Results for “G CODES” — Page 56

DOE OSTI2022

Non-linear MHD modelling of edge localized modes suppression by resonant magnetic perturbations in ITER

Edge localized modes (ELMs) suppression by resonant magnetic perturbations (RMPs) was studied with the non-linear magneto-hydro-dynamic (MHD) code JOREK for the ITER H-mode scenarios at 15 MA, 12.5 MA, 10 MA/5.3 T. In this study, the main aim was to demonstrate that ELMs can be suppressed by RMPs while the divertor 3D footprints of heat and particle fluxes remain within divertor material limits. The unstable peeling–ballooning modes responsible for ELMs without RMPs were modelled first for each scenario using numerically accessible parameters for ITER. Then the stabilization of ELMs by RMPs was modelled with the same parameters. RMP spectra, optimized by the linear MHD MARS-F code, with main toroidal harmonics N = 2, N = 3, N = 4 have been used as boundary conditions of the computational domain of JOREK, including realistic RMP coils, main plasma, scrape off layer (SOL) divertor and realistic first wall. The model includes all relevant plasma flows: toroidal rotation, two fluid diamagnetic effects and neoclassical poloidal friction. With RMPs, the main toroidal harmonic and the non-linearly coupled harmonics remain dominant at the plasma edge, producing saturated modes and a continuous MHD turbulent transport thereby avoiding ELM crashes in all scenarios considered here. The threshold for ELM suppression was found at a maximum RMP coils current of 45 kAt–60 kAt compared to the coils maximum capability of 90 kAt. In the high beta poloidal steady-state 10 MA/5.3 T scenario, a rotating QH-mode without ELMs was observed even without RMPs. In this scenario with RMPs N = 3, N = 4 at 20 kAt maximum current in RMP coils, similar QH-mode behaviour was observed however with dominant edge harmonic corresponding to the main toroidal number of RMPs. The present MHD modelling was limited in time by few tens of ms after RMPs were switched on until the magnetic energy of the modes saturates. As a consequence the thermal energy was still evolving on this time scale, far from the ITER confinement time scale and hence only the form of 3D footprints on the divertor targets can be indicated within this set-up. Also note, that the divertor physics was missing in this model, so realistic values of fluxes are out of reach in this modelling. However the stationary 3D divertor and particle fluxes could be simply extrapolated from these results to the stationary situation considering that a large power fraction should be radiated in the core and SOL and only about 50 MW power is going to the divertor, which is an arbitrary, but reasonable number used here. The 3D footprints with RMPs show the characteristic splitting with the main RMP toroidal symmetry. The maximum radial extension of the footprints typically was ~20 cm in inner divertor and ~40 cm in outer divertor with stationary heat fluxes decreasing further out from the initial strike point from ~5 MW m ₋2 to ~1 MW m ₋2 assuming a total power in the divertor and walls is 50 MW. The heat fluxes remain within the divertor target and baffle areas, however with rather small margin in the outer divertor which could be an issue for the first wall especially in transient regimes when part of the plasma thermal energy is released due to switching on the RMP coils. This fact should be considered when RMPs are applied with a more favorable application before or soon after the L–H transition, although optimization is required to avoid increasing the L–H power threshold with RMPs.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis (Rev. 3)

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Validation of 3D MHD simulations of Ne/D 2 mixed shattered pellet injection in JET

Nonlinear 3D magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) modeling of shattered pellet injection (SPI) in JET tokamak plasmas is performed with the JOREK code. The study focuses on the validation of simulation result with respect to experimental observations, addressing in particular figures of merit for the efficiency of the SPI, as a technique to mitigate thermal loads by injecting radiative impurities like neon during the thermal quench (TQ) phase of disruptions. A set of JET pulses with neon/deuterium atomic mixture ratio in the shattered pellet varying from 10% to 100% provides the experimental data to be compared with. Simulations using different models for the ablation of solid fragments and the radiation of neon impurities are considered. Synthetic diagnostics are employed for a direct quantitative comparison with key JET diagnostic systems providing in particular radiation, electron temperature and density, and magnetic measurements. 3D radiation structures from MHD simulations are analyzed to estimate the toroidal asymmetry of radiation, which is difficult to measure in JET due to the presence of only two toroidally displaced multi-channel bolometry systems. JOREK simulations show that, before the TQ, the bulk of the radiation is concentrated in a toroidal region enclosing the radiating fragments that is missed by both multi-channel bolometers, suggesting a possible underestimation of the total radiation by such diagnostic systems in the pre-TQ phase. On the other hand, JOREK predicts that during the TQ the radiation becomes more toroidally symmetric, with positive implications for the heat load to plasma facing components.

JOREK↗

DOE OSTI2023

WHONDRS River Corridor Sediment and Water Geochemistry and In Situ Sensor Data from Machine-Learning-Informed Sites across the Contiguous United States (v6)

This dataset supports a broader study examining hyporheic zone respiration rates to improve predictive models at a contiguous United States (CONUS) scale. The CONUS-Scale Model-Sample Study (CM) was designed following ICON (integrated, coordinated, open, and networked) principles to facilitate a model-experiment (ModEx) iteration approach, leveraging crowdsourced sampling across the CONUS. New machine learning models were created every month to guide sampling locations. Data from the resulting samples were used to test and rebuild the machine learning models for the next round of sampling guidance. Sampling began in April 2022 and ended in October 2023. In addition to the widely distributed CONUS sites, a more spatially focused sampling occurred in the Yakima River Basin, WA in summer 2022. Data from this more spatially intensive sampling occurred under the label “Second Spatial Study (SSS)” and were also included in the machine learning models. Other data types collected from SSS that were not part of CM were published in a separate data package (https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1969566). This data package was originally published in February 2023. It was updated in June 2023 (v2; new and modified files); December 2023 (v3; new and modified files); June 2024 (v4; new and modified files); April 2024 (v5; new and modified files); and September 2025 (v6; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of two folders of field photos and videos, one folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data and one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) readme; (5) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (6) field protocols; (7) a subfolder with sample data; and (8) a subfolder with sensor data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) surface water and sediment dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) surface water and sediment total nitrogen data and averages; (3) surface water major cations and anions and averages; (4) sediment grain size data; (5) sediment iron (II) data and averages; (6) wet sediment mass, dry sediment mass, water mass, and wet sediment volume in incubation and sediment ICR vials; (7) sediment incubation respiration rate data and averages; (8) normalized respiration rate data and averages; (9) methods codes; (10) sediment specific surface area; (11) sediment percent carbon and nitrogen; (12) sediment gravimetric moisture and averages; (15) sediment X-ray diffraction (XRD) data; (16) sediment adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and averages; (17) a subfolder with sediment incubation respiration data, scripts, and plots; (18) surface water and sediment FTICR methods; and (19) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains five subfolders, one containing the sediment .xml data files, one containing the water .xml files, one containing the sediment CoreMS output files, one containing the water CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS).The sensor data subfolder contains (1) a subfolder with miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature data and plots; (2) miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature summary data; and (3) miniDOT installation methods. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .d, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mov, or .mp4. CORRECTION: Carbon and nitrogen content are reported as percentages. The current column headers "01395_C_percent_per_mg" and "01397_N_percent_per_mg" are incorrect. These should read "01395_C_percent" and "01397_N_percent" and will be corrected in the next version of this data package. We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cowiche Canyon Conservatory, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Scientific Research Permit #210901), and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where the samples labeled “SSS” were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview. WHONDRS consortium members were asked to provide any acknowledgments for the collection of samples labeled “CM” and the following is a list of acknowledgments that were submitted with their corresponding Site IDs: (MART) Research activities were conducted in part on the Wind River Experimental Forest within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest; (MP- 100379) Philadelphia is part of Lenapehoking, the ancestral homelands of the Lenape peoples; (MP-102398) Land surveyed is the ancestral homelands of the Nookhose'iinenno (Arapaho), Tsis tsis'tas (Cheyenne), and Nuuchu (Ute); (MP-100749 and MP- 100747) Georgia Coastal Ecosystem LTER, OCE-1832178; (SP-70 and SP-72) Eastern Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock; (MP- 102944) Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. On the traditional lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Rhonde, and the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribe; (MP- 100607) Holiday Creek is located on the traditional territory of the Monacan Indian Nation; (SP-45) Lafayette Blue Springs State Park; (MP-102420) NSF DEB-2016749; (MP-100019) New Hampshire Agriculture Experiment Station; (SP-35) Rayonier (land owner; https://www.rayonier.com/); (MP- 101276) US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research, Subsurface Biogeochemical Research, Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 103224) Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 101584) Traditional lands of the Oceti Sakowin (Dakota, Lakota, Nakoda) and Anishinaabe Peoples.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗