Nuclear Energy

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 Modelingand Simulation of Nuclear Reactors

Professor John Gilligan, North Carolina State University, and Chair of the of the CASL Education Council

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)

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

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)

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

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 contributorsASCOMP GmbHCD-adapco, Inc.

City University of New YorkFlorida State University

Imperial College LondonRensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Southern States Energy BoardTexas A&M University

University of FloridaUniversity of TennesseeUniversity of Wisconsin

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Can an advanced “Virtual Reactor” be developed and applied to proactively address critical performance goals for nuclear power?

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 safety by enabling high-fidelity predictive capability for component and system performance from beginning of life through failure

1 2 3

Each reactor performance improvement goal brings benefits and concerns

Power uprates Lifetime extension Higher burnup

• 5–7 GWe delivered at ~20% of new reactor cost

• Advances in M&S needed to enable further uprates (up to 20 GWe)

• Key concerns:– Damage to structures,

systems, and components (SSC)

– Fuel and steam generator integrity

– Violation of safety limits

• Reduces cost of electricity• Essentially expands existing

nuclear power fleet• Requires ability to predict SSC

degradation• Key concerns:

– Effects of increased radiation and aging on integrity of reactor vessel and internals

– Ex-vessel performance (effects of aging on containment and piping)

• Supports reduction in amount of used nuclear fuel

• Supports uprates by avoiding need for additional fuel

• Key concerns:– Cladding

integrity– Fretting– Corrosion/

CRUD– Hydriding– Creep– Fuel-cladding

mechanical interactions

Power uprate High burnup Life extension

Operational

CRUD-induced power shift (CIPS)

CRUD-induced localized corrosion (CILC)

Grid-to-rod fretting failure (GTRF)

Pellet-clad interaction (PCI)

Fuel assembly distortion (FAD)

Safety

Departure from nucleate boiling (DNB)

Cladding integrity during loss of coolant accidents (LOCA)

Cladding integrity during reactivity insertion accidents (RIA)

Reactor vessel integrity

Reactor internals integrity

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

Leverage Develop Deliver• Current state-of-the-art neutronics,

thermal-fluid, structural, and fuel performance applications

• Existing systems and safety analysis simulation tools

• New requirements-driven physical models

• Efficient, tightly-coupled multi-scale/multi-physics algorithms and software with quantifiable accuracy

• Improved systems and safety analysis tools

• UQ framework

• An unprecedented predictive simulation tool for simulation of physical reactors

• Architected for platform portability ranging from desktops to DOE’s leadership-class and advanced architecture systems (large user base)

• Validation basis against 60% of existing U.S. reactor fleet (PWRs), using data from TVA reactors

• Base M&S LWR capability

CASL vision: Create a virtual reactor (VR) for predictive simulation of LWRs

Leverage Develop Deliver• Current state-of-the-art neutronics,

thermal-fluid, structural, and fuel performance applications

• Existing systems and safety analysis simulation tools

• New requirements-driven physical models

• Efficient, tightly-coupled multi-scale/multi-physics algorithms and software with quantifiable accuracy

• Improved systems and safety analysis tools

• UQ framework

• An unprecedented predictive simulation tool for simulation of physical reactors

• Architected for platform portability ranging from desktops to DOE’s leadership-class and advanced architecture systems (large user base)

• Validation basis against 60% of existing U.S. reactor fleet (PWRs), using data from TVA reactors

• Base M&S LWR capability

CASL vision: Create a virtual reactor (VR) for predictive simulation of LWRs

Chemistry(crud formation,

corrosion)

Mesh Motion/Quality

Improvement

Multi-resolutionGeometry

Multi-mesh Management

Fuel Performance (thermo-mechanics, materials models)

Neutronics(diffusion, transport)

Reactor System

Thermal Hydraulics

(thermal fluids) Structural Mechanics

MultiphysicsIntegrator

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

L2 MilestonesDiscipline-oriented focus areas

L3 MilestonesProjects

17 milestones,~$5M each

36 milestones,~$2M each

90 milestones,~$1M each

COUNCILS

ScienceJohn Ahearne, Chairman

IndustryJohn Gaertner, Chairman

EducationJohn Gilligan, Chairman

CommercializationJeff Cornett, Chairman

Communications, Policy, and Economic Development

Ken Nemeth, Chairman

CASL Board of DirectorsErnest Moniz,

Chairman

Materials Performance &

OptimizationChris Stanek, LANL

Sid YipBrian Wirth

Virtual Reactor Integration

John Turner, ORNLRandy SummersRich Martineau

Advanced Modeling

ApplicationsJess Gehin, ORNL

Zeses Karoutas

Models and Numerical MethodsBill Martin, U of Michigan

Rob Lowrie

Validation and Uncertainty

QuantificationJim Stewart, Sandia

Dan Cacuci

Partnership/Alliance Management

Jeff Cornett

OperationsJayson Hines

Startup ManagerGil Weigand

CASL Organization

Chief Strategy OfficerMario Carelli, Westinghouse

Program ManagementJeff Banta

Collaboration & IdeationApril Lewis

CASL Senior Leadership

CASL Technical Leadership

Doug Kothe, Director, ORNL

Ronaldo Szilard, Deputy, INLPaul Turinsky, Chief Scientist,

NCSU

U.S. Department

of Energy

CASL’s technical focus areas will execute the plan

18 integrated and interdependent projects

MNMModels and Numerical Methods

Bill Martin, LeadRob Lowrie, Deputy

Radiation transport

Thermal hydraulics

VRIVirtual Reactor

IntegrationJohn Turner, LeadRandy Summers,

Rich Martineau, Deputies

Coupled multi- physics environment

VR simulation suite Coupled mechanics

VUQValidation and

Uncertainty QuantificationJim Stewart, Lead

Dan Cacuci, Deputy

V&V and calibration through data assimilation

Sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification

AMAAdvanced Modeling

ApplicationsJess Gehin, LeadZeses Karoutas,

Deputy

VR requirements VR physical

reactor qualification

Challenge problem application

VR validation NRC engagement

MPOMaterials

Performance and OptimizationChris Stanek, Lead

Sid Yip, DeputyBrian Wirth, Deputy

Upscaling (CMPM) Fuel

microstructure Clad/internals

microstructure Corrosion CRUD deposition Failure modes

CASL management leads an integrated organizationDirector:

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

Project management Operations teamTechnology

transfer/partnerships

• Professional technical expertise

• Proven systems• Tailored processes

• Environment, safety, health, and quality

• Finance and contracts• Security • IT support, database design,

and VOCC• Facilities

• Broad and efficient industrial engagement

• Coordinated IP management

CASL Council Chairs

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)

Science Council

Industry Council

Education Council

Commercialization Council

Communications, Policy, and Economic Development Council

Single primary physical address

Strong, motivated, unified management team Milestone-driven plan

• Extended and enhanced by a “virtual one roof” approach

• New facility at ORNL, designed to provide highly collaborative work space

• Virtual Office, Community, and Computing (VOCC) Project– Integration of best current

and emerging technologies for collaboration to build an extended “virtual one roof”

• Predominantly resident at Oak Ridge– Director’s office: >90%– Director’s office + FA leads:

>80%• Practiced and proven in R&D

program management• FAs: Lead + Deputy Lead

– Broad coverage of science and engineering

– Near-100% CASL residency for each FA leadership team

• Executed by multidisciplinary teams – 10 core institutions– Individual contributors

with specialized knowledge and skills

• Establishes annual commitments and reports quarterly progress

• Drives collocation requirements

CASL’s “one roof” approach

• Appreciable CASL collocation of scientists and engineers expected• Students and postdoctoral associates will spend more time at CASL

Partner CASL

funding Cost share and in-kind support

Annual HPC resource allocation

(TF-years) Description of cost share and in-kind support

ORNL $43,285,580 $23,900,000 18 CASL facility, Jaguar Cray XT5 system, visualization and telepresence centers, IT support, desktop collaboration

LANL $12,677,925 — 16 Cerillos IBM Cell-accelerated system, computer infrastructure support, data visualization

INL $11,384,330 $1,000,000 4.4 SGI Altix 8200 system, office space, telepresence center operations

SNL $12,075,375 — 15 Institutional computing

NCSU $11,045,764 $1,800,000 0.5 Office space; joint faculty; graduate students; IT support

MIT $9,577,425 $1,500,000 2 Office and meeting space; videoconferencing; graduate students; faculty time; compute cluster

Michigan $7,085,325 $960,000 0.5 Office and meeting space; compute cluster; graduate students; faculty time; licensing support

Westinghouse $8,413,896 >$1,683,001 — Nuclear design and T-H codes

EPRI $4,206,097 — —

TVA $1,107,600 — —

CUNY $219,375 $375,000 — Ph.D. student support

CD-adapco $658,058 $131,625 — Technical support; licensing fee reduction

Ascomp $263,250 $60,000 — Technical support

Total $122,000,000 >$31,409,626 56.4

CASL proposed budget was augmented by cost share

and generous in-kind partner support

CASL proposed spending plan

• Infrastructure allotment ($10M) distribution:– 23% to focus areas– 35% to VOCC– 42% to risk mitigation

AMA; 19%

VRI; 24%

VUQ; 15%

MNM; 18%

MPO; 24%Funding

distribution by focus

area

• 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

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$120

$100

$80

$60

$40

$20

$

Cum

ulat

ive s

pend

ing

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 publicationsInnovations that contribute to U.S. economic competitivenessHighly skilled work force with education and training needed:

– To sustain and enhance today’s nuclear power plants– To deliver next-generation systems

Status

• 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.

Membership

Charter

• 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.

Education CouncilCreating a new generation of LWR designers

• Representatives from partner universities

• Three additional members from TVA, EPRI, and Westinghouse

RelevantImageHere

John Gilligan, Chair

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

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), 6/30/11L3 Map Challenge Problems into Curricula (1), 3/31/11L3 Develop Prototype Chapter Modules for Appropriate Courses (1), 6/30/11L2 Full Implementation of Virtual Nuclear Systems Design Tool (5) in CurriculaL3 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

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

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

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