Advanced Search+
Baoguo WANG (王保国), Dahuan ZHU (朱大焕), Rui DING (丁锐), Junling CHEN (陈俊凌). Thermal analysis on the EAST tungsten plasma facing components with shaping structure counteracting the misalignment issues[J]. Plasma Science and Technology, 2017, 19(2): 25603-025603. DOI: 10.1088/2058-6272/19/2/025603
Citation: Baoguo WANG (王保国), Dahuan ZHU (朱大焕), Rui DING (丁锐), Junling CHEN (陈俊凌). Thermal analysis on the EAST tungsten plasma facing components with shaping structure counteracting the misalignment issues[J]. Plasma Science and Technology, 2017, 19(2): 25603-025603. DOI: 10.1088/2058-6272/19/2/025603

Thermal analysis on the EAST tungsten plasma facing components with shaping structure counteracting the misalignment issues

Funds: Supported by the National Magnetic Confinement Fusion Science Program of China (Nos. 2013GB107004 and 2013GB105003) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11405209).
More Information
  • Received Date: April 04, 2016
  • Tungsten monoblock type tiles with ITER dimensions along with supporting cassette components were installed at EAST’s upper diverter during 2014 and EAST’s lower diverter will also be upgraded in the future. These cassette structures pose critical issues on the high cumulative incident heat flux due to the leading edges and misalignments (0∼1.5 mm), which may result in the destruction or even melting of the tungsten tile. The present work summarizes the thermal analysis using ANSYS multiphysics software 15.0 performed on the actively cooled W tiles to evaluate the shaping effect on surface temperature. In the current heat flux conditions (Q|| ∼100 MW m−2), the adopted chamfer shaping (1×1mm) can only reduce the maximum temperature by about 14%, but it also has a melting risk at the maximum misalignment of 1.5 mm. The candidate shaping solutions elliptical (round) edge, dome and fish-scale are analyzed for comparison and are identi?ed not as good as the dual chamfer structure. A relatively good dual chamfer (2×13 mm) shaping forming a symmetrical sloping roof structure can effectively counteract the 1.5 mm misalignment, reducing the maximum temperature by up to 50%. However, in the future heat flux conditions (Q||∼287 MW m−2), it may only endure about 0.5 mm misalignment. Moreover, no proper shaping solution has been found that can avoid melting at the maximum misalignment of 1.5 mm. Thus, the engineering misalignment has to be limited to an acceptable level.
  • [1]
    Wan B N for the EAST and HT-7 teams and international collaborators 2009 Nucl. Fusion 49 104011
    [2]
    Zhou Z, Yao D and Cao L 2015 J. Fusion Energy 34 93
    [3]
    Litnovsky A et al 2011 J. Nucl. Mater. 415 S289
    [4]
    Pitts R A et al 2013 J. Nucl. Mater. 438 S48
    [5]
    Missirlian M et al 2013 Fusion Engineering & Design 88 1793
    [6]
    Stangeby P 2000 The Plasma Boundary of Magnetic Fusion Devices (London: Nicki Dennis)
    [7]
    Hirai T et al 2013 Fusion Eng. Design 88 1798
    [8]
    Chen Y P et al 2011 J. Nucl. Mater. 415 S517
    [9]
    Wang J et al 2013 Nucl. Fusion Plasma Phys. 33 72 (in Chinese)
    [10]
    Park J Y et al 2011 J. Nucl. Mater. 417 916
    [11]
    Incropera F P et al 1985 Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer (New York: Wiley)
    [12]
    Zhu D H et al 2012 Plasma Sci. Technol. 14 794
    [13]
    Loewenhoff T et al 2015 Nucl. Fusion 55 123004

Catalog

    Article views (347) PDF downloads (885) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return