TBWG and Solid Breeder TBM DDD Report including R&D

1. TBWG and Solid Breeder TBM DDD Report including R&D Alice Ying March 4, 2005 US ITER-TBM Meeting, UCLA

2. Content & Format of TBM Detailed Description Document (DDD) • Summary • Functions and Requirements • Functions • Design Requirements (vacuum, structural, electromagnetic, thermal hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, nuclear, remote handling, chemical, etc….) • Safety Requirements • Interfaces Requirements (e.g., with frame, port cell, TWCS vault, transporters, hot cell, etc…) • Other Requirements (R&D, maintenance, inspection, code & standard, reliability, etc…) • Proposed Test Plan in ITER • Engineering Description • Summary Overall Description 2.x System Name (e.g., TBM mock-up, cooling system, purge system, control & supply, etc….) 2.x.1 System Description (including interfaces) 2.x.2 Component Description 2.x.3 Procurement Packaging • Performance analyses • Nuclear Analysis • Thermo-hydraulic analyses • Structural analyses • Tritium management analyses • Electromagnetic analyses • Safety analysis • Delivery and Required R&D Plans Prior to ITER (Including required instrumentation)

3. Two types of “TBMs” are proposed and under analysis • Unit cells (3) • 192.5 mm x 211 mm x 650 mm 2. Quarter-port Submodules 730 mm x 910 mm x 600 mm TM Submodule • The proposal calls to share the port space to test contemporaneously independent unit cells or submodules(TBD- i.e. 2 (5) years after the ITER agreement finalized)

4. H-plasma D-plasma Low Duty D-T High Duty D-T 10 8 9 1 3 4 5 6 2 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.006 0.008 0.012 0.020 0.024 0.024 0.0 Initial study of irradiation effects on performance Testing strategy calls for different issues to be addressed aligned with ITER operational plan First wall structural response and transient EM/ disruption tests (Passive methods on tritium production rate, energy spectrum) (local magnetic field, eddy current distribution, forces, and torques) Neutronics and tritium production rate prediction tests Look-Alike/ITER Optimized Act-Alike/ITER Constraint Tritium release, thermomechanical interaction and design evaluation tests 3 to 4 unit cell arrays /submodules will be placed in ITER over the first 10 years of ITER testing

5. Types of Unit Cells Earlier DT Year 5 DT Year 6-8 Unit cell designed for thermomechanics and tritium release tests Unit cell designed for Neutronics tests

6. Neutronics calculation shows that tritium breeding ratio is comparable between the two configurations, even the edge-on configuration uses a less amount of beryllium Need to check frame effect on TPR Integrated tritium production rate (2-D) tritons/s Layered:1.0x1017 Edge-on: 1.05x1017 Beryllium volume cm3 Layered: 57924 Edge-on: 51838 (about 9 kg difference) • Look-alike • Low temperature operation (for an accumulated neutron damage of ~ 0.06 dpa)

7. Common manifold EU HCPB JA HCSB US SBHC KO-SBHC CHN SBHC RF SBHC TBM proposed at the moment for the HCSB line

8. SBHC Systems to test in ITER: summary Dec 2004 Use of existing ancillary equipment Use of existing ancillary equipment

9. SBHC Time schedule matrix: status Dec. 2004 WSG-1

10. The amount of ferritic steel allowed in the TBM will be another factor impacting TBM design • Dear Valeriy,I think that there are several reasons to explain the increase of the ferritic steel masses of the various TBMs.First of all, the reduction of the frame thickness from 200_mm to 100_mm has lead to the increase of the port area available for testing. Considering that, with the exception of the RF TBM using Li/V, all the proposed TBMs by all six Parties use ferritic steel structures, the increase is proportional to the increase of the testing surface.Other reasons are directly related to specific design choices, such as the use of two or three sub-modules for Japan TBMs, and the request of withstanding the coolant pressure for the EU TBMs. The latter also explain, at least partially, the difference you noted between RF TBM and EU TBMs.To preliminarily answer to your question, I do not think that using a non-ferritic steel for the rear part of the TBMs is an acceptable solution for reducing the amount of ferritic steel, because this transition could lead to structural failures (in the joints regions) not representative of the corresponding DEMO modules. On the other hand, one possibility could be to decrease the thickness of the TBMs but the consequences of this choice have to be deeply investigated.I do not know the precision of your estimations about the maximum acceptable masses of ferritic steel, but I expect that some uncertainties will remain even after a more detailed theoretical evaluation. It may be therefore reasonable to apply a safe constraint on day_one TBMs (limiting therefore the acceptable masses, reducing for instance the TBMs thickness) and try to release such a constraint after successive tests during the H-H phase.In any case, I think we should agree on a specific value of the acceptable masses. This value will then become a further constraint for TBMs testing, at least in the first year of testing in ITER. It would be desirable to reach an agreement on how to proceed as soon as possible. When do you expect to have more precise results?I put in copy of this mail the Delegation Heads of the six ITER Parties, in order to have their opinion on this matter.  In any case, I propose to extensively discuss and conclude about this issue during the TBWG pre-meeting already planned in Tokyo in May 2005 after ISFNT-7.Best WishesDr. Luciano Gianca • Dear Luciano , A week ago we have got simplified models of TBMs for magnetic calculations. As you remember our previous calculations have shown that the ITER correction system can compensate error fields created by TBMs and other sources but there is no margin . The probability of success depending on relative phases of the disturbances is <~ 90%. It is very desirable to decrease the ferromagnetic masses. However, an elementary comparison of the new and the old data has shown: The JA water coold module has increased its ferritic steel weight in 1.63 times ( 2156 kg instead of 1318 kg) The EU LiPb He cooled module has 1.85 times more ferritic steel then the previous EU LiPb water cooled one (2032 kg instead of 1095 kg) The JA HC PB module has grown in 1.28 times( 1986 kg instead of 1552 kg) The EU HC PB module has grown in 1.36 times (1919 kg instead of 1403 kg for the 200mm frame, for the 100mm the increase is up to 2600kg ! ) The ferromagnetic mass of the first wall of new modules is practically the same as before. This situation is not acceptable. We must do something and decrease a module ferromagnetic mass to < ~ 1300 kg . Why the old RF module was only 521 kg? (Sorry, but the new RF data are not readable) If we can not decrease the mass by other means we will be forced to decrease the module surface. By the way, 50% of mass of all modules is in their back . Is it possible to use a different material in places where the high thermal conductivity is not so important? With the best wishes V. Chuyanov

11. Options for US Solid Breeder TBM ProgramRely on EU and JA’s ancillary equipments US discussion Note: Fundamental research have more or less been addressed for ferritic steel solid breeder blanket concepts • Optimization possible with fusion and high fluence testing • Low cost, minimal ITER utilization scenario • Participate in EU’s HCPB TBM program • Plan on unit cell test articles that focus on technical issues of particular interest to all parties • Moderate cost, good ITER utilization scenario • Staged approach • Plan on unit cell tests between Year 1 to 4 and deploy quarter port submodule tests at later stage • Collaborative, optimal ITER utilization scenario • Plan on quarter-port submodule tests that provide unique testing data (concept scoping, reduced beryllium use) • Coordinate R&D collaborative effort and submodule development with Korea, China, others.

12. to TCWS Helium outlet IC or Bubbler Outlet Coolant Conditioner Helium by-pass from submodule 1 from submodule 1 Tritium Measurement System 1 To tritium building Tritium Measurement System 2 Chapter 3: Engineering Description from TCWS Inlet Coolant Conditioner Breeder purge inlet Helium inlet Be purge inlet Purge Gas Inlet Conditioner to Submodule 1 Be purge outlet TBM Auxiliary Systems in Port Cell Area (to be integrated and arranged in Piping Integration Cask)

13. Piping arrangements in the port areapipes are bent within the available space to accommodate thermal expansion while reducing neutron streaming PIC (piping integration cask) to house measurement and flow control systems One Integrated PIC located in Port Cell

14. Access to the interface 2 (vacuum boundary)(EU Design-Scheme for Port A Integration) PIC can only occupy half of the port cell area Bio-Shield Segment 1 This space must be clear for piping disconnecting and connecting operations

15. Cask outside the Bio Shield

16. The „Port plug“ is treated as a single unit and transferred to hot cell for module replacement Parties’ responsibility module

17. TBM replacement with aero caster

18. 2004 N 44 45 39 40 29 REF: ITR-300-REP-001-A

19. R&D Breakdown Structures

20. Cost Estimates for Unit Cell and Submodule 1. CEA price if purchasing 1 kg. Cost analysis assumes 30% discount if purchase in tenth kg amount, and 50% discount if hundreds of kg. 2. NGK beryllium pebble price. Same discount applied to beryllium cost.

21. Other costs (% of US share?) • Port Plug • Helium Loop and Coolant Conditioners • Tritium Extraction System • Tritium Measurement System • Coolant Purification Loop • Remote Handling Tools • Hot Cell and PIE • PbLi Loop and others

22. Common manifold The best shot may be to team up with the three Asian parties for a ½ H port (port A)TBM design • Reduced space requirement in the port area by using a “sophisticated” common manifold • Slit structure may be needed to reduce EM load, which complicates the design • Cost and risk sharing for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd TBMs (year 1 to year 7) • Time sharing for later TBMs if “party own” TBM becomes more desirable