Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 33 (2015) 124e128

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Short communication

A new approach on troubleshooting of cathodic protection: A case

study
M.H. Allahyarzadeh*, N. Zendehdel, GH. R. Saberi, P. Dehghan, F. Ahdeno, J. Kavid
Technical Protection and Corrosion Engineering Department, Iranian Offshore Oil Company (IOOC), Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this paper is to suggest an effective procedure to eliminate a major deciency in impressed
Received 6 October 2014 current cathodic protection (CP). Current work describes performed activities through jetty cathodic
Received in revised form protection troubleshooting as a case study. Although CP troubleshooting is straightforward, sometimes it
30 October 2014
is very complicated and confusing. To eliminate the appeared imperfection, different procedures were
Accepted 29 November 2014
Available online 2 December 2014
carried out; the root cause of the trouble in the system was shown to be in reversed current. Here the
current which passed throughout installed junction were measured to survey reversed current. Current
work offers a new approach in CP troubleshooting.
Keywords:
Cathodic protection
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Troubleshooting
Corrosion monitoring

1. Introduction 2. Brief summary of the problem

Corrosion management has an important role in corrosion en-
gineering through different industries. According to Corrosion
Costs and Preventive Strategies in the United States, which was
supported by FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) and NACE
(National Association of Corrosion Engineers), the total cost of
corrosion was estimated about $276 billion, which is about
3.1 percent of gross national product (GNP) (Roberge, 2008). One
primary methods of corrosion control which applied extensively in
offshore oil industries for submerged metal structures is cathodic
protection. Cathodic protection has been applied in two methods:
impressed current systems (ICS) and sacricial anodes. In an
impressed current system (ICS) a direct current is applied through
water from a source outside the structure to the structure (Morgan,
1987; Uhlig and Revie, 2011). Applying the ICS for corrosion control
is not sufcient and use of monitoring is necessary to ensure its
performance (Wang et al., 2014). However, the basic fundamentals
of ICS seem to be easy and straightforward, troubleshooting of
these systems is sometimes very complicated and confusing. Pre-
sent paper investigates the troubleshooting of ICS, which has been
applied on a jetty as a case study.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: allahyarzadeh.mh@gmail.com (M.H. Allahyarzadeh).
ICS which has been applied on a jetty shown in Fig. 1, cathodi-
cally protected the submerged parts of that. This ICS was
comprising a rectier/transformer with the maximum voltage of
50 V and the maximum current of 150 A and also six leadesilver
submersed anode in order to distribute the current more uniformly
through entire of immersed structures. For more assurances
regarding to establish the CP circuit, the electrical connections
which denoted by J connect the bridges to Loading (L.D.), Berthing
(B), and Mooring (M) structures electrically. Since the minimum
cathodic potential for full protection is
800 mV with respect to
(w.r.t) Ag/AgCl/Sea-water electrode based on NACE TM0497 (NACE,
2002), monitoring of cathodic potential of the jetty structure
revealed that only the immersed Loading structures were near the
fully protected conditions; and other underwater structures,
including B1, B2, M1 and M2 were not protected and based on NACE
TM0497 they were corroding. The problem was the lack of full
protection criteria in B1, B2, M1 and M2. Table 1 represents the
potential of the jetty with respect to an Ag/AgCl/Sea-water refer-
ence electrode before troubleshooting. Fig. 2 schematically depicts
distribution of rectied current among immersed 30inch
leadesilver anodes. The history of the jetty and previous eld data
exhibited that, in the ordinary conditions, the jetty should be
protected by applying a cathodic current about 100e105 A. Hence,
rst of all, the overall cathodic current was increased up to 103 A.
However, this increase led to fully protection of underwater parts of
Loading and B1, the other structures, especially the last one (M2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.11.022
0950-4230/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.H. Allahyarzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 33 (2015) 124e128 125

Fig. 1. Schematic of side and top view of jetty including Loading, B1 (Berthing), B, M1 (Mooring), M2, and electrical joints from J1 to J16.

Table 1 2nd phase: anode replacement/addition

Jetty cathodic potentials (emV) w.r.t. Ag/AgCl/Sea-water reference electrode.

Vdc Inet
dc M2 M1 B2 B1 L.D. Based on the current distribution among immersed anodes
shown in Fig. 2, the A3 anode consumed the least current amount.
Before troubleshooting 7.5 80 704 717 722 734 762
After rst step 8.8 103 750 791 793 800 849 In this stage, the rst assumption was about the A3 anode; and it
After second step 8.4 115 736 781 812 831 861 was expected that the least current consumed here might be the
After third step 9.5 135 749 797 827 839 891 reason of the failure. Therefore, a new one replaced this anode.
Replacing this anode increased the current consumption of A3
anode from 2.5 A to 22 A. This increase in current consumption and
were not protected, and they were corroding based the existed enhancing to better current distribution over the immersed struc-
criteria. This problem was dominant, even so, the applied cathodic ture, however, did not eliminate the problem completely, but it led
current increased up to 135 A. to increase in the cathodic potential of L.D. and B1 structures. After
this step, lack of full protection in B1, B2, M1 and M2 structures was
also evident hence another new anode named (A10 ) was added next
to the rst. The new one has been subjoined to increase the current
3. Results
consumption and distribution through M2 and M1 structure. In
order to increase the cathodic current over the structures, the D.C.
ICS troubleshooting was carried out in four independent phases.
voltages of transformer/rectier were also increased to 8.8 V from
In each phase, the problem was corresponded to an assumption or a
its initial value 7.5 V; therefore, this led to increase of the rectier
specic part of cathodic protection systems (CPS). In order to
output current up to 103 A (Based on the history of structure po-
remove the failure, separately in each phase, several main solutions
tential measurements and previous data, the jetty should be fully
in different steps were conducted; however, performed activities
protected by this amount of current). Further cathodic potential
were much more than it was expected. The main phases are:
measurements were performed after complete polarization. Fig. 3
Transformer/rectier, Anode replacement/addition, External con-
and Table 1 represent the new current distribution and jetty
sumers/interference risk, and Reversal current.
cathodic potentials, respectively, after rst step.
As represented in Table 1, the potentials of M2, M1, and B2
structures were still less than the required amount for full protec-
1st phase: transformer/rectier tion (
800 mV w.r.t. an Ag/AgCl/Sea water reference electrode).
New condition, after rst step, led to decrease of the quantity of
The starting point for all troubleshooting in ICS is the rectier. current consumption in A4 anode as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore, in
Detailed surveying of the transformer/rectier has shown that it the second step, anode A4 was removed and a new leadesilver
was working properly and all the current and voltage measure- anode was also employed. The current distribution was measured
ments regarding to the rectier were in their normal state. After in new condition after devoting appropriate time for full polariza-
investigating transformer/rectier and ensuring its normal condi- tion. The new condition, after second step, leads to increasing up
tion, next phases were carried out.

Fig. 2. Schematic distribution of rectied current among immersed leadesilver anodes before troubleshooting.
126 M.H. Allahyarzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 33 (2015) 124e128
Fig. 3. Schematic distribution of rectied current among immersed leadesilver anodes after rst step.
the potentials of B1, B2, and Loading structures due to devoting
more current (Fig. 4), but it lowered the potentials of M1 and M2
structures subsequently owing to less current distribution as a
result of new arrangement.
It was expected that by increasing the overall current in the
system and compensate the current shortage in A1, A10, and A2
anodes the problem would be solved. Therefore, in the third step,
the voltage of transformer/rectier was raised up to 9.5 V, in order
to increase the consuming current of A1, A10, and A2 anodes and
consequently increasing up the potential of M1 and M2 structures.
This action, however, led to increase of the net current distribution
and consequently increase in potentials, but the problem was not
removed completely. Fig. 5 shows the current distribution among
immersed anodes after the third stage.
As denoted above, applying mentioned activities did not remove
the problem completely. After the third step, the main problem was
concentrated on the M2 structure. The voltage of transformer/
rectier has been severally increased, but no noticeable increase
was observed in M2 structure potential. A1 and A10 have been
substituted variously, but no signicant improvement was occurred
in the system. Since addition of one more anode near M2 structure
did not affect the structure potential, the complexity of the problem
became more evident.
3rd phase: external consumers/interference risk
The rst assumption, in the third phase, was the presence of an
external object around M2 on sea bed, which consumes the excess
applied current. This assumption became more evident when the
current distribution near M1 and M2 structure has been increased
in previous phase, and no signicant improvement was observed.
Therefore, diving operation was carried out, and these operations
revealed that there was no external object, and the areas were
completely clear.
Mentioned conditions made the risk of interference to be
increased. As a simple test to evaluate whether the interference
problems were present or not the voltage of transformer/rectier
has been increased one more time again. After increasing the total
Fig. 4. Schematic distribution of rectied current among immersed leadesilver anodes after second step.
applied current and stabilizing polarization phenomenon, the
cathodic potential of M2 structure was measured accurately. These
actions were repeated in a sequential manner (i.e. rectier voltage
increasing and subsequently measuring M2 structure potential).
Consecutive increase in net applied current led to small increment
in M2 cathodic potential. As a rule of thumb, the increase occurred
in cathodic potential deduced the risk of interference approxi-
mately while any decrease in cathodic potential as a result of the
current increment could demonstrate the certain presence of
interference.
4th phase: reversal current
Despite all performed procedures, the problem has not been
solved yet. Therefore, the inspection of the reversed current
through protected structures to the rectier was carried out.
However, the net current in was equal to the net current out of the
system near the transformer/rectier; a more detailed surveying
needed to investigate the reversal current thoroughly. For this
purpose, the amount of passed currents was measured through the
electrical junctions from J1 to J16 depicted in Fig. 1. Measurements
revealed that, the summation of reversed current was not equal to
the quantity of current applied for the protection of the jetty; and in
J10, J13 and J16 joints no current was crossed through (i.e. they were
nearly disconnected). This assumption that the whole of current
could not return completely back through the structures and
electrical joints became more evident, however, partial amount of
reversed current might return through the metallic structures and
welded joints of the jetty. Therefore, this assumption inspired the
authors to renovate the electrical joints from J1 to J16. After reno-
vation of the joints, the reversed currents were measured again.
The new amount of currents passed throughout J1 to J16 electrical
joints revealed that the amount of crossed currents in each joint
was noticeably increased. The measured cathodic potential of the
jetty structures demonstrated that, the problem has been
completely solved. Results exhibited that the trouble occurrence
was mainly owing to incompetency of reversal current. Fig. 6 shows
the reversed current values before and after renovation of joints.
 M.H. Allahyarzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 33 (2015) 124e128 127

Fig. 5. Schematic distribution of rectied current among immersed leadesilver anodes after third step.

Fig. 6. Schematic of reversal current throughout electrical joints: (a) before and (b) after the renovation.

Results here, clearly illustrated the importance of reversal current,
whereas this critical subject was ignored through corrosion moni-
toring and CP troubleshooting.
4. Discussion
There are many factors affecting the corrosion in the corrosive
media, such as (Brichau and Deconinck, 1994; Brichau et al., 1996):
(1) conductivity, (2) aeration and permeability, (3) acidity, (4) hu-
midity, (5) presence of sulfates and chlorides, (6) presence of bio-
logical species and (7) presence of stray currents. During the
electrochemical corrosion process, different anodic (oxidation) and
cathodic (reduction) reactions occur. The principal anodic reaction
in the corrosion of offshore structures is (Morgan, 1987; Roberge,
2008):
Fe / Fe2 2e

and the principal cathodic reaction is (Morgan, 1987; Roberge,
2008):

to recheck the reversal current in a scheduled monitoring program
O2 2H2O 4e
/ 4OH
with lower resistance to pass. This will cause corrosion of the metal
at the point where the current leaves (Piron, 1991). Since renova-
tion of junction points brings proper paths for current; the problem
has been completely eliminated by removing incompetency in
reversal current.
The fact of reversed current and its monitoring through the
system, however, is forgotten sometimes, it is a common rule for
inspectors to measure the current-out and the current-in the sys-
tem only near the transformer/rectier. In the mentioned system,
even though, the net current in the system was equal to the net
current out; it was possible that parts of current did not return from
the metallic structure, and might return through the corroding
media (i.e. here sea water). And this phenomenon led to corrosion
of structures at where the current left. Monitoring of reversal cur-
rent through the system (point by point) and controlling of the
metallic path to return the reversal current through, is the unre-
garded key point in the CP monitoring schedule.
(1) Results here clearly illustrated the importance of reversal cur-
rent, whereas this critical subject was ignored through corrosion
monitoring and CP troubleshooting. It seems that, cathodic po-
tential measurement individually is not enough, and it is necessary
(2) to prevent such failures (Table 2).

If an external current (cathodic current) were to be impressed

on the corroding structure, the reactions will be shifted by an
amount depending on the direction and magnitude of the current
(Roberge, 2008) (i.e. polarization). When the structure is placed
under the control of a suitable CP, the anodic reactions are trans-
Table 2
ferred from the structure to the impressed current anodes. The
Jetty cathodic potentials w.r.t. Ag/AgCl/Sea-water reference electrode after renova-
current ow is reversed by this electrochemical phenomenon and tion of electrical junctions.
the structure surface becomes the cathode upon which reaction (2)
Test M2 M1 B2 B1 Loading
occurs. It is necessary that current to be reversed properly through
points structure structure structure structure structure
the CP system. When a barrier is placed in current ow path (i.e.
resistance increase in junction box) the current could not pass C.P. 996 1012 969 971 997
(emV)
easily throughout its circuit; hence it will nd an easier direction
128 M.H. Allahyarzadeh et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 33 (2015) 124e128
5. Conclusion
CP troubleshooting is very easy and straightforward; however,
sometimes it will be extremely confusing and complicated. One of
the important subjects in cathodic protection is the quantity of
reversal current. Here, welded joints could not completely return
the applied current. Results exhibited that the trouble occurrence
was mainly owing to incompetency of reversal current. The failure
was completely removed by renovation of electrical junctions.
Monitoring of reversal current through the system (point by point)
and controlling of the metallic path to return the reversal current
through, is the unregarded key point in the CP monitoring
schedule. Hence measuring the cathodic potentials of protected
structures is not sufcient and monitoring of reversal current
through these electrical joints as a scheduled monitoring program
is essential to prevent of such failures in CPS.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully thank the National Iranian Oil Company
(NIOC) and research and development department at Iranian
Offshore Oil Company (IOOC) for their financial supports. The rst
author specially would like to appreciate Mr. Mortza Hoseinieh and
Mr. Saeed Hatami for their sincere cooperation.
References
Brichau, F., Deconinck, J., 1994. A numerical model for cathodic protection of buried
pipes. Corrosion 50, 39e49.
Brichau, F., Deconinck, J., Driesens, T., 1996. Modeling of underground cathodic
protection stray currents. Corrosion 52, 480e488.
Morgan, J., 1987. Cathodic Protection, second ed. NACE, Houston.
NACE, T., 2002. TM 0497e2002. Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for
Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems.
Piron, D.L., 1991. The Electrochemistry of Corrosion. Houston Univ., Houston.
Roberge, P.R., 2008. Corrosion Engineering: Principles and Practice. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Uhlig, H.H., Revie, R.W., 2011. Uhlig's Corrosion Handbook, vol. 51. John Wiley &
Sons.
Wang, W., Wang, Q., Wang, C., Yi, J., 2014. Experimental studies of crevice corrosion
for buried pipeline with disbonded coatings under cathodic protection. J. Loss
Prev. Process Ind. 29, 163e169.