ASME STP-PT-021-2008 NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING AND EVALUATION METHODS FOR COMPOSITE HYDROGEN TANKS《合成氢储罐用无损检测和评定方法》.pdf

《ASME STP-PT-021-2008 NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING AND EVALUATION METHODS FOR COMPOSITE HYDROGEN TANKS《合成氢储罐用无损检测和评定方法》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASME STP-PT-021-2008 NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING AND EVALUATION METHODS FOR COMPOSITE HYDROGEN TANKS《合成氢储罐用无损检测和评定方法》.pdf（114页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Designator: Meta Bold 24/26Revision Note: Meta Black 14/16STP-PT-021NON DESTRUCTIVETESTING AND EVALUATIONMETHODS FOR COMPOSITE HYDROGEN TANKSSTP-PT-021 NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING AND EVALUATION METHODS FOR COMPOSITE HYDROGEN TANKS Prepared by: ASME Standards Technology, LLC Digital Wave Corporation Lin

2、coln Composites TransCanada CNG Tech. LTD Date of Issuance: November 1, 2008 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by NCMS and the ASME Standards Technology, LLC (ASME ST-LLC). Neither ASME, ASME ST-LLC, nor others involved in the preparation or review of this report, nor any of t

3、heir respective employees, members, or persons acting on their behalf, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would

4、 not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference in this report to any specific commercial product, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by ASME ST-LLC or others involved in th

5、e preparation or review of this report, or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors, contributors and reviewers of the report expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of ASME ST-LLC or others involved in the preparation or review of this report, or any agency thereo

6、f. ASME ST-LLC does not take any position with respect to the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any items mentioned in this document, and does not undertake to insure anyone utilizing a publication against liability for infringement of any applicable Letters Patent, nor assum

7、es any such liability. Users of a publication are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their own responsibility. Participation by federal agency representative(s) or person(s) affiliated with industry

8、 is not to be interpreted as government or industry endorsement of this publication. ASME is the registered trademark of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written per

9、mission of the publisher. ASME Standards Technology, LLC Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990 ISBN No. 978-0-7918-3187-8 Copyright 2008 by ASME Standards Technology, LLC All Rights Reserved NDTE Methods for Composite H2Tanks STP-PT-021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . ix Abstract x 1 Test Methods

10、1 1.1 Summary . 1 1.2 Background on the NDE Techniques 1 1.2.1 Modal Acoustic Emission 1 1.2.2 Ultrasonic . 2 1.3 Lincoln Composites Pressure Vessels. 9 1.4 TransCanada/FPC Pressure Vessels 10 2 Ultrasonic Testing 12 3 Modal Acoustic Emission Testing Lincoln Tanks 14 3.1 Test Description 14 3.1.1 Te

11、st Concepts . 14 3.1.2 Tank Description 14 3.1.3 Test Setup. 15 3.2 Pre-damage Proof Testing . 17 3.3 Drilled Hole Testing 19 3.4 Cut Fibers Testing . 24 3.5 Impact Testing. 27 3.6 Vessel Damage Test Conclusions . 31 4 Modal Acoustic Emission Testing TransCanada Tanks . 32 4.1 Cycle Tests - Vessel G

12、107100007 33 4.1.1 Summary 33 4.1.2 Modal AE Equipment Settings. 33 4.1.3 Sensor Layout. 34 4.1.4 Flow Noise Waveforms 34 4.1.5 Results and Discussion. 35 4.1.6 Graph Legend. 36 4.1.7 Autofrettage Test 36 4.1.8 Cycles 1 to 2631. 36 4.1.9 Cycles 2638 to 2662. 38 4.1.10 Cycles 2670 to 5358. 39 4.1.11

13、Cycles 5358 to 7089. 40 4.1.12 Last 5000 cycles, up to 12,052. 40 4.1.13 Conclusions 42 4.2 Autofrettage Tests - Vessels G1074500004, G1074500005, G1074500006 and G1074500010 43 4.2.1 Summary 43 4.2.2 Modal AE Equipment Settings. 44 4.2.3 Sensor Layout and Coupling Check. 44 4.2.4 G1074500004 Autofr

14、ettage Test 45 4.2.5 G1074500004 AE and Volumetric Test. 45 4.2.6 G1074500005 Autofrettage Test 46 iii STP-PT-021 NDTE Methods for Composite H2Tanks 4.2.7 G1074500005 AE Test .47 4.2.8 G1074500006 Autofrettage Test.47 4.2.9 G1074500006 AE Test .48 4.2.10 G1074500010 Autofrettage Test.48 4.2.11 G1074

15、500010 AE Test .49 4.2.12 Results and Discussion .49 4.3 Autofrettage and Burst Test Vessel G107400001.50 4.3.1 Summary.50 4.3.2 Results.50 4.3.3 Modal AE Equipment Settings .50 4.3.4 Sensor Layout and Coupling Check .51 4.3.5 Autofrettage Test 51 4.3.6 Graph Legend .52 4.3.7 Burst Test52 5 Phased S

16、ensor Arrays for Modal AE Measurements .55 5.1 Introduction55 5.2 Sensor Stacking56 5.2.1 PVDF Sensors.56 5.2.2 Stacked Sensor Study Plate Geometry56 5.2.3 Location of the Source57 5.2.4 Stacked Sensor Instrumentation57 5.2.5 System Settings.58 5.2.6 Sensor Stacking Results and Discussion.59 5.2.7 A

17、perture Effects63 5.3 Phased Arrays for Modal Acoustic Emission 63 5.3.1 Initial Testing64 5.3.2 Linear Phased Array Study .64 5.3.3 Beam Steering Calculations65 5.3.4 Steel Tank Phased Array Results71 5.4 Benefits of Stacked Phased Array Sensors for MAE.75 5.5 Conclusions76 5.6 Follow-on Work.76 6

18、Hydrostatic Test Requirements 78 7 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) 81 8 Photon Induced Positron Annihilation (PIPA) .84 8.1 Defects in Composite Materials.85 8.2 Phase Contrast Analysis.85 8.3 IPA vs. PCA.86 References.87 Appendix A - Detailed Study of MAE in the 613-003 (Drop Tested) Data .88 Acknowl

19、edgments.101 Abbreviations and Acronyms .102 iv NDTE Methods for Composite H2Tanks STP-PT-021 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - TransCanada Tank Testing History 32 Table 2 - G107100007 Cycle Testing 33 Table 3 - FM-1 System Settings. 34 Table 4 - Autofrettage Testing . 44 Table 5 - FM-1 System Settings. 44 T

20、able 6 - FM-1 System Settings. 51 Table 7 - Hydrostatic Test Requirements. 78 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Computer and Amplifier/Filter Stack for Recording Modal AE Sounds. 2 Figure 2 - F-Scan X-Y Scanning Bridge 3 Figure 3 - Close-up of the Scanning Head . 4 Figure 4 - Software Screen Showing the Va

21、rious Displays During a Stiffness Scan. 5 Figure 5 - Expanded View of the Dispersion Curve Shown in Figure 4 6 Figure 6 - Laminate Properties (A, B and D Matrices) 6 Figure 7 - Composite Plate Properties Can Be Stored for Later Recall . 7 Figure 8 - Time of Flight Plot. 8 Figure 9 - Transmit and Rec

22、eive Channels 9 Figure 10 - Lincoln Composite Pressure Vessel Setup for Pressure Test with MAE 10 Figure 11 - Transcanada/FPC 40-ft. Vessel 11 Figure 12 - GTM at FPC Shows Effects of .50 Caliber Machine Gun Fire . 12 Figure 13 - Burst Test of the Fire Damaged GTM. 13 Figure 14 - Burst Test of a 10-f

23、t. GTM 13 Figure 15 - 613-0XX H2 Pressure Vessel 14 Figure 16 - 613-0XX Approximate Dimensions 15 Figure 17 - 613-0XX Sensor Circumferential Distance . 16 Figure 18 - 613-0XX Ready for Proof Test 16 Figure 19 - 613-001 Sensor Locations . 17 Figure 20 - 613-001 Before Drilled Holes . 18 Figure 21 - 6

24、13-003 Proof Before Impact 18 Figure 22 - 613-018 Proof Before Cut Damage . 19 Figure 23 - 613-001 Sensor Locations . 20 Figure 24 - 613-001 Sensor Locations . 20 Figure 25 - 613-001 Drilled Holes . 21 v STP-PT-021 NDTE Methods for Composite H2Tanks Figure 26 - 613-001 21 Figure 27 - 613-001 22 Figu

25、re 28 - 613-001 22 Figure 29 - 613-001 23 Figure 30 - 613-001 Proof with Drilled Holes23 Figure 31 - 613-001 Proof with Drilled Holes24 Figure 32 - 613-018 Fiber Cut Location .25 Figure 33 - 613-018 Fiber Cut Size 25 Figure 34 - 613-018 Membrane Cut Low Gain .26 Figure 35 - 613-018 Membrane Cut High

26、 Gain.26 Figure 36 - 613-018 Dome Cut, High Gain 27 Figure 37 - 613-003 28 Figure 38 - 613-003 28 Figure 39 - 613-003 29 Figure 40 - 613-003 29 Figure 41 - 613-003 30 Figure 42 - 613-003 Proof after Impact 30 Figure 43 - 613-003 After Impact and Burst Test.31 Figure 44 - G107100007 Sensor Layout.34

27、Figure 45 - Typical Flow Noise Signal.35 Figure 46 - Frequency Spectrum of the Flow Noise Signal35 Figure 47 - First Leak Signal 36 Figure 48 - Graph Legend.36 Figure 49 - Cycles 1 to 2631.37 Figure 50 - Cycles 1 to 2631.37 Figure 51 - Cycles 1 to 2631.38 Figure 52 - Cycles 1 to 2631 Sample Event38

28、Figure 53 - Cycles 2638 to 2662.39 Figure 54 - Cycles 2670 to 5358.39 Figure 55 - Cycles 2670 to 5358.40 Figure 56 - Cycles up to 12,05241 Figure 57 - Cycles up to 12,05241 Figure 58 - Cycles up to 12,05242 Figure 59 - End of Cycle Waveform Channel 1 .42 Figure 60 - End of Cycle Waveform Channel 2 .

29、42 vi NDTE Methods for Composite H2Tanks STP-PT-021 Figure 61 - Sensor Layout for Autofrettage Testing 45 Figure 62 - G1074500004 Autofrettage Test . 45 Figure 63 - G1074500004 AE and Volumetric Test 46 Figure 64 - G1074500005 Autofrettage Test . 46 Figure 65 - G1074500005 AE Test 47 Figure 66 - G10

30、74500006 Autofrettage Test . 47 Figure 67 - G1074500006 AE Test 48 Figure 68 - G1074500010 Autofrettage Test . 48 Figure 69 - G1074500010 AE Test 49 Figure 70 Sensor Layout for Burst Test 51 Figure 71 - Autofrettage Test . 52 Figure 72 - Graph Legend 52 Figure 73 - Burst Test. 53 Figure 74 - Burst T

31、est. 53 Figure 75 - Plate Geometry 57 Figure 76 - FM1 Modal Acoustic Emission (MAE) Data Acquisition and Analysis System 58 Figure 77 - Stacked PVDF Sensors on the ABS Plate . 59 Figure 78 - Stacked PVDF Sensors Compared to B1025 and B225-5 Sensors 60 Figure 79 - Stacked PVDF Sensors Compared to the

32、 B1025 Sensor. 60 Figure 80 - Serial Wiring of the PVDF Transducers to Increase the Voltage Output 61 Figure 81 - PVDF Stacked Sensor Analog Output. 61 Figure 82 - PVDV Responses from Figure 81 and Comparison with the B1025 Output. 62 Figure 83 - PVDF Analog Summation Versus the Digital Summation of

33、 the Sensor Stack 62 Figure 84 - A Schematic of Phased Array Detection and Source Location . 64 Figure 85 - Array Geometry and Coordinate System. 65 Figure 86 - 0 Degree Lead Break Results Directional Rays 66 Figure 87 - 0 Degree Lead Break Results Non Time-Shifted . 67 Figure 88 - 0 Degree Lead Bre

34、ak Results Time-Shifted . 67 Figure 89 - 45 Degree Lead Break Results Directional Rays 68 Figure 90 - 45 Degree Lead Break Results Non Time-Shifted . 68 Figure 91 - 45 Degree Lead Break Results Time Shifted 69 Figure 92 - 90 Degree Lead Break Results Directional Rays 69 Figure 93 - 90 Degree Lead Br

35、eak Results Non Time-Shifted . 70 Figure 94 - 90 Degree Lead Break Results Time-Shifted . 70 Figure 95 - Tank and Array Used for the Phased Array Tests . 71 vii STP-PT-021 NDTE Methods for Composite H2Tanks Figure 96 - (12, 12) Lead Break Position, Directional Rays.72 Figure 97 - (12, 12) Lead Break

36、 Position, Time Shifted Waveforms .72 Figure 98 - (6, 12) Lead Break Position, Directional Rays.73 Figure 99 - (6, 12) Lead Break Position, Time Shifted Waveforms .73 Figure 100 - (12, 24) Lead Break Position, Directional Rays.74 Figure 101 - (12, 24) Lead Break Position, Time Shifted Waveforms .74

37、Figure 102 Application of Phased Arrays75 Figure 103 - Path 1 in Long Seam Weld for Fatigue Data. Path Starts at the Vessel ID.81 Figure 104 - Path 2 in Long Seam Weld for Fatigue Data. Path Starts at the Vessel OD .82 Figure 105 - Path 3 in Long Seam Weld for Fatigue Data. Path Starts at the Vessel

38、 ID.82 Figure 106 - Stress Path Across Offset Shell to Head Weld.83 Figure 107 - 613-003 12.5 ksi Proof Test after 6-ft. Drop88 Figure 108 - 613-003 P to 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. Drop 89 Figure 109 - 613-003 P to 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. Drop 89 Figure 110 - 613-003 P to 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. Drop 90 Figure

39、111 - 613-003 P To 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. Drop.90 Figure 112 - 613-003 P To 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. Drop.91 Figure 113 - 613-003 P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop.92 Figure 114 - 613-003 P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop.92 Figure 115 - 613-003 High Gain Test to P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop .93 Figure 116 - 613-00

40、3 High Gain Test to P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop .94 Figure 117 - 613-003 High Gain Test to P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop .95 Figure 118 - 613-003 High Gain Test to P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop .95 Figure 119 - 613-003 High Gain Test to P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop .96 Figure 120 - 613-003 High Gain

41、Test to P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop .97 Figure 121 - 613-003 High Gain Test to P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop .98 Figure 122 - 613-003 High Gain Test to P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop .99 Figure 123 - 613-003 High Gain Test to P= 12.5 ksi after 6-ft. drop .100 viii NDTE Methods for Composite H2Tanks ST

42、P-PT-021 FOREWORD The report is the result of a collaborative research project sponsored by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Inc. (NCMS) and performed under Collaborative Agreement Number 200589-130163. Project participants included ASME Standards Technology LLC, Digital Wave Corporat

43、ion, Lincoln Composites and TransCanada CNG Tech. LTD. The project participants provided matching contributions of labor and expenses to the project. It is anticipated that automotive fuel tanks with a capacity of 10,000 psi compressed hydrogen will be required in order to commercialize fuel cell ve

44、hicles (FCVs). The infrastructure supporting refueling of these vehicles will require storage, transportation and portable pressure vessels with operating pressures up to 15,000 psi compressed hydrogen. Due to cost and weight constraints, the use of composite pressure vessels will be a critical new

45、technology to enable the development of the FCV fuel tanks and the supporting hydrogen infrastructure. New code rules will be required to enable commercialization of the technology and achievement of the DOE hydrogen program goals. Destructive burst pressure tests are conducted by composite pressure

46、 vessel manufacturers to verify the integrity of their products and to meet existing rules. These destructive tests are costly, require significant time to perform and must be performed under strict safety guidelines by trained personnel. Destructive testing increases overall manufacturing cost in t

47、he form of parts, labor, equipmenthydraulic volume tanks, safety equipment (burst chambers), employee training, insurance premiums, designated facilities, etc. Additionally, destructive testing also increases lead times, further making manufacturers less competitive. These tests are often conducted

48、more than once as test results from a single pressure burst test are not considered sufficient for a single design or lot. Although this may still be cost effective for manufacture of orders for multiple duplicate composite pressure vessels, this may be cost prohibitive for single or custom pressure

49、 vessel orders. Non-destructive testing evaluation methods can substantially reduce manufacturing cost by eliminating extensive and costly testing periods. The non-destructive evaluation methods, Acoustic Emission (AE) and Modal AE, proposed for hydrogen applications are transferable to other industries (petrochemical, aerospace, military, medical and energyLPG and natural gas) and have been used in leak detection applications for years with media such as petroleum, helium, water, air, oxygen, nitrogen and other gases. Established in 1880, the American Socie