Skip to content

InnerLayer.SLAYER - Build P_perp from D_perp by default, not chi_perp_e #508

Closed

Description

@ebursch

Summary

The InnerLayer (IL) SLAYER model builds the perpendicular Prandtl number from the electron perpendicular heat diffusivity, P_⊥ = τ_R χ⊥,e / r_s² (src/InnerLayer/SLAYER/LayerParameters.jl, tau_perp = rs^2 / chi_perp; chi_perp is fed from the kinetic-file chi_e profile in src/Tearing/Runner/run_slayer.jl). In the Fitzpatrick layer formulation P_⊥ = τ_R / τ_⊥ is set by the perpendicular diffusivity D⊥, which combines c_β, η, χ⊥,e, χ⊥,i and the n, T gradients (Fitzpatrick, Phys. Plasmas 29, 032507 (2022), Eq. 16). χ⊥,e alone is not that quantity, so every SLAYER growth rate and frequency is computed with the wrong P_⊥.

Proposed change

#501 adds [SLAYER] P_perp_model and implements the D_perp closure, but keeps chi_perp_e as the default so that it moves no results. Once #501 merges:

  • make P_perp_model = "D_perp" the default;
  • keep chi_perp_e selectable for comparison with earlier results, documented as not the physical P_⊥;
  • keep chi_perp_e setting the critical-Δ dc_tmp, which is unaffected.

Who is affected

Every SLAYER run that does not set P_perp_model explicitly. SLAYER P_perp, Q_root, ω, and γ will move, including the diiid_slayer_n1 regression case, so the PR carries !. The D_perp closure needs a chi_i profile, which #501 adds to the kinetic HDF5 schema and to the DIII-D-like example kinetic file; the fallback when chi_i is absent should be decided in the PR.

Activity

  1. added this to the GPEC v2.0.0 milestone on Oct 6, 2026
  2. self-assigned this
    on Oct 6, 2026
  3. added
    bugSomething isn't working
    changed-resultsResults move or an interface breaks - read before upgrading
    on Oct 6, 2026
  4. assigned and unassigned on Oct 6, 2026
  5. logan-nc commented on Oct 27, 2026

    @logan-nc
    Collaborator

    #501 now makes D_perp the default itself (commit e5c67bb; the example deck and SLAYERControl default both read D_perp, and the harness keeps diiid_slayer_n1_chi_perp_e as the old-model baseline), so the follow-up PR this issue describes is no longer needed. Close with #501.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

bugSomething isn't workingchanged-resultsResults move or an interface breaks - read before upgrading

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions