4.7 Article

On the physical differences between tensile testing of type 304 and 316 austenitic stainless steels with internal hydrogen and in external hydrogen

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 35, 期 18, 页码 9736-9745

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.06.018

关键词

Austenitic stainless steel; Hydrogen environment; embrittlement; Internal hydrogen embrittlement

资金

  1. German Bundesministerium fur Wirtschaft und Technologie [0327802A]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-AC04-94AL85000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Seventeen metastable austenitic stainless steels (type 304 and 316 alloys) were tested in tension both with internal hydrogen and in external hydrogen. Hydrogen-assisted fracture in both environments is a competition between hydrogen-affected ductile overload and hydrogen-assisted crack propagation. In general, hydrogen localizes the fracture process, which results in crack propagation of particularly susceptible materials at an apparent engineering stress that is less than the tensile strength of the material. Hydrogen-assisted crack propagation in this class of alloys becomes more prevalent at lower nickel content and lower temperature. In addition, for the tests in this study, external hydrogen reduces tensile ductility more than internal hydrogen. External hydrogen promotes crack initiation and propagation at the surface, while with internal hydrogen surface cracking is largely absent, thus preempting hydrogen-assisted crack propagation from the surface. This is not a general result, however, because the reduction of ductility with internal and external hydrogen depends on the specifics of the testing conditions that are compared (e.g., hydrogen gas pressure); in addition, internal hydrogen can promote the formation of internal cracks, which can propagate similar to surface cracks. (C) 2010 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据