1 / 34

The Plasma Microturbulence Project

The Plasma Microturbulence Project. W.M. Nevins ( ) For the Plasma Microturbulence Project Team. UCI. UCLA. Summary of Progress on Achieving Scientific Deliverables. The (partially funded) PMP proposal promised: A unified framework with

thea
Télécharger la présentation

The Plasma Microturbulence Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Plasma Microturbulence Project W.M. Nevins ( ) For the Plasma Microturbulence Project Team UCI UCLA W.M. Nevins

  2. Summary of Progress on Achieving Scientific Deliverables The (partially funded) PMP proposal promised: • A unified framework with • Four GK “kernels” (which we have — GS2, GYRO, Summit, and GTC) • A common front end  Morphed to two front ends • GS2 and GYRO • PG3EQ, UCAN, and GTC united under SUMMIT framework • A common back end (which we have — GKV) • And users beyond the code development groups (which we’ve done) • Kinetic electrons and (at least) B in all four codes • Have B|| , B & kinetic electrons in GS2 • Have B & kinetic electrons in GYRO • PIC algorithms for B & kinetic electrons demonstrated in GEM(but not yet installed in SUMMIT framework …) • Kinetic electrons in GTC • To do LOTS of good science with our codes (which we’ve done) W.M. Nevins

  3. Four GK “kernels” — a 2x2 Matrix ofPlasma Turbulence Simulation Codes • Why both Continuum and Particle-in-Cell (PIC)? • Cross-check on algorithms • Continuum currently most developed (already has kinetic e’s , B, B|| ) • Proponents of PIC-codes believe they will ultimately be more efficient • If we can do Global simulations, why bother with Flux Tubes? • Electron-scale (e, e=c/pe) physics (ETG modes, etc.) • Turbulence on multiple space scales (ITG+TEM, TEM+ETG, ITG+TEM+ETG, …) • Efficient parameter scans W.M. Nevins

  4. A PIC algorithm for kinetic e’s and BBenchmarking GEM against GYRO and GTC Turbulent Transport Linear Growth Rates W.M. Nevins

  5. The PMP Supports User Communities for both GS2 and GYRO Codes • Strong user community trained and working to validate gyrokinetic codes against experimental data, including: • Bourdelle, Bravenec, Budny, Ernst, Hallatschek, Hill, Jenko, Mikkelsen, Redi, Ross, Yuh, and others • Workshops to educate user community (December 2002, … ) • Websites for code distribution and documentation: • http://gs2.sourceforge.net/ and http://fusion.gat.com/comp/parallel/gyro.html • Work by these Gyrokinetic code users has led to publications and talks at major meetings, including: • D. W. Ross, TTF 2004 – B. N. Rogers, Sherwood 2004 • D. Ernst, APS 2003 – F. Jenko, IAEA 2002 • K. Hallatschek, APS 2002 – H. Yuh, ICOPS 2002 W.M. Nevins

  6. PMP Codes Scale to large numbers of processors:GYRO is a benchmark code for the ORNL Cray X-1GTC ported to both ORNL Cray X-1and Japanese Earth Simulator GTC problem size with Nprocessors GYRO constant problem size For details on GTC performance, see http://gk.ps.uci.edu/zlin/parallel/index.html For details on GYRO performance, see http://fusion.gat.com/comp/parallel/performance.html W.M. Nevins

  7. NERSC (LBNL) FY ‘01 usage: 1.36M node-hrs FY ‘02 usage: 2.63M node-hrs FY ‘03 usage: 4.78M node-hrs Accounting unit re-normalized (by a factor of 2.5) FY ‘04 allocation 2M node-hrs(and we will certainly use it all) CCS (ORNL) FY ‘03 usage: 3.5M node-hrs FY ‘04 allocation: 1 M node-hrs(but CCS doesn’t seem to mind if you exceed your allocation …) SciDAC Computing ResourcesEnabled Studies of Plasma Micro-turbulence • Plus substantial use of Linux Clusters at PPPL, GA, MIT and U of MD  The PMP is largest user of computer time among OFES-funded activities(and this counts only usage by our PI’s, not that of our user-community) W.M. Nevins

  8. Refereed publications: 2004 J. Candy, R. E. Waltz, and W. Dorland, Phys. Plasmas 11. J. Candy, R.E. Waltz, and M.N. Rosenbluth, Phys. Plasmas 11, 1879. V. K. Decyk and Charles D. Norton, Scientific Programming 12, 45. D. R. Ernst, P. T. Bonoli, P. J. Catto et al., Phys. Plasmas . S. Ethier and Z. Lin, Computer Physics Communications . T. S. Hahm, P.H. Diamond, Z. Lin et al., Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion . F.L. Hinton, R.E. Waltz, and J. Candy, Phys. Plasmas 11, 2433. W. W. Lee, Comput. Phys. Comm. . Z. Lin and T. S. Hahm, Phys. Plasmas 11, 1-99. S.E. Parker, Y. Chen, W. Wan et al., Phys. Plasmas 11, 2594. M. Romanelli, C. Bourdelle, and W. Dorland, Phys. Plasmas . R.E. Waltz, Fusion Science and Technology W.X. Wang, W.M. Tang, et al., Computational Physics Communication . 2003 C. Bourdelle, W. Dorland, X. Garbet et al., Phys. Plasmas 10, 2881. J. Candy and R.E. Waltz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 045001. J. Candy and R.E. Waltz, J. Comp. Phys. 186, 545. Y. Chen and S.E. Parker, Journal of Computational Physics 189 (2), 463-475. Y. Chen, S.E. Parker, B.I. Cohen et al., Nucl. Fusion 43, 1-7. Y. Chen, S.E. Parker, B.I. Cohen et al., Nuclear Fusion 43, 1121. C. Holland, P.H. Diamond, S. Champeaux et al., Nuclear Fusion 43 (8), 761. W.W. Lee and H. Qin, Phys. Plasmas 10, 3196. J. L. V. Lewandowski, Phys. Plasmas 10, 3204. J. L. V. Lewandowski, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 45, L39. T. S. Pedersen, A. H. Boozer, et al., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36, 1029. 2002 R. V. Budny, R. Andre, et al., Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 44, 1215. Y. Chen, Samuel T. Jones, and Scott E. Parker, EEE Tran. Plasma Sci. 30, 74. B.I. Cohen, A.M. Dimits, W.M. Nevins et al., Phys. Plasmas 9 (1), 251-262. Bruce I. Cohen, Andris M. Dimits, et al., Phys. Plasmas 9 (5), 1915-1924. T. S. Hahm, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 44, A87. F. Jenko and W. Dorland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 225001. Z. Lin, S. Ethier, T. S. Hahm et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 195004. D. W. Ross, R. B. Bravenec, W. Dorland et al., Phys. Plasmas 9, 177. D. W. Ross and W. Dorland, Phys. Plasmas 9, 5031. E. J. Synakowski, M. G. Bell, et al., Phys. Control. Fusion 44, A165. R. E. Waltz, J. Candy, and M.N. Rosenbluth, Phys. Plasmas 9, 1938. 2001 A.M. Dimits, B.I. Cohen, W.M. Nevins et al., Nuclear Fusion 41, 1725-1732. I. H. Hutchinson, R. Boivin, P. T. Bonoli et al., Nucl. Fusion 41, 1391. F. Jenko, W. Dorland, and G. W. Hammett, Phys. Plasmas 8, 4096. W. W. Lee, J. L. V. Lewandowski, T. S. Hahm et al., Phys. Plasmas 8, 4435. Z. Lin and L. Chen, Phys. Plasmas 8, 1447. Has the PMP produced good science?Judge for yourselves W.M. Nevins

  9. Talks at major meetings: 2004 Ron Bravenec, “Synthetic Diagnostics,” presented at the 15th Topical Conference on High-Temperature Plasma Diagnostics. V. K. Decyk, “UCLA Parallel PIC Framework: A Toolkit for new PIC Codes,” presented at the SIAM Conference on Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, San Francisco, CA. W. Dorland, “Resonant Heating in the Alfven Cascade,” presented at the Fields Institute. P.N. Guzdar, “Pedestal Physics,” to be presented at the 20th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Vilamoura, Portugal. T.S. Hahm, to be presented at the 20th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Vilamoura, Portugal. W. W. Lee, “MFE Simulation Data Management,” presented at the DoE Data Management Workshop, SLAC, Palo Alto, CA. Z. Lin, to be presented at the 20th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Vilamoura, Portugal. B.N. Rogers, “Non-Curvature Driven Modes in the H-Mode Pedestal,” presented at the Sherwood Conference, Missoula, MT. D.W. Ross, “Experimental Comparisons with Gyrokinetic Codes (preview talk),” presented at the Transport Task Force Meeting, Salt Lake, UT. R.E. Waltz, “Advances in Comprehensive Gyrokinetic Simulations of Transport in Tokamaks",” to be presented at the 20th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Vilamoura, Portugal. 2003 Y. Chen, “Electromagnetic gyrokinetic simulations,” presented at the International Sherwood Fusion Theory Meeting. W. Dorland, “Sheared flows and boundary layer physics in tokamak plasma,” presented at the New Themes in Plasma and Fusion Turbulence, London. W. Dorland, “Anomalous heating in a kinetic Alvfen wave cascade,” presented at the 7th Workshop on the Interrelationship between Plasma Experiment in Laboratory and Space. W. Dorland, “US Plasma Microturbulence Project,” presented at the Eighth International Symposium on Simulation Science, Hayama, Japan. D.R. Ernst, “Role of Trapped Electron Mode Turbulence in Internal Transport Barrier Control in Alcator C-Mod,” presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Albuquerque, NM. F.L. Hinton, “Electromagnetic turbulence effects in the neoclassical Ohm's law,” presented at the 45th Annual meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Albuquerque, NM. S. Klasky, S. Ethier, Z. Lin et al., “Grid-Based Parallel Data Streaming implemented for the Gyrokinetic Toroidal Code,” presented at the SC2003, Phoenix, AZ. W. W. Lee, “Thermodynamic and numerical properties of a gyrokinetic plasma: implications on transport scale simulation,” presented at the 18th International Conference on Numerical Simulation of Plasmas, Cape Cod, MA. Z Lin, presented at the 10th European Fusion Theory Conference, Helsinki, Finland. S.E. Parker, “Electromagnetic Turbulence Simulations with Kinetic Electrons,” presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Albuquerque, NM. M. H. Redi, R. Bell, P. Bonoli et al., “Gyrokinetic Calculations of Microturbulence and Transport on NSTX and Alcator-CMOD H-modes,” presented at the 30th European Physical Society Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, St. Petersburg, Russia. Has the PMP produced good science?Judge for yourselves W.M. Nevins

  10. More Talks at major meetings: 2002 J. Candy, “Comprehensive Gyrokinetic Simulations of Turbulent Transport in DIII-D with the GYRO Code,” presented at the 44th Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics. J. Candy, “GYRO Modeling of Anomalous Transport in Tokamaks,” presented at the International Sherwood Fusion Theory Conference. W. Dorland, “Secondary instabilities in ETG Turbulence,” presented at the VII Easter Plasma Meeting, Turin. W. Dorland, “Collisionless plasma turbulence,” presented at the 29th Annual IoP Plasma Physics Group Conference. W. Dorland, “Gyrokinetic Turbulence in Magnetically Confined Plasmas,” presented at the European Physical Society, Montreux. F. Jenko, “Simulations of finite-beta turbulence in tokamaks and stellarators,” presented at the 19th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Lyon, France. Z. Lin, S. Ethier, T. S. Hahm et al., “Size Scaling of Turbulent Transport in Tokamak Plasmas,” presented at the 19th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Lyon, France. W.M. Nevins, “The Experiment/Theory Dialogue in the Age of Simulations,” presented at the 2002 Transport Task Force Meeting, Annapolis, MD. 2001 B.I. Cohen, “ "Kinetic electron closures for electromagnetic simulation of drift and shear-Alfven waves" [B.I. Cohen, et al., Phys. Plasmas 9, 1915 (2002).],” presented at the 43rd Annual meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Long Beach, CA. W. Dorland, “Numerical Simulations and Burning Plasma Concepts in 2004,” presented at the Fourth Symposium on Current Trends in International Fusion Research, Washington, DC. T. S. Hahm, “Gyrokinetic Simulation of Transport Scalings and Turbulent Structure,” presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Long Beach, CA. R.E. Waltz, “Gyrokinetic Turbulence Simulation of Profile Shear Stabilization and Broken GyroBohm Scaling,” presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Long Beach, CA. Has the PMP produced good science?Judge for yourselves W.M. Nevins

  11. Code Benchmarking RequiresError Bars on our “Measurements” Is the difference between the red and black curves significant? W.M. Nevins

  12. Real data has “trends” which must be  Removed from  Added back to our error estimate (and I’m still not completely satisfied …) Uncertainty in the Estimate of the Mean (a short detour into statistics) Definitions: Then: W.M. Nevins

  13. Code Comparisons (GYRO vs. GTC)Scaling of Heat Transport with Machine Size W.M. Nevins

  14. i(t) from GYRO & GTC differ due to long-lived transient W.M. Nevins

  15. i(t) from GYRO & GTC differ due to long-lived transient W.M. Nevins

  16. The Local Transport Conjectureand the role of flux-tube codes In the limit a/ and at each radius, i(r) from a global simulation approaches i from a flux-tube simulation with the equilibrium parameters evaluated at that radius. • Test conjecture using micro-turbulence simulation data • Strong radial variation in i(r) even at constant T/T • GS2 simulations track i(r) from GYRO (Candy, et al) • PG3EQ simulations also track i(r) from GYRO. W.M. Nevins

  17. The Local Transport Conjectureand the role of flux-tube codes In the limit a/ and at each radius, i(r) from a global simulation approaches i from a flux-tube simulation with the equilibrium parameters evaluated at that radius. • Test conjecture using micro-turbulence simulation data • Strong radial variation in i(r) even at constant T/T • GS2 simulations track i(r) from GYRO (Candy, et al) • PG3EQ simulations also track i(r) from GYRO. W.M. Nevins

  18. Can local conjecture & flux tube codes resolve late-time behavior of for a/ ? W.M. Nevins

  19. Can local conjecture & flux tube codes resolve late-time behavior of for a/ ? W.M. Nevins

  20. Can local conjecture & flux tube codes resolve late-time behavior of for a/ ? W.M. Nevins

  21. Can local conjecture & flux tube codes resolve late-time behavior of for a/ ? Lesson: We need to be “humble” about assigning error bars! W.M. Nevins

  22. Why long-lived transients, and why does i depend on a/?Turbulence Spreading and the 4-wave model • PMP a/-scan motivated series of papers on turbulence spreading: Chen et al, Phys. Plasmas 7, 3129 (2000) Guzdar et al, Phys. Plasmas 8, 459 (2001) Chen et al, PRL 92, 075004 (2004) Zonca et al, Phys. Plasmas 11, 2488 (2004) • Basic plot: ITG “pump” at kr i≈0 couples to “sideband” at finite kr ito produce “zonal flow” and radial propagation of ITG turbulence: Model exhibits long time-scales, intermittency, fixed-points, … W.M. Nevins

  23. GTC Is the ITG Turbulence the Same (or similar) in PMP Codes? • Turbulence is stochastic • trying to reproduce time/space dependence is a fool’s errand • Need realization-independent way to characterize turbulence • Correlation functions • Spectral density GYRO W.M. Nevins

  24. Perpendicular Spectral DensityEarly vs. Late-time Comparisons W.M. Nevins

  25. The Radial Correlation Function GYRO a/-scan PMP Code-scan W.M. Nevins

  26. The Transverse Correlation Function GYRO a/-scan PMP Code-scan W.M. Nevins

  27. The Lagrangian Correlation Function GYRO a/-scan PMP Code-scan W.M. Nevins

  28. The Eddy Turnover Time • Eddy Turn-over Time Tracks Eddy Life-time • ITG turbulence saturates due to onset of ExB trapping Suggesting that: • If I could predict Eddy,thenI’d know ExB • If I knew ExB, I’d know  • If I knew , thenmaybe I could estimate i ! W.M. Nevins

  29. Amazingly, this program actually succeeded, yielding(almost) everything you wanted to know about the “Cyclone” T-Scan in 7 parameters • Model assumes: • ITG turbulence saturatesby onset of ExB trapping • Nonlinear rates scale ~ Max • Model successfully predicts: • Eddy life-time • Eddy turn-over time • ExB Shearing rate • Correlation lengths … • Turbulent intensity • ITG Transport • Fails to predict Dimits shift • Turbulence saturates before onset of ExB trapping W.M. Nevins

  30. Validation of GYROagainst DIII-D Experiments • GYRO simulations with • Kinetic electrons • ExB shear • Collisions • Plasma shape Reproduce magnitude, profile, and *-dependence of DIII-D transport [J.Candy, Invited Talk at 2002 APS/DPP Meeting] • Fixed-flux GYRO simulations • Enhance comparisons with Experiment • Key step toward transport time-scale and FSP [R. Waltz, Invited Talk at 2003 APS/DPP Meeting] W.M. Nevins

  31. GYRO Simulations of Turbulent Dynamo in DIII-D L-Mode Plasma See: Hinton, F.L., R.E. Waltz, J. Candy, “Effects of Electromagnetic Turbulence in the Neoclassical Ohm’s Law,” Phys. Plasmas 11 (2004) 2433. An invited talk at 2003 APS/DPP Meeting. W.M. Nevins

  32. Validation of GS2 against Experiments • Comparisons to EDA H-mode in C-Mod tokamak • Nonlinear upshift in critical T (i.e., R/LT) • Importance of e in retaining this shift w/kinetic electrons [D. Mikkelsen, Invited talk at 2002 IAEA Mtg.] • Comparisons with L-modein DIII-D tokamak[Ross and Dorland, Phys. Plasmas 9, 5031 (2002)  and “preview” talk at 2004 DDT meeting] W.M. Nevins

  33. Is  decreasing with VEXB/maxa viable paradigm? Toroidal flow-shear does not suppress transport i Does not scale with VEXB/max PG3EQ results presented by A. Dimits at 2001 APS/DPP Meeting W.M. Nevins

  34. Electron Thermal Transport & the ‘ETG’ Mode • Electrostatic ETG and ITG nearly homologous • ETG~ √me/Mi ITG(so ETG not important?) • Zonal flows are nearly absent in ETG turbulence(so ETG is important?) • Absence of zonal flows • “Streamers”, significant ETG transport [Dorland et al, PRL 85, 5579 (2003) ] • Streamers, but no significant ETG transport [Lin et al, TTF04 & oral talk at 2004 IAEA Mtg. ] • This issue yet to be resolved W.M. Nevins

More Related