NACE INTERNATIONAL CATHODIC PROTECTION TRAINING & CERTIFICATION NEWS
Summer 2012
When Is Corrosion Not Corrosion?
By John H. Fitzgerald III, FNACE, MP Technical Editor
T
his question reminds me of the
old conundrum, “When is a
door not a door? When it’s ajar!”
Well, it’s still a door even if it’s ajar.
But there are times
when what looks to
be corrosion is really something quite
different, and you
are likely to run
into some situations
like this as you proceed in your career.
I have and here is an example of
a client who just knew there was
a corrosion problem and it really
wasn’t. This type of experience
shows why it’s important to put
on your thinking cap and dig into
what might be the problem.
This involved what appeared
to be severe external corrosion of
copper tie-ins to a cast iron water
distribution main. The water utility discovered that extensive water
leakage was occurring along one
newly piped street after only about
a year of operation. Water person-
nel had excavated a couple of leak
sites and reported that the copper
fittings at the service line connections to the main were badly corroded and water was squirting out
from all the holes in the fittings.
They asked us to investigate the
problem, so off I went to see what
was the matter.
I looked into the two excavations
and sure enough, the copper fittings looked terrible, all corroded
into a lace pattern and the water
was merrily streaming from every
hole. My first thought was that the
water was corrosive, but I was told
that there were fittings like these
all over town and there had been
no problems anywhere else. Now
when you are told something like
that, you begin to get suspicious
about the problem area.
My first thought was that there
might be some kind of stray current in the neighborhood that was
eating up the fittings. These were
flare fittings, having a flared end
on the tubing that fits over a con-
There are times when what looks to be corrosion
is really something quite different, and you are
likely to run into some situations like this as you
proceed in your career.
Summer 2012
vex fitting in the receptacle and is
secured in place by a long flared
nut that squeezes the tubing tightly
against the receptacle that in turn
is screwed into the main. I knew
that these fittings are good electrical conductors, so how could stray
current discharge from them unless, perhaps, the screw connection to the main had become high
resistance? So I took pipe-to-soil
potentials from the house to the
main along these two services and
several others where leakage was
evident. The data showed no evidence of any interference near the
main and the readings were typical of what one would expect on
Continued on p. 3
IN THIS ISSUE...
When Is Corrosion Not Corrosion?....... 1
Working Cathodic Protection Field
Exhibited at CORROSION 2012.... 4
Call for NACE Instructors..................... 5
The NACE Corrosion Network—A Free
Technical Resource........................... 6
NACE CP Course Schedule.................. 9
CP-Related Technical Committees..... 10
CP-Related NACE Reports and
Standards........................................ 11
Stay Current
1
2
Stay Current
Summer 2012
Continued from p. 1
copper service lines connected to a
cast iron main.
Another reason corrosion didn’t
make sense was the favorable anode-cathode ratio of the copper to
the cast iron. Years ago a lot of people thought that copper was quite
resistant to soil corrosion. What
wasn’t realized was that when copper is connected to cast iron, the
copper receives cathodic protection (CP) from the iron. The copper was a small cathode connected
to a large iron anode, so generally
the effect on the iron was negligible.
Some water companies, however,
discovered that the iron was being
adversely affected and they overcame continued deterioration by
tape-coating every new copper service. That solved the problem because the cathode area was reduced
to just the holidays in the tape.
Since there didn’t seem to be any
reasonable cause for the corrosion,
I decided we needed to look at a
couple more sites. I asked the crew
to dig them out and sure enough we
found the same thing. The absence
of stray current and the presence of
at least a little CP left me wondering
if this was really corrosion.
Now when your test data don’t
show what’s wrong, it’s time to
have a closer look. So I put on my
boots and got down in the ditch to
see what I could find. I had good
waterproof gloves on, and took
hold of a leaking fitting to see if
I could move it. Much to my delight it moved! I was able to back
Summer 2012
it off a bit, and then tighten it several turns until it stopped. Ah-ha!
Could it be simply a loose fitting?
Sure enough, I found the same
situation in the other excavations.
The problem was that the flare fittings had been left hand-tight during installation and never tightened up properly. The water had
simply leaked through the threads
of the flare nut and then eroded
its way through the nut itself, and
produced an appreciable leak. The
water folks dug out the remaining
leak sites, replaced the attachments to the main properly, and
the problem was solved. It wasn’t
corrosion after all! SC
Stay Current
3
Working Cathodic Protection Field Exhibited at
CORROSION 2012
By Kathy Riggs Larsen, MP Associate Editor
O
f the many technical and
educational resources, public
awareness activities, and networking
opportunities produced by NACE
International, its annual conference is one of the top reasons so
many corrosion professionals thrive
in their careers. This year, approximately 6,000 corrosion professionals
representing industry, government,
and academia gathered at the Salt
Palace Convention Center in Salt
Lake City, Utah, to reap the benefits of CORROSION 2012 and
its outstanding technical program,
committee meetings, seminars and
lectures, networking venues, and the
largest corrosion exhibition in the
world. Participants came together
from all over the globe to discuss the
latest technologies and issues and
bring the latest corrosion knowledge
back to their workplace.
The convention included a technical program that featured 36 technical symposia with 443 paper presentations covering all areas of corrosion
control, four Research in Progress
symposia with more than 60 presentations, and 195 technical committee meetings, 18 networking events,
and a sold-out exhibit hall. Timely
industry topics including pipelines,
tanks, and underground systems; oil
and gas production; petroleum refining; the U.S. Department of Defense; highways and bridges; water
and waste water; power generation;
maritime; materials selection and design; and coatings were covered in 12
industry tracks.
New in the Exhibit Hall this year
was a 30 by 30 ft (9 by 9 m) fullscale mock-up of a typical cathodic
protection (CP) field site where
attendees could take real-time,
4
Stay Current
structure-to-electrolyte potential
measurements and soil resistivity
measurements, and perform other
CP-related tests. The CP field featured several pipe configurations
and test stations that would be
found in a typical CP field used in
a CP Tester or CP Technician certification course, with all instrumentation typical of what is used in
actual field sites.
The mock-up field included an
L-shaped bare pipeline and a coated pipeline that crossed it, with the
coated pipe connected to magnesium anodes. Both pipes had test
stations connected to a rectifier.
The field also included an isolated
casing, complete with vents at the
end, which could be shorted to the
pipeline; and two pipeline segments
separated by an aboveground NPS
2 insulating flange that could be
bypassed.
Many NACE CP instructors and
senior CP professionals volunteered
to walk attendees through the test
site and describe the pipe configurations, show participants how the
equipment worked, demonstrate
how the tests were conducted, and
explain what they expected to see
in the measurements and why the
measurements would change when
conditions were altered. Participants were able to rotate through
four test stations in about 20 minutes and perform tasks such as pipe
locating, electrical isolation testing
and sort locating, road casing testing, rectifier testing, interrupted
potential measurements, and soil
resistivity measurements.
The field was constructed on the
existing concrete floor of the Exhibit Hall without hauling in and
removing truckloads of soil. This
was accomplished with electronics and wire pipelines underneath
the artificial turf. The circuits
were designed by Brian Holtsbaum
(DNV), and the electronics were
preconstructed and later assembled
by Michael Tarlton (Russell Corrosion) and NACE staff. Don Vickers
(Vickers Inspection & Consulting,
LLC) and Richard Vandergriff
(Zeeco, Inc.) welded and coated the
casing vents and aboveground insulating flange. SC
Summer 2012
Call for NACE Instructors
A
t a time of unprecedented
growth for NACE International—membership now exceeds
29,000 worldwide—NACE education and training programs and
courses are rapidly increasing to
keep pace with industry requirements. As much of the world’s
infrastructure nears or reaches
the end of its design life, qualified corrosion professionals are
in high demand to design and
execute effective corrosion control systems using best engineering practices. NACE training and
certifications are being specified
Summer 2012
more often and in more places as
companies work to prevent safety, environmental, and economic
problems that result from corrosion-induced failures.
As NACE increases its course
offerings, the need for new instructors from both inside and
outside North America is growing to broaden the current strong
network of training professionals.
Becoming a NACE instructor involves a series of steps and qualifications that vary according to
the course taught. Once qualified,
instructors may get assignments in
various parts of the world.
For information on how to become a NACE instructor, contact
NACE Senior Education Manager
Karla Smith at +1 281-228-6230 or
e-mail: karla.smith@nace.org. SC
Stay Current
5
The NACE Corrosion Network
A Free Technical Resource
I
n the late 1990s, NACE International established an e-mail-based
network of corrosion professionals
for the purpose of sharing technical information. Open to all interested corrosion professionals, the free
NACE Corrosion Network (NCN)
offers the opportunity for subscribers
to post technical questions and receive expert answers from all over the
world. Today, there are approximately 1,500 members of the NCN, and
1,000 members on the later-released
NACE Coatings Network, a list server specific to coatings questions.
To join the networks, simply go to
the NACE Web site at www.nace.
org, click on the Corrosion Central
link, and then Online Corrosion
Community List Servers. You will
reach a subscriber page and access
to archived questions and answers
back to 2002.
Following is sampling from the
NCN on questions and answers related to cathodic protection.
Deep anode groundbed
current distribution
What should be the normal difference in current distribution
(amperage) of six anodes installed
in a deep groundbed? Is there any
reference available to confirm this?
Q
The top and bottom anodes
may show higher current discharge than the middle four anodes
because of the end effect on the coke
column.
A
Monitoring alternating current
corrosion
Mitigation of overhead highvoltage alternating current
(AC) that is parallel to a pipeline is
Q
6
Stay Current
quite common. What are monitoring methods and facilities for the
corrosion control system? How do
we determine whether the mitigation method is effective? Can AC
corrosion be monitored with corrosion coupons?
It is likely that corrosion coupons are the most effective
monitoring facility for this situation.
I would suggest using electrical resistance (ER) probes buried alongside the affected pipeline, with cabling incorporated into a standard
test post. In this way, the ER probe
could also serve as a polarization
coupon. This arrangement has been
in use for some time, and is now
gaining wider acceptance. Use a 10mm2 coupon. As long as the current
flow to earth is less than 3 mA AC,
corrosion is negligible.
A
High IR drops
We have taken “on” and “instant-off” readings with permanent reference electrodes placed below an aboveground tank. The “on”
reading is as high as 13,000 mV vs.
copper/copper sulfate (Cu/CuSO4)
Q
reference electrode (CSE) and the
“instant off” is only –708 mV vs.
CSE. We think this big IR drop is
caused by some problems during installation of the reference electrodes.
We are going to drill some test
points around the tank in order to
take these measurements directly to
the ground with portable reference
cells. To use the 100-mV CSE shift
criterion, I need to disconnect the
copper grounding mat and measure
the open circuit potential of the steel.
Have you seen this high of an “on”
potential before? Is this possible?
I have seen cases like yours in
situations in which the builder
installed reference electrodes too
close to anodes around the tank.
Also, I saw a case in which the reference electrode was in contact with a
flexible polymer anode under a tank.
A
If there is no way to test the
calibration of the electrodes, you
must use the 100-mV shift criteria.
Therefore, the rectifier must be turned
off until the potentials on the CSEs
stabilize and the tank is depolarized.
Continued on p. 8
A
Summer 2012
Summer 2012
Stay Current
7
Continued from p. 6
There is no limit to the “on”
potential. It has nothing to do
with the polarization, since it incorporates the IR drop as you indicate.
If the cell is close to the anode it
can be very high. The “instant off”
potential shows the polarization potential.
Did you wait for the depolarized
potential? That will tell you if the
tank is protected. A measurement of
–0.708 V CSE is not too low if the
depolarized potential is –0.608 V
CSE or lower (more positive).
A
Remember to involve the se-
A curity group before you dis-
connect the tank from its grounding system. If the weather is good,
without any heavy, dark clouds,
that could be done without any
hazard, as you have a minimum
chance of discharges. The disconnecting procedures should be
followed according to your company’s specifications.
When you disconnect the mat,
A the potentials will change. You
must record the “instant off” and
depolarized potentials also with the
mat disconnected as well. Consider
using solid state or polarization cells
to provide the mat connection, if required.
Is the tank full or only partially so? I have measured
high “on” potentials of about 7
V vs. CSE and “off ” values at
about 700 mV in these conditions.
When the tank is almost empty,
the tank bottom is separated from
the ground, and you will have air
between the tank bottom and the
ground. This could be the reason
for the high “on” potential. When
you are checking the potential of
an aboveground tank, always take
note of the level of the liquid in
the tank.
A
8
Stay Current
Shorted casing with carrier
pipeline
At road crossings, a transfer
pipeline has steel casings. A
zinc ribbon anode is installed on the
process pipe for cathodic protection
(CP), in case water enters the casings. During testing, we found that
the zinc ribbons are in contact with
casing pipe. Following is some key
information:
Q
• The carrier pipe is totally buried.
• An impressed current CP system
is installed for the carrier pipe.
• Polyethylene (PE) coating is used
on the casing’s external surface.
• PE three-layer coating is used on
the carrier pipeline.
• Heat shrinkable caps are used at
the ends and spacers help isolate
the pipeline from the casing.
• Soil conditions are normal, without any water penetration.
• A zinc ribbon anode is installed
over the carrier pipeline inside
the casing (i.e., straight anode
ribbon runs over the pipeline
and a thermit weld ribbon ends
with the pipeline).
• Vents are available on the casing.
Is this situation harmful for the
pipeline?
Your situation is a very good
A example of why I do not rec-
ommend a zinc ribbon anode inside
a casing. It does very little good,
and has a much higher chance of
shorting your pipeline to the casing. With the zinc ribbon on top of
the line, it only helps the pipeline if
the piping and the anode are completely immersed in water. Even
then, shielding of the bottom half
can be an issue depending on the
diameter of the line. The zinc ribbon will be used up in a few months
to a few years anyway, depending
on the exposure to water, so there is
very little to gain, and, as you have
just discovered, much to lose.
I see nothing wrong except
A that zinc ribbon should not
have been in contact with the casing; the internal side of the casing being bare (presumably), zinc
will be consumed quickly if water
does get in.
Corrosion engineers need
tell civil and pipeline
engineers about the operational issues and potential failures
that occur with cased crossings.
We should all do our utmost to
persuade pipeline designers and
railroad authorities that cased
crossings are a poor idea, and
f ight hard on any new pipeline
installations to eliminate them
from the project!
A to
We specifically discourage
pipeline road crossings of underground pipelines by
design. It does more harm than
good in the long run. We prefer
the pipeline to cross any road at
a minimum specified depth, which
is calculated based on the estimated traffic load.
For a normal road, a concrete
slab is recommended (minimum
300-mm thick) at the grade level.
For highways, we specify a specially designed culvert around
the pipe, with the bottom open
to ground to make the CP system
effective. The annular space between the culvert and the pipe is
filled with sand. The space is designed in such a way that the sand
can be removed and the inspectors
can walk through for necessary visual inspection.
A cased
There would be more value
A in increasing the wall thick-
ness of the carrier than installing a
casing. However, we have to get rid
of a contractor’s fear that we will
make him pull the carrier back if
some slight coating damage occurs
during insertion. SC
Summer 2012
NACE CATHODIC PROTECTION COURSE SCHEDULE
JULY–NOVEMBER 2012
Coatings in Conjunction with Cathodic
Protection
October 7-12
Houston, TX
October 15-20
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
CP Interference
July 29-August 3
Houston, TX
September 3-8
Bogota, Colombia
September 30-October 5
Houston, TX
CP1—Cathodic Protection Tester
November 3-8
Houston, TX
November 3-8
Dammam, Saudi Arabia
November 5-10
Buenos Aires, Argentina
November 10-15
Fahaheel, Kuwait
July 22-27
Houston, TX
November 10-15
Houston, TX
September 9-14
Houston, TX
November 10-15
Dammam, Saudi Arabia
CP2—Cathodic Protection Technician
CP2—Cathodic Protection Technician—
Maritime
July 2-7
Johannesburg, South Africa
July 15-20
Houston, TX
July 2-7
Maracaibo, Venezuela
July 23-28
Bogota, Colombia
July 7-12
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
August 12-17
Houston, TX
July 22-27
Houston, TX
September 23-28
Houston, TX
August 27-September 1
Johannesburg, South Africa
October 14-19
Houston, TX
September 1-6
Dammam, Saudi Arabia
November 11-16
Houston, TX
September 10-15
Cuernavaca, Mexico
November 12-17
Buenos Aires, Argentina
September 30-October 5
Houston, TX
November 24-29
Dammam, Saudi Arabia
October 15-20
Lima, Peru
October 29-November 3
London, U.K.
November 4-9
San Francisco, CA
November 25-30
Houston, TX
CP3—Cathodic Protection Technologist
CP4—Cathodic Protection Specialist
July 14-19
Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
July 29-August 3
Houston, TX
August 6-11
Maracaibo, Venezuela
September 8-13
Dammam, Saudi Arabia
October 7-12
Houston, TX
October 22-27
Lima, Peru
For the most up-to-date course schedules and course information, visit www.nace.org/eduschedule.
Summer 2012
Stay Current
9
CATHODIC PROTECTION-RELATED TECHNICAL COMMITTEES
CATHODIC PROTECTION-RELATED TECHNICAL COMMITTEES
Committee
Title
STG 05
STG 30
TEG 016X
TEG 022X
TEG 024X
TEG 043X
TEG 166X
TEG 179X
TEG 197X
TEG 262X
TEG 338X
TEG 349X
TEG 363X
TEG 368X
TG 011
TG 013
TG 017
TG 018
TG 019
TG 020
TG 023
TG 025
Cathodic/Anodic Protection
Oil and Gas Production—Cathodic Protection
Cathodic Protection and Corrosion Control Research Development
Corrosion Control Coordinating Committee
DC Traction Stray Current Problems
Reinforced Concrete: Cathodic Protection
Cathodic Protection in Seawater—Discussion of Current Topics
Cathodic Protection
Cathodic Protection: Pipe-Type Cable
Interference Problems
Cathodic Protection Monitoring: Use of Coupons
Cathodic Disbondment Test Methods: Critical Review of the Existing International Standards
Close-Interval Surveys and CP Surveys
Electric Utility Transmission and Distribution Corrosion and Grounding: Discussion of Issues
Underground Storage Tank Systems: Corrosion Control by Cathodic Protection
Review of NACE Standard RP0193-2001
Anodes, Catalyzed Titanium: Testing for Use in Soils or Waters
Steel, Structural: Corrosion Control of Pilings in Nonmarine Applications
Pipelines: Cathodic Protection of Concrete Pressure and Mortar-Coated Steel
Piping Systems, Cathodic Protection Criteria Measurement: Review of NACE Standard TM0497
High-Voltage Direct Current (DC) Transmission: Effects on Buried or Submerged Metallic Structures
Alternating Current (AC) Power Systems, Adjacent: Corrosion Control and Related Safety Procedures
to Mitigate the Effects
Reinforced Concrete: Anode Test Procedures
Reinforced Concrete: Sacrificial Cathodic Protection of Reinforced Concrete
Reinforced Concrete: Test Methods for Cathodic Protection
Cathodic Protection, Impressed Current—Steel Water Storage Tanks: Review of NACE SP0388
Cathodic Protection Systems, Retrofit, for Offshore Platforms
Cathodic Protection Coupon Technology
Review of NACE SP0196 (formerly RP0196)
Direct Current (DC) Operated Rail Transit and Mine Railroad Stray Current Mitigation—
Review Report 10B169
Reinforced Concrete: Stray Current-Induced Corrosion
Piping Systems: Review of SP0169-2007 (formerly RP0169), “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems”
Electrical Cables for Cathodic Protection Use: State-of-the-Art Report
Testing of Cathodic Protection Systems of Underground Storage Tanks
Cathodic Protection Rectifier Safety
Nuclear Buried Piping
Symbols Related to Cathodic Protection
AC Corrosion on Cathodically Protected Pipelines: Standard Practice for Risk Assessment, Mitigation,
and Monitoring
Testing of Field-Grade Reference Electrodes
Reinforced Concrete: Galvanic Anode Test Procedures
Review or Revise as Necessary SP0387-2006
Review and Revise as Necessary NACE Standard TM0190-2006
TG 045
TG 047
TG 049
TG 167
TG 168
TG 210
TG 284
TG 297
TG 356
TG 360
TG 362
TG 364
TG 388
TG 404
TG 429
TG 430
TG 436
TG 438
TG 454
TG 459
10
Stay Current
Summer 2012
CATHODIC PROTECTION-RELATED NACE REPORTS AND STANDARDS
Cathodic Protection-Related NACE Reports and Standards
Document
Title
01102
01104
01105
01110
01210
05101
05107
11100
30105
35108
35110
35201
State-of-the-Art Report: Criteria for Cathodic Protection of Prestressed Concrete Structures
Electrochemical Realkalization of Steel-Reinforced Concrete—A State-of-the-Art Report
Sacrificial Cathodic Protection of Reinforced Concrete Elements—A State-of-the-Art Report
Stray-Current-Induced Corrosion in Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Structures
Cathodic Protection for Masonry Buildings Incorporating Structural Steel Frames
State-of-the-Art Survey on Corrosion of Steel Piling in Soils
Report on Corrosion Probes in Soil or Concrete
Use of Reference Electrodes for Atmospherically Exposed Reinforced Concrete Structures
Electrical Isolation/Continuity and Coating Issues for Offshore Pipeline Cathodic Protection Systems
One Hundred Millivolt (mV) Cathodic Polarization Criterion
AC Corrosion State-of-the-Art Corrosion Rate, Mechanism, and Mitigation Requirements
Technical Report on the Application and Interpretation of Data from External Coupons Used in the
Evaluation of Cathodically Protected Metallic Structures
Effectiveness of Cathodic Protection on Thermally Insulated Underground Metallic Structures
10A392
(2006 Edition)
1E100
(2010 Edition)
6A100
7L192
(2009 Edition)
7L198
(2009 Edition)
SP0607-2007/
IS015589-2
(modified)
SP0575-2007
(formerly
RP0575)
SP0290-2007
(formerly RP0290)
SP0107-2007
SP0177-2007
(formerly RP0177)
SP0572-2007
(formerly RP0572)
SP0286-2007
(formerly RP0286)
SP0196-2011
(formerly RP0196)
Engineering Symbols Related to Cathodic Protection
Coatings Used in Conjunction with Cathodic Protection
Cathodic Protection Design Conderations for Deep Water Projects
Design of Galvanic Anode Cathodic Protection Systems for Offshore Structures
Petroleum and natural gas industries—Cathodic protection of pipeline transportation
systems—Part 2: Offshore pipelines
Internal Cathodic Protection (CP) Systems in Oil-Treating Vessels
Impressed Current Cathodic Protection of Reinforcing Steel in Atmospherically Exposed Concrete
Structures
Electrochemical Realkalization and Chloride Extraction for Reinforced Concrete
Mitigation of Alternating Current and Lightning Effects on Metallic Structures and Corrosion Control
Systems
Design, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of Impressed Current Deep Anode Beds
Electrical Isolation of Cathodically Protected Pipelines
Galvanic Anode Cathodic Protection of Internal Submerged Surfaces of Steel Water Storage Tanks
RP0193-2001
SP0186-2007
(formerly RP0186)
RP0104-2004
SP0100-2008
(formerly RP0100)
SP0169-2007
External Cathodic Protection of On-Grade Carbon Steel Storage Tank Bottoms
Application of Cathodic Protection for External Surfaces of Steel Well Casings
SP0207-2007
Performing Close-Interval Potential Surveys and DC Surface Potential Gradient Surveys on Buried or
Submerged Metallic Pipelines
(formerly RP0169)
(formerly RP0207)
Summer 2012
The Use of Coupons for Cathodic Protection Monitoring Applications (ANSI approved)
Cathodic Protection to Control External Corrosion of Concrete Pressure Pipelines and Mortar-Coated
Steel Pipelines for Water and Waste Water Service
Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
Stay Current
11
1440 South Creek Drive
Houston, TX 77084-4906
Non Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 579
Lebanon Junction,
Kentucky
Cathodic Protection-Related NACE Reports and Standards (continued)
Document
Title
SP0285-2011
Corrosion Control of Underground Storage Tank Systems by Cathodic Protection
SP0387-2006
Metallurgical and Inspection Requirements for Cast Galvanic Anodes for Offshore Applications
SP0388-2007
Impressed Current Cathodic Protection of Internal Submerged Surfaces of Carbon Steel Water Storage Tanks
SP0408-2008
Cathodic Protection of Reinforcing Steel in Buried or Submerged Concrete Structures
TM0101-2001
Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or Submerged
Metallic Tank Systems
Measurement of Protective Coating Electrical Conductance on Underground Pipelines
Test Procedures for Organic-Based Conductive Coating Anodes for Use on Concrete Structures
Testing of Catalyzed Titanium Anodes for Use in Soils or Natural Waters
Aboveground Survey Techniques for the Evaluation of Underground Pipeline Coating Condition
Impressed Current Laboratory Testing of Aluminum Alloy Anodes
Durability Test for Copper/Copper Sulfate Permanent Reference Electrodes for Direct Burial Applications
Testing of Embeddable Impressed Current Anodes for Use in Cathodic Protection of Atmospherically
Exposed Steel-Reinforced Concrete
Measurement Techniques Related to Criteria for Cathodic Protection on Underground or
Submerged Metallic Piping Systems
(formerly RP0285)
(formerly RP0387)
(formerly RP0388)
(formerly RP0408)
TM0102-2002
TM0105-2005
TM0108-2008
TM0109-2009
TM0190-2006
TM0211
TM0294-2007
TM0497-2002
Join NACE International and obtain unlimited free downloads of NACE standards and reports!
For information on joining NACE, or to purchase standards and reports if not a member, go to www.nace.org.
12
Stay Current
Summer 2012