29 July 20101 Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel Mark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi ARIES-Pathways Project...

29 July 2010 1

Lane Carlson, Charles KesselMark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi

ARIES-Pathways Project MeetingWashington, D.C. June 29-30, 2010

Exploring the Parameter Space with the Visual ARIES

Systems Scanning Tool

29 July 2010 2

The four corners of the parameter space have been defined

ARIES-AT physics

(βN=0.04-0.06)

DCLL blanket

ARIES-I physics

(βN = 0.03)

DCLL blanket

Aggressive in technology

Ag

gre

ssiv

e in

phy

sics

ARIES-AT physics

(βN=0.04-0.06)

SiC blanket

ARIES-I physics

(βN = 0.03)

SiC blanket

• Scans have been performed to span the 4 corners of the parameter space

• A grouping of lowest COE points have been isolated at each corner.

C.Kessel to present

specifics

29 July 2010 3

Some systems code scanning parameters:

Preliminary filtering:1. Pnelec = 1000 MW ± 15 MW2. Divertor (in/outboard) limit < 15 MW/m2

3. BTmax = 6 - 18 T

4. COE real

Range Resolution

R (m) 4.0 - 8.25 0.25

BT (T) 4.5 - 8.5 0.25

BetaN 0.025 - 0.06 0.005

Q gain 15 - 40 5

n/nGr 0.7 - 1.3 0.1

Paux 5 - 40 5

…

Now we can load this database of viable operating

points and visualize

29 July 2010 4

We have explored the four corners with the VASST GUI as a visualization tool

• VASST - Visual ARIES Systems Scanning Tool

• Working to visualize the broad parameter space to extract

meaningful data and uncover new relationships

• Graphical user interface (GUI) permits color 2D plots of

any parameter

Purpose: to give the user more visual interaction and explorative power to extract meaningful relationships

29 July 2010 5

VASST GUI v.2

Pull-down menus for common parameters

Blanket database used

Number of points in database

Constraint parameter can restrict database

Auto-labeling

Correlation coefficient

Save plot as TIFF, JPEG, BMP, PNG…

Color bar scale

Edit plotting properties

(Visual ARIES Systems Scanning Tool)

Turn on ARIES-AT point design for reference

new

“Thickened” databaseNote: All costing in this presentation is 2009$

29 July 2010 6

Constraint example #1: Aggr physics / aggr tech

R vs fGW, CC COE

Secondary constraints to apply for practical purposes: - fGW < 1.0 - H98 < 1.7

29 July 2010 7


R vs fGW, CC COEConst: fGW < 1.0

29 July 2010 8


R vs fGW, CC COEConst: fGW < 1.0Const: H98 < 1.7

29 July 2010 9


R vs H98, CC COE

29 July 2010 10


R vs H98, CC COEConst: fGW < 1.0

29 July 2010 11


R vs H98, CC COEConst: fGW < 1.0Const: H98 < 1.7

29 July 2010 12


BetaN vs H98, CC COE

29 July 2010 13


BetaN vs H98, CC COEConst: H98 < 1.7

29 July 2010 14


BetaN vs H98, CC COEConst: H98 < 1.7Const: fGW < 1.0

29 July 2010 15

Example #4: Aggr physics / aggr tech

Reiterating C. Kessel’s points, trends, observations with visualizations

COE vs BetaN shows

relatively weak dependence

“Knee in the curve” at

BetaN = 0.03

29 July 2010 16


fGW 1.0 - 1.3Too aggressive

Smaller device

29 July 2010 17


H98 > 1.65Too aggressive

Smaller device

29 July 2010 18


Aggressive physicsBetaN > 0.045

29 July 2010 19


Aggressive physicsBetaN > 0.045

COE 50

COE 60

COE 70

29 July 2010 20

Example #6: Cons physics / aggr tech

BT = 7 - 8.5 for cons physics (BetaN ~ 0.03)

29 July 2010 21


BT vs COE, CC BetaN

Low BetaN regime

29 July 2010 22


BT vs COE, CC BetaNConst: BetaN < 0.035

29 July 2010 23


BT vs COE, CC BetaNConst: BetaN < 0.030

29 July 2010 24

Example #7: Aggr physics / cons tech

Rise in BT as aggressiveness

decreases (BetaN)

Now DCLL blanket

29 July 2010 25


Still weak COE effect of BetaN

29 July 2010 26


nGW > 1.3 and H98 > 1.4 are too

aggressive

29 July 2010 27

Example #8: Cons physics / cons tech

Device is large with BT = 7.5 - 8.5 T at

low BetaN

29 July 2010 28

SC magnet current reduction

• SC magnet algorithm may be too optimistic• Re-examined lower B-fields for possible solutions• 1.5x reduction might represent an ITER-type TF coil

Original magnetic coil algorithm

3x reduction (~ ITER TF coil)

10x reduction(exaggeration)

! Builds are not finalized but show TF coil growth trend !

29 July 2010 29

Extra: Pnelec (unrestricted) vs COE, CC: COE

SiC blanket

Possible attractive power plant designs in the 500 MW range

29 July 2010 30

Is a small (< 500 MW Pnelec) plant feasible?

• Must be careful when drawing comparisons from 1,000 MW ARIES

power plant to a small pilot plant

• ARIES is 10th-of-a-kind

costing, difficult to pin

down 1st-of-a-kind

• ARIES magnets are SC

• Differs from current

project scope

29 July 2010 31

The database chronicle is growing as resolution is added

• What input parameters were used?• What version of the systems code was used? (Subversion control)• What blanket was implemented?• What were the assumptions applied in the code?• What filters were implemented? (Pnetel, Qdiv, B, etc.)• What costing algorithms were used, year$ ?

Every result/picture/graph should be backed up with specifics of its origin

29 July 2010 32

Background check on systems code

• History of code is being investigated and documented.• What exactly is in the different modules? Assumptions and approx

used?• This is an ongoing effort to document every specific of the code rather

than rely on “corporate memory.”1. Physics Module

a) Toroidal magnetic fieldsb) Heat flux to divertorc) Neutron wall loadd) Net electric power

2. Engineering Modulea) Blanket (DCLL, SiC)b) Power flowc) Magnetsd) Geometry

3. Costing Modulea) Detailed costing accounts

Documentation spreadsheet started

29 July 2010 33

Summary

Large system scans have been done and thickening in

areas of interest.

The second version of the VASST GUI has looked at

parameter correlations at the four corners.

Continuing chronicle and documentation of details and

specifics of the systems code.

29 July 2010 34

Future work

Define strawmen for four corners.

Continue to thicken and refine the database in relevant

areas once aggr/cons parameters are nailed down.

Re-examine/scan the TF and PF coil j vs. B relationships.

Potentially consider smaller pilot plant machines.

Live VASST demo?

29 July 2010 35

Extra Slides

29 July 2010 36

ARIES systems code consists of modular building blocks

1. Blankets2. Geometry3. Magnets4. Power flow5. Costing

1. PHYSICS

Plasmas that satisfy power and particle

balance

2. ENGINEERING FILTERS APPLIED

Systems Code Analysis Flow

3. ENGINEERING & COSTING

DETAILSPower core, power

flow, magnets, costing, COE

Modules include:

• Systems code integrates physics, engineering, design, and costing.

1. Toroidal magnetic fields2. Heat flux to divertor3. Neutron wall load4. Net electric power

Filters include:

DCLLSiCARIES-AT

29 July 2010 37

Goals of Dec. 2010 ARIES research proposal

3.1 Goals

The current status of research on tokamak edge plasma physics and plasma-facing compo-

nent engineering points to a substantial gap between our best predictions of the heat and particle

fluxes leaving the edge plasma and the maximum allowable heat and particle fluxes that would

result in a reliable and economically attractive power plant. The goals of this study are: (1) to

describe these gaps quantitatively over a range of possible tokamak power plant embodiments,

characterized by the “four corners” of power plant parameter space described below, (2) to

define research needed to close the gaps, and (3) to seek credible, self-consistent solutions appro-

priate for a commercial power plant. These efforts will utilize the latest available data on edge

plasma conditions and component engineering.

The recently-updated ARIES system code is well suited to address parametric analysis and sensitivity studies for fully-integrated fusion systems.

Scope of new study is to re-evaluate the ARIES design while considering current PMI knowledge and issues.

29 July 20101 Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel Mark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi ARIES-Pathways Project...

Documents

Transcript of 29 July 20101 Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel Mark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi ARIES-Pathways Project...