Regular Articles

Full Text / References

Role of the Electron Temperature in the Current Decay during Disruption in JT-60U

Yoshihide SHIBATA, Akihiko ISAYAMA, Go MATSUNAGA, Yasunori KAWANO, Seiji MIYAMOTO¹⁾, Victor LUKASH²⁾, Rustam KHAYRUTDINOV³⁾ and JT-60 team

Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Naka 319-0193, Japan

1)

Research Organization for Information Science and Technology, Tokai-mura 319-1106, Japan

2)

Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

3)

Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion Research, Moscow, Russia

(Received 9 December 2013 / Accepted 11 April 2014 / Published 10 June 2014)

Abstract

The effect of the electron temperature T_e on the plasma current decay after the mini-collapse was investigated for the disruption in JT-60U owing to a massive neon gas puff by using the disruption simulation code DINA. During the current quench in JT-60U, the fast electron temperature decrease is followed by a transient plasma current increase. This is called “mini-collapse”, typically occurring when the plasma current decreases to 80 - 90% of its value at the flattop phase. The plasma evolution after the mini-collapse was investigated using the DINA code for three assumed T_e profiles: flat, broad, and peaked profiles. The time evolution of the plasma current, plasma center position, plasma cross section, and vacuum vessel current were not found to be sensitive to the T_e profile after the mini-collapse. The plasma current after mini-collapse decreased owing to the plasma resistance, although it was previously found that the plasma current decrease during the initial phase of current quench was owing to the time derivative of the plasma inductance [Y. Shibara et al., Nucl. Fusion 50, 025065 (2010)].

Copyright (c) 2014 The Japan Society of Plasma Science and Nuclear Fusion Research

Keywords

disruption, current quench, DINA code, electron temperature, plasma resistance

DOI: 10.1585/pfr.9.3402084

Full Text

PDF format (1.8Mbytes)

References

• [1] T.C. Hender et al., Nucl. Fusion 47, S128-202 (2007).
• [2] R. Khayrutdinov et al., J. Computational Phys. 109, 193 (1993).
• [3] S.C. Jardin et al., J. Comput. Phys. 66, 481 (1986).
• [4] W. Park et al., Phys. Plasmas 6, 1796 (1999).
• [5] A. Glasser et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 41, A747 (1999).
• [6] V. Lukash et al., Nucl. Fusion 47, 1476 (2007).
• [7] H. Ohwaki et al., 32nd EPS Conference on Plasma Phys. Tarragona, 27 June-1 July 2005 ECA Vol.29C, P-5.099 (2005).
• [8] Windridge et al., 34th EPS Conference on Plasma Phys. Warsaw, 2-6 July 2007 ECA Vol.31F, P-1.108 (2007).
• [9] Y. Shibata et al., Nucl. Fusion 50, 025065 (2010).
• [10] Y. Shibata et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 56, 045008 (2014).
• [11] K. Kurihara et al., Fusion Eng. Des. 51-52, 1049 (2000).
• [12] K. Kurihara et al., Fusion Eng. Des. 19, 235 (1992).

This paper may be cited as follows:

Yoshihide SHIBATA, Akihiko ISAYAMA, Go MATSUNAGA, Yasunori KAWANO, Seiji MIYAMOTO, Victor LUKASH, Rustam KHAYRUTDINOV and JT-60 team, Plasma Fusion Res. 9, 3402084 (2014).