Plasma simulation: Difference between revisions
(→Codes) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
=== Fluid codes === | === Fluid codes === | ||
* [[CUTIE]] (predictive, full-tokamak) | * [[CUTIE]] (predictive, 3-D, full-tokamak) | ||
* [[PRETOR]] | |||
* [[PROCTR]] (1-D) | |||
* [[EDGE2D-NIMBUS]] (edge) | * [[EDGE2D-NIMBUS]] (edge) | ||
* [[UEDGE]] | * [[UEDGE]] | ||
Revision as of 11:28, 25 July 2009
The complexity of fusion-grade plasmas and the increased computational power that has become available in recent years has made the simulation of plasmas a prime object of study in the field of fusion research. Although the basic equations governing the behaviour of magnetised plasmas are known, approximations are always necessary in any code of practical interest; e.g. the extreme disparity of the transport timescales (seconds) and turbulent timescales (microseconds) make it hard to perform detailed turbulence simulations for the whole three-dimensional plasma volume and for several transport timescales.
Codes
Codes can either be interpretative (taking some input from experiment) or predictive. They can be full-tokamak (or full-stellarator), or simulate only a small portion of plasma (a flux tube, the edge, or the Scrape-Off Layer). Recent years have seen an increased effort in the field of cross code benchmarking. [1] [2]
Fluid codes
Monte Carlo
Gyrokinetic codes
References
- ↑ Nevins W.M. et al, Phys. Plasmas 13 (2006) 122306
- ↑ A.M. Dimits et al, Nucl. Fusion 47 (2007) 817-824