1 / 25

Particle sources and radiation distributions in the TCV tokamak edge

Particle sources and radiation distributions in the TCV tokamak edge. Thesis committee. Candidate : Barbora Gulejov á Supervisor of thesis : Dr. Richard Pitts Acknowledgements : Xavier Bonnin, Marco Wischmeier, David Coster, Roland Behn , Jan Hor áč ek, Janos Marki. OUTLINE.

vondra
Download Presentation

Particle sources and radiation distributions in the TCV tokamak edge

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Particle sources and radiation distributions in the TCV tokamak edge Thesis committee Candidate: Barbora Gulejová Supervisor of thesis: Dr. Richard Pitts Acknowledgements: Xavier Bonnin, Marco Wischmeier, David Coster, Roland Behn,Jan Horáček, Janos Marki

  2. OUTLINE Research plan – change of direction … SOLPS 5 code package (B2 - EIRENE) Theoretical model of simulation Comparison of experimental data with simulation Simulation of ELM itself Drifts implementation Future plans * * * * * * *

  3. RESEARCH PLAN Considering title change to SOLPS5 modelling of ELMing H-mode AIM:contribute to understanding transport in the SOL * using new unique experimental data from TCV (AXUV, IR) * interpretative modelling employing the SOLPS5 fluid/Monte Carlo code *transient events => ELMs * rigorous benchmarking = seeking the possible agreement between the experiment and simulation Twin camera system • Bolometry - total radiated power  • Lyman alpha – edge radiation  => investigation during summer shutdown => * scratches = source of light seen * low peak transmission of the L absorption filters (10%) * strong angular dependence of the emission (only 1% at incident angle 60) * strong ageing effect due to exposure to boronisation, He glow discharge and plasma operation observed on the unfiltered bolometric diodes NEXT STEP: D alpha - higher transmission

  4. Ageing effect with filter removed “New LYMAN” without filter “old AXUV” G.Veres Huge increase in signal when filters removed – layer deposition + ageing

  5. Scrape-Off Layer Plasma Simulation Suite of codes to simulate transport in edge plasma of tokamaks B2 - solves 2D multi-species fluid equations on a grid given from magnetic equilibrium EIRENE - kinetic transport code for neutrals based on Monte - Carlo algorithm SOLPS 5 – coupled EIRENE + B2.5 Mesh plasma background => recycling fluxes 72 grid cells poloidally along separatrix 24 cells radially B2 EIRENE Sources and sinks due to neutrals and molecules measured Main inputs: magnetic equilibrium Psol = Pheat – Pradcore upstream separatrix density ne Free parameters: cross-field transport coefficients (D┴, ┴, v┴) systematically adjusted

  6. Type III Elming H-mode at TCV ELMs - too rapid (frequency ~ 200 Hz) for comparison on an individual ELM basis => Many similar events are coherently averaged inside the interval with reasonably periodic elms # 26730 telm ~ 100 μs tpost ~ 1 ms tpre ~ 2 ms Pre-ELM phase = steady state ELM = particles and heat are thrown into SOL ( elevated cross-field transport coefficients) Post-ELM phase

  7. Diagnostic profiles used to constrain the code downstream Langmuirprobes jsattarget profiles upstream Edge Thomson scattering neand Te upstream profiles I R laser beam J.Horacek RCP – reciprocating probe jsat [A.m-2] outer target R.Behn R-Rsep [m] pedestal ne jsat inner target R-Rsep [m] R-Rsep [m] Strategy: Match these experimental profiles with data from SOLPS simulation runs by changing cross-field transport parameters D┴,Χ┴, v┴ IR cameras Perpendicular heat flux pedestal Te J.Marki Heat flux [MW.m-2] outer target R-Rsep [m] R-Rsep [m]

  8. Theory – steady state simulationCross-field transport coefficients Cross-field radial transportin the main SOL - complex phenomena main SOL SOL radial heat flux: SOL radial particle flux: x x div.legs D┴ Ansatz:( D┴, ┴, v┴) - variation SOL sep radially – transport barrier (TB) poloidally – no TB in div.legs ┴ Inner div.leg div.legs main SOL diffusion (D┴) + convection (v┴) SOL * Pure diffusion: v┴=0 everywhere sep outer div.leg v┴ 2 approaches SOL More appropriate: Convection simulations with D┴= D┴class * div.legs sep

  9. Comparison of experimental data with simulation1. Purely “diffusive” approach separatrix upstream neSOLPS TS RCP D┴doesn’t require too much variation through confined region In the main SOL- increase : D┴= 1 m2.s-1 Χ┴ = 6 m2.s-1 in order to flatten Te profile pedestal core wall TeSOLPS TS RCP D┴ Χ┴ 6 1 Good agreement !!! R-Rsep Accepted to JNM 2007

  10. Comparison of experimental data with simulation1. Purely “diffusive” approach targets With only radial variation of D┴, ┴ code overestimates data Poloidal variation necessary Remove transport barrier from divertor legs Description of cross-field transport in divertor as radially constant is more appropriate inner outer Jsat [A.m-2] LP, average SOLPS D┴= 3 m2.s-1 in div.legs 1m2.s-1 in SOL Χ┴= 5 m2.s-1 in div.legs 6 m2.s-1 in SOL NO DRIFTS yet! => D┴,Χ┴= constant in div. legs Te [eV] Perp.heat flux[MW.m-2] LP, average SOLPS inner ne [m-3] outer IR Accepted to JNM 2007

  11. Comparison of experimental data with simulation2.“Convective” approach upstream targets outer inner separatrix Density ne in SOL is too high ! Reason: Competition between radial & parallel fluxes v┴ acts towards radial direction Parallel flux is smaller than in “conductive approach” combination of all 3 parameters D┴, ┴, v┴ ??? Jsat [A.m-2] LP SOLPS neSOLPS TS RCP pedestal Te [eV] wall TeSOLPS TS RCP ne [m-3] => D┴ Χ┴ 6 Perp.heat flux[MW.m-2] LP SOLPS inner => 0.1 30 v┴ outer IR 2 Reasonable agreement R-Rsep

  12. Type III ELM simulation H-mode  Edge MHD instabilities  Periodic bursts of particles and energy into the SOL - leaves edge pedestal region in the form of a helical filamentary structure localised in the outboard midplane region of the poloidal cross-section TCV Type III ELM Dα HFS Simulation of ELM * Instantaneous increase of the cross-field transport parameters D┴, ┴, v┴! LFS W~200J 1.) for ELM time – from experiment coh.averaged ELM = tELM = 10-4s 2.) at poloidal location -> expelled from area AELM at LFS From the cross-field radial transport can be estimated the combination of trasnport parameters corresponding to the given expelled energy WELM, tELM and AELM Time AELM= 6m2 W = 400 J D┴ Many different appraches possible => changes in D┴,  ┴only or in v┴too … ┴

  13. Tools to simulate ELM in SOLPS Several options in SOLPS transport inputfiles : *Multiplying of the transport coefficients in the specified poloidal region * In 3 different radial regions (core, pedestal, SOL) by different multipliers Added new options: *Poloidal variation of the multiplicator * Step function * Gaussian function * Choosing completely different shape of radial profile for chosen poloidal region main SOL ELM Inner div.leg main SOL No TB ELM x M preelm outer div.leg core pedestal wall

  14. ELM simulations (example) upstream Increase of D┴, ┴5 times in poloidal region of the whole LFS! Time evolution of D┴ and ne D┴ ne time time R-Rsep R-Rsep tELM=100 µs TS measurements (R.Behn) => *Drop in pedestal width and height appears only for ne SOLPS*bigger pedestal collaps * higher ne and Te in SOL But the right tendency – pedestal collapse Problem:Time-dependent pre-ELM solutionnecessary !!! as a starting state for time-dependent ELM simulation (X.Bonnin+D.Coster) Time steps of B2 and Eirene parts of the code must be the same = 10-6 s (not the case for steady state: eir_step=10-1s) => must be done in the steps by decreasing the time steps gruadually and seeking for convergence => difficult and time-consuming process – in progress R-Rsep

  15. ErxB, pxB EqxB Ballooning Pfirsch-Schlüter Bj Divertor sink BxB REV Bj SOLPS5 simulations with DRIFTS SOL flows DRIFTS – contribute to in/out assymetries TCV : unconventional equilibrium with an extremely short X point to inner strike points position -> might dominate over drifts and divertor physics effects R. Pitts • Poloidal SOLPS:X.Bonnin • implememtation of drift terms * Anomalous contribution (ExB) * Diamagnetic contribution (pxB) * Viscous contribution • Parallel Switching on drifts it’s likely • to decrease the predicted Te at outer target • may have only small effect at the inner target

  16. First attempt of SOLPS simulation with DRIFTS targets upstream inner outer separatrix Jsat [A.m-2] LP SOLPS neSOLPS TS RCP Not yet completely converged solution… Te [eV] pedestal wall TeSOLPS TS RCP ne [m-3] R-Rsep Perp.heat flux[MW.m-2] LP SOLPS inner D┴ Χ┴ 6 outer 1 IR R-Rsep R-Rsep R-Rsep

  17. First attempt of SOLPS simulation with DRIFTS NO DRIFTS DRIFTS inner outer inner outer NO DRIFTS: Overestimation of outer target Te DRIFTS: Decrease of outer target Te as expected Same effect on jsat and heat flux! Inner target : not significant effect as expected Jsat [A.m-2] LP SOLPS Jsat [A.m-2] LP SOLPS Te [eV] Te [eV] ne [m-3] ne [m-3] R-Rsep Perp.heat flux[MW.m-2] LP SOLPS R-Rsep inner Perp.heat flux[MW.m-2] LP SOLPS inner outer outer IR IR Good early promise !!! R-Rsep R-Rsep

  18. After obtaining the trully time-dependent pre-ELM solution! continue in the attepmts to simulate the small TCV ELM properly -use several different approaches Planed visit to JET in february –march 2007 : simulate the big JET ELM Continue in the simulation with DRIFTs included in SOLPS Future plans * * *

  19. Thank you for attention !

  20. Conclusions First attempt to simulate Scrape-Off layer in H-mode on TCV with aim to simulate Type III ELMs Simulations conducted using coupled fluid-Monte Carlo (B2-EIRENE) SOLPS5 code constrained by upstream profiles of ne and Te and at the targets profiles of jsat Using exp. data as a guide to systematic adjustments of perpendicular particle and heat transport coefficients Code experiment agreement ONLY possible if transport coefficients are varied radially AND polloidally Excellent match obtained for inter-ELM phase  good basis for simulation of ELM itself (in progress) * * * * *

  21. Edge plasma - terminology Poloidal cross-section • Scrape-off layer (SOL) • Cool plasma on open field lines • SOL width ~1 cm ( B) • Length usually 10’s m (|| B) LFS HFS Core plasma • Divertor • Plasma guided along field lines to targets remote from core plasma: low T and high n Last closed flux surface Separatrix Private flux region Inner Outer • ITER will be a divertor tokamak Divertor targets

  22. Comparison of neoclassical values with SOLPS D┴, ┴

  23. ELM simulations (example) Time evolution at targets targets inner outer inner outer Perp.heat flux[MW.m-2] Jsat [A.m-2] Jsat [A.m-2] inner ne [m-3] => Te [eV] outer Te [eV] ne [m-3] Ti [eV] PSOL~ 100 J Time of arrival of particles to targets much shorter than expected … Jsat at inner target ~ 20 <-> Exp. ~ 40 outer target ~ 10 <-> Exp. ~ 35 SOLPS lower than experiment not enough energy expelled (~200 J from exp.)! Problem: Time-dependent pre-ELM solution to start the ELM necessary!! Difficult process : Time steps of B2 and Eirene parts of the code must be the same = 10-6 s - must be done in the steps by decreasing the time steps gruadually and seeking for convergence => difficult and time-consuming process – in progress

  24. Parallel Mach Flows

  25. preELM time-dependent solution necessary !!!

More Related