ARIES Systems Studies: ARIES-I and ARIES-AT type operating points

C. KesselPrinceton Plasma Physics Laboratory

ARIES Project Meeting, San Diego,December 15-16, 2009

Basic ARIES Design Point Matrix

ARIES-I physicsDCLL blanket

ARIES-AT physicsDCLL blanket

ARIES-AT physicsSiC blanket

ARIES-I physicsSiC blanket

1) Identify these operating points with systems code2) Generate detailed physics and engineering analysis as necessary for each point3) Refine systems code evaluations based on detailed analysis4) Begin PMI, off-normal events, and other studies on these configurations

ARIES-I Final Report (original design had even higher BT)

Ip = 10.2 MABT = 11.3 T (BT

coil = 21 T)R = 6.75a = 1.5κ(95) = 1.8 (1.6)δ(95) = 0.7 (0.5)βN = 3.15P(ICRF) = 100 MWP(LH) = 5 MWηCD = 0.33fbs = 0.68<n> = 1.45x1020 /m3<T>v,n = 20 keVfrad = 0.5q(0) = 1.3q95 = 4.5li = 0.74b/a|n=0 = 0.6

Zeff = 1.7frad,cyc = 92%τE = 2.5 sβp = 2.18

H89P = 2.25 (τE,89P = 1.11 s)H98y2 = 1.45 (τE,98y2 = 1.72 s)τp* ~ 3-4 τE

Starlite Study, Systems Code update of ARIES-I

Ip = 12.6 MABT = 9.0 T (BT

c = 16 T)R = 8.0a = 2.0A = 4.0 (rather than 4.5)κ = 1.8 (1.6)δ = 0.7 (0.5)βN = 2.88PCD = 236 MWηCD = 0.28fbs = 0.57<n> = 1.45x1020 /m3q(0) = 1.3b/a|n=0 = 0.6

τE = 2.5 sH89P = 1.7H98y2 = 1.23τp* ~ 10 τE

Starlite physics regimes was an attempt to get the 4 tokamak physics regimes on an equal footing to examine the COE versus fusion power density and recirculating power; 1) first stability,2) pulsed, 3) reversed shear, and 4) second stability

BTc < 16 T

fbs from same modelτp*/τE = 10A (R/a) = 4.0H89P for all cases

In order to “reconstruct” an ARIES-I we need to make some decisions…..

• The very high field at the magnet facilitated high BT in the plasma, so that low βN could be accommodated what is the maximum BT

coil we want to assume

• We must also address the jSC, the new formula in the systems code fails for Btcoil >

18 T for Nb3Sn– The curves in the systems code paper do not jive with the jSC formula in the code

– What are we assuming for jSC vs B relative to short sample values, which are the highest values in the literature, versus jSC

eff which is over the conductor pack, versus jtotal over the whole TF coil cross-section

• We need to revisit the likelihood of the ARIES-like SC magnet projections made 20 years ago

– ITER TF coil (Nb3Sn) uses jtotal = 14 MA/m2 at 11.3 T

– ARIES algorithm gives jtotal = 45-50 MA/m2 at 11.3 T

Jtotal versus Btcoil from ARIES-I report, similar

curves shown in ARIES-II/IV report

Jtotal is the current density over the whole coil, SC + stabilizer + insulator + coolant + structure

ARIES-AT

Nb3Sn SC operating pointsITER TF: (full size magnets)

jSC = 650 MA/m2 @ 12 T and 4.2 Kjeff = 53-59 MA/m2 @ 12 T and 4.2 Kjtotal = 14 MA/m2 @ 12T and 4.2 K

Nb3Sn short samples? (accelerator development)

jSC = 3000 MA/m2 @ 12.4 T and 4.2 Kjeff = 1000 MA/m2 @ 12.4 T and 4.2 KProcessed strand was 10 km longGourlay et al, 2003 and Caspi et al 2005

Accelerator magnet development is targeting manufacturable coils with long strand lengths and low costs, BUT their coil geometry may affect their solutions and our ability to “lift” their results

Should we be choosing HTSC as our basis?

New search for ARIES-I plasma operating points within engineering constraints

2.5 < βN < 3.3, first stability regime, no kink wall required

6.0 T < BT < 10 T, using new magnet algorithm with different jSClim

3.5 < q95 < 6.0

0.7 < n/nGr < 1.3, going above Greenwald density

10 < Q < 20

5.0 < R < 9.0

A = 4.0 try others?fArgon = 0.15%κ = 1.8 & 2.2δ = 0.7 (0.5)τp*/τE = 5-10ηCD = 33% use lower valuesηaux = 67%frad,div = 0.75 & 0.90Nb3Sn TF/PF coils try HTSC?

2 blanket types: SiC and DCLL

DCLLΔFW = 0.038 mΔblkt = 0.50 mΔVV = 0.31 mΔshld/skel = 0.35+0.075xIn(<Nw>/3.3) mηth ~ 42%, Ppump ~ 0.04xPfusion

SiCΔFW = 0.0 mΔblkt = 0.35 mΔVV = 0.40 mΔshld/skel = 0.24+0.067xIn(<Nw>/3.3) mηth ~ 55%, Ppump ~ 0.005xPfusion

Conservatism in searching for solutions for ARIES-I and AT design points

We do NOT want to assume very optimistic parameters, but rather we want to find solutions that do not require extreme assumptions

H98 ~ 1.3 is better than 2.0

fdiv,rad ~ 75% is better than 95%

qpeak,divout < 8 MW/m2 is better than 15 MW/m2

Btcoil < 13 T is better than 18 T

n/nGr < 1.0 is better than 1.4

An so on……..

Systems code solutions that follow:

DCLL or SiCκ= 1.8 or 2.2ARIES-I or ARIES-ATfdiv,rad = 0.75 or 0.90

Solutions for lowest R, κ= 1.8

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.75 7.4 7.6 10.0 3.3 4.8 1.2 20 1.5 89 0.65 1.9 1780

0.75 7.4 10.0 11.0 2.5 6.0 1.2 18 1.4 110 0.63 2.0 1980

Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 200 MW, H98 < 1.5, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.90 5.8 9.2 11.0 3.3 4.2 1.0 15 1.4 130 0.58 3.5 1950

0.90 5.8 10.0 11.0 2.9 4.8 1.1 15 1.2 130 0.56 3.5 1950

0.90 5.4 10.0 9.8 3.3 4.8 1.1 20 1.4 98 0.65 3.9 1960

κ= 1.8, SiC, ηth ~ 0.55

No κ= 1.8 solutions for DCLL with fdiv,r = 0.75

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.90 7.0 10.0 11.0 2.9 5.2 1.3 20 1.2 140 0.62 3.3 2800

0.90 6.6 10.0 13.0 3.3 4.5 1.1 20 1.5 140 0.61 3.9 2800

κ= 1.8, DCLL, ηth ~ 0.42

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.75 7.8 9.2 15.0 3.0 6.0 1.2 20 1.5 140 0.73 2.3 2800

0.75 8.2 9.2 16.0 2.7 5.8 1.0 18 1.5 170 0.63 2.1 3060

Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 200 MW, H98 < 1.5, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.90 6.2 10.0 14.0 3.0 5.5 0.9 20 1.4 150 0.67 3.8 3000

0.90 6.2 9.2 13.0 3.3 5.2 0.9 20 1.4 140 0.70 3.7 2800

0.90 6.6 7.6 13.0 3.3 4.8 1.1 20 1.1 140 0.63 3.2 2800

0.90 6.6 8.4 14.0 3.0 5.0 0.9 20 1.2 140 0.61 3.2 2800

0.90 6.6 9.2 13.0 2.7 5.8 1.0 20 1.2 140 0.63 3.3 2800

0.90 6.6 10.0 14.0 2.5 5.8 0.9 18 1.2 170 0.59 3.3 3060

κ= 2.2, DCLL, ηth ~ 0.42

Solutions for lowest R, κ= 2.2

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.75 7.0 8.4 13.0 2.7 5.5 0.8 18 1.5 110 0.60 1.9 1980

0.75 7.0 7.6 11.0 3.0 5.8 0.9 18 1.4 100 0.70 1.8 1800

0.75 7.0 6.8 11.0 3.0 5.2 1.0 20 1.3 89 0.64 1.8 1780

0.75 7.0 9.2 14.0 2.9 5.5 1.0 12 1.5 160 0.63 2.1 1920

Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 200 MW, H98 < 1.5, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.90 5.4 7.6 11.0 3.2 4.8 1.0 15 1.1 130 0.60 3.2 1950

0.90 5.4 8.4 11.0 2.9 5.2 1.0 15 1.1 130 0.60 3.2 1950

0.90 5.4 8.4 12.0 3.2 4.8 0.8 18 1.3 110 0.60 3.4 1980

0.90 5.4 9.2 12.0 2.9 5.2 0.8 18 1.3 110 0.60 3.3 1980

0.90 5.4 10.0 11.0 2.5 6.0 0.9 18 1.2 110 0.62 3.3 1980

κ= 2.2, SiC, ηth ~ 0.55

Solutions for lowest R, κ= 2.2

Search for ARIES-AT plasma operating points within engineering constraints

4.0 < βN < 6.0, advanced stability regime, kink wall required

4.5 T < BT < 8.5 T, using new magnet algorithm with different jSClim

3.2 < q95 < 5.4

0.7 < n/nGr < 1.3, going above Greenwald density

15 < Q < 40

4.0 < R < 8.0

A = 4.0fArgon = 0.15%κ = 1.8 & 2.2δ = 0.7 (0.5)τp*/τE = 5-10ηCD = 33%ηaux = 67%frad,div = 0.75 & 0.90Nb3Sn TF/PF coils

2 blanket types: SiC and DCLL

DCLLΔFW = 0.038 mΔblkt = 0.50 mΔVV = 0.31 mΔshld/skel = 0.35+0.075xIn(<Nw>/3.3) mηth ~ 42%, Ppump ~ 0.04xPfusion

SiCΔFW = 0.0 mΔblkt = 0.35 mΔVV = 0.40 mΔshld/skel = 0.24+0.067xIn(<Nw>/3.3) mηth ~ 55%, Ppump ~ 0.005xPfusion

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.90 8.0 5.5 12.0 5.5 3.2 1.2 30 1.7 89 0.72 2.4 2670

0.90 7.0 6.0 11.0 5.5 3.2 1.2 30 1.6 90 0.72 3.2 2700

0.90 6.5 6.5 11.0 5.5 4.4 1.2 30 1.7 88 0.77 3.6 2640

0.90 6.5 7.0 11.0 5.0 3.6 1.2 30 1.6 89 0.74 3.7 2670

0.90 6.5 7.5 10.0 4.5 4.0 1.3 30 1.5 90 0.74 3.7 2700

0.90 6.5 8.0 11.0 4.5 4.0 1.2 30 1.6 93 0.74 3.8 2790

0.90 7.0 8.5 12.0 4.0 4.4 1.2 30 1.6 90 0.72 3.2 2700

Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 100 MW, H98 < 1.8, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2

κ= 1.8, DCLL, ηth ~ 0.42

One solution for fdiv,r = 0.75

Solutions for lowest R, κ= 1.8

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.75 8.0 8.0 11.0 4.0 4.8 1.3 40 1.8 64 0.79 2.3 2560

κ= 1.8, DCLL, ηth ~ 0.42

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.75 8.0 4.5 12.0 5.5 3.6 1.2 40 1.5 63 0.80 1.9 2520

0.75 8.0 5.0 11.0 5.0 4.4 1.2 40 1.5 63 0.89 1.9 2520

0.75 8.0 5.5 11.0 4.5 4.8 1.2 40 1.5 64 0.91 2.0 2560

0.75 8.0 6.5 13.0 4.0 5.0 1.2 35 1.5 75 0.81 2.0 2625

0.75 8.0 7.0 13.0 4.0 5.2 1.2 30 1.6 91 0.84 2.1 2730

Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 100 MW, H98 < 1.8, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2

κ= 2.2, DCLL, ηth ~ 0.42

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.90 6.0 5.0 11.0 6.0 3.2 1.0 35 1.5 76 0.78 3.6 2660

0.90 6.0 5.5 11.0 5.5 3.6 1.0 30 1.5 87 0.80 3.6 2610

0.90 6.0 6.0 12.0 5.5 3.6 0.9 40 1.7 66 0.80 3.6 2640

0.90 6.0 6.5 11.0 4.5 4.4 1.1 35 1.4 75 0.80 3.6 2625

0.90 6.0 7.0 12.0 4.5 4.4 1.1 30 1.5 88 0.80 3.6 2640

0.90 6.0 7.5 12.0 4.5 4.4 0.9 30 1.7 89 0.80 3.7 2670

0.90 6.0 8.0 12.0 4.0 4.8 1.1 30 1.4 94 0.78 3.8 2820

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.75 7.5 5.0 10.0 5.0 3.2 1.2 20 1.5 89 0.66 1.8 1780

0.75 7.5 5.5 10.0 5.0 3.4 1.1 25 1.7 72 0.70 1.9 1750

0.75 7.0 5.5 9.2 5.0 3.6 1.3 30 1.6 58 0.74 2.1 1740

0.75 7.5 6.0 11.0 4.5 3.6 1.2 20 1.6 89 0.67 1.8 1780

0.75 7.0 7.0 10.0 4.0 4.4 1.1 25 1.8 71 0.72 2.1 1775

Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 100 MW, H98 < 1.8, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2

κ= 1.8, SiC, ηth ~ 0.55

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.90 5.5 6.0 8.9 5.5 3.2 1.2 20 1.6 92 0.72 3.5 1840

0.90 5.5 6.5 9.6 5.0 3.2 1.1 20 1.5 95 0.66 3.7 1900

0.90 5.5 7.0 9.2 4.5 3.6 1.2 20 1.4 93 0.67 3.6 1860

0.90 5.0 7.0 8.4 5.5 3.6 1.2 35 1.7 52 0.82 4.2 1820

0.90 5.5 7.5 8.9 4.5 4.0 1.2 20 1.5 93 0.74 3.6 1860

0.90 5.5 8.0 10.0 4.5 3.8 1.0 20 1.7 96 0.70 3.7 1920

0.90 5.5 8.5 10.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 20 1.6 94 0.66 3.6 1880

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.75 6.0 4.5 9.1 6.0 3.6 1.1 40 1.6 43 0.87 2.4 1720

0.75 6.0 5.0 8.7 5.5 4.2 1.2 35 1.6 49 0.93 2.4 1715

0.75 6.0 5.5 8.7 5.0 4.6 1.2 40 1.6 44 0.93 2.4 1760

0.75 6.0 6.0 9.5 4.5 4.6 1.2 40 1.5 44 0.84 2.4 1760

0.75 6.0 6.5 9.9 4.5 4.8 1.1 40 1.7 44 0.87 2.4 1760

Pelec = 1000 MW, Paux < 100 MW, H98 < 1.8, qdivpeak < 12 MW/m2

κ= 2.2, SiC, ηth ~ 0.55

fdiv,r R Bt Ip βN q n/nGr Q H98 Paux fbs Nw Pfus

0.90 5.0 5.5 10.0 5.5 3.2 0.8 25 1.6 72 0.71 3.6 1800

0.90 5.0 5.5 9.3 5.5 3.6 1.0 30 1.5 62 0.80 3.7 1860

0.90 5.0 6.0 9.6 5.5 3.8 0.9 30 1.7 62 0.85 3.7 1860

0.90 5.0 6.5 9.9 4.5 4.0 0.9 25 1.5 74 0.73 3.6 1850

0.90 5.0 7.0 11.0 4.5 4.0 0.8 25 1.6 76 0.73 3.7 1900

0.90 5.0 7.5 9.9 4.0 4.6 0.9 25 1.5 75 0.74 3.7 1875

0.90 5.0 8.0 9.8 4.0 5.0 0.9 25 1.6 74 0.68 3.7 1850

ARIES-I κ fdiv,r R, m BT, T

DCLL 1.8 0.90 6.6-7.0 10.0

SiC 1.8 0.75 7.4 7.6-10.0

SiC 1.8 0.90 5.4-5.8 9.2-10.0

DCLL 2.2 0.75 7.8-8.2 9.2

DCLL 2.2 0.90 6.2-6.6 7.6-10.0

SiC 2.2 0.75 7.0 7.6-9.2

SiC 2.2 0.90 5.4 7.6-10.0

ARIES-AT

DCLL 1.8 0.75 8.0 8.0

DCLL 1.8 0.90 6.5-8.0 5.5-8.5

SiC 1.8 0.75 7.0-7.5 5.0-7.0

SiC 1.8 0.90 5.0-5.5 6.0-8.5

DCLL 2.2 0.75 8.0 4.5-7.0

DCLL 2.2 0.90 6.0 5.0-8.0

SiC 2.2 0.75 6.0 4.5-6.5

SiC 2.2 0.90 5.0 5.5-8.0

Comparison of kappa = 1.8 and 2.2 for DCLL blanket and ARIES-AT plasma

Comparison of kappa = 1.8 and 2.2 for DCLL blanket and ARIES-AT plasma

ARIES-I plasmas, TF coil solutions, what is TF limit at the coil?

At TF coil

At plasma At plasma

At TF coil

Results

• What should our magnet basis be, the same for all 4 designs or a near term and an aggressive solution?

• We can see the importance of radiated power in the divertor, but this could also be a change in the power scrape-off width which is also an uncertain parameter

• Higher plasma elongation can provide smaller devices, but more importantly it enlarges the operating space. This requires a stabilizer in the blanket, should we have a high and a low elongation?

• In all cases, the DCLL is inferior to the SiC blanket/shield approach, but the ferritic steel is near term and the SiC is long term, which seems like a good approach