Fusion is our Future: Readiness of the Fusion

Technology and the 4th Industrial Revolution

Professor Nawal K Prinja

BSc, MSc, PhD, CEng, FIMechE

Technology Director, Nuclear, Wood plc

School of Engineering, Aberdeen University

College of Engineering, Brunel University London
School of Engineering, Bolton University

27th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Ahemdabad, 22-27 Oct 2018

 Contents
• Introduction
• Technology Challenges
• Impact of Industry 4.0
• Way forward
• Conclusions

2
 Brief History of Wood (Nuclear)
Personally worked through 60% of Now part of Wood plc 20
20

63 years of nuclear history AMEC Foster Wheeler

TS Serco
20
10

AllDeco Slovakia
20
AMEC Nuclear Projects UK AMEC NNC 05
Romania

AMEC
NCI South Africa
Koeberg PWR
NCL NSS Monserco 20
AMEC sro (InvestProjekt) Canad 00
Czech Republic a
Bruce CANDU

HEYSHAM 2/TORNESS
19
PP 90
Torness AGR SIZEWELL
P B

Heysham 2 AGR
19
Sizewell B PWR 80

NNC
Heysham 1 AGR

L HEYSHAM 1
BNDC

HARTLEPOO
19

HINKLEY POINT B
HUNTERSTON B
70

DUNGENESS A
OLDBUR

DUNGENESS
Y
NDC
Dungenss A Magnox Reactors

B
HINKLEY A SIZEWELL
19
60
TNPG APC

HUNTERSTON
WYLFA

TRAWSFY
BRADWELL

LATINA
BERKELEY

NYDD
TOKAI
MURA
A
A
Berkeley Magnox Reactors 19
AEI/JT NPPC EE/BW/TW GEC/SC APC 55

3
 My Introduction

• Technology Director, Nuclear, Wood plc.

Current • Honorary Professor in the School of Engineering at Aberdeen University.
Position • Honorary Professor in the College of Engineering, Brunel University London.
• Honorary Professor, School of Engineering, Bolton University.

• Advisor to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) on the Nuclear Propulsion Research &
Technology programme.
• Member of the Nuclear R&D Advisory Board to the UK Government.
• Chairman of WNA/Cordel international Task Force for Harmonisation of Codes &
Standards
• Nuclear energy Technical Expert invited by the IAEA (United Nations), Assessor
appointed by the Innovate UK.
Appointment • Member of the EC funded FENET and EASIT2 projects aimed at developing
s competencies.
• Ex-Member of Technical Assessment Panel of Fusion for Energy (F4E)
• Member of the Board of Directors for the Professional Simulation Engineer (PSE)
certification scheme.
• Chair of Industry Advisory Committee for the National Structural Integrity Research
Centre at Cambridge
• Member of the Fusion Advisory Board, EPSRC, UK 4
Email: nawal.prinja@woodplc.com
 Need to Increase Safety and Decrease Cost
Extreme events beyond design
fe ty basis have to be considered

Generation I
Sa

Early Generation II UK Nuclear Sector Deal calls for

Prototype Generation III Cos 30% reduction in the cost of new
Reactors Commercial Near-Term t
build projects by 2030
Power Advanced LWR’s Deployment
Reactors Generation IV
Evolutionary
Improved safety
 Shippingport  Highly Economical
Better economics
 Dresden, Fermi I  LWR-PWR, BWR  Enhanced Safety
 ABWR / EPR SMR/ AMR
 Magnox  CANDU  Minimal Waste
 WER/RBMK  System 80+  Proliferation Resistant
 AGR  AP600/ AP1000 Fusion
Gen I Gen II Gen III Gen III+ Gen-IV
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

5
Typical Issues for a Major New Nuclear Build Project
• Lack of completed design before construction
started Collaborative
partnerships forming
• Major regulatory interventions during construction between vendors and
• FOAK design digital solution
• Litigation/disputes between project participants providers
• Significant delays and rework required due to
supply chain
• Long construction schedule
• Relatively low productivity
• Insufficient oversight by owner
• Differences in codes and standards
• Uncertainty quantification
6
Need for Technology Development Strategy for Fusion
Major challenges
• The time and cost of further increasing the overall readiness level of fusion energy
• Testing materials under extreme environment, data collection, analysis and assessment
• New design of components

Industry 4.0
• The 4th industrial revolution (Industry 4.0) is on its way.
• Trend to use automation and data exchange technologies (cyber-physical systems, the
Internet of things, cloud computing and cognitive computing) to perform industry
activities
• Nuclear sector has not yet caught up with Industry 4.0

1 Mechanisation 2 Electrification 3Computerisation 4 Digitalisation

7
 New Technology : Expectation vs Time

Virtual/Augmented Reality (AR/VR) Blockchain Standardisation

y
nc

r
re

en om
lea
r
Cu

n m ec
c

t
Nu

tai el
to

ter T
p
ry
Expectation

e
C

ac
l –

sp
cia

n
ct

ro

/E
n

tra

Ae
a

g
Fin

in
on

m
tC
r

Ga
a

ar
ar
cle

m
cle
Nu

S
Nu

l-
ga
Le
Trigger Innovation Inflated Expectation Trough of Disillussion Slope of Enlightenment Productivity

Time
8
 What are TRLs
Technology
T Process, method, technique, machinery, equipment or
software

R Readiness
Ready for operation at the present time

Level
L Maturity: Being used or being developed. 9 point scale
4 Phases of Nuclear Specific Rating Scale
Phase TRL Stage Description
Operations TRL9 Operations The technology is being operationally used in an active facility
Active
TRL8 Commissioning The technology is undergoing active commissioning
Deployment The technology is undergoing inactive commissioning. Works testing and
factory trials on the final designed equipment using inactive simulants
Inactive comparable to that expected during operations. Testing at or near full
TRL7 Commissioning throughput will be expected
Undergoing testing at or near full-scale size. The design will not have been
finalised and the equipment will be in the process of modification. It may use
TRL6 Large Scale a limited range of simulants and not achieve full throughput
Development Undergoing testing at small to medium scale size in order to demonstrate
TRL5 Pilot Scale specific aspects of the design
TRL4 Bench Scale Starting to be developed in a laboratory or research facility.
TRL3 Proof of Concept Demonstration in principle that the invention has the potential to work.
A practical application is invented or the investigation of phenomena,
Research Invention and acquisition of new knowledge or correction and integration of previous
TRL2 Research knowledge.
TRL1 Basic principles The basic properties have been established
10 Technology in Nuclear N Prinja
 Typical Template for Practical Use of TRL
TRL System Materials Methods Manufacturing Instrumentation
Successful mission Production ready Full production system Demonstrated over an Service proven
9 operation material demonstrated extended period
Test and Full operational test Release into Production Significant run lengths Demonstrated
8 demonstration Library productionised system
Prototype demo in an Evaluated in Validated for Economic run lengths Successful
7 operational development rig tests production usage. on production parts demonstration in test.
environment
Prototype demo in a Validated via component Agree integrated Process optimised for Applied to realistic
relevant environment and/or sub-element product is verified. capability and rate location/environment
6 testing. using production with low level of
equipment specialist support.
Partial system Methods for material Partial validation of Basic capability Requiring specialist
5 validation in a relevant processing and basic functionalities & demonstrated using support
environment component manufacture specific models production equipment
Validation in a Design curves produced. Models validation in Process validated in Lab demonstration of
4 laboratory stand-alone lab highest risk
environment environment. components
Proof of concept Materials’ capability Proof of concept. Experimental proof of Lab test to prove the
3 based on lab scale concept completed concept works.
samples.
Technology concept Agreed property targets, Requirement Definition Validity of concept Concept designed
2 cost & timescales produced described
Basic principles Evidence from literature Evidence from Process concept Understand the
1 literature proposed physics

11
Target for Stage Gate / Design Review Current TRL
 TRL Comparisons

TRL Case 1 TRL Case 2

9 9
8 Ol
7 d 7 Old
6
5 5
4 New New
3 3
2
1 1
Time and Cost Time and Cost

TRL Case 4
TRL Case 3
9
9
8 8 Old
7 Old 7
6 6
• Innovation
5 5
4 New • Industry 4.0
4 New
3 3
2 • Technology
2 with low TRL today need not be a risky choice.
1 • Development
1 plan will help reduce risk.
Time and Cost Time and Cost 12
 Using TRL for Fusion
• Rating Scale: It is important that for fusion the TRL scale definitions are
made clear and explained through the use of examples.
• TRL scales may not indicate future costs or schedule.
• A “high” TRL may not be better than a “low” TRL.
• Development plans should be used to indicate how risks are to be
reduced.
• TRLs can be used for Stage Gate reviews and thresholds but should be
independently assessed.
• IAEA TECDOC to propose a template for fusion TRL scale.
Future: Additive Manufacturing
• Additive manufacturing of components
• 3D Printing
• Selective Laser Melting (SLM) for metallic components
• Quality depends on build parameters (can be over 100 parameters)
• Dimensionality reduction done to optimise and reduce time and cost of manufacture

14
From a Waterfall to a Spiral
Future: Integrating Safety & Design
Requirements Design
Requirements

Design

Safety

Regulatory
Approvals Regulatory Safety
Approvals

15
IAEA TECDOC on Safety System Safety Analysis
Classification of Fusion
Components Inductive Deductive

Hardware Procedural Hardware/Procedural

Semiquantitative Human
Quantitative Quantitative
factors Semiquantitative

Reliability FMEA/FMECA
Analysis FTA ETA

Mode of Failure Failure Effect Criticality Corrective Action

Cause Frequency Effects Detection Probability of Severity Priority of Design Design

Mode Method Detection Risk Modification Verification

Plastic Collapse Safety Classification of a Component

Buckling Design
Fracture Material and
Fatigue Geometry
Selection of Design Code
Creep
Leakage
Corrosion/erosion Design
Damage Allowable Limits
Overturning (overall stability) Loads
Loss of ductility and strain
hardening due to irradiation
Design Substantiation Stress Analysis
Future: Codes and
Standards
ITER DEMO
Damage Mechanisms ASME-BPVC RCC-MRx SDC-IC
Immediate local fracture Not included Covered – not DEMO Covered – not DEMO
(exhaustion of ductility) ready ready
Immediate plastic flow Not included Covered – not DEMO Covered – not DEMO
localisation ready ready
Ratchetting Covered – not DEMO Covered – not DEMO Covered – not DEMO
ready ready ready
Creep-fatigue Covered – not DEMO Covered – not DEMO Covered – not DEMO
ready ready ready
Fast Fracture Not Included Covered – not DEMO Covered – not DEMO
ready ready

17 Adapted from M.Porton (ISFNT 2015) and G. Alleo (EFPW 2015)

Use of Probabilistically calibrated Partial Safety Factors
•Central factor of safety (CFoS) = ratio of mean values = μS / μL
•Characteristic value of load XkL = L0.95 (95% probability) and strength XkS = L0.05 (95% probability)
•Characteristic factor of safety = S0.05 / L0.95
•Partial safety factor for load γL and for strength γS to achieve target probability of failure
Experience based FoS approach is
Mean safety margin being replaced by probabilistically
CFoS
X calibrated PSFs.

γL γS

18

New Ideas for Industry 4.0

• Digitalisation (not to be confused with digitisation)

• Digital twins for Uncertainty Quantification (more than BIM)
• New wireless sensor technology combined with IoT
• Autonomous Control Systems (more than digital C&I)
– Nuscale 12 module 600MW plant by 2020
– New wireless sensors and data analytics
– Meets Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMGs)

19
Digital Design Platform

GUI

Process

Software

Data

20
 Conclusions
• Harmonisation of design codes and standards for fusion.
• New design codes based on probabilistically calibrated partial safety factors (PSFs).
• Integrated digital reactor design platform.
• New 3Ms (Molecules, Materials and Manufacturing) leading to new components.
• Use of digital twins for uncertainty quantification. New

• Removal of unnecessary pessimism. Old

• Nuclearisation of autonomous machines.

The 4th Industrial Revolution will increase the Readiness of the Fusion Technology. 21
Fusion is our Future

Thank You