## 3 Nuclear Analyses
### Summary of the Nuclear Load's Spatial Distributions Analyses
All the analyzed nuclear load's distributions show similar maximum and minimum values among the PFCs of inner and outer target, both with WCLL and HCPB. Nuclear Loads and Thermal Power Deposition on PFCs during Operations: Comparison between WCLL and HCPB  
A detailed assessment of the spatial distribution of the nuclear loads on the DEMO divertor targets during operations for both the BB cases under analysis, has been performed, and it is well described in the previous section. This section is fully devoted to assessing the effects of the different blanket layouts on the nuclear load's distribution of the DEMO divertor. In particular, the values of the nuclear heating density (W/cm\({}^{3}\)), radiation damage (dpa/FPY) and He-production (appm/FPY) for W-monoblocks, Cu/CuCrZr elements, PFC-CB supports and CB are shown by means of 2D poloidal profiles as function of a curvilinear abscissa, which starts from the upper part of the targets (baffle region) and is directed towards the lower part (Figure 10). In addition, the total nuclear power (MW) on PFCs and breakdown in each component has been performed, comparing the results between the two blanket concepts. Every 2D plot shows the poloidal profiles comparing both the external (highlighted in purple and red in the Figure 7) and internal (black in Figure 7) sides of the target loads, both for WCLL and HCPB blanket. Each point is representative of the nuclear load value on each component (W, Cu/CuCrZr and Eurofer support) along the profile. The number of components is 78 (IB) and 70 (OB) W-Monoblocks/Cu-Interlayers/CuCrZr pipe, 16 (IB) and 14 (OB) Eurofer supports. The poloidal profiles of nuclear heating density of W-monoblocks are shown in Figures 32 and 33, for the inner and outer target, respectively. If the comparison between WCLL and HCPB profiles of the inner target (Figure 32), is considered, the following considerations can be stated: the nuclear heating density appears to be higher with the Water Cooled blanket than the Helium Cooled one. The difference  
Figure 33: Outer poloidal profiles of the nuclear heating (W/cm\({}^{3}\)) on W-Monoblocks, comparing the values on the external and innermost target sides, both for WCLL and HCPB blanket case. between the profiles is around +10/20% for the W-monoblocks arranged on the baffle region (+11.6% comparing the corresponding peak values shown in Tables 6 and 8), then increasing up to +20/30% on the straight leg of the vertical targets (+22.6% comparing the corresponding minimum values reported in Tables 6 and 8). Regarding the comparison between the poloidal profiles of external and internal arrays (both for WCLL and HCPB) of the inner target (Figure 32), the following statements can be supported: these plots clearly show a greater level of nuclear loads intensity on the components placed more externally on the targets, compared to the central ones. The differences between internal and external edges are more pronounced on the straight leg (e.g., about +20/40%), and more attenuated on the baffle region (e.g., around +5/15%). It should be noted that the differences between the profiles highlighted with the two comparisons are due to different reasons: considering the comparison between the two blankets, the variation mainly lies in the impact that the two different layouts (in terms of materials and design) have on the neutron spectra impinging on the target. In the second comparison, the difference is mainly due to the position of the components on the target and therefore to the view factor on the plasma, which is substantially independent of the type of blanket. These aspects are better discussed in the next section. Nuclear heating density on W-monoblocks appears to be higher with WCLL than HCPB, also observing the outer poloidal profiles (Figure 33).