Assessment of the Cathodic Protection of

Crude Oil Storage Tanks in the Arabian Gulf

Antonio Martinez Niembro

Abu Dhabi Operating Company
P.O. Box 303, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Fax: 971 2 6064442
E-mail: antoniom@adma.ae

Shaikha Mohamed K. Al-Zaabi

Abu Dhabi Operating Company
P.O. Box 303, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Fax: 971 2 6064442
E-mail: salzaabi@adma.ae

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the diagnostic and troubleshooting methodology used to evaluate the
effectiveness of impressed current cathodic protection on the underside of above ground storage tank
floor plates. The case history includes the field data for several types of measurements performed to
demonstrate if the current flow is in the proper direction and if the amount of current arriving at the
floor plates is sufficient to offer protection.

It is realized that in order to confirm effective cathodic protection, the voltage drop in the soil between
the floor plates and the reference electrode must be considered. An innovative tank-to-soil potential
monitoring method using permanent reference electrodes and potential monitoring conduits directly
under the tank floor plates was implemented for one of the tanks to obtain accurate data and
implement an effective monitoring programme.

Some relative costs of the proposed alternatives to mitigate corrosion, including close anode
groundbeds or the use of oily bituminous sand, will be discussed.

Keywords: Cathodic Protection, Innovative Potential Monitoring, Above Ground Storage Tanks,
Voltage Drop, Permanent Reference Cells, Bituminous Sand.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Above ground storage tanks are important strategic assets for world class hydrocarbon producers.
The tanks must be maintained in good condition in order to ensure the integrity of the facilities and
for public health, safety and the environment. The Abu Dhabi Marine Operating Company (ADMA-
OPCO) has more than 35 years of experience with 14 storage tanks on Das Island. Das Island is
located in the Arabian Gulf 120 Km from Abu Dhabi.
The subject tanks (Crude Oil Storage tanks 7 and 11) of this paper are single shell, vertical,
cylindrical, steel welded with double deck pontoon-floating roofs. The tanks were designed and
fabricated to BP Standard 163 and BS 2654. Tank dimensions and capacity are 79.25m (260 ft)
diameter, 19.51m (64 ft) height and nominal capacity 600,000 BBL. Both tanks were commissioned
between 1967 and 1969.

In 1990, both tanks were retrofitted with new floors, common, sketch and annular plates after jacking
up the shells. The original Coal Tar Epoxy lining was replaced with Glass Fiber Reinforced Epoxy
(GFRP). Further actions to mitigate underside corrosion were implemented by installing a new berm
seal around the periphery of the tank rim.

The principal cause of the external corrosion on the bottom plates was from water leakage resulting
from severe internal corrosion through to perforation. Internal failures were deemed to have
happened due to ineffective internal CP. However, it should be noted that underside corrosion can
happen even in the absence of leaks due to internal corrosion.

Economic, environmental and safety considerations dictate the use of cathodic protection for
corrosion control of the soil side of above ground storage tank bottoms. Certain types of cathodic
protection (CP) designs may not be effective in providing adequate CP current to the tank bottoms in
certain soil environments. On DAS Island, the electrical current for the tank bottoms, provided by
deep wells, may find lower resistance paths through buried piping or earthing systems.

The use of bitumen sand precludes deep anode cathodic protection systems to mitigate corrosion
under the tank bottom plates. The oiled sand pads have an advantage only when no cathodic
protection is installed, and some disadvantages are:

− It traps moisture between the steel and the bitsand.

− It shields the CP current from getting to the steel.
− Reference cells do not measure the true potentials of the tank bottom.
− Moisture must be excluded permanently to be effective.

1.2. Bibliographic Review

The economics of CP for soil side corrosion mitigation on tank bottoms indicate that with an
investment of less than 10% of the cost of the tank bottom replacement, the integrity of the bottom
may be prolonged indefinitely. Further, by properly monitoring and maintaining the CP system,
excellent cost-benefit ratios will be realized 1.

D. H. Kroon presented the results of a unique approach to an economical impressed current cathodic
protection system using mixed metal oxide (MMO) coated titanium anodes, either for new
constructions or for tank bottom replacements. Kroon concluded that a dedicated system under the
tank floor is an economic and effective means of providing cathodic protection to the soil side of
above ground storage tanks (AGST) where dielectric secondary containment liners are employed.
This sort of CP system extends the system life and enhances effective current distribution to the tank
bottom 2.

V. Brown et al, concluded that impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) systems consisting of
MMO anodes evenly distributed on concentric loops of insulated header cables and installed in the
sand fill have proven to be successful in providing economical CP to the tank bottoms of Koch
Industries since 1989 3.
P. Barham et al, concluded that tank to soil potentials at the periphery of large diameter tanks have
little correlation to actual potentials near the center of the tanks, however, perforated non-metallic
pipe beneath the tank is an easy and useful method of measuring valid tank to soil potentials. They
also installed angle-drilled deep groundbeds beneath the tanks to provide better current distribution
and more uniform tank-to-soil potentials 4.

Other technologies were tested to improve the effectiveness of corrosion protection methods for
AGST with secondary containment of double-bottom storage tanks. The work of S.R. Rials and J.H.
Kiefer5 concluded that Vapor Phase Corrosion inhibitors are effective in controlling corrosion in
moisture saturated conditions, further they recommended that installation of ICCP designs should not
be used in the annular space of double-bottom storage tanks.

M. Surkein and J. Collins proposed two different cathodic protection designs utilizing zinc ribbon
anodes for small diameter tanks (35m) with double bottoms. The results showed that sacrificial
anodes with high quality sand can be effective to achieve cathodic protection according to industry
accepted standards 6. M. A. Al-Arfaj describes a study of five tanks to measure the effectiveness of
zinc ribbon cathodic protection to single and double bottom tanks using the 100mV depolarization
criterion 7.

Crude oil operators in the Middle East are increasingly installing dedicated cathodic protection
systems to mitigate AGST underside corrosion problems. That is the case of Abu Dhabi National Oil
company (ADNOC) projects in Ruwais and Habshan (UAE). These included close anodes technology
for new tanks with secondary containment HDPE liners under the tanks; BP-AMOCO in UAE
installed in 2002, a dedicated MMO anode system for an 80 meter diameter tank. TotalFinaElf in
Total South Pars Phase 2&3 Project installed the anode loops system under 23 crude oil and water
treatment tanks in 1999. Also in 2002, a water transmission pipeline project in UAE used dedicated
close anodes for the associated water storage tanks.

R. L. Garret stated that monitoring cathodic protection levels of AGST bottoms is a challenge and
concluded that the current actually picked up by the tank bottom is an important interpretation tool
and also stated that oiled sand pads have an advantage only where no cathodic protection is installed
8
.

Saudi Aramco experience, with an AGSTs installed on 100mm oiled sand pads with CP installed
around the perimeter of the tanks, indicated that after 10 years some tanks had suffered severe
external corrosion of the bottom and required replacement before returning to service. The oiled sand
pad was normally very dry and hard almost like concrete. Tests indicated that the CP current was
being shielded by the oiled sand pads and was instead going to other structures. Hence, if water was
trapped between the oiled sand and the steel bottom, current would not reach the bottom to prevent
corrosion. In addition to removing the oily sand foundation, the solution was to have the minimum
amount of CP current applied to the tank bottoms with the maximum current distribution by installing
MMO anodes under the tanks. Results suggest that the use of MMO anode systems for protection of
their storage tank bottoms is very effective. However, additional time is required to provide sufficient
data to ensure the durability of the system 9.

C. K. Meier and J. H. Fitzgerald III, describe a method of directional drilling impressed current
systems when surface or deep anodes would be ineffective. They proposed that accurate data can be
obtained using permanent reference cells and monitoring tubes under the tank and further stated that
the benefit of cathodic protection and leak detection systems is manifested in reducing floor loss,
inspection costs, and cut-off-service periods for the tank 10.
K. Kendell 11 in a review of failure mechanisms prevalent in the Middle East summarizes the various
technical issues and offers a coherent selection methodology for protection of both new and existing
tank bases. Kendell further describes complicating factors which affect obtaining accurate
measurements of cathodic protection, such as the liquid level in the tank must be sufficiently high to
create intimate contact between the tank bottom and the pad because empty tanks often indicate
erroneous test results.

Sealing against moisture entrance has been a matter of numerous attempts to keep moisture free
between the tank foundation and its bottom plates. F. Habiby et al, describe a way of sealing the gaps
by applying a suitable sealant of two-component polysulfide in a circular groove around the periphery
of the tank rim 12. Many other attempts were developed to mitigate corrosion by water ingress under
the tank; however none of them have proved to be a total successful.

1.3. Relevant Codes and Standards

API RP 651 in section 5.3.5 clearly says that: Clean sand is the most common material used as
cushion beneath storage tank bottoms. API RP 651 further says that experience in the industry is
varied as to the effectiveness of oiled sand for corrosion control. The presence of oiled sand has not
been proven as an effective corrosion control measure and thus does not eliminate the need for
cathodic protection and may cause CP to be less effective because of the higher resistivity of the oiled
sand 13.

NACE RP0193 Section 5.6 says that: Clean, fine sand is the preferred tank pad material; and Section
5.7 says that on-grade tanks that are set on solid concrete or asphalt pad foundations generally require
specialized measures for corrosion protection because cathodic protection may be ineffective 14.

BS 7361 in Section 4.5.1 says that: The top of the foundation mound may be provided with a
bitumen-sand carpet or some form of coating may be applied to the underside of the tank bottom.
During operation, the bottom of the tank is subjected to flexure and settlement. The bitumen-sand is
therefore liable to be damaged, thus allowing parts of the tank bottom to come into contact with the
soil of the foundation mound. If the environment is corrosive, cathodic protection may be applied to
supplement the protection provided by carpeting or tank bottom coating 15.

International recommended practices, including BP Oil Co Refining Practice RP-14-4-2 in Section

4.2, Paragraph 1 can be summarized as follows: Existing Tanks being retrofitted with some mode of
release prevention shall have a cathodic protection system installed unless otherwise specified by the
Owner’s Engineer 16.

The API Standard 653, paragraph 2.4.7 which includes an acceptable deterministic method for
calculating the minimum remaining bottom thickness, states that when CP is applied to an external
tank bottom, the maximum underside pitting rate is set to zero. Hence, the required frequency and
costs of inspection are therefore significantly reduced 17.

The following sections include the methodology used to evaluate the actual status of the cathodic
protection of two tanks, including potential surveys with portable and permanent reference cells and
current measurements during the overhauls of the tanks.
 2. CASE STUDIES AND FIELD TESTS

The tanks were undergoing a major overhaul; hence all piping was disconnected from the tanks but
remained electrically connected through CP bonding. In normal operation, no electrical isolation
(isolation joints) exists between tanks and the associated pipelines. The earthing systems remained
electrically connected to the tanks.

These lines, tanks, and the associated structures are integrated to the two closest CP systems. The
impressed current Pt/Ti anodes for these tanks are installed in deep wells located approximately 150
meters from the periphery of the tank and at a depth of 40 m.

2.1 Case Study Crude Oil Storage (COS) Tank 7

An “as found” potential survey was completed for COS Tank 7, including the associated underground
pipelines and earthing systems. The potential survey was conducted using a portable copper/copper
sulphate reference electrode, permanent silver/silver chloride (SSC) reference electrodes, and
potential monitoring conduits installed under the tank. Current measurements at negative drain points
and at earthing systems were also taken.

2.1.1. Potential Survey

As found potential measurements, detailed in Table 1 (“As Found” Column 1), were completed for
both tanks. The potentials were measured with respect to a portable reference electrode and the
reference electrodes installed under the bottom of COS Tank 7.

As found potentials were measured during welding works to evaluate the influence of welding
currents on the CP readings (data contained in Table 1). After interrupting the welding machinery,
the potentials measured with the permanent reference cells did not have a significant change; which
means that welding works most probably do not have a detrimental effect or corrosion on the soil side
of the steel plates.

“ON” potentials at the periphery of the tank at locations N, S, E and W measured with respect to a
copper-copper sulphate electrode (CSE) are indicated in Table No. 1. The potential readings of the
tank using the nine (9) permanent reference cells installed under the tank gave an average value of
– 994 ± 4.5 mV (SSC). These potential values are not the true potentials, as they have to be corrected
for the IR drop; hence, it cannot be concluded that the tank is being cathodically protected. The DC
current measurements indicated below confirm this statement.

The average potentials taken in the relevant monitoring conduits pulling a portable reference cell type
Copper Sulphate Electrode (CSE) and measuring the value each 5 meters indicated similar readings
to the permanent cells; however, a complete set of readings could not be taken because sand inside
the conduit did not permit pulling the cell all the way through the conduit. This was later corrected
and the portable reference cell could be pulled without problems.

2.1.2. DC Current Surveys

DC current readings were performed at CP bondings connected from COS Tank 7 to the export lines,
filling line, dewatering lines, and earthing bars around the periphery of the tank. Table 2 shows the
readings. From the test it can be seen that 3.2A DC current was directly collected by the earthing
system. Also it was noted that 1.6A was drained by one of the earthing cables towards the earthing
well; which means that the direct current flowing from the copper earthing well into the surrounding
electrolyte can produce an important loss to the copper earthing rod, if that current is drained
continuously to the surrounding soil. Such current may find a less resistance path through this
earthing well, flowing to the piping network and finally coming back to the transformer rectifier.

The calculated CP current directly collected by the floor plates through the soil is 1.4 amperes (2% of
the total current delivered by the two closest rectifiers); such a low current cannot polarize the tank
floor plates to a satisfactory level of cathodic protection (it is estimated that the tank will require
around 50 – 60 A or more current to be effectively protected against corrosion). The low level of
cathodic protection current picked up by the floor plates can be explained by different reasons, such
as the shielding effect of the bitumen sand, low voltage drop per unit distance surrounding the tank
floor plates, and/or high resistivity soils under the foundation of the tank.

2.2 Case Study COS Tank 11

COS Tank 11 was also undergoing a major overhaul. This tank is surrounded by a High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE) membrane from the berm to the bund for retaining any oil spillage inside the
bund (no membrane is installed directly under the tank) and no permanent reference electrodes exist,
so the analysis was done with the portable reference cell located in the relevant cathodic protection
pits at N, S, E and W locations. These pits were installed in such a way that the reference cell
contacted the soil directly below the HDPE membrane.

2.2.1. Potential Survey

As indicated previously for COS Tank 7, the same analysis is done for COS Tank 11. The “ON”
potential readings at the periphery of the tank shown in Table 3 are not the true potentials, as they
have to be corrected for the IR drop; hence, it cannot be concluded that the tank is being cathodically
protected as it is shown with the DC current measurements. The fact that the tank, at the time of the
evaluation, was empty can affect the distribution of current and potentials under the tank.

Potential readings taken at earthing wells demonstrate that some wells (high negative potentials) are
exposed to the voltage gradient of the deep well anode groundbeds, while others not (low negative
potentials).

2.2.2. DC Current readings

DC current readings were performed at CP bondings connected from the COS Tank 11 to the export
lines, filling line, and earthing bars around the periphery of the tank.

From Table 4, the calculated CP current directly collected by the floor plates through the soil was 0.4
A (0.5% of the total current delivered by the two closest rectifiers). This current cannot polarize the
tank floor plates to the level of cathodic protection indicated by the potential monitoring readings.
The possible causes of the low CP current collected by the floor plates can be explained as for the
previous tank. The impressed current Pt/Ti anodes are installed in a deep well located approximately
250 meters from the periphery of the tank and at depth of 40 m.
 3. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

3.1 Bitsand Shields the Protective Current and Traps Water

The bitsand, a mix of 86% sand, 8.5% Portland cement and 5.5% asphalt is a barrier for the cathodic
protection current; hence any ingress of moisture between the steel plates and the bitsand would
initiate a corrosion process that cannot be stopped. Water leaks from the process side, rain water
during construction, condensed water from the humid environment, moisture entering during the
filling/emptying cycles of the tanks and/or water ingress by the effect of capillary from the soil can be
a real source of water ingress.

Chemical analysis of the oily sand (50mm thickness) and the underlying foundation (500-900mm) in
two tanks revealed very high content of chlorides 0.1-0.2% in the oily sand and 0.25-0.85% in the
foundation. Sulphate content also showed very high concentration in both tanks, in the order of 1% in
the sand and a wide range in the foundation between 1-8%. Ranges of pH contrary to expected were
8-9 in the foundation and 10 -11 in the bitumen sand. Seven locations per tank were analyzed.

The material used in forming the pad under the floor can also cause underside corrosion of tank floor.
It may contain chemical compounds that are corrosive to steel (i.e., sulphur compounds become very
corrosive when moistened), the presence of clay will cause electrochemical corrosion resulting in
pitting at each point of clay concentration.

In view of the above results, the feasibility of an effective CP system with clean uncontaminated sand
shall be evaluated in order to extend the life of new or refurbished tank floors. One important
advantage of the clean sand pad foundation is that it dries out faster than bitsand and does not allow
the water ingress to remain in contact with the steel, hence, less corrosion on the tank bottom. The
sand also allows CP current to reach the bottom when it is wet, and does not shield, as happens with
the bitsand.

3.2 Assessment of Required Current

The current measurement tests performed on the two tanks showed that the actual current outputs
from the associated transformer rectifiers do not cover the estimated quantity of current required to
protect the underside of the floor plates. In addition, most of the current is consumed by third
structures (piping, earthing system) located in less resistive soils. A quick calculation of the current
required to protect bare steel in soil, when corrosive conditions are present, such as the case of the
tank floor plates, results that an average current of 50-60 A.

According to this, the existing cathodic protection capacity must be assessed. The amount of current
required to protect the pipelines and the amount of current required to effectively protect the tanks
must be determined. Some tanks with a plastic membrane in the foundation need specialized
measures for corrosion control. These tanks are not able to receive any current because of the
shielding effect to the flow of current.
3.3 Location of CP Groundbeds (boreholes)

The deep well ground beds or “boreholes” are located remote from some tanks. This means that the
current delivered by the groundbeds and distributed through the soil to the underground steel
structures, including the tank floor plates, will not be able to reach the underside of the tanks because
of shielding and relative high resistance compared to other structures.

In both cases, the underground structures between the CP systems and the floor plates collect most of
the protective current, minimizing distribution to the bottom plates.

3.4 The OFF Criteria For Protection Shall Be Applied

Cathodic protection criteria for underground steel structures shall consider the true polarized structure
to environment measured at the structure surface for valid interpretation of the potential
measurements. Voltage drops other than those across the structure-to-electrolyte boundary must be
considered.

Furthermore, in the case of COS tank floors with large diameter and due to the sealing system around
the perimeter of the tanks, the space between the plates and the bitsand, most probably would have
differing oxygen concentration generating differences in potentials, hence corrosion. The anaerobic
conditions will require that the accepted protection criteria be –950mV (CSE) instead of –850mV free
of IR drop.

3.5 Monitoring CP

The standard method for evaluating the effectiveness of CP is the tank-to-soil potential measurements
with a reference electrode. For adequate representation of potential, the reference cell is to be placed
as close as possible to the tank bottom. A problem associated with monitoring CP is the inability to
place the reference cell under the tank for old tanks. For old tanks, most testing has relied upon
readings at the perimeter of the tank, which may yield erroneous results because of potential gradients
created in the soil by the groundbeds.

Previous experience with CP of existing tank bottoms indicate that: i) Tank to soil potential
measurements obtained at the perimeter of the tank most often do not indicate the actual CP levels at
the centre, particularly on larger diameter tanks; ii) Potential measurements at the centre of the tank
and at other areas under the tank are necessary if tank bottom CP levels are to be accurately
evaluated. Placing permanent reference cells at different locations under the bottom plate may do this.

Hence, the installation of reference electrodes under one or two representative tanks could get an
approach for the difference of potentials from the edge to the center, and then review the operating
levels of other tanks. Potential monitoring conduits to place portable reference cells is also a method
to attain this important objective and were installed beneath one of the tanks for future investigations
of the effectiveness of the cathodic protection.
 4. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The method developed by R. A. King 18 is to evaluate the relative cost of two or more corrosion
control options taking into account the risk of failure and repair/refurbishment of the plant or
equipment. In this case the two corrosion control options concern a crude oil storage tank and are:

a) replace bitsand beneath new tank bottom

b) install a distributed (mesh) CP system beneath the COS tank.

The basis for the assessment is calculation of the differential costs between the two options. All
common costs are ignored. Consequently the cost differential is the difference between: Option A =
Cost of the corrosion control option as additional capital expenditure (CAPEX) + operation
expenditure (OPEX) + Repair cost x % risks of failure; and Option B = Cost of the corrosion control
option as additional CAPEX + OPEX + Repair cost x % risks of failure.

For Option A, the cost of the corrosion control option is the cost of replacement of the bitsand and the
marginal cost of the current derived from the existing CP systems. The CP current from the existing
groundbed systems is inadequate to prevent all corrosion because of the high resistivity of the bitsand
layer. However this current drain to the tank represents a power cost. The repair costs are based on
the percentage area of tank floor that will need to be replaced should a failure mechanism operate.

For Option B, the cost of the corrosion control option is the cost of replacement of the contaminated
bitsand with soft sand and the cost of installation of the dedicated CP system and its running costs.
The repair costs are based on the percentage area of tank floor that will need to be replaced should a
failure mechanism occur. The failure probability is the same as for Option A but the extent of
underfloor corrosion is different because the plates are protected by the CP system.

Estimates of the costs and time requirements have been input to test out the spreadsheet, see Table 5.
It is interesting to note that Option B becomes cost attractive if the risk of failure of the internal lining
leading to extensive underfloor corrosion exceeds 1 in 4 (~25%). It is also obvious that after a second
inspection cycle the cost benefit of Option B is very large, as the capital cost of the CP system has
been amortized over the first inspection cycle. It would be expected that a dedicated CP system
would have a service life of 20 - 30 years.

The model should allow an identification of the extent of floor plate damage that can be tolerated, for
a given risk of failure, before there is a cost benefit from a dedicated CP system.

The downtime required for the repair of the tanks is also calculated in a similar manner. The delay in
arranging contracts is taken into account but only the longest delay is used as it is assumed that this
would be the controlling delay. It is generally the case that a longer outage is required for Option A
than Option B. However, this may not be significant because there may not be a cost penalty for
reduction in storage capacity.
 5. CONCLUSIONS

Cathodic protection current delivered by the deep wells do not provide the necessary protection for
the floor plates of both case studies; this is probably due to preferential current paths to piping
network, the existence of the shielding bitumen sand, long distance between the deep wells and the
floor plates and/or high resistivity soil below the foundation of the tanks.

Permanent reference cells were installed under one of the tanks; however the measured “ON”
potentials do not represent the true potential of the floor plates in contact with the bitumen sand.
Instant Off measurements will eliminate the IR drop, and future readings shall be performed using
free voltage drop criteria.

The risk based cost analysis approach concludes that the cost of the corrosion control option of
replacement of the contaminated bitsand with soft sand and the installation of the dedicated CP
system becomes cost attractive if the risk of failure of the internal lining leading to extensive
underfloor corrosion exceeds 1 in 4 (~25%).

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

Evaluate the possibility of increasing the cathodic protection levels on the floor plates of the tanks
using the existing CP systems, without affecting the associated piping and the earthing system. The
measured potentials must be corrected to eliminate the IR drop error.

Because cathodic protection may be ineffective due to bitumen sand shielding effect, evaluate other
specialized measures for corrosion protection of the underside floor plates exposed to a corrosive
environment, i.e. external coating of the floor plates and/or use of vapor phase corrosion inhibitors.

Regular inspection and maintenance of the berm/annular sealant shall be ensured to limit the ingress
of water underneath the tank floor. The actual inspection is done bi-annually and any issued remedial
repair recommendation must be implemented immediately to ensure the integrity of sealant.

Perform a complete investigation of the conditions that exist for each tank to determine the most cost
effective corrosion mitigation method. Accordingly, a taskforce was formed to evaluate and
implement an integrity management plan for all storage tanks.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors express their appreciation to Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) and Abu
Dhabi Marine Operating Company (ADMA-OPCO) for supporting this work and for permitting the
preparation and publication of this article. They are also grateful to D. Craddock and Dr. R. A. King
for their essential input to this article.
 REFERENCES

1. J.G. Davis, Cathodic protection in Refineries, Chemical Plants and Storage Terminals,
Materials Performance, Sep 1990.
2. D.H.Kroon, Tank Bottom cathodic protection with secondary containment, Paper 579, NACE
Corrosion 1991.
3. V. Brown, R.W. Stephens and R.D. Kygar, Use of MMO Anodes for Impressed Current
Cathodic protection of AGST with PE leak detection membranes, Paper 384, NACE
Corrosion 1992.
4. P. Barham, Ch. Bickford, G E. Mikish and R. W. Stephens. Improved Cathodic Protection
Current Distribution Under Large Diameter Above Ground Storage Tanks using Angle-
Drilled Deep Anode Groundbeds, Paper 383, NACE Corrosion 1992.
5. S. R. Rials and J. H. Kiefer, Evaluation of Corrosion Prevention methods for Aboveground
Storage Tank Bottoms, MP, January 1993.
6. M.B. Surkein and J. Collins, Evaluation of Cathodic Protection Systems Design for Tanks
with double bottom utilizing galvanic anodes, Paper 368, NACE Corrosion 1995.
7. M. A. Al-Arfaj, The 100mV Depolarization Criteria for Zinc Ribbon anodes on externally
coated tank bottoms, NACE, MP January 2002.
8. R.L. Garrett, The effect of different types of sand Pads on cathodic protection of AGST
bottoms, The 7th Middle East Corrosion Conference, Bahrain, 1996.
9. Saleh A. Al-Zubair, G.T. Al Nassir, A.A. Bukhamseen, Saudi Aramco Experiences with a
non-conventional ICCP anode system to protect the exterior of a Storage Tank Bottom, The
8th Middle East Corrosion Conference, Bahrain, 1998.
10. C. K. Meier and J. H. Fitzgerald, CP Monitoring, Installation, and leak Detection under
Existing Aboveground Storage Tanks, MP, October 1999.
11. K. Kendell, Tank base protection systems – a review of failure mechanism prevalent in the
Middle East, Corcon 2000, Mumbai, India.
12. F. Habiby, R. R. Imtiaz and A. H. Al-Mutairi, Reduce Underside Corrosion in Aboveground
Storage Tank, Hydrocarbon Processing, January 2003.
13. API Recommended Practice 651, Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Petroleum Storage
Tanks.
14. NACE Standard Recommended Practice RP-0193-2001, External Cathodic Protection of On-
grade Steel Storage Tank Bottoms.
15. BS 7361, Cathodic Protection, Part 1, 1991.
16. BP Oil Co Refining Practice RP14-4-2, Cathodic Protection for Tank Bottoms.
17. API Recommended Practice 653, Tank Inspection, repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction.
18. R. A. King, Notes on Risk Based Cost Analysis, Personal Communication.
 TABLE 1 - AS FOUND, AND “ON” POTENTIALS AT COS TANK 7

As Found Welding OFF

Tank Point Location (-mV SSC) (-mV SSC)
1 North 997
2 East 1112
3 South 1092
4 West 1104
R1 999 997
R2 1002 1000
COS 7 R3 PERMANENT 986 959
R4 991 990
R5 REFERENCE 995 995
R6 993 992
R7 ELECTRODES 994 995
R8 994 995
R9 994 995

TABLE 2 - DC CURRENT AT CP BONDINGS AND EARTHING SYSTEM COS 7

DC Current at DC Current at Direction of

CP bonding / Earthing CP bonding (A) Earthing Cable (A) DC current
Cathodic Protection Bondings (CPB)
CPB-1 0.8 Rectifier
CPB-2 0.0 -
CPB-3 2.2 Rectifier
CPB-4 0.0 -
Earthing Bars (EB)
Cable 1 0.0 -
EB-1 Cable 2 1.2 Tank
Cable 3
1.3 Tank
Cable 4
Cable 1 1.6 Earth well
EB-2 Cable 2 0.0 -
Cable 3 0.0 -
EB-3 Cable 1 0.7 Tank
Cable 2 0.0 0
 TABLE 3 - AS FOUND POTENTIALS AT COS TANK 11

As Found
Tank Point Location (-mV CSE)
1 North 1092
2 East 1115
3 South 1053
COS 4 West 991
11 5 North-East 1014
6 South-East 1087
7 South-West 1032
8 North-West 998

TABLE 4 - DC CURRENT AT CP BONDINGS AND EARTHING SYSTEM COS 11

DC Current at DC Current at Direction of

CP bonding / Earthing CP bonding (A) Earthing Cable (A) DC current

Cathodic Protection Bondings

CPB-1 0.0 -
CPB-2 1.0 Rectifier

Earthing Bars
EB-1 Cable 1 0.0 -
EB-2 Cable 1 0.0 -
EB-3 Cable 1 0.0 -
Cable 2 0.0 -
EB-4 Cable 1 0.6 Tank
 TABLE 5 - Risk Based Differential Cost Analysis

COST RELATED INPUTS Units TIME RELATED INPUTS Units

Storage tank diameter 80 m Time to mobilise floor plate contractor 60 days
2
Cost of steel for floor plates 500 $/tonne Time to remove corroded floor plates 1 hours/m
Thickness of floor plates installed 7 mm Time required to source bitsand 30 days
Cost of corroded floor plate removal 20 $/m2 Time required to source soft sand 10 days
2 3
Cost of steel floor plate installation 45 $/m Time required to install bitsand/soft sand 0.25 hours/m
2
Thickness of bitsand/soft sand 300 mm Time required to install floor plates 0.25 hours/m
3
Cost of bitsand 20 $/m Time required to mobilise lining contractor 30 days
Cost of soft sand 15 $/m3 Time to install internal lining 0.5 hours/m2
Cost of installation of bitsand/softsand 10 $/m2 Time required to mobilise jacking contractor 30 days `
2
Cost of internal lining (material + install.) 110 $/m2 Time to remove and install annular plates 3 hours/m
Thickness of the annular plates 12 mm Time required to source CP contractor 30 days
2
Annular plate replacement by tank jacking 500 $/m Time required to install CP system 0.1 hours/m
2
CP current drain to tank 1 mA/m
Voltage of T/R supplying CP drain current 12 V
Installation cost of mesh CP system 25 $/m2
2
CP current density for mesh system 5 mA/m
T/R voltage for mesh CP system 5V
Power costs for CP systems 0.05 $/kWhr
Inspection interval 10 years
A - Risk of failure of internal lining 33 %
Area of floor replaced - no CP system 80 % Assumes extensive underfloor corrosion subsequent to leakage
Area of floor replaced - with mesh CP 5 % Assumes only internally corroded plates require replacement
B - Risk of failure of wall seals 15 %
% length of annular plate replaced - no CP 10 % Assumes annular plates are 1m width
% length of annular plate replaced - with CP 0 %

2
Tank floor area 5027 m Tank circumference 251.3 m2
2
Annular plate area/lined wall area 248.2 m % Area of annular plates to tank floor area 4.938 %
 TABLE 5 - Risk Based Differential Cost Analysis (Cont.)

OPTION
A: replace bitsand and floor plates $'000 B: replace bitsand, floor plates, mesh CP $'000
Initial bitsand layer 80.4 Initial soft sand layer 72.88
Initial storage tank floor 464.0 Initial storage tank floor 464.0
Initial internal lining 580.2 Initial internal lining 580.2
CP system installation cost 0 Mesh CP system installation cost 125.7
Initial CAPEX for floor plates 1124.6 Initial CAPEX for floor plates 1242.7
Initial CAPEX for annular plates 164.6 Initial CAPEX for annular plates
OPEX CP drain from deep groundbeds 0.26 OPEX of mesh CP system 0.55
FAILURE A: Bitsand and floor replacement 435.5 FAILURE A: Soft sand and floor replacement 26.8
FAILURE A: Internal lining replacement 464.2 FAILURE A: Internal lining replacement 29.0
FAILURE B: Bitsand and annular replacement 13.7 FAILURE B: Bitsand and annular replacement 0.0
FAILURE B: Internal lining replacement 2.9 FAILURE B: Internal lining replacement 0.0

Risk Based Differential Cost Analysis

Option A % $,000 Option B % $,000
CAPEX for Corrosion Control --- 80.4 CAPEX for Corrosion Control --- 198.5
OPEX for CP drain from groundbeds --- 0.26 OPEX of mesh CP system --- 0.55
No failure 47.05 0.0 No failure 47.05 0.0
Internal lining failure 33 296.9 Internal lining failure 33 18.4
Wall seal failure 15 2.5 Wall seal failure 15 0.0
Combined internal lining and seal failures 4.95 45.4 Combined internal lining and seal failures 4.95 2.8
Risk Based Cost of Option A 425.43 Risk Based Cost of Option B 220.30
Double Cycle Cost of Option A 850.86 Second Cycle Cost of Option B 242.04

Tank Downtime for Refurbishment

Option A % Days Option B % Days
No failure 47.05 0 No failure 47.05 0
Internal lining failure 33 171 Internal lining failure 33 67
Wall seal failure 15 61 Wall seal failure 15 60
Combined internal lining and seal failures 4.95 46 Combined internal lining and seal failures 4.95 30
Risk Based Duration for Option A 277 Risk Based Duration for Option B 157

Note common costs are not considered. These include: tank drainage, desludging, degassing, tank inspection, routine maintenance of the CP systems, wall seal
inspection. It is assumed that contaminated bitsand is removed and replaced with clean bitsand and that all materials requirements are sourced coincidentally.