Simulations of H-Mode Plasmas in Tokamak Using a Complete Core-Edge Modeling in the BALDUR Code

Plasma Science and Technology, Vol.14, No.9, Sep. 2012 Simulations of H-Mode Plasmas in Tokamak Using a Complete Core-Edge Modeling in the BALDUR Code Y. PIANROJ, T. ONJUN School of Manufacturing Systems and Mechanical Engineering, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12121, Thailand Abstract A theory-based model for predicting the pedestal formation in both ion and electron temperatures, and hydrogenic and impurity density is developed and implemented in the 1.5D BALDUR codes for self-consistently simulating H-mode plasma in tokamak. In the simulation, the transports around pedestal, including the electron and ion thermal, hydrogenic and impurity particle transports are calculated using an anomalous semi-empirical mixed Bohm/gyro-Bohm (Mixed B/gB) model, which is modified to include the effects of ω E B flow shear and magnetic shear. Because of the reduction of transport, the pedestal can be formed. For a preliminary test, this core-edge model is used to simulate the temporal evolution of plasma current, temperature, and density profiles for DIII-D discharges. It is found that the simulations successfully reproduce the experimental results. A statistical analysis, including RMSE and offset, is used to quantify the agreement between the prediction and the corresponding experimental results. The simulation results show an agreement with average RMSE of 11.87%, 14.53%, 7.59% and 12.21% for electron temperature, ion temperature, electron density, and deuterium density profiles, respectively. In addition, it is found that the suppression function developed is effective only in the edge region. Keywords: ITER, pedestal, H-mode, BALDUR, fusion performance, transport PACS: 52.65.-y, 52.55.Fa, 52.25.Fi DOI: 10.1088/1009-0630/14/9/02 1 Introduction A major advance in magnetic confinement fusion occurred with the discovery of a new operational regime, called the High confinement mode (H-mode) [1]. The H-mode operation results in a significant increase in the plasma temperature and confinement time. The radial pressure profiles for typical Low confinement mode (L-mode) and H-mode discharges are depicted in Fig. 1. It can be seen that there is a significant increase in the core pressure, from the L-mode discharge to the H-mode discharge. The significant enhancement in the plasma performance is the result of a transport barrier that forms at the edge of the plasma. This edge transport barrier (ETB) is usually referred as the pedestal. Typically, the energy content in an H-mode discharge is approximately twice the energy contained in an L- mode discharge, for the plasma heated with the same input power [2]. To understand better the physical processes that take place in tokamak plasma, many advanced computer codes have been developed. The integrated predictive modelling codes, such as BALDUR [3], TASK/TR [4], JETTO [5], ASTRA [6] and CRONOS [7], have played an important role in the simulations to predict the temporal evolution of plasma current, temperature, and density profiles. They lead to significant improvement in understanding of plasmas behaviours in tokamaks. Normally, the simulations carried out with these integrated predictive modelling codes making use of boundary conditions taken from experimental data. In simulating H-mode discharges, the evolution of the core plasma was carried out using boundary conditions taken from experimental data at the top of the pedestal [8 13], because the distance from the top of the pedestal to the center of plasma is approximately 95% of the minor radius, as shown in Fig. 1. Several years after discovery of the H-mode, however, different physical phenomena were found at the plasma edge such as the formation of a pedestal that affects the plasma core. These phenomena suggest that the integrated predictive modelling code must be extended to include the entire plasma cross section, because a reliable methodology to predict the plasma properties is needed in order to advance the predictive capability. This capability is essential in designing future experiments in existing tokamaks. Fig.1 Pressure profiles for both L-mode and H-mode plasma supported by the Commission on Higher Education and the Thailand Research Fund (No. RSA 5580041) and the Government Annual Research Budget through Thammasat University

Y. PIANROJ et al.: Simulations of H-Mode Plasmas in Tokamak Using a Complete Core-Edge Modeling The requirement for the formation of pedestal is the reduction of fluctuation-driven transport. This can be achieved by stabilization or decorrelation of microturbulence in the plasma. The stabilization mechanisms, which can suppress turbulent modes, have to account for the different dynamical behaviors of the various species in the plasma. The first candidate for edge turbulence stabilization is the ω E B flow shear. The ω E B flow shear can suppress turbulence through linear stabilization of turbulent modes, as well as in particular by non-linear decorrelation of turbulence vortices [14 16], thereby reducing transport by acting on both the amplitude of the fluctuations and the phase between them [17]. The second candidate is the magnetic shear s, which reduces transport only in the region where the shear s exceeds a threshold and is unaffected elsewhere. In Ref. [18], the ω E B flow shear was used as a mechanism for reduction of ion and electron thermal diffusivity in order to initiate the formation of a pedestal. This work was carried out using ASTRA by A. Y. PANKIN et al. However, the hydrogenic and impurity transports are not reduced due to some limitations. Moreover, G. W. Pacher et al. [18] implemented the suppression function which consists of two stabilization candidate terms, namely ω E B flow shear and magnetic shear, into ASTRA to carry out a prediction for ITER. Both temperature and density profile evolutions were considered with a simple anomalous core transport model. In this work, a core transport model, namely in mixed Bohm/gyro-Bohm (mixed B/gB) model, was used, by suppressing every channel of transport coefficient, i.e., electron thermal diffusivity, ion thermal diffusivity, hydrogenic diffusivity, and impurity diffusivity to describe the pedestal formation. As a result, full core-edge simulations of tokamak plasmas can be conducted. This paper is organized as follows. The edge model with suppression function will be described in section 2. A brief introduction of the mixed B/gB anomalous core transport is given in section 3. In section 4, the calibration and the sensitivity of coefficient C x and the simulation results for typical H-mode will be validated by the statistical comparisons with the experimental data from DIII-D. The final section is for the conclusion. 2 Model for edge plasma The modelling of pedestal structure inevitably requires the full integration of plasma in both core and scrape-off layer (SOL)/divertor regions. One of the difficulties in modelling the pedestal structure is that there exist different physical mechanisms with different time scales. The pedestal structure evolves on a transport time scale. However during the profile evolution, magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) phenomena, which occur on short time scales, can develop, such as edge localized modes (ELMs) [19]. The occurrence of an ELM event burst gives rise a significant pulsed flow of both particles and energy onto the divertor target, diminishing the edge pressure gradients in the process. A paint for the pedestal transport modelling is to extend the anomalous core transport to include the effect of ω E B flow shearing rate and magnetic shear. In this work, the anomalous transport in both the core and pedestal is taken in forms of: χ is = χ i f sion, (1) χ es = χ e f selectron, (2) D Hs = D H f shydrogenic, (3) D zs = D z f simpurity, (4) where χ is and χ es are the modified anomalous ion and electron thermal diffusivity, D Hs and D zs are the modified anomalous particle and impurity diffusivity, respectively; f sion and f selectron are the suppression function for ion and electron thermal diffusivity, f shydrogenic and f simpurity are the suppression function for particle and impurity diffusivity, respectively. An appropriate transport suppression function due to ω E B flow shearing rate together with the reduction of turbulence growth rate [20 22] is represented in the first term in which the E B flow shear alone leads to a formation of pedestals which are appreciably lower than those obtained experimentally. An additional magnetic shear stabilization is realized in the second term [18,23]. The transport is reduced only in the region where the magnetic shear exceeds a threshold (in this work the threshold is set to 0.5 [18] ) and the suppression function (f sx ) can be written in 1 f sx = 1 + C x ( ω E B ) 1 2 max(1, (s 0.5) 2 ), (5) γ ITG where, C x is the coefficient for each species calibrated later in section 4.2.1, γ ITG is the growth rate of ion temperature gradient mode (ITG), estimated as V ti /qr [24] with V ti the ion thermal velocity and s the magnetic shear. 3 Model for core plasma The mixed B/gB anomalous core transport model [25] is an empirical model. It consists of Bohm and gyro- Bohm contributions. The Bohm term is linear in the gyro-radius and is a non-local transport model, in which the transport depends on a finite difference approximation to the electron temperature gradient at the edge of plasma. The gyro-bohm term is a local transport model, which is added for simulation to be able to match data from both smaller and larger tokamaks. It is proportional to the square of the gyro-radius times thermal velocity over the square of the plasma dimension. Thus, the mixed B/gB transport model can be expressed as [26] : χ e = 1.0χ gb + 2.0χ B, (6) χ i = 0.5χ gb + 4.0χ B + χ neo, (7) χ e χ i D H = [0.3 + 0.7ρ], χ e + χ i (8) 779

Plasma Science and Technology, Vol.14, No.9, Sep. 2012 where D z = D H, (9) χ gb = 5 10 6 T e T e, (10) B 2 φ χ B = 4 10 5 R (n et e ) ( q 2 T e,0.8 T ) e,1.0, (11) n e B φ T e,1.0 where, χ e is the electron diffusivity, χ i is the ion diffusivity, D H is the particle diffusivity, D z is the impurity diffusivity, χ gb is the gyro-bohm contribution, χ B is the Bohm contribution, ρ is the normalized minor radius, T e is the electron temperature, B φ is the toroidal magnetic field, R is the major radius, n e is the local electron density, q is the safety factor, s is the magnetic shear, ω E B is the flow shearing rate, and γ ITG is the growth rate of ion temperature gradient (ITG). 4 Simulation results and discussions 4.1 Simulated plasma profiles The experimental data from ten DIII-D H- mode shots are taken from the international profile database [27]. These experimental data are classified into four pairs of H-mode plasmas which comprise the DIII-D discharges examined in this paper. The major plasma parameters for all of ten shots are listed in Table 1. They are used as the initial and boundary conditions for both core and core-edge simulations while the discharges include scans for plasma power (shots 77557 and 77559), density (shots 81321 and 81329), elongation (κ) (shots 81499 and 81507), and normalized gyroradius (ρ ) (shots 82205 and 82788). However, the simulation results carried out by the core model are calculated at the top of pedestal which depends on the boundary conditions of each shot, but the simulation results carried out by the core-edge model are calculated at the plasma edge with the same temperature 10 ev, and compared with the DIII-D data. Note that the change of edge temperature does not affect the simulation results. First, consider the elongation scan (shots 81499 and 81507). The plasma elongation (at the 95% flux surface) varies from 1.68 to 1.95 while the minor radius of plasma varies from 0.63 m to 0.54 m correspondingly. The simulation results using the core-edge model match the experimental data quite well for both shots in this scan, as shown in Fig. 2. The shapes of all profiles remained nearly unchanged in the two shots of this scan, in both the experimental and the simulation results except for some structures in the core region where the magnitudes from simulation are lower than those in experiment. Unfortunately, there is no result for impurity in the database for these DIII-D shots. In Fig. 3, the simulated plasma profiles are compared to the corresponding experimental ones for the DIII-D ρ scan represented (shots 82205 and 82788). It is found that the simulated temperature profiles of shot 82205 (low ρ ) can match the experimental data. However, the simulated density profiles of this shot do not match the experimental data. On the other hand, the temperature profiles in core region of shot 82788 (high ρ ) tends to over-predict both electron s and ion s, while the density profiles of both electron and deuterium match very well. In the power scan (shots 77557 and 77559), the neutral beam injection power varies while the average plasma density is kept constant. In the density scan (shots 81321 and 81329), the heating power was adjusted to hold the temperatures fixed as the plasma density varies. It is found in the simulations that the temperature profiles of these four discharges do not match the experimental well in the core region. They tend to over-predict the experimental results, except in the case of low density for the density scan. On the other hand, the density profiles of these four shots match the experimental data quite well and most simulations tend to produce higher prediction than the experimental data. The last two shots (shots 82188 and 82183) are not a pair of experimental discharges. It is found that the temperature profiles and density profiles Table 1. Plasma parameters for ten shots in DIII-D Discharges 77557 77559 81321 81329 81499 81507 82205 82788 82188 82183 Type Low power High power Low n e High n e Low κ High κ Low ρ High ρ R (m) 1.68 1.69 1.69 1.70 1.69 1.61 1.69 1.68 1.69 1.69 a (m) 0.62 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.63 0.54 0.63 0.62 0.63 0.54 κ 1.85 1.84 1.83 1.83 1.68 1.95 1.71 1.67 1.65 1.91 δ 0.33 0.35 0.29 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.37 0.35 0.29 0.22 B T(T) 1.99 1.99 1.98 1.94 1.91 1.91 1.87 0.94 1.57 1.57 I p(ma) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.34 1.34 0.66 1.33 1.33 n e( 10 19 m 3 ) 4.88 5.02 2.94 5.35 4.81 4.90 5.34 2.86 6.47 6.87 Z eff 1.68 2.21 2.42 1.65 2.33 1.93 2.13 1.94 1.95 1.95 P NB(MW) 4.78 13.23 3.49 8.34 5.74 5.71 5.86 3.25 3.92 3.92 Diagnostic time (s) 2.70 2.70 3.90 3.80 4.00 3.80 3.66 3.54 3.78 3.78 780

Y. PIANROJ et al.: Simulations of H-Mode Plasmas in Tokamak Using a Complete Core-Edge Modeling Fig.2 Profiles of electron temperature, ion temperature, electron density and deuterium density. The simulated results by using BALDUR with core-edge transport model are compared to the DIII-D data of shots 81499 (low κ; left panel) and 81507 (high κ; right panel) Fig.3 Profiles of electron temperature, ion temperature, electron density and deuterium density. The simulated results by using BALDUR with core-edge transport model are compared to the DIII-D data of shots 82205 (low ρ ; left panel) and 82788 (high ρ ; right panel) of shot 82188 do not match the experimental ones quite well and they mostly under-predict the experimental data. The simulations results carried out for shot 82183 are different when compared to those for shot 82188. In shot 82183, the temperature and density profiles match very well to the experimental data except in deuterium profiles, which significantly under-predict the experimental data. A statistical analysis (presented in section 4.2) will be carried out to quantify the agreement between the core-edge model predictions and the corre- sponding experimental data. The effect that helps to reduce the anomalous transport and to form the transport barrier at the plasma edge is described by the suppression function that is shown in Eq. (1) and Fig. 4 (shots 81499 for low κ, and 81507 for high κ) and Fig. 5 (shots 82205 for low ρ and 82788 for high ρ ). This function is composed of two terms which reduce the turbulent transport. The first term is for shear in the E B flow. In this work, it is effective in the edge region only (at about a normalized 781

Plasma Science and Technology, Vol.14, No.9, Sep. 2012 Fig.4 Profiles of radial electric field, ω E B flow shear, magnetic shear and suppression function obtained by using BALDUR with core-edge transport model are compared to the DIII-D data of shots 81499 (low κ; left panel) and 81507 (high κ; right panel) Fig.5 Profiles of radial electric field, ω E B flow shear, magnetic shear, and suppression function obtained by using BALDUR with core-edge transport model are compared to the DIII-D data of shots 82205 (low ρ ; left panel) and 82788 (high ρ ; right panel) minor radius (r/a) = 0.9 1.0). To demonstrate the E B flow shear stabilization effect, the radial electric field (E r ) calculated by BALDUR is shown. It seems to be the same pattern and stronger near the edge area because the pressure gradient is high there. Thus, the radial electric field will affect the ω E B flow shear [28] that can be depicted by: where, R is the major radius, B θ is the poloidal magnetic field and B φ is the toroidal magnetic field. The ω E B flow shear calculated by the predictive modelling codes is shown in Figs. 4 and 5, which show the same trend as the radial electric field with a high magnitude at the plasma edge. It is worth to note that the radial electric field, E r, is calculated by 782 ω E B = (RB θ) 2 ( ) Er, (12) B φ Ψ RB θ E r = 1 Zen i p i r v θb φ + v tor B θ, (13)

Y. PIANROJ et al.: Simulations of H-Mode Plasmas in Tokamak Using a Complete Core-Edge Modeling p i where, r is the pressure gradient, υ θ and υ tor are the poloidal and toroidal velocities, respectively, n i is the ion density, Z is the ion charge number, and e is the elementary charge. The calculated toroidal velocity, v tor, is assumed to be a function of ion temperature [29] ; whereas the poloidal velocity, v θ is estimated using the NCLASS code. The last term, the magnetic shear, also plays a key role in facilitating entry into enhanced confinement or low magnetic shear acts to reduce the growth rate of turbulence [19,29]. Thus, the magnetic shear profile simulated by BALDUR is shown in these figures. The magnetic shear profile increases rapidly at r/a = 0.6 to 1.0. Therefore, the inverse of maximum function between 1 to (s 0.5) 2 of this term is effective in term of suppression at the plasma edge area as well. This behaviour of these parameters for suppression is similar in all simulations in this work. 4.2 Statistical analysis To quantify the comparison between simulations and experimental results, a percentage of the root-meansquare error (%RMSE) deviation and the %offset are calculated based on the difference between simulated and experimental results. In this paper, the %RMSE and the %offset are defined respectively as RMSE(%) = 1 N offset(%) = 1 N N i=1 N i=1 ( Xsimi X expi X exp0 ) 2 100, (14) ( Xsimi X ) expi 100, (15) X exp0 where, X expi is the i th data point of the experimental profile, X simi is the corresponding data point of the simulation profile, and X exp0 is the maximum data point of the experimental profile of X as a function of radius, with N points totally. The %RMSE and the %offset are evaluated for each of the four profiles, namely: electron temperature, ion temperature, electron density, and deuterium density for the shots considered. Note that the %offset is positive if the simulated data is larger than the experimental data and negative if the simulated is smaller than the experimental data. If the %offset is zero, then the %RSME is a measure of how much the shape of the profiles differ between simulated and experimental one, thus the statistical analysis will be used to analyze the coefficients C x and the simulated and experimental data from DIII-D H-mode discharges that will be described in the next section. 4.2.1 Calibration of coefficients C x In the pedestal transport model, described in Eq. (5), the coefficient, C x for each species is chosen to optimize the agreement in the data from the simulation and the DIII-D H-mode shot 81329 for both core and edge regions. It is found that the ion coefficient (C i ) and the electron coefficient (C e ) are equal to 4.50 10 3, which yield the best agreement. For the hydrogenic coefficient and the impurity coefficient, the best choices are 1.00 10 2 and 1.02 10 2, respectively. The effect of different coefficients, by a comparison to the experimental data of DIII-D 81329 is shown in Fig. 6, with the values of coefficients listed in Table 2. It depicts the set of coefficients that are used in this work C x1, the set of coefficients that are less than ten times that of C x1 are C x2, and the set of coefficients that are more than ten times that of C x1 are C x3. These coefficients affect the electron temperature, ion temperature, electron density, and deuterium density profiles. Fig.6 Profiles of electron temperature, ion temperature electron density and deuterium density. The simulated results by using BALDUR in order to show the calibration and sensitivity of coefficients C x, are compared to the DIII-D data of shot 81329 783

Plasma Science and Technology, Vol.14, No.9, Sep. 2012 4.2.2 Simulation results compared with 10 DIII-D H-mode discharges In this section, the simulation results carried out by BALDUR are validated with the data from ten shots in DIII-D by using statistical analysis. The results are presented in Figs. 7 10 and listed in Table 3. It should be noted that the statistical analysis in this work consists of two groups. The first group is named core model which is used to quantify all the simulated and experimental data when the anomalous transport mixed B/gB model is used from the center of plasma to the top of pedestal in which the boundary is taken from experiments at the top of pedestal at the diagnostic time. Another group is named core-edge model which is used to quantify all the simulated and experimental data when the anomalous transport mixed B/gB model is used with the suppression function from the center to the edge of plasma (separatrix). Table 2. The %RMSEs and %offsets for the electron temperature profiles using either the core model or using the core-edge model for ten DIII-D shots are shown in Fig. 7. The %RMSEs of the electron temperature using the core model range from 4.50% to 8.38%. However, with the core-edge model, the %RMSEs range from 6.88% to 18.71%. The %offsets using the core model are mostly positive, indicating that simulations tend to over-predict the experimental results. However, the %offsets using the core-edge model are mostly negative, indicating that simulations tend to under-predict the experimental results. In Fig. 8, the %RMSEs of the ion temperature using the core model range from 3.83% to 12.21% while those using the core-edge model range from 6.88% to 18.71%. The %offsets of simulations using both core and core-edge model are mostly positive, indicating that simulations tend to over-predict the experimental results. %RMSE and %offset for the calibration and sensitivity of coefficients Cx Profiles Cx1 Cx2 Cx3 %RMSE %offset %RMSE %offset %RMSE %offset Te 7.15 2 16.92 0.12 157.50 1.09 Ti 9.65 6 22.76 0.17 219.39 1.43 ne 7.59 1 5.54 2 7.20 1 nd 8.85 1 6.90 1 8.96 4 Fig.7 Percentage of root mean square error (%RMSE) for the electron temperature profiles obtained by simulations using both core model (mixed B/gB) and core-edge model in BALDUR, compared to the experimental data from ten H-mode shots (pedestal occurred) in DIII-D 784

Y. PIANROJ et al.: Simulations of H-Mode Plasmas in Tokamak Using a Complete Core-Edge Modeling Fig.8 Percentage of root mean square error (%RMSE) for the ion temperature profiles obtained by the simulation using both core model (mixed B/gB) and core-edge model in BALDUR, compared to the experimental data from ten H-mode shots (pedestal occurred) in DIII-D Fig.9 Percentage of root mean square error (%RMSE) for the electron density profiles obtained by the simulation using both core model (mixed B/gB) and core-edge model in BALDUR, compared to the experimental data from ten H-mode shots (pedestal occurred) in DIII-D In Fig. 9, the %RMSE for the simulations for electron density using the core model ranges from 5.37% to 25.51% while that of simulations using the coreedge model ranges from 4.03% to 13.21%. The %offsets in the case of the simulations using the core model are mostly negative, indicating that simulations under- predict the experimental results. However, the %offsets in the case of the simulations using the core-edge model are mostly positive. Finally in Fig. 10, the %RMSE of the simulations for deuterium density using the core model ranges from 5.66% to 21.51% and the %RMSE of the simulations using the core-edge model ranges from 785

Plasma Science and Technology, Vol.14, No.9, Sep. 2012 6.07% to 17.66%. The %offsets are mostly negative for the simulations using both models, indicating that simulations tend to under-predict the experimental data. The average of %RMSE and average of %offset, averaged over ten shots for electron temperature, ion temperature, electron density, and deuterium density, are shown in Fig. 11. The averaged %RMSE differs in less than 6% between the two models for four profiles, and the averaged %offsets differs in less than 8%. A com- parison between the results using the core model to the core-edge mode for the simulation of temperature profiles indicates that the average of %RMSE increase and the simulations over-predict the experimental results because of the positive averages of %offset. For density profiles, the average of %RMSE for electron density decreases in some shots (77559, 81499, 81507 and 82788) and the simulations over-predict the experimental results. Fig.10 Percentage of root mean square error (%RMSE) for the deuterium density profiles obtained by the simulation using core model (mixed B/gB) and core-edge model in BALDUR, compared to the experimental data from ten H-mode shots (pedestal occurred) in DIII-D Table 3. Discharges %RMSE and %offset for both core and core-edge models Core model Core-Edge model %RMSE Te Ti %offset %RMSE Ti ne %offset ne nd Te Ti ne nd Te nd 6.58 4.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 18.71 20.73 9.21 10.51 Te Ti ne nd 14.0 18.0 3.0 2.0 77557 6.46 9.31 5.37 77559 8.10 5.39 18.76 13.22 2.0 2.0 15.0 1.0 11.18 18.22 6.16 9.23 9.0 13.0 2.0 6.0 81321 5.72 5.43 10.78 21.51 2.0 3.0 7.0 17.0 12.40 15.48 12.85 13.44 4.0 1 3.0 3.0 81329 4.50 3.83 7.41 12.95 1.0 1.0 5.0 11.0 7.15 6.0 1.0 1.0 81499 6.32 11.88 19.67 116.4 4.0 8.0 18.0 7.0 11.04 20.10 4.03 11.54 6.0 15.0 1.0 11.0 81507 6.69 7.58 16.94 8.04 4.0 5.0 15.0 2.0 6.88 13.99 13.21 17.06 1.0 11.0 9.0 13.0 82205 8.38 9.02 5.51 6.0 3.0 7.69 5.59 10.25 11.12 6.0 82788 4.91 5.77 25.51 16.91 3.0 4.0 24.0 15.0 17.92 15.99 5.52 1.0 3.0 4.0 82188 5.59 7.72 7.98 82183 7.16 12.21 8.28 786 5.66 8.63 10.48 4.0 8.0 4.0 1 1.0 2.0 9.65 7.59 8.85 2.0 6.07 1 2.0 16.28 20.47 6.26 16.61 16 19 2.0 16.0 5.0 9.49 8.0 2.0 17.0 5.03 4.79 17.66

Y. PIANROJ et al.: Simulations of H-Mode Plasmas in Tokamak Using a Complete Core-Edge Modeling Fig.11 Averaged percentage of root mean square error (%RMSE) and the averaged percentage of offset for four profiles of electron temperature (Te ), ion temperature (Ti ), electron density (ne ) and deuterium density (nd ) obtained by simulations using both the core and core-edge models, compared to the experimental data from ten H-mode shots in DIII-D 5 Conclusion A theory-based model for describing the pedestal transport is developed. An anomalous transport model for the core region is extended to the pedestal region by the inclusion of the effect of both ωe B flow shear and magnetic shear. This model is developed and tested in BALDUR for self-consistently simulating H-mode plasmas. It is found that the simulations successfully reproduce the experimental results. The core simulations carried out using BALDUR with the mixed B/gB core model and prescribed boundary conditions yield the simulations with average RMSEs between 6.38% and 12.62% for both temperature and density profiles. For the core-edge simulations, the agreement changes slightly with a range between 7.59% and 14.53%. As a result, the simulations using the core-edge model with the pedestal model developed yield an agreement comparable to those obtained from the simulations using the core model with the boundary conditions taken from experiment. It is found that the suppression function developed is effective only in the edge region. References 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Acknowledgments 13 14 Mr. YUTTHAPONG thanks for the program Strategic Scholarships for Frontier Research Network for Thai Ph.D. Program. 15 16 Wagner F, Becker G, Behringer K, et al. 1982, Physical Review Letters, 49: 1408 Connor J W, Wilson H R. 2000, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 42: R1 Singer C E, Post D E, Mikkelsen D R. 1988, Comput. Phys. Commun., 49: 275 Honda M, Fukuyama A. 2006, Nuclear Fusion, 46: 580 Cenacchi G, Taroni A. 1988, JET-IR, 88, Technical Report, Joint European Torus Underlaking, UK Pereverzev G, Yushmanov P N. 2002, IPP 5/98, Technical Report, Max-Planck Institut fur Plasmaphysik, Garching, Germany Basiuk V, Artaud J F, Imbeaux F, et al. 2003, Nuclear Fusion, 43: 822 Kinsey J E, Staebler G M, Waltz R E. 2002, Physics of Plasmas, 9: 1676 Bateman G, Kritz A H, Kinsey J E. 1998, Physics of Plasmas, 5: 1793 Bateman G, Onjun T, Kritz A H. 2003, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 45: 1939 Kinsey J E, Bateman G, Onjun T, et al. 2003, Nuclear Fusion, 43: 1845 Onjun T, Bateman G, Kritz A H. 2001, Physics of Plasmas, 8: 975 Hannum D, Bateman G, Kinsey J. 2001, Physics of Plasmas, 8: 964 Biglari H, Diamond P H, Terry P W. 1990, Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics, 2: 1 Gohil P. 2006, Comptes Rendus Physique, 7: 606 Boedo J, Gray D, Jachmich S, et al. 2000, Nuclear 787

Plasma Science and Technology, Vol.14, No.9, Sep. 2012 Fusion, 40: 1397 17 Oost G V, Adamek J, Antoni V, et al. 2003, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 45: 1 18 Pacher G W, et al. 2004, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 46: A257 19 Doyle E J, Houlberg W A, Kamada Y, et al. 2007, Nuclear Fusion, 47: S18 20 Zolotukhin O V, Igitkhanov Y, Janeschitz G, et al. 2001, Transport simulations of type I ELMs. Presented at the 28th EPS Conf. on Contr. Fusion and Plasma Phys., (Funchal, Portugal, June 2001), European Physical Society, Geneva 21 Sugihara M, Igitkhanov Y, Janeschitz G, et al. 2001, Simulation studies on H-mode pedestal behavioru during type-i ELMs under various plasma conditions. Presented at the 28th EPS Conf. on Contr. Fusion and Plasma Phys., (Funchal, Portugal, June 2001), European Physical Society, Geneva 22 Pankin A Y, Voitsekhovitch I, Bateman G, et al. 2005, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 47: 483 23 Janeschitz G, Pacher G W, Zolotukhin O, et al. 2002, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 44: A459 24 Tala T. 2002, Transport Barrier and Current Profile Studies on the JET Tokamak. [Ph.D] Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland 25 Tala T J J, Heikkinen J A, Parail V V. 2001, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 43: 507 26 Onjun T, Pianroj Y. 2009, Nuclear Fusion, 49: 075003 27 Boucher D, Connor J W, Houlberg W A, et al. 2000, Nuclear Fusion, 40: 1955 28 Burrell K H. 1997, Physics of Plasmas, 4: 1499 29 Waltz R E, Staebler G M, Dorland W, et al. 1997, Physics of Plasmas, 4: 2482 (Manuscript received 21 February 2011) (Manuscript accepted 3 June 2011) E-mail address of corresponding author T. ONJUN: thawatchai@siit.tu.ac.th 788