TJ-II:Impurity density and potential asymmetries: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Experimental campaign ==
== Experimental campaign ==
2017 Spring
2017 Spring
[[File:Photo_2018-07-20_09-32-57.jpg |thumb|right|500px| Figure 1.
Numerical vs Experiment electron-root #45477 discharge:
(a,b) Numerical impurity density asymmetry parameter <math>\alpha_{nZ}</math> and the
experimental radiation asymmetry parameter <math>\alpha_{rad}</math> respectively at the toroidal plane
<math>\phi=14.5^{\circ}</math> that corresponds the SXR toroidal measurement plane. (c,d) Numerical
impurity density asymmetry parameter <math>\alpha_{nZ}</math> and the experimental radiation asymmetry
parameter <math>\alpha_{rad}</math> respectively at the toroidal plane <math>\phi=75.5^{\circ}</math> that corresponds
the Bolometery toroidal position. Note the numerical and experimental scale sare
the same <math>[-0.38, 0.38]</math>. Since neon impurities were puffed at trave levels during the discharges, the numerical
results in (a,c) have considered <math>Z_{I}=10</math>, i.e. they have assumed fully ionization of Ne on the whole
effective radius <ref> M. Ezzat ''Advanced neoclassical impurity transport
modelling with experimental comparison for TJ-II'' Master Thesis (2018)</ref>]]
[[File:Photo_2018-07-20_09-33-36.jpg |thumb|right|500px| Figure 2. Same as in figure 1. but considering the ion-root discharge #45469 <ref> M. Ezzat ''Advanced neoclassical impurity transport
modelling with experimental comparison for TJ-II'' Master Thesis (2018)</ref>]]


== Proposal title ==
== Proposal title ==
Line 6: Line 23:


== Name and affiliation of proponent ==
== Name and affiliation of proponent ==
José M García Regaña<sup>1</sup>, José Luis Velasco<sup>1</sup>, J. A. Alonso <sup>1</sup>, I. Calvo <sup>1,7</sup>, C. Hidalgo<sup>1</sup>, Bing Liu<sup>1</sup>, K. McKarthy</sup>1</sup>, M. A. Ochando </sup>1</sup>
José M García Regaña<sup>1</sup>, M. Ezzat<sup>1</sup>, B. van Milligen<sup>1</sup>, M. A. Ochando <sup>1</sup>, F. Medina<sup>1</sup>,
 
José Luis Velasco<sup>1</sup>, J. A. Alonso <sup>1</sup>, I. Calvo <sup>1</sup>, C. Hidalgo<sup>1</sup>, K. McKarthy<sup>1</sup>
# Fusion National Laboratory, CIEMAT, 28040, Madrid, Spain
# Fusion National Laboratory, CIEMAT, 28040, Madrid, Spain


Line 17: Line 34:
with <math>\theta</math> and <math>\phi</math> the poloidal and toroidal angular coordinates.  
with <math>\theta</math> and <math>\phi</math> the poloidal and toroidal angular coordinates.  
When this is taken into account the equilibrium density of the different species ''a'' present in the plasma  
When this is taken into account the equilibrium density of the different species ''a'' present in the plasma  
varies according to their adiabatic response and can be written as: <math>n_{a0}=\left<n\right>\exp\left(-Z_{a}e\Phi_1/T_{a}\right)</math>, with  
varies according to their adiabatic response and can be written as: <math>n_{a0}=\langle n\rangle\exp\left(-Z_{a}e\Phi_1/T_{a}\right)</math>, with  
<math>\left<...\right></math> the flux-surface-average. In TJ-II plasmas experiments and simulations  
<math>\langle...\rangle</math> the flux-surface-average. In TJ-II plasmas experiments and simulations  
<ref>M A Pedrosa ''et al.'', ''Electrostatic potential variations along flux surfaces in stellarators'' Nucl. Fusion '''55''' 052001 (2015) </ref>
<ref>M A Pedrosa ''et al.'', ''Electrostatic potential variations along flux surfaces in stellarators'' Nucl. Fusion '''55''' 052001 (2015) </ref>
<ref>B Liu ''et al.'' ''Direct experimental evidence of potential asymmetry in magnetic flux surfaces in stellarators'' to be submitted (2017) </ref>
<ref>B Liu ''et al.'' ''Direct experimental evidence of potential asymmetry in magnetic flux surfaces in stellarators'' to be submitted (2017) </ref>
Line 37: Line 54:
at different radial locations.  
at different radial locations.  
The application of fluid tools is also foreseen for the comparison between simulations and with the experimental results.
The application of fluid tools is also foreseen for the comparison between simulations and with the experimental results.


== Description of required resources ==
== Description of required resources ==
Line 44: Line 63:
* The time evolution of the plasma emissivity radial profile via tomographic reconstructions of the bolometry system signals.
* The time evolution of the plasma emissivity radial profile via tomographic reconstructions of the bolometry system signals.
* The time evolution of the plasma floating potential at the outer core region (<math>r/a\sim 0.9</math>).
* The time evolution of the plasma floating potential at the outer core region (<math>r/a\sim 0.9</math>).
* The time evolution of the line-averaged density <math>\left<n_e(t)\right></math> with interferometry.
* The time evolution of the line-averaged density <math>\langle n_e(t)\rangle</math> with interferometry.
* The radial profiles of electron density <math>n_{e}(r, t_0)</math> and temperature at one time instant <math>t_0</math> using Thomson Scattering (TS).
* The radial profiles of electron density <math>n_{e}(r, t_0)</math> and temperature at one time instant <math>t_0</math> using Thomson Scattering (TS).
* The time evolution of the electron temperature profile <math>T_{e}(r,t)</math> with Electron Cyclotron Emission (ECE), when available, calibrated with TS.  
* The time evolution of the electron temperature profile <math>T_{e}(r,t)</math> with Electron Cyclotron Emission (ECE), when available, calibrated with TS.  
Line 58: Line 77:
== Preferred dates and degree of flexibility ==
== Preferred dates and degree of flexibility ==
Preferred dates: (format dd-mm-yyyy)
Preferred dates: (format dd-mm-yyyy)
== Results ==


== References ==
== References ==
Line 66: Line 89:


[[Category:TJ-II internal documents]]
[[Category:TJ-II internal documents]]
[[Category:TJ-II experimental proposals]]
[[Category:TJ-II experimental proposals 2017]]