MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1790448148 · doi:10.1520/stp10577s

Crack Growth Resistance of Irradiated Zr-2.5Nb Pressure Tube Material at Low Hydrogen Levels

2001· book-chapter· en· W1790448148 on OpenAlexaff
PH Davies, D. D. Himbeault, RSW Shewfelt, R.R. Hosbons

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTube (container)HydrogenIrradiationRadiochemistryComposite materialMetallurgyChemistryNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary factors influencing the crack growth resistance of irradiated Zr-2.5Nb pressure tube material at low concentrations of hydrogen/deuterium are reviewed. These factors include the initial characteristics of the material, which have brought about improvements in the toughness, and the operating conditions in reactor. The paper presents an update on the current status of this work using J-R curves. Such curves are determined from curved compact and rising-pressure burst test specimens at 250°C, i.e., the lower end of the operating temperature range. Some of the challenges encountered in assessing the crack growth toughness of this high-strength, thin-walled material are discussed. The role of chlorine, known to be responsible for the presence of Zr-Cl-C particles and preferential decohesion and fissuring, is also highlighted. The results from the curved compact specimens suggest a limiting level of chlorine above which no further significant degradation in crack growth resistance occurs. This level of chlorine is about 3 wt ppm for material having a low concentration of zirconium phosphide (P < 20 wt ppm). Such results require confirmation using burst tests on material with intermediate levels of chlorine and low levels of zirconium phosphide.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207