Validation divertor heat flux model

[jguterl]

@daveweisberg Can you point a baseline case obtained with GASC with divertor heat flux constraints? e.g. q parallel upstream, q_parallel_target and impurities fractions

[orso82]

@jguterl you can take a look at https://github.com/ProjectTorreyPines/FUSE.jl/blob/master/sample/FPPv1.0_aspectRatio3.5_PBpR35_demount.json

[jguterl]

"powerSOL": 219.92776950858612, "widthSOL": 0.0009726739483561888, "PR": 45.58624844119182, "PBR": 214.85581559316367, "PBpR": 34.99428003654665, "heatFluxParallel": 17809.933014915052, "heatFluxPoloidal": 2900.7629215688094, "divDeliveredHeatFlux": 932.0998749583548, "qdivPeak": 601.7560074909352,

"divRadFraction": 0.004482781088966957

This has 600MW/m^2 of peak heat flux and zero impurity concentration?

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:56 AM Orso Meneghini @.***> wrote:

@jguterl https://github.com/jguterl you can take a look at https://github.com/ProjectTorreyPines/FUSE.jl/blob/master/sample/FPPv1.0_aspectRatio3.5_PBpR35_demount.json

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ProjectTorreyPines/FUSE.jl/issues/294#issuecomment-1507467684, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEESMZDGW6QZASYWXCYHKUTXBBD4TANCNFSM6AAAAAAW5PF3N4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[daveweisberg]

The "qdivPeak" and "divDeliveredHeatFlux" are not meaningful here, since as you note the "divRadFraction" is 0. This solution was found by the optimizer only looking at "PBpR" as an output constraint. Now, whether this value of PBpR = 35.0 is compatible with a feasible divertor solution is of course a fair question, but not one we tried to answer last year.

[jguterl]

My understanding so far is that the common usage is to use PBpR metric from ITER as a baseline assuming that ITER will succeed with a W divertor for PBpR = 17 or rather PBR = 86 which is the effective metric minus the eich scaling assumptions.

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 2:15 PM David Weisberg @.***> wrote:

The "qdivPeak" and "divDeliveredHeatFlux" are not meaningful here, since as you note the "divRadFraction" is 0. This solution was found by the optimizer only looking at "PBpR" as an output constraint. Now, whether this value of PBpR = 35.0 is compatible with a feasible divertor solution is of course a fair question, but not one we tried to answer last year.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ProjectTorreyPines/FUSE.jl/issues/294#issuecomment-1507618330, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEESMZG6CVN6Y2XEGGS3TS3XBBUENANCNFSM6AAAAAAW5PF3N4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[orso82]

FUSE now has a divertor heat flux model. Thank you @jguterl !

It populates the dd.divertors IDS

NOTE: this is now run also as part of the ActorWholeFacility though right now we do not do much with the heatflux information, eventually we can set limits above which we should throw warnings and errors.

It would be good for @jguterl to review how I hooked his model in FUSE and for @daveweisberg to test the new model