Faculty Mentor Information
Yongfeng Zhang
Presentation Date
7-2016
Abstract
This work aims to verify the correct implementation of an anisotropic grain boundary (GB) energy model for face-centered cubic (FCC) and fluorite materials in Idaho National Laboratory’s phase field fuel performance code MARMOT. The model was recently implemented in MARMOT with the purpose of enabling higher fidelity simulations of UO2 nuclear fuels. As part of verification, tests were performed to measure the energy dependence on misorientation of high symmetry GBs in an FCC metal (Cu). The energies of the [100], [110], and [111] twist boundaries result as predicted, as do the energies of the [111] symmetric tilt boundaries. However, the energies of the [100] and [110] symmetric tilt boundaries display an unexpected mirror symmetry about half the rotation period. Further investigations are required to determine the cause of this discrepancy. Possible reasons include an error in the MARMOT implementation of the anisotropic GB energy model.
Included in
Ceramic Materials Commons, Nuclear Commons, Other Materials Science and Engineering Commons
Verifying the Implementation of An Anisotropic Grain Boundary Energy Model in Idaho National Lab’s MARMOT
This work aims to verify the correct implementation of an anisotropic grain boundary (GB) energy model for face-centered cubic (FCC) and fluorite materials in Idaho National Laboratory’s phase field fuel performance code MARMOT. The model was recently implemented in MARMOT with the purpose of enabling higher fidelity simulations of UO2 nuclear fuels. As part of verification, tests were performed to measure the energy dependence on misorientation of high symmetry GBs in an FCC metal (Cu). The energies of the [100], [110], and [111] twist boundaries result as predicted, as do the energies of the [111] symmetric tilt boundaries. However, the energies of the [100] and [110] symmetric tilt boundaries display an unexpected mirror symmetry about half the rotation period. Further investigations are required to determine the cause of this discrepancy. Possible reasons include an error in the MARMOT implementation of the anisotropic GB energy model.
Comments
Poster #W14