CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

A Principal Determinant in Cathodic

Protection Design of Offshore Structures
The Mean Current Density
W.H. Hartt and E. Lemieux*

ABSTRACT

Accordingly, the second and third practices are

based upon the equation:

The historical development of marine cathodic protection

design, along with the recently developed, first-principlesbased slope parameter method, is reviewed briefly. It was
projected that the remaining issues that require resolution
before cathodic protection design can be optimized are
improved methods for representing the slope parameter,
anode current capacity, and mean current density. The
present paper focuses on the last of these and, in so doing,
evaluates data from a variety of field structures for which
such information exists and from laboratory and field test
programs. An analytical model for current density decay with
time, as a consequence of calcareous deposit formation, is
presented; and a new method is proposed for specifying
mean current density in cathodic protection design of
offshore structures.
KEY WORDS: analytical model, cathodic protection, design,
galvanic anode, mean current density, offshore structures,
seawater, slope parameter

INTRODUCTION

Cathodic Protection Design Practice

Cathodic protection (CP) design procedures have
evolved historically according to trial and error;
Ohms law using a single, long-term current density;1
Ohms law and rapid polarization using three design
current densities, an initial (io), mean, (im), and final
(i);2-3 and the slope parameter method.4-7
Submitted for publication June 1999; in revised form, February
2000. Presented as paper no. 627 at CORROSION/99, April 1999,
San Antonio, TX
* Center for Marine Materials, Department of Ocean Engineering,
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431.

988

Ia =

c a
Ra

(1)

where Ia is the individual anode current output, c is

the closed circuit cathode potential, a is the closed
circuit anode potential, and Ra is resistance of an
individual anode.
For three-dimensional or space frame type
offshore structures, anode resistance is normally the
dominant component of the total circuit resistance;
and so it alone is represented. In most cases, this
parameter is calculated from standard, numerical
relationships that are available in the literature8-13
based upon anode dimensions and electrolyte
resistivity. Figure 1 graphically illustrates the principle behind this equation and approach.
Considering that the net current for protection (I)
is the product of the structure current density
demand (ic) and surface area (Ac), the number of
anodes required for protection (N) is determined from
the relationship:
N=

ic A c
Ia

(2)

By earlier practice,1 CP design was based upon a

single time average or mean current density that
polarized the structure to the potential required for
protection (i.e., to 0.80 V vs silver-silver chloride

0010-9312/00/000195/$5.00+$0.50/0
2000, NACE International

CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

[Ag-AgCl]), within perhaps several months to 1 year.

It was recognized subsequently, however, that
application of an initially high current density (rapid
polarization4,14-18) resulted in a lower mean current
density and reduced anode mass to provide protection for the design life. Accordingly, present protocols
are based upon three current densities,2-3 such that
io and i are substituted successively for ic in Equations (1) and (2) with the number of anodes corresponding to each being determined. However, im is
calculated from the mass balance relationship:

N=

im A c T
Cw

(3)

where T is the time for which protection is achieved,

C is anode current capacity, and w is weight of an
individual anode.
Invariably, the number of anodes determined
according to each of the three calculations is different with the largest being specified. For uncoated
structures this is usually io. Consequently, the
system is over-designed in terms of the other two
current densities. This arises because the procedure
is an algorithm rather than being first-principles
based.

Slope Parameter Approach to CP Design

More recently, the slope parameter approach to
galvanic CP system design was developed based upon
a modification of Equation (1) as:4-7

c = (R t A c ) i c + a

Ra
N

(4)

(5)

with the product Rt Ac being defined as the slope

parameter (S) such that:
S=

Ra Ac
N

(6)

Substitution of the latter expression into Equation (3)

then yields:

Ra w =

im T S
C

CORROSIONVol. 56, No. 10

Upon defining an appropriate value for S, all terms

on the right side are known from the design choices;
and so the process is reduced to determination of the
optimum combination of Ra and w. This may be
accomplished in terms of anodes of standard dimensions or, perhaps more effectively, by specifying an
elongated anode or dualnodes.20 Thus, if anode
resistance is represented in terms of Dwights
modified equation:

Ra =

where Rt is the total circuit resistance. This relationship projects a linear interdependence between

c and ic, provided Rt, Ac, and
a are constant. That
this is normally the case has been confirmed by
laboratory and field measurements.4-7,19 For
space frame type structures with multiple galvanic
anodes:

Rt

FIGURE 1. Schematic of a polarization diagram and parameters

relevant to galvanic anode cathodic protection system design.

(7)

4L

ln
1
2L r

(8)

where  is electrolyte resistivity, L is anode length,

and r is equivalent anode radius, then the left side of
Equation (7) becomes:
Rw =

r 2 4L

ln r 1
2

(9)

where  is anode density and is volume fraction of

the anode that is galvanic metal as opposed to core.
The required number of anodes then can be
calculated from Equations (3) or (6).
Hartt, et al., projected that the slope parameterbased design approach yields a 32% reduction in
anode mass in the case of typically sized structures
compared to design5 according to present recommended practice.2-3 This arises because Equation (7)
is first-principles-based and incorporates im and io,
the former explicitly and the latter implicitly via the
slope parameter. As such, design can be optimized in
terms of both parameters instead of just one. An
alternative view is that, of the two terms on the left
side of Equation (7), Ra determines io while w relates
to im.

989

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

REMAINING CRITICAL ISSUES

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

the individual data sets differs. Also, imaint decayed

continuously with time, albeit at a progressively
reduced rate, such that there is no indication of a
true steady-state value being ultimately achieved.
The overall scatter is such that at any given time
imaint varied by ~ 1 order of magnitude. This probably
reflects variations in factors such as temperature,
wave action, water velocity, water chemistry, and
CP system design and the effect of these upon
calcareous deposit formation kinetics and properties.
Data for the shallow water of the Gulf of Mexico,
South Atlantic, and Arabian Gulf exposures subsequently are referred to as warm water results and
those for the remainder as cold water ones. Although these two data sets are within the same range
in the short term (10 h to 104 h), imaint at greater
times for most of the warm water locations falls
below those for the cold. Presumably, this is a
consequence of the greater tendency for calcareous
deposit formation under the former type exposure
(warm water) compared to the latter.23 Results from
the 15 different Arabian Gulf structures21 and two
Gulf of Mexico structures19 are of particular interest
because of the otherwise general unavailability of
truly long-term data.

Field Data

Laboratory and Field Test Data

As the initial step in developing an empirical

mean current density model, existing literature data
were synthesized. Thus, Figure 2 reports imaint vs time
data that have been extracted from the literature for
various offshore structures. These include information from structures exposed to different oceans and
represent shallow and deep and tropical/temperate
and northern latitude locations.(2) In most cases, the
individual data sets correspond to either a given
structure overall, a given elevation on a structure, or
a test panel or leg wrap on a structure. Exceptions
are references 19 and 22for which the data to
7,008 h (292 days) are from one structure22 and the
single data points at 166,440 h and 192,720 h
(19 years and 22 years, respectively) are from two
others19and reference 21 where each data point is
for a separate structure. The general trend, for the
data collectively and for individual structures,
consists of an initial period during which imaint was
roughly constant followed by decay according to a
power law relationship (linear on log-log coordinates).
Note, however, that the early time, constant imaint
period is not apparent in some cases, and slope of

Recent emphasis in laboratory experimentation

pertaining to marine cathodic protection has been on
a procedure in which a steel specimen is electrically
connected to a galvanic anode through an appropriately sized resistor, and
c and ic are monitored as a
function of exposure time.4-6 Equation (4), then,
facilitates a direct comparison between data from
such specimens and those from actual structures.
In the present research, results of previous
laboratory experiments of the type described were
reevaluated and compared with the data from fullsize structures (Figure 2). As an example, Figure 3
shows ic vs time data for four 51-mm high by 25-mm
diameter structural steel (UNS K12037)(3) cylinders
with a 600-grit surface finish that were coupled to a
symmetrically positioned aluminum anode ring
through a resistor of the indicated size and exposed
to natural seawater at ambient laboratory temperature. In each case, the data trend parallels that in
Figure 2 in that ic was initially constant with time
but subsequently decayed according to a power law
relationship with no indication of a steady-state
value ever being reached. The initial ic varied inversely with size of the external resistance, and the
time at which ic began to decay was greater the
higher this resistance.
As a second example, Figure 4 shows ic vs time
plot for three 200-mm2 structural steel plate (UNS
G10200) specimens also coupled to a galvanic
aluminum anode through an external resistor and
exposed at a deep water Gulf of Mexico site for

With the advent of the first-principles-based

slope parameter approach to CP design, the remaining issue that requires resolution before CP systems
can be better designed is development of improved
procedures for specifying the parameters on the right
side of Equation (7), namely im, S, and C, where the
first two relate to polarization characteristics of the
structure and the third to galvanic anode performance. Of interest in the present paper is the design
choice for im, since recommended practices2-3 list this
parameter as 55 mA/m2 to 80 mA/m2 for near
surface subtropical regions, while significantly lower
maintenance current densities (imaint)3.4 mA/m2
and 8.8 mA/m2 for two Gulf of Mexico structures
(ages 19 years and 22 years, respectively)19 and
5.4 mA/m2 to 34.4 mA/m2 for 15 Arabian Gulf
structures (ages 13 years to 26 years)21have been
reported.(1) Since anode mass to achieve a particular
design is directly proportional to im, significant cost
savings potentially can result if, indeed, design
according to a reduced im can be justified.

(1)

(2)

(3)

imaint is defined as the value for ic at an exposure time of interest.

In these cases, this was the time at which CP surveys on the
individual structures were performed. Subsequently, these two
terms, imaint and ic, are used interchangeably as the i required to
maintain a particular .
Most of the data in Figure 2 represent values read from graphical
plots of the various authors rather than actual data per se.
UNS numbers are listed in Metals and Alloys in the Unified
Numbering System, published by the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) and cosponsored by ASTM.

990

CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

FIGURE 2. Current density vs time plot for offshore structures in

various ocean locations. Solid symbols are for warm water and open
and linear ones are for cold/deep water locations.

400 days.29 The trend here is somewhat different

from that in Figures 2 and 3 in that the initial data
are not constant with time but conform to a sloping,
albeit shallow, straight line (log-log coordinates);
the break to a more steep ic decay occurred more
abruptly; and a threshold current density is apparent. Figure 5 shows the data for the S = 0.70 -m2
specimen in linear coordinates, thus allowing occurrence of an apparent threshold to be viewed more
definitively. Also shown in Figures 3 and 4 are the
upper and lower data bounds from Figure 2, thus
indicating a general correspondence between the
laboratory/test panel results and data from actual
structures.
Clearly, however, the long-term current demand
for an offshore structure is not revealed adequately
from laboratory or even field test data of the durations addressed here.

Analytical Model
An attempt was made to evaluate empirically the
current density vs time trends in Figures 2 through
4. This was based upon the expression:30-31
iL =

DnFc
x
t
+
Sh p

(10)

where iL is the limiting current density for oxygen

concentration polarization, D is the diffusion coefficient for oxygen, n and F have their normal meanings, c is the bulk oxygen concentration, x is a
dimensional parameter related to the flow, Sh is the
Sherwood number (0.03[Re]0.8 [Sc]0.33, where Re is
the Reynolds number and Sc the Schmidt number),
t is the calcareous deposit thickness, and p is the
porosity constant for the calcareous deposits
(unitless).

CORROSIONVol. 56, No. 10

FIGURE 3. Current density vs time data for four laboratory

specimens, each with a different slope parameter.

FIGURE 4. Current density vs time plots for three specimens exposed

at a deep water Gulf of Mexico site.

Smith, et al.,30 and Hugus and Hartt31 previously

have applied this expression to analyze ic decay
trends for cathodically polarized steel specimens in
defined flow fields. In the present analysis, it was
assumed that calcareous deposits formed and ic
decayed according to the following sequential
steps31:
Precipitation of a thin, magnesium-rich
deposit within the first several minutes of exposure, accompanied by a corresponding decrease
in i c (the data in Figures 2 through 4 are thought
to have resulted subsequent to this film having
formed).
A period of constant ic corresponding to the
time required for calcium-rich deposits, either as
calcite or aragonite, to nucleate and begin to grow.
Accordingly, the break in the ic vs time trend, where
this occurred (Figures 3 and 4), is thought to correspond to the onset of calcium carbonate (CaCO3)
precipitation.

991

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

t = [1 exp( kT m )] [9.119 10 7 + 9.686 10 6 log( T )](15)

Thus, the complete expression becomes:

i( mA / m 2 ) = 10 3 [ A + (1 A ) exp( kT m )]

(16)
DnFc

x
[1 exp( kT m )] [9.119 10 7 + 9.686 10 6 log( T )
+

p
Sh

FIGURE 5. Current density vs time for the 17.4 specimen from

Figure 4 plotted in linear coordinates.

Nucleation and growth of calcium-rich deposits accompanied by a second decrease in ic (the power
law decay regimes in Figures 2 through 4).
To account for the time dependency of calcareous deposit nucleation and growth, Equation (10)
was multiplied by an expression of the form:

y = exp( kT m )

(11)

where y is the fraction of the surface available for

calcareous deposit nucleation as a function of time,
T, (y decreases from 1 to 0 as T goes from 0 to
infinity), and k and m are constants.
Also, the possibility of a threshold current
density at long times was included by addition of a
second term to Equation (10). Thus:

y = exp( kT m ) + A 1 exp( kT m ) or

(12)

* y = A + (1 A ) exp( kT m )

(13)

where A is the fraction of bare area at very large T.

Calcareous deposit thickness (t in Equation [10]) was
represented in terms of the positive regime of the
expression:

t = 9.119 10 7 + 9.686 10 6 log( T )

(14)

which is based upon data of Mao and Hartt from

measurements performed upon sectioned specimens.32 Equation (14) also was multiplied by an
Equation (11) type term to account for the fact that
thickness of individual deposits should depend, at
any particular time, upon when nucleation occurred.
Hence:

Trade name.

992

Figures 6 through 9 illustrate how variations in the

parameters k, m, x, and A affect the current densitytime trend projected by Equation (16). Thus, Figure 6
shows that, as k decreases, the trend curve is displaced toward greater time but with no effect otherwise. Decreasing m (Figure 7) also tends to displace
the current density-time curve to the right but with a
progressively more gradual transition from the upper
to lower plateau. However, the effect of decreasing x
or, alternately, the ratio of x to Sh (Figure 8), is to
displace the trend toward higher current density.
Increasing A (Figure 9) increases the long-term
current density. In the first two cases (Figures 6 and
7), the two digits in the figure nomenclature reference the values for k and m, respectively, for which
the indicated curves were generated. In Figure 8, the
three digits indicate the values for k, m, and x.
Figures 10 through 12 show results of attempted
fittings of Equation (16) to the data in Figures 2
through 4, considering that D = 2.72 109 m2/s,
c = 5 mg/L, Sh = 282 (30), and p = 0.05 by optimization in terms of the parameters k, m, x, and A using
the software SPSS for Windows. In cases where a
constraint was placed upon A, the calculation
involved a sequential quadratic progression until the
optimal fit was obtained. Where no constraint was
imposed, the procedure was based upon nonlinear
regression using the Levenberg and Marquardt
method,33 which successively iterated until the sum
of the least squares was < 108. Figure 10 pertains to
the shallow (warm) water zone of one of the structures represented in Figure 2,23 while Figure 11 fits a
deep water portion of the same structure. Figure 12,
however, addresses the ambient temperature (small
laboratory specimens from Figure 3), while Figure 13
shows the fit to the deep water test panel results
from Figure 4. A good fit was obtained in the first
three cases as indicated by the regression coefficient,
which was 0.972 and 0.936 for Figures 10 and 11,
respectively, and 0.992, 0.975, 0.958, and 0.941 for
the 150, 338, 678, and 998 resistance experiments, respectively, in Figure 12. The fit was not as
good in the case of two of the three deep water test
panel experiments (Figure 13), however, presumably
because of the relatively sharp transitions that the
data exhibit. This distinction may have arisen
because the deposits upon these specimens com-

CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

FIGURE 6. Plot of current density vs time from Equation (16)

illustrating the influence of k (first digit of figure nomenclature) with
m = 0.50, x = 0.7, and A = 0.05.

FIGURE 7. Plot of current density vs time from Equation (16)

illustrating the influence of m (second digit of figure nomenclature)
with k = 0.10, x = 0.7, and A = 0.05.

FIGURE 8. Plot of current density vs time from Equation (16)

illustrating the influence of x (third digit of figure nomenclature) or
the ratio of x to Sh with k = 0.10, m = 0.5, and A = 0.05.

FIGURE 9. Plot of current density vs time from Equation (16)

illustrating the influence of A with k = 0.010, m = 0.70, and
x = 0.70.

prised relatively open structures of magnesium

hydroxide (Mg[OH]2) and CaCO3 (in addition, perhaps, to a thin inner Mg[OH]2 layer mentioned), as
revealed by scanning electron microscopy,29 such
that the net ic decay reflected the combined nucleation and growth kinetics of these different phases.
Even here, however, the regression coefficient for the
17.4, 34.8, and 54.9 experiments was 0.944,
0.934, and 0.861, respectively. Table 1 lists values
for the fitting parameters that were used in Figures
12 and 13. The apparent fit divergence at the low ic
end in various plots could have been improved upon
by changes to A, but doing so would have had a
negative overall effect upon the regression coefficient.
A limitation of the proposed model is that
Equation (10) and, hence, Equation (16) pertain to
situations of reaction control via a limiting cathodic ic

(oxygen concentration polarization), which is likely to

occur only after some exposure time has lapsed. As
such, differences in initial ic, as affected by resistor
sizing, in the case of laboratory/test panel exposures, and by CP design variations (different slope
parameters) for actual structures, cannot be accommodated. In the present analysis, this was addressed
artificially by varying m (Figure 9). Future research
on this topic should focus on development of correlations between the fitting parameters (k, m, x, and A),
ocean properties (temperature, composition, and
water movement, for example), and calcareous
deposit precipitation kinetics.

CORROSIONVol. 56, No. 10

Proposed Protocol for Specification of im

Based upon the above analyses, a new approach
to specification of im for CP design of offshore struc-

993

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

FIGURE 10. Comparison of average shallow water current density

vs time data for a Gulf of Mexico structure with model fitting results.23

FIGURE 11. Comparison of average deep water current density vs

time data for a Gulf of Mexico structure with model fitting results.23

FIGURE 12. Comparison of current density vs time data from

laboratory specimens with model fitting results (Table 1).

FIGURE 13. Comparison of current density vs time data from deep

water test panels with model fitting results (Table 1).

tures was proposed. To illustrate this, Figures 14

and 15 reproduce the warm and cold water data,
respectively, from Figure 2, but with linear (log-log
coordinates) best fit (mean) and one and two
standard deviation () lines also shown. In the former
case (Figure 14), data at exposure times < 10 h were
not included, while the latter (Figure 15) was based
upon data > 150 h only. This was done so that the
short-term, time-independent data would not perturb
the curve fit in the power law regime. Accordingly,
the generic equation for the various lines is:

in Table 2. In Figures 14 and 15, values for c are 0

1 or 2 corresponding to the mean, 1, and 2
lines, respectively. Accordingly, the area under the iT curve, as given by:

i c = 10( a + c ) T b

(17)

where a, b, and c are constants with c given a value

such that the generated line is displaced from the
mean by a corresponding multiple of . Values for ,
a, and b for the warm and cold water cases are listed

994

Td

Td

( a + c )
T b dT =
i c dT = 10

10( a + c ) Tdb +1
b +1

(18)

is the total charge transferred during the design life

(Td). Dividing this then by Td gives the time average
current density, which is considered here to be im.
Thus:
im =

10( a + c ) Tdb
b +1

(19)

It was proposed that this expression serve as the

basis whereby values for im are specified in design.

CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

TABLE 1
Data-Fitting Parameters Used in Conjunction with Figures 12 and 13
Resistance ()

150
338
678
998

0.198
0.096
0.135
6.56 105

0.401
0.443
0.416
1.413

17.4
34.8
54.9

0.227
0.003
1.06 104

0.183
0.695
1.083

fA

Analysis Condition

Warm Water Data (Figure 12)

0.114
0.218
0.384
0.567

0.131
0.147
0.247
0.384

Unconstrained

Cold Water Data (Figure 13)

The choice of c can vary depending upon the degree

of conservatism that is considered appropriate or the
extent to which data exist for the specific site in
question. In this regard, c need not be a whole
number. Figure 16 plots im vs design life (Equation
[19]), and Table 3 tabulates specific values. As such,
a major component of the proposed procedure is that
im is a function of the design life. Table 4 lists the
warm and cold water im values, proposed in Table 3,
that correspond to Td = 20 years at three levels of
conservatism and indicates the percent difference
between these and values from a recommended
practice.3 Thus, the proposed mean + 2 value (high
level of conservatism) for im is ~ 15% less than the
recommended Gulf of Mexico value3 (47 mA/m2
compared to 55 mA/m2), while the mean + 1 value
(intermediate conservatism) is about one-half of this.
The mean itself, however, is 71% less than the
presently recommended value.
In the cold water case, these same values
range from 77% greater to about the same to 38%
below the present North Sea design value for im
(90 mA/m 2) for the same three degrees of conservatism (mean + 2, mean + 1, and mean i m, respectively). 3 It is considered, based upon this, that the
presently recommended North Sea design i m reflects an appropriate level of conservatism for a
20-year life, while the Gulf of Mexico design constitutes over -design by a factor of ~ 2. Truncating the
i m-T relationship at short times according to an
appropriate value for io had little influence and
changed even the short-term current densities by
only several percent.

CONCLUSIONS
Current density decay with time data for cathodically polarized offshore structures and for laboratory
and field test steel specimens exhibited an initial
period during which current density was approximately constant or decreased at a relatively constant
rate followed by a more pronounced decay, which
conformed to a power law relationship. In most

CORROSIONVol. 56, No. 10

0.062
0.146
0.208

0.1
0.1
1.57 108

Constrained,
0 fA 0.100

FIGURE 14. Warm water data from Figure 2 with the power fit best
fit and one and two standard deviation lines.

FIGURE 15. Cold/deep water data from Figure 2 with the power fit
best fit and one and two standard deviation lines.

instances, this decay was continuous such that a

steady state was never achieved.
The current density decay of cathodically polarized
steel in seawater was modeled analytically using the
expression in Equation (16).

995

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

TABLE 2
Curve-Fitting Parameters for Equation (17)
Warm/Shallow
Parameters

Cold/Deep Water
Parameters

0.233
3.130
0.410

0.229
2.820
0.226

a
b

A new procedure for specifying mean current

density for CP design of offshore structures is
proposed based upon the expression in Equation (17).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
FIGURE 16. Plot of Equation (19) for the warm and cold water cases
and c = 0, 1, and 2.

The authors acknowledge past and present joint

industry project sponsors from which this paper was
developed. Member companies and organizations
include Amoco, British Petroleum, Chevron, Elf
Aquitaine, Exxon, Marathon, Minerals Management
Service, Mobil, Shell, and Texaco. Particularly
appreciated is critical guidance provided by members
of the technical advisory committees which included
J. Burk, D. Dopjera, C. Llewellyn, D. Townley, J.
Jelinek, S. Smith, C. Alsup, B. Niolon, C. Smith, R.
Smith, M. Surkein, S. Wolfson, A. Goolsby, D. Fan,
and R. Lewis.

2. DnV Recommended Practice RP401, Cathodic Protection Design

(Hovik, Norway: Det Norske Veritas Industri Norge AS, 1993).
3. NACE Standard RP0176-94, Corrosion Control of Steel-Fixed
Offshore Platforms Associated with Petroleum Production
(Houston, TX: NACE, 1994).
4. W. Wang, W.H. Hartt, S. Chen, Corrosion 52 (1996): p. 419.
5. W.H. Hartt, S. Chen, D.W. Townley, Corrosion 54 (1998): p.
317.
6. D.W. Townley, Unified Design Equation for Offshore Cathodic
Protection, CORROSION/97, paper no. 473 (Houston, TX:
NACE, 1997).
7. NACE International Publication 7L198, Design of Galvanic
Anode Cathodic Protection Systems for Offshore Structures
(Houston, TX: NACE, 1998).
8. H.B. Dwight, Electr. Eng. 55 (1936): p. 1,319.
9. E.D. Sunde, Earth Conduction Effects in Transmission Systems
(New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1968).
10. J.E. McCoy, Trans. Inst. Mar. Eng. 82 (1970): p. 210.

REFERENCES
1. NACE Standard RP0176, Corrosion Control of Steel-Fixed
Offshore Platforms Associated with Petroleum Production
(Houston, TX: NACE International, 1976).

TABLE 3
List of im Values as a Function of Td and for Different Degrees of Design Conservatism
Mean Current Density (mA/m2)
c=1

c=0

c=2

Time
(years)

Cold/Deep

Warm

Cold/Deep

Warm

Cold/Deep

Warm

1
5
10
15
20
25
30

109
76
65
59
56
53
51

55
29
22
18
16
15
14

185
129
110
100
94
89
86

95
49
37
31
28
25
23

314
218
186
170
159
151
145

162
84
63
53
47
43
40

TABLE 4
Listing of Proposed im for a Design Life of 20 Years at Three Levels
of Conservatism and the Percent Difference Compared to Current Practice
Warm Water
Degree of
Conservatism
None, c = 0
Intermediate, c = 1
High, c = 2
(A)

996

im (prop.)
(mA/m2)

% Difference Compared
to Reference 3(A)

16
28
47

71
49
15

Cold Water
im (prop.) % Difference Compared
(mA/m2)
to Reference 3(A)
56
94
159

38
4
77

A positive % difference indicated that im for the present method exceeds that from the current
recommended practice.

CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

11. J.C. Cochran, A Correlation of Anode-to-Electrolyte Resistance

Equations Used in Cathodic Protection, CORROSION/82,
paper no. 169 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1982).
12. R. Strommen, MP 24, 3 (1985): p. 9.
13. J.C. Cochran, Additional Anode-to-Electrolyte Resistance
Equations Useful in Offshore Cathodic Protection, CORROSION/84, paper no. 254 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1984).
14. T. Foster, V.G. Moores, Cathodic Protection Current Demand of
Various Alloys in Seawater, CORROSION/86, paper no. 295
(Houston, TX: NACE, 1986).
15. R. Mollan, T.R. Anderson, Design of Cathodic Protection Systems,
CORROSION/86, paper no. 286 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1986).
16. K.P. Fischer, T. Sydberger, R. Lye, Field Testing of Deep Water
Cathodic Protection on the Norwegian Continental Shelf,
CORROSION/87, paper no. 67 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1987).
17. K.P. Fischer, J.E. Finnegan, Cathodic Protection Behavior of
Steel in Seawater and the Protective Properties of the Calcareous Deposits, CORROSION/89, paper no. 582 (Houston, TX:
NACE, 1989).
18. C.F. Schrieber, J. Reding, Application Methods for Rapid
Polarization of Offshore Structures, CORROSION/90, paper
no. 381 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1989).
19. M.W. Mateer, K.J. Kennelley, Design of Platform Anode
Retrofits Using Measured Structure Current Density,
CORROSION/93, paper no. 526 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1993).
20. J.D. Burk, Dualnode Field Performance EvaluationCathodic
Protection for Offshore Structures, CORROSION/91, paper no.
309 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1991).
21. J.H. Kiefer, W.H. Thomason, N.G. Alansari, Experiences in
Retrofitting Sacrificial Anodes in Offshore Arabian Gulf,
CORROSION/98, paper no. 735 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1998).

CORROSIONVol. 56, No. 10

22. K.J. Kennelley, M.W. Mateer, Evaluation of the Performance of

Bi-Metallic Anodes on Deep Water Production Platform,
CORROSION/93, paper no. 523 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1993).
23. W.H. Hartt, M.M. Kunjapur, S.W. Smith, Corrosion 43 (1987):
p. 674.
24. W. Baptista, J.C.M. da Costa, MP 36, 1 (1997): p. 9.
25. K.P. Fischer, W.H. Thomason, S. Eliassen, The Importance of
Calcareous Deposits and the Environmental Conditions,
CORROSION/96, paper no. 548 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1996).
26. R.E. Andresen, Cathodic Protection of Steel in Seawater:
Polarizability of Steel in Artificial and Natural Seawater,
Norwegian Institute of Technology, May, 1982, Potect no.
160269.00.
27. A.D. Goolsby, MP 23, 4 (1984): p. 26.
28. A.D. Goolsby, S.L. Wolfson, Extended Cathodic Protection
Monitoring of One of the Worlds Deepest Fixed Offshore
PlatformsBullwinkle, CORROSION/98, paper no. 733
(Houston, TX: NACE, 1998).
29. S. Chen, Steel Cathodic Polarization and Calcareous Deposit
Characteristics in Deep Seawater (Ph.D. Thesis, Florida
Atlantic University, 1996).
30. S.W. Smith, K.M. McCabe, D.W. Black, Corrosion 45 (1989):
p. 790.
30. D. Hugus, W.H. Hartt, Corrosion 55 (1999): p. 115.
31. K.E. Mantel, W.H. Hartt, T.Y. Chen, Corrosion 48 (1992): p.
489.
32. W. Mao, W.H. Hartt, Growth Rate of Calcareous Deposits upon
Cathodically Polarized Steel in Seawater, CORROSION/85,
paper no. 317 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1985).
33. S.C. Chapra, R.P. Canale, Numerical Methods for Engineers,
2nd ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1988), p. 455.

997