These pages provide an access point to data contained in CCFE published journal papers. By selecting a paper, and then a specific figure or table, you can request the related underlying data if it is available for release.
Search the list of Figures using keywords (case insensitive):
|Figure Reference||Title||Description||Number of Figure Data Items||Identifier||Download Figure Details|
|Fig. 1||figure 1||A sketch of the RMP coils distribution in (a) real geometry, and (b) on the (?,?)-plane. Shown in (b) is also an example of the coil current phasing of 90o between the upper and lower rows, for the n=2 configuration.||0||CF/16/224||Download|
|Fig. 2||figure 2||Effect of RMP coil current parity on the computed plasma radial displacement ?^1????s (with s being the flux surface label): radial profiles of resonant poloidal harmonic amplitudes, triggered by (a) odd parity, and (b) even parity, coil configurations; (c) peak amplitude of poloidal harmonics over plasma minor radius (full symbols indicate resonant harmonics); (d) poloidal distribution of the plasma surface normal displacement amplitude (?_n??^1/|?s|). Vertical dashed lines indicate rational surfaces q=m/(n=3) in (a) and (b), and indicate the X-point locations in (d). MAST connected double null, 400 kA Ohmic L-mode discharge 23001 with q95 = 6.3 is modelled.||0||CF/16/225||Download|
|Fig. 3||figure 3||MARS-F computed radial field amplitude (left panel) and plasma normal displacement amplitude (right), for an equilibrium constructed from ASDEX Upgrade shot 33133 at 2600ms.||0||CF/16/226||Download|
|Fig. 4||figure 4||Effect of q95 on the computed plasma normal displacement: radial profiles of resonant poloidal harmonic amplitudes with (a) q95 = 5.34 and (b) q95 = 4.51; (c) peak amplitude of poloidal harmonics over plasma minor radius (full symbols indicate resonant harmonics); (d) poloidal dis- tribution of the plasma surface displacement amplitude. The curve labelled ‘1’ (‘2’) in figures (c) and (d) corresponds to q95 = 5.34 (4.51). Equilibria are based on MAST H-mode discharge 24460. Odd parity coils are assumed. Density pump out is (not) observed in experiments as q95 below (above) 5.||0||CF/16/227||Download|
|Fig. 5||figure 5||Effect of toroidal rotation profile on the triggering of the peeling mode response: (a) measured rotation profiles without the RMP coil currents (labelled ’1’) and during the application of RMP (labelled ’2’); (b) peak amplitude of poloidal harmonics over plasma minor radius (full symbols indicate resonant harmonics). The numbering of the curves in (b) corresponds to that in (a). MAST L-mode discharge 24534 with q95 = 5.9 is modelled, with odd parity RMP coils.||0||CF/16/228||Download|
|Fig. 6||figure 6||Correlation between the computed normal displacement of the plasma surface, and the observed density pump-out effect in all types of MAST plasmas from the RMP experiments. Plotted is the experimental density pump-out effect versus the ratio of the displacement peaking near the X-point (?n(X)) to that at the outboard mid-plane (?n(M)).||0||CF/16/229||Download|
|Fig. 7||figure 7||The ASDEX Upgrade RMP discharge 30684 (a-d) versus the MARS-F modelling results (e-f), for the coil phasing scan with the n=2 configuration: (a) the type-I ELM behaviour as detected by the divertor saturation current, (b) the line averaged electron density, (c) the ELM frequency, and (d) the coil phasing ?? between the upper and lower rows of RMP coils, (e) the computed last resonant field amplitude (vacuum versus total plasma response), and (f) the magnitude of the computed kink versus peeling components. The shaded regions correspond to the optimal coil phasing.||0||CF/16/230||Download|
|Fig. 8||figure 8||The EAST RMP discharge 56360 (a-c) versus the MARS-F modelling results (d-e), for the coil phasing scan with the n=2 configuration: (a) the lower and upper rows of coil current setup, (b) the type-I ELM behaviour as detected by the D? signal, as well as the estimated ELM frequency, (c) the line averaged electron density, core toroidal rotation speed, and the thermal energy content, (d) the computed last resonant field amplitude (vacuum versus total plasma response), and (f) the magnitude of the computed kink versus peeling components. The shaded regions in (a-c) (between 3.1-3.8s) and (d-e) correspond to the optimal coil phasing.||0||CF/16/231||Download|
|Fig. 9||figure 9||The MARS-F computed X-point displacement for the ITER 15MA Q=10 inductive scenario plasma, assuming n=1,2,3,4 RMP coil configurations, respectively. Three rows of the ITER ELM control coils are used, with varying coil phasing between the upper and middle rows (horizontal axis), and between the lower and the middle rows (vertical axis). The coil current amplitude is assumed to be the same (45 kAt) for all three rows, for each given n.||0||CF/16/232||Download|
|Fig. 10||figure 10||Comparison of the amplitude of the last pitch resonant radial field component, in [Tesla], between the vacuum field (dashed) and the total field including the plasma response (solid), versus the coils’ poloidal location |?c| (left panel, at fixed ??=15.5o,14.1o) and the coils’ width ?? (right panel, at fixed ?c=39.0o,-41.1o, for the toroidal phasing of the coil currents at (a,b) ??=0o (even parity), (c,d) ??=90o, and (e,f) ??=180o (odd parity), respectively, using upper and lower rows of coils in the n=4 configuration with 45 kAt current. Vertical lines indicate the ITER design values for the coils (?cU=39.0o, -?cL=41.1o, ??U=15.5o, and ??L=14.1o). Considered is a reference plasma from the ITER 15 MA Q=10 inductive scenario.||0||CF/16/233||Download|
Loading... please wait...