3.8 Proceedings Paper

Towards a unified and practical industrial model for prediction of hydrogen embrittlement and damage in steels

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.prostr.2016.06.078

关键词

carbon steel; hydrogen embrittlement; mechanisms; impact strength; SEM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bearing in mind the multiple effects of hydrogen in steels, the specific mechanism of hydrogen embrittlement (HE) is active, depending on the experimental conditions and numerous factors which can be grouped as environmental, mechanical and material influences. A large number of contemporary studies and models about hydrogen environment assisted cracking and HE in steels are presented in the form of critical review in this paper. This critical review represent the necessary background for the development of a multiscale structural integrity model based on correlation between simultaneously active HE micromechanisms: the hydrogen-enhanced localized plasticity (HELP) and the hydrogen-enhanced decohesion (HEDE) (HELP+HEDE) and macro-mechanical response of material, unevenly enriched with hydrogen during service of boiler tubes in thermal fossil fuel power plant. Several different experimental methods and techniques were used to determine the boiler tube failure mechanism and afterwards also the viable HE mechanisms in the investigated ferritic-pearlitic low carbon steel, grade 20 - St.20 (equivalent to AISI 1020). That represent a background for the development of a structural integrity model based on the correlation of material macro-mechanical properties to scanning electron microscopy fractography analysis of fracture surfaces of Charpy specimens, in the presence of confirmed and simultaneously active HE micro-mechanisms (HELP+HEDE) in steel. The aim of this paper is to show how to implement what we have learned from theoretical HE models into the field to provide industry with valuable data and practical structural integrity model. Copyright (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

3.8
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