Bulletin of the American Physical Society
60th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics
Volume 63, Number 11
Monday–Friday, November 5–9, 2018; Portland, Oregon
Session JM9: Mini-Conference on Plasma–Material Interactions in Fusion Devices: ITER and Beyond. II. Boundary Effects, Plasma Dynamics, and Alternative Divertor Solutions
2:00 PM–5:00 PM,
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
OCC
Room: C123
Chair: Sergei Krasheninnikov, University of California, San Diego
Abstract ID: BAPS.2018.DPP.JM9.3
Abstract: JM9.00003 : Validated modeling of plasma boundary physics coupled to surface response for atmospheric arcs*
2:50 PM–3:15 PM
Presenter:
Igor Kaganovich
(Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)
Authors:
Igor Kaganovich
(Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)
Alexander Khrabry
(Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)
Andrei Khodak
(Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)
Vladislav Vekselman
(Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)
Shurik Yatom
(Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)
Yevgeny Raitses
(Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)
Brent Stratton
(Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory)
Plasma boundary physics for tokamak divertors and atmospheric arcs have a lot of similarities: both require analysis of the heat and particle fluxes coupled to the surface response in the walls or electrodes mitigated by the space-charge sheaths modified by the electron and neutral emission from the surfaces. Resulting nonlinear equations for the plasma profiles are substantially complex and difficult to solve. We have developed several codes in multi-dimensions and verified each code against other to remove unavoidable bugs. Additional verification was performed against specially derived nonlinear analytical solution in the boundary layer where an approximate invariant of combination of density and temperature gradients was found [1]. In order to validate the predictions of the model, ablated species profiles and ablation rates of the wall material were compared with the measured experimental data in our Nanolab [2] and are in a good agreement, though some observed differences require further investigation.
[1] A. Khrabry, et al., Phys. Plasmas 25, 013521 and 013522 (2018).
[2] https://nano.pppl.gov/
V. Vekselman, et al., Plasma Sources Sci. T. 27, 025008 (2018).
*This research was supported by US Department of Energy, Fusion Energy Sciences.
To cite this abstract, use the following reference: http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2018.DPP.JM9.3
Follow Us |
Engage
Become an APS Member |
My APS
Renew Membership |
Information for |
About APSThe American Physical Society (APS) is a non-profit membership organization working to advance the knowledge of physics. |
© 2024 American Physical Society
| All rights reserved | Terms of Use
| Contact Us
Headquarters
1 Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3844
(301) 209-3200
Editorial Office
100 Motor Pkwy, Suite 110, Hauppauge, NY 11788
(631) 591-4000
Office of Public Affairs
529 14th St NW, Suite 1050, Washington, D.C. 20045-2001
(202) 662-8700