Center for Radiative Shock Hydrodynamics
Introductory overviewR. Paul Drake
Page 2
We will take you from overviews to specifics
• This first presentation– Motivation and introduction to the physical system– Overview of the experiments and of the project
• Overviews this morning – Powell on the simulation – Holloway on assessment of predictive capability
• Code and verification this afternoon – Toth on architecture and practices – Myra on tests
• Assessing predictive capability in the morning – Bingham on our first integrated study – Fryxell on 3D sensitivity runs
• Posters today – See the details and meet the people
• You will see how our priorities have been driven by becoming able to assess the capability of our code to predict our year 5 data.
Page 3
We find our motivation in astrophysical connections
• Radiative shocks have strong radiative energy transport that determines the shock structure
• Exist throughout astrophysics– Supernovae, accretion, stars,
supernova remnants, collisions
• Our experiments – have behavior and
dimensionless parameters relevant to shocks emerging from supernovae
– We should see any important unanticipated physics
– Good code test in any event
Ensman & Burrows ApJ92
Reighard PoP07
Page 4
A brief primer on shock wave structure
• Behind the shock, the faster sound waves connect the entire plasma
Denser,Hotter Initial plasmaShock velocity, us
Mach number M > 1
unshockedshocked
Mach number M = us / csound
Page 5
Shock waves become radiative when …
• radiative energy flux would exceed incoming material energy flux
where post-shock temperature is proportional to us
2.
• Setting these fluxes equal gives a threshold velocity of 60 km/s for our system:
Material xenon gas
Density 6.5 mg/cc
Initial shock velocity 200 km/s
shockedunshockedpreheated
Ts4
ous3/2
Initial ion temperature 2 keV
Typ. radiation temp. 50 eV
Page 6
The CRASH project began with several elements
• An experimental system that is challenging to model and relevant to NNSA, motivated by astrophysics
• A 3D adaptive, well scaled, magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) code with a 15 year legacy and many users
• A 3D deterministic radiative transfer code developed for parallel platforms
• A strong V&V tradition with both codes
• Some ideas about how to approach “UQ” in general and specifically the Assessment of Predictive Capability
Space weather simulation
Page 7
CRASH builds on a basic experiment
• Basic Experiment: Radiography is the primary diagnostic. Additional data from other diagnostics.
A. Reighard et al. Phys. Plas. 2006, 2007F. Doss, et al. HEDP, submitted 2009
Schematic of radiograph
Grid
Page 8
We have identified key parameters for the code/experiment comparison
• Key measurements at data time– Basic (1D)
• Shock position• Layer thickness
– Multi-D • Distance of kink in shock from tube wall
• Angle of xenon edge just downstream of shock
Page 9
Our experimental sequence will improve and test our assessment of predictive capability
• A conceptually simple experiment– Launch a Be plasma down a
shock tube at ~ 200 km/s
• Year 5 experiment – Predict outcome and
accuracy before doing year 5 experiment
• Goals– Improve predictive
accuracy during project– Demonstrate a predictive
uncertainty comparable to the observed experimental variability
– A big challenge and achievement
Page 10
Last April we reported a CRASH 1.0 3D simulation of the year 5 experiment
Density Temperature
Initialized by calibrated laser code, to be discussed by Ken
Side view
Top view
2008 IRT: The project will live or die based on whether a “reasonably good code” can be built
This font color highlights responses to 2008 IRT recommendations
Page 11
The CRASH research process incorporates many UQ elements. Culture change is here.
Page 12
UQ considerations have driven the project to date
• Had to become able to Assess Predictive Capability – Develop a “reasonably good” code – Code tests and physics tests – “Drill-down” documentation system
– Variability of base experiment (10/08) – Early data to calibrate inputs (12/09) – Learn enough to define the CRASH UQ methodology– Tests of UQ methods
• We are using the tools we have assembled– Going forward, UQ analysis must tell us what code
to write, what experiments to do, and what UQ to do
• Working independently on additional diagnostics – X-ray and imaging Thomson Scattering
Page 13
We are organized to bring leadership and effort to all areas where they are needed• Most of our team members participate in more than one
area (details in supplementary material)
• We use our resource plan, our work plan, and UQ considerations to inform priority decisions
Predictive Capability beyond traditional V&V Scientific Computing PrimaryJames Holloway, Co-PI, lead Primary Quentin Stout, Co-PI, lead Role FTEBruce Fryxell, chief scientist Role FTE Professors 3
Professors 6 Other staff 1Research Scientists 2 1.4 Modeling and Theory Primary
Other staff 4 Jointly led Role FTEGraduate students 6 Professors 10
Research Scientists 1 0.33Other staff 0
Graduate studens10Code Development and Traditional V&VKen Powell, Co-PI, lead Primary Experiments PrimaryGabor Toth, Software Archit.Role FTE Paul Drake, Director, leadRole FTE
Professors 1 Professors 1Research Scientists 4 2.15 Research Scientists 1 0.8
Other staff 2 Other staff 1Graduate studens 6
Page 14
We have expanded our theoretical work
• The IRT recommended more effort in analytic theory
• Paul Drake has invested more time
– Enabled by contributions by Ken Powell and James Holloway
• Ryan McClarren has a paper on the structure of this type of radiative shock in draft form.
– Rob Lowrie (LANL) has collaborated on this.
• Graduate student Forrest Doss continues to work on the
analytic theory of the shocked layer instability
• Igor Sokolov has contributed considerably
• Emilio Minguez (U.P. Madrid) has visited for opacity collaborations
• We are working to engage Dmitri Ryutov (LLNL) and Sasha Velikovich (NRL), who are interested
• We have a CRASH primer which will evolve
Page 15
CRASH will have other applications and users
• Solar group is already doing rad-MHD evolving from CRASH
• Our experiment team (students funded variously) needs CRASH
• Already one other university is eager to use our code (FSU)
• The labs will be users of our trained people more than codes
CRASH simulation of NIF Radiative HydrodynamicInstability experiment at 7.0 ns: 2D, 600 x 80
• Our NIF team may become a key user– Experimental program is
making first university use of NIF
– Excellent opportunity to apply CRASH and see what breaks
Page 16
We intend to accomplish an important result
• Our unique intended contribution – Be the first academic team
to use statistical Assessment of Predictive Capability
to guide improvements in simulations and field experiments
that lead to predictions of extrapolated field experiments
known to have improved accuracy, and to demonstrate this by field measurements.
• This is a sensible goal because– Our codes are almost entirely first-principles
calculations – Our approach will be to add physics not tuning
Page 17
Supplemental material follows
• More details
Page 18
People p. 1
CRASH Faculty Where & what UQ/APCScient. Comp.
Modeling & Theory
Exper-iments
UQ/ Predictive Capability & V&VJames Holloway, Co-PI, lead UM Prof. Nuclear X XBruce Fryxell, chief scientist UM AOSS Res. Sci. X X XNatasha Andronova UM AOSS Res. Sci. XKrzysztof Fidkowski UM Prof. Aero X XBani Mallick TAMU Prof. Stats XVijayan Nair UM Prof. Stats & IOE XDerek Bingham SFU Prof. Stats XJi Zhu UM Prof. Stats & IOE X
Scientific ComputingQuentin Stout, Co-PI, lead UM Prof. CSE X XNancy Amato TAMU Prof. CompSci XLawrence Rauchwerger TAMU Prof. CompSci X
Code Development, Testing, and UQ supportKen Powell, Co-PI, lead UM Prof. Aero X XGabor Toth, Software Archit. UM AOSS Res. Sci. X XIgor Sokolov UM AOSS Res. Sci. XBart van der Holst UM AOSS Res. Sci. XEric Myra UM AOSS Res. Sci. X X X
Modeling and TheoryMarv Adams, Co-PI TAMU Prof. Nuclear X X XBen Torralva UM MSE Res. Sci. XEd Larsen UM Prof. Nuclear X XBill Martin UM Prof. Nuclear X X XRyan McClarren TAMU Vis. Prof. Nuclear X X XJim Morel TAMU Prof. Nuclear XBram van Leer UM Prof. Aero XPhil Roe UM Prof. Aero XSmadar Karni UM Prof. Math XKatsuyo Thornton UM Prof. MSE XTamas Gombosi UM Prof. Space Sci. X
ExperimentsPaul Drake, Director, lead UM Prof. AOSS X X X XCarolyn Kuranz UM AOSS Res. Sci. X
Page 19
People p. 2
Grad Students Advisor UQ/APCScient. Comp.
Modeling & Theory
Exper-iments
Khieu, Loc Van Leer XMiranda, Colin Fidkowsky and Powell XSouza, Marcos PowellZaide, Daniel Powell and Roe XChou, Jason Fryxell and Drake XDoss, Forrest Drake X XPatterson, Nick Thornton and Drake XHuntington, Channing Drake XKrauland, Christine Drake XVisco, Tony Drake XCheatham, Jesse Holloway and Martin XMoran, Tiberus Holloway XDavidson, Greg Larsen XBaker, Eric Holloway and Martin XZhang, Zhanyang Nair/Zhu XDi Stefano, Carlos Drake XGamboa, Eliseo Drake XYoung, Rachel Drake X X XStarinshak, Dave Karni and Fryxell XMukherjee, Ashin Nair/Zhu XBarbu, Anthony Adams&Morel XEdward, Jarrod Adams& Morel XPrabhakar, Avinash Mallick X
StaffMike Grosskopf UM Sr. Res. Eng. X X XDonna Marion UM Technician/Target Fab XErica Rutter UM Technicican/ Codes X XMauro Bianco TAMU Post doc X XDuchwan Ryu TAMU Post doc XW. Daryl Hawkins TAMU Softwr Architect X XSergey Manolov TAMU Staff programmer X XMichael Adams TAMU Staff programmer X X
AdministrativeKathy Norris UM CRASH AdminJan Beltran UM Sr. Admin. Asst.
Page 20
Conservation of energy forces the shock wave to develop complex structure
Shocked xenon layer Compressed 40x Traps thermal photons
Preheated regionThermal photons escape upstream
Other fun complications: Instabilities Wall shocks
Page 21
Our experiments are at the Omega laser
Omega 60 beams30 kJ in 1 ns0.35 µm wavelength
One of our shots at the Omega laser Related experiments LULI & PALS & RAL, LIL (soon?)
NIF & LMJ maybe someday
Page 22
How to produce radiative shocks
Gas filled tubes
Laser beams launch Be piston into Xe or Ar gas at > 100 km/s
Piston drives shock
Diagnostics measure plasma properties
Gold grids provide spatial reference
Parameters1015 W/cm2 0.35 µm light1 ns pulse 600 µm tube dia.
Targets: Korbie Killebrew, Mike Grosskopf, Trisha Donajkowski, Donna Marion
Experiments: Amy Reighard, Tony Visco, Forrest Doss
Page 23
The laser first creates structure at the target surface
• The laser is absorbed at less than 1% of solid density
Ablation pressure from momentum balance:
Typical pressures of tens of Mbars
From Drake, High-Energy-Density Physics, Springer (2006)
p ~ 8.6 I142/3 / µm
2/3 Mbars
Radiative shocks need thinner targets than the one shown here
Page 24
For radiative shocks, target acceleration produces the high required velocities
• Profiles at 1.3 ns shown
Laser produced pressure accelerates Be plasma
Expanding Be drives shock into Xe gas
Acceleration pushes velocity into radiative shock regime
Page 25
Researchers are studying these shocks with a range of diagnostics and simulations • Radiographs
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Emission
Xray Thomson scattering
Interferometry
Data credits: L. Boireau S. Bouquet, F. Doss M. Koenig, C. Michaut, A. Reighard, T. Visco , T. Vinci
Page 26
Radiography is our workhorse; we also use other diagnostic methods
Radiographs (1 or 2 views)
Data by grad students Amy Reighard (Cooper), Tony Visco, Forrest Doss, Channing Huntington Christine Krauland
Transverse Streaked Optical Pyrometer (SOP)
Transverse VISAR
UV Thomson Scattering
X-ray Thomson Scattering
Page 27
Preliminary analysis of XRTS obtained reasonable temperatures but a better model of Z is needed
•No drive beams, Null shot
•Zfree = .2
•15ns delay•Scattered from radiative pre-heated region•Fit gives Te = 10 eV & Zfree = 12
•19ns delay•Scattered from dense cooling region•Fit gives Te = 55 eV & Zfree = 14
Null Shot Precursor Cooling Layer
Data and fits by Tony Visco
Page 28
Lateral structure within the shocked layer is expected from a Vishniac-like mechanism.
See E. Vishinac, ApJ 1983
Page 29
U
Vs
Perturbed system Unperturbed system
BeZ = H
Z = 0
Vorticity features
Shocked Xe
Unshocked Xe
Theoretical analysis shows structure internal to shocked layer for the experimental case
• Wavelength and growth rate of instability in reasonable agreement with observations
• Stereoscopic experiments will seek further evidence
Forrest Doss, et al. in preparation
-Vs
.
Page 30
Simulating these shocks is challenging but not impossible
• Optically thin, large upstream• Electron heating by ions• Optically thin cooling layer • Optically thick downstream
This problem has• A large range of scales• Non-isotropic radiation• Complex hydro
20
Page 31
The CRASH project has evolved over its first 18 months
Spring 2008Funds arriveCode planningRecruiting
Summer 2008CRASH 1.0 tasksFirst sensitivity
Winter 2009CRASH 1.0 frozen 3D Yr5 simulationUQ methods exploration
Fall 2008CRASH 1.0 betaExpand UQ teamVariability ExptHire 2 FTE +
Spr/Sum 2009CRASH 2.0 Tasks UQ on UQ First end to end UQ3rd hire (expts)
Fall 2009 expectation CRASH 2.0 beta 3D CRASH sensitivity Define 2D UQ studyCalibration experiment
Project status at day zero: To do UQ, needed “reasonably good code” and experimental data on variability and for calibration
Top Related