MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1893735882 · doi:10.1520/stp154320120158

The Effects of Microstructure and Operating Conditions on Irradiation Creep of Zr-2.5Nb Pressure Tubing

2015· book-chapter· en· W1893735882 on OpenAlexaff
Lori J. Walters, Grant A. Bickel, M. Griffiths

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepMicrostructureMaterials scienceIrradiationMetallurgyNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creep experiments have been performed on biaxially stressed 10 mm diameter Zr-2.5Nb capsules. As the pressurized capsules were obtained from micro-pressure tubes, which were fabricated by the same process as CANDU power reactor pressure tubes, they have a similar microstructure to that of the full-size tubes. The experiments were performed in the OSIRIS test reactor at nominal operating temperatures ranging from 553 and 613 K in fast neutron fluxes up to 2 × 1018 n·m–2·s–1 (E > 1 MeV). Diametral and axial strains are reported as functions of fluence for specimens internally pressurized to hoop stresses from 0 to 160 MPa and irradiated to 26.5 dpa. The effects of microstructure, temperature, and cold work on irradiation creep are shown. The analysis of OSIRIS data combined with data from in-service CANDU tubes has revealed some significant observations regarding pressure tube deformation: (i) that irradiation creep anisotropy varies with temperature, (ii) texture appears to have a more significant effect on axial creep than on diametral creep, (iii) diametral strain appears to be strongly dependent on grain size and aspect ratio, and (iv) that whereas cold-work correlates with the axial creep of the capsules, there appears to be no statistically significant dependence of diametral creep on cold-work.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207