Heating and current drive requirements towards Steady State operation in ITER Francesca Poli C. Kessel, P. Bonoli, D. Batchelor, B. Harvey Work supported.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Physics Basis of FIRE Next Step Burning Plasma Experiment Charles Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory U.S.-Japan Workshop on Fusion Power Plant.
Advertisements

ARIES-Advanced Tokamak Power Plant Study Physics Analysis and Issues Charles Kessel, for the ARIES Physics Team Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory U.S.-Japan.
Stability, Transport, and Conrol for the discussion Y. Miura IEA/LT Workshop (W59) combined with DOE/JAERI Technical Planning of Tokamak Experiments (FP1-2)
Standard and Advanced Tokamak Operation Scenarios for ITER
Discussion on application of current hole towards reactor T.Ozeki (JAERI) Current hole plasmas were observed in the large tokamaks of JT-60U and JET. This.
1 G.T. Hoang, 20th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference Euratom Turbulent Particle Transport in Tore Supra G.T. Hoang, J.F. Artaud, C. Bourdelle, X. Garbet and.
IAEA - FEC2004 // Vilamoura // // EX/4-5 // A. Staebler – 1 – A. Staebler, A.C.C Sips, M. Brambilla, R. Bilato, R. Dux, O. Gruber, J. Hobirk,
Physics Analysis for Equilibrium, Stability, and Divertors ARIES Power Plant Studies Charles Kessel, PPPL DOE Peer Review, UCSD August 17, 2000.
Proposals for Next Year’s MFE Activities C. Kessel, PPPL ARIES Project Meeting, Sept. 24, 2000.
Optimization of a Steady-State Tokamak-Based Power Plant Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA IEA Workshop 59 “Shape and.
ARIES-ACT1 preliminary plasma description C. Kessel, PPPL ARIES Project Meeting, October 13, 2011.
Steady State High  N Discharges and Real-Time Control of Current Profile in JT-60U T. Suzuki 1), A. Isayama 1), Y. Sakamoto 1), S. Ide 1), T. Fujita 1),
TSC time dependent free-boundary simulations of the ACT1 (aggr phys) plasma and disruptions C. Kessel, PPPL ARIES Project Meeting, Jan 23-24, 2012, UCSD.
C. Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory For the NSTX National Team DOE Review of NSTX Five-Year Research Program Proposal June 30 – July 2, 2003.
Y. Sakamoto JAEA Japan-US Workshop on Fusion Power Plants and Related Technologies with participations from China and Korea February 26-28, 2013 at Kyoto.
Advanced Tokamak Plasmas and the Fusion Ignition Research Experiment Charles Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Spring APS, Philadelphia, 4/5/2003.
Study of transport simulation on RF heated and current driven EAST plasma Siye Ding Under instruction of Prof. Baonian Wan 12/09/2009.
Analysis and Simulations of the ITER Hybrid Scenario C. Kessel, R. Budny, K. Indireshkumar Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, USA ITPA Topical Group.
1 Modelling of Configuration Optimization in the HL-2A Tokamak Gao Qingdi Zhang Jinhua Li Fangzhu Southwestern Institute of physics, P O Box 432, Chengdu.
Integrated Modeling and Simulations of ITER Burning Plasma Scenarios C. E. Kessel, R. V. Budny, K. Indireshkumar, D. Meade Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.
NSTX-U NSTX-U PAC-31 Response to Questions – Day 1 Summary of Answers Q: Maximum pulse length at 1MA, 0.75T, 1 st year parameters? –A1: Full 5 seconds.
ITER Standard H-mode, Hybrid and Steady State WDB Submissions R. Budny, C. Kessel PPPL ITPA Modeling Topical Working Group Session on ITER Simulations.
Current Drive for FIRE AT-Mode T.K. Mau University of California, San Diego Workshop on Physics Issues for FIRE May 1-3, 2000 Princeton Plasma Physics.
High  p experiments in JET and access to Type II/grassy ELMs G Saibene and JET TF S1 and TF S2 contributors Special thanks to to Drs Y Kamada and N Oyama.
G.Huysmansworkshop : Principles of MHD 21-24/3/2005 MHD in Tokamak Plasmas Guido Huysmans Association Euratom/CEA Cadarache, France with contributions.
OPERATIONAL SCENARIO of KTM Dokuka V.N., Khayrutdinov R.R. TRINITI, Russia O u t l i n e Goal of the work The DINA code capabilities Formulation of the.
ARIES-AT Physics Overview presented by S.C. Jardin with input from C. Kessel, T. K. Mau, R. Miller, and the ARIES team US/Japan Workshop on Fusion Power.
PF1A upgrade physics review Presented by D. A. Gates With input from J.E. Menard and C.E. Kessel 10/27/04.
RF simulation at ASIPP Bojiang DING Institute of Plasma Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences Workshop on ITER Simulation, Beijing, May 15-19, 2006 ASIPP.
Global Stability Issues for a Next Step Burning Plasma Experiment UFA Burning Plasma Workshop Austin, Texas December 11, 2000 S. C. Jardin with input from.
1 Instabilities in the Long Pulse Discharges on the HT-7 X.Gao and HT-7 Team Institute of Plasma Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O.Box 1126, Hefei,
Simulation and Analysis of the Hybrid Operating Mode in ITER C. Kessel, R. Budny, and K. Indireshkumar Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Symposium On.
OPERATIONAL SCENARIO of KTM Dokuka V.N., Khayrutdinov R.R. TRINITI, Russia O u t l i n e Goal of the work The DINA code capabilities Formulation of the.
1) Disruption heat loading 2) Progress on time-dependent modeling C. Kessel, PPPL ARIES Project Meeting, Bethesda, MD, 4/4/2011.
Current holes at ASDEX Upgrade Presented by O. Gruber for D. Merkl, J. Hobirk, P.J. McCarthy, E. Strumberger, ASDEX Upgrade Team - hardware upgrades for.
Transport in three-dimensional magnetic field: examples from JT-60U and LHD Katsumi Ida and LHD experiment group and JT-60 group 14th IEA-RFP Workshop.
EJD IAEA H-mode WS,, September 28, Overview Introduction — steady-state performance requirements -Global DIII-D and NSTX progress Plasma control.
ITER STEADY-STATE OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS A.R. Polevoi for ITER IT and HT contributors ITER-SS 1.
Comprehensive ITER Approach to Burn L. P. Ku, S. Jardin, C. Kessel, D. McCune Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory SWIM Project Meeting Oct , 2007.
JT-60U -1- Access to High  p (advanced inductive) and Reversed Shear (steady state) plasmas in JT-60U S. Ide for the JT-60 Team Japan Atomic Energy Agency.
HL-2A Heating & Current Driving by LHW and ECW study on HL-2A Bai Xingyu, HL-2A heating team.
Work with TSC Yong Guo. Introduction Non-inductive current for NSTX TSC model for EAST Simulation for EAST experiment Voltage second consumption for different.
1 EBW & HHFW Research - G. Taylor PAC-19 2/23/06 EBW & HHFW Research (Including EBW Collaborations with MAST & P EGASUS ) Gary Taylor presented on behalf.
Improved performance in long-pulse ELMy H-mode plasmas with internal transport barrier in JT-60U N. Oyama, A. Isayama, T. Suzuki, Y. Koide, H. Takenaga,
ISM Working Group 1 ITPA meeting 24 th March 2010 Modelling of JET, Tore Supra and Asdex Upgrade current ramp-up experiments F. Imbeaux, F. Köchl, D. Hogeweij,
MCZ Active MHD Control Needs in Helical Configurations M.C. Zarnstorff 1 Presented by E. Fredrickson 1 With thanks to A. Weller 2, J. Geiger 2,
Confinement & Transport Plan Classical theory of confinement and transport. o Diffusion equation Particle diffusion in a magnetic field.
Integrated Simulation of ELM Energy Loss Determined by Pedestal MHD and SOL Transport N. Hayashi, T. Takizuka, T. Ozeki, N. Aiba, N. Oyama JAEA Naka TH/4-2.
Association Euratom-Cea ITPA CDBM group meeting, St Petersburg, October CRONOS simulations of ITER AT scenarios F. Imbeaux, J.F. Artaud, V. Basiuk,
MHD Issues and Control in FIRE C. Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Workshop on Active Control of MHD Stability Austin, TX 11/3-5/2003.
20th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, 2004 Naka Fusion Research Establishment, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Stationary high confinement plasmas.
Advanced Tokamak Modeling for FIRE C. Kessel, PPPL NSO/PAC Meeting, University of Wisconsin, July 10-11, 2001.
ZHENG Guo-yao, FENG Kai-ming, SHENG Guang-zhao 1) Southwestern Institute of Physics, Chengdu Simulation of plasma parameters for HCSB-DEMO by 1.5D plasma.
1PAC37, non-inductive ramp-up, Francesca Poli, Jan Francesca Poli, Gary Taylor for the Integrated Scenarios science group ECH/EBWH Research Plans.
Simulation of Non-Solenoidal Current Rampup in NSTX C. E. Kessel and NSTX Team Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory APS-DPP Annual Meeting, Savannah, Georgia,
NSTX Meeting name – abbreviated presentation title, abbreviated author name (??/??/20??) Goals of NSTX Advanced Scenario and Control TSG Study, implement,
Integrated Plasma Simulations C. E. Kessel Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Workshop Toward an Integrated Plasma Simulation Oak Ridge, TN November 7-9,
1 ASIPP Sawtooth Stabilization by Barely Trapped Energetic Electrons Produced by ECRH Zhou Deng, Wang Shaojie, Zhang Cheng Institute of Plasma Physics,
Pedestal Characterization and Stability of Small-ELM Regimes in NSTX* A. Sontag 1, J. Canik 1, R. Maingi 1, J. Manickam 2, P. Snyder 3, R. Bell 2, S. Gerhardt.
Off-axis Current Drive and Current Profile Control in JT-60U T. Suzuki, S. Ide, T. Fujita, T. Oikawa, M. Ishikawa, G. Matsunaga, M. Takechi, M. Seki, O.
Lower Hybrid Wave Coupling and Current Drive Experiments in HT-7 Tokamak Weici Shen Jiafang Shan Handong Xu Min Jiang HT-7 Team Institute of Plasma Physics,
Long Pulse High Performance Plasma Scenario Development for NSTX C. Kessel and S. Kaye - providing TRANSP runs of specific discharges S.
1 J. Garcia ITPA-IOS meeting Kyoto October 2011 Association Euratom-CEA Free boundary simulations of the ITER hybrid and steady-state scenarios J.Garcia.
9-12 Sept. 2002E. BARBAT0-ENEA, TTF, Cordoba1 Electron Internal Transport barriers by LHCD and ECRH in FTU-high density plasmas E. Barbato Associazione.
11th IAEA Technical Meeting on H-mode Physics and Transport Barriers" , September, 2007 Tsukuba International Congress Center "EPOCHAL Tsukuba",
A.D. Turnbull, R. Buttery, M. Choi, L.L Lao, S. Smith, H. St John
Investigation of triggering mechanisms for internal transport barriers in Alcator C-Mod K. Zhurovich C. Fiore, D. Ernst, P. Bonoli, M. Greenwald, A. Hubbard,
Lower Ip Long Pulse L-mode and H-mode Advanced Scenarios
No ELM, Small ELM and Large ELM Strawman Scenarios
Presentation transcript:

Heating and current drive requirements towards Steady State operation in ITER Francesca Poli C. Kessel, P. Bonoli, D. Batchelor, B. Harvey Work supported by the US Department of Energy under DE-AC02-CH Acknowledgments R. Andre, M. Chance, J. Chen, M. Gorelenkova, S. Jardin, C. Ludescher-Furth, J. Manickam, D. McCune, Y. Petrov, T. Rafiq, X. Yuang

Steady state scenarios target plasmas with current reduced from 15MA to 9MA to minimize external current drive needs More than 50% of the current has to be driven by the bootstrap mechanism to get Q~5 at I P ~9 MA => will need H 98(y,2) ~1.6  improved core confinement with internal transport barriers (ITBs) normalized radius plasma pressure 01 L-mode H-mode Advanced mode pedestal Edge Transport Barrier (ETB) Internal Transport Barrier (ITB) Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 ITER will need to demonstrate continuous operation with 100% non-inductive current and fusion gain Q (P fus /P input )~5 large pressure gradients at ITBs are conducive to MHD instabilities that reduce the beta limits

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 H&CD sources must fulfill requirements for Will show that  a current distribution over  ~ better at sustaining ITBs  SS operation at low current can be demonstrated with the day-one heating mix  Case for LH upgrade more expanded ITBs, higher current and Q, MHD stability at larger  N Scenario simulation results depend on models and assumptions: particle transport (density profiles), energy transport, actuators, pedestal height  Will look for TRENDS within the same transport model What are the H&CD requirements towards ITER goal? Heating to H-mode/burn CD efficiency profile control MHD stability

Combining H&CD sources to control the q-profile NB: 1MeV negative ionson/off-axis  ~ current drive IC: 48MHzon-axis  <0.2 core heating EC: 170GHzoff-axis  ~ flexible deposition LH: 5GHz n || =2.15, P + =67%, P - =23%off-axis  ~ current drive TOTALNBICECLH / 7333/ / / IC FWCD EC ECCD LH LHCD NB NBCD Kessel et al, IAEA 2010 Power Levels, MW baseline upgrades Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20

Simulate the rampup and relaxation in flattop to self-consistently study the current drive and the MHD stability evolution Ramp-up phase RF heating to form reverse shear profiles Inductive rampup still important Flat-top phase 100% non-inductive current Radiated power keeps divertor loads within acceptable levels Time-dependent evolution from limited startup plasma to fully relaxed steady state (3000s), including plasma current/power/density rise phase Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 L-mode total

TSC ( free boundary ) TSC ( free boundary ) Discharge scenario T, n, (R,z) eq PF coil currents feedback system H&CD profiles NB : NUBEAM ICRH : TORIC ECRH: TORAY, GENRAY LH: GENRAY, (LSC) 2D Fokker Planck: CQL3D NB : NUBEAM ICRH : TORIC ECRH: TORAY, GENRAY LH: GENRAY, (LSC) 2D Fokker Planck: CQL3D Transport model Coppi-Tang, CDBM (GLF23, BgB, MMM) Transport model Coppi-Tang, CDBM (GLF23, BgB, MMM) JSOLVER (refines eq.) BALMSC (ballooning) PEST (kink) (NOVA-K) JSOLVER (refines eq.) BALMSC (ballooning) PEST (kink) (NOVA-K) Linear MHD stability Target plasma R=6.2, a=2.0,  =1.8,  ~0.45 n/n G >0.75 Time-dependent simulations evolve plasma equilibrium and H&CD source profiles consistently SWIM (fully consistent) TRANSP (analysis loop) SWIM (fully consistent) TRANSP (analysis loop) Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 Define an operational space where ITER steady state scenarios are ideal MHD stable Fix the transport model: H 98 =1.6 Assume sustained ITBs in H-mode Analyze ideal MHD stability of various heating mixes for up to 15% of pressure peaking factor and n<1.1n G

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 ITER steady state should operate with broad pressure profiles ♢ Broad profiles Peaked profiles n=1 unstable w/o wall NF 52 (2012) at low  N :ideal MHD stable for a wide range of pressure peaking factors at large  N :stability depends on pressure peaking factor 

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 High performance plasmas can be achieved only with baseline LHCD ♢ Broad profiles Peaked profiles n=1 unstable w/o wall NF 52 (2012) at low  N :ideal MHD stable for a wide range of pressure peaking factors at large  N :stability depends on pressure peaking factor 

Late flattop early flattop 33MW NB+40MWLH+20MWIC Transition from MHD stable to unstable observed as q min decreases below 2 during current profile relaxation Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 The H&CD sources should sustain plasmas with q min >2

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 How do we get there ? 1)Need a combination of H&CD sources that favors ITB formation 2)H&CD sources must sustain ITBs in the flattop phase in the MHD stable region Use experimental evidence that, in electron heating dominated plasmas ITBs form in core-reversed shear plasmas ITB foot set by  (q min ) Use transport model that responds to reverse shear CDBM (Current Diffusive Ballooning mode) [ Itoh et al, PPCF ] [Fukuyama et al, PPCF , PPCF ] [Hayashi, ITPA-IOS, April 2012]

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 Using RF heating in L-mode delays current penetration and favors formation of reverse shear profiles and ITB triggering IC EC LH EC LH IC EC deposition in the core =>magnetic shear reversed in the core higher central electron temperature t = 65s Baseline heating mix forms stronger ITBs in the electron channel

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 Core electron heating in the ramp-up phase for reverse shear formation and triggering of stronger ITBs IC EC LH EC LH IC Hollow temperature profiles form if EC deposition is moved outward t = 65s

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 Using RF core heating early in the ramp-up phase favors triggering of stronger ITBs The ITER baseline H&CD sources are adequate to trigger ITBs in L-mode and to sustain them in the ramp-up phase (… according to the CDBM model …)

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 Are the baseline H&CD sources adequate towards the steady state target? 1)Are the H&CD sources planned for ITER adequate To sustain reverse shear, ITBs and stationary current in the flattop? To maintain the plasma in the ideal MHD stable operational space? Yes => steady state operation at low current could be demonstrated with the baseline heating mix 2)Are the planned H&CD sources adequate to sustain 9MA and achieve Q~5? No => low current and low confinement 3)Would an upgrade improve plasma performance towards the ITER goals? Yes => simulations performed here indicate with baseline LHCD

EL/UL trade-off sustains RS and stationary ITBs for 3000s two configurations with 20MW of EC power: 2/3 of EC power to the EL, 1/3 to the UL all power to the UL more power to the EL => better in ramp-up more power to the UL => better in flattop larger bootstrap current, broader profiles not steady-state, OH power needed t=2500s Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 PoP 20 (2013) conf. #1conf. #2 n/n G I NI 4.9 MA  5.1 MA I EC 0.43 MA  0.25 MA I BS 2.3 MA  2.8 MA q min 1.74  1.97 H  1.2  N 1.25  1.49

Temperature and safety factor profiles stiff to EC steering Keep 1/3 of power to the EC and 2/3 to the UL in the flattop and scan the EC steering angle  temperature profiles are peaked  ECCD efficiency rapidly decreases when deposition moves outward  profiles are weakly affected by EC steering  real-time control needed to deposit EC inside ITB and progressively expand Day-one heating mix sustains ~6.4 MA non-inductively with EC deposition at mid-radius q min ~2 => stable (low  N ) H 98 ~ 1.3  N ~ 1.77 Q~1.6 Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 t=2500s

Combine EC and LH for broad pressure and bootstrap profiles replace IC with LH in the day-one heating mix configuration sustains 8MA, with 50% bootstrap q min >2 => MHD stable H 98 ~  N ~ 2.0 Q~ Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 33MW NB + 20MW EC + 20MW LH EC deposits inside ITB => steering more effective in modifying profiles. t=2500s EC alphas bootstrap LHNB LH

Combine EC and LH for broad pressure and bootstrap profiles replace IC with EC in the day-one heating mix configuration sustains 8MA, with 50% bootstrap q min >2 => MHD stable H 98 ~  N ~ 2.0 Q~ Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 33MW NB + 20MW EC + 20MW LH EC deposits inside ITB => steering more effective in modifying profiles. sustains 9MA if H 98 =1.6 EC alphas bootstrap LHNB LH

A (scenario simulation) path towards steady state operation Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 F  N H 89 /q 95 2 Reduces q 95 Set ITB foot at larger radii Stronger RS (this depends on EC steering) Replaced IC with LH in the baseline mix q 95 ~7.7 -> 6.0 H 98 ~1.3 -> 1.45F~0.1 -> 0.14  N ~1.77 -> 1.96 I NI ~6.5 -> 8.0 MA

A (scenario simulation) path towards steady state operation Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 F  N H 89 /q 95 2 Increase density: 0.85 n G -> n G bootstrap 50% => 55% H 98 ~ 1.54  N ~ 2.4 Q ~ 3.4 F ~ 0.17 but still 8MA Replaced IC with LH in the baseline mix q 95 ~7.7 -> 6.0 H 98 ~1.3 -> 1.45F~0.1 -> 0.14  N ~1.77 -> 1.96 I NI ~6.5 -> 8.0 MA

A (scenario simulation) path towards steady state operation Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 F  N H 89 /q 95 2 Replaced IC with LH in the baseline mix q 95 ~7.7 -> 6.0 H 98 ~1.3 -> 1.45F~0.1 -> 0.14  N ~1.77 -> 1.96 I NI ~6.5 -> 8.0 MA 20MW -> 30MW -> I NI ~8.0 -> 8.6 -> q 95 ~5.6 -> Q~4 No change in H 98 Increase LH power (and decrease EC power) Increase density: 0.85 n G -> n G bootstrap 50% => 55% H 98 ~ 1.54  N ~ 2.4 Q ~ 3.4 F ~ 0.17 but still 8MA

A (scenario simulation) path towards steady state operation Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 F  N H 89 /q 95 2 Increase LH power (and decrease EC power) 30MW -> 40MW -> I NI ~9.1MA -> q 95 ~5.3 -> Q~4 H 98 ~ > 1.44 P EC : 6.7 MW  13.4 MW Replaced IC with LH in the baseline mix q 95 ~7.7 -> 6.0 H 98 ~1.3 -> 1.45F~0.1 -> 0.14  N ~1.77 -> 1.96 I NI ~6.5 -> 8.0 MA Increase density: 0.85 n G -> n G bootstrap 50% => 55% H 98 ~ 1.54  N ~ 2.4 Q ~ 3.4 F ~ 0.17 but still 8MA 20MW -> 30MW -> I NI ~8.0 -> 8.6 -> q 95 ~5.6 -> Q~4 No change in H 98

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 with 6.7MW of ECwith 5MW of IC I NI ~9.1 MAI NI ~8.3 MA I EC ~148kAI FW ~43kA I BS ~5.0MAI BS ~4.25MA LHCD needed to set ITB foot at large radii (high CD efficiency + off-axis deposition) EC needed for current profile control at normalized radii of MW of LH sustain 9MA with 6.7MW of EC, but not with 5MW of IC

Conclusions Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, June /20 Within the applicability of our transport model (CDBM) The H&CD sources planned for ITER are adequate to trigger and sustain ITBs – day-one can sustain ~6.4MA for 3000s with ideal MHD stable ITBs – Baseline good candidate to demonstrate continuous operation at low current LHCD needed towards ITER goals – High CD efficiency sets ITB foot at large radii => higher bootstrap and confinement – 30-40MW of LH sustain ~ MA and Q~4 EC steering flexibility necessary for current profile control and optimization – EC steering more effective when combined with LH ITER steady state operation would benefit from a trade-off of all sources – 33MW of NB needed for current (2-3MA depending on the scenario) – IC + core EC to form strong ITBs in the ramp-up phase – Off-axis EC + LH to sustain expanded ITBs and weakly reversed core magnetic shear NEED, NEED and still NEED model benchmark and experimental validation to reduce uncertainties on ITER predictions

Francesca Poli20 th RFPPC, Sorrento, Italy, Jun /20 Flattening of the electron distribution function affects the LH absorption at low density in the ramp-up phase LSC: 1D, single launching position, modified spectrum GENRAY: 1D, poloidal distribution of rays CQL3D: 2D Fokker-Planck Plateau flattening of the distribution function affects deposition profiles at low density in the ramp-up phase  deeper LH deposition Correctly accounted for when including 2D Fokker-Planck calculations. t = 30s t = 95s