Two and Three-dimensional Modelling of the Different Phases of Wire Array Z-pinch Evolution J.P.

Chittenden Imperial College

In collaboration with S.V. Lebedev, S.N. Bland, F.N. Beg, J. Ruiz-Camacho, A.Ciardi, C.A. Jennings, A.R. Bell, and M.G. Haines from Imperial College, With additional experimental data from S.A. Pikuz, T.A. Shelkovenko, from P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute and D.A. Hammer from Cornell University
Dr. Jeremy P. Chittenden, William Penney Research Fellow, Plasma Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BZ, U.K. tel. 44 207 594 7650, fax. 44 207 594 7658, email. j.chittenden@ic.ac.uk

With grateful thanks for funding from the AWE – William Penney Fellowship scheme Sandia National Laboratories and the U.S. Department of Energy

APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Assumption of rapid shell formation followed by 2D(r,z) MRT instability omits plasma formation effects and other important 3D phenomena

If we were to assume that the initial flow of current causes rapid and uniform explosion of the wires then an almost uniform cylindrical “shell of plasma” results. THIS DOESN’T HAPPEN
8

Radius in mm

6 4 2
innermost bubble

spikes

thin shell 0D model

0 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Time in ns

The growth of the magneto-Rayleigh-Taylor instability is then responsible for “shell broadening” which determines the X-ray rise-time. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY EFFECT AND SOMETIMES ISN’T IMPORTANT AT ALL.

Rise-time ~ shell thickness / velocity THIS CANNOT EXPLAIN LOW WIRE NUMBER RESULTS
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Wire arrays cover a wide range of parameters but exhibit the same physical processes

Owl II, 6x20µm Al, 7mm φ

SATURN 64x15µm Al, 17mm φ

MAGPIE 64x15µm Al, 16mm φ
20

MAGPIE 16x15µm Al, 16mm φ + 16x15µm Al, 8mm φ

15

Z

Current in MA

10
SATURN

SATURN Long Pulse

5
Owl II MAGPIE

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time in ns
Z, 240x7.5µm W, 40mm φ + 120x7.5µm W, 20mm φ

A wide range of materials and diameters are used

Total currents vary considerably but currents per wire and inter-wire gaps are similar
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

MAGPIE wire array experiments show intrinsically 3D phenomena with scales ranging from a few µm to several mm
Side-on laser schlieren, r-z modulation (m=0 like instabilities in each wire?) End-on laser interferometer, r-θ modulation radial plasma streams Side-on X-pinch X-ray back-lighter reveals dense wire cores embedded within the coronas

279ns

At late times, structure apparently resembles a global Rayleigh-Taylor instability For details on experiments see DO2.007 MP1.084 WO2.006 16mm

Simultaneous laser schlieren shows relative size of coronas
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Talk Outline
Philosophy Bench-mark 2D and 3D models in detail against MAGPIE wire array data and several single wire experiments. Use these models to understand behaviour of similar experiments at higher currents on SATURN, Z, X1.. Cannot model whole problem (3D + global & fine scale structures) simultaneously. Therefore model different phases separately and attempt to link them
Wire Initiation (Plasma Formation) Instability growth in each wire plasma Coronal merger, 10 mass injection and precursor formation

Research Topics 1. 1D and 2D(r,z) “cold-start” single wire calculations :formation of the “core-corona” structure, m=0 instability growth in individual wire plasmas. 2. 2D(r-θ) plane calculations:how core-corona structure affects dynamics radial plasma streams, coronal merger, precursor. the physics of what controls the core ablation rate 3. A brief discussion of the physics of the precursor 4. 2D(r-θ) plane calculations of nested wire arrays :momentum and current transfer during collision how these determine which mode of implosion results 5. 3D simulations of a single wire in an array :origins of local and global perturbations differences in behaviour from single wires structure and trajectory of implosion

8

Radius in mm

6

Global instability development Nested array interaction Stagnation and X-ray generation

4

2

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time in ns

APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Plasma formation in wires depends on complex EOS and transport coefficients
∫ ηj2 dt exceeds energy budget to heat, melt, vaporise and ionise all material in wires within a few ns. However this energy is not deposited uniformly, formation of a plasma corona greatly reduces energy transfer rate to cold, dense wire core, allowing it to survive until late times.
10
1 0 -1 -2

10
10 eV 3 eV perfect gas 1 eV 0.3 eV condensation

-5

ρsolid /10 ρsolid /3

Pressure (MBar)

10 10 10 10 10 10

degeneracy

Resistivity in Ωm

10

-6

ρsolid
-7

-3

0.1 eV
-4 -5 1 2 3 4

10

Spitzer - like Melting point

0.03 eV

10

10

10

10

Density (kg/m )
Modified Thomas-Fermi Equations of State In condensed phase electron pressure is allowed to go negative, so that total pressure is zero. This is an oversimplification, but appears to work. Numerically such an EOS is a pain to use. However after a few ns, core expansion is sufficient for it to be approximated by a cold unionised gas.

3

10

-8

0.1

1

10

100

1000

Temperature in eV
Lee and More’s transport model Modifications to transport remain important long after modifications to EOS, not least because Ohmic heating is found to be the dominant mechanism for energy transfer to the core. Considerable uncertainty remains over the resistivties around 1-10eV [see GP1.066 M.P. Desjarlais]
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

1D “cold-start” MHD simulations show formation of core-corona structure
Consider a single 15µm Aluminium wire with ~1kA/ns current
1000 100 1000
1000 1000

Temperature (eV)

10 1 0.1 0.01 1E-3 100 200 300 400

10 1 0.1 0.01 1E-3 100 200 300 400

Temperature (eV)

Density (kg/m )

Density (kg/m )

100 10 1 0.1 100 200 300

100
3

100 10 1 0.1 100 200 300

3

Te Ti Z
*

Te Ti Z
*

1E-4 0 10 2.5x10

0.01 0 7 2.0x10 1.5x10 1.0x10 5.0x10 0.0
7

400

1E-4 0 12 1.2x10

0.01 0 9 2.5x10 2.0x10 1.5x10 1.0x10 5.0x10 0.0 0
9

400

Current Density (A/m )

Current Density (A/m )

2.0x10 1.5x10 1.0x10 5.0x10

10

Total Pressure (Pa)

10

8.0x10 6.0x10 4.0x10 2.0x10 0.0

11

Total Pressure (Pa)

Eqn. of State Perfect Gas

1.0x10

12

Eqn. of State Perfect Gas

2

2

9

7

11

10

9

11

6

9

11

8

0.0

0

100

200

300

400

0

100

200

300

400

0

100

200

300

400

100

200

300

400

Radius in µm

Radius in µm

Radius in µm

Radius in µm

10ns 25ns Once vaporised core expands at roughly it’s sound speed. Magnetic field becomes sufficient to pinch corona back onto core, triggering increased current flow and Ohmic heating core. Surface regions drop to low density and are readily ionised. Core continues to expand at roughly constant speed. Current gradually transfers from core to corona, which heats and expands. Density is now low enough for pressure to be close to perfect gas value. Core pressure << perfect gas value.
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

In 2D(r,z) “cold-start” simulations of a single wire, pinching of the corona excites the m=0 instability
4
> 1. 0.3 - 1. 0.1 - 0.3 0.03 - 0.1 0.01 - 0.03 0.003 - 0.01 0.001 - 0.003 0.0003 - 0.001 0.0001 - 0.0003

4

4

4

4

4

Z axis in mm

Z axis in mm

Z axis in mm

Z axis in mm

2

2

2

Z axis in mm

2

2

Z axis in mm
0 1 2

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

2

0

0

1

2

0

0

1

2

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

1

2

R axis in mm

R axis in mm

R axis in mm

R axis in mm

R axis in mm

R axis in mm

20ns

25ns

30ns

35ns

40ns

45ns

Short wavelengths at early times give way to longer wavelengths as plasma expands so that λ / radius roughly constant

Current by-passes contorted path through flares and flows through narrow region just outside the core. Initially necks fail to penetrate core which remains virtually unperturbed. Since the core retains the majority of the mass, when the necks eventually penetrate to the axis, this represents a dramatic increase in total perturbation amplitude. Depletion of the core material in the region of penetration results in high temperatures and X-ray “bright-spots”
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Comparison to single wire data provides benchmark tests for 2D MHD code plus EOS and transport models therein
1.8 1.6 1.4 Corona Min. Corona Max. Core Min. Core Max. Corona Exp. Core Exp.

Radius (mm)

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Experiment at 51ns

Simulation at 51ns

Experiment at 85ns

Simulation at 85ns
160

Time (ns)

Areal Density ( µg/cm )
2

For example comparison to laser probing and X-pinch radiography of 100µm Al wires at Cornell [D. Kalantar and D. Hammer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3806 (1993)] allows simultaneous tests of wavelength and amplitude of m=0 in corona plus core expansion. Alternatively recent quantitative X-pinch radiography of low current Al wires at Cornell [S.A. Pikuz and T.A. Shelkovenko] provides more detailed test of core expansion

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

Radius (mm)

APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

3D behaviour of wires in arrays limits the application of 2D single wire calculations to scaling arguments
M=0 instability in single wires
4 4

Z axis in mm

Necks penetrate cores forming X-ray bright-spots Growth dependent on current per wire

2

Z axis in mm
0 1 2

Amplitude and wavelength increase as corona expands

3

3

2

1

1

0

0

0

1

2

R axis in mm

R axis in mm

24ns

36ns

48ns Instability (or just modulation ?) in wires in arrays Amplitude, wavelength and size in azimuthal direction are almost constant in time X-ray bright-spots not observed before global implosion initiates

24 x 25µm Al on SATURN

64 x 15µm Al on SATURN

~90% of mass remains in core For low current per wire, instability doesn’t penetrate core, perturbation amplitude remains small For higher current per wire (N < 40), core is penetrated before array implodes, perturbation amplitude in each wire reaches 100%, perturbation for whole array ~ 1/√N APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

148ns

Growth is a weak function of current per wire

2D(x,y) plane simulations show how core-corona structure radically alters implosion dynamics
8x15µm Aluminium on MAGPIE
8 8 8 8

25 ns
6 6

60 ns
6

90 ns
6

125 ns

Y Axis in mm

Y Axis in mm

Y Axis in mm

Y Axis in mm

4 2 0

4 2 0

4 2 0

4 2 0

0

2

4

6

8

0

2

4

6

8

0

2

4

6

8

0

2

4

6

8

X Axis in mm
8 8

X Axis in mm

X Axis in mm

X Axis in mm

Use 1D cold-start to initialise
180 ns
6 6

210 ns

Y Axis in mm

Y Axis in mm

Low density corona accelerated by jxB and swept around wire cores forming radial plasma streams Dynamical balance between rate of material ejection from core and injection into interior of array Streams reach axis at ½ implosion time forming precursor

4 2 0

4 2 0

0

2

4

6

8

0

2

4

6

8

Cores remain stationary until 80% of implosion time Majority of array mass on axis prior to implosion Dynamics and structures accurately reproduce experiments
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

X Axis in mm

X Axis in mm

The same phenomena persist for higher wire numbers and larger, faster rising currents
48x17.5µm Aluminium on SATURN

Low density parts of plasma streams merge early on Cores remain stationary and intact until 80% of implosion time During flight, cores merge to form azimuthally symmetric shell. Significant fraction of array mass on axis prior to implosion Radial mass profile agrees well with initial conditions assumed by Whitney and Thornhill [IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 26 p1168 (1998)]. Absence of axial dimension means short, sharp radiation pulse obtained.
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Use reduced zone around one wire for high resolution
e.g. One of 32 15µm Al wires on MAGPIE In this case, jxB force redirects ablating material towards array axis without applying force directly to the core

Close-up of core region
0.2 0.2 0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

Y Axis in mm

Y Axis in mm

0.0

0.0

Y Axis in mm
7.9 8.0 8.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.1

-0.1

-0.2 7.9 8.0 8.1

-0.2

-0.2 7.9 8.0 8.1

X Axis in mm

X Axis in mm

X Axis in mm

Log ρ(x,y) and log v(x,y)

jz(x,y)

Log ρ(x,y) and jxB(x,y)
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Ohmic heating of core material determines implosion trajectory
Cool cores
Dynamical balance between core ablation and mass injection Residual cores remain stationary until 80 % of implosion time.
R

jz similar to thin shell model
Warm cores

Mass averaged radius versus time
T

Once Te > 1eV current transferred to cores, some jxB force applied directly cores rapidly heat and expand

R

jz
Close cores

Trajectory similar to thin shell model
R

T

Reduces injection of material and current between cores. Trajectory similar to thin shell model

jz

T
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

The precursor plasma is an apparently stable, uniform and long-lived, 1D plasma.
Gated soft X-ray images of precursor indicate that equilibrium radius is a strong function of material carbon
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 radially convergent stream 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
-1

Precursor lifetime > 100ns Initial formation phase is collisionless.

aluminium

tungsten

Once collisonal, converges to a two component equilibrium of high density Can be modelled in high resolution stationary precursor and lower density convergent radial plasma stream. with 1D MHD
60

1.2 stationary precursor

Temperature in eV

50 40 30 20 10 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Density in Kg/m

Pressure balanced by ρv2 of bombarding stream. Little or no current. Kinetic energy delivered (ρv3A) is the roughly balanced by radiation losses. Similar to a test developed to evaluate different artificial viscosity formulations in 1D hydrodynamics (W.F. Noh, J. Comp. Phys. 72, p78 (1987). Density ratio between precursor and stream ~[(γ+1)/(γ-1)]2. Data suggests for Al γ≈5/3. For W precursor density much higher ⇒ γ≈1.1 Ideal test-bed for opacity measurements, X-ray laser experiments and benchmarking radiation hydrodynamics codes.
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

3

flux through boundary

Radius in mm
12 10 8

Radius in mm

Vr in ms

0.0

-5.0x10

4

Z star

6 4 2 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 -1.0x10
5

-1.5x10

5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Radius in mm

Radius in mm

There are at least 3 different theoretical modes of nested wire array dynamics
Hydrodynamic Collision (or Shell on Shell) Mode
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 60

70

80

90 100 110 120

Time in ns

Transparent Inner (or Current Transfer) mode
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Time in ns

Flux Compression (or Magnetic Buffer) mode
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 60

Outer Inner

70

80

90 100 110 120

Time in ns

APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

2D(x,y) simulations reproduce collapse dynamics of nested arrays on MAGPIE
Outer
Y Axis in cm
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

90 ns
0.8 0.8

150 ns
0.8

200 ns
0.8

230 ns
0.8

240 ns

Y Axis in cm

Y Axis in cm

Y Axis in cm

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0

Y Axis in cm
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

X Axis in cm

X Axis in cm 90 ns 150 ns
0.8 0.8

X Axis in cm 200 ns
0.8

X Axis in cm 230 ns
0.8

X Axis in cm 240 ns

Inner
Y Axis in cm

1.0 0.8

Y Axis in cm

Y Axis in cm

Y Axis in cm

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

Y Axis in cm
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

X Axis in cm

X Axis in cm

X Axis in cm

X Axis in cm

X Axis in cm

16+16 x 15µm Aluminium (equal length arrays)
Radius in mm

9 8 7
Outer Sim. Inner Sim. Outer Expt. Inner Expt.

Inner wires heated by bombarding plasma streams from outer Small fraction of current flowing through inner array produces Bθ between arrays Compression of this flux by implosion of outer produces sufficient current to drive inner ahead of outer.

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 160 180 200 220

240

260

Time in ns

APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Model inner and outer arrays on ‘Z’ separately, first calculate radial plasma flux from outer array, then use this to bombard the inner array.
) Axis in mm

240x7.5µm tungsten wires on a 40mm diameter
0.2 0.0 -0.2
20 ns

Similar features to lower wire number cases,
18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0
40 ns

Y (or ) Axis in mm Y (or θ) in mm in mm in mm ) Axis ) Axis Axis

0.2 0.0 -0.2 18.5 0.2 0.0 -0.2 18.5
0.2 0.0 -0.2 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0

Dense wire cores retain most of the mass until implosions commences. Low density corona swept around cores forming radial plasma streams.

19.0

19.5

20.0
60 ns

At 75ns precursor stream extends down to 6mm and contains 20% of mass. In 2D, the remaining 80% is in a 1mm wide shell

19.0

19.5

20.0
70 ns

After this stage the plasma is largely homogeneous in the azimuthal direction. Use the flux through the LHS of the outer array simulation to provide RHS boundary conditions for simulation of an inner array wire.

X (or R) Axis in mm
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

2D(x,y) simulations predict the implosion modes of nested arrays on ‘Z’
Inner array of 60x10.5 µm W wires
Y (or θ) Axis in mm

Plasma stream from outer of 240x7.5µm W
Y (or θ) Axis in mm 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 8.0 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 8.0 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 8.0 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 8.0 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0

83 ns

0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 8.0 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 8.0 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 8.0 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 8.0 0.50 0.25 0.00 -0.25 -0.50 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0

Inner array wires see 20ns of low density coronal bombardment followed by main mass in 1mm wide shell.
X (or R) Axis in mm

Y (or θ) Axis in mm

Y (or θ) Axis in mm

98 ns

X (or R) Axis in mm

At first little expansion of inner wires ⇒ outer material streams through, setting up bow–shock. Later bombardment by denser main mass heats each wire with ~100GW of kinetic flux. Inner wires expand rapidly allowing effective momentum transfer. Compression of magnetic flux carried by plasma stream effectively increases momentum transferred. Trajectory similar to hydrodynamic collision mode with reduced radiation at collision. Trajectories consistent with transparent inner mode require ≤ 30 wires in inner.
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Y (or θ) Axis in mm

Y (or θ) Axis in mm

Y (or θ) Axis in mm

Y (or θ) Axis in mm

107ns

X (or R) Axis in mm

Y (or θ) Axis in mm

104ns

X (or R) Axis in mm

Y (or θ) Axis in mm

102ns

X (or R) Axis in mm

X (or R) Axis in mm

X (or R) Axis in mm

X (or R) Axis in mm

X (or R) Axis in mm

X (or R) Axis in mm

Even with 30% amplitude perturbation on ρ(z) with 0.5mm wavelength, apparent modulation is much less than in experiment
50 ns

z r

80ns

Side-on laser schlieren of Al arrays on MAGPIE show: modulation in corona from ~60ns roughly constant amplitude (r+ - r-) and wavelength
100ns

3D MHD simulation shows: initial modulation amplitude retained in core & corona no apparent growth or change in modulation no apparent difference in cross-section for different axial positions Maybe this isn’t an MHD instability at all ?
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

3D simulation of m=0 instability in ideal MHD equilibrium pinch: growth rate agrees well with analytic theory

Similar results have been obtained for m=1 instabilities [S.G. Lucek, private communication]
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Modulating core resistivity versus z, gives results similar to experiment

150ns
0.8 0.6

220ns
0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6

240ns

Z Axis in mm

Z Axis in mm

0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

Z Axis in mm

0.4

0.4

0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5

R Axis in cm

R Axis in cm

R Axis in cm

Lower core resistivity in centre, higher core resistivity at ends ⇒ modulated core heating and ablation. During implosion wire core “breaks”, current penetrates inside wire array, cold core regions left behind.
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000

Two and Three-dimensional Modelling of the Different Phases of Wire Array Z-pinch Evolution
Conclusions
2D “cold-start” models illustrate important processes involved in plasma formation phase and provide model verification through comparison to single wire experiments. Absence of 3D effects, however, severely limits their ability to predict the behaviour of wires in an array. 2D(x,y) simulations show how the flow of material ablating from the core is redirected by j∧B forces forming the radial plasma stream and the precursor. Require better resistivity models to cover all array parameters. 2D(x,y) simulations of nested arrays model momentum transfer and magnetic flux compression during collision. All shots to date on Z have been “hydrodynamic collision” like, “transparent inner” mode requires fewer wires on the inner and larger (>1.5mm) inter wire gaps. Preliminary 3D modelling suggests MAGPIE data can be explained in terms of wire breaking and not necessarily Rayleigh-Taylor. Can this model be extrapolated to ‘Z’ ? More experimental data is needed.
APS-DPP, Quebec 2000