pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08751 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-09 · ⚛️ physics.chem-ph · cond-mat.mtrl-sci· physics.app-ph

Recognition: unknown

Cryogenic hydrogen embrittlement of 316plus (EN 1.4420) stainless steel at 77 K and 20 K

W. Li , A. Zafra , L. Armendariz , Z. Wang , W. Bailey , E. Martinez-Pa\~neda , S. Afshan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.chem-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph
keywords 316plus stainless steelhydrogen embrittlementcryogenic temperaturesductilitystrain-induced martensiteliquid hydrogen storageaustenitic steel
0
0 comments X

The pith

316plus stainless steel retains about 30% ductility at 20 K even after hydrogen exposure and cryogenic strengthening.

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

The paper conducts the first tensile tests of 316plus austenitic stainless steel at room temperature, 77 K and 20 K, comparing uncharged and hydrogen-precharged specimens to assess suitability for liquid hydrogen storage. It finds that low temperatures increase strength through greater formation of strain-induced martensite, while hydrogen produces only a small strength drop at 20 K but cuts ductility by 40-50% at cryogenic conditions. Despite these losses, the alloy still shows a reduction in area near 30% at the lowest temperatures. The results supply initial data on how this newer grade responds when both cold and hydrogen are present together.

Core claim

316plus exhibits cryogenic strengthening at 77 K and 20 K driven by enhanced strain-induced martensite formation. Hydrogen leaves strength unchanged at room temperature and 77 K but lowers it modestly at 20 K, while causing the largest ductility reductions (40-50%) at the cryogenic temperatures; hydrogen also suppresses martensite formation at 20 K, yet the martensite fraction shows no direct correlation with the ductility loss. The steel nevertheless retains a reduction in area of approximately 30% under the combined hydrogen and low-temperature conditions.

What carries the argument

Strain-induced martensite formation measured by EBSD, which produces the observed cryogenic strengthening while being suppressed by hydrogen at 20 K without directly controlling the measured ductility reduction.

If this is right

  • Hydrogen produces its strongest ductility reduction at 77 K and 20 K rather than at room temperature.
  • 316plus reaches the upper end of cryogenic strength reported for 316L grades even after hydrogen charging.
  • Strain-induced martensite fraction does not predict the size of the ductility loss caused by hydrogen.
  • The retained 30% reduction in area indicates the alloy remains usable for liquid hydrogen applications despite embrittlement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Results from uniaxial tests on precharged smooth bars will need extension to multiaxial and in-service hydrogen charging conditions before vessel design.
  • Suppression of martensite by hydrogen specifically at 20 K suggests deformation or embrittlement mechanisms may change at the lowest temperatures.
  • Similar combined testing on welds and other 316plus product forms would be required to confirm performance in complete tank structures.

Load-bearing premise

Hydrogen pre-charging of smooth tensile specimens followed by uniaxial testing at 77 K and 20 K accurately captures the combined effects of hydrogen exposure, temperature, and the stress states found in real liquid hydrogen storage vessels.

What would settle it

A measurement showing reduction in area falling well below 20% in tests on notched or welded specimens under biaxial loading at 20 K with hydrogen would contradict the retained-ductility claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08751 by A. Zafra, E. Martinez-Pa\~neda, L. Armendariz, S. Afshan, W. Bailey, W. Li, Z. Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Geometry and extraction of the flat tensile coupon specimens manufactured by electric discharge machining [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cryogenic tensile testing setup used for mechanical testing at room temperature, 77 K and 20 K. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Inverse pole figure (IPF) map and (b) phase map of the as-received 316plus (EN 1.4420) material [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 2-D diffusion finite element simulations performed using COMSOL showing (a) the evolution of the average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Tensile force–displacement and true stress–strain responses of uncharged and hydrogen pre-charged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cryogenic embrittlement index (CEI), hydrogen embrittlement index (HEI), and combined cryo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SEM fractographs of tensile fracture surfaces for uncharged and hydrogen pre-charged specimens tested [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: EBSD phase maps of uncharged and hydrogen pre-charged 316plus specimens tested at room temperature, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of (a) yield strength and (b) ultimate tensile strength of 316plus measured in this work with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of reduction in area (RA) with temperature for 316plus (this work) and 316L reported in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of strain-induced martensite (SIM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents the first experimental characterisation of combined hydrogen-temperature effects in 316plus (EN 1.4420), a new austenitic stainless steel for liquid hydrogen (LH2) storage. Uniaxial tensile tests were conducted at room temperature (RT), 77 K and 20 K on uncharged and hydrogen-precharged specimens, complemented by fractography and EBSD-based quantification of strain-induced martensite (SIM). 316plus exhibited cryogenic strengthening at 77 K and 20 K by enhanced SIM formation. Hydrogen did not influence strength at RT or 77 K and caused a modest decrease (~10%) at 20 K, keeping 316plus at the upper bound of cryogenic strength for 316L. The presence of hydrogen resulted in significant reductions in ductility at all temperatures, being most severe at 77 and 20K (~40-50%). Hydrogen suppressed SIM at 20 K, but SIM fraction did not correlate with ductility reduction. Despite the combined effect of temperature and hydrogen, 316plus retained notable ductility (reduction in area ~30%).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the first experimental characterisation of combined hydrogen and cryogenic temperature effects on 316plus (EN 1.4420) austenitic stainless steel. Uniaxial tensile tests were performed at RT, 77 K and 20 K on both uncharged and hydrogen-precharged specimens, with supporting fractography and EBSD quantification of strain-induced martensite (SIM). Key observations include cryogenic strengthening via enhanced SIM formation, no hydrogen effect on strength at RT or 77 K (modest ~10% decrease at 20 K), significant hydrogen-induced ductility reductions (most severe at 40-50% at 77 K and 20 K), hydrogen suppression of SIM at 20 K without correlation to ductility loss, and retention of notable ductility (~30% reduction in area) despite the combined conditions.

Significance. If the central observations hold, the work provides valuable new data on a candidate alloy for liquid hydrogen storage vessels, extending prior 316L studies to 20 K and quantifying the interplay between temperature, hydrogen, and SIM. The finding of retained ductility under combined embrittling conditions is directly relevant to material selection and safety margins in LH2 tanks. Credit is given for the inclusion of EBSD-based SIM measurements and fractographic analysis, which add mechanistic detail beyond bulk mechanical properties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental Methods] Experimental Methods section: The hydrogen pre-charging protocol (charging conditions, duration, temperature, and resulting hydrogen concentration) is not specified with sufficient quantitative detail. This is load-bearing for the central claim of 40-50% ductility loss and ~30% retained RA, because without measured concentrations or comparison to expected in-service fugacities, it is unclear whether the ex-situ pre-charge accurately represents continuous LH2 vessel exposure under pressure and multiaxial stress.
  2. [Results] Results section: Reported ductility metrics (elongation and reduction in area) and SIM fractions lack error bars, standard deviations, or the number of replicate specimens tested. This omission directly affects confidence in the 40-50% ductility reduction and the statement of no SIM-ductility correlation at 20 K, as cryogenic tensile data are known to exhibit scatter.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion section: The conclusion that 316plus retains notable ductility (~30% RA) under combined hydrogen and cryogenic conditions is presented without explicit qualification of the differences between the laboratory pre-charge + ex-situ uniaxial test protocol and actual LH2 vessel service conditions (continuous hydrogen exposure, higher fugacity, multiaxial stresses). This limits the applicability of the retained-ductility claim to tank design.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Results] Add a table or figure summarising all tensile properties (yield strength, UTS, elongation, RA) across all six conditions (uncharged/charged × RT/77 K/20 K) for direct comparison.
  2. [Results] Clarify the exact measurement method for reduction in area and ensure all stress-strain curves are plotted on the same scale with clear legends distinguishing the six test conditions.
  3. [Introduction] Include a brief comparison of the observed 316plus properties to literature values for 316L under similar cryogenic and hydrogen conditions to strengthen context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review of our manuscript on the combined effects of hydrogen and cryogenic temperatures on 316plus stainless steel. We appreciate the recognition of the work's significance for LH2 applications and the value placed on the EBSD and fractography data. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental Methods] Experimental Methods section: The hydrogen pre-charging protocol (charging conditions, duration, temperature, and resulting hydrogen concentration) is not specified with sufficient quantitative detail. This is load-bearing for the central claim of 40-50% ductility loss and ~30% retained RA, because without measured concentrations or comparison to expected in-service fugacities, it is unclear whether the ex-situ pre-charge accurately represents continuous LH2 vessel exposure under pressure and multiaxial stress.

    Authors: We agree that the Experimental Methods section requires additional quantitative detail on the pre-charging protocol. In the revised manuscript we will specify the electrolyte, current density, charging temperature, duration, and any post-charging hydrogen concentration measurements or estimates from our laboratory protocol. We will also add a brief comparison to expected in-service hydrogen fugacities for LH2 vessels, drawing on established literature values for austenitic steels. While ex-situ pre-charging cannot fully replicate continuous high-pressure exposure, it remains a widely accepted method for isolating hydrogen effects; we will explicitly note this limitation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: Reported ductility metrics (elongation and reduction in area) and SIM fractions lack error bars, standard deviations, or the number of replicate specimens tested. This omission directly affects confidence in the 40-50% ductility reduction and the statement of no SIM-ductility correlation at 20 K, as cryogenic tensile data are known to exhibit scatter.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for statistical context in the Results section. The revised manuscript will state the number of replicate specimens tested per condition (three for most temperature/hydrogen combinations) and will include error bars or standard deviations on the reported ductility values and SIM fractions. This will allow readers to assess the variability inherent in cryogenic testing while preserving the observed trends, including the lack of direct SIM-ductility correlation at 20 K. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion section: The conclusion that 316plus retains notable ductility (~30% RA) under combined hydrogen and cryogenic conditions is presented without explicit qualification of the differences between the laboratory pre-charge + ex-situ uniaxial test protocol and actual LH2 vessel service conditions (continuous hydrogen exposure, higher fugacity, multiaxial stresses). This limits the applicability of the retained-ductility claim to tank design.

    Authors: We will revise the Discussion to include an explicit qualification of the laboratory versus service conditions. The updated text will note that our ex-situ pre-charging and uniaxial tests provide a controlled but conservative assessment of embrittlement, whereas actual LH2 vessels involve continuous hydrogen exposure, higher fugacity under pressure, and multiaxial stress states. We will emphasize that the retention of ~30% reduction in area under these laboratory conditions still indicates useful ductility margins for material selection, provided appropriate safety factors are applied, and we will avoid overstating direct applicability to tank design. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental observations with no derivations

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental results from uniaxial tensile testing, fractography, and EBSD quantification of strain-induced martensite on pre-charged and uncharged specimens at RT, 77 K, and 20 K. No mathematical models, equations, predictions, or first-principles derivations are present in the abstract or described methodology. All claims (e.g., retained ~30% RA ductility, 40-50% ductility loss, SIM suppression) are stated as direct observations from the data. With no derivation chain to inspect, no self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or self-citation circularity is possible. The experimental setup's representativeness of service conditions is a validity question, not a circularity issue.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests entirely on experimental measurements rather than theoretical derivations; no free parameters, new entities, or non-standard axioms are introduced beyond routine materials-testing assumptions.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard procedures for uniaxial tensile testing, hydrogen pre-charging, fractography, and EBSD quantification of strain-induced martensite are applied without deviation from established protocols.
    The paper invokes these methods to generate the reported strength, ductility, and SIM fraction values.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5536 in / 1402 out tokens · 89147 ms · 2026-05-10T16:57:54.264395+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Suwaileh, Y

    W. Suwaileh, Y. Bicer, S. Al Hail, S. Farooq, R. M. Yunus, N. N. Rosman, I. Karajagi, Exploring hydrogen fuel as a sustainable solution for zero-emission aviation: Production, storage, and engine adaptation challenges, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 121 (2025) 304–325.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.03.348

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.03.348 2025

  2. [2]

    International Maritime Organization, 2023 IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from ships (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Cardenas, S

    B. Cardenas, S. D. Garvey, L. Swinfen-Styles, Z. Baniamerian, C. N. Eastwick, D. Grant, The physical exergy in hydrogen–maximising the utility of hydrogen as an aviation fuel, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 177 (2025) 151594.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.151594. 31

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.151594 2025

  4. [4]

    Z. Wang, Y. Wang, S. Afshan, J. Hjalmarsson, A review of metallic tanks forH2 storage with a view to application in future green shipping, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46 (9) (2021) 6151–6179.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.11.168

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.11.168 2021

  5. [5]

    Afshan, W

    S. Afshan, W. Li, Z. Wang, W. Bailey, Y. Wang, High-performance metallic materials for applications in infrastructure and energy sectors, Steel Construction 16 (3) (2023) 144–150.doi:https://doi. org/10.1002/stco.202300025

    work page doi:10.1002/stco.202300025 2023

  6. [6]

    International Maritime Organization, International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low-Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code), IMO, London, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    International Maritime Organization, International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code), IMO, London, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [9]

    C. R. Anoop, R. K. Singh, R. R. Kumar, M. Jayalakshmi, T. A. Prabhu, K. T. Tharian, S. V. S. N. Murty, A review on steels for cryogenic applications, Materials Performance and Characterization 10 (2) (2021) 16–88.doi:https://doi.org/10.1520/MPC20200193

    work page doi:10.1520/mpc20200193 2021

  9. [10]

    San Marchi, B

    C. San Marchi, B. P. Somerday, X. Tang, G. H. Schiroky, Effects of alloy composition and strain hardening on tensile fracture of hydrogen-precharged type 316 stainless steels, International Journal of HydrogenEnergy33(2)(2008)889–904.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.10.046

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.10.046 2008

  10. [11]

    Michler, A

    T. Michler, A. A. Yukhimchuk, J. Naumann, Hydrogen environment embrittlement testing at low temperatures and high pressures, Corrosion Science 50 (12) (2008) 3519–3526.doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.corsci.2008.09.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2008.09.025 2008

  11. [12]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.193

    S.Takaki, S.Nanba, K.Imakawa, A.Macadre, J.Yamabe, H.Matsunaga, S.Matsuoka, Determination of hydrogen compatibility for solution-treated austenitic stainless steels based on a newly proposed nickel-equivalent equation, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 41 (33) (2016) 15095–15100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.193

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.193 2016

  12. [13]

    Advances in Engineering Software42(12), 1020–1034 (2011)

    C. San Marchi, J. A. Ronevich, J. E. C. Sabisch, J. D. Sugar, D. L. Medlin, B. P. Somerday, Effect of microstructural and environmental variables on ductility of austenitic stainless steels, Interna- 32 tional Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46 (23) (2021) 12338–12347.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhydene.2020.09.069

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2021

  13. [15]

    Komatsu, M

    A. Komatsu, M. Fujinami, M. Hatano, K. Matsumoto, M. Sugeoi, L. Chiari, Straining-temperature dependence of vacancy behavior in hydrogen-charged austenitic stainless steel 316L, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 46 (9) (2021) 6960–6969.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene. 2020.11.148

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene 2021

  14. [16]

    Álvarez, Z

    G. Álvarez, Z. Harris, K. Wada, C. Rodríguez, E. Martínez-Pañeda, Hydrogen embrittlement sus- ceptibility of additively manufactured 316L stainless steel: Influence of post-processing, printing direction, temperature and pre-straining, Additive Manufacturing 78 (2023) 103834.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2023.103834

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2023.103834 2023

  15. [17]

    S. H. Bak, S. S. Kim, D. B. Lee, Effect of hydrogen on dislocation structure and strain-induced martensite transformation in 316L stainless steel, RSC Advances 7 (45) (2017) 27840–27845.doi: https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA01053B

    work page doi:10.1039/c7ra01053b 2017

  16. [18]

    Ishtiaq, Y.-K

    M. Ishtiaq, Y.-K. Kim, S. Tiwari, C. H. Lee, W. H. Jo, H. Sung, K.-S. Cho, S.-G. Kang, Y.-S. Na, J. B. Seol, Serration-induced plasticity in phase transformative stainless steel 316L upon ultracold deformation at 4.2 k, Materials Science and Engineering: A 921 (2025) 147591.doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/j.msea.2024.147591

    work page doi:10.1016/j.msea.2024.147591 2025

  17. [19]

    S. Li, P. J. Withers, S. Kabra, K. Yan, The behaviour and deformation mechanisms for 316L stainless steel deformed at cryogenic temperatures, Materials Science and Engineering: A 880 (2023) 145279. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2023.145279

    work page doi:10.1016/j.msea.2023.145279 2023

  18. [20]

    M. S. Kim, T. Lee, Y. Kim, Comparative analysis of unloading compliance and normalization methods for fracture toughness assessment in 316L stainless steel at cryogenic temperatures, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 132 (2024) 104474.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2024. 104474. 33

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tafmec.2024 2024

  19. [21]

    Hatano, M

    M. Hatano, M. Fujinami, K. Arai, H. Fujii, M. Nagumo, Hydrogen embrittlement of austenitic stain- less steels revealed by deformation microstructures and strain-induced creation of vacancies, Acta Materialia 67 (2014) 342–353.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2013.12.039

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2013.12.039 2014

  20. [22]

    Yamabe, O

    J. Yamabe, O. Takakuwa, H. Matsunaga, H. Itoga, S. Matsuoka, Hydrogen diffusivity and tensile- ductility loss of solution-treated austenitic stainless steels with external and internal hydrogen, Inter- national Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42 (18) (2017) 13289–13299.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijhydene.2017.04.055

    work page 2017

  21. [23]

    BritishStandardsInstitution, BSENISO6892-1: Metallicmaterials-Tensiletesting-Part1: Method of test at room temperature (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [24]

    A. M. Brass, J. Chêne, Hydrogen uptake in 316L stainless steel: Consequences on the tensile proper- ties, Corrosion Science 48 (10) (2006) 3222–3242.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2005. 11.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2005 2006

  23. [25]

    S. Quan, A. Zafra, E. Martínez-Pañeda, C. Wu, Z. D. Harris, L. Cupertino-Malheiros, New insights into hydrogen-assisted intergranular cracking in nickel, Materials Science and Engineering: A 950 (2026) 149545.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2025.149545

    work page doi:10.1016/j.msea.2025.149545 2026

  24. [26]

    Lappas, and Manolis N

    C.-T. Santos Maldonado, A. Zafra, E. Martínez-Pañeda, P. Sandmann, R. Morana, M.-S. Pham, Influence of dislocation cells on hydrogen embrittlement in wrought and additively manufactured inconel 718, Communications Materials 5 (1) (2024) 223.doi:https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3. rs-4217438/v1

    work page doi:10.21203/rs.3 2024

  25. [27]

    Zafra, Z

    A. Zafra, Z. Harris, E. Korec, E. Martínez-Pañeda, On the relative efficacy of electropermeation and isothermal desorption approaches for measuring hydrogen diffusivity, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 48 (3) (2023) 1218–1233.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.10. 025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.10 2023

  26. [28]

    British Standards Institution, BS EN ISO 6892-4: Metallic materials - Tensile testing: Part 4: Method of testing at low temperature (2015)

    work page 2015

  27. [29]

    A. Díaz, J. M. Alegre, I. I. Cuesta, E. Martínez-Pañeda, A COMSOL framework for predicting hydrogen embrittlement, Part I: Coupled hydrogen transport, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 319 (2025) 111007.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2025.111007. 34

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2025.111007 2025

  28. [30]

    San Marchi, B

    C. San Marchi, B. P. Somerday, Technical reference on hydrogen compatibility of materials, Tech. rep., Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA, matls Tech Ref, MS-9402, Sandia National Lab- oratories (2012)

    work page 2012

  29. [31]

    Bauchau, J

    O. Bauchau, J. Craig, Structural Analysis, 1st Edition, Springer, Dordrecht, 2008

    work page 2008

  30. [32]

    Zheng, W

    C. Zheng, W. Yu, Effect of low-temperature on mechanical behavior for an AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel, Materials Science and Engineering: A 710 (2018) 359–365.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.msea.2017.11.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.msea.2017.11.003 2018

  31. [33]

    C.Zheng, L.Hu, Q.Zhen, Y.Tang, Y.Wang, N.Li, H.Jiang, Lowtemperaturemechanicalbehaviorof fine- and ultrafine-grained 304 austenitic stainless steel fabricated by cryogenic-rolling and annealing, Materials Characterization 191 (2022) 112084.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2022. 112084

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matchar.2022 2022

  32. [34]

    M. Kim, T. Lee, J. Park, Y. Kim, Tensile and fracture characteristics of 304L stainless steel at cryogenic temperatures for liquid hydrogen service, Metals 13 (10) (2023) 1774.doi:https://doi. org/10.3390/met13101774

    work page doi:10.3390/met13101774 2023

  33. [35]

    Fernández-Pisón, J

    P. Fernández-Pisón, J. A. Rodríguez-Martínez, E. García-Tabarés, I. Avilés-Santillana, S. Sgobba, Flow and fracture of austenitic stainless steels at cryogenic temperatures, Engineering Fracture Me- chanics 258 (2021) 108042.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.108042

    work page doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.108042 2021

  34. [36]

    K. Wada, M. Komatsu, Y. Ono, J. Yamabe, H. Enoki, T. Iijima, Hydrogen-induced degradation of sus304 austenitic stainless steel at cryogenic temperatures, Materials Science and Engineering: A 927 (2025) 147988.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2025.147988

    work page doi:10.1016/j.msea.2025.147988 2025

  35. [37]

    H. Yang, T. T. Nguyen, J. Park, H. M. Heo, J. Lee, U. B. Baek, Y.-K. Lee, Temperature dependency of hydrogen embrittlement in thermally h-precharged sts 304 austenitic stainless steel, Metals and Materials International 29 (2023) 303–314.doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12540-022-01232-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s12540-022-01232-6 2023

  36. [38]

    Niessen, A

    F. Niessen, A. A. Gazder, J. Hald, M. A. J. Somers, Multiscale in-situ studies of strain-induced martensite formation in inter-critically annealed extra-low-carbon martensitic stainless steel, Acta Materialia 220 (2021) 117339.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2021.117339

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2021.117339 2021

  37. [39]

    B. Obst, A. Nyilas, Experimental evidence on the dislocation mechanism of serrated yielding in f.c.c. metals and alloys at low temperatures, Materials Science and Engineering: A 137 (1991) 141–150. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-5093(91)90328-K. 35

    work page doi:10.1016/0921-5093(91)90328-k 1991

  38. [40]

    Tabin, B

    J. Tabin, B. Skoczen, J. Bielski, Discontinuous plastic flow coupled with strain induced fcc–bcc phase transformation at extremely low temperatures, Mechanics of Materials 129 (2019) 23–40.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2018.10.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2018.10.007 2019

  39. [41]

    Z. D. Harris, S. K. Lawrence, D. L. Medlin, G. Guetard, J. T. Burns, B. P. Somerday, Elucidating the contribution of mobile hydrogen-deformation interactions to hydrogen-induced intergranular cracking in polycrystalline nickel, Acta Materialiaialia 158 (2018) 180–192.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.actamat.2018.07.043

    work page 2018

  40. [42]

    R. M. de Melo Freire, M. Kimura, T. Kawabata, Theoretical model for hydrogen environment embrittlement in metastable austenitic stainless steel, Materials & Design 256 (2025) 114268. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2025.114268

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2025.114268 2025

  41. [43]

    Kirchheim, Solid solutions of hydrogen in complex materials, Vol

    R. Kirchheim, Solid solutions of hydrogen in complex materials, Vol. 59 of Solid State Physics, Academic Press, 2004, pp. 203–291.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0081-1947(04)80004-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0081-1947(04)80004-3 2004

  42. [44]

    H. Ding, Y. Wu, Q. Lu, Y. Wang, J. Zheng, P. Xu, A modified stress-strain relation for austenitic stainless steels at cryogenic temperatures, Cryogenics 101 (2019) 89–100.doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cryogenics.2019.06.003

    work page 2019

  43. [45]

    H. Ding, Y. Wu, Q. Lu, P. Xu, J. Zheng, L. Wei, Tensile properties and impact toughness of s30408 stainless steel and its welded joints at cryogenic temperatures, Cryogenics 92 (2018) 50–59.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2018.04.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cryogenics.2018.04.002 2018

  44. [46]

    Rozenak, I

    P. Rozenak, I. M. Robertson, H. K. Birnbaum, HVEM studies of the effects of hydrogen on the deformation and fracture of aisi type 316 austenitic stainless steel, Acta Metallurgica et Materialia 38 (11) (1990) 2031–2040.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-7151(90)90070-W. 36

    work page doi:10.1016/0956-7151(90)90070-w 1990