Advertisement

Corrosion Fatigue Behavior of Austenitic Stainless Steel in a Pure D2O Environment

  • L. Yu
  • R. G. BallingerEmail author
  • X. Huang
  • M. M. Morra
  • L. B. O’Brien
  • D. J. Paraventi
  • V. S. Smentkowski
  • P. W. Stahle
Conference paper
Part of the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series book series (MMMS)

Abstract

Corrosion fatigue crack growth rate tests were performed at 288 °C in high purity, deuterated water (D2O), and crack tips were examined for the presence of deuterium (D). A sample from the interior of the specimen (1T-CT) was analyzed for D and total D+hydrogen (H) using time of flight-secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) and hot vacuum extraction. With SIMS, two regions 500 × 500 µm in size were analyzed. The first region was located immediately in front of the crack tip. The second region was a control, and was 6 mm away from the plastic zone. The deuterium concentration was found to be enhanced by a factor of 8.7–9.3 over the natural abundance in the plastic zone/crack tip while the concentration was enhanced by 5.9 in the bulk material. With no other source of deuterium, the detection of deuterium represents a unique marker. These data also provide evidence that hydrogen species are concentrated at the crack tip in fatigue crack growth processes at elevated temperature.

References

  1. 1.
    B. Alexandreanu et al., Environmentally Assisted Cracking in Light Water Reactors, 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O. Chopra W. Shack, Review of the margins for ASME code fatigue design curve—effects of surface roughness and material variability. Tech Rep NUREG/ CR6815, ANL-02/39. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2003Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y. Murakami, T. Kanezaki, Y. Mine, and S. Matsuoka, Hydrogen embrittlement mechanism in fatigue of austenitic stainless steels. Metall. Mater. Trans. A Phys. Metall. Mater. Sci. 39A(6), 1327–1339 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.C. Sobotka, R.H.D. Jr, P. Sofronis, Effects of hydrogen on steady, ductile crack growth: computational studies. Int. J. Solids Struct. 46(22–23), 4095–4106 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    I.M. Robertson, The effect of hydrogen on dislocation dynamics. Eng. Fract. Mech. 64(5), 649–673 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Barnoush, Hydrogen Embrittlement, Revisited by In Situ Electrochemical Nanoindentation, Universität des Saarlandes, 2007Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.A. Oriani, Hydrogen embrittlement of steels. Ann. Rev. Mater. Sci. (1978)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K.J. Choi, T. Kim, M.J. Choi, in Effects of Dissolved Hydrogen on Crack Growth Rate of Warm-Rolled 316L Austenitic Stainless Steel in Primary Water Condition, Proceedings of the ASME 2015 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference PVP2015, 2015Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S.P. Lynch, Mechanisms of Hydrogen Assisted Cracking-A Review, in Hydrogen Effects on Material Behavior and Corrosion Deformation Interactions (TMS, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 2003), pp. 449–466Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Saintier, T. Awane, J.M. Olive, S. Matsuoka, Y. Murakami, Analyses of hydrogen distribution around fatigue crack on type 304 stainless steel using secondary ion mass spectrometry. Int. J. Hydrogen Energ 36(14), 8630–8640 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A.M. Brass, J. Chene, A. Boutry-Forveille, Measurements of deuterium and tritium concentration enhancement at the crack tip of high strength steels. Corros. Sci. 38(4), 569–585 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    L.B. O’Brien, R.G. Ballinger, D.J. Paraventi, L. Yu, Y. Maruno, P.W. Stahle, The Effect of Environment, Chemistry, and Microstructure on the Corrosion Fatigue Behavior of Austenitic Stainless Steel in High Temperature Water. in 17th International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems, 2015Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.C. Cipolla, W.H. Bamford, in Technical Basis for Code Case N-809 on Reference Fatigue Crack Growth Curves for Austenitic Stainless Steels in Pressurized Water Reactor Environments. Proceedings of the ASME 2015 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference PVP2015, 2015, pp. 1–12Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Suresh, Fatigue of Materials, Second edn. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Horibe, M. Kobayakawa, Deuterium abundance of natural waters. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 20(3–4), 273–283 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Zajec, V. Nemanič, Hydrogen pumping by austenitic stainless steel. J. Vac. Sci. Technol A Vac Surf Film 23(2), 322 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Moss, G.S. Was, Determination of the nickel/nickel oxide phase transition and Henry’s constant in hydrogenated subcritical and supercritical water. J. Electrochem. Soc. 162(1), C35–C41 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Arbab, in The Influence of Desorption Kinetics, vol. 29 (1987), pp. 1–19Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Katsuta, K. Furukawa, Hydrogen and deuterium transport through type 304 stainless steel at elevated temperatures. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 18(2), 143–151 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    W.J. Mills, in Accelerated and Retarded Corrosion Fatigue Crack Growth Behavior of 304 Stainless Steel in an Elevated Temperature Aqueous Environment. 16th International Conference on Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems—Water Reactors, 2013Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. San Marchi, T. Michler, K.A. Nibur, B.P. Somerday, On the physical differences between tensile testing of type 304 and 316 austenitic stainless steels with internal hydrogen and in external hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energ 35(18), 9736–9745 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Panteli, D.R. Tice, Mechanistic Studies on Environmentally-Assisted Fatigue Crack Growth in Light Water Reactor Environments, 2016, pp. 12–15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Yu
    • 1
  • R. G. Ballinger
    • 1
    Email author
  • X. Huang
    • 1
  • M. M. Morra
    • 2
  • L. B. O’Brien
    • 3
  • D. J. Paraventi
    • 4
  • V. S. Smentkowski
    • 2
  • P. W. Stahle
    • 1
  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.GE-Global Research CenterNiskayunaUSA
  3. 3.Naval Nuclear LaboratoryNiskayunaUSA
  4. 4.Naval Nuclear LaboratoryWest MifflinUSA

Personalised recommendations