WBS 1 

27 March 2002

Presentations/Technical Reports

Minutes

We held our regular weekly telecon between ORNL and PPPL.  Mike Cole reviewed recent progress in the configuration development area.  He reported that the interference with the TF outer leg near the NB port had been resolved.  The interference between the VV support and diagnostic port had also been resolved by moving the diagnostic port and making it smaller.  Zarnstorff reminded us that we need to review the diagnostic access with Dave Johnson to assure its adequacy (Action: Cole).  At the CDR, we will show that it is possible to have a one piece or two-piece port extension.  Shorter is better as far as the length of the port extensions go.  Cole reviewed the NB port geometry.  It was necessary to slightly re-orient the beam in order to optimize beam access.  Zarnstorff requested that we transmit the revised geometry to him for calculating beam confinement (Action: Cole).  The NB port geometry shown has an odd shaped appendage which allows vacuum pumping from below and manned access from above.  For the CDR, we need to demonstrate the adequacy of manned access to the interior of the vacuum vessel for maintenance and in-vessel reconfiguration (Action: Cole).

There was considerable discussion of the spool piece that is currently in our reference design between VV segments.  It was originally incorporated to accommodate diagnostic viewing on the v=0.5 symmetry plane.  Nelson pointed out that it allows us to adjust for screw-ups on the VV fabrication.  It also provide as shorter VV segment for the modular coils to slide over.  Unless there is a compelling reason to get rid of it, we will keep it for the CDR.

There were three critical issues that were not addressed: [1] Can we slide the coils over the vacuum vessel? [2] Can we bring the three field periods together with simple radial motions? and [3] Are the stresses in the modular coil winding and shell within allowables?  The first two questions will be addressed by a stereo lithography model of the VV and modular coils (Action: Nelson).  The last is a bit more complex.  Williamson indicated that we might see the first results of the stress analysis as early as next week.  However, it is not clear how the allowables will be set or what orthotropic properties should be used for modeling the winding pack (Action: Williamson).

Mike Cole went on to review progress incorporating the ICRF launcher.  Maintainability of the vacuum feedthrough was raised as an issue.  Cole indicated there was considerably more work to be done with Majeski on developing this concept for the CDR (Action: Cole).

Dahlgren indicated that he completed a stress analysis of the PFC shell with a modulus for the shell that was equal to that measured for the CFC material used in the TFTR RF limiters.  Dahlgren also reported on his thermal-hydraulic analysis of the modular coil cooling.  He used a lumped parameter representation that yielded a significantly different result from Fan's 2D analysis.  Dahlgren agreed to reconcile the differences (Action: Dahlgren). Williamson indicated that the 2 cooling tubes (top and bottom) per double pancake should be used as the reference design.

Please forward any comments or corrections to reiersen@pppl.gov

(last edited on 04/02/2002 05:37 PM )