Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

# A Principal Determinant in Cathodic Protection Design of Offshore Structures— The Mean Current Density

W.H. Hartt and E. Lemieux*

ABSTRACT

The historical development of marine cathodic protection design, along with the recently developed, first-principles- based 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; Ohm’s law using a single, long-term current density; 1 Ohm’s law and rapid polarization using three design current densities, an initial (i o ), mean, (i m ), and final (i ƒ ); 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.

Accordingly, the second and third practices are based upon the equation:

I

a

=

φ

c

φ

a

R

a

(1)

where I a is the individual anode current output, φ c is the closed circuit cathode potential, φ a is the closed circuit anode potential, and R a 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 literature 8-13 based upon anode dimensions and electrolyte resistivity. Figure 1 graphically illustrates the prin- ciple behind this equation and approach. Considering that the net current for protection (I) is the product of the structure current density demand (i c ) and surface area (A c ), the number of anodes required for protection (N) is determined from the relationship:

N =

i

c

×

A

c

• I a

(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

988

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

polarization 4,14-18 ) resulted in a lower mean current

density and reduced anode mass to provide protec-

tion for the design life. Accordingly, present protocols

are based upon three current densities, 2-3 such that

i o and i ƒ are substituted successively for i c in Equa-

tions (1) and (2) with the number of anodes corre-

sponding to each being determined. However, i m is

calculated from the mass balance relationship:

N =

i

m

×

AT

c

×

C

×

w

(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 differ-

ent with the largest being specified. For uncoated

structures this is usually i o . 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

φ

c

= (RA

t

×

c

) × i

φ

+

ca

(4)

where R t is the total circuit resistance. This rela-

tionship projects a linear interdependence between

c and i c , provided R t , A c , 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:

R

t

R

a

N

(5)

with the product R t × A c being defined as the slope

parameter (S) such that:

S =

R

a

×

A

c

N

(6)

Substitution of the latter expression into Equation (3)

then yields:

R

a

×

 i × TS × w = m

(7)
C

FIGURE 1. Schematic of a polarization diagram and parameters relevant to galvanic anode cathodic protection system design.

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 R a and w. This may be

accomplished in terms of anodes of standard dimen-

sions or, perhaps more effectively, by specifying an

elongated anode or dualnodes. 20 Thus, if anode

resistance is represented in terms of Dwight’s

modified equation:

R a =

ρ

×

ln

4 L

2

π L

r

– 1

(8)

where is electrolyte resistivity, L is anode length,

and r is equivalent anode radius, then the left side of

Equation (7) becomes:

R

×

w

=

×

ρρ

′ ×

r

2

×

ν 

ln

4

L

2

r

– 1

(9)

where is anode density and ν 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 parameter-

based design approach yields a 32% reduction in

anode mass in the case of typically sized structures

compared to design 5 according to present recom-

mended practice. 2-3 This arises because Equation (7)

is first-principles-based and incorporates i m and i o ,

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), R a determines i o while w relates

to i m .

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

REMAINING CRITICAL ISSUES

With the advent of the first-principles-based

slope parameter approach to CP design, the remain-

ing 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 i m , S, and C, where the

first two relate to polarization characteristics of the

structure and the third to galvanic anode perfor-

mance. Of interest in the present paper is the design

choice for i m , since recommended practices 2-3 list this

parameter as 55 mA/m 2 to 80 mA/m 2 for near

surface subtropical regions, while significantly lower

maintenance current densities (i maint )—3.4 mA/m 2

and 8.8 mA/m 2 for two Gulf of Mexico structures

(ages 19 years and 22 years, respectively) 19 and

5.4 mA/m 2 to 34.4 mA/m 2 for 15 Arabian Gulf

structures (ages 13 years to 26 years) 21 —have been

reported. (1) Since anode mass to achieve a particular

design is directly proportional to i m , significant cost

savings potentially can result if, indeed, design

according to a reduced i m can be justified.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Field Data

As the initial step in developing an empirical

mean current density model, existing literature data

were synthesized. Thus, Figure 2 reports i maint vs time

data that have been extracted from the literature for

various offshore structures. These include informa-

tion 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 22—for which the data to

7,008 h (292 days) are from one structure 22 and the

single data points at 166,440 h and 192,720 h

(19 years and 22 years, respectively) are from two

others 19 —and 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 i maint was

roughly constant followed by decay according to a

power law relationship (linear on log-log coordinates).

Note, however, that the early time, constant i maint

period is not apparent in some cases, and slope of

(1) i maint is defined as the value for i c 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, i maint and i c , are used interchangeably as the i required to maintain a particular φ. (2) Most of the data in Figure 2 represent values read from graphical plots of the various authors rather than actual data per se. (3) 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

the individual data sets differs. Also, i maint 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

i maint 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 subse-

quently are referred to as “warm” water results and

those for the remainder as “cold” water ones. Al-

though these two data sets are within the same range

in the short term (10 h to 10 4 h), i maint 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 structures 21 and two

Gulf of Mexico structures 19 are of particular interest

because of the otherwise general unavailability of

truly long-term data.

Laboratory and Field Test Data

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 appropri-

ately sized resistor, and c and i c 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 full-

size structures (Figure 2). As an example, Figure 3

shows i c 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 tempera-

ture. In each case, the data trend parallels that in

Figure 2 in that i c 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 i c varied in-

versely with size of the external resistance, and the

time at which i c began to decay was greater the

higher this resistance.

As a second example, Figure 4 shows i c vs time

plot for three 200-mm 2 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

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.

FIGURE 3. Current density vs time data for four laboratory specimens, each with a different slope parameter.

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 i c decay occurred more

abruptly; and a threshold current density is appar-

ent. Figure 5 shows the data for the S = 0.70 -m 2

specimen in linear coordinates, thus allowing occur-

rence 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 dura-

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

i

L

=

DnFc

×××

x

t

+

Sh

p

(10)

where i L is the limiting current density for oxygen

concentration polarization, D is the diffusion coeffi-

cient for oxygen, n and F have their normal mean-

ings, 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 Reynold’s number and Sc the Schmidt number),

t is the calcareous deposit thickness, and p is the

porosity constant for the calcareous deposits

(unitless).

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 Hartt 31 previously

have applied this expression to analyze i c decay

trends for cathodically polarized steel specimens in

defined flow fields. In the present analysis, it was

assumed that calcareous deposits formed and i c

decayed according to the following sequential

steps 31 :

—Precipitation of a thin, magnesium-rich

deposit within the first several minutes of expo-

sure, 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 i c 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 i c vs time trend, where

this occurred (Figures 3 and 4), is thought to corre-

spond to the onset of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 )

precipitation.

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

FIGURE 5. Current density vs time for the 17.4 specimen from Figure 4 plotted in linear coordinates.

— Nucleation and growth of calcium-rich depos-

its accompanied by a second decrease in i c (the power

law decay regimes in Figures 2 through 4).

To account for the time dependency of calcare-

ous 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

* y

(

=ƒ+ 1

A

ƒ

A

)

×

exp(– kT

m

)

(12)

(13)

where ƒ 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:

7

t = 9 119 ×+

.

10

6

9 686 ××

.

10

log(

T

)

(14)

which is based upon data of Mao and Hartt from

measurements performed upon sectioned speci-

mens. 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:

992

t

= [

1

– exp(–

kT

m

)] × [

9 119

.

×+

10

7

9 686

.

6

×× log( )]

10

T

(15)

Thus, the complete expression becomes:

(

i mA

/

m

2

)

=

10

3

[

×ƒ

A

+

(

1

ƒ

A

)

×

exp(–

kT

m

)]

×

DnFc

×××

x

+

[

1

– exp(–

kT

m

)]

×

[

9 119

.

×+

.

10

7

9 686

6

10

××

log(

T

)

Sh

p

(16)

Figures 6 through 9 illustrate how variations in the

parameters k, m, x, and ƒ A affect the current density-

time trend projected by Equation (16). Thus, Figure 6

shows that, as k decreases, the trend curve is dis-

placed toward greater time but with no effect other-

wise. 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 ƒ 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 refer-

ence 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 × 10 9 m 2 /s,

c = 5 mg/L, Sh = 282 (30), and p = 0.05 by optimiza-

tion in terms of the parameters k, m, x, and ƒ A using

the software SPSS for Windows . In cases where a

constraint was placed upon ƒ 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 < 10 8 . Figure 10 pertains to

the shallow (warm) water zone of one of the struc-

tures 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 experi-

ments, 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 ƒ 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 ƒ 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 ƒ A = 0.05.

FIGURE 9. Plot of current density vs time from Equation (16) illustrating the influence of ƒ A with k = 0.010, m = 0.70, and x = 0.70.

prised relatively open structures of magnesium

hydroxide (Mg[OH] 2 ) and CaCO 3 (in addition, per-

haps, to a thin inner Mg[OH] 2 layer mentioned), as

revealed by scanning electron microscopy, 29 such

that the net i c decay reflected the combined nucle-

ation 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 i c

end in various plots could have been improved upon

by changes to ƒ 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 i c

(oxygen concentration polarization), which is likely to

occur only after some exposure time has lapsed. As

such, differences in initial i c , as affected by resistor

sizing, in the case of laboratory/test panel expo-

sures, and by CP design variations (different slope

parameters) for actual structures, cannot be accom-

modated. In the present analysis, this was addressed

artificially by varying m (Figure 9). Future research

on this topic should focus on development of correla-

tions between the fitting parameters (k, m, x, and ƒ A ),

ocean properties (temperature, composition, and

water movement, for example), and calcareous

deposit precipitation kinetics.

Proposed Protocol for Specification of i m

Based upon the above analyses, a new approach

to specification of i m for CP design of offshore struc-

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:

i

c

=

10 (

+

ac

σ )

×

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

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 i-

T curve, as given by:

T

d

0

i

c

dT

×=

T

d

0

10

(

a

+

c σ

)

××=

T

b

dT

10

(

a

+

c σ

)

b

× T

d

+ 1

b + 1

(18)

is the total charge transferred during the design life

(T d ). Dividing this then by T d gives the time average

current density, which is considered here to be i m .

Thus:

i

m

=

10

(

a

+

c

σ )

b

× T

d

b + 1

(19)

It was proposed that this expression serve as the

basis whereby values for i m are specified in design.

CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

TABLE 1

Data-Fitting Parameters Used in Conjunction with Figures 12 and 13

Resistance ()k

m

x

f A

Analysis Condition

Warm Water Data (Figure 12)

• 150 0.198

• 338 0.096

• 678 0.135

• 998 6.56 × 10 5

0.401

0.443

0.416

1.413

0.114

0.218

0.384

0.567

0.131

0.147

0.247

0.384

Unconstrained

Cold Water Data (Figure 13)

• 17.4 0.227

• 34.8 0.003

• 54.9 1.06 × 10 4

0.183

0.695

1.083

0.062

0.146

0.208

0.1

0.1

1.57 × 10 8

Constrained,

0 f A 0.100

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 i m vs design life (Equation

[19]), and Table 3 tabulates specific values. As such,

a major component of the proposed procedure is that

i m is a function of the design life. Table 4 lists the

warm and cold water i m values, proposed in Table 3,

that correspond to T d = 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 i m is ~ 15% less than the

recommended Gulf of Mexico value 3 (47 mA/m 2

compared to 55 mA/m 2 ), 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 i m

(90 mA/m 2 ) for the same three degrees of conserva-

tism (mean + 2 , mean + 1 , and mean i m , respec-

tively). 3 It is considered, based upon this, that the

presently recommended North Sea design i m re-

flects an appropriate level of conservatism for a

20-year life, while the Gulf of Mexico design consti-

tutes over-design by a factor of ~ 2. Truncating the

i m -T relationship at short times according to an

appropriate value for i o had little influence and

changed even the short-term current densities by

only several percent.

CONCLUSIONS

Current density decay with time data for cathodi-

cally polarized offshore structures and for laboratory

and field test steel specimens exhibited an initial

period during which current density was approxi-

mately constant or decreased at a relatively constant

rate followed by a more pronounced decay, which

conformed to a power law relationship. In most

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

The current density decay of cathodically polarized

steel in seawater was modeled analytically using the

expression in Equation (16).

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

TABLE 2

Curve-Fitting Parameters for Equation (17)

Warm/Shallow

Parameters

Cold/Deep Water

Parameters

σ

a

b

0.233

3.130

0.410

0.229

2.820

0.226

A new procedure for specifying mean current

density for CP design of offshore structures is

proposed based upon the expression in Equation (17).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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.

REFERENCES

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

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

• 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.

TABLE 3

List of i m Values as a Function of T d and for Different Degrees of Design Conservatism

Mean Current Density (mA/m 2 )

 Time c = 0 c = 1 c = 2 (years) Cold/Deep Warm Cold/Deep Warm Cold/Deep Warm 1 109 55 185 95 314 162 5 76 29 129 49 218 84 10 65 22 110 37 186 63 15 59 18 100 31 170 53 20 56 16 94 28 159 47 25 53 15 89 25 151 43 30 51 14 86 23 145 40

TABLE 4

Listing of Proposed i m for a Design Life of 20 Years at Three Levels of Conservatism and the Percent Difference Compared to Current Practice

 Warm Water Cold Water Degree of i m (prop.) % Difference Compared i m (prop.) % Difference Compared Conservatism (mA/m 2 ) to Reference 3 (A) (mA/m 2 ) to Reference 3 (A) None, c = 0 16 –71 56 –38 Intermediate, c = 1 28 –49 94 4 High, c = 2 47 –15 159 77

(A) A positive % difference indicated that i m for the present method exceeds that from the current recommended practice.

996

CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000

CORROSION SCIENCE SECTION

 11. J.C. Cochran, “A Correlation of Anode-to-Electrolyte Resistance Equations Used in Cathodic Protection,” CORROSION/82, 22. K.J. Kennelley, M.W. Mateer, “Evaluation of the Performance of Bi-Metallic Anodes on Deep Water Production Platform,” paper no. 169 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1982). CORROSION/93, paper no. 523 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1993). 12. R. Strommen, MP 24, 3 (1985): p. 9. 23. W.H. Hartt, M.M. Kunjapur, S.W. Smith, Corrosion 43 (1987): 13. J.C. Cochran, “Additional Anode-to-Electrolyte Resistance 14. T. Foster, V.G. Moores, “Cathodic Protection Current Demand of p. 674. Equations Useful in Offshore Cathodic Protection,” CORRO- 24. W. Baptista, J.C.M. da Costa, MP 36, 1 (1997): p. 9. SION/84, paper no. 254 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1984). Various Alloys in Seawater,” CORROSION/86, paper no. 295 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). (Houston, TX: NACE, 1986). 26. R.E. Andresen, “Cathodic Protection of Steel in Seawater: 15. R. Mollan, T.R. Anderson, “Design of Cathodic Protection Systems,” CORROSION/86, paper no. 286 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1986). Polarizability of Steel in Artificial and Natural Seawater,” Norwegian Institute of Technology, May, 1982, Potect no. 16. K.P. Fischer, T. Sydberger, R. Lye, “Field Testing of Deep Water 160269.00. Cathodic Protection on the Norwegian Continental Shelf,” 27. A.D. Goolsby, MP 23, 4 (1984): p. 26. CORROSION/87, paper no. 67 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1987). 28. A.D. Goolsby, S.L. Wolfson, “Extended Cathodic Protection 17. K.P. Fischer, J.E. Finnegan, “Cathodic Protection Behavior of Steel in Seawater and the Protective Properties of the Calcare- ous Deposits,” CORROSION/89, paper no. 582 (Houston, TX: Monitoring of One of the World’s Deepest Fixed Offshore Platforms—Bullwinkle,” CORROSION/98, paper no. 733 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1998). NACE, 1989). 29. S. Chen, “Steel Cathodic Polarization and Calcareous Deposit 18. C.F. Schrieber, J. Reding, “Application Methods for Rapid Characteristics in Deep Seawater” (Ph.D. Thesis, Florida Polarization of Offshore Structures,” CORROSION/90, paper Atlantic University, 1996). no. 381 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1989). 30. S.W. Smith, K.M. McCabe, D.W. Black, Corrosion 45 (1989): 19. M.W. Mateer, K.J. Kennelley, “Design of Platform Anode p. 790. Retrofits Using Measured Structure Current Density,” 30. D. Hugus, W.H. Hartt, Corrosion 55 (1999): p. 115. CORROSION/93, paper no. 526 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1993). 31. K.E. Mantel, W.H. Hartt, T.Y. Chen, Corrosion 48 (1992): p. 20. J.D. Burk, “Dualnode Field Performance Evaluation—Cathodic 21. J.H. Kiefer, W.H. Thomason, N.G. Alansari, “Experiences in 489. Protection for Offshore Structures,” CORROSION/91, paper no. 32. W. Mao, W.H. Hartt, “Growth Rate of Calcareous Deposits upon 309 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1991). Retrofitting Sacrificial Anodes in Offshore Arabian Gulf,” CORROSION/98, paper no. 735 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1998). 33. Cathodically Polarized Steel in Seawater,” CORROSION/85, paper no. 317 (Houston, TX: NACE, 1985). S.C. Chapra, R.P. Canale, Numerical Methods for Engineers, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 1988), p. 455.