pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22516 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: unknown

3D modelling of thermal loads during unmitigated vertical displacement events in ITER and JET

A. Loarte, A. Redl, F.J. Artola, G. Simic, I.S. Carvalho, J. Van Blarcum, M. Kong, R.A. Pitts, S.N. Gerasimov, The EUROfusion Tokamak Exploitation Team, the JET contributors, the JOREK team

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 09:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords tokamakdisruptionsvertical displacement eventsITERJETthermal loadsfirst wallMHD simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A coupled simulation workflow predicts ITER tungsten first wall survives unmitigated vertical displacement events.

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

The paper develops a method to predict three-dimensional thermal loads on tokamak walls during vertical displacement events by linking magnetohydrodynamic simulations to realistic wall models and heat flow calculations. It tests this on existing JET experiments with beryllium walls to confirm it captures the main behaviors, including where melting happens or does not. Applying it to ITER with tungsten walls indicates the wall remains intact and gives details on where energy lands and currents flow. This matters because disruptions can damage future fusion devices, and reliable predictions help set safe operating limits. The workflow allows checking many different disruption scenarios in advance.

Core claim

We present a physics-based workflow that couples MHD simulations of vertical displacement events with field line tracing on a realistic 3D first wall model and a transient wall thermal response. The approach is validated against JET discharges with beryllium main chamber armour, reproducing key global dynamics, non-axisymmetric current features, and the occurrence (or absence) of melting. We then apply the same workflow to ITER-relevant conditions with tungsten armour to assess disruption heat loads and their 3D localization. The resulting analysis demonstrates the resilience of the ITER W first wall against these events and provides predictions for the energy deposition and current flow.

What carries the argument

The physics-based workflow that couples MHD simulations of vertical displacement events with field line tracing on a realistic 3D first wall model and a transient wall thermal response.

If this is right

  • The ITER tungsten first wall remains resilient against thermal loads from unmitigated vertical displacement events.
  • Energy deposition and current flow profiles can be predicted in three dimensions for these events.
  • Scenario-by-scenario estimates of disruption-induced thermal loading become possible for future devices.
  • The disruption-budget consumption for vertical displacement events can be assessed using the workflow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same workflow could be applied to evaluate thermal loads from other disruption types in ITER or similar devices.
  • It offers a way to compare wall material performance across different tokamaks under consistent modeling assumptions.
  • If the JET-to-ITER transfer holds, it could reduce design margins needed for first-wall protection systems.
  • Extending the approach to include more detailed material response models might refine the localization predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The physics captured and validated in JET beryllium-wall discharges transfers quantitatively to ITER tungsten-wall conditions under unmitigated vertical displacement events without additional unmodeled effects.

What would settle it

Direct observation during an unmitigated vertical displacement event in ITER showing melting of the tungsten wall or energy deposition profiles that differ substantially from the predicted three-dimensional maps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22516 by A. Loarte, A. Redl, F.J. Artola, G. Simic, I.S. Carvalho, J. Van Blarcum, M. Kong, R.A. Pitts, S.N. Gerasimov, The EUROfusion Tokamak Exploitation Team, the JET contributors, the JOREK team.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the energy flow (red arrows) during an ITER UVDE simulation (see Sec. 4) together with the first wall panel indexing and the perpendicular heat fluxes on the ITER first wall. The equilibrium is taken at t = 0.391 s with q95 = 1.77. Building on this physical picture, several studies have already quantified ITER CQ thermal loads for upward-going VDEs [5, 6, 7]. For the ITER 2016 Baseline, Coburn… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Wetted area (red) calculated in SMITER (a) and JOREK (b) for 6 out of the 18 poloidally distributed FWPs for a pre-disruptive ITER X-point plasma (IMAS URI = imas:mdsplus?user=public;pulse=135011;run=7;database=ITER;version=3 at 200s). 2.3 Wall temperature evolution For each wall element, the transient temperature evolution is obtained by solving an independent one￾dimensional heat-diffusion equation along… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Summary of the JET diagnostics used for thermal loads and halo currents in this study. Green boxes denote TC measurements while light-red boxes denote shunt measurements (MS1/2). The black and thick rectangular outline shows a Rogowski coil (RC) and the bottom table shows the toroidal coverage and availability for halo current measurements in each of the JET octants for the two pulses analysed here. 3.1 Me… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) Comparison of simulated values (solid) with experimental values (dashed) for pulse #84832. (a) Plasma current and poloidal halo currents. (b) Vertical displacement of the current-centroid. (c) Edge safety factor and toroidal peaking factor of the poloidal halo currents. (d) n = 1 asymmetry of the vertical current moment as defined in [19]. (Right) Toroidal current distribution measured by the mushro… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Global energy balance for #95110 (left) and #84832 (right). The first column shows the pre-disruptive stored energy, split into thermal energy (grey) and poloidal magnetic energy (black, 0.5 L I2 p ). The second column (JET) shows the experimental energy partition: radiated energy from KB5V (red), energy coupled to external conductors estimated from [22] using the CQ duration (blue), and the residual condu… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy deposited on the upper DPs as measured by the JET TCs using the reference pulse subtraction method explained in Section 3.1 (blue bars) and that calculated in the JOREK simulations (colored lines) for #95110 (left) and #84832 (right). The different simulation lines correspond to the toroidal locations with minimum, average, and maximum deposited energy in the totality of the upper DPs obtained in JO… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Maximum surface temperature on the JET upper DPs as predicted by JOREK for #95110 (left) and #84832 (right). The plates are displayed in toroidal (ϕ) and poloidal (θ) angles and the black dots represent elements with temperatures beyond the melting point of Be (1556 K). Starting with a pre-disruptive wall temperature of 200◦C for this discharge [21], view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Maximum surface temperature on the JET upper DPs for pulse #84832 as predicted by JOREK considering only the TQ (left) and only the CQ (right) . The plates are displayed in toroidal (ϕ) and poloidal (θ) angles and the black dots represent elements with temperatures beyond the melting point of Be (1556 K). current from the SAL/SAU limiters ( view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Energy deposition outside the upper DPs for #84832. Left: partition of the conducted energy to PFCs, using the total conducted energy inferred from the global energy balance ( view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time-integrated perpendicular heat flux on the upper DPs for the #95110 simulation, considering only the TQ (left) and the CQ (right) phases separately. The plates are displayed in toroidal (ϕ) and poloidal (θ) angles view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time-integrated perpendicular heat flux on the upper DPs for the #84832 simulation, considering only the TQ (left) and the CQ (right) phases separately. The plates are displayed in toroidal (ϕ) and poloidal (θ) angles. radiation. In this simplified picture, the electron temperature is set by a balance between ohmic heating along the tube and end losses at the wall. The end losses scale as q∥ ∝ neT 3/2 e (… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Time-integrated toroidally averaged profiles on the JOREK boundary for JET pulses #95110 (dashed) and #84832 (solid). Shown are the deposited energy density wdep = R q⊥ dt and the time-integrated normal current density jdep = R J⊥ dt, with J⊥ = |J · n|, plotted as a function of the major radius R. Quantities are normalized to their maximum values. latter could be considerably more severe in the event of a… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Maximum surface temperature (left) and melt duration (right) on the ITER W FW during a 15 MA upward-going UVDE. The FW surface is represented in toroidal (ϕ) and poloidal (θ) coordinates, with the poloidal index of the FWPs (#). Black dots mark elements where the surface temperature exceeds the W melting point view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (Left) Maximum surface temperature for the ITER case in view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Time-integrated deposited energy density on the ITER FWPs, computed from wdep = R q⊥ dt and shown separately for the TQ (left) and CQ (right). The first wall is displayed in toroidal (ϕ) and poloidal (θ) angles. Following the same approach as in Section 3.4, we evaluate the deposited energy density for the ITER case and separate the contributions from the TQ and CQ ( view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: ITER case: time-integrated toroidally averaged profiles on the JOREK boundary. Shown are the deposited energy density wdep = R q⊥ dt and the time-integrated normal current density jdep = R J⊥ dt, with J⊥ = |J · n|, plotted as a function of the major radius R. Quantities are normalized to their maximum values. The top indices denote the FWP indices for reference. One may notice the broadness of the CQ depo… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Relationship between the toroidally averaged q∥ at the FW and the field line penetration into the core plasma (ψn,min) for three time points. To test this idea, we trace magnetic field lines from the FW (starting at a given ψn,wall) towards the plasma and record the deepest penetration they achieve, quantified by the minimum normalized poloidal flux encountered along the trajectory, ψn,min. For this diagn… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Predicting three-dimensional thermal loads during tokamak disruptions is essential for ITER yet remains weakly developed. We present a physics-based workflow that couples MHD simulations of vertical displacement events with field line tracing on a realistic 3D first wall model and a transient wall thermal response. The approach is validated against JET discharges with beryllium main chamber armour, reproducing key global dynamics, non-axisymmetric current features, and the occurrence (or absence) of melting, thereby building confidence in the methodology. We then apply the same workflow to ITER-relevant conditions with tungsten (W) armour, consistent with the new 2024 ITER re-baseline, to assess disruption heat loads and their 3D localization. The resulting analysis demonstrates the resilience of the ITER W first wall against these events and provides predictions for the energy deposition and current flow profiles. Beyond these studies, the workflow enables scenario-by-scenario estimates of disruption-induced thermal loading, allowing to assess the disruption-budget consumption for these events in future devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a physics-based workflow that couples MHD simulations of unmitigated vertical displacement events (VDEs), 3D field-line tracing on realistic first-wall geometries, and transient thermal modeling to predict three-dimensional thermal loads. The approach is validated on JET discharges with beryllium walls by reproducing global dynamics, non-axisymmetric current features, and the occurrence or absence of melting. The same workflow is then applied to ITER with tungsten walls (consistent with the 2024 re-baseline) to assess heat loads, demonstrate first-wall resilience, and provide predictions for energy deposition and current flow profiles, while enabling scenario-specific disruption-budget estimates.

Significance. If the quantitative transfer holds, the work supplies forward predictions for 3D disruption loads on ITER that are grounded in JET experimental data, addressing a key design and operational need. The integration of MHD, field-line tracing, and thermal response on realistic 3D geometries is a methodological strength, and the validation against independent JET observations provides external grounding for the methodology. The resulting profiles could inform disruption mitigation and armor assessment in future devices.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (ITER application): The central claim of ITER W first-wall resilience and the specific energy-deposition/current-flow profiles rests on direct transfer of the JET Be-validated model. Be and W differ substantially in electrical resistivity (affecting halo-current paths), thermal conductivity, melting point, and vaporization behavior, yet no sensitivity studies varying these parameters (or reporting W-specific benchmarks) are presented. This omission is load-bearing for the quantitative ITER predictions.
  2. [§3] §3 (JET validation): While qualitative reproduction of global dynamics, non-axisymmetric features, and melting behavior is shown, the validation lacks quantitative metrics (e.g., error bars on peak heat flux or integrated energy deposition) and sensitivity tests to post-processing choices. This limits the strength of evidence for extrapolating the model to ITER conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and §4 could more explicitly note the material-transfer assumption and its limitations to avoid overstatement of the ITER results.
  2. Figure captions (e.g., those showing 3D wall models) should clarify the material assignment (Be vs W) and units for all plotted quantities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and positive assessment of the work's significance. We address each major comment below, indicating revisions where the manuscript will be updated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (ITER application): The central claim of ITER W first-wall resilience and the specific energy-deposition/current-flow profiles rests on direct transfer of the JET Be-validated model. Be and W differ substantially in electrical resistivity (affecting halo-current paths), thermal conductivity, melting point, and vaporization behavior, yet no sensitivity studies varying these parameters (or reporting W-specific benchmarks) are presented. This omission is load-bearing for the quantitative ITER predictions.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out the material differences. The workflow applies tungsten-specific thermal properties (conductivity, heat capacity, melting and vaporization points) for the ITER cases while using beryllium properties for JET validation. The MHD and field-line tracing components are driven by plasma dynamics and geometry rather than wall resistivity. We acknowledge that explicit sensitivity studies on resistivity effects and full W benchmarks were not included. In revision we will add a dedicated discussion of material-property uncertainties together with limited sensitivity analyses on thermal parameters to support the ITER predictions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (JET validation): While qualitative reproduction of global dynamics, non-axisymmetric features, and melting behavior is shown, the validation lacks quantitative metrics (e.g., error bars on peak heat flux or integrated energy deposition) and sensitivity tests to post-processing choices. This limits the strength of evidence for extrapolating the model to ITER conditions.

    Authors: The §3 validation reproduces observable JET features (global VDE evolution, non-axisymmetric halo currents, and melting occurrence) that are directly comparable to experimental records. Quantitative 3D heat-flux data are limited by diagnostic resolution and event variability. We will augment the section with available quantitative comparisons (integrated energy deposition and peak temperatures) and add sensitivity tests to post-processing choices such as field-line density and interpolation methods. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct experimental W-specific benchmarks for unmitigated VDEs are unavailable, as no tungsten-walled device has performed equivalent experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: JET validation is independent; ITER results are forward predictions from validated model

full rationale

The paper's chain is MHD VDE simulation + 3D field-line tracing + transient thermal response, validated on independent JET Be experimental discharges (reproducing global dynamics, non-axisymmetric currents, melting occurrence/absence). The same workflow is then applied to ITER W as forward predictions without refitting to ITER data. No self-definitional equations, no fitted inputs renamed as predictions, no load-bearing self-citations, and no ansatz smuggling. Material differences (Be vs W) are an extrapolation assumption, not a circular reduction by construction. The derivation remains self-contained against external JET benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract provides no explicit list of free parameters or ad-hoc assumptions; the workflow rests on standard MHD equations, field-line tracing, and heat conduction models whose detailed parameterizations are not visible here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5529 in / 1130 out tokens · 44229 ms · 2026-05-08T09:22:37.950608+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Disruptions in iter and strategies for their control and mitigation.Journal of Nuclear Materials, 463:39–48, 2015

    Michael Lehnen, K Aleynikova, PB Aleynikov, DJ Campbell, P Drewelow, NW Eidietis, Yu Gas- paryan, RS Granetz, Y Gribov, N Hartmann, et al. Disruptions in iter and strategies for their control and mitigation.Journal of Nuclear Materials, 463:39–48, 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    Pautasso, A

    G. Pautasso, A. Herrmann, and K. Lackner. Energy balance during disruption associated with vertical displacement events.Nuclear Fusion, 34(3):455, mar 1994

    1994

  3. [3]

    Lehnen, P

    M. Lehnen, P. Aleynikov, B. Bazylev, et al. Plasma disruption management in ITER. In26th Fusion Energy Conference (FEC 2016), page p. 366, May 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Modelling of vertical displacement events in tokamaks: status and challenges ahead.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 66(5):055015, apr 2024

    F J Artola, N Schwarz, S Gerasimov, A Loarte, M Hoelzl, and the JOREK Team. Modelling of vertical displacement events in tokamaks: status and challenges ahead.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 66(5):055015, apr 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Lifetime analysis of the ITER first wall under steady-state and off-normal loads*.Physica Scripta, 2011(T145):014081, dec 2011

    R Mitteau, M Sugihara, R Raffray, S Carpentier-Chouchana, H Labidi, M Merola, R A Pitts, and P Stangeby. Lifetime analysis of the ITER first wall under steady-state and off-normal loads*.Physica Scripta, 2011(T145):014081, dec 2011

    2011

  6. [6]

    Coburn, M

    J. Coburn, M. Lehnen, R.A. Pitts, G. Simic, F.J. Artola, E. Thor´ en, S. Ratynskaia, K. Ibano, M. Brank, L. Kos, R. Khayrutdinov, V.E. Lukash, B. Stein-Lubrano, E. Matveeva, and G. Pau- tasso. Energy deposition and melt deformation on the ITER first wall due to disruptions and vertical displacement events.Nuclear Fusion, 62(1):016001, dec 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    TOKES simulations of first wall and divertor damage during unmitigated disruptions on ITER

    RA Pitts, S Pestchanyi, M Lehnen, and G Saibene. TOKES simulations of first wall and divertor damage during unmitigated disruptions on ITER. In29th Fusion Energy Conference (FEC 2023), 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Pitts, A

    R.A. Pitts, A. Loarte, T. Wauters, M. Dubrov, Y. Gribov, F. K¨ ochl, A. Pshenov, Y. Zhang, J. Artola, X. Bonnin, L. Chen, M. Lehnen, K. Schmid, R. Ding, H. Frerichs, R. Futtersack, X. Gong, G. Hagelaar, E. Hodille, J. Hobirk, S. Krat, D. Matveev, K. Paschalidis, J. Qian, S. Ratynskaia, T. Rizzi, V. Rozhansky, P. Tamain, P. Tolias, L. Zhang, and W. Zhang. ...

    2025

  9. [9]

    Studies of plasma equilibrium and transport in a tokamak fusion device with the inverse-variable technique.Journal of Computational Physics, 109(2):193– 201, 1993

    RR Khayrutdinov and VE Lukash. Studies of plasma equilibrium and transport in a tokamak fusion device with the inverse-variable technique.Journal of Computational Physics, 109(2):193– 201, 1993

    1993

  10. [10]

    Mhd stability in x-point geometry: simulation of elms.Nuclear fusion, 47(7):659, 2007

    GTA Huysmans and O Czarny. Mhd stability in x-point geometry: simulation of elms.Nuclear fusion, 47(7):659, 2007

    2007

  11. [11]

    Hoelzl, G.T.A

    M. Hoelzl, G.T.A. Huijsmans, S.J.P. Pamela, M. B´ ecoulet, E. Nardon, F.J. Artola, B. Nkonga, C.V. Atanasiu, V. Bandaru, A. Bhole, D. Bonfiglio, A. Cathey, O. Czarny, A. Dvornova, T. Feh´ er, A. Fil, E. Franck, S. Futatani, M. Gruca, H. Guillard, J.W. Haverkort, I. Holod, D. Hu, S.K. Kim, S.Q. Korving, L. Kos, I. Krebs, L. Kripner, G. Latu, F. Liu, P. Mer...

  12. [12]

    Linear mhd stability studies with the starwall code.arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.04911, 2015

    P Merkel and E Strumberger. Linear mhd stability studies with the starwall code.arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.04911, 2015

    work page arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    Coupling jorek and starwall codes for non-linear resistive-wall sim- ulations

    M H¨ olzl, P Merkel, GTA Huysmans, E Nardon, E Strumberger, R McAdams, I Chapman, S G¨ unter, and K Lackner. Coupling jorek and starwall codes for non-linear resistive-wall sim- ulations. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 401, page 012010. IOP Publishing, 2012

    2012

  14. [14]

    Ax- isymmetric simulations of vertical displacement events in tokamaks: A benchmark of m3d-c1, nimrod, and jorek.Physics of Plasmas, 27(2):022505, 2020

    I Krebs, FJ Artola, CR Sovinec, SC Jardin, KJ Bunkers, M Hoelzl, and NM Ferraro. Ax- isymmetric simulations of vertical displacement events in tokamaks: A benchmark of m3d-c1, nimrod, and jorek.Physics of Plasmas, 27(2):022505, 2020

    2020

  15. [15]

    F J Artola, A Loarte, E Matveeva, J Havlicek, T Markovic, J Adamek, J Cavalier, L Kripner, G T A Huijsmans, M Lehnen, M Hoelzl, R Panek, the COMPASS team, and the JOREK team. Simulations of COMPASS vertical displacement events with a self-consistent model for halo currents including neutrals and sheath boundary conditions.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fus...

    2021

  16. [16]

    CRC Press, 2000

    Peter C Stangeby.The plasma boundary of magnetic fusion devices. CRC Press, 2000

    2000

  17. [17]

    Kos, R.A

    L. Kos, R.A. Pitts, G. Simiˇ c, M. Brank, H. Anand, and W. Arter. Smiter: A field-line tracing environment for iter.Fusion Engineering and Design, 146:1796–1800, 2019. SI:SOFT-30

    2019

  18. [18]

    Interaction of SPI pellets with plasma on JET and associated disruptions

    S N Gerasimov, L R Baylor, A Boboc, I S Carvalho, P Carvalho, I H Coffey, D Craven, J Flanagan, A Huber, V Huber, S Jachmich, I Jepu, E Joffrin, D Kos, S I Krasheninnikov, U Kruezi, M Lehnen, P J Lomas, A Manzanares, M Maslov, A Peacock, P Puglia, F G Rimini, G Sergienko, D Shiraki, S Silburn, R D Smirnov, C Stuart, H Sun, J Wilson, L E Zakharov, and JET ...

    2024

  19. [19]

    Plasma current asymmetries during disruptions in JET.Nuclear Fusion, 54(7):073009, 2014

    SN Gerasimov, TC Hender, J Morris, V Riccardo, LE Zakharov, and JET EFDA Contributors. Plasma current asymmetries during disruptions in JET.Nuclear Fusion, 54(7):073009, 2014

    2014

  20. [20]

    Matthews, P

    G.F. Matthews, P. Bunting, S. Devaux, P. Drewelow, C. Guillemaut, D.B. King, E. Lerche, S. Silburn, G. Szepesi, V. Riccardo, and V. Thompson. Energy balance in JET.Nuclear Materials and Energy, 12:227–233, 2017. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Plasma Surface Interactions 2016, 22nd PSI

    2017

  21. [21]

    Jepu, G.F

    I. Jepu, G.F. Matthews, A. Widdowson, M. Rubel, E. Fortuna-Zale´ sna, J. Zdunek, P. Petersson, V. Thompson, P. Dinca, C. Porosnicu, P. Coad, K. Heinola, N. Catarino, O.G. Pompilian, C. P. Lungu, and JET Contributors. Beryllium melting and erosion on the upper dump plates in JET during three ITER-like wall campaigns.Nuclear Fusion, 59(8):086009, jun 2019

    2019

  22. [22]

    Lehnen, G

    M. Lehnen, G. Arnoux, S. Brezinsek, J. Flanagan, S.N. Gerasimov, N. Hartmann, T.C. Hender, A. Huber, S. Jachmich, V. Kiptily, U. Kruezi, G.F. Matthews, J. Morris, V.V. Plyusnin, C. Reux, V. Riccardo, B. Sieglin, P.C. de Vries, and JET EFDA Contributors. Impact and mitigation of disruptions with the iter-like wall in jet.Nuclear Fusion, 53(9):093007, aug 2013

    2013

  23. [23]

    JET Joint Undertaking, 2000

    LC Ingesson et al.Comparison of methods to determine the total radiated power in JET. JET Joint Undertaking, 2000

    2000

  24. [24]

    Ratynskaia, E

    S. Ratynskaia, E. Thor´ en, P. Tolias, R. A. Pitts, K. Krieger, L. Vignitchouk, D. Igle- sias, the ASDEX-Upgrade team, the JET contributors, and the EUROfusion MST1 team. Resolidification-controlled melt dynamics under fast transient tokamak plasma loads.Nuclear Fusion, 60(10):104001, sep 2020

    2020

  25. [25]

    Frerichs, O

    H. Frerichs, O. Schmitz, X. Bonnin, A. Loarte, Y. Feng, L. Li, Y. Q. Liu, and D. Reiter. Detachment in fusion plasmas with symmetry breaking magnetic perturbation fields.Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:155001, Oct 2020

    2020

  26. [26]

    Paschalidis, F

    K. Paschalidis, F. Lucco Castello, S. Ratynskaia, P. Tolias, and L. Brandt. The MEMENTO code for modeling of macroscopic melt motion in fusion devices.Fusion Engineering and Design, 206:114603, 2024. 16

    2024