T.E. Evans et al 2008 Nucl. Fusion 48 024002 doi:10.1088/0029-5515/48/2/024002
T.E. Evans1, M.E. Fenstermacher2, R.A. Moyer3, T.H. Osborne1, J.G. Watkins4, P. Gohil1, I. Joseph3, M.J. Schaffer1, L.R. Baylor5, M. Bécoulet6, J.A. Boedo3, K.H. Burrell1, J.S. deGrassie1, K.H. Finken7, T. Jernigan5, M.W. Jakubowski8, C.J. Lasnier2, M. Lehnen7, A.W. Leonard1, J. Lonnroth9, E. Nardon6, V. Parail10, O. Schmitz7, B. Unterberg7 and W.P. West1
Show affiliationsLarge Type-I edge localized modes (ELMs) are completely eliminated with small n = 3 resonant magnetic perturbations (RMP) in low average triangularity,
, plasmas and in ITER similar shaped (ISS) plasmas,
, with ITER relevant collisionalities
. Significant differences in the RMP requirements and in the properties of the ELM suppressed plasmas are found when comparing the two triangularities. In ISS plasmas, the current required to suppress ELMs is approximately 25% higher than in low average triangularity plasmas. It is also found that the width of the resonant q95 window required for ELM suppression is smaller in ISS plasmas than in low average triangularity plasmas. An analysis of the positions and widths of resonant magnetic islands across the pedestal region, in the absence of resonant field screening or a self-consistent plasma response, indicates that differences in the shape of the q profile may explain the need for higher RMP coil currents during ELM suppression in ISS plasmas. Changes in the pedestal profiles are compared for each plasma shape as well as with changes in the injected neutral beam power and the RMP amplitude. Implications of these results are discussed in terms of requirements for optimal ELM control coil designs and for establishing the physics basis needed in order to scale this approach to future burning plasma devices such as ITER.
52.55.Fa Tokamaks, spherical tokamaks
52.55.Rk Power exhaust; divertors
Issue 2 (February 2008)
Received 4 June 2007, accepted for publication 5 September 2007
Published 23 January 2008
T.E. Evans et al 2008 Nucl. Fusion 48 024002
Liu Yao-Wen et al 2005 Chinese Phys. Lett. 22 1270
Gaetano Zimbardo 2006 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 48 B295
B Labit et al 2007 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 49 B281
S J Zweben et al 2007 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 49 S1
B-N Park et al 2007 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 40 3506
J Miró et al 1997 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 9 9555
S F J Cox et al 2001 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 13 2169
C D Latham et al 2008 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20 395220
M I Heggie et al 2002 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14 12689