Paper No.

5795

CP MANAGEMENT OF MULTIPLE PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAYS

Len J. Krissa, P.Eng. Engineering Specialist Christophe Baeté, CP Manager
Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Elsyca n.v.
10201 Jasper Avenue Vaartdijk 3/603, 3018 Wijgmaal, Belgium
Edmonton, AB T5J 3N7, Canada christophe.baete@elsyca.com
Len.krissa@enbridge.com
Jerry DeWitt, Sr. CP Specialist
Enbridge Energy Partners
222 US 41
Schererville, IN. 46375, USA
Jerry.DeWitt@enbridge.com

ABSTRACT
The report discusses cathodic protection (CP) experiences on the world’s longest, most complex crude
oil and liquid hydrocarbon transportation system; having 24,738 kilometers (15,372 miles) of pipeline
throughout North America. Since initial construction of the first pipeline in 1949, infrastructure has
continually been enhanced and improved to meet the needs of the Company’s shippers. The
expansion has resulted in areas of the mainline corridor where up to seven (7) parallel pipelines are
contained within the same right-of-way (ROW).

The evolution of construction materials over the course of the Company’s long operating history has
contributed to the diversity within the ROW. Early coating systems included asphalt, coal tar epoxy,
and mummy-wrap. Polyethylene tape coated pipe was installed in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. Since
the 1980’s, the Company has favored high performance coatings such as fusion bonded epoxy, dual
layer epoxies, and high performance composite/powder (HPCC/HPPC). Presently, the ROW includes
an assortment of pipeline vintages with various diameters and coating types which can consequently
result in unbalanced CP levels.

This Project includes in-depth research and analysis of various methods, procedures, and materials
beneficial in regulating and maintaining appropriate levels of CP in complex multi-pipeline corridors.
Associated rectifiers are all furnished with remote monitoring equipment and the majority of test stations
have been retrofit with coupons enabling remote surveillance of real time CP/AC potentials and

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
1
 corresponding current densities. All Project pipelines are regularly evaluated using inline inspection
tools equipped with technologies to identify metal loss, and some of the pipelines have been inspected
using inline tools capable of evaluating CP currents flowing in the pipe wall. These data have been
consolidated and used to generate a computational model providing a more accurate representation of
CP levels on each pipeline within the shared ROW. The purpose of such a model is to refine testing
procedures, develop corrective measures and establish new guidelines for optimizing CP operation and
effectiveness within ROWs containing multiple pipelines.

Rationally managing and harmonizing CP levels within such multifaceted arrangements is necessary to
accommodate the pipelines having a high current demand, while avoiding the detrimental effects of
overprotection on adjacent, newer pipelines with high efficiency coating systems.

Keywords: CP, cathodic protection, multiple pipelines, multi-pipeline ROW, right-of-ways, remote monitoring
management,

INTRODUCTION
Enbridge owns and operates a sophisticated pipeline network of approximately 25,000 km. The
mainline system comprises routings of two (2) to seven (7) pipelines within the same corridor. The
complexity of the ROWs has increased over time as new pipelines were introduced and connected to
common legacy CP systems. Consequently, the ROWs now include several combinations of pipelines
having various diameters, coating types and current demands. The portion of mainline pipeline system
which is the subject of this study can be characterized as follows:
 The pipeline vintage ranges from early 1968 to 2010;
 The diameter varies from 20 to 42 inch;
 The 2 primary coating types are: Polyethylene (PE) tape wrap and Fusion Bond Epoxy (FBE);
 The pipelines were backfilled with native soils with diverse characteristics. The lines have been open-
cut within river beds at the crossings of the water ways; with some instances of Horizontal Directional
Drilled (HDD’s) sections.
 The average distance between the anode beds and valve stations is 8 and 10 km, respectively. Valve
stations are potential candidates for CP current loss through grounded structures; in particular utility
neutrals, which have been mitigated through the implementation of DC decoupling devices
 The typical CP system consists of an impressed current rectifier coupled to a remote, shallow
conventional groundbeds containing 10-20 vertical anodes surrounded by coke breeze backfill. Each
pipeline is individually connected to the rectifier via common bus bar through a junction box for
individual current monitoring.
An intensive campaign was initiated by the Operator to investigate the parameters and sensitivities that
impact CP system performance. The objective of the study was to execute an in-depth review and
analysis of the various options for monitoring, measuring, and controlling cathodic protection (CP)
levels of the electrically continuous structures within shared right-of-way corridors and then implement
corrective measures accordingly.

Background
CP potentials in electrically connected multiple pipeline corridors are primarily determined through a
conventional annual survey process that meets regulatory requirements. The Company supplements
these efforts with enhanced system monitoring techniques such as Close Interval Potential Surveys
(CIPS/ CIS), voltage gradient (ACVG/ DCVG), or other indirect inspection techniques outlined within
SP0502. Indirect inspections are intended to identify and assess the severity of coating faults, other
anomalies and areas where corrosion activity was or still is occurring. Ideally, through successive

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
2
 applications of these techniques, a pipeline operator should be able to identify and address locations
where corrosion is or was active. The NACE ECDA process takes this practice several steps forward
and integrates information on a pipeline’s physical characteristics and operating history (pre-
assessment) with data from multiple field examinations (indirect inspections) and pipe surface
evaluations (direct examinations) to provide a more comprehensive integrity evaluation with respect to
external corrosion (post assessment). (1- ANSI/NACE; SP0502, 2008)
Standard application of these enhanced monitoring techniques can however, return inconsistent results
in multiple pipeline ROW situations. It is generally recognized that CIS along multiple pipeline corridors
yield ON potentials that are a mixed, or geometrically averaged potential of some or all of the pipelines
having proximity to the reference cell. Similarly, Off potentials may include sources of error associated
with a rebalancing of potentials between protected structures, each having different levels of
polarization. The cathodic/anodic current exchange between multiple pipelines may not stabilize within
the typical ‘OFF’ cycle of an interrupted survey to provide opportunity for obtaining a valid polarized
value. An accurate and reliable OFF potential measurement is essential to evaluate CP effectiveness of
the pipe when applying the -850mVCSE (Copper Sulfate Electrode) or 100mV shift criteria. (2- NACE; SP0169, 2013) In
some instances, the indirect inspections have not provided information accurate enough to reliably
understand CP sufficiency within the multiple pipeline ROW.
The Company has documented several CP survey locations that were incorrectly classified as being
either “adequately protected” or “sub-criterion” due to the errors in the measurement process. For
decades, CP criteria has been an enduring issue; exhaustively scrutinized, studied and debated;
however it continues to remain challenged as external corrosion is repeatedly and persistently
discovered (3- R.A. Gummow, 2012). Perhaps some of the controversy should not necessarily be attributed to
questionable or invalid criteria, but rather the result of erroneous field information having been applied.
A number of factors can influence “On” and “Off” potential measurements (4- NACE TM0497, 2012), including:
1. IR drops through the soil
2. Foreign-generated DC currents
3. Capacitive effects
4. Chemical environment of the soil
5. Current generated from dissimilar levels of polarization between the electrically continuous structures

The errors in conventional CP monitoring information can be demonstrated through ILI metal loss
programs. Annual cathodic survey results consistently report achievement of protection criteria in multi-
pipeline corridors but; newer pipelines with non-shielding “CP compatible” coating systems continue to
have active external metal loss features identified from ILI results. In-line inspection techniques (MFL
or US) determines areas of metal loss activity and corrosion rates can be calculated from consecutive
measurements; however these methods do not provide the root cause of the corrosion mechanism.
Balancing the application of CP in a multiple ROW configuration has been recognized as problematic
since the early 1990’s. An industry initiative from that period identified the following issues while
attempting to monitor cathodic protection levels using surface reference electrodes:
 Errors in ground level on- and off-potentials due to the interaction of two adjacent pipelines in the same
right-of-way can be significant under certain conditions.
 Significant error due to interaction between pipes in a bare - bare pipe combination is limited to on-
potentials. No significant interaction was observed for off-potentials.
 Significant error due to interaction between pipes in a bare - poorly coated pipe combination is limited to
the coated pipe. Errors can be significant for both the on and off-potentials measured for the coated
pipelines. Potentials measured over the bare pipe accurately reflect potentials of the bare pipe.
 Significant error due to interaction between pipes in a poorly coated - well coated pipe combination is
limited to the well coated pipe. Errors can be significant for both the on- and off-potentials measured for

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
3
 the well coated pipeline. Potentials measured over the poorly coated pipe accurately reflect potentials of
the poorly coated pipe.
 Increasing spacing decreased the error due to two pipeline interaction.
 Decreasing pipe depth decreased the error due to two pipeline interaction.
 Increasing potential difference decreased the error due to two pipeline interaction for the bare - bare pipe
on-potential condition only. For all other conditions, the effect of potential difference was negligible.
 Increasing resistivity decreased the error due to two pipeline interaction for on potential measurements.
No effect of resistivity was observed for off-potential measurements.
 Regression equations were developed for calculating percent interaction for a wide range of pipeline/soil
conditions.
 Analysis procedures were developed to calculate errors due to interactions for field data. The calculations
require on- and off-potentials over each pipeline, no other special measurements are required.
 For a pipeline crossing situation, the ground level off-potential reflects the off potential of the top pipe
even when the bottom pipe is bare and the top is coated (exception may be for a very well coated pipe).

For a given pipeline geometry, the parameter that defines coating quality and controls the interaction
effects is the coating resistivity to soil resistivity ratio. For a given coating quality, as the soil resistivity
varies, the coating resistivity is also expected to vary. The ground water that fills the coating pores or
holidays, in part, establishes the coating resistivity. (5- CORTEST Columbus Technologies, Inc., October 29, 1993)

Although awareness of the subject has obviously existed; the ability to effectively measure and manage
cathodic levels was limited by the technologies available at that time. The preceding conclusions also
coincide with a period when digital memory was expensive, and any relevant data measurements were
logged very discerningly. Advances in electronics and portable power capacity over the past 20 years,
has now enabled unprecedented access to immense volumes of information that can be transmitted
almost instantaneously from remote locations very economically. The capability of computer modeling
applications has progressed significantly to the point where sophisticated and realistic simulations can
be generated from powerful computational algorithms which incorporate a multitude of variables. The
industry no longer faces the dilemma of data rationing, but rather one of effective management and
utilization of the massive, readily obtainable information sets.

A new approach has been implemented by the Operator using the following state-of-the-art
technologies:
1. CP coupons with stationary reference cells & data loggers/RMU’s
2. remote monitoring of rectifier outputs
3. soil resistivity surveys
4. in-line cathodic protection current mapping inspection
5. advanced computational modeling
6. Correlation with ILI metal loss (MFL and Ultrasonic) and Inertial / GPS data
7. Strategic cross-bonding of commonly protected pipelines

This rigorous study was initiated 2 years ago for a 625 km (445 mi) common corridor consisting of 4
pipelines of various sizes and dissimilar coating efficiencies. The results of the above techniques have
been compared with ILI metal loss data with the objective of correlating the modeling results with wall
loss measurements, to find the root cause of the corrosion attack. Effective remediation measures can
then be employed for pipeline integrity optimization.

Applied Technologies
The Operator has elected using the aforementioned technologies to obtain immense volumes of field
data; subsequently serving as the key input to generating a progressive computational model of the
multiple pipeline ROW CP profile.

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
4
 CP Coupons in close proximity to a stationary reference electrode
Dual Coupon Housing with a stationary copper/copper sulfate reference electrode has been installed at
418 locations along the pipeline routing. The coupons were installed in accordance with industry
standards (6- ANSI / NACE Standard RP0104, 2004) as shown in Figure 1. One coupon is facing towards and
connected to the pipeline, while the other coupon is facing in the opposite direction (180) and
electrically isolated. The CP coupons provide native potentials (disconnected coupon) and ON/OFF
potentials (connected coupon). The potentials are measured against the CSE stationary reference cell
housed in a controlled electrically conductive backfill medium located between the two coupons, and
can be substantiated with respect to a portable CSE reference cell at grade level.

Figure 1: schematic representation of double coupon test station w/ integrated reference cell

Remote monitoring units (RMU)

RMU devices are installed at rectifiers for real-time monitoring of the DC current output of each
individual pipeline, the rectifier DC total current and DC voltage (see Figure 2). Monitoring data is
retrieved real-time through a web based application. The RMUs are also utilized on AC mitigation
systems and in some instances on bonds with foreign pipelines. At some locations a negative DC
current is measured by the device as can be seen for sites 7 and 17 in Table 1. It was observed that
the sum of the individual currents (line 1 to 4) does not always equal the total current output of the
rectifier. This unexpected phenomenon is believed to be related to the sampling rate of the RMU, where
interrogation of the channels is not synchronized and recording of the measurements does not occur
simultaneously. The timeframe to register the measurements can be in the order of 30-40 seconds
which may lend to susceptibility of being affected by the 120 Hz output ripple of typical tap set rectifiers,
and/or influences by interrupted surveys on other nearby foreign CP systems. Shunt value will dictate
the resolution capability of the current being recorded, so round off error can also play as a contributing
factor. Operators must be aware of the capabilities, limitations and configurations of the equipment
being employed to ensure it is suitable for the purpose intended.

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
5
 Figure 2: Typical installation of rectifier c/w RMU installation

Table 1 - Example Data from Remote Monitoring Units

DC 42”FBE 20”FBE 24”FBE 34”PET

Site DC Volts Amps 2008 2007/08 1998 1968

1 14.60 V 11.4 1.3 8.8 / /

2 21.30 V 6.8 2.1 1.4 1.1 2.2
3 17.60 V 10.9 5.2 6.7 / /
4 16.40 V 7.9 4.3 1.9 1.1 0.5
5 18.20 V 8.4 5.1 1.2 0.7 1.3
6 8.60 V 3.1 0 1 0.4 0.5
7 13.20 V 8.3 0.2 18.6 0 -0.2
8 12.90 V 3.05 2.8 0.8 0.6 1.7
9 32.80 V 8.5 1.7 3.8 1.1 1.8
10 / / 0.3 3.5 1.7 3.3
11 18.90 V 5 0.9 1.6 0.8 1.4
12 43.00 V 22.3 5.3 7 5.1 4.7
13 54.10 V 16 3.2 6.5 2.8 3.3
14 41.20 V 3 0.4 0.1 0.9 1.3
15 43.90 V 5.4 0.6 0.8 1.9 1.9
16 48.70 V 6.9 1.4 1 2 2.4
17 85.20 V 1.1 -0.3 0 0 0.8
18 78.20 V 12.3 2.2 4.6 1.8 3.4
19 48.50 V 8.9 0.2 5.9 0.4 2.2
20 55.10 V 12.6 6 2.7 1.6 0.6
Total 161.85 42.9 77.9 24 33.1

Soil resistivity survey

Soil resistivity is measured at various locations during the design and installation of new or replacement
anode bed designs. All related data from rectifier locations has been incorporated into the model
parameters. The Operator has supplemented the model by using soil resistivity measurements along

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
6
 the ROW, between rectifiers, that was collected during AC mitigation studies. Within regions of AC
colocation, multiple layer soil models were developed from industry accepted Wenner four-pin method,
in accordance with IEEE1 (7- IEEE Standard 81, 2012), using the MEGGER Digital Earth Tester DET2/2†. The
electrode spacing varied from 2.5 feet to 100 feet and the soil resistivity measurements were used to
derive equivalent soil structure models for the inductive and conductive interference analyses. Publicly
available soil databases were also accessed to provide additional model information on soil types and
characteristics for the relevant areas. The soil parameters of the model were further reinforced from
data collected during integrity excavations and coupon installations where there was opportunity to
gather information on pH and chlorides in addition to resistivity. All soil data collected from the various
sources and techniques were then integrated into the computational model discussed later below.

Cathodic Protection Current Mapper (CPCM†) inline inspection

This inline tool inspects piggable pipeline sections under normal cathodic protection operations as
depicted in Figure 3 below. The ILI technology is unique in that it is able to accurately measure the
axial potential drop across the pipe wall caused by DC current while travelling inside the line at a speed
of a few km/hr. The voltage drop is converted to axial current flow through Ohm’s law I = E/R. By
evaluating variations in axial current, the tool can:
 determine local current density (coating condition)
 verify the DC current output of the rectifiers
 detect location of bonds and short in the pipeline that leads to DC current loss or
gain
 detect AC and DC interference currents
Measuring current flow in the pipe wall will indicate the magnitude of current the pipe receives from the
common CP systems and/or third party sources in the inspected section. Current from rectifiers are
typically positive and negative (current coming from both sides of the pipe) whereas inadvertent
continuity to grounded structures typically results in a radical change in current value while maintaining
its polarity. The slope of the line current between rectifier locations is characteristic of the coating
resistance. (8- D.Janda, 2013)

Figure 3: Cathodic protection current monitoring ILI tool

                                                            
1
 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), 3 Park Ave, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016‐5597 
†
 Trade Name 

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
7
 Advanced computational modeling
Elsyca CatPro† software is a BEM/FEM based computational tool that simulates the CP and corrosion
behavior of complex pipeline networks such as a multiple pipeline ROW. A model of the pipeline and
CP asset is created which includes insulating flanges, groundings, interconnection bonds, anode beds,
cables and rectifiers.

The major parameters determining the effectiveness of a given CP system (with fixed geometry and
anode configuration) are COATING QUALITY, SOIL RESISTIVITY and STUCTURE POLARIZATION.
These parameters can vary along the structure which complicates the design and control of the CP
system. Therefore, field data relating to the above mentioned parameters needs to be collected and
continually integrated in the model ensuring the proper values are addressed. The resolution of the
model is determined by a user-defined pipeline section length for which the above constraints are
entered case by case. Typically, the first simulation is performed by considering an average soil
resistivity and using blueprint values for the coating resistance. The rectifier output current is imposed
in the model and the simulated ON potentials at grade level are compared with the measured field data
at test stations from annual survey results. A further refinement of the model is then possible for the
coating resistance (ohmm2), local soil resistivity (ohmm) and polarization data (I-V curve) depending
on the availability and accuracy of the data. The model calculates the following parameters for the
entire pipeline network:
 pipe-to-soil ON at any depth
 IR-free potential at pipe surface
 current density leaving/entering the pipe section
 axial or line current through the pipe wall
 rectifier voltage and current
 current through bonds and cables

In this study the field data retrieved from the RMU’s, coupons, soil resistivity surveys and CP ILI
inspection were used to refine the model for coating condition and polarization behavior. For example
the measured axial current of the CP ILI tool is compared with the simulation results. This comparison
complements the model particularly when there are unintentional connections to grounded systems,
such as at valve stations. The measured axial current allows adjustment of the coating resistance for
the various pipe sections defined. Additionally, measured ON potentials from the coupons and pipe is
also used to verify the obtained coating resistance. Once the connections and coating resistance are
tuned, the model is further refined by considering the native, OFF potential and current demand
acquired from the coupons. The coupon data is used to deliver representative polarization levels for
specific regions.

Once the model is in place, a virtual in-situ system can be used to analyze the CP effectiveness and
better understand the behavior of each pipeline. The modeling technology was further extended to
explore the impact of different scenarios such as:
 eliminating accidental current drains at valve stations
 introducing shunt resistors to control the back current flow towards the rectifier
 repositioning the anode beds

                                                            
†
 Trade Name 

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
8
 RESULTS
Although the full investigation and analysis is still ongoing at the time of writing, some interesting
preliminary results are discussed. Some rectifiers were found to be backfeeding current TO the
pipeline rather than draining current FROM the pipeline. This is not uncommon in systems with multiple
pipelines being protected by a common rectifier. Field personnel and equipment must, respectively be
diligent and capable to correctly document the polarity when measuring negative drain current values.
The region outlined within Table 1 has been selected since unfavourable ON potentials were measured
during annual surveys. The total current (DC Amps) and overall voltage (DC Volts) is monitored as well
as the current of each individual line. It can be noted that the individual current of newer lines can have
a negative sign while in the case of the old line, the current is always positive. In the area between
Sites 12-16 there is a high concentration of rectifiers where there is significant current demand for a
relatively short pipeline section ( about 10 miles long).
The following information corresponds with the coupon installation program. Each of the following data
sets were sampled through a 1 minute duration and recorded at a frequency of 60
measurements/second (3600 data points/graph). Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate the change in pipe-to-
soil potentials once the coupon is physically disconnected from the pipeline at the 30 second point in
the test.

34” PE Tape - 1968

24” FBE - 1998
20” FBE – 2007/08
42” FBE - 2008

Figure 4: Protected Coupon PSP w.r.t. portable

CSE at-grade/over pipeline Vs. Time (sec)

34” PE Tape - 1968

24” FBE - 1998
20” FBE – 2007/08
42” FBE - 2008

Figure 5: Protected Coupon PSP w.r.t.

stationary/close proximity CSE Vs. Time (sec)

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
9
 Figures 4 & 5 above, clearly demonstrate the possible shortcomings of performing a CIS through this
region since the OFF potentials would be recorded as being quite similar from line to line. However,
the actual polarization of the structures is not fully realized until the coupon has been electrically
disconnected; with some degree of error still occuring when the measurement is made from grade level
where a more optimistic level of polarization is being depicted. 
Table 2 - Summarized Soil Resistivity Data

Resistivity
MP [ohm•m]

135.555 41
136.506 42
137.869 107
144.821 37
146.296 17
172.59 24
173.473 20
174.016 19
174.654 61
175.648 25
189.858 92
190.836 122
192.279 105

Table 2 demonstrates significant variability of soil resistivity along the ROW, particularly between
MP175 and MP192. It should be noted that within this region a transition occurs from a poorly drained
silt loam to a extensively to poorly drained sandy soil. A girth weld inventory with corresponding GPS
coordinates was established from the CP ILI enabling all information to be consistent for correlation
with historical metal loss inspections.
The CP ILI detected several undocumented drains where a significant magnitude of current was
draining back to the pipeline and creating a substantial burden to the CP system’s effectiveness. The
majority of such locations were discovered at mainline valves and typically involved conduit for
supplying power to motor operators. Acceptable induced AC levels were reported by the CP ILI
confirming effectiveness of recent AC mitigation efforts within defined segments. Conversely, a
substantial rise and fall in the AC data plot was identified indicative of persistent AC voltage
accumulating and discharging to ground in an uncontrolled manner. Remedial action was subsequently
initiated and the issue resolved.
An initial model was created for the ROW section between MP136 and MP227. The rectifier outputs
from Table 1 were applied in the model and known shortings at valves grounding and casings were
also considered. In total, 12 different sections in the ROW has been defined where a different coating
resistance is assigned to the pipes. The blueprint values are based on the coating type and pipe
vintage and further refined based on the ON potential measurements of the latest annual test station
survey. Table 3 summarizes the coating resistance results and an average soil resistivity of 55 ohmm
was initially considered in the model.

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
10
 Table 3 - Assumed Coating Resistance Values in the Model
34” PET 20”FBE 42” FBE
1968 2007/2008 24” FBE 1998 2008

min 3.25E+01 1.17E+03 8.47E+04 8.44E+03

max 1.74E+04 4.67E+05 1.69E+06 8.44E+05

average 1.76E+03 1.24E+05 4.63E+05 2.13E+05

Simulation results based on the blueprint values for the coating resistance are shown in Figures 6
to 9. Figure 6 outlines the simulated ON-potential values of the individual lines compared with the
measured mixed or average potential at the test stations. The most unfavourable ON-potentials are
found in the middle of the ROW section between MP180 and MP197. The current density per line is
simulated and from Figure 7 it can be seen that the oldest pipe (34” PE circa 1968) has negative or
cathodic current densities over the entire trajectory. The results of the newer pipes (Line 2, 3 and 4)
is shown in Figure 8. Figure 9 depicts a focused region between MP182 and MP201 where Line 2
and 4 are exhibiting anodic or corrosion current densities, albeit rather low, namely 2.17 to 22.6
microA/m2.
Line 2
0.0 Line 4
‐0.5 Line 3
Line 1
‐1.0
ON potential [v vs CSE]

‐1.5

‐2.0

‐2.5

‐3.0

‐3.5

‐4.0
136 146 156 166 176 186 196 206 216 226 236 246
developed length [mi]

Figure 6: simulated ON potentials of pipelines compared with test station data

0.0E+00

‐2.0E‐03

Line 1
Current density [A/m2]

‐4.0E‐03

‐6.0E‐03

‐8.0E‐03

‐1.0E‐02

‐1.2E‐02

‐1.4E‐02
130 150 170 190 210 230 250

Figure 7: simulated current density of oldest pipeline in ROW

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
11
 5.0E‐05

0.0E+00
Current density [A/m2]
‐5.0E‐05

‐1.0E‐04
Line 2
Line 3
‐1.5E‐04
Line 4

‐2.0E‐04
130 150 170 190 210 230 250

Figure 8: simulated current density of newer pipelines in ROW

3.0E‐05
Line 2 2.26E‐05
2.0E‐05
Line 3
Current density [A/m2]

1.0E‐05 Line 4 2.17E‐06 2.35E‐06

0.0E+00
‐1.0E‐05
‐2.0E‐05
‐3.0E‐05
‐4.0E‐05
‐5.0E‐05
136 146 156 166 176 186 196 206 216 226 236
developed length [mi]

Figure 9: zoom-in near section with anodic current density

CP axial current measurements from ILI tool

Further refinement of the computational model is underway based on CP ILI data. CP inline inspection
was performed on Line 2 and 4 respectively. Line 4 was surveyed for its entire length of 742 km (461
mi) while for line 2 reliable data was only available for the last section of 294 km. Figure 10 shows the
results of the line current. Both pipelines are in the same ROW from the beginning but Line 2 leaves the
ROW after 518 km (321 mi). The section where CP ILI data is available for both pipelines is between
446 and 518 km ( 277 and 321 mi).
The graphs demonstrate:
 Both lines behave completely different in the ROW attributed to variances in installation
 The region between MP 190 and MP 201 with high rectifier current output is apparent
 The large negative current peak (-6 amps) in Line 4 coincides with the rectifier at MP190 while
the large positive peak (4 Amps) coincides with the rectifier at MP196. It is assumed that a
grounded structure may inadvertently be connected to the pipe at those locations, influencing
the CP current flow

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
12
 6

0
line  current [A]

‐2

‐4

‐6
CPCM Line 2
‐8
CPCM Line 4

‐10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
developed length [mi]

Figure 10: measured line current by CP ILI tool

Several undocumented drains are reported having a significant magnitude of current flowing to the
pipeline creating a substantial burden to the CP system’s effectiveness. The majority of such locations
were discovered at mainline valves and typically involved conduit supplying power to motor operators.
The CP ILI data is used to further refine the model. A separate model of Line 4 was built (34” PE tape
1968) and the current sources and drains values from the CP ILI data have been added. A blueprint
value of the coating resistance of 1e04 ohmm2 for the complete line output the most reasonable
results. As can be seen in Figure 11 there is a decent correlation between the measured and simulated
line currents. Some regions where a discrepancy is observed requires further refinement to the model
through adjustment of coating resistance and soil resistivity values. Note that the blueprint value is
smaller than the one used from the initial model iteration (see Table 3). Consequently, the sensistivity
of coating resistance was investigated in the Line 4 model as demonstrated in Figures 12 & 13.

2
Line current [A]

‐2

‐4
CPCM
‐6 blueprint

‐8
0 100 200 300 400 500
developed length [mi]

Figure 11: measured line current of Line 4 compared with blueprint simulation

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
13
 6

0
Line current [A]

‐2

‐4

scenario 1
‐6
scenario 2
‐8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
developed length [mi]

Figure 12: effect of coating resistance on line current in the model

1.E+05
Coating resistance [ohmm2]

1.E+04

scenario 1
scenario 2

1.E+03
0 100 200 300 400 500
developed length [mi]

Figure 13: coating resistance values used within Figure 12

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
14
 CONCLUSIONS
Achieving effective cathodic protection on multiple pipelines in a mutual corridor, using common current
source systems is a complicated and challenging assignment. Although the complexity and difficulties
relative to the subject were recognized decades ago; the industry is presently in a position where the
technological advancements of several fields have made it to possible to logically and strategically
contend with the situation. Pipeline operators are able to exploit a multitude of technologies and collect
the necessary information to create representative models of cathodic protection levels of pipelines
under such configurations. However, caution must be exercised during the data acquisition process, as
there are many opportunities to record erroneous information pertaining to cathodic protection of
pipelines; particularly in the case of polarized or instant “Off” potentials. Therefore, awareness of such
errors is imperative and gathering of accurate field measurements is critical for subsequent use as
simulation input. Accomplishing a reliable model can provide the pipeline operator edified direction for
making essential CP system adjustments or modifications to minimize or ultimately eliminate external
corrosion on pipelines installed with non-shielding coating systems. The models should be used in
conjunction with ILI metal loss inspections where the correlation of results will identify areas that can
proactively be mitigated before repair criteria is reached; thereby eliminating costly excavations and
substantially reducing the risk of failure.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to recognize and sincerely thank Sherif Hassanien and Ryan Sporns for their
continual support, dedication and devotion towards advancing pipeline integrity management.

REFERENCES
1- ANSI/NACE; SP0502. (2008). Standard Practice - Pipeline External Corrrosion Direct Assessment Methodology. Houston,
TX: ANSI (American National Standards Institute) / NACE International.

2- NACE; SP0169. (2013). Standard Practice - Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping
Systems. Houston, TX: NACE International.

3- R.A. Gummow, W. F. (2012). Would the Real -850 mVCSE Criterion Please Stand Up. Corrosion 2012; Paper No. C2012-
0001347. Salt Lake City, UT: NACE International.

4- NACE TM0497. (2012). Standard Test Method - Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on
Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems. Houston, TX: NACE International.

5- CORTEST Columbus Technologies, Inc. (October 29, 1993). Multiple Pipelines In Right-Of-Way: Improved Pipe-To-Soil
Potential Survey Methods. Houston: PRCI Catalog No. L51692e; Contract # PR-186-9105.

6- ANSI / NACE Standard RP0104. (2004). Standard Recommended Practice - The Use of Coupons for Cathodic Protection
Monitoring Applications; Item No. 21105. Houston, TX: ANSI (American National Standards Institute) / NACE
International.

7- IEEE Standard 81. (2012). Guide for Measuring Earth Resistivity, Ground Impedance, and Earth Surface Potentials of a
Ground System. New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).

8- D.Janda, C. B. (2013). A New Approach to Pipeline Integrity – Combining In-Line Inspection and Cathodic Protection
Simulation Technology. CORROSION 2013, Paper No. 2239 (p. 5). Orlando, FL: NACE.

©2015 by NACE International. Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole, must be in writing to
NACE International, Publications Division, 15835 Park Ten Place, Houston, Texas 77084. The material presented and the views expressed in
this paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association.
15