Center for Radiative Shock Hydrodynamics Fall 2011 Review

1. Center for Radiative Shock HydrodynamicsFall 2011 Review Introductory overview R Paul Drake

2. You will see how our priorities have been driven by a sequence of integrated UQ studies • This first presentation • Motivation and introduction to the physical system • Overview of the past year and the project status • Our major accomplishments in this year • Simulation of the year-5 experiment (This presentation and more later) • Combining models of varying fidelity for UQ (Holloway and Bingham) • Completion of the laser package (Powell and Van derHolst talk) • Test experiments with nozzles and elliptical tubes (Kuranz) • Talks tomorrow and posters today provide many details • Organized abstract book provided for posters Items in this color are directly responsive to 2010 recommendations

3. We find our motivationin astrophysical connections • Radiative shocks have strongradiative energy transport that determines the shock structure • Exist throughout astrophysics Ensman & Burrows ApJ92 SN 1987A Reighard PoP07 Cataclysmic binary star (see Krauland poster: but she is at a related experiment)

4. We are showing a visualization of CRASH 3.0 output on theTVs • This has “solved” the morphology conundrum • We can do runs that produce a wall shock but no protuberance • We still do have more to learn about running with our laser package and other issues that matter • Simulation details • 0.8 µm effective resolution in 2D • Multigroup diffusion (30 groups, 0.1 eV to 20 keV) • 5 materials, 2 AMR levels, CRASH EOS & Opacity • Also see scale models in the room

5. A brief primer on shock wave structure • Behind the shock, the faster sound waves connect the entire plasma Denser, Hotter unshocked shocked Shock velocity, us Initial plasma Mach number M > 1 Mach number M = us / csound

6. Shock waves become radiative when … • radiative energy flux would exceed incoming material energy flux where post-shock temperature is proportional to us2. • Setting these fluxes equal gives a threshold velocity of 60 km/s for our system: Ts4 ∝ us8ous3/2 unshocked preheated shocked Material xenon gas Density 6.5 mg/cc Initial shock velocity 200 km/s Initial ion temperature 2 keV Typ. radiation temp. 50 eV

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, 2007 F. Doss, et al. Phys. Plas. 2009, HEDP 2010 Grid Schematic of radiograph See Kuranz talk

8. We’ve continued radiographic studies • Shape of entrained flow reveals wave-wave dynamics • Doss PoP 2011 • Thin layer instability; scaling to supernova remnants • Doss thesis & to be pub. • Bayesian analysis of tilt gives compression ~ 22 • Doss HEDP, A&SS 2010 • Shock-shock interactions give local Mach number • Doss PoP 2009 Radiographs 3.5 ns 13 ns 26 ns Credit: Carolyn Kuranz

9. Also making or analyzing other measurements • Shock breakout from the Be disk • X-ray Thomson scattering • Papers in prep • Kuranz et al. • Stripling et al. • Visco et al. • Huntington et al. See Kuranz talk and poster

10. CRASH 3.0 has substantial capability Material & AMR • Laser package • Dynamic AMR • Level set interfaces • EOS • Self-consistent EOS and opacities for 5 materials • Use of other tables too • Multigroup-diffusion radiation transport • Electron physics and flux-limited electron heat conduction Log Density Log Electron Temperature Log Ion Temperature 3D Nozzle to Ellipse @ 13 ns

11. We’ve completed simulations of the year-5 experiment Shock at 13ns in Elliptical Tube This is the system we want to predict Elliptical simulations (H2D initiated): Van derHolst et al, HEDP Submitted 2011 13 ns multigroup

12. Our “viewgraph norms” are a lot better than they were 600 µm 1200 µm Circular Elliptical tube tube nozzle nozzle 26 ns gray Although things are not perfect, we are ready to proceed beyond viewgraph norms to serious predictive studies. 13 ns MG

13. Code improvements • Laser package • EOS source increased adaptivity • Progress on multigroup preconditioner • Hydro scaling • PDT scaling • Implicit scaling with HYPRE • Non-LTE • Physics • More papers • Obtaining STA opacities • Work on non-LTE effects • SN/FLD comparison • Experiments • Early time radiographs • Deeper analysis of shock breakout • Year 4 experiments: large tubes, nozzles, first elliptical results • Progress on X-ray Thomson scattering We have accomplished a lot during the past year • UQ and predictive studies • Predictive method involving joint models • Predictive study with joint models and calibration/tuning • First run set with laser package • Evaluation of AMR fidelity • Evaluation of sensitivity to opacity • Code comparison project • Steady though slow work on hydro validation • Routine parallel scaling tests • CRASH 3.0 released; CRASH used • Base CRASH problem • Elliptical tube • Application to other experiments • Hydro instability studies Items in this color are directly responsive to 2010 review

14. We are organized and managed for success • Strategic allocation of resourceswith tactical reallocation based on weekly meetings • Ability to accomplish and improve our UQ work drives these decisions • Some examples: focus on laser package, timestep controls, convergence • We are managing around the UCNI problem • Regular meetings of specific groups • UQ, Applications, Software, Graduate students, Hydro • Education items • Having CRASH session and lunch/posters at APS/DPP to increase interactionswith NNSA lab personnel and better disseminateCRASH developments • Continuing to work withand recruit new students • Continuing our educational programs in predictive science

15. There are areas in which we have not addressed prior recommendations • Mostly this reflects following the recommendation to allocate resources strategically • A list • Lines of code coverage analysis • Solution verification as distinct from the verification we have reported • Computer bandwidth to the labs remains an issue • It has improved by a large factor at LLNL • PDT validation • Management/Education • Attempt to tightly coordinate students time at labs • In some areas where we have made progress, resource allocation has limited our progress

16. We are in the age of run sets • RS 4: 104 2D on base expt • RS 5: 512 1D on numerics • RS 6: 128 2D on numerics • RS 7: 128 99 for nozzles • The final H2D runset (ugh!) • RS 8: 27 2D Nozzle properties • RS 9: 10 3D Ellipticity and shape • RS 10: 128 2D base CRASH • With laser package • Future run sets discussed later • A substantial fraction of our activity • Defining • Initiating via a formal process • Running (as platforms change) • Processing • Analyzing • Reacting • Many people & interactions H2D could not get the job done

17. We’ve been burning up the cycles • Running queue-limited much of the time • Also burning a few x 100,000 core hours per month here at UM • We’d crank up the output this next year if we were not limited by cycles, queues, and data transport H2D Core hours

18. Our predictive studies include a main path and supporting activities • Main path • A sequence of studies that let us apply the joint model methodology to predict the year 5 experiment (see next talk) • Supporting activities • Solid verification practices • Small studies focused on specific issues • AMR, opacity impact, exact shape of 3D experiment, etc • Validation and code comparison studies (see Fryxell talk) • We are ready to make temperature measurements • For the CRASH system • From heat waves for validation (Gamboa poster) • request review committee endorsement of this

19. Our roadmap for prediction is now based on 2D & 3D CRASH • Newly completed RS 10 Multigroup (MG) is the foundation going forward (120 runs, 6360 observations) • Expect to show improved prediction over last year • May need to redo as laser package use matures • 11/2011 – 1/2012: Complete RS10 Gray (G); combine G and MG to predict SL (shock location) & WSA (wall shock angle) • 2/12 – 3/12: RS 11 – 2D G & MG with Nozzle • 2/12 – 5/12: RS 12 – 3D Gray with Oval tube; construct predictive model for SL & WSA; select best next points to compute • 6/12 – 7/12: RS 13 based on RS10 – 12; construct predictive model for SL & WSA

20. We are moving forward to complete the project • Our code is of sufficient quality • The laser package is the final key development • We have demonstrated that we can do the necessary run sets • We have done a run set with the laser package • We have developed the methods to assess predictive capability • We are ready to apply them to the year 5 experiment • Our experiments are in a position to test our predictive capability and expand our validation data

21. Supplemental material follows

24. 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

25. We’ve invested real effort in scaling • CRASH hydro on BG/L • PDT transport on BG/L Weak scaling