Hostname: page-component-76dd75c94c-68sx7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T07:26:43.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of α-Decay on Mechanical Properties of Simulated Nuclear Waste Glass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1992

Y. Inagaki ,
H. Furuya ,
Y. Ono ,
K. Idemitsu ,
T. Banba ,
S. Matsumoto  and
S. Muraoka
Y. Inagaki
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyushu Univ., Fukuoka 812, JAPAN
H. Furuya
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyushu Univ., Fukuoka 812, JAPAN
Y. Ono
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyushu Univ., Fukuoka 812, JAPAN
K. Idemitsu
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyushu Univ., Fukuoka 812, JAPAN
T. Banba
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Safety Research, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Tokaimura, Ibaraki-ken 319-11, JAPAN
S. Matsumoto
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Safety Research, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Tokaimura, Ibaraki-ken 319-11, JAPAN
S. Muraoka
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Safety Research, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Tokaimura, Ibaraki-ken 319-11, JAPAN
Get access

Abstract

A simulated nuclear waste glass was self-irradiated by doping with short-lived actinides of 238Pu and 244Cm. Changes in the hardness, the Young's modulus and the fracture toughness, as a function of irradiation dose, were measured by use of indentation techniques. The irradiated glass was annealed at temperatures from 573K to 723K for periods of up to 48hours, and the recovery of these changes were measured as a function of annealing temperature and time.

It was observed that the hardness and the Young's modulus decreased, while the fracture toughness increased exponentially with the cumulative dose. The maximum values of the relative changes in the hardness, the Young's modulus and the fracture toughness were about −25%, −30% and +45%, respectively. The results of the annealing show that the hardness and the Young's modulus were almost recovered to the original values at temperatures above 673K within 10 hours, while the recovery of the fracture toughness was minimal in this region of temperature and time. The changes in the hardness and the Young's modulus can be well explained by the model, in which the changes is proportional to the volume fraction of damaged zones, F, and the recovery of F is first order. On the other hand, the changes in the fracture toughness cannot be explained by the model, which suggests that the mechanism of the change in the fracture toughness is different from that in the hardness and the Young's modulus.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 294: Symposium V – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XVI , 1992 , 191
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Grambow, B., Lutze, W. and Muller, R., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XV, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 275, 143 (1992).Google Scholar
2. Weber, W.J. and Matzke, Hj., ‘Fracture Toughness in Nuclear Waste Glasses and Ceramics”, PNL-SA-13907, Pacific Northwest Laboratory(1986).Google Scholar
3. Weber, W.J. and Matzke, Hj., European Appl. Res. Rep. 7, 207 (1987).Google Scholar
4. Matzke, Hj. and Toscano, E.H., European Appl. Res. Rep.-Nucl. Sci. Technol. Vol. 7, 1403 (1990).Google Scholar
5. Matzke, Hj., Scheibel, H.G. and Friehmelt, V., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XII, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 127, 173 (1989).Google Scholar
6. Inagaki, Y., Furuya, H., Idemitsu, K., Banba, T., Matsumoto, S. and Muraoka, S., in Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XV, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol.275, 199 (1992). pp.-206.Google Scholar
7. Marshall, D.B., Noma, T., and Evans, A.G., J. Amer. Ceram. Soc., 65, C175(1982).Google Scholar
8. Marshall, D.B. and Evans, A.G., J. Amer. Ceram. Soc., 64, C182 (1982).Google Scholar
9. Weber, W.J. and Roberts, F.P., Nucl. Tech. 60, 178 (1983).Google Scholar
10. Lutze, W., Manara, A., Marples, J.A.C., Offermann, P. and Van Iseghem, P., in Radioactive Waste Management and Disposal, ed. by Simon, R. (1986), p232.Google Scholar
11. Marples, J.A.C., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B32, 480 (1988).Google Scholar
12. Sato, S., Furuya, H., Kozaka, T., Inagaki, Y. and Tamai, T., J. Nucl. Mater., 152, 489 (1988).Google Scholar
13. Bertolotti, R.L. and Fulrath, R.M., J. Amer. Ceram. Soc., Vol.50, 558 (1967).Google Scholar
14. Hasselman, D.P.H. and Fulrath, R.M., J. Amer. Ceram. Soc., Vol.49, 68 (1966).Google Scholar