journal article·2013-11

Hydrogen permeability through beryllium films and the impact of surface oxides

Bojan Zajec, Vincenc Nemanič, Marko Žumer, Corneliu Porosnicu, Cristian P. Lungu

Journal of Nuclear Materials· Volume 443· Issue 1-3
Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract Beryllium will constitute the major part of the first wall of ITER, however, several aspects of the tritium retention and recycling in fusion reactors are still open. Studying details of the hydrogen isotope interactions on Be films is in principle easier and more accurate than on the bulk Be metal since a thin (and therefore more permeable) layer of Be film could be deposited on a desired substrate by applying well controlled methods. Results of the hydrogen permeation through 8 micrometer thick Be films deposited by the thermionic vacuum arc method on Eurofer steel membranes with exposed area of 8.4 cm 2 are presented. The permeation reduction factor ( PRF ) at 400 °C varied on six samples from 14 to 135 with respect to the bare Eurofer membrane. The highest PRF value enables expression of the Be film permeability coefficient P by means of a simple model which gives P Be ∼ 2 × 10 −15 mol H 2 /m s Pa 0.5 . Lower PRF values could be explained by microscopic imperfections which represent parallel hydrogen paths through the Be film and enhance the permeation rate. Some of them were revealed by the SEM while their presence could be confirmed also by observing permeation flux transients recorded after the hydrogen exposure. The two-step process of achieving the steady flux agrees with our numerical simulation. It was found that for unintentionally oxidized samples the extracted regular (eliminated contribution of the pinholes in Be film) permeation rate is almost identical from sample to sample and accounts to j ≈ 1.2 × 10 −7 H 2 /m 2 s at 1 bar hydrogen driving pressure due to BeO formation. For a non-oxidized sample this value is several times higher, j ≈ 6.5 × 10 −7 mol H 2 /m 2 s. From the latter follows that P Be ≈ 1.9 × 10 −14 mol H 2 /m s Pa 0.5 , while P BeO ∼ 1 × 10 −17 mol H 2 /m s Pa 0.5 can be estimated by assuming a 35 nm thick BeO layer.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Fusion materials and technologies · Nuclear Materials and Properties · Metal and Thin Film Mechanics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (37)

Show source-provided references
1. Skinner · Fusion Sci. Technol. · 2008 · 54 · 89110.13182/FST54-891 ↗
2. Causey · J. Nucl. Mater. · 2002 · 300 · 9110.1016/S0022-3115(01)00732-2 ↗
3. Matthews · J. Nucl. Mater. · 2013 · 438 · S210.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.01.282 ↗
4. Neu · Phys. Plasmas · 2013 · 20 · 05611110.1063/1.4804411 ↗
5. Lungu · Phys. Scr. · 2007 · 2007 · 15710.1088/0031-8949/2007/T128/030 ↗
6. Hirai · Fusion Eng. Des. · 2008 · 83 · 107210.1016/j.fusengdes.2008.05.007 ↗
7. Detor · Acta Mater. · 2009 · 57 · 205510.1016/j.actamat.2008.12.042 ↗
8. Ali-Khan · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1978 · 76 & 77 · 33710.1016/0022-3115(78)90167-8 ↗
9. Zajec · Int. J. Hydrogen Energy · 2011 · 36 · 735310.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.03.068 ↗
10. Zajec · J. Nucl. Mater. · 2011 · 412 · 11610.1016/j.jnucmat.2011.02.039 ↗
11. Pisarev · Fusion Eng. Des. · 2007 · 82 · 212010.1016/j.fusengdes.2007.04.005 ↗
12. Pisarev · Fusion Technol. · 1995 · 28 · 126210.13182/FST95-A30583 ↗
13. Esteban · Fusion Eng. Des. · 2007 · 82 · 263410.1016/j.fusengdes.2007.02.002 ↗
14. McGuiness · Surf. Coat. Technol. · 2011 · 205 · 270910.1016/j.surfcoat.2010.08.133 ↗
15. Porosnicu · J. Nucl. Mater. · 2011 · 415 · S71310.1016/j.jnucmat.2010.12.238 ↗
16. Sugiyama · J. Nucl. Mater. · 2011 · 415 · S73110.1016/j.jnucmat.2010.09.043 ↗
17. Lungu · Journal of optoelectronics and advanced materials · 2007 · 9 · 884
18. Nemanič · J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A · 2010 · 28 · 57810.1116/1.3442804 ↗
19. Zalkind · Surf. Sci. · 2007 · 601 · 132610.1016/j.susc.2006.12.060 ↗
20. Tomastik · Nucl. Fusion · 2005 · 45 · 106110.1088/0029-5515/45/9/005 ↗
21. Roth · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1997 · 250 · 2310.1016/S0022-3115(97)00236-5 ↗
22. Macaulay-Newcombe · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1992 · 191 · 26310.1016/S0022-3115(09)80047-0 ↗
23. Macaulay-Newcombe · J. Nucl. Mater. Part B · 1994 · 212–215 · 94210.1016/0022-3115(94)90974-1 ↗
24. Esteban · J. Nucl. Mater. · 2007 · 367–370 · 47310.1016/j.jnucmat.2007.03.114 ↗
25. Levchuk · J. Nucl. Mater. · 2004 · 328 · 10310.1016/j.jnucmat.2004.03.008 ↗
26. Al’tovsky · Metals · 1982 · 3 · 73
27. Kizu · Fusion Technol. · 1995 · 28 · 120510.13182/FST95-A30573 ↗
28. Tazhibaeva · Fusion Technol. · 1994 · 22
29. Jones · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1967 · 21 · 35310.1016/0022-3115(67)90190-0 ↗
30. Swansiger · J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A · 1986 · 4 · 121610.1116/1.573400 ↗
31. Abramov · J. Nucl. Mater. · 1990 · 175 · 9010.1016/0022-3115(90)90274-Q ↗
32. Tanabe · Trans. Jpn. Inst. Metals · 1986 · 27 · 32110.2320/matertrans1960.27.321 ↗
33. Causey · 2012
34. Pressouyre · Metall. Mater. Trans. A · 1978 · 9 · 157110.1007/BF02661939 ↗
35. Leblond · Acta Metall. · 1983 · 31 · 147110.1016/0001-6160(83)90143-8 ↗
36. Reinelt · New J. Phys. · 2009 · 11 · 04302310.1088/1367-2630/11/4/043023 ↗
37. Fowler · J. Am. Ceram. Soc. · 1977 · 60 · 15510.1111/j.1151-2916.1977.tb15493.x ↗