ITER 0D sensitivity analysis (On request by Vassili Parail via ITM)

1Darren McDonald, Jean Johner

Euratom

ITER 0D sensitivity analysis, JET, 10 July 2007

ITER 0D sensitivity analysis(On request by Vassili Parail via ITM)

D. C. McDonald (UKAEA) and J. Johner (CEA Cadarache)

With special thanks to John Mandrekas

ITER 0D sensitivity analysis, NAKA, October 2007 2Darren McDonald, Jean Johner

Euratom

Quick recall of the modelling and assumptions

th

OH add B SnetE

WP P P P P

P

0-D core thermal equilibrium equation

where

fHe calculated self consistently from the condition *He/E Cte 5 where *He NHe/SHe

E = H98 E,IPB98(y,2)

given profiles Te/Ti Cte 1.1

0

2( ) (1 ) ne en n

0

2( ) (1 ) Te eT T ,

with H98 1

thcon

Enet

WP P

Impurities : fBe 2 % ; fAr 0.12 %

n 0.01, T 0.966)

)( 31

LSBaddOHnet PPPPPPP

NB: different from HELIOS analysis. Follows [Green et al, NF 2003]

Study with GTBURN (J Mandrekas, Georgia Institute Tech.) [Petty et al, PoP 2004]


Euratom

Quick recall of the modelling and assumptions

L-H transition fit [IDM/PID/PAD/PPA (August 2004)]

Recommended fit in IPB 2007

Taken in POPCON plots

0.73 0.74 0.98(2) 8.6 t

LHeff

0.084 10 en B SP

M

line-mantle line-div

line line

61 % , 39 %P P

P P

Total line and bremsstrahlung radiation (plasma mantle + SOL + divertor) calculated from emission cross-sections

non-rad con line source rad rad B S line with P P P P P P P P P

is assumed (Ar injected discharges in JET)

For Psep calculation (used for H mode threshold condition)


Euratom

Synchrotron radiation from EXATEC (J. Garcia)

ITER reference scenario, Q = 10CRONOS run, synchrotron loss computed with EXATECTotal synchrotron loss = 5.2 MW, with wall reflection coefficient = 0.6


Euratom

Inductive H-mode with reference confinementq95 3, H98 1


EuratomITER reference inductive operationScenario 2 : Ip 15 MA (q95 3), H98 1, Q 10, Pfus 400

MWITER ind. HELIOS GTBURN IDM/PPA (2004)

R / a (m) 6.20 / 2.00 6.20 / 2.00 6.20 / 2.00

V (m3) 827 832 831

S (m2) / L (m) 684 / 18.2 - / - 683 / 18.2

Ip (MA) 15 15 15

Bt (T) 5.3 5.3 5.3

95 / 95 1.7 / 0.33 1.7 / 0.33 1.7 / 0.33

q95 3.00 (fit) 3.00 3.0 (MHD)

n 0.01 0.01 -

T 0.966 0.966 -

Pfus (MW) 400 400 400

Q 10 (Pfus/Pext) 10.4 10 (Pfus/Padd)

He/E 5 5 5

fBe (%) 2 2 2

fAr (%) 0.12 0.12 0.12

Little pb

OK

Note

Pb

Difference in Q probably from use of fraction of line radiation in net power. In future will use T=0.905 which gives Q=10

GTBURN power balance:

Palpha=+80.1MW

Paux=+37.5MW

Pohm=+0.9MW

Pbrem=-21.2MW

Psync=-3.3MW

Pline_core=Pl/3=5.9MW

Pcond=+88.1MW


EuratomITER reference inductive operationScenario 2 : Ip 15 MA (q95 3), H98 1, Q 10, Pfus 400

MWne (1020 m-3) 1.01 1.01 1.01

0.850 0.850 0.85

Te (keV) 8.82 8.80 8.8

fHe (%) 2.86 (cte) 3.09 3.2 (ave)

Zeff 1.66 1.66 1.66

Wth (MJ) 322 322 320

Padd (MW) 38.8 36.7 40 (33 + 7)

fBS (%) 15.4 (j 1) 13.4 15

NNth) 1.72 (1.64) 1.72 (1.63) 1.8 (1.62)

PB (MW) 21.3 21.2 21

PS (MW) 3.92 3.29 8

Pcon / Psep (MW) 95.8 / 65.5 88.0 / 78.8 -

P (2)LH (MW) 70.0 70.0 69

Pline (MW) 49.6 15.2 -

Pline/Pnet (%) 51.8 - -

Pline-bulk (MW) 30.2 18

Pnon-rad (MW) 46.2 -

qpeak (MW/m2) 3.28 - < 5

Gen n

Little pb

OK

Note

Pb

I haven’t checked the divertor model in GTBURN, so am not using it.


Euratom

Inductive H-mode, reference confinement, full field (5.3 T, 15 MA)

Psep PLH

Scenario 2

max 11Q(1)

Q 5

10

11 L-H

PFUS =300 MW

400 MW

500 MW

N

(th) = 2

Greenwald

fGr = 0.85

Scenario 2

5.3 T / 15 MA, H98=1, HE*/E=5, fBe=2%, fAr=0.12%, n=0.01, T=0.905


Euratom

Inductive H-mode, full field (5.3 T, 15 MA) P>2PL-H

Psep 2 PLH

Qmax 8.2

Q 5

8.2

10

11

L-HP

FUS =300 MW

400 MW

500 MW

N(th) = 2

Greenwald

fGr = 0.85



Euratom

Inductive H-mode, full field (5.3 T, 15 MA)

Q 5

8.2

10

11

L-HP

FUS =300 MW

400 MW

500 MW

N(th) = 2

Greenwald

fGr = 0.85


□ P≥PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤10.4

◊ P≥PL-H, fGr≤1: Q≤11

Δ P≥2PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤8.2

2L-H


Euratom

Inductive H-mode, 10% reduced field (4.77 T, 13.5 MA)

Q 4.9

5

5.7

5.8

PFUS =300 MW

400 MW

500 MW

N(th) = 2

Greenwald

fGr = 0.85

4.77 T / 13.5 MA, H98=1, HE*/E=5, fBe=2%, fAr=0.12%, n=0.01, T=0.905

□ P≥PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤5.7

◊ P≥PL-H, fGr≤1: Q≤5.8

Δ P≥2PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤4.9L-H

2L-H


Euratom

Inductive H-mode with +20% confinement, full field (5.3 T, 15 MA)

q95 3, H98 1.2


Euratom

Inductive H-mode, +20% confinement, full field (5.3 T, 15 MA)

Q 5

9.9

48

54

PFUS =300 MW

400 MW

500 MW

N(th) = 2

Greenwald

fGr = 0.85

5.3 T / 15 MA, H98=1.2, HE*/E=5, fBe=2%, fAr=0.12%, n=0.01, T=0.905

□ P≥PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤48

◊ P≥PL-H, fGr≤1: Q≤54

Δ P≥2PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤9.9

20L-H

2L-H


Euratom

Inductive H-mode, +20% confinement, reduced field (4.77 T, 13.5 MA)

Q 5

6.8

16.4

PFUS =300 MW

400 MW

500 MW

N(th) = 2

Greenwald

fGr = 0.85

4.77 T / 13.5 MA, H98=1.2, HE*/E=5, fBe=2%, fAr=0.12%, n=0.01, T=0.905

□ P≥PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤16.4

◊ P≥PL-H, fGr≤1: Q≤16.4

Δ P≥2PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤6.8

10L-H

2L-H


Euratom

Inductive H-mode with regular confinement, full field, low q95 (5.3 T, 17 MA)

q95 2.65, H98 1.0


Euratom

Inductive H-mode, improved current, full field (5.3 T, 17 MA)

Q 5

13.6

23.4

PFUS =300 MW

400 MW

500 MW

N(th) = 2

Greenwald

fGr = 0.85

5.3 T / 17 MA, H98=1.0, HE*/E=5, fBe=2%, fAr=0.12%, n=0.01, T=0.905

□ P≥PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤23.4

◊ P≥PL-H, fGr≤1: Q≤27

Δ P≥2PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤13.610

L-H

2L-H

27


Euratom

Inductive H-mode, improved current, reduced field (4.77 T, 15.3 MA)

Q 5

10

10.8

PFUS =300 MW

400 MW

500 MW

N(th) = 2

Greenwald

fGr = 0.85

4.77 T / 15.3 MA, H98=1.0, HE*/E=5, fBe=2%, fAr=0.12%, n=0.01, T=0.905

□ P≥PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤10.8

◊ P≥PL-H, fGr≤1: Q≤11.3

Δ P≥2PL-H, fGr≤0.85: Q≤7.97.9L-H

2L-H

11.3


Euratom

t p

98 LH sep LH

98 sep LH

He E

Be Ar

4.77 T, 13.5 MA

0.8 for < < 2

1 for > 2

5

2 %, 0.12 %

0.01, 0.966n T

B I

H P P P

H P P

f f

max 4.7Q

Qmax for H98 0.8 when PLH < Psep < 2PLH

and H98 1 when Psep > 2PLH

Padd 89.5 MW max


Euratom

Summary of predicted fusion products

scenario 85% nGr

100% Gr

2L-H 85% nGr

100% Gr

2L-H

5.3T/15MA , H=1 11 12.3 8.1 10 11 7.3

4.77T/13.5MA , H=1 5.7 5.8 4.9 5.6 6 4.7

5.3T/15MA , H=1.2 48 54 9.9 31 31 10

4.77T/13.5MA , H=1.2 16.4 16.4 6.8 14 14 6.6

5.3T/17MA , H=1 23.4 27 13.6 >20 27 12

4.77T/15.3MA , H=1 10.8 11.3 7.9 >10 11.5 7.2

5.3T/15MA , H=0.8 3.6 3.7 3.6

GTBURN HELIOS

- Same trends in codes. GTBURN generally shows smaller Q range for varying constraints

- Confidence intervals: H=0.8-1.2 in 5.3T/15MA with 85% Gr and P>PL-H => Q=3.6-48


Euratom

Comments on existing work

Power balance for GTBURN seems to give slightly different results to HELIOS. Seems to be due to the fact that GTBURN takes some line radiation from the core (≈6MW in Scenario 2 operating point)

T 0.905 is chosen for the reference ITER scenario 2 operating point: Q 10, Pfus 400 MW (magenta square) to sit exactly at ne/nGr 0.85

Results in bigger differences in Q, with GTBURN giving maximum Q≈11 for n=nGr in scenario 2 compared with Q≈12.3 for HELIOS (blue square).

If Psep 2 PLH is required for good confinement, the maximum Q for H-mode inductive operation of ITER with fBe 2 %, fAr 0.12 %, *HE/E

5 is Q(2)max 8.2 (magenta square) compared with Q(2)

max 7.3 for

HELIOS

Similar differences with HELIOS for other scenarios


Euratom

Future plans

Complete benchmark exercise with HELIOS. Resolve reason for difference (line radiation.?) and resolve which method will be taken as standard.

Extend study to other scenarios.

Examine confidence intervals, based on those given for L-H threshold and confinement times.

Look at other confinement scalings (beta scaling)

Study density effects. Peaking [Weisen et al] and density limits [Borass et al]

Documents

ITER 0D sensitivity analysis (On request by Vassili Parail via ITM)