1 / 15

Density simulation in JET HS

Density simulation in JET HS. Luca Garzotti. Simulations. JETTO fully predictive (ne,Ti,Te, but no rotation). Bohm/gyro-Bohm transport model.

cuffie
Download Presentation

Density simulation in JET HS

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. Density simulation in JET HS Luca Garzotti

  2. Simulations • JETTO fully predictive (ne,Ti,Te, but no rotation). • Bohm/gyro-Bohm transport model. • Particle and energy sources taken from experiment (in particular particle beam source cross checked between PENCIL and NUBEAM and good agreement found). • Four discharges analysed high/low power (18/10 MW), high low triangularity: • 77922 high power, high delta • 75225 high power, low delta • 75590 low power, high delta • 74641 low power, high delta • Strategy: • match plasma parameters at top ETB (adjust c and D inside ETB) • match evolution of average density (adjust R) • tune D in the core (if necessary) to match density peaking

  3. Note on D in BgB model • S(r) linear weight function tuned on JET shots. • S(0)=1 and S(1)=0.3

  4. Parameters at the top of ETB 77922 high d, high P 75590 high d, low P 75225 low d, high P 74641 low d, high P

  5. 77922 profiles √ϕN √ϕN

  6. 77922 waveforms • ne(0)/<ne> (time averaged over simulated time window) • Experiment: 1.36 • Standard BgB: 1.60 • D(0)x2: 1.40 • c/D inside ETB: 5

  7. 77922 transport coefficients

  8. 75225 profiles √ϕN √ϕN

  9. 75225 waveforms • ne(0)/<ne> (time averaged over simulated time window) • Experiment: 1.59 • Standard BgB: 1.73 • D(0)x1.5: 1.58 • c/D inside ETB: 7.5

  10. 75225 transport coefficients

  11. 74641 profiles √ϕN √ϕN

  12. 74641 waveforms • ne(0)/<ne> (time averaged over simulated time window) • Experiment: 1.52 • Standard BgB: 1.51 • c/D inside ETB: 15

  13. 75590 profiles √ϕN √ϕN

  14. 75590 waveforms • ne(0)/<ne> (time averaged over simulated time window) • Experiment: 1.42 • Standard BgB: 1.45 • c/D inside ETB: 15

  15. Summary • High power shots exhibit core particle higher core particle diffusivity (factor 1.5, 2) with respect to standard Bohm/gyro-Bohm transport model. • Low power shot exhibit higher c/D inside ETB with respect to high power shots. • In no cases an inward particle pinch had to be invoked to explain the observed level of density peaking. • Triangularity does not seem to be playing a major role (density pedestal height?). • GLF23 simulations (see Irina’s paper) also predict density over-peaking. Agreement recovered if ExB stabilisation term is reduced). • QuaLiKiZ analysis of fluxes not conclusive (no clear prediction that an outward particle pinch, which would explain the extra flattening of the density profile, should exist). • Sara Moradi’s analysis with GYRO could shed some light to be done at the beginning of June and possibly incorporated in the paper.

More Related