DCLL Thermofluid/MHD R&D

Sergey Smolentsev, Neil Morley and the ITER-TBM thermofluid group

US ITER-TBM MeetingAugust 10-12, 2005

INEL

Thermofluid/MHD issues to be resolved over next 10-year R&D

I S S U E RANK**

Effectiveness of the FCI as electric/thermal insulator 3

Flow effects on corrosion rate and thermal stresses in the FCI* 2

Pressure equalization on both sides of the FCI 2

EM forces in and around the FCI during the disruptions* 3

3-D flow effects on the FCI and the whole TBM functions 2

3-D MHD pressure drop 1

Multi-channel flow effect 2

Design and optimization of the inlet Pb-17Li manifold 3

MHD pressure drop and flow distribution in the TBM in abnormal conditions (cracked FCI)

1

Coaxial pipe vs. two separate pipes 2

Thermal behavior of the TBM during the ITER cycle?* 3

Effect of natural convection, turbulence, etc. on the thermal behavior of the TBM

3

*issues overlapped with other R&Ds ; ** 3 is the highest priority

Thermofluid/MHD R&D

MHD/thermal issues of the FCI Thermal behavior of the module MHD pressure drop and flow

balancing

SiCf/SiC FCI vs. sandwich FCI

Issue SiCf/SiC SandwichInsulation Seems good Worse

Mechanical behavior

Needs assessment, especially during disruptions

Better strength characteristics

Fabrication Still an issue Seems easy

Corrosion in Pb-17Li

Limited data No data available

Cost Expansive Less expansive

Sandwich FCI is a back up option if SiCf/SiC FCI fails

Decision points: 2008, 2011

3 year POP studies ending in 2008 to access SiCf/SiC FCI feasibility

2008: 1st decision point to choose among 3 options (SiC, Sandwich, both)

2011: 1st TBM construction; 2d decision point to finalize SiCf/SiC or sandwich FCI

2006-2008 are POP studies followed by more detailed studies and mock up testing in 2009-2015

2006-2008

SiC POP R&D

2008SiC FCI ?

2009-2011SiC and Sandwich

R&D I

2009-2011Sandwich

R&D I

2009-2011SiC

R&D I

2011SiC or Sandwich?

2012-2015SiC

R&D II

2012-2015Sandwich

R&D II

First TBM to test in ITER

Experimental facilities and modeling tools

Facility/tool DescriptionQ-TOR (UCLA) 1 T, capable for sub-component and 1/3 mock up testing

BOB (UCLA) 2 T, 1 m long, capable for sub-component and ¼ mock up testing

ALEX (ANL) 2 T, big magnet space, status is unknown

EAST (China) Toroidal field, 2 T

High-B > 4 T facilities in Tallahassee, Grenoble, Riga

HIMAG Unstructured mesh, 3-D, parallel, MHD, complex geometry

UCLA 2-D, 3-D Various multi-functional MHD research codes

FZK code Inertialess code for MHD complex geometry flows

CFX, Fluent, etc.

Commercial CFD software with added MHD

Choice of the strong magnetic field facility ?

MTOR (Magneto-Thermofluid Omnibus Research)

UCLA MTOR Lab

FLIHY Electrolyte loop

BOB magnet

QTOR magnet

•BOB Iron core gap magnet- Maximum field 2 T- 3000 A at 150 V- 15 cm width, 10 cm high, 1 m long

•QTOR quarter torus magnet- Toroidal field- Maximum field 1.2 T- Torus major/minor radius, 0.8m / 0.4 m- 3800 A at 160 V

The NHMFL Facility atFlorida State University

The NHMFL develops and operates high magnetic field facilities that scientists can use for research in different fields, including engineering.

It is the only facility of its kind in the United States and one of only nine in the world. It is the largest and highest powered magnet laboratory, outfitted with the world's most comprehensive assortment of high-performing magnet systems.

High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Grenoble

is the largest of its kind in Europe and has a similar function as the High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee

provides experimental access to high magnetic fields for scientists from all around the world

                                               

       

High Magnetic Field Facility in Riga, Latvia

5.6 T superconducting magnet

Separated from the coil cryogenic tank for experiments at different orientations of magnetic field lines with regard to the direction of gravity force

Homogeneous magnetic field is ensured practically over the whole experimental space

MHD/thermal issues of the FCI

Effectiveness of the FCI as electric/thermal insulator

Pressure equalization 3-D effects on the

temperature, velocity and the pressure: entry/exit, PES or PEH, (T)

Forces on the FCI during disruptions

FCI

The merit of the concept depends on the ability of the FCI to reduce the MHD pressure drop and heat losses from Pb-17Li into He.

Thermal behavior of the module

Thermal behavior:

Temperature distribution in Pb-17Li and in the structure over the ITER cycle

Temperature distribution in He and FW

Heat exchange between Pb-17Li and He

Effect of natural convection, MHD turbulence, etc. on the temperature field

Engineering goals:

Minimization of heat losses from Pb-17Li into He

Reduction of the interface temperatures

Reduction of the temperature drop across the FCI

Current heat transfer analysis for the reference DCLL blanket shows that optimization of the blanket performance is a multi-parameter task, which needs multi-scale/multi-physics studies (such as turbulent MHD natural convection shown above).

Many modeling and experimental efforts are still needed for TBM.

g

MHD pressure drop and flow balancing

MHD pressure drop:

- Poloidal channels

- Manifolds - Coaxial pipe

Flow balancing

Pb-17Li inlet manifold will cause more MHD pressure drop than other elements (25%).

Present manifold design does not provide uniform flow distribution.

How to design/optimize the manifold without significant increase in MHD pressure drop?

R&D plans: 2006-2015

2006 2008 2011POP R&D Phase I Phase II 2015

•Aggressive POP R&D (modeling and experiment) to address the most critical MHD/heat transfer issues, first of all those related to SiCf/SiC FCI

•At the end of the period, a decision will be made on the next R&D:-SiCf/SiC FCI;-Sandwich FCI;-SiCf/SiC and Sandwich FCI.

•More detailed R&D

•Testing sub-components and a small scale mock up (1/4-1/3) in a magnetic field from 1 to 4 T

•Construction of a high temperature Pb-17Li loop.

•Modeling efforts will concentrate on simulations of the experimental results and development of a “system code”, preceding the “virtual TBM” code.

•In the end of the period, either SiCf/SiC or Sandwich FCI will be chosen as a final design option for the 1st TBM.

•Integrated multi-physics (MHD, heat transfer, stresses, corrosion, etc.) tests will be performed with two mock ups (1/4-1/3 and 1/2-3/4) in a magnetic field from 1 to 4 T

•Modeling will concentrate on the completion of the “virtual TBM code”, its testing, and benchmarking using the experimental data.

POP R&D: 2006-2008

2006 2007 2008

Experiment

Modeling

MHD natural convection

SiC FCI (MHD)

SiC FCI (heat transfer, low T)

SiC FCI (disruptions)

MHD natural convection, 2-D, 3-D

Code development (HIMAG, UCLA codes)

SiCf/SiC FCI as electric/thermal insulator, 2-D, 3-D

Sandwich FCI, 2-D

Manifold (test calculations)Fringing B-field

Manifold testing and optimization

Coaxial pipe, 2-D, 3-D

R&D Phase I: 2009-2011

2009 2010 2011

Experiment

Modeling

Sandwich FCI (MHD, Heat transfer, disruptions) ?

Code development towards “system code” and “virtual TBM”

SiC/Sandwich FCI (heat transfer, high T)

Sub-component (manifold, coaxial pipe, multi-channel, fringing B-field) and mock up (1/4-1/3) tests in a magnetic field from 1 to 4 T

Sandwich FCI as electric/thermal insulator, 2-D, 3-D ?

3-D calculations for various sub-components to simulatethe experimental results

R&D Phase II: 2012-2015

2012 2013 2014 2015Experiment

Modeling

Integrated tests with two mock ups (1/4-1/3 and 1/2-3/4) in a magnetic field from 1 to 4 T

Code development towards “virtual TBM” (final phase)

Pre-cost summary POP R&D, 2006-2008

Costs are associated with man hours, modifications of the existing M-TOR facilities and their operation, purchase of SiCf/SiC inserts, fabrication of about 5 test-articles, experiments, upgrade of the cluster system, and modeling work at UCLA and HyPerComp.

Phase I R&D, 2009-2011

Additional costs are mostly due to construction of a high temperature Pb-17Li loop, modification and operation of a strong magnetic field facility and broader experimental and modeling program. Cost uncertainties are related to the choice of the strong magnetic field MHD facility and decision about the FCI.

Phase II R&D, 2012-2015

The costs per year are expected to be the same (or slightly higher) as in Phase I. Some costs will be shared with other technical groups.

Conclusions R&D thermofluid/MHD issues have been

formulated and prioritized for the next 10-year period

3 phase R&D plan has been developed Pre-cost information has been summarized Coordination with other R&D groups and

International collaboration are needed to finalize the R&D plans

Cost estimates can be generated after finalizing the R&D plans