25 Oct 2010 1

Lane Carlson, Charles KesselMark Tillack, Farrokh Najmabadi

ARIES-Pathways Project MeetingBethesda, MD Oct 25-26, 2010

Choosing Preliminary Strawmen,Utilizing VASST, and

Documenting Systems Code

25 Oct 2010 2

Preliminary strawmen for two cornershave been defined

• Two strawmen chosen for SiC, aggr & cons physics.

• Aggr => Bn ~ 0.045 Cons => Bn ~ 0.03

• VASST GUI has visually shown effect of filtering data and

identification of points.

• Working on cleaning up formatting of the code and internal

commenting/documentation.

• Verifying internal algorithms, hardwired numbers, power

fractions, comments to code.

• Updating external “public” documentation and keeping it up

to date.

25 Oct 2010 3

Systems code scanning parameters used to find the strawmen:

SiC blanket Range,

aggressiveaggressiveRange,

conservativeResolution

R (m) 4.5 - 6.5 5.0 - 7.0 0.25

BT (T) 5.0 - 7.0 6.5 - 8.5 0.25

ßn 0.040 - 0.058 0.025 - 0.040 0.001

kappa 2.2 2.0 -

Q gain 20 - 40 15-30 2.5

n/nGr 0.7 - 1.0 0.7 - 1.0 0.05

Qcyl (q95) 3.6 - 5.0 4.6 - 6.0 0.2

Impurity fraction 0.001 - 0.003 0.001 - 0.003 0.001

• Coarse 4-corner scans have helped define these scanning parameters.

• Output is a few million points

25 Oct 2010 4

Preliminary filtering

SiC blanket Value

Pnelec 1000 ± 15 MW

Divertor (in/outboard) < 15 MW/m^2

Bt max 6-18 T

COE real

H98 < 1.9 aggr, < 1.6 cons

Secondary Filtering to hone in on strawmen Value

Radius 5.5 - 7.0 m

Bt 5.75 - 8.5 T

n/nGr < 1

Q 17 - 32

Qdivoutb * < 7.5 MW/m^2

Bn 0.03 - 0.05

H98 1.55 - 1.93

COE, Paux, Precir low

* Systems code accounts only for nominal heat, not transients. Set Qdivpeak < 7.5 MW/m^2 so as not to use up heat flux capability to handle nominal heat load.

25 Oct 2010 5

Hardwired systems code parameters

SiC blanket Value

etaCD 0.27 (from 0.33)

tpote ~5

asp 4

Plasma triangularity 0.6

Cryo power 2 MW

He pump efficiency 90%

• Changed SiC blanket divertor to He-cooling since heat flux was routinely > 5 MW/m^2 and liquid-metal cannot provide adequate cooling.

• Pumping power is computed from R. Raffray’s correlations (2 - 6.8% for SiC WITH He-cooling) and these are multiplied by thermal power.

NOTE:

25 Oct 2010 6

Preliminary strawmen for aggressive technology (SiC) corners

βN R (m) BT (T) n/nGr H98 ** fBS Paux (MW) COE (mills)*

Aggr phys / aggr tech

0.045 5.5 6.25 1 1.83 0.83 63.6 69.17

Cons phys / aggr tech

0.03 6.5 8.5 1 1.56 0.67 114.9 91.30

* All costing is 2010$** H98 is based on total power including radiation

25 Oct 2010 7

More details of preliminary strawmen for aggressive technology (SiC) corners

Q gain Qdivoutb (MW/m^2)

Qdivinb (MW/m^2)

Ip (MA) q95kappa Precir

(MWe)Pthermal (MWth)

Ave neutron wall flux (MW/m^2)

Aggr phys / aggr tech

30 7.4 3.2 9.9 5 2.2 260 2195 2.19

Cons phys / aggr tech

17.5 6.9 2.8 11.3 6 2.0 377 2373 1.83

Note: All costing is 2010$

Detailed files downloadable at: http://aries.ucsd.edu/ARIES/WDOCS/system.shtml

25 Oct 2010 8

Radial builds from systems code

1 Aggr tech, aggr physics 2 Aggr tech, cons physics

R = 5.5 mR = 6.5 m

25 Oct 2010 9

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

Color bar scale

Edit plotting properties

(Visual ARIES Systems Scanning Tool) newFast database filtering: 25k pts/sec

Populate table with click

Turn on ARIES-AT point design for reference

25 Oct 2010 10

R vs COE, CC Kappa

Database name: SysoutFinalsiccomb3 (aggr phys & aggr/cons tech)

Filters: Bt 6-18 Tdiv (in, out) < 7.5 MW/m2Pnelec = 1000 ± 15 MWCOE realn/nGr < 1H98 < 1.9

25 Oct 2010 11

Bn vs B, CC Kappa

Database name: SysoutFinalsiccomb3 (aggr phys & aggr/cons tech)

Filters: Bt 6-18 Tdiv (in, out) < 7.5 MW/m2Pnelec = 1000 ± 15 MWCOE realn/nGr < 1H98 < 1.9

BT increases as physics is

relaxed (reducing Bn)

25 Oct 2010 12

Bn vs COE, CC Kappa

Database name: SysoutFinalsiccomb3 (aggr phys & aggr/cons tech)

Filters: Bt 6-18 Tdiv (in, out) < 7.5 MW/m2Pnelec = 1000 ± 15 MWCOE realn/nGr < 1H98 < 1.9

Coarse and fine scans can be

observed

25 Oct 2010 13

BetaN vs COE, CC hfactor

Database name: SysoutFinalsiccomb3 (aggr phys & aggr/cons tech)

Filters: Bt 6-18 Tdiv (in, out) < 7.5 MW/m2Pnelec = 1000 ± 15 MWCOE realn/nGr < 1

All H98 shown

25 Oct 2010 14

BetaN vs COE, CC hfactor

Database name: SysoutFinalsiccomb3 (aggr phys & aggr/cons tech)

Filters: Bt 6-18 Tdiv (in, out) < 7.5 MW/m2Pnelec = 1000 ± 15 MWCOE realn/nGr < 1H98 < 1.9

Filtered H98 < 1.9

Cons physics

Aggr physics

25 Oct 2010 15

H98 vs COE, CC kappa

Database name: SysoutFinalsiccomb3 (aggr phys & aggr/cons tech)

Filters: Bt 6-18 Tdiv (in, out) < 7.5 MW/m2Pnelec = 1000 ± 15 MWCOE realn/nGr < 1

Cons physics

Aggr physics

SiC Value

H98 < 1.9 aggr, < 1.6 cons

25 Oct 2010 16

R vs Qdivoutb, CC COE

Database name: SysoutFinalsiccomb3 (aggr phys & aggr/cons tech)

Filters: Bt 6-18 Tdiv (in, out) < 7.5 MW/m2Pnelec = 1000 ± 15 MWCOE realn/nGr < 1H98 < 1.9

• Heat flux on divertor was arbitrarily limited to 7.5 MW/m^2 to accommodate possible transients.

• Need actual transient scenario to design divertor to be able to accommodate more realistically.

25 Oct 2010 17

The database chronicle continues to grow as resolution is added

New

dat

a po

ints

sin

ce la

st m

eetin

g • What input parameters were scanned?• What version of the systems code was used? Changes to code? (SVN control)• What blanket was implemented?• What were the assumptions applied in the code? Year$?• What filters were implemented to attain the points of interest?

25 Oct 2010 18

Background check on systems code

• Specifics of code are under investigation and are being scrutinized.• Internal documentation/commenting is poor.• “ASC documents” need to be thoroughly compared to code. Do the

docs and code match? We are finding errors and omissions.• What exactly is in the different blanket modules? What assumptions and

approximations are used?• Documentation within code plus external documentation must be kept

up-to-date! Adhere to SVN after overhaul.

• There are slight errors in the code we would like to fix and updates to power flow

model (Tillack to discuss) - then will issue refined strawmen.• Would like to remove tables and find better ways to express data.

• Need to verify that algorithms, hardwired numbers, power fractions are correct.

• DCLL low pumping power efficiency example.

Work to do:

25 Oct 2010 19

Systems Code Modules: (by LCC) There are 2 main steps of the systems code:

1. Physics – input files with user-specifi ed parameters are called “ inpar” (fi xed parameters) and “ inpar2” (scanned parameters). The plasmas that remain satisfy the power and particle balance and are described by 55 parameters. This output fil e becomes the input fil e for the engineering module. “sysplas_PC.F” is the name of the code that computes these parameters and “corona” is a look-up table that gives the calculation of the radiative cooling rates and other relevant parameters of impurities in the plasma.

2. Engineering – at this step, there are 4 diff erent modules, each with a diff erent blanket design. COE is also calculated here. These modules are 80~90% identical with only slight diff erences between them.

a. ARIES-AT – benchmark model with new (Aug 2009) costing accounts b. DCLL – dual-coolant lead-li thium blanket without manifold c. DCLL_M – with manifold (not used often) d. SiC – next-step version with a sili con-carbide blanket

2. Engineering: There are 5 input files required to run the engineering module. They are called by the certain subroutines during the engineering module:

1. magnets.data – called by geometry.cpp, contains constants and assumptions of the magnets

2. costing.data – called by costingaccount.cpp, input parameters that are used to define costing accounts and COE

3. powerflow.data – called by designpoint.cpp, constants provided by Rene Raffray, very similar between SiC and DCLL blankets

4. sysout.data – called by aries.cpp, contains the output database from the physics module consisting of 55 plasma parameters

5. builds.data – is unique only to the DCLL case and includes a detailed inboard, outboard and divertor build of the blanket. This is read by the Aries.cpp program

There are 5 subroutines of code in the engineering module under the main program “Aries.cpp”:

Aries.cpp – main program 1. Cost.cpp – does costing analysis taking into account material costs 2. CostingAccount.cpp – goes through detailed costing for every account 3. DesignPoint.cpp – might also be known as “power flow,” computes powers, heat fluxes,

pumping, CD, etc 4. Geometry.cpp – computes the geometries of the machine, as well as magnets 5. Part.cpp – makes output parts under “ /OutputParts”

Flow of calculations.doc

25 Oct 2010 20

Summary

Preliminary strawmen given for SiC blanket, aggressive

and conservative physics.

Continuing chronicle and documentation of systems code.

Details of VASST GUI to be presented at upcoming

TOFE.

25 Oct 2010 21

Future work

Would like comments back on preliminary strawmen.

What areas should we improve, filter, scan finer, etc.

Will thoroughly analyze code and correct errors.

Will thicken database in relevant areas around strawmen.

Provide final strawmen at four corners after ASC overhaul.

25 Oct 2010 22

Extra Slides

25 Oct 2010 23

ARIES systems code consists of modular building blocks

1. Blankets2. Geometry3. Magnets4. Power flow5. Costing

1. PHYSICS

Plasmas that satisfy power and particle

balance

2. ENGINEERING FILTERS APPLIED

Systems Code Analysis Flow

3. ENGINEERING & COSTING

DETAILSPower core, power

flow, magnets, costing, COE

Modules include:

• Systems code integrates physics, engineering, design, and costing.

1. Toroidal magnetic fields2. Heat flux to divertor3. Neutron wall load4. Net electric power

Filters include:

DCLLSiCARIES-AT