1 / 17

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

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

anthea
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 CEA,LITEN, DTBH/LCTA, F-38054 Grenoble, France LITEN/DTBH/LCTA Sept. 14, 2011

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Monotonic loading Tensile test Up to 35 MPa H2 Disk pressure Test (ISO 11114-4 method A) PHe / PH2

  5. Fracture mechanics / Dynamic loading Compact Tensile Single Edge Notch Tensile specimen Initial crack Monotonic loading Fracture toughness Cyclic loading Fatigue Crack Growth Up to 35 MPa H2

  6. AL Fracture mechanics / Static loading Wedge Opening Load - Static loading (ISO 11114-4 method C) Loading conditions Air Inert gas H2 30 MPa H2

  7. High-strength steel grade API X80 F914.4 mm x e12.7 mm w% Pearlite alignments Ferrite + pearlite

  8. Monotonic loading – Main results Tensile tests • No influence on s0.2 or UTS •  Strain rate   ductility •  P (up to ~10 MPa)   ductility Disk pressure 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

  9. Fracture mechanics – Main results WOL - Static loading – 30 MPa • Several K • Precracking in air or H2 • No crack propagation after 1000 hr Toughness – Monotonic loading - 30 MPa • 220 kJ/m² (N2)  15 kJ/m² (H2)

  10. H2 - 0.1 Hz air Fracture mechanics – Main results Fatigue Crack growth – Cyclic loading - 30 MPa FCG • FCG x 10 • Significant effect even at low P

  11. Some possible HE indices definition 0 % no effect 100 % maximum effect Tensile elongation Toughness FCG rate Disk pressure test WOL crack length And more ……

  12. Tensile test Quasi-cleavage External cracks Damage analysis Disk pressure test Quasi-cleavage Ductile H2 inlet Toughness test Same ao Same final COD H2 inlet

  13. Embrittlement index X80 HS steel Fracture mechanics Continuum mechanics Static loading Cyclic Monotonic loading • Necessary to provide guidelines to select the appropriate test

  14. High kinetic for • HE reversibility • HE occurrence HE mechanisms ? Tensile tests with atmosphere switches Tensile tests under H2 pressure : HE not due to trapped H in the bulk HE 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 ?

  15. Ensure transferability from lab-scale tests to structure Transferability  Numerical simulations + experimental validations Developing a test facility for full scale pipeline section up to 30 MPa H2 pressure within the French ANR CATHY-GDF and CESTAR projects Up to 1 m diameter CNRS-GDF SUEZ Defects - Fatigue crack propagation - Welds

  16. 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

  17. Thank you for your attention CEA / LITEN

More Related