Integrated Transport Modeling of High-Field Tokamak Burning Plasma Devices Arnold H. Kritz, T.Onjun,C.Nguyen,P.Zhu,G.Bateman Lehigh University Physics Department 16 Memorial Drive East, Bethlehem, PA 1815 Burning Plasma Science Workshop Austin, TX December 2
Integrated Transport Modeling of High-Field Tokamak Burning Plasma Devices Integrated transport modeling simulations carried out using theory-based Multi-Mode and empirical Mixed-Bohm/gyro-Bohm transport models BALDUR predictive transport code simulating several high-field tokamak reactor designs with scans over parameter ranges Transport models with very different gyro-radius scaling match experimental data equally well hence, burning plasma experiment is needed to test validity of core transport models also needed to test bounday condition models e.g., models for the height of H-mode pedestal Kritz Burning Plasma Workshop December 2
Baseline Design Parameters Simulations have been carried out for three high-field tokamak reactor designs: Ignitor, Mazzucator, and FIRE. Physical Quantity Symbol Unit Ignitor Mazzucato FIRE Major Radius R m 1.33 3.92 2. Minor Radius a m.455 1.12.525 Elongation κ 1.8 1.75 1.8 Triangularity δ.4.4.4 Toroidal Magnetic Field B t Tesla 13 8 1 Plasma Current I p MA 12 12 6.5 Vol. avg. electron density <n e > 1 2 m 3 4.7 2. 4.5 Auxiliary Heating P aux MW 1 3 22 Alpha Power P α MW 14.1 49.1 12.3 Ohmic Power P Ω MW 5.9 2.3 2. Fusion Gain Q fusion 4.5 7.6 2.6 Diagnostic Time t diag sec 7 2 2 Kritz Burning Plasma Workshop December 2
Comparison Between Transport Models Two transport models 15 Multi-Mode-95 (MMM95) gyro-bohm scaling JET MMM95 Mixed-Bohm/gyro-Bohm (MB/gB) mostly Bohm scaling Match experimental data equally well 22 H-mode DIII-D and JET 13 L-mode TFTR and DIII-D σ Avg Relative to Maximum (%) 1 5 Can predict different performance FIRE Mazz. Ignitor Model Q Q Q MB/gB 2.7 3.2 2.1 MMM95 2.6 7.6 4.5 T i T e n e Average normalized RMS deviations compared using MMM95 and MB/gB models for 22 H- mode discharges in JET and DIII-D. Kritz Burning Plasma Workshop December 2
2. Comparing MMM95 and MB/gB Models Mazzucato baseline design at 2. sec 15. MMM95 MB/gB T i (kev) 1. 5.. 15. T e (kev) 1. 5.. 2.e+2 n e (m 3 ) 1.5e+2 1.e+2 5.e+19.e+ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Major Radius (m)
2. Comparing MMM95 and MB/gB Models FIRE baseline design at 2. sec T i (kev) 15. 1. 5. MMM95 MB/gB. 12. T e (kev) 8. 4.. 5.e+2 4.e+2 n e (m 3 ) 3.e+2 2.e+2 1.e+2.e+ 1.2 1.8 2.2 2.8 Major Radius (m)
Systematic Scans of Fusion Reactor Simulations Increasing plasma current and toroidal magnetic field has the biggest effect on performance Magneticq held fixed Increasing edge temperature (at top of H-mode pedestal) increases performance Stiff transport models are sensitive to edge temperature Developing a model for H-mode pedestal Increasing plasma density reduces plasma temperature Net increase in performance up to nearly the Greenwald limit Impurity content IncreasingZ eff degrades performance Pellet injection Can improve performance Kritz Burning Plasma Workshop December 2
1 BALDUR Simulations using the MMM95 Model B t and I p scan T edge scan <n e > scan 1 1 P α (MW) 8 6 4 8 6 4 8 6 4 Ignitor Mazzucato FIRE 2 2 2 8 1 12 14 2 3 4 4 8 12 16 16 16 Fusion Gain Q 12 8 4 12 8 4 12 8 4 8 1 12 14 2 3 4 4 8 12 3 3 3 T i () (kev) 2 1 2 1 2 1 8 1 12 14 B t (T) 2 3 4 T edge (kev) 4 8 12 < n e > (1 2 m 3 )
Ignitor Current Scan 2 2 Alpha Heating Power (MW) 15 1 5 Q: 4.5 3.4 2.6 Ohmic Power (MW) 15 1 5 I p max = 12 MA I p max = 11 MA I p max = 1 MA 2 4 6 8 time (sec) 2 4 6 8 time (sec)
Model Being Developed for Height of Pedestal at theedgeofh-modeplasmas T. Onjun, G. Hammett, A.H. Kritz, and G. Bateman Predictive boundary conditions needed for simulations Plasma boundary consists of scrape-off-layer and pedestal Pedestal temperature decreases with increasing density relative to Greenwald density Reduced pedestal temperature also reduces core temperature predicted by stiff transport models This effect partly offsets increase of fusion power with density Increasing plasma current increases Greenwald density Allows higher plasma density for same pedestal temperature which further increases plasma performance Kritz Burning Plasma Workshop December 2
6 Comparing the way of turning off heating power Mazzucato baseline design 4 Power(MW) P aux1 2 P aux2 P α (P aux2 ) P α (P aux1 ) 2 4 6 Time (sec)
Physics Issues in Reactor Simulations Different transport models extrapolate in different ways to fusion reactors Several different models match experimental data equally well Issues of stiffness and scaling Sawtooth oscillations can be very broad r mix /a.6 observed in simulations Can be reduced by using current drive or current ramping Might have a big impact on fast alpha particles Fusion power depends on time history of auxiliary power Rapidly turning off auxiliary heating power produces a rapid decay of alpha heating power P α (t) Slow reduction in auxiliary power yields slow P α (t) decay Kritz Burning Plasma Workshop December 2