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

net/publication/267611438

ASME B31.12 Hydrogen Piping and Pipeline Code Design Rules and Their
Interaction With Pipeline Materials Concerns, Issues and Research

Conference Paper · January 2009

DOI: 10.1115/PVP2009-77159

CITATIONS READS

3 4,856

2 authors, including:

D. G. Stalheim
DGS Metallurgical Solutions, Inc.
59 PUBLICATIONS   295 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by D. G. Stalheim on 27 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


2009 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference
ASME B31.12 HYDROGEN PIPING AND PIPELINE CODE DESIGN RULES AND
THEIR INTERACTION WITH PIPELINE MATERIALS CONCERNS, ISSUES AND
RESEARCH
Louis E. Hayden, PE
Adjunct Prof. Mechanical Eng.
Lafayette College, Easton, PA
1301 Bonnie Ave.
Bethlehem, PA 18017 USA
ABSTRACT
The ASME B31.12 Hydrogen Piping and Pipeline Code has
just been published for use in designing hydrogen piping and
pipeline systems. The B31.12 Committee has developed two
design methods that take current steel specifications and
chemical compositions into consideration. Due to the
variability of chemistry and the lack of statistically meaningful
test data these two methods place a design or testing burden on
the owner of the pipeline or piping system. Research and
development that can be applied to an understanding of the
desirable microstructure along with a cleanliness level that is
suitable in commercial grade steels for hydrogen service is
imperative.
INTRODUCTION
As a nation, we are dependent on foreign sources for the oil and
natural gas necessary to drive our economy. In addition, there is
increasing concern over the build-up of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere that may lead to global warming. Various
renewable energy concepts have been proposed, but only
hydrogen as a fuel offers an infinite supply and leaves no
objectionable by-products – only water.
To achieve this goal we must begin the development of a
hydrogen based infrastructure and shift away from our current
hydrocarbon based infrastructure. One major common thread
between our current infrastructure and the new hydrogen
infrastructure is the transport, storage and delivery of the fuel to
Proceedings of PVP2009
July 26-30, 2009, Prague, Czech Republic
PVP2009-77159
Douglas Stalheim
DGS Metallurgical Solutions, Inc.
15003 NE 10th Street
Vancouver, WA 98684 USA
the point of use. The publication of design safety codes and
standards along with development and selection of hydrogen
tolerant materials that safely handle hydrogen gas is a critical
factor in the development of the new hydrogen infrastructure.
This paper will discuss the design considerations that have been
included in the new B31.12 Code as a result of material issues
and societal specifications and the influence of individual
chemical composition and processing that is used in the
production of commercial grade steels on microstructures and
cleanliness. It is the intent of this paper to discuss and analyze
the materials that may be applicable for the massive hydrogen
infrastructure that must be developed. The discussion of current
research will center on the microstructures of carbon and high
strength low alloy steels that appear to be most resistant to
hydrogen embrittlement when used in the construction of
hydrogen pipelines.
NOMENCLATURE
CVN = full size specimen CVN energy (ft-lb)
D = nominal outside diameter of pipe, in.
E = longitudinal joint factor
F = design factor obtained from Table 1 or Table 4. In
setting the values of the design factor F, due
consideration has been given and allowance has been
made for the various under thickness tolerances
provided for in the pipe specifications listed and
approved for usage in this Code.
1 Copyright © 2009 by ASME
 P = design pressure, psig
R = radius of pipe (inches)
S = specified minimum yield strength, psi, stipulated
in the specifications under which the pipe was
purchased from the manufacturer.
T = temperature derating factor
t = nominal wall thickness, in.
Hf = material performance factor
σh = Hoop stress due to design pressure (ksi)
DEVELOPMENT OF B31.12 HYDROGEN PIPING AND
PIPELINE CODE
The containment and pressurization of hydrogen gas within
metallic pipes is not a new concept or process. Hydrogen has
been used in chemical processes for many years and industrial
gas companies have produced, stored, and transported hydrogen
gas thoughtout the world. It is anticipated that pipeline systems
will need to be operated at pressures more than our current
operating regimes. It is expected that hydrogen transport
pipelines will operate up to 3,000 psig (20 MPa) at or below
300˚F (150˚C). In doing so, the metallic pipe materials in use
today could be placed in an operating environment for which
we have little or no data on their mechanical properties and
behavior in a dry hydrogen environment [1].
The B31.12 Code Committee developed the new hydrogen
code by using ASME B31.1, B31.3, B31.8 and B31.8S as
model codes with specific additional information added to
enhance the design of hydrogen piping and pipeline systems. In
reviewing the currently available hydrogen system operation
and design basis along with previous and current research
information, several things became clear:
1. The industry trend is to operate carbon steel hydrogen
pipeline systems at low stress levels, sometimes at
30% to 50% specified minimum yield strength
(SMYS). This trend probably accounts for operation
without any major reported failures. The future trend
will be to increase pressure for more flow and better
economics of hydrogen delivery.
2. Research has shown that increasing tensile strength,
pressure and stress levels in a gaseous hydrogen
environment does decrease the resistance of carbon
steel to hydrogen embrittlement failures.
3. With the lack of comprehensive base metal and weld
metal material test data for carbon steel in a high
pressure hydrogen environment, additional design
conservatism must be utilized to account for the
effects of hydrogen embrittlement, specifically the
diminished mechanical properties of carbon steels
until such time as comprehensive test data are
available and has been reviewed by piping engineers
[1].
4. The research data currently available provides
information on the bulk properties of the materials
tested. There is currently no useful data concerning
the performance of welds in the hydrogen operation
environment envisioned for high pressure pipelines.
5. Due to the operating temperature of hydrogen
pipelines, most if not all the pipeline system will be
subject to the effects of hydrogen embrittlement. The
degraded mechanical properties from embrittlement
occur from the minimum design temperature for the
alloy used to approximately 150˚C (302˚F) [3].
HYDROGEN PIPELINE DESIGN APPROACHES
To address the unknowns of material and weld
performance, the B31.12 development committee made the
decision to provide two design approaches. The first is
prescriptive and very similar to existing design processes
contained in ASME B31.8 Natural Gas Pipeline Code with
conservatism derived from the use of lower basic design
factors, F, and the introduction of a material performance factor,
Hf, derived from pressure and tensile strength relationships [1].
The second is performance based using a fracture mechanics
approach adopted and modified from ASME Section VIII, Div.
3- Alternative Rules for Construction of High Pressure Vessels.
Qualifying pipeline construction materials using fracture
mechanics and crack propagation testing will allow the use of
current basic design factors and eliminate the use of the
material performance factor.
Prescriptive Design Approach, Option A [4]
The design pressure for steel gas pipeline systems or the
nominal wall thickness for a given design pressure shall be
determined by the following formula:
P = 2St FETHf (1)
D
Table 1: Basic Design Factor, F
Used with Design Option A
Location Class F, Design Factor
Class 1, Division 2 0.50
Class 2 0.50
Class3 0.50
Class4 0.40
Table 2: Material Performance Factor, Hf
Brittle Fracture Control: To ensure that the pipe has adequate
ductility, fracture toughness testing shall be performed in
2 Copyright © 2009 by ASME
accordance with the testing procedures of supplementary
requirements SR5 or SR6 of API 5L. Toughness testing for
brittle fracture control is not required for pipe sizes less than 4”
NPS. The test temperature shall be the colder of 0ºC (32ºF) or
the lowest expected metal temperature during service, or during
pressure testing. The average shear value of the fracture
appearance of three Charpy specimens from each heat shall not
be less than 80% for full thickness Charpy specimens, 85% for
reduced size Charpy specimens, or 40% for drop weight tear
testing specimens.
Ductile Fracture Control: To ensure that the pipeline has
adequate toughness to arrest a ductile fracture, the pipe shall be
tested in accordance with the procedures of supplementary
requirements SR5 of API 5L. This can be applied providing test
specimens meet the minimum sizes given in SR5. Toughness
testing for ductile fracture control is not required for pipe sizes
less than 4” NPS. The test temperature shall be the colder of
0ºC (32ºF) or the lowest expected metal temperature during
service. The average of the Charpy energy values from each
heat shall meet or exceed the requirements specified by the
following equation:
CVN = 0.008 (RT) 0.39 σ h2 (2)
Additional Requirements of Design Option A:
1. Maximum ultimate tensile strength of the pipe shall not
exceed 100ksi.
2. Maximum ultimate tensile strength of the weld metal
shall not exceed 100ksi.
3. Minimum specified yield strength shall not exceed 70
ksi.
4. Weld procedure shall be qualified by Charpy tests.
Three specimens from Weld metal and three specimens
from heat affected zone shall be tested at 0ºC (32ºF).
Minimum Charpy energy per specimen fracture area of
each specimen shall meet the following criteria:
(a) 20 ft-lb for full size CVN specimens or 161 ft-lb /in2
for subsize CVN specimens for pipe not exceeding 56
in. outside diameter.
(b) 30 ft-lb for full size CVN specimens or 242 ft-lb/in2
for subsize CVN specimens for pipe outside diameter ≥
56 in.
Performance Based Design Approach, Option B [4]
The design pressure and nominal wall thickness are
calculated using the equation (1). The design factor, F, is the
same as in B31.8 and not reduced as in option A and the
material performance factor, Hf is no longer applied to reduce
the allowable stress in equation (1).
To utilize the higher design stress allowable the system
design must include the following requirements:
The pipe and weld material shall be qualified for adequate
resistance to fracture in hydrogen gas at or above the design
pressure and at ambient temperature using the applicable rules
provided in KD-10 of ASME Section VIII Division 3, except as
shown below.
(1) The purpose of this test is to qualify the construction
material by testing three heats of the material purchased for the
pipeline construction. The threshold stress intensity values,
KIH, shall be obtained from the thickest section from each heat
of the material and heat treatment. The test specimens shall be
in the final heat-treated condition (if applicable) to be used in
pipe manufacturing. A set of three specimens shall be tested
from each of the following locations: the base metal, the weld
metal, and the heat affected zone (HAZ) of welded joints,
welded with the same qualified welding procedure specification
(WPS) as intended for the piping manufacturing. A change in
the welding procedure requires retesting of welded joints (weld
metal and HAZ). The test specimens shall be in the TL
direction. If TL specimens cannot be obtained from the weld
metal and the HAZ, then LT specimens may be used. The
values of KIH shall be obtained by use of the test method
described in Section VIII, Div.3 paragraph KD-1040. The
lowest measured value of KIH shall be used in the pipeline
design analysis.
(2) When using Option B, the material performance factor, Hf
from Table (2) shall be 1.0 for all strength ranges and pressures.
(3) The values obtained from testing in (1) above may be used
for other pipes manufactured from the same material
specification/grade or similar specification/grade having the
same nominal chemical composition as defined in Table 3 and
same heat treatment condition, providing its tensile and yield
strengths do not exceed the values of the material used in the
qualification tests by more than 5 percent. The welded joints
shall meet the requirements of the welding procedure
specification (WPS) used for qualifying the construction
material.
Table 3: Nominal Chemical Composition C-Mn Steels within
a Specification/Grade
(4) Calculate maximum KIA required at design pressure for the
following elliptical surface crack. Where KIA is the applied
stress intensity factor, the critical crack size is developed by
applicable fatigue loading. Fatigue design rules specified in
KD-10 shall be used, or depth = t/4, length = 1.5t where t is the
pipe wall thickness.
3 Copyright © 2009 by ASME
(5) Measure KIH in H2 gas as specified in KD-10, Para KD- form of bainite). Again, the volume fraction of bainite or
1040. KIH is the threshold stress intensity factor acicular ferrite formed will be dependent on alloy design and
(6) KIH shall be equal to or higher than the calculated value of processing, Fig. 1. [5]
KIA. In any case KIH shall not be less than 50 ksi √in.
(7) Phosphorus content of pipe material shall not exceed
0.015% by weight. The pipe material shall be manufactured
with inclusion shape-controlled practices.
(8) Pipe material shall meet all applicable rules of API 5L PSL2
(9) Brittle fracture control: All rules specified in design option
A shall be met
(10) Ductile Fracture Arrest: All rules specified in design
option A shall be met.
(11) Maximum ultimate tensile strength of the pipe shall not Example of Ferrite/Pearlite Example of Ferrite/Bainite
exceed 110ksi. (<10%) Microstructure (acicular ferrite) Microstructure
(12) Maximum ultimate tensile strength of the weld metal shall
not exceed 110ksi. Fig. 1- Example of Typical Pipeline Steel Microstructure
(13) Minimum specified yield strength shall not exceed 80 ksi.
(14) If all of the above criterion are satisfied, the basic design Alloy designs used in pipeline steels today are trending
factor, F, from Table 4 may be utilized in equation (1) to toward lower carbon contents, typically ≤ 0.10 % (wt.). In
calculate the design pressure or nominal wall thickness of the addition, with increasing strength and toughness requirements
system pipe. of today’s pipeline steels, there is a shift toward the
ferrite/bainite microstructure, Fig. 2. [6]
Table 4: Basic Design Factor, F
Used with Design Option B

Location Class F, Design Factor

Class 1, Division 2 0.72
Class 2 0.60
Class3 0.50
Class4 0.40

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR HYDROGEN

PIPELINE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

As discussed, the design approaches in B31.12 are based

on current information available, which is limited. The pipeline
pipe materials now available under the API 5L specification
have not been evaluated to a great degree for hydrogen service.
Pipe materials produced 40 years ago have only been evaluated
Fig. 2 – Pipeline Steel Alloy/Microstructure Trends
at a limited level on a specific project basis when existing
pipelines have been converted from natural gas or petroleum
As can be seen in Figure 2, as the carbon content is reduced
service to hydrogen. from 0.20% to 0.10% the volume fraction pearlite is reduced
Some if not all of the latest pipeline materials produced to
from 30% to 10%. This is important to understand as it relates
the API specification are micro alloyed and seem to offer
to steel microstructures and resistance to hydrogen induced
enhanced performance in hydrogen service. The following
cracking issues and will be discussed later.
discussion will explain the results of the most recent research In addition to the alloy designs effect on microstructure,
and provide a path for future research needs.
processing will have a bearing on volume fractions of a given
microstructure. Most pipeline steels are processed using one of
Pipeline Steel Microstructure/Processing
the four thermomechanical paths schematically illustrated in
Figure 3.
There are two basic microstructures used in today’s
pipeline steels. For strength levels ≤ 70 ksi minimum yield
strength the microstructure is ferrite/pearlite with the volume
fraction of pearlite dependent on alloy design and processing.
Minimum yield strength levels of ≥ 70 ksi the microstructure
used is a ferrite/bainite or ferrite/acicular ferrite (a low carbon

4 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

 vs. “banded”) also can affect the microstructures ability to
resist hydrogen cracking. Typically, in these sour service
applications the hydrogen cracking will occur at the interface
between the ferrite and pearlite where the stress concentration
is the greatest. Recently a ferrite/bainite (acicular ferrite)
microstructure has been tested in the sour service NACE
TM0284 Solution A for hydrogen induced cracking resulting in
excellent performance. This suggests that the ferrite/bainite
(acicular ferrite) microstructure has an overall lower residual
stress state (hence less potential for hydrogen trapping sites)
than that of a ferrite/pearlite microstructure. Granted the NACE
TM0284 is a test in a different environment than what gaseous
hydrogen might impart on a steel pipeline, it does allow one to
evaluate a given microstructure’s ability to resist damage due to
hydrogen. Once hydrogen is in the steel regardless of the
method that it took to get into the steel matrix, the effect is the
same. Table 5 compares different microstructures and
performance in the NACE TM0284 Solution A test.

Fig. 3 – Thermomechanical Paths used in the Production of Table 5: Example of Pipeline Microstructures Hydrogen
Pipeline Steels Resistance in NACE TM0284 Solution A Testing

These processing paths are followed by either air or water post Crack Crack Crack
Comment
Length Sensitivity Thickness
rolling cooling. This cooling coupled with an alloy design as Structure HIC
Ratio Ratio Ratio
dictated by a continuous cooling transformation (CCT) diagram Performance
(CLR) (CSR) (CTR)
describes what microstructure will form, Fig. 4. Ferrite/Pearlite1 11.8 0 0.1 Poor
Ferrite/Acicular 2
0.4 0 0 Good
Ferrite2
Ferrite/Acicular
0 0 0 Good
Ferrite/Pearlite3
Ferrite/Acicular
0 0 0 Good
Ferrite4
1 - Pearlite approximately 7% by volume typical for chemistry design and
processing
2 – Small amount of cracking not associated with microstructure, but rather
inclusions
3 – Pearlite < 1% by volume related to processing of steel
4 – Steel purposely designed for HIC performance in sour service applications
CCT Diagram C-Mn-Si-V-Nb CCT Diagram C-Mn-Si-Mo-Nb
Pipeline Steel Pipeline Steel Using the results from the NACE test the four pipeline
microstructures in Table 5 have been tensile tested in the
Fig. 4 – CCT Diagram Showing Comparison of two Pipeline presence of high-pressure gaseous hydrogen at Oak Ridge
Alloys National Laboratory. [7] Testing was conducted in helium for a
baseline and then at gaseous hydrogen pressures of 800, 1600,
Resistance to Hydrogen Induced Cracking and 3000 psi. The testing pressures represent a reasonable
operating range for transmission gaseous hydrogen pipeline as
It is well documented that hydrogen will collect (trapped) defined by ASME B31.12. Reduction in area was used as a
at areas of high stress concentration gradients, such as crack comparison of the performance of the four microstructures.
tips, MnS stringer tips, etc. Another area of high stress Reduction in area results with strain rates of 10-4 and 10-5 can
concentration and potential trapping site involves the interface be seen in Figures 5 and 6.
between microstructural constituents. Volume fractions of
microstructural constituents can result in creating up to 50% of
the residual stress in a piece of steel and hence creating
potentially numerous trapping sites for hydrogen.
Applications of pipeline steels in sour service
environments have demonstrated that a microstructure with a
pearlite volume fraction of <2% performs better than one have
7-8% pearlite. In addition, the shape of the pearlite (“islands”

5 Copyright © 2009 by ASME


Fig. 5 – Gaseous Hydrogen vs. Reduction in Area 10 -4
Tensile Testing by Microstructure
Fig. 6 – Gaseous Hydrogen vs. Reduction in Area 10-5
Tensile Testing by Microstructure
It should be noted that additional testing will be done to
validate some of the results presented in Figures 5 and 6.
Regardless of the strain rate applied, in general the presence of
a volume fraction of pearlite in the microstructure does degrade
the performance in the presence of gaseous hydrogen similar to
what was experienced in the NACE testing. The degradation
effect is less pronounced at lower hydrogen gas pressure as
seen at 800 psi but is more obvious as pressure is increased to
3000 psi.
Based on this initial tensile testing the two microstructures
which were ferrite/acicular ferrite without any pearlite present
performed overall better than those with some levels of pearlite
present. This illustrates that microstructure can play a role in
the development of steels with improved resistance to hydrogen
cracking issues. There may be an optimum volume fraction of a
given microstructural constituent that yields the best
performance and/or there may be a bainite (granular, lower,
acicular, etc) that is preferred. The metallographic
characterization of these microstructures used in the testing at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory is ongoing. This may shed an
understanding to the reduction in area values generated during
this testing.
Whether or not the reduction in area degradation
experienced by these four microstructures is detrimental to the
design of a gaseous hydrogen pipeline still needs to be
determined. Other mechanical property characteristics in the
presence of gaseous hydrogen are still needed. Fracture
mechanics and fatigue testing should be done to determine an
optimized microstructure for gaseous hydrogen service.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion ASME B31.12 has developed code design
rules to address hydrogen piping and pipelines system. These
codes are based on the limited information that is available for
the traditional material, steel, used in piping and pipeline
systems. Development of steels for gaseous hydrogen service
requires an understanding of the key role that microstructure
plays in steel’s ability to resist the effect of hydrogen. Today’s
pipeline steels tend to lower carbon contents and processing
that allows for predictable microstructures to be developed.
Microstructures containing volume fractions of pearlite in both
NACE testing and pressurized gaseous hydrogen tensile testing
tend to degrade more than those with a bainitic or acicular
ferrite microstructure. However, whether this degradation is
significant enough to rule out a microstructure for pressurized
gaseous hydrogen service needs to be determined.
Determination of suitability will require additional testing of
these modern-day pipeline steels or even modified pipeline
steels (i.e. modified microstructures). This additional testing
should include fracture mechanics and fatigue testing.
A blending of science and engineering knowledge will be
necessary to achieve our goals. As alloys are tested the results
must be reviewed against engineering system design
requirements with the goal of using this information to write or
modify existing design/safety codes. This process will allow
economical and safe design practices to be incorporated into
piping and pipeline design codes such as ASME B31.12.
Even though it is well documented that hydrogen
embrittlement of steels can be an issue, the proper design of
codes and more importantly the proper design of
microstructures can assure that steel can be a viable material for
gaseous hydrogen piping and pipeline systems. As additional
research is completed and a better understanding of what is
required of the material, codes can be modified to incorporate
the new knowledge.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory was
sponsored by the U. S. Department of Energy, Office of
Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies, under
contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC.
6 Copyright © 2009 by ASME
 Special thanks given to Dr. Govindarajan Muralidharan of
Oak Ridge National Laboratory for his preparation and testing
of pipeline material samples in support of the above referenced
research program.

REFERENCES

[1] Hayden, Louis E., Ulucakli, M. Erol, “DESIGN

GUIDELINES FOR HYDROGEN PIPING AND
PIPELINES”STP-PT-006, 2007 ASME Standards
Technology, LLC, Three Park Ave., New York, NY
10016
[2] Raymon, Louis, “Evaluation of Hydrogen
Embrittlement”, pp. 283-290 v. 13, Corrosion, Metals
Handbook, 9th ed., American Society for Metals,
Cleveland, Ohio, 1987
[3] Craig, Bruce, “Environmentally Induced
Cracking/Hydrogen Damage”, pp. 163-189,
Corrosion, Volume 13.

[4] ASME B31.12 Hydrogen Piping and Pipeline Code,

2009 Edition, ASME International, Three Park Ave.,
New York, NY 10016

[5] Stalheim, Douglas G. Barnes, Keith R., McCutcheon,

Dennis B., Alloy Designs for High Strength Oil and
Gas Transmission Linepipe Steels, Proceedings of
Microalloyed Steels for the Oil & Gas Industry
Symposium, TMS, 2007, pp.73-108

[6] Hulka, Klaus, “Niobium Microalloyed Plate Products

for Welded Construction”, CBMM/CITIC Short
Course, Beijing, China, June 2006

[7] Secat, Inc., Stalheim, Douglas G. - Presenter,

“Materials Solutions for Hydrogen Delivery in
Pipelines”, Presentation to the DOE Pipeline
Working Group Meeting, Jackson Hole, WY,
September 2008

7 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

 8 Copyright © 2009 by ASME

View publication stats