Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel, Stephen Efthyvoulos ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting Bethesday, MD April 4-5, 2011 Finalized Systems Code Modifications &

Published byMarlene Conley Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel, Stephen Efthyvoulos ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting Bethesday, MD April 4-5, 2011 Finalized Systems Code Modifications &"— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel, Stephen Efthyvoulos ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting Bethesday, MD April 4-5, 2011 Finalized Systems Code Modifications & New Aggressive Strawmen Suggestions

2 2 ASC Overview ASC has undergone many error corrections and modifications. Laila’s comments from Jan. 2011 presentation addressed Laila and Les’ comments on Feb. 2011 interim printouts addressed  major errors and discrepancies have been corrected, believability of code improved Refined strawmen suggested for ARIES Technology & Physics Assessment of Advanced and Conservative Tokamaks (ACT) ARIES-ACT-I (aggressive technology, aggressive physics) ARIES-ACT-II (aggressive technology, conservative physics) Continuing to update documentation and track changes. New multi-filtering capability in VASST GUI. Working on converting DCLL module to generic build structure.

3 3 Action Items Completed from Jan. 26 2011 meeting Fix radial builds discrepancies. Done Adopt SOL = 10 cm. Done Adopt 50 MW aux power from 63 MW. Done Correct FW and divertor surface areas per Laila’s pres. Plasma SA used to include divertor SA. Now, plasma SA ~547 m3 w/ 10 cm SOL. IB FW ~133 m 2, OB FW ~375 m 2, total ~508 m 2, Div SA ~191 m2 (all 6) Printout all parameters, costing algorithms, material properties. Done Check number, volume, cost of PF modules including spares. 50 PF coils total accounted for in volume & costing 36 “active” (14 top, 14 bottom, 8 central solenoid) 14 “spares” below bottom coils Theoretical plasma facing surface better defined (plasma SA + 10cm SOL). Done Separate pumping powers for He and PbLi in blanket. Working Clarify in output that heating and CD powers are steady-state. Done

4 4 Input Needed, Received for ASC WaganerNew fabrications costs, algorithms, updated GDP El-GuebalyASC output formatting, NWL distribution, core radiation TillackMHD pumping power correlations for SiC, DCLL blankets RognlienEdge power flows KesselRevised physics module. Aspect ratio scans Wang All Divertor pumping power correlations. Consensus on April 2011 strawmen

5 5 Generic radial build proposed Fixed: IB FW/B = 35 cm, OB FW/B = 30 cm Need to remove customized naming designations. Generic radial build will allow true modularity of blankets. Leave room for possible future layers. Work in progress

6 6 Laila’s comments from interim printout were addressed LiPb includes 2.5x BOP factor, discrepancy is due to new lower cost, eutectic mixing. To be discussed Ppumpdiv ~ 20-25 MW using plate divertor Ppumpblanket ~ 5-10 MW using SiC blanket with dual-coolant blanket and mechanical LM pump, 90% efficient Accounts 21.2 Power core building (vol ~ 141,000 m 3 ), 21.7 Hot cell building were zero, now corrected. 21.7 = 21.1*0.34 M$ Power core support structure is now 20% FPC vol (783 m 3 ) = 156 m 3 * 0.2 M$/m 3 = 31 M$. Refine? NWL_ave fixed, now uses 10cm SOL + plasma SA ~= 2.8 MW/m 2 Dual-coolant costing algorithm implemented for Heat Transfer and Transport for Accnt 22.6.

7 7 Laila’s comments from interim printout were addressed Penetration shielding = 25% Shield thickness vs NWL scale with correct NWL_ave Updated part compositions and costing. To do: separate IB and div shield. + MANY others, documented in “Laila validation re interim strawmen, LCC ed 2.doc” and “ASC Legend 23.xls” OB bl VV HT shield IB bl Divertor Sepatrix Repl HT shield FW IB Plasma FW OB

8 8 Les’ comments from interim printout were addressed System of checks and balances - caught many minor errors and discrepancies. Part compositions and volumes verified by hand vs. computer calculations. Changed VV composition to composite structure, $43.44/kg, among others. + MANY others, documented in “Validation of 2_11 ASC Strawman (2_23_11) LW, LCC ed 2.doc” and “ASC Legend 23.xls”

9 9 Mark contributed SiC blanket pumping power No He-pumping MHD pumping power for PbLi in IB FW/B only, OB is expected to be much lower Blanket thermal = Pn*M+FW Prad ASC limits use to data range given

10 10 Items to address Support structure volume and mass algorithms. Main Heat Transfer and Transport (MHTT) - power core and primary loop. Power conversion system for MHTT - Brayton cycle? He mass in Brayton cycle? Direct cycle heat exchanger to turbine? Or IHX for PbLi to He. IHX He volume? Turbine cycle working fluid volume? Nuclear-grade materials and safety-related components cost factors, PbLi costing details - TBD Laila

11 11 Chronicle of error corrections, modifications Major discrepancies have been resolved such that we are confident issuing strawman results. Minor work is still ongoing, will be available in subsequent revisions. Revision # locked at 30 All above are implemented. All below are for future work.

12 12 VASST plots - compare with Kessel Jan ‘11 pres Same scanning range as Kessel except betaN down to 0.0275

13 13 Bt vs betaN, CC A The operating space for aspect ratio scans: A = 4.0, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0

14 14 fBS vs betaN, CC A

15 15 R vs Qdivoutb, CC A Qdivoutb < 15 MW/m 2

16 16 R vs Xnwall, CC A Xnwall 2-4 MW/m 2

17 17 n/nGW vs H98, CC A

18 18 qMHD vs betaN, CC A

19 19 Conclusions from aspect ratio scans Effect of aspect ratio scans: A = 4.0, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0 1.as A is reduced the major radius is dropping 2.as A is reduced the toroidal field at the plasma drops 3.as A decreases Ip increases 4.as A decreases the max field at the TF coil is rising 5.how does the engineering solution change??? magnets, build... 1.2.

20 20 Aspect ratio scans builds A = 4.0A = 3.0A = 2.5 Drawn by systems code

21 21 April 2011 Strawmen proposed ARIES-ACT-I (aggressive technology, aggressive physics) SiC blanket, η th ~ 58%, β N = 0.04 - 0.06 ARIES-ACT-II (aggressive technology, conservative physics) SiC blanket, η th ~ 58%, β N = 0.0275 - 0.04

22 22 Systems code scanning parameters used SiC blanket only aggressive Range, aggressive Resolution R (m)4.0 - 8.0 0.5 B T (T)4.0 - 9.00.5 βNβN 0.0275 - 0.060.0025 Qcyl (q95)3.5 - 5.40.2 Q gain15 - 405 n/n Gr 0.5 - 1.10.05 Impurity fraction0.001 - 0.0030.001 Kappa plasma elong.2.0 - 2.20.2 Aspect ratio4.0, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0-  Output is ~6.2M points

23 23 Hardwired systems code parameters SiC blanketValue Eta_CD0.27 tau_p/tau_e5 Plasma triangularity0.6 Divertor is He-cooled since heat flux was routinely > 5 MW/m^2 and liquid-metal cannot provide adequate cooling. SiC blanket is use. All costing is 2009$ NOTES:

24 24 Filtering the data SiC blanketValue Pnelec1000 ± 25 MW Q_Divertor (in/outboard) < 15, < 12.5, < 10, < 7.5 MW/m 2 Bt max6-18 T H98< 1.9 aggr, < 1.6 cons n/nGr< 1 fBS< 1  Output is ~25k points  To find strawmen: apply additional filters - or - visualize in VASST

25 25 ARIES-ACT-I possible aggr strawmen * All costing is 2009$ ** H98 is based on total power including radiation βNβN R (m)B T (T)n/n Gr H 98 **f BS P aux (MW)COE (mills)* ACT-I: SiC blanket / aggr physics 0.0455.255.50.951.3930.85644.2954.15 0.0455.5 0.81.4940.81851.1554.85 0.0455.5 0.851.4680.85959.5755.71 0.0455.5 0.851.50.85943.755.01 0.0455.755.00.951.3410.81859.7955.38 Q gainQdivoutb (MW/m 2 ) Qdivinb (MW/m 2 ) Ip (MA) q 95 kappaPrecir (MWe) Pthermal (MWth) Ave neut wall flux (MW/m 2 ) 407.153.1210.584.22.2168.320282.84 357.143.0711.644.02.2181.120572.62 307.253.1311.084.22.2205.220612.61 406.642.8811.084.22.2166.420042.56 306.432.8011.064.02.2199.320732.41

26 26 * All costing is 2009$ ** H98 is based on total power including radiation Q gainQdivoutb (MW/m 2 ) Qdivinb (MW/m 2 ) Ip (MA) q 95 kappaPrecir (MWe) Pthermal (MWth) Ave neut wall flux (MW/m 2 ) 157.242.9313.252.034923442.1 157.302.9613.34.82.034423322.08 16.57.02.8512.85.12.032722962.13 βNβN R (m)B T (T)n/n Gr H 98 **f BS P aux (MW)COE (mills)* ACT-II: SiC blanket / aggr physics 0.02756.757.50.851.2110.632131.163.02 0.02756.757.50.851.1690.607130.362.82 0.02876.637.560.8671.2770.673120.162.5  Average values of ~20 points ARIES-ACT-II possible cons strawmen

27 27 http://aries.ucsd.edu/ARIES/WDOCS/ACT-I.htm Full engineering analysis printouts available online

28 28 Radial build examples ARIES-ACT-I R ~5.5m, a ~1.25m, NWL_ave ~2.4-2.8 MW/m 2, Elongation = 2.2 ARIES-ACT-II R ~6.75m, a ~1.69m, NWL_ave ~2.1 MW/m 2, Elongation = 2.0

29 29 Effect of filtering Qdivoutb < 15, 10, 7.5 MW/m 2 βNβN R (m)B T (T)n/n Gr H 98 **f BS P aux (MW)COE (mills)* Qdivoutb < 15 MW/m 2 0.0464.885.730.9031.380.85452.0753.98 Qdivoutb < 10 MW/m 2 0.04254.966.340.8811.430.86849.6254.37 Qdivoutb < 7.5 MW/m 2 0.0455.55.670.8711.460.84851.7455.1  All average values Q gainQdivoutb (MW/m 2 ) Qdivinb (MW/m 2 ) Ip (MA) q 95 kappaPrecir (MWe) Pthermal (MWth) Ave neut wall flux (MW/m 2 ) Qdivoutb < 15 MW/m 2 35.89.54.110.54.12.219720943.40 Qdivoutb < 10 MW/m 2 36.98.73.810.74.52.218720713.26 Qdivoutb < 7.5 MW/m 2 35.36.93.011.24.22.218520542.63

30 30 High betaN cases at A < 4, low COE R vs Qdivoutb, CC A R vs Qdivoutb, CC COER vs Qdivoutb, CC BetaN

31 31 High betaN cases lower Bt BetaN vs Bt, CC COE

32 32 Higher fGW allows lower H98

33 33 R vs COE, CC: Asp, Bt Database name: ACT-I (aggr phys & aggr tech) Filters: Bt 6-18 T Qdiv (in, out) < 7.5 MW/m 2 Pnelec = 1000 ± 15 MW n/nGr < 1 H98 < 1.9 Smallest machines have low COE, A < 4, low Bt

34 34 Qdivoub vs COE, CC: R Database name: ACT-I (aggr phys & aggr tech) Filters: Bt 6-18 T Qdiv (in, out) < 7.5 MW/m 2 Pnelec = 1000 ± 15 MW n/nGr < 1 H98 < 1.9

35 35 VASST GUI v.7 (Visual ARIES Systems Scanning Tool) NEW multi-filtering functionality

36 36 Screen sharing for VASST demo Propose use of Skype or iChat screen sharing feature for personalized VASST demo on your own computer Simply need a free account.

37 37 Summary & Future Work Multiple errors corrected and modifications implemented from feedback, presentations, meeting actions items, interim printouts comments. Revision locked at # 30 (SVN). Scans of aggressive and conservative physics, including asp scans, were run and visualized.  Choose strawmen points then issue ACT-I, II detailed engineering analysis for SiC blanket.  Once DCLL module is converted with generic build structure, issue ACT-III, IV.

Download ppt "1 Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel, Stephen Efthyvoulos ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting Bethesday, MD April 4-5, 2011 Finalized Systems Code Modifications &"

Similar presentations

ARIES-Advanced Tokamak Power Plant Study Physics Analysis and Issues Charles Kessel, for the ARIES Physics Team Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory U.S.-Japan.

ARIES-Advanced Tokamak Power Plant Study Physics Analysis and Issues Charles Kessel, for the ARIES Physics Team Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory U.S.-Japan.
First Wall Heat Loads Mike Ulrickson November 15, 2014.

First Wall Heat Loads Mike Ulrickson November 15, 2014.
Design Constraints for Liquid-Protected Divertors S. Shin, S. I. Abdel-Khalik, M. Yoda and ARIES Team G. W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering Atlanta,

Design Constraints for Liquid-Protected Divertors S. Shin, S. I. Abdel-Khalik, M. Yoda and ARIES Team G. W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering Atlanta,
April 23-24, 2009/ARR 1 Proposed Effort Over the Next 1-2 Years on ARIES-DB DCLL A. René Raffray, Siegfried Malang, Xueren Wang University of California,

April 23-24, 2009/ARR 1 Proposed Effort Over the Next 1-2 Years on ARIES-DB DCLL A. René Raffray, Siegfried Malang, Xueren Wang University of California,
September 15-16, 2005/ARR 1 Status of ARIES-CS Power Core and Divertor Design and Structural Analysis A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego.

September 15-16, 2005/ARR 1 Status of ARIES-CS Power Core and Divertor Design and Structural Analysis A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego.
P ROGRESS ON THE O VERALL P OWER C ORE C ONFIGURATION OF THE ARIES-ACT X.R. Wang 1, M. S. Tillack 1, S. Malang 2 1 University of California, San Diego,

P ROGRESS ON THE O VERALL P OWER C ORE C ONFIGURATION OF THE ARIES-ACT X.R. Wang 1, M. S. Tillack 1, S. Malang 2 1 University of California, San Diego,
Progress on the Configuration Design of the Fusion Power Core for the ACT (Draft) X.R. Wang M.S. Tillack S. Malang Sept. 29, 2011.

Progress on the Configuration Design of the Fusion Power Core for the ACT (Draft) X.R. Wang M.S. Tillack S. Malang Sept. 29, 2011.
1 Lane Carlson ARIES Pathways Project Meeting Gaithersburg, MD, Oct 13-14, 2011 Substantiating the ASC & Implementing the DCLL Blanket.

1 Lane Carlson ARIES Pathways Project Meeting Gaithersburg, MD, Oct 13-14, 2011 Substantiating the ASC & Implementing the DCLL Blanket.
January 8-10, 2003/ARR 1 Plan for Engineering Study of ARIES-CS Presented by A. R. Raffray University of California, San Diego ARIES Meeting UCSD San.

January 8-10, 2003/ARR 1 Plan for Engineering Study of ARIES-CS Presented by A. R. Raffray University of California, San Diego ARIES Meeting UCSD San.
April 27-28, 2006/ARR 1 Finalizing ARIES-CS Power Core Engineering Presented by A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego ARIES Meeting UW, Madison.

April 27-28, 2006/ARR 1 Finalizing ARIES-CS Power Core Engineering Presented by A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego ARIES Meeting UW, Madison.
Systems Code Status J. F. Lyon, ORNL ARIES Meeting June 14, 2006.

Systems Code Status J. F. Lyon, ORNL ARIES Meeting June 14, 2006.
June 14-15, 2007/ARR 1 Trade-Off Studies and Engineering Input to System Code Presented by A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego With contribution.

June 14-15, 2007/ARR 1 Trade-Off Studies and Engineering Input to System Code Presented by A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego With contribution.
29 July 20101 Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel Mark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting Washington, D.C. June 29-30, 2010 Exploring the.

29 July Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel Mark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting Washington, D.C. June 29-30, 2010 Exploring the.
Poloidal Distribution of ARIES-ACT Neutron Wall Loading L. El-Guebaly, A. Jaber, D. Henderson Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Poloidal Distribution of ARIES-ACT Neutron Wall Loading L. El-Guebaly, A. Jaber, D. Henderson Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin-Madison.
1 Lane Carlson, Mark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi, Charles Kessel University of California, San Diego & Princeton Plasma Physics Lab US/Japan Workshop on.

1 Lane Carlson, Mark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi, Charles Kessel University of California, San Diego & Princeton Plasma Physics Lab US/Japan Workshop on.
Development of the New ARIES Tokamak Systems Code Zoran Dragojlovic, Rene Raffray, Farrokh Najmabadi, Charles Kessel, Lester Waganer US-Japan Workshop.

Development of the New ARIES Tokamak Systems Code Zoran Dragojlovic, Rene Raffray, Farrokh Najmabadi, Charles Kessel, Lester Waganer US-Japan Workshop.
Optimization of a Steady-State Tokamak-Based Power Plant Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA IEA Workshop 59 “Shape and.

Optimization of a Steady-State Tokamak-Based Power Plant Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA IEA Workshop 59 “Shape and.
Progress on Engineering and Costing Algorithms for ARIES Systems Code Zoran Dragojlovic, Rene Raffray, Chuck Kessel and Leslie Bromberg ARIES Project Meeting.

Progress on Engineering and Costing Algorithms for ARIES Systems Code Zoran Dragojlovic, Rene Raffray, Chuck Kessel and Leslie Bromberg ARIES Project Meeting.
Use of Simple Analytic Expression in Tokamak Design Studies John Sheffield, July 29, 2010, ISSE, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Inspiration Needed.

Use of Simple Analytic Expression in Tokamak Design Studies John Sheffield, July 29, 2010, ISSE, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Inspiration Needed.
Status of 3-D Analysis, Neutron Streaming through Penetrations, and LOCA/LOFA Analysis L. El-Guebaly, M. Sawan, P. Wilson, D. Henderson, A. Ibrahim, G.

Status of 3-D Analysis, Neutron Streaming through Penetrations, and LOCA/LOFA Analysis L. El-Guebaly, M. Sawan, P. Wilson, D. Henderson, A. Ibrahim, G.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google