1. 29 July 20101 Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel Mark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting Washington, D.C. June 29-30, 2010 Exploring the Parameter Space with the Visual ARIES Systems Scanning Tool

2. 29 July 20102 The four corners of the parameter space have been defined ARIES-AT physics ( β N =0.04-0.06) DCLL blanket ARIES-I physics ( β N = 0.03) DCLL blanket Aggressive in technology Aggressive in physics ARIES-AT physics ( β N =0.04-0.06) SiC blanket ARIES-I physics ( β N = 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

3. 29 July 20103 Some systems code scanning parameters: Preliminary filtering: 1.Pnelec = 1000 MW ± 15 MW 2.Divertor (in/outboard) limit < 15 MW/m 2 3.B T max = 6 - 18 T 4.COE real RangeResolution R (m)4.0 - 8.25 0.25 B T (T)4.5 - 8.50.25 BetaN0.025 - 0.060.005 Q gain15 - 405 n/n Gr 0.7 - 1.30.1 P aux 5 - 405 … Now we can load this database of viable operating points and visualize 

4. 29 July 20104 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

5. 29 July 20105 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” database Note: All costing in this presentation is 2009$

6. 29 July 20106 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

7. 29 July 20107 Constraint example #1: Aggr physics / aggr tech R vs fGW, CC COE Const: fGW < 1.0

8. 29 July 20108 Constraint example #1: Aggr physics / aggr tech R vs fGW, CC COE Const: fGW < 1.0 Const: H98 < 1.7

9. 29 July 20109 Constraint example #2: Aggr physics / aggr tech R vs H98, CC COE

10. 29 July 201010 Constraint example #2: Aggr physics / aggr tech R vs H98, CC COE Const: fGW < 1.0

11. 29 July 201011 Constraint example #2: Aggr physics / aggr tech R vs H98, CC COE Const: fGW < 1.0 Const: H98 < 1.7

12. 29 July 201012 Constraint example #3: Aggr physics / aggr tech BetaN vs H98, CC COE

13. 29 July 201013 Constraint example #3: Aggr physics / aggr tech BetaN vs H98, CC COE Const: H98 < 1.7

14. 29 July 201014 Constraint example #3: Aggr physics / aggr tech BetaN vs H98, CC COE Const: H98 < 1.7 Const: fGW < 1.0

15. 29 July 201015 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

16. 29 July 201016 Example #5: Aggr physics / aggr tech fGW 1.0 - 1.3 Too aggressive Smaller device

17. 29 July 201017 Example #5: Aggr physics / aggr tech H98 > 1.65 Too aggressive Smaller device

18. 29 July 201018 Example #5: Aggr physics / aggr tech Aggressive physics BetaN > 0.045

19. 29 July 201019 Example #5: Aggr physics / aggr tech Aggressive physics BetaN > 0.045 COE 50 COE 60 COE 70

20. 29 July 201020 Example #6: Cons physics / aggr tech B T = 7 - 8.5 for cons physics (BetaN ~ 0.03)

21. 29 July 201021 Example #6: Cons physics / aggr tech B T vs COE, CC BetaN Low BetaN regime

22. 29 July 201022 Example #6: Cons physics / aggr tech B T vs COE, CC BetaN Const: BetaN < 0.035

23. 29 July 201023 Example #6: Cons physics / aggr tech B T vs COE, CC BetaN Const: BetaN < 0.030

24. 29 July 201024 Example #7: Aggr physics / cons tech Rise in B T as aggressiveness decreases (BetaN) Now DCLL blanket

25. 29 July 201025 Example #7: Aggr physics / cons tech Still weak COE effect of BetaN

26. 29 July 201026 Example #7: Aggr physics / cons tech nGW > 1.3 and H98 > 1.4 are too aggressive

27. 29 July 201027 Example #8: Cons physics / cons tech Device is large with B T = 7.5 - 8.5 T at low BetaN

28. 29 July 201028 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. 29 July 201029 Extra: Pnelec (unrestricted) vs COE, CC: COE SiC blanket Possible attractive power plant designs in the 500 MW range

30. 29 July 201030 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

31. 29 July 201031 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

32. 29 July 201032 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 fields b)Heat flux to divertor c)Neutron wall load d)Net electric power 2.Engineering Module a)Blanket (DCLL, SiC) b)Power flow c)Magnets d)Geometry 3.Costing Module a)Detailed costing accounts Documentation spreadsheet started

33. 29 July 201033 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.

34. 29 July 201034 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?

35. 29 July 201035 Extra Slides

36. 29 July 201036 ARIES systems code consists of modular building blocks 1.Blankets 2.Geometry 3.Magnets 4.Power flow 5.Costing 1. PHYSICS Plasmas that satisfy power and particle balance 2. ENGINEERING FILTERS APPLIED Systems Code Analysis Flow 3. ENGINEERING & COSTING DETAILS Power core, power flow, magnets, costing, COE Modules include: Systems code integrates physics, engineering, design, and costing. 1.Toroidal magnetic fields 2.Heat flux to divertor 3.Neutron wall load 4.Net electric power Filters include: DCLL SiC ARIES-AT

37. 29 July 201037 Goals of Dec. 2010 ARIES research proposal Scope of new study is to re-evaluate the ARIES design while considering current PMI knowledge and issues.