Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Three-dimensional boundary turbulence simulations of a RFX-mod plasma in the presence of voltage biasing

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An edge biasing electrode creates enough E×B flow shear to suppress edge turbulence and double the separatrix pressure gradient in RFX-mod simulations.

desk verdict First GBS biasing-electrode simulations in a diverted tokamak, with a credible shear-suppression scaling extension and honest caveats; the quantitative extrapolation is thinner than the abstract suggests but the core claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11465 v2 pith:MAAQ5EKB submitted 2025-01-20 physics.plasm-ph

M. Giacomin , N. Vianello , R. Cavazzana , S. Molisani , M. Spolaore , M. Zuin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords edgeturbulencesuppressionE×BflowshearvoltagebiasingtransportbarrierresistiveballooningmodedensitylimitscalingGBSsimulationsRFX-modtokamak
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

This paper uses three-dimensional boundary turbulence simulations to show that a negatively biased electrode inserted just inside the separatrix creates a strong $\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}$ flow shear that suppresses resistive ballooning turbulence in an RFX-mod-like diverted plasma. In the simulations, the suppression steepens the equilibrium pressure profile and, at low reference density, produces a pedestal-like edge transport barrier that resembles the H-mode reached in RFX-mod biasing experiments. At a reference density an order of magnitude higher, biasing avoids the flat pressure profile that marks the density limit in the unbiased case, suggesting that edge biasing can raise the maximum achievable density. The paper then extends an earlier scaling law for the edge pressure gradient length to $L_p \approx L_{p0}/(1+\alpha_k \gamma_E/\gamma)$ and uses it to predict a factor-of-two increase in the separatrix pressure gradient for RFX-mod parameters, matching the experimental trend.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the suppression formula $L_p \sim L_{p0}/(1+\alpha_k \gamma_E/\gamma)$, where $L_{p0}$ is the zero-shear edge pressure gradient length from the resistive-ballooning scaling of an earlier work, $\gamma_E$ is the $\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}$ shearing rate, and $\alpha_k = (1-k_x/k_y)/(1+k_x/k_y)$ encodes the reduction of shear suppression for radially narrow modes. The formula is built from non-local linear simulations of a reduced two-field model (electron pressure and vorticity, constant density, no ion dynamics) with an imposed equilibrium shear flow, and it is evaluated at the zero-shear length $L_{p0}$ to keep the scaling analytic. The biasing electrode is implemented in GBS, the flux-driven boundary-turbulence code used here, as a Dirichlet boundary condition on the electrostatic potential at the electrode head, and the paper calibrates the resulting potential and shearing-rate profiles against floating-potential measurements from the reference discharge.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier is a GBS run at an intermediate density or heating power between the two $\nu_0$ values: if the measured $L_p$ deviates from $L_{p0}/(1+\alpha_k \gamma_E/\gamma)$ by much more than the scatter of the two tested points, the interpolation formula fails. In RFX-mod2, measuring a biased-phase pressure-gradient jump significantly smaller than the predicted factor of two at $\gamma_E \simeq 10^6\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ and $P_{\mathrm{SOL}} \simeq 80\,\mathrm{kW}$ would likewise disprove the quantitative claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an external $\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}$ flow shear, imposed by an edge biasing electrode, is itself sufficient to suppress the turbulence that sets the edge pressure gradient and to reorganize the boundary into a transport barrier. In the GBS simulations of a diverted RFX-mod configuration, the biased electrode produces shearing rates near $10^6\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ at the separatrix, comparable to values measured in the reference discharge, and reduces the equilibrium pressure gradient length $L_p$ by roughly a factor of two at low density and a factor of five at high density relative to the unbiased runs. The low-density biased run develops a pedestal-like structure across the separatrix, qualitatively reproducing the H-mode obtained in RFX-mod by biasing. Quantitatively, the paper derives the improved scaling $L_p \sim L_{p0}/(1+\alpha_k \gamma_E/\gamma)$, with analytic estimates for $\gamma_E/\gamma$ and $\alpha_k$, and shows it reproduces the simulated $L_p$ values and predicts a factor-of-two pressure gradient increase for the reference discharge.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative predictions rest on the assumption that the simplified calculation used to build the suppression formula behaves like the full three-dimensional simulations across the densities, pressure gradients, and shear rates considered, even though the formula was only checked at two operating points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At low reference density, the biased simulation forms a pedestal-like edge transport barrier with $L_p$ reduced by about a factor of two, matching the qualitative signature of the H-mode obtained with biasing in RFX-mod.
  • At high reference density, biasing prevents the collapse of the pressure gradient seen in the unbiased simulation, so the same sources and boundary conditions no longer cross the density limit when the electrode is active.
  • The improved scaling $L_p \sim L_{p0}/(1+\alpha_k \gamma_E/\gamma)$ reproduces the simulated $L_p$ values: about 17 versus 19 at high density and 10 versus 12 at low density.
  • For the RFX-mod reference discharge, the analytic suppression factors give $\gamma_E/\gamma \simeq 2.8$, $\alpha_k \simeq 0.34$, and a suppression factor close to 0.5, predicting a factor-of-two larger separatrix pressure gradient in the biased phase.
  • Extending the density-limit criterion to $L_{p0} \sim a(1+\alpha_k\gamma_E/\gamma)$ yields a maximum edge density $n_{DL}/n_{DL0} \simeq 1.8$ for a conservative shearing rate of $10^5\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, implying edge biasing could nearly double the achievable density in RFX-mod.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to scan the biasing voltage continuously in RFX-mod2 at fixed heating and fuelling: equation (44) predicts the density limit shifts as $n_{DL}/n_{DL0} = \alpha_{\gamma_E} + \sqrt{1+\alpha_{\gamma_E}^2}$, so the dependence on $\gamma_E$ is specific enough to confirm or reject the proposed mechanism.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the suppression factor $\alpha_{\gamma_E}$ grows with device size ($R^{1/2} a^{11/14}$ in engineering units), so the same shearing rate would produce a larger density-limit shift in larger tokamaks; this could be checked against existing biasing experiments on other devices without new theory.
  • Because the linear model assumes $k_x < k_y$, the analytic formula is tailored to radially elongated resistive ballooning modes; if the same suppression were driven by instabilities with $k_x > k_y$, the factor $\alpha_k$ would change sign or vanish, so the factor-of-two prediction should not be extrapolated to other turbulent regimes without repeating the linear scan.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports the first GBS three-dimensional boundary turbulence simulations of a diverted RFX-mod tokamak plasma in the presence of an edge biasing electrode. Four flux-driven simulations are presented: low and high reference collisionality (ν0 = 0.1 and 1.0), each with and without negative voltage biasing. The biased simulations show a strong reduction of turbulent transport and a steepening of the edge pressure profile, with an edge transport barrier (pedestal-like structure) at low ν0 and the avoidance of the pressure collapse at high ν0. The authors extend the analytic scaling of the edge pressure-gradient length Lp of Giacomin & Ricci (2020) by introducing a suppression factor (1 + αk γE/γ)^{-1} motivated by non-local linear simulations of the resistive ballooning mode, and they derive explicit engineering-parameter formulae for γE/γ and αk. These are applied to the RFX-mod reference discharge, predicting a factor-of-two increase of the separatrix pressure gradient in the biased phase, and to a modified density-limit criterion, predicting that biasing could raise the maximum achievable edge density by about a factor of two. The GBS results are compared to RFX-mod floating-potential and flow-shear measurements in Appendix A.

Significance. The paper makes a valuable contribution by demonstrating, in realistic flux-driven simulations, that edge biasing can suppress tokamak boundary turbulence and create a transport barrier, and by proposing an analytic extension of an established Lp scaling law to include E×B shear. The implementation of the biasing electrode in GBS and the qualitative/quantitative agreement of the flow-shear profile with RFX-mod experiments are genuine advances. The improved scaling, if valid, would provide a practical tool for predicting the effect of biasing on confinement and density limits in RFX-mod2 and other devices. The two-point validation against the biased GBS simulations is encouraging. However, the quantitative predictions (factor-two pressure-gradient increase, factor-two density-limit increase) rest on an interpolation formula that is used outside the parameter range of the linear simulations that motivate it, and on an uncontrolled evaluation at Lp0; these issues must be addressed before the results can be considered fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (26), Sec. 4.2] The linear scans in Sec. 3.2 cover γE ∈ [0,6] in normalized units, with γE/γ up to about unity, while the biased GBS runs and the RFX-mod application have γE/γ ≈ 4.9 (ν0=0.1) and ≈ 8.1 (ν0=1.0) (Sec. 4.1), and normalized γE values around 50–100 (Fig. 2). The Kelvin–Helmholtz branch visible at the top-right of Fig. 5 is dismissed as occurring at shearing rates "much larger than those achievable in RFX-mod," but the RFX-mod value quoted in Sec. 4.2, γE ≈ 10^6 s^-1, corresponds to normalized γE ≈ 65, which is more than an order of magnitude above the scan range and within the regime where the reduced linear model predicts KH dominance. Consequently, Eq. (26) is applied in a parameter regime not probed by the linear simulations, and the factor-two pressure-gradient increase for RFX-mod is not supported by the presented linear data. The authors should either extend the linear scans to the relevant γE/γ range, demonstrate that the KH branch is suppressed in the full GBS model, or explicitly restate the prediction as an extrapolation with the associated uncertainty.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (26)] In applying Eq. (26) to the GBS simulations, the factors γE/γ and αk are evaluated at Lp0, even though the biased simulations have Lp smaller than Lp0 by factors of about 2.3 (ν0=0.1) and 5.5 (ν0=1.0) (Table 1). Since γ ∝ Lp^{-1/2} and kx/ky ∝ Lp^{-3/8} (Eq. (29)), this is an uncontrolled approximation. The two-point agreement with the biased GBS results is encouraging, but a self-consistent evaluation of Eq. (26) (iterating Lp) or a sensitivity scan over the evaluation point is needed to establish whether the factor-two RFX-mod prediction is robust. As written, the prediction could change substantially if the suppression factor is evaluated at the actual (smaller) Lp.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Eqs. (30), (34), (44)] The density-limit extension treats αk as a density-independent geometrical factor, based on the statement that kx/ky depends weakly on density. However, Eq. (30) gives kx/ky ∝ n^{-1}, while Eq. (34), after substituting Te from Eq. (32), gives kx/ky ∝ n^{5/34}. These two expressions imply different density dependences of αk, and the choice to adopt the weak-dependence form is not justified beyond a sentence. Since the predicted density-limit increase nDL/nDL0 ≈ 1.8 (Eq. (44) with αγE ≈ 0.6) is a central result of Sec. 4.3, the sensitivity of this result to the density dependence of αk should be quantified. At minimum, the authors should show that treating αk as a constant is conservative or give the range of nDL/nDL0 when kx/ky is evaluated at the density-limit value rather than at the reference density.
  4. [Table 1 and Fig. 4] The Lp values in Table 1 are obtained by exponential fits to the outboard mid-plane pressure profiles, but the fit range is not specified and no uncertainties are reported. The factors-of-two and five reductions in Lp are the quantitative backbone of the paper, so the fits should be documented (radial interval used, number of points, goodness of fit) and error bars should be provided. This is necessary to assess whether, for example, the low-ν0 biased/unbiased ratio of 28/12 = 2.3 is robust or sensitive to the fitting procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The wording "also refereed to as q95" should be "also referred to as q95". There are a few other typos and grammatical slips (e.g., in the abstract, "The strong E×B flow shear turbulence suppression with edge voltage biasing is also observed" reads awkwardly).
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (19)–(20)] The shearing rate γE = -ρ*^{-1} ∂xx φ̄ is used in the linear analysis but is never explicitly defined in Sec. 3.1; the definition first appears later. Defining it when the equilibrium flow profile is introduced would improve readability.
  3. [Fig. 5] The caption does not identify which panel corresponds to which Lp value; the reader must infer the ordering from the text. Adding the Lp values to the panel labels would help.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (36)–(38)] In the engineering-parameter equations, the symbol A is used for the isotope mass number but is not defined until it appears in the text after Eq. (36). Also, the units of each quantity are given in the text but not in the equations, making the expressions harder to use directly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the E×B suppression factor is evaluated from independent linear simulations and the prior Lp0 scaling, then compared with, not fitted to, the biased GBS outcomes.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Equation (26), Lp ~ Lp0/(1 + αk γE/γ), is introduced as an approximation based on non-local linear simulations (Sec. 3.2), and the suppression parameters γE/γ and αk are computed from Eqs. (28)-(31) using the published Lp0 scaling of Ref. [28]. The biased GBS pressure profiles are not used to fit αk or γE/γ; instead, the predicted values (Lp ≈ 10 and 17) are compared against the nonlinear biased-simulation values (Lp = 12 and 19 in Table 1) as a test. The self-authored scaling Lp0 is load-bearing, but it is independently supported: it is checked against the unbiased GBS simulations in Table 1 and is cited as validated on a multi-machine database in Ref. [29]. The density-limit extension similarly uses Ref. [25] only as the nDL0 baseline and adds an explicit new bias-dependent term, so it does not reduce to prior results by construction. The main quantitative caveats — Eq. (26) is applied at normalized shearing rates (γE/γ ≈ 5-8) well beyond the linear scan range (γE up to 6) and γ and αk are evaluated at Lp0 even though Lp changes by factors of 2-5 — are extrapolation and accuracy concerns, not circularity, since none of the quantities is defined in terms of the target biased Lp. No step in the paper reduces by its own equations or by self-citation to the outcome it claims to predict.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling rests on prior drift-reduced Braginskii modeling, the axisymmetric electrode boundary condition, the reduced linear model and quasi-linear saturation assumptions, and the interpolation formula Eq. (26). The density-limit extension adds a further approximation that alpha_k is a density-independent geometrical factor. No new physical entities are introduced; no constants are fitted to the biased GBS results.

free parameters (3)
  • Reference collisionality nu0 = 0.1 and 1.0
    Chooses the low-density (near RBM/drift-wave transition) and high-density (above density-limit crossing) cases; the central comparison depends on these two points.
  • Density and temperature source amplitudes sn0, sTe0 = 0.05 each (total fueling/heating about 1/4 of experimental value)
    Matched to RFX-mod discharge #39136 but reduced for the half-size domain; not fitted to the bias effect.
  • Electrode bias potential phi_b = -15 (about -300 V)
    Chosen to match the experimental biasing voltage in #39136; controls the induced E×B shearing rate.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Drift-reduced Braginskii two-fluid model (Eqs. 1-7) describes RFX-mod boundary turbulence.
    Standard edge turbulence model from GBS [27,42]; electrostatic limit justified by low beta, neutrals neglected based on [43].
  • ad hoc to paper Biasing electrode can be represented by an axisymmetric finite Dirichlet potential at the pre-sheath with Neumann conditions for other fields.
    Retains induced E×B shear but neglects local sputtering, recycling, and toroidal localization; electrode extends over the full torus.
  • domain assumption Reduced linear model (Eqs. 17-18) with constant density, no ion dynamics, and nu j_parallel ~ -grad_parallel phi captures RBM response to E×B shear.
    Used for the linear scan; neglects ion and parallel velocity dynamics that could alter growth rates and shear suppression.
  • domain assumption Quasi-linear saturation assumptions kx pe ~ pe/Lp and kx ~ sqrt(ky/Lp) from [47] hold, giving qx ~ rho* pe gamma/ky.
    Basis of Eq. (24); not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper The shear-suppression form Lp ~ Lp0/(1 + alpha_k gamma_E/gamma) with alpha_k = (1 - kx/ky)/(1 + kx/ky) approximates the linear-simulation results.
    Eqs. (26)-(27) form an interpolation satisfying limiting cases; validated only against Fig. 6 and two biased GBS runs.
  • ad hoc to paper In the density-limit extension, alpha_k is treated as a density-independent geometrical factor.
    Makes Eq. (41) analytically solvable; acknowledged as an approximation since alpha_k depends on density through nu0 and Lp0.
  • domain assumption The two-point model estimate of separatrix Te (Eq. 45, [49]) applies for the density-limit scaling.
    Standard SOL model used in [25].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three-dimensional boundary turbulence simulations of a RFX-mod plasma in the presence of voltage biasing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAAQ5EKB

@misc{pith2026250111465,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three-dimensional boundary turbulence simulations of a RFX-mod plasma in the presence of voltage biasing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAAQ5EKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11465}
}
abstract

Three-dimensional turbulence simulations of a RFX-mod diverted plasma are performed in the presence of a biasing electrode. The simulations show a strong suppression of turbulent transport caused by the induced $\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}$ flow shear, which leads to the formation of an edge transport barrier with a pedestal-like structure, in qualitative agreement with RFX-mod experiments. The strong $\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}$ flow shear turbulence suppression with edge voltage biasing is also observed in the proximity of the density limit crossing, suggesting that edge voltage biasing may allow for larger maximum achievable density values. By leveraging the simulation results, the theoretical scaling law of the edge pressure gradient length derived in Giacomin & Ricci (2020) J. Plasma Phys. 86(5) is extended here to account for the $\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}$ flow shear turbulence suppression caused by voltage biasing. The improved theoretical scaling with typical RFX-mod shearing rate values predicts a factor of two increase of the pressure gradient at the separatrix, which is comparable to RFX-mod experiments in the presence of voltage biasing. The implications of the flow shear turbulence suppression due to voltage biasing on the density limit in RFX-mod are also discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11465 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two-dimensional snapshot of the pressure [(a)-(d)] and the corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Outboard mid-plane equilibrium electrostatic potential (top row) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Equilibrium parallel current from the GBS simulations at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Outboard mid-plane equilibrium electron pressure profiles in the proximity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Maximum value of γ/ky as a function of ν0 and γE at four different values of Lp. Results from the linear solver. We note that equation (27) requires kx < ky, which is satisfied in the RBM regime, but it might not hold for other microinstabilities that can develop at th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Numerical value of Lp given by equation (25) as a function of ν0 and γE. (b) Theoretical estimate of Lp obtained from equation (26) where γ and αk are evaluated at Lp0. at low ν0, which is consistent with figure 5. Before concluding this section, we note that equat…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wagner, G

    F. Wagner, G. Becker, K. Behringer, D. Campbell, A. Eberhagen, W. Engelhardt, G. Fussmann, O. Gehre, J. Gernhardt, G. V. Gierke, et al. Regime of improved confinement and high beta in neutral-beam-heated divertor discharges of the ASDEX tokamak. Physical Review Letters, 49(19):1408, 1982

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    Biglari, P

    H. Biglari, P. H. Diamond, and P. W. Terry. Influence of sheared poloidal rotation on edge turbulence. Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics, 2(1):1–4, 1990

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    K. H. Burrell. Effects of E × B velocity shear and magnetic shear on turbulence and transport in magnetic confinement devices. Physics of Plasmas, 4(5):1499–1518, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Kim and P

    E. Kim and P. H. Diamond. Zonal flows and transient dynamics of the L-H transition. Physical Review Letters, 90(18):185006, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Ryter, S

    F. Ryter, S. K. Rathgeber, L. Barrera Orte, M. Bernert, G. D. Conway, R. Fischer, T Happel, B Kurzan, RM McDermott, A Scarabosio, et al. Survey of the H-mode power threshold and transition physics studies in ASDEX Upgrade. Nuclear Fusion, 53(11):113003, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    R. J. Taylor, M. L. Brown, B. D. Fried, H. Grote, J. R. Liberati, G. J. Morales, P. Pribyl, D. Darrow, and M. Ono. H-mode behavior induced by cross-field currents in a tokamak.Physical Review Letters, 63(21):2365, 1989

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    Shimada, A

    M. Shimada, A. Ozaki, P. Petersen, P. Riedy, B. Burley, T. Petrie, G. Janeschitz, and M. A. Mahdavi. Limiter bias experiments in DIII-D. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 176:821–824, 1990

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    J. A. C. Cabral, C. A. F. Varandas, M. P. Alonso, P. Belo, R. Can´ ario, H. Fernandes, R. Gomes, Three-dimensional boundary turbulence simulations of a RFX-mod plasma. . . 24 A. Malaquias, P. Malinov, F. Serra, et al. Enhancement of the ISTTOK plasma confinement and stability by negative limiter biasing. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 40(6):1001, 1998

    work page 1998

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Silva, H

    C. Silva, H. Figueiredo, I. Nedzelsky, B. Goncalves, J. A. C. Cabral, C. A. F. Varandas, and G. Van Oost. Influence of electrode and limiter biasing on the ISTTOK plasma. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 46(1):163, 2003

    2003

  2. [10]

    Spolaore, R

    M. Spolaore, R. Cavazzana, L. Marrelli, L. Carraro, P. Franz, S. Spagnolo, B. Zaniol, M. Zuin, L. Cordaro, S. Dal Bello, et al. H-mode achievement and edge features in RFX-mod tokamak operation. Nuclear Fusion, 57(11):116039, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Grenfell, M

    G. Grenfell, M. Spolaore, D. Abate, L. Carraro, L. Marrelli, I. Predebon, S. Spagnolo, M. Veranda, M. Agostini, B. Ph. van Milligen, et al. Turbulent filament properties in L and H-mode regime in the RFX-mod operating as a tokamak. Nuclear Fusion, 60(12):126006, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    R. R. Weynants, G. Van Oost, G. Bertschinger, J. Boedo, P. Brys, T. Delvigne, K. H. Dippel, F. Durodie, H. Euringer, K. H. Finken, et al. Confinement and profile changes induced by the presence of positive or negative radial electric fields in the edge of the TEXTOR tokamak. N...

    1992

  5. [13]

    Boedo, D

    J. Boedo, D. Gray, S. Jachmich, R. Conn, G. P. Terry, G. Tynan, G. Van Oost, R. R. Weynants, et al. Enhanced particle confinement and turbulence reduction due to E × B shear in the TEXTOR tokamak. Nuclear Fusion, 40(7):1397, 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    T. E. Stringer. Explanation of the LH mode transition induced by applied voltage. Nuclear Fusion, 33(9):1249, 1993

    1993

  7. [15]

    Ghendrih, Y

    Ph. Ghendrih, Y. Sarazin, G. Attuel, S. Benkadda, P. Beyer, G. Falchetto, C. Figarella, X. Garbet, V. Grandgirard, and M. Ottaviani. Theoretical analysis of the influence of external biasing on long range turbulent transport in the scrape-off layer. Nuclear Fusion, 43(10):1013, 2003

    2003

  8. [16]

    Kasuya, K

    N. Kasuya, K. Itoh, and Y. Takase. Asymmetrical bifurcation of the radial electric field structure induced by electrode biasing in tokamaks. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 45(3):183, 2003

    2003

  9. [17]

    Shankar, N

    V. Shankar, N. Bisai, S. Raj, and A. Sen. Edge biasing and its impact on the edge and sol turbulence. Nuclear Fusion, 62(8):086030, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Shankar, N

    V. Shankar, N. Bisai, S. Raj, and A. Sen. Effect of electron and ion mobility on edge biasing in tokamak plasmas. Nuclear Fusion, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Benkadda, P

    S. Benkadda, P. Beyer, N. Bian, C. F. Figarella, X. Garbet, O. Garcia, and I. Voitsekhovitch. The physics of E × B shear, zonal flows and streamers in tokamak edge turbulence. Contributions to Plasma Physics, 42(2-4):362–371, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Singh and P

    R. Singh and P. H. Diamond. Zonal shear layer collapse and the power scaling of the density limit: old LH wine in new bottles. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 64(8):084004, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Greenwald

    M. Greenwald. Density limits in toroidal plasmas. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 44(8):R27, 2002

    2002

  14. [22]

    D. A. Gates and L Delgado-Aparicio. Origin of tokamak density limit scalings. Physical Review Letters, 108(16):165004, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Zanca, F

    P. Zanca, F. Sattin, D. F. Escande, G. Pucella, and O. Tudisco. A unified model of density limit in fusion plasmas. Nuclear Fusion, 57(5):056010, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Eich and P

    T. Eich and P. Manz. The separatrix operational space of asdex upgrade due to interchange-drift- alfv´ en turbulence.Nuclear Fusion, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Giacomin, A

    M. Giacomin, A. Pau, P. Ricci, O. Sauter, T. Eich, the ASDEX Upgrade team, JET Contributors, and the TCV team. First-Principles Density Limit Scaling in Tokamaks Based on Edge Turbulent Transport and Implications for ITER. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128:185003, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ricci, F

    P. Ricci, F. D. Halpern, S. Jolliet, J. Loizu, A. Mosetto, A. Fasoli, I. Furno, and C. Theiler. Simulation of plasma turbulence in scrape-off layer conditions: the GBS code, simulation results and code validation. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 54(12):124047, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    Giacomin, P

    M. Giacomin, P. Ricci, A. Coroado, G. Fourestey, D. Galassi, E. Lanti, D. Mancini, N. Richart, Three-dimensional boundary turbulence simulations of a RFX-mod plasma. . . 25 L. N. Stenger, and N. Varini. The GBS code for the self-consistent simulation of plasma turbulence and k...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Giacomin and P

    M. Giacomin and P. Ricci. Investigation of turbulent transport regimes in the tokamak edge by using two-fluid simulations. Journal of Plasma Physics, 86(5):905860502, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Giacomin, A

    M. Giacomin, A. Stagni, P. Ricci, J. A. Boedo, J. Horacek, H. Reimerdes, and C. K. Tsui. Theory- based scaling laws of near and far scrape-off layer widths in single-null l-mode discharges.Nuclear Fusion, 61(7):076002, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Artun and W

    M. Artun and W. M. Tang. Gyrokinetic analysis of ion temperature gradient modes in the presence of sheared flows. Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics, 4(5):1102–1114, 1992

    1992

  23. [31]

    C. G. Hobbs, M. G. House, J. N. Leboeuf, J. M. Dawson, V. K. Decyk, M. W. Kissick, and R. D. Sydora. Effect of sheared toroidal rotation on ion temperature gradient turbulence and resistive kink stability in a large aspect ratio tokamak. Physics of Plasmas, 8(11):4849–4855, 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    Giacomin, D

    M. Giacomin, D. Kennedy, F. J. Casson, C. J. Ajay, D. Dickinson, B. S. Patel, and C. M. Roach. On electromagnetic turbulence and transport in STEP. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 66(5):055010, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Guttenfelder, J

    W. Guttenfelder, J. Candy, S. M. Kaye, W. M. Nevins, E. Wang, R. E. Bell, G. W. Hammett, B. P. LeBlanc, D. R. Mikkelsen, and H. Yuh. Electromagnetic transport from microtearing mode turbulence. Physical Review Letters, 106(15):155004, 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    M. R. Hardman, F. I. Parra, B. S. Patel, C. M. Roach, J. R. Ruiz, M. Barnes, D. Dickinson, W. Dorland, J. F. Parisi, D. St-Onge, et al. New linear stability parameter to describe low- β electromagnetic microinstabilities driven by passing electrons in axisymmetric toroidal geo...

    2023

  27. [35]

    The impact of E × B shear on microtearing based transport in spherical tokamaks

    BS Patel, Michael R Hardman, Daniel Kennedy, Maurizio Giacomin, David Dickinson, and CM Roach. The impact of E × B shear on microtearing based transport in spherical tokamaks. Nuclear Fusion, 65(2):026063, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    C. M. Roach, I. G. Abel, R. J. Akers, W. Arter, M. Barnes, Y. Camenen, F. J. Casson, G. Colyer, J. W. Connor, S. C. Cowley, et al. Gyrokinetic simulations of spherical tokamaks. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 51(12):124020, 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    P. G. Ivanov, T. Adkins, D. Kennedy, M. Giacomin, M. Barnes, and A. A. Schekochihin. Suppression of temperature-gradient-driven turbulence by sheared flows in fusion plasmas.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00854, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Giacomin, L.N

    M. Giacomin, L.N. Stenger, and P. Ricci. Turbulence and flows in the plasma boundary of snowflake magnetic configurations. Nuclear Fusion, 60(2):024001, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    A. J. Coelho, J. Loizu, P. Ricci, and M. Giacomin. Global fluid simulation of plasma turbulence in a stellarator with an island divertor. Nuclear Fusion, 62(7):074004, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Galassi, C

    D. Galassi, C. Theiler, T. Body, F. Manke, P. Micheletti, J. Omotani, M. Wiesenberger, M Baquero-Ruiz, I. Furno, M. Giacomin, et al. Validation of edge turbulence codes in a magnetic X-point scenario in TORPEX. Physics of Plasmas, 29(1), 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    D. S. Oliveira, T. Body, D. Galassi, C. Theiler, E. Laribi, P. Tamain, A. Stegmeir, M. Giacomin, W. Zholobenko, P. Ricci, et al. Validation of edge turbulence codes against the TCV-X21 diverted L-mode reference case. Nuclear Fusion, 62(9):096001, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Zeiler, J

    A. Zeiler, J. F. Drake, and B. Rogers. Nonlinear reduced Braginskii equations with ion thermal dynamics in toroidal plasma. Physics of Plasmas, 4(6):2134–2138, 1997

    1997

  35. [43]

    Mancini, P

    D. Mancini, P. Ricci, N. Vianello, M. Giacomin, and A Coroado. Investigation of the density shoulder formation by using self-consistent simulations of plasma turbulence and neutral kinetic dynamics. Nuclear Fusion, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Giacomin and P

    M. Giacomin and P. Ricci. Turbulent transport regimes in the tokamak boundary and operational limits. Physics of Plasmas, 29(6), 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    K. Lim, M. Giacomin, P. Ricci, A. Coelho, O. F´ evrier, D. Mancini, D. Silvagni, and L. Stenger. Effect of triangularity on plasma turbulence and the sol-width scaling in l-mode diverted tokamak Three-dimensional boundary turbulence simulations of a RFX-mod plasma. . . 26 conf...

    2023

  38. [46]

    B. N. Rogers and W. Dorland. Noncurvature-driven modes in a transport barrier. Physics of Plasmas, 12(6):062511, 2005

    2005

  39. [47]

    Ricci, B

    P. Ricci, B. N. Rogers, and S. Brunner. High- and low-confinement modes in simple magnetized toroidal plasmas. Physical Review Letters, 100(22):6–9, 2008

    2008

  40. [48]

    Ricci and B

    P. Ricci and B. N. Rogers. Plasma turbulence in the scrape-off layer of tokamak devices. Physics of Plasmas, 20(1):010702, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    P. C. Stangeby. The plasma boundary of magnetic fusion devices. CRC Press, 2000

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.