DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski8/11/2006 TF-E Size and amplitude scaling of ELM-wall...
-
Upload
miles-greene -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski8/11/2006 TF-E Size and amplitude scaling of ELM-wall...
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-E
Size and amplitude scaling of ELM-wall interaction on JET and ITER
W.Fundamenski and O.E.Garcia
Euratom/UKAEA Fusion Association, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, OX14 3DB, UK
This work was funded jointly by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and by the European Communities under the contract of Association between EURATOM and UKAEA. The view and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EOpen question: Size & amplitude scaling
A.Loarte et al., Phys. Plasma, 11 (2004) 2668T. Eich et al., J. Nucl. Mater., 337-339 (2005) 669
Why do bigger, more intense ELMs deposit a larger fraction of their energy on the wall ?
or, in the context of a filament model, why do larger ELM filaments travel faster ?
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-E
Origin of plasma motion in non-uniform B-field
Momentum conservation equation
Denoting LHS by F and taking a curl yields a general plasma vorticity equation,
where is the magnetic curvature, eg. in MHD, the two terms on the RHS correspond to flux tube bending (kink) and interchange (ballooning). Term by term, this equation can be recast as a charge conservation or current continuity equation,
which expresses the balance of polarisation, parallel and diamagnetic currents
R.D.Hazeltine and J.D.Meiss, Phys. Rep., 121 (1985) 1, or Plasma Confinement (1992) Addison-Wesley, New York
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-E
Note that the divergence of the diamagnetic current,
is equal to the divergence of the current due to guiding centre, magnetic drift
Inertia + curvature = interchange motion
In toroidal geometry, grad-B points towards the major axis, which leads to a vertical polarisation of charge and an outward radial ExB drift, as shown for a plasma filament (blob), see left.
This is the origin of the interchange instability and ballooning transport in tokamaks, i.e. turbulent motions in regions of unfavourable magnetic curvature (pointing along the pressure gradient).
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-ETwo-field interchange model
Invoking the thin layer approximation, one obtains the reduced vorticity equation
where x, y, z are the radial, poloidal and parallel co-ordinates, is the kinematic
viscosity and is the electric drift vorticity.
We complement this with an advection-diffusion equation for a generic
thermodynamic variable ,
where is its collisional diffusivity. We normalise by a characteristic cross-field blob size l, the ideal interchange growth rate 1/and the characteristic variation
N.Bian et al, Phys. Plasmas., Phys. Plasmas 10 (2003) 671
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EDimensional values for typical ELM filaments
O.E.Garcia, N.H. Bian, W.Fundamenski., submitted to Phys. Plasmas
Let us set the model parameters at typical large tokamak values
And choose the cross-field filament size and amplitude as
This yields the following values of gyro-radius, sound speed and interchange rate,
such that the ideal velocity, , is equal to 25 km/s.
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-ENon-dimensional model equations
N.Bian et al, Phys. Plasmas., Phys. Plasmas 10 (2003) 671; O.E.Garcia et al, Phys. Plasmas, 12 (2005) 090701
This gives the non-dimensional model equations
Where andare the non-dimensional diffusivity and viscosity. Their product and ration define the Rayleigh and Prandtl numbers,
Ra is the ratio of boyancy and collisional dissipation, while Pr is the ratio of viscosity and diffusion.
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EIdeal (non-dissipative, collisionless) limit
For larger Rayleigh numbers, the viscous term is negligible
Which gives the only dimensionally allowable scaling of the transverse velocity,
Hence, in the ideal (collisionless) limit, the radial Mach number increases as the square root of the cross-field filament size and the relative thermodynamic amplitude, i.e. the perturbation compared to some background value.
In other words, provided dissipation forces are small, we expect larger and more intense perturbations to travel faster (aside from the obvious scaling with the sound speed), in broad agreement with ELM measurements on JET, see below.
O.E.Garcia et al, Phys. Plasmas, 12 (2005) 090701
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EInitial conditions and moments
Consider a gaussian filament, initially at rest,
Define the centre-of-mass position, velocity and effective diffusivity as
where the dispersion tensor is given by
O.E.Garcia, N.H. Bian and W.Fundamenski., submitted to Phys. Plasmas
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-ENumerical simulations of filament motion
Radial distanceRadial distance
density, pressure vorticity
O.E.Garcia, N.H. Bian and W.Fundamenski., subm. to Phys. Plasmas
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EPosition, velocity and diffusivites vs. time
O.E.Garcia, N.H. Bian and W.Fundamenski., submi. to Phys. Plasmas
Filament velocity, in units of , increases from 0 to < 1, then
decays gradually with time.
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-ERange of Rayleigh and Prandtl numbers
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EMaximum radial velocity vs. Ra and Pr
Maximum velocity, in units of , is only weakly dependent on
collisional dissipative effects.
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-ESheath dissipation: earlier theories
S.I.Krasheninnikov, Phys.Lett. A, 283 (2001) 368; D.A.D’Ippolito et al, Phys. Plasmas 9 (2002) 222
In earlier theories, the interchange term was assumed to be non-linear in and the effect of parallel currents was included via a so-called sheath-dissipative term,
This form allows an analytical solution in the ideal (collisionless) limit
which gives the following transverse velocity. Note the strong, inverse size scaling, and no amplitude dependence,
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-ESheath dissipation: improved model
O.E.Garcia, N.H. Bian and W.Fundamenski., subm. to Phys. Plasmas
In line with the earlier derivations, we also introduce the sheath-dissipative term, but not the strange, non-linearity,
Spectral decomposition (Fourier transform) of this equation
reveals the major difference between viscous and sheath dissipation. The former damps small spatial scales (large k), while the latter damps large spatial scales (small k), which should affect the morphology of plasma filaments.
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EEffect of sheath dissipation (Ra = 104, Pr = 1)
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-E
O.E.Garcia, N.H. Bian and W.Fundamenski., subm. to Phys. Plasmas
Maximum radial velocity vs. Ra and (Pr =1)
Maximum velocity, in units of , decreases substantially due to
sheath dissipative effects
Earlier, ideal sheath-dissipative solution
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EExpression for ELM energy to wall on JET
Interchange driven amplitude scaling with convective ion losses
combined with moderate-ELM (W/W = 5%, W/Wped=12%) e-folding length, yields
so that fraction of ELM energy to wall can be approximated as
where ped is the pedestal width and SOL is the separatrix-wall gap.
eg. when W/W reduced by a third, then (Wwall/W0) = 10 % for 3 cm gap, see below.
W.Fundamenski et al, PSI 2006; subm. to J.Nucl.Mater
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EComparison with JET data presented earlier
Model prediction plotted for a range of SOL = 1 – 5 cm, assuming ped = 3 cm
Comparison with JET data reveals fair agreement, considering scatter in data and approximate nature of the model
y = 1.1828e-4.1699x
R2 = 0.3388
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
WELM / Wped
Wd
iv /
WE
LM
5 cm4 cm3 cm2 cm1 cmJET data (2.5 - 4 cm)Expon. (JET data (2.5 - 4 cm))
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EELM-wall & limiter interaction on ITER
W.Fundamenski et al., Plasma Phys. Control..Fusion, 48 (2006) 109
Same prescription as used to match JET data (Type-I ELMs, W/W = 5 %)
~ 8 % of ELM energy onto main wall at 5 cm (omp)
~ 1.5 % of ELM energy onto limiter at 15 cm (omp)
ITER 2nd separatrix movable limiter
Nor
mal
ised
ELM
fila
men
t qua
ntiti
es
Normalised time since start of parallel losses
R.Aymar et al., PPCF 44 (2002) 519
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EPrediction for ITER: ELM amplitude scaling
Approximate amplitude scaling (in fact, the e-folding length increases with distance)
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
WELM / Wped
Ww
all
/ WE
LM
2.5 cm 5 cm 10 cm15 cm 20 cm
Nominal Type-I ELM size on ITER
ELMs size required from material limits
8 % @ 5 cm
0.6 % @ 5 cm
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EConclusions
• JET data indicates that bigger (more intense) ELMs deposit a larger fraction of their energy on the main chamber wall, which suggests that the radial Mach number increases with ELM size
• Two-field interchange model used to study size & amplitude scaling
• It was found that over a wide range of conditions, the radial Mach number is expected to increase as the square root of both ELM size and amplitude,
• This implies that radial e-folding length of ELM filament energy also increases
• Model predictions in fair agreement with JET data
• Preliminary predictions for ITER indicate the added benefit of reducing the ELM size: for small ELMs, W/Wped < 3%, less than 1% of ELM energy deposited on the wall (near 2nd separatrix at upper baffle); contact with main wall is negligible.
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-E
W.Fundamenski et al., Plasma Phys. Control..Fusion, 48 (2006) 109
Radial distance from mid-pedestal location
Pea
k io
n im
pact
ene
rgy
Ion impact energies on JET and ITER
Predicted peak ELM filament quantities on JET and ITER (moderate Type-I ELMs)
• JET: Ti,max(rlim) ~ 185 eV (ion impact energy ~ 0.6 keV) at 4 cm
• ITER: Ti,max(rlim) ~ 350 eV (ion impact energy > 1 keV) at 5 cm; ~ 100 eV at 15 cm
• Lower bound estimates for moderate (W/W ~ 5 %) Type-I ELMs
JET ITER
nmax (m3) 8.251018 1.21019
Ti,max (eV) 185 350
Te,max (eV) 74 140
n,max (mm) 47 54.5
Ti,max (mm) 41 42.5
Te,max (mm) 25 27.5
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-E
The change in kinetic energy is related to the compression of the polarisation current,
Compression of diamagnetic current is related to the magnetic curvature,
Hence, plasma motions are amplified when energy flows opposite to the magnetic curvature vector, i.e. in region of bad curvature.
Energy equation for interchange motions
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-E
,
,
,
232
21
252
21
,
,
aaaaaiie
eie
aaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaanaa
nTumQQ
TnTumQSt
nnSt
n
χΓqq
DuΓΓ
)(1 2 tG
dt
dGDu
t nnn
),(),(),(
exp1
),,;,(
0
2
trSttrrGrdtdtrn
t
tD
tur
tDDutrG
n
rt
nnn
nununn
n urt
drrtG
,
,
,expexp),(
Advective-diffusive description of ELM filament
• Conservation equations for mass & energy
• Green’s function = advective-diffusive wave-packet (filament)
• Radial velocity and diffusivity prescribed
W.Fundamenski et al., Plasma Phys. Control..Fusion, 48 (2006) 109
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-E
Sτ
εε
t
Sτ
εε
t
Snt
eie
eie
e
iie
eii
i
nn
1
1
,1
,
,
11,
111,
1,
||
2||
,||
5
3
2
5 ,~
aTnana
aa
sn
L
Mc
L
Parallel loss model of ELM filament evolution
W.Fundamenski et al., Plasma Phys. Control..Fusion, 48 (2006) 109
Key elements of parallel loss model
• Temporal evolution of n, Te and Ti in the filament frame of reference
• Above quantities represent averages over the filament volume
• Time and radius related by filament radial velocity, which is not calculated by the model
• Parallel loss treated by convective and conductive removal times
• Acoustic loss of plasma
• Electrons cooled faster than ions
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EFilament evolution for nominal JET conditions
Nor
mal
ised
ELM
fila
men
t qua
ntiti
es
Ion-
to-e
lect
ron
tem
pera
ture
rat
io
W.Fundamenski et al., Plasma Phys. Control..Fusion, 48 (2006) 109
Normalised time since start of parallel losses
n’
Ti’
Te’
• As expected Te decays faster than Ti, which decays faster than n
• As the initial density is increased, e-i equipartition becomes more effective and the two temperatures converge more quickly
DSOL ITPA meeting, Toronto W. Fundamenski 8/11/2006
TF-EGood agreement with all dedicated JET data
Experiment Parallel loss model
Limiter probes + TC:
neELM(rlim) ~ 2.41018 m-3
TeELM(rlim) ~ 25-30 eV
n,maxELM
~ 50 mm, Te,maxELM
~ 30 mm
Nearly all power found on the divertor
neELM(rlim) ~ 2.21018 m-3
TeELM(rlim) ~ 30 eV
n,maxELM
~ 47 mm, Te,maxELM
~ 32 mm
Fraction of ELM energy to wall ~ 5 %
Outer gap scan + IR & TC:
WELM
~ 33-35 mm, W,maxELM
~ 22-24 mm WELM
~ 36 mm, W,maxELM
~ 22 mm
RFA measurements of ion energies:
Jsat, Icoll, Te (reproduced by model)
Ti,maxELM(rlim) ~ 100 eV,
Te,maxELM(rlim) ~ 40 eV,
neELM(rlim) ~ 4.31018 m-3
n,maxELM
~ 48 mm, Ti,maxELM
~ 52 mm
Te,maxELM
~ 30 mm, WELM
~ 32 mm
Fraction of ELM energy to wall ~ 15 %
ELM energy deficit based on IR:
~ 30 % for ~ 3 cm gap and W/W ~ 5 % ~ 28 % for 3 cm based on WELM
~ 35 mm