Comparison of applicability of different non-destructive test methods for assessing hydrogen concentration in carbon steel

Keywords

carbon steel, electrochemical hydrogen charging, hydrogen concentration, surface acoustic wave propagation velocity, coercive force, residual magnetic induction, magnetic hysteresis loop area, maximum magnetic permeability, electrochemical potential of the steel surface.

Cite as

Dmytrakh I. M., Syrotyuk A. M., Mokryi O. M., Uchanin V. M., Tsyrulnyk O. T., Zvirko O. I., and Leshchak R. L. Comparison of applicability of different non-destructive test methods for assessing hydrogen concentration in carbon steel. Physicochemical Mechanics of Materials. 2024. 60(3), 077-082.

https://doi.org/10.15407/pcmm2024.03.077

Abstract

The change in the values of the parameters of different physical nondestructive testing methods (surface acoustic waves, magnetic structuroscopy, and electrochemical potential) was studied depending on the concentration of hydrogen in carbon steel in the range of 0.4–8.5 ppm. It was established that the most sensitive are the values of the coercive force, which changed by more than 25%. The values of the residual magnetic induction and the electrochemical potential of the metal surface changed by 23% and 20%, respec­tively, making them also applicable for assessing the hydrogen content in this steel. Other investigated parameters showed lower efficiency and their change was: for the area of the magnetic hysteresis loop of about 10%, and for the maximum magnetic permeability and the relative change in the velocity of propagation of the surface acoustic wave – approximately 2%.

References

1. A. Laureys, R. Depraetere, M. Cauwels, T. Depover, S. Hertele, and K. Verbeken, “Use of existing steel pipeline infrastructure for gaseous hydrogen storage and transport: A review of factors affecting hydrogen induced degradation,” J. Nat. Gas. Sci. Eng., 101 (2022). Article number 104534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2022.104534
2. V. D. Pokhodenko, V. V. Skorokhod, and Yu. M. D Solonin (editors), Fundamental Problems of Hydrogen Energetics [in Ukrainian], KIM, Kyiv (2010).
3. V. R. Skalskyi, I. M. Dmytrakh, O. T. Tsyrulnyk, A. M. Syrotyuk, and O. I. Zvirko, “Development of a method for controlled hydrogen fragmentation of medium-carbon steels to reduce their crack resistance,” Strength of Mater., 55, Is. 6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11223-024-00600-4
4. M. Xie, and Z. Tian, “A review on pipeline integrity management utilizing in-line inspection data,” Eng. Fail. Anal., 92, 222-239 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.05.010
5. ASME B13.12-2019. Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines, ASME, 2020.
6. Y. Ivanyts’kyi, O. Hembara, W. Dudda, V. Boyko, and S. Shtayura, “Combined fem and DIC techniques for the 2D analysis of the stress-strain fields and hydrogen diffusion near a blunt crack tip,” Streng. of Mater., 54, Is. 2, 256-266 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11223-022-00399-y
7. Y. Ivanytskyi, Y. Kharchenko, O. Hembara, O. Chepil, Y. Sapuzhak, and N. Hembara, “The energy approach to the evaluation of hydrogen effect on the damage accumulation,” Procedia Structural Integrity, 16, P. 126-133 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2019.07.031
8. O. V. Hembara, O. M. Holian, O. Y. Chepil, V. M. Paliukh, Y. I. Sapuzhak, and I. M. Soviak, “Assessing of the life time of a shaft with a crack in hydrogen,” Mater. Sci., 59, No. 2, 191-197 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11003-024-00762-1
9. I. M. Dmytrakh, A. M. Syrotyuk, and R. L. Leshchak, “Special diagram for hydrogen effect evaluation on mechanical characterizations of pipeline steel,” J. of Mater. Eng. and Perform., 33, Is. 7, 3441-3454 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-023-08215-7
10. I. M. Dmytrakh, A. M. Syrotyuk, and R. L. Leshchak, “Specific features of the deformation and fracture of low-alloy steels in hydrogen-containing media: influence of hydrogen concentration in the metal,” Mater. Sci., 54, No. 3, 295-308 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11003-018-0186-z
11. J. W. Hanneken, “Hydrogen in metals and other materials: a comprehensive reference to books, bibliographies, workshops and conferences,” Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, 24, Is. 10, 1005-1026 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3199(98)00137-2
12. O. Barrera, D. Bombac, Y. Chen, T. D. Daff, E. Galindo-Nava, P. Gong, D. Haley, R. Horton, I. Katzarov, J. R. Kermode, C. Liverani, M. Stopher, and F. Sweeney, “Understanding and mitigating hydrogen embrittlement of steels: a review of experimental, modelling and design progress from atomistic to continuum,” J. Mater. Sci., 53, 6251-6290 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1978-5
13. L. Dong, S. Wang, G. Wu, J. Gao, X. Zhou, H.-H. Wu, and X. Mao, “Application of atomic simulation for studying hydrogen embrittlement phenomena and mechanism in iron-based alloys,” Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, 47, Is. 46, 20288-20309 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.04.119
14. I. Dmytrakh, A. Syrotyuk, and R. Leshchak, “Role of electrochemically diffusible hydrogen in the initial damage of low-alloyed pipeline steel,” Current Topics in Electrochem., 24, 27-35 (2022).
15. V. R. Skalskyi, O. M. Mokryi, O. M. Romanyshyn, and I. M. Romanyshyn, Methodological Basics of Diagnosing Structural Elements with Surface Acoustic Waves [in Ukrainian], Prostir-M, Lviv (2021).
16. H. Kwun, and G. L. Burkhardt, “Effects of grain size, hardness, and stress on the magnetic hysteresis loops of ferromagnetic steels,” J. Appl. Phys., 61, Is. 4, 1576-1579 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.338093
17. V. Uchanin, O. Ostash, G. Nardoni, and R. Solomakha, “Coercive force measurements for structural health monitoring,” in: R. M. Wilcox (editor) The Fundamentals of Structural Integrity and Failure, Nova Sci. Publ., New York (2020)., pp. 163-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2019.07.040
18. V. Uchanin, and O. Ostash, “Development of electromagnetic NDT methods for structural integrity assessment,” Procedia Structural Integrity, 16, 192-197 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2019.07.040
19. J. N. Mohapatra, A. K. Akela, S. K. Dabbiru, and M. Sambandam, “Magnetic hysteresis loop technique as a NDE tool for the evaluation of microstructure and mechanical properties of 2.25Cr-1Mo steel,” J. Nondestruct. Eval., 37, Is. 36 (2018). Article number 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10921-018-0492-2
20. Y. Li, C. Sun, K. Liu, T. Xu, and B. He, “Magnetic evaluation of heat-resistant martensitic steel subjected to microstructure degradation,” Materials, 15, Is. 14 (2022). Article number 4865. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15144865
21. V. Skalskyi, Z. Nazarchuk, O. Stankevych, and B. Klym, “Influence of occluded hydrogen on magnetoacoustic emission of low-carbon steels,” Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, 48, Is. 15, 6146-6156 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.139
22. V. I. Pokhmurskyi, I. M. Dmytrakh, M. S. Khoma, O. T. Tsyrulnyk, I. M. Zin, M. D. Sakhnenko, and Yu. S. Herasymenko, Electrochemical Methods for Monitoring of Construction Materials Degradation, in: Z. T. Nazarchuk (editor), Technical Diagnostics of Materials and Structures [in Ukrainian], Vol. 6, Prostir-M ((2017).
23. T. Bellahcene, J. Capelle, M. Aberkane, and Z. Azari, “Effect of hydrogen on mechanical properties of pipeline API 5L X70 steel,” Appl. Mecha. and Mater., 146, 213-225 (2022). https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.146.213
24. VoltaLab 40 (PGZ301 & VoltaMaster 4). Dynamic Electrochemical Laboratory, Instruction, Radiometer Analytical (2009).
25. LECO DH603. Manual, LECO Corporation, 2019. (http://www.ukrleco.com/elemental-analyzers-inorganic/index.html.)