pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.31203 · v1 · pith:KBQP2N6Qnew · submitted 2026-06-30 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Nonlinear modeling of the scaling law for the m/n=3/2 error field penetration threshold

Q. Hu , N.C. Logan , J.-K. Park , C. Paz-Soldan , R. Nazikian , Q. Yu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 03:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords error field penetrationtwo-fluid modelingscaling lawplasma rotationtokamaknonlinear simulationthreshold threshold
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two-fluid modeling changes error field penetration threshold scalings and shows linear dependence on rotation frequency with a minimum near zero electron fluid frequency.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses nonlinear single-fluid and two-fluid simulations in the TM1 code to predict how the radial magnetic field threshold for n=2 error field penetration scales with density, temperature, viscous time, toroidal field, and natural frequency. Single-fluid results match analytical scalings in Rutherford and visco-resistive regimes, but two-fluid runs produce different coefficients, especially for rotation-related quantities, when the ratio of ExB to electron diamagnetic drift frequency is scanned from 0 to 10. Scans of plasma rotation show the threshold varies linearly with perpendicular rotation frequency and reaches a minimum when the electron fluid frequency is near zero. The two-fluid treatment also accounts for why experiments measure a finite threshold even at zero natural frequency, because the very small island and smooth bifurcation near that point are difficult to detect.

Core claim

Two-fluid modeling shows the EF threshold scaling coefficient on density decreases from 0.67 to 0.56, on temperature from 0.67 to 0.32, on viscous time around -0.45, and on toroidal field from -1.15 to -1 when ExB over electron diamagnetic drift frequency varies from 0 to 10; the threshold linearly depends on perpendicular rotation frequency with a minimum near zero electron fluid frequency, resolving the non-zero threshold at zero natural frequency.

What carries the argument

Nonlinear two-fluid simulation of error field penetration in the TM1 code, which tracks the radial magnetic field threshold at the plasma edge while scanning parameters and comparing to single-fluid results.

If this is right

  • The penetration threshold scales linearly with the perpendicular rotation frequency.
  • A minimum required field amplitude occurs when the electron fluid frequency is near zero.
  • The small island size near zero natural frequency makes the transition hard to detect, producing an apparently finite threshold in measurements.
  • Density and temperature scalings weaken under two-fluid conditions relative to single-fluid predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Control systems that aim to avoid error field penetration may need separate thresholds for different rotation regimes rather than a single power-law formula.
  • The linear dependence on rotation frequency suggests that small changes in plasma flow could be used to raise or lower the effective threshold in experiments.
  • If the undetected small-island regime is confirmed, diagnostic improvements that resolve very small islands would be required to test the zero-frequency limit directly.

Load-bearing premise

The TM1 code's two-fluid implementation and the single-fluid versus two-fluid comparison capture the dominant physics of error field penetration without missing kinetic or neoclassical effects that would change the reported scalings.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures the error field penetration threshold scaling with temperature across a range of rotation frequencies and finds the exponent differs from the two-fluid value of 0.32 while matching the single-fluid value of 0.67.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.31203 by C. Paz-Soldan, J.-K. Park, N.C. Logan, Q. Hu, Q. Yu, R. Nazikian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Equilibrium profiles of (a) safety factor q, (b) E×B rotation frequency ωE, (c) electron density ne and (d) temperature Te from DIII-D L-mode discharge #171672 are used for modeling. The location of q = 3/2 rational surface is indicated by the dotted lines. 3.1. Single-fluid scaling of EF threshold The coupled two-fluid equations (3)-(7) reduce to the single-fluid MHD equations if Ω = 0 is taken in Ohm’s l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: m/n = 3/2 EF penetration case. TM1 simulated (a) island width W3/2, (b) rotation frequency ωq=3/2 and (c) phase difference ∆Φ = Φ − Φ0 between the plasma response field (Φ) and vacuum field (Φ0) versus normalized radial magnetic perturbation br/Bt. Time evolution of (d) W3/2, (e) ωq=3/2 and (f) ∆Φ around the bifurcation from screening (blue) to penetration (red), the RMP strength corresponds to blue and re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: TM1 single-fluid simulation of m/n = 3/2 EF penetration threshold versus electron density at q = 3/2 surface ne,q=3/2. A least-squares fitting (red curve) for the numerical results indicates a density scaling of br/Bt ∝ n0 e .56±0.03. The analytical scaling on density from the visco-resistive regime (Equation (1), black dotted curve) and Rutherford regime (Equation (2), purple solid curve) are shown for co… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TM1 single-fluid simulation of m/n = 3/2 EF penetration threshold versus temperature at q = 3/2 surface Te,q=3/2. A least-squares fitting (red curve) for the numerical results indicates a temperature scaling of br/Bt ∝ Te 0.6±0.02. The analytical scaling on temperature from the visco-resistive regime (Equation (1), black dotted curve) and Rutherford regime (Equation (2), purple solid curve) are shown for c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: TM1 single-fluid simulation of m/n = 3/2 EF penetration threshold versus plasma viscosity µ. A least￾squares fitting (red curve) for the numerical results indicates a viscosity scaling of br/Bt ∝ µ0.59±0.01. The analytical scaling on viscosity from the visco-resistive regime (Equation (1), black dotted curve) and Rutherford regime (Equation (2), purple solid curve) are shown for comparison. The dependence … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TM1 single-fluid simulation of m/n = 3/2 EF penetration threshold versus toroidal field Bt. A least-squares fitting (red curve) for the numerical results indicates a toroidal field scaling of br/Bt ∝ Bt −1.15±0.05. The dependence of EF threshold on toroidal field is modeled by scanning Bt from 1 T to 5.5 T as shown in figure 6, while the parameters (ωE, ne, Te and µ) are kept unchanged. This scanning cover… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of TM1 single-fluid (blue) and two-fluid simulations of m/n = 3/2 EF penetration threshold versus ne,q=3/2 for ωE = ω∗e (red) and ωE = −0.5ω∗e (black). A least-squares fitting for the numerical results indicates a stronger density scaling of and for ωE = −0.5ω∗e compared to single-fluid scaling. The dependence of the EF threshold on density is studied by TM1 two-fluid modeling with ωE = ω∗e and … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: TM1 two-fluid simulation of the scaling coefficients (a) αn on density, (b) αT on temperature, (c) αµ on viscosity and (d) αB on toroidal field are shown as a function of the ratio between ωE and ω∗e. Here, α from single￾fluid modeling is shown in black dotted line for comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) TM1 two-fluid simulation of m/n = 3/2 EF penetration threshold versus plasma rotation represented by the contour plot of the saturated island width W3/2 versus br/Bt and ωE/ω∗e. The penetration threshold is shown by the white curve, which shows a linear dependence of the penetration threshold on rotation. (b) TM1 two-fluid simulated island width W3/2 and phase difference ∆Φ versus EF amplitude br for … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effect of transport coefficients on EF scaling. Comparison of m/n = 3/2 EF penetration threshold versus ne,q=3/2 for ωE = ω∗e (red) with different transport coefficients of µ = χ⊥ = 2D⊥ = 0.25 m2/s in red, µ = χ⊥ = 2D⊥ = 0.5 m2/s in blue and µ = χ⊥ = 2D⊥ = 1 m2/s in balck. A least-squares fitting for the numerical results indicates a very similar density scaling. It is reasonable to expect non-constant sc… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The scaling law for the n=2 error field (EF) penetration threshold is predicted numerically based on nonlinear single-fluid and two-fluid modeling using the TM1 code. The simulated penetration threshold of radial magnetic field br at the plasma edge is scaled to the electron density ne, temperature Te, viscous time, toroidal field Bt and the natural frequency by scanning these parameters separately. Single fluid modeling shows that the EF threshold scaling is similar with the analytical scaling law in both the Rutherford and visco-resistive regimes. However, two-fluid modeling shows that the scaling law differs significantly in particular regarding the dependence on plasma rotation. In detail, the scaling coefficient on density decreases from 0.67 to 0.56 and on temperature decreases from 0.67 to 0.32, while on viscous time is around -0.45 and on toroidal field decreases slightly from -1.15 to -1, when the ratio ExB over electron diamagnetic drift frequency varies from 0 to 10. Scans of the plasma rotation reveals that the penetration threshold linearly depends on the perpendicular rotation frequency (or natural frequency), and there is a minimum in the required field amplitude when electron fluid frequency near 0. In addition, the enduring mystery of non-zero penetration threshold at zero plasma natural frequency in EF experiments is resolved by two-fluid simulations. We find that the very small island and smooth bifurcation in EF penetration near zero frequency is hard to detect in the experiment, leading to a finite penetration threshold within the capability of the experimental measurements.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that nonlinear single-fluid and two-fluid modeling with the TM1 code reproduces the scaling law for the m/n=3/2 error-field penetration threshold. Single-fluid results match Rutherford and visco-resistive analytic scalings, while two-fluid runs yield modified exponents (density 0.67→0.56, temperature 0.67→0.32, viscous time ≈−0.45, toroidal field −1.15→−1) as ExB/ω*e varies from 0 to 10; the threshold is reported to depend linearly on perpendicular rotation frequency with a minimum near zero electron fluid frequency, thereby explaining the experimental non-zero threshold at zero natural frequency via an undetectable small-island bifurcation.

Significance. If the reported two-fluid scalings and zero-frequency minimum are robust, the work supplies a concrete numerical explanation for the long-standing mismatch between single-fluid theory and EF experiments, with direct implications for ITER error-field tolerance and rotation control.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / results] Abstract and results section: the central claim that two-fluid modeling produces the quoted exponent shifts (ne: 0.67→0.56, Te: 0.67→0.32, etc.) and resolves the zero-frequency threshold rests on unshown simulation details; no error bars, no convergence checks, and no explicit numerical definition of the penetration threshold (e.g., island width or mode amplitude criterion) are provided.
  2. [Two-fluid modeling results] Two-fluid modeling paragraph: the reported linear dependence on perpendicular rotation and the minimum near zero electron fluid frequency are obtained from direct parameter scans; the manuscript does not demonstrate that these scalings survive changes in grid resolution, time-stepping, or two-fluid closure parameters, leaving the load-bearing numerical result without quantified uncertainty.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion of experimental resolution: the assertion that the small-island bifurcation is “hard to detect” and therefore explains the finite experimental threshold is plausible but requires a quantitative estimate of the island size at the reported minimum and a direct comparison to the diagnostic resolution cited in the experiments.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation: the ratio “ExB over electron diamagnetic drift frequency” should be written with an explicit symbol (e.g., ω_E×B / ω*_e) and defined once in the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the numerical foundations of our results. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details on simulation methodology, robustness checks, and experimental comparison.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / results] Abstract and results section: the central claim that two-fluid modeling produces the quoted exponent shifts (ne: 0.67→0.56, Te: 0.67→0.32, etc.) and resolves the zero-frequency threshold rests on unshown simulation details; no error bars, no convergence checks, and no explicit numerical definition of the penetration threshold (e.g., island width or mode amplitude criterion) are provided.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit definition of the penetration threshold and supporting numerical details strengthen the presentation. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the methods section stating that the threshold is identified when the saturated island width exceeds 0.05 a (where a is the minor radius) or equivalently when the perturbed radial field at the rational surface reaches a normalized amplitude of 2×10^{-4}. We have also included error bars derived from repeated scans with small random perturbations in initial conditions and a brief convergence study (grid resolution doubled in both radial and poloidal directions) confirming that the reported exponents change by less than 5%. These additions appear in the results section and a new appendix. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Two-fluid modeling results] Two-fluid modeling paragraph: the reported linear dependence on perpendicular rotation and the minimum near zero electron fluid frequency are obtained from direct parameter scans; the manuscript does not demonstrate that these scalings survive changes in grid resolution, time-stepping, or two-fluid closure parameters, leaving the load-bearing numerical result without quantified uncertainty.

    Authors: The referee is correct that explicit robustness tests were not shown. We have performed additional two-fluid runs at 1.5× and 2× the baseline grid resolution, with halved time steps, and with the electron inertia and gyro-viscous terms varied by ±20%. The linear dependence of threshold on perpendicular rotation frequency and the location of the minimum near zero electron fluid frequency remain unchanged within the reported uncertainties. These verification results are now summarized in the text and displayed in a supplementary figure. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion of experimental resolution: the assertion that the small-island bifurcation is “hard to detect” and therefore explains the finite experimental threshold is plausible but requires a quantitative estimate of the island size at the reported minimum and a direct comparison to the diagnostic resolution cited in the experiments.

    Authors: We accept that a quantitative link to experimental diagnostics improves the discussion. From the two-fluid scans we extract an island width of approximately 1.2 cm at the minimum threshold (corresponding to a perturbed field of ~0.3 G at the edge). This is compared in the revised text to the magnetic probe sensitivity and Mirnov coil resolution limits reported in the cited DIII-D and EAST experiments (typically 0.1–0.5 G for n=2 modes). The comparison supports the claim that the bifurcation lies below routine detection thresholds, although we note that dedicated high-resolution diagnostics could in principle resolve it. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: scalings obtained via direct parameter scans in TM1

full rationale

The paper obtains its reported scaling coefficients (e.g., ne: 0.67→0.56, Te: 0.67→0.32) and the linear dependence on perpendicular rotation frequency through separate parameter scans in the TM1 code for single-fluid and two-fluid cases. Single-fluid results are stated to match existing Rutherford and visco-resistive analytics; two-fluid deviations are direct outputs of those scans when ExB/ω*e is varied. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no load-bearing self-citations are invoked to justify uniqueness or ansatzes, and the resolution of the zero-frequency threshold is an interpretive consequence of the simulated small-island bifurcation rather than a definitional tautology. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the simulation outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the TM1 code's fluid model and the chosen scan ranges are sufficient to extract the reported exponents; no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The TM1 code correctly implements single-fluid and two-fluid resistive MHD for error-field penetration
    Invoked when the abstract states that single-fluid results match analytical scalings and two-fluid results differ.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5833 in / 1404 out tokens · 35103 ms · 2026-07-01T03:31:56.675702+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T ., Haye R

    Scoville J. T ., Haye R. J. L., Kellman A. G., Osborne T . H., Stambaugh R. D., Strait E. J. and Taylor T . S. 1991 Nucl. Fusion 31 875 https:// doi.org/10.1088%2F0029-5515%2F31%2F5%2F006

    1991

  2. [2]

    C., Fitzpatrick R., Morris A

    Hender T . C., Fitzpatrick R., Morris A. W., Carolan P . G., Durst R. D., Edlington T ., Ferreira J., Fielding, S.J., Haynes P . S., Hugill J., Jenkins I. J., Haye R. J. L., Parham B. J., Robinson D. C., Todd T . N., Valovic M. and Vayakis G. 1992 Nucl. Fusion 32 2091 http://stacks.iop.org/ 0029-5515/32/i=12/a=I02

    1992

  3. [3]

    Fusion 39 2251 http: //stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/39/i=12/a=303

    ITER Physics Expert Group on Disruptions, Plasma Control, and MHD and ITER Physics Basis Editors 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 2251 http: //stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/39/i=12/a=303

    1999

  4. [4]

    1998 Phys

    Fitzpatrick R. 1998 Phys. Plasmas 5 3325 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.873000

    work page doi:10.1063/1.873000 1998

  5. [5]

    and Callen J

    Chang Z. and Callen J. D. 1990 Nucl. Fusion 30 219 http://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/30/i= 2/a=003

    1990

  6. [6]

    Fishpool G. M. and Haynes P . S. 1994 Nucl. Fusion 34 109 https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F0029- 5515%2F34%2F1%2Fi08 REFERENCES 17

    1994

  7. [7]

    J., Benedetti M

    Buttery R. J., Benedetti M. D., Gates D. A., Gribov Y., Hender T . C., Haye R. J. L., Leahy P ., J.A. Leuer, Morris A. W., Santagiustina A., Scoville J. T ., Tubbing B. J. D., the JET Team, the COMPASS-D Research Team and the DIII-D Team 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 1827 http://stacks.iop. org/0029-5515/39/i=11Y/a=323

    1999

  8. [8]

    J., Benedetti M

    Buttery R. J., Benedetti M. D., Hender T . C. and Tubbing B. J. D. 2000 Nucl. Fusion 40 807 http: //stacks.iop.org/0029- 5515/40/i=4/a=306

    2000

  9. [9]

    J., Fitzpatrick R., Hender T

    La Haye R. J., Fitzpatrick R., Hender T . C., Morris A. W., Scoville J. T . and Todd T . N. 1992 Phys. Fluids B 4 2098 https://aip.scitation.org/ doi/10.1063/1.860017

    work page doi:10.1063/1.860017 1992

  10. [10]

    M., Hutchinson I

    Wolfe S. M., Hutchinson I. H., Granetz R. S., Rice J., Hubbard A., Lynn A., Phillips P ., Hender T . C., Howell D. F ., La Haye R. J. and Scoville J. T . 2005 Phys. Plasmas 12 056110 https: //aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1883665

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1883665 2005

  11. [11]

    C., Biel W., Bock M

    Wolf R. C., Biel W., Bock M. F . M. d., Finken K. H., Gu¨nter S., Hogeweij G. M. D., Jachmich S., Jakubowski M. W., Jaspers R. J. E., Kr¨amerFlecken A., Koslowski H. R., Lehnen M., Liang Y., Unterberg B., Varshney S. K., Hellermann M. v., Yu Q., Zimmermann O., Abdullaev S. S., Donn´e A. J. H., Samm U., Schweer B., Tokar M., Westerhof E. and the TEXTOR Tea...

    2005

  12. [12]

    H., Abdullaev S

    Finken K. H., Abdullaev S. S., de Bock M. F . M., von Hellermann M., Jakubowski M., Jaspers R., Koslowski H. R., Kr¨amer-Flecken A., Lehnen M., Liang Y., Nicolai A., Wolf R. C., Zimmermann O., de Baar M., Bertschinger G., Biel W., Brezinsek S., Busch C., Donn´e A. J. H., Esser H. G., Farshi E., Gerhauser H., Giesen B., Harting D., Hoekzema J. A., Hogeweij...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.015003 2005

  13. [13]

    R., Liang Y., Kr¨amer -Flecken A., L¨owenbru¨ck K., Hellermann M

    Koslowski H. R., Liang Y., Kr¨amer -Flecken A., L¨owenbru¨ck K., Hellermann M. v., Westerhof E., Wolf R. C., O. Zimmermann and team t. T . 2006 Nucl. Fusion 46 L1 http://stacks.iop.org/ 0029-5515/46/i=8/a=L01

    2006

  14. [14]

    F ., Hender T

    Howell D. F ., Hender T . C. and Cunningham G. 2007 Nucl. Fusion 47 1336 https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0029-5515%2F47%2F9%2F034

    2007

  15. [15]

    Bock M. F . M. D., Classen I. G. J., Busch C., Jaspers R. J. E., Koslowski H. R., Unterberg B. and the TEXTOR Team 2008 Nucl. Fusion 48 015007 http://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/48/ i=1/a=015007

    2008

  16. [16]

    E., Bell R

    Menard J. E., Bell R. E., Gates D. A., Gerhardt S. P ., Park J.-K., Sabbagh S. A., Berkery J. W., Egan A., Kallman J., Kaye S. M., LeBlanc B., Liu Y. Q., Sontag A., Swanson D., Yuh H. and Zhu W. 2010 Nucl. Fusion 50 045008 https://doi.org/ 10.1088%2F0029-5515%2F50%2F4%2F045008

    2010

  17. [17]

    E., Gerhardt S

    Park J.-K., Menard J. E., Gerhardt S. P ., Buttery R. J., Sabbagh S. A., Bell R. E. and LeBlanc B. P . 2012 Nucl. Fusion 52 023004 https://doi.org/ 10.1088%2F0029-5515%2F52%2F2%2F023004

    2012

  18. [18]

    and the J-TEXT Team 2014 Nucl

    Wang N., Rao B., Hu Q., Ding Y., Chen Z., Gao L., Jin W., Yi B., Zeng W., Li Q., Liu Y., Xu H., Zhuang G., Pan Y. and the J-TEXT Team 2014 Nucl. Fusion 54 064014 http://stacks. iop.org/0029-5515/54/i=6/a=064014

    2014

  19. [19]

    J., Olofsson K

    Lanctot M. J., Olofsson K. E. J., Capella M., Humphreys D. A., Eidietis N., Hanson J. M., PazSoldan C., Strait E. J. and Walker M. L. 2016 Nucl. Fusion 56 076003 http://stacks.iop. org/0029-5515/56/i=7/a=076003

    2016

  20. [20]

    J., Park J.-K., Piovesan P ., Sun Y., Buttery R

    Lanctot M. J., Park J.-K., Piovesan P ., Sun Y., Buttery R. J., Frassinetti L., Grierson B. A., Hanson J. M., Haskey S. R., In Y., Jeon Y. M., La Haye R. J., Logan N. C., Marrelli L., Orlov D. M., Paz-Soldan C., Wang H. H. and Strait E. J. 2017 Phys. Plasmas 24 056117 https:// aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4982688

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4982688 2017

  21. [21]

    and Contributors E

    Wang H., Sun Y., Shi T ., Zang Q., Liu Y., Yang X., Gu S., He K., Xiang Gu, Qian J., Shen B., Luo Z., Chu N., Jia M., Sheng Z., Liu H., Gong, Xianzu, Wan B. and Contributors E. 2018 Nucl. Fusion 58 056024 http://stacks.iop.org/0029- 5515/58/ i=5/a=056024

    2018

  22. [22]

    J., Hender T

    Lazzaro E., Buttery R. J., Hender T . C., Zanca P ., Fitzpatrick R., Bigi M., Bolzonella T ., Coelho R., DeBenedetti M., Nowak S., Sauter O. and Stamp M. 2002 Phys. Plasmas 9 3906 https: //aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1499495

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1499495 2002

  23. [23]

    P ., Hender T

    Liu Y., Kirk A., Gribov Y., Gryaznevich M. P ., Hender T . C. and Nardon E. 2011 Nucl. Fusion 51 083002 http://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/51/ i=8/a=083002

    2011

  24. [25]

    Becoulet M., Orain F ., Maget P ., Mellet N., Garbet X., Nardon E., Huysmans G. T . A., Casper T ., Loarte A., P . Cahyna, Smolyakov A., Waelbroeck F . L., Schaffer M., Evans T ., Liang Y., Schmitz O., Beurskens M., V. Rozhansky and Kaveeva E. 2012 Nucl. Fusion 52 054003 http://stacks. iop.org/0029-5515/52/i=5/a=054003

    2012

  25. [26]

    C., Park J

    Logan N. C., Park J. -K., Hu Q. M., Paz -Soldan C., Markoviˇc T ., Wang H. H., In Y., Piron L., Piovesan P ., Myers C., Maraschek M., Strait E. J. and Munaretto S. 2020 Scaling of the n = 2 Error Field Threshold in Tokamaks (submitted) Nucl. Fusion

    2020

  26. [27]

    and Waltz R

    Pfeiffer W. and Waltz R. E. 1979 Nucl. Fusion 19 51 https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0029-5515% 2F19%2F1%2F006

    1979

  27. [28]

    2012 Plasma Phys

    Fitzpatrick R. 2012 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 54 094002 https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F0741- 3335%2F54%2F9%2F094002

    2012

  28. [29]

    and Fitzpatrick R

    Cole A. and Fitzpatrick R. 2006 Phys. Plasmas 13 032503 https://aip.scitation.org/ doi/10.1063/1.2178167

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2178167 2006

  29. [30]

    J., Hegna C

    Cole A. J., Hegna C. C. and Callen J. D. 2008 Phys. Plasmas 15 056102 https://aip.scitation. org/doi/10.1063/1.2838241

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2838241 2008

  30. [31]

    and Finken K

    Yu Q., Gu¨nter S., Kikuchi Y. and Finken K. H. 2008 Nucl. Fusion 48 024007 http://stacks. iop.org/0029- 5515/48/i=2/a=024007

    2008

  31. [32]

    Ryutov D. D. 2018 Phys. Plasmas 25 100501 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1. 5042254

    work page doi:10.1063/1 2018

  32. [33]

    D., Remington B

    Ryutov D. D., Remington B. A., Robey H. F. and Drake R. P . 2001 Phys. Plasmas 8 1804–1816 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/ 10.1063/1.1344562

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1344562 2001

  33. [34]

    D., Kugland N

    Ryutov D. D., Kugland N. L., Park H. S., Plechaty C., Remington B. A. and Ross J. S. 2012 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 54 105021 https://doi. org/10.1088%2F0741-3335%2F54%2F10%2F105021

    2012

  34. [35]

    and Verboncoeur J

    Fu Y. and Verboncoeur J. P . 2019 IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 47 1994–2003

    2019

  35. [36]

    and Gu¨nter S

    Yu Q. and Gu¨nter S. 2009 Nucl. Fusion 49 062001 http://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/49/ i=6/a=062001

    2009

  36. [37]

    D., Kotschenreuther M

    Hazeltine R. D., Kotschenreuther M. and Morrison P . J. 1985 Phys. Fluids 28 2466 https: //aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.865255

    work page doi:10.1063/1.865255 1985

  37. [38]

    2010 Nucl

    Yu Q. 2010 Nucl. Fusion 50 025014 http:// stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/50/i=2/a=025014

    2010

  38. [39]

    and Gu¨nter S

    Yu Q. and Gu¨nter S. 2011 Nucl. Fusion 51 073030 http://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/51/ i=7/a=073030

    2011

  39. [40]

    and Lackner K

    Yu Q., Gu¨nter S. and Lackner K. 2003 Phys. Plasmas 11 140–150 https://aip.scitation.org/ doi/abs/10.1063/1.1629125

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1629125 2003

  40. [41]

    and Gu¨nter S

    Yu Q. and Gu¨nter S. 2008 Nucl. Fusion 48 065004 http://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/48/ i=6/a=065004

    2008

  41. [42]

    C., Kolemen E., Nazikian R

    Hu Q., Du X., Yu Q., Logan N. C., Kolemen E., Nazikian R. and Jiang Z. H. 2019 Nucl. Fusion 59 016005 http://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/59/ i=1/a=016005

    2019

  42. [43]

    M., Nazikian R., Grierson B

    Hu Q. M., Nazikian R., Grierson B. A., Logan N. C., Park J.-K., Paz-Soldan C. and Yu Q. 2019 Phys. Plasmas 26 120702 https://aip. scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5134767

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5134767 2019

  43. [44]

    and the J -TEXT Team 2012 Nucl

    Hu Q., Yu Q., Rao B., Ding Y., Hu X., Zhuang G. and the J -TEXT Team 2012 Nucl. Fusion 52 083011 http://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/52/ i=8/a=083011

    2012

  44. [45]

    and the J-TEXT Team 2014 Nucl

    Hu Q., Yu Q., Wang N., Shi P ., Yi B., Ding Y., Rao B., Chen Z., Gao L., Hu X., Jin H., Li M., Li J., Yu K., Zhuang G. and the J-TEXT Team 2014 Nucl. Fusion 54 122006 http://stacks. iop.org/0029-5515/54/i=12/a=122006

    2014

  45. [46]

    and Lackner K

    Gu¨nter S., Yu Q., Kru¨ger J. and Lackner K. 2005 J. Comput. Phys. 209 354 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0021999105001373

    2005

  46. [47]

    and Yuan X

    Breslau J., Gorelenkova M., Poli F ., Sachdev J. and Yuan X. TRANSP , Computer Software, US DOE Office of Science, Fusion Energy Sciences(SC-24), 27 June 2018. DOI:10.11578/dc.20180627.4

    work page doi:10.11578/dc.20180627.4 2018

  47. [48]

    2012 Phys

    Stoltzfus-Dueck T . 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 065002 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.108.065002

    2012

  48. [49]

    A., Battaglia D

    Ashourvan A., Grierson B. A., Battaglia D. J., Haskey S. R. and Stoltzfus -Dueck T . 2018 Phys. Plasmas 25 056114 https://aip.scitation. org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5018326

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5018326 2018

  49. [50]

    and Finken K

    Yu Q., Gu¨nter S. and Finken K. H. 2009 Phys. Plasmas 16 042301 https://aip.scitation.org/ doi/10.1063/1.3100236

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3100236 2009

  50. [51]

    Tobias B., Chen M., Classen I. G. J., Domier C. W., Fitzpatrick R., Grierson B. A., Luhmann N. C., Muscatello C. M., Okabayashi M., Olofsson K. E. J. and Paz -Soldan C. 2016 Phys. Plasmas 23 056107 https://aip.scitation.org/ doi/abs/10.1063/1.4946026 REFERENCES 19

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4946026 2016

  51. [52]

    -k., Boozer A

    Park J. -k., Boozer A. H. and Glasser A. H. 2007 Phys. Plasmas 14 052110 https://aip. scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2732170

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2732170 2007

  52. [53]

    Park and N

    Park J.-K. and Logan N. C. 2017 Phys. Plasmas 24 032505 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/ 10.1063/1.4977898

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4977898 2017

  53. [54]

    A., Logan N., Paz -Soldan C

    Hu Q., Nazikian R., Grierson B. A., Logan N., Paz -Soldan C. and Yu Q. 2020 Nucl. Fusion in press http://iopscience.iop.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab8545

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ab8545 2020

  54. [55]

    and Wade M

    Nazikian R., Paz-Soldan C., Callen J., deGrassie J., Eldon D., Evans T ., Ferraro N., Grierson B., Groebner R., Haskey S., Hegna C., King J., LoganN., McKee G., Moyer R., Okabayashi M., Orlov D., Osborne T ., Park J.-K., Rhodes T ., Shafer M., Snyder P ., Solomon W., Strait E. and Wade M. 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 105002 https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.105002 2015

  55. [56]

    and Tobias B

    Paz-Soldan C., Nazikian R., Haskey S., Logan N., Strait E., Ferraro N., Hanson J., King J., Lanctot M., Moyer R., Okabayashi M., Park J.K., Shafer M. and Tobias B. 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 105001 https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.105001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.105001 2015

  56. [57]

    2020 Phys

    Fitzpatrick R. 2020 Phys. Plasmas 27 042506 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10. 1063/5.0003117

    2020

  57. [58]

    C., Orlov D

    Paz-Soldan C., Nazikian R., Cui L., Lyons B. C., Orlov D. M., Kirk A., Logan N. C., Osborne T . H., Suttrop W. and Weisberg D. B. 2019 Nucl.Fusion 59 056012 https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F1741-4326%2Fab04c0

    2019

  58. [59]

    M., Meyer H., Nazikian R., C

    Suttrop W., Kirk A., Bobkov V., Cavedon M., Dunne M., McDermott R. M., Meyer H., Nazikian R., C. Paz-Soldan, Ryan D. A., Viezzer E., Willensdorfer M., Upgrade T . A. and Teams M. 2018 Nucl. Fusion 58 096031 http://stacks.iop. org/0029-5515/58/i=9/a=096031

    2018