Perspectives of
Download
1 / 64

Perspectives of tearing modes control in RFX-mod - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 99 Views
  • Uploaded on

Perspectives of tearing modes control in RFX-mod. Paolo Zanca Consorzio RFX, Associazione Euratom-ENEA sulla Fusione, Padova, Italy. RFX-mod contributions to TMs control (I). Demonstrated the possibility of the feedback control onto TMs

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Perspectives of tearing modes control in RFX-mod' - morela


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Perspectives of

tearing

modes control in RFX-mod

Paolo Zanca

Consorzio RFX, Associazione Euratom-ENEA sulla Fusione, Padova, Italy


Rfx mod contributions to tms control i
RFX-mod contributions to TMs control (I)

  • Demonstrated the possibility of the feedback control onto TMs

  • Clean-Mode-Control (CMC) based on the de-aliasing of the measurements from the coils produced sidebands


Rfx mod contributions to tms control i1
RFX-mod contributions to TMs control (I)

  • Demonstrated the possibility of the feedback control onto TMs

  • Clean-Mode-Control (CMC) based on the de-aliasing of the measurements from the coils produced sidebands

  • Not obvious results: phase-flip instability?


Rfx mod contributions to tms control i2
RFX-mod contributions to TMs control (I)

  • Demonstrated the possibility of the feedback control onto TMs

  • Clean-Mode-Control (CMC) based on the de-aliasing of the measurements from the coils produced sidebands

  • Not obvious results: phase-flip instability?

  • No-sign of phase-flip instability; equilibrium condition can be established where CMC induces quasi-uniform rotations of TMs


Rfx mod contributions to tms control ii
RFX-mod contributions to TMs control (II)

  • Wall-unlocking of TMs with CMC

  • In general, the feedback cannot suppress the non-linear tearing modes requested by the dynamo.

  • The feedback keeps at low amplitude the TMs edge radial field

  • Improvement of the magnetic structure: sawtooth of the m=1 n=-7 which produces transient QSH configurations


Cmc optimizations
CMC optimizations

  • Increase the QSH duration → recipes under investigation

  • Which are the possibilities to reduce further the TMs edge radial field? → Model required


Rfxlocking
RFXlocking

  • Semi-analitical approach in cylindrical geometry

  • Newcomb’s equation for global TMs profiles

  • Resonant surface amplitudes imposed from experiments estimates

  • Viscous and electromagnetic torques for phase evolution

  • Radial field diffusion across the shell(s)

  • Feedback equations for the coils current

  • It describes fairly well the RFX-mod phenomenology →L.Piron talk



Single shell external coils
Single-shell external coils

Sensors

Vessel

Coils

plasma


Normalized edge radial field
Normalized edge radial field

  • The feedaback action keeps low the normalized edge radial field

  • At best b^senscan be made close but not smaller than the ideal-shell limit


Feedback limit
Feedback limit

Sensors

Vessel

Coils

plasma


Feedback limit1
Feedback limit

Sensors

Vessel

Coils

plasma


Feedback limit2
Feedback limit

Sensors

Vessel

Coils

plasma

br=0 everywhere: impossible


Role of the vessel
Role of the Vessel

  • The stabilizing effect of the vessel is crucial for having low b^sensand moderate power request to the coils

  • The shorterτwthe faster must be the control system (fc=1/Δt) to avoid feedback (high-gain) induced instabilities

  • Optimum range:τw>10ms better τw 100ms


Single shell internal coils
Single-shell Internal coils

Coils

Sensors

Vessel

plasma


Single shell internal coils1
Single-shell Internal coils

Coils

Sensors

Vessel

plasma


Single shell internal coils2
Single-shell Internal coils

  • Continuous-time feedback → solution ωω0 with br(rsens) 0 for large gains

  • Discrete-time feedback : including the latency Δt the high-gain instability may occur

  • The good control region is not accessible for realistic TM amplitudes.

  • For stable gains b^sensis determined by the ideal-shell limit, which is large due to the loose-fitting vessel required by the coils dimension



Premise
Premise

  • The passive stabilization provided by a thick shell does not solve the wall-locking problem

  • In the thick-shell regime wall-locking threshold ~σ1/4

  • Feedback is mandatory to keep TMs rotating


Design in outline
Design in outline

  • In-vessel coils not interesting

  • Single structure (vessel=stabilizing shell) with the coils outside

  • Close-fitting vessel to reduce the ideal-shell limit

  • τw10ms-100ms withΔt10μs-100μs



Rfx mod layout
RFX-mod layout

  • 3ms vacuum-vessel, 100ms copper shell, ~25ms mechanical structures supporting the coils

  • The control limit is mainly provided by the 100ms copper shell


Rfx mod status
RFX-mod status

Gain optimization guided by RFXlocking simulations for the RFX-mod case

m=1 TMs


Optimizations
Optimizations

  • Get closer to the ideal-shell limit (minor optimization)

  • Reduce the ideal-shell limit by hardware modifications (major optimization)


Minor optimizations
Minor optimizations

  • Increase the coils amplifiers bandwidth: maximum current and rensponse time

  • Acquisition of the derivative signal dbr /dt in order to have a better implementation of the derivative control (to compensate the delay of the coils amplifiers)

  • Compensation of the toroidal effects by static decoupler between coils and sensors only partially exploited

  • Compensation of the shell non-homogeneities requires dynamic decoupler (work in progress)


Major optimization
Majoroptimization

  • Approach the shell to the plasma edge possibly simplifying the boundary (removing the present vacuum vessel which is 3cm thick)

  • Moving the τw=100msshell from b=0.5125m to b=0.475m (a=0.459) a factor 3 reduction of the edge radial field is predicted by RFXlocking


Conclusions
Conclusions

  • CMC keeps TMs into rotation

  • Edge radial field: ideal-shell limit found both with the in-vessel and out-vessel coils → br(a)=0 cannot be realized

  • The vessel=shell must be placed close the plasma → coils outside the vessel. Is a close-fitting vessel implementable in a reactor?

  • The feedback helps the vessel to behave close to an ideal shell→ τw cannot be too short






br(rm,n) vs br(a) experimental


Locking threshold

The present analysis valid for dw<<rw cannot be extrapolated

to very long tw



Single mode simulations external coils
Single mode simulations: external coils

a = 0.459m

rw i = 0.475m

c = 0.5815m





Edge radial field: tw dependence

Data averaged on 0.1s simulation

m=1




Out-vessel coils: signals

4x48 both for coils (c = 0.5815m) and sensors (rwi = 0.475m )


Single shell discrete feedback
Single-shell: discrete feedback

Δt = latency of the system









Multi-mode simulations: frequencies

Averages over the second half of the simulation







The mhd model wi we
The MHD model: Ψwi, Ψwe

Boundary conditions from Newcomb’s solution


The mhd model s
The MHD model: Ψs

From experiment

No-slip condition


The mhd model
The MHD model: Ωθ, ΩΦ



The mhd model c
The MHD model: Ψc

Further variable: Icm,n


The mhd model i c
The MHD model: Ic

RL equation for the plasma-coils coupled system

Further variable: IREFm,n


The mhd model i ref
The MHD model: IREF

Acquired by the feedback


Why a pure derivative control
Why a pure derivative control?

When |cm,n|>>1, from the RL equation one gets


ad