4.5 Article

Tritium distributions in castellated structures of Be limiter tiles from JET-ITER-like wall experiments

期刊

NUCLEAR FUSION
卷 63, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1741-4326/acb9a5

关键词

JET-ITER like wall; tritium retention; beryllium limiters; castellation; deposition in gaps

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the tritium retention in the castellated structure of beryllium limiters used in JET with the ITER-like wall was evaluated. Tritium was found to be deposited inside the grooves along with other elements. The tritium content was higher after the ILW1 campaign compared to the ILW3 campaign, which is attributed to a decrease in carbon impurities. The majority of tritium was retained in shallow regions in the grooves, and the retention patterns differed on plasma-facing surfaces.
Tritium retention in the castellated structure of beryllium limiters used in JET with the ITER-like wall (ILW) during the first (ILW1), third (ILW3) and all three (ILW1-3) campaigns were examined and evaluated. Tritium was deposited on the surfaces inside the castellation grooves together with deuterium, beryllium, oxygen, carbon and small amounts of metallic impurities such as nickel, copper and tungsten. The tritium content after the ILW1 campaign was greater than after the ILW3 campaign. This is attributed to the steadily decreasing amount of carbon impurities in JET from campaign to campaign. The majority of tritium was retained in shallow regions in the grooves, up to 2 mm from the entrance to the gap. It was comparable on all sides of the castellation, i.e. no difference has been detected between the toroidal and poloidal gaps. Secondly, the tritium retention in the gaps was similar on all specimens independent of their position in the tokamak, while the retention on the plasma-facing surfaces clearly depended on the tile position. The tritium deposition patterns in the castellation were also compared with the deuterium distribution determined in earlier studies.

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

4.5
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