NACE Paper No.

MECCOCT18-12529

RISK BASED ASSEMENT OF COPPER vs ZINC FOR AC MITIGATION

Ted Huck
Vice President, International
MATCOR, Inc.
Chalfont, PA USA

ABSTRACT

The use long length gradient control wire grounding systems installed parallel to pipelines under the
influence of AC Interference is a common design approach that has proven to be effective. Depending
on the designer and/or the preferences of the owner/operator these gradient control lines can be either
a copper cable based and zinc ribbon material. This paper discusses the advantages and risks of each
type system for AC Mitigation and provides a framework for risk analysis along with examples of each
system and their potential failure modes.

Key words: AC Mitigation; AC Interference, Gradient Control Wire, Decoupler, Zinc Passivation.

INTRODUCTION

There are two common materials being used for AC Mitigation. Some owners strongly prefer copper
while others have an equally strong preference for zinc ribbon. While there are a lot of factors that
should be considered when it comes to selecting the grounding material (cost, life, effectiveness, etc..),
one factor that seems to be poorly studied and quite possibly misunderstood is the Failure Risks
associated with each material.

Proponents of Zinc ribbon tend to focus on the adverse impact of a galvanic coupling of copper
grounding if the decoupler were to fail; as they are designed to fail safe, shorting the DC to the
mitigation system.

Proponents of Copper discount the possibility of a decoupling device failure and often counter with
concerns of the Zinc ribbon possibly passivating.

This paper attempts to quantify the adverse impact from a risk perspective and offers suggestions that
can reduce these risks from a Mitigation design perspective.

DECOUPLER FAILURE LEADS TO GALVANIC COUPLING OF COPPER TO THE PIPELINE

The primary failure mode of concern to pipeline operators for copper grounding systems when used for
mitigating AC is the failure of the decoupler which would result in the copper being shorted to the
pipeline.

1
Likelihood of failure

Properly sized solid-state decoupling devices are universally considered to have an extremely high
degree of reliability. While there are no published statistics available on decoupler failures, one
supplier’s website claims a failure rate of less than .005%.1 A leading manufacturer of this type of
equipment notes on their website that the likelihood of failure is “extremely low (small fractions of a
percent).”2 Finally, in a white paper published on an engineering company’s website, the authors note
that, “decoupling devices are very reliable and the failure rate, even in extreme conditions, is very low.”3
Additionally, it is quite unclear as to the service application of the decouplers that failed. Not all
decouplers are installed on AC Mitigation applications. Many are installed in stations/plants protecting
isolation flanges or tied directly to actual ground fault sources like Motor Operated Valves. It’s quite
possible that these station/plant applications are likely much more susceptible to failure from a lightning
strike than a decoupler in AC Mitigation service. Let’s assume that the likelihood of a decoupler failure
is 1 in 100,000 decoupler installations. If we assume the average AC Mitigation installation requires 20
decouplers, then 1 in 5,000 AC Mitigation installations are likely to have a failure.

What Happens if there is a Decoupler Failure

Assuming the worst happens and for some reason the decoupler fails (lightning strike or power line
tower failure) while installed in AC Mitigation application. This would result in the direct coupling of the
pipeline with the copper grounding installed to drain AC from the pipeline. This would have the
following immediate impacts:

AC Mitigation would be unaffected by the failure of the decoupler.

Because the decoupler fails in a safe mode (shorted) the primary function of the copper gradient
control wire would be unaffected. It would continue to provide personnel protection from fault and
steady state currents, it would continue to provide overvoltage protection for fault conditions affecting
the pipeline and its coatings and it would continue to reduce the induced voltages to a level that
protects against AC Induced Corrosion.

CP System would be significantly impacted.

Where the impact would be adverse for the pipeline is on the DC side where the decoupler is no
longer blocking DC current.

The CP system tasked with protecting the pipeline would immediately be impacted. Instead of
protecting small, isolated holidays on a well-coated pipeline, the CP system would now attempt to
protect a much larger structure consisting of a relatively large amount of bare copper surface area
and a relatively small bare steel surface area.

CP polarization levels on the pipeline, at least around the area of the AC Mitigation system would
drop significantly. The cathodic protection current near the area parallel to the grounding system,
assuming this is a gradient control wire mitigation system, would divert most, if not all, of the CP
current to the bare copper grounding system with no effective CP reaching any of the pipeline’s bare
metal in those areas.

A galvanic coupling might occur resulting in the pipeline bare surface areas being anodic and the
copper grounding being cathodic. It is possible that there is sufficient CP current being diverted to
the copper that it polarized potential rises to a similar level as the bare pipeline structure avoiding a
galvanic coupling but not allowing the pipeline to be fully cathodically protected.

Non-Business Use
2
Quantifying the Corrosion Risk of a Direct Coupling

To quantify the corrosion risk of a direct coupling, several assumptions are required. This assessment
makes the following assumptions:

Assumptions:
Soil Resistivity (ohm-m) ohm-m 60
Area of holiday cm2 10
Closed circuit potential of steel V -0.5
Polarized potential of copper V -0.4
Driving Voltage dV 0.1
Weight loss of steel kg/A.yr 9
Density of steel g/cm2 7.85

Calculated Values
Diameter of 10 cm2 holiday (m) m 0.036
Resistance of holiday to ground ohm 89.21
Current in amps mA 1.12
Absolute weight loss in one year g/y 10.09
Corrosion rate mm/a (mmpy) 1.29

Using this methodology, it is possible to come up with a value for the corrosion rate in millimeters per
year. The actual corrosion rate could be higher or lower than the example calculation shown above
depending on a variety of factors, but this gives a general magnitude of the corrosion risk due to a
galvanic coupling – it exists and would have to be dealt with in the event of a decoupler failure.

Time from Decoupler Failure to Replacing the Failed Decoupler

From the time of the decoupler failure to its being identified as failing would depend entirely on the level
of sophistication of the AC Mitigation and CP System’s remote monitoring or in the absence of
monitoring, on the frequency of site inspections by the owners CP technicians. If the decoupler has
remote monitoring to alert the owner of a failure of the decoupler, notification would be immediate. As
noted earlier, the decoupler failure in a shorted condition significantly changes the CP system. If the
CP system utilizes remote monitoring of potential levels at test stations any decoupler failure would
result in a noticeable increase in the potentials being monitored as the copper grounding pulls current
from the pipeline structure reducing the polarization levels significantly. If the transformer rectifier
system output is being monitored regularly either through bimonthly reads or a remote monitoring
system, the large shift in system resistance would result in an increase in current for most constant
voltage or auto potential controlled rectifiers. In summary, a decoupler failure is not something that
would go unnoticed for a long time if the system is properly designed and properly being maintained.
Once identified, the system repair can be done within a few days of receipt of a replacement decoupler.

Cost to Repair

Once identified, the cost to repair would be nominal and simply involve swapping out the failed
decoupler with another decoupler. This would be a very low cost and rather immediate fix to return the
AC Mitigation (and the CP System) back to normal operations.

Non-Business Use
3
 ZINC RIBBON PASSIVATION LEADS TO AC MITIGATION SYSTEM NOT PERFORMING

Unlike copper grounding systems where there is a concern that the failure of a decoupler could lead to
the shorting of the copper ground to the pipeline with zinc ribbon grounding the shorting of the zinc to
the pipeline is not a major concern as zinc itself is more anodic than steel. The more relevant risk for
zinc installations is the risk of passivation of the zinc.

Likelihood of Failure

Zinc is a very commonly used material for both cathodic protection and as a galvanizing coating to
prevent corrosion. One of the notable characteristics of zinc, is that it is subject to passivation and
potential shifts (generally at higher temperatures and not a concern for this discussion.) Passivation is
a process where a metal reacts with its environment to form a high resistance surface film that will
prevent further significant corrosion. This is a highly desirable feature for corrosion prevention but a
critical concern for use as an anode or in grounding applications. An early paper by Denison and
Romanoff, in 1950, detailed the results of National Bureau of Standards testing where bare zinc anodes
in 8 different soils were examined. In one of these sites, a highly alkaline environment, the zinc
exhibited passivation effects and failed to perform.4

As recommended in Peabody’s “Control of Corrosion” most zinc anodes used in soil, are packaged in a
bentonite backfill rich in sulfates to assure no passivation of the zinc ribbon.5 The Canadian Energy
Producers Association AC Mitigation report recommends a backfill for zinc ribbon in AC Mitigation
services.6 At one time, it was common practice to install a bentonite backfill for zinc ribbon anodes,
however, with the explosion in zinc ribbon usage in AC Mitigation this is not being done because of the
significant added cost that this adds for large AC Mitigation installations. There is no published data,
merely anecdotal stories, on the frequency or likelihood of bare zinc ribbon to passivate in AC
Mitigation installations. For this analysis, let’s consider the likelihood of failure to be very low.
What Happens if the Zinc Ribbon Passivates

If the zinc ribbon passivates, its resistance to earth rises significantly and it no longer can perform its
role in Mitigating AC interference effects. There are three primary purposes to mitigate AC
interference. Personnel Safety, Fault Current effects on the pipeline, and AC Induced Corrosion during
normal operating conditions. If the zinc ribbon passivates, it compromises the performance of the AC
Mitigation to accomplish any of these purposes.

Quantifying the Risks of Inadequate AC Mitigation

Safety Risk – it is difficult to quantify the safety risk other than to note that one of the fundamental
purposes of mitigating AC is to protect pipeline personnel, contractors and potentially the public from
risks associated with excessive steady state AC potentials and dangerous current spikes during fault
conditions. An inadequate AC Mitigation system which could result in potential loss of life or severe
injury as a result of zinc passivation should be unacceptable.

Fault Current effects – again very difficult to quantify the risk, however, it would have to be
considered less of a concern than the safety aspect as the consequences are generally limited to
coating damage due to stress voltage spikes.

AC Induced Corrosion – this is a significant concern which can be quantified based on current
densities. AC Induced Corrosion on pipelines has become a recognized threat that owners must
address. NACE and other similar organizations have developed specifications and standards to
Non-Business Use
4
 address this issue. Research has concluded that above a certain threshold, AC Induced corrosion
can be expected. As with the effort to quantify a corrosion rate for the galvanic coupling of bare
copper to the pipeline, there are many variables that would affect the corrosion rate for AC induced
corrosion. One published study from 2015 shows that the corrosion rate in mm/a (mmpy) is
comparable to the galvanic corrosion rate calculated earlier for bare copper shorted to a pipeline.7

Figure 1 - Corrosion Rate of X60 Steel

Time from Zinc Passivation to Replacing AC Mitigation

From the time of the zinc passivation to its being identified as failing would depend entirely on the level
of sophistication of the AC Mitigation remote monitoring or in the absence of monitoring, on the
frequency of site inspections by the owners CP technicians. Unlike a decoupler failure, the zinc
passivation would not affect the CP system operation. The only noticeable impact would be an
increase in AC potentials along that stretch of the mitigation system where the zinc ribbon had
passivated. If a remote monitoring system for AC potentials (or AC current density using coupons) then
the impact of passivation would be evident. If there is no AC remote monitoring, then the failure could
go undetected for a longer period. Once identified, the repair time would be much more involved than
simply replacing one above ground component and would require a new AC mitigation installation
project which could take several months to procure materials, schedule and complete.

Cost to Repair

The costs to restore the AC Mitigation system back to its original performance level would be
significant. A due horizontal gradient control wire (either zinc or copper based) would have to be
installed in place of the passivated zinc ribbon. If the decision is made to replace with another zinc
ribbon, it would be appropriate to use a sulfate rich bentonite backfill around the zinc to avoid
passivation.

Non-Business Use
5
 CONCLUSIONS / SUMMARY

1. Both Decoupler Failure and Zinc Ribbon Passivation are unlikely.

2. The proper use of system monitoring is critical to minimizing the impact of either failures by
allowing for a timely identification of a failure. For copper grounding systems, this should be
RMUs at each decoupler. For zinc ribbon systems without a backfill installed, this should
include AC potential RMUs at AC test stations.

3. The corrosion related risks of either failure are similar in terms of corrosion rates on the pipeline
whether from AC induced corrosion or galvanic coupling.

4. If using zinc ribbon, strong consideration should be given to installing the zinc ribbon in a
bentonite backfill given that replacing the zinc ribbon is both costly and takes a long time to
complete and that the failure of the AC Mitigation system exposes the owner to an unacceptable
safety risk.

Table 1 – Risk Assessment Summary

RISK ASSESSMENT DECOUPLER FAILURE w/Copper ZINC PASSIVATION

Likelihood of Failure per AC Installation Extremely low Very low

Impact on CP System Performance Very Significant Not Significant
Impact on AC Mitigation System Performance
Safety of Personnel None Very Significant
Fault Condition None Significant
Steady State Induced Corrosion None Very Significant
Typical Corrosion Rate mmpy 1-3 mmpy 1-2 mmpy
Cost to Repair Low High
Time to Repair Within days Months

REFERENCES

1. SSD Solid State Decoupler (n.d) retrieved from https://www.anodeengineering.com/ssd-solid-state-

decoupler

2. What if Decouplers didn’t exist (n.d.) retrieved from https://www.dairyland.com/knowledge-base-

article/33-getting-started/120-what-if-decouplers-didnt-exist

3. J. Hilleary, J. DeWitt, and L Krisa, “Monitoring DC Decoupling Devices at Isolation Flanges for
Compliance and Pipeline Integrity” (June, 2017) retrieved from https://elecsyscorp.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/Monitoring-DC-Decoupling-Devices-at-Isolation-Flanges-for-Compliance-and-
Pipeline-Integrity.pdf

4. I. Denison and M. Romanoff, “Soil-Corrosion Studies, 1946 and 1948: Copper Alloys, Lead, and
Zinc” U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Research Paper RP2077 Vol. 44
(March 1950) pp 270-271

5. A.W. Peabody, “Control of Pipeline Corrosion, Second Edition”, NACE International (2001), p 198

Non-Business Use
6
6. R. Gummow, “A/C Interference Guideline Final Report”, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
(June 2014) p 27

7. Guo, YB., Liu, C., Wang, DG. et al. “Effects of alternating current interference on corrosion of X60
pipeline steel”, Petroleum Science (2015) pp 316-324

Non-Business Use
7