Thermofluid-dynamic assessment of the EU-DEMO divertor single-circuit cooling option

Le résumé fourni par la source

Until 2019, the thermo-hydraulic development of the EU-DEMO divertor was based on the “double-circuit” concept, in which two independent cooling circuits served by two different Primary Heat Transfer Systems were used to cool the Plasma-Facing Components (PFC) and the Cassette Body (CB). During the Divertor Final Design Review Meeting, held in May 2020, the possibility to adopt a single cooling circuit to serve both components was suggested. This new cooling circuit was originally conceived with the aim of simplifying remote maintenance, with potential benefits for some aspects of safety and balance of plant design and integration. During the years from 2020 to 2022, in the framework of the Work Package DIV 1 - “Divertor Cassette Design and Integration” of the EUROfusion action, University of Palermo and ENEA carried out a research campaign focussed on the preliminary thermofluid-dynamic assessment of this new concept, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. The research campaign was carried out following a theoretical–computational approach based on the finite volume method and adopting the commercial computational fluid-dynamic code ANSYS-CFX. The steady-state thermal-hydraulic performances of the single-circuit DEMO divertor concept were assessed in terms of coolant pressure drop and flow velocity distribution, mainly in order to check coolant aptitude to provide a uniform and effective cooling to CB, shielding liner, reflector plates, PFCs and the newly introduced neutron shields to improve the shielding of the vacuum vessel. Moreover, the margin against critical heat flux distributions among the plasma-facing channels were assessed by adopting appropriate correlations, to check the compliance with the applicable constraints. Models, loads and boundary conditions assumed for the analyses are herewith reported and critically discussed, together with the main results obtained.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.