m (Scipediacontent moved page Draft Content 475832812 to Ningileri et al 2013a) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Abstract == | == Abstract == | ||
| − | The main objective of the study is as follows: Identify steel compositions/microstructures suitable for construction of new pipeline infrastructure and evaluate the potential use of the existing steel pipeline infrastructure in high pressure gaseous hydrogen applications. The microstructures of four pipeline steels were characterized and tensile testing was conducted in gaseous hydrogen and helium at pressures of 5.5 MPa (800 psi), 11 MPa (1600 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi). Based on reduction of area, two of the four steels that performed the best across the pressure range were selected for evaluation of fracture and fatigue performance in gaseous hydrogen at 5.5 MPa (800 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi). The basic format for this phase of the study is as follows: Microstructural characterization of volume fraction of phases in each alloy; Tensile testing of all four alloys in He and H{sub 2} at 5.5 MPa (800 psi), 11 MPa (1600 psi), and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi). RA performance was used to choose the two best performers for further mechanical property evaluation; Fracture testing (ASTM E1820) of two best tensile test performers in H{sub 2} at 5.5 MPa (800 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi); Fatigue testing (ASTM E647) | + | The main objective of the study is as follows: Identify steel compositions/microstructures suitable for construction of new pipeline infrastructure and evaluate the potential use of the existing steel pipeline infrastructure in high pressure gaseous hydrogen applications. The microstructures of four pipeline steels were characterized and tensile testing was conducted in gaseous hydrogen and helium at pressures of 5.5 MPa (800 psi), 11 MPa (1600 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi). Based on reduction of area, two of the four steels that performed the best across the pressure range were selected for evaluation of fracture and fatigue performance in gaseous hydrogen at 5.5 MPa (800 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi). The basic format for this phase of the study is as follows: Microstructural characterization of volume fraction of phases in each alloy; Tensile testing of all four alloys in He and H{sub 2} at 5.5 MPa (800 psi), 11 MPa (1600 psi), and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi). RA performance was used to choose the two best performers for further mechanical property evaluation; Fracture testing (ASTM E1820) of two best tensile test performers in H{sub 2} at 5.5 MPa (800 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi); Fatigue testing (ASTM E647) ofmore » two best tensile test performers in H2 at 5.5 MPa (800 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi) with frequency =1.0 Hz and R-ratio=0.5 and 0.1.« le |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| Line 18: | Line 13: | ||
* [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc837746/m2/1/high_res_d/1059020.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc837746/m2/1/high_res_d/1059020.pdf] | * [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc837746/m2/1/high_res_d/1059020.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc837746/m2/1/high_res_d/1059020.pdf] | ||
| − | * [ | + | * [https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review11/pd047_stalheim_2011_p.pdf https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review11/pd047_stalheim_2011_p.pdf], |
| + | : [https://trid.trb.org/view/1249780 https://trid.trb.org/view/1249780], | ||
| + | : [https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1059020 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1059020], | ||
| + | : [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc837746/m2/1/high_res_d/1059020.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc837746/m2/1/high_res_d/1059020.pdf], | ||
| + | : [https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc837746 https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc837746], | ||
| + | : [https://core.ac.uk/display/71262188 https://core.ac.uk/display/71262188], | ||
| + | : [https://www.scipedia.com/public/Ningileri_et_al_2013a https://www.scipedia.com/public/Ningileri_et_al_2013a], | ||
| + | : [https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/1517336128 https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/1517336128] | ||
Latest revision as of 18:37, 25 January 2021
Abstract
The main objective of the study is as follows: Identify steel compositions/microstructures suitable for construction of new pipeline infrastructure and evaluate the potential use of the existing steel pipeline infrastructure in high pressure gaseous hydrogen applications. The microstructures of four pipeline steels were characterized and tensile testing was conducted in gaseous hydrogen and helium at pressures of 5.5 MPa (800 psi), 11 MPa (1600 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi). Based on reduction of area, two of the four steels that performed the best across the pressure range were selected for evaluation of fracture and fatigue performance in gaseous hydrogen at 5.5 MPa (800 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi). The basic format for this phase of the study is as follows: Microstructural characterization of volume fraction of phases in each alloy; Tensile testing of all four alloys in He and H{sub 2} at 5.5 MPa (800 psi), 11 MPa (1600 psi), and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi). RA performance was used to choose the two best performers for further mechanical property evaluation; Fracture testing (ASTM E1820) of two best tensile test performers in H{sub 2} at 5.5 MPa (800 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi); Fatigue testing (ASTM E647) ofmore » two best tensile test performers in H2 at 5.5 MPa (800 psi) and 20.7 MPa (3000 psi) with frequency =1.0 Hz and R-ratio=0.5 and 0.1.« le
Original document
The different versions of the original document can be found in:
- https://trid.trb.org/view/1249780,
- https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1059020,
- https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc837746/m2/1/high_res_d/1059020.pdf,
- https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc837746,
- https://core.ac.uk/display/71262188,
- https://www.scipedia.com/public/Ningileri_et_al_2013a,
- https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/1517336128
Document information
Published on 01/01/2013
Volume 2013, 2013
DOI: 10.2172/1059020
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA license
Share this document
Keywords
claim authorship
Are you one of the authors of this document?