1 / 37

Exploring the Parameter Space with the Visual ARIES Systems Scanning Tool

Exploring the Parameter Space with the Visual ARIES Systems Scanning Tool. Lane Carlson, Charles Kessel Mark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi ARIES-Pathways Project Meeting Washington, D.C. June 29-30, 2010. ARIES-AT physics ( β N =0.04-0.06) DCLL blanket. ARIES-AT physics ( β N =0.04-0.06)

baby
Download Presentation

Exploring the Parameter Space with the Visual ARIES Systems Scanning Tool

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. ARIES-AT physics (βN=0.04-0.06) DCLL blanket ARIES-AT physics (βN=0.04-0.06) SiC blanket Aggressive in physics ARIES-I physics (βN = 0.03) DCLL blanket ARIES-I physics (βN = 0.03) SiC blanket Aggressive in technology The four corners of the parameter space have been defined • 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. Some systems code scanning parameters: Preliminary filtering: • Pnelec = 1000 MW ± 15 MW • Divertor (in/outboard) limit < 15 MW/m2 • BTmax = 6 - 18 T • COE real Now we can load this database of viable operating points and visualize 

  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

  5. (Visual ARIES Systems Scanning Tool) new Number of points in database VASST GUI v.2 Blanket database used Auto-labeling Pull-down menus for common parameters Color bar scale Constraint parameter can restrict database Correlation coefficient Save plot as TIFF, JPEG, BMP, PNG… Turn on ARIES-AT point design for reference Note: All costing in this presentation is 2009$ Edit plotting properties “Thickened” database

  6. Constraint example #1: Aggr physics / aggr tech Secondary constraints to apply for practical purposes: - fGW < 1.0 - H98 < 1.7 R vs fGW, CC COE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  15. Reiterating C. Kessel’s points, trends, observations with visualizations Example #4: Aggr physics / aggr tech “Knee in the curve” at BetaN = 0.03 COE vs BetaN shows relatively weak dependence

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

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

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

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

  20. Example #6: Cons physics / aggr tech BT = 7 - 8.5 for cons physics (BetaN ~ 0.03)

  21. Example #6: Cons physics / aggr tech Low BetaN regime BT vs COE, CC BetaN

  22. Example #6: Cons physics / aggr tech BT vs COE, CC BetaN Const: BetaN < 0.035

  23. Example #6: Cons physics / aggr tech BT vs COE, CC BetaN Const: BetaN < 0.030

  24. Example #7: Aggr physics / cons tech Now DCLL blanket Rise in BT as aggressiveness decreases (BetaN)

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

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

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

  28. SC magnet current reduction ! Builds are not finalized but show TF coil growth trend ! • 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 10x reduction (exaggeration) 3x reduction (~ ITER TF coil) Original magnetic coil algorithm

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

  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

  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

  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.” • Physics Module • Toroidal magnetic fields • Heat flux to divertor • Neutron wall load • Net electric power • Engineering Module • Blanket (DCLL, SiC) • Power flow • Magnets • Geometry • Costing Module • Detailed costing accounts Documentation spreadsheet started

  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.

  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?

  35. Extra Slides

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

  37. 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.

More Related