TBM/MTM for HTS-FNSF: An Innovative Testing Strategy to Qualify/Validate Fusion Technologies for U.S. DEMO
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. MTM and Main Attributes
- GEN-I RAFMs (20 dpa/200 appm He). This would require the structure be replaced upon reaching 20 dpa after one FPY of HTS-FNSF operation;
- GEN-II RAFMs (50 dpa/500 appm He) needed to be deployed for the structure to survive~2.5 FPY of HTS-FNSF operation;
- ODS (NS) (65 dpa/650 appm He) needed to survive the entire 3.1 FPY of HTS-FNSF operation.
- New generations of structural steels, if not tested before the FNSF, including:
- ○
- GEN-II RAFMs designed for operation up to 650 °C
- ○
- RAFM variants with reduced susceptibility to radiation-induced DBTT shifts for operating temperatures < 385 °C
- ○
- Nanostructured ODS steels (12%–14% Cr) with enhanced radiation damage tolerance and high temperature capability
- Multi-material PbLi corrosion capsules
- SiC/SiC composites for advanced blanket designs
- Tungsten (W) alloys for divertor and stabilizing shells (W-TiC, W-La, W-K, W/W composites, Wolfram-Vacuum-Metalizing (WVM), etc.)
- Low-temperature and high-temperature magnet materials: superconductors, jackets, insulators, etc.
- New materials variants arising from:
- ○
- Continuing development of improved compositions/microstructures
- ○
- Application of advances in fabrication technologies (additive manufacturing, precision casting, joining technologies, etc.).
- Testing in fusion relevant neutron environment with the correct He to dpa ratio of 10, H to dpa ratio of ~40, transmutant production rates, and primary knock-on atom (PKA) parameters.
- Testing a range of specimen geometries (tubes, flat and curved plates, etc.).
- Testing larger sized mechanical property specimens, particularly pressurized creep tubes and fracture toughness specimens with a range of section thicknesses and crack geometries.
- Validation of data derived from highly miniaturized specimens irradiated in SNS/IFMIF/DONES/HFIR.
- Carrying a higher multiplicity of test specimens for improved statistical analyses.
- Conducting a critically important surveillance program to track materials performance using a range of specimen geometries to monitor radiation-induced changes in mechanical properties and dimensional stability of first wall, blanket and divertor plasma facing structural materials.
- Evaluation and testing of welded/bonded joints with various geometries.
- Irradiation testing of new material variants arising from continuing development of improved compositions and microstructures and from the application of advances in fabrication technologies (such as additive manufacturing, precision casting, alternative joining/bonding technologies, etc.).
- Providing radiation effects data in a pulsed neutron environment and comparing behavior of identical materials irradiated in steady state 14 MeV neutron sources.
3. TBM Testing Strategy, Configuration, and Deliverables
- In Stage-1, VER-I low-temperature DCLL blanket: with GEN-I RAFM structure (F82H or EUROFER) operating at 350–550 °C, maximum PbLi and He exit temperature of 450 °C, and maximum interface steel/PbLi temperature of 450 °C.
- In Stage-2, VER-II DCLL blanket first tested successfully in the TBM of Stage-1 and then installed in all sectors of Stage-2: DCLL blanket with GEN-I RAFM structure operating at 350–550 °C, PbLi inlet/outlet temperatures 460/645 °C, He inlet/outlet temperatures 380/470 °C, and maximum interface steel/PbLi temperature of 500 °C.
- In Stage-3, VER-III DCLL blanket first tested successfully in the TBM of Stage-2 and then installed in all sectors of Stage-3: DCLL blanket with GEN-II RAFM structure operating at 600 °C, PbLi exit temperature of 700–750 °C, He exit temperature of 500 °C, and maximum interface steel/PbLi temperature > 500 °C.
- In Stage-4, VER-IV DCLL blanket first tested successfully in the TBM of Stage-3 and then installed in all sectors of Stage-4: DCLL blanket with ODS (NS) structure operating at 700 °C, PbLi exit temperature of 750 °C, He exit temperature of 500 °C, and maximum interface steel/PbLi temperature > 500 °C.
- In Stage-5, VER-V DCLL blanket first tested successfully in the TBM of Stage-4 and then installed in all sectors of Stage-5: DCLL blanket with the more radiation resistant, corrosion-resistant ODS FeCrAl structure operating at >700 °C. An option for the TBM of Stage-5 is to test the more advanced SiC/PbLi blanket concept of ARIES-AT [31]. This self-cooled PbLi blanket with SiC/SiC composite structure operating at 1000 °C offers higher thermal conversion efficiency, exceeding 55%.
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Menard, J.E.; Bromberg, L.; Brown, T.; Burgess, T.; Dix, D.; El-Guebaly, L.; Gerrity, T.; Goldston, R.J.; Hawryluk, R.J.; Kastner, R.; et al. Prospects for pilot plants based on the tokamak, spherical tokamak, and stellarator. Nuclear Fusion 2011, 51, 103014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The ITER Project. Available online: http://www.iter.org/ (accessed on 1 August 2016).
- Federici, G.; Kemp, R.; Ward, D.; Bachmann, C.; Franke, T.; Gonzalez, S.; Lowry, C.; Gadomska, M.; Harman, J.; Meszaros, B.; et al. Overview of EU DEMO design and R&D activities. Fusion Eng. Design 2014, 89, 882–889. [Google Scholar]
- Yamada, H.; Kasada, R.; Ozaki, A.; Sakamoto, R.; Sakamoto, Y.; Takenaga, H.; Tanaka, T.; Tanigawa, H.; Okano, K.; Tobita, K.; et al. Japanese endeavors to establish technological bases for DEMO. Fusion Eng. Design. in press. Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092037961530418X (accessed on 5 August 2016).
- Kim, K.; Kim, H.C.; Oh, S.; Lee, Y.S.; Yeom, J.H.; Im, K.; Lee, G.-S.; Neilson, G.; Kessel, C.; Brown, T.; et al. A preliminary conceptual design study for Korean fusion DEMO reactor. Fusion Eng. Design 2013, 88, 488–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J. Overview of CFETR, 1st EU-CN DEMO Workshop, Garching, 19–22 January 2016. Available online: https://mail.cstnet.cn/coremail/viewDownloadFile.jsp?key=1U31SsvkjDEWTnGmSxjmfeUL3srL3Zt1Sn2LjyCCTyCWTnGmScGkTyCmfeUL3srL3Ztdan7ErWUAonECzcqpf9fE-VjJo90yo9FLwujXTWCyfu2LaV7L3ZtmjeIk-s71UUUUj72l39EtjqanVW8Ww1DZrWDKF4fCw4DyVuFdTnvCUZCmaUtsU18USUjgUnkU7DjBU88U2Dj0U83U4DjqUn5USJUuUnfUhDjjU88U77jLU0Dj-7z-UiMw&code=rwcn0753 (accessed on 14 April 2016).
- Menard, J.; Boyer, M.; Brown, T.; Canik, J.; Covelle, B.; D’Angelo, C.; Davis, A.; El-Guebaly, L.; Gerhardt, S.; Kaye, S.; et al. Configuration studies for an ST-based fusion nuclear science facility. In Proceedings of the 25th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia, 13–18 October 2014.
- Menard, J.; Brown, T.; El-Guebaly, L.; Boyer, M.; Canik, J.; Colling, B.; Raman, R.; Zhai, Y.; Buxton, P.; Covele, B.; et al. Fusion nuclear science facility and pilot plants based on the spherical tokamak. Nuclear Fusion 2016, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Stambaugh, R.D.; Chan, V.S.; Garofalo, A.M.; Sawan, M.; Humphreys, D.A.; Lao, L.L.; Leuer, J.A.; Petrie, T.W.; Prater, R.; Snyder, P.B.; et al. Fusion nuclear science facility candidates. Fusion Sci. Technol. 2011, 59, 279–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, Y.K.M.; Sontag, A.C.; Canik, J.M.; Diem, S.J.; Murakami, M.; Park, J.M.; Burgess, T.W.; Cole, M.J.; Katoh, Y.; Korsah, K.; et al. Fusion nuclear science facility (FNSF) before upgrade to component test facility (CTF). Fusion Sci. Technol. 2011, 60, 441–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kessel, C.; Blanchard, J.P.; Davis, A.; El-Guebaly, L.; Ghoniem, N.; Humrickhouse, P.W.; Malang, S.; Merrill, B.J.; Morley, N.B.; Neilson, G.H.; et al. The fusion nuclear science facility (FNSF), the critical step in the pathway to fusion energy. Fusion Sci. Technol. 2015, 68, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Guebaly, L.; Harb, M.; Davis, A.; Menard, J.; Brown, T. ST-based fusion nuclear science facility: Breeding issues and challenges of protecting HTS magnets. Fusion Sci. Technol. 2016, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Knaster, J.; Ibarra, A.; Abal, J.; Abou-Sena, A.; Arbeiter, F.; Arranz, F.; Arroyo, J.M.; Bargallo, E.; Beauvais, P.-Y.; Bernardi, D.; et al. The accomplishment of the engineering design activities of IFMIF/EVEDA: The European-Japanese project towards a Li(d,xn) fusion relevant neutron source. Nuclear Fusion 2015, 55, 086003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibarra, A.; Heidinger, R.; Barabaschi, P.; Mota, F.; Mosnier, A.; Cara, P.; Nitti, F.S. A stepped approach from IFMIF/EVEDA toward IFMIF. Fusion Sci. Technol. 2014, 66, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klueh, R.; Cheng, E.T.; Grossbeck, M.L.; Bloom, E.E. Impurity effects on reduced-activation ferritic steels developed for fusion applications. J. Nuclear Mater. 2000, 280, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The ORNL Spallation Neutron Source (SNS). Available online: https://neutrons.ornl.gov/sns (accessed on 1 August 2016).
- The ORNL High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR). Available online: http://neutrons.ornl.gov/facilities/HFIR/ (accessed on 1 August 2016).
- Zinkle, S.J.; Möslang, A.; Muroga, T.; Tanigawa, H. Multimodal options for materials research to advance the basis for fusion energy in the ITER era. Nuclear Fusion 2013, 53, 104024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stork, D.; Agostini, P.; Boutard, J.-L.; Buckthorpe, D.; Diegele, E.; Dudarev, S.L.; English, C.; Federici, G.; Gilbert, M.R.; Gonzalez, S.; et al. Materials R&D for a timely DEMO: Key findings and recommendations of the EU Roadmap assessment group. Fusion Eng. Design 2014, 89, 1586–1594. [Google Scholar]
- Odette, G.R.; Alinger, M.J.; Wirth, B.D. Recent developments in irradiation-resistant steels. Ann. Rev. Mats. Res. 2008, 38, 471–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odette, G.R.; Hoelzer, D.T. Irradiation-tolerant nanostructures ferritic alloys: Transforming Helium from a Liability to an Asset. J. Met. 2010, 63, 84–92. [Google Scholar]
- Pint, B.A.; Dryepondt, S.; Unocic, K.A.; Hoelzer, D.T. Development of ODS FeCrAl for compatibility in fusion and fission applications. JOM 2014, 66, 2458–2466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malang, S.; Tillack, M.; Wong, C.P.C.; Morley, N.; Smolentsev, S. Development of the lead lithium (DCLL) blanket concept. Fusion Sci. Technol. 2011, 60, 249–256. [Google Scholar]
- Aiello, G.; Aubert, J.; Jonquères, N.; Li Puma, A.; Morin, A.; Rampal, G. Development of helium cooled lithium lead blanket for DEMO. Fusion Eng. Design 2014, 89, 2129–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boccaccini, L.V. Objectives and status of EUROfusion DEMO blanket studies. Fusion Eng. Design 2016, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Guebaly, L.A.; Malang, S.; Waganer, L. In-vessel components and blanket development strategy for PPPL pilot plant. In University of Wisconsin Fusion Technology Institute Report; UWFDM-1405; 2011; Available online: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1405.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2016).
- El-Guebaly, L.; Mynsberge, L.; Menard, J.; Brown, T.; Malang, S.; Waganer, L. Nuclear aspects and blanket testing/development strategy for ST-FNSF. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 2014, 42, 1457–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giancarli, L.M.; Abdou, M.; Campbell, D.J.; Chuyanov, V.A.; Ahn, M.Y.; Enoeda, M.; Pan, C.; Poitevin, Y.; Rajendra Kumar, E.; Ricapito, I.; et al. Overview of ITER TBM program. Fusion Eng. Design 2012, 87, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharafat, S.; Aoyama, A.; Morley, N.; Smolentsev, S.; Katoh, Y.; Williams, B.; Ghoniem, N. Development status of an SiC-foam based flow channel insert for a U.S.-ITER DCLL TBM. Fusion Sci. Technol. 2009, 56, 883–891. [Google Scholar]
- Norajitra, P.; Basuki, W.W.; Gonzalez, M.; Rapisarda, D.; Rohde, M.; Spatafora, L. Development of sandwich flow channel inserts for an EU DEMO dual coolant blanket concept. Fusion Sci. Technol. 2015, 68, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raffray, A.R.; El-Guebaly, L.; Malang, S.; Sviatoslavsky, I.; Tillack, M.S.; Wang, X. Advanced power core system for the ARIES-AT power plant. Fusion Eng. Design 2007, 82, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Guebaly, L.A.; Malang, S. Need for online adjustment of tritium bred in blanket and implications for ARIES power plants. In University of Wisconsin Fusion Technology Institute Report; UWFDM-1372; 2009; Available online: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1372.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2016).
- Wong, C.P.C.; Abdou, M.; Dagher, M.; Katoh, Y.; Kurtz, R.J.; Malang, S.; Marriott, E.P.; Merrill, B.J.; Messadek, K.; Morley, N.B.; et al. An overview of the US DCLL ITER-TBM program. Fusion Eng. Design 2010, 85, 1129–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poitevin, Y.; Boccaccini, L.V.; Zmitko, M.; Ricapito, I.; Salavy, J.-F.; Diegele, E.; Gabriel, F.; Magnani, E.; Neuberger, H.; Lässer, R.; et al. Tritium breeder blankets design and technologies in Europe: Development status of ITER test blanket modules, test & qualification strategy and roadmap towards DEMO. Fusion Eng. Design 2010, 85, 2340–2347. [Google Scholar]
- Poitevin, Y.; Ricapito, I.; Zmitko, M.; Tavassoli, F.; Thomas, N.; De Dinechin, G.; Bucci, P.; Rey, J.; Ibarra, A.; Panayotov, D.; et al. Progresses and challenges in supporting activities toward a license to operate European TBM systems in ITER. Fusion Eng. Design 2014, 89, 1113–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricapito, I.; Calderoni, P.; Aiello, A.; Ghidersa, B.; Poitevin, Y.; Pacheco, J. Current design of the European TBM systems and implications on DEMO breeding blanket. Fusion Eng. Design 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calderoni, P.; Ricapito, I.; Zmitko, M.; Panayotov, D.; Vallory, J.; Leichtle, D.; Poitevin, Y. Options and methods for instrumentation of test blanket systems for experiment control and scientific mission. Fusion Eng. Design 2014, 89, 1126–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Irradiation Facilities | Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) | High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) | Spallation Neutron Source (SNS; Sample @ 3 cm) | IFMIF/DONES * (High Flux Test Module) |
---|---|---|---|---|
% of neutrons with E > 0.1 MeV | ~75% | ~ 24% | ~ 65% | 96% |
Reduced-activation ferritic/martensitic (RAFM) alloys | 10 | 0.3 (low) | 74 (high) | 13 |
Tungsten | 0.6 | 0.0008 (low) | --- | 4 (high) |
SiC | 95 | 1.7 (low) | 98 | 150 (high) |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
El-Guebaly, L.; Rowcliffe, A.; Menard, J.; Brown, T. TBM/MTM for HTS-FNSF: An Innovative Testing Strategy to Qualify/Validate Fusion Technologies for U.S. DEMO. Energies 2016, 9, 632. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9080632
El-Guebaly L, Rowcliffe A, Menard J, Brown T. TBM/MTM for HTS-FNSF: An Innovative Testing Strategy to Qualify/Validate Fusion Technologies for U.S. DEMO. Energies. 2016; 9(8):632. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9080632
Chicago/Turabian StyleEl-Guebaly, Laila, Arthur Rowcliffe, Jonathan Menard, and Thomas Brown. 2016. "TBM/MTM for HTS-FNSF: An Innovative Testing Strategy to Qualify/Validate Fusion Technologies for U.S. DEMO" Energies 9, no. 8: 632. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9080632