COATINGS USED IN CONJUNCTION

WITH CATHODIC PROTECTION –

SHIELDING VERSUS NON-
SHIELDING COATINGS
By
Richard Norsworthy
POLYGUARD PRODUCTS, INC.
WESTERN REGIONAL GAS
CONFERENCE
August 2010
When selecting a pipeline
coating, the “Non-
Shielding” characteristics
may be more important
than other issues that are
normally considered.
 A large percent of external
corrosion failures on
cathodically protected
pipelines are associated with
disbonded coatings that
shield cathodic protection
currents.
“Non-Shielding” means if the
coating system adhesion fails
and water penetrates,
corrosion on the metal is
significantly reduced or
eliminated when adequate
CP is available.
 New DOT Part 192.112
• PHMSA has adopted a new ruling for
those pipelines that want to increase
maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP) to 80% for more through put must
meet several requirements beyond what
they are now required for those that do not
want to operate at this level.
• One of these requirements is to use non-
shielding coating systems.
 New DOT Part 192.112
• The pipe must be protected against external
corrosion by a non-shielding coating.
• Coating on pipe used for trenchless
installation must be non-shielding and resist
abrasions and other damage possible during
installation.
• A quality assurance inspection and testing
program for the coating must cover the surface
quality of the bare pipe, surface cleanliness
and chlorides, blast cleaning, application
temperature control, adhesion, cathodic
disbondment, moisture permeation, bending,
coating thickness, holiday detection, and
repair.
 “Non-Shielding” coatings allow
the CP current to effectively
control corrosion when there is a
coating disbondment.
The terms “Fail Safe”, “CP
Friendly” or “Partial Shielding”
have also been used to describe
this process.
 The mechanisms by which
coating systems fail are not
totally understood but some are:

Poor surface preparation

Poor application
Poor selection criteria
Cathodic protection
 Soil Stress Affects
Soil Stress can affect many types of
coatings especially those that
stretch easily (most solid-film
backed tapes). Shrink sleeves can
move or wrinkle. Coal tar and liquid
coatings can be affected by soil
stress.
Typical soil stress damage on
solid backed tape coating.
Typical corrosion under disbonded solid
film backed tape coating.
 SOIL STRESS FORCES
Soil effects on many types of pipeline coatings Considerable
The downward
weight and
and side ways
pressure in this Ditch line pressure starts
the movement
area is significant
because the ditch of the coating.
line restricts the
soil path and
causes more
Significant
stress on the
downward forces
coating as it
occur here to start
compacts around
the wrinkling and
the pipe.
disbondment of
shrink sleeves and
Very little stress solid film tapes.
in this area.
Typical areas of disbondment
and wrinkling of shrink sleeves
and solid film backed tapes
where water penetrates and
corrosion can occur.
Soil stress has caused wrinkle in
this shrink sleeve.
Corrosion caused from the shielding
of the shrink sleeve.
 CASE HISTORY #1
Close interval survey (CIS) was performed on a pipeline
system in Northeast Texas in 2006 showing this
system meets all NACE SP0169 – 2007 criteria as
well as the proposed changes, yet when the In Line
Inspection (ILI) tool was run external corrosion was
located on the pipeline.
Corrosion was found under the disbonded coatings that
shielded the CP current.
Also, the resulting dig site potentials did not correlate
with the soil IR drop data shown in the CIS “instant off”
data.
Survey Data Showing Adequate
Protection – Case #1
 Potentials Taken at Dig Site

Data from the dig site shows no significant IR drops. Table 1

above shows there should be approximately 300 mV of IR drop,
but actual data shows the IR drops are minimal (< 100 mV).
Potentials would indicate adequate protection in this area, but
corrosion was found under disbonded shrink sleeve.
Shrink sleeve applied in 1997 and resulting corrosion found in 2006. Shrink sleeve
shielded the CP. Pipe potentials met NACE criteria.
 CASE HISTORY # 2
• CORROSION OF NATURAL GAS
TRANSMISSION LINE- A CASE STUDY
• BY
• Javeed Shaikh
• mshaikh@swcc.gov.sa
• Zain. Khadir Muhideen
• zmuhideen@swcc.gov.sa
• Saline Water Conversion Corporation, Kingdom
Of Saudi Arabia
 CIS data taken every meter along the pipeline.
Chainage ON INSTANT OFF ALARM COMMENTS
POTENTIALS POTENTIALS POTENTIALS
10.218 -1226 mV -1127 mV -850 mV

10.219 -1240 mV -1126 mV -850 mV

10.220 -1230 mV -1123 mV -850 mV

10.221 -1233 mV -1140 mV -850 mV

10.222 -1250 mV -1128 mV -850 mV

10.223 -1225 mV -1109 mV -850 mV Defect located per ILI data

10.224 -1228 mV -1075 mV -850 mV

10.225 -1230 mV -1099 mV -850 mV

10.226 -1232 mV -1114 mV -850 mV

Significant
corrosion
found
under the
disbonded
coating at
this site
even
though
NACE
criteria
were
satisfied.
 CASE HISTORY #2
• Again NACE SP0169 – 2007 criteria are
satisfied, but external corrosion is
located under the disbonded tape
coating that shielded the CP current.
 Case History
#3
Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion of
Underground Pipelines under the Disbonded
Coatings
SeonYeob Li, YoungGeun Kim, KyungSoo Jeon, YoungTai Kho
R&D Center, Korea Gas Corporation,
638-1, Il-Dong, Ansan, Kyunggi-Do, 425-150, Korea
Wrinkle on shrink sleeve at bottom
of pipe.
Striations indicates presences of
bacteria under the shrink sleeve.
 TABLE 4. Result of Potential Measurement

Types Potential (mV vs. Cu/CuSO4)

Pipe-to-Soil potential -1430 ~ -1200

Potential in crevice -610 ~ -550

Redox potential -160 (vs. NHE)

 Corrosion from CP
shielding in helix
area of shielding
tape system.

No reports of
this problem
with MESH
BACKED TAPE!
Non-shielding Coating Systems
• Certain types of coatings are considered
to be non-shielding to CP current when
disbondment or blistering occurs.
• Fusion Bonded Epoxy (FBE) coatings
have been known to be non-shielding for
many years.
• External corrosion is rarely found on FBE
coated pipelines that have adequate CP.
• ILI tools and ECDA have proven this to be
true.
Severe soil stress
caused coal tar coating
to disbond. Notice dirt
between the coating
and pipe.

Pits caused from

corrosion under
coating.
 Compatibility with
cathodic protection
1. Pipeline coating must be compatible
with CP, but many do not understand the
need for testing to see if the system is
“Non-Shielding or Fail Safe” which is also
important.
2. A pipeline coating must have minimal
cathodic disbondment damage
3. A coating company should provide
many years of CD test results from in-
house and third party laboratories.
Thirty day cathodic disbondment test [CDT]
on mesh backed tape (1.5 V & 72º F). Typical
CDT results are 0 to 8 mm of disbondment.
 CHARTER COATING SERVICE, LTD - CANADA
Coating Type Cathodic Disbondment Test
21ºC/70ºF 30 days
Blast Power Tool Hand Tool

Two Part Epoxy #1 4 mm 27 mm 37 mm

Two Part Epoxy #2 6 mm 18 mm 28 mm

Two Part Epoxy #3 3 mm 8 mm 19 mm

Two Part Epoxy #4 5 mm 38 mm Total

Tape with primer # 5 5 mm 10 mm 14 mm

Tape with primer #6 11 mm 14 mm 21 mm

Polyguard RD-6 with primer #7 0 mm 7 mm 8 mm

Hot applied tape #8 15 mm 6 mm 16 mm

Shrink sleeve with primer #9 0 mm 8 mm 12 mm

Shrink sleeve with primer #10 3 mm 40% of test 33 mm

Shrink sleeve #11 8 mm 11 mm 18 mm

 CATHODIC DISBONDMENT TESTING – ITI-Anti Corrosion, Inc.
3% NaCl/150ºF/-3.0 V

System 30 days 60 days 90days

CD test results #1 - Two layer tape/primer

#2 - Shrink Sleeve/2-part primer

41 mm

25 mm
45 mm

>65 mm
58 mm

>65 mm

for tapes and #3 - Shrink Sleeve/no primer

#4 – Shrink Sleeve/2-part primer

0 mm

>50 mm
5.6 mm

>50 mm
0 mm

>50 mm

shrink sleeves #5 – Tape/primer Complete

failure
Complete
failure
Complete
failure

from a #6 –Tape/primer

#7 – Shrink Sleeve/2-part primer

>50 mm

Complete
>50 mm

Complete
>50 mm

Complete

comparison test #8 – Tape/2-part primer

failure

8.3 mm
failure

6.3 mm
failure

8.9 mm

performed for #9 – Shrink Sleeve/2-part primer Complete

failure
Complete
failure
Complete
failure

Mobil Pipeline in #10 – Shrink Sleeve/primer Complete

failure
Complete
failure
Complete
failure

#11 – Shrink Sleeve/primer Complete Complete Complete

1994. failure failure failure

#12 – Polyguard RD-6/primer 0 mm 0 mm 0mm

#13 – Two layer tape/primer 10.7 mm 12.3 mm 12.5 mm

#14 – Two layer tape/primer 38.3 mm >50 mm >50 mm

#15 – Two layer tape/primer >75 mm >75 mm >75 mm

Typical CD for FBE coated pipe.
 CATHODIC DISBONDMENT TESTING

90 days on two part epoxy shows 90 days on wax tape shows

growing CD’s. growing CD’s.
Failed CD’s of some tape and shrink sleeve coatings.

XXXX
XXXX
Two part liquid
coating with thin
areas that had
disbondment.
Good CD results
when coating
was applied
thick, but failed
where thin or
not mixed
properly.
CD of Visco-elastic
pipeline coating
system at 95º C for
60 days.
When evaluating an existing coating
system there are several important
factors to consider.
1. Actual field data
If a failed coating is found, take pH
readings of any water or moisture
between the coating and the substrate.
2. Corrosion is found and the pH is < 8
CP may not be adequate or the coating type
“shields” the CP current allowing corrosion to
occur.
 How to determine if a coating
is “Non-Shielding”, continued
3. Corrosion is found, and the pH is > 8
Determine if corrosion may have occurred
before CP was applied or was adequate.
4. Corrosion is found and the pH is < 8
CP may not be adequate or the coating type
shields the CP current.
5. No Corrosion is found and Ph is > 8
Indicates “Non-Shielding” coating system!
 SPO169-2007
The document clearly states the intent of
the document is effective control of
external corrosion. Many seem to
ignore the intent of this document and
concern themselves only with cathodic
protection and related criteria. During the
revision process of this document we must
keep in mind the other parts of the
document that are as important and
maybe more important than those being
discussed so often.
 We must consider the reasons why
external corrosion is occurring on
pipelines that meet or exceed the
existing or proposed criteria.
In discussions with many pipeline
operators and from my own experience,
lack of CP is not the reason for most
external corrosion on today’s pipelines!
There is no doubt the effectiveness of
cathodic protection when it can actually
protect the pipe.
 SPO169 PROPOSED REVISION
• Most external corrosion today is caused by
shielding of the CP current by coatings, rock
shields, road casings, high resistivity soils,
other metal and shielding materials.
• Other external corrosion is caused by stray
currents from DC or AC sources.
• Many times the cause of external corrosion is
not evaluated properly, therefore we do not
know the true reason for the corrosion.
• We just add more CP or use more stringent
criteria and continue having external
corrosion!
Corrosion
under two
part
epoxy
girth weld
coating.
12” diameter pipe with corrosion on FBE coated pipe. This pipe
had a large boulder setting on top of the pipe shielding CP.
Same pipe as
slide before with
significant
blistering on
sides, but no
corrosion under
these blister.
Blisters on a high temperature (170°F) in Subkha regions of
Saudi Arabia. After FBE removed, pipe had black color but
no corrosion was observed.
Blisters found in girthweld
area on gas transmission
line in central USA. No
corrosion under the FBE.
Blisters on main body of same pipe
as last slide.
Close up of blisters and pipe under
blisters. Discoloration but, no metal
loss.
Water under blisters on FBE coated pipe
used for gas transmission in central USA.
Water under the blisters had a Ph of 12.
Even though blisters and poor adhesion
were a problem, the steel under the FBE
coating shows to be in excellent condition,
proving “non-shielding” properties!
 Improperly applied
mesh backed tape
coating.

Disbonded
coal tar
coating.
Checking pH
of water
under the
improperly
applied
coating
(Same area
as shown
before).
pH check indicates a high pH (9
to 10) in water under the
improperly applied coating
showing it is “Non-Shielding”.
Checking pH
under
disbonded
coal tar
coating with
significant
corrosion
present. This
site is only a
few feet from
the previous
slide.
pH of 5 to 6 under disbonded coal tar
coating. “CP shielding coating”!
Pipe coated with
mesh backed tape
after over 12
months of service
with proper outer
wrap, tension and
stripping of welds
in very aggressive
soil stress area.
No wrinkles, no
water, no soil
stress, no problem!
 Mesh backed Lack of adhesion
coating is well where pipe was
adhered to sweating during
pipe in areas application, but
that were not pH of 11!!
condensation.
No wrinkles on mesh
White tape backed tape
is wrinkled
from soil
stress.
 What does it mean for a coating to be
truly compatible with CP?
1. Good cathodic disbondment resistance.
2. A coating that is truly compatible with CP will allow
the CP current to provide some protection to the
pipe even if the coating disbonds and water
penetrates between the coating and pipe.
3. When selecting coatings the failure mode of the
coating is critical, because all coatings have
failures for a variety of reasons.
4. Pipeline coatings should also be selected for
“Non-Shielding” properties.