This title appears in the Scientific Report :
2021
Implementation of the Homogeneous Mixing Model in the ERO2.0 Code
Implementation of the Homogeneous Mixing Model in the ERO2.0 Code
Implementation of the Homogeneous Mixing Model in the ERO2.0 CodeM. Navarro1, J. Romazanov2, A. Eksaeva2, D. Matveev2, D. Borodin2, A. Kirschner2, E.T. Hinson1, O. Schmitz1 1University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 537062Forschungszentrum Jülich GbmH, Jülich, Germanynavarrogonza@wisc.eduWith in...
Saved in:
Personal Name(s): | Navarro, M. (Corresponding author) |
---|---|
Romazanov, J. / Eksaeva, Alina / Matveev, D. / Borodin, D. / Kirschner, A. / Schmitz, O. | |
Contributing Institute: |
Plasmaphysik; IEK-4 |
Imprint: |
2021
|
Conference: | 24th International Conference on Plasma Surface Interactions in Controlled Fusion Devices (PSI 2020), virtuell (virtuell), 2021-01-25 - 2021-01-29 |
Document Type: |
Abstract |
Research Program: |
Hochtemperaturtechnologien |
Publikationsportal JuSER |
Implementation of the Homogeneous Mixing Model in the ERO2.0 CodeM. Navarro1, J. Romazanov2, A. Eksaeva2, D. Matveev2, D. Borodin2, A. Kirschner2, E.T. Hinson1, O. Schmitz1 1University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 537062Forschungszentrum Jülich GbmH, Jülich, Germanynavarrogonza@wisc.eduWith increasing demands of energy across the globe, the fusion community is investing a large effort into determining the material limits of future generation reactors such as ITER, FESS-FNSF and DEMO. For some of these devices, the choice of plasma facing components (PFCs) is still to be determined. The presence of different materials adds complexity to the different interactions occurring within divertor, such as the additional impurity sputtering present in DIII-D and ASDEX caused by graphite tiles in the first wall 1-2. The 3D Monte-Carlo ERO2.0 code was recently developed to study particle erosion, re-deposition and migration in plasma facing components in a fusion reactor 3. In an effort to better understand these behaviours in large-scale experiments, the initial code ERO1.0 was rewritten to accommodate larger volume sizes instead of a single divertor tile, as well as improve the code performance and design. However, there are some physics features present in ERO1.0 which have not yet been adapted to its successor, such as the homogeneous mixing model (HMM). The HMM assumes there is a homogeneous distribution of different particle species collecting in an interaction layer on the surface of the PFC 4. Additionally, the model calculates the material concentrations within the number of defined layers after every time step. Currently, ERO2.0 does not include the mixing model, so that material concentrations are artificially kept constant despite erosion and deposition taking place. In this contribution, the HMM was implemented in ERO2.0, making it possible to describe the complex problem of global erosion/redeposition taking into account material mixing. The improved code is applied to the problem of W/C mixing in DIII-D. Because carbon is the first wall material for this plasma device, it is present as part of the majority of the ion species and when deposited within the surface layer, it can occupy a vacancy defect, become an interstitial, or form carbides. In order to take into account higher erosion yields for carbon deposits, an enhanced chemical yield factor Ye is introduced for freshly formed graphite deposits on tungsten 5. Resonant magnetic perturbations (RMPs) are used in DIII-D to suppress edge localized modes (ELMs), and the application of these in any device have shown to have a global effect on the erosion and deposition patterns on PFCs. In order to better understand the role of RMP’s in particle yields, the ERO2.0 code is used to model three different magnetic field configurations during L-Mode plasmas, to avoid contamination due to ELM-induced erosion: the ‘60’ and ‘0’ phase configurations, and one with no RMPs applied 2. Successful modelling and implementation of these campaign results should prove valuable for testing different types of devices, in particular long-term planned fusion projects such as FNSF and DEMO.[1] E. T. Hinson et al, 2017 Phys. Scr. (2017) 014048.[2] K. Krieger et al, 1997 J. Nucl. Mat. 241-243 (1997) 684-689.[3] J. Romazanov, 2017 Phys. Scr. (2017) 014018.[4] K. Ohya, A. Kirschner, 2009 Phys. Scr. (2009) 014010.[5] A. Kirschner et al, 2004, J. Nucl. Mat. 328 (2004) 62-66. |