Development of CFETR scenarios with self-consistent core-pedestal coupled simulations

This paper develops two non-inductive steady state scenarios for larger size configuration of China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR) with integrated modeling simulations. A self-consistent core-pedestal coupled workflow for CFETR is developed under integrated modeling framework OMFIT, which allows more accurate evaluation of CFETR performance. The workflow integrates equilibrium code EFIT, transport codes ONETWO and TGYRO, and pedestal code EPED. A fully non-inductive baseline phase I scenario is developed with the workflow, which satisfies the minimum goal of Fusion Nuclear Science Facility. Compared with previous work, which proves the larger size and higher toroidal field CFETR configuration than has the advantages of reducing heating and current drive requirements, lowering divertor and wall power loads, allowing higher bootstrap current fraction and better confinement. A fully non-inductive high-performance phase II scenario is developed, which explores the alpha-particle dominated self-heating regime. Phase II scenario achieves the target of fusion power Pfus>1GW and fusion gain Qfus>20, and it largely reduces auxiliary heating and current drive power. Moreover, the large neutron production of phase II increases the energy generation power and tritium breeding rate.

[1]  O. Sauter,et al.  Neoclassical conductivity and bootstrap current formulas for general axisymmetric equilibria and arbitrary collisionality regime , 1999 .

[2]  A. D. Turnbull,et al.  Integrated modeling applications for tokamak experiments with OMFIT , 2015 .

[3]  Charles Kessel,et al.  Conceptual design study of the K-DEMO magnet system , 2015 .

[4]  Laila A. El-Guebaly,et al.  Fusion nuclear science facilities and pilot plants based on the spherical tokamak , 2016 .

[5]  R. Waltz,et al.  A gyro-Landau-fluid transport model , 1997 .

[6]  L. L. Lao,et al.  Equilibrium analysis of current profiles in tokamaks , 1990 .

[7]  Alice Ying,et al.  A fusion nuclear science facility for a fast-track path to DEMO , 2014 .

[8]  L. L. Lao,et al.  Integrated fusion simulation with self-consistent core-pedestal coupling , 2016 .

[9]  J. Kinsey,et al.  A new paradigm for E × B velocity shear suppression of gyro-kinetic turbulence and the momentum pinch , 2013 .

[10]  L. Lao,et al.  Edge localized modes and the pedestal: A model based on coupled peeling–ballooning modes , 2002 .

[11]  H. R. Wilson,et al.  A first-principles predictive model of the pedestal height and width: development, testing and ITER optimization with the EPED model , 2011 .

[12]  D. McCune,et al.  New techniques for calculating heat and particle source rates due to neutral beam injection in axisymmetric tokamaks , 1981 .

[13]  L. C. Bernard,et al.  GATO: An MHD stability code for axisymmetric plasmas with internal separatrices , 1981 .

[14]  Jerry M. Kinsey,et al.  BURNING PLASMA PROJECTIONS USING DRIFT WAVE TRANSPORT MODELS AND SCALINGS FOR THE H-MODE PEDESTAL , 2002 .

[15]  Sungjin Kwon,et al.  A Preliminary Development of the K-DEMO Divertor Concept , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.

[16]  Lei Cao,et al.  Plasma facing components for the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak and CFETR , 2014 .

[17]  H. Wilson,et al.  Numerical studies of edge localized instabilities in tokamaks , 2002 .

[18]  O. Sauter,et al.  Erratum: “Neoclassical conductivity and bootstrap current formulas for general axisymmetric equilibria and arbitrary collisionality regime” [Phys. Plasmas 6, 2834 (1999)] , 2002 .

[19]  George H. Neilson,et al.  A preliminary conceptual design study for Korean fusion DEMO reactor , 2013 .

[20]  Arnold H. Kritz,et al.  Integrated predictive modelling simulations of burning plasma experiment designs , 2003 .

[21]  J. Kinsey,et al.  A theory-based transport model with comprehensive physicsa) , 2006 .

[22]  J. Candy,et al.  Kinetic calculation of neoclassical transport including self-consistent electron and impurity dynamics , 2008 .

[23]  T. C. Luce,et al.  Electron cyclotron current drive efficiency in general tokamak geometry , 2003 .

[24]  R. E. Waltz,et al.  ITER predictions using the GYRO verified and experimentally validated trapped gyro-Landau fluid transport model , 2011 .

[25]  R. J. Groebner,et al.  Development and validation of a predictive model for the pedestal height , 2008 .

[26]  H. Bosch,et al.  ERRATUM: Improved formulas for fusion cross-sections and thermal reactivities , 1992 .

[27]  R. D. Stambaugh,et al.  A fusion development facility on the critical path to fusion energy , 2011 .

[28]  P. B. Snyder,et al.  External heating and current drive source requirements towards steady-state operation in ITER , 2014 .

[29]  Yong-Su Na,et al.  A strategic plan of Korea for developing fusion energy beyond ITER , 2008 .

[30]  R. E. Waltz,et al.  Gyro-Landau fluid equations for trapped and passing particles , 2005 .

[31]  Jeff M. Candy,et al.  Tokamak profile prediction using direct gyrokinetic and neoclassical simulation , 2009 .

[32]  R. E. Waltz,et al.  The first transport code simulations using the trapped gyro-Landau-fluid model , 2008 .

[33]  Shinzaburo Matsuda,et al.  The EU/JA broader approach activities , 2007 .

[34]  J. A. Leuer,et al.  Evaluation of CFETR as a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility using multiple system codes , 2015 .

[35]  P. B. Snyder,et al.  Integrated modelling of steady-state scenarios and heating and current drive mixes for ITER , 2011 .

[36]  Turnbull,et al.  High Beta and Enhanced Confinement in a Second Stable Core VH-Mode Advanced Tokamak. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[37]  Arnold H. Kritz,et al.  Fusion power production in International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor baseline H-mode scenarios , 2015 .

[38]  J. A. Leuer,et al.  Fusion Nuclear Science Facility Candidates , 2011 .

[39]  B. Wan,et al.  Physics Design of CFETR: Determination of the Device Engineering Parameters , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.

[40]  Nan Shi,et al.  Evaluation of CFETR key parameters with different scenarios using system analysis code , 2016 .

[41]  Nicola Bertelli,et al.  Survey of heating and current drive for K-DEMO , 2015 .

[42]  P. B. Snyder,et al.  The EPED pedestal model and edge localized mode-suppressed regimes: Studies of quiescent H-mode and development of a model for edge localized mode suppression via resonant magnetic perturbations , 2012 .

[43]  Xiang Jian,et al.  Optimization of CFETR baseline performance by controlling rotation shear and pedestal collisionality through integrated modeling , 2017 .

[44]  Kenji Tobita,et al.  DEMO design activities in the broader approach under Japan/EU collaboration , 2014 .

[45]  Maxim Umansky,et al.  Stability and dynamics of the edge pedestal in the low collisionality regime: physics mechanisms for steady-state ELM-free operation , 2007 .