- Email: [email protected]
Supporting analysis of the ITER TBM Frame and Dummy TBM designs
Fusion Engineering and Design 146 (2019) 1052–1055
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Fusion Engineering and Design journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fusengdes
Supporting analysis of the ITER TBM Frame and Dummy TBM designs a
b
b
a
a,⁎
T
Claudio Bertolini , Luciano M. Giancarli , Byoung-Yoon Kim , Flavio Lucca , Davide Lumassi , Fabio Viganòa a b
LTCalcoli, Via Bergamo 60, 23807 Merate, Italy ITER Organization, Route de Vinon sur Verdon, CS 90 046, 13067 Saint Paul Lez Durance, France
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: ITER Test blanket module port plug Finite element Electromagnetic Structural analysis
The validation and testing of tritium breeding blankets concepts, which are relevant for a future commercial reactor, is one of the goals of the ITER project. To achieve these objectives, mock-ups of breeding blankets, called Test Blanket Modules (TBMs), are tested in three ITER equatorial ports. Each TBM and its associated shield form a TBM-Set that is mechanically attached to a steel Frame. A Frame and two TBM-Sets form a TBM port plug (TBM PP). In case a TBM-Set is not available, it can be replaced by a Dummy TBM, steel made only. Both the design and manufacture of TBM Frames and Dummy TBMs are fully under the responsibility of the ITER organization. This paper describes the summary of recent analysis activities to support the design of the TBM Frame and Dummy TBM, which is presently in the preliminary design phase.
1. Introduction ITER is a large-scale scientific experiment that aims to demonstrate the scientific and engineering feasibility of a thermo-nuclear fusion reactor. During its operational lifetime, ITER will test key technologies necessary for the next step: the demonstration fusion power plant that will prove that it is possible to capture fusion energy for commercial use. One of the main engineering performance goals of ITER is to test and validate design concepts of tritium breeding blankets relevant to a fusion power reactor. To accomplish these goals, three ITER equatorial ports are dedicated to the irradiation of breeding blanket mock-ups called test blanket modules (TBMs) [1]. Two TBM sets are mechanically attached to the external Frame and form a whole TBM port plug (TBM PP) [2]. This paper presents the numerical analyses to support the preliminary design of TBM PP with two Dummy TBMs, as follows.
• Description of the main features of the preliminary design for TBM • • ⁎
PP with two Dummy TBMs including interfaces, remote handling compatibility and materials choices. A refined evaluation through full 3D models of the heat transfer coefficient (HTC) and pressure drop of water cooling system of TBM Frame and Dummy TBM; alternative cooling circuits studied, with the aim of minimizing thermal stress and pressure drop. Electro-magnetic (EM) analyses on the most recent design of TBMSets and a TBM PP with two Dummy TBMs under cat. II, III and IV
• •
disruptions and the evaluation of the impact of the changes from Conceptual Design Review (CDR) configuration on EM loads on Dummy TBMs Detailed thermo-mechanical analyses and structural integrity assessments of TBM Frame and Dummy TBM carried out as per RCCMR 2007 [4]. Proposal of design improvement from the outcomes of the above analyses, to be possibly included in the Final Design Review (FDR) configuration.
2. Main design features Overall the TBM PP consists of a TBM Frame and two TBM-Sets (each replaceable with a Dummy TBM) as shown in Fig. 1. The Frame provides a standardized interface with the vacuum vessel (VV)/port structure and provides thermal insulation from the shield blanket. As all plasma-facing components, it shall withstand heat loads coming from the plasma while at the same time it will have to provide adequate neutron shielding for the VV and magnet coils, close to Frame. To ensure the vacuum tightness between TBM Frame and Dummy TBMs, double metallic gasket sealing is used. The Frame design shall provide a stable engineering solution to hold TBM-Sets and provide a mean for rapid remote handling replacement and refurbishment. The materials used for the main components are shown in Table 1.
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Lumassi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2019.01.156 Received 8 October 2018; Received in revised form 31 January 2019; Accepted 31 January 2019 Available online 21 February 2019 0920-3796/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Fusion Engineering and Design 146 (2019) 1052–1055
C. Bertolini, et al.
Fig. 1. TBM TBM PP structure with a TBM Frame and two Dummy TBMs (left) and its cooling layout (right).
Fig. 2. EM Model of TBM PP with Dummy TBM.
4.2. EM analysis with TBM-Sets
Table 1 Materials of TBM PP components. Component
Material/Grade
TBM Frame Dummy TBM M27 Bolts Inserts Metallic Gasket
Steel 316L(N)-IG Steel 316L(N)-IG Inconel 718 Steel Grade 660 Helicoflex
Three EM models were created including different cases of TBMSets: Case A: HCPB TBM-Set and HCLL TBM-Set; Case B: HCCB TBM-Set and LLCB TBM-Set; Case C: HCCR TBM-Set and WCCB TBM-Set TBM-Sets are made mainly with SS316L(N)-IG with an important content of ferromagnetic material. This ferromagnetic nature induces the additional Maxwell EM load. Therefore simultaneous evaluation of the Lorentz and Maxwell forces have to be done for TBM-Sets and more complicated numerical techniques for the EM analyses and their postprocessing are needed. As a matter of fact, these loads, beyond including a part due to the interaction between the eddy currents and the Tokamak magnetic fields, they will include also a part (normally referred to as “Maxwell” force or torque) due to the interaction between their magnetization and the same Tokamak magnetic fields. EM analysis for TBM-Sets (Case A) was done under MD-I, MD-II and MD-IV and results showed the most demanding disruption is MD-II similarly like case with Dummy TBMs. Therefore the EM analysis for MDII was performed for case B and C. The EM analysis results are summarized as shown in Fig. 4. These comparison shows that EM loads with TBM-Sets are higher than Dummy TBM due to ferromagnetic nature.
3. CFD and hydraulic 3D analysis With respect to the preliminary design, an improved cooling system has been designed as shown in Fig. 1. The thermal-hydraulic behavior of the TBM PP cooling system has been first analyzed with a dedicated 3D CFD global model with ANSYS Fluent, to compute mass flow, pressure drop and HTC according to experimental correlation (SiderTate). Subsequently, to accurately evaluate HTC in the critical parts of the TBM Frame and Dummy TBM structures, also local models have been set up. For these areas, HTC have been directly evaluated by FE analysis, without empirical correlation, solving also energy equations. Area averaged results are in line with results obtained from previous 2D model [2]. Moreover, this is approach is a usual practice in the fusion technology research field, as per ref. [3]. The inlet temperature of cooling water is 70 °C, and the increasing of temperature was evaluated to be of 56 °C.
5. Thermo-structural analysis The structural finite element (FE) model of TBM PP with Dummy TBMs was built using 3D Hexahedral and Tetrahedral linear elements as shown in Fig. 5, and total numbers of nodes and elements were 729,407 and 1,878,214, respectively. The material properties used in the analysis were taken from SDC-IC Appendix A [5]. The gasket stiffness characterization was implemented with the ABAQUS gasket elements defined with bilinear stiffness-displacement curve. For thermal loading of normal operation, following loads have been applied:
4. EM analysis The Dummy TBMs and the TBM-Sets are at different stages of development: the first one is under optimizations, while the second ones are in preliminary study phase. EM analyses were performed on both. EM loads computed element by element on Dummy TBMs and Frame were used for the structural assessment of this configuration; for the TBM-Sets, only the overall resultant force and moments were computed, for a preliminary dimensioning.
• Radiation heat flux of 0.3 MW/m acting on the plasma facing surface as the front surfaces of TBM PP. HTC • coming from hydraulics analysis. • Nuclear heating data coming from neutronic analysis. 2
4.1. EM analysis with dummy TBMs
Previous thermal loads for normal operation condition have been applied with 400 s at full power flat top and 1400s at zero power, with a ramp-up of 60 s and a ramp-down of 200 s. For the structural analysis, following loads have been considered:
The EM model has been developed including all the conducting structures that could have a significant effect on the EM loads of TBM PP with neighboring blankets, VV, VV ports (Fig. 2). Three major disruption (MD) scenarios were considered for the EM analysis, that is MD I, MD II, and MD IV (slow-fast). In all three disruptions, the radial force and moment components are the main EM loads of TBM PP, TBM Frame and Dummy TBMs, as summarized in Fig. 3. It shows that MD II is the most demanding disruption event and, consequently it has been considered for the first structural assessment.
• Bolt pretension of 80.0 kN for each M27 Dummy TBMs bolt. • Dead Weight • During normal operation, a pressure of 4 MPa due to inlet water was considered. • Seismic load SL-1 with a radial acceleration 1.3821 m/s , vertical 2
2
acceleration 7.14 m/s and toroidal acceleration 0.6426 m/s2.
1053
Fusion Engineering and Design 146 (2019) 1052–1055
C. Bertolini, et al.
Fig. 3. EM forces (left) and moments (right) for Dummy TBMs, TBM Frame and TBM PP.
Fig. 4. Summary of the maximum moments (kNm) on Dummy and TBM-Set.
Fig. 6. TBM PP Temperature (Flat top end) [°C].
• Total displacements are shown in Fig. 7. This include also radial Fig. 5. Structural FE model of TBM PP with VV Port.
• EM Loads: MD (major disruption)-II.
•
The assessment has been performed considering the normal operational condition (bolt pre-tension + gravity + cooling water pressure 4.0 MPa + full power flat top end temperature distribution) and abnormal condition (category III event: normal operation + seismic load (SL-1) + EM load (MD-II)). All the mechanical assessments are performed according to RCC-MR 2007 [4]. Based on thermal and structural analysis results, conclusions as follow are drawn.
• •
• Dummy TBMs and TBM Frame show 328 °C and 425 °C of peak temperature at the end of flat top phase, respectively. They are within the limit (450 °C) under which creep effects can be neglected for the 316L(N)-IG stainless steel as shown in Fig. 6.
• 1054
displacement contribute. Only toroidal and vertical displacement take part to the evaluation of the clearance There is no clash between Dummy TBMs and TBM Frame. In particular, nominal clearance in plasma facing area is equal to 9.0 mm. The maximum reduction of the clearance is 1.2 mm. Minimum metallic gasket compression at first assembly installation is equal to 704 N/mm, and satisfies the requirement to obtain in the whole metallic gaskets compression everywhere higher than 690 N/ mm (Fig. 8). Maximum in-plane displacements of the metallic gasket is 0.156 mm in toroidal direction and 0.155 mm in vertical direction, always lower than the target of 0.2 mm. Maximum opening of the metallic gasket is equal to 0.0042 mm. Table 2 shows Minimum Safety Margin for Dummy TBM Bolts, Inserts and Threaded Holes, as per RCC-MR 2007 [4]. These are higher than 1, thereby requirement is always met. Dummy TBM and TBM Frame show a min S-Type Ratcheting Safety Margin respectively equal to 2.62 and 1.00. S-Type Ratcheting assessment is met. Both Dummy TBM and TBM Frame shows a min Safety Margin for PType lower than 1 and equal to 0.98 and 0.34. P-Type assessment is
Fusion Engineering and Design 146 (2019) 1052–1055
C. Bertolini, et al.
Fig. 9. Von Mises Stress of Dummy TBM [Pa].
Fig. 7. TBM PP Displacement (NO + Seismic + MD-II) [m].
Fig. 10. Von Mises Stress of TBM Frame [Pa].
TBM and bolted assembly. The identified issues will be listed mainly in the plasma facing area (fatigue and ratchetting assessment) and they will be addressed in the next design activity, as follows.
• Design improvement of plasma-facing areas water tank for cooling
Fig. 8. Metallic gaskets compression [Pa].
•
Table 2 Bolts and Inserts Safety Margins.
route junction and cooling channel behind plasma-facing surface including ribbed cover for TBM Frame or Dummy TBM. Castellation improvement with local model for plasma-facing areas for TBM Frame and Dummy TBM.
Component
Bolt M27
Insert M45
Frame Threaded Holes
Acknowledgments
Safety Margin
1.09
1.15
1.69
The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the ITER Organization.
•
References
not met. Some of the affected areas are highlighted in Figs. 9 and 10. Both Dummy TBM and TBM Frame shows a min S-Type Fatigue Usage Fraction higher than 1 and equal to 12.43 and 14.02. S-Type Fatigue assessment is not met.
[1] L.M. Giancarli, et al., Overview of the ITER TBM program, Fusion Eng. Des. 87 (2012) 395–402. [2] Byoung Yoon Kim, et al., Status of ITER TBM port plug conceptual design and analyses, Fusion Eng. Des. 89 (2014) 1969–1974. [3] P.A. Di Maio, et al., On the thermo-mechanical behaviour of DEMO water-cooled lithium lead equatorial outboard blanket module, Fus. Eng. Des. 124 (2017) 725–729. [4] RCC-MR 2007 AFCEN Edition, Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of Nuclear Installations, SECTION 1 - SUBSECTION B: CLASS 1 COMPONENTS (2019). [5] SDC-IC Appendix A, Materials Design Limit Data.
6. Summary and design improvements In this paper, main preliminary design features of TBM PP were described including overall shape and cooling paths, materials. As well, main results of TBM PP analysis were summarized to assess EM loads, hydraulic performances, nuclear shielding, surface heat flux and nuclear heating and structural integrity of TBM Frame and Dummy
1055
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Fusion Engineering and Design journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fusengdes
Supporting analysis of the ITER TBM Frame and Dummy TBM designs a
b
b
a
a,⁎
T
Claudio Bertolini , Luciano M. Giancarli , Byoung-Yoon Kim , Flavio Lucca , Davide Lumassi , Fabio Viganòa a b
LTCalcoli, Via Bergamo 60, 23807 Merate, Italy ITER Organization, Route de Vinon sur Verdon, CS 90 046, 13067 Saint Paul Lez Durance, France
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: ITER Test blanket module port plug Finite element Electromagnetic Structural analysis
The validation and testing of tritium breeding blankets concepts, which are relevant for a future commercial reactor, is one of the goals of the ITER project. To achieve these objectives, mock-ups of breeding blankets, called Test Blanket Modules (TBMs), are tested in three ITER equatorial ports. Each TBM and its associated shield form a TBM-Set that is mechanically attached to a steel Frame. A Frame and two TBM-Sets form a TBM port plug (TBM PP). In case a TBM-Set is not available, it can be replaced by a Dummy TBM, steel made only. Both the design and manufacture of TBM Frames and Dummy TBMs are fully under the responsibility of the ITER organization. This paper describes the summary of recent analysis activities to support the design of the TBM Frame and Dummy TBM, which is presently in the preliminary design phase.
1. Introduction ITER is a large-scale scientific experiment that aims to demonstrate the scientific and engineering feasibility of a thermo-nuclear fusion reactor. During its operational lifetime, ITER will test key technologies necessary for the next step: the demonstration fusion power plant that will prove that it is possible to capture fusion energy for commercial use. One of the main engineering performance goals of ITER is to test and validate design concepts of tritium breeding blankets relevant to a fusion power reactor. To accomplish these goals, three ITER equatorial ports are dedicated to the irradiation of breeding blanket mock-ups called test blanket modules (TBMs) [1]. Two TBM sets are mechanically attached to the external Frame and form a whole TBM port plug (TBM PP) [2]. This paper presents the numerical analyses to support the preliminary design of TBM PP with two Dummy TBMs, as follows.
• Description of the main features of the preliminary design for TBM • • ⁎
PP with two Dummy TBMs including interfaces, remote handling compatibility and materials choices. A refined evaluation through full 3D models of the heat transfer coefficient (HTC) and pressure drop of water cooling system of TBM Frame and Dummy TBM; alternative cooling circuits studied, with the aim of minimizing thermal stress and pressure drop. Electro-magnetic (EM) analyses on the most recent design of TBMSets and a TBM PP with two Dummy TBMs under cat. II, III and IV
• •
disruptions and the evaluation of the impact of the changes from Conceptual Design Review (CDR) configuration on EM loads on Dummy TBMs Detailed thermo-mechanical analyses and structural integrity assessments of TBM Frame and Dummy TBM carried out as per RCCMR 2007 [4]. Proposal of design improvement from the outcomes of the above analyses, to be possibly included in the Final Design Review (FDR) configuration.
2. Main design features Overall the TBM PP consists of a TBM Frame and two TBM-Sets (each replaceable with a Dummy TBM) as shown in Fig. 1. The Frame provides a standardized interface with the vacuum vessel (VV)/port structure and provides thermal insulation from the shield blanket. As all plasma-facing components, it shall withstand heat loads coming from the plasma while at the same time it will have to provide adequate neutron shielding for the VV and magnet coils, close to Frame. To ensure the vacuum tightness between TBM Frame and Dummy TBMs, double metallic gasket sealing is used. The Frame design shall provide a stable engineering solution to hold TBM-Sets and provide a mean for rapid remote handling replacement and refurbishment. The materials used for the main components are shown in Table 1.
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Lumassi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2019.01.156 Received 8 October 2018; Received in revised form 31 January 2019; Accepted 31 January 2019 Available online 21 February 2019 0920-3796/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Fusion Engineering and Design 146 (2019) 1052–1055
C. Bertolini, et al.
Fig. 1. TBM TBM PP structure with a TBM Frame and two Dummy TBMs (left) and its cooling layout (right).
Fig. 2. EM Model of TBM PP with Dummy TBM.
4.2. EM analysis with TBM-Sets
Table 1 Materials of TBM PP components. Component
Material/Grade
TBM Frame Dummy TBM M27 Bolts Inserts Metallic Gasket
Steel 316L(N)-IG Steel 316L(N)-IG Inconel 718 Steel Grade 660 Helicoflex
Three EM models were created including different cases of TBMSets: Case A: HCPB TBM-Set and HCLL TBM-Set; Case B: HCCB TBM-Set and LLCB TBM-Set; Case C: HCCR TBM-Set and WCCB TBM-Set TBM-Sets are made mainly with SS316L(N)-IG with an important content of ferromagnetic material. This ferromagnetic nature induces the additional Maxwell EM load. Therefore simultaneous evaluation of the Lorentz and Maxwell forces have to be done for TBM-Sets and more complicated numerical techniques for the EM analyses and their postprocessing are needed. As a matter of fact, these loads, beyond including a part due to the interaction between the eddy currents and the Tokamak magnetic fields, they will include also a part (normally referred to as “Maxwell” force or torque) due to the interaction between their magnetization and the same Tokamak magnetic fields. EM analysis for TBM-Sets (Case A) was done under MD-I, MD-II and MD-IV and results showed the most demanding disruption is MD-II similarly like case with Dummy TBMs. Therefore the EM analysis for MDII was performed for case B and C. The EM analysis results are summarized as shown in Fig. 4. These comparison shows that EM loads with TBM-Sets are higher than Dummy TBM due to ferromagnetic nature.
3. CFD and hydraulic 3D analysis With respect to the preliminary design, an improved cooling system has been designed as shown in Fig. 1. The thermal-hydraulic behavior of the TBM PP cooling system has been first analyzed with a dedicated 3D CFD global model with ANSYS Fluent, to compute mass flow, pressure drop and HTC according to experimental correlation (SiderTate). Subsequently, to accurately evaluate HTC in the critical parts of the TBM Frame and Dummy TBM structures, also local models have been set up. For these areas, HTC have been directly evaluated by FE analysis, without empirical correlation, solving also energy equations. Area averaged results are in line with results obtained from previous 2D model [2]. Moreover, this is approach is a usual practice in the fusion technology research field, as per ref. [3]. The inlet temperature of cooling water is 70 °C, and the increasing of temperature was evaluated to be of 56 °C.
5. Thermo-structural analysis The structural finite element (FE) model of TBM PP with Dummy TBMs was built using 3D Hexahedral and Tetrahedral linear elements as shown in Fig. 5, and total numbers of nodes and elements were 729,407 and 1,878,214, respectively. The material properties used in the analysis were taken from SDC-IC Appendix A [5]. The gasket stiffness characterization was implemented with the ABAQUS gasket elements defined with bilinear stiffness-displacement curve. For thermal loading of normal operation, following loads have been applied:
4. EM analysis The Dummy TBMs and the TBM-Sets are at different stages of development: the first one is under optimizations, while the second ones are in preliminary study phase. EM analyses were performed on both. EM loads computed element by element on Dummy TBMs and Frame were used for the structural assessment of this configuration; for the TBM-Sets, only the overall resultant force and moments were computed, for a preliminary dimensioning.
• Radiation heat flux of 0.3 MW/m acting on the plasma facing surface as the front surfaces of TBM PP. HTC • coming from hydraulics analysis. • Nuclear heating data coming from neutronic analysis. 2
4.1. EM analysis with dummy TBMs
Previous thermal loads for normal operation condition have been applied with 400 s at full power flat top and 1400s at zero power, with a ramp-up of 60 s and a ramp-down of 200 s. For the structural analysis, following loads have been considered:
The EM model has been developed including all the conducting structures that could have a significant effect on the EM loads of TBM PP with neighboring blankets, VV, VV ports (Fig. 2). Three major disruption (MD) scenarios were considered for the EM analysis, that is MD I, MD II, and MD IV (slow-fast). In all three disruptions, the radial force and moment components are the main EM loads of TBM PP, TBM Frame and Dummy TBMs, as summarized in Fig. 3. It shows that MD II is the most demanding disruption event and, consequently it has been considered for the first structural assessment.
• Bolt pretension of 80.0 kN for each M27 Dummy TBMs bolt. • Dead Weight • During normal operation, a pressure of 4 MPa due to inlet water was considered. • Seismic load SL-1 with a radial acceleration 1.3821 m/s , vertical 2
2
acceleration 7.14 m/s and toroidal acceleration 0.6426 m/s2.
1053
Fusion Engineering and Design 146 (2019) 1052–1055
C. Bertolini, et al.
Fig. 3. EM forces (left) and moments (right) for Dummy TBMs, TBM Frame and TBM PP.
Fig. 4. Summary of the maximum moments (kNm) on Dummy and TBM-Set.
Fig. 6. TBM PP Temperature (Flat top end) [°C].
• Total displacements are shown in Fig. 7. This include also radial Fig. 5. Structural FE model of TBM PP with VV Port.
• EM Loads: MD (major disruption)-II.
•
The assessment has been performed considering the normal operational condition (bolt pre-tension + gravity + cooling water pressure 4.0 MPa + full power flat top end temperature distribution) and abnormal condition (category III event: normal operation + seismic load (SL-1) + EM load (MD-II)). All the mechanical assessments are performed according to RCC-MR 2007 [4]. Based on thermal and structural analysis results, conclusions as follow are drawn.
• •
• Dummy TBMs and TBM Frame show 328 °C and 425 °C of peak temperature at the end of flat top phase, respectively. They are within the limit (450 °C) under which creep effects can be neglected for the 316L(N)-IG stainless steel as shown in Fig. 6.
• 1054
displacement contribute. Only toroidal and vertical displacement take part to the evaluation of the clearance There is no clash between Dummy TBMs and TBM Frame. In particular, nominal clearance in plasma facing area is equal to 9.0 mm. The maximum reduction of the clearance is 1.2 mm. Minimum metallic gasket compression at first assembly installation is equal to 704 N/mm, and satisfies the requirement to obtain in the whole metallic gaskets compression everywhere higher than 690 N/ mm (Fig. 8). Maximum in-plane displacements of the metallic gasket is 0.156 mm in toroidal direction and 0.155 mm in vertical direction, always lower than the target of 0.2 mm. Maximum opening of the metallic gasket is equal to 0.0042 mm. Table 2 shows Minimum Safety Margin for Dummy TBM Bolts, Inserts and Threaded Holes, as per RCC-MR 2007 [4]. These are higher than 1, thereby requirement is always met. Dummy TBM and TBM Frame show a min S-Type Ratcheting Safety Margin respectively equal to 2.62 and 1.00. S-Type Ratcheting assessment is met. Both Dummy TBM and TBM Frame shows a min Safety Margin for PType lower than 1 and equal to 0.98 and 0.34. P-Type assessment is
Fusion Engineering and Design 146 (2019) 1052–1055
C. Bertolini, et al.
Fig. 9. Von Mises Stress of Dummy TBM [Pa].
Fig. 7. TBM PP Displacement (NO + Seismic + MD-II) [m].
Fig. 10. Von Mises Stress of TBM Frame [Pa].
TBM and bolted assembly. The identified issues will be listed mainly in the plasma facing area (fatigue and ratchetting assessment) and they will be addressed in the next design activity, as follows.
• Design improvement of plasma-facing areas water tank for cooling
Fig. 8. Metallic gaskets compression [Pa].
•
Table 2 Bolts and Inserts Safety Margins.
route junction and cooling channel behind plasma-facing surface including ribbed cover for TBM Frame or Dummy TBM. Castellation improvement with local model for plasma-facing areas for TBM Frame and Dummy TBM.
Component
Bolt M27
Insert M45
Frame Threaded Holes
Acknowledgments
Safety Margin
1.09
1.15
1.69
The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the ITER Organization.
•
References
not met. Some of the affected areas are highlighted in Figs. 9 and 10. Both Dummy TBM and TBM Frame shows a min S-Type Fatigue Usage Fraction higher than 1 and equal to 12.43 and 14.02. S-Type Fatigue assessment is not met.
[1] L.M. Giancarli, et al., Overview of the ITER TBM program, Fusion Eng. Des. 87 (2012) 395–402. [2] Byoung Yoon Kim, et al., Status of ITER TBM port plug conceptual design and analyses, Fusion Eng. Des. 89 (2014) 1969–1974. [3] P.A. Di Maio, et al., On the thermo-mechanical behaviour of DEMO water-cooled lithium lead equatorial outboard blanket module, Fus. Eng. Des. 124 (2017) 725–729. [4] RCC-MR 2007 AFCEN Edition, Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of Nuclear Installations, SECTION 1 - SUBSECTION B: CLASS 1 COMPONENTS (2019). [5] SDC-IC Appendix A, Materials Design Limit Data.
6. Summary and design improvements In this paper, main preliminary design features of TBM PP were described including overall shape and cooling paths, materials. As well, main results of TBM PP analysis were summarized to assess EM loads, hydraulic performances, nuclear shielding, surface heat flux and nuclear heating and structural integrity of TBM Frame and Dummy
1055