Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 4533–4547 | Cite as

Influence of Thermomechanically Controlled Processing on Microstructure and Hydrogen Induced Cracking Susceptibility of API 5L X70 Pipeline Steel

  • Enyinnaya OhaeriEmail author
  • Joseph Omale
  • Ahmed Tiamiyu
  • K. M. Mostafijur Rahman
  • Jerzy Szpunar


The effect of different thermomechanical controlled processing routes on susceptibility of X70 pipeline steel to hydrogen induced cracking (HIC) have been studied. Two X70 pipeline steel specimens labelled WE and WD were investigated. These specimens have the same chemical composition, but they were processed with seperate thermomechanical treatments parameters. Microstructural examinations showed that WE consists of mainly acicular ferrite and polygonal ferrite, while WD consists of acicular ferrite and bainitic ferrite. After subjecting both specimens to hydrogen charging for 12 and 16 h in 0.2 M sulfuric acid and 3 g/L ammonium thiocyanate, early onset of HIC was observed in specimen WD. Post-hydrogen charging microstructural evaluation showed the nucleation of discontinuous cracks in WD after 12 h of charging. However, extended charging for up to 16 h resulted in HIC along the mid-thickness region of both specimens. Hydrogen diffusion across specimen WE was better than that of specimen WD. Therefore, hydrogen trapping at grain boundaries, banded deformed grains, inclusions and secondary phases such as martensite and cementite aided initiation and propagation of HIC in specimens. Nevertheless, the adverse effect of these features on HIC risks was more prominent in specimen WD compared to specimen WE. The Vickers microhardness values measured in WD (349.6 HV) and WE (307.4 HV) suggest that WD is harder than WE; and higher kernel average misorientation of 0.66° in WD than in WE (0.58°) shows higher dislocation density in WD. The results from slow strain rate tensile test confirmed that specimen WD was stronger and more susceptible to HIC than specimen WE. It was concluded that microstructural phases developed during thermomechanical processing improved strength in WD at the expense of its crack resistance, while WE with lower strength showed more ductility and higher resistance to HIC.


API X70 Pipeline steel hydrogen induced cracking inclusions microstructure SEM/EBSD/EDS thermomechanical processing 



The authors are grateful to Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC strategic Grant 470033) for their financial support. The test specimens for this study were supplied by Evraz North America, located at Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. We are specially grateful to canmetMATERIALS Natural Resources, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada for performing the thermomechanical treatments.


  1. 1.
    E. Sadeghi Meresht, T. Shahrabi Farahani, and J. Neshati, Failure Analysis of Stress Corrosion Cracking Occurred in a Gas Transmission Steel Pipeline, Eng. Fail. Anal., 2011, 18(3), p 963–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Baik and Y. Choi, The Effects of Crystallographic Texture and Hydrogen on Sulfide Stress Corrosion Cracking Behavior of a Steel Using Slow Strain Rate Test Method, Phys. Met. Metallogr., 2014, 115(13), p 1318–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Capelle, J. Gilgert, I. Dmytrakh, and G. Pluvinage, The Effect of Hydrogen Concentration on Fracture of Pipeline Steels in Presence of a Notch, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2011, 78(2), p 364–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Capelle, J. Gilgert, I. Dmytrakh, and G. Pluvinage, Sensitivity of Pipelines with Steel API, X52 to Hydrogen Embrittlement, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2008, 33(24), p 7630–7641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Bosch, T. Haase, S. Mannesmann, and F. Gmbh, Effect of NACE TM0284 Test Modifications on the HIC Performance of Large Diameter Pipes, in NACE Corrosion Conference & Expo, 2008, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.J. Haq, K. Muzaka, D.P. Dunne, A. Calka, and E.V. Pereloma, Effect of Microstructure and Composition on Hydrogen Permeation in X70 Pipeline Steels, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 2013, 38(5), p 2544–2556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.F. Dong, Z.Y. Liu, X.G. Li, and Y.F. Cheng, Effects of Hydrogen-Charging on the Susceptibility of X100 Pipeline Steel to Hydrogen-Induced Cracking, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2009, 34(24), p 9879–9884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.A. Mohtadi-Bonab, J.A. Szpunar, and S.S. Razavi-Tousi, Hydrogen Induced Cracking Susceptibility in Different Layers of a Hot Rolled X70 Pipeline Steel, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2013, 38(31), p 13831–13841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Lynch, Hydrogen Embrittlement Phenomena and Mechanisms, Corros. Rev., 2012, 30(3–4), p 105–123Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Srinivasan and T. Neeraj, Hydrogen Embrittlement of Ferritic Steels: Deformation and Failure Mechanisms and Challenges in the Oil and Gas Industry, Miner. Met. Mater. Soc., 2014, 66(8), p 1377–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S.P. Lynch, Progress towards Understanding Mechanisms of Hydrogen Embrittlement and Stress Corrosion Cracking, in NACE Corrosion, 2007, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Huang, J. Liu, Z.J. Deng, J.H. Cheng, Z.H. Lu, and X.G. Li, Effect of Microstructure and Inclusions on Hydrogen Induced Cracking Susceptibility and Hydrogen Trapping Efficiency of X120 Pipeline Steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2010, 527, p 6997–7001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G.T. Park, S.U. Koh, G.H. Jung, and Y.K. Kim, Effect of Microstructure on the Hydrogen Trapping Efficiency and Hydrogen Induced Cracking of Linepipe Steel, Corros. Sci., 2008, 50, p 1865–1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    V.P. Afanas’ev, T.S. Dolotova, V. V Galtykhina, V.M. Yankovskii, E.A. Solomadina, and E.D. Mokhova, The Influence of Thermomechanical Working Conditions on the Resistance of Low Carbon Steel to Sulfide Cracking, Sov. Mater. Sci. Transl. from Fiz. Mekhanika Mater., 1981, 16(6), p 45–48Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Ghosh, A. Venugopal, P. Sankaravelayudham, R. Panda, S.C. Sharma, K.M. George, and V.S. Raja, Effect of Thermomechanical Treatment on the Environmentally Induced Cracking Behavior of AA7075 Alloy, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2014, 24(2), p 545–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M.A.V. Devanathan and Z. Stachurski, The Adsorption and Diffusion of Electrolytic Hydrogen in Palladium, in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 1962, p 90–102.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.P.D. Carvalho, E.O. Vilar, and B.A. Araújo, A Critical Review and Experimental Analysis of the Equation Recommended by ASTM G148-97 and ISO 17081: 2004 for the Calculation of the Hydrogen Diffusivity in Metals and Alloys, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42(1), p 681–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Thebault, S. Frappart, L. Delattre, H. Marchebois, and L.A. Rochelle, Hydrogen Diffusion in Model Molybdenum Containing Steel: A Comparison between Hydrogen Ingress Promoted by H2S or Cathodic Charging, in NACE Corrosion Conference & Expo, 2011, p 1–14.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.A. Mohtadi-Bonab, J.A. Szpunar, L. Collins, and R. Stankievech, Evaluation of Hydrogen Induced Cracking Behavior of API, X70 Pipeline Steel at Different Heat Treatments, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39(11), p 6076–6088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D.G. Stalheim and B. Hoh, Guidelines for Production of API Pipelines Steels Suitable for Hydrogen Induced, in Proceedings of the 8th International Pipeline Conference IPC 2010, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2010, p 1–11.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Hwang, Y.M. Kim, S. Lee, N.J. Kim, and J.Y. Yoo, Correlation of Rolling Condition, Microstructure, and Low-Temperature Toughness of X70 Pipeline Steels, Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2005, 36(7), p 1793–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    S.S. Nayak, R.D.K. Misra, J. Hartmann, F. Siciliano, and J.M. Gray, Microstructure and Properties of Low Manganese and Niobium Containing HIC Pipeline Steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2008, 494(1–2), p 456–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J.I. Omale, E.G. Ohaeri, A.A. Tiamiyu, M. Eskandari, K.M. Mostafijur, and J.A. Szpunar, Microstructure, Texture Evolution and Mechanical Properties of X70 Pipeline Steel after Different Thermomechanical Treatments, Mater. Sci. Eng, A, 2017, 703, p 477–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Mendoza, M. Alanis, R. Perez, O. Alvarez, C. Gonzalez, and J.A. Juarez-Islas, On the Processing of Fe-C-Mn-Nb Steels to Produce Plates for Pipelines with Sour Gas Resistance, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2002, 337(1–2), p 115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    API 5L, “Specification for Line Pipe,” American Petroleum Institute, 2000.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M.A. Mohtadi-Bonab, J.A. Szpunar, and S.S. Razavi-Tousi, A Comparative Study of Hydrogen Induced Cracking Behavior in API, 5L X60 and X70 Pipeline Steels, Eng. Fail. Anal., 2013, 33, p 163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    M.A. Arafin and J.A. Szpunar, Effect of Bainitic Microstructure on the Susceptibility of Pipeline Steels to Hydrogen Induced Cracking, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2011, 528(15), p 4927–4940. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    E. Ramírez, J.G. González-Rodriguez, A. Torres-Islas, S. Serna, B. Campillo, G. Dominguez-Patiño, and J.A. Juárez-Islas, Effect of Microstructure on the Sulphide Stress Cracking Susceptibility of a High Strength Pipeline Steel, Corros. Sci., 2008, 50(12), p 3534–3541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Jeong, R. Gauvin, and S. Yue, EBSD Study of Martensite in a Dual Phase Steel, Met. Mater., 2002, 8, p 700–701Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    X.H. Gao, J. Li, C. Li, Y. Liang, L.X. Du, and Z.G. Liu, Research of High Grade HIC-Resistant Pipeline Steel, Adv. Mater. Res., 2014, 900, p 730–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    M.A. Mohtadi-Bonab, M. Eskandari, and J.A. Szpunar, Texture, Local Misorientation, Grain Boundary and Recrystallization Fraction in Pipeline Steels Related to Hydrogen Induced Cracking, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2015, 620, p 97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    T. Teshima, M. Kosaka, K. Ushioda, N. Koga, and N. Nakada, Local Cementite Cracking Induced by Heterogeneous Plastic Deformation in Lamellar Pearlite, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2017, 679, p 223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    N. Hansen, Hall-Petch Relation and Boundary Strengthening, Scr. Mater., 2004, 51, p 801–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. Hejazi, A.J. Haq, N. Yazdipour, D.P. Dunne, F.J. Barbaro, and E.V. Pereloma, Role of Microstructure in Susceptibility of X70 Pipeline Steel to Hydrogen Embrittlement, Mater. Sci. Forum, 2010, 654–656, p 162–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, Prevention of Hydrogen Embrittlement in Steels, ISIJ Int., 2016, 56(1), p 24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Masoumi, L. Flavio, G. Herculano, H. Ferreira, and G. De Abreu, Study of Texture and Microstructure Evaluation of Steel API, 5L X70 under Various Thermomechanical Cycles, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2015, 639, p 550–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Z. Shirband, M.R. Shishesaz, and A. Ashrafi, Investigating the Effect of Heat Treatment on Hydrogen Permeation Behavior of API, X-70 Steel, Phase Transit., 2012, 85(6), p 503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    M.A. Mohtadi-Bonab, J.A. Szpunar, R. Basu, and M. Eskandari, The Mechanism of Failure by Hydrogen Induced Cracking in an Acidic Environment for API, 5L X70 Pipeline Steel, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2015, 40(2), p 1096–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M.A. Arafin and J.A. Szpunar, A New Understanding of Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance of Pipeline Steel through Grain Boundary Character and Crystallographic Texture Studies, Corros. Sci., 2009, 51(1), p 119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    M.A. Mohtadi-Bonab, M. Eskandari, and J.A. Szpunar, Effect of Arisen Dislocation Density and Texture Components during Cold Rolling and Annealing Treatments on Hydrogen Induced Cracking Susceptibility in Pipeline Steel, J. Mater. Res., 2016, 31(21), p 3390–3400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    W. Qin and J.A. Szpunar, A General Model for Hydrogen Trapping at the Inclusion-Matrix Interface and Its Relation to Crack Initiation, Philos. Mag., 2017, 97(34), p 3296–3316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    M.A. Mohtadi-Bonab and M. Eskandari, A Focus on Different Factors Affecting Hydrogen Induced Cracking in Oil and Natural Gas Pipeline Steel, Eng. Fail. Anal., 2016, 2017(79), p 351–360Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    T.Y. Jin, Z.Y. Liu, and Y.F. Cheng, Effect of Non-Metallic Inclusions on Hydrogen-Induced Cracking of API5L X100 Steel, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2010, 35(15), p 8014–8021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    M.A. Mohtadi-Bonab, M. Eskandari, R. Karimdadashi, and J.A. Szpunar, Effect of Different Microstructural Parameters on Hydrogen Induced Cracking in an API, X70 Pipeline Steel, Met. Mater. Int., 2017, 23(4), p 726–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    O.M.I. Todoshchenko, Y. Yagodzinskyy, T. Saukkonen, and H. Hänninen, Role of Nonmetallic Inclusions in Hydrogen Embrittlement of High-Strength Carbon Steels with Different Microalloying, Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2014, 45(11), p 4742–4747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    M.W. Zhou and H. Yu, Effects of Precipitates and Inclusions on the Fracture Toughness of Hot Rolling X70 Pipeline Steel Plates, Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater., 2012, 19(9), p 805–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    J. Nieto, T. Elías, G. Lopez, G. Campos, F. Lopez, R. Garcia, and A.K. De, Effective Process Design for the Production of HIC-Resistant Linepipe Steels, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 2013, 22(9), p 2493–2499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Z. Lv, H.-W. Ni, H. Zhang, and C. Liu, Evolution of MnS Inclusions in Ti-Bearing X80 Pipeline Steel, J. Iron. Steel Res. Int., 2017, 24, p 654–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    J. Xu, R.D.K. Misra, B. Guo, Z. Jia, and L. Zheng, Understanding Variability in Mechanical Properties of Hot Rolled Microalloyed Pipeline Steels: Process—Structure—Property Relationship, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 2013, 574, p 94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    L. Lan, Z. Chang, X. Kong, C. Qiu, and D. Zhao, Phase Transformation, Microstructure, and Mechanical Properties of X100 Pipeline Steels Based on TMCP and HTP Concepts, J. Mater. Sci., 2017, 52(3), p 1661–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    S.J. Kim, H.G. Jung, and K.Y. Kim, Effect of Tensile Stress in Elastic and Plastic Range on Hydrogen Permeation of High-Strength Steel in Sour Environment, Electrochim. Acta, 2012, 78, p 139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enyinnaya Ohaeri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joseph Omale
    • 1
  • Ahmed Tiamiyu
    • 1
  • K. M. Mostafijur Rahman
    • 1
  • Jerzy Szpunar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of EngineeringUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations