2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2014.11.098
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Plasma facing materials performance under ITER-relevant mitigated disruption photonic heat loads

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
14
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
14
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…As soon as the combination of L abs and t was high enough (F HF ≥ 18 MW m −2 s 0.5 ) to cause a surface temperature above the melting threshold of Be, each MGI like heat pulse melted a Be layer with a depth of up to ∼120 μm due to the high penetration depth of the electrons in JUDITH 1. In contrast, a comparable heat load with F HF ∼ 22 MW m −2 s 0.5 exerted by a plasma onto the sample, would cause a melt layer thickness of 10-20 μm [3]. Thus, electron beam experiments with rather high acceleration voltages that enter the melting regime of Be tend to overestimate the melt layer thickness when compared to the more application related plasma loading experiments.…”
Section: Damage Mappingmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…As soon as the combination of L abs and t was high enough (F HF ≥ 18 MW m −2 s 0.5 ) to cause a surface temperature above the melting threshold of Be, each MGI like heat pulse melted a Be layer with a depth of up to ∼120 μm due to the high penetration depth of the electrons in JUDITH 1. In contrast, a comparable heat load with F HF ∼ 22 MW m −2 s 0.5 exerted by a plasma onto the sample, would cause a melt layer thickness of 10-20 μm [3]. Thus, electron beam experiments with rather high acceleration voltages that enter the melting regime of Be tend to overestimate the melt layer thickness when compared to the more application related plasma loading experiments.…”
Section: Damage Mappingmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, only up to ∼10 0 0 of the total number of discharges are expected to end with a high power mitigated disruption [3] . By using MGIs, the plasma cooling times range from 5-10 ms and the power densities L abs to the PFCs can be decreased to a moderate 90-260 MW m −2 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations