4.7 Article

Temperature threshold for preferential bubble formation on grain boundaries in tungsten under in-situ helium irradiation

Journal

SCRIPTA MATERIALIA
Volume 180, Issue -, Pages 6-10

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2020.01.013

Keywords

Grain boundaries; Implantation; In-situ; Helium-vacancy complexes; Electron microscopy

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy under DOE Idaho Operations Office as part of a Nuclear Science User Facilities experiment [DE-AC07-051D14517]
  2. Laboratory Directed Research and Development program of Los Alamos National Laboratory [20160674PRD3]
  3. National Science Foundation [1810040]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy through the LANL/LDRD Program
  5. G. T. Seaborg Institute
  6. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences
  7. Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research through the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) project on Plasma -Surface Interactions [DE-SC0008875]
  8. Division Of Materials Research
  9. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1810040] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Understanding a material's radiation tolerance requires examining its performance under different irradiation conditions. Here, we investigate the radiation tolerance in terms of helium bubble damage in tungsten irradiated in-situ with 16 keV helium at 1073 K and 1223 K. Damage evolution represented by helium bubble density, size and total change in volume in the grain matrices and the grain boundaries are quantified as a function of fluence. Preferential large bubble formation and a higher change in volume on the grain boundaries occurred at 1223 K, suggesting faster migration of certain helium-vacancy complexes as confirmed by a diffusion-reaction model. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Acta Materialia Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available