Agenda Item xxx

ITER Scientific Status and Required R&D

Alberto Loarte Plasma Operations Directorate ITER Organization

Acknowledgment : contributions from IO staff, Domestic Agencies, ITPA, EUTask Forces, US-BPO, and ITER Members Fusion Research Institutions
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 1

Outline of Talk

1. Introduction 2. Open R&D issues with major influence on designs for Baseline
Heat Loads on PFCs ELM Heat Fluxes and ELM Control Schemes Disruptions Loads and Disruption Mitigation (heat, forces and runaways)

3. ITER Scenarios and Open R&D Issues

H-mode access (incl. Ip ramp), control of H-mode access and H = 1 sustainment Helium H-modes Fuelling of H-mode Plasmas Control of plasma during transients NTM control, RWM control, etc.

4. Summary and Conclusions

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 2

ITER Mission and Design (I)

ITER Mission : To demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes
ITER fusion performance goals dominated plasmas (P/Padd 2 QDT 10) with Pfusion = 500 MW
Inductive operation with 300-500 s burn time Plasma performance H-mode scaling H98 ~ 1 and <ne>/nGW ~ 0.95 achieved in present tokamaks in high Type I ELMy H-mode regimes

Long pulse operation (~ 1000s) with P/Padd 1QDT 5 with Pfusion 350 MW
Most plasma current self-driven (bootstrap) + externally driven Plasma performance enhanced confinement regimes : hybrid scenarios or Hmodes with Internal Transport Barriers Definition of plasma regime that meets ITER requirements subject of R&D

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 3

ITER Mission and Design (II)

Vacuum Vessel

Blanket Magnets

Cryostat Divertor

Diagnostics and H&CD systems (33 MW NNBI, 20 MW ICRH, 20 MW ECRH)

Machine mass: 23350 t (Cryostat + VV + Magnets)

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 4

Review of Activities 2007-2010 ITER Design Review 2007- 2009 Re-assessment of ITER Design Capabilities to Achieve Projects Mission
Increased Current Requirements for PF coils and CS Force Limit Modification of PF6 (lower divertor-coil) location and Current Requirement Divertor Geometry modified for lower li operation at 15 MA (high Pped) Shaped & Detachable First Wall II Plasma Fluxes & Replaceability In-Vessel Coils for Vertical Stability Control Need for ELM Control Identified In-vessel ELM Control Coils, Pellet Pacing, (decision still open)

Main Focus of Work 2009-2010

Definition of ITER Research plan (First Plasma DT) in Conjunction with Phased Installation & Commissioning of Systems Further Studies of ITER Scenarios/Plasma Conditions Input to Detailed Designs & Required Physics R&D Progress in Detailed Design of Components/Systems (FW, H&CD, ) Assessment of Transient Load Control Requirements (ELMs and Disruptions) and Scheme Designs for Inclusion in ITER Baseline
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 5

ITER Experimental Schedule to DT

First Plasma Full DT Q=10 Short Pulse

ITER Commissioning and Operations 2019 2020 2021 2022

Coil Commissioning (&H plasma possible) First Plasma Install InVessel Equipment, ECRH & Diagnostics Shutdown Install Blanket, Divertor, NBI 1+2, ECRH, ICRH Diagnostics, TBMs Commission

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

H & He Operations Shutdown Install Diagnostics TBMs Commission H & He Operations

Tritium Plant Full DT Throughput

All H&CD Fully Commissioned Tritium Plant Ready for Nuclear Operation

Pre-Nuclear Shutdown Divertor Change Neutron Diagnostic Calibration Hydrogen Operations DD & Trace DT Operations Full DT

Q=10 short pulse

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 6

ITER Research Plan - Major Elements

H/ He Campaign I: March 2022 - January 2023
System commissioning with plasma H&CD short pulse commissioning to ~70MW input power 15MA/ 5.3T technical demonstration

H/ He Campaign II: November 2023 - May 2025

H&CD commissioning to long pulse Disruption loads completed/ disruption mitigation implemented ELM control commissioned in helium H-modes

D/ DT Campaign: May 2026 - August 2027

Commissioning of Tritium Plant with tritium Commissioning of tungsten divertor in H/ He plasmas Development of H-mode scenarios in deuterium Trace tritium experiments begin in January 2027 Full DT experiments begin in March 2027 Attempt at Q=10 short pulse in August 2027

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 7

ITER QDT 10 Scenario

T. Casper IAEA 2010 ITER controller with free-boundary coupled to transport All coil currents remain within limits Voltage waveforms realizable with new power supply design Evolution of density and Zeff prescribed Access to H-mode assumed with 52MW auxiliary heating Focus on H-mode performance at flat top rather than H-mode access QDT=10 performance and burn duration meet ITERs mission

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 8

ITER QDT 5 Long Pulse Mission

C. Kessel IAEA 2010
Ip = 12.5 MA IBS = 3 MA INB = 1.4 MA PNB = 33 MW PIC = 20 MW Palpha = 82 MW Prad,core = 42.5 MW Q = 7.7 li(3) = 0.94 n/nGr = 0.88 N = 2.15 H98 = 1.25 Zeff = 2.0 fNICD = 0.4 Tped = 4.5 keV n(0)/<n> = 1.07 tburn > 1000 s
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 9

ITER First Wall Design

R. Mitteau

Inboard

BM #1-6

Central column HFS start-up Toroidal & poloidal shaping

Top

BM #7-10

Secondary divertor region Toroidal & poloidal shaping

Outboard
All Be First Wall Panels shaped Shape & Power Handling ( 2 or 5 MWm-2) result of (on-going) optimization between steady loads and transients

BM #11-18

Outboard LFS start-up/rampdown Toroidal shaping

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 10

In-vessel coils
Upper VS coil
VS Coils Number Maximum current (pulsed) Voltage ELM Coils Number Maximum current Normal Operation 2 coils - 4 turns each 240 kAt/coil

2.3 kV 27 coils - 6 turns each 15 kA (+ 90 kAt/coil)

ELM coils

Voltage 230 V Lower VS coil VS and ELM control coils (also RWM) Successful PDR in October 2010 Scientific case for VS coils universally supported (Design and Conductor R&D on-going) Decision on Adoption of ELM coils into Baseline to be taken by June 2012 at the latest strengthen Scientific Case or Develop Alternative ELM control methods Design, Integration and R&D to continue for all in-vessel coil systems (FDR ~ Feb 2012)
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 11

Open R&D : Near SOL heat fluxes

No physics basis for inter-ELM near-SOL power channel and scaling to ITER q ~ 5 mm for ITER from SOLPS modelling and stability arguments but could it be much lower? New results indicate strong negative Ip scaling very narrow width for ITER Physics of qII ? Potential issues for baseline steady state heat flux handling and divertor conditions (sweeping, He pumping )
NSTX, Gray et al. PSI 2010 DIII-D, Makowski et al. PSI 2010 DIII-D M. Jakubowski- NF 09

Influence of RMP coils on near SOL power flux scaling ?

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 12

Open R&D : ELM SOL heat fluxes

Progress in understanding divertor target heat loads
ELM wetted area increases with DWELM ELM filaments Good news for Ip range possible without ELM control in ITER Small influence for 15 MA requirements if AELM = Abet-ELM for small WELM Physics of AELM(WELM) needs to be understood for extrapolation to ITER
JET, T. Eich PSI 2010 DIII-D, M. Jakubowski NF 2009

Understanding of First Wall ELM loads for large & small ELMs + consistency with divertor observations needed (WELM control limit could be set by FW)
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 13

Open R&D : ELM pacing by pellets

Pellet local edge over-pressure ELM triggering (Huysmans, THS/7-1) Experiments : Up to ~ 5 x fELMuncont increase in DIII-D (fELMcont ~ 1.8 fpellets) with ~ 10% E decrease (Baylor EPS10)
DIII-D Baylor -EPS10 DIII-D Baylor -EPS10

ITER requirement of ~ 30 fELMuncontrolled and effects on Wplasma need to be assessed Additional qELM from pellet particles expulsion by ELM needs to be understood
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 14

Open R&D : ELM suppression by RMP (I)

ITER in-vessel coils with DIII-D guideline Icoilmax = 90 kAt (20% margin) & one power supply/coil for flexible perturbation alignment n = 4 |br|/BT,0 ~ 6.6 10-4
O. Schmitz PSI 10

fcoil 5 Hz to allow perturbation rotation > 1 Hz smoothing of possible hot spots or localised erosion regions without PFC thermal cycling 20% Icoil margin provides system resilience to coil failure design criterion met for Ip 14.5 MA with up to 3 failed coils in rotating mode
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 15

Open R&D : ELM suppression by RMP (II)

Physics basis for ELM suppression in development extrapolation uncertain Magnitude of |br/BT,0| for ELM suppression in ITER sufficient penetration of resonant perturbation in ITER edge plasma? Effect on density, fuelling, radiative divertor : low fuelling efficiency by recycling in ITER <ne> controlled by pellet fuelling and no NBI fuelling
Lower |br/BT,0| required in ITER & less effect on <ne> ? Avoidance of ELMs following pellet injection ? ELM suppression at <ne>/nGW ~ 0.9 & *ped << 1 ?
DIIID-Evans-IAEA08

In parallel with demonstrating/improving basis of ELM control by pellet pacing & RMP coils new methods for ELM control in ITER need to be demonstrated by June 2012
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 16

Open R&D : Disruption Mitigation Thermal Loads & Forces (I)

Maximum allowable burst of gas into VV to recover operational conditions without significant operation delay is limited
Gas for MGI D2 ITER system limit (kPa*m3)

50 40 100 100 (<10)

He Ne Ar

Injection of material should provide decrease of thermal loads by radiation while maintaining mechanical loads within reasonable limits and prevent runaway generation
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 17

Open R&D : Disruption Mitigation Thermal Loads & Forces (II)

S. Putvinski IAEA 2010 ~ 0.3 kPa*m3 of Ne needed to reradiate plasma thermal energy reduces CQ to ~ 75 ms Reasonable window of 0.3 -10 kPa*m3 to mitigate thermal loads without excessive forces on the invessel components Runaway avalanche suppression by collisional damping probably only viable if n < 0.5 nRosenbluth

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 18

Open R&D : Runaway Mitigation

Large magnetic perturbations and secondary disruptions can be produced by dense gas jets injected repetitively in the CQ plasma
S. Putvinski IAEA 2010

Dense and resistive gas jet contracts current channel

Modeling of RE suppression

Required gas pressure ~ 1 atm, gas amount ~1 kPa*m3, 5 jets staggered in time by 5 ms --> Total amount of gas can be 10 times less then for collisional damping! Test of schemes of this type or other viable alternatives for mitigation of runaway loads is urgently required for ITER
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 19

Open R&D : H-mode Access

Power requirements for H-mode access in ITER evaluated in terms of global scaling law Large scatter in part experimental variability but also hidden parameters edge parameters and study of experiments with systematic deviations (X-point height, input torque, ) Study H-mode access for ITER-specific scenario requirements (in Ip ramps)
Y. Martin, et al., Jour. Phys. Conf. (2008)

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 20

Open R&D : H-mode Access and X-point Height

Similar effect seen in several devices and can more than double L-H transition power for similar global parameters (Zx-Zbot)/a ~ 0.5 (ITER), 0.3 (JET), 0.4 (DIII-D) Unclear driving change in local parameters and PL-H if neutral escape then not an issue for ITER good test for H-mode models Coordinated ITPA experiments dependences in local & global parameters across devices JET-Andrew
DIII-D-Gohil

JET-Andrew

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 21

Open R&D : H-mode access/sustainment during current ramps

ITER QDT = 10 scenarios are designed with H-mode phases at Ip <15 MA Power requirements for H-mode access and sustainment in these phases assumed to be similar as for stationary Ip conditions Changing edge current by ramps well known to have effects on H-mode plasma behaviour consequences for ITER ? More emphasis to this issue required from future ITER scenario simulation experiments JET-Becoulet
Ip = 15 MA - DINA ITER V. Lukash & Y. Gribov

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 22

Open R&D : Control of H-mode access exit from H ~ 1

Access and exit to H ~ 1 strongly dependent on P behaviour around transition P strongly dependent on pedestal and core plasma build-up/build-down after L-H/following H-L transition (in particular on <ne>)
Ip = 15 MA - DINA ITER V. Lukash & Y. Gribov

Experiments to characterize edge/core evolution around L-H/H-L transition (ITPA) and burn-simulation experiments required to assess expected behaviour in ITER and to develop control schemes for ITER
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 23

Open R&D : H ~ 1 sustainment in ITER (I)

Stationary H ~ 1 can require up to Pinput > PL-H for ITER QDT=10. > 1 may depend on factors () which do not affect PL-H
JET-Saibene PPCF 2002 ASDEX-Upgrade-Ryter-H-mode WS2007

ITER QDT =10, 500 MW Padd=50 MW, P=100 MW, Pradcore=50 MW ( 1.3)

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 24

Open R&D : H ~ 1 sustainment in ITER (II)

Necessary to understand to which level ELM dynamics, edge power flow, Hmode hysteresis, etc., affects HH ~1 sustainment in ITER
JET-Sartori H-mode workshop 2009 C-Mod-Hughes-IAEA10

Influence of edge/divertor radiation as required for acceptable qdiv on confinement is a major issue to address for ITER
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 25

Open R&D : Characterisation of He Type I ELMy H-modes

He Type I ELMy H-modes are key to development of ITER Research Plan : H-mode access & H-mode confinement at ITER scale and development of ELM control techniques Assessment of key issues for ITER needed beyond L-H threshold power requirements Access to Type I ELMy H-mode, ELM characteristics, He H-mode fuelling, Influence of H on He for H-mode and Type I ELMy H-modes required to assess viability of pellet pacing in He plasmas
ASDEX-Scarabosio-EPS09

1 MA 0.6 MA

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 26

Open R&D : Fuelling of ITER H-modes (I)

Edge density and plasma fuelling in ITER expected to be different from present devices if ionisation and diffusion dominate edge transport : edge plasma dense and hot inefficient fuelling of pedestal plasma by neutrals density pedestal width determined by ped ped = Dp (nped-nsep)/wn
ITER-B2-Eirene Kukushkin

DT_s ~ 6 1021s-1

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 27

Open R&D : Fuelling of ITER H-modes (II)

Neutral fuelling of plasmas in conditions of edge neutral opacity approaching those of ITER role of sources versus transport in pedestal fuelling Assessment of fuelling by neutrals in ITER-like conditions required to understand reliance on pellet fuelling for all phases of discharges and fuelling of He plasmas
JET 2MA-Kallenbach PPCF04 Nunes H-mode workshop 09

ion/Wn ~ 1/3-1/2

ion/Wn ~ 1/3-1/2

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 28

Open R&D : Fuelling of ITER H-modes (III)

Main plasma fuelling of ITER for high QDT regimes based on pellet injection Pellet size (50-90 mm3) & speed (300-500 ms-1) from modelling/experiments Uncertainties remain : Ablation typically > 0.95 pellet penetration by drift understanding of drift scaling with device size and nped, Tped, etc. required Loss of pellet-injected particles by following ELMs needs quantification
A. Polevoi NF05 B. Pegouri EPS09

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 29

Conclusions
Most ITER Baseline systems are in procurement or detailed design phases R&D is needed in some areas to take decisions on few remaining systems or detailed design choices (timescale 1.5 years from now)
ELM control schemes Disruption Mitigation schemes with emphasis on runaway suppression (or soft landing if needed) Detailed design of First Wall Panel

Development of ITER operational scenarios (non-active to DT) requires R&D to determine plasma behaviour and use of baseline systems for its control
H-mode access/sustainment (including Ip ramp-up/down phases) Access to H ~ 1 from low confinement H-mode and control of P (through <nDT>) Sustainment of H ~ 1 and relation to ELM control requirements He H-mode plasmas characterisation and control of ELMs Fuelling of ITER high Ip H-modes : sources vs. pinch and pellet fuelling Plasma control during confinement transients MHD control (NTM, sawteeth, RWM, )

Continued R&D support by fusion community required to guide outstanding decisions on ITER Baseline systems/detailed designs and for the definition of realizable ITER operational scenarios
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 30

ITER Reference Plasma Parameters

Table shows nominal plasmas parameters for ITER scenarios

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 31

ITER PF System
CS primarily ohmic current drive but can be used to move plasma away from inside wall VS1 (PF2,PF3) and (PF4,PF5) differential currents for stability control VS2 can be used for control not in baseline VS3 new internal coils closely coupled to plasma for fast response Disturbance control Reduce effects of noise in control

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 32

ITER H-mode Power Threshold

The latest H-mode threshold power scaling for deuterium plasmas: (Y Martin, HMW-2008) The isotope dependence based on JET results in H, D, and DT indicates that Pthresh 1/A for hydrogen isotopes Possible helium H-mode access

half-field/ half current H-mode development

Q=10 Full-field/ full current H-mode development No H-mode access in D for full Q=10 simulation H-mode access path in DT needs 40MW No H-mode access in H at full field

Note: within the ITER formalism, input power normally corrected for core radiation fraction of ~30%
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 33

Open R&D : H-mode Access and Torque Input

Effects of torque input seen in several devices but effects vary from device to device and within device for different conditions If input torque/rotation effects important scaling law probably overestimates ITER requirements (if ITER rotation is low) Systematic/Coordinated assessment in tokamaks with well diagnosed edge rotation and n-T, etc., required to make progress for ITER
C-mod-Rice DIII-D-Gohil

JET-Andrew ICRH NBI

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 34

Factors affecting L-H transition : Low ne limit

PL-H increases strongly below a given density Understanding of low density limit and predictions for ITER are very uncertain Major issue is whether high <ne> limit in C-Mod is relevant to ITER or not although there seems to be a favourable machine size scaling
C-Mod-Snipes Martin JPCS09 + C-Mod-Snipes

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 35

Strategies for minimization of power requirements

Typically, experiment dependent and thus difficult to evaluate in ITER More effort in developing techniques compatible with ITER operation pellet injection, current ramps (down), X-point recycling, )
DIII-Gohil-PRL01 JET-Andrew

PLH reduction by 20-30 % with pellets

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 36

H-mode Hysteresis
H-mode hysteresis results vary widely from experiment to experiment
JET-Andrew-PPCF08 DIII-D-Thomas-PPCF98

Assessment of influence of local parameters versus power requirements and role of ELM dynamics in H-L transition required
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 37

Open R&D : H ~ 1 sustainment in ITER (III)

ITER operation in H-mode with edge power flux just above H-mode transition could be complex if JET-like behaviour reproduced in ITER
Cyclic transitions between Type I and Type III ELMy H-mode or even L-mode Wplasma oscillations > 20% P ~ Wplasma2 P oscillations > 40% amplification of Wplasma oscillations Problems sudden & large Wplasma excursions (possible large power fluxes to inner wall due to radial plasma movement), control of divertor power flux under 10 MWm-2, additional power coupling with oscillatory edge plasma conditions, etc.
JET-Sartori PPCF 2004 JET-Horton NF 1999

Type I

L mode

Type III

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 38

Distribution of FW panel design heat load

Steady state:
q|| ~ 8 MWm-2, q|| > 4.0 cm q|| ~ 24 MWm-2, q|| > 2.5 cm (ELMs)

Disruptions
t = 3.0-6.0 ms

VDE (up):
q|| ~ 70-270 MJm-2, q|| > 3.0 cm t = 1.5-3.0 ms

q|| ~ 45-120 MJm-2, q|| > 20 cm

Start-up:
q|| ~ 25 MWm-2, q|| ~ 5.0 cm Several seconds

Radiation:
SS: 0.5 MWm-2
(photon+CX)

Confinement transients
q|| ~ 250 MWm-2, ~2-3 secs

Disruptions
TQ: ~0.5 MJm-2 t ~ 1 ms (mitigated) CQ: ~0.9 MJm-2 t ~ 10 ms

Start-up and rampdown:

q|| ~ 40 MWm-2, q|| > 1.2 cm Several seconds

VDE (down):
q|| ~ 90-300 MJm-2, q|| > 3.0 cm 52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 39

Examples: major disruption and VDE on FW

Large areas receive energy densities > 10 MJm-2 Severe melting for either Be or W MD with WTQ.=175 MJ Pk factor = 3 13 MJm-2 22 MJm-2

Full energy VDE

Mitteau / Labidi
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 40

Examples: major disruption and VDE on FW

Thermal specs. feed into lifetime estimates and requirements on mitigation performance and success rate
Better guidelines also required on expected material losses

MD with WTQ.=175 MJ Pk factor = 3

13 MJm-2

Mitteau / Labidi
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 41

Disruptive load data is sparse and variable

A few sparse datasets from a handful of devices
Great deal of heat load variation seen in different disruptions Strike point motion, splitting and non-axisymmetric at TQ MHD Captured only crudely by broadening factor

JET, main chamber loads

DIII-D divertor loads

Arnoux, NF 49 (2009)

Hollmann 12th ITPA DivSOL, San Diego

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 42

Radiation asymmetries during MGI

JET 10%D2 90% Ar C-Mod

preTQ pre-TQ

preTQ TQ

TQ C Q

CQ
AUG Ne Toroidal asymmetries

C Q

TQ preTQ preTQ

CQ

ITER needs to estimate the extent of main wall heating by the radiation flash penalty if too DIII-D localised required no. of Ne injectors
A. Huber, E. Hollmann PSI 2010 A. Kallenbach, M. Reinke, 13th ITPA

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 43

Runaway electrons
Heat load data extremely limited
Simple extrapolation to ITER from single JET discharge Must improve this situation

Lehnen, JNM 390-391 (2009)

Wetted area = 0.3 m2 in JET 0.3 0.6 m2 in ITER

RE beam energy ~20 MJ 35-70 MJm-2 in ITER

Need 6 - 14 MJm-2 to melt layer down to penetration depth in Be (2.5-7.5 mm for 1- 3 and 12 MeV)
52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 44

Secondary divertor ELM fluxes

DIII-D
IR TV

Before ELM
Secondar y strike

ELM filaments far from 2nd strike

20% of WELM to 2nd strike ELM power even seen at inner 2nd strike Higher than assumed in ITER load spec

More work required here all linked to understanding ELM broadening

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA
Page 45

DIII-D #138219

During ELM

J. G. Watkins, IAEA 2010

Open R&D : Far SOL heat fluxes

Prescribed ITER far-SOL inter-ELM profiles critical for FW heat flux estimates wall design
Assume break to convective (filamentary) transport in primary SOL Based on tokamak data No predictive capability from current models Are ITER upper (high density) estimates correct?

What does the far-SOL look like with RMPs?

52nd APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting , Chicago, Illinois, USA

Page 46