CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Superconducting Materials and ApplicationsFusion materials and technologiesParticle accelerators and beam dynamics

Beam heating explains critical current suppression measured during ion irradiation of REBCO tapes

Open access
Devitre, A R, Fischer, D X, Riva, N, Rae, M, Kortman, L D, Woller, K B, Fisher, Z L, Short, M P +2 more·2025·Superconductor Science and Technology
DOI 10.1088/1361-6668/ad95c2
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Reports of critical current ( I c ) suppression during cryogenic ion irradiation of rare earth barium copper oxide (REBCO) tapes have raised concerns for the operational margins of fusion power plant (FPP) magnets. However, the data remain inconclusive regarding beam heating due to the difficulty of measuring local temperatures with contact probes. This leaves a critical knowledge gap concerning the mechanism behind I c suppression, and whether the so-called beam on effect is to be expected under neutron irradiation during FPP operation. In this paper, we show that I c suppression is independent of atomic displacement rate in the REBCO layer, the latter of which increases twelve-fold as we reduce the ion energy from 2400 to 800 keV. At fixed power, we observe statistically identical suppression with 150 keV protons, which do not have enough energy to reach the REBCO layer, refuting hypotheses about beam on effects being caused by nuclear displacements or direct ion-Cooper pair interactions. These results show that REBCO temperature rise alone can explain I c suppression, leaving little to no margin for alternative mechanisms. With this insight, we developed a method to measure beam spot temperature that does not depend on the specific installation of our temperature sensor. With this new method, we measured the temperature gradient across the tape during irradiation and found that thermal resistance at the tape/target interface is the controlling variable in I c suppression. As such, accelerator-based facilities aiming to reproduce the operation of REBCO magnets in a nuclear fusion environment should find strategies to minimize interface thermal resistance. Most importantly, we find that the dose rates expected in a FPP will not change I c due to ballistic radiation damage or ion-Cooper pair interactions, allowing us to safely ignore these effects when designing FPP magnets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1361-6668/ad95c2

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The SRIM simulation was conducted following ASTM-recommended settings, including a Cu displacement threshold energy of 30 eV and the Quick Kinchin-Pease damage model.

    “Based on the aforementioned parameters and following ASTM-recommended settings, including a Cu displacement threshold energy of 30 eV and the Quick KinchinPease damage model, a SRIM simulation was conducted on a single 3 µ m layer of Cu with 100,000 ions [33, 34].”

    From A facility for thermo-mechanical characterization of fusion magnet materials during cryogenic ion irradiation (2025) · cites this paper as [33]

    Section 3.3 reports an SRIM-2013 simulation of a model REBCO tape using one million ions, and the Appendix B Figure B2 caption identifies Kinchin–Pease. Our copy does not state that the simulation followed ASTM-recommended settings or used a 30 eV Cu displacement threshold; it also does not describe the cited single 3 µm Cu layer with 100,000 ions. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Localized ion beam heating effects can be consequential; the temperature rise in the beam spot is not fully captured by nearby temperature probes and requires alternative means of quantification.

    “Localized ion beam heating effects, on the other hand, can be consequential; as is shown in a recent publication [32], the temperature rise in the beam spot is not fully captured by nearby temperature probes and requires alternative means of quantification.”

    From A facility for thermo-mechanical characterization of fusion magnet materials during cryogenic ion irradiation (2025) · cites this paper as [32]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 6

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Rutherford G et al. 2024 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 66(10) 105006 doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ad6708 · DOI
  2. Sorbom B N et al. 2015 Fusion Eng. Des. 100 378-405 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2015.07.008 · DOI
  3. Eisterer M et al. 2009 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 23(1) 014009 doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/23/1/014009 · DOI
  4. Devitre A R et al. 2024 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 95(6) doi.org/10.1063/5.0200936 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Nordlund K et al. 2018 512 450-479 doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2018.10.027 · DOI
  6. White D P, Snead L L, Zinkle S J and Eatherly W S 1998 J. Appl. Phys 83(4) 1924-1930 doi.org/10.1063/1.366917 · DOI
  7. Iliffe W et al. 2023 MRS Bulletin 48(7) 710-719 doi.org/10.1557/s43577-022-00473-5 · DOI
  8. Was G S 2017 Fundamentals of Radiation Materials Science (Springer) ISBN 978-1-4939-3436-2 978-1- 4939-3438-6 doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3438-6 · DOI
  9. Fischer D X, Prokopec R, Emhofer J and Eisterer M 2018 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 31(4) 044006 doi.org/10.1088/1361-6668/aaadf2 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Kwok W K et al. 2016 Rep. Prog. Phys. 79(11) 116501 doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/79/11/116501 · DOI
  11. Feighan J P F, Kursumovic A and MacManus-Driscoll J L 2017 Superconductor Science and Technology 30(12) 123001 doi.org/10.1088/1361-6668/aa90d1 · DOI
  12. Sorbom B N 2017 The effect of irradiation temperature on REBCO jc degradation and implications for fusion magnets PhD Thesis MIT
  13. Crespillo M L, Graham J T, Zhang Y and We- ber W J 2016 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87(2) 024902 doi.org/10.1063/1.4941720 · DOI
  14. Courts S S 2017 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 278 012076 doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/278/1/012076 · DOI
  15. Tominaka T et al. 2004 IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 14(2) 1802-1805 doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2004.831117 · DOI
  16. Junquera T, Amand J F, Thermeau J P and Casas- Cubillos J 1998 Neutron irradiation tests of calibrated cryogenic sensors at low temperatures Advances in Cryogenic Engineering ed Kittel P (Springer US) pp 765-772 doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9047-4 9 5 · DOI
  17. Quéré Y and Rullier-Albenque F 1989 J. Nucl. Mater. 169 19-23 doi.org/10.1016/0022-3115(89)90516-3 · DOI
  18. Grabowski K S and Kant R A 1983 Methods to control target heating during ion implantation Ion Implantation: Equipment and Techniques Springer Series in Electrophysics ed Ryssel H and Glawischnig H (Springer) pp 364-373 10.1007/978-3-642-69156-0 4 3 · DOI
  19. Will A et al. 2020 J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1559(1) 012060 doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1559/1/012060 · DOI
  20. Miro S et al. 2016 J. Raman Spectrosc. 47(4) 476-485 doi.org/10.1002/jrs.4837 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Wady P T et al. 2016 Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 806 109-116 doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2015.09.088 · DOI
  22. Väyrynen S et al. 2007 Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 572(2) 978-984 doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2006.11.065 · DOI
  23. Ziegler J F, Ziegler M D and Biersack J P 2010 Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 268(11) 1818-1823 doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2010.02.091 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Norgett M J, Robinson M T and Torrens I M 1975 Nucl. Eng. Des. 33 50-54 doi.org/10.1016/0029- 5493(75)90035-7 · DOI
  25. Weber W J and Zhang Y 2019 Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 23(4) 100757 doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2019.06.001 · DOI
  26. Molodyk A et al. 2021 Sci. Rep. 11(1) doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81559-z · DOI
  27. Sutherland C et al. 2023-09-27 Proc. R. Soc. B 290(2007) 20231261 doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.1261 · DOI
  28. Burnham K P and Anderson D R (eds) 2004 Model Selection and Multimodel Inference (Springer) ISBN 978-0-387-95364-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/b97636 · DOI
  29. Delacre M, Lakens D and Leys C Rev. Soc. Psychol. 30(1) doi.org/10.5334/irsp.82 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Adams K et al. 2023 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 36(10) 10LT01 doi.org/10.1088/1361-6668/aced9e · DOI
  31. Unterrainer R et al. 2024 Supercond. Sci. Technol. 37(10) 105008 10.1088/1361-6668/ad70db · DOI

Authors
Devitre, A. R., Fischer, D. X., Riva, N., Rae, M., Kortman, L. D., Woller, K. B., Fisher, Z. L., Short, M. P., Whyte, D. G., & Hartwig, Z. S.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Superconductor Science and Technology
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2024-12-02
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
015005
ISSN
  • 0953-2048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6668
DOI
10.1088/1361-6668/ad95c2
OpenAlex
W4404581699
Cited by
6
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Superconductor Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Superconducting Materials and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Fusion materials and technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Particle accelerators and beam dynamics
Keywords
REBCO tapes, critical current suppression, beam heating, ion irradiation, thermal resistance, temperature gradient, neutron irradiation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review