1. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 1 Status of He-EFIT Design Richard – J. F Pignatel – G. Rimpault Pierre Richard – J. F Pignatel – G. Rimpault

2. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 2 Outline  Recall of the Design Approach  Main Issues Addressed since the February (Bologna) Meeting  Updated Table of He-EFIT Main Characteristics  Presentation of the current core design : Core, Spallation module, Power Conversion Cycle  DHR Approach  Conclusions – Next steps

3. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 3 1 – Spallation module design using the outcome of the PDS-XADS Project 2 - Define the Proton Beam Intensity (for a maximum proton energy of 800 MeV), the reactor power and the K eff (assuming the potential reactivity insertions and burn up swing which have to be checked later) 3 - Design the core taking into account the design objectives (MA burning, Keff considerations,…) and the core design constraints (Fuel composition, cladding composition, pressure drops,…) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 - Define the approach for the DHR and design the DHR main components (blowers, HX,…) 5 - Design the primary system 6 - Design the Balance of Plant and Containment and implementation of the plant (cooling loops, confinment building, …) Steps 2 and 3 require iteration loops with neutronics, T/H and geometry considerations  Required some time He-EFIT Design Approach

4. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 4 Evolutions since the Bologna Meeting (1/3)  Proton beam characteristics :  Energy changed from 600 MeV to 800 MeV which is currently considered as an upper limit : over 800 MeV, the radio-toxicity increase rapidly  Need for higher proton beam intensity 18-22 mA instead of 10-20 mA  Plant Efficiency :  First Assessment made at CEA : with Tin/Tout = 400/550 °C  AMEC/NNC : incentive to increase the  Tcore from 150 °C to 200 °C Decision from the Lyon meeting (03/06) : Tin/Tout = 350/550 °C Plant efficiency increased to 43.3 %  Fuel Characteristics :  CERCER (MgO matrix) limit temperature at nominal conditions decreased from 1860 °C to 1380 °C  CERMET (Mo matrix) considered as back up solution (decision from the Cadarache meeting in June)  S/A Characteristics :  S/A Outer width over flats reduced from 162 mm to 137 mm : target size corresponding to 19 S/A at the center of the core

5. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 5 Evolutions since the Bologna Meeting (2/3)  Core Design :  Core power decreased to 400 MWth (600 MWth before)  3 zones core with different pin diameters  Peaking factors :  Total peaking factor changed from 1.61 to 1.839 : iteration with neutronic calculations  Adaptation to He-EFIT of the objectives defined by the “Specialist Meetings” (March-June 2006) :  42 Kg MA burnt par TWhth  Flat Keff versus BU  Reasonably low current requirement < 20 mA  Low pressure drop < 1.0 bar  Clad temperature limit < 1600°C (transient), < 1200°C (nominal)  Coolant speed < 50 m/s  Others : Wrapper Thickness, Number of grids, …

6. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 6 Evolutions since the Bologna Meeting (3/3)  Cross-check with FzK and modifications of the correlations for Heat Exchange Coefficients, Core Pressure Drops and Fuel Conductivities (According to DM3 recommendations) :  Rather good agreement :  Core composition  f < 0.05 %  Fuel Max Temperatures  T< 20 °C  Cladding Max Temperatures  T< 6 °C  Pressure drops : incoherency in the Dh calculations but small consequences :  (  P) < 0.034 bar  Safety :  Pressure drop limited to 1 bar for the core and 1.5 bar for the whole primary circuit  Provisional value to be checked by appropriate transient calculations  DHR strategy - Comparison of different two approaches : “XADS-like” approach / GCFR approach

7. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 7 Main Characteristics of the Gas-Cooled EFIT (1/3)

8. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 8 Main Characteristics of the Gas-Cooled EFIT (2/3)

9. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 9 Main Characteristics of the Gas-Cooled EFIT (3/3)

10. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 10 Current Design  A three zone core has been preliminarily studied :  Zone 1 (inner) : 45 MWth, 42 sub-assemblies  Zone 2 (intermediate) : 165 MWth, 156 sub-assemblies  Zone 3 (outer) : 191 MWth, 180 sub-assemblies  The main hypothesis and/or design objectives accounted are the following :  Core heigth : 125 cm  External width over flat : 137 mm  Fuel (fuel+matrix) fraction in the diffrent zones : 11%, 21.5 % and 35 % (for respectively zone 1, 2 and 3)  Matrix volmue fraction in the fuel pellet : 50 %  -The total form factor was assumed to be the same in the three zones (1.839) Remarks : 1 - Core pressure drops are not equilibrated (too many design constraints). They are respectively 0.84, 0.74 and 1 bar in zone 1, 2 and 3  some gagging will be necessary 2- The pellet diameter in zone 1 is rather small (2.3 mm). If this induces some problem, the number of pin rows per S/A can be reduced to 11 row per S/A.

11. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 11 Current Design – 50 MW/m 3 (1/2)

12. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 12 Current Design – 50 MW/m 3 (2/2)

13. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 13 “Cold” Window Concept (1/2)

14. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 14 He flow Target lower peripheral ring also in W (assume a porosity of 50% for He flow)) Target central part made of a bundle of horizontal W-rods (see detail A) Dext = 266 mm “Cold” Window Concept (2/2) Axial pitch Proton Beam Radial pitch Helium

15. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 15 Power Conversion Cycle – AMEC-NNC Assessment  Assumptions :  Keeping the indirect Supercritical CO 2 cycle with re- compression  CO 2 remains super-critical : CO 2 characteristics above the Critical Point (74 bar/32 °C). This avoids the presence of water in the compressors (badly known behaviour of the components)  CEA Low Heat sink Temperature considered too restrictive : 16 °C  21 °C  Parametric study on the core inlet temperature : +/- 50 °C

16. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 16 Power Conversion Cycle Turbine Auxiliary Compressor Main Compressor   43.3 %

17. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 17 Decay Heat Removal - Approach  Goal :  Compare different strategies : Active/Passive Guard Containement/No guard Containment  Background :  GCFR Approach  PDS-XADS (He-cooled XADS)

18. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 18 Schematic of DHR system (CEA initial proposal) Exchanger #2 pool Exchanger #1 core Secondary loop dedicated DHR loops H1 H2 Guard containment -3 loops of DHR -3 pools -1 guard containment

19. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 19 DHR (CEA studies)

20. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 20 GFR STRATEGY (CEA Approach) For the GFR 2400MWth -The high back-up pressure strategy (25Bar) is not kept -for GFR the intermediate back-up pressure strategy (~5 Bar) is studied -Back Up solution :The full depressurisation (1Bar) (still not studied)

21. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 21 PDS-XADS Basic Reactor options: Reactor power : 80MWth First core: classical FBR fuel U-PuO2 (35% Pu max) Accelerator: designed for 600MeV/6mA but can be upgraded to 800MeV/10mA Core and Target Unit designed for 600MeV/6mA Separated target: liquid Primary circuit: He  No Guard Containment  Full depressurization 1 Bar  Integrated SCS (but only 2 MWth to be removed by each SCS) DHR Strategy :

22. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 22  Integrated SCS (Electric Power 55kW) PDS-XADS SCS Design

23. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 23 DHR for EFIT For He-EFIT:  The PDS-XADS solution seems better  Proton beam  complexity  Guard containment not keep If the full depressurization is chosen, a strategy must be defined :  The blowers must work 1 to 70 Bars : Requires High Power and a complex Blower Design (or 2 systems : 1-10 bars and 10/70 bars? ) OR  Blowers can work only at low pressure :  Acton for fast depressurization System systematically used (safety)  SIMPLIFICATION of procedures System implementation :  3 DHR loops designed for 100 %  2 Solutions : Loops integrated on the vessel/Ex-vessel loops

24. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 24 Conclusions (1/2) Current Design :  A three zone core has been preliminarily studied :  Zone 1 (inner) : 45 MWth, 42 sub-assemblies  Zone 2 (intermediate) : 165 MWth, 156 sub-assemblies  Zone 3 (outer) : 191 MWth, 180 sub-assemblies  The main hypothesis and/or design objectives accounted are the following :  Core height : 125 cm  External width over flat : 137 mm  Fuel (fuel+matrix) fraction in the different zones : 11%, 21.5 % and 35 % (for respectively zone 1, 2 and 3)  Matrix volume fraction in the fuel pellet : 50 %  -The total form factor was assumed to be the same in the three zones (1.839)  DHR Approach under discussion

25. WP1.5 Meeting, Lyon, October 10-11, 2006, P. Richard, J. F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault 25 Conclusions (2/2) Next steps :  Detailed neutronic calculations :  Neutron source behaviour by the mean of MCNPX Calculations  Core neutronics by the means of MCNPX and ERANOS calculations.  Even if the current core design is not fully defined, He-EFIT main characteristics (core power, main core dimensions) are sufficiently defined to go ahead with :  Safety Approach/DHR strategy :  Pre-sizing of the DHR loop components (AREVA ??)  CATHARE/SIM-ADS modelling (CEA/FzK ???)  Remontage (AREVA)  Dissemination of the main He-EFIT design characteristics – Iteration with the partners