
Pedestal penalty factors for ELM-free regimes in DIII-D and extension to fusion pilot plant design
Andrew Oakleigh Nelson, Tomas Odstrcil, Tim Slendebroek, Zeyu Li, Nils Leuthold, Carl Friedrich Benedikt Zimmermann, John Anthony Labbate, Jamie Dunsmore, Jacob Schellpfeffer, Severin Sebastian Denk, et al.
Though the EPED model, which provides a first-principles-based predictive capability for the pedestal height and width in H-mode tokamak plasmas, has been validated extensively in type-I edge-localized mode (ELM) regimes, significant uncertainties remain in predicting the height of the pressure pedestal in fusion pilot plants that must deploy ELM mitigation or suppression techniques. In this work, we compare the EPED1 NN surrogate to measurements from a broad dataset on the DIII-D tokamak, spanning ELMy, Small-ELM, QH-mode, Wide-Pedestal QH-mode, RMP-suppressed, I-mode, EDA H-mode, QCE and ELM-free NT scenarios. Using a robust Bayesian profile-fitting framework, we find that the measured pedestal pressure is systematically reduced relative to the EPED prediction in nearly all regimes, with regime-median pedestal pressures ranging from ∼93% of the predicted value in H-mode like regimes to below 40% in scenarios in which the edge region is governed by other transport mechanisms. We show that this deficit – termed a “pedestal penalty” – is not a fixed per-regime offset and that some scenarios recover toward the EPED prediction at high normalized pressure (β N ) and low pedestal collisionality (ν * e,ped ). While a simple scaling for the pedestal penalty can help illustrate model uncertainties on the DIII-D database, it misses key scenario-specific physics and should not be taken as a substitute for the development of predictive pedestal models for ELM-free FPPs. Uncertainties in FPP performance associated with a reduction of the pedestal height relative to EPED are quantified using the FUSE code, which shows that the achievable fusion power on ITER may be reduced by a factor of two if the pedestal is limited to 60% of the EPED prediction, a value well within the uncertainties observed on DIII-D. Further implications for FPP design are discussed, including the need for regime-dependent pedestal models that do not rely on a degraded EPED variant.




