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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Feasibility analysis of blending hydrogen into

natural gas networks

Josmar B. Cristello a, Jaehyun M. Yang a, Ron Hugo a, Youngsoo Lee b,

Simon S. Park a,*
a
Pipeline Engineering Centre, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
b
Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, South Korea

highlights graphical abstract

Challenges to the blending

hydrogen in natural gas pipelines
are investigated.

Potential solutions and new de-
velopments are presented.

A gas hydraulic simulation,
optimal amount of hydrogen
blends are suggested.

Computational pipeline moni-
toring (CPM) methods are likely
compatible.

Even accounting for hydrogen
production, overall GHG emissions
are reduced.

article info abstract

Article history: Hydrogen fuel has the potential to mitigate the negative effects of greenhouse gases and
Received 25 October 2022 climate change by neutralizing carbon emissions. Transporting large volume of hydrogen
Received in revised form through pipelines needs hydrogen-specific infrastructure such as hydrogen pipelines and
8 January 2023 compressors, which can become an economic barrier. Thus, the idea of blending hydrogen
Accepted 14 January 2023 into existing natural gas pipelines arises as a potential alternative for transporting
Available online 9 February 2023 hydrogen economically by using existing natural gas grids. However, there are several
potential issues that must be considered when blending hydrogen into natural gas pipe-
Keywords: lines. Hydrogen has different physical and chemical properties from natural gas, including
Hydrogen blending a smaller size and lighter weight, which require higher operating pressures to deliver the
Pipeline safety same amount of energy as natural gas. Additionally, hydrogen's small molecular size and
Leak detection lower ignition energy make it more likely to permeate through pipeline materials and seals,
Computational pipeline monitoring leading to degradation, and its wider flammability limits make it a safety hazard when
leaks occur. In this study, we investigate these potential issues through simulation and
technical surveys. We develop a gas hydraulic model to simulate the physical character-
istics of a transmission and a distribution pipeline. This model is used throughout the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sipark@ucalgary.ca (S.S. Park).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.01.156
0360-3199/© 2023 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
17606 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9

study to visualize the potential impacts of switching from natural gas to hydrogen, and to
investigate potential problems and solutions. Furthermore, we develop a Real-Time
Transient Model (RTTM) to address the compatibility of current computational pipeline
monitoring (CPM) based leak detection methods with blended hydrogen. Finally, we sug-
gest the optimal hydrogen concentration for this model, and investigate the amount of
carbon reduction that could be achieved, while considering the energy needs of the system.
© 2023 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Nomenclature hc Compressor efficiency

r Fluid density
A Cross-sectional area of pipe
P Pressure
a Proportional constant (HEE Index)
P1 Upstream pressure
as Speed of sound
P2 Downstream pressure
Cd Discharge coefficient
Pb Atmospheric pressure
Cm Carbon content, mixture
Pd Discharge pressure
Cr Compression ratio
Ps Suction pressure
Cs Carbon content, hydrocarbon
Power Compression power
D Internal diameter
Q Volumetric flow rate
Df Design factor
Qi Original flow rate
Do External Diameter
Qr Desired flow rate
Ef Pipe seam joint factor
Re Reynolds number
ECO2 Equivalent CO2 emission
S Minimum yield strength
ed Absolute pipe roughness
Sg Specific gravity of the fluid
f Darcy friction factor
Sh Hoop stress
FC Volume of fuel consumed
T Temperature
G Gas gravity
Tf Temperature derating factor
g Gravitational acceleration
t Time
h Elevation
tp Wall thickness
H Hydraulic head
T1 Suction temperature
DHc Compressor head
Tb Atmospheric temperature
Hf Material performance factor
Tf Average fluid temperature
Jt Joule-Thompson coefficient
V Flow velocity
L Length of pipe section
Wt%i Weight percent of component
LHVCH4 Methane's lower heating value
g Ratio of specific heats of gas
LHVB Blend's lower heating value
gw Specific weight
MAOP Maximum allow. operating pressure
Z Gas compressibility factor
Mf Mass flow rate
Z1 Compressibility of gas (suction)
Mw Molecular weight
Z2 Compressibility of gas (discharge)
n Material decaying exponent
ha Compressor adiabatic efficiency

to generate electricity through the reaction between hydrogen

Introduction
Fossil fuels, which are a primary energy source [1], emit
greenhouse gases (GHG) during the combustion process for
thermal energy. This plays a significant role in causing climate
change. On the other hand, hydrogen is considered an alter-
native energy source because it produces zero carbon emis-
sions from combustion and electrochemical processes and
has a high gravimetric energy density [2]. This makes
hydrogen a potential fuel for mitigating climate change by
reducing GHG emissions and providing effective energy. In
addition, hydrogen can be produced through electrolysis
(Power to Gas: P2G) [3], where electricity decomposes water
into hydrogen and oxygen. This process can also be reversed
and oxygen with fuel cells. Alternatively, hydrogen can be
converted to electrical energy through combustion (Gas to
Wire: GTW) [4]. These diverse benefits of hydrogen usage can
significantly reduce carbon emissions and control energy
balance by using surplus energy from power generators or
renewable energy production to produce hydrogen, which can
then be distributed as an energy carrier to meet high energy
demands. To make sustainable hydrogen distribution a reality
in daily life, large-scale hydrogen production is necessary.
Transporting hydrogen can be an economic concern for
appropriate distribution [5,6]. Trucks and ships can be used to
transport hydrogen inside pressurized vessels, in either its
compressed gas (GH2) or liquid (LH2) form. Compressed gas
requires relatively high pressures (180 bar or higher) [7] and
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
can require three to four times more infrastructure to be built
[8]. Liquid hydrogen is effective for increasing density by a
factor of 800 [9], but it requires an energy-intensive liquefac-
tion process and special cryogenic insulated tanks to maintain
the necessary low temperatures. Alternatively, compressed
liquid ammonia can be used to transport bulk hydrogen to
remote areas through trucks or ships.
The economic supply of energy for hydrogen conversion is
dependent on the availability of local resources and the
method of transportation. Pipelines are considered the most
cost-effective way to transport large volumes of hydrogen,
with estimates ranging from $0.05 to $3 per ton depending on
the distance [5]. Trucks and ships are also viable alternatives
for hydrogen transportation, but the low density of hydrogen
requires it to be pressurized into a compressed gas (around
18 MPa) [6] or liquified for high density energy, which in-
creases costs due to the necessary infrastructure and pro-
cesses for compression and liquefaction.
While pipelines are the most cost-effective way in the long-
term, they require specialized infrastructure, such as hydrogen
pipelines and compressors, which can pose an economic bar-
rier. One of the promising solutions to this barrier is blending
hydrogen with natural gas into existing pipeline networks.
However, the different properties of blended gas can lead to
operational, material, and safety issues that require modifica-
tion of the existing system [10,11]. The schematic of potential
blended hydrogen pathways is shown in Fig. 1.
There have been numerous studies on the transportation
of hydrogen in pipelines, ranging from the Fort Saskatchewan
Hydrogen Blending project, which uses a 5% blended H2 con-
centration [6], to H21, which uses 100% hydrogen concentra-
tion [12]. Table 1 illustrates a non-exhaustive list of blended
hydrogen transportation projects.
Many studies and projects have examined the general is-
sues surrounding the transportation of blended hydrogen
through existing gas pipelines and have addressed potential
Fig. 1 e Blended hydrogen pathways.
17607
risks from operation and failure events. However, there is a
need for more in-depth research on operation, material, and
safety matters.
A key question in the transportation of blended hydrogen
is whether existing natural gas pipelines can be used,
considering the limits of hydrogen concentration and corre-
sponding blended gas changes due to operating pressure.
These factors can have significant impacts on compression,
friction, temperature, and energy supply [19]. Additionally,
typical natural gas pipeline materials may be susceptible to
hydrogen embrittlement and require a reduction in operating
pressure. The low density of hydrogen can also lead to
different gas dynamics in the case of leak events, making
conventional leak detection systems potentially incompatible
with blended hydrogen pipelines. Moreover, hydrogen leakage
into a confined area has the potential for significant damage
due to the wide detonation limits of hydrogen. Ultimately, the
aim of blending hydrogen is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
The goal of this study is to examine the potential advan-
tages and challenges of using blended hydrogen gas in exist-
ing natural gas systems. To do this, we conduct a thorough
review of the literature on the effects of hydrogen on pipeline
materials, safety considerations such as leak detection, po-
tential consequences of leaks, and GHG emissions. Addition-
ally, we investigate a gas hydraulic model to identify the
optimal hydrogen blends for both transmission and distribu-
tion pipelines as part of a case study, taking into consideration
the impacts on the pipeline, compressor selection, and other
design variables. We also develop a Real-Time Transient
Model (RTTM) that incorporates the simulation parameters
and demonstrates how pipelines with different mixtures of
hydrogen and natural gas would behave. Finally, we model the
expected GHG emissions with the pipeline case study,
considering the impact not only of hydrogen combustion, but
also of its production. Through this investigation we further
17608 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9

Table 1 e List of Major Projects Regarding Blended Hydrogen Transportation.

No Project Country Objectives Blended References
H2 [%]
1 HyDeploy UK Blending hydrogen into natural gas 20% [11,13]
pipelines
2 Fort Saskatchewan Hydrogen Canada Blending hydrogen into natural gas 5% [6]
Blending Project (ATCO) pipelines that serve residential and
commercial buildings in Fort
Saskatchewan.
3 H21 UK Investigation of 100% hydrogen usage 100% [12]
with existing natural gas system
4 Hyblend US Technical evaluation for blending e [14]
hydrogen in natural gas pipelines
5 GRHYD France Blending hydrogen into gas distribution 20% [14]
lines
6 Snam Italy Blending hydrogen into gas Transmission 10% [14]
Lines
7 HyP SA Australia Green hydrogen blending into gas 5% [15]
distribution lines
8 Enbridge and Cummins Canada Blending hydrogen into gas distribution <2% [16]
Hydrogen-blending Project lines in Markham, Ontario and performing
a routing study
9 Hy4Heat UK Comprehensive assessment of using 100% [14]
hydrogen as a fuel in residential and
commercial buildings
10 Hydrogen injection in Denmark Blending hydrogen into gas distribution in 15% [17]
the gas grid Varde, Denmark, and safety evaluation
11 Cleangas Turkey Turkey Injecting renewable hydrogen into natural 20% [17]
gas and gas mixture evaluation
12 EN-H2 (Portugal National Hydrogen Strategy) Carbon neutralization with the hydrogen 15% [18]
Portugal economy

elucidate the feasibility of blended hydrogen gas in everyday
use and the potential for GHG emission reductions.
Blending hydrogen and natural gas
Blending hydrogen with natural gas in existing pipeline
systems is the most economical way to transport large
volumes of hydrogen over long distance without the need
for new infrastructure. However, the small size of the
hydrogen molecule and its different physical properties,
such as lower volumetric density and viscosity, can lead to
unique behavior when mixed with natural gas [20,21]. This
can pose potential safety risks for pipelines that were
designed and built to transport natural gas. To maintain
energy balance and depending on hydrogen concentration,
the blended gas mixture may need to be transported at
higher flow rates than natural gas. This may result in
higher operating pressures and potentially exceed the
design limits of compressors and pipelines, which were
originally designed for natural gas transmission and dis-
tribution. Therefore, it is important to consider design
changes to ensure the safe transportation of blended
hydrogen through existing pipeline systems and identify
any potential risks and operational issues related to
hydrogen concentration.
It is important to ensure that blended gas is in a homoge-
neous state, with uniform behavior along the entire length of
the pipeline [22]. If the two gases have significantly different
densities, they may stratify, leading to different flow behavior
and leak characteristics. This can result in uneven energy
distribution and operational issues with the pipeline. A typical

Fig. 2 e Schematic for a Typical System for Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Grids.
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9 17609

system for blending hydrogen into natural gas grids is shown The design specifications for the simulated pipelines are
in Fig. 2 and includes an electrolyzer, hydrogen buffer storage, largely based on Case Study 6 in “Transmission Pipelines
and a blending unit. Calculations and Simulations Manual" [27], but with a
There are several hydrogen blending systems in operation. different pipe material and weld type. This choice was made
Table 2 lists some of these projects. Australia's HyP SA project in order to make the pipeline selection as realistic as possible.
[15] uses hydrogen purification equipment between the elec- The full specifications can be found in Table 3.
trolyzer and the hydrogen buffer tank to remove produced In transmission pipelines, gas is usually transported using
impurities. ATCO's CEIH project [23] in Australia blends up to centrifugal compressors [28,29]. The number and location of
25% hydrogen using a flow control system with gas chroma- compressors are chosen to ensure that the system is hy-
tography (GC) and a PID controller. The HyDeploy project [11] draulically stable and can safely deliver the gas flow. It is
uses a mixing loop to blend hydrogen with natural gas to important to design the gas compressors with optimal
produce desired hydrogen concentrations in the blended gas compression ratios and head limits for safe transportation.
before injecting it into natural gas pipelines. The blending unit For the purpose of this simulation, we have assumed that
measures the components of the blended gas with a gas there is only one compressor in the transmission line, but no
control system to ensure that the two gases are fully mixed. compressor in the distribution line. The reason for this deci-
The Jupiter 1000 project [24], which was commissioned in sion is that, as the simulation progresses, it becomes clear that
2018 in France, generates hydrogen using two electrolyzers the transmission line is often the limiting factor and therefore
with a combined capacity of 1.0 MW and methane through a the focus of the study. The compressor for station 1 was
methanation process that converts captured CO2. These gases defined based on a typical transmission compressor, and the
are then blended to the desired concentration and injected details are shown in Table 4.
into natural gas pipeline for distribution.
Finally, lab-scale equipment has also been developed to
blend hydrogen with natural gas at lower flow rates by
Table 3 e Design Specification for the Pipelines used in
rotating helical fins inside a pipe [22]. All of these hydrogen the Simulation.
blending methods are used to produce fully developed gas
Contents Transmission Distribution
mixtures before they are transported through pipelines to
Line Line
prevent gas stratification. When blended gas is transported
Fluid H2: 0e100%,
under turbulent flow conditions, hydrogen and natural gas do
CH4: 100%e0%
not stratify in the pipeline, as investigated in the HyDeploy Inlet Temperature 20  C
project [11]. For laminar or stagnant flows, possible scenarios Location Underground (Fully Insulated)
for distribution lines, gas stratification can be a potential risk Material API 5L X70 ASTM A53 Gr. B
due to density differences between the mixture components. Tensile Strength (MPa) 565.37 330.95
In order to examine the potential conversion of a natural Diameter (I.D, mm) 609.6 (NPS 24) 102.3 (NPS 4)
Weld Type ERW Seamless
gas pipeline to a blended hydrogen pipeline, this study uses a
Wall Thickness (mm) 12.7 6.0198
simulation to analyze various design parameters. The focus of
Surface Roughness (mm) 0.01778
the case study are two sample pipelines: a 322 km trans- Delivered Pressure (MPa) 3.45 (500 psig) 0.41 (60 psig)
mission line and a 10 km distribution line, as shown in Fig. 3. (Before service
Transmission lines generally operate at higher pressures and regulator)
transport larger volumes over long distances [21], while dis- Operating Flow (m3/day) 14,158,423 15,000
tribution lines tend to operate at lower pressures and cover (500MMSCFD)
Length (km) 322 10
shorter distances.

Table 2 e Examples of Hydrogen Blending Systems [11,15,23e25].

Project Country Network Electrolyser Hydrogen Blend % Others
Capacity
HyP SA Australia Distribution 1.2 MW 5% Uses green hydrogen
ATCO-CEIH Australia Distribution 0.15 MW 5e25% GC and PID Control
HyDeploy UK Distribution 0.5 MW 20% Measures Wobbe index
Jupiter 1000 France Transmission 1.0 MW 6% Injects hydrogen into transmission lines

Fig. 3 e Illustration of the Simulated Transmission and distribution pipelines.

17610 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9

the energy content of the blended gas may be reduced with

Table 4 e Design Specification for the Compressor used in
higher concentrations of hydrogen. From the safety perspec-
the Simulation.
tive, higher concentrations of hydrogen tend to increase the
Contents Transmission Distribution
risk of fire and explosion. Compared to methane, pure
Line Line
hydrogen has a much broader flammability range (5.3 times)
Fluid H2: 0e100%, CH4: 100%e0% and detonation limit range (7.1 times). It also has a signifi-
Suction Pressure (MPa) 3.45 (500 psig) N/A1*
cantly lower ignition energy (14.5 times lower), which makes it
Compressor Adiabatic Efficiency 0.85 N/A1*
Maximum Head Per Stage (m) 2438 (8000 ft) N/A1*
more prone to ignition and increases the risk of fire.
Suction Temperature 15  C N/A1* The low density of hydrogen also leads to higher diffusivity
Discharge Temperature 20  C N/A1* with other materials, which can result in more severe flam-
Discharge Pressure (MPa) 8.34 (1210 psig) N/A1* mable and detonable events in confined spaces. Table 6
1
* No compressor in the distribution line (Pressure reduction sta- summarizes the properties of each gas at 20  C and
tion only). 101.35 kPa in terms of physical properties, energy content and
risk.

Natural gas typically consists of more than 95% methane,
with other gases making up smaller fractions [26], as shown in
Table 5. For this study, we assume that natural gas is
completely composed of methane, as this assumption is not
expected to significantly affect the interpretation of the
results.
Hydrogen and methane have different physical and
chemical properties. These properties include molecular
weight, density, viscosity, and specific gravity. Hydrogen has a
molecular weight that is 8 times lower than methane, which
results in significantly lower values for most physical prop-
erties except viscosity; the viscosity of hydrogen is approxi-
mately 30% lower than methane at room temperature (25  C).
Hydrogen contains 2.4 times more energy per unit mass
than methane. However, the lower heating value (LHV) of
hydrogen per unit volume is three times lower than methane
due to its low density at standard conditions. This means that
energy transmission
Energy transmission is a key factor to consider when con-
verting a natural gas pipeline to use blended hydrogen. The
amount of transmitted energy can be calculated by multi-
plying the standardized operating flow rate by the lower
heating value (LHV) of the blend. When using pure hydrogen,
the energy transmission is approximately 3.3 times lower
than when using methane. In other words, the lower the
concentration of hydrogen in the blend, the higher the energy
transmission will be, for the same flow rate and pressure.
This is illustrated in Fig. 4 for the simulated (a) trans-
mission and (b) distribution pipelines. For example, the
transmission pipeline with natural gas would typically
transmit 4.80x108 MJ/day, but this would drop to 1.44x108 MJ/
day with pure hydrogen in the pipeline. The figure shows the
full range of variation for different hydrogen concentrations.

Table 5 e Typical Natural Gas Composition [26].

Constituent Methane Ethane Nitrogen Carbon Dioxides Propane N-Butane Isobutane Others
(CH4) (C2H6) (N) (CO2) (C3H8) (C4H10) (C4H10)
Volume (%) 95.3 2.16 1.86 0.44 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.01

Table 6 e Gas properties e Comparison Between Hydrogen and Methane (at CNTP).
Properties Hydrogen Methane Unit Reference
Molecular Weight 2.016 16.043 kg/kmol [30]
Density (Gas) 0.08 0.65 kg/m3 [31]
Density (Liquid) 71 430e470 kg/m3 [31]
Specific Gravity 0.0696 0.555 e [12]
Viscosity (at 25  C) 0.89 1.11 10-5 Pa s [20]
Diffusion Coefficient in Air 0.61 0.16 cm2/s [32]
Energy Density 120 50 MJ/kg [31]
Lower Heating Value (LHV) 10.2 34 MJ/m3 [21]
Higher Heating Value (HHV) 12.5 37.8 MJ/m3 [21]
Flammability Limits (in air) 4e75 5e15 Vol % [31]
Detonation Limits (in air) 18.3e59 6.3e14 Vol. % [20]
Minimum Spark Ignition Energy 0.02 0.29 MJ [30]
Auto Ignition Temperature 858 810 K [30]
Laminar flame Velocity 2.1 0.4 m/s [21]
Specific Heat Capacity 14.86 2.22 J/(g,K) [33]
Specific Heat Ratio 1.383 1.308 e [33]
Flame Temperature in Air 2318 2148 K [33]
Solubility in Water 0.0016 0.025 kg/m3 [33]
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
Fig. 4 e Energy Transmission by Hydrogen Concentration in the Gas Mixture.
Thus, if it is desired to maintain the energy transmission
the same in a pipeline conversion, the flow rate and/or oper-
ating pressure must be increased accordingly. These changes
may not be trivial. Increasing the operating pressure may be
constrained by the pipe material used, or it may be limited by
the number of compressors that can be installed.
Gas hydraulics
The flow of gas in pipelines depends on various factors, such
as pressure, temperature, and the physical characteristics of
the pipeline, such as length and diameter. The physical re-
lationships that govern this flow in a steady and isothermal
state can be described using the general gas flow equation [34]
shown in Eq. (1).

2
Q,Pb
P21 ¼ P22 þ G , Tf , L , Z,f
1:1494,103 Tb ,D2:5
where Q is the volumetric flow rate (m3/day), f is the Darcy
friction factor (dimensionless), Pb is atmospheric pressure
(kPa), Tb is atmospheric temperature (K), P1 and P2 are the
absolute pressure (kPa) at upstream and downstream loca-
tions, G is gas gravity (m/s2), Tf is average gas flowing tem-
perature (K), L is the length of the pipe (km), Z is gas
compressibility factor at the flowing temperature (dimen-
sionless), and D is the inner diameter of the pipe (mm).
This section analyzes the impact of hydrogen concentra-
tion on various properties, including friction, temperature,
flow rate changes, and pressure, and provides guidelines for
determining the optimal amount of hydrogen to blend in the
pipelines investigated in the case study. All of the parameters
are visualized in relation to hydrogen concentration and en-
ergy transmission.
17611
Flow rate
The flow rate depends on the desired energy transmission and
hydrogen concentration in the blend. As discussed in Sub-
Section Energy Transmission, the energy transmitted can be
calculated by multiplying the LHV of the gas mixture by its
flow rate. The required flow rate to maintain a certain level of
energy transmission can then be calculated using Eq. (2).
Qi ,LHVCH4
Qr ¼ ; ði ¼ 1; 2Þ (2)
LHVB
where Qr is the desired volumetric flow rate, Qi is the original
volumetric flow rate (defined in Table 3), I denotes the type of
pipeline (transmission or distribution), and LHVCH4 and LHVB
are the lower heating values for methane and the blended gas
(methane and hydrogen) respectively.
Fig. 5 shows the variation in flow rate for (a) the trans-
mission and (b) the distribution pipelines as a function of
(1)
hydrogen concentration and energy transmission. The energy
transmission is plotted on a scale from 30% to 100%, with
values corresponding to those shown in Fig. 4 (i.e., 30% cor-
responds to 1.44x108 MJ/day, and 100% to 4.80x108 MJ/day). As
expected by intuition, a significant increase in flow rate would
be needed to maintain high energy transmission and
hydrogen concentration. This is relevant for all of the
following factors.
Friction factor
In laminar flow, fluid friction is only dependent on the Rey-
nolds number, as shown in Eq. (3). For turbulent flow, it can be
described using the Colebrook-White equation [34] shown in
Eq. (4). This equation considers pipeline roughness (assumed
to be constant), pipeline diameter, and Reynolds number.
64
f¼ (3)
Re
17612 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9

Fig. 5 e Flow rate with Hydrogen Concentration and Energy ransmission.

!
1 ed 2:51
pffiffiffi ¼  2 Log10 þ pffiffiffi
f 3:7D Re f
where ed is absolute pipe roughness (mm) and Re is the Rey-
nolds number (dimensionless). The friction factor (f ) is
important because it is used to determine the upstream and
downstream pressures according to Eq. (1). Additionally, a
high friction factor is generally undesirable as it can lead to
higher pressure drops and/or lower flow rates, potentially
requiring modifications to the pipeline design.
Fig. 6 illustrates variation of the friction factor for (a) the
transmission and (b) the distribution pipelines as a function of
hydrogen concentration and energy transmission. It is clear
that to maintain the same level of energy transmission with a
higher hydrogen concentration, the friction factor increases
significantly, indicating a higher Reynolds number and a more
turbulent flow.
Temperature
Fluid transport through pipelines can result in temperature
(4) variations due to two main sources. The first is the heat
transfer between the inside of the pipeline and its surround-
ings. The second is the Joule-Thompson effect, which is a
change in temperature that occurs when gas expands due to
pressure differences between the inlet and outlet [35]. This
effect is described by Eq. (5).


vT
Jt ¼ (5)
vP H
where Jt is the Joule-Thompson coefficient ( C/bar), T is the
temperature ( C), and P is pressure (bar). H denotes that the
partial derivate is evaluated at constant Enthalpy. The Joule-
Thompson coefficient (Jt ) is a property of the gas being used
as well as the temperature and pressure of the gas prior to
expansion. Every gas has an inversion point at which the
Joule-Thompson coefficient changes sign and the gas begins

Fig. 6 e Friction Factor variation with Hydrogen Concentration and Energy Transmission.
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
to either warm or cool. Most gases, including methane, have a
high inversion point temperature, meaning that a pressure
drop has a cooling effect. Hydrogen, however, is one of the few
gases that has a very low inversion point, with an inversion
point of 202 K at atmospheric pressure [35]. As a result,
hydrogen generally experiences a warming effect when sub-
jected to a pressure drop.
In the simulation, the Joule-Thompson effect is accounted
for by assuming constant values for methane (0.5  C/bar) and
hydrogen (0.035  C/bar), obtained from the literature [36]. The
impact of this is shown in Fig. 7 for both transmission and
distribution pipelines. As expected, the highest temperature
occurs at higher concentrations of hydrogen and transmitted
energy. It is also noteworthy that the range of temperature
variation in the transmission pipeline (from 20  C at 100%
methane/30% energy to 30  C at 100% hydrogen/100% energy)
is much larger than that in the distribution pipeline (from
19.6  C to 20.1  C in the same cases). This is due to the higher
volumetric flow rate in the transmission line.
Maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP)
The operating pressure is closely related to material stress. This
is especially important when converting existing methane
pipelines for hydrogen transportation, as engineers must
consider the existing pipeline material. Standard design
guidelines for pipelines typically state that the governing stress
is the hoop stress (circumferential direction), which can be
described mathematically using the following equation [34].
P,Do
Sh ¼
2tp
where Sh is the pipe's hoop stress (Pa), tp is the pipe wall
thickness (mm), Do is the external diameter (mm), and P is the
internal operating pressure (Pa). This equation shows that the
hoop stress is a function of the operating pressure, pipeline
diameter, and design thickness. This demonstrates that the
operating pressure directly affects the stress level in the pipe.
The practical relationship between these variables can be
Fig. 7 e Temperature Variation due to Joule-Thompson effect with Transmitted Energy and Hydrogen Concentration.
17613
found in industrial standards [37,38] and typically also in-
cludes design and safety factors. For hydrogen pipelines, the
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) can be rep-
resented by the following equation [38].
2S,tp
MAOP ¼ Df ,Ef ,Tf ,Hf (7)
Do
where MAOP is the maximum allowable operating pressure
(Pa), S is the minimum yield strength (Pa), tp is the wall
thickness (mm), Do is the external diameter (mm), Df is the
design factor (dimensionless), Tf is the temperature derating
factor (dimensionless), Ef is the pipe seam joint factor
(dimensionless), and Hf is the material performance factor
(dimensionless).
This equation can be used to determine the operating
pressure limit for hydrogen use in the current gas pipe design,
which will naturally be lower than when the pipe is used for
natural gas service. With the pressure limit, the inlet pressure
can be calculated with the general flow equation (Eq. (1)) for
different hydrogen concentrations and transmitted energy.
This is shown graphically in Fig. 8.
A black shaded square area is included in (a) the trans-
mission pipeline to indicate the MAOP (maximum allowable
operating pressure) for this pipeline, indicating that it would
not be possible to maintain the same transmission energy
with pure hydrogen because it would exceed the MAOP and
pose a structural risk. In contrast, the MAOP is not reached in
(b) the distribution pipeline, so it would be safe to operate
within the entire range of hydrogen concentration and
transmitted energy.
(6)
Compressor selection
In the previous sections, we examined the potential impacts
of converting a natural gas pipeline to hydrogen in terms of
operating pressure and flow rate, but we did not address how
these parameters would be achieved. This section focuses on
the selection of compressors that would be compatible with
such parameters, and whether or not the scenarios would be
feasible.
17614 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
Fig. 8 e Inlet Pressure Variation with Hydrogen Concentration and Energy Transmission.
The first parameter to be considered is the compression
ratio, which is basically a measure of how much the
compressor can increase the suction pressure. It can be
calculated with the following equation.
Pd
Cr ¼ (8)
Ps
where Cr is the compression ratio (dimensionless), and Pd and
Ps are the discharge and suction pressures (Pa). The
compression ratio assumed for the simulation is 1.5, a com-
mon value for centrifugal compressors. This limit is used to
determine the number of compressors required [34]. For
example, if a compression ratio of 2.8 is required for a
particular scenario, since this is higher than 1.5, two com-
pressors are necessary. With this compression ratio set as the
limit, Fig. 9 illustrates the compression ratio and number of
compressors necessary to achieve different hydrogen con-
centrations and transmitted energies. The black shaded
square represents regions that, if above, would require more
than one compressor.
Fig. 9 e Compression Ratio Variation with Hydrogen
Concentration and Transmitted Energy.
The other two parameters that need to be considered are
compressor head (DHc ) and compressor power (Power), two
interconnected parameters with the flow rate that help
determine the number of compressor stages required by the
system. The general expression for the compressor head are
found in Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) [34].



"
g1 #
g Z1 þ Z2 1 P2 g
Power ¼ 4:0639 Q,T1 1 (9)
g1 2 ha P1
Mf  DHc
Power ¼ (10)
hc
where Power is compression power (kW), g is the ratio of
specific heats of the gas (dimensionless), Q is the volumetric
flow rate (Mm3/day), T1 is the suction temperature of the gas
(K), P1 and P2 are suction and discharge pressures of the gas
(kPa), Z1 and Z2 is the compressibility of gas at suction and
discharge conditions (dimensionless), ha is the compressor
adiabatic efficiency (dimensionless), Mf is the mass flow rate
of gas (kg/s), DHc is the compressor head (m), and hc is the
compressor efficiency (dimensionless). The compressor effi-
ciency (h a) is the compressor adiabatic efficiency.
Using these equations, the compressor power and head are
illustrated, respectively, on Fig. 10(a) and (b). As with the
previous image, the black shaded square represents the limit
(maximum head per stage). As expected, a higher hydrogen
concentration and transmitted energies requires a significant
increase in compressor power. It is interesting to see how
many more compressor stages would be required to transport
pure hydrogen at high energy deliveries. To achieve 100%
transmitted energy with pure hydrogen, a total of 11
compressor stages would be required.
In conclusion, finding the optimal blend of hydrogen and
natural gas involves tradeoffs, as increasing the percentage of
hydrogen may require additional equipment and modifications
to the pipeline. For example, transmitting 100% energy with
pure hydrogen would require a large number of compressors
and pipeline modifications, while transmitting 65% energy with
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
Fig. 10 e Compressor Power, Head and Number of Compressor Stages with Hydrogen Concentration and Transmitted
Energy.
a 60% hydrogen blend would only require the addition of a
single compressor. Alternatively, transmitting 51% of the en-
ergy with a 30% hydrogen blend would not require any modi-
fications at all. These examples, as well as a wider range of
options described in Table 7, demonstrate the various tradeoffs
involved in determining the optimal blend. The best choice will
depend on the specific project goals and budget constraints,
and a careful evaluation of the available options is necessary to
determine the most appropriate blend for a given situation.
Hydrogen influence on pipeline materials
One major concern with using hydrogen in pipelines is its
ability to permeate through materials. As the smallest and
lightest element (see Table 6), hydrogen can easily diffuse into
the lattice structure of materials, causing them to become
weaker and more prone to cracking under stress [38]. This
process, known as hydrogen embrittlement (HE), can be a
significant issue for pipelines and lead to unexpected failures.
This section discusses the consequences of this process and
potential solutions.
Hydrogen embrittlement
Hydrogen Embrittlement can reduce mechanical properties
such as tensile ductility, fracture toughness, and fatigue resis-
tance, making them more prone to loss of ductility and cracking
[38]. A report from the US Department of Energy [39] indicates
that the majority of natural gas networks, including trans-
mission and distribution lines, are made of carbon steel mate-
rials (i.e., 99.7% and 50.4%, respectively). As such, when
considering the use of existing natural gas networks for
hydrogen transportation, it is crucial to determine whether the
existing metallic materials are compatible with hydrogen gas
service.
Carbon steels, including ASTM A 106 Grade B, ASTM A 53
Grade B, and API 5L Grades X42 and X52, have been shown to
17615
be suitable for use in hydrogen pipelines with pressures up to
14 MPa, according to ASME B31.12 [38]. Table 8 summarizes
the design specifications of hydrogen pipelines currently in
operation worldwide. These pipelines are usually made of
carbon steels and operate at a maximum pressure of up to
13.1 MPa. This helps contextualize and provide a practical
perspective on the materials and pressures currently being
used in hydrogen pipelines.
The HEE (Hydrogen Environment Embrittlement) Index is a
metric that can be used to evaluate the potential for hydrogen
embrittlement in a material. It compares the Notched Tensile
Strength (NTS) of a material when subjected to hydrogen to
when it is subjected to air or helium. The HEE Index can be
calculated using the equation:
HEE Index ¼ NTS Ratio ¼ NTS in Hydrogen/NTS in Air or
Helium (11)
The HEE index is a ratio that ranges from 0 to 1, with higher
values indicating a lower potential for hydrogen embrittle-
ment. Materials with an HEE index as close to 1 as possible are
typically desired. According to NASA's report [41], Table 9
categorizes different levels of severity based on the HEE
index. Detailed test procedures for obtaining the HEE index
can be found in the literature [42].
Table 10 summarizes the severity of the HEE Index and
the compatibility of common industrial materials with
hydrogen. It also includes the hydrogen pressure at which
the HEE Index was obtained, which can be either 6.9 MPa or
68.9 MPa [38,41]. It is noteworthy that the results show that
ferritic steels commonly used in current gas pipelines have a
range of HEE severity from high to low when used at pres-
sures up to 6.9 MPa at room temperature. Ductile materials
such as stainless steel (304 and 316) and copper-based ma-
terials have relatively low HEE severity, even at high pres-
sures (68.9 MPa). Additionally, these materials have good
resistance to hydrogen embrittlement in both gas and liquid
states.
17616 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9

Table 7 e Optimal Hydrogen Concentration without System Modification (Transmission Line).

Energy Gas Hydrogen Concentration without Modification (%)
Content Contents
Pressure (MPa) Compression Ratio Compressor Head (m) No. of Modification
(H2 e CH4)
Compressors
Limit [45] Simulation Limit [40] Simulation Limit Simulation
required
Results Results Results
100% 0e100% 11.23 12.27 1.5 2.20 2438 1915.95 2 Pipe, Compressor
20e80% 13.08 2.35 2807.14 2 Pipe, Compressor
40e60% 13.93 2.50 4171.38 2 Pipe, Compressor
60e40% 14.80 2.65 6511.26 3 Pipe, Compressor
80e20% 15.51 2.78 11372.60 5 Pipe, Compressor
100e0% 14.83 2.66 26730.60 11 Pipe, Compressor
86% 0e100% 11.23 10.92 1.5 1.96 2438 1617.67 1 Compressor
20e80% 11.59 2.08 2384.00 1 Pipe, Compressor
40e60% 12.30 2.21 3560.97 2 Pipe, Compressor
60e40% 13.04 2.34 5582.66 3 Pipe, Compressor
80e20% 13.63 2.44 9775.49 5 Pipe, Compressor
100e0% 13.06 2.34 22846.72 10 Pipe, Compressor
65% 0e100% 11.23 9.01 1.5 1.62 2438 1140.21 2 Compressor
20e80% 9.48 1.71 1700.39 2 Compressor
40e60% 9.98 1.79 2567.37 2 Compressor
60e40% 10.50 1.89 4062.70 2 Compressor
80e20% 10.92 1.96 7155.38 3 Compressor
100e0% 10.51 1.89 16540.60 7 Compressor
51% 0e100% 11.23 8.42 1.5 1.42 2438 810.52 1 e
20e80% 8.82 1.48 1221.56 1 e
40e60% 9.25 1.54 1862.81 2 Compressor
60e40% 9.69 1.61 2974.17 2 Compressor
80e20% 10.06 1.66 5269.17 3 Compressor
100e0% 9.709 1.61 12064.05 5 Compressor
30% 0e100% 11.23 6.43 1.5 1.16 2438 344.12 1 e
20e80% 6.57 1.19 528.94 1 e
40e60% 6.73 1.22 822.41 1 e
60e40% 6.90 1.25 1337.38 1 e
80e20% 7.04 1.27 2400.37 1 e
100e0% 6.90 1.25 5395.90 3 Compressor

The HEE index can also be correlated with the operating
pressure through a proportionality constant and a material-
dependent exponential, as described in Eq. (12) [41]. This
relationship reinforces that higher pressures increase the risk
of hydrogen embrittlement.
HEE Index ¼ aðPÞn (12)
where a is a proportional constant, P is the hydrogen pressure
(MPa), and n is the material decaying exponent (material
dependent).
Temperature is another factor that strongly influences
hydrogen embrittlement behavior. In general, hydrogen
embrittlement occurs at temperatures below 95  C. At high
temperatures (>200  C), hydrogen embrittlement is usually not a
problem for most materials [43]. However, High Temperature
Hydrogen Attack (HTHA), also known as hydrogen attack, can be
a problem. This occurs when hydrogen dissociates into its
atomic form and diffuses into steel, reacting with the carbon to
form methane. This can cause various problems, including

Table 8 e Operating Pressure for Hydrogen Pipelines Worldwide.

Location Length (Km) Diameter (mm) Operating Material Operator Reference
Pressure (MPa)
Texas, US 560 150e305 2.4e13.1 Steel Pipe Air Products [21]
Westliche, US 367 203e254 2.4e13.1 Steel Pipe Air Products [21]
Louisiana e 150,203,305 2.4e13.1 Steel Pipe Air Products [21]
Los Angeles 19 150,254,305 2.4e13.1 Steel Pipe Air Products [21]
Texas, US 105 203 2.4 API 5L Grade B Air Liquide [21]
Texas, US 55 36 5.1 API 5L X60 Air Liquide [21]
Netherlands 879 304.8 6.5e10 Seamless Carbon Steel Air Liquide [40]
Canada 3.7 273 3.8 Gr.290 AGEC [40]
UK 15 e 30 Carbon Steel ICI Billingham [40]
Germany (Leuna) 100 e 2e5 API 5L L290 Linde [21]
France, Belgium 1040 100 9.7 API 5L X52 Air Liquide [21]
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9 17617

Table 9 e The Categorization of HE Severity for Industrial Materials [41].

HE Severity HEE Index (NTS Ratio) Description
Negligible 1.0e0.97 Materials can be utilized in the specified hydrogen pressure and
Small 0.96e0.90 temperature range with fracture and crack growth analysis in hydrogen
High 0.89e0.70 Limited application with fracture and crack growth analysis in hydrogen
Severe 0.69e0.50 Not recommended for usage
Extreme 0.49e0.0

Table 10 e HE Index for ommercialized Materials.

Material Lab-scale HE Evaluation Material Compatibility Reference
with Hydrogen [9]
Hydrogen HE HEE Index Gas Liquid
Pressure Severity (NTS ratio*2)
Ferritic Steels A106-Gr. B 6.9 MPa High e Acceptable Not acceptable [38,41]
(Carbon steels A516 6.9 MPa High 0.83 Acceptable Not acceptable [38,41]
and low alloy steels) API 5L X42 6.9 MPa High e Acceptable Not acceptable [38]
API 5L X52 6.9 MPa High 0.86 Acceptable Not acceptable [38,41]
API 5L X60 6.9 MPa Small 0.92 Acceptable Not acceptable [38,41]
API 5L X65 6.9 MPa Small 0.94 Acceptable Not acceptable [38,41]
API 5L X70 6.9 MPa Small 0.90 Acceptable Not acceptable [38,41]
Austenitic Steels 304L 68.9 MPa High 0.87 Acceptable Acceptable [38,41]
316 68.9 MPa Negligible 1 Acceptable Acceptable [38,41]
Copper Based Copper (OFHC*1) 68.9 MPa Negligible 1 Acceptable Acceptable [38,41]
70-30 Brass 68.9 MPa Negligible e Acceptable Acceptable [38]

*1: OFHC: Oxygen-free high thermal conductivity.

*2: NTS Ratio is calculated in hydrogen and helium environments.

fissuring and cracks in the pipeline. While each material's
resistance to HTHA varies and depends on both temperature
and pressure, API 941 provides a comprehensive list of recom-
mended practices and operational limits for different steels [43].
In summary, hydrogen embrittlement is a complex
problem with a complex mechanism. However, the resis-
tance of many materials to hydrogen embrittlement has
already been catalogued, and various standards provide best
practices for proper material selection. Choosing a material
known to have low susceptibility to embrittlement and
maintaining internal pressure within recommended limits is
the optimal solution. In cases where the engineer has no
control over material selection, such as when reusing a
natural gas pipeline, internal coatings can be used as an
alternative solution.
Internal coatings to prevent hydrogen embrittlement
Internal coatings offer a potential solution for enabling the use
of materials that are not currently compatible with hydrogen
in pipeline transportation, or for improving their compati-
bility. These coatings function as a barrier by mechanically
separating the material from the hydrogen environment
[44,45]. Many of these coatings are still being researched and
can be broadly classified into metal, ceramic, and polymer
coatings [44]. Additionally, two-dimensional materials such as
graphene and Mxene have been identified as promising
hydrogen barrier coating materials due to their excellent
hydrogen resistance and mechanical durability [46,47]. The
benefits and drawbacks of each coating type are summarized
in Table 11.

Table 11 e Types of barrier coating for hydrogen serviced pipelines.

Coating Type Advantage Disadvantage Materials Reference
Metal Various techniques to apply Limited application to Ni-Cobalt, MoS2 [44,48]
High resistance to erosion and corrosion pipelines in use
Ceramic Good H2 resistance Brittle SiC, Al2O3, Er2O3 [44,46]
Subjected to thermal
expansion
Polymer Relatively inexpensive swelling HDPE, PE-X, Epoxy [49]
Good corrosion resistance blistering Teknopox 3297-00,
Light Hydrogen permeation Teknopox 3296-06
Two Dimensional Low permeability Limits production at large scale MLG, Mxene [47]
Material High thermal stability Non-commercialized method
Chemically inert
High mechanical strength
17618 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
Metallic coatings [50] are typically used on external pipe-
lines as a sacrificial method to protect the metal surface
through the galvanic principle. These coatings can be applied
using techniques such as hot-dip galvanizing, sherardizing,
electroplating, or metal spraying [51]. They have high resis-
tance to erosive and corrosive environments, as well as
atomic hydrogen for certain metal alloys like nickel alloys and
MoS2 [44,48]. However, their use is limited to external surfaces
like bolts and external pipe surfaces, and it is difficult to apply
them to the internal wall of pipelines. Therefore, metallic
coatings are not considered suitable for use as an internal
barrier coating.
Ceramic coatings are high-temperature coatings based
on carbides, silicides, and nitrides [51]. These coatings are
used where chemical resistance and prevention of
hydrogen diffusion are needed [46,51]. While ceramic
coatings like SiC, Al2O3, and Er2O3 have high resistance to
hydrogen permeation, they are mechanically brittle and
prone to thermal expansion, which can lead to coating
failure under harsh operating conditions. In addition, it is
not easy to apply ceramic coatings inside existing gas
pipelines, making them unsuitable for use in existing nat-
ural gas pipelines.
Polymeric coatings are often used for distribution pipeline
materials under low pressurized operating conditions due to
their relatively low cost, high resistance to corrosion, and low
weight compared to metals. These same advantages also apply
to polymeric coatings for pipelines. According to Ref. [52], HDPE
and PE-X are suggested as excellent materials for rehabilitating
hydrogen serviced pipelines. Europipe, a German pipeline
company, recently announced that the epoxy-based coatings,
Teknopox 3297-00 and Teknopox 3296-06, produced by Teknos,
were suitable for use as internal coatings in pure hydrogen
pipelines up to 10 MPa (1450.38 psi) [53]. While polymeric
coatings have multiple advantages, they can be prone to
swelling, blistering, and hydrogen permeation due to poor
surface conditions and poor cathodic management [54].
Currently, polymeric coatings are used for corrosion pro-
tection in some oil and gas pipelines worldwide in areas with
high corrosion risk. Based on their operational histories [55],
they have had no specific issues in high-pressure pipelines (up
to 34.5 MPa or 5000 psi) for over 20 years. Additionally, it has
been reported that using polymeric in-line inspection tools do
not cause abrasion to the internal coating of polymeric coated
pipelines [55], which could be a useful reference for the
application of polymeric coatings to hydrogen pipelines.
Two-dimensional materials such as multi-layered gra-
phene (MLG) and Mxene are recent developments and inter-
esting materials for developing hydrogen barrier coatings due
to their excellent impermeability, chemical inertness, and
high mechanical strength. While the large-scale production of
these materials is challenging and the methods for field
application have not yet been developed, they may be
considered as promising materials for use as hydrogen barrier
coatings in the future.
It is evident that there are both technical and production
challenges to be addressed in the development of internal
coatings for hydrogen transportation. As the demand for
hydrogen usage and transportation grows globally, it is likely
that more advanced solutions will be developed, and existing
ones will be further refined. Among the four types of materials
currently available, polymer-based materials appear to be a
practical and effective choice for use as internal coatings in
hydrogen pipelines.
Hydrogen leaks
Another consequence with using hydrogen in pipelines (either
pure or blended) is the fact that hydrogen is more prone to
leakage compared to methane. To make matters worse,
gaseous hydrogen is colorless and odorless [56], making it
difficult to detect with conventional approaches. This also
makes it dangerous for operators since humans cannot detect it
without special equipment. Additionally, increasing the oper-
ating pressure to improve energy delivery can increase the risk
of leakage (similar to how it interacts with Hydrogen embrit-
tlement, in Section Hydrogen influence on Pipeline Materials).
Leak detection should be in place no matter which type of
gas is being transported by pipelines. This section explores the
consequences of hydrogen leaks and potential solutions, such
as the suitability of hardware-based (sensor) methods,
Computational Pipeline Monitoring (CPM) methods and
odorants for detecting leaks.
Hydrogen leak behavior
Leakage of hydrogen in an open area is not typically a concern
due to its highly diffusive characteristics. When burning,
hydrogen flames release only 10% of the heat produced by
hydrocarbon flames, resulting in minimal damage to the
surrounding area [57]. Additionally, the extremely low density
of hydrogen causes it to become buoyant when released into
air. Hydrogen is 14 times lighter than air and 57 times lighter
than gasoline vapor [56], making it relatively safe to work with
In open-air spaces as it will usually dilute to non-flammable
concentrations quickly [58].
The use of hydrogen in confined spaces can pose a higher
risk due to its wide flammability range and significantly lower
minimum spark energy when compared to natural gas (see
Table 6). This has the potential to cause damage associated
with detonation and flammability [59]. If proper measures and
design decisions are not implemented, hydrogen can accu-
mulate quickly in confined spaces and lead to various hazards,
such as initiating a fire, explosion, or even becoming an
asphyxiant at high concentrations.
To address these risks, it is important to ensure proper
ventilation when working with hydrogen in enclosed spaces.
A report from the HySafe project recommends ventilation as
one of the most effective safety measures for avoiding
dangerous explosive conditions in hydrogen-treated facilities
and provides guidance on the optimal design of a ventilation
system in these facilities [60].
Another potential challenge with hydrogen is the po-
tential stratification of a gas mixture containing hydrogen
due to the significant difference in molecular weights be-
tween hydrogen and other gases. This could potentially lead
to increased safety risks, such as in the case of a blended gas
leak event that ends up being primarily composed of
hydrogen.
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
The nature of gas stratification in a mixture can vary
depending on the flow regime. Multiple studies note that
blended gases tend to mix well in turbulent flow [22,61]. A
particular study noted that the mixture becomes homogenous
within a short distance from the mixing point [11]. In contrast,
laminar flow initially stratifies the mixture, but it becomes
homogenous after a certain length. This critical distance can
be roughly estimated by multiplying the nominal diameter by
4000 [61]. Therefore, it is important to pay particular attention
to operating pipelines with lower Reynolds numbers to mini-
mize the risk of gas stratification.
Mejia et al. [62] conducted leak tests with blended
hydrogen to assess the difference in leak rates of each gas
component in the mixture. The tests were conducted with
fully mixed 95% natural gas and 5% hydrogen at pressures up
to 417 kPa (60.5 psi). The results showed that the difference in
leak rates for each gas was minimal (around 1%). While these
results are encouraging, it is important to note that they were
conducted at relatively low pressure and started from a fully
mixed state.
Another study examined the relative size of gas leaks
under different flow regimes (laminar, turbulent, and sonic),
with leak rates estimated using the dynamic viscosities, molar
masses, and gas densities of the gases [63]. The results, shown
in Table 12, indicate that the estimated leak rate was signifi-
cantly higher for hydrogen in all cases. For example, in the
case of sonic flow (typical of leaks in high-pressure lines),
hydrogen would leak volumetrically 2.8 times more than
methane. However, when considering energy density, the
energy contained in such a hydrogen leak would be 0.88 times
a similar methane leak.
Sensor based hydrogen leak detection
One concern with using traditional hardware-based leak
detection methods for blended hydrogen gas is their potential
compatibility issues due to the high mobility, small size, and
high diffusivity of the gas with other materials. While further
testing is needed to determine the effectiveness of these
Table 12 e Leak Rate by Different Types of Flow Regimes [63].
Properties Hydrogen
Subsonic Flow (Laminar) 1.3
Subsonic Flow (Turbulent) 2.8
Sonic Flow 2.8
Table 13 e Comparison of Commercially Available Hydrogen Detecting Sensors [64e66].
Sensor Type Accuracy Measuring Range
Semiconductor Metal Oxide ±10e30% 0e1000 ppm
Electrochemical < ± 4% 0e20,000 ppm
Catalytic Bead < ± 5% 0e100% H2
Thermal Conductivity ±0.2% 0e100% H2
17619
methods with blended hydrogen gas, some studies suggest
that it could be solved with minor sensor recalibration [10]. It
is important to evaluate the reliability and compatibility of
hydrogen leak detection systems for each specific operating
scenario.
Alternatively, specialized leak detection facilities designed
specifically for hydrogen may be a viable option for detecting
leaks of blended hydrogen gas. There are four main types of
sensors used for hydrogen detection: semiconductor metal
oxide, electrochemistry, catalytic bead, and thermal conduc-
tivity [64e66]. These are summarized in Table 13.
Semiconducting metal oxide (MOx) sensors are widely
used in industry due to their economic nature, but they have
the disadvantage of low accuracy and sensitivity to humidity
and temperature [64,67]. Electrochemical sensors offer good
selectivity for hydrogen gas and relatively high accuracy, but
they are limited in their temperature range and have slow
detection times. Catalytic sensors have a wide range of
hydrogen detection in volume and operating temperature, but
they are expensive and not highly selective for hydrogen gas.
Thermal conductivity sensors have the broadest mea-
surement range and the highest detection accuracy among
the four sensor types in Table 13. However, they are prone to
cross-sensitivity readings with helium (He). Given the
importance of economic and agile considerations for indus-
trial applications, semiconductor-based hydrogen leak
detection methods may be a realistic option.
Due to the high diffusive nature of hydrogen, the location of
sensors is critically important to accurately detect leaks. Such
sensors may be more appropriate for confined spaces. More-
over, further study is needed to investigate how these sensors
would behave for blended hydrogen and natural gases.
Computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) methods
CPM methods involve using a computer to monitor changes in
measured pipeline data for leak identification in pipeline
networks. This method often involves the use of a supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, which collects
Methane Unit
1 Relative leak rates (Volumetric)
1
1
Response Cost Features
Time (t90)
<20/s $100 - $500 - Low cost
- Dependence on humidity and temperature
<90/s $300 - $1200 - Good selectivity to hydrogen
- Narrow temperature range
<30/s $500 - $4000 - Wide temperature range
- No hydrogen selectivity
<10/s <$25,000 - High accuracy
- Cross sensitive to He
17620 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
sensor data from pipelines, transmits it to computers, and
uses data processing to identify leaks. The most reliable and
widely used CPM system is the real-time transient model
(RTTM), which simulates pressure and flow rate in pipelines
using actual sensor data [66]. The RTTM compares the simu-
lated data to the actual sensor data to identify leaks. While it
has been successfully implemented and is widely used for
natural gas pipelines, it has not yet been proven for use in
hydrogen gas pipelines.
A simple real-time transient model (RTTM) is developed to
verify whether it can be used for blended hydrogen gas pipe-
lines. The model is based on the simulation parameters
introduced in Section Blending Hydrogen and Natural Gas,
and it includes conservation equations for mass, momentum,
and energy. These partial differential equations (PDEs) are
solved using the method of characteristics (MOC) [68]. The
typical conservation equations in PDE form are shown in Eq.
(13) and Eq. (14).
vH a2s vQ
þ ¼0
vt gA vx
1 vQ vH fQjQj
þ þ ¼0
gA vt vx 2g,D,A2
where H is the hydraulic head (m), Q is the volumetric flow
rate (m3/s), g is the gravitational acceleration (m/s2), a is the
speed of sound (m/s), f is the Darcy friction factor (dimen-
sionless), D is the internal diameter of the pipe (m), A is the
cross-sectional area of the internal pipe (m2), and t is time (s).
Since these equations are time- and distance-dependent,
the flow velocity can be estimated using time and distance.
This allows for the estimation of hydraulic information in
pipes at specific points in time and space, given the size of the
time step (vt) and distance step (vx). The calculation procedure
is well-established in the literature [68,69] and involves
applying the general gas flow equation (Eq. (1)) to calculate
pressure and flow rate. The temperature-dependent parame-
ters needed for this calculation, including density, viscosity,
Fig. 11 e Pressure and Flow Velocity Variation with Leakage by Hydrogen Concentration.
specific gravity, and compressibility for hydrogen and
methane gas mixtures, are obtained from GERG-2008, a wide-
range equation of state [70,71].
Leakage is simulated by characterizing the pressure dif-
ference between the internal pressure of the pipeline and the
atmospheric pressure. The discharge coefficient, which ac-
counts for energy loss due to friction and compressibility ef-
fects, is also taken into consideration [72]. The energy
conservation law, as described by Bernoulli's equation (Eq.
(15)), can be simplified to Eq. (16) by assuming that the pipeline
has a constant elevation profile and that the leak flow rate
from the leak hole is significantly smaller than the flow rate
inside the pipe:
PA VA2 PB VB2
hA þ þ ¼ hB þ þ (15)
gw 2g gw 2g
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2DP
Q ¼ Cd ,A (16)
Sg ,r
(13) where h is the elevation (m), P is the pressure (Pa), V is the flow
velocity (m/s), gw is the specific weight (N/m3), Cd is the
discharge coefficient (dimensionless), Sg is the specific gravity
(14) (dimensionless), and r is the density (kg/m3).
To consider turbulent flow, a discharge coefficient of 0.67 is
chosen as this is typical for high Reynolds number flow [72].
The simulation is defined by two boundary conditions: a
pressure boundary at the upstream side and a flow velocity at
the downstream side. The leak is simulated as a relative size
of 10% of the pipe's internal diameter. The simulation is car-
ried for a total of 2000 s, with a leak event happening at the
center (1000 s). Fig. 11 shows the simulation results for a range
of hydrogen concentrations (from 10% to 90% hydrogen mixed
with methane) in the presence of a leak.
The figure shows the impact of a potential leak on the
simulated pipeline, with pressure shown in (a) and flow ve-
locity in (b). It's worth noting that the pressure starts at the
same level for all gas mixtures due to the pressure boundary
condition. It's also worth noting that, as flow velocity is
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
density-dependent, the different gas mixtures behave differ-
ently both up and downstream.
The pressure drop in each gas mixture shows similar, but
distinct trends due to the differences in compressibility and
friction factor of the hydrogen components in the gas mixture
(Eq. (1)). Flow velocity has similar trends in all simulation
cases, showing an increase in velocity after the leakage. This
increase in velocity is due to the lower pressure caused by the
leakage in the system [34].
In summary, the model developed in this study shows that
while the gas mixtures have small differences in their leak
behavior, they also have very similar trends. While the RTTM
model is relatively simple and may not be directly applicable
to complex real-life pipeline networks, it suggests that with
proper calibrations, RTTM models can be utilized for blended
gas mixtures.
Odorization
Another potential approach to hydrogen leak detection is
gas odorization, which involves adding chemical odorants
to the gas that can be detected by the human olfactory
sense. This method is already widely used for natural gas,
but the odorants used for natural gas are not suitable for
hydrogen due to their significantly different densities and
dispersion rates. While there are currently no known
commercially useable odorants for hydrogen, several
studies have evaluated odorants as a potential method for
detecting hydrogen.
A research group in the Netherlands, consisting of Gasunie
Transport Services (GTS) and Netbeheer, evaluated three
odorants (THT, Spotleak 1001, Gasodor S-Free) at hydrogen
concentrations ranging from 0% to 100%. They concluded that
these odorants could potentially be used for a mixture of
natural gas and hydrogen in distribution lines [25].
The Hy4Heat project in the United Kingdom also evaluated
the hydrogen odorization performance of five chemical com-
pounds across six different sectors: Health and Environment,
Olfactory, Pipeline, Flame Boiler, Fuel Cell, and Economic [25].
According to the evaluation results, the five odorants can be
used for pure hydrogen except in fuel cell applications due to
sulfur poisoning. The potential odorants for hydrogen gas are
summarized in Table 14.
Table 14 e The List of Odorants Studied for Use with Hydrogen Gas [25].
Name (Compound) Sulfur Health Olfactory
Test
Spotleak 1001*1   Pass
Standby Odorant 2*2   Pass
THT*3   Pass
Gasodor-S-Free*4   Pass
Norbornene*5    *6
1
* Spotleak 1001: 2-Methyl-propanethiol 78%, Dimethyl Sulfide 22%.
2
* Standby Odorant2: Odorant NB 34%, Hexane 64%.
3
* Odorant THT: Tetrahydrothiophene e 100%.
4
* Gasodor-S-Free: Methyl Acrylate 37.4%, Ethyl Acrylate 60.1%, 2-Ethyl-3-Methylpyrazine 2.5%.
5
* Norbornene: 5-Ethylidene-2-Norbornene.
6
* Not distinguishable with sulfur and oil.
7
* After Complete Combustion.
17621
The odorants selected in this table were observed to be
non-corrosive and metallurgically intact. Their functionality
was also proven through an olfactory test that evaluated
their detectability at a minimum of one-fifth of the lower
flammability limit of the gas composition and compatibility
with hydrogen. In addition, the dilution effect by the addition
of odorants is not foreseen for the listed odorants. All the
odorants can potentially be applied to hydrogen serviced
pipelines for general-purpose (but not necessarily fuel cell
applications). Spotleak 1001 is particularly suitable as a
hydrogen odorant as it is broadly used in European gas net-
works and is low cost with no harmful effects on pipelines or
other appliances [25].
Hydrogen influence on greenhouse gas
emissions
One of the main benefits of using hydrogen as an energy
carrier is its ability to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions from fossil fuel combustion. While the combustion of
hydrogen can produce nitrogen oxides (NOx) at high tem-
peratures [9], it is otherwise virtually emission-free [73].
This is particularly important in light of increasing concern
over GHG emissions being produced globally. As such, the
use of hydrogen as an energy carrier can help to offset
these emissions and promote a more sustainable energy
system.
CO2 is one of the main GHGs responsible for global
warming, along with methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and
F-gases. CO2 is the most prevalent GHG, accounting for 76% of
global GHG emissions [67]. To compare the global warming
potential (GWP), they are often expressed in terms of equiv-
alent CO2 [74,75]. Table 15 shows the primary GHGs expressed
in terms of equivalent CO2 for carbon dioxide, methane, N2O,
and HFC emissions.
In the following we examine the effect of hydrogen
blending on greenhouse gas emissions. We first provide an
overview of various methods of hydrogen production and
conversion into power. Next, we use a realistic simulation to
determine the potential reduction in GHG emissions that could
be achieved by converting a natural gas pipeline (described in
Section Transmission and Distribution Pipeline Simulation
Corrosive*7 Material Voltage Fuel Cell
Degradation Loss (mv)*3 Application
  460 ± 2 Purification required
  40 ± 2 O
  225 ± 2 Purification required
  10 ± 2 O
  5±2 O
17622 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9

Table 15 e GWP for Each Gas in 1970 and 2021 [75].

GHG Emissions 1970 2010
GtCO2 e eq/yr % GtCO2 e eq/yr %
CO2 Total 19.44 72 37.24 76
Forestry and other land use 4.59 17 31.85 11
Fossil fuel and industrial processes 14.85 55 5.39 65
CH4 5.13 19 7.84 16
N 2O 2.133 7.9 3.038 6.2
F-Gases 0.1188 0.44 0.98 2
Total 27 z100 49 z100

Properties) into a blended hydrogen pipeline using currently
available technology (blue hydrogen). It should be noted that
while the ideal scenario would be for most hydrogen to be
produced through renewable sources (green hydrogen), it is at
present not feasible to rely solely on such methods.
Hydrogen production
Hydrogen production can be classified into four categories
based on the carbon emissions and production methods: Blue,
Gray, Green, and Purple hydrogen. Blue hydrogen is produced
through carbon capture and storage (CCS) methods, while
Gray hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels through steam
methane reforming (SMR) or autothermal reforming (ATR)
methods, which generate carbon dioxide (CO2). Green
hydrogen is produced through the environmentally friendly
process of water electrolysis using renewable energy, result-
ing in minimal carbon emissions during production. Purple
hydrogen is produced through electrolysis powered by nuclear
energy. Another potential technology for low-carbon
hydrogen production is Proton hydrogen, which involves the
use of a membrane-based separation applied to oil reservoirs
to selectively filter hydrogen gases out of fossil fuel-based gas
mixtures or vapors. The advantages and disadvantages of
each type of hydrogen production are summarized in Table 16.
Low carbon-intensity hydrogens, such as Green, Purple, or
Proton hydrogen, are important for achieving long-term
carbon-neutralization in energy consumption. However, pro-
ducing these types of hydrogen economically can be chal-
lenging due to the high cost of alkaline electrolyzers and low
production efficiency [4]. While the technology is expected to
become more cost-effective as it matures, estimates suggest
that the current cost of hydrogen could potentially be reduced
from the range of $2.5 to $6.64 per kilogram to the range of $0.7
to $2.6 per kilogram by 2050 [5,80,81]. Additionally, the pro-
duction of Green or Purple hydrogen requires significantly
more water than Blue, Gray, or Proton hydrogen.
Hydrogen to power
Hydrogen can be converted into power through two primary
means: combustion in internal combustion engines, heating
systems, and appliances, or through an electrochemical re-
action in fuel cells to generate electricity. While hydrogen can
be burned with oxygen to produce heat without emitting
carbon when used as a combustion fuel, burning hydrogen
with air at high temperatures above 1500  C can produce the
undesirable byproduct of nitrous oxide (NOx) [9]. Despite this,
hydrogen remains a promising alternative to fossil fuels for
reducing carbon emissions.
Hydrogen has the potential to serve as a carbon-free
alternative to natural gas in various industrial applications,
such as heating and end-use appliances. However, it is
important to note that conventional gas appliances will most

Table 16 e Hydrogen Generation Comparison [16,76e79].

Type Advantages Disadvantages
Blue H2 Less carbon emission (z90%) Low production efficiency
Mature technology
Gray H2 Low production cost (2e3 dollars/kg) High carbon emissions (No carbon capture process)
Mature technology
Green H2 Zero carbon emission High cost (>$5/kg H2)
Simple method Low production efficiency
Discontinuous electrolysis process
High initial cost for infrastructure
Purple H2 Low carbon emission Safety concerns with nuclear
Use for surplus of energy for hydrogen production (Electricity and Relatively unmatured technology
thermal energy from reactor)
Continuous hydrogen production
Large production
Proton H2 Low carbon emission Limited to geological location
Massive production Immature technology
Economical production (Below 30 cents/kg)
Low-cost installation
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9 17623

Table 17 e Hydrogen Tolerance for Combustion Appliances.

Type H2 Tolerance Method of Theory Interchangeability References
Gas Turbine Up to 15% (Minor changes) Wobbe Index, Flame Speed, NOx Emission [83]
Gas Engines Up to 10% (Minor changes) Wobbe Index, Flame Speed, NOx Emission [83]
Water Heater 10% Ignition Performance, Flame Characteristics, Emission [84]
Cooktop Burner 20 vol% Cooking Performance, Ignition Time, Flame Characteristics, Combustion [32]
Noise, Burner Temperature, Emission
Oven Burner 25 vol% Wobbe Index [85]
End-use Appliance 17 vol% Wobbe Index [36]
(Burner, Boiler)

likely need to be retrofitted in order to be compatible with pure
hydrogen. An alternative option is to use blended hydrogen,
which can be used in existing gas-based systems without
modification or with only minor modifications [82]. Table 17
summarizes the results of multiple studies on the hydrogen
tolerance of various appliances with combustion processes
based on the concentration of hydrogen used. This shows that
most combustion appliances are compatible with blended
hydrogen at concentrations up to 25% in volume.
Hydrogen has the potential to serve as a carbon-free
alternative to natural gas for electrical power generation
using a cleaner and more efficient process than combustion.
Fuel cells typically generate energy at relatively low temper-
atures, which prevents the formation of the previously
mentioned NOx. Fuel cells can achieve high efficiencies of
between 60% and 70% [9] and are not bound by the Carnot
efficiency [9] of traditional heat engines. Fuel cells are gener-
ally classified based on their temperature range and electro-
lyte, as summarized in Table 18.
The challenge with the widespread deployment of fuel
cells in a hydrogen economy that relies on blended hydrogen,
however, is that most electrolyzers require different degrees
of hydrogen purity. For example, the International Organiza-
tion for Standardization (ISO) and SAE international issued
technical standards (ISO14687:2019, SAE J2719-202003) [86,87]
for the hydrogen quality required for proton exchange mem-
brane fuel cells [88] and the hydrogen purity necessary for fuel
cells. The requirements are described in Table 19.
Separation of hydrogen from natural gas is not trivial, but
there are already three commercially used and well-

Table 18 e Comparison of Different Types of Fuel Cells [9].

Fuel Cell Type Temperature Range Electrolyte Efficiency Life Expectancy Cost

Alkaline Fuel 60e90 C Potassium Hydroxide 50e60% 5000 e 200 - 700 USD/kWe
Cell (AFC) 8000 Hr
Proton Exchange Membrane 50e180  C Polymer Membrane 30e60% 5000 Hr 500 USD/kWe
Fuel Cell (PEMFC)
Phosphoric Acid 160e220  C Phosphoric Acid 30e40% 30,000e60,000 Hr 4000e5000 USD/kWe
Fuel Cell (PAFC)
Motel Carbonate 600e700  C Carbonate Melt 55e60% 20,000e40,000 Hr 4000e6000 USD/kWe
Fuel Cell (MCFC)
Oxide Ceramic 700 - 1000  C Solid Ceramic Oxide 50e70% Up to 90,000 Hr 3000e4000 USD/kWe
Fuel Cell (SOFC)

Table 19 e Hydrogen Purity Requirements for Fuel Cells by ISO and SAE Standards [88].
Contents H2 Non He N2 Ar CH4 H2O Others Total Sulfide
H2 Gas
Requirement 99.97% 300 ppm 300 ppm 300 ppm 300 ppm 100 ppm 5ppm 2.75 ppm 0.004 ppm

Table 20 e Types of Separation Technologies [10,89].

Category PSA Membrane Cryogenic Distillation
Input Composition (H2 mol%) 30e75 75e90 30e90
Output Purity (H2 mol%) 90e98 95e99 90e98
Processing Volume (Nm3/h) >10,000 1000-10,000 <30,000
Reliability (%) Poor 95 100
Turndown (%) 10 30 30e50
Size Large Separation Facilities e e
High Pressure Drop High Pressure Required e
Applicability Distribution Line Transmission Line e
17624 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
stablished methods: Pressure Swing Absorption (PSA), Mem-
brane Systems and Cryogenic Distillation. These are sum-
marized in Table 20.
PSA is a well-established technology that is used in re-
fineries to produce large quantities of high-purity hydrogen
(90e98%). This process involves applying a pressure drop to
separate hydrogen from impurities, and thus the most suit-
able location for applying hydrogen separation using PSA
technology is at pressure reduction stations, where a high
pressure drop occurs. It is capable of producing hydrogen at
rates ranging from 50 to 200,000 Nm3/h [10] from input gases
containing 30e75 mol% hydrogen. One advantage of PSA is its
low operating cost and long service life, but it can also have
relatively higher hydrogen losses and a lower production rate
due to the high purity requirements for hydrogen [88].
Membrane technology is an effective method for obtaining
high purity hydrogen (95e99%) and is capable of large-scale
processing. It works by utilizing the pressure gradient across
a membrane. One of the main advantages of this technology is
its reliability in the case of unexpected shutdowns, as it has no
mechanical parts [88]. However, its main disadvantage is that
it requires an input with a fairly high concentration of
hydrogen (75e90%), which can pose challenges for pipelines
that transport lower concentrations.
Cryogenic distillation is another process used in large-scale
hydrogen recovery from fluid mixtures, which utilizes very low
temperatures to separate the gas mixture based on the differ-
ence in volatility of each gas. However, this method has its own
challenges, such as the need to filter impurities such as carbon
dioxide and water content before separation [88], and the high
energy consumption required to compress and cool down the
gas mixture. These challenges make it difficult to produce
sustainable and economical hydrogen for general purposes.
Influence on GHG emissions
In order to assess the influence of hydrogen concentrations
and energy transmission on GHG emissions, the following
sections outline the mathematical equations governing
emissions related to combustion and production. These
equations are then combined and applied to the simulation
model developed in Section Blending Hydrogen and Natural
Gas. The resulting visualization provides a comprehensive
depiction of the impact on GHG emissions.
From combustion
To calculate the GHG Emissions from the combustion of hy-
drocarbons the complete combustion process is considered as
balanced with regards to oxygen, and thus, all carbon-
containing fuel is consumed and converted into carbon diox-
ide and water. The governing equation is shown in Eq. (17).
The variables x, y, and z are the stoichiometric coefficients for
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, respectively.
 y z y
Cx Hy Oz þ x þ  O2 / ðxÞCO2 þ H2 O
4 2 2 and H2 improves from 0.25 to 0.395 [91]. Finally, the simulation
The amount of CO2 released by combustion can be
calculated by multiplying the fuel consumed with the mass
percentage of the fuel's carbon content. For fuels consisting
of a single component, the carbon content of this
component can be obtained with the following mathemat-
ical relation:
12  x
Cs ¼  100% (18)
Mw
where Cs is the carbon content of the component (mass %), 12
is the molecular weight of carbon, x is the stoichiometric co-
efficient for carbon, and Mw is the molecular weight of the
component.
For mixed gases, the carbon content of the mixture (Cm ) can
be obtained by multiplying the mass percent of each gas in the
total gas mixture after calculating the carbon mass percentage
of each fuel, as shown in the following equation.
1 X
Number of Components
Cm ¼  ðWt%i  Cs i Þ (19)
100 i¼1
where Cm is the carbon content of mixture (Mass %), Wt%i is
the weight fraction of component ©, and Cs i is the carbon
content of component © on a mass percent basis.
Finally, the equivalent CO2 emission (ECO2 ) can be esti-
mated by multiplying the carbon mass content with the total
amount of fuel and the molar mass of the gas mixture [74].
This is shown in Eq. (20):
1 44
ECO2 ¼ FC   Mw  Cm  (20)
Molar volume conversion 12
where ECO2 is the emission of CO2 in mass (kg), FC is the vol-
ume of fuel consumed (m3), Molar volume conversion is the
conversion value from molar volume to mass (23.685 m3/kg
mol), Mw is the molecular weight of the mixture, and 44 is the
12
stoichiometric conversion from carbon to CO2.
From hydrogen production
To develop a realistic model, the use of hydrogen in the
simulation is assumed to be produced through the SMR pro-
cess, that is, as Blue hydrogen. This process involves catalyt-
ically reacting natural gas with steam at high temperatures to
produce hydrogen. However, it should be noted that the pro-
duction of Blue hydrogen generates CO2 emissions due to the
heat required for the reforming process being obtained
through the combustion of fossil fuels [90]. The following
chemical reactions represent the general process of SMR:
CH4 þ H2 O / CO þ 3H2 (21)
CO þ H2 O / CO2 þ H2 (22)
The SMR reaction produces a molar ratio of 0.25 for CO2 and
H2, meaning that for every 1 kg of CH4 reacted, 1 kg of CO2 and
4 kg of H2 are produced under ideal conditions. However, in
the actual SMR process there are tail gases from the pressure
swing absorption (PSA) stage, which consist of unreacted
methane and some hydrogen gas. These tail gases can be
utilized to fuel the reformer and boiler units. When account-
ing for this gas recovery process, the molar ratio between CO2
(17)
considers the use of a carbon capture and storage (CCS) stage,
where emissions from hydrogen production can be mostly
compensated for. According to the CE delft report [92], the CCS
stage is estimated to have a performance of 90%.
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
Fig. 12 e GHG emissions as factors of hydrogen concentration and energy transmission.
Combined impact of combustion and production
The model developed in Section Blending Hydrogen and Natural
Gas is used in conjunction with the previous equations. It is
assumed that the entire amount of the gas mixture being trans-
ported is consumed for heating or electricity generation through
the use of turbines and a complete combustion process. Fig. 12
shows the expected GHG emissions as a function of hydrogen
concentration and energy transmission. In (a) the influence of the
combustion process is shown independently, while (b) illustrates
the influence of the SMR process (hydrogen production) inde-
pendently. Finally, (c) shows their combined influences.
In (a), it is shown that a higher concentration of hydrogen
leads to a reduction in CO2 emissions during the combustion
process. In fact, pure hydrogen usage results in no CO2 emis-
sions at all. In contrast, the highest CO2 emissions are found
when using pure methane (natural gas) at the initial flow rate.
In (b), it is demonstrated that pure hydrogen with 100%
transmitted energy tends to emit the highest amount of CO2.
This is due to the higher flow rates required to match the
transmitted energy, as well as the increased production of
hydrogen to meet this flow. It is also shown that CCS greatly
mitigates these emissions.
17625
In (c) the full picture is shown. When combining the in-
fluence of both the combustion and SMR processes, it be-
comes clear that the increase in GHG emissions by the SMR
process is greatly offset by the reduction in GHG emissions
through the combustion process, making the emissions for
hydrogen production almost negligible.
The baseline for CO2 emissions is represented by the black
shaded square, which corresponds to the initial flow rate
(14,158,423 m3/day). Additionally, red arrows indicate the
reduction on GHG emissions for different scenarios. For
example, it can be seen that in extreme cases, the use of pure
hydrogen at either 100% or 30% transmitted energy can lead to
a reduction of 99.4% or 99.7% in CO2 emissions, respectively.
A less extreme example can be considered by adding 30%
hydrogen to the gas mixture at 51% energy transmission, one
of the potential solutions discussed in Table 7. In this case, the
GHG emissions can have a reduction of 36.3%, or a decrease of
1,127,233 ton/day. While it would be ideal to see larger
changes and higher concentrations of hydrogen, it may not be
feasible at this time. It is worth noting that even a 30% blend
has significant potential for reducing emissions and is
achievable with current technology.
17626 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
Conclusions
One of the economically viable ways to transport and distribute
hydrogen is by blending it with natural gas using existing the
pipeline networks. However, it has been shown that blending
hydrogen can reduce the energy transmission of pipelines
compared to natural gas. One potential solution is to increase
the flow rate or pressure of delivery to compensate for these
energy transmission losses, which may require changes to the
pipeline or increase the number of compressor stations. In the
studied pipelines, it was found that hydrogen concentrations of
up to 30% with a 49% reduction in energy transmission could be
immediately applied without any changes. If a compressor
upgrade is budgeted, a blend of up to 60% hydrogen with a 35%
reduction in energy transmission could be achieved.
In addition to energy considerations, it is important to
consider the potential risks of hydrogen embrittlement and
leak events when increasing pressure. However, many mate-
rials have been tested for their susceptibility to hydrogen
embrittlement, and best practices for dealing with this risk are
available. For materials that may not be compatible with
hydrogen, internal coating can be applied to improve resis-
tance to hydrogen embrittlement. Leak detection is also a
concern, but hardware sensing options and CPM (Computa-
tional Pipeline Monitoring) methods are likely to be compat-
ible with leaks in hydrogen systems requiring only minor
calibration. To demonstrate this, a RTTM (Real-Time Tran-
sient Model) that utilizes the same principle used in natural
gas systems to detect pressure and flow velocity changes was
developed for hydrogen blends.
One of the main goals of hydrogen blending and the
hydrogen economy is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions. In order to achieve this, a model was developed that
examined the impact of adding Blue hydrogen (produced via
steam methane reforming with carbon capture and storage) to
existing pipelines without requiring any changes to the pipe-
lines themselves. The model showed that blending 30%
hydrogen with the current pipeline system would result in a
49% reduction in energy transmission, and a 36.3% reduction
in GHG emissions if we assume that the blended hydrogen will
be used for heating purposes.
These findings indicate that even though Blue hydrogen
production does produce CO2 emissions, it is still possible to
reduce GHG emissions overall through its usage. Blended
hydrogen, which can be implemented using current technol-
ogies, may be a useful compromise until we migrate to pure
hydrogen in the future. This study aims to provide practical
insights into the potential benefits and challenges of using
blended hydrogen in existing pipelines and contribute to the
current understanding of this topic.
In future studies, it is expected that progress will be made
in addressing the challenges mentioned, such as hydrogen
embrittlement and improving hydrogen specific leak detec-
tion. This may include the development of new strategies and
technologies for mitigating the effects of hydrogen embrit-
tlement and detecting leaks more effectively.
It would also be valuable to examine the economic feasi-
bility of implementing blended hydrogen in existing pipeline
networks, including the costs of necessary upgrades or
modifications. This could involve modeling the potential
savings from reduced GHG emissions and improved energy
transmission, as well as the potential for revenue from
hydrogen when compared to natural gas.
Another interesting area of study could be the examination
of the potential benefits and challenges of using ammonia as a
hydrogen carrier and comparison to the direct use of
hydrogen. Ammonia has a high hydrogen content, making it a
potential option for the transportation and distribution of
hydrogen. However, its production, storage, and conversion to
and from hydrogen must also be considered, as well as the
requirements for safe handling. These factors should be
weighed against the potential benefits of using ammonia,
such as its ability to be easily liquefied, in order to determine
its feasibility as a hydrogen carrier.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Alberta In-
novates, Mr. Kalen Jensen from ATCO and the Institute for
Information & Communication Technology Promotion (IITP)
for their support of this research project.
references
[1] Kamarudin SK, Daud WRW, Yaakub Z, Misron Z, Anuar W,
Yusuf NNAN. Synthesis and optimization of future hydrogen
energy infrastructure planning in Peninsular Malaysia. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(5):2077e88. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2008.12.086.
[2] Mazloomi K, Gomes C. Hydrogen as an energy carrier:
prospects and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16(5):3024e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.028.
[3] Go € tz M, Lefebvre J, Mo € rs F, McDaniel Koch A, Graf F, Bajohr S,
Reimert R, Kolb T. Renewable Power-to-Gas: a technological
and economic review. Renew Energy 2016;85:1371e90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.066.
[4] Oil & Gas Authority. Gas to Wire report: UK SNS and EIS.
2018. https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/news-publications/
publications/2018/gas-to-wire-repor t-uk-sns-and-eis/.
[5] Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). New energy outlook
2021. https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/; 2021.
[6] Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI). Canadian natural
gas market supply and demand pathways of change.
Calgary, AB: CERI; 2021.
[7] Apostolou D, Xydis G. A literature review on hydrogen
refuelling stations and infrastructure. Current status and
future prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;113:109292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109292.
[8] Vezirog  lu TN, S‚ahi_n S. 21st Century's energy: hydrogen
energy system. Energy Convers Manag 2008;49(7):1820e31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2007.08.015.
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
[9] Adolf J, Balzer CH, Balzer C, Louis J, Schabla U, Fischedick M,
Arnold K, Pastowski A. Shell hydrogen study. Energy of the
future? Sustainable mobility through fuel cells and H2. Shell
Deutschland Oil GmbH 2017;10:28e34.
[10] Melaina MW, Antonia O, Penev M. Blending hydrogen into
natural gas pipeline networks: a review of key issues.
Renewable energy 2013;131.
[11] Isaac T. HyDeploy: the UK's first hydrogen blending
deployment project. Clean Energy 2019;3(2):114e25. https://
doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkz006.
[12] H21. H21 leeds city gate report. Westminster, UK. https://h21.
green/projects/h21-leeds-city-gate/; 2019.
[13] Blokland H, Sweelssen J, Isaac T, Boersma A. Detecting
hydrogen concentrations during admixing hydrogen in
natural gas grids. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2021;46(63):32318e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2021.06.221.
[14] International Energy Agency. Global hydrogen review 2021.
OECD. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/39351842-en.
[15] Australian Gas Infrastructure Group. R. enewable hydrogen,
hydrogen Park SA. World Plumbing Conference. 2019.
https://www.worldplumbing.org/wp-content/uploa ds/2020/
06/VikramSingh_RenewableHydrogenHydrogenParkSA.pdf.
[16] Elmanakhly F, DaCosta A, Berry B, Stasko R, Fowler M, Wu X-
Y, Hydrogen Business Council. Hydrogen economy transition
plan: a case study on Ontario. AIMS Energy
2021;9(4):775e811. https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2021036.
[17] Ozturk M, Dincer I. A comprehensive review on power-to-gas
with hydrogen options for cleaner applications. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2021;46(62):31511e22. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.07.066.
[18] Portuguesa Republica. Portugal National hydrogen Strategy
(EN-H2). https://kig.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/EN_H2_
ENG.pdf; 2020.
[19] Saeedmanesh A, Mac Kinnon MA, Brouwer J. Hydrogen is
essential for sustainability. Current Opinion in
Electrochemistry 2018;12:166e81. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.coelec.2018.11.009.
[20] Zhao Y, McDonell V, Samuelsen S. Influence of hydrogen
addition to pipeline natural gas on the combustion
performance of a cooktop burner. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2019;44(23):12239e53. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.03.100.
[21] Krieg D. Konzept und Kosten eines Pipelinesystems zur
Versorgung des deutschen Straßenverkehrs mit Wasserstoff.
Forschungszentrum Jülich. 2012.
[22] Kong M, Feng S, Xia Q, Chen C, Pan Z, Gao Z. Investigation of
mixing behavior of hydrogen blended to natural gas in gas
network. Sustainability, 13(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su13084255; 2021.
[23] ATCO Gas Australia. Clean energy Innovation Hub lessons.
Arena Insights Forum 2019:2e8. https://arena.gov.au/
assets/2019/12/atco-clean-energy-innovation-hub-lessions.
pdf.
[24] GRTgaz, Immeuble Bora, 6, rue Raoul-Nordling, 92277 Bois-
Colombes Cedex. Technical and economic conditions for
injecting hydrogen into natural gas networksdFinal report
June 2019. France, INIS-FRe20e0156 2019. https://www.
afgaz.fr/wp-content/uploads/Technical-economic-
conditions-for-injecting-hydrogen-into-natural-gas-ne.pdf.
[25] MARCOGAZ. Odorisation of natural gas and hydrogen
mixtures. https://www.marcogaz.org/wp-content/uploads/
2021/07/ODOR-Hydrogen-and-odorisation.pdf; 2021.
[26] Tahir, Mohd M, Ali MS, Salim MA, Bakar RA, Fudhail AM,
Hassan MZ, Muhaimin MSA. Performance Analysis of A
spark ignition engine using compressed natural gas (CNG) as
fuel. Energy Proc 2015;68:355e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2015.03.266.
17627
[27] Menon ES. Transmission pipeline calculations and
simulations Manual. Gulf Professional Publishing
2015:549e58. 1st ed.
[28] Khan MA, Young C, MacKinnon C, Layzell DB. The Techno-
Economics of Hydrogen Compression 2021;1(1):49.
[29] Witkowski A, Rusin A, Majkut M, Stolecka K. Analysis of
compression and transport of the methane/hydrogen
mixture in existing natural gas pipelines. Int J Pres Ves Pip
2018;166:24e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2018.08.002.
[30] Lee S-W, Lee H-S, Park Y-J, Cho Y-S. Combustion and
emission characteristics of HCNG in a constant volume
chamber. J Mech Sci Technol 2011;25(2):489e94. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12206-010-1231-5.
[31] Verhelst S, Demuynck J, Sierens R, Scarcelli R, Matthias NS,
Wallner T. Update on the progress of hydrogen-fueled
internal combustion engines. In: Renewable hydrogen
technologies. Elsevier; 2013. p. 381e400. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-444-56352-1.00016-7.
[32] Tarkowski R. Underground hydrogen storage: characteristics
and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;105:86e94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.051.
[33] Barbir F, Basile A, Vezirog lu TN. Compendium of hydrogen
energy. In: Basile Angelo, Nejat Veziroglu T, editors.
Hydrogen energy conversion/edited by Frano Barbir, vol. 3.
WP Woodhead Publishing: Elsevier; 2016.
[34] Menon ES. Gas pipeline hydraulics. 0 ed. CRC Press; 2005.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420038224.
[35] Demirel Y. Nonequilibrium thermodynamics: transport and
rate processes in physical, chemical and biological systems.
3rd ed. Boston: Elsevier; 2014.
[36] Haeseldonckx D, Dhaeseleer W. The use of the natural-gas
pipeline infrastructure for hydrogen transport in a changing
market structure. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2007;32(10e11):1381e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2006.10.018.
[37] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME B31.8
gas transmission & distribution piping systemsdASME. New
York, NY. 2020.
[38] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ASME B31.12
Hydrogen Piping & Pipelines. New York, NY. 2019.
[39] Schmura E, Klingenberg M, Corporation CT. Existing natural
gas pipeline materials and associated operational
characteristics. 2005.
[40] Bedel Laurent, Junker Michel. Natural gas pipelines for
hydrogen transportation. WHEC16: 16 World hydrogen
energy Conference, France. 2006.
[41] Lee JA. Nasa 2016e218602: hydrogen embrittlement. National
Aeronautics and space Administration, Hunstville, AL. 2016.
[42] American Society for Testing and Materials. Astm G129e21:
standard practice for slow Strain rate testing to evaluate the
susceptibility of metallic materials to environmentally
Assisted cracking. West Conshohocken, PA. 2021.
[43] American Petroleum Institute. API RP 941 steels for hydrogen
service at elevated temperatures and pressures in Petroleum
refineries and Petrochemical Plants. Washington D.C. 2016.
[44] Khare A, Vishwakarma M, Ahmed S. Combating hydrogen
embrittlement with graphene based coatings. International
journal of advanced research. Eng Technol 2019;10(6).
https://doi.org/10.34218/IJARET.10.6.2019.027.
[45] Hafsi Z, Mishra M, Elaoud S. Hydrogen embrittlement of steel
pipelines during transients. Procedia Struct Integr
2018;13:210e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2018.12.035.
[46] Shi K, Xiao S, Ruan Q, Wu H, Chen G, Zhou C, Jiang S, Xi K,
He M, Chu PK. Hydrogen permeation behavior and
mechanism of multi-layered graphene coatings and
mitigation of hydrogen embrittlement of pipe steel. Appl
Surf Sci 2022;573(151529). https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apsusc.2021.151529.
17628 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
[47] Shi K, Meng X, Xiao S, Chen G, Wu H, Zhou C, Jiang S, Chu PK.
MXene coatings: Novel hydrogen permeation barriers for
pipe steels. Nanomaterials 2021;11(10):10. https://doi.org/
10.3390/nano11102737.
[48] Li X, Chen L, Liu H, Shi C, Wang D, Mi Z, Qiao L. Prevention of
hydrogen damage using MoS2 coating on Iron surface.
Nanomaterials 2019;9(3):382. https://doi.org/10.3390/
nano9030382.
[49] NaturalHy. Preparing for the hydrogen economy by using the
existing natural gas system as a Catalyst. https://cordis.
europa.eu/project/id/502661; 2004.
[50] Musabikha S, Utama IKAP, Mukhtasor. State of the art in
protection of erosion-corrosion on vertical axis tidal current
turbine. AIP Conf Proc 2018;1964(1):020047. https://doi.org/
10.1063/1.5038329.
[51] Bahadori A. Essentials of coating, painting, and lining for the
oil, gas and petrochemical industries. 1st ed. Gulf
Professional Publishing; 2015.
[52] J H, Müller-Syring G. Assessment of repair and rehabilitation
technologies relating to the transport of hythan (hydrogen-
methane-mixture) (No. R0016-WP4). NaturalHY; 2006.
[53] Marina T, Markus B. EUROPIPE pipes internally lined with
epoxy flow Coat ready for 100 percent hydrogen. Europipe.
2022. https://www.europipe.com/fileadmi n/europipe/ep-
docs/Hydrogen_Flow_Coat_January_2022_Final.pdf.
[54] Ohaeri E, Eduok U, Szpunar J. Hydrogen related degradation
in pipeline steel: a review. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43(31):14584e617. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2018.06.064.
[55] Lauer RS. (2007, March 11). The use of high performance
polymeric coatings to mitigate corrosion and deposit
formation in pipeline applications. Corrosion 2007:41e8.
https://onepetro.org/NACECORR/proceedings-abstract/
CORR07/All-CORR07/118400.
[56] Najjar YSH. Hydrogen safety: the road toward green
technology. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38(25):10716e28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.05.126.
[57] Gillette JL, Kolpa RL. Overview of interstate hydrogen
pipeline systems. (ANL/EVS/TM/08e2). Argonne, IL (United
States): Argonne National Lab. (ANL); 2008. https://doi.org/
10.2172/924391.
[58] Rigas F, Sklavounos S. Evaluation of hazards associated with
hydrogen storage facilities. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2005;30:1501e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2005.06.004.
[59] Huising OJC, Krom AHM. H2 in an existing natural gas
pipeline. 2020 13th International Pipeline Conference. 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2020-9205.
[60] HySafe. D113: initial guidance for using hydrogen in confined
spacesdresults from InsHyde. Sixth Framework Programme.
Contract No SES6-CT-2004e502630 2009:20e32. http://www.
hysafe.net/documents?deliverable¼113.
[61] Wahl J, Kallo J. Quantitative valuation of hydrogen blending
in European gas grids and its impact on the combustion
process of large-bore gas engines. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2020;45(56):32534e46. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2020.08.184.
[62] Hormaza Mejia A, Brouwer J, Mac Kinnon M. Hydrogen leaks
at the same rate as natural gas in typical low-pressure gas
infrastructure. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45(15):8810e26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.159.
[63] Leader W, Partners W, Huld T. EIHP2: Compilation of existing
safety data on hydrogen and Comparative fuels. ENK6-
CT2000-00442 2001:8e11.
[64] Hübert T, Boon-Brett L, Black G, Banach U. Hydrogen sensors
e a review. Sensor Actuator B Chem 2011;157(2):329e52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2011.04.070.
[65] Soundarrajan P, Schweighardt F. Hydrogen sensing and
detection. In: Gupta R, editor. Hydrogen fuel. CRC Press; 2008.
p. 495e534. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420045772.ch15.
[66] Geiger G, Vogt D, Tetzner R. State-of-the-Art in leak detection
and localisation. Oil gas European Magazine. 2006.
[67] Kida T, Kuroiwa T, Yuasa M, Shimanoe K, Yamazoe N. Study
on the response and recovery properties of semiconductor
gas sensors using a high-speed gas-switching system. Sensor
Actuator B Chem 2008;134(2):928e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.snb.2008.06.044.
[68] Smith J, Chae J, Learn S, Hugo R, Park S. (2018, November 6).
Pipeline rupture detection using real-time transient
Modelling and Convolutional Neural networks. In: 12th
International Pipeline Conference; 2018. https://doi.org/
10.1115/IPC2018-78426.
[69] Wylie EB. The Microcomputer and pipeline transients. J
Hydraul Eng 1983;109(12):1723e39. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9429(1983)109:12(1723).
[70] Kunz O, Wagner W. The GERG-2008 wide-range equation of
state for natural gases and other mixtures: an expansion of
GERG-2004. J Chem Eng Data 2012;57(11):3032e91. https://
doi.org/10.1021/je300655b.
[71] Hassanpouryouzband A, Joonaki E, Edlmann K,
Heinemann N, Yang J. Thermodynamic and transport
properties of hydrogen containing streams. Sci Data
2020;7(1):222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0568-6.
[72] Authors, Braga AS. Leakage modeling through empirical
equations: an experimental approach: (021). WDSA/CCWI
Joint Conference Proceedings. 2018. 1, https://ojs.library.
queensu.ca/index.php/wdsa-ccw/article/view/12012.
[73] Therkelsen P, Werts T, McDonell V, Samuelsen S. Analysis of
NOx formation in a hydrogen-Fueled gas turbine engine. J
Eng Gas Turbines Power 2009;131(3). https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.3028232.
[74] T.M. S, Loughran CJ, Jones S, Hopkins E. Washington D.C. API:
compendium of greenhouse gas emissions methodologies
for the oil and natural gas industry. American Petroleum
Institute; 2009.
[75] Dokken D. IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate
change): impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
[76] Dincer I. Green methods for hydrogen production. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(2):1954e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2011.03.173.
[77] Pinsky R, Sabharwall P, Hartvigsen J, O'Brien J. Comparative
review of hydrogen production technologies for nuclear
hybrid energy systems. Prog Nucl Energy 2020;123(103317).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2020.103317.
[78] Clean Energy Canada. A New Hope: how hydrogen can
deliver climate solutions and clean energy competitiveness
for Canada. Vancouver, BC. 2020. https://cleanenergycanada.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CEC_Report_
Hydrogen2020.pdf.
[79] Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Super-cheap
hydrogen from free oil Heralds big change: bnef Q&A. 2021.
https://proton.energy/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/
ProtonTechnologiesQA_Bloomberg.pdf.
[80] Roy J, Demers M. The hydrogen option for energy: a strategic
advantage for Quebec. Hydroge ne Quebec. 2019.
[81] International Renewable Energy Agency IRENA. In:
Hydrogen: a renewable energy perspective. 2nd Hydrogen.
Tokyo, Japan: Energy Ministerial Meeting; 2019. p. 26e34..
https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Sep/Hydrogen-A-
renewable-energyperspective.
[82] Li J, Huang H, Kobayashi N. Hydrogen combustion as a
thermal source. Energy Proc 2017;142:1083e8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.360.
 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 4 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 7 6 0 5 e1 7 6 2 9
[83] Altfeld K, Pinchbeck D. Admissible hydrogen concentrations
in natural gas systems. Gas Energy. 2013.
[84] Choudhury S, McDonell VG, Samuelsen S. Combustion
performance of low-NOx and conventional storage water
heaters operated on hydrogen enriched natural gas. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2020;45(3):2405e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhydene.2019.11.043.
[85] Sun M, Huang X, Hu Y, Lyu S. Effects on the performance of
domestic gas appliances operated on natural gas mixed with
hydrogen. Energy 2022;244:122557. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2021.122557.
[86] ISO/TC 197 Hydrogen technologies. ISO 14687:2019 Hydrogen
fuel qualitydproduct specification. Geneva, Switzerland.
2019.
[87] Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). J. 2719: hydrogen fuel
quality for fuel cell vehicles. Warrendale, PA: SAE
International; 2020.
[88] Du Z, Liu C, Zhai J, Guo X, Xiong Y, Su W, He G. A review of
hydrogen purification technologies for fuel cell vehicles.
17629
Catalysts, 11(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/
catal11030393; 2021.
[89] Alqaheem Y, Alomair A, Mari V, Pe rez A. Polymeric gas-
separation membranes for Petroleum refining. Int J
Polymer Sci 2017;2017:1e19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/
4250927.
[90] Niemann MU, Srinivasan SS, Phani AR, Kumar A,
Goswami DY, Stefanakos EK. Nanomaterials for hydrogen
storage applications: a review. J Nanomater
2008;2008:e950967. https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/950967.
[91] Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Technical support document for hydrogen
production: Proposed rule for Mandatory reporting of
greenhouse gases. 2008.
[92] Cappellen LV, Croezen H, Rooijers F. Feasibility study into
blue hydrogen: technical, economic & sustainability
Analysis. CE delft. Delft, The Netherlands 2018:37e9.
https://cedelft.eu/publicaties/feasibility-study-into-blue-
hydrogen/.