1. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Procedure and results of the validation of the real time EQUINOX code on JET D. Mazon 1 B.Faugeras2, J. Blum2, C. Boulbe2, A. Murari 3, 1 2 3

2. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Latest information about EQUINOX at JET The updated version of the EQUINOX code has been installed with success at JET in mid December 2011. All the 2012 pulses (with new ITER Like Wall (ILW) are now automatically treated using magnetics and polarimetry as constraints (MSE has not been available so far). Calculation time is about 50ms Statistics are now easily produced and are being presented in the following

3. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Methodologies of validation Global comparisons (full database) Comparison of global parameters –with the off line EFIT magnetic equilibrium reconstruction (constrained only by magnetics, the only one produced automatically with the always the same parameters) –with the real time Beta li code which computes those quantities from magnetic measurements Comparison of the geometry parameters –with the FELIX code which computes the plasma last closed magnetic flux surface (solve the Grad Shafranov equation in vacuum), highly reliable and used for shape control and vertical stabilisation. Specific comparisons (on limited statistics) Comparion of EFIT/EQUINOX q profiles Comparison with MHD markers when available Comparison with the direct solver PROTEUS In order to estimate the accuracy of this comparison the estimation of the error bars has been investigated

4. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 EQUINOX validation A database of ~100 shots covering all JET parameters (density, temperature, triangularity, B T, Ip…) has been built with the 2012 pulses (from pulse #81510 up to #82654) 1<Ip<2.5MA 1<BT<2.65T 0.06<  <0.4 Includes all JET actual scenarios (high  p are not yet produced with new ILW but previous statistics on former shots revealed that EQUINOX is doing well with high  p scenarios) All data have been carefully checked (calibration factors, fringe jumps, …) and EFIT reconstruction performed without internal measurements EQUINOX is running with polarimetry constrainst (4 chords are used) MHD analysis of some pulses has been performed (in particular for the rational surfaces)

5. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Polarimetry layout Chords 3, 5, 7 and 8 are used in the RT EQUINOX reconstruction

6. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 EQUINOX validation A database of ~100 shots covering all JET parameters (density, temperature, triangularity, B T, Ip…) has been built with the 2012 pulses (from pulse #81510 up to #82654) 1<Ip<2.5MA 1<BT<2.65T 0.06<  <0.4 Includes all JET actual scenarios (high  p are not yet produced with new ILW but previous statistics on former shots revealed that EQUINOX is doing well with high  p scenarios) All data have been carefully checked (calibration factors, fringe jumps, …) and EFIT reconstruction performed without internal measurements EQUINOX is running with polarimetry constrainst (4 chords are used) MHD analysis of some pulses has been performed (in particular for the rational surfaces)

7. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 EQUINOX validation using all the database Global parameters Compare EQUINOX results of global and local quantities with inter-shot EFIT in particular: plasma volume, Ip, q95, q0, li.  p, Rx, Zx, ROG, RIG … Shafranov Shift Volume

8. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 EQUINOX validation using all the database Global parameters Compare EQUINOX results of geometrical quantities with Felix ZX RX

9. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Example of comparison for one particular pulse #81991 (6MW NBI applied at 52s to 59.3s, Ip=2MA BT=2.9T) Ip Rax Zax RX ZX Shafranov Shift

10. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Compare FELIX, EFIT, EQUINOX RIG (ROG): Right Inner (Outer) Gap (equatorial distance between separatrix and vessel at the right hand side) RIG ROG RIG ROG

11. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Validate the density profile by comparing EQUINOX//EFIT/Interferometry Chord 7 Chord 6 Chord 3 Chord 8

12. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Make an evaluation of the sensitivity of the code to the magnetics measurement errors (random variation: up to 1% of the original input values) At a given time:100 variation of the original magnetic set measurements were used to produce 100 equilibria, then standard deviation from the original outputs are computed This has been performed for several pulses at all considered times  li q0 ROG

13. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 EQUINOX validation using a limited number of old pulses of a previous database perfectly analysed for MHD activity and EFIT+pola reconstruction) Compare q profiles at time where MHD activity is identified) EQUINOX constraint with Polarimetry Very good agreement Very good agreement! Compare q profiles EFIT/EQUINOX at particular time of interest (q target, MHD modes…) wtih and without polarimetry

14. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 EQUINOX validation using a limited number of new pulses of a previous database perfectly analysed for MHD activity and EFIT+pola reconstruction) Compare q profiles at time where MHD activity is identified) EQUINOX constraint with Polarimetry Very good agreement Very good agreement! Compare q profiles EFIT/EQUINOX at particular time of interest (q target, MHD modes…) wtih and without polarimetry

15. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Use of Proteus which provides inputs for EQUINOX (flux and derivative of flux at particular nodes of the grid boundary) and compare with the outputs of EQUINOX (EQUINOX without polarimetry) PROTEUSEQUINOX Ip2e6 rmag3.06203.0691 zmag0.29720.2983 psia-0.2896-0.3468 rx2.53102.5279 zx-1.4180-1.4248 psib-1.0588-1.0605 betap1.90501.7846

16. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 PROTEUSEQUINOX Li0.74700.7095 Q01.15501.8256 Q955.47105.3508 Trianu0.42900.4075 Trianl0.37200.3861 Vol74.708074.3860 Surf4.25204.2329 Perimeter8.27507.9232 rgeom2.87252.8726 Very good agreement except on the magnetic axis (due to lack of information)

17. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Conclusions and perspectives Strategy of validation and database are in place Input data fully validated Equinox outputs have been validated on a 100 pulses database and a very good agreement with EFIT and FELIX has been observed Fine tuning and optimisation of the regularisation term has been done Implementation of Motional Stark Effect (MSE) constraints ready An off line EQUINOX code will be prepared for refining the RT analysis Should motivate lots of activity at JET around the real-time control of the current density profile

18. 7th Workshop on Fusion Data Processing Validation and Analysis Frascati 2012 Many thanks to all the persons who helped at any stage in the realisation of this project in particular, D. Valcarcel, R Felton, F. Piccolo, M. Baruzzo, P de Vries, A.Boboc, M.Brix, P. De Vries, S.Sharapov, L. Zabeo, S. Gerasimov, … Thanks for your attention! Acknowledgements