## 3 Nuclear Analyses
### Summary of the Nuclear Load's Spatial Distributions Analyses
Regarding the comparison between the poloidal profiles of external and internal arrays (both for WCLL and HCPB) of the inner and outer target (Figures 42 and 43), the plots show a higher level of nuclear loads intensity on the components placed more externally on the targets, compared to the central ones, as already shown in the previous case. The differences between internal and external sides are more pronounced on the straight leg (e.g., about +10/45% as range), and strongly attenuated on the baffle region (e.g., less than +5%). In this regard, the solid and dashed lines are almost overlapped both in the inner target and especially in the outer target, in correspondence of the baffle region. Figure 30:3 Outer poloidal profiles of the nuclear damage (dpa/FPY) on Cu/CuCrZr components, comparing the values on the external and innermost target sides, both for WCLL and HCPB blanket case. Figure 30:4 Inner poloidal profiles of the nuclear damage (dpa/FPY) on Cu/CuCrZr components, comparing the values on the external and the innermost target sides, both for WCLL and HCPB blanket case. The poloidal profiles of nuclear heating density on PFC-CB supports made of Eurofer are shown in Figures 44 and 45, for the inner and outer target, respectively. If the comparison between WCLL and HCPB profiles of the inner target (Figure 44) is considered, the following considerations can be assessed: the nuclear heating density appears to be higher with the Water Cooled blanket than the Helium Cooled one, as already highlighted for W-monoblocks and Cu/CuCrZr components. The difference between the profiles is around +5/15% for the supports placed on the baffle region (+13.0% comparing the corresponding peak values shown in Tables 6 and 8), then increasing up to +15/25% on the straight leg of the vertical targets (+25.8% 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 44), the following statements can be assessed: these plots clearly show a higher 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 +20/35%), and more attenuated on the baffle region (e.g., around +5/20%). Once again, considering the comparison between the two blankets, the difference 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. The second comparison highlights a difference which is principally 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 supports made of Eurofer appears to be higher with WCLL than HCPB, also looking at the outer poloidal profiles (Figure 45). The variance between the profiles is around +0/10% for the supports positioned on the baffle region (+9.3% comparing the corresponding peak values shown in Tables 7 and 9), then increasing up to +15/20% on the straight leg of the vertical targets (+21.0% comparing the corresponding minimum values shown in Tables 7 and 9). The profiles are almost perfectly overlapped for the first supports (1-3), i.e., in correspondence with the extremal part of the baffle region (highlighted in Figure 31), well shielded by the outboard blanket segment. Regarding the comparison between the poloidal profiles of external and internal arrays (both for WCLL and HCPB) of the outer target (Figure 45), once again, the plots show a greater level of nuclear loads magnitude on the components placed more externally on the targets, compared to the central ones.