Physics Basis of FIRE Next Step Burning Plasma Experiment Charles Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics...
-
Upload
aria-thorley -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Physics Basis of FIRE Next Step Burning Plasma Experiment Charles Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics...
Physics Basis of FIRE Next Step Burning Plasma Experiment
Charles Kessel
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
U.S.-Japan Workshop on Fusion Power Plant Design, University of Tokyo
March 29-31, 2001 http://fire.pppl.gov
Goals of the FIRE StudyUsing the high field compact tokamak, produce burning plasmas with Q > 5-10 over pulse lengths > 2 current diffusion times, to study and resolve both standard and advanced tokamak burning plasma physics issues, for $1B
FIRE Has Many Features Similar to ARIES Tokamaks
FIRE Looks Like a Scale Model of ARIES-AT
FIRE
~ 3X
ARIES-AT The “Goal”
B = 6 TR = 5.2 m
Pfusion = 1755 MW
Volume = 330 m3
R = 2 m B = 10 T
Pfusion = ~ 200 MW
Volume = 18 m3
Nw = 3 MW/m2
Pfus = 12 MW/m3 Nw = 3.3 MW/m2
Pfus = 5.3 MW/m3
FIRE Can Access Various Pulse Lengths by Varying BT
FIRE’s Divertor Must Handle Attached(25 MW/m2) and Detached(5
MW/m2) Operation
FIRE’s Divertor is Designed to Withstand Large Eddy Current and
Halo Current Forces
FIRE Must Handle DisruptionsVDE Simulation with 3 MA/ms Current Quench
FIRE Has Several Operating Modes Based on Present Day Physics
• Reference: ELMing H-mode– B=10 T, Ip=6.5 MA,
Q=5, t(pulse)=18.5 s
• High Field: ELMing H-mode– B=12 T, Ip=7.7 MA,
Q=10, t(pulse)=12 s
• AT Mode: Reverse Shear with fbs>50%– B=8.5 T, Ip=5.0 MA,
Q=5, t(pulse)=35 s
• Long Pulse DD: AT Mode and H-mode– B=4 T, Ip=2.0 MA,
Q=0, t(pulse)>200 s
FIRE can study both burning AND long pulse plasma physics in the same device
Progress Toward ARIES-like Plasmas Requires A Series of Steps
1) stabilize NTM’s
2) stabilize n=1 RWM
3) stabilize n>1 RWMs
*each step with higher fbs
**each step with more profile control
FIRE is Examining Ways to Feedback Control RWM/Kink Modes
FIRE Must Satisfy Present Day Physics Constraints
FIRE Can Access Most of the Existing H-mode Database
FIRE’s Performance With Projected Confinement
FIRE Is Being Designed to Access Higher AT Plasmas
40
30
20
10
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
50
-5
Time (s)
Power (MW)
Bt
Ip
Ip
Bt
R = 2.14m, A = 3.6, 10 T, 7.7 MA, ~ 20 s flat top
Alpha Power
Auxiliary Power
Ohmic Power
1 1/2-D Simulation of Burn Control in FIRE* (TSC)
• ITER98(y,2) scaling with H(y,2) = 1.1, n(0)/<n> = 1.2, and n/n GW = 0.67
• Burn Time ≈ 18 s ≈ 21 τE ≈ 4 τHe ≈ 2 τskin
≈ 13Q
Plasma Response to Paux Modulation
Plasma Response to Fueling Modulation
Divertor Pumping Strongly Affects Plasma Burn
TSC Simulation of FIRE Burning AT Discharge
Ip=5 MA, Bt=8.5 T, N=3.0, li(3)=0.4, n/nGr=0.7, H(y,2)=1.15, PLH=20 MW, PICRF=18 MW, n(0)/<n>=1.45
TSC Simulation of FIRE Burning AT Discharge
A Burning Device Like FIRE Must Validate Assumptions Made in Power
Plant Studies Like ARIES
• Power and particle handling in the divertor/SOL/first wall
• Stabilization of NTM’s
• Stabilization of RWM/Kink modes
• Large bootstrap fraction plasmas with external CD
• Control of current, n, and T profiles
• Develop methods to mitigate/avoid disruptions
• Demonstrate energetic particle effects are benign
• All in a plasma with significant alpha particle heating
The FIRE Design is Evolving
• What can the machine do?– Q
– Pulse length
– T and n variations
– Heating/fueling/pumping/current drive
• What is the impact of physics uncertainties?– Scaling of τE
– Scaling of Pth(L to H)
– NTM -limit
– Density limit– Particle confinement τp*/τE
• What is machine flexibility to examine physics issues?– Burn control
– AE, energetic particles
– Sawteeth, other MHD
– AT profile interactions (p(r), j(r), (r))