Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Physics-informed tritium fuel cycle modelling workflow for fusion reactors

Rémi Delaporte-Mathurin, Ross MacDonald, James Dark, Milan Rother, Tasnim Zulfiqar, Kevin B. Woller

Abstract

In this work, we present a multi-fidelity, physics-informed framework for tritium fuel cycle modelling based on the open-source PathSim/PathView platform. Three complementary modelling approaches are demonstrated within a unified dynamic simulation environment. First, a zero-dimensional residence time model is used to reproduce the fuel cycle behaviour of an ARC-class fusion power plant, providing a baseline system-level description. Second, an intermediate-fidelity component model based on coupled one-dimensional ordinary differential equations is developed to describe tritium mass transfer in a liquid metal bubble column reactor and validated against published literature before integration into the full fuel cycle. Finally, high-fidelity multi-dimensional tritium transport models implemented using the finite element code FESTIM are coupled directly to the system model, enabling the inclusion of multi-dimensional effects, material interfaces, and complex transport phenomena. This work demonstrates how fuel cycle components of varying physical fidelity can be combined consistently within a single, open-source framework. The proposed approach enables more physically grounded fuel cycle analyses while retaining the flexibility required for system-level studies and provides a foundation for future integration with neutronics, fluid dynamics, and surrogate modelling tools.

Physics-informed tritium fuel cycle modelling workflow for fusion reactors

Abstract

In this work, we present a multi-fidelity, physics-informed framework for tritium fuel cycle modelling based on the open-source PathSim/PathView platform. Three complementary modelling approaches are demonstrated within a unified dynamic simulation environment. First, a zero-dimensional residence time model is used to reproduce the fuel cycle behaviour of an ARC-class fusion power plant, providing a baseline system-level description. Second, an intermediate-fidelity component model based on coupled one-dimensional ordinary differential equations is developed to describe tritium mass transfer in a liquid metal bubble column reactor and validated against published literature before integration into the full fuel cycle. Finally, high-fidelity multi-dimensional tritium transport models implemented using the finite element code FESTIM are coupled directly to the system model, enabling the inclusion of multi-dimensional effects, material interfaces, and complex transport phenomena. This work demonstrates how fuel cycle components of varying physical fidelity can be combined consistently within a single, open-source framework. The proposed approach enables more physically grounded fuel cycle analyses while retaining the flexibility required for system-level studies and provides a foundation for future integration with neutronics, fluid dynamics, and surrogate modelling tools.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 12 sections, 7 equations, 12 figures, 1 table.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Residence time method: ARC fuel cycle
  3. 1D Bubble Column Reactor Model
  4. Mathematical model
  5. Boundary conditions
  6. Results
  7. Integration in a dynamic system
  8. FESTIM models
  9. Diffusion through a slab
  10. Depleted source
  11. Conclusion
  12. Additional figures

Figures (12)

  • Figure 1: Sketch of a simple single-stage countercurrent Bubble Column Reactor GLC.
  • Figure 2: Comparison of our solution of the BCR model vs previous work by Mohan et almohan_experimental_2010.
  • Figure 3: Parametric scans of extraction efficiency vs bubble column height and diameter with O-C and C-C boundary conditions.
  • Figure 4: Comparison of the extraction efficiency of a single 3m high BCR vs 3 x 1m high columns in series, integrated as the TES in the 0D arc fuel cycle model.
  • Figure 5: Comparison of the tritium inventories from 0 - 5 days for an arc fuel cycle with a single vs two parallel BCRs as the TES, with a shutdown of one BCR from day 2 - 3.
  • ...and 7 more figures