Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Modeling the effect of grain boundary diffusivity and trapping on hydrogen transport using a phase-field compatible formulation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Under an external occupancy gradient, grain-boundary trapping and diffusion cooperate to increase hydrogen flux along the boundaries.

desk verdict Clean phase-field H transport formulation, but the trapping-boosts-flux result is an artifact of assuming trapped H is mobile. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18974 v1 pith:HIYYNB32 submitted 2024-12-25 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Abdelrahman Hussein , Byungki Kim , Tom Depover , Kim Verbeken This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords hydrogenembrittlementgrainboundarytrappingphase-fieldmethodpermeationtrapping-diffusioninteractioninterstitialoccupancyrepresentativevolumeelement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents a phase-field based simulation model of hydrogen transport in polycrystalline metals in which both lattice diffusion and grain-boundary trapping are described by a single kinetic equation for the interstitial occupancy $\theta$. It uses the model to revisit a long-standing question: do grain boundaries act mainly as hydrogen sinks or as fast diffusion paths? For uptake, stronger trap-binding energy $\Delta E_\mathrm{gb}$ simply raises the hydrogen content held at boundaries. For permeation, the paper finds the opposite of the usual intuition: increasing $\Delta E_\mathrm{gb}$ raises the steady-state hydrogen flux along the boundaries. The reason is that trapping enriches the boundary occupancy, which steepens the occupancy gradient along the boundary and thereby drives a larger diffusion flux along it.

What carries the argument

The object carrying the argument is the fully kinetic diffusion equation $\mathbf{J}=-\frac{D}{RT}\left(\frac{6}{V_m}\nabla\theta-\frac{\kappa_\mathrm{gb}\,\theta}{RT}\nabla g(\phi)\right)$, in which $\theta$ is the unitless occupancy and $g(\phi)$ is the double-obstacle potential that is nonzero only inside grain boundaries and triple junctions. The first term is the Fickian diffusion flux and the second is the trapping flux that pulls hydrogen toward the boundary center. Equilibrium between lattice and boundary is enforced through a parallel-tangent segregation isotherm, and the boundary diffusivity is interpolated as $D=D_L(D_\mathrm{gb}/D_L)^{4g(\phi)}$. Because the grain-boundary geometry is written directly into $g(\phi)$, the formulation needs no separate equations for lattice, boundary, and triple-junction regions, and the triple junctions automatically inherit a stronger trapping and diffusivity weighting.

What would settle it

A bicrystal permeation experiment with boundary and lattice diffusivity equal, comparing two conditions that differ only in grain-boundary trap-binding energy, would settle the claim: the model predicts a higher steady-state flux for stronger trapping, whereas a classical immobile-trapping model predicts a lower flux or no increase.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the presence of an external occupancy gradient, grain-boundary trapping and grain-boundary diffusion cooperate, rather than compete. The authors derive a phase-field compatible transport equation whose total flux splits into a Fickian part $\mathbf{J}_\theta$ and a trap-filling part $\mathbf{J}_\mathrm{gb}$ directed toward the boundary center. In their permeation simulations, increasing the trap-binding energy $\Delta E_\mathrm{gb}$ increases the occupancy at the grain boundaries and, because the external gradient is superimposed, increases the occupancy gradient along those boundaries. That larger gradient produces a larger boundary flux even when the boundary diffusivity $D_\mathrm{gb}$ equals the lattice diffusivity $D_L$. The paper also reports that $D_\mathrm{gb}$, not $\Delta E_\mathrm{gb}$, is the decisive parameter for how much hydrogen the boundaries retain during permeation.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on treating hydrogen trapped at grain boundaries as still mobile, conducting along the boundary with the same occupancy fraction and boundary diffusivity; if trapped hydrogen were immobile, stronger trapping would instead slow effective transport.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Grain boundaries can act as high-flux hydrogen pathways even when $D_\mathrm{gb}=D_L$, because trapping itself creates the steeper occupancy gradient that drives the boundary flux.
  • The apparent diffusivity $D_\mathrm{app}$ extracted from permeation curves reflects the time to reach steady state, not the steady-state flux, so it can mislead when trapping is active.
  • In early permeation, trapping-dominated grain-boundary advancement produces a convex lattice front, while diffusivity-dominated advancement produces a concave one, giving a fingerprint to separate the two mechanisms.
  • The equilibrium distribution in Eq. (8) can replace the full kinetic equation whenever trap-filling kinetics are fast relative to the process of interest.
  • Triple junctions are accounted for implicitly through $g(\phi)=1/3$, avoiding the extra bookkeeping needed in geometric representative volume element models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the trapped hydrogen population were treated as immobile, as in classical trapping models, stronger $\Delta E_\mathrm{gb}$ would probably reduce rather than raise the boundary flux; the cooperation result depends on the mobile-trapped assumption in Eq. (11).
  • Editorial inference: the numerical boundary width of $5\,\mu$m overestimates the trapped inventory by orders of magnitude, so a physical-width simulation would likely preserve the sign but shrink the size of the trapping-enhanced flux.
  • Editorial inference: the same mechanism may explain why grain-boundary mapping experiments show bright boundaries even when bulk diffusivity is unchanged, shifting the interpretation from fast boundary diffusion to trapping-enhanced gradient.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a phase-field-compatible formulation for hydrogen segregation and trapping at grain boundaries (GBs). Starting from a free-energy functional with a compound-energy-formalism chemical term and a simplified GB segregation potential, it derives an equilibrium McLean/Oriani-type isotherm and a kinetic diffusion equation in which the flux has a Fickian part and a GB-potential (trapping) part. The model is applied to a bicrystal and to 2D polycrystalline RVEs, with GB trap-binding energy ΔEgb and GB diffusivity Dgb as parameters. Uptake and permeation simulations show that increasing ΔEgb raises GB occupancy, and that in permeation the hydrogen flux along GBs increases with both Dgb and ΔEgb. The paper concludes that under an external occupancy gradient, GB trapping and diffusion cooperate rather than compete.

Significance. The phase-field formulation is a genuinely useful step: it avoids treating GBs as separate materials, provides a closed equilibrium isotherm tied to ΔEgb, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the numerical-width limitation. The derivation from a free-energy functional is internally consistent, and the numerical experiments reproduce Oriani local-equilibrium behavior. If the cooperation claim is understood as a prediction of the specific single-mobility model, it offers a testable mechanism and agrees qualitatively with some experiments. However, the abstract and conclusions state the cooperation result as a general physical conclusion, and the manuscript does not disclose or justify the load-bearing assumption that trapped GB hydrogen remains mobile. The result is therefore less robust than presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (11); Abstract; Conclusions] The central claim that trapping increases GB flux is not an emergent property of trapping but a consequence of the single-mobility assumption. Eq. (11) uses one total-occupancy field θ and one diffusivity field D, so trapped GB hydrogen contributes to the Fickian flux exactly like lattice hydrogen. For a GB parallel to the external flux, ∇g=0 and the along-GB flux is J∥ = -Dgb (6/Vm)∇∥θgb. In the dilute limit, Eq. (8) gives θgb ≈ θL exp(-ΔEgb/RT), and with the negative ΔEgb used in the simulations this yields J∥ = (Dgb/DL) exp(-ΔEgb/RT) JL. Thus the reported cooperation is built into the model by construction. In the classical McNabb-Foster/Oriani picture, trapped hydrogen is immobile and the mobile flux is controlled by θL, so the same increase in ΔEgb would not raise the GB flux and could reduce effective transport. The manuscript nowhere states or justifies the mobility assumption; the abstract and conclusions present the cooperation as a general result. Please either justify the assumption physically or explicitly qualify the claim as model-specific.
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (6)-(7)] There is a sign inconsistency in the equilibrium isotherm. Eq. (6) states that θgb/(1-θgb) = [θL/(1-θL)] exp(κgbVm/24RT) = [θL/(1-θL)] exp(ΔEgb/RT), but combining Eqs. (6) and (7) gives κgbVm/24RT = -ΔEgb/RT, so the exponential should be exp(-ΔEgb/RT). Since all simulations use negative ΔEgb, the displayed equality in Eq. (6) would predict θgb < θL, opposite to the enrichment shown in Fig. 4 and in the stated interpretation of ΔEgb as a binding energy. The sign convention should be made consistent (either the exponential or the definition of κgb must change), and the text should state the sign convention for ΔEgb explicitly.
  3. [§2.3, Eq. (13); §2.4 time-step discussion] The displayed conservation equation is dimensionally inconsistent as written. If J in Eq. (11) is the molar flux in mol/(m² s) and the concentration is c = 6θ/Vm, then conservation requires ∂θ/∂t = -(Vm/6)∇·J, not ∂θ/∂t = -∇·J as printed in Eq. (13). The stability criterion in §2.4, where Δt is stated to have units s·m³/mol and physical time is 6Δt/Vm, shows that the numerical implementation effectively uses the factored form. The printed PDE should be corrected, and the units of the fluxes should be stated consistently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (10)] In Eq. (10), the notation ∂F²/∂θ² should read ∂²F/∂θ²; as printed it is a typographical corruption of a standard second derivative.
  2. [§2.5, numerical width caveat] The acknowledged overestimation of the trapped hydrogen inventory due to the numerical GB width η = 5 μm also applies to the total integrated GB flux and to the RVE-averaged flux reported in §4.2 and §4.3. The local flux density at the GB center is less affected, but the global comparison of RVE-averaged fluxes should carry the same qualitative-analysis caveat as the inventory statement.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption labels both the normalized-flux panel and the apparent-diffusivity panel as '(d)'; the second one should be '(f)' to match the panels in Figs. 7(d)-7(f).
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'it is the an appropriate numerical tool' in the abstract/introduction, 'accoding' in the Fig. 3 caption, and 'termdiffusion' for 'term diffusion' in the bullet list after Eq. (11).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the equilibrium isotherm and transport equations are derived from a stated free-energy functional and linear irreversible thermodynamics, with ΔE_gb and D_gb treated as input parameters rather than fitted outputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The free-energy contributions f_ch and f_trap^gb are stated, Eq. (6)/(8) follows from equality of chemical potentials and reproduces the external McLean/Oriani isotherm, and Eq. (11) follows from J = -θM∇(δF/δθ) in the dilute limit. Neither ΔE_gb nor D_gb is fitted to the simulated flux or uptake; they are varied parameters, and the equilibrium profile is checked against Eq. (8). The central 'cooperation' conclusion is a mathematical consequence of the stated single-occupancy mobile-trap model: along a GB parallel to the external flux, J_θ scales as exp(-ΔE_gb/RT)∇θ_L, so stronger trapping enhances the along-GB concentration-gradient flux. That is a derived consequence, not a quantity fitted or defined as the conclusion. The tacit assumption that trapped GB hydrogen remains mobile is a modeling assumption and a limitation—the paper itself notes in Sec. 2.5 that the diffuse-interface width overestimates the trapped inventory and that the model should be used for qualitative analysis—but assumption dependence is not circularity. Self-citations present in the reference list are used for context and experimental support, not as the load-bearing justification of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters: Delta_Egb and Dgb/DL are swept inputs, eta is a numerical choice, and boundary occupancy is taken from Sofronis and McMeeking. The derivation relies on CEF free energy, linear irreversible thermodynamics, the dilute-limit approximation, mobile GB-trapped hydrogen, the diffusivity interpolation of [29], and a simplified segregation potential from [30]. No new entity is introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Delta_Egb = -1, -5, -10, -15 kJ/mol (swept)
    Trap-binding energy is varied to study uptake and permeation; the central cooperation conclusion is reported as a function of this parameter.
  • Dgb/DL = 0.01, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 10 (swept)
    Ratio of GB to lattice diffusivity is varied; the retention claim says Dgb rather than Egb controls GB retention.
  • Numerical GB width eta = 5 micrometers (chosen)
    Phase-field interface width, four orders of magnitude above the physical GB width; the paper states it overestimates total GB hydrogen.
  • Boundary occupancy theta_b = 4.08 x 10^-9
    Constant uptake and permeation boundary condition converted from Sofronis and McMeeking lattice concentration; an input, not a fit.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Linear irreversible thermodynamics flux: J = -theta M grad(delta F/delta theta), Eq (9).
    Used without derivation; links the free energy functional to the transport equation.
  • standard math Dilute limit approximation 1 - theta = 1 when passing from Eq (10) to Eq (11).
    Valid at the low occupancies simulated, but it is an approximation invoked to obtain the simple flux form.
  • domain assumption Hydrogen resides in tetrahedral interstitial sites of BCC alpha-Fe, represented by CEF two-sublattice model (Fe)1(H,Va)6.
    Host lattice model from CALPHAD; determines entropy terms and Vm.
  • standard math Local equilibrium between lattice and GB is constructed by equal chemical potentials, identifying kappa_gb with Delta_Egb.
    This is the McLean/Oriani isotherm; it is an equilibrium construction, not a kinetic derivation.
  • domain assumption GB-trapped hydrogen remains diffusively mobile with GB diffusivity Dgb; no immobile trap population is modeled.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the conclusion that trapping increases flux. Classical McNabb-Foster traps immobilize H and would not produce the same effect.
  • domain assumption Diffusivity interpolation D = DL (Dgb/DL)^(4g(phi)) from Gronhagen and Agren [29].
    No direct validation for alpha-Fe GBs; also amplifies Dgb/DL at triple junctions because g(phi)=1/3 there.
  • ad hoc to paper Simplified segregation potential f_trap = g(phi)(1 - kappa_gb theta), adapted from Kim and Park [30].
    Chosen for multiphase-field compatibility; the linear-in-theta form is not independently verified for hydrogen.
  • domain assumption Static phase-field RVE with numerical interface width eta = 5 micrometers is sufficient for qualitative analysis.
    The paper states eta is four orders of magnitude larger than real GB width and overestimates total H, so conclusions are qualitative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling the effect of grain boundary diffusivity and trapping on hydrogen transport using a phase-field compatible formulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HIYYNB32

@misc{pith2026241218974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling the effect of grain boundary diffusivity and trapping on hydrogen transport using a phase-field compatible formulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HIYYNB32}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18974}
}
abstract

Hydrogen grain boundary (GB) trapping is widely accepted as the main cause for hydrogen induced intergranular failure. Several studies were conducted to unveil the role of GBs on hydrogen transport; however, a clear understanding is yet to be attained. This is due to the limitations of the state-of-the-art experimental procedures for such highly kinetic processes. In this study, we aim at providing a deeper understanding of hydrogen-GB interactions using full-field representative volume element (RVE). The phase-field method is chosen for generating RVEs, since it is the an appropriate numerical tool to represent GBs. A novel fully-kinetic formulation for hydrogen diffusion and GB trapping is presented, which is compatible with the phase-field based RVEs. GB diffusivity ($D_\mathrm{gb}$) and trap-binding energy ($E_\mathrm{gb}$) were used as parameters to understand the interactions between diffusion and GB trapping. Uptake and permeation simulations were performed with constant and gradient occupancy boundary conditions respectively. In both cases, increasing $E_\mathrm{gb}$, increased the hydrogen GB occupancy. The permeation simulations showed that the hydrogen flux along the GBs increased with increasing both, $D_\mathrm{gb}$ and, surprisingly, $E_\mathrm{gb}$. Since trapping increases the hydrogen occupancy along GBs, it also increases the occupancy gradients, resulting in a higher flux. This led to the conclusion that, in the case of an external occupancy gradient, GB trapping and diffusion cooperate, rather than compete, to increase the hydrogen flux. On the other hand, the decisive factor for the retention of hydrogen at the GBs in permeation simulations was $D_\mathrm{gb}$ rather than $E_\mathrm{gb}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18974 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A cross-section of along the infinite bicrystal interface showing the profile of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic showing (a) the direction of interaction of the diffusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The evolution of the occupancy according to Eq.(13) for a single GB with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The occupancy fields after reaching equilibrium for different GB trap-binding energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average hydrogen uptake for different GB trap-binding energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two cases of the diffusivity field D where Dgb < DL and Dgb > DL. the exit side. This is because the equilibrium peak occupancy is related to the local baseline –or lattice– occupancy following Eq.(6). This is a clear manifestation of Oriani’s local equilibrium hypothe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) The evolution of the average occupancy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results for selected values of Dgb/DL. The first row shows the occupancy field superimposed by the flux vector field J⃗. The second row shows the corresponding flux magnitude field |J| be an external concentration gradient that will result in an external flux. In this …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The flux field for Dgb/DL = 1 and three cases of GB alignment with respect to the direction of the external flux field. The magnified figures show the total flux field J and its constituent GB driven flux J⃗ gb and concentration gradient driven flux J⃗ θ. the flux incr…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 3D surface of (a) the diffusion potential (occupancy field) at the steady state of the permeation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A snapshot at early stage (7.8×10−3 s) of permeation simulation showing the effect of Dgb/DL on the advancement of occupancy field front. A log-scale is used to better represent the iso-contour lines. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The effect of GB trapping and diffusivity on hydrogen occupancy and flux in the early stages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A snapshot at early stage (7.8 × 10−3 s) of permeation simulation showing the effect of ∆Egb on the advancement of occupancy field front. A log-scale is used to better represent the iso-contour lines. • The independent variable in the mass transport equation is the un…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Phase-field modeling of hydrogen diffusion and trapping in steels.Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 34(10):1421–1426, may 2021

    Jun Zhang, Jie Su, Boning Zhang, Yi Zong, Zhigang Yang, Chi Zhang, and Hao Chen. Phase-field modeling of hydrogen diffusion and trapping in steels.Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 34(10):1421–1426, may 2021. doi: 10.1007/s40195-021-01241-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s40195-021-01241-1 2021

  2. [2]

    Laureys, R

    A. Laureys, R. Depraetere, M. Cauwels, T. Depover, S. Hertelé, and K. Verbeken. Use of existing steel pipeline infrastructure for gaseous hydrogen storage and transport: A review of factors affecting hydrogen induced degradation.Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 101:104534, may

    work page

  3. [3]

    Influence of electrochemical hydrogenation parameters on microstructures prone to hydrogen- induced cracking

    Margo Cauwels, Robin Depraetere, Wim De Waele, Stijn Hertelé, Tom Depover, and Kim Ver- beken. Influence of electrochemical hydrogenation parameters on microstructures prone to hydrogen- induced cracking. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 101:104533, may 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2022.104533

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Djukic, and Sami Elaoud

    Omar Bouledroua, Zahreddine Hafsi, Milos B. Djukic, and Sami Elaoud. The synergistic effects of hydrogen embrittlement and transient gas flow conditions on integrity assessment of a precracked steel pipeline. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 45(35):18010–18020, jul 2020. doi: 10. 1016/j.ijhydene.2020.04.262

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Bechtle, M

    S. Bechtle, M. Kumar, B.P. Somerday, M.E. Launey, and R.O. Ritchie. Grain-boundary engineering markedly reduces susceptibility to intergranular hydrogen embrittlement in metallic materials.Acta Materialia, 57(14):4148–4157, aug 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2009.05.012

    doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2009.05.012 2009

  6. [6]

    Fundamentals of Hydrogen Embrittlement

    Michihiko Nagumo. Fundamentals of Hydrogen Embrittlement. Springer Singapore, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-0161-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-10-0161-1 2016

  7. [7]

    Alex McNabb and Peter K. Foster. A new analysis of the diffusion of hydrogen in iron and ferrite. Trans. of the metallic Soc, 227:618–627, 1963

    work page 1963

  8. [8]

    The diffusion and trapping of hydrogen in steel.Acta Metallurgica, 18(1):147–157, jan

    R.A Oriani. The diffusion and trapping of hydrogen in steel.Acta Metallurgica, 18(1):147–157, jan

    work page

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Bhadeshia

    Eun Ju Song, Dong-Woo Suh, and H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia. Theory for hydrogen desorption in ferritic steel. Computational Materials Science, 79:36–44, nov 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2013.06.008

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    Modelling of hydrogen permeation experiments in iron alloys: Characterization of the accessible parameters – part i – the entry side.Electrochimica Acta, 262:57–65, feb 2018

    Lorenzo Vecchi, Hans Simillion, Rodrigo Montoya, Dries Van Laethem, Emilie Van den Eeckhout, Kim Verbeken, Herman Terryn, Johan Deconinck, and Yves Van Ingelgem. Modelling of hydrogen permeation experiments in iron alloys: Characterization of the accessible parameters – part i...

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Critical verification of the kissinger theory to evaluate thermal desorption spectra.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(79):39590–39606, nov 2021

    Andreas Drexler, Liese Vandewalle, Tom Depover, Kim Verbeken, and Josef Domitner. Critical verification of the kissinger theory to evaluate thermal desorption spectra.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46(79):39590–39606, nov 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.09.171. 15

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Numericalanalysisofhydrogentransportnearabluntingcracktip

    P.SofronisandR.M.McMeeking. Numericalanalysisofhydrogentransportnearabluntingcracktip. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 37(3):317–350, jan1989. doi: 10.1016/0022-5096(89) 90002-1

    doi

  5. [14]

    Barrera, E

    O. Barrera, E. Tarleton, H.W. Tang, and A.C.F. Cocks. Modelling the coupling between hydrogen diffusion and the mechanical behaviour of metals.Computational Materials Science, 122:219–228, sep 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2016.05.030

    2016 doi

  6. [15]

    Niordson

    Emilio Martínez-Pañeda, Alireza Golahmar, and Christian F. Niordson. A phase field formulation for hydrogen assisted cracking. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 342: 742–761, dec 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2018.07.021

    2018 doi

  7. [16]

    Analysis of the influ- ence of microstructural traps on hydrogen assisted fatigue.Acta Materialia, 199:253–263, oct 2020

    Rebeca Fernández-Sousa, Covadonga Betegón, and Emilio Martínez-Pañeda. Analysis of the influ- ence of microstructural traps on hydrogen assisted fatigue.Acta Materialia, 199:253–263, oct 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2020.08.030

    2020 doi

  8. [17]

    Rimoli and M

    J.J. Rimoli and M. Ortiz. A three-dimensional multiscale model of intergranular hydrogen-assisted cracking. Philosophical Magazine, 90(21):2939–2963, jul 2010. doi: 10.1080/14786431003752134

    2010 doi

  9. [18]

    Ilin, Nicolas Saintier, Jean-Marc Olive, Remi Abgrall, and Isabelle Aubert

    Dmitrii N. Ilin, Nicolas Saintier, Jean-Marc Olive, Remi Abgrall, and Isabelle Aubert. Simulation of hydrogen diffusion affected by stress-strain heterogeneity in polycrystalline stainless steel.Interna- tional Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 39(5):2418–2422, feb 2014. doi: 10.101...

    2014 doi

  10. [19]

    Comparison of hydrogen transport through pre-deformed synthetic polycrystals and homogeneous samples by finite element analysis

    Yann Charles, Hung Tuan Nguyen, and Monique Gaspérini. Comparison of hydrogen transport through pre-deformed synthetic polycrystals and homogeneous samples by finite element analysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(31):20336–20350, aug 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhyde...

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    Homogeneity and representativeness analyses of solid oxide fuel cell cathode microstructures.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(51):30166–30178, dec 2017

    Zilin Yan, Shotaro Hara, Yongtae Kim, and Naoki Shikazono. Homogeneity and representativeness analyses of solid oxide fuel cell cathode microstructures.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 42(51):30166–30178, dec 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.096

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    Micromechanical modelling of coupled crystal plasticity and hydrogen diffusion

    Hamad ul Hassan, Kishan Govind, and Alexander Hartmaier. Micromechanical modelling of coupled crystal plasticity and hydrogen diffusion. Philosophical Magazine, 99(1):92–115, oct 2018. doi: 10.1080/14786435.2018.1530466

    2018

  13. [22]

    Krom, Poulumi Dey, Gagus K

    Abdelrahman Hussein, Alfons H.M. Krom, Poulumi Dey, Gagus K. Sunnardianto, Othonas A. Moultos, and Carey L. Walters. The effect of hydrogen content and yield strength on the distribution of hydrogen in steel: a diffusion coupled micromechanical FEM study.Acta Materialia, 209:1...

    2021

  14. [24]

    Croft, L

    Sathiskumar Jothi, T.N. Croft, L. Wright, A. Turnbull, and S.G.R. Brown. Multi-phase modelling of intergranular hydrogen segregation/trapping for hydrogen embrittlement.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 40(43):15105–15123, nov 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.08.093

    2015 doi

  15. [25]

    Dmitrii N Ilin, Anton A Kutsenko, Dome Tanguy, and Jean-Marc Olive. Effect of grain boundary trapping kinetics on diffusion in polycrystalline materials: hydrogen transport in ni.Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering, 24(3):035008, feb 2016. doi: 10.108...

    2016 doi

  16. [26]

    A. Díaz, I. I. Cuesta, E. Martinez-Pañeda, and J. M. Alegre. Analysis of hydrogen permeation tests considering two different modelling approaches for grain boundary trapping in iron.International Journal of Fracture, 223(1-2):17–35, dec 2019. doi: 10.1007/s10704-019-00411-8. 16

    2019 doi

  17. [27]

    A. Díaz, A. Zafra, E. Martínez-Pañeda, J.M. Alegre, J. Belzunce, and I.I. Cuesta. Simulation of hydrogen permeation through pure iron for trapping and surface phenomena characterisation. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 110:102818, dec 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.tafmec.20...

    2020 doi

  18. [28]

    Generation of 3d representative volume elements for heterogeneous materials: A review

    Swantje Bargmann, Benjamin Klusemann, Jürgen Markmann, Jan Eike Schnabel, Konrad Schnei- der, Celal Soyarslan, and Jana Wilmers. Generation of 3d representative volume elements for heterogeneous materials: A review. Progress in Materials Science, 96:322–384, jul 2018. doi: 10....

    2018 doi

  19. [29]

    Grain-boundary segregation and dynamic solute drag theory—a phase-field approach.Acta Materialia, 55(3):955–960, feb 2007

    Klara Grönhagen and John Ågren. Grain-boundary segregation and dynamic solute drag theory—a phase-field approach.Acta Materialia, 55(3):955–960, feb 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2006.09.017

    2007 doi

  20. [30]

    Grain boundary segregation, solute drag and abnormal grain growth

    Seong Gyoon Kim and Yong Bum Park. Grain boundary segregation, solute drag and abnormal grain growth. Acta Materialia, 56(15):3739–3753, sep 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2008.04.007

    2008 doi

  21. [31]

    Fadi Abdeljawad and Stephen M. Foiles. Stabilization of nanocrystalline alloys via grain boundary segregation: A diffuse interface model. Acta Materialia, 101:159–171, dec 2015. doi: 10.1016/j. actamat.2015.07.058

    2015 doi

  22. [32]

    Almeida, Kamen Tushtev, and Kurosch Rezwan

    Julia Kundin, Hedieh Farhandi, Kamatchi Priya Ganesan, Renato S.M. Almeida, Kamen Tushtev, and Kurosch Rezwan. Phase-field modeling of grain growth in presence of grain boundary diffusion and segregation in ceramic matrix mini-composites.Computational Materials Science, 190:11...

    2021

  23. [34]

    Phase-field models in materials science

    Ingo Steinbach. Phase-field models in materials science. Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering, 17(7):073001, jul 2009. doi: 10.1088/0965-0393/17/7/073001

    2009 doi

  24. [35]

    A review of calphad modeling of ordered phases.Journal of Phase Equilibria and Diffusion, 39(5):678–693, aug 2018

    Bo Sundman, Qing Chen, and Yong Du. A review of calphad modeling of ordered phases.Journal of Phase Equilibria and Diffusion, 39(5):678–693, aug 2018. doi: 10.1007/s11669-018-0671-y

    2018 doi

  25. [36]

    Alfons H. M. Krom and Ad Bakker. Hydrogen trapping models in steel.Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, 31(6):1475–1482, dec 2000. doi: 10.1007/s11663-000-0032-0

    doi

  26. [37]

    Svoboda and F.D

    J. Svoboda and F.D. Fischer. Modelling for hydrogen diffusion in metals with traps revisited.Acta Materialia, 60(3):1211–1220, feb 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2011.11.025

    2012 doi

  27. [38]

    Grain Boundary Segregation in Metals

    Pavel Lejcek. Grain Boundary Segregation in Metals. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-642-12505-8

    2010

  28. [39]

    Svoboda, G.A

    J. Svoboda, G.A. Zickler, E. Kozeschnik, and F.D. Fischer. Kinetics of interstitial segregation in cottrell atmospheres and grain boundaries.Philosophical Magazine Letters, 95(9):458–465, sep 2015. doi: 10.1080/09500839.2015.1087652

    2015

  29. [40]

    Grain Boundaries in Metals

    Donald McLean. Grain Boundaries in Metals. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1957

    1957

  30. [41]

    Svoboda, G

    J. Svoboda, G. Mori, A. Prethaler, and F.D. Fischer. Determination of trapping parameters and the chemical diffusion coefficient from hydrogen permeation experiments.Corrosion Science, 82: 93–100, may 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.corsci.2014.01.002

    2014 doi

  31. [42]

    Stender, Z

    P. Stender, Z. Balogh, and G. Schmitz. Triple junction segregation in nanocrystalline multilayers. Physical Review B, 83(12):121407, mar 2011. doi: 10.1103/physrevb.83.121407

    2011 doi

  32. [43]

    Molecular dynamics studies of the grain-size depen- dent hydrogen diffusion coefficient of nanograined fe.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46 (7):5842–5851, jan 2021

    Xiao-Ye Zhou, Ji-Hua Zhu, and Hong-Hui Wu. Molecular dynamics studies of the grain-size depen- dent hydrogen diffusion coefficient of nanograined fe.International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 46 (7):5842–5851, jan 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.11.131

    2021 doi

  33. [44]

    Croft, and S.G.R

    Sathiskumar Jothi, T.N. Croft, and S.G.R. Brown. Modelling the influence of microstructural morphology and triple junctions on hydrogen transport in nanopolycrystalline nickel.Composites Part B: Engineering, 75:104–118, jun 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.09.042. 17

    2015 doi

  34. [45]

    Oudriss, J

    A. Oudriss, J. Creus, J. Bouhattate, E. Conforto, C. Berziou, C. Savall, and X. Feaugas. Grain size and grain-boundary effects on diffusion and trapping of hydrogen in pure nickel.Acta Materialia, 60(19):6814–6828, nov 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.actamat.2012.09.004

    2012 doi

  35. [46]

    Brass and A

    A.M. Brass and A. Chanfreau. Accelerated diffusion of hydrogen along grain boundaries in nickel. Acta Materialia, 44(9):3823–3831, sep 1996. doi: 10.1016/1359-6454(95)00446-7

    1996 doi

  36. [47]

    Direct observation of hydrogen permeation through grain boundaries in tungsten.Emergent Materials, 5(4):1075–1087, jan 2022

    Pablo Díaz-Rodríguez, Miguel Panizo-Laiz, César González, Roberto Iglesias, Ignacio Martín- Bragado, Raquel González-Arrabal, Jose Manuel Perlado, Ovidio Peña-Rodríguez, and Antonio Rivera. Direct observation of hydrogen permeation through grain boundaries in tungsten.Emergent...

    2022 doi

  37. [48]

    Diffusion coefficient of hydrogen in pure iron between 230 and 300 k.Transactions of the Japan Institute of Metals, 20(7):349–357, 1979

    Hideki Hagi, Yasunori Hayashi, and Namio Ohtani. Diffusion coefficient of hydrogen in pure iron between 230 and 300 k.Transactions of the Japan Institute of Metals, 20(7):349–357, 1979. doi: 10.2320/matertrans1960.20.349

    1979 doi

  38. [49]

    Hydrogenpermeationthrough deformed and heat-treated armco pure iron.Materials Science and Technology, 33(13):1515–1523, jul 2017

    E.VandenEeckhout, A.Laureys, Y.VanIngelgem, andK.Verbeken. Hydrogenpermeationthrough deformed and heat-treated armco pure iron.Materials Science and Technology, 33(13):1515–1523, jul 2017. doi: 10.1080/02670836.2017.1342015. 18

    2017

  39. [1970]

    doi: 10.1016/0001-6160(70)90078-7

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.