Simulating Inhomogeneous Magnetized Plasmas – A New Approach Co-Investigators Bruce I. Cohen PAT/ FEP Ronald H. Cohen PAT/ FEP Andris Dimits PAT/ FEP Alex Friedman PAT/ FEP Andreas Kemp PAT/ FEP Max Tabak DNT/AX Principal Investigator David P. Grote PAT/FEP 2008 08-ERD-??? New Approach FI MFE Space e-cloud HIF Drift- Lorentz Continuing Proposal FY08 Proposed Budget $340k (FY07 Actual $200k) Tracking Number 07-ERD-016
22
Embed
Simulating Inhomogeneous Magnetized Plasmas – A New Approach Co-Investigators Bruce I. CohenPAT/ FEP Ronald H. CohenPAT/ FEP Andris DimitsPAT/ FEP Alex.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Simulating Inhomogeneous Magnetized Plasmas – A New Approach
Co-InvestigatorsBruce I. Cohen PAT/ FEPRonald H. Cohen PAT/ FEP
Andris Dimits PAT/ FEPAlex Friedman PAT/ FEP
Andreas Kemp PAT/ FEPMax Tabak DNT/AX
Principal InvestigatorDavid P. Grote PAT/FEP
2008 08-ERD-???
New Approach
FIMFE
Spacee-cloud
HIF
Drift-
Lorentz
Continuing Proposal
FY08 Proposed Budget $340k (FY07 Actual $200k)
Tracking Number 07-ERD-016
We are seeking an expanded scope to this work
• Last year’s proposal was aimed at expanding the applicability of a
novel particle-in-cell (PIC) time-advance algorithm by adding
implicitness and collisions
• Now, we seek to address emerging needs by adding an increased
focus on critical collision modelling capability
– With NIF post-ignition planning, a greater need for Fast Ignition
(FI) modelling has emerged
– More advanced inter-particle collision models, both explicit and
implicit, needed for FI and other HEDP studies
We are interested in inhomogeneous, dense, magnetized, multi-component plasmas
Inhomogeneous magnetized plasmas also appear in
Fast Ignition is an example
Magnetic fieldHot electron density
Gold coneCompressed
fuel
Laser
(N/cm^3) (gauss)
(LSP simulation by R. Town)
•Magnetic Fusion Energy (MFE)
•Heavy-Ion Driven IFE (HIF)
•Intense particle beams
•Space plasmas
A new algorithmic invention can relax the constraints
on ct, greatly reducing computational effort
• This invention, the drift-Lorentz mover, combines two traditional
movers, Boris and drift, in such a way that the correct behaviour is
maintained with large time steps [R. Cohen, Phys. Plasmas (2005)]
• Currently implemented in an explicit, electrostatic code (WARP);
has proven enabling for electron-cloud physics in particle beams (for
example for HIF and LHC)
• HIF example - with mover, runtime decreased from months to daysWARP-3DT = 4.65s
Oscillations
Beam ions hit
end plate
200mA K+
Electrons
Electrons bunching
0. 2. time (s) 4. 6.
Simulation Experiment0.
-20.
-40.
Cu
rren
t (m
A)
Need to improve the efficiency of collision algorithms
for HEDP
• With Fokker-Planck-based, pair-wise, Monte-Carlo Collision (MCC)
operator, the computational expense can be limiting
– We seek to simplify the collision operator for select classes of
particles while maintaining general validity for dense plasmas
– Existing methods with weighted-particles [Nanbu&Yonemura, 1998]
require a large number of particles because of noise. We seek to
develop an efficient and energy-conserving description which
allows a reduction in the particle number
Need to improve the accuracy of collision algorithms
for HEDP
• We will assess the current MCC operators – do they include the
relevant physics?
– Do they fail to capture scattering off unresolved collective
modes?
– What is the bound electrons’ contribution to ion stopping in
matter?
– Do existing codes treat runaway electrons in resistive plasmas
correctly? What are the related errors in heating and transport?
• We will fix the collision operators and runaway models
• ITG is a classic MFE test problem studying instability of an inhomogeneous plasma
• We upgraded drift-Lorentz mover to higher density by adding partial implicitness
• Good results for this turbulent system
– Correct linear growth rate
– Correct saturation level
ct = 5.4
ct = 0.25
Progress to date –
Implementation of collisions
• Generalization of an existing algorithm to unlike-particle scattering
using a general unlike-particle Langevin Coulomb collision algorithm[Manheimer, et al., JCP 138, 565 (1997)]
• Simulation of collisional equilibration of unequal temperatures– Hydrogen/helium plasma with
initial temperatures TH=1.5THe
– 2D, Ncell=32, 0t=0.00005, 1-2-1
smoothing– Agreement with relaxation theory
is good
• Porting into WARP has commenced (LSP will follow)
Deliverables are structured so that intermediate results are useful and publications will result
Year 1 (FY07)
Year 2 (FY08)
Year 3 (FY09)
Model Development
-Add collisions to algorithm-Examine conventional implicit PIC at large ct as in LSP
-Begin exploring implicit versions of the drift-Lorentz algorithm
-Develop and benchmark advanced collision models
-Add improved collisions to LSP-Implement first implicit version of drift-Lorentz mover in WARP code
-Implement EM implicit drift-Lorentz model in LSP code
-Implement advanced collisions in LSP
Application of New Tools
-Benchmark versus collisionless ITG calculation carried out in GK code
-Benchmark versus collisional ITG
-Test first implicit version of drift-Lorentz mover
-Apply advanced collision models to transport for radiography sources
-Apply EM implicit drift-Lorentz to Weibel and/or Titan e- transport exp’ts
Proposal is well-aligned with LLNL S&T strategic
needs
• Will provide new capabilities for FI initially, and potentially MFE and
other applications in long term. Time frame commensurate with
planned experiments in FI
• Builds partnership with FI group in DNT through coordinated LDRD’s
• Will enhance PAT and DNT programs in IFE and HEDP
• Investment will leverage existing work, returning an increase in
LLNL’s simulation capability
• Excellent computational physics - will enhance the state-of-the-art in
plasma simulation
• This LDRD is designed to strengthen PAT’s role in HEDP
applications, including inertial fusion energy, an Aurora priority
Actual
The research team has broad experience in developing simulation tools for both MFE and ICF
David Grote (PI)• PIC expertise
Bruce Cohen• GK/collisions/implicit
Ron Cohen• Algorithm inventor
Andris Dimits• PIC Collisions
Alex Friedman• PIC/implicit
0.25
0.15
0.20
0.10
Research staff effort
FY07
FY08
FY09
Total FTE expense
Members of the team have been pioneers in
developing and applying particle simulations
$ k
$ k
$ k
Burdened
$200 k
$340 k
$340 k
Burdened
Andreas Kemp• PIC Collisions/FI
Max Tabak• FI expertise
0.20
0.05
0.05
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.00
0.10
FY07 FY08
Conclusion
• Goal: Provide better simulation capability for FI, IFE, MFE, space plasmas, etc.
• Approach: Expand the capabilities of PIC codes for inhomogeneous magnetized plasmas
• Deliverables: Develop and implement implicit version of drift-Lorentz mover, coupled with advanced collision models, with a focus on the FI application
• Team: Includes experts in and developers of implicit modelling, collision techniques, and Fast Ignition
• Budget: FY08 $340k
• Importance: New techniques will enhance simulation capabilities in projects across the Lab
• Exit Plan: We look forward to being more competitive in seeking funding from the new joint HEDP program office
Last year’s slides
The new method developed via this LDRD will give
LLNL a competitive advantage in modelling systems
involving inhomogeneous plasmas
• For ICF (especially fast ignition, our principal emphasis), high densities, strong magnetic fields, & sharp gradients coexist
• For MFE, gyrokinetics is well established but is complex, especially when collisions become important, and fails in presence of field nulls (as in FRC’s)
• For space plasmas, e.g. the earth’s bow shock, large gradients and nulls in the magnetic field appear
• For all of these application areas, there are problems with large variations in magnetization. They are difficult to treat with conventional approaches
New Approach
FIMFE
Spacee-cloud
HIF
Drift-
Lorentz
Existing FI codes suffer from inefficiencies
• LSP is the principal code used by LLNL’s Fast Ignition group
• LSP’s implicit time differencing & particle / fluid hybrid model enable
stable, large-t simulation of dense plasmas
• (competing codes are explicit, with other “tricks” for dense
plasmas)
• But: the electron cyclotron period must be resolved---expensive
when B is large. With ct > 1 :
– Current methods yield an overly-large gyroradius
– If this “numerical gyroradius” is larger than the physical gradient