EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 346 (2026) EPJ Web Conf., 346 (2026) 01025 References
Open Access
Issue
EPJ Web Conf.
Volume 346, 2026
25th Topical Conference on Radio-Frequency Power in Plasmas (RFPPC2025)
Article Number 01025
Number of page(s) 7
Section Theory and Modeling of Radio-Frequency Waves in Plasmas
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202634601025
Published online 07 January 2026
  1. Y. Feng, F. Sardei, P. Grigull, K. McCormick, J. Kisslinger, D. Reiter, Y. Igitkhanov, Transport in island divertors: physics, 3D modelling and-comparison to first experiments on W7-AS, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 44, 611 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/44/5/308 [Google Scholar]
  2. D. Reiter, M. Baelmans, P. Boerner, The EIRENE and B2-EIRENE codes, Fusion science and technology 47, 172 (2005). https://doi.org/10.13182/FST47-172 [Google Scholar]
  3. R. Simonini, G. Corrigan, G. Radford, J. Spence, A. Taroni, Models and Numerics in the Multi-Fluid 2-D Edge Plasma Code EDGE2D/U, Contributions to Plasma Physics 34, 368 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1002/ctpp.2150340242 [Google Scholar]
  4. W. Dekeyser, P. Boerner, S. Voskoboynikov, V. Rozhanksy, I. Senichenkov, L. Kaveeva, I. Veselova, E. Vekshina, X. Bonnin, R. Pitts et al., Plasma edge simulations including realistic wall geometry with SOLPS-ITER, Nuclear Materials and Energy 27, 100999 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nme.2021.100999 [Google Scholar]
  5. J. Leddy, B. Dudson, M. Romanelli, B. Shanahan, N. Walkden, A novel flexible field-aligned coordinate system for tokamak edge plasma simulation, Computer Physics Communications 212, 59 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2016.10.009 [Google Scholar]
  6. G. Piraccini, M. Capasso, M. Scotto D’Abusco, G. Giorgiani, F. Schwander, E. Serre, H. Bufferand, G. Ciraolo, P. Tamain, Recent upgrades in a 2D turbulent transport solver based on a hybrid discontinuous galerkin method for the simulation of fusion plasma in tokamak, Fluids 7, 63 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids7020063 [Google Scholar]
  7. S.C. Jardin, A triangular finite element with firstderivative continuity applied to fusion mhd applications, Journal of Computational Physics 200, 133 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2004.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  8. R. Anderson, J. Andrej, A. Barker, J. Bramwell, J.S. Camier, J. Cerveny, V. Dobrev, Y. Dudouit, A. Fisher, T. Kolev et al., MFEM: A modular finite element methods library, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 81, 42 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  9. mfem, MFEM: Modular finite element methods [Software], https://mfem.org [Google Scholar]
  10. G. Giorgiani, H. Bufferand, G. Ciraolo, P. Ghendrih, F. Schwander, E. Serre, P. Tamain, A hybrid discontinuous Galerkin method for tokamak edge plasma simulations in global realistic geometry, Journal of Computational Physics 374, 515 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.07.028 [Google Scholar]
  11. G. Giorgiani, H. Bufferand, G. Ciraolo, E. Serre, P. Tamain, A magnetic-field independent approach for strongly anisotropic equations arising plasma-edge transport simulations, Nuclear Materials and Energy 19, 340 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nme.2019.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  12. G. Giorgiani, H. Bufferand, F. Schwander, E. Serre, P. Tamain, A high-order non field-aligned approach for the discretization of strongly anisotropic diffusion operators in magnetic fusion, Computer Physics Communications 254, 107375 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107375 [Google Scholar]
  13. M.S. d’Abusco, G. Giorgiani, J.F. Artaud, H. Bufferand, G. Ciraolo, P. Ghendrih, E. Serre, P. Tamain, Core-edge 2D fluid modeling of full tokamak discharge with varying magnetic equilibrium: from WEST start-up to ramp-down, Nuclear Fusion 62, 086002 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac47ad [Google Scholar]
  14. G. Piraccini, F. Schwander, E. Serre, G. Giorgiani, M. Scotto D’Abusco, Spatial adaptivity in SOLEDGE3X-HDG for edge plasma simulations in versatile magnetic and reactor geometries, Contributions to Plasma Physics 62, e202100185 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/ctpp.202100185 [Google Scholar]
  15. C. Migliore, M. Stowell, J. Wright, P. Bonoli, Development of impedance sheath boundary condition in Stix finite element RF code, AIP Conference Proceedings 2984 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0162402 [Google Scholar]
  16. C. Migliore, J. Wright, M. Stowell, P. Bonoli, Using the Stix finite element RF code to investigate operation optimization of the ICRF antenna on Alcator C-Mod, Nuclear Fusion 63, 106006 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/acee11 [Google Scholar]
  17. M. Martin, W. Gekelman, B. Van Compernolle, P. Pribyl, T. Carter, Experimental observation of convective cell formation due to a fast wave antenna in the large plasma device, Physical Review Letters 119, 205002 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.205002 [Google Scholar]
  18. B. Van Compernolle, M. Martin, W. Gekelman, P. Pribyl, T. Carter, Fast wave experiments in LAPD in support of fusion, Preprint: Proc. 2018 IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Gandhinagar [EX/P6-30] (2018). [Google Scholar]
  19. C. Lau, Y. Lin, G.R. Hanson, G. Wallace, S.J. Wukitch, B. LaBombard, R. Ochoukov, S. Shiraiwa, J. Terry, J. Wilgen, LH and ICRF driven scrape-off-layer density modifications and their impact on LH coupling on Alcator C-Mod, AIP Conference Proceedings 1580, 410 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4864575 [Google Scholar]
  20. D. D’Ippolito, J. Myra, J. Jacquinot, M. Bures, Radio-frequency-sheath-driven edge plasma convection and interaction with the H mode, Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics 5, 3603 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.860832 [Google Scholar]
  21. W. Zhang, Y. Feng, J.M. Noterdaeme, V. Bobkov, L. Colas, D. Coster, T. Lunt, R. Bilato, J. Jacquot, R. Ochoukov et al., Modelling of the ICRF induced E B convection in the scrape-off-layer of ASDEX Upgrade, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 58, 095005 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/58/9/095005 [Google Scholar]
  22. W. Gekelman, R. Stenzel, Localized fields and density perturbations due to self-focusing of nonlinear lower-hybrid waves, Physical Review Letters 35, 1708 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.1708 [Google Scholar]
  23. G. Morales, Coupling of lower-hybrid radiation at the plasma edge, The Physics of Fluids 20, 1164 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.861678 [Google Scholar]
  24. V. Chan, S. Chiu, Wave-plasma coupling at the lower hybrid frequency, Phys. Fluids;(United States) 22 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.862808 [Google Scholar]
  25. A. Fukuyama, T. Morishita, Y. Furutani, Nonlinear coupling of the slow wave structure with the lower-hybrid waves near the plasma surface, Plasma Phys. 22, 565 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1088/0032-1028/22/6/006 [Google Scholar]
  26. O. Meneghini, C. Lau, S. Shiraiwa, G.M. Wallace, R.R. Parker, B.L. LaBombard, I.C. Faust, J.R. Wilson, S.J. Wukitch, SOL Effects on LH Wave Coupling and Current Drive Performance on Alcator C-Mod, AIP Conference Proceedings 1406, 411 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3665004 [Google Scholar]
  27. M. Preynas, M. Goniche, J. Hillairet, X. Litaudon, A. Ekedahl, L. Colas, Experimental characterization and modelling of non-linear coupling of the lower hybrid current drive power on Tore Supra, Nuclear Fusion 53, 013012 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/53/1/013012 [Google Scholar]
  28. R.L. Barnett, D.L. Green, C.L. Waters, J. Lore, D. Smithe, J.R. Myra, RF-transpond: A 1D coupled cold plasma wave and plasma transport model for ponderomotive force driven density modification parallel to B0, Computer Physics Communications 274, 108286 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108286 [Google Scholar]
  29. R. Schneider, X. Bonnin, K. Borrass, D. Coster, H. Kastelewicz, D. Reiter, V. Rozhansky, B. Braams, Plasma edge physics with B2-Eirene, Contributions to Plasma Physics 46, 3 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1002/ctpp.200610001 [Google Scholar]
  30. S. Wiesen, D. Reiter, V. Kotov, M. Baelmans, W. Dekeyser, A. Kukushkin, S. Lisgo, R. Pitts, V. Rozhansky, G. Saibene et al., The new SOLPS-ITER code package, Journal of nuclear materials 463, 480 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2014.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  31. T. Rognlien, X. Xu, A. Hindmarsh, Application of parallel implicit methods to edge-plasma numerical simulations, Journal of Computational Physics 175, 249 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2001.6944 [Google Scholar]
  32. S.I. Braginskii, Transport processes in a plasma, Reviews of Plasma Physics 1, 205 (1965). [Google Scholar]
  33. E. Meier, U. Shumlak, A general nonlinear fluid model for reacting plasma-neutral mixtures, Physics of Plasmas 19 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4736975 [Google Scholar]
  34. B. Ayuso, L.D. Marini, Discontinuous Galerkin methods for advection-diffusion-reaction problems, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 47, 1391 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1137/080719583 [Google Scholar]
  35. A. Valli, G. Carey, A. Coutinho, Control strategies for timestep selection in simulation of coupled viscous flow and heat transfer, Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering 18, 131 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.475 [Google Scholar]
  36. K. Gustafsson, M. Lundh, G. Söderlind, A pi stepsize control for the numerical solution of ordinary differential equations, BIT Numerical Mathematics 28, 270 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01934091 [Google Scholar]
  37. K. Gustafsson, Control-theoretic techniques for stepsize selection in implicit Runge-Kutta methods, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 20, 496 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1145/198429.198437 [Google Scholar]
  38. X.S. Li, J.W. Demmel, SuperLU_DIST: A scalable distributed-memory sparse direct solver for unsymmetric linear systems, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 29, 110 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1145/779359.779361 [Google Scholar]
  39. P.R. Amestoy, I.S. Duff, J.Y. L’Excellent, J. Koster, A fully asynchronous multifrontal solver using distributed dynamic scheduling, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 23, 15 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1137/S0895479899358194 [Google Scholar]
  40. hypre, hypre: High performance preconditioners, https://llnl.gov/casc/hypre, https:// github.com/hypre-space/hypre [Google Scholar]
  41. C. Sovinec, A. Glasser, T. Gianakon, D. Barnes, R. Nebel, S. Kruger, D. Schnack, S. Plimpton, A. Tarditi, M. Chu et al., Nonlinear magnetohy-drodynamics simulation using high-order finite elements, Journal of Computational Physics 195, 355 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2003.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  42. J.D. Lore, R.L. Barnett, D.L. Green, M.L. Stowell, M. Kobayashi, Development of a far-SOL unstructured-mesh fluid-plasma transport solver for RF antenna simulations, 28th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference (2021). [Google Scholar]
  43. M. Umansky, M. Day, T. Rognlien, On numerical solution of strongly anisotropic diffusion equation on misaligned grids, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals 47, 533 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/10407790590928946 [Google Scholar]
  44. H. Childs, E. Brugger, B. Whitlock, J. Meredith, S. Ahern, D. Pugmire, K. Biagas, M. Miller, C. Harrison, G.H. Weber et al., Visit: An enduser tool for visualizing and analyzing very large data, High Performance Visualization–Enabling Extreme-Scale Scientific Insight pp. 357–372 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1201/b12985 [Google Scholar]
  45. C.J. Vogl, I. Joseph, M. Holec, Mesh refinement for anisotropic diffusion in magnetized plasmas, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 145, 159 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2023.06.019 [Google Scholar]
  46. D. Green, X. Hu, J. Lore, L. Mu, M.L. Stowell, An efficient high-order solver for diffusion equations with strong anisotropy on non-anisotropy-aligned meshes, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 46, S199 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1500162 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.