% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Siccinio:878549,
      author       = {Siccinio, M. and Biel, W. and Cavedon, M. and Fable, E. and
                      Federici, G. and Janky, F. and Lux, H. and Maviglia, F. and
                      Morris, J. and Palermo, F. and Sauter, O. and Subba, F. and
                      Zohm, H.},
      title        = {{DEMO} physics challenges beyond {ITER}},
      journal      = {Fusion engineering and design},
      volume       = {156},
      issn         = {0920-3796},
      address      = {New York, NY [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2020-02908},
      pages        = {111603 -},
      year         = {2020},
      abstract     = {For electricity producing tokamak fusion reactors like
                      EU-DEMO, it is prudent to choose a plasma scenario close to
                      the ITER baseline, where the largest amount of experimental
                      evidence is available. Nevertheless, there are some aspects
                      in which ITER and EU-DEMO have to differ, as the simple
                      exercise of up-scaling from ITER to a larger device is
                      constrained both by physical nonlinearities and by
                      technological limits. In this work, relevant differences
                      between ITER and the current EU-DEMO baseline in terms of
                      plasma scenario are discussed. Firstly, EU-DEMO is assumed
                      to operate with a very large amount of radiative power
                      originating both from the scrape-off layer and, markedly,
                      from the core. This radiation level is obtained by means of
                      seeded impurities, whose presence significantly affects many
                      aspects of the scenario itself, especially in terms of
                      transient control. Secondly, because of the need of breeding
                      tritium, the EU-DEMO wall is less robust than the ITER one.
                      This implies that every off-normal interruption of the
                      plasma discharge, for example in presence of a divertor
                      reattachment, cannot rely on fast-shutdown procedures
                      finally triggering a loss of plasma control at high current,
                      but other strategies need to be developed. Thirdly, the ITER
                      method for the control of the so-called sawteeth (ST) has
                      been shown to be too expensive in terms of auxiliary power
                      requirements, thus other solutions have to be explored.
                      Finally, the problem of actively mitigating, or suppressing,
                      the Edge Localised Modes (ELMs) has recently increased the
                      interest on naturally ELM-free regimes (like QH-mode,
                      I-mode, and also negative triangularity) for EU-DEMO, thus
                      increasing the needs for ELM mitigation or suppression with
                      respect to the approach adopted in ITER.},
      cin          = {IEK-4},
      ddc          = {530},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-4-20101013},
      pnm          = {174 - Plasma-Wall-Interaction (POF3-174)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-174},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000540064300001},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.fusengdes.2020.111603},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/878549},
}