2 nd eu-us dcll workshop introductory remarks 2 nd eu-us dcll workshop, ucla, nov. 14 – 15, 2014...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2nd EU-US DCLL WorkshopIntroductory Remarks
2nd EU-US DCLL Workshop, UCLA, Nov. 14 – 15, 2014
• Welcome• Objectives• Collaboration Items• Science-Based Framework for FNST R&D
Mohamed Abdou
2
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 long-term 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.
3
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
4
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
5
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. CollaborationAreas 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.c. Do we focus on SiC or sandwich-type? d. Should all effort the next several years be focused only on low-temperature DCLL?e. When do we start development for high-temperature DCLL?f. What are the sequence of logical experiments to show that FCI is viable and practical in the fusion
nuclear environment?g. Are present computational methods sufficient to fully analyze FCI and gap flow?
6
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, andb) Measure progress
• UCLA-led studies identified a very meaningful Science-Based 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.
7
Science-Based Framework for FNST R&D
GoalDevelop Verified and Validated Predictive Capability with which we can design and predict behavior and performance of fusion nuclear components in DEMO
Science-Based Framework for Blanket/FW R&D involves modeling & experiments in non-fusion and
fusion facilities.
•Scientific Feasibility
•Performance Verification
Property Measurement
Phenomena Exploration
(non-neutron test stands, fission reactors and accelerator-based neutron sources)
Non-Fusion Facilities
•Concept Screening
Engineering Development & Reliability Growth
Testing in Fusion Facilities
Theory/Modeling
BasicSeparateEffects
Multiple Effect/Interactions
PartiallyIntegrated
Integrated
Design Codes/Data
Component
For each step, detailed performance parameters can be defined to quantify requirements of experiments and modeling and measure progress
8
It should be utilized to identify and prioritize R&D Tasks
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
Next 3-7 Years
Now
TBM in ITER & FNSF
in FNSF2 or more facilities will be needed, plus TBM in ITER/FNSF DD Phase
•Scientific Feasibility
•Performance Verification
Property Measurement
Phenomena Exploration
(non-neutron test stands, fission reactors and accelerator-based neutron sources)
Non-Fusion Facilities
•Concept Screening
Engineering Development & Reliability Growth
Testing in Fusion Facilities
9
Theory/Modeling
BasicSeparateEffects
Multiple Effect/Interactions
PartiallyIntegrated
Integrated
Design Codes/Data
Component
10
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) Multiple environmental loadings with steep gradients (n, B, volumetric nuclear
heating, surface heating, particle fluxes, mechanical and electric forces, vacuum, etc.)b) Interactions among materials interfaces/sub-elements/subcomponents
(coolant/structure, breeder/multiplier/He purge, etc.)• Uncovering such new phenomena and predicting synergistic effects and
quantifying behavior require:a) Upgrade of current facilities b) Construction of new facilities with multiple capabilities (for example, think of three
classes of facilities with cost in the range of $5M, $20M, $50M)c) 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
11
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
12
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
13
AGENDA – Friday, November 14
8:30-9:00 Continental breakfast
Session I: OPENING Chair: Angel Ibarra
9:00-9:10 5+5 Edward Stevens (remote participation) DOE Welcome
9:10-9:35 20+5 Mohamed Abdou Introduction to workshop
9:35-10:15 30+10 Gianfranco Federici EU DEMO project
10:15-10:45 25+5 Lorenzo Boccaccini EU blanket design and R&D for DEMO
10:45-11:00 15 Coffee break
Session II: DCLL 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 Lunch at Faculty Center
14:00-14:20 15+5 Siegfried Malang Maintenance schemes and related DCLL designs
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 Coffee break
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
AGENDA – Friday, November 14
15
AGENDA – Saturday, November 158:30-9:00 Continental breakfast
Session V: MHD Chair: Yutai Katoh
09:00-09:25 20+5 Elisabet Mas de les Valls(remote participation) Progress on PbLi MHD thermofluids in EU
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 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)
16
AGENDA – Saturday, November 15Discussion and Action Sessions
13:30-14:30 60 Discussion Session A. Chair: Angel Ibarra. Areas of common interest for EU-US 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?
15:30-16:30 60
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?
16:30-16:45 15 Angel Ibarra Workshop summary, EU16:45-17:00 15 Mohamed Abdou Workshop summary, US
17:00 Adjourn