International Journal of Technology (2016) 3: 517-526

ISSN 2086-9614 © IJTech 2016

CASE STUDY FOR UPGRADING THE DESIGN OF IMPRESSED CURRENT

CATHODIC PROTECTION FOR TANK BOTTOMS AS AN EXTERNAL
CORROSION CONTROL METHOD

Kemal Gibran1*, Andi Rustandi1

1
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas
Indonesia, Kampus UI Depok, Depok 16424, Indoneisa

(Received: December 2015 / Revised: January 2016 / Accepted: February 2016)

ABSTRACT
Engineering design calculations for tank bottom sections, including direct current requirements
and voltage calculations, followed by additional structures, such as electrical grounding
systems, have already been successfully implemented and controlled in field conditions.
Furthermore, the effect of soil resistivity in layers, oxygen content and the pH value of the soil
against the disproportionate IR-Drop voltage, including its effect on potential distribution, have
been already successfully observed. Other influences, such as the depth and location of the
anode groundbed determination along with the establishment of impressed current cathodic
protection related to the main tools and equipment, such as external corrosion control methods,
have been defined as the most effective ways in order to control potential distribution against
the additional structures. Persuant to the verification results from the site located at Marangkayu, East
Borneo, it has been determined that high soil resistivity could cause error readings in accordance with
the accumulation results of the true readings and the IR-Drop voltage, since under real conditions, the
tank structure would have received less current flow from an anode compared to a lower result.
Naturally, a low pH value from the soil would decrease soil resistivity and enhance potential distribution
from the anodes to the tank structures. The results show that the cathodic protection required 10
additional anodes, (each one is of a tubular mixed metal oxide) with a DC supply at minimum
amperage of 154 Amps and a minimum voltage supply of 32 Volts. During the research, it was
identified that high soil resistivity above 3000 ohm-cm would cause error readings. Naturally,
acidic soil is in the region of pH 57 value, which would decrease soil resistivity and enhance
the potential distribution from the anode to the tank structure.

Keywords: Aboveground storage tank; Engineering design; Impressed current cathodic

protection; Potential mapping; Voltage drop

1. INTRODUCTION
Storage facilities for petroleum products usually consist of a collection of aboveground storage
tanks called a tank farm. The tank bottom is subject to the same corrosion issues as are buried
pipelines. The provision of cathodic protection to tank bottoms is, if anything, more critical than
is the provision of cathodic protection to pipelines. The performance of a cathodic protection
system is closely related to the achievement of a minimum protection level through the
structure to ascertain the potential electrolyte measurement (-850mV vs CSE). There are many
parameters which will effect the cathodic protection system and the current demand, such as
soil resistivity, coating performance, pH level, or the Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria (SRB) content

*Corresponding author’s email: [email protected], Tel. +62-21-7863510, Fax. +62-21-7872350

Permalink/DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v7i3.2824
518 Case Study for Upgrading the Design of Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
for Tank Bottoms as an External Corrosion Control Method

inside the electrolyte environment (Fontana, 2005). Hence, an investigative study is required to
observe the main characteristics which are explained above and are being implemented to the
system design of a cathodic protection system for external corrosion control in order to protect
the tank bottoms of the aboveground storage tanks located at Marangkayu, East Borneo,
Indonesia (T-1301 A/B/C/D and AB Rerun Tanks). The tank locations are seen in Figure 1
below.

Figure 1 Marangkayu location (Left), tank structures in Google map view (Right)

Based on the latest inspection data, almost all of tank structures are standing aboveground
below the minimum protection level. Existing cathodic protection systems, which are protecting
all of the tanks, have already been in operation for the past 8 years. However, the transformer
rectifier does not seem to be rated at the maximum condition. Based on this explanation, it is
necessary to investigate the reasons and then perform an upgrade for the cathodic protection
system for all of the tanks, which needs to last for the next 20 years. This research was
conducted to determine the engineering design system, including the installation of an
impressed current cathodic protection system at the T-1301 A/B/C/D and the AB Rerun Tank at
Company PT XX in East Borneo. The research was not only limited to the current demand for
all of the tanks, but also it analyzed external factors, such as the environment, which have a
significant effect on cathodic protection performance. As a part of the research verification
process, the most important external factor involved the investigation of anomaly data, which
occurred during the commissioning process.
This research aims to provide an improved understanding of the design of impressed current
cathodic protection systems. A single tank was modeled and protection was provided by a
series of anodes distributed around the circumference of the tank. The analysis was related to
the direct effect from the environmental conditions of the pH values, soil conditions, and O2
content on the oil and gas tank farm applications.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Mild carbon steel ASTM A-36 was used in this study as the material for the storage tank
structures. The anode type was a tubular mixed metal oxide. The flowchart of experimental
procedures is shown in Figure 2.
The research method started with a preliminary site survey for collecting primary data for the
structures. This step included determining variables for the actual soil resistivity values, based
on the proposed groundbed location.
Gibran & Rustandi 519

Literature Review

Site Survey

Potential Soil Resistivity Test Main Equipment

Measurement Inspection

North, East, West, 1,3,6,9 meters of Transformer Rectifier,

South Depth insulating joint

Engineering Design

Construction and Installation

Commissioning

Analysis of Anomali Data

Conclusion

Figure 2 Flow chart of experimental procedures

Additional steps involved assessing the structure to electrolyte potential measurements and
investigating the location of current cathodic protection equipment, such as the transformer
rectifier, the junction box and the anode groundbed. Furthermore, the engineering design and
anomaly data analysis was built as a part of the investigative research study. The soil
environment for all structures was considered to be free from Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria.
Verification parameters from this case study are limited to the structure to electrolyte potential,
related to environmental conditions such pH values and soil resistivity.

3. RESULTS
3.1. Design Proposed
Table 1 has defined the cathodic protection design parameters that were utilized within this
research.

Table 1 Design parameters

Current density Coating breakdown Soil resistivity Design Lifetime
For Steel Bottom Tank:
For A/B/C/D” Tank:
20 mA/m2
20% 1000 ohm-cm 20 years
For Copper Electrical
For AB Rerun: 100%
Grounding: 19mA/m2

Within this investigative research, there are several additional electrical grounding systems. It is
important to note that in the electrical grounding system, copper acts as the metal which is
automatically covered by the cathodic protection systems. Therefore, the addition of copper as a
material for part of the metal structure is deemed necessary (Peabody, 2007).
520 Case Study for Upgrading the Design of Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
for Tank Bottoms as an External Corrosion Control Method

Figure 4 General layout of existing lightning protection systems

The current requirement could be calculated by using Equation 1 as shown below (Peabody,
2007):
It = S/A × (Cd/1000) × Cb × (1+Sf) (1)
where;
It : Current Demand (A)
S/A : Surface Area (23,425.9 m2)
Cd : Current Density (20 mA/m2)
Cb1 : Coating breakdown (100% for AB Rerun Tank)
Cb2 : Coating breakdown (20% for A/B/C/D Tanks)
Sf : Safety factor (125%)
The total current requirement for protecting all of the structures is 154.3 A. (This design
parameter is already stated in Table 1). This impressed current cathodic protection system is
used to protect the bottom steel section of the T-1301 A/B/C/D and AB RERUN tanks and it
will utilize in total thirty-three (33) anodes in the system, of which 23 of them are defined as
existing anodes. The impressed current system was used for a shallow anode groundbed. There
are a total of 33 groundbeds which are being supplied by one (1) transformer rectifier. The
current output for each anode will be 4.89 A; therefore, the total current output for each
groundbed will be 161 A. The classification of the anode number is shown below in Table 2.
Further, the spots of EDS testing are depicted in Figure 1, as follows:

Table 2 General arrangement of anode distribution

No Structures Existing anode(ea) New anode(ea) Total(ea)
1 T-1301 A 5 2 7
2 T-1301 B 5 2 7
3 T-1301 C 5 2 7
4 T-1301 D 5 2 7
5 T-1301 AB RERUN 3 2 5
Total 23 10 33
Gibran & Rustandi 521

And by using Equation 2 as shown below (Peabody, 2007):

   8 La   (2)
R  .  Ln .    1 
a 2  . La   Øa  
[an
   8 Lb   (3)
 .  Ln .   1 
2  . Lb 
R 
b  Ø b  
[an
where;
Ra : Anode to backfill resistance (ohm)
Rb : Groundbed to soil resistance (ohm)
ρa : Soil resistivity ( ohm.cm)
ρb : Backfill resistivity (20 ohm.cm)
La : Anode length (m)
Lb : Length of canister (m)
Øa : Anode diameter (m)
Øb : Canister diameter (m)
The total resistance of the overall systems is defined as 0.1535 ohm, and the total direct current
voltage rating of the power supply is defined as 31.6 V. Therefore, the transformer rectifier
rating required for the new system will be 100V and 200, respectively.
3.2. Verification Results
The Native Potential Measurement has been taken and the results are as shown in Figure 5
below:

Figure 5 Native potential results [mV]

Based on above graph, it can be seen that all of potential structures still stand below the
minimum protection level (-850 mV). Afterwards, the transformer rectifier is energized and
allowed to run in the polarization process for approximately 48 hours. In order to observe the
polarization effect within the time frame mentioned, the “ON” Potential reading results were
taken periodically at 0-, 16-, 24-, 40-, and 48-hour intervals.
The representative polarization curves from the potential measurements taken at the Test
Stations are displayed in Figure 6 below:
522 Case Study for Upgrading the Design of Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
for Tank Bottoms as an External Corrosion Control Method

Figure 6 “ON” potential reading results [mV]

Based on Figure 6 above, the potential value for all structures would be enhanced significantly,
since the transformer rectifier was already activated in advance of the 16 hours. At this time
interval, the structure would be polarized to become more negative as an effect of the electron
penetration on the respective structures. The potential of each structure would be decreased
until it reached a protective potential (-850 mV) and it would become immune, as stated in the
pourbaix diagram. The immune condition occurs when the potential of the structure stands
below the corrosion potential (Ekorr) in the Brown Curve (Jones, 2005). After 48 hours, when
the potential value is already seen as a stagnant condition, it can be considered that all of
structures have already been perfectly polarized, and the process is called cathodic polarization.
In order to obtain the true reading of the potential (voltage drop free), the transformer
rectifier/current should be interrupted, using a current interrupter with intervals of 4 seconds
“ON” and 1-second “OFF” criteria, in which the 1-second “OFF” criteria is defined as the
true/voltage drop free potential reading. Thereafter, the value of polarization could be
calculated as shown in Equation 4:
Polarization = Instant Off Potential-Native Potential (4)
The representative final potential graphs from the potential reading results are displayed in
Figure 7 and the quantitative data are as shown in Table 3.
Potential Measurement at Test Point

1200

1000
Lower Limit
(-850 mV)
Potential (-mV)

800 Native

On
600
Instant Off
400
Polarization
200
Polarization
0 limit (-100
mV)
T-1301 A T-1301 B T-1301 C T-1301 D AB Rerun Tank
Structure

Figure 7 “ON and IR free” potential reading result [mV]

As per Figure 7 above, it can be seen that all of structures already stand on the minimum
protection level (-850mV), furthermore, the minimum -100 mV polarization criteria also has
been
A1
successfully achieved.

B1
Gibran & Rustandi 523

Table 3 Final potential reading results

Structure to electrolyte potential reading (m V)
No Structures Area Instant Voltage
Natural “On” Polarization
“off” drop
1 T-1301 A TP-01 -623 -1270 -897 373 -274
North -609 -1463 -887 576 -278
South -660 -1174 -1087 87 -427
East -604 -1270 -1011 259 -407
West -641 -1217 -936 281 -295
2 T-1301 B TP-02 -641 -1197 -871 326 -230
North -632 -974 -946 28 -314
South -632 -1585 -875 710 -243
East -587 -1242 -1000 242 -413
West -631 -1124 -945 179 -314
3 T-1301 C TP-03 -594 -1046 -855 191 -261
North -540 -948 -856 92 -316
South -646 -981 -874 107 -228
East -554 -942 -853 89 -299
West -579 -932 -889 43 -310
4 T-1301 D TP-04 -641 -1096 -911 185 -270
North -633 -1340 -987 353 -354
South -632 -1218 -993 225 -361
East -621 -1453 -972 481 -351
West -636 -1251 -927 324 -291
5 AB-Rerun Tank TP-05 -708 -1135 -867 268 -159
North -662 -1244 -883 361 -221
South -660 -1164 -864 300 -204
East -649 -1100 -883 217 -234
West -653 -1106 -875 231 -222

4. DISCUSSION
The general profiles of the soil layers of all tank structures at Company PT XX in East Borneo
are typical, and has been shown in Figure 8 below:

Figure 8 General profile soil layer of aboveground storage tank at PT XX, East Borneo

Based on Figure 8 above, at the soil layer ranging from 0-2 meters deep, which has been
defined as the sand layer, the sand is categorized as a high resistivity electrolyte, as per field
data results. The soil resistivity result is high; therefore, it is not recommended for groundbed
524 Case Study for Upgrading the Design of Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
for Tank Bottoms as an External Corrosion Control Method

locations (Atkins et al., 2002). At the soil layer ranging from 25 meters deep and in
accordance with requirements for a strengthened civil structure for an aboveground storage
tank, this layer has to be filled with compacted soil, which contains a sand/clay soil type. This
type of soil is still categorized as a high resistivity electrolyte, since it contains less ions or salt,
which functions as a conductor path. For the next soil layer (below 5 meters), this layer has to
be filled with humus or conductive ions for the current path. This type of soil is categorized as a
low resistivity soil and is recommended for groundbed locations (Atkins et al., 2002). This is
the reason why the anodes only would get placed in the depths below 5 meters, for at this depth,
the maximum anode performance is expected to be obtained perfectly. Related to the above
explanation, the potential mapping for all of the aboveground structures for the tanks is as
shown below in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Potential mapping result of the aboveground storage tanks

There are anomaly conditions wherein not all of the sections of the structures received a
uniform distribution potential. The lower value of the instant “OFF” potential was received by
B, C, and AB Rerun Tanks. The performance of the distributed-anode configuration is
constrained by the difference between the ohmic resistance from the anode to the periphery and
from the anode to the center of the tank bottom (Atkins et al., 2002). Based on the soil
resistivity results, the soil resistivity values around B, C, and AB Rerun Tanks are higher when
compared to the another tanks, which is 1130 ohm-cm for the 9-meter depth. Soil with high
resistivity normally contains less ions or conductive substances. This condition will cause the
instant “OFF” potential reading to be lower than others, especially in regards to the ohm law,
wherein the current has an inverse function in relation to the soil resistance. The higher soil
resistance will create more barrier for current flowing into the tank structure (Lambert et al.,
2008). Higher soil resistivity also will cause error readings, since we know that “ON” Potential
value is the accumulative result of the true “OFF” Potential reading and the voltage drop as
shown in Equation 5:

V structure= V true + voltage drop (5)

Gibran & Rustandi 525

The voltage drop is defined as the voltage error, due to the additional ohmic resistance, which is
caused by the environmental resistivity or the point to point distance measurement to the
structure (Lambert et al., 2008). High soil resistivity will cause a higher voltage drop value. As
shown in Figure 9 above, the average voltage drop value at B, C and AB Rerun Tanks are
above -300 mV, which is the reason why the “ON” Potential value at B C, and AB Rerun tanks
has been stated at very high levels. The O2 content at soil layer has no effect on the potential
distribution at the tank (Riemer & Orazem, 2005), The average values are still far away from
the cathodic limit of -1.2 V (copper/copper sulfate), which is a point where hydrogen evolution
is a significant concern (Riemer & Orazem, 2005). However, depletion of the oxygen content of
the soil resulted in adequate levels of protection. The calculated range of potential on the entire
tank bottom fell to readings between -0.85 V(copper/copper sulfate) and -1.2 V(copper/copper
sulfate). The principal difference between the two cases is that for the depleted oxygen
distribution, the potential distribution was much closer to being uniform and the entire tank
bottom was protected. The uniform oxygen distribution case, corresponding to a newly-filled
tank, clearly represents a worse-case scenario. It is easier to provide protection when the soil
below the tank is depleted of oxygen (Riemer & Orazem, 2005).
The average pH value at the A and D tanks have a range in-between 47.4, whereas at C, D,
and AB Rerun tanks, they have an average pH value above 8.2. The relationship between pH
and corrosivity is about moisture content, cat-ion content, and an-ion content. As a conductor,
the lower pH value with a range in-between 27 would cause more corrosive conditions (Telles
et al., 2000). Hence, the corrosion rate would be enhanced. At a pH 7 value, the corrosion rate
would be neutral, and for a pH value above the range of 78, the corrosion rate would be
decreased. A lower pH value would make the soil resistivity lower and this condition would
enhance current distribution from the anode to the structure (Kroon, 2005).

5. CONCLUSION
The key polymorphous cathodic protection upgrading design for corrosion control of steel tank
bottoms in the oil and gas industry have been identified to be as follows: the current and voltage
output demand to protect all of structures is defined as 154 Amperes and 40 Volts, respectively.
Further results show that higher soil resistivity above 3000 ohm-cm will create disturbances for
the current flowing from the anodes. This will cause a lower instance of “OFF” Potential
readings. Hence, it means that higher soil resistivity above 3000 ohm-cm will cause error
readings, especially in regard to the accumulation potential value between the true “OFF”
Potential reading and the voltage drop, in which the voltage drop has a connectivity with
environmental resistivity. In another study of the electrolyte mechanism influence, it was
already found that lower pH 57 value was caused by lower resistance, which enhanced the rate
of current distribution from the anodes to the structures.

6. REFERENCES
Atkins, C.P., Lambert, P., Coull, Z.L., 2002. Cathodic Protection of Steel Framed Heritage
Structures. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Durability Building
Materials Components, Australia, pp.11–15
Fontana, M., 2005. Corrosion Engineering. McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., Hoboken, New
Jersey, USA
Jones Deny, A., 2005. Principles and Prevention of Corrosion. McGraw Hill Book Company,
Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Kroon, D.H., 2005. Cathodic Protection of Aboveground Storage Tank Bottoms. Materials
Performance ,Volume 33, pp.26–30
Lambert, P., Mangat, P.S., Flaherty, F.J., Wu, Y.Y., 2008. Influence of Resistivity on Current
526 Case Study for Upgrading the Design of Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
for Tank Bottoms as an External Corrosion Control Method

and Potential Distribution of Cathodic Protection Systems for Steel-framed Masonry

Structures. Corr Eng Sci Tech, Volume 43, pp.16–22
Peabody, A.W., 2007. Control of Pipeline Corrosion. NACE International The Corrosion
Society, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Riemer, D.P., Orazem, M.E., 2005. A Mathematical Model for the Cathodic Protection of Tank
Bottoms. Journal of Corrosion Science, Volume 47, pp. 849–868
Telles, J., Wrobel, W., Mansur, J., 2000. Boundary Elements for Cathodic Protection Problems.
Boundary Elements VII, Volume 1, pp. 63–71