Next Article in Journal
Stochastic Resonance Whole Body Vibration (SR-WBV) Does Not Affect the Body Composition of Healthy Young Women: A Preliminary Controlled Before–After (CBA) Study
Previous Article in Journal
Seismic Risk in Alborz: Insights from Geological Moment Rate Estimation and Fault Activity Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Disruption Predictors at JET
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/app13106240
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

New Challenges in Nuclear Fusion Reactors: From Data Analysis to Materials and Manufacturing

by
Emmanuele Peluso
1,*,
Ekaterina Pakhomova
2 and
Michela Gelfusa
1
1
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy
2
Department of Mechanical, Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Cagliari, Via Marengo 2, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(10), 6240; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106240
Submission received: 7 May 2023 / Accepted: 11 May 2023 / Published: 19 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Challenges in Nuclear Fusion Reactors: From Data Analysis to Materials and Manufacturing)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The construction and operation of the first generation of magnetically controlled nuclear fusion power plants require the development of proper physics and the engineering bases. The analysis of data, recently collected by the actual largest and most important tokamak in the world JET, that has successfully completed his second deuterium and tritium campaign in 2021 (DTE2) with a full ITER like wall main chamber, has provided an important consolidation of the ITER physics basis. Thermonuclear plasmas are highly nonlinear systems characterized by the need of numerous diagnostics to measure physical quantities to guide, through proper control schemes, external actuators. Both modelling and machine learning approaches are required to maximize the physical understanding of plasma dynamics and at the same time, engineering challenges have to be faced. Fusion experiments are indeed extremely hostile environments for plasma facing materials (PFM) and plasma-facing components (PFC), both in terms of neutron, thermal loads and mechanical stresses that the components have to face during either steady operation or off-normal events. Efforts are therefore spent by the community to reach the ultimate goal ahead: turning on the first nuclear fusion power plant, DEMO, by 2050. This editorial is dedicated at reviewing some aspects touched in recent studies developed in this dynamic, challenging project, collected by the special issue titled “New Challenges in Nuclear Fusion Reactors: From Data Analysis to Materials and Manufacturing”.

1. Introduction

Fusion energy is expected to play an important role towards a sustainable system of energy production. Fusion does not produce greenhouse gases and its fuel is practically unlimited. Although the primary reaction does not produce radioactive materials, the components facing the plasma become radioactive due to the flux of fusion generated neutrons. However, with a proper choice of materials, radioactivity decays in a time interval of approximately a century [1], a much smaller time window than nuclear fission wastes. By providing a baseload electricity, fusion can be well integrated with renewable Energy Sources (RES) that have the limitation of being intermittent [2].
During the last fifty years, Magnetically Confined Nuclear Fusion Power Plants (MCNFPs) have become the main focus of research. Nowadays, the largest magnetic confinement fusion experiment is JET [3], which has successfully concluded his second deuterium and tritium campaign in 2021 (DTE2), managing to sustain a high-power plasma for a full five second pulse by producing roughly three times more energy than in his first deuterium tritium experiment 1 (DTE1) in 1997 [4]. However, further steps have to be done towards the construction of a demonstration fusion power plant (DEMO). ITER [3] will demonstrate the scientific feasibility of fusion by achieving a fusion gain Q = 10 by producing fusion power 10 times larger than the power provided to the plasma by the external heating system. On a longer time scale DEMO [5] will produce net electricity to the grid of the order of hundreds MW [5]. To achieve the goals set for both ITER and DEMO, there are challenges to face, related also to not yet completely understood plasma mechanism. The improvements of diagnostics coupled to progresses in theoretical modelling, data driven and statistical approaches and methods, are key features toward such comprehension.
At the same time, engineering challenges are still to be tackled. A primary challenge is related to heat loads on the Plasma Facing Components (PFC) and to the handling of the exhaust plasma. Indeed, ITER will withstand severe steady-state thermal loads up to about 20   M W   m − 2 combined with transient ones up to G W m − 2 due to edge-localized modes (ELMs) [6]. Even larger heat loads are expected in DEMO with the addition of effects such as the erosion of the plasma-facing material (PFM), the change in material properties due to neutron irradiation together with transmutation and activation. To face this challenge a dedicated facility, the Divertor Tokamak Test facility (DTT), is under construction to develop innovative solutions for the heat exhaust based on advanced magnetic configurations and new plasma facing materials [7]. In this framework, it has also to be mentioned the relevant contribution to the development of steady state and high performing ITER pulses provided by the EAST [8] KSTAR [9] and JT-60SA [10] devices.
The just illustrated background allows then to contextualise the main outcomes illustrated in the following section.

2. Overview of the Issue

One of the main issue affecting fusion experiments is related to the occurrence of disruptions [11] which are catastrophic events due to the loss of the plasma confinement in a very short time window of the order of milliseconds. Such events stresses the conductive walls, including the PFCs, with forces which magnitude grows non-linearly with the main plasma current [12]. At JET, considering a plasma current on axis of 3 MA, forces of about 3 MN, that are comparable to the weight of a F15, have been experienced. ITER is expected to operate at 15 MA, therefore, considering the non-linear dependence on the plasma current, unintentional disruptions could cause serious damages to the device. It is straightforward then to require that such occurrences have to be avoided, at least during high power discharges.
Since their initial occurrence, scientists began studying how to mitigate the impact of a disruption on the main vessel, to prevent damages. Nowadays, reliable algorithms monitoring in real time the discharge, are available for mitigation purposes [13]. The next natural objective is represented by avoidance, as well as on the need of developing algorithms capable of detecting different chain of events leading to a disruption, to trigger therefore external interventions in order to correct the plasma disruptive path and guarantee the safe continuation of the discharge. Such approach is still an open issue, but it is evidently a necessary step to be achieved for stable and safe operations [14].
The best results achieved on disruptions have been obtained by following the nowadays well established and quite popular approach based on machine learning (ML) techniques [13]. In Aymerich et al. [15] a systematic comparison of the most widespread and used algorithms is performed. A Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network (MLP-NN), a Generative Topographic Mapping (GTM) and a Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) algorithm have been considered. Authors have demonstrated the capability of producing early warning times and, considering the MLP-NN and the CNN, a reduced number of false alarms. The GTM has been highlighted because of its capability of providing easier to interpret models w.r.t the other two, and it is shown how it can properly track a discharge from a not disruptive to a disruptive area.
Authors have also highlighted the importance of bolometric data in their analysis. It has also to be stated in fact that radiative events play a very important role, since they can influence the initial phases and the growth of MHD instabilities [16] which then can lead to a disruption.
What stated above then, stresses the importance of the work done by Mariano et al. [17], devoted to the acceleration of a Maximum Likelihood (ML) algorithm for bolometric tomographies in a ITER compatible environment. The ML algorithm has been implemented and validated on JET [18], and more recently on AUG [19] also. The code has the unique feature of providing the confidence intervals on its estimates and therefore, on the quantities that can be derived from the reconstructed emission patterns. Bolometric Tomography (BT) is an important tool in any fusion experiment indeed. Reliable estimates of specific quantities are used on a daily basis also as inputs of modelling codes such as TRANSP [20]. At the same time BT are relevant for power balance and transport studies, including impurity profiles estimates and impurity screening [21,22]. Mariano’s et al. work have shown how their first released version of the accelerated algorithm, obtained using an ITER fast controller platform compatible with either Ubuntu 18.04 or the ITER Codac Core System distributions (6.1.2), is faster than a factor ten w.r.t the unoptimized MATLAB version, being therefore compatible for a JET intershot application. Improvements are expected to be achieved in a future release to reach the goal of 25 ms per iteration, compatible then for an ITER real-time implementation.
Disruptions are probably the most dangerous events preventing a safe and the steady state operation of a tokamak. However other designs of magnetically controlled fusion experiments exist, which might represent alternatives to the tokamak path. The most advanced competitor is the stellarator one, characterized by having field coils properly bended toroidally, shaping directly the magnetic field which confines the plasma. Such design allows avoiding the need of a toroidal current to induce a poloidal component as for tokamaks. Stellarators have a series of advantages, among which the most impressive one is indeed the almost absence of disruptions, due to the combination of the lack the toroidal current and the stabilizing effect of the magnetic shear on MHD instabilities, such as 2/1 and 3/1 modes [23]. However, stellarators have both a challenging engineering design, as well as physics issues. Considering the latter, the most important one is due to the fact that at high electron temperature, i.e., low collisionality, the neoclassical transport losses are much higher than the tokamak ones [23]. This is due to the fact that particles can be trapped in banana orbits in tokamaks, because of the axisymmetric magnetic field, while in stellarators particles are trapped in the so-called magnetic ripples, formed by the shape of the coils. Since the poloidal variation of their trajectories is small, such particles can be lost quite easily. However, W7-X has recently shown that it is possible to reduce such losses by working in a optimized neoclassical regime, reaching high temperature plasma conditions in the experimental campaigns conducted in 2017–2018 [24].
The recent developments in the stellarator community, stress the relevance of dedicated studies, such as the Murari et al. [25] article, devoted at deriving alternative scaling laws for extrapolating the confinement time of the new generation of devices. The purely data-driven approach described, makes use of the Symbolic Regression technique which allows scanning a wider range of mathematical functions to describe the relationship between a dependent quantity (the confinement time in this case) and not dependent ones (the engineering and physical quantities considered as relevant). Specifically, the authors have shown how the use of a renormalization factor that has been historically used for the extrapolation of the confinement time, is not strictly mandatory. Alternative scaling laws are competitive with the widely accepted one by the community, called ISS04 [26], both for the shear and for the shear-less devices.
Both tokamaks and stellarators are also affected by the so called Edge Localized Modes (ELMs) [27]. ELMs are periodic, radial events typical of the High confinement mode (H-mode), and are strictly connected to the pressure profile at the edge. Either peeling modes, or edge ballooning modes or coupled peeling-ballooning ones are the most rated ideal candidate MHD instabilities to originate ELMs [6]. ELMs cause large transient heats and particle loads on the PFCs. Extrapolating the energies associated to each ELMs to ITER [6], values up to twenty times higher than the benchmarked limits of considered materials are expected. Energy densities up to 11   MJ   m − 2 are indeed supposed to impact on the first wall.
Therefore, methodologies to either suppress, such as Resonant Magnetic Perturbations, or mitigate, such as ELMs pacing have been tested by scientists in the last decades. Among the latter, ELMs pacing techniques have been extensively tested also on AUG [28], JET [29], DIII-D [30] and EAST [31] is thought to be one of the main tools for ELMs mitigation on ITER.
Pacing would in fact reduce the heat and particle heats on PFCs wetted areas, lowering the loads to manageable levels, by triggering ELMs at the pellets pacing rate. The physics understanding behind the triggering of ELMs with pellets is still progressing, but simulations with JOREK [32] support the idea that high pressure and density plasmoids, generated by the injection of the frozen pellets at the edge of the plasma, lead to a helical perturbation centered on the field line of the injected pellet causing then an ELM.
Considering what stated above, it emerges how a proper estimate of the triggering efficiency and pacing characterization is fundamental.
The article written by Rossi et al. [33] focuses on such topics. It is devoted at estimating the efficiency of ELMs pacing by using a Spectrogram Cross-Correlation based algorithm combined to a k-means approach for classification. The developed methodology allows assessing which ELM is triggered by a pellet as well as which pellet actually triggered an ELM; the triggering efficiency in terms of percentage of triggered ELMs and in terms of triggering pellets as well as the triggering time delay and its distribution. The work has also shown how a relatively new type of diagnostic [34], based on a synthetic diamond sensor can be used to infer dynamical quantities related to ELMs. The resolution of such diagnostic allows in fact to derive a sharper triggered time distribution w.r.t the Be line signal that is used on a routine basis. Estimates using the diamond diagnostic are furthermore more in line with JOREK simulations of the expected triggering time [35].
The previous paragraphs have highlighted the importance of data analysis for both modelling and for diagnostic assessments and improvements, aimed at guaranteeing the operational safety, stability and feasibility of the next generation of devices.
Another key feature that has emerged and that is strictly connected with the previous one, is represented by the manufacturing and by the study of the thermomechanical properties, the interaction with the plasma with the neutron fluxes of both the plasma facing materials (PFM) and of the plasma facing components (PFC).
Thermally induced erosion of the (PFM) and the damage of the joints between the PFM and the heat sinks, are indeed to be considered for the integrity and operational safety of a device.
Extensive research campaigns aimed at studying the PFM interaction with the plasma have been held by different facilities [36,37,38] and by many laboratory experiments [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. In such context, it is worth to recall the occurrence of the melting failure event during the plasma campaign in 2019 on the EAST tokamak [49,50,51,52].
Xiang Zan et al. [53] have studied, by metallography and SEM+EBSD technique, the microstructure of the upper divertor components of EAST, consisted of the CuCrZr cooling components, protected by tungsten armor, that have been damaged because of the just mentioned melting failure event occurred during the 2019 campaign. The recrystallization of the rolled tungsten components has been observed and the range of the recrystallization had been determined via heat flux distribution. Intergranular cracks in the recrystallized and in the rolled zones of tungsten monoblocs as well as interface deboning in Cu/CuCrZr interface of the cooling components were found.
Tungsten is actually the main candidate of the PFMs to be used in the locations of the device with the highest thermal and plasma particles loads, such as the divertor, to protect the cooling system components [54,55,56,57,58,59]. The joining of W with the heat sink materials is a challenging task due to the W refractory property. The plasma spraying (PS) of W on the heat sink materials with an appropriate interlayer is an established and recommended technique that shows good adhesion and thermomechanical proprieties [60,61,62,63]. The optimal plasma spraying process parameters, interlayer and substrate characteristics are the object of many research campaigns [64,65,66,67,68].
E. Pakhomova et al. studied the effect of the grain orientation on of the hardness gradient in the FGM interlayer between CuCrZr cooling component and W coating deposited by plasma spraying in Ar-H2 atmosphere. The preferred grain orientation as a result of nucleation and growth processes during the impact of droplets and solidification give rise to the observed hardness gradients [67].
The contribution of Dose et.al [69] is dedicated to such line of research as well, following a new approach. A thermomechanical engineered interlayer design, made with a functionally graded material, of a PFC is described in his work. The excellent mechanical properties of such solution are discussed and it is shown how the suggested solution can effectively reduce the thermal stresses due to the mismatch of the coefficient of thermal expansion between the armor and the heat sink material.
As stated above, the structural components of the future fusion devices will need to withstand high neutron fluxes and have to show a low radiation activation. Considering neutron loads then, Noce et al. [70] performed a detailed comparative neutronic analysis, regarding the nuclear load’s spatial distributions on the Divertor PFCs targets of the EU-DEMO1-2017 design. Authors have assessed the main nuclear loads in terms of radiation damage, nuclear heating density and spatial distribution, He production and comparison in different types of materials (W-monoblock, Cu/CuCrZr and PFC-CB in EUROFER97). Such important contribution confirms even more the importance of material sciences for the design and realization of the next generation of devices.
Considering the low activation properties, the good weldability and mechanical performances in the range of temperature between 350 °C and 550 °C, the RAFM steels are widely considered as a candidate for nuclear fusion application [71,72].
To extend the upper limit above 550 °C, EUROFER97 steel can be reinforced by dispersion of oxide (ODS). The improvement of the mechanical performances of EUROFER97 without compromising its ductility by the refinement of microstructure is under study [73,74,75,76,77,78,79].
G. Stornelli et al. presented preliminary results of the microstructure and mechanical properties characterization of the cold-rolled EUROFER97 steel plates fabricated by cold rolling with different cold reduction ratios (CR) and heat treatment’s temperatures. The effect of heat treatments on the mechanical proprieties of the samples deformed with the greater CR ratio (80%) is also shown. The EUROFER97 steel could be strengthened without its ductility compromising were evidenced by this work. To conclude, the most effective identification of the process parameters is under study [80].

3. Conclusions

This editorial has followed the thin thread connecting physics modelling, data analysis, diagnostic aspects and engineering issues of actual nuclear fusion experiments at a particular historical moment of transition to a new generation of devices. The topics covered in this issue are interdisciplinary, with a strong interpenetration of engineering and physics aspects. Fusion experiments are indeed multidisciplinary projects, were physical goals such as MHD instabilities and ELMy controlled scenarios, schemes for disruption prevention and avoidance, comprehension of the role of fast ions, impurities, and isotopes mixtures on the plasma stability, its confinement regime and on plasma transport, are examples of open issues to be addressed in the coming years.
Thermally induced erosion of the plasma-facing material (PFM), damages of the joints between the PFM and the heat sink are to be considered as well. Material irradiation with ions, impurities’ particles and neutron fluxes are expected to induced degradation of the wall mechanical properties, transmutations, and activation. Therefore, the appropriate choice of the PFM, the design and the joining technique of PFC are indeed examples of the engineering challenges of nuclear fusion research as well. In conclusion, the editors hope this Special Issue to stand as a reference collection of valid projects and studies, and to contribute then to the development of the dynamic and challenging nuclear fusion community.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.P. (Emmanuele Peluso), E.P. (Ekaterina Pakhomova) and M.G.; original draft preparation, E.P. (Emmanuele Peluso), E.P. (Ekaterina Pakhomova) and M.G.; review and editing, E.P. (Emmanuele Peluso), E.P. (Ekaterina Pakhomova) and M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

One of the editors, Ekaterina Pakhomova, wishes to thank the Italian Ministry of Research for the project AIM 1815402-1 in the framework of PON R&I 2014–2020—AIM (Attraction and International Mobility) where her activity is being performed.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this editorial. Data sharing is not applicable to this editorial. The results cited in this editorial can be found in the cited references.

Acknowledgments

The editors thank all authors for their valuable contributions to this Special Issue where nine high-quality papers have been published on their research work ranging from Europe to Asia. The editors would also like to thank both Francesco Romanelli for the fruitful interaction that led to the drafting of this editorial, as well as the valuable support provided by Roberto Montanari.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Romanelli, F. Fusion energy. EPJ Web Conf. 2020, 246, 00013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Romanelli, F.; Gelfusa, M. On the optimal mix of renewable energy sources, electrical energy storage and thermoelectric generation for the de-carbonization of the Italian electrical system. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 2020, 135, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kembleton, R. Nuclear fusion: What of the future? In Managing Global Warming; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Announcement of the Joint European Torus (JET) Deuterium-Tritium Results. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H99hvPlC4is (accessed on 9 February 2022).
  5. Federici, G.; Bachmann, C.; Barucca, L.; Baylard, C.; Biel, W.; Boccaccini, L.V.; Bustreo, C.; Ciattaglia, S.; Cismondi, F.; Corato, V.; et al. Overview of the DEMO staged design approach in Europe. Nucl. Fusion 2019, 59, 066013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Igochine, V. Active Control of Magneto-Hydrodynamic Instabilities in Hot Plasmas; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ambrosino, R. DTT—Divertor Tokamak Test facility: A testbed for DEMO. Fusion Eng. Des. 2021, 167, 112330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wan, B.; Liang, Y.; Gong, X.; Xiang, N.; Xu, G.; Sun, Y.; Wang, L.; Qian, J.; Liu, H.; Zeng, L.; et al. Recent advances in EAST physics experiments in support of steady-state operation for ITER and CFETR. Nucl. Fusion 2019, 59, 112003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Oh, Y.-K.; Yoon, S.; Jeon, Y.-M.; Ko, W.-H.; Hong, S.-H.; Lee, H.-H.; Kwon, J.-M.; Choi, M.; Park, B.-H.; Kwak, J.-G.; et al. Progress of the KSTAR Research Program Exploring the Advanced High Performance and Steady-State Plasma Operations. J. Korean Phys. Soc. 2018, 73, 712–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shirai, H.; Barabaschi, P.; Kamada, Y.; The JT-60SA Team. Recent progress of the JT-60SA project. Nucl. Fusion 2017, 57, 102002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. De Vries, P.; Johnson, M.; Alper, B.; Buratti, P.; Hender, T.; Koslowski, H.; Riccardo, V. Survey of disruption causes at JET. Nucl. Fusion 2011, 51, 053018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. De Vries, P.; Pautasso, G.; Nardon, E.; Cahyna, P.; Gerasimov, S.; Havlicek, J.; Hender, T.; Huijsmans, G.; Lehnen, M.; Maraschek, M.; et al. Scaling of the MHD perturbation amplitude required to trigger a disruption and predictions for ITER. Nucl. Fusion 2015, 56, 026007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vega, J.; Murari, A.; Dormido-Canto, S.; Rattá, G.A.; Gelfusa, M.; Mailloux, J.; Abid, N.; Abraham, K.; Abreu, P.; Adabonyan, O.; et al. Disruption prediction with artificial intelligence techniques in tokamak plasmas. Nat. Phys. 2022, 18, 741–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rattá, G.; Vega, J.; Murari, A.; Gadariya, D.; Contributors, J. PHAD: A phase-oriented disruption prediction strategy for avoidance, prevention, and mitigation in JET. Nucl. Fusion 2021, 61, 116055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aymerich, E.; Cannas, B.; Pisano, F.; Sias, G.; Sozzi, C.; Stuart, C.; Carvalho, P.; Fanni, A.; Contributors, T.J. Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Disruption Predictors at JET. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pucella, G.; Buratti, P.; Giovannozzi, E.; Alessi, E.; Auriemma, F.; Brunetti, D.; Ferreira, D.R.; Baruzzo, M.; Frigione, D.; Garzotti, L.; et al. Onset of tearing modes in plasma termination on JET: The role of temperature hollowing and edge cooling. Nucl. Fusion 2021, 61, 046020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ruiz, M.; Nieto, J.; Costa, V.; Craciunescu, T.; Peluso, E.; Vega, J.; Murari, A.; Contributors, J. Acceleration of an Algorithm Based on the Maximum Likelihood Bolometric Tomography for the Determination of Uncertainties in the Radiation Emission on JET Using Heterogeneous Platforms. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Craciunescu, T.; Peluso, E.; Murari, A.; Gelfusa, M.; JET Contributors. Maximum likelihood bolometric tomography for the determination of the uncertainties in the radiation emission on JET TOKAMAK. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2018, 89, 053504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Craciunescu, T.; Peluso, E.; Murari, A.; Bernert, M.; Gelfusa, M.; Rossi, R.; Spolladore, L.; Wyss, I.; David, P.; Henderson, S.; et al. Submitted to Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion.
  20. Hawryluk, R.J. An Empirical Approach to Tokamak Transport, Physics of Plasmas Close to Thermonuclear Conditions; Coppi, B., Leotta, G.G., Pfirsch, D., Pozzoli, R., Sindoni, E., Eds.; CEC: Brussels, Belgium, 1980; Volume 1, pp. 19–46. [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldston, R.J.; Reinke, M.L.; Schwartz, J.A. A new scaling for divertor detachment. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 2017, 59, 055015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. McCracken, G.M.; Lipschultz, B.; LaBombard, B.; Goetz, J.A.; Granetz, R.S.; Jablonski, D.; Lisgo, S.; Ohkawa, H.; Stangeby, P.C. Impurity screening in Ohmic and high confinement (H-mode) plasmas in the Alcator C-Mod tokamak. Phys. Plasmas 1997, 4, 1681–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xu, Y. A general comparison between tokamak and stellarator plasmas. Matter Radiat. Extremes 2016, 1, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Beidler, C.D.; Smith, H.M.; Alonso, A.; Andreeva, T.; Baldzuhn, J.; Beurskens, M.N.A.; Borchardt, M.; Bozhenkov, S.A.; Brunner, K.J.; Damm, H.; et al. Demonstration of reduced neoclassical energy transport in Wendelstein 7-X. Nature 2021, 596, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Murari, A.; Peluso, E.; Spolladore, L.; Vega, J.; Gelfusa, M. Considerations on Stellarator’s Optimization from the Perspective of the Energy Confinement Time Scaling Laws. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dinklage, A.; Ascasibar, E.; Beidler, C.D.; Brakel, R.; Geiger, J.; Harris, J.H.; Kus, A.; Murakami, S.; Okamura, S.; Preuss, R.; et al. Assessment of Global Stellarator Confinement: Status of the International Stellarator Confinement Database. Fusion Sci. Technol. 2007, 51, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zohm, H. Edge localized modes (ELMs). Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 1996, 38, 105–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lang, P.; Neuhauser, J.; Horton, L.; Eich, T.; Fattorini, L.; Fuchs, J.; Gehre, O.; Herrmann, A.; Ignácz, P.; Jakobi, M.; et al. E3LM frequency control by continuous small pellet injection in ASDEX Upgrade. Nucl. Fusion 2003, 43, 1110–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Garzotti, L.; Lang, P.T.; Alonso, A.; Alper, B.; Belonohy, E.; Boboc, A.; Devaux, S.; Eich, T.; Frigione, D.; Gál, K.; et al. Investigating pellet ELM triggering physics using the new small size pellet launcher at JET. In Proceedings of the 37th EPS Conference on Plasma Physics, Dublin, Ireland, 21–25 June 2010; European Physical Society: Mulhouse, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  30. Baylor, L.R.; Jernigan, T.C.; Commaux, N.; Combs, S.K.; Foust, C.R.; Parks, P.B.; Evans, T.E.; Fenstermacher, M.E.; Moyer, R.A.; Osborne, T.H.; et al. ELMs Triggered from Deuterium Pellets Injected into DIII-D and Extrapolation to ITER. In Proceedings of the 35th EPS Conference on Plasma Physics, Hersonissos, Greece, 9–13 June 2008; Volume 32D, pp. 4–098. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mansfield, D.; Roquemore, A.; Carroll, T.; Sun, Z.; Hu, J.; Zhang, L.; Liang, Y.; Gong, X.; Li, J.; Guo, H.; et al. First observations of ELM triggering by injected lithium granules in EAST. Nucl. Fusion 2013, 53, 113023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Huysmans, G.T.A.; Pamela, S.; Van Der Plas, E.; Ramet, P. Non-linear MHD simulations of edge localized modes (ELMs). Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 2009, 51, 124012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rossi, R.; Cesaroni, S.; Bombarda, F.; Gaudio, P.; Gelfusa, M.; Marinelli, M.; Rinati, G.V.; Peluso, E.; Contributors, J. An Unsupervised Spectrogram Cross-Correlation Method to Assess ELM Triggering Efficiency by Pellets. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bombarda, F.; Angelone, M.; Apruzzese, G.; Centioli, C.; Cesaroni, S.; Gabellieri, L.; Grosso, A.; Marinelli, M.; Milani, E.; Palomba, S.; et al. CVD diamond detectors for fast VUV and SX-ray diagnostics on FTU. Nucl. Fusion 2021, 61, 116004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Futatani, S.; Pamela, S.; Garzotti, L.; Huijsmans, G.; Hoelzl, M.; Frigione, D.; Lennholm, M.; The JOREK Team; JET Contributors. Non-linear magnetohydrodynamic simulations of pellet triggered edge-localized modes in JET. Nucl. Fusion 2019, 60, 026003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tanabe, T.; Wada, M.; Ohgo, T.; Philipps, V.; Rubel, M.; Huber, A.; von Seggern, J.; Ohya, K.; Pospieszczyk, A.; Schweer, B. Application of tungsten for plasma limiters in TEXTOR. J. Nucl. Mater. 2000, 283–287, 1128–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Krieger, K.; Maier, H.; Neu, R. Conclusions about the use of tungsten in the divertor of ASDEX Upgrade. J. Nucl. Mater. 1999, 266–269, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kubkowska, M.; Skladnik-Sadowska, E.; Kwiatkowski, R.; Malinowski, K.; Kowalska-Strzęciwilk, E.; Paduch, M.; Sadowski, M.J.; Pisarczyk, T.; Chodukowski, T.; Kalinowska, Z.; et al. Investigation of interactions of intense plasma streams with tungsten and carbon fibre composite targets in the PF-1000 facility. Phys. Scr. 2014, T161, 014038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ouaras, K.; Delacqua, L.C.; Quirós, C.; Lombardi, G.; Redolfi, M.; Vrel, D.; Hassouni, K.; Bonnin, X. Experimental studies of the interactions between a hydrogen plasma and a carbon or tungsten wall. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2015, 591, 012029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Merola, M.; Bobin-Vastra, I.; Cardella, A.; Febvre, M.; Giancarli, L.; Plöchl, L.; Salavy, J.; Salito, A.; Schedler, B.; Vieider, G. Manufacturing of a full scale baffle prototype for ITER with a CFC and W plasma spray armour. Fusion Eng. Des. 2000, 49–50, 289–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chong, F.; Chen, J.; Li, J.; Zheng, X. Failure behaviors of vacuum plasma sprayed tungsten coatings for plasma facing application. J. Nucl. Mater. 2009, 386–388, 780–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sadowski, M.J.; Skladnik-Sadowska, E.; Malinowski, K.; Wołowski, J.; Marchenko, A.K.; Tsarenko, A.V. Investigation of laser interaction with tungsten target by means of time-resolved optical spectroscopy. Radiat. Eff. Defects Solids 2008, 163, 569–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Linke, J.; Loewenhoff, T.; Massaut, V.; Pintsuk, G.; Ritz, G.; Rödig, M.; Schmidt, A.; Thomser, C.; Uytdenhouwen, I.; Vasechko, V.; et al. Performance of different tungsten grades under transient thermal loads. Nucl. Fusion 2011, 51, 073017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kurehashi, H.; Ohtsuka, Y.; Ueda, Y.; Kurishita, H. Effects of repeated short heat pulses on tungsten. J. Nucl. Mater. 2011, 417, 487–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhou, Z.-J.; Song, S.-X.; Du, J.; Ge, C.-C. High heat flux testing of tungsten plasma facing materials. J. Nucl. Mater. 2007, 367–370, 1468–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Farid, N.; Harilal, S.; El-Atwani, O.; Ding, H.; Hassanein, A. Experimental simulation of materials degradation of plasma-facing components using lasers. Nucl. Fusion 2013, 54, 12002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Huber, A.; Arakcheev, A.; Sergienko, G.; Steudel, I.; Wirtz, M.; Burdakov, A.V.; Coenen, J.W.; Kreter, A.; Linke, J.; Mertens, P.; et al. Investigation of the impact of transient heat loads applied by laser irradiation on ITER-grade tungsten. Phys. Scr. 2014, T159, 014005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Richetta, M.; Gaudio, P.; Montanari, R.; Pakhomova, E.; Antonelli, L. Laser Pulse Simulation of High Energy Transient Thermal Loads on Bulk and Plasma Sprayed W for NFR. Mater. Sci. Forum 2016, 879, 1576–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhu, D.; Li, C.; Ding, R.; Wang, B.G.; Chen, J.; Gao, B.; Gu, Y.; Gong, X.; Team, E. Characterization of the in situ leading-edge-induced melting on the ITER-like tungsten divertor in EAST. Nucl. Fusion 2019, 60, 016036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhu, D.; Li, C.; Gao, B.; Ding, R.; Wang, B.; Guo, Z.; Xuan, C.; Yu, B.; Lei, Y.; Chen, J.; et al. In situ leading-edge-induced damages of melting and cracking W/Cu monoblocks as divertor target during long-term operations in EAST. Nucl. Fusion 2022, 62, 056004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Li, C.; Zhu, D.; Ding, R.; Wang, B.; Chen, J.; Gao, B.; Lei, Y. Characterization on the melting failure of CuCrZr cooling tube of W/Cu monoblocks during plasma operations in EAST. Nucl. Mater. Energy 2020, 25, 100847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lei, Y.; Zhu, D.; Li, C.; Gao, B.; Wang, B.; Ding, R.; Chen, J.; Yu, B.; Xuan, C. Result and discussion on the evolution of in-situ leading edge-induced melting on W divertor targets in EAST. Nucl. Mater. Energy 2021, 27, 100997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Xi, Y.; He, G.; Zan, X.; Wang, K.; Zhu, D.; Luo, L.; Ding, R.; Wu, Y. Characterization of the Crack and Recrystallization of W/Cu Monoblocks of the Upper Divertor in EAST. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Riccardi, B.; Pizzuto, A.; Bertamini, L.; Diotalevi, M.; Viedier, G. Development of tungsten coatings for ITER divertor components. In Proceedings of the 17th IEEE/NPSS Symposium on Fusion Engineering, San Diego, CA, USA, 6–10 October 1997; p. 910. [Google Scholar]
  55. Riccardi, B.; Pizzuto, A.; Orsini, A.; Libera, S.; Visca, E.; Bertamini, L.; Casadei, F.; Severini, E.; Montanari, R.; Vesprini, R.; et al. Tungsten thick coatings for plasma facing components. Fusion Technol. 1998, 31, 223–226. [Google Scholar]
  56. Roedig, M.; Kuehnlein, W.; Linke, J.; Merola, M.; Rigal, E.; Schedler, B.; Visca, E. Investigation of tungsten alloys as plasma facing materials for the ITER divertor. Fusion Eng. Des. 2002, 61–62, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bolt, H.; Barabash, V.; Krauss, W.; Linke, J.; Neu, R.; Suzuki, S.; Yoshida, N.; Team, A.U. Materials for the plasma-facing components of fusion reactors. J. Nucl. Mater. 2004, 329–333, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lipa, M.; Durocher, A.; Tivey, R.; Huber, T.; Schedler, B.; Weigert, J. The use of copper alloy CuCrZr as a structural material for actively cooled plasma facing and in vessel components. Fusion Eng. Des. 2005, 75–79, 469–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Uytdenhouwen, I.; Decréton, M.; Hirai, T.; Linke, J.; Pintsuk, G.; Van Oost, G. Influence of recrystallization on thermal shock resistance of various tungsten grades. J. Nucl. Mater. 2007, 363–365, 1099–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hu, D.; Zheng, X.; Niu, Y.; Ji, H.; Chong, F.; Chen, J. Effect of Oxidation Behavior on the Mechanical and Thermal Properties of Plasma Sprayed Tungsten Coatings. J. Therm. Spray Technol. 2008, 17, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Huang, J.J.; Li, X.J.; Chen, J.; Liu, Y.; Qi, B.; Jiang, S.S.; Wang, X.S.; Luo, G.N. Vacuum annealing enhances the properties of a tungsten coating deposited on copper by atmospheric plasma spray. J. Nucl. Mater. 2013, 432, 16–19. [Google Scholar]
  62. Park, J.Y.; Yang, S.J.; Gil Jin, Y.; Park, C.R.; Kim, G.-H.; Han, H.N. Effect of annealing with pressure on tungsten film properties fabricated by atmospheric plasma spray. Met. Mater. Int. 2014, 20, 1037–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Montanari, R.; Riccardi, B.; Volterri, R.; Bertamini, L. Characterisation of plasma sprayed W coatings on a CuCrZr alloy for nuclear fusion reactor applications. Mater. Lett. 2002, 52, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ciambella, L.; Maddaluno, G.; Montanari, R.; Pakhomova, E. Residual stresses in tungsten deposited by plasma spraying: Effect of substrate and processing methods. Metall. Ital. 2015, 107, 31–39. [Google Scholar]
  65. Vaßen, R.; Rauwald, K.-H.; Guillon, O.; Aktaa, J.; Weber, T.; Back, H.; Qu, D.; Gibmeier, J. Vacuum plasma spraying of functionally graded tungsten/EUROFER97 coatings for fusion applications. Fusion Eng. Des. 2018, 133, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Emmerich, T.; Qu, D.; Vaßen, R.; Aktaa, J. Development of W-coating with functionally graded W/EUROFER-layers for protection of First-Wall materials. Fusion Eng. Des. 2018, 128, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cabibbo, M.; Fava, A.; Montanari, R.; Pakhomova, E.; Paoletti, C.; Richetta, M.; Varone, A. Residual stresses in the graded interlayer between W and CuCrZr alloy. J. Mater. Sci. 2022, 57, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Heuer, S.; Matějíček, J.; Vilémová, M.; Koller, M.; Illkova, K.; Veverka, J.; Weber, T.; Pintsuk, G.; Coenen, J.; Linsmeier, C. Atmospheric plasma spraying of functionally graded steel/tungsten layers for the first wall of future fusion reactors. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2019, 366, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dose, G.; Roccella, S.; Romanelli, F. Engineering of a FGM Interlayer to Reduce the Thermal Stresses Inside the PFCs. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Noce, S.; Flammini, D.; Gaudio, P.; Gelfusa, M.; Mazzone, G.; Moro, F.; Romanelli, F.; Villari, R.; You, J.-H. Neutronics Assessment of the Spatial Distributions of the Nuclear Loads on the DEMO Divertor ITER-like Targets: Comparison between the WCLL and HCPB Blanket. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rieth, M.; Schirra, M.; Falkenstein, A.; Graf, P.; Heger, S.; Kempe, H.; Lindau, R.; Zimmermann, H. EUROFER 97 Tensile, Charpy, Creep and Structural Tests; Report FZKA6911; Eurofusion Programme; Forschungzentrum Karlsruhe g.m.b.h.: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  72. Zilnyk, K.; Oliveira, V.; Sandim, H.; Möslang, A.; Raabe, D. Martensitic transformation in Eurofer-97 and ODS-Eurofer steels: A comparative study. J. Nucl. Mater. 2015, 462, 360–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Montanari, R.; Filacchioni, G.; Riccardi, B.; Tata, M.; Costanza, G. Characterization of Eurofer-97 TIG-welded joints by FIMEC indentation tests. J. Nucl. Mater. 2004, 329–333, 1529–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lindau, R.; Möslang, A.; Rieth, M.; Klimiankou, M.; Materna-Morris, E.; Alamo, A.; Tavassoli, A.-A.F.; Cayron, C.; Lancha, A.-M.; Fernandez, P.; et al. Present development status of EUROFER and ODS-EUROFER for application in blanket concepts. Fusion Eng. Des. 2005, 75–79, 989–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Coppola, R.; Klimenkov, M. Dose Dependence of Micro-Voids Distributions in Low-Temperature Neutron Irradiated Eurofer97 Steel. Metals 2019, 9, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Roldán, M.; Fernández, P.; Rams, J.; Sánchez, F.J.; Gómez-Herrero, A. Nanoindentation and TEM to Study the Cavity Fate after Post-Irradiation Annealing of He Implanted EUROFER97 and EU-ODS EUROFER. Micromachines 2018, 9, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fu, J.; Brouwer, J.; Hendrikx, R.; Richardson, I.; Hermans, M. Microstructure characterisation and mechanical properties of ODS Eurofer steel subject to designed heat treatments. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2019, 770, 138568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Testani, C.; di Nunzio, P.E.; Salvatori, I. Manufacturing of ODS RAFM Steel: Mechanical and Microstructural Characterization. Mater. Sci. Forum 2016, 879, 1639–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. De Sanctis, M.; Fava, A.; Lovicu, G.; Montanari, R.; Richetta, M.; Testani, C.; Varone, A. Mechanical Characterization of a Nano-ODS Steel Prepared by Low-Energy Mechanical Alloying. Metals 2017, 7, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Stornelli, G.; Di Schino, A.; Mancini, S.; Montanari, R.; Testani, C.; Varone, A. Grain Refinement and Improved Mechanical Properties of EUROFER97 by Thermo-Mechanical Treatments. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Peluso, E.; Pakhomova, E.; Gelfusa, M. New Challenges in Nuclear Fusion Reactors: From Data Analysis to Materials and Manufacturing. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6240. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106240

AMA Style

Peluso E, Pakhomova E, Gelfusa M. New Challenges in Nuclear Fusion Reactors: From Data Analysis to Materials and Manufacturing. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(10):6240. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106240

Chicago/Turabian Style

Peluso, Emmanuele, Ekaterina Pakhomova, and Michela Gelfusa. 2023. "New Challenges in Nuclear Fusion Reactors: From Data Analysis to Materials and Manufacturing" Applied Sciences 13, no. 10: 6240. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106240

APA Style

Peluso, E., Pakhomova, E., & Gelfusa, M. (2023). New Challenges in Nuclear Fusion Reactors: From Data Analysis to Materials and Manufacturing. Applied Sciences, 13(10), 6240. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106240

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop