4.1 Damage to pipe coating is almost unavoidable during transportation and construction. Breaks or holidays in pipe coatings may expose the pipe to possible corrosion since, after a pipe has been installed underground, the surrounding earth will be moisture-bearing and will constitute an effective electrolyte. Applied cathodic protection potentials may cause loosening of the coating, beginning at holiday edges. Spontaneous holidays may also be caused by such potentials. This test method provides accelerated conditions for cathodic disbondment to occur and provides a measure of resistance of coatings to this type of action.

4.2 The effects of the test are to be evaluated by physical examinations and monitoring the current drawn by the test specimen. Usually there is no correlation between the two methods of evaluation, but both methods are significant. Physical examination consists of assessing the effective contact of the coating with the metal surface in terms of observed differences in the relative adhesive bond. It is usually found that the cathodically disbonded area propagates from an area where adhesion is zero to an area where adhesion reaches the original level. An intermediate zone of decreased adhesion may also be present.

4.3 Assumptions associated with test results include:

4.3.1 Maximum adhesion, or bond, is found in the coating that was not immersed in the test liquid, and

4.3.2 Decreased adhesion in the immersed test area is the result of cathodic disbondment.

4.4 Ability to resist disbondment is a desired quality on a comparative basis, but disbondment in this test method is not necessarily an adverse indication of coating performance. The virtue of this test method is that all dielectric-type coatings now in common use will disbond to some degree, thus providing a means of comparing one coating to another.

4.5 The current density appearing in this test method is much greater than that usually required for cathodic protection in natural environments.

4.6 That any relatively lesser bonded area was caused by electrical stressing in combination with the elevated and or depressed temperature and was not attributable to an anomaly in the application process. Ability to resist disbondment is a desired quality on a comparative basis, but most insulating materials will disbond to some extent under the accelerated conditions of this test. Bond strength is more important for proper functioning of some coatings than others and the same measured disbondment for two different coating systems may not represent equivalent loss of corrosion protection.

4.6.1 The amount of current flowing in the test cell may be a relative indicator of the extent of areas requiring protection against corrosion; however, the current density appearing in this test is much greater than that usually required for cathodic protection in natural, inland soil environments.

4.6.2 Test voltages higher than those recommended may result in the formation of chlorine gas. The subsequent chemical effects on the coating could cast doubt on the interpretation of the test results.

1.1 This test method describes an accelerated procedure for determining comparative characteristics of insulating coating systems applied to steel pipe exterior for the purpose of preventing or mitigating corrosion that may occur in underground service where the pipe will be exposed to high temperatures and is under cathodic protection. This test method is intended for use with samples of coated pipe taken from commercial production and is applicable to such samples when the coating is characterized by function as an electrical barrier.

1.2 This test method is intended for testing coatings submerged or immersed in the test solution at elevated temperature. When it is impractical to submerge or immerse the test specimen, Test Method G95 may be considered where the test cell is cemented to the surface of the coated pipe specimen. If room temperatures are required, see Test Methods G8. If a specific test method is required with no options, see Test Method G80.

1.3 The values stated in SI units to three significant decimals are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.

1.4 Warning—Mercury has been designated by EPA and many state agencies as a hazardous material that can cause central nervous system, kidney, and liver damage. Mercury, or its vapor, may be hazardous to health and corrosive to materials. Caution should be taken when handling mercury and mercury-containing products. See the applicable product Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for details and EPA’s website (http://www.epa.gov/mercury/faq.htm) for additional information. Users should be aware that selling mercury or mercury-containing products, or both, in your state may be prohibited by state law.

1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.