itpa may 2007 © matej mayer carbon erosion and transport in asdex upgrade m. mayer 1, v. rohde 1,...
Post on 29-Jan-2016
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ITPA May 2007 © Matej Mayer
Carbon Erosion and Transport in ASDEX Upgrade
M. Mayer1, V. Rohde1, J.L. Chen1, X. Gong1, J. Likonen3,
S. Lindig1, G. Ramos2, E. Vainonen-Ahlgren3
and ASDEX Upgrade team
1 Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, EURATOM Association, Garching, Germany2 CICATA-Qro, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Querétaro, México
3 Association EURATOM-TEKES, VTT Processes, Espoo, Finland
• Outer divertor – Tungsten erosion and local transport – Carbon erosion
• Inner divertor – Carbon and boron deposition
• Global carbon transport from 2002 – 2006
• Extrapolation to ITER
ITPA May 2007 © Matej Mayer
Experimental: Marker stripes on divertor tiles
• Marker stripes – 4 – 8 µm C with Re interlayer – 200 – 500 nm W
• Thickness of layers before and after exposure determined with ion beam analysis methods
ReC
CC/Re W
C tile Net erosion = NBefore - NAfter
Gross erosion = NBefore + NDeposited – NAfter
NBefore, NAfter: Amounts before and after exposure
NDeposited: Amount deposited on C tileB, C
W1 2
1’
3
prompt redeposition
Net erosion 1’ - 3
Gross erosion 1’
ITPA May 2007 © Matej Mayer
Erosion of C in 2004 – 2005
6A
6B
5
4
9A
9B
9C
1low
1up
2
3A
3B
WC
10
Delamination of marker
• Comparable erosion pattern to W (except tile 10 + sharp deposition close to strike point)
• C-erosion 6-10 times larger than W-erosion
ITPA May 2007 © Matej Mayer
Total erosion of C in 2004 – 2005
Delamination of marker
Total C erosion on strike point obtained from
• C erosion pattern = W pattern
• C-erosion/W-erosion = 8
Tile
1 2.6 g
10 0.2 g
Total 2.8 g
Divertor erosion from spectroscopy: 1 gKallenbach PSI 2006
Uncertainties
• Factor 1.5 for surface analysis
• Factor 2 (– 3?) for spectroscopy
Agreement within error bars
Additional sinks
• Below roof baffle, pumped out, … C-source > C visible by spectroscopy
ITPA May 2007 © Matej Mayer
W coverage in AUG 2002 – 2006
Step by step replacement of C offers unique possibility to identify C sources
2002 – 2003 2004 – 2005 2005 – 2006
ITPA May 2007 © Matej Mayer
Deposition in inner divertor
2002 – 20034800 s
2004 – 20053050 s
2005 – 20062900 s
0 200 400 6000
2
4
6
s-coordinate [mm]
B + C C
9C456B6A
Dep
osi
tio
n o
f B
+C
[10
19 a
t./c
m2]
0 200 400 6000
2
4
6
s-coordinate [mm]
B + C C
9C456B6A
Dep
osi
tio
n o
f B
+C
[10
19 a
t./c
m2]
0 200 400 6000
2
4
6
s-coordinate [mm]
B + C C
9C456B6A
Dep
osi
tio
n o
f B
+C
[10
19 a
t./c
m2]
6A
6B
5
4
9C
• Decrease of C-deposition on divertor tiles by factor 7
from 2004/2005 to 2005/2006
• Decrease of C-deposition below roof baffle by factor 10
from 2004/2005 to 2005/2006
Outboard limiters are main carbon source
ITPA May 2007 © Matej Mayer
Total carbon balance
2002 – 2003 2004 – 2005 2005 – 2006
Outer divertor Erosion C [g] - 2.8 2.8
Inner divertor Deposition C [g] 14.8 14.3 2.2
Deposition B [g] 2.9 5.9 2.4
• Deposition on tiles 5, 6 measured in all 3 campaigns Extrapolate to total inner divertor using 2002/2003 data (factor 2.2)
• Erosion in outer divertor measured in 2004/2005 Assume identical in 2005/2006
• Normalized to 3000 s
ITPA May 2007 © Matej Mayer
Contribution of carbon ICRH limiters
W
C
2005-2006 Full carbon limitersused before 2005
Small carbon influx from horizontal part of limiters
Only small contribution of remaining carbon on limiters in 2005/2006
T. Pütterich 2003V. Bobkov
ITPA May 2007 © Matej Mayer
Carbon transport
2004 – 2005 2005 – 2006
3 g20%
11 g80%
14 g 3 g100%
2 g
Assumption: Small influx of residual carbon in main chamber
ITPA May 2007 © Matej Mayer
Extrapolation to ITER
ASDEX Upgrade: 1×1026 ions to outer divertor in 2004/2005 Carbon erosion: 2.8 g
ITER: 6×1026 ions to outer divertor per discharge Carbon erosion: 18 g
Transport to outer divertor, resulting in 0.2% C in incident flux(D+T)/C = 0.1 0.2 g T per discharge, allows 5000 discharges
CFC at strike points is marginally acceptable from T codeposition
Notes:
1. AUG at RT to 300°C, ITER at > 1000°C Small contribution of chemical erosion in both cases
2. Larger ELM size in ITER not taken into account (ELM mitigation)
3. Beryllium from main chamber not taken into account!
top related