Flux (Dose Rate) Effects for 2.8 MeV 58Ni Irradiations of Pure Ni

  • J. E. Westmoreland
  • J. A. Sprague
  • F. A. Smidt
  • P. R. Malmberg


Five years ago a phenomenon now known as swelling was found1 to occur in reactor materials under prolonged intense neutron irradiation. This swelling, which may represent a 10% or greater volume change, results from condensation of vacancies to form voids. The void formation presents severe limits on possibilities for advanced nuclear reactors. Subsequently it was found that this swelling could be simulated, at least qualitatively, by bombardment with heavy ions in a small fraction of the time required with neutron irradiation. Two conferences2,3 have summarized early work of this type. However, the higher (103 –105 times) production rate of the initial damage which makes simulation feasible may also obscure subtle microstructural changes. Thus, the dose rate effects need to be understood. Qualitative theoretical predictions of these effects have been made.4,5 The purpose of the present experiment was to obtain two quantitative curves of swelling versus irradiation temperature in pure nickel where flux (dose rate) is the only variable. That is, the flux was varied by a factor of 100 while the bombarding projectile, its energy, and the total fluence of incident ions was maintained the same. Comparisons are made between experimental results and the theoretically predicted effects of flux on swelling.


Dose Rate Spot Welding High Dose Rate Nickel Foil Dose Rate Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. Cawthorne and E. J. Fulton, Nature 216, 575 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. F. Pugh, M. A. Loretto, and D. I. Norris (editors), Voids Formed by Irradiation of Reactor Materials, Reading University, March 1971, British Nuclear Energy Society.Google Scholar
  3. 3..
    J. W. Corbett and L. C. Ianniello (editors), Radiation-Induced Voids in Metals, Albany, New York, June 1971, AEC Symposium Series (CONF-710601).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Bullough and R. C. Perrin, in Ref. 2, p. 79.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. D. Brailsford and R. Bullough, J. Nucl. Mat. 44, 121 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. A. Sprague, to be published.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Irwin Manning and G. P. Mueller, E-DEP-1, to be published, Computer Physics Communications.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. H. Kinchin and R. S. Pease, Rep. Prog. Phys. 18, 1 (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. M. Torrens and M. T. Robinson, in Ref. 3, p. 739.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ref. 5, p. 130.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. L. Kulcinski, B. Mastel, and H. E. Kissinger, Acta Met. 15, 27 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    See D. I. Norris, Rad. Effects 14, 1 (1972), Rad. Effects 15, 1 (1972), a relatively recent two part review article with a comprehensive listing of references.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Bullough and R. C. Perrin, in Irradiation Effects on Structural Alloys for Nuclear Reactor Applications, ASTM STP 484 (1970), p. 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Equation (51) in Ref. 5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. J. E. Foreman, Rad. Effects 14, 175 (1972), Eq. (10).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. E. Westmoreland
    • 1
  • J. A. Sprague
    • 1
  • F. A. Smidt
    • 1
  • P. R. Malmberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Naval Research LaboratoryUSA

Personalised recommendations