4.4 Article

Comparisons and physics basis of tokamak transport models and turbulence simulations

Journal

PHYSICS OF PLASMAS
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 969-983

Publisher

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/1.873896

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The predictions of gyrokinetic and gyrofluid simulations of ion-temperature-gradient (ITG) instability and turbulence in tokamak plasmas as well as some tokamak plasma thermal transport models, which have been widely used for predicting the performance of the proposed International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) tokamak [Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, 1996 (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1997), Vol. 1, p. 3], are compared. These comparisons provide information on effects of differences in the physics content of the various models and on the fusion-relevant figures of merit of plasma performance predicted by the models. Many of the comparisons are undertaken for a simplified plasma model and geometry which is an idealization of the plasma conditions and geometry in a Doublet III-D [Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, 1986 (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1987), Vol. 1, p. 159] high confinement (H-mode) experiment. Most of the models show good agreements in their predictions and assumptions for the linear growth rates and frequencies. There are some differences associated with different equilibria. However, there are significant differences in the transport levels between the models. The causes of some of the differences are examined in some detail, with particular attention to numerical convergence in the turbulence simulations (with respect to simulation mesh size, system size and, for particle-based simulations, the particle number). The implications for predictions of fusion plasma performance are also discussed. (C) 2000 American Institute of Physics. [S1070-664X(00)03703-4].

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