Examining The Controversy Surrounding The -850 mV CP Criteria

The 1992 version of the NACE RP0169 cathodic protection standard (CP) for
pipelines[1]introduced two criteria involving a minimum potential of -850mV with respect to
a saturated copper-copper sulfate reference electrode (cse).

The introduction came after about seven years of often rancorous debate between the
NACE T-10-1 committee on criteria and some pipeline industry representatives.

A -850mVcse polarized potential criterion, typically measured as an instant-off potential,

when the cathodic protection current is interrupted, was included along with the original
-850mVcse “current-applied” criterion. This was a dramatic departure from the previous
RP0169 versions, which had remained relatively unchanged dating back to the original
issue of the standard in 1969.

This change rekindled a long-standing contro¬versy regarding the proper interpretation of

the -850mVcse current-applied criterion, which has persisted to the present and
particularly since the SP0169 standard is again being revised. The original version of the
-850mVcse criterion referred to the pipe-to-soil voltage being measured with the cathodic
protection “current applied” and stipulated that “consideration” be given to voltage drops in
the measurement other than across the pipe-electrolyte boundary for valid interpretation of
the criterion.

The -850mVcse polarized potential criterion was inserted into the standard because,
un¬like the -850mVcse current-applied criterion, it was solidly anchored in the fundamental
science and because the term “consideration” in the current-applied criterion was vague
and non-specific. As would be expected this brought into question the efficacy of the
“current-applied” criterion, especially since the only other international cathodic protection
standard for land-based pipelines (ISO 15589-1)[2] specifies only a -850mVcse “instant-
off” potential criterion.

The practical application of the -850mVcse polarized potential criterion is a concern

primarily to gas distri¬bution companies, whose pipelines have cathodic protection
systems using direct connected anodes for which the current cannot be interrupted to
measure an instant-off or polarized potential. Representatives of many of these companies
continue to assert that the -850mVcse “current applied” criterion provides satisfactory
corrosion control, even though there is a paucity of published technical literature to support
these claims.

What Is A Criterion?

According to the Oxford dictionary[3] (paraphrased) a criterion is a principle or standard by

which a thing is judged. For cathodically protected pipelines the “thing” that is being judged
is the corrosion rate in order to determine the level of control corrosion and to prevent
pipeline failures due to external corrosion. Although the active corrosion rate can be
estimated from successive in-line in-spection (ILI) runs, this technique cannot be applied to
most distribution piping. Electrical resistance probes (ERP) are the only method, other
than direct examination, of estimating the actual corrosion rate on gas distribution piping
with direct connected galvanic anodes. Therefore, the indirect measurement of the pipe
potential relative to a potential criterion is the principle method of judging whether or not
there is satisfactory corrosion control. In this regard it was demonstrated by Mears and
Brown[4] in, 1938, that complete cathodic protection was achieved when the structure
cathodes were polarized electro-negatively to the most electronegative anode site on the
structure. Accordingly, a minimum amount of cathodic polarization is required to achieve
complete cathodic protection.

The -850mVcse Current-applied Criterion

This criterion, often called the on-potential criterion, originates in a 1933 paper by Robert
J. Kuhn[5], who expressed the opinion that the potential criterion was “probably in the
neighborhood of -0.850 volt” with respect to a saturated copper-copper sulfate reference
electrode. This view was derived primarily from Kuhn’s experience in applying cathodic
protection to prevent stray current corrosion on bare cast iron water mains in New Orleans
in the 1920s.

The Kuhn experience is typically the only literature reference that is used to support the
application of a -850mVcse current-applied criterion to steel pipe, regardless as to soil or
pipe conditions. In New Orleans, it would be reasonable to conclude that voltage drop
error in the potential measurements would have been small and that polarization would
have readily occurred, because of the in¬herent¬ly high water table, because of the low
elec¬trical resistivity of the ground water, and because of the shallow depth of the piping.
Thus, a current-applied potential of -850mVcse would be close in value to the polarized
potential and a significant amount of cathodic polariza¬tion would be embodied in the
potential difference measurement.

But, it does not follow that this criterion would be as effective in other soil conditions.
Indeed Kuhn, who subse¬quently spent many years applying cathodic protection to steel
oil and gas piping, concluded in 1950[6 ] that a more appropriate current-applied criterion
for coated steel pipelines was -1000mVcse, which is a substantial increase from the
-850mVcse on-potential criterion and, an indication that the -850mVcse current-applied
criterion was insufficient.

It is generally recognized that achieving a -850mVcse current-applied potential is not equal

to a -850mVcse polarized potential, since there will always be some voltage drop error in
the mea-surement. Nevertheless, there are probably some soil conditions where the
current-applied potential of -850mVcse includes at least 100mV of cathodic polariza¬tion,
which should result in a corrosion rate of less than 1 mpy and, which is comparable to
what would be expected when achieving a -850mVcse polarized potential criterion. Also, in
high resistivity soils, where the free corrosion rate is already low, a small amount of
polarization is all that is needed to obtain a corrosion rate of less than 1mpy.

Many companies, who claim that they are utilizing the -850mVcse current-applied criterion,
are actually using more negative values, such as -900mVcse, -950mVcse, or -1000mVcse,
thereby providing an allowance for some IR drop in the measurement. But even this
pro¬ce¬dure may not provide a level of protection equivalent to the -850mVcse polarized
potential criterion as revealed in a study conducted by Brian Holtsbaum[7] as illustrated in
Figure 1. (Note number of readings below protection and above 950 mV.)
On-potentials are compared to the polarized potentials using data collected on pipelines in
mid-western Canada where a -950mVcse on-potential criterion was being used. It is
apparent that in many instances an on-potential of -950mVcse or more electronegative
contained IR drops that, when subtracted from the on-potential value, resulted in polarized
potentials that were less negative than a polarized potential of -850mVcse. In these
instances the corrosion rate is unknown and the -950mVcse on-potential criterion does not
satisfy the -850mVcse current-applied criterion as intended when considering IR drops
other than across the structure-electrolyte boundary.

The original intent of the -850mVcse current-applied criterion was reiterated by L.F.
Heverly, chairman of the T-10-e work group on Criteria for Cathodic Protection for RP0169
in 1985[8]. He stated that the reason for the on-potential criterion was “to include the
voltage (IR) drop across the structure-electrolyte boundary, but not the voltage (IR) drop
through the soil for a valid interpretation of the voltage measurement”. Therefore, for valid
interpretation of this criterion a minimum potential of -850mVcse must be obtained after
removal of IR drops except across the structure-electrolyte boundary.

It is likely that when the current-applied criterion is interpreted in this manner, the resulting
corrosion rate would be comparable to the 100mV of cathodic polarization criterion and the
-850mVcse criterion (e.g. <1mpy). Unfortunately, users of the -850mVcse current-applied
criterion have rarely interpreted the criterion as intended, which has led to persistent
rhetoric to have this interpretation loosened without a clear expectation of the
consequences. Some cathodic protection practitioners have even claimed that IR drop in
the -850mVcse current-applied criterion can be ignored. The large IR drop component in
the Holtsbaum data is not unusual. A study by Thompson and Beaver[9] involved the
measurement of IR drop free pipe-to-soil potentials at 115 test sites in the U.S. They found
that 1) the on-potentials at 64% of the test locations contained IR drop greater than 30% of
the on-potential value and 2) the IR drop was less than 10% of the on-potential value at
only 19% of the test locations. Because of the extreme range of the IR drop on coated
pipelines, the level of cathodic protection cannot be determined by the on-potential alone.
The -850mVcse Polarized Potential Criterion

The -850mVcse polarized potential criterion, sometimes referred to as the instant-off

potential, arose from a seminal research investigation by Schwerdtfeger and McDorman at
the National Bureau of Standards in the early 1950s[10]. They reasoned that, in an air-free
soil, the cathode reaction would be the reduction of hydrogen ions, whose potential is
thermodynamically related to the soil pH. They then measured the corrosion potential of
steel coupons in various soils, ranging in pH from 2.9 to 9.6, and found that the corrosion
potential vs. pH line intersected the hydrogen line at a potential of -0.77Vsce (~
-850mVcse).
This intersecting potential meant that there could be no potential difference between a
cathode site and an anode site on the coupon, and hence no corrosion. When they then
applied this potential, measured as an instant-off potential by interrupting the current using
the Hickling method, to various steel coupons, they found that corrosion was “negligible”.
Moreover, they concluded that the -850mVcse potential was “ in agreement with the
practice for cathodic protection used by many corrosion engineers, in those cases where
the measurements are free of IR drop external to the electrical boundary of the corrosion
circuit”.

The interruption of the applied current, in order to eliminate the IR drop, was known to be
necessary to obtain a polarized potential, as explained in 1944 by Pearson[11] who stated,
“It is clear that any measurement of the polarization of a buried structure must be made to
differentiate between the effects of purely IR drop and the electrochemical results of the
current flow. Only the latter is of any use in controlling the rate of corrosion”.

In the early 1980s, cathodic protection tests were carried out by Barlo and Berry[12] on
steel coupons in both air-free and aerated soils using experimental cells that were
constructed to be identical to those used by Schwerdtfeger and McDorman. Their results
were predicated on achieving a general corrosion rate, but not a pitting corrosion rate, of
less than 1mpy. Among their conclusions was the verification of the effectiveness of the
-850mVcse polarized potential in all soils tested but also that the polarized potential to
prevent corrosion becomes less negative than -850mVcse as the free corrosion potential
becomes less negative.

The Barlo and Berry laboratory studies were succeeded by an American Gas Association
sponsored 5 year criteria field testing program involving 14 sites spread over three
different countries[13]. This study verified the effectiveness of the -850mVcse polarized
potential criterion for controlling corrosion on steel coupons, installed adjacent to a 10-foot
length of bare 24-inch diameter pipe, based on a general corrosion rate of less than 1mpy,
as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: General Corrosion Rate of the Coupons at All of the Sites as Influenced by the
Criteria and Related Parameters.

Comparison Of Criteria

How do the two -850mVcse criteria compare in corrosion control performance? Unlike the
-850mVcse polarized potential, there have been no studies where the current-applied
potential was held at -850mVcse on coated pipe in order to determine what would be an
expected corrosion rate. Clearly, a -850mVcse current-applied criterion could in practice be
effective in controlling the corrosion rate to less than 1mpy in some specific circumstances.
For instance, if the amount of polarization contained in the current-applied potential was
equal to or greater than 100mV or where the natural corrosion rate is very small.

But without knowing how much polarization has been obtained, the resulting corrosion rate
is unknown, which makes it difficult to determine the corrosion control effectiveness.
Therefore, when using the current-applied criterion, one must employ other measures,
such as ILI, corrosion rate probes and cathodic protection coupons to evaluate the
corrosion control efficacy. These additional measures increase the cost of operating the
cathodic protection system in terms of maintenance, materials, and monitoring, and hence
are seldom utilized, especially on distribution piping. This leaves the external corrosion
failure rate as the only indicator of the degree of corrosion control.

Mark Mateer[14] has probably produced the most comprehensive comparative study
involving the two -850mVcse criteria, based on cumulative corrosion failures over a 50-
year time period on a very large gas transmission system with thousands of miles of
piping. The results, shown in Figure 3, indicate a significant reduction in failures when the
-850mVcse instant-off criterion was adopted, after about 16 years of operation using the
-850mVcse on-potential criterion.
Figure 3: External Corrosion Failure Probability Plot for “Test Structure”.

His analysis of the data concluded that “The benefit of the ’off’ or polarized potential,
criterion was a five-fold decrease in the number of failures”. This result would likely be
typical if the -850mVcse polarized potential criterion was applied to gas distribution piping,
which typically experiences more corrosion failures than transmission piping and, where
the -850mVcse current-applied criterion has been used for many years. It is interesting to
note that the last several years of data for the -850mVcse polarized potential criterion
resulted in a negligible increase in corrosion failures which was attributed to the adoption
of an ILI program.

Summary

The claim that the -850mVcse current-applied criterion is as effective in controlling

corrosion as the -850mVcse polarized potential criterion is not borne out in the published
literature.

The effectiveness of the -850mVcse current-applied criterion ultimately relies on the

frequency of external corrosion failures, since the corrosion rate is generally unknown.
Perhaps there is pertinent data in the corrosion control records of pipeline companies to
support the tendentious claims for the continued use of the -850mVcse current-applied
criterion but, to this point, such data have not been presented. Thus, increasing the
volume of the rhetoric around the merits of this criterion is the only defense to its continued
use, despite the fact that there are techniques available to assess the level of protection in
terms of corrosion rate or polarization.

It is likely that the controversy and confusion between the merits of the two -850mVcse
criteria will continue as long as the current-applied criterion is included in the NACE
SP0169 standard and is not included in the ISO standard.

To persist in using a criterion when 1) the expected corrosion rate is unknown, 2) when the
original intent to remove the IR drop in the measurement except across the structure-
electrolyte boundary is ignored, and 3) to wait for external corrosion failures to assess the
corrosion control performance, exposes the public to an unnecessary risk and is therefore,
not sound engineering practice.

(end)

Author

R.A. (Bob) Gummow is a corrosion engineer and a NACE accredited Corrosion Specialist,
having over 40 years of experience in the application of cathodic protection to a wide
variety of structures in many industries. His recent activities have included pipeline
projects pertaining to induced AC corrosion and telluric currents. He is presently offering
corrosion consulting services through Correng Consulting Service Inc, Markham, Ontario.
Ph: 416-630-2600, ext. 245, e-mail: bgummow@corrosionservice.com.

References

1 Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping

Systems, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, RP0169-92, April 1992.

2 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Pipeline transportation systems – Cathodic

protection – Part 1 : Onshore pipelines, ISO 15589-1, 2003.

3 The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary, Thumb Index Edition, Oxford University
Press, 1991.

4 R.B. Mears and R.H. Brown, A Theory of Cathodic Protection, Trans Electrochemical
Society, 74, pp519-531, 1938.

5 R.J. Kuhn, Cathodic Protection of Underground Pipe Lines from Soil Corrosion, API
Proceedings, Nov. 1933, Vol. 14, p157.
6 R.J. Kuhn, Cathodic Protection on Texas Gas System, AGA, April 1950.

7 W. Brian Holtsbaum, Use of Historical IR drops for Interpretation of “ON” Potential

Criterion, NACE International, Northern Area Western Conference, Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Feb 2000.

8 L.F.Heverly, Discussion on “An Assessment of the Current Criteria for cathodic Protection
of Buried Steel Pipelines” MP, May 1985, p55.

9 N.G. Thompson, and J.A. Beaver, Measurement of IR-Drop Free Pipe-to-Soil Potentials
on Buried Pipelines, ASTM STP 1056, 1990, pp168-179.

10 W.J. Schwerdtfeger and O.N. McDorman, Potential and Current Requirements for the
Cathodic Protection of steel in Soils, NBS, vol.47, No.2, Research Paper 2233, August
1951, pp104-112.

11 J.M. Pearson, Concepts and Methods of Cathodic Protection, the Petroleum Engineer,
March 1944, p218.

12 T.J. Barlo and W.E. Berry, An Assessment of the Current Criteria for Cathodic
Protection of Buried Steel Pipelines, MP, Sept 1984, pp 9-16.

13 Field Testing the Criteria for Cathodic Protection of Buried Pipelines, AGA, Pipeline
Research Committee, PR-208-163, Feb 1994, p179.

14 M. Mateer, Using Failure Probability Plots to Evaluate the effectiveness of “Off” vs. “On”
Potential CP Criteria, MP, Sept 2004, pp22-24.