Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Kine%c effects in a fluid plasma transport approxima%on and some recent simula%on results
LLNL Kine%cs Workshop Apr.5-‐7, 2016
presented by E. Vold
with acknowledgement to many: K. Molvig, A. Simakov,
R. Rauenzahn, C. Aldrich, A. Joglekar, M. Ortgea, R. Moll, D. Fenn,
E. Dodd, S. Wilks, L. Yin, B. Albright, B. Haines, N. Hoffman, S. Hsu, P. Hakel, H. Rinderknecht
LA-‐UR-‐16-‐22061
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Introduction
§ Kinetics includes all collisional effects. – momentum and energy exchange in:
– thermal conduction & equilibration, – viscosity, – species particle flux relative to Ucm
§ Multi-species fluid transport approximations can represent some kinetic effects. – assumed ‘nearly’ Maxwellian distributions – small parameter Kn:
– MFP < gradient scales – t >>
§ ICF Shock heating at interfaces: – fluid approximations may not be formally valid but may perform
reasonably well.
Kn ~ λ / L diffusion⎯ →⎯⎯ λ / LD ~λ
2(D t)1/2= λ2((vthλt)
1/2 =vthτ ij
2((vth2τ ijt)
1/2 =12
τ ijt
⎛⎝⎜
⎞⎠⎟
1/2
τ ij
LD ~ 2[D t]1/2 ~ [Dij ~η ~κ ~ T5/2 ]t1/2
LD ~ [T5/2t]1/2 ~ T 5/4t1/2
Approximated as diffusive processes with characteristic scale length, LD:
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Kinetics to plasma fluid transport ** self-consistent plasma particle, heat and momentum flux ** condensed from: Simakov and Molvig, PoP 2016
§ Boltzmann equation:
§ Integrate over velocities: LHS, first order in Kn -> ‘fluid terms’, RHS -> ‘collisions’, consider flux vector.
§ Approximate distribution function w/ Legendre (Sonine) polynomials (for vector piece of solution):
§ Solve coupled equations for particle and heat flux coefficients of each species, i, of N species:
§ Binary system simplifies for light particle flux:
ρi (ui − ucm ) = −µ α11 ∇χ + (χ −Y )∇piapia
+ (z −Y )∇pepia
+ z − Zi2niZ j2nj
j∑
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟⎟αTe
∇TeTi
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟⎟+ 32αTi
∇TiTi
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟⎟
!!εm =mi /mI
∇χ∇Y
= DχDY
= εm(Y + (1−Y )εm )
2 = εm (χ + (1−Y ) / εm )21
pia∇pi −Y∇pia( )
∂ fi∂t
+∇⋅(vi fi )+∇v ⋅(ai fi ) = Cij
fi ~ ( fMax−i + fi1) ~ ( fMax−i + α i
k
k∑ Lk
3/2 ) ~ ( fMax−i +α i0L0
3/2 +α i1L1
3/2 +α i2L2
3/2 )
ν ii + ν ijj∑⎡
⎣⎢
⎤
⎦⎥i
3x3
[α o,α 1,α 2 ]i − ν ji⎡⎣ ⎤⎦i3x3[α o,α 1,α 2 ] j
j∑ = Di ~ [
diχ i
,− 52∇ logTi ,0]i
concentration and ion barodiffusion terms are equivalent in Zimmerman-Schunk model (Hoffman, et.al., PoP, 2015)
concentration given as mass fraction (Kagan, Tang, 2014)
∇χ ⇒ DχDY
∇YFor
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Plasma transport in xRage (Eulerian AMR code) compares well to non-linear self-similar diffusion test problem1 under P-T equilib.
[1] D-AL planar mixing at 4 keV, Molvig, Vold, Dodd, Wilks, PRL, 2014
Den
sity
–g/
cc-
Distance -cm-
w/ ion baro-diffusion •
w/o ion baro-diffusion •
• w/ & w/o electron baro-diffusion 8"
10"
12"
14"
16"
18"
20"
22"
(1.00E(03" (5.00E(04" 0.00E+00" 5.00E(04" 1.00E(03"
rho_D41"
rho_F41"
rho_B41"
rho_E41"
rho_C41"
rho_A41"
rho_self(sim"
rho_kiineic"
§ code solutions during development converged on analytic self-sim soln and kinetic soln for D-Al mixing.
Y
V
Χ Y = mass frac X = molar frac v = ‘volume’ frac
tota
l den
sity
–g/
cc-
§ code profiles for X, Y matches analytics in Molvig, et.al., 20141 (for ideal gas or EOS tables )
§ mix profile contributions for low z – high z mixing: DD-Au
§ ion barodiffusion ~ doubles mix width for DD-Au
§ ion barodiffusion contributes less for lower z mixing
-10 x –microns- 10
test case at t = 0.25 ns
-10 x –microns- 10
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Viscosity
§ Previous work showed classical binary viscosity can be approximated as a sum over species, and terms simplify considerably in 1D spherical symmetry.
Plasma viscosity due to electrons is important in high z material. ( X = 0 here)
1.0E‐04
1.0E‐03
1.0E‐02
1.0E‐01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
plasma viscosity ‐ kg m
‐1 s‐1 ‐
X ‐ molar frac4on of light ion‐
Viscpls1
Viscpls2
Viscplse
Viscpls
light ions heavy ions electrons total
§ Ion viscosity in classical binary transport (Molvig, Simikov, Vold, PoP 2014):
§ Ion viscosity in approx as species summation
§ Viscous terms simplify in 1D spherical geometry – viscous tensor:
– viscous energy dissipation
ηM = mini43
vTi2
ν i[n ]αη[Δ I ]xIZI
2 = 43mivTi
2
ν ii[ni ]ninαη[Δ I ]xIZI
2 ∝xiαη[Δ I ]xIZI
2 ~αη[Δ I ]Δ I
ηM ≈ kT niν i
⎡
⎣⎢
⎤
⎦⎥
i∑ = kT ni
ν ijj∑
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥i
∑
Δ I =xIZI
2
xiZi≈ (1− xi ) ZI
2
xi= εm (1− yi ) ZI
2
yi
ν ij = Cνα ijK zi
2zj2Lijnj
mi1/2kT 3/2
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Temperature profiles from 1D Lagrange simulations are sensitive to viscous terms and at center show a peak in Ti for the inviscid case.
Position (µ m)0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Tem
pera
ture
(eV
)
102
103
104T
e - Viscous
Ti
Tr
Te - Inviscid
Ti
Tr
§ at shock convergence – (1.42 ns inviscid) – (1.52 ns viscous)
160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 25010
−2
10−1
100
101
102
103
Position (µ m)
Tem
pera
ture
(eV
)
Te − Viscous
Ti
Tr
Te − Only Viscous M
Ti
Tr
Te − Inviscid
Ti
Tr
§ after shock convergence – (1.56 ns )
§ during incoming shock convergence
0 20 40 60 80 100 12010
1
102
103
104
Position (µ m)
Te
mp
era
ture
(e
V)
Te − Viscous
Ti
Tr
Te − Inviscid
Ti
Tr
0 r -microns- 120 0 r -microns- 120 160 r -microns- 250
tem
pera
ture
s –e
V-
103 104 104 Ti Ti Ti
Te Te Te
Tr Tr
inviscid
plasma viscosity
plasma viscosity only in momentum equation Inviscid case shows Ti peak on center at shock convergence
and rapid relaxation.
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Density [r,t] surface in a 1D Lagange code: ICF implosion with and without plasma viscosity
rad
ius
– µ
m-
0
500
0 1 2
time – ns-
0.0#
50.0#
100.0#
150.0#
200.0#
250.0#
300.0#
350.0#
400.0#
450.0#
0.00# 0.50# 1.00# 1.50# 2.00# 2.50#
radius'(m
icrons('
-me'(ns('
VISC_ALL#
INVISC#
§ ‘Standard’ Lagrange w/ artificial viscosity
rad
ius
– µ
m-
0
500
0 1 2
time -ns-
§ Lagrange w/ plasma and artificial viscosity
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Density [r,t] surface in ICF implosion with and without plasma viscosity AND w/ ‘late time’ artificial viscosity zeroed
§ q
radi
us –
µm
-
0
500
0 1 2
time -ns- ra
diu
s –
µm
-
0
500
0 1 2 time – ns-
46.0%
48.0%
50.0%
52.0%
54.0%
56.0%
58.0%
60.0%
1.7% 1.9% 2.1% 2.3%
radius'(m
icrons'
-me'(ns('
VISC_ALL%
INVISC%
VISCwQavOFF_150607%
§ ‘Standard’ Lagrange w/ artificial viscosity
§ Lagrange w/ plasma viscosity § NO artificial viscosity (after
shock convergence)
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
Kinetic coefficients**, for ion temperature gradient drive in binary species mixing, are of order unity when using molar concentrations but appear large using mass concentrations.
§ Assume (to simplify): § Y (mass frac) = 0.5 Erfc[ξ] § ξ = z / LD = z / (2(D t)1/2)
ρi (ui − ucm ) = −µ α11 ∇χ + (χ −Y )∇pipi
+ (z −Y )∇pepi
+ z − Zi2niZ j2nj
j∑
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟⎟αTe
∇TeTi
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟⎟+ 32αTi
∇TiTi
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟⎟
!!εm =mi /mI∇χ∇y
= DχDy
= εm(y + (1− y)εm )
2 = εm (χ + (1− χ ) / εm )2
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
D - Au
ξ = z / LD ξ = z / LD -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
ξ = z / LD ξ = z / LD
D - Au D - Au
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
0.01
0.1
1
10
Y
χ
α11 Y χ α11
αTi
χ i =ni
ni + nI= ρi /mi
ρi /mi + ρI /mI
= yiyi + (1− yi )εm
** Molvig, Simikov, Vold, PoP, 2014
Dχ /DY αTi
Dχ /DY⎛⎝⎜
⎞⎠⎟
αTi
Dχ /DY⎛⎝⎜
⎞⎠⎟
αTi
Dχ /DY⎛⎝⎜
⎞⎠⎟
= grad[Ti] coef. relative to mass fraction gradient (e.g., Kagan-Tang form)
D - Al
∇χ = DχDY( )∇Y
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Preliminary simulations (xRage) of Rinderknect planar shock experiment using MSV** ion transport model show a depletion of Ne at the ion shock front followed by a small enhancement of Ne concentration behind the shock front.
§ Depletion/Enhancement is a result of ion thermodiffusion.
t1 = 2.5 ns
• Depletion and enhancement are persistant w/ ion shock front.
Ti[t1]
Ne
mas
s fra
ctio
n
Ne
mas
s fra
ctio
n –
log
scal
e-
0.1
0.2
0.3 t2 = 5 ns
x distance –cm- (spanning 0.35 to 0.75 cm)
x distance –cm- (spanning 0.35 to 0.75 cm)
Ti[t2]
Te[t1]
Te[t2]
Ne[t1] Ne[t2] w
/ Ti a
nd T
e -e
V-
103
100
shock[t1]
** MSV- Molvig, Simakov, Vold, PoP, 2014
H w/ Ne = 2 % atm
shock[t2]
shock[t1] shock[t2]
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Simulations (xRage) of OMEGA shot #78199 using MSV multispecies ion-transport model show a depletion of Ar at the incoming ion shock front followed by a persistent enhancement of argon concentration behind the shock and following shock reflection at center.
§ Enhancement is a result of ion thermodiffusion – Simulations with ion thermodiffusion turned off do not show this effect.
shock
t = 1.2 ns
radius (out to100 microons)
• Depletion and Enhancement persist for many 100s of ps.
• Bang time ~ 1.35 ns
• times (ns) are:
1., 1.1, 1.15, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4
t1=1.
t = 1.1
t = 1.15
t = 1.2
t = 1.3
t = 1.4
radius (out to100 microons)
At t = 1.2 ns, Ti shock converges on center
Ar m
ass
fract
ion
Ar m
ass
fract
ion
– lo
g sc
ale-
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.5
0.0
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Plasma transport simulations (xRage) showing mix layer profile evolution at early times (< ~ psec, Kn ~ mfp/LD large) and into fluid regime ( ~ ns, Kn ~ mfp/LD small) for DD-Al mixing at 4 keV).
3 distinct phases: 1 - << 1 psec: u grows starting ‘tri-model’ profile 2 - ~ 1- 2 psec: u tri-model profile relaxes in magnitude, spreading in space 3- < 0.1-0.2 ns: dP relaxed -> ~ 0, while div*u ≠ 0, and relaxes on diffusion time scale
2.5 psec 1. psec
0.2 psec 0.025 psec 0.25 nsec
0.1 nsec
§ pressure § velocity
••• Results are being compared to kinetic simulations in VPIC (L.Yin) and iFP (Chacon, Taitano) to understand early time (large Kn number) mix behavior.
0.2 psec
1. psec
2.5 psec
0.25 nsec
0.025 psec
- 4 x -microns- 4 - 4 x -microns- 4
3 distinct phases: 1 - << 1 psec: pressure discontinuity, dP, grows at interface. 2 - ~ 1- 2 psec: dP propagates into each fluid at its sonic speed. 3- < 0.1-0.2 ns: dP has relaxed -> 0, in the mix region
D D Al Al
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's NNSA
Small scale structures: CAUTION: numerics can mask the plasma transport mixing
Slide 13
§ diffusion mix front grows in time LD ~ 2(D t)1/2
‘side’ view ‘top’ view
-4 -2 2 4
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-4
-2
24
-1.0
-0.5
0.5
1.0
mix volumes: early time: Vm[t] ~ Am[t] LD[t] …..and finally… Vm[t] ~ f[ Am[t],LD[t],λ[t] ]
§ Numerical solutions for ICF ‘sym-cap’ mixing** show detailed structure w/ more realistic IC.
§ When structure sizes are comparable to numerical diffusion scales, the plasma diffusion may not greatly modify the solution.
λ
** Haines, Grimm, et.al. in preparation, 2016
time
simple IC geometry ‘detailed’ IC geometry
§ For RM, RT, KH instabilities, mix volume related to interfacial area, A, in more complex manner