4.7 Article

Investigation of alumino-silicate glasses by coupling experiments and simulations: Part II-radiation effects

期刊

JOURNAL OF NON-CRYSTALLINE SOLIDS
卷 569, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2021.120969

关键词

Alumino-silicate glasses; Irradiation; Density; Molecular dynamics; Raman spectroscopy; NMR

资金

  1. EDF, France
  2. CEA, France
  3. Orano, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A set of SiO2-Al2O3-Na2O-CaO glasses with varying Si/Al and Na/Ca ratios was experimentally irradiated with Au4+ ions at 7.3MeV. Depending on the glass composition, the density could increase or decrease. Through simulations and experimental comparisons, a phenomenological density change model was proposed to explain the observations.
A set of SiO2-Al2O3-Na2O-CaO glasses with varying Si/Al and Na/Ca ratios was experimentally irradiated with Au4+ ions at 7.3MeV. Measurements by optical interferometry showed that, depending on the glass composition, the density could increase or decrease. Overall the higher the original quantity of non-bridging O, the greater the swelling observed. In order to explain the origin of these observations, some of the experimentally studied glasses were simulated by classical molecular dynamics and then subjected to a series of 4 keV displacement cascades or quenched at different rates. Comparisons of the density changes and atomic-scale modifications have allowed the authors to propose a phenomenological density change model. There appears to have been a competition between two processes with a first process where the vitreous structure breathes associated with the deposit of free volumes within the cascades that favours swelling. A second process is associated with changes in the local environments (creation of non-bridging O and of 3-coordinated O, creation of 5-coordinated Al, conversions between charge compensators and network modifiers) which act as brakes on the swelling. Depending on the relative dominance of these two processes, the glass may swell or contract.

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