Global Stability Issues for a Next Step Burning Plasma Experiment UFA Burning Plasma Workshop Austin, Texas December 11, 2000 S. C. Jardin with input from.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Reconnection: Theory and Computation Programs and Plans C. C. Hegna Presented for E. Zweibel University of Wisconsin CMSO Meeting Madison, WI August 4,

Advertisements

Glenn Bateman Lehigh University Physics Department

EXTENDED MHD SIMULATIONS: VISION AND STATUS D. D. Schnack and the NIMROD and M3D Teams Center for Extended Magnetohydrodynamic Modeling PSACI/SciDAC.

Physics Basis of FIRE Next Step Burning Plasma Experiment Charles Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory U.S.-Japan Workshop on Fusion Power Plant.

YQ Liu, Peking University, Feb 16-20, 2009 Resonant Field Amplification Yueqiang Liu UKAEA Culham Science Centre Abingdon, Oxon OX14 3DB, UK.

ARIES-Advanced Tokamak Power Plant Study Physics Analysis and Issues Charles Kessel, for the ARIES Physics Team Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory U.S.-Japan.

Stability, Transport, and Conrol for the discussion Y. Miura IEA/LT Workshop (W59) combined with DOE/JAERI Technical Planning of Tokamak Experiments (FP1-2)

A Kinetic-Fluid Model for Studying Thermal and Fast Particle Kinetic Effects on MHD Instabilities C. Z. Cheng, N. Gorelenkov and E. Belova Princeton Plasma.

6 th ITPA MHD Topical Group Meeting combined with W60 IEA Workshop on Burning Plasmas Session II MHD Stability and Fast Particle Confinement General scope.

ELECTRON CYCLOTRON SYSTEM FOR KSTAR US-Korea Workshop Opportunities for Expanded Fusion Science and Technology Collaborations with the KSTAR Project Presented.

Emmanuel JoffrinXXth Fusion Energy Conference, November The « hybrid » scenario in JET: towards its validation for ITER E. Joffrin, A. C. C. Sips,

R Sartori - page 1 20 th IAEA Conference – Vilamoura Scaling Studies of ELMy H-modes global and pedestal confinement at high triangularity in JET R Sartori.

IAEA - FEC2004 // Vilamoura // // EX/4-5 // A. Staebler – 1 – A. Staebler, A.C.C Sips, M. Brambilla, R. Bilato, R. Dux, O. Gruber, J. Hobirk,

Physics Analysis for Equilibrium, Stability, and Divertors ARIES Power Plant Studies Charles Kessel, PPPL DOE Peer Review, UCSD August 17, 2000.

Proposals for Next Year’s MFE Activities C. Kessel, PPPL ARIES Project Meeting, Sept. 24, 2000.

Optimization of a Steady-State Tokamak-Based Power Plant Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA IEA Workshop 59 “Shape and.

1 MHD for Fusion Where to Next? Jeff Freidberg MIT.

Predictive Integrated Modeling Simulations Using a Combination of H-mode Pedestal and Core Models Glenn Bateman, Arnold H. Kritz, Thawatchai Onjun, Alexei.

Y. Sakamoto JAEA Japan-US Workshop on Fusion Power Plants and Related Technologies with participations from China and Korea February 26-28, 2013 at Kyoto.

Advanced Tokamak Plasmas and the Fusion Ignition Research Experiment Charles Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Spring APS, Philadelphia, 4/5/2003.

TOTAL Simulation of ITER Plasmas Kozo YAMAZAKI Nagoya Univ., Chikusa-ku, Nagoya , Japan 1.

JT-60U Resistive Wall Mode (RWM) Study on JT-60U Go Matsunaga 松永剛 Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Naka, Japan JSPS-CAS Core University Program 2008 in ASIPP.

1 Integrated Simulation Code for Burning Plasma Analysis T.Ozeki, N.Aiba, N.Hayashi, T.Takizuka, M.Sugihara 2, N.Oyama JAERI 、 ITER-IT 2 IEA Large Tokamak.

Overview of MHD and extended MHD simulations of fusion plasmas Guo-Yong Fu Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Princeton, New Jersey, USA Workshop on ITER.

TH/7-2 Radial Localization of Alfven Eigenmodes and Zonal Field Generation Z. Lin University of California, Irvine Fusion Simulation Center, Peking University.

Japanese Efforts on the Integrated Modeling - Part II : JAEA Contribution - T. Takizuka (JAEA) acknowledgments : T. Ozeki, N. Hayashi, N. Aiba, K. Shimizu,

Advanced Tokamak Regimes in the Fusion Ignition Research Experiment (FIRE) 30th Conference on Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics St. Petersburg, Russia.

Discussions and Summary for Session 1 ‘Transport and Confinement in Burning Plasmas’ Yukitoshi MIURA JAERI Naka IEA Large Tokamak Workshop (W60) Burning.

NSTX-U NSTX-U PAC-31 Response to Questions – Day 1 Summary of Answers Q: Maximum pulse length at 1MA, 0.75T, 1 st year parameters? –A1: Full 5 seconds.

ITER Standard H-mode, Hybrid and Steady State WDB Submissions R. Budny, C. Kessel PPPL ITPA Modeling Topical Working Group Session on ITER Simulations.

MHD Limits to Tokamak Operation and their Control Hartmut Zohm ASDEX Upgrade credits: G. Gantenbein (Stuttgart U), A. Keller, M. Maraschek, A. Mück DIII-D.

G.Huysmansworkshop : Principles of MHD 21-24/3/2005 MHD in Tokamak Plasmas Guido Huysmans Association Euratom/CEA Cadarache, France with contributions.

ARIES-AT Physics Overview presented by S.C. Jardin with input from C. Kessel, T. K. Mau, R. Miller, and the ARIES team US/Japan Workshop on Fusion Power.

Implications of TFTR D-T Experiments for ITER R.J. Hawryluk May 23, 2014.

Integrated Modeling for Burning Plasmas Workshop (W60) on “Burning Plasma Physics and Simulation 4-5 July 2005, University Campus, Tarragona, Spain Under.

MHD Suppression with Modulated LHW on HT-7 Superconducting Tokamak* Support by National Natural Science Fund of China No J.S.Mao, J.R.Luo, B.Shen,

Kinetic MHD Simulation in Tokamaks H. Naitou, J.-N. Leboeuf †, H. Nagahara, T. Kobayashi, M. Yagi ‡, T. Matsumoto*, S. Tokuda* Joint Meeting of US-Japan.

STUDIES OF NONLINEAR RESISTIVE AND EXTENDED MHD IN ADVANCED TOKAMAKS USING THE NIMROD CODE D. D. Schnack*, T. A. Gianakon**, S. E. Kruger*, and A. Tarditi*

EJD IAEA H-mode WS,, September 28, Overview Introduction — steady-state performance requirements -Global DIII-D and NSTX progress Plasma control.

ITER STEADY-STATE OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS A.R. Polevoi for ITER IT and HT contributors ITER-SS 1.

AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc NSO Collaboration Implications.

JT-60U -1- Access to High  p (advanced inductive) and Reversed Shear (steady state) plasmas in JT-60U S. Ide for the JT-60 Team Japan Atomic Energy Agency.

RFX workshop / /Valentin Igochine Page 1 Control of MHD instabilities. Similarities and differences between tokamak and RFP V. Igochine, T. Bolzonella,

PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE FOR PIPELINE PROTECTION AND THREAT INTERDICTION International Plan for ELM Control Studies Presented by M.R. Wade (for A. Leonard)

1 Stability Studies Plans (FY11) E. Fredrickson, For the NCSX Team NCSX Research Forum Dec. 7, 2006 NCSX.

The influence of non-resonant perturbation fields: Modelling results and Proposals for TEXTOR experiments S. Günter, V. Igochine, K. Lackner, Q. Yu IPP.

Implications of TFTR D-T Experiments for Burning Plasma Program R. J. Hawryluk IEA Large Tokamak Workshop (W60) Burning Plasma Physics and Simulation Tarragona,

Steady State Discharge Modeling for KSTAR C. Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory US-Korea Workshop - KSTAR Collaborations, 5/19-20/2004.

Physics Analysis and Flexibility Issues for FIRE NSO PAC-2 Meeting January 17-18, 2001 S. C. Jardin with input from C.Kessel, J.Mandrekas, D.Meade, and.

Confinement & Transport Plan Classical theory of confinement and transport. o Diffusion equation Particle diffusion in a magnetic field.

Integrated Simulation of ELM Energy Loss Determined by Pedestal MHD and SOL Transport N. Hayashi, T. Takizuka, T. Ozeki, N. Aiba, N. Oyama JAEA Naka TH/4-2.

Dependence of Pedestal Structure on Ip and Bt A. Diallo, R. Maingi, S. Zweben, B.P. LeBlanc, B. Stratton, J. Menard, S. Gerhardt, J. Canick, A. McClean,

Optimization of a High-  Steady-State Tokamak Burning Plasma Experiment Based on a High-  Steady-State Tokamak Power Plant D. M. Meade, C. Kessel, S.

MHD Issues and Control in FIRE C. Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Workshop on Active Control of MHD Stability Austin, TX 11/3-5/2003.

20th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, 2004 Naka Fusion Research Establishment, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Stationary high confinement plasmas.

Numerical Study on Ideal MHD Stability and RWM in Tokamaks Speaker: Yue Liu Dalian University of Technology, China Co-Authors: Li Li, Xinyang Xu, Chao.

SMK – APS ‘06 1 NSTX Addresses Transport & Turbulence Issues Critical to Both Basic Toroidal Confinement and Future Devices NSTX offers a novel view into.

Advanced Tokamak Modeling for FIRE C. Kessel, PPPL NSO/PAC Meeting, University of Wisconsin, July 10-11, 2001.

Pedestal Characterization and Stability of Small-ELM Regimes in NSTX* A. Sontag 1, J. Canik 1, R. Maingi 1, J. Manickam 2, P. Snyder 3, R. Bell 2, S. Gerhardt.

4 th General Scientific Assembly of Asia Plasma and Fusion Association (APFA) Hangzhou, China, October , 2003 AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD,

AES, ANL, Boeing, Columbia U., CTD, GA, GIT, LLNL, INEEL, MIT, ORNL, PPPL, SNL, SRS, UCLA, UCSD, UIIC, UWisc FIRE Collaboration FIRE.

Long Pulse High Performance Plasma Scenario Development for NSTX C. Kessel and S. Kaye - providing TRANSP runs of specific discharges S.

Overview of PPPL Field Work Proposal Opportunities in Macroscopic Stability J. Menard for the MHD Science Focus Group Tuesday, November 22, 2005 Supported.

U NIVERSITY OF S CIENCE AND T ECHNOLOGY OF C HINA Influence of ion orbit width on threshold of neoclassical tearing modes Huishan Cai 1, Ding Li 2, Jintao.

J. Menard for the MHD Science Focus Group Tuesday, November 22, 2005

L-H power threshold and ELM control techniques: experiments on MAST and JET Carlos Hidalgo EURATOM-CIEMAT Acknowledgments to: A. Kirk (MAST) European.

Diagnosis of Pellet Induced Bootstrap Current with Alfvén Cascades

Non-Local Effects on Pedestal Kinetic Ballooning Mode Stability

Integrated Modeling for Burning Plasmas

No ELM, Small ELM and Large ELM Strawman Scenarios

Presentation transcript:

Global Stability Issues for a Next Step Burning Plasma Experiment UFA Burning Plasma Workshop Austin, Texas December 11, 2000 S. C. Jardin with input from C.Kessel, J.Manickam, D.Meade, P.Rutherford

Workshop charge boils down to two questions in each area: Are we ready to design a burning plasma experiment with confidence that it will succeed ? What will we learn from it if we do build it? Note the trap we can fall into if the answer to either of these is too positive: the key is the right balance

I A (MA) B R 5/ Let us consider FIRE, as it is being proposed as a next step burning plasma experiment JET, JET-U FIRE AIRES designs A major step in the study of alpha- heating dominated plasmas, and in simultaneous (  *,  *) values Provides critical data point in a new parameter regime for benchmarking of advanced MHD+  -particle simulation codes Will demonstrate self-organization in core and edge in a way that cannot be totally predicted

FIRE operating modes I P (MA)B T T(s)  N f BS Standard operating mode (LF) High-field (shorter pulse mode) Advanced Tokamak 1 st stability Reversed Shear Wall stabilized

Guidelines for Predicting Plasma Performance Confinement (Elmy H-mode) ITER98(y,2):  E = I 0.93 R 1.39 a 0.58 n B 0.15 A i 0.19  0.78 P heat H(y,2) Density Limit: n 20 < 0.75 n GW = 0.75 I P /  a 2 H-Mode Power Threshold: P th > (2.84/A i ) n B 0.82 R a 0.81

High Field: H = 1.0 (12 T, 7.7 MA)Low Field: H = 1.2 (10 T, 6.5 MA) Time (sec) Q > 10 for 9 secQ > 10 for 18 sec  -heating ICRF total

S = (1+  2 )/2  = a/R

High Field Low Field i /2 q 95

Physics Question: Role of the m=1 mode Ideal MHD theory predicts m=1,n=1 mode unstable at design  for q 0 < 1 High-n ballooning modes also predicted to be unstable in the vicinity of and interior to the q=1 surface Proper physics description must take into account: energetic particle drive, kinetic stabilization, 2-fluid effects, and non-linear saturation mechanism This should be [and is] one of the major thrusts of the 3D macroscopic simulations communities FIRE will provide critical data point for code benchmarking and hence for extrapolations

Low Field: 10 T, 6.5 MA time (sec) surface number axis edge q = 1 q = 2 q = 3 PEST unstable eigenfunction at t=12.5 sec Balloon and Mercier stability

High Field: 12 T, 7.7 MA time (sec) surface number edge q = 1 q = 2 q = 3 PEST unstable eigenfunction at t=12.5 sec axis Balloon and Mercier stability

Comparison of unstable Eigenvalues Low Field  2 = High Field  2 =

UNSTABLE STABLE q'….(edge shear) I 90 …(edge current) Manickam FIRE nominal operating point is stable to kink modes. Relation of stability boundary and ELMs being studied  = 3.3%  N = 2.61 Stability boundary for plasmas with the FIRE ,  and A, and with q 95 =3.1

(From LaHaye, Butter, Guenter, Huysmans, Marashek, and Wilson) Physics question: NTM neoclassical tearing mode sets  limits in many long-pulse discharges scaling of this to new devices largely result of empirical fitting of quasi- linear formula this is another major thrust of 3D macroscopic modeling effort active feedback looks feasible FIRE will provide critical data point

conventional operating modes the effect of H-mode profiles on MHD stability (Manickam, Chu,…) relation to ELMS, n ~ 5-10 peeling modes, bootstrap currents error fields and locked modes (LaHaye, et al) need to assess disruption effects reversed shear operating modes characterization of no-wall advanced mode for entire discharge (Ramos) wall stabilized advanced modes (GA/PPPL/Columbia experiments on DIII) other advanced modes off axis CD to raise q 0 (Kessel) edge current drive to improve stability (?) Other Physics Issues for FIRE

Example of Perturbation Study that can be done on FIRE: ICRF heating power increased by 5 or 10MW for 6 sec Other suggestions for XPs welcome !

Summary Overall, MHD stability looks favorable. Primary uncertainty is in non-catastrophic areas. MHD activity associated with q=1 surface edge currents due to H-mode pedestals (ELMs) neoclassical tearing modes. Active feedback requirements error fields and locked modes What will we learn? How does core self-organize with  ’s and m=1 mode? How does edge self-organize with bootstrap and ELMs How does interior self-organize with NTM, at new (  *, *) How well can our codes predict these nonlinear events ?