skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Simulation of Fusion Plasmas: Current Status and Future Directions

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [7];  [4];  [8];  [4];  [9];  [8];  [1];  [10];  [11];  [12];  [4];  [13];  [14];  [1] more »;  [4];  [15];  [10];  [16];  [17];  [18];  [19];  [20] « less
  1. ORNL
  2. University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK)
  3. Association EURATOM-CEA sur la Fusion Controlee, France
  4. Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL)
  5. New York University
  6. University of California, San Diego
  7. Southwestern Institute of Physics, China
  8. Kyoto University, Japan
  9. Columbia University
  10. General Atomics, San Diego
  11. Princeton University
  12. University of California, Davis
  13. National Institute for Fusion Science, Toki, Japan
  14. Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI)
  15. North Carolina State University
  16. Fudan University, China
  17. EURATOM / UKAEA, UK
  18. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
  19. Kyushu University, Japan
  20. Association Euratom-ENEA sulla Fusione, Italy
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States); Center for Computational Sciences
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1054963
DOE Contract Number:
DE-AC05-00OR22725
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Plasma Science and Technology; Journal Volume: 9; Journal Issue: 3
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Batchelor, Donald B, Beck, M., Becoulet, A., Budny, R. V., Chang, C S, Diamond, P. H., Dong, J. Q., Fu, GuoYong, Fukuyama, A., Hahm, T. S., Keyes, David E, Kishimoto, Y., Klasky, Scott A, Lao, L.L., Li, K., Ludaescher, B., Manickam, J., Nakajima, N., Ozeki, T., Podhorszki, Norbert, Tang, W. M., Vouk, M. A., Waltz, R. E., Wang, S. J., Wilson, H. R., Xu, X. Q., Yagi, M., and Zonca, F. Simulation of Fusion Plasmas: Current Status and Future Directions. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1088/1009-0630/9/3/13.
Batchelor, Donald B, Beck, M., Becoulet, A., Budny, R. V., Chang, C S, Diamond, P. H., Dong, J. Q., Fu, GuoYong, Fukuyama, A., Hahm, T. S., Keyes, David E, Kishimoto, Y., Klasky, Scott A, Lao, L.L., Li, K., Ludaescher, B., Manickam, J., Nakajima, N., Ozeki, T., Podhorszki, Norbert, Tang, W. M., Vouk, M. A., Waltz, R. E., Wang, S. J., Wilson, H. R., Xu, X. Q., Yagi, M., & Zonca, F. Simulation of Fusion Plasmas: Current Status and Future Directions. United States. doi:10.1088/1009-0630/9/3/13.
Batchelor, Donald B, Beck, M., Becoulet, A., Budny, R. V., Chang, C S, Diamond, P. H., Dong, J. Q., Fu, GuoYong, Fukuyama, A., Hahm, T. S., Keyes, David E, Kishimoto, Y., Klasky, Scott A, Lao, L.L., Li, K., Ludaescher, B., Manickam, J., Nakajima, N., Ozeki, T., Podhorszki, Norbert, Tang, W. M., Vouk, M. A., Waltz, R. E., Wang, S. J., Wilson, H. R., Xu, X. Q., Yagi, M., and Zonca, F. Mon . "Simulation of Fusion Plasmas: Current Status and Future Directions". United States. doi:10.1088/1009-0630/9/3/13.
@article{osti_1054963,
title = {Simulation of Fusion Plasmas: Current Status and Future Directions},
author = {Batchelor, Donald B and Beck, M. and Becoulet, A. and Budny, R. V. and Chang, C S and Diamond, P. H. and Dong, J. Q. and Fu, GuoYong and Fukuyama, A. and Hahm, T. S. and Keyes, David E and Kishimoto, Y. and Klasky, Scott A and Lao, L.L. and Li, K. and Ludaescher, B. and Manickam, J. and Nakajima, N. and Ozeki, T. and Podhorszki, Norbert and Tang, W. M. and Vouk, M. A. and Waltz, R. E. and Wang, S. J. and Wilson, H. R. and Xu, X. Q. and Yagi, M. and Zonca, F.},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {10.1088/1009-0630/9/3/13},
journal = {Plasma Science and Technology},
number = 3,
volume = 9,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}
  • The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), Committee 1 (C1) considers the risk of induction of cancer and heritable disease (stochastic effects) together with the underlying mechanisms of radiation action. C1 also considers the risks, severity, and mechanisms of induction of tissue/organ damage and developmental defects (deterministic effects). The committee was significantly revamped in 2013 and last met in Abu Dhabi in October of 2013. C1 evaluated progress on two ongoing Task Groups (TG’s); TG 64 “Cancer Risk from Alpha Emitters” and TG 75 “Stem Cell Radiobiology”. Following approval from the Main Commission (MC), C1 established two new TG’s; TGmore » 91 “Radiation Risk Inference at Low Dose and Low Dose Rate Exposure for Radiological Protection Purposes”, and TG 92 “Terminology and Definitions”. Here I will present a synopsis of the current status of C1 and outline the tasks C1 may undertake in the future.« less
  • Soil is the largest organic carbon (C) pool of terrestrial ecosystems, and loss from soil accounts for a large pro portion of land-atmosphere C exchange. Due to large pool size and variable residence time from years to millennia, even small changes in soil organic C(SOC) have substantial effects on the terrestrial C budget, thereby affecting atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)concentration and climate change. In the past decades, a wide variety of studies have been conducted to quantify global SOC stocks and soil exchange with the atmosphere through site measurements, inventories, and empirical/process-based modeling. However, these estimates are highly uncertain and identifyingmore » major driving forces controlling soil C storage and fluxes remains a key research challenge his study has compiled century-long (1901-2010)estimates of SOC storage and heterotrophic respiration (Rh) from ten terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) in the Multi-scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP) and two observation based datasets. The ten-TBM ensemble shows that global SOC estimate range from 4 to 2111 Pg C (1 Pg = 10 15g) with a median value of 1158 Pg C33 in 2010. Modeling approach estimates a broad range of Rh from 35 to 69 Pg C yr -1 with a median value of 51Pg C yr -1 during 200–2010. The largest uncertainty in SOC stocks exists in the 40–65°N latitude band while Rh differences are the largest in the tropics. All the models agreed that climate and land use changes have decreased SOC stocks while elevated CO 2 and atmospheric nitrogen deposition have increased SOC stocks though the response varied significantly among models. Model representations of temperature and moisture sensitivity,nutrient limitation and land use partially explain the divergent estimates of global SOC stocks and soil fluxes in this study. In addition, major sources of uncertainty from model estimation include exclusion of SOC storage in wetlands and peatlands as well as C storage in deep soil layers.« less
  • An overview of some of the influential issues contributing to the calculation of complex turbulent flows using the finite-volume technique is provided. The status of some recent developments and speculations on future directions are described, in areas such as: discretization of convection, including bounding schemes, and solution algorithms with emphasis on maintaining spatial and intervariate coupling, geometric flexibility and turbulence modeling. The survey indicates that current developments point toward the use of quadratic approximations, multilevel (or multigrid) acceleration (for steady problems), and second-moment (Reynold stress/flux) closures within the framework of nonorthogonal grids in which a Cartesian velocity decomposition is adopted.more » 216 refs.« less
  • Short communication.