pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05488 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Evolution of SPI-induced disruptions in ASDEX Upgrade

P. Heinrich (1) , G. Papp (1) , S. Jachmich (2) , J. Artola (2) , M. Bernert (1) , P. de Marn\'e (1) , M. Dibon (2) , R. Dux (1)
show 36 more authors
T. Eberl (1) O. Ficker (3) P. Halldestam (1) J. Hobirk (1) M. Hoelzl (1) F. Klossek (1) M. Lehnen (2) T. Lunt (1) M. Maraschek (1) A. Patel (1) T. Peherstorfer (4) N. Schwarz (5) U. Sheikh (6) B. Sieglin (1) J. Svoboda (3) W. Tang (1) the ASDEX Upgrade Team the EUROfusion Tokamak Exploitation Team ((1) Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics Garching Germany (2) ITER Organization St. Paul-lez-Durance France (3) Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS CZ-18200 Praha 8 Czech Republic (4) Institute for Applied Physics Wien Austria (5) Commissariat \'a l'\'Energie Atomique CEA Institute for Magnetic Fusion Research IRFM F-13108 St. Paul-lez-Durance (6) Ecole Polytechnique F\'ed\'erale de Lausanne - EPFL Swiss Plasma Center - SPC Lausanne Switzerland)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords disruption mitigationshattered pellet injectionneon assimilationcurrent quenchtokamak plasmathermal quenchmitigation efficiency
0
0 comments X

The pith

Higher assimilated neon in SPI disruptions shifts the current quench from convex to concave shape.

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

The paper maps out how shattered pellet injection triggers and mitigates disruptions through a sequence of phases that depend on how much neon reaches the plasma core. As neon assimilation rises, mainly from higher neon fractions in the pellet and changes in fragment size and speed, the entire disruption process evolves in a continuous manner rather than jumping between discrete regimes. The clearest signature is the plasma current trace during the current quench, which moves from a convex shape typical of poorly mitigated cases to a concave shape seen in radiation-dominated, well-mitigated events, accompanied by shorter pre-thermal-quench and early current-quench intervals. This matters because it supplies concrete experimental guidance on tuning injection parameters to reduce thermal loads and vessel forces in large tokamaks. A sympathetic reader would treat the work as evidence that mitigation performance can be dialed continuously by controlling the delivered impurity quantity.

Core claim

With increasing assimilated neon in the plasma, primarily set by the neon content of the pellet and the shattering parameters, SPI-induced disruptions evolve continuously; the most visible change is the current-quench plasma-current time trace shifting from convex to concave while pre-TQ durations drop from roughly 15 ms to 0.5 ms and early CQ durations fall from 13.3 ms to 8.2 ms, indicating a transition from poorly mitigated to radiation-dominated behavior.

What carries the argument

The quantity of assimilated neon, set by pellet neon fraction and shattering parameters, which determines the timing and character of each disruption phase including the shape of the current-quench trace.

If this is right

  • Pre-thermal-quench durations can be shortened to 0.5 ms and early current-quench intervals to 8.2 ms under high neon assimilation.
  • Convex current-quench traces correspond to poorly or unmitigated cases while concave traces mark radiation-dominated mitigation.
  • Individual disruption phases such as the MARFE or vertical displacement event can be shortened, lengthened, or eliminated by changing the injection settings.
  • The evolution is continuous, so intermediate neon levels produce intermediate time scales and trace shapes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The continuous dependence implies that pellet design can be used to target specific mitigation thresholds rather than relying on binary on/off behavior.
  • If the neon-driven transition holds across devices, it supplies a practical benchmark for validating radiation-transport models used in ITER predictions.
  • Independent scans that hold neon assimilation fixed while varying plasma elongation or impurity mix would test whether the assumption of neon dominance survives.

Load-bearing premise

The observed sequence of phases and the convex-to-concave transition in the current quench are controlled mainly by the amount of assimilated neon rather than by uncontrolled differences in plasma shape, other impurities, or diagnostic timing.

What would settle it

A set of discharges in which assimilated neon is measured high yet the current-quench trace remains convex, or low neon yields a concave trace, would falsify the claimed primary dependence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05488 by (2) ITER Organization, (3) Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, (4) Institute for Applied Physics, (5) Commissariat \'a l'\'Energie Atomique CEA, (6) Ecole Polytechnique F\'ed\'erale de Lausanne - EPFL, A. Patel (1), Austria, B. Sieglin (1), CZ-18200 Praha 8, Czech Republic, F-13108 St. Paul-lez-Durance, F. Klossek (1), France, Garching, Germany, G. Papp (1), Institute for Magnetic Fusion Research IRFM, J. Artola (2), J. Hobirk (1), J. Svoboda (3), Lausanne, M. Bernert (1), M. Dibon (2), M. Hoelzl (1), M. Lehnen (2), M. Maraschek (1), N. Schwarz (5), O. Ficker (3), P. de Marn\'e (1), P. Halldestam (1), P. Heinrich (1), R. Dux (1), S. Jachmich (2), St. Paul-lez-Durance, Swiss Plasma Center - SPC, Switzerland), T. Eberl (1), the ASDEX Upgrade Team, the EUROfusion Tokamak Exploitation Team ((1) Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, T. Lunt (1), T. Peherstorfer (4), U. Sheikh (6), Wien, W. Tang (1).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Poloidal (a) and toroidal (b) cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Virtual reconstruction of the top-down (a) and toroidal (b) views of the UHS cameras used to analyse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Scenario overview for the reference discharge #41014 of the SPI H-mode: 100% D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview over the evolution of disruption behaviors from 100% D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Images taken from the fast camera recordings of the disruption during the different disruption phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In (a), the AXUV signals with a 20-point average in dark is given. The first increase in the edge AXUV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top-down view on the main fragment arrival with a fast camera for discharge #41014. The colour [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The plasma movement event in discharge #41014: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (1, 1) kink mode that occurs in the JOREK simulations after a f [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: IP-spike height changes due to competing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the disruption dynamics with increasing amount of assimilated neon content. From (1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Continuous reduction of pre-TQ and CQ durations with increasing neon content, hence peak radiation. The (a) plasma current and (b) radiated power in S16 are shown aligned with respect to the IP￾spike. The transition from convex to linear and finally concave CQ shapes is observed in this continuous disruption evolution. the mean fragment size does not change significantly anymore, whereas the mean vfragmen… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The pre-TQ duration as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Disruptions are a major concern for future fusion reactors based on the tokamak principle. To ensure machine protection, the thermal loads and vessel forces that arise during disruptions have to be mitigated reliably. For the ITER disruption mitigation system (DMS), the shattered pellet injection (SPI) technology has been selected. It can provide a prompt delivery of the injection material into the plasma core, with the mitigation efficiency depending on fragment size and velocity. A highly flexible SPI system was built and installed at the tokamak ASDEX Upgrade (AUG) to aid the finalization process of the ITER DMS and provide crucial input for modeling. The SPI-induced disruptions in the 2022 AUG experiments follow a typical chain of events, which are discussed in this paper: The first light, main fragment arrival, plasma movement event, MARFE, thermal quench/plasma current spike, current quench, and vertical displacement event phase. Depending on the injection parameters, these phases may vary significantly or some might not be present at all. In this paper, we will focus on the characterization of these disruption phases and figures of merit for the mitigation efficiency, depending on the SPI configuration. With increasing amount of assimilated neon in the plasma - primarily influenced by the neon content in the pellet but also the shattering parameters - the disruptions exhibit different behaviors. This disruption evolution seems to be a continuous process, with the most prominent feature being the changing disruption time scales and plasma current time trace shape during the CQ from convex (poorly or unmitigated) $\rightarrow$ concave (well mitigated/radiation dominated). Depending on the injection, pre-TQ durations between 15 - 0.5 ms and early CQ durations ($\Delta \textrm{t}_\textrm{CQ}^{100 \rightarrow 80}$) between 13.3 - 8.2 ms had been achieved at AUG.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports experimental observations of shattered pellet injection (SPI) induced disruptions in ASDEX Upgrade during 2022 campaigns. It describes a typical sequence of disruption phases (first light, main fragment arrival, plasma movement, MARFE, thermal quench/current spike, current quench, vertical displacement) and claims that these phases vary with SPI parameters. The central claim is that disruption evolution is a continuous process driven primarily by increasing assimilated neon (set by pellet neon content and shattering parameters), with the key signature being a change in the plasma current time trace during the current quench (CQ) from convex (poorly mitigated) to concave (radiation-dominated), accompanied by pre-TQ durations of 15–0.5 ms and early CQ durations (Δt_CQ^{100→80}) of 13.3–8.2 ms.

Significance. If the neon-assimilation dependence and continuous-process framing are robustly demonstrated with adequate controls, the work supplies important empirical input for ITER DMS design by mapping SPI configuration to mitigation metrics in a present-day tokamak. The reported time-scale ranges and phase characterization are directly usable for model validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results on CQ evolution): the claim that the convex-to-concave CQ transition and overall disruption evolution are 'primarily' driven by assimilated neon is not secured by the presented data. The abstract states that neon content and shattering parameters are varied together to achieve different neon levels, yet no regression controls, partial-correlation analysis, or explicit decoupling of fragment-size/velocity distributions from neon assimilation are described. Without such isolation, the 'primarily neon' attribution and 'continuous process' interpretation remain vulnerable to confounding by uncontrolled variables (plasma shape, impurity mix, diagnostic timing).
  2. [§3 and §5] §3 (experimental setup) and §5 (figures of merit): no quantitative neon-assimilation diagnostic (e.g., integrated bolometry or spectroscopy) or error bars on the reported time scales are referenced when asserting the continuous evolution. The pre-TQ and Δt_CQ ranges are given as achieved values, but the statistical basis for treating the sequence as a single continuous parameter space rather than discrete regimes is not shown.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Notation: the symbol Δt_CQ^{100→80} is introduced without an explicit definition of the 100 % and 80 % current levels or the precise time window used.
  2. [Figures in §4] Figure clarity: time traces in the CQ phase figures would benefit from overlaid reference unmitigated cases and explicit indication of the convex/concave classification criteria.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript on SPI-induced disruptions in ASDEX Upgrade. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (results on CQ evolution): the claim that the convex-to-concave CQ transition and overall disruption evolution are 'primarily' driven by assimilated neon is not secured by the presented data. The abstract states that neon content and shattering parameters are varied together to achieve different neon levels, yet no regression controls, partial-correlation analysis, or explicit decoupling of fragment-size/velocity distributions from neon assimilation are described. Without such isolation, the 'primarily neon' attribution and 'continuous process' interpretation remain vulnerable to confounding by uncontrolled variables (plasma shape, impurity mix, diagnostic timing).

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not include formal regression analysis, partial correlations, or explicit decoupling of neon assimilation from fragment size/velocity effects. The experimental design primarily varied pellet neon content while using shattering to modulate assimilation, with other plasma parameters held as constant as possible across the scan. The continuous CQ shape change is presented as an observed correlation with these settings. We will revise the abstract and §4 to replace 'primarily' with 'primarily influenced by' and add explicit discussion of experimental controls on plasma shape and impurity mix, while acknowledging that full statistical isolation was not performed. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§3 and §5] §3 (experimental setup) and §5 (figures of merit): no quantitative neon-assimilation diagnostic (e.g., integrated bolometry or spectroscopy) or error bars on the reported time scales are referenced when asserting the continuous evolution. The pre-TQ and Δt_CQ ranges are given as achieved values, but the statistical basis for treating the sequence as a single continuous parameter space rather than discrete regimes is not shown.

    Authors: Neon assimilation levels are inferred from the known neon content of the pellets and the shattering parameters rather than from a direct quantitative diagnostic such as integrated bolometry or spectroscopy, which was not available for this dataset. We will update §3 and §5 to state this explicitly, include error bars on the pre-TQ and Δt_CQ values derived from diagnostic timing and shot-to-shot variation, and add a correlation plot or discussion in §5 demonstrating how the observed time scales vary continuously with the injection parameters to justify the continuous-process framing. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely observational characterization

full rationale

The manuscript reports experimental observations of SPI-induced disruption phases in ASDEX Upgrade, including timing of events such as first light, fragment arrival, MARFE, TQ, CQ, and VDE, together with qualitative trends in CQ current-trace shape (convex to concave) as a function of assimilated neon. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or uniqueness theorems are invoked; the central statements are direct descriptions of measured time traces and parameter correlations. Because the work contains no claimed predictive chain that reduces to its own inputs by construction, no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation load-bearing steps exist. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental characterization study. No free parameters are fitted to derive a theoretical result, no new axioms are introduced, and no new physical entities are postulated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5943 in / 1137 out tokens · 91195 ms · 2026-05-10T19:03:32.300440+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Noll et al

    P. Noll et al. Fusion Technology, 15 (2P2A):259 https://doi.org/10.13182/FST89-A39713 (1989). -1mm

    work page doi:10.13182/fst89-a39713 1989

  2. [2]

    Noll et al

    P. Noll et al. Fusion Technology, 751--754 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444827623501579 (1997). -1mm

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Gerasimov et al

    S. Gerasimov et al. Nuclear Fusion, 60 (6):066028 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab87b0 (2020). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ab87b0 2020

  4. [4]

    F. J. Artola et al. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 66 (5):055015 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ad38d7 (2024). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad38d7 2024

  5. [5]

    Hollmann et al

    E. Hollmann et al. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 415 (1, Supplement):S27 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022311510005763 (2011). -1mm

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Arnoux et al

    G. Arnoux et al. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 415 (1, Supplement):S817 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022311510007440 (2011). Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Plasma-Surface Interactions in Controlled Fusion. -1mm

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Lehnen et al

    M. Lehnen et al. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 438:S102 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002231151300024X (2013). Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Plasma-Surface Interactions in Controlled Fusion Devices. -1mm

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    E. P. Gorbunov et al. Soviet Atomic Energy, 15 (5):1105 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01115931 (1963). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01115931 1963

  9. [9]

    Hender et al

    T. Hender et al. Nuclear Fusion, 47 (6):S128 https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/47/6/S03 (2007). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/47/6/s03 2007

  10. [10]

    A. H. Boozer . Physics of Plasmas, 19 (5):058101 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3703327 (2012). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3703327 2012

  11. [11]

    ITER team et al. Nucl. Fusion, 39:2137 https://iopscience.iop.org/issue/0029-5515/39/12 (1999). -1mm

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    H. Dreicer . Phys. Rev., 115:238 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.115.238 (1959). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.115.238 1959

  13. [13]

    H. Dreicer . Phys. Rev., 117:329 https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.117.329 (1960). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.117.329 1960

  14. [14]

    Gurevich

    A. Gurevich . Sov. Phys. JETP, 12 (5):904 http://www.jetp.ras.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e\_012\_05\_0904.pdf (1961). -1mm

    work page 1961

  15. [15]

    Connor and R.J

    J. Connor et al. Nuclear Fusion, 15 (3):415 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/15/3/007 (1975). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/15/3/007 1975

  16. [16]

    B. N. Breizman et al. Nuclear Fusion, 59 (8):083001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab1822 (2019). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ab1822 2019

  17. [17]

    Nygren et al

    R. Nygren et al. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 241-243:522 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002231159780092X (1997). -1mm

    work page 1997

  18. [18]

    Reux et al

    C. Reux et al. Nuclear Fusion, 55 (9):093013 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/55/9/093013 (2015). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/55/9/093013 2015

  19. [19]

    G. F. Matthews et al. Physica Scripta, T167:014070 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/t167/1/014070 (2016). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-8949/t167/1/014070 2016

  20. [20]

    Bandaru et al

    V. Bandaru et al. Nuclear Fusion, 64 (7):076053 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad50ea (2024). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad50ea 2024

  21. [21]

    Bergstr\"om et al

    H. Bergstr\"om et al. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 66 (9):095001 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ad5fb5 (2024). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad5fb5 2024

  22. [22]

    Sieglin et al

    B. Sieglin et al. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 66 (2):025004 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ad163a (2023). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad163a 2023

  23. [23]

    Kudlacek et al

    O. Kudlacek et al. Nuclear Fusion, 64 (5):056012 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad3472 (2024). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad3472 2024

  24. [24]

    de Vries et al

    P. de Vries et al. Fusion Engineering and Design, 204:114464 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092037962400317X (2024). -1mm

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Pautasso et al

    G. Pautasso et al. Nuclear Fusion, 55 (3):033015 https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/55/3/033015 (2015). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/55/3/033015 2015

  26. [26]

    Lehnen et al

    M. Lehnen et al. Theory and Simulation of Disruptions Workshop, Princeton, New Jersey (2021). https://tsdw.pppl.gov/Talks/2021/Lehnen.pdf. -1mm

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Treutterer et al

    W. Treutterer et al. Fusion Engineering and Design, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920379614000027 89 (3):146 (2014). -1mm

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    M. M. Dibon . Fast Valves for Massive Gas Injection in Tokamaks . Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen (2017). https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/1358083 . -1mm

    work page arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    Pautasso et al

    G. Pautasso et al. Nuclear Fusion, 60 (8):086011 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab9563 (2020). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ab9563 2020

  30. [30]

    Commaux et al

    N. Commaux et al. Nuclear Fusion, 50 (11):112001 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/50/11/112001 (2010). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/50/11/112001 2010

  31. [31]

    Baylor et al

    L. Baylor et al. Nuclear Fusion, 59 (6):066008 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab136c (2019). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ab136c 2019

  32. [32]

    Lehnen et al

    M. Lehnen et al. vol. IAEA-CN-316-2302, TECH/1--1 https://conferences.iaea.org/event/316/contributions/27794/. IAEA, London, United Kingdom (2023). -1mm

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Loarte et al

    A. Loarte et al. Technical Report No. ITR-24-004 (2024). https://www.iter.org/sites/default/files/media/2024-04/itr-24-004-baseline-ok.pdf. -1mm

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    L. R. Baylor et al. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 38 (3):419 https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2009.2039496 (2010). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1109/tps.2009.2039496 2009

  35. [35]

    Dibon et al

    M. Dibon et al. Review of Scientific Instruments, 94 (4):043504 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0141799 (2023). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0141799 2023

  36. [36]

    Heinrich et al

    P. Heinrich et al. Nuclear Fusion, 65 (5):056036 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/adcbc0 (2025). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/adcbc0 2025

  37. [37]

    Heinrich

    P. Heinrich . Shattered pellet injection studies at the tokamak ASDEX Upgrade . Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen (2025). https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/1767878. -1mm

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Heinrich et al

    P. Heinrich et al. Fusion Engineering and Design, 206:114576 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2024.114576 (2024). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2024.114576 2024

  39. [39]

    Kov\'acs et al

    \'A . Kov\'acs et al. Fusion Engineering and Design, 202:114303 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092037962400156X (2024). -1mm

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Peherstorfer

    T. Peherstorfer . Fragmentation Analysis of Cryogenic Pellets for Disruption Mitigation . Master's thesis, TU Wien (2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.01024 . -1mm

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Illerhaus et al

    J. Illerhaus et al. Journal of Fusion Energy, 43:14 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10894-024-00406-x (2024). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1007/s10894-024-00406-x 2024

  42. [42]

    Lee et al

    S.-J. Lee et al. Nuclear Fusion, 64 (10):106023 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad69a3 (2024). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad69a3 2024

  43. [43]

    S.-J. Lee . Nonlinear 3D Reduced MHD modelling on the Shattered Pellet Injection in KSTAR . Phd thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul (2024). https://snu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/f/1l6eo7m/82SNU_INST51953546290002591. -1mm

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Jachmich et al

    S. Jachmich et al. In Europhysics Conference Abstracts , vol. 47A, O2.103 https://lac913.epfl.ch/epsppd3/2023/html/Orals/O2_103_Jachmich.pdf. EPS, Bordeaux, France (2023). -1mm

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Jachmich et al

    S. Jachmich et al. In 50th EPS Conference on Plasma Physics , I.303 https://users.euro-fusion.org/repository/pinboard/EFDA-JET/conference/114712\_s\_jachmich\_eps2024v2.pdf. Salamanca, Spain (2024). -1mm

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Vallhagen et al

    O. Vallhagen et al. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 67 (10):105034 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ae140f (2025). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ae140f 2025

  47. [47]

    Mlynek et al

    A. Mlynek et al. Review of Scientific Instruments, 85 (11):11D408 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4890574 (2014). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4890574 2014

  48. [48]

    Mlynek et al

    A. Mlynek et al. Review of Scientific Instruments, 81 (3):033507 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3340944 (2010). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3340944 2010

  49. [49]

    Mlynek et al

    A. Mlynek et al. Fusion Science and Technology, 61 (4):290 https://doi.org/10.13182/FST12-A13582 (2012). -1mm

    work page doi:10.13182/fst12-a13582 2012

  50. [50]

    Kurzan et al

    B. Kurzan et al. Review of Scientific Instruments, 82 (10):103501 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3643771 (2011). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3643771 2011

  51. [51]

    S. S. Denk et al. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 60 (10):105010 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aadb2f (2018). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aadb2f 2018

  52. [52]

    Fischer et al

    R. Fischer et al. Fusion Science and Technology, 58 (2):675 https://doi.org/10.13182/FST10-110 (2010). -1mm

    work page doi:10.13182/fst10-110 2010

  53. [53]

    Sheikh et al

    U. Sheikh et al. 66th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics, UO06.00008, Atlanta, USA (2024). https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DPP24/Session/UO06.8. -1mm

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Tang et al

    W. Tang et al. Nuclear Fusion, 65 (11):116003 https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/adfce6 (2025). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/adfce6 2025

  55. [55]

    Tang et al

    W. Tang et al. submitted to Nuclear Fusion, preprint available at arXiv -- https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12813 (2026). Quantitative 3D non-linear simulations of shattered pellet injection in ASDEX Upgrade using JOREK . -1mm

    work page arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Sieglin et al

    B. Sieglin et al. Fusion Engineering and Design, 191:113546 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920379623001308 (2023). -1mm

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Gruber et al

    O. Gruber et al. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 35 (SB):B191 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/35/SB/015 (1993). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/35/sb/015 1993

  58. [58]

    Lukash et al

    V. Lukash et al. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 47 (12):2077 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/47/12/001 (2005). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/47/12/001 2077

  59. [59]

    Patel et al

    A. Patel et al. Nuclear Fusion, 65 (8):086031 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ade890 (2025). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ade890 2025

  60. [60]

    Lipschultz et al

    B. Lipschultz et al. Nuclear Fusion, 24 (8):977 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/24/8/002 (1984). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/24/8/002 1984

  61. [61]

    Lipschultz

    B. Lipschultz . Journal of Nuclear Materials, 145-147:15 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022311587903060 (1987). -1mm

    work page arXiv 1987

  62. [62]

    J. F. Drake . The Physics of Fluids, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.866133 30 (8):2429 (1987). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/1.866133 1987

  63. [63]

    W. M. Stacey . Physics of Plasmas, 3 (7):2673 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.871524 (1996). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/1.871524 1996

  64. [64]

    Stroth et al

    U. Stroth et al. Nuclear Fusion, 62 (7):076008 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac613a (2022). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac613a 2022

  65. [65]

    Sieglin et al

    B. Sieglin et al. In 33rd Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT) (2024). -1mm

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Hoelzl et al

    M. Hoelzl et al. Physics of Plasmas, 27 (2):022510 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5133099 (2020). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5133099 2020

  67. [67]

    Biskamp et al

    D. Biskamp et al. Nonlinear magnetohydrodynamics . 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997). -1mm

    work page 1997

  68. [68]

    Nardon et al

    E. Nardon et al. Nuclear Fusion, 63 (5):056011 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/acc417 (2023). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/acc417 2023

  69. [69]

    Mirnov et al

    S. Mirnov et al. Physics of Plasmas, 5 (11):3950 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.873114 (1998). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/1.873114 1998

  70. [70]

    A. H. Boozer . Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 61 (2):024002 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aaf293 (2019). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aaf293 2019

  71. [71]

    A. H. Boozer . Physics of Plasmas, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0014107 27 (10):102305 (2020). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0014107 2020

  72. [72]

    The JOREK non-linear extended MHD code and applications to large-scale insta- bilities and their control in magnetically confined fusion plasmas

    M. H\"olzl et al. Nuclear Fusion, 61 (6):065001 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abf99f (2021). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/abf99f 2021

  73. [73]

    Nardon et al

    E. Nardon et al. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 63 (11):115006 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ac234b (2021). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ac234b 2021

  74. [74]

    N. Schwarz . Non-linear magneto-hydrodynamic simulations of hot and mitigated vertical displacement events and validation against experiments in the ASDEX U pgrade tokamak . Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen (2024). https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/1733821. -1mm

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    A. H. Boozer . Physics of Plasmas, 26 (11):114501 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5126339 (2019). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5126339 2019

  76. [76]

    Schwarz et al

    N. Schwarz et al. Nuclear Fusion, 63 (12):126016 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/acf50a (2023). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/acf50a 2023

  77. [77]

    Yoshino et al

    R. Yoshino et al. Nuclear Fusion, 36 (3):295 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/36/3/I03 (1996). -1mm

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/36/3/i03 1996