TOTAL Simulation of ITER Plasmas Kozo YAMAZAKI Nagoya Univ., Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan 1.
-
Upload
nickolas-bryan -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of TOTAL Simulation of ITER Plasmas Kozo YAMAZAKI Nagoya Univ., Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan 1.
TOTAL Simulation of
ITER Plasmas
Kozo YAMAZAKI
Nagoya Univ., Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan
1
OUTLINE
1. Introduction
2. TOTAL Transport Benchmark
3. Pellet Injection and ITB
Formation
4. Impurity Injection and Edge
Control
5. NTM Evolution and ECCD
Stabilization
6. Summary
2
● Start (~1980)● Tokamak (2nd stability) 2D+1D K.Yamazaki et al., Nuclear Fusion Vol.25 (1985) 1543.
● Helical Analysis 3D+1D K.Yamazaki et al., Nuclear Fusion Vol.32 (1992) 633.
● Burning Simulation (Tokamak & Helical) K.Yamazaki et al., Nuclear Fusion Vol.49 (2009) 055017.
Based on JT-60U ITB operation and LHD e-ITB data.
3
History of TOTAL code
Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage
1. Introduction
Core PlasmaEquilibrium Tokamak: 2D APOLLO Helical: 3D VMEC, DESCUR, NEWBOZ Transport Tokamak : TRANS , GLF23 , NCLASS Helical : HTRANS, GIOTAStability NTM, Sawtooth, Ballooning mode
Impurity IMPDYN (rate equation) including Tungsten ADPAC ( various cross-section )
Fueling NGS (neutral gas shielding) model mass relocation model (HFS) NBI HFREYA, FIFPC Puffing AURORA Divertor two-point divertor model, density feedback control
Edge transport H-mode edge model
World Integrated Modeling
TOTAL-T,-H(J)TOPICS(J)
TASK(J)CRONOS(EU)TRANSP(US)ASTRA(RU)
4
Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage
Main Feature of “TOTAL” is to performboth Tokamak and Helical Analyses
Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage
For Predictive Simulation and Experimental Data Analysis
TOTAL Code Development
NTM,Sawteeth Analyses
PelletInjectionGLF23
5
Ref: C.E. Kessel et al., Nucl. Fusion 47 (2007) 1274–1284
TOTALTOTAL
TOTAL code CDBM model (GLF23 model)
2. TOTAL Transport
Benchmark
ITG
BEBohmGyroBohmanomalous F
21
ITG
BEITG
BEF
1
1
◆ E×B shearing rate :
RB
E
dr
d
B
RB rBE
◆ ITG linear growth rate: qR
cs iiITG
2/13/2
dr
dq
q
rs
anomalousalneoclassicie ,
Bohm/GyroBohm Mixed Transport Model
Coefficients are determined using typical experimental data of JT-60U ITB data and LHD e-ITB operations.
TALA, T., et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 43 (2001) 507-523.
7
3. Pellet Injection and ITB
Formation
Transport model cheked by JT-60U data
Tungsten Transport without and with ITB
0
2 104
4 104
6 104
8 104
1 105
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ITG
ExB
0
5 104
1 105
1.5 105
2 105
2.5 105
3 105
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
ITG
ExB
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Ti
Te
ne
deposition
Tem
pe
ratu
re &
density [ke
v &
10
19 m
-3]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Ti
Te
ne
deposition
Tem
pe
ratu
re &
den
sity
[ke
v &
10
19 m
-3]
ITB
HFS Pellet Injectionwith ITB
LFS Pellet InjectionWithout ITB
ITB Formation by Pellet Injection
10
ITB formation in Helical Reactor
HR-1
0
2 105
4 105
6 105
8 105
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
facc3gamm
ExB
ITG
[1/s]
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Er
[V/cm]
F(
ExB/
ITG)E
r
F
0
10
20
30
40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10
20
40
60
80
ne
Te
Ti
deposition
Ti, T
e
[keV]
ne
(1019/m3)
Ambipolar radial electric field can form ITB
11
[1] M.E. Puiatti., et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 44 (2002) 1863[2] M.E. puiatti., et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 45 (2003) 2011
ReferenceJET Experiment
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Te [keV]
r/a
Te
0
5 1016
1 1017
1.5 1017
2 1017
2.5 1017
3 1017
3.5 1017
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
n Ar [m
-3]
r/a
18+
17+
16+
total
15+
nAr
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Power [MW/m3]
r/a
Pline
Pbrem
Prad
Prad
#52136
NBI 12MWArgon seeded ELMy H-mode discharge
Low triangularity
TOTAL code simulation with Sawteeth
12
4. Impurity Injection and Edge Control
2.42.73
3.3
0 2 4 6 8 10
n Ar17(0)[m
-3]
time [sec]
2.22.42.62.8
Te(0)[keV]
0.820.840.860.88
ne(0)[m-
3 ]0.6
0.8
1
q(0)
691215
Power[MW]
Prf
Prad
[sec]65.0~saw317
, /100.7 mn sAr
Simulation for a JET Sawtooth
13
ITER
Radial profile before (solid curve) and after (dashed curve) a sawtooth crash.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Te [keV]
r/a
Te
0
5 1014
1 1015
1.5 1015
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
n Ar[m-
3 ]
r/a
total18+
17+
16+
15+
nAr
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Power [MW/m3]
r/a
Prad
Pline
Pbrem
Psyn
Prad
0
5 1014
1 1015
1.5 1015
2 1015
2.5 1015
3 1015
3.5 1015
4 1015
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1n W [m-
3 ]r/a
68+
66+64+
62+
45+ 30+55+60+
total nw
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Power [MW/m3]
r/a
Prad
PbremPsyn
Pline
Prad
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
n e [10
20m
-3]
r/a
ne
14
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
KrArNeHeNo injection
P rad [MW/m
3 ]
r/a
q=2 surface
0
50
100
150
He C O Ne Ar Fe Kr Mo
SynchrotronLineBremsstrahlung
Radiation power [MW]
Impurity species
%5 PPP
RFfus PP 10
LHsep PP
Maximum impurity concentration at the reference ITER inductive scenario
based on the ELMy H-mode regime
020406080100120140160
0 50 100
PalpPrfPradPsep
Power [MW]
time [sec]
00.10.20.30.40.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
totalcoremantle
Radiation fraction
nHe/ne [%]
00.20.40.60.81
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
totalcoremantle
Radiation fraction
nKr/ne [%]
Radiative Mantle Formation by Kr Injection in ITER
17
225
3
2
2
04
22
2
2
22
03
222
2
01
1
1,
2.0
111
)(
Wa
If
B
Lk
WL
Lgk
WWqL
Lk
WW
W
BjLk
Wk
ECEC
ps
qEC
p
qpipsispol
dsps
qpssGGJ
dpBSqBS
HFECpolGGJBSdt
dW
Model: Modified Rutherford EquationModel: Modified Rutherford Equation
cos)(2 2
W
W
r
m HF
sHF
42
||
4
||
)4
()( rd
bW
Resonant HF Non-resonant HF
Q.Yu et al., PRL 85(2000)2949
k1 1.0k2 10.0k3 1.0k4 1.0k5 5.0
5. NTM Evolution and ECCD Stabilization
0
5 105
1 106
1.5 106
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
j[A/m
2 ]
r/a
IBS with NTM(3-2)
IBS with NTM(2-1)
ITOTAL
ITER (Ip=15MA)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Te
[keV] q
no NTM
3/2 mode
2/1 mode
3/2 + 2/1 mode
3/2 island
2/1 island
NTM analysis of an ITER Plasma without external helical field
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
W
time [s]
60[kA]
80[kA]
100[kA]
120[kA]
ECCD
2/1 mode
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
30 35 40 45 50
w
time(s)
Δ α c=0.250.20
0.150.100.05
0.00
(b)
ECCD Stabilization against NTM In ITER Plasma
Application of External Helical Field
Old experiments on current carrying stellarator disruption-free (without BS current)
(1) Error Field Modification (BHF/B~10-4~-3) resonant field feedback (high frequency) resonant magnetic breaking (low frequency) (2) Helical Field-Assisted (BHF/B~10-2~-1) static non-resonant application mode locked ? disruption ?
(3) Tokamak-Stellarator Hybrid (BHF/B~1) static non-resonant application disruption-free ?
20
Non-Resonant Helical Field Application
Br/B0~10-3Without Helical Field With Helical Field
21
Stabilized
GGJ
dW/dt
BS
6. Summary (1/2)
(1) 1.5-D tokamak code and 2.0-D helical code have been developed for predictive simulation and experimental analysis related to Transport and MHD effects.
(2) ITB can be formed by the deep penetration of HFS pellet injection in tokamaks. The shallow pellet penetration of low-field-side injection did not lead to the ITB formation in the present model.
(3) Sawtooth oscillation effects on ITER impurity transport has been carried out based on a JET simulation model, and 20% radiation reduction was suggested in ITER.
22
6. Summary (2/2)
(4) Low-z impurity, like He, cannot form radiative mantle, and causes large bremsstrahlung radiation loss in the core. About 84% (core:33% / mantle:51%) of input power is radiated inside the LCFS by Kr impurity seeding without inducing any deleterious change.
(4) NTM excitation and control have been simulated using modified Rutherford equation. The appearance of m=2/n=1 NTM leads to the 20 % reduction in the central temperature in ITER-like reactors. The m/n=3/2 NTM can be stabilized by non-resonant helical field.
23