physics analysis and flexibility issues for fire

18
Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE NSO PAC-2 Meeting January 17-18, 2001 S. C. Jardin with input from C.Kessel, J.Mandrekas, D.Meade, and the FIRE team

Upload: napoleon-brogan

Post on 01-Jan-2016

20 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE. S. C. Jardin with input from C.Kessel, J.Mandrekas, D.Meade, and the FIRE team. NSO PAC-2 Meeting January 17-18, 2001. Recent FIRE Physics Activities. Since the last PAC meeting: UFA Burning Plasma Workshop - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

NSO PAC-2 Meeting

January 17-18, 2001

S. C. Jardin

with input from

C.Kessel, J.Mandrekas, D.Meade, and the FIRE team

Page 2: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

Recent FIRE Physics Activities

Since the last PAC meeting:

• UFA Burning Plasma Workshop– MHD and Energetic Particle studies

– Transport Studies

– TSC perturbation studies and scenario development

• SCIDAC Proposal Development– MHD in a burning plasma

– Nonlinear GK turbulent transport simulations

• Development of AT Modes for FIRE

• Disruption Studies for Engineering Analysis

Page 3: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

Outline

• Lower beta operating modes with Q=10• Perturbation Studies• Long Pulse AT modes• Future Directions

Kessel• More on AT Modes• Disruptions Studies

Page 4: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

Guidelines for Predicting Plasma Performance

Confinement (Elmy H-mode) ITER98(y,2):

E = 0.144 I0.93 R1.39 a0.58 n200.41 B0.15 Ai

0.19 0.78 P heat -0.69 H(y,2)

Density Limit:

n20 < 0.75 nGW = 0.75 IP/a2

H-Mode Power Threshold:

Pth > (2.84/Ai) n200.58 B0.82 R a0.81

Page 5: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE
Page 6: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

High Field: H ~ 1.0 (12 T, 7.7 MA) Low Field: H ~ 1.2 (10 T, 6.5 MA)

Time (sec) Time (sec)

Q > 10 for 9 sec Q > 10 for 18 sec

-heating -heating

ICRF ICRF

total total

N < 2 N < 2.8

Page 7: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE
Page 8: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

N

time

TSC Simulation of Low N high Q operating point at BT = 12T, IP=7.7MA, H~1

Note: Q ~ 12-20

Max PAUX 15MW

N ~ 1.5

Page 9: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

Time (Sec)

0 10 20 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (Sec)

0 10 20 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Example of Perturbation Study that can be done on FIRE: ICRF heating power increased by 5 or 10MW for 6 sec

BT=10T, IP = 6.4 MA,

H(y,2) = 1.2

Shows that fusion power amplifies ICRF power over a wide range of input powers

Page 10: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE
Page 11: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE
Page 12: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE
Page 13: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

Identification of AT Targets for FIRE

• Long pulse AT modes are targeted to operate at reduced field (8.5T) for about 40 sec ( > 3 Skin Times)

• We can project backwards from Standard Operating Modes to get requirements on N and H(y,2) for AT modes:

Stored Energy: W ~ B2 ~ NIB

Energy Confiment time: E ~ H(y,2) IP.93 n.41 BT

.15

~ H(y,2) IP1.34 BT

.15

Page 14: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

W ~ B2 ~ NIB

The operating points on this graph will have the same stored energy for the N values shown on the contours.

Q=5, BT=10,IP=6.44, H=1, N=2.1 base case

No wall n=1 stab AT rule* need

2.8 3.45 2.8 3.2

3.5 3.5 3.7 3.2

2.5 3.6 2.3 2.9

3.1 3.1 3.4 2.7*AT rule: lower of 4i and 1.15 N

q95

Page 15: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

Q=5, BT=10,IP=6.44, H=1, N=2.1 base case

The operating points on this graph will have the same energy confinement times for the H(y,2) values shown on the contours.

E ~ H(y,2) IP.93 n.41 BT

.15

~ H(y,2)IP1.34 BT

.15

AT modes need H factor in range 1.2 – 1.6 for same confinement time in sec.

Page 16: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

Physics Question: Role of the m=1 mode

• 3D Extended MHD simulation taking part as part of the SCIDAC initiative will study the m=1 mode in a burning plasma • Proper physics description must take into account:

• energetic particle drive, • kinetic stabilization, • 2-fluid effects, and • non-linear saturation mechanism

• This is one of the major thrusts of the 3D macroscopic simulations communities..similar to turbulent transport simulations in transport community

• FIRE will provide critical data point for code benchmarking and hence for extrapolations

Page 17: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

Critical Nfitforq=1sawtoothedinducedm/n=3/2NTM

ν=νi/εωe*

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.140.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

3.03.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.33.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

1.8

1.81.8

2.12.1

2.1

2.12.1

2.12.1

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.42.42.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.73.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.3

3.3

3.3

(From LaHaye, Butter, Guenter, Huysmans, Marashek, and Wilson)

Physics question: NTM• neoclassical tearing mode sets limits in many long-pulse discharges

• scaling of this to new devices largely result of empirical fitting of quasi-linear formula

• this is another major thrust of 3D macroscopic modeling effort

• active feedback looks feasible

• FIRE will provide critical data point

Page 18: Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE

Summary

• FIRE should have considerable flexibility to demonstrate high Q operation at a range of N values down to ~1.5 at 12T

• Families of AT modes can be generated with same W and E as baseline operating modes

• What science will we learn (MHD area)?• How does core self-organize with ’s and m=1 mode?• How does edge self-organize with bootstrap and ELMs• How does interior self-organize with NTM, at new (*,ν*)• How well can our codes predict these nonlinear events ?