MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030024900 · doi:10.1520/jai101304

Intergranular and Interphase Constraints in Zirconium Alloys

2008· article· en· W2030024900 on OpenAlexaff
R.A. Holt, Mark R. Daymond, Feng Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntergranular corrosionMaterials scienceZirconiumInterphaseMetallurgyZirconium alloyNuclear engineeringMicrostructureEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report the development of intergranular and interphase constraints in textured Zircaloy-2, Zr-2.5Nb, and Excel alloy during room temperature tension and compression loading in two or three directions relative to the parent texture. Neutron diffraction was used to track the lattice strain development in the α-phase (all alloys) and β-phase (Zr-2.5Nb and Excel) in three principal directions relative to the parent texture. Zircaloy-2 at room temperature is essentially single phase hcp αZr. The active deformation mechanisms appear to be, in order of increasing critical resolved shear stress, prism (a) slip, basal (a) slip, tensile twinning and pyramidal (c+a) slip. No compressive twinning was observed. Combined with intergranular constraints due to prior thermal treatment, these mechanisms result in substantial asymmetry in the yield stress and lattice strain development (compression versus tension). In Zr-2.5 Nb and Excel, the α-phase appears to deform by the same slip mechanisms as Zircaloy-2, and similar assymmetry of the yield stress and lattice strain development is observed. However, the existence of tensile twinning is not clearly evidenced. The β-phase also deforms by slip, but the critical resolved shear stress is much higher than that for the slip mechanisms in the α-phase, leading to the development of very large interphase constraints in the plastic deformation regime. This is attributed to a combination of solution strengthening of the β-phase (by Nb and, in Excel, Mo) and by grain size.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207