Intergranular and Interphase Constraints in Zirconium Alloys
Bibliographic record
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".