Characterization of the strain rate sensitivity of basal, prismatic and pyramidal slip in Zircaloy-4 using micropillar compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The slip strength of individual slip systems at different strain rates will control the mechanical response and strongly influence the anisotropy of plastic deformation. In this work, the slip activity and strain rate sensitivity of the basal, prismatic, and pyramidal slip systems are explored by testing at variable strain rates (from 10-4 s-1 to 125 s-1) using single crystal micropillar compression tests. These systematic experiments enable the direct fitting of the strain rate sensitivities of the different slips using a simple analytical model and this model reveals that deformation in polycrystals will be accommodated using different slip systems depending on the strain rate of deformation in addition to the stress state (i.e. Schmid’s law). It was found that the engineering yield stress increases with strain rate, and this varied by slip systems. Activation of the prismatic slip system results in a high density of parallel, clearly discrete slip planes, while the activation of the pyramidal slip leads to the plastic collapse of the pillar, leading to a ‘mushroom’ morphology of the deformed pillar. This characterization and model provide insight that helps inform metal forming and understanding of the mechanical performance of these engineering alloys in the extremes of service conditions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".