Nonlinear gyrokinetic turbulence simulations of E × B shear quenching of transport

The effects of E×B velocity shear have been investigated in nonliner gyrokinetic turbulence simulations with and without kinetic electrons. The impact of E×B shear stabilization in electrostatic flux-tube simulations is well modeled by a simple quench rule with the turbulent diffusivity scaling like 1−αEγE∕γmax, where γE is the E×B shear rate, γmax is maximum linear growth rate without E×B shear, and αE is a multiplier. The quench rule was originally deduced from adiabatic electron ion temperature gradient (ITG) simulations where it was found that αE≈1. The results presented in this paper show that the quench rule also applies in the presence of kinetic electrons for long-wavelength transport down to the ion gyroradius scale. Without parallel velocity shear, the electron and ion transport is quenched near γE∕γmax≈2 (αE≈1∕2). When the destabilizing effect of parallel velocity shear is included in the simulations, consistent with purely toroidal rotation, the transport may not be completely quenched by any level of E×B shear because the Kelvin–Helmholtz drive increases γmax faster than γE increases. Both ITG turbulence with added trapped electron drive and electron-directed and curvature-driven trapped electron mode turbulence are considered.The effects of E×B velocity shear have been investigated in nonliner gyrokinetic turbulence simulations with and without kinetic electrons. The impact of E×B shear stabilization in electrostatic flux-tube simulations is well modeled by a simple quench rule with the turbulent diffusivity scaling like 1−αEγE∕γmax, where γE is the E×B shear rate, γmax is maximum linear growth rate without E×B shear, and αE is a multiplier. The quench rule was originally deduced from adiabatic electron ion temperature gradient (ITG) simulations where it was found that αE≈1. The results presented in this paper show that the quench rule also applies in the presence of kinetic electrons for long-wavelength transport down to the ion gyroradius scale. Without parallel velocity shear, the electron and ion transport is quenched near γE∕γmax≈2 (αE≈1∕2). When the destabilizing effect of parallel velocity shear is included in the simulations, consistent with purely toroidal rotation, the transport may not be completely quenched by any ...

[1]  J. W. Connor,et al.  Shear, periodicity, and plasma ballooning modes , 1978 .

[2]  E. C. Crume,et al.  A model for the L-H transition in tokamaks , 1990 .

[3]  Paul W. Terry,et al.  Influence of sheared poloidal rotation on edge turbulence , 1990 .

[4]  S. Mahajan,et al.  Edge turbulence scaling with shear flow , 1991 .

[5]  G. Staebler,et al.  Anomalous momentum transport from drift wave turbulence , 1993 .

[6]  Jose Milovich,et al.  Toroidal gyro‐Landau fluid model turbulence simulations in a nonlinear ballooning mode representation with radial modes , 1994 .

[7]  William Dorland,et al.  Quantitative predictions of tokamak energy confinement from first‐principles simulations with kinetic effects , 1995 .

[8]  Gregory W. Hammett,et al.  Advances in the simulation of toroidal gyro Landau fluid model turbulence , 1995 .

[9]  C. Forest,et al.  Transport and performance in DIII-D discharges with weak or negative central magnetic shear , 1996 .

[10]  R. Waltz,et al.  A gyro-Landau-fluid transport model , 1997 .

[11]  G. Hammett,et al.  Gyrofluid simulations of turbulence suppression in reversed-shear experiments on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor , 1997 .

[12]  R. Budny,et al.  Local transport barrier formation and relaxation in reverse-shear plasmas on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor , 1997 .

[13]  R. Waltz,et al.  Electron heat transport in improved confinement discharges in DIII-D , 1998 .

[14]  G. Staebler,et al.  Effects of velocity shear and magnetic shear in the formation of core transport barriers in the DIII-D tokamak , 1998 .

[15]  Robert Dewar,et al.  Theory and simulation of rotational shear stabilization of turbulence , 1998 .

[16]  Frank Jenko,et al.  Electron temperature gradient driven turbulence , 1999 .

[17]  R. L. Miller,et al.  Ion temperature gradient turbulence simulations and plasma flux surface shape , 1999 .

[18]  R. E. Waltz,et al.  Simulations of internal transport barrier formation in tokamak discharges using the GLF23 transport model , 2002 .

[19]  Jeff M. Candy,et al.  Gyrokinetic turbulence simulation of profile shear stabilization and broken gyroBohm scaling , 2002 .

[20]  Microturbulence and flow shear in high-performance JET ITB plasma , 2002 .

[21]  F. Jenko,et al.  Prediction of significant tokamak turbulence at electron gyroradius scales. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[22]  R. Waltz,et al.  Anomalous transport scaling in the DIII-D tokamak matched by supercomputer simulation. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[23]  Erratum: “Gyrokinetic simulations of ion and impurity transport” [Phys. Plasmas 12, 022305 (2005)] , 2005 .

[24]  Jeff M. Candy,et al.  Gyrokinetic simulations of ion and impurity transport , 2005 .

[25]  Kenro Miyamoto,et al.  Controlled Fusion and Plasma Physics , 2006 .