Evaluation of Above-Ground Potential PDF

EVALUATION OF ABOVE-GROUND POTENTIAL
MEASUREMENTS FOR ASSESSING PIPELINE INTEGRITY
By
JAMES PATRICK MCKINNEY
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2006
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Mark Orazem, for his support, guidance,
and his belief in me. He has shown me not only how to improve my abilities in
research, but also how to improve my abilities as a person. I would like to thank
Dr. Oliver Moghissi of CC Technologies and Daphne D’Zurko of Northeast Gas
Association for sponsoring this project. I appreciate Dr. Moghissi’s willingness to
work closely with me on this project. He benefited not only the project, but also
my abilities and understanding regarding both the fundamentals of the project
and corrosion engineering in general. I would like to thank Dr. Douglas Riemer
for offering technical support needed for running CP3D simulations. I would also
like to thank everyone in my research group for their daily and continuous support.
This includes Nelliann Perez-Garcia, Mei-Wen Huang, Michael Matlock, Sunil Roy,
and Chia Chu, who has worked closely with me on this project.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, my sister, and my brother for their
love and support throughout my life. I appreciate them instilling the value of
education in me at an early age.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Corrosion Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Cathodic Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.2 Principles of CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Internal Inspection Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5 Above-Ground Measurement (Indirect) Techniques . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5.1 Close Interval Survey (CIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5.2 Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.3 Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG) . . . . . . . 23
2.5.4 Current Attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3 CP3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.1 Description of CP3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2 Mathematical Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.1 Bare Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2.2 Coated Steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2.3 Sacrificial and Impressed Current Anodes . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.3 Replication of Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.1 CIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.2 DCVG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3.3 ACVG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.4 Current Attenuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.4 CP3D settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.4.1 Matrix of Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
iii
4 RESULTS AND TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.1 Current and Potential Distributions in the Pipeline . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 Trends from Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.3 Flaw Size Predictors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.3.1 CIS Predictor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.3.2 DCVG Predictor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
3–1 The matrix of model runs showing the ranges of different parameters
that were varied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4–1 Three simulations different only in CP level. Parameters are 12in Dp,
4ft DOC, and 0.5 kohm-cm (soil resistivity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
2–1 A CP system with a sacrificial anode. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2–2 A CP system with impressed current. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2–3 A representation of on- and off-potential profiles which show how CIS
dips are categorized. Each data point represents a measurement at
the soil surface directly over the pipeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2–4 The percent-IR calculation is shown using the lateral voltage gradi-
ents with the interpolated value of IR drop over the coating flaw. . 22
2–5 A diagram showing how an IR measurement is interpolated at the
ground surface above the coating flaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3–1 An image from CP3D showing the physical orientation of the soil sur-
face with respect to the pipeline. The darker area on the pipeline
represents the coating flaw or holiday. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3–2 A profile of on- and off-potentials from CP3D simulation data where
the dip indicates the location of the coating flaw. Each data point
represents a measurement at the soil surface directly over the pipeline. 34
3–3 A schematic of how CIS indication is calculated using the nodes of
the soil surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3–4 A schematic of how DCVG measurements are made using CP3D. . . 35
3–5 A profile of DCVG measurements above the pipeline. The peak value
represents the overall DCVG indication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3–6 A schematic of how percent-IR is measured and calculated. . . . . . . 38
3–7 A profile of IR drops in the perpendicular direction to the pipeline.
The IR drops are all at the same lengthwise position as the coating
flaw in respect to the pipeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4–1 A plot of current density as it changes along the length of the pipeline.
Parameters: 36 sq in flaw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp 43
4–2 An angular plot of current density at the location of the coating flaw.
vi
4–3 A plot of soil surface on-potentials as they change along the length of
the pipeline. Parameters: 36 sq in flaw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft
DOC, 12in Dp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4–4 A plot of steel voltage as it changes along the length of the pipeline.
4–5 Current distribution along the pipeline is shown for changing soil re-
sistivities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4–6 DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as soil resistivity
(ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC:
4ft, anode voltage: 5V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4–7 DCVG indication in percent-IR is plotted versus flaw size as soil re-
sistivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in,
DOC: 4ft, anode voltage: 5V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4–8 DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as CP level is var-
ied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, DOC:
4ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4–9 DCVG indication in percent-IR is plotted versus flaw size as CP level
is varied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in,
DOC: 4ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4–10 DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as DOC is varied.
Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, CP level: high 52
4–11 DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as Dp is varied.
Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, DOC: 4in, CP level:
high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4–12 CIS on-potential dip indication is plotted versus flaw size as soil re-
DOC: 4ft, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4–13 DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as soil resistivity
(ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC:
4ft, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4–14 CIS off-potential dip indication is plotted versus flaw size as soil re-
4–15 A profile of soil surface on- and off-potentials from a simulated CIS
survey. Simulation parameters are flaw size: 36 in2 , Rs: 500ohm-
cm, Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
vii
4–16 A representation of soil surface on-potential profiles taken along the
length of the pipeline. The anode voltage is held constant for each
simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4–17 Current attenuation in mA is plotted against flaw size as soil resistiv-
ity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC:
4ft, CP level: high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4–18 Current attenuation in percent is plotted against flaw size as soil re-
4–19 A plot of CIS indications versus flaw size from simulation data. CIS
indication is the difference in the on-potential dip and the off-potential
dip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4–20 A profile of general behavior of on- and off-potentials along the cen-
terline at the soil surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4–21 A plot of CIS indication divided by IR total versus the square root of
the flaw size. The definition of IR total is illustrated in Figure (4-20). 61
4–22 An exponential plot of slope versus soil resistivity. Data was at a depth
of cover of 4ft and a pipe diameter of 6 inches. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4–23 A plot of pre-exponential factors versus the corresponding depth of
cover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4–24 Actual flaw size is plotted versus predicted flaw size for each simula-
tion using the derived expression for m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4–25 Actual flaw size is plotted versus predicted flaw size for each simula-
tion using DCVG indications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
viii
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
EVALUATION OF ABOVE-GROUND POTENTIAL
MEASUREMENTS FOR ASSESSING PIPELINE INTEGRITY
By
James Patrick McKinney
May 2006
Chair: Mark E. Orazem
Major Department: Chemical Engineering
Indirect techniques based on currents and potentials measured at the soil
surface can be used to evaluate the condition of buried pipelines. These techniques
are the foundation of External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) protocols. A
quantitative relationship between ECDA signals and the presence of coating defects
or flaws has not previously been established. Such a relationship is anticipated
to be dependent on parameters such as soil resistivity and the condition of the
defect-free coating.
The objective of this work was to simulate the sensitivity to the pipe coating
condition of above-ground ECDA techniques. This project made use of a mathe-
matical model CP3D which was developed at the University of Florida to simulate
the operation of a cathodic protection system for mitigating corrosion of buried
pipelines. This program allows for the creation of a visualized three-dimensional
environment. It was developed as a tool to help improve the ability to assess the
condition of underground pipelines. It takes into account a wide variety of different
parameters such as pipeline diameter, depth of cover, soil resistivity, coating flaw
(holiday) size, coating condition, level of cathodic protection, and polarization
ix
resistance. A matrix of simulation runs has been completed within which each of
these parameters was varied.
Above-ground ECDA procedures were simulated using results from the model.
The model generates results that include current and voltage distributions along
the pipeline as well as the on- and off-potentials calculated at locations on the
ground surface above the pipeline. The ECDA techniques or tools that are per-
formed include Close Interval Survey (CIS), Direct Current Voltage Gradient
(DCVG), Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG), and Current Attenu-
ation. Results from these techniques show that soil and coating parameters are
significant. Currently engineers use subjective judgment based on ECDA indication
results measured. However, these results can be significantly skewed based on
changes in these parameters which can affect the interpretation of results.
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) is a method to prioritize
susceptibility to corrosion along a pipeline segment. If the most susceptible
locations are excavated and directly examined and then found to be in good
mechanical condition, the remaining locations are also considered to be in good
condition. On this basis, an overall pipeline integrity assessment is achieved.
This work shows that the results of measurement techniques are sensitive to
various pipeline parameters and soil conditions such as soil resistivity, coating flaw
size, depth of cover, pipe diameter, and cathodic protection (CP) level through
use of the simulation software program called CP3D. From an entire spreadsheet
of simulation results, a design equation was developed to predict coating flaw size
based on these parameters and the indication results from simulated measurement
techniques.
The above-ground measurement techniques are one way to assess the condition
of pipelines since they can measure current and potential distributions. ECDA is
a recently developed process that has been implemented to improve the utilization
of these techniques. However, this process relies heavily on the subjective decisions
of engineers. The objective of this work is to show that increased knowledge of the
parameters of pipelines and their surrounding environment improves the ability to
interpret results from the different above-ground measurement techniques. Cur-
rently, not enough information about pipelines and their environments are included
in assessments and these factors can lead to misinterpretation of indications.
This document is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 discusses the history
and basic principles of corrosion and how cathodic protection systems work. Also
1
2
included is explanation of how the different above-ground measurement techniques

are used to assess pipeline integrity and how they are utilized by ECDA.
In Chapter 3, CP3D is introduced as the simulation software program used
to replicate the techniques. It explains how CP3D works and what it offers.
Discussion of the governing equations used for the mathematical model is also
included. Explanation is then given of how each technique is replicated within
CP3D.
Chapter 4 gives results from each of the different techniques used in CP3D
based on changes in the make-up of the pipeline and its environment. These results
are used to explain which techniques are more sensitive under different conditions.
A quantitative relationship is also derived which predicts coating flaw size based on
simulation parameters and calculated indications.
Chapter 5 involves the conclusions made regarding this project based on
simulation results and interpretations. Also included in this chapter is discussion of
future work which involves possible projects that are related to this work but would
take a new and somewhat different direction.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA)
External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) was first introduced as an

alternative method to assess pipeline integrity.1, 2 It is intended to be a way to
improve safety by decreasing external corrosion.3, 4 ECDA was initially considered
to be an option for pipelines that were not ”piggable” or were difficult for pressure
testing or in-line inspection.1, 2 It is characterized as a continuous process for
maintaining the integrity of pipelines.1–3, 5 This is because each time the ECDA
process is completed for a given pipeline, it must be scheduled to be completed
again. This ensures that the pipeline will always be monitored and maintained.
ECDA utilizes traditional methods to evaluate the level of external corrosion,
the condition of coating, and the level of cathodic protection.2 Some of these
traditional methods include indirect inspection techniques such as DCVG, CIS,
PCM, and ACVG. ECDA does not introduce any new techniques, but it does allow
for new techniques that can be included into its application.2
ECDA is a four step process aimed at determining the integrity of a given
pipeline.4, 5 These steps are Preassessment, Indirect Inspection, Direct Examina-
tion, and Post-Assessment.4, 5
Preassessment is the first step of ECDA. It involves a background study of
the pipeline and its surrounding environment. This includes information such as
pipeline structure, soil condition, operating history, and previous survey results.2
By collecting this information and evaluating the accessibility of the ground above
the buried pipeline, preassessment also includes determining if ECDA can be
properly used.2, 3 For example, sometimes pipelines are buried underneath rivers,
3
4
lakes, roads, rocky terrain, or commercial and residential areas.3 This causes many
difficulties for using indirect inspection techniques. Approval of access must be
given by landowners or managers if the pipeline exists in commercial or residential
areas.3 For issues of water, roads, or rocky terrain a measurement technique called
Guided Wave Ultrasonics has been used in the past.3 This technique is able to
gauge metal loss without making electrical contact with the land.3 The selection
of which above-ground techniques are to be used is decided in the preassessment
step.6, 7
The second step of ECDA, indirect inspection, involves use of the above-
ground measurement techniques.5 The indirect inspections are aimed to locate
coating holidays as well as areas that either lack the proper amount of cathodic
protection or those that have corrosion.1, 2, 5 At least two measurement techniques
must be used to follow Direct Assessment protocols.2 They are both to be per-
formed over the same sections of pipeline that are determined from Preassessment
and they should be done consecutively without much time in between.2 Most
indirect inspections only include CIS and DCVG as the two techniques needed for
assessment since ECDA requires them both.2, 3 However, PCM and ACVG are both
considered advantageous to use for indirect inspection. Some sources recommend
that at least three techniques should be used.3 One advantage of using three is that
DCVG is considered to be a slow survey.3 Therefore, if PCM and CIS were first
completed, then it would minimize the length needed for a DCVG survey based on
the results already found.3
The third step of ECDA, Direct Examination, involves excavations so that the
pipeline can be inspected first-hand.5 Before excavations are started, this step first
involves evaluating the measurements from the indirect inspections.2 Based on the
data collected, a determination is made for which areas need excavation. The exca-
vations are done at areas where the data from above-ground measurements suggest
5
that corrosion is worst.2 These excavations are called “bell-hole” excavations.3, 8

They allow for reparations to be made and they give the opportunity to determine
if indirect indications were accurate.8 In order to completely test whether indica-
tions are valid, random excavations are done at areas where there is no indication
of defect.3, 8 Further testing done during excavations involve determining the soil
resistivity, metal loss, and corrosion rates.3
Once repairs are made and excavations are completed, the last step of ECDA
called Post-assessment begins. It is primarily used to evaluate the effectiveness of
ECDA’s first three steps and to determine when ECDA will be completed again
for the same pipeline.1, 4, 5 This is called a reassessment interval which is calculated
to ensure that ECDA will be completed again before corrosion can reach advanced
levels that would be detrimental to the future of the pipeline’s operation and to the
health of the environment.2 Once this is determined, step four is completed.
Another aspect that can be included in ECDA is Structure Reliability Analysis
(SRA). While it is not always used, it can be beneficial in providing numbers for
the probability of finding defects based on ECDA as well as the probability that
the pipeline will fail. SRA is considered a probabilistic technique that can be used
in combination with ECDA.3
2.2 Corrosion Background
Corrosion has been a concern for centuries and even millennia. The growth of
corrosion has coincided over history with the increased use of metals. It has also
been suggested that a larger industrial atmosphere and other pollutants have also
caused corrosion problems to increase. The Romans were one of the first known
to use methods to fight corrosion. Around 100 B.C., they were recorded to have
used methods as simple as applying tar and pitch to the exterior of metals to aid
in protection.9 However, in much more recent times scientific approaches have been
developed to fight corrosion such as cathodic protection.
6
Corrosion is an issue that has become increasingly important due to its

economic impact. There have been many reports that have estimated annual
monetary losses due to corrosion. For example, textbooks on corrosion published
in the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s have reported losses between 8 and 126 billion
dollars a year in the United States of America alone.10, 11 Other sources during
this time estimated a tighter range of annual losses between 30 and 70 billion
dollars a year.12, 13 By the year 1998, however, another source estimated that 276
billion dollars a year was lost due to corrosion.14 120 million of that 276 billion
represented efforts to prevent corrosion.14 Although these are large numbers,
they still do not include the indirect costs of corrosion.11 While a direct cost
could normally be associated with replacing corroded and ineffective equipment,
the indirect cost would be due to shutdown of a production line while corroded
equipment is being replaced.15 Another example of an indirect cost is the product
lost from leaks in pipelines.15 While the cost of fixing the leak is reported due to
corrosion, the cost of product lost is not included. Over design of equipment is also
another indirect effect of corrosion.15 This can be attributed to the inaccuracy or
lack of available corrosion information.
In order to apply corrosion preventative methods properly, a basic level of
knowledge of corrosion is first needed. Corrosion is defined as the deterioration
of a metal due to its chemical interaction with its environment. This chemical
interaction involves anodic reactions which are characterized as the dissolution
of the metal. The anodic or oxidation reactions must be balanced by cathodic
reactions which reduce oxygen or acids at the metal surface. The rate at which the
anodic and cathodic reactions proceed must be equal. As the anodic reactions are
completed, the oxidized ferrous ions begin reacting with reduced hydroxide ions
forming rust. The presence of rust represents the deterioration of the metal.
7
The likelihood of a given metal corroding is partially due to the type of metal
being used since some metals are more likely to corrode than other metals. The
metals that are more likely to corrode are called active metals and the metals
that do not corrode easily are called noble metals. Examples of noble metals are
gold, platinum, and silver. As noble metals they do not give up their electrons
very easily. The limitation of these metals is that they are rare and costly. Due
to the large demand for metals, more abundant metals are needed for large scale
operations. Iron is the most abundant metal on earth and it is sturdy and strong.
However, as a more abundant metal, it is much more active. As an active metal it
is more capable of losing its electrons and oxidizing under normal conditions.
To be used, metals must be extracted from their ores or the minerals that they
are contained in. The science involving the use of procedures to extract metals
from their ores is called metallurgy. It takes energy to extract metals from their
ores. The energy needed is the same amount of energy that is released when the
reactions producing corrosion are occurring.11 Therefore, sometimes corrosion is
referred to as extractive metallurgy in reverse because corrosion transforms the
metal back into its original state.10, 11, 13 An ore or a corroded metal no longer
maintains its metallic properties. Some of the most natural ores are oxides and
sulfides.9
There are many different conditions that favor corrosion. High temperatures
around 500 degrees Fahrenheit and high pressures can both be very hostile towards
metals.10 The presence of a gas such as hydrogen sulfide is also very corrosive.10
These conditions are becoming more likely in industrial chemical processes as
they are needed to produce higher yields in product.10 However, some processes
have always caused an increase in corrosivity. One example is the conversion
of coal to both oil and gas as it causes high temperatures and emits corrosive
gases.10 These conditions formed from the conversion of coal can be termed as dry
8
corrosion.10 Dry corrosion occurs from vapors or gases. The conditions are above
the environment’s dew point when dry corrosion occurs.10 Corrosion can also be
described as wet corrosion. Wet corrosion is more common than dry corrosion.10
It usually occurs when there are aqueous solutions or electrolytes present.10
Some chemicals are more corrosive depending on whether they are present as
a gas or a liquid. For example, dry chlorine is very corrosive, but not when it
is dissolved in water.10 For acid solutions, corrosivity is increased if dissolved
oxygen is present. This is because oxygen will also reduce at the metal surface
to form water which causes the rate of metal dissolution to increase.10 There
is also a difference in corrosivity depending on whether the materials used are
organic or inorganic. Inorganic materials are considered less corrosive than organic
materials.10 Examples of inorganic materials are those without carbon compounds
such as sulfur, sodium chloride, and hydrochloric acid.10 Examples of organic
materials are naphtha and oil.10
Although corrosion was not as rampant in earlier times as it is today, it still
has been a problem for centuries. Records indicate that the Romans used methods
to fight corrosion around 100 B.C.9 They used oil and tar to protect bronze and
they used pitch and gypsum to protect iron.9 There is no known evidence of a
scientific approach used to combat corrosion until the 19th century.9 There are
several reasons why corrosion was not as large of an issue in earlier times than it
is today. One reason is because the metals they used were those that were most
easily extracted from their ores.9 This meant that they did not revert back to their
original state easily. Other reasons corrosion is a larger issue today are due to the
increasing use of metals and the ever growing industrial atmosphere.9
Today there are lots of ways that corrosion is fought. Some are simple and
some are much more complex and scientific. Simple methods involve protecting
9
metals with paints, caulking materials, polymers, metallic coatings, or organic coat-
ings. Some examples of organic coatings are coal and asphalt enamels, polyethylene
tapes, and fusion bonded epoxy.14 These organic coatings are preferred for the use
of pipelines.14 There are also corrosion inhibitors which can be sprayed onto the
metal’s surface forming a non-conducting film. These corrosion inhibitors can be
included with organic coatings to provide additional protection.16, 17 An alternative
to applying external protection to metals is to use high performance steels that
include chromium or nickel which have a high resistance to corrosion. As for more
scientific approaches, cathodic and anodic protections are the most common used
to fight corrosion. Although there are principle differences between the two, they
both involve maintaining metals such as tanks and pipelines at certain potentials in
order to make the dissolution of metal atoms unfavorable.
2.3 Cathodic Protection
2.3.1 Background
The first person to describe the use of cathodic protection was Sir Humphrey
Davy in 1824.9, 10 Through experimentation he showed that by connecting two
metals electrically and submerging them both in water that one metal would
remain in good condition while the other metal would deteriorate at an increased
rate.9 He was soon asked to apply this method to help protect the British Naval
ships.9, 10 He was called upon because in his work he had suggested that the
bottoms of ships could be protected by attaching zinc and iron plates.9 He ended
up using cast iron because he found that it remained electrically active longer than
either zinc or iron.9
A century later, cathodic protection was also used to protect underground
pipelines. Pipelines were first installed underground in the United States in the
1920s.9 They quickly became a large concern due to their susceptibility to corrosion
since they were primarily made of iron or steel and the surrounding soil contained
10
appreciable levels of oxygen, water, and salts. Pipelines became susceptible

to leaks as corrosion would accelerate eventually degrading areas of the metal
completely. This became of major consequence as problems occurred such as fire,
contamination of the environment, lost product, service interruptions, and declining
relations with the public.9 Since many underground pipelines carry oil and natural
gas over hundreds of miles, it is quite a task to ensure that an entire pipeline is
protected. Today, over 1.3 million miles of underground pipeline are used to carry
natural gas and another 170,000 miles is used to transport oil or other petroleum
products.18, 19 By the 1930s pipeline owners began fighting corrosion by applying
external coatings and implementing cathodic protection.9 The corrosivity of the
ground was measured in order to focus on areas which needed protection the most
and efforts made were considered to be successful.9
After coatings were applied on pipelines, accelerated corrosion was found
at certain areas and it became evident that CP must accompany the coating.20
During installation or excavation of pipelines with coatings it is likely that the
coating will be scraped or damaged in some places leaving bare spots. These areas
are called coating flaws or coating holidays. One study found that a coating flaw
causes a much greater risk to the pipeline than there would be if the coating was
completely absent as the potential for localized failure of the pipeline is greatly
increased.21 This is because the unprotected metal forms a galvanic couple with
the adjacent protected metal underneath the coating.22 In the galvanic couple
the bare metal becomes the anode and the neighboring metal covered by the
coating becomes the cathode as if it were an electrochemical cell. This further
protects the metal underneath the coating and accelerates the deterioration of the
unprotected metal. The use of coatings also help CP systems because they reduce
the current requirement needed for protection.21 Therefore, the amount of current
needed to polarize the pipe steel by 100mV is also decreased.22 There are also some
11
properties that coatings should exhibit in order to work well for pipelines.23 For
example, pipeline coatings should have strong adhesion to the pipeline and offer
flexibility at high temperatures.23 These coatings should also have resistance to soil
stress and cathodic disbonding.23
2.3.2 Principles of CP
Cathodic protection is a scientific approach used to protect a metal structure

from degradation. It involves electrically connecting two metals in an electrolyte.
For underground pipelines, the soil can be considered to be the electrolyte. There
are two different types of cathodic protection. One is through use of a sacrificial
anode and the other is by impressed current. CP with the use of a sacrificial anode
involves galvanically coupling the pipeline with a metal more active than the metal
of the pipeline. The metal that is considered to be more active is the metal that
has a more negative standard equilibrium potential. Once they are connected a
potential difference develops between the two metals. The more active metal acts
as the anode and the more noble pipeline metal acts as a cathode. As the more
active metal, the anode will give up its electrons much easier than the noble metal.
There are two reactions that can occur normally at the pipeline’s surface. One of
these reactions is the oxidation of iron
Fe → Fe2+ + 2e− (2.1)
The other reaction is the reduction of oxygen
O2 + 2H2 O + 4e− → 4OH− (2.2)
These two reactions must be electrically balanced so that they proceed at the same
rate. Since the integrity of the pipeline can be compromised by the iron dissolution
reaction, the rate of this reaction must be reduced. This is done by providing the
excess of electrons from the anode. The metal dissolution reaction of the anode is
12
Figure 2–1: A CP system with a sacrificial anode.
given as
M → Mn+ + ne− (2.3)
where M represents the sacrificial anode metal being oxidized. By degradation of

the anode metal, electrons are supplied to the pipeline so that the oxygen reduction
reaction can occur which reduces the rate of the iron oxidation reaction. The
electrons are delivered to the pipeline through a low resistance wire as shown in
Figure 2–1. Therefore, through galvanic coupling the more active anode begins to
degrade which further protects the more noble pipeline metal. Figure 2–1 gives
a visualization of a cathodic protection system with a sacrificial anode and its
placement in respect to the buried pipeline. Most sacrificial anodes are made of
either magnesium or zinc since they are both more active as compared to iron
pipelines.
CP systems with impressed current involve supplying current from an external
source in order to protect pipelines. This is done by a rectifier or DC generator
13
which can convert alternating current from an external power source to direct
current. This creates a voltage drop between the anode and the pipeline which
drives electrons from the anode to the metal through the low resistance wire.
By an excess of electrons at the pipeline’s surface, the potential of the metal is
polarized to a more negative potential. The rate of oxygen reduction reaction (2.2)
is increased and the anodic or oxidation reaction (2.1) which normally occurs at the
pipeline’s surface becomes unfavorable. If the potential of the pipeline becomes too
polarized the hydrogen evolution reaction
H2 O + 2e− → H2 + 2OH− (2.4)
can occur. The evolution of hydrogen can result in hydrogen embrittlement of the
pipeline, so it is necessary to ensure that polarization does not cause the pipeline’s
potential to become too negative.
Figure 2–2 gives a representation of how the arrangement is different for a CP
system with impressed current. The current is supplied to the pipeline from the
anode through the soil. When the current reaches the pipeline it travels toward
the low-resistance wire. This low-resistance wire allows for the return of current
to the anode from the pipeline. The anode in this system is made up of an inert
material so that it will not chemically react with the environment and degrade as a
sacrificial anode would. Sometimes the anode can be more noble than the pipeline.
In this case, the rectifier must overcome both the resistance of the circuit and the
back potential created from the more noble anode in order to flow current in the
proper direction.20 In order to balance the reduction reactions occurring at the
pipeline’s surface, there must be oxidation reactions occurring at the surface of the
impressed current anode. The main reaction occurring is the oxidation of water or
the evolution of oxygen given as
2H2 O → O2 + 4H+ + 4e− (2.5)

14
Figure 2–2: A CP system with impressed current.
At more extreme positive potentials the evolution of chlorine can also occur as
2Cl− → Cl2 + 2e− (2.6)
There are advantages and disadvantages associated with both sacrificial

anodes and impressed current anodes. Some of the advantages of a sacrificial anode
are that it does not require an external energy source and that is self sustained.
Therefore, a sacrificial anode can be preferred in areas where an external energy
source is unavailable. On the other hand, CP systems with impressed current
anodes do consume external energy. Some of its advantages involve that it can
supply a larger magnitude of protection and will also last longer. For example,
eventually a sacrificial anode will be consumed by the environment and must be
replaced. By supplying more protection, impressed current anodes can be used to
protect larger sections of pipeline and handle more resistive soil environments. One
of the few disadvantages of impressed current CP systems can be due to the risk
15
of supplying too much current causing damaging hydrogen evolution. However,

this should be able to be prevented by properly controlling the rectifier and having
knowledge of the pipeline and its environment.
2.4 Internal Inspection Techniques
There are two types of Internal Inspection techniques discussed in this section.
One is called pressure testing or hydrostatic testing. The other is called in-line
inspections (ILIs) or pigging. ILI involves measuring the conditions of the pipeline
through ultrasonic testing (UT) or magnetic flux leakage (MFL) sensors. The
inspections are referred to as “in-line” because they involve measurements inside of
the pipeline. Pipeline inspections using ILI tools began being utilized between the
mid 1960s and mid 1970s.24, 25 Pressure testing has been used for much longer.
Pressure testing involves hydrostatic pressure which is applied to the internal
walls of pipelines. It tests the ability of a pipeline to maintain pressure and resist
bursting. Pressure testing is also capable of locating areas where internal corrosion
damage to an extent leading to pipe wall failure is present. It is able to do so
by determining the sturdiness of the walls of the pipeline. Usually pressures are
tested around 1.5 times the normal operating pressure expected to be placed on
the interior of the pipeline. Pipelines are taken off line during pressure testing and
the fluid being transported must be displaced so that it can be re-filled with water
through the use of pumps. This can cause some environmental issues involving
the disposal of the fluids that are normally transported in pipelines as well as the
disposal of the used and contaminated hydrostatic test water.1 Pressure testing
is often done upon the completion of the building of a pipeline so that it can be
tested at certain pressure levels beyond those required during operation.24 This can
also determine if construction defects are present.
ILIs involve the use of pigs. A pig is a device that moves through the pipeline
for either inspection or cleaning. Sometimes pigging is used before pressure testing
16
so that the pipeline is initially clean. If a pipeline is not pigged its throughput
capacity may decrease over time. There are different designs used to insert and
retrieve pigs from the pipeline. Some pipelines have built in systems where an
additional line will join the pipeline from above the ground so that a pig can be
launched into the pipeline. Similarly, in order to retrieve a pig there is a stray line
which forks off of the main pipeline to a location above-ground so that it can be
recovered.
There are several different types of pigs used due to their different functions.
Some are called “smart pigs” because of their ability to detect corrosion, gouges,
or dents. Usually the first type of pig used is a scout pig which will detect whether
the pipeline is clean or if there are any obstructions in the interior of the pipeline.
Then cleaning pigs can be used in order to remove or displace debris or wax
buildup on the interior walls. This is done by brushers or scrapers which are
attached to the pig. Another type of pig involves magnetic flux leakage (MFL).
It can detect both internal and external corrosion defects. MFL is used for gas
pipelines while ultrasonic testing (UT) is used for liquid pipelines. A document was
prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy regarding a new method using MFL.26
This document outlines methods for determining axially oriented defects which
stretch along the length of the pipeline. According to normal MFL measurements
the original orientation of the magnetic field created did not detect these anomalies.
However, by orienting the magnetic field around the circumference of the pipeline
these axial defects were detected.
One of the problems with pigging or pressure testing in terms of detection
of corrosion is that they are detecting problems with the pipeline after they have
occurred. However, early detection can be the key since problem areas can then
be corrected before they become potential failures. Another limitation can be due
to the lack of physical accessibility of some areas of the pipeline. The land above
17
buried pipelines sometimes involves rocky terrain or developed areas where access
to a given pipeline may be unavailable. It is preferred that pig launch and retrieval
systems are built upon installation of a given pipeline. Then pigs can be used to
help prepare the pipeline before it goes online by cleaning it. Another concern for
using pigs is that pipelines do not turn at sharp angles or have any dents which
might cause a pig to get stuck. A pipeline may not be a good candidate for pigging
due to inadequate pressure, flow, costs of modifications, and customer issues.25 The
systems involving launching pigs and retrieving pigs as well as the pigs themselves
are all very expensive equipment. Natural gas pipelines are often not amenable
to pigging or pressure testing.2 These types of pipelines are not designed for pig
insertion and also they can not be taken off-line for pressure testing due to service
demands. Direct Assessment is a method that is considered as an alternative to
inspect pipelines if pressure testing or pigging are unavailable.1
2.5 Above-Ground Measurement (Indirect) Techniques
The following measurement techniques are used to determine pipeline integrity

through indirect inspections. These techniques are termed as indirect because they
do not involve physically inspecting the pipeline first hand. These techniques rely
on voltage and potential distributions that arise in the soil or electrolyte due to the
CP system that is in place to protect the pipeline.
2.5.1 Close Interval Survey (CIS)
The Close Interval Survey (CIS) technique has historically been used to
characterize how well the CP system is working.3, 6, 27 It gives both on-potential
and off-potential profiles along the length of the pipeline at the ground surface.
These potentials are measured at the soil surface with respect to the potential of
the pipeline. Test stations are placed at intervals usually between one and two
kilometers along the pipeline. Each test station allows for a direct connection to
be made to the pipeline. Between test stations, surveyors use a trailing wire to
18
remain connected to the previous test station. The measurements are made at
the ground surface by use of a walking stick probe with a Cu/CuSO4 reference
electrode placed at the bottom so it is touching the ground. It is used to measure
the potential at the soil surface directly above the pipeline with respect to the
direct connection with the pipeline. A pipe locator is used to ensure the proper
location of measurements at the ground surface. Measurements are taken every
five feet along the pipeline. The on-potentials and off-potentials are measured at
each location by interrupting the CP current. When the CP current is turned on,
the on-potential reading is measured. When it is interrupted or disconnected, the
off-potential reading is found. Acceptable potentials are expected to be in the range
between -850mV and -1200mV.28
One concern during the CIS survey is that depolarization may occur when the
CP current is interrupted. It is suggested that the length of the CP interruption
cycle is limited in order to maintain proper polarization levels. Through interrup-
tion, the CP current is turned on and off continuously. It is suggested that these
on and off intervals are maintained at three seconds for the CP current on and one
second for the CP current off. This represents a four-second interruption cycle.
The one- second interval has been found to be long enough to allow for correct
measurement of the off-potential.
CIS indications are often analyzed by placing results in three different cat-
egories.7, 8, 28, 29 The first category is labeled as a Type I indication. This level of
indication is characterized as minor since both the on-potential and off-potential
values for the peaks of the dips remain more negative than -850mV. In Figure
2–3, a representation of a Type I indication is shown along with Type II and
Type III indications. Type II is considered as a moderate indication. It has an
on-potential dip in which the peak value remains more negative than -850mV
while the off-potential’s dip does not. The Type II indication is considered to be
19
-960
-940 -850 mV
potential (mV) on
-920 off
-900
-880
Type I
-860
-840
-820 Type II Type III

-800
0 50 100 150 200
length along pipe (feet)
Figure 2–3: A representation of on- and off-potential profiles which show how CIS
dips are categorized. Each data point represents a measurement at the soil surface
directly over the pipeline.
properly protected by the CP system. Type III indications are termed as severe.
These types of dips have peak values for on- and off-potentials which extend into
the range more positive than -850mV. The presence of a defect is considered likely
under this indication and the ability of the CP system to protect it is considered to
be unlikely.
There are some limitations of CIS. Indications are expected to only indicate
whether corrosion is taking place at the time of the measurement. It is not ex-
pected that a CIS survey will indicate areas where corrosion may have occurred
previously.8, 28 While CIS is able to detect the possibility of holidays, it is not the
preferred method to discover such locations. The primary function of CIS is to de-
termine how well the CP system is working for a given pipeline. As mentioned, this
can be done by finding dips in the on- and off-potential profiles and determining
whether the CP current should properly protect these locations.
20
2.5.2 Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG)
The Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG) survey is used to determine the
location of a coating flaw or holiday and to categorize its relative severity once it
is found. This is done by using two different calculations. The first of these two
calculations is in units of mV and it is used to determine the coating flaw’s location
as measurements are made along the length of the pipeline. The second calculation
is termed as a percent-IR calculation and it involves measurements moving away
from the pipeline. The measurements of DCVG in mV are completed by detecting
a voltage gradient at the surface of the ground above the pipeline. This voltage
gradient is detected by the use of two Cu/CuSO4 electrodes. These electrodes are
placed at the bottom of walking stick probes as those used in the CIS survey. One
electrode is placed at the ground surface directly above the pipeline and the other
is placed at a location approximately five feet away from the pipeline, but also at
the ground surface. There is no direct connection made to the pipeline as in the
CIS survey. This measurement takes into account only the voltage gradient found
between the two electrodes which is the result of current entering the pipeline at
a coating flaw. CP rectifiers are interrupted at a regular cycle which creates a DC
signal detected by the potential difference between the electrodes. The electrodes
are electrically connected to a voltmeter which displays the voltage gradient
detected in mV.
Measurements along the pipeline are typically made at five feet intervals.
When the survey begins, the field engineer nulls the voltmeter so that the first
value or reading is at zero. This means that as the CP current is interrupted,
the voltmeter remains at zero even when the CP current is switched back and
forth between on and off. As a coating flaw is approached, the voltmeter will
begin swinging in either the positive direction or the negative direction from zero
depending on the direction of current detected in the soil or electrolyte. When
21
the CP current is switched off, the voltmeter goes back to zero. However, as the
coating flaw approaches, the voltmeter continues to give either the positive or
negative reading when the CP current is switched on that is consistent with the
previous measurements. The magnitude of this value increases as the coating flaw
approaches. The magnitude of the voltage reading will reach its maximum when
the surveyor’s measurement is made directly above the flaw. This is evidenced
by the voltmeter’s sudden swing from positive to negative or vice versa when
the flaw is passed. For example, if the voltmeter has shown increasing positive
values up to 75 mV, then once the flaw is passed the voltmeter will swing to -75
mV. Then all of the measurements will continue to be negative as the surveyor
moves on along the pipeline in the same direction. However, the absolute value
of the reading will decrease back towards zero as movement is made further away
from the coating flaw. This behavior found by use of the voltmeter is due to the
detection of a direction change in the flow of current in the electrolyte. The current
in the electrolyte or soil is always moving toward the coating flaw, therefore when
the flaw is passed there is a change in direction of the current.
Once a coating flaw or defect is found and located, its size and severity must
be determined. This further characterization of the coating flaw is done through
the calculation of DCVG in percent-IR. There are two steps that the field surveyor
follows in determining the percent-IR value for a given coating flaw. The first is
by taking lateral voltage gradients moving away from the pipeline. These lateral
measurements are shown in Figure 2–4 where point A represents the location of
the flaw. Successive lateral measurements are made in the direction away from
the pipeline and the coating flaw until the voltage gradient reaches a value of less
than or equal to one mV. The location where the lateral voltage gradients are not
greater than one mV is termed either as remote earth or IR infinity. Again these
voltage gradients are measured by the five foot spacing of Cu/CuSO4 electrodes.
22
Figure 2–4: The percent-IR calculation is shown using the lateral voltage gradients
with the interpolated value of IR drop over the coating flaw.
The voltage gradients are then added up and divided by the IR drop at the soil
surface directly above the coating flaw. However, the IR drop over the soil surface
is not measured directly since a direct connection to the pipeline is not made.
Therefore, this value must be interpolated by using the known values of potentials
that are directly connected to the pipeline. This is shown in Figure 2–5 as the
closest test posts are used since they are directly connected to the pipeline. At the
location of each test post the IR drop can be measured.
Once a percentage is calculated for a given coating flaw, it is categorized based
on what range of values it lies in. There are four categories that are generally used
to differentiate the severity or size of holidays. The first category is for IR drops
between zero and 15 percent. If a coating flaw has a percent-IR in this range it is
considered to be safe and not severe. This is because the CP system is expected to
provide adequate protection for a coating flaw with such a low percent-IR value.
Therefore, no action is needed. If the percent-IR is between 15 and 35 percent, its
23
Figure 2–5: A diagram showing how an IR measurement is interpolated at the

ground surface above the coating flaw.
severity is also considered to be minimal. However, the survey must be performed

again in the near future to further monitor it. The third category is between 35
and 70 percent. A sufficient amount of coating damage is expected to be present
for a percent-IR value in this range. However, a field engineer is allowed to make
the decision to either take immediate action and excavate or to schedule another
survey in the near future for further monitoring. For a percent-IR value above 70
percent, immediate action is necessary. Digging at the site of the coating flaw is
needed so that the pipeline can be physically repaired. Upon completion of the
percent-IR calculation and its assessment, the DCVG survey is considered to be
completed.
2.5.3 Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG)
The Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG) technique is similar to

the DCVG technique. They are similar in that ACVG is also used to determine
the location of holidays in order to evaluate the coating condition of the pipeline.
24
However, instead of a DC signal being created, an AC signal is initiated from a

frequency transmitter. This can be done by either a high frequency transmitter
or a low frequency transmitter. This signal is detected by the voltage gradient
measured between two electrodes at the surface of the ground. However, these
electrodes are placed at the bottom of a structure which is called an “A-Frame”
because of its shape. The A-Frame is planted into the ground in order to measure
the voltage gradient. The width of the A-Frame causes another difference between
ACVG and DCVG due to a discrepancy in distance between the electrodes. The
width of the A-Frame is 31.5 inches which is roughly half the distance of the
spacing of the electrodes when making DCVG measurements.
2.5.4 Current Attenuation
The purpose of this technique is to determine the overall coating condition

of the pipeline. It relates current change along the length of the pipeline to the
area of the exposed metal known as the coating flaw. This technique is sometimes
referred to as the Pipeline Current Mapper (PCM) technique. This survey involves
both the use of a transmitter and a receiver. The transmitter is able to simulate
the low frequency DC signal similar to that of the CP system. However it can also
simulate the AC signal at either low frequency (4Hz) or high frequency (937.5Hz).
The receiver is responsible for making all of the necessary measurements and
calculations. Its primary output is the ability to plot current versus distance along
the pipeline. The portable receiver is able to plot points as it moves along the
pipeline further increasing its distance from the transmitter. The magnitude of
current slowly decreases as distance from the transmitter increases. However, there
is sharp drop in the magnitude of current when a coating flaw is present. The
magnitude of current drops because the pipeline consumes a large portion of the
current at the location of the coating flaw. Once the current reaches the pipeline
it travels back down the pipeline in the direction of the transmitter. The relative
25
size of holidays can be determined by noting the size of the drop in the plot of
current versus distance. If there are multiple holidays found, then the relative sizes
of the step changes in current can be compared to determine which ones are most
severe. The larger the drop of in current is the larger the size of the coating flaw is
expected to be. One of the advantages of this type of survey is that it helps show
how CP current can be lost along the pipeline. If certain locations of the pipeline
are large consumers of CP current, it can cause a lack of current to be able to reach
other portions of the pipeline which need protection.
CHAPTER 3
CP3D
3.1 Description of CP3D
CP3D is a mathematical model in the form of a computer software program.

It has been developed by Dr. Mark Orazem’s electrochemical engineering research
group at the University of Florida as a comprehensive model for cathodic protec-
tion. It allows for the creation of a visualized three-dimensional cathodic protection
system of buried structures. This program was developed as a tool to help improve
the ability to assess pipeline conditions. There are several parameters that can
be used and varied in the calculations performed by the mathematical model.
Some of these include coating flaw or coating holiday size, soil resistivity, cathodic
protection level, coating condition, depth of cover, and pipe thickness. In order to
perform the different above-ground techniques in CP3D, a soil surface is created
and utilized within the program. The soil surface is made up of nodes where on-
and off-potentials are calculated by the model at each node’s exact location. In
order to study the details of interest, soil surfaces are placed over the anode and
the coating flaw location of the pipe. The soil surface areas above the anode and
above the flaw represent areas where a useful distribution of on- and off-potentials
are found. Figure 3–1 is an image of the three dimensional environment of CP3D
showing the arrangement of the soil surface with the pipeline and the coating flaw.
The soil surface must be limited in size to avoid putting a strain on the resources
of the program. However, in a real-life field survey, measurements must eventually
cover the entire pipeline in order to properly inspect its complete condition. Since
the area of interest is specified within CP3D, a soil surface that covers the entire
pipeline is not necessary.
26
27
Figure 3–1: An image from CP3D showing the physical orientation of the soil sur-
face with respect to the pipeline. The darker area on the pipeline represents the
coating flaw or holiday.
3.2 Mathematical Development
There are a set of governing equations for the CP3D model that work as a
basis for all calculations made by the program. For protection of underground
pipelines, this model accounts for the current flow through the soil, the pipeline,
and through the circuitry back to the anode. There are two different domains
which are governed separately in the model. One domain is called the outer domain
which is represented by the soil. The other is called the inner domain which
represents the pipeline, the anode, and the electrical wiring that connects them.
The first of the governing equations for the outer domain is the material
balance of a solute species
∂ci
= −(∇ · Ni ) + Ri (3.1)
∂t
where ci is the concentration of a species i, Ni is the net flux vector for species i,
and Ri represents the rate of generation of species i due to homogeneous reactions.
28
Homogeneous reactions are defined as the reactions which occur in the electrolyte
and not at the electrode surfaces, which in this system are either the anode or the
pipeline. Equation (3.1) must be coupled with the equation of electroneutrality in
order to properly account for the concentrations and potentials that are present in
the soil. The equation for electroneutrality is given as
X
zi ci = 0 (3.2)
i
where zi represents the charge associated with species i. For a dilute electrolyte,
the flux of a given species can be given based on its contributions from convection,
diffusion, and migration as
Ni = vc − Di ∇ci − zi ui F ci ∇Φ (3.3)
where v is the fluid velocity, Di is the diffusion coefficient for species i, ui is the
mobility, F is Faraday’s constant and Φ represents the distribution of potential
in the domain. The diffusion coefficient is related to the mobility by the Nernst-
Einstein equation as
Di = RT ui (3.4)
where R is the gas constant and T is the temperature. The equation for current
density is based on the contribution of the movement of each ionic species and is
given as
X
i=F zi Ni (3.5)
i
If the concentration of ions in the electrolyte are uniform and steady state is
assumed the equation for current density can be written as Ohm’s law. Therefore,
i = −κ∇Φ (3.6)
29
where κ represents the conductivity of the electrolyte. The conductivity is given by
X
κ = F2 zi2 ui ci (3.7)
i
and it is uniform because the concentration is uniform. Due to uniform concentra-

tion, the potential is governed by Laplace’s equation which is given as
∇2 Φ = 0 (3.8)
Laplace’s equation can be derived by first multiplying equation (3.1) by zi F and

summing over the species which gives
∂ X X X
F zi ci = −∇ · F zi Ni + F zi Ri (3.9)
∂t i i i
From electroneutrality and from the assumption that Ri is zero because it repre-
sents reactions in the bulk, equation (3.9) reduces to
∇·i=0 (3.10)
By substituting Ohm’s law into equation (3.10) and by the assumption of constant
conductivity, Laplace’s equation is obtained.
Since it is assumed that there are no concentration gradients in the soil or
electrolyte, the concentration gradients due to reactions at the surface of the anode
and pipeline are treated so that they lie in a thin layer adjacent to these surfaces.21
The concentration gradients in this thin layer are incorporated into the boundary
condition which is based on electrochemical reactions.
For the inner domain, there are also some assumptions that must be made.
For example, this model treats the potential through the pipeline as non-uniform.
Previously, pipelines of shorter lengths have neglected the potential drop along the
pipeline steel.30 However, it has been proven that for long pipelines this potential
drop can not be neglected.9, 20, 31
30
Laplace’s equation also governs the flow of current through the pipe steel,
anode, and the connecting wires. It is given as
∇ · (κ∇V ) = 0 (3.11)
where κ is the conductivity of either the pipeline steel, the anode, or the electrical
wires and V is the drop in potential of the metal from a uniform value. The
conductivity of the inner domain is not constant because it is not the same for
the anode, pipeline, or the copper connecting wires. Laplace’s equation can be
simplified as
L
∆V = IR = Iρ (3.12)
A
which accounts for the potential drop along the copper connecting wires. For
this equation, R represents the resistance of the wire, ρ represents the electrical
resistivity of the wire, L is the length, and A is the cross-sectional area of the
connecting wire.
The two domains are coupled through boundary conditions. The boundary
conditions develop a relationship between the local values of potential and the
current density on the metal surface.21 This relationship varies depending on
whether the type of surface is the bare metal pipeline, the coated pipeline, a
sacrificial anode, or an impressed current anode.
3.2.1 Bare Steel
For a non-coated pipeline, bare steel is exposed to the soil. Bare steel can also
be exposed in places where a coated pipeline has scratches or flaws on it. There
are three different electrochemical reactions that can take place at the surface of
the bare steel. These reactions include the oxidation of iron, reduction of oxygen,
and hydrogen evolution. Hydrogen evolution can occur if the metal is polarized
to very negative potentials. The current contribution of each of these reactions
can be included in the relationship between local current density i, the potential
31
of the steel V , and the potential of the soil next to the steel Φ. The following
equation32, 33 represents the boundary condition of the bare metal pipeline and the
adjacent soil and is given as
(V −Φ−EO ) −(V −Φ−EH )
(V −Φ−EF e ) 1 2 2
i = 10 βF e
−( − 10 βO
2 )−1 − 10 βH
2 (3.13)
ilim,O2
The term EF e represents the equilibrium potential for the oxidation of iron and
this term is written similarly for the reactions of oxygen reduction and hydrogen
evolution. The β term is given for each reaction and it represents the tafel slope of
the corresponding reaction. The ilim,O2 term represents the mass transfer limiting
current density of oxygen reduction at the metal surface. Therefore, the current
contribution of oxygen reduction can not be larger than the value of ilim,O2 .
3.2.2 Coated Steel
For coated pipelines, treatment of the reactions at the pipeline-soil interface

must be different than that of bare steel. The purpose of the coating is to provide
resistance for the transport of reducing species to the metal surface. It also reduces
the amount of CP current that is needed to protect a given pipeline. There are
two main types of coating behavior and these are both modeled differently. One
model of coating behavior is where the transport of species is uniform through
the coating. The electrochemical reactions take place once the transported species
reaches the coating-metal interface. These reactions are driven by the difference in
potential V of the metal and the potential Φin just underneath the coating but still
above the metal or steel.
The other type of model involves the presence of pores which allow for the
transport of solute species to take place. It has been shown that the pore structure
will expand after it has been contacted with water and that the conductivity of
the coating increases with time after its exposure to water.34 The resistivity of
the coating with pores is a function of the number of pores per unit area. The
32
electrochemical reactions also take place at the coating-metal interface for this
model and these reactions are also driven by the potential difference between V and
Φin .
It has been shown that the non-porous coated steel forms a diffusion barrier
when put in aqueous environments. As the water is adsorbed by the coating, the
steel can be polarized slightly even if the coating is disbonded.35–38 Equation (3.13)
can be modified based on either model of transport through the coating.39, 40 The
current density can be written as a function of the potential drop through the
coating as
Φ − Φin
i= (3.14)
ρδ
where Φ is the potential of the soil adjacent to the coating, ρ is the resistivity of
the coating, and δ is the thickness of the coating. By writing the current density in
terms of electrochemical reactions it is also given as
(V −Φin −EO ) (V −Φin −EH )
Apore (V −Φβin −EF e ) 1 βO
2
−1 − βO
2
i= [10 Fe −( − 10 2 ) − 10 2 ]
A (1 − αblk )ilim,O2
(3.15)
Apore
where A
is the effective surface area available for reactions to occur and αblock is
the reduction of the transport of oxygen through the diffusion barrier. In order to
determine the values for the current density (i) and Φin , both equation (3.14) and
equation (3.15) are solved simultaneously by the Newton-Ralphson method.
3.2.3 Sacrificial and Impressed Current Anodes
The reactions at the surface of a sacrificial anode involve normally oxygen

reduction and the corrosion reaction of the anode. The current density expression
is treated similarly as that of the bare steel except that the hydrogen evolution
reaction is neglected. The expression is given as
V −Φ−Ecorr
i = ilim,O2 (10 βanode
− 1) (3.16)
33
where Ecorr is the corrosion potential at the anode and βanode is the corresponding
Tafel slope for the anodic corrosion reaction.
The current density model equation for impressed current anodes is similar to
that of the galvanic or sacrificial anode. The only difference is the inclusion of the
rectifier potential setting. This equation is given as
V −Φ−∆Vrect −Ecorr
i = ilim,O2 (10 βanode
− 1) (3.17)
This equation must be modified if there are chloride ions present in the soil.
3.3 Replication of Techniques
The above-ground measurement techniques that are used in field surveys

to assess pipeline integrity can be reproduced within the CP3D program. These
techniques are replicated by using the on and off potentials calculated by the
mathematical model of CP3D at each node’s surface location. Then the additional
calculations are done which are specific to each technique.
3.3.1 CIS
When using CP3D to explore the CIS technique, the potential measured with
a reference electrode at grade is simulated. A profile of on-potentials and off-
potentials along the surface directly above the pipeline can be plotted for a given
simulation as shown in Figure 3–2. The on-potential profile is more negative than
the off-potential profile representing an increased level of protection when the CP is
turned on. Under most conditions profiles for both on- and off-potentials as shown
in Figure 3–2 will have a dip located at the coating flaw or holiday. The potentials
are most positive at the dip representing the coating flaw location. Conversely, the
most negative potentials occur far away from the coating flaw.
The calculation of the CIS dip indication is explained in Figure 3–3. Figure
3–3 shows that the CIS dip indication is calculated by taking the IR drop over
the coating flaw and subtracting it by the IR drop that is both above the pipeline
34
-0.98
-0.96
potential (V)
-0.94
-0.92
-0.9
-0.88 On Potential
Off Potential
-0.86
0 20 40 60 80
position on soil surface (ft)
Figure 3–2: A profile of on- and off-potentials from CP3D simulation data where
the dip indicates the location of the coating flaw. Each data point represents a
measurement at the soil surface directly over the pipeline.
and far away from the coating flaw. This calculation is done separately for both
on-potential and off-potential giving two different dip indications. By calculating
the dip for both on- and off-potential, a conclusion can be drawn about the current
demand to the coating flaw.
3.3.2 DCVG
The DCVG survey is simulated using potentials calculated by the model of

CP3D as shown in Figure 3–4. The nodes are spaced equally to stay consistent
with the spacing between two electrodes. Figure 3–4 shows that there are nodes
located both directly over the pipeline and on an imaginary line parallel to the
pipeline. At each position along the length of the pipeline, the difference between
the IR drop over the pipeline and the IR drop over the imaginary line is calculated.
This gives a DCVG indication value at each 5.2 foot interval along the pipeline.
This distance represents the approximate separation length between electrodes
that are planted by a surveyor when taking a measurement. The DCVG indication
is the voltage gradient that is calculated directly over the coating flaw. Figure
35
Figure 3–3: A schematic of how CIS indication is calculated using the nodes of the
soil surface.
Figure 3–4: A schematic of how DCVG measurements are made using CP3D.
36
4
potential (mV) 3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 3–5: A profile of DCVG measurements above the pipeline. The peak value
represents the overall DCVG indication.
3–4 explains that DCVG is calculated by taking the difference in adjacent IR

drops. The difference in adjacent IR drops approach a constant value when moving
away from a coating flaw. Therefore, these values increase as the coating flaw is
approached and then decrease once it is passed. Figure 3–5 shows a representation
of this behavior. In Figure 3–4, the peak value would be the difference in IR drops
between nodes A and B, assuming that the coating flaw is located at node A.
For all simulations with coating flaws, the shape of the curve in Figure 3–5 is
similar where the DCVG calculation is largest at the coating flaw. Each data point
represents the DCVG calculation in mV that is represented along the soil surface in
the lengthwise direction of the pipeline. It is clear where the location of the coating
flaw is due to the peak value shown in Figure 3–5.
A different section of nodes is needed from the soil surface to calculate DCVG
in percent-IR. Figure 3–6 shows the relationship between the nodes that are used
37
in percent-IR calculations. Only those nodes running perpendicular to the pipeline

at the location of the coating flaw are used. The spacing of the nodes remains
consistent at approximately 5.2 feet. In order to use the correct number of nodes to
determine percent-IR, the differences for all adjacent IR drops are calculated. This
difference decreases as the distance of the nodes from the pipeline increase towards
remote earth. As similar to a the real field survey, once the difference between
adjacent nodes reaches one mV or less, no more nodes further from the pipeline
are needed in determining percent-IR. An example of data from a simulation which
gives the profile of all perpendicular IR drops is shown in Figure 3–7. This figure
shows the general behavior of data from simulations in that as distance from the
pipe increases, the IR drops approach a constant value. Therefore, in Figure 3–6,
the equation shown to calculate percent-IR is only correct if node D is at remote
earth. This means that if node E was included in Figure 3–6, that its IR drop
would be no more than one mV different from that of node D. The IR drop at
remote earth can also be termed as IR infinity.
The calculation of percent-IR is illustrated in Figure 3–6. It explains that
percent-IR is found by taking the difference in IR drop between the node over the
coating flaw and the node at remote earth and dividing that quantity by the IR
drop of the node over the coating flaw. This calculation is complete once the value
is multiplied by 100 in order to make the quantity a percentage. There are also
other definitions of percent-IR that can be used in terms of its calculation. For
example, percent-IR can be defined to be calculated differently by dividing by the
IR drop at remote earth (node D) instead of the IR drop over the coating flaw.
Another type of definition would scale or divide by the IR drop over the pipeline
but far from the flaw. These calculations can be used to further verify trends in the
data.
38
Figure 3–6: A schematic of how percent-IR is measured and calculated.
-49
-50
-51
potential (mV)
-52
-53
-54
-55
-56
-57
-58
-59
-60
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3–7: A profile of IR drops in the perpendicular direction to the pipeline.

The IR drops are all at the same lengthwise position as the coating flaw in respect
to the pipeline.
39
3.3.3 ACVG
When using CP3D, ACVG is calculated almost exactly as DCVG. The main
difference is that the spacing of the nodes is 31.5 inches for ACVG and 5.2 feet
for DCVG. The soil surface was created so that the concentration of nodes would
allow for the calculation of both ACVG and DCVG. The ACVG indication is also
found to be the maximum value of calculated measurements as voltage gradients
are taken along the pipeline. The shape of the data is similar to the DCVG profile
as shown in Figure 3–5. The A-Frame takes measurements so that one electrode
touches the ground over the pipeline and the other touches the ground at the
same lengthwise location over a parallel imaginary line 31.5 inches away from the
pipeline.
3.3.4 Current Attenuation
This technique is also simulated using CP3D. However, the use of the nodes
of the soil surface are not needed for this calculation. This calculation takes
advantage of CP3D’s ability to calculate current distributions along the pipeline.
For example, the total current entering the pipeline is calculated in Amps by
the mathematical model of CP3D. Also, the total amount of current specifically
entering the pipeline at the coating flaw is calculated automatically. Using this
information, current attenuation is calculated in both mA and in percent. The
calculation in mA is done by taking the value given for the amount of current
entering the pipeline and multiplying it by 1000 to give it units of mV. In order
to calculate current attenuation in percent, the amount of current entering the
pipeline specifically at the coating flaw is divided by the total amount of current
entering the pipeline. This value is then multiplied by 100 in order to make it a
true percentage.
40
3.4 CP3D settings
For these simulations the CP3D system was only run under impressed current
mode and not under sacrificial anode. One reason for this is because cathodic
protection of large scale pipelines normally use impressed current anodes. Also,
in real field survey’s CP current usually must be interrupted in order to get the
difference between on- and off-potentials. A CP system with a sacrificial anode can
not be controlled in this way.
The pipeline’s length was 10 miles for all simulations with a connection to a
single anode. The anode was placed at 10,000 feet from one end of the pipeline
in the direction towards the other end so that it was almost directly under the
pipeline. The anode was placed 1,000 feet deep with a vertical orientation. This
depth was specified at such a large depth in order to supply a more uniform
distribution of current to the pipeline. The size of the anode was 2.5 feet wide
and 200 feet long. The coating flaw was placed almost exactly in the middle of the
pipeline. The coating parameters that were used were for an excellent coating. The
thickness of the coating was 20 mils. The coating resistivity was 109 ohm-cm. The
oxygen blocking was at 95 percent and the oxygen limiting current for reduction
was set at 10 mA per square feet.
3.4.1 Matrix of Simulations
Table 3–1 is included to show which parameters were varied in the simulation
runs. The column for CP level is based on soil surface off-potential values that are
far away from the pipeline and the coating flaw. For example, for low CP level, a
soil surface off-potential was desired to reach between -700 mV and -799 mV. In
order to achieve such an off-potential, the anode voltage would have to be adjusted.
The medium CP level was for values between -900mV and -999mV and the high
CP level was for values between -1100mV and -1199mV.
41
Table 3–1: The matrix of model runs showing the ranges of different parameters
that were varied.
flaw size (in2 ) Rs (kΩ-cm) DOC (ft) Dp (in) CP level (mV)
1 0.5 4 6 -700
16 3 8 12 -900
36 10 16 48 -1100
64 50
100 100
1000
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND TRENDS
4.1 Current and Potential Distributions in the Pipeline
The current from an impressed current CP system travels from the anode to
the pipeline through the soil. Once it reaches the pipeline it returns to the anode
through the low resistance wire. Then it returns to the anode and repeats the
cycle. The following figures and discussion involve using multiple graphs to explain
and reiterate that the behavior of the current in the pipeline is largely based on its
tendency to return to the anode.
Much information can be learned about some of the basics of a cathodic
protection system by studying the current and potential distributions along the
pipeline. If field surveyors understand more about the behavior of the pipeline
current then they will be able to maintain a better balance between excessive CP
and inadequate CP. Excessive CP can cause the potential along the pipeline to
become too negative. When the potential becomes too polarized or too negative,
the hydrogen evolution reaction plays a larger role. Once excessive current is
supplied to the pipeline, the hydrogen ions present in the soil will begin to reduce
to form hydrogen. However, too much of the evolved hydrogen will damage the
pipeline through embrittlement. Conversely, too little CP can cause the pipe to be
left unprotected. These distributions of the current and potential can help explain
the behavior of the current in the pipeline and whether the CP is working properly.
The effectiveness of the CP current can be first evaluated by Figure 4–1 as it
represents the cathodic current density distribution along the length of the pipeline.
The values are negative because the current is cathodic. Therefore, the values
with the largest magnitude of current are the ones that are most negative. It is of
42
43
-0.0092
current density (mA/sq ft) -0.0112
-0.0132
-0.0152
-0.0172
-0.0192
0.0E+00 1.0E+04 2.0E+04 3.0E+04 4.0E+04 5.0E+04
distance along pipeline (ft)
Figure 4–1: A plot of current density as it changes along the length of the pipeline.
Parameters: 36 sq in flaw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp
interest in Figure 4–1 that the largest magnitude of current according to the graph
is located at the negative dip around 10,000 feet. This is due to the location of the
anode and the fact that the current is travelling along the pipeline in the direction
of the bond between the pipeline and anode. The rectifier applies a voltage drop
which is the driving force for the current to return from the pipe to the anode. The
magnitude of current also shows an increase near the pipe ends which is due to the
geometry of the rounded edges. The last feature to mention about Figure 4–1 is
the behavior of the current at the coating flaw. The flaw is located in the middle of
the pipeline which means that it is placed halfway along the length of the pipeline.
Therefore, this feature of the graph due to the coating flaw is shown in the very
center of the x-axis. This peak at the middle of the x-axis of Figure 4–1 represents
the location of the coating flaw. The values of the current density are much lower
here than all of the other locations along the pipeline. This can be misleading
44
current density (mA/sq ft)

-40
-80
-120
-160
-200
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
degrees from top of pipe
Figure 4–2: An angular plot of current density at the location of the coating flaw.
because the magnitude of cathodic current is actually greatest at the coating flaw.
Values over the flaw are actually as large as 120 mA/sq ft for this given simulation.
However, the values that are plotted on this graph are actually for the coated
area near the pipe. These values are very small because they are very close to the
coating flaw, which is consuming almost all of the local cathodic current. This is
called a draw down in current near the coating flaw. By creating an axial plot such
as Figure 4–1, the values of current density over the coating flaw are not included.
In order to include these points, an angular plot must be generated. In Figure 4–2,
the locations of 0 degrees and 360 degrees represent the top of the pipeline where
the coating flaw is located. Notice that the coating flaw is now included by the
large magnitude of current that is present making all other points negligible on this
plot. These negligible points represent where the coating is present.
Notice that there are a lot of points in the axial plot around the location of the
coating flaw. This is also true for the locations at the ends of the pipe and at the
45
-1.6E+03
potential (mV)
-1.8E+03
-2.0E+03
-2.2E+03
0.0E+00 1.0E+04 2.0E+04 3.0E+04 4.0E+04 5.0E+04
Figure 4–3: A plot of soil surface on-potentials as they change along the length of
the pipeline. Parameters: 36 sq in flaw, 35Kohm-cm, High CP, 4ft DOC, 12in Dp
connection to the anode. These extra points are included automatically by CP3D
because they are located where conditions change. For example, at the coating flaw
the condition is changing from a coated pipe to an bare pipe. Therefore, in order to
get an accurate picture of current and voltage distributions, more nodes or points
are used at these locations where changes in the pipeline are present.
The flow of current along the pipeline can also be illustrated by the magnitude
of current values given in Figure 4–1. It is known that as the current enters the
pipeline at a given location that it will begin to flow towards the connection with
the anode. This can be proven by noticing that the magnitude of current is larger
at locations closer to the anode. Note that in this graph by looking from right to
left that the shape slopes downward. This downward slope represents an increase in
the magnitude of current towards the pipeline’s connection with the anode.
46
150
110
potential (mV)
70
30
-10
0.0E+00 1.0E+04 2.0E+04 3.0E+04 4.0E+04 5.0E+04
Figure 4–4: A plot of steel voltage as it changes along the length of the pipeline.
The distribution of potential is very similar to that of the current in terms of

its shape as shown in Figure 4–3. More protected regions are shown as those which
display a more negative potential. The potentials near the bond to the anode are
the most negative which makes since because Figure 4–1 showed that this location
had the greatest magnitude of current. The behavior of current is also consistent as
current should flow from positive potentials to negative potentials. This is found to
be true as the values of potentials become more negative as they reach the bond of
the pipeline with the anode.
Another plot shown in Figure 4–4 gives a representation of steel voltage along
the length of the pipeline. This value of potential is based on the potential at a
given location along the pipeline referenced to the potential at one of the ends of
the pipeline. By looking at this pipe the behavior of the current also is represented
as flowing towards the bond with the anode. The location of the coating flaw can
47
0.00
50 kΩ cm
30 kΩ cm
-0.01
10 kΩ cm
-0.02
i (mA/ft )
2
-0.03 3 kΩ cm
-0.04
0.5 kΩ cm
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
0.E+00 1.E+04 2.E+04 3.E+04 4.E+04 5.E+04 6.E+04
location along pipe (feet)
Figure 4–5: Current distribution along the pipeline is shown for changing soil resis-
tivities.
be identified as the location in the middle of the plot where a high concentration of
data points are included. The graph shows a linear behavior at this location.
An additional set of simulations were run in order to help further understand
the behavior of current if the soil resistivity was increased. The coating defect
was taken off the pipeline in order to simplify this behavior. These simulations
were done separately from the previous data showing current and potential
distributions along the pipeline. For this set of simulations, the anode was placed
in the middle of a ten mile pipeline with no defect present. The anode voltage
was set a constant value of 5 Volts. The anode was moved to the middle of the
pipeline so that it could be ensured that the distribution was symmetric. Again,
the magnitude of current is largest at the location of the bond to the anode as
shown in Figure 4–5. Figure 4–5 also shows that the magnitude of the current
also increases towards the ends of the pipeline as shown in previous distributions.
48
Different soil resistivities were used to help understand the effect of soil resistivity
on CP current. This graph shows the basic trend that as soil resistivity increases
the magnitude of current decreases. This is due to the fact that the current has an
increased difficulty of reaching the pipeline if the soil resistivity is high. Increased
soil resistivity means that the conductivity of the soil is decreased. Therefore, if
the soil resistivity is high, the pipeline will receive less current and this could cause
the pipeline to be under protected. This allows the argument to be made that
soil resistivity is very important. The soil resistivity should be known in order to
make a decision on the level of CP to be used. This is because a normal CP level
that may be high for a low soil resistivity will probably insufficient for a high soil
resistivity.
4.2 Trends from Simulation Results
The effect of soil resistivity and coating flaw (holiday) size on the value of
calculated indications was first explored using CP3D simulation results. Figure 4–6
was developed to show the correlation between DCVG indication in mV versus flaw
size based on changing soil resistivities. There are two main trends that are found
from Figure 4–6. One trend is that DCVG indications in mV will increase with
increasing flaw size, which is consistent with conventional knowledge. The other
trend found is that as soil resistivity increases the DCVG indication decreases. This
trend is a result that was not initially expected. Since these are competing trends it
is of interest to determine which trend has a more dominating effect on indications.
By taking a closer look at Figure 4–6, it appears that the soil resistivity plays are a
larger role than flaw size in determining DCVG indication in mV. This is supported
by the behavior at high soil resistivities where the DCVG indications show almost
no dependence on flaw size. Conversely, there is a wide distribution of DCVG
indications at low soil resistivities. This result shows that prioritization of DCVG
indications in mV can be much improved by taking soil resistivity into account.
49
100
2
flaw size (in ) 80
60
0.5K
40 3K
10K
50K
20
100K
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
voltage gradient (mV)
Figure 4–6: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as soil resistivity
(ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, anode voltage:
5V
DCVG indications were converted to percent-IR as shown in Figure 4–

7. This plot also shows the effect of soil resistivity and flaw size on indication
except that it is for DCVG indications in percent-IR. In this case, the percent-
IR calculations were made by scaling by the IR drop over the coating flaw. The
results show that percent-IR indication increases both with increasing coating
flaw size and increasing soil resistivity. This plot also shows that soil resistivity
can have a greater effect on percent-IR values than flaw size. For example, for
each soil resistivity, the relative change of indications stays the same. This means
that as flaw size changes, the percent-IR indication changes by the exact same
incremental value regardless of of what soil resistivity that the system is at. This
result shows that percent-IR indications can also be better prioritized by taking soil
resistivity into account. In other words, the percent-IR indications obtained could
be misinterpreted causing an inaccurate prediction of the coating flaw size if the
50
100
80
flaw size (in )
2
60
0.5K
3K
40 10K
50K
20 100K
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
percent-IR
Figure 4–7: DCVG indication in percent-IR is plotted versus flaw size as soil resis-
tivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, anode
voltage: 5V
soil resistivity is not known or included in evaluations. For example, in Figure 4–7,
a large percent-IR value could be due to a high soil resistivity and not necessarily a
large coating flaw size.
In Figure 4–8, the effect of changing CP levels is explored on DCVG indica-
tions in mV. The CP level was adjusted by increasing the anode voltage and CP
levels were categorized by ensuring that off potentials on the soil surface far away
from the coating flaw reached certain ranges. Figure 4–8 also shows that DCVG
indications increase with increasing coating flaw size as previously found. However,
this graph is primarily included to show that increased CP has a large effect on
DCVG signal in mV. Notice that the distribution in voltage gradients in Figure 4–8
is much improved at larger CP levels. These larger voltage gradients at higher CP
levels can be explained by a larger amount of current entering the pipeline at the
flaw location. This shows that at lower CP levels, the presence of a flaw size could
51
100
80
flaw size (sq in)
60
40 high CP
med CP
20 low CP
0
0 20 40 60
Figure 4–8: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as CP level is var-
ied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft
be undetected. Therefore, the severity of a flaw could be misinterpreted if CP level

is not taken into account. A sufficient amount of CP current is needed in order to
yield a measurable voltage gradient. DCVG in percent-IR was also plotted exactly
as done in Figure 4–8. This is shown in Figure 4–9. The obvious result shown here
is that the percent-IR values do not change with increased CP level. This result
could be helpful in predicting flaw size based on DCVG indications in percent-IR.
Sensitivity of indications of DCVG in mV are also evaluated based on changing
depth of cover as shown in Figure 4–10. From this plot it is shown that DCVG
indications are more sensitive to a pipeline that is buried at four feet than at eight
feet. Although not shown here, previous simulations have further supported this
trend where indications at larger depths of cover are practically negligible. This
trend indicates that depth of cover should be used in prioritizing indications. For
the similar conditions in Figure 4–10, a plot of DCVG indication in mV is given
52
100
flaw size (sq in) 80
60
40
high CP
med CP
20 low CP
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
percent-IR
Figure 4–9: DCVG indication in percent-IR is plotted versus flaw size as CP level
is varied. Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft
100
80
flaw size (sq in)
60
40
4ft DOC
20 8ft DOC
0
0 20 40 60
Figure 4–10: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as DOC is varied.
Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, Dp: 12in, CP level: high
53
100
80
flaw size (sq in)
60
40 12in OD
48in OD
6in OD
20
0
0 20 40 60
Figure 4–11: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as Dp is varied.

Simulation parameters are Rs: 500 ohm-cm, DOC: 4in, CP level: high
versus changing pipe diameter. There is no clear trend found from this result as
shown in Figure 4–11. However, this result is taken with great caution since there
is no justifiable evidence to prove that pipe diameter does not have an effect on
DCVG indication in mV.
CIS on-potential dip (on-dip) indications are plotted against flaw size based
on changing soil resistivity in Figure 4–12. One basic trend shows that CIS on-dip
indication increases with increasing flaw (holiday) size. Another trend shown is
that the CIS on-dips increase as soil resistivity increases. However, this result
should be considered with caution due to the changing of the anode voltage. The
anode voltage was changed for each simulation to maintain a certain level (high)
of CP. The anode voltage was increased as soil resistivity increased to maintain a
certain range (-1150mV) of soil surface off potentials far away from the flaw. This
same result is also shown for DCVG indications given in Figure 4–13. Note that
the DCVG trend in mV for Figure 4–13 is different than it was in Figure 4–6. This
54
100
60
40 3K
10K
50K
20 100K
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
potential (mV)
Figure 4–12: CIS on-potential dip indication is plotted versus flaw size as soil resis-
tivity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level:
high
is because in Figure 4–6, the anode voltage was held constant for all runs. This
indicates that increased CP level increases the DCVG indication found even if soil
resistivity is also increased.
Figure 4–14 is based on data from the same simulations run in Figure 4–12.
However, it shows a different result for some soil resistivities. The negative CIS off-
dips initially represented an area of concern. The on- and off-potential profiles are
given for a simulation that gives a negative CIS off-dip in Figure 4–15. A general
potential profile represents current direction by moving from positive to negative
potentials. In Figure 4–15, the on-potential profile shows that current is entering
the pipeline at the coating flaw and then it travels away from the flaw based on the
profile of on-potentials moving from positive to negative. This is normally expected
to be found for CIS off dips as well. However, the negative CIS off-dip indicates
55
100
60
3K
40 10K
50K
20 100K
0
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 4–13: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as soil resistivity
(ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level: high
that when the CP current is turned off that the potential flows back towards the
flaw. This can be attributed to the pipeline being substantially over protected
underneath the coating than it is at the flaw. This is justified to occur at low soil
resistivities because the coating resistance is so much higher than the resistance of
the soil when the soil resistivities are low.
Another way to prioritize CIS indications is to calculate the dips in potential
to determine the relative size of the coating. From simulation data it can be shown
that the size of the dip has a direct correlation with the size of the flaw. This result
is shown in Figure 4–16. This trend shows that the magnitude of the dip increases
with increasing size of the coating flaw.
Current attenuation plots are also included in both mA and percent. Figure
4–17 shows that as soil resistivity increases that the Current attenuation decreases.
This makes sense because less current is able to get to the flaw at higher soil
56
100
80
flaw size (sq in)
60
40 3K
10K
50K
20 100K
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
potential (mV)
Figure 4–14: CIS off-potential dip indication is plotted versus flaw size as soil resis-
high
-1
-1.2
potential (V)
-1.4
On Potential
Off Potential
-1.6
-1.8
-2
7910 7920 7930 7940
position along soil surface (m)
Figure 4–15: A profile of soil surface on- and off-potentials from a simulated CIS
survey. Simulation parameters are flaw size: 36 in2 , Rs: 500ohm-cm, Dp: 12in,
DOC: 4ft, CP level: high
57
-1.52
-1.54
potential (V) 1 sq in
36 sq in
-1.56 100 sq in
-1.58
-1.6
-1.62
7910 7915 7920 7925 7930 7935 7940
position along soil surface (m)
Figure 4–16: A representation of soil surface on-potential profiles taken along the
length of the pipeline. The anode voltage is held constant for each simulation.
resistivities. However, even with the anode voltage being adjusted for each of these
data points, the soil resistivity dominates. A similar trend is shown for current
attenuation in percent. Note that the percentages are all very low. This can be
attributed to the ratio of the area of flaw size to the area of the pipeline.
4.3 Flaw Size Predictors
4.3.1 CIS Predictor
All simulation data results were used to predict flaw size based on CIS
indications. The simulation data used involve variations in CP level, pipe diameter,
depth of cover, and soil resistivity. The objective was to develop a formula that
predicts flaw size through use of the CIS dip indications given as:
flaw size = m(CISon−dip − CISoff−dip ) (4.1)

58
100
80
flaw size (sq in)
60
3K
40 10K
50K
100K
20
1000K
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Indication (mA)
Figure 4–17: Current attenuation in mA is plotted against flaw size as soil resistiv-
ity (ohm-cm) is varied. Simulation parameters are Dp: 12in, DOC: 4ft, CP level:
high
Table 4–1: Three simulations different only in CP level. Parameters are 12in Dp,
4ft DOC, and 0.5 kohm-cm (soil resistivity)
flaw size (in2 ) CP level (A) CIS ∆ dip (B) IRtotal (A) divided by (B)
1 -1152mV (high) 14.95 0.707 21.15
16 -951mV (medium) 1.67 0.0789 21.15
36 -757mV (low) 0.61 0.0288 21.15
where m is a function of CP level, pipe diameter, depth of cover, and soil resis-
tivity. Figure 4–19 shows all simulation data of CIS indication data as flaw size
changes. The CIS indication shown represents the difference in the on-potential
dip and the off-potential dip. One by one each parameter was incorporated into
the expression for m in equation (4.1). The first parameter studied was CP level.
Each simulation was run at CP levels of high, medium, and low. Figure 4–20 gives
a general representation of on- and off-potential profiles. It was found that the IR
drop far away from the flaw (but still above the pipeline) could be used to help
59
100
80
flaw size (sq in)
60
3K
10K
40 50K
100K
20 1000K
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Indication (%)
Figure 4–18: Current attenuation in percent is plotted against flaw size as soil resis-
high
neglect CP level from the expression for m. In Table (4–1), data for three different
simulations are shown whose only difference is in CP level. Notice that there is a
different CIS indication for each simulation in Table (4–1). However, by dividing
by IR total (which is illustrated in Figure (4–20)), an identical value is obtained for
each simulation. Therefore, the total number of simulations used in the calculation
for the flaw size predictor can be divided by three. The last column in Table (4–1)
is now multiplied by 100 to make it a percentage and then plotted against the
square root of the flaw size. The square root of flaw size was used in order to get a
value that exhibits the same qualities of a characteristic radius. This plot is given if
Figure (4–21).
A plot similar to Figure (4–21) was created for each different combination of
soil resistivity, depth of cover, and pipe diameter. However, in contrast to Figure
(4–21), a near perfect linear fit was found for each of these combinations. The
60
140
CIS Indication (mV) 120

100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
flaw size (sq in)
Figure 4–19: A plot of CIS indications versus flaw size from simulation data. CIS
indication is the difference in the on-potential dip and the off-potential dip.
Figure 4–20: A profile of general behavior of on- and off-potentials along the cen-
terline at the soil surface.
61
20.0
CIS Indication / IR total

15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
flaw size1/2 (in1/2)
Figure 4–21: A plot of CIS indication divided by IR total versus the square root of
the flaw size. The definition of IR total is illustrated in Figure (4-20).
different slopes found (one for each combination) were then plotted against soil
resistivity for each combination of pipe diameter and depth of cover. A near perfect
exponential fit was found for each. An example of this is shown in Figure (4–22).
For each of these plots a pre-exponential factor was calculated and an exponential
term was calculated. The different pre-exponential factors were then plotted versus
depth of cover and pipe diameter separately. No relationship was found between
the pre-exponential factor and the pipe diameter. However, a linear fit was found
between the pre-exponential factor and depth of cover as shown in Figure (4–23).
Now, an expression for m can be used to predict flaw size as
m = A exp(−aRs ) (4.2)
where A is the function found from Figure (4–23), a is the average of all of the
exponential terms from the different plots similar to Figure (4–22), and Rs is soil
62
3.5
3 y = 2.8897e-0.001x
R2 = 0.9995
2.5
2
slope
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
soil resistivity (kohm-cm)
Figure 4–22: An exponential plot of slope versus soil resistivity. Data was at a
depth of cover of 4ft and a pipe diameter of 6 inches.
y = -0.59233x + 5.43851
2
R = 0.98998
3
pre-exponent
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
depth of cover (ft)
Figure 4–23: A plot of pre-exponential factors versus the corresponding depth of

cover.
63
120
Predicted flaw size (sq in)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Actual flaw size (sq in)
Figure 4–24: Actual flaw size is plotted versus predicted flaw size for each simula-
tion using the derived expression for m.
resistivity. The expression for the pre-exponential factor is
A = −0.5923DOC + 5.4385 (4.3)
Now that an expression for m is known, it is plugged into equation (4.1) to solve
for flaw size for each simulation. A plot of flaw size versus predicted flaw size is
shown in Figure (4–24). Good agreement is shown in the graph evidenced by a high
R2 value of 0.986.
In order for the predictor to be used the soil resistivity and depth of cover
must be known. Then by using CIS on- and off-dip indications as well as the IR
total value illustrated in Figure (4–20), the flaw size can be predicted.
4.3.2 DCVG Predictor
Similar development was used to predict flaw size based on DCVG indications.
While the CIS predictor was based on IR drops far away from the coating flaw but
64
160
140
Predicted flaw size (sq in) 120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Actual flaw size (sq in)
Figure 4–25: Actual flaw size is plotted versus predicted flaw size for each simula-
tion using DCVG indications.
along the pipeline, the DCVG predictor used IR drops far away from the coating
flaw but in the direction away from the pipeline towards remote earth. In order for
the predictor to be used the soil resistivity, depth of cover, and pipe diameter must
be known. Figure (3–6) shows the percent-IR calculation which is similar to the
information needed for the DCVG predictor to work. Assuming that point D is at
remote earth in Figure (3–6), the voltage gradient between point A and D must be
found. This same voltage gradient must also be used but at a location further down
the pipeline so that it is not near the coating flaw. Also the IR drop at remote
earth (point D) must be used to complete the information needed to calculate flaw
size. In Figure (4–25), a confidence interval is given as represented by the dashed
lines. This is used to show that the DCVG predictor is not predicting an exact
coating flaw size but instead a range in which the coating flaw size should be in.
The same was done for the CIS predictor in Figure (4–24).
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
5.1 Conclusions
Several trends were found addressing the sensitivity of the different above-
ground techniques under variation of many parameters. DCVG in mV was the
first measurement technique explored in this work. As expected, it was found that
DCVG indications increase with increasing coating flaw size. However, a more
interesting result showed that increased soil resistivity caused DCVG indications
in mV to decrease. In fact, it was found that soil resistivity has an even larger
effect on DCVG indications than the size of the coating flaw. Also found was that
increased anode voltage causes DCVG indications to increase. This is explained by
a larger amount of current entering the pipeline at the coating defect. The effect
of parameters such as depth of cover and pipe diameter on DCVG indications were
also explored. It was found that DCVG indications decrease as depth of cover
increases. There was no relationship established regarding the sensitivity of DCVG
in mV with pipe diameter.
Trends and relationships were also found for DCVG indications converted to
percent-IR. Percent-IR values increased with both increasing coating flaw size and
soil resistivity. From these results it was found that the evaluation of percent-IR
values should not exclude consideration of soil resistivity. For example, a high
soil resistivity could cause a small defect to yield a large percent-IR value leading
to unnecessary excavation. Also, most of the large coating flaws (100 sq in) had
low percent-IR values that under normal evaluations would be as minimal threat
to potential corrosion failure. This further proves that percent-IR values are not
65
66
enough to make a decision on whether a defect is severe or not. The level of soil
resistivity among other factors must also be incorporated into this assessment.
The Close Interval Survey (CIS) showed similar results to DCVG in mV
in that larger profile dips were found with increased coating flaw size. After all
of the required simulations were completed, CIS results were able to be used to
predict a given flaw size based on indications and known pipeline parameters. This
development proved that CIS indications as well as DCVG indications do not give
enough information alone to make assessments about flaw size. This is shown in
Figure (4–19), where there is a substantial amount of scatter in the data between
CIS indications and flaw size. No conclusion or assessment about the size of the
flaw can be made using the CIS indications calculated. However, this development
showed that by knowing more about other parameters of the system (such as soil
resistivity, depth of cover, and pipe diameter), a quantitative relationship can be
made between CIS indications and coating flaw size. Overall, the predictor for
CIS showed very good agreement between actual flaw size and predicted flaw size.
A similar method was used to predict flaw size using DCVG indications, but the
confidence interval was much larger than that of the CIS predictor.
5.2 Future Work
Most importantly, the quantitative results of this work need to be tested.

Now that coating flaw size predictors have been developed using the CP3D
simulation model, they need to be tested in field surveys. A confidence interval
has already been established from the results. However, it is expected that the
design equations used to predict flaw size may need to be adjusted slightly by
some factor after initial results. As for ways to improve the current work, a model
predictor needs to be obtained involving Current Attenuation surveys similar to
that of the CIS and DCVG flaw size predictors. In some cases it may be easier to
run a survey involving current attenuation instead of CIS or DCVG. Therefore, a
67
design equation needs to be developed that can predict flaw size based on current
attenuation indications.
While this work has incorporated variances in many different parameters of
the pipeline and its environment, more simulations need to be run to improve
the understanding of the behavior of a pipeline with a bad coating. This work up
until now involves assessments using coatings in excellent condition. Therefore, an
extension of this work would be to cover areas that we have not explored yet such
as coatings in medium or bad condition. Bad coatings can cause issues for above-
ground measurement techniques due to the possibility that corroded areas of the
pipeline may be undetected. This can occur because the CP current is so widely
distributed that there is not enough localized current entering the pipeline at a
corroded or bare location. This causes indications from measurement techniques
to not be large enough to detect bare spots on the coating. For example, voltage
gradients in the ground will not arise if there is not a large enough flow of localized
current entering the pipeline at a given location. Characterization of this behavior
needs further development using CP3D simulations.
Another issue to be explored is of CP systems involving multiple pipelines
and/or multiple anodes. Underground spacing between pipelines continues to
decrease everyday as more pipelines are installed. This can cause some pipelines to
interfere with the CP current intended for nearby pipelines. This can also lead to
insufficient protection of some pipelines causing a legitimate concern. CP3D has
the ability to create an environment with multiple pipelines and multiple anodes
which could lead to a better understanding of how CP current systems should be
implemented in close proximity. This type of study could also incorporate the use
of using both impressed current anodes as well as sacrificial anodes. Contributions
of the different anodes could be differentiated to understand at what locations and
settings they will work best.
REFERENCES
[1] E. W. Klechka, “Pipeline integrity management and corrosion control,”
Materials Performance, vol. 41, pp. 24–27, June 2002.
[2] D. H. Kroon, “External corrosion direct assessment of buried pipelines: The
process,” Materials Performance, vol. 42, pp. 28–32, June 2003.
[3] M. McQueen, W. Burks, V. Wallace, and R. Hicks, “A quantitative probabilis-
tic approach to external corrosion direct assessment using structural reliability
analysis,” in NACE 2003 Conference, 2003.
[4] NACE (NACE International) Standard RP0502-2002, Pipeline External
Corrosion Direct Assessment Methodology, NACE International, Houston, TX,
2002.
[5] NACE Task Group 041, preliminary document, March 2002.
[6] J. Medina, A. Kowalski, and E. Cordova, “Reliable field data acquisition, a
key factor in ecda methodology,” in NACE 2004 Conference, 2004.
[7] D. A. Ersoy and K. G. Leewis, “Assessing external corrosion,” Pipeline and
Gas Technology, vol. 3, pp. 18–21, March 2004.
[8] A. Francis, P. Geren, and B. Phillips, “New method helps operators assess line
integrity,” Oil and Gas Journal, vol. 99, pp. 1–6, November 2001.
[9] J. Morgan, Cathodic Protection, NACE International, Houston, TX, second
edition, 1993.
[10] M. G. Fontana, Corrosion Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, third
edition, 1986.
[11] D. Jones, Principles and Prevention of Corrosion, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, second edition, 1996.
[12] S. K. Brubaker, Process Industries Corrosion, NACE International, Houston,
TX, 1986.
[13] S. K. Coburn and Y-W. Kim, Metals Handbook, ASM International, Metals
Park, OH, 1987.
[14] K. N. Allahar, Mathematical Modeling of Disbonded Coating and Cathodic
Delamination Systems, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 2003.
68
69
[15] N. Sridhar, Metals Handbook, ASM International, Metals Park, OH, 1987.
[16] G. Williams and H. McMurray, “Chromate inhibition of corrosion-driven
organic coating delamination studied using a scanning kelvin probe technique,”
Journal of the Electrochemical Society, vol. 148, pp. B377–B385, 2001.
[17] H. McMurray G. Williams, “Cerium(iii) inhibition of corrosion-driven organic
coating delamination studied using a scanning kelvin probe technique,”
Journal of the Electrochemical Society, vol. 149, pp. B154–B162, 2002.
[18] “Gas facts–distribution and transmission miles of pipeline,” Tech. Rep.,
American Gas Association, Washington, DC, 1999.
[19] “Pipeline accident summary report: Pipeline rupture, liquid butane release,
and fire, lively, texas august 24 1996,” Tech. Rep., National Transportation
Safety Board, Washington, D.C., 1998.
[20] J. Wagner, Cathodic Protection Design I, NACE International, Houston, TX,
1994.
[21] D. P. Riemer and M. E. Orazem, Modeling coating flaws with non-linear
polarization curves for long pipelines, chapter 9, pp. 225–257, Wessex Institute
of Technology Press, 2006.
[22] D. P. Riemer, Modeling Cathodic Protection for Pipeline Networks, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Florida, 1999.
[23] E. Mulder, “A testing time,” World Pipelines, vol. 3, pp. 39–42, 2003.
[24] NACE (NACE International) Standard RP0102, In-line Inspection of
Pipelines, NACE International, Houston, TX, 2002.
[25] L. Manian and A. Hodgdon, “Pipeline integrity assessment and management,”
Materials Performance, vol. 44, pp. 18–22, February 2005.
[26] J. B. Nestleroth, “Circumferential mfl in-line inspection for cracks in
pipelines,” Tech. Rep., Battelle, June 2003.
[27] NACE (NACE International) Standard RP0169-96, Standard Recommended
Practice-Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic
Piping Systems, NACE International, Houston, TX, 1996.
[28] A. Francis, M. Gardiner, A. Goodfellow, M. McCallum, G. Senior, and
B. Greenwood, “A systematic risk and reliability-based approach to integrity
management of piggable and non-piggable pipelines,” in Pipeline Integrity and
Safety, 2001.
[29] J. Pikas and K. Leewis, “Development of external corrosion direct assessment
methodology,” Tech. Rep., BATTELLE, June 2002.
70
[30] M. E. Orazem, J. M. Esteban, K. J. Kennelley, and R. M. Degerstedt, “Math-

ematical models for cathodic protection of an underground pipeline with
coating holidays: Part 1 - theoretical development,” Corrosion, vol. 53(4), pp.
264–272, 1997.
[31] A. W. Peabody, Control of Pipeline Corrosion, NACE International, Houston,
TX, 1978.
[32] J. F. Yan, S. N. R. Pakalapati, T. V. Nguyen, R. E. White, and R. B. Griffin,
“Mathematical modeling of cathodic protection using the boundary element
method with a nonlinear polarization curve,” Journal of the Electrochemical
Society, vol. 139(7), pp. 1932–1936, 1992.
[33] K. J. Kennelley, L. Bone, and M. E. Orazem, “Current and potential distri-
bution on a coated pipeline with holidays part i - model and experimental
verification,” Corrosion, vol. 49(3), pp. 199–210, 1999.
[34] C. Corfias, N. Pebere, and C. Lacabanne, “Characterization of a thin protec-
tive coating on galvanized steel by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
and a thermostimulated current method,” Corrosion Science, vol. 41(8), pp.
1539–1555, 1999.
[35] I. Thompson and D. Campbell, “Interpreting nyquist responses from defective
coatings on steel substrates,” Corrosion Science, vol. 36(1), pp. 187–198, 1994.
[36] D. Diakow, G. Van Boven, and M. Wilmott, “Polarization under disbonded
coatings: Conventional and pulsed cathodic protection compared,” Materials
Performance, vol. 37, pp. 17–23, May 1998.
[37] T. R. Jack, “External corrosion of line pipe - a summary of research activi-
ties,” Materials Performance, vol. 35, pp. 18–24, March 1996.
[38] J. A. Beavers and N. G. Thompson, “Corrosion beneath disbonded pipeline,”
Materials Performance, vol. 36, pp. 13–19, April 1997.
[39] D. Riemer and M. Orazem, “Development of mathematical models of cathodic
protection of multiple pipelines in a right of way,” in Proceedings of the 1998
International Gas Research Conference, Chicago, 1998, p. 117, GRI, Paper
TSO-19.
[40] D.P. Riemer and M.E. Orazem, “Cathodic protection of multiple pipelines
with coating holidays,” in Procedings of the NACE99 Topical Research
Symposium: Cathodic Protection: Modeling and Experiment, Mark E. Orazem,
Ed., Houston, TX, 1999, pp. 65–81, NACE International.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
James Patrick McKinney graduated from the University of South Carolina
with a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering in May of 2004. While at
the University of South Carolina, Patrick developed an interest in electrochemisty
by working on an undergraduate research project involving the characterization
of a direct methanol fuel cell and by taking an undergraduate course in corrosion
engineering. He entered graduate school in August of 2004 at the University of
Florida to pursue a Master of Science degree under the direction of Dr. Mark
Orazem who specializes in electrochemical engineering. Patrick plans to continue
to work in Dr. Orazem’s group upon completion of the Master of Science degree in
order to pursue a Doctor of Philosophy degree.
71

Evaluation of Above-Ground Potential PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Evaluation of Above-Ground Potential PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EVALUATION OF ABOVE-GROUND POTENTIAL

MEASUREMENTS FOR ASSESSING PIPELINE INTEGRITY

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

included is explanation of how the different above-ground measurement techniques

External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) was first introduced as an

that corrosion is worst.2 These excavations are called “bell-hole” excavations.3, 8

Corrosion is an issue that has become increasingly important due to its

appreciable levels of oxygen, water, and salts. Pipelines became susceptible

Cathodic protection is a scientific approach used to protect a metal structure

Fe → Fe2+ + 2e− (2.1)

The other reaction is the reduction of oxygen

O2 + 2H2 O + 4e− → 4OH− (2.2)

Figure 2–1: A CP system with a sacrificial anode.

where M represents the sacrificial anode metal being oxidized. By degradation of

H2 O + 2e− → H2 + 2OH− (2.4)

2H2 O → O2 + 4H+ + 4e− (2.5)

Figure 2–2: A CP system with impressed current.

2Cl− → Cl2 + 2e− (2.6)

There are advantages and disadvantages associated with both sacrificial

of supplying too much current causing damaging hydrogen evolution. However,

The following measurement techniques are used to determine pipeline integrity

-820 Type II Type III

2.5.2 Direct Current Voltage Gradient (DCVG)

Figure 2–5: A diagram showing how an IR measurement is interpolated at the

severity is also considered to be minimal. However, the survey must be performed

The Alternating Current Voltage Gradient (ACVG) technique is similar to

However, instead of a DC signal being created, an AC signal is initiated from a

The purpose of this technique is to determine the overall coating condition

CP3D is a mathematical model in the form of a computer software program.

3.2 Mathematical Development

where κ represents the conductivity of the electrolyte. The conductivity is given by

and it is uniform because the concentration is uniform. Due to uniform concentra-

Laplace’s equation can be derived by first multiplying equation (3.1) by zi F and

For coated pipelines, treatment of the reactions at the pipeline-soil interface

The reactions at the surface of a sacrificial anode involve normally oxygen

The above-ground measurement techniques that are used in field surveys

The DCVG survey is simulated using potentials calculated by the model of

3–4 explains that DCVG is calculated by taking the difference in adjacent IR

in percent-IR calculations. Only those nodes running perpendicular to the pipeline

Figure 3–6: A schematic of how percent-IR is measured and calculated.

Figure 3–7: A profile of IR drops in the perpendicular direction to the pipeline.

3.4 CP3D settings

current density (mA/sq ft) -0.0112

current density (mA/sq ft)

The distribution of potential is very similar to that of the current in terms of

DCVG indications were converted to percent-IR as shown in Figure 4–

be undetected. Therefore, the severity of a flaw could be misinterpreted if CP level

flaw size (sq in) 80

Figure 4–11: DCVG indication in mV is plotted versus flaw size as Dp is varied.

flaw size (sq in) 80

flaw size (sq in) 80

4.3.1 CIS Predictor

flaw size = m(CISon−dip − CISoff−dip ) (4.1)

CIS Indication (mV) 120

CIS Indication / IR total

Figure 4–23: A plot of pre-exponential factors versus the corresponding depth of

Predicted flaw size (sq in)

Actual flaw size (sq in)

resistivity. The expression for the pre-exponential factor is

A = −0.5923DOC + 5.4385 (4.3)

Most importantly, the quantitative results of this work need to be tested.

[30] M. E. Orazem, J. M. Esteban, K. J. Kennelley, and R. M. Degerstedt, “Math-

S-ar putea să vă placă și