M. S. Tillack and the ARIES Team FESAC Meeting: Gaithersburg, MD

The use of technical readiness levels in planning the fusion energy sciences program
M. S. Tillack and the ARIES Team FESAC Meeting: Gaithersburg, MD 13 January 2009 * Backup materials can be found at

Overview Background on TRL’s Mark Tillack, UCSD
page 1 of 9 Overview Background on TRL’s Mark Tillack, UCSD Technology Readiness Levels and Aerospace R&D Risk Management David Whelan, Boeing The use of Technical Readiness Levels in Planning the Fusion Energy Sciences Program Mark Tillack, UCSD

of 9 The ARIES Pathways Study began in 2007 to evaluate R&D needs and gaps for fusion from ITER to Demo A new systems-based approach to establish the importance of various power plant parameters and define metrics for prioritization. COE, mill/kWh R&D metrics to evaluate the status of the field and progress along the development path. In this study we examined a methodology for evaluating R&D needs and gaps that is widely recognized and utilized outside the fusion community. We have actively communicated with and incorporated feedback from the community: OFES, TOFE, FPA, ANS news, IHHFC, ReNeW, and FESAC.

Generic Description (defense acquisitions definitions)
page 3 of 9 We chose “readiness levels” as the basis for our R&D evaluation methodology Other methods of identifying gaps have been used historically in fusion: • by listing the remaining “issues” • by measuring one or more performance parameters TRL’s express increasing levels of integration and environmental relevance, terms which must be defined for each application. TRL Generic Description (defense acquisitions definitions) 1 Basic principles observed and formulated. 2 Technology concepts and/or applications formulated. 3 Analytical and experimental demonstration of critical function and/or proof of concept. 4 Component and/or bench-scale validation in a laboratory environment. 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment. 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in relevant environment. 7 System prototype demonstration in an operational environment. 8 Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration. 9 Actual system proven through successful mission operations.

Evaluation of a Concept’s Readiness
page 4 of 9 Readiness levels identify R&D gaps between the present status and any level of achievement for a particular concept. They help to identify which steps are needed next. Power plant Demo Proof of principle Evaluation of a Concept’s Readiness Readiness level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Issues, components or systems encompassing the key challenges Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Etc. Basic and applied science phase

of 9 TRL’s are a tool for evaluating progress and risk, and not a complete program management system Concept selection Readiness levels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Design options (confinement concepts, components, etc) Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Etc. Schedule risks Technical risks Cost risks

Description of TRL Levels
page 6 of 9 Detailed guidance on application of TRL’s is available e.g., a TRL calculator at TRL Description of TRL Levels 1 Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be translated into applied research and development. Examples might include paper studies of a technology's basic properties. 2 Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be invented. Applications are speculative and there may be no proof or detailed analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic studies. 3 Active research and development is initiated. This includes analytical studies and laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples include components that are not yet integrated or representative. 4 Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared to the eventual system. Examples include integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory. 5 Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements so it can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include "high fidelity" laboratory integration of components. 6 Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL 5, is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a technology's demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in a high-fidelity laboratory environment or in simulated operational environment. 7 Prototype near, or at, planned operational system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6, requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in an operational environment such as an aircraft, vehicle, or space. Examples include testing the prototype in a test bed aircraft. 8 Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include developmental test and evaluation of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications. 9 Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation. Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions.

of 9 GAO encouraged DOE and other government agencies to use TRL’s (a direct quote*), to… “Provide a common language among the technology developers, engineers who will adopt/use the technology, and other stakeholders; Improve stakeholder communication regarding technology development – a by-product of the discussion among stakeholders that is needed to negotiate a TRL value; Reveal the gap between a technology’s current readiness level and the readiness level needed for successful inclusion in the intended product; Identify at-risk technologies that need increased management attention or additional resources for technology development to initiate risk-reduction measures; and Increase transparency of critical decisions by identifying key technologies that have been demonstrated to work or by highlighting still immature or unproven technologies that might result in high project risk” * “Department of Energy: Major construction projects need a consistent approach for assessing technology readiness to help avoid cost increases and delays,” United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, GAO , March 2007.

of 9 DOD, NASA, and other agencies use TRL’s e.g., GNEP defined readiness in 5 technical areas* LWR spent fuel processing Waste form development Fast reactor spent fuel processing Fuel fabrication Fuel performance GNEP facilities plan * Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Technology Development Plan, GNEP-TECH-TR-PP , July 25, 2007.

Technology Readiness Levels for LWR Spent Fuel Processing
page 9 of 9 Technology Readiness Levels for LWR Spent Fuel Processing TRL Issue-Specific Description 1 Concept Development Concept for separations process developed; process options (e.g., contactor type, solvent extraction steps) identified; separations criteria established. 2 Calculated mass-balance flowsheet developed; scoping experiments on process options completed successfully with simulated LWR spent fuel; preliminary selection of process equipment. 3 Laboratory-scale batch testing with simulated LWR spent fuel completed successfully; process chemistry confirmed; reagents selected; preliminary testing of equipment design concepts done to identify development needs; complete system flowsheet established. 4 Proof of Principle Unit operations testing at engineering scale for process validation with simulated LWR spent fuel consisting of unirradiated materials; materials balance flowsheet confirmed; separations chemistry models developed. 5 Unit operations testing completed at engineering scale with actual LWR spent fuel for process chemistry confirmation; reproducibility of process confirmed by repeated batch tests; simulation models validated. 6 Unit operations testing in existing hot cells w/full-scale equipment completed successfully, using actual LWR spent fuel; process monitoring and control system proven; process equipment design validated. 7 Proof of Performance Integrated system cold shakedown testing completed successfully w/full-scale equipment (simulated fuel). 8 Demonstration of integrated system with full-scale equipment and actual LWR spent fuel completed successfully; short (~1 month) periods of sustained operation. 9 Full-scale demonstration with actual LWR spent fuel successfully completed at ≥100 metric tons per year rate; sustained operations for a minimum of three months. * The current TRL for this technology is highlighted in orange.

Technology Readiness Levels and Aerospace R&D Risk Management
Dr. David Whelan Chief Scientist Boeing Integrated Defense Systems Presented to Department of Energy Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee 13 January 2009 DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Who we are Boeing: 160,000 people, 5 divisions
Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) Boeing Capital Corp. (BCC) Shared Services Group (SSG) Engineering, Operations, and Technology (E,O & T) Includes Phantom Works The three divisions in bright yellow, BCA, IDS, and E, O & T, account for well over 90% of the corporation and will be the subjects of the following discussion. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Role of R&D in BCA Description: World leader in commercial aviation
Mission: Products and services to allow passengers to fly where they want to go, when they want to go Strategy: Deliver superior design, efficiency, and support to customers and passengers Continuous improvement Insertion of new technology Adapt technology from Phantom Works to commercial aerospace environment Description: World leader in commercial aviation because of complete focus on airline operators and the passengers they serve. Mission: Products and services support to airline customers and allow passengers to fly where they want to go, when they want to go. Strategy: Deliver superior design, efficiency, and support to customers and passengers. Strategy requires continuous improvement Requires insertion of new technology BCA adapts general flight-quality technology from Phantom Works to commercial aerospace environment BCA adopts technologies from Phantom Works that have been matured to being “flight-quality” in general, adapts those technologies to specific commercial aircraft applications, and matures the technologies in those applications to the point at which they can be included in products sold to airline customers. BCA also adopts, adapts, and matures “sufficiently mature” technologies from outside Boeing to specific applications in commercial aircraft. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Role of R&D in IDS Description: Combine weapons and aircraft with intelligence, surveillance, communications, architectures, and integration. Mission: Understand needs, provide solutions Strategy: Use technology to improve existing solutions and deliver new solutions Continuous improvement Insertion of new technology Adapt technology from Phantom Works to military environment Description: Combines weapons and aircraft capabilities with intelligence, surveillance, communications, architectures, and integration. Mission: Understand enduring needs of customers, provide value-added solutions to meet requirements. Strategy: Use current and emerging technologies to improve the capabilities of existing products and delivering new solutions. Strategy requires continuous improvement Requires insertion of new technology IDS adapts general flight-quality technology from Phantom Works to military environment IDS adopts technologies from Phantom Works that have been matured to being “flight-quality” in general, adapts those technologies to specific (mostly) military aerospace applications, and matures the technologies in those applications to the point at which they can be included in products sold to customers. IDS also adopts, adapts, and matures “sufficiently mature” technologies from outside Boeing to specific applications. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Role of R&D in Phantom Works
Description: Boeing advanced research unit Mission: Provide solutions that improve aerospace products and services. Strategy: Two team types Technology teams: engineering, information, and manufacturing Strategy teams: new business Both examine technologies for fit with Boeing business or potential business Selected technologies matured to “flight-quality” Description: Advanced research unit and catalyst for innovation for all of Boeing. Mission: Provide advanced systems solutions and breakthrough technologies that significantly improve the performance, quality, and affordability of aerospace products and services. Strategy: Two team sets Technology teams provide engineering, information, and manufacturing technologies to all of Boeing. Strategy teams address specific new business markets. Both team sets examine potential of technologies with basic principals reported for fit with Boeing business or potential business. Selected technologies matured to “flight-quality”. Phantom Works does not do “Basic” research. It does applied research and development toward aerospace applications on technologies for which some basic research has been done. The goal of Phantom Works is to transition as many matured to “flight-quality” technologies as possible to BCA and IDS for adaptation and further maturation into specific products lines. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

What TRL’s Are A common language for understanding technology maturity
A common input for evaluating technology risk A common framework for understanding risk A common language for customers and multiple levels of suppliers to use to discuss and quantify technology maturity. A common framework for customers and multiple levels of suppliers to use to evaluate technologies which provides a significant input to risk assessment of including a technology in an existing or new program. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

What TRL’s Are Not Product spec’s A complete program management system
A complete progress tracking system TRLs are not product spec’s TRLs supplement, but are not by themselves, a developmental program progress management or tracking system. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Aerospace R&D Management before TRL’s
Features Unique procedure per company and division Product maturation in terms of passing tests Which tests, in what order, was matter of experience Benefits Worked well enough once teams experienced Drawbacks Terms not well defined and no common terminology Numerous In-Scope vs Out-of-Scope Debates Considerable learning curve Innovation reset learning curve Features Before TRLs, companies had procedures for R&D, but each company had a different one. Different divisions in the same company usually also had different procedures. These procedures developed over time, and their quality depended strongly on the skills of the laboratory managers. Benefits If the lab managers and most of the staff stayed in place for several years, they could become quite effective at R&D. Drawbacks #1 Undefined terminology example: Just what is a “brassboard”? #2 With every company having a different procedure, customers and suppliers often misunderstood each other. #3 Effectiveness of a development program was highly dependent on how many people on the team had worked on a program to mature a similar product in the past. As a result: #4 Teams that had been in place for some time became very skilled at development and testing, but lost some ability to innovate. Paradigm shifts forced them to start over. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

How Pre-TRL Aerospace R&D Management Developed
Vertically Integrated Several Primes, Several large Subs, Many small Subs available Large Subs (e.g. Hughes, P&W) co-contractors with primes Most work from government All work “urgent” All work disjointed All had to fit and function in the end Most manufacturers more vertically integrated then than now One prime had a few large subs and many small subs, but not in deep hierarchies. Prime would have few large subs as “co-contractors” for elements like avionics and engines. Primes and co-contractors directly managed many subs. Prime and each co-contractor responsible for own integration. No one clearly “fully” responsible for final integration. Most new development work came from government as an urgent need Management process developed iteratively; but, evolution and management planning often foiled by politics. So 1960’s processes not necessarily better than 1930”s processes, just better suited to the politics of the time. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Pre-TRL Example F-3 Program
Mid-1950’s Eventually Successful Early versions plagued by insufficient thrust Airframe contractor told by customer to develop airframe to exploit specified engine performance Engine did not exist yet Painful Lesson Customer: Next aircraft specified two engines Airframer: Insisted on design around existing engine Engine technology for the F-3 was not nearly as mature as airframe technology of the time. However, engine problems became visible to the customer as aircraft problems, to the embarrassment of the prime contractor, the airframe company (McDonnell Aircraft). DoE FESAC 13 January 2009 DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Impact of Implementing Immature Technologies
Late Tech maturation raises expected cost Late maturation stretches planned schedule Costs skyrocket, Schedule loses meaning, Technology maturation fails to follow plan, Changes ripple through project design late in program cycle Failed technologies replaced by fall-backs Project (often) fails to meet requirements Program (often) canceled #1 Projected costs first increase over estimates because technology maturation must be added to the project cost. #2 Step two is the schedule gets stretched because the technology maturation must be added. #3 Step three is costs skyrocket and schedules develop an “Alice in Wonderland”-like quality because technologies never mature as desired. Technologies must be “re-matured” at further added cost, project steps must be slowed, paused, or rescheduled at great added cost, and the schedule becomes subject to the whims of fate in the technology maturation. #4 Step four includes replacing technologies that failed and those that failed to mature fast enough with less capable fall-back technologies. This stops hemorrhaging of maturation funds, but severely negatively impacts schedule. #5 Fall-back technologies are often found to cause project to not meet requirements #6 Customer often cancels the project, or the entire program. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Managing Innovation in Development
Managers must know: Current TRL of needed technologies Time to get to desired TRLs Risks to reaching desired TRLs Consequences of failing to reach TRLs Mitigation of risks Without the common language of TRLs it was difficult for managers (or development team leaders) at any level to evaluate the current state of all the technologies in the systems they were responsible for, or to estimate the time that would be needed for the technologies to reach the needed state of maturity. Without the first two elements above, it was then difficult for managers to evaluate the risks to reaching the needed maturity, the consequences of failure, or ways to mitigate the risks. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

TRLs in Definition and Risks
Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR) of a major development effort is characterized by: Understanding “What” and “How” Defining requirements to fill urgent user need Maturing and incorporating new technologies Performing on an aggressive schedule Using success-oriented budgetary projections ABL included TRLs as a significant element of the program definition and risk reduction and mitigation effort. That would have been the case even if ABL had not required significant incorporation of new technology. However, the incorporation of new technology greatly expanded the importance of TRLs as a technology management tool. TRLs facilitate these steps DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Example: Fly-By-Light Optical Voltage Sensor
Description: Photonic sensors for electric field that have the required time resolution and field sensitivity may not be developed successfully. Visibility 5 Program 4 O Likelihood Rationale: The physical effect in the sensor design is well known however, it has not been applied before to this purpose with such stringent performance requirements. Team Likelihood 3 2 Consequence Rationale: The consequence of not successfully developing the planned sensor is the use of much less compact photonic technologies, with consequent difficulty of integration into the system. 1 X Phase Archived 1 2 3 4 5 Closed Consequence Mitigation Plan Status: Some evidence of sensitivity to optical mode shifts. If so, address in H-Bridge design in the Validation Phase. Risk item is closed. Type High O - Original Moderate G Technical X - Current Low Kerr Effect-based Sensor (Baseline Plan A) ECD Actual Plan: Current 1 =1-Identify source of sensor material expected to deliver needed polarization rotation with the required transparency in the expected electric fields 7/31/03 8/18/03 Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 04 The above is a “one-page summary” of the risk mitigation plan and progress for an optical sensor for voltage in the motor of an electric actuator in an aircraft flight control application. It was generated automatically by the software of the risk management tool. This plan was used to mature the sensor itself from TRL 3 to TRL 6. It was, in turn, an element that fed into the risk management plan that was part of the process of maturing the entire aircraft control system using electric actuators with photonic control from TRL 3 to TRL 6. The goal of this mitigation plan was to help mature the sensor to TRL 6 with either a low likelihood of it being unable to reach TRL 7 or a minor consequence of it failing to reach TRL 7. Desired states comprise the intersection of the acceptable likelihoods and acceptable consequences. That intersection is show as the green region in the upper right of the report. DP High 1 Baseline Plan A Actual 2 =2-Design functional and compatible optic and electric circuits for sensor. 9/15/03 9/9/03 2 3 3 =3-Integrate sensor elements and optics for low and high voltage sensors. 11/15/03 11/18/03 Moderate 4 4 =4-Integrate and test sensors with H-bridge. 8/26/04 8/26/04 Low Baseline Plan A Planned DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Aerospace R&D Management with TRL’s
Features Simple progress tracking framework Applicable from part level through system level Maturation still requires passing tests Simple framework for order and timing of tests Benefits Customers and suppliers understand requirements Change impacts easier to determine Facility needs easier to determine Drawbacks Effectiveness highly dependent on customer and supplier involvement. Features #1 Research breakthroughs cannot be scheduled. However, an item not reaching the needed TRL by the time higher level systems need it is a clue that either an alternative is needed or more resources need to be applied to that item. #2 Applicable to pieceparts, or entire systems and all the pieceparts in them. #4 Most people can understand which tests support which TRL Benefits #1 Forced to debate and agree on, “What does TRL x really mean to us in this program?” #2 Suppose budgets cut. How much of system can still be TRL x and how much must be TRL x-1 if budgets are cut y%? Works in reverse too. #3 Different DoD labs concentrate on different ranges of TRLs Drawbacks #1 Micromanagement by customers is counterproductive. Interested and involved customers are good. TRLs provide a frame of reference for customer interest and supplier response; but, if customers are not involved, or suppliers are excessively secretive, TRLs lose much of their effectiveness. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Major Program Example: Airborne Laser Program
The Vision Scope and Complexity Scope: $232M EAC (59% in-house labor/41% subs & matl) Hardware: 927 drawings 163-Racks/Cables) Avg Sheets/Dwg = 2.5 Avg Hours/Sheet = 10 Electrical racks (not including 3 for tests) Software: 282 kSLOC at 2.3 SLOC/Hour (Flight-226k, Emulator-6k, RSim-15k, Test-35k) Interfaces: 15 external ICDs (5-Lead, 15-Support) Procurement: 23 Subcontracts ranging from $100K to $25M Similar to National Compact Stellarator Experiment in Scope and Complexity Engage & destroy a Theater Ballistic Missile on cost and on schedule The Integrated Product Development Team Boeing Team Leader Aircraft and Integration Command and Communication TRW System Ground Support COIL Laser Lockheed Martin Beam Control (Acquisition, Tracking, and Pointing) Fire Control Theater ballistic missiles (TBMs) are present in virtually every region where US forces could be called upon to conduct operations. TBMs can give even a small nation the capability to inflict damage on much more powerful nations, especially if weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear) are involved. The number of countries deploying theater ballistic missiles, including proliferation of mobile launchers, longer range, more accurate and lethal warheads, and early release of submunitions, will continue for the foreseeable future. The Airborne Laser is one component of the overall joint Theater Missile Defense (TMD) architecture, and is complementary with the other TMD components, including Attack Operations, terminal and midcourse tiers, and Space. Within this joint “system of systems” architecture, ABL offers a key element of deterrence in TMD, since it the one system which can cause the enemy’s missile warhead and debris to fall back on his own territory. The ABL’s most distinguishing characteristic is that the ABL detects, tracks, and destroys missiles during its boost phase of flight. Cost of ABL comparable, but slightly larger than that of the National Compact Stellarator Experiment (NCSX). ABL parts complexity is possibly greater than that of NCSX. Logistics and support issues are more difficult than for NCSX. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Place of TRLs in Key Management Tools
TRLs Used Here TRLs Used Here TRLs Used Here TRLs were significant elements of the highlighted Management Tools. The importance of those tools, and of TRLs is quantified in the chart above. TRLs are an element in preparing the Project Execution Plan, because they are used to determine what technology maturation is required. They also are inputs into the Risk Mitigation Plan and the Opportunity Capture Plan, which are elements of the Project Execution Plan. TRLs are a significant factor in generating a realistic schedule and in identifying causes for a project drifting off schedule. Project Earned Value is a function of both how well a project stays on schedule (discussed above) and what it costs to keep the project on schedule. TRLs help in identifying causes for discrepancies in project costs. Scales: Extent of Use - 5 (Always Used) to 1 (Never Used) Contribution to Success - 5 (Critical to Success) to 1 (No Value) Mean reported, standard deviation range was Compiled from the Program Management Research Instrument results, using responses from 100 senior-level project managers from large architectural and engineering consulting firms, with a minimum of 10 years experience. - Thomas Zimmerer and Mahmoud Yasin (1998) DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Time for TRLs in Schedule
Concept Design PDRR Program Risk Resource Commitment 5% % % FY GND TESTING FLIGHT Ground Testing Flight Downselect PDR CDR Understand Lethality Understand Atmospheric Effects Establish Adaptive Optics Requirements Demonstrate Laser Improvements Understand Environmental Impacts Demonstrate Full Scale Flight Weight ABL Laser Module Demonstrate Active tracking of Boosting Missile Demonstrate understanding of Range Variability/Atmospherics Demonstrate Simultaneous Fine Track/Compensate Low Power Scoring Beam Resolve all Aircraft Integration Issues Demonstrate Lethality Against Boosting TBMs MS I ATP 1 TRLs have functions throughout the life cycle of a program; however, they achieve their greatest beneficial impact when applied early in a program. Boeing experience is that successful programs have most of their subsystems pushed to TRL 6 before 10% of the program funds are expended. ATP 2 Most subsystems should reach TRL 6 before 10% of total funds committed DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

TRL “Environments” Think beyond development environment
Real environment more than heat and vibration Users have few PhDs, may not understand system inner workings Development environment: Fed and rested Doctors in sciences and engineering direct people with Master’s Degrees in science and engineering on work in clean, quiet environments. Our products’ better than usual real environments not only are noisy and dirty, but the workers often have 12 hour days. They are trained, but may not have high school diplomas. If on land, chances are a typical worker is about 19 years old, and after working 11 hours straight, has the distraction of his girlfriend waiting at the gate. So, systems must be simple to use and maintain. In our products usual real environments, there are often all the above features, minus friends and family for months at a time, plus snipers, mines, mortars, and roadside bombs. Systems need to be maintainable quickly by trained but potentially distracted people, and need to tolerate postponed maintenance. Better than usual real environment Usual real environment DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Aerospace Plans for TRLs
Being incorporated into proposal risk management procedures Being incorporated into program management procedures merging technology and application readiness Procedure 5157 in Boeing Both incorporations include aspects of other readiness measures, e.g. Manufacturing Integration (not yet firmly defined) System Cost At least in Boeing, TRLs have been used as a concept for enhancing internal program management procedures. It is significant that Boeing did not simply adopt TRLs into Boeing procedures; but rather, wrote its own procedures using the TRL concept, but with some changes. In addition, the Boeing procedures extend far beyond technical maturity management into all aspects of managing a program, including integration, manufacturing, security, personnel, and facility issues. This indicates that rather than being ordered by the customer to use TRLs, Boeing has accepted the TRL concept as beneficial and written the concept into company procedures. Boeing tracks ten features of technologies during maturation: Consistency with strategies Technical validity and regulatory compliance, including export authority Cost, benefit, and risk Competing technologies Technology scalability for production use Collateral impact of technology People and organizational readiness Technology user endorsement Intellectual property protection Technology information DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

TRL Tailoring TRL concept allows flexibility in definitions in the levels according to the needs of different agencies DoD definitions differ slightly from NASA definitions DoD tailored definitions for different technology areas General Software Biomedical Fissile Nuclear Fuel DoE - Incorporation of TRLs into Technical Business Practices at Sandia National Lab (proposed) 2002 – TRLs adopted by British MoD for technology management within program and project management TRLs have the advantage of providing a common language for developers and users of technology; however, that does not mean that TRLs are rigid. TRLs show their greatest utility when tailored to suit an industry, but when then used consistently within that industry. The range of TRL adoptions shows how powerful this feature is. DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

Conclusion TRLs simplify aerospace R&D by providing a common language for understanding technology maturity and by providing a framework for assessing technology risk. Aerospace industry both adopted and expanded on TRL concept DoE FESAC 13 January 2009

The use of technical readiness levels in planning the fusion energy sciences program
M. S. Tillack and the ARIES Team FESAC Meeting: Gaithersburg, MD 13 January 2009 * Backup materials can be found at

of 11 We used a 5-step systematic, bottoms-up approach to apply the TRL methodology to fusion energy Identify customer needs: use criteria from utility advisory committee to derive technical issues. Relate the utility criteria to fusion-specific, design independent issues and R&D needs. Define “Readiness Levels” for the key issues and R&D needs. Define the end goal in enough detail to evaluate progress toward that goal. Evaluate status, gaps, R&D facilities and pathways.

J. Kaslow et al, Journal of Fusion Energy 13 (2/3) 1994.
page 2 of 11 Utility Advisory Committee “Criteria for practical fusion power systems” J. Kaslow et al, Journal of Fusion Energy 13 (2/3) 1994. Have an economically competitive life-cycle cost of electricity Gain public acceptance by having excellent safety and environmental characteristics No disturbance of public’s day-to-day activities No local or global atmospheric impact No need for evacuation plan No high-level waste Ease of licensing Operate as a reliable, available, and stable electrical power source Have operational reliability and high availability Closed, on-site fuel cycle High fuel availability Capable of partial load operation Available in a range of unit sizes

of 11 These criteria for practical fusion suggest three categories of technical readiness Power management for economic fusion energy Plasma power distribution Heat and particle flux management High temperature operation and power conversion Power core fabrication Power core lifetime Safety and environmental attractiveness Tritium control and confinement Activation product control and confinement Radioactive waste management Reliable and stable plant operations Plasma control Plant integrated control Fuel cycle control Maintenance 12 top-level issues

Example TRL table: Heat & particle flux handling
page 4 of 11 Example TRL table: Heat & particle flux handling Issue-Specific Description Program Elements 1 System studies to define parameters, tradeoffs and requirements on heat & particle flux level, effects on PFC’s. Design studies, basic research 2 PFC concepts including armor and cooling configuration explored. Critical parameters characterized. PMI and edge plasma modeling. Code development, applied research 3 Data from coupon-scale heat and particle flux experiments; modeling of governing heat and mass transfer processes as demonstration of function of PFC concept. Small-scale facilities: e.g., e-beam and plasma simulators 4 Bench-scale validation through submodule testing in lab environment simulating heat or particle fluxes at prototypical levels over long times, mockups under representative neutron irradiation level/duration. Larger-scale facilities for submodule testing, high-temperature + all expected conditions. Neutron irradiation (fission). 5 Integrated module testing of PFC concept in an environment simulating the integration of heat, particle, neutron fluxes at prototypical levels over long times. Coupon irradiation testing of PFC armor and structural material to end-of-life fluence. Integrated large facility: Prototypical plasma particle + heat flux (e.g. an upgraded DIII-D/JET?) IFMIF? 6 Integrated testing of the PFC concept subsystem in an environment simulating the integration of heat & particle fluxes and neutron irradiation at prototypical levels over long times. Integrated large test facility with prototypical plasma particle & heat flux, neutron irradiation. 7 Prototypic PFC system demonstration in a fusion machine. Fusion machine, e.g. ITER (w/ prototypic divertor), CTF 8 Actual PFC system demonstration and qualification in a fusion energy device over long operating times. CTF 9 Actual PFC system operation to end-of-life in a fusion reactor with prototypical conditions and all interfacing subsystems. DEMO (1st of a kind power plant)

Example TRL table: Heat & particle flux handling
page 5 of 11 Example TRL table: Heat & particle flux handling Issue-Specific Description Program Elements 1 System studies to define parameters, tradeoffs and requirements on heat & particle flux level, effects on PFC’s. Design studies, basic research 2 PFC concepts including armor and cooling configuration explored. Critical parameters characterized. PMI and edge plasma modeling. Code development, applied research 3 Data from coupon-scale heat and particle flux experiments; modeling of governing heat and mass transfer processes as demonstration of function of PFC concept. Small-scale facilities: e.g., e-beam and plasma simulators 4 Bench-scale validation through submodule testing in lab environment simulating heat or particle fluxes at prototypical levels over long times, mockups under representative neutron irradiation level/duration. Larger-scale facilities for submodule testing, high-temperature + all expected conditions. Neutron irradiation (fission). 5 Integrated module testing of PFC concept in an environment simulating the integration of heat, particle, neutron fluxes at prototypical levels over long times. Coupon irradiation testing of PFC armor and structural material to end-of-life fluence. Integrated large facility: Prototypical plasma particle + heat flux (e.g. an upgraded DIII-D/JET?) IFMIF? 6 Integrated testing of the PFC concept subsystem in an environment simulating the integration of heat & particle fluxes and neutron irradiation at prototypical levels over long times. Integrated large test facility with prototypical plasma particle & heat flux, neutron irradiation. 7 Prototypic PFC system demonstration in a fusion machine. Fusion machine, e.g. ITER (w/ prototypic divertor), CTF 8 Actual PFC system demonstration and qualification in a fusion energy device over long operating times. CTF 9 Actual PFC system operation to end-of-life in a fusion reactor with prototypical conditions and all interfacing subsystems. DEMO (1st of a kind power plant) Power plant relevant high-temperature gas-cooled PFC’s Power plant relevant high-temperature gas-cooled PFC’s are at TRL2 Low temperature water cooled PFC’s are at 6, heading to 7 with ITER. Low-temperature water-cooled PFC’s

Example TRL table: Plasma power control Issue-Specific Description
page 6 of 11 Example TRL table: Plasma power control Issue-Specific Description Facilities 1 Development of basic concepts for extracting and handling outward power flows from a hot plasma (radiation, heat, and particle fluxes). 2 Design of systems to handle radiation and energy and particle outflux from a moderate beta core plasma. 3 Demonstration of a controlled plasma core at moderate beta, with outward radiation, heat, and particles power fluxes to walls and material surfaces, and technologies capable of handling those fluxes. 4 Self-consistent integration of techniques to control outward power fluxes and technologies for handling those fluxes in a current high temperature plasma confinement experiment. Can be performed in current expts. The detached radiative divertor is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. 5 Scale-up of techniques and technologies to realistic fusion conditions and improvements in modeling to enable a more realistic estimate of the uncertainties. May require an intermediate expt between current devices and ITER, or an upgrade. Detached divertor may or may not scale up 6 Integration of systems for control and handling of base level outward power flows in a high performance reactor grade plasma with schemes to moderate or ameliorate fluctuations and focused, highly energetic particle fluxes. Demonstration that fluctuations can be kept to a tolerable level and that energetic particle fluxes, if not avoided, at least do not cause damage to external structures. Envisaged to be performed in ITER running in basic experimental mode. 7 Demonstration of the integrated power handling techniques in a high perfor-mance reactor grade plasma in long pulse, essentially steady state operation with simultaneous control of the power fluctuations from transient phenomena. Envisaged to be performed in ITER running in high power mode. 8 Demonstration of the integrated power handling system with simultaneous control of transient phenomena and the power fluctuations in a steady state burning plasma configuration. Requires a burning plasma experiment. 9 Demonstration of integrated power handling system in a steady state burning plasma configuration for lifetime conditions.

TRL’s can be applied to components & subsystems
page 7 of 11 TRL’s can be applied to components & subsystems Generic Definition Blanket Subsystem-Specific Definition 1 Basic principles observed and formulated. System studies define tradeoffs &requirements: heat loads, tritium breeding, magnetic effects (MHD, loads under off-normal operation scenarios), material constraints (temperature, stress, tritium inventory, radiation effects). 2 Technology concepts and/or applications formulated. Blanket concepts including breeding material, structural material and cooling configuration explored. Critical parameters characterized. 3 Analytical and experimental demonstration of critical function and/or proof of concept. Coupon-scale experiments on heat loads (and thermal-hydraulic), tritium generation and mass transfer; modeling of governing heat transfer, thermal-hydraulic (including MHD) and mass transfer processes (tritium behavior and possibly corrosion) as demonstration of function of blanket concept. Maintenance methods explored. 4 Component and/or bench-scale validation in a laboratory environment. Bench-scale validation through submodule testing in lab environment simulating heat fluxes or magnetic field over long times, and of mockups under neutron irradiation at representative levels and durations. Maintenance methods tested at lab-scale. 5 Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment. Integrated module in: (1) an environment simulating the integration of heat loads and magnetic fields (if important for concept) at prototypical levels over long times; and (2) an environment simulating the integration of heat loads and neutron irradiation at prototypical levels over long times. Coupon irradiation testing of structural materials to end-of-life fluence. Lab-scale demo of selected maintenance scheme for blanket unit. 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in relevant environment. Integrated subsystem testing in an environment simulating the integration of heat loads and neutron irradiation (and magnetic fields if important for concept) at prototypical levels over long times. Full-scale demonstration of maintenance scheme. 7 System prototype demonstration in an operational environment. Prototypic blanket system demonstration in a fusion machine (for chosen confinement), including demonstration of maintenance scheme in an operational environment. 8 Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration Actual blanket system demonstration and qualification in a fusion machine (for chosen confinement) over long operating times. Maintenance scheme demonstrated and qualified. 9 Actual system proven through successful mission operations Actual blanket system operation to end-of-life in fusion power plant (DEMO) with operational conditions and all interfacing subsystems.

of 11 A preliminary evaluation was performed by the ARIES Team for a reference ARIES power plant For the sake of illustration, we considered a Demo based on the ARIES advanced tokamak DCLL power plant design concept. He-cooled W divertor, DCLL Brayton cycle, plant availability=70%, 3-4 FPY in-vessel, waste recycling or clearance. Other concepts would evaluate differently. TRL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Power management Plasma power distribution Heat and particle flux handling High temperature and power conversion Power core fabrication Power core lifetime Safety and environment Tritium control and confinement Activation product control Radioactive waste management Reliable/stable plant operations Plasma control Plant integrated control Fuel cycle control Maintenance Level completed Level in progress

of 11 In this case, the ITER program contributes in some areas, but very little in others ITER (and it’s R&D programs) promotes to level 6 issues related to plasma and safety ITER helps incrementally with some issues, such as blankets (depending on TBM progress), PMI, fuel cycle The absence of reactor-relevant technologies severely limits its contribution in several areas TRL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Power management Plasma power distribution Heat and particle flux handling High temperature and power conversion Power core fabrication Power core lifetime Safety and environment Tritium control and confinement Activation product control Radioactive waste management Reliable/stable plant operations Plasma control Plant integrated control Fuel cycle control Maintenance Level completed Level in progress ITER contribution

of 11 Major gaps remain for several of the key issues for practical fusion energy A range of nuclear and non-nuclear facilities are required to advance from the current state to TRL6 One or more test facilities such as CTF are needed before Demo to verify performance in an operating environment TRL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Power management Plasma power distribution Heat and particle flux handling High temperature and power conversion Power core fabrication Power core lifetime Safety and environment Tritium control and confinement Activation product control Radioactive waste management Reliable/stable plant operations Plasma control Plant integrated control Fuel cycle control Maintenance Level completed Level in progress ITER contribution CTF’s

of 11 Conclusions TRL’s provide an objective, systematic, widely accepted tool for planning large application-oriented programs. Fusion-relevant TRL tables were developed in ARIES and used to evaluate our readiness on the pathway to an advanced tokamak power plant. TRL’s are adaptable and can be used to help guide the ReNeW process.

M. S. Tillack and the ARIES Team FESAC Meeting: Gaithersburg, MD

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: " M. S. Tillack and the ARIES Team FESAC Meeting: Gaithersburg, MD"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

M. S. Tillack and the ARIES Team FESAC Meeting: Gaithersburg, MD

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: " M. S. Tillack and the ARIES Team FESAC Meeting: Gaithersburg, MD"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback