Paper detail

A Radiation-Hydrodynamics Code Comparison for Laser-Produced Plasmas: FLASH versus HYDRA and the Results of Validation Experiments

The potential for laser-produced plasmas to yield fundamental insights into high energy density physics (HEDP) and deliver other useful applications can sometimes be frustrated by uncertainties in modeling the properties and expansion of these plasmas using radiation-hydrodynamics codes. In an effort to overcome this and to corroborate the accuracy of the HEDP capabilities recently added to the publicly available FLASH radiation-hydrodynamics code, we present detailed comparisons of FLASH results to new and previously published results from the HYDRA code used extensively at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. We focus on two very different problems of interest: (1) an Aluminum slab irradiated by 15.3 and 76.7 mJ of "pre-pulse" laser energy and (2) a mm-long triangular groove cut in an Aluminum target irradiated by a rectangular laser beam. Because this latter problem bears a resemblance to astrophysical jets, Grava et al., Phys. Rev. E, 78, (2008) performed this experiment and compared detailed x-ray interferometric measurements of electron number densities to HYDRA simulations. Thus, the former problem provides an opportunity for code-to-code comparison, while the latter provides an opportunity for both code-to-code comparison and validation. Despite radically different schemes for determining the computational mesh, and different equation of state and opacity models, the HYDRA and FLASH codes yield results that are in excellent agreement for both problems and with the experimental data for the latter. Having validated the FLASH code in this way, we use the code to further investigate the formation of the jet seen in the Grava et al. (2008) experiment and discuss its relation to the Wan et al. (1997) experiment at the NOVA laser.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.