Upload
matilda-wilcox
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Systems Analysis Development for ARIES Next Step
C. E. Kessel1, Z. Dragojlovic2, and R. Raffrey2
1Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory2University of California, San Diego
ARIES Next Step Meeting, April 3-4, 2007, UCSD
Motivation for a “New” Systems Code
• Systems codes are critical tools in fusion design, because they integrate physics, engineering, design and costing– Scanning can be done with simple models
– Results from detailed analysis can be incorporated for more specific searches
• Our ARIES Systems Code (ASC) has become very cumbersome and has lost its technical maintenance (primarily physics and engineering)
• The approach taken by most (if not all) systems codes has been to produce an optimal operating point, which is often difficult to justify, why is it optimal?
• This does not utilize the power of a systems code, which is to generate many operating points (operating space approach)
Operating Space Approach to Systems Analysis
• On the FIRE project I developed a systems code that combined physics and engineering analysis for a burning plasma experiment, which found the minimum major radius solution within several constraints
• For Snowmass 2002 I took the physics part out, and began to use it to generate many physics operating points, that satisfied multiple physics boundaries/constraints ---> physics operating space
• Finally I started to use a second code that took the all the viable physics operating points and imposed engineering constraints (divertor heat load, FW surface heat load, nuclear heating, TF coil heating, PF coil heating, etc) and physics filters to find feasible operating space
Operating Space Approach: Feasible Operating Space (Physics and Engr.)
ELMy H-modeH98 ≤ 1.1
AT-modeH98 ≤ 2.0FIRE
The Operating Space Approach Has Several Advantages
• Operating space approach to systems analysis makes the effect of constraints more transparent
• Many constraints carry a lot of uncertainty, which can be quantified
• Sequencing the analysis through 1) physics operating space, 2) engineering operating space, and 3) device build and cost, will provide a better explanation of available operating points and why they are desirable
Systems Code Being Developed
Plasmas that satisfy power and particle balance
Inboard radial build and engineering limits
Top and outboard build, and costing
physics engineering build out/cost
Large systems scans
Targeted systems scans
Operating point search and sensitivity scans, supported by detailed analysis
Systems applications
Systems analysis flow
Systems Code Being Developed
• Physics module:– Plasma geometry (R, a, , , o, I)– Power and particle balance– Bremsstrahlung, cyclotron, line radiation– Up to 4 heating/CD sources– Up to 3 impurities beyond e, DT, and He– Bootstrap current, flux consumption, fast beta– …..
• Engineering module:– Physics filters: PCD ≤ Paux
– Feasible inboard radial build (SOL, FW, gap1, blkt, gap2, shld, gap3, VV, gap4, TF, gap5, BC, gap6, PF)
– Pelec = th(PnxMn+Pplas)x(1-fpump-fsubs) - Paux/ aux
– FW peak surface heat flux limit (≤ 0.5-1.0 MW/m2)– Divertor peak heat flux (conduction+radiation, ≤ 20 MW/m2)– BT,max ≤ BT,max
limit, jsc ≤ jsc,max(BT,max)– Bucking cylinder pressure– BPF,max ≤ BPF,max
limit, jsc ≤ jsc,max(BPF,max)– …..
Systems Code Being Developed
• Device Buildout (develop outboard description) and Costing– TF coil shape, full sector maintenance– PF coil layout– Divertor layout– Extension of inboard build to outboard, VV, shield, BC, etc.– Outboard radial build (different from inboard)– Volume/mass calculation– Costing– ……
Physics Module Input/Assumptions
BT
AN
q95 or cyl
n
T
n/nGr
tflattop
He
*/E
li Cejim
breakdown
CD
PCD
rCD
CD1
PCD1
fCD1
rCD1
CD2
PCD2
fCD2
rCD2
CD3
PCD3
fCD3
rCD3
CD4
PCD4
fCD4
rCD4
Hmin
Hmax
R
2
Zimp1
fimp1
Zimp2
fimp2
Zimp3
fimp3
T(0)/Tedge
n(0)/nedge
Input file #1
RABT
IP q95
t
P
N
P
Pbrem
Pcycl
Pline
PLH
Ploss/PLH
Pfusion
Paux
Pohm
<ne>n/nGr
<Te>tflattop/J
frad
Zeff
tflattop
E
P
J
fBS
Nwall
fHe
fDT
fast
H98(y,2)
Wth
consumed
Vloop
fCD
fNI
n(0)/<n>T(0)/<T>
Output file (screen)Can run a single point to determine its power balance
Physics Module Input/Assumptions
nBT
BT,start
BT,final
nN
N,start
N,final
nq95
q95,start
q95,final
nstart
final ...n
T
n/nGr
Paux
QHe
*/E
R CD
fimp1
fimp2
fimp3
Input file #2 (scan parameters)
RABT
IPN q95
qcyl
n
T
n/nGr
QH98(y,2)
J
E
p*/E
<ne>
<Te>tflattop
PLH
Nwall
Pbrem
fBS
CD
PCD
Paux
Pcycl
Pohm
Pline
fast
Zeff
T(0)/Tedge
n(0)/nedge
PCD1
PCD2
Output file (ascii datafile)
PCD3
PCD4
fimp1
fimp2
fimp3
T(0)fCD
fNI
fHe
fDT
Wth
consumed
Vloop
n(0)/<n>T(0)/<T>t
P
P
Ploss/PLH
Can run many points by scanning a variable, and writing a out data
Systems Code Test: Physics Database Intended to Include ARIES-AT Type Solutions
Physics input: (not scanned)A = 4.0= 0.7n = 0.45T = 0.964= 2.1li = 0.5Cejim = 0.45CD = 0.38rCD = 0.2Hmin = 0.5Hmax = 4.0Zimp1 = 4.0fimp1 = 0.02Zimp2 = 0.0015fimp2 = 18.0Tedge /T(0) = 0.0nedge /n(0) = 0.27
Physics input: (scanned)BT = 5.0-10.0 TN = 0.03-0.06q95 = 3.2-4.0n/nGr = 0.4-1.0Q = 25-50He
*/E = 5-10R = 4.8-7.8 m
Generated 408780 physics operating points
Systems Code Test: Engineering Constraint Reduction of Physics Database
gap4i = 0.01 mTFi = solved forgap5i = 0.01 mBCi = solved forgap6i = 0.01 mPFi = solved forNTF = 16.0Btmax, limit = 21 TJsc, max, limit = 2.5x108 A/m2
jTFoverall (ARIES-I)
hBC = 1.2 x 2 x x ahPF = hBC
BPF,max,limit = 16 TJsc, max, limit = 2.5x108 A/m2
Imax = 1/2 x I (provide )PCD ≤ Paux53354 operating points survive
Engineering input/assumptions:
FW radiation peaking = 2.0QFW < 1.0 MW/m2
fdivrad = 0.65
fSOLoutboard/inboard = 0.8/0.2
fflux/angle = 10Qdiv,outboard
peak < 20 MW/m2
Qdiv,inboardpeak < 20 MW/m2
Mblkt = 1.1th/aux = 0.59/0.43fpump = 0.03fsubs = 0.04SOLi = 0.07 mFWi = 0.075 mgap1i = 0.01 mblkti = 0.35 mgap2i = 0.01 mshldi = 0.25 mgap3i = 0.01 mVV = 0.40 m
Filtering the Operating Points Further
975 ≤ Pelec (MW) ≤ 1025975 ≤ Pelec (MW) ≤ 1025Paux ≤ 40 MWR ≤ 5.5 m
ARIES-AT
Looking at a Few Points
R, m BT, T IP, MA
N, %
q95 n/nGr Q H98 Paux, MW
fBS Zeff
5.4 5.0 11 5.5 3.4 0.9 50 1.6 35 0.93 1.9
TF 0.32 BC 0.09 PF 0.05
5.1 5.5 12 5.5 3.4 1.0 50 1.5 36 0.93 2.0
TF 0.36 BC 0.10 PF 0.05
5.1 6.0 14 6.0 3.2 0.9 45 1.9 39 0.95 2.1
TF 0.40 BC 0.11 PF 0.10
4.8 6.5 13 5.5 3.4 1.0 45 1.8 39 0.93 2.1
TF 0.45 BC 0.12 PF 0.10
4.8 7.0 13 5.5 3.6 0.8 45 2.1 39 0.98 2.0
TF 0.49 BC 0.14 PF 0.10
4.8 7.5 13 5.0 4.0 0.9 50 1.9 36 0.99 2.0
TF 0.53 BC 0.15 PF 0.10
How Should We Visualize the Operating Space?
975 ≤ Pelec (MW) ≤ 1025
975 ≤ Pelec (MW) ≤ 1025, Paux ≤ 40 MW, R ≤ 5.5 m
How Should We Visualize the Operating Space?
975 ≤ Pelec (MW) ≤ 1025975 ≤ Pelec (MW) ≤ 1025Paux ≤ 40 MWR ≤ 5.5 m
Future Work - Continue to Exercise Systems Code
• Physics module:– Include squareness, add numerical volume/area calculation
– Additional parameters to scan input file
– Separate electron and ion power balance
– Multiple fusion reactions?
– Reproduce other operating points (ITER, FIRE, ARIES-I, ARIES-ST, etc.)
• Engineering module:– Refine FW and divertor heating models
– Is there an approximate neutronics model for inboard radial build?
– Examine more complex power conversion cycles
– Establish a general TF coil model
– Examine PF equilibrium solutions
– Anticipate detailed analysis constraints/inputs to systems code
– Plotting and outputing results of scans/filters etc.
Neutronics for Inboard Radial Build
• FW/Blanket lifetime limited by damage/gas production > 2 years• Shield limited by damage/gas production > 7 years• VV is lifetime component, reweldability• FW/Blanket/Shield/VV provides neutron attenuation at TF
magnet (nuclear heating, Cu damage, insulator dose, …) • Blanket provides limited tritium breeding• Deposited surface heat flux removed by FW• Deposited volumetric heating removed by FW/Blanket/Shield• Generic material fractions in each component• Estimates for neutron power fraction to inboard• …..