Prevention of resistive wall tearing mode major disruptions with feedback

H. R. Strauss

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Prevention of resistive wall tearing mode major disruptions with feedback

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Resistive wall tearing modes produce major tokamak disruptions only when the q=2 rational surface lies beyond rho=0.75, and feedback or wall rotation can emulate an ideal wall, reducing such events to minor disruptions.

desk verdict A useful extension of Strauss's RWTM program, but the paper's own two models do not agree on the key rho_w=1.2 threshold, so the headline criterion is softer than it looks. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13256 v2 pith:4PDOJLHY submitted 2024-11-20 physics.plasm-ph

H. R. Strauss This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.35.Py52.55.Fa

keywords resistivewalltearingmodetokamakdisruptionq75criterionfeedbackstabilizationrotatingidealMHDsimulation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Resistive wall tearing modes are a class of tokamak instability in which a tearing-mode perturbation penetrates a resistive wall. This paper claims they cause major disruptions only when the q=2 rational surface is close enough to the wall — quantitatively, when the safety factor at normalized radius 0.75 is below 2 ($q_{75}<2$, equivalently $\rho_{q2}>0.75$). The claim is supported by low- and high-$\beta$ simulations, by the DIII-D locked-mode disruption database, and by NSTX observations of feedback-stabilized modes with $\rho_{q2}\approx0.75$. If correct, the same physics says that an ideal wall, active magnetic feedback, or wall rotation prevents the major disruption and leaves only a minor one. That points to a practical path for avoiding a large class of tokamak disruptions without relying on mitigation systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $q_{75}$ criterion: the location of the $q=2$ rational surface relative to the resistive wall, parameterized by $\rho_{q2}/\rho_w$ (or $q_{75}=q(0.75)$). The paper analyzes the threshold with a periodic-cylinder ideal-MHD model of the perturbed flux $\psi$ for a $(2,1)$ mode, computing the tearing stability index $\Delta'$ under ideal-wall and no-wall boundary conditions; a RWTM is unstable between the two marginal curves, and for $\rho_w=1.2$ the onset is $\rho_{q2}=0.75$. A companion geometric model represents the mode's magnetic lobes as chords on the rational surface and gives $\rho_w/\rho_{q2}\le 1+2\sin(\pi/(4m))$, which is only weakly dependent on wall distance and implies feedback fails for $\rho_w\gtrsim1.5$. Feedback and rotating-wall effects are carried by a thin-wall magnetic diffusion equation for the wall flux $\psi_w$ with complex feedback gain and a wall-rotation term.

What would settle it

Compile a multi-machine database of locked-mode disruptions with measured equilibria and wall positions: any major disruption locked with $\rho_{q2}<0.75$ (i.e. $q_{75}>2$) would violate the criterion, as would a feedback-stabilized discharge with $q_{75}<2$ that still suffers a major disruption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that resistive wall tearing modes (RWTMs) grow to major-disruption amplitude only when the rational surface of the $(m,n)=(2,1)$ mode is close enough to the wall, expressed as $\rho_{q2}>0.75$, equivalently $q_{75}<2$. This is presented as a criterion that holds at low and high $\beta$ and is visible in a DIII-D locked-mode disruption database whose onset sits at $\rho_{q2}=0.75$. The paper further asserts that a resistive wall without feedback or rotation permits a major disruption, while an ideal wall, feedback, or a rotating-wall boundary condition makes the mode saturate as a small-amplitude tearing mode producing only a minor disruption. The assertion is backed by nonlinear simulations of modified MST and NSTX equilibria and by NSTX feedback experiments showing a phase inversion at $\rho_{q2}\approx0.75$, and it is analyzed with a linear ideal-MHD model and a geometric wall-interaction model.

Load-bearing premise

The threshold $\rho_{q2}=0.75$ comes from a periodic-cylinder model using a specific current-profile family and a normalized wall radius $\rho_w=1.2$ for DIII-D, NSTX, and the MST model; if the real wall radii or current profiles differ, the onset shifts, and the feedback simulations additionally assume a thin wall with screening functions equal to unity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, resistive-wall tokamaks can downgrade RWTM events from major to minor disruptions by applying feedback or mode rotation at the wall.
The $q_{75}<2$ condition identifies dangerous locked-mode states; nearly all DIII-D locked-mode disruptions sit at $\rho_{q2}>0.75$.
A wall farther than about $\rho_w=1.5$ cannot interact with the mode, so feedback stabilization of RWTMs is then not possible.
At high beta, where RWTMs coexist with resistive wall modes, the same feedback approach should protect against major disruptions in devices like NSTX.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Inference: The $q_{75}$ value could be tracked in real time from equilibrium reconstructions as an early trigger for feedback or mitigation, but the paper does not demonstrate this operational use.
Inference: The geometric criterion $\rho_w/\rho_{q2}\le 1+2\sin(\pi/(4m))$ implies that higher poloidal mode numbers require the rational surface to be even closer to the wall, which the paper sketches only for $m=3$.
Inference: If the feedback model's screening functions $D=F=1$ are replaced by realistic sensor maps, the effective stability margin may be smaller; the paper leaves that for future numerical studies.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here is my read on the Strauss RWTM feedback paper. The genuinely new content is the M3D demonstration that an ideal wall, feedback, and wall rotation all convert a resistive-wall major disruption into a minor one, plus the single-lobe geometric criterion in Eq. (4). The q75<2 threshold itself is not new; it appeared in the author's prior papers [5,6]. So this is an extension of an established program, not a breakthrough.

What the paper does well: the boundary-condition comparison is clean and consistent across two cases, one low-beta MST-like and one high-beta NSTX-like. The idea that feedback or rotation can emulate an ideal wall is physically plausible and worth testing. The linear cylindrical model in Sec.7 is explicit enough to reproduce. And the comparison to the DIII-D locked-mode database gives an external anchor.

The soft spots are real, though. The stress-test note identifies a genuine internal tension: the linear model gives rho_q2=0.75 for rho_w=1.2, while the geometric model Eq.(4) gives rho_q2 >= 0.68 for the same wall radius. The paper says the two curves intersect at rho_q2=0.85 for rho_w=1.5, not at the operational point. That is not good agreement at rho_w=1.2; it is a discrepancy that undermines the universality of the q75=2 threshold.

Second, rho_w=1.2 is asserted, not measured or cited. The paper says it is "as in DIII-D, NSTX, and the MST model," but no wall-radius data is given. The threshold shifts to about 0.85 if rho_w=1.5, so the DIII-D onset at 0.75 could be fortuitous.

Third, the simulations use S=10^5 and 16 toroidal planes, far from ITER conditions, and feedback gains are not specified. That limits quantitative claims, though the qualitative message may survive. The NSTX identification as an RWTM also leans on the same rho_q2~0.75 criterion, which is somewhat circular.

All that said, the paper is not broken. The feedback/rotation results are a useful extension, and the linear model is clearly described. A careful referee could help resolve the geometric-model inconsistency and demand wall-radius justification.

Who should read it: people working on disruption avoidance and RWTM control. It deserves a serious referee, with heavy revision. I would not cite it for the threshold, but I might cite the feedback simulation concept. Overall: conditional, needs the geometry fixed.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that resistive wall tearing modes (RWTMs) cause major tokamak disruptions only when the q=2 rational surface lies sufficiently close to the wall, quantified by rho_q2 > 0.75 (equivalently q75 < 2). It further claims that feedback or a rotating wall, by emulating an ideal wall, can reduce such events to minor disruptions. Evidence is drawn from M3D nonlinear simulations of low-beta MST-like and high-beta NSTX-like equilibria, observations from NSTX and DIII-D, a periodic-cylinder linear stability model with Furth-Rutherford-Selberg current profiles, and a geometric wall-interaction model.

Significance. If correct, the rho_q2 > 0.75 criterion would be a simple, falsifiable disruption precursor and would motivate feedback or rotation as disruption mitigation. The paper's assets include explicit comparative simulations of ideal, resistive, feedback, and rotating-wall boundary conditions, a transparent linear stability calculation, and a comparison with a published DIII-D locked-mode database. However, the quantitative threshold is built on an asserted wall radius and a single current-profile family, and the geometric model does not reproduce the 0.75 value at the claimed operating point; the universality of the criterion is therefore not yet established.

major comments (4)

[Section 7, Eq. (4), Fig. 8] The geometric model is internally inconsistent with the linear model at the claimed operating point. For m=2, Eq. (4) gives rho_w/rho_q2 <= 1.77, so with rho_w=1.2 the onset would be rho_q2 >= 0.68, not 0.75. The text states that the calculated line in Fig. 8(a) intersects the fit at rho_q2=0.85, where rho_w=1.5, which is not the DIII-D/NSTX/MST operating point. This unresolved tension undermines the claim that the q75<2 criterion is model-independent and needs to be resolved before the threshold can be regarded as robust.
[Section 7] The value rho_w=1.2 is asserted for DIII-D, NSTX, and the MST-based model without citation or direct measurement. The critical rho_q2 depends on rho_w; the same model gives rho_q2 ~ 0.85 for rho_w=1.5. The paper does not report sensitivity to the profile peakedness parameter nu, rho_c, or q_a, or to toroidicity. A systematic scan over these parameters, or direct equilibrium/wall data, is needed to support the quantitative onset at rho_q2=0.75; otherwise the agreement with the DIII-D database could be fortuitous.
[Sections 3, 4, and 6] The feedback and wall-rotation simulations do not specify the feedback gain h or the rotation rate Omega_w used. The simulations also use S=10^5, S_w=10^3, and 16 toroidal planes, which are far from reactor parameters. Because the central claim includes that feedback or rotation can prevent major disruptions, the gain values and a scan over gains (or at least a convergence check) are necessary to make the demonstration reproducible and to assess whether the result extrapolates.
[Section 5] The NSTX event is identified as a R WTM using the same rho_q2=0.75 proximity criterion that the paper aims to establish. The phase-inversion signature alone does not independently demonstrate that the mode is wall-coupled. An independent measure of the mode's radial structure or wall interaction would avoid this circularity and strengthen the experimental support.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction and Conclusion] There are typographical errors: 'can cause cause' in Section 1, 'q55<2' in the Conclusion should be 'q75<2', and 'NSXT' in the Abstract should be 'NSTX'.
[Section 5] The phrase 'phase inversion in soft X ray emissiom' and 'A similar phenomenon is seen was seen in DIII-D' need correction.
[Figure 8(a)] The curve labeled 'fit' is not described by a fitting procedure or an explicit equation; Eq. (4) is a geometric bound, not a fit to the linear-model data. Please clarify whether Eq. (4) is intended as a fit or as an independent model.
[Section 4] The statement that screening functions D=F=1 may affect detailed predictions is welcome, but the expected magnitude or sign of the effect should be noted so readers can judge the robustness of the feedback results.
[Section 7] The sentence 'The data in Fig.8(a) can be fit as follows' is misleading because the following equation is derived from a geometric argument rather than from a regression; please rephrase.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the high-β NSTX confirmation identifies RWTMs by the very ρq2≈0.75 proximity criterion at issue, and the q75<2 presentation of the DIII-D database is a definitional relabeling of the ρq2>0.75 onset; the low-β simulation and linear-MHD chain retains independent content.

self definitional [Section 5, High β NSTX R WTM]
"It then becomes in Fig.4 a feedback stabilized (2, 1) R WTM. The R WTM can be identified by its phase inversion in soft X ray emissiom at ρq2 ≈ 0.75. It is a R WTM because it is close enough to the wall to be affected by the feedback imposed at the wall."

The mode is classified as a resistive wall tearing mode using the very criterion the paper sets out to prove: the q=2 surface is close enough to the wall, expressed as ρq2≈0.75, equivalently q75<2. The paper then counts this NSTX event, in Sections 2, 5, and 8, as high-β experimental verification that RWTMs satisfy the q75 criterion. The premise (this is a RWTM because ρq2≈0.75) and the conclusion (RWTMs have ρq2≈0.75) are the same assertion, so the high-β confirmation is by construction rather than an independent test.
renaming known result [Section 2, discussion of Fig.1(b)]
"Fig.1(b) shows a database of DIII-D disruptivity [8] which depends on ρq2. The onset is ρq2 = .75 or q75 = 2. Nearly all disruptions occur for ρq2 > 0.75."

Since q75 is defined as q(0.75), the condition q75<2 is the same monotone-q condition as ρq2>0.75. The DIII-D database's onset at ρq2=0.75 is therefore not an independent confirmation of the q75<2 criterion; it is the same empirical onset expressed in new variables. The wording 'The onset is ρq2 = .75 or q75 = 2' makes the equivalence explicit, so the database carries no additional evidential weight for the q75 formulation beyond the original ρq2 observation.

full rationale

The low-β derivation chain is largely self-contained and externally anchored: the ρq2>0.75 disruption onset is taken from the independent DIII-D locked-mode database [8], the M3D simulations in Sections 3 and 6 are run with stated Lundquist-number, wall-time, and thermal-conductivity parameters, and the Section 7 linear ideal-MHD calculation with Furth-Rutherford-Selberg profiles is a standard, checkable model rather than a black-box citation. The central feedback result — that ideal wall, feedback, and rotating-wall boundary conditions yield only minor disruptions while a locked resistive wall gives a major disruption — is demonstrated by the paper's own nonlinear simulations. The concrete circularity is the high-β confirmation: NSTX (and the related DIII-D shot 131753 discussion) is identified as a RWTM by the proximity criterion itself, so it cannot independently validate that criterion. A separate calibration concern, noted in the text, is that the model's 0.75 threshold requires the asserted ρw=1.2 for DIII-D, NSTX, and the MST model, and the paper's own geometric fit intersects the computed curve at ρq2=0.85, ρw=1.5 rather than at the claimed operating point; if ρw is not independently measured, the Section 7 calculation acts as a calibration to the database rather than a first-principles prediction. These are evidence and consistency concerns, but the low-β claim retains independent external support, so the overall circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a small number of prior models and numerical choices. The wall radius rho_w=1.2 is asserted for DIII-D, NSTX, and the MST model without independent measurement; the current profile family is a known but simplified model class. The nonlinear simulations use low Lundquist number and resolution, and the feedback gains are not quantified. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Normalized wall radius rho_w = 1.2
Used as representative for DIII-D, NSTX, and MST model (Sec.7). The threshold rho_q2=0.75 follows from the linear model for this value; no independent measurement or citation is given for rho_w=1.2 in these devices.
Current profile shape family parameter nu
The model current density j(rho) proportional to (1+rho^{2*nu})^{-(1+1/nu)} with j=0 beyond rho_c is chosen from [32]; nu is determined by rho_c and q_a. The predicted critical rho_q2 depends on this family.
Feedback gain h / rotation rate Omega_w
Simulations use only h or Omega_w, but their numerical values are not stated (Sec.4). The claimed feedback effectiveness cannot be quantitatively reproduced.
Wall Lundquist number S_w = 10^3
Simulation parameter in Sec.3 and 6; far from realistic values, chosen for numerical feasibility. The R WTM growth rate and disruption outcome depend on it.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Ideal MHD in a periodic cylinder is adequate to determine the R WTM onset threshold in toroidal devices.
Sec.7: linear ideal MHD equations for psi are solved in a periodic cylinder with model equilibria. The toroidal geometry and finite beta effects are ignored in the derivation of the q75 criterion.
domain assumption The thin resistive wall model of Eqs.(1)-(3) with D=F=1 captures the essential feedback and rotation physics.
Sec.4: screening functions are set to unity and 'might affect detailed predictions'; only h or Omega_w are used, constant in time.
domain assumption The M3D code with S=10^5 and 16 toroidal planes adequately represents R WTM nonlinear evolution.
Sec.3 and 6: simulations use these parameters; no convergence study is presented.
domain assumption The DIII-D locked mode disruption database reflects R WTM disruptions.
Sec.2: Fig.1(b) is taken from [8] and interpreted as evidence that nearly all disruptions occur for rho_q2>0.75. The causal connection to RWTMs is assumed rather than demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prevention of resistive wall tearing mode major disruptions with feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PDOJLHY

@misc{pith2026241113256,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prevention of resistive wall tearing mode major disruptions with feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PDOJLHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13256}
}

abstract

Resistive wall tearing modes (RWTM) can cause major disruptions. A signature of RWTMs is that the rational surface is sufficiently close to the wall. For $(m,n) = (2,1)$ modes, at normalized minor radius $\rho = 0.75$, the value of $q$ is $q_{75} < 2.$ This is confirmed in simulations and theory and in a DIII-D locked mode disruption database. The $q_{75} < 2$ criterion is valid at high $\beta$ as well as at low $\beta.$ A very important feature of RWTMs is that they produce major disruptions only when the $q_{75} < 2$ criterion is satisfied. If it is not satisfied, or if the wall is ideally conducting, then the mode does not produce a major disruption, although it can produce a minor disruption. Feedback, or rotation of the mode at the wall by complex feedback, can emulate an ideal wall, preventing major disruptions. The $q_{75}$ criterion is analyzed in a linear simulations, and a simple geometric model is given.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13256 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a) Schematic diagram of RWM and RWTM stability in (q75, β) space. (b) Disruptivity in a DIII-D locked mode disruption database. Reproduced from [8] Fig.1(b) shows a database of DIII-D disruptivity [8] which depends on ρq2. The onset is ρq2 = .75 or q75 = 2. Nearly all disruptions occur for ρq2 > 0.75. The disruptions occur for locked modes. Mode locking means that toroidal rotation stops, destabilizing tearing mod… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) q profiles of model equilibria as a function of major radius x = R − R0 for model equilibria with qa = 2, 2.3, 3, 3.4. All but qa = 3.4 have q75 < 2. (b) time histories of case qa = 3 with ideal, resistive, feedback, and rotating wall boundary conditions. In all but the resistive wall case, only a minor disruption occurs. 3 Low β RWTM disruptions Simulations were performed with M3D [24] for a sequence of modifie… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Pressure p contours in nonlinear simulation of the qa case for (a) ideal wall, (b) resistive wall, (c) perturbed n ≥ 1 part of magnetic field corresponding to case (b), (d) feedback stabilization, (e) rotating wall. Fig.3(a),(b) reproduced from [6] disruptions. In (c), perturbed magnetic flux ψ contours correspond to the pressure contours in (b). The perturbed flux is relevant to the anaysis of ρq2 in Sec.7. The fee… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: feedback stabilized (2, 1) RWTM. The RWTM can be identified by its phase inversion at ρq2 = 0.75. Reproduced from [30]. is with complex gain, which can vary in time as the modes grow. Time dependent soft X ray data shows radial mode structure. Initially a locked RWM is…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) q(x) profiles with evolution to RWTM instability. (b) Time histories of total pressure P with different boundary conditions: ideal wall, resistive wall, feedback, and rotating wall. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Contours of pressure near the end of the time histories in Fig.5(b). with (a) ideal wall; (b) resistive wall; (c) perturbed magnetic flux of resistive case (b); (d) magnetic feedback; (e) rotating wall. the initial time, when q0 = 1.3 and q75 = 2.4. It appears stable t…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: (a) ψ, j, and q, with ψ for ideal (ψ1) and no wall (ψ2). (b) Curves of ρci(ρq2), ρcn(ρq2) and qa(ρq2) for ρw = 1.1, 1.2, 1.5. Fig.7(b) gives a relation between ρq2 and ρw, shown in Fig.8(a). The value of ρq2/ρw as a function of ρq2 is approximately constant. The data i…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: (a) ρq2/ρw depends weakly on ρq2. (b) model of wall interaction of (m, n) = (2, 1) mode. The magnetic n ≥ 1 perturbations shown in Fig.3(c) and Fig.6(c) are lobes which extend into the wall. In Fig.8(b), an (m, n) mode is modeled as dividing the contour ρ = ρq2 into 2m…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

Strauss and JET Contributors, Eﬀect of Resistive Wall o n Thermal Quench in JET Disruptions, Phys

H. Strauss and JET Contributors, Eﬀect of Resistive Wall o n Thermal Quench in JET Disruptions, Phys. Plasmas 28, 032501 (2021)

work page 2021
[2]

Strauss, Thermal quench in ITER disruptions, Phys

H. Strauss, Thermal quench in ITER disruptions, Phys. Pl asmas 28 072507 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

Strauss, B

H. Strauss, B. C. Lyons, M. Knolker, Locked mode disrupti ons in DIII-D and application to ITER, Phys. Plasmas 29 112508 (2022)

work page 2022
[4]

H. R. Strauss, B. E. Chapman, N. C. Hurst, MST Resistive Wa ll Tearing Mode Simulations, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 65 084002 (2023)

work page 2023
[5]

H. R. Strauss, Models of resistive wall tearing mode disr uptions, Phys. Plasmas 30, 112507 (2023); doi:10.1063/5.0172375

work page doi:10.1063/5.0172375 2023
[6]

R.Strauss, B

H. R.Strauss, B. E. Chapman, B. C. Lyons, Resistive Wall T earing Mode Disrup- tions, Nucl. Fusion 64 106037 (2024); doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad7272 10

work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad7272 2024
[7]

Sweeney, W

R. Sweeney, W. Choi, M. Austin, M. Brookman, V. Izzo, M. Kn olker, R.J. La Haye, A. Leonard, E. Strait, F.A. Volpe and The DIII-D Team, R elationship between locked modes and thermal quenches in DIII-D, Nucl. F usion 58, 056022 (2018)

work page 2018
[8]

Sweeney, W

R. Sweeney, W. Choi, R. J. La Haye, S. Mao, K. E. J. Olofsson , F. A. Volpe, and the DIII-D Team, Statistical analysis of m/n = 2/1 locked and quasi - stationary modes with rotating precursors in DIII-D, Nucl. Fusion 57 01 60192 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 32 references

[9]

Troyon, A.Roy, W.A.Cooper, F.Yasseen, A.Tumbull, Be ta limit in tokamaks: experimental and computational status, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion textbf30, 1597 (1988)

F. Troyon, A.Roy, W.A.Cooper, F.Yasseen, A.Tumbull, Be ta limit in tokamaks: experimental and computational status, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion textbf30, 1597 (1988)

1988
[10]

Betti, Beta limits for the n = 1 mode in rotating - toroi dal - resistive plasmas surrounded by a resistive wall, Phys

R. Betti, Beta limits for the n = 1 mode in rotating - toroi dal - resistive plasmas surrounded by a resistive wall, Phys. Plasmas 5, 3615 (1998)

1998
[11]

H. R. Strauss, Linjin Zheng, M. Kotschenreuther, W.Par k, S. Jardin, J. Breslau, A.Pletzer, R. Paccagnella, L. Sugiyama, M. Chu, M. Chance, A . Turnbull, Halo Current and Resistive Wall Simulations of ITER, paper TH/2 - 2, 20th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference 2004, Villamora, Po...

2004
[12]

Gerasimov, P

S.N. Gerasimov, P. Abreu, G. Artaserse, M. Baruzzo, P. B uratti, I.S. Carvalho, I.H. Coﬀey, E. De La Luna, T.C. Hender, R.B. Henriques, R. Felt on, S. Jachmich, U. Kruezi, P.J. Lomas, P. McCullen, M. Maslov, E. Matveeva, S . Moradi, L. Piron1, F.G. Rimini, W. Schippers, C. Stu...

2020
[13]

S. Wang, Z. W. Ma, Inﬂuence of toroidal rotation on resis tive tearing modes in tokamaks, Phys. Plasmas 22, 122504 (2015); doi:10.1063/1. 4936977

2015 doi
[14]

Coelho, E

R. Coelho, E. Lazzaro, Eﬀect of sheared equilibrium plas ma rotation on the clas- sical tearing mode in a cylindrical geometry, Phys. Plasmas 14, 012101 (2007)

2007
[15]

H. R. Strauss, Rotational stabilization of drift teari ng modes, Phys. Fluids B 4 3 (1992); doi:10.1063/1.860448

1992 doi
[16]

J. A. Finn, Resistive wall stabilization of kink and tea ring modes, Phys. Plasmas 2, 198 (1995)

1995
[17]

Schuller, Disruptions in tokamaks, Plasma Phys

F.C. Schuller, Disruptions in tokamaks, Plasma Phys. C ontrolled Fusion 37, A135 (1995)

1995
[18]

Wesson, R.D

J.A. Wesson, R.D. Gill, M. Hugon, F.C. Schuller, J.A. Sn ipes, D.J. Ward, D.V. Bartlett, D.J. Campbell, P.A. Duperrex, A.W. Edwards, R.S. Granetz, N.A.O. Gottardi, T.C. Hender, E. Lazzaro, P.J. Lomas, N. Lopes Card ozo, K. F. Mast, M.F.F. Nave, N.A. Salmon, P. Smeulders, P.R. ...

1989
[19]

Giacomin, A

M. Giacomin, A. Pau, P. Ricci, O. Sauter, T. Eich, the ASD EX Upgrade team, JET Contributors, and the TCV team, First-Principles Densi ty Limit Scaling in Tokamaks Based on Edge Turbulent Transport and Implication s for ITER Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 185003 (2022)

2022
[20]

Pucella, P

G. Pucella, P. Buratti, E. Giovannozzi, E. Alessi, F. Au riemma, D. Brunetti, D. R. Ferreira, M. Baruzzo, D. Frigione, L. Garzotti, E. Joﬀrin, E. Lerche, P. J. Lomas, S. Nowak, L. Piron, F. Rimini, C. Sozzi, D. Van Eester, and JET Contributors, Tearing modes in plasma terminat...

2021
[21]

D. A. Gates, D. P. Brennan, L. Delgado-Aparicio, and R. B . White, The tokamak density limit: A thermo- resistive disruption mechanism, P hys. Plasmas 22, 060701 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4922472

2015 doi
[22]

V. A. Izzo, D. G. Whyte, R. S. Granetz, P. B. Parks, E. M. Ho llmann, L. L. Lao, J. C. Wesley, Magnetohydrodynamic simulations of mass ive gas injection int Alcator C - Mod and DIII-D plasmas, Phys. Plasmas 15, 056109 (2008)

2008
[23]

Okabayashi, P

M. Okabayashi, P. Zanca, E.J. Strait, A.M. Garofalo, J. M. Hanson, Y. In5, R.J. La Haye, L. Marrelli, P. Martin, R. Paccagnella, C. Paz-Sold an, P. Piovesan, C. Piron, L. Piron, D. Shiraki, F.A. Volpe and The DIII-D and RFX -mod Teams, Avoidance of tearing mode locking with el...

2017
[24]

W. Park, E. Belova, G. Y. Fu, X. Tang, H. R. Strauss, L. E. S ugiyama, Plasma Simulation Studies using Multilevel Physics Models, Phys. Plasmas 6, 1796 (1999)

1999
[25]

Bondeson, Yueqiang Liu, D

A. Bondeson, Yueqiang Liu, D. Gregoratto, Y. Gribov and V.D. Pustovitov, Active control of resistive wall modes in the large-aspect-ratio t okamak, Nucl. Fusion 42 (2002) 768–779

2002
[26]

Yuling He, Yueqiang Liu, Xu Yang, Guoliang Xia, Li Li, Ac tive control of resis- tive wall mode via modiﬁcation of external tearing index, Ph ysics of Plasmas 28, 012504 (2021)

2021
[27]

D. P. Brennan, J. M. Finn, Control of linear modes in cyli ndrical resistive magne- tohydrodynamics with a resistive wall, plasma rotation, an d complex gain, Phys. Plasmas 21, 102507 (2014)

2014
[28]

Garofalo, G.L

A.M. Garofalo, G.L. Jackson, R.J. La Haye, M. Okabayash i, H. Reimerdes, E.J. Strait, J.R. Ferron, R.J. Groebner, Y. In, M.J. Lanctot, G. M atsunaga, G.A. Navratil, W.M. Solomon, H. Takahashi, M. Takechi, A.D. Turn bull and the DIII- D Team, Stability and control of resistive ...

2007
[29]

Okabayashi, I.N

M. Okabayashi, I.N. Bogatu, M.S. Chance, M.S. Chu, A.M. Garofalo, Y. In, G.L. Jackson, R.J. La Haye, M.J. Lanctot, J. Manickam, L. Marrell i, P. Martin, G.A. Navratil, H. Reimerdes, E.J. Strait, H. Takahashi, A.S. Wel ander, T. Bolzonella, R.V. Budny, J.S. Kim, R. Hatcher, Y.Q...

2009
[30]

S. A. Sabbagh, S.P. Gerhardt, J.E. Menard, R. Betti, D.A . Gates, B. Hu, O.N. Katsuro-Hopkins, B.P. LeBlanc, F.M. Levinton, J. Manickam , K. Tritz and H. Yuh, Advances in global MHD mode stabilization research on N STX, Nucl. Fusion 50 025020 (2010)

2010
[31]

Park, S.A

Y.S. Park, S.A. Sabbagh, J.H. Ahn, B.H. Park, H.S. Kim, J .W. Berkery, J.M. Bialek, Y. Jiang, J.G. Bak, A.H. Glasser, J.S. Kang, J. Lee, H .S. Han, S.H. Hahn, Y.M. Jeon, J.G. Kwak, H.K. Park, Z.R. Wang, J.-K. Park, N.M. Fer- raro and S.W. Yoon, Analysis of MHD stability and ac...

2020 doi
[32]

H. P. Furth, P. H. Rutherford, and H. Selberg, Tearing mo de in the cylindrical tokamak, Physics of Fluids 16, 1054 (1973) 13

1973

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Strauss and JET Contributors, Eﬀect of Resistive Wall o n Thermal Quench in JET Disruptions, Phys

H. Strauss and JET Contributors, Eﬀect of Resistive Wall o n Thermal Quench in JET Disruptions, Phys. Plasmas 28, 032501 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Strauss, Thermal quench in ITER disruptions, Phys

H. Strauss, Thermal quench in ITER disruptions, Phys. Pl asmas 28 072507 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Strauss, B

H. Strauss, B. C. Lyons, M. Knolker, Locked mode disrupti ons in DIII-D and application to ITER, Phys. Plasmas 29 112508 (2022)

work page 2022

[4] [4]

H. R. Strauss, B. E. Chapman, N. C. Hurst, MST Resistive Wa ll Tearing Mode Simulations, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 65 084002 (2023)

work page 2023

[5] [5]

H. R. Strauss, Models of resistive wall tearing mode disr uptions, Phys. Plasmas 30, 112507 (2023); doi:10.1063/5.0172375

work page doi:10.1063/5.0172375 2023

[6] [6]

R.Strauss, B

H. R.Strauss, B. E. Chapman, B. C. Lyons, Resistive Wall T earing Mode Disrup- tions, Nucl. Fusion 64 106037 (2024); doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad7272 10

work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad7272 2024

[7] [7]

Sweeney, W

R. Sweeney, W. Choi, M. Austin, M. Brookman, V. Izzo, M. Kn olker, R.J. La Haye, A. Leonard, E. Strait, F.A. Volpe and The DIII-D Team, R elationship between locked modes and thermal quenches in DIII-D, Nucl. F usion 58, 056022 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Sweeney, W

R. Sweeney, W. Choi, R. J. La Haye, S. Mao, K. E. J. Olofsson , F. A. Volpe, and the DIII-D Team, Statistical analysis of m/n = 2/1 locked and quasi - stationary modes with rotating precursors in DIII-D, Nucl. Fusion 57 01 60192 (2017)

work page 2017