Stray currents of ESP well casings

Metwally, I.A.; Al-Mandhari, H.M.; Gastli, Adel; Al-Bimani, A.

doi:10.1016/j.enganabound.2007.06.003

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, there is no significant difference between PCP and the conventional CP systems ''throwing power'', i.e. only up to 20% of the top part of the well casing can be protected as will be demonstrated in the following section [15].…”

Section: Results Of Field Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the control panel of a four-module (pulser) PCP rectifier system, the voltage waveform and its frequency are controllable. The impulse voltage is measured at the PCP station (control panel), between a common positive terminal for all modules and an individual negative terminal per module [15].…”

Section: Methodology Of Field Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both the voltage and current waveforms are recorded via a 100 M Hz, 1 GS/s portable storage oscilloscope at the PCP station [15]. Figure 1 depicts an example of the impulse voltage waveform, and all four PCP negative currents together with the anode positive current [15]. The amplitude of voltage pulses of PCP modules A, B, C, and D are 138.8, 137.6, 132.4, and 139.2 V peak , respectively.…”

Section: Methodology Of Field Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figures 3(a) and (b) illustrate the waveforms of the total anode current and the well-casing segment current at 4 m from the top of the well for different soil resistivities (r) due to an PCP square voltage wave pulse (t r ¼ t f ¼ 0) with a frequency f ¼ 3 kHz, a pulse width W ¼ 100ms and an amplitude V max ¼ 100 V, respectively. The field measurements [15] have shown that all the recorded PCP currents through well casings and anode beds are DC with superimposed ripples having the same frequency of the voltage pulses ($3 kHz), see Section 3. In Fig.…”

Section: Soil Resistivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Analysis of different factors affecting cathodic protection for deep well casings

Metwally

Al‐Badi

2010

Materials & Corrosion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces a comparative theoretical investigation of the conventional cathodic protection (CP) and the pulse cathodic protection (PCP) systems to show how both of them behave under different operating conditions. The effectiveness of the PCP system is also highlighted for a typical large-scale configuration as well as some field measurements have been carried out. The performance of PCP system has been analyzed in the light of getting better protection-current distribution along the protected well casing at reduced anode current together with reducing the stray current (corrosion) at any nearby unprotected structure(s). Many factors have been investigated to show their effects on the performance of the CP system, namely, soil resistivity, voltage pulse waveform and frequency, and multi-layer soil. In addition, the performance of both the conventional CP and the PCP systems has been compared to that when utilizing unused/abandoned well casing as anode energized by the conventional CP system. The PCP system shows better performance than that of the conventional CP, and a similar performance at high soil resistivity to that when using unused/abandoned well casing. On the other hand, the utilization of the unused/abandoned well casing gives superior performance, especially at low soil resistivities, where the protection-current profiles of both the conventional CP and the PCP systems decay sharply.

show abstract

Section: Results Of Field Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodology Of Field Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodology Of Field Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Soil Resistivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Analysis of different factors affecting cathodic protection for deep well casings

Metwally

Al‐Badi

2010

Materials & Corrosion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on the above assumption and Ohm's law, the current density i can be expressed as follows (Metwally et al 2008):…”

Section: Mathematical Model 21 Governing Equationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of DC stray current on pipeline corrosion

Chen

Yang

et al. 2015

Pet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DC stray current can cause severe corrosion on buried pipelines. In this study, firstly, we deduced the equation of DC stray current interference on pipelines. Next, the cathode boundary condition was discretized with pipe elements, and corresponding experiments were designed to validate the mathematical model. Finally, the numerical simulation program BEASY was used to study the corrosion effect of DC stray current that an auxiliary anode bed generated in an impressed current cathodic protection system. The effects of crossing angle, crossing distance, distance of the two pipelines, anode output current, depth, and soil resistivity were investigated. Our results indicate that pipeline crossing substantially affects the corrosion potential of both protected and unprotected pipelines. Pipeline crossing angles, crossing distances, and anode depths, our results suggest, have no significant influence. Decreasing anode output current or soil resistivity reduces pipeline corrosion gradually. A reduction of corrosion also occurs when the distance between two parallel pipelines increases.

show abstract