apex3 e-conf. 15aug02 renygren e-conferenceaugust 13 and 15, 2002 apex task 3c: divertor integration...
TRANSCRIPT
E-Conference August 13 and 15, 2002
APEX Task 3c: Divertor IntegrationSNL, ORNL, UCLA , ANL, others Richard Nygren, leader/presenter
Export Control: GTDA General Technical Data No Export Control License Required
Contributors:Brad Nelson, Paul Fogarty (ORNL)Sergey Smolentsev (UCLA)Tom Rognlien, Marv Rensink, Dick Bulmer (LLNL)Dick Majeski (PPPL)TK Mau, Clement Wong (GA)Jeff Brooks, Ahmed Hassenien (ANL)Dai Kai Sze (UCSD)Mike Ulrickson, Dennis Youchison , Bob Bastasz, Don Cowgill, (SNL)Richard Nygren, leader (SNL)
E-Conference August 13 and 15, 2002
Deflected stream option (FW flow)• Divertor configuration• Heat removal• Pumping/Drain• Outstanding issues (RF system, surface waviness, ..)• Report (draft circulated for comment)
Progress - August 2002
For November Meeting 2002• Divertor configuration with CAD drawings• Pumping for parallel stream or droplet concepts• RF system layout for divertor cassette• Report and paper on ARIES/CLIFF/Flinabe
Task 3 Divertor Integration
Divertor Configuration
Deflected stream option (FW flow)
• Utilized decay of turbulence per Sergey
• Refined specifications for target location
• Working to integrate preferred location
• Review the rationale for deflected stream
• Show impact of enhanced keff (turbulence)
• Show mechanical design in progress (CAD drawings by PJ Fogarty)
• List current issues to be resolved Opt1 FW flow divertor
deflected flow
“sheet”
deflecters
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 30 60 90target rotation (degrees)
T-r
ise
fact
or1
loc 1loc 2loc 3
flxp1factorT /)sin(
v
flxpLt
)sin(0
kvflxpC
LqT
prisesurf
1)sin(* 0
,
t
k
qT risesurf
, with Portion of
Roglien /Bulmer (LLNL) flux map for ARIES-RS with a single null divertor
-4.5
-4.4
-4.3
-4.2
-4.1
-4.0
-3.9
-3.8
-3.7
-3.6
-3.5
-3.4
-3.3
-3.2
-3.1
-3.0
-2.9
-2.8
-2.7
-2.6
-2.5
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2z(
m)
z0
z1
z2
z3
z4
z5
z7
deflector
1
2
3
R(m)
Strike point positions
1, 2 3
Divertor ConfigurationSimple dependence on angle and flux
expansion presented previously.
At an angle >40°, T-factor1 is lowest for Pos. 1.
Position 3 has lowest possible angle.
Decaying turbulence of free surface vs. distance from the deflector Smolentsev calculation (red)equation (3.7+33.8exp[-x/0.14] overlaid (aqua)
0
10
20
30
40
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
flow length (m)
nu
-ra
tioImpact on Design:
Strike point must be 15cm or less from the deflector
The closer to the deflector, the higher the effective thermal conductivity in the
>1mm layer below the free surface.
y
x
10 m/s = v0 (fully dev. turbulent profile)
2.3cm = initial flow thickness 10T = magnetic field (spanwise) 62= inclination 1m = flow length (downstream of nozzle outlet)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1y / h
0
20
40
60
80
Nyu
_t
/ Nyu
Turbulent v iscosity across the layer
1: x=0.1 m2: x=0.2 m3: x=0.4 m4: x=0.6 m5: x=1 m
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1D istance, m
0
10
20
30
40
(Nyu
_t /
Nyu
) surf
ace
y
x
v0
Sergey’s model
Model by Smolentsev
(UCLA)
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
turbulent decay length (m)
T-f
act
or2
(a
rb)
P1-39deg
P2-20deg
P2-27deg
P2-32deg
P2-53deg
P3-11deg
P3-27deg
P3-36deg
P3-53deg
P3-81deg
effkflxpfactorT
*
)sin(2
-4.5
-4.4
-4.3
-4.2
-4.1
-4.0
-3.9
-3.8
-3.7
-3.6
-3.5
-3.4
-3.3
-3.2
-3.1
-3.0
-2.9
-2.8
-2.7
-2.6
-2.5
4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2
z(m
)
z0
z1
z2
z3
z4
z5
z7
deflector
1
2
3
R(m)
Divertor Configuration
Include turbulent decay in T-factor.
Portion of Roglien /Bulmer (LLNL) flux map for ARIES-RS with a single null divertor
ARIES-RS SN outer div. flux map (Rognlien/Bulmer, LLNL)
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
R(m)
z(m
)
z0
z3
z7
z12
z15
Three options for flow path that minimized distance between end of deflector and strike point.
1. FW flow at lower position 2. Long deflector3. Multiple (2 or 3) deflectors
A single small deflector is simplest.
A long deflector keeps the FW flow along the same flux surface but requires a large surface area of structure.
Multiple deflectors gives a more complex arrangement but may help move flow toroidally to cover the exit flow around the RF ports and guide flow to create openings for pumping.
Divertor Configuration
Divertor Configuration
Deflector for strike point Position 2 (majenta line in previous figure)
Views of “sled” for divertor cassette. CAD Drawings by PJ Fogarty (ORNL)
16x16” folded wave guide
Vanes support deflector and also guide flow
Deflector
Pumping and Drain
DT fueling + D puffing - burn/2 - deposition defines exhaust pumping needed.
pumping entrances
He/(D+T)
Pumping is adequate. Work continues on novel concepts to pump He.
Space for drain is adequate.
Splashing where divertor streams join has not been evaluated. This might be done by CFD model or/and experiment.
CAD Drawings by PJ Fogarty
(ORNL)
Location of the RF Systems
• Housed in the divertor cassette if possible
• LH current drive needs proximity to plasma
• ECH needs waveguides and mirrors
Draft tech. note on divertor functions (july02)
Dick Majeski quickly responded. (Thanks)
Majeski/Nelson/Fogarty are defining the requirements (power, area, …)
Surface Waviness
• Sergey’s work indicates enhanced k of ~X2
• Richard’s hot spot analysis indicates locally peaked heat loads
Richard will develop evaluation of effect of multiple hot spots.
Divertor Integration Issues
ECH waveguides & mirror (3)
LH folded wave guide
CAD Drawings by PJ Fogarty
(ORNL)
Flow model of divertor flow and drain
• CFD2000 models of heat load on flat Li stream (Youchison) and Li flow from high compression nozzle (Brantley)
• CFD models are needed
a. flow around RF penetration
b. flow through deflector/vanes
c. flow in duct (joining streams)
Richard will model drain. (Developer had problem here.)
Documentation Overdue
• Report (draft circulated)
Richard will write report & paper.
Divertor Integration Issues
FW flow
deflector
Inner
div. flow
duct
q”div
Flow Modeling with CFD2000
CFD2000 3-D model of Li stream with applied heat flux by Dennis Youchison (Sandia)
Depth of engineering Details for Design Integration
• Approach A: more options, less in-depth engineering
• Approach B: fewer options, more in-depth engineering
We should pause to consider our approach in FY03.
Divertor Integration Issues
We need to discuss whether(a) we CAN do adequate design integration (resource issue) and(b) we WILL do adequate design integration (our commitment).
a. time on detailed design & engineering specifications
b. resources and scheduled time for design analysis
c. frequent interaction to resolve issues in design integration
Richard’s evaluation: Task 3 was heavier on engineering in our first couple of years and lighter during FY02.