Mechanical support concept of the DEMO breeding blanket

The DEMO tokamak architecture is based on large vertical breeding blanket (BB) segments that are accessed from a maintenance hall above the tokamak and are vertically replaced through large upper ports of the vacuum vessel (VV). The feasibility of the BB segments mechanical supports is a prerequisite of this vertical segment architecture. Their design directly impacts on the removal kinematics and the remote handling operations required for release and engagement. The supports must withstand large forces acting on the BB in particular due to electromagnetic (EM) loads. At the same time, they must ensure a sufficiently precise positioning of the BB first wall. Their design also takes into account the significant thermal expansion of the blanket segments that are operated at high temperature avoiding excessive support reaction forces. The BB support concept described in this article does not require fasteners or electrical straps to the VV and therefore much reduces the complexity of the BB remote replacement – a valuable characteristic that would make this concept a milestone in meeting one of the goals defined for the DEMO project: to develop a maintainable fusion power plant design [1]. Each blanket segment is individually supported by the VV without any physical contact to the other blankets or in-vessel components. It relies instead on vertical pre-compression inside the VV due to obstructed thermal expansion and radial pre-compression due to the ferromagnetic force acting on the BB material in the toroidal magnetic field. The verification process did not identify show stoppers. Nonetheless, a further evolution of the concept is required including design improvements to mitigate the high stress levels found in the inboard blankets during plasma disruptions. The fact that no excessively high support reaction forces or large BB deflections were found suggests though that the further development of the concept could be successful.

[1]  Christian Bachmann,et al.  Optimization of the first wall for the DEMO water cooled lithium lead blanket , 2015 .

[2]  S E Sytchevsky,et al.  Analysis of electromagnetic loads on an ITER divertor cassette , 2004 .

[3]  F. Maviglia,et al.  Effect of engineering constraints on charged particle wall heat loads in DEMO , 2017 .

[4]  P. Sardain,et al.  Power plant conceptual studies in Europe , 2007 .

[5]  Z. Vizvary,et al.  Bare and limiter DEMO single module segment concept first Wall misalignment study by 3D field line tracing , 2020 .

[6]  F. Maviglia,et al.  Initial definition of structural load conditions in DEMO , 2017 .

[7]  Giuseppe Di Gironimo,et al.  Initial configuration studies of the upper vertical port of the European DEMO , 2019, Fusion Engineering and Design.

[8]  Z. Vizvary,et al.  Status of the DEMO blanket attachment system and remaining challenges , 2020 .

[9]  Z. Vizvary,et al.  DEMO First Wall misalignment study , 2019, Fusion Engineering and Design.

[10]  B. Macklin,et al.  Three dimensional tolerance investigations on assembly of ITER vacuum vessel , 2009, 2009 23rd IEEE/NPSS Symposium on Fusion Engineering.

[11]  F. Farfaletti-Casali,et al.  The interaction of systems integration, assembly, disassembly and maintenance in developing the INTOR-NET mechanical configuration , 1984 .

[12]  Mark R. Gilbert,et al.  Methodological approach for DEMO neutronics in the European PPPT programme: Tools, data and analyses , 2017 .

[13]  Barrie D. Dunn,et al.  Assessment of Cold Welding Between Separable Contact Surfaces Due to Impact and Fretting under Vacuum , 2009 .

[14]  J.-F. Salavy,et al.  Assessment of design limits and criteria requirements for Eurofer structures in TBM components , 2011 .

[15]  J. Sacanell,et al.  Study of the flux effect on nuclear pressure vessel steel by measurement of magnetic properties , 2013, 1307.6124.

[16]  I. A. Maione,et al.  Transient thermal analysis and structural assessment of an ex-vessel LOCA event on the EU DEMO HCPB breeding blanket and the attachment system , 2017, Fusion Engineering and Design.

[17]  Paolo Frosi,et al.  Study of dynamic amplification factor of DEMO blanket caused by a gap at the supporting key , 2015 .

[18]  R. Albanese,et al.  Electromagnetic Disruption Loads on ITER Blanket Modules , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics.

[19]  David Wilson,et al.  Alignment of in-vessel components by metrology defined adaptive machining , 2015 .

[20]  Danilo Nicola Dongiovanni,et al.  An enhanced, near-term HCPB design as driver blanket for the EU DEMO , 2019, Fusion Engineering and Design.

[21]  J. Morris,et al.  Overview over DEMO design integration challenges and their impact on component design concepts , 2018, Fusion Engineering and Design.

[22]  Fabio Giannetti,et al.  WCLL breeding blanket design and integration for DEMO 2015: status and perspectives , 2017 .

[23]  M. Coleman,et al.  Issues and strategies for DEMO in-vessel component integration , 2016 .

[24]  Z. Vizvary,et al.  Impact of plasma thermal transients on the design of the EU DEMO first wall protection , 2020 .

[25]  A. R. Raffray,et al.  The ITER blanket system design challenge , 2014 .

[26]  Jean-Louis Marechal,et al.  JT-60SA Magnet System Status , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity.

[27]  Christian Bachmann,et al.  Electromagnetic analysis activities in support of the Breeding Blanket during the DEMO Pre-Conceptual Design Phase: Methodology and main results , 2021 .

[28]  Z. Vizvary,et al.  Poloidal distribution of penalty factors for DEMO Single Module Segment with limiters in normal operation , 2021 .

[29]  M. Roccella,et al.  Update of electromagnetic loads on HCPB breeding blanked for DEMO 2017 configuration , 2020 .

[30]  A. Formozov,et al.  Conceptual Design Report , 2015 .

[31]  K. Ioki,et al.  Dynamic amplification of reaction forces in the blanket module attachment during plasma disruption of ITER , 2006 .