Free training course for corrosion control of pipelines

Roger, Thanks for the links. Your nail in the case demonstration is very affective. You guy's dealing with pipelines have made great strides in educating the public. Of course you are dealing with life safety issues that get peoples attention in most cases.

We deal with corrosion of steel in concrete and use cathodic in some applications. I'm amazed on a daily basis how reluctant people in the concrete industry are to even consider understanding the science of Impressed Cathodic as away to preserve concrete structures.

I'll consider using some of your examples to educate. Thanks Again!

The use of cathodic protection for steel in concrete is governed by the same laws of nature as it is in pipelines and everything else. Unfortunately some of the recommendations I have seen relating to this subject do not seem to recognise these laws and therefore do not work. Others are very cost effective. If you would like help in setting up a discussion group on this subject I would be pleased to help.

Roger, Good effort, many thanks.

Roger,

Wonderful consideration and openness for your fellow pipeliners.

TQ vm

Stewie

so many thanx roger.

Thanks a lot for this linke ,it's of a very big help.

For free? - you are giving away a full taining course for Cathodic Protection?

Are you trying to put NACE out of business?

No. I'm just adding to what other corrosion engineers have achieved. I am not competitive.... I am co-operative.

I have been trying to help NACE to recognise a basic error in their application of science ever since I first took cathodic protection measurements in 1973.

I have never received a response.

The errror was recognised by Peabody many years ago and described as the problem of 'open circuit measurements'. Soon after that is was recognised internationally as 'the IR drop in the soil' and the 'off potential' method of measurement was proposed to overcome this error. I went to a laboratory in Holland and saw this demonstrated before trying it for the first time in the field. It only removed one of at least 5 inherent errors. It is for that reason that I invented the Alexander Cell that has now been acknowledged as a means of taking meaningful measurements on which to base a criterion for cathodic protection.

Congratulations and thanks Roger. Hats off to you for it is free. Great

Anyone can help in this matter by sending me their experiences as case studies. We can set up bloggs and twitters to air this subject if you want.

thanks... very good sites...

Vitt

Hi Roger I've looked through the modules you've got online so far - there's a lot in there, far too much to analyse here. In general terms (if I have it right) you saying that CIPS surveys are of limited value because 1) the potential values recorded are not 'calculated' from a common reference point, 2) the different values recorded result from differences in potential in the earth above the pipe, not in the pipe itself 3) a CIPS survey will indicate areas where defaults in the coating 'might' occur but will not pin-point the defects and 4) a CIPS survey will not tell us if the CP system is protecting any given defect or not. Is that about right? Is this the forum for a more in-depth discussion regarding your work

1)Correct

2)You are correct but the pipeline metal potential can fluctuate with time and the resistance to current flowing along the pipeline metal must be included in calculations.

3)CIPS is as good as DCVG at locating coating faults but has the same limitations.

4)Correct

Thanks for a very good summary

However, DCVG is much quicker than CIPS as it does not require connection to the pipeline. In many circumstances this results in a very much more cost efficient method of detecting coating faults.

Then if you use an Alexander Cell at the defect location, you will know if the CP is protecting the pipe or if the defect is corroding?

Yes