1 / 24

ITER needs for power threshold to achieve good H-mode

ITER needs for power threshold to achieve good H-mode. R Sartori. Outline. This presentation is based mainly on JET results+ ASDEX Upgrade results presented at this H-mode workshop (F Ryter) What is good confinement in this context (power requirements for ITER)

hamal
Download Presentation

ITER needs for power threshold to achieve good H-mode

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ITER needs for power threshold to achieve good H-mode R Sartori

  2. Outline • This presentation is based mainly on JET results+ ASDEX Upgrade results presented at this H-mode workshop (F Ryter) • What is good confinement in this context (power requirements for ITER) • Operational space for Type III ELMs • Power requirements for Type I ELMy H-modes

  3. What is good confinement? ASDEX Upgrade data- F Ryter, H-mode workshop 2007 • “Good” confinement means  highest likelihood to achieve H98=1 • H98=1 is more likely in H-modes Type I ELMs than with Type III ELMs • Type III ELMs have on average lower confinement (H98~0.8)

  4. What is good confinement? R Sartori PPCF 2004 G Saibene PPCF 2002 • ELM Type (i.e.Type I ELMs vs Type III ELMs) is the only key parameter in this context • Confinement can be optimised in other ways (e.g triangularity) or depends on other variables (density) • Type III ELMs follow similar trends as Type I ELMs but with overall lower H98

  5. What is good confinement? Summary • ITER standard scenario requires H98=1  requires “Type I ELMy like” confinement • Confinement scaling laws are derived form a database dominated by Type I ELMy H-modes • Most devices also observe H-modes with Type III ELMs • H98 is lower in Type III ELMy H-modes in JET and ASDEX Upgrade •  • Is H98 overall lower with in H-modes Type III ELMs also in other devices? •  • In which conditions the H-mode has Type III ELMs (operational space)? • Is there an additional power requirement above L-H threshold power for transition to Type I ELMy regime ?

  6. JET: Type III ELM operational space Boundary between Type III and Type I ELMy H-modes in pedestal ne-Te R Sartori PPCF 2004 ELMy H-mode, power scan ELMy H-mode, power scan Plasma with ITB Type III Teped ~ 1/nped at low density/collisionality Type I

  7. JET: Type III ELM operational space Boundary between Type III and Type I ELMy H-modes in pedestal ne-Te ELMy H-mode, density scan L Horton, PPCF 1999 JET Te~ constant at high density/collisionality

  8. JET: Type III ELM operational space Boundary between Type III and Type I ELMy H-modes in pedestal ne-Te Compound ELMs Interval of power exists where Type I and Type III ELMs coexist  compound ELMs Type I to III  Degraded confinement  loss of density

  9. JET: Are all Type III ELMs the same? • Low and high density Type III ELMs • Common experimental observations • Same ELM frequency dependence on power ! • H factor degraded compared to Type I ELMs • Smaller ELM size than Type I ELMs • Lower power above the L-H threshold power • Effect of isotopic mass • Experimentally observed differences Low density  increase of density at constant power triggers Type III to I transition • Low density  Ip ramp down triggers Type III to I transition • Low density  confinement degradation is due to loss of density • High density  effect of collisionality • High density  confinement degradation mainly due to loss of temperature

  10. JET, ASDEX: Collisionality JET ASDEX-U Sartori, IAEA 2004 F Ryter, H-mode Workshop 2007 Model based on resistive ballooning instability Type III ELMs operational space depends on collisionality? Low density behaviour of critical temperature (JET) suggests also a beta dependence JET Chankin, Saibene, PPCF 1999

  11. JET, ASDEX: Normalised beta D McDonald, PPCF 2004 In JET Type III ELMs operational space is separated from Type I ELMs in normalised beta more than in ASDEX Upgrade

  12. JET: Type III-Type I ELM threshold MarkII GB MarkII A Type I to Type III power threshold follows L-H like threshold scaling  Ip /density, Bt (and mass) dependence • PIN PL-H, with  ranging from ~1.3 to ~2.5 required for Type I ELMy H-modes . Value of  changes with triangularity (), density()/collisionality() • No scaling exists. No physics reason links the L-H and Type I threshold

  13. JET: Type III-Type I ELM threshold D:T D:D D:T PIN>2.5 PL-H for low triangularity ne/nG=0.5(20% radiation, 40% dW/dt between ELMs) NTM limited for q95<2.4 Power required for transition to Type I ELMy H-mode decreased proportionally to isotope mass 4.5 MA/3.45T

  14. Type III-Type I ELM threshold Summary • Is additional power above the threshold power required for Type I ELMy H-modes? • I think that there is no disagreement between JET and ASDEX- U results • JET Type-I ELMs requires powerlarger than ~1.3 to ~2.5 PL-H. Sufficient condition requires P> 2.5PL-H, but lower values are also possible • ASDEX Upgrade  this statement (JET) is sufficient (in ASDEX-U), but is not necessary, as Type-I ELMs also exist at lower values of P/PL-H. • It is possible to find lower values of P/PL-H required for Type I ELMs, but • how often ? • in which conditions? • (In JET it is possible to obtain H=1 at ne/nG=1…..) • Conditions required to achieve Type I ELMs with low P/PL-H in ITER need to be specified, understood and extrapolated from present data.

  15. Type I/III transition: achievable density It is not always easy to achieve high density with good confinement. Increased power affects this behaviour?

  16. Summary • Confinement • Both in JET and ASDEX Upgrade the confinement is statistically lower (~20%) in H-modes with Type III ELMs than in H-modes with Type I ELMs • Operational space • JET Type III ELMs at low and high collisionality • ASDEX Type III ELMS at high collisionality • No full understanding of physics or scaling of domain of existence for Type III ELMs • Power requirements • Which (if any) power above the threshold power for ITER? In JET the requirement P> 1.5PL-H is common and not conservative. And, for whichever reason, most machines do operate above this level. ASDEX-U? Other machines? • Density • Is there any link between the density that can be achieved with Type I ELM confinement and power requirements?

  17. DD operation in ITER Access to H mode in DD at full field and current could be marginal

  18. Future experiments 1- Dedicated experiments in each machine, for example variation of Bt, Ip, n to determine power required for Type I ELMs to clarify relation with L-H threshold if any Requires: Quasi steady phases, clear ELM classification, L-H threshold determination 2- Combined threshold/confinement experiment with N and  scans 3-Inter machine experiments

  19. Proposed JET experiment bN Total number of discharges = 31 (q95 ~ 2.7-3) Push to highest bN in unfuelled conditions 2.2 Select Ip so that bN = 1.8 at ne = 0.7 nGW and explore ne range (4 levels) 2.0 Keep bN and explore ne range (3 levels) + exact n* match 1.8 Get discharge with Type I ELMs and best H-factor, bN and explore ne range (4 levels) 1.6 Keep bN and explore ne range (3 levels) + exact n* match 1.4 I1= 2.3 MA I2= 3.4 MA I3= 3.7-4.0 MA Ip(MA) 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

  20. Confinement studies: dimensionless scaling  power requirements L-H/Type I threshold scaling Gyro-Bohm scaling Which loss power is required to keep the non-dimensional parameters  and * constant as * is decreased? G Petty, T Luce, NF 1997 If L-H or Type I threshold scaling has stronger negative * scaling than gyro-Bohm  dimensionally similar path could change to follow the L-H/Type I scaling instead of gyro-Bohm like scaling  increased power is required.

  21. Type III-Type I ELM threshold MarkII A MarkII GB At low density  increase in density decreases the power threshold for Type I ELMs. Consistent with pedestal ne-Te boundary

  22. Type III-Type I ELM threshold MarkII GB At low density  Ip ramp down at constant power produces transition to Type I ELMs (and Ip ramp up transition to Type III ELMs)

  23. L Horton, PPCF1999 ASDEX-U- Pressure gradient with Type III ELMs can be as high as with Type I ELMs, but pedestal T higher with Type I ELMs

  24. DIII-D, Osborne, EPS 1997 Type III ELMs at low density disappear above a critical pressure gradient which scales as Ip2

More Related