Overview of the EUROfusion Tokamak Exploitation programme in support of ITER and DEMO

International Atomic Energy Agency Nuclear Fusion Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 (19pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad2be4 Overview of the EUROfusion Tokamak Exploitation programme in support of ITER and DEMO E. Joffrin1,∗, M. Wischmeier2, M. Baruzzo3, A. Hakola4, A. Kappatou2, D. Keeling5, B. Labit6, E. Tsitrone1, N. Vianello3, the ASDEX Upgrade Teama, JET Contributorsb, the MAST-U Teamc, the TCV Teamd, the WEST Teame, the EUROfusion Tokamak Exploitation Team: D. Abate7, J. Adamek9, M. Agostini7, C. Albert10, F.C.P. Albert Devasagayam11, S. Aleiferis5, E. Alessi12, J. Alhage13, S. Allan5, J. Allcock5, M. Alonzo3, G. Anastasiou14, E. Andersson Sunden15, C. Angioni2, Y. Anquetin16, L. Appel5, G.M. Apruzzese3, M. Ariola17, C. Arnas18, J.F. Artaud1, W. Arter5, O. Asztalos19, L. Aucone20, M.H. Aumeunier1, F. Auriemma7, J. Ayllon41, E. Aymerich21, A. Baciero22, F. Bagnato6, L. Bähner23, F. Bairaktaris14, P. Balázs19, L. Balbinot7, I. Balboa5, M. Balden2, A. Balestri6, M. Baquero Ruiz6, T. Barberis24, C. Barcellona25, O. Bardsley5, M. Baruzzo3, S. Benkadda16, T. Bensadon48, E. Bernard1, M. Bernert2, H. Betar26, R. Bianchetti Morales5, J. Bielecki27, R. Bilato2, P. Bilkova9, W. Bin12, G. Birkenmeier2, R. Bisson18, P. Blanchard6, A. Bleasdale5, V. Bobkov2, A. Boboc5, A. Bock2, K. Bogar9, P. Bohm9, T. Bolzonella7, F. Bombarda3, N. Bonanomi2, L. Boncagni3, D. Bonfiglio7, R. Bonifetto24, M. Bonotto7, D. Borodin28, I. Borodkina9, T.O.S.J. Bosman29, C. Bourdelle1, C. Bowman5, S. Brezinsek28,76, D. Brida2, F. Brochard30, R. Brunet1, D. Brunetti5, V. Bruno1, R. Buchholz10, J. Buermans31, H. Bufferand1, P. Buratti3, A. Burckhart2, J. Cai28, R. Calado32, J. Caloud9, S. Cancelli20, F. Cani33, B. Cannas21, M. Cappelli3, S. Carcangiu21, A. Cardinali3, S. Carli34, D. Carnevale35, M. Carole16, M. Carpita6, D. Carralero22, F. Caruggi20, I.S. Carvalho5,36, I. Casiraghi12, A. Casolari9, F.J. Casson5, C. Castaldo3, A. Cathey2, F. Causa12, J. Cavalier9, M. Cavedon20, J. Cazabonne6, M. Cecconello15, L. Ceelen29, A. Celora20, J. Cerovsky9, C.D. Challis5, R. Chandra11, A. Chankin2, B. Chapman5, H. Chen41, M. Chernyshova37, A.G. Chiariello17, P. Chmielewski37, A. Chomiczewska37, C. Cianfarani3, G. Ciraolo1, J. Citrin29, F. Clairet1, S. Coda6, R. Coelho32, J.W. Coenen28, I.H. Coffey38, C. Colandrea6, L. Colas1, S. Conroy15, C. Contre6, N.J. Conway5, L. Cordaro7, Y. Corre1, D. Costa32, S. Costea39, D. Coster2, X. Courtois1, C. Cowley40, T. Craciunescu42, G. Croci20, A.M. Croitoru42, K. Crombe31, D.J. Cruz Zabala41, G. Cseh19, T. Czarski37, A. Da Ros1, A. Dal Molin20, M. Dalla Rosa20, Y. Damizia5, O. D’Arcangelo3, P. David2, M. De Angeli12, E. De la Cal22, E. De La Luna22, G. De Tommasi17, J. Decker6, R. Dejarnac9, D. Del Sarto26, G. Derks29, C. Desgranges1, P. Devynck1, S. Di Genova43, L.E. di Grazia17, A. Di Siena2, M. Dicorato16, M. Diez1, M. Dimitrova9, T. Dittmar28, L. Dittrich23, J.J. Domínguez Palacios Durán41, P. Donnel1, D. Douai1, S. Dowson5, S. Doyle41, M. Dreval44, P. Drews28, L. Dubus1, R. Dumont1, aSee Zohm et al 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad249d) for the ASDEX Upgrade Team. bSee Mailloux et al 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac47b4) for JET Contributors. cSee author list of J. Harrison and the MAST-U Team, submitted to Nucl. Fusion 2024. dSee Reimerdes et al 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac369b) for the TCV Team. eSee author list of J. Bucalossi and the WEST Team, submitted to Nucl. Fusion 2024. ∗Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed. Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. 1741-4326/24/112019+19$33.00 Printed in the UK 1 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd on behalf of the IAEA Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al D. Dunai19, M. Dunne2, A. Durif1, F. Durodie31, G. Durr Legoupil Nicoud6, B. Duval6, R. Dux2, T. Eich2, A. Ekedahl1, S. Elmore5, G. Ericsson15, J. Eriksson15, B. Eriksson15, F. Eriksson5, S. Ertmer28, A. Escarguel18, B. Esposito3, T. Estrada22, E. Fable2, M. Faitsch2, N. Fakhrayi Mofrad11, A. Fanni21, T. Farley5, M. Farník9, N. Fedorczak1, F. Felici6, X. Feng45, J. Ferreira32, D. Ferreira32, N. Ferron7, O. Fevrier6, O. Ficker9, A.R. Field5, A. Figueiredo32, N. Fil5, D. Fiorucci3, M. Firdaouss1, R. Fischer2, M. Fitzgerald5, M. Flebbe28, M. Fontana5, J. Fontdecaba Climent22, A. Frank6, E. Fransson46, L. Frassinetti23, D. Frigione35, S. Futatani48, R. Futtersack5, S. Gabriellini47, D. Gadariya22, D. Galassi6, K. Galazka37, J. Galdon41, S. Galeani35, D. Gallart48, A. Gallo1, C. Galperti6, M. Gambrioli7, S. Garavaglia12, J. Garcia1, M. Garcia Munoz41, J. Gardarein16, L. Garzotti5, J. Gaspar49, R. Gatto47, P. Gaudio35, M. Gelfusa35, J. Gerardin1, S.N. Gerasimov5, R. Gerru Miguelanez50, G. Gervasini12, Z. Ghani5, F.M. Ghezzi12, G. Ghillardi3, L. Giannone2, S. Gibson5, L. Gil32, A. Gillgren46, E. Giovannozzi3, C. Giroud5, G. Giruzzi1, T. Gleiter2, M. Gobbin7, V. Goloborodko51, A. González Ganzábal22, T. Goodman6, V. Gopakumar5, G. Gorini20, T. Görler2, S. Gorno6, G. Granucci12, D. Greenhouse40, G. Grenfell2, M. Griener2, W. Gromelski37, M. Groth11, O. Grover2,9, M. Gruca37, A. Gude2, C. Guillemaut1, R. Guirlet1, J. Gunn1, T. Gyergyek39, L. Hagg15, A. Hakola4, J. Hall13, C.J. Ham5, M. Hamed29, T. Happel2, G. Harrer52, J. Harrison5, D. Harting28, N.C. Hawkes5, P. Heinrich2, S. Henderson5, P. Hennequin53, R. Henriques5, S. Heuraux30, J. Hidalgo Salaverri41, J. Hillairet1, J.C. Hillesheim5, A. Hjalmarsson15, A. Ho29, J. Hobirk2, E. Hodille1, M. Hölzl2, M. Hoppe6,23, J. Horacek9, N. Horsten34, L. Horvath5, M. Houry1, K. Hromasova9, J. Huang28, Z. Huang5, A. Huber28, E. Huett6, P. Huynh1, A. Iantchenko6, M. Imrisek9, P. Innocente7, C. Ionita Schrittwieser54, H. Isliker58, P. Ivanova55, I. Ivanova Stanik37, M. Jablczynska37, S. Jachmich36, A.S. Jacobsen50, P. Jacquet5, A. Jansen van Vuuren6,41, A. Jardin56, H. Järleblad50, A. Järvinen4, F. Jaulmes9, T. Jensen50, I. Jepu5,42, S. Jessica57, E. Joffrin1, T. Johnson23, A. Juven1, J. Kalis2, A. Kappatou2, J. Karhunen4, R. Karimov6, A.N. Karpushov6, S. Kasilov10, Y. Kazakov31, P.V. Kazantzidis14, D. Keeling5, W. Kernbichler10, HT. Kim5, D.B. King5, V.G. Kiptily5, A. Kirjasuo4, K.K. Kirov5, A. Kirschner28, A. Kit59, T. Kiviniemi11, F. Kjær50, E. Klinkby50, A. Knieps28, U. Knoche28, M. Kochan36, F. Köchl5, G. Kocsis5, J.T.W. Koenders29, L. Kogan5, Y. Kolesnichenko51, Y. Kominis14, M. Komm9, M. Kong6, B. Kool29, S.B. Korsholm50, D. Kos5, M. Koubiti16, J. Kovacic39, Y. Kovtun44, E. Kowalska Strzeciwilk37, K. Koziol60, M. Kozulia44, A. Krämer Flecken28, A. Kreter28, K. Krieger2, U. Kruezi36, O. Krutkin6, O. Kudlacek2, U. Kumar6, H. Kumpulainen11, M.H. Kushoro20, R. Kwiatkowski60, M. La Matina7, B. Labit6, M. Lacquaniti21, L. Laguardia12, P. Lainer10, P. Lang2, M. Larsen50, E. Laszynska37, K.D. Lawson5, A. Lazaros14, E. Lazzaro12, M.Y.K. Lee6, S. Leerink11, M. Lehnen36, M. Lennholm5, E. Lerche31, Y. Liang28, A. Lier2, J. Likonen4, O. Linder2, B. Lipschultz40, A. Listopad6, X. Litaudon1, E. Litherland Smith5, D. Liuzza3, T. Loarer1, P.J. Lomas5, J. Lombardo7, N. Lonigro40, R. Lorenzini7, C. Lowry5, T. Luda di Cortemiglia2, A. Ludvig Osipov46, T. Lunt2, V. Lutsenko51, E. Macusova9, R. Mäenpää11, P. Maget1, C.F. Maggi5, J. Mailloux5, S. Makarov2, K. Malinowski37, P. Manas1, A. Mancini41, D. Mancini6,33, P. Mantica33, M. Mantsinen61, J. Manyer48, M. Maraschek2, G. Marceca6, G. Marcer12, C. Marchetto62, S. Marchioni6, A. Mariani12, M. Marin6, M. Markl10, T. Markovic9, D. Marocco3, S. Marsden5, L. Martellucci35, P. Martin7, C. Martin18, F. Martinelli35, L. Martinelli6, J.R. Martin Solis63, R. Martone17, M. Maslov5, R. Masocco35, M. Mattei17, G.F. Matthews5, D. Matveev28, E. Matveeva9, M.L. Mayoral5, D. Mazon1, S. Mazzi6,16, C. Mazzotta3, G. McArdle5, R. McDermott2, K. McKay41, A.G. Meigs5, C. Meineri24, A. Mele33, V. Menkovski64, S. Menmuir5, A. Merle6, H. Meyer5, K. Mikszuta Michalik37, D. Milanesio24, F. Militello5, A. Milocco20, I.G. Miron42, J. Mitchell5, R. Mitteau1, V. Mitterauer2, J. Mlynar9, V. Moiseenko44, P. Molna6, F. Mombelli65, C. Monti3, A. Montisci21, J. Morales1, P. Moreau1, J.M. Moret6, A. Moro12, D. Moulton5, 2 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al P. Mulholland64, M. Muraglia16, A. Murari7, A. Muraro12, P. Muscente7, D. Mykytchuk6, F. Nabais32, Y. Nakeva33, F. Napoli3, E. Nardon1, M.F. Nave32, R.D. Nem50, A. Nielsen50, S.K. Nielsen50, M. Nocente20, R. Nouailletas1, S. Nowak12, H. Nyström23, R. Ochoukov2, N. Offeddu6, S. Olasz19, C. Olde5, F. Oliva35, D. Oliveira6, H.J.C. Oliver5, P. Ollus11, J. Ongena31, F.P. Orsitto3, N. Osborne5, R. Otin5, P. Oyola Dominguez41, D.I. Palade42, S. Palomba35, O. Pan2, N. Panadero22, E. Panontin20, A. Papadopoulos14, P. Papagiannis14, G. Papp2, V.V. Parail5, C. Pardanaud16, J. Parisi66, A. Parrott5, K. Paschalidis67, M. Passoni65, F. Pastore6, A. Patel5, B. Patel5, A. Pau6, G. Pautasso2, R. Pavlichenko44, E. Pawelec60, B. Pegourie1, G. Pelka37, E. Peluso35, A. Perek6,29, E. Perelli Cippo12, C. Perez Von Thun37, P. Petersson23, G. Petravich19, Y. Peysson1, V. Piergotti3, L. Pigatto7, C. Piron3, L. Piron7, A. Pironti17, F. Pisano21, U. Plank2, B. Ploeckl2, V. Plyusnin32, A. Podolnik9, Y. Poels6,64, G. Pokol19, J. Poley6, G. Por19, M. Poradzinski5, F. Porcelli24, L. Porte6, C. Possieri35, A. Poulsen50, I. Predebon7, G. Pucella3, M. Pueschel29, P. Puglia6, O. Putignano20, T. Pütterich2, V. Quadri1, A. Quercia17, M. Rabinski60, L. Radovanovic52, R. Ragona50, H. Raj6, M. Rasinski28, J. Rasmussen50, G. Ratta22, S. Ratynskaia67, R. Rayaprolu28, M. Rebai12, A. Redl33, D. Rees11, D. Refy19, M. Reich2, H. Reimerdes6, B.C.G. Reman50, O. Renders34, C. Reux1, D. Ricci12, M. Richou1, S. Rienacker53, D. Rigamonti12, F. Rigollet68, F.G. Rimini5,69, D. Ripamonti12, N. Rispoli12, N. Rivals1, J.F. Rivero Rodriguez41, C. Roach5, G. Rocchi3, S. Rode28,76, P. Rodrigues32, J. Romazanov28, C.F. Romero Madrid41, J. Rosato16, R. Rossi35, G. Rubino3, J. Rueda Rueda41, J. Ruiz Ruiz66, P. Ryan5, D. Ryan5, S. Saarelma5, R. Sabot1, M. Salewski50, A. Salmi4, L. Sanchis11, A. Sand11, J. Santos32, K. Särkimäki2, M. Sassano35, O. Sauter6, G. Schettini70, S. Schmuck12, P. Schneider2, N. Schoonheere1, R. Schramm2, R. Schrittwieser54, C. Schuster2, N. Schwarz2, F. Sciortino2, M. Scotto D ′ Abusco1, S. Scully5, A. Selce12, L. Senni3, M. Senstius50, G. Sergienko28, S.E. Sharapov5, R. Sharma5, A. Shaw5, U. Sheikh6, G. Sias21, B. Sieglin2, S.A. Silburn5, C. Silva32, A. Silva32, D. Silvagni2, B. Simmendefeldt Schmidt50, L. Simons6, J. Simpson5, L. Singh24, S. Sipilä11, Y. Siusko44, S. Smith5, A. Snicker4, E.R. Solano22, V. Solokha11, M. Sos9, C. Sozzi12, F. Spineanu42, G. Spizzo7, M. Spolaore7, L. Spolladore35, C. Srinivasan5, A. Stagni7, Z. Stancar5, G. Stankunas71, J. Stober2, P. Strand46, C.I. Stuart5, F. Subba24, G.Y. Sun6, H.J. Sun5, W. Suttrop2, J. Svoboda9, T. Szepesi19, G. Szepesi5, B. Tal2, T. Tala4, P. Tamain1, G. Tardini2, M. Tardocchi12, D. Taylor5, G. Telesca37, A. Tenaglia35, A. Terra28, D. Terranova7, D. Testa6, C. Theiler6, E. Tholerus5, B. Thomas5, E. Thoren67, A. Thornton5, A. Thrysoe50, Q. TICHIT1, W. Tierens2, A. Titarenko72, P. Tolias67, E. Tomasina7, M. Tomes9, E. Tonello6,65, A. Tookey5, M. Toscano Jiménez41, C. Tsironis14, E. Tsitrone1, E. Tsitrone1, C. Tsui6,73, A. Tykhyy51, M. Ugoletti7, M. Usoltseva2, D.F. Valcarcel5, A. Valentini50, M. Valisa7, M. Vallar6, M. Valovic5, SI. Valvis14, M. van Berkel29, D. Van Eester31, S. Van Mulders6, M. van Rossem6, R. Vann40, B. Vanovac74, J. Varela Rodriguez63, J. Varje11, S. Vartanian1, M. Vecsei19, L. Velarde Gallardo41, M. Veranda7, T. Verdier50, G. Verdoolaege13, K. Verhaegh5, L. Vermare53, G. Verona Rinati35, N. Vianello7,8, J. Vicente32, E. Viezzer41, L. Vignitchouk67, F. Villone17, B. Vincent6, P. Vincenzi7, M.O. Vlad42, G. Vogel2, I. Voitsekhovitch5, I. Voldiner22, P. Vondracek9, N.M.T. VU6, T. Vuoriheimo59, C. Wade45, E. Wang28, T. Wauters36, M. Weiland2, H. Weisen6,72, N. Wendler37, D. Weston5, A. Widdowson5, S. Wiesen28, M. Wiesenberger50, T. Wijkamp64, M. Willensdorfer2, T. Wilson5, M. Wischmeier2, A. Wojenski75, C. Wuethrich6, I. Wyss35, L. Xiang5, S. Xu28, D. Yadykin46, Y. Yakovenko51, H. Yang1, V. Yanovskiy9, R. Yi28, B. Zaar23, G. Zadvitskiy9, L. Zakharov59, P. Zanca7, D. Zarzoso16, Y. Zayachuk5, J. Zebrowski60, M. Zerbini3, P. Zestanakis14, C. F. B. Zimmermann2, M. Zlobinski28, A. Zohar39, V.K. Zotta47, X. Zou1, M. Zuin7, M. Zurita6, I. Zychor60 3 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al 1IRFM-CEA Centre de Cadarache, 13108 Sant-Paul-lez-Durance, France 2Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Boltzmannstrasse 2, 85748 Garching bei München, Germany 3Dip.to Fusione e Tecnologie per la Sicurezza Nucleare, ENEA C. R. Frascati, via E. Fermi 45, 00044 Frascati (Roma), Italy 4VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, PO Box 1000, FIN-02044 VTT, Espoo Finland 5United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 3DB, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 6´ Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Swiss Plasma Center (SPC), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland 7Consorzio RFX (CNR, ENEA, INFN, University of Padova, Acciaierie Venete SpA), C.so Stati Uniti 4, 35127 Padova, Italy 8Istituto per la Scienza e la Tecnologia dei Plasmi, CNR, Padova, Italy 9Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, Za Slovankou 1782/3, 182 00 Praha 8, Praha as indicated Czech Republic 10 Graz University of Technology, Petersgasse 16, 8010 Graz, Austria 11 Aalto University, PO Box 14100, FIN-00076 Aalto, Finland 12 Institute for Plasma Science and Technology, CNR, via R. Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy 13 Department of Applied Physics, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium 14 National Technical University of Athens, Iroon Politechniou 9, 157 73 Zografou, Athens, Greece 15 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden 16 Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, PIIM, UMR 7345, 13013 Marseille, France 17 Consorzio CREATE, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy 18 Aix Marseille University, CNRS, PIIM, F-13397 Marseille CEDEX 20, France 19 Centre for Energy Research, POB 49, H-1525 Budapest, Hungary 20 University of Milano-Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 3, 20126 Milano, Italy 21 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Cagliari, Italy 22 Laboratorio Nacional de Fusión, CIEMAT, Cagliari 28040 Madrid, Spain 23 Electromagnetic Engineering and Fusion Science, EECS, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm as indicated. SE-10044 Stockholm, Sweden 24 Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24, 10129 Torino, Italy 25 Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica Elettronica e Informatica, Universit` a degli Studi di Catania, 95125 Catania, Italy 26 Institut Jean Lamour, UMR 7198, CNRS-Université de Lorraine, 54500 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France 27 Institute of Nuclear Physics, Radzikowskiego 152, 31-342 Kraków, Poland 28 Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Institut für Energie- und Klimaforschung, Plasmaphysik, 52425 Jülich, Germany 29 DIFFER-Dutch Institute for Fundamental Energy Research, Eindhoven, Netherlands 30 Institut Jean Lamour, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France 31 Laboratory for Plasma Physics LPP-ERM/KMS, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium 32 Instituto de Plasmas e Fus˜ ao Nuclear, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal 33 DEIM Department, Universitá degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy 34 Department of Mechanical Engineering, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium 35 Universit` a di Roma Tor Vergata, Via del Politecnico 1, Roma, Italy 36 ITER Organization, Route de Vinon-sur-Verdon, CS 90 046, 13067 Saint Paul Lez Durance Cedex, France 37 Institute of Plasma Physics and Laser Microfusion, Hery 23, 01-497 Warsaw, Poland 38 Astrophysics Research Centre, School of Mathematics and Physics, Queen’s University, Belfast BT7 1NN, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 39 Joˇ zef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia–University of Ljubljana, Lyubljana, Slovenia 40 York Plasma Institute, Department of Physics, University of York, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 41 Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain 42 The National Institute for Laser, Plasma and Radiation Physics, Magurele-Bucharest, Romania 43 Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, M2P2, Marseille, France 44 National Science Center Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Akademichna 1, Kharkiv 61108, Ukraine 45 Department of Physics, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 4 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al 46 Department of Space, Earth and Environment, SEE, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden 47 Dipartimento di Ingegneria Astronautica, Elettrica ed Energetica, SAPIENZA Universit` a di Roma, Via Eudossiana 18, 00184 Roma, Italy 48 Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Barcelona, Spain 49 Aix-Marseille University, CNRS, IUSTI, UMR 7343, 13013 Marseille, France 50 Department of Physics, Technical University of Denmark, Bldg 309, DK-2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark 51 Institute for Nuclear Research, Prospekt Nauky 47, Kyiv 03680, Ukraine 52 Technische Universität Wien, Wiedner Hauptstr. 8-10/134, A-1040 Wien, Austria 53 Laboratoire de Physique des Plasmas, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France 54 Institute of Ion Physics and Applied Physics, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck Austria 55 Institute of Electronics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (BAS), 72 Tsarigradsko Chaussee, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria 56 Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN), Krakow, Poland 57 Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 58 Section of Astrophysics, Astronomy and Mechanics, Physics Department, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki GR 541 24, Greece 59 University of Helsinki, PO Box 43, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Helsinki Finland 60 National Centre for Nuclear Research (NCBJ), 05-400 Otwock-´ Swierk, Poland 61 ICREA and Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Barcelona, Spain 62 Istituto dei Sistemi Complessi—CNR and Dipartimento di Energia—Politecnico di Torino, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy 63 Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain 64 Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands 65 Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy 66 Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 67 Space and Plasma Physics, EECS, KTH, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden 68 Aix Marseille University, CNRS, IUSTI UMR 7343, F-13013 Marseille, France 69 EUROfusion Programme Management Unit, Boltzmannstr. 2, 85748 Garching, Germany 70 University Roma Tre, via Vito Volterra N◦62, CAP 00146 Rome, Italy 71 Lithuanian Energy Institute, Laboratory of Nuclear Installation Safety, Breslaujos Str. 3, LT-44403 Kaunas, Lithuania 72 V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine 73 Center for Energy Research (CER), University of California-San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, CA, United States of America 74 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Plasma Science and Fusion Center, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of America 75 Warsaw University of Technology, Nowowiejska 15/19, 00-665 Warsaw, Poland 76 Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany E-mail: Emmanuel.jof[email protected] Received 16 December 2023, revised 30 January 2024 Accepted for publication 21 February 2024 Published 30 August 2024 Abstract Within the 9th European Framework programme, since 2021 EUROfusion is operating five tokamaks under the auspices of a single Task Force called ‘Tokamak Exploitation’. The goal is to benefit from the complementary capabilities of each machine in a coordinated way and help in developing a scientific output scalable to future largre machines. The programme of this Task Force ensures that ASDEX Upgrade, MAST-U, TCV, WEST and JET (since 2022) work together to achieve the objectives of Missions 1 and 2 of the EUROfusion Roadmap: i) demonstrate plasma scenarios that increase the success margin of ITER and satisfy the requirements of DEMO and, ii) demonstrate an integrated approach that can handle the large power leaving ITER and DEMO plasmas. The Tokamak Exploitation task force has therefore organized experiments on these two missions with the goal to strengthen the physics and operational basis for the ITER baseline scenario and for exploiting the recent plasma exhaust 5 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al enhancements in all four devices (PEX: Plasma EXhaust) for exploring the solution for handling heat and particle exhaust in ITER and develop the conceptual solutions for DEMO. The ITER Baseline scenario has been developed in a similar way in ASDEX Upgrade, TCV and JET. Key risks for ITER such as disruptions and run-aways have been also investigated in TCV, ASDEX Upgrade and JET. Experiments have explored successfully different divertor configurations (standard, super-X, snowflakes) in MAST-U and TCV and studied tungsten melting in WEST and ASDEX Upgrade. The input from the smaller devices to JET has also been proven successful to set-up novel control schemes on disruption avoidance and detachment. Keywords: JET, ASDEX Upgrade, MAST-U, TCV, WEST, Tokamak Exploitation Task Force, EUROfusion (Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal) 1. Introduction The overarching priorities of this EUROfusion tokamak programme are to: (i) prepare ITER exploitation, (ii) guide the DEMO design, and (iii) exploit the recent machine enhancements, in particular those related to plasma exhaust (PEX: Plasma EXhaust). In the new European framework programme (2021–2025), EUROfusion has therefore gathered the experimental tokamak activities under a single structure called Tokamak Exploitation (TE). This Task Force is developing the scientific EUROfusion programme along the European Roadmap using five devices: ASDEX Upgrade (AUG) [1], JET [2], MAST-U [3], TCV [4], and WEST [5]. Taking advantage of the complementary capabilities of each machines, the TE Task Force has developed a unified scientific programme along these three directions in close collaboration with devices domestic programme. In 2021 and 2022, particular emphasize was given to the physics basis of the ITER baseline scenario and strengthening the items for the ITER non-nuclear plasma phases, to the exploration with small or no-ELM (edge localized modes) scenario for DEMO and the investigation of alternative divertor geometries to exploit the new enhancements on AUG [1], MAST-U [3], TCV [4] and WEST [5]. The TE scientific programme has developed strong ties between devices on the operational and physics basis of the ITER baseline scenario. In particular, this has been the case for consolidating the operation of the ITER baseline scenario, the development of disruption avoidance and run-away mitigation as well as plasma breakdown, error field studies and plasma conditioning. Protecting plasma facing components (PFCs) in a fusion reactor requires keeping both steady state and transient heat loads to acceptable limits (typically less than 10 MW/m2and <0.5 MJ/m2within 0.5 ms for any ELMs [6]) together with ensuring sufficient component lifetimes. In the 2021 and 2022 experimental TE programme, emphasis was therefore given to (i) the investigation of alternative divertor geometries, (ii) the assessment of the ITER relevant tungsten PFCs, (iii) the physics and active control of plasma detachment and (iv) the mitigation of transients (ELMs & disruptions). Taking advantage of the complementary capabilities of each machine, the TE Task Force has developed a unified scientific programme in close collaboration with each device. This paper is organized along the nine ‘research topics’ that the TE Task Force has set-up, each addressing a set of specific scientific objectives and using the capabilities of the EU available devices to achieve them: -Core-Edge-SOL (scrape-off layer) integrated H-mode scenario compatible with exhaust constraints in support of ITER. This objective aims at consolidating the operation of the baseline scenario for ITER [7] at low core and pedestal collisionality, and then, develop its compatibility with divertor detachment at high current. -Physics understanding of alternatives to Type-I ELM regime. Extending the parameters space of no- or small ELM scenarios to large Psep/R and/or pedestal top collisionalities is essential preserving the wall integrity in for ITER and DEMO [8]. In addition, the exploration of negative triangularity (NT) is included here since it may lead to the operation of edge-localized mode-free L-mode regime with a larger strike-point radius thus ameliorating divertor power-handling requirements. -Strategies for disruption and run-away mitigation. Disruption and run-away electrons are considered as the first risk for the safe operation of ITER and a fusion power plant [9]. This topic has therefore been given a high priority in the TE programme using SPI (Shattered Pellet Injection) as the mitigation technique with the participation of ITER organization in JET and AUG experiments. -Physics-based machine generic systems for an integrated control of plasma discharge. Developing and testing disruption avoidance and detachment control are two priorities for the future operation of ITER. In addition, this section has also addressed important strategies in support of the ITER scenarios such as the optimization of plasma breakdown, exit and entry to the H-mode and the characterization of error fields. -Physics of divertor detachment and its control for ITER and DEMO operation. The understanding of detachment access is mandatory if detachment control is to be introduced in larger devices like ITER or DEMO [10] as well as finding the optimal extrinsic impurity mix and its extrapolation at higher edge pedestal temperature. This topic is also addressing the physics understanding of edge-SOL particle and heat transport in detached conditions. 6 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al -Preparation of efficient PFCs operation for ITER and DEMO. High particle and power loads on the ITER divertor require testing actively ITER-grade cooled components up to the maximum particle fluence [11]. This research topic also addresses fuel retention and removal (with relevant conditioning methods) and the quantification of material erosion from metallic wall under plasma conditions relevant for ITER. - Physics understanding of alternative divertor configurations as risk mitigation for DEMO. Alternative divertor configurations have recently emerged in response to the DEMO divertor target requirements. This topic exploits in particular the new PEX upgrade in MAST-U and TCV and quantifies the ELM heat loads and detachment conditions in those configurations. PEX upgrades on AUG will be available by the end of 2024. -Physics and operational basis for high beta long pulse scenarios. A viable solution for a stable steady state scenario at high βremains an important objective for the TE Task Force in view of JT-60SA and DEMO. This part aims also at defining the required control schemes and, in the more long term, the compatibility of long high βpulses with the wall constraints [12]. -Physics understanding of energetics particles confinement and their interplay with thermal plasma. This research topic focusses on understanding and quantifying the stabilization of ion core turbulence by energetic particles and fast ion losses by MHD instabilities with the ultimate goal improving the prediction of burning plasmas performance. The results below are summarizing the main results of the task force since 2021. They demonstrate the importance of combining the input of several devices to achieve the scientific objectives of each research topic. 2. Core-Edge-SOL integrated H-mode scenario compatible with exhaust constraints in support of ITER 2.1. Strengthening the physics basis of the ITER baseline scenario The ITER baseline scenario (IBL) has been jointly investigated on AUG [13,14] and TCV [15,16]. The recent developments in TCV were made possible with the installation of an NBI heating source, allowing ELMy H-modes at ITER relevant βN. The IBL scenario is mainly characterized by low q95 (3.0–3.6), high positive triangularity (PT) (δ > 0.35) and relatively high elongation (K>1.65) and normalized beta (βN>1.5). In AUG, these combinations lead to very steep and narrow edge transport barriers, when good confinement is obtained, with high pedestal pressure and therefore large type-I ELM crashes. A similar behaviour is also observed on TCV where discharges with similar confinement properties (H98 ∼1) and normalized beta (βN∼1.8), as those expected for the ITER baseline scenario, have been obtained. TCV IBL performance is mainly limited by (neoclassical) tearing modes, in particular 2/1 modes. They can be avoided with Figure 1. ITER Baseline plasma shapes developed at TCV (orange) to AUG (green), JET (red) and ITER (blue). The aspect ratio is kept constant. Reproduced from [16]. © The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd. CC BY 4.0. central X3 EC heating at relatively high q95 and moderate βN. However, the lack of significant ECH at the high central densities obtained in the TCV IBL scenario limits the duration of low q95 cases to about six confinement times. During this time, the current density can fully evolve and the density usually keeps peaking until (neoclassical) tearing modes are triggered (N)TM. Integrated modelling results show that ion temperature gradient (ITG) modes are the dominant instabilities in both AUG and TCV IBLs and that, in TCV, NBI fuelling also plays a role to sustain the mainly turbulent-driven significant peaked density profiles. In TCV, type-I ELMs are also challenging for achieving a stable ramp-up in TCV, as the large ELMs challenge vertical stability and frequently trigger NTMs. It is shown in TCV that the issue is alleviated, when entering into H-mode at reduced top triangularity, as the ELMs are more frequent under these conditions. The triangularity is then subsequently increased during the H-mode phase. This strategy helps avoiding large early ELMs entering H-mode and can be applied in ITER. Entering H-mode at higher q95 is also efficient to avoid the NTMs seeded by ELM crashes. Using this strategy, IBL shapes investigated at AUG (and at JET in past experiments), but also the foreseen ITER shape have been reproduced at TCV (figure 1). Similar to the shaping technique, Ip can then be increased once in H-mode, which is also a strategy applicable in ITER. Like in TCV, recent studies at AUG have shown that the stability of the plasma is strongly improved when entering a small ELM regime at low heating powers and 7 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al large D2 fuelling gas puff. Safe termination has been demonstrated at q95 ∼3 on AUG and q95 ∼4 at TCV [16] utilizing predictive optimization using the RAPTOR code. The main ingredients for a safe and yet rapid termination are a decrease of plasma current together with a decrease of elongation, while controlling the heat sources during the whole termination to control the power balance as also done in JET [17]. The goal being to trigger an H-L transition at about 1/3 of the rampdown, the elongation should not decrease too fast, to avoid too low q95 values and the H-L transition should not occur too late to avoid a too large Greenwald fraction. These key ingredients allow a control of the time evolution of the internal inductance, elongation and power balance. These studies have also been used to develop the real-time termination algorithm used in JET baseline scenarios. In summary, the ITER baseline scenario has been developed in AUG and TCV with good performance using the same plasma shape than JET and in the future ITER. The stability domain at function of q95 and βhas been identified and the H-mode exit strategy optimized using RAPTOR simulations. 2.2. Towards the development of radiative scenario at low collisionality Based on these results, partial detachment requirements for the ITER baseline scenario have then been tested in TCV using nitrogen seeding but resulted in larger ELMs [16]. In ASDEX Upgrade, the parameter space of the ITER baseline H- mode with reduced ELMs has also been explored via impurity seeding of Ar and Kr with varying heating power. In particular, this helped to achieve the regime with larger heating powers. In both devices, more experiments are needed to develop the radiative scenario [14]. In JET, an integrated, Ne-seeded H-mode at 2.7 T/2.5 MA was first demonstrated in previous campaigns at high power [18]. This scenario is using an ITER-like shape as shown on figure 1(similar to the TCV and AUG shapes) with an upper triangularity of ∼0.35 and the strike points on the vertical divertor target. Note that this JET scenario is different from the baseline scenario developed for the DTE2 campaign (upper triangularity of 0.2 and strike points in the divertor corner) to maximize the fusion power [19] without impurity seeding. The JET Ne-seeded scenario could be achieved in stationary conditions for 5 s with about 30 MW of input power, H98(y,2) =0.9, βN=2.2, and a radiative fraction of 86% with very small ELMs (less than 0.3% variation in stored energy), strongly reduced divertor temperature and partial detachment. It was shown recently that the level of confinement in Neseeded discharges was likely achieved thanks to the higher pedestal temperature and increased angular rotation [20]. This scenario was then adapted and run for the first time in a 50–50 D-T mixture in JET with the ITER-like wall at 2.5 MA during DTE2 campaign [18]. Building on this previous successful JET neon seeded radiative scenario and on the results in AUG and TCV presented above, the more recent programme of the TE task force is extending the operational space at higher plasma current (up to 3.2 MA/3.45 T) towards lower core and pedestal collisionality with partial detachment and documented both N2- and Ne-seeded scenarios for comparison with modelling in view of the extrapolation to ITER [21]. 3. Physics understanding of alternatives to Type-I ELM regime In reactor scenarios, strict conditions will be imposed on transient heat loads resulting from ELMs that are a common feature of the ITER baseline scenario. The quasi-continuous exhaust (QCE) scenario developed on AUG and then exported to TCV is an attractive ELM-free regime (showing a broadening of the SOL power fall-off length and a low concentration of high-Z impurities in the core). A physics picture explaining this regime starts to emerge: ballooning modes near the last closed flux surface governed by the pressure gradient and the magnetic shear are destabilised through various effects [22–24]. In TCV, the impact of plasma shaping on the properties of SOL profiles and transport at the outer mid-plane has been investigated through a dedicated database of TCV discharges ranging from type-I (low δ) to QCE (large δ). Both parallel heat load and near-SOL density profile broaden significantly at increasing αt, whereas in the far SOL a density shoulder has been observed to form when moving from low to high δu. An enhancement of radial turbulent particle transport is observed [25]. In ASDEX Upgrade, the operational space with respect to the separatrix conditions, the so called ‘SepOS’ [26], is established for QCE and compared to type-I ELMy plasmas [27] (figure 2). Significant broadening of the power fall-off length is observed, correlating to an increased separatrix density and pressure. Both TCV and AUG exhibit flatter SOL density profiles at higher values of αt, where theory predicts the plasma to be more resistive interchange unstable. The flattening of density profiles is accompanied as well by an increase of the heat flux decay length and an increase of the fraction of energy towards the first wall [28]. An observed increase of fluctuations in the near and far SOL in the high turbulence regime is suggestive of an increase of convective filamentary transport as primary cause of increased energy and particle load towards first wall. The reactor relevance of the scenario was demonstrated by expanding the operational space to low edge safety factor and demonstrating the benign tungsten impurity behaviour [27]. This no-ELM regime has been exported to JET to gain more confidence in the scenario by demonstrating it in a larger device. The QCE scenario has been successfully developed at JET building on knowledge gained from previous experiments in ASDEX Upgrade and TCV, namely high plasma shaping and high density/pressure at the vicinity of the separatrix through strong gas puffing [29]. In the last years, the Enhanced D-Alpha (EDA) regime, which has similarities to the QCE, has also gained maturity on AUG [30]. Various parameter scans showed that increasing heating power raises core and edge temperature, while higher gas puff leads to a small density increase and extends the 8 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al Figure 2. AUG separatrix operational space in edge density ne,edge and temperature Te,edge of the data set with BT=−2.5 T and Ip=0.8 MA. Open blue symbols represent QCE phases, filled red symbols represent type-I ELMy phases. Reproduced from [27]. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd on behalf of the IAEA. All rights reserved. no-ELM power window. Impurity seeding in EDA H-modes resulted in some of the best core-edge integration solutions among no-ELM regimes. Stationary discharges with nitrogen seeding proved very effective in increasing radiation and lowering divertor temperature while maintaining good energy confinement, as well as the presence of the Quasi-Coherent Modes (QCM) and no ELMs. Argon seeding allowed for pedestal radiative cooling, not only reducing the power flowing to the SOL, but also extends the no-ELM power window. An experimental characterisation of the QCM and its impact on the pedestal transport was found to be challenging and more dedicated experiments seem necessary. Similarly, to the QCE regime, the EDA regime has been established on JET in the recent months. Interpretation with modelling has also progressed in particular with non-linear extended MHD simulations with JOREK showing partial agreement with the experimental observations [31]. L-mode plasmas with NT are another example of natural ELM-free regime. Indeed, a necessary condition for the access to H-mode is the accessibility of 2nd ballooning stability near the edge, which is avoided with sufficiently NT at either the top or the X-point (taking a lower-single-null shape as ) [32]. Recent experiments have been carried out on TCV and AUG using the PT and NT shapes in similar ITG dominant transport conditions. They have shown an encouraging picture regarding NT effects. In TCV, a strong beneficial effect of NT that allows NT L-modes to largely overcome the performance of corresponding PT plasmas is shown, reaching the central pressure and temperature values of higher power H-modes. AUG also shows cases where NT plasmas reach central values comparable to PT plasmas. The beneficial effect of NT was confirmed by gyrokinetic runs to be due to an increase of the critical temperature logarithmic gradient when inverting the triangularity, with similar stiffness for positive and NT. The effect has been found in both ITG- and TEM-dominant microinstability regimes [33]. In both tokamaks, part of the better performance of NT seems to be coming from the SOL, resulting in larger n, T at the last closed flux surface. In TCV, it was also noted that the measured temperature peak at the outer strike point is higher in NT than in PT [34]. Indeed, experiments and simulations points towards lower λqin NT configuration L-Mode compared to the PT L-Mode. Power exhaust may remain a challenging question for NT in future experiments. In the past 2 years, ELM-free regimes established in AUG have been successfully exported to TCV and is now attempted in JET to gain confidence on its operation in a larger device. In addition, NT discharges in TCV and AUG have demonstrated better performance than PT pulses possibly coming from the different edge conditions. These are important progress towards the design of ITER and DEMO scenarios with reduced heat loads to the wall. 4. Strategies for disruption and run-away mitigation 4.1. Disruption mitigation studies with shattered pellet injection The integrity of ITER’s PFCs can also be put at risk by thermal and magnetic energy losses during the thermal and current quench (TQ & CQ) phases of disruptions and/or impacts of high-energy runaway electrons. In JET, an upgraded shattered pellet injector (SPI) system was tested to enhance pellet assimilation to obtain the higher radiative fraction (>90%) required for ITER (figure 3). Following the recent installation [35] and experiments [36] with the SPI on AUG, the use in JET [37] provides an up-scaling approach for ITER for the mitigation of heat loads at the TQ and CQ. Recently JET has been able to investigate single, staggered and dual pellet injection with different Ne/D ratio showing different levels of particle assimilation [38]. In addition, the JET Thomson scattering diagnostic has been modified to measure the density evolution at the time the pellet penetrates the plasma. These data are essential for constraining the JOREK modelling [39] in view of the predictions to ITER. Using the upgraded SPI, JET has for example validated its use for the mitigation of vertical displacement event (VDE) in ITER, which can cause deleterious electro-magnetic (EM) loads on the vessel of tokamak and thermal loads on the PFCs. It is found that SPI can prevent the toroidal asymmetrical phase of the VDE, i.e. AVDE and the exponential growth of the plasma current centroid vertical position is interrupted and stabilised (figure 4). In addition, it was demonstrated that the vessel reaction forces are strongly reduced in mitigated VDEs and was demonstrated that the difference in the energy deposited to the beryllium upper dump plates is about 5 times less than for unmitigated VDEs. From these results, it can be concluded that the SPI can be considered as a reliable method for protecting a machine from VDE although more modelling and experiments would be needed to extrapolate these results to ITER [40,41]. 9 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al Figure 10. Development of the high βNscenario in TCV and MAST-U: experimental database achieved with NBI on both devices (+ECRH in TCV) showing the confinement enhancement factor with colour denoting the bootstrap current fraction. Reproduced from [93] © 2024 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd on behalf of the IAEA. All rights reserved. The combined experiments using the PEX upgrade in TCV and MAST-U have demonstrated the benefit of alternative divertor configuration for the control of the neutrals in the divertor area. They have also enhanced our physics knowledge about the detachment physics processes involving hydrogenic molecules and neutrals. 9. Physics and operational basis for high beta long pulse scenarios Regarding scenario development, an effort is also currently underway within the EUROfusion TE program to explore the route towards high-β, steady-state scenarios on multiple tokamak devices. On TCV, two avenues have been explored in parallel, leveraging earlier attempts [92], with the ultimate aim of merging them into a single optimized scenario. The first avenue relies on well-established electron internal-transport barriers (eITBs) that are fully sustained in steady-state by 2nd harmonic X-mode (X2) electron-cyclotron current drive (ECCD) and bootstrap current [93], with past work bringing the bootstrap fraction up to 100%. The second avenue starts with an equally well-established H-mode regime powered by NBI, thus featuring an edge transport barrier (ETB), to which ECCD is added to increase the non-inductive current fraction. On MAST-U, routes to high βNhave been explored, within the H-mode regime, using the two available NBI sources (one onaxis and one off-axis) in the baseline double null, up-down- symmetric configuration. While the exploration of this parameter space to date is far from complete, a promising value of βN=3.4 was achieved transiently in MAST-U and quasistationary, fully non-inductive conditions with βN=1.8 and a 35% bootstrap current fraction were achieved in TCV [93] (figure 10). This endeavour is important to provide input to JT-60SA for a stable route towards high-βsteady-state scenarios. In the next years, EUROfusion TE programme will be extended to AUG and WEST devices. 10. Physics understanding of energetics particles confinement and their interplay with thermal plasma In TCV, a robust scenario to study NBI driven AEs and their control has successfully been developed using off-axis neutral beam power [94]. NT is shown to have major impact on observed TAE activity: TAEs appear to have a lower growth rate and amplitude in the saturated phase in NT. In MAST- U a Fast Ion Lost Detector (FILD) has also been installed and recorded its first measurements [95] characterizing the AE modes in a tight aspect ratio configuration. Using these tools, studies of fast ions losses induced by ELMs were conducted in TCV, MAST-U and AUG in different confinement regimes [96]. In TCV and MAST-U experiments performed in type-I and type-III ELMy regimes, respectively, confirm the correlation between the occurrence of ELMs and increased fast-ion losses. In addition, in low collisionality plasmas, larger increase of fast ion losses correlated with ELMs could be observed. In high collisionality plasmas, smaller increase of fast ion losses could be seen and nearly no impact on neutrons nor changes in velocity-space distribution were observed. In addition, in AUG, a set of experiments in ELM mitigated (with resonant magnetic perturbation) plasmas have been carried out with the aim of characterizing the impact of magnetic perturbations on the confinement of beam ions. A dedicated scan in MP current suggests the presence of a threshold for the onset of fast-ion losses for the tangential beam source [97]. Simulations with the ASCOT code together with the experimental findings suggest that the effect of the MPs on ELM control could be made independent from the effect on fast-ion confinement if an appropriate arrangement of the applied MP spectrum and neutral beam sources is chosen. All these studies are bringing much better picture of the impact of ELMs (mitigated or not) to the physics of fast-ions losses in H-mode plasmas. Fast-ions produced with neutral-beam injection (NBI) and ion cyclotron resonance frequency (ICRF) have shown their 16 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al role in relaxing the stiffness of ion heat transport in the core in the plasma core of fusion devices [98]. Recent studies in AUG have also established the role played by the ratio of ion to electron heating and that it is beneficial to keep the dominance of ion heating high in the discharge. This result is important as direct ion heating could also be favourable to increase the edge ion heat flux to enter H-mode during the initial transient phases of the ITER discharges [99]. A new ITER-relevant ICRF scenario for efficient ion heating in D-T plasmas, relying on the presence of impurities in the plasma, have been demonstrated at JET [100]. In addition, new results on the beneficial impact of MeV-range fast ions in D-T plasmas were obtained at JET [101], complementing earlier observations in the 2021 JET DT campaign [2]. Fast ions is a key ingredient in a burning plasma and the above results are giving new insights about their behaviour about ELMs, plasma shape (NT versus PT) and RMP thanks to a new set of diagnostics in TCV, MAST-U and AUG. In addition, new ICRH scenario have now been optimized and could become essential for efficient ion heating to access the burning phase in the ITER baseline scenario. 11. Conclusions & outlook In the past 2 years, the EUROfusion coordinated experiments on several devices of different but complementary capabilities have demonstrated the benefit for answering key questions for ITER such as disruption mitigation, detachment control or the qualification of ITER grade components. Key physics questions on divertor physics, 3D effects or fast particles have also benefited from being tested in several devices with the support of modelling codes. This has also motivated the creation of subjective scientific readiness levels (SSRL) [102] to monitor the scientific progress of the Tokamak Exploitation Task Force and identify which devices have the potential to contribute to the advancement of each objective. JET has played a very important role in the advances reported in this paper. The 2023 new DT phase aimed at developing a radiative scenario, detachment and isotopic control is essential to demonstrate these new findings in a mixed D/T plasma. In addition, the SPI has continued a dense programme in support of the ITER disruption mitigation system (DMS). With the ITER delay and JET ending, the next 10 years will have to rely even more heavily on predictive modelling to ensure the successful operation of ITER using the existing set of device (AUG, MAST-U, TCV and WEST) and the historical JET data for code benchmarking. In the next 2 years, the TE task force will continue developing the nine lines of research presented in the introduction. With the changes to the wall material expected in ITER, special emphasize will be given to plasma operation with a full tungsten wall on topics such as conditioning by boronization, transport of tungsten from the separatrix to the core plasma, the impact of limiter operation or wall conditioning. At the same time, exploiting the recent PEX upgrade in MAST-U, TCV and WEST will carry on and include the new upper divertor [103]. The SPI installed in 2022 should also contribute strongly to the understanding of disruption and run-away mitigation using its different capabilities (such as shattered angles) from the JET SPI. Additional ECRH power in WEST [5] is expected in 2024 and will assist the development of the long pulse H-mode in this device. In TCV [4], the amount of steerable ECRH power is also stepped up in 2024 thus enhancing the development of scenarios and their control. On its side, MAST-U will be equipped with a cryogenic pump [3] and improve its capabilities in controlling the neutrals in alternative divertor configuration. All these efforts are conducted together with development of predictive capabilities to achieve the objectives of the EUROfusion roadmap and contribute to the exploitation of ITER and the conceptual design of DEMO. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the work of Z Doagouei for her help in preparing the list of contributing authors to this Tokamak Exploitation Task Force first overview paper. This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium, funded by the European Union via the Euratom Research and Training Programme (Grant Agreement No. 101052200—EUROfusion). The SPI systems at AUG and JET have received funding through the ITER project and from the ITER Organization. The views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the ITER Organization. The Swiss contribution to this work has been funded by the Swiss state secretariat for education, research and innovation (SERI). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, the European Commission or SERI. Neither the European Union nor the European commission nor SERI can be held responsible for them. ORCID iDs E. Joffrin https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7527-0984 A. Kappatou https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3341-1909 B. Labit https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0751-8182 N. Vianello https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4401-5346 References [1] Zohm H. (the ASDEX Upgrade Team) 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) (available at: https://conferences.iaea.org/event/316/ papers/27772/files/10438-IAEA_FEC_AUG_paper _HZohm_2023.pdf) Paper No. CN-316/1754 [2] Maggi C. et al 2024 Nucl. Fusion 64 112012 [3] Harrison J. (the MAST-U Team) 2023 Overview of physics results from MAST Upgrade towards core-pedestal-exhaust integration IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2487 [4] Duval B. (the TCV Team) 2023 Experimental Research on the TCV Tokamak IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2084 17 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al [5] Bucalossi J. (the WEST Team) 2023 WEST first experiments with an ITER grade tungsten divertor IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2392 [6] Pitts R.A. et al 2019 Nucl. Mater. Energy 20 100696 [7] Sips A.C.C. et al 2018 Nucl. Fusion 58 126010 [8] Viezzer E. 2018 Nucl. Fusion 58 115002 [9] Lehnen M. et al 2015 Disruptions in ITER and strategies for their control and mitigation J. Nucl. Mater. 463 39 [10] Stangeby P.C. 2018 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60 044022 [11] Pitts R. et al 2011 J. Nucl. Mater. 415 S957–64 [12] Litaudon X. et al 2007 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 49 B529–50 [13] Pütterich T. et al 2018 The ITER baseline scenario investigated at ASDEX Upgrade 2018 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (Gandhinagar) (EX/P8-4) [14] Pütterich T. et al 2023 The stability of the H-mode entry in the ITER baseline scenario investigated in AUG and TCV 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2060 [15] Sauter O. et al 2021 ITER baseline scenario investigations on TCV and comparison with AUG 28th IAEA Int. Conf. on Fusion Energy (virtual event, 2021) (IAEA) (EX/P4-887) [16] Labit B. et al 2024 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 66 025016 [17] Köchl F. et al 2018 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60 074008 [18] Giroud C. et al 2024 Nucl. Fusion 64 accepted [19] Garzotti L. et al 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1943 [20] Marin M., Citrin J., Giroud C., Bourdelle C., Camenen Y., Garzotti L., Ho A. and Sertoli M. (JET Contributors) 2023 Nucl. Fusion 63 016019 [21] Giroud C. et al 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2322 [22] Harrer G.F. et al 2022 Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 165001 [23] Dunne M. et al 2023 The quasi-continuous exhaust operational space on ASDEX Upgrade and ITER 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2893 [24] Radovanovic L., Dunne M., Wolfrum E., Harrer G., Faitsch M., Fischer R. and Aumayr F. 2022 Nucl. Fusion 62 086004 [25] Vianello N. et al 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1955 [26] Eich T. and Manz P. (the ASDEX Upgrade Team) 2021 Nucl. Fusion 61 086017 [27] Faitsch M., Eich T., Harrer G.F., Wolfrum E., Brida D., David P., Dunne M., Gil L., Labit B. and Stroth U. 2023 Nucl. Fusion 63 076013 [28] Redl A, Eich T, Vianello N and David P (the ASDEX Upgrade Team and the EUROfusion MST1 Team) 2023 Nucl. Mater. Energy 34 101319 [29] Faitsch M. et al 2024 26th Int. Conf. on Plasma Surface Interaction in Controlled Fusion Devices (PSI-26) (Marseille, France) [30] Gil L. et al 2023 Overview of EDA H-mode experiments and studies in ASDEX Upgrade 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1904 [31] Hoetzl M. et al 2023 Non-linear MHD investigations of high-confinement regimes without type-I ELMs in ASDEX Upgrade and JT-60SA 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2023 [32] Sauter O. et al 2023 Negative triangularity tokamak operation in TCV 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1863 [33] Mariani A. et al 2023 Negative triangularity scenarios: from TCV and AUG experiments to DTT predictions 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1703 [34] Février O. et al 2023 49th European Conf. on Plasma Physics (EPS 2023) (Bordeaux, France,3 July 2023) [35] Heinrich P. et al 2023 49th European Conf. on Plasma Physics (EPS 2023) (Bordeaux, France,3 July 2023) [36] Jachmich S. et al 2023 49th European Conf. on Plasma Physics (EPS 2023) (Bordeaux, France,3 July 2023) [37] Jachmich S. et al 2022 Nucl. Fusion 62 026012 [38] Lehnen M. et al 2023 Physics basis and technology development for the ITER disruption mitigation system 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2302 [39] Hoetzl M. et al 2023 Non-linear MHD modelling of transients in tokamaks: recent advances with the JOREK code 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023 ) Paper No. CN-316/1693 [40] Schwarz N. et al 2023 Mechanisms of the global force reduction in disruptions—experimental validation of mitigated and unmitigated VDEs with the MHD code JOREK 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1694 [41] Gerasimov S. et al 2023 VDE mitigation with SPI on JET 49th European Conf. on Plasma Physics (EPS 2023) (Bordeaux, France,3 July 2023) p MCF90 [42] Sheikh U. et al 2023 49th European Conf. on Plasma Physics (EPS 2023) (Bordeaux, France,3 July 2023) [43] Decker J. et al 2023 Proc. IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2078 [44] Reux C. et al 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 175001 [45] Reux C. et al 2023 Theory and Simulation of Disruptions Workshop (TSDW), PPPL (Princeton, USA,19 July 2023) [46] Siegling B. et al 2023 49th European Conf. on Plasma Physics (EPS 2023) (Bordeaux, France,3 July 2023) [47] Pau A. et al 2022 48th EPS Conf. on Plasma Physics (EPS) (Maastricht, Netherlands,27 June 2022) [48] Pau A. et al 2023 A modern framework to support disruption studies: the EUROfusion disruption database 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2057 [49] Pinches S. et al 2016 26th IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (Kyoto, Japan,17 October 2016) [50] Sun H.J. et al 2023 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 65 095009 [51] Ricci D. 2023 EPJ Web Conf. 277 02001 [52] Felici F. et al 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2243 [53] Strait E.J. et al 2011 Phys. Plasmas 22 021803 [54] Callen J.D. et al 2015 Nucl. Fusion 51 094026 [55] Lehnen M.et al 2016 Proc. 26th IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (Kyoto, Japan,2016) EX/P6-39 (available at: https:// nucleus.iaea.org/sites/fusionportal/Shared%20Documents/ FEC%202016/fec2016-preprints/preprint0314.pdf) [56] Scoville J.T., La Haye R.J., Kellman A.G., Osborne T.H., Stambaugh R.D., Strait E.J. and Taylor T.S. 1991 Nucl. Fusion 31 875 [57] Gambrioli M. et al 2023 49th European Conf. on Plasma Physics (EPS 2023) (Bordeaux, France,6 July 2023) [58] Paz-Soldan C., Hu Q., Logan N.C. and Park J.-K. 2022 Nucl. Fusion 62 126007 [59] Piron L. et al 2023 Error field detection and correction studies towards ITER operation 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2150 [60] Bernert M. et al 2023 Nucl. Mater. Energy 34 101376 [61] Bernert M. et al 2022 4th Technical Meeting on Divertor Concepts (Vienna) (available at: https://conferences.iaea. org/event/286/contributions/25160/attachments/13512/ 21014/Bernert_IAEA_DivConcepts2022.pdf) 18 Nucl. Fusion 64 (2024) 112019 E. Joffrin et al [62] Bernert M. et al 2021 Nucl. Fusion 61 024001 [63] Pan O., Bernert M., Lunt T., Cavedon M., Kurzan B., Wiesen S., Wischmeier M. and Stroth U. (the ASDEX Upgrade Team) 2023 Nucl. Fusion 63 016001 [64] Sun G., Reimerdes H., Theiler C., Duval B.P., Carpita M., Colandrea C. and Février O. 2023 Nucl. Fusion 63 096011 [65] Henderson S. et al 2023 Nucl. Fusion 63 086024 [66] Henderson S. et al 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1951 [67] Komm M. 2023 Nucl. Fusion 63 126018 [68] Missirlian M. 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023)) Paper No. CN-316/1989 [69] Tsitrone E. et al 2023 Overview of material migration and fuel retention in the full tungsten tokamak WEST after the first phase of operation 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1821 [70] Gunn J. et al 2021 Nucl. Mater. Energy 27 100920 [71] Durif A., Richou M., Bergheau J. M., Corre Y., Diez M., Reilhac P., Gunn J. P. and Tsitrone E. (the WEST Team) 2023 Fusion Eng. Des. 188 113441 [72] Krieger K. et al 2023 Nucl. Fusion 63 066021 [73] Diez M. et al 2023 Nucl. Mater. Energy 34 101399 [74] Corre Y. et al 2023 Nucl. Mater. Energy 37 101546 [75] Aumeunier M. et al 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1968 [76] Ratynskaia S., Paschalidis K., Krieger K., Vignitchouk L., Tolias P., Balden M., Faitsch M., Rohde V., Corre Y. and Pitts R.A. 2024 Nucl. Fusion 64 036012 [77] Brezinsek S., Stamp M.F., Nishijima D., Borodin D., Devaux S., Krieger K., Marsen S., O’Mullane M., Bjoerkas C. and Kirschner A. 2014 Nucl. Fusion 54 103001 [78] Borodin D. et al 2016 Nucl. Mater. Energy 9604–9 [79] Guillemaut C. et al 2017 Nucl. Mater. Energy 12 234–40 [80] Zlobinski M. et al 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2612 [81] Wauters T. et al Nucl. Fusion 63 066018 [82] Wauters T. et al 2020 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 62 105010 [83] Buermans J. et al 2022 Proc. 48th EPS Conf. On Plasma Physics (Maastricht) [84] Wauters T. et al Nucl. Mater. Energy 38 101587 [85] Hakola A. et al 2024 Nucl. Fusion 64 096022 [86] Matveev D. et al 2023 Nucl. Fusion 63 112014 [87] Theiler C. et al 2023 Effect of magnetic divertor geometry on plasma exhaust and core compatibility in TCV 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1972 [88] Thornton A. et al 2022 25th Int. Conf. on Plasma Surface Interaction in Controlled Fusion Devices (PSI-25) (Jeju, South Korea,12 June 2022) [89] Moulton D., Harrison J., Lipschultz B. and Coster D. 2017 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 065011 [90] Verhaegh K. et al 2023 Experimental investigation of the physics & performance of the MAST-Upgrade Super-X divertor 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2103 [91] Verhaegh K. 2023 Nucl. Fusion 63 016014 [92] Piron C. et al 2019 Nucl. Fusion 59 096012 [93] Coda S. et al 2024 Developments towards high-beta, long-pulse scenarios in TCV and MAST-U (London, UK, 16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316-1939 [94] Oyola P. et al 2023 Mitigation of toroidal Alfven eigenmodes in negative triangularity plasmas at TCV 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2093 [95] Rivero-Rodriguez J.F. 49th European Conf. on Plasma Physics (EPS 2023) (Bordeaux, France) [96] Galdon-Quirola J. 49th European Conf. on Plasma Physics (EPS 2023) (Bordeaux, France) [97] Galdon-Quirola J. et al 2022 Nucl. Fusion 62 096004 [98] Citrin J. and Mantica P. 2023 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 65 033001 [99] Bilato R. R. et al 2023 Progresses in understanding the effects of ICRF/NBI fast-ions on core turbulence and Alfvén activity on ASDEX Upgrade 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1938 [100] Ye Kazakov O. et al 2023 AIP Conf. Proc. 2984 020001 [101] Garcia J. et al 2023 Overview of alpha particle and fast ion studies in JET DTE2 plasmas 2023 IAEA Int. Conf. in Fusion Energy (2023) (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/1814 [102] Wischmeier M. et al 2023 Subjective scientific readiness levels (SSRL) for fusion research and their application to tokamak exploitation 2023 IAEA Fusion Energy Conf. (London, UK,16–21 October 2023) Paper No. CN-316/2290 [103] Zammuto I, Weißgerber M, Herrmann A, Dibon M, Rohde V, Schall G, Teschke M, Vierle T and Vorbrugg S (the ASDEX Upgrade Team) 2021 Fusion Eng. Des. 171 112468 19