Regular Articles

Full Text / References

Optimization of Poloidal Field Configuration for Electron Cyclotron Wave Assisted Low Voltage Ohmic Start-Up in TST-2

Yongtae KO, Naoto TSUJII, Yuichi TAKASE, Akira EJIRI, Osamu WATANABE, Hibiki YAMAZAKI, Kotaro IWASAKI, Peng YI, James H.P. RICE, Yuki OSAWA, Takuma WAKATSUKI¹⁾, Maiko YOSHIDA¹⁾ and Hajime URANO¹⁾

The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa 277-8561, Japan

1)

National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, Naka 311-0193, Japan

(Received 13 July 2020 / Accepted 9 February 2021 / Published 21 April 2021)

Abstract

We investigated electron cyclotron (EC) wave assisted low voltage Ohmic start-up in the conventional field null configuration (FNC) and the trapped-particle configuration (TPC) in the TST-2 spherical tokamak device. The upper pressure limit for successful burn-through increased when EC power was applied for both the FNC and TPC. On the other hand, at low prefill pressure, breakdown was delayed in the FNC start-up. The achievable plasma current also decreased especially at high EC power. By applying the TPC, fast breakdown was recovered even at high EC power. The plasma current ramp-up rate was also greater with TPC compared with FNC at the same loop voltage waveform. The lower prefill pressure limit for successful breakdown expanded in the TPC compared to that in the FNC. The higher vertical field decay index resulted in faster EC breakdown. The reduction of the upper pressure limit due to impurities was the same in the FNC and TPC indicating that the poloidal field configuration did not significantly affect the upper pressure limit for successful burn-through.

Copyright (c) 2021 The Japan Society of Plasma Science and Nuclear Fusion Research

Keywords

tokamak start-up, electron cyclotron wave, trapped particle configuration

DOI: 10.1585/pfr.16.1402056

Full Text

PDF format (827Kbytes)

References

• [1] JT-60SA Research Unit, JT-60SA Research Plan – Research Objectives and Strategy – Version 4.0, 2018 September (www.jt60sa.org/pdfs/JT-60SA_Res_Plan.pdf)
• [2] ITER Physics Expert Group on Disruptions, Plasma Control, and MHD, ITER Physics Expert Group on Energetic Particles, Heating and Current Drive, ITER Physics Expert Group on Diagnostics and ITER Physics Basis Editors 1999 Chapter 8: plasma operation and control, Nucl. Fusion 39, 2577 (1999).
• [3] D. Mueller et al., Phys. Plasmas 20, 058101 (2013).
• [4] B. Lloyd et al., Nucl. Fusion 31, 2031 (1991).
• [5] B. Lloyd et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 38, 1627 (1996).
• [6] G.L. Jackson et al., Nucl. Fusion 47, 257 (2007).
• [7] C.B. Forest et al., Phys. Plasmas 1, 1568 (1994).
• [8] C.B. Forest et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 24 (1992).
• [9] Y.S. Hwang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 18 (1995).
• [10] A. Ejiri et al., Nucl. Fusion 49, 065010 (2009).
• [11] J. Sugiyama et al., Plasma Fusion Res. 3, 026 (2008).
• [12] T. Maekawa et al., Nucl. Fusion 52, 083008 (2012).
• [13] H. Tanaka et al., Nucl. Fusion 56, 046003 (2016).
• [14] H. Idei et al., Plasma Sci. Technol. 13, 307 (2017).
• [15] K. Hanada et al., Nucl. Fusion 56, 046003 (2011).
• [16] Y.H. An et al., Nucl. Fusion 57, 016001 (2017).
• [17] J. Lee et al., Nucl. Fusion 57, 126033 (2017).
• [18] Y. Takase et al., Nucl. Fusion 41, 1543 (2001).
• [19] A. Ejiri and Y. Takase, Nucl. Fusion 47, 403 (2007).
• [20] R. Aymar et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 44, 519 (2002).