Analytical Assessment of The Mechanical Design of A Metal Getter Bed For Hydrogen Storage

Journal of Experimental & Applied Mechanics
ISSN: 2321-516X
www.stmjournals.com
Analytical assessment of the mechanical design of a metal getter bed

for hydrogen storage
Rupsha Bhattacharyya*
Heavy Water Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai-400 085, Maharashtra, INDIA
Abstract
Compact solid state hydrogen storage systems using metal or alloy based getter beds have gained worldwide attention. The
vessels containing the metallic getter are required to operate under both external and internal pressure conditions, with
accompanying cooling and heating cycles. Thus the mechanical design of these vessels must take care of several kinds of loads,
some of which are addressed in this work. Selection of optimal dimensions, closures and suitable supports for the vessel are
considered, followed by the preliminary steady state thermal stress and seismic analyses to ensure a stable and robust
mechanical design under usual operating conditions. A method of evaluation of the cyclic loads acting on the vessel has also
been demonstrated which will be useful for fatigue analysis of the vessel. These checks are recommended at the vessel design
stage itself since they do not necessitate expenditure of large amounts of computational time, which would be required for a full
finite element based stress analysis of the vessel.
Keywords: getter bed, pressure vessel, stress analysis, cyclic loads

*
Author for correspondence: Email: rupshabhattacharyya1986@gmail.com, Tel: +91-22-2559-2962
INTRODUCTION
The extensive use of hydrogen as a fuel for the future depends significantly on the available technologies to store it.
Hydrogen immobilized on a solid matrix by physical or chemical adsorption has been used as a compact, reversible
storage technique for the gas [1]. Out of various solids available for the storage and on demand recovery of hydrogen,
metal and metallic alloy based getter materials have been studied and employed most extensively, both for automobile
applications as well as for various applications in the nuclear industry [2, 3].
The pressure vessel employed to contain the solid getter experiences a wide range of operating conditions as it goes
through hydriding and dehydriding steps. During hydriding a given quantity of gas at ambient conditions or at somewhat
elevated temperature and pressure is filled into this vessel. As soon as the hydriding reaction starts the pressure falls and
ultimately the equilibrium pressure at the corresponding hydriding temperature is attained. For various metals or alloys
like uranium, ZrCo this equilibrium pressure is in the moderately high vacuum range at near ambient conditions, with a
value of 1 atm being attained in the vicinity of 430 to 450 deg C [4, 5]. So during recovery of hydrogen, the getter
material must be heated to cause dissociation of the hydride and release the adsorbed gas. The gas can then be removed by
continuous evacuation, thus leading to creation and maintenance of vacuum conditions inside the vessel. So alternating
cycles of high pressure and low temperature followed by low pressure, high temperature are encountered by the vessel
containing the getter bed. The high pressure phase may actually be of a very short duration compared with the entire
cycle, since the reaction kinetics is very fast and the pressure drops rather rapidly during hydriding if the metal is in a
sufficiently active state [6]. So for most of the time, the vessel must withstand external pressure loads. But it must be
designed to operate safely and reliably under both sets of conditions.
It has been reported that for thermonuclear fusion reactor systems, there is a need to store various quantities of hydrogen
isotopes at the reactor site. Some of the larger vessels can contain up to 60 gm of the isotopes per vessel [7] with several
kilograms of uranium or ZrCo acting as the solid storage medium. This indicates the scale of the vessel volume
considered in this work and the vessel dimensions are determined and analysis is carried out accordingly.
JoEAM (2015) STM Journals 2015. All rights reserved
Page 1
Analytical assessment of getter bed design

Rupsha Bhattacharyya
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
This work presents an analysis of the mechanical design considerations for a getter bed vessel using analytical expressions
available in literature for cylindrical vessels. The volume of the vessel is fixed from the quantity of hydrogen to be stored.
Further mechanical details like the selection of dimensions of the vessel, the closures and the supports are subsequently
addressed through simple optimization criteria. Thermal stresses and seismic loads are addressed next to ensure that the
design is robust and safe. Cyclic loads acting on the vessel and fatigue issues are also addressed in the paper. The major
objective is to utilize the necessary analytical formulations available for stress analysis in simplified vessel geometries to
check that the design can be at least theoretically established to be safe and capable of reliable operation under the design
conditions.
MECHANICAL DESIGN OF A METAL GETTER BED

Design basis
The hydriding process on uranium is represented by the following chemical reaction:
U + 1.5H2 = UH3,
HRx = -97.5 kJ mol-1 H2
(1)
This reaction was used to estimate the stoichiometric quantity of uranium necessary for storing a given amount (in this
case 60 gm) of hydrogen. The mass of solid actually to be loaded into the vessel was decided by the percentage loading of
hydrogen on uranium, which was taken as 60% in this work. Thus hydrogen was allowed to be the limiting reactant. The
volume expansion of uranium and change in powder density on hydriding were considered in estimating the maximum
solid volume to be accommodated inside the vessel. The space available for gas was taken as 9 times the calculated solid
volume. This gives a rather conservative value of the vessel volume. Once the total vessel volume was fixed, the other
dimensions were calculated as shown in the following sub-sections. The material of construction of the vessel was taken
as SS 316L and the design temperature was fixed at 400oC on the basis of maximum allowable operating temperature for
it from ASME Section VIII, Division 2, which is about 450oC. At 450oC, the equilibrium pressure of hydrogen over
uranium is known to be 1.47 bar (a) [4]. Thus at this temperature, the maximum gas pressure cannot rise beyond the
equilibrium value. For calculation of wall thicknesses the design pressure is taken as 40 bar (a).
General assumptions
Certain assumptions have been made in carrying out the design of the vessel and the subsequent analyses. These are listed
below:
(i) The vessel has been designed as a thin walled vessel and all analyses have been carried out by considering the
membrane stresses.
(ii) Only vertical alignment of the vessel has been considered for support design.
(iii) Elastic deformation and behaviour of the vessel under mechanical and thermal loads have been studied in this work.
Creep and fatigue issues have been separately addressed.
(iv) The material of construction is ductile and has been assumed to be free of flaws and defects that could lead to
localized stress concentration, crack propagation and failure. Discontinuity stresses at the vessel-end closure junction are
the only secondary stresses considered here.
(v) Bi-axial stress conditions (i.e. along the circumference of the shell and along the axis) have been taken into account in
the analyses, unless otherwise mentioned.
(vi) All welded connections have been assumed to have been 100% radiographically examined, so all the joint efficiencies
have been taken as unity.
Page 2

ISSN: 2321-516X
www.stmjournals.com
(vii) The material of construction has been taken as SS316L (owing to its suitability for hydrogen service and welded
construction) and it has been assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic.
(viii) Piping reaction loads on the vessel nozzles have not been considered in this work since the detailed layout of piping
connected to the vessel would be required for that. No eccentric loads due to offset piping have been considered here.
Selection of optimal vessel dimensions and end closures
The fixing of the vessel volume i.e. the shell volume was followed by selection of a length to diameter ratio for the shell
based on which the shell thickness was calculated. The thickness of the shell had to be so chosen that the vessel can
operate safely under internal as well as external pressure i.e. the vessel has to be capable of withstanding the internal
tensile stress when pressurized during the filling of gas or during the dehydriding if pressure build up is allowed before
gas recovery is started, as well as the external compressive load when it is left under vacuum conditions after hydriding at
ambient conditions. The most conservative vessel thickness thus calculated was taken for evaluating the shell weight.
Based on the design equations from the ASME code, the formula of the cylindrical shell thickness for withstanding the
selected design pressure is given by [8]

=

(2)
The four types of vessel closures considered for the getter bed were the flat head, torispherical head, ellipsoidal head and
the hemispherical head. For each type of head, the head thickness was evaluated from well established equations in design
codes, which are shown in Equations 3 to 6 below [8, 9]:
Flat head:
= /
(3)
Torispherical Head
=

(4)
Ellipsoidal Head
=

(5)
Hemispherical Head

=
(6)
The cost of fabrication of the shell was estimated from the cost per unit weight of its material of construction, the cost of
the end closure was calculated the diameter of the blank plate required to form the closure as well as the forming cost.
Thus the total cost of vessel fabrication was arrived at. The cost was calculated at various L/D ratios for each type of head
and the configuration that gave the minimum total cost at a particular value of L/D was selected for further analysis. Thus
total vessel cost (ignoring the cost of vessel support at this point) is thus taken as the basis for choosing the optimal L/D
ratio for a fixed shell volume. Results are presented in Figure 1.
It is seen that for any length to diameter ratio and identical design conditions, the vessel with the hemispherical end
closures has the minimum weight. The dependence of vessel weight and hence total vessel cost on L/D ratio is rather
weak at L/D greater than about 2 and a flat curve is obtained. Thus there is no clear optimal value of L/D ratio and a value
of 4 is chosen to fix the vessel dimensions as per standard pipe sizes. The calculated values of the shell thickness were
rounded off to the wall thickness of Sch 40 pipe having inner diameter closest to the calculated vessel diameter, as it is
Page 3

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
proposed to fabricate the beds out of standard pipe sections. The end closures will be fabricated out of standard plates of
required thickness.
100
Flat head
Torispherical head
Elliptical head
Hemispherical head
90
Total vessel weight (kg)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
Length to diameter ratio
3.5
Figure 1: Calculated vessel weight as a function of L/D ratio for various end closures
The vessel wall thickness for a given L/D ratio was also calculated for withstanding 1 bar (a) of external pressure while
the inside of the vessel remains under full vacuum, using Equation 7 [9] and the values of shell or head thickness were
found to be much less than that for withstanding internal design pressure of 40 bar (a).

= "
(7)
Values of K and m depend on the L/D ratio of the vessel and they are equal to 0.381 and 2.46 for the chosen L/D of 2
[Bhattacharyya]. The head and shell thicknesses are kept identical to facilitate ease of welding and reduce discontinuity
stresses along the junction.
Thus the finally selected thicknesses for both shell and head were based on the internal design pressure. The dimensions
are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Major dimensions of the getter bed vessel
Inner
diameter
Outer
diameter
Shell
thickness
Shell
length
0.255 m
0.273 m
9.27 mm
0.5 m
End closure
type
End
closure
thickness
Hemispherical 8.18 mm
head
Total
vessel
volume
22 L
Vessel weight
with contents
25 kg
From Table 1, the ratio of shell thickness to inside radius is 0.073 which justifies assumption of the getter bed as a thin
walled vessel [10].
Design of vessel supports
Page 4

ISSN: 2321-516X
www.stmjournals.com
The getter bed vessels are generally required to be aligned vertically as this requires less floor space. Thus leg type vessel
supports directly welded to the shell were selected for them. The pertinent data for support design are provided below [8]:
Diameter of vessel: 0.273 m
Height of vessel: 0.5 m
Clearance of vessel bottom from foundation: 0.3 m
Weight of vessel with contents: 25 kg
Number of supports: 4
Diameter of anchor bolt circle: 0.35 m (based on standard dimensions)
Height of leg from foundation: 0.52 m
Permissible stresses for structural steel support material: Tension-140 N/mm2, Compression-123.3 N/mm2,
Bending-157.5 N/mm2
Permissible bearing stress for concrete: 3.5 N/mm2
The getter bed vessel is supposed to be placed indoors in the facility; hence no wind or snow loads are considered to be
acting on it.
Maximum compressive load on a single leg = weight of vessel/number of legs = 25*9.8/4 = 62 N
Assuming the vessel support to be fabricated out of standard channel sections, it is decided to take ISMC 75 X 40
channels for the supports. Four (4) such channels are to be welded directly to the shell at an elevation of 520 mm from the
floor level. Using the properties of the section and the vessel dimensions, it can be shown that the combined compressive
loading on the supports (which are taken as columns) is much lower than the permissible compressive stress for the
channel. Thus the selection of the support is appropriate. For the base plate of the channel support, it is assumed that the
plate extends on each side of the channel to a distance of 20 mm. The bearing pressure on each base plate can then be
calculated and shown to be much less than the safe bearing pressure for the concrete foundation. Thus the base plate
dimensions are also adequately determined. The base plate thickness is taken to be 4 mm, from standard plate thicknesses.
The results of the design calculations for the getter bed are consolidated in Table 1.
Table 2: Base case design and operating parameters for the getter bed
Serial
Number
Design Parameter
Value
Design pressure (internal)
40 bar (a)
Design pressure (external)
1 bar (a), full vacuum

inside
Design temperature
400oC
Ambient temperature
25oC
Material of construction
SS 316L
Maximum allowable stress at
100 MPa [13]
Page 5

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
design temperature
7
Poissons ratio
0.33
Youngs Modulus
190 GPa [13]
Efficiency of welded joints
100% (fully radio

graphed welds)
10
Inner diameter
0.255 m
11
Length of shell
0.5 m
12
Vessel wall thickness
9.27 mm
13
Head type
Hemispherical
14
Thickness of head
9.27 mm
15
Type of support
Welded leg support
16
Support length
0.52 m
17
Coefficient of thermal expansion

of SS 316L
18.4*10-6 m/m K [18]
EVALUATION OF MECHANICAL STRESSES

The vessel internal pressure, external pressure and the dead weight create various stresses in the shell, the end closure and
the welded junction region. For simple vessel geometries as has been considered in this study, analytical solutions for
shear stresses and bending moments are available in literature for the shell and end closures. These solutions were used to
evaluate the various load combinations for the getter bed. The calculated results for various loads, based on the conditions
in Table 2 are presented in this section [9]. For internal pressure, the maximum fill pressure of hydrogen is used to
calculate the stresses, but in practice the internal pressure varies as gas is depleted during hydriding phase. For external
loading, 1 atm pressure is assumed to act uniformly over the shell and heads of the vessel. Piping and nozzle reaction
loads have not been considered in this work as that will require detailed knowledge of the associated piping connections
for the vessel.
a) Stresses due to internal pressure and vessel dead weight
The maximum axial tensile stress due to internal pressure is
$% =
&
'()** ( ,'()** )
(8)
The maximum axial compressive stress during vacuum condition is

$%. =
!&
'()** ( ,'()** )
(9)
The axial compressive stress induced by the vessels dead weight (neglecting weight of insulation) is
Page 6

ISSN: 2321-516X
www.stmjournals.com
$% =
/'
0'()** ( ,'()** )
(10)
b) Discontinuity stresses due to end closures

The evaluation of discontinuity stresses arising at the junction of the shell and hemispherical heads of the vessel is
performed using the concept of the deformation of a beam on an elastic foundation. [9].
The damping factor for a cylindrical vessel is calculated as [9]
1=
2(3 4& )
(11)
'()**
The longitudinal stress in the cylinder at any distance 6 from the location of the junction is given as

$ =

'()**
&
'()**
9 ;<& =<>
(12)
where =<> = ? <> @AB(16).
The total hoop stress in the cylinder at any distance 6 from the location of the junction is given as

$ =

'()**
&
'()**

9 <& =<>
'()**
<>
(13)
where <> = ? <> DE@(16)

The calculated maximum mechanical stresses are shown in Table 3.
c) Compressive load during vacuum conditions
The vessel remains under high vacuum conditions for a significant part of the load cycle. During this time compressive
tresses due to external pressure act on it and can cause elastic failure. The safe external pressure that it can withstand
without buckling and local distortion effects like lobe formation can be calculated from Equation 7 above, using the actual
vessel thickness in place of tv. For the pressure vessel dimensions shown in Tables 1 and 2, the value of the safe external
pressure is calculated to be around 17.7 MPa, which is much larger than the ambient pressure which the vessel will be
subjected to. Thus buckling of the vessel is not likely under normal operating conditions.
THERMAL STRESS ANALYSIS

Determination of one-dimensional radial thermal gradient in the getter bed
A simple, one dimensional, steady state radial heat conduction analysis was performed for obtaining the temperature drop
across the vessel wall. This is only an approximation since the real hydriding or dehydriding step is a batch operation and
not a continuous, steady process. Axial heat conduction was neglected, assuming the vessel closures to be well insulated,
and the shell was assumed to be diathermal. The simplified, conservative calculations were used to estimate the maximum
temperature gradients across the wall, which in turn will enable the calculation of the thermal stresses acting on the shell.
Similar temperature gradients were assumed to be present in the vessel closures as well. The entire thermal analysis was
performed to arrive at the likely worst case scenarios for thermal stress evaluation.
Page 7

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2: Simplified model of the getter bed for thermal stress analysis
For hydriding, the peak heat generation rate during the reaction under adiabatic condition was set equal to the heat
conduction rate through the wall at steady state in order to calculate the temperature gradient across the wall. This may be
expressed as [11]
FG =
0HI'J))* LMN**

OP ( !R )

(14)
The value of Qr was calculated to be around 1600 W for the vessel under consideration [6]. The calculated vale of Twall
for this condition was about 0.8 deg C.
For dehydriding it was assumed that a 1.5 kW heater was available to supply the heat necessary for causing the hydride to
dissociate. The thermal gradient was in opposite direction as compared to hydriding (i.e. outer wall temperature higher
than inner wall) and its value was similarly calculated to be about 0.75 deg C.
Calculation of thermal stresses
The getter bed vessel is a thin walled vessel and hence the temperature distribution in the radial direction may be assumed
to be linear across the wall thickness. Expressions for radial, longitudinal and circumferential thermal stresses for a linear
wall temperature gradient are available in literature [12] which may be used to evaluate the thermal stress distribution in
the walls. The results are shown in Figure 3 for the hydriding phase when the inner wall temperature is higher than the
outer wall temperature. The radial thermal stress is seen to be about two orders of magnitude lower than the tangential and
axial thermal stresses. During the dehydriding phase the nature of the stresses will be opposite since then the outer wall
would be at higher temperature on account of heat being supplied externally to the vessel.
Page 8

ISSN: 2321-516X
www.stmjournals.com
7
1.5
x 10
Thermal stress (Pa)
0.5
-0.5
Radial stress
Tangential stress
Axial stress
-1
-1.5
0.115
0.12
0.125
0.13
0.135
Radial position along the wall (m)
0.14
0.145
Figure 3: Wall thermal stresses in the getter bed during hydriding
VIBRATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
For a vessel placed indoors in a facility, vibrational loads are imposed during a seismic event. The fundamental
frequencies of vibration of the vessel depend upon its configuration and dimensions. Vertical vessels supported on legs
bolted to the floor are generally considered as cantilever beams supported rigidly at one end and this concept is used to
arrive at expressions for the time period of vibration of the vessel []. The floor response spectrum of the building or
location which will house the getter bed should be available for assessing the impact of the design basis earthquake on the
vessel. Wind loads have not been considered for the getter bed since it will be housed inside a building.
a) Time period of vibration of the vessel [9]
For a vertically supported vessel, the time period of vibration is given by the following equation:
/W X
S = 2.U2 V YZ
where [ =
0!X '()**
;
(15)
The seismic coefficient Cs for a medium intensity seismic zone and for the calculated value of T has the value of 0.1[9].
b) Stresses due to seismic loads
Seismic activity produces a horizontal shear stress on the vessel which leads to a bending moment about the vessel base.
The bending moment can be calculated as [8]
\ =
]' /W
2
(16)
The resultant bending stress due to seismic activity is given by [8]
Page 9

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
_'
$^ = 0
(17)

'()** !
Table 3: Magnitudes of maximum mechanical stresses acting on the getter bed vessel
Stress
$%
$%.
$%
$^
$
$
Magnitude (Pa)
8.57*106
1.15*107
3.43*104
3.61*104
x = 0.0 m
8.91*106
x = 0.1 m
8.87*106
x = 0.2 m
8.91*106
x = 0.3 m
8.91*106
x = 0.4 m
8.91*106
x = 0.5 m
8.91*106
x = 0.0 m
4.46*106
x = 0.1 m
8.94*106
x = 0.2 m
8.91*106
x = 0.3 m
8.91*106
x = 0.4 m
8.91*106
x = 0.5 m
8.91*106
Stress Ratio
0.0857
0.115
3.43*10-4
3.61*10-4
0.0891
0.0887
0.0891
0.0891
0.0891
0.0891
0.0446
0.0891
0.0891
0.0891
0.0891
0.0891
FATIGUE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GETTER BED

Estimation of cyclic loads
Fatigue issues are important for any piece of equipment under cyclic loading conditions [14]. In case of metal getter beds
for hydrogen storage, there are pressure as well as thermal cycles for the hydriding and dehydriding steps. The cyclic
pressure variation for the bed was considered to be as follows:
i) Initial filling of the hydrogen into the pressure vessel to the desired fill pressure. The time for filling the gas in the
vessel depends on the pressure of the source of hydrogen and the flow conductance of the associated tubing and fittings in
the line. Typically this time duration will be quite less than the time taken for the actual hydriding or dehydriding reaction
step.
ii) Drop in pressure due to reaction of hydrogen with the getter material, leading to vacuum conditions inside the vessel.
This is based on the assumption of hydrogen adsorption at near ambient temperature when the equilibrium hydrogen
pressure over uranium is in the high vacuum range. Under this condition the vessel is under compressive load due to
ambient pressure. The time taken for the reaction to be completed is about 500 seconds [6].
iii) Evacuation of the vessel with heating for complete recovery of the adsorbed hydrogen, during which vacuum
conditions are maintained inside the vessel. No pressure build up is considered by first allowing the vessel to be heated to
a certain temperature, due to which the equilibrium pressure of hydrogen will rise inside the vessel. Tensile thermal stress
and compressive stress on the vessel walls due to atmospheric pressure are the major stresses prevailing during this phase
of the cycle. The time taken for this step is of the order of 10 to 12 hours.
iv) Cooling of the vessel, during which compressive thermal stresses will act on it followed by re-filling to the initial fill
pressure for the next cycle.
Page 10

ISSN: 2321-516X
www.stmjournals.com
No time lags were assumed in between any two stages of the pressure cycle, though in actual practice the recovery of
stored hydrogen would depend on the requirements at a given time for a particular application. A portion of the pressure
cycle is illustrated in Figure 4 for clarity and to highlight the pressure variation during hydriding step. Otherwise the
vessel internally remains under vacuum conditions and is therefore under compressive stress from ambient air.
For each pressure value at different times in the cycle, the equivalent shell, junction and closure stresses can be calculated
in a straightforward manner using the formulations presented in the section on mechanical stress analysis.
For the temperature cycle it was considered that during the hydriding or the dehydriding step a constant temperature
difference existed across the vessel wall. The gradient is assumed to be linear since the getter bed is housed in a thin
walled vessel. The inner wall temperature is lower than the outer wall temperature when external heating is done to raise
the vessel temperature; while the outer wall temperature is lower when the vessel is being cooled and when hydriding
reaction is taking place inside the vessel. A typical approximate simulated representation of the time- temperature history
of the getter bed walls for a heating with dehydriding cycle followed by a cooling cycle and hydriding step is shown in
Figure 5. The rather small temperature difference means that thermal stresses will be quite low as well. The temperature
difference can be used to calculate the time dependent thermal stresses acting on the vessel walls.
Thus it can be said that during a complete hydriding and dehydriding cycle, the getter bed will be under a superposition of
pressure and thermal loads which will together govern the fatigue behaviour of the vessel.
Use of S-N curves for getter bed life prediction
The S-N method is one of the most well known and widely applied, albeit simplified technique of fatigue analysis of a
pressure vessel or any mechanical component in general [14, 15]. The S-N curve for a particular material enables one to
determine the endurance limit i.e. the stress level at which the component will not fail even after an infinite number of
load cycles applied to it. It may be assumed that if the maximum stress anywhere in the vessel at any point in the load
cycle remains below the endurance limit, the vessel should not fail due to fatigue. From the maximum thermal and
mechanical stresses calculated for the getter bed in the previous sections, it is seen that the stress values remain below the
endurance limit of SS 316L for both hydriding and dehydriding cases. Even when considering stress concentration zones
around the nozzle opening on the head through the use of a stress concentration factor, it can be seen that that even then
the stress remains below the endurance limit which is about 2.60*108 Pa for SS 316L [19]. Hence this eliminates any
possibility of fatigue failure of the vessel within the limited number of cycles which a getter bed will be expected to
endure, based on the getter materials ability to retain the storage properties after a certain number of cycles. Stress
concentration factors have been calculated from charts available in literature [16] and for the assumed nozzle size of
NPS, Sch 40, to be located on each of the hemispherical end closures and the value is about 3 for the getter bed vessel
considered in this work.
Creep and embrittlement issues
Creep damage of the vessel is not explicitly considered in this work since it is reported extensively in literature that creep
becomes a major consideration for prolonged operations at temperatures between 30 to 60% of the absolute melting
temperature of the material of the vessel [14]. In this work, the maximum material temperature considered for the design
is about 450oC which is less than 30% of the melting temperature of SS 316L [13]. Thus long term creep damage is not
likely to be significant under the getter bed operating policy considered here, since the vessel is not constantly under high
temperature conditions during use.
The getter bed vessel is intended for use in a hydrogen environment. Constant exposure of hydrogen leads to a high
possibility of hydrogen embrittlement of the material of construction of the vessel and thus lowers its strength [17]. The
hydrogen concentration in the metal depends on the pressure of the gas and the operating temperature and the total time of
exposure [18]. For long term operation of the getter bed vessel, the progressive loss in strength of the material due to the
embrittling effects of hydrogen must be factored in the vessel design. Similar to a corrosion allowance, additional vessel
wall thickness may be provided to combat the lower strength of the embrittled metal when prolonged use of the getter bed
is envisaged.
Page 11

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
5
14
x 10
12
GAS PRESSURE (Pa (gauge))
Under
vacuum till
Under
vacuum
from time = 0
time = 105 sec
10
Hydriding reaction
8
6
Evacuation and
dehydriding
Preservation after
hydriding
0
5.9
5.95
6.05
6.1
TIME(SEC)
6.15
4
x 10
Figure 4: Simulated internal pressure-time cycle for the getter bed

400
Outer wall temperature
Inner wall temperature
350
Temperature(C)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Time(sec)
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
5
x 10
Figure 5: Simulated temperature-time cycle for the getter bed
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The work focuses on the mechanical aspects that must be considered during the design of a metal getter based hydrogen
storage bed. The vessel has to be designed for both internal and external pressure loads for hydriding and dehydriding
phases respectively, and the most conservative wall thicknesses thus calculated have to be taken for the shell and the end
Page 12

ISSN: 2321-516X
www.stmjournals.com
closures. Selection of optimal closures for the vessel depends on both cost and stress considerations. The nature and
design of the vessel support determines the behaviour of the vessel under seismic conditions. A basic thermal analysis of
the getter bed system has also been done to estimate the magnitudes of the temperature gradients likely to be encountered
across the shell during operation, which in turn enables the calculation of possible thermal stresses in that region. Because
of the time dependent cyclic thermal and pressure loads, the vessel may be subjected to fatigue, especially when the
storage bed is intended to be used for a long duration, provided the getter material retains its storage capacity after a
significantly large number of cycles. Complete analysis of the stresses in such a system can be carried out with
commercially available software packages but it can be quite time consuming and involved, in which case the simplified
analysis carried out in this work may be useful for checking and validating preliminary design calculations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Shri Kalyan Bhanja and Dr Sadhana Mohan of the Heavy Water Division, BARC for an
introduction to the field of metal getter beds for hydrogen storage and for inspiration in writing this paper.
NOMENCLATURE
Symbol
Bx
Ce
Cs
Dm
Dx
Di
Do
E
g
H
I
K
ksteel
L
m
Ms
p
pe
Qr
qs
Rc
Ri
Ro
S
teh
tfh
thh
tshell
tth
Significance
Dimensionless constant for discontinuity stress calculation
Edge fixity constant for flat head, dimensionless
Seismic coefficient, dimensionless
Diameter of the major axis of the elliptical head, m
Dimensionless constant for discontinuity stress calculation
Vessel inside diameter, m
Vessel outside diameter, m
Youngs Modulus, Pa
Acceleration due to gravity, m s-2
Total height of the vessel including supports, m
Moment of inertia of the shell, m4
Dimensionless constant
Thermal conductivity of steel, W/m K
Length of vessel, m
Dimensionless constant
Bending moment induced due to seismic load, N m
Internal pressure, Pa
External pressure, Pa
Electrical heat supply rate, W
Surface electrical heat flux, W/m2
Crown radius for torispherical head, m
Vessel inside radius, m
Vessel outside radius, m
Maximum allowable stress for vessel material of construction, Pa
Thickness of elliptical head, m
Thickness of flat head, m
Thickness of hemispherical head, m
Thickness of cylindrical shell, m
Thickness of torispherical head, m
Page 13

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
tv
Thickness of shell for external pressure load, m
T
Time period of vibration of the vessel, s
V
Stress intensification factor for elliptical head, dimensionless
w
Stress intensification factor for torispherical head, dimensionless
W
Total weight of the vessel, kg
Ws
Weight of the shell, kg
x
Axial location along the shell from the shell-head junction, m
Damping factor for cylindrical vessel, m-1

Twall
Temperature drop across vessel wall, K
Poissons ratio, dimensionless

r
Volumetric reaction heat generation rate, W/m3
b
Stress due to bending moment, Pa
h
Hoop stress due to shell-head discontinuity, Pa
l
Longitudinal stress due to shell-head discontinuity, Pa
zp
Axial stress due to internal pressure in the vessel, Pa
zs
Axial stress due to dead weight of the vessel, Pa
zv
Axial stress due to external pressure on the vessel in vacuum conditions, Pa
REFERENCES
[1] Bhattacharyya R, Mohan S. Solid state storage of hydrogen and its isotopes: An engineering overview. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015; 41:872-83
[2] Penzhorn R-D. Tritium storage. In: Mannone F, editor. Safety in tritium handling technology. Ispra, Italy: Kluwert
Academic Publishers; 1993.
[3] Shim M et. al. Characteristics of ZrCo Alloy for the Storage of Hydrogen Isotopes. Journal of the Korean Physical
Society. 2006; 49:S369-S373
[4] Bulletin of Alloy Phase Diagrams. 1980; 1(2):99-106
[5] Vasut F, Anisoara P, Stefanescu I, David C. Storage of Hydrogen Isotopes on ZrCo and ZrNi. Asian Journal of
Chemistry. 2010; 22(6):4291-4294
[6] Bhattacharyya R, Bhanja K, Mohan S. Heat transfer study of a uranium based getter bed for hydrogen storage.
Chemical Technology: An Indian Journal. 2015; 10(1):1-17
[7] Shim M et. al. Heat analysis on the initial reference design of ZrCo hydride beds for ITER. Fusion Engineering and
Design. 2008; 83:1433-1437
[8] Joshi MV, Mahajani VV. Process Equipment Design, 3rd ed. New Delhi, India: Macmillan India Ltd.; 2006
[9] Bhattacharyya BC. Introduction to Chemical Equipment Design: Mechanical Aspects, 1st ed. New Delhi, India: CBS
Publishers and Distributors Pvt. Ltd.; 2014
[10] Jawad MH, Farr JR. Structural Analysis and Design of Process Equipments, 1st ed. New York, United States of
America: John Wiley and Sons; 1984
[11] Dutta BK. Heat Transfer Principles and Applications, 1st ed. New Delhi, India: Prentice-Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.; 2001
Page 14

ISSN: 2321-516X
www.stmjournals.com
[12] Harvey JF Theory and Design of Pressure Vessels, 1st ed. New York, United States of America: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company; 1985
[13] http://www.castlemetalseurope.com/stainless-steel/grade-316l-uns-s31600-1-4404-sheet-plate-bar/ (SS 316
properties), last accessed on 2nd March 2015
[14] Dowling NE. Mechanical Behavior of Materials: Engineering Methods for Deformation, Fracture, and Fatigue, 4rd
ed. Prentice Hall; 2012
[15] Blake A. Practical Stress Analysis in Engineering Design, 1st ed. New York, United States of America: Marcel
Dekker Inc.; 1982
[16] Pilkey WD, Pilkey WF. Peterson's Stress Concentration Factors, 3rd ed. New Jersey, United States of America: John
Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2008
[17] Callister WD, Rethwisch DG. Material Science and Engineering: An Introduction, 8th ed. United States of America:
John Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2009
[18] Louthan MR, Caskey GR. Hydrogen transport and embrittlement in structural metals. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy. 1976; 1(3):291-305
[19]http://www.nickelinstitute.org/~/Media/Files/TechnicalLiterature/DesignGuidelinesfortheSelectionandUseofStainless
Steels_9014_.pdf, last accessed on 8th September 2015
Page 15

Analytical Assessment of The Mechanical Design of A Metal Getter Bed For Hydrogen Storage

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Analytical Assessment of The Mechanical Design of A Metal Getter Bed For Hydrogen Storage

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Experimental & Applied Mechanics