Page 403 - Failure Analysis Case Studies II
P. 403

387
                        ranging from  10% to 40%. Then JIS  14 flat test pieces (JIS 22201) with a parallel portion of 35
                       mm were prepared and used in the tests.
                         The test pieces were precharged with hydrogen by immersing the test pieces, together with zinc
                       (2 : 1 surface area ratio), in a 15% HCI aqueous solution for 24 h at 40T, thereby forming a galvanic
                       coupling between the test piece and the zinc. As a result of this procedure, the charged hydrogen
                       content of the steel of the 30% reduction ratio test piece was 2.3 ppm, which is virtual2y the same
                       as that of the bent portion of the actual equipment. The test pieces were subjected to tensile tests at
                       ambient  temperature at constant cross-head speed (a  strain rate  of 4.8 x   sec-',  which is a
                       sufficiently low speed to evaluate hydrogen embrittlement [ 11)  immediately after being hydrogen-
                       charged and the surfaces and fractures of the test pieces were then examined.

                                      4.  EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS  AND  DISCUSSIONS
                       4.1.  Strain at bent portion
                         Strain ci on the inner side of a panel which has been subjected to bending was approximated by
                       applying the following formula [3]:




                       where R = inner radius of bent portion, t = plate thickness and AI = distance from inner surface to
                       neutral axis.
                         Then, by substituting the values applicable to the bent portion of the actual equipment (R = 1.62
                       mm, t = 2 mm) in the above formula, it is estimated that the compressive strain occumng at the
                       inner surface of  the bent  portion  was about 31%. The results of hardness  tests carried  out  on
                       specimens possessing the  various  reduction  ratios due to rolling are given in  Fig.  6. Here,  the
                       hardnesses of specimens whose reduction ratio is of the same magnitude as the compressive strain
                       (about 31%) on the inside surface resulting from the bending process are Hv = 24&280.  This is
                       about the same as the hardness (Hv = 250-300)  of the inner surface attributable  to the bending
                       process.

                       4.2.  Tensile properties
                         Using material that had been cold-rolled at various reduction ratios, tensile tests were conducted
                        on hydrogen-charged test specimens to study the effect of  reduction ratio on rupture elongation.






                                                Hardness at inner
                                                comer of  panel
                                                                          8        3
                                      260                              ,--r-""  ---I
                                                                                    t
                                      240 -       L          ---  .--
                                                                   /-#
                                                                 0.-
                                                           /*
                                       220            1/  E.
                                                     .*'
                                                      I
                                       200 c;    .-•  ,--
                                               .e*
                                       160 .
                                                      1  .  .  .  .  1  .  .  .  .  1  .  .  .  .  1  .  4
                                           0         10        20        30        40
                                                         Reduction  ratio  (%)
                                           Fig. 6. Relationship between reduction ratio and hardness
   398   399   400   401   402   403   404   405   406   407   408