Corrosion & Coatings

63 %
38 %
Information about Corrosion & Coatings

Published on December 23, 2008

Author: jacobrajeev


8: Corrosion/Coatings Hand-held computer determines concrete coating thickness 204 How can the current output of magnesium rod National Association of Pipe Coating Applications (NAPCA) used for the cathodic protection of heat exchanger specifications 208 shells be predicted? 229 How much primer for a mile of pipe? 209 What spacing for test leads to measure current How much coal-tar enamel for a mile of pipe? 210 on a pipeline? 229 How much wrapping for a mile of pipe? 210 How many magnesium anodes are needed for Estimating coating and wrapping materials required supplementary protection to a short-circuited bare casing? 230 per mile of pipe 210 Group installation of sacrificial anodes 230 Coefficient of friction for pipe coating materials 211 How can the life of magnesium anodes be predicted? 231 Troubleshooting cathodic protection systems: How to find the voltage rating of a rectifier if Magnesium anode system 213 it is to deliver a given amount of current through Cathodic protection for pipelines 214 a given ground bed (graphite or carbon) 231 Estimate the pounds of sacrificial anode material Determining current requirements for coated lines 231 required for offshore pipelines 222 Determining current requirements for coated Comparison of other reference electrode potentials lines when pipe-to-soil potential values are estimated 231 with that of copper-copper sulfate reference HVDC effects on pipelines 232 electrode at 25° C 224 Troubleshooting cathodic protection systems: Chart aids in calculating ground bed resistance Rectifier-ground bed , 236 and rectifier power cost 225 How to control corrosion at compressor stations 237 How can output of magnesium anodes be predicted? 226 Project leak growth 238 How to determine the efficiency of a cathodic protection rectifier 226 Advances in Pipeline Protection 239 How to calculate the voltage drop in ground Methods of locating coating defects 240 bed cable quickly 227 Case histories 243 What is the most economical size for a rectifier cable? 227 Estimate the number of squares of tape for How to estimate the number of magnesium pipe coating (machine applied) 244 anodes required and their spacing for a bare Estimate the amount of primer required for tape 245 line or for a corrosion quot;hot spotquot; 228 Tape requirements for fittings 245 How can resistivity of fresh water be Induced AC Voltages on Pipelines determined from chemical analysis? 228 What will be the resistance to earth of a May Present a Serious Hazard 246 single graphite anode? 229 Measuring Unwanted Alternating How to estimate the monthly power bill for a cathodic protection rectifier 229 Current in Pipe 248 What will be the resistance to earth of a group of Minimizing shock hazards on pipelines graphite anodes, in terms of the resistance near HVAC lines 253 of a single anode? 229 Cathodic protection test point installations 254

Hand-held computer determines concrete coating thickness Technical data for the engineer's file Frank E. Hangs, Sovereign Engineering, Inc., Houston Pipeline crossings, under water or in unstable soil, offer Computer program many challenges to engineers. Pipe is buoyant, and an empty line may float in water. Wet The following program, written for the Hewlett Packard silts are like viscous fluids causing inadequately weighted 41CV (Figure 1), calculates the thickness of concrete weight pipelines to pop up. There are various government entities coating for submarine pipelines expeditiously and with that have jurisdiction over navigable rivers, bays, marshlands, satisfying results. and offshore waters. These agencies may stipulate that The prompting feature (Figure 2) is employed to aid pipelines be buried at certain depths and be stabilized. users' data input. Important calculated values and a recap of A good way to stabilize a pipeline is to use an adequate the inputs are printed out, and each quantity is identified. concrete weight coating. Determining the thickness of the Thus, the tape is a complete record. The program is flexible concrete involves a process of balancing upward forces such in that any inputs can be readily changed for a second run. as buoyancy of the mud and the downward forces—weights Thus, many quot;what i f questions can be answered quickly. of pipe, protective coating, and concrete, allowing a factor of Suppose a heavier-weight pipe is used? What if the 60 (negative buoyancy). Such computations with several concrete density is changed? If the negative buoyancy is variables can become involved and tedious. reduced? Etc. 8ULBL -COHCquot; 37 RCL 15 73 * 188 STO 85 144 STO 18 177 -T=- 213 -SP GR=- 82 ODV 38 RCL 17 74 + 189 RCL 15 145 RCL 21 178 PRCL 85 214 RRCL 14 63 SF 12 39 + 75 Xt2 118 quot;D=? quot; 146 -T INCR=? • 179 PVIEH 215 RVIEU 94 quot; CONCRETE1 40 LPSTX 76 .8855 111 PRCL 15 147 RRCL 21 188 CLR 216 CLP 05 -h COPTIHGquot; 41 * 77 • 112 PROMPT 148 PROMPT 181 quot;HPC=- 217 PDV 96 PRfl 42 .0213 78 STO 12 113 CLP 149 CLR 182 RRCL 86 218 -D=- 97 PDV 43 • 79 RCL 28 114 STO 15 158 STO 21 183 RVIEU 219 RRCL 15 88 CF 12 44 RCL 13 88 • 115 RCL 16 151 RCL 11 184 CLR 228 PVIEU 89 quot;T TRIPL=?quot; 45 • 81 STO 89 116 quot;HP=? quot; 152 quot;NEG BUOY=? - 185 quot;HC=- 221 CLP 18 PROMPT 46 STO 86 82 RCL 08 117 PRCL 16 153 PRCL 11 186 RRCL 87 222 -HP=- 11 STO 95 47 RCL 15 83 X O Y 118 PROHPT 154 PROMPT 187 RVIEH 223 RRCL 16 12 'PIPE DIPH=?quot; 43 RCL 17 84 - 119 CLP 155 CLP 188 CLP 224 PVIEH 13 PROHPT 49 2 85 STO 10 128 STO 16 156 STO 11 189 quot;HT=- 225 CLR 14 STO 15 58 • 86 FS? 81 121 RCL 17 157 GTO 01 198 RRCL 88 226 quot;TH PC=quot; 15 quot;PIPE WT=?quot; 51 + 87 GTO 03 122 -TH PC=? - 191 RVIEU 227 PRCL 17 16 PROHPT 52 RCL 85 88 RCL 11 123 PRCL 17 158*LBL 02 192 CLR 228 RVIEH 17 STO 16 53 + 89 X=8? 124 PROHPT 159 RCL 21 193 quot;HHD=quot; 229 CLP 13 quot;PROT CT TH=?quot; 54 LPSTX 98 GTO 84 125 CLR 168 ST+ 85 194 RRCL 89 238 -DC=quot; 19 PROHPT 55 * 91 RCL 18 126 STO 17 161 GTO 81 195 RVIEU 20 STO 17 56 .8213 92 RCL Ii 127 RCL 19 196 CLR 231 PRCL 19 21 -DEN CONC=?quot; 57 • 93 X<=Y? 128 quot;DC=? quot; 162*LBL 83 197 -HT-HHD=quot; 232 PVIEH 22 PROHPT 58 RCL 19 94 GTO 83 129 PRCL 19 163 RCL 88 198 RRCL 18 233 CLP 23 STO 19 59 • 95 GTO 82 138 PROHPT 164 RCL 12 199 RVIEU 234 -DH=quot; 24 quot;DEN MUD=?quot; 68 STO 87 131 CLR 165 / 288 CLR 235 RRCL 28 25 PROMPT 61 RCL 16 96*LBL 84 132 STO 19 166 STO 13 201 -NEG BUOY=- 236 PVIEU 26 STO 28 62 + 97 RCL 09 133 RCL 28 167 62.4 282 RRCL 11 237 CLP 27 quot;DEN PROT CT=?quot; 63 RCL 86 98 RCL 88 134 quot;DH=? • 168 / 283 RVIEH 238 quot;DPC=quot; 28 PROHPT 64 + 99 X)Y? 135 PRCL 28 169 STO 14 284 CLR 239 RRCL 18 29 STO 18 65 STO 88 188 GTO 83 136 PROHPT 285 quot;VT=- 248 PVIEU 38 -T INCR=?quot; 66 RCL 15 181 GTO 82 137 CLR 178*LBL -DPTP- 286 RRCL 12 241 CLP 31 PROMPT 67 RCL 17 182*LBL 85 138 STO 28 171 PDV 207 RVIEU 242 -T INCR=- 32 STO 21 68 2 183 RCL 85 139 RCL 18 172 CLR 288 CLP 243 RRCL 21 33 -NEG BUOY=?quot; 69 • 184 -T=? quot; 148 quot;DPC=? quot; 173 quot;RESULTS-quot; 289 -BULK DEN=quot; 244 PVIEU 34 PROHPT 70 + 185ftRCL85 141 PRCL 18 174 -I-RECPP.- 218 RRCL 13 245 CLP 35 STO 11 71 RCL 85 186 PROMPT 142 PROMPT 175 RVIEH 211 RVIEU 246 BEEP 36*LBL 81 72 2 187 CLP 143 CLP 176 PDV 212 CLR 247 END Figure 1. Hewlett Packard-41CV computer program.

Nomenclature and storage registers inputs RESULTS-RECAP. T=4.625e Reg. no. HPC=4.6885 HC=479.3309 05 T = Concrete thickness, in. Assume trial WT=578.6385 value. Final answer is cumulated in MHD=553.4462 Reg. 0.5. HT-HHD=25.1843 HEG BUOY=20.89ee 15 D = Pipe diameter, in. VT=6.1494 BULK DEN=94.8954 16 WP = Weight of pipe, lb/lf. SP GR=1.5979 5=24.8869 17 TH PC = Thickness of protective coating. HP=94.6288 Usually 3/32 in. or 0.0938 in. TH PC=8.8938 DC=165.8808 19 DC = Density of concrete, lb/cu ft. Usually DH=98.0888 DPC=95.6888 140, 165, 190. T IHCR=8.1258 20 DM = Density of mud or fluid, lb/cu ft. River mud is around 90. Figure 2. Most common questions asked when checking 18 DPC = Density of protective coating buoyancy. coating, lb/cu ft. 95 is average. 21 T INCR = Increment of T. Decimal of in. 0.125 is suggested for numerical precision— Formulas not that a tolerance of this order can be constantly achieved in the WPC = (D + (THPC))(THPC)0.0218(DPC) pipe coating world. Increment can be WC = (D + 2(THPC) + T)T 0.0218(DC) made smaller, if desired. 11 NEG BUOY = Negative buoyancy. Desired minimum VT = (D + 2(THPC) + 2T)20.0055 value, lb/lf. Can be 0 in special WMD = (VT)(DM) circumstances—e.g., to ascertain if a given pipe will float in water, or will a Note: The user is encouraged to employ the most reliable certain coated pipe sink in mud? and suitable data available, such as the density of protective coating, mud, and concrete. Each value keyed in is printed on the tape as a check of inputs and the program prompting feature queries user for Examples value of next named input (Figure 2). Put program into calculator, XEQ Size 30. The printed RESULTS-RECAP portions of each of three examples are Calculated values given. When the user XEQ quot;CONCquot; and inputs the data from the lower part of the tabulation, he or she will get the same calculated values above. Reg. no. Figure 2 includes the most common questions asked 06 WPC = Weight of protective coating, when checking coating buoyancy. Always be sure flag 01 is clear XEQ quot;CONCquot; and put in new trial T and R/S. Also R/S lb/lf. after all other inputs. After all prompted data are keyed 07 WC = Weight of concrete coating, lb/lf. in, the processing starts and results are printed out. Notice 08 WT = Total weight—pipe and coatings, lb/lf. T = 4.6250 in. has an actual negative buoyancy of 25.1843. If 09 WMD = Weight of mud (fluid) displaced, lb/lf. T = 4.5 in., the actual negative buoyancy= 18.4510, which is less than 20. A precise solution is between 4.5 in. and 4.625 in. 10 WT-WMD = Actual negative buoyancy, lb/lf. If the user wants to find T, which produces an actual 12 VT = Total volume displaced by pipe and negative buoyancy nearer 20: STO 4.5 in RO 5, STO § in. coatings, cu ft/If. (0.0625 in.), in R21, XEQ 01. This produces T = 4.5625 13 BULK DEN = Bulk density, wt/ ft. where actual negative buoyancy is 1.8113 greater than 20. 14 SP GR = Specific gravity, bulk den/den water. This refinement can be found in choosing small T INCR. Note that the weight of the concrete coating is now 471.8269 lb/lf and we have approached closer to 20.

Calculated values. Weight of protective coating and RESULTS-RECAP concrete, total weight and volume of pipe, and coatings per linear foot will be of value in transporting coated pipe, etc. T=3.2598 HPC=3.9834 Note: Results—RECAP of any run (which is in storage) MO273.9914 can be reprinted as often as desired by XEQ quot;DATA.quot; HT=375.7248 If NEG BUOY is 0 and flag 01 is not set, then the program HHD=352.5529 HT-MHB=23.1728 causes WT to approach WMD and calculates for this NEG BUOY=28.8880 situation. VT=3.9173 BULK DEN=95.9154 If a printer is not available, results can be obtained as SP GR=1.5371 follows: 11=28.8888 1. XEQ 05, put in data and R/S after each item. «P=97.8380 TH PC=6.8938 2. When beep sounds, RCL registers one by one in order DC=165.8900 given above (so as to identify values). BH=90.8«90 DPC=95.9098 Figure 3 illustrates the changing of two input values: T IHCR=B.1250 namely the pipe diameter and weight. The XEQ 05 routine calls up the contents of the input registers one at a time and Figure 3. Changing of two input valves. questions them. Always put in a new T value. Then R/S. When D = ? comes up, key in new value and R/S. Same with pipe WT = ?. Assume other data remain unchanged, XEQ quot;DflTfiquot; R/S each time. (Any one value or any combination of values RESULTS-RECAP. BULK BEN=46.9065 may be changed before rerunning the program.) SP GR=0.7517 Figure 4 determines if a given pipe, 14 in. at 36.71 lb/lf T-e.eeee UPC-21.3368 6=14.0800 and 1A in. of protective weight coating density of 135 lb/cu ft, HP=36.7180 №=8.0000 will float. T, DC, T INCR, and NEG BUOY are all zero. DM HT=58.8463 TH PC=8.5000 becomes the density of water 62.4. Set flag 01 and XEQ 05. HHD=77.2280 BPC=135.0880 HT-WHB=-19.1733 BC=8.8000 Key in data and R/S. When all data are in place only one NEG BUOY=0.0080 BH=62.4000 computation is allowed, then printed out. WT-WMD tells us VT=I.2375 T INCR=0.0000 the upward forces exceed the downward forces by 19.1733 Figure 4. Result of calculations to determine whether the pipe lb/lf; also the specific gravity is 0.7517, so the pipe floats. will float. Also note that BULK DEN is less than the density of water. National Association of Pipe Coating Applications (NAPCA) specifications* RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATION DESIGNATIONS FOR ENAMEL COATINGS These are recommended enamel coating system designations for SPECIFICATION coal tar or asphalt coatings, except for specialty requirements. SYMBOL FIBERGLASSWRAP POLYETHYLENE 93.75 MILS MIN. HEAVY KRAFT #15 FELT WRAP WITH KRAFT ELECTRICAL SHOT BLAST INSPECTION GLASS MAT SEAL COAT •PART *1 •• PART #2 ENAMEL PRIMER PAPER *NOTE: These are not all the specifications approved by NAPCA. For other specifications, consult an NAPCA member.

AGSF- TGM- AGM- TGMF- AGMF- TGMP- AGMP- # P A R T # 1 SYMBOLS- • # P A R T # 2 SYMBOLS ENAMEL & WRAPPERS GRADESOF ENAMEL 3— Fully-Plasticized Coal Tar T-Coal Tar G-Fiberglass A-Asphalt S-Seal Coat (ordered by penetration F-#15 Felt GM-Glass Mat dictated by ambient temperature) P—Polyethylene wrapper 4— High Temperature Surface Coa! Tar w/kraft paper 7 - Asphalt O—Outer wrap To specify Outer Wrap, use EXAMPLE: 93.75 mils (minimum) fully-plasticized coal tar enamel letter O in place of F. wrapped with fiberglass, felt and kraft — the symbol would be TGF-3. Reprinted courtesy of National Association of Pipe Coating Applicators. STANDARD APPLIED PIPE COATING WEIGHTS FOR NAPCA COATING SPECIFICATIONS Refer to NAPCA 1-65-83 Spec. Symbol PIPE Weight in Pounds-Per 100 Lineal Feet SIZE (continued on next page)

(table continued) Spec. Symbol PIPE Weight in Pounds - Per 100 Lineal Feet SIZE Al! weights provide for standard cutbacks. Weights per 100 lineal feet are figured on the following material weights per square foot of pipe surface: Weight Weight Lbs.-Per Lbs.-fer Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Coal Tar Primer & Enamel—1/32quot; Min. .2461 #15 Pipeline Felt Coal Tar Primer & Enamel-2/32quot; Min. .4850 (Tar or asphalt saturated) 1271 Coal Tar Primer & Enamel—3/32quot; Min. .7238 Outerwrap 1225 Asphalt Primer & Enamel—1/32quot; Min. .2000 .010 Fiberglass Wrap 0110 Asphalt Primer & Enamel—2/32quot; Min. .3950 Kraft Paper 0200 Asphalt Primer & Enamel—3/32quot; Min. .5912 Glass Mat 0114 Polyethylene 0450 Reprinted courtesy of National Association of Pipe Coating Applicators. NAPCA SPECIFICATIONS PIPELINE FELTS PROPERTY #15TAR #15 TAR #•15 ASPH. #15 ASPH. N.R. R.F. N.R. R.F. Saturated FaIt - Not Parforatad Weight (MIn.) lbs. per 100 s.f. 12 12 12 12 (ASTM-D-146-59 Sec. 1-9) Saturation (Percent) MIN. 18 18 22 22 (ASTM-D-146-59 Sec. 18 MAX. 28 28 40 40 by extraction) Ash Content (MIN).) (Percent) 70 70 70 70 (ASTM-D-146-59 Sec. 21) Callper (Min.) (inches) .021 .018 .021 .018 (ASTM-D-645-64T Method C) Tensile Strength (Min.) (lbs. per Inch of width) JASTM-D-146-59 Sec. 12a) With fiber grain 35 37 35 37 Across fiber grain 12 No. spec. 12 No. spec. Tear Strength (Min.) (Grams) (ASTM-D-689-62) Across fiber grain 400 Not 400 Not With fiber grain 240 applicable 240 applicable (continued on next page)

Loss on heating (Max.) (Percent) 10 10 10 10 (AWWA C203-66 Sec. 2.6.6) Pliability (AWWA C203-66 Sec. 2.6.4) No cracking No cracking No cracking No cracking Saturated and Perforated Felt (1/16quot; perforations on 1 quot; Staggered Centers) Tensile Strength (MIn.) (lbs. per inch of width) (ASTM-D-146-59 Sec. 12a) With fiber grain 30 35 30 35 Across fiber grain 10 No spec. 10 No. spec. Tear Strength (MIN.) (Grams) (ASTM-D-689-62) Across fiber grain 348 Not 348 Not With fiber grain 190 applicable 190 applicable Umaturated Felt Asbestos Content (%) (MIN.) (ASTM-D-1918-67) 85 85 85 85 N.R. —NON REINFORCED R.F. — REINFORCED LENGTHWISE WITH PARALLEL FIBER GLASS YARNS ON NOMINAL ¥•quot; CENTERS. Reprinted courtesy of National Association of Pipe Coating Applicators. Minimum Test Voltages for Various Coating Thicknesses Coating Thicknesses 32nd Inch Mils Test Volts Reprinted courtesy of National Association of Pipe Coating Applicators. How much primer for a mile of pipe? Multiply pipe O.D. by 2% to get gallons of primer per Pipe 41Z2 in. in diameter will take 41Z2 x 2% or 123/8 gallons mile. of primer per mile (12 gallons in round figures). The given multiplier is applicable only where the pipe is new and in good condition. For rough pipe the multiplying factor should be upped from 2% to 3.45. In other words, Examples. rough 20-in. pipe will require 20 x 3.45 or 69 gallons of Pipe 24 in. in diameter will require 24 x 2% or 66 gallons primer per mile. of primer per mile; It is hard to estimate the amount of spillage and waste. Pipe 16 in. in diameter will require 16 x 2% or 44 gallons Temperature and relative humidity affect the way the primer of primer per mile; and goes on the pipe.

How much coal-tar enamel for a mile of pipe? For an average cover of %2 in., multiply outside 8.625 x 0.6 =5.2 tons per mile diameter of pipe by 0.6. The answer is in tons of enamel 5.2x15% =0.8 per mile. (Add 15% to take care of gate valves, drips, bends, = 6 tons per mile etc.) These factors strongly affect the amount of coating used per mile on pipelines: 1. Temperature of the pipe and Examples. How many tons of coal-tar enamel will be ambient temperatures. (It is assumed that the temperature required to apply a %2-in. coat to a 26-in. pipeline? of the enamel can be controlled.) 2. The kind of dope 26 x 0.6 = 15.6 tons per mile machine. 3. Humidity. 4. The number of bends per mile. 5. The number of valves, crossovers, etc. 6. Condition of the Add 15% to take care of gate valves, bends etc. pipe. This latter point has a great effect on the amount of 15.6 + 2.3 = 17.9 or 18 tons per mile enamel required for a mile of pipeline. In fact, where How many tons of coal-tar enamel will be required to reconditioned pipe is being coated, it is recommended that apply a %2~in- coat to a 8.625-in. pipeline? the amount of enamel be increased by about 20%. How much wrapping for a mile of pipe? For 14-in. to 48-in. pipe multiply the diameter in inches (4 + 1) x 15 = 75 squares of felt by 15 to get the number of squares (100 ft ). For pipe sizes These figures are conservative and do not allow for of 12% in. and smaller, add 1 to the nominal size of pipe and wrapping drips, for patching holidays, and for short ends that multiply by 15. are usually discarded. They allow for machine wrapping Examples. How many squares of asbestos felt would be using /^-in. lap on diameters up to 10/4 m - a n d using 1-in. lap required to wrap 1 mile of 30-in. pipeline? on larger diameters. 30 x 15 = 450 squares of felt For smaller diameters of pipe, this figure should be increased about 5% to take care of additional wastage and How many squares of felt would be required to wrap 1 patching. mile of 4-in. pipe? Estimating coating and wrapping materials required per mile of pipe Nominal Glass Kraft 15-Pound Primer and coal-tar enamel Pipe Primer Coal-tar Wrap Paper Felt Size Gallons Enamel Squares Squares Squares Tons Gallons of primer and tons of coal-tar enamel are based on covering new pipe in good condition. For rough pipe, increase primer quantities by 25% and the coal-tar quantities by 20%. No allowance is included for spillage or waste. Wrappings Squares are based on machine wrapping, allowing /4-in. laps on pipe sizes through 10 in. and 1-in. laps on pipe sizes greater than 10 in. No allowance is included for wrapping drips, patching holidays, or short ends, which are usually discarded.

Coefficient of friction for pipe coating materials Tests indicate that previous values appear to be valid for thinfilm epoxies and conservative for coal tars J. B. Ligon, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics Dept., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Mich., and G. R. Mayer, Project Engineering Manager, Bechtel, Inc., San Francisco A major factor in the stress analysis of buried pipelines is where: F = Longitudinal soil friction force (Ib) the movement that pipe undergoes in the presence of tem- /ji = Coefficient of friction (dimensionless) perature and pressure differentials during its life. This move- p = Normal soil pressure acting on the pipe ment is highly dependent upon friction resistance of the soil. surface (psi) Although ample information is available on the static dA = Soil to pipe differential contact area (in.2) coefficient of friction for many materials, there is a lack of fA pdA = Total normal soil force on pipe surface (Ib) data on friction between soils and various coatings used in The above relation is independent of the pressure per unit the pipeline industry. In the past, friction coefficient area of the mating surfaces as long as very high contact information was extrapolated from data in the literature pressures are not encountered, which is the case for a buried that were believed to have a similarity to the external pipe pipeline. coating to soil interface. In terms of a buried pipeline supporting a soil burden up However, with the development of thinfilm epoxy resin to three pipe diameters of depth, the soil force relation coating systems and the increasing use of these systems in becomes: the pipeline industry, a change from a conventional coal tar felt coating to a thinfilm epoxy coating would indicate a significant change in the friction coefficient design criteria due to the extreme contrast in the surface texture of the two materials. To evaluate the effect of the difference in surface texture where: Wp = Weight of pipe and contents (lb/in.) on a pipeline system, test procedures were developed to D = Pipe diameter (in.) determine the coefficient of friction for both coal tar felt and H = Depth of the pipe centerline (in.) thinfilm epoxy to various soils and to obtain more reliable Y = Specific weight of the soil (lb/in.3) information for future pipeline designs using these coating The sensitivity of the soil friction forces to the coefficient materials. of friction is readily apparent from the above relation. Since Static friction tests were conducted to find the coefficient this force is inversely proportional to the active length that a of friction between coal tar felt and thinfilm epoxy pipe pipeline moves as a result of temperature and pressure coating and eight representative backfill soil samples from expansion, the coefficient of friction becomes a major factor typical locations along a pipeline right of way. The results in pipeline stress design. indicate that the friction coefficients are significantly larger than those previously extrapolated from literature and that Test system. The theoretical soil friction force acting on coal tar has a higher friction resistance in respect to the surface of a coated plate can be calculated from the anchorage of a pipeline. relation: For the coal tar felt coating, the coefficient varies from 0.59 to 0.91 depending on the soil and moisture content. The F = ^N thinfilm epoxy coating varies from 0.51 to 0.71 under the same conditions. where: N = Normal force acting on the plate surfaces (Ib) W = Total weight of plate and external load (Ib) Definitions Static coefficient of friction. The theoretical long- itudinal soil force acting on the pipe surface can be COATED PLATE calculated from the relation:

Since the coefficient of friction parameter is the same in Thinfilm epoxy. The epoxy coating simulated a thinfilm all of the previous expressions, the plate test system can be epoxy resin pipeline coating applied by the fusion method. used to simulate the soil-to-pipeline interface. Plates used in the tests were coated by the fluidized bed method. However, the surface texture was the same as that expected by coating plant production equipment. Coal tar felt. The coal tar coating, an enamel and felt combination, was prepared to simulate an actual coated Results pipeline. The surface of a steel plate was coal tar coated and then Coal tar to soils. Figure 1 illustrates that the friction wrapped in a 15-lb felt. Therefore, the soil surface contact coefficient varies from 0.59 to 0.91 for the various soils tested was predominantly with the felt material. at field moisture content. LOCATION SOIL DESCRIPTION MOISTURE SANOY SIiT (ML) SiLTY SAND {SM> SItT ( M t I SiLTY SAND (SM) SIlTY SANO (SM) SAND - SILT (SM) SANDY SILT (ML) SlLTY • SAND (SM) UMlFiED SGlL CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL Figure 1. Coefficient of friction for coal tar coating to soil. LOCATION SOiI OESCWPTiON MOISTURE SANDY SiIT (ML) 1 SiLTY SANO (SM) SfLT |ML) SIlTY SAND (SM) SlLTY SANO CSM) SAND-SO (SM) SANDY SILT (ML) SILTY SAND (SM) SRAVa-SAKO SILT (GM) UNFIEO SOIL CtASSJFiCATiON SYMBOL Figure 2. Coefficient of friction for thin film epoxy to soil.

The mechanism by which the friction coefficient changes Since such information on this coating was not available in among the various soils is not apparent from the results of the literature, no comparison to similar tests could be made. these tests, since the soil samples used did not vary Temperatures in the 1200F range should have little or no considerably in description. However, the range over effect on the coefficient of friction of epoxy to soil. which the factor changes is considerably greater than that previously extrapolated from the literature, as follows: Conclusions Coefficient of friction Soil description commonly used Although it is virtually impossible to precisely simulate the surface contact situation of a pipeline in a back-filled trench, Silt 0.3 the test procedure and apparatus reported here are a means Sand 0.4 of approximating it. The results indicate that coal tar coatings Gravel 0.5 have a higher friction resistance than epoxy coatings as far as anchoring capabilities of the soil are concerned. The tests also indicate that the moisture content alters the The selection of a coating, based on its soil friction friction factor to some extent, as would be expected. resistance, could be of economic value in reducing those In order to investigate the influence of temperature, tests situations where extreme expansions call for reinforced were conducted with coal tar felt wrapping heated to 1200F. fittings or elaborate culverts to overcome excessive stress Only a slight softening beneath the coating surface was levels in a pipeline system. observed, and it is believed that temperatures up to this The test results show that previous values commonly used range will not significantly affect the magnitude of the for the coefficient of friction were conservative for similar friction coefficient. soils, and it is suggested that some conservatism still be incorporated in future analyses. Since the tests indicated that the friction coefficient of the Thinfilm epoxy to soils. As expected, results shown in epoxies was similar to those previously used for coal tar Figure 2 indicate that the friction factor range of 0.51 to 0.71 coatings, their continued use for epoxy-coated pipelines for the epoxy is somewhat lower than that of the coal tar. should be valid. A more conservative approach to these Again, the mechanism is not clear, but the results are fairly values is recommended in soils where the presence of consistent with the friction coefficient increasing in most excessive moisture could change the friction factor substan- instances in the same order of magnitude as for coal tar. tially when interfaced with a smooth epoxy coating. Troubleshooting cathodic protection systems: Magnesium anode system The basic technique is the same as that outlined earlier; more measurements are required because of the multiplicity of drain points. First, the current output of stations nearest the point of low potential should be checked; if these are satisfactory, a similar check should be extended in both directions until it is clear that the trouble must be on the line. When a given anode group shows a marked drop in current output, the cause may be drying out, shrinkage of backfill, or severed or broken lead wires. If the current is zero, the pipe-to-soil potential of the lead wire will show whether it is still connected to the pipe or the anode, and < Broken Wire • thus indicate the direction to the failure. If the current is Figure 1. Locating idle anodes by surface potentials. The solid low, there may be a loss of one or more anodes by a line shows the potentials found along a line of anodes when all severed wire; a pipe-to-soil potential survey over the anodes are delivering current; the dotted line exhibits the change when will show which are active, just as in the case of rectifier there is a break in the anode lead at the point indicated. Single disconnected anodes may also be located by this method. A anodes. driven ground rod, a pipe lead, or even a rectifier terminal may Trouble indicated on the line, rather than at the anode be used for the reference ground; all readings should be stations, is tracked down in the same manner as that used for referred to the same reference.

line protected by rectifiers—first, investigating locations next, checking potentials; and finally, making a line current where something that has been done might be responsible; survey. Cathodic protection for pipelines Estimate the rectifier size required for an infinite line. Use a value of—0.3 volts for AE x . This is usually enough Refer to Figure 1. If coating conductance tests have not been to raise the potential of coated steel to about—0.85 volts. performed, pick a value from Table 1. Use a value of 1.5 volts for AE at the drain point. Higher values may be used in some circumstances; however, there may be a risk of some coating disbondment at higher Table 1 voltages. Typical Values of Coating Conductance Calculate I at the drain point. Micromhos/sq ft Coating Condition 1-10 Excellent coating—high resistivity soil AI A = amp./in. x AE x /0.3 x D 10-50 Good coating—high resistivity soil 50-100 Excellent coating—low resistivity soil 100-250 Good coating—low resistivity soil where D = pipe OD, inches. 250-500 Average coating—low resistivity soil Example. 30-in. OD line with coating conductivity= 100 500-1,000 Poor coating—low resistivity soil micromhos/sq ft. What is the current change at the drain Based on 0.25-inch wall pipe and steel resistivity of 18.8 microhm-cm _* x — , amperes per inch D AEx Thousands of Feet, x Figure 1. Drainage current versus distance for a coated infinite line.

Based on 0.25-inch wall pipe and steel resistivity of 18.8 microhm-cm — x — , amperes per inch . u D AEJ IA 0 3 Thousands of Feet, L Figure 2. Drainage current versus distance for a coated finite line. point, and how far will this current protect an infinitely long micromhos/sq ft. What is AE A /E T and what AI A is required? pipeline? Assume that AE A = 1.5 E x = 0.3 AE x = 0.3 From Figure 2 read AE A /AE x = 5.0 AE A /E X = 5.8 AE A = 1.74 Refer to Figure 1 and read AI A /D x 0.3/E x = 1.8 amp./in. L = 30,000 ft AI A =1.8 x 3.5 = 6.3 amp. AIA/D x 0.3/AEx = 0.7 (from Figure 1) Estimate ground bed resistance for a rectifier AIA = 0.7x 30 = 21 amp. installation. 21 amps will protect the line for 30,000 ft in either direction Example. A ground bed for a rectifier is to be installed from the drain point. in 1,000 ohm-cm soil. Seven 3-in. x 60-in. vertical graphite Estimate rectifier size for a finite line. Refer to Figure 2. anodes with backfill and a spacing of loft will be used. What A 31Z2 -in. OD line 20,000 ft long is protected by insulating is the resistance of the ground bed? flanges at both ends and has a coating conductivity of 500 Refer to Figure 3. The resistance is 0.56 ohms.

Anode Bed Resistance, R A (ohms) Anode Spacing Figure 3. Anode bed resistance versus number of anodes. 3-in. x 60-in. vertical graphite anodes in backfill. Number of Anodes Anode Resistance, RA (ohms) Figure 4. Anode bed resistance versus number of Anode anodes. 2-in. x 60-in. vertical bare anodes. Spacing Number of anodes Figure 3 is based on a soil resistivity of 1,000 ohms-cm. If soil resistivity is 3,000 ohms-cm. What is the ground bed the soil resistivity is different, use a ratio of the actual soil resistance? Refer to Figure 4. The resistivity from the chart resistivity divided by 1,000 and multiply this by the reading is 0.55 ohms. Since the chart is based on soil resistivity of obtained from Figure 3. 1,000 ohms-cm, the ground bed resistivity is 3,000/1,000 x A rectifier ground bed is to be composed of 10 — 2 x 0.55 or 1.65 ohms. 60-in. bare quot;Durironquot; silicon anodes spaced 20 ft apart. The

The resistance of multiple anodes installed vertically and Figure 5 is based on Equation 1 and does not include the connected in parallel may be calculated with the following internal resistivity of the anode. The resistivity of a single equation: vertical anode may be calculated with Equation 2. R = 0.00521P/NL x (2.3 Log 8L/d - 1 + 2L/S Log 0.656N) R = 0.00521P/L x (2.3 Log 8L/d - l) (2) (1) If the anode is installed with backfill, calculate the where: resistivity using the length and diameter of the hole in R = Ground bed resistance, ohms which the anode is installed. Calculate the resistivity using P = Soil resistivity, ohm-cm the actual anode dimensions. The difference between these N = Number of anodes two values is the internal resistance of the anode. Use the d = Diameter of anode, feet value of P, typically about 50 ohm-cm, for the backfill L = Length of anode, feet medium. S = Anode spacing, feet Figure 5 is based on 1,000 ohm-cm soil and a 7-ft x 8-in. hole with a 2-in. x 60-in. anode. If the anode is installed with backfill such as coke breeze, use the diameter and length of the hole in which the anode is Example. Determine the resistivity of 20 anodes installed installed. If the anode is installed bare, use the actual vertically in 1,500 ohm-cm soil with a spacing of 20 ft. dimensions of the anode. Read the ground bed resistivity from Figure 5. Anode Bed R e s . Ohms Spacing Number of Anodes Figure 5. Anode bed resistance.

R = 0.202 ohm either in standard alloy or high purity alloy. Galvanic anodes are usually pre-packaged with backfill to facilitate Since the anodes are to be installed in 1,500 ohm-cm soil and their installation. They may also be ordered bare if desired. Figure 5 is based on 1,000 ohm-cm soil, multiply R by the Galvanic anodes offer the advantage of more uniformly ratio of the actual soil resistivity to 1,000 ohm-cm. distributing the cathodic protection current along the pipeline, and it may be possible to protect the pipeline R = 0.202 x 1,500/1,000 with a smaller amount of current than would be required with an impressed current system but not necessarily at a R = 0.303 ohm lower cost. Another advantage is that interference with other structures is minimized when galvanic anodes are used. The internal resistivity for a single 2-in. x 60-in. vertical Galvanic anodes are not an economical source of cathodic anode installed in 50 ohm-cm backfill (7ftx8-in. hole) is protection current in areas of high soil resistivity. Their use is 0.106 ohm. generally limited to soils of 3,000 ohm-cm except where Since 20 anodes will be installed in parallel, divide the small amounts of current are needed. resistivity for one anode by the number of anodes to obtain Magnesium is the most-used material for galvanic anodes the internal resistivity of the anode bank. for pipeline protection. Magnesium offers a higher solution potential than zinc and may therefore be used in areas of 0.106/20 = 0.005 ohm higher soil resistivity. A smaller amount of magnesium will generally be required for a comparable amount of current. Refer to Figure 6 for typical magnesium anode performance The total resistivity of the 20 anodes installed vertically will data. These curves are based on driving potentials of —0.70 therefore be 0.308 ohm (0.303 + 0.005). volts for H-I alloy and —0.90 volts for Galvomag working against a structure potential of —0.85 volts referenced to copper sulfate. Galvanic Anodes The driving potential with respect to steel for zinc is less than for magnesium. The efficiency of zinc at low current Zinc and magnesium are the most commonly used levels does not decrease as rapidly as the efficiency for materials for galvanic anodes. Magnesium is available magnesium. The solution potential for zinc referenced to a Soil Resistivity - Ohms-Cm. Anode Current - M

Add a comment

Related pages

Corrosion Coatings from Protection Engineering

About protection engineering. Over 30 years ago, Protection Engineering started its business with the leading products in the corrosion prevention market.
Read more

Corrosion Resistant Coatings - Anti-Corrosion Coating ...

Corrosion resistant coatings protect against degradation. Our anti-corrosion coating combats moisture, salt spray, oxidation & exposure to harsh chemicals.
Read more

Coatings Technology: What is Corrosion? - International ...

Coatings Technology: What is Corrosion? (The heterogeneous character of steel allows for some sites to favour the anodic reaction and for others to favour the
Read more

Corrosion Coatings | LinkedIn

View 1016 Corrosion Coatings posts, presentations, experts, and more. Get the professional knowledge you need on LinkedIn.
Read more

Corrosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corrosion is a natural process, which converts a refined metal to a more stable form, such as its oxide, hydroxide, or sulfide. It is the gradual ...
Read more

Corrosion Coatings Ltd - Home

Corrosion Coatings Ltd (CCLTD) is not a traditional cleaning, inspection or coating contractor / supplier. We are here to not just make a big difference ...
Read more

Corrosion Resistant / Corrosion Protection Coatings

Corrosion Resistant / Corrosion Protection Coatings. When working with TST technical staff on a corrosion prevention solution, it is very important to ...
Read more

Magni Anti-Corrosion Coatings – Magni Coatings | The ...

The global corrosion protection authority ... Magni feiert 40 Jahre. Wir möchten die Gelegenheit nutzen, um Ihnen, unseren geschätzten Kunden, "Danke" zu ...
Read more

Powercrete Epoxy Coatings from Protection Engineering

Powercrete Epoxy Coatings from Protection Engineering, featuring Powercrete J. Powercrete 100% solids high performance corrosion coatings for directional ...
Read more

Corrosion, Cathodic Protection, Coatings and Insulation ...

Find Corrosion, Cathodic Protection, Coatings and Insulation products, suppliers, manufacturers and exporters
Read more