A Simulation Study on the Thermal Shock Behavior of Tungsten Mock-Up under Steady-State Heat Loads

doi:10.1016/j.jmst.2016.09.023

摘要/Abstract

Abstract:

In a fusion reactor, due to high heat flux (HHF) loads, the plasma facing components (PFCs) will suffer severe thermal shock. In this paper, the temperature distribution and thermal-stress field of tungsten armor under HHF loads were investigated by the method of finite element modeling and simulating. The orthogonal experiment and range analysis were employed to compare the influence degree of four representative factors: steady-state heat flux; thickness of tungsten armor; inner diameter of cooling tube and the coefficient of convection heat transfer (CCHF) of cooling water, on thermal shock behavior tungsten mock-ups, and then get an optimization model to conduct the transient heat flux experiment. The final simulation results indicated that the steady-state heat flux and the thickness of W armor are the main influential factors for the maximum temperature of mock-ups. Furthermore, the influence of transient thermal shock all mainly concentrates on the shallow surface layer of tungsten (about 500 μm) under different transient heat flux (duration 0.5 ms). The results are useful for the structural design and the optimization of tungsten based plasma facing materials for the demonstration reactor (DEMO) or other future reactors.

Key words: Mock-up, Thermal shock, Orthogonal experiment, Finite element method

. [J]. 材料科学与技术, 2016, 32(12): 1386-.

Wang Yanxin,Wang Shuming,Ye Qing,Yan Qingzhi,Ge Changchun. A Simulation Study on the Thermal Shock Behavior of Tungsten Mock-Up under Steady-State Heat Loads[J]. J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2016, 32(12): 1386-.

图/表 15

参考文献

[1]	W.Z. Tang, L. Yang, W. Zhu, Y.C. Zhou, J.W. Guo, C. Lu, J. Mater.Sci.Technol. 32(2016) 452-458.
[2]	C.X. Sun, S.M. Wang, W.H. Guo, W.P. Shen, C.C. Ge, J. Mater. Sci.Technol. 30(2014) 1230-1234.
[3]	T. Hirai, K. Ezato, P. Majerus, Mater. Trans. 46(2005) 412-424.
[4]	H. Kim, J. El-Awady, V. Gupta, N. Ghoniem, S. Sharafat, J. Nucl. Mater. 386(2009)863-865.
[5]	C. Ruset, E. Grigore, H. Maier, R. Neu, H. Greuner, M. Mayer, G. Matthews, FusionEng. Des. 86(2011) 1677-1680.
[6]	S. Wang, C. Sun, W. Guo, C. Ge, Q. Yan, Q. Zhou, P. Chen, Z. Chen, J. Mater. Sci.Technol. 29(2013) 919-922.
[7]	J. Linke, Fusion Sci. Technol. 57(2010) 293-302.
[8]	S.Wang, C. Sun,W. Guo, Q.I. Yan, Z. Zhou, Y. Zhang,W. Shen, C. Ge, J. Nucl.Mater.455(2014) 174-179.
[9]	X.H. Chen, F. Ding, H.M. Mao, G.N. Luo, Z.H. Hu, F. Xu, G.J. Niu, Fusion Eng. Des.108(2016) 98-103.
[10]	T. Hirai, G. Pintsuk, Fusion Eng. Des. 82(2007) 389-393.
[11]	M. Roeding, W. Kuehnlein, J. Linke, M. Merola, E. Rigal, B. Schedler, E. Visca,Fusion Eng. Des. 61(2002) 135-140.
[12]	P. Gavila, B. Riccardi, S. Constans, J.L. Jouvelot, I. Bobin Vastra, M. Missirlian,M. Richou, Fusion Eng. Des. 86(2011) 1652-1655.
[13]	P.B. Zhang, J.J. Zhao, Y. Qin, B.Wen, Fusion Eng. Des. 86(2011) 45-50.
[14]	M. Roedig,W. Kuehnlein, J. Linke, M. Merola, E. Rigal, B. Schedler, E. Visca, FusionEng. Des.61-62(2002) 135-140.
[15]	D.W. Lee, Y.D. Bae, S.K. Kim, B.G. Hong, J.H. Lee, J.Y. Part, Y.H. Jeong, B.K. Choi,Fusion Eng. Des. 83(2008) 1038-1043.
[16]	L. Yang, Q.X. Liu, Y.C. Zhou, W.G. Mao, C. Lu, J. Mater. Sci.Technol. 30(2014)371-380.
[17]	E. Madenci, I. Guven, The Finite Element Method and Applications in EngineeringUsing ANSYS R, Springer, 2015.
[18]	ANSYS Inc., ANSYS User’s Manual, Houston, PA, 2005.
[19]	J.W. Davis, ITER Material Properties Handbook, Publication Package 3, S74RE197-08-01W1.6, International Atomic Energy Agency, 1997.
[20]	J.H. You, M. Miskiewicz, J. Nucl. Mater. 373(2008) 269-274.
[21]	S.D. Preston, I. Bretherton, C.B.A.Forty, Fusion Eng. Des. 66(2003) 441-446.
[22]	M.Y. Li, J.H. You, Fusion Eng. Des. 101(2015) 1-8.
[23]	S.H. Huang, Y.Q. Zhao,W.H.Wang, J. Fusion Energ. 34(2015) 1465-1477.
[24]	ITER Director, ITER document G A0 FDR, 2001, 20-39.
[25]	F.P. Incropera, D.P.DeWitt (Eds.), Introduction to Heat Transfer, forth ed., JohnWiley & Sons,New York, 2002, pp. 459-463.
[26]	R.C. Fan, M. Gao, Y.C. Ma, X.D. Zha, X.C. Hao, K. Liu, J. Mater. Sci.Technol. 28(2012) 1059-1066.
[27]	S. Basavarajappa, G. Chandramohan, J. Mater. Sci.Technol. 21(2005) 845-850.
[28]	Q.F. Zhang, Y.W. Leung, I.E.E.E. Trans, Evol. Comput. 3(1999) 53-62.
[29]	J.P. Davim, J. Mater. Process.Technol. 132(2003) 340-344.
[30]	J. Li, Y.W. Zhu, D.W. Zuo, Y. Zhu, C.T. Chen, J. Mater. Sci.Technol. 25(2009) 703-707.
[31]	T. Loewenhoff, J. Linke, G. Pintsuk, C. Thomser, Fusion Eng. Des. 87(2012)1201-1205.
[32]	G.V. Miloshevsky, A. Hassanein, Nucl. Fusion 50 (2010) 115005.
[33]	J. Linke, T. Loewenhoff, V. Massaut, G. Pintsuk, G. Ritz, M. Rodig, A. Schmidt, C.Thomser, I. Uytdenhouwen, V. Vasechko, M. Wirtz, Nucl. Fusion 51 (2011)073017.

Material	Temperature (°C)	Thermal conductivity (W m^-1 K^-1)	Coefficient of thermal expansion (10^-6K^-1)	Young's modulus (GPa)	Poisson's ratio	Yield strength (MPa)	Tangent modulus (GPa)
W	20	173	4.5	398	0.28	1360	1.3
	200	156	—	396	—	1154	—
	500	133	4.7	390	—	854	1
	800	118	—	379	0.29	604	—
	1000	111	5.1	368	—	465	0.8
	1500	101	5.6	333	0.30	204	—
	1800	99	5.8	306	—	103	—
OFHC	20	403	16.7	125	0.34	69	1.5
	200	392	17.2	115		60	1.3
	400	379	17.8	100		48	0.9
	700	360	18.9	70		30	0.6
CuCrZr	20	326	16.7	128	0.32	293	0.9
	250	343	17.2	118	0.42	257	0.7
	500	348	18.2	103	0.52	195	0.6

Material	Temperature (°C)	Thermal conductivity (W m^-1 K^-1)	Coefficient of thermal expansion (10^-6K^-1)	Young's modulus (GPa)	Poisson's ratio	Yield strength (MPa)	Tangent modulus (GPa)
W	20	173	4.5	398	0.28	1360	1.3
	200	156	—	396	—	1154	—
	500	133	4.7	390	—	854	1
	800	118	—	379	0.29	604	—
	1000	111	5.1	368	—	465	0.8
	1500	101	5.6	333	0.30	204	—
	1800	99	5.8	306	—	103	—
OFHC	20	403	16.7	125	0.34	69	1.5
	200	392	17.2	115		60	1.3
	400	379	17.8	100		48	0.9
	700	360	18.9	70		30	0.6
CuCrZr	20	326	16.7	128	0.32	293	0.9
	250	343	17.2	118	0.42	257	0.7
	500	348	18.2	103	0.52	195	0.6

Experiment number	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
1	1	1	1	1
2	1	2	2	2
3	1	3	3	3
4	2	1	2	3
5	2	2	3	1
6	2	3	1	2
7	3	1	3	2
8	3	2	1	3
9	3	3	2	1

Experiment number	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
1	1	1	1	1
2	1	2	2	2
3	1	3	3	3
4	2	1	2	3
5	2	2	3	1
6	2	3	1	2
7	3	1	3	2
8	3	2	1	3
9	3	3	2	1

Level	Factor ----------------------------------
Level	Q (MW/m²)	T (mm)	D (mm)	H (kW/(m²?K))
1	5	5	8	50
2	8	8	10	80
3	10	10	12	100