| Literature DB >> 34330936 |
J Li1, A Hallil1, A Metsue1, A Oudriss1, J Bouhattate1, X Feaugas2.
Abstract
Hydrogen-grain-boundaries interactions and their role in intergranular fracture are well accepted as one of the key features in understanding hydrogen embrittlement in a large variety of common engineer situations. These interactions implicate some fundamental processes classified as segregation, trapping and diffusion of the solute which can be studied as a function of grain boundary configuration. In the present study, we carried out an extensive analysis of four grain-boundaries based on the complementary of atomistic calculations and experimental data. We demonstrate that elastic deformation has an important contribution on the segregation energy which cannot be simply reduced to a volume change and need to consider the deviatoric part of strain. Additionally, some significant configurations of the segregation energy depend on the long-range elastic distortion and allows to rationalize the elastic contribution in three terms. By investigating the different energy barriers involved to reach all the segregation sites, the antagonist impact of grain boundaries on hydrogen diffusion and trapping process was elucidated. The segregation energy and migration energy are two fundamental parameters in order to classify the grain-boundaries as a trapping location or short circuit for diffusion.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34330936 PMCID: PMC8324914 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94107-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Experimental data collected on the diffusion and solubility in nickel single and polycrystalline pure metal. (a) Effective diffusion coefficient Deff and hydrogen concentration CH as a function with the fraction of random grain-boundaries fR (data collected with Oudriss et al. works[28] electrochemical permeation for the same conditions and for different grain sizes between 10 nm to 200 μm). (b) Probability to obtain different gradient profiles of hydrogen concentration near GBs obtained by ToF–SIMS (data[29] revisited, CTB Coherent Twin Boundary Σ3, Other Twin Boundary Σ3). (c) Hydrogen concentration CH versus charging time for single crystal and Σ11-{332} bi-crystal with the hydrogen ingress orientation along 〈 110 〉 (hydrogen charging at the cathodic current density of 5 mA/cm2 in 0.1 M NaOH at 300 K). (d) Hydrogen solubility CH in single crystals and bi-crystals with different hydrogen ingress orientations: two orientations were studied: {110} and {100} (hydrogen charging at the cathodic current density of 5 mA/cm2 in 0.1 M NaOH at 300 K for 3 days, Σ3 (Σ3-{111} CTB), Σ5 (Σ5-{310}), Σ11 (Σ11-{311}) and Σ11 * (Σ11-{332}).
Figure 2(a) Grain-boundaries energy EGB versus the excess volume Vex (data from atomistic calculations courtesy to Olmsted et al.[64]). The grains boundaries studies in present work are represented in the picture with red dots. Our calculation has been performed with the same atomic potential. (b) the difference of hydrogen solubility ΔCH between single crystal and bi-crystal with the same hydrogen ingress orientation as a function with the grain boundary excess volume Vex (ΔCH are collected by experimental works, Vex is determined numerically using atomistic code).
Figure 3(a) Hydrogen segregation energy, Eseg as a function of the hydrogen location in the grain boundary core region. (b) Grain boundary thickness, e and maximum hydrogen segregation energy, Eseg(max) vs the grain boundary energy EGB. (c) Segregation position of hydrogen in GB Σ 11-{311} and their volume geometry defined by Voronoi’s method. (d) Segregation energy as a function of the hydrogen atomic volume VH for the different locations in the seven grain boundaries studied.
Figure 4(a) Hydrogen segregation energy Eseg versus hydrogen energy EH. (b) Hydrostatic σm and deviatoric stress σD as a function of hydrogen atomic volume VH. (c) Hydrogen energy EH vs the elastic strain energy Eel (per unit of volume) (d) Contributions to the hydrostatic, EH and deviatoric, ED parts of energy to the elastic strain energy Eel.
Figure 5The loss of the linear relation between the segregation energy, Eseg and the elastic strain energy Eel(c) is directly a consequence of the anisotropy of the displacement field and “long range” elastic distortion. (a) An illustration of the anisotropy of the displacement field along 〈110〉 near a Σ11-{332}. (b) The relative radial displacement dr/r along 〈110〉 as a function of the r coordination from H (corresponding to the Σ11-{332} illustrated in (a)). (d) Moderate quasi-isotropic short range displacement for a position of hydrogen which respects the linear relation of Eseg versus Eel (see picture (c), GB Σ11-{311}).
Energy barriers for the most stable segregation position A and the highest volume position B along the different directions X; Y and Z. The forward () and backward () paths are differentiated.
| Grain-boundaries | Segregation site | X, along GB | Y, across GB | Z, along GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Σ3-{111} CTB | A/B | – | ||
| Σ3-{112} SITB | A/B | – | ||
| Σ11-{311} | A/B | |||
| Σ11-{332} | A | |||
| B | ||||
| Σ5-{310} | A | |||
| B |
Figure 6Energy barriers and minimum energy path between the known initial and final states for the GB Σ11–{332}. (a) Diffusion paths perpendicular to the grain boundary y = 〈332〉. (b, c) diffusion paths along the grain boundary respectively for x = 〈311〉 and z = 〈110〉. A is the path between the most stable segregation positions and the bulk. B is the path between the highest volume positions and the bulk.
Figure 7(a) The unit cell for GB Σ11-{332} with position details ((31 Ni and 28 sites for hydrogen segregation, 14 sites with different segregation energies). (b) The segregation energy density of states (ρ) as a function of absolute value of segregation energy Eseg for four GBs. (c) the evolution of hydrogen concentration segregated on GBs is represented as a function with the bulk concentration.
Figure 8The diffusion coefficient ratio as a function of the hydrogen segregation energy following x, y and z directions for different GBs.
Figure 9(a) GB Σ5-36°87 〈001〉 {310} plane for nickel. (b) Schematic of a bi-crystal simulation cell.