1 / 13

CRONOS simulations of ITER Hybrid scenarios (common modeling guidelines)

CRONOS simulations of ITER Hybrid scenarios (common modeling guidelines). J.F. Artaud, V. Basiuk, F. Imbeaux, M. Schneider, G. Giruzzi. Association Euratom-CEA CEA/Cadarache, FRANCE. Modeling guidelines. Global parameters. I p = 12 MA, B T = 5.3 T, b N ≈ 3, plasma in flat-top phase

talasi
Télécharger la présentation

CRONOS simulations of ITER Hybrid scenarios (common modeling guidelines)

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. CRONOS simulations of ITER Hybrid scenarios (common modeling guidelines) J.F. Artaud, V. Basiuk, F. Imbeaux, M. Schneider, G. Giruzzi Association Euratom-CEA CEA/Cadarache, FRANCE

  2. Modeling guidelines • Global parameters • Ip = 12 MA, BT = 5.3 T, bN ≈ 3, plasma in flat-top phase • fD/(fD+fT) = 50%, fBe = 3%, fAr = 0.12%, tHe*/tE = 5 (Zeff ~ 1.6) • PNBI = 33 MW (0.9 MeV), PICRH = 20 MW (53 MHz,2 T harmonic) • PECRH, PLH to be determined • Profile parameters • ne profile fixed, pedestal fixed • rped = 0.925, nped= ne(0), Tped varied to obtain bN • ne(0) = 0.95 1020 m-3 , flat for 0 < r < rped , • linear drop from rped to r = 1, ne(r = 1) = 0.35 ne(0) • heat transport model: GLF23

  3. Modules used in the CRONOS simulation • NBI: Sinbad • ICRH: Pion • Fusion power: analytical cross-section (SPOT will be used later on) • GLF23 • Synchrotron loss: EXATEC* • * Module developed by J. García, Universitat Politecnica de • Catalunya, Barcelona (Spain). Main features: • accurate expressions of the EC absorption coefficients • wall reflections (coefficient: 0.7) • it reproduces the most accurate global scaling of synch. loss

  4. Synchrotron loss computed by EXATEC in CRONOS (J. García)

  5. Typical Equilibrium and Power deposition profiles

  6. Global quantities (Tped = 5 keV)

  7. Profiles (Tped = 5 keV)

  8. q evolution (Tped = 5 keV)

  9. Tped = 5 keV vs Tped = 3 keV

  10. Tped = 5 keV vs Tped = 3 keV (profiles)

  11. co-ECCD with equatorial launcher /1 Launch (cm): R Z ftor 820 124 30° 834 62 30° 820 0 25° PECCD = 21 MW IECCD = 0.55 MA

  12. co-ECCD with equatorial launcher /2 Launch (cm): R Z ftor 820 124 40° 834 62 40° 820 0 40° PECCD = 21 MW IECCD = 0.45 MA

  13. LHCD vs counter-ECCD(13 MA, Tped = 8 keV case) • +20 MW of additional heat source yields about + 1 MA of bootstrap (w.r.t 53 MW case). • LHCD off-axis because of high Tped (~ 8 keV); RT/FP calculation yields 1.1 MA of LHCD • Counter-ECCD at rho = 0.1 (assumed, with 0.375 MA ctr-CD) • q = 1 appears at 1040 s for LH and EC cases, (650 s for 53 MW) • Flatter q-profile for ctr-ECCD • Flux consumption much higher for EC case : 14.5 Wb / 1000 s flat-top vs 8.6 Wb / 1000 s flat-top for LH case • li = 0.62 vs 0.53 for LH case

More Related