| PHYSICS OF GASES, PLASMAS, AND ELECTRIC DISCHARGES |
Prev
Next
|
|
|
Comparison benchmark between tokamak simulation code and TokSys for Chinese Fusion Engineering Test Reactor vertical displacement control design |
| Qing-Lai Qiu(仇庆来)1, Bing-Jia Xiao(肖炳甲)1,2, Yong Guo(郭勇)1, Lei Liu(刘磊)1, Yue-Hang Wang(汪悦航)3 |
1 Institute of Plasma Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences(CAS), Hefei 230031, China;
2 School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China;
3 CAS Key Laboratory of Basic Plasma Physics and Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Vertical displacement event (VDE) is a big challenge to the existing tokamak equipment and that being designed. As a Chinese next-step tokamak, the Chinese Fusion Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR) has to pay attention to the VDE study with full-fledged numerical codes during its conceptual design. The tokamak simulation code (TSC) is a free boundary time-dependent axisymmetric tokamak simulation code developed in PPPL, which advances the MHD equations describing the evolution of the plasma in a rectangular domain. The electromagnetic interactions between the surrounding conductor circuits and the plasma are solved self-consistently. The TokSys code is a generic modeling and simulation environment developed in GA. Its RZIP model treats the plasma as a fixed spatial distribution of currents which couple with the surrounding conductors through circuit equations. Both codes have been individually used for the VDE study on many tokamak devices, such as JT-60U, EAST, NSTX, DIII-D, and ITER. Considering the model differences, benchmark work is needed to answer whether they reproduce each other's results correctly. In this paper, the TSC and TokSys codes are used for analyzing the CFETR vertical instability passive and active controls design simultaneously. It is shown that with the same inputs, the results from these two codes conform with each other.
|
Received: 21 December 2016
Revised: 01 March 2017
Accepted manuscript online:
|
|
PACS:
|
52.55.Fa
|
(Tokamaks, spherical tokamaks)
|
| |
52.35.Py
|
(Macroinstabilities (hydromagnetic, e.g., kink, fire-hose, mirror, ballooning, tearing, trapped-particle, flute, Rayleigh-Taylor, etc.))
|
| |
52.65.-y
|
(Plasma simulation)
|
|
| Fund: Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11305216, 11305209, and 11375191), the National Magnetic Confinement Fusion Research Program of China (Grant Nos. 2014GB103000 and 2014GB110003), and External Cooperation Program of BIC, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. GJHZ201303). |
Corresponding Authors:
Yong Guo
E-mail: yguo@ipp.ac.cn
|
Cite this article:
Qing-Lai Qiu(仇庆来), Bing-Jia Xiao(肖炳甲), Yong Guo(郭勇), Lei Liu(刘磊), Yue-Hang Wang(汪悦航) Comparison benchmark between tokamak simulation code and TokSys for Chinese Fusion Engineering Test Reactor vertical displacement control design 2017 Chin. Phys. B 26 065205
|
| [1] |
Jardin S C, Pomphrey N and Delucia J L 1986 J. Comput. Phys. 66 481
|
| [2] |
Humphreys D A, Ferron J R, Bakhtiari M, Blair J A, In Y, Jackson G L, Jhang H, Johnson R D, Kim J S, Lahaye R J, Leuer J A, Penaflor B G, Schuster E, Walker M L, Wang H, Welander A S and Whyte D G 2007 Nucl. Fusion 47 943
|
| [3] |
Humphreys D A, Leuer J A and Walker M L 1999 Proceedings 41st Annual Meeting of Division of Plasma Physics, November 15-19, 1999, Seattle, USA, p. 175
|
| [4] |
Jardin S C, Bell M G and Pomphrey N 1993 Nucl. Fusion 33 371
|
| [5] |
Nakamura Y, Yoshino R, Neyatani Y, Tsunematsu T and Azumi M 1996 Nucl. Fusion 36 643
|
| [6] |
Qiu Q L, Xiao B J, Guo Y, Liu L, Xing Z and Humphreys D A 2016 Nucl. Fusion 56 106029
|
| [7] |
Liu L, Xiao B J, Humphreys D A, Luo Z P and Chen S L 2014 Fusion Eng. Des. 89 563
|
| [8] |
Yuan Q P, Xiao B J, Luo Z P, Walker M L, Welander A S, Hyatt A, Qian J P, Zhang R R, Humphreys D A, Leuer J A, Johnson R D, Penaflor B G and Mueller D 2013 Nucl. Fusion 53 043009
|
| [9] |
Humphreys D A, Casper T A, Eidietis N, Ferrara M, Gates D A, Hutchinson I H, Jackson G L, Kolemen E, Leuer J A, Lister J, LoDestro L L, Meyer W H, Pearlstein L D, Portone A, Sartori F, Walker M L, Welander A S and Wolfe S M 2009 Nucl. Fusion 49 115003
|
| [10] |
Wan B N, Ding S Y, Qian J P, Li G Q, Xiao B J and Xu G S 2014 IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 42 495
|
| [11] |
Ren Y, Zhu J W, Gao X, Shen F S and Chen S M 2015 Nucl. Fusion 55 093002
|
| [12] |
Song Y T, Wu S T, Li J G, Wan B N, Wan Y X, Fu P, Ye M Y, Zheng J X, Lu K, Gao X G, Liu S M, Liu X F, Lei M Z, Peng X B and Chen Y 2014 IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 42 503
|
| [13] |
Qian J P, Wan B N, Shen B, Walker M L, Humphreys D A and Xiao B J 2009 Chin. Phys. B 18 2432
|
| [14] |
Xiao B J, Humphreys D A, Walker M L Hyatt A, Leuer J A, Mueller D, Penaflor B G, Pigrowshi D A, Johnson R D, Welander A, Yuan Q P, Wang H Z, Luo J R, Luo Z P, Liu C Y, Liu L Z and Zhang K 2008 Fusion Eng. Des. 83 181
|
| [15] |
Lao L L, St. John H and Stambaugh R D 1985 Nucl. Fusion 25 1611
|
| [16] |
Liu L, Xiao B J and Luo Z P 2015 J. Fusion Energ. 34 1129
|
| 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
|
|
|
