Forensic Engineering Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Explosion of an International Natural Gas Pipeline




pipeline, hydrogen embrittlement, hard-spot, cathodic protection, operating pressure, maintenance, natural gas pipeline, pipeline inspection, forensic engineering


Following the explosion of a natural gas pipeline that resulted in extensive property damage, personal injury, and loss of life, a forensic engineering investigation was performed to determine factors that signifi-cantly contributed to the failure. Metallurgical analysis of the failure region resulted in the conclusion that the pipeline rupture was caused by hydrogen embrittlement acting on hard spots created during manufactur-ing. The next phase of this investigation involved root cause analysis of factors contributing to the pipeline rupture as well as evaluation of missed risk-reduction opportunities of the nondestructive analyses employed. It was ultimately determined that hydrogen embrittlement, caused by improper operation and maintenance procedures, resulted in an overabundance of hydrogen from excessive cathodic protection. Additionally, excessive operating pressure exceeded the resulting degraded ultimate capacity of the pipeline, which then manifested in the rupture of the natural gas pipeline and the ensuing explosion. It is recommended that op-erators exercise due diligence by considering the age of a pipeline when determining appropriate operating, monitoring, and maintenance procedures.


DOT-PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 2021. Annual Data

J.G. Ramírez-Camacho et al, “Assessing the consequences of pipeline accidents to support land-use planning” Safety science, vol. 97, pp. 34-42, Jan. 2017.

DOT-PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 2022. Annual Data (Accessed: Aug. 28, 2022).

NTSB Materials Laboratory Factual Report - Report No. 19-064, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., USA, Feb. 6, 2020.

A. Bellinger, et. Al, “Multiple Data Inspection of Hard Spots and Cracking.” in Proceedings of the 2014 10th International Pipeline Conference. Volume 2: Pipeline Integrity Management. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. September 29–October 3, 2014.

M. J. Slaughter, et. al “Pipeline Integrity: The Use of Multiple Technology In-Line Inspection Tool.” in Proceedings of the 2002 4th International Pipeline Conference. 4th International Pipeline Conference, Parts A and B. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. September 29–October 3, 2002. pp. 1913-1922.

M. J. Rosenfeld, “Joint Efficiency Factors for A.O. Smith Line Pipe” Kiefner & Associates, Worthington, Ohio, Dec. 2012.

NACE International, “In-Line Inspection of Pipelines”, NACE International, Texas, Houston, NACE Publication 35100, 2016.

“In-Line Inspection Tools Specifications” (Retrieved: Aug 28, 2022).

Specifications and requirements for in-line inspection of pipelines, Pipeline Operators Forum Standard 100, 2016.

Transmission lines: Assessments outside of high consequence areas, 49 C.F.R. § 192.710 (b) 2.

How does an operator identify potential threats to pipeline integrity and use the threat identification in its integrity program?, 49 C.F.R. § 192.917 (e) 3.

What are the required reassessment intervals?, 49 C.F.R § 192.939 (a).

Phmsa “Inspection Reassessment Intervals Guidance for Less than 7 years” October 2016.

K. Nanan “The Basics of Cathodic Protection” Corrosionpedia, (Accessed: Aug. 28, 2022).

“Impressed Current Cathodic Protection” Matcor, (Accessed: Aug. 28, 2022).

Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems, NACE Standard SP0169, 2007.

S. K. Dwivedi “Hydrogen embrittlement in different materials: A review” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 43, no. 46, pp 21603-21616, Nov. 2018.

C. J. McMahon “Hydrogen-induced intergranular fracture of steels” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 773-788, Apr. 2001.

D. Hardie, et al., “Hydrogen embrittlement of high strength pipeline steels” Corrosion Science, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 4378-4385, Dec. 2006.

J. Capelle et al., “Sensitivity of pipelines with steel API X52 to hydrogen embrittlement” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol 33, no 24, pp. 7639-7641, Dec. 2004.

D. Kuang, et. al “Study Of Cathodic Protection Shielding Under Coating Disbondment On Pipelines,” Corrosion Science, vol. 99, pp. 249-257, Oct. 2015.

“Over Protection Explained” Marine Protection Systems, (Accessed: Aug. 28, 2022).

S. H. Lee, et. al, “Acceleration and quantitative evaluation of degradation for corrosion protective coatings on buried pipeline: Part II. Application to the evaluation of polyethylene and coal-tar enamel coatings” Process and Organic Coatings, vol. 76, no.4, pp.784-789, Apr. 2013.

H. Leidheiser, “De-Adhesion At The Organic Coating/Metal Interface In Aqueous Media,” Croatica Chemica Acta, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 197-209, 1980.

E. L. Koehler, “The Influence of Contaminants on the Failure of Protective Organic Coatings on Steel,” Corrosion, vol. 33, no. 6, June 1977.

N. Kamalanand, et. al, “Role Of Hydrogen And Hydroxyl Ion In Cathodic Disbondment,” Anti-Corrosion Methods and Materials, vol 45, no. 4, pp.243-247, Aug. 1998.

F. Gan, et. Al, “Cathodic Protection to Mitigate External Corrosion of Underground Steel Pipe Beneath Disbonded Coating,” Corrosion, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 804-816, Oct.1994.

F. Kajiyama, “Strategy For Eliminating Risks Of Corrosion And Overprotection For Buried Modern Pipelines,” Tokyo Gas Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan, 2011.

E. Klechka, et al. “Practical Considerations for Upper Limits of Cathodic Protection,” Corrosion 2007 Conference and Expo, Nashville, Tennessee, Mar. 2007.

Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries — Cathodic protection of pipeline systems — Part 1: On-land pipelines, ISO Standard 15589-1, 2015.

M. Cabrini, “Hydrogen Embrittlement and Diffusion of High Strength Low Alloy Steels with Different Microstructures,” Insight-Material Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-9, Mar. 2019.

M. Javidi et al, “Investigating The Mechanism Of Stress Corrosion Cracking In Near-Neutral And High ph Environments For API 5L X52 Steel,” Corrosion Science, vol. 80, pp. 213-220, Mar. 2014.

P. Liang, et. al, “Stress Corrosion Cracking Of X80 Pipeline Steel In Simulated Alkaline Soil Solution,” Materials and Design, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1712-1719, May 2009.

S. A. Shipilov, et. al, “Structural Integrity Of Aging Buried Pipelines Having Cathodic Protection,” Engineering Failure Analysis, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1159-1176, Oct. 2006.

C. Kim, et. al “The Effects of Hydrogen Embrittlement by Cathodic Protection on the CTOD of Buried Natural Gas Pipeline,” Metals and Materials International, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.197-202, Apr. 2002.

M. Cabrini, et. al “Hydrogen Embrittlement Behavior Of HSLA Line Pipe Steel Under Cathodic Protection,” Corrosion Reviews, vol. 29, no. 5-6, pp. 261-274, Oct. 2011.

S. X. Mao, et. al, “Hydrogen Facilitated Anodic Dissolution Type Stress Corrosion Cracking of Pipeline Steels in Coating Disbondment Chemistry,” Proceedings of the 1998 2nd International Pipeline Conference. Volume 1: Risk Assessment and Management; Emerging Issues and Innovative Projects; Operations and Maintenance; Corrosion and Integrity Management. Alberta, Canada. June 7–11, 1998. pp. 485-492.

A. Q. Fu, et. al, “Effect Of Alternating Current On Corrosion And Effectiveness Of Cathodic Protection Of Pipelines,” Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 81-90, Jul. 2011.

“Integrity Characteristics of Vintage Pipelines”, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, Washington, D.C., 2002.




How to Cite

Rasty, Jahan, Olin Parker, and Mathew Mills. 2023. “Forensic Engineering Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Explosion of an International Natural Gas Pipeline”. Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers 39 (2).