Comparison of thermal shock damages induced by different simulation methods on tungsten
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract In this work two simulation methods for transient events on tungsten are compared. ELM-like thermal shock tests were performed with the electron beam device JUDITH 1 and a pulsed Nd:YAG laser on pure tungsten. The major difference between these two simulation methods is the surface near volumetric loading in case of the e-beam while the penetration depth of photons is negligible. Beside the definition of damage threshold values special attention was paid to the analysis of induced damages like surface modifications and crack formation. The obtained results indicate that there are no qualitative differences in the damage behaviour and the damage threshold values of tungsten for both simulation techniques. Slight differences of crack parameters are a result of geometric effects due to differences of the exposed areas. A more distinct impact results from the fast scanning of the sample (e-beam) in contrast to the homogenous loading (laser) which results in different surface modification.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fusion materials and technologies · Laser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics · High-pressure geophysics and materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (12)
Show source-provided references
1. Loarte · Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion · 2003 · 45 · 154910.1088/0741-3335/45/9/302 ↗
2. Bolt · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2002 · 307–311 · 4310.1016/S0022-3115(02)01175-3 ↗
3. Linke · Fusion Science and Technology · 2006 · 49 · 45510.13182/FST06-A1144 ↗
4. Philipps · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2011 · 415 · S210.1016/j.jnucmat.2011.01.110 ↗
5. Duwe · Fusion Technology · 1995 · 355
6. Schweer · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2007 · 363–365 · 137510.1016/j.jnucmat.2007.01.247 ↗
7. Plansee Group Homepage, 2012. .
8. Wirtz · Physica Scripta · 2011 · T145 · 01405810.1088/0031-8949/2011/T145/014058 ↗
9. Hirai · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2009 · 390–391 · 75110.1016/j.jnucmat.2009.01.313 ↗
10. Umstadter · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2009 · 386–388 · 75110.1016/j.jnucmat.2008.12.209 ↗
11. Wirtz · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2012 · 420 · 21810.1016/j.jnucmat.2011.09.035 ↗
12. De Temmerman · Applied Physics Letters · 2010 · 97 · 08150210.1063/1.3484961 ↗