FIRE Vacuum Vessel and Remote Handling Overview B. Nelson, T. Burgess, T. Brown, D. Driemeyer, H-M...

FIRE Vacuum Vessel

and Remote Handling

Overview

B. Nelson, T. Burgess, T. Brown, D. Driemeyer, H-M Fan, K. Freudenberg, G. Jones, C. Kessel, P. Ryan, M. Sawan, M. Ulrickson, D. Strickler,

D. Williamson

FIRE Physics Validation Review

March 31, 2004

31 March 2004 FIRE Physics Validation Review: Vacuum Vessel and Remote Handling

2

Presentation Outline

Vacuum Vessel Design requirements Design concept and features Analysis to date Status and summary

Remote Handling Maintenance Approach & Component Classification In-Vessel Transporter Component Replacement Time Estimates Balance of RH Equipment

Design and analysis are consistent with pre-conceptual phase, but demonstrate basic feasibility of concepts


3

FIRE vacuum vessel


4

Vacuum vessel functions

Plasma vacuum environment

Primary tritium confinement boundary

Support for in-vessel components

Radiation shielding

Aid in plasma stabilization conducting shell internal control coils

Maximum access for heating/diagnostics


5

Vacuum vessel parameters

Configuration: Double wall torus Shielding water + steel with 60% packing factor Volume of torus interior 53 m^3 Surface Area of torus interior 112 m^2 Facesheet thickness 15 mm Rib thickness 15 - 30 mm Weight of structure, incl ports 65 tonnes Weight of torus shielding 100 tonnes

Coolant Normal Operation Water, < 100C, < 1 Mpa Bake-out Water ~150C, < 1 Mpa

Materials Torus, ports and structure 316LN ss Shielding 304L ss (tentative)


6

Vessel port configuration


7

Vessel ports and major components

Divertor pipingCryopump

Midplane port w/plugDivertor


8

Nuclear shielding concept Vessel shielding, port plugs and TF coils provide hands-on access to port

flanges Port plugs weigh ~7 tonnes each as shown, assuming 60% steel out to TF

boundary


9

Active control coils, segmented into octants IB and OB passive

stabilizing conductor

Active and passive stabilizing sys. passive plates ~25 mm thick copper with integral cooling


10

Passive conductor is also heat sink

Copper layer required to prevent large temperature gradients in VV due to nuclear heating, PFCs

Passive plates are required in most locations anyway

PFCs are conduction cooled to copper layer Reduces gradient in

stainless skin Extends pulse length

VV PFC Tile

Cu Passive stabilizer

Cu filler (can be removed to allow space for mag. diag.)

Gasket

VV splice plate


11

FIRE and ITER first wall concepts similar

Be Cu Tile SS Wall

Cu Cladding

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70mm

80 90

Be Cu Tile

SS Back plate

ITER First Wall Panel

• BE, Cu, SSt

• Detachable FW panel

• Cooling integral with FW panel (requires coolant connections to FW)

ITER

FIRE

• BE, Cu, SSt

• Detachable FW tiles

• Cooling integral with Cu bonded to VV


12

VV octant subassy w/passive structure

Vessel octant prior to welding outer skin between ribs

Outboard passive conductor

Inboard passive cond.


13

Vessel octant subassembly fab. (2) Octant-to-octant splice joint requires double

wall weld All welding done from plasma side of vessel Splice plates used on plasma side only to

take up tolerance and provide clearance Plasma side splice plate wide enough to

accommodate welding the coil side joint


14

Vessel analysis

Vessel subjected to numerous loading conditions Normal operation (gravity, coolant pressure, thermal loads, etc.) Disruption (including induced and conductive (halo) loads Other loads (TF current ramp, seismic, etc.)

Preliminary FEA analysis performed Linear, static stress analysis Linear, transient and static thermal analyses

Main issues are disruption loads, thermal stresses


15

Vacuum vessel mechanical loads

Load

Gravity load

Vertical displacement event (VDE) load Vertical Lateral, net

Seismic load (assumed) Vertical accelerat ion Lateral acceleration

Maximum total vertical load Maximum total lateral load Maximum local EM load

Local pressure on vacuum vessel from internal co mponents

EM load from TF ramp Coolant pressure

Normal operation Bakeout

[1] Disrupti on loads per Wesley, based on 10T, 50% halo current


16

Disruption effects on VV

Disruptions will cause high loads on the VV due to induced currents and conducting (halo) currents flowing in structures Direct loads on vessel shell and ribs Direct loads on passive plates Reaction loads at supports for internal components Divertor assemblies and piping FW tiles Port plugs / in-port components (e.g. RF antennas)

Dynamic effects should be considered, including: Transient load application Shock loads due to gaps in load paths (gaps must be avoided)

All loads should be considered in appropriate combinations e.g. Gravity + coolant pressure + VDE + nuclear / PFC heating + Seismic + …


17

TSC runs confirm induced currents will concentrate in passive structures

Several TSC disruption simulations prepared by C. Kessel

VDE simulation used as basis for further analysis


18

VDE analysis based on TSC runs TSC output used to create drivers for Eddycuff model of VV Peak loads applied to ANSYS model of VV Halo loads from TSC mapped directly onto VV model

CopperPlates

InnerFaceSheet

OuterFace Sheet

EDDYCUFF EM Model ANSYS Structural Model


19

Plasma Evolution (TSC), from earlier data

I (A)

10-ms 300-ms 301-ms

301.6-ms 302.6-ms

ReducedFilamentModel (EDDYCUFF)

TSCFilaments


20

Constant Current VectorsProportional Current Vectors

Typical Induced Eddy Currents


21

Current vs Time, Slow VDE (1 MA/ms)


22

Typical EM loads due to Induced Current

• Max force = -1 MN radial, +0.7 MN vertical per 1/16 sector (~11 MN tot)


23

Total Force vs time, induced + halo currents

•

F(lbs)

t(s)

FZ

FR

1 MA/ms VDE

Case 2 Case 1


24

Typ. EM Force distr. due to Halo Current

• Mapped directly from TSC to ANSYS, Halo current = 12-25% Ip• Max force = +0.13 MN radial, +1.2 MN vert. per 1/16 sector


25

Y

X

Z

Pin 1 ReactionFx=12662Fz=10708

Pin 2 ReactionFx=-22147Fz=6614

Lug 1 ReactionFx=35121Fy=40107Fz=6987

Lug 2 ReactionFx=-32540Fy=-36384Fz=-6473 Forces are in pounds

Divertor loads from current loop

Loads based on PC-Opera analysis *ref Driemeyer, Ulrickson


26

Combined stress, with VDE Stresses due to gravity, coolant pressure, vacuum, VDE VDE load includes direct EM loads on vessel (induced current and

halo) and non-halo divertor loads

1.5Sm = 28 ksi (195 Mpa)

VV TorusPorts

Stress is in psi

Stress is in psi


27

Divertor attachment local stresses Global model not adequate for analysis Detailed model indicates adequate design

Stress is in psi1.5Sm = 28ksi (195 Mpa)

Reinforced pins near connection points

Increased hole Diameter to 0.7”

Modified rib thickness to

correct values

Extended pins through the ribs and attached them to the outer shell


28

Nuclear heating and thermal effects Vacuum vessel is subject to two basic heat loads:

Direct nuclear heating from neutrons and gammas Heating by conduction from first wall tiles (which in turn are heated by direct nuclear

heating and surface heat flux)

A range of operating scenarios is possible, but the baseline cases for analysis assume: 150 MW fusion power 100 W/cm^2 surface heat load assumed on first wall,

45 W/cm^2 is current baseline (H-mode) > 45 W/cm^2 for AT modes

pulse length of 20 seconds (H-mode - 10T, 7.7 MA) Pulse length of 40-ish seconds (AT mode - 6.5T, 5 MA)

Vessel is cooled by water Flowing in copper first wall cladding Flowing between walls of double wall structure


29

Heat loads on vessel and FEA model

Fusion power of 150 MW Surface heat flux is variable, 0, 50,100, and 150 W/cm2 analyzed

D C B

Tile, (36 mm)

Cu cladding

Double wall Vac Vessel

A

IB OBBe PFC 20.7 22.1Cu Tiles 29.1 28.7Gasket 25.2 25.2Cooled Cu Vessel Cladding

24.9 24.9

H2O FWCoolant 17.1 19.2SS Inner VV Wall 21.0 19.2

SS VV Filler 20.4 17.7H2O VV Coolant 9.2 9.6SS Outer VV Wall 18.8 0.0

Volumetric heating in FIRE components - new


30

2-D temp distr (100W/cm2 surface flux)

Inboard midplane Outboard midplane

20

s p

uls

e4

0 s

pu

lse

377 C

619 C622 C

383 C

Be limit ~ 600C


31

Peak Be temp vs heat flux, pulse length

Be limit


32

Nuclear heating distribution*

* Ref M. Sawan

Neutron wall loading

Volumetric heating:

plasma side, ss coil side, ss divertor

1.0

1.5

1.7

1.2

1.9

2.2 MW/m^2

4.1 W/cc (behind divertor)

1.1

0.9

21.0 W/cc 19.2 W/cc18.8 W/cc 0.04 W/cc

11.1 W/cc

10.9 W/cc

0.02 W/cc

12.4 W/cc


33

Typical 3-D temp distribution in VV


34

VV thermal deformation and stress

High stress region localizedStress < 3xSm ( 56 ksi)

Typical Deformation

Peak Stress is in psi


35

Combined stresses, 40 s pulse

Nuclear heating, gravity, coolant pressure, vacuum

Max Stress = 23 ksi, < 3Sm (56ksi) Max Deflection = 0.041 in.

Stress is in psi


36

Combined stress, 10T, 7.7MA, 20 s pulse, with VDE is worst loading condition Nuclear heating, gravity, coolant pressure, vacuum, slow VDE

Stress is in psi

Stress is in psi

3xSm

Max Stress = 58 ksi, > 3Sm (56ksi), but very localized


37

Combined stress, 6.5T, 5 MA, 40 s pulse, with VDE – not as severe as high field case

Nuclear heating, gravity, coolant pressure, vacuum, slow VDE

Stress is in psi

Max Stress = 46 ksi, < 3Sm (56ksi), also very localized


38

Preliminary VV stress summary (1)

Normal, High field (10T, 7.7 MA), 20 s pulse operation – O.K.

Case # Load ConditionGeneral Stress (Mpa) [allowable

stress = 195 Mpa]

Local Peak Stress (Mpa) [allowable stress = 390 Mpa]

General Stress (Mpa) [allowable

stress = 195 Mpa]


1 Gravity (with internals) 16 25 28 50

2 Vacuum Load 7 12 10 19

3 Coolant Pressure (10 Mpa) 83 145 110 242

4 TF Ramp Loads, 10 T in 20 s 19 29 14 26

5 Thermal stress from nuclear heating

76 133 83 241

10 Combine 1,2,3 103 141 134 242

11 Combine 1,2,3,4 97 145 138 215

12 Combine 1,2,3,5 142 253 179 311


39


High field (10T, 7.7 MA), 20 s pulse with VDE – a little high


stress = 195 Mpa]



stress = 195 Mpa]


6

Disruption Loads (10 T, 7.7 MA) due to Eddy Currents

Fast disruption forces (.622 sec)

138 260 145 379

7

Disruption Loads (10 T, 7.7 MA) due to Eddy Currents

Slow disruption forces (.622 sec)

46 82 62 122

8Halo Loads in Vessel(Fast disruption load)

12 24 6 19

9Halo Loads in Vessel (Slow disruption load)

138 268 179 344

13Combine 1,2,3,6,8 [FAST, No Heating]

177 264 124 372

14 Combine 1,2,3,7,9 [SLOW, No Heating]

152 272 228 383

15Combine 1,2,3,5,6,8 [FAST, with heating]

160 239 222 434

16 Combine 1,2,3,5,7,9 [SLOW, with heating]

159 259 193 403

Torus Port regions


40


Normal, Low field (6.5T, 5 MA), 40 s pulse operation – O.K.


stress = 195 Mpa]



stress = 195 Mpa]


1 Gravity (with internals) 16 25 28 50

2 Vacuum Load 7 12 10 19

3 Coolant Pressure (10 Mpa) 83 145 110 242

10 Combine 1,2,3 103 141 134 242

17 TF ramp loads, 6.5T, 20s 7 12 4 11

18 Thermal Stress from nuclear heating

117 194 159 273

23 Combine 1,2,3,17 97 144 131 188

24 Combine 1,2,3,18 119 212 138 242

Torus Ports


41


Low field (6.5T, 5 MA), 40 s pulse with VDE – O.K.


stress = 195 Mpa]



stress = 195 Mpa]


19

Disruption Loads (6.5 T, 5 MA) due to Eddy Currents

Fast disruption forces (.633 sec) quench at .622 sec

52 109 41 188

20

Disruption Loads (6.5 T, 5 MA) due to Eddy Currents

Slow disruption forces (.622 sec)

19 34 23 51

21Halo Loads in Vessel (Fast disruption load)

9 27 6 19

22Halo Loads in Vessel (Slow disruption load)

69 104 77 144

25Combine 1,2,3,19,21

[FAST VDE, No Heating]110 146 159 234

26Combine 1,2,3,20,22

[SLOW VDE , No Heating]100 145 159 238

27Combine 1,2,3,18,19,21

[FAST VDE, With Heating]124 185 145 330

28 Combine 1,2,3,18,20,22 [SLOW VDE, with Heating]

141 200 172 320


42

Conclusions of vessel analysis

Can vessel achieve normal operation? YES

Can vessel achieve pulse length? YES 20 second pulse appears achievable 40 second pulse should be achievable but depends on surface heat

flux distribution and Be temperature

Can vessel take disruption loads? ITS CLOSE Some local stresses over limit, but local reinforcement is possible Additional load cases must be run


43

What analysis tasks are next?

Optimized geometry and refined FEA models Dynamic analysis with temporal distribution of VDE loads Fatigue analysis, including plastic effects Seismic analysis Plastic analysis Limit analysis


44

Longer term issues for FIRE

Refine design Develop design of generic port plug Optimize divertor attachments for stress, remote handling Design internal plumbing and shielding Re-design / optimize gravity supports

Perform needed R&D Select/verify method for bonding of copper cladding to vessel skin Select/verify method for routing of cooling passages into and out of

cladding Develop fabrication technique for in-wall active control coils Perform thermal and structural tests of prototype vessel wall, with

cladding, tubes, tiles, etc. (need test facility) Verify assembly welding of octants and tooling for remote

disassembly/reassembly (need test facility)


45

Remote Handling Overview


46

Remote Handling*

Maintenance Approach & Component Classification

In-Vessel Transporter

Component Replacement Time Estimates

Balance of RH Equipment

*ref T. Burgess


47

Remote Maintenance Approach

Hands-on maintenance employed to the fullest extent possible. Activation levels outside vacuum vessel are low enough to permit hands-on maintenance.

In-vessel components removed as integral assemblies and transferred to the hot cell for repair or processing as waste.

In-vessel contamination contained by sealed transfer casks that dock to the VV ports.

Midplane ports provide access to divertor, FW and limiter modules. Port mounted systems (heating and diagnostics) are housed in a shielded assembly that is removed at the port interface.


48

Remote Maintenance Approach (2)

Upper and lower auxiliary ports house diagnostic and cryopump assemblies that are also removable at the port interface.

Remote operations begin with disassembly of port assembly closure plate.

During extended in-vessel operations (e.g., divertor changeout), a shielded enclosure is installed at the open midplane port to allow human access to the ex-vessel region.

Remote maintenance drives in-vessel component design and interfaces. Components are given a classification and preliminary requirements are being accommodated in the layout of facilities and the site.


49

Remote Handling,Classification of Components

* Activation levels acceptable for hands-on maintenance

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4*

Divertor Modules Limiter Modules Midplane Port Assemblies - RF heating- diagnostics

First Wall Modules Upper and Lower Horiz. Auxiliary Port Assemblies - cryopumps- diagnostics

Vacuum Vessel Sector with TF Coil Passive Plates In-Vessel Cooling Pipes - divertor pipes- limiter pipes

Toroidal Field Coil Poloidal Field Coil Central Solenoid Magnet Structure


50

Mi

Transfer Cask

Articulated Boom

Boom End -Effector Midplane Port Assembly

In-Vessel Remote Handling Transporter

Cantilevered Articulated Boom (± 45° coverage)

Complete in-vessel coverage from 4 midplane ports.

Local repair from any midplane port.

Handles divertor, FW modules, limiter (with component specific end-effector).

Transfer cask docks and seals to VV port and hot cell interfaces to prevent spread of contamination.


51

VV to Cryostat seal

VV port flange

Midplane port plug

Connecting plate

Cryostat panel

Port plug designed for RH Plug uses ITER-style connection to vessel, accommodates transfer cask


52

In-Vessel Remote Handling (2)

Divertor and baffle handled as one unit


53

Six (6) positioning degrees of freedom provided by boom (2 DOF) and end-effector (4 DOF)

Module weight = 800 kg

Divertor Handling End-Effector

Transport position Installation position


54

Component Maintenance Frequency and Time Estimates

* Includes active remote maintenance time only. Actual machine shutdown period will be longer by ~ > 1 month.** Based on single divertor module replacement time estimate.† Based on midplane port replacement time estimate.

Component or Operation RH Class Expected Frequency Maintenance Time Estimate*

Divertor Modules

1

TBD replacements

> 2

One module: 3.3 weeks

Limiter Modules All (32) modules: 5.9 months

Midplane Port Assemblies One module: 3.3 weeks

In-vessel InspectionFrequent deployment

Bank (5?) modules: 3.5 weeks

FW Modules

2TBD replacements

≤ 2

One module: 3.3 weeks**

Combined FW and Divertor Modules All (#TBD) modules: TBD

Auxiliary Port Assemblies † 12 month time target

Vacuum Vessel Sector with TF Coil

3Replacement not

expectedTBD, replacement must be possible and would require extended shutdown

Passive Plates

In-Vessel Cooling Pipes


55

Remote Handling Equipment Summary In-Vessel Component Handling System

In-vessel transporter (boom), viewing system and end-effectors (3) for: divertor module, first wall / limiter module and general purpose manipulator

In-Vessel Inspection System Vacuum compatible metrology and viewing system probes for inspecting

PFC alignment, and erosion or general viewing of condition One of each probe type (metrology and viewing) initially procured

Port-Mounted Component Handling Systems Port assembly transporters (2) with viewing system and dexterous

manipulator for handling port attachment and vacuum lip-seal tools Includes midplane and auxiliary port handling systems


56

Remote Handling Equipment Summary (2)

Component & Equipment Containment and Transfer Devices Cask containment enclosures (3) for IVT, midplane and auxiliary port Double seal doors in casks with docking interfaces at ports and hot cell interfaces Cask transport (overhead crane or air cushion vehicles TBD) and support systems Portable shielded enclosure (1) for midplane port extended opening

Remote Tooling Laser based cutting, welding and inspection (leak detection) tools for:

vacuum lip-seal at vessel port assemblies (2 sets) divertor and limiter coolant pipes (2 sets)

Fastener torquing and runner tools (2 sets)

Fire Site Mock-Up Prototype remote handling systems used for developing designs are ultimately used at

FIRE site to test equipment modifications, procedures and train operators Consists of prototypes of all major remote handling systems and component mock-ups

(provided by component design WBS)


57

Some generic issues for ITER/FIRE

Develop ASME code for Fusion (Section III, Division 4) to avoid force fitting designs to Section III

Develop remote, in-vessel inspection systems leak detection metrology Detection of incipient failure modes, like cracks

Create a qualification / test facility for in-vessel and in-port components to quantify and improve RAM Thermal environment Vacuum environment Mechanical loading, shock, fatigue Remote handling capability

FIRE Vacuum Vessel and Remote Handling Overview B. Nelson, T. Burgess, T. Brown, D. Driemeyer, H-M...

Documents

Transcript of FIRE Vacuum Vessel and Remote Handling Overview B. Nelson, T. Burgess, T. Brown, D. Driemeyer, H-M...