You need JavaScript to view this

Benchmarking Reactor Systems Studies by Comparison of EU and Japanese System Code Results for Different DEMO Concepts

Abstract

Full text: Recent systems studies work within the Broader Approach framework has focussed on benchmarking the EU systems code PROCESS against the Japanese code TPC for conceptual DEMO designs. This paper describes benchmarking work for a conservative, pulsed DEMO and an advanced, steady-state, high-bootstrap fraction DEMO. The resulting former machine is an R{sub 0} = 10 m, a = 2.5 m, {beta}{sub N} < 2.0 device with no enhancement in energy confinement over IPB98. The latter machine is smaller (R{sub 0} = 8 m, a = 2.7 m), with {beta}{sub N} = 3.0, enhanced confinement, and high bootstrap fraction f{sub BS} = 0.8. These options were chosen to test the codes across a wide range of parameter space. While generally in good agreement, some of the code outputs differ. In particular, differences have been identified in the impurity radiation models and flux swing calculations. The global effects of these differences are described and approaches to identifying the best models, including future experiments, are discussed. Results of varying some of the assumptions underlying the modelling are also presented, demonstrating the sensitivity of the solutions to technological limitations and providing guidance for where further research could be focussed. (author)
Authors:
Kemp, R.; Ward, D.J., E-mail: richard.kemp@ccfe.ac.uk; [1]  Nakamura, M.; Tobita, K.; [2]  Federici, G. [3] 
  1. EURATOM/CCFE Association, Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, Abingdon (United Kingdom)
  2. Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Rokkasho (Japan)
  3. EFDA Garching, Max Plank Institut fur Plasmaphysik, Garching (Germany)
Publication Date:
Sep 15, 2012
Product Type:
Conference
Report Number:
IAEA-CN-197; FTP/P7-29
Resource Relation:
Conference: FEC 2012: 24. IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, San Diego, CA (United States), 8-13 Oct 2012; Related Information: In: 24. IAEA Fusion Energy Conference. Programme and Book of Abstracts| 789 p.
Subject:
70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY; BENCHMARKS; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; CONFINEMENT; PULSES; SENSITIVITY; SIMULATION; STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS; TIME PROJECTION CHAMBERS
OSTI ID:
22192633
Research Organizations:
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (Austria)
Country of Origin:
IAEA
Language:
English
Other Identifying Numbers:
TRN: XA14S0043017122
Availability:
Available from INIS in electronic form. Also available on-line: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2012/cn197/cn197_Programme.pdf
Submitting Site:
INIS
Size:
page(s) 500
Announcement Date:
Feb 20, 2014

Citation Formats

Kemp, R., Ward, D.J., E-mail: richard.kemp@ccfe.ac.uk, Nakamura, M., Tobita, K., and Federici, G. Benchmarking Reactor Systems Studies by Comparison of EU and Japanese System Code Results for Different DEMO Concepts. IAEA: N. p., 2012. Web.
Kemp, R., Ward, D.J., E-mail: richard.kemp@ccfe.ac.uk, Nakamura, M., Tobita, K., &amp; Federici, G. Benchmarking Reactor Systems Studies by Comparison of EU and Japanese System Code Results for Different DEMO Concepts. IAEA.
Kemp, R., Ward, D.J., E-mail: richard.kemp@ccfe.ac.uk, Nakamura, M., Tobita, K., and Federici, G. 2012. "Benchmarking Reactor Systems Studies by Comparison of EU and Japanese System Code Results for Different DEMO Concepts." IAEA.
@misc{etde_22192633,
title = {Benchmarking Reactor Systems Studies by Comparison of EU and Japanese System Code Results for Different DEMO Concepts}
author = {Kemp, R., Ward, D.J., E-mail: richard.kemp@ccfe.ac.uk, Nakamura, M., Tobita, K., and Federici, G.}
abstractNote = {Full text: Recent systems studies work within the Broader Approach framework has focussed on benchmarking the EU systems code PROCESS against the Japanese code TPC for conceptual DEMO designs. This paper describes benchmarking work for a conservative, pulsed DEMO and an advanced, steady-state, high-bootstrap fraction DEMO. The resulting former machine is an R{sub 0} = 10 m, a = 2.5 m, {beta}{sub N} < 2.0 device with no enhancement in energy confinement over IPB98. The latter machine is smaller (R{sub 0} = 8 m, a = 2.7 m), with {beta}{sub N} = 3.0, enhanced confinement, and high bootstrap fraction f{sub BS} = 0.8. These options were chosen to test the codes across a wide range of parameter space. While generally in good agreement, some of the code outputs differ. In particular, differences have been identified in the impurity radiation models and flux swing calculations. The global effects of these differences are described and approaches to identifying the best models, including future experiments, are discussed. Results of varying some of the assumptions underlying the modelling are also presented, demonstrating the sensitivity of the solutions to technological limitations and providing guidance for where further research could be focussed. (author)}
place = {IAEA}
year = {2012}
month = {Sep}
}