Abstract
AbstractRecent publications have ascribed the mechanism of cathodic protection (CP) in soils to the development of passivity at the steel surface. This view has, in turn, prompted discussion on the need to re‐evaluate the long‐established criteria for protection. This paper presents a contribution to that discussion. It advances, or rather it restates, the proposition that neither immunity nor passivity is necessarily relevant. It argues that protection is simply a consequence of a potential‐driven lowering of the anodic dissolution rate. However, it also emerges that elucidating any mechanism convincingly requires dependable field or laboratory data on the very low corrosion rates occurring on cathodically polarised specimens. A critical review of published data highlights a lack of reliability in this area.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
