% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Weinhorst:837455,
      author       = {Weinhorst, B. and Fischer, U. and Grossetti, G. and
                      Mertens, Ph. and Bardawil, D. A. Castaño},
      title        = {{ITER} core {CXRS} diagnostic: {A}ssessment of different
                      optical designs with respect to neutronics criteria},
      journal      = {Fusion engineering and design},
      volume       = {123},
      issn         = {0920-3796},
      address      = {New York, NY [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2017-06368},
      pages        = {927-931},
      year         = {2017},
      abstract     = {The Charge Exchange Recombination Spectroscopy (CXRS)
                      diagnostic aims to measure emission lines of impurity
                      isotopes in the ITER plasma in order to quantify several
                      parameters like the composition of the plasma (density of
                      helium, deuterium or tritium), the ion temperature or
                      rotation velocities. The core plasma CXRS shall be installed
                      in one of the ITER Upper Port Plugs (UPP #3). Currently,
                      four different optical layouts are being assessed with
                      respect to the optical performance, engineering feasibility,
                      cost, maintenance especially with respect to remote handling
                      and the performance of their neutron radiation
                      shielding.This work is devoted to the neutronic analysis
                      performed in support for the design of ITER CXRS-core
                      Diagnostic System, presently under development by the IC3
                      Consortium (FZJ, KIT, BME, Wigner RCP, TU/Eindhoven,
                      FOM-DIFFER, CCFE, CIEMAT, Optimal Optik). Results of the
                      neutronic analyses are presented showing the differences
                      between the four different designs with respect to several
                      nuclear responses such as neutron fluxes around the upper
                      port plug and in the port interspace, maps of nuclear
                      heating around the UPP including the toroidal/poloidal field
                      coils as well as the vacuum vessel. Furthermore, radiation
                      damage maps were calculated covering large areas of the
                      upper port plug and of its environment. The results indicate
                      the viability of one of the preferred designs from the
                      neutronic point of view but also show the potential for
                      improvements.},
      cin          = {IEK-4},
      ddc          = {620},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-4-20101013},
      pnm          = {174 - Plasma-Wall-Interaction (POF3-174)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-174},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000418992000195},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.03.061},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/837455},
}