4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Development and validation of a predictive model for the pedestal height

Journal

PHYSICS OF PLASMAS
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/1.3122146

Keywords

discharges (electric); plasma instability; plasma magnetohydrodynamic waves; plasma toroidal confinement; plasma turbulence; Tokamak devices

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The pressure at the top of the edge transport barrier (or pedestal height) strongly impacts tokamak fusion performance. Predicting the pedestal height in future devices such as ITER [ITER Physics Basis Editors, Nucl. Fusion 39, 2137 (1999)] remains an important challenge. While uncertainties remain, magnetohydrodynamic stability calculations at intermediate wavelength (the peeling-ballooning model), accounting for diamagnetic stabilization, have been largely successful in determining the observed maximum pedestal height, when the edge barrier width is taken as an input. Here, we develop a second relation between the pedestal width in normalized poloidal flux (Delta) and pedestal height (Delta=0.076 beta(1/2)(theta,ped)), using an argument based upon kinetic ballooning mode turbulence and observation. Combining this relation with direct calculations of peeling-ballooning stability yields two constraints, which together determine both the height and width of the pedestal. The resulting model, EPED1, allows quantitative prediction of the pedestal height and width in both existing and future experiments. EPED1 is successfully tested both against a dedicated experiment on the DIII-D [J. L. Luxon, Nucl. Fusion 42, 614 (2002)] tokamak, in which predictions were made before the experiment, and against a broader DIII-D data set, including ITER demonstration discharges. EPED1 is found to quantitatively capture the observed complex dependencies of the pedestal height and width. An initial set of pedestal predictions for the ITER device is presented.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available