4.5 Article

Neutronics analysis and assessment of shielding options of pipe forest and Bioshield-Plug design for ITER TBSs

Journal

FUSION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
Volume 168, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2021.112402

Keywords

ITER; TBM; Neutronics; Shutdown dose rate; Si Dose

Funding

  1. ITER Organization (IO) [IO/19/CT/4300001953]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ITER plans to install two Test Blanket Systems in two Equatorial Ports for testing different concepts of tritium breeding blankets. This paper discusses the results of a comprehensive nuclear analysis of the revised Pipe Forest and Blanket Plug, revealing that additional shielding plates can significantly reduce neutron flux and SDDR.
In ITER [1], it is foreseen to have two Test Blanket Systems (TBS) installed in two dedicated Equatorial Ports (EP) for the purpose of testing and validating different concepts of tritium breeding blankets [2]. Each TBS consists of a Test Blanket Module Port Plug (TBM PP) and its associated systems; the Pipe Forest (PF) in the Port Interspace (PI) area and the corresponding systems in the Port Cell (PC) area. While analyses have been conducted before [3], the design has since gone through major evolution with a redesign of the PF, a new BP based on the butterfly doors concept, and an optional activated water delay tank. In this paper, the results of a comprehensive nuclear analyses that aim at assessing the neutronics performance of the revised PF and BP, will be discussed. These include calculations of neutron flux distributions and Shutdown Dose Rate (SDDR), following SA2 [4] scenario, in a baseline configuration and exploring the option of adding additional shielding plates in the PF. It has been found that the additional shielding plates reduces the neutron flux in the PI by similar to 40-60% and the SDDR in the PI, due to activated components, by similar to 50%.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available