search

ukaea / PROCESS

PROCESS is a systems code at UKAEA that calculates in a self-consistent manner the parameters of a fusion power plant with a specified performance, ensuring that its operating limits are not violated, and with the option to optimise to a given function of these parameters.
https://ukaea.github.io/PROCESS/
MIT License
36 stars 11 forks source link

Add centrepost nuclear heating to TF nuclear heating #1332

Closed jonmaddock closed 1 year ago

jonmaddock commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @pc6783 on Jun 21, 2021, 17:13

Currently, the centrepost (centerstack) nuclear heating (pnuc_cp_tf) is computed but not added to TF nuclear heating (ptfnuc). TF & centrepost nuclear heating can be significant to the reactor and plant power balance in the case of a water-cooled copper centrepost (i_tf_sup = 0). We should add pnuc_cp_tf to ptfnuc after it is computed in subroutine ccfe_hcpb. This will eliminate the "Power balance for power plant is in error by more than 5 MW" warning that currently pops up.

We should also add the TF nuclear heating (ptfnuc) into the calculation in plant_power which displays the "Power balance for reactor is in error by more than 5 MW" warning, in the same capacity as psechcd. This will eliminate that warning, also.

This is the first issue I've created. Please let me know if I've contradicted any norms or best practices.

Thanks

jonmaddock commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @pc6783 on Jun 21, 2021, 17:37

@skahn and @stuartmuldrew might be interested in this issue

jonmaddock commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @pc6783 on Jun 21, 2021, 19:38

This would also allow the cryo analysis to include nuclear heating of the centrepost, which it does not currently.

jonmaddock commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on Jun 22, 2021, 16:51

Hi @pc6783, ccfe_hcpb is not the best PROCESS module and has indeeed not been interfaced properly with the centrepost design ...

ptfnuc is calculated using only the blanket thickness (that does not makes sense as they may be no inboard blanket...), the neutron shield thickness (that does not make sense as there is no reasons to have the same inboard and outboard thickness), and the TF coil weight.

Although all this jazz is not consistent there must be a trace of the CP though its contribution to the TF weight.

This is bad, I know, but I did not have the time to come up with a better model to replace the old one. The long term solution is to have neutronic metamodel taylored to your design (neutronics are very sensitive to design model). I am sure I have not replied to your question....

PS: Is effectively adding the CP nuclear heating removing the warning ?

Cheers
Seb

jonmaddock commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on Jun 22, 2021, 16:51

closed

jonmaddock commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @skahn on Jun 22, 2021, 16:58

reopened

jonmaddock commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @pc6783 on Jul 21, 2021, 15:52

BTW both of these warnings are in evidence when Muldrew's model of Menard's 2016 FNSF design is run: tests/regression/scenarios/FNSF/IN.DAT

jonmaddock commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @pc6783 on Jul 21, 2021, 18:24

With this commit, the errors no longer appear in Muldrew's model of Menard's 2016 FNSF design: tests/regression/scenarios/FNSF/IN.DAT. This model now runs without these errors!

I note that the new pnuc_cp_tf behavior was actually implemented until Commit 85b452ef, which removed it along with pnuc_cp_sh. The latter was added back in in subroutine powerflow_calc, but pnuc_cp_tf never was. I suspect that its removal was an error or an incomplete migration.

jonmaddock commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @pc6783 on Jul 21, 2021, 18:53

created merge request !451 to address this issue

jonmaddock commented 3 years ago

In GitLab by @pc6783 on Aug 26, 2021, 16:16

closed