Update OAT sensitivity analysis #144
Conversation
Conflicts: input/haleu/sensitivity-analysis/oat/lwr_lifetime/dakota.in scripts/create_AR_DeployInst.py scripts/dataframe_analysis.py
…-scenarios into sensitivity-analysis
…-scenarios into sensitivity-analysis
|
@abachma2 I'm on it |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @abachma2,
I have a questions:
- How did you pick the cycle times for the MMR? Is it just a guess? Regardless, I think it would be helpful to put the rationale for that in your PR description OR in a linked issue.
Everything else looks fine, although I'm not super familiar with Dakota so may not be the best judge of thoe .in files.
The rest of my comments are below.
| @@ -40,8 +40,7 @@ | |||
| duration, | |||
| reactor_prototypes, | |||
| demand_equation, | |||
| 'MMR', | |||
| int(params['mmr'])) | |||
| {'MMR':int(params['mmr'])}) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're passing a dictionary with an entry for each 'version' of the MMR, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The dictionary here defines the build share percent (the value) for each specified prototype (the key). This change is because of the updates to the determine_deployment_scheme function in scripts/create_AR_DeployInst.py in PR #143. This does not change the lifetime or any parameters about the MMR prototype.
| list_parameter_study | ||
| list_of_points = 41 | ||
| 62 | ||
| 74 | ||
| 78 | ||
| 82 | ||
| 86 | ||
| 90 | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you explain what this change is? I'm not understanding from the commit message. It could also be my lack of familiarity with dakota.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For the other variations (transition start time, lwr lifetimes, and build shares) I am sweeping over a grid of evenly spaced points. However, the points I want to use for the burnup variations (applied to the MMR or Xe-100) are not evenly spaced. So I am telling Dakota to use these specific values instead of an even grid like I do when varying the parameters.
| @@ -20,10 +20,10 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| # Edit Cyclus input file | |||
| cyclus_template = 'mmr_burnup_input.xml.in' | |||
| scenario_name = 'mmr_burnup' + str(round(params['mmr_burnup'])) | |||
| scenario_name = 'mmr_burnup_' + str(int(params['mmr_burnup'])) | |||
|
Hi @yardasol. Thanks for the feedback. When varying the MMR burnup, I also change the lifetime of the MMR to maintain that the reactor does not undergo any refueling. This is the only time that I vary the lifetime of any of the reactors ( When varying the Xe-100 burnup, I varied the burnup for if the fuel went through 1-6 passes through the core, assuming each pass is 6 months and the core needs the same total mass. I also did +/-10% change in the burnup by assuming that the fuel still went through 6 passes, but each pass was longer or shorter, as needed. These changes in the burnup changed the amount of fuel received by the reactor at each refueling or the frequency of the refueling, but does not change the lifetime of the reactor. |
|
Gotcha gotcha. |
With the merging of PR #141, I re-ran the OAT Sensitivity Analysis. I also added variations to the burnup of the HALEU-fueled reactors (the Xe-100 and MMR). Varying the burnup of these reactors requires changing the amount of fuel they receive, the frequency of the refuelings, and the lifetimes of the reactors.
Changes in this PR include:
scripts/create_AR_DeployInstinput/haleu/sensitivity-analysis/oat/OAT_Analysis.ipynbwith new results