Content uploaded by G. Bracco
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by G. Bracco
Content may be subject to copyright.
by
P. Gohil
in collaboration with
J. Kinsey, V. Parail, X. Litaudon, T. Fukuda, T. Hoang
for the ITPA Group on Transport and ITB Physics and for the
International ITB Database Group
Presented at
the 19th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference
Lyon, France
October 14–19, 2002
INCREASED UNDERSTANDING OF THE DYNAMICS
AND TRANSPORT IN ITB PLASMAS FROM
MULTI-MACHINE COMPARISONS
256-02/PG/amw
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
AUTHOR LIST
256-02/PG/amw
P. Gohil,1 J. Kinsey,2 V. Parail,3 X. Litaudon,4 T. Fukuda,5 T. Hoang4
For the ITPA Group on Transport and ITB Physics: J. Connor,6 E. Doyle,7
Yu. Esipchuk,8 T. Fujita,5 T. Fukuda,5 P. Gohil,1 J. Kinsey,2 S. Lebedev,9 X. Litaudon,4
V. Mukhovatov,10 J. Rice,11 E. Synakowski,12 K. Toi,13 B. Unterberg,14 V. Vershkov,8
M. Wakatani,15 J. Weiland,16 and for the International ITB Database Working Group:
T. Aniel,4
Yu.F. Baranov,3E. Barbato,17A. Bécoulet,4C. Bourdelle,4 G. Bracco,17
R.V. Budny,12 P. Buratti,17 E. Doyle, L. Ericsson,487 Yu. Esipchuk, B. Esposito,17
T. Fujita,5 T. Fukuda,5 P. Gohil,1 C. Greenfield,1 M. Greenwald,11 T. Hahm,12
T. Hellsten,3 T. Hoang,4 D. Hogeweij,18 S. Ide,5 F. Imbeaux,4 Y. Kamada,5 J. Kinsey,2
N. Kirneva,8 X. Litaudon,4 P. Maget,4 A. Peeters,19 K. Razumova,8 F. Ryter,19
Y. Sakamoto,5 H. Shirai,5 G. Sips,19 T. Suzuki,5 E. Synakowski,12 T. Takizuka,5 and
R. Wolf19
1General Atomics, P.O. Box 85608, San Diego, California, 92186-5608 USA
email: gohil@fusion.gat.com
2Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015 USA
3EFDA-JET CSU, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxon, UK
4Association Euratom-CEA, CEA de Cadarache, St Paul lez Durance, France
5JAERI, Naka Fusion Research Establishment, Naka, Japan
6EURATOM/UKAEA Association, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxon, UK
7University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095 USA
8Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy, Moscow, Russia
9Ioffe Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
10ITER JWS, Naka, Japan
11Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 USA
12Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08543 USA
13National Institute of Fusion Science, Toki City, Japan
14Forschungszentrum Jülich, GmbH, EURATOM-Association, Jülich, Germany
15Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
16Chalmers University and EURATOM-VR association, Gothenburg, Sweden
17Associazione EURATOM-ENEA sulla Fusione, C.R. Frascati, Frascati, Italy
18FOM Insituut voor Plasmafisica, “Rijnhuizen”, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
19Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, EURATOM Association, Garching, Germany
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● Our understanding of the physics of ITBs is being increased by analysis and
comparisons of experimental data from many tokamaks worldwide.
● An international ITB database consisting of scalar and 2-D profile data on ITB
plasmas has been developed
● Specific discharges from three major tokamaks (DIII–D, JET, JT-60U) were selected
to better understand the influence of the q-profile on ITBs
● Gyrokinetic stability analysis of the selected discharges indicates that the ITG mode
growth rates generally decrease with increased negative shear and that the E × B
shear rate is comparable to the linear growth rates at the location of the ITB
● Tests of several transport models (JETTO, Weiland model) using the 2-D profile data
indicate there is only limited agreement between model predictions and experimental
results for the selected discharges
SUMMARY
256-02/PG/amw
— To determine the requirements for formation and sustainment of ITBs
— To perform tests of theory-based transport models in an effort
to improve their predictive capability
— Selected a low shear or monotonic q-profile discharge together with
a high magnetic shear discharge from each machine
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● Examination and compilation of experimental results on transport from many
machines worldwide to better understand the physics of ITB formation and
sustainment
● The development of an international database on ITB experimental results to
determine the requirements for the formation and sustainment of ITBs
● Determining and performing comprehensive tests of theory based transport
models and simulations using the international ITB database (ITBDB) – critical
for model validation and improving predictive capability
● Identifying experiments to address and resolve critical issues in transport
and ITB physics
● Facilitating inter-machine ITB experiments and comparisons
PURPOSE OF THE ITPA GROUP ON TRANSPORT
AND THE ITBDB WORKING GROUP
256-02/PG/amw
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● There is a wide variety of experimental results on plasma transport and ITB's
from many machines worldwide
● Provide a depository for ITB data for access by experimentalists and modelers
● Improve predictive capability of transport models
● Find solutions to critical issues such as impurity transport, electron transport,
fueling, core-edge integration, profile control, etc.
MOTIVATION FOR ITPA AND ITBDB WORKING GROUPS
256-02/PG/amw
— Need to assess large variety of results and improve our understanding
of important transport issues
— Define common definitions for ITBs
— Assess reactor compatibility and develop reactor scenarios
— Development of international ITB database
— Determine key trends from data, e.g., effect of q profile,
momentum input, etc.
— Need to test and validate models with experimental data
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● The formation and sustainment of ITBs is very dependent on behavior
of the q-profile in many devices
● Determine the variation in the E × B shearing rate and the ITG/TEM mode
growth rates for the selected discharges in order to evaluate the relative
influence of the q-profiles
● Need to improve the predictive capability of transport models
● The work described in this paper is expandable
MOTIVATION FOR THIS PAPER
256-02/PG/amw
— Need to examine discharges with significant differences in q-profiles
(e.g., positive shear to strong negative shear from many devices
— Examine the level of agreement between model predictions and
experimental results for selected discharges with significantly
different q-profiles
— By increasing the number of models to be tested
— By examining more issues relevant for reactor scenarios
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● Analysis of data from
ITB database [1]
● Plasmas with weak or negative
magnetic shear are more
favorable for ITB formation
TARGET PLASMAS WITH WEAK OR NEGATIVE MAGNETIC SHEAR
REQUIRE LOWER HEATING POWER FOR ITB FORMATION
256-02/PG/amw
● Heating power per particle
just prior to ion-ITB formation
(for dominantly ion heated
plasmas) (ne = plasma density;
V
p = plasma volume)
Positive Shear
1/ρ*
Weak Shear
Negative Shear
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0 100 200 300 400 500
Pheat / (ne Vp) [10–19 MW]
[1] G.T. Hoang et al., Proc. 29th EPS Conference, Montreux, Switzerland (2002)
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● For ion-ITB with dominant
ion heating
THE E × B SHEARING RATE IS CLOSE TO THE MAXIMUM
LINEAR GROWTH RATE AT THE TIME OF ITB FORMATION
256-02/PG/amw
● Using data from ITB database [1]
● Data at time of ITB formation
● Indicates strong influence of
E × B flow shear in several
devices
JT-60U ( for no ITB)
JET
TFTR
–2.0
0.10
1.00
–1.0 0.0 1.0
s at γL
max or ωE×Bmax
ωE×B/γL
[1] T. Fukuda et al., Proc. 29th EPS Conference, Montreux, Switzerland (2002)
^
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● Used 2-D profile data from ITBDB for DIII–D, JET and JT-60U
● JETTO is based on an empirical mixed Bohm/gyroBohm transport model [1]
● Examined pairs of discharge from each device
PREDICTIVE SIMULATIONS USING TRANSPORT MODELS:
JETTO AND WEILAND MODEL
256-02/PG/amw
— With weak negative shear or monotonic q profile
— Strong negative shear
Bohm term:
GyroBohm term:
Where H (x) is a Heaviside step-function, s is magnetic shear, C is an adjustable
factor, γ is the growth rate, ωE×B is the shearing rate
q2HχBohm ∝∇nT ∇Te
T
nB
B2
ωE×B
γ
0.05 + s – C
()
3/2
χgyroBohm ∝∇Te s
1 + s
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● Weiland model is an advanced fluid model [2] whereby
PREDICTIVE SIMULATIONS USING TRANSPORT MODELS:
JETTO AND WEILAND MODEL (CONTINUED)
256-02/PG/amw
Where H (x) is a Heaviside step-function, γk is the characteristic growth rate
and k is the characteristic perpendicular wave-vector
[1] G. Cennachi and A. Tami, JET-IR (88), 03 (1988)
[2] J. Weiland "Collective Modes in Inhomogeneous Plasmas"
Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia (2000)
H
χ ∝
k
γk – ωE×B ()
Σ
T
k2
γk – ωE×B
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● DIII–D discharge 87031 – weak negative central shear
● DIII–D discharge 85989 – strong negative central shear (NCS)
● Only reasonable agreement with Ti profile for strong NCS case
JETTO PREDICTIVE MODELING FOR DIII–D DATA
256-02/PG/amw
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
2
4
6
8
2
4
6
8
10
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
103 eV
104 eV
103 eV
104 eV
EXP
EXP
EXP
EXP
EXP
EXP
DIII–D #87031
T=1.88 s, Ti
JETTO predict
DIII–D #87031
T=1.88 s, Te
JETTO predict
DIII–D #87031
T=1.88 s, q
JETTO predict
DIII–D #95989
T=1 s, Ti
JETTO predict
DIII–D #95989
T=1 s, Te
JETTO predict
DIII–D #95989
T=1 s, q
JETTO predict
C=0.8
C=1.2
C=1.5
C=1.0
C=1.5
(a) (b) (c)
(f)(e)(d)
ρρρ
C=0.8
C=1.2
C=1.5
C=1.0
C=1.5
High Negative
Shear
Weak Shear Model
Model
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● JET discharge 46664 – weak positive shear
● JET discharge 53521 – strong negative shear
● Good agreement with Ti and Te profiles only for strong negative shear case
JETTO PREDICTIVE MODELING FOR JET DATA
256-02/PG/amw
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
104 eV
104 eV
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
ρρρ
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
104 eV103 eV
2
3
4
5
2
4
6
8
10
EXP
EXP
EXP
EXP
EXP
EXP
JET #46664
T=6 s, Ti
JETTO predict
JET #53521
T=6 s, Ti
JETTO predict
JET #53521
T=6 s, Te
JETTO predict
JET #53521
T=6 s, q
JETTO predict
JET #46664
T=6 s, Te
JETTO predict
JET #46664
T=6 s, q
JETTO predict
(a)
(d) (e) (f)
(b) (c)
C=1.0
C=1.5
C=1.0
C=1.5
C=1.0
C=1.5
C=1.0
C=1.5
High Negative
Shear
Low Shear Model
Model
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● JT-6OU discharge 34487 – weak positive shear
● JT-6OU discharge 39056 – strong negative shear
● Poor agreement for all cases
JETTO PREDICTIVE SIMULATIONS FOR JT-6OU DATA
256-02/PG/amw
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
103 eV
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
104 eV
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
104 eV
104 eV
2
3
4
5
4
6
8
10
q
q
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
ρ
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
ρρ
EXP
EXP
High Negative
Shear
EXP
EXP
EXP
JT60U #34487
T=5 s, Ti
JETTO predict
JT60U #39056
T=6.8 s, Ti
JETTO predict
JT60U #39056
T=6.8 s, Te
JETTO predict
JT60U #34487
T=5 s, Te
JETTO predict
JT60U #34487
T=5 s, q
JETTO predict
JT60U #39056
T=6.8, q
JETTO predict
(a) (b)
(d) (e) (f)
(c)
C=1.2
C=1.5
C=1.2
C=1.5
C=1.2
C=1.5
C=1.2
C=1.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
EXP
Low Shear
Model
Model
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● For JET strong NCS discharge – 53521
● Increasing the toroidal rotation by factor of 4 produces the Ti ITB, but
grossly overestimates the Te profile
COMPARISON BETWEEN JETTO AND WEILAND MODELS
USING EXPERIMENTAL DATA FROM JET
256-02/PG/amw
● Weiland model fails to produce the Ti or Te ITBs
● Comparisons also performed for DIII–D and JT-60U discharges
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
104 eV
104 eV
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
ρ0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
ρ
EXP EXP
Weiland
Weiland
Weiland with
4xVtor
Weiland with
4xVtor
JETTO
JETTO
JET #53521
T=6 s
Ti predict
JET #53521
T=6 s
Te predict
(a) (b)
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● Overall there is limited agreement between the predictive simulations
and the experimental data
● Fair agreement is obtained in predicting the Ti profiles (c.f. to Te profiles)
by JETTO for strong NCS discharges
● Predictions for the Te profiles are very poor
● Weiland model is unable to produce the experimental Te and Ti profiles
for JET discharges
● JETTO overestimates both the Ti and Te profiles for low magnetic shear
discharges in DIII–D and JET
SIMULATION RESULTS
256-02/PG/amw
— JETTO does not include effects such as alpha stabilization
— Preference for reduced transport in the presence of low magnetic shear
and moderate levels of plasma rotation
THE E × B SHEARING RATE IS COMPARABLE TO THE MAXIMUM
LINEAR GROWTH RATE (ITG/TEM) AT THE LOCATION OF THE ITB
256-02/PG/amw
0.0
(b) (c)(a)
(f)(e)(d)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
ρ
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
ρ
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
ρ
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
ω, γ/105 (1/S) ω, γ/105 (1/S)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
γmax
ωExB (Waltz)
γmax
ωExB (Waltz)
γmax
ωExB (Waltz)
ωExB (HB)
γmax
ωExB (Waltz)
DIII–D
#87031
T=1.76 s
DIII–D
#95989
T=0.88 s
JET
#46664
T=6.0 s
JT-60U
#34487
T=5.0 s
JET
#53521
T=6.0 s
JT-60U
#39056
T=6.8 s
γmax
ωExB (Waltz)
ωExB (HB) ωExB (HB)
ωExB (HB)
γmax
ωExB (W)
ωExB (HB)
γmax
ωExB
(W)
ωExB
(HB)
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● ITG/TEM linear growth rates calculated using the GKS code [1]
● Generally the ITG growth rates tend to decrease with increased negative magnetic shear
● Differences between the Hahm-Burrell and Waltz shearing rates result from:
SUMMARY OF GYROKINETIC STABILITY ANALYSIS
256-02/PG/amw
● E × B shearing rates from Hahm and Burrell [2] and Waltz et al. [3]
[1] M. Kotschenreuther, et al., Comp., Phys. Comm. 88, 128 (1995)
[2] T.S. Hahm and K.H. Burrell, Phys. Plasmas 2, 1648 (1995)
[3] R.E. Waltz et al, Phys. Plasmas 4, 2482 (1997)
— Neoclassical vθ used in evaluation of Er
— More favorable for ITB formation for given E × B shearing rate
— Flux-surface averaged evaluation for Waltz and outside midplane for Hahm-Burrell
— Pre-derivative (r/q) factor for Waltz which can be significantly smaller in elongated
plasmas than the corresponding factor (RBp/B) used in Hahm-Burrell
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
CENTRAL BEAM DEPOSITION AND NEGATIVE
MAGNETIC SHEAR AID ITB FORMATION
256-02/PG/amw
#14180 / #14933: ASDEX Upgrade
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
Ti (keV)
ρ
3 On-axis Beams (7.5 MW)
2 On-axis/1 Off-axis (7.5 MW)
● Power requirements for ITB formation are very dependent on profile data such as
the power deposition and q profiles
— Makes scaling relationships very difficult to determine
1.5
0
5
10
15
20
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Mark IIGB
Mark IIA
Ohmic Preheat
LHCD Preheat
ICRH Preheat
}Target q0 close to 2
(1999)
P (MW)
Toroidal Magnetic Field (T)
JET
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● Constant Ne puff for t > 44s.
Central zeff = 3.5 at t= 46.9 s
(dominated by Ni)
● Steep impurity density gradients
are inboard of the location of the
T
i gradients
IMPURITY ACCUMULATION IS A CRITICAL PROBLEM
FOR ITB DISCHARGES
256-02/PG/amw
● Before ITB formation, impurity
density profiles are hollow or
slightly peaked
● Data from JET
● On ITB formation, impurity density
peaking increases with impurity
charge Z (weakest for C and
strongest for Ni)
#51976 JET
3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7
Ni
Ne
C
ne
Ti
45.8 s
46.2 s
46.6 s
46.8 s
+
2
10
20
30
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
1
2
0
1
0
2
4
5
3
1
(keV)
(1019 m–3)
(1017 m–3)
(1017 m–3)(1017 m–3)
R [Z=Zmag] (m)
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● Central ECH/ECCD decreases the central electron density and Zeff (from Ni and Cu)
decreases by a factor of 2
● QDB plasmas have peaked density profiles
CENTRAL ECH/ECCD CAN BE USED TO CONTROL THE
ELECTRON DENSITY AND IMPURITY DENSITY PROFILES IN ITBs
256-02/PG/amw
0ρ
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
110874 ECCD at ρ=.2
t=2.45s - before ECH
t=3.45s - at end of ECH
0
.05
.10
.15
.20
.25
.30
.35
.40
.45
Electron Density –1020 m–3
0.1*<JECCD>
Zeff Profile 110874.2450
Zeff
ρ
0.0
0
2
4
6
8
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Total
High Z
Z=28
Z=29
C+6
Before ECH
Zeff Profile 110874.2700
Zeff
ρ
0.0
0
2
4
6
8
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Total
High Z
Z=28
Z=29
C+6
During ECH
Discharge 11084
Ni XXV 117 ph/cm2/str/s
Time (ms)
8.0
1.6
0.3
3.0
5.0
1.6
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1000 2000 3000 4000
Central Electron Density (1019 m–3)
Central Visible Bremsstrahlung (10–7 W/cm2/str/)
Central Carbon Density (1019 m–3)
Central ECH Power (MW)
Ni XXVI 165 ph/cm2/str/s
Divertor Dα ph/cm2/str/s
DIII–D
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
STRONG ITBs WITH Te = Ti HAVE BEEN FORMED
IN REVERSE MAGNETIC SHEAR DISCHARGES
256-02/PG/amw
ne
Dα
(a.u.)
Pabs
(MW)
fEH
T
(keV)
Wdia
(MJ)
PEC, N-NB
(MW)
Ip
(MA)
P-NB
(MW)
E36646: Bt0 = 3.68 T
N-NB
ECH
Te
Ti
Time (s)
JT-60U
345678
0
2
4
0
10
0
5
10
0
2
4
0
1
(1019 m–3)
0
2
4
0
0.5
0
2
4
0
10
20
ρ
ρ
7.0 s
5.6 s
5.6 s 7.0 s
q
ρ
7.0 s
5.6 s
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.5 1
0 0.5 1
ρ
0 0.5 1
0
2
4
6
8
10
ne (1019 m–3)T
e, i (keV)
Te, i (keV)
0
2
4
6
8
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.5 1
Ti
Te
TeTiTi
TiTe
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
REAL TIME CONTROL OF ITB'S AND q-PROFILE HAVE BEEN
DEMONSTRATED ON JET
256-02/PG/amw
1.8MA / 3.4T
Time (s)
Pulse No:
53697
Active Control
Vs(V)
4
6
2
0.8
5
10
15
1.0
2.0
3.0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
Ip (MA) PLHCD (MW)
PNBI
MW
PICRH
(RNT) ref = 0.9×1016s–1
1016 Neutron/s
Norm. Te Gradient (×10–2)
(ρTe*)ref=2.5×10–2
24681012
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Normalized Radius
t = 44 s (ohmic ramp)
t = 54 s (end of control)
PIh = 1.6 MW
t = 49.5 s (undershoot)
JET Pulse #55873
Safety Factor
00.20.4 0.6 0.8 1
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
3.5
2.5
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Time (s)
qref
q(x=0.2) q(x=0.4)
56545250484644
Time (s)
56545250484644
Time (s)
Without LH
56545250484644
Time (s)
565452504846
Time (s)
56545250484644
JET #55873 JET #55873 JET #55873 JET #55873 JET #55873
Plhcd (a.u.) Plhcd (a.u.)
qref
Plhc (MW)
qref
qref
q(x=0.5)
Plhcd (a.u .)
q(x=0.6)
Plhcd (a.u.)
5
4
3
2
1
0
q(x=0.8)
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● Tests of transport models (JETTO, Weiland model) have been performed
using profile data from the international ITB database
● Overall there is limited agreement between the model predictions and
the experimental data from DIII–D, JET and JT-60U
● Much more interaction between experimentalists and modelers is needed
to improve the predictive capability of the models
● Gyrokinetic stability analysis of ITB discharges from DIII–D, JET and JT-60U
indicates that the E × B shear rate is comparable to the maximum linear
growth rates at the location of the ITB
CONCLUSIONS
256-02/PG/amw
— Using data from several machines allows for model validation over a large
range of conditions (reveals deficiencies and areas for improvement)
— Important for improving predictive capability of models
SAN DIEGO
DIII–D
NATIONAL FUSION FACILITY
● More work and greater interaction between modelers
and experimentalists is required to perform further tests of
transport models and to improve the models
● Increased focus on critical issues for burning plasmas
and reactor compatibility
● More multi-machine collaborative experiments and comparisons
of experimental data, e.g., similarity experiments
FUTURE WORK
256-02/PG/amw
— Test more transport models (GLF23, Multi-mode, etc.)
— Examine more linear stability codes (FULL, GS2, etc.)
— Design experiments to test models
— Motivate model development from experimental results
— Electron transport, core heating and fueling, impurity
accumulation, profile control, stability, etc.
— Need solutions to issues
● Improvements could result from more accurate and reliable treatment
of transport suppression mechanisms such as E × B flow shear,
negative magnetic shear, and alpha stabilization