Concept of Contamination Control Door for DEMO and Proof of Principle Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author's manuscript "Concept of contamination control door for DEMO and proof of principle design" addresses the important topic of a contamination control door for DEMO. It is out of the question that it addresses an important element for safety and reactor maintenance, particularly for EU DEMO. However, the authors are asked to improve their manuscript before publication. The authors should provide sufficient references for key issues addressed in their paper. The design choices made for the contamination control door need to be sufficiently justified and explained. The risk assessment addresses mechanical issues only and neglects potential damage due to irradiation. Also, material choices should be provided for critical components. The figures should be improved to allow the reader to recognize important details and labels. An additional figure showing a graphic expression of the main functionalities of the doors during a maintenance procedure is recommended to allow the reader to understand better details otherwise buried in lengthy descriptions. The language is clear but an additional spell check is recommended to correct some minor typos and punctuation.

A list of more specific comments is provided below to guide the revision of the manuscript.    


P. 1, 18: Please add reference(s) for DEMO, e.g., G. Federici et al 2018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2018.04.001

P. 1, 21: please add references for hazard issues; for dust, a recent review: Ratynskaia, S., Bortolon, A. & Krasheninnikov, S.I. Rev. Mod. Plasma Phys. 6, 20 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41614-022-00081-5;

P. 1, 27: Please add reference(s) for DEMO port design

P. 2, fig 1: can the author increase the size of the figure by cutting off less relevant parts at the top and bottom? Why isn't the CCD included in the main figure in its actual (proposed) design as a double door? Remove the label 'RACE' has no mention elsewhere. Also, could the author please indicate (e.g., with arrows) how the doors open? Alternatively, include this information in one of the other design figures.

P. 2, section 2: can the authors explain the design principle? Why have they chosen a two-door system? What are the advantages, and how does it mitigate any risks compared to a single-door solution?

P. 3, 51: Please add a reference for the DEMO 2014 baseline design

P. 3, 59: Please add a reference for the new baseline design

P. 3, 62: Please describe the function of the "Abaqus Topology Optimization Module briefly" and add a reference.

P. 3, 63: Why could the thickness be reduced to 1/3 of the original? What are the safety constraints regarding the door thickness?

P. 3, 64: Are the new design doors still made of common steel?

P. 3, 73: Could the author provide a specific radiation dose limit for the elastomer sealing and references for material choice?  

P. 3, 80: Could the author estimate the clamping force range based on the proposed design?  

P. 5/6, section 2.3.2: could the authors clarify the materials used for the main components? Are irradiation/neutron fluxes a potential problem for those components?

P. 5, fig 5-7: labels are too small. In particular white labels are hard to read

P. 6, fig 8: labels are too small. In particular white labels are hard to read

P. 6, 142-166: There are several issues here. The "bio-shield plug" has not been introduced. Could the authors add a figure that shows the main steps and include important such as the opening of the doors?

P. 8, fig. 10: increase the size of labels

P. 9, section 5 (conclusion): should include a brief justification of the design principle (double door). The testing is focused on mechanical failure risks. Are there risks due to irradiation? (This issue was only briefly mentioned earlier). Also, are there risks of accumulation of activated dust in any gaps around the doors?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author, thanks for the corrections. The paper is ok