|
Special Issue:
SPECIAL TOPIC — Plasma disruption
|
| SPECIAL TOPIC—Plasma disruption |
Prev
Next
|
|
|
Comparison of different noble gas injections by massive gas injection on plasma disruption mitigation on Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak |
| Sheng-Bo Zhao(赵胜波)1,2, Hui-Dong Zhuang(庄会东)1,†, Jing-Sheng Yuan(元京升)1,2, De-Hao Zhang(张德皓)1,2, Li Li(黎立)1,2, Long Zeng(曾龙)3, Da-Long Chen(陈大龙)1, Song-Tao Mao(毛松涛)1, Ming Huang(黄明)1, Gui-Zhong Zuo(左桂忠)1,‡, and Jian-Sheng Hu(胡建生)1 |
1 Institute of Plasma Physics, Hefei Institutes of Physical Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei 230031, China;
2 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China;
3 Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Massive gas injection (MGI) is a traditional plasma disruption mitigation method. This method directly injected massive gas into the pre-disruption plasma and had been developed on the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST). Different noble gas injection experiments, including He, Ne, and Ar, were performed to compare the mitigation effect of plasma disruption by evaluating the key parameters such as flight time, pre-thermal quench (pre-TQ), and current quench (CQ). The flight time was shorter for low atomic number (Z) gas, and the decrease in flight time by increasing the amount of gas was insignificant. However, both pre-TQ and CQ durations decreased considerably with the increase in gas injection amount. The effect of atomic mass on pre-TQ and CQ durations showed the opposite trend. The observed trend could help in controlling CQ duration in a reasonable area. Moreover, the analysis of radiation distribution with different impurity injections indicated that low Z impurity could reduce the asymmetry of radiation, which is valuable in mitigating plasma disruption. These results provided essential data support for plasma disruption mitigation on EAST and future fusion devices.
|
Received: 30 December 2022
Revised: 05 March 2023
Accepted manuscript online: 07 March 2023
|
|
PACS:
|
52.55.Fa
|
(Tokamaks, spherical tokamaks)
|
| |
52.25.Vy
|
(Impurities in plasmas)
|
|
| Fund: Project supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant Nos. 2017YFE0301100 and 2022YFE03130000), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 12105322, 11905138, 11905148, and 11905254), the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province of China (Grant No. 2108085QA38), the Chinese Postdoctoral Science Found (Grant No. 2021000278), the Presidential Foundation of Hefei Institutes of Physical Science (Grant No. YZJJ2021QN12), the U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC02-09CH11466 (Grant No. DE-SC0016553), the Users with Excellence Program of Hefei Science Center CAS (Grant Nos. 2020HSC-UE010 and 2021HSC-UE013), and Interdisciplinary and Collaborative Teams of CAS. |
Corresponding Authors:
Hui-Dong Zhuang, Gui-Zhong Zuo
E-mail: hdzhuang@ipp.ac.cn;zuoguizh@ipp.ac.cn
|
Cite this article:
Sheng-Bo Zhao(赵胜波), Hui-Dong Zhuang(庄会东), Jing-Sheng Yuan(元京升), De-Hao Zhang(张德皓),Li Li(黎立), Long Zeng(曾龙), Da-Long Chen(陈大龙), Song-Tao Mao(毛松涛), Ming Huang(黄明),Gui-Zhong Zuo(左桂忠), and Jian-Sheng Hu(胡建生) Comparison of different noble gas injections by massive gas injection on plasma disruption mitigation on Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak 2023 Chin. Phys. B 32 075207
|
[1] Matthews G F, Edwards P, Greuner H, et al. 2009 Phys. Scr. T138 014030
[2] Li Y, Chen Z Y, Yan W, et al. 2021 Nucl. Fusion 61 126025
[3] Lehnen M, Abdullaev S S, Arnoux G, et al. 2009 J. Nucl. Mater. 390-391 740
[4] Zhuang H D and Zhang X D 2015 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 86 053502
[5] de Vries P C, Arnoux G, Huber A, et al. 2012 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 54 124032
[6] Hollmann E M, Arnoux G, Commaux N, et al. 2011 J. Nucl. Mater. 415 S27
[7] Pautasso G, Zhang Y, Reiter B, et al. 2011 Nucl. Fusion 51 103009
[8] Zhuang H D and Zhang X D 2013 Plasma Sci. Technol. 15 745
[9] Thornton A J, Gibson K J, Harrison J R, et al. 2012 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 54 125007
[10] Reux C, Bucalossi J, Saint-Laurent F, et al. 2010 Nucl. Fusion 50 095006
[11] Bakhtiari M, Olynyk G, Granetz R, et al. 2011 Nucl. Fusion 51 063007
[12] Hollmann E M, Jernigan T C, Parks P B, et al. 2008 Nucl. Fusion 48 115007
[13] Hender T C, Wesley J C, Bialek J, et al. 2007 Nucl. Fusion 47 S128
[14] Pautasso G, Mlynek A, Bernert M, et al. 2015 Nucl. Fusion 55 033015
[15] Kruezi U, Lehnen M, Philipps V, et al. 2011 J. Nucl. Mater. 415 S828
[16] Hollmann E M, Aleynikov P B, Fülöp T, et al. 2015 Phys. Plasmas 22 021802
[17] Lehnen M, Alonso A, Arnoux G, et al. 2011 Nucl. Fusion 51 123010
[18] Chen D L, Granetz R S, Zeng L, et al. 2020 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 62 095019
[19] Chen D L, Granetz R S, Shen B, et al. 2015 Chin. Phys. B. 24 025205
[20] Schuller F C 1995 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 37 A135
[21] Eidietis N W, Izzo V A, Commaux N, et al. 2017 Phys. Plasmas 24 102504
[22] Li W, Tong R H, Bai W, et al. 2020 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 62 045003
[23] Commaux N, Baylor L R, Jernigan T C, et al. 2014 Phys. Plasmas 21 102510
[24] Lehnen M, Gerasimov S N, Jachmich S, et al. 2015 Nucl. Fusion 55 123027 |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
Altmetric
|
|
blogs
Facebook pages
Wikipedia page
Google+ users
|
Online attention
Altmetric calculates a score based on the online attention an article receives. Each coloured thread in the circle represents a different type of online attention. The number in the centre is the Altmetric score. Social media and mainstream news media are the main sources that calculate the score. Reference managers such as Mendeley are also tracked but do not contribute to the score. Older articles often score higher because they have had more time to get noticed. To account for this, Altmetric has included the context data for other articles of a similar age.
View more on Altmetrics
|
|
|
