Cathodic Protection Performance Evaluation of Magnesium Anodes on Mild Steel Corrosion in 0.5 M H2SO4 and Seawater Environments
- 10 Downloads
The performance of two different sizes of galvanic magnesium anodes on the cathodic protection of mild steel in 0.5 M sulphuric acid and seawater was evaluated at room temperature of 27 °C. The cathodic protection reactions process was observed by weight-loss method, its corresponding corrosion rate calculation and potential measurement method. The magnesium anodes were observed to be effective as sacrificial anode in the tested environments. In H2SO4, the experiment recorded very low weight loss of mild steel throughout the experiment. The magnesium anode with a larger cross-sectional area (magnesium anode 2) recorded a weight loss of 0.0095 g (9.5 mg) and corrosion rate (C.R.) of 0.007 mm/year; smaller size anode (magnesium anode 1) achieved 0.0785 g (78.5 mg) weight loss and C.R. of 0.062 mm/year during the same time of 21st day of the experiment. With magnesium anode 2 (bigger size) the potential ranged between − 0.467 V (− 467 mV) and − 0.441 V (mV) from the start to the end. For magnesium anode 1 (slightly smaller size) the electrode potential ranged between − 0.524 V (− 524 mV) and (− 0.441 V). In seawater environment, similar low value results were obtained. Mg (anode 2) recorded 0.0008 g (0.80 mg); the smaller anode (Ng anode1) recorded 0.0011 g (1.1 mg) weight loss at 21 days of the experiment. The results obtained for the potential measurement bear close correlation with the weight-loss method in both the sulphuric acid and seawater. The varying anode cross-sectional areas used showed the anode size effects.
KeywordsCorrosion Cathodic protection Magnesium anodes Mild steel Sulphuric acid Seawater
The authors acknowledge the support of Covenant University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ota, Nigeria for providing the research facilities for this work. The laboratory work contribution of Mr. Henry Ajisegiri is also acknowledged.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
- 1.Michel PH, Brongers CC, Gerhardus HK, Neil G (2010) Corrosion costs and preventive strategies in the United States. Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-156. Technologie and NACE. https//www. Nace.or/uploadedfiles/publications/ccsupp.pdf Accessed 09 Jan 2019Google Scholar
- 2.NACE International—IMPACT (2019) http://impact.nace.org/economic-impact.aspx. Accessed 09 Jan 2019
- 3.Davey H (1824) Recollections of the development of my mind and character. Phil Trans Roy Soc 114; 151-242 and 328. Adapted from Cathodic Protection. Wikipedia, http://en.Wikipedia.org. Accessed 08 Jan 2019
- 6.Moe-Cheuna MS, Chong C (2013) Application of cathodic protection for controlling macrocell corrosion in chloride contaminated RC structures. Constr Build Mater 45(8):199–207Google Scholar
- 7.Stratfull RF (1974) Experimental cathodic protection of a bridge deck. Transp Res Rec 500:1–15Google Scholar
- 10.Atshan Ahmed A, Hasan Basim O, Ali Mohammed H (2013) Effect of anode type and position on the cathodic protection of carbon steel in sea water. Int J Curr Eng Technol 3(5):2017–2024Google Scholar
- 15.Cathodic Protection (2019) Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org. pp. 4. Accessed 08 Jan 2019
- 16.Bradford SA (2001) Corro. Control, 2nd edn. Casi Publishing Inc., AlbertaGoogle Scholar
- 17.Allen MD, Barnes NR (1988) Combination of corrosion survey methods improves protection. Oil Gas J 86(9):5Google Scholar
- 18.Fabio B (2006) Test results on sacrificial anodes used for seawater, CORROSION, March 12–16, NACE Int. Paper Number 06297Google Scholar
- 19.Dick B, Jim B (2006) Protection against atmospheric corrosion. Deep Corrosion Services Inc, HoustonGoogle Scholar
- 20.Loto CA, Popoola API (2011) Effect of anode size and variations on the cathodic protection of mild steel in seawater and sulphuric acid. Int J Phys Sci 6(12):2861–2868Google Scholar