Past exam of the MPhil in nuclear energy course of the University of Cambridge / 2020 / Module NE3 / 2

Irradiation softening occurs when irradiation removes pre-existing strengthening obstacles faster than it creates new ones. It is particularly plausible in an initially hardened alloy, rather than an initially soft annealed reference.

In a material strengthened by cold working, the starting dislocation density is high. Irradiation-generated point defects can assist dislocation climb, rearrangement and annihilation, reducing the contribution of work hardening. A schematic estimate iswhere $\mu$ is the shear modulus, $b$ the magnitude of the Burgers vector, ${\rho }_d$ the dislocation density, and the last two terms represent precipitate and irradiation-obstacle strengthening. It is an illustrative decomposition, not an exact additive law for every alloy. A sufficiently large decrease in the pre-existing contributions can exceed the increase in $\Delta {\sigma }_{\mathrm{irr}}$.

In a material strengthened by precipitation hardening, ballistic mixing can dissolve or disorder the original obstacles. Radiation-enhanced diffusion can change their composition or accelerate coarsening; increasing obstacle spacing can reduce strength. In an ordered alloy, irradiation-induced loss of order can also remove a strengthening contribution. None of these outcomes is inevitable: irradiation can instead create new strengthening precipitates.

The required conditions therefore include an appropriate initial microstructure, enough displacement dose to modify it, and a temperature and displacement dose rate at which obstacle removal or recovery can compete with new defect accumulation. Compare with an unirradiated specimen held for the same time at the same temperature to separate ordinary thermal aging from an irradiation effect.

A drop in yield strength or hardness need not restore ductility: cavities, helium embrittlement or localization of dislocation glide can coexist with softening. Conversely, an initially annealed steel may show strong irradiation hardening under the same exposure conditions.

Irradiation creep adds stress-directed, time-dependent strain driven by the irradiation-generated defect population. It can be appreciable where ordinary thermal material creep would be slow, because irradiation maintains mobile point defects far above their equilibrium populations.

Absorption or emission of vacancies and self-interstitials permits dislocation climb. Applied stress can make differently oriented dislocations or dislocation loops absorb defects at different rates: stress-induced preferential absorption then produces a directional strain. Climb can also allow a pinned dislocation to bypass an obstacle and continue dislocation glide, providing a second route to strain.

A useful small-strain empirical form, over a limited range of conditions, isfor constant stress $\sigma$ and approximately constant irradiation-creep compliance $B$. Here $d$ is the accumulated displacements per atom and $\dot{d}$ the displacement dose rate; $B$ is measured per unit stress and per unit dpa. This relation explains why creep can scale approximately with both stress and neutron flux when the damage spectrum is fixed. It is not a constitutive law valid at every dose or temperature.

The total strain can also include thermal material creep, void swelling, irradiation growth and changes due to precipitation or recovery. Stress-free swelling is not itself irradiation creep. Experiments on pressurized type316 tubes separated these contributions and found that correcting stress-enhanced swelling materially affected comparisons between annealed and specimens strengthened by cold working.^[ref]

At sufficiently high temperature, thermal material creep can dominate. Changes in microstructure caused by irradiation hardening, softening, bubbles and cavities can either alter the creep rate or shorten rupture life. Thus enhanced defect-driven creep is the central effect, while the net rate and lifetime remain material- and history-dependent.

Assume a homogeneous Fe–Cr–Ni alloy, normal incidence, independent scattering events and the stated effective scattering cross-sections. Neglect absorption, other constituents and changes in neutron energy within the thin sheet. The atomic fractions are not supplied; take $x_{\mathrm{Fe}}=0.70$, $x_{\mathrm{Cr}}=0.20$, $x_{\mathrm{Ni}}=0.10$ as an explicit representative assumption, not a composition measured or specified in the paper.

The conventional cell of a face-centered cubic lattice containsatoms. The number density is thereforeFor a mixture, the scattering probability per unit path length is ${\Sigma }_s={\sum }_j{n}_j{\sigma }_j=n{\bar{\sigma }}_s$, whereThus ${\Sigma }_s=27.751{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. For thickness $t=10^{-3}\mathrm{m}$, the unscattered fraction $U$ satisfies $dU/dz=-{\Sigma }_{s}U$ with $U(0)=1$. The fraction undergoing at least one neutron scattering event isThe thin-sheet approximation gives $P_s\simeq {\Sigma }_{s}t=2.78\%$, consistent to the accuracy of the assumed composition. A simple iron-dominated estimate ${\bar{\sigma }}_s\simeq 3.2$ barns gives essentially the same about $3\%$ scattered conclusion.

For any other assumed composition, use the displayed weighted formula; mass fractions must first be converted to atomic fractions. Since the supplied elemental cross-sections span $2.8$–$4.1$ barns, any mixture of these three elements at the stated number density gives approximately $2.39$–$3.48\%$. This is a bound within the idealized mixture model, not a claim that every such composition is stable austenite.

Use the same atomic fractions and collision assumptions as in part(c). Let $A$ be the irradiated area. The number of atoms in the sheet is $N_t=ntA$, while the number of incident neutrons is $\Phi A$, where $\Phi$ is the neutron fluence.

Counting one primary knock-on atom for each neutron that scatters and using $\nu =430$ displacements per recoil gives the first-collision estimateHence the nominal damage is about $55$ displacements per atom under the assumed composition. In the thin-sheet approximation the density and thickness cancel:The $1.4\%$ difference comes from using first-collision attenuation rather than the linear approximation. Treating repeated collisions after deflection would require angular and energy information not provided; this correction is already smaller than the precision warranted by the composition assumption.

There is also a counting convention in “other atoms”: $430$ counts secondary displacements, while including the displaced primary knock-on atom itself gives $\nu =431$. The corresponding first-collision result is $54.58$ rather than $54.45$ dpa, an increase of only $0.23\%$. Both conventions round to about $55$ dpa. The numerical estimate is explicitly conditional on assigning the stated displacement yield to each scattering event.

A value greater than one is physically possible. Displacements per atom counts displacement events relative to the initial atom inventory: atoms can be displaced repeatedly, and many vacancies and self-interstitials recombine. It does not mean $55$ surviving vacant sites per original lattice site, or that every atom has moved exactly $55$ times. This is a large nominal exposure for which evolving dislocation loops, cavities and irradiation hardening matter; the surviving microstructure additionally depends on irradiation temperature, displacement dose rate, recombination and defect sinks.