Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Interpretation of density limits and the H-mode operational diagram through similarity

parameters for edge transport mechanisms

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

1999 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 41 913

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/41/7/305)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 194.81.223.66
The article was downloaded on 18/12/2012 at 14:12

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 41 (1999) 913–930. Printed in the UK PII: S0741-3335(99)93548-0

Interpretation of density limits and the H-mode operational

diagram through similarity parameters for edge transport
mechanisms

A V Chankin and G Saibene

JET Joint Undertaking, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3EA, UK

Received 21 April 1998, in final form 7 May 1999

Abstract. ELMy H-modes are currently a promising scenario envisaged for the operation of
a future fusion reactor. The reliable extrapolation of the present experimental data to a reactor
requires a model which is capable of explaining the variety of experimental phenomena observed
in high-density H-modes. This paper attempts to construct a model based on the assumption that
the behaviour of high-density ELMy H-modes can be explained through the similarity of edge
transport mechanisms.
We have identified three dimensionless parameters as the most representative for the high-
density H-mode operation: (a) Fβ = q 2 R∇β/f (s) representing the ideal ballooning limit,
(b) collisionality νe∗ = Zeff nqR/Te2 which is postulated to be responsible for the transition from
type I to type III edge localized modes (ELMs) and (c) the L–H transition boundary represented
√
by FL–H = Te3 /(B 2 L⊥ Zeff / mi ). Fixing any two out of these three parameters allows one
to find scalings for the main operational points in the edge ne –Te diagram and reproduce the
Greenwald/Hugill dependences: n̄e ∼ B/qR for density limits.
More detailed scalings for the type I to type III ELM transition point, which may be
of particular interest for a reactor, show that the critical separatrix density should scale as
ne ∼ B α /q β R γ , where α ≈ 1, β > 1, γ < 1 (but being close to unity) and q is assumed to
be the safety factor at 95% of the flux, q95 . Good agreement is found between experimental results
on JET for the density at the top of the pedestal and the scaling n̄e ∼ B/R 3/4 q 5/4 for the critical
separatrix density at the transition, in the conditions where the two densities are expected to be
proportional to each other.

1. Introduction

A fusion reactor has to satisfy stringent criteria for high fusion yield (implying both high
plasma density and energy confinement, but below the critical β) and at the same time
provide favourable conditions for power exhaust to the plasma facing surfaces. In the regime
of improved confinement (H-mode) [1] which is presently the main scenario for the ITER
prototype reactor, these two conditions may come into conflict with each other, as will be
shown in section 2 of this paper. In fact, the standard ITER scenario for ignition [2] requires
a confinement enhancement factor H of one (according to the ITER97-EPS scaling [3]) at a
plasma density of about 1 × 1020 m−3 in steady state. In existing experiments, [4–9], good
energy confinement is normally obtained only at plasma densities that extrapolate to values
that are insufficient for ignition. Steady-state H-mode conditions are obtained in present-day
experiments either with type I or type III edge localized modes (ELMs) (for the definition
of ELM types we refer to the review articles [10, 11]). The type I ELMs occur near the
ideal ballooning limit and are believed by some authors to originate from ideal ballooning
0741-3335/99/070913+18$30.00 © 1999 IOP Publishing Ltd 913
914 A V Chankin and G Saibene

instabilities caused by the sharp pressure gradients at the edge, characteristic of the H-mode
regime (see, e.g., a review of models for ELMs in [12]). Each ELM is accompanied by
a sudden expulsion of energy and particles from the confined plasma. Extrapolation of the
power load to plasma facing components measured in present-day machines [13] indicates that
the resulting erosion would be unacceptable for a reactor. As the plasma density is increased
by gas fuelling, the ELM frequency increases and their amplitude decreases and, finally, at
high densities type I ELMs are replaced by high-frequency, small-amplitude type III ELMs.
This change in the ELM character is generally accompanied by a degradation of the energy
confinement. The predominant point of view is that type III ELMs are caused by resistive
ballooning instabilities at the plasma edge [12, 14].
Experimentally, it is found that a good measure for the density to be considered ‘high’
or ‘low’ is the fraction of the density with respect to the Greenwald density limit (GDL),
n̄e ≡ nGW [m−3 ] = 1014 (Ip [A])/(πa 2 [m2 ]) [15], where n̄e is the line-averaged density, Ip
is the plasma current and a is the plasma minor radius. For fixed plasma elongation, the
functional dependence of this density can also be written in the form of the Hugill density limit:
n̄e ∼ B/qR [16], which gives n̄e ∼ j (j is the current density). This functional dependence
is used in the remainder of the paper, while the numerical values for the analysis of the
experimental data are calculated from the GDL expression. The Greenwald/Hugill expressions
for the maximum density were obtained from multimachine scaling of ohmic and L-mode
density limit data. It is, therefore, interesting to note that this limit, or very similar expressions
(of the form B α /q β R γ with coefficients α, β and γ close to unity) do indeed represent very well
the maximum density achievable in H-mode discharges. In this paper we first give a summary
of experimental observations related to operation at high densities in ELMy H-modes. We then
provide a physics basis for these observations through analysis of the similarity parameters for
the main edge transport mechanisms. By fixing pairs of similarity parameters corresponding
to various characteristic points on the edge ne –Te operational diagram scalings for ne and Te
can be obtained. The scalings for the density are indeed of the form B α /q β R γ , indicating that
this combination is an important similarity parameter for edge physics. These scalings may
be useful in projecting critical edge parameters to future machines.

2. Summary of experimental observations with the mark II divertor

The recent experimental campaign in JET has provided valuable information on the study of
high-density ELMy H-modes. Its results were reported in [4, 17–20]. A series of plasma
discharges were carried out for a given plasma magnetic geometry (shape, edge shear, divertor
magnetic flux expansion and separatrix strike point location), with a fixed level of neutral
beam (NB) power injection. The length of the heated phase was sufficient to allow the main
plasma parameters to reach steady state compared to the energy confinement time τE (in
general t > 4τE ). The same discharge was repeated with increasing levels of constant gas
fuelling.
It is a general observation for this type of experiment that the increase of the plasma
density caused by the external gas fuelling is accompanied by the decrease of the global
energy confinement. For the particular experiment illustrated in figure 1, the maximum density
achieved while maintaining H-mode confinement (albeit strongly degraded) is just below the
GDL. As the density is raised, the ELM frequency increases and clusters of smaller and more
frequent ELMs begin to occur, in particular after a type I ELM, and become more frequent
until they dominate the ELM behaviour of the discharge. We identify these as type III ELMs,
according to the standard criterion of ELMs classification (the frequency of the ELMs are
inversely proportional to the input power [10]).
 Density limits and the H-mode operational diagram 915

10 Pulse No:
44356

(a.u.)
5

0
(a.u.) 10 44357

10 44359
(a.u.)

0
10 44371
(a.u.)

JG98.98/2c
0
18 20 22 24 26
Time (s)

Figure 1. Time traces of the divertor Dα emission for the JET plasma discharges 44356, 44357,
44359 and 44371 (2.6 MA/2.7 T, 12 MW NBI input power in deuterium). For this experiment,
the constant gas fuelling rate was increased from 0 (44356) to ∼4 × 1022 s−1 (44371). The plasma
average density correspondingly increased from ∼7 × 1019 m−3 to ∼9 × 1019 m−3 (95% of the
GDL for this plasma configuration) while the plasma stored energy decreased from ∼6 MJ to
∼4 MJ at the highest gas rate.

This change in the character of the ELMs is coincident with the deterioration of the global
energy confinement (typically H97 decreases from about 0.9 down to ∼0.6, figure 2). The
plasma density does not always saturate at the transition from type I to III ELMs, and may
reach its maximum during the type III phase. Eventually, when the plasma is still in H-mode,
notwithstanding the reduced confinement (H97 < 1), and in spite of the continuous fuelling, the
density first saturates and then decreases. If the fuelling is maintained, the plasma eventually
reverts to the L-mode with no ELMs present.
Saibene et al [4] have proposed an interpretation of the ‘density limit’ in ELMy H-modes as
a transport phenomenon, correlating the reduced effective particle confinement to the changes
in the global energy confinement as follows: increased transport at the edge of the plasma
(i.e. reduced local confinement) clamps the density below a certain limit despite an increase in
the external fuelling. TRANSP code simulations of these degraded confinement, high-density
discharges indeed show that the reduction in the global energy confinement corresponds to
enhanced losses in the outer 25% of the plasma radius, whilst the central thermal conductivities
are not strongly affected, compared to an unfuelled case. These results indicate that the
properties of the plasma near the edge of the pedestal of temperature and density profiles,
characteristic of the H-mode (providing the boundary conditions for the core plasma) may be
crucial in explaining the global plasma properties of ELMy H-modes at high densities. The
results obtained in JET are consistent with observations reported from other tokamaks. In
ASDEX Upgrade [6], plasmas displaying type III ELMs were obtained at densities near the
916 A V Chankin and G Saibene
1.0
Type I Type III

0.9

H97 0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

JG98.181/3c
0.4
50 60 70 80 90 100
ne/nGR (%)

Figure 2. Global energy confinement as a function of the plasma line-averaged density normalized
to the Greenwald density limit, for the same plasma discharges as in figure 1.

GDL. The confinement of these plasmas, however, was strongly degraded to values almost
characteristic of the L-mode, in spite of the ELM activity. DIII-D [8] reports densities above
the GDL, but again at the expense of the global energy confinement of the plasma, depressed
to near L-mode values.
Borrass et al [21] have developed a model that extends the treatment of L-mode density
limits [22] to the case of H-modes. In this model, the onset of the H-mode density limit
is related to plasma detachment at the divertor plates. In JET experiments described in [17],
partial detachment was observed at the divertor plates between ELMs, but no unique correlation
was found between the degree of detachment and the loss of confinement (of both particles
and energy) associated with the H-mode density limit.
The survey of the available experimental evidence shows that the maximum density
achieved in steady-state H-modes for tokamaks of different size scales approximately as
predicted by the Hugill–Greenwald dependences, supporting these power-independent B/qR
type of scalings. However, experimental results deviating from this simple dependence were
reported previously from ASDEX [23], where an increase of the density limit over the GDL
by as much as 30% was achieved by operating at low edge q, indicating that the dependence of
the maximum density on the safety factor q is stronger than 1/q. In that particular experiment,
plasma densities above the GDL were achieved while maintaining good H-mode confinement
by the combination of high plasma current and low magnetic field. As we will show in
sections 5 and 7, these results can be deduced from the strong (quadratic) dependence of the
ideal ballooning limit (at fixed B) on q.

3. The edge ne –Te operational diagram

Further insight into the mechanisms determining the ELM behaviour and the density limit
in ELMy H-modes is gained by analysing these discharges in terms of local edge plasma
parameters [7]. The schematic diagram in figure 3 identifies the range of edge parameters for
 Density limits and the H-mode operational diagram 917

H-mode operation, as defined by the ideal ballooning limit boundary and a curve representing
the critical temperature for the L–H transition.
Figure 3 shows an ‘idealized’ representation of the evolution of the plasma edge pedestal
ne and Te in a typical high density discharge with gas fuelling. After the application of
additional heating and the L–H transition, the plasma enters an ELM-free H-mode period.
This is characterized by an increase of the plasma stored energy and density, reflected locally
by a fast increase of the edge Te and a somewhat slower increase of the edge ne . The ELM-free
period terminates with the first type I ELM, triggered when the edge pressure (defined as the
product of the edge ne and Te ) reaches a critical value, associated with the ideal ballooning
limit. During each ELM the edge Te and ne are reduced and subsequently recover until the
critical edge pressure is reached. In steady state, the average plasma stored energy, temperature
and density are constant, and the repetitive type I ELMs would be represented by a closed loop
on the ne –Te diagram.

Ideal ballooning limit

Type I ELMs

Transition: I→III
Edge Te

Type III ELMs

H–mode Density
limit

1 3
2
JG98.181/1c

L–H transition

Edge ne

Figure 3. Schematic edge ne –Te diagram summarizing the main features of an ELMy H-mode gas
puffed discharge in terms of the plasma edge pedestal parameters.

Figure 3 represents a non-steady-state case in which the addition of external fuelling causes
the plasma density to increase. At the plasma edge, this corresponds to an increase in ne and
a decrease of Te , at constant edge pressure (gradient), but increasing edge collisionality. At
some point, type I ELMs are replaced by type III ELMs (labelled as the transition: I → III
in figure 3), and the maximum ne and Te at the ELM no longer follow the ideal ballooning
curve. The exact trajectory of the type III ELMy phase in the edge ne –Te space will depend
on the details of the particular experiment (the variation in gas puff rate, power input, impurity
content etc are likely to affect the evolution of the edge particle and energy content), and is
schematically represented by routes 1, 2 and 3 in figure 3. Route 1 describes a simultaneous loss
of energy and particle confinement shortly after the type I to III transition. Route 2 represents
a trajectory where energy depletion dominates whereas particle content is unaffected. Finally,
route 3 corresponds to an optimum scenario, of reduced energy and particle losses compared
to 1 and 2, that allows one to reach the highest density in the H-mode. For route 1, the
maximum density in the H-mode is reached before the H–L transition, whereas for the other
two cases, the maximum density coincides with the transition to the L-mode. The experimental
evidence from JET indicates that the H-mode density limit is achieved in most cases before the
H–L transition, and that the edge parameters follow either route 1 or some other path between
routes 1 and 2, while route 3 is less common. Note that the region in the (ne , Te ) space bounded
918 A V Chankin and G Saibene

by the ideal ballooning curve, route 3 and the L–H transition threshold, is not accessible for
the plasma as it is above the threshold for type III ELMs.

4. The main dimensionless parameters

Having summarized the main experimental observations, the authors are of the opinion
that H-mode density limits in different machines are ‘similar’ in the sense that they have
similar experimental signatures and appear to be described by the functional dependence
n̄e ∼ B α /q β R γ with coefficients α, β and γ close to unity. We ignore the possible effects of
the plasma elongation, since very little experimental information has so far been obtained on
this dependence, in particular for H-mode density limits. Furthermore, again in accordance
with experimental observations (such as the possibility to raise the core density by deep pellet
injection compared with the gas puff discharges as on ASDEX Upgrade [6]), we will assume
that it is the edge density which is limited in the ELMy H-modes rather than the core density. In
accordance with experimental results from JET described earlier, we believe that the H-mode
density limit reached near the plasma edge is essentially due to transport phenomena.
Our aim is to select the set of dimensionless similarity parameters that reflect the dominant
transport mechanisms governing the behaviour of high-density ELMy H-modes near the plasma
edge. According to the dimensional approach, fixing these parameters would ensure similarity
of the physical processes on different machines, such as the transition from type I to type III
ELMs and the H-mode density limit. If the selected parameters are indeed relevant to the
physics involved, we should be able to deduce scalings of the type n̄e ∼ B α /q β R γ . One
should note that scalings relating the main plasma parameters (plasma density, temperature
and magnetic field), can only be obtained if two similarity parameters are fixed, otherwise
the problem becomes overconstrained and the relation between the main plasma parameters
and other geometrical parameters such as the machine size can be invoked. For example, it
is widely accepted (see, e.g., [30, 31]) that by neglecting atomic processes and Debye scale
events, the important similarity parameters for a tokamak discharge are νe∗ , ρ ∗ and β (other
parameters like the safety factor q, ion mass, impurity composition etc are also assumed to
be constant). Fixing those gives the dependences for plasma density, temperature and the
toroidal field against the major radius: ne ∼ 1/R 2 , T ∼ 1/R 5/4 , B ∼ 1/R 1/2 , which have to
be followed to provide for the complete similarity of discharges.
In the following, we demonstrate that it is possible to explain the fact that the
Greenwald/Hugill scaling has such a universal role in the physics of high-density H-modes,
by making reasonable assumptions about the three dominant similarity parameters which
are responsible for two main points which anchor the ne –Te operational diagram: the
type I–type III ELM transition point and the interception between the ideal ballooning curve
and the L–H transition boundary. In the previous section, we mentioned collisionality. It is
important for resistive effects and we have reason to believe (see later) that it should be one
of the key parameters of the problem. From the experimental point of view, the proximity of
the edge pressure gradient to the ideal ballooning limit and the excess of the input power (or
edge temperature) over the L–H transition threshold, are extremely important for high-density
H-mode plasmas. Therefore, we will formulate these as another two dimensionless similarity
parameters. These two parameters also determine the highest density that could, in principle,
be obtained in H-mode. Fixing them will give a scaling for the interception point between the
ideal ballooning limit curve and the L–H transition threshold (out of view on figure 3). Thus,
we will select three similarity parameters to derive density and temperature scalings for the
two points on the ne –Te operational diagram. It is not excluded that there is a certain degree
of interdependence between these parameters, in particular between the collisionality and the
 Density limits and the H-mode operational diagram 919

excess of the L–H transition threshold, but, as we will show, the functional dependence of the
parameters selected on the plasma density, temperature and magnetic field is very different.
That is why success in matching the Greenwald/Hugill scaling for the two operational points
should be regarded as an indication of the relevance of these parameters to the problem.
The first two parameters refer to the point of the transition between type I and type III
ELMs on the ne –Te operational diagram. We will assume that the cause of type I ELMs is
ultimately the gradient of plasma edge pressure. Assuming that type I ELMs are triggered at
the ideal ballooning limit we have ∇β ∼ f (s)/q 2 R, and this limit can be expressed via the
dimensionless parameter
q 2 R∇β
Fβ = (1)
f (s)
where β is the total plasma beta and f (s) is a monotonically increasing function of the edge
magnetic shear. Experimental evidence from JET [24] confirms the positive dependence of
the critical edge pressure on magnetic shear. We note that the plasma edge of ELMy H-modes
is characterized by high pressure gradients ∇p and relatively low temperatures Te (typically
one third or less of the temperatures reached at the plasma edge in hot ion H-modes, see, e.g.,
[25, 26]). These conditions at the edge should imply an increased role of ballooning effects due
to the pressure gradient and a lesser role of kink modes, owing to a reduction of the edge current
density due to the relatively low ohmic contribution. Whether the ideal ballooning instability
is indeed responsible for type I ELMs is, however, not absolutely clear at present ([18, 27]),
but at least the fact that the functional dependence of the maximum edge pressure gradient is
proportional to the square of the plasma current is well established experimentally [29].
Experimentally, type III ELMs occur at critical edge pressure gradients below the ideal
ballooning limit [27, 28]. In particular, type III ELMs occurring at high density are associated
with an increase of the density and a reduction of the temperature in the plasma edge, leading
to an increase in the collisionality. We will assume in our model that the instability that leads
to type III ELMs occurs at a critical level of collisionality. As we have already mentioned in
the introduction, type III ELMs are likely to be caused by resistive ballooning instabilities. In
this respect, dimensionless collisionality seems to be the most natural candidate to account for
resistive effects. We include it as the second similarity parameter
νe∗ = Zeff ne qR/Te2 (2)
and assume in the analysis that the combination of the two similarity parameters (1) and
(2) describes the threshold for type III ELMs. The exact form of this threshold cannot be
determined from the dimensional analysis alone. The working assumption, therefore, is that
the onset of the type III ELMs (when moving from a type I ELMy regime by increasing the
plasma density, as illustrated schematically in figure 3) is caused by increased collisionality. It
is possible that other dimensionless parameters are also important in the transition from type I
to type III ELMs, but, as it was noted earlier, inclusion of the third parameter in the analysis
would make the problem overconstrained and would make it impossible to derive scalings of
the type n̄e ∼ B α /q β R γ . In other words, with the degree of certainty with which such scaling
exists and can be established in the experiment, two dominant similarity parameters should
be sufficient to derive it. On the other hand, significant deviations from it would indicate the
importance of some other parameter(s) which should be included into the analysis, as well as
the fact that type I to type III ELM transitions are driven by significantly different mechanisms
in different regimes and on different machines.
Whereas the position of the sharp pressure gradients in H-mode plasmas can be identified
experimentally, the exact location of the critical Te is less certain. We argue that its location is
at the separatrix, since this is where the boundary conditions for the whole plasma column are
920 A V Chankin and G Saibene

defined. The very existence of sharp gradients inside the separatrix is ultimately due to heat
and particle sinks to the target just outside the separatrix.
Strictly speaking, equations (1) and (2) cannot be applied at the separatrix position since
the safety factor q and magnetic shear s are infinite at the separatrix. This singularity, however,
affects a very thin layer around the separatrix (typically of the order of 0.5 cm in JET), much
narrower than the width of the pedestal. As discussed in [32], the large value of the shear in the
small layer near the separatrix is not dominant in determining the stability of the plasma edge
to ballooning modes. We, therefore, ignore this singularity, assuming that ballooning effects
are ‘smeared’ over some radial distance from the separatrix, and the safety factor q is taken to
be the safety factor at 95% of the flux: q ≡ q95 .
The third similarity parameter is related to the confinement between ELMs. In accordance
with the experimental observations (see, e.g., [33] from JET) the threshold for the L–H
transition depends mainly on the critical edge temperature Te , which increases with the toroidal
field. An expression for the L–H transition threshold which combines these main experimental
features has been proposed by Chankin and Matthews [34] based on the idea of the suppression
of the electrostatic drift turbulence (at low plasma Te and β) by the finite skin depths (as the
Te and β are raised by the increased input power).
√ The critical parameter for this suppression
is the ratio of the ion Larmor radius ρs = c mi Te /eB to the collisional skin depth 1skin ,
√
which yields the following scaling: Te3 ∼ B 2 L⊥ Zeff / mi (L⊥ is the perpendicular decay
length for the density or, if the density profile is flat, for temperature). This condition should
apply near the separatrix, where the plasma electron temperature is low and, therefore, the
plasma is collisional (the collisional skin depth was used in the derivations). In accordance
with [34], the ratio ρs /1skin also represents the degree of electro-magnetism of small-scale
fluctuations, which are simply drift modes in the electrostatic limit. Thus, this scaling should
also be relevant to the state of plasma turbulence and confinement between ELMs. Therefore,
the third parameter should be related to this scaling
√
FL–H = Te3 /(B 2 L⊥ Zeff / mi ). (3)
In figure 3, the L–H transition threshold Te increases at low ne . This reflects the fact
that at low densities the skin depth is defined by the collisionless electron conductivity due
to electron inertia, giving rise to the critical condition for β rather than Te [34] (see also [35]
which contains numerical examples).
This criterion for the L–H transition, despite not being verified yet by local measurements
at the separatrix, allows one to explain fairly well the H-mode power threshold and, at least
qualitatively, the results of local measurements near the H-mode pedestal [34, 35]. As we will
show in the following sections, the form of the third similarity parameter, given by equation (3),
is almost imposed by the choice of the first two parameters and by the requirement that the shape
of the H-mode operational diagram should be similar for all machines and that its ‘critical’
points obey Greenwald/Hugill type scalings.
Having introduced the three similarity parameters for the description of ELMy H-modes,
we can now re-plot the edge operational space in terms of the νe∗ –Fβ parameters (figure 4).
The ideal ballooning limit is represented now by a horizontal line (Fβ = constant). In order
to draw the L–H transition boundary, however, some assumptions about the gradients of the
pressure and the characteristic decay length L⊥ in equation (3) have to be made. In the simplest
case of Te ∼ Ti , constant gradients, shear etc, the FL–H parameter, which can be expressed
through νe∗ and Fβ as
Fβ λp f (s)
FL–H ∼ ∗ × × √
νe qL⊥ ni
will correspond to a straight line for the L–H transition threshold in the νe∗ –Fβ space going
 Density limits and the H-mode operational diagram 921

through the origin. λp is the pressure decay length following from ∇β = 4π/B 2 × p/λp . At
low densities, since the critical condition for the L–H transition is on β, the FL–H parameter is
represented by a segment of a horizontal line. Note that the assumption of the constant decay
length L⊥ has also been implicitly made by drawing the L–H transition as a horizontal line at
medium to high densities in figure 3.

Ideal ballooning limit

Type I ELMs Transition: I→III

Type III ELMs

Fβ

n
stio H–mode
tran
L–H density limit

JG98.181/2c
υe*

Figure 4. Schematic edge diagram in νe∗ –Fβ dimensionless parameter space corresponding to the
diagram in figure 3.

5. Generalized form of scalings for H-mode density limits

Without having to describe the detailed mechanisms governing type III ELMs, and based only
on the assumption that parameters (1) and (2) adequately describe the source of instabilities
driving the two types of ELMs, one can derive a scaling law for the density which gives the
boundary between type I and III ELMs. By fixing parameters (1) and (2) and eliminating the
net temperature dependence, the following scaling for the critical density for the type I → III
transition is obtained
 2/3
B 4/3 Te 1
ne (I → III) ∼ 5/3 λ2/3
p f (s)2/3
× 1/3
(4)
q R Te + Ti Zeff
where λp is the total pressure decay length. Note that the functional form of the threshold
density has some similarity with the Hugill density limit (ne ∼ B/qR) for fixed shear, Te /Ti
ratio, λp and Zeff . Equation (4) gives the scaling for the threshold density only for fixed λp .
In this section we leave the pressure decay length as a free parameter. In section 7 we derive
more explicit scalings for ne (I → III) using different dependences for λp corresponding to
several transport models.
The second important issue for which a scaling can be easily obtained is the intersection
point between the ideal ballooning limit curve and the L–H transition threshold boundary
(outside the view on figure 3). This intersection represents the maximum density that would
be attained by a plasma that maintains type I ELMs while the edge density increases, until the
edge temperature falls below the critical H-mode temperature. Fixing parameters (1) and (3),
we obtain the following scaling for this density
1/6
B 4/3 λp Te mi
ne,max ∼ f (s) × . (5)
q 2 R λ1/3
⊥
T 1/3
e + Ti Zeff
922 A V Chankin and G Saibene

These two points anchor the whole high-density space of the ne –Te operational diagram.
The fact that the density (and hence, the temperature) scalings for these points are very
close to each other, indicates that the shape of the high-density operational space on this
diagram is relatively independent of the machine/regime parameters and that it should be
easily transferable from one machine to another to allow for a multimachine scaling. Note
that the close similarity between the scalings (4) and (5) has been achieved despite the original
similarity parameters (2) and (3) having very different functional dependences on physical
parameters. One can consider other possible scalings for the L–H transition, but the density
dependences for the two points considered will be different. For example, if one uses the scaling
following from the theory of the L–H transition based on the Alfven drift-wave turbulence
[36]: Te ∼ Bp0.6 Ip0.6 /n0.3
e mi
0.5
(for the collisional case), then the scaling for the intersection
point between the ideal ballooning limit curve and the L–H transition threshold will be
 10/7
B2 λp Te 5/7
ne,max ∼ 6/7 f (s) × mi .
Ip q 2R Te + Ti
The derivation of the scaling for the density corresponding to the point marked ‘H-mode
density limit’ on figure 3 is complicated by the fact that the ‘optimum’ route 3 should be
described in terms of all three parameters (1), (2) and (3). Unfortunately, we cannot determine
the exact shape of this curve from dimensional considerations alone.
Finally, we can identify one additional operational point, which can be described by the
scaling following from fixing parameters (2) and (3). This point should be on the L–H transition
curve at the density where it bends (near the point where the route 1 touches the L–H transition
curve on figure (3)). It corresponds to the transition from the collisionless to collisional
plasma in the sense that collisionless skin depth (at lower densities where the L–H transition
is essentially the condition on β, as was pointed out in the previous section) is replaced by the
collisional skin depth (at higher densities where the L–H transition is, for constant decay length
L⊥ , essentially the condition on the critical electron temperature). Although this operational
point corresponds to rather low densities and is not of a particular interest for our analysis in
this paper, it is worth mentioning that the density scaling obtained by fixing parameters (2)
and (3)
B 4/3 2/3 1
ne ∼ L⊥ × 1/3 1/3
qR Zeff mi
is again rather close to scalings (4) and (5).

6. Influence of q on the H-mode operational range at high densities

The changes in the operational space for an ELMy H-mode plasma in the ne –Te diagram
caused by varying the safety factor q are schematically illustrated in figure 5. In this figure
we show the case where the variation in q is achieved by varying the plasma current, while
the magnetic field is kept constant. In this instance, the L–H transition boundary is the same
for low and high q plasmas. In the other case (fixed plasma current Ip , varying B, not shown
in the figure) the ideal ballooning limit is fixed and the changes in the operational space are
due to the scaling of the L–H critical temperature (Te ∼ B 2/3 ). Due to the strong dependence
of the ideal ballooning limit on q, the density corresponding to the transition between type I
and type III ELMs is higher for the low q discharge, in accordance with equation (4). The
separation between the ideal ballooning limit curve and the L–H transition boundary, however,
is also increased since the latter does not depend on q. It is, therefore, not clear, a priori, how
the temperature corresponding to the type I–type III transition should react with changing q.
 Density limits and the H-mode operational diagram 923

Low q (high Ip)

Transition: I→III

Edge Te

H–mode Density
limit

1 2 3
L–H transition

Edge ne

High q (low Ip)

Transition: I→III
Edge Te

H–mode Density
limit
JG98.181/4c

L–H transition

Edge ne

Figure 5. Schematic illustration of the influence of the safety factor q on the H-mode operational
range, in the case of a fixed toroidal field B.

The scaling for the edge temperature at the type I to III ELM transition is obtained by
eliminating the density from the similarity parameters (1) and (2), yielding
B2
(Te + Ti )Te2 ∼ λp Zeff . (6)
q
We note that the critical temperature, similar to the critical density defined in (4) depends both
on B and q. At constant B, the critical edge temperature for the type I to III transition increases
at low q, consistent with the increase in the critical density, since this transition point is also,
by definition, at the ideal ballooning limit. Experimental evidence from JET confirms that the
critical temperature for the transition increases with increasing q at constant plasma current
(and correspondingly the critical density is lower) [24].
As for the L–H transition threshold, the scaling for the electron temperature follows from
the similarity parameter (3)
√
Te3 ∼ B 2 L⊥ Zeff / mi (7)
which is very similar to equation (6) except for the absence of q dependence. The temperature
gap between the transition from type I to type III ELMs and the L–H transition threshold
924 A V Chankin and G Saibene

should, therefore, be wider for low q discharges allowing more margin for operating with
type III ELMs while maintaining good confinement (provided that L⊥ and λp behave in the
same way).

7. More detailed scalings for the type I–type III ELM transition point

The ‘H-mode density limit’ point as defined in section 5 is not likely to be an acceptable
operating point for a reactor, due to the poor energy confinement (e.g., ITER requires
H93 ∼ 0.85 for ignition). The compatibility of any particular operational point identified
by our analysis with the confinement requirements of a reactor can only be assessed precisely
by comparison with experiments. Nonetheless, the point on the operational ne –Te diagram
corresponding to the type I–type III ELM transition is of particular interest, since it may provide
both reasonable confinement and benign ELMs (i.e. acceptable power load onto the divertor
target). However, to make more detailed predictions for ITER, the dimensional approach has
to be extended to include expressions for the edge transport coefficients, in order to replace
the unknown dependence of the pressure decay length λp present in equations (4) and (5).
The scaling for the density corresponding to this operational point is given by equation (4),
derived by fixing parameters (1) and (2): q 2 R∇β/f (s) (ideal ballooning limit) and
Zeff ne qR/Te2 (collisionality). This scaling could be used, for example, to simulate ELMy
H-modes in ITER, taking JET as a model once the edge collisionality of a particular ITER
regime is known. In addition, fixing q would ensure an improved simulation of ITER regimes
√
since another important similarity parameter, (3): Te3 /(B 2 L⊥ Zeff / mi ), which accounts
for microturbulence and defines the position of the L–H transition boundary, would be
automatically matched very closely, as follows from the close similarity between scalings
(4) and (5). These arguments provide a strong motivation for further work and to consider the
various possible scalings for the pressure decay length λp .
To deduce any scaling for λp requires assumptions about the transport model in the edge,
including scalings for the transport coefficients D⊥ , χe,i and sinks/sources. To do this, we
have to make an assumption that the particle and heat sinks to the target (especially heat sinks
which are not directly affected by recycling) determine the edge gradients.
In experiments, it is observed that ne and Te gradients are almost constant from the top of
the pedestal through to the separatrix, whilst they are much flatter inside the pedestal region
and outside the separatrix [37, 38]. However, sharp changes of gradients around the separatrix
are usually not observed, therefore, gradients at the separatrix should be representative of the
gradients in the pedestal region.
Since we believe that the extreme edge, and in particular the separatrix region, being the
effective boundary of the core plasma, must be crucial for the H-mode behaviour, we will
restrict further analysis to the plasma at the separatrix. We will, therefore, use equations
of scrape-off layer (SOL) physics to calculate the electron temperature gradient. Most of the
transport models give expressions for the electron heat conductivity χe which can subsequently
be used to derive scalings for the temperature decay length λTe at the separatrix, by assuming
parallel heat conduction to the target. This decay length represents only one component of the
pressure decay length λp , with the two remaining components being the density decay length
λn and the ion temperature decay length λTi . Ideally, λn and λTi should also be derived from
particle and heat balance equations, which include sources due to microturbulence, sinks to
the target and sinks/sources due to plasma–neutral interaction (for λTi and λn , respectively).
However, our knowledge of edge transport does not allow us to carry out such a detailed
analysis, therefore, we make the reasonable assumption that λp should scale similarly to λTe .
The proportionality between λn and λTe in the SOL has been theoretically predicted for high
 Density limits and the H-mode operational diagram 925

recycling divertors and experimentally observed on JET and Alcator C-MOD [39]. The ratio
λn /λTe upstream, far away from the divertor along the field line, for example, halfway between
the targets, was found to be roughly 0.5 not only at the separatrix but also across the SOL, in
1/2
agreement with the predicted relation Teu ∼ nu for upstream parameters.
It is worth noting that combining existent scalings for χe with the heat sink to the target
is perhaps the only way of obtaining any scaling for λTe , which should at least be indicative
of the gradients inside the separatrix. This also enables us to assess the sensitivity of our
predictions for the critical density in equation (4) on the assumptions made about the transport
coefficients. In the rest of this paragraph, we will analyse several transport models for χe or
directly for λp , and derive explicit scalings for the critical density at the transition from type I
to III ELMs.
The first model to be considered for χe is the one that is consistent with the assumption that
microturbulence is controlled by the parameter (3), that corresponds to the collisional skin-
−3/2
depth scaling: χe ∼ Zeff Te . It has been shown that this model fits the experimental data well
from probe measurements on JET and Alcator C-Mod (see [40], but with the correction for the
contribution of Zeff , omitted in this reference but now included).
√ This scaling follows directly
3/2
from the definition of the collisional skin-depth: 1skin = c/ 4π σ ν (where, σ ∼ Te /Zeff —
the Spitzer conductivity and ν—the frequency of fluctuations), and an estimate of the mixing
length for transport coefficients: D⊥ , χ ∼ 12skin × ν.
The electron heat balance equation, which includes parallel heat conduction to the target,
gives the following expression for λTe
p
λTe ∼ qR Zeff ne χe /Te5/4 (8)
which will be used as the scaling for λp . The scaling for the critical density (assuming for
simplicity Te ∼ Ti ) can then be derived from the following system of equations
2/3 √
B 4/3 λp f (s)2/3 qR Zeff ne χe
ne ∼ 5/3 1/3
λTe ∼ 5/4
Te2 ∼ Zeff ne qR. (9)
q R Zeff Te
Finally, using the expression for χe given by the collisional skin-depth model, we obtain
B f (s)1/2
ne,crit ∼ 1/4
. (10)
q 5/4 R 3/4 Zeff
In order to assess the sensitivity of the scaling for the critical density ne,crit on the
assumptions made about the dependence for χe , a number of other scalings for heat conduction
have been considered. In particular, we have used the results of the comparison of theoretical
models for SOL widths with data from COMPASS-D, JET and Alcator C-Mod contained in
the paper by Connor et al [41]. The four models which were found to be in best agreement
with the electron heat conduction extracted from the experiments are listed in the first row of
table 1. Apart from the already used ‘drift wave with collisional skin-depth’ model (model I,
according to the nomenclature adopted in [41]), these models are: ‘collisionless skin-depth’
(O), which gives the same results as ‘collisionless magnetohydrodynamic
√ (MHD) interchange
near βcrit ’ (D), ‘charge-exchange collisions’: D⊥ ∼ νcx λ2cx ∼ T /ne (M) and ‘drift wave with
collisionless skin-depth’ (J). In addition, four other popular scalings for χe and the pedestal
width are considered in the second row of table 1: Bohm scaling, λp proportional to ion poloidal
Larmor radius ρsθ (suggested by Parail for the pedestal width scaling, 1 ∼ ρsθ , in [42]), and
√ √
λp ∼ aρsθ (suggested by Lingertat for the pedestal width scaling, 1 ∼ aρs , in [18]) and,
finally, the constant χe scaling.
All but one of the models analysed yielded density scalings for the type I–type III ELM
transition close to the Greenwald–Hugill scalings (for constant plasma elongation in the case
926 A V Chankin and G Saibene
Table 1. Scalings for the critical edge density for the type I–type III ELM transition, corresponding
to different transport models for χe and λp .

Drift wave with Drift wave with

collisional skin- Collisionless collisionless Charge-exchange
depth: skin-depth: skin-depth: collisions:
√
3/2 √ √ T
Model χe ∼ Zeff /Te χe ∼ Te /ne qR χe ∼ Te /ne λn χe ∼ D⊥ ∼
ne
Bf (s)1/2 B 4/5 f (s)1/2 B 12/11 f (s)6/11 Bf (s)1/2
Scaling for ne 1/4 2/5 3/11 1/4
q 5/4 R 3/4 Zeff q 6/5 R 4/5 Zeff q 13/11 R 7/11 Zeff qR 1/2 Zeff

As for pedestal Constant

Bohm diffusion: width [42]: width [18] conductivity:
√
Model χe ∼ Te /B λp ∼ ρsθ λp ∼ aρsθ χe = constant

B 12/11 f (s)8/11 B 4/5 f (s)4/7 B 12/11 f (s)8/11 B 16/13 f (s)8/13

Scaling for ne 3/11 1/5 3/11 5/13
q 15/11 R 7/11 Zeff qRZeff q 15/11 R 7/11 Zeff q 17/13 R 12/13 Zeff

of the Greenwald scaling): ne ∼ B α /q β R γ with coefficients α, β and γ close to unity. The

exception is the charge-exchange collisions model which gives a very weak scaling against
major radius (R −1/2 ). Therefore, we tend to ignore the results of this model as unrealistic.
Also, despite the fact that this model performed well in the statistical analysis of the SOL
widths in [41], we are of the view that the charge-exchange collisions are very unlikely to be
the dominant effect in the plasma transport. The remaining models predict:
• α close to unity, in agreement with the Greenwald–Hugill dependence (the constant
conductivity model shows the strongest deviation from the linear dependence on B with
α = 16/13);
• β > 1 (except for the λp ∼ ρsθ model which yields β = 1);
• γ < 1 (again except for the λp ∼ ρsθ model which yields γ = 1).

8. Comparison of predictions with JET experimental data

As it was highlighted in section 2, a stronger inverse linear dependence on q for the H-mode
density limit was observed in ASDEX, in agreement with our model. To verify the predictions
of the model in JET, in particular for the type I to type III ELM transition point, a dedicated
series of discharges with varying q have been carried out. For this particular experiment, the
shape of the plasma was fixed as well as the divertor geometry (the separatrix on the horizontal
divertor plates). In particular, for all the discharges analysed, the plasma triangularity was
∼0.23 (an average value, calculated at the separatrix) corresponding to an edge shear of ∼3.2
(EFIT values at 95% of the flux). The additional heating (NB injection of 14 MW) was above
the H-mode threshold for all discharges, and was maintained for several seconds, to allow the
plasma to reach steady-state conditions for several τE (>4).
The value of q (calculated with the EFIT code at 95% of the flux) was varied from 2.5
to 4.7. To test independently the effect of the variation of the plasma current and the toroidal
field, the q scan was carried both at fixed Bt and at fixed Ip . The Ip /Bt matrix explored in the
experiment is summarized in table 2.
Each discharge was repeated with increasing constant gas fuelling (typically 4 to 5
discharges, with fuelling rates from 0 to ∼4 × 1022 D0 s−1 ) for each combination of current and
field, until we observed the change in the ELMs from type I to type III. A typical example of
 Density limits and the H-mode operational diagram 927
Table 2. Combination of plasma currents (in MA) and toroidal fields (in T) explored in separate
sets of discharges, described in the text.

Ip ↓ −Bt → 1.95 2.7 3.45

1.9 X
2.6 X X X
3.4 X

the changes in the edge parameters at the type I to III transition is shown in figure 6, where the
transition is marked by a dotted curve. We observe that the onset of type III ELMs is associated
with a sharp fall of the pedestal temperatures and of the edge pressure and is coincident with
an increase of the collisionality.

Pulse No: 44016

10
8
(a.u.)

6
4
2
ne(1019m–3)

Centre
6.0
5.5
5.0 Edge

Ti
Te,Ti(eV)

700
Ti Te
500
7
P(kPa)

6
5
4
υ
2.0
(a.u.)

JG98.316/19c

1.5
1.0
17.9 18.0 18.1
Time (s)

Figure 6. Plasma edge parameters at the transition from type I to type III ELMs, for the JET
discharge 44016 (2.6 MA/2.7 T, q95 = 3.6 and 14 MW of neutral beam injection). From the top:
divertor Dα emission, central and edge line-averaged density (top of the edge pedestal), Te and Ti
at the top of the pedestal (the two values of Ti reflect the uncertainty in the relative radial position
of the measurements compared to Te ), pedestal pressure and collisionality.

The results of this experiment (reported also in [24]) are in very good agreement with our
model. In particular, we have verified the q dependence of the scaling for the critical density
for the transition from type I to type III ELMs, equation (10), against the experimental data.
This is shown in figure 7, which shows the edge pedestal density at the transition against the
scaling parameter B/q 5/4 , (R, Zeff and the shear are the same for all the discharges). The
graph also includes data from three other JET discharges (1.7 MA/1.8 T, 2.6 MA/2.7 T,
928 A V Chankin and G Saibene

3.7 MA/2.7 T) that were carried out at different times in the MkII experimental campaign, but
having the same geometrical characteristics as the q scan. The use in figure 7 of the density
at the top of the pedestal instead of the separatrix density (less readily available for most of
the JET ELMy H-modes) is justified by the experimental evidence of a fixed proportionality
between the pedestal and the separatrix densities at the type I to type III ELM transition. Such
proportionality is observed in JET in high-density H-modes, even in the type I ELM phase of
discharges, at high ELM frequency [43].
The agreement between the experiment and the prediction gives one confidence on the
validity of the assumption for our modelling of the high density ELMy H-modes. The analysis
of the JET data alone does not allow us to check the major radius dependence of the critical
density in equation (10).

10

Edge ne
9
Linear fit

8
ne (1019m–3)

4
JG98.316/5c

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

B/q5/4

Figure 7. Line-average density measured at the top of the edge pedestal corresponding to the
type I–type III ELM transition against the critical density scaling. Data for a series of JET high-
density ELMy H-modes with fixed shear, R and Zeff . The details of the experiment are described
in the main text.

9. Conclusions

High-density H-mode plasmas in different tokamaks show strong similarities with respect to the
confinement properties, maximum density, ELM behaviour etc. In all machines, the highest
density achievable while maintaining H-mode confinement is found to scale approximately
as n̄e ∼ B/qR, in agreement with the Greenwald–Hugill scaling. Developing our previous
studies which highlight the role of confinement degradation at the plasma edge in the H-mode
density limit [4], we have selected some specific mechanisms which, in our view, are likely
to be the dominant transport mechanisms at the plasma edge. By fixing two out of the
three dimensionless parameters (similarity parameters) which reflect the strength of these
mechanisms, we were able to find the relationships between physical parameters corresponding
to some characteristic operational points.
The main assumptions of our model have been outlined theoretically and partly already
confirmed by experimental results. We assumed that: (a) type I ELMs are triggered when
 Density limits and the H-mode operational diagram 929

the edge pressure gradient reaches the ideal ballooning limit, (b) collisionality is the critical
parameter for the onset of type III ELMs, which are likely to be caused by resistive ballooning
instabilities, and (c) we use the form of the L–H transition threshold (from [34]) which, in
accordance with experimental evidence, gives a formulation for the threshold mainly in terms
of the edge electron temperature and the toroidal field.
Fixing the selected similarity parameters allowed us to understand features of the H-mode
operational space as seen in the edge ne –Te diagram. The scalings for the highest densities
achievable and the operational point corresponding to the type I–type III ELM transition were
found to be in reasonable agreement with experimental findings. They roughly follow the
Greenwald/Hugill scaling n̄e ∼ B α /q β R γ with α, β and γ close to unity. However, the q
dependence was found to be stronger than in this scaling (β > 1) in agreement with data
from ASDEX and the results of a series of dedicated experiments in JET. The expected R
dependence is, in contrast, weaker than inverse linear (γ < 1). It is important to note that the
combination of any two out of the three similarity parameters yielded density scalings close
to the Greenwald/Hugill scalings, indicating that the scalings for the main points on the ne –Te
operational diagram are very close to each other and that the shape of this diagram is relatively
independent of the machine/regime parameters. It should, therefore, be easily transferable
from one machine to another to allow for a multimachine scaling.
One particular scaling derived for the critical density at the extreme edge (close to the
separatrix) for the type I–type III ELM transition point, corresponding to the collisional skin-
depth model for χe in the SOL:
B f (s)1/2
ne,crit ∼ 1/4
q 5/4 R 3/4 Zeff
(q is the safety factor at 95% of the flux, as in all other formulae in the paper) was found to be
in good agreement with the experimentally obtained dependence of the pedestal density ne,ped
on B/q 5/4 in JET. The scaling for ne,crit , however, was found to be not very sensitive to the
transport model selected and other models yielded similar dependences. We attribute the good
correspondence between our scaling for the separatrix density ne,crit and the experimentally
measured pedestal density to the fact that the ratio ne,crit /ne,ped in high-density ELMy H-modes
is high and saturates at high density/ELM frequency.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Drs S Clement, G F Matthews, R D Monk, Professor O P Pogutse and Dr
R Sartori of JET for the useful discussions and suggestions in the preparation of the manuscript.
The support of the JET team in the preparation and execution of the experiments is also
gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] Wagner F et al 1982 Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 1408

[2] Aymar R et al and the ITER Joint Central Team and Home Teams 1996 Fusion Energy 1 3
[3] ITER Confinement Database and Modelling Working Group 1997 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 39 B115
[4] Saibene G et al 1997 Proc. 24th Eur. Conf. on Control. Fusion and Plasma Phys. (Berchtesgaden 1997) vol 21A,
part I (Geneva: European Physical Society) p 49
[5] Horton L D et al 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 1
[6] Mertens V et al 1996 Edge and divertor physics in ASDEX upgrade with emphasis on density limit characteristics
Fusion Energy 1 413
[7] Suttrop W et al 1997 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 39 2051
930 A V Chankin and G Saibene

[8] Maingi R et al 1997 Phys. Plasma 4 1752

[9] Kamada Y et al 1996 Fusion Energy 1 247
[10] Zohm H 1996 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 38 105
[11] Hill D N 1997 J. Nucl. Mater. 241–243 182
[12] Connor J W 1998 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 40 191
[13] Gauthier E, Chankin A, Clement S, Coad P, Davies S, Fishpool G, Lingertat J and Matthews G 1997 Proc. 24th
Eur. Conf. on Control. Fusion and Plasma Phys. (Berchtesgaden 1997) vol 21A, part I (Geneva: European
Physical Society) p 61
[14] Huijsmans G 1991 External resistive modes in tokamaks PhD Thesis Free University of Amsterdam, Holland
[15] Greenwald M, Terry J L, Wolfe S M, Ejima S, Bell M G, Kaye S M and Neilson G H 1988 Nucl. Fusion 28 2199
[16] Stott P E, Hugill J, Fielding S J, McCracken G M, Powell B A and Prentice R 1979 Proc. 8th Euro. Conf. Control.
Fusion and Plasma Phys. (Prague, 1979) vol 1 (Geneva: European Physical Society) p 151
[17] Monk R D et al 1997 Proc. 24th Eur. Conf. on Control. Fusion and Plasma Phys. (Berchtesgaden 1997) vol 21A,
part I (Geneva: European Physical Society) p 117
[18] The JET Team (presented by M Keilhacker) 1997 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 39 B1
[19] The JET Team (presented by C G Vlases) 1996 Fusion Energy 1 371
[20] The JET Team (presented by D Stork) 1996 Fusion Energy 1 189
[21] Borrass K, Lingertat J and Schneider R 1998 Contrib. Plasma Phys. 38 130
[22] Borrass K 1991 Nucl. Fusion 31 1035
[23] Post D, Stabler A and Neuhauser J 1997 High density ASDEX discharges ITER Memo G 18 MD 2 97-03-03 W
0.1 (Garching Joint Working Site)
[24] Saibene G et al 1998 Europhys. Conf. Abstr. C 22 341
[25] Breger P et al 1998 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 40 347
[26] Huysman G T A, Hender T C and Alpert B 1998 Nucl. Fusion 38 179
[27] Kass T et al 1998 Nucl. Fusion 38 111
[28] Maraschek M et al 1998 Europhys. Conf. Abs. C 22 492
[29] Loarte A et al 1998 Contrib. Plasma Phys. 38 11
[30] Kadomtsev B B 1975 Sov. J. Plasma Phys. 1 295
[31] Lackner K 1990 Comments Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 13 163
[32] Bishop C M et al 1984 Nucl. Fusion 24 1579
[33] Righi E and the H-mode Database Working Group 1998 Scaling of the H-mode power threshold for ITER
Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion to be published
[34] Chankin A V and Matthews G F 1998 Contrib. Plasma Phys. 38 177
[35] Chankin A V 1997 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 39 1059
[36] Kerner W, Igitkhanov Yu, Janeschitz G and Pogutse O 1998 Contrib. Plasma Phys. 38 118
[37] Groebner R J and Carlstrom T N 1998 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 40 673
[38] Breger P et al 1998 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 40 347
[39] Erents S K, Stangeby P C and LaBombard B 1998 JET Preprint JET-P98(35) Nucl.Fusion submitted
[40] Erents S K, LaBombard B, Chankin A V, Davies S J, Monk R D, Matthews G F and Stangeby P C 1997 Proc. 24th
Eur. Conf. on Control. Fusion and Plasma Phys. (Berchtesgaden 1997) vol 21A, part I (Geneva: European
Physical Society) p 121
[41] Connor J W, Counsell G, Erents S K, Fielding S J, LaBombard B and Morel K 1999 Nucl. Fusion 39 169
[42] Bak P et al 1996 Nucl. Fusion 36 321
[43] Davies S J, Erents S K, Stangeby P C, Lingertat J, Matthews G F, Monk R D and Vlases G C 1999 J. Nucl.
Mater. 266–269 1028