Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Impact of triangularity on edge transport and divertor detachment: a SOLPS-ITER study of TCV L-mode plasmas

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Negative triangularity's detachment penalty is caused by reduced cross-field transport, not by magnetic geometry alone.

desk verdict A clean control experiment isolating triangularity in SOLPS-ITER, but the transport-versus-geometry conclusion rests on a fitted Dn difference that equal-ne,sep does not fully secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03966 v1 pith:M4RXMSGO submitted 2025-06-04 physics.plasm-ph

Fabio Mombelli , Andrea Mastrogirolamo , Elena Tonello , Olivier Février , Garance Durr-Legoupil-Nicoud , Massimo Carpita , Fabio Subba , Matteo Passoni
show 2 more authors
the TCV team the EUROfusion Tokamak Exploitation Team
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.55.Fa52.25.Fi
keywords negativetriangularitySOLPS-ITERTCVtokamakdivertordetachmentscrape-offlayertransportcross-fieldparticlediffusivityneutralpressureL-modeplasma
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper uses the SOLPS-ITER edge-plasma code to ask why negatively shaped (NT) TCV discharges are harder to detach than positively shaped (PT) ones when the divertor geometry is the same. Running both cases with identical transport coefficients produces nearly identical plasma profiles, even with drifts and ballooning-like transport shaping, so the magnetic configuration alone does not explain the experiments. Matching the measured profiles requires a lower particle diffusivity in NT than in PT, both inside the separatrix and in the scrape-off layer. The simulations then reproduce the experimental target temperatures and the higher divertor neutral pressure in PT, and they locate the difference in how neutrals and radial transport redistribute particles and power along the outer divertor leg.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a matched-pair comparison on two B2.5/EIRENE computational meshes built from TCV equilibria with identical divertor geometry and opposite upper triangularity ($\delta_{\rm top}=-0.3$ versus $+0.2$). The decisive tool is the step-like radial particle diffusivity profile $D_n$: a parametric scan separates core-periphery from SOL transport, and the optimized profiles (lower $D_n$ in NT, in both regions, with and without drifts) are what turn identical-geometry simulations into reproductions of the experimental asymmetry. A synthetic baratron diagnostic built from EIRENE neutral fluxes then converts the simulated neutral field into the quantity compared with the measured divertor pressure.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of SOL fluctuation-driven transport in the two discharges, for example gas-puff imaging or Doppler backscattering showing comparable turbulent transport in NT and PT, would undercut the claim. A numerical falsifier would be a SOLPS-ITER run that reproduces the PT/NT target asymmetry with strictly identical transport coefficients once drift boundary conditions are treated differently, since the paper's case rests on the absence of such a difference with identical inputs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the experimentally observed difference in divertor detachment between NT and PT TCV L-mode discharges is not a direct effect of the magnetic equilibrium shape but follows from altered cross-field transport. In matched simulations with identical inputs, the outer-midplane and target profiles are indistinguishable between NT and PT; only when particle diffusivity is lowered in NT does the model reproduce the hotter, still-attached NT outer target and the colder, detached PT target. The paper interprets this as NT having intrinsically reduced turbulent particle transport, and shows that the resulting neutral dynamics—recycling localized near the target in NT versus ionization-front movement and neutral penetration into the private flux region in PT—explains the higher divertor neutral pressure measured in PT.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumption that SOLPS-ITER's prescribed diffusive transport coefficients, kept identical for the two shapes and then adjusted by hand, faithfully represent the real turbulent transport in both configurations; if the true turbulence differs in a way the model cannot express, the conclusion that transport rather than geometry is the cause does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The experimental asymmetry in outer-target temperature (PT below 5 eV, NT above) is reproduced only when the assumed particle diffusivity in NT is lower; identical transport coefficients erase the difference.
  • The heat flux reaching the NT outer target is larger and narrower (smaller $\lambda_q$), implying more concentrated power loads at the divertor plate.
  • The higher neutral pressure measured at the PT divertor appears in the simulations as a consequence of recycling neutrals penetrating further into the private flux region, not of the magnetic well shape.
  • The same pattern holds for the no-drift reference simulations and for drift-enabled runs, with the appendix noting numerical artifacts in the drift target-density profiles.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct experimental test would be fluctuation-level measurements of SOL transport in matched NT/PT discharges; if turbulence is not reduced in NT, the lower effective $D_n$ would need a different explanation.
  • For reactor design, the implication is that NT's detachment penalty is transport-driven, so recovering detachment may require intentional SOL transport enhancement or impurity seeding rather than divertor reshaping.
  • The paper's elimination argument is only as strong as the mean-field transport model; a turbulence-resolved simulation of the same two discharges would be the natural independent check.
  • The appendix's drift artifacts mean the drift-inclusive comparisons should be treated as less robust; the no-drift reference simulations are the cleaner evidence for the transport conclusion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports SOLPS-ITER simulations of two TCV Ohmic L-mode discharges with identical divertor geometry and opposite upper triangularity. It first shows that runs with identical transport coefficients yield essentially identical upstream and target profiles, concluding that magnetic geometry alone cannot explain the experimental differences. It then performs a parametric scan of the particle diffusivity Dn and heat diffusivity to find profiles that match Thomson scattering and Langmuir probe data, concluding that lower particle diffusivity is required in NT than in PT. A density scan with fixed optimized coefficients reproduces the experimental trend of higher divertor neutral pressure in PT. The authors conclude that altered cross-field transport, rather than direct magnetic geometry effects, underlies the observed difference in detachment access.

Significance. The paper addresses a relevant open question for negative triangularity as a reactor scenario. The choice of discharges with identical divertor geometry is a strong design, and the forward identical-transport comparison is a useful control. If the conclusions withstand scrutiny, the result would redirect attention from divertor flux expansion and connection length to turbulence-driven transport differences, consistent with existing turbulence simulations cited in the introduction. The synthetic neutral-pressure diagnostic and density-scan comparison add credibility. However, the central quantitative inference is a manual fit with limited sensitivity analysis, and the null result is asserted on visual grounds; these gaps currently limit the strength of the claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Figure 4] The statement that simulations with identical input parameters revealed no significant differences is based on visual overlap of the profiles. Provide a quantitative metric, such as RMS differences between the NT and PT profiles or a comparison against experimental error bars, or define an explicit indifference threshold. Without this, the null result, which is load-bearing for the rest of the paper, is not established.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figure 7] The optimized Dn profiles are obtained by manually fitting to match experimental profiles while imposing the same ne,sep = 1.2e19 m^-3 and Ptot = 180 kW for both cases (Section 3). Because target conditions respond similarly to increases in ne,sep (Figure 4) and Dn (Figure 6), a real difference in separatrix density or in core radiation between the two discharges could be absorbed into the fitted Dn difference. Please quantify the sensitivity of the inferred Dn values to plausible variations in ne,sep and Ptot, or provide an independent constraint on these quantities.
  3. [Section 4.3 and Appendix A] The drift-including simulations show multiple peaks in the electron density profiles at the targets that the authors attribute to numerical boundary-condition artifacts; the profiles presented in the main text are extracted two cells upstream of the target. The claim that drifts reproduce the experimental radial position of the target density peak therefore relies on a manipulated profile. Please show the raw profile and demonstrate that the two-cells-upstream extraction does not bias the comparison.
  4. [Section 4.2, footnote] The sensitivity scan was performed only on the negative-triangularity mesh, with the statement that analogous results are obtained for positive triangularity. Since the optimized PT Dn values are a central result, either present the PT scan explicitly or justify why the NT scan can be transferred directly to the PT case.
  5. [Abstract and Section 5] The conclusion that altered cross-field transport, rather than magnetic geometry alone, underlies the observed differences overstates the evidence, because the model prescribes anomalous transport as mean-field diffusivities, so geometry-dependent turbulence is excluded by construction. Please rephrase to acknowledge that the results rule out direct geometric effects (flux expansion, connection length) within the mean-field transport model, while geometry acting through modified turbulence remains a viable candidate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The notation chi_i/e is not defined; please state explicitly that it denotes a common ion and electron heat diffusivity.
  2. [Figures 7 and 11] Adding experimental error bars to the Thomson scattering and Langmuir probe data would help the reader assess the goodness of the profile fits.
  3. [Section 4.4] The mapping of experimental data to the density at rho = 0.95 is not fully explained; please clarify how this quantity is derived from the line-averaged density measurements and the assumed profile.
  4. [Appendix A] The discussion of the drift stabilization techniques would benefit from a brief explanation of why these are needed specifically for the TCV simulations, rather than a purely technical input-file description.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central transport conclusion is a fitted parameter rather than an independent prediction; the neutral-pressure trend provides partial out-of-sample support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3, 'Optimization of transport coefficients and discussion', Figure 7; echoed in Abstract and Section 5]
    "These profiles were selected according to the criterion that the simulations should accurately and simultaneously reproduce the experimental radial profiles of electron density and temperature at the OMP, as well as the electron temperature at the outer target, for both PT and NT cases (Figure 7). ... The electron temperature profiles at the OT accurately reproduce the experimental data, with Te in NT being larger than in PT, which falls below 5 eV, suggesting the onset of a detachment regime, which is not observed in NT."

    The outer-target electron temperature, including the Te < 5 eV detachment criterion, is one of the data sets used to select the optimized Dn profiles. Presenting the agreement on Te_OT as evidence that PT accesses detachment while NT does not is a restatement of the fit, not a prediction. Similarly, the conclusion 'reproducing the experimental profiles requires lower particle diffusivity in NT' is the fitted input itself: the Dn profiles were chosen to differ so as to match the data. Thus the central claim that altered cross-field transport, rather than geometry, underlies the observed differences reduces to the free parameters inserted to reproduce the same observations.

full rationale

The identical-transport simulations in Section 4.1 are self-contained forward calculations: they show that, within SOLPS-ITER's mean-field diffusive model and with the same prescribed Dn and chi, the NT and PT meshes produce nearly identical profiles. This is not circular, though it is limited to the effects of magnetic geometry as represented by the mesh and field, excluding geometry-dependent turbulence by construction. The circularity lies in the optimization step: the transport coefficients are fitted to the experimental upstream profiles and outer-target temperature, after which the paper presents the resulting match as evidence that lower particle diffusivity in NT explains the experimental detachment differences. The Te_OT < 5 eV detachment signature is itself one of the fitted targets. The density-scan neutral-pressure comparison is a separate, out-of-sample prediction and supports the modeling framework, but the headline inference about altered cross-field transport is, at its core, a fitted parameter renamed as a physical conclusion. Score 6 reflects this partial circularity: the central claim reduces to a fit, while a secondary prediction remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim that cross-field transport rather than geometry explains NT/PT divertor differences rests on many modeling choices: a diffusive transport representation, assumed boundary conditions (recycling, sputtering, leakage fractions), and the selection of two discharges as otherwise matched. No free parameters are derived from first principles; the key Dn profiles are fitted to experimental data.

free parameters (9)
  • Dn_NT_core = lower than PT; exact profile in Fig. 7
    Particle diffusivity in the core periphery and inside the separatrix for NT, tuned to match upstream density and temperature profiles.
  • Dn_NT_SOL = lower than PT; exact profile in Fig. 7
    SOL particle diffusivity for NT, adjusted to match outer target electron temperature and density.
  • Dn_PT_core = higher than NT; exact profile in Fig. 7
    Particle diffusivity in the core periphery for PT, determined by matching experimental profiles.
  • Dn_PT_SOL = higher than NT; exact profile in Fig. 7
    SOL particle diffusivity for PT, fitted to reproduce outer target diagnostics.
  • chi_e/chi_i = 1.0 m2/s without drifts; 0.7 m2/s with drifts
    Uniform heat diffusivities; reduced in drift cases to improve agreement with upstream electron temperature profiles.
  • ballooning constants a and c = a = 1, c = 2
    Arbitrary constants in Eq. (1) used for poloidally varying transport enhancement; chosen by hand, not derived.
  • wall recycling coefficient R = 0.99
    Albedo for all neutral species at carbon walls, set to match previous TCV simulations.
  • chemical sputtering yield = 3.5%
    Constant chemical sputtering yield for carbon impurity release, adopted from prior TCV modeling.
  • leakage fraction alpha = 1e-3
    Radial loss fraction for drift-compatible boundary conditions at far SOL and PFR, specified as small fraction of solid-surface fluxes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SOLPS-ITER B2.5-EIRENE with toroidal symmetry and diffusive mean-field anomalous transport adequately represents the edge plasma for both triangularities.
    The whole study rests on this modeling framework; no turbulence simulation or first-principles transport model is used. Section 3 introduces the diffusive approximation.
  • domain assumption The two experimental discharges differ only in upper triangularity, with identical divertor geometry, power, fueling, and other conditions adequately matched.
    Section 2 describes discharges #69957 and #69962 as otherwise similar; this is the basis for isolating triangularity.
  • domain assumption Anomalous transport can be represented by a step-like radial Dn profile with separate core and SOL values.
    Section 4.2 uses step profiles to decouple core periphery and SOL transport; no justification from microturbulence principles is given.
  • domain assumption The synthetic baratron diagnostic correctly maps simulated kinetic neutral fluxes to gauge pressure.
    Section 4.4 adopts an assumption about neutral transport from chamber to gauge following Reference [26].
  • domain assumption Carbon sputtering yields, recycling coefficients, and power coupling are as assumed.
    Boundary conditions use fixed yields and R = 0.99, P_tot = 180 kW; uncertainties are not quantified.
  • domain assumption The drift formalism in SOLPS-ITER includes the relevant toroidal-field drifts, while poloidal-field drifts may be omitted but are noted as potentially important.
    Section 4.1 states drifts included are 'those primarily associated with the toroidal magnetic field' and suggests a more complete treatment may be needed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of triangularity on edge transport and divertor detachment: a SOLPS-ITER study of TCV L-mode plasmas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4RXMSGO

@misc{pith2026250603966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of triangularity on edge transport and divertor detachment: a SOLPS-ITER study of TCV L-mode plasmas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4RXMSGO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03966}
}
read the original abstract

Negative triangularity (NT) magnetic configurations have recently gained attention as a promising route to achieve H-mode-like confinement without edge-localized modes (ELMs) and without a power threshold for access. While both core and edge confinement properties of NT have been extensively documented, consistently lower divertor target cooling and increased difficulty in achieving a detached regime have been observed. This work presents a comparative SOLPS-ITER modeling study of two Ohmic L-mode discharges in the TCV tokamak with identical divertor geometry and opposite upper triangularity. We investigate whether magnetic geometry alone can account for the experimentally observed differences in plasma detachment behavior. Simulations with identical transport coefficients reveal no significant differences between NT and positive triangularity (PT) cases, even when including drifts. A parametric scan of radial anomalous transport coefficients shows that reproducing the experimental profiles requires lower particle diffusivity in NT, consistent with reduced turbulent transport and previous findings. Furthermore, the evolution of simulated neutral pressures and recycling fluxes along a density scan reproduces experimental observations of larger neutral divertor pressure in PT, highlighting a distinct neutral dynamics in the two cases. These results support the interpretation that altered cross-field transport, rather than magnetic geometry alone, underlies the observed differences in divertor behavior between NT and PT scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03966 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Reconstruction of the magnetic equilibria for the discharges under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental evolution of neutral pressure measured at the divertor baratron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Computational meshes of the B2.5 (structured quadrilateral) and EIRENE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Comparison of electron density and temperature profiles at the OMP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Electron density and temperature profiles at the OMP and OT from SOLPS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of the parametric sensitivity scan of the radial profiles of the particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between electron density and temperature profiles from SOLPS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: For the reference simulations without drifts of the scenarios under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic representation of the energy balance for the reference simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temporal evolution of the line-averaged electron density during the discharges [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison between electron density and temperature profiles at the OMP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Neutral pressure at the divertor as a function of electron density at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) Gas puff actuator strength, (b) neutral deuterium recycling fluxes, in both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction In the pursuit of sustainable energy via magnetic confinement fusion, the high-confinement mode (H-mode) has long been considered as the most promising regime for tokamak operation due to its superior plasma confinement capabilities [1, 2]. This improved confinement arises from the formation of steep edge pressure gradients across the separat...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The pulses analyzed are Ohmic L-mode deuterium-only discharges #69957 and #69962, with their magnetic equilibria at selected time instants shown in Figure 1(a)

    Reference experimental framework In this section, the key experimental characteristics of the TCV discharges considered in this study - which are more extensively described in Reference [21] - are briefly reviewed. The pulses analyzed are Ohmic L-mode deuterium-only discharges #69957 and #69962, with their magnetic equilibria at selected time instants sho...

    work page

  3. [3]

    3.0.9), a state-of-the-art tool for modeling the boundary plasma in magnetic fusion devices [27, 28]

    Simulation setup and strategy This work utilizes the SOLPS-ITER code (v. 3.0.9), a state-of-the-art tool for modeling the boundary plasma in magnetic fusion devices [27, 28]. The package combines two main modules: B2.5 [29, 30], a multi-fluid, non-turbulent code that solves particle, momentum, and energy conservation of charged plasma species under the as...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This article is also accompanied by the Appendix A discussing technical notes on the use of drifts in the presented simulations

    Finally, Section 5 draws the main conclusions of the study. This article is also accompanied by the Appendix A discussing technical notes on the use of drifts in the presented simulations

    work page

  5. [5]

    low density

    Results and discussion 4.1. Effect of magnetic geometry In line with the simulation strategy adopted, this subsection presents the results of a set of homologous simulations, carried out under identical input conditions but using the computational mesh specific to each discharge. The same values of ne,sep and anomalous transport coefficients were applied,...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Conclusions This paper presented the comparison and analysis of two TCV discharges featuring matching magnetic geometry at the divertor and opposite upper triangularity, using the edge plasma code SOLPS-ITER. The aim was to investigate the physical mechanisms underlying the experimental observation of a more challenging access to the detachment regime of ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    1982 Phys

    Wagner F et al. 1982 Phys. Rev. Lett. 49(19) 1408–1412 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.49.1408

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    Team A 1989 Nuclear Fusion 29 1959–2040 ISSN 1741-4326 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0029-5515/29/11/010

    work page 1989

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3115(97)80039-6

    Hill D 1997 Journal of Nuclear Materials 241–243 182–198 ISSN 0022-3115 URL http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3115(97)80039-6

    1997 doi

  2. [10]

    Leonard A W 2014 Physics of Plasmas 21 090501 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL http: //aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4894742

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.01.283

    Evans T 2013 Journal of Nuclear Materials 438 S11–S18 ISSN 0022-3115 URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.01.283

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Marinoni A, Sauter O and Coda S 2021 Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics 5 6 ISSN 2367-3192 URL https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41614-021-00054-0

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Labit B, Sauter O, P¨ utterich T, Bagnato F, Camenen Y, Coda S, Contr´ e C, Coosemans R, Eriksson F, F´ evrier O, Fransson E, Karpushov A N, Krutkin O, Marchioni S, Merle A, Pau A, Piron L, Vallar M, Van Mulders S and Voitsekhovitch I 2024 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion ...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Pochelon A, Goodman T, Henderson M, Angioni C, Behn R, Coda S, Hofmann F, Hogge J P, Kirneva N, Martynov A, Moret J M, Pietrzyk Z, Porcelli F, Reimerdes H, Rommers J, Rossi E, Sauter O, Tran M, Weisen H, Alberti S, Barry S, Blanchard P, Bosshard P, Chavan R, Duval B, Esipchuck...

    1999

  7. [15]

    Camenen Y, Pochelon A, Behn R, Bottino A, Bortolon A, Coda S, Karpushov A, Sauter O, Zhuang G and team t T 2007 Nuclear Fusion 47 510–516 ISSN 1741-4326 URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/47/7/002

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Coda S, Merle A, Sauter O, Porte L, Bagnato F, Boedo J, Bolzonella T, F´ evrier O, Labit B, Marinoni A, Pau A, Pigatto L, Sheikh U, Tsui C, Vallar M and Vu T 2022 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 64 014004 ISSN 0741-3335, 1361-6587 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/1...

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Austin M, Marinoni A, Walker M, Brookman M, deGrassie J, Hyatt A, McKee G, Petty C, Rhodes T, Smith S, Sung C, Thome K and Turnbull A 2019 Physical Review Letters 122 115001 ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.115001

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Marinoni A, Austin M, Hyatt A, Saarelma S, Scotti F, Yan Z, Chrystal C, Coda S, Glass F, Hanson J, McLean A, Pace D, Paz-Soldan C, Petty C, Porkolab M, Schmitz L, Sciortino F, Smith S, Thome K, Turco F and the DIII-D Team 2021 Nuclear Fusion 61 116010 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Happel T, P¨ utterich T, Told D, Dunne M, Fischer R, Hobirk J, McDermott R, Plank U and the A U T 2023 Nuclear Fusion 63 016002 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/ac8563

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Fontana M, Porte L, Coda S, Sauter O, Brunner S, Jayalekshmi A C, Fasoli A, Merlo G and The TCV Team 2020 Nuclear Fusion 60 016006 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https: //iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/ab4d75

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Merlo G, Brunner S, Sauter O, Camenen Y, G¨ orler T, Jenko F, Marinoni A, Told D and Villard L 2015 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 57 054010 ISSN 1361-6587 URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/57/5/054010

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    Giannatale G D, Donnel P, Villard L, Bottino A, Brunner S, Lanti E, McMillan B F, Mishchenko A, Murugappan M and Hayward-Schneider T 2022 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2397 012002 ISSN 1742-6596 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2397/1/012002

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Leonard A W 2018 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 60 044001 ISSN 0741-3335, 1361-6587 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6587/aaa7a9

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Lim K, Giacomin M, Ricci P, Coelho A, F´ evrier O, Mancini D, Silvagni D and Stenger L 2023 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 65 085006 ISSN 1361-6587 URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1361-6587/acdc52

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Riva F, Lanti E, Jolliet S and Ricci P 2017 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 59 035001 ISSN 1361-6587 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aa5322

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    1088/1741-4326/abdb95

    Han W, Offeddu N, Golfinopoulos T, Theiler C, Tsui C, Boedo J, Marmar E and the TCV Team 2021 Nuclear Fusion 61 034003 ISSN 1741-4326 URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1741-4326/abdb95

    2021

  19. [27]

    F´ evrier O, Tsui C K, Durr-Legoupil-Nicoud G, Theiler C, Carpita M, Coda S, Colandrea C, Duval B P, Gorno S, Huett E, Linehan B, Perek A, Porte L, Reimerdes H, Sauter O, Tonello E, Zurita M, Bolzonella T and Sciortino F 2024 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 66 065005 ISSN...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Scotti F, Marinoni A, McLean A, Paz-Soldan C, Thome K, Zhao M, Allen S, Austin M, Burke M, Eldon D, Fenstermacher M, Hyatt A, Lasnier C, Leonard A, Lore J, Nelson A, Osborne T, Sauter O, Truong D, Van Zeeland M, Wang H and Wilcox R 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64 094001 ISSN 1741-4326 ...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Faitsch M, Maurizio R, Gallo A, Coda S, Eich T, Labit B, Merle A, Reimerdes H, Sieglin B, Theiler C, the Eurofusion MST1 Team and the TCV Team 2018 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 60 045010 ISSN 0741-3335, 1361-6587 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/1361-6587/aaaef7

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Laribi E, Serre E, Tamain P and Yang H 2021 Nuclear Materials and Energy 27 101012 ISSN 26 2352-1791 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nme.2021.101012

    2021

  23. [31]

    Muscente P, Innocente P, Ball J and Gorno S 2023 Nuclear Materials and Energy 34 101386 ISSN 23521791 URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S235217912300025X

    2023

  24. [32]

    Tonello E, Mombelli F, F´ evrier O, Alberti G, Bolzonella T, Durr-Legoupil-Nicoud G, Gorno S, Reimerdes H, Theiler C, Vianello N and Passoni M 2024 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 66 065006 ISSN 1361-6587 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ad3c19

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Wiesen S, Reiter D, Kotov V, Baelmans M, Dekeyser W, Kukushkin A, Lisgo S, Pitts R, Rozhansky V, Saibene G, Veselova I and Voskoboynikov S 2015 Journal of Nuclear Materials 463 480–484 ISSN 00223115 URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022311514006965

    2015

  26. [34]

    11.1403102

    Bonnin X, Dekeyser W, Pitts R, Coster D, Voskoboynikov S and Wiesen S 2016 Plasma and Fusion Research 11 1403102–1403102 ISSN 1880-6821 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1585/pfr. 11.1403102

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Rozhansky V, Voskoboynikov S, Kaveeva E, Coster D and Schneider R 2001 Nuclear Fusion 41 387–401 ISSN 0029-5515 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/41/4/305

    2001 doi

  28. [36]

    1088/0029-5515/49/2/025007

    Rozhansky V, Kaveeva E, Molchanov P, Veselova I, Voskoboynikov S, Coster D, Counsell G, Kirk A and Lisgo S 2009 Nuclear Fusion 49 025007 ISSN 1741-4326 URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0029-5515/49/2/025007

    2009

  29. [37]

    Reiter D, Baelmans M and B¨ orner P 2005Fusion Science and Technology 47 172–186 ISSN 1536- 1055, 1943-7641 URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.13182/FST47-172

    1943 doi

  30. [38]

    Wensing M, Duval B P, F´ evrier O, Fil A, Galassi D, Havlickova E, Perek A, Reimerdes H, Theiler C, Verhaegh K and Wischmeier M 2019 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61 085029 ISSN 1361-6587 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ab2b1f

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Wensing M, Reimerdes H, F´ evrier O, Colandrea C, Martinelli L, Verhaegh K, Bagnato F, Blanchard P, Vincent B, Perek A, Gorno S, de Oliveira H, Theiler C, Duval B P, Tsui C K, Baquero-Ruiz M and Wischmeier M 2021 Physics of Plasmas 28 ISSN 1089-7674 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.10...

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Bohdansky J, Roth J and Bay H L 1980 Journal of Applied Physics 51 2861–2865 ISSN 1089-7550 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.327954

    1980 doi

  33. [41]

    Kaveeva E, Rozhansky V, Senichenkov I, Veselova I, Voskoboynikov S, Sytova E, Bonnin X and Coster D 2018 Nuclear Fusion 58 126018 ISSN 1741-4326 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1741-4326/aae162

    2018

  34. [42]

    thesis Politecnico di Milano URL https://hdl.handle.net/10589/196383

    Tonello E 2023 Modelling of boundary plasmas in linear devices and tokamaks Ph.D. thesis Politecnico di Milano URL https://hdl.handle.net/10589/196383

    2023

  35. [43]

    thesis ´Ecole Polytechnique F´ ed´ erale de Lausanne URL https://infoscience.epfl.ch/handle/20.500.14299/241004

    Colandrea C 2024 Investigation of scrape-off layer and divertor transport using infrared thermography and SOLPS-ITER simulations Ph.D. thesis ´Ecole Polytechnique F´ ed´ erale de Lausanne URL https://infoscience.epfl.ch/handle/20.500.14299/241004

    2024

  36. [44]

    Jia G, Wang H, Xu G, Wang L, Li A, Ding R, Liu X, Si H, Yang Q, Tao Y, Meng L, Xu J, Yu L, Guo J, Wang Y, Gan C, Guo W and Zhu S 2022 Nuclear Fusion 62 056005 ISSN 1741-4326 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac4061

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.