4.1 Article

Scoping Nuclear Analyses of Shielding Options and Shutdown Dose Rate Contributions in ITER TBSs

期刊

FUSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 305-319

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15361055.2022.2109368

关键词

ITER; test blanket system; neutronics; shielding; shutdown dose rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The evolution of pipe forest and bioshield plug designs in the test blanket module program of ITER project has been studied through nuclear analyses. The results show that combining shielding panels on the PF enclosure with those in the BP dogleg can significantly reduce radiation fields and shutdown dose rate in different plasma operational modes.
One of the advances in the test blanket module program within the ITER project in the last few years concerned the evolution of the pipe forest (PF) and bioshield plug (BP) designs. In support of the design phase, nuclear analyses to assess several responses in the fusion neutronics environment inside the port interspace (PI) with the existence of the evolved PF and BP are deemed essential. Nuclear analyses were commenced using the new PF and BP with developing the neutronics models and performing preliminary assessment of the radiation fields and shutdown dose rate (SDDR) in the PI. In this paper, the results of a full suite of nuclear analyses are discussed, which covers more configurations and radiation sources, in two plasma operational modes: on and off. For the plasma-on mode, different shielding options were examined. The results show a clear benefit of combining the installation of shielding panels on the PF enclosure with those in the BP dogleg, through which the pipes penetrate to the port cell area. For the plasma-off mode, the SDDR was assessed from different sources: activated components and residual LiPb layers in pipes after drainage. As maintenance operations are foreseen during the lifetime of the facility, the SDDR was also assessed for access conditions, open BP doors, and transport conditions, with PF extracted in the gallery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据