Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 1139–1145 | Cite as

A comparative study of the electrochemical behaviour of Algerian zinc and a zinc from a commercial sacrificial anode

  • M. Bounoughaz
  • E. Salhi
  • K. Benzine
  • E. Ghali
  • F. Dalard
Article

Abstract

Zinc is used in the oil industry as a sacrificial anode for protecting steel storage tanks from corrosion. The behaviour of a sample of zinc from the Algerian metallurgy industry (zinc A) and a commercially available zinc (zinc B) was compared in an electrolyte from storage tank drainage water. The corrosion potential measurements for zinc A confirmed that this material could be used as a sacrificial anode. The polarization curves of the two materials (zinc A and zinc B) were different, zinc A being the least polarized. Thus, the same corrosion protection could be obtained with a lower surface ratio (SZn/SFe) for Zinc A. Cyclic voltammetry curves provided evidence of a surface layer formed by dissolution products. To provide protection over extended periods of time, the zinc anode must be oversized. The two types of zinc tested were comparable.

The results of the impedance spectroscopy study confirmed the previous results. The corrosion layer formed on zinc A was not prejudicial to dissolution. Hence, the properties of this zinc were found to be satisfactory for its use as a sacrificial anode.

Keywords

Zinc Cyclic Voltammetry Impedance Spectroscopy Polarization Curve Storage Tank 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Brouseau, Construction Canada, 35(5) (1992) 29.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steel Tank Institute, Optional Recommended Practice for Control of Localized Corrosion Within Underground Steel Petroleum Storage Tanks, R 831-98, STI, November 16, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Perkinc, W. H. Luebke, J. K. Graham and J. M. Todd, J. Electrochem. Soc. 124 (1977) 819.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. J. Kessler and R. G. Pouwers, in Corrosion 90, 1990, paper no. 324.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. P. Fisher, Materials Performances 20 (1981) 41.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. P. Fisher, in 15th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 2-5, 1983, p. 451.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. U. Lee and J. R. Ambrosse, Corrosion (NACE) 44 (1988) 887.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. H. Hartt and S. Chen, ibid. 55 (1999) 596.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Schaschl and G. A. Marsh, Materials Performance, 13 (1974) 9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. J. Barlo, Pipeline Technology, ASME 5 (1995) 285.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. C. Chung, A. S. Lin, J. R. Chang and H. C. Shih, Corros. Sci. 42 (2000) 1599.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Bounoughaz
    • 1
  • E. Salhi
    • 2
  • K. Benzine
    • 3
  • E. Ghali
    • 4
  • F. Dalard
    • 5
  1. 1.SONATRACH—Centre de Recherche et DéveloppementFrance
  2. 2.Ecole Nationale Polytechnique d'AlgerFrance
  3. 3.SONATRACH—Centre de Recherche et DéveloppementFrance
  4. 4.Département des Mines et MétallurgieUniversité LAVALCanada
  5. 5.LEPMI, Institut National Polytechnique GRENOBLESaint Martin d'HèresFrance

Personalised recommendations