4.6 Article

On the relative contributions of point defect clusters to macroscopic swelling of metals

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
Volume 131, Issue 22, Pages -

Publisher

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0094189

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Swelling of metals under irradiation is commonly assessed by calculating the volume fraction of voids, but other clusters may also have an impact on swelling. In this study, calculations in nickel reveal that voids contribute more to swelling than loops and stacking fault tetrahedra.
Swelling of metals under irradiation is commonly assessed by calculating the volume fraction of voids, which appear at temperatures where vacancies are mobile. However, other clusters are formed, which may also have an impact on swelling. In particular, interstitial loops have recently been considered to give a significant contribution to swelling owing to their large relaxation volume. In this work, we perform calculations in nickel, based on interatomic potentials, to estimate the contributions of the various point defect clusters. We show that voids produce much more swelling than loops and stacking fault tetrahedra, whose contribution is essentially due to the dislocation core field, inducing a dilatation per unit length of around 1b(2), where b is the Burgers vector. Evaluation of swelling should indeed be done by summing formation volumes, not relaxation volumes, the latter being related to lattice parameter change as measured by x-ray diffraction. We also discuss the case of lattice swelling occurring when vacancies are immobile. When self-interstitial atoms cluster as dislocation loops, this swelling mode turns out to be nothing but void swelling in a regime where vacancy mobility is so low that vacancies do not cluster appreciably, leaving only interstitial loops visible in transmission electron microscopy. Published under an exclusive license by AIP Publishing.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available