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,
North Carolina State University,
and Chair of the of the CASL
Education Council
Nuclear
Energy
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 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
Can an advanced “Virtual Reactor” be developed and
applied to proactively address critical performance
goals for nuclear power?
1
Reduce capital
and operating costs
per unit energy by:
• Power uprates
• Lifetime extension
2
Reduce nuclear waste
volume generated
by enabling higher
fuel burnups
3
Enhance nuclear safety
by enabling high-fidelity
predictive capability
for component and
system performance
from beginning
of life through failure
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:
• Reduces cost of electricity
• Essentially expands existing
nuclear power fleet
• Requires ability to predict
SSC degradation
• Key concerns:
• Supports reduction in amount
of used nuclear fuel
• Supports uprates by avoiding
need for additional fuel
• Key concerns:
– Damage to structures,
systems, and components
(SSC)
– Fuel and steam generator
integrity
– Violation of safety limits
– Effects of increased radiation
and aging on integrity of
reactor vessel and internals
– Ex-vessel performance
(effects of aging on
containment and piping)
– Cladding
integrity
– Fretting
– Corrosion/
CRUD
– Hydriding
– Creep
– Fuel-cladding
mechanical
interactions
CASL has selected key phenomena limiting reactor
performance selected for challenge problems
Power uprate
High burnup
CRUD-induced power shift (CIPS)


CRUD-induced localized corrosion (CILC)


Life extension
Operational

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 vision: Create a virtual reactor (VR)
for predictive simulation of LWRs
Leverage
Develop
Deliver
• Current state-of-the-art neutronics, • New requirements-driven
• An unprecedented predictive
thermal-fluid, structural, and fuel
physical models
simulation tool for simulation
performance applications
of physical reactors
• Efficient, tightly-coupled multi• Existing systems and safety
scale/multi-physics algorithms and • Architected for platform portability
analysis simulation tools
software with quantifiable accuracy
ranging from desktops to DOE’s
leadership-class and advanced
• Improved systems and safety
architecture systems
analysis tools
(large user base)
• UQ framework
• 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, • New requirements-driven
• An unprecedented predictive
thermal-fluid, structural, and fuel
physical models
simulation tool for simulation
performance applications
of physical reactors
• Efficient, tightly-coupled multi• Existing systems and safety
scale/multi-physics algorithms and • Architected for platform portability
analysis simulation tools
software with quantifiable accuracy
ranging from desktops to DOE’s
leadership-class and advanced
• Improved systems and safety
architecture systems
analysis tools
(large user base)
• UQ framework
• Validation basis against 60%
of existing U.S. reactor fleet (PWRs),
Thermal
Neutronics
using data from TVA reactors
Hydraulics
(diffusion,
(thermal fluids)
Fuel Performance transport)
Structural
(thermo-mechanics,
Mechanics
materials models)
Multiphysics
Chemistry
Reactor
Integrator
(crud formation,
System
corrosion)
Multi-resolution
Geometry
Mesh Motion/
Quality
Improvement
Multi-mesh
Management
• Base M&S LWR capability
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
17 milestones,
~$5M each
L2 Milestones
Discipline-oriented focus areas
36 milestones,
~$2M each
L3 Milestones
Projects
90 milestones,
~$1M each
CASL Organization
CASL Board of Directors
Ernest Moniz,
Chairman
U.S.
Department
of Energy
COUNCILS
Doug Kothe, Director,
ORNL
Chief Strategy Officer
Mario Carelli,
Westinghouse
Partnership/Alliance
Management
Jeff Cornett
Ronaldo Szilard, Deputy, INL
Paul Turinsky, Chief Scientist,
NCSU
Program Management
Jeff Banta
Collaboration & Ideation
April Lewis
Materials
Performance &
Optimization
Chris Stanek, LANL
Sid Yip
Brian Wirth
Operations
Jayson Hines
Startup Manager
Gil Weigand
Advanced
Modeling
Applications
Virtual Reactor
Integration
John Turner, ORNL
Randy Summers
Rich Martineau
Models and
Numerical Methods
Bill Martin, U of Michigan
Rob Lowrie
Jess Gehin, ORNL
Zeses Karoutas
Validation and
Uncertainty
Quantification
Jim Stewart, Sandia
Dan Cacuci
Science
John Ahearne, Chairman
Industry
John Gaertner, Chairman
Education
John Gilligan, Chairman
Commercialization
Jeff Cornett, Chairman
Communications, Policy,
and Economic
Development
Ken Nemeth, Chairman
CASL Senior
Leadership
CASL Technical
Leadership
CASL’s technical focus areas will execute the plan
MPO
MNM
VRI
VUQ
AMA
Materials
Performance
and Optimization
Models and
Numerical
Methods
Virtual Reactor
Integration
Validation and
Uncertainty
Quantification
Advanced
Modeling
Applications
Chris Stanek, Lead
Sid Yip, Deputy
Brian Wirth, Deputy
Bill Martin, Lead
Rob Lowrie, Deputy
Jim Stewart, Lead
Dan Cacuci, Deputy
Jess Gehin, Lead
Zeses Karoutas,
Deputy
 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
 Upscaling (CMPM)
 Fuel
microstructure
 Clad/internals
microstructure
 Corrosion
 CRUD deposition
 Failure modes
 Radiation
transport
 Thermal
hydraulics
John Turner, Lead
Randy Summers,
Rich Martineau, Deputies
 Coupled multi- physics
environment
 VR simulation suite
 Coupled mechanics
18 integrated and interdependent projects
CASL management leads an integrated organization
Director:
Full line authority/accountability for all aspects of CASL
Chief Scientist:
Drives science-based
elements
Project management
• Professional technical
expertise
• Proven systems
• Tailored processes
Deputy Director:
Drives application elements
Operations team
• Environment, safety, health,
and quality
• Finance and contracts
• Security
• IT support, database design,
and VOCC
• Facilities
Chief Strategy Officer:
Drives design and
regulatory elements
Technology
transfer/partnerships
• Broad and efficient
industrial engagement
• Coordinated IP management
CASL Council Chairs
Science
Council
John Ahearne
(Executive Director
Emeritus, Sigma Xi)
Industry
Council
John Gaertner
(Technical Executive,
EPRI)
Education
Council
John Gilligan
(Professor, NCSU;
Director, DOE
Nuclear Energy
University Programs
Integration Office)
Commercialization
Council
Communications,
Policy, and Economic
Development Council
Jeff Cornett,
ORNL
Ken Nemeth
(Secretary and
Executive Director,
SSEB)
CASL’s “one roof” approach
Single primary
physical address
• 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”
Strong, motivated,
unified management team
• Predominantly resident
at Oak Ridge
Milestone-driven plan
• Executed by
multidisciplinary teams
– 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
– 10 core institutions
– Individual contributors
with specialized knowledge
and skills
• Establishes annual
commitments and reports
quarterly progress
• Drives collocation
requirements
• Appreciable CASL collocation of scientists and engineers expected
• Students and postdoctoral associates will spend more time at CASL
CASL proposed budget was augmented by cost share
and generous in-kind partner support
Partner
CASL
funding
ORNL
$43,285,580
LANL
$12,677,925
INL
$11,384,330
SNL
$12,075,375
NCSU
$11,045,764
MIT
Cost share and Annual HPC resource Description of cost share
in-kind support allocation (TF-years) and in-kind support
18
CASL facility, Jaguar Cray XT5 system, visualization and
telepresence centers, IT support, desktop collaboration
16
Cerillos IBM Cell-accelerated system, computer
infrastructure support, data visualization
4.4
SGI Altix 8200 system, office space,
telepresence center operations
15
Institutional computing
$1,800,000
0.5
Office space; joint faculty; graduate students; IT support
$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
—
—
$23,900,000
—
$1,000,000
—
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 spending plan
Cumulative spending
$120
Funding
distribution
by focus
area
$100
$80
$60
MPO, 24%
AMA, 19%
VRI, 24%
MNM, 18%
$40
VUQ, 15%
$20
$
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
• Infrastructure allotment ($10M) distribution:
– 23% to focus areas
– 35% to VOCC
– 42% to risk mitigation
• 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
CASL legacy: what do we leave “behind”?
A preeminent computational science
institute 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
Education Council
John Gilligan, Chair
Creating a new generation of LWR designers
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.
Membership
Relevant
Image
Here
Status
• Representatives from partner
• Council charter and milestones have been established. First
•
• Plans for PoR
universities
Three additional members from TVA,
EPRI, and Westinghouse
conference call was in August 2010.
–
–
–
–
–
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.
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), 6/30/11
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
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