Next Article in Journal
Study on the Friction Characteristics and Fatigue Life of Carbonitriding-Treated Needle Bearings
Next Article in Special Issue
Modelling of Static and Dynamic Elastomer Friction in Dry Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Properties of Laser-Alloyed Stainless Steel Coatings on the Surface of Gray Cast Iron Discs
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Harmful Bearing Currents on the Service Life of Rolling Bearings: From Experimental Investigations to a Predictive Model
 
 
Journals
Lubricants
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/lubricants12070233
lubricants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Hydrogen Pressure on the Fretting Behavior of Rubber Materials

by
Géraldine Theiler
1,*,
Natalia Cano Murillo
1 and
Andreas Hausberger
2
1
Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM), 12203 Berlin, Germany
2
Polymer Competence Centre Leoben GmbH (PCCL), 8700 Leoben, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Lubricants 2024, 12(7), 233; https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants12070233
Submission received: 30 April 2024 / Revised: 31 May 2024 / Accepted: 14 June 2024 / Published: 23 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tribology in Germany: Latest Research and Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Safety and reliability are the major challenges to face for the development and acceptance of hydrogen technology. It is therefore crucial to deeply study material compatibility, in particular for tribological components that are directly in contact with hydrogen. Some of the most critical parts are sealing materials that need increased safety requirements. In this study, the fretting behavior of several elastomer materials were evaluated against 316L stainless steel in an air and hydrogen environment up to 10 MPa. Several grades of cross-linked hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene (HNBR), acrylonitrile butadiene (NBR) and ethylene propylene diene monomer rubbers (EPDM) were investigated. Furthermore, aging experiments were conducted for 7 days under static conditions in 100 MPa of hydrogen followed by rapid gas decompression. Fretting tests revealed that the wear of these compounds is significantly affected by the hydrogen environment compared to air, especially with NBR grades. After the aging experiment, the friction response of the HNBR grades is characterized by increased adhesion due to elastic deformation, leading to partial slip.

1. Introduction

With the development of hydrogen infrastructure, a growing interest is devoted to research on material compatibility with hydrogen due to high safety requirements in distribution and dispensing infrastructure. Some of the most critical parts are sealing materials that need increased reliability specifications to avoid any leakage, which would lead to an imminent risk of serious damage but also mitigate the acceptance of this technology [1,2].
For static and dynamic seals, polymeric materials are used as sealing components in a wide range of conditions, such as O-rings and piston rings in high-pressure and/or cryogenic hydrogen. Rubber O-ring seals have been commonly used in high-pressure hydrogen storage systems for preventing the leakage of hydrogen gas. However, failure of a sealing component can occur due to swelling induced by dissolved hydrogen [3,4]. It has been reported that most damage to the sealing materials occurs during rapid gas decompression (RGD). Therefore, more and more studies are dedicated to the influence of high-pressure hydrogen and RGD on the properties of rubber materials [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Most of the works reported the effect of the fillers and additives on the physical properties of the elastomer compounds.
Volume change upon RGD inevitably induces motion of the sealing material, particularly during compression cycles. Further low amplitude oscillating motion can also occur in the reciprocating O-ring seal [15]. It is therefore crucial to characterize the friction and wear of the rubber materials in hydrogen as well as after RGD where more effects occur. Up to now, most literature refers to the effect of the hydrogen environment on the sliding friction and wear of polymers [20,21,22,23,24,25,26] or rubbers [27,28].
Works have been published on EPDM and NBR grades under 28 MPa hydrogen in a linear reciprocating custom-built apparatus [27,28]. Both rubber materials showed a higher coefficient of friction (COF) and drastically reduced wear behavior in all hydrogen exposed tests compared with the test results in ambient air conditions. It was suggested that the variations in the friction and wear behavior of EPDM and NBR are due to a combined effect of high-pressure hydrogen and the plasticizer and fillers [28].
Choi et al. studied the friction and wear behavior of NBR rubber under continuous sliding in air after high-pressure exposure in hydrogen [29]. They reported that the hydrogen-induced damage was related to the tribological properties of filled NBR.
Reports on fretting experiments in hydrogen are rare [30]. Zhou et al. developed a numerical model to investigate the fretting characteristic of O-ring seals under the action of swelling behavior induced by dissolved hydrogen [30]. They concluded that the amplitude of reciprocating motion affects the fretting state of rubber seals, and that a high-pressure hydrogen atmosphere promotes a sticking regime because of swelling of the rubber.
The scope of this study is to characterize the fretting behavior of selected rubber materials against 316L steel under hydrogen atmosphere. The focus lies here on the friction behavior and the characterization of the wear scar of the rubber materials. The core of the study deals with the influence of the hydrogen pressure on the friction performance compared to air. Tests were performed in gaseous hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and 10 MPa. In addition, aging experiments were conducted under static conditions in 100 MPa hydrogen, followed by further fretting tests under hydrogen immediately and 24 h after decompression. This work gives an inside view of the relevant mechanisms in seal contact under a hydrogen atmosphere and thus make an important contribution to material and seal development.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

This study includes two different types of cross-linked hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene (HNBR). Both are filled with CB in different compositions and the acrylonitrile (ACN) content is relatively low, at 21%, to keep a low glass transition temperature and to have good low temperature properties. Furthermore, four grades of nitrile butadiene rubber specially developed for this project were investigated. The effect of vulcanization, filler and plasticizer have been considered in this study as indicated in Table 1. In addition, two sulfur-cured EPDM rubber grades with different carbon black were tested. All materials were provided as a 2 mm sheet by Arlanxeo Deutschland GmbH, Dormagen, Germany.
The samples were cut to 15 mm × 10 mm, cleaned with isopropanol and exposed to dry heat at 60 °C for 48 h. This step was undertaken to remove any moisture and outgassing of the samples that might affect the friction properties.

2.2. Test Method

The test method is described in Figure 1. “As-received sample” means here the cleaned and dried sample. As-received samples were tested at ambient temperature in air and in hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and 10 MPa. Some samples were aged in high-pressure autoclaves according to the methodology described in [13]. After aging experiments, further fretting tests were performed immediately after decompression and 24 h later.
Friction tests were performed in a fretting tribometer developed at BAM for hydrogen environments up to 10 MPa (Figure 2). The tribometer is designed as an insert for a stainless-steel autoclave with a maximum gas pressure of 10 MPa. The normal and frictional forces are measured using strain gauges that are attached to deformation bodies in a bridge circuit. The normal force is generated by a spring using an electric motor stretched via a spindle drive. The tribometer is driven by a voice coil drive, which generates the reciprocating motion. Both the normal force and the tangential displacement are set via PID control loops.
The upper specimen is a 316L stainless steel ball with a diameter of 6.0 mm (G300). The lower specimen is the rubber sample fixed on a steel flat.
The friction measurement of rubber materials is complex and often raises some issues with regards to the setup. Since most rubber samples are available as a plate, friction tests are mostly conducted with a flat rubber material sliding against a steel ball or cylinder in a fretting test [27,31,32,33,34] or against a flat counterpart in a linear motion [35]. Other configurations found in the literature are a hemispherical rubber pin or a rubber cylinder against a steel disc [36,37]. In this study, flat rubber samples were used.
The normal load was set to 5 N, the frequency to 10 Hz and the stroke to 2 mm, with a total of 20,000 cycles. Tests were performed at room temperature in air (moisture range 40–60%) and in gaseous hydrogen (H2O < 5 ppm) at 0.1 MPa and 10 MPa. Three tests were performed for each condition.

2.3. Friction Measurement

During the test, friction force, Ff, values were recorded along with time and displacement. The hysteresis data contains 1000 values per second, leading to 100 points for each cycle. Therefore, after 10 min, the values were recorded every 20 s.
The average friction force (Ff mean) was calculated as follows:
F f   m e a n = ∑ i = 1 n | F f   i | n ,
The average friction coefficient (COF mean) was calculated as follows:
C O F   m e a n = F f   m e a n F N
where FN is the normal load.

2.4. Surface Analyses and Wear Measurement

Worn surfaces of the rubbers and transfer film formed on the discs were inspected by means of an optical microscope (VHX-500, Keyence Deutschland GmbH, Neu-Isenburg, Germany), a confocal 3D profilometer (µsurf expert, NanoFocus AG, Oberhausen, Germany) and a scanning electron microscope (SEM, Supra™40, Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany) equipped with an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer. Chemical analyses were performed by micro-ATR-IR attenuated total reflection (Hyperion 3000, Bruker Optics, Ettlingen, Germany) with a germanium crystal. The wavelength range was set from 4000 cm−1 to 500 cm−1. An atmospheric compensation, an extended ATR correction and a baseline correction were carried out for all spectra. After the test, the wear scar on the rubber surface was characterized by a 3D profilometer and the wear volume was measured based on the 3D profile, considering the area below the reference line (Figure 3).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Friction Tests on as Received Samples: Effect of Hydrogen Environment

3.1.1. Friction Force Curves

Figure 4 depicts the variation of the friction force (Ff) versus relative displacement (D) as a function of time. The friction loops characterize friction and deformation behavior at the interface. The area of the loops corresponds to the energy dissipated during the cycles, but this was not calculated in this study. As described in [37,38,39], the fretting mechanism can be deduced from the shape of the fretting hysteresis, which can be linear, elliptical and parallelogram shapes. This corresponds to the three fretting regimes, namely partial slip, mixed fretting and gross slip regime [39].
As shown in Figure 4, the loops of the rubber materials described an ellipse at the beginning of the tests and move toward a quasi-parallelogram, whereby the slope corresponds to the static friction and the horizontal segment to the sliding regime. The fretting regime changes from partial to gross slip. The transitional phase takes place after several cycles for most materials.
For the HNBR and NBR grades, the loop is rather uneven. The inclined slope reveals a large sticking phase on one hand, and the sliding regime is relatively unstable on the other hand.
For NBR-Sil, the frictional force is characterized by a first loop at the beginning of the test, which significantly increases with time. After that, the fretting regime reaches a stable state.
In comparison, EDPM materials have a relatively stable sliding friction, although the maximum friction force at the beginning of the test is higher than that at the end. This may be due to the increase of hardness within the first cycle, leading to the decrease of adhesion and hysteresis resistance between the rubber and the steel metal ball.
For each rubber grade, the shape of the loop is rather similar in air and hydrogen. The main differences are related to the maximal friction force and the calculated friction coefficient.

3.1.2. Average Friction Coefficient

Figure 5 shows the exemplary evolution of the friction coefficient as a function of time of several grades tested in ambient air and in hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and 10 MPa. As indicated in Figure 5a,b, the friction coefficient of HNBR-CB and EPDM2 are higher in a hydrogen environment compared to the values in air. For both rubber materials, the COF increases rapidly at first before decreasing to a stable value for EPDM2. The COF of HNBR-CB, however, gradually increases in hydrogen after this descent stage.
With regard to the NBR grades, the COF in air is higher than in the hydrogen environment (Figure 5c–f), with similar friction curves independent of the hydrogen pressure. It is noticeable that the COF of NBR-Sil increases gradually and slowly in all conditions, reaching a steady state friction only after 1000 s (10,000 cycles). This may be related to the lower hardness of NBR-Sil compared to the other grades, leading to a larger deformation and an increased contact area, as observed in [40]. As a comparison, the friction curves of CB-filled NBR grades reach a stable friction state after a short running in phase.
An overview of the mean friction coefficient of all rubbers measured at the end of the tests is presented in Figure 6a. The COF of HNBR and EPDM increase slightly with hydrogen pressure, while lower values were obtained in hydrogen with all NBR grades. Comparing the HNBR grades, the addition of a PA filler leads to a slight increase of the friction coefficient, independent of the environment, while increasing the CB content in the EPDM grades results in a minor decrease in the COF. Among the sulfur-cured rubber, both CB-filled grades, NBR-CB and NBR-CB-plast, have a lower COF compared to the SiO2-filled NBR-Sil. This is consistent with another previous study performed in air [41]. Further, it is noticeable that the peroxide-cured NBR-CB-perox grade has a higher COF than the sulfur-cured grades under both air and hydrogen conditions. As mentioned in [42], the peroxide-cured CB-filled NBR grade shows the stiffest material behavior with the highest crosslink density among these NBR grades. Due to the restriction of its polymer chain movements, a higher shear strength is expected, which could lead to increased adhesion.
The influence of hydrogen on the friction coefficient of EPDM and HNBR grades are in accordance with the work done by Kuang et al. [28], who found that the COF of EPDM against steel is larger under high-pressure hydrogen than that measured in ambient air under reciprocating sliding. Concerning NBR materials, however, discrepancies in the results were found compared to [28]. This is possibly due to different formulations and testing conditions, namely sliding friction and hydrogen pressure. Wang [43] observed different trends between reciprocating and fretting behavior of several polymers in air, due to more energy generated at the surface during fretting. On the other hand, at very high-pressure hydrogen the sticking regime of rubber materials should be promoted because of the swelling effect [30]. In any case, as mentioned in [44], the fretting characteristic of polymers is strongly related to the frictional heat produced during fretting and the heat resistance of the materials. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that the cooling effect of the hydrogen environment, which has a higher thermal conductivity than air, affects the deformation and therefore the fretting behavior of these rubber materials. However, this should not be the only influencing parameter since different results were observed depending on the materials.

3.1.3. Effect of Hydrogen on the Wear Volume

Figure 6b gives an overview of the wear volume obtained by 3D profilometry. For most rubber materials, the wear values are similar or reduced in a hydrogen environment, which is in good agreement with [28]. The wear value of the rubbers is rather stable for HNBR-CB and EPDM2 but decreases for HNBR-CB-PA and EPDM1, which have respectively a lower amount of carbon black compared to the former grades.
Similarly, by comparing the results of the CB-filled sulfur-cured NBR grades, it is noticeable that increasing the CB content from 75 ppm to 95 ppm leads also to higher wear in hydrogen. This is possibly related to the restriction of the polymer chain with increased CB loading, although the addition of a plasticizer to the NBR-CB-plast compensates the stiffness of higher filler loading as reported in [42].
On the other hand, although the silica-filled rubber (NBR-Sil) has a higher friction coefficient compared to the CB-filled NBR, the wear values of both rubber materials were similar in air, as well as in hydrogen.
Therefore, other factors should be taken into consideration. HNBR-CB-PA contains polyamide fillers and as reported in [23], the tribological properties of polyamides are influenced by the environment. NBR-CB-plast contains plasticizers which may also have an effect on the wear behavior in air and in hydrogen.
Further, most significant effects were obtained with NBR-CB-perox, which is a peroxide-cured rubber with additives. It has the highest wear values among the NBR materials in air and the lowest in hydrogen. It is therefore appropriate to suggest that either the curing process and/or the additive have a major influence on the wear properties of these rubber materials in hydrogen. This will be discussed in the following section.
3D profile images of the wear scar were used to evaluate the wear damage of the rubbers. Figure 7 illustrates examples of some of them. Deeper wear scars were obtained after the experiment in air compared to those performed in hydrogen.

3.1.4. Surface Morphology and Wear Mechanism

Optical microscopy of the wear scar of selected rubber materials and associated counterfaces after testing in air and hydrogen at 10 MPa are compared in Figure 8.
As shown in Figure 8a, the wear scar of HNBR-CB is perpendicular to the fretting direction and forms a wavy structure, which is associated with adhesive wear [33]. Cracks are observed on the surface and propagated perpendicularly to the sliding direction after tests in air and hydrogen. Wear debris is present outside the contact in both testing conditions. The main difference is observed on the counterface. A large amount of rubber stuck to the steel ball after the hydrogen experiment. The friction mechanism is therefore mainly adhesive in hydrogen. This may explain the higher coefficient of friction for HNBR grades in hydrogen.
In comparison, the wear damage of EPDM2 is visibly milder than for the HNBR grade. No visible cracks were detected at the surface of the rubber but a typical wave pattern perpendicular to the fretting direction was observed (Figure 8b). Wear particles are seen on the ball in both conditions.
Figure 8c displays the worn surface of the sulfur-cured NBR filled with CB (NBR-CB). While a wave pattern is detected after testing in air, the wear scar in hydrogen is covered with some wear debris. These fine particles are also present on the counterface and more abundant in hydrogen conditions. These particles may act as a solid lubricant in the contact area, reducing the friction and wear of the rubber [36].
Figure 8d presents the surface images of the CB-filled peroxide-cured NBR grade (NBR-CB-perox). Significant differences are observed compared to the previous sulfur-cured NBR. After testing in air, a torn tongue perpendicular to the sliding direction is observed, similar to HNBR. It is therefore likely that the curing process affects the material properties as mentioned in [41], and therefore the friction behavior. After the hydrogen test, however, ploughing marks parallel to the sliding direction are present, with no visible stick regions between the two contacting surfaces. This suggests that abrasive wear was more likely to occur. The formation of a thin transfer film on the counterface leads to reduced friction and wear in hydrogen.
To characterize further the fretting mechanisms and the influence of additives and fillers in the NBR grades, further EDX was performed on the wear scar of the rubber after testing in air and hydrogen at 10 MPa. Figure 9 collects the EDX maps of NBR-Sil, NBR-CB-perox and NBR-CB-plast.
From Figure 9a, a homogenous distribution of the silica fillers in the wear scar after testing in both conditions can be deduced. ZnO, however, appears more pronounced at the surface of the rubber after the hydrogen experiment. Similarly, more additives (ZnO and MgO) were detected on the surface of the wear scar of NBR-CB-perox after hydrogen exposure (Figure 9b). The EDX analyses of the NBR-CB-plast indicate a significant agglomeration of additives and plasticizers (identified by Zn and S, respectively) after the hydrogen experiment (Figure 9c). It seems that hydrogen promotes the migration and agglomeration of the additives towards the surface of the material.
Additional ATR-IR spectroscopy of selected rubber materials were performed to detect possible chemical reactions during the friction process.
Figure 10 depicts the ATR-IR spectra of the HNBR, EPDM and NBR grades. No significant chemical reactions could be observed but some increase in signal intensity was detected for several rubbers.
Wear scar analysis of HNBR-CB through FT-IR reveals a general broadening of the IR signal after testing in hydrogen in the region of 1521 and 860 cm−1, possibly due to more exposed CB and higher absorption of the IR signal. As reported in [13], the exposure to hydrogen can cause a tendency of the CB fillers to come to the surface, absorbing in this range of IR. ATR-IR of the wear scar of EPDM1 indicates marginal changes; however, a small peak in 1735 cm−1 corresponding to carbonyl group was detected on the sample tested in air, which could possibly be related to some oxidation on the worn surface.
Regarding the NBR-CB, testing in hydrogen brings small changes in the IR spectra; the 1517 cm−1 band might be related to additives, such as antioxidants. The 969 cm−1 band corresponds to the C-H out-of-plane bending band of the butadiene double bond. The cyano group in air and after testing in hydrogen, however, shows no significant change.
While no chemical changes could be detected for NBR-Sil (the same for the broad peak of the silica filler at 1086 cm−1 that is present in both conditions), some small changes are detected for the NBR-CB-perox materials; the peaks between 1690 and 1000 cm−1 in NBR-CB-perox mostly related to CB, increasing slightly after testing in hydrogen, while 2358 cm−1 is related to MgO. The 964 cm−1 band corresponds to the C-H out-of-plane bending band of the butadiene double bond. The 910 cm−1 band is related to the peroxide crosslinking additive. ATR-IR therefore confirms the EDX results, suggesting that the presence of a curing activator and an increase of CB at the surface. The dissolved H2 may act as plasticizer in the rubber materials, increasing the motion of the polymer and fillers. Upon friction, these particles move towards the surface, acting favorably at the friction contact.

3.2. Friction Tests on Exposed Samples: Effect of High-Pressure Exposure Followed by Rapid Gas Decompression

Following the test method described in Figure 1, further samples were aged in high-pressure hydrogen at 100 MPa for 7 days at 120 °C for HNBR and at 85 °C for the EPDM grades, respectively. A day before the end of the exposure period, the temperature was switched off to cool down the specimens before taking them out and the pressure was adjusted to replenish the pressure loss due to the cooling effect. This step is necessary to allow the characterization of the cooled sample immediately after decompression, without a temperature effect.
After exposure at 100 MPa, friction tests were performed at 10 MPa immediately after decompression and one day after. Figure 11a shows the hysteresis of HNBR-CB-PA immediately after exposure. The loop has an elliptical shape corresponding to partial slip. The displacement occurs only on the edge part and is mainly due to elastic deformation of the elastomer. The effect of the high-pressure hydrogen on the physical and mechanical properties were studied and published in [13]. Accordingly, the swelling of the rubber immediately after the RGD significantly decreases the hardness of the rubber. This friction process is mainly ascribed to the deformation of the rubber. By repeating the friction tests 24 h later, the hysteresis almost retrieves a parallelogram shape as the volume of the rubber recovers (Figure 11b). The elastic deformation, however, is still predominant.
As a comparison, further tests were performed with the EPDM2 grades. The friction response in 10 MPa hydrogen was similar to before (Figure 4) and after aging in high-pressure hydrogen (Figure 11c,d). This can be related to a relatively stable behavior of the physical and mechanical properties of EPDM2, as reported in [45]. Other works revealed similar trends regarding the aging of elastomers in hydrogen [46], where EPDM material showed the least degradation compared to the HNBR grade.

4. Conclusions

In this study, the fretting behavior of several elastomer materials against a 316L ball were evaluated in an air and hydrogen environment up to 10 MPa. Several grades of cross-linked hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene (HNBR), acrylonitrile butadiene (NBR) and ethylene propylene diene monomer rubbers (EPDM) were investigated.
The influence of the hydrogen environment was studied at first on as-received samples. Based on the friction results and wear characterization, the following conclusions can be drawn:
-
Under the testing conditions (a normal load of 5 N, frequency of 10 Hz, a 2 mm stroke), the fretting behavior was in the gross slip regime for all rubber materials. The shape of the loop was similar in hydrogen compared to air, and the influence of hydrogen pressure was relatively small, although some effects were seen on the HNBR and EPDM grades. The average friction coefficient and the wear volume, however, were affected differently by the hydrogen conditions depending on the materials. This suggests that the cooling effect of the hydrogen environment is not the only influencing factor.
-
The friction of the HNBR and EPDM grades increased with hydrogen pressure. Adhesive wear is predominant in hydrogen in CB filled HNBR, while the addition of PA fillers reduced wear.
-
Concerning NBR grades, reduced friction and wear were measured for all grades in hydrogen. It was found that the curing process and the additive have a major influence on the wear properties of these rubber materials in hydrogen. Most significant effects were obtained with the peroxide-cured rubber, having the highest wear value among the NBR materials in air and the lowest one in hydrogen. Among the sulfur-cured NBR grades, lower friction was achieved with CB compared to SiO2 fillers.
-
No significant chemical reactions were detected by means of ATR-IR, apart from a possible oxidation on the worn EPDM surface tested in air. However, both EDX and ATR-IR analyses revealed migration and agglomeration of the additives at the friction contact of the NBR grades in hydrogen, acting favorably on the friction and wear resistance of the rubbers.
The influence of high-pressure exposure followed by rapid gas decompression was studied on aged samples. Significant effects were observed immediately after decompression for the HNBR material, which is related to the softening of the rubber after RGD. EPDM rubber, however, was less affected by the aging experiment and therefore might be more suitable for high-pressure applications than HNBR grades.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, writing, supervision, G.T.; conducting of surface analyses and interpretation, N.C.M.; funding acquisition, A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research work was performed within the COMET-project “Polymers4Hydrogen“ (project-no.: 21647053) at the Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM) within the framework of the COMET-program of the Federal Ministry for Climate, Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology and the Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs with contributions by Polymer Competence Center Leoben GmbH (PCCL, Austria), Montanuniversität Leoben (Department Polymer Engineering and Science, Chair of Chemistry of Polymeric Materials, Chair of Materials Science and Testing of Polymers), Technical University of Munich, Tampere University of Technology, Politecnico di Milano and Arlanxeo Deutschland GmbH, ContiTech Rubber Industrial Kft., Peak Technology GmbH, SKF Sealing Solutions Austria GmbH, and Faurecia.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available upon request from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Kaiser from Arlanxeo for providing the materials, Heidrich, Slachciak and Optiz for performing the tests and microscopy characterization as well as Hidde and Weimann for the FT-IR and EDX analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Andreas Hausberger was employed by the company Polymer Competence Centre Leoben GmbH (PCCL). The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Balasooriya, W.; Clute, C.; Schrittesser, B.; Pinter, G. A review on applicability, limitations, and improvements of polymeric materials in high-pressure hydrogen gas atmospheres. Polym. Rev. 2021, 175–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zheng, Y.; Tan, Y.; Zhou, C.; Chen, G.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Liao, B.; Zhang, G. A review on effect of hydrogen on rubber seals used in the high-pressure hydrogen infrastructure. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 23721–23738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nishimura, S. Rubbers and elastomers for high-pressure hydrogen seal. Soc. Polym. Sci. 2015, 64, 356–357. [Google Scholar]
  4. Yamabe, J.; Nishimura, S. Influence of fillers on hydrogen penetration properties and blister fracture of rubber composites for O-ring exposed to high-pressure hydrogen gas. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 1977–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yamabe, J.; Nishimura, S.; Koga, A. A study on sealing behavior of rubber O-ring in high pressure hydrogen gas. SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf. 2009, 2, 452–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yamabe, J.; Nishimura, S.; Nakao, M.; Fujiwara, H. Blister fracture of rubbers for O-ring exposed to high pressure hydrogen gas. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Hydrogen Conference—Effects of Hydrogen on Materials, Grand Teton, WY, USA, 7–10 September 2009; pp. 389–396. [Google Scholar]
  7. Yamabe, J.; Nishimura, S. Nanoscale fracture analysis by atomic force microscopy of EPDM rubber due to high pressure hydrogen decompression. J. Mater. Sci. 2011, 46, 2300–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yamabe, J.; Koga, A.; Nishimura, S. Failure behavior of rubber Oring under cyclic exposure to high-pressure hydrogen gas. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2013, 35, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Castagnet, S.; Mellier, D.; Nait-Ali, A.; Benoit, G. In-situ X-ray computed tomography of decompression failure in a rubber exposed to high-pressure gas. Polym. Test. 2018, 70, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Castagnet, S.; Ono, H.; Benoit, G.; Fujiwara, H.; Nishimura, S. Swelling measurement during sorption and decompression in a NBR exposed to high-pressure hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 19359–19366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Simmons, K.L.; Kuang, W.; Burton, S.D.; Arey, B.W.; Shin, Y.; Menon, N.C.; Smith, D.B. H-Mat hydrogen compatibility of polymers and elastomers. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 12300–12310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kulkani, S.; Choi, K.; Kuang, W.; Menon, N.; Mills, B.; Soulami, A.; Simmons, K. Damage evolution in polymer due to exposure to high-pressure hydrogen gas. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 19001–19022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Theiler, G.; Cano Murillo, N.; Halder, K.; Balasooriya, W.; Hausberger, A.; Kaiser, A. Effect of high-pressure hydrogen environment on the physical and mechanical properties of elastomers. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 58, 389–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Menon, N.; Alvine, K.; Kruizenga, A.; Nissen, A.; San Marchi, C.; Brooks, K. Behaviour of polymers in high pressure environments as applicable to the hydrogen infrastructure. In Proceedings of the Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference��American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 17–21 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  15. Zhou, C.; Zheng, J.; Gu, C.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, P. Sealing performance analysis of rubber O-ring in high-pressure gaseous hydrogen based on finite element method. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 11996–12004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jeon, S.K.; Kwon, O.H.; Tak, N.H.; Chung, N.K.; Baek, U.B.; Nahm, S.H. Relationships between properties and rapid gas decompression (RGD) resistance of various filled nitrile butadiene rubber vulcanizates under high-pressure hydrogen. Mater. Today Commun. 2022, 30, 103038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ono, H.; Nait-Ali, A.; Kane Diallo, O.; Benoit, G.; Castagnet, S. Influence of pressure cycling on damage evolution in an unfilled EPDM exposed to high-pressure hydrogen. Int. J. Fract. 2018, 210, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fujiwara, H.; Ono, H.; Nishimura, S. Effects of fillers on the hydrogen uptake and volume expansion of acrylonitrile butadiene rubber composites exposed to high pressure hydrogen: Property of polymeric materials for high pressure hydrogen devices (3). Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 4725–4740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kuang, W.; Nickerson, E.K.; Li, D.; Clelland, D.T.; Seffens, R.J.; Ramos, J.L.; Simmons, K.L. An in-situ view cell system for investigating swelling behavior of elastomers upon high-pressure hydrogen exposure. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 71, 1317–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, Q.; Morita, T.; Sawae, Y.; Fukuda, K.; Sugimura, J. Effects of trace moisture content of tribofilm formation, friction and wear of CF-filled PTFE in hydrogen. Tribol. Int. 2023, 188, 108905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Theiler, G.; Gradt, T. Tribological characteristics of polyimide composites in hydrogen environment. Tribol. Int. 2015, 92, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Theiler, G.; Gradt, T. Environmental effects on the sliding behaviour of PEEK composites. Wear 2016, 368–369, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Theiler, G.; Gradt, T. Comparison of the Sliding Behavior of Several Polymers in Gaseous and Liquid Hydrogen. Tribol. Online 2023, 18, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sawae, Y.; Morita, T.; Takeda, K.; Onitsuka, S.; Kaneuti, J.; Yamaguchi, T.; Sugimura, J. Friction and wear of PTFE composites with different filler in high purity hydrogen gas. Tribol. Int. 2021, 157, 106884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sawae, Y.; Fukuda, K.; Miyakoshi, E.; Doi, S.; Watanabe, H.; Nakashima, K.; Sugimura, J. Tribological Characterization of Polymeric Sealing Materials in High-Pressure Hydrogen Gas. In Proceedings of the STLE/ASME 2010 International Joint Tribology Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 17–20 October 2010. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sawae, Y.; Nakashima, K.; Doi, S.; Murakami, T.; Sugimura, J. Effects of High-Pressure Hydrogen on Wear of PTFE and PTFE Composite. In Proceedings of the ASME/STLE 2009 International Joint Tribology Conference, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, 19–21 October 2009; pp. 233–235. [Google Scholar]
  27. Duranty, E.R.; Roosendaal, T.J.; Pitman, S.G.; Tucker, J.C.; Owsley, S.L., Jr.; Suter, J.D. In situ high pressure hydrogen tribological testing of common polymer materials used in the hydrogen delivery infrastructure. JoVE 2018, 133, e56884. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuang, W.; Bennett, W.D.; Roosendaal, T.J.; Arey, B.W.; Dohnalkova, A. In situ friction and wear behavior of rubber materials incorporating various fillers and/or a plasticizer in high-pressure hydrogen. Tribol. Int. 2021, 153, 106627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Choi, B.L.; Jung, J.K.; Baek, U.B.; Choi, B.-H. Effect of Functional Fillers on Tribological Characteristics of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber after High-Pressure Hydrogen Exposures. Polymers 2022, 14, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zhou, C.; Chen, G.; Xiao, S.; Hua, Z.; Gu, C. Study on fretting behavior of rubber O-ring seal in high-pressure gaseous hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44, 22569–22575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. CSA/ANSI CHMC 2:19; Test Methods for Evaluating Material Compatibility in Compressed Hydrogen Applications—Polymers. CSA Group: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2019.
  32. Zhang, T.; Su, J.; Shu, Y.; Shen, F.; Ke, L. Fretting Wear Behavior of Three Kinds of Rubbers under Sphere-On-Flat Contact. Materials 2021, 14, 2153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wang, C.; Hausberger, A.; Berer, M.; Pinter, G.; Grün, F.; Schwarz, T. An investigation of fretting behavior of thermoplastic polyurethane for mechanical seal application. Polymer Testing 2018, 72, 271–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Karger-Kocsis, J.; Mousa, A.; Major, Z.; Bekesi, N. Dry friction and sliding wear of EPDM rubbers against steel as a function of carbon black content. Wear 2008, 264, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. ISO 15113:2015; Rubber—Determination of Frictional Properties. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
  36. Karger-Kocsis, J.; Felhös, D.; Xu, D.; Schlarb, A.K. Unlubricated sliding and rolling wear of thermoplastic dynamic vulcanizates (Santoprene R) against steel. Wear 2008, 265, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shen, M.; Peng, X.; Meng, X.; Zheng, J.; Zhu, M. Fretting wear behavior of acrylonitrile–butadiene rubber (NBR) for mechanical seal applications. Tribol. Int. 2016, 93, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhou, Z.R.; Nakazawa, K.; Zhu, M.-H.; Maruyama, N.; Kapsa, P.; Vincent, L. Progress in fretting maps. Tribol. Int. 2006, 39, 1068–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vingsbo, O.; Soderberg, S. On fretting maps. Wear 1988, 126, 131–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Adam, A.; Paulkowski, D.; Mayer, B. Friction and Deformation Behavior of Elastomers. Mater. Sci. Appl. 2019, 10, 527–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mokhtari, M.; Schipper, D.J.; Tolpekina, T.V. On the Friction of Carbon Black- and Silica-Reinforced BR and S-SBR Elastomers. Tribol. Lett. 2014, 54, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Clute, C.; Balasooriya, W.; Cano Murillo, N.; Theiler, G.; Kaiser, A.; Fasching, M.; Schwarz, T.; Hausberger, A.; Pinter, G.; Schlögl, S. Morphological investigations on silica and carbon-black filled acrylonitrile butadiene rubber for sealings used in high-pressure H2 applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 67, 540–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Fan, N.; Yan, F. Experimental investigation on tribological behavior of several polymer materials under reciprocating sliding and fretting wear conditions. Tribol. Int. 2016, 104, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Guo, Q.; Luo, W. Mechanisms of fretting wear resistance in terms of material structures for unfilled engineering polymers. Wear 2002, 249, 924–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cano Murillo, N.; Kaiser, A.; Balasooriya, W.; Meinel, D.; Theiler, G. Effect of hydrogen environments on the physical and mechanical properties of elastomers. Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM), Berlin, Germany. 2024; to be published. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zaghdoudi, M.; Kommling, A.; Bohning, M.; Jaunich, M. Ageing of elastomers in air and in hydrogen environment: A comparative study. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2024, 63, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lubricants 12 00233 g001
Figure 1. Exposure and test methodology.
Figure 1. Exposure and test methodology.
Lubricants 12 00233 g001
Lubricants 12 00233 g002
Figure 2. PT1 tribometer and ball-on-disc configuration.
Figure 2. PT1 tribometer and ball-on-disc configuration.
Lubricants 12 00233 g002
Lubricants 12 00233 g003
Figure 3. Profile of the wear scar: wear volume corresponds to the red area.
Figure 3. Profile of the wear scar: wear volume corresponds to the red area.
Lubricants 12 00233 g003
Lubricants 12 00233 g004aLubricants 12 00233 g004b
Figure 4. Friction force–D curves of HNBR-CB (a), HNBR-CB-PA (b), EPDM1 (c), EPDM2 (d), NBR-Sil (e), NBR-CB-perox (f), NBR-CB (g) and NBR-CB-plast (h) in air, and in hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and 10 MPa (dashed line: begin; solid line: end of the test).
Figure 4. Friction force–D curves of HNBR-CB (a), HNBR-CB-PA (b), EPDM1 (c), EPDM2 (d), NBR-Sil (e), NBR-CB-perox (f), NBR-CB (g) and NBR-CB-plast (h) in air, and in hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and 10 MPa (dashed line: begin; solid line: end of the test).
Lubricants 12 00233 g004aLubricants 12 00233 g004b
Lubricants 12 00233 g005
Figure 5. Coefficient of friction curves as a function of time of HNBR-CB (a), EPDM2 (b), NBR-Sil (c), NBR-CB-perox (d), NBR-CB (e) and NBR-CB-plast (f) in ambient air and in hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and 10 MPa.
Figure 5. Coefficient of friction curves as a function of time of HNBR-CB (a), EPDM2 (b), NBR-Sil (c), NBR-CB-perox (d), NBR-CB (e) and NBR-CB-plast (f) in ambient air and in hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and 10 MPa.
Lubricants 12 00233 g005
Lubricants 12 00233 g006
Figure 6. Average friction coefficient at the end of the tests (a) and wear volume of rubber materials (b) after tests in ambient air and in hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and 10 MPa (with different scales).
Figure 6. Average friction coefficient at the end of the tests (a) and wear volume of rubber materials (b) after tests in ambient air and in hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and 10 MPa (with different scales).
Lubricants 12 00233 g006
Lubricants 12 00233 g007
Figure 7. 3D profilometer images of the wear scar of (a) NBR-Sil, (b) NBR-CB-perox, (c) NBR-CB and (d) NBR-CB-plast after tests in air (left) and in 10 MPa H2 (right).
Figure 7. 3D profilometer images of the wear scar of (a) NBR-Sil, (b) NBR-CB-perox, (c) NBR-CB and (d) NBR-CB-plast after tests in air (left) and in 10 MPa H2 (right).
Lubricants 12 00233 g007
Lubricants 12 00233 g008aLubricants 12 00233 g008b
Figure 8. Optical microscope images of the wear scar (left and middle) and of the ball (right) after tests in air and in 10 MPa H2: (a) HNBR-CB, (b) EPDM2, (c) NBR-CB and (d) NBR-CB-perox.
Figure 8. Optical microscope images of the wear scar (left and middle) and of the ball (right) after tests in air and in 10 MPa H2: (a) HNBR-CB, (b) EPDM2, (c) NBR-CB and (d) NBR-CB-perox.
Lubricants 12 00233 g008aLubricants 12 00233 g008b
Lubricants 12 00233 g009
Figure 9. EDX maps of the wear scar after tests in air (top) and in 10 MPa H2 (bottom): (a) NBR-Sil, (b) NBR-CB-perox and (c) NBR-CB-plast.
Figure 9. EDX maps of the wear scar after tests in air (top) and in 10 MPa H2 (bottom): (a) NBR-Sil, (b) NBR-CB-perox and (c) NBR-CB-plast.
Lubricants 12 00233 g009
Lubricants 12 00233 g010aLubricants 12 00233 g010b
Figure 10. ATR-IR of the wear scar after tests in air and in 10 MPa H2: (a) HNBR-CB, (b) EPDM1, (c) NBR-CB, (d) NBR-Sil and (e) NBR-CB-perox.
Figure 10. ATR-IR of the wear scar after tests in air and in 10 MPa H2: (a) HNBR-CB, (b) EPDM1, (c) NBR-CB, (d) NBR-Sil and (e) NBR-CB-perox.
Lubricants 12 00233 g010aLubricants 12 00233 g010b
Lubricants 12 00233 g011
Figure 11. Friction force versus displacement for HNBR-CB-PA immediately (a) and 24 h (b) after finishing the high-pressure exposure with corresponding optical microscopy images and 3D profile measurements of the wear scar; Friction force versus displacement for (c) EPDM2 immediately and 24 h (d) after finishing the high-pressure exposure.
Figure 11. Friction force versus displacement for HNBR-CB-PA immediately (a) and 24 h (b) after finishing the high-pressure exposure with corresponding optical microscopy images and 3D profile measurements of the wear scar; Friction force versus displacement for (c) EPDM2 immediately and 24 h (d) after finishing the high-pressure exposure.
Lubricants 12 00233 g011
Table 1. Overview of the materials with the curing system, filler composition and resulting shore A hardness.
Table 1. Overview of the materials with the curing system, filler composition and resulting shore A hardness.
MaterialsCuringFillersHardness (ShA)
HNBR-CBPeroxidecarbon black (75 phr)79
HNBR-CB-PAPeroxidecarbon black (67 phr) + PA (10 phr)82
NBR-SilSulfursilica (60 phr) + SCA 2 phr70
NBR-CB-peroxPeroxidecarbon black (70 phr) (MgO)81
NBR-CBSulfurcarbon black (75 phr)76
NBR-CB-plastSulfurcarbon black (95 phr) + plast. (10 phr)78
EPDM1Sulfurcarbon black (100 phr)77
EPDM2Sulfurcarbon black (120 phr)81
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Theiler, G.; Cano Murillo, N.; Hausberger, A. Effect of Hydrogen Pressure on the Fretting Behavior of Rubber Materials. Lubricants 2024, 12, 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants12070233

AMA Style

Theiler G, Cano Murillo N, Hausberger A. Effect of Hydrogen Pressure on the Fretting Behavior of Rubber Materials. Lubricants. 2024; 12(7):233. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants12070233

Chicago/Turabian Style

Theiler, Géraldine, Natalia Cano Murillo, and Andreas Hausberger. 2024. "Effect of Hydrogen Pressure on the Fretting Behavior of Rubber Materials" Lubricants 12, no. 7: 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants12070233

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop