Image courtesy of Murray Robertson©
Contents 

1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. ii 

2. Keynote Addresses 

2.1 Welcome (David McColskey, NIST).......................................................... 1 

2.2 Overview of NIST & mission (Stephanie Hooker, NIST) ........................... 3 

2.3 NIST Hydrogen Program (Richard Ricker, NIST)....................................... 6 

2.4 Government Hydrogen Research (Tim Armstrong, DOE)........................... 14 

2.5 Government Hydrogen Research (Jim Merritt,DOT/PHMSA)................... 31 

2.6 Codes and Standards (Lou Hayden, consultant).......................................... 39 

2.7 Workshop Goals & Breakout Sessions (Tom Siewert, NIST) ..................... 54 

3. Working Group Reports 

3.1 Materials.................................................................................................... 62 

3.2 Test Techniques & Methods...................................................................... 64 

3.3 Codes and Standards & Safety.................................................................... 73 

4. Agenda ................................................................................................................... 78

5. Registered Attendees ............................................................................................... 80 

i
Executive Summary

In 2007, the National Institute of Standards and Technology greatly expanded its efforts

in support of the use of hydrogen as a fuel. To obtain user feedback on plans for a facility to

evaluate and refine mechanical testing procedures for hydrogen pipelines, we held a workshop in

Boulder, Colorado on August 21 and 22, 2007.

The workshop had 46 participants representing pipeline owners, industry and standards

organizations, academic researchers, national laboratories, and government agencies. The

workshop began with presentations on NIST (its mission and capabilities), the proposed NIST

program on materials compatibility with hydrogen, activities in other government organizations

(DOE and DOT), current standards activities and needs for supporting data (especially in

ASME), and a description of the roadmap desired from the workshop. Next, the attendees

divided into three working groups:

Materials – chaired by Brian Somerday, Sandia National Laboratory-Livermore, 

Test Techniques and Methods – chaired by Andrew Duncan, Savannah River National

Laboratory, and

Codes, Standards, and Safety – chaired by Lou Hayden, consultant.

At the end of the first day, we heard a short report from each group (to compare

approaches and the standards and data needs being identified by each group). We continued the

breakout sessions on the second day, and then met to summarize the findings and develop an

overall list of needs. While detailed lists of all the needs are included in the reports of each

group, the combined participants reviewed only the top three needs identified by each group and

then ranked them in descending order of importance. These were:

Materials

Develop advanced tools (measurement techniques, analytical methods, and

models) 

Focus on current construction linepipe steels, with strengths under X70 (rather

than other alloy types)

Assess the performance of girth welds (and HAZ)

Test Techniques and Methods

Complete the NIST Test Facility (following detailed guidance listed in the group

report)

Conduct a round robin (to assess repeatability between various hydrogen

laboratories)

Measure the performance of components (both fiber and matrix in composite

linepipe materials as well as welds and their heat affected zones in welded

linepipe steel)

Codes and Standards

Measure the performance of current pipeline construction materials (especially

those in current use such as API-X52 and SA106B)

Study the effect of pressure 

ii
Evaluate the effect of microstructure

Evaluate non-metallic pipe (while just outside a top-three ranking, a topic the

group felt could not be overlooked)

While most participants felt that 1.5 days for the workshop was too short to complete all tasks

necessary for a thorough program plan, the recommendations made in the workshop sessions

gives NIST a clear picture as to its necessary course of action with regards to pressurized

hydrogen testing of linepipe steels, composite linepipes, and their associated components.

Acknowledgements

The Editors appreciate the contributions of the Presenters, the Working Group Leaders

(Andrew Duncan, Lou Hayden, and Brian Somerday), the Recorders who keep the notes of the

groups (Jenny Collins, Kamalu Koenig, Angelique Lasseigne, Andy Roubidoux, and Matt

Treinen), and the Conference Support Staff (Wendy McBride, Marc Dvorak, and Ross Rentz).

iii
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 1
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 2
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 3
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 4
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 5
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 6
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 7
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 8
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 9
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 10
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 11
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 12
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 13
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 14
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 15
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 16
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 17
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 18
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 19
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 20
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 21
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 22
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 23
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 24
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 25
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 26
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 27
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 28
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 29
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 30
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 31
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 32
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 33
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 34
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 35
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 36
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 37
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 38
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 39
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 40
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 41
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 42
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 43
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 44
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 45
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 46
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 47
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 48
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 49
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 50
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 51
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 52
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 53
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 54
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 55
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 56
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 57
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 58
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 59
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 60
NIST Workshop on Materials Test Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

NISTIR 6649 Page 61
3.1 Breakout Session: Materials

Session Chair: Brian Somerday (SNL/CA)

August 22, 2007

Attendees:

Tim Armstrong (ORNL) Martin Prager (Materials Properties Council)

Dorian Balch (SNL/CA) Richard Ricker (NIST)

Elizabeth Drexler (NIST) Joe Slusser (Air Products)

Chris McCowan (NIST) Petros Sofronis (Univ. Illinois)

Jim Merritt (DOT) Samuel Vasquez (El Paso Corp)

Govindarajan Muralidharan (ORNL) Kevin Widenmaier (TransCanada)

Dave Olson (Colorado School of Mines)

The objective of the materials breakout session was to identify a set of goals related to testing of

structural materials for hydrogen transportation. A list of priorities was then created for each

goal. The end result was an outline consisting of three overall goals and a detailed list of

priorities under each goal. 

Goal 1: Test relevant materials in hydrogen transportation infrastructure

Linepipe steels

§ Current best practice, industry standard steels with low strength (less than X70)

§ Current best practice, industry standard steels with high strength (greater than X70)

§ Steels currently in the ground

Materials used in components associated with pipeline (valves, compressors, fittings)

Linepipe composites

Storage vessel materials

Pressure manifold component materials (e.g., stainless steels)

Goal 2: Consider important variations in materials

Welds (fusion zone, heat-affected zone)

§ Field (girth) welds

! Current industry practice (single pass, multiple pass)

! Repair procedures for welds

! Future practices (e.g., friction stir welds, hybrid laser gas metal arc welds)

§ Manufacturing (seam) welds

! Current industry practice (single pass, multiple pass)

! Repair procedures for welds

! Future practices (e.g., friction stir welds, hybrid laser gas metal arc welds)

Base metal: assess allowable range of variables

§ Hard spots

§ Microalloying

§ Heat treating

§ Strength range within specification

NISTIR 6649 Page 62
§ Chemical banding

§ Impurity elements such as phosphorus and sulfur

Note: the above list depends on variations created by best practices

Residual stress

Goal 3: Develop advanced tools

Develop physical models to understand important phenomena for materials in hydrogen

transportation infrastructure (e.g., hydrogen transport in materials with gradients, structureproperty relationships, behavior of coatings)

§ Convene workshop to foster interdisciplinary approach

§ Collect information on line pipe steel failures related to hydrogen

NISTIR 6649 Page 63
3.2 Breakout Session: Test Techniques and Methods 

Session Chair: Andrew Duncan, Savannah River National Lab

Attendees: 

Dorian Balch (Sandia-Livermore)

Robert Burgess (NREL)

Ian Cannon (Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne)

Jenny Collins (Colorado School of Mines)

Phillippe Darcis (NIST)

Andrew Duncan (SRNL)

Zhili Feng (ORNL)

Walter Gerstle (Univ. New Mexico)

Kevin Klug (CTC)

Zvi Livne (NIST)

David McColskey (NIST)

Aryeh Meisels (Pratt & Whitney

Rocketdyne)

Kevin Nibur (Sandia-Livermore)

Steve Pawel (ORNL)

David Pitchure (NIST)

Avi Shtechman (NIST)

Paul Tibbals (Pacific Gas & Electric)

Summary: 

Initially, the panel began by discussing the six questions that were introduced as primary

questions. The discussion was couched within the scope of the presentations from the previous

morning. Specifically, the data needs for consensus codes and standards which were: tensile

properties, fracture toughness, Kth, fatigue crack growth rate in base metal and welds for piping

alloys with specified minimum yield below 70 ksi. In addition, properties for alloys intended for

use in consumer distribution/refueling systems would also be desirable (SA 372, 316L). An

understanding of the role of microstructure, purity and test environment on properties was

emphasized to the panel. 

Based on the panel discussions, three critical needs in the area of test methods were identified for

the community to address in order to further the potential for a hydrogen based infrastructure. 

They are listed in order of importance. 

3 Critical needs/Areas of required development/Deficiencies

1. Testing capabilities for the new test facility at NIST

Scale

Materials from pipe sizes: 4” to 48” (up to 1” wall thickness)

Base Metal & Welds

Archive and New

Environment

High purity hydrogen (up to 6-9’s)

Evacuation and purge capability

Air or inert gas, as well

Loading Rate

NISTIR 6649 Page 64
Down to slow strain rate (i.e., 10 /s) -7

Pressure

Overlapping testing capabilities between labs would be good, 

Don’t want to limit to just pipeline materials (i.e., major data need is 316 stainless steel)

up to 20ksi in small (1 liter) chamber

NIST large chamber (15” dia. X 30”) unique in the country

Temperature

-40F to 300F

What happens if there is thermal cycling?

-80 C for oil and gas in artic- lots of issues just with carbon steel, 

-(Consensus: !40C would be the highest minimum temperature)

-40F to 300F in small chamber

-only room temperature to 300 F in large chamber

-threshold tests without feed-throughs are easier for temperature control 

Major data needs 

TensileThreshold – results usually independent of method, eliminates many problems such as

strain rate, easier, but how do you set initial load? – use multiple specimens, need

additional separate test chamber?

FractureLEFM, Elastic-plastic FM? 

FatigueNumber of Repeats How many specimens? Depends on how reliable you want to be

(undecided)

Test capabilities should support the validation and further development of consensus codes and

standards (e.g., ASME B31.12)

2. Inter-laboratory cooperation/ test program

Cross-compare test results/ test methods

-purging, sample machining, hydrogen purity

Understand test methods/results

Compare laboratory abilities

For example: choose same sample, and compare test methods

See what test procedures need to be identical, what can be varied from lab to lab

w/o changing results

Is there really a benefit if manufacturers will be self-certifying materials?

Testing hydrogen concentration in material is possible

Testing hydrogen gas purity 

3. Component Testing

Composites-piping, FRP 

Running cracks might not be an issue

Develop validation approach for tests

Standardized tests for component testing?

Generate properties for welds, joints

NISTIR 6649 Page 65
Synopsis of Breakout Session for Test Techniques and Methods:

Meeting Notes from August 21: 

Initial questions that were posed to the panel for discussion were:

Which attributes have adequate techniques?

Which attributes do not have adequate techniques?

In-Chamber instrumentation for properties and load measurements?

Effects of impurities in H2? How to measure gas concentration levels? To what

accuracy?

Purging (purity) techniques?

Testing environment? 

Sample Geometry?

Comments were gathered from around the room on why it is difficult to compare results

from different studies on the same materials. 

Measuring hydrogen-the panel felt that a major reason for this is that inconsistent

experimental techniques result in different hydrogen contents in the sample during

testing. For example, some studies charge their samples in high pressure gaseous

hydrogen for various lengths of time, while other charge their samples

electrochemically. A need that was put forth was for the ability to sample the

hydrogen concentration in the alloy. This is sometimes done by plating the sample

with a metal resistant to H diffusion (e.g., Cu, Sn), charging the sample and then

sending it out for chemical analysis. Other studies assume an equilibrium

concentration in the metal for charging conditions. In any case, a method to

quantify H in metal BEFORE testing would be highly desirable. One such method

was suggested by a panel member:

1. Angelique Lasseigne at NIST is working on non-destructive, contact and noncontact (ideal) methods. She’s saturating samples and measuring how much is

in samples by non-contact induced current impedance measurements. The

technique could be adapted to perform H content measurements on samples,

in-situ. 

§ Ref. her PhD thesis on thermo-electric power to determine hydrogen

content (Colorado school of mines) and a paper given at QNDE 2006.

§ Limitations and topics still to be worked out include: need to

demonstrate the in-situ measurement, effect of pressure on equipment,

need to make standards first to calibrate.

§ Benefits: simple and cheap ($5,000 for entire unit) 

Hydrogen Transport Phenomena: It was mentioned that the equilibrium hydrogen

in the lattice amounts for only a small amount of hydrogen in the sample. A need to

understand the role of traps/sinks, interfaces and strain on hydrogen content is

important.

1. Trapping, diffusivity, and permeability measurements? 

NISTIR 6649 Page 66
2. Concentration throughout lattice can vary at traps and crack tips, saturation?

(Thus “Equilibrium” is nebulous)

3. Time constants (scale) sec, min, hours

4. Surface effects can also play a large role. 

§ What happens to H in a “used” pipeline? Welds? Moisture?

Corrosion? Etc? (Paul Tibble)

5. Concentration gradients my also be important.

§ It would be interesting to try to simulate H gradient in wall thickness

of a regular pipeline (Zvi Livne)

Baseline Test Parameters: Their does not appear to be a standard procedure for

previous H testing (exc. slow strain rate test as per ASTM G129). Baseline ASTM

Standards for mechanical testing can be adapted for hydrogen testing (ref. Lou

Hayden presentation from morning session), however certain parameters should be

tightly controlled. How can we provide this?

o Q: What are the important parameters to keep constant? 

A: 2 Environment of baseline tests (helium, N , air?), charge time? (sec, min,

hours), Environmental Purity? (4-9’s, 5-9’s, 6-9’s), surface cleanliness,

surface roughness, sample geometry, strain rate (10 -10 /sec) -4 -7

o Q: What parameters are important to determine the impact on varying on

properties. 

A: Pressure Range (0-3000 psi), Temperature (-40 to 300F, but emphasis on

ambient temperature), surface cleanliness, contaminants, surface roughness,

sample geometry.

o Q: What do the codes and standards people need? 

A: The C&S need certain properties for validation of the design approach in

Option A for given materials in hydrogen and benign environments (minimum

specified YS, UTS & ductility to failure). For validation of Option B (i.e., KD-10)

th approach they need fatigue crack growth rates, K values and fracture properties

for given materials in hydrogen and benign environments. 

Test Methods: certain methods for hydrogen testing need to be standardized. Concerns

over the effect of hydrogen environment/ temperature on testing techniques were raised 

§ Cathodic charging and Gaseous charging

1. Cathodic charging is an established technique though

frequently it is not applied correctly to control hydrogen

content (R. Ricker) 

2. Gaseous charging is sensitive to gas purity and contaminants

on surface of sample. 

§ Pre-test characterization (hydrogen measurement)

§ Instrumentation measurements during test 

hydrogen may cause drift in sensor readings

temperature may cause the same

1. strain gage (open foil vs. closed foil)

2. clip gage extensometer (MTS makes clip gage for hydrogen

environments Model # 632.03) 

NISTIR 6649 Page 67
3. piezo-electric load cell internal vs. external

4. bolt-on LVDT for crack opening displacement

5. heating can be performed by induction coil (thereby

minimizing the thermal load to which the instruments/vessel

are subjected: A. Meisels).

§ Post-test analysis and interpretation

Consensus: technology has been developed that would allow accurate measurement

prior to, during and after testing. The laboratories/ experimentalists must consistently

implement this technology to generate data that can be effectively

compared/contrasted between facilities. It would be a good idea to create a matrix of

capabilities of each laboratory. A correlation between established charging

techniques (gas pressure vs. cathodic charging) for classes of materials would be

important. It was agreed that collaboration between laboratories is important. 

Exchange samples between laboratories (compare data with at least some amount

of overlap) 

See if data trends can be duplicated

Are all load frames or type of load frames the same?

Actual component testing (Valuable Capability for NIST)

- pressure/depressurization of new and an old “real world” pipeline

- allow for validation and usefulness of laboratory testing

- find trouble spots that may not have otherwise been observed

Tensile Tests- ASTM E 8 and E 338

Strain rate an important parameter to control (10e-3/sec is conventional test)

10e-4 to 10e-6/sec would be more applicable but slower is better (within reason).

Fatigue Testing- ASTM E 647

High frequency testing is NOT representative since low frequency (0.5-1Hz)

fatigue promotes hydrogen embrittlement. Need to identify maximum frequency

allowable.

Are there accelerated tests that can be done?

Consensus: Before we can address frequency, we first need a better

understanding of H diffusion rates (which includes trapping, diffusion along

grain boundaries, diffusion through the grains), permeability, etc. (hopefully

Sofronis' work will provide insight). Until then, slower is better (within reason)

or the frequency that shows worse case.

Some discussion about needing S-N curves rather than just crack growth rate

occurred but no clear consensus was achieved. 

Fracture Testing - ASTM E 1820 and E 399

Standards appear to be comprehensive enough

How to test fracture toughness on weldments?

NISTIR 6649 Page 68
C-shape specimen (ASTM E399), cut specimen out of pipe and grow a crack, can

take sections out of a girth weld

WOL Testing for K – th ASTM E 1681

Standards appear to be comprehensive enough

Short Rod test ASTM E 1304 may be useful for this data

- used in short, transverse tests, there is a standard for it.

C-shape specimen (ASTM E399) may be useful, as well.

Environmental Parameters during testing

Hydrogen Charging: Electrochemical vs. Gas

Ricker believes that a gas system is necessary to accurately emulate service

conditions especially the effects of gas purity and surface reactions. 

However, since properly controlled electrochemical charging can be used to

reproducibly charge samples with homogenous distributions of hydrogen, he

believes that laboratories studying microstructural effects need not use gas

phase charging. He will be working with NIST-Boulder to compare. Once

hydrogen is in sample, it doesn’t matter where is came from

-A. Lasseigne: cathodic charging results in saturation sometime as much as

3X lower than with gas charging

-R. Ricker: surface contamination issues may play a role in cathodic

charging, as in gas phase charging

Is it only the hydrogen that is in the material is contributing to

embrittlement? Stress-intensity issues? 

A good idea to make a list of scenarios of pipeline failures due to hydrogen

and simulate those environments in test environment.

Hydrogen concentration charging from one side of the sample would be

interesting to compare to hydrostatic charging

We should re-visit some of these old H diffusion testing (work on permeation

is ongoing at ORNL and SRNL) 

What is an adequate number of purging cycles to maintain bottle purity in the

vessel? (2, 5, 10?)

o Sandia-Livermore recommends 3 He followed by 3 H purge 2

cycles w/full evacuation in between using 6-9’s purity hydrogen.

o SRNL currently does 2 Ar and 2 H using 5-9’s purity hydrogen 2

and felt that 6-9’s was overkill for carbon steels.

o Others are somewhere in between.

The point was made by several that since we do not have a mature

understanding of the role of impurities on charging kinetics that we should

all strive for highest purity gas possible (at least initially).

Sampling before and after the test would demonstrate the equivalence or

differences of each charge method. 

NISTIR 6649 Page 69
Closing thought: Component testing may be an important need in order to characterize the

performance behavior of FRP (composite piping) and none metallic components.

What kind of testing on fiber reinforced polymer is out there?

What kind of permeation barriers (metallic liner, polymer liner, etc?) 

Meeting Notes for Aug 22nd

Discussion on testing capabilities for the new test facility at NIST

Maybe a good idea to develop a needs matrix based on what customer/stakeholder needs are: 

Where do we stop in terms of focus on testing –transmission lines, piping all the way to

household? (McColskey-NIST)

Testing needs:

All agree that composite testing leads more to full component test

What sizes are we talking about?- 4” – 48, 52” diameter w/ 1” wall 

Problems associated with higher strength steels

Thicker wall and lower strength are often chosen by designers to guard against secondary

damage rather than use high strength steels with smaller wall thicknesses

If the ASME standard degrades higher strength steels with the prescriptive design approach, why

use higher strength steels

need to get away from prescriptive method with fracture mechanics tests 

Pipeline industry is also tending toward strain based design

Focus should first be on the lower strength steels

Develop test methods/procedures to obtain necessary data for standard design methods

Test charged samples and establish test method

Do we test in Hydrogen or Air? (Consensus was Hydrogen)

Fracture-failure assessment diagram (FAD) often uses SENT test data since it is

more conservative 

Fatigue- S-N curve, or fatigue crack growth curve? (SN takes longer, but FCG

has more scatter) 

Codes and standards need to tell us what they need, and we can tell them how we

can get it (Need to find out KD-10, option B31-12, code approach test needs, i.e.,

K , to develop test program) th

NISTIR 6649 Page 70
Lower constraint of test- get results similar to actual pipe, but you get much more

scatter.

Also need to consider what type of cracking is occurring to know what should be

tested for (axial crack growth, through thickness crack growth??)

NIST plans 2 chambers for facility

1-3 liter capacity 

Larger one with 15” diameter OD x 30” tall to be able to run full wall thickness

tests

Larger chamber is beneficial to be able to meet a lot of standard specimen

geometries, and contribute to other labs that don’t have the larger chamber

capability, even if the larger chamber is at lower pressures 

Can we compare tests from natural gas pipelines to hydrogen pipelines and then see what

additional tests need to be performed?

If you test in hydrogen you know crack will grow faster than in air- what does that say about

constraint? 

May be more highly constrained because of hydrogen going to crack tip

To reduce the amount of volume inside the chamber, fill chamber with filler blocks, is this on the

right track? (Consensus was yes)

The smaller the volume of hydrogen the fewer the problems

It is often more applicable to do threshold tests than crack propagation; they more represent the

pipeline in service threshold test are often easier to perform.

NIST-Gaithersburg has a slow strain test rig that is capable of gas phase testing up to 1,000 psi

and cathodic charging and may be able to support this capability. (Ricker-NIST)

Discussion on Inter-laboratory cooperation/ test program 

Is it important to perform Round Robin testing if the KD-10 approach relies on the vendor to test

and certify the components? (Consensus is yes) 

Duplication of capabilities seems to be more beneficial; it is not encroaching on others

capabilities. 

Will enable Round Robin test/validation

Samples need to be prepared by one source

Need to standardize hydrogen gas purity & charging techniques

Need to perform test in hydrogen and compare to helium data to see the reduction

in properties 

This program would enable pooling of data and assembly of a database on

materials properties

NISTIR 6649 Page 71
We are talking about developing a national capability

NIST-Gaithersburg has a slow strain test rig and may be able to participate in RR testing that is

capable of 1,000 psi gas phase and cathodic charging. (Ricker-NIST)

Other potential organizations include ORNL, Sandia-Livermore, SRNL and NIST-Boulder (once

they’re up and running).

Reemphasize- hydrogen charging content through pipe wall is probably irrelevant to the

concentration around the crack tip.

Is the pressure relevant at the crack tip or is it more based on the hydrogen content? (LivneNIST)

Though to not depend on it highly, think there may be an upper limit where higher pressures will

not affect it any. (McColskey –NIST)

Discussion on Component Testing program 

The consensus was that the need for component testing might be a niche that NIST could fill.

FRP certification lends itself more to component testing

Component testing would enable the evaluation of joining techniques

o Welds

o Joints

Need to develop a validation approach

NISTIR 6649 Page 72
3.3 Breakout Session: Codes and Standards and Safety

Session Chair: Lou Hayden

Attendees:

Juana Williams

Thomas Gross

Steve Pawel

Paul Tibbals

Angelique Lasseigne

Objectives:

Determine how to process and evaluate data and techniques

Develop design allowables

Safety considerations for test facilities and personnel

Directives:

Identify critical test parameters for suitable test methods

Define fields that contribute to a database for hydrogen pipeline designers/operators

Define a comprehensive test plan for NIST, utilizing:

o Standardized methods

o A prioritized list of materials

Establishment of goals:

1. Testing commonly used (API 5LX52, SA106B) linepipe steel base metal and weldments:

a. For loss of ductility, loss of toughness, fatigue, low cycle and high cycle, at

varying K, da/dN, and R values.

b. Test materials over a range of temperatures to determine the scope of the

embrittlement range.

c. Support the prescriptive design method currently planned for B31.12.

d. Document and archive test results in a database.

NISTIR 6649 Page 73
Need to Know Current Knowledge? *

Base Metal

Reduction in ultimate strength Reductions are reported

Reduction in yield strength Reductions are reported

Reduction in ductility Significant reductions have been

measured

Fracture resistance (K values) Mostly unknown IH

Fatigue resistance (da/dn values) Mostly unknown

What changes when the material is

cold formed

Unknown

How does a corroded surface

affect the performance?

Unknown

Diffusion coefficients for various

microstructures and the amount of

hydrogen that gets trapped in the

matrix

Unknown?

Weld Metal

Reduction in ultimate strength Unknown

Reduction in yield strength Unknown

Reduction in ductility Unknown

Fracture resistance (K values) Unknown IH

Fatigue resistance (da/dn values) Unknown

Effect of post weld heat treatment Unknown

Heat Affected

Zone

Reduction in ultimate strength Unknown

Reduction in yield strength Unknown

Reduction in ductility Unknown

Fracture resistance (K values) Unknown IH

Fatigue resistance (da/dn values) Unknown

Effect of post weld heat treatment Unknown

NISTIR 6649 Page 74
2. a. Verify the effect of pressure on embrittlement of commonly used (API 5LX52,

SA106B) linepipe steel base metal and weldments.

b. Test up to 3000 psi

c. Test up to 15000 psi to determine the maximum pressure limit (if any) for carbon

steels.

4. a. Evaluation of microstructure of materials commonly used (API 5LX52, SA106B)

2

linepipe steel base metal and weldments for performance in H .

b. Based on (a) above, determine what changes to microstructure would improve

performance in H .2

c. Based on (a) and (b) above, determine what new alloys of C-Mn, C-Mn-Microalloy,

2

and C-low alloy can be developed to improve H performance.

4. Mitigation of hydrogen embrittlement through hydrogen additives or internal coatings.

5. Non-metallic linepipe characterization:

Permeation – Rates need to be stated for these general types of pipes

o FRP

o FRP-Lined (metallic and plastic liners)

o Plastic 

o Plastic Fiber Reinforced

Joints

o Mechanical

§ Metallic joints

§ Non-metallic joints

o Bonded – Fiber Overwrap

o Heat Fusion Welded

o Cement Welded

Composition

o FRP

§ Fiber Glass Reinforced

§ Carbon Fiber Reinforced

§ Other Fibers

Vinyl Ester

Epoxy

o Plastics

§ HDPE

§ PEX

§ Fluoro-plastics

§ Others?

Strength in bending

Pressure retaining capacity

o Burst strength (strain) at Temperature and Hydrogen Pressure

Time-related hydrogen degradation of composite material

NISTIR 6649 Page 75
o Chemical Reaction

o Delamination

o Internal Damage due to Hydrogen Accumulation

Environmental degradation (other than hydrogen)

o Ultraviolet

o Soil Chemistry

o Moisture Absorption

o Temperature (High and Low)

o Corrosion of Metallic Components (Joints)

Fatigue performance

o Specifications to be determined 

Need to Know Current Knowledge? *

Base Material

Reduction in burst strength Unknown

Reduction in flexural strength Unknown

Reduction in ductility Unknown

Fracture resistance Unknown

Fatigue resistance (da/dn values) Unknown

What changes when the material is

mechanically distorted? i.e. reeled

or kinked

Unknown

How does a degraded/altered

surface affect the performance?

Unknown

Diffusion coefficients for different

classes of materials and the

amount of hydrogen that gets

trapped in the matrix

Unknown

Joint

Reduction in burst strength Unknown

Reduction in flexural strength Unknown

Reduction in ductility Unknown

Fracture resistance Unknown

Fatigue resistance (da/dn values) Unknown

NISTIR 6649 Page 76
Discussion Notes:

Establish breakout discussion guidelines of materials, divided into three categories:

Existing metallic

Novel metallic

Nonmetallic (ASME B31.12 code doesn’t mention non-metallics at this time due to lack

of engineering data)

Based on DOE cost analysis, over 70% of pipeline of cost is the materials and labor. It is

doubtful that we are going to make hydrogen pipelines cost effective that incorporate new

materials that require alloy development and other associated costs. (This might be true if the

right of way was already in existence.)

FRP, fiber reinforced plastic, said to be the solution for low-cost/low-risk pipelines to transport

renewable energy. Capital in a material derived from nonrenewable sources and FRP is not

proven in this environment where most pipeline incidents come from third-party damage.

The highest cost in placing a pipeline is obtaining the right of way. How would you establish a

pipeline from Boston to Washington, D.C.? 

 

What prevents the establishment of a hydrogen powered car as a primary means of transport is

the underlying lack of infrastructure. The initial economically justified city-centered

development would prevent a cross-country driving trip.

How do you select a representative sample of old pipeline?

Regarding linepipe pressure levels, we started out 5 years ago at 2,000 psi and increased the

pressure to 3,000 psi after second meeting of the hydrogen code development task group.

NISTIR 6649 Page 77
NIST Workshop on Materials Test

Procedures for Hydrogen Pipelines

Dates: August 21-22, 2007

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Materials Reliability Division

325 Broadway Boulder, CO

Building 1 Room 1107

Purpose: Develop roadmap for materials, test procedures,

mechanical properties data and standards for future hydrogen

pipelines. NIST/Materials Reliability Division can use this data as

input into the research plan for the new hydrogen test facility being

constructed in Boulder.

Agenda:

August 21

8:30-8:45 Welcome: David McColskey (NIST)

8:45-9:00 Overview of NIST and its mission (Stephanie Hooker, NIST)

9:00-9:30 NIST Hydrogen Program (Richard Ricker, NIST)

9:30-10:00 Government Hydrogen Research Activities (Tim Armstrong,

DOE)

10:00-10:15 Break

10:15-10:45 Government Hydrogen Research Activities (Jim Merritt,

DOT/PHMSA) 

10:45-11:15 Codes and Standards (Lou Hayden)

11:15-11:45 Workshop goals and Breakout Sessions (Tom Siewert, NIST)

11:45-1:00 Lunch 

1:00-4:00 Breakout Sessions:

1) Materials (Leader: Brian Somerday, Sandia)

Which have adequate data?

What recent materials have been overlooked?

NISTIR 6649 Page 78
New materials in development?

Metals

Composites and plastics

2) Test Techniques and Methods (Leader: Andrew Duncan, Savannah

River National Lab)

Which attributes have adequate techniques?

Which attributes do not have adequate techniques?

In-chamber instrumentation for properties and load

measurement?

Effects of impurities in H2? How to measure gas

concentration levels? To what accuracy? 

Purging (purity) techniques?

3) Codes and Standards and Safety (Leader: Lou Hayden)

How to process and evaluate data (to develop design

allowables) and techniques.

Safety considerations for test facilities and personnel

4:00-5:00 Preliminary results from breakout sessions.

August 22

8:30-10:30 Breakout sessions (continued)

10:30-10:45 Break

10:45-12:30 Results of breakout sessions

Contact: Tom Siewert (siewert@boulder.nist.gov) (303) 497-3523 

 David McColskey (mccolske@boulder.nist.gov) (303) 497-5544

Pre-registration (mandatory) at:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/confpage/blconf.htm

Updates on agenda at:

http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Pipeline_Workshop/index.htm

NISTIR 6649 Page 79
NISTIR 6649 Page 80
NISTIR 6649 Page 81