High Temperature Superconductors PDF

R. G. Munro t and H.
Chen t
Data Evaluation Methodology for HighTemperature Superconductors

REFERENCE: Munro, R. G. and Chen, H., "Data Evaluation Methodology for HighTemperature Superconductors,"Computerization and Networking of Materials Databases:
Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1311, S. Nishijima and S. Iwata, Eds., American Society for Testing
and Materials, 1997, pp. 198-210.
ABSTRACT: During the first seven years of the research effort on high-temperature superconductors, the average publication rate has been approximately 5000 papers per year. As may be
expected, this published literature has an abundance of seemingly conflicting results, and there
are major concerns about the consistency and the comparability of the reported property values.
This paper discusses an evaluation methodology that addresses those issues using a structured
evaluation procedure. The procedure applies to each set of data and leads to the assignment of
one of seven well-defined data evaluation levels. The general procedure and criteria are discussed
first, and then special relations that may result in data of higher quality are discussed. The latter
relations consider the roles of material structure, composition, energy levels, and materials
property relations. The methodology is illustrated by an evaluation of data for YBa2Cu3Oxfor
which there is an especially important dependence on composition and crystallographic structure.
KEYWORDS: data evaluation, material property relations, evaluation criteria, superconductors
Reliable data can open pathways to progress that might otherwise be obscured by uncertainties
and obstructed by errors. The lack of reliable data, in contrast, can be the cause of inordinate
losses of resources and untimely production failures. It follows that the establishment of
reliable data is an essential priority for all manner of applications in science and engineering.
The process by which data become acknowledged as reliable is often termed data evaluation
[1]. The process begins with the investment of human skills, measurement apparatus, natural
resources, and, quite likely, considerable monetary funds. The result is a collection of information duly recorded, analyzed, and shaped into conclusions that reflect the opinions, perspectives,
and biases of those individuals who conducted the study. The process continues with the
presentation of the results to a much larger community of researchers and designers by means
of one of the many forms of publication. In this larger forum, the data can be assessed in the
context of other reports that have likewise achieved publication.
Unfortunately, few researchers have the resources to explore the full depth and range of
publications to uncover all the reports that have been issued on a given material, and even
fewer have the opportunity to assess the relevant reports fully [2]. Only those who have been
steeped in years of experience have a ready command of the specialized information that
might be required to understand all the intricacies of a given set of reported property values.
It is for such reasons that there is considerable merit in the establishment of systems of
evaluated property data.
IPhysicist and guest scientist, respectively, Ceramics Division, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Oct 4 09:19:31 EDT 2013
Downloaded/printed by
198
INSTITUTO POLITECNICO NACIONAL pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
Copyright9 1997by ASTM International
www.astm.org
MUNRO AND CHEN ON HIGH-TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS
199
The intrinsic worth of the effort argues for an evaluation process that is conducted with the
utmost care and consistency, while the critical role of data in advanced technologies [3]
demands that the quality of the data be of the highest caliber. These underlying concerns have
greatly influenced the development of the evaluation procedure in the present work. The first
and foremost consequence of these concerns is the conclusion that the reliability of the data
must be accorded the highest priority in the assessment criteria applied to the data.
However, it is recognized also that data represent a remarkably expensive commodity [4].
The costs incurred by the need for suitable equipment, measurement standards, materials, and
expertise extend far beyond the immediate funds expended to measure a particular set of data,
and the latter expenditure can be significant by itself. The evaluation process, therefore,
should consider all data as being potentially useful and should discard data only with the
greatest reluctance.
At the base of the data evaluation paradigm, therefore, there are two counterbalancing
mandateS: (1) ensure the reliability of the data; and (2) do not reject data without cause.
In the present work, these two simple rules are considered to be the prime directives of
data evaluation.
Basic Criteria
Ensuring the reliability of the data begins with three basic considerations: (1) identifying
the material, (2) specifying the measurement method, and (3) documenting the source of the
data [5]. Without an identification of the material, there is no basis for meaningful use of the
data. Without specification of the measurement method, there may be no basis for assessing
the data. And, without the documentation of the source of the data, there is no accountability
for the reported information. Recognizing such basic criteria is little more than an exercise in
common sense, yet, in far too many published reports of property data, these basic criteria
fail to be satisfied [6]. As a result, there is a large continuing effort around the w o r d to
develop standards to ensure that adequate information is provided along with quantitative
results obtained in the laboratory [7].
Classes of Data
I n the present context, the notion of data evaluation implies that data can be divided into
at least two groupings, acceptable and unacceptable. In many circumstances, it is desirable to
subdivide the acceptable group into classes that convey some sense of the relative merits of
one data set compared to others. This subdivision is arbitrary, but several more-or-less natural
categories can be identified [8] as given in Table 1. Three of the data classes, commercial,
typical, and research, are derived from the nature of the source of data. The certified, validated,
TABLE 1--Classes of acceptable data.

Name of Classa
Certified
Validated
Evaluated
Commercial
Typical
Research
Unevaluated
Comment
Standard reference values, specific to known production batches
Confirmed via correlations and models
Basic acceptance criteria satisfied
Manufacturer's data for specific commercial materials
Derived from surveys of nominally similar materials
Preliminary values from work in progress
All other data
~Ref 8.
200
COMPUTERIZATION/NETWORKINGOF MATERIALS DATABASES
and evaluated classes, in contrast, are derived from the nature of the measurements and
represent an attempt to distinguish the degree of treatment or assessment that has been applied
to data. The unevaluated class results from the recognition that even when scant information
is given regarding a measurement, the data still can have a redeeming utility. The general
process by which a given set of data is assigned to one of these classes of data forms the
central framework of the data evaluation procedure.
General Evaluation Procedure

Data evaluation is always a matter of establishing confidence in the reported data. Confidence
in the new data generally increases as the amount of supporting data increases, and direct
evidence in support of the new values tends to be more persuasive than indirect evidence.
Consequently, it is desirable to have the more critical and direct considerations occur in the
evaluation process before any indirect considerations are pursued.
The data evaluation procedure can be constructed as a series of questions, each of which
has an answer of"yes" or "no," as illustrated schematically in Fig. 1. Each answer to a question
leads either to a data evaluation classification, which completes the process, or to a new
question. The first two questions establish essential preliminary information regarding the
No
Materials Specification?
Unacceptable
Yes
No
~__ [Other Classification]
Measurement Method?
~
Yes
Yes
Standard Reference Values? ~
Correlations or Models?
No
Independent Values? ~
Yes
~
Certified
Validated
Yes
Evaluated
[Other Assessment]
FIG. 1--Schematic of the basic data evaluation procedure. The node labeled [Other Assessment]
is expanded in Figs. 2 and 3. [Other Classification] is expanded in Fig. 4. The data evaluation
levels given in the italic font are described in Table 1.
201
material and the measurement procedure, and the remainder of the questions pertain to determining what context or confidence level is most appropriate for the reported data.
The first question in the process examines the specification of the material. This question
may be considered to be the most critical question in the process because the lack of an
adequate material specification immediately terminates the assessment and results in the data
being classified as unacceptable.
If the material specification is judged to be adequate, then the description of the measurement
procedure is examined. While complete information regarding the measurement procedure is
essential for maximizing the utility of the data, a lack of information in this category does
not immediately make the data unacceptable. On the contrary, it is possible for data to be
useful even when absolutely no measurement information is provided. For example, mass
density is often reported without an indication of how the value was determined; with proper
precautions, the reported value can be useful in establishing a suitable context for assessing
other properties of that material. Consequently, the result of examining the characterization
of the measurement method is always to progress to another stage of the evaluation procedure
for further considerations.
In Fig. 1, the two branches of the evaluation procedure that extend from the schematic node
labeled "Measurement Method?" are expanded further in Figs. 2-4. As a compromise between
the interests of completeness and brevity, each subsequent node in the schematic representation,
Figs. 1-4, is discussed in the following subsections, but the commentary is purposely kept
rather terse,
[Other Assessment]
Yes
Related Properties?
Peer R e v i e w e d ?
~
Evaluated
No
~_ [Other Comparisons]
Yes
Incompatible
Properties?
Yes
Yes
..._
"f - Evaluate d
...- Reassessment
Evaluated
Unacceptable
FIG. 2--Expansion of the data evaluation branch introduced in Fig. 1 as [Other Assessment].
The node labeled [Other Comparisons] is expanded in Fig. 3.
202
COMPUTERIZATION/NETWORKING OF MATERIALS DATABASES
[Other Comparisons]
Yes
Interim Report? ~
Research in Progress
Yes
Incompatible
Materials?
Yes
~- Reassessment ~
Evaluated
Evaluated
Unacceptable
FIG. 3--Expansion of the data evaluation branch introduced in Fig. 2 as [Other Comparisons].
[Other Classification]
Yes
Manufacturer's Data? ~
Commercial
NOyes
Survey Data?
No
Typical
Yes
Subsidiary Data? ~
Unevaluated
No
Yes
Related Properties? ~
Yes
Incompatible
~
Properties?
Unevaluated
Unevaluated
Yes
R e a s s e s s m e n t ~ Unevaluated
Unacceptable
FIG. 4--Expansion of the data evaluation branch introduced in Fig. 1 as [Other Classification].
203
Direct Confirmation Methods

When the measurement method has been described adequately, the highest level of confidence
is obtained when the measured values can be verified in some quantitative manner.
Standard Reference Values--A standard reference value is a property value for a specific
batch o f a material, usually designated as a standard reference material, on which homogeneity
and other quality assurance tests have been conducted. Commonly, more than one measurement
method is used, and the final value is determined statistically.
Correlations or Models--A material property may be known to be well described by a
model or may have well established relations with other properties. In such cases, it may be
possible to confirm the measured values by means of model calculations.
Independent Values--Perhaps the most reassuring evidence that a proper value has been
determined for a property is that the value is reproducible in independent measurements.
Indirect Confirmation Methods
When direct supporting information is not available, it may be possible to confirm the
measured values indirectly.
Related Properties--It sometimes happens that other related properties have been determined
independently for the same material. In such cases, it may be possible to estimate one property
from the other. For example, density can be calculated when the crystallographic lattice
parameters and the molecular weight of the material are known.
Peer Review--Lacking confirmation of the reported values by independent quantitative
estimates, it is desirable to have other indications of the reliability of the data. Results presented
in peer-reviewed publications have been examined by at least one knowledgeable person who
is presumed to have considered the reported data to be of interest to the readers of the publication.
The implication is that the reported procedures and results were considered reasonable and
acceptable to the expert who conducted the review.
Incompatible Properties--When no direct evidence is available to support the reported data,
it is important to verify that there is no information that in any way contradicts those values
indirectly, i.e., it should be verified that the values are not incompatible with other properties
that have been determined independently for the same material. For example, if the hardness
is reported to be decreasing while another study indicates that the elastic modulus is increasing
under comparable conditions, then at least one of the sets of data would be suspected of being
faulty. Both such sets of data would need to be examined further.
Reassessment--Whenever there is a conflict among different sets of data, all relevant sets
of data need to be reassessed in detail until the conflict is resolved. Favorable reassessment
leads to acceptance of the data, while unfavorable reassessment makes the data unacceptable.
This provision for reassessment is one of the features of the evaluation process that continuously
helps to refine the database as a whole.
204
Other Comparisons
When the measurement procedure is well described but the measured values cannot be
confirmed independently and the data source has not received peer review, then there is very
little of the knowledge base that can be used to assess the data. There are, however, two
circumstances that should be examined.
Interim Report--The most common reason that a report has no supporting data is that the
research is the first of its kind. In such cases, the report may be presenting preliminary data
that the authors consider to be subject to further refinement. The data classification, Research
in Progress, is used to indicate the unsettled nature of this data.
Incompatible Materials--The last consideration is to verify that the new results do not differ
profoundly from the trends of values known for other materials of a similar nature. Profoundly
different values are not necessarily invalid, but they are generally unusual and invite further
scrutiny.
Other Classifications
Useful data can be reported without significant details about the measurement procedure
in several circumstances.
Manufacturer's Data--It is common for a manufacturer of a Commercial material to provide

property values to its commercial clients and to others interested in the material. These values
are sometimes reported subsequently in published works without further assessment.
Survey Data--Reviews of material property data are often conducted with the objective of
determining averages and ranges of observed values. Such reviews usually regard materials
that are similar in some respect as being the same, and differences of measurement techniques
may be ignored.
Subsidiary Data--It is not unusual for a paper to focus rather sharply on one property,
providing considerable details about its measurement, while other properties are mentioned
only briefly. Data subsidiary to the main focus usually are provided to define the context of
the principal measurement. Density is very often reported in this manner.
Implementation
The evaluation procedure given schematically by Figs. 1-4 provides a general framework
for the evaluation of materials property data of any type. The procedure is given as branching
sequences of well-focused questions. The criteria for answering the questions, however, can
be quite subjective, and hence the implementation of the procedure can vary significantly from
one database to another. Such variability in the criteria is desirable because it allows the
general framework to be adapted to the needs of the specific data system. Of course, within
a specified database, the criteria must be invariant and applied consistently.
Specific Examples
A large part of the evaluation of data involves common sense and simple comparisons of
results or techniques. Progressively greater confidence in the data can be gained when statistical
205
methods, property relations, and material models are used. Three examples of these techniques
are illustrated here using results from the study of high-temperature superconductors.
Statistical Methods
An uncommonly large amount of data has been reported for this special class of materials,
and it is not unusual to find discrepancies among the diverse sets of reported property values.
This situation may be most succinctly illustrated by what is, perhaps, the most important
characteristic of a superconductor, the critical temperature, T~, for the most widely studied
high-temperature superconductor, YBazCu3Ox (Y:123). The critical temperature denotes the
temperature below which the material has zero electrical resistance and above which the
material is not superconducting.
It is well known that Y:123 has properties that vary significantly with variations of the
chemical composition of the material [9]. Consequently, to obtain valid comparisons of properties, it is important to have the chemical formula for the material as well defined as possible.
Few papers, however, contain information about the composition determined by a quantitative
chemical analysis. Fortunately, the critical temperature has a monotonic dependence on the
oxygen content that can be exploited. As shown in Fig. 5, the relation between T~ and the
parameter, x, in the chemical formula, YBa2CuaOx, is quite reproducible [10-14]. Although
the relation is empirical, a smooth curve can be fit to the data over the whole superconducting
range, 6.4 -< x <- 7. Subsequently, in the absence of other chemical analysis, the smooth curve
can be used to estimate the oxygen content whenever T~ is known.
100
YBa2Cu30 x
80
60
E--
'9
,~ .//
20
0
6.3
vv
i
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
x, formula units
FIG. 5--Critical temperature, To, as a function of the oxygen content, x, in orthorhombic YBazCu30x including data from four independent studies.
206
Property Relations
A very important key to understanding the behavior of a superconductor is the crystal
structure of the material. Refinements of the crystal structure are usually accomplished using
X-ray or neutron diffraction data. These studies frequently report that the processing method
is known to result in fully oxidized or partially oxidized specimens, but the actual composition
is not determined. However, in these cases, the measured value of T~ usually is given as part
of the characterization data, along with the values of the lattice parameters. Consequently, the
relation represented by Fig. 5 can be used to establish which data sets may be compared.
Using this procedure, it has been possible to determine an optimized relation for the lattice
parameters as a function of temperature. This relation, in turn, presents an opportunity to use
the property relation,
(~ = ( d a / d T ) / a
(1)
to estimate the coefficient of thermal expansion, where ~x is the linear coefficient of thermal
expansion, a is a lattice parameter; and T is the temperature [14]. The result for isotropic
polycrystalline Y: 123 (x = 6.9) is shown in Fig. 6. The agreement among the values derived
from the crystallographic data and the values determined independently by dilatometry methods
is a striking example of how property relations can be used in the data evaluation process.
14
YBa2Cu306.9
12
10
v ~
(polycrystalline)
By lattice
~M 8 paramzt~
~
6
X/
4
By dilatometry:
" Capacitive
9 Strain gauge
f
///~
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Temperature, K
FIG. 6---Comparison of the isotropic linear coefficient of thermal expansion, et, determined by
lattice parameters and by dilatometry.
207
Material Models
Further studies have shown that the lattice parameters vary systematically with the oxygen
content of the Y:123 material. Thus, a family of results like Fig. 6 could be derived as a
function of the value of x in the chemical formula, YBazCu30~. The variation of the lattice
parameters with composition implies that a relation between T~ and lattice parameters may
exist. One material model that has been used to examine such relations in Y'123 is known as
the charge transfer model. In this model, it is possible to relate the effectiveness of the charge
transfer mechanism to the difference of Madelung potentials between specific ionic sites [15].
Defining the average Madelung potential to introduce a hole on an oxygen site to be V~ for
an apical oxygen site and Vp for a planar oxygen site, it is possible to relate T~ to the
potential difference
AVa = V~ - Vp
(2)
as shown in Fig. 7 [16]. Since AVa must vary with the crystal structure, the results of Fig. 7
can be combined with the pressure dependence of the lattice parameters and the relation
dTc/dP
[dTJd(A Va)][d(A Va)/dP]
(3)
to calculate the pressure dependence of T~. Proceeding in this manner yields
dTcldP = 6.1 +- 0.5 K/GPa
100
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
for
. . . .
x = 6.6
. . . .
(4)
. . . .
YBa2CuaO x
80
v
6O
4o
20
-2
-1
AV A, e V
FIG. 7--Variation of the critical temperature, To, with the difference in the Madelung potentials
at the apical and planar oxygen sites.
208
COMPUTERIZATION/NETWORKING OF MATERIALS DATABASES
and
dTfldP = - 0 . 6 - 0.3 K/GPa
for
x = 6.93,
(5)
where the combined standard uncertainties are estimated from least squares curve fittings and
the propagation of error technique. These values compare favorably with the range of values,
4 K/GPa -< dTc/dP -< 7 K/GPa
for
x = 6.6
(6)
and
- 0 . 8 K/GPa -< dTc/dP --< 1 K/GPa,
(7)
that have been determined in various experiments. Use of a material model in this manner
makes it possible to demonstrate the consistency of several different property values that are
measured independently.
Conclusions
The primary goal of data evaluation is to establish reliable data. Through the use of reliable
data, it is expected that higher quality materials and products may be formed. In practice, data
evaluation is a matter of establishing confidence in the measured values.
A general framework for the systematic evaluation of materials property data has been
developed. The procedure includes provisions for self-consistency that lead to a continuous
refinement of the database as a whole. The evaluation process in its present form classifies
data as acceptable or unacceptable and provides seven distinct evaluation levels for acceptable data. These evaluation levels distinguish the data according to the nature of the source
of the data or the nature of the assessment treatment that has been applied to the data. Several
assessment methods have been considered and examples of their application have been given
for the high-temperature superconductor YBa2Cu3Ox. In particular, it has been shown that
statistical methods, property relations, and material models can be used to significantly enhance
the confidence in diverse sets of property data.
References
[1] ASTM E 1443-93b, Standard Terminology Relating to Building and Accessing Material and
Chemical Databases, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1993.
[2] Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, Materials Properties Data Management--Approaches to a Critical National Need, Report No. NMAB-405, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1983, pp. 10--12.
[3] Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, Computer-Aided
Materials Selection During Structural Design, Report No. NMAB-467, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 25-36.
[4] Barrett, A. J., "The Benefits and Economic Consequences of Materials Property Databases,"
Computerization and Networking of Materials Databases: Second Volume, ASTM STP 1106, J. G.
Kaufman and J. S. Glazman, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
PA, 1991, pp. 17-25.
[5] Munro, R. G. and Begley, E. E, "The Structural Ceramics Database: Data Acquisition Format for
Monolithic Ceramics," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1991, pp. 250--255.
[6] Munro, R. G., Begley, E. E, and Baker, T. L., "Strengths and Deficiencies in Published Advanced
Ceramics Data," Ceramic Bulletin, Vol. 69, No. 9, 1990, pp. 1498-1502.
[7] Barrett, A. J., "Data Evaluation, Validation, and Quality," Manual on the Building of Materials
Databases, C. H. Newton, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
1993, pp. 53-67.
209
[8] Munro, R. G. and Begley, E. E, NIST Standard Reference Database No. 62: High Temperature
Superconductors, Standard Reference Data Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1995.
[9] Poole, C. P., Datta, T., and Farach, H. A., Copper Oxide Superconductors, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1988.
[10] Benischke, R., Weber, T., Fietz, W. H., Metzger, J., Grube, K., Wolf, T., and Wtlhl, H., "The Effect
of High Hydrostatic Pressure on Tc of YBa2Cu3Ox as a Function of the Oxygen Content," Physica
C, Vol. 203, 1992, pp. 293-298.
[11] Cava, R. J., Hewat, A. W., Hewat, E. A., Batlogg, B., Marezio, M., Rabe, K. M., Krajewski, J. J.,
Peck, Jr., W. F., and Rupp, Jr., L. W., "Structural Anomalies, Oxygen Ordering and Superconductivity
in Oxygen Deficient Ba2YCu30~," Physica C, Vol. 165, 1990, pp. 419--433.
[12] Jorgensen, J. D., Veal, B. W., Paulikas, A. P., Nowicki, L. J., Crabtree, G. W., Claus, H., and
Kwok, W. K., "Structural Properties of Oxygen-deficient YBazCu3OT_8,"Physical Review B, Vol.
41, No. 4, 1990, pp. 1863-1877.
[13] Kraut, O., Meingast, C., Br~uchle, G., Claus, H., Erb, A., Mtlller-Vogt, G., and WUhl, H., "Uniaxial
Pressure Dependence of Tr of Untwinned YBa2Cu3Ox Single Crystals for x = 6.5-7," Physica C,
Vol. 205, 1993, pp. 139-146.
[14] Munro, R. G. and Chen, H., "Reference Relations for the Evaluation of the Materials Properties
of Orthorhombic YBa2Cu30x Superconductors," Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Vol.
79, 1996, pp. 603-608.
[15] Ohta, Y., Tohyama, T., and Maekawa, S., "Apex Oxygen and Critical Temperature in Copper Oxide
Superconductors: Universal Correlation with the Stability of Local Singlets," Physical Review B,
Vol. 43, 1991, pp. 2968-2982.
[16] Chen, H. and Munro, R. G., "Dependence of the Critical Temperature on Atomic Structure in
Orthorhombic YBa2Cu3Ox," Physical Review B, Vol. 53, 1996, pp. 12496-12501.
DISCUSSION
Timothy M. King ~ (written discussion)---The data evaluation method has a systematic layout
that seems an excellent tool for the support of those who wish to apply these superconductor
data. Obviously, the flow chart that shows this procedure is complex and difficult to appreciate
without the chance for further study. The nature of such a procedure seems to suggest presentation using the hypertext paradigm. Does a computer version yet exist? Furthermore, the World
Wide Web embodies hypertext features and would allow the international exposure of this
work. As a final question, is there any prospect that this evaluation method will become the
basis for an E-49 Committee standard?
R. G. Munro (author's closure)--The response to this approach to data evaluation has been
gratifying and may be taken as an indication of the widespread need for an evaluation paradigm.
The hierarchical sequence of questions, each question having an answer of either "yes" or
"no," is a natural structure for an expert system. One can readily envision various graphical
presentations of an evaluation as it progresses through the sequence of questions. The progression would be guided by interactive dialogs which could be developed conveniently using
~National Research Institute for Metals (NRIM).

210
either windows-type dialog boxes or sequential hypertext links. The current hierarchy has
evolved from the practical application of the method to both high-temperature superconductors,
as discussed in this paper, and advanced structural ceramics. Although the property sets for
these two types of materials have some differences, the same hierarchy applies to both databases.
On the basis of that experience, the current methodology could form a useful framework for
the development of an ASTM standard.

High Temperature Superconductors PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Temperature Superconductors PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R. G. Munro t and H.

Data Evaluation Methodology for HighTemperature Superconductors

Copyright9 1997by ASTM International

MUNRO AND CHEN ON HIGH-TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS

TABLE 1--Classes of acceptable data.

COMPUTERIZATION/NETWORKINGOF MATERIALS DATABASES

General Evaluation Procedure

~__ [Other Classification]

Standard Reference Values? ~

MUNRO AND CHEN ON HIGH-TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS

COMPUTERIZATION/NETWORKING OF MATERIALS DATABASES

MUNRO AND CHEN ON HIGH-TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS

Direct Confirmation Methods

COMPUTERIZATION/NETWORKINGOF MATERIALS DATABASES

Manufacturer's Data--It is common for a manufacturer of a Commercial material to provide

MUNRO AND CHEN ON HIGH-TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS

COMPUTERIZATION/NETWORKINGOF MATERIALS DATABASES

MUNRO AND CHEN ON HIGH-TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS

[dTJd(A Va)][d(A Va)/dP]

to calculate the pressure dependence of T~. Proceeding in this manner yields

dTcldP = 6.1 +- 0.5 K/GPa

COMPUTERIZATION/NETWORKING OF MATERIALS DATABASES

MUNRO AND CHEN ON HIGH-TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS

~National Research Institute for Metals (NRIM).

COMPUTERIZATION/NETWORKINGOF MATERIALS DATABASES

You might also like