1 / 12

J.H. Schultz M.I.T. Plasma Science and Fusion Center NSO PAC 2 Meeting

Design Point Trade Studies. J.H. Schultz M.I.T. Plasma Science and Fusion Center NSO PAC 2 Meeting M.I.T. Plasma Science and Fusion Center January 17-18, 2001. Progress in Design Point Studies. 1. IPB98(y.2) Scaling - reduced 2.0 m Wedged FIRE from Q=10 to Q=5 at 10 T

evadne
Download Presentation

J.H. Schultz M.I.T. Plasma Science and Fusion Center NSO PAC 2 Meeting

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. Design Point Trade Studies • J.H. Schultz • M.I.T. Plasma Science and Fusion Center • NSO PAC 2 Meeting • M.I.T. Plasma Science and Fusion Center • January 17-18, 2001

  2. Progress in Design Point Studies 1. IPB98(y.2) Scaling - reduced 2.0 m Wedged FIRE from Q=10 to Q=5 at 10 T - parametric study explores bucked/wedged option for cost/mission improvements 2. Equalization of TF/CS "burn times" - optimization of TF/CS interface 3. Scan of A, Bt for "Fixed Mission" - Margin=2 and Margin=1 4. Detailed Cost vs. Ro Sensitivities

  3. Sizing Model

  4. Double Optimization Method (1) TF/OH interface optimization tburn,TF = tburn,OH (TF/OH interface optimum for fixed Ro Subtract 3 s from TF flattop for heating e.g. 24.5 s flattop = 24.5 s I flattop = 3 s heat + 21.5 s burn No scaling of theat with plasma parameters (2) Minimum Ro for "Mission Margin" Mission: Long-pulse a-dominated plasmas Margin=2: Q>=10; tflattop/max(tE, tp*, tJ) >= 2 Margin=1: Q>=5; tflattop/max(tE, tp*, tJ) >= 1

  5. Double Optimization Method-II Instead of fixing Ro and varying A Vary Ro and A, while holding Margin=1,2 Margin=min(Pa/Pheat, tflattop/tJ) 3 Variations: 1) Minimum Ro(fixed A,B)with M=min(Pa/Pheat, tflattop/tJ) 2) Minimum Ro(fixed A, Bvariable @ low A); M=Const 3) Minimum Ro(fixed A,B, f(q) @ high B); M=Const

  6. Dimensionless Margins > 2 vs. A Alpha margin=Time margin=2 at optimum A=2.0/0.525 Rapid rise in time margin and heating margin off optimum A

  7. Reduced Mission: M=1, Q=5,tburn/tJ=1 R o,min = 1.59 m at Bt=11.5 T & A=(2.0/0.525)=3.8095 Bt=11.5 T for A=3.8 Bt=10.5 T for A=3.6 R(low A) nonlinear, but not pathological

  8. Ro (m) vs. Bt: M=2, Q=10, t/tauJ=2 Ro (m) grows pathologically at high Bt and qlim=3.1 Well-behaved if M=2,Q=10,t/tJ=2 (qlim > 3.1 at Bt>Bt,opt) Romin=1.86 m, A=3.8 Romin(A=3.6) = 1.925 m

  9. Ro (m) vs. A; M=2, Q=10,t/tauJ=2; Bt=10.5, 11.5 T, qlim=3.177 Romin = 1.86 m@ Bt=11.5, A=3.8 Ro (m) pathological at low A Cured by lowering Bt; Q=10, M=2 (no effect on Romin)

  10. Comparison of "Mission Margin" =1, 2 Curves M2:Minimum Cost =$1.06 B @ Ro= 1.86 m, A=3.8, Bt=11.5 T - M2 < $1 B, if phase auxiliary power M1:Minimum Cost = $0.92 B @ Ro=1.59 m, A=3.8, Bt=11.5 T

  11. Cost (M$) vs. Ro (m); Subsystem Sensitivity Vary Ro; Bt=11.5 T, A=3.8, qL=3.1, not fixed mission $/Ro Sensitivity = 1.01 $/Ro: Paux, I&C = 0 Magnets=1.64 Basic Machine=1.25 Buildings=1.14

  12. Exciting Conclusions Ro can be reduced to 1.86 m and retain M=2 mission Mission reduction x 2 allows reduction of Ro to 1.59 m (1st order!) Margin=2 mission requires lowering B @ A<3.5 or q @ B>13 T d$/dR = 1: Machine sensitivity ~ 1.25 + nearly fixed costs Recommendation: Reduce Ro to 1.87 m, Day 1 RF = 10 MW Achieve all cost/mission objectives: Q=10, tflat/tJ=2, Cost<$1 B Historic first: A noncatastrophic reduction in NSO Ro

More Related