Direct comparison of gyrokinetic and fluid scrape-off layer simulations
Source abstract
Abstract
Typically, fluid simulations are used for tokamak divertor design. However, fluid models are only valid if the scrape-off layer (SOL) is highly collisional. This assumption is valid in many present-day experiments but is questionable in the upstream SOL of some high-power scenarios envisioned for burning plasmas and fusion pilot plants. This paper reports on comparisons between fluid and kinetic simulations of the SOL for upstream parameters and geometry representative of the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production fusion pilot plant. The SOLPS-ITER (fluid) and Gkeyll (gyrokinetic) codes are operated in a two-dimensional axisymmetric mode, which replaces turbulence with ad-hoc diffusivities. In kinetic simulations, we observe that the ions in the upstream SOL experience significant mirror trapping. This substantially increases the upstream temperature and has important implications for impurity dynamics. We show that the mirror force, which is excluded in SOLPS’s fluid equations, enhances the electrostatic potential drop along the field line in the SOL. We also show that the assumption of equal main ion and impurity temperatures, which is made in commonly used fluid codes, is invalid for the regimes explored here. The combination of these effects results in superior confinement of impurities to the divertor region in kinetic simulations, consistent with our earlier predictions [Kotschenreuther et al., in 29th IAEA 29 Fusion Energy Conference (IAEA, London, UK, 2023)]. This effect can be dramatic, reducing the midplane impurity density by orders of magnitude. These results indicate that in lower collisionality SOL’s the tolerable downstream impurity densities may be higher than would be predicted by fluid simulations, allowing for higher radiated power while avoiding unacceptable core contamination. Our results highlight the importance of kinetic simulations for divertor design and optimization for fusion pilot plants.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Magnetic confinement fusion research · Ionosphere and magnetosphere dynamics · Particle accelerators and beam dynamics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
UT Austin 1 , Austin, Texas 78712,
Exofusion 2 , Bellevue, Washington 98005,
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory 3 , Princeton, New Jersey 08540,
General Atomics 4 , San Diego, California 92186,
Funding
Office of Science · STEP, United Kingdom Industrial Fusion Solutions Ltd
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. Nucl. Mater. Energy · 2023 · 35 · 10141010.1016/j.nme.2023.101410 ↗
2. Nucl. Fusion · 2023 · 63 · 07603210.1088/1741-4326/acd863 ↗
3. Nucl. Fusion · 2021 · 61 · 12607310.1088/1741-4326/ac3699 ↗
4. Contrib. Plasma Phys. · 2024 · 64 · e20230013510.1002/ctpp.202300135 ↗
5. Nucl. Fusion · 2021 · 61 · 10601310.1088/1741-4326/ac1c85 ↗
6. Plasma Sci. Technol. · 2025 · 27 · 02400910.1088/2058-6272/adadb8 ↗
7. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A · 2024 · 382 · 2023040610.1098/rsta.2023.0406 ↗
8. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A · 2024 · 382 · 2023041410.1098/rsta.2023.0414 ↗
9. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A · 2024 · 382 · 2023040110.1098/rsta.2023.0401 ↗
10. Nucl. Fusion · 2024 · 65 · 01603310.1088/1741-4326/ad93e7 ↗
11. See https://nstx.pppl.gov/DragNDrop/Five_Year_Plans/2014_2018/chapter_text/full_text/NSTXU_5YearPlan_text.pdf for Nstx upgrade five year plan.
12. 2028
13. Contrib. Plasma Phys. · 2006 · 46 · 310.1002/ctpp.200610001 ↗
14. J. Nucl. Mater. · 2015 · 463 · 48010.1016/j.jnucmat.2014.10.012 ↗
15. M. Francisquez , P.Cagas, A.Shukla, J.Juno, and G. W.Hammett, “Conservative velocity mappings for discontinuous galerkin kinetics,” arXiv:2505.10754 [physics.plasm-ph] (2025).10.2139/ssrn.5290825 ↗
16. Phys. Plasmas · 2023 · 30 · 10250410.1063/5.0152440 ↗
17. N. R. Mandell , “Magnetic fluctuations in gyrokinetic simulations of tokamak scrape-off layer turbulence,” Ph.D. thesis (Princeton University, 2021).
18. E. L. Shi , “Gyrokinetic continuum simulation of turbulence in open-field-line plasmas,” Ph.D. thesis (Princeton University, 2017).10.1017/S002237781700037X ↗
19. Phys. Plasmas · 2022 · 29 · 05250110.1063/5.0087131 ↗
20. Gkeyll 2.0 documentation, https://gkeyll.readthedocs.io (accessed 08 Dec 2024).
21. 2023
22. J. Plasma Phys. · 2022 · 88 · 90588030310.1017/s0022377822000289 ↗
23. 2024
24. Phys. Fluids · 1964 · 7 · 178810.1063/1.2746779 ↗
25. Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion · 2021 · 63 · 12502810.1088/1361-6587/ac32e5 ↗
26. Nucl. Mater. Energy · 2021 · 26 · 10088110.1016/j.nme.2020.100881 ↗
27. Contrib. Plasma Phys. · 2022 · 62 · e20210016410.1002/ctpp.202100164 ↗
28. Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion · 2017 · 59 · 06501110.1088/1361-6587/aa6b13 ↗
29. J. Plasma Phys. · 2017 · 83 · 90583030410.1017/s002237781700037x ↗
30. Rev. Plasma Phys. · 1965 · 1 · 205
31. Phys. Plasmas · 2014 · 21 · 10251210.1063/1.4900407 ↗
32. Phys. Fluids · 1969 · 12 · 55710.1063/1.1692519 ↗
33. Phys. Plasmas · 2022 · 29 · 05250710.1063/5.0088534 ↗