 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Return To: Session ITERP1 - ITER EDA 1 (Thursday, 22
Prev Page: (ITERP1/13) 2D Modelling and Assessment of Divertor Performance
Next Page: (ITERP1/15) Integration of Diagnostics into the ITER Machine
|
|
|
R. Yoshino 1, D. J. Campbell 3,
E. Frederickson 4, N. Fujisawa 2,
R. Granetz 5, O. Gruber 6, T. C. Hender 7,
D. A. Humphreys 9, N. Ivanov 8,
S. Jardin 4, A. G. Kellman 9, R. Lahaye 9,
J. Lister 10, S. Mirnov 11, A. W. Morris 7,
Y. Neyatani 1, G. Pautasso 6,
F. W. Perkins 2, S. Putvinski 2,
M. N. Rosenbluth 2, N. Sauthoff 4,
S. Tokuda 1, P. Taylor 9, T. Taylor 9,
K. Yamazaki 12, J. Wesley 2
1 JAERI, Naka, Ibaraki, Japan
2 ITER Joint Central Team
3 The NET Team, Garching, Germany
4 PPPL, Princeton, NJ, USA
5 Plasma Fusion Center, MIT, MA, USA
6 Max-Planck IPP, Garching, Germany
7 Euratom/UKAEA, Culham, Abingdon, UK
8 Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, RF
9 General Atomics, San Diego, USA
10 CRPP, Lausanne, Switzerland
11 TRINITI, Moscow, Russian Federation
12 NIFS, Toki, Japan
Introduction
Disruptions terminate tokamak discharges by thermal quench and
current quench. Vertical instability, in-vessel halo currents
and conversion
of plasma current to runaway electron current typically follow. In ITER ,
disruptions and their consequences have implications for the design of the
first wall , divertor targets and torus vacuum vessel.
This paper summarizes
disruption, halo current and runaway electron data compiled by the ITER
Expert Group on Disruption, Plasma Control and MHD to support ITER
design. Methods for avoiding disruptions or for mitigating their
consequences have also been assessed. There is progress in the
characterization and avoidance/effect-mitigation studies, and disruption
avoidance and effect mitigation methods have been demonstrated in present
experiments.
IAEA 1999