4.7 Article

Phase stability of an HT-9 duct irradiated in FFTF

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS
卷 430, 期 1-3, 页码 194-204

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2012.06.038

关键词

-

资金

  1. DOE-NE's Fuel Cycle Research and Development program
  2. U.S. DOE NE under Idaho Operations Office Contract [DE-AC07-051D14517]
  3. NRC faculty development grant [38-09-948]
  4. Department of Energy's Office of Basic Energy Sciences
  5. Los Alamos National Security LLC under DOE [DE-AC52-06NA25396]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fuel test assembly known as the ACO-3 duct made out of a normalized and fully tempered ferritic/martensitic steel (HT-9) was previously irradiated in the Fast Flux Test Reactor Facility (FFTF) up to 155 dpa at a temperature range of 380-504 degrees C. The microstructures of the samples from five different zones along a face of the duct were analyzed using a combination of transmission electron microscopy (TEM) based techniques, small angle neutron scattering (SANS) and atom probe tomography (APT). A high density of Cr rich alpha' precipitates together with a moderate density of G-phase precipitates with average sizes of similar to 4 and 11 nm respectively were found in the 20 dpa, 380 degrees C.zone. It was found that precipitation of the second phases is more sensitive to the temperature history then to the exposed neutron dose. In general, the density of both precipitates decreases with increasing irradiation temperature. No significant change is observed in average size of a' while the average size of G-phase precipitates increases up to 27 nm at 440 degrees C. Voids are observed after irradiation at 100 dpa (irradiation temperature of 410 degrees C) and 155 dpa (irradiation temperature of 440 degrees C) but no voids were detected after irradiation to 96 dpa (irradiation temperature of 466 degrees C). In contrast to what is previously reported in the literature, no Laves, M6C or Chi phases were found in any of the zones. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据