MENU
  • Scitation Home
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE

Thank you

For your interest in the Review of Scientific Instruments (RSI)

To support global research during the COVID-19 pandemic, AIP Publishing is making our content freely available to scientists who register on Scitation.
To gain access, please log in or create an account and then click here to activate your free access. You must be logged in to Scitation to activate your free access.
Check for updates on crossmark
Prev Next
No Access
Published Online: 27 August 2018
Accepted: July 2018

Turbulence level effects on conventional reflectometry using 2D full-wave simulations

Review of Scientific Instruments 89, 10H110 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5038756
J. Vicente1,a), F. da Silva1, S. Heuraux2, G. D. Conway3, C. Silva1, and T. Ribeiro3
more...View Affiliations
Abstract
Numerical simulations are critical in improving the capabilities of microwave diagnostics. In this work, the 2D finite-difference time-domain full-wave code REFMUL was applied to broadband turbulent plasmas using the conventional reflectometry setup. Simulations were performed with O-mode waves, fixed frequency probing, and I/Q detection. The plasma density, determining O-mode propagation, was modeled as the sum of a slab background plasma with a fluctuating component following a Kolmogorov-like amplitude k-spectrum. The density turbulence level δne/ne was scanned over several orders of magnitude for simulated plasma flows of constant plasma velocity in either the radial or the poloidal direction. Simulations show trends, such as spectral broadening of the complex A(t)eiφ(t) signals and increasing fluctuations in A(t) and φ(t) with increasing δne/ne, that are similar for both plasma flow directions. These together with possibilities to reconstruct a poloidal wavenumber spectrum are discussed in view of extending the measuring capabilities. The onset of non-linear effects associated with phase runaway, as previously observed with other 1D and 2D codes, as well as radial Doppler effects is also observed and discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018 under Grant Agreement No. 633053. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission. IST activities also received financial support from “Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia” through Project No. UID/FIS/50010/2013.

REFERENCES

  1. 1. F. da Silva, S. Heuraux, E. Gusakov, and A. Popov, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 38, 2144 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/tps.2010.2056703, Google ScholarCrossref
  2. 2. N. Bretz, Phys. Fluids B 4, 2414 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.860210, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  3. 3. I. H. Hutchinson, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 34, 1225 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/34/7/005, Google ScholarCrossref
  4. 4. X. L. Zou, L. Laurent, and J. M. Rax, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 33, 903 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/33/8/003, Google ScholarCrossref
  5. 5. C. Fanack et al., Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 38, 1915 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/38/11/004, Google ScholarCrossref
  6. 6. B. B. Afeyan et al., Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 37, 315 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/37/3/010, Google ScholarCrossref
  7. 7. I. Boucher et al., Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 40, 1489 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/40/8/003, Google ScholarCrossref
  8. 8. G. D. Conway, L. Schott, and A. Hirose, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 67, 3861 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1147287, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  9. 9. S. Heuraux et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74, 1501 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1534372, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  10. 10. M. A. Pedrosa et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3621 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.82.3621, Google ScholarCrossref
  11. 11. S. J. Zweben et al., Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 49, S1 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/49/7/s01, Google ScholarCrossref
  12. 12. G. I. Taylor, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 164, 15 (1938). Google ScholarCrossref
  13. 13. F. da Silva, S. Heuraux, S. Hacquin, and M. E. Manso, J. Comput. Phys. 203, 467 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2004.09.002, Google ScholarCrossref
  14. 14. E. Holzhauer, M. Hirsch, T. Grossmann, B. Brañas, and F. Serra, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 40, 1869 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/40/11/004, Google ScholarCrossref
  15. 15. E. V. Sysoeva, E. Gusakov, and S. Heuraux, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 55, 115001 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/55/11/115001, Google ScholarCrossref
  16. 16. E. Gusakov, S. Heuraux, and A. Yu Popov, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 51, 065018 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/51/6/065018, Google ScholarCrossref
  17. 17. G. D. Conway, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 41, 65 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/41/1/005, Google ScholarCrossref
  18. 18. J. R. Pinzón, T. Happel, E. Blanco, G. D. Conway, T. Estrada, and U. Stroth, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 59, 035005 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aa543c, Google ScholarCrossref

Article Metrics

Views
150
Citations
Crossref 1
Web of Science
ISI 1

Altmetric

Please Note: The number of views represents the full text views from December 2016 to date. Article views prior to December 2016 are not included.