An enhanced tokamak startup model

Rajiv Goswami, Jean-François Artaud, and ADITYA Team

Citation: Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017); doi: 10.1063/1.4973826

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4973826
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/php/24/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

Calculation of the radial electric field from a modified Ohm's law
Phys. Plasmas 24, 012505012505 (2017); 10.1063/1.4973599

A model for generation of high wavenumber fluctuations by external magnetic field perturbations in edge
pedestal plasmas
Phys. Plasmas 24, 012507012507 (2017); 10.1063/1.4974166

Secondary fast reconnecting instability in the sawtooth crash

Phys. Plasmas 24, 012102012102 (2017); 10.1063/1.4973328

Equilibrium properties of hybrid field reversed configurations

Phys. Plasmas 24, 012502012502 (2017); 10.1063/1.4972537
 PHYSICS OF PLASMAS 24, 012508 (2017)

An enhanced tokamak startup model

Rajiv Goswami,1,a) Jean-François Artaud,1 and ADITYA Team2
1
CEA, IRFM, F-13108 Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France
2
Institute for Plasma Research, Bhat, Gandhinagar 382428, India
(Received 5 October 2016; accepted 26 December 2016; published online 18 January 2017)
The startup of tokamaks has been examined in the past in varying degree of detail. This phase
typically involves the burnthrough of impurities and the subsequent rampup of plasma current. A zero-
dimensional (0D) model is most widely used where the time evolution of volume averaged quantities
determines the detailed balance between the input and loss of particle and power. But, being a 0D
setup, these studies do not take into consideration the co-evolution of plasma size and shape, and
instead assume an unchanging minor and major radius. However, it is known that the plasma position
and its minor radius can change appreciably as the plasma evolves in time to fill in the entire available
volume. In this paper, an enhanced model for the tokamak startup is introduced, which for the first
time takes into account the evolution of plasma geometry during this brief but highly dynamic period
by including realistic one-dimensional (1D) effects within the broad 0D framework. In addition the
effect of runaway electrons (REs) has also been incorporated. The paper demonstrates that the inclu-
sion of plasma cross section evolution in conjunction with REs plays an important role in the forma-
tion and development of tokamak startup. The model is benchmarked against experimental results
from ADITYA tokamak. Published by AIP Publishing. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4973826]

I. INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION complex fashion. During this phase, the plasma configuration
may evolve from a limiter to a divertor configuration as
The first stage of operation of a tokamak begins with the
well.4 Another crucial feature in the burnthrough phase is the
breakdown of the neutral gas and rise of plasma current and
transition from an open field line configuration to a closed
temperature after the burnthrough of impurities by the
flux surface one. This changes the dominant particle loss
induced voltage, collectively described as the startup phase.
mechanism, which necessitates modelling of the effective
In the early investigations on the initial stage of a tokamak
connection length while including the role of eddy currents
discharge, to ameliorate the presence of skin effect in the
where applicable.5 A recent review of the physics of toka-
current distribution when the current ramp time is signifi-
mak startup can be found in Ref. 6.
cantly shorter than the diffusion time for the poloidal mag-
Additionally, the study of current rise phase has also
netic field, the use of a moving limiter was proposed by
gained traction in recent years due to the possibility of creat-
Kadomtsev as an alternative to increase the plasma radius
ing and maintaining broad current profiles which are fav-
during the rise of the current.1 This expanding limiter could
oured for the steady-state operation of tokamaks. Such
be mechanical or magnetic. Later with the advent of fully
profiles are consistent with the low edge safety factor opera-
superconducting tokamaks and their inherent limits on the
tion and are also desirable as they can be established with a
loop voltage, additional electron cyclotron (EC) assist has
lower internal flux expenditure as compared to more peaked
proven necessary for preionization and startup.
current profile shapes, and this results in saving the valuable
All through during the breakdown, current initiation,
transformer volt-seconds. Since the inductive drive supplies
and rampup phase, the tokamak plasma undergoes rapid
current from the edge, the profiles are naturally broad during
changes such that it can be difficult to control its position
this phase, and the prevalance of low plasma temperatures
and state which leads to a strong interaction of the plasma
can also help enable its modifications on a shorter time scale
with the wall and limiter, due to which there is an increased
to get close to the desired stable current profile.7 It has also
influx of adsorbed gases and impurities.2 The presence of
been argued that the formation of the so-called advanced
such impurities can affect the plasma energy balance sub-
plasmas in the flat-top phase of future machines such as JT-
stantially and can determine the success or failure of initiat-
60SA and ITER strongly depends on how the plasma is initi-
ing a discharge. The influence of plasma surface interactions
ated and then evolves.8
on tokamak startup was analysed using a 0D model and the
A strong correlation has also been observed between the
discharge development was shown to be intimately tied to
position of the initial current centroid and the current ramp
the condition of the plasma facing components.3 Many other
rate, with large xp (normalized horizontal position of the cur-
factors such as the runaway electron production, eddy cur-
rent centroid) experiencing significantly lower ramp rates than
rents, auxilliary heating also interact and impact startup in a
shots with small xp.9 Furthermore, experiments on DIII-D
a) have compared the startup scenarios of the so-called small-
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail:
rajiv@ipr.res.in. Permanent Address: Institute for Plasma Research, Bhat, bore where the discharge initiated on the low field side (LFS)
Gandhinagar 382428, India. limiters and plasma current was increased while the edge

1070-664X/2017/24(1)/012508/16/$30.00 24, 012508-1 Published by AIP Publishing.

012508-2 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team
safety factor was maintained approximately constant, to the
large-bore, where the discharge is also initiated on the LFS,
but diverted much earlier, and the plasma volume during the
limited phase is larger. The small-bore startup is found to be
less desirable due to its higher internal inductance li (which
could lead to vertical instabilities and disruptions) and larger
heat flux to the outer limiters compared to the large-bore.10,11
Plasma startup is also a particularly important driver for the
design of plasma facing components. It has been pointed out
that diverting the plasma as quickly as possible both reduces
the wall loading and allows an early application of high power
in the current ramp, keeping the plasma resistivity low and
decreasing flux consumption, permitting longer flattop phases
at high plasma current Ip.12
Thus there is a considerable motivation to examine the
various facets of this still evolving and important problem.
Although the number and diversity of plasma processes and
geometry involved might initially suggest a two-dimensional
(2D) treatment, the problem of tokamak startup has been pre-
dominantly analysed using global, or 0D, models wherein
the time evolution of volume averaged quantities is used.
This has been traditionally justified on the grounds of the
weak space dependence of the plasma parameters and the
dominance of volume losses due to the preponderance of the
various atomic processes. Moreover, validation of detailed
and complex models is made difficult by the uncertainties in
experimental parameters during startup. However, since it is
now well-established that the plasma position and minor
radius can change appreciably while maintaining a relatively
simple shape during the startup phase of the discharge,10,13
and that the profile effects are expected to be beneficial dur-
ing and after the current rise process, there have been several
attempts to numerically model this phase. These studies have
primarily depended upon the simultaneous solution of 1D
flux-surface averaged equations for radial transport coupled
and evolved together with a 2D free-boundary axisymmetric
magnetic equilibrium solver.8,14–18 At times instead of using
the free-boundary solver, equilibrium-fitting codes such as
EFIT19 are also used to analyse the experimental data and
get the shape evolution.5,16
In this paper, we have also attempted to explore and
quantify the basic mechanism for tokamak startup in terms
of the prevailing equilibrium conditions and parameters,
albeit, in a simplified manner. Repeatedly solving the two-
dimensional Grad-Shafranov equilibrium equation for the
evolving flux-surface geometry in conjunction with 1D equa-
tions for radial transport of the plasma cannot only signifi-
cantly increase the complexity and computation time, but
will additionally require different models for the earliest
times when the plasma current and the associated poloidal
magnetic field do not dominate the poloidal error field. It is
to be noted that the magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) activi-
ties are also a prominent and important factor during this
phase but justifiably including their contribution as well will
amplify the complexity of the entire calculation. Hence, we
have tried to incorporate the said geometry effects within a
largely 0D framework aided by certain simplifications that
are most likely reasonable during this brief but highly
dynamic period. This includes assuming the formation of a
Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)
near-circular plasma in a relatively large aspect-ratio, low-b
(b is the ratio of the average plasma kinetic pressure to the
average pressure of the confining magnetic fields) environ-
ment where the flux-surface coordinates (R, Z) can be
expanded in Fourier series in a poloidal angle h.20 Apart
from being sufficiently adequate and accurate for low-b
startup simulations, this flux-surface geometry approxima-
tion can also be used to check the relevant magnetohydrody-
namic stability criteria. Note that the inclusion of possible
changes in plasma size will play an important role in the 0D
calculations by directly impacting the evaluation of many
variables such as plasma resistance, inductance, confinement
times, as well as the dynamic fuelling by ex-plasma volume
and screening of the neutral and impurity fluxes, etc.3,5,21
This paper thus describes a computational model to
study the effect of including volume expansion of the plasma
during the development of the startup phase in a tokamak.
The paper is organized as follows: A detailed outline of our
simple and fast global 0D model enhanced with spatially
motivated arguments and attendant modifications are pre-
sented in Sec. II. In this section, following the standard pro-
cedure,22 we first present an approximate solution for the
plasma equilibrium in the limit of low-b and large aspect-
ratio simplifications. These solutions provide the poloidal
magnetic field Bh around the outermost plasma surface,
which must be then matched by the vacuum magnetic field
under the added assumption that the shape of the plasma
boundary is circular. Much like a free-boundary treatment,
this coupling to the vacuum field which is physically mani-
fested by a set of external vertical field (VF) coils, yields
explicit values for the currents in the VF coils such that the
plasma surface has a prescribed form. The 0D model3 has
also been updated by admitting the role of stray magnetic
fields on the effective connection length and thus parallel
losses on energy and particle confinement times.5 More
importantly, our model now also includes the creation and
subsequent influence of runaway electrons, which can be
especially important during the startup stage due to the prev-
alence of high value of E/Ec (ratio of applied to critical elec-
tric field) and the low value of electron density ne during this
phase.23 In this work, we have however restricted to the pri-
mary generation of runaway electrons (REs), as the second-
ary mechanism is not expected to make a large contribution
to the runaway generation, due to the lack of MeV runaways
which would require a much longer confinement duration,
whereas, a considerable part of the runaways is quickly lost
in the startup phase.24 The coupling and role of all the 0D
balance equations is shown to be closely intertwined with
the evolution of plasma geometry. It must also be pointed
out that to keep the analysis tractable and within the broad
confines of a 0D model, we have not included a detailed, typi-
cally three-dimensional (3D), electromagnetic model of
plasma breakdown.25 Section III contains the quantitative val-
idation of various results of the numerical simulation, includ-
ing the calculated equilibrium currents in the external VF
coils, with experimental values from the ADITYA tokamak.26
Section IV is devoted to discussion, and conclusions are
summarized.
012508-3 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)

II. MODEL of the nested magnetic surfaces inside are approximately

shifted circles. Note that such assumptions are usually justi-
Plasmas equilibrate on a timescale of few ls in a toka-
fied a posteriori after obtaining the solutions. Also, helpfully,
mak, set by the Alfven velocity and the size of the machine.
when the plasma b is low, the tokamak equilibria takes a com-
As this is faster than the diffusion time scales of interest, the
paratively simple form for a circular cross section and large
plasma can be assumed to remain in equilibrium at each
aspect-ratio, so that a purely analytic treatment is possible.
instant.27 Alternatively, the plasma can be assumed to be
massless as well as non-viscous, thereby eliminating pro-
A. 1D
cesses on the Alfven timescale. This has led to the widely
accepted argument that the evolution of plasma in a tokamak We now use the non-orthogonal shifted circle coordinate
can be decomposed into two main subproblems:28 system ðr; h; uÞ based on the Shafranov shift D30
• the two-dimensional (2D) axisymmetric equilibrium R ¼ ðR0 6dÞ þ r cos h þ DðrÞ; Z ¼ r sin h; (2)
solved together with the Maxwell’s equation outside the
plasma (in coils and conducting structures) that determines where R0 is the vessel major radius, d ¼ (a0  ap), a0 and ap
the evolution of the poloidal flux for a given pressure. are the limiter and the (evolving) outermost plasma channel
• the 1D transport equations together with the resistive dif- radius, respectively. Note that ap  a0 is always enforced.
fusion equation for the poloidal flux to describe the evolu- This ansatz implies that the plasma always is constantly in
tion of density and temperature. contact with the limiter, inboard or outboard. The initial
location of plasma breakdown which is given as an input
In an axisymmetric toroidal geometry, the equilibrium is
determines the sign in Eq. (2), so that (R0 þ d) is used for
most adequately described by an elliptic nonlinear partial
low field side (LFS) and (R0  d) for high field side (HFS) to
differential equation (PDE), the Grad-Shafranov equation for
evaluate the concurrent major radius. To first order in the
the poloidal flux function W(R, Z), and is written as
inverse aspect ratio ( ¼ a0/R0) and applying the low-b
 
@ 1 @W @2W approximation (Bu =B0  1; b  p=B20  B2h =B20  2  1),

D WR þ 2 where B0 is the vacuum magnetic field strength at R ¼ R0,
@R R @R @Z
  and using the expansion
dp dI
¼ l0 R2  l20 I ; (1)
dW dW Wðr; hÞ ¼ W0 ðrÞ þ W1 ðrÞ cos h:

where ðR; /; ZÞ is the natural cylindrical coordinate system The expanded Grad-Shafranov Eq. (1) in the low-b toka-
associated with the toroidal geometry, R is the distance to mak ordering yields the following leading order contribution
the symmetry axis, / is the toroidal angle, and Z is the verti- which does not depend on h, and consequently reduces to the
cal coordinate. Note that the right hand side (RHS) of Eq. (1) following radial force balance equation:
contains two completely arbitrary flux functions, pressure !
p(W), and the poloidal current stream function I(W). On d B2u0 Bh0 d
specifying them, everything else can be determined from the pþ þ ðrBh0 Þ ¼ 0; (3)
dr 2l0 l0 r dr
solution of the Grad-Shafranov equation. However, solving
Eq. (1) further requires satisfying either one of the two forms where Bh0 ¼ R1 0 ðdW0 =drÞ, and to significant order, the
of boundary conditions: poloidal and toroidal field expressions are given by30
• Define W(R, Z) on a closed contour. This is a fixed bound-    
d r dD
ary condition where the shape of one (outermost) flux sur- Bh ðr; hÞ  17  þ cos h Bh0 ðrÞ
R0 R0 dr
face is prescribed before solving an equilibrium inside the (4)
 
plasma surface. 1
Bu ðr; hÞ  1  ð Þ
r cos h6d Bu0 ðrÞ:
• The so-called free-boundary condition where as a direct R0
problem of equilibrium in an external field, W(R, Z) is
determined for the given currents, or as an inverse prob- It is to be noted that in Eq. (3), two of the three variables
lem which consists of searching for the given currents p(r), Bh0(r), and Bu0 ðrÞ may be chosen freely, though usually
(and generally their positions) that would provide an equi- the useful choice is pressure and the poloidal magnetic field,
librium configuration with the given form of cross section or the related toroidal current density ju0 ðrÞ. Equation (3)
and distributions p(W) and I(W).29 describes how the poloidal and toroidal magnetic fields pre-
vent the plasma from expanding in the radial direction.
We first obtain the solution to the Grad-Shafranov equa-
Finally, from the first order contribution of the
tion in the plasma interior. Although the plasma cross section
expanded Grad-Shafranov equation, we obtain the follow-
is itself an unknown, as it represents the interface between
ing inhomogeneous differential equation for the determina-
plasma and the external vacuum region, usually the desired
tion of D(r):
shape of plasma cross section is circular to avoid problems
" ! # !
related to vertical stability, and validate it with the external
d B2h0 dD r dp B2h0
field that would create it. It is also presumed that for such a r ¼ r  : (5)
dr 2l0 dr R0 dr 2l0
circular outer cross section of the plasma, the cross sections
012508-4 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)

This equation describes how the poloidal field prevents the radial derivative of W at the plasma vacuum interface would
flux surfaces from expanding in the radial direction. It is evi- correspond to a surface current, and so there exists a possibility
dent from Eq. (5) that for the given profiles of zero-order of a localized edge current if the plasma b is being rapidly
pressure p(r) and azimuthal magnetic field Bh0(r), integrating ramped up. On the other hand, a strongly localized current is
it gives the Shafranov shift which satisfies the boundary con- dissipated quite rapidly by any finite resistivity.31 Here for sim-
dition viz., D(ap) ¼ 0, where r ¼ ap is the outermost plasma plicity we assume that there is no surface current, and in its
boundary absence, it should be possible to integrate the vacuum equation
  outward starting with the initial values given by Eq. (7) and
d 1 2l0 the condition that the exterior solution Wex ðap ; hÞ ¼ const.
D0 ðrÞ  Dðr Þ ¼
dr R0 rB2h0 ðrÞ Furthermore, since the source of the external field is not taken
" ðr ! #
B2h0 into consideration, another boundary condition is imposed on
2
r pðr Þ  2p þ r~d~
r Wex such that it yields a homogeneous vertical field Bv at large
2l0
ð ap
0
distances from the plasma so that30
DðrÞ ¼  D0 ðr~Þd~
r; (6) Wex ¼ Wex ex
r pl;1 þ Wvf ; (9)

where the constant of integration in D0 ðrÞ is set equal to zero where Wex pl;1 is the far field flux due to the plasma current,
to avoid singularity at r ¼ 0. Furthermore, assuming that the and Wexvf is the flux of the vertical field. Far away from the
edge pressure vanishes p(ap) ¼ 0, Eq. (4) provides the poloi- plasma, the actual current distribution in the plasma may be
dal field value at the plasma boundary as ignored, and thus use the expression for the vector potential
of a ring current Iu at R ¼ R0 to evaluate Wexpl;1 , while
 
d 1
Bh ðap ; hÞ ¼ Bh0 ðap Þ 17 þ K cos h ; (7) Wex 2
R0 vf ¼ Bv R
2    
l Iu 8R li 3 (10)
where Bv ¼ 0 ln þ bp þ  :
4pR ap 2 2
l0 Iu
Bh0 ðap Þ ¼ Equation (10) is the equilibrium vertical field required
2pap
for placing the plasma at the major radius R, whereas for a
li toroidal current element with current I at position R ¼ r1,
K ¼ bp þ  1
2 Z ¼ z1, the vertical component of the magnetic field at
2l0 hpi (8) R ¼ r2, Z ¼ z2 is
bp ¼ 2
Bh0 ðap Þ " #
l0 I r12  r22  h2
hB2h0 i BZ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi K ðkÞ þ E ðk Þ
li ¼ ; 2p ðr þ r Þ2 þ h2 ðr1  r2 Þ2 þ h2
1 2
B2hap
where
where Iu ¼ IX þ Ir ; IX and Ir are Ohmic and runaway cur- h ¼ z1  z2
rents, respectively, and the averages are defined as 4r1 r2
k2 ¼ ; (11)
ð ð ðr1 þ r2 Þ2 þ h2
1 2 ap
hf i  f ðr; hÞdV  2 f ðrÞrdr:
V ap 0 and, K and E are complete elliptic integrals of first and sec-
ond kind, respectively. It is instructive to note that the
Thus in the low-b tokamak equilibrium where b  2, the expression for vertical field in Eq. (10) can also be derived
poloidal field enters into the leading order (radial) as well as from heuristic arguments about the toroidal balance of vari-
the next order (toroidal) force balance, whereas in the high-b ous forces such as the hoop force, tire-tube force, etc.
case with b  , the leading order force balance involves the Interestingly, for a circular plasma, it is not possible to sepa-
toroidal field and plasma pressure but not the poloidal field. rately determine the plasma pressure as expressed in bp from
From Eq. (7), it is clear that the expansion force due to pres- the experimental magnetic data,32 but more information can
sure and current through the poloidal beta bp and the normal- be extracted from the vacuum field if the plasma has a non-
ized internal inductance li, respectively, act to increase the circular cross section.
poloidal field on the low-field side and weaken it on the Now it is well-known that instabilities driven by the par-
high-field side. We now match the internal equilibrium solu- allel current are often called current-driven modes and can
tion thus obtained to the solution in the vacuum region under exist even in the limit of low-b, i.e., a regime where all
the assumption that the plasma boundary is circular. pressure-driven modes are stable. One such instability called
Due to vanishing toroidal current, the vacuum field sat- the external kink mode sets an important limit on the maxi-
isfies the equation D*W ¼ 0. As a boundary condition, the mum toroidal current that can flow in a plasma. This limit,
values of Bh in Eq. (7) should match the solution in the sur- better known as the Kruskal-Shafranov limit is expressed as
rounding vacuum region. Note that a discontinuity in the either
012508-5 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)

2pa2p Bu0 be predominantly in the outer part of the plasma, mostly at

Iu  Imax  r~ > 0:5.24 Note that in the edge regions, not only is the elec-
l0 R
tron density ne low, but the electric fields are also high as
qðap Þ > 1: (12)
they are not fully screened by the current, thus making this
space conducive for RE growth. Here the pressure and the
In reality, the more accurate value of q(ap) typically lies in
Ohmic current density vanish at r~ ¼ 1.
the range 2 < q(ap) < 3, which reduces the maximum allow-
The poloidal field profile is then given by the following
able current. We further enforce a condition on the highest
expression:
poloidal beta bp that is stable in a circular cross section
tokamak l0
Bh0 ðr~Þ ¼ ðIX þ Ir Þ; (15)
2pap r~
li R p
bp þ < : (13)
2 ap where
!
Since the shape of the current profile plays an impor- h i
pa2p þ1
tant role in determining the stability of the tokamak against IX ðr~Þ ¼ jX0 1  ð1  r~2 Þ
the current-gradient driven modes, this issue is usually þ1 (16)
ðþ2Þ
addressed by solving a 1D time-dependent poloidal mag- Ir ðr~Þ ¼ Ir ð1Þr~ :
netic field diffusion equation assuming neoclassical con-
ductivity. However, that would entail knowing the full 1D For this class of profiles, it is easily established that
profiles of the physical variables constituting the conductiv- qðap Þ  qa ¼ ð þ 1Þq0 . For the given values of q0 and qa,
ity term as well as the metric quantities which then have to we can calculate the range of permissible internal inductan-
be provided by a 2D free-boundary equilibrium solver. ces li, and instead of qa  q0 space, one can also use the
Thus the basic idea can be summarized as a scheme to empirical li  qa diagram to deduce the MHD stable j(r) pro-
obtain consistency between the vector potential A as solved files. We can then utilise the following empirical fit34
for in the Grad-Shafranov equation and the local Ohm’s
li ¼ lnð1:65 þ 0:89Þ: (17)
law E ¼ gJ  v B, together with a generic circuit equa-
tion and appropriate boundary conditions.8,17,18 This Now for q0 < 1, tokamak plasmas are characterized by
approach, apart from being comparatively more time- the sawtooth mechanism and although stable plasma opera-
consuming vis-a-vis a 0D code, has to be carefully imple- tion is obtained at the lowest possible value of q(0) by sup-
mented so as to maintain the general stability of coupled pressing the m ¼ 1, n ¼ 1 resistive kink mode,35 for higher qa
nonlinear equations and the consistency between the equa- that leads to increased peaking of the current profile. Such a
tions solved on a 1D grid and that on a 2D grid, which oth- raised li can then cross the upper limit of the operational
erwise could lead to divergence of the iteration scheme.18 boundary of qa and li, which can be parameterized with a lin-
There is also uncertainty regarding the interplay between ear fit such as36
thermal and electrical conductivities such that small errors
in the temperature profile can significantly alter the spatial Maxðli Þ ¼ 0:1qa þ 0:8: (18)
evolution of the current density which then leads to devia-
tion in the internal inductance.16
Since our goal is to make the problem analytically trac- B. 0D
table within the broad contours of a 0D model, we have In this section, we will describe the 0D model with
adopted a different approach wherein we first approximate appropriate additions, including, comprehensive models for
the 1D spatial (radial) pressure and the current profile distri- the relevant confinement times, and generation of REs. Here,
bution by simple models and associated q-profiles which the time evolution of volume averaged quantities is used to
might reasonably be expected to represent those configura- describe the plasma and impurity behaviour. Further details
tions that would occur naturally as a result of transport pro- of this model can be found in Ref. 3. The physical quantities
cesses.33 Thus, used to describe the model are the electron and ion densities
 and temperatures, neutral and impurity densities, Ohmic and
jX ðr~Þ ¼ jX0 ð1  r~2 Þ runaway currents. The ion and neutral densities are modeled
jr ðr~Þ ¼ jr0 r~ on the basis of a modified four-field model which includes
=ð1Þ the important effect of screening of the neutral flux from
pðr~Þ ¼ p0 ð1  r~2 Þ (14)
" # the plasma. We can thus write equations describing the den-
ð þ 1Þ~r2 sity of ions (ni), fast neutrals (nfn ), and slow neutrals (nsn ), as
qðr~Þ ¼ q0 ;
1  ð1  r~2 Þ
þ1 follows:
d ni  
where r~ ¼ r=ap , ap is the radius of the outermost current ðni Vp Þ ¼ Vp þ nfn Vf þ nsn Vs ne Sh0
channel, p0 ¼ pð0Þ; q0 ¼ qð0Þ; jX0 ¼ 2Bu0 =ðl0 q0 RÞ, and  dt sp
XX X
s
parameterizes the peakedness of the profiles. The runaway þ nn Vs nkþ Ih
I Xk  ni n0I VI X1hI ; (19)
current density jr is chosen to account for their generation to I k
1 I
012508-6 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)

where sp is the particle confinement time, Sh0 is the rate coeffi- Slow neutral density (nsn )
cients for electron impact ionization,37 X1hI is the rate coefficient " #
for a charge exchange reaction between the (hot) hydrogen (H) d s  r ni nf
n DVs ¼ nsn Vs ne Sh0 þ Nw Vp þ Vf n
ion and (cold) plasma impurities, whereas, XkIh is the charge dt n Aw sp sf
exchange rate coefficient for plasma neutral and impurity ions  XX 
(k
1) reaction (superscript denotes the interacting species of nsn Vs ni X1hh þ nkþ Ih
I Xk þ CPti ;tfg :
g
I k
1
atom and ion involved, and the number in the subscript corre-
sponds to the ionization stage), Vp is the total plasma volume, (23)
Vs, Vf, and VI define the volume occupied by the slow, fast, and
Number of particles trapped in the wall (Nw)
impurity neutrals within Vp, respectively. In the absence of neu-
tral screening Vfs;f ;Ig ¼ Vp . The screening of neutrals is intro-   !
dNw r ni nfn
duced in the following manner.21 If ksn ; kfn , and k0I are the ¼ 1  RN  Nw Vp þ Vf ; (24)
respective mean free paths (mfp) of a slow, fast, and impurity dt Aw sp sf
neutrals for ionization by electrons and CX, and vsn ; vnf , and v0I
are the velocities of slow, fast, and impurity neutrals, respec- where DVf ¼ Vv  (Vp  Vf) and DVs ¼ Vv  (Vp  Vs) are
tively, then the total volumes occupied by the respective neutral popu-
lations; sf is the fast neutral confinement time, r is the
vsn vfn cross-section for particle induced release, Aw is the wall
ksn ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi ; kfn ¼ area interacting with the plasma, C is the constant external
ne Sh0 Sh0 þ X1hh ne Sh0
(atomic) gas throughput. Since the external gas is typically
(20)
v0I input from an initial time tig upto time tgf , we have employed
k0I ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  the boxcar function Pti ;tgf to denote the same. The particle
ne SI0 SI0 þ X1hI g
balance model is self-consistent.
We now turn to describe the 0D runaway electrons
and model. It is known that the accelerating force on electrons
Vfs;f ;Ig ¼ 2pR½pa2p  pðap  kn;I
fs;f ;0g 2
Þ if
fs; f ;0g
kn;I  ap due to the applied electric field is balanced through Coulomb
collisions. However, since the collision frequency decreases
fs;f ;0g
¼ Vp if kn;I > ap ; as v3 at high velocities, there exists a critical velocity
(21) beyond which the electrons can get continuously accelerated
till they attain the relativistic speeds. Although a kinetic
where SI0 is the electron impact ionization rate of the con- description is recommended for REs, being computationally
cerned impurity, and X1hh is the rate coefficient for the intensive and beyond the scope of this paper, we consider
plasma ion-neutral charge exchange.37 The slow neutral only the evolution of their density nr. Many RE generation
and impurity velocities are evaluated based on the dissoci- mechanisms such as Dreicer, avalanche, hot-tail, etc, have
ation energy of the concerned molecule. For carbon, we been identified, but as noted in Section I, we consider only
use the enthalpy of sublimation for graphite. The fast neu- the primary/Dreicer mechanism to be relevant during this
tral is assumed to have an ion temperature. Note that since early phase of the discharge. It gives rise to REs by velocity
the proton impact processes with the neutral impurities are space diffusion due to small angle collisions, and their gener-
important only when the conditions for a quasi-resonant ation and loss rate is thus given by39
(or accidental resonance) charge exchange (e.g., the case
  3  3ð1þZeff Þ=16
of Hþ þ O) are fulfilled, we ignore the X1hc reaction term dnr ne me c2 2 ED
throughout this work.38 The particle confinement time sp is ¼ ð0:21 þ 0:11Zeff Þ
dt sc 2kTe E
assumed to be proportional to sEe, where the details of rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
electron energy confinement time sEe will be described ED ð1 þ Zeff ÞED nr
later in this section. Plasma neutrality is ensured by exp    ; (25)
4E E sr
assuming
XX where sc ¼ 4pe20 m2e c3 =ðne e4 ln KÞ is the relativistic electron
ne ¼ ni þ Zk nkþ
I ; collision time, and ED ¼ m2e c3 =ðesc kTe Þ is the Dreicer elec-
I k
1
tric field. Note that the runaway acceleration is possible
where nkI is the density of the kth ionization state with charge when the applied electric field E is larger than the critical
number Zk of the impurity atoms. The neutral particle bal- value Ec ¼ mec/(esc). The loss rate is dictated by the RE con-
ance equations are finement time sr, which is usually governed by the radial dif-
Fast neutral density (nfn ): fusion caused by magnetic field fluctuations. The diffusion
coefficient is generally described by the Rechester-
 
d f  ni Rosenbluth estimate DRR ¼ pqa vk Rp ðdBr =BÞ2 ,40 where vk is
nn DVf ¼ RN Vp  nfn Vf ne Sh0 þ nsn Vs ni X1hh
dt sp evaluated from the force equation dðcme vk Þ=dt ¼ qe E, c
X being the Lorentz factor. The term dBr/B represents the
nf
þni n0I VI X1hI  ð1  RN ÞVf n : (22) amplitude of the radial component of magnetic perturbation.
I
sf The runaway current is then simply given by
012508-7 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)

Ir ¼ pa2p enr vk : (26) Pbrem ¼ 1:53 1038 n2e Te1=2 ½eVZeff Vp : (33)

The energetics are described by the The electron energy lost as the impurity atoms radiate due to
Electron power balance excitation by the electrons is computed as
3d X X XX
ðne Vp kTe Þ ¼ IX RX ðIX þ Ir Þ  ne SI0 W0I n0I VI Prad ¼ ne n0I VI LI0 þ ne nkþ I
I Vp Lk ; (34)
2 dt I I I k
1
 f s
 h h
 nn Vf þ nn Vs ne S0 W0
XX where Lk is the radiative cooling rate for each impurity
 ne SIk WkI nkþ
I Vp
I k
1
charge state k obtained from the atomic physics code devel-
oped by Hulse.43 The energy confinement time is calculated
þ Pecrh  Pie  Pbrem  Prad
    based in part on combining the well known INTOR
3 ne Vp kTe dVp scaling sIN ¼ 5 1021 ne a2p , which essentially reflects the
 ne kTe ; (27)
2 sEe dt improvement in confinement as the discharge evolves, with
the parallel and perpendicular transport losses. The final
where RX is the plasma resistance, and upon including the
electron energy confinement time is then decided as
correction of Spitzer resistivity for neoclassical effects and 
1 
electron neutral atom collisions, it takes the form max sIN ; s1k þ s1? , where sk ¼ Lk =cs ; s? ¼ a2p =2DBohm ;
2 3 Lk ¼ 0:25 ap ðBu0 =Bz Þ is the effective parallel connection
2Rp gsp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R X ¼ 2 4 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 þ gen 5; (28)
ap length, cs ¼ kðTe þ Ti Þ=mi is the ion sound speed, Bz(t) is
1  ap =Rp
the stray magnetic field which is composed of the vertical
field Bv(t), any static error field arising out of misalignment
where41 of coils, and the error field Beddy(t) due to the eddy currents,
" # if any, in the surrounding conducting structures, and
2
9 Zeff ln K 1 þ 1:198Zeff þ 0:222Zeff DBohm ¼ kTe =16Bu0 is the Bohm diffusion which represents
gsp ¼ 3:26 10
3=2
Te ½keV
2
1 þ 2:966Zeff þ 0:753Zeff the perpendicular transport.5
me nsn Ion power balance
gen ¼ ren vte ; (29)
ne e2  
3d 3 np Vp kTi
ðnp Vp kTi Þ ¼ Pie 
ln K is the Coulomb logarithm,42 ren is the cross section for 2 dt 2 sEi
elastic electron-neutral collision 3   X 
 nsn Vs k Ti  Tns ni X1hh þ n1þ
I X1
Ih
  2 I
47:4
ren ¼ þ 2:4 1020 ½m2 ; (30)  
E½eV þ 1:3 3   dVp
 k Ti  Tos n0o Vo ni X1ho  np kTi ;
2 dt
Zeff is the effective charge given by
(35)
P P
ni þ I k Zk2 nkþ
I
Zeff ¼ : (31) where Tns and Tos are the temperatures of the slow back-
ne
ground neutrals and oxygen impurity, respectively. Here,
Pecrh is the electron cyclotron resonant heating (ECRH) only the charge exchange energy loss of singly ionized
power absorbed by the plasma, Wi is the energy lost by an impurities with hydrogen neutral and that of the quasi-
electron per hydrogen neutral ionization, including excitation resonant process of hydrogen ion and oxygen neutral is
line radiation taken into account. We assume that the fast neutral energy
is equal to the local ion temperature. In Eq. (35), an addi-
Wi ¼ 17:5 þ ð5:0 þ 37:5=Te ½eVÞ log ð1021 =ne ½m3 Þ: tional charge exchange energy loss from singly ionized
impurities is considered, as they revert to their neutral form
Pie is the electron-ion (including impurity ions) energy trans-
upon encountering the hydrogen neutral and are then
fer rate
promptly lost from the plasma. We thus neglect the charge
exchange on impurities whose final state is still an ionized
ne ln K
Pie ¼ 7:62 1034 ðTe ½eV  Ti ½eVÞ 3=2
impurity and is therefore not lost immediately from the
Te ½eV plasma.21 In Eqs. (27) and (35), the convective transport
!
XX Zk2 nkþ losses depend on the energy confinement times, sEe and sEi,
I
ni Vp þ Vp ; (32) respectively, whereas the last terms account for the work
I k
1
AI
done by electrons and ions in the expanding column. We
where AI is the impurity ion mass number. The energy loss treat the ion energy confinement time sEi to be equal to the
by bremsstrahlung is proportional to Z2 and is given by electron confinement time sEe.
012508-8 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)

The total ion density np is given by d 0   

nc DVc ¼ ne n0c Vc Sc0  n1þ c s 1þ ch
c Vp R1 þ nn Vs nc X1
XX dt !
np ¼ ni þ nkþ
I : (36)  p  ni
X Y pkþ nkþ c Y c
kþ nkþ
I k
1 þ Yi þ Yic Vp þ Vp c
þ o ko
sp k
1
skc so
The electrical circuitry is treated by a simple model with an nfn
applied loop voltage VL, calculated plasma inductance Lp, þ Ynpf DVf ;
sf
and resistance RX. The earlier studies treated Lp to be a con-  
d  1þ 
stant, due to the unchanging major and minor radii.21 In a nc Vp ¼ ne n0c Vc Sc0  nsn Vs n1þ ch
c X1  nc X2
2þ ch

more general case, the influence of eddy currents can be dt

h   i n1þ
included by using a two-ring type model.5 The development ne Vp n1þ S c
þ R c
 n 2þ c
R  V p
c
;
c 1 1 c 2
of the plasma current Ip is governed by s1c

d  kþ  ðkþ1Þþ ch
nc Vp ¼ nsn Vs nkþ c X ch
k  n c X kþ1
d dt
ðLX IX þ Lr Ir Þ þ RX IX ¼ VL : (37) h  
dt þ ne Vp nc ðk1Þþ c
Sk1  nc Sk þ Rck
kþ c

The self inductances for plasma and runaway current rings i nkþ
þ nðckþ1Þþ Rckþ1  Vp ck ;
are given by sc
  (40)
8Rp li
LX ¼ l0 Rp ln þ 2
ap 2 where DVo;c ¼ Vv  ðVp  Vo;c Þ is the total volume occupied
  (38)
8Rp 7 by the respective impurity population, nkþ o and nc
kþ
is the
Lr ¼ l0 Rp ln  ; density of the kth ionization state of the impurities consid-
ap 4
ered, with n0o and n0c being the respective neutral impurity
density. The ground state population (superscript 0) fills the
where li is the normalized plasma inductance. total volume including the volume within the plasma,
It is well known that low-Z impurity concentration plays whereas the population of ionized species (superscript k) is
a particularly critical role in the startup stage. We here confined to the plasma volume, Sk is the ionization coeffi-
assume the atomic oxygen and carbon to the representative cient of the kth ionization state, Rk the coefficient for recom-
of these impurities. In this work, we have then modeled the bination resulting in the kth state of the ions, Xk is the rate
impurity behaviour by taking into account its generation by coefficient for charge exchange reaction between a hydrogen
desorption and sputtering from the wall and limiters by the neutral and respective impurity ions, and qo is the surface
impact of recycling ions. Then the densities of their various density of the chemisorbed oxygen. The physical and chemi-
ionization states evolve in time as p
cal sputtering yields are denoted by YðiÞn c
and YðiÞn kþ , respec-
f o
tively, where, the subscript denotes the impacting ion species
d 0  ni  
no DVo ¼ Vp rD qo  ne n0o Vo So0  n1þ o
o Vp R1
and fast neutrals, and the superscript identifies the process
dt sp involved. The various sputtering yields of carbon depend
X
8 among other things, on the angle of incidence, flux, energy,
nkþ
þ nsn Vs n1þ oh 0 ho
o X1  no Vo ni X1 þ Vp
o
; atomic number of the incident particle, temperature of the
sko
k¼1 target material, etc. We make a simplification by assuming
d  1þ    the target material to be at room temperature and normal
no Vp ¼ ne n0o Vo So0  nsn Vs n1þ oh 2þ oh
o X1  no X2 incidence of projectiles, as for the roughened (practical) sur-
dt
 o o 2þ o
 ho
faces at glancing angles, there is much less dependence of
 ne Vp n1þ 0
o ðS1 þ R1 Þ  no R2 þ no Vo ni X1 yield on the angle. Furthermore, the effect of sheath on
n1þ impinging ions makes the ion impact approach, a normal
o
 Vp ; incidence. However, as a first approximation allowing for
s1o
the effects of non-tangential targets and surface roughness,
d  kþ  h  o  we simply double the normal formula for physical sputtering
no Vp ¼ ne Vp nðok1Þþ Sok1  nkþ
o Sk þ Rk
o
dt yields.44 Sputtering yields due to hydrogenic and carbon ions
i
have been evaluated using a suite of subroutines/functions
þ nðokþ1Þþ Rokþ1  nsn Vs nkþo X oh
k  nðkþ1Þþ oh
o X kþ1 based on the empirical formulas.45 Due to lack of a simple
and complete analytical model, a constant chemical sputter-
nkþ
o ing contribution of C by Okþ has been considered here. For
Vp :
sko low ion energies (<103 eV) and target at approximately
(39) room temperature, we take this yield to be a constant,
Ynckþ ¼ 1:0.5 The relevant ionization, recombination, and
o
Akin to the oxygen impurity generation and evolution equa- charge exchange rate coefficients have been obtained from
tions, we describe the production and evolution of various Refs. 46–48. The impurity particle confinement time for the
ionization states of carbon as corresponding ionization states is denoted by skcðoÞ .
012508-9 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team
The initial surface density of oxygen qo(0) is calculated
as follows. Since the particle bombardment is very effective
in removing the adsorption layers of oxygen from surfa-
ces,49,50 the rate of desorption dqo/dt depends upon the pri-
mary current density i0 (ions/m2/s), the oxygen surface
concentration qo(t) (particles/m2) at time t and the desorption
1) and . Care is taken so that the Kruskal-
cross section rD (m2), as
 
dqo ni Vp
¼ rD qo ;
dt Aw sp
where i0 ¼ ni Vp =ðAw sp Þ. The desorption cross section rD is
calculated assuming that an oxygen atom is bound isotropi-
cally, and then the cross section for a direct knockoff contri-
bution is given by51
ð cE
1 an assumed arbitrary but linearly increasing profile of
rð EÞ ¼ drðE; E0 Þ;
cos h U
which yields
 m "  m #
E E
rðEÞ ¼ r0 1
ap.
Eth Eth
where r0 ¼ m2 CU 2m cm and Eth ¼ U=c; h is the angle
between the surface normal and angle of incidence of the
ions, c ¼ 4MH MO =ðMH þ MO Þ2 is the maximum energy
transfer factor, U ¼ 6 eV is the surface binding energy
between the adsorbate oxygen atoms and the SS surface of
the vessel walls,52 and we use m ¼ 13 as the exponent in the
applied interaction potential. Thus, for hydrogen ions,
desorbing oxygen atoms adsorbed on a stainless steel sub-
strate, we get r0 ¼ 4.2 1020 m2.
C. Iteration loop
In this paper we shall use Iu to denote the total
(Ohmic þ runaway) plasma current. The solution procedure
implemented in this paper consists of solving both the time
independent and space independent equations in Secs. II A
and II B, respectively, in an iterative manner as follows:
(1) We start our iterative calculation first by assuming the
known values of toroidal vacuum magnetic field, ion,
slow, and fast neutral densities, electron and ion temper-
atures, number of wall neutrals, surface density of oxy-
gen, and plasma current as initial conditions to the 0D
model described in Sec. II B.
(2) We also assume an initial value for the minor radius ap,
whilst to a good approximation, the concurrent major
radius is given by Rp ’ R0 6d, such that the initial loca-
tion (inboard or outboard) of discharge formation is also
known.
(3) Run the full 0D model with initial (fixed) geometry val-
ues until the total toroidal current Iu is able to generate
enough poloidal magnetic field to exceed and thus elimi-
nate the effect of (combined) stray magnetic fields.
(4) Then from the 1D arguments of Sec. II A, calculate qa
for known Bu0 ð/ 1=Rp Þ; Iu , ap, and Rp. At first assume
Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)
q0 ¼ 1 to get a value of , and hence li from Eq. (17).
Check this value against the maximum allowable li from
Eq. (18).
(5) If li exceeds Max(li), then for the same qa increase q0
accordingly so as to satisfy the limit. This fixes the value
of q0 (
Shafranov limit is not violated at any stage.
(6) The Shafranov shift D(r) is computed from Eq. (6). Now
generate the pressure, current, and the poloidal magnetic
(41)
field profiles from Eqs. (14) and (15), and calculate bp
and li, while checking for any possible violation of con-
dition given by Eq. (13).
(7) Using Eq. (2), reevaluate the major radius of the mag-
netic axis Rm. Next, using Eq. (11) with given (fixed)
values of the number of turns and (R, Z) coordinates of
the VF coils, a time varying profile of Bv is created from
VF current IVF(t) and calculated Rm. From Eq. (10),
recalculate the minor radius ap using the “known” values
of Bv, Iu , Rm, bp, and li.
(8) Now if this “new” plasma minor radius is found to be
less than the initial or its previous iteration value, then
; decrease Bv to increase the minor radius till it is
However, in case the “new” ap is bigger than the limiter
minor radius a0, then increase Bv to decrease the minor
radius till it is a0.
(9) Repeat steps 4–8 till convergence. After these iterations
on Bv, the inverse problem of the corresponding current
in the external coils can be readily solved. Then advance
further in time through the 0D model with these con-
verged geometrical and other parameters.
III. NUMERICAL RESULTS
In this section, we present the numerical solutions of our
model equations coupled through the iteration scheme. For
experimental validation of these results, the simulations
reported in this paper have been carried out for the parameters
of ADITYA tokamak.26 It is a medium size air-core tokamak
with major and minor radii of 75 cm and 25 cm, respectively.
It has a hydrogen plasma in the circular channel cross section,
surrounded by a stainless steel wall with area Aw  11 m2 and
a graphite poloidal ring limiter of 5 cm toroidal width. The
vacuum vessel has two toroidal cuts and the volume is 1.7
m3. Under the present experimental conditions, with a prefill
pressure of (0.8–1) 104 Torr and central toroidal field Bu0
of 1–1.1 T, a typical plasma duration obtained is of
100–120 ms, 90–110 kA total plasma current, central elec-
tron density is in the range (1–3) 1019 m3, and electron
temperature around 400–500 eV. In ADITYA tokamak, wall
conditioning is carried out using techniques such as the glow
discharge cleaning, pulse discharge cleaning, and electron
cyclotron resonance (ECR) discharge cleaning.53 Note that,
eventually the amount of hydrogen present in the walls of the
main chamber is determined by the wall conditioning techni-
ques, implantation due to energetic ions, diffusion, adsorption,
and codeposition with eroded material such as C atoms from
the graphite limiter.54
012508-10 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team
We solved the 0D Eqs. (19), (22)–(35), and (37)–(41)
using the ordinary differential equation (ODE) solver
CVODE,55 assuming a set of initial conditions corresponding
to an initial prefill pressure of 8 105 Torr of atomic
hydrogen gas at 300 K which amounts to 2.6 1018 m3 of
slow neutral density, ion/electron density of 5.0 1015 m3,
Te(i) ¼ 1 eV, fast neutral density of 1 106 m3, and numeri-
cally negligible runaway electrons and ionized impurity
densities. The applied loop voltage is taken to be the experi-
mentally measured value of the shot being examined. Usually
the particle confinement time sp is taken to be either a con-
stant,21 proportional to sEe,3 or just a harmonic mean of tran-
sonic parallel transport and perpendicular Bohm diffusion.5 In
this work, we have employed sp ¼ 3sEe, the fast neutral con-
finement time sf is estimated to be kfn =vfn . As noted earlier,
the runaway confinement time sr is calculated by taking into
account the stochasticity of field lines as, sr ¼ a2p =DRR .
For ADITYA, we take the magnetic perturbation dBr/
B ¼ 1.5 103. The impurity recycling time skoðcÞ is assumed
to be equal to the hydrogenic ion confinement time sp. Note
that we have considered the generation and transport of (low-
Z) oxygen and carbon impurity as being predominant in the
burnthrough process. As the carbon impurity comes mainly
from the single poloidal ring graphite limiter, we have
weighted the sputtering yields accordingly, whereas the oxy-
gen is assumed to originate from the entire plasma facing
wall. Since usually there are no in situ measurements of the
impurity surface concentration, typical values have to be esti-
mated. We assume the oxygen impurity surface concentration
to be of the order of 0.1 monolayer and the cross section for
its ion induced release r is taken to be 1.5 1020 m2.56
First, we validate our computational model against one
of the recent typical ADITYA discharges. To simulate one
such successful representative discharge, shot #29228, the
initial number of hydrogens trapped in the wall Nw(0) is
taken to be 2.5 1020, which corresponds to about 1
monolayer of gas. It is now well established that a high con-
centration, equivalent to many monolayers of gas can be
trapped in the walls exposed to plasmas, including the fact
that a layer of oxide and carbide deposited on the wall has
more efficient trapping than the stainless steel substrate.57
Further note that due to two toroidal insulating breaks in the
ADITYA vacuum vessel, the coevolution of eddy currents
has been ignored in calculating the stray magnetic field and
therefore the parallel connection length Lk , and instead only
the self-consistently evolving vertical magnetic field Bv(t)
(described in Sec. II C) and a “static” error field of
1.5 103 T is taken into consideration. A pair of VF coils
located at (R, Z) coordinates of (0.379, 1.05) m and (1.637,
1.19) m with 60 and 22 turns, respectively, provide the
experimental (external) vertical field. For modelling this
shot, we have chosen the additional parameters as follows:
As there was no EC preionization and heating in this series
of experiments, we take Pecrh ¼ 0 in Eq. (27). The particle
reflection coefficient RN for Hþ ions incident on stainless
steel (approximated as Fe) depends on the atomic mass,
energy and angle of incidence of projectile, as well the
atomic mass of the target. We calculate its nonconstant
value, which depends on these parameters, using the suite of
Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)
subroutines given in Ref. 45. The initial oxygen surface den-
sity qo(0) required for simulating #29228 is found to be
2.1 1018 m2. As these series of experimental shots employ
a massive gas injection to suppress the buildup of runaway
electron population, similarly we also input the external
hydrogen gas at time tig ¼ 7 ms till tgf ¼ 12 ms, with a con-
stant throughput C ¼ 1.5 1021 mol/s. The other shots of
this campaign, when modelled, give results of similar nature.
The distinguishing feature of the present work is that we
have taken into account the expansion of plasma volume
from a small annulus initially situated on either the LFS or
HFS which then fills the entire available volume in time, and
through this, one can examine the important issue of a
“small-bore” versus the “large-bore” startup scenarios via
plasma parameters such as the normalized internal induc-
tance li.10 Since our model also includes the generation and
contribution toward discharge development by runaway elec-
tron current, which may not play a significant role in the
startup of other devices as they do in ADITYA, we have also
delineated their evolution from a purely volume expansion
standpoint by categorizing our simulation results into two
major subsections as follows:
A. With REs
In Figures 1–3, we show the results of benchmarking
our simulation with ADITYA data for shot #29228, between
0 and 25 ms of its 120 ms total duration. To this effect, for
validation with the experimental shot we have chosen
ap(0) ¼ 0.125 m (small-bore) on the LFS, the location of
which is confirmed by fast camera measurements. A more
FIG. 1. Subplots displaying the time-varying numerical profiles of various
parameters. The experimentally applied loop voltage VL is shown in sub-
plot (a), whereas (b) and (c) show the comparison of simulated (blue/solid
line) and ADITYA experimental shot #29228 (red/dash-dot line) profiles
for total current Itot and electron density ne, respectively. The breakup of
simulated total current into its Ohmic (blue/solid line) and runaway (black/
dashed line) components is shown in (d), while the numerical electron
temperature Te and ion temperature Ti profiles are given in subplot (e).
Finally subplot (f) shows the comparison between the simulated (blue/
solid line) and the (pre-programmed) applied (red/dash-dot line) current in
the vertical field coils, along with the (arbitrary) reference curve (black/
dotted line) used in the iteration loop, Sec. II C.
012508-11 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team
FIG. 2. A plot showing the co-evolution of electron density ne (left y-axis)
with plasma volume Vp (right y-axis) for the case with REs. The drop of ne
(inset figure) nicely coincides with the rise of Vp.
detailed model which self-consistently includes null forma-
tion, breakdown, and startup will be communicated later.
Fig. 1(a) shows the experimentally applied loop voltage VL
corresponding to this shot, and used as an input in Eq. (37).
In Fig. 1(b), we are able to match the measured plasma cur-
rent to a large extent, except for the delay in current rise
observed in the simulated value. This is caused by the use of
a small-bore initial condition. In fact, we find that the rise of
total current is related to the drop in plasma density after its
initial rise phase, as seen in Fig. 1(c). For a large-bore, this
delay in Ip rise is reduced accordingly. The time evolution of
electron density ne follows the experimental profile, showing
a reasonable evolution. The initial rise of ne is fuelled by the
FIG. 3. Various subplots showing the comparison of additional experimental
and simulated parameters in the presence of REs. The validation of edge
safety factor qa, poloidal beta bp, and the radial shift DR with corresponding
values for shot #29228 is shown by subplots (a), (c), and (e), respectively.
Due to the unavailability of experimental runaway electron density nr (blue/
solid line and left y-axis), it is comparatively plotted in subplot (b) against
the measured hard X-ray (HXR) emission (red/dotted line and right y-axis)
which signifies their loss of confinement. Similarly, the carbon impurity den-
sity n3þ
c (blue/solid line and left y-axis) is compared with the observed emis-
sion profile of the corresponding ionization stage (red/dotted line and right
y-axis) in subplot (d). Finally, the numerically obtained value of Z-effective
Zeff is shown in subplot (f).
Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)
electron impact ionization of the prefill hydrogen, i.e., the
slow neutrals density nsn , whereas the first drop in ne begin-
ning at 3 ms is due to the rapid expansion of the plasma
volume Vp. This is shown more clearly in Fig. 2 and the
(inset) figure shows that the plasma dilutes as Vp quite rap-
idly and monotonically fills the available volume in 1.5 ms,
with a radial velocity of 84 m/s. From Fig. 1(e), it is seen
that the electron temperature Te also rises very slowly during
this period of rapid plasma density buildup and decay. The
density then starts to rise from 7 ms to 12 ms due to the
large external gas injection used primarily to subdue the fast
developing runaway electron population. This can also be
gauged from Fig. 1(d), which separately shows the evolution
of Ohmic IX and runaway Ir components of the total plasma
current Iu . The Ohmic current starts to increase, albeit
slowly, as the density begins to first plateau at 2.5 ms, and
the Ir contribution is almost negligible, but as the density
drops to its lowest whilst Vp reaches its maximum value, the
critical field Ec drops below the applied electric field and the
Dreicer mechanism kicks in and Ir starts to develop rapidly
which dominates and causes IX to reduce as well. This burst
of Ir which quickly ascends to ⲏ30 kA is mitigated immedi-
ately by a large input of gas at 7 ms, which succeeds not only
in bringing down Ir but brings up a corresponding fast rise in
IX. The plasma density starts to decrease after being driven
by the gas puff due to the finite particle confinement time sp,
and absence of any reasonably large additional source of
hydrogen. This allows Ir to grow again, although by now the
increasing Zeff [Fig. 3(f)] acts to control its rapid rise. In Fig.
1(f) we have plotted the current required in the VF coils to
control the plasma, which is self-consistently derived as
explained in Section II C, alongside the (pre-programmed)
experimentally applied value. The (arbitrary) reference val-
ues used to obtain the final simulated IVF are also shown.
Since the simulation parameters are set, within the reason-
ably acceptable limits, to match the experimental plasma
current, we find a good match between the simulated and
applied values of IVF. As the “1D” calculations proceed only
after the “stray” magnetic fields have been overcome, the
simulation values in Fig. 1(f) start after 3 ms.
In Fig. 3(a), we show the comparison of the experimen-
tal and simulated values of the edge safety factor qa, whereas
Figs. 3(b) and 3(c) display the validations of poloidal beta bp
and radial shift DR of the magnetic axis from the geometric
centre at R0 ¼ 0.75 m, respectively. These plots show that the
“1D” approximations of Sec. II A coupled to the “0D” equa-
tions of Sec. II B through the iteration scheme of Sec. II C
are mainly able to reproduce the experimental results, thus
demonstrating their efficacy. The subplots in Figs. 3(b) and
3(d) show the time-varying values of runaway electron den-
sity nr and the density of a well observed carbon impurity
ionization stage n3þc . Since nr is not directly measured, we
have plotted the hard X-ray (HXR) signal on the y2-axis of
3(b) as the manifestation of the loss of confinement of REs.
The growth/decay of nr is seen to follow the drop/rise of
HXR. Similarly, we observe a decent match between the rise
and fall of n3þc and the corresponding measured signal. Only
the simulated value of Zeff is shown in Fig. 3(f) due to the
absence of reliable experimental values of both Te and Zeff
012508-12 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)

before 27 ms, when they are measured to be 260 eV and

2, respectively. Nevertheless, both these measurements
lend credence to the values obtained from the code.
In Fig. 4(a), the slow neutral density nsn shows a fall after
about 0.5 ms when Te attains a value of 8 eV, enough to set
off the ionization process in bulk. It then drops continuously,
although its decrease is slower due Te decreasing to a low of
5 eV, because of the energy losses through ionization, radi-
ation, thermal equilibration, etc. During the volume expan-
sion phase, the fall of nsn expectedly slows even further and
then nsn remains almost constant and starts to rise when the
gas injection begins at 7 ms. In contrast, as seen from Fig.
4(b), the fast neutrals nfn , generated by reflection of ions from
the wall as well as the charge exchange of slow neutrals with
fast ions, which are created as ionization proceeds apace,
show an initial increase in their density. This behavior is
expected, because in the initial stages of the discharge with
Te  10 eV, the ionization frequency Sh0 is slower than the
charge exchange frequency X1hh . After the slow neutral den-
sity itself drops considerably due to sustained ionization, nfn FIG. 5. Here the subplots present the spatial variation of three parameters
also falls subjected to both ionization and direct loss, but its viz. the plasma pressure p, toroidal current density ju , and safety factor q, at
three different instants of time. The radial coordinate is normalized to the
behavior mirrors that of nsn during the increase in plasma vol-
instantaneous plasma radius.
ume. The subplot 4(c) shows the number of particles trapped
in the wall Nw. The almost continuous increase in Nw reflects
factor q profile shows an increasingly more relaxed profile as
that the wall is pumping hydrogen, and that the recycling
the startup progresses. Notice that q(0) is equal to 1 during the
coefficient is less than one throughout this duration.
early phase, but slowly increases to 1.7 towards the end,
The various subplots in Fig. 5 show the spatial variation
whereas qa decreases rapidly from the heights of 45 to 5,
of three key parameters at three different instants of time. The
as confirmed experimentally as well in Fig. 3(a). It is instruc-
radial coordinate in the abscissa is normalized to the instanta-
tive to note that all these parameters depend on , which is
neous plasma radius. The pressure profiles denoted by p begin
essentially the ratio of qa to q0, and the fast decrease in its
with a low value but a broader profile, and by the end of the
value is also evident from the q profile.
simulation run, develops a large value with a more (centrally)
Next, in Figure 6, we examine the difference between a
peaked profile. On the other hand, the toroidal current density
large-bore ap(0) ¼ 0.15 m versus small-bore ap(0) ¼ 0.125 m
ju initially has a large value at the center but drops substan-
startup through comparison of standard plasma parameters
tially toward the outer plasma regions (r/ap > 0.5). However,
keeping all other parameters the same, in the presence of
as the discharge develops successfully, the effect of current
penetration is seen across the entire plasma channel, with ju REs. From Fig. 6(a), it is clearly seen that the delay in rise of
showing much more uniformity at 25 ms. Lastly, the safety current Iu for a small-bore is offset by the choice of a larger-

FIG. 4. The blue/solid line in subplots (a) and (b) present the evolution of
the slow ðnsn Þ and fast ðnfn Þ neutral densities, respectively. For an easy com-
parison of their behaviour during the expansion phase, plasma volume Vp is
also plotted concurrently on the right y-axis. The rise in respective density
values from 7 to 12 ms is due to the injection of copious external gas.
Subplot (c) shows the change in wall neutrals Nw during this time.
FIG. 6. In the presence of REs, subplots showing the difference between a
small-bore (ap(0) ¼ 0.125 m, blue/solid line) and large-bore (ap(0) ¼ 0.15 m,
red/dash-dot line) startup through various plasma quantities. All other
parameters are the same as in Fig. 1.
012508-13 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)

bore. However, since it is the combined contribution of IX

and Ir, it is imperative to also look at them separately. This is
shown in Figs. 6(c) and 6(d), and it is immediately apparent
that the early rise of Iu for a large-bore is due to the REs, as
the Ohmic contribution for both cases follow almost a simi-
lar evolutionary trajectory except for the appearance of dif-
ferent initial rise times, at ⱗ1.8 ms for the large-bore
compared to ⱗ3.0 ms for the small-bore. However, these
nascent IX set the stage for precisely what follows next,
because in case of large-bore IX reaches the requisite value
to dominate the “stray” fields, which is about 2.1 kA, at
1.8 ms. Then by virtue of the “1D” calculations, Vp imme-
diately starts to increase with the corresponding drop in ne
till it reaches its maximum at 2.8 ms. It must be pointed
out that we do not observe any remarkable difference in the
expanding radial velocity of both cases. Also notice from
Fig. 6(b) that despite the differences in the time of rise, peak FIG. 7. Subplots (a) and (b) show the change in plasma current I and elec-
value attained, and the duration of fall, the lowest value of ne tron density ne with time, in the absence of REs. The small-bore and large-
for both cases turns out to be almost the same. But, since ne bore simulation values are displayed by blue/solid and black/dash lines,
respectively. For an easy comparison, the corresponding experimental values
reaches this lowest point earlier in the large-bore case, the of shot #29228 are shown by red/dash-dot lines. Here, Nw(0) ¼ 2.3 1020
critical electric field Ec turns out to be not only lower than for both the bore sizes, while all other parameters are the same as used for
the applied electric field E, but crucially E is now even more Fig. 1.
higher and closer to its peak value. This triggers the observed
early generation of the RE population which continues to values of IX in the presence of REs displayed a similar behav-
grow almost uninhibited till it encounters the gas puff at ior, their contribution was overshadowed as soon as the rapid
7 ms which evidently falls short to completely subdue them. growth of Ir started to gain dominance. On the other hand, the
This leaves a larger seed population of REs as compared to behavior of electron density remains largely unaffected, and
the small-bore case, which again regenerates a comparatively hence ne profiles in Fig. 7(b) are quite similar to those of Fig.
large RE component. This additional burden of REs in the 6(b). It thus appears that the density behavior is dictated by
large-bore case can be easily controlled by either, higher gas the bore size through its impact on the rise of plasma current
input for the same duration or, longer and preferably earlier and the eventual surpassing of the “stray” fields by the Iu gen-
gas injection at the same or even slightly reduced input lev- erated poloidal fields.
els. Still, the most crucial observation of this exercise is from Figures 8(a) and 8(b) show the effect of bore size
Fig. 6(h) wherein we find no noticeable difference in the val- through the time history of li and resistive flux Ures, respec-
ues of internal inductance li between the large-bore and tively. It is unambiguously clear that the large-bore (fast
small-bore cases, in the presence of REs. Perhaps this addi- ramp rate) startup maintains lower li throughout as compared
tional contribution by REs which is so clearly a part of to the small-bore (slow ramp rate), which is believed to be
ADITYA startup, but may not be this important in other
tokamaks, needs to be set aside to investigate the effect of
bore size on startup performance, evaluated through parame-
ters such as li.10

B. Without REs
To isolate the effect of REs on startup and to examine
only the role and effect of the initial size of the bore, we pre-
sent results for mostly the same parameters as in Sec. III A
but upon completely removing the RE contribution so that
Iu ¼ IX now. In these simulation results to be presented, we
found that the discharge specifically failed to startup for the
small-bore with the same Nw(0) and/or qo(0) as in Sec. III A,
so we have chosen to lower the wall neutrals to Nw(0)
¼ 2.3 1020, with all other parameters including the gas puff
level and its start/end time being the same as used to obtain
Fig. 1. The plasma current and electron density for the (same)
two bore sizes and no REs are plotted in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b),
respectively. It is quite clear that the current not only starts FIG. 8. Comparison of (a) internal inductance li and (b) resistive flux Ures
for startup in the absence of REs with a small-bore (blue/solid) and a large-
earlier in the large-bore case, but also ramps up faster than the bore (black/dash) line, respectively. All relevant parameters being as used in
small-bore case as the discharge evolves. Although the initial Fig. 7.
012508-14 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)

beneficial from the stability viewpoint.10 We also find from

our modelling [Fig. 8(b)], in agreement with Ref. 11, that the
discharge with a faster ramp rate (large-bore) has a lower
resistive flux consumption.
In Fig. 9, we again plot the radial variation of same
parameters for the two bore sizes under consideration at three
distinct times as shown earlier in Fig. 5, but without the influ-
ence of REs. The salient features we observe are that the pres-
sure profile for the large-bore develops a much more
pronounced peakedness in total pressure p as well as a more
uniform distribution in ju as the startup evolves. The edge q
values for the small-bore are considerably higher in the begin-
ning when compared to the case with REs, and while there is
hardly any difference in q0 at 25 ms, the qa at 11 is still
more than 2 times larger, and this yields a much larger value
of  for the small-bore non-RE case even at 25 ms, which is
responsible for the flatter p profiles observed. In contrast, FIG. 10. Effect of change in wall loading/retention through the initial value
of the parameter Nw on startup of both small-bore and large-bore, without
although the large-bore case also begins with a fairly high
REs. The (blue/solid) lines and the (black/dash) lines represent Nw(0) equal
value of qa, and q0 remains quite close to the small-bore val- to 2.3 1020 and 2.0 1020, respectively.
ues as well, the qa drops substantially (to 4.6) at 25 ms giv-
ing a much smaller value of parameter  that results in the cleaner wall with less hydrogen retention, we lower the value
peaked p and better current penetration as seen from the ju of the initial number of neutrals in the wall Nw(0). Taking
profiles. values of Nw(0) to be 2 1020 and 2.3 1020, we find from
It has also been argued11 that controlling li requires Fig. 10 that the development of the small-bore startup is dis-
modification of the current profile, which can be achieved by proportionately affected as compared to the large-bore. The
(i) changing the current ramp-rate through Ohmic heating, small-bore case comparatively registers a much larger
(ii) injection of gas to vary the density, and (iii) auxiliary plasma current [Fig. 10(a)] and electron temperature [Fig.
heating such as neutral beams to vary the plasma tempera- 10(e)], although there is no significant change in the ne
ture. The issue of the effects of wall fuelling and related except for a slightly larger drop in density after the gas injec-
recycling on the q profile have also been raised.10 We have tion stops at 12 ms, primarily due to non-availability of the
tried to address the issue of wall fuelling as our 0D startup wall-fed neutrals. More significantly both the qa and li pro-
model uniquely includes the role of slow, fast, and wall neu- files of the small-bore case, shown in Figs. 11(a) and 11(c),
trals and the associated recycling through their exchanges on respectively, show progressively lower and desirable values
the overall development of a discharge. Hence in Figs. 10 as the startup develops. Again there is not much change in
and 11, we have studied the influence of wall neutrals on the these values for a large-bore case. Note that the values of
same two bore sizes in the absence of REs. To imitate a plasma parameters such as Iu and Te are appreciably higher

FIG. 9. Radial profiles of pressure p, toroidal current density ju , and safety FIG. 11. Effect of change in wall loading/retention through the initial value
factor q at three different times, for startup without REs. The (blue/solid) of the parameter Nw on startup of both small-bore and large-bore, without
lines and the (black/dash) lines correspond to a small-bore (ap ¼ 0.125 m) REs. The (blue/solid) lines and the (black/dash) lines represent Nw(0) equal
and a large-bore (ap ¼ 0.15 m), respectively. to 2.3 1020 and 2.0 1020, respectively.
012508-15 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team
for a large-bore case compared to the small-bore for both
values of Nw(0) (wall condition), with the differences
between the two bores being more pronounced for a “dirty”
wall (higher Nw(0)).
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the new and salient features of our self-
consistent startup model are:
(1) Introduction of a “1D” model that takes into account the
radial variation of key plasma and geometrical parame-
ters such as toroidal current density ju , total plasma pres-
sure p, poloidal magnetic field Bh, safety factor q,
plasma minor radius ap (and hence major radius Rp,
plasma volume Vp, plasma inductance Lp), respectively.
(2) Coupling of the “1D” model to an augmented “0D”
model through a self-consistent and convergent iterative
procedure. The “0D” model time evolves the macro-
scopic quantities such as electron, ion, and neutral (fast
and slow) densities, wall (loading) neutrals, electron and
ion temperatures, generation and transport of impurities
(carbon and oxygen), and Ohmic current. These
“averaged” 0D values in turn underpin the “1D” calcula-
tions as relevant central/edge parameters.
(3) The “1D” model shapes the “0D” evolution through stability
limits, calculation of confinement times via vertical magnetic
fields, screening of neutrals and impurities via variations in
ap and Vp, evolution of Ip through changes in Lp, etc.
(4) An inverse free-boundary type equilibrium solution that
outputs the current required in the VF coils to have a
desirable tokamak startup.
(5) Augmentation of the complete model by the inclusion
of (primary/Dreicer) runaway electron density genera-
tion and loss. They influence both time-independent
“1D” and time-dependent “0D” through their current
density (taken to be concentrated in the outer regions of
the plasma channel) and current Ir, respectively, and in
return are influenced by ne, hydrogen gas input, Zeff,
dB/B, etc.
Due to the errors in the experimental data, especially
during the very early phase of startup, it is difficult to obtain
and compare some of the simulated and ADITYA data such
as Te(i) and Zeff, but we find that all parameters approach sim-
ilar values on comparison as time advances. Thus the results
of our computational model can be summarized as:
• Using the full model, we are able to validate the startup
phase of ADITYA tokamak, with reasonably good agree-
ment between simulated and experimental data of several
quantities such as (total) plasma current, ne, qa, bp, DR,
correlation between RE density nr and HXR bursts, etc.
• The plasma volume starts to increase monotonically once
the plasma current makes enough poloidal magnetic field
that dwarfs the “stray” magnetic fields. Increasing Vp leads
to plasma dilution with a commensurate fall in plasma
density.
• The Ohmic current rise time is directly dependent on the
bore size, with IX in a large-bore initiating earlier than the
small-bore.
Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)
• If generation of REs is included, its growth is aided by
this time difference in the initiation of IX. So the large-
bore builds up a bigger runaway current Ir, which must be
subdued by a timely large hydrogen gas injection to pre-
vent a runaway dominated discharge.
• In the presence of REs, keeping all other parameters the
same, the difference in bore size seems to be immaterial
for a comparatively lower li operation.
• The velocity of radial expansion of the plasma channel
during startup is 84 m/s for ADITYA tokamak, and
remains approximately the same with and without REs
and both the bore sizes.
• The absence of REs also give a clear indication of the cur-
rent rise time being dependent on the bore size, with the
large-bore not only initiating earlier but maintains a faster
ramp rate as well.
• Without REs the large-bore case quite clearly demon-
strates a lower li and lower resistive flux consumption in
comparison to a small-bore startup. Comparatively, during
the current rise phase a broader current profile consistent
with low edge safety factor qa and peaking factor  is also
observed for the large-bore case, in absence of REs.
• A change in wall loading/retention (through Nw(0)) signifi-
cantly affects the parameters of a small-bore startup. The
large-bore remains largely unaffected. Higher Iu and Te
for lower Nw(0) implies that cleaner walls are mandatory
if operating with a small-bore case without REs. Whereas,
the presence of REs is found to help the small-bore dis-
charge survive a rather unclean wall as the initial energy
balance is found to be more favourable.
• The large-bore startup can easily cope with a more decon-
ditioned wall, irrespective of the presence/absence of REs.
The similarity of our modelling results and ADITYA
data suggests that the new and enhanced startup model con-
tains the essential physics of the startup phase. It also pro-
vides a clear evidence that a synergistic combination of the
“0D” and “1D” effects (through time evolving plasma pro-
files instead of them being uniform, and the role of other
parameters as a function of the plasma radius) play a critical
role in determining a favourable evolution of startup in toka-
maks. Nevertheless, further refinement of the present startup
analysis could include.
Further relaxation of the low-b and high aspect-ratio
assumptions while keeping the analysis tractable, and the
inclusion of resultant higher-order corrections.22,31 Also
compare and contrast our results with more detailed codes
such CORSICA,10 etc.
Coupling with 1D models of hydrogen transport inside
the material walls for improved understanding of hydrogen
retention.
A self-consistent coupling of the model for estimating
the location, size, and movement of the poloidal null to facil-
itate a better breakdown modelling.
We have observed that the development of REs is sensi-
tive to their confinement loss time sr, which is assumed to
depend on the stochastic diffusion in a braided magnetic field
through the term dBr/B. However, it has been pointed out
that the diffusion coefficient DRR should also include a
012508-16 Goswami, Artaud, and ADITYA Team
shielding factor that describes the deviation of the RE diffu-
sion from the thermal electron diffusion due to the displace-
ment of the RE orbits from the magnetic surfaces and their
large gyro-radii.58
Investigate the burnthrough and startup under different
wall conditions such as beryllium and tungsten.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
One of the authors (R. Goswami) would like to thank J.
Ghosh, R. L. Tanna, M. K. Gupta, S. Joisa, S. K. Pathak, U.
Nagora, R. Manchanda, M. Chaudhuri, and V. Panchal for
providing ADITYA experimental data, and R. Srinivasan for
his support. This work was performed under the framework
of the IRFM-IPR collaboration agreement.
1
I. N. Golovin, Yu. N. Dnestrovskii, and D. P. Kostomarov, in Nuclear
Fusion Reactor Conference Proceedings (British Nuclear Energy Society,
Culham, 1969), p. 194, see page 210 for reference to B. B. Kadomtsev.
2
H. Knoepfel, in Tokamak Start-up: Problems and Scenarios Related to the
Transient Phases of a Thermonuclear Fusion Reactor, Ettor Majorana
International Science Series, edited by H. Knoepfel (Springer Science,
New York, 1986).
3
R. Goswami, Phys. Plasmas 20, 082516 (2013).
4
M. E. Rensink and T. D. Rognlien, J. Nucl. Mater. 266–269, 1180 (1999).
5
H.-T. Kim, W. Fundamenski, A. C. C. Sips, and EFDA-JET Contributors,
Nucl. Fusion 52, 103016 (2012).
6
D. Mueller, Phys. Plasmas 20, 058101 (2013).
7
T. C. Luce, Phys. Plasmas 18, 030501 (2011).
8
M. Honda, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1490 (2010).
9 39
D. R. Whaley, T. P. Goodman, A. Pochelon, R. Behn, A. Cardinali, B. P.
Duval, B. Joye, and M. Q. Tran, Nucl. Fusion 32, 757 (1992).
10
G. L. Jackson, T. A. Casper, T. C. Luce, D. A. Humphreys, J. R. Ferron,
A. W. Hyatt, E. A. Lazarus, R. A. Moyer, T. W. Petrie, D. L. Rudakov,
and W. P. West, Nucl. Fusion 48, 125002 (2008).
11
G. L. Jackson, T. A. Casper, T. C. Luce, D. A. Humphreys, J. R. Ferron,
A. W. Hyatt, J. A. Leuer, T. W. Petrie, F. Turco, and W. P. West, Nucl.
Fusion 49, 115027 (2009).
12
R. A. Pitts, S. Carpentier, F. Escourbiac, T. Hirai, V. Komarov, A. S.
Kukushkin, S. Lisgo, A. Loarte, M. Merola, R. Mitteau, A. R. Raffray, M.
Shimada, and P. C. Stangeby, J. Nucl. Mater. 415, S957 (2011).
13
Yu. K. Kuznetsov, I. C. Nascimento, R. M. O. Galv~ao, and I. V. Yasin,
Nucl. Fusion 38, 1829 (1998).
14
S. C. Jardin, N. Pomphrey, and J. DeLucia, J. Comput. Phys. 66, 481 (1986).
15
R. R. Khayrutdinov and V. E. Lukash, J. Comput. Phys. 109, 193 (1993).
16
T. A. Casper, W. H. Meyer, G. L. Jackson, T. C. Luce, A. W. Hyatt, D. A.
Humphreys, and F. Turco, Nucl. Fusion 51, 013001 (2011).
17
E. Fable, C. Angioni, A. A. Ivanov, K. Lackner, O. Maj, S. Yu. Medvedev,
G. Pautasso, and G. V. Pereverzev, Nucl. Fusion 53, 033002 (2013).
18
E. Fable, C. Angioni, A. A. Ivanov, K. Lackner, O. Maj, S. Yu.
Medvedev, G. Pautasso, G. V. Pereverzev, W. Treutterer, and ASDEX
Upgrade Team, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 55, 074007 (2013).
19
L. L. Lao, H. St. John, R. D. Stambaugh, A. G. Kellman, and W. Pfeiffer,
Nucl. Fusion 25, 1611 (1985).
20
V. S. Mukhovatov and V. D. Shafranov, Nucl. Fusion 11, 605 (1971).
21
B. Lloyd, P. G. Carolan, and C. D. Warrick, Plasma Phys. Controlled
Fusion 38, 1627 (1996).
22
J. M. Greene, J. L. Johnson, and K. E. Weimer, Phys. Fluids 14, 671 (1971).
23
O. J. Kwon, P. H. Diamond, F. Wagner, G. Fussmann, ASDEX, and NI
Teams, Nucl. Fusion 28, 1931 (1988).
24
R. Jaspers, K. H. Finken, G. Mank, F. Hoenen, J. A. Boedo, N. J. Lopes
Cardozo, and F. C. Sch€ uller, Nucl. Fusion 33, 1775 (1993).
25
F. Maviglia, R. Albanese, M. de Magistris, P. J. Lomas, S. Minucci, F. G.
Rimini, A. C. C. Sips, and P. C. de Vries, IEEE Trans. Magn. 50, 937
(2014).
Phys. Plasmas 24, 012508 (2017)
26
S. B. Bhatt, D. Bora, B. N. Buch, C. N. Gupta, K. K. Jain, R. Jha, P. I.
John, P. K. Kaw, A. Kumar, S. K. Mattoo, C. Natarajan, R. Pal, H. A.
Pathak, H. R. Prabhakara, H. D. Pujara, V. N. Rai, C. Rao, K.
Sathyanarayana, Y. C. Saxena, G. C. Sethia, A. Vardharajulu, P. Vasu,
and N. Venkatramani, Ind. J. Pure Appl. Phys. 27, 710 (1989).
27
H. Grad and J. Hogan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 1337 (1970).
28
J. Blum, J. Le Foll, and B. Thooris, Comput. Phys. Commun. 24, 235
(1981).
29
L. M. Degtyarev and V. V. Drozdov, Comput. Phys. Rep. 2, 341 (1985).
30
J. P. (Hans) Goedbloed, R. Keppens, and S. Poedts, Advanced
Magnetohydrodynamics: With Applications to Laboratory and
Astrophysical Plasmas (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
2010).
31
H. Qin and A. Reiman, Phys. Plasmas 4, 762 (1997).
32
J. P. Freidberg, M. Graf, A. Niemszewski, S. Schultz, and A. Shajii,
Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 35, 1641 (1993).
33
J. A. Wesson, Nucl. Fusion 18, 87 (1978).
34
J. A. Wesson, Tokamaks, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004),
Chap. 3, p. 120.
35
C. Z. Cheng, H. P. Furth, and A. H. Boozer, Plasma Phys. Controlled
Fusion 29, 351 (1987).
36
J. A. Wesson, R. D. Gill, M. Hugon, F. C. Sch€ uller, J. A. Snipes, D. J.
Ward, D. V. Bartlett, D. J. Campbell, P. A. Duperrex, A. W. Edwards, R.
S. Granetz, N. A. O. Gottardi, T. C. Hender, E. Lazzaro, P. J. Lomas, N.
Lopes Cardozo, K. F. Mast, M. F. F. Nave, N. A. Salmon, P. Smeulders, P.
R. Thomas, B. J. D. Tubbing, M. F. Turner, and A. Weller, Nucl. Fusion
29, 641 (1989).
37
R. K. Janev, W. D. Langer, K. Evans, Jr., and D. E. Post, Jr., Elementary
Processes in Hydrogen-Helium Plasmas, Springer Series on Atoms and
Plasmas Vol. 4 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1987).
38
R. K. Janev, “Atomic and plasma-wall interaction issues in divertor
plasma modeling,” in Atomic And Plasma-Material Interaction Data For
Fusion (IAEA, Vienna, 2001), Vol. 9, Chap. 1, pp. 1–10.
M. D. Kruskal and I. B. Bernstein, PPPL Report 174 MATT-Q-20, 1962.
40
A. B. Rechester and M. N. Rosenbluth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 38 (1978).
41
M. C. Zarnstorff, K. McGuire, M. G. Bell, B. Grek, D. Johnson, D.
McCune, H. Park, A. Ramsey, and G. Taylor, Phys. Fluids B 2, 1852
(1990).
42
J. D. Huba, NRL Plasma Formulary (Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, DC, 2009), p. 34.
43
R. A. Hulse, Nucl. Technol./Fusion 3, 259 (1983).
44
H. Verbeek, J. Stober, D. P. Coster, W. Eckstein, and R. Schneider, Nucl.
Fusion 38, 1789 (1998).
45
M. Warrier, R. Schneider, and X. Bonnin, Comput. Phys. Commun. 160,
46 (2004).
46
K. L. Bell, H. B. Gilbody, J. G. Hughes, A. E. Kingston, and F. J. Smith,
J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 12, 891 (1983).
47
M. Arnaud and R. Rothenflug, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. 60, 425
(1985).
48
R. A. Phaneuf, R. K. Janev, and M. S. Pindzola, Atomic Data for Fusion,
Report No. ORNL-6090/V5 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, 1987).
49
H. F. Winters and P. Sigmund, J. Appl. Phys. 45, 4760 (1974).
50
E. Taglauer, Nucl. Fusion 24(S9), 43 (1984).
51
P. Sigmund, Phys. Rev. 184, 383 (1969).
52
E. Taglauer, G. Marin, W. Heiland, and U. Beitat, Surf. Sci. 63, 507
(1977).
53
R. L. Tanna, K. A. Jadeja, S. B. Bhatt, P. S. Bawankar, C. N. Gupta, Y. S.
Joisa, P. K. Atrey, R. Manchanda, N. Ramaiya, J. Ghosh, D. Raju, P. K.
Chattopadhyay, R. Jha, and Aditya Team, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 390, 012044
(2012).
54
M. Mayer, V. Philipps, P. Wienhold, H. G. Esser, J. von Seggern, and M.
Rubel, J. Nucl. Mater. 290–293, 381 (2001).
55
S. D. Cohen and A. C. Hindmarsh, Comput. Phys. 10(2), 138 (1996).
56
R. Bastasz and L. G. Haggmark, J. Nucl. Mater. 103–104, 499 (1981).
57
G. M. McCracken, J. Nucl. Mater. 85–86, 943 (1979).
58
S. S. Abdullaev, K. H. Finken, and M. Forster, Phys. Plasmas 19, 072502
(2012).