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