Using Small Punch Test to Investigate the Mechanical Properties of X42 Exposed to Gaseous Hydrogen: Effect of Pressure, Pre-charge Time, Punch Velocity and Oxygen Content

doi:10.1007/s40195-024-01755-4

Abstract

Abstract:

This study investigated the effect of pressure, pre-charge time, punch velocity and oxygen content on the mechanical properties of X42 pipeline steel in gaseous hydrogen environment by using small punch test. When exposed to nitrogen, the fracture mode of X42 pipeline steel undergoes ductile fracture, but in the presence of hydrogen, it shifts to brittle fracture. Moreover, an increase in hydrogen pressure or a decrease in punch velocity is found to enhance the hydrogen embrittlement susceptibility of X42 pipeline steel, as evidenced by the decrease of maximal load, displacement at failure onset and small punch energy. But the effect of pre-charge time on the hydrogen embrittlement susceptibility of X42 pipeline steel is not very obvious. Meanwhile, the presence of oxygen has been found to effectively inhibit hydrogen embrittlement. As the oxygen content in hydrogen increases, the hydrogen embrittlement susceptibility of X42 pipeline steel decreases.

Key words: X42 pipeline steel, Hydrogen embrittlement, Mechanical properties, Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Small punch test

Hu-Yue Wang, Hong-Liang Ming, Dong-Ceng Hou, Jian-Qiu Wang, Wei Ke, En-Hou Han. Using Small Punch Test to Investigate the Mechanical Properties of X42 Exposed to Gaseous Hydrogen: Effect of Pressure, Pre-charge Time, Punch Velocity and Oxygen Content[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2024, 37(11): 1961-1983.

Figures/Tables 23

Table 1 Chemical composition of X42 pipeline steel (wt%)

C	Mn	S	P	Cu	Ni	Nb + V + Ti	Fe
0.073	0.810	0.003	0.013	0.011	0.011	< 0.048	Bal.

Fig. 1 a Schematic diagram of the sheet-shaped specimen position in the pipe, b geometry of the sheet-shaped specimen. Note: the abbreviations LD, RD, and TD represent the longitudinal direction, radial direction, and transversal direction of the pipe, respectively

Table 2 Test conditions

Number	Condition
1	1 MPa hydrogen/pre-charge time 0 h/punch velocity of 0.004 mm/min
2	2 MPa hydrogen/pre-charge time 0 h/punch velocity of 0.004 mm/min
3	4 MPa hydrogen/pre-charge time 0 h/punch velocity of 0.004 mm/min
4	4 MPa hydrogen/pre-charge time 48 h/punch velocity of 0.004 mm/min
5	4 MPa hydrogen/pre-charge time 120 h/punch velocity of 0.004 mm/min
6	4 MPa hydrogen/pre-charge time 0 h/punch velocity of 0.1 mm/min
7	4 MPa hydrogen/pre-charge time 0 h/punch velocity of 1 mm/min
8	4 MPa mixed gas (hydrogen + 10 vppm oxygen) /pre-charge time 0 h/ punch velocity of 0.004 mm/min
9	4 MPa mixed gas (hydrogen + 50 vppm oxygen) /pre-charge time 0 h/ punch velocity of 0.004 mm/min
10	4 MPa mixed gas (hydrogen + 100 vppm oxygen) /pre-charge time 0 h/ punch velocity of 0.004 mm/min
11	4 MPa nitrogen/pre-charge time 0 h/punch velocity of 0.004 mm/min
12	4 MPa nitrogen/pre-charge time 0 h/punch velocity of 0.1 mm/min
13	4 MPa nitrogen/pre-charge time 0 h/punch velocity of 1 mm/min

Fig. 2 Metallographic structures of X42 pipeline steel in the a TD-LD, b RD-TD, c RD-LD planes, d image position diagram. Note: the abbreviations LD, RD, and TD represent the longitudinal direction, radial direction, and transversal direction of the pipe, respectively

Fig. 3 EBSD observation results of X42 pipeline steel: a IPF map, b IQ + GB map, c KAM map

Fig. 4 Mechanical properties of X42 specimen under different hydrogen pressure: a load-displacement curve, b maximal load, c displacement at failure onset and SP energy

Fig. 5 SEM images of fracture morphologies under 4 MPa nitrogen: a the overall morphology of the specimen from a top-down perspective, b the overall morphology of the specimen from a frontal perspective, c magnified view of the fracture location from a top-down perspective, d microscopic characteristics of the fracture location from a top-down perspective, e magnified view of the fracture location from a frontal perspective, f microscopic characteristics of the fracture location from a frontal perspective, g microscopic characteristics of secondary crack, h morphology of the top area of the fracture part

Fig. 6 SEM images of fracture morphologies under 1 MPa hydrogen: a the overall morphology of the specimen from a top-down perspective, b the overall morphology of the specimen from a frontal perspective, c magnified view of the fracture location from a top-down perspective, d magnified view of the fracture location from a frontal perspective, e microscopic characteristics of the fracture location from a top-down perspective, f microscopic characteristics of the fracture location from a frontal perspective

Fig. 7 SEM images of fracture morphologies under 2 MPa hydrogen: a the overall morphology of the specimen from a top-down perspective, b the overall morphology of the specimen from a frontal perspective, c magnified view of the fracture location from a top-down perspective, d magnified view of the fracture location from a frontal perspective, e microscopic characteristics of the fracture location from a top-down perspective, f microscopic characteristics of the fracture location from a frontal perspective

Fig. 8 SEM images of fracture morphologies under 4 MPa hydrogen: a the overall morphology of the specimen from a top-down perspective, b the overall morphology of the specimen from a frontal perspective, c magnified view of the secondary crack, d magnified view of the fracture location from a frontal perspective, e microscopic characteristics of the fracture location from a top-down perspective, f microscopic characteristics of the fracture location from a frontal perspective, g microscopic characteristics of secondary crack, h morphology of the top area of the fracture part

Fig. 9 SEM images of cracks morphologies in the top area of the fracture part near the gaseous hydrogen side under 4 MPa hydrogen: a-d cracks at different locations

Fig. 10 SEM images of the cross-section under different gas atmosphere and the EBSD results of the crack on the cross-section in gaseous hydrogen: a, b SEM images of cross-section under 4 MPa N2, c, d SEM images of cross-section under 4 MPa H2, e IPF + GB map, f KAM map

Fig. 11 Mechanical properties of X42 specimen under different pre-charge time: a load-displacement curve, b maximal load, c displacement at failure onset and SP energy

Fig. 12 SEM images of fracture morphologies under different pre-charge time: a1-a3 48 h H2, b1-b3 120 h H2

Fig. 13 Mechanical properties of X42 specimen under different punch velocity: a load-displacement curve, b maximal load, c displacement at failure onset and SP energy

Fig. 14 SEM images of fracture morphologies under different punch velocity in gaseous nitrogen: a1-a3 1 mm/min N2, b1-b3 0.1 mm/min N2

Fig. 15 SEM images of fracture morphologies under different punch velocity in gaseous hydrogen: a1-a3 1 mm/min H2, b1-b3 0.1 mm/min H2

Fig. 16 Internal morphologies of crack propagation when punch velocity is 1 mm/min: a1-a3 under 4 MPa N2, b1-b3 under 4 MPa H2

Fig. 17 Mechanical properties of X42 under different oxygen content: a load-displacement curve, b maximal load, c displacement at failure onset and SP energy

Fig. 18 SEM images of fracture morphologies under 10 vppm oxygen: a the overall morphology of the specimen from a top-down perspective, b the overall morphology of the specimen from a frontal perspective, c the local morphology of the specimen from a frontal perspective, d microscopic characteristics of the fracture location

Fig. 19 SEM images of fracture morphologies under 50 vppm oxygen: a the overall morphology of the specimen from a top-down perspective, b the overall morphology of the specimen from a frontal perspective, c the local morphology of the specimen from a frontal perspective, d microscopic characteristics of the fracture location

Fig. 20 SEM images of fracture morphologies under 100 vppm oxygen: a the overall morphology of the specimen from a top-down perspective, b the overall morphology of the specimen from a frontal perspective, c the local morphology of the specimen from a frontal perspective, d microscopic characteristics of the fracture location

Fig. 21 Schematic diagram of oxygen competitive adsorption on surface of the X42 specimen: a hydrogen adsorption on surface of the X42 specimen; b oxygen competitive adsorption with hydrogen (grey balls—iron atoms; orange balls—oxygen atoms; blue balls—hydrogen atoms)

References 52

[1]	X. Xu, Z. Wei, Q. Ji, C. Wang, G. Gao, Resour. Policy 63, 101470 (2019)
[2]	Y. Li, X. Liu, C. Wang, Q. Hu, J. Wang, H. Ma, Z. Nan, Acta Metall. Sin. 57, 283 (2020)
[3]	L. Li, J. Lin, N. Wu, S. Xie, C. Meng, Y. Zheng, X. Wang, Y. Zhao, Energy Built Environ. 3, 139 (2022)
[4]	J.O. Abe, A.P.I. Popoola, E. Ajenifuja, O.M. Popoola, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44, 15072 (2019)
[5]	L. Barreto, A. Makihira, K. Riahi, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 267 (2003)
[6]	J. Du, H. Ming, J. Wang, Oil Gas Storage Transp. 42, 1107 (2023)
[7]	M. Pudukudy, Z. Yaakob, M. Mohammad, B. Narayanan, K. Sopian, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 30, 743 (2014)
[8]	P.P. Edwards, V.L. Kuznetsov, W.I.F. David, N.P. Brandon, Energy Policy 36, 4356 (2008)
[9]	K. Zeng, D. Zhang, Progress Energy Combust. Sci. 36, 307 (2010)
[10]	O. Schmidt, A. Gambhir, I. Staffell, A. Hawkes, J. Nelson, S. Few, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 30470 (2017)
[11]	C. Wulf, P. Zapp, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 43, 11884 (2018)
[12]	D. Zivar, S. Kumar, J. Foroozesh, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46, 23436 (2021)
[13]	A.B.T. Nelabhotla, D. Pant, C. Dinamarca, Emerging Technol. Biol. Syst. Biogas Upgrading 187 (2021)
[14]	R. Gerboni, Compend. Hydrogen Energy 2, 283 (2016)
[15]	C. Yang, J. Ogden, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 32, 268 (2007)
[16]	S. Singh, S. Jain, V. Ps, A.K. Tiwari, M.R. Nouni, J.K. Pandey, S. Goel, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 51, 623 (2015)
[17]	A.D. Korberg, J.Z. Thellufsen, I.R. Skov, M. Chang, S. Paardekooper, H. Lund, B.V. Mathiesen, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 48, 2877 (2023)
[18]	C. Yao, J. Chen, H. Ming, J. Wang, J. Chin. Soc. Corros. Prot. 43, 209 (2023)
[19]	H. Wang, Z. Tong, G. Zhou, C. Zhang, H. Zhou, Y. Wang, W. Zheng, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47, 28585 (2022)
[20]	B. Meng, C. Gu, L. Zhang, C. Zhou, X. Li, Y. Zhao, J. Zheng, X. Chen, Y. Han, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 7404 (2017)
[21]	Y. Li, G. Zhang, L. Yang, X. Yu, S. Qian, Corros. Prot. 43, 99 (2022)
[22]	W.H. Johnson, Nature 11, 393 (1875)
[23]	T.T. Nguyen, K. Bae, P. Jaeyeong, S.H. Nahm, U.B. Baek, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47, 31499 (2022)
[24]	J. Du, H. Ming, J. Wang, Mater. Lett. 334, 133734 (2023)
[25]	H. Wan, X. Wu, H. Ming, J. Wang, Acta Metall. Sin. -Engl. Lett. 37, 293 (2023)
[26]	T. Michler, F. Ebling, H. Oesterlin, C. Fischer, K. Wackermann, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47, 34676 (2022)
[27]	A. Au, B. Gb, Procedia Struct. Integr. 19, 494 (2019)
[28]	T.T. Nguyen, J.S. Park, S.H. Nahm, U.B. Baek, Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 113, 102961 (2021)
[29]	T.T. Nguyen, J.S. Park, W.S. Kim, S.H. Nahm, U.B. Beak, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 781, 139114 (2020)
[30]	K. Bae, H. Shin, U. Baek, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46, 20107 (2021)
[31]	S. Faramawy, T. Zaki, A.A.E. Sakr, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 34, 34 (2016)
[32]	Y. Cheng, Oil Gas Storage Transp. 42, 1 (2023)
[33]	Y. Cheng, Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, J. Yangtze Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 19, 54 (2022)
[34]	D. Hardie, E.A. Charles, A.H. Lopez, Corros. Sci. 48, 4378 (2006)
[35]	J. Shang, J. Zheng, Z. Hua, Y. Li, C. Gu, T. Cui, B. Meng, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45, 28204 (2020)
[36]	N.E. Nanninga, Y.S. Levy, E. Drexler, R.T. Condon, A.E. Stevenson, A. Slifka, Corros. Sci. 59, 1 (2012)
[37]	C. Wang, J. Zhang, C. Liu, Q. Hu, R. Zhang, X. Xu, H. Yang, Y. Ning, Y. Li, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 48, 243 (2023)
[38]	Y. Wang, J. Gong, W. Jiang, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38, 12503 (2013)
[39]	C.D. Beachem, Metall. Trans. 3, 441 (1972)
[40]	D.S. Bae, U.B. Baek, S.H. Nahm, I. Jo, Met. Mater. Int. 28, 466 (2022)
[41]	C.F. Dong, Z.Y. Liu, X.G. Li, Y.F. Cheng, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34, 9879 (2009)
[42]	Y. Momotani, A. Shibata, D. Terada, N. Tsuji, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42, 3371 (2017)
[43]	A.H.M. Krom, H.J. Maier, R.W.J. Koers, A. Bakker, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 271, 22 (1999)
[44]	J.K. Young, J.S. Hyun, N.K. Jae, S.L. Chong, Corros. Sci. 142, 213 (2018)
[45]	A. Staykov, J. Yamabe, B.P. Somerday, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 114, 626 (2014)
[46]	C. Zhou, H. Zhou, L. Zhang, Materials 17, 2157 (2024)
[47]	Y. Sun, Y. Ren, Y.F. Cheng, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 47, 41069 (2022)
[48]	C. Liu, H. Yang, C. Wang, H. Zhang, R. Ding, L. Ai, X. Fan, R. Zhang, X. Xu, Y. Ning, Y.F. Cheng, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 48, 27766 (2023)
[49]	R. Komoda, M. Kubota, A. Staykov, P. Ginet, F. Barbier, J. Furtado, L. Prost, A. Nagao, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 53, 74 (2022)
[50]	C. Wang, X. Xu, Y. Hua, R. Zhang, C. Liu, X. Luo, S. Gu, Y. Li, Y.F. Cheng, Corros. Sci. 227, 111789 (2024)
[51]	W. Zhao, W. Wang, S. Li, X. Li, C. Sun, J. Sun, W. Jiang, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 50, 292 (2024)
[52]	X. Xu, M. Zhou, C. Wang, J. Zhang, C. Liu, Y. Song, Y. Wang, S. Gu, Y. Li, Corros. Sci. 229, 111880 (2024)