1 FIRE Engineering Summary Phil Heitzenroeder for the FIRE Engineering Team Presented to the FIRE Physics Validation Review Committee March 30, 2004.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Project Delivery Approaches for Wastewater Utilities in Minnesota June 24, 2008 Metropolitan Council Environment Committee.
Advertisements

ASIPP Zhongwei Wang for CFETR Design Team Japan-US Workshop on Fusion Power Plants and Related Advanced Technologies February 26-28, 2013 at Kyoto University.
Scoping Neutronics Analysis in Support of FDF Design Evolution Mohamed Sawan University of Wisconsin-Madison With input from R. Stambaugh, C. Wong, S.
1 In-Vessel Coil System Interim Design Review – July 2010 IVC Structural Design Criteria I. Zatz, P. Titus, M. Kalish Presented by P. Heitzenroeder.
Be/FS joining for ITER TBM Ryan Matthew Hunt FNST Meeting August 18, 2009 A collaboration between UCLA, SNL-Livermore, Brush-Wellman, Axsys Inc. and Bodycote.
Engineering Status Richard J. Thome for the National FIRE Design Team NSO PAC3 Meeting U. Of Wisconsin, Madison July 10-11, 2001.
MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center Fusion Technology & Engineering Division J.H. Schultz, P. Titus, J.V. Minervini M.I.T. Plasma Science and Fusion Center.
September 15-16, 2005/ARR 1 Status of ARIES-CS Power Core and Divertor Design and Structural Analysis A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego.
23 October 2005MICE Meeting at RAL1 MICE Tracker Magnets, 4 K Coolers, and Magnet Coupling during a Quench Michael A. Green Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
Tracker Solenoid Module Design Update Steve VirostekStephanie Yang Mike GreenWing Lau Lawrence Berkeley National LabOxford Physics MICE Collaboration Meeting.
June 14-15, 2007/ARR 1 Trade-Off Studies and Engineering Input to System Code Presented by A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego With contribution.
Page 1 of 14 Reflections on the energy mission and goals of a fusion test reactor ARIES Design Brainstorming Workshop April 2005 M. S. Tillack.
PURPOSE OF DFMEA (DESIGN FAILURE MODE EFFECTS ANALYSIS)
November 8-9, Blanket Design for Large Chamber A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from M. Sawan (UW), I. Sviatoslavsky (UW) and X. Wang (UCSD)
FAA Regulatory Policy for Composite Material Control Presented at 8/8/02 FAA/NASA Workshop (Chicago, IL) Introduction – Importance of stabilizing composite.
Overview of Advanced Design White Paper Farrokh Najmabadi Virtual Laboratory for Technology Meeting June 23, 1998 OFES Headquarters, Germantown.
A. Schwendt, A. Nobile, P. Gobby, W. Steckle Los Alamos National Laboratory D. T. Goodin, Neil Alexander, G. E. Besenbruch, K. R. Schultz General Atomics.
EMIS Chapter 6. EMIS Chapter 6 EMIS Chapter 6 Fig 6.2 shows where the SEMP fits into the earliest program stages. Fig 6.5 has an.
Stephen Milton Undulator System 20 April, 2006 LCLS Undulator System Update S. Milton, ANL FAC, April 20 th, 2006.
Stellarator magnets L. Bromberg J.H. Schultz MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center ARIES meeting March 8-9, 2004.
Question 27: Outline the key steps for industrialization of machine components and the likely remaining vulnerabilities in achieving them. Achieving industrialization.
Introduction to ISO New and modified requirements.
MCTF Michael Lamm MUTAC 5-Year Plan Review 22 August Magnet R&D for Muon Accelerator R&D Program Goals Proposed Studies Preliminary Effort and Cost.
ASIPP EAST Overview Of The EAST In Vessel Components Upgraded Presented by Damao Yao.
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research Further optimization of the solenoid design A.Efremov, E.Koshurnikov, Yu.Lobanov, A.Makarov, A.Vodopianov GSI, Darmstadt,
SC Project Review of NCSX, April 8-10, 2008 NSCX Poloidal Field Coils Michael Kalish.
API 6HP Process1 API 6HP Example Analysis Project API E&P Standards Conference Applications of Standards Research, 24 June 2008.
Dec 12-14, 2005TBM Planning and Costing Meeting DCLL R&D Evaluations Summary Compiled by Neil Morley for the TBM Planning and Costing Meeting Dec 12-14,
Page 1 of 11 An approach for the analysis of R&D needs and facilities for fusion energy ARIES “Next Step” Planning Meeting 3 April 2007 M. S. Tillack ?
AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc FIRE Collaboration FIRE.
ARIES AT Project Meeting - Princeton, NJ 18 Sept 00 1 ARIES-AT Toroidal Field (TF) and Poloidal Field (PF) Coils Tom Brown, Fred Dahlgren, Phil Heitzenroeder.
AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc FIRE Collaboration FIRE.
Review of PANDA Magnet Designs Reviewers A. Dael, D. Tommasini, and A. Yamamoto Held at GSI, th April, 2007.
M. Ross, N. Walker, A. Yamamoto ILC Cost Review, (updated for TB) and Cost Drivers  Future R & D ILC Cost Review (M. Ross,
J1879 Robustness Validation Hand Book A Joint SAE, ZVEI, JSAE, AEC Automotive Electronics Robustness Validation Plan The current qualification and verification.
Reproduction interdite © ALMA EUROPEAN CONSORTIUM Reproduction forbidden Design, Manufacture, Transport and Integration in Chile of ALMA Antennas Page.
Main Requirements on Different Stages of the Licensing Process for New Nuclear Facilities Module 4.5/1 Design Geoff Vaughan University of Central Lancashire,
A Review of NCSX Conventional Coil Insulation Stresses Presented by Leonard Myatt.
Systems Code – Hardwired Numbers for Review C. Kessel, PPPL ARIES Project Meeting, July 29-30, 2010.
Progress to Date PPPL Advisory Board Meeting May 20101NSTX Upgrade – R. L. Strykowsky CD-0 Approved February 2009 The NSTX Upgrade Project organization.
NCSX NCSX TF Coil Procurement 1 February 3, 2006 Michael Kalish NCSX TF Coil Procurement.
1 Tim Michalski October 6, 2015 Engineering Issues in MEIC.
Conceptual Design Requirements for FIRE John A. Schmidt FIRE PVR March 31, 2004.
ITER In-Vessel Coils (IVC) Interim Design Review Thermal Structural FEA of Feeders A Brooks July 27, 2010 July 26-28, 20101ITER_D_353BL2.
NCSX VACUUM VESSEL HEATING/COOLING PL Goranson Preliminary Results February 17, 2006 MDL Testing of Coolant Tracing NCSX.
Subscale quadrupole (SQ) series Paolo Ferracin LARP DoE Review FNAL June 12-14, 2006.
NSTX TF Flag Joint Torque Collar Chit Review C Neumeyer 9/11/3.
Project X RD&D Plan Beam Transfer Line and Recycler Injection David Johnson AAC Meeting February 3, 2009.
Systems Analysis Development for ARIES Next Step C. E. Kessel 1, Z. Dragojlovic 2, and R. Raffrey 2 1 Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 2 University.
NCSX B. Nelson for the NCSX Engineering Team NCSX modular coil cooling workshop June 10-11, 2004 PPPL NCSX Modular Coil Cooling Requirements and Initial.
FIRE Engineering John A. Schmidt NSO PAC Meeting February 27, 2003.
SC Project Review of NCSX, April 8-10, 2008 NCSX Cryogenics Systems WBS-62 Steve Raftopoulos NCSX Cryogenic Systems WBS(62) Manager.
HL-LHC Crab Cavity Review Debriefing Comments from LARP June 30, 2014.
SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 SCU Presentations Today Intro. & Performance Motivations (P. Emma, SLAC, 20+5) Conceptual Cryostat Design: Option-A.
Upgrade PO M. Tyndel, MIWG Review plans p1 Nov 1 st, CERN Module integration Review – Decision process  Information will be gathered for each concept.
NCSX NCSX TF Coil Conductor FDR 5/17/05 1 Michael Kalish NCSX TF Conductor.
ILC 2007 Global Design Effort 1 Planning Damping Rings Activities in the Engineering Design Phase Andy Wolski Cockcroft Institute/University of Liverpool.
R2E Mitigation Project Status Report 2 nd R2E Committee Meeting R2E Project Report.
Associazione EURATOM ENEA sulla FUSIONE Monitoring Meeting of the Tasks TW5-TSW-001, 001B, June 2006, SCKCEN, Mol, Belgium Monitoring Meeting.
New Design Concepts for Aeronautical Applications by Friction Stir Welding Sergio M. O. Tavares Engineering Design and Advanced Manufacturing focus area.
SC Project Review of NCSX, April 8-10, 2008 C. A. Gentile NCSX Startup (WBS 85) C.A.Gentile NCSX CD-4 Startup.
JLAB MEETING FDR – April 23-24th 2013
Preparation of activation experiments for ITER material characterization and data validation in the Deuterium–Tritium JET campaign T. Vasilopoulou &
Beam Dump outline work plan (UK perspective)
Trade-Off Studies and Engineering Input to System Code
MRL 6 Artifacts (at End of TMRR) Page 1 of 6
J1879 Robustness Validation Hand Book A Joint SAE, ZVEI, JSAE, AEC Automotive Electronics Robustness Validation Plan Robustness Diagram Trends and Challenges.
EMIS 7307 Chapter 6.
Peter McIntyre Visit Overview Slides
Crab Crossing Named #1 common technical risk (p. 6 of the report)
Presentation transcript:

1 FIRE Engineering Summary Phil Heitzenroeder for the FIRE Engineering Team Presented to the FIRE Physics Validation Review Committee March 30, 2004

2 Outline FIRE and its Status Engineering Evaluations of Coil Systems * R&D Plans for the Coil Systems * Costs Summary * This talk concentrates on the coil systems since the other key engineering systems are covered in presentations by B. Nelson and M. Ulrickson.

3 Status The FIRE study began in late All major systems addressed. Preliminary cost estimates indicate a “green field” cost of $1.19B. Engineering Peer Reviews were held in June‘01. Included: –TF and PF coils –Vacuum Vessel and PFCs –Fueling and Pumping –Nuclear effects and Activation –Cryoplant –Facilities and Siting Focused set of parameters were adopted; R&D plans have been outlined. Participated in and received good feedback from SNOWMASS. –Many of these inputs are now reflected in the design and the FIRE Engineering Report Update Work so far indicates all major systems can be designed to meet or exceed requirements.

4 FIRE Engineering Review Critical Issues (June 2001) CRITICAL DESIGN ISSUES: 1. FOCUS in an expeditious manner on 2 Designs along the Q = 10 “zone,” (not the “Baseline” design) that indicate, at the Pre-Conceptual Design level, an Engineering Margin value in the range of 1.2 to 1.3. (Done)This level of margin should also apply to the insulation schemes. (Agreed) 2. Then FOCUS, in an expeditious manner on one device, either Wedged or Bucked/Wedged (to be selected by the design team.) Done, Wedged 10T chosen 3. Incorporated in the focusing effort should also be the immediate design attention to the details of leads, both TF and CS, associated cooling fittings and design of all other critical systems that are lacking detail at the Pre-Conceptual level - (Not done, limited resources used to address more global issues - I.e.,rep rate)- See the material below and the associated attached chits. (about 1/3 of the chits have been addressed await resources for more detailed items.) CRITICAL R&D ISSUES: 1. The qualification of the properties, through R&D of the TF coil Materials (OFHC for the Bucked/Wedged and BeCu for the Wedged device) in sizes and thickness that are representative of those required for fabrication. (Agreed, also Elbrudor for PF, will pursue if CD-0) 2. For either device, the qualification, through R&D, of materials, that are available today, for the insulation systems. (Agreed, 4 Small Business Innovative Research grants awarded by DOE for insulation development in support of FIRE/fusion needs.)

5 Modular Tungsten Brush Divertors Double Walled VV with Integral Shielding. LN 2 Cooled wedged Cu TF Coils LN 2 Cooled Segmented Central Solenoid Key Components of FIRE LN2 Cooled Copper PF Coils

6 Engineering Status of the TF Coil Stress and fatigue evaluations are performed in accordance with the FIRE Structural Design Criteria. Structural stress allowable exceeds requirements: –Calculated max. membrane + bending stress: 611 MPa. –M+B allowable for C17510 BeCu: 724 MPa. Shear allowable exceeds requirements: Shear required : 50 MPa. Shear Developed: 60 MPa. (200 MPa compression;  =0.3) Fatigue life exceeds requirements: –requirement: 3,000 full power shots (H-Mode) + 30,000 half power shots (L-Mode). –Evaluation indicates 5,000 full power shots; half power shots far exceed requirements. Pulse Duration meets requirements: >20s flat-top Structural model showing out of plane displacements

7 Engineering Status of the Central Solenoid and PF Coils Structural stress allowable exceeds requirements: –1.5 Sm Allowable for Elbrodur at that temperature =541; Highest Max. VonMises stress is 414 MPa. at EOB for CS2 coils. Max. Temperature (at EOC) of 188 K. Is well within temp. limit of 373 K.  Fatigue: more work required. –The FIRE design criteria requires a Factor of Safety (FS) of 20 on the number of cycles –The CS-2 coil does not meet this requirement for H-mode operation; its FS is 15. CS 3 CS 2 CS 1 PF 1 PF 2 Figure 6. Central Solenoid / TF Interface

8 Meeting FIRE’s Operating Pulse Requirements As noted in the previous slide, the CS-2 coil falls short of the 20 X life “ASME-Like” fatigue, based on currently available fatigue information on Elbrodur. Possible remedies: –Work with the copper suppliers to develop Elbrodur with improved fatigue properties and more extensive testing of existing materials. –Use a strip-wound copper design for all CS and PF coils. It is expected that metallurgical flaws will be smaller. inspection for flaws will be easier with strip compared to plate. –Use a fracture based fatigue analysis rather than traditional fatigue analysis. This requires quantification of flaw size, but requirements for multiples of life are reduced to 4. Requires investigation to see if, with expected flaw size, this is a net win. Other possibilities: –Carefully review the required operating pulse spectrum required for FIREs mission. We may find that the current fatigue life is acceptable. –Another option might be to use the “aircraft approach” – i.e., design the engine (central solenoid) to be readily replaced while still within its safe operating lifetime.

9 Coil R&D Highlights FIRE’s magnet systems have relatively modest R&D needs: –Cryo cooled copper design. –Much data to draw upon from CIT/BPX; IGNITOR; ALCATOR C-Mod. R&D Focus: –Filling gaps in data bases of materials (Elbrodur; insulators) –R&D which may permit higher performance (refined design criteria; optimized materials; improved inspection techniques) –Cost reduction (manufacturing process development; materials selection) –Risk mitigation (component testing; prototypes).

10 TF Copper: BeCu Plate Developed for BPX Should Meet FIRE’s Needs. The C17510 BeCu plate shown was produced for BPX by Brush-Wellman. Properties and size are very similar to those required for FIRE. Brush-Wellman requires modest R&D to establish production details.

11 Copper Joining R&D C17510 BeCu C10200 OFHC R&D is planned to develop friction stir or e-beam welding for joining the TF copper segments. R&D is also planned for electroform welding for possible use in the PF coils.

12 PF Coil Conductor R&D The CS and ring coils all use “Elbrodur” CuCrZr copper. R&D will focus on: –Processing to optimize fatigue properties. –Inspection techniques to reliably measure flaw sizes. –Characterization of physical properties for the Elbrodur conductor in the sizes and forms FIRE plans to use.

13 Radiation Resistant Insulating Materials R&D Requirements: FIRE plans 3,000 full power D-T shots producing 5 TJ of neutrons + 30,000 half power D-D shots producing 0.5 TJ of neutrons. End of life peak insulation dose: 1.05 x rads. BPX insulation would meet this requirement This is a high leverage area since it has the potential of permitting a greater number of D-T shots. It has a strong bearing on reliability and risk mitigation. Plans: Collaborate with several existing SBIR’s which are underway to develop high radiation resistant insulating materials with good processing characteristics. Characterize and life test the friction characteristics of insulating materials required between the CS coils and in the TF coils.

14 Costs

15 Summary The FIRE study has addressed all major systems. Results have been encouraging – no “show stoppers” in technical or cost areas. An Engineering Peer Review was held in –FIRE adopted a focused set of parameters in FY 01, as recommended. –The other detailed recommendations have been addressed. –Favorable comments about depth of analysis, considering we are in Pre- Conceptual design phase. R&D plans have been developed. –FIRE’s Cryo cooled Cu design has modest R&D requirements; lots of data to draw upon. –R&D will focus on areas which will reduce uncertainties and costs and can improve performance. FIRE participated in and received much feedback from SNOWMASS in ’02. Much of this has been factored into FIRE’s design and plans. Preliminary cost estimate is $1.19 B. If a site with modest credits is identified, the $1B cost goal can most likely be achieved.