Journal of Fusion Energy

, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 1094–1099 | Cite as

RAMI Analysis of HCCB TBS for ITER

  • Dagui Wang
  • Jin Wang
  • Run Yuan
  • Miao Nie
  • Fang Wang
Original Research


ITER is the first worldwide international experimental nuclear fusion facility, which aims to prove the physics and technological basis for future fusion power plants. As main stages of ITER technical risk control, the reliability, availability, maintainability and inspectability (RAMI) approach should be applied to all ITER components during their design phase to reduce potential technical risks. Test blanket modules play a key role in ITER. Helium cooled ceramic breeder (HCCB) TBM is one of TBM concepts which were proposed by China. HCCB TBM and its ancillary system are called HCCB test blanket system (TBS). The RAMI analysis was performed on the conceptual design of the ITER HCCB TBS in this paper. A functional breakdown was prepared in a bottom-up approach, resulting in the system being divided into 3 main functions, 1 support function, 14 sub-functions and 50 basic functions. These functions were described using the IDEF0 method. Reliability block diagrams were prepared to estimate the reliability and availability of each function under the stipulated operating conditions. The inherent availability of the HCCB TBS expected after implementation of mitigation actions was calculated to be 94.69 % over 2 years. A failure modes, effects and criticality analysis was performed with criticality charts highlighting the risk level of the different failure modes with regard to their probability of occurrence and their effects on the availability.


RAMI Reliability Availability ITER TBM 



This work was supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XDA03040000), the National Special Program for ITER (Nos. 2014GB112001 and 2014GB116000), the Informatizational Special Projects of Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XXH12504-1-09), and the Foundation of President of Hefei Institutes of Physical Science (No. YZJJ201327). The author expresses his appreciation and gratitude for the other members of FDS team. Thanks for their contributed to this work.


  1. 1.
    J.N. Holtkamp, An overview of the ITER project. Fusion Eng. Des. 82, 427–434 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. van Houtte, K. Okayama, F. Sagot, RAMI approach for ITER. Fusion Eng. Des. 85, 1220–1224 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Kitazawa, K. Okayama, Y. Neyatani et al., RAMI analysis of ITER CODAC. Fusion Eng. Des. 87, 1510–1513 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Wu, FDS Team, Conceptual design activities of FDS series fusion power plants in China. Fusion Eng. Des. 81(23–24), 2713–2718 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Y. Wu, FDS Team, Conceptual design, testing strategy of a dual functional lithium lead test blanket module for ITER and EAST. Nucl. Fusion 47, 1533–1539 (2007)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Wu, FDS Team, Conceptual design activities of FDS series fusion power plants in China. Fusion Eng. Des. 81, 2713–2718 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Wu, FDS Team, Conceptual design of the china fusion power plant FDS-II. Fusion Eng. Des. 83(10–12), 1683–1689 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Q. Huang, C. Li, Y. Li et al., Progress in development of China low activation martensitic steel for fusion application. J. Nucl. Mater. 367–370, 142–146 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Wu, Q. Huang, Z. Zhu et al., R&D of dragon series lithium lead loops for material and blanket technology testing. Fusion Sci. Technol. 62, 272–275 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Wu, Design status and development strategy of China liquid lithium–lead blankets and related material technology. J. Nucl. Mater. 367–370, 1410–1415 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Wu, J. Qian, J. Yu, The fusion-driven hybrid system and its material selection. J. Nucl. Mater. 307–311, 1629–1636 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Y. Wu, J. Jiang, M. Wang, M. Jin et al., A fusion-driven subcritical system concept based on viable technologies. Nucl. Fusion 51, 103036 (2011)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Hu, R. Yuan, H. Chen et al., Failure modes and effects analysis on ITER DFLL-TBM system. Fusion Eng. Des. 87, 1307–1309 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. van Houtte, K. Okayama, F. Sagot, ITER operational availability and fluence objectives. Fusion Eng. Des. 86, 680–683 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Component reliability data for use in probabilistic safety assessment, IAEA-TECDOC-478, 1988Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cadwallader LC, Selected component failure rate values from fusion safety assessment tasks, INEEL/EXT-98-00892, 1998Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abdou M, Next steps for realizing fusion power and comparative analysis of roadmaps of word major fusion programs. TOFF 2012 ANS 20th topical meeting on the technology of fusion energy (Nashville, TN, 2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dagui Wang
    • 1
  • Jin Wang
    • 1
  • Run Yuan
    • 1
  • Miao Nie
    • 1
  • Fang Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Neutronics and Radiation Safety, Institute of Nuclear Energy Safety TechnologyChinese Academy of SciencesHefeiChina

Personalised recommendations