List of Official References for the modules used in TRANSP

General references

DOI: 10.11578/dc.20180627.4
TRANSP basis: R.J. Hawryluk, "An Empirical Approach to Tokamak Transport", in Physics of Plasmas Close to Thermonuclear Conditions, ed. by B. Coppi, et al., (CEC, Brussels, 1980), Vol. 1, pp. 19-46. [download paper]; A.Y. Pankin, J. Breslau, M. Gorelenkova, R. Andre, B. Grierson, J. Sachdev, M. Goliyad, and G. Perumpilly, "TRANSP integrated modeling code for interpretive and predictive analysis of tokamak plasmas", Computer Physics Communications, Volume 312, 2025, 109611.
PT-SOLVER (predictive mode): A.Y. Pankin, J. Breslau, M.V. Gorelenkova, R. Budny, M. Goliyad, B.A. Grierson, G.W. Hammett, S.C. Jardin, J.B. Lestz, and X. Yuan, "Predictive capabilities of the integrated modeling TRANSP code for tokamak plasmas", Computer Physics Communications, 110337 (2026). [arXiv]; X. Yuan et al., New predictive capabilities in PTRANSP with PTSOLVER, 54th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics (2012); X. Yuan et al., Parallel computing aspect in TRANSP with PT-SOLVER, 55th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics (2013)
TRANSP/OMFIT interface: B. A. Grierson et al., "Orchestrating TRANSP Simulations for Interpretative and Predictive Tokamak Modeling with OMFIT", Fusion Science and Technology 74, 101-115 (2018).

Verification and validation of interpretive TRANSP and NUBEAM

TRANSP is an integrated modeling framework rather than a single physics model. Verification and validation are therefore specific to the physics module, device, operating regime, diagnostic, and observable. In interpretive runs, the equilibrium and selected measured profiles are prescribed. The strongest tests compare independent quantities that were not used to constrain the simulation, including total and spatially resolved neutron emission, neutron energy spectra, fast-ion D-alpha (FIDA) signals, fast-ion phase-space distributions, stored energy, surface loop voltage, and fusion power. The references below complement the general TRANSP reference, the NUBEAM model reference, and the module references elsewhere on this page; they do not imply that every TRANSP module has been validated in every plasma regime.

Validation methodology and standardized interpretive workflows: B. A. Grierson et al., "Orchestrating TRANSP Simulations for Interpretative and Predictive Tokamak Modeling with OMFIT", Fusion Science and Technology 74, 101-115 (2018).
Scope: Defines standardized data-consistency and sensitivity checks for interpretive TRANSP workflows, including measured versus calculated neutron rate, equilibrium versus TRANSP stored energy, and measured versus computed surface loop voltage.
International Multi-Tokamak Confinement Profile Database: C. M. Roach et al., "The 2008 Public Release of the International Multi-tokamak Confinement Profile Database", Nuclear Fusion 48, 125001 (2008).
Database: The International Multi-Tokamak Confinement Profile Database was produced through the International Tokamak Physics Activity (ITPA), an ITER expert-group activity. It contains approximately 326 shots from 12 tokamaks worldwide, corresponding to roughly 6,000 radial profile points. The latest public release is the 2008 release (PR08), available through the International Multi-Tokamak Confinement Profile Database website.
Scope: Provides multi-machine profile data in a common format for transport-model testing, benchmarking, and validation. Publications using PR08 should cite the Roach et al. paper and, when individual discharges are used, the references listed in the corresponding database comment files.
Direct comparisons with neutron and fusion-output measurements: I. Klimek et al., "TRANSP modelling of total and local neutron emission on MAST", Nuclear Fusion 55, 023003 (2015).
Scope: Compares TRANSP/NUBEAM calculations with both total neutron rate and spatially resolved neutron-camera measurements over multiple MAST scenarios, including cases with fishbone-driven fast-ion redistribution.; Z. Stancar et al. and the JET Contributors, "Overview of interpretive modelling of fusion performance in JET DTE2 discharges with TRANSP", Nuclear Fusion 63, 126058 (2023).
Scope: Assesses computed fusion performance against absolutely calibrated neutron measurements for a broad database of JET deuterium-tritium discharges and reports scenario-dependent uncertainty in calculated fusion power.
Fast-ion distribution and FIDA comparisons: C. A. Michael et al., "Dual view FIDA measurements on MAST", Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 55, 095007 (2013).
Scope: Compares toroidal and vertical FIDA measurements with synthetic signals based on NUBEAM fast-ion distributions and FIDASIM. The paper documents both agreement in MHD-quiescent plasmas and a discrepancy near the trapped-passing boundary.; M. Salewski et al., "Measurement of a 2D fast-ion velocity distribution function by tomographic inversion of fast-ion D-alpha spectra", Nuclear Fusion 54, 023005 (2014).
Scope: Compares measured ASDEX Upgrade FIDA spectra and a tomographically reconstructed two-dimensional fast-ion velocity distribution with synthetic spectra and distributions from TRANSP/NUBEAM.
Code-to-code verification and synthetic-diagnostic validation: A. Sperduti, I. Klimek, S. Conroy, M. Cecconello, M. Gorelenkova, and A. Snicker, "Validation of neutron emission and neutron energy spectrum calculations on a Mega Ampere Spherical Tokamak with directional relativistic spectrum simulator", Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63, 015015 (2021).
Scope: Benchmarks DRESS neutron emissivities and rates against TRANSP/NUBEAM and compares synthetic neutron spectra based on TRANSP/NUBEAM and ASCOT fast-ion distributions with measured proton pulse-height spectra. This is primarily a synthetic-diagnostic and code-to-code verification study rather than an independent validation of every NUBEAM component.
Integrated interpretive applications in deuterium-tritium plasmas: R. J. Hawryluk, "Results from deuterium-tritium tokamak confinement experiments", Reviews of Modern Physics 70, 537-587 (1998).
Scope: Reviews JET and TFTR deuterium-tritium experiments, with emphasis on integrated interpretation of confinement, MHD stability, and energetic fusion-product behavior.; R. V. Budny et al., "Simulations of deuterium-tritium experiments in TFTR", Nuclear Fusion 32, 429-447 (1992).
Scope: Applies TRANSP to TFTR deuterium-tritium scenario simulations and discusses the agreement and accuracy of the underlying interpretive modelling for representative supershot conditions.; R. V. Budny and J. G. Cordey et al., "Core fusion power gain and alpha heating in JET, TFTR, and ITER", Nuclear Fusion 56, 056002 (2016).
Scope: Uses integrated TRANSP modelling to compare core fusion gain and alpha heating in high-performance JET and TFTR discharges and to project corresponding quantities for ITER.
Uncertainty, sensitivity, and known limitations: A. A. Teplukhina et al., "The hidden uncertainties in particle balance calculations and their implications for assessment of plasma performance", arXiv:2202.12659 (2022).
Scope: Quantifies how uncertainties in prescribed profiles, impurity content, rotation, particle sources, and thermal-ion transport assumptions propagate into neutron-rate and stored-energy calculations in interpretive JET simulations.; O. M. Jones et al., "Measurements and modelling of fast-ion redistribution due to resonant MHD instabilities in MAST", Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 57, 125009 (2015).
Scope: Shows that classical NUBEAM must be augmented in plasmas with strong energetic-particle-driven MHD. Ad hoc anomalous diffusion and loss models reproduce coarse redistribution features but not the full spatial and velocity-space response.

Models for predictive transport

Coppi-Tang

S.C. Jardin, M.G. Bell, N. Pomphrey, Nucl. Fusion (1993) 33 371

Coppi B, Comments Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 5 261 (1980)

Tang W M, Nucl. Fusion (1986) 26 1605

CDBM

Multi-Mode

(Original model): T Rafiq, AH Kritz, J Weiland, AY Pankin, L Luo, Physics of Plasmas 20 032506 (2014)

(Micro-Tearing Mode implementation): T Rafiq, AH Kritz, J Weiland, L Luo, E Schuster, Physics of Plasmas 25 012504 (2018)

GLF23

Waltz R.E. et al. Phys. Plasmas, 4 2481 (1997)

Kinsey J.E. et al. Fusion Sci. and Tech., 44 763 (2003).

TGLF

Bootstrap current models

NCLASS: W.A. Houlberg et al., "Bootstrap Current and Neoclassical Transport in Tokamaks of Arbitrary Collisionality and Aspect Ratio", Phys. Plasmas 4 (9), Sept. 1997, pp 3230-3242.; NCLASS reference: https://w3.pppl.gov/NTCC/NCLASS/readme_nclass_pt.html

Sauter

O.Sauter and C.Angioni, Phys of Plasmas 6, 2834 (1999)

Hager

R. Hager et al., Phys. Plasmas 23, 042503 (2016).

NEO

E. Belli and J. Candy, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 50 095010 (2008)

E. Belli and J. Candy, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 51 075018 (2009)

E. Belli and J. Candy, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 54 015015 (2012)

Heating and Current Drive modules

TORIC: M. Brambilla, "Numerical simulation of ion cyclotron waves in tokamak plasmas", Plasma Phys. Cont. Fusion 41, 1 (1999).
FPP: G.W. Hammett, "Fast Ion Studies of Ion Cyclotron Heating in the PLT Tokamak", Ph.D. Thesis (Princeton, 1986).
RF kick operator: J-M Kwon, C.S. Chang, S-H. Ku, Doug McCune and C.K. Phillips, Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 48th meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Philadelphia (PA) (2006), Development of XGC-RF for Global Guiding-Center Particle Simulation of minority ICRH heated Plasmas in a General Tokamak Geometry,; J-M Kwon Doug McCune and C.S. Chang, Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 49th meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, Orlando (FL) (2007), Enhancement of NUBEAM for the simulation of fast ion and RF-wave interaction based on the quasi-linear theory
GENRAY: R.W. Harvey and M.G. McCoy, Proceedings of the IAEA Technical Committee on Advances in Simulation and Modeling of Thermonuclear plasmas, 489, Vienna, IAEA. (1993)
GENRAY, adjoint calculations: A.P. Smirnov A.P. et al, Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on ECE and ECRH, 301, World scientific (2009); C.F.F. Karney and N.J. Fisch, Phys. Plasmas 28 116 (1985); C.F.F. Karney, N.J. Fisch and A.H. Reiman, in Radio-Frequency power in plasmas, 190 430 (1989) AIP Conf. Proc.
CQL3D: G.D. Kerbel and M.G. McCoy, Phys. Fluids 28, 3629 (1985)
GENRAY/CQL3D interface in TRANSP: F. M. Poli et al, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 58, 095001 (2016).
TORAY: Kritz A.H. et al 1982 Heating in toroidal plasmas Proc. 3rd Joint Varenna-Grenoble Int. Symp. (Grenoble, France, 1982) (Brussels: Commission of the European Communities) p 707
TORBEAM: "TORBEAM 2.0, a paraxial beam tracing code for electron-cyclotron beams in fusion plasmas for extended physics applications", E. Poli et al., Comp. Phys. Comm. 225, 36 (2018).
LSC: D.W. Ignat et al, Nucl. Fusion 34 837 (1994)
NUBEAM: A. Pankin, D. McCune, R. Andre, G. Bateman, and A. Kritz, "The tokamak Monte Carlo fast ion module NUBEAM in the National Transport Code Collaboration library", Computer Physics Communications 159, 157-184 (2004).

Equilibrium solvers

ISOLVER: R. Andre "TRANSP/PTRANSP Isolver Free Boundary Equilibrium Solver", presented at APS-DPP 2012
TEQ: L.L. LoDestro and L.D. Pearlstein, Physics of Plasmas 1, 90 (1994)
VMEC: S.P.Hirshman and J.C.Whitson, PHYS.FLUIDS 26, 3553 (1983); S.P.Hirshman and H.K.Meier, PHYS.FLUIDS 28, 1387 (1985); S.P.Hirshman and D.K.Lee, COMP.PHYS.COMM. 39, 161 (1986)

Stability

NTCC pedestal module: T. Onjun T., Bateman G., Kritz A.H and Hammett G., Phys. Plasmas 9 5018 (2002)
EPED1-NN: O.Meneghini et al, Nuclear Fusion 57, 086034 (2017).
NTM module: E. Fredrickson et al, Phys. Plasmas 7 4112 (2000)
Interface for NTM control: F.M. Poli et al, Nucl. Fusion 58 016007 (2018)
Sawtooth model: B.B. Kadomtsev, Sov. J. Plasma Phys. 1 (1975) 389.; F. Porcelli, Plas. Phys. and Cont. Fusion 38 (1996) 2163.
Kick model: Podestà M. et al 2014 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 56 055003; Podestà M. et al 2017 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 59 095008

Atomic physics

ADAS: http://open.adas.ac.uk
PREACT: C.F. Barnett et al, Atomic Data for Fusion, Vol. 1, Collisions of H, He, and Li Atoms and Ions with Atoms and Molecules, ORNL-6086/V1 (July 1990); R.A. Phaneuf, R.K. Janev, M.S. Pindzola, Atomic Data for Fusion, Vol. 5, Collisions of Carbon and Oxygen Ions with Electrons, H, H2, and He, ORNL-6090/V5 (5th volume of ORNL-6086) (Feb. 1987).; R.K. Janev, W.D. Langer, K. Evans Jr., D.E. Post, Jr., Elementary Processes in Hydrogen-Helium Plasmas, Springer-Verlag, 1987
(pre-ADAS) excited states correction for energetic beam neutral deposition: R.K. Janev, C.D. Boley, D.E. Post, Nucl. Fusion 29 2125 (1989)
Cross-sections for nuclear fusion reactions: H-S. Bosch, Review of Data and Formulas for Fusion Cross-sections, IPP I/252 (Sept 1990)

Conference presentations

2025 APS DPP Meeting: A.Y. Pankin, J. Berkery, J. A. Breslau, J. Dominski, F. Ebrahimi, M. Goliyad, J. Dominguez-Palacios, M. Gorelenkova, A. Kleiner, J.R. King, J. E. Menard, J. F. Parisi, Transport and Stability Analysis for STAR Tokamak Using TRANSP, GX, NIMROD, and ELITE Codes.
2025 US-EU Transport Task Force Meeting: A.Y. Pankin, J.F. Parisi, J.E. Menard, J. Berkery, J. Dominski, M. Goliyad, TRANSP and GX contributors, Stability Assessment and Nonlinear Gyrokinetic Transport Modeling for NSTX and STAR Spherical Tokamaks with the GX Model in TRANSP.
66th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics (October 7–11, 2024; Atlanta, Georgia): Alexei Pankin, Josh Breslau, Mariya Goliyad, Marina Gorelenkova, Gopan Perumpilly, TRANSP, T3D and GX teams, Transforming TRANSP with IMAS Interfaces, GPU optimization, and embedded turbulence for predictive simulation, Proc. of 66th APS DPP meeting. PP12.00045; Marina Gorelenkova, Mariya Goliyad, Alexei Pankin, Julian Dominski, Jai Sachdev, Tony Qian, William Dorland, Progress in coupling T3D transport solver with gyro-kinetic GX model with TRANSP, PP12.00046
65th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics: A.Y. Pankin, J. Breslau, M. Goliyad, M. Gorelenkova, F. M. Poli, G. Perumpilly, J. Sachdev, IMAS-ification of TRANSP: generalization of interfaces to data and physics modules, Proc. of 65th APS DPP meeting.; Marina Gorelenkova, Masha Goliyad, Francesca Poli, Alexei Pankin, Stephane Ethier, Gopan Perumpilly, Optimization of Monte-Carlo NBI NUBEAM code for GPU: success and challenges, Proc. of 65th APS DPP meeting.