring loose collections

of solid particles found on the surface of the earth that support the growth of plants [9], This

includes the inorganic minerals, organic species, liquids, and gasses found in these aggregates.

According to a strict interpretation of this definition, a soil only extends as deep as the roots of

the plants or other organic species that grow in the soil. Today it is understood that soils are

alive with organic species of all types and sizes [12]. Pipelines are typically buried below the

levels where these organic species are plentiful and special backfill free of organics may be used

rather than the dirt and soils removed from the trench. This does not mean that microorganisms

will not influence the corrosion rate of a pipeline. Sulfate-reducing bacteria have long been

known to stimulate corrosion of steel pipelines in anaerobic environments with sufficient nutrient

content [13, 14]. In addition, biological activity both in the soils above the pipeline as well as those above the surface of the soil may have a dramatic influence on the water, oxygen, and

carbon dioxide content at the burial depth of the pipe. However, these factors were not

quantified for examination in the original NBS study and cannot be considered here. In addition,

it will be assumed that the backfill was the soil removed from the trench and that the chemical

analysis of the soil at each site provided in the summary reports covering these studies presents a reasonable estimate of the chemical environment the samples experienced during these

exposures [7, 8].

Soils are composed of essentially four features (1) mineral particulates, (2) organic matter

from surface and subsurface plant and animal life, (3) groundwater containing soluble salts, and

(4) gases. The particulate matter found in soils is usually small particles of the minerals found in

the nearby rock formations that were produced from these formations over millions of years of

weathering and the decomposition products produced when these minerals react with air and

water. In either case, most of the particles making up a soil are insoluble minerals, as most

soluble species have been removed over the millions of years of weathering. The solubility of

these minerals may vary with pH, and if they do so, they will tend to buffer the pH of the

groundwater, but assuming no significant changes in pH with time, we can assume for a first order approximation that these minerals behave as inert solids. Soils are placed into categories

as sands, clays, silts, or loams based on the size distribution of these particles as shown in

Figure 5. The potential influence of organic matter either living and excreting potentially

corrosive compounds or decaying and producing potentially corrosive conditions locally should

not be ignored in a thorough life prediction scheme, but information on these conditions were not

collected with the data of these studies. It is also important to realize that the properties assigned

to a site may change over time due to human, animal, or plant activity, but there is also no

information on these types of changes occurring at the burial sites.

It should be kept in mind that the objectives of the original NBS study were (1) to determine

if bare pipe could be used in some or all soils and (2) to determine if measures of soil

characteristics could be used to predict the corrosivity of soils and enable better pipeline

decision-making and management. To accomplish the second objective, one might want to include all of the natural range of variability that could be expected for normal pipeline burial

practices of the day, since it is the extreme rates that will produce failures. At the time these

studies were conducted, data were manipulated and analyzed manually and a single soil sample

NISTIR 7415 7 May 2, 2007
Percent Sand

Figure 5 - Ternary diagram describing soil types by characteristic particle sizes.

might be used to represent the soils and exposure conditions for a considerable length of

pipeline. Since at that time statistical tools for addressing these issues were very limited, it is logical that one would want to include the complete natural range of actual conditions that a single set of soil property data might be used to represent. Any attempt to control or limit this

natural variability might be viewed as producing data less representative of "real-world"

industrial practice since it would not include the entire range of conditions and rates expected for

a soil with the properties indicated by the soil sample.

The sites for burial of the samples were identified by the Department of Agriculture and they were selected to represent the different types of soils and conditions that could be found in the

U.S. The sites were identified by number, location, and soil type as shown in Table A1

(Appendix A contains the tables of site descriptions and measured characteristics). Table A2

lists the 26 different parameters used to identify or represent the properties of the soils found at the burial sites along with the units used in the original reports and the current SI equivalent units

with the conversion factors used for this study. Some measures were arbitrary ratings such as

fair, good, and poor for site internal drainage, some were measures of soil properties, and some

were taken from locally available data such as average annual rainfall and ground temperature.

Most of the soil properties were measured for all 47 sites (Tables A3 and A5), but the chemistry

of water extract was determined for only the 26 sites with the lowest resistivity measurements

(Tables A4 and A6). Table A7 contains the complete descriptions of the soil horizons and

depths for all of the sites used for this study.

The relationships between electrical conductivity of the medium or electrolyte and corrosion

behavior have been the subject of much debate and some research [15-18]. The conductivity of

an electrolyte is the product of the concentration of charge carrying species and their mobility.

The ionic bonding of the insoluble mineral particles will prevent conduction through these

particles. Therefore, electrical conduction will be restricted to the solutions in the pore spaces

around the particles and the conductivity of the water-saturated soil is a measure of the soluble

salts present in the soil to form ions in the water, the volume fraction of pore space, and the

mobility of the charge carrying ions. Fortunately, most ions other than the hydrogen and

NISTIR 7415 8 May 2, 2007
hydroxide ion have similar mobilities in aqueous solutions. So, conductivity is simply an

estimate of the total ion content of the solution surrounding the particles of soil. In general,

corrosion rates are observed to increase with the conductivity of a soil. Increasing the

conductivity of the electrolyte enables greater separation of the cathodic and anodic half-cell

reactions. It also reduces the range of potential differences that are possible between different

sites on the surface of the sample. Escalante et al. [15-18] examined the effects of conductivity,

temperature, and mass transport in soils and found that while lower conductivities tended to result in lower average corrosion (mass loss) rates, they also resulted in a greater range of

variations in corrosion rates across the surface. This would result in increased pitting ratios that

could result in wall penetration rates equivalent to those of more corrosive environments with

lower pitting ratios. That is, while lower conductivities (higher resistivities) tend to result in

lower overall corrosion rates, it also makes it easier for corrosion to localize to a small spot or region of the surface and form pits. This was observed and reported in the original NBS studies

and identified in the summary reports as a major factor contributing to the scatter in the data that

made reliable corrosion predictions difficult [7, 8],

The first step in analyzing the data from the NBS bare pipe underground corrosion study was

to plot cumulative distribution functions (CDF) for the measurements characterizing the

properties of the soils at the sites (Table A3) as shown in Figure 6. In these figures, the x-axis is the measured property and the y-axis is the fraction or percentage of sites having this value for

the property or less. In this manner the CDF goes from 0 to 1 or 0 % to 100 % over the

measured range for the variable. The slope of the CDF is the more familiar probability density

function (PDF) or the fraction of sites within some bandwidth of the value given on the x-axis

(i.e., density). A log-normal distribution was used for all measures of chemical concentrations or measures that would relate to chemical reactivity, as chemical reaction kinetics typically vary

with the log of the activity or concentration of the reaction species (Table A4 and Figure 7) [19].

The exception to this is pH, as it is a log scale.

A standard score (Z) was calculated for each characteristic (i) at each site (j) according to the

relationship

2,=

cr

(

1 )

where xy is the measured value of the characteristic for the normal distributions and the

logarithm of the measurement for the log-normal distributions and tux and crv are the

corresponding mean and standard deviation values of this property. Converting the

measurements to a standardized variable (Tables A5 and A6) produces scores for analysis that are without units and can be compared on the same graph with the same scale without bias.

Conversion from the Z-score back to original units is simple matter of applying the mean and

standard deviation given in Tables A5 and A6 through Equation (1) above.

In addition to the measured physical and chemical properties of the sites, the depth and

nature of the soil horizons (horizontal layers or strata) were qualitatively characterized, and these

are included along with the depth that the samples were buried in Table A7. This table is included to illustrate the complex nature of the soils at the sites and to demonstrate how the

behavior of samples from one part of a site to another could vary if depth of the horizons varied.

NISTIR 7415 9 May 2, 2007
Shrinkage on Drying. % Sample Burial Depth, m

Figure 6 - Cumulative distributions functions for the measured properties of the soils.

NISTIR 7415 10 May 2, 2007
Jta to s

J23

E3

£33

rS£

to 5

3

E3

v . w v iv . v i v v. iv i . v « >-< u.vvviu v.vviu y.yiy v . i u Soluble Ion Content, mol/kg of soil Soluble Ion Content, mol/kg of soil

Figure 7 - Cumulative distribution functions for the concentrations of soluble chemical species in soils and total acidity: (a) pH, (b) total acidity, (c) cations, and (d) anions.

III. Corrosion Damage Characterization

Appendix B contains the tables of corrosion damage measurements. In addition, Table A2

includes measured units and conversions used for the measures of corrosion damage along with

those for the site characterization parameters. Corrosion damage was characterized by

measuring two factors: (1) mass change and (2) pipe wall thinning. The mass change was

measured after the corrosion products were removed in a manner such that the underlying metal

would remain intact. The descaling procedures used in the studies are described in the 1945

report [7], In addition to the average mass change for two samples, the average of the deepest

penetration into the wall of two pipes was reported. This results in two measures of damage for

the exposure: (1) mass loss and (2) corrosion penetration. These two can be converted to rates by dividing by the exposure time. This calculation assumes that the corrosion rates are effectively constant over the exposure time. Of course, mass loss can be converted to an average

penetration rate using the density of the metal as shown in Table A2. The ratio of the maximum

measured penetration to the average penetration calculated from mass loss is the pitting ratio,

which is a measure of the propensity of the exposure environment to cause local variations in the

corrosion rate over the surface of a sample (a pit being a high corrosion rate at a small spot). In

this study, essentially three corrosion response variables were studied: ( 1) the mass loss rate

NISTIR 7415 11 May 2, 2007
(MLR), (2) the corrosion penetration rate (CPR). and (3) the pitting ratio. As with the

environmental variables, the units and conversion for these measures are given in Table A2.

Eight different types of samples w ere buried at each sight with 6 sets of duplicates for

periodic retrieval. The samples were provided as nominal 1.5 inch and 3 inch pipe (38.1 mm and

1 14.3 mm). Table B1 identifies sample size and alloy composition by the single letter used to identify each sample type: "a," "b," "e," "y," "B," "K," "M," and "Y". The alloys and

microstructures of these samples almost certainly deviate significantly from those available

today primarily due to the dramatic improvements in processing that has reduced slag inclusions

and mill scale. Apparently, in an effort to accurately represent the conditions of actual buried

pipeline, no special effort w; as put into cleaning sample surface and removing mill scale beyond

that required to remove oils and allow sealing of the ends with caps. Mill scale and inclusions

are typically noble with respect to the Fe of the metal and the presence of these phases on the

surfaces will stimulate cathodic activity enabling higher corrosion rates that might be localized to the region around these phases depending on the nature (conductivity) of the surrounding soil. In addition, the graphite phases in the microstructure will also tend to act as sites for cathodic

(reduction) reactions, and the finer more controlled microstructures available today will reduce

the tendency of these features to localize corrosion. However, without hard data on these

differences and their impact, it must be assumed that these alloys represent the range of alloys

used in pipelines past and present.

The logistics and cost of maintaining exact year exposure increments in these studies

outweighed the desire for data from identical exposures. If there is a seasonal variation in the

corrosion rate, it will contribute to the unquantifiable scatter in these measurements that cannot

be explained since there are insufficient data on the dates of burial and retrieval. This is significant because it is possible that a site may have rainy and dry seasons such that almost all of the "annual corrosion damage" occurs in one season. In this case, an exposure of 1.25 y could

have twice the damage of an exposure of 1.0 y. Seasonal variations are frequently observed in real world exposure tests, but these cannot be addressed with the current dataset.

As pointed out in the section above on site characterization, the corrosion damage to the

samples w'as quantified by measuring the change in the mass of the samples over the burial

period and by measuring the maximum depth of wall penetration in the samples. The mass loss

was measured after removal of corrosion products and the descaling techniques are described in

the 1 945 summary report. The mass loss was reported as the average mass loss per unit area

(oz/fr) for two samples of each of 8 different types of ferrous pipeline alloys. These

measurements converted to the current SI units for mass loss (g/m2

) are presented in Table B2.

The exposure times were given with the mass loss data and converting these to mass loss rates in grams per meter squared per day (g/m_/d) results in the data presented in Table B3. Similarly,

the maximum corrosion penetration measurements were presented as the average maximum

depth of penetration (mils) for two samples. These measurements converted to SI units (mm) are given in Table B4 and after conversion to penetration rates (mm/y) in Table B5.

NISTIR 7415 12 May 2, 2007
Mass Loss Rate (g/m7d) Penetration Rate (mm/yr)

Figure 8 - Cumulative distribution functions for the corrosion mass loss (a) and penetration rates (b) and

the normalized ratio of these rates or pitting ratio (c). Scatter plots examining the

relationships between these measures of corrosion damage rates: (d) penetration v. mass

loss, (e) pitting ratio v. mass loss, and (f) pitting ratio v. penetration.

The cumulative distribution functions for the corrosion mass loss rates, penetration rates, and

pitting ratios are shown in Figures 8(a) through 8(c). These figures show that combining the

measurements from all of the sites results in a smooth and symmetric sigmoidal curve when

plotted as the log of the rate or ratio indicating that log-normal distributions can be used to represent these data. Plotting these measures against each other with log scales as in Figures

8(d) through 8(f), shows that there is no clear trend relating these measures and that the data

form ellipsoidal scatter plots. Segregating the data into subgroups based on alloy type results in

the cumulative distribution functions shown in Figure 9(a) through 9(c). By examining these

NISTIR 7415 13 May 2, 2007
Mass Loss Rate per Unit Area (g/m7d) Maximum Penetration Rate (mm/yr)

Pitting Ratio im/m)

a

Jj 60 0 a

Mo

§ 40 0 S3 ra

!

«*

0.00

u.u !

(c) Pitting Ratios for Different Alloys

80 0 Alloy la+Di AMO

Alloy B

60.0 Alloy M

A; ICV V

-1 0 0

?o o -

00 nn 10 0 Pittiing Ratio (m/m)

(e) Penetration Rate

1 -3 YfS

6-7 Y'S

80 0

.». s- It Yrs IMS Ye —^—>15 v? s

60 0

40 0

20 0

0.00

0 01Corrosion Penetration Rate (mm/yr)

Figure 9 - Cumulative distribution functions examining the effects of alloy composition and exposure

time on the measurement: (a) Mass loss rates for different alloys, (b) Corrosion penetration

rates for different alloys, (c) Pitting ratios for different alloys, (d) Mass loss rates for different

retrieval periods, (e) Corrosion penetration rates for different retrieval periods, and (f) Pitting ratios for different retrieval periods.

figures, it is clear that scatter in the measurements resulting from the exposure variables and the

natural stochastic nature of underground corrosion overwhelms any differences due to alloy type

for this range of alloy compositions. This is not uncommon for steels [20, 21]. Therefore,

subsequent analyses will assume that measurements from these alloys can be considered to be

from the same alloy and analyzed as such to add numbers and statistical weight to the trends. On

the other hand, breaking the measurements into subsets according to the length of time that the

samples were underground indicates that both mass loss rates and corrosion penetration rates

NISTIR 7415 14 May 2, 2007
decreased with the time that the samples were buried in the ground. In addition, the pitting ratios

also tended to decrease with exposure time. This is an important observation that will be

discussed later in this report.

Since the exposed surface area of the samples could influence the observed maxima in penetration depth and sample types "a," "b," "e," and "y" had almost exactly half the exposed

area of sample types "B," "K," "M," and "Y," subsequent analyses of the corrosion penetration

rates were done by taking the maximum reported for sample types "a" or "b" as a single

measurement and similarly the maximum for sample types "e" and "y" as a single measurement.

As a result, there are 6 measurements of maximum corrosion penetration rate per site and

retrieval while there are 8 measurement of mass loss rate.

To briefly illustrate the range of variations among the different exposure sites for these measures of corrosion damage, sites representing the extreme maximum and minimum for the

mean and range of these 3 corrosion measures are plotted in Figure 10. Figure 10(a) illustrates

the motivation for this and similar studies of corrosion damage rates. This figure shows that the

maximum mass loss rate observed on any sample at Site 6 is at least an order of magnitude lower

than lowest rate observed for any sample at Site 23. Clearly, these corrosion rates depend

strongly on the characteristics of these sites and identifying the characteristics that can be used to reliable identify which range of behavior a pipeline will exhibit will enable better management

decision making. However, Figure 10(b) illustrates one of the main problems for accomplishing

this objective. This figure shows the maximum penetrations observed for the samples at the

same two sites shown in Figure 10(a). The corrosion penetration rate distributions for these two

sites overlap. Since these two sites represent the extremes in the mean log penetration rate, all of

the other sites fall between these two and also overlap. This clearly illustrate the trend for the

sites with lower mass loss rates to have a greater range of corrosion rates over the surface area of

the samples resulting in more localized high rates or pitting. The sites representing those with

the greatest and smallest range in the three measures of corrosion damage are shown in Figures

10(d) through 10(f). Again, the mass loss rate measurements indicate over an order of

magnitude difference with the variation being in proportion with the differences in the means

creating two nearly parallel lines on the log scale. On the other hand, the corrosion penetration

rates and pitting ratios shown in Figure 10(d) and 10(e) do not form smooth continuous curves, but show irregular "jumps" in the curves indicating that samples above and below these

"discontinuities" experience different conditions or that stochastic variations in processes

resulted in the nucleation or creation of highly corrosive conditions. The discontinuity, rather

than a gradual slope change, suggests that there is a threshold or nucleation event that separates

the behavior of the pit from that of the remainder of the surface.

IV. Environment-Corrosion Rate Relationships

The relationship between the three measures of corrosion damage and the quantitative

variables describing the properties and chemistry of the soils at the sites were explored by

plotting the standard score for the variables at the site against the corrosion damage measure and

performing linear regression on the measurements using commercially available curve fitting

software. Some of the better results from this regression process are illustrated in Figure 11. By

NISTIR 7415 15 May 2, 2007
Figure 10 - Cumulative distribution functions for sites illustrating the range of behavior observed. Sites

exhibiting minimum and maximum (a) mean mass loss rate, (b) mean corrosion penetration

rate, and (c) mean pitting ratio and sites with the minimum and maximum range for (d) mass

loss rates, (e) corrosion penetration rates, and (f) pitting ratios.

examining this figure, it can be seen that none of the variables exhibited well-defined trends with

any of the corrosion measures. The correlation coefficient for a curve fit is the ratio of the

unexplained variation to the explained variation; and therefore, is 0 when there is no indicated

relationship between the parameters and has a magnitude of 1 when the curve fit can describe the

exact location of every point. The correlation coefficients for the fit of these site characterization

variables to the corrosion damage measures are given in Table Cl. This process was repeated

taking all of the samples for all of the sites as individual measurement points and the correlation

NISTIR 7415 16 May 2, 2007
"fi 800

CD &

C 600

V) I

$ 400

Am€

a

® 200 c

re £

0.00

0.80

|

0.50

P5 A x vr SC 0.4U-

£32 0.30f

l«,,

f |

1 o 10- s : O.Qt

Standard Score (Z) for Site Characteristic

""'""I >1-1 r-)" T ; t f—yr—

f—r— -p-t—r" ~r""f—p"VT"~r"T"y (c) Variation of site corrosion penetration rate with standard scores for site characteristics

Standard Score (Z) for Site Characteristic

Log (Cond)

Loo; (Ns';

• Log (Tot Add)

AT **

«m ,,#« •» ^

« • % a / *

®

_L

0.0

£>-0 20

SCg-°^

5P

S3 *-0 301- c

,rT..^„..r.. T r r-T p.r

. T...r.. r.. r. r..r... r. r..p. ’{<8 Variation of site corrosion penetration rate with standard scores for site characteristics Log Condi —«— Lsd —*— Log

Hm

to! Add)

£ - 1 . 0 -

-1 2 -

50 r

5

£ra ® 301- CDcs

E . cu 20|- 55c

re 10 -

-3 - 2-10 12 3 Standard Score (Z) for Site Characteristic

-i—

[—r-i—r-i—p-i—i

i i j- i—r-r-i—

j—r—i—i—i—pi—r-1—r—j—

i

-r-r-i—

|—r—r fe) Variation of mean site pitting ratios with i standard scores for site characteristics

.. JUt *

*%» • «ss */i •

,** # * « «

* ; •

Standard

-2 Score -1012 (Z) for Site Characteristic

Density

\\\

» 388* A *88 »

88 * A* 4 I

s

88 « ® ^ ^

* ® *

* \ V

— Log (Condi

o.oL-A- _L_i_ _l_L . i

£

E©W

re £EWcS

E

I Sm15D -

' r i '* 1 >

i <"•' I"' 1 ’

'

I

1 ‘ 1 >

I

1 1 '

'

l

1

(f) Variation of mean site pitting ratios with standard scores for site characteristics /

if 9.&%£* 8

t V

- Suspension %

• Density

- Log (AP Spc)

-10 12 Standard Score (Z) for Site Characteristic

0 . 0 l. 1-.l...l... l...l....l.. a..-2-10123 l..t. .... 1 1 1. Standard Score (Z) for Site Characteristic

Figure 1 1 - Linear regression results for fitting (a) site mean mass loss rates (MLR), (b) Log (MLR), (c) site mean corrosion penetration rates (CPR), (d) Log (CPR), (e) site mean pitting ratios (PR)

and (f) log (PR) for selected site characterization parameters (see Tables Cl and C2).

coefficient for these fits are also shown in Table Cl . By examining this table it can be seen that

the best fit was found for the mass loss rate (log) as one might expect after examination of

Figures 8-10. The site characterization variables with the highest correlation coefficient were the

concentrations of the ions Na'

1 and SOf2

. The fits to the corrosion penetration rate were slightly

lower with the same site characterizations variable resulting in the highest correlation

coefficients. However, the highest correlation coefficient observed for any of the single variable

NISTIR 7415 17 May 2, 2007
regression fits was 0.714 that is not a particularly good fit as shown by the Na'

1 line of fit in Figure 1 1(a).

After examining linear regression fits, multiple regression analyses were performed on the

site averages for the corrosion damage measures. Given the wide range of possible combinations

and the number of variables, experimenting with scientifically logical and derivative fits proved

to be a very time consuming and, given the poor quality of most fits, disappointing process.

However, a scheme was developed and followed for the evolution of a fit. This scheme results

in a completely empirical fit in that there is essentially no scientific consideration given to the

selection of the variable used in the derivation of the fit other than it was selected for

measurement in the original study. Basically, each corrosion damage measure was fit against

each of the site characterization variables taking one at a time (single linear regression). Then

the variable that produced the best fit was used in 2-term regression model using all of the

remaining site characterization variables taking one at a time. This process was repeated for 3, 4,

and 5 term multiple regression models. At each step, the site characterization variables yielding

the second and third best correlation coefficient were examined in place of the best fit to insure

that the best fitting variable was selected.

The exception to this process was soil conductivity. Since the conductivity of the soil is a measure of the total ion content of the soils, it is a measure of the combined concentrations of all soluble ions. Since ion chemistry was measured for only 26 of the 47 sites, using any of the ions

concentrations in the fit significantly reduces the number of points being fit. This was

considered undesirable particularly for the early terms in the process. In addition, when Na"' fit well with a measure of corrosion, the anions Cf and SOf also showed higher correlations

making it unclear which was the more important. Using conductivity, at last in the first term,

allows for representation of ion concentrations without forcing an empirical selection of an ion

that may not be important in determining the rate as much as simply varying with the ions that do

matter. It should be kept in mind that these are totally empirical fits and may not even indicate

the important variable as many of these site characterization variables are interrelated, and this

empirical variable selection process may result in the selection of a variable that varies with an

important property, but was measured or represents the causative property better for the sites

than the measures used to quantify that property.

The result of this term-by-term multiple regression fitting process are given in Tables C3 and

C4 for fitting the site average mass loss rate and corrosion penetration rates respectively. The

predictive capability of these models is illustrated graphically in Figure 12. The correlation

coefficient for multiple regression fits for prediction of the site average mass loss rate was 0.942

and 0.956 for 5 and 6 terms, respectively. Similarly, the fits for the corrosion penetration rate yielded correlation coefficients of 0.860 and 0.891 for 5 and 6 terms. These empirical fits allow

for estimation of the mean, average, or expected value for a site given the properties used in the

calculation. The scatter in the fits allows for the estimation of the scatter that should be observed

at a site characterized by the variables. That is, the uncertainty in the curve fit is illustrated

graphically in Figure 12 by the dashed lines for the confidence interval.

NISTIR 7415 18 May 2, 2007
2 9

(a) Model Predictions, Confidence

Intervals, and Site Data

for Mass Loss Rate 5

E

05

DC

2.7

2.5-

X

X

/

/

05o

=L 2. SITS

<15 >

2.1 -

1.9k;

1.9 jm.

Xm

m /X „

- m

a

j L

— Model » Site Data — Confidence Interval

J L J L j I 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 Predicted [Log (MLR, g/m2/d)]

-0.3

2.9

(b) Model Predictions, Confidence

Intervals, and Site Data for Corrosion Penetration Rates g -0.5 _

-07 -

<15-0 9

05 -Oo

- 1.1

- 1.1

* - '

* . A

%

s'

' Sy

. s'" ' X X

.

/

<§>

A

/ /

/#

— Model ® Site Data

• - Confidence Interval

J L _L JL

-0.9 -0.7 -0.5 Predicted [Log (CPR, mm/yr)]-0.3

Figure 12 - Multiple regression modeling results for mass loss rates (a) and corrosion penetration rates

(b) as a function of site characteristics.

V. Variation of Rate with Exposure Time

As shown in Figure 9, the mass loss rate and corrosion penetration rates tended to decrease

with exposure time. A decrease in the corrosion rate with time is not unexpected as there are a number of different kinetic rate models that would predict such a trend [19-21], First, if corrosion products build up on the surface and this inhibits the transport of reactants to or from

the surface, the corrosion rate will decrease as this layer grows thicker if mass transport through

this layer is rate limiting. Similarly, if there is a cathodic reactant that is being consumed by

corrosion and it is being depleted from the surrounding environment, a slow decline in the

corrosion rate with time is to be expected. In either case, the measured (average) corrosion

damage rate will decrease with increasing exposure time. The behavior of the measured

corrosion damage as a function of time will indicate the mechanism responsible for the declining

rate. Fitting corrosion damage to a power law equation of the form

y = at

n (2)

where y is the measure of corrosion damage and t is the exposure time and the constants a and n

are determined by the fitting process [7, 8, 20, 21]. In the case where corrosion damage is constant with respect to time, the exponent, n, will be one and in the case of a growing barrier

film n will be 0.5 and other postulated rate limiting mechanisms may yield other values. An 77 - value greater than one would indicate that the corrosion rate increased with exposure time.

While the nucleation of pitting after some incubation period longer than the first or second

retrieval could result in 77-values greater than 1 , pit nucleation times are usually very much

shorter than these exposure times and 77- values between 0 and 1 are frequently observed for

corrosion damage rates [21].

NISTIR 7415 19 May 2, 2007
This time dependence was recognized in the original NBS studies and they examine this

trend by linear regression of the equation

log( v ) = log(tf) + n log(/) (3)

with y equal to the two sample average maximum penetration for the exposure time (/). For this

report, the measurements from each site for mass loss and corrosion penetration were fit to Equation (2) using commercial software for iterative non-linear curve fitting that uses a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm for estimating successive iterations until the squares of the

errors reach a minimum [22], The use of a non-linear curve fitting routine allows for inclusion

of the initial (zero exposure time, zero damage) data points in the curve fits that cannot be

included in a linear regression of Equation (3). The results of these fits are shown in Figure 13

along with the results reported by in the NBS underground corrosion reports [7, 8] for linear

regression per Equation (3). Figure 13(a) is a CDF for the fitting exponent (n) and Figure 13(b)

is a PDF for this same parameter. By examining these figures, it can be seen that the corrosion

penetration rate and the mass loss rate exhibit significantly different time dependences. That is, the corrosion penetration rate tends to slow to a much greater extent with exposure time than the mass loss rate. This indicates that the corrosion penetration rate is being limited by the mass

transport of cathodic reactants or anodic products through the corrosion products building up at the pit while the rate limiting processes governing the mass loss rate and not facing the same

restrictions. This also explains the trends shown in Figures 9(d)-9(f). Figures 13(c) and 13(d)

show the correlation coefficients determined for the curve fits for the mass loss data and the

corrosion penetrations respectively and these figures show that with the exception of two points,

most of the correlation coefficients for mass loss were above 0.9 and above 0.8 for the

penetration data. These figures also show that there is no clear trend in the correlation

coefficients with the value determined for the power law exponent (n).

NISTIR 7415 20 May 2, 2007
Mass Loss Power Law Fit Exponent (n) Corrosion Penetration Power Law Fit Exponent (n)

Figure 13 - Graphic presentation of the results of fitting mass loss and corrosion penetration

measurements for each site to a power law equation: (a) cumulative distribution functions for exponents determine by fit, (b) probability distribution functions for exponents determined by

fit, (c) variation of correlation coefficients for mass loss with exponent of fit, and (d) variation

of the correlation coefficients for penetration with exponent of fit.

VI. Conclusions

After extensive examination and reexaminations of the data presented in the NBS studies of

underground corrosion it is concluded that while equations for the estimation of corrosion

damage distributions and rates can be developed from these data, that the scatter inherent in these

models is considerable larger than it could be and that this will always limit the ability of

predictions to be made from models based on this data. The scatter in these measurements is the

result of the state-of-the-art at the time the study was conducted and the limitations of budget and

size of the project. The data indicate that more complete datasets with soil property

measurements reflecting the properties of the soil and ground water directly in contact with the

samples including annual and seasonal variations and obtained with statistical analysis of the

results considered during the design of the experimental program would greatly reduce this scatter and enable more representative predictions.

NISTIR 7415 21 May 2, 2007
Acknowledgements

The author would like to express his gratitude to R. Smith and J. Merritt of the Office of

Pipeline Safety for advice, help, and support. Also, the author would like to thank W. Leucke,

D. Pitchure, and K. Synder for their review of this report and their numerous helpful comments

and suggestions.

Disclaimer

While commercially available equipment and software were used for these studies, their use does not constitute an endorsement by the author or NIST nor should it be taken to imply that

these are the best available for this purpose.

References

1. Dennis, S.M., Improved Estimates of Ton-Miles. Journal of Transportation and Statistics,

2005. 8(1): p. 23-44.

2. Mead, K.M., Actions Taken and Actions Needed to Improve Pipeline Safety, Office of

Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, CC-2004-055, Washington, DC,

2004.

3. Mufson, S., Pipeline Closure Sends OH Higher, in Washington Post. 2006: Washington,

DC.

4. NTSB, Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and Fire Near Carlsbad, New Mexico August 19,

2000, Natonal Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, 2003.

5. NTSB, Pipeline Rupture and Subsequent Fire in Bellingham, Washington June 10, 1999,

Natonal Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, 2002.

6. OPS, Pipeline Statistics. 2007, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous

Materials Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

7. Logan, K.H., Underground Corrosion, National Bureau of Standards (USA), Washington,

DC, 1945.

8. Romanoff, M., Underground Corrosion, National Bureau of Standards (USA), NBS

Circular 579, Gaithersburg, MD, 1957.

9. USDA, Soil Taxonomy A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and

Interpreting Soil Surveys, The Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, U.S. Dept, of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 1999.

10. Prasad, J.S. and T. Watmough, Evaluation of Literature on Buried Pipe Corrosion, IIT Research Institute, IITRI-B8093-3, Chicago, IL, 1967.

1 1. Ricker, R.E., Advanced Coatings R&D for Pipelines and Related Facilities, National

Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST SP 1044, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 2005.

12. Sudgen, A., R. Stone, and C. Ash, Soils - The Final Frontier. Science, 2004. 304( 1

June): p. 1613.

13. Dexter, S.C., ed. Biologically Induced Corrosion. International Corrosion Conference

Series, ed. S.C. Dexter. 1985, NACE International: Houston, TX.

14. von Wolozogen Kuhr, C.A.H. and L.S. Van der Vlugt, Graphitization of Cast Iron as an

Electro-biochemical Process in Anaerobic Soils. Water, 1934. 18(16): p. 147-165.

NISTIR 7415 22 May 2, 2007
15. Escalante, E., T. Oka, and U. Bertocci, Effect of Oxygen Transport and Resistivity ofthe

Environment on the Corrosion ofSteel, in Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 1990. p. 303.

16. Escalante, E., T. Oka, and U. Bertocci, Effect of Oxygen Transport and Resistivity of the

Environment on the Corrosion of Steel, National Instute of Standards and Technology

(USA), Gaithersburg, MD, 1990.

17. Escalante, E., Measuring the Corrosion ofMetals in Soil, in Corrosion Testing and

Evaluation: Silver Anniversary Volume, R. Baboian and S.W. Dean, Editors. 1990,

ASTM: Phil., PA. p. 112-124/

18. Escalante, E., The Effect ofSoil Resistivity and Soil Temperature on the Corrosion of

Galvanically Coupled Metals in Soil, in Galvanic Corrosion, H.P. Hack, Editor. 1990,

ASTM: Phil., PA. p. 193-202.

19. Eyring, H. and E.M. Eyring, Modern Chemical Kinetics. Selected Topics in Modem

Chemistry, ed. H.H. Sisler and C.A.V. Werf. 1963, New York: Reinhold Publ. Corp.

20. Uhlig, H.H., Corrosion and Corrosion Control. 2 ed. 1971, New York: J. Wiley & Sons.

21. Fontana, M.G. and N.D. Greene, Corrosion Engineering. McGraw-Hill Series in

Materials Science and Engineering, ed. M.B. Bever, M.E. Shank, and C.A. Wert. 1978,

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 263.

22. Bates, D.M. and D.G. Watts, Nonlinear Regression Analysis and Its Applications. 1988,

New York: J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.

NISTIR 7415 23 May 2, 2007
Table A1 - Sample Burial Site Information

Site No.

Soil Type Location

Internal DrainageBurial

Depth m

Sand

%

Silt %Clay

%

Colloid

%

Suspension

%

1 Allis silt loam Cleveland, OH Poor 2.41 9.8 37.7 52.5 31.1 38.0 2 Bell clay Dallas, TX Poor 1.02 17.2 37.9 44.9 40.4 19.1 3 Cecil clay loam Atlanta, GA Good 0.76 29.0 24.9 46.1 37.8 4.4 4 Chester loam Jenkintown, PA Fair 0.91 29.3 53.0 17.7 9.9 27.9 5 Dublin clay adobe Oakland, CA Poor 0.76 25.6 38.6 35.8 30.2 40.8

6 Everett gravelly sandy loam Seatle, WA Good 0.91 69.0 23.8 7.2 3.5 12.2 7 Maddox silt loam Cincinnati, OH Fair 0.56 10.3 26.1 63.6 55.0 41.2

8 Fargo clay loam Fargo, ND Poor 1.68 2.2 27.7 70.1 50.7 20.2

9 Genesee silt loam Sidney, OH Poor 0.56

10 Gloucester sandy loam Middleboro, MA Fair 0.91 64.0 29.4 6.6 2.8 16.4

11 Hagerstown loam Baltimore, MD Good 0.91 25.8 21.1 53.1 45.9 7.9 12 Hanford fine sandy loam Los Angeles, CA Fair 0.61

13

Hanford very fine sandy

loam Bakersfield, CA Fair 0.76

14 Hempstead silt loam St. Paul, MN Fair 1.12 56.6 29.5 13.9 9.5 19.8 15 Houston black clay San Antonio, TX Poor 0.91 4.4 25.2 70.4 62.0 28.3

16 Kalmia fine sandy loam Mobile, AL Fair 0.76 50.4 23.1 26.5 21.8 11.1 17 Keyport loam Alexandria, VA Poor 0.91 9.6 38.6 51.7 39.6 43.5

18 Knox silt loam Omaha, NB Good 1.22 1.3 78.4 20.3 15.0 24.2

19 Lindley silt loam Des Moines, IA Good 0.91 15.7 50.1 34.2 29.3 16.9 20 Mahoning silt loam Cleveland, OH Poor 1.22 19.6 44.1 36.3 23.7 37.7

21 Marshall silt loam Kansas City, MO Fair 1.52 3.2 65.9 30.9 27.1 26.0

22 Memphis silt loam Memphis, TN Good 0.84 1.2 76.5 22.3 18.3 38.7

23 Merced silt loam Buttonwillow, CA Fair 0.76

24

Merrimac gravelly sandy

loam Norwood, MA Good 0.84 72.0 22.4 5.6 2.7 10.4 25 Miami clay loam Milwaukee, Wl Fair 0.91 21.0 43.0 36.0 21.8 24.8

26 Miami silt loam Springfield, OH Good 0.91 27 Miller clay Bunkie, LA Poor 0.76 1.4 10.8 87.8 71.5 30.2

28 Montezuma clay adobe San Diego, CA Poor 1.02 29 Muck New Orleans, LA Very Poor 0.61 30 Muscatine silt loam Davenport, IA Poor 0.91 2.1 65.5 32.4 26.1 25.7

31 Norfolk fine sand Jacksonville, FL Good 0.61 97.3 2.1 0.6 1.8 32 Ontario loam Rochester, NY Good 1.22 42.1 42.1 15.8 8.2 15.9 33 Peat Milwaukee, Wl Very Poor 0.61 34 Penn silt loam Norristown, PA Fair 0.91 35 Romona loam Los Angeles, CA Good 0.91 35.9 37.3 26.0 19.3 22.2

36 Ruston sandy loam Meridian, MS Good 0.91 60.6 21.8 17.6 14.8 17.0 37 St. John's fine sand Jacksonville, FL Poor 0.76 90.6 4.9 4.5 4.3 3.3

38

Sassafras gravelly sandy

loam Camden, NJ Good 0.76

39 Sassafras silt loam Wilmington, DE Fair 0.76 42.1 42.6 15.3 8.7 18.9 40 Sharkey clay New Orleans, LA Poor 0.76 2.5 50.4 47.1 32.8 24.9

41 Summit silt loam Kansas City, MO Fair 0.91 3.0 56.7 40.3 35.0 24.7

42 Susquehanna clay Meridian, MS Poor 0.76 30.1 24.1 45.8 40.9 11.8 43 Tidal marsh Elizabeth, NJ Very Poor 0.91 44 Wabash silt loam Omaha, NB Good 0.76 2.4 66.4 31.2 25.8 22.1 45 Unidentified alkali soil Casper, WY Poor 0.76

46 Unidentified sandy loam Denver, CO Good 1.27 47 Unidentified silt loam Salt Lake City, UT Poor 0.91 9.0 44.9 46.1 27.7 45.5

NISTIR 7415 24 May 2, 2007
Table A2 - Site characterization variables, corrosion damage measures, original units, SI units,

conversion factors, and distribution type

Variable No.

Variable

Name

Original Units SI units Conversion

Distribution

Type

Note

1 Site No. NA NA NA NA Arbitrary

2 Soil NA NA NA NA

Named after first location and

particles size distr. 3 Location NA NA NA NA Actual location

4

Internal Drainage

NA NA NA NA

Arbitrary ranking based on site location, topography, and horizons. 5 Burial Depth ft m 0.3048 ft/m Normal Standard depth for burial location

6 Percent Sand

in Soil % % NA NA Particles 0.05-1 .0 mm dia

7

Percent Silt in Soil % % NA NA Particles 0.002-0.5 mm dia

8 Percent Clay

in Soil % % NA NA Particles <0.002 mm dia

9 Percent

Colloid in Soil % % NA NA

10

Percent Suspension

% % NA NA

11 ResistivityConductivity

ohm-cm S/m C=1/(R*0.01) Log-Normal

Measured at 60 °F(15.6°C)

Conductivity prefered for analysis

12 Temperature °F °C C=(F-32)*(5/9) Normal

13

Annual

Precipitation

in/yr mm/yr 25.4 mm/in Normal

Estimated from nearest location of measurements

14

Moisture

Equivalent

% % 1 Log-Normal

15

Air Pore Space

% % 1 Log-Normal

16

Density

(Specific

Gravity)

g/cm3 kg/m3 1000 Normal

Specific gravity units are that of the density of water.

17

Volume

Shrinkage

% % 1 Log-Normal

18 PH -log[mol/L] -log[mol/L] 1 Normal Hydrogen ion concnetration

19 Total Acidity mg-eq/100 g mol/kg 0.01 Log-Normal Measure of acid buffering

20 [Na+K] mg-eq/100 g mol/kg 0.01 Log-Normal

Soluble ions per unit mass of soil - [Na] and [K] expressed as Na

21 [Ca] mg-eq/100 g mol/kg 0.01 Log-Normal Soluble ions per unit mass of soil 22 [Mg] mg-eq/100 g mol/kg 0.01 Log-Normal Soluble ions per unit mass of soil 23 [C03] mg-eq/100 g mol/kg 0.01 Log-Normal Soluble ions per unit mass of soil 24 [HC03] mg-eq/100 g mol/kg 0.01 Log-Normal Soluble ions per unit mass of soil 25 [Cl] mg-eq/100 g mol/kg 0.01 Log-Normal Soluble ions per unit mass of soil 26 [S04] mq-eq/100 q mol/kq 0.01 Loq-Normal Soluble ions per unit mass of soil

A'

Corrosion

Mass Loss

(ML)

oz/ft

2 g/m2 2.634 NA

Measured after corrosion products

removed; exposure times varied; average of 2 samples.

A

Corrosion

Mass Loss

Rate (MLR)

NA g/m2/d A'/exp time Log-Normal

Assumes approximately linear (constant rate) behavior over exposure period

B'

Corrosion Penetraton (CP)

mils mm or ^/m 25.4 /jm/mil NA

Measured maximum penetration;

exposure times varied; average of 2 samples.

B

Corrosion Penetraton Rate (CPR)

NA mm/yr B'/exp time Log-Normal

Assumes approximately linear (constant rate) behavior over exposure period

C

Pitting Ratio

(PR)

NA m/m

CPR/(MLR*K)

K=0. 04647

Log-Normal

Rato of maximum penetration to mean calculated from mass loss and density

NISTIR 7415 25 May 2, 2007
Table A3 - Physical characteristics of soils at sites

Site No.Resistivity,

ohm-m

Mean

Temperature

°C

Annual

Precipitation

mm/yr

Moisture

Equivalent

%

Air-pore

Space %

Specific

Gravity

kg/m3

Volume

Shrinkage

%

1 12.2 9.6 859 28.6 1.1 6.6 2 6.8 18.6 919 37.6 2 1950 23

3 300.0 16.2 1227 29.1 18.2 1600 7

4 66.7 12.2 1016 22.2 7 1780 2.2 5 13.5 13.6 594 28.8 4.9 2000 22.6

6 451.0 10.6 864 12.2 40.6 1500 0.1 7 21.2 11.8 980 34.3 3.7 2020 34.5

8 3.5 3.9 533 37 8.7 1560 21 9 28.2 10.7 991 24.8 15.8 1740 5.6 10 74.6 10.0 1041 13 27.8 1580 0.2

11 110.0 13.0 1082 32 15.5 1490 8.6 12 31.9 16.9 386 12.4 33.5 0

13 2.9 18.1 142 21.7 34.5 0

14 35.2 6.8 691 17.2 14.4 1760 1 15 4.9 20.5 691 51.4 5.7 2080 39.8

16 82.9 19.6 1565 22.2 12 1650 0.6 17 59.8 12.8 1067 30.8 4.4 1720 5.4 18 14.1 10.3 706 28.4 16.6 1260 1.3 19 19.7 9.7 813 28.4 3.9 1760 11.8 20 28.7 9.6 859 22.4 3.8 1900 3.9 21 23.7 12.4 942 31.2 10.8 1660 6.5 22 51.5 16.4 1212 28.4 9.6 1670 3

23 2.8 18.3 152 24.7 6.1 1690 0.2 24 114.0 10.0 1041 13 34.7 1400 0

25 17.8 7.8 765 25.8 9.5 1950 7.6 26 29.8 11.7 940 16.4 20.9 1950 1 27 5.7 19.4 1422 42.6 1.9 2010 32.5

28 4.1 16.1 262 24.6 2.5 5.9 29 12.7 20.7 1458 34.5 26.6 5.8 30 13.0 9.9 815 29.4 7.2 1810 7.5

31 205.0 20.7 1204 2.8 38.1 1550 0

32 57.0 8.7 833 17.8 11.7 1850 0.1 33 8.0 7.8 765 72.8 34 16.9 34 49.0 12.2 1016 23.4 11.7 1820 8.4 35 20.6 16.9 386 18 10.9 1890 3.1 36 112.0 17.8 1346 13.8 16 1620 0

37 112.0 20.7 1204 7 0

38 386.0 12.2 1016 3 32.1 1590 0

39 74.4 12.2 1016 24.2 7.5 1720 3.8 40 9.7 20.7 1458 33 2.3 1780 16.4

41 13.2 12.4 942 33.1 6.9 1610 14.6 42 137.0 17.8 1346 34.8 14.9 1790 4.7 43 0.6 11.1 1092 55.4

44 10.0 10.3 706 31.2 7.2 1550 6

45 2.6 8.4 389 14.8 18.7 0

46 15.0 10.0 358 7.6 23.2 0

47 17.7 10.9 409 25.7 2.6 1720 3.7

NISTIR 7415 26 May 2, 2007
Table A4 - Chemical characteristics of soils at sites

Site No. pH

Total

Acidity,

mol/kq

Na+K as

[Na]

mol/kq

[Ca]

mol/kg

[Mg]

mol/kg

[C03] mol/kg

[HCOa]

mol/kg

[Cl] mol/kg

[S04] mol/kg

1 7.0 1. IE-01 7.2E-03 2.5E-03 4.3E-03 0.0E+00 9.0E-04 9.0E-04 8.3E-03

2 7.3 3.5E-02 2.8E-03 1. IE-02 1.3E-03 0.0E+00 1.2E-02 4.0E-04 1.8E-03

3 5.2 1.2E-01 4 5.6 7.6E-02

5 7.0 6.5E-02 9.3E-03 4.8E-03 0.0E+00 6.9E-03 3.0E-04 2.5E-03

6 5.9 1.3E-01 0.0E+00

7 4.4 3.0E-01 0.0E+00

8 7.6 1 .4E-02 1.7E-02 2.6E-02 0.0E+00 7.1E-03 1.0E-04 4.4E-02

9 6.8 7.2E-02

10 6.6 3.6E-02

11 5.3 1. IE-01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

12 7.1 2.5E-02 3.9E-03 5.0E-03 1.6E-03 0.0E+00 4.0E-03 0.0E+00 1.4E-03

13 9.5 6.2E-02 9.0E-04 1.3E-03 0.0E+00 1. IE-02 1.6E-02 3.8E-02

14 6.2 5.6E-02

15 7.5 5.0E-02 2.2E-02 8.8E-03 2.0E-03 0.0E+00 2.0E-02 1.3E-03 7.3E-03

16 4.4 1.2E-01

17 4.5 1.9E-01

18 7.3 1.4E-02 2.7E-03 6.3E-03 2.0E-03 0.0E+00 9.4E-03 0.0E+00 2.5E-03

19 4.6 1. IE-01 3.8E-03 3.2E-03 4.1E-03 0.0E+00 1.6E-03 3.0E-04 4.6E-03

20 7.5 1.5E-02 2.5E-03 4.8E-03 2.0E-03 0.0E+00 5.1E-03 0.0E+00 1.5E-03

21 6.2 9.5E-02

22 4.9 9.7E-02

23 9.4 8.4E-02 3.8E-03 2.2E-03 2.0E-04 1.9E-02 1. IE-02 5.6E-02

24 4.5 1.3E-01

25 7.2 4.7E-02 2.3E-03 7.0E-03 4.1E-03 0.0E+00 1 .0E-02 3.0E-04 1.0E-03

26 7.3 2.6E-02 2.7E-03 5.0E-03 3.1E-03 0.0E+00 7.0E-03 3.0E-04 1.2E-03

27 6.6 3.7E-02 5.3E-03 1.9E-02 1. IE-02 0.0E+00 2.0E-02 8.0E-04 1.5E-02

28 6.8 1.5E-02 6.0E-04 1.8E-03 0.0E+00 1 .2E-03 9.9E-03 8.9E-03

29 4.2 2.8E-01 2.2E-02 1.9E-02 1.6E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.7E-02 2.3E-02

30 7.0 2.6E-02 3.2E-03 6.5E-03 4.0E-03 0.0E+00 7. IE-03 9.0E-04 2.4E-03

31 4.7 1.8E-02

32 7.3 5.0E-03 2.3E-03 7.0E-03 1.2E-03 0.0E+00 7.3E-03 1.0E-04 4.2E-03

33 6.8 3.6E-01 1.5E-02 7.3E-02 4.1E-02 0.0E+00 2.3E-02 2.1E-02

34 6.7 7.0E-02

35 7.3 5.7E-02 6.8E-03 6.8E-03 4.9E-03 0.0E+00 1. IE-02 6.0E-04 3.5E-03

36 4.5 4.6E-02

37 3.8 1.5E-01 38 4.5 1.7E-02.

39 5.6 6.6E-02

40 6.0 9.4E-02 5.6E-03 5.8E-03 4.4E-03 0.0E+00 9.3E-03 7.0E-04 2.8E-03

41 5.5 1. IE-01 3.0E-03 5.4E-03 3.6E-03 0.0E+00 7.8E-03 4.0E-04 4.6E-03

42 4.7 2.8E-01

43 3.1 3.7E-01 4.5E-01 5.2E-02 9.5E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.3E-01 3.7E-01

44 5.8 8.8E-02 1. IE-02 1. IE-02 6.6E-03 0.0E+00 2.0E-02 8.2E-03 4.1E-03

45 7.4 8.2E-02 3.7E-02 7.0E-03 0.0E+00 2.4E-03 1.8E-03 1.2E-01

46 7.0 47 7.6 3.0E-02 6.7E-03 7.2E-03 3.9E-03 0.0E+00 8.8E-03 6.0E-04 4.8E-03

NISTIR 7415 27 May 2, 2007
Table A5 - Distribution and standard scores for physical characteristics of exposure sites.

Drain Cond Temp

Ann

Precip

Moist

Equiv

Pore

Spc

Density

Vol Shrink

Burial

Depth

Dist. NA lognrm norm norm lognrm lognrm norm lognrm norm Mean NA -1.39 13.37 883.43 1.35 1.00 1729.19 0.63 0.92

Std Dev NA 0.62 4.41 350.14 0.28 0.40 185.09 0.68 0.32

Units °C mm % % kg/m3 % m

Site No. Standardized Scores (Z) for Site Characteristics

Z(1/R) Z(T) N >3 Z (ME) Z(PS) Z (rho) Z(VS) Z (BD)

1 2 -0.70 -0.87 -0.07 0.39 -2.38 0.27 4.71 2 2 -1.05 1.19 0.10 0.82 -1.74 1.19 1.07 0.29

3 4 1.52 0.65 0.98 0.42 0.65 -0.70 0.31 -0.51 4 3 0.49 -0.26 0.38 -0.01 -0.38 0.27 -0.43 -0.03 5 2 -0.48 0.04 -0.83 0.40 -0.77 1.46 1.06 -0.51 6 4 2.60 -0.64 -0.06 -0.95 1.52 -1.24 -2.41 -0.03 7 3 0.10 -0.36 0.28 0.68 -1.07 1.57 1.33 -1.16 8 2 -1.20 -2.15 -1.00 0.80 -0.15 -0.91 1.02 2.38 9 2 0.15 -0.61 0.31 0.17 0.50 0.06 0.17 -1.16 10 3 0.65 -0.76 0.45 -0.85 1.11 -0.81 -1.97 -0.03

11 4 0.89 -0.08 0.57 0.57 0.48 -1.29 0.44 -0.03 12 3 0.34 0.80 -1.42 -0.93 1.31 -1.00 13 3 -1.48 1.08 -2.12 -0.04 1.34 -0.51 14 3 0.39 -1.50 -0.55 -0.41 0.40 0.17 -0.94 0.61 15 2 -1.06 1.62 -0.55 1.31 -0.60 1.90 1.43 -0.03 16 3 0.78 1.42 1.95 -0.01 0.20 -0.43 -1.26 -0.51 17 2 0.46 -0.13 0.52 0.51 -0.88 -0.05 0.14 -0.03 18 4 -0.25 -0.69 -0.51 0.38 0.55 -2.53 -0.77 0.93

19 4 -0.10 -0.83 -0.20 0.38 -1.01 0.17 0.65 -0.03 20 2 0.22 -0.87 -0.07 0.01 -1.04 0.92 -0.06 0.93

21 3 0.12 -0.21 0.17 0.53 0.09 -0.37 0.26 1.90 22 4 0.43 0.70 0.94 0.38 -0.04 -0.32 -0.23 -0.27 23 3 -1.75 1.13 -2.09 0.16 -0.53 -0.21 -1.97 -0.51 24 4 1.25 -0.76 0.45 -0.85 1.35 -1.78 -0.27 25 3 -0.11 -1.26 -0.34 0.23 -0.05 1.19 0.36 -0.03 26 4 0.23 -0.39 0.16 -0.49 0.80 1.19 -0.94 -0.03 27 2 -1.06 1.38 1.54 1.02 -1.79 1.52 1.30 -0.51 28 2 -1.07 0.62 -1.78 0.15 -1.49 0.20 0.29

29 1 -0.62 1.67 1.64 0.69 1.06 0.19 -1.00 30 2 -0.59 -0.78 -0.19 0.43 -0.35 0.44 0.36 -0.03 31 4 1.49 1.67 0.92 -3.27 1.45 -0.97 -1.00 32 4 0.44 -1.07 -0.14 -0.36 0.17 0.65 -2.41 0.93

33 1 -0.85 -1.26 -0.34 1.86 1.33 0.88 -1.00 34 3 0.42 -0.26 0.38 0.07 0.17 0.49 0.43 -0.03 35 4 0.02 0.80 -1.42 -0.34 0.10 0.87 -0.21 -0.03 36 4 1.02 1.00 1.32 -0.76 0.51 -0.59 -0.03 37 2 1.13 1.67 0.92 -1.83 -0.51 38 4 1.56 -0.26 0.38 -3.16 1.26 -0.75 -0.51 39 3 0.63 -0.26 0.38 0.13 -0.31 -0.05 -0.08 -0.51 40 2 -0.78 1.67 1.64 0.62 -1.58 0.27 0.86 -0.51 41 3 -0.52 -0.21 0.17 0.62 -0.40 -0.64 0.78 -0.03 42 2 1.36 1.00 1.32 0.70 0.43 0.33 0.06 -0.51 43 1 -2.04 -0.51 0.60 1.43 -0.03 44 4 -0.78 -0.69 -0.51 0.53 -0.35 -0.97 0.21 -0.51 45 2 -1.93 -1.12 -1.41 -0.65 0.68 -0.51 46 4 -0.18 -0.76 -1.50 -1.70 0.91 1.09 47 2 -0.14 -0.56 -1.36 0.22 -1.45 -0.05 -0.10 -0.03

NISTIR 7415 28 May 2, 2007
Table A6 - Distribution and standard scores for chemical characteristics of exposure sites.

pH

Tot Acid

[Na+K] [Ca] [Mg] [HC03] [Cl] [S04]

Dist. norm lognrm lognrm lognrm lognrm lognrm lognrm lognrm

Mean 6.16 -1.17 -2.04 -2.14 -2.35 -2.16 -2.93 -2.14 Std Dev 1.41 0.42 0.58 0.46 0.48 0.37 0.73 0.66

Units mol/L mol/kg mol/kg mol/kg mol/kg mol/kg mol/kg mol/kg

Standardized Scores (Z) for Site Characteristics

Site No. Z Z Z

(pH) Z (TA) Z [Na] Z [Ca] Z [Mg] [HC03] Z[CI] [S04]

1 0.59 0.55 -0.18 -1.00 -0.04 -2.36 -0.15 0.09

2 0.81 -0.68 -0.88 0.38 -1.12 0.62 -0.63 -0.92 3 -0.68 0.56

4 -0.40 0.12

5 0.59 -0.04 0.01 -0.39 0.00 -0.80 -0.70 6 -0.19 0.67

7 -1.25 1.55 8 1.02 0.32 0.81 1.57 0.03 -1.45 1.20 9 0.45 0.07

10 0.31 -0.65

11 -0.61 0.49

12 0.66 -1.04 -0.64 -0.35 -0.94 -0.63 -1.08 13 2.37 1.42 -1.96 -1.12 0.56 1.57 1.09 14 0.03 -0.19 15 0.95 -0.31 0.64 0.18 -0.73 1.23 0.07 0.01 16 -1.25 0.58

17 -1.18 1.09 18 0.81 -1.64 -0.91 -0.14 -0.73 0.36 -0.70 19 -1.11 0.50 -0.66 -0.77 -0.09 -1.69 -0.80 -0.30 20 0.95 -1.57 -0.97 -0.39 -0.73 -0.35 -1.04

21 0.03 0.36

22 -0.90 0.38

23 2.30 1.64 -0.61 -0.65 1.16 1.34 1.35 24 -1.18 0.65

25 0.74 -0.38 -1.03 -0.04 -0.09 0.44 -0.80 -1.31 26 0.81 -0.99 -0.91 -0.35 -0.34 0.02 -0.80 -1.19 27 0.31 -0.63 -0.41 0.88 0.82 1.23 -0.22 0.50

28 0.45 0.37 -2.34 -0.83 -2.03 1.27 0.14

29 -1.39 1.49 0.63 0.91 1.12 1.59 0.77

30 0.59 -0.99 -0.78 -0.11 -0.11 0.03 -0.15 -0.73

31 -1.04 -1.38 32 0.81 -2.71 -1.03 -0.04 -1.20 0.07 -1.45 -0.36 33 0.45 1.75 0.38 2.16 1.99 1.76 0.72

34 0.38 0.04

35 0.81 -0.18 -0.22 -0.06 0.08 0.54 -0.39 -0.48 36 -1.18 -0.40 37 -1.68 0.85

38 -1.18 -1.44 39 -0.40 -0.02 40 -0.12 0.35 -0.37 -0.21 -0.02 0.35 -0.30 -0.63

41 -0.47 0.51 -0.83 -0.28 -0.20 0.14 -0.63 -0.30 42 -1.04 1.49 43 -2.17 1.77 2.89 1.84 2.75 2.61 44 -0.26 0.28 0.10 0.37 0.35 1.22 1.16 -0.37 45 0.88 1.62 1.53 0.40 -1.22 0.26 1.86 46 0.59 47 1.02 -0.84 -0.23 -0.01 -0.13 0.28 -0.39 -0.27

NISTIR 7415 29 May 2, 2007
Table A7 - Site soil horizons

Site No.

Burial

Depth,

m

Hori zon

Depth

Range in DepthRange m

Horizon Description

Int. Drain

age

Topography

1 0 8 0.00 0.20

grayish yellow or yellowish gray silt loam mottled with yellow and yellowish brown 2 8 23 0.20 0.58

mottled yellow and gray silty clay loam which contains fragments of shale 3 23 30 0.58 0.76

bluish gray silty clay loam with bands of yellow indicating the bedding planes of the shale.

1 2.41 4 30 70 0.76 1.78

silty clay or silty clay loam layer of shale which has a bluish gray color and is streaked along bedding planes with Poor

Undulating to gently rolling 5 70 76 1.78 1.93 reddish brown shale streaked with gray

6 76 90 1.93 2.29

compact bluish gray shale with yellowish brown and

reddish brown streaks

7 90 100 2.29 2.54

the streaks become less conspicuous. This shale runs

high in aluminum sulfate, which, with water, breaks down

into aluminum hydroxide and sulfuric acid.

1 0 10 0.00 0.25 black to dark brown silty clay

2 1.02 2 10 740 0.25

black clay. No definitely residual matter was discovered 18.80 within 40 inches. Small rounded quartzite gravel and lime concentrations disseminated through the subsoil

Poor Level

1 0 8 0.00 0.20

grayish brown, rather compact, very fine sandy loam. A few

fragments of granite and quartz found on the surface. 2 8 10 0.20 0.25 transition layer into... 3 10 32 0.25 0.81 compact brittle red clay containing very few mica flakes and practically no sand and stones

0.76

4 32 48 0.81 1.22

micaceous, more friable, and not as compact as above

horizon, red clay loam or clay. Little Exces

Moderate

3

5 48 52 1.22 1.32 layer of sandy clay with yellowish mottlings slope

6 52 70 1.32 1.78 red micaceous clay as in 32-48 sive 7 70 74 1.78 1.88 red very fine sandy loam with yellowish mottlings

8 74 90 1.88 2.29

Moderately friable red very fine sandy loam, full of mica

crystals, and having a few brownish and yellowish

mottlings due to partially decomposed rock. 9 96 108 2.44 2.74 very friable fine sandy loam, mottled yellow, red, and

1 0 6 0.00 0.15

The top 6 inches of the trench is a mixture of road material and soil. No vegetation.

2 0 10 0.00 0.25

grayish brown mellow loam gradually getting lighter in color with increasing depth.

4 0.91 3 10 34 0.25 0.86

mellow, only slightly darker in color and heavier in texture

with increasing depth.

Good Gently rolling

4 34 96 0.86 2.44

micaeous rather loose friable silt loam containing considerable fine sand. At 36 inches there is a layer of

partially decomposed granite.

1 1 10 0.03 0.25

dark dull grey or drab clay of adobe structure, sticky when

wet, contains numerous plant and grass roots and a

appreciable amount of fine gritty material and gravel

5 0.76

2 10 36 0.25 0.91

slightly more compact brownish gray or drab friable clay which is sticky when wet. Somewhat mottled with brown and dull slaty gray or black streaks. It contains spherical

shotlike iron concretions of black or bluish black color, ranging in size from a pinhead to small buckshot. Poor

Smooth and

level

3 36 48 0.91 1.22

soil grades into a yellowish brown slity clay material. This

horizon is mildly calcerous and is the upper limit of lime

4 48 60 1.22 1.52

yellowish brown compact clay containing many light grayish fragments of lime carbonate nodules localized in thin seams or layers, the material being partially cemented.

NISTIR 7415 30 May 2, 2007
Table A7 - Site soil horizons

Site No.

Burial

Depth,

m

Hori zonDepth

Range in Depth

Range m

Horizon Description

Int. Drain

age

Topography

1 0 8 0.00 0.20

brown to light brown sandy loam darkened by presence of organic matter.

6 0.91 2 8 24 0.20 0.61

light brown sandy loam; Both this and the above horizon

contain little gravel and considerable coarse sand. Both

horizons are loose and friable and contain numerous grass Exces

sive

Moderately

rolling

3 24 30 0.61 0.76

grayish brown gravelly sandy loam. Slightly compact.

Below 30 inches hard and cemented gravel and sand, with very little lime of a grayish brown color.

1 0 5 0.00 0.13 brownish yellow friable silty clay loam

2 5 15 0.13 0.38

brownish yellow smooth, plastic, heavy, moderately tight clay mottled light grey. The mottles are of moderate extent and development and occur in small irregular veins. The

soil material fractures into irregularly shaped lumps,

ranging in size from 0.5 to 1.5 inches in diameter. 7 0.56

3 15 22 0.38 0.56

brownish yellow or yellowish sticky, plastic, slowly pervious

moderately compact heavier clay containing a moderate amount of light grey mottles. It has a fragmental structure forming hard, irregularaggregates from 0.5 to 1.5 inches in

Fair Smooth ridge

top

4 22 30 0.56 0.76

varicolored bluish grey and olive-green tight smooth,

plastic, very heavy clay or silty clay having occasional

staining of rust yellow. This layer has been developed

from the weathering of underlying shale rock materials.

1 0 24 0.00 0.61

black noncalcareous clay loam. Rather friable. Breaks with concoidal fracture into pea-size pieces. 2 24 42 0.61 1.07

calcareous transition layer with tongues of both horizons extending into the layer. 8 1.68

3 42 88 1.07 2.24

grayish brown heavy clay loam. Light gray when dry-highly calcareous. Poor Level

4 88 + 2.24 +

parent material of old lake laid deposits; grayish brown

color containing rusty brown streaks and mottlings; few

hard concretions that are largely lime.

1 0 10 0.00 0.25 brownish gray silt loam, slightly streaked with reddish

9 0.56

2 10 16 0.25 0.41

gray loam streaked reddish brown and mottled yellowish brown and brownish yellow. Poor

3 16 22 0.41 0.56

transition to fine sandy loam mottled reddish brown. At 22

bed of gray gravel

1 Surface-light brown sandy loam. 10 0.91 2

Subsoil-light grayish brown fine sandy loam containing some gravel.Fair

1 0 12 0.00 0.30 dark brown or brown friable loam.

2 12 33 0.30 0.84

reddish brown or red clay loam. Moderately compact.

Contains fragments of stone, chert. 11 0.91 3 33 + 0.84 +

moderately friable rusty brown heavy silt loam with a

reddish cast. This extends to the underlying rock, which is rather clear, crystalline, and hard (not limestone).

Good Slight Slope

In one place in the trench the rock is at a depth of about 4

12 0.61

The entire profile is a grayish brown friable, loose, micaceous fine sandy loam containing thin layers of material as heavy as loam and as tight as sand. Noncalcareous at surface, and only faintly calcareous at 6 Good Practically Level

This soil differs from soil 13 in that it does not contain

soluble carbonates in appreciable amount.

NISTIR 7415 31 May 2, 2007
Table A7 - Site soil horizons

Site No.

Burial

Depth,

m

Hori zon Depth

Range in Depth

Range m

Horizon Description

Int. Drain

age

Topography

1 0 56 0.00 1.42

light grayish brown smooth, friable, micaceous very fine sandy loam. 2 56 62 1.42 1.57 light grayish brown very fine sand. 13a 0.76 3 62 68 1.57 1.73 same as 0-56. Fair Almost Level 4 68 72 1.73 1.83 same as 56-62. The soil is high in alkali in the carbonate form, and formerly

called black alkali.

1 0 6 0.00 0.15 grayish brown very slightly compacted loam.

13b 2 6 84 0.15 2.13

light grayish brown friable loose micaceous very fine sandy

loam. Numerous roots in first 3 feet. Few light colored Good

Very Gentle

Undulating A special set of specimens are buried at the site. The

profile is similar to site 13a, but differs by being low in alkali

1 0 15 0.00 0.38 dark brown (almost black) silt loam.

14 1.12 2 15 24 0.38 0.61

transition layer consisting of tongues and streaks of the two adjoining horizons extending into each other. Fair Very Gentle

3 24 42 0.61 1.07 brown silt loam with yellowish cast, slightly compact. Undulating

4 42 + 1.07 + grayish brown sand containing some gravel. Entire profile is noncalcareous.

15 0.91 1 0 36 0.00 0.91

black clay with no appreciable change. Highly calcareous. Small fragments of lime are found throughout the section. Poor

1 0 8 0.00 0.20

grayish brown fine sandy loam, which appears to have been disturbed.

16 0.76

2 8 42 0.20 1.07

yellowish brown very fine sandy loam. Texture gradually gets finer and compactness increases with depth, home

reddish mottlings and a few iron concretions about A inch

in diameter, which are most numerous at about 3 feet and Fair Gentle Slope

3 42 48 1.07 1.22 brownish yellow or yellow silt loam mottled with red. 4 48 96 1.22 2.44

mottled red, gray, and yellow material containing thin layers of clay and fine sand but with the average texture of Below 72 inches the color is light yellowish brown with light gray mottlings.

1 0 6 0.00 0.15

grayish brown loam or silt loam without structure. Moderately loose and friable. 2 6 14 0.15 0.36 transition layer, slightly compact clay loam.

17 0.91

3 14 48 0.36 1.22

light yellowish brown rather compact clay loam with concoidal fracture exposing shiny surfaces. Slightly mottled with gray. Texture gets a little lighter with Fair Gentle Slope

4 48 74 1.22 1.88 brown fine sandy loam with slight reddish cast. 5 74 76 1.88 1.93 light gray clayey sand. 6 76 96 1.93 2.44 brown sand almost saturated with water. 7 96 + 2.44 + gravel. Entire profile is noncalcareous.

1 0 8 0.00 0.20

dark brown silt loam full of brickbats, plaster, rotten wood,

etc. The surface soil partly removed and mixed with foreign

18 1.22 2 8 72 0.20 1.83

light brown very uniform smooth friable silt loam that gets a

little lighter in color with depth. Moderately moist. Contains

a few brown spots due to rotten roots at 8 to 24 inches. Very faintly calcareous at 48 inches and below.

Good

Practically Level

1 0 4 0.00 0.10 dark brown silt loam, friaole and full of organic matter. . 2 4 18 0.10 0.46 slightly compact heavy silt loam, yellowish brown. 3 18 34 0.46 0.86 transition layer into. .

IQ 0.91 4 24 50 0.61 1.27

rather compact more yellowish brown clay containing a few

dark-colored specks. Good

Moderate

5 50 76 1.27 1.93

grayish brown clay loam with bright yellow mottlings and a few white specks. Less compact than above. Slope

6 76 84 1.93 2.13

gritty material of variable texture and color, containing light colored cherty material. 7 84 2.13 large boulder or gravel.

NISTIR 7415 32 May 2, 2007
Table A7 - Site soil horizons

Site No.

Burial

Depth,

m

Hori zonDepth

Range in Depth

Range m

Horizon Description

Int. Drain

age

Topography

1 0 4 0.00 0.10 brownish gray heavy silt loam or light silty clay loam. .

2 4 8 0.10 0.20

pinkish red clay, mottled brownish yellow, yellow, yellowish

brown, and gray. 20 1.22 3 8 24 0.20 0.61

mottled drabbish gray-yellow, brownish yellowy and

yellowish brown clay. Poor

Gently

Undulating

4 24 46 0.61 1.17 drabbish gray clay, mottled with brownish yellow, and

5 46 50 1.17 1.27

mottled gray, brownish yellow, and yellowish brown, calcareous clay.

1 0 28 0.00 0.71 brown or chocolate brown friable, uniform silt loam. . 2 28 36 0.71 0.91 transition layer.

21 1.52 3 36 84 0.91 2.13

light brown silt loam very uniform and smooth. Noncalcareous to 6 feet. Good Moderately

Rolling

4 84 + 2.13 +

light brown noncalcareous clay slightly mottled with grayish brown.

22 0.84

1 0 4 0.00 0.10

light brown silt loam containing thin discontinuous layers of darker color probably, due to the turning under of organic

matter when the soil was cultivated. Good

Very Gently

Undulating 2 4 96 0.10 2.44

light brown slightly compact silt loam with some grayish

mottlings but no hard lime concretions. Very uniform in

1 0 14 0.00 0.36

dark brown (almost black) silt loam. 1/4-inch crust, 3-inch mulch, which is underlaid by slightly compact very lightly moist material with no definite structure.

23 0.76 2 14 72 0.36 1.83

light gray loam, moderately compact and moist with some

what lighter texture and a more open structure below 48

inches, where thin layers of sandy loam occur. Friable and

Fair Level

Thin layers of grayish brown sand occur at 60 inches. Location has all indications of a soil high in alkali. Highly calcareous up to surface. 24 0.84

1 0 4 0.00 0.10 brown loam containing considerable sand and coarse Good

2 4 33 0.10 0.84 grayish coarse sand or fine gravel.

1 0 6 0.00 0.15 grayish brown silt loam.

25 0.91 2 6 30 0.15 0.76

yellowish brown, stiff, heavy clay loam to clay, containing a

small amount of gritty material. Fair

3 30 48 0.76 1.22

slightly calcareous brownish yellow heavy clay loam,

somewhat lighter than the above and also contains some

1 0 2 0.00 0.05 grayish brown silt loam. 2 2 7 0.05 0.18 brownish gray to yellowish-gray silt loam. 3 7 10 0.18 0.25 gray silt loam mottled faintly with yellow. 4 10 16 0.25 0.41 mottled yellow and gray silt loam. 26 0.91 5 16 24 0.41 0.61 brown clay loam to clay mottled brownish yellow and

yellowish brown. Good

6 24 36 0.61 0.91 reddish brown stiff clay.

7 36 48 0.91 1.22

yellowish brown gravelly friable clay, somehwat calcareous

in the lower part of the layer.

27 0.76

Dull red heavy calcareous clay extending down below the depth at which the specimens are buried. Soil map shows

Miller clay at this location and a sample of the soil was

identified as typical Miller clay.

Very

Poor

Level

1 0 8 0.00 0.20 filled material-brickbats, gravel, etc.

28 1.02

2 8 46 0.20 1.17

gray or light grayish-brown adobe containing some gritty material and gravel in the first foot. N oncalcareous. Poor

Level to Gently

Rollling

3 46 50 1.17 1.27 light gray sandy clay, somewhat sticky. 4 50 60 1.27 1.52 grayish brown or yellowish brown gravelly sand. 5 60 + 1.52 + gravel.

NISTIR 7415 33 May 2, 2007
Table A7 - Site soil horizons

Site No.

Burial

Depth,

m

Hori zonDepth

Range in DepthRange m

Horizon Description

Int. Drain

age

Topography

Surface - to varying depths consists of dark colored

material of variable texture, most of which is fill.

29 0.61

Subsoil - black, semifluid mass of well-decomposed mulch

which rests upon an almost solid mat of old cypress stumps and roots that are in an excellent state of

Very Poor

Substratum - stiff, putty-like gray clay. The land was originally a cypress swamp.

1 0 6 0.00 0.15 dark brown silt loam (grayish brown when dry). 30 0.91 2 6 72 0.15 1.83

gray or grayish brown silt loam with yellow mottlings that are evenly distributed and containing a few brown specks. Non-calcareous throughout.

Poor Level

1 0 4 0.00 0.10 grayish brown fine sand containing organic matter. 2 0 15 0.00 0.38

gradual transition into very slightly compact, very pale

yellow sand. Deepest in color and more compact at 15 31 0.61 3 15 + 0.38 +

compactness gradually decreases and the color gets a

little lighter. Slight yellow mottlings at 60 inches. The same

sand probably extends to 20 or 30 feet. This soil was

called Norfolk sand in previous soil corrosion reports.

Good Almost Level

1 0 8 0.00 0.20

brown to grayish brown (when dry) mellow and friable, fine sandy loam to fine sand. 2 8 18 0.20 0.46

slightly more compact, though crumbly loam to fine sandy

loam, light brown to yellowish brown in color.

32 1.22 3 18 33 0.46 0.84

grayish brown to brownish gray compact loam in place, though friable when bored out. Good

Gently

Sloping to 4 33 + 0.84 + partially weathered till material. Undulating

Parent material from which the soil is derived is largely limestone, with some sandstone, shale, and igneous rocks. Gravel and small stones are abundant in lower portions. The soil is cal-careous at from 15 to 24 inches.

33 0.61

A black well-decomposed peat 30 to 36 inches deep,

where it rests on a drab or bluish plastic clay loam. The

lower part of the section was saturated with water. The

peat merges into Clyde loam, the line of separation being

rather indefinite. A sample of this soil lost 42 percent on

Very Poor

1 0 8 0.00 0.20 brown or dark brown silt loam. 2 8 24 0.20 0.61 reddish brown silt loam containing considerable sand. 34 0.91 3 24 38 0.61 0.97 slightly lighter in color than above layer. Fair Gentle Slope

4 38 56 0.97 1.42 Indian red or reddish-brown silt loam. 5 56 + 1.42 + shale.

1 0 22 0.00 0.56

light brown moderately compact loam w

A

ith slight reddish

tint and a slight admixture of organic matter to 2 inches of surface. Very dry. 35 0.91 2 22 54 0.56 1.37

slightly moist, hard, gritty, compact, brittle, reddish brown

clay loam containing numerous white specks.

Good

Moderately

Rolling

3 54 72 1.37 1.83

light reddish brown or light-brown gritty silt loam. White specks present but not as compact as horizon above.

Entire profile is noncalcareous.

1 0 8 0.00 0.20 light brown, loose, friable sandy loam. .

36 0.91 2 8 30 0.20 0.76

brownish red or rusty brown heavy fine sandy loam. Rather compact and hard. - Good

Gently

3 30 60 0.76 1.52 reddish brown, rather compact, heavy fine sandy loam. . . . Rolling 4 60 96 1.52 2.44 mottled red and yellow compact heavy fine sandy loam. . . No gravel or stones present in the profile.

NISTIR 7415 34 May 2, 2007
Table A7 - Site soil horizons

Site No.

Burial

Depth,

m

Hori zonDepth

Range in Depth

Range m

Horizon Description

Int. Drain

age

Topography

1 0 2 0.00 0.05

dark gray or grayish brown fine sand. The organic matter

imparts the dark color.

37 0.76

2 2 10 0.05 0.25

the material merges into a rather compact yellowish layer having a distinct lower boundary. The organic matter decreases with depth and the yellow color becomes

brighter. The yellow sand contains a few very hard round

black iron con-cretions about 1/4 inch in diameter that are Poor

Practically Level

3 10 28 0.25 0.71

light gray slightly compact fine sand which becomes lighter with increasing depth and is almost white at 28 inches. 4 28 36 0.71 0.91

dark brown hard compact iron cemented hardpan with the

characteristic coffee ground color. 5 36 60 0.91 1.52 pale yellow fine sand saturated with water.

1 0 8 0.00 0.20

grayish brown gravelly sandy loam which gradually

changes into a light yellowish brown or yellowish gray.

2 8 28 0.20 0.71

light gray or yellowish brown gravelly sandy loam which is darker than the horizon below. Moderate

38 0.76 3 28 96 0.71 2.44 light gray gravelly sandy loam with faint yellow cast. . Good Uniform

Entire profile is loose and open and is noncalcareous. The

amount of gravel is rather small for a gravelly type soil. The

size. -of the gravel varies up to 8 inches in diameter and is

all smooth and water-worn.

Slope

This soil has been so disturbed that an accurate,

description of the profile is impossible.

39 0.76

1 0 12 0.00 0.30 grayish brown moderately friable silt loam. Fair

Practically

2 0 30+ 0.00 +

slightly yellowish-brown silt loam which extends below the specimens. The trench bottom shows considerable gravel and a little gravel exists throughout the profile.Level

1 0 8 0.00 0.20

dark brown or brown clay loam containing organic matter and full of grass roots. Rather compact. 2 8 30 0.20 0.76 stiff, plastic gray clay mottled with rusty colored material. Gently

40 0.76 3 No definite hard iron concretions. Poor Undulating to

4 30 60 0.76 1.52

gray silt loam mottled with rusty brown. The rusty colored spots get lighter in color with depth and practically disappeared at 60 inches.

Level

1 0 22 0.00 0.56 very uniform and smooth brown silt loam. 2 22 36 0.56 0.91 light brown smooth silt loam. . 41 0.91 3 36 108 0.91 2.74 light brown uniform silt loam faintly mottled with grayish Fair Gentle Slope

Noncalcareous to 9 feet at which depth the soil is underlain by shale. Top soil corroded away.

1 0 6 0.00 0.15 rather compact but friable light reddish brown clay. 42 0.76 2 6 45 0.15 1.14

mottled red, yellow, and gray very hard compact clay that has a cubical structure. Fair Steep Slope

3 45 56 1.14 1.42 mottled red, yellow and gray heavy silt loam. 4 56 84 1.42 2.13 same as 6-45.

43 0.91

Entire soil profile, and especially the surface foot, contains

a large percentage of undecayed organic matter and has a black color when wet. Upon drying the color changes to grayish brown. The soil contains hydrogen sulfide and a considerable amount of soluble salts, but no lime. The

surface portion of the soil lost 20.7 percent on ignition.

Very Poor

Level

44 0.76

Except for the addition of grass roots to the top 8 to 12

inches, the entire profile consists of a uniform dark brown

silt loam (black when wet) or silty clay loam, to a depth of

at least 8 feet. Non-calcareous throughout.

Good

Practically Level

NISTIR 7415 35 May 2, 2007
Table A7 - Site soil horizons

Site No.

Burial

Depth,

m

Hori zon

Depth

Range in Depth

Range m

Horizon Description

Int. Drain

age

Topography

1 0 6 0.00 0.15

light gray to light grayish brown sand to heavy silt loam.

Little organic matter. 2 6 20 0.15 0.51 brown to grayish brown heavy, compact, gritty clay. Plastic and waxy when wet, but becomes hard and tough when

45 0.76 3 20 30 0.51 0.76

abrupt change to a light gray sandy clay. More friable than upper horizon due to higher sand content. Poor Level 4 30 48 0.76 1.22

sand content decreases, color slightly darker and texture more compact than above horizon. Type is highly alkaline, and white streaks and splotches of concentrated salts occur abundantly throughout the profile except in the surface soil.

1 0 12 0.00 0.30 brown or light brown sandy loam. 2 12 14 0.30 0.36 layer of brickbats and debris. 3 14 20 0.36 0.51 light brown sandy loam. All the above material is loose and Very Gentle,

Uniform

Slope

46 1.27 4 20 22 0.51 0.56

hard compact layer of cinders. All the above material is full and the next horizon is probably the original surface of the Good

5 22 36 0.56 0.91 hard, compact brown sandy loam.

6 36 120 0.91 3.05

light brown sandy loam which gets a little lighter in color and is calcareous below 60 inches, where it is slightly

1 0 12 0.00 0.30

grayish brown or brown silt loam containing considerable

organic matter. Highly calcareous at all depths.

47 0.91 2 12 72 0.30 1.83

light gray moderately compact clay containing occasional

mottlings of brownish yellow and reddish brown. A few lime concretions and occasional water-worn pebbles that are

partly coated with lime are present.

Poor

Moderate

Slope

NISTIR 7415 36 May 2, 2007
Table B1 - Sample Designations, Sizes, Alloys, and Compositions

Sample

Alloy Material Desgn.

Form

Norn.* Length

Dia. (in) (in) L*ng

,' h Thk.

(m

> (in)

WaU Alloy Composition, Mass Fraction in %

yhk (Balance Fe)

(mm) c Si Mn S P Cu

Open-Hearth

a 7

Iron Pipe

Pipe 1.5** 6.0 0.152 0.145 3.68 0.020 0.090 Td 0.050 0.010 0.014

Wrought Iron b Pipe, Hand

Puddled

Pipe 1.5** 6.0 0.152 0.145 3.68 0.030 0.150 Td 0.023 0.145 0.020

Bessemer

Steel Pipe

Pipe 1.5** 6.0 0.152 0.145 3.68 0.090 - 0.390 0.040 0.088

Bessemer

y Steel Pipe

Pipe 1.5** 6.0 0.152 0.145 3.68 - 0.380 0.050 0.092

Wrought Iron B Pipe, Hand

Puddled

Pipe 3*** 6.0 0.152 0.216 5.49 0.020 0.150 0.033 0.022 0.195 0.030

Open-hearth

Steel Pipe

Pipe 3*** 6.0 0.152 0.216 5.49 0.120 - 0.410 0.036 0.043

Bessemer

Steel Pipe

Pipe 3*** 6.0 0.152 0.216 5.49 0.080 - 0.400 0.038 0.098

CopperY bearing Steel Pipe

Pipe 3*** 6.0 0.152 0.216 5.49 0.070 - 0.240 0.032 0.008 0.220

* The nominal diameters and wall thicknesses for these samples correspond to ASME (ANSI) B36.10

Schedule 40 Pipe. Since the dimension in this schedule were adopted in the early 1900s from the iron pipe standards (IPS) adopted in the early 1800s, these samples almost certainly conformed to the nominal pipe

sizes (NPS) of this schedule.

** NPS 1.5 inch pipe: External Diameter=1.900 in (48.26 mm), Wall Thickness=0.145 in (3.68 mm), Internal Diameter=1 .610 in (40.89 mm), External Area per Unit Length^ 0.497 ft (0.152 m)

*** NPS 3.0 inch pipe: External Diameter=3.500 in (88.90 mm), Wall Thickness=0.216 in (5.49 mm), Internal Diameter=3.068 in (78.93 mm), External Area per Unit Length= 0.916 ft (0.279 m)

t Trace: This usually means that the element was detected, but at too low a level to quantify. However, the detection limits or uncertainty levels of the eqipment were not specified.

NISTIR 7415 37 May 2, 2007
Table B2 - Measured Sample Mass Loss (pg. 1 of 6)

Site No.

Exp

Time

yrs

Mass Loss (q/m2

)

- 2 Sample Average

Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe

b e Nom. 3.0 in. PipeK M

Site Averaqe for Retrieval (g/m2

) Std. Mean _ Min. Max. Range

Dev. M

1.0 336 366 336 336 366 427 397 366 366 33 336 427 92

3.6 1007 1221 1190 1190 1282 1282 1312 1160 1205 96 1007 1312 305

1 5.5 1343 1678 1678 1434 1648 1648 1556 1404 1549 136 1343 1678 336

7.7 1526 2075 2075 2014 2014 1709 2258 2014 1961 232 1526 2258 732

9.6 2472 2868 2960 2685 2868 3082 2716 2777 2804 186 2472 3082 610

11.6 2716 2685 2136 2838 2899 2899 3540 2685 2800 386 2136 3540 1404

2.1 580 610 549 732 580 671 671 549 618 67 549 732 183

4.0 885 915 915 915 1068 824 946 763 904 89 763 1068 305

o

5.9 1160 1282 1190 1038 1099 1221 1282 1282 1194 91 1038 1282 244

7.9 1160 1129 1129 1099 1129 946 1190 702 1060 162 702 1190 488

12.0 1831 2167 1770 1800 1922 1648 2014 1800 1869 161 1648 2167 519

17.6 2380 2563 2380 2472 2472 2350 2167 2258 2380 126 2167 2563 397

2.0 458 549 519 610 488 610 641 519 549 65 458 641 183

4.1 885 977 1007 1068 1099 1007 1099 1190 1041 93 885 1190 305

3

6.0 977 1282 1129 1068 1160 1099 1099 1282 1137 104 977 1282 305

8.0 1129 1343 1282 1190 1129 1251 1373 1160 1232 95 1129 1373 244

10.1 1282 1404 1312 1251 977 1099 1160 1221 1213 133 977 1404 427

12.1 1129 1495 1434 1556 1404 1282 1312 1373 1373 134 1129 1556 427

1.4 458 366 458 427 427 427 427 458 431 30 366 458 92

4.0 1129 1068 1068 1068 1129 1129 1068 1129 1099 33 1068 1129 61 4 6.1 1373 1343 1343 1404 1434 1404 1343 1495 1392 54 1343 1495 153

8.0 1587 1648 1648 1617 1678 1678 1648 1770 1659 54 1587 1770 183

12.0 2136 2014 2136 1892 2167 2136 2106 2289 2109 116 1892 2289 397

1.9 336 275 397 427 305 305 275 305 328 56 275 427 153

4.1 458 671 763 732 671 641 671 641 656 91 458 763 305

5

6.2 1495 1526 1373 1465 1495 1190 1465 1343 1419 112 1190 1526 336

8.1 1800 2106 1526 1587 1587 1739 1770 1648 1720 184 1526 2106 580

12.1 1984 2319 2136 1648 1953 2228 2228 2167 2083 215 1648 2319 671

17.5 2197 2899 2167 2533 2868 3387 2624 2807 2685 400 2167 3387 1221

1.9 61 61 31 61 31 61 61 61 53 14 31 61 31

4.1 214 214 275 244 153 214 153 153 202 46 153 275 122

6

6.2 183 183 244 214 183 244 275 244 221 36 183 275 92

8.1 244 275 305 244 275 244 275 275 267 22 244 305 61

12.1 305 366 427 275 336 336 458 397 362 62 275 458 183

17.5 671 488 610 458 580 580 580 610 572 69 458 671 214

1.0 153 214 183 183 183 153 214 183 183 23 153 214 61

3.5 732 763 732 732 824 885 763 763 774 54 732 885 153

7 7.7 1221 1312 1343 1129 1282 1190 1282 1282 1255 70 1129 1343 214

11.5 1526 1556 1495 1312 1465 1495 1709 1709 1533 130 1312 1709 397

16.9 2319 1678 1770 1953 1709 1739 1556 1556 1785 250 1556 2319 763

1.1 214 214 214 244 214 183 244 214 217 20 183 244 61 3.8 580 580 610 610 519 519 580 549 568 36 519 610 92

5.8 977 977 885 793 885 946 1007 1007 935 75 793 1007 214

7.7 1007 1007 977 977 1251 1068 1282 1312 1110 146 977 1312 336

9.9 1556 1556 1404 1404 1587 1617 1709 1709 1568 118 1404 1709 305

11.8 2563 2106 2350 1984 2655 2411 2533 2685 2411 254 1984 2685 702

NISTIR 7415 38 May 2 , 2007
Table B2 - Measured Sample Mass Loss (pg. 2 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Mass Loss (a/m2

) - 2 Sample Average Site Average for Retrieval (g/m2) Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

1.0 183 366 214 275 183 183 183 153 217 70 153 366 214

3.5 519 702 702 610 580 366 580 519 572 109 366 702 336

Q

5.5 671 702 732 702 793 824 824 793 755 60 671 824 153

7.7 977 1038 977 915 1068 1038 977 946 992 52 915 1068 153

11.5 1434 1465 1587 1526 1495 1526 1404 1434 1484 61 1404 1587 183

16.9 1648 1831 1770 1648 1678 1648 1556 1587 1671 90 1556 1831 275

1.3 427 366 366 397 336 305 427 366 374 42 305 427 122

4.0 427 641 824 366 519 366 793 488 553 181 366 824 458

10 6.1 1038 1038 1068 1038 1038 1129 1038 1038 1053 33 1038 1129 92

7.9 1343 1312 1373 1373 1434 1404 1404 1404 1381 39 1312 1434 122

12.0 1312 1648 1495 1343 1465 1343 1495 1556 1457 117 1312 1648 336

1.4 92 153 122 153 122 122 122 122 126 20 92 153 61

4.0 427 336 336 366 305 275 305 275 328 51 275 427 153

6.0 336 427 427 397 397 427 397 458 408 36 336 458 122

7.8 305 671 580 458 458 427 488 427 477 109 305 671 366

10.0 427 519 610 610 519 549 488 458 523 66 427 610 183

11.9 519 824 641 580 610 610 519 671 622 98 519 824 305

1.9 61 61 122 92 61 61 92 61 76 23 61 122 61

4.1 427 580 488 610 458 458 397 488 488 73 397 610 214

6.2 977 702 1038 915 1007 854 824 885 900 109 702 1038 336

8.0 305 427 275 305 275 244 244 336 301 60 244 427 183

12.1 1038 1343 1251 1190 1221 1099 1099 1007 1156 115 1007 1343 336

17.5 2197 1709 1831 1709 1648 1465 1617 1800 1747 214 1465 2197 732

1.9 763 915 1129 1038 1190 1373 1007 1251 1083 194 763 1373 610

4.2 824 2136 1190 1007 915 702 1343 1434 1194 457 702 2136 1434

5.9 1984 2533 2045 2258 1678 1861 2380 2624 2170 333 1678 2624 946

1.1 92 122 122 153 122 153 122 122 126 20 92 153 61 3.8 610 763 793 732 702 671 671 610 694 67 610 793 183

5.8 732 1129 1099 946 1038 977 946 885 969 126 732 1129 397

7.7 610 1129 763 671 580 519 1007 702 748 214 519 1129 610

9.9 1160 1953 1373 1617 1526 1221 1404 1099 1419 280 1099 1953 854

11.8 1251 1373 1587 1373 1465 1312 1404 1434 1400 101 1251 1587 336

2.0 732 641 702 641 671 702 824 824 717 73 641 824 183

4.0 1099 915 915 977 946 1038 1160 946 999 90 915 1160 244

1 R

5.9 1892 1861 1709 1648 1892 1739 1587 1953 1785 133 1587 1953 366

8.0 1526 1434 1648 1678 1770 1739 1556 1526 1610 117 1434 1770 336

12.0 2472 2594 2350 2380 2533 2502 2472 2777 2510 133 2350 2777 427

17.6 3753 3784 3326 3174 3814 4883 3418 2319 3559 724 2319 4883 2563

2.0 580 763 824 641 671 702 793 641 702 85 580 824 244

4.0 885 1190 1068 915 885 915 1007 1068 992 111 885 1190 305

1 R

6.0 1587 1495 1343 1312 1709 1373 1526 1526 1484 134 1312 1709 397

7.9 1556 1526 1404 1373 1404 1404 1373 1556 1449 82 1373 1556 183

10.0 2045 2014 2075 1892 1770 1892 2106 1892 1961 116 1770 2106 336

12.0 2533 2502 2441 2228 2350 2319 2289 2319 2373 108 2228 2533 305

NISTIR 7415 39 May 2 , 2007
Table B2 - Measured Sample Mass Loss (pg. 3 of 6)

Exp Mass Loss (a/m2

) - 2 Sample Average Site Average for Retrieval (g/m2

) 0116 No. Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

1.2 458 458 427 427 488 458 488 458 458 23 427 488 61

3.8 1007 977 1038 977 1129 1038 1099 1099 1045 58 977 1129 153

1 7

5.9 1587 1800 1709 1587 1861 1861 1831 1892 1766 124 1587 1892 305

7.7 1953 2167 1953 2014 2258 2136 2258 2258 2125 134 1953 2258 305

11.8 2868 2624 2533 2746 3235 3113 2930 3052 2888 244 2533 3235 702

17.0 2411 2685 2899 2502 2899 2868 2899 2716 2735 193 2411 2899 488

1.2 122 214 122 183 122 92 153 153 145 39 92 214 122

3.8 366 549 580 488 397 366 366 519 454 90 366 580 214

18

58 702 1221 977 793 885 824 977 793 896 161 702 1221 519 18

7.7 549 1007 885 610 671 580 702 641 706 159 549 1007 458

9.8 854 1068 977 1007 915 1038 946 885 961 75 854 1068 214

11.7 915 824 946 793 610 824 732 1190 854 171 610 1190 580

580 183 244 214 214 183 214 244 244 217 25 183 244 61 1312 610 458 671 671 702 702 549 610 622 85 458 702 244

1892 671 915 671 702 702 702 610 641 702 92 610 915 305

2441 763 915 824 854 732 732 915 763 812 76 732 915 183

3113 915 977 977 885 946 885 946 915 931 36 885 977 92

3692 885 1068 1160 1038 977 1038 1007 1068 1030 79 885 1160 275

1221 275 244 336 305 275 305 275 275 286 28 244 336 92

1861 671 732 549 702 671 671 641 610 656 57 549 732 183

2411 732 824 732 641 702 702 854 671 732 73 641 854 214

3662 824 1038 824 763 977 885 1068 854 904 111 763 1068 305

5249 1190 1465 1404 1251 1556 1404 1465 1282 1377 125 1190 1556 366

305 2014 1984 1861 1831 1709 1861 1831 1709 1850 111 1709 2014 305

1.5 610 641 641 641 671 610 610 641 633 22 610 671 61 4.0 763 793 885 732 854 885 885 763 820 64 732 885 153

6.0 1282 1343 1526 1434 1465 1556 1404 1404 1427 90 1282 1556 275

1.7 427 488 610 580 427 458 427 549 496 74 427 610 183

3.7 977 1190 1038 1129 1099 1129 1068 1068 1087 65 977 1190 214

22 -

5 - 6 - 1617 1648 1404 1648 1404 1404 1373 1099 1449 186 1099 1648 549

7.6 1739 1892 2258 1770 1953 1892 2380 2289 2022 250 1739 2380 641

9.6 2045 2136 2289 1953 2197 2075 2289 1984 2121 129 1953 2289 336

11.6 2136 2319 2289 2167 2411 2106 2380 2136 2243 121 2106 2411 305

1.9 1648 2319 2350 2380 1770 1984 2045 2380 2109 292 1648 2380 732

4.3 3418 4059 4181 3204 3662 3631 3662 2960 3597 406 2960 4181 1221 oo 6.2 4181 4791 3723 4791 3937 4425 4211 5310 4421 519 3723 5310 1587

c.3 8.0 5554 6256 4730 5676 5676 6439 5859 7263 5931 742 4730 7263 2533

10.2 5951 6591 5890 5767 6012 6012 6622 6164 6126 317 5767 6622 854

12.1 6134 6439 6042 6225 6317 5981 5981 7415 6317 473 5981 7415 1434

1.3 61 92 92 92 61 92 92 61 80 16 61 92 31 4.0 122 183 153 122 122 122 122 92 130 27 92 183 92

DA 6.1 275 366 397 244 336 336 336 305 324 49 244 397 153

7.9 275 305 305 244 305 275 305 244 282 27 244 305 61 12.0 397 427 458 427 366 427 427 366 412 33 366 458 92

17.2 397 580 549 427 427 397 488 366 454 77 366 580 214

NISTIR 7415 40 May 2, 2007
Table B2 - Measured Sample Mass Loss (pg. 4 of 6)

Site No.

Exp

Time

yrs

Mass Loss (q/m2

) - 2 Sample Average

Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe

7 b e y B K M Y

Site Average for Retrieval (a/m2

) Mean Min. Max. Range

Dev. M

1.0 122 183 122 122 92 122 122 122 126 25 92 183 92

3.7 183 427 336 336 214 275 427 427 328 98 183 427 244

oc 5.7 519 519 580 580 549 519 519 458 530 40 458 580 122

7.6 549 702 610 610 580 549 549 519 584 58 519 702 183

11.7 1038 1221 1038 885 854 1099 1007 854 999 129 854 1221 366

17.0 915 1282 1160 946 854 977 824 824 973 166 824 1282 458

1.0 244 275 244 244 244 244 275 275 256 16 244 275 31

3.5 488 671 549 549 580 580 671 580 584 62 488 671 183

OR 5.5 458 641 519 458 366 366 427 427 458 89 366 641 275

7.7 397 641 610 488 458 458 488 519 507 81 397 641 244

11.5 1068 1282 1099 1068 1221 1129 1160 1038 1133 84 1038 1282 244

16.9 1221 1556 1312 1251 1434 1251 1465 1312 1350 121 1221 1556 336

2.0 122 183 153 153 183 183 183 153 164 23 122 183 61

4.0 977 946 1190 1099 1068 1068 1007 824 1022 111 824 1190 366

6.0 915 1160 1251 915 946 946 915 977 1003 129 915 1251 336

8.0 1404 1312 1282 1648 1312 1495 1190 1343 1373 142 1190 1648 458

12.0 2167 2594 2685 2319 2533 2136 2502 2472 2426 199 2136 2685 549

17.6 2838 3479 3082 2838 2960 2594 2716 2563 2884 297 2563 3479 915

1.6 1038 824 1099 915 641 977 885 1068 931 150 641 1099 458

5.6 3143 2838 2899 3235 2716 3265 3204 3265 3071 219 2716 3265 549

7.7 3540 3906 4425 4608 4669 5005 4028 5584 4471 651 3540 5584 2045

9.6 4791 4699 5005 5127 5127 4944 4730 5401 4978 239 4699 5401 702

2.0 1221 1007 1160 1343 1068 1282 1251 1282 1202 115 1007 1343 336

4.1 2197 2350 2228 2075 2197 2228 2106 2411 2224 112 2075 2411 336

6.0 3052 2716 2868 3021 2807 2930 2716 2838 2868 126 2716 3052 336

8.0 4364 3967 4181 4272 3326 5005 3357 4791 4158 603 3326 5005 1678

10.0 4944 4089 4211 4272 4547 4669 4516 4760 4501 293 4089 4944 854

12.0 6561 4944 5859 5920 4760 5462 4516 6134 5520 723 4516 6561 2045

1.1 275 275 336 275 275 336 336 305 301 30 275 336 61 3.6 336 366 366 366 427 397 427 366 381 33 336 427 92

or) 5.7 549 702 793 610 763 824 763 732 717 94 549 824 275

8.2 1251 1434 1251 1282 1434 1221 1343 1160 1297 99 1160 1434 275

11.6 1587 1709 1465 1617 1922 1770 1709 1587 1671 139 1465 1922 458

17.0 1861 1800 1739 1648 1831 1831 2106 1953 1846 137 1648 2106 458

2.0 214 397 366 458 244 366 397 336 347 81 214 458 244

4.1 610 519 641 671 641 763 641 702 648 71 519 763 244

6.0 488 549 580 580 458 580 702 702 580 88 458 702 244

O 1 8.0 549 671 732 854 641 671 702 793 702 94 549 854 305

12.0 885 915 854 824 854 854 854 1038 885 67 824 1038 214

17.7 1495 1282 1129 1343 1922 1373 1251 1404 1400 238 1129 1922 793

1.0 61 153 122 122 92 122 122 92 111 28 61 153 92

3.7 366 549 488 427 427 397 397 427 435 58 366 549 183

00 5.8 549 641 702 549 702 671 793 763 671 89 549 793 244

Cic. 7.6 610 854 824 702 763 793 702 824 759 82 610 854 244

9.6 641 977 946 763 915 732 854 793 828 116 641 977 336

11.7 946 1068 1007 1129 1099 1099 1282 977 1076 105 946 1282 336

NISTIR 7415 41 May 2 , 2007
Table B2 - Measured Sample Mass Loss (pg. 5 of 6)

Site No.

Exp

Time

yrs a

Mass Loss (q/m2

) - 2 Sample Averaqe

Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe

b e y B K M Y

Site Averaqe for Retrieval (q/m2

) Mean Min. Max. Range

1.0 122 122 122 153 122 122 122 122 126 11 122 153 31

3.7 1068 1007 1038 1068 1129 1068 1099 1160 1079 49 1007 1160 153

5.8 1434 1404 1404 1709 1312 1709 1465 915 1419 250 915 1709 793

7.6 2563 2807 2807 2685 2594 2685 2716 2380 2655 141 2380 2807 427

9.7 3387 3784 3479 2991 3082 3021 3479 3204 3303 277 2991 3784 793

11.7 4303 4272 4364 4333 4364 3540 3906 4272 4169 294 3540 4364 824

1.4 397 397 366 336 427 427 427 366 393 34 336 427 92

4.0 488 549 549 580 549 580 549 549 549 28 488 580 92

Q4

6.1 946 854 854 824 854 946 854 885 877 45 824 946 122

8.0 915 1007 1038 1068 1068 977 1007 977 1007 52 915 1068 153

9.9 1282 1465 1404 1251 1373 1190 1312 1343 1327 88 1190 1465 275

12.0 1160 1465 1221 977 1800 1312 1617 1465 1377 264 977 1800 824

1.9 244 275 214 214 244 275 336 275 259 40 214 336 122

4.1 519 610 549 427 641 610 580 549 561 67 427 641 214

6.2 366 366 458 305 2746 214 305 427 648 851 214 2746 2533

8.0 732 641 519 519 641 641 641 702 629 76 519 732 214

12.1 488 824 671 336 549 519 763 580 591 157 336 824 488

17.5 458 1251 458 275 366 275 977 1007 633 383 275 1251 977

2.0 366 366 427 336 244 244 305 275 320 65 244 427 183

4.1 427 610 671 641 519 519 488 458 542 89 427 671 244

6.0 397 519 519 549 427 549 427 488 484 60 397 549 153 oo

8.0 610 915 763 732 549 610 641 641 683 116 549 915 366

12.0 763 1007 977 885 702 854 732 763 835 114 702 1007 305

17.7 1007 1251 1251 1129 763 915 793 946 1007 190 763 1251 488

2.0 702 702 732 732 732 732 763 732 729 20 702 763 61

4.1 1282 1343 1343 1282 1373 1343 1373 1526 1358 77 1282 1526 244

6.0 1282 1404 1099 1404 1160 1282 1251 1160 1255 112 1099 1404 305

8.0 1770 1861 1587 1587 1922 1861 1770 1984 1793 146 1587 1984 397

10.1 2777 2624 2441 2350 2502 2655 2594 3052 2624 218 2350 3052 702

12.0 2533 2746 2350 2075 2502 2563 2746 3174 2586 322 2075 3174 1099

1.4 61 61 61 61 61 92 92 92 72 16 61 92 31

4.0 153 214 214 183 153 122 183 153 172 32 122 214 92

6.1 275 244 366 244 336 397 366 366 324 61 244 397 153

8.0 610 610 641 549 610 610 671 641 618 36 549 671 122

12.0 641 732 854 793 732 763 671 824 751 73 641 854 214

17.2 824 1038 702 793 702 854 854 763 816 108 702 1038 336

1.4 305 366 366 397 366 397 366 641 401 101 305 641 336

4.0 946 854 885 824 977 915 977 885 908 56 824 977 153 on 6.1 702 977 793 824 977 946 977 977 896 108 702 977 275

8.0 1251 1373 1404 1099 1495 1465 1495 1556 1392 151 1099 1556 458

9.9 1404 1587 1495 1373 1617 1526 1434 1465 1488 86 1373 1617 244

12.0 1465 1678 1861 1587 1922 1709 1953 1526 1713 184 1465 1953 488

2.0 641 641 641 610 702 763 671 854 690 81 610 854 244

4.1 1221 1312 1190 1129 1282 1312 1404 1282 1266 85 1129 1404 275

a n

6.0 1648 1678 1526 1617 1861 2014 1861 1709 1739 160 1526 2014 488

4-U 8.0 1953 1984 1984 1678 2136 2167 2502 2350 2094 255 1678 2502 824

10.0 2106 2197 2228 1831 2472 2197 2838 2289 2270 292 1831 2838 1007

12.0 2106 2411 2197 2045 2624 2624 2136 2533 2334 241 2045 2624 580

NISTIR 7415 42 May 2, 2007
Table B2 - Measured Sample Mass Loss (pg. 6 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Mass Loss (a/m2

) - 2 Sample Average Site Average for Retrieval (g/m2

) Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

1.5 244 153 153 305 183 183 122 122 183 63 122 305 183

4.0 824 1099 915 915 824 885 732 763 870 114 732 1099 366

A 1 6.0 1404 1434 1373 1282 977 1099 1251 1190 1251 158 977 1434 458

M 1 7.9 1465 1648 1526 1434 1282 1282 1404 1343 1423 125 1282 1648 366

12.0 1831 1892 1922 1617 1984 1922 1831 1831 1854 110 1617 1984 366

17.4 1800 2258 2106 2136 1678 1678 2136 2136 1991 233 1678 2258 580

2.0 915 1099 1007 946 885 732 885 580 881 161 580 1099 519

4.1 1373 2228 1739 1800 1465 1038 1556 1038 1530 400 1038 2228 1190

A O

6.0 2136 2441 2350 2228 1739 2106 1892 2014 2113 232 1739 2441 702

8.0 1800 2350 2502 2838 1953 2075 2045 1709 2159 380 1709 2838 1129

10.1 3509 3235 3692 3814 2685 3387 2838 2807 3246 428 2685 3814 1129

12.0 3235 5218 3814 5310 2716 3418 3357 4089 3895 937 2716 5310 2594

1.3 427 519 580 854 610 671 702 732 637 133 427 854 427

4.1 1099 2197 1404 1465 1434 1587 2106 1953 1655 387 1099 2197 1099

A Q

6.2 1770 2441 2960 2258 2197 1892 2350 2533 2300 373 1770 2960 1190

MO

8.0 2777 4669 3143 3479 3082 3296 2746 4394 3448 715 2746 4669 1922

9.9 3540 3479 3204 5188 3174 3418 2991 3662 3582 685 2991 5188 2197

12.0 4730 5066 5951 5371 4303 3875 3998 4974 4783 707 3875 5951 2075

1.1 92 183 122 153 122 92 122 122 126 30 92 183 92

3.6 427 549 610 549 427 427 366 397 469 88 366 610 244

5.7 702 671 702 732 641 671 610 610 668 44 610 732 122

7.6 519 702 671 610 580 641 610 641 622 56 519 702 183

11.6 885 1251 1434 1068 1038 854 1038 977 1068 192 854 1434 580

1.2 366 427 427 397 336 305 519 427 401 66 305 519 214

3.8 1099 915 885 1007 885 977 854 1007 954 83 854 1099 244

5.8 885 977 702 946 1007 946 977 915 919 96 702 1007 305

7.7 1068 1709 1282 1160 1251 1190 1160 1282 1263 194 1068 1709 641

9.8 4181 3631 3631 3692 3814 3998 3753 4120 3853 219 3631 4181 549

11.7 2960 2746 2960 2838 3235 3448 2838 3418 3055 274 2746 3448 702

1.5 244 397 366 275 305 336 366 366 332 53 244 397 153

4.0 824 977 885 793 732 793 824 977 851 88 732 977 244

A ft 5.1 885 854 946 915 854 915 793 977 893 58 793 977 183

MO

8.0 1709 1892 1587 1739 1739 1800 1770 2045 1785 135 1587 2045 458

10.2 1221 1434 1465 1251 1343 1099 1312 1190 1289 124 1099 1465 366

12.0 1221 1556 1373 1343 1434 1312 1465 1465 1396 105 1221 1556 336

1.5 153 153 1526 122 122 183 153 122 317 489 122 1526 1404

4.1 397 580 519 397 397 397 488 610 473 89 397 610 214

A ~7 6.1 366 458 488 366 580 488 671 458 484 102 366 671 305

M / 8.0 671 641 519 549 641 641 610 488 595 67 488 671 183

12.1 702 1190 915 854 977 915 854 946 919 138 702 1190 488

17.4 1770 1953 2411 2563 1861 1984 1648 1556 1968 353 1556 2563 1007

NISTIR 7415 43 May 2 , 2007
Table B3 - Mass Loss Rates for Sites (pg. 1 of 6)

Site No.

Exp

Time

yrs a

Mass Loss Rate (g/m2/d) - 2 Sample Average

Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe

b e y B K M Y

Mean

Site Average (q/m2/d) Std. Dev.

Min. Max. Range

1.0 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.17 1.09 1.00

3.6 0.77 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.88

1 5.5 0.67 0.84 0.84 0.71 0.82 0.82 0.77 0.70

0.81 0.14 0.50 1.17 0.67

7.7 0.54 0.74 0.74 0.72 0.72 0.61 0.80 0.72

9.6 0.70 0.82 0.84 0.77 0.82 0.88 0.77 0.79

11.6 0.64 0.63 0.50 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.84 0.63

2.1 0.76 0.80 0.72 0.95 0.76 0.88 0.88 0.72

4.0 0.61 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.73 0.56 0.65 0.52 o

5.9 0.54 0.59 0.55 0.48 0.51 0.57 0.59 0.59

0.52 0.17 0.24 0.95 0.71 7.9 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.33 0.41 0.24

12.0 0.42 0.49 0.40 0.41 0.44 0.38 0.46 0.41 17.6 0.37 0.40 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.34 0.35

2.0 0.63 0.75 0.71 0.84 0.67 0.84 0.88 0.71

4.1 0.59 0.65 0.67 0.71 0.73 0.67 0.73 0.79

o 6.0 0.45 0.58 0.52 0.49 0.53 0.50 0.50 0.58

j 0.50 0.18 0.26 0.88 0.62

8.0 0.39 0.46 0.44 0.41 0.39 0.43 0.47 0.40

10.1 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.26 0.30 0.31 0.33

12.1 0.26 0.34 0.32 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.30 0.31

1.4 0.90 0.72 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.90

4.0 0.77 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.73 0.77

4 6.1 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.63 0.64 0.63 0.60 0.67 0.65 0.13 0.43 0.90 0.46

8.0 0.54 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.61 12.0 0.49 0.46 0.49 0.43 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.52

1.9 0.48 0.40 0.57 0.62 0.44 0.44 0.40 0.44

4.1 0.31 0.45 0.51 0.49 0.45 0.43 0.45 0.43

6.2 0.66 0.67 0.61 0.65 0.66 0.53 0.65 0 59

n rc\ n in n qi 0.71 0.41

8.1 0.61 0.71 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.59 0.60

U. jU vJ. 1 U U. J 1 0.56

12.1 0.45 0.52 0.48 0.37 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.49

17.5 0.34 0.45 0.34 0.40 0.45 0.53 0.41 0.44

1.9 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.09

4.1 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.10

6.2 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.12 n in nm n n/i nio ni/i

8.1 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.09

12.1 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.09

17.5 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10

1.0 0.42 0.58 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.42 0.58 0.50

3.5 0.57 0.60 0.57 0.57 0.64 0.69 0.60 0.60

7 7.7 0.43 0.47 0.48 0.40 0.46 0.42 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.12 0.25 0.69 0.44

11.5 0.36 0.37 0.36 0.31 0.35 0.36 0.41 0.41 16.9 0.38 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.25

1.1 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.61 0.53 0.46 0.61 0.53

3.8 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.44 0.37 0.37 0.42 0.40

O

5.8 0.46 0.46 0.42 0.37 0.42 0.45 0.48 0-^8 n ao. n n« n ^ n fio n oa o

7.7 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.44 0.38 0.46

U.*+U U.L/O U. JJ \J .\J W.ilU 0.47

9.9 0.43 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.47

11.8 0.59 0.49 0.55 0.46 0.62 0.56 0.59 0.62

NISTIR 7415 44 May 2 , 2007
Table B3 - Mass Loss Rates for Sites (pg. 2 of 6)

Site No.

Exp

Time

yrs a

Mass Loss Rate (g/m7d) - 2 Sample Average Site Averaae (a/m2/d)

Nom.1.5 in. Pipe Norn. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Sid.

Mjn Max R

b e y JJ K M Y Dev. M

1.0 0.50 1.00 0.58 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.42

3.5 0.41 0.55 0.55 0.48 0.45 0.29 0.45 0.41

Q

5.5 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.39

0.40 0.13 0.25 1.00 0.75

7.7 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.38 0.37 0.35 0.34

11.5 0.34 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.33 0.34

16.9 0.27 0.30 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.26

1.3 0.90 0.77 0.77 0.84 0.71 0.64 0.90 0.77

4.0 0.29 0.44 0.56 0.25 0.36 0.25 0.54 0.33

10 6.1 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.51 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.17 0.25 0.90 0.65

7.9 0.47 0.45 0.48 0.48 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49

12.0 0.30 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.33 0.31 0.34 0.36

1.4 0.18 0.30 0.24 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24

4.0 0.29 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.19

6.0 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.21 „ nr. 1 0.11 0.30 0.19

7.8 0.11 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.15

10.0 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.13

11.9 0.12 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.15

1.9 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.09

4.1 0.29 0.39 0.33 0.41 0.31 0.31 0.26 0.33

6.2 0.43 0.31 0.46 0.40 0.44 0.38 0.36 0.39

1 n - 0.11 0.08 0.46 0.37

8.0 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.11 025

12.1 0.23 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.23

17.5 0.34 0.27 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.23 0.25 0.28

1.9 1.10 1.32 1.63 1.50 1.71 1.98 1.45 1.80

4.2 0.54 1.39 0.78 0.66 0.60 0.46 0.88 0.93 1.12 0.41 0.46 1.98 1.52

5.9 0.92 1.18 0.95 1.05 0.78 0.86 1.10 1.22

1.1 0.23 0.30 0.30 0.38 0.30 0.38 0.30 0.30

3.8 0.44 0.55 0.57 0.53 0.51 0.48 0.48 0.44

1 A 5.8 0.35 0.53 0.52 0.45 0.49 0.46 0.45 0.42

1 *+ 0.38 0.10 0.18 0.57 0.39

7.7 0.22 0.40 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.36 0.25

9.9 0.32 0.54 0.38 0.45 0.42 0.34 0.39 0.30

11.8 0.29 0.32 0.37 0.32 0.34 0.30 0.33 0.33

2.0 1.00 0.88 0.96 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.13 1.13

4.0 0.75 0.63 0.63 0.67 0.65 0.71 0.79 0.65

1 R

5.9 0.88 0.86 0.79 0.76 0.88 0.81 0.74 0.91 0.70 0.18 0.36 1.13 0.77

8.0 0.52 0.49 0.56 0.57 0.61 0.60 0.53 0.52

12.0 0.56 0.59 0.54 0.54 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.63

17.6 0.58 0.59 0.52 0.49 0.59 0.76 0.53 0.36

2.0 0.79 1.04 1.13 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.09 0.88

4.0 0.61 0.81 0.73 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.69 0.73

1 R

6.0 0.72 0.68 0.61 0.60 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.70

1 D 0.65 0.17 0.48 1.13 0.65

7.9 0.54 0.53 0.49 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.54

10.0 0.56 0.55 0.57 0.52 0.48 0.52 0.58 0.52

12.0 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.53

NISTIR 7415 45 May 2 , 2007
Table B3 - Mass Loss Rates for Sites (pg. 3 of 6)

Site No.

17

18

Exp Mass Loss Rate (g/m2/d) - 2 Sample Average

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe

yrs a b e y B K M Y

1.2 1.04 1.04 0.97 0.97 1.11 1.04 1.11 1.04 3.8 0.73 0.70 0.75 0.70 0.81 0.75 0.79 0.79

5.9 0.74 0.84 0.79 0.74 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.88

7.7 0.69 0.77 0.69 0.72 0.80 0.76 0.80 0.80

11.8 0.67 0.61 0.59 0.64 0.75 0.72 0.68 0.71 17.0 0.39 0.43 0.47 0.40 0.47 0.46 0.47 0.44

1.2 0.28 0.49 0.28 0.42 0.28 0.21 0.35 0.35

3.8 0.26 0.40 0.42 0.35 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.37

5.8 0.33 0.58 0.46 0.37 0.42 0.39 0.46 0.37

7.7 0.20 0.36 0.31 0.22 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.23

9.8 0.24 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.29 0.26 0.25

11.7 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.28

Mean

0.75

0.30

1.1 0.46 0.61 0.53 0.53 0.46 0.53 0.61 0.61 3.7 0.45 0.34 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.52 0.41 0.45

5.7 0.32 0.44 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.31 7.6 0.27 0.33 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.27

9.7 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.26

11.6 0.21 0.25 0.27 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25

1.0 0.75 0.67 0.92 0.84 0.75 0.84 0.75 0.75

3.6 0.51 0.56 0.42 0.53 0.51 0.51 0.49 0.46

5.5 0.36 0.41 0.36 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.43 0.33

7.7 0.29 0.37 0.29 0.27 0.35 0.31 0.38 0.30

9.6 0.34 0.42 0.40 0.36 0.44 0.40 0.42 0.37

11.6 0.48 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.40

Site Average (q/m2/d) Std. Dev.

Min. Max. Range

0.19 0.39 1.11 0.73

0.09 0.14 0.58 0.43

0.12 0.21 0.61 0.40

0.16 0.27 0.92 0.65

1.5 1.11 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.23 1.11 1.11 1.17

4.0 0.52 0.54 0.61 0.50 0.58 0.61 0.61 0.52 0.79 0.27 0.50 1.23 0.72

6.0 0.58 0.61 0.70 0.65 0.67 0.71 0.64 0.64

1.7 0.69 0.79 0.98 0.93 0.69 0.74 0.69 0.88

3.7 0.72 0.88 0.77 0.84 0.81 0.84 0.79 0.79 99 5.6 0.79 0.81 0.69 0.81 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.54

C.C. 0.70 0.12 0.50 0.98 0.49

7.6 0.63 0.68 0.81 0.64 0.70 0.68 0.86 0.82

9.6 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.56 0.63 0.59 0.65 0.57

11.6 0.50 0.55 0.54 0.51 0.57 0.50 0.56 0.50

1.9 2.37 3.34 3.39 3.43 2.55 2.86 2.95 3.43

4.3 2.18 2.58 2.66 2.04 2.33 2.31 2.33 1.88 99 6.2 1.85 2.12 1.64 2.12 1.74 1.95 1.86 2.34

tLO 2.06 0.57 1.35 3.43 2.08

8.0 1.90 2.14 1.62 1.94 1.94 2.20 2.01 2.49

10.2 1.60 1.77 1.58 1.55 1.61 1.61 1.78 1.65

12.1 1.39 1.46 1.37 1.41 1.43 1.35 1.35 1.68

1.3 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.13

4.0 0.08 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 DA 6.1 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14

0.11 0.04 0.06 0.19 0.13

7.9 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.08

12.0 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.08

17.2 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06

NISTIR 7415 46 May 2 , 2007
Table B3 - Mass Loss Rates for Sites (pg. 4 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Mass Loss Rate (g/m2/d) - 2 Sample Average Site Average (g/m2/d)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 ini. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

1.0 0.33 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.33

3.7 0.14 0.32 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.20 0.32 0.32

OR 5.7 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.22

0.24 0.07 0.13 0.50 0.37

7.6 0.20 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.19

11.7 0.24 0.29 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.26 0.24 0.20

17.0 0.15 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.13

1.0 0.67 0.75 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.75 0.75

3.5 0.38 0.53 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.53 0.45

5.5 0.23 0.32 0.26 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.21 0 21 n oa n iq n i a n ~7R n r-\ 7.7 0.14 0.23 0.22 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17

_ u . iy u . i u./o u.o i 0.18

11.5 0.25 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.29 0.27 0.28 0.25

16.9 0.20 0.25 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.24 0.21

2.0 0.17 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.21 4.0 0.67 0.65 0.81 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.69 0.56

6.0 0.42 0.53 0.57 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.42 0 45 n a o r\ ic r\ h ~7 r\ oh 0.65

8.0 0.48 0.45 0.44 0.56 0.45 0.51 0.41

_

- U.4o U.IO U. 1 / U.Ol 0.46

12.0 0.49 0.59 0.61 0.53 0.58 0.49 0.57 0.56

17.6 0.44 0.54 0.48 0.44 0.46 0.40 0.42 0.40

1.6 1.78 1.41 1.88 1.57 1.10 1.67 1.51 1.83

5.6 1.54 1.39 1.42 1.58 1.33 1.60 1.57 1-60

1.10 1.99 0.89

7.7 1.26 1.39 1.57 1.64 1.66 1.78 1.43

1 . jj u . i y

1.99

9.6 1.37 1.34 1.43 1.46 1.46 1.41 1.35 1.54

2.0 1.67 1.38 1.59 1.84 1.46 1.75 1.71 1.75

4.1 1.47 1.57 1.49 1.39 1.47 1.49 1.41 1.61 90 6.0 1.39 1.24 1.31 1.38 1.28 1.34 1.24 1.30 1.39 0.19 1.03 1.84 0.81 8.0 1.49 1.36 1.43 1.46 1.14 1.71 1.15 1.64 10.0 1.35 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.24 1.28 1.24 1.30 12.0 1.50 1.13 1.34 1.35 1.09 1.25 1.03 1.40

1.1 0.68 0.68 0.84 0.68 0.68 0.84 0.84 0.76

3.6 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.32 0.30 0.32 0.28 on 5.7 0.26 0.34 0.38 0.29 0.37 0.40 0.37 0.35

oU 0.42 0.16 0.26 0.84 0.58

8.2 0.42 0.48 0.42 0.43 0.48 0.41 0.45 0.39

11.6 0.37 0.40 0.35 0.38 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.37

17.0 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.34 0.31

2.0 0.29 0.54 0.50 0.63 0.33 0.50 0.54 0.46

4.1 0.41 0.35 0.43 0.45 0.43 0.51 0.43 0.47

6.0 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.26 0.32 0.32

O 1 0.31 0.12 0.17 0.63 0.45

8.0 0.19 0.23 0.25 0.29 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.27

12.0 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.24

17.7 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.30 0.21 0.19 0.22

1.0 0.17 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.25

3.7 0.27 0.41 0.36 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.32

99 5.8 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.26 0.33 0.32 0.37 0.36

Oc. 0.28 0.05 0.17 0.42 0.25

7.6 0.22 0.31 0.30 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.25 0.30

9.6 0.18 0.28 0.27 0.22 0.26 0.21 0.24 0.23

11.7 0.22 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.23

NISTIR 7415 47 May 2 , 2007
Table B3 - Mass Loss Rates for Sites (pg. 5 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Mass Loss Rate (g/m2/d) - 2 Sample Average Site Averaqe (a/m2/d1 Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

1.0 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33

3.7 0.79 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.79 0.81 0.86

QQ 5.8 0.68 0.66 0.66 0.81 0.62 0.81 0.69 0.43 oo 0.78 0.23 0.33 1.07 0.73

7.6 0.92 1.01 1.01 0.97 0.93 0.97 0.98 0.86

9.7 0.96 1.07 0.98 0.84 0.87 0.85 0.98 0.90

11.7 1.01 1.00 1.02 1.01 1.02 0.83 0.91 1.00

1.4 0.78 0.78 0.72 0.66 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.72

4.0 0.33 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.38 0.40 0.38 0.38

6.1 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.40

0.43 0.16 0.22 0.84 0.61 8.0 0.31 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.33 0.34 0.33

9.9 0.35 0.41 0.39 0.35 0.38 0.33 0.36 0.37

12.0 0.26 0.33 0.28 0.22 0.41 0.30 0.37 0.33

1.9 0.35 0.40 0.31 0.31 0.35 0.40 0.48 0.40

4.1 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.29 0.43 0.41 0.39 0.37

OC 6.2 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.13 1.21 0.09 0.13 0.19 OO 0.25 0.19 0.04 1.21 1.17

8.0 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.24

12.1 0.11 0.19 0.15 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.13

17.5 0.07 0.20 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.15 0.16

2.0 0.50 0.50 0.58 0.46 0.33 0.33 0.42 0.38

4.1 0.29 0.41 0.45 0.43 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.31 QC 6.0 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.22

OU 0.27 0.11 0.12 0.58 0.47

8.0 0.21 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.22

12.0 0.17 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.17

17.7 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.15

2.0 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00

4.1 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.92 0.90 0.92 1.02 07 6.0 0.58 0.64 0.50 0.64 0.53 0.58 0.57 0.53

O / 0.73 0.17 0.47 1.04 0.57

8.0 0.61 0.64 0.54 0.54 0.66 0.64 0.61 0.68

10.1 0.75 0.71 0.66 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.70 0.83

12.0 0.58 0.63 0.54 0.47 0.57 0.58 0.63 0.72

1.4 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.18

4.0 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.10 qq 6.1 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.16

OO 0.15 0.04 0.08 0.23 0.15

8.0 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.22

12.0 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.19

17.2 0.13 0.17 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.12

1.4 0.60 0.72 0.72 0.78 0.72 0.78 0.72 1.25

4.0 0.65 0.58 0.61 0.56 0.67 0.63 0.67 0.61 GQ 6.1 0.32 0.44 0.36 0.37 0.44 0.42 0.44 0.44

oy 0.51 0.17 0.32 1.25 0.94

8.0 0.43 0.47 0.48 0.38 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.53

9.9 0.39 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.41 12.0 0.33 0.38 0.42 0.36 0.44 0.39 0.45 0.35

NISTIR 7415 48 May 2, 2007
Table B3 - Mass Loss Rates for Sites (pg. 6 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Mass Loss Rate (g/m2/d) - 2 Sample Average Site Average (a/m2/d)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

2.0 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.96 1.04 0.92 1.17

4.1 0.82 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.86 0.88 0.94 0.86

/in 6.0 0.75 0.77 0.70 0.74 0.85 0.92 0.85 0.78

H-U 0.74 0.16 0.47 1.17 0.70

8.0 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.57 0.73 0.74 0.86 0.80

10.0 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.50 0.68 0.60 0.78 0.63

12.0 0.48 0.55 0.50 0.47 0.60 0.60 0.49 0.58

1.5 0.45 0.28 0.28 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.22

4.0 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.63 0.56 0.61 0.50 0.52

A 1 6.0 0.64 0.65 0.63 0.58 0.45 0.50 0.57 0.54 4 1 0.45 0.13 0.22 0.75 0.53

7.9 0.51 0.57 0.53 0.50 0.44 0.44 0.49 0.47

12.0 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.37 0.45 0.44 0.42 0.42

17.4 0.28 0.36 0.33 0.34 0.26 0.26 0.34 0.34

2.0 1.25 1.50 1.38 1.30 1.21 1.00 1.21 0.79

4.1 0.92 1.49 1.16 1.20 0.98 0.69 1.04 0.69

A O

6.0 0.97 1.11 1.07 1.02 0.79 0.96 0.86 0.92

0.95 0.23 0.58 1.50 0.92

8.0 0.62 0.80 0.86 0.97 0.67 0.71 0.70 0.58

10.1 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.03 0.73 0.92 0.77 0.76

12.0 0.74 1.19 0.87 1.21 0.62 0.78 0.77 0.93

1.3 0.90 1.09 1.22 1.80 1.29 1.41 1.48 1.54

4.1 0.73 1.47 0.94 0.98 0.96 1.06 1.41 1.30 49 6.2 0.78 1.08 1.31 1.00 0.97 0.84 1.04 1.12 119 O 94 0 79 1.80 1.07

8.0 0.95 1.60 1.08 1.19 1.05 1.13 0.94 1.50

9.9 0.98 0.96 0.89 1.43 0.88 0.95 0.83 1.01 12.0 1.08 1.16 1.36 1.23 0.98 0.88 0.91 1.13

1.1 0.23 0.46 0.30 0.38 0.30 0.23 0.30 0.30

3.6 0.32 0.42 0.46 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.30 44 5.7 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.31 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.19 0.46 0.28

7.6 0.19 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.23

11.6 0.21 0.30 0.34 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.23

1.2 0.84 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.77 0.70 1.18 0.97

3.8 0.79 0.66 0.64 0.73 0.64 0.70 0.62 0.73

A E

5.8 0.42 0.46 0.33 0.45 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.43

40 0.71 0.25 0.33 1.18 0.85

7.7 0.38 0.61 0.46 0.41 0.44 0.42 0.41 0.46

9.8 1.17 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.07 1.12 1.05 1.15

11.7 0.69 0.64 0.69 0.66 0.76 0.81 0.66 0.80

1.5 0.45 0.72 0.67 0.50 0.56 0.61 0.67 0.67

4.0 0.56 0.67 0.61 0.54 0.50 0.54 0.56 0.67

A G

5.1 0.48 0.46 0.51 0.49 0.46 0.49 0.43 0.52

40 0.49 0.13 0.28 0.72 0.45

8.0 0.58 0.65 0.54 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.61 0.70

10.2 0.33 0.38 0.39 0.34 0.36 0.29 0.35 0.32

12.0 0.28 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.30 0.33 0.33

1.5 0.28 0.28 2.78 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.28 0.22

4.1 0.26 0.39 0.35 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.41

A~7 6.1 0.16 0.21 0.22 0.16 0.26 0.22 0.30 0.21 4 / 0.31 0.37 0.16 2.78 2.63

8.0 0.23 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.17

12.1 0.16 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.21 17.4 0.28 0.31 0.38 0.40 0.29 0.31 0.26 0.24

NISTIR 7415 49 May 2 , 2007
Table B4 - Measured Maximum Pipe Wall Penetrations (pg. 1 of 6)

Exp Maximum Penetration (mm) - 2 Sample Average Site-Retrieval Average (mm)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

3.6 1.17 0.84 1.02 1.02 1.07 0.91 1.14 1.27 1.05 0.14 0.84 1.27 0.43

5.5 1.40 1.14 0.97 1.40 1.47 1.40 1.27 1.24 1.29 0.17 0.97 1.47 0.51 7.7 1.12 1.88 1.32 1.30 1.35 1.37 1.57 1.14 1.38 0.25 1.12 1.88 0.76

9.6 1.63 1.85 2.18 2.31 2.44 2.39 2.29 2.49 2.20 0.30 1.63 2.49 0.86

11.6 2.34 1.83 2.13 1.73 1.93 2.39 2.57 3.18 2.26 0.47 1.73 3.18 1.45

2.1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

4.0 1.40 1.04 0.97 1.19 1.24 1.14 1.12 1.19 1.16 0.13 0.97 1.40 0.43

5.9 1.07 1.02 1.17 1.04 0.94 1.09 1.07 1.52 1.11 0.18 0.94 1.52 0.58

7.9 1.22 0.91 1.04 1.27 1.17 1.14 1.27 1.22 1.16 0.12 0.91 1.27 0.36

12.0 1.42 1.22 1.40 2.03 1.42 1.37 1.24 1.70 1.48 0.27 1.22 2.03 0.81 17.6 1.80 1.52 1.42 1.63 1.19 1.78 1.47 1.70 1.57 0.20 1.19 1.80 0.61

2.0 1.57 1.17 1.12 1.42 1.40 1.35 1.27 1.52 1.35 0.16 1.12 1.57 0.46

4.1 1.88 1.68 1.98 1.63 1.60 1.35 1.85 2.29 1.78 0.28 1.35 2.29 0.94

6.0 1.75 1.52 1.78 1.83 1.83 2.08 1.78 1.65 1.78 0.16 1.52 2.08 0.56

8.0 1.57 1.47 1.78 1.88 1.57 1.73 1.68 1.73 1.68 0.13 1.47 1.88 0.41

10.1 3.00 1.78 1.83 1.91 1.88 1.57 2.13 2.03 2.02 0.43 1.57 3.00 1.42

12.1 2.26 2.03 1.57 1.40 1.93 1.73 1.83 2.13 1.86 0.29 1.40 2.26 0.86

1.4 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

4.0 0.84 0.69 0.66 0.61 0.66 0.81 0.76 1.07 0.76 0.15 0.61 1.07 0.46

6.1 2.08 1.19 1.12 1.19 1.27 1.42 1.17 2.29 1.47 0.46 1.12 2.29 1.17

8.0 1.52 0.91 0.86 1.12 0.97 1.47 1.04 1.93 1.23 0.38 0.86 1.93 1.07 12.0 3.68 1.98 2.01 2.08 2.21 2.74 2.13 3.86 2.59 0.77 1.98 3.86 1.88

1.9 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

4.1 0.74 0.56 0.91 0.81 0.71 0.79 0.76 0.81 0.76 0.10 0.56 0.91 0.36

C 6.2 1.12 0.89 1.27 0.86 1.02 1.57 1.57 0.97 1.16 0.29 0.86 1.57 0.71

8.1 0.91 1.37 1.12 0.97 0.97 1.32 1.47 1.14 1.16 0.21 0.91 1.47 0.56

12.1 0.84 1.27 1.07 0.94 1.12 1.22 1.17 1.24 1.11 0.15 0.84 1.27 0.43

17.5 1.93 1.14 1.30 1.07 1.68 2.31 1.57 1.80 1.60 0.42 1.07 2.31 1.24

1.9 0.36 0.66 0.66 0.51 0.56 0.46 0.48 0.53 0.53 0.10 0.36 0.66 0.30

4.1 0.56 0.56 0.53 0.51 0.41 0.56 0.58 0.41 0.51 0.07 0.41 0.58 0.18

£

6.2 0.56 0.36 0.41 0.53 0.58 0.64 0.56 0.46 0.51 0.10 0.36 0.64 0.28

8.1 0.43 0.51 0.30 0.43 0.51 0.56 0.46 0.48 0.46 0.08 0.30 0.56 0.25

12.1 0.58 0.51 0.46 0.46 0.76 0.41 0.66 0.81 0.58 0.15 0.41 0.81 0.41 17.5 0.69 0.76 0.46 0.51 0.81 0.76 0.51 0.66 0.64 0.14 0.46 0.81 0.36

1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

3.5 0.74 0.51 0.56 0.41 0.46 0.81 0.51 0.48 0.56 0.14 0.41 0.81 0.41 7 7.7 0.58 0.86 0.64 0.64 0.91 1.12 0.99 0.56 0.79 0.21 0.56 1.12 0.56

11.5 1.32 1.02 1.27 0.74 1.19 1.12 1.22 1.22 1.14 0.19 0.74 1.32 0.58

16.9 1.22 0.91 1.27 1.55 1.88 1.70 1.22 1.42 1.40 0.31 0.91 1.88 0.97

1.1 1.12 0.76 0.97 0.76 0.97 1.09 1.19 1.57 1.05 0.26 0.76 1.57 0.81 3.8 1.17 0.91 1.12 0.94 0.97 1.30 1.22 1.45 1.13 0.19 0.91 1.45 0.53

O

5.8 1.57 1.32 1.32 1.37 1.73 1.96 1.42 1.78 1.56 0.24 1.32 1.96 0.64 o

7.7 1.57 1.32 1.68 1.32 1.57 2.18 1.91 2.39 1.74 0.39 1.32 2.39 1.07

9.9 1.88 1.68 1.55 1.70 1.60 2.36 1.83 1.91 1.81 0.26 1.55 2.36 0.81 11.8 2.54 1.93 1.88 1.47 2.11 2.34 2.79 3.23 2.29 0.56 1.47 3.23 1.75

NISTIR 7415 50 May 2, 2007
Table B4 - Measured Maximum Pipe Wall Penetrations (pg. 2 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Maximum Penetration (mm) - 2 Sample Average Site-Retrieval Average (mm)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

1.0 1.14 0.76 0.61 0.56 0.76 0.81 0.74 0.86 0.78 0.18 0.56 1.14 0.58

3.5 1.17 1.27 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.47 1.73 1.63 1.42 0.18 1.17 1.73 0.56

Q

5.5 0.46 0.79 0.71 0.69 0.81 1.14 0.91 0.81 0.79 0.20 0.46 1.14 0.69

7.7 0.91 1.17 0.97 0.81 1.09 1.22 1.17 1.02 1.04 0.14 0.81 1.22 0.41

11.5 1.07 1.07 0.81 1.32 1.02 1.22 1.24 2.44 1.27 0.50 0.81 2.44 1.63

16.9 1.75 1.30 1.63 1.65 1.73 1.42 1.57 2.77 1.73 0.45 1.30 2.77 1.47

1.3 0.66 0.38 0.46 0.41 0.74 0.51 0.56 0.64 0.54 0.13 0.38 0.74 0.36

4.0 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.41 0.51 0.38 0.51 0.48 0.05 0.38 0.51 0.13

10 6.1 1.17 0.97 0.99 1.07 1.22 0.97 1.04 1.27 1.09 0.12 0.97 1.27 0.30

7.9 1.22 0.81 0.97 0.94 1.22 1.42 1.02 1.07 1.08 0.19 0.81 1.42 0.61 12.0 1.27 1.32 1.02 0.97 1.14 1.32 1.37 1.68 1.26 0.22 0.97 1.68 0.71

1.4 1.24 0.97 0.81 0.71 0.97 0.84 0.97 1.07 0.95 0.16 0.71 1.24 0.53

4.0 1.57 1.70 1.27 1.55 1.73 1.37 1.98 1.57 1.59 0.22 1.27 1.98 0.71 6.0 1.73 1.80 1.55 1.78 1.57 1.55 2.34 1.85 1.77 0.26 1.55 2.34 0.79

7.8 1.63 1.63 1.42 1.17 1.68 1.47 1.83 1.57 1.55 0.20 1.17 1.83 0.66

10.0 1.91 1.52 1.93 1.78 2.29 1.68 1.68 1.80 1.82 0.23 1.52 2.29 0.76

11.9 2,51 1.91 1.80 1.47 2.08 1.78 2.03 2.24 1.98 0.32 1.47 2.51 1.04

1.9 0.25 0.25 0,25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

4.1 1.12 1.09 1.12 1.07 1.17 1.02 1.07 1.65 1.16 0.20 1.02 1.65 0.64

6.2 1,37 1.52 1 .65 1.42 1.73 1.37 1.60 1.52 1.52 0.13 1.37 1.73 0.36

8.0 0.66 0.43 0.66 0.51 0.61 0.46 0.46 0.64 0.55 0.10 0.43 0.66 0.23

12.1 1.52 1.47 1.40 1.50 1.88 1.32 1.65 2.16 1.61 0.28 1.32 2.16 0.84

17.5 1.78 1.22 1.83 1.63 1.93 1.42 2.18 1.75 1.72 0.30 1.22 2.18 0.97

1.9 0.91 0.81 1.22 0.91 1.19 1.65 1.60 1.80 1.26 0.38 0.81 1.80 0.99

4.2 0.69 1.40 1.19 0.94 0.97 1.47 1.57 1.63 1.23 0.34 0.69 1.63 0.94

5.9 1.24 2.46 1.70 2.16 1.50 1.70 1.91 1.40 1.76 0.40 1.24 2.46 1.22

1.1 0.86 0.97 0.66 0.71 0.81 0.81 1.02 1.85 0.94 0.31 0.66 1.65 0.99

3.8 1.37 1.52 1.32 1.35 1.60 1.42 1.63 1.88 1.51 0.19 1.32 1.88 0.56

5.8 2.21 2.08 2.13 2.01 2.49 2.29 2.39 3.89 2.44 0.61 2.01 3.89 1.88

7.7 2.08 2.18 2.72 2.62 2.26 1.96 3.43 4.09 2.67 0.74 1.96 4.09 2.13

9.9 3.05 2.69 3.30 3.33 2.46 2.46 2.90 3.61 2.97 0.42 2.46 3.61 1.14

11.8 2.57 2.77 2.03 2.13 3.23 2.11 2.39 2.84 2.51 0.42 2.03 3.23 1.19

2.0 0.76 0.86 1.02 0.89 1.02 0.86 1.12 1.12 0.96 0.13 0.76 1.12 0.36

4.0 1.42 0.66 0.89 0.71 0.76 0.86 1.09 1.22 0.95 0.27 0.66 1.42 0.76

1 R

5.9 1.65 1.50 1.37 1.35 1.63 1.63 1.63 1,47 1.53 0.12 1.35 1.65 0.30

1 O

8.0 1.50 1.68 1.57 0.97 1.65 1.14 1.12 1.32 1.37 0.27 0.97 1.68 0.71 12.0 1.98 1.27 1.42 1.37 1.60 2.08 1.83 1.57 1.64 0.30 1.27 2.08 0.81 17.6 1.60 1.45 1.45 1.47 1.55 1.68 1.32 1.57 1.51 0.11 1.32 1.68 0.36

2.0 1.09 0.91 0.97 1.02 1.07 0.89 0.99 1.14 1.01 0.09 0.89 1.14 0.25

4.0 1.17 1.17 1.37 1.19 1.17 1.17 1.83 1.78 1.36 0.29 1.17 1.83 0.66

1 £

6.0 2.34 2.13 2.39 3.05 2.13 1.57 2.44 2.29 2.29 0.41 1.57 3.05 1.47

1 D

7.9 1.50 2.13 1.73 1.70 1.75 2.13 1.75 1.88 1.82 0.22 1.50 2.13 0.64

10.0 1.75 1.55 1.63 1.42 1.88 1.78 1.68 1.80 1.69 0.15 1.42 1.88 0.46

12.0 2.08 1.55 1.47 1.57 1.42 2.18 1.78 2.13 1.77 0.32 1.42 2.18 0.76

NISTIR 7415 51 May 2, 2007
Table B4 - Measured Maximum Pipe Wall Penetrations (pg. 3 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Maximum Penetration (mm) - 2 Sample Average

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe

yrs a b e y B K M

Site-Retrieval Average (mm)

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min. Max. Range

1.2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

3.8 0.56 0.41 0.56 0.51 0.58 0.61 0.81 0.53 0.57 0.12 0.41 0.81 0.41

5.9 0.81 0.66 0.66 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.89 0.78 0.08 0.66 0.89 0.23

7.7 0.81 0.91 0.91 0.76 1.02 0.99 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.09 0.76 1.02 0.25

11.8 1.04 0.97 1.07 0.99 1.07 1.19 1.22 1.07 1.08 0.09 0.97 1.22 0.25

17.0 1.07 0.97 1.04 0.86 1.09 1.27 1.22 1.45 1.12 0.18 0.86 1.45 0.58

1.2 0.69 0.51 0.48 0.36 0.61 0.71 0.41 0.71 0.56 0.14 0.36 0.71 0.36

3.8 1.02 1.02 1.22 0.86 0.86 1.32 1.09 0.94 1.04 0.16 0.86 1.32 0.46

18

5.8 1.80 1.83 1.80 1.70 1.63 1.68 1.57 2.03 1.76 0.14 1.57 2.03 0.46

7.7 1.40 0.94 1.02 1.07 1.42 1.45 1.07 1.27 1.20 0.20 0.94 1.45 0.51

9.8 1.17 1.17 1.30 1.45 1.37 1.63 1.27 1.17 1.31 0.16 1.17 1.63 0.46

11.7 1.32 1.07 1.04 0.97 1.04 1.78 1.12 1.12 1.18 0.26 0.97 1.78 0.81

1.1 0.97 0.61 0.66 0.61 0.71 0.64 0.81 0.97 0.75 0.15 0.61 0.97 0.36

3.7 0.97 1.14 1.27 0.97 0.91 1.17 1.50 1.27 1.15 0.20 0.91 1.50 0.58

5.7 1.17 1.27 1.22 1.22 1.47 1.50 1.47 1.27 1.32 0.13 1.17 1.50 0.33

7.6 1.12 1.02 1.17 1.02 1.42 1.47 1.42 1.68 1.29 0.24 1.02 1.68 0.66

9.7 1.57 1.30 1.55 1.40 1.42 1.98 1.65 1.73 1.57 0.22 1.30 1.98 0.69

11.6 1.42 1.57 1.80 1.68 1.68 2.16 1.52 1.60 1.68 0.22 1.42 2.16 0.74

1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

3.6 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00

5.5 0.51 0.66 0.56 0.81 0.74 0.61 0.86 0.71 0.68 0.12 0.51 0.86 0.36

7.7 0.71 0.97 1.02 1.07 0.81 0.89 1.07 1.65 1.02 0.28 0.71 1.65 0.94

9.6 0.81 1.32 0.97 0.56 1.12 0.91 1.07 0.91 0.96 0.22 0.56 1.32 0.76

11.6 1.70 1.22 1.83 1.63 1.14 2.03 1.42 1.57 1.57 0.30 1.14 2.03 0.89

1.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

4.0 1.55 1.02 1.27 1.60 1.52 0.99 1.22 1.12 1.29 0.24 0.99 1.60 0.61

6.0 1.80 1.32 1.52 1.47 1.52 1.50 1.68 1.52 1.54 0.14 1.32 1.80 0.48

1.7 1.12 0.89 1.12 1.12 0.97 0.99 1.32 1.19 1.09 0.14 0.89 1.32 0.43

3.7 1.14 1.17 1.30 1.12 1.47 1.52 1.37 1.27 1.30 0.15 1.12 1.52 0.41

5.6 1.73 1.40 1.47 1.37 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.52 1.53 0.11 1.37 1.73 0.36

7.6 1.09 1.42 1.60 1.32 1.42 1.47 1.68 1.75 1.47 0.21 1.09 1.75 0.66

9.6 1.65 1.57 1.37 1.45 1.73 1.65 1.60 1.73 1.59 0.13 1.37 1.73 0.36

11.6 1.83 1.68 1.68 1.98 1.52 1.42 1.65 1.80 1.70 0.18 1.42 1.98 0.56

1.9 1.35 1.22 1.22 1.27 1.22 2.18 1.32 1.70 1.44 0.34 1.22 2.18 0.97

4.3 2.39 2.62 2.90 2.11 2.49 3.40 2.74 2.46 2.64 0.39 2.11 3.40 1.30 oq 6.2 3.68 3.15 2.29 2.54 2.31 2.77 2.54 3.30 2.82 0.51 2.29 3.68 1.40

410 8.0 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.25 4.01 4.04 3.40 5.49 3.91 0.69 3.25 5.49 2.24

10.2 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.45 3.84 3.45 4.14 3.70 0.22 3.45 4.14 0.69

12.1 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.81 3.81 4.14 4.50 3.87 0.30 3.68 4.50 0.81

1.3 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

4.0 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00

O/l 6.1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.51 0.51 0.71 0.54 0.07 0.51 0.71 0.20

(L

H

7.9 0.56 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.48 0.64 0.51 0.79 0.56 0.10 0.48 0.79 0.30

12.0 0.71 0.58 0.53 0.64 0.71 0.71 0.76 0.79 0.68 0.09 0.53 0.79 0.25

17.2 0.66 0.61 0.41 0.66 0.76 0.69 0.91 0.71 0.68 0.14 0.41 0.91 0.51

NISTIR 7415 52 May 2, 2007
Table B4 - Measured Maximum Pipe Wall Penetrations (pg. 4 of 6)

Site No.

Exp

Time

yrs

Maximum Penetration (mm)

- 2 Sample Average

Norn. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe

a b e y B K M Y

Site-Retrieval Average (mm)

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min. Max. Range

1.0 0.61 0.48 0.46 0.64 0.56 0.69 0.71 0.64 0.60 0.09 0.46 0.71 0.25

3.7 0.86 0.76 0.69 0.76 0.79 0.74 0.97 0.86 0.80 0.09 0.69 0.97 0.28 oc 5.7 1.22 1.04 0.99 0.91 1.19 1.22 1.47 1.32 1.17 0.18 0.91 1.47 0.56

7.6 1.07 0.89 0.91 0.86 1.32 0.97 1.19 1.07 1.04 0.16 0.86 1.32 0.46

11.7 1.32 1.09 1.22 0.81 1.22 1.17 1.45 1.32 1.20 0.19 0.81 1.45 0.64

17.0 1.91 1.27 1.07 1.07 1.37 1.57 1.42 1.45 1.39 0.27 1.07 1.91 0.84

1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

3.5 0.99 1.14 1.07 1.17 0.91 1.14 1.68 1.22 1.17 0.23 0.91 1.68 0.76

5.5 1.78 1.68 1.70 1.63 1.83 1.68 1.98 2.03 1.79 0.15 1.63 2.03 0.41

7.7 0.99 1.19 0.97 1.12 1.19 1.22 1.22 1.47 1.17 0.16 0.97 1.47 0.51

11.5 0.97 1.19 1.12 0.89 1.12 1.17 0.97 1.09 1.06 0.11 0.89 1.19 0.30

16.9 1.09 1.07 1.07 0.91 1.07 1.52 1.47 1.35 1.19 0.22 0.91 1.52 0.61

2.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

4.0 0.51 0.56 0.79 0.84 0.91 0.97 0.69 1.07 0.79 0.20 0.51 1.07 0.56

6.0 0.53 0.71 0.81 1.02 0.76 1.42 0.89 1.17 0.91 0.28 0.53 1.42 0.89

8.0 0.79 0.86 0.66 0.91 1.04 1.83 1.17 1.07 1.04 0.36 0.66 1.83 1.17

12.0 1.07 1.22 1.52 1.52 1.40 2.03 2.08 1.88 1.59 0.37 1.07 2.08 1.02

17.6 0.99 1.47 1.75 1.37 1.88 2.34 2.13 1.98 1.74 0.44 0.99 2.34 1.35

1.6 0.51 0.66 0.86 0.66 0.74 1.02 1.40 0.91 0.84 0.28 0.51 1.40 0.89

5.6 1.27 1.75 1.52 1.40 1.42 1.93 1.42 1.91 1.58 0.25 1.27 1.93 0.66

7.7 3.48 3.15 2.97 2.69 3.35 4.09 2.97 3.89 3.32 0.48 2.69 4.09 1.40

9.6 3.68 3.35 3.48 3.68 4.24 4.65 3.86 5.49 4.05 0.71 3.35 5.49 2.13

2.0 1.22 0.94 1.37 1.42 1.07 1.73 1.09 0.94 1.22 0.27 0.94 1.73 0.79

4.1 1.65 1.19 1.52 1.73 1.83 1.98 1.52 2.29 1.71 0.33 1.19 2.29 1.09

6.0 2.64 1.98 2.34 2.11 1.42 2.03 2.29 2.06 2.11 0.35 1.42 2.64 1.22

8.0 2.64 1.73 2.29 2.29 2.49 2.29 3.25 4.52 2.69 0.86 1.73 4.52 2.79

10.0 3.68 2.46 1.88 2.34 2.13 3.05 2.54 4.52 2.83 0.89 1.88 4.52 2.64

12.0 3.68 2.29 3.45 3.68 3.40 5.49 3.02 5.49 3.81 1.13 2.29 5.49 3.20

1.1 0.61 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.41 0.41 0.46 0.37 0.12 0.25 0.61 0.36

3.6 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00

5.7 0.51 0.51 0.81 0.41 0.71 0.71 0.69 0.71 0.61 0.12 0.41 0.71 0.30

8.2 1.17 0.91 0.84 0.86 1.57 0.89 1.22 0.79 1.03 0.27 0.79 1.57 0.79

11.6 1.37 1.30 1.47 1.30 1.35 1.37 1.60 1.88 1.43 0.14 1.30 1.68 0.38

17.0 1.27 1.12 1.32 1.07 1.35 1.63 1.93 1.65 1.42 0.30 1.07 1.93 0.86

2.0 0.76 0.84 1.70 0.99 0.94 1.22 1.32 1.37 1.14 0.32 0.76 1.70 0.94

4.1 0.61 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.76 1.19 0.71 0.86 0.76 0.19 0.61 1.19 0.58

6.0 0.71 0.66 0.76 1.35 0.74 1.42 0.81 1.17 0.95 0.31 0.66 1.42 0.76

8.0 0.91 1.12 0.94 0.97 1.07 1.14 1.63 0.91 1.09 0.24 0.91 1.63 0.71 12.0 0.86 0.74 0.86 0.76 1.04 1.04 1.02 0.91 0.90 0.12 0.74 1.04 0.30

17.7 1.27 1.07 1.09 1.32 1.04 2.29 1.68 1.24 1.37 0.42 1.04 2.29 1.24

1.0 1.02 0.66 0.53 0.56 0.76 0.58 0.69 0.66 0.68 0.15 0.53 1.02 0.48

3.7 1.12 1.02 0.76 0.69 1.02 0.86 0.91 1.04 0.93 0.15 0.69 1.12 0.43

5.8 0.94 0.81 0.76 0.91 0.97 0.99 0.94 1.07 0.92 0.10 0.76 1.07 0.30

7.6 0.81 1.07 1.07 0.99 0.97 1.22 1.12 1.17 1.05 0.13 0.81 1.22 0.41

9.6 1.09 1.40 1.17 1.12 1.32 1.24 1.37 2.39 1.39 0.42 1.09 2.39 1.30

11.7 1.47 1.07 1.17 1.27 1.50 2.18 1.57 2.36 1.57 0.47 1.07 2.36 1.30

NISTIR 7415 53 May 2, 2007
Table B4 - Measured Maximum Pipe Wall Penetrations (pg. 5 of 6)

Site No.

Exp

Time

yrs

Maximum Penetration (mm)

Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe

2 Sample Average

Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe

Site-Retrieval Average (mm)

B K M

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min. Max. Range

1.0 0 25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

3.7 0.97 0.51 0.51 0.64 0.81 0.76 1.02 0.97 0.77 0.20 0.51 1.02 0.51

5.8 1 17 0.91 0.51 1.30 0.91 1.37 0.84 0.71 0.97 0.30 0.51 1.37 0.86

7.6 3.30 1.52 1.68 2.46 2.54 2.97 2.44 2.39 2.41 0.59 1.52 3.30 1.78

9.7 2.90 2.08 2.34 1.88 2.84 2.59 2.92 2.82 2.55 0.40 1.88 2.92 1.04

11.7 2.84 2.49 2.29 2.64 2.64 2.74 2.44 2.13 2.53 0.24 2.13 2.84 0.71

1.4 0.51 0.53 0.51 0.46 0.56 0.69 0.56 0.74 0.57 0.09 0.46 0.74 0.28

4.0 0.58 0.53 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.46 0.41 0.43 0.47 0.06 0.41 0.58 0.18

Q4 6.1 1.22 0.71 0.41 0.81 0.91 0.97 0.74 1.22 0.87 0.27 0.41 1.22 0.81 8.0 1.07 1.17 1.14 1.32 1.09 1.70 1.02 1.73 1.28 0.28 1.02 1.73 0.71 9.9 2.08 1.22 2.13 2.39 1.80 1.85 1.96 2.64 2.01 0.42 1.22 2.64 1.42

12.0 1.47 0.91 1.04 0.81 1.40 0.91 1.27 1.88 1.21 0.36 0.81 1.88 1.07

1.9 0.25 0.43 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.43 0.46 0.32 0.10 0.25 0.46 0.20

4.1 0.41 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.43 0.56 0.61 0.50 0.06 0.41 0.61 0.20

6.2 0.51 0.51 1.02 0.51 0.56 0.51 0.46 0.53 0.57 0.18 0.46 1.02 0.56

8.0 0.81 0.61 0.58 0.51 0.46 0.97 0.71 2.46 0.89 0.66 0.46 2.46 2.01

12.1 0.25 0.61 0.46 0.51 0.91 0.56 1.75 0.69 0.72 0.46 0.25 1.75 1.50

17.5 0.30 1.37 0.23 0.43 0.81 0.86 0.91 1.63 0.82 0.50 0.23 1.63 1.40

2.0 0.71 0.94 0.86 0.97 0.94 1.22 1.09 0.94 0.96 0.15 0.71 1.22 0.51

4.1 0.94 0.97 0.76 0.79 0.99 1.27 1.17 1.07 0.99 0.17 0.76 1.27 0.51 6.0 1.19 1.22 0.94 1.04 1.04 1.32 1.22 1.07 1.13 0.13 0.94 1.32 0.38 JU

8.0 1.22 1.37 0.89 0.97 1.22 1.47 1.27 1.27 1.21 0.19 0.89 1.47 0.58

12.0 1.42 1.17 1.22 1.22 1.19 1.52 1.14 1.12 1.25 0.14 1.12 1.52 0.41 17.7 1.30 1.27 1.40 1.14 1.27 1.52 1.24 1.45 1.32 0.12 1.14 1.52 0.38

2.0 0.97 0.89 1.22 1.22 1.07 1.09 1.35 2.29 1.26 0.44 0.89 2.29 1.40

4.1 1.17 1.07 1.57 1.68 1.50 1.47 1.40 2.34 1.52 0.39 1.07 2.34 1.27 Q7 6.0 1.17 1.30 0.97 1.85 0.97 1.22 1.42 1.50 1.30 0.30 0.97 1.85 0.89 o / 8.0 1.47 1.24 1.32 1.37 1.63 1.73 1.70 2.44 1.61 0.38 1.24 2.44 1.19

10.1 1.75 1.80 2.26 1.88 1.91 1.83 2.13 2.90 2.06 0.38 1.75 2.90 1.14

12.0 1.93 1.63 1.98 1.73 2.03 1.60 2.41 3.23 2.07 0.54 1.60 3.23 1.63

1.4 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

4.0 0.51 0.71 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.07 0.51 0.71 0.20

6.1 1.02 0.66 0.51 0.51 0.94 0.43 0.61 0.89 0.70 0.22 0.43 1.02 0.58

8.0 1.32 0.71 0.51 0.61 0.86 0.66 0.74 0.61 0.75 0.25 0.51 1.32 0.81 12.0 0.89 0.86 0.66 0.51 0.71 0.56 1.07 0.66 0.74 0.19 0.51 1.07 0.56

17.2 1.02 0.84 0.71 0.91 0.86 0.97 0.86 0.84 0.88 0.09 0.71 1.02 0.30

1.4 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

4.0 1.07 0.61 0.97 0.64 0.41 0.61 0.81 1.17 0.78 0.26 0.41 1.17 0.76

QQ 6.1 0.79 1.12 0.97 1.27 1.22 0.97 1.12 1.27 1.09 0.17 0.79 1.27 0.48

8.0 1.22 1.27 1.17 1.07 1.68 1.83 1.32 1.96 1.44 0.33 1.07 1.96 0.89

9.9 1.73 1.07 1.07 1.30 1.35 1.73 1.32 2.24 1.47 0.40 1.07 2.24 1.17

12.0 1.96 1.42 1.27 1.52 1.75 1.75 2.39 2.69 1.84 0.49 1.27 2.69 1.42

2.0 1.17 0.71 0.97 0.79 0.71 1.04 0.81 1.07 0.91 0.18 0.71 1.17 0.46

4.1 1.55 1.32 1.09 0.89 1.04 1.17 1.12 1.17 1.17 0.20 0.89 1.55 0.66

/in 6.0 1.55 1.75 1.78 1.52 1.65 2.24 1.88 2.13 1.81 0.26 1.52 2.24 0.71 HU

8.0 2.18 2.57 1.63 1.88 1.78 2.51 2.44 2.34 2.17 0.36 1.63 2.57 0.94

10.0 1.91 1.57 2.21 1.57 1.65 1.83 1.63 2.18 1.82 0.26 1.57 2.21 0.64

12.0 3.53 1.73 1.75 2.08 1.75 2.31 1.98 1.91 2.13 0.60 1.73 3.53 1.80

NISTIR 7415 54 May 2, 2007
Table B4 - Measured Maximum Pipe Wall Penetrations (pg. 6 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Maximum Penetration (mm) - 2 Sample Average Site-Retrieval Average (mm)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

1.5 0.48 0.99 0.84 1.02 1.12 0.76 1.07 0.81 0.89 0.21 0.48 1.12 0.64

4.0 0.86 0.91 1.02 1.14 1.19 0.97 1.09 1.17 1.04 0.12 0.86 1.19 0.33

A 1 6.0 1.35 1.27 1.22 1.52 1.40 1.32 1.70 1.32 1.39 0.16 1.22 1.70 0.48

1 7.9 1.55 1.65 1.40 1.52 1.47 1.47 1.57 1.42 1.51 0.08 1.40 1.65 0.25

12.0 2.57 2.39 2.01 2.31 2.18 1.83 2.16 2.03 2.18 0.23 1.83 2.57 0.74

17.4 3.10 2.39 2.34 2.57 2.18 1.70 2.57 1.98 2.35 0.42 1.70 3.10 1.40

2.0 1.35 1.47 1.50 1.27 1.37 1.57 1.98 1.40 1.49 0.22 1.27 1.98 0.71

4.1 1.63 1.88 1.85 1.93 2.01 2.16 2.08 1.88 1.93 0.16 1.63 2.16 0.53

AO 6.0 1.96 2.34 2.13 1.88 1.98 2.18 2.41 2.06 2.12 0.19 1.88 2.41 0.53

8.0 1.93 2.26 2.87 2.82 2.03 2.36 2.24 2.29 2.35 0.34 1.93 2.87 0.94

10.1 2.13 2.13 2.64 2.34 2.44 3.28 2.62 2.64 2.53 0.37 2.13 3.28 1.14

12.0 2.39 2.26 2.82 2.18 2.24 3.18 2.34 2.95 2.54 0.38 2.18 3.18 0.99

1.3 0.46 0.91 0.61 0.71 1.12 1.14 1.68 1.19 0.98 0.39 0.46 1.68 1.22

4.1 0.99 1.12 0.89 1.17 2.57 2.01 2.11 1.50 1.54 0.61 0.89 2.57 1.68

6.2 2.24 2.08 1.70 1.93 2.64 3.35 3.02 1.35 2.29 0.68 1.35 3.35 2.01

8.0 2.13 2.59 1.93 1.78 2.64 3.45 1.98 2.29 2.35 0.54 1.78 3.45 1.68

9.9 2.39 1.93 1.78 1.85 3.45 2.54 2.95 3.94 2.60 0.79 1.78 3.94 2.16

12.0 2.29 2.03 2.54 2.67 3.51 1.98 1.88 1.83 2.34 0.56 1.83 3.51 1.68

1.1 0.97 0.91 0.71 0.81 0.66 0.99 0.81 0.97 0.85 0.12 0.66 0.99 0.33

3.6 1.98 1.09 1.37 1.40 1.17 1.12 1.12 1.27 1.31 0.29 1.09 1.98 0.89

5.7 1.78 1.32 1.30 1 .68 1.42 1.83 1.52 1.73 1.57 0.21 1.30 1.83 0.53

7.6 1.83 1.24 1.57 1.27 1.42 1.27 1.57 2.24 1.55 0.34 1.24 2.24 0.99

11.6 2.21 1.42 1.60 1.75 1.65 1.47 2.08 1.88 1.76 0.28 1.42 2.21 0.79

1.2 0.25 0.51 0.38 0.33 0.25 0.43 0.76 0.71 0.45 0.19 0.25 0.76 0.51

3.8 0.91 0.71 0.61 0.61 0.81 0.91 0.79 1.24 0.83 0.21 0.61 1.24 0.64

5.8 1.14 1.09 1.02 0.86 1.19 0.91 1.22 1.32 1.10 0.16 0.86 1.32 0.46

7.7 1.27 1.17 1.52 1.14 1.42 1.52 1.52 1.68 1.41 0.19 1.14 1.68 0.53

9.8 3.63 2.90 3.51 2.97 3.00 3.51 3.25 4.01 3.35 0.39 2.90 4.01 1.12

11.7 2.08 1.98 2.13 2.08 2.16 2.84 2.49 3.15 2.37 0.42 1.98 3.15 1.17

1.5 1.45 1.37 1.40 1.37 1.27 1.02 1.42 2.01 1.41 0.28 1.02 2.01 0.99

4.0 2.03 1.63 2.01 2.08 1.68 1.47 2.69 2.79 2.05 0.48 1.47 2.79 1.32

/1ft 5.1 1.73 1.65 1.68 1.37 1.73 1.17 2.44 2.44 1.77 0.45 1.17 2.44 1.27

H-D 8.0 1.52 2.03 2.74 3.00 1.75 1.73 3.45 3.40 2.45 0.79 1.52 3.45 1.93

10.2 1.88 2.41 1.73 2.11 2.08 1.68 2.13 2.03 2.01 0.24 1.68 2.41 0.74

12.0 1.22 1.57 1.63 2.64 1.96 1.57 2.90 2.03 1.94 0.57 1.22 2.90 1.68

1.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00

4.1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00

A

6.1 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00

t 8.0 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00

12.1 0.41 1.17 0.66 0.79 0.86 0.61 0.69 0.66 0.73 0.22 0.41 1.17 0.76

17.4 1.07 1.35 0.94 1.45 1.30 1.02 1.22 1.17 1.19 0.17 0.94 1.45 0.51

NISTIR 7415 55 May 2, 2007
Table B5 - Maximum Penetration Rates (pg. 1 of 6)

Site No.

Exp

Time

Maximum Penetration Rate (mm/yr) - 2 Sample Average

Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Norn. 3.0 in. Pipe

Total Site Average (mm/yr)

Std. yrs a b e y B K M Y mean ^

Dev.

min. ividA. rtdiiye

1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

3.6 0.32 0.23 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.25 0.32 0.35

1 5.5 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.23 n oq n nc n i c 0.35 0.21 7.7 0.15 0.24 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.15

U.bJ U.U j U. 1 O

9.6 0.17 0.19 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.26

11.6 0.20 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.27

2.1 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12

4.0 0.35 0.26 0.24 0.30 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.30

o

5.9 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.18 D Pfi n ic n D7 n 07 n oc n oq

7.9 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.16

« j p U. 1 D U.U / U.U / U.OD U.^O

U. 1 o

12.0 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.14

17.6 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.10

2.0 0.79 0.58 0.56 0.71 0.70 0.67 0.64 0.76

4.1 0.46 0.41 0.48 0.40 0.39 0.33 0.45 0.56

6.0 0.29 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.30 0.28

8.0 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22

10.1 0.30 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.21 0.20

12.1 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.18

0.79 0.67

1.4 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

4.0 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.27

4 6.1 0.34 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.19 0.37 0.20 0.06 0.11 0.37 0.27

8.0 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.18 0.13 0.24

12.0 0.31 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.23 0.18 0.32

1.9 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

4.1 0.18 0.14 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.20

C

6.2 0.18 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.16 O 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.25 0.19

8.1 0.11 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.14

12.1 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10

17.5 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.10

1.9 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.27 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.28

4.1 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.10

6.2 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 n -m n no n no n rtc: n to

8.1 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06

« u. iu u.uy u.uo u.oo u.uc 0.06

12.1 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07

17.5 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04

1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

3.5 0.21 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.13 0.23 0.15 0.14

7 7.7 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.07 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.25 0.20

11.5 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 16.9 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.08

1.1 1.02 0.69 0.88 0.69 0.88 0.99 1.09 1.43

3.8 0.31 0.24 0.29 0.25 0.25 0.34 0.32 0.38

Q 5.8 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.30 0.34 0.25 0.31 O 0.35 0.29 0.12 1.43 1.31 7.7 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.28 0.25 0.31 9.9 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.24 0.18 0.19

11.8 0.22 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.27

NISTIR 7415 56 May 2, 2007
Table B5 - Maximum Penetration Rates ( pg . 2 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Maximum Penetration Rate ( mm/yr) - 2 Sample Average Total Site Average (mm/yr)

Time Norn. 1.5 in . Pipe Nom. 3.0 in . Pipe .. Std. Mean _Dev.

Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y

1.0 1.14 0.76 0.61 0.56 0.76 0.81 0.74 0.86

3.5 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.49 0.46

Q

5.5 0.08 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.21 0.17 0.15

C7 0.28 0.26 0.07 1.14 1.07

7.7 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.13

11.5 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.21 16.9 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.16

1.3 0.51 0.29 0.35 0.31 0.57 0.39 0.43 0.49

4.0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.13

10 6.1 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.57 0.49

7.9 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.14

12.0 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.14

1.4 0.89 0.69 0.58 0.51 0.69 0.60 0.69 0.76

4.0 0.39 0.43 0.32 0.39 0.43 0.34 0.50 0.39

6.0 0.29 0.30 0.26 0.30 0.26 0.26 0.39 0.31

1 1 0.32 0.19 0.12 0.89 0.77

7.8 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.20

10.0 0.19 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.18

11.9 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.19

1.9 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

4.1 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.25 0.26 0.40

1 9

6.2 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.23 0.28 0.22 0.26 0 25 n n no n nc; n An n qc;

1 c. 8.0 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06 « qU. 1 D U.UO U.UO U.^tU U.vj j U.Uo

12.1 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.18

17.5 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.10

1.9 0.48 0.43 0.64 0.48 0.63 0.87 0.84 0.95

4.2 0.16 0.33 0.28 0.22 0.23 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.22 0.16 0.95 0.79

5.9 0.21 0.42 0.29 0.37 0.25 0.29 0.32 0.24

1.1 0.79 0.88 0.60 0.65 0.74 0.74 0.92 1.50

3.8 0.36 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.42 0.37 0.43 0.49

1 A

5.8 0.38 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.43 0.39 0.41 0.67

0.42 0.24 0.17 1.50 1.33

7.7 0.27 0.28 0.35 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.45 0.53

9.9 0.31 0.27 0.33 0.34 0.25 0.25 0.29 0.36

11.8 0.22 0.23 0.17 0.18 0.27 0.18 0.20 0.24

2.0 0.38 0.43 0.51 0.44 0.51 0.43 0.56 0.56

4.0 0.36 0.17 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.30

1 R

5.9 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.25

1 O 0.23 0.13 0.08 0.56 0.48

8.0 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.12 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.17

12.0 0.17 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.13

17.6 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.09

2.0 0.55 0.46 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.44 0.50 0.57

4.0 0.29 0.29 0.34 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.46 0.44

1 £

6.0 0.39 0.36 0.40 0.51 0.36 0.26 0.41 0.38

1 D 0.30 0.13 0.12 0.57 0.45

7.9 0.19 0.27 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.22 0.24

10.0 0.18 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.18

12.0 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.18 0.15 0.18

NISTIR 7415 57 May 2, 2007
Table B5 - Maximum Penetration Rates (pg. 3 of 6)

Site Exp Maximum Penetration Rate (mm/yr) - 2 Sample Average Total Site Average (mm/yr)

No. Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Std. Mean _

Dev.

Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y

1.2 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 3.8 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.14

i 7

5.9 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.15

0.13 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.16

7.7 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.13

11.8 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.09

17.0 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.09

1.2 0.57 0.42 0.40 0.30 0.51 0.59 0.34 0.59

3.8 0.27 0.27 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.35 0.29 0.25

1 ft 5.8 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.27 0 ftS n o/i n i a n no n c;q n

7.7 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.14

ys j a U • c f U. 1 U . Uu U• U• D 1 0.16

9.8 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.12

11.7 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.15 0.10 0.10

i.i 0.88 0.55 0.60 0.55 0.65 0.58 0.74 0.88

3.7 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.26 0.25 0.32 0.41 0.34

1 Q

5.7 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.26 0 22 n oq n on n 10 n qq n 7c

7.6 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.19 0 22

u. i c. u.oo u./o

9.7 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.20 0.17 0.18

11.6 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.13 0.14

1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

3.6 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 on 5.5 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.16 0 1ft n it; n nc; n nft n oc; n on

7.7 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.14 0 21 ^ '•'.UO U.UO U./iD \J.c\J

9.6 0.08 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.10

11.6 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.14 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.14

1.5 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

4.0 0.39 0.25 0.32 0.40 0.38 0.25 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.06 0.22 0.40 0.18

6.0 0.30 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.25

1.7 0.66 0.52 0.66 0.66 0.57 0.58 0.78 0.70

3.7 0.31 0.32 0.35 0.30 0.40 0.41 0.37 0.34

99 5.6 0.31 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.28 0.28 0.28 0 27 _ w n 99 n nft n 19 n ai n oq

7.6 0.14 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.22

9.6 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.18

11.6 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.16

1.9 0.71 0.64 0.64 0.67 0.64 1.15 0.70 0.90

4.3 0.56 0.61 0.67 0.49 0.58 0.79 0.64 0.57

9ft 6.2 0.59 0.51 0.37 0.41 0.37 0.45 0.41 0.53

c. O 0.45 0.12 0.30 0.79 0.49

8.0 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.41 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.69

10.2 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.38 0.34 0.41

12.1 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.34 0.37

1.3 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

4.0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

9/1 6.1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.10

7.9 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.10

12.0 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07

17.2 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04

NISTIR 7415 58 May 2, 2007
Table B5 - Maximum Penetration Rates (pg. 4 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Maximum Penetration Rate (mm/yr) - 2 Sample Average Total Site Average (mm/yr)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 ini. Pipe .. Std. Mean „

Dev.

Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y

1.0 0.61 0.48 0.46 0.64 0.56 0.69 0.71 0.64

3.7 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.26 0.23 oc 5.7 0.21 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.23

c-O 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.26 0.20

7.6 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.17 0,13 0.16 0.14

11.7 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.11 17.0 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09

1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

3.5 0.28 0.33 0.30 0.33 0.26 0.33 0.48 0.35 oc 5.5 0.32 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.33 0.30 0.36 0

cXj n iq n 19 n nc; n aq n ao

7.7 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16

11.5 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09

16.9 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.08

2.0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

4.0 0.13 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.17 0.27

97 6.0 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.24 0.15 0 19

n i a n nc; n nft n 97 n 91 8.0 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.23 0.15

12.0 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.16

17.6 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.11

1.6 0.32 0.41 0.54 0.41 0.46 0.64 0.87 0.57

5.6 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.34 0.25 0.34

c.O 0.38 0.09 0.23 0.57 0.34

7.7 0.45 0.41 0.39 0.35 0.44 0.53 0.39 0.50

9.6 0.38 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.44 0.48 0.40 0.57

2.0 0.61 0.47 0.69 0.71 0.53 0.86 0.55 0.47

4.1 0.40 0.29 0.37 0.42 0.45 0.48 0.37 0.56

9Q

6.0 0.44 0.33 0.39 0.35 0.24 0.34 0.38 0.34

0.34 0.09 0.19 0.57 0.38

8.0 0.33 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.29 0.41 0.57

10.0 0.37 0.25 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.30 0.25 0.45

12.0 0.31 0.19 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.46 0.25 0.46

1.1 0.55 0.23 0.28 0.23 0.28 0.37 0.37 0.42

3.6 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

ftn 5.7 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.12 0 12n 19 n nft nnfi n iq nift

8.2 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.15

11.6 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14

17.0 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.10

2.0 0.38 0.42 0.85 0.50 0.47 0.61 0.66 0.69

0.13 0.06 0.06 0.29 0.23

4.1 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.29 0.17 0.21

ftl 6.0 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.22 0.12 0.24 0.14 0.19

8.0 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.20 0.11 12.0 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08

17.7 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.13 0.09 0.07

1.0 1.02 0.66 0.53 0.56 0.76 0.58 0.69 0.66

3.7 0.30 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.27 0.23 0.25 0.28

09 5.8 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.18

0.17 0.05 0.09 0.30 0.21 7.6 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.15

9.6 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.25

11.7 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.20

NISTIR 7415 59 May 2, 2007
Table B5 - Maximum Penetration Rates (pg. 5 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Maximum Penetration Rate(mm/yr) - 2 Sample Average Total Site Average (mm/yr)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe ,, Std. Mean _

Dev.

Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y

1.0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

3.7 0.26 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.21 0.27 0.26

5.8 0.20 0.16 0.09 0.22 0.16 0.24 0.14 0.12

OJ 0.23 0.07 0.09 0.43 0.35

7.6 0.43 0.20 0.22 0.32 0.33 0.39 0.32 0.31 9.7 0.30 0.21 0.24 0.19 0.29 0.27 0.30 0.29

11.7 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.18

1.4 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.33 0.40 0.49 0.40 0.53

4.0 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11

6.1 0.20 0.12 0.07 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.12 ^•20 n it n r\K n n~t n 07 n on

8.0 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.21 0.13 q 22 ^ u.uo u . u / u.^u

9.9 0.21 0.12 0.22 0.24 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.27

12.0 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.16

1.9 0.13 0.23 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.24

4.1 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.15

QC 6.2 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 n no n ns n ni Oj 0.31 0.29

8.0 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.09

12.1 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.06

17.5 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.09

36

2.0 0.36 0.47 0.43 0.48 0.47 0.61 0.55 0.47

4.1 0.23 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.31 0.28 0.26

6.0 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.20 0.18

8.0 0.15 0.17 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.16

12.0 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.09

17.7 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.08

0.15 0.06 0.06 0.31 0.25

37

38

39

2.0 0.48 0.44 0.61 0.61 0.53 0.55 0.67 1.14

4.1 0.28 0.26 0.38 0.41 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.57

6.0 0.19 0.22 0.16 0.31 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.25

8.0 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.30

10.1 0.17 0.18 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.29

12.0 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.20 0.27

40

0.23 0.09 0.13 0.57 0.44

1.4 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

4.0 0.13 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

6.1 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.10 0.15

8.0 0.17 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.08

12.0 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.06

17.2 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05

0.09 0.04 0.04 0.18 0.14

1.4 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

4.0 0.27 0.15 0.24 0.16 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.29

6.1 0.13 0.18 0.16 0.21 0.20 0.16 0.18 0.21 8.0 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.23 0.17 0.24

9.9 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.23

12.0 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.22

2.0 0.58 0.36 0.48 0.39 0.36 0.52 0.41 0.53

4.1 0.38 0.32 0.27 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.27 0.28

6.0 0.26 0.29 0.30 0.25 0.28 0.37 0.31 0.36

8.0 0.27 0.32 0.20 0.23 0.22 0.31 0.30 0.29

10.0 0.19 0.16 0.22 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.22

12.0 0.29 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.19 0.17 0.16

0.17 0.05 0.10 0.29 0.19

0.24 0.07 0.14 0.38 0.23

NISTIR 7415 60 May 2, 2007
Table B5 - Maximum Penetration Rates (pg. 6 of 6)

Site No.

Exp Maximum Penetration Rate (mm/yr) - 2 Sample Average Total Site Average (mm/yr)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Std. Mean*

Dev.

Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y

1.5 0.32 0.66 0.56 0.68 0.75 0.51 0.71 0.54

4.0 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.29 0.30 0.24 0.27 0.29

A 1 6.0 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.28 0.22

0.20 0.05 0.10 0.30 0.20

7.9 0.20 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.18

12.0 0.21 0.20 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.17

17.4 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.11

2.0 0.67 0.74 0.75 0.64 0.69 0.79 0.99 0.70

4.1 0.40 0.46 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.53 0.51 0.46

A O

6.0 0.33 0.39 0.36 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.40 0 ^4

n qo n in n iq n rq n q/i 8.0 0.24 0.28 0.36 0.35 0.25 0.30 0.28 q 2g

yJ.OtL U. IU U. IO U.JJ U.o4

10.1 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.32 0.26 0.26

12.0 0.20 0.19 0.23 0.18 0.19 0.26 0.19 0.25

1.3 0.35 0.70 0.47 0.55 0.86 0.88 1.29 0.92

4.1 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.28 0.63 0.49 0.51 0.37

A Q 6.2 0.36 0.34 0.27 0.31 0.43 0.54 0.49 0 22 n qh n 10 n ii; n cq n a~7 HO

8.0 0.27 0.32 0.24 0.22 0.33 0.43 0.25 q 2g

U.oU U. 1 c. U. IO U.OvJ U.4/

9.9 0.24 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.35 0.26 0.30 0.40

12.0 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.29 0.17 0.16 0.15

1.1 0.88 0.83 0.65 0.74 0.60 0.90 0.74 0.88

3.6 0.55 0.30 0.38 0.39 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.35

44 5.7 0.31 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.25 0.32 0.27 0.30 0.25 0.10 0.12 0.55 0.43

7.6 0.24 0.16 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.29

11.6 0.19 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.16

1.2 0.21 0.42 0.32 0.28 0.21 0.36 0.64 0.59

3.8 0.24 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.33

A R

5.8 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.21 0.16 0.21 0.23

40 0.23 0.07 0.15 0.41 0.26

7.7 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.22

9.8 0.37 0.30 0.36 0.30 0.31 0.36 0.33 0.41 11.7 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.21 0.27

1.5 0.97 0.91 0.93 0.91 0.85 0.68 0.95 1.34

4.0 0.51 0.41 0.50 0.52 0.42 0.37 0.67 0.70 AR 5.1 0.34 0.32 0.33 0.27 0.34 0.23 0.48 0.48

40 0.31 0.15 0.10 0.70 0.60

8.0 0.19 0.25 0.34 0.37 0.22 0.22 0.43 0.43

10.2 0.18 0.24 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.16 0.21 0.20

12.0 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.22 0.16 0.13 0.24 0.17

1.5 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

4.1 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12

47 6.1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 nns n m n m n io nn

a

8.0 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06

« U. UO U.UO U.UO U. 1 d- U.Uv/ 0.06

12.1 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05

17.4 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07

NISTIR 7415 61 May 2, 2007
Table B6 - Ratio of Maximum Observed Penetration to Average Penetration from Mass Loss (pg. 1 of 6)

Site No.

1

2

Exp 2 Sample Average Pitting Ratio (m/m)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe

yrs a b e y B K M Y

1.0 5.9 5.5 5.9 5.9 5.5 4.7 5.0 5.5 3.6 9.1 5.4 6.7 6.7 6.5 5.6 6.8 8.6 5.5 8.2 5.4 4.5 7.7 7.0 6.7 6.4 7.0 7.7 5.8 7.1 5.0 5.1 5.3 6.3 5.5 4.5

9.6 5.2 5.1 5.8 6.8 6.7 6.1 6.6 7.0 11.6 6.8 5.4 7.9 4.8 5.2 6.5 5.7 9.3

2.1 3.4 3.3 3.6 2.7 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.6 4.0 12.4 8.9 8.3 10.2 9.2 10.9 9.3 12.3

5.9 7.2 6.2 7.7 7.9 6.7 7.0 6.5 9.3

7.9 8.3 6.4 7.2 9.1 8.1 9.5 8.4 13.7

12.0 6.1 4.4 6.2 8.9 5.8 6.5 4.9 7.4 17.6 6.0 4.7 4.7 5.2 3.8 5.9 5.3 5.9

Averge Site Pitting Ratio (m/m)

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min. Max. Range

6.2 1.1 4.5 9.3 4.8

6.8 2.6 2.7 13.7 10.9

2.0 27.0 16.7 16.9 18.3 22.5 17.3 15.6 23.1

4.1 16.7 13.5 15.5 12.0 11.4 10.5 13.3 15.1 q

6.0 14.1 9.3 12.4 13.5 12.4 14.9 12.7 10- 1 134 3.9 7.1 27.0 20.0

8.0 11.0 8.6 10.9 12.4 11.0 10.9 9.6 11.7 134

10.1 18.4 10.0 11.0 12.0 15.1 11.3 14.5 13.1

12.1 15.7 10.7 8.6 7.1 10.8 10.6 11.0 12.2

1.4 4.4 5.5 4.4 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.4

4.0 5.8 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.6 5.7 5.6 7.4 4 6.1 11.9 7.0 6.5 6.7 7.0 8.0 6.8 12.0 6.7 2.5 4.1 13.6 9.4 8.0 7.5 4.4 4.1 5.4 4.5 6.9 5.0 8.6 12.0 13.6 7.7 7.4 8.7 8.0 10.1 8.0 13.3

1.9 5.9 7.3 5.0 4.7 6.5 6.5 7.3 6.5

4.1 12.6 6.5 9.4 8.7 8.3 9.7 8.9 10.0

c: 6.2 5.9 4.6 7.3 4.6 5.3 10.4 8.5 5.7

6.0 2.1 3.1 12.6 9.5

8.1 4.0 5.1 5.8 4.8 4.8 6.0 6.5 5.5

12.1 3.3 4.3 3.9 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.5 17.5 6.9 3.1 4.7 3.3 4.6 5.4 4.7 5.0

1.9 45.8 85.1 170.1 65.4 143.9 58.9 62.2 68.7

4.1 20.6 20.6 15.3 16.4 20.9 20.6 30.1 20.9 £

6.2 24.0 15.3 13.1 19.6 25.1 20.4 16.0 1 4' 7 °7 0 3° 7 5.9 170.1 164.2

8.1 13.9 14.5 7.9 13.9 14.5 18.0 13.1 13.8 270 327

12.1 15.0 10.9 8.4 13.1 17.8 9.5 11.3 16.1 17.5 8.0 12.3 5.9 8.7 11.0 10.3 6.9 8.5

1.0 13.1 9.3 10.9 10.9 10.9 13.1 9.3 10.9

3.5 7.9 5.2 6.0 4.4 4.4 7.2 5.2 5.0 7 7.7 3.8 5.2 3.7 4.4 5.6 7.4 6.1 3.4 6.7 2.6 3.4 13.1 9.7

11.5 6.8 5.1 6.7 4.4 6.4 5.9 5.6 5.6 16.9 4.1 4.3 5.6 6.2 8.6 7.7 6.2 7.2

1.1 41.1 28.0 35.5 24.5 35.5 46.9 38.4 57.9

3.8 15.8 12.4 14.4 12.1 14.6 19.6 16.5 20.7

Q 5.8 12.7 10.6 11.7 13.6 15.3 16.3 11.1 13.9

16.0 11.4 5.8 57.9 52.1 7.7 12.3 10.3 13.5 10.6 9.9 16.1 11.7 14.3

9.9 9.5 8.5 8.7 9.5 7.9 11.5 8.4 8.8 11.8 7.8 7.2 6.3 5.8 6.2 7.6 8.7 9.4

NISTIR 7415 62 May 2, 2007
Table B6 - Ratio of Maximum Observed Penetration to Average Penetration from Mass Loss (pg. 2 of 6)

Site No.

Exp

Time

yrs

2 Sampie Average Pittin g Ratio (m/m)

Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Norn . 3.0 in. Pipe

a b e y ~"b K ~M Y

Averge Site Pitting Ratio (m/m)

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min. Max. Range

1.0 49.1 16.4 22.4 16.0 32.7 34.9 31.6 44.5

3.5 17.7 14.2 15.4 17.7 18.6 31.6 23.4 24.6

Q

5.5 5.4 8.8 7.6 7.7 8.1 10.9 8.7 8.1

C7 13.8 10.6 4.0 49.1 45.0

7.7 7.4 8.9 7.8 7.0 8.0 9.2 9.4 8.4

11.5 5.8 5.7 4.0 6.8 5.3 6.3 7.0 13.4

16.9 8.4 5.6 7.2 7.9 8.1 6.8 8.0 13.7

1.3 12.2 8.2 9.8 8.1 17.2 13.1 10.3 13.6

4.0 9.3 6.2 4.8 10.9 6.2 10.9 3.8 8.2 10 6.1 8.9 7.3 7.3 8.1 9.2 6.7 7.9 9.6 8.0 2.7 3.8 17.2 13.5

7.9 7.1 4.9 5.5 5.4 6.7 8.0 5.7 6.0 12.0 7.6 6.3 5.3 5.7 6.1 7.7 7.2 8.5

1.4 106.9 49.7 52.3 36.6 62.2 54.0 62.2 68.7

4.0 29.0 39.8 29.7 33.3 44.5 39.3 51.0 45.1

1 1 6.0 40.4 33.2 28.5 35.2 31.2 28.5 46.3 318

35 9 16.0 18.2 106.9 88.7

7.8 41.9 19.0 19.3 20.1 28.8 27.1 29.4 29.0

35 3

10.0 35.0 23.1 24.9 22.9 34.6 24.0 27.0 31.0

11.9 38.1 18.2 22.1 20.0 26.8 22.9 30.8 26.2

1.9 32.7 32.7 16.4 21.8 32.7 32.7 21.8 32.7

4.1 20.6 14.8 18.0 13.7 20.1 17.4 21.1 26.6

1 9

6.2 11.0 17.1 12.5 12.2 13.5 12.6 15.3 ^

1 S 7 7 c, cr R 32.7 27.1 8.0 17.0 7.9 18.9 13.1 17.4 14.7 14.7 14.9

lb-/ /b bb

12.1 11.5 8.6 8.8 9.9 12.1 9.5 11.8 16.9 17.5 6.4 5.6 7.9 7.5 9.2 7.6 10.6 7.7

1.9 9.4 , 7.0 8.5 6.9 7.9 9.5 12.5 11.3 4.2 6.5 5.1 7.9 7.3 8.3 16.5 9.2 8.9 8.1 2.6 4.2 16.5 12.3

5.9 4.9 7.6 6.5 7.5 7.0 7.2 6.3 4.2

1.1 74.1 62.2 42.5 36.6 52.3 41.9 65.4 106.3

3.8 17.7 15.7 13.1 14.4 17.9 16.7 19.0 24.2

1 A 5.8 23.7 14.5 15.3 16.7 18.9 18.4 19.8 34.5

26.4 18.9 10.1 106.3 96.2

7.7 26.8 15.2 28.0 30.6 30.6 29.6 26.8 45.8

9.9 20.7 10.8 18.9 16.2 12.7 15.9 16.2 25.8

11.8 16.1 15.8 10.1 12.2 17.3 12.6 13.4 15.6

2.0 8.2 10.6 11.4 10.9 11.9 9.7 10.7 10.7

4.0 10.2 5.7 7.6 5.7 6.3 6.5 7.4 10.1 5.9 6.9 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.8 7.3 8.1 5.9

1 O 6.7 2.5 2.7 11.9 9.2

8.0 7.7 9.2 7.5 4.5 7.3 5.2 5.6 6.8 12.0 6.3 3.8 4.8 4.5 5.0 6.5 5.8 4.5 17.6 3.4 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.2 2.7 3.0 5.3

2.0 14.8 9.4 9.2 12.5 12.5 10.0 9.8 14.0

4.0 10.4 7.7 10.1 10.2 10.4 10.0 14.3 13.1

1 6.0 11.6 11.2 14.0 18.3 9.8 9.0 12.6 118

9 5 3.0 4.7 18.3 13.5

7.9 7.6 11.0 9.7 9.7 9.8 11.9 10.0 9.5 10.0 6.7 6.0 6.2 5.9 8.3 7.4 6.3 7.5 12.0 6.5 4.9 4.7 5.6 4.8 7.4 6.1 7.2

NISTIR 7415 63 May 2 , 2007
Table B6 - Ratio of Maximum Observed Penetration to Average Penetration from Mass Loss (pg. 3 of 6)

Site No.

Exp 2 Sample Average Pitting Ratio (m/m) Averge Site Pitting Ratio (m/m)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

1.2 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.7 4.1 4.4 4.1 4.4

3.8 4.4 3.3 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.6 5.8 3.8

1 7

5.9 4.0 2.9 3.0 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.7

3.6 0.7 2.6 5.8 3.2 7.7 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.4

11.8 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.3 2.7 17.0 3.5 2.8 2.8 2.7 3.0 3.5 3.3 4.2

1.2 44.2 18.7 31.1 15.3 39.3 61.1 20.9 36.6

3.8 21.8 14.5 16.5 13.9 17.1 28.4 23.4 14.2

1 ft 5.8 20.2 11.8 14.5 16.9 14.4 16.0 12.7 20- 1 174 10.2 7.3 61.1 53.7

7.7 20.0 7.3 9.0 13.7 16.7 19.6 11.9 15.6

17-4

9.8 10.7 8.6 10.4 11.3 11.8 12.3 10.6 10.4

11.7 11.3 10.2 8.7 9.6 13.4 17.0 12.0 7.4

i.i 41.4 19.6 24.3 22.4 30.5 23.4 26.2 31.1 3.7 12.4 19.6 14.9 11.3 10.2 13.1 21.4 16.4

1 Q

5.7 13.7 10.9 14.3 13.7 16.5 16.8 19.0 156

16 0 6 3 8.7 41.4 32.7

7.6 11.5 8.7 11.1 9.3 15.3 15.8 12.2 17.3 160 63

9.7 13.5 10.4 12.5 12.4 11.8 17.6 13.7 14.8

11.6 12.6 11.6 12.2 12.7 13.5 16.4 11.9 11.8

1.0 7.3 8.2 5.9 6.5 7.3 6.5 7.3 7.3

3.6 5.9 5.5 7.3 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.5 on 5.5 5.5 6.3 6.0 10.0 8.2 6.8 7.9 83

6 9 1.8 3.5 15.2 11.7 7.7 6.8 7.3 9.7 11.0 6.5 7.9 7.9 15.2 69

9.6 5.4 7.1 5.4 3.5 5.6 5.1 5.7 5.6

11.6 6.6 4.8 7.7 7.0 5.3 8.6 6.1 7.2

1.5 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.1 4.0 16.0 10.1 11.3 17.2 14.0 8.8 10.8 11.5 10.5 3.0 7.6 17.2 9.6

6.0 11.1 7.7 7.9 8.1 8.2 7.6 9.4 8.5

1.7 20.6 14.3 14.4 15.2 17.8 17.0 24.3 17.1 3.7 9.2 7.7 9.8 7.8 10.5 10.6 10.1 9.3 00 5.6 8.4 6.7 8.2 6.5 8.8 8.8 9.0 109

7 1 1.8 4.7 10.9 6.2

7.6 4.9 5.9 5.6 5.9 5.7 6.1 5.5 6.0 71

9.6 6.3 5.8 4.7 5.8 6.2 6.3 5.5 6.8 11.6 6.7 5.7 5.8 7.2 5.0 5.3 5.5 6.6

1.9 6.4 4.1 4.1 4.2 5.4 8.7 5.1 5.6 4.3 5.5 5.1 5.4 5.2 5.3 7.4 5.9 6.5

9ft 6.2 6.9 5.2 4.8 4.2 4.6 4.9 4.7 49

C.\ 5 1 0.7 4.1 7.4 3.3

J

8.0 5.2 4.6 6.1 4.5 5.6 4.9 4.6 5.9 51

10.2 4.9 4.4 4.9 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.1 5.3

12.1 4.7 4.5 4.8 4.7 4.7 5.0 5.4 4.8

1.3 32.7 21.8 21.8 21.8 32.7 21.8 21.8 32.7

4.0 32.7 21.8 26.2 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 43.6

24

6.1 14.5 10.9 10.1 16.4 12.5 11.9 11.9 183 173 8 5 5.8 43.6 37.8

7.9 16.0 13.1 13.1 16.4 12.4 18.2 13.1 25.4

173 85

12.0 14.1 10.7 9.2 11.7 15.3 13.1 14.0 16.9

17.2 13.1 8.3 5.8 12.2 14.0 13.6 14.7 15.3

NISTIR 7415 64 May 2, 2007
Table B6 - Ratio of Maximum Observed Penetration to Average Penetration from Mass Loss (pg. 4 of 6)

Site No.

Exp 2 Sample Average Pitting Ratio (m/m) Averge Site Pitting Ratio (m/m)

Time Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y Dev.

1.0 39.3 20.7 29.4 40.9 48.0 44.2 45.8 40.9

3.7 37.1 14.0 16.1 17.8 29.0 21.1 17.8 15.9 oc 5.7 18.5 15.8 13.4 12.4 17.1 18.5 22.3 22.7

14.8 6.0 7.0 37.1 30.0

7.6 15.3 10.0 11.8 11.1 17.9 13.8 17.1 16.2

11.7 10.0 7.0 9.2 7.2 11.2 8.4 11.3 12.2

17.0 16.4 7.8 7.2 8.9 12.6 12.7 13.6 13.8

1.0 8.2 7.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 7.3 7.3

3.5 15.9 13.4 15.3 16.7 12.4 15.5 19.6 16.5 OR 5.5 30.5 20.6 25.8 27.9 39.3 36.0 36.5 37’ 4

LID 16 1 9.8 5.4 39.3 33.9

7.7 19.6 14.6 12.4 18.0 20.5 20.9 19.6 22.3

161

11.5 7.1 7.3 8.0 6.5 7.2 8.1 6.5 8.3 16.9 7.0 5.4 6.4 5.7 5.8 9.6 7.9 8.1

2.0 16.4 10.9 13.1 13.1 10.9 10.9 10.9 13.1 4.0 4.1 4.6 5.2 6.0 6.7 7.1 5.4 10.2

O'

6.0 4.6 4.8 5.1 8.7 6.3 11.8 7.6 94

<L ( 5 9 2.0 2.7 11.8 9.1 8.0 4.4 5.2 4.1 4.4 6.2 9.6 7.7 6.2 5 ' 9

12.0 3.9 3.7 4.5 5.2 4.3 7.5 6.5 6.0 17.6 2.7 3.3 4.5 3.8 5.0 7.1 6.2 6.1

1.6 3.8 6.3 6.2 5.7 9.0 8.2 12.4 6.7 OQ 5.6 3.2 4.9 4.1 3.4 4.1 4.6 3.5 4' 6

c.o 5 1 1.3 3.2 8.0 4.8

7.7 7.7 6.3 5.3 4.6 5.6 6.4 5.8 5.5 5 ' 4

9.6 6.0 5.6 5.5 5.6 6.5 7.4 6.4 8.0

2.0 7.9 7.3 9.3 8.3 7.9 10.6 6.9 5.8

4.1 5.9 4.0 5.4 6.5 6.5 7.0 5.7 7.5 on 6.0 6.8 5.7 6.4 5.5 4.0 5.5 6.6 5 ' 7

5 5 1.3 3.4 7.9 4.5

8.0 4.8 3.4 4.3 4.2 5.9 3.6 7.6 7.4

5 ' 5

10.0 5.9 4.7 3.5 4.3 3.7 5.1 4.4 7.5 12.0 4.4 3.6 4.6 4.9 5.6 7.9 5.3 7.0

1.1 17.4 7.3 7.1 7.3 8.7 9.5 9.5 11.8

3.6 11.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 9.3 10.1 9.3 10.9 on

5.7 7.3 5.7 6.0 5.2 7.3 6.8 7.1 7-6 OU 1.9 4.9 11.9 7.0

8.2 7.3 5.0 5.3 5.3 8.6 5.7 7.1 5.3 7' 2

11.6 6.8 6.0 7.9 6.3 5.5 6.1 7.4 8.3 17.0 5.4 4.9 6.0 5.1 5.8 7.0 7.2 6.6

2.0 28.0 16.6 36.5 17.0 30.3 26.2 26.2 32.1

4.1 7.9 10.0 7.8 7.4 9.3 12.3 8.7 9.7

6.0 11.4 9.5 10.3 18.2 12.6 19.3 9.1 13.1 O 1 10.1 3.3 4.3 19.3 15.0

8.0 13.1 13.1 10.1 8.9 13.1 13.4 18.2 9.1 12.0 7.7 6.3 7.9 7.3 9.6 9.6 9.3 6.9 17.7 6.7 6.5 7.6 7.7 4.3 13.1 10.5 7.0

1.0 130.8 34.0 34.3 36.0 65.4 37.6 44.2 56.7

3.7 24.0 14.5 12.3 12.6 18.7 17.1 18.1 19.2 99 5.8 13.4 10.0 8.5 13.1 10.8 11.6 9.3 11.0 12.8 3.9 7.9 24.0 16.1 7.6 10.5 9.8 10.2 11.1 9.9 12.1 12.5 11.1 9.6 13.4 11.2 9.7 11.5 11.3 13.4 12.6 23.7

11.7 12.2 7.9 9.1 8.8 10.7 15.6 9.7 19.0

NISTIR 7415 65 May 2, 2007
Table B6 - Ratio of Maximum Observed Penetration to Average Penetration from Mass Loss (pg. 5 of 6)

Site No.

Exp 2 Sample Average Pitting Ratio (m/m) Averge Site Pitting Ratio (m/m)

Time Nom. 1.5 in . Pipe Nom. 3.0 in. Pipe Mean

Std. Dev

Min. Max. Range

yrs a b e y B K M Y

1.0 16.4 16.4 16.4 13.1 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.4

3.7 7.1 4.0 3.8 4.7 5.7 5.6 7.3 6.5

5.8 6.4 5.1 2.8 6.0 5.5 6.3 4.5 6.1 OO 5.8 i c o q ini 70

7.6 10.1 4.3 4.7 7.2 7.7 8.7 7.1 7.9

1.0 c.. O IU.I i.o

9.7 6.7 4.3 5.3 4.9 7.3 6.7 6.6 6.9

11.7 5.2 4.6 4.1 4.8 4.8 6.1 4.9 3.9

1.4 10.1 10.6 10.9 10.7 10.3 12.6 10.3 15.8

4.0 9.4 7.6 7.3 6.2 5.8 6.2 5.8 6.2 34 6.1 10.1 6.5 3.7 7.8 8.4 8.0 6.8 10.8 8.7 2.9 3.7 15.5 11.7

8.0 9.2 9.1 8.7 9.7 8.0 13.7 7.9 13.9

9.9 12.8 6.5 11.9 15.0 10.3 12.2 11.7 15.5

12.0 10.0 4.9 6.7 6.5 6.1 5.5 6.2 10.1

1.9 8.2 12.4 9.3 9.3 8.2 7.3 10.1 13.1

4.1 6.2 6.5 7.3 9.3 6.2 5.6 7.6 8.7 pc 6.2 10.9 10.9 17.4 13.1 1.6 18.7 11.8 9.8 JJ 10.2 5.4 1.6 27.6 26.0

8.0 8.7 7.5 8.9 7.7 5.6 11.8 8.7 27.6

12.1 4.1 5.8 5.4 11.9 13.1 8.5 18.1 9.3 17.5 5.2 8.6 3.9 12.4 17.4 24.7 7.4 12.7

2.0 15.3 20.2 15.9 22.6 30.3 39.3 28.1 26.9

4.1 17.3 12.4 8.9 9.7 15.0 19.2 18.8 18.3 on

6.0 23.7 18.5 14.2 14.9 19.2 18.9 22.4 17 2

OD i/11 A 1 on oo 7 1C 7

8.0 15.7 11.8 9.2 10.4 17.4 19.0 15.6 15.6 141 41 80 cu. / 1 O. i

12.0 14.7 9.1 9.8 10.8 13.4 14.0 12.3 11.5 17.7 10.1 8.0 8.8 8.0 13.1 13.1 12.3 12.0

2.0 10.8 10.0 13.1 13.1 11.4 11.7 13.9 24.5

4.1 7.2 6.2 9.2 10.3 8.6 8.6 8.0 12.0 07 6.0 7.2 7.3 6.9 10.4 6.5 7.5 8.9 102

o / 7 3 1.6 4.7 12.0 7.4

8.0 6.5 5.3 6.5 6.8 6.6 7.3 7.6 9.7 73

10.1 5.0 5.4 7.3 6.3 6.0 5.4 6.5 7.5 12.0 6.0 4.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 4.9 6.9 8.0

1.4 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 21.8 21.8 21.8

4.0 26.2 26.2 18.7 21.8 26.2 32.7 21.8 26.2

OP 6.1 29.1 21.3 10.9 16.4 22.0 8.6 13.1 191

oo 13- 7.7 5.0 32.7 27.7

8.0 17.0 9.2 6.2 8.7 11.1 8.5 8.6 7.5 13' 7

12.0 10.9 9.3 6.1 5.0 7.6 5.8 12.5 6.3 17.2 9.7 6.3 8.0 9.1 9.7 8.9 7.9 8.6

1.4 6.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.5 3.1

8.2 2.1 3.3 13.9 10.6

4.0 8.9 5.6 8.6 6.1 3.3 5.2 6.5 10.4 OQ 6.1 8.8 9.0 9.6 12.1 9.8 8.0 9.0 10.2

8.0 7.7 7.3 6.5 7.6 8.8 9.8 6.9 9.9

9.9 9.7 5.3 5.6 7.4 6.5 8.9 7.2 12.0 12.0 10.5 6.7 5.4 7.5 7.2 8.1 9.6 13.9

2.0 14.3 8.7 11.8 10.1 8.0 10.7 9.5 9.8

4.1 10.0 7.9 7.2 6.2 6.4 7.0 6.3 7.2 40 6.0 7.4 8.2 9.2 7.4 7.0 8.7 7.9 9.8

7.5 1.6 4.5 13.2 8.7

8.0 8.8 10.2 6.4 8.8 6.5 9.1 7.7 7.8 10.0 7.1 5.6 7.8 6.8 5.3 6.5 4.5 7.5 12.0 13.2 5.6 6.3 8.0 5.2 6.9 7.3 5.9

NISTIR 7415 66 May 2, 2007
Table B6 - Ratio of Maximum Observed Penetration to Average Penetration from Mass Loss (pg. 6 of 6)

Site No.

Exp

Time

yrs

2 Sample Average Pitting Ratio (m/m)

Nom. 1.5 in. Pipe Norn. 3.0 in. Pipe

K M

Mean

Averge Site Pitting Ratio (m/m)

Max. Range

Std. Dev.

Min.

1.5 15.5 51.0 43.2 26.2 48.0 32.7 68.7 52.3

4.0 8.2 6.5 8.7 9.8 11.4 8.6 11.7 12.0

41 60 7.5 7.0 7.0 9.3 11.2 9.5 10.7 879 1 1.6 6.5 13.5 7.0

7.9 8.3 7.9 7.2 8.4 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.3 91

12.0 11.0 9.9 8.2 11.2 8.7 7.5 9.3 8.7 17.4 13.5 8.3 8.7 9.4 10.2 8.0 9.4 7.3

2.0 11.6 10.5 11.7 10.6 12.2 16.9 17.6 18.9

4.1 9.3 6.6 8.4 8.4 10.8 16.4 10.5 14.2

A O

6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.6 9.0 8.2 10.0 8.0 2.5 3.2 16.4 13.1 8.0 8.4 7.6 9.0 7.8 8.2 8.9 8.6 10.5 7' 8

10.1 4.8 5.2 5.6 4.8 7.1 7.6 7.2 7.4 12.0 5.8 3.4 5.8 3.2 6.5 7.3 5.5 5.7

1.3 8.4 13.9 8.3 6.5 14.4 13.4 18.8 12.8

4.1 7.1 4.0 5.0 6.3 14.1 9.9 7.9 6.0

6.2 9.9 6.7 4.5 6.7 9.5 13.9 10.1 4.2 0 _ 2.7 2.8 14.1 11.2 8.0 6.0 4.4 4.8 4.0 6.7 8.2 5.7 4.1 9.9 5.3 4.4 4.4 2.8 8.6 5.8 7.7 8.5 12.0 3.8 3.2 3.4 3.9 6.4 4.0 3.7 2.9

1.1 82.9 39.3 45.8 41.9 42.5 85.1 52.3 62.2

3.6 36.5 15.6 17.7 20.0 21.5 20.6 24.0 25.2

44 5.7 19.9 15.5 14.5 18.0 17.4 21.4 19.6 22.2 18.6 5.6 8.8 36.5 27.7

7.6 27.7 13.9 18.4 16.4 19.3 15.6 20.3 27.4

11.6 19.6 8.9 8.8 12.9 12.5 13.6 15.8 15.1

1.2 5.5 9.3 7.0 6.5 5.9 11.1 11.5 13.1 3.8 6.5 6.1 5.4 4.8 7.2 7.4 7.2 9.7

A C, 5.8 10.2 8.8 11.4 7.2 9.3 7.6 9.8 113 7 6 1.8 4.8 11.4 6.6

7.7 9.3 5.4 9.3 7.7 8.9 10.1 10.3 10.3 76

9.8 6.8 6.3 7.6 6.3 6.2 6.9 6.8 7.7

11.7 5.5 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.2 6.5 6.9 7.2

1.5 46.6 27.2 30.0 39.3 32.7 23.8 30.5 43.1 4.0 19.4 13.1 17.8 20.6 18.0 14.6 25.7 22.5

AG> 5.1 15.3 15.2 13.9 11.8 15.9 10.0 24.2 19-6

4.6 7.0 25.7 18.7

8.0 7.0 8.4 13.6 13.5 7.9 7.5 15.3 13.1 137

10.2 12.1 13.2 9.3 13.2 12.2 12.0 12.8 13.4

12.0 7.9 8.0 9.3 15.5 10.7 9.4 15.5 10.9

1.5 13.1 13.1 1.3 16.4 16.4 10.9 13.1 16.4

4.1 10.1 6.9 7.7 10.1 10.1 10.1 8.2 6.5

A~7 6.1 10.9 8.7 8.2 10.9 6.9 8.2 5.9 8 7 -7 0 1.9 3.1 10.9 7.8

8.0 5.9 6.2 7.7 7.3 6.2 6.2 6.5 8.2 7'°

12.1 4.6 7.7 5.7 7.2 7.0 5.2 6.3 5.5 17.4 4.7 5.4 3.1 4.4 5.5 4.0 5.8 5.9

NISTIR 7415 67 May 2, 2007
Table Cl - Correlation coefficients for linear regression fitting of different corrosion rate measures

as a function of environmental variable standard scores (Z).

Variable Site Average All Measurement Points No. Name

log log Pit log log log Pit log

N MLR (MLR) CPR (CPR) Ratio (PR) MLR (MLR) CPR (CPR) Ratio (PR)

1 Site No. 47 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2 Soil 47 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

3 Location 47 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4 Int Drainage 47 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

5 Burial Depth 47 0.013 0.045 0.117 0.134 0.073 0.079 0.025 0.037 0.039 0.070 0.035 0.032

6 % Sand 34 0.275 0.352 0.132 0.181 0.222 0.260 0.218 0.304 0.026 0.092 0.134 0.203

7 % Silt 34 0.080 0.136 0.026 0.080 0.099 0.050 0.041 0.103 0.014 0.063 0.036 0.037

8 % Clay 34 0.289 0.338 0.152 0.167 0.201 0.294 0.249 0.306 0.022 0.066 0.143 0.232

9 % Colloid 34 0.297 0.344 0.187 0.208 0.176 0.270 0.253 0.311 0.042 0.089 0.128 0.213

10 % Suspen 34 0.239 0.301 0.311 0.277 0.472 0.561 0.194 0.253 0.203 0.190 0.286 0.437

11 Cond 47 0.511 0.556 0.370 0.373 0.376 0.397 0.445 0.483 0.186 0.244 0.220 0.288

12 Temp 47 0.368 0.340 0.088 0.087 0.339 0.357 0.319 0.286 0.049 0.071 0.213 0.247

13 Precip 47 0.158 0.053 0.182 0.089 0.037 0.043 0.091 0.017 0.055 0.007 0.033 0.027

14 Moistr Eq 47 0.315 0.423 0.270 0.323 0.215 0.307 0.291 0.390 0.103 0.185 0.151 0.240

15 Air Spc 45 0.213 0.338 0.054 0.019 0.411 0.478 0.201 0.323 0.048 0.004 0.253 0.357

16 Density 38 0.159 0.339 0.174 0.118 0.482 0.500 0.042 0.010 0.057 0.083 0.079 0.096

17 Vol Shrnkg 37 0.046 0.177 0.084 0.026 0.258 0.269 0.048 0.160 0.075 0.017 0.165 0.183

18 pH 47 0.142 0.117 0.141 0.096 0.068 0.045 0.092 0.054 0.009 0.001 0.048 0.062

19 Total Acid 41 0.570 0.442 0.403 0.375 0.126 0.240 0.499 0.401 0.205 0.234 0.103 0.187

20 [Na+K] 26 0.689 0.714 0.619 0.55S 0.409 0.440 0.625 0.616 0.349 0.376 0.234 0.322

21 [Ca] 26 0.155 0.068 0.211 0.132 0.055 0.063 0.052 0.039 0.030 0.006 0.029 0.053

22 [Mgl 25 0.111 0.203 0.123 0.154 0.132 0.165 0.152 0.237 0.129 0.158 0.080 0.114

24 [HC03 ] 23 0.086 0.150 0.111 0.162 0.044 0.043 0.029 0.100 0.013 0.086 0.055 0.019

25 [Cl] 24 0.506 0.535 0.342 0.327 0.409 0.448 0.449 0.460 0.187 0.225 0.213 0.293

26 [SO«] 26 0.618 0.671 0.615 0.572 0.380 0.404 0.561 0.587 0.343 0.391 0.197 0.271

Maximum Correlation

Coefficient 0.689 0.714 0.619 0.572 0.482 0.561 0.625 0.616 0.349 0.391 0.286 0.437

Variable with Maximum

Correlation

[Na] [Na] [Na] [S04] Den % Sus [Na] [Na] [Na] [SOJ % Sus % Sus

NISTIR 7415 68 May 2, 2007
Table C2 - Correlation coefficients for linear regression fitting of different corrosion rate measures

as a function of environmental variable standard scores (Z) for sites with chemical composition

measurements.

Variable Site Average

No. Name

N MLR

log

(MLR) CPR

log

(CPR)

Pit Ratiolog

(PR)

1 Site No. NA NA NA NA NA NA

2 Soil NA NA NA NA NA NA

3 Location NA NA NA NA NA NA

4 Int Drainage NA NA NA NA NA NA

5 Burial Depth 0.105 0.046 0.013 0.046 0.081 0.088

6 % Sand 0.367 0.410 0.437 0.423 0.020 0.038

7 % Silt 0.331 0.338 0.080 0.105 0.458 0.046

8 % Clay 0.539 0.576 0.230 0.200 0.384 0.425

9 % Colloid 0.500 0.560 0.230 0.222 0.365 0.407

10 % Suspen 0.284 0.284 0.424 0.435 0.596 0.636

11 Cond 0.613 0.689 0.594 0.562 0.407 0.438

12 Temp 0.413 0.391 0.159 0.106 0.432 0.439

0.03 Precip 0.152 0.026 0.217 0.084 0.102 0.106

0.25 Moistr Eq 0.190 0.331 0.157 0.210 0.344 0.382

15 Air Spc 0.022 0.083 0.180 0.190 0.338 0.345

16 Density 0.159 0.215 0.254 0.284 0.025 0.003

17 Vol Shrnkg 0.189 0.028 0.150 0.073 0.220 0.212

18 pH 0.057 0.016 0.034 0.072 0.032 0.012

19 Total Acid 0.700 0.678 0.603 0.524 0.353 0.398

20 [Na+K] 0.690 0.714 0.619 0.560 0.410 0.440

21 [Ca] 0.155 0.068 0.211 0.131 0.055 0.063

22 [Mg] 0.111 0.203 0.123 0.154 0.132 0.165

24 [HC03] 0.086 0.150 0.111 0.162 0.044 0.043

25 [Cl] 0.506 0.535 0.343 0.327 0.409 0.448

26 [S04 ] 0.618 0.671 0.615 0.572 0.380 0.404

Maximum Correlation

Coefficient 0.700 0.714 0.619 0.572 0.596 0.636

Variable with Maximum

Correlation T°^ [Na] [S04] [S04 ] % Sus % Sus

NISTIR 7415 69 May 2, 2007
Table C3 - Correlation coefficients for sequential multiple regression fits for mass loss rate.

Variable 1 Term 2 Terms 3 Terms 4 Terms 5 Terms 6 Terms

No. Name N R N R N R N R N R N R

5 Depth 47 0.045 47 0.558 47 0.685 23 0.854 20 0.918 20 0.943

6 % Sand 34 0.352 34 0.353 34 0.548 17 0.826 17 0.827 17 0.864

7 % Silt 34 0.136 34 0.278 34 0.508 17 0.821 17 0.821 17 0.858

8 % Clay 34 0.339 34 0.349 34 0.496 17 0.829 17 0.831 17 0.859

9 % Colloid 34 0.344 34 0.357 34 0.490 17 0.825 17 0.827 17 0.859

10 % Suspen 34 0.301 34 0.329 34 0.541 17 0.839 17 0.844 17 0.869

11 Cond 47 0.556 a a a a a

12 Temp 47 0.340 47 0.674 b b b b

13 Precip 47 0.053 47 0.606 47 0.684 23 0.845 20 0.921 20 0.948

14 Moistr Eq 47 0.423 47 0.573 47 0.692 23 0.844 20 0.920 20 0.951 15 Air Spc 45 0.338 45 0.568 45 0.664 23 0.849 20 0.923 20 0.942

16 Density 38 0.025 38 0.470 38 0.607 19 0.798 19 0.901 19 0.934

17 Vol Shrnkg 37 0.177 37 0.421 37 0.610 20 0.918 d d

18 PH 47 0.117 47 0.576 47 0.680 23 0.874 20 0.923 20 0.944

19 Total Acid 41 0.442 41 0.597 41 0.671 18 0.788 18 0.845 18 0.876

20 [Na+K] 26 0.714 26 0.729 26 0.782 23 0.855 20 0.921 20 0.942

21 [Ca] 26 0.068 26 0.731 26 0.768 23 0.887 20 0.922 20 0.942

22 [Mg] 25 0.203 25 0.703 25 0.750 23 0.879 20 0.930 20 0.956

24 [HC03 1 23 0.150 23 0.786 23 0.844 C c c 25 [Cl] 24 0.535 24 0.724 24 0.790 23 0.882 20 0.942 e 26 [so.] 26 0.671 26 0.711 26 0.792 23 0.849 20 0.918 20 0.942

Max R 0.714 0.786 0.844 0.918 0.942 0.956

NISTIR 7415 70 May 2, 2007
Table C4 - Correlation coefficients for sequentil multiple regression fits for the corrosion

penetration rates.

Variable 1 Term 2 Terms 3 Terms 4 Terms 5 Terms 6 Terms

No. Name N R N R N R N R N R N R

5 Depth 47 0.134 47 0.381 23 0.649 20 0.747 20 0.844 20 0.872

6 % Sand 34 0.181 34 0.207 17 0.327 17 0.635 17 0.785 17 0.814

7 % Silt 34 0.080 34 0.088 17 0.378 17 0.660 17 0.784 17 0.815

8 % Clay 34 0.167 34 0.174 17 0.599 17 0.647 17 0.787 17 0.815

9 % Colloid 34 0.208 34 0.219 17 0.578 17 0.624 17 0.785 17 0.815

10 % Suspen 34 0.277 34 0.378 17 0.736 17 0.750 17 0.803 17 0.819

11 Cond 47 0.374 a a a a a

12 Temp 47 0.087 47 0.391 23 0.647 20 0.755 20 0.843 20 0.861 13 Precip 47 0.089 47 0.387 23 0.647 20 0.784 20 0.841 20 0.891 14 Moistr Eq 47 0.323 47 0.399 23 0.647 20 0.774 20 0.842 20 0.882

15 Air Spc 45 0.019 45 0.418 23 0.684 20 0.788 20 0.860 20 e

16 Density 38 0.128 38 0.298 19 0.593 19 0.715 19 0.825 19 0.858

17 Vol Shrnkg 37 0.026 37 0.182 20 0.747 c C C 18 pH 47 0.096 47 0.382 23 0.646 20 0.832 d d 19 Total Acid 41 0.375 41 0.403 18 0.398 18 0.519 18 0.718 18 0.765

20 [Na+Kl 26 0.560 26 0.582 23 0.653 20 0.748 20 0.832 20 0.860

21 [Ca] 26 0.132 26 0.628 23 0.721 20 0.747 20 0.834 20 0.862

22 [Mg] 25 0.154 25 0.574 23 0.679 20 0.740 20 0.828 20 0.861 24 [HC031 23 0.162 23 0.646 b b b b 25 [Cl] 24 0.327 24 0.573 23 0.666 20 0.750 20 0.834 20 0.865

26 [S041 26 0.572 26 0.593 23 0.650 20 0.747 20 0.834 20 0.861 Max R 0.572 0.646 0.747 0.832 0.860 0.891

NISTIR 7415 71 May 2, 2007