+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

Date post: 02-Feb-2016
Category:
Upload: anthea
View: 54 times
Download: 3 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
International Conference on Hydrogen Safety "Enabling Progress and Opportunities" September 12-14, 2011 San Francisco, California-USA. Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186). L. Briottet, I. Moro, P. Lemoine - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Embed Size (px)
Popular Tags:
of 17 /17
1 Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations (#186) L. Briottet, I. Moro, P. Lemoine CEA,LITEN, DTBH/LCTA, F-38054 Grenoble, France LITEN/DTBH/LCTA Sept. 14, 2011 International Conference on Hydrogen Safety "Enabling Progress and Opportunities" September 12-14, 2011 San Francisco, California-USA
Transcript
Page 1: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

1

Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations

(#186)

L. Briottet, I. Moro, P. Lemoine

CEA,LITEN, DTBH/LCTA, F-38054 Grenoble, France

LITEN/DTBH/LCTA Sept. 14, 2011

International Conference on Hydrogen Safety

"Enabling Progress and Opportunities"

September 12-14, 2011

San Francisco, California-USA

Page 2: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

2LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Scope

• Development of a hydrogen pipeline delivery infrastructure High initial capital cost

• No recognized international methods to choose materials- specific application- very different testing conditions

- materials susceptibility to HE- improving safety coefficients for component design

How to quantify Hydrogen Embrittlement under hydrogen gas pressure?

French National Research Agency projects – CATHY-GDF, CESTAR

Page 3: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

3LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Approach

• API grade X80 ferrito-pearlitic steel

• Various mechanical tests under hydrogen high pressure

• Many ways to quantify hydrogen embrittlement

• Comparison of some possible embrittlement indices

• Discussion

Page 4: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

4LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Monotonic loading

Up to 35 MPa H2

Tensile test

Disk pressureTest

(ISO 11114-4 method A)

PHe / PH2

Page 5: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

5LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Cyclic loadingFatigue Crack Growth

Fracture mechanics / Dynamic loading

Up to 35 MPa H2

Compact Tensile

Monotonic loadingFracture toughness

Single Edge Notch Tensile specimen

Initial crack

Page 6: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

6LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

ALAir

Inert gas

Loading conditions

H2

30 MPa H2

Fracture mechanics / Static loading

Wedge Opening Load - Static loading(ISO 11114-4 method C)

Page 7: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

7LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

High-strength steel grade API X80

C Mn Si P S Fe

0.075 1.86 0.35 0.015 <0.003 Bal.

Ferrite + pearlite Pearlite alignments

914.4 mm x e12.7 mm

w%

Page 8: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

8LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Monotonic loading – Main results

• No influence on 0.2 or UTS• Strain rate ductility• P (up to ~10 MPa) ductility

Tensile tests

• Efficient empirical criteria for seamless bottles • Not based on an understanding of the HE mechanisms

How to use it for other applications?PHe / PH2 ~ 2

Disk pressure tests

Page 9: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

9LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Fracture mechanics – Main results

• Several K• Precracking in air or H2

• No crack propagation after 1000 hr

• 220 kJ/m² (N2) 15 kJ/m² (H2)

WOL - Static loading – 30 MPa

Toughness – Monotonic loading - 30 MPa

Page 10: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

10LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Fracture mechanics – Main results

Fatigue Crack growth – Cyclic loading - 30 MPa

• FCG x 10• Significant effect even at low P

H2 - 0.1 Hz

air FCG

Page 11: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

11LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Some possible HE indices definition

100 %maximum effect

100(%)2

22

NF

HF

NF

TEE

EEI

100(%)2

22

N

HN

JJ

JJI

100/1(%)2

HHeFCG dnda

dndaI

1001

1100(%)2

EHe

HHe

DPT IP

PPI

100)(

(%) 2

o

HWOL

aW

aI

Tensile elongation

Toughness

FCG rate

Disk pressure test

WOL crack length

0 % no effect

And more ……

Page 12: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

12LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Damage analysis

Tensile test

Quasi-cleavage External cracks

Same ao

Same final COD

Toughness testH2 inlet

Quasi-cleavage Ductile

Disk pressure test

H2 inlet

Page 13: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

13LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fatigue CrackGrowth

Toughness WOL TensileElongation

Disk

Em

bri

ttle

men

t in

dex

(%

)

Fracture mechanics Continuum mechanics

Cyclic Monotonic loading

Static loading

Embrittlement index

Necessary to provide guidelines to select the appropriate test

X80 HS steel

Page 14: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

14LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Tensile tests with atmosphere switches

Tensile tests under H2 pressure :HE not due to trapped H in the bulkHE caused by surface / sub surface H populations

Are the same H populations involved depending on the loading conditions ?

Tests on pre-charged specimens or under cathodic charging ?

HE mechanisms ?

0

200

400

600

800

0 1 2 3Axial displacement (mm)

F/S

0 (

MP

a)N2

H2

0

200

400

600

800

0 1 2 3Axial displacement (mm)

F/S

0 (

MP

a)N2

H2

N2/H2

H2/N2

High kinetic for

• HE reversibility

• HE occurrence

Page 15: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

15LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Developing a test facility for full scale pipeline section up to 30 MPa H2 pressure within the French ANR CATHY-GDF and CESTAR projects

Ensure transferability from lab-scale tests to structure

Transferability Numerical simulations + experimental validations

CNRS-GDF SUEZ

Defects - Fatigue crack propagation - Welds

Up to 1 m diameter

Page 16: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

16LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Conclusions

• Many ways to quantify HE under hydrogen pressure

• HE susceptibility measures strongly depend on : Testing environment (in-situ, P, …) Presence of defects (crack, weld) Static / dynamic loading Monotonic / cyclic loading

• Difficult to fit lab-scale tests with in-service conditions Improve knowledge on HE mechanisms to define the

appropriate tests to select materials Group tests with the same HE features Propose appropriate methods for a given application

Input for international codes and rules adapted to future hydrogen infrastructures applications

Page 17: Quantifying the hydrogen embrittlement of pipeline steels for safety considerations ( #186)

17LITEN/DTBH/LCTA ICHS 2011 Sept. 14, 2011

Thank you for your attention

CEA / LITEN


Recommended