Speaker
X. Liu
Description
See the full Abstract at http://ocs.ciemat.es/EPS2018ABS/pdf/P1.1099.pdf
Gyrokinetic analysis of pedestal transport
M. Kotschenreuther1, X. Liu1, D. R. Hatch1, L. Zheng1, S. Mahajan1, A. Diallo2, R.
Groebner and the DIII-D team3, J Hughes and the C-mod team4, C. Maggi, S. Saarelma
and JET Contributors*5
1 University of Texas, Austin, USA
2 Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton, USA
3 General Atomics, San Diego, USA
4 MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, Boston, USA
5 Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, Culham Science Center, United Kingdon
Surprisingly, basic considerations can determine which modes are responsible for pedestal
energy transport (e.g., KBM, ETG, ITG, MTM etc. ). Gyrokinetic simulations of
experiments, and analysis of the Gyrokinetic-Maxwell equations, find that each mode type
produces characteristic ratios of transport in the various channels: density, heat and
impurities. This, together with the relative size of the driving sources of each channel, can
strongly constrain or determine the dominant modes causing energy transport. MHD-like
modes are not the dominant agent of energy transport - when the density source is weak as
is often expected. Drift modes must fill this role. Detailed examination of experimental
observations (with an emphasis on DIII-D case), including frequency and transport channel
behavior, with simulations, demonstrates these points. Work supported by US DOE under
DE-FC02-04ER54698, DE-FG02-04ER54742 and DE-FC02-99ER54512 and by
Eurofusion under grant No. 633053
*See the author list of “X. Litaudon et al 2017 Nucl. Fusion 57 102001”
