You are on page 1of 18

Fusion-Bonded Epoxy (FBE) and Dual-Layer FBE Materials Provide Enhanced Performance for Pipeline Installation

By: J. Alan Kehr, Martin Rau, and Emran Siddiqui; 3M Company

SUMMARY Fusion Bonded Epoxy (FBE) and 3 Layer Polyolefin (3LPO) are the most commonly used pipeline coatings in the world. Over the last few years, dual Layer FBE (DLFBE) coatings have seen more use because of combining properties of a coating that is non-shielding to cathodic protection and the low-cost economics of FBE with damage resistance approaching that of 3 Layer Polypropylene (3LPP) and 3 Layer Polyethylene (3LPE). FBE BASED COATING SYSTEMS FBE Single Layer. Since first introduced in 1960, single-layer FBE has proven its capability as a pipeline coating and is now the most commonly used pipeline coating in North America. It not only has the performance characteristics important to the application and construction processes, but also has proven performance in underground and undersea service over a long period of time. It has proven effective for line pipe, girthwelds, fittings, and bends. When used at a greater thickness, it has worked effectively with weight concrete and directionalbore installations. FBE Two Layer. Utilizing two layers of FBE provides great versatility in coatings for pipeline protection. Two-layer FBE systems utilize the application of a second FBE on top of the base FBE corrosion coating. The top layer typically, but not necessarily, is deposited during the melt (pre-gelation) stage of the primary layer. The result is an intimate chemical bond between the two layers. A significant advantage of multilayer technology is that unique characteristics can be developed by selection of different coating layers with specific properties. Each layer can be designed to impart specific characteristics that combine to produce performance results that significantly exceed those of a single-layer coating. The first layer has the properties of a standalone FBE coating, providing excellent adhesion and resistance to cathodic disbondment. The top layer provides mechanical damage resistance from impact or gouging during handling, transportation, and construction. The combination provides the contractor faster, worry-free installation and the pipeline owner with improved underground coating performance. This system has been used successfully with impingement and compression-wrapped weight concrete applications. The pipeline construction services industry has created girthweld coating application systems that can apply dual-layer FBE in the field so that the entire pipeline has the same coating.

Three-layer FBE primed polyolefin coatings. Introduced in the late 1970s, 3-layer polyolefin coatings were put into practice around 1980. This coating system is based on earlier pipeline coatings and combines FBE and polyolefin materials to offer customized systems designed to fulfil environment requirements. This system is an effective solution in situations where extraordinary coating

Pipeline Coatings - Usage History


3-Layer PE/PP

Coating Material

FBE - Dual Layer

FBE

1960

1970

1980 Year

1990

2000

damage is highly probable Figure 1. A truncated history of pipeline coatings. or elevated temperature service is likely. The three types of FBE based coating systems have a relatively long history as seen in Figure 1. MECHANISM OF CORROSION One general definition of corrosion is the degradation of a material through environmental interaction. As extracted from its ores (metal oxides: Hematite Fe2O3, Bauxite Al2O3H2O), a significant amount of energy is put into metal placing it in a high energy state. In accordance to one of the principles of thermodynamics, materials will always seek the lowest energy state. In case of metals they tend to lose their energy by reverting to compounds more or less similar to their original states, which in most cases is an oxide or some other compound. This process by which metals convert to the lower energy oxides is called corrosion. Corrosion occurs for most common engineering materials at ambient temperatures in water-containing environments. The aqueous environment and its electrochemical nature are also referred to as the electrolyte and, in case of underground pipelines, is the moist soil. The corrosion reaction chemistry is electrochemical in nature. When metal atoms are exposed to an environment containing water molecules, they can give up electrons (oxidation) becoming themselves positively charged ions provided that an electrical circuit can be completed. The oxidation is called the anodic reaction. The consumption of those electrons by the reduction reaction of oxygen or water is commonly called the cathodic reaction. The oxidation reaction causes the actual metal loss, but the reduction reaction must be present to consume the electrons liberated by the oxidation, maintaining charge neutrality. Otherwise, a large negative charge would rapidly develop between metal and electrolyte and the corrosion process would cease. CORROSION PREVENTION The principal methods for corrosion prevention on underground pipelines are coatings and cathodic protection. 2

Coatings are intended to form a continuous film of an electrical insulating material over the metallic surface to be protected. The function of such a coating is to isolate the metal from direct contact with the electrolyte, interposing a high electrical resistance so that electrochemical reactions cannot occur. FBE systems are effective in the prevention of underfilm corrosion due to their excellent barrier properties including low oxygen permeability. Oxygen permeability of FBE is less than one-fifth that of polyethylene. However, FBE coatings have a higher moisture permeability rate than PE coatings. Cathodic Protection (CP) is a technique to reduce the corrosion rate of a metal surface by making it the cathode of an electrochemical cell. This is realized by shifting the potential of the metal in the negative direction by use of an external power source. For CP to work, current must be discharged from an earth connection called a ground bed. In the process of discharging the current in a sacrificial system, the anodes in the ground bed are consumed by corrosion. COATINGS Single Layer FBE. Since a New Mexico company coated the first FBE pipeline in 1960, this technology is now the number one pipeline-coating in North America. It is used on pipes, bends, girthwelds, and fittings. It is also used in the oil, gas, and water markets. It has been installed in the ocean, the arctic, in the mountains and in the plains. 1 Figure 2 shows the improvement in cathodic disbondment resistance of FBE pipecoatings in the last fifty years.

FBE Cathodic-DisbondmentResistance Improves with Chemistry


90 days, 23 C, 3% ASTM G 8 electrolyte, -1.5 V 35 Cathodic Disbondment - mmr 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1965 1980 Year 1995
o

Figure 2. There have been significant improvements in FBE coating technology in the nearly fifty years in the market. 3

Long years of experience demonstrate the following benefits for single layer FBE: 1. Excellent adhesion to steel; good chemical resistance 2. Non-shielding to CP if it fails, it fails friendly 3. No reported cases of stress-corrosion cracking (SCC) of pipe coated with FBE 4. Resistant to biological, insect, termite, and root attack 5. Installation friendly Excellent penetration resistance, good abrasion and gouge resistance Good impact resistance o Impact damage is limited to the point of contact o Damage is easily seen o Damage is easily repaired Good flexibility Dual Layer FBE. The first dual-layer FBE (DLFBE), introduced in 1992, was for highoperating temperature pipelines. That was followed in 1998 by the first abrasion resistant outer (ARO) coating for directional drill pipeline installation. DLFBE, see Figure 3 maintains the excellent performance and installation characteristics of single-layer FBE, but provides even better damage resistance, with a slight reduction in flexibility. The dual-layer system provides many of the advantages of three-layer systems see Table 1. The ARO system utilizes a high performance FBE as a base layer with a top coat of a mechanically hard FBE, which ensures a tough outer layer resistant to gouge, impact, abrasion and penetration. Todays dual FBE system is sometimes used for the entire pipe line length (Kern River project, 1150 km of 30 and 42 inch pipe at a nominal thickness of 500 microns; Koyali-Ratlam pipeline Project in India, 262 km).

Figure 3. Dual Layer FBE system The relative cost between single-layer FBE, dual layer FBE, and three-layer polyolefin coating systems depend on many variables, such as: commodity (solid epoxy, PE) costs that affect coating materials, applicator plant productivity, and coating thickness specifications. Those costs will also vary from region to region and applicator to applicator. Pipe diameter and wall thickness can play a role because most specifications call for increased polyolefin thickness as pipe diameter goes up see Figure 4.

Table 1. Comparison of dual-layer FBE with 3-layer PE. DFBE COATING CP Current Requirements are low Coating is hard and slippery Temp Resistance:110C Easy Detection of holidays Easy Repair Attention required for handling Flexible Dunnage, separators, strapping Protection from weld spatter Foam pads, sand bags, padding 2 inch Diameter OK (Backfill) 3LPE COATING Low PE is soft but slippery 70C typical Difficult Complex Handling is relatively easy Flexible Moderate needs Moderate needs Not required 2 inch Diameter OK (Backfill)

Cost Advantages of DFBE Coating over 3LPE Coating Lower raw material cost-saving of about 21% in raw material cost alone (depends on pipe diameter and specification) Lower application cost (Extruders not required) Less storage space and inventory carrying cost for raw materials Energy and time saving in cut back operation Lower transportation cost Easy repair of holidays at plant and site Higher application line speed and M ate rial Cost Savings productivity D F B E v s . 3 - LP E In the Indian market, storage of raw materials can be a significant cost because the polyolefin is frequently imported and a large holding area is required. FBE materials are locally manufactured with a short lead time for supply of materials. Performance benefits Very strong chemical interlayer bonding between epoxy layers Very high gouge resistance Top layer can be chosen for anti-slip properties
40%
Pipe OD - mm 273.1 mm >273.1 - < 508 mm 508 - < 813 mm >813 mm Pipe OD - mm All

35%

Percent Savings with DFBE

30%

25%

3-Layer Thick mm 1.625 1.825 2.125 2.625 DFBE Thick mm 0.625

Thickness Source: EIL/Bharat Spec 6581-00-16 1 SP 41 R 0

20%

15 %

10 %

5%

0% 300 500 700 900 110 0

Pipe Diam ete r - m m

Figure 4. Material costs of DLFBE and 3-layer coatings depend on pipe diameter. This is an example from India showing that the larger PE thickness required for larger diameter pipe significantly affects cost.

Easy joint coating with liquid epoxy or high performance dual-layer FBE coating. Improved adhesion in hot-water soak adhesion test at temperatures over 95C.

Reference projects Kern River Pipeline, USA (36, 42 x 1400 km)-Operational since 2001 West to East Pipeline, China (40 x 400 km) West Seno Gas Pipeline, Indonesia (12x 180 km) Bud Pipeline, Brazil (36x 300 km) Koyali Ratlam Pipeline, India (16x 262 km) Shanghai Pipeline, China (32x 300 km) Cameron Highway, USA (24x 166 km) ATF Pipeline, India(8x 96 km) MDPL Augmentation, India(22x 20 km) Panipat Jalandhar Pipeline, India (10x 250 km) Three Layer Three-layer polyolefin coatings were introduced about 1980 in Europe. They consist of: FBE primary coating Polyolefin-adhesive (or tie) layer Polyolefin topcoat In some case, more layers are added to provide thermal insulation, a weight coating, or a frictional coating. The three layers combine the low oxygen permeability of FBE with lowwater permeability of polyolefins. The thick layer of relatively damage resistant polyolefin provides the coating properties friendly to installation under harsh or inexpert conditions. There is a trade off between extra cost for the three layer system and potential savings from such things as reduced use of graded or imported backfill. Other things to consider are the concern about cathodic shielding and performance of available girthweld coatings compatible with three-layer polyolefin coating systems. PERFORMANCE OF SINGLE AND DUAL LAYER FBE SYSTEMS Fusion-bonded epoxy is a one-part, thermosetting-epoxy resin powder that utilizes heat to melt, crosslink, and adhere to a metal substrate.2 It provides a coating with excellent adhesion, and a tough, smooth finish resistant to abrasion, chemical degradation, and soil-stress damage. It is a 100% solids system with no solvents. 3 This combination of properties particularly the ease of use and physical and chemical durability make FBE an ideal choice as a protective coating under a wide variety of environmental conditions.4 As a summary there are a number of properties that make FBE coating materials useful as pipe coatings: Excellent adhesion to steel. Good chemical resistance. Resistance to biological attack Non-shielding works with cathodic protection (CP) Cathodic Disbondment Resistance Flexibility Impact resistance. Gouge resistance Penetration resistance 6

Abrasion resistance High friction surface (Anti-Slip) available High Temperature performance coatings available

Adhesion to Steel Adhesion is an important property for all coatings. Three tests commonly used to measure adhesion are overlap shear, pull-off and X-cut. Overlap shear test. Test results indicate the shear strength of the coating. The failure mode is normally cohesive. The coating is ripped apart leaving it adhered to the metal. Since the coating is still adhered to the test plates, the adhesion is, in reality, greater than the measured value. See Figure 5 for photos of the overlap shear test.

Figure 5. Overlap shear test results are normally cohesive, e.g., the adhesion strength is grater than the cohesive strength of the epoxy.

Figure 6. The pull-off test provides useful information on coatings that have seen environmental exposure e.g. hot-water immersion. Pull-off test. This test method can be used to compare one coating to another as a measure of relative adhesion-retention capability. The test is conducted by attaching a dolly to the coating. The most common procedure uses a liquid epoxy to glue the dolly to the cured coating. In this case, failure is normally within the glue or at one of its interfaces. In case coating adhesion is reduced by hot water immersion, it may be possible to obtain a value for adhesion. This test is not effective on newly-coated FBE. See Figure 6 for photos of the pulloff adhesion test. 7

X-cut adhesion test. A knife or sharp razor blade is used to cut an X in the coating to the substrate at an approximate 30 angle see Figure 7. A knifepoint is used to flick the coating at the point of intersection. Normally, the coating cuts and breaks cohesively, but does not peel as a result of the flicking action, leaving coating attached to the substrate. Moderate adhesion results in small chips removed from the steel surface. Poor adhesion results in removal of large intact pieces of the coating. Test results have to be carefully evaluated as they can give erroneous results if the coating has softened or has porosity.

Figure 7. Outside the laboratory, the most common way to test coating adhesion is the X test. Chemical Resistance Epoxies are well recognized for having good chemical resistance. There are differences depending on the formulation, e.g., acid-anhydride-cured coatings generally have better acid resistance than amine-cured systems and less resistance to bases.5 However, amine-cured FBE still has excellent resistance to both acids and bases. A rule of thumb for FBE pipeline coatings is that if the pH is measurable with paper, i.e., pH of 2 to 13, the coating will perform well in the environment. Generally, hydrocarbon spills do not attack FBE pipeline coatings.6, 7 Soil chemicals do not typically attack an FBE coating. Some chemicals may affect the cathodic-disbondment reaction and accelerate or slow the loss of adhesion around a holiday, but do not attack the coating itself. If there is a holiday and insufficient or no cathodic protection, a corrosive agent such as acid will attack the exposed metal and corrosion can undermine the coating. If there are no holidays, a coating performs better in salt water than in fresh water. Fresh or deionized water has a higher osmotic gradient and, if contaminants are present under the coating, causes blistering faster than salt water. FBE coatings are resistant to damage by solvents. Some, such as alcohols, can soften an FBE and cause it to swell, increasing susceptibility to damage. Oxidizing agents can also attack the coating, resulting in thickness loss. Pipelines through landfills, chemical dumps, or around chemical plants may be susceptible to chemical attack. Higher temperatures normally accelerate any chemical reaction. Checking with the coating manufacturer provides guidance for concerns about exposure to solvents, oxidizing agents, or chemical dumps.8

Resistance to Biological Attack A World War II study demonstrated that to avoid fungal or bacteria attack, the coating should be formulated with materials that cannot be used by biological organisms for food.9 A 1969 study of over twenty epoxy coatings, including two early FBE pipe coatings, showed them to be funginert according to Method 508 of Specification MIL-STD-810B.10, 11 Termite resistance of FBE coatings was demonstrated in a 1975 Australian study. After exposure, following the procedure of Gay, Greaves, Holdaway, and Wetherly, to 84 days in colonies of Coptotermes acinaciformis and Mastotermes darwiniensis, the two FBE pipe coatings were undamaged.12 The visual assessments followed those by Gay and Wetherly.13, 14 Even under a microscope no surface nibbles were seen on the FBE. In contrast, samples of vinyl and PE tape, heat-shrink sleeves, extruded PE, and coal tar all suffered damage from Coptotermes acinaciformis. All but the shrink sleeve and one of the extruded PE coatings were attacked by Mastotermes darwiniensis. Non-Shielding An electrical shield can be defined as a barrier of any nature that will prevent or divert from a pipeline the flow of CP current. This electrical shielding may result from a non-metallic insulating barrier or from the diversion of the current to another metallic structure in the electrical path between the ground bed and the pipeline to be protected.

Current Requirements vs. Coating Type Log Scale - Canadian Experience Current - microA/m2
1000 Years 0 15 10

100

1 FBE PE CTE AE

Coating Type
Figure 8. Current requirement measurements by a major Canadian gas company showed a significant difference among pipecoatings in their system. FBE = Fusion Bonded Epoxy single layer, PE = two-layer PE utilizing a rubberized asphalt adhesive, CTE = coal-tar enamel, and AE = asphalt enamel. If the barrier is an insulating material sufficiently porous to absorb moisture and become conductive, enough current may pass to ensure a CP of the pipe. Such a barrier will not then act as a shield.

Moisture from the environment can cause a reduction in the volume resistivity of an FBE coating from approximately 1015 ohm cm to 1013 ohm cm. As such, the conductivity is low enough to allow some current to pass through, but is still high enough to keep the current requirement very low.. As a result, it is possible to protect the entire steel surface, even in local areas where poor substrate cleaning has resulted in some adhesion loss. However, due to the low oxygen concentration at the metal surface, the CP current required for protection is kept small, even though the entire steel surface is protected. In contrast to FBE coatings, two-layer, three-layer, and tape polyethylene or polypropylene coating systems are much less conductive. As a result, these coatings may completely block (or shield) cathodic protection. In other words, cathodic protection current can not be thrown through the coating. As a result, if there is coating disbondment from the steel surface due to impact or gouge damage, mechanical blockage, or contamination, it will be difficult or, in many cases, impossible to provide CP current to the affected area. Thus, corrosion will occur at these sites once water and oxygen get into those areas, even though a CP system is used on the pipeline. 15 Cathodic Disbondment Resistance As a QC test, cathodic disbondment is an important measure of coating adhesion to the steel surface. Reduced disbondment also means reduced current requirements over the life time of the pipeline. Not all FBE coatings perform equally well. See Figure 9 for examples of cathodic-disbondment resistance of several commercially available FBE coatings.
Different FBE Systems Provide Varying CD Resistance
28 Day, 65o C, -1.5 volt, 3% NaCl 14
CD Disbondment - mmr

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 A B C D E F G
FBE Coating System

Figure 9. Cathodic Disbondment. CD resistance varies significantly among commercial available coatings. Ensuring a clean, non-contaminated steel surface is the key condition to have good adhesion of any coating, including FBE. Contaminants come from many sources: plate from the mill, pipe manufacturing process, transportation, handling etc. Although the blast cleaning process removes a large amount of contaminants, it is often insufficient for optimum performance. A phosphoric acid wash is an effective method for 10

removing residual contaminants. If properly done, this can be considered as an insurance policy that protects against unknown, unexpected or not observed contamination. Good performance of all coatings is a function of proper pipe surface conditioning and preparation. No matter what coating system is in use, if the surface has proper profile and peak, the cleaner the pipe surface, the better the coating performance is.
Flexibility

Most pipelines require bending to meet the contours of the landscape or the installation process 16, 17 see Figure 10. For sharp bends, the pipe is bent first and then coated.

Figure 10. Laboratory tests (A) are able to demonstrate bendability comparable to field experience and are useful for comparing coatings. Photo (B) shows a field bend in process. Photo (C) illustrates the use of a reel barge for offshore pipe installation. Reelbarge installation requires greater coating flexibility because of smaller radius bends. Flexibility requirements are greatest for pipe at the reel core and diminish with succeeding layers of pipe. The coating must be designed to meet the core bending requirements. Photograph (D) shows pipe bent to fit the contours of the land. Impact Resistance Any organic material caught between a rock and a hard place, e.g., steel, is going to suffer. The range of impact force during pipe handling and installation varies greatly depending on handling techniques, accidents, and procedures. Improved impact resistance means less damage. FBE coatings have several valuable characteristics when it comes to impact damage: Good impact resistance Impact damage is limited to the contact point Damage is easily seen Damage is easily repaired

For some coating systems, damage extends beyond the impact zone. For FBE coatings, the damage is normally limited to the point of collision. Unlike some coatings that disbond without complete penetration, the damage for FBE coatings is easily seen. Two-part liquid coatings or hot-melt patchsticks make the repair easy. When total damage and cost of repair are taken into account, FBE may provide the best economic answer. 11

Figure 11. A substrate with give absorbs much of the impact force and protects the coating from damage. Lowering the test temperature increases the rigidity of the coating and makes it more susceptible to impact damage.

FBE vs. Dual Coat


9 mm plate, 23 C, 16 mm tup 12 10
o

Impact - J

8 6 4 2 0 FBE - 375 Dual - 375

Coating - at 375 microns

Figure 12. Dual-coat technology can provide significant performance improvement. In designing Dual layer FBE systems for high impact resistance, both the design of the base coat and topcoat are important. Evaluating impact test data is complicated by that drastically change the reported results, substrate. The force of the impact is borne by 12 the fact that there are several test variables see Figure 11. The most important one is the both the coating and the substrate. If the

substrate is thin enough to deform, it absorbs much of the force and allows the coating to survive intact. There are several ways to improve impact resistance utilizing dual-layer FBE systems. In designing dual coat systems for high impact resistance, both the design of the basecoat and the topcoat are important. Dual-coat technology can provide significant performance improvement without a major economic penalty. See Figure 12, a dual coating system at the same thickness of a stand-alone FBE provides significantly improved impact resistance. A properly formulated dual-layer FBE system can show improved impact resistance compared to the same thickness of a stand-alone FBE pipe coating. Gouge Resistance Gouge resistance is important for coatings used for directional-bore pipeline installation. Dual-layer FBE systems can have improved damage resistance see Figure 13. The basecoat is designed as a corrosion coating with good adhesion; the topcoat, in this case, provides damage and gouge resistance. An abrasion-resistant dual-layer FBE system makes a good choice for pipe installed via directional boring, utilizing rough construction practices, or installation in rugged terrain. These hard coatings are employed to resist gouging, cutting, and penetration from sharp backfill. Although flexibility is slightly reduced, specific formulations enable the coating to remain undamaged even when bent to a radius more severe than that permitted for the underlying steel.

FBE: Directional Bore


TISI Test: R33 Carbide Bit/50 kg Load
1.20 1.00
Gouge - mm

0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Dual A Dual B FBE

Coating

Epoxy Concrete

Dual C

PE

Figure 11. Gouge resistance is particularly important for coatings used for directionalbore pipeline installation. Laboratory gouge tests have been developed to compare resistance to abrasion damage.

13

Penetration Resistance A major problem with early thermoplastic coatings was cold flow during storage. The weight of the pipe and hot days caused the coating material or adhesive to deform or split. A penetration or indentation test is designed to measure the resistance to flowing at expected storage or operating temperatures. FBE coatings are thermosetting and have high-compression strength. Pipe with FBE coating can be stacked as high as safety allows see Figure 14. Penetration resistance is also important after installation where the weight of the pipe rests on small stones or other hard objects in the ditch fill material. It also allows for more efficient pipe laying methods such as the use of a roller cradle.

Figure 12. FBE coatings resist damage due to indentation or deformation.

14

Figure 13. While FBE coatings resist damage from impact and abrasion, specialized equipment is available to remove large rocks from the ditch-excavation spoils and apply the sized materials directly into the ditch. Photo courtesy of Ozzies Directional. Abrasion Resistance Abrasion resistance is a factor in many performance situations see Figure 13 for a backfill example. During transportation, cinders and grit can get between pieces of pipe. For that reason, there should be separators to prevent intimate contact between pipe joints. Normal handling often includes accidental dragging along a hard surface, such as wood supports. Abrasion also takes place during directional drill installation and back filling. In summary, FBE and DLFBE coating systems provide a balance of properties suitable for most pipeline installations. FBE/DLFBE COATINGS AND CATHODIC PROTECTION IN THE FIELD Earlier discussions in this paper have been theoretical and based on laboratory tests. This section will provide actual examples of observations and measurements on pipelines and is in the form of case histories. Case History 1 Large Diameter Pipeline in Western US The project includes two parallel pipelines 36" in diameter by about 1100 km in length. 18 The first pipeline was coated and installed in the early 90s with single layer FBE. The second line was installed in about 2003 and coated with dual layer FBE with a nominal thickness of 22 mils (550 microns) of dual layer FBE. The current requirements of the original pipeline were so low that they did not add additional CP equipment beyond connecting the two pipelines. They did upgrade the CP systems for the compressor stations.

15

The pipelines are interlinked with six compressor stations. Even though they have their own CP systems, some of the current from the pipelines also feeds the compressor stations and current readings are higher because of that. There is bare copper at each station and the last ground bed also must protect zinc ribbon used to dissipate current from an overhead line. The actual current required to protect the FBE coated lines is less. The total current required to protect the 2189 km of 36 pipe was 136 amps for an average of 21.7 microamps per square meter. Average distance between groundbeds to protect the dual lines was 57.56 km. Please see Figure 14 for current required for each groundbed as measured on April 11, 2008. at that time, one of the lines was 16 years in the ground and the other five years. Also see Table 2 for

Current Requirement vs. Ground Bed Number


20 Amperage 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 Ground Bed Number 15 20

a summary of the pertinent pipeline statistics. Figure 14. Current requirements on each groundbed as measured on April 11, 2008 on 1100 km parallel pipeline, one coated with FBE and the other with DLFBE. Table 2 Details on the Case History 1 pipeline.
Total Pipeline length 2 Micro amps/m Average distance between groundbeds 2189 km 21.7 57.6 km

Case History 2 Two FBE Coated Projects in Eastern US Project 1 = 11 miles of 24" OD pipe in the Northeastern US Project 2 = 9.5 miles of 20" OD pipe in the Northeastern US Project supervision reported that the coated pipe handles and transports with little damage as long as contractors handle adequately. 19 No feedback from contractors on either project. No information was gathered on current density except at directional drilled sites. This was FBE with an abrasion resistant overlay. Current density on the horizontal directional drill (HDD) lines was measured from around 0.5 to 16 microamps/meter squared/100 mV. The key finding in this case history was that even after directional drill installation, the current requirements ranged from only 0.5 to 16 A/m2. Case History 3 FBE Coated Line in US This project was a 133 km single layer FBE line. A single impressed current ground bed at mile 61 protects the entire line. There were no compressor stations in this section. The six 16

year old pipeline required 11 A/m2 to achieve protection. 20 See Table 3 for the project CP summary. Table 3. Pertinent details of Case History 3.
Total Pipeline length 2 Micro amps/m Location of groundbed Date of Installation 133 km 11.0 Mile 61 2002

In summary, many of the existing standards for cathodic protection current requirements and projections for the requirements over the life of the pipeline are written by people with little or no experience with FBE coated pipelines. For that reason, they include a very conservative estimate of installation current requirements and high breakdown factors that do not fit actual experience. CONCLUSIONS FBE systems have a long track record as effective pipeline coatings. FBE systems provide pipeline owners also with an economically attractive, damage-resistant, and non-shielding coating system that can be used from one end of the pipeline to the other. Another factor is application plant productivity. This is very plant specific, but frequently throughput for DLFBE is 10% to 15% or even higher compared to 3-layer polyolefin application. FBE coating materials are locally manufactured and do not require the long lead times and storage facilities needed for imported polyolefin materials. A factor that makes FBE systems effective in the prevention of underfilm corrosion is their excellent adhesion to steel, high physical performance, low oxygen permeability and the capability not to shield CP current. It has been well documented that the weakest regions for corrosion protection on a pipeline are the weld area and field joints. In such areas, it is considerably more likely that the rate of water and oxygen ingress will be high. In addition, the water, oxygen, and other aggressive species are able to travel freely along the weld seam if poor surface cleaning was done, or an overlapping weld cap is present. Cathodic shielding can allow corrosion in these areas. FBE coated pipelines can utilize easily applied FBE coatings or two-part coating systems that provide excellent performance and do not shield the steel from cathodic protection. As a technology, FBE pipeline coatings continue to be important. Its success as a corrosion mitigation system due to excellent chemical resistance, physical properties, ease of use, and competitive pricing has lead to steadily increasing market share. FBE coatings consistently meet the demands placed in a wide variety of industrial environmental applications. FBE coatings have a successful track record for protecting pipelines around the globe from the highly aggressive environment of the Middle East region, to the extreme conditions in the arctic, to swamps, to mountains and to the ocean depths.
1 A. Kehr, M. Mallozzi, Fast, worry free pipeline installation with dual-layer FBE Coatings, ACA Corrosion Control 007, November 25-28, 2007, Sydney. 2 D. G. Enos, J. A. Kehr, C. R. Guilbert, A High-Performance, Damage-Tolerant, Fusion-Bonded Epoxy. 3 H. Lee, K. Neville, Handbook of Epoxy Resins, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967). 4 J. Alan Kehr, A Foundation of Pipeline Corrosion Protection. (Houston, NACE, 2003). 5 J. Banach, FBE: An End-Users Perspective, NACE TechEdge Program, Houston , Using Fusion Bonded Powder Coating in the Pipeline Industry, June 1997.

17

C. G. Munger, Louis D. Vincent, Corrosion Prevention by Protective Coatings, 2nd ed., (Houston, TX: NACE, 1999), p. 50. 7 D. G. Temple, K. E. W. Coulson, Pipeline Coatings, Is It Really a Cover-up Story? Part 2, Paper 356, Corrosion 84, (Houston, TX: NACE, 1984), p.1. 8 J. A. Kehr, D. G. Enos, FBE, a Foundation for Pipeline Corrosion Coatings, Corrosion/00, paper no. 00757, (Houston, TX: NACE, 2000) 9 C. G. Munger, Louis D. Vincent, Corrosion Prevention by Protective Coatings, 2nd ed., (Houston, TX: NACE, 1999), p. 53. 10 Enviroline Laboratories, Letter of Certification, Minneapolis, MN, February 17, 1969. 11 MIL-STD-810F(1), Insulating Compound, Electrical, Embedding, Epoxy, November 1, 2000, (Philadelphia, PA: Document Automation and Production Service (DAPS), 2000). 12 Bulletin No. 277, (Melbourne, Victoria: CSIRO, 1955), pp. 1 60. 13 J. A. L. Watson, R. A. Barrett, Report of Laboratory Tests to Determine the Termite Resistance of Protective Plastic Coatings, Tapes, and Resins for Steel Pipe, July 1975. 14 Technical Paper No. 10, (Melbourne, Victoria: CSIRO, 1969), pp. 1 49. 15 A. W. Peabody, Peabodys Control of Pipeline Corrosion. 16 ASME B31.8, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, 1995, p 36. 17 ASME B31.4, Pipeline Transportation Systems for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids, 1998. 18 B. Schow, telephone interview, April 11, 2008. 19 Anonymous, data provider asked not to be identified, email, January 20, 2009. 20 T. Fore, Kinder Morgan, telephone interview April 10, 2008.

18

You might also like