Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Simulating X-point radiator turbulence

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Global turbulence simulations reproduce a detached X-point radiator in a tokamak and show that the radiating front is strongly turbulent, a result the paper links to ELM suppression.

desk verdict First turbulence-resolving XPR simulation, worth a serious referee, but the neutral-gas height-modulation claim is confounded by simultaneous changes in c_imp and T_N,min. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16190 v3 pith:JFTFRMDB submitted 2025-04-22 physics.plasm-ph

K. Eder , W. Zholobenko , A. Stegmeir , M. Bernert , D. Coster , F. Jenko , the ASDEX Upgrade Team , the EUROfusion Tokamak Exploitation Team This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords X-pointradiatordivertordetachmentedgeturbulencesimulationGRILLIXimpurityradiationneutralgasphysicsASDEXUpgradeELMsuppression
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

Predicting fusion power exhaust requires simulations that resolve both the turbulence in the tokamak edge and the atomic physics of detachment. This paper claims that the GRILLIX edge turbulence code, extended with impurity-radiation cooling, can sustain a detached X-point radiator (XPR) and reproduce measurements from an ASDEX Upgrade discharge. Two simulated states place a dense nitrogen radiation front 5 and 12 cm above the X-point, radiating about 80% of the injected heating power, with the taller front matching the measured bolometry best. The paper's new content is what turbulence does to the front: density and temperature fluctuations exceed 400% of the background, the front becomes a set of intermittent cold recombining spots wrapped in fluctuating ionization and radiation mantles, and a stationary E×B vortex appears with radial flows an order of magnitude above normal outboard transport. Because tall X-point radiators are observed to suppress edge-localized modes, the paper connects these turbulence-driven flows to ELM suppression.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the impurity-radiation power density $p_{\rm rad}^{\rm imp} = -L_{\rm imp}(T_e)\,n^2\,c_{\rm imp}$, added to the electron temperature equation with a coronal-equilibrium nitrogen rate coefficient $L_{\rm imp}(T_e)$ that peaks near 7–15 eV. Around it sit two numerical and physics additions: a fluid neutral model whose perpendicular diffusivity has a temperature floor $T_{N,\min}$ meant to mimic kinetic non-local neutral spreading, and an implicit treatment of parallel resistivity that removes the $T_e^{-3/2}$ stiffness of Ohm's law at low temperature. The fixed impurity fraction determines whether a radiation front can persist; the divertor neutral density and the neutral diffusivity floor control its height. On top of this, the turbulence is generated by GRILLIX's full-$f$ drift-fluid model, which evolves the whole profile rather than only fluctuations, letting the extreme fluctuation levels develop self-consistently.

What would settle it

A turbulence simulation that evolves the nitrogen charge-state distribution self-consistently, or uses a kinetic treatment of neutrals, should be run for the same discharge; if the front height no longer sits near 12 cm or the radiated fraction moves away from about 80%, the fixed-fraction and fixed-neutral-density assumptions are doing the work attributed to the physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a global, full-f turbulence code can reproduce a detached X-point radiator state in a tokamak. With nitrogen modeled as a fixed fraction of electron density, $c_{\rm imp}=10\%$ (later $5\%$), radiating in coronal equilibrium, GRILLIX forms dense radiation fronts at 5 cm and 12 cm above the X-point that radiate about 80% of the input heating power. The taller front matches the experimental divertor temperature and bolometry profiles of ASDEX Upgrade discharge #40333 especially well. The discovery is that the XPR is not a smooth radiating shell but a strongly turbulent structure: intermittent cold recombining cores sit inside fluctuating ionization and radiation mantles, density fluctuations reach more than 400% of the background (40% in the attached reference), and the averaged electrostatic potential becomes poloidally asymmetric, producing a stationary E×B vortex whose radial particle fluxes exceed outboard turbulent transport by up to an order of magnitude. The paper argues these effects may explain the ELM suppression seen when the XPR is tall.

Load-bearing premise

The whole result leans on treating nitrogen as a fixed slice of the electron density whose cooling is precomputed from temperature, and on setting the neutral gas density in the divertor and a minimum neutral diffusivity by hand; if real impurity transport, non-equilibrium charge states, or kinetic neutral spreading shift the front's height or brightness, the agreement with the experiment is not predictive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Detached X-point radiators can now be studied in global turbulence simulations, so the radiating front, neutral gas, and turbulent transport no longer have to be packaged into heuristic transport coefficients.
  • Neutral gas acts as the control knob for XPR height: raising the divertor neutral density and the minimum neutral diffusivity moves the front from 5 cm to 12 cm above the X-point.
  • The High-XPR simulation reproduces the measured divertor temperature and peaked bolometry profile, supporting the experimental picture of a tall radiating front in discharge #40333.
  • The time-averaged structure of the turbulent XPR matches earlier transport simulations, but only the turbulence simulation shows the intermittency: cold recombining cores and fluctuating ionization and radiation mantles that a mean-field picture misses.
  • The XPR shifts the radial electric field well inward, breaks poloidal potential symmetry, and drives an E×B vortex with radial flows an order of magnitude above outboard transport, which the paper links to the observed ELM suppression.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the fixed-fraction and coronal assumptions were replaced by self-consistent nitrogen transport, the front height and radiation fraction might shift; that calculation would separate physics from prescription and is a direct next step.
  • The negative and space-dependent effective diffusivities found near the XPR imply that mean-field transport codes used for reactor extrapolation may need qualitatively new closure models in detached regimes, not just higher diffusivity values.
  • The E×B vortex intensity is a testable predictor for ELM suppression: scanning simulated XPR height and correlating vortex-driven radial transport with the experimentally observed height threshold around 7 cm would check the causal link directly.
  • Since averaged atomic rates differ from rates evaluated on averaged profiles, synthetic diagnostics applied to the instantaneous turbulent fields could quantify how much the intermittency changes predicted ionization, recombination, and radiation balances.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents first-of-kind turbulence simulations of detached X-point radiator (XPR) conditions in ASDEX Upgrade using the GRILLIX code. The plasma model is extended with a fixed-impurity-fraction radiation term, an implicit parallel resistivity scheme, and a lower bound on the neutral diffusivity. Two XPR states are reported, with radiation fronts at 5 cm and 12 cm above the X-point, radiating about 80% of the input heating power; they are compared with an attached reference case and validated against outboard-midplane, divertor, and bolometry measurements. The paper further analyzes fluctuation statistics, radial transport coefficients, the radial electric field, and E×B flows, and argues that neutral gas is critical for detachment and for modulating the XPR height, and that the observed turbulence and flows may relate to ELM suppression.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is a valuable step: it is the first global turbulence simulation of a detached XPR, and it demonstrates the feasibility of coupling drift-fluid turbulence with neutral and impurity effects in a diverted geometry. The numerical extensions are verified with the Method of Manufactured Solutions, and the paper is generally transparent about the modeling assumptions. The reported intermittent recombination cores and the large (400%) fluctuation amplitudes are interesting and potentially relevant to the ELM-suppressed XPR regime. The main caveat is that the XPR height and radiation fraction are strongly influenced by tunable parameters (c_imp, N_div, T_N,min, and a temporary neutral source), so the validation is partly a consistency check rather than an independent predictive test.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3 (and abstract)] The claim that neutral gas modulates the XPR height is not supported by the presented simulations, because the High-XPR case differs from the Low-XPR case in three parameters simultaneously. The text states that N_div is transiently raised and T_N,min is increased, and then 'the impurity concentration parameter was reduced from c_imp = 10%→5%.' After N_div is restored to 1e19 m^-3, the final High-XPR state differs from Low-XPR in both T_N,min (30→50 eV) and c_imp (10%→5%). Since Eq. (1) makes p_rad proportional to c_imp, and §3.2 shows that reducing c_imp strongly affects XPR persistence and position, the lower c_imp is a plausible alternative driver of the 12 cm front. To support the stated conclusion, a control simulation that varies only N_div (or a clear statement that the height is a combined effect of all three changes) is required.
  2. [§4.3 and Table 1] The bolometric validation is partially circular. The DLX diode data is scaled 'such that the experimental peak aligns approximately with the peak value obtained in the High-XPR case,' and the High-XPR state itself is obtained by tuning N_div, T_N,min, and c_imp. Moreover, the radiation fraction of 0.8 in Table 1 is a direct consequence of the chosen c_imp and the imposed neutral sources; it is not an emergent prediction. The sentence 'The agreement of the High-XPR case is remarkable' therefore overstates the evidential value: the comparison demonstrates that the model can localize a strong radiator at the tuned height, but it does not independently validate the predicted height or the 80% radiation fraction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] The statement that 'whenever simulation data is shown ... it has been averaged over ... the last 50 snapshots, spanning 0.1 ms' should be accompanied by a sensitivity check or a statement on statistical convergence, since 0.1 ms is short compared to the 1 ms quasi-steady interval quoted in §3.2.
  2. [§3.2] The temporary neutral source is a significant ad hoc element. The paper says the front persists after removal, but no quantitative diagnostic is shown to demonstrate that the quasi-steady state is unaffected by the source's memory; a brief comparison of fields before and after removal would be useful.
  3. [§4.3] The phrase 'though note that some overestimation should be expected due to higher radiation compared to the experiment' is vague; it would be clearer to state that the simulated heating power and radiated power are higher than the experimental values (Table 1) by specific amounts.
  4. [Figure 10] The histograms are presented with a count axis (log scale) but not as normalized probability densities; please clarify in the caption how the counts are obtained and whether the 400% figure corresponds to the sample maximum or a percentile.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Radiation fraction and High-XPR height are substantially controlled by scanned inputs (cimp, Ndiv, TN,min), making the bolometric validation partly circular; the turbulence and transport results remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1, Eq. (1); Section 3.1; Section 3.2]
    "The impurity-radiated power density then reads pimp rad = −Limp (Te)n2cimp. ... Impurity concentration is set to cimp = 10% after scanning over multiple simulations from cimp = 2%− 10%. ... Reducing cimp from 10% to 2%, for example, while not destroying the XPR outright, leads to the ionization/radiation structure gradually drifting below the separatrix, after which it vanishes entirely."

    The model's radiated power is proportional to the free parameter cimp, and cimp is selected (10%) precisely because lower values do not sustain an XPR. The headline 'accounting for 80% of the input heating power' is therefore not a parameter-free prediction from first-principles impurity transport: it is largely enforced by the chosen impurity fraction and the coronal equilibrium assumption. The bolometric validation then checks a state whose radiation magnitude is heavily influenced by a tuned input, so the radiation-fraction agreement is partly circular, although the matched Te profile and turbulence statistics are independent.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3]
    "This was achieved by continuing the 'Low XPR' simulation from 1.7 ms with higher divertor neutrals density Ndiv = 1× 1019 → 2× 1019 m−3 and enforcing a minimum diffusivity TN,min = 30 → 50 eV. ... Concurrently, the impurity concentration parameter was reduced from cimp = 10% → 5%. This was found to prevent the radiation front from rising too high."

    The 12 cm High-XPR front is not derived from neutral-gas physics alone: it is produced by jointly changing Ndiv, TN,min, and cimp, then restoring Ndiv while retaining the other two changes. The paper presents this case as evidence that neutral gas modulates XPR height and validates its bolometry, but the final Low-XPR vs High-XPR comparison is confounded by the simultaneous cimp and TN,min changes. The height is thus a tuned outcome rather than an independent prediction, making the neutral-gas height-modulation claim and the High-XPR bolometric agreement weaker than presented.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about its modeling assumptions, and much of the turbulence content is genuinely emergent: fluctuation PDFs, 400% amplitude increases, radial transport coefficients, inward Er shift, and the E×B vortex near the XPR are outputs not fitted to experiment. The Te profiles are matched without tuning to those profiles, so the validation has independent content. However, the two headline quantitative claims — 80% radiation fraction and the 12 cm XPR height — are substantially controlled by scanned inputs: cimp is chosen at the edge of the persistence scan, and the High-XPR state is produced by a coordinated change of Ndiv, TN,min, and cimp. Because the bolometry comparison is performed on a state whose radiation peak height and magnitude were effectively tuned, the validation of those specific numbers is partially circular. The confounded parameter change also undermines the causal attribution of height modulation to neutral gas. Overall a moderate partial circularity, not a wholesale derivation-from-inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several imposed elements: a fixed uniform impurity concentration scanned to 10% or 5%, a coronal-equilibrium radiation coefficient from ADAS, a fluid neutral model with an artificial minimum diffusivity, and a temporary neutral particle source to trigger detachment. These are disclosed and are necessary to obtain the XPR, but they mean the simulation is not a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (5)
  • c_imp nitrogen concentration fraction = 10% (Low XPR); 5% (High XPR)
    Set after scanning 2-10% in Section 3.1; reduced to 5% in Section 3.3 to prevent the XPR from rising too high. Directly scales impurity radiation in Eq. (1).
  • N_div divertor neutral density boundary = 1e19 m^-3; 2e19 m^-3 during the High-XPR push
    Fixed boundary condition; raising it to 2e19 m^-3 floods the divertor with neutrals and lifts the XPR front from 5 to 12 cm (Section 3.3).
  • T_N,min minimum neutrals temperature in diffusivity limiter = 30 eV (Low XPR); 50 eV (High XPR)
    Introduced in Eq. (3) to mimic kinetic non-local neutral spreading; the value is chosen by hand and changed to modulate XPR height.
  • Temporary neutral source = 1.8e19 D over 0.5 ms, 10 cm Gaussian width
    Ad hoc seed used to trigger detachment (Section 3.2). The claim that the front persists after removal is checked for about 1 ms, which is short relative to the confinement time.
  • Free-streaming heat-flux limiter coefficients = f_FS^e = 0.3, f_FS^i = 1
    Chosen in Section 3.1 for the parallel Braginskii heat flux closure; they shape the heat transport that balances impurity radiation, though they are not fitted to the XPR data.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Fixed, uniform impurity concentration n_imp = c_imp n in coronal equilibrium.
    Used in Eq. (1) and Section 2.1 to compute radiation power; c_imp is scanned between 2% and 10%, so the radiation fraction is partly an input, not a predicted outcome.
  • domain assumption ADAS coronal-equilibrium nitrogen radiation rate coefficient L_imp(T_e) is valid locally, including in strong fluctuation regions.
    Section 2.1 uses p_rad = -L_imp(Te) n^2 c_imp. No impurity charge-state transport or non-equilibrium effects are included, which could matter where fluctuations are 400 percent.
  • domain assumption Fluid neutral model with minimum diffusivity T_N,min reproduces kinetic non-local neutral spreading.
    Section 2.3 Eq. (3) introduces a conditional amplification factor as a modeling fix, not derived from kinetic theory; T_N,min = 30 or 50 eV is chosen by hand.
  • domain assumption Drift-reduced Braginskii fluid closures with free-streaming heat flux limits remain valid in the detached XPR regime.
    The paper argues the XPR is highly collisional, but the simulated region also has strong gradients and large fluctuations; the closure is not separately validated.
  • ad hoc to paper Temporary neutral source does not bias the quasi-steady turbulent state once removed.
    Section 3.2 requires the source to initiate the XPR; persistence is verified for about 1 ms, comparable to a fraction of the confinement time.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating X-point radiator turbulence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFTFRMDB

@misc{pith2026250416190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating X-point radiator turbulence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFTFRMDB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16190}
}
read the original abstract

Coupling a high-performance burning plasma core to a detached boundary solution is critical for realizing magnetic confinement fusion power. Predictive simulations of the edge and scrape-off layer are therefore essential and must self-consistently account for turbulence and the interplay between the plasma, neutral gas, and impurities. We present results on controlled full detachment in ASDEX Upgrade with an X-point radiator (XPR), obtained with the edge turbulence code GRILLIX. Assuming a fixed nitrogen concentration (in terms of the electron density) in coronal equilibrium, two simulations are discussed: they exhibit dense nitrogen radiation fronts, located 5 and 12 cm above the X-point, accounting for 80 % of the input heating power. In validations against density, temperature, and bolometry measurements, the simulations show good agreement and reproduce the detached divertor conditions observed in the experiment. Neutral gas is critical for achieving detachment and modulating the height of the XPR front, in agreement with previous SOLPS-ITER transport modeling and analytical power balance studies. In addition, the front structure is highly dynamic due to turbulence, consisting of ionizing and radiative mantles surrounding intermittent cold spots of recombining plasma. Near the detachment front, density and temperature fluctuation amplitudes exceed the background by more than 400 %, compared to 40 % in an attached reference case. The radial electric field shifts inward, poloidal symmetry of the electrostatic potential is broken (inducing strong radial flows around the XPR), and radial particle and heat transport into the low-field side scrape-off layer increases. These effects may explain the ELM suppression observed in the H-mode XPR regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16190 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Snapshots of various plasma quantities in a simulation with X-point radiator present (later referred to as “Low-XPR” case) taken at the φ = π/2 plane. First row: instantaneous plasma density, electron temperature, and neutrals density. The line-of-sight of the Divertor Thomson Scattering (DTS) diagnostic shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Impurity radiation density p imp rad [MWm−3 ] directly above the X-point as a function of simulation time. Note that the subplots apply different upper limits of 2.5, 15, and 40 MWm−3 . The High-XPR simulation begins at the final state of the Low-XPR simulation at 1.7 ms, where the divertor neutrals density Ndiv is increased. At 1.94 ms, divertor neutrals density is reduced back to 1 × 1019 m−3 and the radiation hei… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plasma density and electron temperature on flux surface ρpol = 0.998 near the X-point. The error bars indicate fluctuation amplitudes. The flux surface passes through the recombining center of the Low-XPR simulation and passes below the XPR in the High-XPR simulation. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: OMP profiles of plasma density (left) and electron temperature (right) compared to experiment data #40333 PED 2.3 − 2.5 s. 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 R [m] 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 n [10 19 m 3 ] DTS #40333 No XPR Low XPR High XPR 10 20 30 40 Te [e V] 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental measurements #40333 DTS 2.3−2.5 s overlaid with simulation data for plasma density (left) and electron temperature (right). Dotted vertical lines indicate where the separatrix intersects with the line of DTS measurement coordinates (shown in the top left s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bolometry sight lines in the experiment overlaid on impurity radiation density in the ”High XPR” simulation, FLX #1-7 in white solid lines, DLX #1-16 in gray dashed lines (increasing from bottom to top). The channels closest to the simulated radiation peak (FLX #6 and …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison between radiation in simulations and experimental measurements of #40333 FLX 2.38 − 2.42 s (left) and #40333 DLX 2.399 − 2.401 s (right). Simulation data and FLX measurements are shown in physical units. DLX signal strength is in arbitrary units and scaled t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Poloidal projection of power sink by heat conduction (1st row), impurity radiation density (2nd row), ionization rate (3rd row), and recombination rate (4th row). The chosen flux surfaces ρpol = 0.998, 0.989 intersect with the recombination-dominated core in the Low-XP…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histogram of density and electron temperature values (normalized to their background) observed in the X-point sector (θpol ∈ [4.08, 4.78] rad) at flux surfaces ρpol = [0.998, 0.998, 0.989] depending on simulation (see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Instantanous snapshot of plasma density and electron temperature at plane φ = π/2 normalized to their background in the No-XPR case (left column), Low-XPR case (center column), and High-XPR case (right column). The X-point sector of the respective flux surface of inte…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Radial particle diffusivity (1st column) and electron heat conductivity (2nd column) for the No￾XPR case (top row) and High-XPR case. Negative values (in blue) indicate regions where radial flow points in direction of the density / temperature gradient (pinch). 0.925 …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Left: time and toroidally averaged radial electric field Er at the OMP in the three simulations. Right: explicit contributions from the radial ion gradient (dotted line) and additionally toroidal rotation (dashed line) in the High-XPR case. The remaining difference to…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Magnified view of time and toroidally averaged electrostatic potential above the X-point. The averaged E × B particle flux nvE is overlaid with black arrows. 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Poloidal distance from X-point [m] 10 1 10 0 0 10 0 10 1 E × B, rad [1 0 21 m 2s 1 ] Inboa…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Radial particle flux through particular flux surfaces in the two simulations featuring an XPR, positive values indicate radially outward flow. The inboard and outboard mid-planes are located at distances ∼ ±1 m relative to the X-point. Note that the y-axis first scale…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Viezzer, M

    E. Viezzer, M. Austin, M. Bernert et al. Prospects of core–edge integrated no-ELM and small-ELM scenarios for future fusion devices. Nuclear Materials and Energy , 34, 101308 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    H. Zohm, C. Angioni, E. Fable et al. On the physics guidelines for a tokamak DEMO. Nuclear Fusion, 53 (7), 073019 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    R. A. Pitts, X. Bonnin, F. Escourbiac et al. Physics basis for the first ITER tungsten divertor. Nuclear Materials and Energy, 20, 100696 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Loarte, B

    A. Loarte, B. Lipschultz, A. S. Kukushkin et al. Progress in the ITER Physics Basis - Chapter 4: Power and particle control. Nuclear Fusion, 47 (6), S203 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Wischmeier, A

    M. Wischmeier, A. U. Team et al. High density operation for reactor-relevant power exhaust. Journal of Nuclear Materials , 463, 22 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    P. C. Stangeby et al. The Plasma Boundary of Magnetic Fusion Devices , volume 224. Institute of Physics Pub. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Kuang, S

    A. Kuang, S. Ballinger, D. Brunner et al. Divertor heat flux challenge and mitigation in SPARC. Journal of Plasma Physics , 86 (5), 865860505 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    H. Zohm, F. Militello, T. Morgan et al. The EU strategy for solving the DEMO exhaust problem. Fusion Engineering and Design, 166, 112307 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Krasheninnikov and A

    S. Krasheninnikov and A. Kukushkin. Physics of ultimate detachment of a tokamak divertor plasma. Journal of Plasma Physics, 83 (5), 155830501 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Pshenov, A

    A. Pshenov, A. Kukushkin and S. Krasheninnikov. Energy balance in plasma detachment. Nuclear Materials and Energy , 12, 948 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Wiesen, D

    S. Wiesen, D. Reiter, V. Kotov et al. The new SOLPS-ITER code package. Journal of Nuclear Materials , 463, 480 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Bufferand, B

    H. Bufferand, B. Bensiali, J. Bucalossi et al. Near wall plasma simulation using penalization technique with the transport code SOLEDGE2D-EIRENE. Journal of Nuclear Materials , 438, S445 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Y. Feng, H. Frerichs, M. Kobayashi et al. Recent improvements in the EMC3-Eirene code. Contributions to Plasma Physics , 54 (4-6), 426 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Bucalossi, J

    J. Bucalossi, J. Achard, O. Agullo et al. Operating a full tungsten actively cooled tokamak: overview of WEST first phase of operation. Nuclear Fusion, 62 (4), 042007 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Stroth, D

    U. Stroth, D. Aguiam, E. Alessi et al. Progress from ASDEX Upgrade experiments in preparing the physics basis of ITER operation and DEMO scenario development. Nuclear Fusion, 62 (4), 042006 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Wersal and P

    C. Wersal and P. Ricci. A first-principles self-consistent model of plasma turbulence and kinetic neutral dynamics in the tokamak scrape-off layer. Nuclear Fusion, 55 (12), 123014 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Kvist, A

    K. Kvist, A. S. Thrysøe, T. Haugbølle et al. A direct Monte Carlo approach for the modeling of neutrals at the plasma edge and its self-consistent coupling with the 2D fluid plasma edge turbulence model HESEL. Physics of Plasmas, 31 (3) (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Quadri, P

    V. Quadri, P. Tamain, Y. Marandet et al. Self-organization of plasma edge turbulence in interaction with recycling neutrals. Contributions to Plasma Physics , 64 (7-8), e202300146 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    K. Eder, A. Stegmeir, W. Zholobenko et al. Self-consistent plasma-neutrals fluid modeling of edge and scrape-off layer turbulence in diverted tokamaks. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion , 67 (6), 065034 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Mancini, P

    D. Mancini, P. Ricci, N. Vianello et al. Self-consistent multi-component simulation of plasma turbulence and neutrals in detached conditions. Nuclear Fusion, 64 (1), 016012 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Kallenbach, R

    A. Kallenbach, R. Dux, V. Mertens et al. H mode discharges with feedback controlled radiative boundary in the ASDEX Upgrade tokamak. Nuclear Fusion, 35 (10), 1231 (1995)

    1995

  14. [22]

    Lowry, D

    C. Lowry, D. Campbell, S. Davies et al. Divertor configuration studies on JET. Journal of Nuclear Materials , 241, 438 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    Pitts, A

    R. Pitts, A. Refke, B. Duval et al. Experimental investigation of the effects of neon injection in TCV. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 266, 648 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    J.-S. Park, R. Pitts, J. Jang et al. Bifurcation-like transition of divertor conditions induced by X-point radiation in KSTAR L-mode plasmas. Nuclear Fusion, 63 (8), 086018 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Goetz, C

    J. Goetz, C. Kurz, B. LaBombard et al. Comparison of detached and radiative divertor operation in Alcator C-Mod. Physics of Plasmas, 3 (5), 1908 (1996)

    1996

  18. [26]

    Reimold, M

    F. Reimold, M. Wischmeier, M. Bernert et al. Divertor studies in nitrogen induced completely detached H-modes in full tungsten ASDEX Upgrade. Nuclear Fusion, 55 (3), 033004 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Gl¨ oggler, M

    S. Gl¨ oggler, M. Wischmeier, E. Fableet al. Characterisation of highly radiating neon seeded plasmas in JET-ILW. Nuclear Fusion, 59 (12), 126031 (2019). Simulating X-point radiator turbulence 16

    2019

  20. [28]

    Bernert, F

    M. Bernert, F. Janky, B. Sieglin et al. X-point radiation, its control and an ELM suppressed radiating regime at the ASDEX Upgrade tokamak. Nuclear Fusion, 61 (2), 024001 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Lipschultz, B

    B. Lipschultz, B. LaBombard, E. Marmar et al. Marfe: an edge plasma phenomenon. Nuclear Fusion, 24 (8), 977 (1984)

    1984

  22. [30]

    Bernert, T

    M. Bernert, T. Bosman, T. Lunt et al. X-point radiation: From discovery to potential application in a future reactor. Nuclear Materials and Energy , 43, 101916 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Bernert, S

    M. Bernert, S. Wiesen, O. F´ evrieret al. The X-Point radiating regime at ASDEX Upgrade and TCV. Nuclear Materials and Energy, 34, 101376 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Rivals, N

    N. Rivals, N. Fedorczak, P. Tamain et al. Experiments and SOLEDGE3X modeling of dissipative divertor and X-point Radiator regimes in WEST. Nuclear Materials and Energy , 40, 101723 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Bosman, M

    T. Bosman, M. Bernert, L. Ceelen et al. X-point radiator control and its dynamics in ASDEX Upgrade and JET deuterium–tritium discharges. Nuclear Fusion, 65 (1), 016057 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Reimerdes, C

    H. Reimerdes, C. Theiler, M. Bernert et al. Access to an ELM-suppressed X-point radiator regime in TCV snowflake minus configurations. Nuclear Materials and Energy , 41, 101784 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    I. Y. Senichenkov, E. Kaveeva, V. Rozhansky et al. Approaching the radiating X-point in SOLPS-ITER modeling of ASDEX Upgrade H-mode discharges. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion , 63 (5), 055011 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    O. Pan, M. Bernert, T. Lunt et al. SOLPS-ITER simulations of an X-point radiator in the ASDEX Upgrade tokamak. Nuclear Fusion, 63 (1), 016001 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    G. Sun. SOLPS-ITER simulation of an X-point radiator in TCV. arXiv preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07295 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Poletaeva, V

    A. Poletaeva, V. Rozhansky, E. Kaveeva et al. First SOLPS-ITER modelling of an X-point radiator in ITER. Nuclear Fusion, 64 (12), 126038 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Y. Feng, V. Winters, D. Zhang et al. Conditions and benefits of X-point radiation for the island divertor. Nuclear Fusion, 64 (8), 086027 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Winters, F

    V. Winters, F. Reimold, Y. Feng et al. First experimental confirmation of island SOL geometry effects in a high radiation regime on W7-X. Nuclear Fusion, 64 (12), 126047 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Kobayashi, S

    M. Kobayashi, S. Masuzaki, I. Yamada et al. Control of 3D edge radiation structure with resonant magnetic perturbation fields applied to the stochastic layer and stabilization of radiative divertor plasma in LHD. Nuclear Fusion, 53 (9), 093032 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Faitsch, T

    M. Faitsch, T. Eich, G. Harrer et al. Broadening of the power fall-off length in a high density, high confinement H-mode regime in ASDEX Upgrade. Nuclear Materials and Energy , 26, 100890 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Greenwald, R

    M. Greenwald, R. Boivin, P. Bonoli et al. Characterization of enhanced D α high-confinement modes in Alcator C-Mod. Physics of Plasmas , 6 (5), 1943 (1999)

    1999

  36. [44]

    T. Lunt, M. Bernert, D. Brida et al. Compact radiative divertor experiments at ASDEX Upgrade and their consequences for a reactor. Physical Review Letters, 130 (14), 145102 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Stegmeir, A

    A. Stegmeir, A. Ross, T. Body et al. Global turbulence simulations of the tokamak edge region with GRILLIX. Physics of Plasmas, 26 (5) (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Stegmeir, D

    A. Stegmeir, D. Coster, O. Maj et al. The field line map approach for simulations of magnetically confined plasmas. Computer Physics Communications, 198, 139 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Stegmeir, T

    A. Stegmeir, T. Body and W. Zholobenko. Analysis of locally-aligned and non-aligned discretisation schemes for reactor-scale tokamak edge turbulence simulations. Computer Physics Communications , 290, 108801 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    T. Body, A. Stegmeir, W. Zholobenko et al. Treatment of advanced divertor configurations in the flux-coordinate independent turbulence code GRILLIX. Contributions to Plasma Physics , 60 (5-6), e201900139 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Stegmeir, M

    A. Stegmeir, M. Finkbeiner, C. Pitzal et al. GRILLIX as unified fluid turbulence code for tokamaks and stellarators. Available at SSRN 5104975 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Zhang, W

    K. Zhang, W. Zholobenko, A. Stegmeir et al. Magnetic flutter effect on validated edge turbulence simulations. Nuclear Fusion, 64 (3), 036016 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Zholobenko, K

    W. Zholobenko, K. Zhang, A. Stegmeir et al. Tokamak edge-SOL turbulence in H-mode conditions simulated with a global, electromagnetic, transcollisional drift-fluid model. Nuclear Fusion, 64 (10), 106066 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Zholobenko, A

    W. Zholobenko, A. Stegmeir, M. Griener et al. The role of neutral gas in validated global edge turbulence simulations. Nuclear Fusion, 61 (11), 116015 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Braginskii

    S. Braginskii. Transport processes in a plasma. Reviews of Plasma Physics , 1, 205 (1965)

    1965

  46. [54]

    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 (1997)

    1997

  47. [55]

    Horsten, G

    N. Horsten, G. Samaey and M. Baelmans. Development and assessment of 2D fluid neutral models that include atomic databases and a microscopic reflection model. Nuclear Fusion, 57 (11), 116043 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Van Uytven, M

    W. Van Uytven, M. Blommaert, W. Dekeyser et al. Implementation of a separate fluid-neutral energy equation in SOLPS- ITER and its impact on the validity range of advanced fluid-neutral models. Contributions to Plasma Physics , 60 (5-6), e201900147 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Stotler, J

    D. Stotler, J. Lang, C. Chang et al. Neutral recycling effects on ITG turbulence. Nuclear Fusion, 57 (8), 086028 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Zhang and S

    Y. Zhang and S. I. Krasheninnikov. Effect of neutrals on the anomalous edge plasma transport. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 62 (11), 115018 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Stroth, M

    U. Stroth, M. Bernert, D. Brida et al. Model for access and stability of the X-point radiator and the threshold for marfes in tokamak plasmas. Nuclear Fusion, 62 (7), 076008 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Stroth, M

    U. Stroth, M. Bernert, T. Lunt et al. Model for the X-point radiator height and its energetic coupling to the plasma edge. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion , 67 (3), 035001 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    https://open.adas.ac.uk/

    Atomic Data and Analysis Structure. https://open.adas.ac.uk/

  54. [62]

    S. O. Makarov. Development and Implementation of a Generalized Multi-Ion Transport Model in Plasma Edge Fluid Codes . Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Fischer, C

    R. Fischer, C. Fuchs, B. Kurzan et al. Integrated Data Analysis of Profile Diagnostics at ASDEX Upgrade. Fusion Science and Technology, 58 (2), 675 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    D. Fan, Y. Marandet, P. Tamain et al. Effect of turbulent fluctuations on neutral particles transport with the TOKAM3X- EIRENE turbulence code. Nuclear Materials and Energy , 18, 105 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Zholobenko, J

    W. Zholobenko, J. Pfennig, A. Stegmeir et al. Filamentary transport in global edge-SOL simulations of ASDEX Upgrade. Nuclear Materials and Energy , 34, 101351 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Bernert, T

    M. Bernert, T. Eich, A. Burckhart et al. Application of AXUV diode detectors at ASDEX Upgrade. Review of scientific Instruments, 85 (3) (2014)

    2014

  59. [67]

    Senichenkov, E

    I. Senichenkov, E. Kaveeva, V. Rozhansky et al. Features of radial electric field in impurity-seeded, detached plasma in a Simulating X-point radiator turbulence 17 tokamak. Physics of Plasmas , 28 (6) (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    Zholobenko, T

    W. Zholobenko, T. Body, P. Manz et al. Electric field and turbulence in global Braginskii simulations across the ASDEX Upgrade edge and scrape-off layer. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion , 63 (3), 034001 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    P. H. Diamond, S. Itoh, K. Itoh et al. Zonal flows in plasma—a review. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion , 47 (5), R35 (2005)

    2005

  62. [70]

    P. J. Roache. Code Verification by the Method of Manufactured Solutions. Journal of Fluids Engineering , 124 (1), 4 (2002)

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.