1. DCLL Thermofluid/MHD R&D Sergey Smolentsev, Neil Morley and the ITER- TBM thermofluid group US ITER-TBM Meeting August 10-12, 2005 INEL

2. Thermofluid/MHD issues to be resolved over next 10-year R&D I S S U ERANK** 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

3. Thermofluid/MHD R&D MHD/thermal issues of the FCI Thermal behavior of the module MHD pressure drop and flow balancing

4. SiC f /SiC FCI vs. sandwich FCI IssueSiC f /SiCSandwich InsulationSeems goodWorse Mechanical behaviorNeeds assessment, especially during disruptions Better strength characteristics FabricationStill an issueSeems easy Corrosion in Pb-17LiLimited dataNo data available CostExpansiveLess expansive Sandwich FCI is a back up option if SiC f /SiC FCI fails

5. Decision points: 2008, 2011 3 year POP studies ending in 2008 to access SiC f /SiC FCI feasibility 2008: 1 st decision point to choose among 3 options (SiC, Sandwich, both) 2011: 1 st TBM construction; 2 d decision point to finalize SiC f /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 2008 SiC FCI ? 2009-2011 SiC and Sandwich R&D I 2009-2011 Sandwich R&D I 2009-2011 SiC R&D I 2011 SiC or Sandwich? 2012-2015 SiC R&D II 2012-2015 Sandwich R&D II First TBM to test in ITER

6. Experimental facilities and modeling tools Facility/toolDescription Q-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 HIMAGUnstructured mesh, 3-D, parallel, MHD, complex geometry UCLA 2-D, 3-DVarious multi-functional MHD research codes FZK codeInertialess code for MHD complex geometry flows CFX, Fluent, etc.Commercial CFD software with added MHD Choice of the strong magnetic field facility ?

7. 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

8. The NHMFL Facility at Florida 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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?

14. R&D plans: 2006-2015 2006 2008 2011 POP 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 SiC f /SiC FCI At the end of the period, a decision will be made on the next R&D: -SiC f /SiC FCI; -Sandwich FCI; -SiC f /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 SiC f /SiC or Sandwich FCI will be chosen as a final design option for the 1 st 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.

15. POP R&D: 2006-2008 200620072008 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) SiC f /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

16. R&D Phase I: 2009-2011 200920102011 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 simulate the experimental results

17. R&D Phase II: 2012-2015 2012201320142015 Experiment 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)

18. 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 SiC f /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.

19. 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