1999 RESEARCH SUMMARY

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "1999 RESEARCH SUMMARY"

Andra Cain
5 years ago
Views:

1 1999 RESEARCH SUMMARY by S.L. Allen Presented to DIII D Program Advisory Committee Meeting January 2 21, 2 DIII D NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY SAN DIEGO 3 /SLA/wj

2 Overview of Physics Results from the 1999 DIII D Campaign by S. L. Allen and the DIII-D Team Presented at the American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Seattle, Washington November 15 19, 1999 DIII D NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY

3 Overview of Physics Results from the 1999 DIII D Campaign by S. L. Allen and the DIII-D Team UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN M A DI S O N Department of Engineering Physics Columbia University Presented at the American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics Meeting Seattle, Washington November 15 19, 1999 QTYUIOP Sandia National Laboratories DIII D NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY

4 Our goal is a sustained Advanced Tokamak Advanced Tokamak Sustained Scenario INTEGRATED PHYSICS

5 Plasma control techniques are necessary Wall Stabilization NTM Control Scenario Advanced Tokamak Sustained Scenario Edge Tools Divertor PLASMA CONTROL INTEGRATED PHYSICS

6 We focused on physics principles in the 1999 Campaign 1999 Wall Stabilization Principles NTM Physics Develop Scenario Barrier Control Tools for Edge Stability Optimal Edge δ, SN/DN Counter NBI PHYSICS PRINCIPLES Wall Stabilization NTM Control Scenario Edge Tools Divertor PLASMA CONTROL Advanced Tokamak Sustained Scenario INTEGRATED PHYSICS

7 The 1999 was modified by the Research Council for INTERNAL TRANSPORT BARRIER PHYSICS RESISTIVE WALL MODE FEEDBACK AT DIVERTOR RWM STABILIZATION AT AND RADIATIVE DIVERTOR OPTIMAL MODE SPECTRUM ITB AT LARGE RADIUS ADVANCED METHODS HIGH BOOTSTRAP FRACTION ADVANCED TOKAMAK (INTERMEDIATE SCENARIOS) SUSTAIN OPTIMIZE MODERATE PULSE ADVANCED TOKAMAK FESAC ASSESS- MENT ECH/ECCD VALIDATION EDGE STABILITY STUDIES NEOCLASSICAL TEARING- AFFECT MODE How thrusts contribute to advanced tokamak goal How thrusts contribute to science goal EDGE STABILITY CONTROL NTM-CONTROL MODE GROWTH HIGH l i SCENARIO PHYSICS NTM-STABILIZE MODE INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO DEMONSTRATION

8 The Thrust Areas For the 1999 DIII-D Campaign 1999 Wall Stabilization Physics PHYSICS PRINCIPLES

9 The Thrust Areas For the 1999 DIII-D Campaign 1999 Wall Stabilization Physics Neoclassical Tearing Mode (NTM) physics PHYSICS PRINCIPLES

10 The Thrust Areas For the 1999 DIII-D Campaign 1999 Wall Stabilization Physics Neoclassical Tearing Mode (NTM) physics Advanced Tokamak Scenario Development PHYSICS PRINCIPLES

11 The Thrust Areas For the 1999 DIII-D Campaign 1999 Wall Stabilization Physics Neoclassical Tearing Mode (NTM) physics Advanced Tokamak Scenario Development Internal Transport Barrier (ITB) Control Counter Neutral Beam Injection PHYSICS PRINCIPLES

12 The Thrust Areas For the 1999 DIII-D Campaign 1999 Wall Stabilization Physics Neoclassical Tearing Mode (NTM) physics Advanced Tokamak Scenario Development Internal Transport Barrier (ITB) Control Counter Neutral Beam Injection Tools for edge stability PHYSICS PRINCIPLES

13 The Thrust Areas For the 1999 DIII-D Campaign 1999 Wall Stabilization Physics Neoclassical Tearing Mode (NTM) physics Advanced Tokamak Scenario Development Internal Transport Barrier (ITB) Control Counter Neutral Beam Injection Tools for edge stability Optimal plasma shape, divertor PHYSICS PRINCIPLES

14 AT modes were limited by Resistive Wall Modes 1999 Wall Stabilization Physics Neoclassical Tearing Mode (NTM) physics Advanced Tokamak Scenario Development PHYSICS PRINCIPLES

15 AT Discharge Affected by Resistive Wall Mode Discharge 9896 (mv-s) 2-2 Diamagnetic Flux Ip=1.2 MA, Bt=1.6 T q min ~1.7, q 95 ~5.5 8 (gauss) 4 n=1 B r β N limited to about 4li (no wall limit) by bursty RWM (MW) P NBI 12 8 β N xh 89p Time (s)

16 Discharge tuning results in long duration AT Mode Discharge β N ~3.8 (mv-s) 2-2 Diamagnetic Flux Ip=1.2 MA, Bt=1.6 T q min ~1.7, q 95 ~5.5 8 (gauss) 4 n=1 B r β N limited to about 4li (no wall limit) by bursty RWM (MW) P NBI Higher NBI power improves stability and duration β N xh 89p Time (s) 75 % current non-inductive >5% bootstrap

17 AT Performance vs. Duration 2 ELM-free H-mode ELMy H-mode L-mode edge β N H89p DIII-D Advanced Tokamak Target ARIES-RS Conventional Tokamak τ duration /τ E

18 β N H89p AT Performance vs. Duration Increased in ELM-free H-mode ELMy H-mode L-mode edge DIII-D Advanced Tokamak Target ARIES-RS Conventional Tokamak τ duration /τ E 1999 Progress H89 β N H89 β N H = 9 for 16 τ E 4 li β N 2 sec Time (s) ARIES-RS ARIES-RS ARIES-RS

19 Preliminary RWM Feedback Experiments Show ( β N - 4 l i ) 4 l i f rot δ <B n > (gauss) Coil Current (khz) Time(s) #99654

20 Preliminary RWM Feedback Experiments Show Extended Duration Sensor loops o x C-coil ( β N - 4 l i ) 4 l i f rot δ <Bn> (gauss) Coil Current (khz) Time (s) #99655 #99654 q = 2

21 Research in Neoclassical Tearing Modes 1999 Wall Stabilization Physics Neoclassical Tearing Mode (NTM) physics Advanced Tokamak Scenario Development PHYSICS PRINCIPLES

22 NTM Critical β N power law scaling x β NC ρ i * (ν i /εω e* )y AUG & DIII D Medium Size Tokamaks" β N ρ i* (1 3 ) 9 8 β N ν=ν i /εω e* 1.2

23 NTM Critical β N power law scaling is complicated! x β NC ρ i * (ν i /εω e* )y 12 AUG & DIII D Medium Size Tokamaks JET Large Tokamak (lower ρ i* higher S) 11 β N βn ρ i* (1 3 ) 9 8 β N ν=ν i /εω e* ν=ν i /εω e*

24 New tools for ITB control, including counter NBI 1999 Wall Stabilization Physics Neoclassical Tearing Mode (NTM) physics Advanced Tokamak Scenario Development Internal Transport Barrier (ITB) Control Counter Neutral Beam Injection Tools for edge stability PHYSICS PRINCIPLES

25 Tools for ITB control: Counter NBI and ECH Preheat 961 (Co-NBI, no ECH) Routine counter NBI injection achieved (previously not routine on DIII D) q (Ohmic)

26 Tools for ITB control: Counter NBI and ECH Preheat q 961 (Co-NBI, no ECH) s) Routine counter NBI injection achieved (previously not routine on DIII D) ECH Preheat controls q-profile --Counter NBI less NCS --ECH + Counter NBI better profile (Ohmic)

27 Tools for ITB control: Counter NBI and ECH Preheat q 961 (Co-NBI, no ECH) s) (Ohmic) Routine counter NBI injection achieved (previously not routine on DIII D) ECH Preheat controls q-profile --Counter NBI less NCS --ECH + Counter NBI better profile Differences Compared to CO-ITB: -- ITB formed, but required more NBI power --Broader barriers, with less steep gradients --Sustainment work in 2

28 Tools for ITB control: Flexible Pellet LFS n e (1 2 m -3 ) 1..5 DIII-D measured n e LFS v p = 586 m/s

29 Tools for ITB control: Flexible Pellet Injection HFS 45 LFS n e (1 2 m -3 ) 1..5 DIII-D measured n e HFS 45 LFS v p = 586 m/s v p = 118 m/s

30 Tools for ITB control: Impurity Injection Neon Increases Stored Energy Radiated Power (x1 6 MW) Stored Energy (x1 5 J) Neon Reference Neon Time (s) Radiation near 75% of injected power 8% increase in stored energy

31 Tools for ITB control: Impurity Injection Neon Increases Stored Energy Radiated Power (x1 6 MW) Stored Energy (x1 5 J) Neon Reference Neon Time (s) Radiation near 75% of injected power 8% increase in stored energy χ i (ρ =.65) Ion Transport Reduced χ i (m 2 /s) Gas Puff 1.2 Time (s)

32 Tools for ITB control: Impurity Injection Neon Increases Stored Energy Radiated Power (x1 6 MW) Stored Energy (x1 5 J) Neon Reference Neon Time (s) Radiation near 75% of injected power 8% increase in stored energy χ i (ρ =.65) Ion Transport Reduced BES Fluctations Drop χ i (m 2 /s) Spectra (x1 8 <ñ 2 >/n 2 /khz) Gas Puff Time (s) t = s (after neon injection) 1 2 Frequency (khz) Neon Reference

33 We explored the affects of shape on Confinement 1999 Wall Stabilization Physics Neoclassical Tearing Mode (NTM) physics Advanced Tokamak Scenario Development Internal Transport Barrier (ITB) Control Counter Neutral Beam Injection Tools for edge stability Optimal plasma shape, divertor PHYSICS PRINCIPLES

34 Plasma shape studies included variation from LSN to USN 1..5 Divertor Heat Flux Balance (Top - Bot)/Total. B Magnetic Balance

35 Plasma shape studies included variation from LSN to USN 1..5 Divertor Heat Flux Balance (Top - Bot)/Total. B Magnetic Balance

36 Plasma shape studies included variation from LSN to USN Divertor Particle Flux Balance (Top - Bot)/Total.5 Divertor Heat Flux Balance (Top - Bot)/Total Magnetic Balance Magnetic Balance

37 Experiments in the Topical Science Areas -- Pedestal Physics Confinement and Transport, Heating & Current Drive, Stability, Divertor H-Factor (89P) H-Factor (89P) PUMPED DISCHARGES.5 q95 = 3.5 q95 = Fraction of the Greenwald Density

38 Operation above the Greenwald Density Pedestal Physics H-Factor (89P) PUMPED DISCHARGES q95 = 3.1 q95 = 3.5 q95 = 5.9 H-Factor (89P) Fraction of the Greenwald Density

39 Drifts near the x-point are important for confinement Drifts near X-point Important --Flows --Confinement --UEDGE Model w/ Flows Standard B T Drift Flows X Reversed B T Electric Fields

40 "Statistics" of 1999 Run Plan Research Thrusts and Topical Physics Days Allocated Regulate the edge bootstrap current and/or the edge pressure gradient to extend the duration of AT Modes (M. Wade ORNL; Deputy-B. Rice, LLNL) 8 Preparation of an NCS AT plasma demonstration (Leader-T. Luce, GA; Deputy-P. Politzer, GA) 7 Validate neoclassical tearing model and begin stabilization with ECCD (Leader-R. LaHaye, GA) 6 Validate the model of wall stabilization and begin feedback stabilization experiments (Leader-G. Navratil, Columbia U.) 6 Develop the basis for choosing single versus double null and the optimum triangularity M. Fenstermacher, LLNL; Deputies T. Osborne, GA, and T. Petrie, GA) 6 Expand the spatial extent and time duration of internal transport barriers (Leader-C. Greenfield, GA) 8 Stability physics (Leader-E. Strait, GA) 3 Confinement and transport physics (Leader-K. Burrell, GA) 7 Divertor edge physics (Leader-S. Allen, LLNL) 4 Heating and current drive physics (Leader-R. Prater, GA) 3 Contingency for hardware problems and new experiments. 15 TOTAL 73

41 "Statistics" of 1999 Run Plan Research Thrusts and Topical Physics Days Allocated Regulate the edge bootstrap current and/or the edge pressure gradient to extend the duration of AT Modes (M. Wade ORNL; Deputy-B. Rice, LLNL) 8 Preparation of an NCS AT plasma demonstration (Leader-T. Luce, GA; Deputy-P. Politzer, GA) 7 Validate neoclassical tearing model and begin stabilization with ECCD (Leader-R. LaHaye, GA) 6 Validate the model of wall stabilization and begin feedback stabilization experiments (Leader-G. Navratil, Columbia U.) 6 Develop the basis for choosing single versus double null and the optimum triangularity M. Fenstermacher, LLNL; Deputies T. Osborne, GA, and T. Petrie, GA) 6 Expand the spatial extent and time duration of internal transport barriers (Leader-C. Greenfield, GA) 8 Stability physics (Leader-E. Strait, GA) 3 Confinement and transport physics (Leader-K. Burrell, GA) 7 Divertor edge physics (Leader-S. Allen, LLNL) 4 Heating and current drive physics (Leader-R. Prater, GA) 3 Contingency for hardware problems and new experiments. 15 TOTAL 73 Days Scheduled

42 "Statistics" of 1999 Run Plan Research Thrusts and Topical Physics Days Allocated Regulate the edge bootstrap current and/or the edge pressure gradient to extend the duration of AT Modes (M. Wade ORNL; Deputy-B. Rice, LLNL) 8 Preparation of an NCS AT plasma demonstration (Leader-T. Luce, GA; Deputy-P. Politzer, GA) 7 Validate neoclassical tearing model and begin stabilization with ECCD (Leader-R. LaHaye, GA) 6 Validate the model of wall stabilization and begin feedback stabilization experiments (Leader-G. Navratil, Columbia U.) 6 Develop the basis for choosing single versus double null and the optimum triangularity M. Fenstermacher, LLNL; Deputies T. Osborne, GA, and T. Petrie, GA) 6 Expand the spatial extent and time duration of internal transport barriers (Leader-C. Greenfield, GA) 8 Stability physics (Leader-E. Strait, GA) 3 Confinement and transport physics (Leader-K. Burrell, GA) 7 Divertor edge physics (Leader-S. Allen, LLNL) 4 Heating and current drive physics (Leader-R. Prater, GA) 3 Contingency for hardware problems and new experiments. 15 TOTAL 73 Days Scheduled Days Completed

43 New capabilities in 2 -- ECH Power 3 GYCOM Gyrotrons --2 s pulse length --includes 2 from TdeV

44 New capabilities in 2 -- ECH Power 3 GYCOM Gyrotrons --2 s pulse length --includes 2 from TdeV 3 CPI Gyrotrons --2 Long Pulse with Diamond Window New Steerable Launcher

45 New capabilities in 2 -- ECH Power and Divertor Pumping 3 GYCOM Gyrotrons --2 s pulse length --includes 2 from TdeV 3 CPI Gyrotrons --2 Long Pulse with Diamond Window New Steerable Launcher

46 New capabilities in 2 -- ECH Power and Divertor Pumping 3 GYCOM Gyrotrons --2 s pulse length --includes 2 from TdeV 3 CPI Gyrotrons --2 Long Pulse with Diamond Window New Steerable Launcher New upper divertor:

47 New capabilities in 2 -- ECH Power and Divertor Pumping 3 GYCOM Gyrotrons --2 s pulse length --includes 2 from TdeV Inner Cryopump 3 CPI Gyrotrons --2 Long Pulse with Diamond Window New Steerable Launcher Baffle New upper divertor: --Cryopump --Baffle in Private Flux Region

THE DIII D PROGRAM THREE-YEAR PLAN

THE DIII D PROGRAM THREE-YEAR PLAN THE PROGRAM THREE-YEAR PLAN by T.S. Taylor Presented to Program Advisory Committee Meeting January 2 21, 2 3 /TST/wj PURPOSE OF TALK Show that the program plan is appropriate to meet the goals and is well-aligned