4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Dust generation in tokamaks: Overview of beryllium and tungsten dust characterisation in JET with the ITER-like wall

Journal

FUSION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN
Volume 136, Issue -, Pages 579-586

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2018.03.027

Keywords

JET tokamak; ITER-like wall; Dust; Beryllium; Tungsten

Funding

  1. European Union [633053]
  2. ITER Broader Approach Activity
  3. Swedish Research Council (VR) [2015-04844]
  4. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland
  5. Swedish Research Council [2015-04844] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Operation of the JET tokamak with beryllium and tungsten ITER-like wall provides unique opportunity for detailed studies on dust generation: quantity, morphology, location, etc. The programme carried out in response to ITER needs for safety assessment comprises: (i) remotely controlled vacuum cleaning of the divertor; (ii) local sampling of loosely bound matter from plasma-facing components (PFC); (iii) collection of mobilized dust on various erosion-deposition probes located in the divertor and in the main chamber. Results of comprehensive analyses performed by a number of complementary techniques, e.g. a range of microscopy methods, electron and ion spectroscopy, liquid scintillography and thermal desorption, are summarized by following points: (a) Total amount of dust collected by vacuum cleaning after three campaigns is about 1-1.4 g per campaign (19.1-23.5 h plasma operation), i.e. over 100 times smaller than in JET operated with carbon walls (i.e. in JET-C). (b) Two major categories of Be dust are identified: flakes of co-deposits formed on PFC and droplets (2-10 mu m in diameter). Small quantifies, below 1 g, of Be droplets and splashes are associated mainly with melting of beryllium limiters. (c) Tungsten dust occurs mainly as partly molten flakes originating from the W-coated tiles.

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