120 likes | 305 Views
Status of safety analysis for HCPB TBM. Susana Reyes TBM Project meeting, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA May 10-11, 2006 Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. Outline. Background Objectives
E N D
Status of safety analysis for HCPB TBM Susana Reyes TBM Project meeting, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA May 10-11, 2006 Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48.
Outline • Background • Objectives • Status of safety analysis • Source terms (radioactive, energy) • Decay heat removal • Ex-vessel LOCA analysis • Summary and plan
Background • Each TBM contains radioactivity and energy source terms that must be identified • Radioactive source terms: tritium, activated components and materials • Energy source term: chemical, decay heat, enthalpy • Two steps must be completed as part of the TBM licensing process: • ITER Report on Preliminary Safety (RPrS), and associated documents (beg 2008) • Final Safety Report (by 2016) • Work now is focussed on updating DDD safety section, input from DDD will be used for the ITER RPrS • July 2006: initial DDD safety sections, including operational releases, radioactive inventories, decay heat, chemical sources, WDR • December 2006: final DDD safety sections, including specific accident scenarios • December 2006 to July 2007: ITER will select enveloping TBM results per category to include in the RPrS (not all TBM results will be included)
Objectives • It is likely that full blown accident analysis will not be necessary for US HCPB TBM as long as it is similar to JA or EU concepts • Need to demonstrate that accident source term (radioactive inventories, chemical energy and enthalpy) in US TBM are similar or smaller than those in JA and EU HCPB TBM • Objectives of preliminary safety analysis: • address source terms (energy sources, activation products), decay heat and WDRs • demonstrate that the change in geometry in US TBM concept does not affect the decay heat removal capability of TBM • analyze thermal response of the module to an ex-vessel LOCA
Status of safety analysis for US HCPB submodule • New US HCPB TBM dimensions (1/3 of half-port submodule) • Started to update safety analyses using new configuration 1/3 of half port submodule (71cmx38.9cmx60cm) 1/4 port submodule (91cmx73cmx60cm)
Source terms in US HCPB TBM Material source term
Activation calculations needed to determine radioactive source term • Do not have full neutronics analysis for US HCPB TBM, it would take a few weeks to set up 3-D neutronics Monte Carlo model • FW neutron flux for ¼ port submodule is known (M. Youssef, 4/05) and used to calculate new submodule FW activation • ACAB calculation using 41494 pulses of 400 s on, 1800 s cooling (to reach 0.3 MWa/m2 at average ITER NWL=0.57 MW/m2) • at shutdown Fe-55, Mn-56, Mn-54, Cr-51 and W-185, sum up 85% of the total 5.9x104 Ci (DCLL TBM is 7.65x104 Ci) • inventories for rest of HCPB submodule should be bounded by EU and JA TBMs • preliminary WDR estimation using FW neutron flux for all the components shows WDR acceptable
Activation calculations: decay heat • Results from FW activation show that decay heat is less than that calculated for EU and JA HCPB TBMs, it can be anticipated that decay heat removal is not a concern for US HCPB submodule • For a detailed decay heat removal calculation need to have neutron fluxes for all components (need neutronics calculation) US HCPB TBM JA HCPB TBM
Breeder channels Cooling plates Be multiplier FW Ex-vessel LOCA analysis • Assumed parallel configuration, surface heat flux = 0.5 MW/m2 • Used nuclear heating from previous TBM design and scaled for actual configuration (M. Youssef, et al., Fusion Eng. and Design 81, 2006) • Ex-vessel He LOCA at power, 2 scenarios considered: • Plasma shutdown occurs when Be armor melts (~1250 C) • Active plasma shutdown at t =100 s Manifold CHEMCON 1-D heat transfer model
Ex-vessel LOCA analysis: results • Be temperatures in front portion of the bed is well above 800 °C (reaction rates high and access O2 should be avoided) • FW temperatures above 900 °C, material has practically no rigidity and we must assume FW failure • It is proposed here to introduce an active system for plasma shut down at t=100 s • FW front reaches high temperatures but the rear <800 °C, as the mechanical load is small rupture of the first wall is inhibited Temperature evolution during ex-vessel LOCA, plasma shutdown at t=100 s Temperature evolution during ex-vessel LOCA, no plasma shutdown
Summary and plan • Preliminary safety analysis initiated for US HCPB TBM • Demonstrated that accident source term (radioactive inventories, chemical energy and enthalpy) in US TBM is smaller than JA and EU HCPB TBM • Full blown accident analysis will probably not be necessary for US HCPB TBM, however: • need detailed neutronics analysis for US HCPB TBM • need detailed activation analysis for decay heat and radioactive inventory/waste assessments • other accident scenarios (in-vessel LOCA, in TBM-box LOCA)? • Need to address tritium inventories and releases • Still need to address the impact of the edge-on configuration on safety analyses
Comparison to EU and JA ex-vessel LOCA results US HCPB TBM EU HCPB TBM JA HCPB TBM