PSI - Issue 54

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000 – 000 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞ ŝƌĞĐƚ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000 – 000 ^ĐŝĞŶĐĞ ŝƌĞĐƚ

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect

Procedia Structural Integrity 54 (2024) 322–331

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 ) Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the ICSI 2023 organizers © 2023 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the ICSI 2023 organizers Keywords: cathodic and gaseous hydrogen charging; hydrogen uptake and trapping; A516, 304L and 316L; thermal desorption spectroscopy with mass spectrometry. Abstract This work provides data on hydrogen uptake while optimizing of the charging parameters for cathodic (current density, time, and temperature) and gaseous (time, temperature) hydrogen charging. Samples of three steels, low alloyed carbon (A516 Grade 70) and two austenitic stainless (304L UNS S30403 and 316L UNS S31603) steels were charged with hydrogen using both charging methods under different charging parameters. The hydrogen content after charging was analyzed using thermal desorption spectroscopy with mass spectrometry (TDMS). TDMS curves revealed that hydrogen occupies different trapping sites in the steels depending on the charging method. Cathodic charging resulted in pronounced hydrogen trapping in the reversible traps “diffusible hydrogen”, while gaseous charging resulted in pronounced hydrogen trapping in the irreversible traps “trapped hydrogen” . Moreover, it was revealed that through optimization of the cathodic charging parameters namely of cathodic current density, charging time and temperature of the electrolyte one can influence the irreversible and reversible trapping sites in the steels promoting hydrogen uptake. The charging conditions for both charging methods were compared and similar total hydrogen uptake (diffusible and trapped) levels were established. © 2023 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the ICSI 2023 organizers Keywords: cathodic and gaseous hydrogen charging; hydrogen uptake and trapping; A516, 304L and 316L; thermal desorption spectroscopy with mass spectrometry. International Conference on Structural Integrity 2023 (ICSI 2023) Comparative study of hydrogen uptake in low alloyed carbon and austenitic stainless steels under cathodic hydrogen charging in aqueous electrolyte and gaseous hydrogen charging Daria Pałgan, Markus Uhlirsch, Nuria Fuertes and Birhan Sefer * Corrosion and Hydrogen Embrittlement, Materials Development Department, Swerim AB, Box 7047, 164 07 Kista, Sweden Abstract This work provides data on hydrogen uptake while optimizing of the charging parameters for cathodic (current density, time, and temperature) and gaseous (time, temperature) hydrogen charging. Samples of three steels, low alloyed carbon (A516 Grade 70) and two austenitic stainless (304L UNS S30403 and 316L UNS S31603) steels were charged with hydrogen using both charging methods under different charging parameters. The hydrogen content after charging was analyzed using thermal desorption spectroscopy with mass spectrometry (TDMS). TDMS curves revealed that hydrogen occupies different trapping sites in the steels depending on the charging method. Cathodic charging resulted in pronounced hydrogen trapping in the reversible traps “diffusible hydrogen”, while gaseous charging resulted in pronounced hydrogen trapping in the irreversible traps “trapped hydrogen” . Moreover, it was revealed that through optimization of the cathodic charging parameters namely of cathodic current density, charging time and temperature of the electrolyte one can influence the irreversible and reversible trapping sites in the steels promoting hydrogen uptake. The charging conditions for both charging methods were compared and similar total hydrogen uptake (diffusible and trapped) levels were established. International Conference on Structural Integrity 2023 (ICSI 2023) Comparative study of hydrogen uptake in low alloyed carbon and austenitic stainless steels under cathodic hydrogen charging in aqueous electrolyte and gaseous hydrogen charging Daria Pałgan, Markus Uhlirsch, Nuria Fuertes and Birhan Sefer * Corrosion and Hydrogen Embrittlement, Materials Development Department, Swerim AB, Box 7047, 164 07 Kista, Sweden

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 (0)73 048 37 98. E-mail address: birhan.sefer@swerim.se * Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 (0)73 048 37 98. E-mail address: birhan.sefer@swerim.se

2452-3216 © 2023 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the ICSI 2023 organizers 2452-3216 © 2023 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the ICSI 2023 organizers

2452-3216 © 2023 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the ICSI 2023 organizers 10.1016/j.prostr.2024.01.090