Cathodic Protection Course

Dynamic Cathodic Protection
Applying circuit analysis to Cathodic Protection.

Let your computers stop your corrosion (click here)
Link to free on line Cathodic Protection Course

'' -,-=-

Google
Page 1 of 1 Dynamic Cathodic Protection
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/index.html

Cathodic Protection Training Course

SYLLABUS

The content of all modules is drawn from personal experience and field experimentation
backed up by years of research into the theory and application of cathodic protection in field
conditions.
Each module is supported by documentation including pictures and data from actual field
activities.

The cost of each module includes on-line, real time discussion period at the end of each
module.

We can supply the instruments needed for this course, but will require payment plus
shipping costs prior to dispatch. Your organisation may already have the required
instruments or chose to obtain them locally.

Module 01

Introduction to cathodic protection.
Foundation of C.P.
Examples of traditional data
Practical appraisal the voltmeters used in CP work.
Two practical bench studies, requiring a report.
First field visit, requiring a report.
On-line real time discussion.

Module 02
Technical history of C.P.
Page 1 of 6 Itinery
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/itinery.htm
Explanation of the reasons behind current trends in C.P.
Financial and operational benefits of CP.
Academic and scientific views of CP.
Commercial aspects for and against CP.
Introduction to measuring and monitoring
Theory behind the 'immediate off potential'.
Practical, make two reference electrodes (half-cells)
Field trip with simple exercise in CP measurment requiring a
report.

Module 03
Thermodynamic theory of CP simplified.
The significance of the Pourbaix diagrams.
The Daniel Cell in laboratory work.
The importance of the reference potential.
Codes of practice.
Standard laboratory techniques
The development of standard techniques in field work.
Open circuit measurements.
Errors and their causes.
Interference.
Practical bench experiments.
Field trip with experiments requiring a report.

Module 04
Equivalent circuits
Physical modelling of CP measurement techniques.
Practical construction of 8 measurment models.
Simulation of field conditions on the bench.
Field trip to confirm theoretical and model integrity requiring a
report.

Module 05
Significance of the paper presented at the
Australasian Corrosion Conference of 1982
Practical bench work to confirm this paper.
Field trip to confirm theoretical and benchwork integrity
requiring a report.

Module 06
Introduction continuous potential surveys
Recording voltmeters and data-loggers.
Monitoring techniques which are presently used to establish
Page 2 of 6 Itinery
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/itinery.htm
C.P. criteria.
The Prinz Cell. The Baekmann Cell,
The Alexander Cell and arrangement suggested by
Jim Gosden of the British Standards Institute.
Summary of the present status of the criteria for 'protection'.
Practical bench construction of an 'isopotential cell' and an
Alexander Cell.
Field trip to use both types of cell requiring a report.

Module 07 (under
construction)
Proximity of foreign structures.
Interference possibilities.
Basic interference testing and resolution
Monitoring interference and interpretation of data.
Practical bench experiment simulating interference.
Field work to set up temporary interference readings.
Computer modelling of interference.
Report and on-line real-time discussion.

Module 08 (not compiled yet)
Ground resistivities.
Resistivity measurements.
Temperature and pressure effects.
Effects on corrosion.
Spread of protective currents.
Effects on monitoring measurements.
Groundbed siting.
Practical work with Mega, soil boxes, resistivity cells etc.

Groundbed design.
Sacrificial anodes.
Impressed current anodes, materials conductors, volts drops,
header cables, ring mains, insulation, jointing systems.
Groundbed potential profile plotting.
Closeness of anodes.
Horizontal, vertical, borehole and disused-used oil-wells.
Scrap metal groundbeds.
Practical bench experiments relating to groundbeds.
Field work with survey to locate a groundbed and plot it's
profile.
Page 3 of 6 Itinery

Transformer rectifier design and specification.
Output requirements for land and swamp applications compared.
Safety in design.
Safety in operation and maintenance.
Practical bench work with small transformer/rectifier.
Field visit to identify anf define a transformer recifier.

Polarisation and de-polarisation.
CIPS surveys.
CIPS with switching.
Potential Gradient surveys.
Potential Gradient surveys with switching.
Practical bench demonstration of polarisation.
Field work to set up and monitor an example of polarisation and
de-polarisation.

Long term monitoring using coupons.
Installed monitoring using Isopotential cells.
Installed monitoring using anodes.
Installed monitoring using the Alexander Cell.
Maintenance and care of instruments, tools and equipment.
Old instruments and the advantages of hi-tech, solid state, digital
instruments.
Analogue and digital recording compared.
Advantages over manual records and metering.
Test facilities, test post locations, electrode position, plastic
insulation tube theory.
Students will be required to provide a summary and examples.
for on-line real-time discussion.

Current readings, shunts, multi-meters, magnetic filed meters,
current direction detection systems.
Current paths and C.P. circuits.
Measurable and immeasurable electrolytic paths.
Current density.
Current requirements for protection.
Design, theoretical vs practical.
Page 4 of 6 Itinery
Demonstration on models and practice setting up and testing.
Field work to measure cathodic protection current.

Tank farms and storage facilities.
Refineries and congested areas.
Pipes under concrete.
Isolation joints.
Pipeline manifolds.
Internal cathodic protection.
Ribbon anodes and line anodes.
Field visit with test measurements and report.
On-line real-time discussion.

Computerisation of CP
The Dynamic Project
History of CP computer analysis.
Some software tools for analysis.

Coatings and surface treatment.
Cathodic disbondment.
Hydrogen embrittlement and overprotection.
Anaerobic bacterial corrosion.
Leak investigation.
Corrosion damage reporting, imaging and castings.
Practical bench work.
Field visit with report, on-line real time discussion.

Ground potential fluctuations.
Teluric effects, sunspots and earth magnetic turbulance.
Other identifiable metering disturbances
Field procedures (interpretation of 21 procedures on the web
site)
Practical bench simulation of procedures and disturbances.
Field practice of each procedure with report.

Offshore cathodic protection.
Page 5 of 6 Itinery
Sacrificial anodes offshore.
Impressed current systems offshore.
Isolation joints, flexible hose connections and safety.
Monitoring of offshore pipelines.
Monitoring of offshore platforms and structures.
Practical bench modelling of offshore pipeline CP
Report and on-line real time discussion.

Return to front page

Page 6 of 6 Itinery


Introduction to this course

This course is for everyone involved with the application of cathodic
protection.

Cathodic Protection has always been divided between the science of
electro-chemistry and the application of cathodic protection technology in
the field.

Since the 1980's cathodic protection data has been stored on computers
but the gap between the electro-chemists and the most basic field practices
has made it difficult to achieve computer analysis.

This course includes practical work that is designed to enable the student
to understand applied cathodic protection from the very basic principles.

It is important that each student understands each module as a basis on
which they can move forward to the next.

At the end of the course each student will be required to present a paper
for publication on the CPN website. The merits of each paper will be
assessed by the membership of the CPN.

Experienced corrosion engineers and scientists will be able to check the
validity of each step and are encouraged to express their opinions.

Module 1

An introduction to cathodic
Page 1 of 38 Module 1
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module01/index.html
protection

What is cathodic protection?

Cathodic protection is an electrical way of stopping
corrosion.

It is crucial that a Cathodic Protection engineer
can visualise 'electrical pressures'.

This is a typical illustration of a corrosion cell with the
arrows showing the direction of the current.
This current is driven by the 'pressure' (EMF) of the
corrosion reaction on the surface of the metal.

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module01/index.html
This pressure drives electrical current through the
electrolyte to a point with a lower electrical pressure.

We should imagine the 'electrical pressures' as we use
the instruments to measure electrical values.

This meter is showing that there is a voltage of 0.530
between it's negative and positive poles.

An electrical pressure is known as a 'potential' - not be
confused with a voltage. A voltage is the difference in
potential between two points, measured in volts.

The relationship between voltage, current (measured
by ammeters) and resistance (measured in ohms) is
defined by Ohm's Law.

When measuring voltages any potential can be
regarded as zero for the purpose of graphic display
and calculations.

This potential can then be compared to another
potential using a voltmeter so that the potential
difference can be expressed in volts. The graph above
only shows the difference between the two potentials
at each point of measurement. There is no reason to
suppose that any two voltages are related. This fact is
dealt with in depth during this course, including
practical experiments.

The above experiment will confirm that the graph base
line is a 'floating zero'.

Corrosion produces 'electro-motive-force', which
drives current into the electrolyte, causing the
potential of the electrolyte to increase and the
corrosion current to radiate out into the surrounding
electrolyte.

Corrosion is a chemical reaction that discharges
electricity from an anode to a cathode through the
electrolyte. Metal is changed into rust at the anode and
the metal at the cathode remains undamaged.

The current generated at a coating defect takes the
least line of resistance to return to the pipeline metal

The point where current enters the metal is known as
the cathode. No corrosion reaction is possible at this
site as the potential of the electrolyte is greater than
that of the metal at this immediate interface.

The reaction can continue until equilibrium is reached
between the chemicals and the electrical energy. The
chemicals have 'eaten away' all the metal and have run
out of 'food'. No current is produced and so the whole
coating fault is 'at rest'. Corrosion product builds up on
the metal blocking the path of the current.


Batteries work on this principle. When batteries reach
equilibrium we have to re- charge or discard them.


The public are not generally aware that our gas and oil
comes to us through pipes that are inclined to rust but
are protected by 'Cathodic Protection'.


Pipelines are 'out of sight and out of mind' so little
attention is given to the fact that metal dissolves in
some solutions and gives off electricity.

It is left to the corrosion engineers to worry about such
things until a pipeline fails, causing loss of life,
environmental damage and massive financial
consequences.

Consultants are then asked why the pipeline failed and
the debate about the criterion for cathodic protection
receives attention for a little while.

Ship and boat owners are constantly aware of the
damage caused by corrosion and consequently metal
boats are protected by cathodic protection. They have
lumps of metal attached to hulls for this purpose.
These lumps of metal disolve in the water and give off
electricity which prevents the hull from corroding.

Sir Humphrey Davy first introduced this system by
attaching 'pig iron' to the copper clad hulls of ships.

There is a considerable amount of information and
computer modelling advertised on the internet in this
respect. A search will reveal a number of specialised
companies offering services and the CPN is not
competing in this market.

We are concerned with the analysis of data gathered
relating to the cathodic protection of buried and
submerged, coated, steel pipelines that carry most of
the worlds energy supplies from source to the
consumer.

This is a very specialised study that must begin with at
the interface between the pipeline metal and the
electrolyte in which it is submerged or buried.

This old photograph was taken during the construction
of the network of gas pipelines that have been buried
in the UK for over 30 years. This particular stretch
was coated with coal tar enamel and was handled by
heavy construction machines. The coating was often
damaged and repaired before back-fill.
It is clear that coating faults were sometimes missed.

The pipe metal at these coating faults is in contact
with the ground (the 'electrolyte') , which gets 'charged
up' with electricity. The electrical potential' of this bit
of ground is increased to a higher electrical 'pressure'
than the metal surrounding ground and so the
electricity 'radiates' into the earth.

The metal that is disolving is the 'anode' from which
the electrical current passes into the electrolyte.

The other metal is the 'cathode' into which the current
passes from the 'charged up' eletrolyte, because the
electrical pressure must be balanced out. (everything
tries to equalise it's electrical potential with everything
around it).

The disolving metal is sacrificed to prevent the subject
metal from corrosion, and this fact is harnessed by
providing a less noble metal in the corrosion circuit...
a system known as 'sacrificial cathodic protection'.

There are limits to which sacifical cathodic protection
can be used but the same principle can be used by
causing a manufactured electrical pressure which is
'impressed' into the electrolyte. The electricity is then
'drained' out of the subject metal....... boat hull or
pipeline.... and this interfers with the natural tendency
of the metal to disolve....or rust!

Students should try to form a mental image of
electrical potential (pressure) and the resulting flow of
'charges'. Do not get confused by the flow of electrons
as we cannot see this on our meters. It might be
important to the academics but it is irrelevant to field
engineers

Impressed current cathodic protection

Alternating Current Electricity is generated by a sort
of pumping action which causes it to flow backwards
and forwards in 'waves', but this is no use for our
purposes so we have to get it going in one direction
through a circuit known as a 'rectifier'. At the same
time we can control the amount of current by
transforming it, so the apparatus is know as a
transformer-rectifier.


A transformer-rectifier can be regarded as an electrical
pump which is sucking the electricity out of the
pipeline (etc) and pumping it into the ground (or sea ...
or swamp... or wherever else you want to pump it).

The effect of this is amazing. It stops rust! And it's
cheap!

But there are some snags.

Because it's so good, it gets installed .... then
ignored...... well most people don't even know it
exists... and because it's cheap some people don't think
it's important.


THE BASIC CONCEPT OF
PIPELINE CATHODIC
PROTECTION

As stated before, everything has a 'potential', which
has an effect on it's relationship with it's environment.
Corrosion is effected by this relationship, as it is an
electro-chemical reaction.

The basic concept of cathodic protection is that the
electrical potential of the subject metal is reduced
below its corrosion potential, and that it will then be
incapable of going into solution, or corroding. The
reasons for this are given in thermo-dynamic theory
but these will not be discussed at this stage.

The corrosion reaction and cathodic protection
mechanism has been defined by many scientists and
has become established beyond dispute. Many books
and papers have been published, giving details of the
scientific background of corrosion and corrosion
control, as a result of many years of research by
respected and sincere specialists. It is not intended to
dispute any of this work or the conclusions drawn.

Battery technology can be
compared to corrosion control
technology

The principles of corrosion reactions are used in the
design and construction of expendable and re-
chargeable batteries and accumulators, which play
such a major part in modern life. A battery is designed
to allow a chemical reaction to cause an electrical
current to pass through a desired path, giving energy
to the appliance. The battery has a very carefully
composed electrolyte which has qualities to ensure a
predictable reaction with the other components of the
battery.

Corrosion within a battery can be controlled by
external electrical techniques which are in common
use. Some batteries have a reversible reaction which
enables them to be recharged by adjusting the
electrical 'pressure' at the terminals. Many appliances
are nowadays controlled by computers to balance the
reaction equilibrium to suit their own power demands.


All this is possible because the battery is a
manufactured unit, designed for the purpose of
receiving and supplying electrical current.

CATHODIC PROTECTION IS
DIFFERENT

Unfortunately, cathodic protection is not a unit
composed of simple elements in the way that batteries
are, because the electrolyte is the ground itself. This is
an uncontrollable feature with an almost infinite
variety of qualities.


The picture above is an equivalent circuit diagram of
the cathodic protection systems that were preventing
corrosion over an area of tens of thousands of square
miles of pipelines serving a major oil and gas
production company.


The chemical composition and electrical conductivity
of the ground can span a vast range and can include
environments such as sea water, deserts, freshwater
swamps, arable (fertilised) land, etc. etc. Climatic
effects cause variations in the temperature, and depth
of cover causes pressure variations which effect the
reaction, adding yet more indeterminable factors in the
reaction.


Cathodic protection of such subjects as gathering
stations (shown above) and storage tank bases is
relatively simple but as the size of the structure
increases, it extends through electrolytes of different
nature and the reaction at each interface varies.
Offshore oil rigs, for example have different
temperatures and pressures at the sea bed to those at
the surface, and studies of these conditions have
shown that they have substantial influences on
corrosion.

UNDEFINABLE ELEMENTS

Pipelines are more complex, and can be regarded as
many interface reactions connected together, in
parallel.


The metal element, of the reaction, can be well
defined, as this is specified to a high degree by the
designers. The coating material is carefully designed
but it is generally accepted that no coating can be
perfect, and the faults (or 'Holidays') introduce the first
indefinable element to the system.

During the construction of a pipeline, all possible
measures are taken to detect and repair coating faults,
so it follows that the location and size of those
remaining are unknown and not definable. It is
possible to calculate the theoretical resistance of a
perfectly coated pipeline, given the specification of the
coating and dimensions of the pipeline, but it is not
possible to calculate the resistance of the coating of an
actual pipeline.

The electrical current measurements, taken during
routine cathodic protection monitoring, show that
there is little resistance in the total coating of a
pipeline and this can be explained by the difficulty in
quality control during coating operations and
preventing damage during the construction period.

Perfect coating would prevent any output from the CP
system but undetected coating faults provide paths for
cathodic protection current. We, therefore, know that
there are many unspecified metal-to-electrolyte
interfaces present on an average pipeline.

The electrical resistance of the pipeline metal itself
can be calculated, and is found to be very low. The
effect that the pipeline resistance has on the complex
current paths and variation in potentials, is found to be
so small that it can almost be ignored.

FURTHER COMPLEXITY

Each coating fault is a metal-to-electrolyte interface
which is capable of a different reaction, electro-
motive-force (EMF) which cannot be measured as it is
in parallel with all other EMFs on the same section of
pipeline.

The magnitude of the current from each of these is
dependent on the earth resistance immediately
adjacent to the interface, and the current direction is
the result of the combined effects of all the resistances
and electrical pressures caused by all the other EMF's.

Although it is simple to understand each corrosion cell
and the mechanism of corrosion itself, the reality of
applying the science, to the field, becomes immensely
complex.

This becomes more obvious when the circuit has been
subject to computer modeling as discussed later.

To be effective, cathodic protection must reduce the
metal at each single interface, to below it's corrosion
potential. This is not too difficult to achieve, as each
interface is part of the same structure, which has a
very low electrical resistance. The difficulty is
knowing when all the interfaces have been reduced to
below their corrosion potential in relation to the
electrolyte in their reaction vicinity.

OVER PROTECTION

There are several other problems, however, as too
much current passing onto a steel surface can cause
embrittlement, which under certain circumstances can
be as detrimental as corrosion itself. This is manifest
in such applications as the protection of the external
surfaces of drill pipe casings, where a considerable
amount of cathodic protection current is used.

Another fear of 'over-protection' is that of cathodic
disbondment of the coating. This happens when the
coating manufacturers specifications are exceeded.
Cathodic protection current passing onto the metal
causes the release of hydrogen which disbonds the
coating. In reality this is rarely a problem.

The current will only pass onto the metal at a coating
fault, and the density of the current will depend on the
size of the coating fault and the current locally
available. As the current blows the coating from the
metal, the volts drop at the interface will decrease, and
equilibrium will be reached with a very small increase
in additional disbondment.

If there is no coating fault, then no cathodic
disbondment will occur, as recognised in the British
Standard Code of Practice for testing the coating
manufacturers specification. This requires a specific
size of coating fault on a steel coupon, to be subjected
to an increasing voltage over a specified period. The
test cannot be carried out on a coupon with perfect
coating as the disbondment is observed under the
coating at the edge of the fault.

These matters will be covered in detail later in the
course

THEORY V PRACTICE

We simply want to stop corrosion but we need to
know when we have succeeded. Cathodic protection is
immensely successful, and cost effective, but every
leak is a demonstration that we have not applied it
correctly.

Link to page on Cathodic Protection Measurements

Before going any further it is necessary to imagine
electricity and this has been likened to water pressure,
with containers connected by pipes to allow current to
flow.

However, it can be seen that the levels would equalise
as soon as enough water had run from one container to
the other. No current would then flow.

If water was added to the higher container at the same
rate that it is passing through the connecting tube, then
the current will continue.


This is similar to a dry cell battery which is, infact a
corrosion cell. The current will flow through a
conductor when the two poles are connected in the
same way that water flows through the connecting
tube at the bottom of the two containers.
When the reaction energy has run out, the battery is
dead and the potential levels are the same at each pole.


A corroding nail is similar in that the corrosion current
flows from the anode of the nail, into the damp cloth
and then goes back through the cloth to the cathode of
the nail.

The corrosion reaction on the nail can be forced in a
variety of ways to be defined in this course.

refering back to the water analogy, it is important to
understand that the pressure is caused by the height of
the water in each container and not the weight. The
water will fill any connecting tube and then the
pressure downwards will be greater in the vessel
which has the highest level. The reason for this is
obviously due to the imbalance between the pressures
in the two containers and electrical potentials have the
same tendency when connected by conductors.

This is fine when visualising a simple circuit such as a
single corrosion cell or a dry cell battery connected
through a light bulb, but in a cathodic protection
circuit, or when corrosion takes place on a pipeline we
have no means of measuring each separate cell in this
way.


If we examine the technique that is used in the
laboratory then it becomes clear that provision has
been made to eliminate outside influences in this 'open
circuit measurement'.

This is not possible in cathodic protection field work,
and yet laboratory derived theories are applied to
readings obtained in the field.

The situation on pipelines is that there are many
corrosion cells, all connected to the same metal and
yet each having it's own corrosion reaction. This can
be imagined like this.

It can be seen that it is impossible to measure the
pressure differences in each cell by making a single
connection to the common reservoir at the bottom.
However it would be possible to stop the flow of
water in each of the cells by continuously making the
water level equal in each pair of containers.


However, it can be seen that the pressure measurement
in such a system would need to be between the lowest
water level and the highest water level in the whole
system.


This is achieved in cathodic protection by flooding all
the containers as shown in green. The current then
stops flowing between each pair. Because of the
nature of electricity this requires that current is drained
from the pipeline and pumped into the ground in
sufficient quantity to 'fill all the containers' or
overcome the corrosion reaction potential (EMF).

link to page showing water containers to demonstrate
electrical potentials and in relation to pipeline cathodic
protection

The difficulty in making this voltage measurement is
shown in the demonstration with water holders buried
in sand.


We can measure the level of the water against the
level of the sand.

We cannot see the bottom of the containers but in this
case some are connected to others by a glass tube
through which the water can pass.

Water can pass between some of the visible containers
to others in the same way as corrosion current.

We can never know if the corrosion current has been
stopped when (whole system is in equilibrium) as we
have no reference to zero potential. It is out of sight
and reach!

In the same way, we cannot know the EMF (water
level) of each corrosion cell. We can only measure the
voltage between the potential of the ground and the
potential of ALL OF THE METAL. That is the
equivalent of the level of all of the water in the
containers. We do not know how deep each containers
is and we do not know which are connected.

The established method of measuring the effectiveness
of cathodic protection is by recording the voltage
between two variables. This cannot determine if
corrosion has stopped.

Open circuit measurements

The term 'open cuircuit measurements' was
acknowledged by Dr Peabody of NACE when
recognising the problem that was termed 'the IR drop
in the soil'

Natural corrosion cells are much different from those
set up in a laboratory, as they can be physically minute
or large. Large corrosion cells can contain micro-cells
within the same area where anodic areas completely
surround cathodes or vice-versa. When studying such
cells, we are not able to separate the component parts,
and the measurements have come to be known as
'open circuit measurements'.

This type of measurement involves connections to the
electrolyte as well as the metal and this requires the
use of an electrode. There is a danger that this will
introduce another EMF into the circuit, by the reaction
between the electrode and the electrolyte. We
therefore use an electrode in a solution of its own
salts, which has a known reaction EMF. We can then
make a connection between the electrolyte in the cell
and the earth electrolyte, in the hopes that there will be
no electrical disturbance to the measuring circuit.

In the laboratory, this disturbance is prevented by the
use of a glass capillary filled with inert gel, which is
used as a conductor from the reaction interface to the
reference electrode. The reference electrode is a metal
in a saturated solution of its own salts, as this has a
known reaction potential. Reference electrodes are
related to each other by known voltages and are used
as international standards.


Without this consistency it would be impossible to
evaluate the reaction, develop theories or design
cathodic protection systems etc.

Unfortunately, it became the practice to apply
laboratory principles in cathodic protection field work.

This subject can now be studied in greater detail by
computer modeling which makes it clear that the fixed
potential is normally that of the pipeline metal, and the
variation in the measured voltage is due to the
different potentials elsewhere in the measuring circuit.

Imagine that we require to know the voltage of two
dry cell batteries which are arranged in parallel. That
is to say that each is in connection with a common
conductor to the positive pole and another common
conductor (the ground)to their negative poles.

Both conductors would carry equilibrium current
according to the reaction within each battery and the
voltage between the two conductors could be
measured by connecting a meter between the two.
Unless the two cells are separated, it is impossible to
evaluate the voltage of each battery. Even this is not as
complex as the expectancies of cathodic protection
monitors.

If we take two batteries and half bury them in an
electrolyte with their positive poles exposed and
connected, we have two corrosion cells in closer
condition to those found on a pipeline.

A circuit drawing of this arrangement will show that
current will pass through the ground to equalise the
pressures caused by the interface reactions within each
battery.

We must now try to evaluate the reaction within each
battery using a high resistance voltmeter and an
electrode. We cannot break the circuit or separate the
batteries but connections can be made to the metal or
the electrolyte or both. It will be seen that we are only
capable of measuring voltages across various spans of
the circuit, and cannot establish a reference within that
circuit. The laboratory techniques cannot be applied to
these conditions as there are too many variables which
are impossible to evaluate.

If we increase the number of half buried batteries
connected together, we improve the similarity to a
pipeline, but in order to be more realistic, we must
include some which have their positive poles buried.
This has been shown earlier in this page.

The complexity of the situation is now apparent and
what seemed to be a simple measurement, now seems
almost impossible.

A circuit diagram of the complex arrangement will
show that a different voltage will be measured with
every new position of the electrode, and this is born
out in cathodic protection field practice. It is
especially obvious on pipelines which are not
connected to cathodic protection systems and which
have poor coating.

The different voltages are due to the variety of
potentials at each pole of the voltmeter. These can be
caused in many ways, as described later, but it is
important to realise that they are all components of the
voltage shown on the meter. It is possible to eliminate
them in the laboratory but not in the field, therefore
they must be evaluated and considered in the analysis
of survey results.

The problem is even more complex when cathodic
protection is introduced as this is an additional voltage
which is superimposed over all the others. Being
designed to drain charges from the whole of the

pipeline, it has an effect on the equilibrium of all the
other electrical influences. However, the dynamic
effects of an impressed current system can be removed
by taking voltage measurements immediately after the
system has been switched off.


This cannot be achieved where sacrificial anodes are
used, unless they have a special facility designed for
this purpose at construction stage.

The voltages obtained between the pipeline metal and
a randomly placed electrode have a certain amount of
value when compared to others obtained from
connections to the same pipeline. This is because of
the very low electrical resistance in this part of the
corrosion and cathodic protection circuits.

link to page about electrical potentials and in relation
to pipeline cathodic protection

Students are now required to read Procedure 1a

Students are required to understand the instruments
they will be using.

Students are required to carry out experiments and
submit a report.

Link to some old report forms dating back to before
the original CIPS survey

Go to field trip


Introduction to the second module

Students will by now realise that this course is very practical and based on
the experience of Roger Alexander over a 30 year period.

In order that Cathodic Protection knowledge is transferred to many, it is
now up to all students to share their knowledge through the Cathodic
Protection Network.

The first section of this module is the history of cathodic protection as
experienced by Roger Alexander.

Student are now required to add their own experience of this history in
response

This will be circulated to all students as they continue with the course and
it is therefore essential that we do not allow any CPN information out of
the network or it will diminish the commercial value of being a member of
CPN.

From this module onwards each student will be accumulating increasing
ability to stop corrosion and earning capability. Each student will be
required to review the reports of the students taking the preceding module.

CPN is often asked for Cathodic Protection engineers but will not
recommend anyone on other qualification than completing this course
successfully.

This module includes information about the business side of cathodic
protection and corrosion control because this has had a greater effect on
Page 1 of 2 Cathodic Protection Module 2
07/02/2010
corrosion than the technical and scientific progress that makes control
possible.
Module 2

Technical history of Cathodic Protection

Explanation of the reasons behind current
trends in C.P.


Academic and scientific views of CP.

Introduction to measuring and monitoring

Theory behind the 'immediate off potential'

Practical, make two reference electrodes (half-
cells)

Field trip with simple exercise in CP
measurment requiring a report.

On-line real time discussion using MSN IM or
Skype

Page 2 of 2 Cathodic Protection Module 2
History of development of
the Cathodic Protection Network

Pipelines are mainly made of steel and coated with material that protects them
from chemical reaction with their backfill. This coating must be electrically
resistant and is inspected immediately before the pipeline is buried or
submerged.

Steel pipes leave the factory in lengths of about 40 feet which are welded
together into continuous lengths before lowering into the ditch. Each length has
been factory coated but the gaps left for welding are coated in the field.

Page 1 of 34 Cathodic Protection Network International Limited
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module02/history.htm

The coating inspection is known as 'holiday detection' from the old expression
of paint inspectors that the painter had taken a holiday when leaving a bare
patch. The primary inspection is visual plus a continuous spring ring is
wrapped round the pipe and rolled along using an insulated handle which
connects the spring to a very high voltage coil.
The voltage is set so that an arc occurs at a coating defect and rings a bell in the
detector box. The inspector marks the fault which is repaired and re-checked.

The detection and repair of coating faults delays the work of pipe laying which
involves using heavy plant and equipment in difficult circumstances, all of
which make it very easy to damage the coating further.
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module02/history.htm

It is not surprising that coating faults are not uncommon.

The back-fill operation is inspected but often includes metalic and hard objects
that can effect the cathodic protection measurements and physical condition of
the pipeline when covered.

Cathodic Protection

Cathodic protection test leads are connected to the pipeline metal at intervals
varying from half kilometer to one mile, depending on the country and
operators specification. Additional test points are provided at locations where
the pipeline passes beneath roads, railways, canals and rivers.

The test leads are very well insulated because they are copper and would tend
to form a 'bi-metalic coupling' reaction causing accelerated corrosion to the
steel pipe.

The test leads are bought to the surface through a pipe or concrete post set in
the ground. The ends are normally attached to brass nuts and bolts which
protrude giving access for electrical connection to instruments.

Vandals often damage these test posts so it is sometimes necessary to simply
use a steel post and set the lead in concrete or epoxy compound to the top of the
post.

Cathodic protection Inspectors were required to connect the test lead to the
negative terminal of a voltmeter, connect the positive terminal to an electrode
described as a 'half-cell' which was placed on the ground directly above the
pipeline.

It was thought that the half-cell was a reference potential against which it was
possible to measure the voltage which would give an indication of the corrosion
status of the pipeline metal.

Field workers found that moving the half-cell would produce a significantly
different result and when they reported this the data was altered to suit the
expectations of the clients consultant engineers.

From the 1950's to the 1970's, the source of scientific excellence and
engineering guidance was a publication known as 'Peabodies' published by the
National Association Of Corrosion Engineers.

Scientists believed that the works of Pourbaix substantiated the use of a
standard voltage -0.850v when measured between the pipeline metal and a
copper/copper sulphate electrode as the criterion for achievement of cathodic
protection.

Although cathodic protection had been a very cost effective success there
continued to be disastrous corrosion related pipeline failures world wide and in
the mid 1970's the method of making the field measurements was closely
examined.

In 1974 I was appointed to the position of Corrosion Engineer for the Eastern
Division of Shell-BP Development Corporation of Nigeria.

It was very clear that corrosion control was not effective as leaks were
increasing alarmingly.

I was allowed to utilise some of my unique survey procedures to build an
overview of the corrosion status of the region.

I specified the 'two half-cell' survey to a contractor Mark Derefaka in early
1975 at Bomu Manifold which had been bombed during the Biafran war.


Another manifold had been quickly built over the old one, to get the oil
flowing, but there were no drawings of the old buried pipework as they had
been lost in the destruction of some of the head office buildings.

This contract proved the value of mapping the potential profile of the ground
and showed the exact position of all the old pipework prior to exacavation.


By regarding the whole network of pipelines as a massive electronic circuit, I
was able to draw an equivalent circuit with impressed current systems and
sacrificial anodes.


Pocket calculators had just become available so I was able work out the likely
locations of corrosion using electrical laws and reconciling each part of the
system.

My survey teams would enter their readings on wall graphs using map pins
linked with cotton.


Direct Current readings were shown on cardboard strips on a wall mounted
schematic of the pipeline layout of the whole region.


The picture above shows a very small section of the layout.

By comparing data from the files with present field data I was able to predict,
with a fair degree of accuracy, the likely locations of corrosion failure in the
immediate future.

On one occasion Steve Mayaki returned from an investigative survey having
found that a predicted location had actually started to leak. This was
immediately remedied with a leak clamp having lost only a few gallons of oil
and virtually no environmental damage.

I was able to bring the whole corrosion crisis under control in a couple of years
and reduce the incidence of external corrosion leaks to zero in four years.

This extensive period of investigation and prevention of corrosion confirmed
that there is no way that the 'half-cell' can be used to establish a reference
potential but that it is very useful as a probe to contact the electrolyte in which
the pipeline or structure is burried or submerged.

If a bare metal contact is made then that metal reacts to the salts disolved in the
electrolyte, thus adding yet another EMF to the measuring circuit.

In 1978 I realised that the only way forward was to try to devise a method of
measuring the actual corrosion current and the effect of cathodic protection on
the corrosion reaction itself.


I used an assortment of metal coupons and sensitive meters but the problem
was that the current must be measured without disturbing the reaction. The
effect of the cathodic protection must be measured without disturbing the
passage of that current onto either the anodic or cathodic interface.

The only way to do this is to create a real corrosion cell in such a way that the
corrosion current can be observed in any state of equilibrium.

Return to the UK

During a period of independant research and development in the UK I designed
the Alexander Cell into a working unit.




I had a solicitor witness the document above to substantiate that I had indeed
invented and constructed the device myself at that time.

I then spent four years as a cathodic protection technician working first for
Atkins Inspection and later with Global Cathodic Protection on contract to
North Thames Gas.

Before I took the position I was interviewed by Mike Foskett, Chief Corrosion
Engineer for North Thames Gas who was based at Staines. We discussed my
experience in Nigeria and he agreed that I could conduct field trials of the
Alexander Cell (in my own time) at North Thames Gas pipeline locations.

The project was to conduct a condition audit of many thousands of miles of
high pressure gas pipelines delivering North Sea Gas to the north London area.

A mainframe computer had just been installed in Staines Head Office of North
Thames Gas and the project was guided by Bob Greenwood of the Gas Council
ERS.

The procedure being developed was known as OLI1 (Over Line Inspection)
and was developed in stages to OLI4 which is now known internationally as
CIPS (Close Interval Potential Survey)


The reason for its development was the corrosion failures of pipelines that had
been operated in compliance with the British Standards Institute Code Of
Practice (CP1021) on which the pipeline licencing in the UK was based.

I joined one of four teams of technicians who were making notes of each
voltage as the cathodic protection current was switched off and on at the
nearest transformer rectifier.

Mike Fosket told me that they used the computer to plot the voltages in both
states and that they had started by plotting the difference until they realised that
this plot did not show the coating faults as they had hoped.


The theory had been that they could use the difference between the on and off
readings to work out if the corrosion had been stopped.

In fact, they had found the principles that I had used several years before of
plotting the ground potential profile.

I described the 'two half-cell' procedure that I used extensively in Nigeria and it
was adopted as and additional check to locate the exact position of coating
faults before excavation.

I was then required to carry out the final overline procedures, including the
Alexander Cell, to produce a written report for each location before excavation.

The use of OLI4 procedures alone produced 7% accuracy and the complete
Alexander Technology procedures produced 97% accuracy. The sampling was
100 excavations that I attended personally.

My success was such that Bob Greenwood visited site and saw the my
procedures in action. He later authorised the purchase of an Alexander Cell,
which prompted the Corrosion Engineer from South East Gas to buy one.

Mike Fosket asked me if I would like to write a paper about my view of
cathodic protection which was radically different from mainsteam science at
the time.

The paper was sent for technical editing to Dr Vic Ashworth of Ashton
University, who rejected it completely with the comments that it did not fall
within the concepts of known science.

Because of the success of my work in the field, Mike Foskette arranged for me
to make a presentation to the London branch of the Institute of Corrosion
Science and Technology.link to copy of the notes of that presentation

This was attended by over 100 qualified , practicing corrosion engineers 64 of
whom signed the register.




The presentation included demonstration models and videos of field work to
support the content of the talk.

The Chairman of the BSI Committee for CP1021 attended and addressed the
meeting after the presentation. He said that he supported everything he had
heard and as a result was withdrawing the BSI Code of Practice 1021 for
review.



John Tiratsoo published my paper in his journal Corrosion Prevention and
Control and was then asked by readers to publish it in Pipes and Pipelines
International, a journal that had 10 times the circulation.

I received positive response from all over the world and requests for the
Alexander Cell.

Back to module02 index



Module 2

Explanation of the reasons behind current
trends in C.P. Technology.

Cathodic protection theory dictates that the metal must be reduced to below
its corrosion potential IN RELATION TO A STANDARD REFERENCE
POTENTIAL.

Top corrosion scientists regard the copper/copper sulphate electrode as a
'reference' electrode, capable of rendering a potential to which all C.P. work
can be related.

Standard reference electrodes have a recognised and known potential which
can be used as an electrical datum point against which to measure other
potentials.

Complete cathodic protection is totally achievable but the problem is to
measure the effectiveness of cathodic protection when applied in the field.

The illustration below shows the traditional
method of making the voltage measurement that
has been the basis of all cathodic protection
design and monitoring since the 1950's

Page 1 of 12 Latest trends in Cathodic Protection Industry
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module02/trends.htm

Typical test posts at a road crossing in the UK

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module02/trends.htm

As a general guide the value of -.850v in relation to a copper/copper-sulphate
electrode was chosen as a criterion for the achievement of cathodic protection.
It was felt that this was substantiated by the Pourbaix diagrams and since then
all attempts at monitoring the effectiveness of cathodic protection been based
on this value and the use of this electrode.

Cathodic protection has been very cost effective and successful and
consequently has become required as a maintenace technique for pipelines
world wide.

Being so cost effective has resulted in it being very lucrative for those offering
it as a service.

It is very simple to install and commission and the equipment and parts are
readily available from many sources.

Almost anyone with a rudimentary understanding can design a system that will
reduce corrosion by about 90% and so we have a situation now that there are
many 'cathodic protection experts' in positions of authority, world wide who
cannot explain why pipelines fail due to corrosion that should be prevented.


Our instruments are capable of measuring VOLTAGES which are the
differences between two potentials. Cathodic protection salesmen refer to
measurements as POTENTIALS...... they are NOT. They are potential
differences..... VOLTAGES.

The potential at either pole of the meter can be regarded as zero and the other
pole will be either charged higher or lower. The meter will show positive or
negative values according to the polarity of the connecting conductors but the
value displayed will be a voltage. Even when displayed on a 'scope' type of
instrument.

It is this misunderstanding that has caused the delay in the fruition of cathodic
protection as a science and engineering technology.
Top scientists are anxious to sustain their present concept as this affects their
very livelihood.

Their 'consultancy advice' has been taken by organisations such as NACE and
various pipeline standards authorities world wide.

It is very difficult for them to explain that the standards and criterion that they
recommend cannot be applied in the field of pipeline cathodic protection.

They have sold this criterion as an axiom on which they can base scientific
calculations for the purposes of design of cathodic protection systems.

The effect of 'business competition' on cathodic
protection.

In a world where money rules, it should be recognised that all those who have
the job of preventing corrosion to pipelines have the priority objective to
sustain their position and to earn as much personal money as they can.

The pursuit of personal money has overridden the desire to stop corrosion and
this has been a greater impact than any other cause on the useful life of
pipelines, world wide.

This is the most important fact in each corrosion engineers life.

There are two questions that are regularly directed at CPN.

"If CPN technolgy is so good then why is it not adopted world wide?"

The answer is that the market place economy makes it impossible to implicate
changes that do not have financial benefit to those who hold the money.
Considerable investment had already been made into

The other re-occuring question is 'Where is CPN technology installed so that
we can see it's success?'

The answer is nowhere! The question is simply an attempt to gather
information without paying for it. If the pipeline industry could see a working
example of a new technology they would simply coppy it. The most recent
people to ask this question of the CPN were the Iranians.

The energy industry is multi-national and the pipeline industry has a pool of
experts who work wherever they can get paid. When any technology is
successful it will be copied and in the 'competitive market' work will be given
to the company submitting the lowest tender.
A presentation of CPN technology was given to the Iranians who are now
looking for 'another source' as they do not want to pay Cathodic Protection
Network International Ltd. This ignors the fact that their pipelines are
corroding because they are using technology from those 'other sources' and it
simply does not work.

I can be seen that the commercial situation throughout the world has resulted in
the scientific establishment controlling the only advances in technology and
resisting changes that will damage their established work.

This is not greed, selfishness or meglomania but a natural result of money
being the basis of society. Everyone needs money to survive and the work ethic
dictates that those who do not work are not even deserving of survival. 'Work'
has come to mean 'employed' and that infers that each individual must perform
some defined task. Those that are defining the task are performing work that
gives them power and money. In the case of cathodic protection the top line
definition is the work of scientists.

It was a proposal by Sir Humphry Davy that resulted in the definition of the
work to be done to stop corrosion to the copper cladding of wooden war ships.
This successful application of the scientific principles resulted in the proposal
that this science could be applied to steel pipelines that were corroding in a
very short time.

This type of cathodic protection was defined by scientists and applied by
engineers very successfully resulting in those scientists and engineers being
employed to stop corrosion on other pipelines.

Other scientists studying corrosion found that coatings separated the electrolyte
from the metal and stopped the reaction. Various wax and oil based coatings
were reinforced with cloth and wrapped round the pipelines. These were
conductive (Denso tape is an example) and the protective current from the CP
systems could pass onto the pipeline metal without achieving its purpose.

Electrically resistant bitumen coating was then used successfully but this was
found to be bio-degradable and lost it's effect after a few years.

Coal tar enamel was found to be very effective and durable especially when
combined with glass fibre re-inforcement. All these steps resulted in specialised
consultants becoming more significant in the fields of corrosion control,
coating manufacture and application.

Companies were formed for the manufacture of these coatings under the
scientific guidance of the specialists who were paid to research better products.

It was found that some products were so electrically resistant that they could be
applied very thinly. Some had sufficient tensile strength and impact resistance
that they could be applied without re-inforcement.

Present day coatings are very efficient but none can be applied without faults
because of the nature of pipeline construction.

It is because of these coating faults that cathodic protection is required by law
in most countries of the world.

Cathodic protection is only needed at these coating faults but their location is
not known.

Industry has developed a variety of methods to detect the location of coating
faults and these will be studied later in this course.

Pipelines continue to fail through external corrosion and there is a need to
monitor the effectiveness of cathodic protection. However most big pipeline
operating companies only take those measures that are required by law
governing the issue of their pipeline operating licences.

There is no commercial incentive to try to enhance the effectiveness of their
cathodic protection systems as the failures are covered by insurance.

The insurance companies can easily raise their premiums and the value of oil
and gas are such that the enormous profits can assimilate the cost of repair and
replacement of the damaged pipelines.

The majority of rich people world wide are best served by the present status of
corrosion control and cathodic protection and that is why CPN technology has
not been adopted world wide.

The Emperors new suit

There is a famous story of the Emperors new 'invisible' suit and the little boy
who sees him nude because he has not been told of the 'magic suit'.

This story is common to many countries and the principle must be known
world wide.

Tricksters had convinced the whole nation of this suit and the little boy wass
the only person who had not received the message. His simple logic and the
evidence of his eyes showed him that the suit did not exist. His exclamations to
this effect werwe well received in the story but in real life the little boys
comments would not be popular. He was a 'whistle blower' who upset the
'establishment'.

The fable seems to end there, but in real life there remains the problem of the
Empeorors pride and 'entrepreneurs' money.

The purpose of this chapter is to allow the student to realise that
commercial pressures have a bigger effect on pipeline corrosion than the
natural effects of the corrosion reaction.

The technology contained in this course will not please many in the cathodic
protection industry as it challenges the very foundation of much of their work.

NACE and the rest of the cathodic protection industry have based all their
efforts on the fact that the copper/copper-sulphate or silver/silver-chloride
electrodes renders a reference potential on which it is possible to base cathodic
protection design and monitoring.

That is the 'invisible suit' that they sold to pipeline operators who wanted a
criterion so that they would know when cathodic protection was effective and
had indeed stopped corrosion.

Sir Humphrey Davy had proved that cathodic protection actually worked when
applied to copper cladding on ships and pipeline operators found that leak
frequencies dropped off dramatically when cathodic protection was applied to
pipelines but no one could say when the application was complete and to what
extent it had been achieved.

When it was recognised that there were errors in the measurements these were,
at first, blamed on inaccurate instrumentation and poor field work.

With the availability of digital instruments and some laboratory studies it was
possible to identify that there were real errors in field measurements that are
not present in laboratory techniques. These errors were all described as 'the IR
drop in the soil'.

It is significant that the 'experts' did not use the simple world 'voltage'. This
would have made it simple for any electrician to see the error and recognise the
way the mistake had come about. It would clarify the route to a simple solution
such as the Alexander Cell. However, this would not sell the 'invisible suit'. It
was necessary to cloud the issue with new terminology.

Scientists thought that they could eliminate the errors by taking the required
voltage with the cathodic protection current switched off. It seemed that the
error was caused by the measuring circuit alone and that by removing the
current that was causing the voltage error, the measurement would be
equivalent to the actual reading at the interface, as required by Pourbaix.

The very first lagre scale attempt to utilise the 'off potential' theory was carried
out by North Thames Gas in the UK.

It was then realised that most pipelines were affected by more than one
transformer rectifier and that the current had not actually been switched off but
had been reduced by an unquantifiable amount.

Attempts were then made to sychronise the switching of all the transformer
rectifiers that affected each length of pipeline. This was difficult in the 1980's
as the technology was not available.

Instrument manufacturers and cathodic protection providers came out with
more and more sophisticated sychronised switching systems in an attempt to
achieve the required 'immediate off' potential.

In 2001 Roger Alexander (the little boy who saw the Emperor was nude) was
requested by NASA to submit a report for consideration by the American
Standards Authority relating to the Immediate Off Potential Survey.

Click here to see the paper sent to NASA

Cathodic protection is required by law in most countries as a condition for a
pipeline operating licence. However, there is no internationally agreed criterion
for the achievement of complete protection.

Pipeline operators are required to report leaks but it is very difficult to compile
information about this.

The use of the CIPS survey is an attempt to apply the Pourbaix theory based on
the voltage between the metal potential and the electrolyte potential but the
DCVG survey shows that the same electrode renders a different value in each
location. This makes it possible to accurately identify the position of coating
faults using the difference in ground potentials touched by copper/copper-
sulphate electrodes but proves that the CIPS survey CANNOT determin the
corrosion status of the pipeline metal.

Faced with this problem, the cathodic protection industry has no scientific point
of excellence that can answer the simplest questions levied by the most
fundamental electrical and electronic engineers.

CIPS and DCVG are being used world-wide despite the limitations of DCVG
and the complete failure of CIPS to determine the corrosion status.

Mainstream scientists still insist on trying to use the Cu/CuSO4 electrode as a
reference potential and consequently the CPN is the only organisation that can
offer the computerisation of pipeline cathodic protection,

The adoption of CPN technology in Iran is currently being delayed by financial
and business considerations but it is significant that this technology would save
the country money that is being spent on unsuccessful methods of applying
cathodic protection. Less money spent on CPN technology would stop most of
the corrosion that is causing massive financial losses and ecological damage.

This is the same situation that pertains in the rest of the world but Iran has at
least had the sense to examine cathodic protection and look for better ways of
applying it.

No doubt the people of Iran will apply the same sense when looking at the
financial situation surrounding their massive corrosion related losses.

Money and esteem

Those who are not good at making money are seen as failures and their work is
not respected.

It is similar in principle to qualifications... if a person has no qualifications, he
cannot know about the subject under discussion. It then follows that a persons
word is a valuable as his apparent wealth. The notion is that if a person is not
rich, he/she is not intelligent or wise.
The logic is that everyone knows that money = success and if you have no
money you are a failure.

What has this got to do with corrosion control and cathodic protection in
particular?

All of the above have directly affected the present status of corrosion control
and cathodic protection. Pipelines continue to fail and are repaired or replaced
at enormous expense and loss of money, energy and sometimes life.

If one of these failures reaches the general public there is an investigation and
enquiry that takes enough time for the public to lose interest. In the event of the
incident becoming politically important, many lawyers and polititians make a
lot of money. The first reaction of the investigators is to ascertain the cause of
the failure. These investigators normally are people involved with the
maintenance of safety standards and are keen to find taht the cause is not with
themselves or their immediate friends and associates.

The most convenient cause is local activity at a low social level. In the case of a
developing nation this is usually found to be people trying to steal the product
or clumsy behaviour of a mechanical device such as a digger or tractor.

It is very rarely blamed on corrosion as this is preventable by people in
positions of power and wealth, but if that is the conclusion of the inquiry then
the consultants have a ready excuse in that they claim that there are matters
beyond the control of science and that they can never guarantee total success of
cathodic protection.

The British Standards Institute Code of Practice CP1021 was withdrawn by Jim
Gosden when it was proved in public that the recommendations could not be
practiced. It has been replaced by a very loose document that carefully avoids
any specific procedure.

The National Association of Corrosion Engineers based in the USA (NACE)
has gained world wide authority over the years as no other national or
international body has come forward with a workable criterion for cathodic
protection. They publish a standard for cathodic protection of pipelines that is
available on the internet at a cost of $83. I am the founder and owner of CPN
and cannot afford this as no businessman or entrepreneur is prepared to pay any
money to me. NACE will not answer any correspondence from CPN and it is
proving impossible to arrange an official meeting with UK authorities.

It would seem that financial and commercial considerations are more important
than stopping corrosion.

CPN is not a commercial success but CPN technology has prevented and halted
corrosion in every challenge that has been faced during the past 30 years.

The Alexander Cell is still the only clear method
of indicating the effectiveness of cathodic
protection and yet nobody is using it for purely
commercial and business reasons.

I am at present considering giving away the home
made Alexander Cells that I have in my posession
so that they will prove that CPN technology really
works in the field.




Module 2

We must examine the finances of cathodic protection as a number of facts

Pipelines are a method of transportation and storage in competition with trucks,
trains and tank farms.

They are therefore a threat to the livelihoods of those who sell their skills in
these competitive industries.

Pipelines themselves require little maintenance and are only replaced on a
contingency basis.

Good maintenance is not in the interest of the pipeline construction industry.
The pipeline construction industry has a vested interest in pipelines needing
replacement.

Corrosion is a major contingency issue in the maintenance of pipelines and is
prevented by coatings to separate the metal from the environment.

The coating industry has a vested interest in pipelines failing so that they can
sell more advanced coating systems that they can claim will reduce the cost of
pipeline replacement.

Cathodic protection enhances the purpose of coatings and is therefore in
competition with the transport industry, the pipeline construction industry and
the pipeline coating industry. These three industries have a financial hold on
the energy industry.

Page 1 of 4 Cathodic Protection Finance
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module02/finance.htm
They also have a significant presence at the top financial levels in world energy
based societies. Cathodic Protection is so cost effective that it directly threatens
the livelihood of a small section of the very rich.

Insurance

As the energy industry gains importance in any social structure, contingencies
become an issue of high finance and political power.

When energy is dominant there is enough money to insure against corrosion
leaks and insurance companies simply put their premiums at a level where they
can make a healthy profit. During these periods they are not interested in
Cathodic Protection as the frequency of leaks is not an issue in their balance
books.

However, when the financial clout of energy is low the industry looks at
financial efficiency and it is found better to cut out the insurance companies
and take on the contingency risks in house.

All of the above affect decisions at the top level of finance and government
policy in relation to Cathodic Protection.

Political advantages of corrosion leaks

Action groups and political activists seize on danger to life and environmental
hazard of every pipeline failure that hits the headlines. Every successful method
of corrosion control weakens their case against energy producing companies by
depriving them of the events that lead to publicity for their cause.

Cathodic protection is therefore a powerful tool against local unrest and
terrorism. It removes a substantial amount of agravation from local
communities and if organised correctly can actually involve them in simple low
cost activities that benefit industry.

CPN technology is based on simple procedures that can be learned at local
level for the locally based activities. This is not only the most cost effective
way to organise Cathodic Protection but has immense local social benefits.

This would seem to be a benefit to all but in fact it is not. If local workers hold
the technical ability to save millions of dollars then they hold the power over
that money and demand a disproportionate reward for their services.

If the local Chiefs sieze this amount of power then they elevate themselves to
the realms of those who control the energy rescources of the world. They then
become interested in money and world power so that they can live to the
standard the see their contemperaries enjoying.

This is not wrong, but it leads to a situation where scientific and technical facts
are ignored and financial considerations are dominant.
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module02/finance.htm

Unfortunately finance cannot stop corrosion and science can. Scientists have
developed a system of working together to enhance the understanding of
science and broaden their knowledge.

Professional Bodies

Specialists have grouped together in Universities and professional bodies for
the purpose of exchanging knowledge.

As each speciality develops into practical value, these groups take advantage of
that to enrich themselves privately.

With the introduction of 'healthy competition' it becomes advantageous to
restrict the knowledge to within the group.

In an ideal world this would not be necessary but in the real world, the
intellectual property of each group has a value that is now traded as a
commodity.

The mass of knowledge that is possessed by each group represents each
individual's 'equity' in that group and so each must pay to enter the group to
buy that 'equity'.

It is now possible to obtain the consent of a group by simply paying without
aquiring the necessary expertise. Degrees and memberships can be bought and
their ownership does not necessarily mean that the person is competent.

However, membership of a particular group gives the right to contribute to the
group judgements that influence the commercial value of the group 'product'.

It is this process of power that has restricted the control of corrosion for at least
30 years.

Patents laws and all that stuff

Protection of the individual's equity is a problem that has resulted in the Patents
system.

In order to launch CPN technology into the world of cathodic protection it is
necessary to make it financially attractive.
On the invention of the Alexander Cell I was told that the only way that it
would be accepted would be if I had the 'patent' which would give me the
monopoly on commercial exploitation supported by the law of the UK.

If anyone was to copy the device and sell it I could then sue them for financial
damages.

I found that the cost of a patents agent was not within my ability to pay so I
spent three weeks learning the requirements and filed my own patent
application that would give me the monopoly for a period of 18 months. This
cost a relatively small fee to the UK patents office.

In the process of doing this I found that a friend had tried to patent the
Alexander Cell in our joint names using the services of a patents agent.

I succeeded in having this patent application annulled by the patents office and
then tried to market the device.

I then found that the Alexander Cell simplified cathodic protection monitoring
to a extent that it undermined the complications that had been introduced by the
'professional bodies and universities.

It is these complications that support the need for their expertise in advising the
industry and charging very high consultancy fees.

I recently attended a meeting at a university where the leading professor asked
me why my technology was not successful and then went on to explain to the
meeting that the only way to monitor the effects of cathodic protection is by the
use of an electrode system identical to the Alexander cell ... which he drew on
the flip chart. I suggested that he had just drawn the Alexander Cell and he
agreed.

He had on the table copies of many of my published papers yet the business
professionals representing my interests at that meeting refused to arrange any
payment to me for the transfer of my knowledge to the professor.

Without any financial support I have been unable to progress CPN technology
further through that route.

This is a statement of fact not a comment on the
system used by the UK




Module 2

Academic and Scientific history of Cathodic
Protection.

There are many facets of the development of cathodic protection not covered in
this history and students are invited to add any information they have for the
benefit of the CPN.

Theoretical understanding of the corrosion reaction is supported by
thermodynamic theories such as the Nernst Equations.Link to a typical
scientific explanation

A text book on cathodic protection was published in 1953, by the National
Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) and was known as 'Peabodies' by
the engineers and technicians working in the field until at least 1973. It was
regarded as 'the Bible fo Cathodic Protection', and was the reference book that
set the standards of the day.

The technology advocated in this book was utilised over the whole of the
natural gas pipeline network in the UK that was under the control of The Gas
Council.

The Gas Council Engineering Reseach Station (ERS) in the north east of the
UK examined and ratified the science of cathodic protection and advised
regional corrosion engineers on matters of field implementation.

In the very early 1970's a group of practicing field engineers formed the
Institute of Corrosion Science and Technology in the UK.

07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module02/academic.htm
One of the founding members was Tim ffrench-Mullens of Solus Schall, an
international oil service company supplying pipeline inspection services.

Other companies included MAPEL, a branch of William Press (pipeline
construction and maintenance company in the UK.
Roxby Engineering (CWE) a similar company, Spencer and Partners, a
specialised corrosion consultancy and 'body shop' for corrosion engineers.

There were many others and the 'experts' seemed to move between companies
and form their own companies according to financial opportunities.

Cathodic Protection field technicians were recruited from the public and given
very brief instructions before being set to work.

The only qualification that was insisted upon was the ERS certificate of a 'Coat
and Wrap Inspector'. This qualification required an examination at the British
Gas ERS and was recognised world wide.

There was no such qualification for cathodic protection technicians but some
were invited by NACE to become members if they gained a reputation for their
work.

There was a requirement of a recognised degree in engineering to become a
member of the Institution of Corrosion Science and Technology but this was
contentious among the founders and eventually that organisation fell apart and
re-named itself into different organisations.

The National Physical Laboratory, at Teddington in the UK, formed the
'Corrosion Club' under Dr Peter Francis, as a co-ordinating advisory body for
matters concerning cathodic protection who were referred to by such
organisations as the UK Patent Office, The British Broadcasting Corporation
and the leaders in industry.

They co-operated with the Univesity of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology (UMIST), corrosion studies headed up by Dr David Scantlebury.

Prof. Schrier of Middlesex Polytechnic wrote the definitive scientific guide to
cathodic protection published by the National Physical Laboratory.

The British Council arranged for overseas scientists to visit the UK on fact
finding arrangements and the field element of these visits were arranged by
private companies.

The basis of all the theoretical work remains based on the equations of
thermodynamics and it is assumed that the values that can be derived from
laboratory experiments can also be applied in field work. These values depend
on the 'half-cell' being a 'reference electrode' with a known potential (EMF) that
can be compared to the EMF of the corrosion reaction at the interface between
the subject metal and the electrolyte.

It will be seen that other values must be considered when applying these
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module02/academic.htm
equations. These include temperature and pressure as well as the pH of the
electrolyte.

Field data, gathered in the present way contains errors as great as 300% and
this is readilly demonstrated using sand trays, in the field and now using
computer modelling.

This was acknowledged by the British Standards Institute in 1985 and shown to
be so by scientists form Nederlands and Germany. However, the UK and US
organisations and scientists did not acknowledge that this invalidated all
cathodic protection design and applied theory.

The measurment of the metal to electrolyte EMF by comparison to a reference
potential is a component of ALL CATHODIC PROTECTION DESIGN.

Academia is still trying to devise ways of applying a reference electrode to
field work and the isopotential cell has been patented in various shapes and
forms.

This is favoured by many scientists but does not render the anticipated results
when used in the field.

Many leading scientific papers have been ignored as has a major guide to
cathodic protection field work.

Handbook of Cathodic Corrosion Protection, by Walter von Baeckmann
(Author), Wilhelm Schwenk (Author), Werner Prinz (Author). This book was
in the UMIST library in 1980's and was translated with the help of Bryan
Wyatt, Managing Director of Global Cathodic Protection Ltd.

In 1973 cathodic protection technicians were issued with analogue
galvanometers with a measuring circuit resistance of 10,000ohms per volt and
their duties were to record voltage measurements between the steel of the
pipeline and a copper/copper-sulphate electrode placed on the ground near to
the 'test lead' which the contractors had 'cad-welded' to the pipeline.



Technicians found that many of the techniques recommended in Peabodies did
not render the results predicted. Some of the information it contained, simply
did not work when applied in the field.

However, they believed that technology in industry was well established and
that anything that had been widely adopted and standardised throughout the
world was soundly based on scientific principles that seemlessly interfaced
between academia and the technicians who were puting that science into
practice. This was wrong!

Research in available publications of the time revealed that most of the
recommended procedures did not produce the predicted results.

After many months of field experimentation by the founder of CPN it became
apparent that the measurement that was being taking was recorded relative to a
floating zero.

The copper/copper-sulphate electrode (known as a 'half-cell) was not a
'reference potential' when used in the manner defined in the cathodic protection
industry.

Tim ffrench-Mullens and Jim Gosden, the head of corrosion engineering for the
Central Electricity Board of the UK, were aware of this problem and scientists
in Europe were working on an acceptable solution that fitted in with the
practices of the day.

Technicians and field engineers were told that the problem was with the
instruments that were available in the field. Digital voltmeters were not widely
available at this time.
Peabody produce a table and formulae for correcting readings taken on a low
resistance volt meter and this will be explained fully in this course.

The validity of pipe-to-soil potentials, taken in the traditional way was
recognised some years later when the measurment was described (in a paper by
DR.Peabody himself and published published by NACE,) as an 'open circuit
measurement', and this renders it impossible to eliminate errors which are not
present in normal closed circuit electrical measurements.

The traditional technique for making the standard CP 'pipe-to-soil'
measurement had became open to question when pipelines began to fail in spite
of having been theoretically 'protected.

Some 'experts' had blamed operator error and then poor instrumentation for the
anomalies in the readings but it was then recognised that there is another
voltage included in the traditional 'pipe-to-soil potential measurement' and this
was named the 'IR drop in the soil'.

It was thought that improved instrumentation could remedy this problem and a
whole range of new meters were offered onto the market.

Methods were then proposed to overcome the problem which had been
identified.

In the late 1970's a theory was developed that it would be possible to eliminate
the error in pipe-to-soil potential readings by removing the CP current flowing
onto the pipeline.

It was reasoned that it would be possible to measure the 'protected potential'
after the CP current is switched off and before the pipe 'de-polarised'.





Prof. Walshe of Southampton University
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/ses/people/staff/WalshFC.html
acknowledged to a meeting that the only way to
establish if a corrosion reaction has stopped it by using
an arrangement of electrodes such as the Alexander
Cell.

Minutes of meeting

It is therefore true to say that
CPN can measure the effects of
cathodic protection and NACE
cannot.

Module 2

Measuring the effect of corrosion
control

Corrosion failures occur in spite of the use of cathodic protection.

This shows that there is an error in measuring the effectiveness of cathodic
protection.

Corrosion is electro-chemical and this suggests that electrical metering can be
used for short term monitoring.

The simplicity of the circuit of a single corrosion cell would tend to suggest
that there is a simple means available to make the required measurement.
Standard reference electrodes have a recognised and known potential which can
be used as an electrical datum point against which to measure other potentials,
in a laboratory.

We normally measure VOLTAGES which are the differences between two
potentials.
This causes confusion because the readings are commonly called "potentials",
where in fact, either of the two potentials can be regarded as zero and the other
will be either higher or lower. The meter will show positive or negative values
according to the polarity of the connecting conductors.

Cathodic protection theory dictates that the metal must be reduced to below its
corrosion potential IN RELATION TO A STANDARD REFERENCE
Page 1 of 7 corrosion control measurements
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module02/monitor.htm
POTENTIAL. These potentials can be measured in a laboratory where it is
possible to control all elements of the circuit, but it has proved impossible, so
far, to measure the required potential in field work.

The problem with field measurements, is that the earth at one location has
never exactly the same potential as the earth at another location. In a
laboratory, the electrolyte is contained in an electrically insulated container and
the currents are all in closed circuit and related to the corrosion reaction. The
potential of the electrolyte can be measured at the reaction interface by the use
of a glass capillary containing an inert, but conductive, electrolyte such as agar-
agar gel. This cannot be achieved in field work, although a close approximation
has been achieved by Dr Prinz of Rhurgas, in Germany.

BR> Field readings taken and analysed in the established way are not related to
each other, except through the low resistance of the pipeline itself. This is
easily demonstrated by a simple calculation base on Ohms law as follows.

Take any sample readings from a typical pipe-to-soil "potential" cathodic
protection survey and work out the amount of current that must be passing
through the pipeline between any two cathodic protection test facilities. It will
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module02/monitor.htm
be found to be ridiculously high, to the extent of being unbelievable.

For example, a span of 24"diameter steel pipeline ten miles long will have a
resistance of about 0.001 Ohms, depending on the wall thickness, and the
readings at either end of the span might be -0.950 volts and -1.250volts. This
would not cause alarm, and would be plotted on an 'attenuation curve', without
too much comment. However, calculation shows that, if the 'half-
cell' (electrode) is truly a reference, then there is a volts drop of 0.300 over the
ten mile span. This seems reasonable until it is realised that with such a low
resistance there must be 300 amps passing through the pipeline. Something is
quite clearly wrong with the measuring system or the theories.

This has not been seen as a major problem until pipelines became so
widespread and numerous that reliability became a major industrial
consideration. Even now there seems to be little concern with this subject until
a failure causes financial losses. The public at large are not even aware that the
inadequacy of present technology could result in an unforeseen disaster.


Before going any further it is necessary to imagine electricity and this has been
likened to water pressure, with containers connected by pipes to allow current
to flow.

The pressure is caused by the height of the water in each container and not the
weight. The water will fill any connecting tube and then the pressure
downwards will be greater in the vessel which has the highest level. The reason
for this is obviously due to the imbalance between the pressures in the two
containers and electrical potentials have the same tendency when connected by
conductors.
This is fine when visualising a simple circuit such as a single corrosion cell or a
dry cell battery connected through a light bulb, but in a cathodic protection
circuit, or when corrosion takes place on a pipeline we have no means of
measuring each separate cell in this way.

If we examine the technique that is used in the laboratory then it becomes clear
that provision has been made to eliminate outside influences in this 'open
circuit measurement'. This is not possible in cathodic protection field work, and
yet laboratory derived theories are applied to readings obtained in the field.

It can be seen that it is impossible to measure the pressure differences in each
cell by making a single connection to the common reservoir at the bottom.
However it would be possible to stop the flow of water from the highest level
in the small vessels by adding a supply of water from a higher level.

However, it can be seen that the pressure measurement in such a system would
need to be between the lowest water level and the highest water level in the
whole system.
This would be a much greater voltage (Vp in the drawing) than that required to
stop the flow in the single cell with the biggest differential.

Comparing electrical pressure with that of water is a good starting point, but it
is better to imagine electricity as simply a pressure which can pass through
conductors, and is restricted by resistances.

Imagine trying to measure the gas pressure within a cylinder. We must allow
that pressure to act on a meter which will guage the pressure. This action will
consume some of the gas within the cylinder and it is the passage of the gas
which makes it possible to measure the pressure itself.

The same rule applies to electrical pressure and this used to cause considerable
inaccuracy in voltage measurements until the digital meters made it possible to
measure voltages while drawing very little current.

Back to the gas cylinder and imagine measuring the pressure with a guage
which draws very little gas. We still have the problem that this pressure has to
be compared to something. In the case of gases, we can related this pressure to
atmospheric pressure, displayed in such a way that we can imagine its effect on
our senses. We are aware that we are all subject to atmospheric pressure and
the effect of increasing the pressure on the human body can be felt, when
swimming under water, for example. We use our muscles to compress stale air
which is then exhaled and can feel the current of air through our nose and
mouth. Gas pressure is therefore part of our lives with which we are familiar.
We can use this experience to imagine electrical pressure, which has similar
qualities.

Everything has an electrical potential (pressure) which has the tendency to
equalise on contact with another item of a different potential. It is this tendency
which causes current to flow and allows us to make.

In the same way that chemical reactions can give off gas, and increase the
pressure within a cylinder, for example, chemical reactions can cause an
electro-motive-force (EMF) which increases the electrical pressure, or
potential, on one side of the reaction.

In order to measure the electrical pressure of this reaction we must complete a
measuring circuit with a low resistant electrically conductive path. The whole
measuring circuit reaches equilibrium with a small amount of current flowing
depending on the requirement of the meter.(in the case of digital meters, the
current required to make the measurement is very small).

In the case of measuring the voltage of a dry cell battery, we connect a
voltmeter between the poles of the battery and the voltage is the difference in
electrical pressure caused by the chemical reaction at the interface between the
electrolytic paste and the inner surface of the metal container and the electrode
which serves as the positive pole of the battery.

The technique is simple because it is possible to confine the path of the current
to that of the measuring circuit and each element of this circuit can be
evaluated. Voltage drops can be measured around the circuit, using independent
meters and measuring current can be detected by magnetic field and other
techniques.

Natural corrosion cells are much different, as they can be physically minute or
large. Large corrosion cells can contain micro-cells within the same area where
anodic areas completely surround cathodes or vice-versa. When studying such
cells, we are not able to separate the component parts, and the measurements
have come to be known as 'open circuit measurements'.

This type of measurement involves connections to the electrolyte as well as the
metal and this requires the use of an electrode. There is a danger that this will
introduce another EMF into the circuit, by the reaction between the electrode
and the electrolyte. We therefore use an electrode in a solution of its own salts,
which has a known reaction EMF. We can then make a connection between the
electrolyte in the cell and the earth electrolyte, in the hopes that there will be no
electrical disturbance to the measuring circuit.

In the laboratory, this disturbance is prevented by the use of a glass capillary
filled with inert gel, which is used as a conductor from the reaction interface to
the reference electrode. The reference electrode is a metal in a saturated
solution of its own salts, as this has a known reaction potential. Reference
electrodes are related to each other by known voltages and are used as
international standards. Without this consistency it would be impossible to
evaluate the reaction, develop theories or design cathodic protection systems
etc.

Unfortunately, it became the practice to apply the same principles in cathodic
protection field work. It seems that many thought that the electrode could be
regarded as a reference against which other potentials can be established. They
thought that pipe to soil voltages were pipeline metal potentials which could be
plotted against a fixed potential supplied by the use of the 'reference electrode'.
There are still remnants of this concept in cathodic protection practice today,
which are manifest in 'attenuation curves' etc., which are used by some in the
design of CP systems.

This subject can now be studied in greater detail by computer modeling which
makes it much clearer that the fixed potential is normally that of the pipeline
metal, and the variation in the measured voltage is due to the different
potentials elsewhere in the measuring circuit.

Imagine that we require to know the voltage of two dry cell batteries which are
arranged in parallel. That is to say that each is in connection with a common
conductor to the positive pole and another common conductor to their negative
poles. Both conductors would carry equilibrium current according to the
reaction within each battery and the voltage between the two conductors could
be measured by connecting a meter between the two. Unless the two cells are
separated, it is impossible to evaluate the voltage of each battery. Even this is
not as complex as the expectancies of cathodic protection monitors.

If we take two batteries and half bury them in an electrolyte with their positive
poles exposed and connected, we have two corrosion cells in closer condition
to those found on a pipeline. A circuit drawing of this arrangement will show
that current will pass through the ground to equalise the pressures caused by the
interface reactions within each battery.

We must now try to evaluate the reaction within each battery using a high
resistance voltmeter and an electrode. We cannot break the circuit or separate
the batteries but connections can be made to the metal or the electrolyte or
both. It will be seen that we are only capable of measuring voltages across
various spans of the circuit, and cannot establish a reference within that circuit.
The laboratory techniques cannot be applied to these conditions as there are too
many variables which are impossible to evaluate.

If we increase the number of half buried batteries connected together, we
improve the similarity to a pipeline, but in order to be more realistic, we must
include some which have their positive poles buried. The complexity of the
situation is now apparent and what seemed to be a simple measurement, now
seems almost impossible.

A circuit diagram of the complex arrangement will show that a different
voltage will be measured with every new position of the electrode, and this is
born out in cathodic protection field practice. It is especially obvious on
pipelines which are not connected to cathodic protection systems and which
have poor coating.

The different voltages are due to the variety of potentials at each pole of the
voltmeter. These can be caused in many ways, as described later, but it is
important to realise that they are all components of the voltage shown on the
meter. It is possible to eliminate them in the laboratory but not in the field,
therefore they must be evaluated and considered in the analysis of survey
results.

The problem is even more complex when cathodic protection is introduced as
this is an additional voltage which is superimposed over all the others. Being
designed to drain charges from the whole of the pipeline, it has an effect on the
equilibrium of all the other electrical influences. However, the dynamic effects
of an impressed current system can be removed by taking voltage
measurements immediately after the system has been switched off. This cannot
be achieved where sacrificial anodes are used, unless they have a special
facility designed for this purpose at construction stage.

The voltages obtained between the pipeline metal and a randomly placed
electrode have a certain amount of value when compared to others obtained
from connections to the same pipeline. This is because of the very low
electrical resistance in this part of the corrosion and cathodic protection
circuits.


Instant off Potentials for Cathodic Protection
of Buried Steel Structures

Roger Alexander

Organization
Mailing address
Including postal code and
COUNTRY
roger.alexander@virgin.net

ABSTRACT

Steel pipelines transport the worlds energy supplies from their natural reservoirs to the
consumers. These pipelines pass under ground which is sometimes densely populated or
where the public would be threatened by an explosive failure.

The integrity of these pipelines is therefore of huge financial and public safety consequence,
and yet there is no international standard criterion for cathodic protection of these pipelines. .
This is the problem that is addressed by this paper.

INTRODUCTION

Steel naturally corrodes when in contact with an electrolyte, such as the ground in which it is
buried or the water in which it is submerged. The first line of defense against corrosion is a
coating of inert material which chemically separates and electrically
isolates the pipeline metal from its environment.

However, a perfect coating is impossible in practice and the electro-chemical reaction is
concentrated at coating faults. Cathodic protection has been developed as an extremely cost
effective method of extending the life of metal structures by an order of magnitude.
Unfortunately it has proved very difficult to monitor the effects of cathodic protection and there
are frequent disastrous corrosion failures at locations where it was thought that corrosion had
been prevented.

In 1974 two oil pipelines in West Africa leaked 6 weeks after being constructed. They
continued to develop further leaks until the author diagnosed and corrected 'interference'
current from another CP system. They have not leaked since. ROGERIS THERE A
REFERENCE FOR THIS? Bob . The pipelines concerned were Ekulama 14 and Ekulama 17
which were 6 diameter steel pipelines coated with Napco thin film coating each from the
repective oil well to the gathering station at Ekulama which is in the Eastern division of Shell
Nigeria. There are records of these events but I do not know if they would be considered to be
in commercial confidence.

Cathodic Protection requires scientific knowledge and engineering discipline to apply. In 1978
a wrong connection at an oilfield installation caused 20 pipelines to leak within 3 weeks due to
the accelerated corrosion caused by the direct electric current leaving the pipe metal.
Page 1 of 13 Instant off potentials
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module02/offpots.htm

Despite cathodic protection being required by law in most countries there is no internationally
agreed criterion at present.

MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS OF CATHODIC PROTECTION

Many failures of cathodic protection demonstrate the need for a better understanding and a
clear benchmark for pipeline operators in respect of this method of corrosion control.

The most definite method of monitoring the performance of corrosion control is by physical
examination by excavation. The development of the 'intelligent pig' has allowed excavations to
be carried out at locations suspected of damage before the pipeline actually fails but this
method does not indicate the measures that must be taken to stop the progress of any
damage that is found.

The next most certain way of measuring the actual progress of corrosion is to install a series
of weight loss coupons which will reflect the performance of the pipeline metal, but this is a
long-term exercise with practical difficulties. It requires expert and highly trained technicians to
apply the technique and is not commonly practiced.

The electrical element of corrosion can be controlled and it would seem that a simple electrical
measurement would suffice to establish when corrosion has stopped. After all Faraday
determined that the amount of metal that goes into solution in the corrosion reaction is directly
proportional to the amount of DC current which results from that reaction.

The problems in making field measurements are discussed later in this paper but until the early
1970's it was generally believed that a standard reference electrode could be used in cathodic
protection field work and the instructions were that it should be placed as close as possible to
the pipeline or structure.

The traditional '-0.850v' criterion:

It was believed that if the pipeline became negative relative to a copper/copper-sulfate
reference electrode in excess of 0.85 volts with the CP system operating, then corrosion had
been halted. The academics supported this notion and Codes of Practice have been
published. (CP 1021 B.S.I. Code of Practice for Cathodic Protection of Pipelines)

Fig. 1. The standard method of monitoring cathodic protection.

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module02/offpots.htm
The 'Pourbaix' diagram was published in the 1950's and was hailed as validation of the -0.850v
criterion in relation to a copper/copper sulfate electrode.

Fig. 2. The Pourbaix diagram of Iron in water.

Problems

Pipelines have continued to leak, even when this criterion has been reached, and new criteria
have been proposed, but none have been adopted internationally.

In 1982 the paper ' New Developments in Measuring the Effectiveness of Cathodic Protection'
was presented to the Conference of the Australasian Corrosion Association, Hobart, Tasmania
discussing the problems involved in establishing when corrosion has stopped. This author
made a presentation on this subject to the London Branch of the Institute of Corrosion Science
and Technology on the 10
th
of January 1984 and had a paper published in the International
Journal 'Corrosion Prevention and Control' in October 1984 entitled An Examination of CP
Monitoring using the half-cell and voltmeter which disputes the present interpretation. Much
research has been carried out, resulting in a number of techniques being suggested, and
devices patented. None of these
devices have achieved international acceptance, and there is still no reliable criterion for
cathodic protection.

The papers rely on the reader being conversant with details of corrosion science whereas the
aim is to find a criterion, which is easy to understand, and achievable with instruments that are
rugged enough for field use.

Instant off potentials

In the late 1970's worldwide experience was showing that the methods of ascertaining the
corrosion status of buried, steel pipelines were inadequate as pipelines were subject to
corrosion failure at locations where they were thought to be cathodically protected.

The traditional method of monitoring a CP system was to make a voltage measurement
between the pipeline metal and an electrode placed as close as possible to the pipeline in the
ground in which it was buried (or in the water in which it was submerged).

Field experience had revealed that such CP voltages were subject to an IR drop in the soil'
which was of indeterminate value. The IR drop in the soil is another way of expressing the
potential difference (voltage) between two places in the soil. The effect of these variations in
voltage is to alter the reading shown on the meter.

Fig. 3. The IR Drop in the soil

A laboratory in Holland had shown that this error could be removed by using an analogue
recording voltmeter while the current was switched off to show a 'kick' in the downward curve
at a value at which it was thought the metal was 'polarized' by the cathodic protection system.


Fig 4. Kick in the downward curve.

The theory is that the 'IR drop' is caused by the flow of the current from the cathodic protection
anodes to the pipeline metal, and that this current could be switched off to eliminate the
voltage drop. It is known that the pipeline holds its voltage due to
polarization, and it was thought that it would be possible to measure the polarized potential'
immediately after the current was switched off.

Trials were carried out for an international oil company in Africa, but it was found that the
Instant off Potential measurement was impractical and would be too expensive to be viable in
field conditions. This was due to the cathodic protection systems being integrated into a
complex electrical circuit being affected by at least 43 transformer/rectifiers with a variety of
output voltages and currents. It was also found that there were many other influences on the
voltage readings that could not be removed by switching the cathodic protection
transformer/rectifiers off. Attempts to isolate each section of pipeline for the purpose of
switching proved that the electrical equilibrium is altered by such activity and results do not,
therefore, show the normal corrosion status of the pipeline.

The 'two half-cell' survey was developed and used successfully in West Africa during this
period confirming the variable potential of two copper/copper-sulfate electrodes when placed in
contact with the ground. Potential gradients were plotted and used to identify coating faults,
ground bed profiles and active corrosion. These techniques are mentioned later in this paper.

Close Interval Potential Survey (Switching) (CIPS)

In the early 1980's a survey was devised to take 'Instant off' voltage readings at close intervals
over all pipelines in a major network that included urban and rural, high-pressure gas mains.

The author was a participant of this most significant CIPS survey that was carried out between
1980 and 1984 in the following way.

Disconnecting the cathodic protection bonds at insulation joints and isolation flanges isolated
sections of the pipeline network.

Fig 5. A Cathodic Protection Bond Wire

The position of the pipeline was marked using Pearson type instruments.

The transformer/rectifier for this section was switched on for 5 seconds and off for 2 seconds.

The pipeline metal was contacted through CP test points and a trailing wire was connected to
the negative pole of a digital voltmeter, carried by the technician. The positive pole of the
voltmeter was connected to a copper rod suspended in a saturated solution of copper sulfate
that was put in contact with the ground.


Fig 6. Close interval potential survey.

The technician noted the highest and the lowest readings on the meter as the switching
occurred at each point of ground contact. This was repeated at 10-meter intervals over the
pipeline.


Fig 7. The form on which the technician entered the voltage readings.

Millions of 'on' and 'off' readings were fed into the computer during a four-year period by four
teams of technicians and two engineers engaged on the survey. The computer plotted the 'on
readings', the 'off readings' and the difference between the two, which was anticipated to show
the results of corrosive activity. The third plot was abandoned after a few months as it was
then thought to be insignificant.

Fig 8. Computer generated plot of readings supplied by technician.


During the four-year condition audit, several 'Pearson type' techniques were used to identify
the position of the pipeline and to pinpoint coating faults.

A method was devised to record the 'Pearson' signal and make a permanent, graduated record
that could be compared to physical examination, following excavation.

Fig. 9 Permanent graduated record of a 'Pearson Style' survey.

The 'two-half-cell' method of survey [ref 2] was used extensively to identify exact locations for
excavation, and the Alexander Cell was field tested with permission of the pipeline operating
company.


Fig 10 One example of a 'two-half-cell' plot showing potential gradients in the soil.

Further refinements were made to the original survey and the format entirely changed to
determine the locations to excavate for physical examination.


Fig. 11. The final report format for excavation at locations suspected as having
active corrosion.

At total of 102 excavations showed less than 10% success in predicting the condition of the
coating and pipeline metal by the CIPS survey.

The operating organization developed 'the intelligent pig' concurrently with this over line audit,
but cathodic protection monitoring has the advantage of indicating the cause of corrosion
damage as well as suggesting remedial measures by adjusting the cathodic protection system.
It is also possible to monitor the success of remedial measures inexpensively.

Observations

The survey did not meet the requirements of the laboratory recommendations for making the
'polarized potential' measurement that should be made on an analogue recording voltmeter
capable of showing the 'kick' in the downward curve.

Attempts were made to find a satisfactory way to conduct a recorded CIPS and they clearly
demonstrated that the polarized potential could not be readily identified as required by the
laboratory test and that other influences would have to be evaluated to obtain a true potential
for the purposes of applying the principles of the Pourbaix Diagram.

Fig 12. Analog recording voltmeter with stepped electrode showing the difficulty of identifying
the 'kick' in the downward curve.

Attempts were made to correct readings using analog recording voltmeters with static
electrodes to evaluate the voltage differences over a period of time at a single location. This
would also be necessary in order to apply the principles of Pourbaix and Faraday.

Fig 13 Recording voltmeter with static electrode showing how the on and off potentials varying
during a period of several minutes.

All cathodic protection systems work in an environment influenced by other cathodic protection
systems. By isolating one section we alter the equilibrium, which we wish to measure, in the
act of making the measurement. (See also later note)

Synchronized switching of TR's was attempted and found to be impossible to achieve. Several
techniques have been suggested since this audit but successful results do not seem widely
available despite the marketing of sophisticated and expensive
instrumentation.

No attempt was made to switch the sacrificial anodes that were influencing the sections under
test although some of these were temporarily disconnected.

The exact position of each reading would have to be recorded and repeatable for the survey to
have any value.

Comments on this type of survey.

Cathodic protection systems are switched on while in service, and the current flowing from the
cathodic protection anode is a significant part of the electrical equilibrium. It is a powerful
electro-motive force within the integrated circuits of both the corrosion reactions and the
measuring system and to remove this force from the corrosion reaction is to falsify the results
of any measurement.

Removing the 'IR drop' in the measuring circuit can easily and cheaply be achieved using an
isopotential cell as suggested by many reputable and leading scientists. There are two
versions patented and a simple unpatented version of the same principle can easily and
cheaply be made by anyone.

Instant off and CIPS readings cannot be analyzed using either Ohms Law or Kirchoff's Laws
but are traditionally interpreted by the informed guesswork of specialists.

We should aim to determine whether corrosion has stopped by non-intrusive techniques that
can be confirmed by physical inspection at coating faults that are detected to be corroding.


Module 2

Students are required to make two 'half-cells'.

This is necessary to make it clear that a copper/copper-sulphate electrode is a
very simple article with no mystical powers or scientific properties that are
difficult to understand.

It is simply a copper rod immersed in a saturated solution of copper sulphate.
Copper sulphate is the result of disolving copper in sulphuric acid and therefore
the scientific description 'in a saturated solution of it's own salts' is correct.

Copper sulphate crystals can be obtained from Ebay and Distilled water can be
obtained from any garage.

Page 1 of 6 Itinery
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module02/makeref.htm

Any clear plastic material can be used as the tube in which to place the copper
sulphate crystals and the porous plug can be made from wood or gypson
(plaster of Paris). Other domestic fillers can be used but they must be porous
when they have set.

Page 2 of 6 Itinery
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module02/makeref.htm

Scientists would have us believe that it is crucial to have pure copper and a
pure saturated solution solution, but in fact you will be able to check this out
when you have made the two electrodes.

You will be able to alter the purity of one cell and make a voltage measurement
against the potential of the other.

Page 3 of 6 Itinery

Experimenting on a damp cloth or in a tray of wet sand will help you
understand the function of the electrode.

The two Cu/CuSO4 electrodes will be used extensively during the remainder of
this course.

The real purpose of the 'half-cell' is that of a convenient ground contact for
buried pipelines and as a contact with the water in the case of submerged
pipelines or structures.

Page 4 of 6 Itinery

Page 5 of 6 Itinery


Page 6 of 6 Itinery

Standard pipe-to-soil voltage measurement at a test post,
with the Cathodic Protection installation switched on.
INSTRUMENTATION. AND EQUIPMENT
High resistance voltmeter.
Cu/CuSO4 electrode.
Two lengths of flexible cable, each fitted with a voltmeter
connector and a crocadile clip.
Field notes
Report forms
METHOD
Page 1 of 2 Cathodic Protection Network, cathodic protection, corrosion control, pipelines, energy su...
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module02/proc1.htm
1.1 Place the electrode firmly in the ground.
1.2 Connect the electrode to the positive pole of the voltmeter.
1.3. Connect the negative pole of the voltmeter to the pipeline test point
connection.
1.4. Record the voltage reading on the record sheet.
Notes.
This is the standard type of measurement that has been recorded
over many years by most operating organisations.
The reading will indicate that the CP is functioning and connected
in the correct polarity.
Such records can be related to corrected readings where the errors
have been identified by using other procedures.
click to return to Module 02 index page
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module02/proc1.htm

Pipe-to-soil voltage measurement at a test post
where there is a standard position for placing the half-cell,
with the Cathodic Protection installation switched on.
INSTRUMENTATION. AND EQUIPMENT
High resistance voltmeter.
Cu/CuSO4 electrode.
Two lengths of flexible cable, each fitted with a voltmeter
connector and a crocadile clip.
Field notes
Report forms
METHOD
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module02/proc1a.htm
1.1 Place the electrode firmly in the standard ground position.
1.2 Connect the electrode to the positive pole of the voltmeter.
1.3. Connect the negative pole of the voltmeter to the pipeline test point
connection.
1.4. Record the voltage reading on the record sheet under the heading 'P'.
Notes.
This is the standard type of measurement that has been recorded
over many years by most operating organisations.
The reading will indicate that the CP is functioning and connected
in the correct polarity.
Such records can be related to corrected readings where the errors
have been identified by using other procedures.
click to return to Module 02 index page
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module02/proc1a.htm


Module 2

Field trip with simple exercise in CP measurment requiring a report.

Return to the test post that you identified in module 01.

You will need your digital multi-meter and one of the half-cells that you have
made.

You will need a sheet of paper and a permanent water-resistant pen of some
sort.

This is necessary so that you can relate to the historical data that you will be
looking at during this course.

Carry out Procedure 1

Carry out Procedure 1a

Carry out Procedure 1c

Carry out procedure 1d


Page 1 of 1 Itinery
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module02/field.htm


Module 3

Thermo-dynamic theory of CP simplified.

It is necessary to address this subject as I once received a letter from Dr David
Scantleberry of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology saying "You should get yourself a good book on electro-
chemistry". Such books always refer to thermodynamics, the behaviour of
electrons and energy.

In another instance, at the end of my presentation to the Institute of Corrosion
Science and Technology in London in the 1980's, one of the delegates stood up
and said that I had ignored the thermo-dynamic aspects of cathodic protection.

Page 1 of 10 Module03 Thermodynamics
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module03/thermo.htm
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/thermo.htm


(Happily, another delegate stood up, announced himself as having a PhD in the
subject, and stated that I had satisfied him in all aspects. The other 100
delegates glared at my critic so he sat down red-faced.)

However, these two incidents show that you will always be faced by someone
who cannot rebutt your presentation of the facts, and who will resort to trying
to confuse everyone with long words. It is for this reason that I have developed
the ability to demonstrate and repeatedly confirm everything that I know about
cathodic protection and corrosion.

Thermo-dynamics deals with energy and corrosion releases energy in the form
of electrons. These electrons flow in the opposite direction to that shown on a
voltmeter as the direction of Direct Electrical Current (DC)

You will find some who want to show their superior knowledge by pointing
this out. The answer is to agree and then ask if this is shown on any of the
meters that have ever been used in the field by corrosion engineers.

The direction of the electron flow only confuses the matter and should be
ignored.

This will only receive further attention when we can see an electron and see
that it makes a difference to the practical application or measurement of
cathodic protection. There are more complications that are already present in
the study and practice of cathodic protection engineering.

The main point of the laws of thermodynamics, relating to corrosion and
cathodic protection, is that the energy released by the chemical reaction
between metals and their environments must complete a circuit to reach
equilibrium. Everything must balance out.

The metal disolves, giving off energy, which we can measure using a digital
voltmeter. We can 'see' this corrosion using and Alexander Cell.


This energy can be called Electric Motive Force or EMF. This adds to the
property known as 'electrical potential'of the eletrolyte which has disolved the
metal. This is at the anode on top of the Alexander Cell.


This electrolyte is then charged to a higher potential than the surrounding
electrolyte to which the energy is radiated. In the case of the Alexander Cell,
the sample of electrolyte with which the cell is 'fired up'is isolated from the
ground and the only conductive path to complete the circuit is through the
cathode on top of the device. We therefore have the only method to make the
measurements that are necessary to use the Pourbaix Diagram or the Nerst
Equations for in practical application of cathodic protection.

The use of the half-cell or any other reference electrode CANNOT render the
data required by all of the theories used in cathodic protection!

We will study the whole of the circuit in detail later in this course.The
thermodynamics and all the science is important in that it is the law by which
the whole world works.

In this case we have a law that applies to each corrosion cell and we are dealing
with millions of individual cells on every length of pipeline. This will include
micro-corrosion cells on a single coating fault, long line corrosion cells that can
have their anodes separated from their cathodes by several meters and complex
combinations of corrosion reactions.

It is all very well knowing how to control each individual corrosion reaction if
we are in a laboratory or trying to design a battery charger but we have to
define a system that will stop all corrosion reactions on a variety of structures
made from a variety of metals in a variety of environments.

Each of these reactions has a direct effect on all of the others. The application
of simple rules like the Nerst Equations and Gibbs free energy etc are only
relevant if we have a method of measuring the values that are incorporated in
them.


In practical work the measurement is complicated by the fact that the electrical
balance of the circuit formed by connections between all the metalic structure
must be measured in 'open circuit' as they are all submerged in common
electrolyte of infinitely variable conductivity.

We therefore need the skills of electronic engineers and considerable computer
power to analyse the true status of each corrosion reaction.

Back to Module 03 index page


Module 3
Thermodynamic theory of CP simplified.
The Daniel Cell in laboratory work.
Codes of practice.
The development of standard techniques in field
work.
Open circuit measurements.
Errors and their causes.
Field trip with experiments requiring a report.

Page 1 of 1 Module03
07/02/2010


Module 3


People will refer to the Pourbaix Diagrams and scientific papers by Pourbaix
and Evans because they are recognised as having explained how cathodic
protecion works in thermo-dynamic terms. That is what I have been told by
qualified scientists and I am not about to argue with them... they have been paid
a lot more than me for their conclusions!

Page 1 of 3 Itinery
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module03/pourbaix.htm
I have reproduced the Pourbaix Diagrams several times and believe that they
show a state of equilibrium in which metal has not got the energy to disolve. It
does not matter what equations etc he used to prove this as everyone believes
him ... so that's OK.

It is VERY IMPORTANT to understand how the measurements were made to
obtain the values included in these equations.

In plain words this drawing shows a piece of steel called 'the working electrode'
corroding in an electrolyte. The corrosion current passes through the electrolyte
to the other piece of steel called the 'counter electrode'.

The potential of each piece of steel is regulated by a device called a
Page 2 of 3 Itinery
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/pourbaix.htm
'potentiostat'. The 'reference electrode' is shown to look like a half-cell with a
copper rod 'reference electrode' in a saturated solution of copper sulphate
'reference well'.

The Lugin Capillary is a fine glass tube filled with conductive gell that
provides a chemically inert conductive path to an exact position in the active
region of the interface between the working electrode and the electrolyte.

Even this sophisticated arrangement leaves some sceptisism due to the fact that
making the measurement disturbs the value of the data it yields.

There have been some attempts to apply the principles of this type of
measurement in the field by Global Cathodic Protection in Libya for example.
A plastic tube is provided to represent the lugin capillary but of course this tube
finishes at the coating and not at the bare metal interface that would be present
at a coating fault.

Such arrangements are of no technical or scientific value.

There are several arrangements of electrodes patented by scientists in an
attempt to resolve this problem. CPN has one such device available known as
the Isopotential Cell and will be described in detail elsewhere in this course.

If we cannot make the same measurements in our work then we cannot apply
the equations. The Alexander Cell is the only available method to obtain the
correct values in field work, to apply to the Pourbaix Diagrams.

This will be made clear during this course.

Back to module 03 index page
Page 3 of 3 Itinery
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/pourbaix.htm


Module 3

The Daniel cell and such measuring techniques

The main point of the laws of thermodynamics relating to corrosion and
cathodic protection is that the energy released by the chemical reaction between
metals and their environments must complete a circuit to reach equilibrium.
Everything must balance out.

The metal disolves, giving off energy, which we can measure using a digital
voltmeter.

This energy can be called Electric Motive Force or EMF. This adds to the
property known as 'electrical potential'of the eletrolyte which has disolved the
metal.
This electrolyte is then charged to a higher potential than the surrounding
electrolyte to which the energy is radiated.

It is VERY IMPORTANT to understand how the measurements were made to
obtain the values included in the equations used by scientists. If we cannot
make the same measurements in our work then we cannot apply the equations
and the Pourgaix diagrams, the Nerst equations, ohms law, Kirchoff's laws etc
cannot be applied to establish the corrosion status.

Page 1 of 3 Cathodic Protection Network, training course, Daniell Cell
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module03/daniel.htm

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/daniel.htm
The Daniel Cell is a glass module that allows absolute electrical potentials to be
measured.

The Daniel Cell is used to establish the relative potentials between metals in
saturated solutions of their own salts.

you can see a steel coupon in acid connected to a voltmeter and the meter
connected to a copper coupon in acid.The glass loop connecting the two is
filled with porous material.... rolled up paper will do...and that provides a
conductive path for the current to pass through

In this way they can assign numerical values to electro-chemical reactions.
Scientists can then work out theories to explain the behaviour of corrosion.
Our job is to see if these theories can be seen to work in the field.

back to Module03 index page

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/daniel.htm


Module 3


A voltmeter can only display the difference between two potentials.

To display a voltage of 3 the meter must assign the value of zero to the pole of
the meter we shall call 'A' and measure the potential difference between that
value and the value we shall call 'B' which is connected to the other pole of the
meter.

Page 1 of 3 Cathodic Protection Network training course Module 03
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module03/refer.htm

A+B=3. Everyone knows this but DO NOT THINK ABOUT IT!

In the illustration we see that the meter will displayed the value as negative
because that it has been programmed to display it.
the software has told it that B is zero.

If we need to know the relationship between three potentials using a single
voltmeter, we must take two readings. A-B=3 and A-C=9

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/refer.htm

or we can take the readings A-B=3 and B-C=6 in which case the meter has
assigned the value of zero first to A and then to B.
It is clearly better that we relate both readings to one zero as this avoids
calculations and confusion.

This becomes more obvious if we need to know the relationship between four
potentials using a single voltmeter. We need only to take three readings
providing we establish our own reference potential. A=0 therefore A+B+-3,
A+C=-9 and A+D=3.

being able to think this way is essential to the cathodic protection field engineer
and technician. It is the only way to picture what is actually going on with
regard to corrosion and CP currents.

It is possible to calculate the relationships if we take different readings but it is
unnecessary and confusing... so let's not do it. Unfortunately traditional
cathodic protection readings do not have a common zero but it is possible to
establish the common zero using standard CPN Procedures.

Back to Module03 index page
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/refer.htm


Module 3

Codes of Practice

There are numerous codes of practice that have been published
and revised over the years but none of them have been based on
scientific principles as outlined in this course.

I would suggest that all students try to follow all written codes of
practice and carry out a detailed examination and report of the
results.

The first module of this course is in fact such a critique and CPN
has received no answer from the many communications sent to
those issuing those codes of practice.

We, therefore, cannot say that they are wrong but we can
definitely prove that we are correct.

It is a fact that the British Standards Code of practice CP1021 was
withdrawn by the chairman of the BSI committee as a result of
the presentation made by Roger Alexander to the London Branch
of Inst Corr Sc and Tech

I got no response from the Institute relating to this presentation
Page 1 of 4 Cathodic Protecion Network training course Codes of practice
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module03/codes.htm
and sent the following letter.

Still no response from the Institute

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/codes.htm

They then responded.

J.H.Morgan was an established consultant with many published
papers based on the use of the half-cell as a reference.

I received the following letter from Jim Gosden.

Many years later I was requested by a University in the USA to
contribute to an appraisal of the American standards with
reference to this whole subject.

NACE have no single criterion for the achievement of cathodic
protection.



Module 3


Standard Laboratory Techniques allow scientists all over the world to co-
operate in the general advance of science and understanding.

Standard tests are carried out to ensure accurate product data can be published
and that the quality of products conform to the specification required by the
consumer.

However, we should not rely on the scientific establishment to provide absolute
solutions to pratical problems

The following is my reason for doubt.

During a visit to UMIST I was shown a glass tank that was set up to conduct a
'cathodic disbondment test' intended to conform to the BSI code of practice.

Specified positioning of the test coupons in relation to the reference electrode
had been ignored and readings were being adjusted by controlling the anode
potential level.

The test was ineffective, but the reported results would contain enough of the
right numbers to keep the client (a major paint manufacturer) happy and to
convince the paint users that the BSI standard had been met.

Prof. Les Wolff wrote this particular BSI code of practice and had supported
me (in writing) relating to my publication about the problems that are inherent
in cathodic protection field work. He was specific about the positioning of the
Page 1 of 2 Cathodic protection network Module 03
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module03/labor.htm
reference electrode which should have been EXACTLY 10mm from the
metal/electrolyte interface.

There is much more to this matter than is apparent from a purely scientific
point of view. UMIST were busy 'selling the king his new coat'. Dr Scantlebury
was the tailor who convinced the King of Paint that the new suit would serve
the purpose and he was believed because of his reputation and qualifications.

It is vitally important for corrosion engineers to understand that field
conditions are not readily mirrored in the laboratory

The purpose of CPN is to stop corrosion. If our custommers want corrosion
stopped they will have to come to us as all competition is interested in is
making money.

During my travels as a corrosion engineer all of my client have said that what
they have learnt at university has not worked in the field.

Page 2 of 2 Cathodic protection network Module 03
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/labor.htm


Module 3

The development of standard techniques in field work.

The best way that I can cover this topic is from a personal point of view, as
there have been a flood of suggestions and hypotheses from many sources.

Engineers in other specialities have consistantly refered to cathodic protection
as a 'black art' and 'something of a mystery'. I have even heard an engineer
saying that 'cathodic protection deals with a 'different form of electricity'.

This is nonsense! Cathodic Protection is an exact engineering practice based on
an exact science which can produce predictable results based on repeatable
demonstration of the observations on which it is based.

It is for this reason that no-one will be allowed to bullshit in the name of the
Cathodic Protection Network.

Link to Procedures index page
Page 1 of 1 Cathodic Protection Network training course module 03
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module03/standard.htm


Module 3

Open circuit measurements

This is a name used by Peabody of NACE to describe an electrical
measurement made when one pole of the meter is connected to the electrolyte
rather than a definitive point on a metalic circuit.

A normal electrical measurment is made by contacting metal conductors Such
measurements can be studied in the confines of a laborarory or on a bench,
using trays and containers with sufficient space to allow the movement of the
contact point within the electrolyte.

Page 1 of 6 Itinery
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module03/opencir.htm

It will be seen that the measuring circuit of the standard cathodic protection
measurement consists of a conductor from the negative pole of the meter to a
conductor in a pipeline test post that is directly connected to the pipeline metal.
The pipeline metal is then in contact with the ground/water at undefined
coating faults.

The positive pole of the meter is connected to a conductor to a copper rod in a
saturated solution of copper-sulphate. The solution soaks through a porous plug
and makes contact with the ground/water.

It is realised that a silver/silver chloride electrode is traditionally used in sea
water measurements but this does no make any difference to the measuring
principles.

There is a volume of electrolyte between the pipeline metal and the point where
the electrode contacts the mass of the electrolyte.

Page 2 of 6 Itinery
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/opencir.htm

This electrolyte is conductive and can be perceived as a number of resistances
in parallel.

The point at which the current to be measured passes through a deminishing
number of resistances from the mass of the electrolyte to the point of contact of
the electrode is recognised as 'shells of resistance'.

The effect of these shells of resistance can be measured using a galvanometer
and a digintal meter as shown in the drawing below.
Page 3 of 6 Itinery

This can be carried out in the field or on a bench in a tray of wet sand.

It can also be replicated on a mathmatical model using a computer.

Page 4 of 6 Itinery

Each feature of open circuit measurements can be described mathmatically and
tested on bench models and in the field.

It is obvious that these studies involve Ohms Law and that this can be used to
determin the resistances in the immediate area of the corrosion reaction and the
cathodic protection current paths.

The electrolytic path.

Attempts are often made to ascertain the resistance of the earth along the
path of the pipeline. There are several methods used but all miss the point
Page 5 of 6 Itinery
that the 'average resistance' of the wayleave is corrupted by the presence
of coating faults.

It is necessary to study this as an electrical problem rather than an electro-
chemical problem.

One difficulty is that the unit of measurement is ohm-meters or ohm-
centimeters. this is NOT Ohms per centimeter or Ohms per meter!

This is not a value that you can say the further the distance the greater the
resistance!

The reason for this is that the quality of resistance is subject to the laws of
resistances in parallel.

The 'charges' radiate out from a point to an area where there are an
infinite number of resistances in parallel... and therefore there is an
infinitely low resistance.

click to return to Module03 index page
Page 6 of 6 Itinery


Module 3

'Errors' or mistakes made by people using instruments

Page 1 of 3 Cathodic Protection Network training course Module 03 errors
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module03/errors.htm

It has long been recognised that there are errors in the data that has been
recorded relating to cathodic protection field work. These errors have all been
refered to as 'the IR drop in the soil'

NACE has recognised that there are difficulties in making 'open circuit
measurements'.

CPN has always recognised the inherent errors in conventional CP
measurements and has developed a suit of procedures to take advantage of the
features that cause them.

Two papers in this course define the errors in practical and scientific terms.

The drawing above is intended to draw the attention of the field corrosion
engineer to the circuit that he is engaging with every time he makes a cathodic
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/errors.htm
protection field measurement.

CPN has exact technology based on exact science and a member of CPN must
always work in a disciplined way that renders high quality data that is capable
of being computer analysed.

By following the exact steps defined in CPN procedures we can be sire that we
are following engineering and valid scientific practices that evaluate the
conditions surrounding corrosion.


07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/errors.htm

Module 3

Bench Work

Page 1 of 15 bench work cathodic protection training course module 03
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module03/bench.htm

The purpose of the bench work in this course it to help the student visualise electricity. Cathodic
protection engineers must be able to use their instruments to 'see' what is happening as a result of
corrosion and to 'see' the results of the cathodic protection systems that they install, commission and
adjust.

We need a plastic tray of earth or sand which we can keep dry or damp and saturate with different
purities of water. We need steel nails, batteries a multi-meter and an assortment of connectors.

The pictures on this page give you and idea of how you 'play around' to prove to yourself the contents of
Module 03 and to start you visualising the content of the whole course.

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module03/bench.htm








You will see that the half cell is not used in the above pictures and that the results of sticking the nichol
plated copper probes into the sand yield useful data.

In the next picutures you will see that we use super absorbant cloth instead of sand.
This is because it is easier to transport and can more readily show the stains fom corrosion product.









Module 3

Field work

The field work for this section is to replicate the bench experiments at the test
post with which you are now familiar.

Your should be now have the 'feel' of what is going on and be able to use your
meter to 'see' the electrical effects.

By connecting a crocodile clip to the stud on the test post (that is connected to
the pipeline) you will be able to make a steel coupon represent a coating fault.
It is convenient to us a 1" broad, wood chisel as a coupon as this is easily stuck
in the ground and can the depth can be readily adjusted to give an assortment of
metal to electrolyte areas of contact.

You can then use the meter probes to plot the depression caused in the ground
potential profile around the chisel.


Page 1 of 1 Itinery
07/02/2010


Module 4

Equivalent circuits


Practical construction of 8 measurment models.

Field trip to confirm theoretical and model integrity requiring a report.


Page 1 of 1 Cathodic Protection Course Module 04
07/02/2010


Module 4

Equivalent circuits.

Many books on cathodic protection try to substantiate theories by showing
electrical drawings of equivalent circuits.

This is fine for the parts of the cathodic protection circuits that pass through
conductors that are designed for the purpose.

Cathodic Protection Network is different.... we not only draw equivalent
circuits... we make them. Our equivalent circuits have to work!

07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module04/equiv.htm

Equivalent Circuit of a groundbed and three pipelines.

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module04/equiv.htm

Equivalent Circuit of three CP test posts and a coating fault.

The drawing of equivalent circuits fails to be useful when the circuits do not
function as described when actually constructed.

The problem is that the path of the electrical current passes through 'mass earth'
and that cannot be accurately expressed by the
symbolism used by convention in the electrical industry.

A dry cell battery is a corrosion cell and can be incorporated into a working
model of an equivalent circuit.


Corrosion cells can happen to be in parallel or in series and the equivalent
circuits of these situations can be achieved
very simply using battery holders as shown.


By using a length of steel pipe and a thick copper wire, we can pruduce an
equivalent circuit of several corrosion cells on a pipeline.

We then balance the battery outputs with a transformer rectifier and we have
the equivalent circuit of a single cathodic protection
system applied to a single pipeline.


This is a useful aid to study cathodic protection in the field as we can now
visualise the electrical balance.



Module 4


It is very useful for students to actually model the cathodic protection that they
are studying.

This helps them to visualise the electrical paths and effects that they are dealing
with.

It allows them to understand that potentials are electrical pressures that are
similar to water pressure and gas pressure, but have other qualities that must be
taken into consideration.

Water pressure is often shown in drawings but CPN uses actual models with
real water to show some of the aspects of the application of cathodic protection.

07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module04/model.htm

We have four glass flower vases, each being three tubes joined so that water
can level out in each tube.
We have placed these vases in compartments of a transparent container, each
supported at a different level and the fourth section being filled with sand so
that we cannot see the bottom part of the flower vase. This shows that we are
limited in the information that we can gather about the status of each tube and
each vase. Our meter allows us to 'see' the potential of one tube by comparison
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module04/model.htm
to each of the other tubes. In the case of our model, our eyes allow us to
evaluate the water levels in each of the tubes but not in the parts buried in sand.

Each glass flower vase represents a coating fault, with the water level in each
tube being the electrical potential (or EMF) of that particular surface reaction.
If the 'circuit' of each tube is completed through the connecting glass tube and
atmospheric pressure, then the water will reach equilibrium and the surfaces
will be level.


If the 'potential' of each tube is too low then the water will not flow between
them .... no current will flow and there is no metal or energy lost.


We can use the whole model to show the difficulties in measuring the relative
potentials of all of the coating faults on a length of pipeline.

A side view of the water model shows that the level of each main compartment
is different and the level of each of the tubes might be different in relation to
the bottom of that tube.


Now look at the sand filled partition and we cannot know anything about the
botoms of the tubes or the water levels that are out of our sight. All we can see
is the water level that is visible above the sand. This is exactly the situation we
are in when measuring the voltage between a half-cell and the pipeline in
cathodic protection work.


It is necessary to play around with this model or the notion of this model so that
you understand that all 'potentials' have to be related to other potentials to be
significant. It is no good puting a potential value into a formula if it is not
related to a common zero value within that formula.

You can apply Ohms Law to a single corrosion cell because that is a single
circuit but you cannot apply it to two corrosion cells unless they are integrated.

You can relate this notion of modeling to that of using dry cell batteries. A dry
cell battery has a potential difference from one pole to the other and can be
compared to the tubes in each of the flower vases.

return to Module 04 index page


Module 4

8 cathodic protection models

3 nails to show corrosion resulting from direct electrical current.

Coated pipe with coating faults.

Two coated pipes with coating faults

Dry cell battery as a corrosion cell.

Dry cell battery with one end submerged.

Two dry cell batteries in parallel and series.

Multiple dry cell batteries with ends submerged.

TR with steel pipe and groundbed.

07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module04/8model.htm


07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module04/8model.htm


Module 5

Significance of the paper presented at the
Australasian Corrosion Conference of 1982

This paper was an attempt to address the problems inherent in the monitoring
of cathodic protection.
It confirms everything found in field practice and was followed up by a book
by the same authors. This book is in the library of UMIST and was lent to me
for a short period by a student who attended a course I ran under the manpower
services commission in the UK.

Unfortunately, the practices recommended in the book are very expensive as
they required qualified engineers and a van load of instruments. I believe some
surveys were carried out to these specifications but I have no knowledge of the
effectiveness. I have not had the time or opportunity to research this matter but
would be pleased to get any information from anyone.

Students should write their own version of this paper in their own words. This
will be published on the CPN website together with my own version. The
intention is to have everyone in the CPN 'singing to the same songsheet'.
07/02/2010

The front page makes it clear that significant errors exist in the 'immediate off'
voltage measurements that are still the mainstay of cathodic protection
measurements.


These scientist have missed one practical point. Before the advent of digital
multimeters there was a depression in the potential of the ground caused by the
cathodic protection current that was necessary to drive the mechanism of the
meter itself. This is described in detail in the Module dealing with
instrumentation.

Up until the 1980's there was a huge effort to get the cathodic protection
readings to a level that was virtually impossible. On the wide spread use of
digital meters it was found that 'protected' readings were achievable at locations
where they had been impossible. There is no way of establishing which of these
measurements indicates the true achievement of cathodic protection.

The formulae above are a complex way of explaining that the voltage on the
meter is the sum of several potentials. We need to know one of them to
discover if the metal is corroding.

Now THAT page seems to me deliberately confusing. If you wade through the
strange letters used to express quite ordinary things it is quite clear that there
are a lot of approximations and uncertainties in the rational.

Read it again and again whilst visualising each symbol meaning something
with which you are familiar. Question all assumptions that you do not regard as
proven. In real life you will find that the voltage drops for days after switching
off the TR. What the above formulae does not even consider is that we are
dealing with an unknown number of corrosion cells in parallel. The Pourbaix
diagrams make it plain that you must know the pH of the electrolyte to
determine the value they describe as Ep. Do not let this sort of scientific
expression cloud the issue. We need to know when the CP has stopped
corrosion at each location.

The statement at the top of the above page is not correct in real life. Try it and
see for yourself. I have ..... many times.

The above page has given a simplified equivalent circuit drawing of two
coating faults. In fact there might be two corrosion cells on a single coating
fault or a single corrosion cell consisting of an anode 500 meters from the
cathode.

The page above shows 3 coating faults and makes assumptions that are not
necessarily correct.

At this point of reasoning there is the assumption that 10 M perpendicular is
not only remote from the influence of the pipeline

The page above shows 3 coating faults and makes assumptions that are not
necessarily correct.


Students will now realise how the facts shown in Module01 are important when
reading the above page.

It must be put into perspective that this paper quotes the results for surveys
conducted over a very limited mileage of pipelines. The formulae rely on
assumptions that can be questioned, if not rebutted.

The above page is very important as it says clearly that CIPS is useless. CPN
Procedures are designed to overcome these problems and can render data that
can be computer analysed including the effects of all electrical flux.

The above effects have been described as 'teluric effects..... this is a missnomer.


I was engaged by British Gas ERS to carry out the field tests in response to the
studies of magnetic fluctuations and am very familiar with the results. It is quite
amusing as I got the job as no-one else understood how to do it. They were all
too busy using long words and spouting off at meetings.

I have similar data and copies of chart recordings in the CPN archives.

The above refers to a device that has since been patented individually by each
of the authors. We can easily manufacture our own device called the
Isopotential Cell and not be in breach of the patents.

I have used isopotential cells in the field and in fact they have many problems
other than those described above.

CPN have conducted the above tests in the field.

results available in the CPN archives

This is proof of the value of the Alexander Cell

This paper is an acknowledgement that all monitoring used by other companies
world wide is seriously questionable. CPN Technology has resolved all of the
problems described above and can prove it by demonstration and
computerisation.

Practical bench work to confirm this paper.

Field trip to confirm theoretical and benchwork integrity requiring a report.




Module 6

Practical application of available science and technology

Introduction continuous potential surveys

Recording voltmeters and data-loggers.

Monitoring techniques which are presently used to establish C.P. criteria.

The Prinz Cell. The Baekmann Cell

The Alexander Cell and arrangement suggested by Jim Gosden of the British
Standards Institute.

Summary of the present status of the criteria for 'protection'.

Field trip to use both types of cell requiring a report.

Case study at Rapelli- Nigeria 1992


07/02/2010

Instant off potentials

The traditional method of monitoring a CP system was to make a voltage
measurement between the pipeline metal and an electrode placed as close as
possible to the pipeline in the ground in which it was buried (or in the water in
which it was submerged).

07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module06/offpotent.htm

Field experience had revealed that such CP voltages were subject to an IR drop
in the soil'which was of indeterminate value.

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module06/offpotent.htm

The IRdrop in the soil is another way of expressing the potential difference
(voltage) between two places in the soil. The effect of these variations in
voltage is to alter the reading shown on the meter.

The IR Drop in the soil

The theory is that the 'IR drop' is caused by the flow of the current from the
cathodic protection anodes to the pipeline metal, and that this current could be
switched off to eliminate the voltage drop. It is known that the pipeline holds
its voltage due to polarization,and it was thought that it would be possible to
measure the polarized potential'immediately after the current was switched
off.

A laboratory in Holland had shown that this error could be removed by using
an analogue recording voltmeter while the current was switched off to show a
'kick' in the downward curve at a value at which it was thought the metal was
'polarized' by the cathodic protection system.


Trials were carried out for an international oil company in Africa, but it was
found that the Instant off Potentialmeasurement was impractical and would
be too expensive to be viable in field conditions.

This was due to the cathodic protection systems being integrated into a
complex electrical circuit being affected by at least 43 transformer/rectifiers
with a variety of output voltages and currents.


It was also found that there were many other influences on the voltage readings
that could not be removed by switching the cathodic protection
transformer/rectifiers off. Attempts to isolate each section of pipeline for the
purpose of switching proved that the electrical equilibrium is altered by such
activity and results do not, therefore, show the normal corrosion status of the
pipeline.

The 'two half- cell' survey was developed and used successfully in West Africa
during this period confirming the variable potential of two copper/copper-
sulfate electrodes when placed in contact with the ground. Potential gradients
were plotted and used to identify coating faults, ground bed profiles and active
corrosion. These techniques are mentioned later in this paper.

Close Interval Potential Survey (Switching) (CIPS)

In the early 1980's a survey was devised to take 'Instant off' voltage readings at
close intervals over all pipelines in a major network that included urban and
rural, high- pressure gas mains.

The author was a participant in this most significant CIPS survey that was
carried out between 1980 and 1984. At no time was it possible to measure the
kick in the volts drop as the current was switched off, as described by the
scientists in Holand on whose advice this type of survey was devised.

The survey was carried out in the following way

The position of the pipeline was marked using Pearson typeinstruments.
( Made by Simtec in the UK)

The transformer/rectifier for this section ofpipeline was switched on for 5
seconds and off for 2 seconds.

The pipeline metal was contacted through CP test points and a trailing wire that
was connected to the negative pole of a digital voltmeter, carried by the
technician.
The positive pole of the voltmeter was connected to a 'half- cell'which is in fact
a copper rod suspended in a saturated solution of copper sulfate that was used
to contact the ground.

The technician noted the highest and the lowest vontage readings on the meter
as the switching occurred at each point of ground contact. This was repeated at
10- meter intervals over the pipeline.

Millions of 'on' and 'off' readings were fed into a mainframe computer during a
four- year period by four teams of technicians and two engineers engaged on
the survey. The computer plotted the 'on readings', the 'off readings' and the
difference between the two, which was anticipated to show the results of
corrosive activity.

The third plot showing the difference between 'on' and 'off' was abandoned
after a few months as it was then thought to be insignificant.



During the four- year 'condition audit', several 'Pearson' type techniques were
used to identify the position of the pipeline and to pinpoint coating faults.

A method was devised to record the 'Pearson' signal and make a permanent,
graduated record that could be compared to physical examination, following
excavation.


The 'two- half- cell' method of survey [ref 2] was used extensively to identify
Page 10 of 21 Cathodic Protection Network, cathodic protection, corrosion control, pipelines, energy ...
exact locations for excavation.



Further refinements were made to the original survey and the format entirely
changed to determine the locations to excavate for physical examination.


The Alexander Cell was field tested with permission of the pipeline operating
company.


At total of 102 excavations showed less than 10% success in predicting the
condition of the coating and pipeline metal by the CIPS survey.

The survey enhanced by the two half cell grid survey and the use of the
Alexander Cell proved to be successful and accurate in it's predictions at 97%
of the excavations.

The operating organization developed 'the intelligent pig' concurrently with this
over line audit, but cathodic protection monitoring has the advantage of
indicating the cause of corrosion damage as well as suggesting remedial
measures by adjusting the cathodic protection system. It is also possible to
monitor the success of remedial measures inexpensively.

Observations

The survey did not meet the requirements of the laboratory recommendations
for making the 'polarized potential' measurement that should be made on an
analogue recording voltmeter capable of showing the 'kick' in the downward
curve.

Attempts were made to find a satisfactory way to conduct a recorded CIPS and
they clearly demonstrated that the polarizedpotential could not be readily
identified as required by the laboratory test and that other influences would
have to be evaluated to obtain a true potential for the purposes of applying the
principles of the Pourbaix Diagram.

Attempts were made to correct readings using analog recording voltmeters with
static electrodes to evaluate the voltage differences over a period of time at a
single location. This would also be necessary in order to apply the principles of
Pourbaix and Faraday.

All cathodic protection systems work in an environment influenced by other
cathodic protection systems. By isolating one section we alter the equilibrium,
which we wish to measure, in the act of making the measurement. (See also
later note)

Synchronized switching of TR's was attempted and found to be impossible to
achieve. Several techniques have been suggested since this audit but successful
results do not seem widely available despite the marketing of sophisticated and
expensive instrumentation.

No attempt was made to switch the sacrificial anodes that were influencing the
sections under test although some of these were temporarily disconnected.

The exact position of each reading would have to be recorded and repeatable
for the survey to have any value.

Comments on this type of survey.

Cathodic protection systems are switched on while in service, and the current
flowing from the cathodic protection anode is a significant part of the electrical
equilibrium. It is a powerful electro- motive force within the integrated circuits
of both the corrosion reactions and the measuring system and to remove this
force from the corrosion reaction is to falsify the results of any measurement.

Removing the 'IR drop' in the measuring circuit can easily and cheaply be
achieved using an isopotential cellas suggested by many reputable and
leading scientists. There are two versions patented and a simple unpatented
version of the same principle can easily and cheaply be made by anyone.

This is possible by combining existing technology with later developments,
which should be adopted as the international criterion for cathodic protection.
This would utilize the records and hard work of established cathodic protection
engineers and incorporate additional techniques that allow mathematical
analysis by computer.

Instant offand CIPS readings cannot be analyzed using either Ohms Law or
Kirchoff's Laws but are traditionally interpreted by the informed guesswork of
specialists.

We should aim to determine whether corrosion has stopped by non- intrusive
techniques that can be confirmed by physical inspection at coating faults that
are detected to be corroding.

A considerable amount of effort was made to draw attention to improvements
that were available to the CIPS type of survey but these improvements were
rejected as seen in the following correspondence.




British Gas is now influential in the maintenance of pipelines world wide and
has still not adressed this inherent error in it's maintenance procedures with the
consequence that pipelines are failing unneccesarily throughout the world.

Many of the scientists and engineers involved with this original survey are in
high advisory positions and were on a list of advisors to Prof Walsh of the
University of Southampton in the UK who stated that the Alexander Cell is the
only available method that satisfies the science behind the measurement of the
corrosion reaction under the influence of cathodic protection.

back to Module 06 index page



Module 6

Instrumentation for Close Interval Potential Surveys
The history of electrical measuring instruments
affected the development of cathodic protection
monitoring and it is worth examining how this was
perceived by engineers.

07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module06/dataloggers.htm

This picture shows a data logger made specifically for
conducting cathodic protection monitoring surveys.
Several manufacturers are supplying such equipment
and making all sorts of claims about it. It should be
remembered that all these instrumenst measure
voltages. They cannot measure a potential..... they
measure the difference between two potentials.

They sample voltages and store them digitally, using
computer technology that is standard throughout the
world in all industries. There are millions of people
who understand this technology and it is based on the
laws of electricity.

Present instruments and software are not capable of
analysing the data rendered from a CIPS or DCVG
survey as the input probes are gathering data in open
circuit. All they are capable of rendering is graphic
displays of the voltages between two floating
potentials.

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module06/dataloggers.htm

The Isopotential cell is an attempt to resolve this
problem but it does not work according to the theory
behind it. This is the link to the page about the
Isopotential Cell.

The Alexander Cell can provide a base datum to
which other values can be related and then CIPS and
digital DCVG can be used to ascertain the criterion for
the achievement of cathodic protection.

This will be dealt with in detail in Module 15 which
describes the Dynamic software that calculates where
corrosion is located by applying the laws of electricity
to the data.

THE GALVANOMETER

Up until the 1970s, digital instruments were not
readily available and cathodic protection
measurements were carried out with a variety of
electrical meters which were based on the
galvanometer.


These instruments work on the reaction of a magnet in
an electric field against the elastic effect of a hair
spring. They are less rugged than digital instruments
and more difficult to manufacture. They also require a
considerable amount of current to move the indicator
needle.


The amount of current drawn by this type of
instrument is sufficient to cause a depression in the
potential of the soil in which the electrode is placed. It
can be said that the current flowing through the
measuring circuit causes its own IR drop.


This potential depression can be measured using two
electrodes and a digital voltmeter.


This 'volts drop' in the measuring circuit caused
substantial inaccuracies in the measurement, and the
readings were shown to be lower than the true voltage.

This is the opposite effect to that of the 'IR drop in the
soil' which is caused by the passage of the cathodic
protection current.


During the period in which these meters were used,
the fact that the readings were less than the criteria,
encouraged operators to blame instrument inaccuracy
when protected criteria could not be achieved. All the
time that a needle was moved against a hair spring, at
any time in the measuring process, this required
sufficient current to be effected by any resistance in
the measuring circuit. Instruments which were
extremely sensitive had to have extremely fragile
mechanisms which were unsuitable for rough field
use.


The error in the measuring system tended to give the
impression that sections of pipeline were not protected
and engineers worked to increase the protection on
these sections. They found that many sections of
pipeline could not be 'protected' as it proved
impossible to increase the output of the cathodic
protection system enough to show the required voltage
on the meter.

A formula was recommended to correct readings to an
increased value, in proportion to the internal resistance
of the voltmeter. This formula corrected the readings
upwards towards the required criteria, whereas the
correction to present readings, which is obtained by
switching the CP current off, is a correction
downwards.

NUL-BALANCE METERS

Attempts were made to design specialised instruments
which balanced out this error with an opposition EMF
supplied from an internal battery. The idea was that if
they worked on a balancing process when the actual
measurement was made, then they would draw no
current. Some of these instruments became quite
complex but they all drew current during the original
balancing operation, and hence none reached the
accuracy which is possible with a digital meter.


The designers seemed to have missed the point that
the current drawn, to set up the balance, created an
error which was carried through the whole measuring
operation.

The complexity of operation of the balancing meters
required more care and understanding by the
operators, and the instruments were not as rugged as
the simpler ones of the day.

Instruments appeared with more and more dials,
switches and adjustments but this resulted in less and
less personnel who understood how to use them. It
also had the adverse effect that the amount of time to
take a single reading with such an instrument,
precluded the possibility of taking 'immediate off
potentials'.

There was then the problem of measuring the EMF
which had balanced the measuring circuit. This had to
come from a dry cell battery which would not have a
constant potential as the current drawn, to balance the
circuit, would drain the battery each time of use.

Some instruments were then marketed with a more
constant (laboratory tested) battery built in, with
which to balance the, commercially available, dry cell.

The problem that still remained, was to establish a
potential value, within the meter, against which a
reliable voltage could be measured. Sophisticated
variable resistors were built into some instruments and
it was claimed that an error free voltage could be
measured by a complex procedure of balancing
potentials using two galvanometers, two sources of
DC charge and a variety of switches, variable
resistances and a component called a "potentiometer".

On examination, the "potentiometer" turned out to be
a variable resistor which had been calibrated to give a
reading on a mechanically driven digital dial.
This did not make any difference in reality....... the
problem had not been solved.

DIGITAL METERS

The availability of digital instruments removed the
downward error which had been caused by the volts
drop in the measuring circuit and allowed increased
voltages to be obtained, because they dramatically
reduced the amount of current flowing. The solid state
electronics of today's meters only require a tiny
amount of current to make a reading and the resistance
in the measuring circuit is greater by an order of
magnitude than the resistance in the circuit to be
measured. Using a digital voltmeter with an
impedance of 7 to 10 mega-ohms per volt ensures that
the current flowing through the measuring circuit is
not sufficient to cause a potential depression in the
earth in which the electrode is placed.

Using galvanometers, the error in measuring had
helped to balance out the IR drop in the soil which, at
present, causes optimistic readings. In fact it was the
advent of digital metering which bought the question
of the cathodic protection criteria sharply into focus.


Pipelines began to fail in areas where digital
voltmeters had shown that the pipeline had achieved a
voltage difference of -0.850 mv with respect to an
electrode placed immediately above the pipeline on
the ground surface. It is doubtful if this value would
have shown on a galvanometer which often required
the ground contact to be watered to allow sufficient
current to pass through the metering circuit to activate
the magnet against the hairspring.


This inaccuracy was not an advantage, but did have
some tendency to balance the inherent error in the
measuring technique.




Module 6

Monitoring
Pipe to soil voltages are the main routine measurements that are made and
recorded at regular time intervals at cathodic protection test facilities along
every pipeline and in refineries, tank farms and other compounds where
underground pipework is located.

A full survey at every test point is normally specified every six months but it
can be easily seen by the condition of many test posts in public places that this
is not carried out.

Page 1 of 6 Cathodic Protection Course Module 04 2 batteries
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module06/monit.htm

It can be seen in this picture that the test post has not been disturbed for at least
one year as the plant growth of all four seasons is in tact.

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module06/monit.htm

In this picture we can see that the contact stud on the side of the test post bears
no mark resulting from an electrical connection to a meter. The bright metal
remains shiny for several months before oxidation cases slight dulling. This
particular studd has not been properly contacted for several years.

However, the maintenance records for this particular location will probably
show that it has been visited.


Easily accessible test posts are usually chosen for more frequent monitoring as
often as one month intervals on a regular basis.


Monitoring and record keeping is very important as corrosion is normally a
very slow and sometimes seasonal activity. Records will show changes in the
environment that will have a direct effect on the pipeline metal strength.

If the monitoring data is accurate and meaningful it is possible to predict
corrosion failure well in advance and make adjustments to the CP system to
stop the reaction between the electrolyte and the metal. Properly applied
cathodic protection can prolong the life of a pipeline indefinitely.




Module 6

The isopotential Cell
The problem of the error caused by the IR drop in the soil was reconised in the
paper that you studied in Module 05 and each of the scientists who wrote that
paper registered a patent to overcome the problem.

Each of the designs was similar in concept that an isolated container full of
conductive material will hold a number of charges and that number can be
measured and evaluated as an electrical potential.

If that potential can be measured without a current flowing through it, then it
has the same qualities as measurements made in laboratory conditions.

The Isopotential cell is an attempt to resolve the problem of the IR drop in the
soil caused by the currents passing from the cathodic protection anode to the
metal exposed at a coating fault.

Page 1 of 6 Cathodic Protection Course Module 06 isopotential cell by Dr Prinz
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module06/prinz.htm

The idea of the isopotential cell is to make a potential measurement without the
effects of the cathodic protection current creating a potential gradient in the
ground. We have already examined the act of making 'pipe to soil'
measurements and seen that the very act of measuring must draw current from
the soil to activate an analogue meter

We have already seen attempts to overcome this problem by charging up a
battery in a complicated instrument using a potentiometer. We have also seen
that a digital meter has such a high internal resistance that it draws very little
current to make the measurement.

In the system proposed by these three scientists a tube of inert but conductive
material is isolated from the ground except by contact through a porous plug set
in the centre of the base plate.

The reaction of the base plate to the earth electrolyte charges up the inert but
conductive content of the container but no further current flows.

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module06/prinz.htm

The whole of the content of the container becomes of one potential with no
gradient. It is at one potential throughout and can be correctly described as an
isopotential cell.

The ground surrounding the underside of the base plate is subject to the
potential gradients caused by the cathodic protection current and other
electrical flux.


Isopotential contours in the ground can be defined to show the regions of
differing potential and that is how DCVG works.

As the inert but conductive content of the cell is equal to the potential caused
by the reaction of the base of the cell to the electrolyte, it is the equivalent to a
potential measurement made at the interface between the pipeline metal and a
similar electrolyte in close proximity to the test.


The base of the isopotential cell is a steel coupon of the pipeline metal and is
put in contact with the ground as close as possible to the pipeline. This subjects
it to the same corrosion reaction as a coating fault.


The base plate is connected directly to the pipeline so that it serves the same
purpose as a weight loss coupon or other form of measuring electrode.

Rapelli index




Module 6

The Alexander Cell
The Alexander Cell was developed in the early 1980's when I found that there
was no way of seeing that corrosion had been stopped by cathodic protection.

All available monitoring theory and practice were questioned and discussed
with experts and scientists who were praticing at that time. They could not
prove that corrosion had stopped outside of the laboratory and their advice was
being applied as best it could in the field.

We needed a method to make closed circuit measurements in the field, similar
to those that are made by scientists in the laboratory and I applied for a patent
for an arranement that does exactly this.

Page 1 of 6 Cathodic Protection Course Module 06 the Alexander Cell
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module06/alce.htm

I then worked for a contractor on the development of the very first CIPS in the
world that was being carried out by North Thames Gas and the British Gas
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module06/alce.htm
Council in the UK. The engineer in charge was Mike Foskett who gave
permission for the Alexander Cell to be trialed during the four year project.

The results of the trials were passed to Bob Greenwood who was a scientist at
the Gas Council Experimental and Reseach Station and who later bought an
Alexander Cell for scientific appraisal.

The Alexander Cell, DCVG and CIPS were closely examined at 100
excavations and it was found that DCVG is an accurate method of locating
coating faults but the predictions of the corrosion state by CIPS was 7%.


but the predictions of the corrosion state by CIPS was 7%.


The Alexander Cell was accurate at 97 excavations and could be seen to be
correct at the other 3 excavations when all conditions and data was taken into
consideration.


The Alexander Cell is simply a corrosion cell in which the corrosion current
can be measured in closed circuit. This allows the true corrosion potential at the
active electrode to be calculated exactly including the effects of the pH of the
electrolyte and the corrosion circuit resistance.

The Alexander Cell is used as set out in the formal CPN procedure at this link




Module 6

The Cathodic Protection Criterion

07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module06/criterion.htm

The criterion for cathodic protection was changed by the presentation of a
scientific paper at two conferences in Brazil in 2009.

This links to the actual presentation of the paper 'A definitive criterion for
cathodic protection' by Roger Alexander

Students can also read the documents that were accepted by both conference
committees prior to the conferences.

Abstract

Introduction

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module06/criterion.htm

Problem

Extrapolation

Solution


07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module06/criterion.htm


Module 6

Field trip

07/02/2010

Students should go to the nearest pipeline test post with an Alexander Cell, an
isopotential cell, two half-cells and a digital multi-meter.

They should carry out each of the tests and report with comments and draw
their own conclusions.


07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module06/field.htm
INTRODUCTION

The activities described in this report have a direct bearing on all cathodic
protection work and design,

Criteria presently being used for cathodic protection are now recognised to
contain inherent errors, and we are advised to make measurements in a
different way. However there is no internationally agreed criterion, that will
guarantee that corrosion has been halted.

Much research has been carried out, resulting in a number of techniques being
suggested, and devices patented.

The activities at this particular pipeline were intended to test a number of
procedures to determine the condition the pipe, and help to improve the survey
techniques which can be used to ascertain the condition of all pipelines within
the pipeline operation.

Many staff were instructed in these techniques when they visited the site during
the weeks of these activities.

Some of the data was gathered using a recording voltmeter but temperatures
were above the permitted level for the data logger that was then available.
However all data was gathered very critically and cross checked very carefully.
The arrival of specialised instruments will ensure that future data is of similar
high quality and the procedures used at this site are being prepared for use
during the forthcoming condition monitoring project.

CONCLUSIONS

This report proves that the ground itself is a complex mass of different
electrical potentials, causing or caused by currents from any sources.

Conventional measuring techniques include the effects of these potentials in the
measuring circuit, causing significant errors.

Complex techniques can evaluate the errors, but in this instance the corrected
voltage did not indicate the true condition of the pipeline.

The potentials, detectable at the surface, can be reliably used to detect the exact
Page 1 of 2
07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module06/rapelli/index.html
position of coating faults.

The established method of taking voltage readings with the cathodic protection
on, and the electrode placed at the ground surface, has given a more accurate
indication, of the status, than the 'immediate off potential' method that has been
recommended to replace it.

next

Page 2 of 2
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module06/rapelli/index.html


Module 6

Real time chat

roger.alexander5 is the Skype name for rogeralexander2@o2.co.uk

Just tell me which Module you want to discuss and we will take it from there.


07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module06/chat.htm


Module 7 (under construction 26:01:2010)

Interference

Looking for possible interference.

Causes of interference

Basic interference testing.

Long term monitoring of interference.





Back to itinery index

07/02/2010


Module 7

Interference


The very first activity of a corrosion control engineer is to conduct an overview
of the problem area as described by the client. The problem can be that an
existing pipeline has an increasing incidence of corrosion leaks or that they
want to construct a new pipeline.

07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module07/foreign.htm

Useful information can be obtained from Google Earth, aerial photographs and
existing maps as well as any plans and 'as built' drawings available from the
client and other utilities in the area.

All structures should be mapped and examined to ascertain the electrical
disturbances that they cause in the ground that they occupy.

Concrete and brick constructions invariably contain some metal that causes a
footprint in the electrical potential at surface level. This can be detected and
plotted using the two half-cell procedure. This is not possible using DCVG
equipment as the nature of the instrumentation is inadequate.

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module07/foreign.htm

Structures such as water towers, pylons, wind turbines, church spires etc will
all have earthing systems to conduct lightning strikes to the ground. These will
be earthed using copper or bronze alloys that will be in electrical flux with their
surroundings.

Generators will be earthed and there can be an inbalance of the three phases.
This can cause surges that can be rectified by the layer of oxides on a pipeline
surface at a coating fault. This in turn causes a build up of charge in that length
of the pipeline which leaks back to earth at other coating faults..... the metal
will disolve at these places.


The purpose of this overview is to relate reality to an electrical circuit on a vast
scale that includes the cathodic protection systems and all other causes of
electrical flux. These can then be modelled using the mathmatical power of
computer analysis.

This screen shot shows an spreadsheet model of a complete oil and gas
production area with all the delivery pipelines from the gathering stations to the
manifolds. The formulae that drive this model are all based on the laws of
electricity and for that reason the data that is used must be accurate and related
to a common base.



Module 7

Interference

Interference is the influence to the corrosion reaction by causes outside of the
natural corrosion process and the intended result of the cathodic protection
system.

The effect of interference is to alter the potential of the electrolyte in the
immediate area of the corrosion reaction. This can accellerate the corrosion or
dampen it.

07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module07/interf.htm

In the picture above, the nail on the left was charged to a higher potential than
the nail on the right. The current flowed into the damp cloth and distributed
itself in all directions according to kirchoffs laws which describe it following
the paths of inverse resistance.
It can be seen by the distribution of corrosion products that the current then
passed onto the nail in the centre and from that nail towards the nail on the
right.
The central nail is an example of interference preventing corrosion where
current enters and accellerating corrosion where it leaves the metal and passes
onto the electrolyte.

Interference should be considered from the very first stages of design for every
cathodic protection system. This is because every metal pipeline is part of an
electrical circuit composed of every other pipeline and all other electrical
influences.

Before considering interference it is necessary to have a complete overview of
the pipeline system and to superimpose all known cathodic protection systems
over the pipeline network.

This is the reason that the schematic/equivalent circuit was drawn in 1977 as
shown below.

07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module07/interf.htm


Foreign structures include pipelines, and anything that can cause a disturbance
to the natural electrical equilibrium of the ground itself.


The most commonly quoted is railways which are driven by DC charges. These
are carried in overhead cables and return via the rails which are earthed.

This means that there are surges of DC charges in the ground itself which will
take the least line of electrical resistance to complete their particular circuit.


Remote earth is a resistanceless conductor and the charges in remote earth will
not cause a detectable surge. However, the charges are drawn from the rails and
the energy drained from these will cause a momentary potential gradient in the
electrical path from remote earth.

If there is a steel pipeline in this path then it will offer a lower resistance path to
the returning current, but if the coating is perfect then it will not.


In order to affect the corrosion status of the pipeline there must be a point or
points of entry to the pipeline metal and point or points of discharge from the
metal into the ground. Where the current enters the pipe metal it will stop
corrosion but where it leaves it will accelerate corrosion.

However, it will cause errors in the voltage measurements whether or not it is
detrimental to the pipeline corrosion performance.

Accellerated corrosion is readily prevented by the exact placement of sacrificial
anodes which must be provided with a method of monitoring.

This is simple to carry out providing you have a clear perception of the
'electrical picture'. The picture above was taken at a pipeline crossing in West
Africa where two sacrificial anodes were installed successfully in 1976.

We can construct a computer model of each situation and simple add the data
gathered by our specialised survey methods.

This will show the exact paths of the various currents and the exact position in
which to place the sacrificial anode in each case.
It will allow us to see the performance of each anode and to balance the
impressed current cathodic protection systems to reach a 'protected'
equilibrium.
It will allow us to recocile voltage measurements which might otherwise be
taken to indicate problems.
It is sometimes advantageous to use recording voltmeters and osciliscopes to
examine the causes and likely effects of some of these ground surges.
It is now possible that we can control the effects of this 'noise' very efficiently
using electronic means, which have been developed by NASA and are available
to us through our members in Italy, Sobrel.
The Alexander Cell certainly displays the effect of these features on the
corrosion reaction and is therefore the only known method of short term
monitoring for electronic corrosion control.

Other Interference possibilities.

The generation of AC electricity by mechanical means requires that energy
is applied to rotating magnets which induce a potential into coils of
conductor wire. These coils discharge current through carbon brushes into
cables which then are at a higher electrical potential than the metal to
which they are connected.

The magnet then charges the next coil in turn and the first returns to it's
basic potential value.

In countries such as the UK, generating companies are required by law to
supply electrical energy at exactly 50 cycles per second. That means that
each conductor is charged and discharges it's energy 50 times per second.

The amount of energy carried by each conductor depends on how far
apart the 'potential' of each conductor is forced away from 'zero'by the
engine supplying the energy.

For a 50th of a second this is DC charge. There is then a mechanical
arrangement that forces the current to flow in the other direction until the
cable is charged negatively in relation to original 'zero'.

The whole generator system is balanced to maintain the zero at an equal
potential to the ground on which the generator is based.

Field generators are sometimes unbalanced and cause the potential of the
ground to alter. This can be manifest as a steady fixed potential increase of
decrease which can be plotted around the earthing system of the generator
itself or it can be in a waveform the effects of which can be detected up to
half a mile away in high resistance grounds.

Overhead high energy conductors (high tension wires) opperate in the UK
at a potential difference of 400,000 volts and have a field of of influence
that can effect buried pipeline that run parallel to them.
This can be seen in fluctuations in the voltages measured in pipe-to-soil
surveys.
In one such instance the voltages on the meter swung from 0.600v to
2.13volts in an irregular pattern over a period of 20 minutes. This was in a
location where three pipelines ran parallel to two high tension pylon runs
rated at 400,000 and 232,000 respectively for lengths of several miles.

I reported this matter to the operators of the pipelines but learned that
sections of each of the pipelines had been replaced as they took no action.

I was unable to offer assistance in this matter as I had no money to set up a
business. I was shut out in the cold by established service companies
despite a letter from the chief executive of one of the operators instructing
that my services be engaged.


The first step is to acquire all available drawings and maps of the area.
Local planning authorities, electricity suppliers, gas and water suppliers
an the national survey authorities are usefull starting points.
Satelite imaging is now a valuable rescource to give a factual picture on
which to base all the information (in the abscence of the dynamic project
which incorporates all this information)

The second step is to add all of the historical data available from cathodic
protection records to a schematic of the area in the form of a circuit
diagram.

The areas of high ground potential should be shaded in various degrees of
green allowing for areas in which corrosion might be found should be
shaded in various degrees of red. It is convenient to relate all of these
voltages to to the pipeline metal being zero.(deep red)
It follows that a groundbed area of 5 volts or more would be deep green
and that any metal in this area would be protected by the current tending
to enter at every interface.
This metal would then be charged and shown as an equal voltage to the
part of the groundbed profile through which it passed.
If this is the subject pipeline it would be immediately drained of charges by
the negative connection to the transformer-rectifier, thus being at zero
volts.
Any sacrificial anode attached to the subject pipeline in the area of
influence of the impressed current ground bed would be protected
depending on it's nobility in relation to the pipeline metal. It is important
to recognise that in an area of over 1.6 volts the ground potential would
show a depression in potential with the impressed current switched on and
this would reverse to a peak when the current is on. This feature is easily
recognised in a two-half-cell survey grid plot with the TR switching.

A foreign conductor passing through the subject groundbed area(very
green) will pick up charges and discharge in areas where the ground
potential is lower(shaded red)
Their presence will cause the ground potential to be higher (greener or less
red) than surrounding ground. This will be detectable on a CIPS or DCVG
survey but the cause might not be apparent until a proper two-half-cell
survey is conducted with that particular groundbed switching.

It is best practice to notify all services in the area of interference testing
and to invite their representation. However, it is never essential to have
their co-operation, which is just as well because you will find that most of
them have no idea what it is all about. Even worse is that some of them
pretend to know what they are doing but their procedures are not logical
and are unproductive.
Don't let them confuse you! Keep a clear electrical picure in your head
based on the data that you gather. Believe your meters and trust your own
expertise. Electricity does bullshit!
If you haven't established all the facts then your electrical picture will be
unclear. Gather more facts!!! Add more data to the schematic circuit and
the real picture will become clear.
If you can get the co-operation of other operators in the area then it will be
very useful to get them to switch their own equipment at certain stages of
your investigation.
You should only do this when you want to confirm your own picture and
can predict the likely outcome of their switching. You should explain your
reasoning to them, before the switching begins. If the results are not as
expected you will look a fool if you do not have alternative paths of
enquiry, so make sure that have covered everything.
At this stage you should have remedial action in mind.





Module 7

Interference



07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module07/interftest.htm


Module 7

Interference


Interference possibilities.








07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module07/monitinterf.htm


Module 7

Interference


07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module07/benchinterf.htm

In the above demonstration we can undeniably see the effects of interference
current on the nail in the centre.

The current passes onto the left end of the nail in the centre and off at the right
end. This how interference works on a pipeline.

There are more charges in the electrolyte at the left end of the nail which is then
a less resistant path to the electrolyte at the right end.

It is very important that students experiment themselves in order to confirm
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module07/benchinterf.htm
their concepts of how corrosion and cathodic protection work in reality.

Your will need some 6" nails and a length of pipe with some insulation tape,
two half-cells, a dry cell battery, some wet cloth, a multimeter and some
'jumper leads'.

Set the experiment up as in the picture and note the positions of both half-cells
and the reading on the meter.

The purpose of these bench experiments is to allow students to understand the
nature of 'currents' and 'potentials' in relation to the recognition of interference.









Module 07


07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module07/compinterf.htm

The above spreadsheet shows the measurable values where interference
influences the earth above a buried pipeline.

The potential of the pipeline is considered to be zero as the resistance of the
metal is extremely low, as discussed extensively in this course.

The source of each interference current is shown as an anode output in amps
and each current passes to a negative terminal or cathode in it's own circuit
labelled 'Path A', 'Path B' etc.

The result of each current flowing through the resistance of the ground is a
potential gradient that we can measure with two half-cells.

The values entered into the spread sheet are the each current in amps and the
resistance of the earth from which the potential of each cell can be calculated
07/02/2010 http://www.dynamic-cathodic-protection.com/module07/compinterf.htm
using Ohms Law.

Each path is calculated on the assumption that it is linear so that the concept is
manageable at this stage of reasoning.

This model assumes that there are no coating faults on the pipeline and
therefore the 'interference' has no effect on the corrosion status of the pipeline.

Using this simplistic spreadsheet will help the engineer to visualise that pipe to
soil voltages have errors that do not necessarily affect the performance of the
cathodic protection system, but that must be extrapolated for the purpose of
computer analysis.

These soil potentials can be measured with a voltmeter referring to another (but
static) half-cell.

It shows that we need a zero potential on which to base all cathodic protection
calculations.

This zero is the datum on which we have to base all our calculations in the
same way that the height of a person is regarded as the distance from the top of
his head to the ground. If he is standing on a step and has high heels on his
shoes these introduce errors into the measurement of his height.

In the case of potential comparisons with respect to interference we can
conveniently use the pipe metal as one reference potential.

This has the advantage that we can use historical data to test computer models
and to simulate the electrical balance of all the integrated electrical circuits
formed by the cathodic protection systems and pipeline networks.


In this model we can see that the point at which the half cell touches the ground
has been related to all of the other points at which the half cell touched the
ground.

This is very important as the cathodic protection current passes from the
impressed current anode to remote earth at which stage there are an infinite
number of resistances in parallel. According to Kirchoff there is an infinite
conductor from this point until the current is approaching the locations at which
it can pass into the pipeline metal.

The resistance of the pipeline metal can be computed as we have the 'as built'
specifications of each part of the metal network.

We can measure the output of all cathodic protection current sources but we
cannot measure the amount of current going into the pipeline at any point.
Some engineers try to assess this value and call it current density. At this stage
of monitoring we can measure the ground potentials in relation to other ground
potentials or in relation to the potential of the pipeline at the nearest connection
point. This potential is likely to be the average potential as influenced by all of
the corrosion reactions and electrical flux along the nearby span.

If there is a coating fault then the cathodic protection current will cause an 'IR
drop in the soil' that muat be evaluated as well as the interference currents.

This voltage drop decays over a period of time that cannot be accurately
determined.



Module 7

Interference



07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module07/fieldinterf.htm


Module 6

Real time chat

roger.alexander5 is the Skype name for rogeralexander2@o2.co.uk

Just tell me which Module you want to discuss and we will take it from there.


07/02/2010
http://www.dynamic- cathodic- protection.com/module07/chat.htm

Cathodic Protection Course

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cathodic Protection Course

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dynamic Cathodic Protection

Applying circuit analysis to Cathodic Protection.

Potrebbero piacerti anche