Comparing hydrogen embrittlement behaviors of two press hardening steels: 2 GPa vs. 1.5 GPa grade

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2022.02.020

Abstract

Abstract:

The hydrogen embrittlement (HE) behaviour and fracture toughness of two press hardening steels (PHS) with different strength grades (2 GPa and 1.5 GPa, designated as PHS2000 and PHS1500) were systematically compared. It is found that the higher carbon content in PHS2000 contributes to its high strength yet deteriorates its fracture toughness. Meanwhile, the hydrogen-induced adverse effects on fracture stress and fracture toughness are more intense in PHS2000 than in PHS1500. Consequently, if both are applied in a harsh corrosion environment (∼0.5 wppm), PHS2000 cannot offer any weight-saving over PHS1500.

Key words: Press hardening steels, Hydrogen embrittlement, Fracture toughness, Martensite

Z.H. Cao, B.N. Zhang, M.X. Huang. Comparing hydrogen embrittlement behaviors of two press hardening steels: 2 GPa vs. 1.5 GPa grade[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2022, 124: 109-115.

Figures/Tables 7

Table 1. Chemical composition (in wt.%) and austenitization treatment of PHS1500 and PHS2000.

Empty Cell	C	Mn	Si	Cr	V	Ti	B	Fe	Austenitization treatment
PHS1500	0.23	1.2	0.2	0.2	-	-	0.004	Balance	930 °C, 5 min
PHS2000	0.33	1.49	0.13	-	0.16	0.03	0.002	Balance	900 °C, 5 min

Table 2. Gauge geometry of specimens and experiment conditions for various mechanical tests.

Type No.	Mechanical test type	Gauge length / width (mm)	Notch geometry / effective width (mm)	Method to introduce hydrogen
1	SSRT test	25 / 6	-	Pre-charge with a current density of 0.1 mA/cm² for various periods
2		12 / 8	Double round notch with a radius of 2 mm / 4
3	CLT	10 / 2	-	Immersion during test

Fig. 1. SEM images and EBSD- IPF maps of PHS: (a, c) PHS1500 and (b, d) PHS2000.

Fig. 2. The hydrogen-induced mechanical property degradation in PHS1500 and PHS2000: (a) by smooth samples; (b) by notched samples.

Fig. 3. (a) The variation in time to fracture of PHS1500 and PHS2000 regarding different loading stresses; (b) the correlation between fracture probability and applied stress ratio.

Fig. 4. (a) Typical fracture surface overview of PHS1500 and (d) PHS2000, both SSRT-notched samples were charged for 15,000 s before straining. Arrows show the direction of crack propagation; (b) High magnification images of ductile MVC feature and (c) IG feature of PHS1500 taken from (a); (e) High magnification images of ductile MVC feature and (f) IG feature of PHS2000 taken from (d).

Fig. 5. (a) The J-integral-based resistance curves (J-R curves) measured from the side-grooved C(T) specimens at room temperature; (b) the corresponding fracture toughness in terms of K; (c) the complete stress-displacement curve of PHS notched samples under 250 minutes’ pre-charging; (d) the magnified regions in (c) after the respective peak stress.

References 30

[1]	O. Bouaziz, H. Zurob, M. Huang, Steel Res. Int. 84 (2013) 937-947.
[2]	A. Taub, E. De Moor, A. Luo, D.K. Matlock, J.G. Speer, U. Vaidya, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 49 (2019) 327-359. DOI URL
[3]	H. Karbasian, A.E. Tekkaya, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210 (2010) 2103-2118. DOI URL
[4]	T. Taylor, A. Clough, Mater. Sci. Technol. (United Kingdom) 34 (2018) 809-861.
[5]	E. Billur, Hot Formed Steels, Elsevier Ltd, 2016.
[6]	M. Dadfarnia, P. Novak, D.C. Ahn, J.B. Liu, P. Sofronis, D.D. Johnson, I.M. Robertson, Adv. Mater. 22 (2010) 1128-1135. DOI URL
[7]	J. Venezuela, Q. Liu, M. Zhang, Q. Zhou, A. Atrens, Corros. Rev. 34 (2016) 153-186. DOI URL
[8]	A. Nagao, M. Dadfarnia, B.P. Somerday, P. Sofronis, R.O. Ritchie, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 112 (2018) 403-430. DOI URL
[9]	J. Venezuela, F.Y. Lim, L. Liu, S. James, Q. Zhou, R. Knibbe, M. Zhang, H. Li, F. Dong, M.S. Dargusch, A. Atrens, Corros. Sci. 171 (2020) 108726. DOI URL
[10]	M.R. Louthan, G.R. Caskey, J.A. Donovan, D.E. Rawl, Mater. Sci. Eng. 10 (1972) 357-368. DOI URL
[11]	J.P. Hirth, Metall. Trans. A 11 (1980) 861-890. DOI URL
[12]	C.D. Beachem, Metall. Trans. 3 (1972) 441-455.
[13]	J. Venezuela, Q. Liu, M. Zhang, Q. Zhou, A. Atrens, Corros. Sci. 99 (2015) 98-117. DOI URL
[14]	H.F. Li, Q.Q. Duan, P. Zhang, Z.F. Zhang, Adv. Eng. Mater. 21 (2019) 1-6.
[15]	O. Barrera, D. Bombac, Y. Chen, T.D. Daff, E. Galindo-Nava, P. Gong, D. Haley, R. Horton, I. Katzarov, J.R. Kermode, C. Liverani, M. Stopher, F. Sweeney, J. Mater. Sci. 53 (2018) 6251-6290. DOI PMID
[16]	ASTM Standard E1820, ASTM B. Stand. i(2013) 1-54.
[17]	X.K. Zhu, B.N. Leis, J. ASTM Int. 7 (2010) 130-158.
[18]	X.K. Zhu, J.A. Joyce, Eng. Fract. Mech. 85 (2012) 1-46. DOI URL
[19]	H. Fuchigami, H. Minami, M. Nagumo, Philos. Mag. Lett. 86 (2006) 21-29. DOI URL
[20]	L.W. Tsay, H.L. Lu, C. Chen, Corros. Sci. 50 (2008) 2506-2511. DOI URL
[21]	K. Takasawa, Y. Wada, R. Ishigaki, R. Kayano, Mater. Trans. 51 (2010) 347-353. DOI URL
[22]	J.Y. Lee, J.L. Lee, W.Y. Choo, Current Solutions to Hydrogen Problems in Steels, ASM, Metals Park, OH, 1982, pp. 423-27.
[23]	S. Frappart, X. Feaugas, J. Creus, F. Thebault, L. Delattre, H. Marchebois, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 71 (2010) 1467-1479. DOI URL
[24]	E.I. Galindo-Nava, B.I.Y. Basha, P.E.J. Rivera-Díaz-del-Castillo, J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 33 (2017) 1433-1447. DOI
[25]	A. Shibata, T. Yonemura, Y. Momotani, M. heom Park, S. Takagi, Y. Madi, J. Besson, N. Tsuji, Acta Mater 210 (2021) 116828. DOI URL
[26]	G. Krauss, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 273-275 (1999) 40-57. DOI URL
[27]	C.L. Bauer, Mater. Sci. Eng. 59 (1) (1983) 139. DOI URL
[28]	H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia, R.W.K. Honeycombe, Steels: microstructure and Properties, 4th ed., 2017.
[29]	D. Frómeta, A. Lara, S. Molas, D. Casellas, J. Rehrl, C. Suppan, P. Larour, J. Calvo, Eng. Fract. Mech. 205 (2019) 319-332. DOI URL
[30]	Z. Wang, M.X. Huang, Int. J. Plast. 134 (2020) 102851. DOI URL