Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of Varying Cathode–Anode Parameters on Performance of Mild Steel Cathodically Protected by the Aluminum Anode in 0.5 m NaCl Environment

  • Published:
Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work investigates the effect of varying cathode–anode parameters on the performance of mild steel cathodically protected by the aluminum anode in 0.5 M NaCl environment. The study aimed to assess the corrosion protection efficacy of the cathodic protection system and identify optimal parameters for maximizing protection while minimizing energy consumption. Impressed current system was employed to drive the aluminum electrons from the anode to the cathode to achieve cathodic protection of the mild steel cathode. Using Optical Electron Microscope, Scanning Electron Microscope with an electron diffraction spectrometer, and X-ray diffraction, the cathodically treated mild steel samples were characterized. The rate of mild steel corrosion was determined by adopting the potentiodynamic polarization method together with the weight loss method in a 0.5 M NaCl environment. Certain parameters including the working voltage, exposure time and electrode separation distance were also used to analyze the optimal features of the cathodic protection during the experiment. The findings demonstrated that, across the distances and exposure times, an aluminum anode operating at working voltages of 3 and 4 V in a 0.5 M NaCl environment provided sacrificial protection for the mild steel (cathode). The working voltage of 4 V yielded the best cathodic protection in 0.5 M NaCl at 5 cm for 15 min. Furthermore, at a working voltage of 5 V, efficient protection of the mild steel was achieved only at electrodes separation distances above 15 cm, while overprotection of the cathode which could possibly cause cathodic disbondment was observed at electrodes separation distances of 5 cm, 10 cm and 15 cm. The results of this experiment have practical implications for the development and improvement of cathodic protection systems for mild steel structures in environments with high levels of chloride. This highlights the significance of considering cathode–anode parameters to effectively reduce corrosion and ensure the long-term structural stability in the maritime industry and sub-sea operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data employed in support to the outcome of the study are included in this article.

References

  1. Saha MK, Das S (2016) A review on different cladding techniques employed to resist corrosion. J Assoc Eng 86(1–2):51–63

    Google Scholar 

  2. Otunniyi IO, Oloruntoba DT (2012) Suitability of structural aluminium profiles as sacrificial anode for carbon steel. Leonardo Electron J Pract Technol 21:62–72

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hajar HM, Suriani MJ, Sabri MGM, Ghazali MJ, Nik WW (2015) Corrosion performance of coating thickness in marine environment. Biosci Biotechnol Res Asia 12(1):71–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Usher KM, Kaksonen AH, Cole I, Marney D (2014) Critical review: microbially influenced corrosion of buried carbon steel pipes. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 93:84–106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kumar A (2015) Corrosion behavior of low carbon steel in presence of chlorides, cyanides, and sulphates (Doctoral dissertation)

  6. Biesuz M, Pinter L, Saunders T, Reece M, Binner J, Sglavo VM, Grasso S (2018) Investigation of electrochemical, optical and thermal effects during flash sintering of 8YSZ. Materials 11(7):1214

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. May M (2016) Corrosion behavior of mild steel immersed in different concentrations of NaCl solutions. J Sebha Univ 15(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  8. Angst U, Büchler M, Martin B, Schöneich HG, Haynes G, Leeds S, Kajiyama F (2016) Cathodic protection of soil buried steel pipelines—a critical discussion of protection criteria and threshold values. Mater Corros 67(11):1135–1142

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu Y, Song Z, Wang W, Jiang L, Zhang Y, Guo M, Xu N (2019) Effect of ginger extract as green inhibitor on chloride-induced corrosion of carbon steel in simulated concrete pore solutions. J Clean Prod 214:298–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilson K, Jawed M, Ngala V (2013) The selection and use of cathodic protection systems for the repair of reinforced concrete structures. Constr Build Mater 39:19–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Xu L, Xin Y, Ma L, Zhang H, Lin Z, Li X (2021) Challenges and solutions of cathodic protection for marine ships. Corros Commun 2:33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bagastyo AY, Anggrainy AD, Khoiruddin K, Ursada R, Warmadewanthi IDAA, Wenten IG (2022) Electrochemically driven struvite recovery: prospect and challenges for the application of magnesium sacrificial anode. Sep Purif Technol 288:120653

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ding Q, Shen T, Cui Y, Xue J (2018) Study on the electrochemical performance of sacrificial anode interfered by DC stray current. Int J Corros. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4728692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gordon DF (2018) Hydrogen re-embrittlement susceptibility of ultra high-strength steels. Ph.D. Thesis, Cranfield University, School

  15. Silva Campos MDR, Blawert C, Scharnagl N, Störmer M, Zheludkevich ML (2022) Cathodic protection of mild steel using aluminium-based alloys. Materials 15(4):1301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Shreir LL (1994) Corrosion: corrosion control, 2nd edn. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Baboian R (2005) Corrosion tests and standards: application and interpretation, 2nd edn. ASTM International, Baltimore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Shreir LL (1965) Corrosion: metal/environment reactions, 2nd edn. Newnes-Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 1910.1027—Cadmium|occupational safety and health administration. Available online: https://osha.gov (Accessed, March 2022).

  20. Holm O, Hansen E, Lassen C, Stuer-Lauridsen F, Kjolholt J (2002) Heavy metals in waste final report DG ENV. E3, Project ENV. E; European Commission, Brussels

  21. Loto CA, Popoola API (2011) Effect of anode and size variations on the cathodic protection of mild steel in sea water and sulphuric acid

  22. Frankel G (2015) WR Whitney award lecture: the effects of microstructure and composition on Al alloy corrosion. Corrosion 71:1308–1320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Baker D, Druschitz A (2016) Understanding the corrosion of low-voltage Al–Ga anodes. In: Proceedings of the corrosion, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 6–10 March 2016.

  24. Feng X, Yan Q, Lu X, Wu T, Zhang Y, Zuo Y, Wang J (2020) Protection performance of the submerged sacrificial anode on the steel reinforcement in the conductive carbon fiber mortar column in splash zones of marine environments. Corros Sci 174:108818

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Schuman TP (2018) Protective coatings for aluminum alloys. Handbook of environmental degradation of materials. William Andrew Publishing, Oxford, pp 423–448

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Al-Sultani KF, Nabat JN (2012) Effects of tin on Aluminum–Zinc alloy as sacrificial anode to protect underground oil pipeline in Al-Mahawil regional. Adv Mater Res 468:1585–1594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Umoru LE, Ige OO (2007) Effects of tin on aluminum–zinc–magnesium alloy as sacrificial anode in seawater. J Miner Mater Charact Eng 7(2):105–113

    Google Scholar 

  28. Alzwghaibi AAA, Saeed EM, Klif DF (2011) Cathodic protection of oil pipelines by aluminum alloys. J King Abdulaziz Univ 22(2):17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sundjono S, Priyotomo G, Nuraini L, Prifiharni S (2017) Corrosion behavior of mild steel in seawater from northern coast of Java and southern coast of Bali, Indonesia. Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung

    Google Scholar 

  30. Elfergani HA, Abdalla AA (2017) Effect of chloride concentration on the corrosion rate of carbon steel. In: 2nd Libyan conference on chemistry and its application (LCCA). pp 33–38

  31. Nam ND, Van Hien P, Hoai NT, Thu VTH (2018) A study on the mixed corrosion inhibitor with a dominant cathodic inhibitor for mild steel in aqueous chloride solution. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 91:556–569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ochoa N, Vega C, Pébère N, Lacaze J, Brito JL (2015) CO2 corrosion resistance of carbon steel in relation with microstructure changes. Mater Chem Phys 156:198–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Loto CA, Loto RT, Popoola PA (2019) Evaluation of cathodic protection of mild steel with magnesium anodes in 0.5 M HCL. Chem Data Collect 22:100246

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu Y, Gao Z, Lu X, Wang L (2019) Effect of temperature on corrosion and cathodic protection of X65 pipeline steel in 3.5% NaCl solution. Int J Electrochem Sci 14(1):150–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Nayebi B, Ayati B (2021) Degradation of emerging amoxicillin compound from water using the electro-Fenton process with an aluminum anode. Water Conserv Sci Eng 6:45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lacroix R, Da Silva S, Gaig MV, Rousseau R, Délia ML, Bergel A (2014) Modelling potential/current distribution in microbial electrochemical systems shows how the optimal bioanode architecture depends on electrolyte conductivity. Phys Chem Chem Phys 16(41):22892–22902

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Fitrullah M, Mawaddah SM, Tarigan P, Soesaptri O, Trenggono A (2016) The effect rust and over-protection voltage of impressed current cathodic protection towards LR grade a steel disbondment. Appl Mech Mater 842:92–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Redeemer’s University, Nigeria. Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria.

Funding

The authors received no funding from any source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 704, Akure, Ondo, Nigeria

    Daniel Toyin Oloruntoba, Temitope Ebenezer Odemona & Williams Temitope Owolabi

  2. Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Temitope Ebenezer Odemona

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Redeemer’s University, Ede, Nigeria

    Olanrewaju Seun Adesina & Olufemi Oluseun Sanyaolu

  4. SDG 9, Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, Redeemer’s University, Ede, Nigeria

    Olanrewaju Seun Adesina & Olufemi Oluseun Sanyaolu

  5. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Johannesburg, Doornfontein Campus, Johannesburg, 2028, South Africa

    Azeez Lawan Rominiyi

Authors
  1. Daniel Toyin Oloruntoba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Temitope Ebenezer Odemona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olanrewaju Seun Adesina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Williams Temitope Owolabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Olufemi Oluseun Sanyaolu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Azeez Lawan Rominiyi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Daniel Toyin Oloruntoba, Temitope Ebenezer Odemona, and Williams Temitope Owolabi designed the study, performed the experiment, interpreted results and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Authors, Olanrewaju Seun Adesina, Olufemi Oluseun Sanyaolu, & Azeez Lawan Rominiyi managed the analyses of the study, managed literature searches and graphical editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olanrewaju Seun Adesina.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interest with any previous work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oloruntoba, D.T., Odemona, T.E., Adesina, O.S. et al. Effect of Varying Cathode–Anode Parameters on Performance of Mild Steel Cathodically Protected by the Aluminum Anode in 0.5 m NaCl Environment. J Bio Tribo Corros 10, 43 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40735-024-00848-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40735-024-00848-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation