1 / 37

Uranium Garlea /Agnew

This study analyzes uranium deformation across three orientations, emphasizing the effects of sample positioning on textural maxima. Conducted over five-minute intervals, the analysis produced 42 histograms per orientation. Notably, E-WIMV reveals reduced accuracy at the PF rims due to fewer sampling points. In cases of maximum values found on the rim, reorientation may be necessary. Observed variations in maxima can reach up to 40% for strong textures. Minor data analysis issues may warrant re-evaluation if deemed significant.

driscoll-roman
Download Presentation

Uranium Garlea /Agnew

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Uranium Garlea/Agnew Maud analysis, 3 orientations, 5 minutes per orientations, 42 histograms per orientation, 10th order E-WIMV Note: E-WIMV is less accurate on the rim of the PFs as there are less sampling points than in the center. Therefore, if the absolute maximum is located on the rim, the sample orientation would need to be adjusted to move the maximum to the center. The type of the texture will not change, but changes of maxima were observed up to 40% for very strong textures between the maximum on the rim or in the center of the PFs. See slides 31 and 32 for a minor problem with the data analysis that may trigger re-analysis of the data if the problem is deemed significant.

  2. dU_Comp_1_BC323

  3. dU, BC 323, post deformation

  4. dU_Comp_2_BC995

  5. dU_Comp_3_BC996

  6. dU_Comp_3_BC996, re-measured

  7. dU, BC 996, post deformation

  8. dU_Comp_4_BC997

  9. dU_Comp_4_BC997, post deformation

  10. dU_Comp_5_BC998

  11. dU_Comp_6_BC999

  12. dU_Comp_6_BC999, re-measured

  13. dU, BC 999, post deformation

  14. dU_Comp_8_BC1001 (max is ~6 m.r.d.!)

  15. dU_Tens_1_BC324

  16. dU_Tens_2_BC990

  17. dU_Tens_3_BC991

  18. dU_Tens_3_BC991, re-measured

  19. dU_Tens_4_BC992

  20. dU, BC 992, post deformation

  21. dU_Tens_5_BC993

  22. dU_Tens_6_BC994

  23. dU, BC 994, post deformation

  24. dU_Tens_6_BC994, re-measured

  25. Garlea, dU_Tens_1_BC678 (max is ~6 m.r.d.!)

  26. Garlea, dU_Tens_2_BC679 (max is ~6 m.r.d.!)

  27. Garlea, dU_Tens_3_BC680 (max is ~6 m.r.d.!)

  28. Garlea, dU_Tens_4_BC681 (max is ~6 m.r.d.!)

  29. Garlea, dU_Comp_1_BC682 (max is ~6 m.r.d.!)

  30. Garlea, dU_Comp_2_BC683 (max is ~5.3 m.r.d.!)

  31. Garlea, dU_Comp_3_BC684 (max is ~5.8 m.r.d.!)

  32. Garlea, dU_Comp_3_BC684 (max is ~6.2 m.r.d.!) 60 degree detectors had DIFC problem which caused them to be more or less ignored for most panels. This analysis has this problem fixed with minor changes. If these changes are deemed significant, we could re-run all analyses, but my judgment would be that for VPSC input data the differences will be not significant.

  33. Garlea, dU_Comp_4_BC685 (max is ~6.9 m.r.d.!)

  34. Garlea, dU_Comp_5_BC1003 (max is ~5.5 m.r.d.!)

  35. Garlea, dU_Comp_7_BC1000 (max is ~6.9 m.r.d.!)

  36. Garlea, dU_Comp_9_BC1002 (max is ~6.1 m.r.d.!)

  37. Garlea, dU_Comp_TT_BC686 (max is ~6.0 m.r.d.!)

More Related