1 / 22

ARIES Systems Studies: ARIES-I and ARIES-AT type operating points

Explore identifying operating points, conducting detailed analysis, refining systems evaluations, and initiating various studies in ARIES systems. Discuss ARIES-I and ARIES-AT type points, physics, and engineering aspects. Address physics regimes, stability, and power density considerations.

bmelissa
Download Presentation

ARIES Systems Studies: ARIES-I and ARIES-AT type operating points

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. ARIES Systems Studies: ARIES-I and ARIES-AT type operating points C. Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory ARIES Project Meeting, San Diego, December 15-16, 2009

  2. Basic ARIES Design Point Matrix ARIES-I physics DCLL blanket ARIES-AT physics DCLL blanket ARIES-I physics SiC blanket ARIES-AT physics SiC blanket 1) Identify these operating points with systems code 2) Generate detailed physics and engineering analysis as necessary for each point 3) Refine systems code evaluations based on detailed analysis 4) Begin PMI, off-normal events, and other studies on these configurations

  3. ARIES-I Final Report (original design had even higher BT) Ip = 10.2 MA BT = 11.3 T (BTcoil = 21 T) R = 6.75 a = 1.5 κ(95) = 1.8 (1.6) δ(95) = 0.7 (0.5) βN = 3.15 P(ICRF) = 100 MW P(LH) = 5 MW ηCD = 0.33 fbs = 0.68 <n> = 1.45x1020 /m3 <T>v,n = 20 keV frad = 0.5 q(0) = 1.3 q95 = 4.5 li = 0.74 b/a|n=0 = 0.6 Zeff = 1.7 frad,cyc = 92% τE = 2.5 s βp = 2.18 H89P = 2.25 (τE,89P = 1.11 s) H98y2 = 1.45 (τE,98y2 = 1.72 s) τp* ~ 3-4 τE

  4. Starlite Study, Systems Code update of ARIES-I Ip = 12.6 MA BT = 9.0 T (BTc = 16 T) R = 8.0 a = 2.0 A = 4.0 (rather than 4.5) κ = 1.8 (1.6) δ = 0.7 (0.5) βN = 2.88 PCD = 236 MW ηCD = 0.28 fbs = 0.57 <n> = 1.45x1020 /m3 q(0) = 1.3 b/a|n=0 = 0.6 τE = 2.5 s H89P = 1.7 H98y2 = 1.23 τp* ~ 10 τE Starlite physics regimes was an attempt to get the 4 tokamak physics regimes on an equal footing to examine the COE versus fusion power density and recirculating power; 1) first stability,2) pulsed, 3) reversed shear, and 4) second stability BTc < 16 T fbs from same model τp*/τE = 10 A (R/a) = 4.0 H89P for all cases

  5. In order to “reconstruct” an ARIES-I we need to make some decisions….. • The very high field at the magnet facilitated high BT in the plasma, so that low βN could be accommodated  what is the maximum BTcoil we want to assume • We must also address the jSC, the new formula in the systems code fails for Btcoil > 18 T for Nb3Sn • The curves in the systems code paper do not jive with the jSC formula in the code • What are we assuming for jSC vs B relative to short sample values, which are the highest values in the literature, versus jSCeff which is over the conductor pack, versus jtotal over the whole TF coil cross-section • We need to revisit the likelihood of the ARIES-like SC magnet projections made 20 years ago • ITER TF coil (Nb3Sn) uses jtotal = 14 MA/m2 at 11.3 T • ARIES algorithm gives jtotal = 45-50 MA/m2 at 11.3 T

  6. Jtotal versus Btcoil from ARIES-I report, similar curves shown in ARIES-II/IV report Jtotal is the current density over the whole coil, SC + stabilizer + insulator + coolant + structure ARIES-AT

  7. Nb3Sn SC operating points • ITER TF: (full size magnets) • jSC = 650 MA/m2 @ 12 T and 4.2 K • jeff = 53-59 MA/m2 @ 12 T and 4.2 K • jtotal = 14 MA/m2 @ 12T and 4.2 K • Nb3Sn short samples? (accelerator development) • jSC = 3000 MA/m2 @ 12.4 T and 4.2 K • jeff = 1000 MA/m2 @ 12.4 T and 4.2 K • Processed strand was 10 km long • Gourlay et al, 2003 and Caspi et al 2005 • Accelerator magnet development is targeting manufacturable coils with long strand lengths and low costs, BUT their coil geometry may affect their solutions and our ability to “lift” their results • Should we be choosing HTSC as our basis?

  8. New search for ARIES-I plasma operating points within engineering constraints 2.5 < βN < 3.3, first stability regime, no kink wall required 6.0 T < BT < 10 T, using new magnet algorithm with different jSClim 3.5 < q95 < 6.0 0.7 < n/nGr < 1.3, going above Greenwald density 10 < Q < 20 5.0 < R < 9.0 A = 4.0  try others? fArgon = 0.15% κ = 1.8 & 2.2 δ = 0.7 (0.5) τp*/τE = 5-10 ηCD = 33%  use lower values ηaux = 67% frad,div = 0.75 & 0.90 Nb3Sn TF/PF coils  try HTSC? 2 blanket types: SiC and DCLL DCLL ΔFW = 0.038 m Δblkt = 0.50 m ΔVV = 0.31 m Δshld/skel = 0.35+0.075xIn(<Nw>/3.3) m ηth ~ 42%, Ppump ~ 0.04xPfusion SiC ΔFW = 0.0 m Δblkt = 0.35 m ΔVV = 0.40 m Δshld/skel = 0.24+0.067xIn(<Nw>/3.3) m ηth ~ 55%, Ppump ~ 0.005xPfusion

  9. Conservatism in searching for solutions for ARIES-I and AT design points We do NOT want to assume very optimistic parameters, but rather we want to find solutions that do not require extreme assumptions H98 ~ 1.3 is better than 2.0 fdiv,rad ~ 75% is better than 95% qpeak,divout < 8 MW/m2 is better than 15 MW/m2 Btcoil < 13 T is better than 18 T n/nGr < 1.0 is better than 1.4 An so on…….. Systems code solutions that follow: DCLL or SiC κ= 1.8 or 2.2 ARIES-I or ARIES-AT fdiv,rad = 0.75 or 0.90

  10. Solutions for lowest R, κ= 1.8 Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 200 MW, H98 < 1.5, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2 κ= 1.8, DCLL, ηth ~ 0.42 No κ= 1.8 solutions for DCLL with fdiv,r = 0.75 κ= 1.8, SiC, ηth ~ 0.55

  11. Solutions for lowest R, κ= 2.2 Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 200 MW, H98 < 1.5, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2 κ= 2.2, DCLL, ηth ~ 0.42

  12. Solutions for lowest R, κ= 2.2 Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 200 MW, H98 < 1.5, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2 κ= 2.2, SiC, ηth ~ 0.55

  13. Search for ARIES-AT plasma operating points within engineering constraints 4.0 < βN < 6.0, advanced stability regime, kink wall required 4.5 T < BT < 8.5 T, using new magnet algorithm with different jSClim 3.2 < q95 < 5.4 0.7 < n/nGr < 1.3, going above Greenwald density 15 < Q < 40 4.0 < R < 8.0 A = 4.0 fArgon = 0.15% κ = 1.8 & 2.2 δ = 0.7 (0.5) τp*/τE = 5-10 ηCD = 33% ηaux = 67% frad,div = 0.75 & 0.90 Nb3Sn TF/PF coils 2 blanket types: SiC and DCLL DCLL ΔFW = 0.038 m Δblkt = 0.50 m ΔVV = 0.31 m Δshld/skel = 0.35+0.075xIn(<Nw>/3.3) m ηth ~ 42%, Ppump ~ 0.04xPfusion SiC ΔFW = 0.0 m Δblkt = 0.35 m ΔVV = 0.40 m Δshld/skel = 0.24+0.067xIn(<Nw>/3.3) m ηth ~ 55%, Ppump ~ 0.005xPfusion

  14. Solutions for lowest R, κ= 1.8 Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 100 MW, H98 < 1.8, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2 κ= 1.8, DCLL, ηth ~ 0.42 One solution for fdiv,r = 0.75 κ= 1.8, DCLL, ηth ~ 0.42

  15. Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 100 MW, H98 < 1.8, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2 κ= 2.2, DCLL, ηth ~ 0.42

  16. Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 100 MW, H98 < 1.8, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2 κ= 1.8, SiC, ηth ~ 0.55

  17. Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 100 MW, H98 < 1.8, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2 κ= 2.2, SiC, ηth ~ 0.55

  18. Comparison of kappa = 1.8 and 2.2 for DCLL blanket and ARIES-AT plasma

  19. Comparison of kappa = 1.8 and 2.2 for DCLL blanket and ARIES-AT plasma

  20. ARIES-I plasmas, TF coil solutions, what is TF limit at the coil? At TF coil At TF coil At plasma At plasma

  21. Results • What should our magnet basis be, the same for all 4 designs or a near term and an aggressive solution? • We can see the importance of radiated power in the divertor, but this could also be a change in the power scrape-off width which is also an uncertain parameter • Higher plasma elongation can provide smaller devices, but more importantly it enlarges the operating space. This requires a stabilizer in the blanket, should we have a high and a low elongation? • In all cases, the DCLL is inferior to the SiC blanket/shield approach, but the ferritic steel is near term and the SiC is long term, which seems like a good approach

More Related