Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 2701–2705 | Cite as

Thermodynamically modeling the interactions of hydrogen, stress and anodic dissolution at crack-tip during near-neutral pH SCC in pipelines

  • Y. F. ChengEmail author


A thermodynamic model was developed to clarify the interactions of hydrogen, stress and anodic dissolution at crack-tip during near-neutral pH stress corrosion cracking in pipelines by comprehensively considering the electrochemical reactions occurring in the pipeline steel in deoxygenated, near-neutral pH solution. By analyzing the change of the free-energy of steel due to the presence of hydrogen and stress, it is demonstrated that a synergism of hydrogen and stress promotes the cracking of steel. The enhanced hydrogen concentration in the stressed steel significantly accelerates the crack growth. An exact expression of the hydrogen concentration factor, i.e., the dependence of anodic dissolution rate of steel at crack-tip on the hydrogen concentration, is essential at the quantitative prediction of the crack growth rate.


Crack Growth Rate Stress Corrosion Crack Anodic Dissolution Pipeline Steel Stress Corrosion Crack Susceptibility 
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.



This work was supported by Canada Research Chairs Program and Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).


  1. 1.
    Parkins RN (2000) In Corrosion’ 2000, Paper no. 363, Nace, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Energy Board (1996) Report of public inquiry concerning stress corrosion cracking on Canadian Oil and Gas Pipelines, MH-2–95, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parkins RN, Blandchard WK, Delanty BS (1994) Corrosion 50:394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fang BY, Atrens A, Wang JQ, Han EH, Zhu ZY, Ke W (2003) J Mater Sci 38:127, DOI: 10/1023/A:1021126202539Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheng YF, Yang L, King F (2002) In International pipeline conference, Asme, CalgaryGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    King F, Jack TR, Chen W, Wang SH, Elboujdaini M, Revie W, Worthingham R, Dusek P, In Corrosion’ 2001, Paper no. 1214, NACE, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parkins RN (1996) Delanty BS, In Proceedings of the ninth symposium on pipeline research, Catalogue no. L51746, PRCI, p 19-1Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Plumtree A, Lambert SB, Sutherby R (1996) In Corrosion-deformation interactions CDI’ 96, European Federation of Corrosion Publications, The Institute of Materials Research, Nice, France, p 263Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gu B, Luo JL, Mao X (1999) Corrosion 55:96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mao SX, Li M (1998) J Mech Phys Solids 46:1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dafft EG, Bohnenkamp K, Engell HJ (1979) Corrosion Sci 19:591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hirth JP (1980) Metal Trans A 11A:861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yokobori AT, Chinda Y, Nemoto T, Satoh K, Yamada T (2002) Corrosion Sci 44:407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Woodtli J, Kieselbach R (2000) Eng Failure Anal 7:427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    LI JCM, Oriani RA, Darken LS (1966) J Phys Chem 49:271Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations