NACE Paper No.

MECCOCT18-12555

Laboratory Test Methods to Study Potential Cathodic Protection Shielding for an External
Pipeline Liquid Epoxy Coating and Support Geotextile Pipeline Weight Bags

Amal Al-Borno, Ph.D.

Charter Coating Service (2000) Ltd.
No. 6, 4604 – 13th Street NE
Calgary, Alberta, T2E 6P1
Canada

Xianyi Chen, Ph.D.

Charter Coating Service (2000) Ltd.
No. 6, 4604 – 13th Street NE
Calgary, Alberta, T2E 6P1
Canada

ABSTRACT

Protective coatings are normally used in conjunction with cathodic protection to protect steel structures
in buried or submerged services. However, the effectiveness of cathodic protection (CP) on steel
pipelines can be impaired by the use of materials with high electrical resistivity, if those materials block
or shield the protective electric current of the CP system from the underlying metal. Unfortunately, there
are no standard laboratory test methods which can be used to investigate the potential of cathodic
protection shielding and its effects. This study investigates the potential of an external pipeline liquid
epoxy coating and support geotextile pipeline weight (GPW) bags to shield CP. This was done by
designing novel test methods to simulate field conditions where cathodic protection (CP) shielding might
occur. The results showed that the tested liquid coating would shield CP if the coating disbonds and has
no defects or holidays to allow the CP current to reach the steel surfaces. The support bags did not
totally shield but partially blocked the pipe from CP such that the pipe continued to be CP protected but
the current density was significantly reduced.

Key words: Cathodic Protection (CP), Cathodic Protection (CP) shielding effect, Liquid Coating, CP
shielding test methods, Epoxy Coating, Geotextile Pipeline Weight (GPW).

INTRODUCTION

Most buried pipelines are installed with the combined protection of a protective coating and cathodic
protection (CP). It is well known that cathodic protection can negatively affect coatings but there is now
growing evidence of some coatings having the potential to negatively affect the protection afforded by
CP. Cathodic protection shielding occurs when the CP system does not protect problem areas of the
pipeline (coating disbondment areas) that are exposed to a corrosive environment. For the CP current
to be effective at the problem areas, there needs to be electrical conductivity between the CP anode and
the exposed pipeline steel provided through an electrical connection through an electrolyte that is in
contact with both the anode and the steel of the disbondment area. This connection usually occurs
through holidays or defects in the coating in the vicinity of the problem area. In the absence of such
holidays or defects, the CP can only be effective if the disbonded coating is permeable enough to allow
electrolyte migration though the coating film. This negative shielding effect can occur where a coating is
not preventing ingress or contact of a corrosive environment to the underlying steel pipeline but at the
same time it is providing an electrical barrier which prevents the CP potential from protecting the steel
from corrosion. Previous studies have indicated that FBE coatings might fail safely even if the disbonded
coating has no defects to allow passage of the CP current. 1-3 This is mainly due to the high permeability
of FBE to water that allows CP current to pass through the coating and thus protect the steel.

There are many circumstances in which a coating holiday could occur, but one of the most obvious is
damage from a rocky trench bottom. Conventionally the pipe is protected from a rocky trench bottom by
either adding a layer of sand or select backfill above and below the pipeline (sand padding) or by covering
the pipe with a high-impact resistant, poly-type rock shield prior to installation. In this case CP shielding
might occur due to these external protection systems that, if impermeable, might block CP current from
reaching the problem areas. It has been observed in the field that tape, shrink sleeves, and polyolefin
girth weld coatings can fail due to application problems and/or installation problems and /or high
temperature operating conditions. These types of coating were found to fail in such a way that sometimes
the CP can’t reach the problem areas because of the electrical barrier of the disbonded coating. Where
this CP failure occurs, this usually results in a serious pipeline failure. But no details were reported of the
CP shielding and its effects caused by support materials such as plastic supports, or geotextile pipe
weight bags 4-5.

Unfortunately, there are no standard laboratory test methods to investigate the Cathodic Protection (CP)
shielding effect. This study investigates whether a liquid epoxy coating and external pipeline support
material (GPW) have a tendency to shield cathodic protection (CP) current. The study was conducted
by designing novel test methods to simulate field conditions. Test methods designs, test protocols, and
results are discussed.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The best laboratory practices simulate actual field conditions as closely as possible. Charter Coating
Service (2000) ltd. has designed test protocols to assess the CP shielding effect of mainline and joint
coatings and for external pipeline support materials. Testing was based on CSA Z245.20-2014 section
12.8 (with and without modifications). The test protocol shown in Figure 1 is based on conducting the
following three tests for each system:
Cathodic Protection with simulated CP Shielding: Modification of the CSA Z245.20-2014 section 12.8
standard test method was carried out in order to simulate potential CP shielding in the field.
Cathodic Disbondment with No CP Connection: The tests were conducted according to CSA
Z245.20-2014 section 12.8, modified to conduct the test without CP connection in order to provide a
reference disbondment value of the coating without CP connection. The test is essentially a soak test.
Standard Cathodic Disbondment: The as per CSA Z245.20-2014 section 12.8 with no modification.
This was done in order to determine the effect of CP on the mainline coating and to obtain a reference
disbondment value of the coating under cathodic protection with no shielding effect.
The criteria for data analysis were based on the following:

1) If the coatings are shielding the exposed steel substrate from the effects of the cathodic protection
(CP) then there should be no significant difference in the corrosion of the steel under the
disbonded coating for the tests either with or without CP applied (soak test)
2) If there is reduced corrosion of the steel, then it would suggest that there is only partial shielding
by the disbonded coating and if there is no corrosion, then it would indicate that the coating does
not shield the cathodic protection and the test result should look like the control cathodic
disbondment test
 3) If the electrical current can pass through the disbonded coating (which would mean no or reduced
shielding), CP will protect the exposed steel substrate represented in this study by an intentional
holiday, hydrogen gas will evolve from the intentional holiday and the pH of the electrolyte solution
in the inner cylinder will increase significantly due to the electrochemical reactions at the cathode.
Any passage of current through the coating will also result in a measurable current in the inner
cylinder.

Figure 1. Test Protocol for CP Shielding Assessment of Liquid Coating System and for Pipeline Support
and Protection System.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Test Procedure for Mainline and Joint Coatings – Liquid Epoxy Coatings
The basic cathodic protection shielding test set up is shown in Figure 2. In the center of each sample, a
3.2 mm diameter hole is drilled through the coating to the steel substrate. This holiday simulates steel
area exposed to corrosive environment. A small diameter cylinder with a sloping top is attached to the
test sample centered over the hole using silicone. The cylinder is clear glass. Another larger diameter
clear glass cylinder was attached on the sample (using silicone) surrounding the smaller cylinder. This
setup as shown simulates coating disbondment from the steel substrate, without any defects in the
disbonded coating layer. Steel test panels coated with liquid epoxy coating and free films of the same
coatings were both used in this test. All tests were carried out at 65C/149F for the liquid coating. Tests
were conducted for 28 days using 3% NaCl in distilled water [pH of 6.3-7.2]. For CP simulation, an
impressed Voltage of -1.5 VDC was used.
Cathodic Protection Shielding for Liquid Epoxy Coatings: For the primary cathodic protection
shielding test, a sample of detached coating is attached to the sloping top of the smaller cylinder using
silicone sealant. 3% NaCl is then added to the outer cylinder to a level above the base of the opening of
the inner cylinder but below the top of the coating piece. There should be no leakage of the fluid into the
smaller cylinder. Connecting the sample to a power supply, which runs to a Pt anode in the outer cylinder
and applying a potential of -1.5V. The inner cylinder is also filled with 3% NaCl to a similar level to the
fluid in the outer cylinder.

Figure 2. Schematic of Cathodic Protection Shielding Test Set-Up for Liquid Coating

Standard Cathodic Disbondment with No CP Connection for Liquid Epoxy Coating: This test was
conducted as per as per CSA Z245.20 Section 12.8 but with no cathodic protection. Essentially a soak
test.

Standard Cathodic Disbondment as per CSA Z245.20 Section 12.8 for Liquid Epoxy Coatings.

Test Procedure for Pipeline Support Materials – Geotextile Pipeline Weight Bags
The basic cathodic protection shielding test set-up is shown in Figure 3. A 4.5" OD fusion bonded epoxy
(FBE) coated pipe sample was placed horizontally in a plastic vessel through appropriate holes in the
opposite faces of the side walls. Both entries of the pipe were sealed with silicone. In the top center of
each FBE coated pipe, a 3.2 mm diameter hole was drilled through the coating to the steel substrate.
Geotextile Pipeline Weight Bags filled with size ¾” (20 mm) minus gravel were placed on the top of the
pipe to simulate actual field conditions of coating failure covered by the weight bag. Tests were conducted
for 28 days using 3% NaCl in distilled water [pH of 6.3-7.2]. For CP simulation, an impressed Voltage of
-1.5 VDC was used.
 Figure 3. Cathodic Protection Shielding Test Set-Up for Geotextile Pipeline Weight Bags

Cathodic Protection Shielding Tests for Geotextile Pipeline Weight Bags: 3% NaCl solution was
added to the vessel and filled to a level to completely immerse the pipe samples. The test pipes were
connected to a power supply, which runs to a vertically suspended graphite anode that was placed inside
the vessel at least 2" away from the GPW. A potential of -1.5V with respect to a calomel reference
electrode was applied as per CSA Z245.20 – 2014 section 12.8 to cathodically protect the test pipe
samples. The test was run for 28 days. The potential between the pipe specimen and the reference
electrode was measured using a multi-meter and adjusted to 1.5V. After the potential was measured
and adjusted, the current demand in amperes was also measured and recorded by determining the
potential drop across a 1- Ωprecision resistor permanently installed in the test cell circuit with a high-
resistance voltmeter (note using this set-up, the voltage measured is numerically equal to amperes). All
tests were carried out at 20ºC/68ºF for the Geotextile Pipeline Weight Bags.

Standard Cathodic Disbondment with No CP Connection for Geotextile Pipeline Weight Bags: In
order to provide a reference disbondment value of the FBE coating under complete cathodic shielding
effect, a soak test with intentional holiday was conducted as per CSA Z245.20-2014 section 12.8 modified
by conducting the test without CP.

Standard Cathodic Disbondment as per CSA Z245.20 Section 12.8 without Geotextile Pipeline
Weight Bags: In order to provide a reference disbondment value of the FBE coating under cathodic
protection with no shielding effect, a standard cathodic disbondment test was conducted as per a
modified CSA Z245.20 - 2014 section 12.8. The modification includes using pipe samples and graphite
anode.

RESULTS

Cathodic Protection Shielding for Liquid Epoxy Coating: Figure 4 shows the disbondment results of
the cathodic protection (CP) shielding test and the standard cathodic disbondment (CD) tests with and
without CP connection. All intentional holidays for the tests of the CP shielding and the standard cathodic
disbondment without CP connection (soak) were rusty. Disbondment results of the CP shielding and
soak tests were very similar; zero current was measured; no hydrogen gas evolved from the holidays of
the CP shielding and soak tests; the electrolyte pH was near neutral and the difference in pH for the two
tests and between the inner and outer cells was only very slight. The coatings in the standard CD test
showed some bleaching effect and higher disbondment than observed in the CP shielding and the soak
tests. The appearances of the samples from the CP shielding and the soak tests was different to the
standard CD test samples but were virtually identical to each other.

Average Radius of Disbondmen mm Cathodic Protection Shielding Without CP (Soak)

10

9
8.9 8.9
8

7 7.6 7.7
7 6.8
6

5 5.6

1 1.4
0.6
0
Average Radius of Disbondmen mm Electrolyte pH Inside Disbondment Area Electrolyte pH Outside Disbondment
Area

Figure 4. Test Results of Cathodic Protection (CP) Shielding and Standard Cathodic Disbondment with
and without CP Connection for the Liquid Epoxy Coating

Pipeline Support Materials – Geotextile Pipeline Weight Bags: After 28 days cathodic protection
shielding test, the bags were lifted and removed from the test vessel and the intentional holidays were
immediately examined for corrosion. The holidays were clean with no sign of corrosion for the cathodic
protection shielding test and the standard CP test, indicating effective cathodic protection during testing.
Figure 4 shows disbondment after testing and current density during testing. The radii of disbondment
were in a range of 4.4 – 5.6 mm with average of 5.0 mm for the CP shielding test and were in a range of
5.0 – 5.8 mm with average of 5.4 mm the standard CD test. For the CD test without CP connections
(soak), the intentional holiday was covered with corrosion products due to lack of cathodic protection
when immersed in electrolyte and there was only small disbondment around the intentional holidays with
small amounts of substrate exposed. The radii of disbondment were in a range of 0.6 – 1.3 mm with
average of 0.9 mm.
 7
Average Radius of Disbondment (mm) Average Current Density (mA/cm2)
6
5.8
5
5 5
4

2
2
1
0.9 0.000
0
Standard Cathodic Disbondment Cathodic Protection Shielding Without CP (Soak)

Figure 4. Test Results of Cathodic Protection (CP) Shielding and Standard Cathodic Disbondment with
and without CP Connection for the Geotextile Pipeline Weight Bags

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Cathodic protection (CP) is a technique used to reduce the corrosion of a metal surface, by providing it
with enough cathodic current to make its anodic dissolution rate become negligible. This technique can
be detrimental to the performance of protective coatings applied to the metal. The cathodic disbondment
(CD) Test, conducted in the lab, simulates the cathodic protection system used in the field while providing
an indication of the durability of the coating material under the provided voltage conditions. The CD test
is considered a key laboratory test for determining expected performance of protective coatings that will
be used in environments where there is cathodic protection. One of the significant factors of this test is
that it looks at the degradation of the coating to steel bond with time. It is recognized that this adhesion
property of a coating is a key determinant in the long-term ability of that coating to protect the substrate.
In the test a sample of coated steel first has a deliberate holiday made through the coating and then the
sample is immersed in an electrolyte and a potential (mimicking CP) is applied. The cathodic reaction at
the holiday in the coating then stresses the coating, which tends to disbond from around the edges of the
holiday. This disbondment is referred to as cathodic disbondment. The mechanism of cathodic
disbonding is still debated but it is generally agreed that the cathodic reaction at the holiday site in the
tested coating forms an alkaline (high pH) water film under the coating that causes the disbonding. Both
oxygen reduction (Eq. 1) and hydrogen evolution (Eq. 2) are possible cathodic reactions that will increase
the pH at the cathode:

(1) ½ O2 + H2O + 2e  2 OH

(2) 2 H2O + 2e  H2 + 2 OH

The bleaching reaction often observed in the CD test is attributable to the formation of hypochlorite in
test solution according to the following reactions at the anode and cathode:
Anode Reaction: 2 Cl-  Cl2 + 2 e-; Cathode Reaction: 2 H2O + 2 e-  2 OH- + H

Hypochlorite Formation: Cl2 + 2 OH-  H2O + Cl- + ClO-

Cathodic protection shielding occurs when the CP system does not protect problem areas of the pipeline
(coating disbondment areas) that are exposed to a corrosive environment. For the CP current to be
effective at the problem areas, there needs to be electrical conductivity between the CP anode and the
exposed pipeline steel provided through an electrical connection through an electrolyte that is in contact
with both the anode and the steel of the disbondment area. This connection usually occurs through
holidays or defects in the coating in the vicinity of the problem area. In the absence of such holidays or
defects, the CP can only be effective if the disbonded coating is permeable enough to allow
electrolyte/current migration though the coating film1.

Mainline and Joint Coatings – Liquid Epoxy Coatings: Pipeline liquid epoxy coatings are usually
designed to be good insulators with high dielectric strength to prevent current from passing through the
coating in the absence of a holiday. The same coatings are used for girth weld applications due to their
high adhesion strength to steel and low water absorption. Previous studies have indicated that disbonded
pipeline liquid epoxy coatings in the absence of any holidays would shield the CP current. However,
since these coatings have the tendency to fail by fracture rather than ductile yielding, the failed liquid
epoxy coating will most likely have holidays and/or micro-damaged pathways for CP1. The potential of
one liquid epoxy coating to shield cathodic protection was investigated in this study.

The results are consistent with others1,2, and indicate that the pipeline coating if disbonded from the steel
will shield CP if the disbonded coating has no defects or holidays to allow the CP current to reach the
steel surface to be protected.

The proposed test protocol and method to investigate the shielding effect of the liquid coating could be
further modified to investigate the effect of coating film thickness. Additional modifications to examine
the effects of blistering and/or other defects in the disbondment area on CP shielding might also be
possible.

Pipeline Support Materials – Geotextile Pipeline Weight Bags: Buried pipelines often require a certain
level of additional weight to counteract the buoyant force that is often exerted on them from groundwater.
Buoyancy control is important because pipelines are almost always evacuated of product (oil/gas/water)
at some point in their life cycle. This product evacuation makes the pipelines extremely buoyant, and
added weights are required to keep the pipeline securely in place. The buoyancy control mitigation sector
usually relies on large weights that are placed on buried pipelines to keep the pipe down in areas of high
water tables, flood plains, marsh/tidal areas, and in rivers and lakes. Early methods of buoyancy control
included the use of cast iron, and later, concrete weighting. An alternative technology to the concrete
set-on weight is Geotextile Pipeline Weights (GPW). Geotextile Pipeline Weight is constructed of woven
polypropylene geofabric bags filled with gravel, rock, or sand. One of the advantages suggested by the
manufacturers is that cathodic protection is not restricted (or bags don’t impede cathodic protection),
because the nature of the woven polypropylene fabric material which allows water in and out (breathable).
The results of this study indicated that the tested GPW bag is sufficient to allow cathodic protection
current to pass through at this voltage, thus the shielding effect was only slight and it only blocked CP to
some extent and the pipe continued to be CP protected although the current density was significantly
reduced.

REFERENCES

1. G.R. Ruschau and Y. Chen, Determination of the CP Shielding Behavior of Pipeline Coatings in
the Laboratory, NACE 2006, Paper No. 06043.

2. D. Kuang and Y. F. Cheng, Study of Cathodic Protection Shielding under Coating Disbondment
on Pipeline, Corrosion Science, 99 (2015) 249-257.
3. A. Eslami, R. Kania, B. Worthingham. G. V. Boven, R.Eadie and W. Chen, Corrosion of X-65
Pipeline Steel Under a Simulated Cathodic Protection Shielding Coating Disbondment, Corrosion
2013, 69 (11) 1103-1110.

4. C. Reschke, The Weight of the Issue, Pipelines International, 30 (2016) 42-43.

5. D. Fingas and R. A. Gummow, Cathodic Shielding Effects of In-Trench Pipeline Supports, NACE
2015, Paper No. 5780.