0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Fatigue Measurement of Pipeline Steels for the Application of Transporting Gaseous Hydrogen1

[+] Author and Article Information
Andrew J. Slifka

Mem. ASME
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Applied Chemicals and Materials Division,
325 Broadway m/s 647,
Boulder, CO 80305
e-mail: andrew.slifka@nist.gov

Elizabeth S. Drexler

National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Applied Chemicals and Materials Division,
325 Broadway m/s 647,
Boulder, CO 80305
e-mail: elizabeth.drexler@nist.gov

Robert L. Amaro

Mem. ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Alabama,
401 7th Avenue,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
e-mail: Robert.amaro67@gmail.com

Louis E. Hayden

Mem. ASME
Louis Hayden Associates,
1301 Bonnie Avenue,
Bethlehem, PA 18017
e-mail: 911guy@gmail.com

Douglas G. Stalheim

Mem. ASME
DGS Metallurgical Solutions,
15003 NE 10th Street,
Vancouver, WA 98684
e-mail: dgstalheim@dgsmet.com

Damian S. Lauria

National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Office of Information Systems Management,
325 Broadway m/s 187,
Boulder, CO 80305
e-mail: damian.lauria@nist.gov

Nik W. Hrabe

National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Applied Chemicals and Materials Division,
325 Broadway m/s 647,
Boulder, CO 80305
e-mail: nik.hrabe@nist.gov

1Contribution of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. government, not subject to copyright in the U.S.

2Corresponding authors.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received March 31, 2017; final manuscript received November 13, 2017; published online December 14, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Steve J. Hensel.This work is in part a work of the U.S. Government. ASME disclaims all interest in the U.S. Government's contributions.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 140(1), 011407 (Dec 14, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: PVT-17-1065; doi: 10.1115/1.4038594 History: Received March 31, 2017; Revised November 13, 2017

A comprehensive testing program to determine the fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR) of pipeline steels in pressurized hydrogen gas was completed. Four steels were selected, two X52 and two X70 alloys. Other variables included hydrogen gas pressures of 5.5 MPa and 34 MPa, a load ratio, R, of 0.5, and cyclic loading frequencies of 1 Hz, 0.1 Hz, and 0.01 Hz. Of particular interest was whether the X70 materials would exhibit higher FCGRs than the X52 materials. The American Petroleum Institute steel designations are based on specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), and monotonic tensile tests have historically shown that loss of ductility correlates with an increase in yield strength when tested in a hydrogen environment. The X70 materials performed within the experimental spread of the X52 materials in FCGR, except for the vintage X52 material at low (5.5 MPa) pressure in hydrogen gas. This program was developed in order to provide a modification to the ASME B31.12 code that is based upon fatigue, the primary failure mechanism in pipelines. The code modification is a three-part Paris law fit of the upper bound of measurements of FCGR of pipeline steels in pressurized hydrogen gas. Fatigue crack growth data up to 21 MPa (3000 psi) are used for the upper bound. This paper describes, in detail, the testing that formed the basis for the code modification.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Walter, R. J. , and Chandler, W. T. , 1969, “Effects of High Pressure Hydrogen on Metals at Ambient Temperature-Final Report,” Rocketdyne, Canoga Park, CA, Technical Report No. NASA-CR-102425. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19700009332
Cialone, H. J. , and Holbrook, J. H. , 1988, “Sensitivity of Steels to Degradation in Gaseous Hydrogen,” American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Standard No. ASTM STP 962.
Nanninga, N. , Levy, Y. , Drexler, E. , Condon, R. , Stevenson, A. , and Slifka, A. , 2012, “ Comparison of Hydrogen Embrittlement in Three Pipeline Steels in High Pressure Gaseous Hydrogen Environments,” Corros. Sci., 59, pp. 1–9. [CrossRef]
Nanninga, N. , Slifka, A. , Levy, Y. , and White, C. , 2010, “ A Review of Fatigue Crack Growth for Pipeline Steels Exposed to Hydrogen,” J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., 115(6), pp. 437–452. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
San Marchi, C. , Stalheim, D. G. , Somerday, B. P. , Boggess, T. , Nibur, K. A. , and Jansto, S. , 2010, “Fracture and Fatigue of Commercial Grade API Pipeline Steels in Gaseous Hydrogen,” ASME Paper No. PVP2010-25825.
Lam, P. S. , Sindelar, R. L. , and Adams, T. M. , 2007, “Literature Survey of Gaseous Hydrogen Effects on the Mechanical Properties of Carbon and Low Carbon Steels,” ASME Paper No. PVP2007-26730.
Stalheim, D. G. , Boggess, T. , Marchi, C. , Jansto, S. , Somerday, B. P. , Muralidharan, G. , and Sofronis, P. , 2010, “Microstructure and Mechanical Property Performance of Commercial API Pipeline Steels in High Pressure Gaseous Hydrogen,” ASME Paper No. IPC2010-31301.
Suresh, S. , and Ritchie, R. O. , 1982, “ Mechanistic Dissimilarities Between Environmentally Influenced Fatigue-Crack Propagation at Near-Threshold and Higher Growth Rates in Lower Strength Steels,” Met. Sci., 16(11), pp. 529–538. [CrossRef]
Walter, R. J. , and Chandler, W. T. , 1976, “ Cyclic-Load Crack Growth in ASME SA-105 Grade II Steel in High-Pressure Hydrogen at Ambient Temperature,” International Conference on Effect of Hydrogen Behavior of Materials, Lake Moran, WY, Sept. 7–11, pp. 273–286. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19760063528
San Marchi, C. , Stalheim, D. G. , Somerday, B. P. , Boggess, T. , Nibur, K. A. , and Jansto, S. , 2011, “Fracture Resistance and Fatigue Crack Growth of X80 Pipeline Steel in Gaseous Hydrogen,” ASME Paper No. PVP2011-57684.
Somerday, B. P. , 2008, “Technical Reference on Hydrogen Compatibility of Materials-Plain Carbon Ferritic Steels: C-Mn Alloys (Code 1100),” Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, Standard No. SAND2012-7321 http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2012/127321.pdf.
ASME, 2012, “Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Standard No. B31.12-2011. https://www.asme.org/products/codes-standards/b3112-2011-hydrogen-piping-pipelines-(1)
Amaro, R. L. , White, R. M. , Looney, C. P. , Drexler, E. S. , and Slifka, A. J. , “ Development of a Model for Hydrogen-Assisted Fatigue Crack Growth in API Pipeline Steels,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol. (accepted).
API, 2007, “Specification for Line Pipe,” American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, Standard No. API SPEC 5 L. http://www.shunitesteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/API-5L-2007-Specification-for-Line-Pipe.pdf
DeArdo, A. J. , Garcia, C. I. , and Palmiere, E. J. , 1991, ASM Handbook (Heat Treating), Vol. 4, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, pp. 237–255.
Shikanai, N. , Mitao, S. , and Endo, S. , 2008, “Recent Development in Microstructural Control Technologies Through the Thermo-Mechanical Control Process (TMCP) With JFE Steel's High-Performance Plates,” JFE Steel, Tokyo, Japan, JFE Technical Report No. 11. http://www.jfe-steel.co.jp/en/research/report/011/pdf/011-02.pdf
Yuqun, Y. , Yixin, H. , Yongkuan, Y. , Daoyuan, W. , Yonglong, W. , and Stalheim, D. G. , 2008, “Improved DWTT Performance on Heavy Gauge API Plate and Coil From 150 and 180 mm Thickness Slab at Nanjing Iron and Steel Company, Nanjing, China,” ASME Paper No. IPC2008-64213.
ASTM, 2009, “Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM E8/E8M-09. https://www.astm.org/Standards/E8.htm
ASTM, 2014, “Standard Test Method for Analysis of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steel by Spark Atomic Emission Spectrometry,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM E415-14. https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/E415-14.htm
ASTM, 2011, “Standard Test Methods for Determination of Carbon, Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Oxygen in Steel, Iron, Nickel, and Cobalt Alloys by Various Combustion and Fusion Techniques,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM E1091-11. https://www.astm.org/Standards/E1019.htm
ASTM, 2010, “Standard Test Methods for Determining Average Grain Size,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM E112-13. https://www.astm.org/Standards/E112.htm
Mendelson, M. I. , 1969, “ Average Grain Size in Polycrystalline Ceramics,” J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 52(8), pp. 443–446. [CrossRef]
ASTM, 2011, “Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM E647-1. https://www.astm.org/Standards/E647.htm
ASTM, 2004, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Susceptibility of Metals to Embrittlement in Hydrogen Containing Environments at High Pressure, High Temperature, or Both,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM G142-98. https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/G142-98.htm
Sudarshan, T. S. , Louthan, M. R. , Place, T. A. , and Mabie, H. H. , 1986, “ Hydrogen and Humidity Effects on Fatigue Behavior of a 70–30 Copper–Nickel Alloy,” J. Mater. Energy Syst., 8(3), pp. 291–296. [CrossRef]
Somerday, B. P. , Sofronis, P. , Nibur, K. A. , San Marchi, C. , and Kircheim, R. , 2013, “ Elucidating the Variables Affecting Accelerated Fatigue Crack Growth of Steels in Hydrogen Gas With Low Oxygen Concentrations,” Acta Mater., 61(16), pp. 6153–6170. [CrossRef]
Gangloff, R. P. , and Somerday, B. P. , 2012, Gaseous Hydrogen Embrittlement of Materials in Energy Technologies, 1st ed., Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK.
Chen, Y. , Liu, M. , Wang, Y.-Y. , Slifka, A. J. , Drexler, E. S. , Amaro, R. L. , McColskey, J. D. , and Hayden, L. E. , 2013, “Performance Evaluation of High-Strength Steel Pipelines for High-Pressure Gaseous Hydrogen Transportation,” U.S. Department of Transportation-PHMSA, Washington, DC, DOT Project No. DTHP56-07-0001. https://www.nist.gov/publications/performance-evaluation-high-strength-steel-pipelines-high-pressure-gaseous-hydrogen
Drexler, E. S. , McColskey, J. D. , Dvorak, M. , Rustagi, N. , Lauria, D. S. , and Slifka, A. J. , 2016, “ Apparatus for Accelerating Measurements of Environmentally Assisted Fatigue Crack Growth at Low Frequency,” Exp. Tech., 40(1), pp. 429–439. [CrossRef]
McKeighan, P. C. , Feiger, J. H. , and McKnight, D. H. , 2008, “Round Robin Test Program and Results for Fatigue Crack Growth Measurement in Support of ASTM Standard E647,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Report No. E24-1001. https://www.astm.org/COMMIT/E08_E647_RRrevised.pdf
Wei, R. P. , and Simmons, G. W. , 1973, “ Environment Enhanced Fatigue Crack Growth in High-Strength Steels,” International Conference on Stress Corrosion Cracking and Hydrogen Embrittlement of Iron Based Alloys, Unieux, Firminy, France, June 12–16, pp. 751–765.
Cialone, H. , and Holbrook, J. , 1985, “ Effects of Gaseous Hydrogen on Fatigue Crack Growth in Pipeline Steel,” Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 16(1), pp. 115–122. [CrossRef]
Amaro, R. L. , Rustagi, N. , Findley, K. O. , Drexler, E. S. , and Slifka, A. J. , 2014, “ Modeling the Fatigue Crack Growth of X100 Pipeline Steel in Gaseous Hydrogen,” Int. J. Fatigue, 59, pp. 262–271. [CrossRef]
Keller, J. , Somerday, B. P. , and San Marchi, C. W. , 2012, “Hydrogen Embrittlement of Structural Steels,” DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program, Washington, DC, May 14–18, pp. 299–302. https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review12/pd025_somerday_2012_o.pdf
Amaro, R. L. , Drexler, E. S. , and Slifka, A. J. , 2014, “Development of an Engineering-Based Hydrogen-Assisted Fatigue Crack Growth Design Methodology for Code Implementation,” ASME Paper No. PVP2014-28943.
Drexler, E. S. , Slifka, A. J. , Amaro, R. L. , and Lauria, D. S. , 2014, “FCGR of Pipeline Steels in Pressurized Hydrogen Gas: A Comparison of Cyclic Loading Rates,” SteelyHydrogen—Second International Conference on Metals and Hydrogen (OCAS), Ghent, Belgium, May 5–7. https://www.nist.gov/publications/fcgr-pipeline-steels-pressurized-hydrogen-gas-comparison-cyclic-loading-rates
Fekete, J. R. , Sowards, J. W. , and Amaro, R. L. , 2015, “ Economic Impact of Applying High Strength Steels in Hydrogen Gas Pipelines,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 40(33), pp. 10547–10558. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Optical microstructure composite image of X52 modern. No banding was observed in the longitudinal (L) transverse (T), or short transverse (S) directions, RD = rolling direction.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Optical microstructure composite image of X70A, left, and X70B, right. No banding was observed in the longitudinal (L) transverse (T), or short transverse (S) directions. RD = rolling direction.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Optical microstructure images (before etching) of X52 vintage showing sulfide stringers (black phase), RD = rolling direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Optical microstructure composite image of X52 vintage showing banding in the longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) directions, as well as an inhomogeneous distribution of ferrite (white phase) and pearlite (dark phase) in the short transverse (S) direction, RD = rolling direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Quantitative equivalent grain diameter results for all four materials of this work. Statistically significant results areshown (*p < 0.05), except for X52 vintage comparison to allother materials, which was significantly different for all locations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Representative microstructure (optical microscope images) for the four materials of this study (a) X52 vintage, (b) X52 modern, (c) X70A, and (d) X70B. All images are taken from the longitudinal orientation. X52 vintage is composed of polygonal ferrite (white phase) and pearlite (dark phase). X52 modern, X70A, and X70B are likely composed of polygonal ferrite, acicular ferrite, and possibly other shear transformation products (e.g., bainite). RD = rolling direction.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Conceptual drawing (a) showing the elements of the linked chain of specimens, (b) a photograph showing the assembled chain with polytetrafluoroethylene spacers, and (c) a photograph showing the assembled chain, complete with CMOD gages and aluminum spacers, ready for installation in the pressure chamber

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Data showing the FCGR of two X70 specimens of the same material where one completed testing in 4 days and the other in 4 weeks, demonstrating that there is no precharging effect. Both were tested in pressurized hydrogen gas of 5.5 MPa, R = 0.5, and a cyclic loading rate of 1 Hz.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison, by the use of two-part Paris law fits to the data, of the FCGRs of all four steels at a hydrogen gas pressure of 34 MPa, cyclic loading frequency of 1 Hz, and R = 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Fatigue crack growth rate data in hydrogen gas for all four steels, shown as diamonds, with corresponding data in air shown as squares, and the fit of the upper bound shown as a line

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Fatigue crack growth rate with respect to cyclic loading frequency for a vintage X52 pipeline steel and a modern X52 pipeline steel at a hydrogen gas pressure of 5.5 MPa. The lines shown are visual fits to the combined data for those test conditions to better differentiate between different loading frequencies.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Fatigue crack growth rate with respect to cyclic loading frequency for vintage X52 pipeline steel and for X70A pipeline steel at a hydrogen gas pressure of 34 MPa. The lines shown are visual fits to the combined data for those test conditions to better differentiate between the different loading frequencies.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Fatigue crack growth rate data for all steels, tested in air at 1 Hz, R = 0.1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Fatigue crack growth rate data for X52 steels in 5.5 MPa hydrogen gas, R = 0.5, loading frequency of 1 Hz. Data are shown from tests in air on the same two materials for comparison.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Fatigue crack growth rate data for two X70 steels in hydrogen gas pressurized to 5.5 MPa, R = 0.5, loading frequency of 1 Hz, plus tests in air shown from the same two steels. For comparison, data on a 1990 s vintage X52 steel, tested by Sandia National Laboratories at 1 Hz, R = 0.5, at 21 MPa hydrogen gas pressure are shown [34].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Fatigue crack growth rate on X52 steels tested at hydrogen gas pressures of 34 MPa (open symbols) and 5.5 MPa (closed symbols), R = 0.5, and a cyclic loading rate of 1 Hz. Air data are shown for a baseline FCGR comparison.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

FCGRs of X70 steels tested at hydrogen gas pressures of 34 MPa (open symbols) and 5.5 MPa (closed symbols), R = 0.5, and a cyclic loading rate of 1 Hz. Air data are shown for a baseline FCGR comparison.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison, by the use of two-part Paris law fits to the data, of the FCGRs of all four steels at a hydrogen gas pressure of 5.5 MPa, cyclic loading frequency of 1 Hz, and R = 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Fatigue crack growth rates for pipeline steels with a range of measured yield strengths showing no relationship between yield strength and FCGR

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Fatigue crack growth rate data at a fixed ΔK of 14 MPa m0.5 for all four materials, both hydrogen gas pressures, and all cyclic loading frequencies for which there were completed tests. Note that X70A has a larger range of y-axis.

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In