Influence of Beta, Shape and Rotation on the H-mode Pedestal Height by A.W. Leonard with R.J. Groebner, T.H. Osborne, and P.B. Snyder Presented at Forty-Ninth APS Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics Orlando, Florida November 12 16, 27
Pedestal Height is Greatest Uncertainty in Predicting Tokamak Performance 15 1 5 2 1 6 P ped (kpa) T e,ped (kev) p Ped. Width SOL Pedestal sets boundary condition for core transport For stiff transport, core profiles strongly dependent on pedestal Pedestal uncertainty for ITER corresponds to a wide range of performance; Q=2-15 3.75.85.95 1.5 Separatrix ψ N Uncertainty
Pedestal Width is key to Pedestal Height Scaling Validated edge stability model can predict pedestal top pressure if width is known Pedestal pressure height increases with improved edge stability Pedestal pressure increase with global and stronger shaping No change with toroidal rotation Stability model utilized to extract pedestal width Greater accuracy than directly measured width Pedestal width increases with higher pedestal pressure Pedestal pressure rise double expected from stability with fixed width Pedestal models predict an ion gyro-radius, *, width scaling, yet Width correlated with pressure ( 12 ) ped No T i ( *) dependence
Validated MHD Stability Model a Tool for Extracting Pedestal Width from Pedestal Pressure DIII-D Stability Study: Fixed parameters; I p, B t, Shape, pedestal width, etc. Pedestal Te (kev) The peeling-ballooning model has been validated over a range of conditions Stability model predicts pedestal pressure for a given width Stability model can extract width from a measured pedestal pressure Pedestal top more accurately measured than gradient and width Pedestal Density (1 19 m -3 ) [P.B. Snyder, H.R. Wilson, et al., PPCF 46 (24) A131 ]
Pedestal Pressure Increases with Global Beta I p, P inj (MA, MW) Density (1 19 m -3 ) Pe,ped(kPa) 1.4 Plasma Current 1.2 1..8.6.4.2. 4 β N =β/ 3 I/ab β N 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 1 8 6 4 2 Density Pedestal Electron Pressure Injected Power/1 1 2 3 4 5 Time (msec) Power scan for N =2. to N =3. Other parameters fixed; shape, q 95, density, etc. Pedestal pressure increases with N
Pedestal Profiles Fit Just Prior to an ELM.6.4.2. 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5. 2.5 2. 1.5 1. n e (1 2 m -3 ) T e (kev) T i (kev).5..5.6.7.8.9 1. 1.1 ψ Profiles fit to data combined from the last 2% of many ELM cycles Hyperbolic tangent fit to profiles Pedestal height more certain, 5-1% Width/gradient less certain, ~2% T i pedestal is usually significantly wider than T e or n e Ion pressure width set by density width Pedestal pressure characterizes pedestal height for comparison with stability analysis
Pedestal Pressure Increases with N Pressure (kpa) 4 3 2 1 Total pedestal pressure increases ~5% as N increases from 2.-3. b N =2. b N =2.5 b N =2.8 b N =3..6.7.8.9 1. 1.1 ψ N Pedestal Pressure (kpa) 2. 15. 1. 5. Both electron and ion pedestal pressure increase Total Pressure Electron Pressure Ion Pressure. 1.8 2. 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3. Global Beta ( β N )
Both Pressure Gradient and Width Increase with N Pressure Gradient ( dp/dψ n ) Pedestal Width (Δψ n ) 25 2 15 1 5.7.6.5.4.3.2.1 Pressure Gradient Pedestal Width Electrons Ions Ions Electrons Both gradients and widths increase with N Larger uncertainty, ~2%, for gradient and width measurements Stability constraint applied to pressure can reduce uncertainty in pedestal width scaling. 1.8 2. 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3. Global Beta ( β N )
Stability Space is Mapped for Each Configuration Average Pedestal Current Density 1.4 1.2 1..8.6 Instability Growth Rate Operating Point Unstable Stable 2 4 6 8 1 12 Normalized Peak Pressure Gradient (α) γ E /ω*/2 5 4 3 2 1 MHD equilibria constructed by measured pressure profile and Sauter bootstrap model for edge current Create 2D array of equilibria with varying pedestal current and pressure Fixed pedestal width Fixed total stored energy Stability analysis of each equilibrium using ELITE, n=5-25 Stability threshold: E *2 Variation in stability threshold analyzed for varying global, shape, etc.
Pressure Gradient Limit for Fixed Width Increases with Global Stability Contours for N Variation with Fixed Width Average Pedestal Current Density 1.2 1..8.6.4 β N =2. β N =2.5 β N =3. β N =3.5 Stable β N =2. Operating Point Unstable 2 4 6 8 1 12 Normalized Peak Pressure Gradient (α) Stability dependence on calculated using fixed pedestal width but varying total stored energy Calculated gradient limit increases with due to Shafranov shift
Improved Stability at Fixed Pedestal Width Can Account for Half of Pedestal Pressure Rise with N Pedestal Pressure (kpa) 2. 18. 16. 14. 12. Pedestal Height Measured Pedestal Pressure Fixed Width Stability Limit Measured pedestal pressure proportional to global N Increase in stability limit at fixed pedestal width accounts for only half of observed increase in P ped with N Width must increase with to account for pedestal pressure increase 1. 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 3.5 4. Global Beta (β N )
Pedestal Gradient Expected to be Weakly Reduced with Increasing Width Pped Limit (kpa) Pedestal Pressure Previous numerical studies indicate width ( ) scaling of stability limit: p crit 14 or P ped 34 All other parameters fixed; Shape,, etc. Width variation of p due to radial extent of finite n modes Pedestal Width (% of Flux) [P.B. Snyder, H.R. Wilson, et al., PPCF 46 (24) A131 ]
Stability Analysis Implies Pedestal Width Increase with Pedestal Pressure (kpa) 2. 18. 16. 14. 12. Pedestal Height Measured Pedestal Pressure 1. 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 3.5 4. Global Beta ( β N ) 1/2 Dµb ped Stability Limit Fixed Width Stability Limit Pedestal pressure proportional to global N Width must increase with to account for measured pressure increase Width scaling consistent with previous statistical study 12 ped T.H. Osborne, et. al., Jour. Nucl. Mater.,266-269, 131 (1999)
Similar Dependence of P ped on global N Observed in High Advanced Tokamak Regime Pressure (kpa) Temperature (kev).7.8.9 1. 1.1 2..7.8.9 1. 1.1 High scenario with early heating Increase in N from 2.2 to 3.7, ~68% 3 2 1 1.5 1..5. Total Pressure β N =2.2 β N =3.7 Pedestal T e..7.8.9 1. 1.1 Pedestal pressure rises from 9.8 kpa to 15.5 kpa, ~58% Density (1 2 m -3 ) Temperature (kev).6.4.2..7.8.9 1. 1.1 2. 1.5 1..5 Pedestal n e Pedestal T i
Pedestal Width Scales with in Advanced Regimes Average Pedestal Current Density 1.2 1..8.6 Fixed Pedestal Width Stability Limit β N =2.2 Operating Point β N =2. β N =2.5 β N =3. β N =3.5 β N =4..4 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 Normalized Peak Pressure Gradient (α) Pedestal Pressure (kpa) 18. 16. 14. 12. 1. Pedestal Height 1/2 Dµb ped Stability Limit Measured Pedestal Pressure Fixed Width Stability Limit 8. 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 3.5 4. 4.5 Global Beta ( β N ) Pedestal stability continues to improve over wide range of 12 Pedestal width scaling,, consistent with pressure increase ped
Shape an Important Factor for Pedestal Height Shape dependence for pedestal and core confinement long observed Stronger shaping improves edge stability Elongation, triangularity, squareness, second separatrix, etc. Contribution of stability to increased pedestal for stronger shaping not generally quantified Stronger shaping leads to higher stability limit and wider pedestal
Shaping Can Produce Wide Range of Pedestal Heights 128198 12825 Pressure (kpa) Temperature (kev) Constant conditions ELMing H-mode N =2. q 95 =4.6 Ip=1.1 MA Bt= 1.9T, ±1% to match q95 25 2 15 1 5.7.8.9 1. 1.1 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5. Total Pressure <δ>=.25 <δ>=.48 Pedestal T e.7.8.9 1. 1.1 Density (1 2 m -3 ) Temperature (kev).5.4.3.2.1..7.8.9 1. 1.1 2.5 2. 1.5 1. Pedestal n e Pedestal T i.5..7.8.9 1. 1.1 < >=.25 : P ped =8.1 kpa < >=.48 : P ped =14. kpa Global Energy Confinement: ~5% higher
Pedestal Width Increases with Stronger Shaping Average Pedestal Current Density 1.2 1..8.6.4 Stability Contours for Fixed Width <δ>=.25 <δ>=.48 <δ>=.25 Operating Point Low δ High δ 2 4 6 8 1 Normalized Peak Pressure Gradient (α) Stronger shaping raises pedestal pressure 72% Stability limit increases ~33% assuming fixed width Width increase of 31% for 12 scaling yields ped Expected increase in P ped of 75%, in agreement with experiment
Moderate Changes to ITER Shape Can Significantly Affect Pedestal Squareness scan about the proposed ITER shape kpa kev 25 2 15 1 5 Measured Pedestal Profiles in ELMing H-mode..85.9.95 1. 1.5.85.9.95 1. 1.5 2. 1.5 1. Total Pressure ζ=.32 ζ=.35 ζ=.41 Pedestal Te kev 1 2 m -3.6.4.2 2. 1.5 1. Pedestal ne Pedestal Ti.5.5 121559 121562 121567..85.9.95 1. 1.5..85.9.95 1. 1.5
Pedestal Width Decreases with Squareness Pedestal Pressure (kpa) 16. 14. 12. 1. Pedestal Height versus Squareness Measured Pedestal Pressure Fixed Width Limit Width ~ β Ped 1/2 Limit 8..3.32.34.36.38.4.42 Squareness (z) Pedestal pressure increases ~5% from highest to lowest squareness Improved stability for fixed width can account for half of pedestal pressure increase 12 ped Pedestal width consistent with pressure variation
Toroidal Rotation does not Significantly Affect Pedestal Height km/s 6 4 2 Rotation Scan in Hybrid Configuration Carbon Toroidal Rotation Cntr 6.5 MW 1 Cntr 7.8 MW 2 Cntr 9.2 MW kpa 2 15 1 5 Total Pressure -2.8.85.9.95 1. 1.5 Ratio of co to counter NBI to control rotation While central confinement degraded with counter injection pedestal pressure not significantly affected Previous stability studies in this parameter regime indicate edge stability limit not modified by toroidal rotation [P.B. Snyder, et al., Nucl. Fusion 47 (27) 961 ].8.85.9.95 1. 1.5
Implications for Pedestal Width Scaling Significant gyro-radius dependence expected if width set where ExB velocity shearing exceeds driftwave growth rate.5 2. [ f( S,,q)gZ ( eff )h( * )] Complicated dependence on other dimensionless parameters 12 ped Possible pedestal width scaling mechanisms: ped correlation with *: Improved stability leads to higher T i ped correlation with other parameters: S,, etc.
Gyro-Radius Scaling Not Yet Observed Pressure (kpa) 3 2 1.7.8.9 1. 1.1 2. 1.5 1..5..7.8.9 1. 1.1 Temperature (kev)2.5 Total Pressure Low Density High Density Pedestal T e Density (1 2 m -3 ).8.6.4.2..7.8.9 1. 1.1 2. 1.5 1..5..7.8.9 1. 1.1 Temperature (kev)2.5 Pedestal n e Pedestal T i * reduced, but pedestal not narrower Other dimensionless parameters change; collisionality, shear, etc. The * pedestal width scaling is critical If *, ITER likely not to achieve its mission Current experiments cannot match ITER * Experiments in DIII-D, JT-6U and C-Mod have not found significant * scaling A 12 pedestal scaling ped consistent with single parameter scans in DIII-D and JT-6U T.H. Osborne, et. al., Jour. Nucl. Mater.,266-269, 131 (1999)
Summary Pedestal pressure increases with improved edge stability Increase twice that expected for fixed pedestal width 12 Pedestal width increase, ped, consistent with stability analysis and observed pressure variation Pedestal height and width not dependent on toroidal rotation Consistent with stability analysis Future work to isolate underlying physics of width scaling Universality of 1/2 ped scaling for pedestal width Ion gyro-radius, * Other dimensionless parameters; S,, q, etc.