1.8.1.1.2 DCLL TBM R&D Summary Compiled by Neil Morley for the TBM Conference Call Oct 27, 2005.

1.8.1.1.2 DCLL TBM R&D Summary

Compiled by Neil Morley for the TBM Conference Call

Oct 27, 2005

Main DCLL TBM R&D areas

1.8.1.1.2 R&D Morley

1.8.1.1.2.1 Tritium Permeation Merrill

1.8.1.1.2.2 Thermofluid MHD Smolentsev

1.8.1.1.2.3 SiC/SiC Fab Process & Properties Katoh

1.8.1.1.2.4 SiC/PbLi/FS Compatibility Pint

1.8.1.1.2.5 FS Box Fabrication & Material Issues Rowcliffe,Kurtz

1.8.1.1.2.6 Helium Systems Subcomponent Tests Wong

1.8.1.1.2.7 PbLi Hydrogen Production Merrill

1.8.1.1.2.8 Be Joining to FS Zinkle,Ulrickson

1.8.1.1.2.9 Virtual TBM Abdou

1.8.1.1.2.10 Advanced Diagnostics Morley

1.8.1.1.2.11 Integrated mockup tests Ulrickson,Tanaka

Are more tasks required for Engineering R&D??

Categorizing R&D Tasks

A system needs to be established to categorize R&D tasks to give a cost range. Suggestion: E = Essential for the qualification and successful execution of the TBM

experiment, and no other party is doing it I = Important for the qualification and successful execution of the TBM

experiment, or Essential but is definitely being done by another party D = Desirable but the risk is acceptable if not performed

R&D subtasks should be categorized separately, if a task includes many subtasks. Costs need to be broken down by subtasks then, if not already done

Level 3 and 4 WBS coordinators should categorize tasks, as should R&D performers, to see if there is clear consensus on relative priorities.

Deadline for input ??

The following information is requested from each responsible person:

What critical need does this R&D address– Establish basic TBM feasibility– Understand/predict TBM performance– Design and fabricate first TBM – EM/S

Recommended scheduling of listed R&D tasks Description of each task including:

– Main purpose and method (numerical, experimental, …)– Identification of facility/code or description of new/upgraded facility/code

required– Description of test section and diagnostics to be fabricated– Anticipated duration and person-years of effort– Any perceived overlap with another US R&D area and similar

international R&D Your categorization and justification

R&D Cost Estimate Summary (burdened, 2005 dollars, no contingency)

R&D ~$34.3M

Tritium Permeation ($2.8M)

Thermofluid MHD $12M

SiC/SiC Fab Process & Properties $2.25M

SiC/PbLi/FS Compatibility $.75M

FS Box Fabrication & Material Issues -

Helium Systems Subcomponent Tests $.84M

PbLi Hydrogen Production $2.4M

Be Joining to FS (TBM PFC) $4.7M

Virtual TBM $4.3M

Advanced Diagnostics $2.7M

Integrated mockup tests $4.34M

WBS #

1.8.12005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

1.8.3.2 Interfaces and Design Integration

1.8.1.1.1 Administration

1.8.1.1.2 R&D

1 Tritium Permeation

2 Thermofluid MHD

3 SiC/SiC Fab Process & Properties

4 SiC/FS/PbLi Compatibility

5 FS Box Fabrication & Material Issues

6 Helium Systems Subcomponent Test

7 PbLi/H2O Hydrogen Production

8 Be joining to FS

9 Virtual DCLL TBM

10 Advanced Diagnostics

11 Integrated mockups, 1/4 to 1/2 scale

1.8.1.1.3 Engineering

Preliminary Design

Detailed Design

Title III Activities

1.8.1.1.4 TBM design and fabrication

Call for tender / Contract award

Manufacturing design (tooling & processing)

Material procurement

Fabrication

1.8.1.1.5 Assembly, Testing, and Installation

QA tests

Delivery to ITER site installation

DCLL Test Module ScheduleFirst plasmaITER Director appointed

final design

ITER Interface changes

baseline decisions

Schedule Summary

Modifications/Discussions since the last call

Tritium Permeation Issue and Originally Proposed R&D

Issue: Based on current analysis with conservative assumptions, annual tritium permeation to the ITER building appears be higher than projected allowable annual limit

Proposed Solution: aluminum or alumina coatings on exterior of PbLi and Helium pipes from TBM to transporter cask and from transporter cask to TCWS building.

Proposed R&D: measure tritium permeation from short pipe samples subjected to typical thermal cycling and coated with different materials and different coating techniques to quantify permeation reduce factors. Cost ~ $2.8M

High Performance TBM Tritium Permeation Results

TBM concentrations reach an oscillatory equilibrium after ~20 consecutive pulses, while helium pipe SS wall not reach an equilibrium after ~ 2000 consecutive pulses

Annual release based on 3000 consecutive pulses is 290 mg-T/a from helium pipes, and 180 mg-T/a from inlet PbLi pipe (total ~470 mg-T/a with limit of 100 mg-T/a); permeation barrier (alumina) or concentric pipe are required

0 10 20 30 40 500.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Trit

ium

pre

ssu

re a

bo

ve P

bL

i (P

a)

Number of pulses

0 1000 2000 3000Number of pulses

0

100

200

300

400

Trit

ium

re

lea

se (

mg

-T/a

)

Helium piping

Pb-17Li piping

ITER limit

Key points from tritium permeation conference call discussion

The following factors should greatly reduce the permeation– Inclusion of T removal from He coolant – More representative pulse sequences with longer down times– Optimization of the tritium permeator system (longer FS tubes or Nb/Ta tubes)– Natural oxide layers on steels

Off-normal factors might significantly increase permeation– Weld cracks, mistaken valve opening, other helium leaks, etc.

HCLL situation should be significantly worse due to high T partial pressure More analysis of various cases needed Testing in HH/DD phases to quantify permeation (and even mockups?) New proposed solution if analysis and experience indicate a tritium permeation

problem:1. Swept secondary containment around transporter cask and TCWS skid for

controlling leaked or permeated tritium2. More aggressive permeator development to reduce tritium partial pressure in PbLi3. Swept secondary containment around all PbLi (and He) piping4. Operation at lower He/PbLi temperatures if limit is approached

Clarifications on the FCI Fabrication tasks1.8.1.1.2.3 Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1.8.1.1.2.3.1 Technical Planning

1 Recommendation on 0th-order SiC/SiC FCI fabrication

2 Initial analysis and reference strategy development

3 Development of electrical conductivity measurement technique

4 Development of test method for stiffness matrix

1.8.1.1.2.3.2 1st Generation FCI SiC/SiC

1 Insulating composite development

2 Failure mode analysis

3 Non-irradiated characterization

4 Material/architectural design refinement1.8.1.1.2.3.3 Alternative Concept

1 Reference strategy development

1.8.1.1.2.3.4 2nd Generation or Alternate FCI SiC/SiC

1 Material fabrication

2 Non-irradiated characterization

3 Model component fabrication

4 Analysis of FCI samples from flow channel experiment1.8.1.1.2.3.5 Low Dose Irradiation Effect

1 Differential swelling and creep

2 Irradiated conductivities and baseline properties

SiC/SiC Fab Process & Properties

Irradiation experiments – do not include 18J doped samples, – All rabbit capsules to characterize property change and differential swelling of

first generation recipe – timing is important to feed 2nd gen choices– 2nd irradiation is confirmatory on property changes of final FCI SiC/SiC recipe,

could potentially be deferred several years

Clarifications on the FCI Fabrication tasks

Target electrical conductivity range is not critical for ITER testing – Sergey’s latest paper suggested that optimum FCI of around 100

S/m for a DEMO application at the FW, but other effects, design variation and locations still must be analyzed.

– Right now (for ITER testing) we can live with any transverse electrical conductivity (1-500 S/m) and transverse thermal conductivity (2-15 W/mK), but we do want to have a range to explore in testing

– Structural integrity, thermal expansion, differential swelling in low dose irradiation, are also important

Thermofluid MHD Tasks

Subtask 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

1. Modeling tools 3-D, complex geometry code Research models and codes Support of VTBM

2. FCI (normal operation) SiC FCI Sandwich FCI FCI Heat Transfer

3. FCI (transitions)

4. Pb-17Li Inlet Manifold

5. Heat Transfer Natural Convection 2-D Turbulence

6. Sub-module testing

7. Planning and Modeling ITER Tests Planning Modeling

COST, M 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.0 0.75 0.85 0.4 0.2 0.2

- R&D to support reference design- Development of modeling tools

- Planning tests in ITER with supporting experiments and modeling;- Contribution to VTBM

900 K 900 K 900 K 900 K 400 K 250 K 250 K

200 K 300 K 300 K 300 K 200 K

200 K 200 K

200K 300 K 300k

300 K 300 K 200 K 200 K

300 K 400 K 300 K 200 K

200 K 200 K 200 K 200 K 200 K

?

?

TOTAL COST for 10-year: $12 M including hardware

Virtual TBM Schedule and Resources

1.5 man-yr/yr 1.5 man-yr/yr .5 man-yr/yr

Cost Estimate $4.3M

Schedule and Budget for PbLi/SiC tasks2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

1.8.1.1.2.4 SiC/PbLi/FS Compatibility1.8.1.1.2.4.1 Planning and Data Analysis1.8.1.1.2.4.2 Capsule Testing1.8.1.1.2.4.3 Loop Testing 11.8.1.1.2.4.4 Analysis1.8.1.1.2.4.5 Support loop1.8.1.1.2.4.6 Loop Testing 11.8.1.1.2.4.7 Analysis1.8.1.1.2.4.8 Analysis

FTE 0.09 0.16 0.50 0.11 0.49 0.11 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total = $0.75M

TRAVEL

WBS # Item #Schedule Activity ID DESCRIPTION QTY UNITS

$ / UNIT (burdened)

PACKAGING & SHIPPING

$ TOTAL-$ HRS$/HR

(Burdened) TOTAL-$ $$PARTICIPANT

CODEBURDENED

COSTCOMMENTS/ASSU

MPTIONS

1.8.1.1.2.4

1.8.1.1.2.4.1 1 Labor - PI -$ -$ 100 208$ 20,800$ -$ 20,800$ 1.8.1.1.2.4.2 2 Labor - PI -$ -$ 40 208$ 8,320$ -$ 8,320$

3 Labor - Technician/Welder 8 Capsules 2500 -$ 20,000$ 120 134$ 16,080$ -$ 36,080$ 4 Labor - Analysis -$ -$ 40 187$ 7,480$ -$ 7,480$

1.8.1.1.2.4.3 5 Labor - PI -$ -$ 250 208$ 52,000$ -$ 52,000$ 6 Labor - Technician/Welder 2 Loops 60,000.00 -$ 120,000$ 600 134$ 80,400$ -$ 200,400$

1.8.1.1.2.4.4 7 Labor - PI -$ -$ 60 208$ 12,480$ -$ 12,480$ 8 Labor - Analysis -$ -$ 80 187$ 14,960$ -$ 14,960$

1.8.1.1.2.4.5 9 Labor - PI -$ -$ 110 208$ 22,880$ -$ 22,880$ 1.8.1.1.2.4.6 10 Labor - PI -$ -$ 250 208$ 52,000$ -$ 52,000$

11 Labor - Technician/Welder 2 Loops 50,000.00 -$ 100,000$ 600 134$ 80,400$ -$ 180,400$ 1.8.1.1.2.4.7 12 Labor - PI -$ -$ 60 208$ 12,480$ -$ 12,480$

13 Labor - Analysis -$ -$ 80 187$ 14,960$ -$ 14,960$ 1.8.1.1.2.4.8 14 Labor - PI -$ -$ 80 208$ 16,640$ -$ 16,640$

15 Labor - Analysis -$ -$ 100 187$ 18,700$ -$ 18,700$ 16 Travel - Domestic -$ -$ 150 208$ 31,200$ 8750 39,950$ 7 Domestic trips17 Travel - Foreign -$ -$ 160 208$ 33,280$ 10000 43,280$ 4 Foreign trips

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

subtotal -$ 240,000$ 1650 495,060$ 18,750$ 753,810$ Sales Tax Tot FTEs 0.91

Indirects: Industry markups Indirects $ $

Overhead: DOE Laboratory markups Overhead $ $ $

$ $ $ 753,810$ BURDENED, UNESCALATED COST

LABORMATERIAL/EQUIPMENT COST CODES