INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING

PLASMA PHYSICS AND CONTROLLED FUSION

Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 43 (2001) R183R224

www.iop.org/Journals/pp

PII: S0741-3335(01)07063-4

REVIEW ARTICLE

Effects of divertor geometry on tokamak plasmas

Alberto Loarte
European Fusion Development AgreementClose Support Unit Garching, Max-Planck-Institut
fur Plasmaphysik, D-85748 Garching bei Munchen, Germany

Received 22 November 2000

Abstract
The design, construction and operation of advanced divertors have been the
main topics of tokamak research during the last decade. The design of these
divertors (carried out with two-dimensional plasma modelling codes) has been
optimized to provide: a large operating density range for partially detached
plasmas with large radiative losses; satisfactory particle control by efficient
deuterium pumping; and He exhaust capability sufficient to remove fusion
ashes when extrapolated to next step devices. This article explains the criteria
that have guided this optimization process and then critically reviews the
experimental evidence that confirms or refutes the physics-based design criteria
on which the various existing advanced divertors have been based.

1. Introduction
During the last decade, one of the key drivers for the design and upgrade of the current
generation of tokamaks has been the incorporation of advanced divertors (Marmar et al 1999,
Gruber et al 1999, Allen et al 1999a, JET Team 1999, Ishida and JT-60U Team 1999). The
design of such divertors has been optimized by means of two-dimensional (2D) plasma edge
codes, such as B2-Eirene, EDGE2D-NIMBUS and UEDGE (Braams 1986, Reiter et al 1991,
Schneider et al 1992, Simonini et al 1992, 1994, Rognlien et al 1992, Rognlien 1996), in order
to maximize the benefits that can be expected from successful divertor operation:
access to regimes with low power load onto the divertor target and acceptable divertor
target erosion, by means of large volumetric losses, which are compatible with good core
plasma energy confinement;
achievement of sufficient divertor particle removal (pumping), which is necessary for core
plasma density control and for removing helium ash in future fusion reactors and next step
experiments, such as ITER (Parker et al 1997).
Although with less theoretical justification, it was also expected that divertors which
achieved these goals would reduce the ionization source in the core plasma (by reducing
neutral escape from the divertor and main chamber neutral density) and this, in turn, would
improve energy confinement (as seen in the experiments of ASDEX (Wagner et al 1991)). The
decrease in main chamber neutral density would reduce the core plasma impurity contamination
by reducing charge-exchange sputtering in the main chamber.
0741-3335/01/060183+42$30.00

2001 IOP Publishing Ltd

Printed in the UK

R183

R184

Review article

Many of the effects associated with changes in divertor geometry are linked to the coupling
of plasma transport and neutral and impurity sources at the edge and divertor plasmas. Due
to the very nonlinear coupling between plasma parameters and neutral and impurity sources,
2D codes are necessary to model accurately the effects of divertor geometry on tokamak
plasmas. Because of the intrinsic difficulties in modelling these nonlinear processes, detailed
experiments have been carried out to test the validity of the 2D code predictions in most
divertor tokamaks. This review will concentrate on the analysis of the results obtained in
these experiments. The basic concepts of divertor physics will not be discussed in detail in
this review; only those relevant to the studies of divertor geometry will be considered. For an
extensive and up-to-date review of experimental divertor physics, the reader is referred to the
recent work by Pitcher and Stangeby (1997).
In order to study the regimes with enhanced divertor losses and efficient particle control,
most divertor tokamaks (Alcator C-mod, ASDEX-U, DIII-D, JET, JT-60U, JFT-2M, etc) have
modified their divertors and conducted dedicated experimental campaigns to assess whether the
expected beneficial effects of divertor geometry are reproduced in the experiment or not. This
article reviews the main results obtained in the course of this ongoing activity. Figures 1(a)(e)
show some of the divertor geometries which will be considered in this review (Alcator C-mod,
ASDEX-U, DIII-D, JET and JT-60U).
In this review, we concern ourselves with tokamak poloidal divertors only. These are,
at present, the favoured option to tackle the power-load and particle-control problems in next
step tokamak devices. The reader is referred to a recent review (Grosman 1999) for the other
main option being considered in relation to these problems, i.e. ergodization of the tokamak
edge plasma. Following their success in tokamaks, divertors are also being re-implemented in
other magnetic confinement devices such as stellarators. For recent experimental work on this
emerging area of research the reader is referred to (McCormick et al 1999) for results from
W-7AS, and (Komori et al 2000) for results from LHD.
2. Basic effects of the divertor geometry on target power load and ionization sources
2.1. Basic effects of the divertor geometry on target power load
The presence of an X-point at the separatrix in a tokamak plasma introduces some complexities
that affect the particle and power fluxes to divertor targets, as compared to limiter discharges.
For given upstream SOL plasma parameters, the parallel (to the magnetic field) power and
particle fluxes at the divertor target are determined by the expansion of the flux surfaces at the
target. This magnetic flux expansion is greatest when the X-point is located very close to the
target and decreases as the X-point-to-target distance increases. The actual power and particle
fluxes deposited on the target are determined not only by the parallel fluxes but also by the
angle of incidence of the field line onto the target itself. In the absence of toroidal inclination
of the divertor tiles (which is used in several tokamaks to avoid the exposure of leading edges
due to tolerances in the alignment of the divertor tiles (JET Team 1995a, Gruber 1999)), this
angle ( ) is determined by the normal component of the poloidal field to the divertor target
and the toroidal field, i.e. sin( ) = B /B . Because the poloidal field is zero at the X-point,
is typically very small, of the order of a few degrees, and increases linearly with distance to
the X-point, in a first-order approximation (Loarte et al 1992a). The combination of magnetic
flux geometry affecting both the parallel fluxes and their projection onto the divertor target
can give rise to unexpected behaviours of the measured energy and particle target fluxes,
as seen in JET (Loarte et al 1992a, Harbour et al 1992). Figures 2(a) and 2(b) (Loarte et al
1992a, Loarte 1992b) show the effect of changing the X-point-to-wall distance on the energy

Review article

R185
G

plasma
main chamber

X-point
D2

divertor

plenum
D2

Divertor I

Divertor II, Lyra

bypass
+
intrinsic
leakage

0.1 m

duct
G

(a)

(b)

1.5
1.0

Z (m)

0.5
0.0

0.5
1.0
1.5
1.0

1.4

1.8 2.2
R (m)

(c)

(d)

(e)
Figure 1. (a) Diagram of the divertor geometry in Alcator C-mod indicating the location of the bypass divertor leaks and the location of gauges for neutral pressure measurements (G) (Pitcher et al
2000). (b) Diagram of the divertor geometry in ASDEX-U with Div I (open) and the Div II Lyra
(closed). Pumping in Div I is done by turbo-molecular pumps which are connected to the vacuum
vessel near the outer divertor through the ports shown in the figure. Besides these turbo-pumps,
a cryo-pump has been installed in Div II to provide additional pumping (Gruber et al 1999). (c)
Diagram of the divertor geometry in DIII-D with two equivalent magnetic equilibria for the bottom
(open) and top (closed) divertors. The position of the divertor cryo-pumps for the bottom and
top divertors is indicated by solid circles (Allen et al 1999a). (d) Diagram of the three divertor
geometries explored in JET. Divertor closure was increased in going from Mk I Mk IIA Mk II
Gas Box. During the exploration of Mk IIA, the conductance of the by-pass leaks was reduced
(these divertor experiments are referred to as Mk IIA/P which stands for Mk IIA with plugged
divertor leaks). In all geometries, divertor pumping is carried out by a divertor cryo-pump (JET
Team 1999). (e) Diagram of the two divertor geometries explored in JT-60U: (open) divertor and
W-shape divertor (closed). Divertor pumping in W-shape divertor takes place through the private
flux region (Asakura et al 1999a).

R186

Review article

c)

max / max (Zt = 0)

(a)

X-point to Target distance Zt (cm)

(b)
Figure 2. (a) Calculated divertor flux profiles for typical JET parameters in an X-point-to-target
scan showing: row a) the magnetic flux geometry and the target positions for a range of X-pointto-wall distances from 30 cm to zero; row b) the normalized parallel flux at the target; row c) the
angle between the field line and the divertor target; row d) the normalized flux onto the divertor
target. These profiles are skewed Gaussians and present local maxima (at a position independent
of X-point-to-wall distance) away from the magnetic strike points (R = Zt ), when the X-point
is close to the wall. The effect of diffusion into the private flux region is not taken into account in
these calculations (Loarte et al 1992a). (b) Maximum flux onto the divertor plate versus X-pointto-target distance for the JET configurations of figure 2(a). The fluxes are normalized to the value
obtained when the X-point is onto the divertor target (Zt = 0 cm). The effect of diffusion into the
private flux region is not taken into account in these calculations (Loarte 1992b).

and particle parallel fluxes and on the fluxes deposited onto the target. With decreasing Xpoint-to-target distance, parallel fluxes become wider (increasing flux expansion) while the
fluxes onto the divertor have their peak value away from the separatrix strike point, for low
X-point-to-target distances. This is due to the very low angle of incidence of the separatrix
field line onto the (flat) divertor target which leads to a small flux onto the target there, despite
the separatrix parallel flux being largest (Loarte et al 1992a). Increasing the X-point-to-wall
distance increases the actual maximum flux onto the divertor target due to two factors: the flux
expansion decreases (increasing the parallel flux density) and the angle of incidence increases
(increasing the projected flux density), as shown in figure 2(b). The measured increase of the
power flux onto the divertor target is actually smaller than the one shown in figure 2(b) due to
the effect of diffusion into the private flux region, which is discussed next.

qparallel,mp (MW/m2) qdiv,out (MW/m2)

Review article

(a)

2
4.8MW
6.8MW

1
0

High X-point

0.2

Ptot,div/Pbeam

R187

(c)

Low X-point

0.1

0
0

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

X-point height (m)
Figure 3. Outer divertor power load versus X-point-to-target distance in DIII-D ELMy H-modes
for two different additional heating levels: (a) shows the peak heat flux onto the divertor target;
(b) shows the maximum parallel power flux mapped to the outer midplane deduced from these
measurements; (c) shows the total power to the outer divertor normalized to the input power, which
remains approximately constant during the X-point height scan (Lasnier et al 1998).

A further effect on the divertor fluxes, intrinsic to a diverted configuration, is the diffusion
into the private flux region (PFR) between the two separatrices. Energy and particles enter
this region by perpendicular diffusion from the main divertor SOL. This causes a decrease of
separatrix power and particle fluxes from the values which would be measured if this diffusion
did not take place (Loarte 1992c). Experiments to quantify the effect on the peak power
deposited onto the target have been carried out in DIII-D by varying, on a shot-to-shot basis,
the distance between the X-point and the divertor target (Hill et al 1993, Lasnier et al 1998).
Figure 3 (Lasnier et al 1998) shows the results of such experiments for two input power levels
(both correspond to ELMy H-mode conditions). Increasing the X-point-to-target distance
leads to an increase of the peak power onto the target, as explained earlier (see figure 2(b)).
However, this increase is significantly smaller than that expected if no diffusion into the PFR
would take place. In fact, due to the diffusion into the PFR, the maximum parallel power flux
mapped to the outer midplane decreases by a factor of two when the X-point-to-target distance
is increased from 0 to 33 cm. If no diffusion into the PFR occurrs, the maximum parallel
power flux mapped to the outer midplane should remain constant; in mapping to the outer
midplane the effect of changing flux expansion at the divertor with varying X-point-to-wall
distance is taken into account. These experiments were carried out at low densities so that
divertor radiation would be small and not influenced by divertor geometry changes. Therefore,
the measured total power reaching the divertor target remained practically constant when the
X-point-to-wall distance was changed. The reduction of the parallel power load by diffusion
in the divertor has been evaluated for the ASDEX-Upgrade by modelling with B2-Eirene

R188

Review article

(Schneider et al 1999). Up to a factor of two decrease in the peak load at the divertor (in
going from Div I to Div II) can be attributed to the change in energy diffusion in the divertor
associated with the change in divertor magnetic configuration. As shown in figure 1(b), Div II
has a longer PFR as well as a smaller flux expansion compared to Div I. Both effects enhance
the energy diffusion within the divertor reducing the peak parallel power flux at the target.
2.2. Basic effects of the divertor geometry on ionization sources
Although the described effects have noticeable influence on the divertor peak power load, they
are purely related to the divertor magnetic geometry itself and its geometric projection onto
the divertor target. However, even for a fixed divertor magnetic geometry, the shape of the
divertor target can have an even stronger influence on the particle sources/sinks in the divertor
itself and at the plasma edge. The physical basis for this strong influence is twofold:
For typical parameters at the plasma edge, the ionization mean free path of neutrals
recycled at the divertor target is similar (usually shorter) to the typical dimensions of the
divertor plasma (Stangeby 2000). As a consequence, the divertor plasma is not transparent
to neutrals and a large proportion of the neutrals re-emitted from the divertor target are
re-ionized in the divertor plasma itself, without reaching the SOL nor the core plasma.
This is the origin of the name that characterizes this divertor regime as high recycling
divertor.
On average, recycled neutrals and molecules are emitted perpendicularly to the recycling
surfaces (i.e. divertor targets) (Pitcher and Stangeby 1997). Hence, the target orientation
determines where in the divertor plasma the neutrals will be ionized. A schematic view
of such effect is shown in figure 4 for a horizontal and a vertical divertor, taking as an
example the JET-Mk IIA divertor. Contrary to a horizontal divertor, the vertical divertor
concentrates the ionization sources in the region of largest power flux (separatrix).
The optimization in the design of divertors has been focused towards the achievement of
conditions with large re-ionization fractions in the divertor over the widest possible range of
bulk operating plasma conditions (i.e. separatrix temperature and density). The benefits of
operating the divertor in this regime are clear from the standpoint of divertor power load and
possibly divertor erosion. A divertor where intense neutral (and impurity) re-ionization takes
place produces large volumetric energy losses (ionization and radiative losses), which decrease
the power load onto the divertor plate. Furthermore, these losses contribute to the reduction of
the plasma temperature at the divertor target which can, in turn, reduce the physical sputtering
of the target. Trying to investigate and profit from these effects in existing experiments has led
to the design and construction of divertors with increased closure in most divertor tokamaks.
Power Flux

Vertical
ertical Divertor
Horizontal Divertor
Power Flux

Recycled Neutrals
(Vertical)
(V

Recycled Neutrals
(Horizontal)

Figure 4. Schematic representation of the neutral

re-ionization pattern associated with a horizontal
divertor (shown at the outer divertor) and for a vertical
divertor (shown at the inner divertor). For vertical
divertors, neutrals are recycled towards the separatrix
where the power flux is maximum. For horizontal
divertors, neutrals produced at the separatrix strike
point are recycled in the outer part of the SOL.

Review article

R189

The term closure refers to the degree in which neutrals recycled from the divertor target can
escape the divertor region. The larger the closure, the smaller the neutral escape from the
divertor. In general, the expected benefits of a closed divertor are (Horton et al 1999a):
to provide easier access (over a larger range of plasma densities/input powers) to regimes
with high volumetric losses in the divertor;
to increase divertor neutral pressure, hence improving divertor particle removal by
pumping;
to reduce deuterium neutral density in the main chamber which reduces main chamber
sputtering and may improve confinement.
The closure of a divertor depends on divertor plasma parameters and magnetic geometry as
well as on the geometry of the divertor components. In the first place, to achieve good closure,
the divertor support structure itself has to have a very low conductance for neutral back flow
into the main chamber. The problem of neutral leakage from the divertor support structure (not
escape from the divertor plasma) has been identified and tackled in several divertor experiments
(Horton et al 1999a, Pitcher et al 2000). Its influence on plasma behaviour is still an area of
active research and will be discussed in more detail in section 6.
In general, a divertor whose target and baffle structure tightly fits the magnetic geometry
will also be more closed to neutral escape, as the neutrals cannot escape the divertor except
through the plasma where they can be ionized. This is particularly important for divertors
with horizontal targets where the neutrals can escape sideways from the divertor and not
through the divertor plasma. Therefore, in order to increase the degree of closure of horizontal
divertors, baffle structures have been introduced that are designed to minimize this sideways
escape (see figure 4). The position and shape of these side baffles have to be optimized such
that they are close enough to the separatrix to prevent the sideways neutral escape but not so
close that they receive a significant particle flux, which will immediately escape the divertor
(reducing its closure). A typical optimum criterion for the side baffles is to position them at a
distance corresponding to the field line at 23 n (midplane scrape-off density width) from
the separatrix. For vertical targets, the recycled neutrals are launched towards the PFR (see
figure 4). In this case, two criteria must be taken into account to optimize the closure of the
divertor (ITER Expert Groups 1999):
The divertor target must be designed such that most of the flux arriving at the target is
re-emitted towards the divertor region itself. This means, in practice, that the normal to
the intersection point between the field line at a distance of 23 n (midplane scrape-off
density width) from the separatrix and the vertical target should point in a direction lower
than the X-point itself.
A baffle structure is introduced in the PFR which prevents neutrals from escaping back into
the bulk and SOL plasma through the PFR. This baffle structure is particularly important
to improve pumping through the PFR.
The exact application of these design principles has to be carried out by means of 2D
plasma edge modelling codes, as the divertor plasma parameters are influenced by the geometry
of the divertor components, for given upstream SOL plasma parameters. These codes, such
as EDGE2D-NIMBUS (Simonini et al 1992, 1994), B2-EIRENE (Braams 1986, Reiter et al
1991, Schneider et al 1992) and UEDGE (Rognlien et al 1992, Rognlien 1996), solve the
plasma and neutral species conservation equations taking into account the real geometry of
the divertor, as well as of the pumping structures. An example of the calculated closure of the
JET-Mk I and Mk IIA (figure 1(d)) divertors (for horizontal and vertical target discharges, see
figure 4) for typical conditions in JET is shown in figure 5 (Taroni et al 1994). The reduction in

R190

Review article
0.25
Mk I
Mk IIA Horizontal
Mk IIA Vertical

SSOL+Core/STotal

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.5

1.5

2.5

Separatrix Density (10 1 9m - 3 )

Figure 5. Proportion of the calculated ionization source outside the divertor (with respect to the
total ionization source) versus separatrix density for several JET divertor geometries. More closed
divertor configurations correspond to smaller ionization sources outside the divertor (Taroni et al
1994).

the ionization source outside the divertor (i.e. neutral escape) from Mk I to Mk IIA horizontal
target discharges comes from the introduction of the two tightly fitting side plates (also used as
divertor targets) preventing sideways neutral escape. The further increase in divertor closure
for Mk IIA vertical target discharges is a direct consequence of the neutrals being re-emitted
perpendicular to the target and, hence, towards the PFR and not the main SOL (+ core plasma)
for vertical target divertors.
An example of optimization calculations performed for the positioning of side baffles in
horizontal divertors is shown in figure 6 for the DIII-D advanced divertor (a modification of

Figure 6.
Calculated core ionization source
(normalized to that of an open divertor) for several
side baffle configurations for the DIII-D divertor. The
position of the baffle is determined by the distance
from the baffle to the separatrix mapped to the outer
midplane (W-baffle width) (Allen et al 1999b).

R191

Pumped Particle Flux (10 22 s -1)

Review article
2
PFR Baffle
No PFR Baffle

1.5

0.5

Separatrix Density (10

19

-3

m )

Figure 7. Calculated pumped particle flux versus separatrix density for typical conditions in
ASDEX-U for two configurations of the Div II, with and without baffle in the private flux region
(Schneider et al 1997a).

the upper divertor in figure 1(c)) (Allen et al 1999b). In this figure, the calculated reduction in
core plasma ionization (normalized to that of a divertor without side baffles) is plotted versus
the position of the baffle with respect to the separatrix mapped to the midplane. The results
clearly show that there is an optimum distance for the position of this baffle around 1.52 cm.
Positioning the baffle at larger distances does not prevent neutral escape directly from the
divertor to the main chamber through the tenuous plasma in the outer SOL regions. However,
positioning the baffle too close to the separatrix leads to a large ion flux being deposited onto
the baffle itself, which is poorly screened by the SOL plasma, thus contributing to a large core
ionization source and poor divertor closure.
For vertical targets, besides the optimization of the target shape, there is the possibility of
adding a structure that prevents neutral escape through the PFR, increasing the PFR neutral
pressure which favours divertor pumping. This PFR baffle must be optimized in such a way
that it is open enough to allow neutrals reaching the divertor pumping system but closed
enough so as to impede their escape back into the plasma. An example of the calculated effect
on pumping of the PFR baffle for the ASDEX-U Divertor II is shown in figure 7 (Schneider et al
1997a). In this figure, the calculated pumped particle flux is compared for two divertor
configurations of Div II, one with PFR baffle (as in figure 1(b)) and one without (identical
to the one in figure 1(b) but without the PFR baffle). The effect of the baffle in increasing the
pumped particle flux is more than a factor of two even at the lowest densities, demonstrating
the need to optimize this component when designing vertical plate divertors. Obviously, the
size of this effect is linked to the relative size of the ionization mean free path and the physical
dimensions of the divertor plasma. Therefore, its importance and the baffle dimensions will
be different for different devices/operating regimes.
All of the above considerations are related to edge plasmas in stationary conditions.
Transient phenomena such as edge-localized modes (ELMs), which are typical of H-modes,
add further complications to the design of the divertor. ELMs cause transient particle and
power loads which reach locations in the divertor where the normal (in-between ELM) flux
is usually negligible. This is due to either a broadening of the scrape-off layer during the
ELM and/or movements of the strike points associated with the ELMs (Hill 1997). As a
consequence, ELMs tend to produce large recycling particle sources away from the strike
points, as shown in figure 8 for a JET Mk IIA discharge on the horizontal target (JET Team
1997). It is difficult to optimize the divertor closure with respect to these ELM transient particle

R192

Review article

Figure 8. Measured particle ion flux onto

the JET-Mk IIA divertor during an ELM
for a discharge with the strike points on
the horizontal target. During the ELMs,
very large ion fluxes can be measured up
the vertical target at considerable distances
(>20 cm) from the in-between ELM positions
of maximum ion flux (strike points) (JET
Team 1997).

loads. In general, with increasing geometrical closure, the transient particle recycling occurs
at larger distances away from the divertor strike points. Depending on the relative magnitude
of the ELM particle fluxes to the in-between ELM fluxes (which varies from experiment to
experiment), the geometrical closure of the divertor, usually optimized for in-between ELM
plasmas, has to be decreased. In this way, a larger proportion of the ELM particle fluxes can
reach the divertor target and not be intercepted by surrounding baffle structures.
The rest of this review is focused on a detailed assessment of the various areas in which the
divertor geometry has been predicted to affect the plasma parameters and to which extent the
expectations have been confirmed in the experiment. From this assessment we will conclude
what is a good physics basis on which to carry out the optimization of a divertor design.
3. Divertor geometry effects on detachment and divertor radiated power
3.1. Divertor geometry effects on detachment
The initial drive in optimizing divertor designs was the need to solve the power-load problem
in next step tokamaks (Parker et al 1997). In order to achieve an acceptable peak power load
on the divertor of a tokamak such as ITER, it is required that a large proportion of the power
flow into the plasma edge (typically 60%) is lost in the divertor via volumetric processes,
such as hydrogen and impurity radiation, before reaching the divertor target. These losses
can only be achieved in a low-temperature/high-density divertor close to plasma detachment
(Loarte 1997a, Kukushkin et al 1999, 2001). Achieving divertor detachment has the additional
advantage that not only the power flux onto the target is reduced but also the ion flux via plasma
recombination which, in turn, leads to a reduced erosion of the divertor target (Lumma et al
1997, McCracken et al 1998, Whyte et al 2000).
The area of the divertor which is subject to the largest power fluxes is the separatrix strike
point and, therefore, divertor designs have been optimized to maximize the volumetric losses
near the separatrix. In order to study this problem, 2D codes have been used to determine
the divertor design which most favours this effect. This corresponds to a vertical divertor

Review article

R193

Te,plate (eV)

Te,SOL (eV)

flat-plate

10
vertical-plate
detached divertor

1
0.5

1.5
2
20 -3
ne (10 m )

2.5

Figure 9. Electron temperature at the

divertor strike point for similar discharges
in Alcator C-mod run on the horizontal
(flat-plate) and vertical (vertical-plate)
parts of the divertor. Open symbols
correspond to attached divertor plasmas
and full symbols to partially detached
divertor plasmas. The measured main
SOL separatrix temperature is shown for
reference; no influence of the divertor
configuration on the SOL temperature is
measured (Lipschultz et al 1997).

(Vlases 1993, Taroni et al 1994, JET Team 1995b, Schneider et al 1997a). In a vertical
divertor, the recycling neutrals are emitted towards the separatrix, which becomes a region of
preferential ionization, decreasing the temperature and increasing the density in its vicinity.
This concentration of recycling neutrals promotes separatrix detachment at lower main plasma
densities and increases volumetric energy and particle (recombination) losses in the separatrix
region. Such typical vertical divertor behaviour was originally seen in Alcator C-mod, which
was the first tokamak to routinely operate with a vertical divertor (Hutchinson et al 1994).
Figure 9 (Lipschultz et al 1997) shows the measured difference in main plasma density required
to achieve divertor separatrix detachment in Alcator C-mod for discharges with the strike point
on the horizontal and vertical parts of the divertor target. Discharges on the vertical target reach
divertor detachment at densities typically 40% smaller than those required for horizontal target
discharges (Lipschultz et al 1997). Initial experiments in JET with the Mk I divertor showed
similar effects, in particular when the plasma was located in the lower part of the vertical plate
(Loarte et al 1995, Loarte et al 1998). Positioning the strike point in this area of the JET-Mk I
divertor target leads to enhanced neutral baffling and easier access to plasma detachment (lower
main plasma density) compared to positioning the strike point either in the upper part of the
vertical target or in the horizontal target. However, the complex three-dimensional structure
of the JET-Mk I divertor target (with toroidal gaps to allow better divertor pumping) produced
quite a complicated ionization picture that masked some of the geometry effects (Loarte et al
1995, Loarte 1997a).
The re-ionization pattern produced by the divertor affects not only the values close to the
separatrix but also the shape of the temperature and density profiles across the divertor target.
For vertical divertors, the density profiles tend to be more peaked towards the separatrix and,
correspondingly, the temperature profiles tend to have low values close to the separatrix and
to be very flat away from it. These inverted divertor temperature profiles were some of the
first predicted evidence for the effect of the divertor geometry (Vlases 1993, JET Team 1995a)
and have been found in most tokamaks operating with vertical divertors (see, for instance,
(La Bombard et al 1995, Schneider et al 1999, Asakura et al 1999a)) confirming the modelling
predictions. Examples of temperature and density profiles at the divertor and in the main SOL
for the open (horizontal) JT-60U divertor and the closed (vertical) JT-60U W-shape divertor
are shown in figure 10 (Asakura et al 1999b).
An outwards inclined horizontal divertor (such as JET-Mk IIA, or the outer target of Div I
in ASDEX-U) produces the completely opposite effect to that described above for a vertical
divertor. In this case, the recycling neutrals are concentrated far away from the separatrix.

R194

Review article

m -3 )

mid

L-mode: ne=2.3-2.4x1019m-3

(a)

Te,sep=68eV (W-shape)
Te,sep=61eV (Open)

0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from separatrix (mm)
(b)

n ediv (10

mid

19

at outer midplane

at outer divertor target

(c)

W-shaped divertor

open divertor

2
1
0
50

Tediv (eV)

19 m -3 )
n mid
e (10

40

(d)
ne=2.3-2.4x1019m-3

30
20
10

20
cm

10 cm

ne=2.7x1019m-3

0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from separatrix (mm)
(mapped at midplane radius)

Figure 10. Comparison of the measured SOL (ne ) and divertor profiles (ne and Te ) for similar
discharges in JT-60U open (horizontal) and W-shape (vertical) divertors. As predicted by modelling,
the density profiles at the divertor are more peaked for the vertical divertor and, correspondingly,
the temperature profiles are flatter, with much lower values at the separatrix itself (Asakura et al
1999b).

-0.8

Particle Neutral Losses (m-3s -1)

Particle Neutral Losses (m-3s -1)

-0.8

0.0

-2.5 1021
-5.0 1021

-1.0

-2.5 1021
-5.0 1021

-1.2

-7.5 1021

-1.2

-7.5 1021

-1.0 1022
-2.5 1022

-1.4

Z(m)

Z(m)

0.0
-1.0

-1.0 1022
-2.5 1022

-1.4

-5.0 1022

-5.0 1022
-7.5 1022

-1.6

-7.5 1022

-1.6

-1.0 1023

-1.0 1023
-2.5 1023

-1.8
2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

R(m)

(a)

3.0

3.2

-2.5 1023

-1.8
2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

R(m)

(b)

Figure 11. (a) B2-Eirene divertor particles losses (recombination) for typical L-mode conditions
in a vertical divertor JET-Mk IIA discharge showing the largest recombination sink at the inner
divertor separatrix (Borrass 1998). (b) B2-Eirene divertor particles losses (recombination) for
typical L-mode conditions in a horizontal divertor JET-Mk IIA discharge showing the largest
recombination sink at the inner divertor corner away from the separatrix (Borrass 1998).

This neutral re-ionization pattern leads to detachment starting away from the separatrix
(Borrass et al 1997a) rather than close to it, as is more usual (Loarte 1997a, Loarte et al 1998).
The different detachment behaviour associated with these two extreme divertor geometries
was predicted with B2-Eirene for the JET-Mk IIA divertor (Borrass et al 1997a) and found
experimentally (Monk et al 1997). Figures 11(a) and 11(b) (Borrass 1998) show the predicted

Review article

R195

JET Pulses Nos. 36862, 37154

D.O.D. (Inner)

100

10

Horizontal

Distance from Separatrix

0cm
1.6cm
6.1cm
11.9cm

Divertor
MARFE

Early Onset of
Detachment

D.O.D. (Inner)

100

Vertical

Distance from Separatrix

0cm
2.0cm
4.9cm

10

Divertor
MARFE

1
2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

Line Average Density (1019m3)

Figure 12. Degree of detachment for the inner divertor plasma at various distances from the
separatrix for two JET-Mk IIA L-mode density scans. The upper figure shows the early onset of
detachment for the plasma starting away from the separatrix for horizontal divertor discharges. The
lower figure shows the detachment starting progressively from the separatrix outwards in the SOL
for vertical divertor discharges (Monk et al 1997).

recombination strengths for two similar B2-Eirene runs in JET-Mk IIA vertical and horizontal
targets displaying the behaviour outlined above. For the vertical divertor, the enhanced
separatrix recycling leads to detachment (characterized in these simulations by the onset of
plasma recombination) starting close to the separatrix. In contrast, for the horizontal divertor,
neutral recycling is enhanced far away from the separatrix (in this case at the corner between
the horizontal and vertical plates) and plasma detachment (characterized by the onset of plasma
recombination) starts away from the separatrix. In the JET experiments, upstream density and
temperature profiles, as well as profile resolved information on plasma recombination, are not
routinely available. Therefore, divertor detachment is usually characterized by the degree of
detachment (DoD) (Loarte et al 1998). The DoD provides a normalization criterion for the
increase of the ion flux with upstream plasma density, at constant power flux into the edge
plasma, compared to the high recycling scaling (ion flux ne 2 ). In this way, experimental
values of DoD > 1 indicate that the divertor plasma is detached. Figure 12 (Monk et al 1997)
shows the inner divertor experimental detachment behaviour for two comparable density scans
on the JET-Mk IIA horizontal and vertical targets. The vertical divertor shows the detachment
starting at the separatrix and progressing smoothly across the SOL with increasing density,
typical of the evolution from partial to total detachment (Loarte et al 1998). The horizontal
divertor shows the plasma detaching away from the separatrix (612 cm distance from the

Review article

(10 22 m-2 s -1 )

Inner DivI
8
Outer DivI
4
Outer DivII
Inner DivII

-1

1.5

(10 23 s

integrated particle flux separatrix particle flux density

R196

Outer DivI
Inner DivI
Outer DivI
Outer DivII

1.0
0.5
0
0

Inner DivII
3
4
2
1
separatrix density (10 19m -3 )

Figure 13. Inner and outer divertor ion flux (separatrix

and integrated) for two density scans in ASDEX-U
modelled with B2-Eirene for Div I (horizontal) and
Div II (vertical). The upper figure shows the reduction
in density required to achieve separatrix detachment in
Div II compared to Div I. The lower figure shows the
integrated ion flux to inner and outer divertor both for
Div I and Div II displaying much smaller differences with
respect to total detachment (Schneider et al 1999).

separatrix at the divertor target), with the separatrix plasma itself remaining attached until the
formation of a divertor MARFE, in agreement with modelling predictions (Borrass 1998).
The achievement of partial detachment at lower densities for a vertical divertor does not
necessarily lead to a lower L-mode density limit. The L-mode density limit is very well
correlated with the onset of strong recombination and total divertor detachment (Borrass et al
1997b, Schneider et al 1999, Coster et al 1999a, Maggi et al 1999a). Modelling with B2Eierene for ASDEX-U Div I and Div II has demonstrated that the onset of large divertor
recombination is relatively insensitive to the geometry of the divertor target, contrary to the
results for partial detachment (Schneider et al 1999). Modelling results show (see figure 13
(Schneider et al 1999)) that the range of densities in which separatrix detachment can be
obtained is much larger in Div II (vertical) than in Div I (horizontal). However, this does
not imply a smaller range of operating densities in terms of total divertor detachment, as
shown in figure 13 by the drop of the integrated ion flux. The reason for such behaviour
comes from the typically inverted temperature profiles characteristic of vertical divertors
(figure 10). Even if the divertor plasma close to separatrix can reach the very low temperatures
required for detachment in vertical divertors, the outer SOL remains at higher temperatures
and, therefore, attached. Figure 14 (Loarte 2001) shows the detailed experimental confirmation
of this modelling prediction for JET-Mk IIA L-mode discharges. In figure 14, the degree of
total divertor detachment at the inner divertor is shown for the same discharges in figure 12.
Despite the very different ways in which detachment proceeds across the SOL for these two
divertor geometries (see figure 12), total detachment is reached in a very similar way for both
divertor geometries. In this case, a difference of less than 10% in plasma density corresponds
to the same degree of total detachment in both divertor geometries.
One of the problems in the achievement of detached divertor plasmas is the asymmetry
between inner and outer divertors. This asymmetry is usually not due to divertor geometry
effects but to plasma drifts (Chankin et al 1994). For the normal direction of the toroidal field
(for lower X-point divertors this is clockwise when seen from the top), the power flux to the
outer divertor is largest, which makes the inner divertor reach detachment at lower densities than
the outer divertor (Hutchinson et al 1995). Despite this intrinsic in/out divertor asymmetry, the

Review article

R197

Figure 14. Total degree of detachment for

the inner divertor plasma for two JET-Mk IIA
density scans in the horizontal and vertical
divertors (those in figure 12). Despite the very
different behaviours in the approach to partial
detachment in these two divertor geometries (see
figure 12), the approach to total detachment is
similar (Loarte 2001).

geometry of the divertor can influence the way in which both divertors approach the detached
state (Maggi et al 1999b, Pitts et al 2000). For instance, physically separating the inner and the
outer divertors allows some control of the detachment asymmetry by separately fuelling both
divertors. Experiments of this type have been carried out in the JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor in
L-mode and ELMy H-mode discharges (Maggi et al 1999b). The JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor
(see figure 1(d)) has a septum that separates the inner and outer divertors with a gas injection
system that can fuel both strike zones independently. Figure 15 (Maggi et al 1999b) shows the
results of such an L-mode density scan experiment in which gas was fed separately to either
divertor, together with a scheme of the JET-Mk II Gas Box geometry and the position of the gas
inlets. When the discharge is fed by gas puffing in the inner divertor, it is possible to reach the
density limit with a strongly detached inner divertor (low ion flux) and a fully attached outer
divertor (large ion flux). However, when the discharge is fed from the outer divertor, the ion
flux to both divertors behaves in a much more symmetric way in the approach to detachment.
Feeding the gas at the main chamber (midplane) produces an intermediate result. However, it
must be pointed out that the most symmetric behaviour that can be achieved in the JET-Mk II
Gas Box divertor is similar to that observed with the JET-Mk I and JET-Mk IIA divertors
(no structure in PFR), for which the location of the gas feed had no effect on the detachment
asymmetry (Loarte et al 1998, Monk et al 1997). When the strike points are located high on
the Mk II Gas Box divertor vertical target, the septum does not significantly restrict the path
for neutrals to travel between the two divertors. In this case, the effects of the gas puff location
on detachment asymmetry are much weaker even in JET-Mk II Gas Box, and detachment
becomes more symmetric with little influence of the gas feed location (Maggi et al 1999b).
Similar experiments carried out in JET-Mk II Gas Box ELMy H-mode discharges did not
show such a clear evidence for a relation between gas puff location and the achieved divertor
parameters (Maggi et al 1999b). Although this issue is still the object of research, present
analysis indicates that the limitations in obtaining high divertor densities in JET ELMy Hmodes are related to confinement deterioration at high pedestal densities (and low pedestal
temperatures) rather than to detachment in the divertor (Saibene et al 1999). Because of this,
H-mode confinement is seriously deteriorated before any clear sign of strong detachment can be

R198

Review article

Inner Divertor

Integrated Ion Flux (1022 s-1)

3
2
1
0
4

Inner
Outer
Main

Outer Divertor

3
2
1
0
1.5

2.5

3.5

Line Average Density (1019 m-3)

Figure 15. Inner and outer divertor integrated ion fluxes versus line average density for several
L-mode density scans in the JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor with different gas fuelling locations (inner
divertor, outer divertor, main chamber). Fuelling the discharge by gas puffing in the outer divertor
leads to more symmetric detachment (simultaneous decrease of the ion flux with density at both
divertors) before the density limit is reached. A scheme of the magnetic configuration used in these
experiments with the JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor, as well as the location of the divertor gas inlets,
is shown for reference (Maggi et al 1999b).

identified in the JET divertor plasma (Monk et al 1997, Saibene et al 1997, Maggi et al 1999b).
This confinement deterioration limits the achievable edge plasma density, which seems to be
too small to bring the divertor into a regime in which the location of the gas feed can affect
detachment asymmetry.
Modelling for the JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor with EDGE2D-NIMBUS (Maggi et al
1999b) has demonstrated that the calculated insulating effect of the septum for neutrals
can explain the observed differences in detachment symmetry. The role of the septum on
detachment symmetry has been quantitatively assessed by calculations carried out for the
JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor with and without septum. Figures 16(a) and 16(b) (Maggi et al
1999b) show the results of these calculations which closely resemble the experimental findings:
discharges with inner side puffing and a divertor with a septum display a very large asymmetry
between the two divertors, with the whole inner divertor temperature under 5 eV while the
outer divertor remains fully attached (Te > 10 eV). Removing the septum, while keeping
everything else the same in the calculations, leads to a much more balanced situation with the
two divertors reaching low temperatures and detachment much more symmetrically. The exact
degree of the modelled in/out detachment asymmetry is related to the in/out divertor power-load
asymmetry. Modelling of the experimentally observed in/out power-load asymmetry and its
relation to drifts is an issue of present research with 2D codes (Coster et al 1998, Chankin et al
2000).

Review article

R199

(a)

(b)
Figure 16. (a) Electron temperature contours from EDGE2D-NIMBUS modelling of gas fuelling
experiments (inner divertor) in the JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor. In the simulations, the inner
divertor can reach total detachment (Te < 5 eV) while the outer divertor remains fully attached
(Te > 10 eV) (Maggi et al 1999b). (b) Electron temperature contours from EDGE2D-NIMBUS
modelling of gas fuelling experiments (inner divertor) in JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor without the
septum. These simulations demonstrate the influence of insulating the inner/outer divertor via a
septum on detachment asymmetry. When the septum is removed, both divertors reach detachment
in a much more symmetric way (Maggi et al 1999b).

R200

Review article

3.2. Divertor geometry effects on divertor radiated power

Besides allowing an easier access to separatrix detachment at the target, a vertical divertor
creates an extended region of low electron temperature along the separatrix, which favours the
formation of large radiating volumes (Schneider et al 1999). Hence, the divertor can radiate
a large fraction of the power flowing out of the bulk plasma, as required for next step devices
(Parker et al 1997). Such extended radiation patterns have been measured in ASDEX-U
Div II and are in very good agreement with B2-Eirene modelling predictions (see figure 17
(Schneider et al 1999)). As a consequence, the total divertor power load in ASDEX-U has
decreased typically by a factor of two to three in Div II as compared to Div I (Herrmann et al
1999). Simulations with B2-Eirene have been carried out to understand in detail the reduction
in the divertor power load between Div I and Div II (Schneider et al 1999, Kallenbach et al
1999a) whose results are shown in figure 18 (Schneider et al 1999).
In the first place, it has been recognized that the change of energy diffusion within the
divertor (see section 2.1) can, by itself, explain a reduction of the peak power flux by about a
factor of two in going from Div I to Div II for similar main plasma conditions, in agreement with
previous evidence (Loarte 1992c, Hill et al 1993, Lasnier et al 1998). However, the enhanced
divertor diffusion does not change the total power load to the divertor (Loarte 1992c); this
reduction can only take place through an increase in the divertor radiative losses. Recent
studies of the nature and size of this divertor radiation in ASDEX-U (Coster et al 1999b) have
demonstrated that the Div II divertor geometry leads to these large radiated fractions through
the following chain of effects. The divertor geometry of Div II causes the formation of an
extended region along the separatrix with high density/low temperature for lower separatrix
densities than in Div I (see figure 19(a)). Once a low-temperature divertor is achieved, the exact
size of the divertor radiation is then determined by the size of the carbon source (i.e. chemical
sputtering yield, because Te is low), as shown in figure 19(b). However, if the divertor does
not reach a low-temperature regime (Te
10 eV), which is driven by the re-ionization of
deuterium, increasing the chemical sputtering yield leads only to very modest increases of the
divertor radiated power (figure 19(b)). This means that for typical ASDEX-U edge power
flow/separatrix density, with the change from Div I to Div II the proportion of the edge
power flux that reaches the divertor target has decreased from 60% to 30%, in agreement
with modelling (Kallenbach et al 1999a, Coster et al 1999b). Detailed experiments have been
carried out to verify this point by using the roof baffle of Div II as a flat target for the outer
divertor. These experiments have found that, for similar main plasma conditions, the parallel
power flux to the outer divertor is a factor of two larger for the flat divertor than for the normal
vertical divertor configurations (see figure 20 (Herrmann et al 1999, Kallenbach et al 1999a)).
This is in good agreement with the arguments above, as the roof baffle geometry approximately
resembles that of the Div I divertor target. In section 5.1, it will be further shown that the divertor
flows established by Div II help to increase carbon radiation by enhancing non-coronal effects.
Despite being a similar divertor to Div II, ELMy H-mode discharges in JET with the
Mk IIA divertor have not shown such a large fraction of total divertor radiated power as in
ASDEX-U (Horton et al 1999a, Matthews et al 1999). This experimental result is consistent
with the fact that the outer divertor in JET does not reach low electron temperatures (<10 eV)
for ELMy H-mode discharges, as shown for a gas puff scan in figure 21 (Monk et al 1997).
Trying to increase the edge plasma density (reducing the divertor temperature) by gas puffing
in ELMy H-modes at JET leads to a deterioration of energy and particle confinement and the
loss of the H-mode regime (Saibene et al 1997, 1999). If the separatrix density in JET could
be high enough in H-mode such that the outer divertor reaches low temperatures, modelling
predicts similar levels of radiation in JET-Mk IIA to those of Div II in ASDEX-U (Taroni et al

Review article

R201

15

12.4

Experiment

9.8

7.2

4.6

B2-Eirene
Radiation losses [MW/m-3]

2.0

Figure 17. Measured and B2-Eirene modelled

radiation profiles in ASDEX-U Div II showing
the extended region of radiation close to the
separatrix. The absence of this feature in the
measurements for the outer divertor is due to
the lack of bolometer channels in this area
(Schneider et al 1999).

Experiment

Modelling

outer divertor

0.8

Div I
0.4

Div II
0.0

1.2

1.2

2 MW input power, density ramp

power density / MW/m

power density / MW/m

P_heat = 1.5 MW NBI, = 5e19 1/m**3

outer divertor

Div I
0.8

Div II
0.4

0.0
0.00

0.04

0.08

0.8

Div I

0.4

Div II

0.0
0.00

0.04

inner divertor

power density / MW/m

power density / MW/m

distance from separatrix / m

1.2

0.08

distance from separatrix / m

0.00

0.04

0.08

distance from separatrix / m

1.2
inner divertor

Div I
0.8

0.4

Div II

0.0
0.00

0.04

0.08

distance from separatrix / m

Figure 18. Measured and B2-Eirene calculated power flux to the inner and outer divertors in
ASDEX-U with Div I (solid curves) and Div II (dashed curves). The calculations are performed
for a density scan in both divertor configurations and show a much lower divertor power flux in
Div II due to the large divertor radiated power (figure 17). The calculated power fluxes in both
divertors decrease with increasing density (Schneider et al 1999).

Review article

Div. sep. Te (eV)

R202

1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0

Outer target

2e+19

4e+19

6e+19

DivI 2MW
DivII 2MW
DivI 8MW
DivII 8MW

8e+19

1e+20

midplane separatrix density (m-3)

Fraction of power reaching target

(a)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
1%
3%
5%

0.2
0
0.1

10

Target temperature (eV)

100

T=1eV
T=3eV
T=5eV

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.001

0.01

0.1

C chemical sputter yield

(b)
Figure 19. (a) B2-Eirene modelled separatrix divertor temperature for ASDEX-U Div I and Div II
in simulations which do not include carbon impurities for two levels of edge power flux (2 MW,
8 MW). The divertor geometry in Div II leads to enhanced separatrix ionization and lower separatrix
temperatures over a larger density range compared to Div I (Coster et al 1999b). (b) Top: fraction of
power reaching the divertor target in ASDEX-U Div II from B2-Eirene simulations versus divertor
temperature, for various values of the carbon chemical sputtering yield (1, 3 and 5%). Bottom:
fraction of power reaching the divertor target in ASDEX-U Div II from B2-Eirene simulations
versus chemical sputtering yield, for various values of the divertor temperature (1, 3 and 5 eV)
(Coster et al 1999b).

1994), as is indeed the case experimentally for the inner divertor in both devices. Figure 22
(Kallenbach et al 1999b) shows the measured radiation profiles in two similar ELMy Hmode discharges (in terms of Pinput /R) in JET and ASDEX-U with very comparable radiation
levels for the inner divertor, but much lower values for the outer divertor in JET. At present,
it is not clear if this difference is due to a larger in/out divertor power asymmetry in JET
than in ASDEX-U or to the inaccessibility of larger separatrix densities in ELMy H-modes
in JET. The typical ratio of separatrix to line average density in ELMy H-modes with good
confinement in JET is 0.150.30 (Davies et al 1999) while it is 0.500.60 in ASDEX-U
Div II (Schweinzer et al 1999). This difference is large enough to explain the colder more
radiating divertor in ASDEX-U Div II compared to JET-Mk IIA.

parallel heat flux [MW/m 2 ]

Review article

R203

100

7.5 MW NI; ELM averaged

80
60
40
20
0
0.995

1.000 1.005 1.010

normalized poloidal flux

1.015

Figure 20. Measured outer divertor parallel

power flux in ASDEX-U Div II versus normalized
poloidal flux (which is proportional to distance
from the separatrix at the midplane) for ELMy
H-mode discharges with the strike point on the
horizontal roof baffle (full lines) and the vertical
target (dashed line). A decrease of a factor of
two of the measured deposited power for vertical
divertor discharges is measured, which is due
to enhanced radiative losses in vertical divertor
configurations. In these configurations, a 0.01
distance in normalized poloidal flux corresponds
to 5 cm distance along the vertical divertor target
(Herrmann et al 1999, Kallenbach et al 1999a).

Figure 21. Top: separatrix ion flux (between ELMs) for the inner and outer divertors in JET-Mk IIA
ELMy H-mode discharges versus gas fuelling rate. Bottom: separatrix electron temperature (inbetween ELMs) for the inner and outer divertor in JET-Mk IIA ELMy H-mode discharges versus
gas fuelling rate. The outer divertor in JET-Mk IIA does not reach temperatures cold enough
(Te < 5 eV) for detachment and large radiative losses to take place, even at the highest fuelling
rates. Increasing the gas fuelling rate beyond 3.0 1022 el s1 in these experiments leads to the
loss of H-mode confinement in the discharge (Monk et al 1997).

R204

Review article

[MW/m]

ASDEX Upgrade

#10982 3.2s

-0.4 10

8
6
4
2

1.1

-1.2
1.9

R (m)

JET-Mk IIA/P

[MW/m]

Z (m)

JET discharge 39609 t = 19.44 s

-1

-1.5

4
3
2

JG99.157/1c

2.5

R (m)

3.5

ASDEX Upgrade: Pheat= 5 MW, Praddiv=3MW

JET: Pheat= 11 MW, Praddiv= 3 MW
Figure 22. Bolometric reconstructions of the radiation emission profiles for two ELMy H-mode
discharges in ASDEX-U (with Div II) and JET with (Mk IIA) at similar levels of Pinput /R. Note
the larger in/out asymmetry of the divertor radiation (consistent with the divertor parameters in
figure 21) in the JET-Mk IIA discharge, in comparison with the one in the ASDEX-U Div II
divertor (Kallenbach et al 1999b).

Achieving a high radiated fraction in the divertor does not automatically lead to a low
power load on the divertor target. If the divertor plasma is not detached enough, most of the
radiation is re-emitted very close to the target and a large fraction is immediately re-deposited
in a highly localized area of the target. In the case of closed divertors, this fraction is usually
large due to the geometrical divertor closure. Observations in ASDEX-U Div II (figure 23
(Kaufmann et al 1999)) show that under normal operating conditions most of the measured
power flux at the inner target is due to the radiative power load and not to power deposited
by the plasma itself (Kaufmann et al 1999). While this effect is of no concern in present
experiments, for next step devices, such as ITER, it is one of the main drivers in the design
and optimization of the divertor and of its reference operating regime. Divertor designs and
operating regimes which do not provide a distributed enough radiation lead to unacceptable
power loads on the ITER divertor target, even when the radiated power fraction in the divertor
is large (60%) (Kukushkin et al 2000).

Review article

R205

Total heat flux from thermography

Radiative heat flux

# 10982

0
inner divertor

roof baffle

outer divertor

Figure 23. Measured power flux to the divertor target in a typical ELMy H-mode in ASDEX-U
with Div II. The full curve is the measurement of the power flux by IR thermography. The dashed
curve is the calculated power flux onto the divertor from the measured radiated power emission
(Kaufmann et al 1999).

4. Divertor geometry effects on deuterium and impurity pumping

4.1. Divertor geometry effects on deuterium pumping
One of the main goals of an optimized divertor is to provide sufficient neutral pumping.
This is required both to obtain good density control in existing experiments as well as to
remove the helium ash in next step devices. Increasing the closure of the divertor reduces
the escape probability of recycled neutral atoms/molecules reaching the bulk plasma and,
therefore, increases the divertor neutral pressure and consequently divertor pumping. This
behaviour has been observed in most divertor experiments and is in good agreement with
modelling predictions (Bosch et al 1999a, Horton et al 1999a). Figure 24 (JET Team 1999)
shows the increase in divertor neutral pressure for similar L-mode plasmas with increasing
divertor closure from JET-Mk I through JET-Mk IIA to the JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor.
Beyond this expected result, many other effects of the divertor geometry on pumping
have been determined since the first pumping experiments carried out in DIII-D (Klepper et al
1993). The probability of a recycled neutral being pumped depends on the probability of
the neutral reaching the pumping plenum with respect to that of being ionized in the plasma.
The initial results from DIII-D had shown a very strong dependence of divertor deuterium
pumping on the geometry itself, in particular on the distance between the strike point and
the entrance of the pumping plenum (Klepper et al 1993). In contrast, other experiments
have not found such strong dependence for deuterium pumping on the strike point position
but a much smoother one (Saibene et al 1995, Loarte et al 1997b, Bosch et al 1997, 1999b,
Niemczewski et al 1997, Tamai et al 1999). The reason for such a difference was identified
in (Loarte et al 1997b) by means of analytical models and 2D modelling with EDGE2DNIMBUS for Alcator C-mod, DIII-D and JET. In (Loarte et al 1997b) it was found that
divertor pumping depends strongly on the exact position of the plasma with respect to the
pumping plenum entrance only when the transport of neutrals to the plenum is dominated
by the first flight neutral contribution. Otherwise, when the neutral transport to the plenum is
dominated by multiple scattering (charge-exchange and multiple collisions with divertor/vessel
walls), the transport process is diffusive and presents a naturally weaker dependence on the
neutral source location. Figure 25(a) (Loarte et al 1997b) shows a comparison between
modelling results from EDGE2D-NIMBUS and experimental measurements from JET-Mk IIA
discharges, demonstrating the weak dependence of the pumped particle flux on the strike point

R206

Review article

Divertor neutral pressure (103 mbar)

3.5

Mark IIGB
Vertical

3.0
2.5
2.0

Mark IIA
Vertical

1.5
Horiz.
1.0

Mark I
Horiz.
JG98.583/2c

0.5
0
2.0

2.5
3.0
3.5
Line averaged density (1019 m3)

4.0

Figure 24. Measured neutral pressure at the divertor cryo-pump for similar JET L-mode discharges
in various divertor geometries. The divertor closure increases in going from JET-Mk I JETMk IIA JET-Mk II Gas Box. Correspondingly the measured neutral pressure at the cryo-pump
increases with divertor closure for the same main plasma density (JET Team 1999).
JETMkII

1.0

1.2

1.4

Z (m)

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.4
2.0

JG97.230/12c

2.2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

R (m)

(a)

(b)

Figure 25. (a) Experimental and EDGE2D-NIMBUS modelled neutral pressure at the cryopump
for JET-Mk IIA L-mode experiments, versus distance from the strike point to the plenum entrance
(vertical dashed line) (Loarte et al 1997b). (b) Calculated neutral trajectories for typical L-mode
conditions in the JET-Mk IIA divertor showing a large concentration of neutrals near the divertor
corner despite the separatrix strike point being located 20 cm from these corners (Loarte et al
1997b).

Review article

R207

Normalised Neutral Pressure @ Pump

position on the horizontal plate. Figure 25(b) (Loarte et al 1997b) shows some of the calculated
neutral trajectories, with a large density of these near the corner between the horizontal and
vertical divertors (entrance from the divertor to the pumping plenum), corresponding to a large
neutral pressure. This high neutral pressure at the divertor corner, despite the location of
the separatrix being far away from this corner, is a consequence of the JET-Mk IIA divertor
geometry. The JET-Mk IIA geometry produces this enhanced divertor corner neutral pressure
for horizontal divertor discharges in the following way: the orientation of the horizontal target
in JET-Mk IIA is such that recycled neutrals (emitted on average normal to the target) travel
outwards/inwards through the divertor plasma where they are ionized or undergo chargeexchange or reach the pump. Most of the neutrals that are able to travel through the divertor
plasma without interaction arrive at the vertical divertor target where they are recycled again
and re-emitted towards the divertor plasma. This neutral re-circulation pattern leads to a
high neutral concentration near the divertor corner, weakly dependent of the location of the
primary neutral source, but only if the strike point is on the horizontal plate. This is indeed the
same phenomena which led to detachment starting away from the separatrix in JET-Mk IIA
horizontal discharges, as discussed in section 3.1. When the strike point is located on the
vertical plate, this neutral re-circulation pattern disappears and the neutral pressure decreases
rapidly as the strike point moves away from the divertor corner (figure 25(a)).
In contrast, the DIII-D lower divertor pumping geometry (see figure 1(c)) is such that the
neutrals that arrive at the pumping plenum come almost uniquely from direct recycling at the
horizontal divertor target. If a neutral misses the pumping slot in its first flight after leaving the
target, it is very improbable that it will reach the pumping plenum by multiple scattering. It will
most likely escape towards the midplane of the device or will be ionized in the bulk plasma.
As a consequence, the pumped particle flux depends critically on the relative position of the
strike point with respect to the pumping slot entrance. The measured dependence of particle
pumping on the strike point position in DIII-D can be properly described with 2D codes such
as EDGE2D-NIMBUS (see figure 26 (Loarte et al 1997b)) as well as with analytical models,
given the simplicity of the problem (Loarte et al 1997b). Recent experiments in DIII-D
(Maingi et al 1999) have tested in detail the explanation put forward in (Loarte et al 1997b)
to describe DIII-D divertor pumping and have found it to be in excellent agreement with the
measurements.
1
Experiment_Low_ne
Experiment_High_ne
EDGE2D-NIMBUS

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Bias Ring
0
-5

Horizontal Target
0

10

15

Distance from Separatrix to Bias Ring (cm)

Figure 26. Experimental and EDGE2D-NIMBUS modelled normalized neutral pressure at the
pumping plenum for DIII-D, versus distance from the strike point to the plenum entrance (bias
ring) (Loarte et al 1997b).

R208

Review article

Compression factor C

Experiments

10

Ne
Helium

1
B2-Eirene modelling
Ne
He

0.1

10 22

10 23

Neutral gas flux density [m -2s -1]

Figure 27. Experimental and B2-Eierene modelled He and Ne compressions (ndivertor /nedge plasma )
versus divertor neutral gas flux for ASDEX Div I discharges. Larger neutral divertor gas flux
densities correspond to discharges/modelling with larger main plasma densities. He has a longer
ionization mean free path and escapes more easily the divertor. Therefore, He compression is
smaller than Ne compression in the pumping geometry of Div I (Schneider et al 1997b).

4.2. Divertor geometry effects on impurity pumping

The physical neutral transport mechanisms described above apply not only to deuterium
neutrals but also to recycling impurities. In this case, the ballistic component of neutral
transport is particularly important, as the recycling impurity neutrals are not subject to chargeexchange in the experiment (due to their low concentrations). Modelling with B2-Eirene
for ASDEX-U reproduces satisfactorily the relative compression (ndivertor /nedge plasma ) of Ne
and He in the pumping plenum of Div I (Schneider et al 1997b) as well as their increase
with plasma density (neutral pressure), as shown in figure 27 (Schneider et al 1997b). The
predicted relative changes in He and Ne compression observed in changing from Div I to Div II
(Schneider et al 1999) have also been confirmed experimentally (Bosch et al 1999b). For Div I
(see figure 1(b)) He and Ne were pumped from the outer side of the SOL in the divertor region.
This means that atoms with a shorter mean free path (Ne) are better confined near the pumping
plenum entrance in the divertor. He, which has a longer mean free path, can escape from the
divertor more easily. Therefore, its compression in the pumping plenum was lower, as shown
in figure 27 for the measured and calculated He and Ne compressions in ASDEX-U Div I
(Schneider et al 1997b). In detail, the effect of the improved Ne retention with respect to He in
Div I reflects itself in the impurity fluxes to the divertor target, shown in figure 28 (Coster et al
1997). The maximum Ne flux is located in the outer SOL plasma and close to the pumping
plenum entrance, hence, leading to the observed larger Ne compression. The compressions
for He and Ne changed in opposite directions, as expected, when the divertor was modified
to Div II (Bosch et al 1999b). In Div II, pumping takes place through the gaps between the
lower part of the vertical target and the PFR dome (figure 1(b)). In this case, the longer mean
free path of He facilitates its enrichment in the pumping plenum (Schneider et al 1999). Such
predictions have been confirmed experimentally, as seen in figure 29, which shows the increase
of the He removal rate and the decrease of the Ne removal rate in ASDEX-U when comparing
similar discharges in Div I and Div II (Bosch et al 1999b).
Modelling of similar experiments with EDGE2D-NIMBUS for the JET-Mk II divertors
satisfactorily reproduces the relative He and Ne enrichment, as well as the observed decrease
of He enrichment for discharges at high plasma density (Guo et al 2000). This He enrichment

Review article

R209

Distance along Target (m)

Figure 28. ASDEX-U B2-Eierene modelled He and Ne fluxes at the outer Div I target versus
distance to the separatrix. Ne has a shorter ionization mean free path and this leads to its larger
trapping in the Div I geometry in the area close to the pumping plenum entrance (20 cm from
the separatrix) and, consequently, to its larger compression in the pumping plenum (Coster et al
1997).

Figure 29. Experimental decay rates of He and Ne for pumping experiments in ASDEX-U with
both divertor configurations Div I (horizontal) and Div II (vertical) versus main plasma density. In
going from Div I to Div II, He pumping is improved and Ne pumping is deteriorated, in agreement
with modelling predictions (Bosch et al 1999b).

R210

Review article

Z(m)

deterioration at high densities is observed in most divertor tokamaks (Sakasai et al 1999,

Groth et al 1999, Pacher et al 1997) and is well reproduced by modelling (Guo et al 2000,
Pacher et al 1997). The basic reason for such behaviour is that the neutral mean free path
of He becomes much longer than that of deuterium in conditions of divertor detachment.
From this, it must not be concluded that detached divertors perform poorly in terms of He
pumping necessarily. The He enrichment deterioration at high density is a common finding
in existing experiments because of the mean free path of He becoming long compared to
the dimensions of the divertor itself. However, in next step devices such as ITER, reaching
divertor detachment is required to have adequate He exhaust (Kukushkin et al 2001). This is
due in part to the divertor pumping geometry (pumping through the PFR) and to the separatrix

R(m)
(a)
He Enrichment

0.5

0.4

0.3
Detachment Inner Divertor

0.2

Detachment Outer Divertor

1

0.1
3

3.2

3.4

3.6

Separatrix Density (10

3.8
19

Helium Enrichment @ Plasma Edge

PFR Deuterium Neutral Pressure (Pa)

PRF Pressure Deuterium

-3

m )

(b)
Figure 30. (a) B2-Eirene modelled contour levels of He concentration (nHe /ne ) in the ITER
divertor. The values of the He concentration along several contour levels are given in the figure
and show the He concentration peaking away from the separatrix because of the thermal force.
Deuterium and He pumping in ITER will be performed from the PFR (Loarte et al 1999a).
(b) B2-Eirene modelled deuterium pressure and helium enrichment in the ITER private flux region
versus separatrix density. A stepwise increase in He enrichment is obtained when the inner and the
outer divertors reach partial detachment (Loarte et al 1999a).

Review article

R211

1.2

He enrichment

1.0

JET-Mk IIA L-mode

Horizontal
Corner
Vertical

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

1
2
3
Subdivertor pressure (103 mbar)

Figure 31. Measured He enrichment versus sub-divertor neutral pressure for JET-Mk IIA L-mode
discharges. For every configuration, increasing sub-divertor pressure corresponds to increasing
main plasma density. The largest He enrichment is found in the corner configuration for which the
probability of He ballistically reaching the pumping plenum (sub-divertor volume) is highest. The
horizontal line at an enrichment of 0.2 is the ITER reference enrichment (Groth et al 1999).

plasma becoming thick to neutral He atoms in ITER attached divertor plasmas. Because of
the thermal force, the concentration of He atoms is lowest close to the separatrix, where the
thermal force which pushes impurities away from the divertor is largest (Neuhauser et al 1984).
Therefore, the largest flux of recycled neutral He coming from the target is peaked away from
the separatrix. Under attached plasma conditions these neutrals cannot easily penetrate into the
PFR, from which pumping is performed in ITER (Kukushkin et al 2001). When the divertor
plasma reaches partial detachment, the probability of He neutrals reaching the pumping plenum
(PFR) increases and, with it, He enrichment. Figures 30(a) and 30(b) (Loarte et al 1999a)
show the divertor geometry for ITER and the He concentration contours, as well as the neutral
deuterium pressure and He enrichment in the PFR, for a density scan study carried out with
B2-Eirene (Loarte et al 1999a). A stepwise increase of the He enrichment with separatrix
density is observed which is correlated with the subsequent achievement of partial detachment
at the inner and outer divertors.
The longer mean free path of He makes its pumping particularly sensitive to the strike
point position in some divertor configurations, such as those of the JET-Mk II divertors and
ASDEX-U Div II. This explains some of the scatter in figure 29 for ASDEX-U Div II which
is due to small uncontrolled displacements of the separatrix affecting strongly the probability
of He reaching the plenum and much more weakly that of neutral deuterium (Bosch et al
1999b). Such divertor geometrical effects on He enrichment can be well reproduced by 2D
plasma modelling and have been studied experimentally in detail at JET (Groth et al 1999).
Positioning the divertor strike point near the pumping plenum entrance, both for JET-Mk IIA
and JET-Mk II Gas Box divertors, leads not only to an increase of the deuterium pressure
in the pumping plenum but also of the He enrichment. The maximum He enrichment is,
hence, found when the strike point is at a location such that the probability of He ballistically
reaching the plenum is highest (Loarte et al 1997b, Groth et al 1999); this is the so-called
corner configuration. The experimental results obtained in these experiments for JET-Mk IIA
L-mode discharges are shown in figure 31 (Groth et al 1999) for several divertor configurations
(horizontal, vertical, corner). Because of the same effects discussed above for deuterium
pumping, the vertical configuration is the one with the lowest He enrichment. Results in

R212

Review article

experiments in ELMy H-modes at JET show similar trends but with much larger scatter due to
the ELMs themselves and to the influence of the divertor geometry on the ELM frequency/size
(Groth et al 1999). Despite the decrease of He enrichment with increasing plasma density
(divertor neutral pressure), the lowest value measured in JET for the Mk IIA and Mk II Gas
Box divertors in L and ELMy H-modes and in ASDEX-U is equal to or larger than 0.2, which
is the value required for operation in the ITER reference regime (ITER Expert Groups 1999).
5. Divertor geometry effects on the SOL plasma and divertor flows
5.1. Divertor geometry effects on divertor flows
The divertor geometry has a determining influence on the ionization sources in the divertor
plasma and, as a consequence, on divertor plasma flows. From the theoretical point of view,
a major difficulty in the study of these flows is that edge plasma flows are not only driven
by particle sources/sinks but also by plasma drifts. Presently, new versions of 2D codes
are becoming available which will include a proper treatment of the classical drift terms
(Chankin et al 2000, Coster et al 1998). The complete picture of the relative importance of the
source-driven and drift flows, both in the SOL and divertor, remains to be evaluated. From an
experimental point of view, the accurate determination of flow patterns is quite complicated
because of their intrinsic 2D structure, which requires detailed measurements of flow profiles
along and across the field for all ions in the plasma. Despite this, considerable advances in the
measurements, understanding and modelling of 2D plasma and impurity flows in the divertor
plasma have taken place in the last few years (Loarte 1997a, La Bombard et al 1997, Gafert et al
1999, Isler et al 1999, Boedo et al 1999, Porter et al 1998, Stotler et al 1999, Asakura et al
2000, Chankin et al 2000). At present, it is reasonable to assume that the inclusion of drifts in
the computations will affect mainly absolute values (by an offset of the calculated velocity) of
the flows. In this way, the relative changes of ion flows due to changes in ionization patterns
provoked by the divertor geometry will be similar with and without drifts, although their
absolute values will, of course, be different.
The concentration of neutral ionization towards the separatrix, typical of vertical divertors,
tends to create a region of deuterium flow reversal in this area (Loarte 1997a, La Bombard et al
1997). Flow reversal occurs in a flux tube when the ionization source exceeds the ion loss
to the divertor target for that flux tube (Krasheninnikov et al 1992). As a consequence, the
deuterium ion flow is directed away from the divertor in an extended region, which starts at
some distance from the target. This region of flow reversal is extinguished by the diffusion of
particles and momentum into the neighbouring flux tubes in which the plasma flows forwards
(towards the divertor). A typical pattern for the deuterium ion flow in a vertical divertor
configuration is shown in figure 32 for B2-Eirene modelling of Alcator C-mod (Loarte et al
1999b). Alcator C-mod has reported observations of flow reversal close to the divertor entrance
(La Bombard et al 1997) but not in the main SOL (Pitcher et al 2001). This indicates that
this reversed flow is mainly driven by the divertor ionization balance and not by SOL drifts.
As shown in figure 32 (Loarte et al 1999b), a region of reversed flow close to the separatrix
is found for Alcator C-mod both at the inner and outer divertors which extends beyond the
divertor entrance, where it has been measured in the experiment (La Bombard et al 1997). This
flow pattern affects not only particle transport but also momentum transport in the divertor. An
inwards diffusion of momentum through the interaction of the forward and reversed flows (by
particle diffusion and perpendicular viscosity) (Loarte 1997a, Stotler et al 1999) takes place
at the plasma edge. This inwards momentum diffusion produces a region of overpressure
near the separatrix strike point, in which the plasma pressure is higher than that derived from

Review article

R213

Z(m)

Mach Number

R(m)
Figure 32. Contours of the Mach number for the plasma flow in Alcator C-mod modelled with
B2-Eirene. Normal flow to the inner divertor corresponds to negative values, while normal flow
for the outer divertor corresponds to positive values of the Mach number. In both inner and outer
divertors, a region of reversed flow is located close to the separatrix and extends beyond the divertor
entrance, in good agreement with experimental measurements (Loarte et al 1999b).

momentum conservation along the flux tubes and acceleration to Mach 1 at the sheath. Such
divertor separatrix overpressure has been observed experimentally in Alcator C-mod and given
the name of Death Ray (La Bombard et al 1997). This overpressure is reproduced properly
by modelling with EDGE2D-NIMBUS (Loarte 1997a) and B2-Eirene (Stotler et al 1999,
Loarte et al 1999b) that includes the momentum diffusion mechanisms discussed above.
Although more likely in a vertical divertor, reversal of the deuterium ion flow in the
divertor is an intrinsic feature of the 2D divertor ionization balance besides the target geometry.
Therefore, divertor flow reversal has also been observed in horizontal divertors such as DIII-D
for high recycling conditions (Boedo et al 1999), in good agreement with UEDGE predictions.
As detachment proceeds, the region of forward flow with Mach number 1 (which always
exists close to the target) moves away from the divertor. In all the experiments in which a
region of flow reversal close to the separatrix is observed, this flow reversal disappears with
divertor detachment (Boedo et al 1999, Gafert et al 1999). It is also universally seen that the
deuterium ion forward flow decreases between the recombination region and the divertor target
(due to the momentum loss processes caused by ionneutral interactions) in good agreement
with modelling calculations (Schneider et al 1999, Asakura et al 2000, Isler et al 1999).
Reversal of the deuterium flow is not as drastic, in terms of core impurity contamination, as
originally feared (Loarte 1997a). This is because impurity flow reversal appears usually before
deuterium flow reversal takes place. This indicates that the thermal force dominates friction
on the parallel impurity transport over a large density range. Impurity flow reversal in DIIID occurs typically at lowmedium densities well before deuterium flow reversal is observed

Mach number

Review article

Z (m)

R214

1.200
1.400
1.00

1.28
1.57
R (m)

1.85

(a)

u | |(C ) [m/s]

4 104

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2

experiment
UEDGE

0.05

0.1

0.15

Z [m]

0.2

0.25

(b)

Attached phase

0
4 104

Experiment
UEDGE

8 104
1.2 105
1.4

1.5

1.6

R (m)

1.7

(c)
Figure 33. (a) Experimental diagnostic geometry for measurements of deuterium (Mach probe,
vertical line) and impurity flows (spectroscopic view) in DIII-D (Porter et al 1998). (b)
Experimental and UEDGE modelled Mach number of the deuterium flow in DIII-D along the
vertical line covered by the Mach probe, versus height above the divertor floor. The flow measured
at all positions is towards the divertor (M > 0) (Porter et al 1998). (c) Experimental and UEDGE
modelled velocity of the carbon impurity flows in DIII-D (view in (a)) versus radial coordinate
along the divertor floor. A region of reversed flow close to the separatrix (u (C) < 0) is clearly
seen both in measurements and simulation (Porter et al 1998).

(Porter et al 1998, Isler et al 1999). The region of impurity flow reversal is concentrated
close to the separatrix where the thermal force is largest. Measurements and UEDGE
modelling of this impurity flow reversal and of the deuterium flow are in good agreement,
as shown in figures 33(a)(c) (Porter et al 1998). The complicated 2D pattern of impurity
flows influences the impurity radiated power by enhancing its radiation potential from that of
coronal equilibrium (Krasheninnikov 1997). Such an effect has been studied experimentally in
ASDEX-U Div II and modelled with B2-Eirene (Schneider et al 1999). Figure 34 (Gafert et al
1999) shows the B2-Eirene calculated carbon flow as well as the measured C 2+ velocity with
a clear region of flow reversal in the vicinity of the separatrix. In the case of ASDEX-U
Div II, the region of slow/reversed carbon flow close to the separatrix, together with the
low-temperature/high-density plasma there, enhances the carbon radiative losses and leads to
an extended radiation pattern in the divertor, as seen in figure 17 (Kallenbach et al 1999a,
Coster et al 1999b).
5.2. Divertor geometry effects on the SOL plasma
In the absence of strong parallel flows in the main SOL, the flow pattern created by the divertor
would also influence the upstream density profiles. A horizontal divertor creates a more
radially spread ionization source, while a vertical divertor concentrates the ionization close to
the separatrix. If divertor ionization were the only factor determining the SOL density width,

Review article

R215

-0.6
-0.6

Parallel velocity

(km/s)
+50

-0.8
-0.8

+40

z (m)

+30
+20
+10

-1.0
-1.0

0
-10
-20

-1.2
-1.2

-30
-40

2+

C
-1.4
-1.4
1.4

1.5

-50

1.6

1.7

R (m)

1.8

1.9

Figure 34. B2-Eirene modelled velocity of carbon

ions in ASDEX-U Div II experiments. The measured
(along the viewing line shown) C 2+ forward velocity
is 21 km s1 (15 km s1 from modelling) and the
measured C 2+ reversed flow velocity is 24 km s1
(21 km s1 from modelling). The slow/reversed
carbon flow close to the separatrix enhances the
carbon radiated losses in this region by increasing
the residence time of the carbon ions in the divertor
(Gafert et al 1999).

the density profiles should be narrower for vertical divertor discharges than for horizontal
divertor discharges (Vlases et al 1992, JET Team 1995a). Most experiments report very
small differences in the SOL plasma for similar discharges in horizontal and vertical divertors
(Lipschultz et al 1997, Asakura et al 1999a, Schweinzer et al 1999). These results reveal that
in these experiments there are other effects which have a greater influence on the SOL density
profiles than the divertor ionization pattern. The two most obvious of these effects are plasma
drifts in the main SOL and main chamber recycling. Plasma drifts in the main SOL influence
the parallel velocity of the plasma in the SOL and consequently the density width. Drifts
in the SOL are not affected by details of the divertor geometry as such. Therefore, if SOL
parallel transport is dominated by drifts, no change of density profiles is expected with different
divertors for the same main plasma conditions. Many experiments observe SOL density profiles
in which two decay lengths are present: a shorter one close to the separatrix and a longer one
in the outer SOL (La Bombard et al 1995, Schweinzer et al 1997, Asakura et al 1997). This
is consistent with substantial levels of plasma recycling in the main chamber of these devices.
The strong main chamber ionization source is likely to have a large effect on the density
profiles in the SOL. The experiments which report broad shoulders in the SOL density profiles
also report small changes of the main chamber neutral pressure and main chamber recycling
with divertor geometry (Pitcher et al 2000, Asakura et al 1999a, Bosch et al 1999b). This
indicates that these three observations are linked to the same common underlying phenomenon
(independent of divertor geometry) which drives the SOL transport and ionization balance in
these experiments. At present, the issue of main chamber neutral pressure/recycling and its
relation to divertor geometry (and SOL anomalous transport) is an area of active research and
some of its aspects will be discussed in more detail in section 6.
The only experiment where some of the expected changes of SOL density thickness with
divertor geometry have been seen is JET with the Mk I divertor, for Ohmic and L-mode
discharges performed with reversed magnetic field (ion grad-B away from the divertor)
(Davies et al 1995). Figure 35 (Davies et al 1995) shows the measured density e-folding
lengths for attached discharges on the vertical and horizontal divertor targets. As expected for

R216

Review article
JET-Mk I
6
Horizontal Ohmic
Vertical Ohmic
Horizontal L-mode
Vertical L-mode

nmidplane

(cm)

0
0

4
19

<ne> (10

5
-3

m )

Figure 35. Measured SOL density e-folding

lengths in JET-Mk I Ohmic and L-mode discharges
(with reversed toroidal field) on the horizontal and
vertical targets of the Mk I divertor. Discharges
on the vertical target have narrower SOL density
profiles in agreement with the ionization/flow
pattern established by this divertor geometry
(Davies et al 1995).

a vertical divertor (Vlases et al 1992), the e-folding lengths are smaller than for a horizontal
divertor. It is not well understood why the divertor geometry effect on the SOL density
profiles is seen only under these conditions. The effect itself is not only in qualitative but
also in reasonable quantitative agreement with modelling calculations which do not include
drift effects (Loarte et al 1995). There is experimental evidence showing that for this set of
experiments the other two effects that may influence the SOL density thickness (drifts and
large main chamber recycling/neutral pressure) are small. Discharges with reversed field in
JET have an almost stagnant plasma parallel flow in the main SOL (Chankin et al 2000). JET
seems to be one of the experiments (see section 6 for a more detailed discussion) in which
main chamber recycling/neutral pressure can be affected by changes in the divertor geometry
(JET Team 1999, Horton et al 1999a). This indicates that the measured level of ionization at
the edge of the main plasma is not mainly due to direct interaction between the SOL plasma and
the main chamber wall, as might be the case in other divertor experiments (La Bombard et al
2000).
6. Divertor geometry influence on main chamber neutral pressure and plasma
confinement
Besides increasing divertor neutral pressure (thereby improving pumping) a closed divertor
could, in principle, decrease the main chamber neutral pressure as well. Initial results in PDX
(Kaye et al 1984) and ASDEX (Wagner et al 1991) had shown that reducing the conductance
of by-passes for divertor neutrals back into the main chamber improved the access to Hmode (lower power threshold) as well as the H-mode energy confinement enhancement. On
this basis, it was expected that with more closed divertors it could be possible to lower the
main chamber neutral pressure with beneficial effects for H-mode confinement. Reduction
of the main chamber neutral pressure/recycling could also contribute to the decrease of
impurity production due to charge-exchange sputtering by energetic atoms on the main chamber
walls. Understanding the relation between the divertor neutral pressure, main chamber neutral
pressure and main chamber recycling is still an area of active research. In what follows, we
will describe our present understanding of the processes that control this relation, but this may
change as more detailed studies become available.

Review article

R217

A priori, it is not straightforward that installing a closed divertor in a device will lead to a
lower main chamber neutral pressure. In first place, there is abundant experimental evidence for
direct plasma recycling onto main chamber walls due to the appearance of broad shoulders in
the SOL density profiles (La Bombard et al 1995, Schweinzer et al 1997, Asakura et al 1997).
Such direct recycling may dominate the main chamber neutral pressure and is independent
of divertor geometry. Furthermore, a more closed divertor leads to an increased divertor
neutral pressure which, in turn, increases the flow of neutrals leaking back from the divertor
to the main chamber through by-passes in the divertor structure. If the divertor structure
is not tight enough to neutral back-leakage, the main chamber neutral pressure can indeed
remain unchanged, even if a more closed divertor is installed in the device. Observations in
Alcator C-mod (Pitcher et al 2000) and ASDEX-U (Bosch et al 1999b) indeed show that a
more closed divertor produces larger divertor neutral pressures but without affecting the main
chamber neutral pressure. Therefore, the neutral compression (ratio of divertor to main plasma
pressure) increases with a more closed divertor by the increase of the divertor pressure and
not by the decrease of the main chamber pressure. In particular, the role of by-pass leaks
from the divertor into the main chamber has been experimentally studied in Alcator C-mod
by installing a system that allows changes in the conductance of the divertor by-pass leaks
during a shot (Pitcher et al 2000). The results obtained indicate that in Alcator C-mod the
neutral escape from the divertor back into the main chamber through the divertor leaks is a flux

Figure 36. Midplane neutral pressure (a), divertor neutral pressure (b) and neutral compression
(c) versus line averaged density in Alcator C-mod experiments: crosses correspond to experiments
with the divertor by-pass leaks closed, and triangles to similar experiments with the by-pass leaks
open. The largest change with opening/closing the by-passes occurs in the divertor neutral pressure,
which is strongly reduced with the by-pass leaks open. Consequently, the neutral compression is
much smaller with the open by-pass leaks (Pitcher et al 2000).

R218

Review article

limited phenomenon (Pitcher et al 2001). Therefore, increasing the conductance of these leaks
reduces the divertor pressure, so that the neutral flux escaping the divertor through the leaks
is the same, leaving the main chamber neutral pressure unchanged (see figure 36). Therefore,
in experiments such as ASDEX-U and Alcator C-mod, the main chamber neutral pressure has
remained unchanged with the incorporation of more closed divertors. Consequently, no major
changes in main plasma confinement properties or main plasma impurity contamination have
been observed (Pitcher et al 2000, Gruber et al 1999).
The observations in JFT-2M (Kawashima et al 1999), DIII-D (Allen et al 1999a) and,
chiefly, JET (Horton et al 1999a, JET Team 1999) seem to be more in line with the ideal
behaviour of a closed divertor with respect to main chamber neutral pressure. In these
experiments, the increase of divertor closure has been accompanied by a decrease in main
chamber neutral pressure. In the case of JET, the decrease of divertor by-pass conductances,
for an otherwise unchanged divertor geometry (JET-Mk IIA), has led to a reduction in main
chamber neutral pressure by almost a factor of two with no change in divertor neutral pressure
(Horton et al 1999a). Increasing the divertor closure further going from the JET-Mk IIA
to the JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor (with the by-pass conductances as in JET-Mk IIA with
plugged leaks) has further increased the divertor pressure, while maintaining a similar or
slightly lower main chamber neutral pressure (JET Team 1999). These results indicate that
in JET (after closing the neutral by-pass leaks) and possibly also in JFT-2M and DIII-D, the
neutral pressure in the main chamber is more related to neutral escape from the divertor plasma
itself rather than through leaks in the divertor structure. Figure 37 (JET Team 1999) shows
measurements of neutral compression (ratio of divertor to main chamber neutral pressures) in
JET Mk IIA, Mk IIA/P (Mk IIA with plugged leaks) and JET Mk II Gas Box divertors for
the same discharges in figure 24. Contrary to the results from ASDEX-U and Alcator C-mod,

Mark IIGB
90
80
70
60

Mark IIAP
50
40

30
1.6

Mark IIA
JG98.589/1c

Neutral compression

100

2.0
2.4
2.8
3.2
Line averaged density (1019 m3)

Figure 37. Neutral compression (Pdivertor /Pmain chamber ) in JET L-mode discharges versus line
averaged density for several divertors with increasing degree of closure Mk IIA Mk IIA/P
(Mk IIA with closed by-pass leaks) Mk II Gas Box. With increasing divertor closure the neutral
compression increases. The rollover on the neutral compression is due to the onset of divertor
detachment, which deteriorates neutral retention in the divertor. No calibrated midplane neutral
pressure measurements were available for the JET most open divertor (Mk I) (JET Team 1999).

Review article

R219

Pulse No: 38293 (MkIIA), 39628 (MkIIAP)

2 D2
1
0

(a.u.) (105mbar)(103mbar)(1019 m3)

1
0
6

H97

ne

2
2 Ppump
1
0
4 Pmid
2
0
3 D (hor)
2
1
0
16
18

JG98.145/14c

(1022)

the neutral compression in JET has been increased by: decreasing the conductances of the
by-pass leaks in going from Mk IIA to Mk IIA/P without changing the divertor pressure and
(at constant leak conductance) by increasing the divertor neutral pressure with a more closed
divertor in going from Mk IIA/P to Mk II Gas Box (JET Team 1999).
Despite the changes in neutral compression and the reduction of the main chamber neutral
pressure, no large effects have been observed in H-mode confinement at JET (Horton et al
1999a). An example of two otherwise identical discharges in JET, but for the reduction in
divertor by-pass leakage, is shown in figure 38 (Horton et al 1999a) illustrating this point.
The present understanding of these JET results is based on the existence of H-mode regimes
with temperature profiles with stiff and non-stiff behaviour rather than on a direct role of the
neutral density in the main chamber, as previously thought. The observation of confinement
degradation at high main chamber neutral pressures is, therefore, caused by the associated low
values of the temperature in edge transport barrier (and by their influence in central confinement
through profile stiffness) rather than to the neutral pressure itself (Horton et al 1999b). With
the increase of divertor closure, a reduction of the H-mode power threshold has been observed
in JET (Horton et al 1999a) and JT-60U (Tsuchiya et al 2000). At present, it is not clear if
this is an effect of the neutral density itself or of the change of plasma parameters at the edge

20

22
Time (s)

24

26

Figure 38. Overview of two ELMy H-mode discharges in JET before and after the plugging
of the by-pass leaks in the JET-Mk IIA divertor: full curves, Mk IIA; dashed curves, Mk IIA/P.
1
D2 is the gas fuelling rate in el s , H97 is the energy enhancement factor with respect to the
ITER-H97 scaling law, ne is the line average density, Ppump is the neutral pressure at the divertor
cryo-pump, Pmid is the main chamber neutral pressure, D (hor) is a measurement of the D
emission along a horizontal chord along the minor radius of the discharge. Contrary to the results
in other experiments (see, for instance, figure 36) closing the by-pass leaks in JET decreases the
main chamber pressure (Pmid ) without affecting the divertor pressure (Ppump ). This is independently
confirmed with measurements of the main chamber recycling levels by D emission (D (hor)).
Despite this change the plasma density (ne ), required fuelling ( D2 ) and energy confinement remain
unchanged (Horton et al 1999a).

Review article

2.5

R220

1.0

1.5

Zeff

2.0

Mk IIA/p
Mk II Gas Box

1.0

1.5

2.0
2.5
<ne>(1019 m-3)

3.0

3.5

Figure 39. Plasma Zeff versus line average

density for similar L-mode density scans in JETMk IIA/P and JET-Mk II Gas Box divertors.
The more closed divertor (JET-Mk II Gas Box)
improves the purity of the plasma, thereby
increasing the density limit in L-mode discharges.
For ELMy H-modes in JET, no difference in Zeff
has been found between Mk IIA/P and Mk II Gas
Box (Guo et al 2000).

caused by the divertor modifications. The latter has been found in ASDEX-U (Bosch et al
1999a) in which an increase of the H-mode power threshold with the installation of the more
closed Div II has been observed. The issue of the influence of divertor closure on H-mode
threshold is particularly complicated because not only the closure but also the distance between
the divertor target and the X-point seems to play a role in determining the H-mode threshold
(Righi et al 2000) and it is still the subject of active research.
The levels of main plasma intrinsic impurity contamination seem to depend little on
divertor closure (McCracken et al 1999, Gruber et al 1999), despite the larger SOL flows
which are induced by the larger divertor pumping. Some reduction in the carbon impurity
concentration has been observed in JT-60U with the more closed W-shape divertor in ELMy
H-mode discharges with forced SOL flow (Ishida and JT-60U Team 1999). In general, however,
the intrinsic SOL flows caused by plasma drifts are much larger than those that can be induced
by the larger divertor pumping with more closed divertors (Asakura et al 2000). The reduction
in main chamber neutral pressure can indeed reduce the contamination of the plasma due
to impurities from the wall sputtered by energetic charge-exchange neutrals. In the change
from JET-Mk IIA to Mk IIA/P (plugged divertor leaks) the main chamber neutral pressure
was decreased. Unfortunately, the carbon coverage of the inner wall was also increased when
the divertor by-pass leaks were closed and, as a consequence, no changes in main plasma
intrinsic impurity levels were observed (Horton et al 1999a, McCracken et al 1999). With the
installation of the more closed JET-Mk II Gas Box divertor, an improvement in plasma purity for
L-mode discharges has been observed (Guo et al 2000) (see figure 39). This is consistent with
the increased neutral compression and the larger divertor pumping in JET-Mk II Gas Box (at
present there is no conclusive evidence for the dominance of either of these). However, it must
be pointed out that this improved plasma purity in JET-Mk II Gas Box is only seen in L-mode
discharges. ELMy H-mode discharges have similar levels of intrinsic impurities as those of the
more open JET-Mk IIA divertor. The explanation put forward to account for this observation
is based on the fact that, for more closed divertors, ion impact during an ELM can lead to
stronger impurity sputtering at the components forming the narrow entrance of the divertor,
as shown in figure 8. These impurities can more efficiently contaminate the bulk plasma than
those produced at the divertor target (Guo et al 2000), offsetting possible improvements by
reduction of main chamber sputtering that more closed divertors may produce.
7. Conclusions
In this review, we have summarized the results obtained in the area of divertor geometry
optimization carried out mainly in the last five to ten years with intensive use of 2D modelling

Review article

R221

codes. Many of the expected effects, on which the divertor optimization procedure was based,
have been proven by the experiments:
influence of the divertor magnetic geometry in energy diffusion within the divertor itself;
influence of divertor geometry on achieving easier detachment without affecting the
density limitthe divertor geometry can be used as well to modify the in/out asymmetry
of divertor detachment;
enhancement of the divertor radiation by divertor geometry effects;
enhanced deuterium pumping with divertor closurethe divertor geometry optimization
provides a degree of freedom to adjust the achieved deuterium pumping to the
requirements;
enhanced recycling impurity pumping for optimized divertor geometrythe divertor
geometry optimization can be used to achieve selective impurity pumping.
Other effects of the divertor geometry have been confirmed as well by experiment but their
influence on the divertor and/or main plasma and their extrapolability to next step devices are
more questionable:
influence of the divertor geometry on plasma flow patterns. The divertor geometry is seen
to influence plasma flows within the divertor and the SOL through the modification of
ionization sources. Reasonable descriptions of the experimental deuterium and impurity
ion flows can be obtained with 2D modelling codes. However, the relative size of the
divertor-induced flows and of the drift flows remains to be quantified. As a consequence
it is not possible to assess quantitatively the role of divertor geometry on impurity
contamination of the bulk plasma.
influence of the divertor geometry on main chamber neutral pressure and main plasma
confinement. In this area the experimental results are divided into two groups of
experiments. Alcator C-mod and ASDEX-U report no change of main chamber pressure
and consequently little change in the main plasma due to the divertor geometry. JET,
JFT-2M and DIII-D report a decrease of the main chamber pressure with increasing
divertor closure. Divertor geometry seems to affect, directly or indirectly, the LH power
threshold (in JET and JT-60U decreasing it and in ASDEX-U increasing it) but has little
effect on H-mode confinement. The interaction between anomalous SOL transport, main
chamber recycling and divertor neutral leakage is certainly a complex one and will require
a substantial experimental effort to understand the differences/similarities observed in the
existing experiments.
The experimental results obtained in the optimization process of divertors for the present
generations of tokamaks have been used to refine the 2D modelling codes which are employed in
the design of the next generation of divertors. In this way, only the tested divertor optimization
criteria are considered in the design process of the most challenging future divertor project,
the ITER divertor (Kukushkin et al 2000).
Acknowledgments
This review has been made possible with the help and contributions of those working in
the area of divertor research. The author is particularly grateful to the following people for
their contributions, encouragement and helpful comments: N Asakura, K Borrass, S Bosch,
D Campbell, A Chankin, S Clement, D Coster, G Corrigan, S Davies, J Gafert, M Groth,
H Guo, P Harbour, L Horton, N Hosogane, I Hutchinson, Y Igitkhanov, G Janeschitz,
A Kallenbach, S Krasheninnikov, A Kukushkin, B La Bombard, J Lingertat, B Lipschultz,

R222

Review article

C Maggi, J R Martn-Sols, G Matthews, G McCracken, R Monk, J Neuhauser, S Pitcher,

R Pitts, G Porter, D Reiter, T Rognlien, G Saibene, R Sartori, R Schneider, R Simonini,
P Stangeby, D Stotler, A Taroni and G Vlases. Figures 1(a) and 36 are reproduced in this article
by kind permission of the American Institute of Physics. Figures 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d), 2(a), 3, 8,
9, 10, 20, 24, 27, 37, 38 and 39 are reproduced by kind permission of the International Atomic
Energy Agency. Figures 1(e), 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 18, 28, 29, 32 and 34 are reproduced by kind
permission of Elsevier Science. Figures 11(a) and 11(b) are reproduced by kind permission
of the Czechoslovak Journal of Physics and figure 5 by kind permission of Wiley-VCH Verlag
Berlin GmbH.
Dedication
This review article is dedicated to the memory of Mario Soler Lopez who introduced the author
to the study of plasma physics.
References
Allen S L et al 1999a Nucl. Fusion 39 2023
Allen S L et al 1999b J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 168.
Asakura N et al 1997 J. Nucl. Mater. 2413 559
Asakura N et al 1999a J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 182
Asakura N et al 1999b Nucl. Fusion 39 1983
Asakura N et al 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 3093
Boedo J et al 1999 Plasma Physics Division Meeting (American Physical Society, Seattle, USA)
Borrass K et al 1997a Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 24th Eur. Conf. (Berchtesgaden) vol 21A, part IV
(Geneva: European Physical Society) p 1461
Borrass K et al 1997b J. Nucl. Mater. 2413 250
Borrass K 1998 Czech. J. Phys. 48/S2 113
Bosch H-S et al 1997 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 39 1771
Bosch H-S et al 1999a Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 41 A401
Bosch H-S et al 1999b J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 462
Braams B J 1986 Computational studies in tokamak equilibrium and transport PhD Thesis University of Utrecht
Chankin A et al 1994 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 36 1853
Chankin A et al 2000 Contrib. Plasma Phys. 40 288
Coster D et al 1997 J. Nucl. Mater. 2413 691
Coster D et al 1998 Czech. J. Phys. 48/S2 327
Coster D et al 1999a J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 804
Coster D et al 1999b Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 26th Eur. Conf. (Maastricht) vol 23J (Geneva:
European Physical Society) p 1571
Davies S et al 1995 Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 22nd Eur. Conf. (Bournemouth) vol 19C, part III
(Geneva: European Physical Society) p 257
Davies S et al 1999 J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 1028
Gafert J et al 1999 J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 365
Grosman A 1999 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 41 A185
Groth M et al 1999 Proc. 4th Int. IEA Workshop on Helium Transport and Exhaust in Fusion Devices p 409
Gruber O et al 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 1321
Guo H et al 2000 Nucl. Fusion 40 379
Harbour P et al 1992 J. Nucl. Mater. 1968 386
Herrmann A et al 1999 Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 26th Eur. Conf. (Maastricht) vol 23J (Geneva:
European Physical Society) p 1505
Hill D N et al 1993 Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 2nd Eur. Conf. (Lisboa) vol 17C, part 2 (Geneva:
European Physical Socierty) p 643
Hill D N 1997 J. Nucl. Mater. 2413 182
Horton L et al 1999a Nucl. Fusion 39 1
Horton L et al 1999b Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 41 B329
Hutchinson I et al 1994 Phys. Plasmas 1 1511

Review article

R223

Hutchinson I et al 1995 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 37 1389

Ishida S and JT-60U Team 1999 Fusion Energy 1998, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. (Yokohama, 1998) vol 1 (Vienna: IAEA)
p 13
Isler R et al 1999 Phys. Plasmas 6 541
ITER Expert Groups 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 2137
JET Team (presented by D Campbell) 1995a Plasma Phys. Control. Nucl. Fusion Res., Proc. 16th Int. Conf. (Seville,
1994) vol 1 (Vienna: IAEA) p 527
JET Team (presented by D Stork) 1995b Plasma Phys. Control. Nucl. Fusion Res., Proc. 16th Int. Conf. (Seville,
1994) vol 1 (Vienna: IAEA) p 51
JET Team (presented by G Vlases) 1997 Fusion Energy 1996, Proc. 16th Int. Conf. (Montreal, 1996) vol 1 (Vienna:
IAEA) p 371
JET Team (prepared by R Monk) 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 1751
Kallenbach A et al 1999a Nucl. Fusion 39 901
Kallenbach A et al 1999b Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 41 B177
Kaufmann M et al 1999 Fusion Energy 1998, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. (Yokohama, 1998) vol 1 (Vienna: IAEA) p 317
Kawashima H et al 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 1679
Kaye S et al 1984 J. Nucl. Mater. 121 115
Klepper C C et al 1993 Nucl. Fusion 33 533
Komori A et al 2000 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 42 1165
Krasheninnikov S et al 1992 Nucl. Fusion 32 1927
Krasheninnikov S 1997 Phys. Plasmas 4 3741
Kukushkin A et al 1999 Fusion Energy 1998, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. (Yokohama, 1998) vol 3 (Vienna: IAEA) p 1013
Kukushkin A et al 2000 Proc. 18th Int. IAEA Conf. (Sorrento, 2000) IAEA-CN-77/ITER/2-ITERP/10, to be published
Kukushkin A et al 2001 J. Nucl. Mater. 2903 887
La Bombard B et al 1995 Phys. Plasmas 2 2242
La Bombard B et al 1997 J. Nucl. Mater. 2413 149
La Bombard B et al 2000 Proc. 18th Int. IAEA Conf. (Sorrento, 2000) IAEA-CN-77/EX5/6, to be published
Lasnier C et al 1998 Nucl. Fusion 38 1225
Lipschultz B et al 1997 Fusion Energy 1996, Proc. 16th Int. Conf. (Montreal, 1996) vol 1 (Vienna: IAEA) p 425
Loarte A et al 1992a Nucl. Fusion 32 681
Loarte A 1992b Estudio de los flujos de energa y partculas en el borde del plasma del Tokamak JET PhD Thesis
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Loarte A 1992c Contrib. Plasma Phys. 32 468
Loarte A et al 1995 Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 22nd Eur. Conf. (Bournemouth) vol 19C, part III
(Geneva: European Physical Society) p 305
Loarte A 1997a J. Nucl. Mater. 2413 118
Loarte A et al 1997b Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 24th Eur. Conf. (Berchtesgaden) vol 21A, part III
(Geneva: European Physical Society) p 1049
Loarte A et al 1998 Nucl. Fusion 38 331
Loarte A et al 1999a Proc. 4th Int. IEA Workshop on Helium Transport and Exhaust in Fusion Devices p 297
Loarte A et al 1999b J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 1123
Loarte A 2001 J. Nucl. Mater. 2903 805
Lumma D et al 1997 Phys. Plasmas 4 2555
Maggi C A et al 1999a Nucl. Fusion 39 979
Maggi C et al 1999b Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 26th Eur. Conf. (Maastricht) vol 23J (Geneva:
European Physical Society) p 201
Maingi R et al 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 1187
Marmar E et al 1999 Fusion Energy 1998, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. (Yokohama, 1998) vol 1, (Vienna: IAEA) p 71
Matthews G et al 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 19
McCracken G et al 1998 Nucl. Fusion 38 619
McCracken G et al 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 41
McCormick K et al 1999 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 41 B285
Monk R et al 1997 Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 24th Eur. Conf. (Berchtesgaden) vol 21A, part I
(Geneva: European Physical Society) p 117
Niemczewski A et al 1997 Nucl. Fusion 37 151
Neuhauser J et al 1984 Nucl. Fusion 24 39
Pacher G et al 1997 Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 24th Eur. Conf. (Berchtesgaden) vol 21A, part I
(Geneva: European Physical Society) p 297

R224

Review article

Parker R et al 1997 J. Nucl. Mater. 2413 1

Pitcher C S and Stangeby P C 1997 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 39 779
Pitcher C S et al 2000 Phys. Plasmas 7 1894
Pitcher C S et al 2001 J. Nucl. Mater. 2903 812
Pitts R et al 2000 Proc. 18th Int. IAEA Conf. (Sorrento, 2000) IAEA-CN-77/EXP4/23, to be published
Porter G et al 1998 Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 25th Eur. Conf. (Prague) vol 22C (Geneva: European
Physical Society) p 1994
Reiter D et al 1991 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 33 1579
Righi E et al 2000 Proc. 18th Int. IAEA Conf. (Sorrento, 2000) IAEA-CN-77/EXP5/31, to be published
Rognlien T D et al 1992 J. Nucl. Mater. 1968 347
Rognlien T D 1996 Contrib. Plasma Phys. 36 105
Saibene G et al 1995 Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 21th Eur. Conf. (Bournemouth) vol 19C, part II
(Geneva: European Physical Society) p 121
Saibene G et al 1997 Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 24th Eur. Conf. (Berchtesgaden) vol 21A, part I
(Geneva: European Physical Society) p 49
Saibene G et al 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 1133
Sakasai A et al 1999 J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 312
Schneider R et al 1992 Contrib. Plasma Phys. 32 450
Schneider R et al 1997a J. Nucl. Mater. 2413 701
Schneider R et al 1997b Fusion Energy 1996, Proc. 16th Int. Conf. (Montreal, 1996) vol 2 (Vienna: IAEA) p 465
Schneider R et al 1999 J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 175
Schweinzer J et al 1997 Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics, Proc. 24th Eur. Conf. (Berchtesgaden) vol 21A, part I
(Geneva: European Physical Society) p 1449
Schweinzer J et al 1999 J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 934
Simonini R et al 1992 J. Nucl. Mater. 1968 369
Simonini R et al 1994 Contrib. Plasma Phys. 34 368
Stangeby P C 2000 The Plasma Boundary of Magnetic Fusion Devices (Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing)
Stotler D et al 1999 J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 947
Tamai H et al 1999 J. Nucl. Mater. 2669 1219
Taroni A et al 1994 Contrib. Plasma Phys. 34 448
Taylor T and DIII-D Team 1999 Fusion Energy 1998, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. (Yokohama, 1998) vol 1 (Vienna: IAEA)
p 49
Tsuchiya K et al 2000 Proc. 18th Int. IAEA Conf. (Sorrento, 2000) IAEA-CN-77/EXP5/26, to be published
Vlases G et al 1992 J. Nucl. Mater. 196198 392
Vlases G 1993 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 35 B67
Vlases G et al 1999 J. Nucl. Mater. 266269 160
Wagner F et al 1991 Plasma Phys. Control. Nucl. Fusion Res. 1990, Proc. 13th Int. Conf. (Washington, 1990) vol 1
(Vienna: IAEA) p 277
Whyte D et al 2000 Proc. 18th Int. IAEA Conf. (Sorrento, 2000) IAEA-CN-77/EXP4/25, to be published