1. TTF 2013, USA, 1 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 On the non-stiffness of edge transport in L-modes O. Sauter, D. Kim, R. Behn, S. Coda, B. P. Duval, T. P. Goodman and the TCV team Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Centre de Recherches en Physiques des Plasmas (CRPP) Lausanne, Switzerland

2. TTF 2013, USA, 2 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Outline Motivation –Carbon profile shown independent of Ip on TCV –Core scalelengths seem independent of Ip, despite  E  I p Determine R/L Te vs I p, P EC,  in core AND edge regions Core region is stiff, edge is not 1-D transport simulation with new model Conclusions

3. TTF 2013, USA, 3 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Impurity transport independent of Ip O. Sauter et al, IAEA 2010 EXPC/P8-13 and EXS/P2-1

4. TTF 2013, USA, 4 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Same for T i, v  independent of Ip O. Sauter et al, IAEA 2010 EXPC/P8-13 and EXS/P2-1 Ti/Ti(0.8)

5. TTF 2013, USA, 5 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 electron transport independent of Ip as well Ip scan: q 95 from 2.5 to 10 Profiles self-similar outside mixing radius We  Ip

6. TTF 2013, USA, 6 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 What is R/L Te global profile for gyrokinetic? A: R/L Te  0 at  =1 : Used in most simulations B: R/LTe  3-10*(core) at  =1 : seems proposed by expt B A R/L Te ~cst

7. TTF 2013, USA, 7 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 n e, T e versus I p in TCV, with z-axis sweep Clear increase of total energy with Ip Thomson data, with slow z-axis sweep

8. TTF 2013, USA, 8 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Change of scalelengths only for  V >0.85 pe/pe(0.8) pe/pe(0.98) Normalization vs value at  =0.8 is not a good idea Normalizing at  =0.98 depends on the quality of fit Note:   too narrow edge region R/Lpe identical in core R/Lpe  Ip for  V >0.8 (x2.6>core at Ip=285kA) log(p e )

9. TTF 2013, USA, 9 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 PEC scan at constant Ip

10. TTF 2013, USA, 10 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 PEC scan at constant Ip Normalization on p e (0.8) shows self-similar profiles

11. TTF 2013, USA, 11 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 PEC scan at constant Ip Stiff in corenon-stiff in edge

12. TTF 2013, USA, 12 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 P EC scan at constant Ip Stiff in "core" region R/L Te 15 R/L Te >30-40 in edge region

13. TTF 2013, USA, 13 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Strong effect of  on global profiles  <0: same prof with ½ P EC Y. Camenen et al, Nucl. Fusion 47 (2007) 510

14. TTF 2013, USA, 14 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Strong effect of  on global profiles  <0: same prof with ½ P EC  <0: higher p e with same P EC

15. TTF 2013, USA, 15 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 1½-D transport simulations with ASTRA "Local" transport characteristics in stationary state: Stiff:  e increases when Q e increases => R/L Te cst

16. TTF 2013, USA, 16 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Qe/Te versus R/LTe from TCV data R/L Te cst  e (edge) is large but it is relation between Q e_norm and R/L Te which matters R/L Te

17. TTF 2013, USA, 17 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 A combined core-stiff / edge-non-stiff model 1200 800 400 Stiffness:    P -0.7 Assuming edge non-stiff: 2 0.8 3 0.8 3 0.1 Leads to strong diff. with P↑ stiff non-stiff test on P scan Three main regions w.r.t transport: 1)center: ST/current hole effects: large  2)Core: stiff, R/L Te ~cst 3)Edge: non-stiff (2) (3) (1)

18. TTF 2013, USA, 18 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Results using 1-D ASTRA model We start from this  e profile and other plasma parameters Scale core  e ~P 0.7 and edge with P 0.1

19. TTF 2013, USA, 19 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Results using 1-D ASTRA model

20. TTF 2013, USA, 20 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Same technique for  =+0.4,  =-0.4 cases Recover profiles with: 1.Same transport in core: P -0.7 2.Reduced transport near edge with  <0 Stiff edge not sufficient 16 P 0.1 11 P 0.1 2.3 P 0.8

21. TTF 2013, USA, 21 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Reconciles with gyrokinetic simulations A. Marinoni et al, PPCF Plasma 51 (2009) 055016 Difference in linear and nonlinear simulations found only for  >0.7 Present model resolves this issue GAMs, see TCV comprehensive analysis S. Coda TTF2013

22. TTF 2013, USA, 22 O. Sauter, http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/185952 Conclusions Core transport limits R/L Te (and R/Lne to some extent) Even with favourable Ip scaling profiles remain self-similar Therefore values at  =0.8 are changing with Ip This is possible with non-stiff transport in [0.8,1]:  hardly increase with increased power Simple model recovers Ip, P scsaling and  effects with:  ~ P 0.7-0.8 in core  ~ P 0-0.2 in edge Explains effects of negative  (which does not penetrate) Explains good P scaling of edge I-mode Explains profile consistency Explains "I-family", + can have wide variety of parameters Shows how L-mode builds up R/L Te  100 with increasing power towards H-mode transition