skip to main content


This content will become publicly available on May 7, 2019

Title: Predict-first experimental analysis using automated and integrated magnetohydrodynamic modeling

An integrated-modeling workflow has been developed in this paper for the purpose of performing predict-first analysis of transient-stability experiments. Starting from an existing equilibrium reconstruction from a past experiment, the workflow couples together the EFIT Grad-Shafranov solver [L. Lao et al., Fusion Sci. Technol. 48, 968 (2005)], the EPED model for the pedestal structure [P. B. Snyder et al., Phys. Plasmas 16, 056118 (2009)], and the NEO drift-kinetic-equation solver [E. A. Belli and J. Candy, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 54, 015015 (2012)] (for bootstrap current calculations) in order to generate equilibria with self-consistent pedestal structures as the plasma shape and various scalar parameters (e.g., normalized β, pedestal density, and edge safety factor [q 95]) are changed. These equilibria are then analyzed using automated M3D-C1 extended-magnetohydrodynamic modeling [S. C. Jardin et al., Comput. Sci. Discovery 5, 014002 (2012)] to compute the plasma response to three-dimensional magnetic perturbations. This workflow was created in conjunction with a DIII-D experiment examining the effect of triangularity on the 3D plasma response. Several versions of the workflow were developed, and the initial ones were used to help guide experimental planning (e.g., determining the plasma current necessary to maintain the constant edge safety factor in various shapes).more » Subsequent validation with the experimental results was then used to revise the workflow, ultimately resulting in the complete model presented here. We show that quantitative agreement was achieved between the M3D-C1 plasma response calculated for equilibria generated by the final workflow and equilibria reconstructed from experimental data. A comparison of results from earlier workflows is used to show the importance of properly matching certain experimental parameters in the generated equilibria, including the normalized β, pedestal density, and q 95. On the other hand, the details of the pedestal current did not significantly impact the plasma response in these equilibria. A comparison to the experimentally measured plasma response shows mixed agreement, indicating that while the equilibria are predicted well, additional analysis tools may be needed. In conclusion, we note the implications that these results have for the success of future predict-first studies, particularly the need for scans of uncertain parameters and for close collaboration between experimentalists and theorists.« less
ORCiD logo [1] ; ORCiD logo [1] ;  [1] ; ORCiD logo [1] ;  [1] ; ORCiD logo [1] ; ORCiD logo [1] ; ORCiD logo [2] ;  [1]
  1. General Atomics, San Diego, CA (United States)
  2. Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. (PPPL), Princeton, NJ (United States)
Publication Date:
Grant/Contract Number:
FG02-95ER54309; FC02-06ER54873; FC02-04ER54698; SC0015499
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Physics of Plasmas
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 25; Journal Issue: 5; Journal ID: ISSN 1070-664X
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
Research Org:
General Atomics, San Diego, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) (SC-24)
Country of Publication:
United States
70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY; plasma confinement; numerical modeling; tokamaks; magnetohydrodynamics; plasma instabilities
OSTI Identifier:
Alternate Identifier(s):
OSTI ID: 1436208