Presentation on theme: "ITER WC Review Started : March 2007 (4 meetings) Official Members : M Shimada, D. Whyte, V. Rohde, N Ashikawa, JS Hu and C Grisolia Several contributors:"— Presentation transcript:
ITER WC Review Started : March 2007 (4 meetings) Official Members : M Shimada, D. Whyte, V. Rohde, N Ashikawa, JS Hu and C Grisolia Several contributors: E De La Cal, A Lyssoivan, V Philips, R Doerner, G Counsell, R. Koch, Paco Tabares, Jerome Bucalossi, … Review in progress: today report: minutes of group discussion & technical assessment in the frame of the current design: Be main wall + C/W divertor (not a metallic machine) review design: review the WC system & address open issues (if any) WC is for: VV preparation before start up (cleaning, degreasing, Water removal,…) conditioning during operation with and without Bt to reduce low Z contamination to control Be oxidation and recycling to allow safe and reproducible start up to permit restart after disruption to participate to T inventory control
B T =0 GDC VV & PFC Preparation BT0BT0 RF Repetitive Plasma Breakdown Plasma Control of T Oxygen in Tokamak coatings WC diagnostics ITER WC Consequences on PFC
GDC GDC Surfaces Accessibility (insert & remote area) GDC Operational parameters GDC Design Evolution GD BeO De-oxidation GDC with O 2 See use of O 2 In tokamak Dust removal Conclusions
Ferritic insert (>10gauss on PFC) Br to zero ( BT<0) Technically possible? Ferritic insert Non activated What WC Needed ? Main Vessel Divertor Remote Surfaces Main Vessel Remote surfaces Divertor HFS okLFS Nok Needed ? okNever 0? WC with High Energy neutral ICRH okGC nok? ok Ok If insert Non active in Div. Under and in the divertor castellations ICRH ok WC with High Energy neutral ICRH ok WC with High Energy neutral OxygenPossible? Added anodes (heated)? Ferritic insert (<10Gauss on PFC) GDC surfaces accessibility
T of Surface During Glow? Number of Electrodes & power T°: Calculation during Plasma operation Coating Of electrode GD Operational parameters Breaking voltage Be on Cu? Too low: To 5kV (ok) Alloy at 500°C Not need of Be Insulation (Al2O3) Need protection from H (ok) Calculation needed VV pumping Speed (cryo + coal) (to be discussed) Too low compare to current machines (same as AUG) Wall T° 240°C ok If homogeneous Diagnostic in the Anode? T as high as possible. Mandatory = homogeneity Use of gas (In pipe or In vessel) Position of movable anode Too close to divertor wall 6 anodes 10kW each Without B, roots ok?
GD Design Evolution GD in remote area GD anodes on VV wall
GD BeO de-oxidation Normal Tokamak operation oxide layer ( 5 nm) Non Normal Tokamak operation: after O °C surface T° treatment Thick oxide layer? To be studied if O2 Relevant fro Tokamak treatment GDC Ar+ or He+ Rapid layer Removal? Needed to prepare startup Argon trapping?Dust production? 1 days of glow Possible Not observed in Cmod 1kg of Be or BeO In 150days of glow (negligible compare to plasma) R&D needed!
GD & Dust removal Possibility to use a Anode electrode for dust recovery Action range = several meters
Heated filament (end of tube) GDC in remote area He, 1Pa/1A Without Heater With Heater Glow plasma not in remote zone lack of secondary electrons Heaters in tube: glow pushed in Anode in tube: Glow pushed out but : Glow in ITER Ducts allowed? Title: Divertor gas injector and subdivertor anodes for tritium/carbon co-deposition control and removal Issue Description: Redesign of the cassettes and divertor fuelling systems to allow for toroidally symmetric gas injection and local glow discharge conditioning under the dome area. Check the possibility of using the gas tubes as anodes.
GD: Electrodes attached to the main vessel wall Tore Supra Much better solution than movable anode (common advice from WC sub group) used in several large machines (Textor/JET/AUG/Tore Supra/DIIID) No problem of homogeneity of glow even if placed close to the wall Pro: No movement: minimise the risk of leak Place for other system Design as a small remote limiter No pb of wall erosion Cons: Maintenance problem Design: Insulation (neutrons?) protected cables W7X
GD Conclusions GDC design simple modifications: Breakdown voltage, coatings, … GDC and ferritic inserts: could work if Br less than 10 Gauss if not, procedure needed to reduce Br or other Conditioning technique (RF?) VV pumping facility too small (to be improved?) GDC for BeO de oxidation: ok GDC under divertor: not ok. design improvement possible (secondary electrons emitters?) GDC major modification: fixed electrodes (To be studied) GDC system use for Dust recovery (To be studied) R&D needed!
WC Diagnostics Anode Diagnostics + WC hardware system Diag: Anode current and voltage monitor Thermocouple in Anode Arc detection (and limitation) If ICRH heating antenna used (?): embarked diag for arc detection spectro for plasma detection Global Diagnostics: Very robust diagnostics needed as RGA, P gauges but good hardware needed (good conductance) P gauges : baratron type Video mandatory (perhaps only H2 learning phase) Local diagnostics needed in order to assess the homogeneity of treatment: LIBS Current collectors (wall langmuir probes?) Possibility of sample collection (Hydrogen phase)
Consequences on PFC PFC surface morphology increase of dislocation (He GDC, metal, LHD, Miyamoto, 2004) trapped He bubbles (HeGD, metal, LHD) gas trapping in “carbon” (?) machine (HeGD, Tore Supra) erosion of copper mirror (HeGD, Tore Supra) Surface composition changes presence of metal (Fe, Cr) redeposition (He GDC, metal, LHD) presence of metal (Fe, Cu, Ni) redeposition (He GDC, CFC, Tore Supra) presence of carbon layers (in vessel surfaces, HeGD, TS) Dust creation: not yet addressed Need of a common R&D
VV and PFC Preparation Needs: Procedure to prepare and installed PFC including leak test procedures information from all current machines needed (nothing published) Procedure for maintenance example of considered problems with air ingress: Be pollution Flaking of layers: dust production (limited inventory) VV: Temperature of the PFC: as higher as possible: 240°C ok, homogeneity needed. However, for VV preparation, Hot N2 in empty water loop could be considered after water leak or for VV preparation. need to be confirmed (due to mass of components) However, Hot N2 injection in VV in order to heat PFC surfaces Same possibility with localised heating system via laser and RH.
Repetitive plasma breakdown: Why? After disruption, (often) ramp up impossible In TS, Glow inefficient due to permanent Toroidal field glow possible but lost of operational time 30’/30’ to decrease/increase Bt (ICRH possible but not desirable due to a leak observed after a metallisation of the insulated feed through ) Often, ramp up after several plasma breakdown time consuming again (since normal procedure of plasma start up) In 1998, special procedure developed to realised consecutive high frequency plasma start up and restore Ip ramp up
Repetitive plasma breakdown: How? Repetitive alternative plasma (He), poloidal breakdown Pulsed tension on the central solenoid coil (5 Hz square voltage) Low plasma current (<40kA) at 10 V loop voltage (40kW/pulse) Cycle: [2s of plasma and 8s of pumping] during 120 s
Repetitive plasma breakdown: Results (1) All He injected is ionised during plasma He, HD but also CO and CO 2 produced Time constant of pressure >> vessel pumping constant: wall desorption. Production = low but 3xGlow production (comparable time) (equivalent to 10 minutes of HeGD)
Repetitive plasma breakdown: Results (2) 40kW per pulse, 2.2 MJ for 120s procedure (5 more than HeGD)
Repetitive plasma breakdown: Conclusions 1 cycle of 120s is sufficient to restart plasma (almost always) Then a full ohmic discharge is needed (with no gas injection) TS conditioning relies now mostly on this procedure to start the plasma operation: D 2 GD followed by HeGD (every 15 days, due to all actively cooled device) for Wall desaturation or Disruption recovery: Repetitive Break Down one limitation: increase of T° in the Supra coils due to eddy currents Today, R&D studies to estimate how this conditioning procedure is active and improve know-how. (Possibility to study this technique for ITER)
RF ECRH vs ICRH Dedicated antenna or not ITER ICRH Parameters Why? Unique possibility to condition the machine in presence of Bt (constant field) Conclusions
RF: ECRH versus ICRH Comparison in several machines: efficiency higher for ICRH than ECRH Confirmed by a dedicated study in one machine: TEXTOR ICRH “better” due to high energy ions and neutrals Homogeneity of conditioning better with IRCH than ECRH even if some poloidal inhomogeneities exist with ICRH (could be optimised by low vertical field) However, ECRH localised (B T =cst + poloidal field). good point : treat fixed location Presence of high energy neutrals during ICRH to treat castellation This has to be confirmed (experiment considered in TEXTOR) ICRH does not clean shadowed areas. However, reactive etching could be used to treat remote area (with oxygen) (done in TEXTOR and HT-7 but ITER?)
RF: Dedicated antenna or not Dedicated antenna needs a new design could be studied and installed on the GDC anode (budget??) Better solution is to use the ICRH “heating” system for conditioning: done in almost all the machine (AUG, TEXTOR, HT-7) (except in TS where a metallisation of insulation was observed TBC!) minimise the risk has to be done: R&D in the WP of current machine in order to establish right “recipe” Optimization of gas breakdown phase how to eliminate gas breakdown inside the antenna box? Improvement of antenna-plasma coupling during RF plasma production Recipes for the RF plasma homogeneity improvement in large-size machines Control over the generation of high-energy ions/CX neutrals in ICRF plasmas. Add diagnostics in the antenna and in weak zone to control arcing etc…
RF: ICRH Parameters for ITER Breakdown pressure: 0.5 Pa (JET, TEXTOR, AUG) ECRH could help to get lower BP (but need to be tested) Low operating pressure: <0.1 Pa (to avoid arcing in antenna) lower pressure + Higher ICRH power: higher energy per particle (T removal considered) P injected between 1 and 3 MW (preliminary estimation, to be confirm) Operating with active gases possible and tested in several machines 30 to 60 MHZ with a capability of frequency sweeping (1-3 MHz/s) to scan the divertor area Can be used to treat high Z material & castellations.
RF: Conclusions ICRH more efficient than ECRH ICRH could be used to treat castellation (to be studied) Dedicated antenna: need of a new design (and budget!) ICRH heating system could be used for WC (to be discussed with the Heating WG) as in all machine need of antenna diagnostics and protection need R&D to establish ITER recipe
Plasma Conditioning Plasma Discharges Disruption cleaning Use plasma For conditioning
Plasma conditioning: Disruption cleaning Possible at low Ip ITER current Play with radiation to heat films (massive gas injection) High fuel desorption capability BUT: Homogeneity? (divertor treatment?) Dust formation!!! Gas trapping in the wall (pollution!) Pb of cryo pumps capability R&D needed (in the frame of the ITPA?)
Plasma conditioning: plasma discharges (Maingi, NF, 1996) Proposed to remove the trapped fuel. But (Th Loarer): Not confirmed by T JET experiments Play with “active surface trapping” only (dynamic retention) Efficient to help the start up (create a pumping wall) Un-efficient to remove “all” the fuel trapped
Oxygen in tokamak (T Haasz ) 523K 623K Pro : work with pure C films acts in remote places (!) Cons: not working with mixture oxide protection much more high T° to remove carbon if Be inclusions not working at low T° Could be induced locally by laser: more complicated pb of flaking to high T concentration in water (not possible to process) Conclusions: Even if not in the scope of this review, O2 not relevant (?) for ITER detritiation. Forum needed: to coordinate a “systemic” approach to propose a coordinate WP to determine the better gas to be used
Coatings Coatings not needed in a Be machine. not the case for an all metal machine! Question : is div. transient coating needed for X point preparation? If coating needed: Be evaporator not suitable (?) (Magnetic field, place, line of sight) Diborane injection in GD good solution. (possibility of Diborane injection in current ramp down?). Need of Local gas injector in the divertor region Dedicated pumping system (cryo pollution if )
Design of movable electrode The GDC design has been modified. Due to the weight of the electrode (250kg), the articulation is removed In that case, the GDC anode goes in the VV almost horizontally. The electrode is 150mm in diameter. X