PSI - Issue 80

M. Elkhodbia et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 80 (2026) 187–194

192

6

Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000

Fig. 2. Boundary conditions and finite element mesh for a quarter-section of (a) the DCB specimen and (b) the wedge, showing (c) the insertion of the wedge into the DCB specimen.

Fig. 3. (a) Evolution of C inv over time for P110 steel in NACE solution A at di ff erent temperatures, and (b) temperature dependence of hydrogen di ff usion coe ffi cient, based on electrochemical permeation experiments by Vera et al. Vera and Case (1997). Table 2. Material parameters used in the numerical simulations for P110 steel Vera and Case (1997). Elastic, thermal, hydrogen transport, and phase field parameters are based on Elkhodbia and Barsoum and sources therein. Plasticity parameters are assumed typical values. Parameter Units P110 Steel Vera and Case (1997) Young’s Modulus, E GPa 207 Poisson’s ratio, ν - 0.3 Initial Yield Strength, σ y 0 MPa 758 Hardening exponent, n p GPa 0.04 Plastic Energy Factor, β - 0.1 G c ( T 0 , 0) N / mm 78.7 Zhang et al. (2020) T 0 C 25 R J / (mol · K) 8.314 D ref cm 2 / sec 4.70 × 10 − 2 E a J / mol 3.84 × 10 2 ℓ mm 0.15 ¯ V H mm 3 / mol 2000 k d - 1.0 × 10 6 ϕ th - 0.9 k 0 W / (m · K) 45 c J / (kg · K) 470 α (Thermal Exp.) K − 1 12.5 × 10 − 6 ρ 0 kg / m 3 7850

Despite the improved accuracy, the di ff erence between the elastic and elasto-plastic predictions remains relatively small for this particular P110 steel under SSC conditions. Nonetheless, the elasto-plastic framework incorporates a