TMAP8 divertor example tritium flux update#425
Conversation
|
Job Documentation, step Sync to remote on 6f4f5df wanted to post the following: View the site here This comment will be updated on new commits. |
lin-yang-ly
left a comment
lin-yang-ly
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@simopier The changes in the current draft PR look good to me. The normalized tritium flux unit (m/s) also makes sense. I only have a few minor suggestions for the current PR. Other than that, please feel free to move forward.
| style=display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;width:40% | ||
|
|
||
| !alert warning title=Updated results since publication of [!cite](Shimada2024114438). | ||
| As detailed in the `Boundary conditions and history` section above, the BCs for tritium influx and heat flux have been updated since publication of [!cite](Shimada2024114438) to fix typos. While the heat flux correction only has very minor effects, the new tritium flux is 4 orders of magnitude larger than in [!cite](Shimada2024114438), leading to higher tritium concentrations, overall retention, and losses to the coolant side. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The sentence mentioned "the BCs for tritium influx and heat flux have been updated". In the input file, the heat flux is still 1e7 W/m^2, which is same with the published paper. Maybe we should remove the heat flux here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The minimum value of the heat flux was updated. Not the maximum value. I'll make it more specific.
| rings_W=40 | ||
| Executioner/nl_rel_tol=1e-9 | ||
| Executioner/nl_abs_tol=1e-11' | ||
| Executioner/nl_abs_tol=3e-6' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the nl_abs_tol too large, causing the heavy tests to fail?
| rings_W=40 | ||
| Executioner/nl_rel_tol=1e-9 | ||
| Executioner/nl_abs_tol=1e-11' | ||
| Executioner/nl_abs_tol=3e-6' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same large nl_abs_tol here. Would it help to decrease it a little?
| plasma_min_retained_t_surface_flux = '${units 0.0 m/s}' | ||
|
|
||
| # For postprocessor scaling | ||
| diffusivity_fixed = '${units 5.01e-24 g/m^2}' # (3.01604928)/(6.02e23)/[gram(T)/m^2] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems that the diffusivity_fixed is a factor to convert the atomic flux (at/m^2/s) to mass flux (g/m^2/s). Therefore, the unit would be accurate with "g/at" instead of current "g/m^2".
Co-authored-by: Lin Yang <132409718+lin-yang-ly@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Job Build test summary, step Build test summary on 6f4f5df wanted to post the following: Test summaryCompared against 3a2fca1 in job civet.inl.gov/job/3934827. No change |
|
Potential source for incident tritium flux https://scipub.euro-fusion.org/wp-content/uploads/eurofusion/WPPFCCPR17_17993_submitted.pdf In page 6 they assume a maximal incident flux of |
|
My only hesitation here is that I'm not used to seeing fluxes with units of m/s. Everything else looks fine and I agree with the math you've done. |
ke7kto
left a comment
ke7kto
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The math looks consistent, my only concern is that I'm not used to seeing fluxes in units of m/s
4 participants
(Ref. #333)
(Ref. #359)