Date post: | 16-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | morgan-stafford |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
1ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
Overview of the Design and R&D of the ITER Blanket System
Presented by A. René RaffrayBlanket Section Leader
Blanket Integrated Product Team Leader
ITER Organization, Cadarache, France
with contributions from M. Merola and members of the ITER Blanket Integrated Product Team
10th International Symposium on Fusion Nuclear Technology (ISFNT-10)
Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the ITER Organization
2
Blanket Effort Conducted within BIPT
Blanket Integrated Product Team
ITER Organization
DA’s-
CN-
EU-
KO-
RF-
US
• Include resources from Domestic Agencies to help in major design and analysis effort.
• Direct involvement of procuring DA’s in design- Sense of design ownership- Would facilitate procurement
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
3
Blanket System FunctionsMain functions of ITER Blanket System:
• Exhaust the majority of the plasma power.
• Contribute in providing neutron shielding to superconducting coils.
• Provide limiting surfaces that define the plasma boundary during startup and shutdown.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
4
Mod
ules
1-6
Modules 7-10
Mod
ules
11-
18
~1240 – 2000 mm
~850
– 1
240
mm
Shield Block (semi-permanent) FW Panel (separable) Blanket Module50% 50% 50% 40%10%
Blanket System
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
5
Blanket System Layout- The Blanket System
consists of Blanket Modules (BM) comprising two major components: a plasma facing First Wall (FW) panel and a Shield Block (SB).
- It covers ~600 m2.
- Cooling water (3 MPa and 70°C) is supplied to the BM by manifolds supported off the vacuum vessel behind or to the side of the SB.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
6
Blanket Design• Major evolution since the ITER design review of 2007
- Need to account for large plasma heat fluxes to the first wall - Replacement of port limiter by first wall poloidal
limiters - Shaped first wall
- Need for efficient maintenance of first wall components. - Full replacement of FW at least once over ITER
lifetime - Remote Handling Class 1
• Design change presented at the Conceptual Design Review (CDR) in February 2010 and accepted in the ITER baseline in May 2010.
• Post-CDR effort focused on resolving key issues from CDR, particularly on improving the design of the first wall and shield block attachments to better accommodate the anticipated electromagnetic (EM) loads.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
7
Blanket System in Numbers
Number of Blanket Modules: 440Max allowable mass per module: 4.5 tonsTotal Mass: 1530 tons
First Wall Coverage: ~600 m2
Materials:- Armor:Beryllium- Heat Sink:CuCrZr- Steel Structure: 316L(N)-IG
n-damage (Be / heat sink / steel): 1.6 / 5.3 / 3.4 (FW) 2.3 (SB) dpa
Max total thermal load: 736 MWISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
I-shaped beam to accommodate poloidal torque
Design of First Wall Panel
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
First wall
Shield block
PlasmaToroidal direction
Toroidal gap : 16 mm on the inboard
Inboard wallHorizontal view
Why Shaping of First Wall is Needed?
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
• The heat load associated with charged particles along the field lines is a major component of heat flux to first wall.
First wall
Toroidal direction
5 mm
• The two situations are equally probable So chamfering on both sides is
necessary
First wall First wall
First wall
5 mm
First wall
Toroidal direction
Two Sides Need to be Considered
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
First wall
Toroidal direction
First wall
5 mm
16 mm
q
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
Shaping the First Wall
12
Plasma
RH access
Exaggerated shaping
- Allow good access for RH
- Shadow leading edges
Final Shaping of First Wall Panel• Heat load associated with charged particles is a major component of
heat flux to first wall.• The heat flux is oriented along the field lines.• Thus, the incident heat flux is strongly design-dependent (incidence angle of the field line on the component surface). • Shaping of FW to shadow leading edges and penetrations.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
13
0 176 <= 1.3 MW/m² 40%
1.4 MW/m² <=
42 <= 2.0 MW/m² 10%
3.0 MW/m² <=
162 <= 3.9 MW/m² 37%
4.0 MW/m² <=
60 <= 4.7 MW/m² 14%
Total 440 100%
First Wall Panels: Design Heat Flux
Poloidal
Rows FWs distribution with design heat load
1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 18
2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 18
3 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 18
4 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 18
5 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 18
6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 18
7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 18
8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 18
9 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 18
10 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 1.0 EC 1.0 EC 1.0 Diag 1.0 EC 1.0 EC 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 1.0 Diag 18
11 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 36
12 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 36
13 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 36
14 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.5 3.6 0.5 3.6 0.5 3.6 0.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 22
15 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.5 3.6 3.6 0.5 3.6 0.5 3.6 0.5 3.6 3.6 22
16 4.0 3.6 4.0 3.6 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 36
17 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 36
18 1.3 1.3 1.3 3.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 3.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 3.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 3.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 3.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 3.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 36
S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C 440
Toroidal Index
Diag
Diag
Diag
Diag
Diag
TBM
Diag
port
IC ICTBM
portTBM
EC
9101112 123418 14151617 567813
DNB
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
14
First Wall Finger Design
SS Back Plate
CuCrZr AlloySS Pipes
Be tiles
Be tiles
Normal Heat Flux Finger:• q’’ = ~ 1-2 MW/m2 • Steel Cooling Pipes• HIP’ing
Enhanced Heat Flux Finger:• q’’ < ~ 5 MW/m2 • Hypervapotron• Explosion bonding (SS/CuCrZr) +
brazing (Be/CuCrZr)
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
15
First Wall Analysis• Detailed blanket design
activities on-going in parallel with supporting analyses in preparation for PDR.
• They address EM, thermal, thermo-hydraulic and structural aspects based on ITER Load Specifications and requirements.
• Design cases are categorized according to their probability of occurrence and allowable stress or temperature levels depend on the event category.
• The capability of the design to withstand the design number of cycles for each of the events must be demonstrated.
Schematic of EHF FW finger and Example Thermal Stress Results
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
More details on thermo-mechanical analysis of EHF FW from M. Sviridenko’s poster presentation on Wednesday
16
Shield Block Design
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Volume fraction of SS in blanket shield block
Inbo
ard
TF
coil
nucl
ear
heat
(#1
-#14
)W
/leg
New Mix, Water30%- 0.95g/ cc (fendl2.1)
NAR,Water16%- 0.9g/ cc(fen1)Water16%- 0.9g/ cc(fen2)
Water16%- 0.9g/ cc(fen2.1)
• Slits to reduce EM loads and minimize thermal expansion and bowing • Poloidal coolant arrangement.• Cooling holes are optimized for Water/SS ratio (Improving nuclear shielding
performance).• Cut-outs at the back to accommodate many interfaces (Manifold, Attachment,
In-Vessel Coils).• Basic fabrication method from either a single or multiple-forged steel blocks
and includes drilling of holes, welding of cover plates of water headers, and final machining of the interfaces.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
More details on EM slit optimization study from J. Kotulski’s poster presentation on Wednesday
17
• Thermo-mechanical analysis indicates that the stress levels are acceptable and that the temperature level <~350°C , as illustrated by the example results for SB 1 shown here.
Shield Block Analysis
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
More details on cooling optimization from Duck-Hoi Kim’s poster presentation on Tuesday
18
Shield Block Attachment
• 4 flexible axial supports• Keys to take moments and forces• Electrical straps to conduct current to vacuum vessel• Coolant connections
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
19
Flexible Axial Support
• 4 flexible axial supports located at the rear of SB, where nuclear irradiation is lower.
• Compensate radial positioning of SB on VV wall by means of custom machining.
• Adjustment of up to 10 mm in the axial direction and 5 mm transversely (on key pads) built into design of the supports for custom-machining process.
• Cartridge and bolt made of high strength Inconel-718• Designed for 800 kN preload to take up to 600 kN
Category III load.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
20
Example Analysis of Flexible Cartridge: Fatigue Assessment of M66 Main Thread for BM 18
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
Equivalent stress, Pa E13
2tot
FQPP bLtot
]N[nV
1V
- SDC-IC 3322: Fatigue usage fraction- Total stress range- Elastic strain range (SDC-IC 3323.1.1)
Linearization of equivalent stress
Δσ, МPа T, oC2.Sy,
МPаΔε, % [N] n V
1904 150 1944 0.86 5111 400 0.078
Max. Von Mises stress 952 MPa
(m)
(Pa)
5111 cycles92.2%-margin
Elastic analysis – Design load for axial supports in Cat.II: 504 kN radial force, T = 1500C
The number of Cat.II events will be limited to 400 (cf. VV load specification)
Example Analysis of Flexible Cartridge: Collapse Load Assessment for BM 18 (immediate plastic collapse – SDC-IC 3211.2)
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011 21
Elastoplastic analysis
Reaction in pilot node from tensile force vs. displacement
Tension(Allowable (II) = 1.2 MN)
LF,collapseIII = 3.00 > LF,criteriaIII = 1.2 Margin 150%
LF,collapseII = 3.57 > LF, criteriaII = 1.5 Margin 138%
Symmetric assembly
Friction coefficients: 0.4(metal - metal)
0.6 (metal – ceramic)
Analysis model
Total strain (tension force 600 kN)
Max. total strain 0.43%
Collapse load: 1800 kN
1800 kN/600 kN
1800 kN/504 kN
22
Toroidal Forces
Poloidal Forces
Shear Keys Used to Accommodate Moments from EM Loads
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
23
Keys in Inboard and Outboard Modules
• Each inboard SB has two inter-modular keys and a centering key to react the toroidal forces.
• Each outboard SB has 4 stub keys concentric with the flexible supports.
• Bronze pads are attached to the SB and allow sliding of the module interfaces during relative thermal expansion.
• Key pads are custom-machined to recover manufacturing tolerances of the VV and SB.
• Electrical isolation of the pads through insulating ceramic coating on their internal surfaces.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
24
Example Analysis of Inter-Modular Key
• Analysis of the inter-modular keys indicate stresses above yield (~172 MPa at 100°C) in the case of Category III load.
• Limit analysis then performed to check margin.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
25
Limit Analysis of Inter-Modular Key• Reasonable load factors of 1.5 for
the pads and 1.9 for the neck of the key are obtained based on limit analysis under Category III loadwith 5% plastic strain.
Eddy Forces Applied
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.40%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Neck Pad location
LoadFactor
Plas
tic s
trai
n (%
) 1.725 MN
1.725 MN
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
26
Analysis of Outboard Stub Key• Stub key for BM#11• Worst-case EM loads (from PDR Protocol):
- FMrII = 855 kN (cat. II)- FMrIII = 1014 kN (cat. III)
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
Plus (mainly taken by axial supports):- FMpII = 300 kN- FMpIII = 360 kN
Stub key
Pad
Reaction forces from forces due to radial moment, FMr
Stub key
Pad
27
Limit Analysis of Stub Key of BM #11
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
1.27(Pa)
Stress redistribution at LFcollapseIII = 1.27
Plastic strain at LFcollapseIII = 1.27
Max. plastic strain: 5.01%
- LFcollapseIII = 1.27 > LFcriteria
III = 1 (Margin 27%)
- LFcollapseII = 1.510 > LFcriteria
II = 1.171 (Margin
29%)
28
Electrical Straps• Each SB is electrically joined to the VV by two electrical straps, formed and
louvered from two sheets of CuCrZr alloy to achieve flexibility.• Each strap is bolted on to the rear of a SB using M8 bolts. The socket is
welded to the VV.• An M20 bolt inserted through the front face of the SB connects the straps to
the vessel socket via a compression block. • One electrical connection can handle up to 180 kA of electrical current.
Socket now welded on VV
Cu alloy strap
M8 bolt
M20 bolt
Blanket side
VV side
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
29
Blanket Manifold
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
• A multi-pipe configuration has been chosen, with each pipe feeding one or two BM’s replacing the previous baseline with a large single pipe feeding several BM’s- Higher reliability due to drastic reduction of
number of welds and utilization of seamless pipes.
- Higher mechanical flexibility of pipes reduction of space reservation at back of BM.
- Superior leak localization capability due to larger segregation of cooling circuits.
- Elimination of drain.
- Reduction of cost: - Well established manifold technologies.- Simplification of Vacuum Vessel manufacturing due to
elimination of heavy anchoring plates.- Must be balanced with cost associated with higher
number of valves required for leak localization (2 valves per circuit).
Blanket Remote Handling
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011On-Rail Module Transporter
- Shield blocks designed for ITER lifetime (semi-permanent component)- First wall panels to be replaced at least once during ITER lifetime (designed
for 15,000 cycles).- Both are designed for remote handling replacement (FW: RH Class 1).- Blanket RH system procured by JA DA.- RH R&D underway.
More details from S. Mori’s oral presentation on Monday and S. Shigematsu’s poster presentation on Thursday.
31
Supporting R&D• A detailed R&D program has been planned in support of the design, covering a range of key topics, including: - Critical heat flux (CHF) tests on FW mock-ups. - Experimental determination of the behavior of the attachment and insulating layer under prototypical conditions.- Material testing under irradiation. - Demonstration of the different remote handling procedures.
• A major goal of the R&D effort is to converge on a qualification program for the SB and FW panels. - Full-scale SB prototypes (KODA and CNDA). - FW semi-prototypes (EUDA for the NHF FW Panels, and RFDA and CNDA for the EHF First Wall Panels).- The primary objective of the qualification program is to demonstrate
that: - Supplying DA can provide FW and SB components of
acceptable quality.
- Components are capable of successfully passing the formal test
program including heat flux tests in the case of the FW panel.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
32
Example R&D for Hypervapotron CHF (RFDA)• The R&D program in support of the EHF
hypervapotron CHF testing was conducted at the Efremov Institute, RF.
• The results confirm the CHF margin of 1.4 for the EHF FW under an incident heat flux of 5 MW/m2.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011
More details from I. Mazul’s oral presentation on Tuesday
– Each DA must demonstrate technical capability prior to start procurement.
– 2 phase approach:
I. Demonstration/validation joining of Be/CuCrZr and SS/CuCrZr joint (done)
II. Semi-prototype production/validation of large scale components (on-going)
FW Pre-Qualification Requirements
6 Fingers in 1 to 1 scale
2 slopes, 4 facets
NHF FW Pre-Qualification Program (EUDA, on-going)• Engineering support activity• Manufacturing Development activity
Standard NHF• 1 medium scale mock-up to study Be
tile sizes + checking end-of-finger configuration • 1 semi-prototype for 1 MW/m2 heat flux (S-NHF)
Upgraded NHF• 3 small-scale mock-ups for checking performance under Heat Flux• 1 semi-prototype for 2 MW/m2 heat flux (U-NHF)
CuCrZr heat sink
Be tiles
SS beam
35
Summary• The Blanket design is extremely challenging, having to
accommodate high heat fluxes from the plasma, large EM loads during off-normal events and demanding interfaces with many key components (in particular the VV and IVC) and the plasma.
• Substantial re-design following the ITER Design Review of 2007. The Blanket CDR in February 2009 has confirmed the correctness of this re-design.
• Effort now focused on finalizing the design work .
• Parallel R&D program and formal qualification process by the manufacturing and testing of full-scale or semi-prototypes.
• Key milestones:- Preliminary Design Review: Nov. 29 – Dec. 1, 2011
- Final Design Review in late 2012. - Procurement to start in early 2013 and should last till 2019.
ISFNT-10, Portland, OR, September 12-16, 2011