See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327896689

Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel

pipeline

Article  in  International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · September 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149

CITATION READS

1 482

8 authors, including:

M. MOHAMED Ben Amara hadj meliani Mohammed

University of Lorraine Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef
12 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    80 PUBLICATIONS   381 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bouledroua Omar Bassam Gamal Nasser Muthanna

Sonatrach Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef
28 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hydrogen Embrittlement - Understanding and research framework View project

Integrety of buried pipes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bouledroua Omar on 29 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 0

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural

integrity of API 5L X52 steel pipeline

H. Boukortt a, M. Amara b, M. Hadj Meliani a,c,*, O. Bouledroua a,

B.G.N. Muthanna a,d, R.K. Suleiman e, A.A. Sorour e, G. Pluvinage c
a
LPTPM, HassibaBenBouali University of Chlef, P.O.Box. 151 Hay Salem, 02000 Chlef, Algeria
b
LME, Hassiba BenBouali University of Chlef, P.O.Box. 151 Hay Salem, 02000 Chlef, Algeria
c
LEM3, UMR CNRS 7239, 1 Road D'Ars Laquenexy, CS 65820, 57078 Metz, France
d
LRM, HassibaBenBouali University of Chlef, P.O.Box. 151 Hay Salem, 02000 Chlef, Algeria
e
Center of Research Excellence in Corrosion (CoRE-C), King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM),
Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

article info abstract

Article history: Hydrogen plays a decisive role in many future energy systems. For these reasons, many
Received 21 June 2018 researchers have been performed to see the effect of hydrogen on network canalizations.
Received in revised form This paper was study the possibility of hydrogen transportation using the natural gas
24 July 2018 pipeline. In this paper, the effect of hydrogen embrittlement (HE) on the mechanical
Accepted 23 August 2018 properties of pipe steels was examined. It appeared that the yield stress and ultimate
Available online xxx strength were few sensitive to HE. However, fracture toughness and elongation at failure
exhibited a severe decrease. Failure pressure established by different codes involved a flow
Keywords: stress which is a combination of yield stress and flow stress. Pipe defect assessment
Integrity of structure involved fracture toughness and flow stress upon using Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)
Hydrogen embrittlement or Crack Driving Force (CDF) methods. In this paper, the consequence of hydrogen
FAD embrittlement on the failure and critical pressures of a pipe with a semi-elliptical defect
CDF was examined. The influence of assessment method, relative defect depth and working
Failure pressure codes pressure were examined through the comparison of respective safety factors.
FEM © 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Equipment Manufacturer, OEM and power system supplier

Introduction
Hydrogen is used as a sustainable energy carrier for Fuel Cell
Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) and as a renewable energy storage
medium at the utility level. Growth in the global FCEVs market
will be buoyed in the next five years by the launch of 20 fuel
cell cars [1]. With high investment coming from the US and
Europe, the next big opportunity is to co-develop fuel cell
stacks and optimise fuel cell systems through Original
joint ventures. This will rapidly increase commercialisation
and adoption rates [2]. Hydrogen can also be used as a fuel in
stationary fuel cell systems for buildings, back-up power or
distributed generation. For safety, the environmentally
friendly and cost-effective transportation and distribution of
large quantities of hydrogen, piping systems are generally
considered superior, as an example, to trucks and trains.
However, the main concerns related to the development of a

* Corresponding author. LPTPM, HassibaBenBouali University of Chlef, P.O.Box. 151 Hay Salem, 02000 Chlef, Algeria.
E-mail address: m.hadjmeliani@univ-chlef.dz (M. Hadj Meliani).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
0360-3199/© 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Boukortt H, et al., Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel
pipeline, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
2 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 0
new gas pipeline system adapted to hydrogen are the con-
struction costs, which can reach several thousand billion
euros on a European scale, the societal cost of the activities
construction and the construction time (decades). In addition,
the increasingly strict land-use planning issues will prevent
the rapid development of new pipelines [3].
Hydrogen transport in the existing pipeline system has
been proposed as a way to increase the production of
renewable energy systems. The durability of some metal pipes
can be degraded when exposed to hydrogen over a long period
of time, particularly with injection at high hydrogen concen-
tration and pressure. The effect depends strongly on the type
of steel and must be evaluated on a case by case basis. How-
ever, metal pipes in French distribution systems are made
primarily of medium strength steels, typically API 5L X52
which issensitive to hydrogen induced embrittlement under
normal operating conditions. At pressure levels in the natural
gas distribution network in Europe, hydrogen-induced failures
are considered as major integrity problems for steel pipes.
Recent attention has been paid to hydrogen embrittlement
of APL 5L X52 pipe steel in the service conditions. Failure
pressure establish by different codes (ASME B31G [4], Modified
B31G [5], DNV RP F-101 [6], SHELL-92 [7], RSTRENG [8], the
Netto et al. [9] method and the Choi’s [10]) involves a flow
stress which is a combination of yield stress and flow stress.
The hydrogen embrittlement effect on the mechanical prop-
erties (yield stress, ultimate strength, and elongation at frac-
ture) of this steel API 5L X52, have been previously
investigated [11e13]. Hadj Meliani et al. [12] has studied the
effect of hydrogen on the master failure curve of pipe steel API
5L X52, X70 and X100 Gas Pipe Steels and have noted a
decrease in thefracture toughness with hydrogen embrittle-
ment. Elazzizi et al. [13] has studied the effect of hydrogen
embrittlement on the fracture mechanism of API 5L X52
pipeline steel. Hadj Meliani et al. [14] has studied the influence
of sandblasting and hydrogen, on notch fracture toughness of
this steel through degradation parameters.M. Soudani et al.
[15] has studied the evaluation of the hydrogen embrittlement
occurred by a chemical reaction of hydrochloric acid on pipe
steel API 5L X65 through Charpy energy and dynamic fracture
toughness. Bouledroua et al. [16] has reported the erosion-
corrosion interaction effect on the master material failure
curve of API 5L X70 pipe steel, in which the internal semi-
elliptical crack like defect has been analyzed through the
limit analysis and fracture mechanics. The study of the effect
of hydrogen embrittlement on metals is still a very hot area of
research. Encouraged by this, and in this work, the conse-
quence of hydrogen embrittlement on the harmfulness of pipe
defect was carefully investigated.
To achieve this, the limit pressure was computed through
several code formulas, in which the defect in this case was
considered as a loss of metal with no stress concentration.
Crack tip stress distribution was computed using ANSYS
software in three dimensions and using the real material
stress-strain curve with and without hydrogen embrittle-
ment. Stress-intensity factor was introduced in using the
failure pressure codes, the crack driving force (CDF) and the
Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) in order to the get burst
pressure and safety factor. The study was done for different
crack depth ratios and service pressures in the presence and
Please cite this article in press as: Boukortt H, et al., Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel
pipeline, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
absence of hydrogen. The consequence of hydrogen embrit-
tlement was given as a relative loss in the safety factor.
Hydrogen embrittlement effect on pipeline steel
When hydrogen enters the material, it tends to accumulate in
a wide variety of locations within the microstructures such as
grain boundaries, inclusions, voids, dislocation entangle-
ments and dislocation networks, atoms in solute as well as
solid solution. Whatever is the location of the hydrogen fixa-
tion, failure will be mainly controlled by local hydrogen con-
centration, which depends on the traps at different degrees
[17,18].
It is therefore admitted that under certain conditions,
mobile dislocations can accumulate hydrogen on defects
which constitute obstacles to their movement. This accumu-
lation of hydrogen, combined with the existence of strong
residual stresses associated with dislocation stacks, can pro-
mote the initiation and/or propagation of a crack. This
mechanism assumes an intense pinning of hydrogen on dis-
locations under a moderate temperature. It also requires a
good compatibility between hydrogen and dislocations mo-
tilities and therefore low strain rates. The local accumulation
of hydrogen is favored by a coplanar movement of disloca-
tions and depends on the nature and distribution of defects in
the microstructure [16].
Hydrogen effect on microstructure surface
Fracture surfaces were examined using a Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM) for the determination of fracture initiation
points and also for checking the eventual fracture surface
modification under influence of hydrogen. It has been found
that for tests under hydrogen pressure, the inner fracture
surface is characterised by an array of surface cracks (see
Fig. 1).
Crack propagation in air shows a perlite debonding and
ferrite matrix cracking. In air, crack propagates by mode I in
ferrite phase. Some cracks are arrested in the perlitic phase,
and continue as a second crack in ferrite. The extension of the
second crack is probably a prolongation of the first crack in
third dimension. The perlite phase plays the role of a crack
arrestor.
Under hydrogen environment, the fracture is sometimes
initiated from secondary cracks and is very close to the sur-
face due to pitting under hydrogen attack as shown in Fig. 1b.
The crack stress field will produce a strain magnification in
adjacent micro-cracks and the penetration of hydrogen atoms
will result in a further cracking of ferrite phase. The crack
cross the perlitic phase and will propagate in the straight di-
rection facilitating the hydrogen propagation and weeping.
Hydrogen embrittlement effect on tensile properties
The hydrogen embrittlement effect on the tensile properties
has been studied by several researchers. Cheolho Park et al.
[19] has studied the effect of grain size on the resistance to
hydrogen embrittlement of API 2W Grade 60 steels; the
hydrogen effect has caused a slight decrease in the yield stress
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 0 3

Fig. 1 e Optical photographs for cross section through the cracks and secondary cracks [13].

and ultimate stress by 2% and 7%, respectively. On the other

hand, it caused a significant decrease in the failure elongation
of about 40%. The same result was confirmed by other studies
in the literature [20e23]. In this study, we have used the API 5L
X52 pipeline steel given by Elazzizi et al. [13]. After hydrogen
absorption, a small decrease in the yield stress has been noted
(2.5%) as an important reduction of elongation at failure of
38%.
The analysis of results of various pipe steels indicates that
there is practically no effect of the hydrogen embrittlement on
the yield strength and ultimate strength, whatever was the
yield strength (Fig. 2).
Fig. 3 shows the evolution of ratio of elongation at failure
with and without the influence of hydrogen for different types
of pipe steels. Despite its scattered behavior, it can be seen
that the ratio A% (H2)/A% (air) decreased as the yield strength
of the steel increased. Fig. 3 e Evolution of the ratio elongation with and without
the influence of hydrogen of different steel pipes.
Hydrogen effect on fracture toughness of pipe steel

The fracture toughness Kr,c was measured on notched Roman
tile specimens with a notch radius of 0.25 mm. The fracture
toughness (Critical notch stress intensity factor Kr,c, and
critical crack opining displacement dc) of API 5L X52 steel in air
Fig. 2 e Influence of yield stress on ultimate strength and
ultimate strength ratios in hydrogen and air.
are Kr,c ¼ 95.6 MPa√m and dc ¼ 0.18 mm, respectively. On the
other hand, the fracture toughness was decreased after
hydrogen embrittlement by an electrolytic way with
Kr,c ¼ 82.6 MPa√m and dc ¼ 0.09 mm [24]. Chatzidouros et al.
[25] has studied the hydrogen effect on fracture toughness KQ
of API 5L X52 steel. Electrolytic hydrogen charging was made
with 3 different current densities (1 ma/dm2, 5 ma/dm2 and 10
ma/dm2); a decrease in the fracture toughness of 18% was
noted. Mueller-Syring [26] has reported the fracture toughness
KIC for different hydrogen pressures (20, 40 and 60 bars H2).
The maximum decrease in the fracture toughness was about
49%. Capelle et al. [27] has studied the influence of hydrogen
on the fracture toughness KIC on CT of API 5L X52 API 5L X70
and API 5L X100 steel specimens. Fracture toughness was
decreased by about 14% for API 5L X52, 5% for API 5L X70 and
1% for API 5L X100 steels. In the case of API pipe steels, the
fracture was determined before and after hydrogen charging.
The charge was either an electrolytic charge (circled point) or a
gaseous one for a pressure of 6.9 MPa.
This hydrogen-air fracture toughness ratio is presented in
Fig. 4 as a function of the yield strength. It is very clear from
the figure that the plotted data exhibited an important scatter.
The average value of this ratio (67%) revealed that the fracture

Please cite this article in press as: Boukortt H, et al., Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel
pipeline, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
4 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 0
Fig. 4 e Evolution of the hydrogen-air toughness ratio with
a yield strength for various API pipe steels.
toughness was dropped by about 1/3 as a result of hydrogen
embrittlement. The fracture toughness of API 5L X52, X70 and
X100 has been obtained using CT specimen immersed in a cell
with NS4 solution and exposed under a constant potential of
polarisation which is slightly negative than free corrosion
potential for given steel. The hydrogen-charging process is
controlled by the registration of the cathodic polarisation
current. The influence of holding time of electrolytic hydrogen
charging has been inspired from Ref. [11]. At these conditions,
the hydrogen atoms are generated on steel surface by an
electrochemical reduction of water molecules as reported
previously [11].
Assessment of corrosion defect
Corrosion defect is the most important pipe defect population
that can be encountered in pipes. It represents about 37% of
the total defect populations. Failures emanating from such
defects can be elasto-plastic fracture or plastic collapse. For
these two situations, the defect assessment is made generally
by two tools: SINTAP (Structural Integrity Assessment Pro-
cedure for European Industry) procedure and limit analysis
(LA).
Limit analysis
In this part, a list of harmfulness causes of corrosion defects
can be studied by the limit analysis methods which give the
limit pressure pL. The defects are grouped vertically by their
type, codified methods or other properties [28]. The limit
pressure is greater than the maximum allowable operating
pressure (MAOP) which is a design parameter in pipeline en-
gineering. This upper limit is calculated using Eq. (2):
ps < MAOP
2t
MAOP ¼ SMYS fF fE fT
Dt
Please cite this article in press as: Boukortt H, et al., Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel
pipeline, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
where ps is the service pressure, MAOP is the maximum
allowable operating pressure, and SMYS is the specified
minimum yield strength of the pipe material. The nominal
wall thickness is noticed by t where as D is the outside
diameter of pipeline. The factor fF has been named as the
design factor (for gas fF ¼ 0.72, for 0.2 < fF < 0.4) [29]. This factor
is usually 0.72 for cross-country or offshore gas pipelines but
can be as low as 0.4 depending on class location and the type
of construction. The class locations, in turn, depend on the
population density in the vicinity of the pipeline. The seam
joint factor, fE, varies with the type of pipe material and weld
joint. Seam joint factors are between 1 and 0.6 for the most
commonly used material types. The temperature factor, fT, is
equal to 1 for gas temperature below 120  C but it arrives to
0.867 at 230  C [29].
Several common design codes that incorporate the limit
pressure given by limit analysis are the ASME B31G [4],
Modified B31G [5], DNV RP F-101 [6], SHELL-92 [7], RSTRENG [8],
the Nettoet al. [9] method and the Choi’s [10]. It can be said
that these codes were more or less originated from the original
B31G criterion but the later codes were evolved using exten-
sive series of full-scale tests results on corroded pipelines.
Most of these codes are represented by safety factors and thus
making it deterministic in nature.
SINTAP procedure
In the structural integrity assessment analysis, two types of
philosophy have been selected for the SINTAP procedure. The
first uses the concept of a crack driving force curve (CDF) and
the second is the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD). In the
CDF approach, the J-integral concept is compared directly
with the material’s fracture toughness without taking into
count the plastic limit effect. On the other hand, the FAD
approach uses the comparison of the crack tip driving force
with the material’s fracture toughness and with the plastic
load limit at the same time (Fig. 5) [30].
CDF route
In the CDF route (Fig. 5), the crack driving force such as the J-
integral or crack tip opening displacement (CTOD ¼ d) is
computed. It characterizes the stresses and strains ahead of
the crack tip in a specimen or component:
2
J ¼ Je ½f ðLr Þ or d ¼ de ½f ðLr Þ
2
(3)
where Je and de are the elastic values of the crack driving
force which can be deduced from the stress intensity factor KI
(a,F) as:
½KI ða; FÞ2 ½KI ða; FÞ2
Je ¼ or de ¼ (4)
E' E'
With the crack length, F load E0 being Young’s modulus E in
plane stress and E/(1  n2) in plane strain. The quantity n is the
Poisson’s ratio. The fracture resistance of the material is used
in terms of the K factor, Kmat. This quantity is obtained
(1) formally from the J-integral or CTOD by:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Jmat :E sy :dmat :E
(2) Kmat ¼ ¼ (5)
ð1  v2 Þ ð1  v2 Þ
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 0
Fig. 5 e Schema of CDF and FAD approaches used in SINTAP.
With Jmat and dmat the fracture toughness of material
(J-integral and CTOD) [31].
Failure assessment diagram (FAD)
Any kind of rupture (brittle, elastoplastic or plastic collapse)
can be represented by an assessment point on the graph that
plots the non-dimensional applied crack driving force kr
versus the non-dimensional applied load Lr. Critical values of
kr and Lr define a critical curve (or failure curve). In the above
mentioned graph, this curve defines the integrity area as the
area under the failure curve obtained by interpolation be-
tween critical points (0; 1) and (1; 0). Other parameters need to
be defined are the non-dimensional crack driving force kr and
non-dimensional applied stress Lr or load Lr. Non dimensional
crack driving force kr was initially defined as the ratio of
applied stress intensity factor over the fracture toughness of
material KIc.
Kap
kr ¼
KIc
By extension, it can be defined from the J integral or crack
opening displacement:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Japp dapp
kr ¼ or kr ¼
Jmat dc
where Japp and dapp are the applied J integral and crack opening
displacement, respectively and J mat and dc are fracture
toughness expressed in terms of critical value of J Integral or
critical crack opening displacement of the material. Non-
dimensional stress Lr is defined as the ratio of the gross
stress sg over flow stress s0 (chosen as yield stress sy, ultimate
stress; sul or classic flow stress s0¼(syyþ sul)/2).
sg
Lr ¼
s0
Non dimensional load Lr is defined as follow:
Please cite this article in press as: Boukortt H, et al., Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel
pipeline, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
5
P
Lr ¼ (9)
PL
P is applied load and PL limit load.
Numerical method
For this analysis, we have considered a simple structure for a
pipe submitted to internal pressure and made from API 5L
X52 steel. The pipe has a diameter D equals to 611 mm and a
thickness t equals to 11 mm. This pipe exhibited an internal
semi-elliptical crack at pipeline with a/t ¼ 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and
0.5, with a/c ¼ 0.5 and pressure variation to the limit pressure
pLusing the ANSYS [32] software, after conversion of engi-
neering stress/strain to true stress/strain of API 5L X52
pipeline steel with and without hydrogen stress at defect tip
were computed. A SOLID186 element using in this finite
element analysis with a 20 node solid element that exhibits
(6)
quadratic displacement behavior was used. The element is
defined by 20 nodes having three degrees of freedom per
node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The
element supports plasticity, hyper-elasticity, creep, stress
stiffening, large deflection, and large strain capabilities. The
(7)
SOLID186 has been adapted to meshing the pipe, with a
refined meshing near crack tip which represents the critical
zone of the pipe (Fig. 6). The semi-elliptical crack is charac-
terised by crack depth ratio a/t and crack aspect ratio
a/c ¼ 0.2.
Results and discussion
Table 1 shows the limit pressure established by different
(8)
codes (ASME B31G [4], Modified B31G [5], DNV RP F-101 [6],
SHELL-92 [7], RSTRENG [8], Netto et al. [9] method and Choi’s
6 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 0

Fig. 6 e Internal semi-elliptical crack at pipeline presentation, (a) pipeline geometry and global mesh type and (b) semi-
elliptical crack meshing.

Table 1 e Limit pressure calculated by different methods and different crack depth values with and without hydrogen
embrittlement for API X52 steel.
Depth ratio Gas B31G B31Gmod DNV RP F101 SHELL92 RSTRENG Choi's Netto method
0.1 NG 17.34 18.25 16.05 14.18 14.18 14.51 17.29
H2 16.66 17.63 15.43 13.63 13.63 13.95 16.62
0.2 Air 17.33 18.24 16.05 14.18 12.61 14.36 17.16
H2 16.66 17.63 15.42 13.63 12.12 13.80 16.50
0.3 Air 17.33 18.23 16.04 14.17 11.04 14.22 16.95
H2 16.65 17.62 15.42 13.62 10.61 13.67 16.29
0.4 Air 17.31 18.21 16.03 14.14 9.48 14.09 16.64
H2 16.63 17.60 15.41 13.59 9.11 13.54 16.00
0.5 Air 17.28 18.17 16.01 14.08 7.92 13.93 16.25
H2 16.60 17.56 15.38 13.54 7.62 13.38 15.62

Fig. 7 e Stress intensity factor distribution for p ¼ 1 MPa to 17 MPa of natural gas or hydrogen a/t ¼ 0.5 (a) at crack tip and (b)
at f ¼ 90 .

[10]) in the presence and absence of hydrogen effect. A hydrogen embrittlement. The modified ASME B31G gave the
maximum decrease of 4% in the limit pressure was observed maximum values for the limit pressure compared with the
accompanied also with a decrease in the mechanical proper- other codes while oppositely the RSTRENG method was the
ties sy and sul of 4% (Table 1) that was induced by the most conservative.

Please cite this article in press as: Boukortt H, et al., Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel
pipeline, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 0 7

The second part represents the numerical analysis of a
cracked pipeline, an internal semi-elliptical crack at pipeline
with different relative crack depth ratios a/t ¼ 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4
and 0.5, with a constant aspect ratio a/c ¼ 0.5 and a pressure
equals to limit pressure pL given by the modified ASME B31G
[5]. Fig. 7 represents the stress intensity factor distribution for
a semi-elliptical crack with a relative depth ratio a/t ¼ 0.5. The
maximum stress intensity factor was localized at position
angle f ¼ 90 . For an applied natural gas pressure p of 17 MPa,
the maximum stress intensity factor was less than 20% of the
fracture toughness.
On the other hand, and for the same pressure but under
hydrogen, the stress intensity factor was greater than the
fracture toughness (Fig. 7a). Fig. 7b shows the stress intensity
factor KI,f ¼ 90 variation for different apply applied pressure
values. We observed a linear increase up to a pressure value p
of 14 MPa. Beyond this value, a nonlinear increasing induced
by an entering in the plastic regime was observed.
The maximum stress intensity factors with and without
hydrogen embrittlement are presented in Fig. 7b. The
maximum stress intensity factor value under gas pressure
with and without hydrogen embrittlement was practically the
same until a pressure of 14 MPa. Beyond this value, the
maximum stress intensity factor increased more rapidly
under hydrogen embrittlement and the difference was about
20% of the critical pressure. Fig. 8 showed the loading path for
the semi-elliptical defect with relative depth a/t ¼ 0.5 on the
FAD for both conditions.
By using the crack driving force (CDF) approach [33,34], the
critical pressure was Pcz9.2 MPa and Pcz11 MPa with and
without hydrogen embrittlement, respectively. The interest of
FAD is to take into account the decreases in the fracture
toughness relatively to plane strain fracture toughness KIC an
dinduced by plasticity until plastic limit. CDF approach pre-
dicts for each situation the material’s fracture toughness Kc.
In FAD, Kc is known as a priori through the failure assessment
curve kr ¼ f (Lr).
One should notes that hydrogen embrittlement effect
induces a rise in the assessment point by increasing kr and
decreasing Lr. The value of kr increases as the fracture
toughness KIc decreases after a hydrogen embrittlement
between 15 and 40% on the pipe steel [12,35e38]. At the
same time, Lr was slightly decreased as the flow stress
(s0 ¼ (syþsu)/2) was also affected (0e5%). Therefore, the
hydrogen embrittlement of the pipeline has a slight effect
on the associated safety factor. Table 2 reported and

Fig. 9 e Failure assessment diagram representation,

Fig. 8 e FAD with and without hydrogen function as hydrogen embrittlement effect on the assessment point
applied pressure and a/t ¼ 0.5. and safety factor calculation method.

Table 2 e Limit pressure comparisons computed by ASME B31Gmod, and critical pressure computed by CDF and FAD
methods for different relative crack depth ratios and gas pressures with and without hydrogen embrittlement.
Methods B31Gmod CDF FAD
Depth ratio Pressure PL Diff.(%) PL Diff.(%) PL Diff.(%)
0.1 Gas 18.25 3.40 21.52 16.49 19.23 8.68
H2 17.63 17.97 17.56
0.2 Gas 18.24 3.34 19.88 11.02 17.10 11.69
H2 17.63 17.69 15.10
0.3 Gas 18.23 3.35 18.62 6.92 14.93 12.72
H2 17.62 17.33 13.03
0.4 Gas 18.21 3.35 17.83 8.19 12.85 13.46
H2 17.6 16.37 11.12
0.5 Gas 18.17 3.36 17.64 14.51 10.79 12.78
H2 17.56 15.08 9.41

Please cite this article in press as: Boukortt H, et al., Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel
pipeline, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
8 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 0

Fig. 11 e Failure assessment diagram for different relative

Fig. 10 e Failure assessment diagram for different relative
crack depth and applied gas pressure p ¼ 5 and
p ¼ 11 MPa.
compared the results for different relative depth ratios. The
computed critical pressure is also compared with the
modified ASME B31G solution. A small decrease in the limit
pressure has been noted (4%) and the difference in the
critical pressure was higher up to 16%. However, these re-
sults allow the possibility of hydrogen transportation using
the existing natural gas network without reducing service
pressure. Fig. 9 represents the failure assessment diagram
for different relative depth ratios (a/t ¼ 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and
0.5) while the failure assessment diagram for two different
applied gas pressures (p ¼ 5 and p ¼ 11 MPa) is depicted in
Fig. 10.
One should note that the loading path was increased in a
non-linearly way as the relative crack depth ratio increased.
The loading path is raising when hydrogen gas pressure is
crack depth with limit pressure P ¼ Plim.
active for the above mentioned reasons and when the gas
pressure increased from 5 to 11 MPa.Table 3 showed thesafety
factors (fs) for different relative crack depth ratios. Data for
different gas pressures with and without hydrogen are pre-
sented in Fig. 10 (see Table 4).
Maximum difference compared in safety factor is 18.42%
and 20.00% for p ¼ 5 MPa and p ¼ 11 MPa,respectively and for
a/t ¼ 0.4. The small decrease in the safety factor indicate that
the security of hydrogen transportation in pipe network is less
affected.
Safety factor (fs) can be calculated from Limit Analysis (LA)
method in case of hydrogen, is at the top of the curve, which
highlights the need to use the Failure Assessment Diagram
method (FAD).
Table 4 illustrates the safety factors (fs) for different rela-
tive crack depth ratio sat the limit pressure with and without
hydrogen and the data are also presented in Fig.11.

Table 3 e Safety factor (fs) values for different relative crack depths ratio (a/t ¼ 0.1 to 0.5), with and without hydrogen and for
different gas pressures (p ¼ 5 MPa and 11 MPa).
a/t p ¼ 5 MPa p ¼ 11 MPa
fs Diff. (%) fs Diff. (%)
Without H2 With H2 Without H2 With H2
0.1 3.85 3.70 3.90 1.79 1.64 8.38
0.2 3.45 3.13 9.28 1.56 1.41 9.62
0.3 3.03 2.63 13.20 1.37 1.20 12.41
0.4 2.63 2.22 15.59 1.18 0.98 (failure) 16.95
0.5 2.17 1.89 12.90 0.98 (failure) 0.85 (failure) 13.27

Table 4 e Safety factor for the limit pressure (started of the elastic behavior) for the different depth on pipe.
Depth (a/t) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Without Hydrogen fs (LA) 1.11 1.08 1.02 0.91 (failure) 0.81 (failure)
pl 19.23 17.1 14.93 12.85 10.79
py 13.42 12.39 11.36 10.32 9.29
With Hydrogen fs (FAD) 1.383 1.284 1.190 1.023 0.931 (failure)
pl 18.5 15.91 13.72 11.71 9.91
py 13.1 12.09 11.08 10.08 9.07

Please cite this article in press as: Boukortt H, et al., Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel
pipeline, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 0
Fig. 12 e Domain failure assessment diagram with three
fracture domains.
In the FAD, the loading path is linear because the two non-
dimensional parameters kr and Lr are proportional to the
applied gross stress sg if linear elasticity assumption is used.
The angle between this loading path and the Lr axis is called
the assessment angle q. Two particular values of the assess-
ment angle can be defined asq1,q2. These two angles deter-
mine three failure domains in the Domain Failure Assessment
diagram (DFAD) diagram (Fig. 12), (i) if q < q1, localized the
brittle fracture, (ii) if q1 < q < q2 elastoplastic fracture zone
appear and (iii) if q > q2 plastic collapse.
Based on Federsen diagram [39] the limit of these three
zones is defined conventionally as follows:
Zone I 0 < Lr < 0; 62 Lr;y
Zone II 0; 62 Lr;y < Lr < 0:95 Lr;L
Zone III 0; 95 Lr; max < Lr < Lr;max
Where Lr,y is associated with the yield pressure and Lr,max is
the cut-off value. The use of NFAD is particularly interesting to
choose the appropriate tool for assess the risk of failure
emanating from a pipe defect. Assessment points are sorted in
3 categories: limit analysis (LA), elasto-plastic fracture me-
chanics (EPFM) and brittle fracture (BF) according to the prin-
ciple of DFAD. The following criterion has been applied:
 Pip 2003;80(2):121e8.
kr  tgðq1 ÞLr / BF

kr  tgðq1 ÞLr < tgðq2 ÞLr / EPFM

kr  tgðq2 ÞLr / LA
Conclusion
The analysis of the possibility of hydrogen transportation
using the natural gas network, taking into account the
hydrogen embrittlement effect on material fracture tough-
ness was successfully achieved in this study. We have
observed that a 4% decrease in the flow stress due to the
hydrogen embrittlement has induced a 4% decrease in the
limit pressure using the modified ASME B31G solution. More-
over, the CDF and FAD methodsgavea critical pressure
decrease of more than 16%as a result of the decrease in the-
fracture toughness to 33%.Therefore, the choice of the method
Please cite this article in press as: Boukortt H, et al., Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel
pipeline, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
9
need to be used for defect assessment (limit analysis or FAD)
remainedan open question. Response was given by domain
FADwhiledeep defect were generally treated by limit analysis.
However, safety factor provided by the limit analysis was
higher than those given by FAD.
references
[1] Pollet Bruno G, Staffell Iain, Shang Jin Lei. Current status of
hybrid, battery and fuel cell electric vehicles: from
electrochemistry to market prospects. Electrochim Acta 1
December 2012;84:235e49.
[2] Sandy Thomas CE. Transportation options in a carbon-
constrained world: hybrids, plug-in hybrids, biofuels, fuel
cell electric vehicles, and battery electric vehicles. Int J
Hydrogen Energy December 2009;34(23):9279e96.
[3] Hadj Meliani M, Matvienko YG, Pluvinage G. Two parameter
fracture criterion (K r, c-T ef, c) based on notch fracture
mechanics. Int J Fract 2011;167(2):173e82.
[4] American National Standard Institute (ANSI)/American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Manual for
determining strength of corroded pipelines. ASME B31G;
1984.
[5] ASME B31G-2009: manual for determining the remaining
strength of corroded pipelines[S]. New York: American
Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2009.
[6] DNV RP-F101 (2) DNV-RP-F101: corroded pipelines. Det
Norske Veritas; 1999.
[7] Reddy AC. Reliability assessment of corrosion cracks in cold
rolled 302 stainless steel pipes based on SHELL-92 criterion.
In: National conference on advances in design approaches
and production technologies (ADAPT-2005), Hyderabad; 22-
(10) 23rd August 2005. p. 232e4.
[8] Reddy AC. Trustworthiness judgment of corrosion cracks in
cold rolled 305 stainless steel pipes based on RSTRENG
criterion. In: National conference on advances in design
approaches and production technologies (ADAPT-2005),
Hyderabad; 22-23rd August 2005.
[9] Netto TA, Ferraz US, Estefen SF. The effect of corrosion
defects on the burst pressure of pipelines. J Constr Steel Res
2005;61:1185e204.
[10] Choi JB, Goo BK, Kim JC, Kim YJ, Kim WS. Development of
limit load solutions for corroded gas pipelines. Int J Pres Ves
[11] Capelle J, Gilgert J, Dmytrakh I, Pluvinage G. Sensitivity of
pipelines with steel API X52 to hydrogen embrittlement. Int J
(11) Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(24):7630e41.
[12] Hadj Meliani M, Azari Z, Matvienko Yu G, Pluvinage G. The
effect of hydrogen on the master failure curve of APL 5L gas
pipe steels. Procedia Engineering 2011;10:942e7.
[13] Elazzizi A, Hadj Meliani M, Khelil A, Pluvinage G,
Matvienko YG. The master failure curve of pipe steels and
crack paths in connection with hydrogen embrittlement. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(5):2295e302.
[14] Hadj Meliani M, Bouledroua O, Alhussein A, Matvienko YG,
Pluvinage G. ‘Some aspects sandblasting and hydrogen on
the material master failure curve in engineering fracture
mechanics’ anales de Meca  nica de la Fractura, vol. 32; 2015.
[15] Soudani M, Hadj Meliani M, El-miloudi K, Azari Z, Sorour AA,
Merah N, et al. Reduction of hydrogen embrittlement of API
5l X65 steel pipe using a green inhibitor. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 14 June 2018;43(24):11150e9.
[16] Bouledroua O, Hadj Meliani M, Azari Z, Sour A, Merah N,
Pluvinage G. Effect of sandblasting on tensile properties,
hardness and fracture resistance of a line pipe steel used in
10 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y x x x ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 e1 0
Algeria for oil transport. J Fail Anal Preven 04 August
2017;17(5):890e904.
[17] Pluvinage G, Bouledroua O, Hadj Meliani M, Suleiman Rami
K. Corrosion defect analysis using domain failure
assessment diagram. Int J Pres Ves Pip August
2018;165:126e34.
[18] Soudani M, Bouledroua O, Hadj Meliani M, El-miloudi K,
Muthanna BGN, Khelil A, et al. Corrosion inspection and
recommendation on the internal wall degradation caused
rupture of 6” gas line pipe. J Bio Tribo Corros 2018;4:28.
[19] Park Cheolho, Kang Namhyun, Liu Stephen. Effect of grain
size on the resistance to hydrogen embrittlement of API 2W
Grade 60 steels using in situ slow-strain-rate testing.
Corrosion Science 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.corsci.2017.08.032.
[20] Capriotti R, Colavita M, De Paolis F, Silvestri P. 'Hydrogen
embrittlment detection on high-strength steel by means of
XRD residual stress determination technique' http://www.
ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn017/idn017.htm.
[21] Tassadit Bellahcene. Etude de la nocivite de defauts dans les
canalisations sous environnement hydrogene. Doctoral
Thesis. Mouloud Mammeri university of Tizi-Ouzo-Algeria;
2015.
[22] Javidi Mehdi, Ghassemi Arash, Mehdi Laleh
parvar Mohammad. Amine corrosion and amine cracking of
API 5L X52 carbon steel in the presence of hydrogen
sulphide and carbon dioxide' corrosion engineering, science
and technology. Int J Corrosion Process Corrosion Contr
2017;52(7):510e9.
[23] Soudani M, Hadj Meliani M, El-Miloudi K, Bouledroua O,
Fares C, Benghalia MA, et al. Efficiency of green inhibitors
against hydrogen embrittlement on mechanical properties of
pipe steel API 5L X52 in hydrochloric acid medium. J Bio
Tribo-Corrosion 2018;4(3):36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40735-
018-0153-0.
[24] 
Capelle J. Etude  d’un de
de la nocivite faut de type e
raflure sur
une conduite destine e au transport du me lange gaz naturel-
hydroge ne These Metz. November 2008.
[25] Chatzidouros EV, Papazoglou VJ, Tsiourva TE, Pantelis DI.
Hydrogen effect on fracture toughness of pipeline steel
welds with in situ hydrogen charging. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2011;36:1. 2 6 2 6-2 6 4 3.
[26] Mueller-Syring H. Integrity management for integrity
management for pipelines transporting pipelines
transporting hydrogen. In: Hydrogen e natural natural gas
Please cite this article in press as: Boukortt H, et al., Hydrogen embrittlement effect on the structural integrity of API 5L X52 steel
pipeline, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.149
View publication stats
mixtures pipeline technology conference 2009 Hannover,
Germany; 22-23 April 2009.
[27] Capelle J, Gilgert J, Pluvinage G. Hydrogen effect on fatigue
and fracture of pipe steels. International Conference on
Hydrogen Safety-HYSAFE ICHS; 2008.
[28] Tabkhi Firooz. Optimisation de Re seaux de Transport de Gaz.
Doctoral Thesis. National Polytechnique De Toulouse; 2007.
[29] Shashi Menon E. 'Transmission pipeline calculations and
simulations manual', Libarty of Congress Cataloging in
Publication Data, Elservier, ISBN: 978-1-85617-830-3.
[30] Structural integrity assessment procedures for european
Industry: SINTAP; final report. July 1999. Contract No BRPR-
CT95-0024, Project No. BE95-1426, Report No. BE95-1426/FR/7.
[31] Gubeljak Nenad, Predan Joz ef. Procedures for structure
integrity assessment', security and reliability of damaged
structures and defective materials, Cooperation WithNato
Public Diplomacy Division. Springer; 2009.
[32] ANSYS-V17, http://www,ansys,com/products/academic.
[33] Pluvinage G, Capelle J, Hadj Meliani M. A review of fracture
toughness transferability with constraint and stress
gradient. Fatig Fract Eng Mater Struct November
2014;37(11):1165e85.
[34] Hadj Meliani M, Pluvinage G, Capelle J. Gouge assessment for
pipes and associated transferability problems. Eng Fail Anal
2010;17:1117e26.
[35] Benghalia MA, Fares C, Khadraoui A, Hadj Meliani M, Obot IB,
Sorrour A, et al. Performance evalu- ation of a natural and
synthetic compound as corrosion inhibi- tors of API 5 l X52
steel in hydrochloric acid media. Moroc J Chem 2018;6:51e61.
[36] Mohamed Soudani, Hadj Meliani M, Khaled El-Miloudi,
Fares C, Benghalia MA. Corrosion effects and green scale
inhibitors in the fracture mechanics properties of gas
pipelines. Struct Integr life 2017;17(1):25e31.
[37] Hadj Meliani M, Bouledroua O, Ould-M’beirick M, El-
miloudi K, Neggaz Dj, Nateche T, et al. The two-parameter
approach for fracture mechanics: some industrial
applications, fracture at all scales. Springer International
Publishing; 2017. p. 105e34.
[38] Meriem-Benziane M, Abdul-Wahab SA, Zahloul H, Babaziane
B, Hadj Meliani Mohamed, Guy Pluvinage. Finite element
analysis of the integrity of an API X65 pipeline with a
longitudinal crack repaired with single-and double-bonded
composites. Compos B Eng 77, 431-439.
[39] Feddersen CE. Evaluation and prediction of residual strength
of center cracked tension panels. ASTM STP 1970;486:50e62.