4.7 Article

Effect of stress triaxiality on the hydrogen embrittlement micromechanisms in a pipeline steel evaluated by fractographic analysis

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2023.145689

关键词

Hydrogen embrittlement; Pipeline steels; Fractography; Fisheyes; Stress triaxiality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the hydrogen-assisted ductility loss of API 5L X70 pipeline steel and finds that the steel becomes more brittle after hydrogen charging. Notched samples are more susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement compared to unnotched samples, and hydrogen signatures in the form of fisheyes and quasi-cleavage are detected on the fracture surface.
Hydrogen gas, as an energy carrier, is expected to play an important role in the storage and transport of energy produced by renewable sources. The transport of hydrogen gas can be managed through the use of existing pipeline networks. However, the uptake of hydrogen in steel structures is known to cause a degradation of mechanical properties, a phenomenon called hydrogen embrittlement (HE). In this study, the hydrogen-assisted ductility loss of an API 5L X70 pipeline steel is investigated. The influence of hydrogen on mechanical behavior is evaluated by tensile tests on uncharged and hydrogen charged specimens. These tests are performed on notched round bar specimens with different notch radii, allowing for a range of positive stress triaxialities to be examined. Notched samples are more embrittled than unnotched specimens after hydrogen charging. Hydrogen signatures in the form of fisheyes and quasi-cleavage are detected on the fracture surface. Fisheyes initiate primarily at segregation bands in the steel for all specimen geometries. Fisheyes can also be linked to different inclusion types present in the steel, depending on notch geometry. For unnotched as well as the least sharply notched specimens tested in this study, the embrittlement can be correlated with the area fraction of fisheyes on the fracture surface.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据