1 / 28

Professor John Gilligan,

Networking of Nuclear Education and Research in the US CASL: The Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors A DOE Energy Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation of Nuclear Reactors. Professor John Gilligan,

colleen-beach
Download Presentation

Professor John Gilligan,

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. Networking of Nuclear Education and Research in the USCASL: The Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water ReactorsA DOE Energy Innovation Hub for Modelingand Simulation of Nuclear Reactors Professor John Gilligan, North Carolina State University, and Chair of the of the CASL Education Council

  2. Unprecedented Partnering Between Universities and Labs for Nuclear Energy Education and Research • Idaho National Lab – Idaho Universities (Univ. of Idaho, Idaho State Univ. Boise State Univ.) • Idaho National Lab – INEST Universities(MIT, Univ. of New Mexico, Oregon State Univ., NC State Univ., Ohio State Univ.) • Oak Ridge National Lab - Core Universities(Georgia Tech, NC State Univ., Virginia Tech, Univ. of Virginia, Florida State Univ.) • Oak Ridge National Lab – US DOE Modeling and Simulation Hub, CASL (NC State Univ., MIT, Univ. of Michigan, Univ. of Tennessee)

  3. Examples of Education and Research Partnering • Joint Faculty Positions • Student Internships • Joint Seminars and Training Programs • Joint Research Collaboration, Proposals to NEUP, NNSA, DHS… • Joint Educational Development Programs • Lab Funding of Research and Students • Joint Management of Large Research Hub - CASL

  4. What is a DOE Energy Innovation Hub?(as documented) • Target problems heretofore proven resistant to solution via normal R&D enterprise • Assimilate highly successful high-profile program structure e.g. Manhattan Project (nuclear weapons), Lincoln Lab at MIT (radar), and AT&T Bell Labs (transistor) • Consistent with Brookings Institution’s recommendations for “Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes” (early 2009) • “…new research paradigms are necessary, we believe, that better leverage the unique capacity of America's research” - Dr. Jim Duderstadt, President Emeritus, University of Michigan • Focuses on a single topic, work spanning from basic research through engineering development while partnering with industry towards commercialization • Large, highly integrated and collaborative creative teams working to solve priority technology challenges (team building across all entities)

  5. DOE Energy Innovation Hub for NE M&S Timeline • 04/06/2009: Secretary Chu proposes 8 Energy Innovation Hubs • “mini-Bell Labs” focused on tough problems relevant to energy • $25M per yr for 5 years, with possible 5-yr extension • 06/25/2009: House bill does not approve any of the 8 proposed Hubs • provides $35M in Basic Energy Sciences for the Secretary to select one Hub • 07/09/2009: Senate approves 3 of the 8 proposed hubs, but at $22M • Fuels from sunlight (in EERE) • Energy efficient building systems (in EERE) • Modeling and simulation (in NE) • 07/22/2009: Johnson memo providing more detail on Hubs • 10/01/2009: Final bill out of conference matches Senate bill • 12/07/2009: Informational workshop • 01/20/2010: FOA released • 03/08/2010: proposals due (originally 3/1/10) • 04/23/2010: CASL site visit at ORNL • 05/27/2010: CASL selected

  6. The CASL Team: A unique lab-university-industry partnership Core partners Oak Ridge National Laboratory Electric Power Research Institute Idaho National Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology North Carolina State University Sandia National Laboratories Tennessee Valley Authority University of Michigan Westinghouse Electric Company Building on longstanding, productive relationships and collaborations to forge a close, cohesive, and interdependent team that is fully committed to a well-defined plan of action Individual contributors ASCOMP GmbH CD-adapco, Inc. City University of New York Florida State University Imperial College London Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Southern States Energy Board Texas A&M University University of Florida University of Tennessee University of Wisconsin Worcester Polytechnic Institute

  7. Can an advanced “Virtual Reactor” be developed and applied to proactively address critical performance goals for nuclear power? 1 2 3 • Reduce capital and operating costs per unit energy by: • Power uprates • Lifetime extension • Reduce nuclear waste volume generated by enabling higher fuel burnups • Enhance nuclear safetyby enabling high-fidelity predictive capability for component and system performance from beginning of life through failure

  8. Each reactor performance improvement goal brings benefits andconcerns

  9. CASL has selected key phenomena limiting reactor performance selected for challenge problems

  10. CASL vision: Create a virtual reactor (VR) for predictivesimulation of LWRs

  11. CASL vision: Create a virtual reactor (VR) for predictivesimulation of LWRs Thermal Hydraulics (thermal fluids) Neutronics (diffusion, transport) Structural Mechanics Fuel Performance (thermo-mechanics, materials models) Multiphysics Integrator Chemistry (crud formation, corrosion) Reactor System Multi-mesh Management Multi-resolution Geometry Mesh Motion/ Quality Improvement

  12. A comprehensive set of milestones is defined to drive solution of the challenge problems • Industry challenges and needs • Challenge problems • L1 Milestones in 6 challenge categories • CRUD • Grid-to-rod fretting (GTRF)/fuel assembly distortion (FAD) • Operational reactor • Safety • Lifetime extension • Advanced fuels 17milestones, ~$5M each • L2 Milestones • Discipline-oriented focus areas 36 milestones, ~$2M each • L3 Milestones • Projects 90milestones, ~$1M each

  13. CASL Organization CASL Board of Directors Ernest Moniz, Chairman U.S. Department of Energy Partnership/Alliance Management Jeff Cornett Doug Kothe, Director, ORNL Ronaldo Szilard, Deputy, INL Paul Turinsky, Chief Scientist, NCSU Chief Strategy Officer Mario Carelli, Westinghouse Program Management Jeff Banta Collaboration & Ideation April Lewis • Operations Jayson Hines • Startup Manager • Gil Weigand Materials Performance & Optimization Chris Stanek, LANLSid Yip Brian Wirth Virtual Reactor Integration John Turner, ORNLRandy SummersRich Martineau Advanced Modeling Applications Jess Gehin, ORNLZesesKaroutas Models and Numerical Methods Bill Martin, U of MichiganRob Lowrie Validation and Uncertainty Quantification Jim Stewart, SandiaDan Cacuci CASL Senior Leadership CASL Technical Leadership

  14. CASL’s technical focus areas will execute the plan • MPO • Materials Performance and Optimization • Chris Stanek, Lead • Sid Yip, Deputy • Brian Wirth, Deputy • MNM • Models and Numerical Methods • Bill Martin, Lead • Rob Lowrie, Deputy • VRI • Virtual Reactor Integration • John Turner, Lead • Randy Summers,Rich Martineau, Deputies • VUQ • Validation and Uncertainty Quantification • Jim Stewart, LeadDan Cacuci, Deputy • AMA • Advanced Modeling Applications • Jess Gehin, LeadZesesKaroutas, Deputy • Upscaling (CMPM) • Fuel microstructure • Clad/internals microstructure • Corrosion • CRUD deposition • Failure modes • Radiation transport • Thermal hydraulics • Coupled multi- physics environment • VR simulation suite • Coupled mechanics • V&V and calibration through data assimilation • Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification • VR requirements • VR physical reactor qualification • Challenge problem application • VR validation • NRC engagement 18 integrated and interdependent projects

  15. CASL management leads an integrated organization Director: Full line authority/accountability for all aspects of CASL Chief Scientist: Drives science-based elements Deputy Director: Drives application elements Chief Strategy Officer: Drives design and regulatory elements

  16. CASL Council Chairs Communications, Policy, and Economic Development Council Science Council Industry Council Education Council Commercialization Council John Ahearne(Executive Director Emeritus, Sigma Xi) John Gaertner (Technical Executive, EPRI) John Gilligan(Professor, NCSU; Director, DOE Nuclear Energy University Programs Integration Office) Jeff Cornett, ORNL Ken Nemeth (Secretary and Executive Director, SSEB)

  17. CASL’s “one roof” approach • Appreciable CASL collocation of scientists and engineers expected • Students and postdoctoral associates will spend more time at CASL

  18. CASL proposed budget was augmented by cost share and generous in-kind partner support

  19. CASL proposed spending plan • Infrastructure allotment ($10M) distribution: • 23% to focus areas • 35% to VOCC • 42% to risk mitigation $120 $100 $80 Cumulative spending $60 $40 $20 $ 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 • More than $90M of total funding is applied to R&D (performed by 5 focus areas) • Distribution within focus areas reflects both priorities and maturity of existing technologies

  20. CASL legacy: what do we leave “behind”? A preeminent computational scienceinstitute for nuclear energy CASL VR: Advanced M&S environment for predictive simulation of LWRs • Operating on current and future leadership-class computers • Deployed by industry (software “test stands” at EPRI and Westinghouse) Advanced M&S capabilities: • Advances in HPC algorithms and methods • Validated tools for advancing reactor design Fundamental science advances documented in peer-reviewed publications Innovations that contribute to U.S. economic competitiveness Highly skilled work force with education and training needed: • To sustain and enhance today’s nuclear power plants • To deliver next-generation systems

  21. Council charter and milestones have been established. First conference call was in August 2010. Plans for PoR Develop diversity plan Map CASL challenge problems into curricula Develop prototype course modules Develop transfer plan to industry and post docs Develop framework for use of VERA in curricula Challenge for education programs will be to integrate the many multidisciplinary programs for VERA. Advise Director and Chair on educational development activities Council reviews and recommends education programs Education Council assures CASL that results are integrated into undergraduate, and graduate curricula and transferred to industry users. Diversity of participation in CASL activities is encouraged. Representatives from partner universities Three additional members from TVA, EPRI, and Westinghouse John Gilligan, Chair Education CouncilCreating a new generation of LWR designers Charter Relevant Image Here Membership Status

  22. Education Council Members and Affiliations • John Gilligan, Professor, Chair, North Carolina State University • Ken Canavan, Manager, EPRI • Ben Forget, Asst. Professor, MIT • John Goossens, Director, Westinghouse • James Holloway, Professor and Assoc. Dean, Univ. of Michigan • Ivan Maldanado, Assoc. Professor, Univ. of Tennessee/ORNL • Ken Okafor, Assoc. Professor, South Carolina State Univ. • Dan Stout, Manager, TVA

  23. Education Programs – Level One Goals L1 Curricula Goals, Virtual Nuclear Systems Design (4,5) L2 Implement Certificate VRSD (3) L3 Develop Framework of “Certificate for Virtual Nuclear Systems Design” (1), 6/30/11 L3 Map Challenge Problems into Curricula (1), 3/31/11 L3 Develop Prototype Chapter Modules for Appropriate Courses (1), 6/30/11 L2 Full Implementation of Virtual Nuclear Systems Design Tool (5) in Curricula L3 Develop New Courses and VNSD for Existing Course Modules (2) L2 Implement Virtual Systems Design Tool for Courses (3) L2 Offer Educational Programs to Computational and other Appropriate Disciplines (4) L3 Summer School and Bootcamp development (3) L2 Full Distance Delivery of Curricula (5) L3 Evaluation of IT and Transfer capability (3)  * New Multidisciplinary Course Modules Now in Development

  24. Level One Goals L1 Diversity and Interdisciplinary Goals (4,5) L2 Implement Diversity and Interdisciplinary Plan (3) L3 Develop Diversity Plan (1) , 1/30/11 L3 Develop Education Transfer Plan to Industry, others (1), 4/30/11 L3 Deploy Diversity Plan Elements (2) L2 Offer Educational Programs to Industry (3) L3 Develop Education Modules for Industry, others (2) L3 Training and Bootcamp development (2) • Scholarship Program is Commencing

  25. Summary of CASL Education Activities • New Virtual Design Tool will Change Engineering Design • VDT must be integrated into undergrad and grad education • Industry and labs must have access to VDT and education • Challenges to education : • Interdisciplinary modeling and simulation • Recruitment of diverse workforce • Create new paradigms for education and training (certificate program) • Must be available at a Distance • Focus on Challenge Problems for near term design

  26. Questions?www.casl.gov or info@casl.gov

More Related