Comparison of Neutron Radiation Response of Conventionally Wrought Versus Additive Manufacturing Production Methods in Alloy 625

V. O’Donnella Kansas State University, Alan Levin Department of Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering, Manhattan, Kansas66506Correspondencevalentina.odonnell@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6296-9958 View further author information

X. Heb University of Missouri, Electron Microscopy Core Facility, Columbia, Missouri65211View further author information

T. Keyac Auburn University, Department of Materials Engineering, Auburn, Alabama36849View further author information

G. Harvillc Auburn University, Department of Materials Engineering, Auburn, Alabama36849View further author information

M. Andurkara Kansas State University, Alan Levin Department of Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering, Manhattan, Kansas66506View further author information

B. C. Prorokc Auburn University, Department of Materials Engineering, Auburn, Alabama36849View further author information

S. M. Thompsona Kansas State University, Alan Levin Department of Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering, Manhattan, Kansas66506View further author information

J. Gahld University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR), University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri65211View further author information

show all

Abstract

A point of study in the characterization of additive manufactured (AM) alloys is whether or not AM microstructure responds to external stimuli differently from conventionally manufactured alloys. Samples of Alloy 625, a nickel-based superalloy of interest, were produced by both additive manufacturing and conventional wrought methods. Samples of differing sizes were subjected to one of two different types of neutron fields during irradiation: fast neutron or reactor-spectrum neutron. Vickers microhardness measurements and transmission electron microscope images were used to analyze the differences between samples before and after they were subjected to the neutron fields. Results showed differing responses between the two fabrication methods.

Keywords:

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy under award number [DE-NE0008865].

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature