1 / 8

Integrated core+edge+MHD modelling of ELM mitigation at JET

Integrated core+edge+MHD modelling of ELM mitigation at JET. F Koechl, R Albanese, R Ambrosino, E Militello-Asp, P Belo, G Corrigan, L Garzotti,

berryman
Download Presentation

Integrated core+edge+MHD modelling of ELM mitigation at JET

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Integrated core+edge+MHD modelling of ELM mitigation at JET F Koechl, R Albanese, R Ambrosino, E Militello-Asp, P Belo, G Corrigan, L Garzotti, D Harting, G Huijsmans, T Koskela, P T Lang, J Lönnroth, E de la Luna, M Mattei, F Maviglia, V Parail, F Rimini, M Romanelli, G Saibene, E R Solano, M Valovič, I Voitsekhovitch, A Webster, JET EFDA contributors, EU-ITM ISM group ISM meeting, June 26 2013

  2. Motivation Objectives / Motivation: • Technique of ELM triggering by plasma kicks induced by a variation of PF coil currents / pellet injection is an interesting option for ELM mitigation in ITER and requires detailed analysis to assess its viability and effectiveness. – Integrated simulations with direct coupling to HELENA+MISHKA for MHD analysis could help to identify possible cause and type of instabilities responsible for ELMs triggered by kick / pellet events. Task: • Implementation of HELENA+MISHKA coupling in JINTRAC. • Application of new coupling scheme to modelling of natural ELMs. • Application to modelling of ELM mitigation by kicks (strong vs. weak kick, dependence on nped/Tped, …) and pellets (LFS vs. VHFS injection, dependence on rp).

  3. JINTRAC+MISHKA coupling JINTRAC HELENA ~3 min. ELM trigger MISHKA n=2 MISHKA n=4 MISHKA n=26 ~10-15 min. check eigenfunctions for unstable modes

  4. #73247, natural ELMs Te,ax JETTO+MISHKA: <Te> Increase in fELM with PAUX Te,ped ne,ax <ne> PNB = 7 MW PNB = 10 MW PNB = 13 MW ne,ped

  5. Strong vs. weak kicks JETTO+CREATE+MISHKA: Reduced ELM trigger probability with weak kick: #73247, strong kick #73244, weak kick

  6. High vs. low Te,ped/ne,ped JETTO+CREATE+MISHKA: Reduced ELM trigger probability with increased gas puff: #73247, high Te/ne #73247, low Te/ne (-~30%)

  7. #82806, pellets at t = 58.4s JETTO+EDGE2D+MISHKA: <Te> LFS VHFS LFS Te,ped Te,sep rp = 1.2 mm rp = 1.2 mm rp = 1.025 mm <ne> ne,ped ne,sep No ELM triggered by smaller pellet(rp = 1.025 mm)

  8. Summary andConclusion Summary: • HELENA+MISHKA successfully coupled to MISHKA. • Plasma clearly MHD unstable during kick in case of strong kick amplitude, fewer instabilities found for weak kick case / increased gas puff. – Smaller LFS pellet does not seem to trigger ELM even with time-resolved deposition profile (including ExB drift), but pellet was injected early after previous natural ELM. To do: • Check MISHKA sensitivity to plasma edge profile smoothness. • Simulations of JET ILW kick experiments (kick shape variation). • Larger scan in pellet mass / time after previous ELM for pellet ELM trigger experiment. • Simulations of JET ILW LFS pellet ELM pacing experiment #82885 that is also analysed with JOREK.

More Related