Paper No.

00741
CORROSION 2000
PRACTICAL TELLURIC COMPENSATION FOR PIPELINE CLOSE INTERVAL SURVEY

T.D. Place, T.O. Sneath

TransCanada Transmission
P.O. Box 2535, Station M
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3P7

ABSTRACT

Transient phenomena can significantly affect the accuracy of pipe-to-soil potential (PSP) measurements. One pipeline
operator has developed a simple method to improve the accuracy of cathodic protection close interval survey (CIS)
measurements through the use of continuous dataloggers at reference locations within the survey area.

Keywords: cathodic protection, telluric current, telluric activity, geomagnetic disturbance, baseline potential, waveprint,
global positioning satellite (GPS),

INTRODUCTION

Telluric currents caused by the variations in the earths magnetic field are well known to present difficulties to operators of
pipeline systems. These currents manifest themselves as pipe-to-soil potential fluctuations which are dependent on both
location and time. Two mechanisms are generally considered when discussing telluric current effects: classical
electromagnetic induction supports the concept that local changes in the earths magnetic field will induce electrical current in
stationary conductors such as pipelines (see figure l)l; alternately, geomagnetic disturbances may result in large voltage
gradients created in the earths crust in which long metallic conductors such as pipelines merely carry the charge (without
electromagnetic induction in the pipe)". This paper does not address which mechanism is prevalent, but rather discusses one
approach developed to maximize close interval survey accuracy in telluric current affected areas.

For pipeline operators, pipe-to-soil potential variations caused by telluric activity can result in apparent non-compliance with
cathodic protection criterion, costly and unnecessary remedial construction, or shutdown of CP monitoring crews until the
telluric activity diminishes and pipe-to-soil potentials return to normal. Figure 2 illustrates telluric activity as recorded using
a stationary pipe-to-soil chart during close interval survey in 1999.

TransCanada Transmission operates 39,000km of pipeline throughout 6 provinces and 19,000km of right-of-way (Figure 3).
The integrity management of this pipeline system relies heavily on corrosion prevention by means of external pipe coatings
and cathodic protection augmented by routine in-line pipe inspections.

The cathodic protection system monitoring program involves routine inspections of impressed current sources, annual test
lead surveys, and regular close interval surveying (CIS) for a more detailed evaluation of cathodic protection system
performance. Approximately 3500km of pipe is close interval surveyed annually on a rotating schedule. Areas that do not
achieve the cathodic protection criteria are slated for further investigation, which includes adjustment of CP system operating
parameters, remedial design, and construction of new CP facilities.

Copyright
2000 by NACE International.Requests for permission to publish this manuscript in any form, in part or in whole must be in wdting to NACE
International, Conferences Division, P.O. Box 218340, Houston, Texas 77218-8340. The material presented and the views expressed in this
paper are solely those of the author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by the Association. Printed in U.S.A.
Given the scope of this annual survey program and the costs associated with construction of new CP facilities, survey
accuracy is paramount. The telluric monitoring procedures developed are used during all close interval survey. Where the
recorded pipe-to-soil fluctuations at reference locations exceed specified parameters, a simple algorithm is used to post-
process the close interval survey data to eliminate much of the telluric effects.

The telluric compensation technique is based on the following assumptions:

1. A sufficiently large sample of telluric current affected pipe-to-soil data, recorded at a single location and averaged over
time, will approximate the true pipe-to-soil potential unaffected by telluric currents;
2. The pipe-to-soil potential variations observed at one discrete location on a pipeline will approximate those observed at
nearby locations, provided that their separation is not too great and that there are no other significant differences in the
pipe or soil characteristics between the different locations.

This latter assumption is very significant, due to the nature of induced currents and voltages on Iossy conductors which
demands that there are spatial variations in potential response to excitation by telluric effects. While the greatest potential
variations would normally occur near pipeline termini (or isolators), changes in soil, pipe coating, or local electrical
grounding often result in localized areas which manifest larger than average telluric potential fluctuations.

FIELD METHODOLOGY

There are three components to the company's CIS inspection program: 1) stationary dataloggers to record time dependent
potential variations; 2) close interval survey data which records data affected by location and time dependent phenomena; and
3) ON/OFF waveprinting. It should be noted that the company interrupts all impressed current cathodic protection current
sources in order to capture IR free polarized potentials.

Prior to commencing close interval survey over a portion of pipe, dataloggers are installed immediately upstream and
downstream of the area being surveyed. Through the company's experience, these dataloggers are installed no greater than
5km (3 mi.) apart to minimize the error inherent in assumption 2. If more than 5km (3 mi.) is to be surveyed in one stretch,
additional dataloggers are installed at 5km (3 mi.) intervals further along the survey path (precise datalogger placement is
subject to test station availability). Figure 4 illustrates a typical setup for a close interval survey.

At the same time that the dataloggers are installed, ON/OFF waveprints are captured to ensure that the programming of
interrupters, dataloggers, and OFF potential sample points are satisfactory to ensure accurate data. Waveprints are analyzed
to identify datalogger or interrupter de-synchronization and to ensure that the ON and OFF potential sample points are
outside of the effects of any transient rectifier switching phenomena 3. Either condition would predicate reprogramming of
the dataioggers and/or current interrupters (Figure 5).

Once all dataloggers are installed and operating properly, the survey crew conducts a normal close interval survey through
the subject area using a 5 or 10 metre (15 or 30 feet) measurement interval.

TIMING IS CRITICAL

Equipment synchronization and documentation is critical in all aspects of the telluric compensated close interval survey
program. In order to minimize the likelyhood of interrupter or datalogger de-synchronization, all time dependent equipment
incorporate global positioning satellite (GPS) receivers.

Every potential recorded with the moving dataiogger is time stamped according to the GPS clock. This data represents the
CIS data which is known to contain variations in potential associated with location and time during telluric activity. The
stationary datalogger data also contains time stamping to ensure that post survey analysis can identify which of the stationary
datalogger readings is associated with each potential reading from the CIS survey data.

Periodically during the CIS, the moving datalogger is used to collect waveprints. If survey problems are evident during data
analysis, the waveprints can be used to diagnose the error and evaluate an error range for that days survey data.
Unacceptably large errors predicate re-survey of the affected sections.
 TELLURIC PROCESSING

Daily evaluation of data is performed in the field to provide the necessary feedback to adjust survey procedures to suit daily
circumstances. This allows the survey crew the opportunity to perform any necessary resurvey prior to demobilizing from
the area.

Each close interval survey segment between stationary dataloggers is analyzed and processed individually. This processing
involves three stages: 1) the upstream and downstream stationary datalogs are evaluated to estimate the true pipe-to-soil
potential at those locations, unaffected by telluric effects. This is termed the "baseline" potential. In most cases, the average
potential over the duration of the datalog (typically 22 or more hours) is used as a baseline; 2) the telluric activity at the
stationary datalogs is evaluated. Where observed activity exceeds 20mV, telluric compensation of the close interval survey
data is required; 3) the close interval survey data is then processed. Each time stamped close interval survey potential is
matched to simultaneous potentials at both the upstream and downstream datalogs. The telluric activity at that moment in
time is evaluated at each of the datalog locations by comparing that instantaneous potential with the baseline potentials. The
telluric correction used to process the close interval survey data is dependent upon telluric activity at each of the datalog
locations, as well as the distances between the close interval survey datapoint and the stationary dataloggers. It should be
noted that Proctor and Clarke used a similar telluric compensation methodology in New Zealand in 1974, using a single
stationary telluric activity monitor 4

A linear approximation is used to weight the CIS data according to its location in relation to the upstream and downstream
dataloggers. For example, when the CIS segment is just started, all of the telluric perturbation recorded at the starting datalog
location is assumed to affect the CIS data, while none of the telluric perturbation recorded at the more distant datalogger is
considered. At the midpoint between the two stationary dataloggers, 50% of the telluric perturbation of the upstream
datalogger is considered, as is 50% of the perturbation of the downstream datalogger. Each data point in the CIS segment is
similarly processed to create a complete tellurically compensated survey segment.

Figure 6 illustrates typical datalog and unprocessed CIS data, identification of simultaneous events, and an example
calculation of compensated CIS datum. Figure 7 illustrates in graphical form a section of close interval survey data from the
1999 survey program including a) CIS affected close interval survey data, b) datalog plots from stationary reference locations
showing telluric activity, and c) the final telluric compensated CIS survey plot of the test area. In this example, it is shown
that the telluric activity observed during the original close interval survey was reduced by approximately 70%.

BENEFITS/SENSITIVITIES/CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of stationary pipe-to-soil (P/S) dataloggers during routine CIS is an excellent means to identify and diagnose
the malfunction of survey equipment, current interrupters and rectifiers. Incorporating a stable time base and hard coding
survey data with the date and time information necessary to evaluate synchronous events then allows most transient P/S
fluctuations to be removed from the survey data for greater data accuracy.

Caution must be exercised to ensure that the time base being used by the dataloggers and survey equipment is very precise, as
slight errors can render the compensation algorithm less accurate or erroneous.

Caution must also be exercised to ensure that the stationary dataloggers used for telluric compensation are not installed at
telluric discontinuities or "nodes" - these are defined as locations where the observed telluric P/S activity is not
representative of the telluric response of the general area. Groundbed sites, mainline valve sites, sales meter stations and
compressor stations are all examples of poor stationary datalogger locations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals, groups and companies for assisting in the development of
TransCanada Pipelines telluric compensation system:
Mr. Bruno Jesse, former Corrosion Technologist with TransCanada, for developing the telluric compensation
methodology used by TransCanada.
All TransCanada's Corrosion Technicians and Field Survey Leaders for identifying software bugs and field application
deficiencies and improvements.
Corexco Inc. (now Corrpro Companies) for custom software and hardware developments over the past 5 years.
Corrosion Service Company for offering technical comments.
 TransCanada Pipelines management for acknowledging the technical hurdles of extensive close interval survey data
collection and providing funding for continuing improvement in equipment and procedures.

>e(t) ~/~e(t) >%)

'G,'

Distance (x)

Figure 1: Induction on conductor isolated at both ends

1000

go0-

B00-

7 0 0 - .', . . , . . . . I . . . . ' . . . . I . . . . ' . . . . I . . . . ' . . . . I . . . . ' . . . . I . . . . ' . . . . 1

OB:O0:O0 I0 20 30 ,40 50 0
g g 105/22 (Minutes)

Figure 2: Extract from stationary P-S datalog showing telluric activity

 i ~, . ~...

I'/ i

I
CA

,!

. =

: USA I ;

2 .... " .... , . . . .

t /

Figure 3: System Map

0km 3km 5km

I I I
Stationary Moving CIS Stationary
Datalogger"A" Datalogger Datalogger"B"
trailing wire ------------

Figure 4: Typical setup for telluric compensated close interval survey

,1

1.0

).9[ ., ~.

0.8 10" 20 30 40 50 60
T i m e (seconds)

Figure 5" Waveprint showing interruptor desynchronization

upstreamDatalogger UnprocessedCIS data Downstream Datalogger

C0(X~5262 x (km) C0808262 C0013352
A, LOCATION +5.26km 5.260 0. 934,1.094,99,09,24,07:26:44 A,LX~;ATION +13,35km
A,T,99,09,24,07:01:00 5.265 0.964,1.126,99,09,24,07:27:24 A,T,99,09,24,07:01:CO
A,S2.,SYNC OK,07:01:00,59,30,4,-5.9 5.270 0.950,1.116,99,09,24,07:27:32 A,S2,SYNC OK,07:01:00,59,30,-4,-22.4
0.948,1.110 7:01:00 0.962.,1.132 7:01:00
0.948,1.110 7:01:04 0.962,1.134 7:01:04
0.94.8,1.108 7:01:08 0.962,1.132 7:01:08
7.260 0.924,1.1~,99,09,24,08:40:08
7.265 0.910,1.~8,99,09,24,08:40:24
,simultaneous events 7.270 0.896,1.074,99,09,24,08:40:32 simultaneous events
0.876,1.0G6 8:40:4.0 7.275 0.880,1.058,99,09,24,08:40:52 < 0.908, 1,084 8:40:40
0.872,1 .(~6
0.866,1 .CG2
0.870,1.046
0.888,1.058
8:40:44
8:40:48
8:40:52 <
8:40:56
7.280 0.916,1.094,99,09,24,08:41:20
7.285 0.932,1.112,99,09,24,08:41:28
7.290 0.930,1.120,99,08,24,08:41:32 t 0.912,1.082
0.918,1.080
0.908,1.078
0.908,1.074
6:40:4,4
8:40:48
8:40:52
8:40:56
0.896,1.060 8:41:(X3 0.904,1,070 8:41:00
0.896,1.054 8:41:04 0.898,1.066 8,:41:04
8.450 0.944,1.066,99,09,24,09:17:16
8.455 0.986,1.108,99,09,24,09:17:24
8.460 0.964,1.062,99,08,24,08:17:32
0.922,1.076 9:30:52 AC1208462 0.940,1.1(~ 9:30:52.
0.916,1.076 9:30:56 0.932,1.1(~ 9:30:56
0.914,1.064 9"31:00 0.936,1.110 9:31:00
A,T,99,09,24,09:31:00 A,T,99,09,24,09:31:08
FIN FIN

Off baseline = 0.932V Off baseline = 0.947V

Activity (t=8:40:52) = -62mV Activity (t=8:40:52) = -39mY

Compensation Calculation (weighted according to location)

Telluric Activity at Upstream Datalogger Location = -62mY
Weighting for Upstream Datalog (13.35-7.275)/(13.35..5.26) = 0.751
Contribution from Upstream Datal~jer = (62"0.751) = -47mY

Telluric Activity at DoNe'earn Datalo~:3er Location = .-39mY

Weighting for Downstream Datalog (7.275-5.26)/(13.35-5.26) = 0.24..9
Contribution from Upstream Datalogger = (47'*0.249) = -lOmV

Total Compensatio~ (t=08:40:52) = +57mV

Compemated CIS data (single line entry) --> 0.937,1.117,99,09,24,:08:40:52 (Valid for t=08:40:52 a n d x=7.275km, ,only)

Figure 6: Sample telluric match and compensation

I Geological Survey of Canada, National Geomagnetism Program, http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/
2 T.G. Proctor, Materials Performance June 1974:p.24
3 L.D. Cox, Materials Performance January 1992:p28
4 T.D. Proctor,, T.R. Clarke, Materials Performance June 1974:p.29