ADA290876

Ill 1 III
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Construction Engineering USACERLTechnical Report FM-94/16
Research Laboratories September 1994
Off-Potential Measurement Systems for

Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
by
Vincent F. Hock
Lewis F. Setliff
Wesley A. Houtz
Michael Noble
Brad J. Lewis
Malcolm E. McLeod
The Army currently maintains more than 20,000

underground storage tanks, over 3000 miles of buried
pipeline, and more than 300 elevated water storage
tanks, all requiring some form of corrosion control.
Impressed current, cathodic protection (CP) systems
are a widely used form of corrosion control for these
structures. These CP systems contain numerous
components that are susceptible to failure if not
installed or maintained correctly. To ensure corrosion
protection for a structure, the performance of a CP
system must be determined in the field.
This study investigated off-potential measurement
systems for impressed current CP systems in the
jams**51'
laboratory and in the field. Commercially available
off-potential measurement devices were investigated to
test their reliability in recording off-potentials, which
define the effectiveness of a CP system. Off-potential
measurement devices were found to provide accurate
system performance data.
Ik A;
19950206 199
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication,
or promotional purposes. Gtation of trade names does not constitute an
official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official
Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized
documents.
DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED
DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR

USER EVALUATION OF REPORT
REFERENCE: USACERL Technical Report FM-94/16, Off-Potential Measurement Systems for Impressed
Current Cathodic Protection
Please take a few minutes to answer the questions below, tear out this sheet, and return it to USACERL. As user
of this report, your customer comments will provide USACERL with information essential for improving future
reports.
1. Does this report satisfy a need? (Comment on purpose, related project, or other area of interest for which
report will be used.)
2. How, specifically, is the report being used? (Information source, design data or procedure, management
procedure, source of ideas, etc.)
3. Has the information in this report led to any quantitative savings as far as manhours/contract dollars saved,
operating costs avoided, efficiencies achieved, etc.? If so, please elaborate.
4. What is your evaluation of this report in the following areas?
a. Presentation: :
b. Completeness:
c. Easy to Understand:
d. Easy to Implement:
e. Adequate Reference Material:
f. Relates to Area of Interest:
g. Did the report meet your expectations?
h. Does the report raise unanswered questions?

i. General Comments. (Indicate what you think should be changed to make this report and future reports
of this type more responsive to your needs, more usable, improve readability, etc.)
5. If you would like to be contacted by the personnel who prepared this report to raise specific questions or
discuss the topic, please fill in the following information.
Name:
Telephone Number:
Organization Address:
6. Please mail the completed form to:
Department of the Army

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORIES
ATTN: CECER-IMT
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports 1215
Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) REPORT DATE I. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
September 1994 Final
FUNDING NUMBERS
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Off-Potential Measurement Systems for Impressed Current Cathodic Protection 4A162784
AT41
MA-CM2
6. AUTHOR(S)
Vincent F. Hock, Lewis F. Setliff, Wesley A. Houtz. Michael Noble, Brad J. Lewis,
Malcolm E. McLeod
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL)
P.O. Box 9005 FM-94/16
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
10. SPONSORING / MONITORING

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Commander, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: CECPW-ES
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20314-1000
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Copies are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The Army currently maintains more than 20,000 underground storage tanks, over 3000 miles of buried pipeline, and more than
300 elevated water storage tanks, all requiring some form of corrosion control. Impressed current, cathodic protection (CP)
systems are a widely used form of corrosion control for these structures. These CP systems contain numerous components that
are susceptible to failure if not installed or maintained correctly. To ensure corrosion protection for a structure, the performance
of a CP system must be determined in the field.
This study investigated off-potential measurement systems for impressed current CP systems in the laboratory and in the field.
Commercially available off-potential measurement devices were investigated to test their reliability in recording off-potentials,
which define the effectiveness of a CP system. Off-potential measurement devices were found to provide accurate system
performance data. .
15. NUMBER OF PAGES

14. SUBJECT TERMS
underground storage tanks 74
cathodic protection
16. PRICE CODE
ceramic anode
corrosion mitigation
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT QF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified SAR

Standard form 298 (Rev. 2-8a)
MSN 7540-01-280-5500
Prescribed by ANSI Std 239-18
298-102
USACERL TR FM-94/16
Foreword
This study was conducted for Directorate of Military Programs, Headquarters, U.S.
M&-:< Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE) under Project 4A162784AT41, "Military
Facilities Engineering Technology"; Work Unit MA-CM2, "Low Maintenance Cathodic
Protection Systems." The technical monitors were Malcolm McLeod, CECPW-ES and
G. Evans, CEMP-ET
The work was performed by the Engineering and Materials Division (FM) of the
Infrastructure Laboratory (FL), U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories (USACERL). Appreciation is expressed to Malcolm McLeod, Branch
Chief of the Sanitary and Chemical Branch, U.S. Army Center for Public Works
(USACPW). Technical assistance was provided by Roch Ducey, of the Energy and
Utilities Systems Division, USACERL. Brad J. Lewis, corrosion engineer for Santa Fe
Pacific Pipelines, Eastern District, assisted USACERL in field evaluation of
underground pipelines. Also invaluable to the successful completion of this work were
Leon Howard, Directorate of Public Works (DPW), Fort Hood, TX, and Carrol
Shepherd, DPW, Fort Lee, VA The USACERL principal investigator was Vincent F.
Hock. Dr. Paul Howdyshell is Chief, CECER-FM, and Dr. David M. Joncich is Acting
Chief, CECER-FL. The USACERL technical editor was William J. Wolfe, Information
Management Office.
LTC David J. Rehbein is Commander and Acting Director of USACERL, and Dr.
Michael J. O'Connor is Technical Director.
USACERL TR FM-94/16
Contents
SF 298 1
Foreword 2
List of Figures and Tables 5
1 Introduction . 9
Background 9
Objective 10
Approach 10
Mode of Technology Transfer 11
2 Cathodic Protection: An Overview 12

Corrosion of Steel Structures • 12
Cathodic Protection 12
3 Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Systems 14

Anodes 14
Power Sources 15
Ancillary Equipment 16
4 CP System Effectiveness 18
Criteria for Protection 18
Measurement Techniques 19
Measurement Devices 21
5 Laboratory Tests 27
Laboratory CP Systems . 27
Test Procedures 28
Discussion of Results 28
6 FieldTests 43
Underground Fuel Storage Tank-Fort Lee, VA 43
Elevated Water Storage Tanks-Fort Hood, TX 45
Underground Pipeline Systems-Tucson, AZ 47
USACERL TR FM-94/16
7 Conclusions 58
Underground Fuel Storage Tank 58
Elevated Steel Water Storage Tanks 59
Underground Gas Distribution Systems 59
8 Recommendations 60
References 61
Appendix A: Laboratory Data 62
Appendix B: Fort Hood Field Data 65
Appendix C: Criteria for a Low-Maintenance CP System 69
Distribution
USACERL TR FM-94/16
List of Figures and Tables

Figures
1 A typical corrosion cell 13
2 A typical cathodic protection system 13
3 Potential and potential shift criteria for cathodic protection of

steel 23
4 Typical CP measurement circuit . 24
5 Typical cathodic protection waveform . . 24
6 Pulse generator and waveform analyzer model WFA-1 25
7 Waveform analyzer/pulse generator measurement system 25
8 Cathodic protection analyzer Model 730 and SP1 Probe 26
9 Measurement circuit for cathodic protection analyzer Model 730 26
10 Laboratory CP system configuration 31
11 Experimental CP systems 32
12 Steel plates used in laboratory experiment 32
13 Ceramic-coated rod anode used in laboratory tests 33
14 GoodAII rectifier (Tank 1) 34
15 VADC rectifier (Tank 3) 35
16 Hewlett Packard DC power source (Tank 4) 36
17 Photovoltaic panel (Tank 2) 36
18 Full-wave rectified waveform from Tank 1 37

USACERL TR FM-94/16
19 On-potentials vs. time for Tank 1 38
20 Off-potentials vs. time for Tank 1 38
21 CP waveform from Tank 3 39
22 On-potential vs. time for photovoltaic panel for 48-hour period 42
23 On-potential vs. time for photovoltaic panel for 20-day period 42
24 Location of soil resistivity test points using Wenner 4-pin method 48
25 Location of current requirement test points 50
26 A typical ceramic-coated canister anode 51
27 Layout of installed cathodic protection system 52
28 Amplified oscilloscope trace CP waveform for UST at Fort Lee,

VA 54
29 Typical elevated water tank showing ceramic-coated rod anode

55
arrangement
Tables
1 Native potentials for experimental steel plates 33
2 Power sources used in laboratory tests 33
3 Potential voltage measurements for Tank 1 37
4 Potential measurements by reference cell position for Tank 1 37
5 Potential measurements for Tank 3 40

USACERL TR FM-94/16
10 Potential measurements by reference cell positions for Tank 2 41
11 Soil resistivity data 49
12 Structure-to-soil potential measurements at CP system

energization (1989) 49
13 Current requirements test data . . 50
14 Structure-to-electrolyte potentials 53
15 Pipe-to-soil potential measurements, 6-in. pipeline 56
16 Pipe-to-soil potential measurements, 8-in. pipeline 56
17 Pipe-to-soil potential measurements, 12-in. pipeline . . . 57
A1 Water sample chemistry data 62
A2 Laboratory structure-to-electrolyte potential (Tank 1) 63

USACERLTRFM-94/16
1 Introduction
Background
Metallic structures buried in soil or immersed in water tend to corrode. In storage

tanks and piping systems, corrosion can cause system failures, costly maintenance,
and leaks of hazardous materials such as fuel and oil into the environment. The Army
currently operates and maintains more than 20,000 underground steel tanks, 3000
miles of buried pipeline, and 300 elevated water storage tanks. Such a vast network
of steel structures requires some form of corrosion control—corrosion alone costs the
Army $300 million annually. Moreover, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) rules require the Army to provide cathodic protection, leak detection, and
inspection of existing underground fuel storage tanks.
Impressed current cathodic protection (CP) systems can help control corrosion-induced
leaks when a steel structure is exposed to an aggressive soil or water. The develop-
ment of the ceramic coated anode for impressed current CP systems has reduced the
problems associated with anode installation and maintenance. However, once a CP
system is installed, its effectiveness must be determined to maintain corrosion control
for a given structure. The effectiveness of any impressed current CP system can be
determined by taking potential measurements between the structure and a reference
electrode. Such potential measurements have traditionally been recorded with
average reading digital voltmeters while the protective current is flowing. These on-
potential measurements contain the error produced by the voltage drop in the
electrolyte (soil or water) and the voltage drop in the structure being protected. This
error is often referred to as IR drop. An off-potential measurement is a reading taken
instantaneously after the protective current reaches zero. Off-potential measurements
eliminate the IR drop error, allowing the true polarized potential of a cathodically
protected structure to be determined in the field. Several commercially available
systems are designed to make this crucial measurement. Laboratory and field tests
of these systems are needed to determine if they can be used to help evaluate Army CP
systems.
10 USACERL TR FM-94/16
Objective
The objective of this study was to evaluate the laboratory and field performance of
commercially available off-potential measurement systems for impressed current
cathodic protection. The ability of off-potential instrumentation to measure the true
polarized potential of a structure was to be determined to ensure compliance with
NACE RP0169 criteria for cathodic protection.
Approach
1. Four separate CP systems were set up in four laboratory experiments, each

system powered by a different type of power source.
2. Performance of each experimental system was monitored by taking measure-

ments between the structure and the Cu/CuSO^ reference cells.
3. Commercially available systems were used to measure off- and on-potentials, and
off-potential measurements were compared to actual readings taken with an
oscilloscope.
4. Three sites were selected for field tests of off-potential measurement devices on
one underground storage tank (at Fort Lee, VA), one elevated water storage tank
(at Fort Hood, TX), and an underground pipeline system (Tucson, AZ).
5. System performance was monitored to determine effectiveness relative to revised

National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) Recommended Practice
(RP) 0169 (1992 Revision), "Control of External Corrosion on Underground or
Submerged Metallic Piping Systems," and RP0285, "Control of External
Corrosion on Metallic Buried, Partially Buried, or Submerged Liquid Storage
Systems." The accuracy of off-potential measurement devices was also
determined in relationship to the revised criteria.
6. Results of the measurements taken with the various systems were compared
with readings taken with an oscilloscope and analyzed, and appropriate
recommendations were made for CP system monitoring.
USACERL TR FM-94/16 11
Mode of Technology Transfer
Demonstrations of this technology at Army installations are planned for Fiscal Year
1993 (FY93) as part of the Facilities Engineering Applications Program (FEAP).
Specifications for this instrumentation will be published as a Public Works Technical
Bulletin (PWTB), to be published by the U.S. Army Center for Public Works. It is
recommended that the results of this study be incorporated into Corps of Engineers
Guide Specifications (CEGS) 16640, 16641, 16642, and Engineer Technical Letter
(ETL) 1110-9-10 (FR), Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Systems Using Ceramic
Anodes (Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [HQUSACE], 1991).
2 Cathodic Protection: An Overview
Corrosion of Steel Structures
Corrosion occurs by an electrochemical process. A corrosion cell consists of four parts:

an anode, cathode, electrolyte (corrosive soil or water), and metallic connection.
Current leaves the structure at the anode site, passes through the electrolyte, re-
enters the structure at the cathode site, and returns to the anode via the structure
metal (Figure 1).*
Corrosion, or the dissolution of metal, occurs at the anode site. Electrons that are lost
at the anode flow through the metallic circuit to the cathode and permit a cathodic
reaction to occur. This results in a gain of electrons at the cathode, which produces an
overall oxidation-reduction reaction. Insoluble corrosion products are the net result,
which form at the cathode by a nonelectrochemical reaction (Myers 1974).
Cathodic Protection
To mitigate corrosion, the anodic current leaving the structure must be appreciably
reduced. Cathodic protection minimizes anodic dissolution by reducing the potential
difference between the cathodic and anodic sites. This is an electrical method of
preventing corrosion on structures that are exposed to electrolytes such as soils and
waters. A CP system forces all parts of the structure to become a cathode by applying
a current from an outside source. When enough current is applied, the anode and
cathode sites do not exist on the structure, so that corrosion does not occur. Figure 2
shows a typical CP system.
The protective current in a CP system can be produced in two ways. When two
electrochemically dissimilar metals/alloys are connected and exposed to an electrolyte,
a current is produced. This process is used in sacrificial anode type systems.
Impressed current systems use an external power source to apply protective current
through an auxiliary anode (Myers 1974).
Figures and tables are included at the end of their associated chapter.
USACERLTRFM-94/16 13
— _ ~_ 02 +1.H20 +4e -^40H~
Figure 1. A typical corrosion cell.
A\ii/^\ \\^\^x\ur \L( û .\u\J i lui i./.^!i.

CATHODE CABLE WITH>.
HMPE INSULATION ^
ANODE HEADER
CABLE WITH
THERMIT HMPE INSULATION
YIELD
HIGH SILICON
CAST IRON OR
GRAPHITE ANODES
IN CARBONACEOUS
BACKFILL
Figure 2. A typical cathodic protection system.

14 USACERLTR FM-94/16
3 Impressed Current Cathodic Protection

Systems
The basic components of an impressed current type CP system are a direct current
(DC) power source (usually a rectifier), a group of auxiliary anodes, the structure to be
protected, and leadwires connecting the anodes and structure to the power source.
Anodes
The cathodic protection current is applied though an anode, which is consumed over
time. Silicon-iron and graphite, the most commonly used impressed current anode
materials, have two major disadvantages: (1) They have a high consumption rate (1 lb
per ampere-year), and (2) they tend to be brittle and break easily when mishandled.
The high consumption rate of the anode necessitates a large size, making it more
vulnerable to damage and less easily placed in small spaces. Standard impressed
current anode systems are also prone to problems with field installation, particularly
in the anode-to-lead wire connection, which can result in electrical shorts in the
system. These problems reduce the reliability of impressed current cathodic protection
systems to only 50 percent in some cases.
Since the early 1980s, a new type of composite anode material has been used for
various electrochemical processes, particularly in the electrolytic production of chlorine
and cathodic protection systems including off-shore, water tank, and groundbed
applications. The development of various ceramic-coated anode shapes has eliminated
many of the problems related to the design and installation of a CP system. The mixed
metal oxide (MMO) ceramic-coated anodes consist of a 50/50 atomic percent mixture
of iridium and titanium oxides, with a small amount of ruthenium and tantalum
oxides. The MMO films are fabricated by spraying aqueous salts of the metals onto the
titanium substrate and then heating the titanium to a temperature of several hundred
degrees Celsius.
1 lb = 0.453 kg.
The advantage of fabricating anodes from these materials is a very low dissolution
(wear) rate. Typical wear rate values are 6 mg/A-yr in chloride deficient (fresh)
9
waters, at an anode current density of 13.9 A/sq ft (150 A/m ), and 0.5 to 1.0 mg/A-yr
in seawater or brine at an anode current density of 55.7 A/sq ft (600 A/m ).
Information regarding specifications of these types of anodes has been previously
published. (ETL 1110-9-10 January 1991; Kumar, Hock, and McLeod 1992).
Power Sources
To provide continuous protective current for a CP system, a DC power source is

required. The DC source used with impressed current CP systems can be a
transformer-rectifier, solar photovoltaic cell, thermoelectric generator, turbine
generator, engine generator, or a wind-powered generator. The transformer-rectifier
is the most common (and practical) power source used in the field (estimated 95
percent). A rectifier takes an ordinary AC signal from a power line, and converts it
into a DC signal through a transformer and rectifying elements. All components are
enclosed in a suitable cabinet or housing. There are three basic types of rectifiers used
in cathodic protection: (1) the constant voltage rectifier, (2) the constant current
rectifier, and (3) the automatic potential controlled rectifier.
The constant voltage rectifier is the cheapest and the most simple to operate, but is not
the most practical in keeping a structure protected in some CP system environments
because it provides the anode and the cathode (or structure) with a constant voltage
rather than a constant current. A supplied constant voltage does not ensure proper
protection because cathodic protection requires a .specific amount of current—not
simply voltage—to be supplied. A constant voltage supply can allow the resistivity
between the anode and the cathode to change. If the anode and cathode are in soil, the
resistivity will change due to the moisture content in the soil. If the anode and the
cathode are in water, the resistivity will change due to the varying water levels and
the different ions in the water each day. The constant voltage rectifier may not be the
most practical to use in a low-maintenance CP system.
The constant current rectifier is practical for more applications than the constant
voltage rectifier because the operator can ensure that a structure will be protected by
simply setting the output of the constant current rectifier to the specific CP current
previously measured in the current requirements testing. In energizing most CP
systems, the DC current output is adjusted to maintain the level of protection
specified by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE). (Chapter 4 gives
1 sq ft = 0.093 m2.
protection criteria.) The constant current rectifier is best suited for CP applications
where the range in expected soil resistivities is relatively small, and where there is no
dramatic change in the structure area to be protected or the anode output area due to
rising and falling water levels.
The automatic potential-controlled rectifier is the most advanced, but also the most
expensive of the three basic types of rectifiers. It is only practical for CP systems
where there is a fluctuation in the properties of the electrolyte. If a CP system will be
subject to a wide range of electrolyte resistivities, or if the surface area of the structure
to be protected and of the anode output changes (for example, rising or falling water
levels in a tank or on a lock gate), an automatic potential-controlled rectifier is
suitable. This rectifier operates by using a specified threshold setting as a control to
maintain a structure-to-electrolyte potential that ensures protection. The rectifier
continuously measures the corrosion potential and varies its output to obtain the set
potential. This rectifier is recommended for use in all submerged and/or all moving
water applications.
A new type of rectifier is being developed by industry that will contain dependable
switch-mode technology. It will switch between a constant-current and a varying
output that would be determined by measuring a structure-to-electrolyte potential.
This rectifier will contain a 16-bit coprocessor that allows a user to access a menu to
set current and potential levels through a keyboard that can be plugged into the
rectifier. An option available on this rectifier will be a modem that will permit a
facility inspector to check the operation of the rectifiers from the office by calling each
rectifier through a computer. This would eliminate the monthly requirement for
facility personnel to inspect each rectifier in the field to guarantee its operation.
Ancillary Equipment
The ancillary equipment in a CP system includes the anode-to-lead wire connections

and moisture seals, backfill material, vent pipe, shunts and junction boxes. For a CP
system to operate efficiently and effectively, the ancillary equipment must not fail.
The anode lead wire connections and moisture seals are of utmost importance. The
lead wire connections must be well insulated from the environment and must carry the
protection current without a loss of power due to high resistance. The wire connection
to the anode, and any other wire connections, must prohibit the influx of water. A
permeable moisture seal at a wire connection will provide an environment for rapid
corrosion to occur on the wire. If the wire corrodes, it produces a higher resistance,
and a power loss in the connection means less protective current reaching the cathode
via the anode. Eventually the wire will corrode to the breaking point, leaving no
protective current; the structure will corrode rapidly, and repair and replacement costs
will skyrocket. The ceramic-coated anode technology eliminates this problem by using
anode rod segments that can be threaded together to provide a custom length anode
system.
Proper backfill material will ensure that the anode is exposed to a low resistance
environment. The gases produced at the anode (for example; oxygen, carbon dioxide,
chlorine, or others) build up pressure and drive water away from the anode. This
increases electrolyte resistance, which should be minimized. Even though the backfill
material provides a low resistance environment for the anode, it cannot provide an
easy escape for gases in all CP applications. In this case, a vent pipe must be installed
into the anode bed. Vent pipes are typically installed in deep ground beds where the
path for the gases to reach ground level is substantial. Vent pipes provide an easy
path for gases to reach ground level and not increase the resistance of the electrolyte
surrounding the anode.
Shunts and junction boxes are used to help make maintenance measurements to
ensure that the CP system is operating correctly. The junction boxes should be easily
accessible by an inspector, but must keep moisture out. The hazards of moisture have
been explained above. The shunts used in the junction boxes shall have a simple ratio
such as 1 mV/1 A or 10 mv/1 A. This makes it easier for an inspector to read a voltage
and calculate the corresponding current via Ohm's Law, V=IR.
Other ancillary equipment may include anode centering devices, anode support pipes,
or anode weights. These devices are used mostly in water CP applications and they
help ensure that the anode is placed in accordance with the engineering drawings that
define the system. Although there may be moving water around the anode, these
devices will keep them in a stationary, correct position.
4 CP System Effectiveness
Criteria for Protection
To monitor CP system performance, one must be able to pinpoint malfunctions in the

system. It is therefore essential to understand the criteria used to determine whether
the structure is being cathodically protected. Cathodic protection engineers have not
accepted a single criterion to practically measure cathodic protection in the field under
all circumstances. Therefore, to understand the criteria of CP, it is critical to
understand the changes that occur in the electrical potential of a structure when the
protective current is applied. Husock (1979) explains:
It should be noted that cathodic protection when properly applied produces a

change in the potential of a structure with respect to a reference electrode placed
in the soil in proximity to that structure. The cathodic protection current makes
the potential thus measured more negative than the potential was before the
current was applied, and the amount of change produced is a measure of the
effectiveness of the cathodic protection at that location.
Figure 3 shows the changes in the structure's electrical potential (with respect to a
copper-copper sulfate reference electrode) that occur when the cathodic protection
current is applied. Before current is applied, the structure is at its original or "native"
potential. When the current is applied, there is a change in potential in the negative
direction at the instant the current is turned on. As the current is continuously
applied over an extended period of time, the potential tends to increase negatively
because of polarization. According to Husock (1979), "polarization of a structure is a
phenomenon which occurs over a long time period and a structure may not be entirely
polarized even after the cathodic protection system has been in operation for many
months." If the current is interrupted after the structure has polarized, the potential
becomes less negative at the instant of turn-off. The potential then begins to decay,
or depolarize, back to the original or native potential.
For cathodic protection criteria, corrosion engineers usually rely on two NACE
Recommended Practices (RPs): RP0169 (1992 Revision), "Control of External
Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems," and RP0285,
"Control of External Corrosion on Metallic Buried, Partially Buried, or Submerged
Liquid Storage Systems." Although there are some differences in the wording of the
two RPs due to the different structures that are described, the content is essentially
the same.
The current NACE criteria for underground or submerged metallic piping (RP0169-92)
states that the following conditions may be used:
6.2.2 Steel and Cast Iron Piping
6.2.2.1 Corrosion control can be achieved at various levels of cathodic polarization

depending on the environmental conditions. However, in the absence of specific data that
demonstrate that adequate cathodic protection has been achieved, one or more of.the
following shall apply:
6.2.2.1.1 A negative (cathodic) potential of at least 850 mV with the cathodic

protection applied. This potential is measured with respect to a saturated
copper/copper sulfate reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. Voltage drops
other than those across the stracture-to-electrolyte boundary must be considered for
valid interpretation of this voltage measurement.
NOTE: Consideration is understood to mean the application of sound engineering practice

in determining the significance of voltage drops by methods such as:
6.2.2.1.1.1 Measuring or calculating the voltage drop(s);
6.2.2.1.1.2 Reviewing the historical performance of the cathodic protection

system;
6.2.2.1.1.3 Evaluating the physical and electrical characteristics of the pipe and
its environment; and
6.2.2.1.1.4 Determining whether or not there is physical evidence of corrosion.
6.2.2.1.2 A negative polarized potential of at least 850 mV relative to a saturated

copper/copper sulfate reference electrode.
6.2.2.1.3 A minimum of 100 mV cathodic polarization between the structure surface

and a stable reference electrode contacting the electrolyte. The formation or decay
of polarization can be measured to satisfy this criterion.
Measurement Techniques
To monitor system performance, potential measurements are taken between the

structure and a reference cell, usually Cu/CuS04. Figure 4 shows a typical measure-
20 USACERLTRFM-94/16
ment circuit for a CP system. To meet the NACE criteria, the true polarized potential
of the structure must be determined. Therefore, when measurements are interpreted,
the IR drop error must be accounted for to obtain an IR free potential. Figure 3 shows
the region—of the potential-versus-time curve—that is considered to be the IR drop.
Any attempt to measure the structure-to-soil potential must take these IR drops into
account: the soil (electrolyte) IR drop and the structure (metal) IR drop. It is possible
to significantly reduce the soil IR drop by placing the reference electrode immediately
adjacent to the structure. This technique will only provide a localized potential
reading for the structure because the reference cell is only reading a limited area. An
overall structure potential can be determined by taking measurements at several
locations on the structure using this method. This method is also limited to structures
for which close placement of the reference cell is possible.
Another method of measuring the polarized potential of a structure is to measure the

potential instantaneously after the cathodic protection current is interrupted. This is
known as the off-potential, or the "instant-off potential (IOP). IR drop error is
eliminated since there is no current flowing when the measurement is taken (i.e., 1=0).
IOP measurements in the field allow the polarized potential of the protected structure
to be determined, and can provide information regarding both rectifier performance
and corrosion prevention for the CP system.
Two methods of IOP measurement are possible. One method involves a real time
analysis of the waveform produced by the CP rectifier. A typical CP rectifier will
produce a full-wave rectified waveform (Figure 5). On the flat portion of the waveform,
or the minimum, the CP current instantaneously reaches zero. The potential
measured at this point may be taken as the IOP. This method of measurement is
dependent on the presence of a clearly defined CP waveform, which will reveal a well
defined flat portion.
Besides direct analysis of the CP waveform, an IOP may be determined by measuring

the potential of the structure after interruption of protective current. Current
interruption is usually accomplished by installing an interruption device in series with
the power source. When current is interrupted, the potential of the structure will
begin to decay, as shown in Figure 3, and will eventually reach the native potential.
When using this technique, a measurement of the IOP must be taken before the
potential has substantially decayed. The interruption device is often set to an exact
timing cycle for this purpose.
On some structures, inductive and capacitive spiking may occur upon interruption of
protective current. This is sometimes seen on cathodically protected long distance
pipelines. Spiking may be present on the CP waveform, or may be the result of current
interruption. The measurement of the IOP must account for such spikes.
Measurement Devices
Digital Multimeter
A common device used to measure potentials in the field is a Digital Multimeter

(DMM). This device, when operated in DC mode, measures an average value of DC
current (or voltage) for a given waveform, which is considered to be the on-potential.
The IR drop error is present in this measurement, and can be corrected by moving the
reference cell very close to the structure or by turning off the power source and taking
a IOP reading after the meter has updated. A current interrupter may also be placed
in the CP circuit to interrupt the current on an exact timing cycle.
Oscilloscope
An oscilloscope can provide a complete description, or picture, of a given waveform

(Figure 5). This will precisely determine the real-time cathodic protection potential
seen by the structure. Oscilloscopes are mainly used in laboratory settings, but digital
handheld oscilloscopes are available for use in the field. With storage capabilities, the
potential readings may be recorded by a digital oscilloscope.
M.C. Miller Waveform Analyzer (WFA) Model WFA-1
The Waveform Analyzer Model WFA-1 is a portable, handheld, auto-ranging voltmeter

that measures real-time characteristics of the cathodic protection waveform (Figure 6).
This device uses a complex algorithm to measure the on and IOP potentials. This
device has three modes of operation: (1) the WFA mode; (2) the DC mode, and (3) the
AC mode. The WFA mode consists of both on- and off-potential readings. The on-
potential is an average value, while the off represents the IOP, or the minimum
portion of the waveform shown in Figure 5. In the DC mode, the average potential of
the CP waveform can also be read. The AC mode is similar to an auto-ranging AC
voltmeter (M.C. Miller Co.).
To accurately calculate the off-potential, a pulse generator must be installed for each
power source providing cathodic protection current. The pulse generator interrupts
the rectifier current on a precise timing cycle, thus generating a "zero current pulse."
A pulse generator can be installed permanently in a CP system, and requires no
synchronization. Figure 7 shows the CP system and the measurement circuit using
the WFA-1/Pulse Generator system.
The algorithm used by the WFA-1 to calculate the off-potential involves sampling
thousands of readings per second and digitally filtering out any induced AC noise to
obtain an on-potential. Then, the total IR drop contribution is calculated and
subtracted from the on-potential to give the desired off-potential.
Xetron Cathodic Protection Analyzer (CPA) Model 730
The CPA Model 730 is a handheld datalogging instrument used with a reference
electrode to measure real-time characteristics of the cathodic protection voltage
waveform (Figure 8) (Pipeline and Gas Journal 1990). A real-time analysis is
performed without the need of a current interruption device. Figure 9 shows the
measurement circuit for the CPA 730. The CPA has six modes of operation, including
maximum, average, and minimum potential readings. The average reading is equal
to the reading from an accurate averaging digital voltmeter, or the on-potential. The
minimum reading, the most positive voltage on the cathodic protection waveform, is
taken as the polarized potential, or IOP (CPA 730 Manual).
Three additional modes of the CPA 730 include a threshold setting, threshold percent
time, and threshold average. The threshold voltage can be entered by the user on the
numerical keypad. The threshold percent time is the percentage of time that the
cathodic waveform is more positive than the selected threshold voltage. The threshold
average reading is the average of the cathodic protection waveform voltage that is
more positive than the selected threshold voltage (Xetron Corp. 1990).
The CPA may be used with a standard Cu/CuS04 reference electrode, or with the
optional SP1 probe (a shielded reference electrode that is the same size as a
conventional half cell). This device is designed to electronically bring the structure to
the surface, which eliminates the resistance of the soil (or water) in the IR drop
equation. Within the probe is a reference electrode, a coupon, and an anode. The
probe is filled with a liquid electrolyte. An internal calibration is used to give the same
type of IR drop free measurement as a reading taken in close proximity of the
protected structure. The probe has been designed to operate on any type of CP system,
and to work in congested areas with a myriad of adjacent structures (Watts 1989).
UJ
3 O
a> o <
3
_l -
POTI ITIA
pot ential f th
the
5 *2
O v-OOoO
10 o
UJ
a ^ a III . o5od
00m\
iwing t()the struc

ucture IRfr ee (n
hieve a n 101Pof -
n dec
j have met the-

sure ment
z
o —
o u.
6
N P. o
u_
o
polariz
criteri*
Region
terion
<
_l < E.Ü
O » o
GO' •J
a. c Ö J= .2 o ö i MB
— Q. V) *- O >» O
»1
<
I-
2
1
UJ
h-
O o
Q.
|_UJ
UJ u. Zfc-
> O ÜJ Q-
5Z TV KM1 1
*2
3^
O UJ
UJ
\ H
2
Ä
\ °-z t- a>
0)
M
—I
J •s
U
0)
?a
i i u
1ii
J II— ii \AJ—
1 11
o
o o o c> o\ O 10
u
o o o c> o\ o -
IO CD N a► o>• \i —
o »—» s
i t i t w. .S
o
(frosno/no SA AUJ )3 S £
u
_i O ®
a. c o
£
(0
> «- a. a> i_ "5
E*: <
Q.a:
o"5> I-
z oa
O—
lOO UJ
a: §s •o
c
(0
••- >-o
o '■£
«= c a: 3
cü.2
O O k.
Z>
a
c
a>
o» ■»- a. OC a.
» c »_ o i
(Co ü
£3
MEASUREMENT
^ DEVICE
TEST POINT
Cu/CuS04
GROUND/
WATER
STRUCTURE
Figure 4. Typical CP measurement circuit.
TYPICAL CP WAVEFORM
Inst ant-Oil
Potential (V)
Time (ms)
Figure 5. Typical cathodic protection waveform.

■■illlllliHIMM
M n
mm
■Ni *^^^^Pp
Pfey HUPt
ilM!
lllll
yiipiiii#§lp
Figure 6. Pulse generator and waveform analyzer model WFA-1.
POWER
SOURCE
PULSE
GENERATOR
TEST
POINT
Ground
STRUCTURE
Figure 7. Waveform analyzer/pulse generator measurement system.

v— — v
L— 1 \\\m ** *
§isl
"^^ü Er
Hk
h«. ^X" r^lltîiw^m ■

■^^
^^^^^^^^^^^l^^ ' ' '

^^
Figure 8. Cathodic protection analyzer Model 730 and SP1 Probe.
CPA 730
.Cathodic Te B t CuCuSO / SP1

4
Point
\ G round
STRUCTURE
Figure 9. Measurement circuit for cathodic protection analyzer Model 730.

5 Laboratory Tests
The laboratory investigation evaluated the system performance of four CP systems in

a controlled experimental environment. Various power sources were used and
potential measurement instrumentation was evaluated. The objective of the
laboratory tests was to determine the ability of the off-potential instrumentation to
measure the true polarized potential of the structures being protected for each system.
Laboratory CP Systems
Four separate CP systems were set up and configured (Figure 10). Each system
consisted of a nonmetallic freshwater tank in which steel plates (structures) and
ceramic-coated rod type anodes were immersed. Standard, permanent Cu/CuSO^
reference cells were used to take potential measurements of the immersed structures.
Figure 11 shows the experimental setup.
The dimensions of the A36 steel plates used were 12 X 12 X 1/16 in. (Figure 12) and
the plate surfaces were sandblasted to near white before being immersed in the water
tanks. Native potentials were measured after immersing the plates in fresh water and
allowing the potentials to come to rest after several minutes. Table 1 lists the results.
Typical corrosion rates for such steel are 2-4 mils per year.
Ceramic-coated rod type anodes were used on each system. Figure 13 shows an anode
in one of the experimental systems.
Different power sources were used on each of the four CP systems set up in the
laboratory (Table 2). Figures 14 to 17 show each examined power source. Two types
of rectifiers were evaluated to determine their capabilities of maintaining a constant
polarized potential of the steel structures. A photovoltaic panel was also evaluated to
determine its ability to provide continuous corrosion protection during the day and to
observe the effects of polarization decay at night.
Test Procedures
Each experimental CP system's performance was monitored by taking potential

measurements between the structure and Cu/CuS04 reference cells, using the NACE
criteria of-0.85V polarized potential. The CPA 730 and WFA-1/Pulse Generator were
evaluated to determine the ability of each to measure off-potentials (IOPs) for the
different CP waveforms generated by each source. A Fluke 75 digital multimeter was
also used to measure on-potentials. The off-potential measurements were compared
to actual readings determined with an oscilloscope.
Test procedures were:
1. Water samples (electrolyte) were taken for each tank (Appendix A).
2. Native potentials were measured when the plates were immersed in each tank
(Table 1).
3. The power sources were adjusted to produce a polarized potential of about -0.85V
with respect to a Cu/CuS04 reference cell.
4. Each system was allowed to polarize.
5. Further adjustments were made as necessary, and then the settings were not
altered.
6. On- and off-potential measurements were taken for each system using various
instrumentation.
7. The standard reference cell was moved and the measurements were repeated.
8. The measurements were repeated with a permacell for comparison.
9. A data logger was interfaced with a PC to log on-potentials continuously.
10. Water samples were taken at the end of the experiment (Appendix A).
Discussion of Results
For the GoodAll full-wave rectified waveform of Tank 1, measurements were taken
with the CPA 730 (with and without the SP1 probe), WFA-1/Pulse Generator, Fluke
75 multimeter, and an oscilloscope. The VADC filtered rectifier, the DC source, and
the photovoltaic panel each produce a pure DC signal. Therefore (neglecting
measurement noise) the maximum, average, and minimum values of the waveform are
all equal. For these power sources, the CPA 730 with SP1 probe, WFA-1/Pulse
Generator, and Fluke 75 were used. Readings were taken over a 6-week period, and
a total of 54 measurements were recorded for each tank. Appendix A lists the raw
data. The remainder of this chapter elaborates on selected data points.
GoodAII Full-Wave Rectifier—Tank 1
Figure 18 shows a full-wave rectified waveform reproduced from an actual oscilloscope

trace for Tank 1. The waveform clearly shows the maximum, average, and minimum
values. The flat portion, or minimum, corresponds to the point where the current
instantaneously reaches zero. This point is considered the IOP for measurement
purposes. Table 3 shows some potential measurements with the reference cell 4.0 in.
from the structure.
The results in Table 3 show a very close agreement for each device. The CPA
minimum, SP1, and WFA-1 off readings are nearly identical to the minimum reading
given by the oscilloscope. This indicates each device is accurately measuring the IOP
for this particular system.
The effect of the reference cell position was also investigated. Measurements were
taken at distances of 0.5, 9.0, and 18.0 in. from the structure. Table 4 shows sample
results. The results show an increase (negatively) in on-potentials as the distance
from the structure is increased. This increase is due to the IR drop associated with the
water (as discussed in Chapter 4). The CPA minimum and WFA-1 off-potential
readings show consistency with the oscilloscope for each of the reference cell locations.
Small differences can be attributed to error in placing the reference cell. The CPA/SP1
probe readings show an increase in potential (negatively) with increased distance from
the structure. This indicates an IR drop error in these measurements.
Figure 19 shows on-potentials, and Figure 20 shows IOP potentials for each device for
tank 1. Each plot shows experimental system performance for approximately 1 month.
VADC Filtered Rectifier—Tank 3
Figure 21 shows a waveform reproduced from an actual oscilloscope trace for Tank 3,
the VADC rectifier. The waveform shows a straight DC signal. Table 5 shows some
sample measured potentials with the reference cell 0.5 in. from the structure. The IOP
readings of the WFA-1 and CPA/SP1 probe are in agreement, and the CPA/SP1 probe
readings are slightly more negative (10-20 mV) for each reading.
taken at 0.5, 9.0, and 18.0 in. from the structure. Table 6 shows the results. All of the
off-potential readings of the WFA-1 are in close agreement. The CPA/SP1 probe
readings show increases (negatively) in potential with increasing distance from the
structure, indicating an IR drop error.
Hewlett Packard DC Power Source—Tank 4
For Tank 4, the DC power source, is a CP waveform similar to that of the VADC
rectifier, as shown in Figure 21. Table 7 shows some sample measured potentials
with the reference cell 0.5 in. from the structure. The IOP readings of the WFA-1 and
CPA/SP1 probe are in close agreement. The CPA/SP1 probe readings are slightly more
negative (20-60 mV) for each reading.
taken at 0.5, 9.0, and 18.0 in. from the structure. Table 8 shows the results. The
WFA-1 off readings are all in close agreement. Close to the structure (0.5 in.) the
CPA/SP1 probe readings are slightly less negative. For distances further away from
the structure, the CPA/SP1 probe readings increase negatively with distance.
Photovoltaic Panel-Tank 2
The photovoltaic source, Tank 2, was also evaluated with off-potential measurement
devices. Tables 9 and 10 list readings taken during daytime hours and show the
potential readings and effects of reference cell locations, respectively. Fluctuations in
potential are due to varying sunlight intensity. The CPA/SP1 readings are all more
negative (40 to 60 mV) than the WFA-1 off measurements.
taken at 0.5, 9.0, and 18.0 in. from the structure. Table 10 lists the results. The WFA-
1 off readings are all in close agreement. Close to the structure (0.5 in.), the CPA/SP1
probe readings are slightly less negative. For distances further away from the
structure, the CPA/SP1 probe readings increase negatively with distance.
Figures 22 and 23 show on-potentials vs. time for the photovoltaic panel. These values
were recorded continuously with a data logger interfaced with a personal computer.
On-potentials were read and stored every 15 minutes. Figure 22 shows the on-
potential readings over a 48-hour period. The data indicate that protection is only
achieved during daytime hours and polarization is reversed as sunlight disappears

overnight. Figure 23 shows the on-potential readings over a 20-day period. The
periodic behavior is also seen over more extended periods.
POWER
SUPPLY
M EASUREMENT
DEVICE
CERAMIC COATED
ROD ANODE
WATER TANK
A36 STEEL PLATE
Cu/CuS04 HALF CELL
Figure 10. Laboratory CP system configuration.

Figuren. Experimental CP systems.
tit-
Figure 12. Steel plates used in laboratory experiment.

Table 1. Native potentials for experimental steel plates.
Tank # Native Potential*
1 -477 mV
2 -482 mV
3 -470 mV
4 -493 mV
"Referenced to coDDer/coDDer sulfate half cells.
Figure 13. Ceramic-coated rod anode used in laboratory tests.
Table 2. Power sources used in laboratory tests.
Tank No. Power Source
1 Constant voltage GoodAII tap-adjust full-wave rectifier

2 Photovoltaic panel
3 VADC switchmode filtered rectifier

4 Hewlett Packard Laboratory DC power source
Figure 14. GoodAII rectifier (Tank 1).

Figure 15. VADC rectifier (Tank 3).

Figure 17. Photovoltaic panel (Tank 2).

CP WAVEFORM - GOODALL RECTIFIER

-1.4
VOLTAGE, V
(vs. Cu/CuS04)
-1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
2 4 6 8. 10 12 14 16
TIME (ms)
Figure 18. Full-wave rectified waveform from Tank 1.
Table 3. Potential voltage measurements for Tank 1.

Waveform
Oscilloscope Cathodic Protection Analyzer (CPA) Analyzer (WFA) Fluke
(DMM) Vout
Max Min Max Avg Min SP1 On Off On +V
-0.926 -0.840 -0.932 -0.884 -0.845 -0.839 -0.879 -0.844 -0.878 3.112
-0.880 -0.796 -0.875 -0.833 -0.796 -0.772 -0.832 -0.797 -0.832 3.063
-0.936 -0.862 -0.938 -0.894 -0.860 -0.854 -0.882 0.848 -0.884 3.095
-0.892 -0.810 -0.895 -0.850 -0.810 -0.810 -0.812 -0.845 -0.845' 3.085
-0.920 -0.838 -0.918 -0.875 -0.836 -0.853 -0.872 -0.835 -0.873 3.068
-0.952 -0.856 -0.951 -0.900 -0.857 -0.868 -0.895 -0.859 -0.896 3.074
-0.880 -0.778 -0.883 -0.829 -0.782 -0.784 -0.823 -0.784 -0.822 3.086
■Oflfifl -fWfifi -0.863 -naio -0.763 ■fWfifl -n ans -n 7fiR -0.fi07 3 1(1(5
Table 4. Potential measurements by reference cell position for Tank 1.

Waveform Xetron
Fluke Analyzer (WFA) (CPA 730)
Dist. Scope (DMM)
Trial (in.) Min On On Off Min SP1
0.5 -0.830 -0.880 -0.868 -0.833 -0.817 -0.811

#1 9.0 -0.836 -1.073 -1.068 -0.834 -0.830 -0.974
18.0 -0.838 -1.291 -1.263 -0.835 -0.839 -1.105
0.5 -0.832 -0.878 -0.856 -0.827 -0.815 -0.818
#2 9.0 -0.840 -1.079 -1.074 -0.833 -0.829 -0.982
ian -na40 -i.?aa -1.970 -0 833 -0.827 -1 105
ON POTENTIAL - TANK 1
-0.7
Fluke 75
—e—
i i i , i i i , i i i i i i _l I 1 I _L_
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
TIME (days)
Figure 19. On-potentials vs. time for Tank 1.
IOP VALUES - TANK 1

-0.7
Q«elllo«eop>
I I I L_ l , I , I I I I . ! i ! : 1 1 L
-0.9
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
TIME (days)
Figure 20. Off-potentials vs. time for Tank 1.

(D
-0.925 V
CC ■ CM
HI
"5
+■»
c
Ü o
HI Q.
CC Z
o to
Ü
Q
CO LU
CC
o CD
LL
UJ
I
a.
o
.
CM
<t C^ c5 co tf
o o
l C
.2
E
O o
ill <»
O o
<C = a
o 3
_J
a.
o (0
> u
>
CM
O)
Table 5. Potential measurements for Tank 3.

Fluke CPA/
(DMM) Waveform Analyzer (WFA) SP1
On On Off Off
-0.912 -0.905 -0.855 -0.875
-0.897 -0.898 -0.846 -0.856
-0.862 -0.856 -0.816 -0.838
-0.841 -0.839 -0.791 -0.816
-0.879 -0.878 -0.826 -0.836
-0.838 -0.838 -0.789 -0.808
-0.873 -0.872 -0.822 -0.833
-0R65 -0,flfi1 -0R1? -0.856

Fluke CPA/
Dist.
Trial (in.) On On Off Off
0.5 -0.885 -0.893 -0.827 -0.833
#1 9.0 -1.103 -1.092 -0.824 -0.981
18.0 -1.340 -1.334 -0.827 -1.088
0.5 -0.883 -0.887 -0.831 -0.844
#2 9.0 -1.091 -1.091 -0.817 -0.977
1A.0 -1 316 -iaan -Oft?? -1094

Fluke Waveform Analyzer
(DMM) (WFA) CPA/SP1
On On Off Off
-0.924 -0.917 -0.867 -0.894
-0^918 -0.916 -0.866 -0.897
-0.848 -0.837 -0.788 -0.839
-0.829 -0.824 -0.778 -0.813
-0.884 -0.882 -0.835 -0.862
-0.833 -0.833 -0.782 -0.821
-0.866 -0.866 -0.815 -0.835
-O.flfifi -0 88? -0.831 -0.89?

(DMM) (WFA) CPA/SP1
Dist.
0.5 -0.912 -0.899 -0.878 -0.830
#1 9.0 -1.028 -0.983 -0.873 -0.923
18.0 -1.140 -1.143 -0.880 -1.000
0.5 -0.907 -0.889 -0.867 -0.836
#2 9.0 -1.008 -0.998 -0.875 -0.927
1R0 -1 13? -1 11R -nfi7? -1009

Fluke CPA/
On On Off Off
-0.810 -0.813 -0.742 -0.803
-0.812 -0.815 -0.767 -0.805
-0.817 -0.823 -0.745 -0.816
-0.836 -0.836 -0.749 -0.840
-0.854 -0.868 -0.766 -0.831
-0.804 -0.800 -0.744 -0.804
-0.867 -0.872 -0.778 -0.845
-0R10 -Oft?? -0 7Rfi -naa?
Table 10. Potential measurements by reference cell positions for Tank 2.

(DMM) (WFA) CPA/SP1
Dist.
0.5 -0.866 -0.867 -0.851 -0.794
#1 9.0 -0.964 -0.951 -0.846 -0.857
18.0 -1.058 -1.047 -0.844 -0.930
0.5 -0.865 -0.869 -0.850 -0.795
#2 9.0 -0.951 -0.957 -0.839 -0.865
180 -1 ORO -1 05? -0,836 -n APR
ON POTENTIALS - PV PANEL
(2 DAY PERIOD)
-0.76
1 , A I I I I I I L
-0.92 J 1 I 1 L_J I 1 I I L_ i 1 i i i l_
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
TIME (hours)
Figure 22. On-potential vs. time for photovoltaic panel for 48-hour period.
ON POTENTIALS - PV PANEL
(20 DAY PERIOD)
-0.7
i I i I i I i , i , i i.i.i
-0.95
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
TIME (days)
Figure 23. On-potential vs. time for photovoltaic panel for 20-day period.
6 Field Tests
Three sites were chosen for field tests of offpotential measurement devices. The
underground fuel storage tank at Fort Lee, VA, and the elevated water storage tanks
at Fort Hood, TX were chosen for this study because data were already available from
a previous site study (Evans 1989; Corrpro 1989). Additionally, underground pipeline
systems were evaluated in Tucson, AZ from Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines.
Underground Fuel Storage Tank-Fort Lee, VA
Background
During September 1989, an impressed current cathodic protection system using

ceramic anode canisters was installed on a 5000-gal underground fuel storage tank.
Prior to the design of the CP system, preliminary field data were collected, which
included soil resistivity, native structure-to-soil potentials, electrical continuity, and
current requirement tests.
Measurements were made using a Nilsson Model 400 resistivity meter and the Wenner
Four-Electrode Method to obtain the soil resistivity at depths of 5,10, and 15 ft (Figure
24). The average soil resistivity values obtained ranged from 11,970 ohm-cm to 62,000
ohm-cm at a 2.5-ft depth; 12,500 ohm-cm to 23,900 ohm-cm at a 5-ft depth; and 10,000
ohm-cm to 19,100 ohm-cm at a 10-ft depth (Table 11). This range of soil resistivity
values indicates that the structure is in a moderately corrosive environment. In
addition, a chemical analysis of the soil was conducted, and a significant level of
chloride ions in the soil (300 mg/L) was found. Soil pH was 4.9 (acidic). The resistivity
value of the deionized water saturated sample was 6000 ohm-cm.
"Native" structure-to-soil potential measurements were performed at representative

locations around the storage tank and associated piping. The measurements were
obtained by using a copper-copper sulfate (Cu/CuSo4) reference electrode placed in
contact with the soil over the structure and a direct contact to the structure through
the use of a high impedance digital voltmeter. The "native" structure-to-soil potential
1 gal = 3.78L; 1 ft = 0.305 m.

measurements (Table 12) ranged from -286 millivolts to -434 millivolts. These values
indicate levels much lower than expected for carbon steel. (Lower numbers usually
mean buried copper.)
A temporary cathodic protection system was used to simulate a permanent system.

The temporary CP system consisted of rods driven around the tank and a portable test
rectifier (Figure 25). Structure-to-soil potential was measured with the cathodic
protection system cycling on and off (Table 13) to gauge the effectiveness of applying
cathodic protection current. The average potential change as a result of applying
cathodic protection current from the temporary groundbed was about 74 millivolts
polarization.
An impressed current CP system was designed and specifications were prepared based
on the preliminary field data. Figure 26 shows a typical ceramic-coated anode canister
used in the CP system. Such ceramic-coated anode canisters consist of a mixed metal
oxide-coated, 1/8- to 1/4-in. diameter titanium rod, surrounded by calcined fluid
petroleum coke breeze. The canisters are lightweight, averaging from 6 to 44 lb
depending on size, which can vary from a minimum of 2-in. diameter x 30-in. length
to a maximum of 3-in. diameter x 120-in. length, and are well suited for use in
underground applications (Hock 1992a, 1992b).
Figure 27 shows the layout of the CP system. The rectifier was energized during
September 1989. The structure-to-soil off-potential on the southeast side of the tank
was -0.71 volts relative to a copper-copper sulfate electrode. The rectifier output was
set at 19.3 V DC and 0.7 A DC. After allowing time for polarization of the structure,
the final rectifier adjustments were made. Table 12 lists the structure-to-soil potential
measurements at time of CP system energization. The data show that the 100
millivolt polarization decay criteria was satisfied.
Procedure and Results
To measure the entire cathodic protection voltage in real time, a full-wave unfiltered
rectifier, similar in design to the tank 1 rectifier used in the laboratory test (outlined
in Chapter 5), was selected for the CP power supply. This allowed IOP readings to be
recorded a fraction of a millisecond after the full wave unfiltered rectifier went to zero.
The potential difference between the cathodically protected tank and a copper-copper
sulfate reference electrode were measured.
The CPA Model 730 and the WFA-1 were used to measure instant off-potentials. The
results were compared to measurements obtained using a Leader LCD-100 digital
storage oscilloscope in conjunction with the appropriate voltage offset circuitry to
provide a 10mV resolution. In addition, a Fluke Model 75 Digital Voltmeter with an

11 megohm input resistance was also used in conjunction with a current interrupter.
Current was interrupted and the second DVM display update was recorded as the
interrupted instant off-potential.
The data presented in Table 14 show the relationship between the various methods of
measuring the on, off, and instant off-potential. Figure 28 shows actual amplified
oscilloscope traces of the CP waveform. When the oscilloscope measurement is only
a fraction of a second into the polarization decay, it is the most negative or closest to
the true IOP. The minimum measurements obtained by the CPA 730, which represent
the IOP, varied by less than 1 percent from the minimum oscilloscope readings,
indicating the CPA is reading essentially the same point on the polarization decay
curve. Any slight difference is due to measurement error or noise. The difference
however, does not appear to be significant.
As measured by the WFA-1, the difference between the IOP and the oscilloscope IOP
varied between 34 and 141 millivolts. It appears that the WFA-1 is measuring a point
lower down on the polarization decay curve than the oscilloscope. However, for this
particular cathodically protected structure, the difference is not significant.
The worst case or lowest point on the decay curve was obtained by measuring the off-
potential using an interrupted DVM method. The difference varied from 130 to 280
millivolts. Although the interrupted off-potential values satisfied both NACE criteria,
the potential for coating damage exists since the true IOP obtained by the oscilloscope
shows two potential measurements in excess of-1.2V at locations 2 and 4 on the tank.
Elevated Water Storage Tanks-Fort Hood, TX
Background
In designing a cathodic protection system for an elevated water storage tank, the size
and shape of the tank directly determine the number of anodes and length of each
anode necessary to protect the tank bowl. To maximize the effectiveness of the system,
the height of the tank riser pipe must be known. From this, the length of the anode
necessary to supply complete cathodic protection can be determined. The tank coating
condition and its uniformity also affect anode spacing.
Under the Facilities Engineering Application Program (FEAP), a cathodic protection

system using ceramic-coated anodes was installed in 1988 at Fort Hood, TX. Two
water storage tanks (#1673 and #4001) were chosen as demonstration sites for the
system. Both tanks use identical system designs—six bowl anode strings, three stub
anode strings, and one riser string (Figure 29), and detailed in ETL 1110-9-10(FR),
sections 2-6 and 2-7.
Based on the performance of the ceramic-coated anodes in the demonstration tanks,

the Fort Hood Directorate of Engineering and Housing (DEH) personnel installed a CP
system in June 1989 using ceramic-coated anodes on another elevated water storage
tank, #4655. All the anodes in this tank are supported by clevis-connector cables tied
to a porcelain insulator on the inside of the tank's roof. The bowl anode segments
consist of 120-cm solid titanium rods. There are no riser anodes in tank #4655 because
the diameter of the riser pipe is less than 30 in. (and was not accessible). The rectifier
used was a Wallace Tiernan 10V, 10A constant voltage tap-adjust, rectifier powered
by 120V AC line power. This rectifier is similar in design to the tank 1 rectifier used
in laboratory testing.
Tank-to-water potential measurements were taken on tank #4655 in the summers of

1990, 1991, and 1992. The 1990 measurements were taken with a Nilsson Model 510A
analog voltmeter. These readings are only on or average potentials. The potential
measurements were all around -1100 mV, indicating protection (Appendix B, p 65).
IR drop error is present in these readings, so actual polarized potentials of the tank
are not as negative. The tank interior was reported to be in very good condition. The
1991 measurements were taken with the same Nilsson Model 510A voltmeter and a
M.C. Miller Model CI-30 current interrupter. These readings include both on- and off-
potentials. The on readings were all quite close to -850 mV, and the off readings were
all around -750 mV (Appendix B, p 66). Since the tank interior was reported to be in
good condition, the interrupted off measurements may reveal depolarization of the
structure during measurement.
Before the 1992 readings were taken, the rectifier tap settings were slightly adjusted
to comply with the NACE criteria of-850 mV. Since the CP power source is a constant
output rectifier, the adjustments were necessary due to changes in the system
environment, such as a varying water level in the tank.
In the summer of 1992, the measurements were taken with the CPA Model 730. The
negative lead was clamped to the tank at an acess port at the top of the tank, and a
copper/copper sulfate reference cell was lowered through other access ports to take
readings at locations A-J. The off-potential measurements indicate complete
protection is being achieved (Appendix B).
Underground Pipeline Systems-Tucson, AZ
Background
Underground petroleum pipelines of the Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines network were

evaluated in Tucson, AZ. The pipeline system selected for testing consisted of three
separate parallel lines of 6, 8, and 12 in. in diameter. The three separate pipelines
were of varying age and coating conditions. The oldest line (6-in. diameter) was about
35 years old and poorly coated. The 12-in. line has been in use for approximately 2
years, and is well coated. The 8-in. line has a moderate coating condition. Each of the
lines were cathodically protected using impressed current CP systems with constant
current rectifiers.
An initial potential survey was conducted in early 1993 along approximately 25 miles
of the pipeline system. On-potentials were recorded at various test stations located
along the 25-mile stretch. The results showed regions along each pipeline of varying
structure-to-soil potentials, indicating some areas of pipe were not being adequately
protected.
Based on the initial potential survey, a 5.4-mile section between two rectifiers was
chosen for evaluation. This section will be denoted as mile markers 319.6 through
325.0. The potential survey revealed on-potentials with fluctuations exceeding 500 mV
in some cases. Potential measurements were taken at 14 test stations along this
section on each of the three parallel lines (6, 8, and 12-in. diameters).
Before measurements were taken, pulse generators were installed in five rectifiers
along the 25-mile section of pipeline. Beginning at one rectifier, on-potentials were
taken with a Fluke 75 Digital Multimeter and on- and off-potentials were taken with
the WFA-1 and a Polycorder. The Polycorder uses the same algorithm as the WFA-1
for calculating on- and off-potentials (See Chapter 4). Readings were at the various
test stations upon reaching the next rectifier. The five pulse generators were then set
for no current interruption. Measurements at the same test stations were repeated
with the Xetron CPA 730 and SP1 probe to record maximum, average, and minimum
potentials. The SP1 probe was used in both high and normal modes.
The data presented in Tables 15 to 17 show the relationships between the various
instrumentation systems for the 6, 8, and 12-in. diameter pipelines, respectively.
Based on the results of the off-potential measurements, adequate protection was being
achieved for the 12-in. pipeline for approximately half of the 5.4-mile section under
consideration (based on the 850 mV NACE criteria). Readings taken on the 6 and 8-in.
lines show that the 850 mV criteria is being met on very few test points, and most
readings are between -550 and -700 mV. The WFA-1 and Polycorder on and off
readings were approximately equal for each pipeline, as expected. The CPA 730
minimum readings were on the average approximately 50 mV more negative than the
WFA and Polycorder. SP1 probe readings were in excess of 100 mV more negative for
most test points. In regions of the pipeline where protection is not being achieved (i.e.,
mile markers 321.9 to 325.0 for 6 and 8-in. lines), the on and off values are quite close
to each other. This indicates a flatter CP waveform is present. As seen in the data
tables, the WFA-1, Polycorder, and CPA 730 readings show close agreement. However,
it should be noted that the 850 mV criteria is not being achieved at these test points.
GRASS
AR BUILDING
"1 Ullllllimilimmiiiimiim,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
GRASS AREA
_ TFUEL OiL")
© A N
5) l_l _ J<_J
TD ©
JL
ASPHALT ROAD
GRASS AREA
§L
Figure 24. Location of soil resistivity test points using Wenner 4-pin method.
Table 11. Soil resistivity data.
Resistivity in ohm-cm
Location 2.5 ft. 5 ft. 10ft. 5-10 ft. Layer
1 42,600 23,900 16,280 12,344
2 35,430 23,900 17,430 13,716
3 5,480 23,900 13,220 9,137
4 23,000 16,280 16,280 16,280
5 12,500 12,500 19,150 40,918
6 62,000 42,130 18,580 11,918
7 25,400 14,400 10,920 8,794
8 11,970 14,400 18,960 27,746
Averaae 32,298 21.426 16,353 15.296
Location Native (V)* On(V) Off(V)
1 -0.434 -3.7 -0.815
2 -0.405 -1.50 _
3 -0.424 -3.65 _
4 -0.387 -1.82 _
5 -0.286 -1.08 -0.710
6 -0.371 -1.92 _
7 _ -3.35 -0.900
*Rfictififir Dsts*
M.P. Power Systems Model VADCA 40-08Z1 -356, S/N MP-89075
Rated Input 115V AC, 5A AC
Rated Output 40V DC, 8A DC
Operating Output 20.0V DC, 0.7A DC
Anode Data:
Anode #1 0.30 A DC
Anode #2 0.40 A DC
VENT
F
5,000 GAL. F.O.TANK

F,LL
®O- (MH) O
FILL'
I
[AMMETER
KEY
(Ä) - ANODE
GENERATION Qv _ HALF CELL
SVARIAC W)
LOCATION
Figure 25. Location of current requirement test points.
Table 13. Current requirements test data.
Pipe-to-Soil Potentials in Millivolts*
Location On Off Native
1 -841 -400 -286
2 -3600 -500 -380
3 -587 -410 -405
4 -826 -478 -421
'Current ADDlied = 0.7 A

"~l\
\
The \ * 8 AWG HMWPE CP CABLE OR
Ceramic Anode \ SPECIFY OTHER CABLE SIZE
Cable-to-Rod \ OR INSULATION TYPE
\ /-HEAVY DUTY CABLE STRAIN
Anode \ / RELIEF ALLOWS CONFIDENT
Connection \ / HANDLING OF THE CANISTER
BY THE
MJ
\ JSL^TIG CABLE
WELDED STEEL END CAPS
TO] PROVIDE A RUGGED TOTALLY
MATERIALS CHOSEN FOR ;5 ENCAPSULATED STEEL CON-
(CHLORIDE ENVIRONMENT) {*' STRUCTION
(CHLORIDE GENERATION) IfPT THE CERAMIC ANODE CABLE-
AND OR TO-ANODE ROD CONNECTION
FRESH WATER FOR FRESH OR SALT WATER
(OXYGEN GENERATION) (SEE DETAILED SKETCH).
CALCINED FLUID PETROLEUM
COKE 99% CARBON. 5 OHM-CM
SPECIFY CABLE SIZE a TYPE OR LESS AT AMBIENT PRESSURE
SUCH AS #8AWG PVDF 8 HMWPE AND MAX PARTICLE SIZE-lmm.
BULK DENSITY -74 LBS /CU. FT.
ULTRA LOW RESISTANCE CENTRALIZERS MAINTAIN ROD
SOLDER CONNECTION. 3x POSITION INSIDE CANISTER.
STRONGER THAN THE CABLE-
CERAMIC ANODE MIXED METAL
MOLDED DIELECTRIC LAYER 22 2 OXIDE COATED DIMENSIONALLY
RESISTS CL2 GAS a ACID STABLE TITANIUM ROD. ROD
PRESSURE SEAL (SEAL#l)~ DIAMETER LENGTH a CURRENT
MOLDED DIELECTRIC LAYER RATING ARE SPECIFIED AS
RESISTS CL2 GAS 8 ACID REQUIRED.
PRESSURE SEAL (SEAL#2) LIGHT WEIGHT, LIGHT CAGE
FLEXIBLE BACKFILL RESIN STEEL UNI-BODY TIG WELDED
ENCAPSULANT STABILIZER ~ CONSTRUCTION IS STRONG,
(SEAL*3) DUCTILE AND RUGGED. IT
• SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE PROVIDES ECONOMY AND EASE
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE TYPE I - OF SHIPPING, HANDLING AND
RESISTS CL2 GAS a ACID. INSTALLATION. SPECIFY THE
(PART OF SEAL #4) LENGTH AND DIAMETER.
ÖZZ
MIXED METAL OXIDE CERAMIC
COATED TITANIUM ANODE ROD,.
ROD LENGTH AND DIAMETER
DETERMINED BY CANISTER
SIZE 8 CURRENT REQUIRED.
TYPE I PVC END PLUGS
RESISTS CL2 GAS a ACID The
•NOTE: OTHER MATERIALS SUCH Ceramic Anode
AS TEFLON TUBE WITH TEFLON Canister
END PLUGS ARE OPTIONAL
a if
Figure 26. A typical ceramic-coated canister anode.

93'
MECHANICAL ROOM
BUILDING 9050 /
/
40V SA RECTIFIER UNIT /
/
WITH JUNCTION BOX
NEGATIVE CABLE \
F.O. VENT
S/S///J
'///SSSSS/SSSSS/SSSS/"S*SSS'/
PLASTIC GAS LINE INLET
GRASS AREA
-FILL
*--5,000 GAL F.O.TANK
CAC-602-2 CANISTER ANODES

2 REQUIRED (TYP.)
POSITIVE
Figure 27. Layout of installed cathodic protection system.

Table 14. Structure-to-electrolyte potentials.
Without Interrupter:
Oscilloscope Cathodic Protection Analyzer Waveform DVM

Analyzer
Location max min max avg min on off on
1 1.240 1.065 1.239 1.168 1.068 1.165 1.031 1.167
2 3.100 1.350 3.015 2.270 1.339 2.276 1.313 2.266
3 1.410 1.050 1.403 1.247 1.055 1.244 0.964 1.245
4 2.800 1.440 2.752 2.152 1.454 2.129 1.299 2.172
Note: Waveform Analyzer (WFA) used with pulse generator.
With Interru Dter:
DVM
Location on off
1 1.080 0.935
2 2.212 1.150
3 1.204 0.894
4 2.092 1.160
Tank-to-Soil Measurement Locatic>ns:

4
* = fill
Tank * 1 MH *2 MH = manhole
Building Rectifi-
er
Rectifier Data:
DC Volts 18.0V
DC Amps 0.6A
USACERLTR FM-94/16 55
SUPPORT CLEVIS WITH

ADJACENT HANDHOLE LB" CONDUIT ENTRANCE FITTING
ACCESS PORT
TANK ANODES
PERMANENT STUB ANODES

REFERENCE
ELECTRODES THREE DC POSITIVE ANODE FEED
CONDUCTORS IN CONDUIT
THREE REFERENCE CELL WIRES

IN SEPARATE CONDUIT
(SPACED APART FROM D.C.
POSITIVE CONDUIT RUN BY V MIN.)
RISER ANODE
A.C. SAFETY SWITCH
AUTOMATIC POTENTIAL CONTROL

RECTIFIER MOUNTED ON TOWER LEG
3 AUTOMATIC CIRCUITS
40 VOLTS, 42 AMPERES TOTAL
D.C. OUTPUT CAPACITY FOR
117 V.A.C. SINGLE PHASE INPUT
PERMANENT
REFERENCE RECTIFIER NEGATIVE WELDED
ELECTRODES TO TOWER LEG
117/60/10 A.C. SUPPLY
Figure 29. Typical elevated water tank showing ceramic-coated rod anode arrangement.
Table 15. Pipe-to-soi potential measurements, 6-iri. pipeline.

(All fêadinqs ir Volts)
WF A-1 POLYCORDER CPA-730 CPA/SP1 FLUKE 75
MILE on off on off max avg min high norm on
319.6 -1.143 -0.845 -1.148 -0.806 -1.507 -1.166 -0.773 -0.966 -1.014 -1.143
320.3 -0.872 -0.800 -0.874 -0.790 -0.906 ; -0.887 -0.871 -0.863 -0.853 -0.872
320.8 -0.856 -0.711 -0.859 -qj391_ -0.895 -0.873 -0.855 -0.837 -0.837 -0.856
321.0 -1.133 -1.049 -1.140 -1.043^ -1.158 -1.143 -1.126 -0.966 -1.014 -1.135
...321,2 _.__. -0-801 -0:729 -0.804 -0.727 -0.824 -0.816 -0.809 -0.795 -0.792 -0.801
321.9 -0.483 -0.475 -0.486 -0.475 -0.498 -0.495 -0.492 -0.581 -0.575 -0.483
322.4 -0.552_ -0,546_ -0.554 -0.554 -0.566 -0^562 -0.558 -0.544 -0.542 -0.551
322.8 -0.559 -0.553 -0.562 -0.562 -0.567 -0.564 -0.561 -0.544 -0.541 -0.559
323.3 -0.635 -0.604 -0.638 -0.609 -0.658 -0.645 -0.634 -0.664 -0.655 -0.635
323.35 -CX572 -0.558 -0.575 -0.575 -0.596 ^-0,587 -0.579 -0.555 -0.551 -0.572
323,7 -Q-668 -0.656 -0.670 -0.670 -0.676 -0.671 -0.667 -0.645 -0.645 -0.668
..._ 324.3 -0,461 -0.461 -0.465 -0.465 -0.471 _, --0J-62 I -0.452 -0.400 -0.459 -0.461
324.8 -0561 ^0.556 -0.565 -0.565 -0.579 ^q.565_ -0.549 -0.540 -0.540 -0.561
325.0 -0.567 -0.553 -0.567 -0.567 -0.605 -0.574 -0.534 -0.552 -0.554 -0.567
Table 16. PiDe-to-soil potential measurements, 8-in. pipeline.

(All Readings inVolts) ;
WFi M__ POLYCC)RDER CPA-730 CPAJ SP1 FLUKE

i
MILE on off on off max !
avg min high norm on
319.6 -1.112 -0.927 -1.119 -0,909 | -1.329 -1.127 -0.891 -0J)48 _Ô?_80. -1.109
320.3 -0.824 -0.759 -0.827 -0.751 -0.867 -0.844 -0.821 -0.831 -0.827 -0.824
320.8 -0.822 -0.705 -0.826 -0.693 -0.863 -0.843 -0.824 -0.827 -0.822 -0.822
321.0 -1.121 -1.029 -1.124 -1.022 -1.147 -1.131 -1.115 -0.966 -1.014 -1.121
321.2 -0,795 -0.725 -0.798 -0.720 -0.821 -0.812 -0.804 -0.789 -0.787 -0.796
321.9 -0,542 -0,504 -0.544 -0.507 -0.555 -0.551 -0.548 -0.660 -0.638 -0.541
322.4 -0.546 -0.549 -0.525 -0.560 -0.556 -0.553 -0.660 -0.640 -0.545
-^).521
322.7 -0.648 -0.605 -0.651 -0.609 -0.672 -0.666 -0.661 -0.640 -0.639 -0.649
322.8 -0.579 -0.565 -0.580 -0.580 -0.592 -0.589 -0.585 -0.610 -0.605 -0.579
323.3 -0.641 -0.595 -0.643 -0.601 -0.670 -0.655 -0.643 -0.680 -0.674 -0.641
323.7 -0.694 -0.662 -0.696 -0.667 -0.707 -0.703 -0.699 -0.699 -0.690 -0.695
324.3 -0.423 -0.417 -0.425 -0.425 -0.437 -0.429 -0.420 -0.451 -0.451 -0.423
324.8 -0.486 -0.482 -0.488 -0.488 -0.499 -0.490 -0.479 -0.470 -0.469 -0.485
325.0 -0.599 -0.578 -0.599 -0.599 -0.651 -0.603 -0.541 -0.580 -0.577 -0.597
Table 17. Pipe-to-soil potential measurements, 12- in. pipeline.

(All Readings i n Volts)
WFA-1 POLYCORDER CPA-730 CPA/SP1 FLUKE
MILE on off on off max avg min high norm on
319.6 -1.416 -0.911 -1.421 -0.853 -1.993 -1.436 -0.785 -1.014 -1.085 -1.418
319.7 -1.162 -0.900 -1.166 -0.867 -1.484 -1.179 -0.807 -0.965 -1.015 -1.163
320.0 -1.680 -1.050 -1.686 -0.937 -2.377 -1.705 -0.998 -1.075 -1.164 -1.680
320.3 -1.260 -0.940 -1.268 -0.861 -1.813 -1.286 -0.723 -0.996 -1.062 -1.266
320.8 -1.300 -0.810 -1.295 -0.783 -1.861 -1.311 -0.772 -1.105 -1.074 -1.292
321.1 -1.370 -0.990 -1.381 -0.932 -1.888 -1.392 -0.921 -1.020 -1.095 -1.376
321.18 -1.370 -0.900 -1.376 -0.856 -1.911 -1.460 -1.020 -1.037 -1.110 -1.370
321.19 -1.350 -0.920 -1.352 -0.856 -1.839 -1.372 -0.925 -1.015 -1.091 -1.351
321.2 -1.330 -0.940 -1.331 -0.893 -1.346 -0.892 -0.827 -1.024 -1.101 -1.326
321.9 -1.090 -0.740 -1.092 -0.722 -1.535 -1.109 -0.680 -0.960 -1.005 -1.092
322.4 -1.130 -0.820 -1.134 -0.793 -1.556 -1.150 -0.749 -0.980 -1.031 -1.132
322.8 -1.128 -0.833 -1.134 -0.830 -1.522 -1.142 -0.774 -0.970 -1.017 -1.130
323.3 -1.165 -0.884 -1.169 -0.880 -1.497 -1.185 -0.874 -0.985 -1.046 -1.166
323.7 -1.115 -0.899 -1.116 -0.893 -1.417 -1.130 -0.863 -0.964 -1.016 -1.116
324.3 -0.811 -0.680 -0.817 -0.683 -1.059 -0.816 -0.601 -0.764 -0.784 -0.811
324.8 -0.716 -0.662 -0.720 -0.664 -0.834 -0.724 -0.601 -0.696 -0.699 -0.716
325.0 -0.693 -0.653 -0.699 -0.659 -0.768 -0.703 -0.620 -0.675 -0.674 -0.693
7 Conclusions
Commercially available instant off-potential measurement devices were evaluated

both in a laboratory and field environment. The ability of off-potential instrumenta-
tion to measure the true instant off-potential of a structure was determined for three
different types of cathodically protected structures. The types of structures evaluated
were an underground fuel storage tank, elevated steel water storage tank, and
underground gas distribution system. The types of instant off-potential measurement
systems evaluated were as follows:
1. A Xetron Cathodic Protection Analyzer (CPA) Model 730

2. A M.C. Miller Waveform Analyzer Model WFA-1
3. A digital voltmeter (DVM) and current interrupter
4. A portable oscilloscope.
Each system provided slightly different CP system performance monitoring based on

"Instant Off-Potential" (IOP) criteria for elevated water storage tanks, underground
storage tanks, and an underground gas distribution system according to the revised
NACE RP0169-92 Criteria.
The following conclusions can be drawn for each type of instant off-potential
measurement system utilized for evaluation of a CP system installed on USTs,
elevated water storage tanks, and on underground gas distribution systems.
Underground Fuel Storage Tank
The minimum measurements, which represent the IOP, obtained by the Xetron
Cathodic Protection Analyzer (CPA) Model 730 varied by less than 1 percent from the
minimum oscilloscope readings both in the laboratory and in the field. This indicates
that the CPA reads the same point as observed by the oscilloscope on the polarization
decay curve.
For the M.C. Miller Waveform Analyzer Model WFA-1, the difference between the IOP
and the oscilloscope IOP varied between 34 and 141 millivolts in the field measure-
ments. From these measurements, it can be inferred that the WFA-1 is measuring a
point lower down on the polarization decay curve than the oscilloscope. However, for
this particular cathodically protected structure, the difference is not significant.
The worst case, or lowest point on the decay curve, was obtained by measuring the off-
potential using a digital voltmeter (DVM) and current interrupter, and by taking the
second updated reading as the IOP. Field measurements showed a difference between
the two readings of 130 to 280 millivolts. Although the interrupted off-potential values
satisfied both NACE RPO169-92 criteria, it may be possible for coating to be damaged
while using this method since the true IOP may be more negative than the readings
indicate.
Elevated Steel Water Storage Tanks
The instant off-potential measurements (IOP) obtained by the Xetron Cathodic

Protection Analyzer (CPA Model 703) varied from -0.853V to 0.920V for the top section,
-0.848V to -0.914V for the middle section and -0.83V to -0.91V for the bottom section
of the tank. The IOP readings indicated complete cathodic protection was being
provided to the wetted surface of the tank. The IOP data also demonstrated that some
of the areas on the tank surface may be polarized slightly greater than the -0.85V IOP
NACE criteria require. However, there was no danger of exceeding the hydrogen over
voltage of-1.2V and causing cathodic disbondment of the coating system.
Underground Gas Distribution Systems
The effectiveness of using IOP measurement devices on underground utility

distribution systems depends on several factors such as size of system (e.g., pipe
diameter and length), proximity of foreign structures that are also cathodically
protected, and electrical isolation. The current level of IOP technology works well on
discreet, well isolated pipe sections but does not have the capability of waveform
discrimination on long line pipelines. The long line pipelines have spikes induced
along the length of the pipeline. These inductive spikes occur from rectifier overlap
and interference from other close proximity cathodically protected structures. In
general, the Wave Form Analyzer (WFA-1), Polycorder, and Cathodic Protection
Analyzer (CPA 730) readings were within 50 mV of each other.
8 Recommendations
It is recommended that instant off-potential measurement devices such as the
Cathodic Protection Analyzer, Wave Form Analyzer, and Polycorders be considered as
alternative systems to evaluate the effectiveness of a cathodically protected steel
structure such as underground fuel storage tanks, elevated steel water storage tanks,
and underground gas distribution systems. The IOP measurements taken must be in
accordance with NACE RP0169 criteria.
The effectiveness of IOP measurement devices for underground utility distribution

systems will depend on the electrical isolation ofthat system and the proximity of the
cathodically protected foreign structures.
References
Conpro Corp., Ft. Lee, Virginia Corrosion Evaluation Survey Preliminary Report (U.S. Army Engineering
and Housing Support Center [USAEHSC], Fort Belvoir, VA, October 1989).
Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-9-10(FR), Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Systems Using
Ceramic Anodes (Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [HQUSACE], January 1991).
Evans, Antonio, and Ivan Leef, Water Storage Tank and Airfield Fuel Systems Cathodic Protection
Evaluations: Fort Hood, Texas (USAEHSC, September 1989).
Hock, Vincent F., and Lewis F. Setliff, "Off-Potential Measuring Devices for Underground Steel Storage
Tanks," Paper No. 478, Corrosion 92 (Memphis, TN, 1992a).
Hock, V.F., L.F. Setliff, R.H. Knoll, and M. Mcleod, "Evaluation of Cathodic Protection Systems Using Off-
Potential Measuring Devices,'' USACE Electrical Mechanical Engineering Conference, Dallas, TX
(14-17 July 1992b).
Hock, V.F., and M. McLeod, User Guide and Specifications for Water Tanks and Underground Pipes and
Storage Tanks, FEAP-UG-M-92/08 (USAEHSC, January 1992).
Kroon, David H., "Waveform Analyzer/Pulse Generator Technology Improves Close Interval Potential
Surveys," Materials Performance, Vol 29, no. 11 (November 1990), pp 18-21.
Kumar, A., Vincent F. Hock, Flynn Bashford, and Richard Ruzga, "Evaluation of Cathodic Protection
Systems Using Ceramic Coated Anodes," Paper No. 231, Corrosion 91 (Cincinnati, OH).
Kumar, A., V. Hock, and M. McLeod, User Guide and Specification for Ceramic Coated Anode Systems for
Water Tanks and Underground Pipes and Storage Tanks, FEAP-UG-M-92/08 (USAEHSC, January
1992).
Myers, J.R., Fundamentals and Forms of Corrosion (Air Force Institute of Technology, 1974)
"Real-Time Cathodic Protection Analysis," Pipeline and Gas Journal (February 1990).
Recommended Practice (RP) 0169, "Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic
Piping Systems" (National Association of Corrosion Engineers [NACE], rev. 1992).
RP0285, "Control of External Corrosion on Metallic Buried, Partially Buried, or Submerged Liquid
Storage Systems" (NACE, rev. 1992).
Watts, James, "Enhancing Cathodic Protection," Pipeline and Gas Journal (September 1989).
Xetron Corporation, CPA Model 730 Operator's Applications Manual (Cincinnati, OH, 1990).
Appendix A: Laboratory Data
Table A1. Water sample chemistry data.
Samples Taken Be ore Testing
Tankl Tank 2 Tank 3 Tank 4
pH** ! 8.40 8.60 8.60 [ 8.50

Zn 0.1 0.1 0.1 j 0.1
Fe BDL* [ BDL BDL BDL
Cu BDL BDL BDL BDL
Ca 11.6 j 14.1 15.0 15.0
Mg 9.9 I 10.1 10.2 10.4
Alkalinity (as CaC03) 91.4 90.1 92.3 82.4

Hardness (as CaC03) 77.5 77.5 78.8 80.0
...Dissolved02** 10_____. 8 _12_ 9
Total Dissolved Solids 100 110 130 145
Ammonia (NH4) BDL BDL BDL BDL
Samples Taken A fter Testing
Tankl Tank 2 Tank 3 Tank 4
pH** 8.35 8.35 8.39 8.44
Zn BDL* BDL BDL 0.2
Fe 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Cu 0.1 BDL BDL 0.3
Ca 9.9 10.6 12.9 11A
Mg 11.9 12.7 12.2 11.3
Alkalinity (as CaC03) 98.3 98.5 93.4 93.4
Hardness (as CaC03) 90.1 82.5 77.5 77.5
Dissolved 02** 6.6 6.2 6.6 6.4
Total Dissolved Solids 150 130 130 110
Ammonia (NH4) BDL BDL BDL BDL

1
*BDL-Below detection levels
"Dissolved 02 measured by electrode rather than test kits. Results are usually higher
with the colormetric test kit than electrode.
a.
eg
H 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 CS
n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
* &
3-3
VO
VO o
q TH
o
ov
rH
VO
00
rH
t> lo en VO O -VT o r-i
o o rH
q rH rH rH q q
Ov m
rH q q
cs
in m
o en en
VO ■VT VI
q q
o
c~
o,
en
m
q
a
vo o TH
VO en
q q TH q
«1 en cn CO cS CS cs en en en en en en cn en en en en cn en en en cn en en en en en
r- o 00 cS O ©v Ov o rH vo CO CO VO o cs •VT 1-4 cs oo VO Ov o C~ m VC
d 00 cn 00
q Ov
o\
oo
OS
00 sr-5 rH
q q
rH m
Ov
■<r
■Ov
r»
rH
cs
Ov
en
00
VO in rH
Ov q O
Ov
00 s VO
»
00
00
Ov
00
«I 0
9 TH
l 9 r-(
l ■
d 9* 9 9 I
r-5 r-J
1 l 9 9 rH
1 9 9* 9 r-5
1 9 9 9 d d* i 9 9 9 9 d 9 di
cs V) V) o cs CS cs en rH o rH o o rH Ov O0 cs Ov
3. s
rH
CS VO 00 00 vi
ov 00 00 00 so
VO
in
00
en
00
00
oo
O
OV
00
00 oo en en CO 00 m 00 VO
oo oo CO CO Ov oo r- oo o\ oo oo
1-4
VI
CO
V)
CO
in
CO
rr
00
5§
CO
cn VO CN
c- o oo CO
VO
VO
CO
9 o 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
o\ CS rH en o c~- oo cs m cs cs o
S
> d CS
CJ
CS
oo o o ov
o\ q q
TH
Ov
00
3
00 Ov q q q
Ov
O
Ov
Ov
>n VO TH
Ov rH Ov OV o
rH
Ov
Ov 00 oo oo oo
q 00 q q
00 00 00 q CO
VO
Ov vo
VO CS
00
Ov
Ov
O
CO TH
t 9 T-5
i
rH
I 9 9 9 9 rH
1
rH V5
I i 9 9 r-5
1 9 9 9 rH
I 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
t-t
r-t o
V»
a. q q
2U (0 i
d
cn rH
<N
en o ov T o oo
vo 00 00 v> m m r- 00
oo oo q 00 oo oo 00
CO
00
00 «r
oo en
00 oo
Ov
o
oo Ov
r- oo
00
VO s r>
oo
VO
m
cs o o Ov o
m VI
CO oo 00
en VO
oo
00
vo
■a 2 00 Ov
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9* 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
00 CO Ov 00 Ov 00 00 CO 00 00
d
00 en VO v> o rH o o cs en Ov cs e'- cs o •<T o •VT Ov 00 u0 o Cv Ov VO ■vr
s s vo
s o
1 en ov »> m m 00 en r- CO 00 OV
00
OS O.
00
Ov
rH
q 00
ON
00 00 8 rH rH rH
q q q Ov Ov TH Ov 00 Ov OV
Ov
00 00 00 t> 00 OV
C 9 rH
• 9 TH
1
rH
I 9 9 9 r-5
I
r-5 r-5 r-5
1 1 1
r-5
9 9
1 9 9 9 T-5
1 9 9 9 9 9 d■ 9 9 9 9 9 di
.2
"^
c
a>
e
X
rH
r> TH
o O rH Ov
en m m vi in cn
vo
>n m
00
in
VO
o
o o en vo cs
o xr t> 00 VO
00
m
VO en
cn en Is
Ov q
rH o cs
en en cn a 9
q
V)
rH
q
cs o
CO m
"l Ov 00 q
Ov
M q rl rH rH ov Ov Ov rH rH rH rH rH TH Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov 00
o
Q. 3 5 • r-5 i-5 T-5
i i 1
t-5 r-31
9 9 9 rH
1
r-5
I
rH
i
r-5 rH d d r-5
I 1 i 1 1 9 9 d 9 d 9 9 9 d q d1 i i
d
CD
o
u d r-
00
8
ON
cs o
VO
00
00
00
s
00
vi
00
00
VI
00 00
CS
oo
oo
O
00
00
00
CO
oo
VO
00
00
CS CS
oo
■VT
Ov
Ov
s
00
cs vo
oo m
t> CO
so\ o
00
00
VO
VO
00
cs
m
00 CO
m
00 00
9
00
00
cn
o
cs
VO 8
oo
m vo
00
00
00
0) d
.o 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • 9
o
1
■
a
"S o o o co vo VO cs cs CO vo CO o o oo cs •vT cs 9 cs o CO
3
O
(A
M
VO
o
8 5 5f
rH rH
vn m
o\ Ov
CM
Ov
•<r m T >n o\ Ov ■»r r-
rH rH rH rH q q
•«r VI VO en en en ■<T
Ov oo q rH Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov Ov
VO
en c^
Ov 00 00
rH
Ov
en
®!
■«r
Ov
U Ö1
3 5 1 1 ■ 1 I 9 9 9 rH
1 I
r-5 r-5
I 1 t
rH
I 9 9 rH
I
T-5
I 9 9 9 9 d• 9 9 9 9 9 9
It)
o
s s B E B 6m mB B | E B E E E E S E« E
ep. E S
*■»
ca E s E 6 M o. o- m M B
o.
e B
m
a. M
O- P.
« E
m IS
E
c
o o.« a O. P~ W% ■vr o VI o CS -vr vo r- m a«
o p. ■«r
f cs o
o vo q en m v> O vo cs o OS o C- Ov XT oo •>tr o
3 •er
§
tjv
8
TH
cn
TH
rH
rH
CS
VO
q
in «n
rH
ÖV
en TH
«M
TH
en ■VT
rH
00
TH
CO Ov ö ö rH
o VI cs en q d rH TH
en o\ TH TH en TH cM
d
TH
-<T
<jv
rH
rH Ov cs
CS cs cs CS cs cs cs cs CS cs cs cs CS CS cs CS cs cs CS CS CS cs cs
3
CS
Si S:
0)
es es
go
Si
cs cs cS Si
CS CS
o
Si Si Si Si Si rH
s Si
o
Si Si Si
§
o rH rH cs cs in
rH rH rH rH rH
Si Si Si Si Si Si Si
m
rH
VO
TH
VO
1-A
VO VO
rH
VO
T-t rH rH rH
Si
Ov
TH
Si
to VO vo VO vo VO VO vo VO" VO VO VO VO vo VO" VO" VO VXJ VO" 'S VO VO vo VO vo VO vo VO VO VO
t-
a,
m
5 5 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5
VolUge
Output
cs p> VI VO r-t PI Vi CS Pi o CS c- 00
rH o
vo
s
p p
tn pi pi pi pi
00 ON NO r- 00 O o OV CO 00
p p p p
pi pi pi pi pi
p p p
Vi rH VI
p
VI
p p os
oo PI
pi pi pi pi pi pi pi pi p> pi CO pi pi
s
oo cs T vi PI vi cs oo oo
a r» PI 00 T t~-
«5 oo oo CO 0°,
ov § Os cs o
00 oo
OV
r-t
r-i
VO Pi
Ov
Ov
oo
VI
VI 3 Ov
O r-t
CS
o
oo
Pi
VN
00 CS
O 00
«3 00 Ov OV
00 o 00 co «J C~- 00
Eg, 9 9 9 9* 9 9* 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9* 9 9 9 9 9 9
VN Pi Os VI v> r-l o o 00 cs r-t
.3 ON 3 PI VI VI v> 00
r-
•«r NO C--
r- VO VO Pi VI
Pi
»-H
VO VI
o 9 9
0°, «}
o 9
00 00 «5 00
c> t>, t"» c^
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
ov cs CS cs cs NT Os V) VI oo r- o pi vo PIVO o o
iS-3 c (*• PI oo r-t r~ Os Os ON cs o oo Ov rH v-t OV 00 Vi r-t o Pi oo cs
o 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 co OS Ov t- 00 00 00 °°,
r» 00
3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 d 9 9 9 9 9 9 i 9 o 9 d*
ON (S o PI PI 00 oo ON ON r- o vo o o PI 00 o 00 o o\
rH PI
00
r-t v»
00 00
m
00 s
r- 00 VO00 VO vn VO o o vo 00 VI 00
°°, r- t-
2u
OH 00 00 00
co
9* 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 o* 9* 9 o 9 9 9 9 9 9 ot
I vi
T
vo o o VO VC T
ON vo rH Pi PI VI
OS
VI
r- cs
VI oo
PI
NO
Os
VI
r-t
r- r-
t- CS
Vi
Ov
Pi
o vo Pi
NO
cs
r- pi c~-
ON
VI
Ov
oo
r- vo
•a is 00 t> 00 CO 00 00 00
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 p
CO 00
d
c~ 00
9 9 9 9
CO 00 co
Ö d 9* 9
t~- 00
d*
c~
9 9 9 9* 9 9 9
(3
12 to
3
CO
00
PI
PI
00
ON
00
o
VI
00
Vi
CO
o
00
CO
NO
00
o
o\ O o
ON
Os
CS
CO
o o
r-t
00
ON
00 Ov
NO o
o r-l cs
ON Ov
ON
OV
c-
vo
00
PI
Vi
CO
<s o
00 00
Vi
cs rH rH o
00 00
Ov
Pi
00
NO
00
C^
CS
CO
a« 9* 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
'So
■a-
■a ■ cs v> 00 vi oo o
PI r- PI ON rH PI Vi VI
PI
00
pi
\o PI
ON rH
VI
Vi
vo vo
ON PI
VI
VI
o c~ VO r-
Pi t-
Vi
NO
ON
cs
ov 00 ON 00 ON Os CTv ON 00 00 ON Ov Ov OV 00 ov 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Ö 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
vo cs o oo oo o CO co NO O cs o 00 NT o oo cs VO
PI HNO VI VI V) VO C-- c-- V) Pi rH Ov c- vo o
r- VO VO CO
a.o CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 r> 00 oo 00 co c~ oo
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9* 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9* 9* 9 9 9 9 9
t~ 00 t~
I*
<A
o
za
o VO o cs o CO vo o
o 00 PI
00 o\
CS
oo
NO
PI
ON
3
Os
V)VI oo VO
ON 00 00 ON
VO
VI
ON
CO
VO
Ov
vo VN
Ov CO
3
00
i-t
Os
O0
oo
cs
oo r~
00
VO
VO
00
Vi
r-t
ON
o o
VI
00
o\
oo
2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
■o
0)
0 s Eft. mE Sft. E Em E E E e Em Em E E E E E
3
C M m E E E E E ■a Eo. m EG. ft.
00 ft. ft. &. m ft.
ft.
p>
§ V) o •«r ft. m m ft. m w. o NT
CS TT o p o oo V) pi O VO pi ■*r Vi Vi CS ON cs
o oo" d
r-t
ö cM Ö Vi cs Ö r-t o p
rH pi CO CS rH 61
r-t
o oo
TH CS 00 ON TH rH pi ON I-l rH c4 ON
pi
a cs cs cs CS CS CS CS CS CS cs cs CS CS cs CS cs CS
O Si & Si Si Si CS <s CS cs CS CS CS
Si
2
o\
Ci
o o o
vo vo SO VO
«i
so
s NO go
c- c>
Si Si
pi
rH
PI
rH
Vi
rH
t>
V)
T-*
VO
r-t
t> t^
rH TH
Si Si Si Si
r-t
Ci
rH
Appendix B: Fort Hood Field Data

TANK-TO-WATER POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS | TABLE 1a TANK NO.: 4655

y -ACCESS PORTS
A 01
" N AB1
A D2 A AC!I AB2
A D3 fAH3 —r A AEC3C3 AF3 AB3
V °->* O" >/

V
CERAMIC ANODES
— — — Anode Circle
A Half-cell Location A
• Anode String A
A
O Broken Anode String
DATE: 6-13-90 A
BOWL PHYÎHAI
riii \j\\jr\\— Ii—\*/\sr\
DHATinM i lun
Potential Readings (-Volts)
No. 1 (top) No. 2 (mlddlo) No. 3 (bottom)
A NORTH WALL 1.15 1.15 1.10
B EAST WALL 1.15 1.15 1.10
C SOUTH WALL 1.15 1.15 1.10
D WEST WALL 1.15 1.10 1.10
E DIAGONAL 1.10
F DIAGONAL 1.10
G DIAGONAL 1.05
H DIAGONAL 1.10
I INNER WALL 1.15 1.10 1.10
J INNER WALL 1.15 1.10 1.10
RISER PHYSICAL LOCATION ATDEP

i 1 TOP OF RISER
I 2 NONE
I 3
I 4
I 5
I 6
I 7
I 8
I 9
I 10
I 11
I 12
REMARKS:
Interior & exterior still in very good condition. 1st readings in 4655 were
too high at 1.65. Tank was polarized at 1.10. Removed rectifier & installed
rectifier with smaller output. Reading 1.10 to 1.15 tank still polarized at .95.
TANK-TO-WATER POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS TABLE 1a TANK NO.: 4655

y _ ACCESS PORTS
N
i IN A^<\ ▲ D1
▲ D2
i ii ii AC1
▲ AC2
▲ B1
▲ B2
▲ D3
*—
tAH3 r AEQC3 ▲ F3 ▲ B3
V
CERAMIC ANODES
Anode Circle
A Half-cell Location ▲
• Anode String ▲
O Broken Anode String rjATE- 6-5-91
Potential Readings (-Volts)
BOWL PHYSICAL LOCATION ■
N i
o N°- m
No. 2 (middle) No. 3 (bottom)
ON OFF ON OFF
A NORTH WALL .85 .75 .86 .75 .86 .75
B EAST WALL .85 .74 .85 .73 .85 .75
C SOUTH WALL .85 .72 .85 .74 .86 .75
D WESTWALL .85 .75 .86 .75 .66 .73
E DIAGONAL .86 .73
F DIAGONAL .86 .75
G DIAGONAL .88 .75
H DIAGONAL .86 .75
I INNER WALL .86 .74 .88 .75 .86 .74
J INNER WALL .86 .74 .88 .76 .86 .74

i 1 TOP OF RISER
1 2 NONE
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
i e
1 s
1 10
i 11
1 12
REMARKS:
Interior & exterior still in very good condition.
TANK-TO-WATER POTENTIAL MEASUREMENTS TABLE 1a TANK NO.: 4655

I ■ ACCESS PORTS
AD1
N
i ii A *C1
1 IM /,•
/<V"~<>>\
ÂEX\\\ A D2 A «52
AB1
AB2
▲ D3 [ AH3 A AEOC3 AF3 AB3
V
CERAMIC ANODES
Anode Circle
A Half-cell Location A
• Anode String A
A
O Broken Anode String DATE: 7-30-92 A
Potential Readings (-Volt»)
BOWL PHYSICAL LOCATION AVE
TOP
MIN AVE
MIDDLE
MIN AVE
BOTTOM
MIN
A NORTH WALL .998 .686 .011 .881 .920 .83
B EAST WALL .944 .853 .948 .848 .943 .84
C SOUTH WALL 1.037 .920 .042 .914 1.048 .SO
D WEST WALL 1.013 .904 .000 .892 1.044 .88
E DIAGONAL 1.055 .90
F DIAGONAL 1.041 .90
G DIAGONAL 1.038 .90
H DIAGONAL 1.064 .91
1 INNER WALL 1.052 .914 .062 .910 1.031 .69
J INNER WALL 1.049 .910 .042 .903 1.021 .89

i 1 TOP OF RISER
l 2 NONE
I 3
I 4
I S
I 6
I 7
I 8
I 9
I 10
I 11
1 12
REMARKS:
Appendix C: Criteria for a Low-Maintenance CP

System
Specific provisions will guarantee a low-maintenance CP system with minimal

operation and maintenance costs. The first provision is to use the corrosion control
acceptance criteria checklist (FEAP UG-92-08) for the Corps of Engineers (COE) or
DEH/DPW inspectors. There is one guide/checklist for each of the three commonly
installed CP systems: (1) sacrificial anode systems, (2) impressed current underground
applications, and (3) impressed current water tank applications. This checklist will
help the COE and DEH guarantee that the CP system installed is the one called for
in the specifications and/or engineering drawings. Provisions are described below.
There are a number of traits of low-maintenance, impressed-current CP systems

common to each type of CP application. The first of these would be well-made splices
in the connections from the rectifier to the anode or cathode. If an anode bed is placed
less than 600 ft. away from the rectifier, it will be less costly and more reliable to run
separate leads from the rectifier to each anode than to run header cable to the anode
bed and then splice off the header cable to the anodes. Any splice in a wire should be
a cause for concern; a low-maintenance CP system should minimize the number of
splices needed. If there must be splices in an underground CP system, they should be
made above ground in a moisture proof, easily accessible area to provide for easy
inspection and replacement if there is a splice failure.
Another common trait is that a low-maintenance CP system must be checked regularly

to ensure proper operation. A monthly rectifier check should include a check of the
output voltage or current to ensure that the measured values are within the specified
levels for protection of the structure. A simple, inexpensive way to monitor a rectifier
with a quick eye-check is to purchase the rectifier with red and green lights already
installed. The green light should turn on when the rectifier has AC power to it and the
rectifier is providing the specified output. The red light should shine when there is AC
power to the rectifier, but the rectifier is not producing the specified output. Neither
light should work when there is no AC power to the rectifier. These lights should be
visible from a distance, in the daylight. DEH personnel can then note whether or not
a rectifier is operating correctly or incorrectly with a simple eye-check while driving
by. This will provide for easy weekly monitoring that can help avoid corrosion failure
and subsequent repair/replacement of the structure being protected.
The anodes used for the CP system cannot be expected to exceed their design current
output. Anodes should be called for in the engineering drawings that will provide a
life of 25 years (Reference ETL 1110-9-10 [FR] and TM 5-811-7). The anodes must
also be obtained from a responsible anode supplier that will stand behind their
product. A poorly manufactured anode can cause early failure of a CP system, and it
certainly provides for a high-maintenance CP system.
The last provision for a low-maintenance CP system is to include the proper rectifier
for the specific application. There are two types of rectifiers that will provide for a low-
maintenance CP system. For any underground CP applications, an adjustable
constant current output rectifier needs to be used. As discussed in the Power
Sources (Chapter 3), this will ensure that the structure sees the required protective
current through a generous range of electrolyte resistivities. For all submerged or
moving water CP applications, an automatic potential controlled rectifier should be
used. Again, as discussed in the Power Sources section, this will keep the structure
protected through a dynamically changing electrolyte. With either rectifier, there
needs to be quality assurance from the rectifier manufacturer. A rectifier should not
be purchased for a low-maintenance CP system unless the rectifier manufacturer will
provide a 1-year on-site warranty. This warranty should include repair and
replacement costs if there are defects in the materials and workmanship, or if there
are operation defects.
USACERL DISTRIBUTION
Chief of Engineers Defense Logistics Agency

ATTN CEHEC-IM-LH (2) ATTN: DLA-WI 22304
ATTN CEHEC-IM-LP (2)
ATTN CEMP-ET USA Japan (USARJ)
ATTN CERD-L ATTN: APAJ-EN-ES 96343
CECPW 22310-3862 US Army Envr Hygiene Agency

ATTN: CECPW-ES ATTN: HSHB-ME 21010
US Army Engr District US Gov't Printing Office 20401

ATTN: Library (40) ATTN: Rec Sec/Deposit Sec (2)
US Army Engr Division Defense Tech Info Center 22304

ATTN: Library (12) ATTN: DTIC-FAB(2)
US Army Europe 153

21st Support Command 9/94
ATTN: DPW (10)
US Army Berlin
ATTN: AEBA-EH 09235
ATTN: AEBA-EN 09235
INSCOM
ATTN: IAV-DPW 22186
HQ XVIII Airborne Corps 28307

ATTN: AFZA-DPW-EE
US Army Materiel Command (AMC)

Alexandria, VA 22333-0001
ATTN: AMCEN-F
Installations: (19)
FORSCOM
Forts Gillem & McPherson 30330
ATTN: FCEN
Installations: (23)
TRADOC
Fort Monroe 23651
ATTN: ATBO-G
Installations: (20)
Fort Belvoir 22060

ATTN: CECC-R 20314-1000
ATTN: Engr Strategic Studies Ctr
USARPAC 96858
ATTN: DPW
CEWES 39180
ATTN: Library
CECRL 03755
ATTN: Library
Military Dist of WASH

Fort McNair
ATTN: ANEN 20319
USA Engr Activity, Capital Area

ATTN: Library 22211
Engr Societies Library

ATTN: Acquisitions 10017
This publication was reproduced on recycled paper. * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994—3510-S/00084

ADA290876

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADA290876

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADA290876

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ill 1 III

Off-Potential Measurement Systems for

The Army currently maintains more than 20,000

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED

DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR

4. What is your evaluation of this report in the following areas?

e. Adequate Reference Material:

f. Relates to Area of Interest:

g. Did the report meet your expectations?

h. Does the report raise unanswered questions?

6. Please mail the completed form to:

Department of the Army

10. SPONSORING / MONITORING

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified SAR

List of Figures and Tables 5

2 Cathodic Protection: An Overview 12

3 Impressed Current Cathodic Protection Systems 14

Appendix A: Laboratory Data 62

Appendix B: Fort Hood Field Data 65

Appendix C: Criteria for a Low-Maintenance CP System 69

List of Figures and Tables

1 A typical corrosion cell 13

2 A typical cathodic protection system 13

3 Potential and potential shift criteria for cathodic protection of

4 Typical CP measurement circuit . 24

5 Typical cathodic protection waveform . . 24

6 Pulse generator and waveform analyzer model WFA-1 25

7 Waveform analyzer/pulse generator measurement system 25

8 Cathodic protection analyzer Model 730 and SP1 Probe 26

9 Measurement circuit for cathodic protection analyzer Model 730 26

10 Laboratory CP system configuration 31

12 Steel plates used in laboratory experiment 32

13 Ceramic-coated rod anode used in laboratory tests 33

14 GoodAII rectifier (Tank 1) 34

15 VADC rectifier (Tank 3) 35

16 Hewlett Packard DC power source (Tank 4) 36

17 Photovoltaic panel (Tank 2) 36

18 Full-wave rectified waveform from Tank 1 37

19 On-potentials vs. time for Tank 1 38

20 Off-potentials vs. time for Tank 1 38

21 CP waveform from Tank 3 39

22 On-potential vs. time for photovoltaic panel for 48-hour period 42

23 On-potential vs. time for photovoltaic panel for 20-day period 42

24 Location of soil resistivity test points using Wenner 4-pin method 48

25 Location of current requirement test points 50

26 A typical ceramic-coated canister anode 51

27 Layout of installed cathodic protection system 52

28 Amplified oscilloscope trace CP waveform for UST at Fort Lee,

29 Typical elevated water tank showing ceramic-coated rod anode

1 Native potentials for experimental steel plates 33

2 Power sources used in laboratory tests 33

3 Potential voltage measurements for Tank 1 37

4 Potential measurements by reference cell position for Tank 1 37

5 Potential measurements for Tank 3 40

6 Potential measurements by reference cell position for Tank 3 40