2nd EU-US DCLL Workshop
Introductory Remarks
•
•
•
•
Welcome
Objectives
Collaboration Items
Science-Based Framework for FNST R&D
Mohamed Abdou
2nd EU-US DCLL Workshop, UCLA, Nov. 14 – 15, 2014
1
What led to this workshop
•
•
•
•
•
EU and US have had long history (decades) of strong
interactions and collaboration on fusion R&D
But during the past 10 years as the focus on ITER and ITER TBM
became intense, the collaboration on base program and R&D
oriented toward DEMO was reduced.
The initiation of the DEMO program in EU played a major role in
bringing back the recognition of the importance of the key longterm R&D required to develop blankets for DEMO
At the initiative of Dr. Gianfranco Federici, a high-level meeting
was held at UCLA during the IAEA DEMO Workshop in October
2012 between Program Leaders in EU and the US. There was
unanimous agreement on the need to strengthen the EU-US
collaboration. Liquid Metal Blankets were identified as primary
area for collaboration.
A conference call on March 1, 2013 among key EU and US
experts indicated that EU is considering DCLL among four
blanket candidates for DEMO and that collaboration on DCLL
should be the highest priority since US invested much effort on
this concept.
2
What led to this workshop (cont’d)
• The First EU-US DCLL workshop was held in KIT
April 23-24, 2013. There was broad
participation of many scientists from all EU
organizations. M. Abdou and S. Smolentsev
participated in this meeting.
• Dr. Angel Ibarra visited UCLA for detailed
discussions during the period May 27-29,
2014. A summary was presented to Ed Stevens
via “Ready Talk”
• It was agreed to hold the 2nd EU-US DCLL
Workshop Nov. 14-15, 2014 immediately after
TOFE
3
Objectives of the Workshop and Expected Outcome
• Better Definition of What type of DCLL concept and
which FCI will receive more focus in the near term:
•
Normal (Low) temperature DCLL (PbLi ~450C)
-
•
Which FCI: SiC or “steel-alumina-steel” sandwich
High-temperature DCLL (PbLi > 600C)
• Review Recent Progress on Key Areas of R&D:
•
•
•
•
MHD Thermofluids
FCI sandwich-type and SiC
Tritium Transport and Permeation
Tritium Extraction
• Discuss and reach conclusions on some important
and timely questions and on key collaboration items
4
Organization of the Agenda and Discussion Topics
•
•
1½ days on Presentations from EU and US on progress in the key areas of
collaboration. The times for each presentation and Q&A are clearly specified.
Please do not exceed the time allotted.
½ day (Saturday afternoon) devoted to Three Discussion sessions, each is devoted
to one or more key questions. Each session has a chair. Participants can express
their views orally or use a slide or two.
Discussion Session A. Chair: Angel Ibarra. Collaboration
Areas of common interest for EU-US collaboration on DCLL and suggested actions.
Discussion Session B. Chair: Neil Morley. Multiple effects.
a.
How to simulate multiple-effects/multiple interactions experiments in laboratory facilities.
b.
What methods are possible for simulating volumetric heating and temperature, both
magnitude and gradient?
Discussion Session C. Chair: Lorenzo Boccaccini. R&D approach and strategy for FCI.
a.
Do we focus on SiC or sandwich-type?
b.
Should all effort the next several years be focused only on low-temperature DCLL?
c.
When do we start development for high-temperature DCLL?
d.
What are the sequence of logical experiments to show that FCI is viable and practical in the
fusion nuclear environment?
e.
Are present computational methods sufficient to fully analyze FCI and gap flow?
5
Science-Based Framework for FNST R&D
• It is important to develop a science-based framework
that can effectively be utilized to:
•
•
•
Identify ultimate goal of R&D
Sequence of experiments (note that facilities in which
needed experiments can be performed should be defined
after (not before) the experiments are defined)
Provide detailed performance parameters to:
a) Quantify requirements of experiments and modeling, and
b) Measure progress
•
•
UCLA-led studies identified a very meaningful ScienceBased Framework in the 1980’s. The framework was
reviewed and adopted in many recent US community
planning studies such as RENEW
It will be very useful for the EU and US FNST communities
to evolve a common science-based framework.
6
Science-Based Framework for FNST R&D
Goal
Develop Verified and Validated Predictive Capability
with which we can design and predict behavior and
performance of fusion nuclear components in DEMO
7
Science-Based Framework for Blanket/FW R&D involves
modeling & experiments in non-fusion and fusion facilities.
It should be utilized to identify and prioritize R&D Tasks
Theory/Modeling
Basic
Separate
Effects
Multiple Effect/
Interactions
Design Codes/Data
Partially
Integrated
Integrated
Component
For each step, detailed performance parameters can be defined to quantify requirements
of experiments and modeling and measure progress
Property
Measurement
Phenomena Exploration
Engineering
•Scientific Feasibility
Development &
•Concept Screening
•Performance Verification Reliability
Growth
Non-Fusion Facilities
(non-neutron test stands,
fission reactors and accelerator-based
neutron sources)
Testing in Fusion Facilities
8
We are now in mostly “Separate Effects” stage. We Need to move to
“multiple effects/multiple interactions” to discover new phenomena
and enable future integrated tests in ITER TBM and FNSF
Theory/Modeling
Basic
Separate
Effects
Now
Property
Measurement
Multiple Effect/
Interactions
Next 3-7
Years
Design Codes/Data
Partially
Integrated
Integrated
2 or more facilities will
be needed, plus TBM in
ITER/FNSF DD Phase
TBM in ITER &
FNSF
Phenomena Exploration
Component
in FNSF
Engineering
•Scientific Feasibility
Development &
•Concept Screening
•Performance Verification Reliability
Growth
Non-Fusion Facilities
(non-neutron test stands,
fission reactors and accelerator-based
neutron sources)
Testing in Fusion Facilities
9
Key Observations for planning Near-Term R&D
•
Recent results (at UCLA) show that predicting behavior of blankets can not
be deduced from the “sum of separate effects”. Multiple effects / multiple
interactions result in new phenomena arising from synergistic effects
caused by:
a)
b)
•
Uncovering such new phenomena and predicting synergistic effects and
quantifying behavior require:
a)
b)
c)
•
Multiple environmental loadings with steep gradients (n, B, volumetric
nuclear heating, surface heating, particle fluxes, mechanical and electric
forces, vacuum, etc.)
Interactions among materials interfaces/sub-elements/subcomponents
(coolant/structure, breeder/multiplier/He purge, etc.)
Upgrade of current facilities
Construction of new facilities with multiple capabilities (for example, think of
three classes of facilities with cost in the range of $5M, $20M, $50M)
Much larger and more intensive effort on development of models and
computational capabilities.
Scientific results show that optimum parameters of facilities involve
balance among forces and key conditions (e.g. Re, Ha, Gr, etc.) and
operating with real materials, simulated heating, temperature, and
gradients . It will be a serious mistake to only increase one loading
conditions (e.g. only highly magnetic field) as Results will be irrelevant
10
Suggested New Area for EU-US Collaboration
A Joint Study to:
• Agree on a Science-Based Framework to
identify sequence of experiments and models
and to define parameters to measure progress
• Define the optimum range of parameters and
capabilities required in new blanket facilities
over the next 5-7 years to study multiple
effects / multiple interactions and partially
integrated
• One can consider 3 types of facilities in the range
of ~$5M, $20M, $50M
11
Peaked Power Loading and Transient Heat
and EM Loads on First Wall/Blanket
• There is an alarming disconnect between
Reactor/DEMO Design Studies and Realities faced in
ITER. Reactor Studies assume peak-to-average power
loading is slightly above 1.0, ignore transients, and
assume disruptions will never occur.
• The scenarios suggested in ITER are “threatening” –
they simply have no identified solutions in
DEMO/Power Reactors
• How long can we continue to ignore this?
• Mike Ulrickson has dealt with these challenging areas
for ITER over the past several years.
• We invited Mike to give us a presentation to help
stimulate some useful discussion
12
AGENDA – Friday, November 14
8:30-9:00
Continental breakfast
Session I: OPENING
Chair: Angel Ibarra
Edward Stevens
9:00-9:10
5+5
9:10-9:35
20+5
9:35-10:15
30+10 Gianfranco Federici
EU DEMO project
10:15-10:45
25+5
EU blanket design and R&D for DEMO
10:45-11:00
15
Session II: DCLL
(remote participation)
Mohamed Abdou
Lorenzo Boccaccini
DOE Welcome
Introduction to workshop
Coffee break
Chair: Rick Kurtz
11:00-11:25
20+5
Siegfried Malang
What is DCLL (including HT and LT)?
11:25-11:45
15+5
David Rapisarda
EU DCLL conceptual design for the EU DEMO
11:45-12:05
15+5
Sergey Smolentsev
A design for the DCLL inboard blanket
12:05-12:30
20+5
Dario Carloni
Safety considerations for the EU DCLL
12:30-14:00
90
14:00-14:20
15+5
Lunch at Faculty Center
Siegfried Malang
Maintenance schemes and related DCLL
designs
13
AGENDA – Friday, November 14
Session III: FCI
Chair: Brad Merrill
14:20-14:40
15+5
Prachai Norajitra
Manufacturing of Sandwich FCI for the EU DEMO
DCLL
14:40-15:00
15+5
Maria Gonzalez
Sandwich FCI characterization
15:00-15:20
15+5
Yutai Katoh
Progress on R&D of SiC FCI for DCLL
15:20-15:40
15+5
Maria Gonzalez
SiC as an alternative FCI for EU DEMO
Session IV: TRITIUM
Chair: Lorenzo Boccaccini
15:40-16:05
20+5
Carlos Moreno
Modeling tools for tritium transport
16:05:16:25
15+5
Alice Ying
Tritium Transport in multi-region PbLi blanket
16:25-16:45
15+5
Carlos Moreno
Modelling of the tritium fuel cycle
16:45-17:00
15
17:00-17:20
15+5
Marco Utili
Tritium extraction technologies for EU DCLL
17:20-17:40
15+5
Paul Humrickhouse
Analysis of Vacuum Permeator for tritium
extraction for DCLL
17:40-18:00
15+5
Ivan Fernandez
Experimental data for tritium transport modeling
18:00
Adjourn
19:00
Dinner hosted by UCLA
Coffee break
14
AGENDA – Saturday, November 15
8:30-9:00
Continental breakfast
Session V: MHD
Chair: Yutai Katoh
09:00-09:25
20+5
Elisabet Mas de les Valls
09:25-09:50
20+5
Sergey Smolentsev
Recent results on MHD thermofluids for DCLL in US
09:50-10:15
20+5
Ramakanth Munipalli
High performance computing for MHD
10:15-10:35
20
(remote participation)
Progress on PbLi MHD thermofluids in EU
Coffee break
Session VI: FACILITIES Chair: Maria Gonzalez
10:35-10:55
15+5
Ivan Fernandez
Summary of FUSKITE results on materials, modeling
and data analysis
10:55-11:15
15+5
Neil Morley
Multiple effects for HT DCLL
11:15-11:30
10+5
Rich Callis
Conceptual Design of a Multi-effect DCLL Test Stand
11:30-11:50
15+5
Ivan Fernandez
The CIEMAT LiPb loop: conceptual design
11:50-12:10
15+5
Brad Merrill
INL experimental and analytical capabilities for DCLL
12:10-12:30
10+10
Michael Ulrickson
Heat flux on FW. Impact on FW/blanket design and
R&D
12:30-13:30
60
Lunch (boxes will be brought in)
15
AGENDA – Saturday, November 15
Discussion and Action Sessions
Discussion Session A. Chair: Angel Ibarra. Areas of common interest for EU-US
13:30-14:30 60
collaboration on DCLL and suggested actions.
14:30-15:30
60
Discussion Session B. Chair: Neil Morley. Multiple effects.
a. How to simulate multiple-effects/multiple interactions experiments in
laboratory facilities.
b. What methods are possible for simulating volumetric heating and temperature,
both magnitude and gradient?
Discussion Session C. Chair: Lorenzo Boccaccini. R&D approach and strategy for FCI.
a. Do we focus on SiC or sandwich-type?
b. Should all effort the next several years be focused only on low-temperature
DCLL?
15:30-16:30 60
c. When do we start development for high-temperature DCLL?
d. What are the sequence of logical experiments to show that FCI is viable and
practical in the fusion nuclear environment?
e. Are present computational methods sufficient to fully analyze FCI and gap flow?
16:30-16:45 15 Angel Ibarra
Workshop summary, EU
16:45-17:00 15 Mohamed Abdou
Workshop summary, US
17:00
Adjourn
16