Overview and Meeting Objectives
US ITER-TBM Meeting
Mohamed Abdou
August 10-12, 2005 at INEL
Purpose of the Meeting:
• To initiate the next phase (Phase 2) of US
ITER-TBM activities
- Definition of Tasks and Schedule
- Identifying Task Groups, Leaders,
Members
• Initiate costing activities per Nardella’s request
The US ITER-TBM Program has successfully completed
Phase I of its activities during the past two years
(October 2003-August 2005)
Accomplishments of Phase I
• Completed a technical study that led to selection of US Blanket Concepts
for testing in ITER
1) Dual coolant lead-lithium with helium-cooled ferritic structure (DCLL) concept
- US lead role in collaboration with other parties
2) Helium-cooled ceramic breeder with ferritic steel (HCCB) concept
- US will support EU and J and collaborate with other parties
• Joined TBWG and completed all US obligations
– US provided strong intellectual and technical leadership to TBWG activities
– Completed DDD report for US concepts and delivered to TBWG on time
– Strong contributions to investigating and defining interface issues with the ITER
device
– Important contributions to developing TBWG framework for testing plan on ITER
and the need for strong collaboration among the parties
Accomplishments of Phase I (cont’d)
• Carried out conceptual designs of ITER test articles
for the US concepts
• Identified key R&D issues and initiated modeling and
experiments in several important areas
• Began exploratory discussions with other parties on
possible bi-lateral and multi-lateral collaboration on
ITER-TBM
US-ITER TBM Phase 2 activities will focus more on engineering
and developing cost / schedule / deliverables plan
Primary Activities
1.
Continue to contribute to TBWG activities

Active participation

Encourage international collaboration
2.
Continue and strengthen Modeling and Experiments (R&D) for key
issues of US ITER-TBM (This is the larger part of our activities)
3.
Define, design, and plan engineering tests (sub-component tests,
mockups, etc.)
4.
Carry out “TBM Costing Activity”
Additional Activities
A.
Explore partnerships and task sharing with each of the ITER Parties
B.
Encourage TBWG to go through an exercise of how to coordinate all
Parties’ TBM activities and have strong collaborations
C.
Work with DOE, ITER Project Office, and US Community to recognize,
formalize, and organize the US ITER-TBM Program
ITER Operation
• ITER operational plan has been discussed up to now only for the first 10 years.
It includes 1 year of integration on sub system level, 2.5 years of initial operation
in hydrogen, brief DD phase and a long tritium phase.
• ITER is designed for ~30000 pulses. Average neutron flux in the tritium phase is
>0.5 MW/m2. Maximum neutron flux at the equatorial level is up to 0.8 MW/m2
at 500 MW. Average fluence after 20 years of operation may reach 0.3MWa/m2.
Example: DCLL TBM Testing Schedule in ITER
(4 sequential test articles)
ITER Year
ITER
Operation Phase
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Magnet
testing &
vacuum
HHFirst
Plasma
HH
HH
DD
Low
Duty
DT
Low
Duty
DT
Low
Duty
DT
High
Duty
DT
High
Duty
DT
High
Duty
DT
Heat flux
Progressive
ITER
Testing
Conditions
Electromagnetic/
Structural (EM/S)
TBM
Nuclear Field/
Tritium Prod.
(NF/TP) TBM
Thermofluid/
MHD (T/M) TBM
Integrated (I)
TBM
Toroidal
B field
Vacuum
• Install
• RH
• System
checkout
NWL
Small
neutron
flux
B Field
Disruptions
Fluence
Accumula
-tion
Full
disruption
energy
• Transient EM Loading on
structure and FCIs
• FW heat flux loading
• ITER field perturbation
• LM-MHD tests
•
•
•
•
 Finalize
Design
Nuclear field
Tritium production
Nuclear heating
Structure and FW
heating
• Thermal and
electrical insulation
• Tritium permeation
• Velocity profiles
 Finalize
Design
 Finalize
Design
• High temperature effects
• Tritium permeation/recovery
• Integrated function, reliability
To be certain that test blanket modules are compatible with tokamak
operation the test modules must be installed as early as possible before
beginning DT operation.
•
•
•
There are several issues which must be investigated at this stage:
operation of test modules and supplementary equipment in strong magnetic field,
forces, acting on test modules during disruptions,
sputtering of the bare steel surface of the test module’s first wall and necessity
of using a Beryllium protective layer,
interference of the test modules with plasma confinement,
thermal loads on the test module’s first wall.
Moreover, most TBMs will be made of a martensitic/ferritic steel. Their magnetization in
the ITER field will generate “error fields” - small perturbations of the axial symmetry of
the poloidal magnetic field. Even small error fields (~10-4 of toroidal field) can induce in
the plasma locked (i.e. non-rotating) modes. Locked modes are not stabilized by plasma
rotation. Magnetic islands grow, degrade fusion performance and lead to disruptions.
The error field may influence confinement of fast particles and change heat load on the
test modules themselves. There are also other sources of the error fields like TF or PF
coil misalignment creating error fields of a similar amplitude, but probably with different
phases. The ITER magnet system is designed to compensate for these error fields.
However, estimates show that the amount of ferritic steel in the current design is so
high that the amplitude of the error fields created by test modules is close to limits for
compensation. Taking into account uncertainties in prediction of the total error field and
in the tolerance of the ITER plasma to error fields ITER does not request to change the
design of test modules to-day and to limit the amount of ferritic steel. However, if the
experiments during the hydrogen phase show that the level of the error fields is
unacceptable, test module designers must be ready to meet such a request.
Three of the ITER 14 standard ports are dedicated for
test blanket modules (They are Port #16, #18 and #2)
Port # 16:
Helium-cooled Ceramic
Breeder TBMs
Port # 18:
Helium-cooled Lithium Lead
/Dual Function Lithium Lead
TBMs
Water-Cooled Ceramic
Breeder TBM
Port # 2:
Dual-Cooled Lithium Lead
/Dual Function Lithium Lead
TBMs
Li-Breeder TBMs
Helium-Cooled Ceramic
Breeder TBM
Port
• Each standard equatorial port has an opening 1.748 m wide and 2.2
m high which accommodate the frame 1.708 m wide and 2.160 m
high.
• The face of each TBM is to be recessed by 50 mm from the first wall
of blanket modules to protect modules from interaction with plasma.
2160
1708
200
(Unit: mm)
Definitions of names for “Frame”
Port plug = Frame + TBMs
Frame=FW structure + Box structure + Backside shields
Vertical Port Frame
Backside Shield
Cut-view
Vertical cross-section of Frame
(at the center of flexible supports)
Opening space for TBM
EU TBMs for ITER
HCLL TBM
HCPB TBM
• Orientation: horizontal (half ITER
port)
• Dimensions (mm): 740 x 1270 x
~700 (to be updated according to
ITER port frame design optimization)
• 18 breeder cells (203 x 222)
mm2Max.
• He flow: ~1.8 kg/s
• Adapted DEMO He flow scheme
• Orientation: vertical (half ITER port)
• Dimensions (mm): 626 x 1838 x ~575
(assuming a frame wall thickness of:
140 mm external wall, 100 mm central
wall; can be updated according to
reference frame design)
• 24 breeder cells (180 x 214) mm2 Max.
• He flow: ~1.7 kg/s
• Adapted DEMO He flow scheme
ITER TBM Principal Tasks & Organization starting August 2005
(US Project Office: Ned Sauthoff
DOE: Gene Nardella)
(Team Leader: M. Abdou)
I.
Test Plan, Strategy, and Interface with ITER (Abdou)
A.
B.
C.
II.
Deliverables: ITER Test Article(s) and Ancillary Equipment for DCLL (Wong)
and HCCB (Ying) (& support from all technical groups)
Task II is concerned with the deliverables to ITER
A.
III.
TBWG (Abdou, Sze, Ulrickson, with support from TBM Team)
Perform tasks required by TBWG, including definition of interface to the ITER device
and coordination among the Parties
Evolve Details of Tests in ITER (Morley (DCLL), Ying (HCCB), Leaders of Technical
Tasks) (Testing objectives, test sequence, number of concurrent test articles, items to
be measured, etc.) Always identify reasons/importance/ justification for all tests
International Cooperation (Abdou, US-TBWG members, US-IEA Representatives)
Design and Analysis
B.
Cost
R&D for DCLL (Morley) and HCCB (Ying) (& all TBM Team)
This task focuses on the R&D necessary to fulfill the Strategy and Test Plan
identified in Task I and ensure meeting the requirements and time schedule of
the deliverables of Task II
A.
B.
Identify, Prioritize and Perform R&D Experiments and Modeling
Mockup Facilities and Tests (Leader ??)


C.
Cost
Definition of mockup testing and facilities and schedule
Design of mockup facilities (new and/or upgrade, or use of facilities outside the US)
TBM Technical Sub-Groups
Technical Groups are responsible for all technical aspects of the project (for
both DCLL and HCCB), including (a) performing R&D experiments and
modeling; (b) support design and analysis; (c) costing.
(Please note that some choices are limited by availability of funding, and in other cases by the
availability of people.)
1.
Ferritic Steel Structure Engineering and Fabrication
(Kurtz, Zinkle, Sharafat, Odette, ???)
2.
Thermofluid MHD
(Smolentsev, Morley, Ni, Narula, Ying, Messadek, Burris, Sketchley)
3.
SiC FCI Material Development (also include metallic sandwich insulation)
(Katoh, Henager, Youngblood, Sharafat, Zinkle)
4.
Compatibility of SiC/PbLi/FS System
(Pint, Sze, Tortorelli, Zinkle)
5.
Structural Design and Failure Mode Analysis
(Sharafat, Ghoniem, Blanchard, Kurtz, Odette, ???)
(Other people needed but funding is an issue: Saurin Majumdar (ANL), Tim
McGreevy (ORNL))
6.
Pebble Bed Thermomechanics
(Calderoni, Ying, An, Abou-Sena, Sharafat, Katoh)
7.
Neutronics
(Sawan, Youssef, Zhang)
TBM Technical Sub-Groups (cont’d)
8.
Safety
(Merrill, Petti, Reyes, ???)
9.
Tritium Extraction and Control Systems (including tritium selfsufficiency analysis)
(Sze, Merrill, Willms, Causey, Sawan, Youssef, Ying, Guo)
10.
Diagnostics/Instrumentation/Control
(???, Morley, Ying)
11.
TBM Interface with Plasma
(Ulrickson)
 Joining of beryllium to ferritic steel (???)
 Electromagnetics analysis (Ulrickson, Ni, Narula, Sharafat)
12.
Mechanical Design
(leader?, Sviatoslavsky, Dagher, Fogarty)
13.
Mockup Facilities (Definition, design, costing and schedule)
(???)
14.
15.
Thermofluid Helium Analysis
(Wong, Calderoni, Sviatoslavsky, Ulrickson, Baxi)
“Virtual” TBM: Integrated Computer Simulation Capability
(???)
Costing Activities for US ITER-TBM
(Cost / Schedule / Deliverables)
• We are initiating the cost activities following Nardella’s guidelines
• Time Schedule:
– Mid-August (this meeting): Finalize plan and responsibilities for the
Costing Activity
– December 15, 2005: Distribute a near-final report of the Costing Activity
for comments by the team, DOE, ITER Project Office, VLT, and others
– February 1, 2006: Submit Costing Activity Report to DOE
ORGANIZATION of the Cost Activity: (Costing responsibilities are
assigned to the leaders of principal tasks)
– Cost of R&D for DCLL (Morley) and for HCCB (Ying)
– Cost of Mockup Facilities (TBD??)
– Cost of the Test Articles (and ancillary equipment) to be delivered to ITER
for DCLL (Wong) and for HCCB (Ying)
Framework for the US ITER-TBM Costing Activities
•
Develop the Costs (cost/schedule/deliverables) for one scenario:
- Good ITER utilization (Moderate Cost Scenario)
- US lead on DCLL with strong collaboration with other parties
- US support of EU, J on HCCB and collaboration with other parties
•
The Deliverable is the “First Test Article” and ancillary equipment to be delivered
to ITER on Day 1
•
The Cost is to be developed for the next 10-year period, i.e., all total costs until
the delivery of the first test article(s) and ancillary equipment. Also need cost
profiles.
•
Some key points of the general approach:
– Start by agreeing on the FULL list of R&D required to deliver the ITER-TBMs
– Identify which R&D tasks are being done by other parties. The ones not being done by
other Parties are then listed as “POTENTIAL US Responsibility”.
– Explore which of these tasks (“Potential US Responsibility”) can/should be negotiated
with other ITER Partners for possible task/cost sharing
– We need to develop COST PROFILES, not just total cost (When do we start
paying for mockup facilities and for fabricating the test articles? And at what
rate?
– We are working on obtaining detailed cost estimates from EU and Japan and use
them to calibrate our cost estimates (we have “private data” from 2 years ago)
– Identify the flexibility in US Strategy for ITER testing (temporal and spatial) that can
accommodate different technical outcomes of R&D results and a range of available
budgets
INFORMAL “Guess” and observations on the likely Costs
•
The Cost of ITER-TBM Program consists of three parts:
1. Cost of R&D
2. Cost of Mockup Facilities
3. Cost of the Test Articles (and ancillary equipment) to be delivered to ITER
•
Educated Guess (based on EU and Japanese “informal” estimates, prior
exercises etc)
– Cost of R&D: $40M–$60M total over 10 years ($4M–$6M per year)
– Cost of Mockup Facilities: $10M–$20M total over 3–5 years beginning a few years
from now
– Cost of Construction of first Test Article to be delivered to ITER: $2M–$3M total
beginning in about 7 years
– Cost of Ancillary Equipment to be delivered to ITER: TBD (probably a few million
beginning in about 8 years)
•
The R&D cost will be the larger part of the total cost. But this R&D is actually the
core of the base program anyway. ITER-TBM is the most important focus of
Fusion Nuclear Technology over the next 30 years or so. Therefore, it should
logically be the highest priority for the base program. Therefore, we expect most of
the R&D can and should be covered by the base technology (but we have to
examine of course whether current budgets for the base program are adequate).
We need to prioritize the R&D, estimate the cost of the R&D over the next 10
years and compare it to current/projected base technology program funding.
•
The "Real new & additional" cost is the cost of mock up facilities, plus the cost of
the "test articles" themselves. Spending on these does not start until a few years
from now.
Some General Remarks
•
The US ITER-TBM team has consistently made the point that the ITER-TBM
activities are a joint effort among the Plasma Chamber, Materials, PFC,
Safety, and Tritium Programs. We have always operated this way and this
has tremendously benefited the US effort.
This joint partnership needs to continue and to be strengthened
•
International collaboration is a “necessity” and is very consistent with the
“spirit of the ITER project”. The US must continue to lead in the push toward
more international collaboration on ITER TBM
•
We should remember that we have evolved a strategy for the US ITER-TBM
with considerable "flexibility" in adjusting to different budget scenarios.
Examples of variables that help provide such flexibility are:
a) phasing / scheduling of the test articles insertions into ITER during its 10-20
years of operation;
b) collaboration with other partners;
c) technically effective back-up plan if technical results are negative (e.g., if the
insert in the DCLL does not work, we have developed a set of meaningful other
tests with the same test articles)