• Jobs 0
  • Tenders 0
  • Visits
  • FAQs
  • Contact us
  • ITER directory
  • Subscribe

    Subscribe to the newsletter

    Your email address will only be used for the purpose of sending you the ITER Organization publication(s) that you have requested. ITER Organization will not transfer your email address or other personal data to any other party or use it for commercial purposes.

    If you change your mind, you can easily unsubscribe by clicking the unsubscribe option at the bottom of an email you've received from ITER Organization.

    For more information, see our Privacy policy.

    Select your newsletters:

  • Donate
FR

Interview with Dr. Günter Janeschitz on the ITER Design Review

7 Mar 2007 - Sabina Griffith
Dr. Gunter Janeschitz

Dr. Günter Janeschitz, an Austrian physicist based at the Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, took on the role of coordinator of the ITER Design Review from its inception last year. ITER Newsline reporter Sabina Griffith interviewed him on the progress he is making, and on the many challenges he faces.

"Inside the ITER Organization as well as in the Domestic Agencies, many people will be involved with ITER for the first time. Therefore we need to broaden the knowledge base. And the best way to do so is to involve people in solving problems under the guidance of people who already know the details of the ITER design."

Dr. Janeschitz, in November 2006 a design review was launched to update the ITER design that was defined in 2001. What makes this review necessary?

There are several reasons, why this design review was inevitable, mainly because physics has developed further since 2001. While general physics results achieved over the past five years have confirmed the general design of the ITER machine, for example, new results on ELM control (Edge Localized Modes are regular bursts of energy and particles leaving the plasma) and resistive wall mode control (RWMs may occur due to the presence of the conducting vessel wall, and lead to loss of stored energy) suggest the need to install a few small coils in ITER, which allow fast field changes. We were always concerned that in a machine of the size of ITER the power loads produced by ELMs on the divertor and the first wall could exceed the threshold of evaporation and melting of the plasma-facing components. So far, the most promising method to mitigate these loads is the introduction of small error fields at the plasma edge by means of relatively small coils. This is one example where the design review is to check the possibility of installing such coils in the ITER machine.  

Second, there are new results from ongoing R&D programs carried out to qualify important components for ITER, for example the toroidal field coils and the central solenoid. Tests of the prototypes have shown that there is a degradation in the current-carrying capability of the superconducting cable due to internal forces when it is being used. Therefore we have lost—at least in these tests—the operational margin which we need to operate these coils with the parameters we want to achieve. Currently, modified cables are being produced and tested with results expected between April and June this year. If these modifications are successful, then we should regain the necessary margins and the procurement specifications of the strands and the coils can be finalized. 

Then there are issues that may affect the design of major components. During the design review we analyze their current status. If in conclusion (e.g., the required availability of the machine is at risk) we will have to investigate further in order to improve. Should any of the seven working groups come up with a better solution for the design of a particular component, that can be achieved in time, the proposal will be reviewed by the ITER Organization together with the parties.

Finally, a fourth good reason for the design review is the education of all newcomers to the field. Inside the ITER Organization as well as in the Domestic Agencies many people will be involved with ITER for the first time. Therefore we need to broaden the knowledge base. And the best way to do so is to involve people in solving problems under the guidance of people who already know the details of the ITER design. Thus, the design review is an excellent opportunity to allow the ITER team and the Domestic Agencies to take ownership of the project by starting to understand the critical issues. Only a broad knowledge extending into the DAs will ensure problem-free manufacturing of the ITER components. 

Who will control the manufacturing processes?

It is not necessary nor the intent of the ITER Organization to control all the details of the manufacturing processes around the world. Together with the domestic agencies ITER will establish rules and quality assurance programs that are consistent with French regulations. Of course the ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies will provide sufficient oversight and coaching within the companies in order to make sure that especially for “one of a kind” contributions specifications are met. This is a substantial effort but necessary to be successful. 

You talk about experience, have you ever been involved in a project similar to this?

I was involved in the ITER Engineering Design Activities back in the nineties when we proceeded in a very similar way particularly on the large R&D projects which underpinned the design. During the Engineering Desing Activities we had Home Teams similar to the Domestic Agencies and there was the Joint Central Team, comparable to the ITER team. We were directly exposed to the problems the industry had with our specifications and our designs. And only as long as we stayed in close contact with our counterparts in industry did we receive good results. Therefore it is very important that we start intensive coaching of industry immediately after a contract is awarded. And for that we will need the help of the Domestic Agencies. 

So the design review seems to be multi-purpose?

Yes indeed. It is certainly our aim to keep changes to a minimum even though we have four hundred issues submitted by the worldwide fusion community on the table. Many of these issues can be addressed quite easily while some are more general about sufficient capital and human resources. In addition there are many overlaps between different issues. It is now the job of the working groups to prioritize and condense the issues. The highest priority issues are those which are of concern for the so called long lead items, i.e., vacuum vessel, coils, buildings and safety issues.

What is the next step in the procedure?

The working groups have now produced work plans defining the required manpower to finish the 2007 baseline and the design work in order to be able to solve the high priority issues in line with the procurement schedule. The success of the design review will therefore depend on how fast these resources become available. A status report and initial results in some areas will be presented to a Technical Advisory Group which reports to the Director-General Nominee, Mr. Kaname Ikeda, in April, followed by the presentation of the draft Baseline Design 2007 to the ITER Council this summer. The resolution of high-priority issues and the final Baseline Design 2007 are due to be delivered to the ITER Council in the third quarter of 2007.

Being the principal coordinator of the design review, pressure not to miss an important issue must be immense, I guess?

Well, it is my job to coordinate the working groups and to make sure that we don’t miss an important issue and/or an interface issue between two or more groups. So yes, I am doing my best to keep the overview.
 

Return to newsline