Highlights of US ITER TBM Technical Plan and Cost Estimates

(and Impact of International Collaboration)

Mohamed Abdou and the U.S. Team

TBWG-17

Presented at ITER Test Blanket Working Group (TBWG-17) at Cadarache, France, April 4-6, 2006

Detailed TBM Planning and Costing Activity for the US TBM Program is Underway

• The activity was requested by DOE and initiated in August 2005.• The plan and costing are being developed by technical experts

from the community (from Plasma Chamber, Materials, PFC, Safety and Tritium programs).– With important support and guidance from costing and project

management professionals.• A very preliminary initial draft of the report was distributed

“internally within the team” in early March 2006, for internal discussion and review.

• Revisions are underway.• Expected:

– Issue Report: May 2006– “External” Review: July 2006– “Government” Decision: Summer 2006– This is the beginning of several steps required by the U.S. Government for

“capital projects.”

Process followed for the US TBM Technical Plan and Cost Estimate(Some steps were iterative)

• Develop details of test plan in ITER and define “U.S. deliverables”• Identify the required activities

– R&D– Design– Procurement and Fabrication– Qualification and Acceptance Testing

• Establish WBS– Assign WBS account numbers to the activities in accordance with the

management responsibility for the work and the logical sequence for performing the activities.

– Complete a brief narrative description for each WBS scope and compile a WBS Dictionary including all WBS levels.

– Add WBS numbers and WBS descriptions

• Determine R&D priorities• Estimate cost for three different cases based on three different scenarios for

international collaboration. These are called “high”, “baseline”, and “low”.• For the “baseline” case, develop details of the cost estimate, integrated

schedule, and yearly expenditures.• Estimate escalation and contingencies.• Perform risk assessment and establish contingency

US Selected TBM Concepts (Reference Scenario)

HCCB Submodule Conceptual Design as of Jan. 2006

Cutaway of US DCLL TBM Module

1. The Dual-Coolant Pb-17Li Liquid Breeder Blanket concept with self-cooled Pb-Li breeding zone and flow channel inserts (FCIs) as MHD and thermal insulator. Innovative concept that provides “pathway” to higher

outlet temperature/higher thermal efficiency while using ferritic steel.

US lead role in collaboration with other parties (most parties are interested in Pb-Li as a liquid breeder, especially EU and China).

Plan an independent TBM that will occupy half an ITER test port with corresponding ancillary equipment.

2. The Helium-Cooled Solid Breeder Blanket concept with ferritic steel structure and beryllium neutron multiplier, but without an independent TBM. Support EU and Japan efforts using their TBM

structure & ancillary equipment. Contribute submodule test articles that focus on

particular technical issues.

The scope of this current planning effort and cost estimation is based on the following assumptions and constraints:

• The DCLL reference scenario assumes the testing of a series of TBMs each of which will occupy an ITER vertical half-port, have dedicated ancillary equipment, and have a PbLi exit temperature limit of 470ºC.

• The HCCB reference scenario assumes a series of sub-modules each of which will occupy 1/3 an ITER horizontal half-port and utilize shared ancillary equipment in-cooperation with the EU or Japan.

• US TBM structures will be fabricated from reduced activation ferritic steel with an assumed temperature limit of 550ºC.

• Detailed planning and cost is for a 10-year period between now and the shipment of the TBM deliverables in 2015 for DAY ONE ITER H-H operation.

• The cost is the total cost for the TBM project including R&D, design, engineering, fabrication, qualification, etc., as well as the cost to interface with ITER and other parties during this period.

• The R&D cost includes all costs related to the Reference Scenarios that occur within the next 10-year period whether they are related to the first (Day ONE) Test Articles or subsequent test articles.

• Cost of the deliverables includes the cost of the First Test Article and associated equipment (see project deliverables).

Assumptions and Constraints Affecting Strategy, Technical Planning, and Cost Estimations

The principal mission of the US ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM) Program is to develop, deploy and operate ITER TBM experiments that provide unique experimental data on, and operational experience with, the integrated function of US blanket and first wall components and materials in a true fusion plasma-magneto-nuclear environment.

This data is essential for the:1. validation of the scientific understanding and predictive capabilities

needed to interpret and extrapolate results to subsequent burning plasma experiments, component test facilities, and ultimately energy producing systems;

2. demonstration of the principles of tritium self-sufficiency in practical systems needed to establish the feasibility of the DT fuel cycle;

3. development of the technology necessary to install breeding capabilities to supply ITER with the tritium necessary for operation in its extended phase of operation and help resolve the critical “tritium supply” issue for fusion development (US involvement in the development of this technology with ITER partners will be essential to understand and influence these partner programs).

4. first integrated experimental results on the reliability, safety, environmental impact, and efficiency of fusion energy extraction systems.

Principal Mission of the US TBM Program

US Test Blanket Project Organized by Subsystem and Deliverables

US TBM Project

DCLL TBM HCCB TBM Predictive Capability

Test Module

He Loops

PbLi Loop

Tritium Processing

Design Integration

Test Sub-module

Ancillary Equipment

Design Integration

Models and Codes

Databases

Data/Code Integration

Project Support

Administration

TBWG/ITER/Parties Interface

Codes and Standards/ QA

Safety and Licensing

Example: DCLL WBS – organized by major systems1.8.1.1 Test Module 1.8.1.2 Helium Flow Loops 1.8.1.5 DCLL/ITER System Integration 1.8.1.1.1 Administration 1.8.1.2.1 Primary helium loop 1.8.1.5.1 Administration 1.8.1.1.2 R&D 1.8.1.2.1.1 Preliminary design of primary helium loop 1.8.1.5.2 R&D

1.8.1.1.2.1 Thermofluid MHD 1.8.1.2.1.2 Detailed design of primary helium loop 1.8.1.5.2.1 He and PbLi Conc. Pipe joints1.8.1.1.2.2 SiC/SiC FCI Fab and Properties 1.8.1.2.1.3 Fabrication/Procurement 1.8.1.5.2.2 VV Plug bellows design1.8.1.1.2.3 SiC/FS/PbLi Compatibility & Chemistry 1.8.1.2.1.4 Assembly, testing & installation 1.8.1.5.3 TBM System Design Integration1.8.1.1.2.4 FM steel fabrication development and materials

properties 1.8.1.2.2 Intermediate helium loop 1.8.1.5.3.1 In-Vessel System Integration

1.8.1.1.2.5 Helium System subcomponents analyses & tests 1.8.1.2.2.1 Preliminary design of intermediate helium loop 1.8.1.5.3.2 Ex-Vessel System Integration and Interface.1.8.1.1.2.6 PbLi/H2O hydrogen production 1.8.1.2.2.2 Detailed design of intermediate helium loop 1.8.1.5.3.3 RH System integration1.8.1.1.2.7 Be joining to FS 1.8.1.2.2.3 Fabrication/Procurement 1.8.1.5.3.4 Engineering Design and analysis:1.8.1.1.2.8 Virtual DCLL TBM 1.8.1.2.2.4 Assembly, testing & Installation 1.8.1.5.4 Fabrication, Procurement and Shipping. 1.8.1.1.2.9 Advanced Diagnostics 1.8.1.5.5 Assembly and on site testing

1.8.1.1.2.10 Partially Integrated mockups testing 1.8.1.3 PbLi Flow Loop 1.8.1.1.3 Engineering 1.8.1.3.1 Preliminary design of the PbLi loop

1.8.1.1.3.1 Preliminary Design and Analysis, Title I 1.8.1.3.2 Detailed design of the PbLi loop 1.8.1.1.3.2 Detailed Design, Title II 1.8.1.3.3 Fabrication/Procurement 1.8.1.1.3.3 Title III 1.8.1.3.4 Assembly, testing & Installation

1.8.1.1.4 Prototype TBM design and fabrication1.8.1.1.4.1 Prototype Call for tender / Contract award 1.8.1.4 Tritium Processing1.8.1.1.4.2 Prototype Manufacturing

Design (tooling and processing) 1.8.1.4.1 Administration

1.8.1.1.4.3 Prototype TBM Material procurement 1.8.1.4.2 R&D1.8.1.1.4.4 PrototypeTBM Fabrication,

procurement and shipping 1.8.1.4.2.1 Modeling tool development and benchmarking

1.8.1.1.5 Prototype TBM Assembly and testing 1.8.1.4.2.2 Tritium extraction from PbLi

1.8.1.1.6 TBM design and fabricaton 1.8.1.4.2.3 Tritium extraction from He1.8.1.1.6.1 Call for tender / Contract award 1.8.1.4.2.4 Fate of tritium in PbLi1.8.1.1.6.2 Manufacturing design (tooling and processing) 1.8.1.4.3 Engineering1.8.1.1.6.3 Material procurement 1.8.1.4.3.1 Detailed Design1.8.1.1.6.4 Fabrication, procurement and shipping 1.8.1.4.3.2 Title III

1.8.1.1.7 Assembly, testing & Installation 1.8.1.4.4 Fabrication/Procurement 1.8.1.4.5 Assembly/Installation

The main deliverables in March 2015 for the DCLL include: 1. a half-port test module, 2. a primary helium flow loop, 3. a PbLi flow loop, 4. a secondary helium flow loop (and a heat exchanger for PbLi flow

loop),5. tritium processing and measuring systems all capable to meet the

quantitative goals and obtain the data sets described above, and6. predictive capability.

The main deliverables for HCCB are: 1. a test sub-module that has a size of 1/3 of one-half port to be

integrated with a host party’s test module,2. associated ancillary equipment including primary helium flow

conditioners, and measuring systems for helium coolant, tritium, and test sub-module performance all capable to meet the quantitative goals and obtain the data sets described above, and

3. predictive capability.

Deliverables

Identified and Prioritized R&D Tasks

• Developed R&D requirements based on TBM technical issues– Developed system of priorities (cost/risk/benefit)– Identified potential international collaborations

• Summarize the main purpose of this subtask. What critical need does this R&D address? Is it more oriented towards (1) Establishing basic TBM feasibility for fusion (2) Understanding/predicting TBM performance required for design, or (3) Adding to safety and qualification database.

• Summarize the risks to the machine or mission if this R&D is not performed.

• Categorize this subtask based on the following system: – E = Essential for the qualification and successful execution of the TBM experiment, and no other party is doing it.– I = Important for the qualification and successful execution of the TBM experiment, or Essential but is definitely

being done by another party.– D = Desirable but the risk is acceptable if not performed.

• Categorize this subtask schedule over the next 10 year period based on the following system.– B = Beginning 3-4 years. Needed immediately for preliminary design choices.– M = Middle 3-4 years. Needed in the middle of the next 10 years after initial R&D is performed (for instance for

qualification or integrated effects tests).– E = Ending 3-4 years. Needed before performance of first experiments or is specific for subsequent modules.

indicates attachement to deadline1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7

1, initial review 2, mid review 3, PDR 4, bid pack / MUs 5, mod bid package

1.8.1.1.2.1 Thermofluid MHD1.8.1.1.2.1.1 Modeling Tools

1 High Hartmann number flows2 Non-orthogonal meshes3 Complex MHD flow and heat transfer

1.8.1.1.2.1.2 Flow Channel Insert Experiments and Modeling1 Sic/Sic FCI test-section fabrication2 Experiment 1 - flow development and gap flow3 SiC/SiC FCI test-section with pressure slots and overlaps

4 Experiment 2 - pressure drop & eq, velocity profile

5Loop upgrade - vertical magnet orientation and outer wall cooling

6 Experiment 3 - combined heat transfer effects1.8.1.1.2.1.3 TBM Manifold Experiments and Modeling

1 LM loop modification and Non-conducting test-section 2 Non-conducting wall experiment3 Conducting test-section fabrication4 Conducting test-section experiment5 Optimization test-section experiments

20102006 2007 2008 2009

US Plan has clearly defined yearly milestones for each R&D

High Cost Range Scenario• The high cost range scenario is for an Independent US DCLL TBM and an

Independent HCCB TBM; with accounting for known international collaborations. The high cost scenario is similar in scope to the current EU and Japan TBM programs and gives an indication of total project cost to pursue two blanket options with minimum risk in the sense that the US is responsible for all hardware for half-port sized TBMs for both of its selected blanket options. (Also, space not available on ITER. Practical?)

Baseline Cost Range Scenario• The baseline scenario is defined as an Independent US DCLL TBM

accounting for known international collaboration, and a supporting international partnership on the HCCB TBM. This baseline cost scenario most closely matches the DOE guidance presented in Chapter 3.3.

Lower Cost Range Scenario• The lower cost range scenario is defined as a Leading international

partnership on DCLL TBM and a supporting international partnership on the HCCB TBM. The low cost range scenario represents the minimum level of investment where the US will still acquire the knowledge, and develop the capabilities and skills, in the many areas necessary for fusion blanket development and fabrication in the US of components for a future CTF and fusion DEMO. There is however more risk associated with this scenario due to the level of international collaboration.

Cost Range Scenarios

US ITER TBM Total Project Cost Breakdown until March 2015Estimates as of Mar 29, 2006

WBS WBS Description Low Range (k$) Baseline ($k) High Range (k$)

1.8.1 Dual Coolant Lead Lithium (DCLL) $35,747 $64,127 $64,1271.8.1.1 Test Module $28,284 $53,031 $53,0311.8.1.1.1 WBS Administration $2,500 $2,500 $2,5001.8.1.1.2 Research and Development $17,859 $36,780 $36,7801.8.1.1.3 Engineering $6,338 $10,578 $10,5781.8.1.1.4 Prototype Fabrication/Procurement $771 $1,540 $1,5401.8.1.1.5 Prototype Assembly and Testing $102 $203 $2031.8.1.1.6 TBM Fabrication/Procurement $670 $1,340 $1,3401.8.1.1.7 TBM Assembly and Testing $45 $89 $891.8.1.2 Helium Flow Loops $2,412 $4,021 $4,0211.8.1.3 Lead Lithium (PbLi) Flow Loop $2,094 $3,490 $3,4901.8.1.4 Tritium Processing System $943 $1,571 $1,5711.8.1.5 DCLL/ITER System Integration $2,014 $2,014 $2,0141.8.2 Helium Cooled Ceramic Breeder (HCCB) $16,764 $16,764 $44,5121.8.2.1 Test Submodule $14,656 $14,656 $39,4121.8.2.1.1 WBS Administration $1,684 $1,684 $2,5001.8.2.1.2 Research and Development $7,377 $7,377 $25,0371.8.2.1.3 Engineering $3,900 $3,900 $8,3651.8.2.1.4 Prototype/Submodule Fab & Testing $1,385 $1,385 $3,4601.8.2.1.5 Integration and Packaging $311 $311 $501.8.2.2 Ancillary Equipment $813 $813 $3,1591.8.2.3 HCCB/ITER System Integration $1,295 $1,295 $1,9411.8.3 Project Support $7,881 $8,785 $11,0281.8.3.1 Project Administration / Project Controls $2,000 $2,000 $2,0001.8.3.2 TBWG/Parties Interface & Collaborations $2,300 $2,300 $2,3001.8.3.3 Safety and Regulatory Support $3,581 $4,485 $6,7281.8.3.3.1 Regulatory Support $840 $840 $1,2601.8.3.3.2 Safety Analysis and Reporting $1,356 $2,260 $3,3901.8.3.3.3 Safety Design Integration $1,385 $1,385 $2,0781.8 US ITER-TBM Estimated Cost $60,392 $89,676 $119,666  Est. Escalation and Contingency $16,241 $23,271 $32,522  US ITER-TBM Total Project Cost $76,633 $112,947 $152,188

US ITER TBM Total Project Cost Summary until March 2015Estimates as of Mar 29, 2006

WBS WBS Description Low Range(k$)

Baseline ($k)

High Range(k$)

1.8.1 Dual Coolant Lead Lithium (DCLL) $35,747 $64,127 $64,127

1.8.2 Helium Cooled Ceramic Breeder (HCCB) $16,764 $16,764 $44,512

1.8.3 Project Support $7,881 $8,785 $11,028

1.8 US ITER-TBM Estimated Cost $60,392 $89,676 $119,666

  Est. Escalation and Contingency $16,241 $23,271 $32,522

  US ITER-TBM Total Project Cost $76,633 $112,947 $152,188

Estimated DCLL Baseline R&D Costs until March 2015 in 2006 k$ Total is $49,129k

$6,621, 13%

$2,768, 6%

$844, 2%

$10,688, 21%

$840, 2%

$799, 2%

$1,387, 3%

$2,911, 6%

$2,718, 6%

$7,203, 14%

$321, 1%

$1,455, 3%

$10,574, 21%

Thermofluid MHD SiC/SiC FCI Fab SiC/FS/PbLi Compatibility RAFS Fab. Devel. Helium Subcomponent Tests PbLi/H2O Reaction Be Joining to RAFS Virtual TBM TBM Diagnostics Mockups Fac.& TestingDesign IntegrationTritium Control Known Int. CollaborationsEstimation as of

Mar 29, 2006

Note: Includes TBM, Ancillary Loop, Tritium Systems and Design Integration R&D

Estimated DCLL Cost Savings for Known Int. Collaborations in 2006 k$Total is $10,574

RAFS Fab. Devel. , $5,095

PbLi/H2O Reaction , $1,598

Be Joining to RAFS , $2,816

Virtual TBM , $1,065 RAFS Fab. Devel. PbLi/H2O Reaction Be Joining to RAFS Virtual TBM

Estimation as of Mar 29, 2006

Additional R&D savings may be possible in diagnostics development and test facilities

Additional Hardware savings may be possible by joint design and fabrication of He and PbLi ancillary systems

Estimated HCCB Baseline R&D Costs until March 2015 in 2006 k$Total is $7,377k

$886, 12%

$845, 11%

$792, 11%

$178, 2%

$788, 11%$1,180, 16%

$2,708, 37%

He Flow & Manifold Tests

SB Thermomechanics & T Recovery

T Control and Predictive Capability

Breeder pebble knowledge base

Diagnostics and Instrumentation

Partially Integrated Tests

In-Pile Pebble Bed Assembly Tests

"Dual-Use" costs with DCLL including RAFS fabrication development and Integrated Test Facilities included under DCLL only

Estimation as of Mar 29, 2006

Estimated yearly spending profile for US TBM Project through shipment of deliverables, March 2015

$0

$2,500

$5,000

$7,500

$10,000

$12,500

$15,000

$17,500

$20,000

$22,500

Cos

ts in

as

spen

t k$

Contingency (k$)Escalated Cost (k$)

Contingency (k$) $295 $1,072 $1,634 $2,157 $2,253 $1,900 $1,375 $877 $432 $123

Escalated Cost (k$) $2,454 $8,923 $13,592 $17,943 $18,749 $15,807 $11,443 $7,299 $3,597 $1,021

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Estimation as of Mar 29, 2006

Lessons Learned from U.S. Technical Plan and Cost Estimate for ITER-TBM

• The largest uncertainties in developing the technical plan and cost estimate is the lack of a well-defined agreement among the Parties on the specifics of the ITER-TBM.

• Particular examples of uncertainties:– How much space is available to the U.S. (or to any party) in

ITER test ports?– Is it practical for the U.S. to assume space is available to test

two independent TBM concepts? (Is it practical for any Party to make such assumptions?)

– What specific framework for international collaboration is practical to assume?

• “Joint Partnership” on test modules and ancillary equipment? Assigning of Tasks?

• “Sharing” of R&D tasks?• Schedule is very tight. Phasing of tasks for the

next 10 years is a challenge.

Urgent Actions Needed1. There needs to be an agreement among the ITER parties on

“Major Principles” of the ITER Test Program.e.g. assignment of port space, how many concepts per party, which concepts are actually tested jointly by several parties.

TBWG is the logical entity to deal with the challenge of reaching agreement on a well defined, practical test program to which all parties agree.

2. Developing and signing of a LEGAL agreement among ITER parties on the TBM Program (either as part of ITER agreement or as an amendment).

3. Need to formalize agreement(s) among the parties into Legal Agreement(s) (multi-lateral, tri-lateral, and/or bi-lateral) on specifics of collaborations on TBM R&D, construction of test module, construction and sharing of ancillary equipment, etc.