Published June 2009 | Version v1
Journal article

Maintenance implications of critical components in ITER CXRS upper port plug design

  • 1. FOM-Institute for Plasma Physics Rijnhuizen, Association EURATOM-FOM, Partner in the Trilateral Euregio Cluster and ITER-NL, PO Box 1207, 3430 BE Nieuwegein (Netherlands)
  • 2. Dutch Space B.V., PO Box 32070, 2303 DB Leiden (Netherlands)
  • 3. TNO Science and Industry, Partner in ITER-NL, PO Box 155, 2600 AD Delft (Netherlands)
  • 4. Institute for Energy Research IEF-4 (Plasma Physics), Forschungszentrum Juelich, Association EURATOM-FZJ, Trilateral Euregio Cluster, D-52425 Juelich (Germany)
  • 5. HIT B.V., Merelhof 2, 2172 HZ Sassenheim (Netherlands)

Description

Already in the early phase of a design for ITER, the maintenance aspects should be taken into account, since they might have serious implications. This paper presents the arguments in support of the case for the maintainability of the design, notably if this maintenance is to be performed by advanced remote methods. This structure is compliant to the evolving maintenance strategy of ITER. Initial results of a Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and a development risk analysis for the ITER upper port plug no. 3, housing the Charge Exchange Recombination Spectroscopy (CXRS) diagnostic, are employed for the definition of the maintenance strategy. The CXRS upper port plug is essentially an optical system which transfers visible light from the plasma into a fiber bundle. The most critical component in this path is the first mirror (M1) whose reflectivity degrades during operation due to deposition and/or erosion dominated effects. Amongst other measures to mitigate these effects, the strategy is to allow for a replacement of this mirror. Therefore it is mounted on a retractable central tube. The main purpose of this tube is to make frequent replacements possible without hindering operation. The maintenance method in terms of time, geometry and spare part policy has a large impact on cost of the system and time usage in the hot cell. Replacement of the tube under vacuum and magnetic field seems infeasible due to the operational risk involved. The preferred solution is to have a spare tube available which is replaced in parallel with other maintenance operations on the vessel, as to avoid any interference in the hot cell with the shutdown scheduling. This avoids having to refurbish a full port plug and also allows for a more frequent replacement of M1, as we can replace the mirror anytime the vacuum vessel is vented, estimated to be once a year.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2008.11.016

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.fusengdes.2008.11.016;
PII
S0920-3796(08)00346-3;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Fusion Engineering and Design
Journal Volume
84
Journal Issue
7-11
Journal Page Range
p. 1091-1094
ISSN
0920-3796
CODEN
FEDEEE

Conference

Title
25. symposium on fusion technology
Acronym
SOFT-25
Dates
15-19 Sep 2008
Place
Rostock (Germany)

INIS

Country of Publication
Netherlands
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
41033054
Subject category
S70: PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY;
Resource subtype / Literary indicator
Conference
Descriptors DEI
ITER TOKAMAK; MAINTENANCE; REMOTE HANDLING; RISK ASSESSMENT; TUBES
Descriptors DEC
CLOSED PLASMA DEVICES; THERMONUCLEAR DEVICES; THERMONUCLEAR REACTORS; TOKAMAK DEVICES; TOKAMAK TYPE REACTORS

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.