外文翻译--储氢的风力涡轮机水塔

外文翻译
Hydorgen storage in wind turbine towers
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 1277–1288 Ryan Kottenstettea, Jason Cotrellb; aSummer intern from Santa Clara University, 1235 Monroe St, Santa Clara, CA 95050, USA National Wind Technology Centre, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1614 Cole Blvd, Golden, CO 80401, USA Received 18 November 2003; accepted 15 December 2003 Abstract： Modern utility-scale wind turbine towers are typically conical steel hydrogen in what we have termed a hydrogen tower. This paper examines potential technical barriers to this technology and identi4es a minimum cost design. We discovered that hydrogen towers have a “crossover pressure” at which the critical mode of failure crosses over from fatigue to bursting. The crossover pressure for many turbine towers is between 1.0 and 1:5 mPa (approximately 10–15 atm) The hydrogen tower design resulting in the least expensive hydrogen storage uses all of the available volume for storage and is designed at its crossover an additional $83,000 beyond the cost of the conventional tower) and would store 940 kg of hydrogen at1:1 mPa of pressure. The resulting incremental storage cost of $88/kg is approximately 30% of that for conventional pressure vessels. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy.
Keywords: Wind turbine; Tower; Hydrogen; Storage; Pressure vessel
1. Introduction
Low-cost hydrogen storage is recognized as a cornerstone of a renewables-hydrogen economy. Modern utility-scale wind turbine towers are typically conical steel structures that, in addition to supporting the nacelle, could be used to store gaseous hydrogen. We have coined the phrase hydrogen tower to describe this technology. During hours, electrolyzers could use energy from the wind turbines or the grid to generate hydrogen and store it in turbine towers. There are many potential uses for this stored fuel. The stored hydrogen could later be used to generate electricity via a fuel cell during times of peak demand.
This capacity for energy storage could signi4cantly mitigate the drawbacks to the Auctuating nature of the wind and provide a cost ective means of meeting peak demand. Alternatively, the hydrogen could be used for fuel cell vehicles or transmitted to gaseous hydrogen pipelines. Storing hydrogen in a wind turbine tower appears to have been 4rst suggested by Lee Jay Fingersh at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory An extension of the hydrogen tower idea is to store hydrogen in shore wind turbine towers and posibly even foundations. shore foundations are of ten monopiles which could potentially provide large amounts of storage without ecting the positioning ladder, and power electronics. A similar idea for generating and storing hydrogen in the base of a Aoating shore wind turbine was proposed by William Heronemus in the 1970s However, this study focuses on the economics and design of onshore hydrogen towers. The objectives of this paper are as follows:
(1) Identify the paramount considerations associated with using a wind turbine tower for hydrogen storage.
(2) Propose and analyze a cost ective design for a hydrogen tower.03603199/$ 30.00 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy.
(3) Compare the cost of storage in hydrogen towers to the cost of hydrogen dtorage storage in conwentional pressure vessels
There are many competitive methods of storing hydrogen such as liquid hydrogen storage, underground geologic storage, and transmission pipeline storage. However, a comparison was made only to one storage technology to limit the scope of this study. Conventional pressure vessel tech- nology was chosen because it is the most widely available of the technologies and the method most likely to be used for the moderate amounts of hydrogen storage considered in this study. This study engages these objectives within the wider wind-hydrogen system,Various balance of station costs such as transportation, licensing, and piping are therefore outside the scope of this report. This paper outlines the assumptions made during this study, outlines primary considerations associated with a hydrogen tower, highlights design characteristics of a hydro- gentower, presents several conceptual designs, and assesses the feasibility of the concept based on comparisons to con- ventional towers and pressure vessels
2. Benchmarks and assumptions
2.1. Hydrogen generation
This study assumes electrolyzers generate the hydrogen to be stored in the hydrogen towers. As will later be demonstrated, the most economical pressures for storage in hydrogen towers are below 1:5 mPa. This study assumes that proton exchange membrane (PME) and high-pressure alkaline electrolyzers can produce htdrogen up to this pressure without the use of an additional compressor
2.2. Conventional towers
We chose to use the 1.5-MW tower model speci4ed in the WindPACT Advanced Wind Turbine Designs Study as our baseline conventional tower This tower was modeled after a conventional tower built from four tapered, tubular, steel sections which are bolted together. Conventional towers are built by welding together cylingenerally decrease in steps as the tower tapers to smaller diameters at higher elevations. For simplicity, the Wind PACT tower model instead assumes the wall thickness tapers in a smooth linear fashion. The model assumes a constant tower diameter/wall thickness (d=t) ratio of 320. In order to save material costs, a highd tratio is desirable. However, forratios above 320, towers become subject to local wall buck- ling problems. Additional assumptions regarding the tower are that the diameter at the top is constrained to be at least 1=2 of the base diameter; the steel used for the tower walls has a yield strength of 350 mPa (about 50 ksi); and the cost of the tower is $1.50/kg [3]. For the purposes of this study, other costs were included, such as a personnel ladder ($10/ft), and a tower access door ($2000 4xed cost). The modeled tower is shown in Fig.1with a tabulation of critical values listed in Table1.
2.3. Conventional pressure vessels
Industrial pressure vessels for noncorrosive gases are of- ten built of carbon steel similar to that used in wind turbine tower construction. Although the most economical pressure vessel geometry is long and slender, vessels are often limited by shipping constraints to a practical length of about
25m. This length limitation means that in order to better distribute the high 4xed costs associated with 4ttings and manways, pressure vessels are designed with relatively large diameters and high pressure ratings. Although higher pressures reduce the cost per kg of stored gas, higher pressures In this paper, storage devices are often compared based on a cost/mass ratio. This ratio is the cost (in dollars) of a storage device divided by the mass of deliverable hydrogen gas stored. The cost/mass ratio is used because it is more convenient than the common practice of citing a volumetric capacity and a pressure rating for each storage device. Use of the cost/mass ratio does, however, make the given values accurate only for hydrogen storage. Deliverable hydrogen is the amount of hydrogen in the storage reservoir that can be extracted during the normal operation of the storage facility. In pressure vessels, a certain amount of gas is required to pro- vide a cushion. This is the volume of gas that must remain in the storage facility to provide the required pressurization to extract the remaining gas. In some scenarios, such as underground storage, the volume of inaccessible gas can be sign cost to In this study, the ect of this cushion gas is neglected when computing the store gaseous hydrogen because it is small when compared to other storage- related costs. In addition, this study models hydrogen as an ideal gas. This approximation is sulciently accurate for the low temperatures and pressures considered in this study.
3. Hydrogen tower considerations
Hydrogen storage creates a number of additional considerations in wind turbine tower design. Accelerated at- mosphericcorrosion on the tower interior and hydrogen embrittlement may adversely aect the tower’s ductility, yield strength, and fatigue life. Additionally, storing hydrogen at pressure signi4cantly increases the stresses on the tower. Therefore, wall reinforcement will likely be required. A structural analysis is required to evaluate how internal pressure may the tower’s design life.
3.1. Corrosion
Both atmosphericcorrosion and hydrogen embrittlement will ect the interior of a hydrogen tower. Conventional wind turbine towers are protected internally and externally from atmosphericcorrosion by paint. When a tower is used to store a pressurized gas, however, it becomes subject to the guidelines set forth in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. The code states that paint is not an adequate form of protection for the interior of pressure vessels. Enough material must therefore be added to anticipate atmospheric corrosion . Fortunately, the interior of a hydrogen tower is a controlled environment. Hydrogen from a PEM electrolyzer does not contain contaminants that cause atmospheric corrosion (of primary concern are sulfur dioxide and chlorine).
The product hydrogen (which would be fully saturated with water vapor) could be dried to below the critical humidity level (less than 80% relative humidity) at minimal cost. Under these conditions, atmospheric corrosion would penetrate the steel’s surface at the negligible rate of less than 0.01m per year
3.2. Hydrogen attack
One of the two primary modes of corrosion failure when steel is exposed to a hydrogen environment is hydrogen attack Although some sources do not distinguish hydrogen attack from hydrogen embrittlement (HE), other sources distinguish them by their diering responses to temperature. It is important not to confuse hydrogen attack, a phenomenon that occurs only at high temperatures, with HE, a phenomenon that primarily damages materials at ambient temperatures. Hydrogen attack, also known as hydrogen-induced cr acking, is a process wherein hydrogen diuses through the steel’s lattice structure, coalescing at voids and inclusions where the hydrogen reacts with the carbon present in the steel. This results in decarburization, as well as the formation of methane gas. The methane gas exerts an internal pressure, causing 4ssures or internal cracking. Hydrogen attack does not occur below 200℃; for this reason it is commonly called high-temperature hydrogen at- tack. It is anticipated that hydrogen storage in turbine towers will be at or near ambient temperatures (25℃–30℃), which are far enough below the 200℃threshold to make hydrogen attack an unlikely phenomenon.
3.3. Hydrogen embrittlement
The term hydrogen embrittlement is commonly used to describe hydrogen environment embrittlement (HEE) and internal hydrogen embrittlement. HEE is caused by subjecting metal to a hydrogen-rich environment. During internal hydrogen embrittlement, hydrogen is produced inside a metal’s structure, usually by a processing technique and is unlikely to be relevant to hydrogen towers. The term hydrogen embrittlement will refer to HEE for the remainder of this paper. HEE is a process in which atomic hydrogen (Has opposed to H2) adsorbs to a metal’s surface and cau ses brittle failure below the yield strength of an aected material. Many factors inAuence a compo- nent’s susceptibility to hydrogen embrittlement. Those factors relevant to turbine towers consist of environ- mental ects including temperature, pressure, and hydrogen purity, as well as material properties including grain size, hardness, and strength. This section explore how hydrogen embrittlement may ect a hydrogen tower. Evidence suggests that, unlike hydrogen attack, hydrogen environment embrittlement may be most severe at ambient temperatures Like hydrogen attack, however, HEE becomes more severe with increasing pressure. Test data suggests that the degree of embrittlement is proportional to the square root of hydrogen gas pressure This suggests that designing turbine towers for relatively low-pressure storage may help prevent hydrogen embrittlement. It is fortunate, therefore, that the storage pressures under consideration are only about 10% of hydrogen pipeline operating pressures. Hydrogen gas purity is another major environmental factor controlling HEE. Experimental evidence has shown that crack propagation in a stressed specimen could be controlled by the introduction of oxygen into the hydrogen environment. Investigators demonstrated that a crack propagating in a pure hydrogen environment could be stopped with the introduction of as little as 200 ppm oxygen at atmospheric pressure Because the method of H2production under consideration is via an electrolyzer, gas will be readily available. Al- though adding to H2can result in an explosive mixture, adding the necessary levels of is expected to have little ect on safety. This is because the required oxygen con- centration (approximately 200 ppm) is far above the upper combustible limit of hydrogen in oxygen (94% by volume
). Two hundred ppm oxygen in hydrogen represents only0.02% (by volume) of the oxygen required to create an explosive environment. Steel composed of larger grains with precipitates heavily concentrated along grain boundaries can also expedite HEE because they allow for easier diusion of hydrogen through the metal’s lattice structure The Sourcebook for Hydrogen Applications lists proper control of grain size as a successful measure of HEE prevention Grain size is controlled in the steel forming and treatment process. For tunately, selection of steel plate with the appropriate grain size is not anticipated to be diLcult. Increased material hardness can also magnify the ects of hydrogen embrittlement. Typically, hardness is increased by causing residual tensile str esses in a material’s surface through treatments like forging, cold rolling, or welding. Theoretically, when hydrogen adsorbs to a material’s surface, it decreases the energy required to form a surface crack The combination of these two factors facilitates the for mation of surface cracks. Tower welds are therefore particularly susceptible to HEE because rapid cooling of the welds can cause “hard spots” where carbon and other impurities coalesce. However, as a general guideline, trouble-free welds can be obtained in low-alloy steels containing up to about 0.28% carbon and to a carbon equivalent (C +14Mn) of about0.55% Steels ering the strength assumed in this study (such as S355J0 as speci4ed by British Standard EN 10025 and Grade485 steel as speci4ed by ASTM Speci4cation A 516/A) have equivalent carbon contents of 0.65% and 0.60%, respectively. These steels require preheating of the joint and the use of low-hydrogen electrodes to protect their welds from HE. Alternatively, the tower’s structural requirements could be met with thicker walls made of steels having lower carbon and manganese contents or possibly by the use of steels which meet the American Petroleum Institute speci4- cation 5L such as X70—a 70 ksi steel which is resistant to hydrogen induced cracking. Another possibility which this study does not address is the use of composite reinforcement of the tower walls. Material strength, a property related to both grain size and hardness, is perhaps the most predominant material property inAuencing hydrogen embrittlement. It has been generally observed that higher-strength steels exhibit greater loss of ductility, lower ultimate strengths, and greater propensity for delayed failure than their lower-strength counterparts when subjected to a hydrogen
environment
It is for these rea- sons that many experts suggest use of lower-strength steels for hydrogen applications. Some experts have designated an ultimate strength of 700 MPa as a benchmark, below which steels are signi4cantly less susceptible to HEE Steels commonly used for tower construction fall within this bench- mark; towers are typically constructed of a low-strength, low-carbon structural steel with yield and ultimate strengths at or below 350 and 630 MPa, respectively.
Based on the considerations outlined above, the risk of HEE does not exclude the use of wind turbine towers for hydrogen storage. It is, however, diLcult to compare the use of a wind turbine tower as a pressure vessel to more tra- ditional hydrogen applications because, unlike conventional pressure vessels, they are subjected to signi4cant dynamic loads inherent in wind turbine structures. The dynamic struc- tural loads applied to a turbine tower would serve to repeat- edly open micro4ssures, one mechanism by which HEE is theorized to propagate. Due to the potential for catastrophic failure, HEE requires more research and experimentation.
3.4. Structural analysis
Pressurizing the interior of a wind turbine tower creates unique structural demands. A pressurized tower must not only withstand loads caused by normal operation of the wind turbine, but it must also ful4ll the requirements of a pres- sure vessel. Tubular towers for modern utility-scale wind turbines are typically limited by the fatigue strength of the horizontal welds. One primary concern, therefore, is the ef- fect of pressurizing the tower on the fatigue strength of these welds. In addition, the hydrogen pressure loads must not exceed allowable margins for pressure vessels.
3.5. Loads and stresses
Wind turbines are subjected to widely varying aerodynamicloads. These loads induce large bending moments that, in turn, cause tensile and compressive stresses paral lel to the axis of the tower (axial stresses). At the base of the tower, these stresses signi4cantly exceed the compres- sive stresses caused by the weight of the turbine. Frequent, Auctuating aerodynamic loads seen during normal operation make fatigue the critical mode of failure for modern turbine towers. Subjecting a tower to internal pressure causes a very different loading scenario. Because the pressure is uniform, it causes loads
in the axial direction and in the tangential direction (hoop stresses). The hoop stresses are twice the magnitude of the axial stresses which makes the hoop stress the limiting design constraint for many cylindrical pressure vessels. These fatigue stresses di@er drastically from those caused by the Auctuating aerodynamic loads in that the pres- sure stresses occur at a much lower frequency (on the order of a few per day rather than hundreds or thousands per day). As a result, the fatigue damage from the pressure stresses is expected to be negligible compared to the fatigue damage from the aerodynamicloads.
Based on the considerations outlined above, the risk of HEE does not exclude the use of wind turbine towers for hydrogen storage. It is, however, diLcult to compare the use of a wind turbine tower as a pressure vessel to more tra- ditional hydrogen applications because, unlike conventional pressure vessels, they are subjected to signi4cant dynamic loads inherent in wind turbine structures. The dynamic struc- tural loads applied to a turbine tower would serve to repeat- edly open micro4ssures, one mechanism by which HEE is theorized to propagate. Due to the potential for catastrophic failure, HEE requires more research and experimentation.
3.6. Crossover pressure
As the pressure rating of a hydrogen tower is increased, the primary mode of failure for the tower walls crosses over from fatigue to bursting. Once this “crossover” pressure is reached, the required wall thickness is determined by the maximum allowable hoop stress, rather than axial fatigue Fig.2shows required thickness as a function of pressure for both the fatigue and burst conditions. The solid set of lines describes thickness required at the base of the tower, and the dashed set of lines describes thickness required at the top of the tower. The crossover pressure for a given tower cross section is de4ned as the point where the line describing hoop stress requirements (the line with the steeper slope) overtakes the line describing fatigue requirements (the line which is almost horizontal). Below the crossover pressure, the required tower wall thickness is determined by the fatigue line. Above the crossover pressure, the required thickness is determined by the hoop stress line. Equations of these lines can be solved at an arbitrary tower cross
section to 4nd the crossover pressure. From the ASME Pressure Vessel Code
储氢的风力涡轮机水塔
发表于《国际期刊的氢能》（29期）（2004卷：1277至1288）;
瑞安，贾森撰实习时于美国梦露圣大学， 1235年，在美国加州圣克拉拉国家可再生能源实验室，2003年11月18日
本文收稿为2003年12月15日。

摘要：
现代效用规模的风力涡轮机塔通常采用锥形钢结构，它可以用来存放工业氢气，我们都称之为氢塔。

本文探讨潜在涡轮机的技术壁垒，以这种技术，并以最低成本设计此机器。

我们发现，氢塔存在一个"交叉压力"。

其中最为关键的是疲劳断裂。

交叉压力—对许多涡轮塔是有限制的，大约为1.0和1.5兆帕斯卡（约10-15 ATM ）。

氢塔设计是在最便宜的储氢利用率前提下，来估算可用业务量的存储和成本。

其设计初衷是在小于交叉压力的前提条件下，例如：一个84米高的氢塔将为1.5兆瓦汽轮机花费额外83000美元。

它存放940公斤氢在1.1兆帕斯卡的压力下。

超出成本的传统塔设备。

由此产生，增量存储费用为88美元每千克。

关键词：风力发电机组、塔、氢气、存储压力容器。

1导言：
低成本储氢是公认的一个基准原则，一种可再生能源-氢经济。

现代效用规模中的风力发电机组的塔都是典型的圆锥形钢结构，用氢塔来形容此项技术。

电解槽可利用的能源来自风能轮机，有许多潜在的用途为这个储存燃油，储存氢气稍后可以被用来产生经电力的燃料电池，在高峰用电需求时，这些能量可以受到递减。

另外，氢气可用于燃料电池汽车或转发给气态氢管线。

它是由李杰伊在美国国家可再生能源实验室做的氢气储存在风力涡轮塔实验上总结出来的结论。

它提供大数额存储风力发电机组的部件，如电源电缆阶梯，类似的思路和储存氢气在该基地-荷兰爱因河岸上风力涡轮是一样的工作原理。

目标内容如下：
（1）确定首要考虑相关因素，使用风力发电机来储氢。

（2）提出并分析成本，适当做选择性设计
命名法：
应力幅、米、平均应力、抗拉强度、屈服强度、面积、半径、塔半径、弯矩。

（3）比较成本的存储氢塔
成本储氢在常规压力下，有许多的方法储存水力发电，比如液态氢储存，地下地质储和传输管线存储。

然而，当作一项存储技术，以用来探讨这项研究，常规压力容器技术的用简单，方便。

考虑到适量储氢。

在一项施工工程，投资方要求设计一个完整风-氢系统。

各种额费用，诸如交通，发牌、及管道。

因此，本文概述所做出的假设都是根据的，在这项研究中概述了主要的考虑因素，突出设计特色—水力发电塔，介绍了几个设计概念，并在可行性概念基础上进行比较，比较水塔及压力容器。

2 基准及假设
2.1氢气发电
这项研究假设电解槽产生水力发电的能量储存在氢塔。

于上述表示的那样，这项研究假质子交换膜和高压力碱性电解槽，可以生产氢气，在这个压力基础上，而无需使用额外的压缩机
2.2常规塔
我们选择使用1.5兆瓦塔模型，设计和研究风力发电机组，为我国基线常规塔做一个设计雏形。

此塔是模仿常规塔建成4个锥形，管状，钢型材是拴在一起。

常规塔焊接在一起成柱型路段轧制钢板。

一般步骤塔递减。

壁厚逐渐生成线性方式依次递减向上。

该模型假设恒定塔直径/壁厚(d/t)的比率为320。

为了节省材料成本的费用，直径/壁厚是可取的。

然而，对于比率高于320，塔受地基牢固的强弱的问题。

额外的假设，对于塔，直径受顶部制约，以应至少有1/2的基地直径，钢材料用来加工，在楼面的墙壁有一个收益率，强度为350兆帕斯卡。

2.3常规压力容器
工业压力容器的材料和碳素钢相似，所用的风力发电机组运转。

设以最符合经济效益，容器几何外表仍然很高大，如果像海运的话，船只经常是受航运的限制，设备要求实际长度约25m这种长度的限制，才可以在海上运输，而大多数都是设计25米长度，因为这是正规设计高度因此，随之而来的是额外的费用，所以必须降低成本，每公斤的储存瓦斯，以及高压力都需额外的压缩成本。

在本文，存储设备是有准确设计费用的，对于成本/质量比。

这个比例的费用（以美元计），存装置除以大量的实物交换氢。

荷兰的正常运行的储存设施。

在压力容器，一定量的气体，随缓冲作用。

以提供所需的加压提取剩余气。

在某些情况下，如地下储气库时，其气体无法进入的，可以计算成本储存气态氢，相对于其他存储成本。

此外，这一研究模式氢作为一种理煤气。

3 氢塔的考虑
贮氢创造了多项额外的工业耗损，部分风力发电机塔设计，加速脆化可能带来不利的影塔的固然属性有延展性，屈服强度和疲劳寿命。

此外，储存的气体水力发电时，在设计压力增加对流层的个数。

因此，地基加固将成为关键性，以用来评测内部压力对塔的设计寿命。

3.1腐蚀
发生氢脆内部的氢塔。

常规风力发电机组的塔保护，在内部和外部，当一个塔储存加压气体，必须有足够的耐腐蚀材料。

电化学腐蚀是金属与电解质溶液发生电化学作用而引起的破坏。

反应过程同时有阳极失去电子、阴极获得电子以及电子的流动（电流），其历程服从电化学的基本规律。

金属在大气、海水、，工业用水、各种酸、碱、盐溶液中发生的腐蚀都属于电化学腐蚀。

内部的氢气塔是一个氢从质子交换膜电解槽电解分离出来的，不含有污染物，侵蚀（首要是二氧化硫和氯气）。

像水汽，它可以晒干，以低于临界湿度，一级（不少于80 ％相对湿度），大气腐蚀会渗透。

钢的表面腐蚀裕度小于0.01米/每年。

3.2储氢攻击
在高温高压下，钢中的碳同渗入的氢原子反应生成甲烷，生成的甲烷又无法扩散到钢的外表面，主要集聚在金属的晶间处，最终形成高的局部压力，使金属开裂和鼓泡。

氢的腐蚀过程既可能发生在金属表面，也可以发生在金属内部（主要沿晶界）。

随着温度和压力的提高，氢对钢的腐蚀作用增强，无论是高压甲醇合成反应器还是低压合成反应器，都有氢腐蚀存在。

3.3汽蚀
汽蚀是普遍用于描述氢环境脆化的现象, 内部汽蚀是造成金属氢丰富的环境。

氢是产生内金属的结构, 通常用来加工和生产, 汽蚀是一个过程，其中的氢原子吸附到金属的表面造成脆性破坏。

涡轮塔构成环境包括温度，压力及体积，以及材料性能包括刚度，硬度，强度。

本节探讨如何发生汽蚀，在常压温度。

像放有甲醇的涡轮塔装置中，再沸器不锈钢管子的损坏通常是由于管束外壁的实际温度大大超过溶液的沸腾温度，使管束表面的液体在极短时间内爆沸气化，产生气泡，随着气泡内压的增加，气泡破裂。

由于气泡破裂对金属表面起强烈的锤击作用，不仅能破坏表面膜，而且可能损坏表面膜下的金属，促进金属的腐蚀。

在热钾碱溶液中，由于膜完整与被破坏处的金属电位相差较大，因此可以形成膜-孔腐蚀电池。

通常像氢攻击将会实施更加越来越大的压力。

试验数据会显示氢气表示一定程度的脆化，这意味着设计涡轮塔相对低气压贮藏可能有助于防止氢脆。

因此，这种储存的压力下考虑，只有约10 ％的氢气管线运行压力。

氢气纯度是另一个考虑的因素，实验证据表明，裂纹扩展，在强调标本可控制，所引进的氧气进入氢气环境，
调查表明，在纯氢气环境下可以引进少200 pm的氧气在大气压力中，由于该方法是通过一个电解槽，氢气将可随时提供。

加入微量易燃气体，导致爆炸性混合物，因为所需的氧气（约200 pm）的是远远高于可燃极限的氢气，氧气（94 ％体积）200 pm的氧与氢只代表0.02 ％（体积比）。

钢铁组成的较大颗粒沉淀集中在沿晶界也可以加快氢脆，因为它们能够更容易地通过金属的晶格结构，适当控制晶粒尺寸为衡量一个成功的预防氢脆。

晶粒尺寸控制在钢铁形成和铸造过程。

为安全起见，选择钢板与适当的型材，是提高材料的硬度。

也可以扩大氢脆现象。

通常情况下，硬度增加造成残余拉应力，在材料的表面，通过锻造，冷轧，或焊接。

从理论上说，
当氢吸附到材料的表面，它减少了所需的能量，形成表面裂纹，结合这两个观点，有利于为一些表面裂纹。

塔的焊缝，因此特别容易受氢脆，快速冷却的焊缝可能导致"硬点"，碳和其他杂质凝聚。

钢需要低氢电极，以保护它们的焊缝牢固程度。

另外，大楼的建筑结构规定，钢具有较底的碳和锰的含量。

符合美国石油学会的规定。

使用复合材料加固大楼的墙壁，正是处于这些推论，许多专家建议，使用低强度钢，极限强度为700兆帕斯卡。

根据对上列所列因素，利用风力涡轮塔作为一个压力容器，不像传统压力容器，他们受到单向动态负载，固有的风力涡轮机的结构。

涡轮机将循环将产生氢气储存、释放、再储存、释放。

这种机体循环，保证施工的安全性。

这项工程在将来将会用来更多的研究和实验。

3.4结构分析
风力涡轮塔内部有独特的结构，加压塔不能经受住负载所造成的振动能量，管状塔现代效用规模的风力涡轮机通常是有限的，由疲劳强度产生的裂纹在横向焊缝，这些最为重要。

此外，氢压负荷不得超过允许压力容器的标准。

风力涡轮机都受到不相同的风力诱导载荷。

这些载荷造成拉伸和压缩应力以及塔的轴向应力不均。

造成塔的寿命降低薄壁圆筒中各点的第一曲率半径和第二曲率半径分别是承受气体内压的回转薄壳，回转薄壳仅受气体内压作用时，各处的压力相等，压力产生的轴向力V 为
V=
即
薄壁圆筒中，周向应力是轴向应力的2倍。

3.5疲劳载荷
压力容器在交变载荷的作用下，经过一定周期发生的断裂，称为疲劳失效。

垂直裂纹主要是拉应力造成的，一般的涡轮水塔，疲劳失效一般发生在容器的轴向方向。

疲劳断裂一般有裂纹萌生、扩展和最后断裂三个阶段、疲劳载荷可以分解成平均应力和应力副，平均应力在很大程度上决定疲劳寿命，由于交变应力副，运用平均拉伸压力会增加最大拉应力，加速裂纹扩展，并缩短疲劳寿命。

纯力学性质的疲劳，应力值低于屈服点经过许多周期后才发生破坏。

如果工作应力不超过临界环应力值（疲劳极限）就不会发生疲劳破坏，而腐蚀疲劳并不存在疲劳极限，往往在很低的应力条件下亦会产生断裂。

12R ;R =∞=∞m r 20m 2prdr r p π=π⎰
3.6交叉压力
由于随着压力的上升而储氢量增加，但主要失败是是因为容器的疲劳断裂，一旦这种“交叉压力”达到小于或等于临界压力水平时，所需的墙体厚度，是由最大允许拉应力造成的，而不是轴向应力，所以有的工程设计都规定厚度作为一个随着厚度变化，产生疲劳载荷大小的一个函数，交叉压力，传统强度设计准则假设材料是无缺陷的均匀连续体，因而难以解释脆性断裂现象。

脆性断裂属于断裂力学的研究领域。

断裂力学认为材料中存在缺陷，其目的是研究缺陷在载荷和环境作用下的破坏规律，建立缺陷集合参数、材料韧性和结构承载能力之间的定量关系。

在压力容器中。

断裂力学的应用分两类：一类是指导压力容器的选材和设计；另一类是在役压力容器的安全评定，按合乎使用的原则，判断含缺陷压力容器能否继续使用。

由于泄漏是一个受众多因素，包括安装，设计，制造和校验、运行和维护等影响的复杂问题，现有的设计规范中有关密封装置或连接部件的设计多数没有泄露发生定量的关系，而是用强度或（和）刚度失效设计准则替代泄露失效设计准则，并结合使用经验，以满足设备接头的密封要求，如后面将要介绍的欧盟EN13445容器设计规范。

其附录G提供了—螺栓垫片圆形法兰的计算。

该方法是基于欧盟标准EN1514《法兰极其接头—垫片圆形法兰连接的设计准则》。

其中由2部分组成，第一部分的计算方法；第二部分为垫片参数。

该方法将为泄露失效设计准则作为法兰接头设计准则之一融入了规范，既从结构的完整性（强度）和密封性，也就是说从应力分析和密封分析两方面保证法兰组合件的使用和安全要求。

欢迎您的下载，资料仅供参考！。