Status of U. S. Planning for ITER

About This Presentation

Title:

Status of U. S. Planning for ITER

Description:

Qualification of the FW panel fabrication methods and to establish the NDT ... facing structures, materials and fabrication technologies. New RWM Coil Concept ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:230

Avg rating:3.0/5.0

Slides: 36

Provided by: RobGol7

Learn more at: https://fire.pppl.gov

Category:

more less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Status of U. S. Planning for ITER

1
Status of U. S. Planning for ITER
Exploring Magnetically-Confined Burning Plasmas
in the Laboratory

Ned Sauthoff
Fusion Power Associates
Washington, DC
October 11, 2005

2
Status at FPA 2004 (12/13/04)
Technical Work ITER team, USIPO and VLT continuing RD and design US focus on risk mitigation Diagnostic Working Group active
International Situation Development of international arrangements stalled since 12/20/03
U.S. Domestic Situation on Fabrication US arrangements beginning US ITER Project Office (USIPO) established 7/04 US ITER Project Advisory Committee named
U.S. Domestic Situation on Research Link to the U.S. physics research community weak
3
Status at FPA 2004 (12/13/04)
Technical Work ITER team, USIPO and VLT continuing RD and design US focus on risk mitigation Diagnostic Working Group active
International Situation Development of international arrangements stalled since 12/20/03
U.S. Domestic Situation on Fabrication US arrangements beginning US ITER Project Office (USIPO) established 7/04 US ITER Project Advisory Committee named
U.S. Domestic Situation on Research Link to the U.S. physics research community weak
4
Comparison of situations FPA 2004 and FPA 2005
FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)
ITER team and USIPO continuing RD and design US focus on risk mitigation Diagnostic Working Group active First round of strand qualifications nearly complete Working groups in Diagnostics/Port-Plugs, First Wall, ICH, Tritium, Preparing for arrival of DG for technical decision-making
Development of international arrangements stalled since 12/20/03 Site selected NSSG and N meetings resumed
US arrangements beginning US ITER Project Office (USIPO) established 7/04 US ITER Project Advisory Committee named Development of US estimates and plans First Lehman Review 3/05 US ITER Project Advisory Committee met and issued recommendations
Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function
???
5
U.S. provisional in-kind contribution scope
Steady-state power supplies
6
Central Solenoid Activities

Domestic research and development aimed at
addressing areas of risk
Jc (current density)
Jacket material
Joints
Winding

7
Qualification of industrial suppliers of Nb3Sn
strands with increased value of Jc

In FY04, the US placed contracts for the
development and qualification of gt100kg of
superconducting strand
In FY05, testing of the products began.
In FY06, larger-volume prototypes will be
procured (if MIE budget).
In FY07, initial production orders could be
placed if the IOs specifications are finalized
and the procurement packaged agreed.

8
The US is addressing areas of risk in its Module
18 First Wall/Shield allocation

Qualification of the FW panel fabrication methods
and to establish the NDT method for the FW panel.
EM Analysis of modules and dynamic analysis of
the key.
Detailed design of blanket modules and thermal
hydraulic analysis of the shield block and the
total blanket system.
Analysis of erosion of the ITER first wall due to
plasma impingement

10 of first-wall area
1.6m2
Module 18
9
Areas of commonality motivate an integrated
approach

In-vessel ITER systems share issues
Shield/blanket
Ion cyclotron antenna
Electron cyclotron launcher
Diagnostic port plugs
Test blanket modules
Issues
Plasma-facing materials and structures
Surface-power handling
Forces from disruptions,
Neutron shielding
Volume-power handling / power extraction
Commonality motivates shared integrated
approaches
3-D neutronics analyses, and integration with CAD
Thermohydraulics
Plasma-facing structures, materials and
fabrication technologies

10
Port plug studies also explore opportunities for
improved plasma performance by internal RWM
Feedback Coils to increase ITERs b-limit
New RWM Coil Concept for ITER
Baseline RWM Coils
No-wall limit
Baseline RWM coils located outside TF coils
11
JET HPP and test-stand studies have suggested
design modifications
Tuning / Matching design
8- or 12-strapconfiguration?
16-tube source stability, or 12-tube
configuration?
Faraday Shield Design
ITER ion cyclotron system block diagram
12
Electron Cyclotron System Configuration
(24) 1 MW, 170 GHz Gyrotrons
(24) DC Power Supplies (not shown) (US)
work on specifications
(3) 1 MW, 120 GHz Gyrotrons (US)
development
Transmission Lines (US)
develop cooling
Equatorial Launcher
(3) Upper Launchers
13
High Field Side Pellet-Launch being developed
14
The integrated design of the ITER Tritium Plant
is being developed by US, EU and KO
Host
KO
Host
EU
US
Central fund
Central fund
Tritium Plant
15
The US is designing its 5 diagnostic port plugs
and its set of instruments

Diagnostic Working Group
Completed its recommendation on packaging of
diagnostic allocations
Port-based allocation was accepted by the
International Team/Participant Team Leaders
Port-Plug Task Force
Developing approaches to the design and
integration of port-plugs
Diagnostic Design
Specifications of the diagnostic
Integrated design of the instrument
Component selection
Integration in the Port-Plug

16
U.S. Secondees and Visiting Researchers

Magnets
Nicolai Martovetsky (LLNL), Philip Michael (MIT)
Blanket/First Wall
Richard Nygren (Sandia)
Ion Cyclotron IT Coordinators for IC
David Swain (ORNL), Richard Goulding (ORNL)
Diagnostic Port Plug Design
Douglas Loesser (PPPL)
QA Head of QA on the ITER International Team
W. K. Sowder (INL)
Buildings/Project Management
Jerry Sovka

17
Outside the ITER Project,Test Blanket Modules are
being planned

Two approaches are being developed by the US, via
joint research with other parties
A helium-cooled solid breeder concept with
ferritic steel structure and beryllium neutron
multiplier
A Dual-Coolant Pb-Li liquid breeder blanket
concept with self-cooled LiPb breeding zone and
flow channel inserts (FCIs) as MHD and thermal
insulator

18
Comparison of situations FPA 2004 and FPA 2005
FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)
ITER team and USIPO continuing RD and design US focus on risk mitigation Diagnostic Working Group active First round of strand qualifications nearly complete Working groups in Diagnostics/Port-Plugs, First Wall, ICH, Tritium, Preparing for arrival of DG for technical decision-making
Development of international arrangements stalled since 12/20/03 Site selected NSSG and N meetings resumed
US arrangements beginning US ITER Project Office (USIPO) established 7/04 US ITER Project Advisory Committee named Development of US estimates and plans First Lehman Review 3/05 US ITER Project Advisory Committee met and issued recommendations
Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function
???
19
Innovative arrangements must be completed for the
Agreement

Effective distributed project management the
integrates the activities of the parties
Procurement systems, including in-kind
contributions and cash change management
Resource management, including change-management
Staffing by secondees, direct employees of the
international organization, and contracts

20
Future evolutions of procurement allocations

The 2003 provisional Procurement Allocations will
likely be refined
To assign the 15 FLEX allocations
To improve the prospects of project success
assigning tightly-coupled packages to the same
party(ies) to eliminate unnecessarily complex
interfaces
balancing the pros and cons of assigning a
package to a single party or to several parties
assignment to a single party enables greater
uniformity, whereas assignment to several parties
affords redundancy that would reduce the risk
related to problems encountered by a single
supplier.
reducing overall project cost by eliminating
unnecessary duplication this could be achieved
by reducing the number of suppliers or by
increased sharing of RD and design
assigning scopes to parties who have demonstrated
capability and capacity
To accommodate new parties if one is added

21
Integrated roles of the ITER Organization and the
Domestic Agencies must be developed
22
Comparison of situations FPA 2004 and FPA 2005
FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)
ITER team and USIPO continuing RD and design US focus on risk mitigation Diagnostic Working Group active First round of strand qualifications nearly complete Working groups in Diagnostics/Port-Plugs, First Wall, ICH, Tritium, Preparing for arrival of DG for technical decision-making
Development of international arrangements stalled since 12/20/03 Site selected NSSG and N meetings resumed
US arrangements beginning US ITER Project Office (USIPO) established 7/04 US ITER Project Advisory Committee named Development of US estimates and plans First Lehman Review 3/05 US ITER Project Advisory Committee met and issued recommendations
Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function
???
23
Management Structure for the US ITER Project and
Program
Office of Science
Raymond L. Orbach, Director
Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
Office of Fusion Energy Sciences
N. Anne Davies, SC Associate Director

Research Division John Willis, Director
ITER and International DivisionMichael Roberts,
Director
I N T E G R A T E D P R O J E C T T E A M

Erol Oktay, US Burning Plasma Physics Program
Manager Gene Nardella, US Burning Plasma
Technology Program Manager

Warren Marton, ITER Program Manager
ITER Organization
DOE SC Princeton Site OfficeJerry Faul, Director
Fusion Community Laboratories, Academia, and
Industry
Gregory PitonakActing ITER Federal Project
Director
Joint Oversight Committee (Partnership
Coordination)

Provides wide spectrum of supporting activities
from existing efforts e.g., DIII-D, NSTX,
C-MOD, Theory, VLT, NSO
Coordinated by Burning Plasma Program (R. Fonck,
leader) including Chief Scientist and Chief
Technologist from Project Office as ex officio
members
Interacts with Project Office through task
agreements

The Committee recommended the U.S. ITER Project
proceed with CD-1 after updating the cost range
and acquisition strategy, and documenting plans
for value engineering.
Cost and Schedule Recommendations of the
Committee are
Increase the cost range to reflect the number and
nature of uncertainties facing the U.S. ITER
project (DG selection, Agreement completion, DG
review, roles and responsibilities of the ITER
Organization and the Domestic Agencies)
Work with the International Team and ITER parties
to establish the basis for an appropriate amount
of contingency to address potential cost and
schedule impacts related to activities of the
International Project organization
Work to develop a comprehensive, detailed basis
of estimate to support preparations for CD-2,
Performance Baseline

26
Domestic Project Management DOE/SC Lehman
Review Project responses

US ITER Project agreed to
Work to finalize US roles, scopes, acceptance
criteria, and interfaces
Reevaluate the cost range
in view of ITER project uncertainties, including
uncertainty in the International ITER Project
organization, roles and procedures
in magnets specifically
invoking value engineering
Work to adopt a design/build to cost strategy
in Agreement 6 party approval
Prioritize RD to address key areas of risk
(e.g., magnet strand and jacket)
Devise approaches to minimize risks related to
commodity costs
Strive for cost-saving collaborations
Refine acquisition strategies to maximize
effectiveness
Include long lead procurement needs in Critical
Decision 1 package
Proceed with CD-1 after updating cost range,
Acquisition Strategy, and value engineering
information

27
Domestic Project Management CD-0 ESAAB (6/05)
on project uncertainties

Approval is subject to the following conditions
That the terms of the international ITER
Agreement be presented for my Deputy
Secretarys approval as part of the Critical
Decision-l process and prior to approval by the
State Department and
The Office of Engineering and Construction
Management is to perform an independent review of
the DOE cost of the U.S. Contributions to ITER
Project prior to Critical Decision-1.

28
Critical Decision Schedule
CD-0 Approve Mission Need 2005
CD-1 Approve Preliminary Baseline Range 2006
CD-2 Approve Performance Baseline 2007
CD-3 Approve Start of Construction 2007
CD-4 Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout 2013
29
US ITER Project Advisory Committee

Harold Forsen (Chair)
Project Management / Procurement
Jay Marx (LBNL)
Jim Yeck (U Wisconsin)
Robert Iotti (CH2M-Hill)
Eugene Desaulniers (consultant)
Universities
Stewart Prager (U Wisc)
Jerry Navratil (Columbia)
Neville Luhmann (UC Davis)
Herb Berk ( UTexas)
Major Facilities / Labs
Earl Marmar (MIT)
Ron Stambaugh (GA)
Mike Zarnstorff
Lee Berry (ORNL)

30
Charges Addressed by the US ITER Project
Advisory Committee

1. Assess the progress of the US ITER Projects
RD and project planning in the context of the
uncertainties of the overall ITER project,
including the schedules for site selection,
International Team formation, design review and
completion of design.
2. Is the US ITER Project Offices (USIPOs)
approach to the uncertainty about the roles of
the USIPO and the ITER Organization appropriate?
Are the US ITER procurement strategies and
management techniques suitable to the unique
nature of the project?
3. Is the US ITER Project approach to completing
the formation of the US team and to how this team
will work to meet project objectives appropriate?
4. Is the schedule of critical decisions
realistic and appropriate in light of the
uncertainties?
5. Are the USIPOs plans for interacting with
the US Burning Plasma Program appropriate?

31
Solicitation of Expressions of Interest

To explore interest in positions on the USIPO,
the USIPO requested expressions of interest in US
ITER positions
Chief Scientist
Chief Technologist
Project Engineer
Magnet Team Leader/Support
Blanket/Shield Module Team Leader/Support
Diagnostics Team Leader/Support
ICH Team Leader/Support
ECH Team Leader/Support
Tritium Team Leader/Support
Vacuum/Fueling Team Leader/Support
Electric Power Team Leader/Support
Cooling Water Team Leader/Support
230 responses were received by the deadline
The USIPO is using the responses in our planning
of procurements
We expect to issue personnel actions and
team-procurement actions later this year.

32
Comparison of situations FPA 2004 and FPA 2005
FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)
ITER team and USIPO continuing RD and design US focus on risk mitigation Diagnostic Working Group active First round of strand qualifications nearly complete Working groups in Diagnostics/Port-Plugs, First Wall, ICH, Tritium, Preparing for arrival of DG for technical decision-making
Development of international arrangements stalled since 12/20/03 Site selected NSSG and N meetings resumed
US arrangements beginning US ITER Project Office (USIPO) established 7/04 US ITER Project Advisory Committee named Development of US estimates and plans First Lehman Review 3/05 US ITER Project Advisory Committee met and issued recommendations
Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function
???
33
Management Structure for the US ITER Project and
Program
Office of Science
Raymond L. Orbach, Director
Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
Office of Fusion Energy Sciences
N. Anne Davies, SC Associate Director

Research Division John Willis, Director
ITER and International DivisionMichael Roberts,
Director
I N T E G R A T E D P R O J E C T T E A M

Erol Oktay, US Burning Plasma Physics Program
Manager Gene Nardella, US Burning Plasma
Technology Program Manager

Warren Marton, ITER Program Manager
ITER Organization
DOE SC Princeton Site OfficeJerry Faul, Director
Fusion Community Laboratories, Academia, and
Industry
Gregory PitonakActing ITER Federal Project
Director
Joint Oversight Committee (Partnership
Coordination)

Provides wide spectrum of supporting activities
from existing efforts e.g., DIII-D, NSTX,
C-MOD, Theory, VLT, NSO
Coordinated by Burning Plasma Program (R. Fonck,
leader) including Chief Scientist and Chief
Technologist from Project Office as ex officio
members
Interacts with Project Office through task
agreements

Provides wide spectrum of supporting activities
from existing efforts e.g., DIII-D, NSTX,
C-MOD, Theory, VLT, NSO
Coordinated by Burning Plasma Program (R. Fonck,
leader) including Chief Scientist and Chief
Technologist from Project Office as ex officio
members
Interacts with Project Office through task
agreements

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory/ORNL
UT-BattelleORNL
PUPPPL
Rob Goldston, PPPL Director Rich Hawryluk, Deputy
Director
US ITER Project Advisory Committee (Community
Inputto Project Office)
Stan Milora, ORNL Fusion Director
US ITER Project Office
Grey boxes indicate direct ITER project
activities and responsibilities.
Ned SauthoffProject Manager
White boxes indicate OFES program activities
supporting ITER.
Solid lines indicate reporting relationships.
Note This chart does not display the necessary
organizational relationships with the legal,
financial, and construction management offices
within DOE.
Dashed lines indicate coordinating relationships.
35
Comparison of situations FPA 2004 and FPA 2005
FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)
ITER team and USIPO continuing RD and design US focus on risk mitigation Diagnostic Working Group active First round of strand qualifications nearly complete Working groups in Diagnostics/Port-Plugs, First Wall, ICH, Tritium, Preparing for arrival of DG for technical decision-making
Development of international arrangements stalled since 12/20/03 Site selected NSSG and N meetings resumed
US arrangements beginning US ITER Project Office (USIPO) established 7/04 US ITER Project Advisory Committee named Development of US estimates and plans First Lehman Review 3/05 US ITER Project Advisory Committee met and issued recommendations
Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function
36
Progress has been made between FPA2004 and
FPA2005AND the processes for achievement of ITER
are taking shape
FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)
ITER team and USIPO continuing RD and design US focus on risk mitigation Diagnostic Working Group active First round of strand qualifications nearly complete Working groups in Diagnostics/Port-Plugs, First Wall, ICH, Tritium, Preparing for arrival of DG for technical decision-making
Development of international arrangements stalled since 12/20/03 Site selected NSSG and N meetings resumed
US arrangements beginning US ITER Project Office (USIPO) established 7/04 US ITER Project Advisory Committee named Development of US estimates and plans First Lehman Review 3/05 US ITER Project Advisory Committee met and issued recommendations
Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function

Write a Comment

User Comments (0)