1 / 12

NSTX_U Design Point Study Pulse Lengths 20 to 60 sec

NSTX_U Design Point Study Pulse Lengths 20 to 60 sec. C Neumeyer 5/11/6. Physics Assumptions. Engineering Assumptions. Approach. 1) Calculate available performance (maximize Ip) from H2O and LN2 designs at 20,30,40,50,60s with only physics and center stack engineering constraints applied

penney
Download Presentation

NSTX_U Design Point Study Pulse Lengths 20 to 60 sec

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. NSTX_U Design Point Study Pulse Lengths 20 to 60 sec C Neumeyer 5/11/6

  2. Physics Assumptions

  3. Engineering Assumptions

  4. Approach 1) Calculate available performance (maximize Ip) from H2O and LN2 designs at 20,30,40,50,60s with only physics and center stack engineering constraints applied 2) Calculate available performance (maximize Ip) from H2O and LN2 designs at 20s with physics and all engineering constraints applied 3) Fix TF and OH radial dims based on 2) and calculate available performance (maximize Ip) from H2O and LN2 designs at 20,30,40,50,60s with all constraints applied

  5. Ip vs. t_pulse

  6. Bt vs. t_pulse

  7. Solenoid Flux vs. t_pulse Includes 1st swing (stress limited) & 2nd swing as available (thermal limited)

  8. MG Energy Demand vs. t_pulse 4.5GJ available Net after accounting for energy supplied through CCV during pulse

  9. #PSS Req’d vs. t_pulse 74 available Net after accounting for energy supplied through CCV during pulse

  10. Comments on Limits • Water cooled design limited by PF coils, • then TF outer legs, • and then energy supply • LN2 design limited by #PSS, • and then energy supply

  11. Comments on Engineering (1) • Active cooling w/LN2 might be beneficial • - J similar to active water cooled case • - P & W much lower, might permit all loads on MG • PF water cooling very limiting due to high ratio of heating power I2R ~ 10’s of MW vs. cooling power ~ 264W/GPM-degC ~ 10’s of KW, therefore PF coils are ~ adiabatic • PF LN2 cooling will require thermal isolation to mounts on VV • One truckload LN2 heat of vaporization ~ 4.4GJ ~ MG stored energy

  12. Comments on Engineering (2) • Confidence in MG set operation at full rating must be restored • Feasibility of high pulsed power from grid in deregulated era may be • questionable, best to stay within MG capacity • D-site PS sharing w/NCSX may be an issue • NSTX PFCs inertially rated 6MW-5s, active cooling to remove 10’s of • MW will be extremely challenging and will take up much VV space • Structural support of TF OL, PFCs, and TF joints will be challenging • Where is crossover in advantage between modifying NSTX vs. building new machine?

More Related