Assessing hydrogen embrittlement of alloy 718: Hollow and conventional tensile tests

Le résumé fourni par la source

• Comparison of the hollow specimen technique with conventional tests in a high pressure hydrogen autoclave and pre-charged specimen. • Slow strain rate tensile tests on alloy 718 in wrought and additive manufactured state at hydrogen gas pressures up to 200 bar • The fracture surfaces are examined fractographically and the damage mechanisms in the different test methods are discussed. • Influencing factors on hollow specimens such as surface roughness and multiaxial stresses due to internal pressure are discussed. Testing of metals for hydrogen embrittlement is of great interest for a safe hydrogen infrastructure. However, the costs and efforts involved in in-situ tests in hydrogen pressure autoclaves are high. Simpler alternatives are ex-situ testing with hydrogen pre-charging or in-situ testing with the hollow specimen technique, in which the specimen is pressurized with hydrogen gas from the inside through a longitudinal hole. However, the comparability of the techniques has not been conclusively clarified. Slow strain rate tensile tests are carried out with the three techniques on the nickel-based alloy 718 in wrought and additive manufactured states. Experiments are performed at hydrogen gas pressures up to 200 bar. Testing in nitrogen gas is used as a reference. Hydrogen pre-charging was conducted at 350 °C and 100 bar pressure. The in-situ techniques show increasing hydrogen embrittlement with increasing hydrogen pressure. The most severe embrittlement could be achieved with hydrogen pre-charging. Conventional and hollow specimens agree on yield strength and tensile strength but differ in elongation to failure and reduction of area. Influencing variables such as surface qualities and multi-axial stresses in hollow specimens resulting from the internal pressure are discussed. The damage mechanisms of all techniques are analyzed by fracture surface examinations using SEM and EBSD.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.