Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 9 minor 81 references

Comparative qualification of advanced plasma-facing materials for fusion pilot plants through public- and private-sector experiments in DIII-D

T0 review · 5 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A coordinated tokamak campaign ranks 44 advanced wall materials under shared divertor plasma conditions for fusion pilot-plant down-selection.

desk verdict Solid multi-lab DiMES screening with a few real firsts; treat the class rankings as provisional because n is small and geometry/edge effects drive some of the loudest comparisons. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.23400 v1 pith:4HG5YY2W submitted 2026-07-26 physics.plasm-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Florian Effenberg , Jonathan D. Coburn , Luca Cappelli , Simon D. Corah , Amoolya Grandhi , Jerome Guterl , Charlie Hirst , Mike Jackson
show 39 more authors
Dylan A. Kohler Rob Kolasinski Erick Martinez-Loran Ria Meston Lauren Nuckols Angelica Ottaviano Zana Popovic Sergey Tsurkan Tessa Van Volkenburg Daniel Velazquez Aaliyah Zuniga Arunodaya Bhattacharya Jose Boedo Kent Christian Giacomo Dose Eric Hollmann Mykola Ialovega Florian M. Laggner Samara Levine Xavier Navarro Andrew Shone Lance L. Snead David Sprouster Jason Trelewicz Jayson Barr Ryan Hood Charlie Lasnier Yan-Ru Lin Vincent Mazon Jun Ren Gilson Ronchi Dmitry Rudakov Dinh Truong Cedric Tsui Shawn Zamperini Weicheng Zhong Tyler Abrams Anthony W. Leonard Roberto Maurizio
This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 52.40.Hf28.52.Fa52.55.Fa
keywords plasma-facingmaterialsfusionpilotplanttungstencompositesneutron-irradiatedmulti-principal-elementalloysultra-high-temperatureceramicsrenewableboronPFCdivertorqualification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Fusion pilot plants need wall and divertor materials that survive heat, particles, transients, fuel retention, and neutron damage at once, yet most candidates are still tested in pieces. This paper reports a single DIII-D campaign that exposed 44 advanced plasma-facing materials from public labs, universities, and private fusion companies on the same Divertor Materials Evaluation System under common Ohmic, L-mode, and ELMy H-mode reference shots. By scoring erosion, cracking, melting, deuterium retention, and plasma compatibility side by side, it produces a comparative shortlist: engineered tungsten architectures that stop cracks, near-ITER tungsten alloys, a standout multi-principal alloy, stable niobium carbides, intact but high-silicon-loss SiC, a first tokamak look at neutron-damaged tungsten retention, renewable boron pebbles, and a first in-situ chromium erosion yield. The point is not a finished reactor wall, but a shared experimental ranking that can guide which concepts move to component-scale tests and data-driven materials design.

What carries the argument

Comparative DiMES qualification: many candidate coupons exposed under shared Ohmic, L-mode, and rastered ELMy H-mode reference scenarios, in flush and angled geometries, then ranked on common plasma–material metrics (mass loss, morphology, crack behavior, deuterium desorption, in-situ erosion).

What would settle it

If the same leading and lagging materials reverse order under long-pulse, actively cooled, high-fluence exposures with controlled impurity backgrounds—or if neutron-plus-plasma retention and erosion rankings diverge from the short DiMES ordering—the campaign’s down-selection map would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under matched DiMES divertor exposures, material classes separate cleanly by dominant failure or success mode: long-fiber tungsten composites show the clearest crack arrest; W–Re and K-doped W behave near ITER-grade tungsten; additively manufactured W–Ta loses mass strongly with heat flux; 0.3 dpa neutron-irradiated ITER tungsten retains about 2.8 times more deuterium than pristine tungsten; VTaHfMo is the most stable refractory multi-principal alloy tested; NbC and (Nb0.5Ta0.5)C barely erode while ZrC fails; CVD SiC stays macroscopically intact but shows an effective silicon erosion yield near 0.5; boron pebble rods recess controllably with partial ionization and recovery; and chromium gros

Load-bearing premise

The ranking assumes that brief, uncooled sample exposures in a carbon-walled tokamak are representative enough of long-pulse, actively cooled, neutron-plus-plasma reactor walls to guide pilot-plant material down-selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-fiber Wf/W, high-density AM tungsten, W–Re/K-doped W, VTaHfMo, Nb-containing carbides, and CVD SiC become priority classes for component-scale follow-up.
  • AM W–Ta, several Zr–Ti multi-principal alloys, ZrC, Si3N4, and B4C are deprioritized or flagged as geometry- and process-sensitive under high heat flux.
  • Neutron-damage retention must be treated as a first-order tungsten inventory driver even at ~0.3 dpa.
  • Renewable boron pebble concepts can recess on demand, but particulate transport and recovery become the main integration problem.
  • The shared dataset is intended as training and benchmark material for AI/ML-assisted plasma-facing-material screening.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Private-sector concept diversity (pulsed low-Z walls, stellarator renewables, compact refractory alloys) is being folded into the same public tokamak testbed, which may set a de facto common qualification language across device classes.
  • If graphite-wall carbon deposition and short thermal cycles dominate several morphologies, repeating the top candidates in a metal-wall machine would be the cleanest external check.
  • The 5–10× higher Si erosion yield on CVD SiC suggests temperature-driven silicon loss may limit SiC more than classical sputtering tables imply for pulsed first walls.
  • Chromium’s first tokamak yield near 10−2 makes main-chamber Cr coatings a quantitative lifetime question rather than a qualitative materials idea.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 9 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a coordinated DIII-D/DiMES campaign exposing 44 candidate plasma-facing materials from 12 institutions (including four private fusion companies) to common Ohmic, L-mode, and rastered ELMy H-mode reference scenarios, with flush and 10° angled geometries. It compiles per-material responses — mass loss, TDS deuterium release, SEM/EDS/profilometry, and in-situ spectroscopic erosion for Cr, Si, and B — and organizes the results into a cross-material assessment table intended to support fusion-pilot-plant down-selection at TRL 3–4. Headline findings include crack-arrest in long-fiber Wf/W, near-ITER-W behavior of W–Re and K-doped W, heat-flux-sensitive mass loss of AM W–Ta, 2.8× enhanced D retention in 0.3 dpa neutron-irradiated W, stability of VTaHfMo among MPEAs, the NbC/ZrC contrast among UHTCs, an anomalously high effective Si erosion yield (~0.5) for CVD SiC, controlled recession of boron pebble rods, and a first tokamak Cr gross-erosion yield of order 10⁻².

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, this is a valuable cross-material benchmark: the first DIII-D exposure of neutron-irradiated (0.3 dpa) ITER-grade W with a quantitative D-retention factor; the first in-situ tokamak Cr gross-erosion measurement with an explicit comparison to RustBCA; the first in-tokamak renewable boron pebble-rod test with ionized-fraction and local-recovery estimates; and a matched-condition dataset spanning engineered W, AM W, MPEAs, UHTCs, and low-Z ceramics. The paper reports failures honestly and supplies falsifiable numbers (mass losses, TDS integrals, yields) suitable for model benchmarking and the stated MatDB4Fusion archiving. Its significance is as a screening dataset and community resource, not as a validated down-selection — a distinction the revision should sharpen.

major comments (5)
  1. [§6.2 / Table 3] Table 3 records ZrC as 'Outlier; fails' while §6.2 attributes the 7.049 mg loss to emission 'concentrated at the sample periphery/leading edge,' 'leading edge smoothing,' and only 'minor surface roughening' in the center. 7.05 mg ≈ 1 mm³ is consistent with the observed ~200 µm resolidified edge band rather than bulk erosion. As written, a class-level verdict rests on a single, admittedly geometry-driven sample, while NbC/NbTaC drew flush, benign exposure. Please either (a) report center-region erosion separately and reframe the verdict as edge-geometry-limited, or (b) explicitly downgrade the ZrC conclusion in Table 3, the Abstract, and §7 to 'inconclusive; repeat with controlled geometry,' as was done for W-Ti-Cr.
  2. [§4.2 / Fig. 7] The two flat ITER-W references lost 0.0500 and 0.3350 mg — a 6.7× spread the text concedes 'exceeds the within sample measurement uncertainty.' Against this background, the UHTC rankings in §6.2 (NbC 0.027 mg, NbTaC 0.019 mg, ITER-W 0.010 mg) are at or below the demonstrated sample-to-sample noise floor, and §3.4 documents carbon deposition from the graphite holder/wall on all specimens, which biases mass change in the positive direction and is not included in the Fig. 7 error bars (within-sample weighing only). Please provide a mass-change error budget including sample-to-sample scatter and estimated deposition uptake, and restate which inter-material mass-loss comparisons remain significant.
  3. [§6.1 / Fig. 14] The headline effective Si erosion yield of ~0.5, '5–10× above prior DIII-D trends,' rests on WiSE Si II S/XB inference with the unfocused view, raster-averaged LP flux assignment, unresolved intra-ELM emission (potentially dominant under ~40 MW m⁻² transients), and an untested Si-evaporation hypothesis with no surface-temperature measurement cited. A yield of ~0.5 is a strong claim that would make SiC untenable as a PFM; before it stands, the paper should (a) quantify the S/XB and flux-assignment systematics, and (b) cross-check the integrated Si source against post-exposure SiC mass change/profilometry, which would bound the yield independently.
  4. [§5.1, §4.3, Table 2, §7] Several class-level comparisons are acknowledged to be confounded by n=1 geometry/fabrication artifacts: W-Ti-Cr (off-nominal ~14° polish, poor thermal contact), Wf/SiCf/W edge melting ('local misalignment'), Zr–Ti MPEAs (SPS porosity and surface finish 'rather than composition alone'). Table 2 does not report per-sample mounting angle, protrusion, or thermal-contact status. Since the Abstract and §7 frame the dataset as supporting 'FPP down-selection,' the paper should tabulate per-sample geometry/mounting metadata and scope the down-selection language to screening under the stated 2–5 s uncooled conditions, distinguishing material-intrinsic findings from geometry-limited ones.
  5. [§4.4 / Figs. 9–10] The 2.8× retention increase (2.05→5.77×10⁻⁷ mol) is an important first tokamak result, but it rests on one irradiated and one pristine sample at different radial positions with admitted spatially varying C/O deposition. The deposition-dominance rejection is qualitative ('lack of deposition-related TDS peaks'). Given n=1 per condition, please state the TDS calibration/integration uncertainty, and either temper the '2.8×' precision or justify why position-dependent deposition cannot contribute at that level.
minor comments (9)
  1. [§3.1–3.2 vs Table 2] §3.1 and §3.2 state the µ-W and Wf/W samples were installed in 'DiMES #18,' but Table 2 places micro-W, Wf/W long/short, Wf/SiCf/W, and Cr in holder #17; #18 lists W/Ta-CS/AM-W/SiC. Please reconcile.
  2. [§5.1] References to 'Figure 10 (a)' and '(Figure 10 c)' should point to Figure 11 (MPEA optical/profilometry); Figure 10 is the TDS figure.
  3. [Table 1] Angled H-mode row: ne and Te entries appear missing/shifted relative to the flush row (Te 20–30 eV shown once); please check column alignment.
  4. [§4.1] '16 ohmic-only heated L-mode discharges' mixes scenario labels; Table 1 defines an Ohmic scenario. Use consistent terminology.
  5. [§5.2, §6.1] The numerical S/XB coefficients used for the Cr I triplet and Si II lines (and the ColRadPy reference) should be tabulated or cited so the erosion inferences are reproducible.
  6. [§6.1] B4C B/C ratio 2.69→0.75 from EDS: light-element EDS quantification is error-prone; state acquisition conditions/standards or caveat the 72% depletion figure.
  7. [§3.2] Typo: 'builds offof prior composites'. Also 'impingent' (§3.4) → 'impinging'.
  8. [Abstract / Table 2] Abstract claims 44 materials; Table 2 lists 18 holders. A sentence clarifying the count (including repeat/reference samples vs distinct compositions) would help.
  9. [References] Reference [67] (WiSE) is an LLNL technical report on detachment physics; a more direct instrument citation would strengthen the erosion-yield traceability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Empirical comparative DiMES exposure study; material rankings rest on measured observables, not on self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This paper reports coordinated tokamak coupon exposures and post-mortem/in-situ PMI metrics (mass loss, TDS D2 release, SEM/optical integrity, spectroscopic erosion yields, pebble recovery fractions). The load-bearing claims are comparative rankings under stated Ohmic/L-mode/H-mode DiMES scenarios, not first-principles predictions derived from fitted constitutive laws. Self-citations (e.g. prior DiMES reference-scenario development) supply experimental methods context and do not force the cross-material ordering. Model comparisons (RustBCA for Cr; prior DIII-D Si yields) are external benchmarks against which new measurements are reported, not inputs renamed as outputs. No self-definitional identities, fitted-then-predicted quantities, uniqueness theorems imported from the authors, or ansatz-smuggling chains appear in the derivation of the stated results. Geometry/edge confounds affect interpretation strength but are not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing content is experimental ranking under a chosen DiMES protocol. It inherits standard PMI analysis machinery (heat-flux IR, probe fluxes, TDS, S/XB erosion inference) and the program assumption that short uncooled coupon tests inform FPP down-selection. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are mostly instrument/analysis normalizations rather than a global theory fit.

free parameters (4)
  • S/XB coefficients for Cr I and Si II erosion inference = not numerically tabulated; ADAS-derived
    Gross erosion rates and effective yields depend on chosen atomic data (ADAS/ColRadPy splits for Cr; WiSE Si II handling). Different coefficients rescale absolute yields without new plasma data.
  • Effective raster-averaged heat/particle flux assignment to buttons = geometry factor ~7; scenario table ranges
    Comparative damage is binned by nominal q⊥ (~2 vs ~12–15 MW m−2) from IR and geometry factors (~7× for 10°). Local misalignment or polish angle errors (e.g. ~14° W–Ti–Cr) change the assigned load.
  • Boron ionized fraction and local recovery fraction estimators = ~13% ionized; ~50% local recovery
    The ~13% ionized and up to ~50% recovered figures depend on BII imaging integration, EDGE2D-EIRENE fits to core B5+, and physical cup recovery completeness assumptions (§6.3).
  • D2 TDS total-release integration windows/calibration = e.g. 2.05e-7 vs 5.77e-7 mol D2
    Retention ratios (e.g. 2.8× irradiated vs pristine W) depend on absolute TDS calibration and integration to the reported totals in mol.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Short-pulse DiMES exposures without active cooling still provide fusion-relevant comparative PMI discrimination for TRL 3–4 / FPP down-selection.
    Stated in Introduction and Conclusion as the campaign’s maturation rationale despite 2–5 s pulses and no cooling.
  • domain assumption Keeping sample temperature below the 550°C HFIR irradiation temperature preserves neutron-induced trap populations for retention comparison.
    §4.4 designs the Ohmic 5° holder explicitly to avoid annealing defects before TDS.
  • domain assumption Mass loss, SEM morphology, and TDS D2 release under matched scenarios are adequate primary figures of merit for cross-class ranking.
    Used throughout §§3–6 and summarized in Table 3 as the assessment basis.
  • domain assumption Spectroscopic photon fluxes convert to gross erosion via standard S/XB plasma–atomic relations at measured local ne/Te.
    Applied for Cr (§5.2) and Si (§6.1) yield claims.
  • domain assumption Reference Ohmic/L-mode/rastered H-mode recipes are sufficiently reproducible across holders for inter-material comparison.
    §2 and Table 1 present maintained reference discharges as the comparability backbone.
  • standard math Standard continuum mechanics / materials microscopy interpretations (crack arrest at fibers, grain-boundary grooving, blistering as D-related) apply to post-mortem images.
    Qualitative SEM conclusions in §§3–4 rely on conventional PMI metallography readings without new theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparative qualification of advanced plasma-facing materials for fusion pilot plants through public- and private-sector experiments in DIII-D." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4HG5YY2W

@misc{pith2026260723400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparative qualification of advanced plasma-facing materials for fusion pilot plants through public- and private-sector experiments in DIII-D},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4HG5YY2W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23400}
}
abstract

A coordinated DIII-D campaign exposed and comparatively assessed 44 advanced plasma-facing materials from 12 institutions, including four public-private fusion partnerships, to support fusion pilot plant wall and divertor material down-selection. Samples were exposed using the Divertor Materials Evaluation System (DiMES) under Ohmic, L-mode, and H-mode conditions with edge-localized modes, at 0.2-2.5 MW m$^{-2}$ on flush geometries and 10-15 MW m$^{-2}$ on 10$^{\circ}$ angled geometries. Engineered tungsten architectures retained integrity; long-fiber Wf/W showed the clearest crack-arrest behavior. W-Re and K-doped W showed near-ITER-W-like responses, while additively manufactured W-Ta showed heat-flux-sensitive mass losses of 0.64 mg for the flat sample and 2.19-2.87 mg for angled samples. After irradiation to 0.3 dpa at 550$^{\circ}$C, neutron-irradiated ITER-grade W retained 2.8 times more deuterium than pristine W, while TiB$_2$ showed the lowest D$_2$ release in the Ohmic set. VTaHfMo was the most stable refractory multi-principal-element alloy. NbC and (Nb$_{0.5}$Ta$_{0.5}$)C retained integrity with 0.02-0.03 mg mass loss, whereas ZrC lost 7 mg. CVD SiC retained macroscopic integrity but exhibited an effective Si erosion yield of 0.5, about 5-10 times above prior DIII-D trends. Renewable boron pebble rods underwent controlled recession; 13% of released boron was ionized near the outer strike point and up to 50% was recovered locally. Initial in-situ chromium gross-erosion measurements yielded values of order $10^{-2}$. Together, these results provide cross-material benchmarks for fusion pilot plant down-selection and future AI/ML-assisted plasma-facing-material development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23400 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. 3.2. Tungsten-fiber-reinforced composites Three variations of tungsten fiber-reinforced composites were exposed in DiMES holder #18 under the same conditions de￾scribed in Section 3.1. The primary aim was to evaluate vari￾ous fiber materials, lengths, orientations within a bulk W ma￾trix, comparing their ability to arrest crack propagation and effectively increase the ductility of W materials. The mate￾rials selecti… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. (left) Typical heat flux profiles of reference plasma discharges used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two EB-PBF-built W-angled samples varying in either domi￾nantly (001) or (111) grain orientation were previously exposed during the first material testing campaign in Spring 2025. These samples did not show major damage to the plasma-exposed surface; therefore, this experiment focused on H-mode plasma exposures. This experiment consisted of exposing two DiMES heads with 7 samples in the same layout: 6 AM-W samples v… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Post-exposure SEM images of engineered tungsten architectures exposed in DiMES under ELMy H-mode conditions. Overview images are shown for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) images of the microstructures of a (a) dominantly (001) grain orientated AM-W sample, (b) dominantly (111) grain oriented AM-W sample and (c) ITER-grade W sample with an (d) inverse pole figure (IPF) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scanning electron microscopy images of the angled EB-PBF AM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: - Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) additively-manufactured (AM-W) and conventionally-manufactured (CM-W) pure tungsten specimens were exposed to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pre-exposure (Left) and post-exposure (Right) photographs of DiMES [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SEM images of the plasma-exposed (a) flat and (b) angled W-Ta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Pre- and post-exposure SEM images of pristine W, neutron-irradiated W (0.3 dpa at 550 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Thermal desorption spectroscopy measurements of D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Post-exposure characterization of refractory MPEAs following DIII-D plasma exposure. (a) Optical image of post-exposure alloy coupons showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Measured Cr effective sputtering yield as a function of electron tem￾perature, compared with RustBCA predictions [60] using two plasma mixtures. The sputtering yield was determined by dividing the erosion rate inferred with the HRUV spectrometer [57, 58] by the ion fl…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Pre- and post-exposure photographs of DiMES-mounted ceramic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Scanning electron microscope image of damage to a ZrC specimen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Overview of boron pebble aggregate exposures to L-mode LSN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Philipps, Tungsten as material for plasma-facing com- ponents in fusion devices, Journal of Nuclear Materials 415 (1) (2011) S2–S9

    V . Philipps, Tungsten as material for plasma-facing com- ponents in fusion devices, Journal of Nuclear Materials 415 (1) (2011) S2–S9. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2011 .01.110

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2011 2011

  2. [2]

    Linke, J

    J. Linke, J. Du, T. Loewenhoff, G. Pintsuk, B. Spilker, I. Steudel, M. Wirtz, Challenges for plasma-facing compo- nents in nuclear fusion, Matter and Radiation at Extremes 4 (2019) 056201.doi:10.1063/1.5090100

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5090100 2019

  3. [3]

    vertical

    Engineered tungsten architectures 3.1. Micro-castellated tungsten Micro-castellated tungsten ( µ-W) is designed to mitigate macroscopic W cracking under recurring thermal shock through the use of disconnected near-surface W columns [33, 34]. Twoµ- W samples were produced by Forschungszentrum Jülich for DIII- D exposure under ELMing H-mode conditions [shot...

    2025

  4. [4]

    grain boundary grooving

    Modified tungsten compositions and defect states 4.1. Potassium-doped tungsten K-doped-W (EP-1) produced by ALMT Japan was bench- marked against ITER W also produced by ALMT. A series of standard flat and 10◦ angled DiMES [28] K-doped-W and ITER-W samples were exposed within DIII-D to the reference attached ELMing H-mode plasmas in DiMES #3 (shots #203742...

  5. [5]

    predict-first

    Alternative refractory metallic materials 5.1. Refractory multi-principal-element alloys Refractory multi-principal-element alloys (MPEAs) were eval- uated as candidate plasma-facing and structural materials for compact fusion systems. For Avalanche, refractory MPEAs pro- vide a tunable alloy design space for high-temperature, radiation- tolerant componen...

  6. [6]

    Refractory ceramic and renewable plasma-facing con- cepts 6.1. Low-Z ceramic first-wall candidates Candidate dielectric ceramic plasma-facing materials pro- vided by Helion Energy were exposed in DIII-D to evaluate erosion, morphology evolution, and survivability under diag- nosed transient ELMy H-mode heat loading relevant to pulsed magneto-inertial fusi...

  7. [7]

    Conclusion 44 advanced plasma-facing materials from 12 institutions, in- cluding four public–private fusion partnerships, were exposed and comparatively assessed in DIII-D during the 2025 mate- rial testing campaign to support FPP wall and divertor material down-selection in an integrated tokamak environment. Com- parative testing used two new reference s...

    2025

  8. [8]

    Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. De- partment of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Fusion En- ergy Sciences, using the DIII-D National Fusion Facility, a DOE Office of Science user facility, under Awards DE-AC02- 09CH11466, DE-SCL0000109, DE-SCL0000110, DE-AC05- 00OR22725, DE-FC02-04ER54698, DE-FG02-07ER54917, DE-...

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or ...

  2. [11]

    J. Roth, E. Tsitrone, A. Loarte, T. Loarer, G. Counsell, R. Neu, V . Philipps, S. Brezinsek, M. Lehnen, P. Coad, C. Grisolia, K. Schmid, K. Krieger, A. Kallenbach, B. Lip- schultz, R. Doerner, R. Causey, V . Alimov, W. Shu, O. Ogorodnikova, A. Kirschner, G. Federici, A. Kukush...

    2009 doi

  3. [12]

    J. W. Coenen, Fusion materials development at forschungszentrum juelich, Advanced Engineering Ma- terials 22 (6) (2020) 1901376. doi:10.1002/adem.201 901376

    2020 doi

  4. [13]

    S. Brezinsek, et al., Plasma–surface interaction in the stel- larator W7-X: conclusions drawn from operation with graphite plasma-facing components, Nuclear Fusion 62 (1) (2022) 016006.doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac3508

    2022 doi

  5. [14]

    Brezinsek, Plasma-surface interaction in the Be/W en- vironment: Conclusions drawn from the JET-ILW for ITER, Journal of Nuclear Materials 463 (2015) 11–21

    S. Brezinsek, Plasma-surface interaction in the Be/W en- vironment: Conclusions drawn from the JET-ILW for ITER, Journal of Nuclear Materials 463 (2015) 11–21. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2014.12.007

    2015 doi

  6. [15]

    R. A. Pitts, et al., Physics basis for the first ITER tungsten divertor, Nuclear Materials and Energy 20 (2019) 100696. doi:10.1016/j.nme.2019.100696

    2019

  7. [16]

    J. H. You, et al., High-heat-flux technologies for the euro- pean DEMO divertor targets: State-of-the-art and a review of the latest testing campaign, Journal of Nuclear Materials 544 (2021) 152670. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2020.1 52670

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    A. J. Creely, D. Brunner, R. T. Mumgaard, M. L. Reinke, M. Segal, B. N. Sorbom, M. J. Greenwald, SPARC as a platform to advance tokamak science, Physics of Plasmas 30 (2023) 090601.doi:10.1063/5.0162457

    2023 doi

  9. [19]

    M. L. Richiusa, P. Ireland, J. Nicholas, Z. Vizvary, Ra- tionale behind EU-DEMO limiter’s plasma-facing compo- nent design under material phase change, IEEE Trans- actions on Plasma Science 50 (11) (2022) 4226–4232. doi:10.1109/TPS.2022.3169232

    2022

  10. [20]

    R. Neu, C. Angioni, V . Bobkov, R. Dux, J. Hobirk, A. Kallenbach, K. Krieger, T. Puetterich, V . Rohde, K. Schmid, Review on ASDEX Upgrade operation with tungsten plasma facing components, Nuclear Materials and Energy 46 (2026) 102063. doi:10.1016/j.nme.2026 .102063

    2026 doi

  11. [21]

    J. Bucalossi, et al., The WEST project: Testing ITER di- vertor high heat flux component technology in a steady state tokamak environment, Fusion Engineering and De- sign 89 (7–8) (2014) 907–912. doi:10.1016/j.fuseng des.2014.01.062

    2014 doi

  12. [22]

    Ko, et al., Overview of the KSTAR experiments toward fusion reactor, Nuclear Fusion 64 (2024) 112010

    W.-H. Ko, et al., Overview of the KSTAR experiments toward fusion reactor, Nuclear Fusion 64 (2024) 112010. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad3b1d

    2024 doi

  13. [23]

    T. W. Abrams, R. J. Buttery, F. Effenberg, A. M. Garofalo, S.-H. Hong, A. Lasa Esquisabel, A. G. McLean, C. Mur- phy, M. Shafer, G. Sinclair, G. Sips, E. A. Unterberg, H. Wang, B. D. Wirth, R. S. Wilcox, J. H. Yu, S. Zam- perini, The DIII-D wall change-out project, in: Bulleti...

    2024

  14. [24]

    B. N. Wan, et al., Recent advances in EAST physics ex- periments in support of steady-state operation for ITER and CFETR, Nuclear Fusion 59 (2019) 112003. doi: 10.1088/1741-4326/ab0396

    2019 doi

  15. [25]

    Fellinger, et al., Tungsten based divertor development for Wendelstein 7-X, Nuclear Materials and Energy 37 (2023) 101506.doi:10.1016/j.nme.2023.101506

    J. Fellinger, et al., Tungsten based divertor development for Wendelstein 7-X, Nuclear Materials and Energy 37 (2023) 101506.doi:10.1016/j.nme.2023.101506

    2023

  16. [26]

    C. E. Kessel, D. Andruczyk, J. P. Blanchard, et al., Critical exploration of liquid metal plasma-facing components in a fusion nuclear science facility, Fusion Science and Tech- nology 75 (2019) 886–917. doi:10.1080/15361055.2 019.1610685

    2019 doi

  17. [27]

    Morbey, F

    M. Morbey, F. Effenberg, S. Abe, T. Abrams, A. Bortolon, R. Hood, U. Losada, A. Nagy, J. Ren, D. L. Rudakov, M. J. Simmonds, D. Truong, T. W. Morgan, Deuterium retention in pre-lithiated samples and Li–D co-deposits in the DIII-D tokamak, Nuclear Materials and Energy 43 (2025)...

    2025

  18. [29]

    J. E. Menard, B. A. Grierson, T. Brown, C. Rana, Y . Zhai, F. M. Poli, R. Maingi, W. Guttenfelder, P. B. Snyder, Fusion pilot plant performance and the role of a sustained high power density tokamak, Nuclear Fusion 62 (2022) 036026. doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac49aa

    2022 doi

  19. [30]

    Willis, S

    J. Willis, S. A. M. McNamara, E. N. J. Maartensson, et al., Tokamak energy’s pre-concept design for a fusion power plant: an overview of ST-E1, Nuclear Fusion 66 (2026) 086001.doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ae5545

    2026 doi

  20. [31]

    Swanson, D

    C. Swanson, D. Gates, S. Kumar, M. Martin, T. Kruger, D. Dudt, P. Bonofiglo, the Thea Energy team, The scoping, design, and plasma physics optimization of the Eos neutron source stellarator, Nuclear Fusion 65 (2025) 026053. doi: 10.1088/1741-4326/ada56a

    2025 doi

  21. [32]

    Fedrigucci, N

    A. Fedrigucci, N. Marzari, P. Ricci, Comprehensive screen- ing of plasma-facing materials for nuclear fusion, PRX Energy 3 (2024) 043002. doi:10.1103/PRXEnergy.3. 043002

    2024 doi

  22. [33]

    U. F. M. C. Committee, U.s. fusion materials: Community roadmap (rd2), Tech. rep., U.S. Fusion Materials Coordi- nating Committee (2025). URL https://www.epri.com/research/programs /065093/events/0b97781d-e3eb-470a-ab11-978 00fb84638

    2025

  23. [34]

    C. P. C. Wong, R. Junge, R. D. Phelps, P. Politzer, F. Puhn, W. P. West, R. Bastasz, D. Buchenauer, W. Hsu, J. Brooks, T. Hua, Divertor materials evaluation system at DIII-D, Journal of Nuclear Materials 196–198 (1992) 871–875. doi:10.1016/S0022-3115(06)80159-5

    1992 doi

  24. [35]

    D. L. Rudakov, et al., DiMES plasma-material interaction research at DIII-D in support of ITER and beyond, Fusion Engineering and Design 124 (2017) 196–201. doi:10.1 016/j.fusengdes.2017.03.007

    2017

  25. [36]

    J. D. Coburn, F. Effenberg, M. A. Cusentino, C. Har- grove, M. Ialovega, M. Morbey, L. Nuckols, Z. Popovic, Z. Bergstrom, S. Zamperini, T. Abrams, D. Rudakov, S. Abe, S. Evans, T. Hinoki, R. Hood, E. Lang, C. Lasnier, U. Losada, C. Marini, A. McLean, R. Neu, J. Ren, J. Ri- esc...

    2026

  26. [37]

    J. L. Luxon, A design retrospective of the DIII-D tokamak, Nuclear Fusion 42 (2002) 614–633. doi:10.1088/0029 -5515/42/5/313

    2002 doi

  27. [38]

    M. E. Fenstermacher, et al., DIII-D research advancing the physics basis for optimizing the tokamak approach to fusion energy, Nuclear Fusion 62 (2022) 042024. doi: 10.1088/1741-4326/ac2ff2

    2022 doi

  28. [39]

    Cetiner, et al., Neutron irradiation of tungsten in hydro- gen environment at HFIR, Fusion Engineering and Design 178 (2022) 113089

    N. Cetiner, et al., Neutron irradiation of tungsten in hydro- gen environment at HFIR, Fusion Engineering and Design 178 (2022) 113089. doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2022 .113089

    2022 doi

  29. [40]

    Terra, G

    A. Terra, G. Sergienko, M. Tokar, D. Borodin, T. Dittmar, A. Huber, A. Kreter, Y . Martynova, S. Moeller, M. Rasinski, M. Wirtz, T. Loewenhoff, D. Dorow-Gerspach, Y . Yuan, S. Brezinsek, B. Unterberg, C. Linsmeier, Micro-structured tungsten: an advanced plasma-facing material,...

    2019 doi

  30. [41]

    Terra, G

    A. Terra, G. Sergienko, A. Kreter, Y . Martynova, M. Rasin- ski, M. Wirtz, T. Loewenhoff, G. Pintsuk, D. Dorow- Gerspach, Y . Mao, D. Schwalenberg, L. Raumann, J. W. Coenen, S. Brezinsek, B. Unterberg, C. Linsmeier, Micro- structured tungsten, a high heat flux pulse proof mate...

    2020

  31. [42]

    Schwalenberg, et al., Large-scale tungsten fibre- reinforced tungsten and its mechanical properties, Jour- nal of Nuclear Engineering 3 (2022) 306–320

    D. Schwalenberg, et al., Large-scale tungsten fibre- reinforced tungsten and its mechanical properties, Jour- nal of Nuclear Engineering 3 (2022) 306–320. doi: 10.3390/jne3040018

    2022 doi

  32. [43]

    Riesch, M

    J. Riesch, M. Aumann, J. W. Coenen, H. Gietl, G. Holzner, T. Hoeschen, P. Huber, M. Li, C. Linsmeier, R. Neu, Chem- ically deposited tungsten fibre-reinforced tungsten—the way to a mock-up for divertor applications, Nuclear Mate- rials and Energy 9 (2016) 75–83. doi:10.1016/j....

    2016 doi

  33. [44]

    E. A. I. Ellis, M. A. Sprayberry, C. Ledford, J. P. Han- kwitz, M. M. Kirka, C. D. Rock, T. J. Horn, Y . Katoh, R. R. Dehoff, Processing of tungsten through electron beam melting, Journal of Nuclear Materials 555 (2021) 153041.doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2021.153041

    2021

  34. [45]

    Ialovega, M

    M. Ialovega, M. X. Navarro-Gonzalez, R. Bisson, J. Ander- son, T. Angot, T. Dabney, C. Forest, A. Kreter, D. Velez, E. Willing, H. Yeom, K. Sridharan, O. Schmitz, Deuterium retention in cold spray tantalum coatings vs. polycrystalline tungsten and tantalum, Nuclear Fusion 65 (...

    2025 doi

  35. [46]

    Nogami, et al., Development of potassium doped tung- sten plate for fusion reactor applications, Fusion Engineer- ing and Design 202 (2024) 114403

    S. Nogami, et al., Development of potassium doped tung- sten plate for fusion reactor applications, Fusion Engineer- ing and Design 202 (2024) 114403. doi:10.1016/j.fu sengdes.2024.114403

    2024

  36. [47]

    Nogami, et al., Tungsten modified by potassium dop- ing and rhenium addition for fusion reactor applications, Fusion Engineering and Design 152 (2020) 111445

    S. Nogami, et al., Tungsten modified by potassium dop- ing and rhenium addition for fusion reactor applications, Fusion Engineering and Design 152 (2020) 111445. doi: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2019.111445

    2020

  37. [49]

    O. K. Donaldson, K. Hattar, T. Kaub, G. B. Thompson, J. R. Trelewicz, Solute stabilization of nanocrystalline tung- sten against abnormal grain growth, Journal of Materials Research 33 (1) (2018) 68–80. doi:10.1557/jmr.2017 .296

    2018 doi

  38. [50]

    Olynik, B

    N. Olynik, B. Cheng, D. J. Sprouster, C. M. Parish, J. R. Trelewicz, Microstructural transitions during pow- der metallurgical processing of solute stabilized nanostruc- tured tungsten alloys, Metals 12 (1) (2022) 159. doi: 10.3390/met12010159

    2022 doi

  39. [51]

    Haremski, L

    P. Haremski, L. Epple, M. Wieler, P. Lupetin, L. Klinger, E. Rabkin, M. J. Hoffmann, Grain boundary grooving by surface diffusion in nickel bicrystals, Acta Materialia 241 (2022) 118334. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2022.118 334

    2022 doi

  40. [52]

    T. Schwarz-Selinger, A critical review of experiments on deuterium retention in displacement-damaged tungsten as function of damaging dose, Materials Research Express 10 (2023) 102002.doi:10.1088/2053-1591/acfdf8

    2023 doi

  41. [53]

    El-Atwani, et al., Outstanding radiation resistance of tungsten-based high-entropy alloys, Science Advances 5 (3) (2019) eaav2002

    O. El-Atwani, et al., Outstanding radiation resistance of tungsten-based high-entropy alloys, Science Advances 5 (3) (2019) eaav2002. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav2002

    2019 doi

  42. [54]

    O. El-Atwani, et al., A quinary WTaCrVHf nanocrystalline refractory high-entropy alloy withholding extreme irradi- ation environments, Nature Communications 14 (2023) 2516.doi:10.1038/s41467-023-38000-y

    2023 doi

  43. [55]

    Cantor, Exploring multicomponent phase space to dis- cover new materials, Journal of Phase Equilibria and Dif- fusion 45 (3) (2024) 188–218

    B. Cantor, Exploring multicomponent phase space to dis- cover new materials, Journal of Phase Equilibria and Dif- fusion 45 (3) (2024) 188–218. doi:10.1007/s11669-0 24-01131-w

    2024 doi

  44. [56]

    Divilov, et al., Disordered enthalpy–entropy descriptor for high-entropy ceramics discovery, Nature 625 (2024) 66–73.doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06786-y

    S. Divilov, et al., Disordered enthalpy–entropy descriptor for high-entropy ceramics discovery, Nature 625 (2024) 66–73.doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06786-y

    2024 doi

  45. [57]

    D. B. Miracle, O. N. Senkov, A critical review of high entropy alloys and related concepts, Acta Materialia 122 (2017) 448–511. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.08. 081

    2017 doi

  46. [58]

    Holzwarth, H

    U. Holzwarth, H. Stamm, Mechanical and thermome- chanical properties of commercially pure chromium and chromium alloys, Journal of Nuclear Materials 300 (2002) 161–177.doi:10.1016/S0022-3115(01)00745-0

    2002 doi

  47. [59]

    J. W. Arblaster, Thermodynamic properties of chromium, Journal of Phase Equilibria and Diffusion 46 (2025) 8–19. doi:10.1007/s11669-024-01144-5

    2025 doi

  48. [60]

    H. F. Dylla, et al., Chromium getter studies in the tokamak fusion test reactor, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technol- ogy A 4 (1986) 1753–1757.doi:10.1116/1.573972

    1986 doi

  49. [61]

    Zucchetti, M

    M. Zucchetti, M. Merola, Low-activation properties of novel Cr-based materials for fusion reactors, Journal of Nuclear Materials 233–237 (1996) 1486–1490. doi:10.1 016/0022-3115(95)00174-3

    1996

  50. [62]

    Yu, et al., Cr plasma-material-interaction in PISCES- RF: D thermal release, retention, and erosion, Nuclear Materials and Energy 46 (2026) 102054

    Z. Yu, et al., Cr plasma-material-interaction in PISCES- RF: D thermal release, retention, and erosion, Nuclear Materials and Energy 46 (2026) 102054. doi:10.1016/ j.nme.2025.102054

    2026

  51. [63]

    Sugiyama, K

    K. Sugiyama, K. Schmid, W. Jacob, Sputtering of iron, chromium and tungsten by energetic deuterium ion bom- bardment, Nuclear Materials and Energy 8 (2016) 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.nme.2016.05.016

    2016 doi

  52. [64]

    U. Losada, et al., Commissioning of a UV spectrometer on DIII-D for tungsten erosion and re-deposition measure- ments, Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 63rd Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics, meeting abstract 11.114 (2021)

    2021

  53. [65]

    Ennis, U

    D. Ennis, U. Losada, D. van Tol, S. Loch, A. McLean, D. Taussig, C. Johnson, T. Abrams, S.-H. Hong, Z. Popovic, R. Wilcox, J. Yu, Multi-Chord Upgrade for UV Spectroscopic Profile Measurements in the DIII-D Lower Divertor, in: APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Abstracts, V...

    2023

  54. [66]

    H. P. Summers, The ADAS user manual: Atomic data and analysis structure, software manual (2004). URLhttp://www.adas.ac.uk 19

    2004

  55. [67]

    J. T. Drobny, D. Curreli, RustBCA: a high-performance binary-collision-approximation code for ion-material inter- actions, Journal of Open Source Software 6 (64) (2021) 3298.doi:10.21105/joss.03298

    2021 doi

  56. [68]

    L. Cappelli, et al., Analysis and modeling of tungsten emis- sion and net erosion in the DIII-D divertor using updated atomic data, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 68 (1) (2026) 015017.doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ae3341

    2026 doi

  57. [69]

    Krstic, V

    Z. Krstic, V . D. Krstic, Silicon nitride: the engineering material of the future, Journal of Materials Science 47 (2012) 535–552.doi:10.1007/s10853-011-5942-5

    2012 doi

  58. [70]

    D. L. Rudakov, W. R. Wampler, T. Abrams, R. Ding, J. A. Boedo, S. Bringuier, I. Bykov, C. Chrobak, Net versus gross erosion of silicon carbide in DIII-D divertor, Physica Scripta T171 (2020) 014064. doi:10.1088/1402-489 6/ab61dc

    2020 doi

  59. [71]

    Abrams, S

    T. Abrams, S. Bringuier, D. M. Thomas, G. Sinclair, S. Gonderman, L. Holland, D. L. Rudakov, R. S. Wilcox, E. A. Unterberg, F. Scotti, Evaluation of silicon carbide as divertor armor material in DIII-D H-mode discharges, Nuclear Fusion 61 (6) (2021) 066005. doi:10.1088/17 41-4...

    2021 doi

  60. [73]

    J. H. Han, S. H. Seok, Y . H. Jin, J. Park, Y . Lee, H. U. Yeo, J. H. Back, Y . Sim, Y . Chae, J. Wang, Y . O. G, W. Lee, H. Park, I. C. Bang, J. H. Kim, S. Y . Kwon, Robust 2d layered MXene matrix-boron carbide hybrid films for neu- tron radiation shielding, Nature Communicat...

    2023 doi

  61. [74]

    A. G. McLean, Understanding plasma divertor detachment in fusion power reactors, Tech. Rep. LLNL-TR-796098, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2019). doi: 10.2172/1573451

    2019 doi

  62. [75]

    Effenberg, S

    F. Effenberg, S. Abe, G. Sinclair, T. Abrams, A. Bortolon, W. R. Wampler, F. M. Laggner, D. L. Rudakov, I. Bykov, C. J. Lasnier, D. Mauzey, A. Nagy, R. Nazikian, F. Scotti, H. Q. Wang, R. S. Wilcox, the DIII-D Team, In-situ coating of silicon-rich films on tokamak plasma-facin...

    2023 doi

  63. [76]

    Nuckols, M

    L. Nuckols, M. J. Baldwin, H. M. M. III, D. Nishijima, M. I. Patino, C. M. Parish, J. Rapp, Deuterium plasma induced preferential erosion in ultra-high temperature ce- ramics TiB2 and ZrB2, Nuclear Fusion 64 (12) (2024) 124001.doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad7968

    2024 doi

  64. [77]

    M. J. Baldwin, H. Zhang, A. Zaloznik, M. I. Patino, M. J. Simmonds, D. Nishijima, P. R. Carriere, G. R. Tynan, T. Horn, D retention in e-beam powder-bed fused (3-d printed) tungsten exposed to high-flux deuterium plasma in PISCES-RF, Nuclear Materials and Energy 39 (2024) 1016...

    2024

  65. [78]

    Martinez-Loran, et al., Development of pebble-based extruded carbon rods for extreme plasma heat flux envi- ronments, Journal of Applied Physics 133 (2023) 245001

    E. Martinez-Loran, et al., Development of pebble-based extruded carbon rods for extreme plasma heat flux envi- ronments, Journal of Applied Physics 133 (2023) 245001. doi:10.1063/5.0139921

    2023 doi

  66. [79]

    Martinez-Loran, et al., Dependence of heat removal rate of pebble-based rods on inter-pebble matrix fill fraction, Fusion Science and Technology 81 (3) (2025) 208–218

    E. Martinez-Loran, et al., Dependence of heat removal rate of pebble-based rods on inter-pebble matrix fill fraction, Fusion Science and Technology 81 (3) (2025) 208–218. doi:10.1080/15361055.2024.2395133

    2025

  67. [80]

    G. L. Jackson, et al., Regime of very high confinement in the boronized DIII-D tokamak, Physical Review Letters 67 (1991) 3098–3101. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.3 098

    1991 doi

  68. [81]

    Hino, et al., Oxygen gettering properties of boron film produced by diborane dc glow discharge, Journal of Nu- clear Materials 248 (1997) 38–41

    T. Hino, et al., Oxygen gettering properties of boron film produced by diborane dc glow discharge, Journal of Nu- clear Materials 248 (1997) 38–41. doi:10.1016/S002 2-3115(97)00114-1

    1997 doi

  69. [82]

    Effenberg, et al., Mitigation of plasma-wall interactions with low-Z powders in DIII-D high confinement plasmas, Nuclear Fusion 62 (2022) 106015

    F. Effenberg, et al., Mitigation of plasma-wall interactions with low-Z powders in DIII-D high confinement plasmas, Nuclear Fusion 62 (2022) 106015. doi:10.1088/1741 -4326/ac899d

    2022 doi

  70. [83]

    Annen, W

    A. Annen, W. Jacob, Chemical erosion of amorphous hy- drogenated boron films, Applied Physics Letters 71 (10) (1997) 1326–1328.doi:10.1063/1.119885

    1997 doi

  71. [84]

    S. Abe, M. J. Simmonds, A. Bortolon, F. Effenberg, I. Bykov, J. Ren, D. L. Rudakov, R. Hood, A. W. Hy- att, Z. Lin, T. Abrams, Deuterium retention behaviors of boronization films at DIII-D divertor surface, Nuclear Ma- terials and Energy 42 (2025) 101855. doi:10.1016/j. nme.20...

    2025

  72. [85]

    Martinez-Loran, D

    E. Martinez-Loran, D. Nishijima, M. Patino, A. Ottaviano, L. Tang, S. Kumar, J. Boedo, E. Hollmann, Evaluation of a boron nitride–boron pebble aggregate material for renewable plasma-facing surfaces in magnetic fusion de- vices, Nuclear Materials and Energy 44 (2025) 101962. d...

    2025

  73. [86]

    Effenberg, K

    F. Effenberg, K. Schmid, F. Nespoli, A. Bortolon, Y . Feng, B. A. Grierson, J. D. Lore, R. Maingi, D. L. Rudakov, Inte- grated modeling of boron powder injection for real-time plasma-facing component conditioning, Nuclear Materials and Energy 42 (2025) 101832. doi:10.1016/j.nm...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.