L51800 PDF

Catalog No.
L51800
Cathodic Protection Considerations for

Pipelines with AC Mitigation Facilities
Contract PR-262-9809
Prepared for the

Pipeline Corrosion Supervisory Committee
Pipeline Research Committee
of
Pipeline Research Council International, Inc.
Prepared by the following Research Agencies:

CORRENG Consulting Service, Inc.
Authors:
R.A. Gummow
Publication Date:
January 1999
“This report is furnished to Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. (PRCI) under
the terms of PRCI PR-262-9809, between PRCI and CORRENG Consulting Service Inc.
The contents of this report are published as received from CORRENG Consulting
Service Inc.. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in the report are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of PRCI, its member companies, or their
representatives. Publication and dissemination of this report by PRCI should not be
considered an endorsement by PRCI or CORRENG Consulting Service Inc., or the
accuracy or validity of any opinions, findings, or conclusions expressed herein.
In publishing this report, PRCI makes no warranty or representation, expressed or

implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, usefulness, or fitness for purpose of
the information contained herein, or that the use of any information, method, process, or
apparatus disclosed in this report may not infringe on privately owned rights. PRCI
assumes no liability with respect to the use of , or for damages resulting from the use of,
any information, method, process, or apparatus disclosed in this report.
The text of this publication, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced or transmitted in
any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
storage in an information retrieval system, or otherwise, without the prior, written
approval of PRCI.”
Pipeline Research Council International Catalog No. L51800

Price: $495
Copyright, 1998
All Rights Reserved by Pipeline Research Council International, Inc.
PRCI Reports are Published by Technical Toolboxes, Inc.
3801 Kirby Drive, Suite 340

Houston, Texas 77098
Tel: 713-630-0505
Fax: 713-630-0560
Email: info@ttoolboxes.com
PRCI Contract PR-262-9809
Final Report - January 1999
Pipeline Research Council lntemational, Inc.

Executive Board
P.M. SØrensen, Dansk Olie og Naturgas A/S (Chairman)

L. Bone III, ARCO Exploration and Production Technology
N.R. Cam, AGL Pipelines Limited
R.B. Dun, Transmissions Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd.
P.J. Dusek, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America
J.R. Ellwood, Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd.
G. Good, Transportadora de Gas deI Norte
E,. HerlØe, Statoil
D.L. Johnson, Enron Corp.
W.A. Johnson II, El Paso Energy Corporation
G.E.H. Joosten, N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie
A.D. Leitko, Shell E&P Technology Company
J.P. Lucido, ANR Pipeline Company
R.B. Maas, Westcoast Energy Inc.
Manager, Consulting Services Department, Saudi Aramco
S.V. Nanney, Duke Energy Corporation
R.D. Phillips, Southern California Gas Company
D.E. Reid, TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.
P. Sandham, TransGas, Ltd.
N. Schultz, William Gas Pipelines - Transco
Y. Sone, Oaska Gas Company, Ltd.
B.C. Sosinski, Consumers Energy Company
M. Tallantyre, British Gas plc
E.E. Thomas, Southern Natural Gas Company
R.J. Turner, NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.
J. Vainikka, GASUM Oy
G.A. Vaughn, Exxon Production Research Company
T.D. Willke, Gas Research Institute
K.F. Wrernn, Jr., Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.
M.L. Yoho, CNG Transmission Corp.
G.J. Bart, PRCI International Staff
A.G. Cotterman, PRCI International Staff
B. Dutton, PRCI International Staff
COR-98-8084-A
Final Report-January 1999
CORROSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE
P.J. Dusek, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America (Chairman)

R.J. Babnick, El Paso Natural Gas Company
R.M. Bass, Shell Oil Products Co.
L. Bone III, ARC0 Exploration and Production Technology
J. Card, Great Lakes Transmission Company
D.R. Catte, Saudi Aramco
J.E. Chorney, TransGas Ltd.
G. Cope, Transmission Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd.
D.A. DesNoyer, Consumers Energy Company
R. Dovico, Transportadora de Gas del Norte
B.R. Dupuis, Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd.
S. Eliassen, Statoil
I.M. Fotheringham, East Australian Pipeline Ltd.
D.R. Howard, Colorado Interstate Gas Company
J.E. Hutson, Florida Gas Transmission Company
C.L. Jones, BG plc
C. Juhl, Dansk Olie og Naturgas A/S
K. Krist, Gas Research Institute
V.B. Lawson, Westcoast Energy Inc.
K.G. Leewis, Gas Research Institute
M.E. Linville, CNG Transmission Corp.
A. Lopez, TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd.
F.H. Martinez, El Paso Natural Gas Company
M. Matheson, American Petroleum Insititute
A. Menendez, Transportadora de Gas del Norte
H. Mitchke, shell Oil Products Company
O. Moghissi, ARC0 Exploration and Production Technology
D. Moore, ARC0 Exploration and Production Technology
P.R. Nichols, Shell Oil Company
S. Olsen, Statoil
L. Perry, Southern California Gas Company
W. Pickard, Southern Natural Gas Company
J.L. Pkas, Williams Gas Pipelines - Transco
M. Pitkanen, Gasum Oy
M.D. Platzke, ANR Pipeline Company
J.F. Rau, Duke Energy Corp.
R.G. Reid, Union Gas Limited
S.B. Rigling, Williams Gas Pipelines - Texas Gas
G. Ruschau, ARC0 Exploration and Production Technology
J.T. Schmidt, Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company
W.J. Sisak, Exxon Production Research Company
W. Sloterdijk, N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie
T.A. Widin, BP Oil Company
P. Wong, NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd.
T. Yamagishi, Osaka Gas Company, Ltd.
B. Dutton, PRCI International Staff
COR-98-8084-A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Induced AC on pipelines, despite the installation of AC mitigation facilities, can still produce
deleterious effects involving the safe operation of the pipeline, the effective operation of the
cathodic protection system, and the safety of personnel. A literature search has been
conducted and reported herein that identifies several concerns that need consideration when
designing, operating, maintaining, and monitoring cathodic protection systems. These issues
are itemized together with the corresponding suggested corrective action, in Section 9.
One of the most serious consequences of steady state induced AC is that AC corrosion can
occur, even though the induced AC voltage has been reduced to less than 15V as required by
the standards and notwithstanding cathodic protection levels that also satisfy the standards.
Although there is no literature consensus on the corrosion mechanism, it is generally agreed
that the positive half cycle of the AC waveform causes the corrosion in some, but not all, soil
environments and the AC corrosion rate increases exponentially with increasing AC current
density. Pipeline operators therefore must review induced AC levels to determine whether or
not additional AC mitigation facilities need to be installed to eliminate the risk of AC
corrosion.
Galvanic anode materials such as zinc ribbon and packaged magnesium anodes, used for the
dual purpose of mitigating induced AC and providing cathodic protection current, can
experience a positive shift in anode corrosion potential and a marked decrease in service life.
To combat these effects, the anode materials should be surrounded in sulfate rich backfill,
sized more conservatively, and designed to discharge relatively low AC current densities.
Further research however, is needed to quantify these effects.
Coated pipelines become more attractive fault current paths because of the low resistance to
earth provided by the AC mitigation facilities. Consequently when the pipeline is in close
proximity to AC powerline facilities, such as metal towers and grounds at substations and
generating stations, fault currents can enter the pipeline by resistive coupling through the
earth. Fault currents can melt the pipe wall at a coating holiday resulting in puncturing,
partially melt the wall creating a heat affected zone and the possibility of cracking, and
damage the coating. The most effective means of preventing such occurrences is by
maintaining a safe separation distance dependent on the voltage rating of the powerline and
the soil resistivity. When a safe separation distance cannot be obtained, screening electrodes
composed of galvanic anode materials packaged in sulfate rich backfill can be installed.
DC isolators-AC couplers, such as zinc grounding cells, polarization cells, electrolytic

capacitors, and isolation-surge protectors, used to protect isolating fittings from AC damage
and to pass AC to ground, have certain operational characteristics that can affect the
COR-98-8084-A
operation of the cathodic protection system and personnel safety. Under steady state AC
conditions both zinc grounding cells and polarization cells allow cathodic protection current
to pass which can reduce the level of protection provided by galvanic anode systems. This
can also cause polarization cells to corrode and fail in the open circuit mode and result in a
possible voltage hazard. Isolation-surge protectors are a better choice but to provide effective
lightning surge protection they must be located close to the isolating fitting, otherwise
inductance loop voltages can arise that can still damage the isolation and create a voltage
hazard. Electrolytic capacitors must be protected from fault damage with metal oxide
varistors as must all electronic equipment. Gas arresters should not be used where a DC
voltage greater than 30V is present as these devices will be unable to extinguish the follow
current after a lightning strike.
Cathodic protection and safety at meter, regulator, and compressor stations can be enhanced
by using voltage gradient mats comprised of zinc ribbon in sulfate rich backfill and by
maintaining DC isolation using isolation surge protectors. The isolation surge protectors can
be used to shunt fault currents around the station to ground and, because of an impending
change in the National Electric Code, to connect the station electrical ground to the primary
electrical ground.
Measuring cathodic protection parameters on pipelines with AC mitigation facilities can

present problems with personnel safety, with instrumentation accuracy, and in measurement
techniques. Measurements should never be taken when an electrical storm is present as
defined by the sound of thunder or appearance of lightning. Furthermore every DC
measurement should have a corresponding AC measurement, especially on close interval
surveys on powerline rights-of-way where an induced voltage can develop on the survey
wire. Pipe current measurement spans need to be recalibrated for AC impedance if they are to
be used to accurately measure the AC current in the pipe path. All instrumentation should
have high AC voltage rejection capability.
The literature record is not comprehensive on some of the foregoing issues and additional
research is required as summarized in Section 10.
COR-98-8084-A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
2.0 Types of Mitigation Facilities and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.0 AC Corrosion ........................................................................................... 3

3.1 General ................................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Effect of AC Density o n Corrosion Rates.. ..................................................... 8
3.3 Effect of Cathodic Protection Current Density.. ................................................... 9
3.4 Effect of Frequency ............................................................................................. 10
3.5 Effect of the Environment.................................................................................... 12
3.6 Effect of Time.. ................................................................................................... 14
3.7 AC Corrosion Mechanism .................................................................................... 15
3.8 Effect of Coating Defect Size.. ............................................................................ 20
3.9 Evaluating the Risk of AC Corrosion .................................................................... 21
3.10 Summary.. ........................................................................................................... 23
4.0 Factors to Consider When Using Galvanic Anodes for AC Mitigation.. ...... 26
4.1 Corrosion Characteristics .................................................................................... 26
4.1.1 Zinc Ribbon ...... ......................................................................................... 26
4.1.2 Packaged Magnesium Anodes ................................................................... 28
4.2 Galvanic Anode Impact on Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Current ..........
Distribution ......................................................................................................... 30
4.3 Summary.. ........................................................................................................... 34
5.0 Damage to Pipelines and Coatings from Fault Currents ............................. 35

5.1 Introduction.. ....................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Pipeline Puncturing and Cracking......................................................................... 35
5.3 Pipeline Coating Damage ..................................................................................... 40
5.4 Summary.. ........................................................................................................... 41
6.0 Electrical Isolation and AC Coupling Devices ............................................. 42

6.1 Introduction.. ....................................................................................................... 42
6.2 Zinc Grounding Cells ............................................................................................ 42
6.3 Polarization Cells ................................................................................................. 43
6.4 Isolation-Surge Protectors.. ................................................................................. 44
6.5 Electrolytic Capacitors ........................................................................................ 47
6.6 Voltage Surge Protectors ..................................................................................... 47
6.7 Summary............................................................................................................. 48
7.0 Cathodic Protection Test Procedures and Test Facilities ........................... 49

7.1 Introduction.. ....................................................................................................... 49
7.2 Potential Measurements.. .................................................................................... 49
7.3 Current Measurements.. ...................................................................................... 50
7.3.1 Pipe Currents ......................................................................................... 51
7.3.2 Galvanic Anode Measurements ............................................................... 51
COR-98-8084-A Page i
7.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
8.0 Miscellaneous Considerations .................................................................. 52

8.1 Casings.. ............................................................................................................. 52
8.2 Crossings with Foreign Metallic Structures......................................................... 52
8.3 DC Interference on Electric Powerline Towers, Grounds and Guy Anchors......... 52
8.4 Concerns at Meter, Regulator, and Compressor Stations .................................... 53
8.5 Motorized Valves ................................................................................................ 54
9.0 General Summary ........................................................................................ 55

9.1 Summary Table................................................................................................... 55
10.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 60

10.1 General ............................................................................................................... 60
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix A - A Mathematical Model for a Cathodically Protected Pipeline Network
COR-98-8084-A Page ii
list of Figures
Section 3
COR-98-8084-A Page iii

Final Report- January 1999
Section 4
COR-98-8084-A Page iv
Section 6
COR-98-8084-A Page v
This page intentionally blank.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pipelines located in proximity to overhead AC electrical power transmission and

distribution systems often require AC mitigation facilities to render the pipeline safe
for operating personnel and the public and to prevent damage to the pipeline and
attached equipment. A joint AGA/EPRI project [1] developed a method of calculating
the electromagnetically induced voltages on pipelines lying parallel to AC power
lines and outlined various methods of mitigating these effects. It became standard
practice therefore in North America to design and install AC mitigation facilities
where required to reduce the steady state induced voltage on the pipeline in
accordance with developed industry standards[2,3]to 15Vrms or less. In addition, the
effect of AC faults arising from electromagnetic induction and resistance coupling
have been investigated in another jointly sponsored AGA/EPRI project. [4]
Accordingly, it is now usual to design and install AC mitigation facilities that
ameliorate both steady state and fault conditions. In either case, the principal method
of mitigating AC effects is by reducing the pipeline resistance to earth with auxiliary
grounding and, when these measures are insufficient to maintain safety under fault
conditions, to install gradient control mats at aboveground appurtenances.
Lowering the pipe resistance to earth however, can compromise the efficient and
effective operation of a cathodic protection system that depends on the high resistance
of a dielectric coating to reduce current requirements and to maximize current
distribution. In an attempt to satisfy both the AC mitigation requirements and the
cathodic protection demands, mitigation is achieved either by connecting the pipe
directly to galvanic anodes and other cathodically protected structures or by
connecting to metallic materials through DC isolating/AC coupling devices that
provide a low resistance for AC but a relatively high resistance to DC.
Although this general approach has been relatively successful, there are a number of
residual concerns about the effects of these mitigation measures on the design,
operation, maintenance, and effectiveness of both impressed current and galvanic
cathodic protection systems. This report, which relies primarily on literature sources
and on an analysis of an electrical model representing the attachment of galvanic
anodes to piping, addresses a number of factors arising from the effects of AC and the
facilities that mitigate it.
COR-98-8084-A Page 1
2.0 TYPES OF MITIGATION FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
The most common method of reducing the pipe-to-earth resistance is by attaching to

the pipeline galvanic anodes either consisting of packaged magnesium anodes or
strips of zinc ribbon. These anodes are intended to serve a dual purpose, that is to
provide sufficient cathodic protection current and to offer a relatively low resistance
path to earth for the interfering alternating current. Typically the magnesium anodes
are distributed along the pipeline at spacings determined by the pipe diameter, coating
quality, and soil resistivities. The galvanic anode spacing is reduced at peak induced
voltage locations in order to lower the pipe-to-ground resistance. At these latter
locations it is usual to install the magnesium anodes in a group with the anodes
connected to a header cable that is in turn connected through a test station to the pipe.
Zinc ribbon anodes are installed parallel to the pipe at pipe depth and in the early
years of AC mitigation often without any sulfate containing backfill. The zinc ribbon
is connected to the pipe through a test station at regular intervals.
Alternatively, non-galvanic materials such as carbon steel, galvanized steel and

copper, buried adjacent to the pipeline in the vicinity of voltage peaks are connected
to the pipeline via DC isolating-AC coupling devices. Here the cathodic protection is
usually provided by impressed current. Typical DC isolating-AC coupling devices are
polarization cells, isolation-surge protectors, electrolytic capacitors and surge
protectors. These devices are also used across isolating fittings to prevent damage to
the isolation material, particularly the central gasket in flange insulation sets.
When used for gradient control purposes during fault current conditions these
grounding materials are typically placed near the surface of the earth adjacent to
aboveground appurtenances.
For the purposes of this report the primary methods of AC mitigation are considered
as follows:
l use of distributed galvanic anodes
l use of DC isolating-AC coupling devices to other structures and

grounding systems
l use of gradient control mats at pipeline appurtenances.
3.0 AC CORROSION
3.1 General
Up until the mid 1980’s it was generally acknowledged that, although alternating
current could cause corrosion of steel, the corrosion rate was a small percentage of an
equivalent amount of direct current and furthermore could be controlled by the
application of cathodic protection in accordance with industry standards. Kulman,
who conducted a literature review into the corrosion effects of AC,[5] reported that
corrosion rates of .4mm/a (16mpy) were observed in research by Fuchs et al[6] on
steel coupons in sodium chloride and sodium sulfate electrolytes at a frequency of
50Hz and current densities greater than 100A/m2 (10A/ft2). Kulman then calculated
that such a corrosion rate could occur on a coated pipeline having at a 2.5 cm
diameter holiday if the soil resistivity is 1000 ohm-cm and the AC voltage is only
10V. He also cited the results of a 1955 survey of gas pipeline companies represented
on the AGA Corrosion Committee in which 7 of 27 companies, that had experienced
induced AC voltages, “suspected that a-c current had been the cause of pipeline
corrosion".
As a result of Kulman’s efforts, a major study by Bruckner[7] into the AC corrosion of
buried steel was funded by the AGA. Bruckner tested steel electrodes in 4 different
soil types at 60 cycle AC densities ranging from 75A/m 2 (7.5A/ft2) to 750A/m 2
(75A/ft2) and found that the corrosion rate increased with increased current density in
all cases although the corrosion rate was less than that found by Fuchs et al.[8] He
concluded that the corrosion rate of steel in the soils tested was increased by the
alternating current from 2 to 6 times. These results are collectively compared in
Figure 3-1 and clearly indicate that the corrosion rate increases exponentially with an
increase in AC current density. The increase in soil conditions was less than for
chloride containing environments. Analysis of results obtained by Luoni and Anelli[9]
for galvanized steel samples in simulated sea water drew them to conclude that there
was an AC current density threshold of 20A/m2 (2A/ft2), above which AC corrosion
dominates over DC corrosion.
Figure 3-1 - Corrosion Rate of Steel vs. AC Current Density

Bruckner also assessed the ability of cathodic protection current, as supplied by both a
magnesium anode and an impressed current system, to control the AC corrosion and
concluded that "a cathodic protection system based on permanent anodes can be
effectively and reliably employed to reduce corrosion loss of buried steel energized
with a-c ". He noted, however, that the cathodic protection current density required on
the 1cm2 electrodes, at approximately 0.5A/m 2 (.05A/ft2), was "much greater than
appears necessary in practice ". In addition to Bruckner’s findings, several
authors[10,11,12,13,14,15] supported the opinion that AC corrosion could be controlled
with cathodic protection. Hewes[6] as a result of a literature review, stated that AC
corrosion rates of steel were in the order of 0.1% of an equivalent amount of direct
current and were “readily overcome by normal cathodic protection procedures ".
Collings,[17] as well as confirming that 60Hz AC would accelerate corrosion on steel
in water solutions of 50, 100, and 200 ppm NaCl, with applied AC voltages of 10, 30,
and 50V, also tested the effectiveness of both sacrificial and impressed current
cathodic protection. Using a magnesium anode to protect a steel specimen having an
applied AC voltage of 35V and an impressed current system to protect a steel
specimen at an applied AC voltage of 50V, he concluded that “conventional coatings
and cathodic protection are effective in reducing induced AC attack”. In his
experiments the cathodic protection current density needed to maintain a -1.4Vsce
potential was about 3.4A/m2 (.34A/ft2).
A 1978 report by Pookote and Chin[18] on the underground corrosion of steel by

alternating currents related that “at present, no field data are available that indicate
corrosion perforation of pipes has been caused by induced AC”. Hamlinl [19] from
results of a 3 year study of a pipeline system and of a joint AGA/EPRI project stated
that "AC does not have any significant effect on the polarization or depolarization of
cathodically protected steel ". Later, in a 1986 article,[20] he probably summarized the
prevailing opinion about AC corrosion at that time when he concluded that "metals
under the influence of AC can be cathodically protected, but usually at higher initial
current densities ".
This opinion, regarding the relatively innocuous nature of AC corrosion prevailed

without apparent knowledge of laboratory results obtained by Dévay et al [21] which
relate the combined effect of AC and DC current densities on the polarization
behavior of 1 cm2 steel electrodes in a 5% KC1 solution. Figure 3-2 demonstrates that
increasing DC densities can reduce the corrosion rate but not to negligible values for
50Hz AC densities of 50 (5), 100 (10), and 250A/m2 (25A/ft2). Figure 3-3 shows that
increasing AC density also causes both cathodic and anodic depolarization. Despite a
substantial cathodic protection current density of 10A/m2 ( 1A/ft2)and corresponding
polarized potentials more negative than -0.900Vsce' the residual corrosion rate
exceeded 0.1mm/a, ranging as high as 0.75mm/a for the 250A/m 2 (25A/ft2)AC
density. These tests were conducted over a 12 hour time period and hence the
corrosion rates are greater than would be expected over longer time periods when the
beneficial effects of long term polarization are seen.
Figure 3-2- Corrosion Rata of iron vs. AC and DC Currant Densities in 5% KCI Solution
(redrawn from devay et al, p.65)
Figure 3-3- The Effect of AC on the Polarization of Steal in 5% KCI Solution

[redrawn from Devay et al, p.66)
Although it was clear from Dévay’s experiments in 1966 that AC corrosion could
occur at very high cathodic current densities, it was not until 1986 that the first
corrosion failure on a pipeline was attributed to AC corrosion. In Germany, two
corrosion perforations occurred on a polyethylene coated gas pipeline that was
installed in 1980 parallel to a 15kV AC powered rail transit system which operated at
frequency of 16-2/3 Hz. A subsequent investigation, reported by Prinz, [22] attributed
the corrosion to induced AC arising from the single phase traction system. The two
perforations were at a location where the peak induced AC voltage was 130V, but
where the instant-off potential was measured at -l.0Vcseand the corrosion product
had a pH of 10, both of which are indicators of satisfactory levels of cathodic
protection. This pipeline had corroded through the wall in about 6 years (a corrosion
rate of 0.8mm/a) despite satisfying the German cathodic protection standard DIN
30676[23] which mandates a minimum potential of -0.850Vcse measured using the
instant-off technique. The leak location was at a highway crossing where de-icing salt
run-off had lowered the resistivity of the clay bearing soil to 190 ohm-cm.
Alarmed by the premature perforations, a holiday detection survey was immediately

commissioned by Erdgas Sudbayern Gmbh ESB on three pipelines, totaling about
170km in length, that paralleled AC traction systems. As reported by Heim and
Peez, [24] about 70 corrosion pits were exposed by excavation with the maximum
penetration rate being 1.3mm/a on a pipeline that had been installed for only 2-l/2
years. These results are summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 -Corrosion Attacks Caused by Alternating Currents on Three Pipelines of ESB (Heim and Peez, p.139)
Hartmann of Thyssengas Gmbh has also[25]described a corrosion investigation on a

6.6km length of high pressure gas line that paralleled a 50Hz power line. This
polyethylene coated pipe had only been in service for four years when two corrosion
sites were discovered having pit depths of 0.8 and 1 .0mm. These corrosion pits were
deemed to have been caused by AC after a comprehensive investigation eliminated all
other possible causes.
In the summer of 1987 a polyethylene coated natural gas pipeline in Switzerland,[26]

that ran parallel to a 16-2/3 Hz transit line, was excavated at the entrance to a tunnel
where the induced AC peaked at 60V. A corrosion pit was discovered that upon
further analysis of the corrosion product and when compared to the recent findings in
Germany, it was concluded that AC corrosion was the cause. Relying on data
obtained from internal pigging and verified by DC voltage gradient testing, 150 sites
along the 141 km pipeline were then excavated and localized pitting was found at
about 100 locations.
Ragault [27]of Gaz de France has also reported that 31 cases of AC corrosion were
found in 1993 on a 6km length of polyethylene coated 100mm diameter pipeline that
paralleled a 400kV, 50Hz power line for 3km. After one year of burial the depths of
corrosion were typically between 0.1 to 0.8mm.
AC corrosion activity in North America has been reported by Wakelin et a1[28] who
have presented details on three case histories in Eastern Canada, each one on a
different piping system. One perforation failure occurred after only four years of
pipeline operation which is an average corrosion rate of 1.4mm/a.
Besides the presence of induced AC, cathodic protection potentials that satisfy the
applicable industry standards,[29,30] and a relatively high pH at the pit, there is
emerging a characteristic appearance to the AC corrosion. Several
investigators[31,31,33,34] have described the corrosion pit appearance as being
hemispherical and crater-like, having a smooth surface. Often the pit diameter was
greater than the coating defect with the corrosion product creating a bulge in the
coating. In addition, the corrosion product which was sometimes very hard, when
analyzed, contained large concentrations of anions and cations.
The extent and severity of the AC corrosion discovered on German pipelines

prompted both public and private organizations in Germany to fund a series of field
and laboratory tests to identify the critical factors involved in AC corrosion. A
number of these investigators have reported test results, which examined along with
other data, has helped to assess the significance of a number of factors such as AC
density, cathodic protection current density, AC frequency, soil environment, time,
and temperature.
3.2 Effect of AC Current Density on Corrosion Rates
Funk et a1[35] conducted laboratory tests using l0cm2 coupons in synthetic soil
solutions subjected to AC current densities of 100 (10) and 50A/m2 (5A/ft2) and field
tests using coupons in both sandy and clay soils at AC current densities of 10-30A/m2
(1-3A/ft2) and 300-1000A/m 2 (30-100A/ft2) respectively. A test coupon was
perforated after 168 days at an AC current density of 100A/m2 (10A/ft2)and corrosion
rates greater than 1mm/a were observed. After these preliminary results additional
testing to better define the influence of current density was carried out which
indicated that AC current densities greater than 30A/m2 (3A/ft2)caused corrosion rates
greater than 0.1 mm/a despite a constant cathodic protection current density of 2A/m2
(.2A/ft2). The depth of corrosion penetration increased with increased AC current
density but decreased with time as shown in Figure 3-4.
Figure 3-4- Maximum Penetration Depth as a Function of Test Duration at Constant Cathode
DC Current Density 2a/m2 (.2A/ft2) and Differing AC Current Density (redrawn from Funk et al., 1992, p.3401
Helm et a1[36] conducted short term tests (up to 1000 hrs.) and long term tests (up to 1
year) in flowing and stagnant waters while varying the AC and DC current density in
an attempt to establish an effective corrosion control criterion for pipelines exposed to
alternating current. They concluded that up to 20A/m 2 (2A/ft2) of AC there is
“probably no risk” of accelerated corrosion using the conventional criteria, that
between 20 (2) and l00A/m 2(20A/ft2) corrosion is possible, since the conventional
cathodic protection criteria are not reliable, and that at AC current densities in excess
of 100A/m 2 (l0A/ft2) corrosion damage is to be expected regardless of cathodic
protection level.
Gustav Peez[37] reported corrosion rates of up to 1.3mm/a at current densities of 100

(10) to 200A/m 2 (20ft2). In addition, field inspections on the Erdgas Sudbayem
(ESB) gas pipeline system indicated that corrosive attacks, starting at an AC current
density of 15A/m2 (1.5A/ft2), could not be ignored.
Field inspections carried out by Hartmann[38] at identified coating holidays on the

30.8km Hunze-Hamborn gas pipeline revealed corrosion pits after 2-l/2 years in
operation of 1mm in 20,000 ohm-cm sandy soil at AC current densities ranging from
74-165A/m 2 (74-16.5A/ft2), which is an average corrosion rate of approximately
0.4mm/a.
In a series of laboratory tests, using coated and cathodically protected coupons with
[39]
well defined holidays, Regault observed that corrosion occurred when the AC
density exceeded 30A/m (3A/ft )and most often when the density was 100-200 A/m2
2 2
(I0-20A/ft2). Field tests using 12 similar coupons installed for an 18 month period on
the surface of a pipeline, at the worst previously identified AC corrosion locations,
indicated that while non-connected coupons exhibit mild superficial corrosion, all 12
coupons had corroded to depths ranging from 0.3 to 0.5mm. Although four of the
coupons operated at current densities of 30-450A/m2 (3-45A/ft2) and the remaining
eight coupons at 100-4000 A/m 2 (10-400 A/f2), no clear relationship between the
level of AC density and depth of corrosion was identified. Stalder [40] reported that
laboratory tests carried out by Bindschedler identified a 30 A/m 2 criterion for the
onset of AC corrosion.
prinz[41]summarized much of the test results in Germany with respect to corrosion

versus AC density as follows;
.
for AC densities less than 20A/m2(2A/ft2) there is no hazardous AC induced
corrosion;
.
for AC densities greater than 100A/m2 (10A/ft2)corrosion at the rate of
0.1mm/a can occur;
.
for AC densities between 20 and 100A/m2 (2-10A/ft2)corrosion cannot be
predicted because corrosion rates vary significantly and pitting occurs over a
relatively large area.
3.3 Effect of Cathodic Protection Current Density
Dévay et al using 1cm2 steel coupons[42] observed that AC induced corrosion was
reduced at increasing DC current densities as shown in Figure 3-2, but was still
significant even at 10A/m 2 in a 5% KC1 solution when the AC current density was
100A/m2 (l0A/ft2)and 250A/m2 (25A/ft2).
Increasing the cathodic protection current density from 2A/m2 to 5A/m2 (.2-.5A/ft2),
as determined by Funk et a1,[43] decreased the AC corrosion rate at an AC current
density of 50A/m2 (5A/ft2) by at least one half as shown in Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-5- Maximum Penetration Depth as a Function of Test Duration at Differing Cathodic
DC Current Density and Constant AC Current Density (50A/m2) (redrawn from Funk et al., 1992, p.341)
Helm et al,[44] from results on test specimens in flowing waters, found that although
2
cathodic protection current densities up to 0.25A/m2 (.025A/ft ) had no mitigating
2 i
effect, there was a demonstrable benefit at 4A/m (2A/ft ).2
Regault[45] measured cathodic protection current densities on the 12 field installed

coupons from a few A/m 2 (A/ft2)up to 300A/m 2 (30A/ft2), yet all cathodically
protected coupons showed accelerated corrosion from the superimposed AC. Frazier
and Barlo[46] in testing coupons in simulated groundwater found that the cathodic
protection demand increased with time and a DC density of 20A/m 2 (2A/ft2) was
required to polarize a coupon to -840mVcse, which was 500 times of that necessary in
the absence of AC. The average applied AC current density for this coupon was
870A/m2 (87A/ft2)and the general corrosion rate was 0.34mm/a compared to a natural
corrosion rate of 0.014mm/a. The superimposed AC also increased the pitting rate
from 0.11 mm/a to 1.3mm/a despite the enormous DC density.
It appears therefore, from the foregoing studies, that increasing the cathodic
protection current density, even to levels well in excess of conventional values,
although beneficial in ameliorating AC corrosion, cannot reduce the AC corrosion
rate in some soil conditions to acceptable values.
3.4 Effect of Frequency
Test, [ 4 7 , 4 8 , 4 9conducted
]
in Germany to determine whether or not there was a
difference in AC corrosion rate for the traction system frequency of 16-2/3Hz and the
electric power frequency of 50Hz, indicated that there was no discernible difference
in corrosion rates at these two frequencies. Pagano and Lalvani[50] however, found
that the corrosion rate decreased over a frequency range of 5-500Hz on 1018 carbon
steel samples in simulated sea water as shown in Figure 3-6. This figure also shows
COR-98-8084-A Page 10
that the corrosion rate is also dependent on the magnitude of the applied AC voltage
especially at frequencies less than 60Hz.
Figure 3-6 -AC Corrosion Rate vs. Frequency for 1018 Steel in Simulated Sea Water
(redrawn from Pagano and Lalvani, 1994, p.132)
It has been verified, as illustrated in Figure 3-7, at an AC density of 1A/m2 (.1A/ft2),

that there is very little difference in AC corrosion rate between 5 and 50Hz for both
NaCl and Na 2SO4 solutions.
-0.05 0.5 5 50
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 3-7- AC Corrosion Rate vs. Frequency for Two Different Electrolytes at an Alternating
Density of 1Alm2(.1A/ft2)[redrawn from Fuchs, W., et al, p.80]
COR-98-8084-A Page 11
In later publications, Lalvani[51,52] suggested that the corrosion rate decreases with
increasing frequency "due to the shorting of the double layer capacitance between the
iron and the electrolyte " A similar opinion was expressed by Bertocci[53] based on a
mathematical treatment of induced AC corrosion under charge transfer control.
3.5 Effect of the Environment
AC corrosion rates also a pear to be dependent on the type of environment. Both

[55]
Prinz[51] and Helm et al found that the presence of NaHCO3 and CaCO3 increases
corrosion whereas NaCl containing media seem to inhibit corrosion. T h i s
accelerating effect of carbonates was also apparent at 60Hz in the Bureau of
Standards study by McCollum and Ahlborn.[56]
Flowing water produced a higher corrosion rate than stagnant water for the same
solution composition according to Helm et al[57] and this was ascribed to the
[58]
enhanced supply of Ca++ and HCO3- ions to the surface. Tests by Jones on low
alloy specimens in 0.1N NaCl solutions indicated that the corrosion rate, compared to
the control at an AC current density of 300A/m2 (30A/ft2), was unaffected in aerated
[59]
conditions but increased by a factor of five in deaerated conditions. Bertocci has
demonstrated, based on polarization theory, that when the cathode is under diffusion
control, such as one might expect in aerated conditions, corrosion acceleration would
be minimized. Bruckner[60] also found that the AC corrosion rate in deaerated
conditions was greater than for aerated conditions although he did not explain this
result. AC had a greater corrosion accelerating effect in a clay soil (which would be
relatively deaerated) as compared to mineral waters according to Pookote and
Chin.[61]
Frazier and Barlo[62] found that corrosion rates on steel coupons at AC current
densities in the order of 1000A/m 2 (100A/ft2) varied substantially in two different
simulated groundwaters and that the highest corrosion rate occurred when the
groundwater was deaerated. This dramatic difference between AC pitting rates for
two different electrolytes and degrees of aeration is shown in Figure 3-8. Electrolyte
#1 was a simulated ground water and salt mixture consisting of equal weight
percentages of NaCl, NaHCO3, and Na2SO4 in deionized water and electrolyte #2 was
a mixture of deionized water and 0.lM solution of MgSO4, CaSO4, and NaCO3 to
simulate a soil from Fargo, North Dakota that Bruckner[63] had used. The electrolyte
resistivity was maintained at 100 ohm-cm for both mixtures. Cathodic protection was
applied to selected groups of coupons to produce a 100mV of cathodic polarization.
The figure illustrates that the AC corrosion pitting rate was not reduced significantly
in electrolyte #2 in the deaerated condition. Frazier and Barlo concluded that “the
capacitance may provide a means for identifying soil electrolytes that may be prone
to adverse effects as a result of induced ac”.
COR-98-8084-A Page 12
Figure 3-8 - AC Pitting Rate for Test Coupon Groups with Applied AC (redrawn from Frazier and Barlo, p.9)
This difference in AC corrosion behavior between aerated and deaerated conditions

can be partially explained by Bertocci’s[64] theoretical treatment of AC corrosion. He
demonstrated, as shown in Figure 3-9, that if the steel/electrolyte interface was under
diffusion control, as might be expected in aerated conditions, then a 120mV voltage
shift would not increase the corrosion rate represented (icorr) greater than the limiting
current density (iL). Here because the cathodic Tafel slope (b,) is infinite, the
corrosion current (icorr) would not change with a change in magnitude of a
superimposed AC voltage. If the cathode Tafel slope (b,) is 120mV/dec then the
corrosion current increases to icorr.
COR-98-8084-A Page 13
[65]
Bosch and Bogaerts also contended that AC corrosion is a function of the relative
Tafel slopes of the anodic and cathodic polarization curves. In their theoretical
mathematical treatment of the induced AC corrosion effect, they demonstrated that
when either the anodic or cathodic slope was infinite which is, an indication of a
diffusion limiting process, then AC would have no effect on the corrosion rate. When
there is no limiting diffusion reaction however, the corrosion current could increase
by several orders of magnitude with increasing AC voltage amplitude. The relative
impact of different Tafel slopes is shown in Figure 3-10. In addition, the corrosion
rate would also increase with increasing AC voltage amplitude in proportion to the
ratio of the limiting current density (iL) to the corrosion current density (icorr). (See
Figure 3-14.)
Figure 3-10 - Dependency of the Corrosion Rate on the AC Voltage Amplitude for Different
Values of the Tafel Parameters (Bosch and Bogaerts)
The fact that there appears to be less induced AC corrosion effect in well aerated soil
than deaerated soils however may also be because aerated soils tend to be coarser and
therefore have a higher resistivity and a correspondingly lower AC density. All of the
AC corrosion case histories in Canada have been in relatively deaerated
environments.
3.6 Effect of Time
As with many corrosion processes, the AC corrosion rate decreases with time,
although there is no particular explanation offered for this behavior. Figures 3-4 and
3-5 clearly indicate that the depth of penetration decreases with time regardless of the
AC current density. Williams’[66] corrosion studies, conducted in the absence of
cathodic protection, also verified that the AC corrosion rate decreases asymptotically
with increased time. Moreover Prinz[67] found that there was an “incubation” time of
30 to 120 days at AC current densities of 100 (10) and 50A/m2 (5A/ft2)respectively,
COR-98-8084-A Page 14
after which the corrosion rate increased but this has not been reported elsewhere.
These short time test periods would not however have much significance with respect
to an AC corrosion site operating on a pipeline.
Another time factor is the general increase in resistance with time and a consequent
decrease in AC current density as reported by two investigators[68.69] when a constant
AC voltage is applied. As this situation closely simulates actual field conditions, it
implies that AC corrosion rates are to be expected to decrease as time increases.
3.7 AC Corrosion Mechanism
Unfortunately there is no consensus in the existing literature about the actual AC

corrosion mechanism. McCollum and Ahlborn[70] generally reasoned that AC
corrosion was due to the irreversibility of the corrosion reaction such that metal ions
created during the anodic half cycle were not re-plated during the negative half cycle.
Although this was equated to a rectification effect, Williams[71]concluded that the AC
corrosion mechanism was not rectification but rather due solely to the positive half
cycle. Bruckner[72] thought that the observed AC corrosion may have been partially a
result of “thermal activation ” although Pookote and Chin,[73]who attempted to
investigate the influence of temperature on the rate of corrosion, were unable to draw
a firm conclusion because of scattered data.
Bertocci[74] explained the relatively low corrosion efficiency of AC compared to DC

by demonstrating that the majority of the sine function alternating current and higher
frequency harmonics are shunted across the interface by the double layer capacitance
“without causing material transport across the electrode interface ". He also showed
that this effect could be particularly pronounced under diffusion controlled (i.e.
aerated) conditions. Jones,[75] in explaining why there was greater corrosion
acceleration on steel in deaerated environments than in aerated, demonstrated that
superimposed AC current caused depolarization of the anodic reaction and inferred
that this could be caused by anion desorption or surface film reduction during the
cathodic half cycle. Similarly, Chin and Fu[76] were able to show, from anodic
polarization tests on mild steel electrodes in a pH 7, 0.5M Na2SO4 solution, a
breakdown in anodic passivity with increasing 60Hz current density.
Several researchers,[77,78,79] observed an increase in cell temperature with an increase

in AC current density as shown in Figure 3-11.
COR-98-8084-A Page 15
Figure 3-11 - Cell Temperature vs. AC Current Density
Temperature rises of over 15°C were noted in two studies and 35°C in a third study
for an AC density range from zero to 775A/m 2 (77.5A/ft2). Bruckner, as well as
Pookote and Chin, thought that the temperature increase may have been solely or
partly responsible for the increase in AC corrosion. Collings however, being aware of
the temperature rise, prevented overheating by conducting tests in a stirred water bath
and concluded that the AC corrosion he observed could not have been caused by an
[80]
increase in temperature. He, along with Williams, also ruled out rectification as a
possible cause and concluded that AC corrosion occurs due to the positive half cycle
of the AC wave form. This is a viewpoint that was also held by others.[81,82,83] Regault
et al[84] postulates that AC corrosion occurs on a cathodically protected pipeline only
when the peak of the positive half cycle is more positive than the corrosion protection
criterion as illustrated in Figure 3-12 curve b. Howell[85] also subscribes to the theory
that the “anti-corrosion potential must be at least large enough to exceed that of any
alternating or transientpotential” to prevent AC corrosion.
COR-98-8084-A Page 16
Ep = protection criterion
Figure 3-12- AC & DC Potential (a) in absence of CP

(b) in presence of partial CP
(c) in presence of full CP
(redrawn from Regault et al, p.5)
The AC corrosion rates have been found to vary considerably with soil composition
and degree of aeration as outlined in the previous section. A number of
authors[86,87,88] have shown that superimposed AC tends to change the anodic
polarization characteristics and, in effect to destroy passivation. Bertocci explained
the relatively low corrosion efficiency of AC compared to DC by demonstrating that
the majority of the alternating current and higher frequency harmonics are shunted by
the double layer capacitance of the interface "without causing material transport
across the electrode interface ". The interface, modeled by Funk et al as well as
Frazier and Barlo, to explain this alternating current shunting effect, is shown in
Figure 3-13.
Here the double layer capacitance (Cd) has an impedance (Zd) across the metal-
electrolyte interface that is in parallel with the polarization resistance (Rp). This
impedance is inversely dependent on the magnitude of the AC frequency (ƒ) and the
double layer capacitance as follows;
Eqn. [1]
COR-98-8084-A Page 17
Electrolyte
Re = electrolyte resistance
Rp = polarization resistance
C = double-layer capacitance
Eo = free corrosion potential
Ep = polarized potential with ac component
Figure 3-13 - Equivalent Circuit of Metal/Electrolyte Interface

(Frazier & Barlo, p.31
Accordingly, as the frequency (ƒ) increases Zd will decrease proportionately and a

greater percentage of the alternating current will pass through the double layer
capacitance compared to the polarization resistance (Rp). Similarily, as the double
layer capacitance increases, as appears to be the case under diffusion control, the
double layer impedance (Zd) would also decrease. This would certainly explain the
observed decrease in AC corrosion with increasing frequency and also the markedly
different corrosion rates between aerated and deaerated environments. Funk etal [ 8 9 ]
under cathodically polarized conditions claim that, in aqueous environments under
cathodically protected polarized conditions, about 60% of the AC current (iac) passes
through the polarization resistance Rp as iac". Frazier has concluded that determining
the double layer capacitance of steel in various electrolytes may be a means of
identifying AC corrosion susceptible conditions. For example if the double layer
capacitance is 225 microfarad/cm2, as measured by Murray et al[90] in Ohio clay and
the polarization resistance is 1000 ohm-cm2, then the double layer impedance to 60Hz
AC is about 84.7 times less than the resistance polarization. Hence, only about 1.2%
of the AC would pass through the polarization resistance and contribute to the mass
transfer corrosion process. Furthermore, the cathodic protection current, which is
blocked by the double layer capacitance, all passes through the polarization resistance
and this means that the ratio of iac"/idc passing through the polarization resistance
could be a critical indicator of corrosion severity.
COR-98-8084-A Page 18
Further light has been shed on the corrosion mechanism by the theoretical work of
several authors[91,92,93,94] based on the relationship of the anodic and cathodic Tafel
slopes on the corrosion behavior. These primarily mathematical treatments, especially
by Bosch and Bogaerts, has demonstrated the effect of the Tafel slopes in terms of the
corrosion current versus the limiting current density (iL) shown in Figure 3- 14.
Figure 3-14- Dependency of the Corrosion Rate on the AC Voltage Amplitude for Different Ratios
of i corr and iL [redrawn from Bosch & Bogaerts, Fig.10)
Here it can be seen that the corrosion current density depends directly on the ratio of
limiting current density/corrosion current density as the AC voltage is increased.
Where either the anodic or cathodic Tafel slope is infinite (i.e. where iL = Icorrthere is
no change in corrosion rate, see also Figure 3-9). It is well known that the Tafel
slopes are dependent on the type of soil, degree of aeration, and on concentration
effects of both the anodic and cathodic reactions at the surface. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to infer that the susceptibility of carbon steel to corrosion might be
identified by determining the anodic and cathodic Tafel slopes in various soil and
water electrolytes. Certainly more research is needed in this area.
At the present time there is no single unified theory on the AC corrosion mechanism
that would allow the accurate predication of the expected corrosion rate for carbon
steel in a range of soil conditions versus the AC density or amplitude. Therefore other
less direct means of evaluating the possibility of AC corrosion such as AC current
density and AC voltage amplitude must be utilized.
COR-98-8084-A Page 19
3.8 Effect of Coating Defect Size
Because AC corrosion rates have been shown to be directly related to AC current

density, then whether or not AC corrosion will occur is primarily a function of the
defect size and soil resistivity for a given induced AC voltage. Assuming a circular
holiday having a diameter (d), and ignoring the interfacial impedance, the impedance
(Z,) of the steel at the holiday to remote earth will be approximately given by:
where: p = soil resistivity in ohm-m

d = holiday diameter in m
The AC density (iac) therefore will be related to the AC voltage (Vac) between the
steel surface and remote earth by Ohm’s law as follows:
Equation [3] suggests that as the holiday diameter approaches zero the surface area
also approaches zero and then the iac approaches infinity which would mean that at
very small coating defects the AC corrosion rate would be very high even with very
modest AC induced voltage. Fortunately this does not hold entirely true for very
small holiday diameters as observed in the German investigations. Heim and Peez
reported that observations, at coating holidays on the Erdgas Sudbayrn Gmbh
pipeline systems, indicated that corrosion activity was not observed at very small
coating defects in the order of 0.012cm2 and only minimally at two sites having a
holiday area of 0.03cm2. Their results are tabulated in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2- Corrosion Penetration at Holidays on the Freilassing-Bad Reichenhall Pipeline
COR-98-8084-A Page 20
Peez concluded that the highest penetration rate was at holidays with an area of
approximately 1cm2. Prinz also observed that the highest corrosion rate on coupons
ranging in size from 0.5 to 5cm2 coupons was on the 1cm2 coupons. The lack of
corrosion attack at the very small pinholes was attributed to obstruction of the
opening. More likely, as the holiday surface area becomes smaller, the resistance of
the electrolytic path from the metal surface to the outside of the coating, becomes
significant and therefore limits the current density. This resistance is ignored in
Equation 2.
3.9 Evaluating the Risk of AC Corrosion
Mitigating the AC voltage to 15V or less, as required by the various standards for
safety reasons, does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of AC corrosion. Based
on the present state of the technology the primary factor for assessing whether or not
AC corrosion is possible on a pipeline is the AC current density. Although the current
density cannot be measured directly it can be calculated by combining equations [2]
and [3] to give the following relationship;
Eqn. [4]
where: = AC density in A/m 2

= AC voltage
p = soil resistivity in ohm-m
d = holiday diameter in meters
This relationship ignores the interfacial impedance and therefore computes a current
density which would be greater than actual and is hence conservative. If it is assumed,
as the literature suggests, that the maximum corrosion rates occur at holiday surface
areas of 1 cm2, then for an AC current density of 100A/m2 (10A/ft2)and an AC voltage
of 15V, corrosion activity can be expected in soil resistivities of 3500 ohm-cm or less.
Furthermore, if the lower AC current density limit for corrosion of 20A/m2 (2A/ft2)is
adopted, then corrosion is possible at resistivities of 17,500 ohm-cm or less at an AC
voltage of 15V or, if the resistivity is 1000 ohm-cm, at less than 1Vac. As a
compromise, a practical AC density of 50 A/m2 (5A/ft2)has been recommended[95] to
evaluate whether or not additional AC mitigation is required to reduce the risk of AC
corrosion. Using 50A/m 2 (5A/ft2)AC current density, a chart relating soil resistivity,
holiday area, and AC voltage can be produced as shown in Figure 3-15, which is
similar to one previously produced [95] for an AC current density of l00A/m 2
(10A/ft2).
COR-98-8084-A Page 21
Holiday Area (cm2)

Figure 3-15- Graph of AC Voltage vs. Holiday Surface Area for Various Soil Resistivities
at an AC Current Density of 50 A/m2(5A/ft2)
It is apparent from this figure that, for a holiday surface area of 1cm2, corrosion can
occur at soil resistivities of about 70 ohm-m or less with an induced voltage of 15Vac.
Thus, for soil resistivities less than 70 ohm-m and for 1cm2 holidays, the induced
voltage must be reduced below 15 volts. For example, in a soil resistivity of 10
ohm-m, the AC voltage would have to be reduced to 2.7V if the holiday surface area
was 1.5cm2. To achieve this might be very difficult using conventional passive
methods of mitigation. An electronic device has, however, been developed[97]that
actively drains the positive half cycle from the pipeline to an impressed current
groundbed. Field tests have shown that three of these units were able to mitigate the
induced AC on 80km of 300mm diameter polyethylene coated pipeline. This device
would have considerable merit where passive mitigation is impractical or
prohibitively expensive.
Before the risk of AC corrosion can be evaluated at any location using Figure 3-15,
the localized AC voltage and soil resistivity must be measured and, in addition, to
improve the risk assessment accuracy, a holiday test of the coating is advisable.
Alternatively, as recommended by a number of authors,[98,99,100,101] a 1cm2 coupon
can be installed at pipe depth in the pipe backfill material for the specific purpose of
measuring and monitoring the AC current density directly.
An instrument, based on the use of a portable coupon/reference probe, has been

developed in Belgium that eliminates IR drop error in the potential measurement by
automatically interrupting a steel coupon after it has had time to polarize and
[102]
measuring its instant-off potential. It is claimed that because this instrument can
measure the pipe potential data at two different acquisition frequencies, the AC
COR-98-8084-A Page 22
positive peak can be compared to the DC polarized potential, thus providing a means
of determining the corrosion effects of the AC voltage. One gas company is
reportedly[103] using this instrumentation on a regular basis to determine AC corrosion
susceptible locations.
3.10 Summary
AC mitigation on pipelines is designed to reduce the induced steady state AC voltage

to 15V or less in accordance with industry standards and to protect the pipeline and
associated equipment from damage due to fault currents. AC corrosion, once
considered to be relatively innocuous and controllable, when cathodic protection is
applied to industry standard levels, has proven through recent detailed investigations
of corrosion failures on pipelines subject to induced AC, to be the fundamental cause
of the corrosion attack.
The literature does not contain a consensus on the AC corrosion mechanism although
it is heavily weighted towards the positive half cycle causing the metal dissolution
rather than a rectification phenomenon.
Considerable research in Europe has identified a relationship between the AC current

density and corrosion rate that can be used to evaluate the risk of AC corrosion and
can be summarized as follows:
.
for Iac <20A/m2 (2A/ft2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC corrosion will be negligible
. for Iac > 2OA/ m2 (2A/ft2)< 100A/ m2( l0A/ft2) . AC corrosion is possible
.
for Iac > 100A/ m2 (10A/ft2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AC is probable despite high
levels of cathodic polarization
Because the AC current density at a holiday on a pipeline cannot be measured

directly, the current density and therefore the risk of AC corrosion must be evaluated
indirectly. Assuming that the most severe corrosion damage will be at holidays
having a surface area of 1cm2, then the AC voltage can be calculated using equation 4
for the foregoing critical current densities for various soil resistivities and plotted as
in Figure 3-16. In addition to the threshold values of 20A/m 2 (2A/ft2) and l00A/m 2
(10A/ft2), the figure also contains a plot for an AC current density of 50A/m2 (5A/ft2)
which is a recommended design value.
COR-98-8084-A Page 23
Figure 3-16 - Graph of AC Voltage vs. Soil Resistivities

for a 1 cm2 Holiday at 3 AC Current Densities
This figure indicates that to obtain “negligible” risk of AC corrosion

[ie. for Iac < 20A/m2 (2A/ft2)] the AC voltage must be reduced to less than 1V when
the pipe is in 1000 ohm-cm soil. It also indicates that AC corrosion is “probable”
[ie: for Iac > 100A/m 2(10A/ft2)] at 15Vac in soils having resistivities of less than
3500R-cm. Reducing the induced voltage to very low levels may not be possible
with the addition of passive grounding facilities such as galvanic anodes and DC
isolation-AC couplers and therefore custom built electronic equipment to force drain
the induced current to earth may be required.
The AC current density can also be determined more directly by installing steel
coupons at pipe depth and measuring the AC current when the coupon is connected to
the pipe. The steel coupon surface area should be about 1cm2 since the highest AC
corrosion rates have been observed at holidays of this approximate size.
COR-98-8084-A Page 24
The ‘possible’ and ‘probable’ risk assessment of AC corrosion can also be qualified
by other factors besides the AC current density. AC corrosion is also a function of
time, cathodic protection current density, frequency, environment and defect surface
area as summarized in the following table:
Factor Effect on AC Corrosion Rate

time decreases with increasing time
CP current density decreases with increasing CP current density
AC frequency decreases with increasing frequency
environment increases in deaerated environments
Table 3-3- Table of Factors Other than AC Current Density Affecting the AC Corrosion Rate of Steel
It is likely, based on the literature record and field investigations, that most pipelines,
cathodically protected to industry standards and mitigated to reduce the steady state
AC voltage to safe levels from a personnel hazard viewpoint, will experience AC
corrosion if a relatively small coating defect were present.
COR-98-8084-A Page 25
4.0 FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN USING GALVANIC ANODES FOR AC MITIGATION
4.1 Corrosion Characteristics
The use of packaged magnesium anodes either connected in groups or distributed

singularly or the use of zinc ribbon buried along side and parallel to the pipeline are
the most common techniques for mitigating AC interference. Though these methods
have been generally successful in reducing induced voltages to the acceptable
industry standard of 15V, their long term performance is not well known and there are
a few instances their performance characteristics have changed significantly. As the
level of cathodic polarization on the pipeline also depends on the effective
performance of these sacrificial materials, it is important to explore their operating
characteristics. Hamlin[104] cautioned in 1986 that, if galvanic anodes are used in the
presence of AC, then "some changes in CP design will be necessary ".
4.1.1 Zinc Ribbon
Zinc, to operate effectively in the soil as a cathodic protection anode, is typically

limited to soil resistivities of less than 2000 ohm-cm although it has been used
successfully[105] at much higher soil resistivities where the current requirements
are small as is often the case with newly installed coated pipelines. There have
been several instances,[106,107,108,109] when the ribbon has been installed bare, of
a substantial increase in impedance with time, possibly due to the formation of
passive films on the surface. The development of a passive film can also result in
a substantial electropositive shift in the zinc potential as shown in Figure 4- 1 for a
bicarbonate rich soil.
Figure 4-1- Effect of Adding Gypsum in Restoring Znc’s Potential Adversely Affected by Bicarbonate
Rich Environment at Room Temperature (ie. Figure 2 redrawn from Kurr[110])
COR-98-8084-A Page 26
The open circuit potential of zinc is quickly restored however in the presence of
saturated calcium sulfate (gypsum). Kurr recommends [110] that zinc anodes not be
installed bare “unless it is established that the environment is compatible”. A
general rule of thumb is that the concentration of chlorides and sulfates should be
measurably greater than the sum of the concentrations of bicarbonates, carbonates,
nitrates, and phosphates; otherwise the zinc corrosion potential will shift
electropositively with time. Zinc anode backfills are sulfate containing mixtures
of either of two nominal compositions, 50% gypsum and 50% bentonite or 75%
gypsum, 20% bentonite, and 5% sodium sulfate, where the backfill resistivites are
about 250 and 50 ohm-cm respectively.
Peabody and Siegfried [111]have stated that AC can “create an especially high
corrosion rate with buried aluminum, magnesium, and zinc” although no
reference is given for this comment. A 15-20 fold increase in the corrosion of
zinc electrodes was noted by Bruckner[112] in tests at an AC current density of
155A/m2 (15A/ft2), although this AC current density would be much higher than
for a zinc ribbon in AC mitigation service. Dévay[113] discovered that a 75 Hz
alternating current can depolarize zinc in 5% KC1 solutions in both anodic and
cathodic directions as illustrated in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2 - DC Polarization Characteristic of Zinc with Superimposed 75 Hz Alternating Current

in a 5% KCI Solution [redrawn from Dévay, p.258.)
The depolarization effect is most prominent when the zinc is a cathode compared
to when the zinc is an anode. The corrosion potential (when idc = 0) is shifted
slightly electronegatively with increasing AC current density. He also
demonstrated that the magnitude of a DC stray current, discharging from the zinc,
increased by a factor of about 40% and 50% with the application of an AC density
of 100 A/m2 and 200 A/m2 respectively and therefore concluded that the corrosion
COR-98-8084-A Page 27
of zinc was increased by AC current density and that the increase was
proportional to the AC density. It should be noted however that the magnitude of
AC density on the zinc is more than an order of magnitude greater than would be
expected on a zinc ribbon anode used for AC mitigation under steady state
conditions.
The accelerated corrosion of a zinc reference placed in close proximity to a steel

coupon, that was being cathodically protected and subjected to induced AC, was
noted in field tests conducted by Dunbar[114] on a pipeline in a salt marsh.
Because the zinc reference was placed perpendicular to the bare steel coupon and
parallel to both AC and DC current paths, it could have discharged both cathodic
protection and alternating currents. Therefore the accelerated corrosion may not
have been caused by the AC current alone.
Nevertheless, accelerated corrosion of zinc ribbon AC mitigation facilities must

be expected and needs to be accounted for in the cathodic protection design,
despite the lack of information on the magnitude of the accelerating effect.
4.1.2 Packaged Magnesium Anodes
Magnesium, not only has been reported to suffer accelerated corrosion under
the influence of AC, but also its corrosion potential has been observed to shift
electropostively. Figure 4-3 shows the decline in potential of magnesium in a
neutral pH soil saturated with mineral water as AC density is increased as
found by Bruckner.[115]
Figure 4-3- Single Electrode Potential of Mg vs. AC Density in a Fe-Mg Cell

(redrawn from Bruckner, Fig.14)
COR-98-8084-A Page 28
However, when the increase in AC current density was applied over a longer
period of time, the magnitude of the electropositive shift was less indicating that
this effect was also a function of time. He also found that the magnesium actually
reversed its potential and became a cathode to an iron electrode at AC densities
greater than 150A/m2. Using a special circuit, Bruckner concluded that this AC
effect on magnesium was due to a rectification phenomenon taking place on the
anode surface, possibly across the corrosion film.
Miura et al[116] also have reported a positive shift in the potential of magnesium
anodes, but not at AC densities less than 100 A/m2 as shown in Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-4 - Potential of Magnesium Anode vs. Time for Different AC Current Densities
and DC Current Density (redrawn from Miura, C. et al, pp. 436-437)
The curves for the 100 A/m2 (l0A/ft2) AC density indicates that the positive shift
occurred soon after the application of the AC and the magnesium anode potential
generally drifted more electronegative with time. This behavior was
demonstrated for the magnesium with and without a l0A/m 2 (1A/ft2) DC load.
Because of the relatively short period of testing, it is not known if the magnesium
anode potential would eventually return to normal.
Hamlin [115] also reported a positive shift at a magnesium anode bed from
-1.72Vcse to -155Vcse over a 1 hour period at an AC density of 100A/m 2
(l0A/ft2). Because these AC current densities are more than an order of
magnitude higher than is typical for magnesium anodes that are successfully
mitigating the AC voltage to 15V or less, then the prospect of a polarity reversal
is not likely in practice. The positive shift of the magnesium groundbed is
COR-98-8084-A Page 29
somewhat at odds with the observation that the pipe potential shifted 100 mV
more negatively when an AC grounding cell was disconnected and the induced
AC voltage climbed from 18V to 53V. It is however consistent with a decrease in
cathodic protection current output from 25 to 15mA observed at one magnesium
groundbed corresponding to an increase in AC from 800 - 2600mA. One
magnesium anode, that was removed and weighed, was calculated to have an
efficiency of 30% instead of a design efficiency of 50%, although the relatively
low average current output of 10mA could easily account for the poorer
efficiency. This anode had an average AC current discharge of .45A over a nine
year period, which would be typical for most magnesium anodes serving as AC
grounding electrodes.
4.2 Galvanic Anode Impact on Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Current Distribution
Just as galvanic anodes provide a relatively low resistance path to earth for AC, they
function similarly for DC with one major difference. Theoretically galvanic anodes
present a back voltage depending on their corrosion potential which has to be
overcome by the impressed current voltage before the galvanic anode will pick up any
DC current (see electrical circuit model in Figure 4-8). This fundamental behaviour
can be illustrated utilizing a polarization diagram to represent the operation of a zinc
cathodic protection system with a superimposed impressed current system as
illustrated in Figure 4-5. Voltage drops (IR) are ignored in this diagram in order to
simplify the diagram and the explanation.
I
Log I
Figure 4-5 - Polarization Diagram for Hybrid Galvanic/Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
System with the Effect of Soil IR Drops Ignored
Assuming firstly that only the zinc anode system is connected, then the diagram
depicts the cathodic polarization of the steel pipe from its corrosion potential of
-600mVcse to -950mVcse (point A) produced by the zinc galvanic current of I,,,. The
zinc anode is also shown to have polarized electropositively from its open circuit
COR-98-8084-A Page 30
corrosion potential of -1130 mVcse to point A. This is somewhat exaggerated for

illustration purposes since, when surrounded by sulfate rich backfills, the anode
would polarize minimally. The example shown here would be more applicable to a
zinc anode without the special backfill.
As the impressed current is turned on and adjusted to polarize the pipe from A to A
and A”, the Zn potential and current shift toward the zinc open circuit potential of
-1110 mVcse passing through Zn’ to Zn”. At A” and Zn” the galvanic current has been
reduced to Ia,zn” and the rectifier current is Ia,rect”. When the rectifier output is
increased such that the pipe is polarized to B, at which point the pipe potential is
equal to the open circuit potential of the zinc anode, then the zinc anode current is
reduced to zero. Only when the impressed current output is increased so that the pipe
is polarizing towards point C does the zinc anode start to pick up impressed current
and in so doing polarizes electronegatively, receiving a total amount of DC equal to
I cp,zn. Fortunately, as shown by Figure 4-1, zinc has a very steep cathodic polarization
characteristic, likely due to its high hydrogen overvoltage, which limits the amount of
the current picked up.
When the soil IR drop due to cathodic protection current is ignored, then the galvanic
anode will not pick up impressed current until the pipe is polarized to the open circuit
potential of the anode. High potential magnesium anodes, having a corrosion potential
of approximately -1750 mVcse, therefore have a clear advantage over zinc. If there is
no soil IR drop, then magnesium could not pick up current at all since it is not
possible to polarize steel to this potential. When soil IR drop is introduced however,
as illustrated in Figure 4-5, galvanic anodes will begin to pick up impressed current
when the pipe-to-soil ON potential, measured with the reference electrode placed in
the earth at the location of the galvanic anode, is more negative than the anode open
circuit potential.
I Ia,zn
Log Icp
Figure 4-6. Idealized Polarization Diagram for a Hybrid Galvanic/Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
System with Soil IR Drop Effects Included
COR-98-8084-A Page 31
Here the zinc galvanic system, at a current of Ia,zn and operating point A, produces a
pipe-to-soil OFF (polarized) potential of -725mVcse with a corresponding ON
potential of -850mVcse. After the energization of an impressed current system that
polarizes the pipe to point B, the zinc galvanic current (Ia,Zn)will be reduced to zero
because the pipe-to-soil ‘ON’ potential (Bon) equals the zinc corrosion potential
(E corr,Zn). Upon further increasing the impressed current system output to operating
point C, the zinc galvanic anode will pick up current (Icp,Zn)and polarize
electronegatively. Accordingly, ON pipe-to-soil potentials greater than the galvanic
anode open circuit potential will result in the galvanic anode receiving some of the
impressed current intended for the pipe.
As long as the zinc doesn’t passivate the potential at which zinc starts to pick-up
impressed current will be when the ‘ON’ potential of the steel structure with the
reference electrode located at the zinc ribbon is more electronegative than the zinc
open circuit potential of about -1100mVcse. The amount of impressed current picked
up by the zinc will be a function of the cathodic polarization characteristics of the
zinc ribbon. The cathodic polarization characteristics of zinc in an aerated 0.5M
sodium sulfate solution is shown in Figure 4-7[118].
E(mVcse)
Figure 4-7- Cathodic Current Versus Potential Curves on Zinc in Na2,SO4, 0.5 M.)
(redrawn from Deslouis et all)
Note that for a DC current pick-up of (100mA/ft2) that an ‘ON’ potential

of -1330mVcse would be’ required, but at -1380mVcse as much as
could be picked up. Although the zinc anode back voltage increases with
increasing impressed current density, super-imposed AC will tend to lower this back
voltage as a result of depolarization as previously illustrated in Figure 4-2.
COR-98-8084-A Page 32
Where galvanic anodes are located near an impressed current drain point, a change in
the impressed current distribution characteristics should be expected. In order to
investigate this problem, an electrical circuit model of a pipeline having both galvanic
and impressed current source was developed as shown in Figure 4.8.
Figure 4-8- Electric Circuit Model for a Combination Galvanic and Impressed Current System
A matrix of circuit equations was formed and a computer used to solve for the
potential and current at each node and for the constants A, B, C, etc. Figure 4-9 is a
graphical presentation of the results that compares the pipe-to-remote earth potential
attenuation profile without galvanic anodes to the resulting profiles with either zinc or
high potential magnesium anodes connected to the coated pipe in a distributed
manner.
0 15 20 25 30 35 40
Chainage (km)
Figure 4-9- Typical Effect of Cathodic Protection Potential Attenuation Characteristics
for a low Voltage Impressed Current System caused by Galvanic Anodes
COR-98-8084-A Page 33
It is evident, that at a drain point potential of 1750mV the zinc anodes increase the pipe-to-
soil potential attenuation in both directions from the drain point but this effect diminishes
with distance. Remote from the drain point, the zinc anodes not only do not pick up
impressed current but also contribute cathodic protection current. Magnesium anodes at the
impressed current voltage levels used in this example do not pick up impressed current so
that the net effect of their presence is an overall increase in the level of protection rather than
diminishing the level of protection. If the rectifier output is doubled however, some of the
magnesium anodes will pick up current and cause increased attenuation as shown in Figure 4-
10.
Figure 4-10- Typical Effect on Cathodic Protection Potential Attenuation Characteristics

for a High Voltage Impressed Current System Caused by Galvanic Anodes
The foregoing analysis assumes that a singular anode is connected to each section of
pipe having length L and that both pipe and anode cathodic polarization are
negligible. It is however possible to enter the polarization data if the polarization
function is known. Appendix ‘A’ contains the full mathematical treatment arising
from the circuit model. The validity of this computation was proofed by comparison
to the results obtained using a modified computer program developed by Battellet[119]
wherein the results for both were found to be similar.
4.3 Summary
Mitigation of AC voltages using zinc or magnesium anodes can affect cathodic

protection performance as follows:
l the magnesium anode potential can become more electropositive at an AC

anode current density greater than 10 A/m2 ( 1A/ft2)
l the corrosion rate of the zinc and magnesium anodes can increase thereby
shortening their effective life, and
. increase the pipe-to-soil potential attenuation from an impressed current
system depending on the magnitude of the applied voltage of the impressed
current system and on whether or not the mitigation electrode is zinc or
magnesium.
COR-98-8084-A Page 34
5.0 DAMAGE TO PIPELINES AND COATINGS FROM FAULT CURRENTS
5.1 introduction
AC mitigation facilities are primarily designed to provide safety to operating

personnel as per industry standards and hence the mitigation equipment constitutes
grounding of the pipe in areas of peak steady state induced AC and the installation of
voltage gradient control mats at aboveground appurtenances such as at mainline
valves and metering, sales, or compressor stations. Although effective for their design
purpose the actual presence of these grounding facilities can also make the pipe a
more attractive fault current path because the pipe resistance to remote earth is
lowered by the grounding facilities. Accordingly the pipeline may be particularly
vulnerable to arc damage during faults near AC facilities such as substations,
generating plants and, in particular, the power line towers.
5.2 Pipeline Puncturing and Cracking
Although rare, there are a number of reported instances[118-123] of actual pipeline

rupture during power line faults caused by melting of the pipe wall. This type of
hazard was considered to be among the most serious of AC effects on pipelines in an
international survey,[124] comparable to the personnel safety hazard. Unfortunately,
attention proportional to its
considered seriousness, is often
overlooked when designing AC
mitigation facilities. Moreover,
resistance coupling is not only a risk
when the pipeline parallels a power
line but also when they cross. One
method of minimizing the effects of
resistive coupling is by maintaining
an appropriate separation distance
between the pipeline and tower as
illustrated in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1 - Resistance Coupling of AC Fault Curren

from HVAC Tower to Pipe
COR-98-8084-A Page 35
As the conductive path through which the fault current travels is created by ionization
of the air gaps in the bulk soil, and to ionize the soil requires a minimum breakdown
voltage, then the separation distance can be increased until it exceeds the voltage
available from the power line to cause a flashover. This minimum distance of
separation is therefore dependent on the voltage of the power line and the soil
resistivity as shown in Figure 5-2.[125]
Figure 5-2- Flashover Distances (Linearly Extrapolated Data] vs. Soil Resistivity
for Different Transmission Line Voltages
The flashover distances shown in this figure are less than the distance over which a
sustained arc could be maintained after a flashover and therefore more conservative
safe separation distances were recommended as in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 -Predicted Safe Separation Distances from HVAC Towers
The safe separation distance, as a function of the earth resistivity, can also be
estimated from the anticipated magnitude of the fault current in the following
Sunde[126] equations for soil resistivities of less than 100 ohm-m and greater than
1000 ohm-m.
COR-98-8084-A Page 36
for p < 100 ohm-m

Eqn. [5]
for p > 1000 ohm-m

Eqn. [6]
where.. r = distance over which arcing can occur (m)

= soil resistivity (ohm-m)
Iac = AC fault current (kA)
Cherney[127] has stated that fault currents as high as 50kA - 70kA are possible from
modem HVAC systems although not all the fault current would be expected to be
picked up by the pipe, especially when the pipe is beyond the critical separation
distance. Akhtar and Drakos [128] have shown that the ratio of current -pickup - to the
total fault current is also a function of the separation distance as illustrated in Figure
5-3 .
Figure 5-3 - Fraction of Fault Current Entering the Pipe as a Function of Separation
Distance for a Fault Current Range of 5.8 - 9.9 kA [redrawn from Akhtar & Drakos]
The amount of current required to perforate a steel pipe depends on the duration of the
current, type and thickness of coating, size of holiday, and thickness of the pipe wall
[129]
as demonstrated in tests by Webster et al. Typically, for 6 cycle duration faults,
perforation of steel pipe with wall thickness between 5.6mm and 9.54mm resulted
from fault currents ranging from 15.1kA to 44kA. In comparison as little as 0.33kA
was needed to perforate a 4.88mm thick wall, extruded polyethylene coating when
the fault duration was 120 cycles (i.e. 2sec.). Although puncturing was relatively
infrequent, melting of the pipe wall to a finite depth with an associated heat affected
zone and coating damage was common. The rapid cooling of the melted area
COR-98-8084-A Page 37
following the arc strike produced areas having a high hardness and therefore a
susceptibility to crack growth and hydrogen embrittlement. Drakos[130] conducted
fault tests on 35 mm diameter coated piping placed adjacent to a 230kV line in which
the maximum test current was 7.8kA in 10,000 ohm-cm clay. They found a linear
relationship between the fault current and the diameter and depth of the melted zone
as shown in Figure 5-4.
Current Entering Pipe, kA (Peak)
Figure 5-4-Diameter and Depth of Melted Area vs. AC Current

(redrawn from Drakos, pp.96-97)
A long duration fault referred to as a high impedance fault by Akhtar and Hunter,[131]
resulted in a leak on a gas distribution pipe where the 250A breaker on the 3 phase
25kV distribution system did not activate. Considerable melting and cracking was
evident at the leak site on the 100mm diameter, polyethylene coated gas distribution
main. Pipe failure therefore can also be caused by relatively small fault currents from
electrical distribution systems (<69kV) if the fault current is sustained.
COR-98-8084-A Page 38
The magnitude of the fault current is generally related by Ohm’s law to the resistance
of the fault current path and to the available fault voltage. Favez and Gougeuil [132]
observed that at 15kV a 200mm diameter coated pipe having a 5mm wall was
perforated, at I0kV the pipe was damaged, and there was no damage at 5kV. At 5kV
the fault current was measured at 50A in the 2000 ohm-cm soil. They therefore
concluded that “it seems reasonable to take 5kV as the maximum acceptable voltage
apt to occur between the metal of an underground pipeline and the surrounding
earth, and at which there is normally little risk ofperforation of the piping”. As with
the fault current, the pipe-to-soil AC voltage is a fraction of the tower voltage
depending on the pipe-to-tower separation distance as illustrated in Figure 5-5[133] for
a faulted 225 kV line with no earth wires.
Figure 5-5 - Fault Voltage Profile with Distance from Tower (redrawn from Favez & Gougeuil, p.13)
COR-98-8084-A Page 39
This curve is calculated for homogeneous soil using the following equation:
Eqn. [7]
where: vx = the voltage in the soil at ‘x’

VP = the voltage at the tower
X = distance from the tower axis
a = is the radius of a sphere having the equivalent resistance
to remote earth as the four tower legs.
If the surface soil is lower resistivity than the subsurface soil, then the voltage with
distance will be greater and conversely if the subsurface soil is lower resistivity than
the surface soil, then the voltage at ‘x’ will be less. The maximum tower potential rise
is a function of the tower resistance to remote earth, the distance of the fault from the
nearest generating station, the resistance of the substation grounding system to remote
earth, and the voltage rating of the power circuit. Calculating this voltage therefore is
[134]
very complex. According to Cherney, although tower rise voltages of 15kV can
be calculated, the “tower potential rise is somewhat lower, typically 7500 volts”.
5.3 Pipeline Coating Damage
Although pipe puncturing may not be a risk at pipe-to-soil voltages less than 5kV,
high voltage strikes can cause coating damage. Pipeline coatings are relatively
[135]
unaffected by 50V AC, according to Collings after conducting tests on coal tar
enamel, polyethylene, and powdered epoxy coatings for 37 days, but are vulnerable to
damage at fault voltage levels. Dawalibi et al[136] warns that a voltage stress of 2500V
“may be sufficient to cause a slow degradation of the characteristics of the coating if
the dielectric strength of the coating is not high enough to withstand the stress
voltage and if the frequency of power system ground faults is relatively high”.
Pohl[ 1 3 7 ] found in tests on 4mm thick, bitumen coated, and undamaged pipe
specimens that 4 samples exhibited coating punctures at AC voltages of 2.2kV to
5.0kV. Dabkowski[138] conducted high voltage tests on a number of holiday free
coatings and established a voltage puncture level for each as shown in Table 5-2.
COR-98-8084-A Page 40
Southey et al[139] claim that coating damage on bitumen-coated pipelines can occur at
1000 to 2000V and at voltages of 3000 to 5000V on polyethylene or fusion bonded
epoxy coatings.
In tests carried out by Webster et al, [140] arc damage to the pipe was determined to be
a function of the coating type and thickness. Typically, coal tar enamel coated pipe
suffered the most pipe wall damage and the least coating damage. Often the wall melt
area was the same size as the coating damage area. The pipe damage areas on the
polyethylene and fusion bonded coated pipe however, were generally larger than the
wall melt areas, often several times larger and in extreme cases an order of magnitude
greater in surface area. As with wall melting, the coating damage was also most
severe for the high fault current-short duration faults. Moreover, arc damage caused
by low fault current (1kA or less) having a long duration (12 cycles) was independent
of the coating type.
Where safe tower-to-pipe separation distance cannot be obtained or where repeated

fault current strikes might lead to coating damage, then shielding electrodes should be
used to intercept any fault current. One series of tests[141] using both magnesium
anodes and steel indicated that the electrodes should be packaged in low resistivity
backfill to lower their resistance and should be a sacrificial material such as zinc or
magnesium to prevent draining the existing cathodic protection system. In addition it
was recommended that the shielding electrode be placed horizontally parallel to the
pipe axis, 1 meter from the pipe, and have an end-to-end separation of also 1 meter.
Although tests to determine the number of electrodes required have not been done, it
has been suggested that 6 anodes be used for a tower-pipe separation distance of 10
meters with an additional anode to be installed for each 10 meter increase in
separation distance.
5.4 Summary
There are documented instances of pipe puncturing from melting caused by fault
currents introduced into the pipe at coating holidays through resistive coupling. Even
if puncturing does not result, partial melting of the pipe wall can produce a heat
affected zone and crack susceptibility. Coating damage can also occur particularly on
polyethylene and powdered epoxy coatings, although coating damage tends to
increase the area of contact and reduce the risk of pipe melting or puncturing.
Pipelines, having conventional AC interference mitigation facilities, will have a lower

AC circuit resistance to remote earth and therefore will be more prone to resistance
coupling faults where the pipe is near electric power transmission facilities such as
powerline towers and guys, and grounding systems at generating stations and
substations. Accordingly it is important to maintain appropriate separation distances
to prevent arc damage and where this cannot be achieved, screening electrodes,
composed of sacrificial zinc or magnesium surrounded by low resistivity backfill,
should be installed horizontally, parallel to the pipe axis, closely spaced to each other,
and about a meter from the pipe.
COR-98-8084-A Page 41
6.0 ELECTRICAL ISOLATION AND AC COUPLING DEVICES
6.1 Introduction
Electrical isolation of piping networks is often essential for the effective operation of
the cathodic protection system however isolation fittings are subject to damage by
fault currents unless surge protection measures are taken. Numerous failures of flange
[139,145]
isolation from fault currents have been reported. Surge protection devices
such as spark gaps, arresters, zinc grounding cells, polarization cells, and isolation
[146]
surge protectors (ISP), are recommended to be connected across isolating fittings
to provide an alternative fault current path. Although spark gaps and arresters are
effective against lightning and smaller fault currents, they are subject to high
maintenance and are not suitable for draining steady state induced AC which is very
often required for effective AC mitigation. Hence a class of devices called DC
isolator-AC couplers are frequently employed to maintain a DC step voltage across
the isolator while providing a low resistance path to AC. The use of this equipment
however can have some deleterious implications regarding the cathodic protection
system performance.
6.2 Zinc Grounding Cells

[147]
Zinc grounding cells, as illustrated in Figure 6-1, are composed of two lengths of
zinc anode alloy casting separated lengthwise with two insulating blocks and
packaged with galvanic anode backfill in a cardboard or cloth container.
Typically [148] the zinc anode castings are 3.6 x 3.6 x 152 cm, separated 2.5 cm by
plastic spacers, and surrounded by either the 50 ohm-cm or 250 ohm-cm sulfate rich
Figure 6-1- Typical Grounding Cell
COR-98-8084-A Page 42
backfill resulting in cell resistances of 0.20 and 0.60 ohm respectively. The grounding
cell provides a low resistance path for both AC and DC but, if sufficient DC current
passes through the cell to create a back voltage by cathodic polarization, then DC will
be limited. It is claimed[149] that this back voltage can be in the order of 0.5V.
Reference to Figure 3-13 however indicates that to cathodically polarize zinc more
negative than -1.5Vcse would require a DC density of 4A/m 2 (.4A/ft2)which is over
500mA based on the electrode dimensions for a standard size grounding cell.
Moreover, AC will depolarize the zinc grounding cell allowing more cathodic
protection current to pass through the cell. Theoretically, this could make the
grounding cell ineffective in maintaining a DC step potential back voltage on
galvanic anode protected piping. Zinc grounding cells were disconnected at one
electric generating plant [150] when the DC current drain through the cells was so great
that the magnesium anode system could not maintain protection on the fuel piping.
Even when the DC drain can be tolerated, as might be the case with an impressed
current system, the life of a zinc grounding cell will be shortened by the excessive DC
current drain, necessitating the installation of multiple cells or of cells with higher
weight castings. The typical failure mode for zinc grounding cell will be an open
circuit thereby creating a possible safety hazard.
6.3 Polarization Cells
AC resistance through a polarization cell is typically about 0.1 milliohm and is

dependent on the number of plates, surface area of the plates, and spacing between
plates. The cells are usually constructed to pass high currents, in the order of tens of
kA, without damage to the cell and yet be able to offer a significant DC back voltage.
Polarization cells derive their DC back voltage from both cathodic and anodic
polarization of either stainless steel or nickel plates immersed in an alkaline
hydroxide solution. Back voltages in the order of 1.6V can be developed with rather
modest cathodic protection current drainage (e.g. 100mA), as shown in Figure 6-2[151],
from tests performed on a 12 plate cell.
COR-98-8084-A Page 43
1.200 jI
0 100 200 300 400 600
DC Current Through Polarization Cell (mA)
Figure 6-2- DC Current Through Polarization Cell with Steady State AC Current load
(redrawn from Drakos, p.6A-12)
As with zinc grounding cells, AC causes depolarization and at l0A-20A AC the DC

rises to about 400mA and lowers the back voltage to less than 1.35Vdc. Again, for
galvanically protected pipelines and a steady state AC drain, a 400mA DC drain may
compromise the cathodic protection system operation. Also, if the solution becomes
diluted or the solution level is low, corrosion of the plates has been known to
occur.[152] Under steady state AC current drain, the cell will continue to pass DC and
hence the possibility of corrosion arises on the anodic plates. Plate corrosion has been
reported for both nickel and stainless steel plates[153] under the foregoing
circumstances coupled with the superposition of DC stray current originating from a
transit system. Excessive gassing, produced during faults as the cell is depolarized
and as the repolarizing DC generates oxygen at the anode plate and hydrogen at the
cathode [154] also produces an explosion hazard. A polarization cell failure can result
in a shock hazard because of an open circuit failure mode, especially where the cell is
being relied upon to drain steady state induced AC currents.
6.4 Isolation-Surge Protectors
Isolation-surge protectors (ISP) are solid state devices which were introduced in the
late 1980s as a replacement for the polarization cell. As shown in Figure 6-3, they
consist of three distinct circuit components, namely; an arrester to pass lightning
faults, electrolytic capacitors to drain steady state AC, and thyristors to pass AC fault
currents.
COR-98-8084-A Page 44
Figure 6-3- Isolator/Surge Protector Circuit Diagram

(redrawn from Dairyland Electric Industries Inc., Isolation/Surge Protector Brochure, Fig.1 p.A6)
An ISP presents an open circuit to DC up to a voltage threshold that is adjustable and

a short circuit to voltages greater than the threshold value. These devices require less
maintenance than polarization cells and are claimed[155] to fail in closed circuit mode.
They are however polarity sensitive, since the electrolytic capacitors can fail under
AC load (usually open circuit) if the polarity is reversed. This factor may preclude
their use in locations subject to fluctuating DC stray currents such as from a transit
system or telluric activity.
The DC current loss through an isolation-surge protector is typically low as shown in

the operation characteristics diagram of Figure 6-4. Only after the thyristors are
triggered between 9.1V and 12.5V does the DC current increase, which would only be
for short periods.
COR-98-8084-A Page 45
Figure 6-4 - DC Current Through an Isolation-Surge Protector vs. AC Voltage[156]

Even though both polarization cells and ISPs can theoretically pass lightning current,
lightning surges may not find this path advantageous if it is too long. The conductors
that connect any of the foregoing isolation protection devices must be kept short in
order to minimize voltage rise caused by the conductor inductance which is given in
the following equation;
Eqn. [8]
where.. e = electromotive force (voltage) between ends of conductors
di/dt = rate of current rise in conductor (typically 500-

5000A/microsec)
L = inductance of a conductor is given by the

following equation:
where..
COR-98-8084-A Page 46
For an isolating device connected across a flange, a total conductor length of 20m,
and a lightning current rise of 1000A/microsec, a voltage of 2000V would appear
across the insulator, which could be high enough to damage the flange insulation.
Therefore, where the conductors between the AC fault protector and the isolated
fitting are long, a surge protector should still be installed at the flange isolation.
6.5 Electrolytic Capacitors
Aluminum electrolytic capacitors are sometimes used for draining steady state
induced currents to AC grounding systems or as shown in Figure 6-5, to a casing.
These are polarized capacitors and therefore subject to failure under AC load if the
polarity reverses as could be the case if the pipeline is exposed to DC stray currents.
The failure mode 80% of the time is to a short circuited condition,[159] which is a fail
safe condition from an AC hazard point of view but a cathodic protection integrity
disadvantage. Sealed capacitors have been known to explode and catch on fire when
exposed to a reverse voltage under AC load. Electrolytic capacitors also have a
limited life of about 10 years and require protection from fault currents with a surge
protector such as a varistor.
Varistor
Figure 6-5- Electrolytic Capacitor with Surge Voltage Protection
6.6 Voltage Surge Protectors
Surge protectors to handle lightning and AC fault currents are typically connected
across isolating fittings and the input/output of electronic equipment. There are a
wide variety of surge protectors such as gas filled, surface discharge, varistors and
suppressor diodes, all with different AC fault handling capabilities. The critical
feature on pipelines subject to electromagnetic induced AC is the ability of the surge
protector to limit the follow current. Surface discharge or varistors perform this
function whereas gas filled arrestors do not. There is however a significant
performance difference between a metal oxide varistor (MOV) and silicon carbide
varistor. As illustrated in Figure 6-6, the MOV breakover voltage is much less than
the silicon carbide, hence the MOV is more suitable for protecting electronic
components, and in particular rectifiers. MOVs can be selected for specific breakover
voltages and surge current ratings.
COR-98-8084-A Page 47
Figure 6-6- Voltage/Current Varistor Characteristic Curves [160]
6.7
Surge protection devices are essential to protect isolating fittings from damage due to
AC fault currents. Some of them such as zinc grounding cells, polarization cells and
isolation-surge protectors are also capable of draining the steady state induced
currents from pipelines to other structures.
Although all the devices are more or less effective in passing fault currents, the
amount of DC current that they allow through the device may compromise the
operation of the cathodic protection system. The zinc grounding cell has the least
resistance to DC since it relies on a back voltage produced by the cathodic
polarization of one of the two zinc castings in the cell. If the grounding cell is
conducting steady state AC current then cathodic depolarization reduces this back
voltage. The resulting increase in DC current not only shortens the life of the cell
because of increased consumption of the anode casting but also can jeopardize the
ability of galvanic anode systems to maintain a satisfactory level of protection.
Polarization cells also allow DC current through the cell when draining steady state
AC current because the AC tends to depolarize both the anode and cathode plates.
Although the DC current is typically less than for a zinc grounding cell, nevertheless
where a number of polarization cells are connected in parallel, the performance of a
galvanic anode cathodic protection system could be compromised. Isolation-surge
protectors and capacitors are excellent at blocking DC but capacitors require a surge
protector to handle any fault currents.
Zinc grounding cells, polarization cells, capacitors, and varistors tend to fail in the
open circuit mode which can result in a safety hazard or the failure of an isolating
device or electronic equipment. An isolation-surge protector tends to fail in the
shorted mode thereby maintaining safety but possibly impacting on the level of
cathodic protection.
Metal oxide varistors should be used instead of silicon carbide arresters to protect
electronic equipment because metal oxide varistor breakover voltage is lower.
COR-98-8084-A Page 48
7.0 CATHODIC PROTECTION TEST PROCEDURES AND TEST FACILITIES
7.1 Introduction
In general, the presence of AC on a pipeline, whether or not the AC voltage level is

being satisfactorily mitigated, has several implications with regard to the monitoring
and testing of cathodic protection operating performance. Instruments used for
measuring cathodic protection parameters such as potential, current and resistance
must be selected to function accurately and effectively with a superimposed AC
voltage. Accordingly, instrumentation used routinely for cathodic protection
measurements may not be suitable in the presence of induced AC. Measurement
procedures should be changed to record AC values as well as DC for each of the
parameters being measured. Just as is the requirement during pipeline construction,
pipeline cathodic protection measurements should not be taken when there is the
threat of an electrical storm, identified either by the sound of thunder or sight of
lightning.
7.2 Potential Measurements
Voltmeters used for potential measurements must have an adequately rated AC filter
to protect the meter. High AC voltage rejection is particularly important with data
loggers used for close interval surveying since the long survey wire will receive an
induced AC voltage as well as the pipe with the induced voltage magnitude being a
function of the wire length along the right-of-way. The survey wire should be
reconnected at each test station to minimize the induced voltage.
The long survey wire should always be connected to the pipe and not the reference
electrode otherwise the reference electrode would be subject to the induced AC.
Both AC and DC measurements of pipe-to-soil potentials at test stations or pipe

appurtenances should be recorded. At test stations that are not of the ‘dead-front’
type but rather have a gradient mat connected directly to the pipe, the reference
electrode must be placed sufficiently remote from the test station so that neither the
AC nor DC potential measurement is influenced by the gradient mat.
As previously mentioned in Section 3.0, a DC potential satisfying existing industry

criteria does not necessarily mean that corrosion control is adequate, since AC
corrosion is possible under some conditions even when the AC voltage has been
mitigated to safe levels. At present the most convenient method of assessing whether
or not there could be AC corrosion activity is by reference to Figure 3-15 or Figure
3-16. Depending on the induced voltage level and the soil resistivity, the risk of AC
corrosion can be evaluated. Should there prove to be a significant risk, then either the
AC mitigation system has to be improved or a 1cm 2 coupon(s) be installed to
facilitate the measurement of the actual AC current density.
COR-98-8084-A Page 49
7.3 Current Measurements
7.3.1 Pipe Currents
Whenever DC current measurements are taken, so should AC current

measurements. Because AC currents can be several orders of magnitude
larger than DC, the ammeter circuit of a digital multimeter should not be used
to measure AC currents. Rather, an external shunt having a high ampere
capacity should be utilized. Pipeline current measurements based on voltage
drops at 2 wire or 4 wire test lead spans will require recalibration of the pipe
spans to account for the difference in resistance to a 60Hz sinusoidal
waveform compared to DC. Typical AC impedance values for different
diameter pipes are shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1 - Calculated AC Pipe Impedance [I61]
(1)
Calculated values are from a formula developed by IITRI in
the final report for the jointly sponsored PRC/EPRl project.
AGA Catalog No. L51278; EPRI No. EL-904.
Notes:
1, It is noted that wall thickness is not a contributing factor for a wall
thicker than 4.8mm (0.188 inch).
2. Since wall thickness does not change AC impedance for most
transmission pipelines, a direct proportion exists between Z and pipe
diameter.
3. The measured value for 16.8cm (6-5/8 inch) pipe was obtained by
measuring the change in voltage drop on a 122m (400 foot) length of
pipe resulting from measured increments of current flow.
4. The resistance measured for 40cm (16 inch) pipe was obtained from
the voltage change at a point 2.1 km (1.3 miles) from a temporary
bond through which a measured value of current was interrupted.
Alternatively, when the pipeline is accessible, AC current can be measured

using a clam -on ammeter technique and an AC indicator rather than a DC
indicator.[162]
COR-98-8084-A Page 50
7.3.2 Galvanic Anode Measurements
Determining both the DC and AC current flow to a galvanic anode being used
for AC grounding purposes is important in determining the life and
operational capability of the anode in its dual capacity. Measurement of
galvanic anode DC current using a clamp-on ammeter however may be in
considerable error if the ratio of the IAC/ IDC is large. An AC cancellation yoke
may be required to obtain accurate DC values. Alternatively, the current path
can be split into parallel paths as shown in Figure 7-1 which reduces the AC
current magnitude in the shunt resistor path and gives one the option of
measuring the DC current with a clamp-on ammeter without the need for AC
cancellation or with a voltmeter connected across the shunt resistor which has
a known value.
Figure 7-1 - Using Shunt Capacitor & Resistor to Facilitate Measurement of AC & DC Current
7.4 Summary
The major problem with measuring cathodic protection parameters on pipelines with
AC mitigation facilities is the potential personnel hazard, measurement accuracy, and
instrument capacity to handle AC voltages and currents. Accordingly, measurements
should not be attempted if an electrical storm is present and AC potentials
corresponding to the DC parameter should always be recorded.
Instruments should be chosen that have high AC rejection capabilities. The reference
electrode must be placed remote from gradient control mats where possible to
minimize the influence of the mat material on the potential reading.
Pipe spans used for measuring pipe DC current will require recalibration and a special
measuring circuit that shunts the AC current through an electrolytic capacitor may be
needed to accurately measure the DC current from a galvanic anode being used as an
AC mitigation ground.
COR-98-8084-A Page 51
8.0 MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 Casings
Failure of the carrier pipe inside a casing from both puncturing[163] and AC
corrosion[164,165] have occurred and in all these incidents the casing was isolated from
the pipe and not AC coupled. The casing, when bare, has a relatively low resistance to
earth compared to the coated carrier pipe. The small separation distance between a
carrier pipe holiday and casing, through water contained in the annulus of the casing
makes the impedance to remote earth lower than if the casing was not present. This
path can therefore transfer to earth more current than a similar sized holiday on the
pipe.
To prevent these carrier pipe failures, all casings should be AC coupled to the pipe at
locations where there is a steady state induced voltage or where the pipe is subject to
AC fault current. An example of this arrangement is shown in Figure 6-5.
Metallic vent pipes should not be placed near or against an above ground metallic
object, such as a fence or guy wire, since these objects could become energized
during a fault. Furthermore, if the casing is in a built up area, a gradient control mat
should be installed at the bore of each vent to protect the public from a potential
shock hazard. Otherwise non-metallic vent pipes should be used.
8.2 Crossings with Foreign Metallic Structures
Just as crossings with foreign metallic structures are critical locations for DC
interference, the same applies with respect to AC interference. The close proximity of
two metallic structures lowers the current path resistance between the two and can
therefore increase the interference current density. Unlike DC interference however
where only one structure can corrode, with AC interference both structures can
corrode if the current density is high enough and both structures may be susceptible to
puncturing as a result of a fault. The need for AC coupling of the two structures must
be carefully examined and reviewed with the foreign structure owner during the
course of the cathodic protection design. If it is decided not to bond the two structures
together for AC safety purposes, then separate test stations for each structure should
be provided and located a minimum of 3m apart. This will prevent field personnel
from being exposed to a possible touch voltage hazard between the respective test
leads.
8.3 DC Interference on Electric Powerline Towers, Grounds, and Guy Anchors
Consideration for DC interference on electric powerline towers, grounds and guy

anchors is often overlooked when designing an impressed current system for a
pipeline that is sharing a powerline right-of-way. Where the electric powerline is
equipped with a sky wire or counterpoise then the powerline simulates a long parallel
conductor and would be expected to behave similar to that of a parallel pipeline.[166]
COR-98-8084-A Page 52
[167]
The typical situation is outlined by Drakos, who examined the case of stray
current pickup opposite a cathodic protection system groundbed and discharge from
the towers on each side of the pickup site of decreasing stray current magnitude with
increasing distance. The impressed current design should attempt to minimize this
interference and an interference survey should be conducted on the towers when
commissioning the cathodic protection system.
8.4 Concerns at Meter, Regulator, and Compressor Stations
Generally in meter stations and compressor stations, gradient control mats are
installed at or near grade where there are aboveground piping runs or appurtenances
to reduce both step and touch potentials. If the mat is not a sacrificial anode material,
then the cathodic protection system capacity must be increased to cathodically protect
the gradient control mat or the control mats must be DC isolated using an AC coupler.
These stations often have many electronic monitoring and control systems that can be
particularly susceptible to AC fault damage. Even with the extra grounding provided
by the gradient control mats, fault current can still damage the electronic equipment
and it is prudent to take steps to prevent the fault current from entering the station.
This can be done by leaving the mainline isolation intact and providing a fault current
path through an isolation-surge protector around the station on the mainline as shown
in Figure 8-1 or alternatively connecting the mainline piping directly to the primary
electrical ground at the station.
Figure 8-1-Protecting a Meter, Regulator or Compressor Station by Diverting Fault

Current Around the Station
Surge protectors are still required across the flange isolation and the yard piping can
still be DC isolated with an isolation-surge protector connected to the station primary
electrical round as shown in Figure 8-2. This arrangement is proposed by
as the simplest method of isolating station structures from the primary
ground to facilitate the cathodic protection of the buried station structures. He
COR-98-8084-A Page 53
suggests that this procedure is allowed under Rule (97-D2) of the National Electric
Code (NEC) even though the rule was not created for cathodic protection purposes.
[169
Recently, Schiff ]has reported that the 1999 NEC will contain a clause that will
allow AC coupling-DC isolating devices to be inserted in equipment grounding paths.
The proposed wording is as follows: “Where isolation of objectionable DC ground
currents from cathodic protection systems is required, a listed ac coupling/dc
isolating device shall be permitted in the equipment grounding path to provide an
effective return path for ac ground-fault current while blocking dc current”.
Service
Station
Load
Grounding
Conductor
Gradient
Control Mats
Figure 8-2- DC Isolation of Station Grounding System from Primary Grounding System
(redrawn from Tachick, p.16
The DC isolator-AC couple shown in the foregoing figure therefore replaces a solid
bond between the primary and secondary electrical ground as required by code.
8.5 Motorized Valves
Typically mainline motorized valves are surrounded by a gradient control mat and
isolated from electrical ground through isolation transformers in the power and
control circuits. To protect against fault currents an isolation-surge protector should
be connected from the mainline valve to the primary electrical ground of the electrical
service to the valve. This will also assist in grounding steady state induced currents
without putting an additional drain on the cathodic protection system.
COR-98-8084-A Page 54
9.0 GENERAL SUMMARY

9.1 Summary Table
The use of AC mitigation facilities can create problems pertaining to the safe
operation of the pipeline, effective operation of the cathodic protection system, and
personnel safety. These factors are summarized in the following table in terms of
identifying possible damage or hazardous effect along with the corresponding
recommended remedial action.
COR-98-8084-A Page 56
COR-98-8084-A Page 57
Section 7 Measurement of Corrosion Parameters, cont’d

I
AC current l resistance values at IR drop spans l recalibrate pipe spans using AC
measurements are not accurate for AC current. impedance values (see Table 7.1).
Section 8.1 Casings

l because bare casing has a relatively l install capacitor between carrier
low resistance to ground compared pipe and casing to drain steady
to a coated pipeline, AC corrosion state AC and protect capacitor with
and puncturing can occur on the a metal oxide varistor
carrier pipe. (see Figure 6.5)
l when casing is AC coupled to the l install non-metallic vent riser

pipe, the vents can present a piping or ensure that metallic vent
voltage hazard to the public. does not contact above ground
metallic structures such as fences
and has a gradient control mat.
Section 8.2 Crossings with Foreign Metallic Structures

l AC current transfer at crossing can l install DC isolator-AC coupler
cause puncturing, AC corrosion or between pipes or galvanic
coating damage. screening electrodes
l mutual test station at crossing can l if an AC bond is not installed then

produce a touch potential hazard the test leads from each structure
between test leads from crossing should be contained in separated
structures. test stations located a minimum of
3m apart.
Section 8.3 nterference on Powerline from Pipeline Impressed Current System
.
l stray current corrosion of locate impressed current
powerline tower legs, grounding groundbed as remote as possible
systems, and guy anchors. from the AC powers system
facilities.
.
conduct interference tests on
powerline structure.
.
use galvanic cathodic protection
system.
COR-98-8084-A Page 58
COR-98-8084-A Page 59
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 General
As a result of this investigation, completed primarily using literature references, it is

recommended that the following areas be further researched.
l investigate the mechanism of AC corrosion as related to cathodic protection

current density for different soil environments and develop a model that fully
explains the mechanism.
l quantify the impact on the galvanic efficiency of zinc and magnesium anodes
when being used to ground steady state AC currents.
l evaluate merit of instrumentation that senses the AC positive peak potential

relative to the DC polarized potential as a means of determining whether or
not AC corrosion will occur.
COR-98-8084-A Page 60
References
1. Dabkowski, J. and Taflove, A., “Mutual Design Considerations for Overhead AC

Transmission Lines and Gas Transmission Pipelines - PRC/AGA Contract No
PR132-80, Volume 1 - Engineering Analysis and Volume 2 - Prediction and
Mitigation Procedures”, Sept. 1978.
2. Mitigation of Alternating Current and Lightning Effects on Metallic Structures and

Corrosion Control Systems, NACE International, RPO 177-95.
3. Principles and Practices of Electrical Coordination Between Pipelines and Electrical

Supply Lines, National Standard of Canada (CAN/CSA-C22.3 No.6 - M91).
4. Dawalibi, F., Power Line Fault Current Coupling to Nearby Natural Gas Pipelines,
Vol. 1 - Analytic Methods and Graphical Techniques, Vol. 2 - User’s Guide for
ECCAPP Computer Program, Vol. 3 - Analysis of Pipeline Coating Impedance, AGA
PR 176-510 , November 1987.
5. Kulman, F.E., “Effects of Alternating Currents in Causing Corrosion”, Corrosion,

Vol. 17, March 1961.
6. Fuchs, W., Steinwrath, H., and Ternes, H., “Corrosion of Iron by Alternating Current
with Relation to Current Density and Frequency”, Das Gas-Und Wasserfach, Vol. 99,
Jan. 1958, pp.78-81.
7. Bruckner, W.H., “The Effects of 60 Cycle Alternating Current on the Corrosion of

Steels and Other Metals Buried in Soils”, University of Illinois, Bulletin 470, Nov.
1964.
8. Ibid 6, p.78
9. Luoni, G. and Anelli, P., “Armor Corrosion in Single Core Submarine AC Cables”,
IEEE PES Symposium, Jan. 1976, p.4.
10. Hewes, F.W., “Four Phenomena Affecting Cathodic Protection and Corrosion Rates”,
Materials Performance, Vol. 8, Sept. 1969, pp.69-71.
11. Pookote, S.R. and Chin, D-T., “Effect of Alternating Current on the Underground
Corrosion of Steels”, Materials Performance, Vol. 17, March 1978, pp.9-15.
12. Collings, L.V., “The Effect of Alternating Current on Pipeline Corrosion, Coatings,
and Cathodic Protection”, NACE, Corrosion’76, Paper No.134.
13. Moore, W.B.R., “The Influence of AC on Natural Corrosion Rates”, UK Corrosion

‘88, 1988.
COR-98-6064-A Page 61
14. Hamlin, A.W., “Some Effects of Alternating Current on Pipeline Operations”,

Materials Performance, Vol. 19, Jan 1980, pp. 18-27.
15. Hamlin, A.W., “Alternating Current Corrosion”, Materials Performance, Jan. 1986,
pp.55-58.
16. Ibid 10, p.70.
17. Ibid 12, p.8.
18. Ibid 11, p.9.
19. Ibid 14, p.27.
20. Ibid 15, p.57.
21. Dévay, J., Takacs, T., and Abd El-Rehim, S.S., “Electrolytic AC Corrosion of Iron”,
Acta Chimica, 52, 1967, pp.63-68.
22. Prinz, W., “AC Induced Corrosion on Cathodically Protected Pipelines”, UK

Corrosion ‘92, Vol. 1, 1992.
23. DIN 30676: Planung und Anwending des Kathodischen Korrosionsschutzes fur den
Aubenschutz, Ausg. Okt. 1985.
24. Heim, Gerhard and Peez, Gustav, “The Influence of Alternating Currents on Buried
and Cathodically Protected High Pressure Gas Pipelines”, Gas-Erdgas, 133, No.3,
1992.
25. Hartmann, P., , “External Corrosion on a Cathodically Protected Gas Pipeline Due to
Interference from 50Hz Alternating Current”, 3R International, 30, Issue 10, Oct.
1991, pp. 584-589. (in German)
26. Stalder, F., “Pipeline Failures, Materials Science Forum”, Vol. 247 (1997) pp.139-
146.
27. Ragault, I., “AC Corrosion Induced by VHV Electrical Lines on Polyethylene Coated
Steel Gas Pipelines”, NACE International, Corrosion ‘98, Paper No. 557, 1998.
28. Wakelin, R.G., Gummow, R.A., and Segall, S.M., “AC Corrosion-Case Histories,
Test Procedures, and Mitigation”, NACE International, Corrosion ‘98, Paper No. 565,
1998.
29. Ibid 23.
30. Cathodic Protection Design for Underground or Submerged Piping, NACE

International, RPO169-92, Section 6.
COR-98-8084-A Page 62
31. Ibid 22.
32. Ibid 26, p. 142.
33. Ibid 28, p. 11.
34. Ibid 27, p.2
35. Funk, D., Prinz, W., and Schoneich, H.G., “Investigations of AC Corrosion in
Cathodically Protected Pipes”, 3R International, 31 , Issue 6, June 1992, pp.336-341.
36. Helm, G., Heim, Th., Heinzen, H., and Schwenk, W., “Investigation of Corrosion of
Cathodically Protected Steel Subjected to Alternating Currents”, 3R International, 32,
Issue 5, May 1993, pp. 246-249. (in German)
37. Peez, Gustav, “AC Corrosion of Buried Cathodically Protected Pipelines”, Gas-
Erdgas 134, No.6, 1993, pp.301-35. (in German)
38. Ibid 25, p.589.
39. Ibid 27, p.4.
40. Ibid 26, p. 146.
41. Ibid 22, p.6.
42. Ibid 21, p.65.
43. Ibid 35, p.341.
44. Ibid 36, p.248.
45. Ibid 27, p.3.
46. Frazier, M.J. and Barlo, T.J., “Influence of AC from Power Lines on the Cathodic
Protection of Steel in Groundwater Solutions”, NACE International, Corrosion ‘96,
Paper No.210.
47. Ibid 24
48. Ibid 22, p.6
49. Ibid 37, p.301
50. Pagano, M.A. and Lalvani S.B., “Corrosion of Mild Steel Subjected to Alternating
Voltages in Seawater”, Corrosion Science, Vol. 36, No.1, 1994, pp.127-140.
COR-98-8084-A Page 63
51. Lalvani, S.B., and Lin, X.A., “A Theoretical Approach for Predicting AC-Induced
Corrosion”, Corrosion Science, Vol. 36, No.6, 1994, pp. 1039- 1046.
52. Lalvani, S.B. and Zhang, G., “The Corrosion of Carbon Steel in a Chloride
Environment due to Periodic Voltage Modulation: Part 1”, Corrosion Science, Vol.
37, No.10, 1995, pp.1567-1582.
53. Bertocci, U., “AC Induced Corrosion - The Effect of an Alternating Voltage on
Electrodes under Charge Transfer Control”, Corrosion, Vo1.35, No.5, May 1979,
pp.211-215.
54. Ibid 22, p.6.
55. Ibid 36, p.248.
56. McCollum, B. and Ahlborn, G.H., “Influence of Frequency of Alternating or

Infrequently Reversed Current on Electrolytic Corrosion”, Technologic Papers of the
Bureau of Standards, Dept. of Commerce, No. 72, 1916, pp. 1.
57. Ibid 36, p.248.
58. Jones, D.A., “Effect of Alternating Current on Corrosion of Low Alloy and Carbon
Steels”, Corrosion, Vol. 24, No. 12, Dec. 1978, pp.428-433.
59. Ibid 53, p.215.
60. Ibid 7, p.29.
61. Ibid 11, p.13.
62. Ibid 46, p.8.
63. Ibid 7, pp.16-17.
64. Ibid 53, p.215.
65. Bosch, R.W. and Bogaerts, W.F., “A Theoretical Study of AC-Induced Corrosion
Considering Diffusion Phenomenon”, Corrosion Science, Vol.40, No.2/3, 1998,
pp.323-336.
66. Williams, J.F., “Corrosion of Metals Under the Influence of Alternating Current”,
Materials Protection, Vol. 5 (2), Feb. 1966.
67. Ibid 22, pp.6-7.
68. Ibid 66, pp.52-53.
COR-98-8084-A Page 64
69. Ibid 7.
70. Ibid 56, p.31.
71. Ibid 66, p.53.
72. Ibid 7, p.33.
73. Ibid 11, p.10.
74. Ibid 53, p.215.
75. Ibid 58, p.432.
76. Chin, D-T. and Fu, T-W., “Corrosion by Alternating Current: A Study of the Anodic
Polarization of Mild Steel in Na2SO4 Solution”, Corrosion, Vol. 35, No.11, Nov.
1979.
77. Ibid 7.
78. Dévay, J. Szegedi, R., Lábody, I., “Effect of Alternating Current on the Electrolytic
Corrosion of Steel, II., Acta Chim. Hungary, Vol. 42, 1964, p.210.
79. Ibid 11.
80. Ibid 66.
81. Ibid 56.
82. Ibid 7.
83. Regault, I., Delors, P., et France, P., “Corrosions Dues aux Influences des Courant
Alternatifs par des Lignes Tres Haute Tension sur des Canalizations en Acier
Revetues de Polyethylene-Evaluation des Risques-Mesures de Prevention”,
CEOCOR, 1997.
84. Ibid 83, p.5.
85. Howell, M.I., “Some Possible Consequences of Alternating Current Flowing along
Buried Pipelines and Cable Sheaths”, Corrosion Prevention & Control, August 1982,
pp.5-8.
86. Ibid 21, p.65.
87. Ibid 76.
88. Ibid 53.
COR-98-8084-A Page 65
89. Ibid 35, p.338.
90. Murray, J.N., Moran, P.J., and Gileadi, E., “Utilization of the Specific
Pseudocapacitance for Determination of the Area of Corroding Steel Surfaces”,
Corrosion, Vo1.44, No.8, August 1988, pp.533-538.
91. Ibid 51.
92. Ibid 52.
93. Lalvani, S.B., and Lin, X., “A Revised Model for Predicting Corrosion of Materials
Induced by Alternating Voltages, Corrosion Science, Vol. 38, No. 10, 1976, pp. 1709-
1719.
94. Ibid 65, p.332
95. von Baeckmann, W., Schwenk, W., and Prinz, W., “Handbook of Cathodic Corrosion
Protection”, 3rd Edition, Gulf Publishing House, Houston, Texas, pp. 150-151.
96. Gummow, R.A., Wakelin, R.G., and Segall, S.M., “AC Corrosion - A New Challenge
to Pipeline Integrity”, NACE Corrosion ‘98, Paper No. 566.
97. Ibid 37.
98. Ibid 37, p.302
99. Ibid 27.
100. Gummow, R., “Using Coupons and Probes to Determine the Level of Cathodic
Protection”, NACE Northern Area Western Conference & Exhibition - Proceedings,
Victoria, BC, February 1998, p.19.
101. Ibid 22, p.8.
102. A.B.I. Data, Correal Recorder Data Sheet, April 1997.
103. Personal communication with Mr. Rene Gregoor of Distrigaz N.V. at Corrosion ‘97.
104. Ibid 15, p.57.
105. kurr, G.W., “Zinc Anodes-Underground Uses for Cathodic Protection and
Grounding”, Materials Performance, April, 1979, pp.34-41.
106. Croall, S.J. and Hurley, W.G., “Case Studies of Prediction and Mitigation of Induced
AC Voltages on Pipelines”, Materials Performance, April 1984, pp.30-33.
107. Private conversation with Frank Perry of Algonquin Gas, July 7, 1998.
COR-98-8084-A Page 66
108. Private conversation with Paul Amato of Iroquois Gas Transmission System, July 22,
1998.
109. Farrer, F., “HVAC Hazards Encountered on Pipelines Serving Nanticoke Refinery”,
NACE Canadian Region Eastern Conference, Oct., 1978.
110. Ibid 105, p.36.
111. Peabody, A.W., and Siegfried, C.G., “Corrosion Control Problems and Personnel
Hazard Control Problems Caused by HVDC and HVAC Transmission Systems on
Non-Associated Underground Facilities”, No. 36-03.
112. Ibid 7, p.11.
113. Dévay, J., “The Influence of AC Current on the DC Corrosion of a Zinc Electrode”,
Acta Chima, Vol. 42, 1964, pp.255-261.
114. Dunbar, O.J., “Field Test Results of AGA Research on AC Corrosion”, American Gas
Association, Distribution Conference, May 1968.
115. Ibid 7, p.22.
116. Miura,C. Chiba, T., and Tamura, Y., “Studies on the Corrosion of Magnesium Anode
Under the Effect of Alternating Current”, Boshoku Gijutsu, Vol. 22, No. 10/11, 1973,
pp.435-440.
117. Ibid 15, p.56.
118. Deslouis, C., Duprat, M., Tournillon, Chr., The Kinetics of Zinc Dissolution in
Aerated Sodium Sulphate Solutions - Corrosion Science, Vol. 29, N°.1, 1989, p.14.
119. Analysis of the Effects of High Voltage Direct Current Transmission Systems on
Buried Pipelines, Battelle Memorial Institute, AGA Report #L30500, Jan. 1967.
120. Lemon, D.W. and Nicholson P., “AC Effects on Underground Pipelines”, NACE
Canadian Region Western Conference, April, 1974, p.2.
121. Gleekman, L.W., “Corrosion from Lightning and Power Fault Current”, Materials
Performance, Vol. 12, August, 1973, pp.24-27.
122. Dabkowski, J. and Taflove, A., “Mutual Design Considerations for Overhead AC
Transmission Lines and Gas Transmission Pipelines”, Vol. 1 -Engineering Analysis,
AGA Research Project No. PR132-80, Sept.1978, pp.7-29.
123. Akhtar, A., and Hunter, M., “Damage of a Gas Pipeline Resulting from a High
Impedance Fault on a 25kV-AC Distribution Power Line”, Materials Performance,
August 1985, pp. 21-24.
COR-98-8084-A Page 67
124. Kouteynikoff, P., “Results of an International Survey of the Rules Limiting

Interference Coupled into Metallic Pipelines by High Voltage Power Systems”,
CIGRE Study Committee 36, Electra No. 110, 1983, pp.57.
125. Webster, C. et al., “Powerline Ground Fault Effects on Pipelines”, Canadian

Electrical Association, Report No. 239 T 817, Dec. 1994, pp.59.
126. Sunde, E.M., “Earth Conduction Effects, Dover Publications”, 1968, pp.296-98.
127. Cherney, E.A., “Pipeline Voltage Hazards on High Voltage AC Transmission Line
Rights-of -Way”, Materials Performance, March 1975, p.29.
128. Akhtar, A. and Drakos, J.E., “Problems Associated with Pipelines Occupying Joint-
Use Corridors with AC Transmission Lines”, BC Hydro Research and Development
Report 81-D-72,1981, p.D276.
129. Ibid 125, p.23.
130. Drakos, J.E., “Study of Problems Associated with Pipelines Occupying Joint-Use
Corridors with AC Transmission Lines”, CEA Research Report No 75-02, Vol. No. 1,
January 1979. P.96-97.
131. Ibid 123
132. Favez, B. and Gougeuil, J-C., “Contribution to Studies on Problems Resulting from
the Proximity of Overhead Lines with Underground Metal Pipe Lines”, CIGRE
Proceedings, 336, 1966, p.6.
133. Ibid 132, p.8.
134. Ibid 127, p.32.
135. Ibid 12, p.8.
136. Dawalibi, F. and Pinho, A., “Computerized Analysis of Powerlines Proximity

Effects”, IEEE, Power Systems Transactions, Vol. PWRD-1, No.2, April 1986, p.46.
137. Pohl, J., “Influence of High Voltage Overhead Lines on Covered Pipelines”, CIGRE
Proceedings, 326, 1996, p. 16.
138. Dabkowski, J., “Pipeline Coating Impedance Effects on Powerline Fault Current
Coupling”, AGA PR 200-634, Dec. 1989, p.3-56.
139. Southey, R.D., Dawalibi, F.P., and Donoso, F.A., “Mitigating AC Interference on
Pipelines”, Materials Performance, May 1994, p.22.
COR-98-8084-A Page 68
140. Ibid 125, p.23
141. Ibid 125, p.60.
142. James, W.G., “Report on the Effects of Induced AC and Related Factors Affecting the
Choice of Location for the East Chatham Loop”, Union Gas Report, Nov 8, 1973, p.8.
143. Russell, G. I., “Polarization Cells Preserve DC Isolation and AC Continuity for Safe
Effective Cathodic Protection”, NACE Corrosion/84, Paper No. 362, p.5.
144. Dabkowski, J.and Taflove, A., “Mutual Design Considerations for Overhead AC
Transmission Lines and Gas Transmission Pipelines”, Vol. 1- Engineering Analysis,
PRC/AGA Contract No. PR132-80, pp.7-29.
145. Ibid 128, p.25.
146. Ibid 14, p.25.
147. Peabody, A.W. and Verhiel, A.H., “The Effects of High-Voltage AC Transmission
Lines on Buried Pipelines”, IEEE Transactions on Industry and General Applications,
VolIGA-7, No.3, May/June 1971, p.400.
148. Ibid 105, p.40.
149. Ibid 110, p.9.
150. Gun-mow, R.A., “Cathodic Protection Testing, Point Aconi Generating Station”,
Nova Scotia Power Corporation, Sept. 1993. (unpublished.)
151. Ibid 130, p.6A-12.
152. Ibid 143, p.12.
153. Gummow, R.A., “Use of Polarization Cells on a Cathodically Protected Pipe Line
Located on a HVAC Corridor”, NACE Canadian Eastern Region Conference, Sept.
1977, pp.3-4.
154. Jacobsen, R.C., “The Polarization Cell as a Cathodic Protection Device”, The Hydro-
Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Research Report 56-386, 1956, p.3.
155. Tachick, H.N., “Electrical Isolation Method Improves Cathodic Protection”, Materials
Performance, Aug. 1997, p. 17.
156. Dairyland Electrical Industries Inc., Addendum to Isolator/Surge Protector Brochure.
157. Ham, J. and Slemon, G.R., “Scientific Basis of Electrical Engineering”, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1961, pp.285-386.
COR-98-8084-A Page 69
158. Hart, W.C. and Malone, E.W., “Lightning and Lightning Protection”, Don White
Consultants, 1st Edition, 1979, p.3.69.
159. Meeldijk, V., “Electronic Components - Selection & Application Guidelines”, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, p.3.47.
160. Surge Voltage Protection, Phoenix Contact Inc., Harrisburg, PA, Catalogue 6.90, p.7.
161. Ibid 14, p.19.
162. Swain, W.H., “Clamp-on Ammeters Can Watch Cathodic Protection Current Flow”,
Pipe Line & Gas Industry, March 1998, p.40.
163. Cherney, E.A., “Effect of Powerline Faults on Pipelines in a Common Corridor”,

CEA Report 239T532, Phase I, p.6.
164. Berry, W.B., Battelle Report to Sun Pipe Line Co., unpublished, Oct. 1971.
165. Pikas, J., Transco, Private communication, July, 1998.
166. Zastrow, O.R., ‘Stray Current Corrosion Coordination of Power Facilities with
Pipeline Rectifiers and Other DC Sources”, Materials Performance, July 1979, p.26.
167. Ibid 130, p.122.
168. Ibid 155, p.16.
169. Schiff, M., “Cathodic Protection Guidelines Considered for National Electrical
Code”, MP, July 1998, p.9.
170. Schiff, M., Private communication about recommendations proposed for rewriting
Article 250 of the National Electrical Code, August 12, 1998.
COR-98-8084-A Page 70
A
A Mathematical Model for
a Cathodically Protected
Pipeline Network
Appendix A
A.0 A MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR A CATHODICALLY PROTECTED PIPELINE NETWORK
A.1 Potential Shifts and Currents Along a Pipeline with Distributed Parameters
A pipeline with distributed parameters (leakage conductance) can be represented by

elements containing a series lineal resistance (r) and a parallel conductance (g), as
shown in Figure A- 1.
Figure A-l -Typical Line Element
According to Kirchhoff voltage and current equations:
COR-98-8084-A Page Al
Appendix A
Differentiating equations [3] leads to:
[4]
and by substituting the first grade derivatives from [3], equations [4] become:
[5]
The solutions of equations [5] for a line extending from x1 to x2, have the general
form:
[6]
where the propagation constant is:
[7]
and the characteristic resistance RG equals:
The integration constants A and B depend on the conditions at the two ends of the
line and should be determined accordingly.
Page A2 COR-98-8084-A
Appendix A
A.2 Circuit Model for a Single line Protected by Galvanic Anodes and an Impressed Current
System
A typical section of pipeline, protected by an impressed current installation and a

number of galvanic anodes, is shown in Figure A-2.
Figure A-2- Typical Section of line
The following notations and conventions were used to develop the mathematical
model:
Conventions:
Connection points of current sources such as anodes or rectifiers are defined as

nodes.
A section of line located between two consecutive nodes I and J is called section
I-J, and all line parameters related to this section are marked with an I-J upper
index (i.e. is the attenuation constant along section 3-4).
Consecutive nodes, such as 1,2 and 3, are typically noted as I,J and K.
Parameters related to the line lying outside the investigated section are called
“Left End” and “Right End”, and marked with L-End and R-End upper indices.
The direction of the currents is as indicated in Figure 2, to fit equations [6],
therefore if the calculated line currents are negative numbers, it means the current
is flowing in opposite direction.
COR-98-8084-A Page A3
Appendix A
Notations:
Appendix A
From [9], [10] and [11], the line currents and potentials at two consecutive nodes are given
by:
Appendix A
A computer model was developed for a line section with ten anodes and one rectifier,
in order to assess the influence of distributed anodes on the potential attenuation
profile of the line. To simplify the model, the rectifier was connected at the first
node, designated node 0, and the polarization P, in equation [11] was neglected. The
static potential of the line was assumed to be -0.6V.
The section includes eleven nodes, resulting in sixty four equations with sixty four
unknowns (For N=11, 6N-2=64). The linear equations were solved using the Excel
MDETERM function to calculate each unknown by dividing 64x64 matrix
determinants (Cramer method). Typical inputs and outputs of the program are shown
below:
Input:
Appendix A
outputs:

L51800 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

L51800 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catalog No.

Cathodic Protection Considerations for

Prepared for the

Prepared by the following Research Agencies:

In publishing this report, PRCI makes no warranty or representation, expressed or

Pipeline Research Council International Catalog No. L51800

PRCI Reports are Published by Technical Toolboxes, Inc.

3801 Kirby Drive, Suite 340

Pipeline Research Council lntemational, Inc.

P.M. SØrensen, Dansk Olie og Naturgas A/S (Chairman)

CORROSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE

P.J. Dusek, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America (Chairman)

DC isolators-AC couplers, such as zinc grounding cells, polarization cells, electrolytic

Measuring cathodic protection parameters on pipelines with AC mitigation facilities can

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1

2.0 Types of Mitigation Facilities and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3.0 AC Corrosion ........................................................................................... 3

5.0 Damage to Pipelines and Coatings from Fault Currents ............................. 35

6.0 Electrical Isolation and AC Coupling Devices ............................................. 42

7.0 Cathodic Protection Test Procedures and Test Facilities ........................... 49

8.0 Miscellaneous Considerations .................................................................. 52

9.0 General Summary ........................................................................................ 55

10.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 60

Appendix A - A Mathematical Model for a Cathodically Protected Pipeline Network

COR-98-8084-A Page iii

Pipelines located in proximity to overhead AC electrical power transmission and

2.0 TYPES OF MITIGATION FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

The most common method of reducing the pipe-to-earth resistance is by attaching to

Alternatively, non-galvanic materials such as carbon steel, galvanized steel and

l use of distributed galvanic anodes

l use of DC isolating-AC coupling devices to other structures and

l use of gradient control mats at pipeline appurtenances.

Figure 3-1 - Corrosion Rate of Steel vs. AC Current Density

A 1978 report by Pookote and Chin[18] on the underground corrosion of steel by

This opinion, regarding the relatively innocuous nature of AC corrosion prevailed

Figure 3-3- The Effect of AC on the Polarization of Steal in 5% KCI Solution

Alarmed by the premature perforations, a holiday detection survey was immediately

Hartmann of Thyssengas Gmbh has also[25]described a corrosion investigation on a

In the summer of 1987 a polyethylene coated natural gas pipeline in Switzerland,[26]

The extent and severity of the AC corrosion discovered on German pipelines

3.2 Effect of AC Current Density on Corrosion Rates

Gustav Peez[37] reported corrosion rates of up to 1.3mm/a at current densities of 100

Field inspections carried out by Hartmann[38] at identified coating holidays on the

prinz[41]summarized much of the test results in Germany with respect to corrosion

3.3 Effect of Cathodic Protection Current Density

Regault[45] measured cathodic protection current densities on the 12 field installed

3.4 Effect of Frequency

It has been verified, as illustrated in Figure 3-7, at an AC density of 1A/m2 (.1A/ft2),

3.5 Effect of the Environment

AC corrosion rates also a pear to be dependent on the type of environment. Both

This difference in AC corrosion behavior between aerated and deaerated conditions

3.6 Effect of Time

3.7 AC Corrosion Mechanism

Unfortunately there is no consensus in the existing literature about the actual AC

Bertocci[74] explained the relatively low corrosion efficiency of AC compared to DC

Several researchers,[77,78,79] observed an increase in cell temperature with an increase

Figure 3-11 - Cell Temperature vs. AC Current Density

Figure 3-12- AC & DC Potential (a) in absence of CP

Figure 3-13 - Equivalent Circuit of Metal/Electrolyte Interface

Accordingly, as the frequency (ƒ) increases Zd will decrease proportionately and a

3.8 Effect of Coating Defect Size

Because AC corrosion rates have been shown to be directly related to AC current

where: p = soil resistivity in ohm-m