SAND2014-16479PE

Comparison  of  Stainless  Steels  for    

High-­‐Pressure  Hydrogen  Service  
Chris San Marchi and Brian Somerday
Sandia National Laboratories

ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

Anaheim CA
July 24, 2014

Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin
Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
Mo;va;on  
•  Annealed type 316 & 316L alloys remain the
primary “material of choice” for tubing, fittings
and valves in hydrogen fuel applications
–  Low strength and high cost
–  Are there opportunities to lower cost and
maintain reliability?

•  There exists an extensive database of properties for

austenitic stainless steels in hydrogen environments
–  What does this data tell us?
–  Do other materials meet the performance needs of high-
pressure hydrogen applications?

2
Materials:  austeni;c  stainless  steels  
alloy Cr Ni Mn Mo C N

304L 18.3 8.7 1.4 0.34 0.016 0.08

316/316L 16.8 11.2 1.6 2.0 0.02 0.02

316 17.8 12.1 1.2 2.1 0.046 0.02

201LN 16.2 4.1 6.6 0.34 0.024 0.14

XM-11 20.4 6.2 9.5 NR 0.033 0.26

Nitronic 60 16.5 8.0 7.4 NR 0.071 0.14

XM-19 21.0 13.5 6.0 2.1 0.01 0.33

A-286 13.9 24.3 0.11 1.2 0.04 NR

3
Why  are  materials  such  as  304L  and  XM-­‐11  not  
considered  for  hydrogen  service?    
100 Tensile ductility for a variety of austenitic stainless steels
non-charged
H-precharged
80
Reduction of Area (%)

60

Aluminum
40

Thermal
20 precharging:
300˚C
140 MPa H2
0
316

Nitronic 60

7475
316/316L
304L

201LN

A-286
XM-11

XM-19

4
Why  is  A-­‐286  considered  appropriate  for  hydrogen  
service?    
100 Tensile ductility for a variety of austenitic stainless steels
293K

80
Reduction of Area (%)

60

40
XM-11

20 A286
201LN Nitronic 60 304 & 316 XM-19

0
4 6 8 10 12 14
Ni content (wt %)

5
Tensile  duc;lity  of  austeni;c  stainless  steels  do  not  
scale  with  strength  
100
293K
Open = air
80 Closed = H-precharged
Reduction of Area (%)

60 316/316L

Nitronic 60
XM-11 XM-19
40
Thermal
precharging:
20 304L 300˚C
A-286
140 MPa H2
201LN
0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Yield Strength (MPa)

•  Tensile ductility is not used directly in design

•  If there is no design criteria associated with tensile ductility, what
tensile ductility is necessary for pressure applications?
6
 Fracture  data  suggests  other  stainless  alloys  perform  
similar  to  316  alloys  
Fracture resistance measured in hydrogen environments
200
XM-19
Stress Intensity Factor, K H (MPa m 1/2)

316 •  Fracture resistance in

XM-11 hydrogen environments
150
XM-19 XM-11 depends on strength
JBK-75
and microstructure
316 -  not necessarily
100 IN903
XM-19 A-286 JBK-75 composition
2507
XM-19
50 JBK-75

IN903

0
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Yield Strength (MPa)

Fracture mechanics (and fracture properties) can be

used directly in the design of pressure components 7
Fatigue analysis is necessary to evaluate the
performance of materials in cyclic environments
S-N curves of H-precharged materials

Rotating
beam fatigue
R = -1
f = 50 Hz

Thermal
precharging:
300˚C
140 MPa H2

Fatigue performance of austenitic stainless steels does

not appear to be affected by H-precharging
 Performance-­‐based  assessment  suggests  that  life  is  
not  limited  by  fa;gue    
•  For moderate design life, the limiting fatigue stress is greater than the
yield strength
•  Design stresses are typically < yield strength
•  Result: very conservative designs

HH
HH

HH
300

HH
HH
HH
10 MPa He

HH
HH
10MPa H2
250 KT~3

HH

HH
HH
Stress amplitude (MPa)

T = 223K

HH
R = 0.1

HH
HH

200 f = 1 Hz HH

HH
HH
HH

150
peak stress ~ Sy Tension-tension fatigue
of standard notched
100 tensile specimen
(after ASTM G142)
50 3
10 104 105 106
Cycles to Failure
from: Michler et al. IJ Fatigue 51 (2013) 1-7. 9
How  do  we  take  advantage  of  fa;gue  performance?  
•  By increasing the strength, higher fatigue stresses can be
accommodated in design
–  Higher stress = less material
–  Less material = lower cost

Stress
Stress

solid = air solid = air

dashed = hydrogen dashed = hydrogen

Annealed Strain-hardened

yield (high-strength)

limiting fatigue stress limiting fatigue stress

yield (annealed)

design life Cycles to Failure design life Cycles to Failure

of 30,000 of 30,000

10
Preliminary  fa;gue  results  
700
f = 1 Hz
600 R = 0.1 XM-11 austenitic
Maximum cyclic stress (MPa)

stainless steel
500

HH
HH

400

HH

HH
300

HH
HH

HH
HH
200

HH

HH
HH
air

HH
HH
100 103 MPa H 2 HH
HH

HH
0 HH
4 5 6
1000 10 10 10
HH

Cycles to Failure

•  High fatigue stress can be achieved with cycles to failure

greater than 10,000 cycles
•  Broader evaluation of methodology requires testing under
combination of low temperature and high pressure
11
Preliminary  results:  internal  versus  external  H  
700
f = 1 Hz XM-11 austenitic
600 R = 0.1 stainless steel
Maximum cyclic stress (MPa)

500

400

HH
HH

HH
300

HH
HH
HH
air, KT ~ 3

HH
103 MPa H 2, KT ~ 3

HH
200

HH
air, KT ~ 6

HH
HH
100 H-precharged, KT ~ 6

HH
HH
HH
HH

HH
0
1000 104 105 106 HH
HH

Cycles to Failure

•  Available data is incomplete (inconsistency of notch acuity and

environments)
•  Initial results suggest some correlation between internal and external H
•  Data at low temperature is needed
12
Conclusions  
•  Tensile properties have limited utility for materials selection
for hydrogen service
–  Results can be misleading

•  Fracture properties suggest 316 alloys perform similar to

other austenitic stainless steels
–  Wider range of alloys and strength conditions should be considered

•  Fatigue performance in hydrogen environments suggests

that some hydrogen fueling applications may not be fatigue
limited
–  Higher-strength alloys/conditions may enable more efficient designs

13