Overview of the Disruption Prediction, Avoidance, and Mitigation Working Group and Initial - PowerPoint Presentation

1. Overview of the Disruption Prediction, Avoidance, and Mitigation Working Group and Initial ResultsNSTX-U PAC 37 MeetingPPPL, Princeton, NJJanuary 27th, 2016V1.6S.A. Sabbagh1, R. Raman2For the NSTX-U DPAM Working Group1Columbia University, New York, NY2University of Washington, Seattle, WA

2. Overview of the NSTX-U Disruption Prediction, Avoidance, and Mitigation (DPAM) Working Group - OUTLINEMotivation and connection to DOE FES prioritiesMission statement and ScopeDisruption Prediction: Characterization and forecasting approach, implementation, and developmentDisruption Avoidance: Mode stabilization and controlDisruption Mitigation: Preparation of NSTX-U MGI systemConnection to JRT-16 Joint Research Target Milestones

3. Disruption avoidance is a critical need for future tokamaks; NSTX-U is focusing stability research on thisThe new “grand challenge” in tokamak stability researchCan be done! (JET: < 4% disruptions w/C wall, < 10% w/ITER-like wall)ITER disruption rate: < 1 - 2% (energy load, halo current); << 1% (runaways)Strategic plan: utilize/expand stability/control research success Synergize and build upon disruption prediction and avoidance successes attained in present tokamaks (don’t just repeat them!) FESAC 2014 Strategic Planning report defined “Control of Deleterious Transient Events” highest priority (Tier 1) initiativeWorking group members had significant leadership roles in the 2015 DOE Workshops on solving issues of “Transient Events in Tokamaks”NSTX-U will produce focused research on disruption avoidance with quantitative measures of progressLong-term goal: many sequential shots (~3 shot-mins) without disruption

4. DPAM Working Group - Mission Statement and ScopeMission statementSatisfy gaps in understanding prediction, avoidance, and mitigation of disruptions in tokamaks, applying this knowledge to move toward acceptable levels of disruption frequency/severity using quantified metricsScopeLocation: Initiate and base the study at NSTX-U, expand to a national program and international collaboration (multi-tokamak data)Timescale: Multi-year effort, planning/executing experiments of various approaches (leveraging the 5 NSTX-U Year Plan) to reduce plasma disruptivity/severity at high performanceBreadth: High-level focus on quantified mission goal, with detailed physics areas expected to expand/evolve within the group, soliciting research input/efforts from new collaborations as neededMore than 50 members presently on email list; 3 meetings held to date

5. Disruption Prediction

6. Disruption event chain characterization capability started for NSTX-U as next step in disruption avoidance plan Approach to disruption preventionIdentify disruption event chains and elementsPredict events in disruption chainsCues disruption avoidance systems to break event chainsAttack events at several places with active controlSynergizes and builds upon both physics and control successes of NSTXtDisruption prediction/avoidance framework (from upcoming DOE “Transient Events” report)New Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting (DECAF) code created

7. Disruption Event Characterization And Forecasting Code (DECAF) yielding initial results (pressure peaking example)PRP warningsPRPVDEIPRSCLDetected at: 0.4194s0.4380s0.4522s0.4732sNSTX142270Disruption10 physical events presently defined in code with quantitative warning pointsBuilds on manual analysis of de VriesBuilds on warning algorithm of GerhardtNew code written (in Python), easily expandable, portable to other tokamaks (recent capability to process DIII-D data)Example: Pressure peaking (PRP) disruption event chain identified by code before disruption(PRP) Pressure peaking warnings identified first(VDE) VDE condition subsequently found 19 ms after last PRP warning(IPR) Plasma current request not met(SCL) Shape control warning issuedEvent chainP.C. de Vries et al., Nucl. Fusion 51 (2011) 053018 S.P. Gerhardt et al., Nucl. Fusion 53 (2013) 063021 J.W. Berkery, S.A. Sabbagh, Y.S. Park (Columbia U.)and the NSTX-U Disruption PAM Working Group

8. DECAF is structured to ease parallel development of disruption characterization, event criteria, and forecastingPhysical event modules encapsulate disruption chain eventsDevelopment focused on improving these modulesStructure eases developmentE.g. separate code by C. Myers that improved disruption timing definition was quickly importedPhysical events are objects in physics modulese.g. VDE, LOQ, RWM are objects in “Stability” Carry metadata, event forecasting criteria, event linkages, etc.Main data structureCode control workbooksDensity LimitsConfinementStabilityTokamak dynamicsPower/current handlingTechnical issuesPhysical event modulesOutput processing

9. Initial DECAF results detect disruption chain events when applied to dedicated 44 shot NSTX RWM disruption databaseSeveral events detected for all shotsRWM: RWM event warningSCL: Loss of shape controlIPR: Plasma current request not metDIS: Disruption occurredLOQ: Low edge q warningVDE: VDE warning (40 shots)Others:PRP: Pressure peaking warningGWL: Greenwald limitLON: Low density warningLTM: Locked tearing modeOccur with or after RWM

10. Initial DECAF results detects disruption chain events when applied to dedicated 44 shot NSTX RWM disruption databaseMost RWM near major disruption61% of RWM occur within 20 tw of disruption time (tw = 5 ms)Earlier RWM events NOT false positives – cause large decreases in bN with recovery (minor disruptions)VDE60402000246BPLn=1 (G)bN0.20.40.60.81.00.0t(s)

11. Initial DECAF analysis already finding common disruption event chains (44 shot NSTX disruption database)Common disruption event chains (52.3%)Related chainsRWM  SCL  VDE  IPR  DISVDE  RWM  SCL  IPR  DISVDE  RWM  IPR  DIS  SCLRWM  SCL  VDE  GWL  IPR  DISDisruption event chains w/o VDE (11.4%)New insights being gainedChains starting with GWL are found that show rotation and bN rollover before RWM (6.8%)Related chainsGWL  VDE  RWM  SCL  IPR  DISGWL  SCL  RWM  IPR  DISDisruption event chains with RWMVDESCLIPRRWMDISEvent chains with RWM and VDE(52.3%)NoVDE(11.4%)Other(29.5%)GWL start(6.8%)

12. Important capability of DECAF to compare analysis using offline vs. real-time dataSimple, initial testPCS Shut-down conditions are analogous to DECAF eventsPCS loss of vertical control  DECAFDECAF comparison:VDE eventMatches PCS when r/t signal used (1 criterion)VDE event 13 ms earlier using offline EFIT signals (3 criteria)First DECAF results for NSTX-U replicate the triggers found in new real-time state machine shutdown capabilitySee talk by S. Gerhardt (next) for detail of new NSTX-U automated shutdown capability VDEPCS triggerFor VDE(t = 0.733s)VDEUsing r/t data (t = 0.733s) Using EFIT (t = 0.720s)DECAFEFIT offline reconstructionof Z positionZaxis (m)Ip (MA)PCS trigger00.40.80.20.40.60.81.00.0t(s)00.4-0.4024

13. Disruption Avoidance

14. Predictor/Sensor(CY available)Control/Actuator(CY available)ModesREFER TORotating and low freq. MHD (n=1,2,3) 2003Dual-component RWM sensor control(closed loop 2008)NTM RWM- Menard NF 2001- Sabbagh NF 2013; + backup slidesLow freq. MHD spectroscopy (open loop 2005);Kinetic RWM modeling (2008)Control of βN(closed loop 2007)Kink/ballRWM- Sontag NF 2007- Berkery (2009–15)- Gerhardt FST 2012r/t RWM state-space controller observer (2010)Physics model-based RWM state-space control (2010)NTM, RWM Kink/ball, VDE- THIS TALK- Sabbagh NF 2013; + backup slidesReal-time Vf measurement (2016)Plasma Vf control (NTV 2004)(NTV + NBI rotation control closed loop ~ 2017)NTMKink/ball RWM- Podesta RSI 2012- Zhu PRL 06 +backup- THIS TALKKinetic RWM stabilization real-time model (2016-17)Safety factor, li control(closed loop ~ 2016-17)NTM, RWM Kink/ball, VDE- Berkery, NF 2015- D. Boyer’s TALKMHD spectroscopy (real-time)(in 5 Year Plan)Upgraded 3D coils (NCC): improved Vf and mode control (in 5 Year Plan)NTM, RWM Kink/ball, VDE- NSTX-U 5 Year Plan- THIS TALKNSTX-U is building on past strength, creating an arsenal of capabilities for disruption avoidance

15. Joint NSTX / DIII-D experiments and analysis gives unified kinetic RWM physics understanding for disruption avoidanceRWM DynamicsRWM rotation and mode growth observedNo strong NTM activitySome weak bursting MHD in DIII-D plasmaAlters RWM phaseNo bursting MHD in NSTX plasmaDIII-D (bN = 3.5)NSTX (bN = 4.4)DBpn=1(G)fBpn=1(deg)(arb)Frequency (kHz)t (s)t (s)amplitudephaseDatoroidal magneticsrotationgrowthrotationgrowthamplitudephaseDatoroidal magneticsS. Sabbagh et al., APS Invited talk 2014

16. Evolution of plasma rotation profile leads to kinetic RWM instability as disruption is approached DIII-D (minor disruption)NSTX (major disruption)MISKMISKunstablestableunstablestableincreasing timeincreasing timegtwallgtwallS. Sabbagh et al., APS Invited talk 2014Kinetic RWM stabilization occurs from broad resonances between plasma rotation and particle precession drift, bounce/circulating, and collision frequencies

17. State space rotation controller designed for NSTX-U usingnon-resonant NTV and NBI to maintain stable profilesMomentum force balance – wf decomposed into Bessel function statesNTV torque:yNNBI, -NTV torque density (N/m2)NBITorque(NSTX)0.00.51.01.50.00.20.40.60.81.0NBI and NTV torque profiles for NSTX-UMomentum ActuatorsNew NBI(broaden rotation)3D Field Coil(shape wf profile)-NTVTorqueI. Goumiri, et al., submitted to NF (2016)

18. State space rotation controller designed for NSTX-U usingnon-resonant NTV and NBI to maintain stable profilesMomentum force balance – wf decomposed into Bessel function statesNTV torque:NBI, -NTV torque density (N/m2)NBITorque(NSTX)0.00.51.01.5NBI and NTV torque profiles for NSTX-UNBI Torque(NSTX-U)Momentum ActuatorsNew NBI(broaden rotation)3D Field Coil(shape wf profile)-NTVTorqueyN0.00.20.40.60.81.0I. Goumiri, et al., submitted to NF (2016)

19. State space rotation controller designed for NSTX-U can evolve plasma rotation profile toward global mode stability I. Goumiri (Princeton student), S.A. Sabbagh (Columbia U.), C. Rowley (P.U.), D.A. Gates, S.P. Gerhardt (PPPL) Recall:NSTX (major disruption)MISKunstablestablestablegtwallPlasma rotation (kHz)01520105yN0.00.20.40.60.81.0NSTX-U (6 NBI sources and n = 3 NTV)marginallystableSteady-state reached in ~ 3tmMarginally stable profileBroader stableprofileNBI, -NTV torque density (N/m2)0.00.51.01.52.0Plasma rotation (krad/s)NBINTV

20. With planned NCC coil upgrade, rotation controller can reach desired rotation profile faster, with greater fidelity I. Goumiri (Princeton student), S.A. Sabbagh (Columbia U.), C. Rowley (P.U.), D.A. Gates, S.P. Gerhardt (PPPL) NSTX-U wf control with6 NBI sourcesGreater core NTV from planned NCC upgradeBetter performanceFaster to target t ~ 0.5tmMatches target wf betterPlanned NCC upgradeMarginally stable profileBroader stableprofileNBINTVPlasma rotation (kHz)01520105NBI, -NTV torque density (N/m2)0.00.51.01.52.00.00.20.40.60.81.0yN

21. NCC 2x12 with favorable sensors, optimal gainNCC 2x6 odd parity, with favorable sensorsFull NCC coil set allows control close to ideal wall limitNCC 2x6 odd parity coils: active control to bN/bNno-wall = 1.58NCC 2x12 coils, optimal sensors: active control to bN/bNno-wall = 1.67Active RWM control design study for proposed NSTX-U 3D coil upgrade (NCC coils) shows superior capabilityNCC (plasma facing side)

22. NSTX RWM state space controller sustains high bN, low li plasma – available for NSTX-U with independent coil controlRWM state space feedback (12 states)n = 1 applied field suppressionSuppressed disruption due to n = 1 fieldFeedback phase scanBest feedback phase produced long pulse, bN = 6.4, bN/li = 13NSTX Experiments(from 2010)Ip (MA)(A) Run time has been allocated for continued experiments on NSTX-U in 2016S. Sabbagh et al., Nucl. Fusion 53 (2013) 104007

23. In addition to active mode control, the NSTX-U RWM state space controller can be used for real-time disruption warningSensordataController(observer)The controller “observer” produces a physics model-based calculation of the expected sensor data – a synthetic diagnosticIf the real-time synthetic diagnostic doesn’t match the measured sensor data, a r/t disruption warning signal can be triggeredTechnique will be assessed using the DECAF codeRWM Sensor Differences (G)RWM Sensor Differences (G)137722t (s)400800.560.580.60137722t (s)0.560.580.600.62dBp90dBp90-400.6240080-40Effect of 3D Model UsedNo NBI PortWith NBI PortRWM

24. Disruption Mitigation

25. NSTX-U Disruption Mitigation Research Aims to Develop MGI and EPI Technologies in Support ITER and FNSFMassive Gas Injection (MGI): (starting 2016)ITER-type MGI valve will be used on NSTX-U in a configuration to do nearly exact comparison experimentsExperimental results to be studied using M3D-C1 (A. Fil, S. Jardin, et al.)Develop understanding of gas assimilation fraction by the plasmaUse to project to ITER plasmasSimilar plasma poloidal size, shape of DIII-D and NSTX-U allows multi-machine comparison studiesElectromagnetic Particle Injector (EPI): (in 5 Year Plan)Motivation: Handle fast disruptionsFor warning times < 10 ms, MGI may not be a viable optionRapid delivery of impurities deeper into plasma with fast time-responseUnder 5ms from trigger to delivery at 7m from plasmaEfficiency of system improves in a magnetic field environment

26. New double solenoid valve design (zero net JxB torque) pass tests for reliability and magnetic field limitsMGIValveMagnetsMagnetsTest standFast BaratronBaratron traces with and without magnetic fieldMGIValveMGIValveUniversity of Washington Test StandR. Raman, et al., RSI 85 (2014) 11E801

27. NSTX-U MGI will study poloidal injection location variation using identical MGI valves and gas transit pipingAssess benefits of injection into the private flux region & the high-field side vs. LFS midplaneQuantify MGI gas assimilation fractions and extend model to larger machinesModel gas penetration and assimilation results using 3D MHD codes (incl. M3D-C1)First plasma tests April, experiment May 20161a: Private flux region1b: Lower SOL, Lower divertor3: Upper divertor2: mid-plane4: future position

28. DPAM Working Group is fulfilling DOE Joint Research Target JRT-16 milestones to start NSTX-U 5 YP research goalsFY16 DOE Joint Research Target summary (1 page)http://nstx.pppl.gov/DragNDrop/Working_Groups/DPAM/Repository/JRT16QuarterlyMilestones-V9.pdfPrediction / AvoidanceUse disruption prediction algorithm to characterize the reliability of predicting a few types of common disruptions from at least two devicesReport on capability to reduce disruption rate through active improvement of plasma stability Test on at least one facility to detect in real time an impending disruption and take corrective measures to safely terminate the plasma discharge MitigationTest newly-designed ITER-type massive gas injection valve to study benefits of private flux region massive gas injection vs. mid-plane inj.Culminating Milestones for 2016

29. Disruption PAM Working Group MissionSatisfy gaps in understanding disruption prediction, avoidance, mitigationApply knowledge to demonstrate acceptable levels of disruption frequency/severity using quantified metricsPAC charges are directly addressedFESAC/FES Initiatives: NSTX-U DPAM Working group effort was born from 2015 FES effort - is identically aligned with it. Urgent ITER need.Research: Disruption Event Characterization And Forecasting effort started to unify physics understanding for disruption avoidance (5 YP Committee member recommendation); MGI to start in 2016.Facility enhancements: Quantified disruptivity metrics will assess new capabilities (e.g. plasma rotation, q, active mode control ) and guide future improvements (e.g. planned NCC 3D coil upgrade, et al.)PPPL Theory partnership: Is highly leveraged in this effort (10 members)NSTX-U Research is building upon physics understanding and synergizing control for disruption PAM in tokamaks(see talk by A. Bhattacharjee)

30.

31. Supporting Slides Follow

32. RWM active stabilization coilsRWM poloidalsensors (Bp)RWM radial sensors (Br)StabilizerplatesHigh beta, low aspect ratioR = 0.86 m, A > 1.27Ip < 1.5 MA, Bt = 5.5 kG bt < 40%, bN > 7Copper stabilizer plates for kink mode stabilizationMidplane control coilsn = 1 – 3 field correction, magnetic braking of wf by NTVn = 1 RWM controlCombined sensor sets now used for RWM feedback48 upper/lower Bp, BrNSTX is a spherical torus equipped to study passive and active global MHD control3D Conducting Structure Model

33. Initially used for NSTX since simple critical scalar wf threshold stability models did not describe RWM stabilityKinetic modification to ideal MHD growth rateTrapped / circulating ions, trapped electrons, etc.Energetic particle (EP) stabilizationStability depends onIntegrated wf profile: resonances in dWK (e.g. ion precession drift)Particle collisionality, EP fractionTrapped ion component of dWK (plasma integral over energy)collisionalitywf profile (enters through ExB frequency)Hu and Betti, Phys. Rev. Lett 93 (2004) 105002Sontag, et al., Nucl. Fusion 47 (2007) 1005precession driftbounceModification of Ideal Stability by Kinetic theory (MISK code) is used to determine proximity of plasmas to stability boundary J. Berkery et al., PRL 104, 035003 (2010)S. Sabbagh, et al., NF 50, 025020 (2010)J. Berkery et al., PRL 106, 075004 (2011)S. Sabbagh et al., NF 53, 104007 (2013)J. Berkery et al., PoP 21, 056112 (2014)J. Berkery et al., PoP 21, 052505 (2014)J. Berkery et al., NF 55, 123007 (2015)Some NSTX / MISK analysis references

34. Kinetic RWM stability evaluated for DIII-D and NSTX plasmas, reproduces experiments over wide rotation rangeSummary of resultsPlasmas free of other MHD modes can reach or exceed linear kinetic RWM marginal stabilityBursting MHD modes can lead to non-linear destabilization before linear stability limits are reachedExtrapolations of DIII-D plasmas to different Vf show marginal stability is bounded by 1.6 < qmin < 2.8Kinetic RWM stability analysis for experiments (MISK)Plasma rotation [krad/s] (yN = 0.5)Normalized growth rate (gtw)major disruptionminor disruptionDIII-DNSTXstableunstableextrapolationqmin = 2.8qmin = 1.6“weak stability” regionJ.W. Berkery, J.M. Hanson, S.A. Sabbagh (Columbia U.)S. Sabbagh et al., APS Invited talk 2014Extensive NSTX / MISK analysis references spanning ~ 7 years(8 references given in supporting slides)

35. JET disruption event characterization provides framework to follow for understanding / quantifying DPAM progressP.C. de Vries et al., Nucl. Fusion 51 (2011) 053018 JET disruption event chainsRelated disruption event statisticsJET disruption event chain analysis performed by hand, desire to automateGeneral code written (DECAF) to address the first step – initial analysis started using NSTX data

36. Disruption Characterization Code now yielding initial results: disruption event chains, with related quantitative warnings (2)J.W. Berkery, S.A. Sabbagh, Y.S. ParkThis example: Greenwald limit warning during Ip rampdown(GWL) Greenwald limit warning issued(VDE) VDE condition then found 0.6 ms after GWL warning(IPR) Plasma current request not metGWL warningsNSTX138854GWLVDEIPRDetected at: 0.7442s0.7448s0.7502sDisruption duringIp ramp-downEvent chain

37. NTV physics studies for rotation control: measured NTV torque density profiles quantitatively compare well to theoryTNTV (theory) scaled to match peak value of measured -dL/dt Scale factor ((dL/dt)/TNTV) = 1.7 and 0.6 for cases shown above – O(1) agreementKSTAR n = 2 NTV experiments do not exhibit hysteresisn = 2 coil configurationExperimental-dL/dtyNNSTXNTVTOKx1.7n = 3 coil configurationExperimental-dL/dtNTVTOKyNNSTXx0.6See recent NTV review paper: K.C. Shaing, K. Ida, S.A. Sabbagh, et al., Nucl. Fusion 55 (2015) 125001

38. Active RWM control: dual Br + Bp sensor feedback gain and phase scans produce significantly reduced n = 1 fieldFavorable Bp + Br feedback (FB) settings found (low li plasmas)Time-evolved theory simulation of Br+Bp feedback follows experimentDt (s) (model)Radial field n = 1 (G)180 deg FB phase90 deg FB phase0 deg FB phaseVacuum error fieldVacuum error field + RFASimulation of Br + Bp control (VALEN)Feedback onBr Gain = 1.0140124140122139516No Br feedbackt (s)bNli64200.80.60.20.064200.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.4Br Gain = 1.50Brn = 1 (G)bNli0.4642Br gain scanBr FB phase scanS. Sabbagh et al., Nucl. Fusion 53 (2013) 104007

39. Controller model can compensate for wall currentsIncludes linear plasma mode-induced current model (DCON)Potential to allow control coils to be moved further from plasma, and be shielded (e.g. for ITER)Straightforward inclusion of multiple modes (n = 1, or n > 1)39Model-based RWM state space controller including 3D model of plasma and wall currents used at high bNBalancingtransformation~3000+ statesFull 3-D model…RWMeigenfunction(2 phases, 2 states)State reduction (< 20 states)Controller reproduction of n = 1 field in NSTX100150500-50-100-150Sensor Difference (G)0.40.60.81.00.2t (s)118298118298100150500-50-100-150Sensor Difference (G)MeasurementController(observer)5 statesused10 statesused(only wall states used)Katsuro-Hopkins, et al., NF 47 (2007) 1157

40. 40State Derivative Feedback Algorithm needed for Current ControlPreviously published approach found to be formally “uncontrollable” when applied to current controlState derivative feedback control approachnew Ricatti equations to solve to derive control matrices – still “standard” solutions for this in control theory literatureControl vector, u; controller gain, KcObserver est., y; observer gain, Ko Kc , Ko computed by standard methods(e.g. Kalman filter used for observer)Advance discrete state vector(time update)(measurementupdate)e.g. T.H.S. Abdelaziz, M. Valasek., Proc. of 16th IFAC World Congress, 2005State equations to advanceGeneral (portable) matrix output file for operatorWritten into the PCS

41. NSTX RWM state space controller sustains high bN, low li plasma – available for NSTX-U with independent coil controlRWM state space feedback (12 states)n = 1 applied field suppressionSuppressed disruption due to n = 1 fieldFeedback phase scanBest feedback phase produced long pulse, bN = 6.4, bN/li = 13NSTX Experiments(from 2010)Ip (MA)(A) Run time has been allocated for continued experiments on NSTX-U in 2016S. Sabbagh et al., Nucl. Fusion 53 (2013) 104007

42. 42RWM state space controller sustains otherwise disrupted plasma caused by DC n = 1 applied fieldn = 1 DC applied field testGenerate resonant field amplication, disruptionUse of RWM state space controller sustains dischargeRWM state space controller sustains discharge at high bNBest feedback phase produced long pulse, bN = 6.4, bN/li = 13140025140026ControlappliedControl not appliedbNIRWM-4 (kA)wf/2p~q=2 (kHz)Bpn=1 (G)Ip (MA)n = 1 field on0.00.20.40.60.81.0t(s)1.20.60.063010500.50.012840RWM state space feedback (12 states)n = 3 correctionS. Sabbagh et al., Nucl. Fusion 53 (2013) 104007

43. Improved agreement with sufficient number of states (wall detail)Open-loop comparisons between measurements and RWM state space controller show importance of states and modelA) Effect of Number of States UseddBp1801002000-100RWM Sensor Differences (G)137722t (s)400800.560.580.60137722t (s)0.560.580.600.62dBp180dBp90dBp90-400.62t (s)0.560.580.600.62t (s)0.560.580.600.621002000-10040080-407 StatesB) Effect of 3D Model UsedNo NBI PortWith NBI Port2 StatesRWM3D detail of model important to improve agreementSensor dataController (observer)RWM sensorsSensordataController(observer)RWM

44. In addition to active mode control, the NSTX-U RWM state space controller can be used for r/t disruption warningSensordataController(observer)The controller “observer” produces a physics model-based calculation of the expected sensor data – a synthetic diagnosticIf the real-time synthetic diagnostic doesn’t match the measured sensor data, a r/t disruption warning signal can be triggeredTechnique will be assessed using the DECAF codeRWM Sensor Differences (G)RWM Sensor Differences (G)137722t (s)400800.560.580.60137722t (s)0.560.580.600.62dBp90dBp90-400.6240080-40Effect of 3D Model UsedNo NBI PortWith NBI PortRWM

45. In addition to active mode control, the NSTX-U RWM state space controller can be used for real-time disruption warningSensordataController(observer)The controller “observer” produces a physics model-based calculation of the expected sensor data – a synthetic diagnosticIf the real-time synthetic diagnostic doesn’t match the measured sensor data, a r/t disruption warning signal can be triggeredTechnique will be assessed using the DECAF codeRWM Sensor Differences (G)RWM Sensor Differences (G)137722t (s)400800.560.580.60137722t (s)0.560.580.600.62dBp90dBp90-400.6240080-40Effect of 3D Model UsedNo NBI PortWith NBI PortRWM

46. Bounce resonance stabilization dominates for DIII-D vs. precession drift resonance for NSTX at similar, high rotation DIII-D experimental rotation profileNSTX experimental rotation profile|δWK| for trapped resonant ions vs. scaled experimental rotation (MISK)133103 @ 3.330 sstable plasma133776 @ 0.861 sstable plasmaprecessionresonancebounce / circulatingresonanceprecessionresonancebounce / circulatingresonanceDIII-DNSTX

47. Increased RWM stability measured in DIII-D plasmas as qmin is reduced is consistent with kinetic RWM theory|δWK| for trapped resonant ions vs. scaled experimental rotation (MISK)Measured plasma response to 20 Hz, n = 1 field vs qminn = 1 |dBp | (G/kA)qminDIII-D experimental rotation profileprecession driftresonancebounce /circulatingresonanceDIII-D (qmin = 1.2)DIII-D (qmin = 1.6)DIII-D (qmin = 2.8)Bounce resonance dominates precession drift resonance for all qmin examined at the experimental rotationless stable

48. When Ti is included in NTV rotation controller model, 3D field current and NBI power can compensate for Ti variations t (s)t (s)3D coil current and NBI power (actuators)yNNBI, NTV torque density (N/m2)Plasma rotation (rad/s)NTVtorque104desired wft1t3NBItorquet1 = 0.59st2 = 0.69st3 = 0.79sNTV torque profile model for feedback dependent on ion temperatureRotation evolution and NBI and NTV torque profilesK1 = 0, K2 = 2.53D Coil Current (kA)0.50.70.91.00.81.21.41.61.82.00.50.70.9Ti (keV)0.61.21.80.0t (s)0.50.70.90.80.60.4NBI power (MW)71065432t2t1t3t2t1t2t306842100.00.20.40.60.81.00.00.51.01.52.02.5t1t3t2

49. NSTX-U: RWM active control capability increases as proposed 3D coils upgrade (NCC coils) are addedPartial 1x12 NCC coil set significantly enhances controlPresent RWM coils: active control to bN/bNno-wall = 1.25NCC 1x12 coils: active control to bN/bNno-wall = 1.52ExistingRWMcoilsNCC upper (1x12) (plasma facing side)Using present midplane RWM coilsPartial NCC 1x12 (upper), favorable sensors

50. ITER High Priority need: What levels of plasma disturbances (dBp; dBp/Bp(a)) are permissible to avoid disruption?NSTX RWM-induced disruptions analyzedSame database analyzed by DECAF in prior slidesCompare maximum dBp (n = 1 amplitude) causing disruption vs IpMaximum dBp increases with IpNext step: add results from other devicesNSTXRWM-inducedDisruptions(n = 1 globalMHD mode)

51. Maximum dBp might follow a de Vries-style engineering scaling Ipp1lip2/ap3q95p4NSTX RWM-induced disruptionsCompare maximum dBp causing disruption to de Vries locked NTM scalingengineering parametersData shows significant scatter (as does de Vries’ analysis for NTM)NSTXRWM-inducedDisruptions(n = 1 globalMHD mode)

52. Maximum dBp/<Bp(a)> might follow a de Vries-style scaling lip1/q95p2NSTX RWM-induced disruptionsCompare maximum dBp causing disruption vs. de Vries locked NTM scalingNormalized parametersNSTX analysis uses kinetic EFIT reconstructionsli instead of li(3)<Bp(a)>fsa usedNSTXRWM-inducedDisruptions(n = 1 globalMHD mode)

53. In contrast, maximum dBp/<Bp(a)> seems independent of scaling on (li) or (Fp) (or (Fp/li))Fp = ptot(0)/<ptot>vol (from kinetic equilibrium reconstructions)Dependence on li, Fp expected for RWM marginal stability pointsNSTXRWM-inducedDisruptions(n = 1 globalMHD mode)internal inductancetotal pressure peaking factor