CORROSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Vol.16, No.5(2017), pp.

235~240 pISSN: 1598-6462 / eISSN: 2288-6524

[Research Paper] DOI: https://doi.org/10.14773/cst.2017.16.5.235

Regional Cathodic Protection Design of a Natural Gas Distribution Station

Hu Yabo1,†, Zhang Feng2, and Zhao Jun2
1
Petrochina Pipeline Company Shenyang Longchang Pipeline Survey Centre
2
Petrochina Pipeline R&D Centre
(Received August 17, 2017; Revised August 17, 2017; Accepted October 09, 2017)

Regional cathodic protection has significant impact on pipeline integrity management. After risk analyses
of a newly built gas distribution station constructed in an area with large dwelling density, risk score was
high because of potential threat caused by galvanic corrosion. Except reinforced steel in concrete, there
are four kinds of metal buried under earth: carbon steel, galvanized flat steel, zinc rod and graphite module.
To protect buried pipeline from external corrosion, design and construction of regional cathodic protection
was proposed. Current density was measured with potential using potential dynamic test and boundary element
method (BEM) was used to calculate current requirement and optimize best anode placement during design.
From our calculation on the potential, optimized conditions for this area were that an applied current was
3A and anode was placed at 40 meters deep from the soil surface. It results in potential range between
-1.128 VCSE and -0.863 VCSE, meeting the -0.85 VCSE criterion and the -1.2 VCSE criterion that no potential
was more negative than -1.2 VCSE to cause hydrogen evolution at defects in coating of the pipeline.

Keywords: regional cathodic protection, galvanic corrosion, BEM method, anodic interference

1. Introduction ing system. The buried pipeline was coated with liquid
epoxy resin, having various diameters ranging from 34
Coating and cathodic protection are both required to mm to 1016 mm and various buried depth ranging from
minimize external corrosion on buried metallic pipelines. 0.8 m to 2 m. The other three different metals: graphite
Especially in gas station located in areas with high dwell- module, zinc rod and galvanized flat steel, all bare, make
ing density, a corrosion protection system that will enable up the grounding system. Graphite module was mainly
reliable, safe and economic operation for the design life used for lightning protection system of buildings in the
of the buried pipeline should always be paid more dwelling area while zinc was mainly used in the working
attention. However, the piping in gas distribution stations equipment area. Graphite module was mistakenly used in
usually consists of a network of different size and materi- this station as vertical grounding metal and directly con-
als that are interconnected through the grounding system nected to the buried pipeline through galvanized flat steel,
to reduce the effects of hazardous voltages associated with only considering its low resistivity to earth while ignoring
lightning and fault currents in the earth. When the regional its galvanic effect on the other metals, resulting in a high
cathodic protection was applied, much of the current will risk of galvanic corrosion. In our previous work, the gal-
tend to flow to the grounding system that is not intended vanic effect of copper on zinc has already been studied.
for cathodic protection. What’s more, limited space and When the DC stray current exists, corrosion of metal with
shielding effects may make the design of the cathodic pro- more negative potential will be more enhanced [1].
tection more complicated. However, few papers have focused on the galvanic corro-
For example, in the mentioned gas station here, it was sion behaviour caused by graphite on buried pipeline, es-
found that except the reinforced steel in concrete, there pecially based on field investigation. In order to maintain
are four kinds of metal buried directly under earth in the the pipeline integrity, it is urgent to design an appropriate
gas distribution station: carbon steel, galvanized flat steel, regional cathodic protection system for the newly built
zinc rod and graphite module. Carbon steel was for the gas distribution station.
buried pipeline and the following three are for the ground- In this work, the polarization behaviour of pipeline car-
bon steel, zinc and graphite module were tested to provide
† data information for engineering design. The result of pro-
Corresponding author: gdsyhyb@petrochina.com.cn

235
 HU YABO, ZHANG FENG, AND ZHAO JUN

Fig. 1 Polarization curve of three different structure.

tection effect was simulated using a boundary element

method (BEM). The possible anodic interference on main
line outside the station was also discussed by calculating
the earth potential gradient. Fig. 2 Distribution of buried metallic structure in the station.

2. Estimation of Current Requirements

Estimation of an appropriate current requirement for the
buried metallic structure was crucial for the design
process. A study of polarization curve of different buried
structure was carried out. The polarization of zinc and
pipeline carbon steel was carried out in the laboratory.
Prior to each experiment, the specimen surface was pol-
ished to 1500 grit (SiC paper) finish, washed with distilled
water, degreased with ethanol and dried in a flow of cold
air. After the potential of sample became stable in the
soil got from the station, the scan was carried out from
the negative to positive direction at the rate of 1 mV/s.
The polarization of graphite module was carried out near
the station. During the test, a constant current was applied
to a single (disconnected to other structure) graphite mod-
ule (0.82 m2 surface area) buried under earth. The instant
off potential was recorded when the potential became Fig. 3 Distribution of rest potential.
unchanged. The result was shown in Fig. 1 and compared
with typical polarization curve of pipeline carbon steel designed. In Fig. 2, the blue line represents the buried
and zinc. It was shown that the rest potential of graphite pipeline; the gray line represents the galvanic flat steel;
module (-0.107 VSCE) was much more positive than the the green dot represents the zinc rod; the red dot represents
galvanized flat steel (-0.9 VSCE) and carbon steel (-0.5 the graphite rod. Using the polarization data got from Fig.
VSCE). Under the driven voltage caused by different rest 1, the calculated rest potential distribution of the mixed
potential, galvanic corrosion can be expected. structure was shown in Fig. 3. Potential of pipeline near
Since 1980s, following the increase in computer proc- the graphite module was about -0.574 VCSE, more positive
essing power, a BEM has been widely applied to solve than the potential near the zinc rod being -0.892 VCSE.
corrosion problems such as galvanic corrosion and catho- A field measurement was also conducted and it was found
dic protection [2]. A BEM mrestodel in Fig. 2 based on that the rest potential of a buried steel coupon was
the actual structure distribution in the gas station was

236 CORROSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Vol.16, No.5, 2017

 REGIONAL CATHODIC PROTECTION DESIGN OF A NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION STATION

-0.66VCSE, the potentials of pipelines in the working re-

gion range were between -0.7VCSE and -0.8 VCSE, and the
potential of pipelines in the dwelling region was only
about -0.53 VCSE. This was almost consistent with the data
in Fig. 3 and it was obvious that the different vertical
grounding metal affects distribution of potential greatly.
When different magnitude of current (2A and 3A) was
applied on the buried structure from a supposed 40 m
deep anode, the distribution of potential was shown in
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 respectively. It was obvious that poten-
tial of buried pipeline near the graphite module would
always be more positive than that near the zinc rod and
3A current was needed to keep potential of all the buried
pipeline more negative than -0.85 VCSE.
As shown in Fig. 5, when the pipeline near the zinc
Fig. 4 Distribution of potential when 2A cathodic protection rod was polarized to -1.1 VCSE, the pipeline near the graph-
current was applied on the buried structure. ite module was only -0.9 VCSE. The current consumed by
different buried structure was summarized in Table 1.
Only 46% of the total current was applied on the buried
pipeline and 54% of the total current was “wasted” on
the grounding system. Take an already installed regional
cathodic protection system for example, the soil type was
mainly sand, a single graphite module would consume
about 0.4 A current to be polarized to -0.85 VCSE. After
about 60 graphite modules were replaced by zinc rod, the
outcome of the rectifier was almost 24 A reduced. As
the mentioned gas distribution station here was relatively
small, an impressed current cathodic protection system
may be enough to protect the buried pipeline without re-
placing the graphite modules.

Fig. 5 Distribution of potential when 3A cathodic protection

current was applied on the buried structure.

Table 1 Statistics of current consumed on different buried structure

Current density
Buried structure Surface area (m2) Current demand (A)
(mA/m2)
83.9
Buried pipeline 20* 1.7
(The coating was 10% damaged)
**
Zinc rod 4.1 0 0

Galvanized flat steel 23 20*** 1.4

Graphite module 29.1 60**** 0.6

Total 3.7
*
Based on the NACE recommended value;[3]
**
Assume the zinc rod consume no current;
***
Assume the zinc coating has already been corroded and treated as bare steel;
****
Based on the polarization curve in Fig. 1.

CORROSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Vol.16, No.5, 2017 237

 HU YABO, ZHANG FENG, AND ZHAO JUN

Table 2 Divide of soil with different resistivity R30 m ´ R40 m

r = 2ph (1)
Layers Depth (m) Soil resistivity (Ω·m) R30 m - R40 m
1 From 0 to10 28
Where r represents the layer soil resistivity between
2 From 10 to 20 50 30 m and 40 m in Ω·m; h represents the depth of the
3 From 20 to 30 25 soil layer in m; R30 m represents the measured resistance

4 From 30 to 40 22
at the depth of 30 m; R40 m represents the measured resist-
ance at the depth of 40 m; The calculated results were
summarized in Table 2.
Table 3 Upper limit of the current density for deep anode From the soil resistivity results, the anode grounding
well
resistance would not be a big problem. However, with
Soil type Upper limit current density (A/m2) the depth of anode well increase, a more even potential
Very dry 1.08 distribution can always be expected according to common
experience. The potential distribution with either a 15 m
Dry 1.61 anode well or a 40 m anode well at the same place dis-
charging 3 A current was shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7
Above the water line 2.15
respectively. Under the 15 m well situation, shielding ef-
Wet 3.22 fect was obvious, only the pipeline adjacent to the well
can achieve a potential of about -1.0 VCSE while the poten-
Open well 4.95 tial at the end and next to the graphite module was still
more positive than -0.85 VCSE. Several other 15 m anode
well will be needed to meet the -0.85 VCSE criteria. Under
3. Design of Anode Well the 40 m well situation, the potential range between -1.128
VCSE and -0.863 VCSE, all meet the -0.85 VCSE criteria
The Wenner’s four-pin method was used to measure
and no potential was more negative than -1.2 VCSE to cause
the soil resistivity at different soil layers. The Barnes
hydrogen evolution at defects in the coating of the
method was used to calculate the layer resistivity. Take
pipeline.
the soil layer between the depth of 30 m and 40 m for
Considering the homogeneous potential distribution and
example, the soil resistance can be calculated as shown
the low risk of destroy already exist buried structure with
in Equation (1) :
confined construction area, a 40 m deep anode well has
a good priority. As a result of electro permeation and oxy-

Fig. 6 Potential distribution using a 15m anode well. Fig. 7 Potential distribution using a 40m anode well.

238 CORROSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Vol.16, No.5, 2017

 REGIONAL CATHODIC PROTECTION DESIGN OF A NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION STATION

receive current dissipated by the anode ground. J. H.

Morgan’s work revealed that pipeline can expect a
considerable cathodic swing when the potential between
soil around the structure and remote earth was 1.5 V,
however, effect of 0.3 V soil to remote earth potential
at the pipeline would be negligible in practical
installations. [4] No unacceptable anodic interference will
be caused by an anodic interference voltage of 0.5 V
between the soil around the structure and remote earth.
Rogelio’s work revealed that the location where the
potential to remote earth developed by the anode ground
bed in the ground is equal to or less than 5% of the anode
ground bed potential to remote earth has been regarded
as the remote earth. [5]
Fig. 8 Rise of the earth potential around the anode well The earth potential gradient was calculated by Equation
discharging 3 A current. (3) with the result shown in Fig. 8.

gen blockage around the anode, the grounding resistance (3)

of deep anode well usually increased greatly with time
going on. In response, an upper limit for the current den-
sity that the anode can discharge at different situations
Where U r represents the earth potential with respect to
was summarized in Table 3.
remote earth at the distance of r from the centre of the
The underground water emerged at the depth of 15 m.
anode well in V; I represents the magnitude of the output
When the chosen MMO anode was buried around water,
the current density should be controlled below 3.22 A/m2 current in A; r represents the soil resistivity in Ω·m; l
and at least 1.4 m in length anode was needed. In order represents the anode length in m, which was chosen as
to provide a large current capacity for future station 10 m; t represents the buried depth of the anode in m;
re-construction, five MMO anodes (1.5 m length each) It was shown that when the anode was buried under
were installed between the depth of 30 m and 40 m with 5m, the earth potential increase was more than 0.5 V with
coke surrounding them. The calculation of anode ground- respect to the remote earth at the distance of 0 ~ 35 m
ing resistance and earth potential gradient was also carried away from the centre of anode well; However, the rise
out. The grounding resistance was calculated using the of earth potential can be less than 0.5 V at the centre of
following Dwight’s formula for anode that buried in- the anode well when the anode was buried under 30 m,
finitely deep, as shown in Equation (2): the anodic interference on foreign buried structure can be
neglected. What’s more, the earth potential gradient was
much less than 5 V/m which was a personnel safe
(2) criterion. In order to control the interference of this deep
anode well on main line outside the distribution station,
a 40 m well with the anode buried under 30 m would
Where R represents the anode grounding resistance in be a better choice.
Ω; r represents the soil resistivity in Ω·m; l represents
the anode length in m, which was chosen as 10 m; d 4. Summary
represents the anode well diameter in m, which was
chosen as 0.219 m; t represents the buried depth of the The different polarization behaviour of carbon steel,
anode in m, which was chosen as 30 m; The calculated zinc and graphite reveal a high risk of galvanic corrosion
anode grounding resistance R for 40 m deep anode well for buried pipeline and a regional cathodic protection sys-
was 1.6 Ω. tem was designed in a newly built gas distribution station.
Design of impressed current cathodic protection The current requirement was about 3 A according to the
systems requires that foreign underground structures that BEM simulation results and a 40 m deep anode well was
are in the proximity of anode ground bed should not chosen to discharge the current.

CORROSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Vol.16, No.5, 2017 239

 HU YABO, ZHANG FENG, AND ZHAO JUN

References 3. R. Baboian, NACE Corrosion Engineer’s Reference Book,

3rd ed., pp. 1-448, NACE, Houston (2002).
1. S.-j. Gao, Sen Wang, Y.-b. Hu, Z.-Z. Li, H.-L. Ji, C.-f. 4. J. H. Morgan, Cathodic protection, 2nd ed., pp. 1-519,
Dong, and X.-q. Li, J. Univ. Sci. Technol. B., 35, 1327 NACE, Houston (1993).
(2013). 5. Rogelio de las Casas, Proc. NACE Conf., No. 09543Atlanta,
2. M. Miyasaka, K. Hashimoto, K. Kishimoto, and S. Aoki, USA
Corros. Sci., 30, 299 (1990).

240 CORROSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Vol.16, No.5, 2017