COPYING AND DISTRIBUTING ARE PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER

Open +

March 2012, Vol. 239 No. 3 (/magazine/2012/march-2012-vol-239-no-3)

FEATURES (/MAGAZINE/2012/MARCH-2012-VOL-239-NO-3#FEATURES)

Steel Pipe Native Potentials In Soils Aect

CP Criteria
Soil resistivity, corrosivity and steel native potentials in soils are interrelated. A chart was developed in this work to quantitatively map the
rule-of-thumb relationship between steel native or rest potentials and soil resistivity.

This chart was validated with available literature data from independent sources and can be used to provide a rough estimate of the
magnitude of polarization applied on buried steel pipes for a given soil resistivity and an o-potential measured. Polarization provides a
more direct measure (than an o-potential) on the magnitude of corrosion rate reduction. The chart shows that meeting the -850 mV, -750
mV and -650 mV (vs. Cu/CuSO4) o-potential criteria for soil resistivity ranges of, respectively, <10K, 10K-100K and >100K ohm.cm
would – in general – yield at least 100 mV cathodic polarization.

Cathodic protection (CP) has been used for many decades for the control of external corrosion of buried or submerged steel piping
systems. CP criteria can be used to guide the level of CP that needs to be provided on the pipe surface. The International Standard
Organization (ISO) and European (EN) CP standards (ISO 15589-11 and EN 129542 ) recommend three o-potentials -850 mV, -750 mV
and -650 mV vs. Cu/CuSO4 (CSE) – for the corrosion control for soil resistivity ranges of <10K, 10K-100K and >100K ohm.cm,
respectively.

Unfortunately, few references, if any, are given in these standards to justify why these criterion values (and not others) should be used with
respect to dierent soil resistivity ranges. Nevertheless, if the steel native or rest potentials can be known, the level of cathodic polarization
applied on the steel pipe surface for a given o-potential can be evaluated and provides a more direct measure (than an o-potential) on
the magnitude of corrosion rate reduction. In other standards, such as the NACE Standard Practice (SP) 0169-2007 and Australian CP
Standard (SAA AS 2832.1), -850 mV on-potential criterion with CP current applied is recommended to use. To clarify the dierent
terminologies used in this article, Figure 1 is provided which results from modi cation of a similar chart reported elsewhere.(5)

Figure 1 shows schematically the two methods used in the eld to measure the polarization on buried piping. The meanings of on- and o-
potentials, polarization (decay or growth) and ohmic voltage drop (IR), native and rest potentials are labeled and shown clearly. Figure 1(a)
shows the method of polarization growth, and Figure 1(b) shows the method of polarization decay. The potentials shown in each of the
gures include the native potential (Ecorr), the on- and o-potentials, the “decayed-o” potential (potential measured during
depolarization), and the “rest potential” (potential when depolarization becomes steady), or the polarization growth or decay and the IR
drop.

The dierence between on- and o-potentials measured under the same conditions may be generally considered as the IR voltage drop,
with the on-potential being generally more negative than the o-potential. Open circuit potential (OCP) is measured with no external
current applied to a metal surface. It is generally referred to as a steel native potential or a free corrosion potential, although it can also be
an instant o-potential, a decayed o-potential, or a rest potential. The values of these potentials can be measured correctly only when
there is absence of interference by stray currents or long-line currents.

In eld practice, an o-potential is usually measured by interrupting all possible external current sources within a suciently small time
interval. In this work, it may be regarded as a polarized potential, although these two potentials dier from each other. A polarized potential
can only be measured local at the exposed structure-electrolyte interface. By contrast, the o-potential is usually measured on-ground and
represents an average covering a section of the pipe to be measured.

The goal of this article is to provide an understanding and a rule-of-thumb relationship between steel native/rest potentials and soil
resistivity from which the relationship between o-potential criteria in dierent soil resistivity ranges and the magnitude of cathodic
polarization can be better understood.

Chart Development
Let us discuss the development of the steel native/rest potential vs. soil resistivity chart.
Table 1 shows a soil resistivity classi cation.(6,7) The low or medium soil resistivity
is considered to be below 10K ohm.cm; high or very high soil resistivity between 10K
and 100K ohm-cm; ultra high or super high soil resistivity above 100k ohm-cm. The terminology used for the resistivity classi cation in
Table 1 is dierent from that given in the ISO CP standard.(1)
In addition, the ranges of soil resistivity given in Table 1 are more detailed and data are unavailable to support developing a correlation
between soil resistivity and corrosivity. Table 2 shows a relationship between soil resistivity and corrosivity.(8) In general, the higher the soil
resistivity, the less corrosive the soil is to steel (CP eect not considered). When the soil resistivity is below 10K ohm.cm, the soil
corrosivity to steel is classi ed as varying from very corrosive (0-500 ohm.cm), to corrosive (500-1K ohm.cm), to moderately corrosive
(1K-2K ohm.cm), and to mildly corrosive (2K-10K ohm.cm). When soil resistivity is greater than 10K ohm.cm, the soil corrosivity to steel is
classi ed as being progressively less corrosive.

Table 3 shows soil corrosiveness vs. steel native potential.(8) The soil resistivity (the right most column of Table 3) can be derived by a
comparison of soil corrosivity in Tables 2 and 3. The higher the soil resistivity, the more aerated the soil or the more likely passivated the
steel by the soil, and thus, the less negative the steel native potential.

Although it is likely that the criteria used to classify soil corrosiveness in Tables 2-3 are dierent, the criteria may be similar. A conservative
soil corrosivity ranking would assume that the “very corrosive and corrosive” categories in Table 2 (soil resistivity less than 1K ohm.cm)
correspond with “severe” in Table 3 (native potential more negative than -600 mV), “moderately and mildly corrosive” in Table 2 (soil
resistivity of 1K-10K ohm.cm) correspond with “moderate” in Table 3 (native potential between -500 and -600 mV), “progressively less
corrosive” in Table 2 (soil resistivity greater than 10K ohm.cm) correspond with “slight” (native potential between -400 and -500 mV) and
“noncorrosive” (native potential less negative than -400 mV) in Table 3.

Figure 2 was created with a 50-100 mV potential range expansion to cover resistivity ranges not overlapped by Tables 2 and 3. When the
soil resistivity is less than 1K ohm.cm, it is rare that the native potential can be measured to be more negative than -800 mV in the eld.
When that happens, it may be related to high alkaline solution (due to CP) following the Pourbaix potential vs. pH diagram for iron.(9) At
such a high pH, it is likely that the soil is not corrosive.

Figure 2 also shows a rule-of-thumb relationship between soil resistivity and steel native potentials in soils. It is likely that some native
potentials, (often estimated by OCPs), measured in soils fall out of the mapped zones. For instance, a decayed o-potential or a rest
potential with insucient depolarization time may still be more negative than the native potential, or fall below the potential range shown in
Figure 2 due to prior cathodic polarization. A true rest potential is often more positive than the native potential due to formation of oxides
after a long exposure of the steel in soil.

In Figure 2, the potentials of -850 mV, -750 mV and -650 mV, relevant to CP criteria in dierent soil resistivity ranges, are labeled by the
dashed horizontal lines across the respective soil resistivity ranges given in the standards of ISO 15589-11 and EN 12954:20012 . It is
clear that meeting the -850 mV o-potential would generally achieve a polarization of 100 mV for the entire soil resistivity range shown in
the gure. For the soil resistivity range of 10K-100K ohm.cm and the range of 100K ohm.cm or greater, meeting the o-potential criteria of
-750 mV and -650 mV would respectively yield at least 200 mV cathodic polarization. This result suggests that the o-potential criteria
with dierent ranges of soil resistivity are generally more stringent than the 100 mV cathodic polarization criterion.

Validation Of Chart
The general steel native potential vs. soil resistivity chart shown in Figure 2 can be supported by data from a number of independent
sources. Figure 3(a) shows the average native potentials (averaged for the entire test duration between ve and seven years) of the
unpolarized bare pipes in 14 test sites vs. their respective soil resistivity (data superimposed on Figure 2). (10-11) The solid blue circles
are the actual test data and the blue line is the best t line to the data. Only three of the 14 data points fall outside the mapped zones, and
the best t line passes well through each mapped zone.

In the soil resistivity range of 10K-100K ohm.cm or greater, the free corrosion potentials listed in EN 12954 were plotted and shown as the
two gray bands in Figure 3(a). These two bands fall well within the respective mapped potential vs. soil resistivity zones.

Figure 3(b) shows data of the test coupons in the 14 test sites corresponding to the pipe native potentials mentioned earlier.(10-11) The
error bars were determined from a calculation of the standard deviation of the 15 coupons accompanying each pipe segment. Similar to
Figure 3(a), most data points fall in the mapped zones and the best t line passes well through the center of each zone, suggesting that the
native potential vs. soil resistivity chart reasonably represents the pipe or coupon native potentials vs. soil resistivity for the 14 eld sites
with soil resistivity ranging from less than 1K to 1.47M ohm.cm.

Figure 4 shows the native or rest potentials of operating pipelines or installed coupons vs. soil resistivity superimposed on Figure 2. (12)
The potentials and soil resistivity were measured very near the pipe-soil interface. The straight line was drawn manually based on visual
observation of the data. The mapped zones cover a majority of the data points. It is interesting to note that some potentials are very
negative in the high soil resistivity range (>10K ohm.cm), perhaps due to insucient time of depolarization before the measurement was
taken.

Native Potential Vs. Time

Data analysis published elsewhere (10-11) shows that of 14 unpolarized bare pipe specimens tested in 14 eld sites with soil resistivity
varying from less than 1K to 1.47M ohm.cm, only one site shows the native potential shifting in the more negative direction. For the other
13 pipes, their native potentials all shift in the more positive direction, accounting for a signi cant majority (93%). The potential shift in the
more positive direction is commonly observed in the eld because the pipe surface tends to form an oxide lm over time and the surface is
becoming passivated.

The rest potentials of three accompanying pipe specimens at each test site polarized at dierent o-potentials (potentials were measured
annually for ve to seven years and for each measurement ve days was given for depolarization) all were shown shifting in the more
positive direction except two of the total of 14 test sites. (10-11)

This shift of native/rest potentials in the more positive direction implies that – at a controlled o-potential – the cathodic polarization
increases over time. It also implies that if the soil resistivity is stable over time on a yearly basis, maintaining a given on-potential means
increasing polarization over time.

Conclusions
A chart validated with available literature data was provided to show the rule-of-thumb relationship between steel native/rest potentials and
soil resistivity. This chart shows that meeting the o-potential criteria for dierent soil resistivity ranges given in the ISO standards would in
general yield at least 100 mV cathodic polarization, suggesting that the o-potential criteria are more stringent than the 100 mV cathodic
polarization criterion.

The tendency of steel native/rest potentials shifting in the more positive direction over time implies that at a controlled o-potential, the
polarization increases over time. If the soil resistivity is stable over time on a yearly basis, maintaining a given on-potential means
increasing polarization over time.

Acknowledgment
This work was sponsored by Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) under Contract PR-015-0835. The advice of Bob Gummow of
Correng Consulting Service Inc., program management of Mark Piazza of PRCI, and technical guidance of David McQuilling of Panhandle
Energy and Dave Aguiar of Paci c Gas & Electric Company, are appreciated.

REFERENCES
1. ISO Standard 15589-1 (Latest Version), “Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries–otection of Pipeline Transportation Systems–Part 1: On
Land Pipelines” (Geneva, Switzerland: ISO).
2. EN 12954, “Cathodic Protection of Buried or Immersed Metallic Structures. General Principles and Application for Pipelines,” 2001.
3. NACE, “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems,” NACE Standard SP 0169?2007.
4. AS 2832.1 (latest revision), “Cathodic Protection of Metals–Pipes and Cables,” (Sydney, Australia: Standards, Australia).
5. NACE TG 211, “Report on the 100-mV Cathodic Polarization Criterion,” (Houston, TX: NACE) March 2008.
6. H. C. Van Nouhuys, “Cathodic protection and high resistivity soil”, Corrosion, Vol.9,
Dec, 1953, 448-459.
7. H. C. Van Nouhuys, “Cathodic protection and high resistivity soil- A sequel”, Corrosion, Vol.14, No.11, 1958, pp.583-587.
8. “State-of-the-art survey on corrosion of steel piping in soils”, NACE Technical Committee (Task group 018) Report, Item No. 24216,
Houston, TX, Dec, 2001.
9. D. A. Jones, “Principles and Prevention of Corrosion”, 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc. NJ (1996) 50-54.
10. L. A. “Roy” Bash, “Robert J. Kuhn’s -0.85V, CSE, cathodic protection criterion for buried coated steel pipelines is scienti cally sound”,
CORROSION/2006, paper No. 06086.
11. T. J. Barlo, “Field testing the criteria for cathodic protection of buried pipelines”, PRCI nal report, PR-208-163, February, 1994.
12. F. King, G. V. Boven, K. Lawson, et al., “Cathodic protection of pipelines in high resistivity soils and the eect of seasonal changes”,
Corrosion/2006, paper No. 06163.
13. Song, F. M. and H. Yu, “Variable CP Criteria”, PRCI Contract PR-015-083500, Final Report, October 2010.

Authors
Fengmei (Frank) Song is a senior research engineer at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, TX. He earned his Ph.D. (2002) from
the University of Toronto. He is a leading researcher in the areas of pipeline internal corrosion, external corrosion and stress corrosion
cracking, and their direct assessment methodologies. His work also involves evaluations of corrosion inhibitors and coatings and studies on
microbiologically induced corrosion and corrosion fatigue. fsong@swri.org.

Hui Yu is a research engineer in the Materials Engineering Department of Southwest Research Institute. He earned his Ph.D. (2007) from
Florida Atlantic University with a specialty in materials corrosion and control. He has experience conducting laboratory and eld
investigations for the corrosion of reinforcement in concrete and metallic corrosion in aqueous/soil environments. He has experience in
cathodic protection design and evaluation for underground pipelines, tanks, vessels, and oshore structures.