The requirements of a next step large steady state tokamak

被引:19
作者
Janeschitz, G
Barabaschi, P
Federici, G
Ioki, K
Ladd, P
Mukhovatov, V
Sugihara, M
Tivey, R
机构
[1] ITER JCT, Garching, Germany
[2] Home Team, Garching, Germany
关键词
D O I
10.1088/0029-5515/40/6/316
中图分类号
O35 [流体力学]; O53 [等离子体物理学];
学科分类号
070204 ; 080103 ; 080704 ;
摘要
After a decision by the ITER parties to investigate the possibility of designing a reduced cost version of ITER several possible machine layouts with different aspect ratios were studied. Relatively early in this process it became clear that there is no significant cost difference between different aspect ratios and that there is a maximum realistically possible aspect ratio for a machine with 6 m major radius and rather high plasma shaping. Following this study a machine with an intermediate aspect ratio (3.1) called the ITER Fusion Energy Advanced Tokamak (ITER FEAT) was chosen as the basis for the outline design of a reduced cost ITER. Several potential steady state scenarios can be investigated in ITER FEAT, i.e. monotonic or reversed shear at full or reduced minor radius. In addition, so-called hybrid discharges, are feasible where a mixture of inductive and non-inductive current drive as well as bootstrap current allows long pulse discharges of the order of 2500 s. The beta(N) values and H factors required for these discharges are in the same range as those observed on present machines, which provides confidence that such discharges can be studied in ITER FEAT. However, due to uncertainties in physics knowledge, for example the current drive efficiency off-axis, it is impossible at present to generate a completely self-consistent scenario taking all boundary conditions, for example engineering or heating system constraints, into account. In addition, all of these regimes have a potential problem with divertor operation compatibility (low edge density) and with helium exhaust which has to be addressed in existing experiments. For the engineering design of the in-vessel components and for the balance of the plant there is practically no difference between inductive (500 s) and steady state operation. However, the choice of heating systems and the distribution of power between them will be strongly influenced by the envisaged steady state scenarios.
引用
收藏
页码:1197 / 1221
页数:25
相关论文
共 70 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], P 13 INT C PLASM PHY
  • [2] AYMAR R, 1997, 16TH FUSION ENERGY, V1, P3
  • [3] BARABASH V, 1998, FUSION TECHNOL, V1, P215
  • [4] ESTIMATION OF THE MAXIMUM DIVERTOR RADIATIVE FRACTION IN THE PRESENCE OF A NEUTRAL CUSHION
    BORRASS, K
    JANESCHITZ, G
    [J]. NUCLEAR FUSION, 1994, 34 (09) : 1203 - 1211
  • [5] BOUCHER D, 1992, ADV SIMULATIONS MODE, P142
  • [6] Braams B.J., 1987, EURFUXII808768 NET
  • [7] MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF EROSION AND REDEPOSITION FOR LIMITER AND DIVERTOR IMPURITY CONTROL-SYSTEMS
    BROOKS, JN
    [J]. NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY-FUSION, 1983, 4 (01): : 33 - 45
  • [8] BROOKS JN, 1990, PHYS FLUIDS, V8, P1858
  • [9] The ITER port limiter design
    Cardella, A
    Lodato, A
    Pacher, HD
    Parker, RR
    Ioki, K
    Janeschitz, G
    Lousteau, D
    Raffray, R
    Yamada, M
    Gusic, C
    [J]. FUSION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, 1998, 43 (01) : 75 - 92
  • [10] CHALLIS CD, 1999, CONTROLLED FUSION J, V23, P69