Vapor Corrosion Inhibitors for Tank Bottom Corrosion

Control
materialsperformance.com/articles/chemical-treatment/2019/04/vapor-corrosion-inhibitors-for-tank-bottom-corrosion-
control

Chemical Treatment
By Pavan K. Shukla, Len J. Krissa, Jerry DeWitt, Laurie Perry on 5/4/2020 1:18 PM

Soil-side corrosion of aboveground storage tank (AST) bottoms is a major challenge. ASTs typically include active
cathodic protection (CP) systems to mitigate this corrosion.

A study was recently completed by the Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) to
determine corrosion mitigation performance of vapor corrosion inhibitors (VCIs) for the soil-
side of aboveground storage tank (AST) bottom plates. PRCI is a nonprofit research
organization that is comprised of energy pipeline operating and service companies located
worldwide. The study details are published in a report.1 This article provides a summary of
the study.

Soil-side corrosion of the bottom plates of ASTs is a major concern and maintenance issue.
ASTs are typically supported by concrete ring walls or sometimes by compacted dense gravel
aggregate. The tank bottoms are typically bare steel and supported by a sand pad of varying
thickness. The sand is expected to be in accordance with API 6512 or operator-developed
standards. In North America, most ASTs include active cathodic protection (CP) systems to
protect the tank bottoms. Review of industry experience and literature indicated that soil-
side corrosion could occur at elevated rates and CP alone may be insufficient. This is because
CP could partially or completely fail, or CP may not reach the entire surface of the plate—as
in the case of local soil settlement and associated depressions which could form due to
repeated flexing of the bottom plates. In addition, a tank without a CP system could
experience elevated corrosion depending on the pad conditions.

1/5
To address these issues, VCIs have been applied under ASTs for many years and are being
promoted as alternative corrosion control measures. Tank operators needed an independent
study to establish the efficacy and applicability of VCIs. Specifically, the operators needed a
basis to determine life cycle applicability of VCIs for their assets, both from an integrity
management perspective and for regulatory compliance.

There were three key questions that were asked: (i) are VCIs effective in mitigating corrosion
comparable to a working CP system, (ii) what is the best way to apply and monitor efficacy of
VCIs, and (iii) are VCIs compatible with CP? The study was conducted to address these
questions, with the objective of rigorously evaluating and documenting the effectiveness of
VCIs. The scope included literature review, laboratory experiments, and field testing.

VCIs have been used for corrosion mitigation in numerous applications for decades.
However, their application for tank bottom corrosion control began in the early 2000s;
literature exists on application of VCIs such as recent work by Pynn and Abed.3 VCI technical
specialists have devised methods to apply VCIs into a tank pad. Application methods are
dependent on tank operating conditions that could include a tank being in-service, out-of-
service, and during construction. The application relies upon the process of chemical
volatilization and diffusion for distribution of VCIs throughout a tank pad. VCIs’
volatilization obviates a need for direct access to the bottom plate surface. VCIs could be
injected and distributed in the sand pad for an in-service tank, and at the pad surface for an
out-of-service tank. The most common ways to introduce VCIs in the pad include liquid
slurry (prepared by mixing potable water with VCI) injection and dry powder application.

A VCI chemistry must be contained adjacent to the tank bottom to be available for corrosion
control. A typical AST includes a concrete support ring wall surrounding the pad that is
underlain with a containment liner. The bottoms are typically A36 steel and are constructed
on the pad surface, then the plates extend onto the concrete ring wall. The chime of the tank
in contact with the ring wall can be sealed with a sealant. This creates sufficient containment
under ASTs for VCIs to be available long-term. When VCIs are delivered and released either
within interstitial space or at the pad surface, volatilization coupled with diffusion occurs
until equilibrium, determined by partial vapor pressure and concentration gradients, is
reached. The mechanism for corrosion control is the formation of molecular-level inhibitor
layer over the entire plate surface. Inhibitors adsorb on the steel surface and then suppress
both metal dissolution and reduction reaction. The mechanism is like the action of inhibitors
that are used widely, and recognized by regulators, for protection of pipelines from internal
corrosion.

VCI Effectiveness Study

Laboratory testing was conducted to determine efficacy of two commercially available VCIs.
Field sand samples from an existing tank pad were procured and used. The bottom plate at
the sand sampling site experienced severe soil-side pitting; therefore, the samples were
considered corrosive. Two sets of VCI experiments were set up. For the first set, control and

2/5
VCI effect experiments were set up in plastic tubs that were filled with the sand, dosed with
VCIs, and sealed to avoid escaping VCIs. A36 steel coupons were placed in contact with sand,
and in the vapor space of the tubs. Electrical resistance (ER) probes were also placed in some
of the tubs. The coupons were extracted after several months and analyzed for corrosion. For
the second set, VCI and CP compatibility experiments were set up in glass beakers using field
sand dosed with VCIs. Mixed metal oxide and Mg-based anodes were used in impressed
current CP (ICCP) and galvanic CP systems, respectively. A36 coupons were used in the CP
compatibility experiments. Various electrochemical techniques such as potentiostatic
polarization and galvanic coupling were employed to evaluate VCI and CP compatibility.

The field sand was corrosive and caused pitting on A36 coupons in the control experiments.
The control experiment coupons were compared with the VCI experiment coupons; the
comparison showed that VCIs mitigated pitting when the vendor-recommended dosages
were used. Specifically, pitting of A36 decreased substantially in the presence of vendor-
recommended dosages of the two VCIs; however, the pitting rates were not mitigated to the
extent specified in NACE SP01934 and NACE SP01695 for demonstrating adequate CP.
Experiments were also conducted at dosages lower than what is recommended, and included
10% and 1% of the recommended values. These dosages were selected to determine if there is
a threshold level that will trigger reinjection of VCIs after initial dosing. With the 10% and 1%
VCI dosages, pitting was equally severe in the control and VCI-exposed coupons, indicating
that any large deviation from vendor-recommended dosages will render the VCIs ineffective.

ER probes are designed to measure the surface average corrosion rate and are sometimes
used to measure tank pad corrosivity. Suitability of the ER probes for monitoring the
effectiveness of VCIs was evaluated by comparing ER-probe derived corrosion rates with the
surface average corrosion rates of the coupons. ER-probe corrosion rates were within the
range of the coupons’ surface average corrosion rates. Further, in both VCI exposed coupons
and ER probe data, the effect of VCIs was evident by a reduction in surface average corrosion
rates compared to the control. ER probes are suitable enough to monitor VCIs’ effectiveness.
It is recognized that pitting is the dominant contributor to overall corrosion and failure of the
plates. While there was agreement between ER-probe and coupon corrosion rates, ER probes
cannot measure pitting rates. ER probe and coupon agreement indicates that there exists a
correlation that can be derived between the surface average and pitting corrosion rates. The
correlation could be used to infer changes in the pitting rates using the ER-probe rates.

There could be situations where VCIs are used in combination with CP. VCIs and CP provide
protections by different mechanisms: VCIs by chemical action and CP by cathodic
polarization. An advantage of using the combination is that inhibitors can reach metal
surface areas that could be difficult to protect using CP. Additional advantages include VCIs
providing protection to a plate portion that has lost contact with the tank pad and where the
CP system is unavailable due to power loss, damage to, or downtime associated with CP.

3/5
The study found that VCIs are compatible with an ICCP system, and do not adversely affect
delivery of CP to the plate. However, VCI and CP compatibility is complicated by the fact that
the native potential of A36 steel shifts with exposure to VCIs. Additional changes in the
native potential could occur after polarization of a VCI-exposed plate. These changes in
native potential should be considered when operators use a specific VCI and select one of the
SP0193 CP criteria to meet regulatory requirements. For galvanic anode CP systems, the data
was limited and varied widely; therefore, no conclusion could be drawn on the compatibility.

Summary
VCIs were found to be effective in mitigating pitting of A36 steel exposed to corrosive sand
when recommended dosages were used. VCIs significantly reduced the tendency of pitting,
but pitting rates were not mitigated to the extent specified in NACE SP0193 and NACE
SP0169 for demonstrating adequate CP. Nonetheless, use of VCIs could provide protection,
and thus service life extension, for the tanks without CP or where CP systems have either
failed or degenerated. ER probes, designed to measure the surface average corrosion rate,
can be used to monitor both the plate corrosion rate and efficacy of VCIs. VCIs are
compatible with ICCP systems, but changes in native potentials of A36 steel must be
considered when using VCIs in combination with CP. This work demonstrates proof-of-
concept of the VCI technology, and additional work would help optimize operating and
monitoring parameters associated with the technology.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge PRCI and its members for funding and in-kind support, and VCI
manufacturers for providing products for the study.

References

1 P. Shukla, et al., “Vapor Corrosion Inhibitors Effectiveness for Tank Bottom Plate Corrosion
Control,” PRCI, Inc., Report Catalog Number PR–015–153602-R01, 2018.

2 API 651, “API Recommended Practice 651: Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Petroleum
Storage Tanks” (Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute, 2014).

3 C.R. Pynn, K. Abed, “Compatibility and Interactions Between Cathodic Protection and a
Vapor Phase Corrosion Inhibitor,” MP 57, 4 (2018): pp. 38-42.

4 NACE SP0169, “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic

Piping Systems” (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2013).

5 NACE SP0193, “External Cathodic Protection of On-Grade Carbon Steel Storage Tank
Bottoms” (Houston, TX: NACE, 2016).

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

4/5
PAVAN K. SHUKLA is a principal engineer at Savannah River National Laboratory, South
Carolina, Aiken, South Carolina, USA, email: pavan.shukla@srnl.doe.gov. Shukla focuses on
pipeline and tank bottom corrosion control issues and corrosion of materials in nuclear
systems, and has worked in the corrosion industry for over 14 years. He has co-invented four
patents and authored over 60 journal and industry conference publications, two book
chapters, and numerous technical reports. In 2015, he received a Research and Development
100 award for developing a cased pipeline corrosion model. Shukla has a Ph.D. and is a
NACE-certified Cathodic Protection Technician.

LEN J. KRISSA is a supervisor, PI Corrosion Prevention at Enbridge Pipelines, Inc.,

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. He is an APEGA (Association of Professional Engineers and
Geologists of Alberta) registered Professional Engineer who has worked in the corrosion
industry for over 25 years. His early career started by providing services using leading-edge
technologies for CP/coating evaluations and he has gained extensive experience from
numerous pipeline assessment projects both internationally and throughout North America.
He has been employed with Enbridge Pipelines, Inc. since 2009. He is responsible for all
external corrosion control programs for the North American liquid products system. Krissa is
also a NACE-certified Cathodic Protection Specialist and a Level 2 Coating Inspector. He has
authored over 25 technical articles and industry conference papers.

JERRY DEWITT is a corrosion prevention specialist at Enbridge, Inc., Griffiths, Indiana,

USA, email: Jerry.DeWitt@enbridge.com. He has been involved in corrosion control for over
32 years, with specialization in CP and protective coatings. His recent focus areas include
developing soil condition-based protection criteria for AST bottom plates and use of VCIs to
mitigate carrier pipe corrosion in cased crossings. He is also a NACE-certified Cathodic
Protection Specialist, Senior Corrosion Technologist, and a Level 3 Coating Inspector.

LAURIE PERRY is the program manager for the corrosion and underground storage
technical committees at PRCI, Chantilly, Virginia, USA, email: lperry@prci.org. She is a
mechanical engineer with an M.B.A. and has more than 30 years of pipeline integrity
management experience. She is a NACE-certified Internal Corrosion Specialist and has
authored several publications on internal corrosion mitigation of pipelines.

Related Articles

5/5