Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
988
Ia =
c a
Ra
(1)
ic A c
Ia
(2)
0010-9312/00/000195/$5.00+$0.50/0
2000, NACE International
CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000
N=
im A c T
Cw
(3)
c = (R t A c ) i c + a
Ra
N
(4)
(5)
Ra Ac
N
(6)
Ra w =
im T S
C
Ra =
where Rt is the total circuit resistance. This relationship projects a linear interdependence between
c and ic, provided Rt, Ac, and a are constant. That
this is normally the case has been confirmed by
laboratory and field measurements.4-7,19 For
space frame type structures with multiple galvanic
anodes:
Rt
(7)
4L
ln
1
2L r
(8)
r 2 4L
ln r 1
2
(9)
989
Field Data
(1)
(2)
(3)
990
CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000
Analytical Model
An attempt was made to evaluate empirically the
current density vs time trends in Figures 2 through
4. This was based upon the expression:30-31
iL =
DnFc
x
t
+
Sh p
(10)
991
(16)
DnFc
x
[1 exp( kT m )] [9.119 10 7 + 9.686 10 6 log( T )
+
p
Sh
Nucleation and growth of calcium-rich deposits accompanied by a second decrease in ic (the power
law decay regimes in Figures 2 through 4).
To account for the time dependency of calcareous deposit nucleation and growth, Equation (10)
was multiplied by an expression of the form:
y = exp( kT m )
(11)
y = exp( kT m ) + A 1 exp( kT m ) or
(12)
* y = A + (1 A ) exp( kT m )
(13)
(14)
Trade name.
992
CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000
993
i c = 10( a + c ) T b
(17)
994
Td
Td
( a + c )
T b dT =
i c dT = 10
10( a + c ) Tdb +1
b +1
(18)
10( a + c ) Tdb
b +1
(19)
CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000
TABLE 1
Data-Fitting Parameters Used in Conjunction with Figures 12 and 13
Resistance ()
150
338
678
998
0.198
0.096
0.135
6.56 105
0.401
0.443
0.416
1.413
17.4
34.8
54.9
0.227
0.003
1.06 104
0.183
0.695
1.083
fA
Analysis Condition
0.131
0.147
0.247
0.384
Unconstrained
CONCLUSIONS
Current density decay with time data for cathodically polarized offshore structures and for laboratory
and field test steel specimens exhibited an initial
period during which current density was approximately constant or decreased at a relatively constant
rate followed by a more pronounced decay, which
conformed to a power law relationship. In most
0.062
0.146
0.208
0.1
0.1
1.57 108
Constrained,
0 fA 0.100
FIGURE 14. Warm water data from Figure 2 with the power fit best
fit and one and two standard deviation lines.
FIGURE 15. Cold/deep water data from Figure 2 with the power fit
best fit and one and two standard deviation lines.
995
TABLE 2
Curve-Fitting Parameters for Equation (17)
Warm/Shallow
Parameters
Cold/Deep Water
Parameters
0.233
3.130
0.410
0.229
2.820
0.226
a
b
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
FIGURE 16. Plot of Equation (19) for the warm and cold water cases
and c = 0, 1, and 2.
REFERENCES
1. NACE Standard RP0176, Corrosion Control of Steel-Fixed
Offshore Platforms Associated with Petroleum Production
(Houston, TX: NACE International, 1976).
TABLE 3
List of im Values as a Function of Td and for Different Degrees of Design Conservatism
Mean Current Density (mA/m2)
c=1
c=0
c=2
Time
(years)
Cold/Deep
Warm
Cold/Deep
Warm
Cold/Deep
Warm
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
109
76
65
59
56
53
51
55
29
22
18
16
15
14
185
129
110
100
94
89
86
95
49
37
31
28
25
23
314
218
186
170
159
151
145
162
84
63
53
47
43
40
TABLE 4
Listing of Proposed im for a Design Life of 20 Years at Three Levels
of Conservatism and the Percent Difference Compared to Current Practice
Warm Water
Degree of
Conservatism
None, c = 0
Intermediate, c = 1
High, c = 2
(A)
996
im (prop.)
(mA/m2)
% Difference Compared
to Reference 3(A)
16
28
47
71
49
15
Cold Water
im (prop.) % Difference Compared
(mA/m2)
to Reference 3(A)
56
94
159
38
4
77
A positive % difference indicated that im for the present method exceeds that from the current
recommended practice.
CORROSIONOCTOBER 2000
997