IBP1119_19

POTENTIAL DROP DEVELOPMENT FOR

INTERNAL CORROSION DETECTION
Victor G. Silva1, Gil Roberto Pinheiro2, José Antonio
da Cunha Ponciano Gomes3

Copyright 2019, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019, held
between 03 and 05 of September, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the
Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the
author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is
presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its
Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Pipeline
Conference and Exhibition 2019.

Abstract

Internal corrosion is one of the main problems that affect the integrity of process plants. Due
the access difficulties to the internals, it is very difficult to know the interior state of pipelines
and equipment. Some non-intrusive techniques, based on ultrasonic and electromagnetic
methods have been used, to help in inspection and monitoring. However, these techniques have
some constraints, mainly in resolution. As will presented in this paper, the potential drop
technique could provide equivalent advantages as the commonly used methods to get the
required resolution for corrosion monitoring or inspection of cracks due to SCC. Some
commercial equipment, based on potential drop using direct current (DCPD), have been used
for corrosion monitoring, providing good resolution in comparison with ultrasonic methods.
However, in the presence of cracks or localized corrosion (pitting) processes, the commercial
DCPD equipment presents some limitations and errors, due to small size of these kind of
defects. This paper will present some laboratory test results, showing that both DCPD with
specific signal processing and ACPD (alternating current potential drop) could bring good
results with higher resolution, sharing the advantages of the non-intrusive techniques.

Corrosion, monitoring, detection

1. Introduction

Corrosion is one of the major problems that affect pipeline integrity. Both internal and
external corrosion causes several problems and in many times are difficult to avoid because of
the limitations of monitoring and inspection tools. It is because almost all the monitoring and
inspection systems are intrusive and/or spot [1], [2].
Localized corrosion and stress corrosion crack are two examples of damage that is very
difficult to monitor with the monitoring tools currently used. For these reasons, it would be
helpful the development of a non-intrusive corrosion monitoring technique that be able to cover
an area to try investigate localized corrosion damages both internally and externally.
Potential drop technique could be used for this purpose due to the possibility to monitor
internal and external corrosion with a non-intrusive device. The use of alternating current

______________________________
1
Master, Corrosion Engineer - Petrobras/CENPES
2
Ph.D, Electrical Engineer – State University of Rio de Janeiro
3
Ph.D., Metallurgy Engineer – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

potential drop (ACPD) could bring some advantages that direct current do not have and in some
cases, using DCPD could be sufficient for an adequate monitoring. This paper brings a brief
review about potential drop technique and some laboratory developments [3].

2. Potential Drop (PD) Technique

When an electrical current is injected in a conducting plate, it is possible to measure a

potential difference (potential drop - PD) between two points located at the plate surface [4].
Additionally, if there is any defect as corrosion metal loss or cracks, for example, the current
density will vary, and a corresponding change will be observed in the potential drop
measurements. The Figure 1 presents the current injected to a plate, using electrodes 1 and 4,
showing the influence of a defect. The Figure 1-(a) is a non-defective plate and Figure 1-(b) is
a defective plate. The potential drop, measured between the electrodes 2 (fixed electrode) and
3 (mobile electrode), can be used to detect and to determine the defect geometry.

Figure 1: Current density on a plate, showing the influence of a defect on the current density (J).

Potential drop technique can be applied with direct current (DCPD) or alternating
current (ACPD). The main advantage in using DCPD is the absence of the skin effect, however,
in this measurement is required higher current levels to improve the signal to noise ratio (SNR)
that brings some operational problems as the need of large cables, special connectors and the
Joule heating effect [5].
Using ACPD in this kind of measurements, the SNR is improved with the use of specific
equipment like a lock-in amplifier [6], with no need to use higher current levels. Therefore, it
is possible to achieve good SNR with lower current minimizing the problems observed in
DCPD. On the other hand, in ACPD the current flows more concentrated in the surface where
it is applied. This phenomenon, called skin effect, is material and frequency dependent [7].
The skin depth is the depth that alternating current flows through wall thickness and for
internal corrosion monitoring this skin depth shall be larger than the wall thickness. To achieve
the material internal surface with alternating current is required lower frequency and this
technique called quasi-DC potential drop combines the advantages of DCPD and ACPD.

2
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

3. Methodology

Tests were performed in an AISI 304 stainless steel plate (300mm x 300mm x 10 mm)
with a square defect (40 mm x 40 mm) in the center of the plate to evaluate the DCPD and
ACPD measurements with different current levels. Figure 2 shows the setup developed to
perform the DCPD and ACPD tests. With this setup, it is possible to measure the potential drop
in a line with only two probes, using a controlled motor.

(a) (b)

Figure 2: Laboratory setup for DCPD and ACPD measurements.

It was used a power supply model Kepco BOP 20-20 for both tests. DCPD
measurements were made with a high-resolution voltmeter model Agilent 3458-A, and for
ACPD was used the lock in amplifier model SR830. All the measurements were made in the
middle line of the plate, exactly in the center of the defect.

4. Results and Discussion

Figure 3 shows DCPD measurements for 10 A showing that for this current level DCPD
works very well. The laboratory measurements were compared with finite element analysis
performed in Abaqus® and the results are very similar.

Figure 3: DCPD measurements for 10A and compared with a finite element model. Vertical lines indicate the
defect borders.
3
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

In Figure 4 it is observed that for low current levels as 0,1 A DCPD do not show the
same behavior because of the low SNR. Even for 1 A the DCPD measurements do not present
the linearity as ACPD (quasi DC). These results confirm the need of higher current level to
achieve a good SNR in DCPD.

(a) (b)

Figure 4: DCPD x ACPD measurements for 1A and 0,1 A.

5. Conclusions

This paper shows the main differences between DCPD and ACPD in a brief review and
in some laboratory tests.
DCPD is a reliable technique for corrosion monitoring however, it requires higher
current level that brings others disadvantages as the Joule heating effect.
It is possible to conclude that ACPD has great potential to be an internal corrosion
monitoring technique using low frequency in a quasi-DC potential drop.

6. References

[1] V. G. Silva, G. L. Vaz, P. A. Ferreira, A. Ramus and N. L. d. Almeida, "EVALUATION OF NON-

INTRUSIVE SYSTEMS FOR INTERNAL CORROSION MONITORING," in Rio Pipeline Conference
2017, Rio de Janeiro, 2017.
[2] NACE International Task Group 390, TECHNIQUES FOR MONITORING CORROSION AND
RELATED PARAMETERS IN FIELD APPLICATIONS, Houston: NACE International Publication
3T199, 2013.
[3] G. Sposito, ADVANCES IN POTENTIAL DROP TECHNIQUES FOR NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING,
Londres: Imperial College London, 2009.
[4] N. Bowler, "THEORY OF FOUR-POINT DIRECT-CURRENT POTENTIAL DROP MEASUREMENTS
IN A METAL PLATE," Research in Nondestructive Evaluation, pp. 29 - 48, 2006.
[5] J. Corcoran, C. M. Davies, P. Cawley and P. B. Nagy, "A quasi-DC Potential Drop Measurement System
for Materials Testing," IEEE, 2019.
[6] E. T. F. d. Santos, ANÁLISE E DESENVOLVIMENTO DE UM AMPLIFICADOR LOCK-IN DIGITAL,
Salvador: Universidade Federal da Bahia, 2002.
[7] G. Sposito, P. Cawley and P. Nagy, "POTENTIAL DROP MAPPING FOR THE MONITORING OF
CORROSION OR EROSION," NDT&E International, pp. 394-402, 27 Março 2010.