1 / 9

Proposals for Next Year’s MFE Activities

Proposals for Next Year’s MFE Activities. C. Kessel, PPPL ARIES Project Meeting, Sept. 24, 2000. Experimental H-mode Edge. L-mode vs H-mode Plasma Edge Assumptions. ARIES has consistently assumed L-mode like plasma edge conditions -- low T, low finite n, dp/d y = 0

martha
Download Presentation

Proposals for Next Year’s MFE Activities

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. Proposals for Next Year’s MFE Activities C. Kessel, PPPL ARIES Project Meeting, Sept. 24, 2000

  2. Experimental H-mode Edge

  3. L-mode vs H-mode Plasma Edge Assumptions • ARIES has consistently assumed L-mode like plasma edge conditions -- low T, low finite n, dp/dy = 0 • Some form of ELMing H-mode might be present -- higher T, higher finite n, dp/dy finite, pressure pedestal inside separatrix • We’d like to analize a range of H-mode edge conditions self-consistently with bootstrap current to assess the impact on MHD stability, CD, and radiation/divertor

  4. H-mode edge and Ideal MHD /Current Drive • L-mode vs H-mode affects ballooning and kink stability • Bootstrap current is driven by dp/dy near plasma edge and affects required CD • These depend on the precise model of p(y)

  5. H-mode Edge and Plasma Radiation/Divertor • The ELMing H-mode must have specific characteristics to be acceptable for a power plant divertor (high frequency, low energy amplitude) • The plasma edge conditions should be compatible with the divertor (low T, and high n) • Plasma radiation from this edge region would be affected by T and n assumed and would need to be consistent with power balance and engineering limitations

  6. Systems Code Upgrades • Prefer that all physics quantities be based on actual plasma geometry, so have them done in the equilibrium calculation (JSOLVER) • Graphics (internal and/or external) • Determine what type of systems analysis we want to do -- scans or optimization or both, and what the fundamental quantities are that we search over

  7. Systems Code Upgrades • Keep present systems flow ; plasma parameters and geometry--> build machine around plasma--> cost machine • Still require detailed analysis outside systems code (MHD, RFCD, divertor, neutronics, thermal, etc.) • Find best way to optimize over parameters we care about (R, a, T, Zeff, b, Bt, Iw, etc.)

  8. Systems Code Upgrades • Break this task into phases or it will become overwhelming • Create dump file from JSOLVER that ASC can read • Get JSOLVER boundary and ASC PF coil system to work • Later attempt to integrate equilibrium into ASC • Graphics can be done separately • Examine scan/optimization strategies • Consider using SUPERCODE

  9. Other Studies • Examine conventional aspect ratios, R/a = 2.5-5.0 to determine physics optimization • Develop startup simulation of ARIES-AT with TSC • Examine no-wall reverse shear configuration to make connection between ARIES and NSO/present experiments

More Related