Numerical simulation of the hot-tail runaway electron production mechanism using CQL3D and comparison with Smith-Verwichte analytical model

The hot-tail mechanism of runaway electron (RE) production (Harvey et al 2000 Phys. Plasmas 7 4590) is the primary source of RE in the case of rapidly cooling tokamak plasma. Quantifying this mechanism is very important as it can provide most of the post-thermal-quench (TQ) current, or a seed curren...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Plasma physics and controlled fusion 2021-03, Vol.63 (3), p.35026, Article 035026
Hauptverfasser: Petrov, Yu V, Parks, P B, Harvey, R W
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The hot-tail mechanism of runaway electron (RE) production (Harvey et al 2000 Phys. Plasmas 7 4590) is the primary source of RE in the case of rapidly cooling tokamak plasma. Quantifying this mechanism is very important as it can provide most of the post-thermal-quench (TQ) current, or a seed current for the secondary source of RE through the avalanche mechanism. An analytic model which omits pitch-angle scattering is often used in literature for estimating the hot-tail RE density (Smith and Verwichte 2008 Phys. Plasmas 15 072502). In the present study, we use the CQL3D bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck code (Harvey and McCoy 1992 Proc. IAEA Technical Committee Meeting on Advances in Simulation and Modeling of Thermonuclear Plasmas p 527) to test the limits of validity of the model. In particular, we examine the cases of Z= 1 and Z= 18 ions, for sets of different initial temperature, density, electric field and the characteristic time of temperature decay. We show that for Z = 1 plasma, the ratio of RE density computed by CQL3D to that estimated from the model is within 0.6-6.0 in studied cases. For the Z = 18 case, this factor is systematically a much smaller number, typically 0.02-0.6. We suggest a simple correction to the model that narrows down the range of this ratio to 0.3-3.8 in all of the cases, including Z = 1 and Z = 18 plasmas.
ISSN:0741-3335
1361-6587
DOI:10.1088/1361-6587/abdacc