4.7 Article

Comparing structure-property evolution for PM-HIP and forged alloy 625 irradiated with neutrons to 1 dpa

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2022.144058

关键词

Powder metallurgy; Neutron irradiation; Tensile testing; Electron microscopy; Alloy 625; Ni alloy; Advanced manufacturing

资金

  1. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
  2. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission [31310021M0035]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy - Office of Nuclear Energy, through the Nuclear Science User Facilities (NSUF) [15-8242]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the response of PM-HIP alloys and forged alloys under neutron irradiation. The results show that PM-HIP alloys have better resistance to irradiation and less hardening. These findings provide hope for the qualification of PM-HIP alloys for nuclear applications.
The nuclear power industry has growing interest in qualifying powder metallurgy with hot isostatic pressing (PM-HIP) to replace traditional alloy fabrication methods for reactor structural components. But there is little known about the response of PM-HIP alloys to reactor conditions. This study directly compares the response of PM-HIP to forged Ni-base Alloy 625 under neutron irradiation doses-0.5-1 displacements per atom (dpa) at temperatures ranging-321-385 degrees C. Post-irradiation examination involves microstructure characterization, ASTM E8 uniaxial tensile testing, and fractography. Up through 1 dpa, PM-HIP Alloy 625 appears more resistant to irradiation-induced cavity nucleation than its forged counterpart, and consequently experiences significantly less hardening. This observed difference in performance can be explained by the higher initial dislocation density of the forged material, which represents an interstitial-biased sink that leaves a vacancy supersaturation to nucleate cavities. These findings show promise for qualification of PM-HIP Alloy 625 for nuclear applications, although higher dose studies are needed to assess the steady-state irradiated microstructure.

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