Implementing ALE Motion in a Discontinuous Finite Element Hydro - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

implementing ale motion in a discontinuous finite element
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Implementing ALE Motion in a Discontinuous Finite Element Hydro - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Implementing ALE Motion in a Discontinuous Finite Element Hydro Code* Manoj K. Prasad, Jose L. Milovich, Aleksei I. Shestakov, David S. Kershaw, and Michael J. Shaw Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA *Work


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Implementing ALE Motion in a Discontinuous Finite Element Hydro Code*

Manoj K. Prasad, Jose L. Milovich, Aleksei I. Shestakov, David S. Kershaw, and Michael J. Shaw

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA

*Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract number W-7405-ENG-48

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Motivation

ALE Hydro code that combines the accuracy of a higher order Godunov scheme with the unstructured mesh capabilities of finite elements which can be explicitly evolved in time.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Brief History of Discontinuous Galerkin (DG) Finite Element Methods

  • P. LeSaint & P. A. Raviart: rigorous error analysis & convergence rates for

DG finite element solution of steady state linear neutron transport equations, 1974.

  • D. S. Kershaw & J. A. Harte, implemented a fully implicit 2D time dependent linear neutron

transport on triangular mesh – solving (3 x 3) block lower triangular linear system at each time step – using the partial ordering scheme of LeSaint & Raviart with no cycles, LLNL 1993.

  • G. Chavent & G. Salazano: applied DG methods to time dependent nonlinear

porous media equations with explicit Euler time stepping, 1982.

  • G. Chavent & B. Cockburn: linear error analysis and slope limiters for

approximating shocks for scalar conservation laws, INRIA 1989.

  • B. Cockburn & C.-W. Shu: combined Runge-Kutta explicit time discretization

with DG space discretization for scalar conservation laws, 1991.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Model

  • Godunov scheme: 2nd order.
  • Piecewise Linear Finite Element discretization.
  • Roe upwind surface flux & Harten-Hyman Entropy fix
  • Explicit time stepping : 2nd order Runge-Kutta.
  • 3D shock stabilization: VanLeer “minmod” by Quadratic

Programming + Lapidus artificial viscosity.

  • Algorithm appears in: Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and

Engineering 158, 81-116 (1998).

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Implementation

  • 3D Unstructured Mesh: tets, pyramids, prisms & hexes.
  • 1-Step Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) moving mesh.
  • 3D Geometries: Cartesian, Cylindrical & Spherical.
  • Object oriented C++ design untangles mesh from physics.
  • Parallelized using Domain Decomposition & MPI message passing.
  • Portability: code runs on uniprocessor workstations and massively

parallel platforms with distributed and shared memory.

  • Integrated with electron, radiation diffusion transport & laser ray

tracing for 3D ICF simulations: Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 187, 181-200 (2000).

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Allowable Cell Types

Mesh connectivity requires that cells share like-kind faces. No slide lines allowed.

Tetrahedron Pyramid Prism Hexahedron

slide-7
SLIDE 7

3D ALE Moving Mesh Hydro Equations

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Mass / Force Body External (EOS) Mass Energy / Internal = ) , ( Mass Energy / Total = ) , ( 2 1 = Pressure = P Velocity, = Density,

3 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 1

= + =                 =                 − + − + − + − + − =                 = = ∂ ∂ + ∂ ∂

i i i i i g j j i g j j j g j j j g j j j g j j ji i i i

G P I P I v v E v G v G G G J S v v E v P v v v P v v v P v v v P v v F E v v v J A S x F t A ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ δ ρ δ ρ δ ρ η ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ

α α α α α α

r

i g i g i ij ji i j i i i j i i i

v v v J J JJ x x J t x v t x x t x x x x ≈ = = = ≡ ∂ ∂ = = =

: grid Lagrangian , : grid Eulerian | | , , , : velocity Grid ) ( , ) , ( = : mesh moving ALE t, : s t variable Independen

1 ji ij g i

η ∂ ∂

Conservative form: Grid Motion:

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Finite Element Discretization

faces element across continuous be to required is faces element across

  • us

discontinu general in are P , , element in nodes

  • f

number =

  • thers

all at and node at 1 fns basis Linear = , node at ), ( = element each in tion representa ) ( eric Isoparamet P, , , : Variables Dependent Linear Piecewise

1 =

x v n Q Q Q Q x v Q

n

r r l l r r r r

l l l l l

ρ φ ξ φ ξ ρ = ≡

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Roe Upwind Surface Flux

+ − ≠

Γ Γ ∇ ∇ Γ

∫ ∫ ∫ ∫

A A N F N F A

i x here upwind flu use Roe's i i i i K t

r r 4 4 3 4 4 2 1 r r r

l l l l

) elements finite uous (discontin general In side. (+) the to side (-) the from surface to normal pointing

  • utward

is where ) (d

  • )

x (d F = ) x (d

  • =

) x (d : surface K with element each for Equations Galerkin

K K K K i i K K α ∂ α α α

φ φ φ φ ∂

[ ] { }

) , , max( , |) | , max( | | | | : fix Entropy Hyman

  • Harten

), ( : Average Roe by the defined matrix ation diagonaliz the speed, sound the is ) ( ), ( , matrix eigenvalue diagonal a is where ) ( 2 1

* * * * * 1 * * * * * * * i i * * * * i * i * * i i 1 * * * i i i

λ λ λ λ ε λ ε λ λ ∂ λ

β α αβ β β αβ α α α α α α α

− − = − + → Λ ≡ ∂ ≡ − ≡ − ± − − = Λ − Λ + + ≡

+ − − + − + − + − − + −

R R A F N W A A W F N F N R c c v v N v v N F N F N R sign R F N F N F N

i i i i g i i g i i i i i i Roe i

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Roe Averages: Roe Flux: + _

N

= *

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Boundary Conditions

  • Lagrange BC: specified

pressure or normal velocity with no mass flux

  • We use “ghost” states on

the outside of boundary faces

  • Roe flux from the “ghost”

and interior states is the required boundary flux

g i i bndry g i i i i g i i i g j j j bndry bndry g i i bndry bndry bndry Roe i i g i i i i g j j j i i ghost i ghost ghost

v N P v N v N v v N c v v N P P P v N P N P N P N F N v N v N v v N N v v P P for solve given, If for it use bndry,

  • n

given If )] ( )][ ( [ , : boundary

  • n

flux Roe : face boundary

  • n

velocity normal Average Roe )] ( [ 2 , : faces boundary

  • f
  • utside
  • n

states Ghost

int * int int int 3 2 1 * int int int int

− + − + =                   = = − − = = = ρ ρ ρ

α

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Almost Lagrangian Grid Velocity

  • Grid Position and Velocity

must be continuous while fluid velocity is generally discontinuous across elements.

  • We use a “least squares”

estimate to determine the grid velocity from the fluid velocity.

  • We can impose 1,2, or 3 linear

constraints on the grid velocity.

  • For 1D this gives an exact

Lagrangian code. In general we get an “almost” Lagrange code.

estimate. squares least the in

  • n

s constraint linear 3 , 2 , 1 impose also can We from determined

  • r

BC velocity normal by given is : faces boundary For for ] [ solve : faces interior For :

  • r BC

across flux mass no requiring by determined is node share that faces all : where , ] [ Minimize : for node at velocity fluid

  • f

estimate Squares Least

1 2 } { g in c bndry f n f f Roe i i n n f n g if if f f f g in if g in

v n P Y f Y Y F N f f Y n f v N Y Y v N v n

n n n n n n n n n n

= = ≡ ≡ −

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Roe Mass Flux Normal Grid Velocity giving Zero Mass Flux on Face f Least squares estimate of velocity at vertex p from all faces f around it

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Explicit 2nd order Runge-Kutta Time Advancement

|) ) ( | |, ) ( | |, ) ( max(| | | | | Min 3 . ,

* * * * * max * max * 3 K

c v v N c v v N v v N d x d t CFL t CFL t

g i i i g i i i g i i i K K Courant Courant

+ − − − − = Γ = ≈ ≤ ∆

∫ ∫

λ λ

  • The DGM equations, for

each element K, reduce to a system of n ODE s for the moments:

  • We use 2nd order Runge-

Kutta (RK) time stepping.

  • Courant time step control

with CFL number of about 1/3.

  • Cockburn & Shu, Math.
  • Comput. 52 (1989) 411.

, ~ , ) ~ ~ ( , ~ ~ : ve Conservati , ) P , , ( : Primitive ), ( = Variables Linear Piecewise

3 3 1 3 1 n 1 =

∫ ∫ ∫ ∑

>= < ∂ ∂ = > < − > < ≈ > < − = Φ Φ = =

− − K K m K l lm m lm l

x d x d Q Q B A T A A T B B x d M A A v B Q Q

β α αβ β β αβ α α

ϕ ϕ ρ ξ φ r r

l l l

x d A M

K l l 3

= ϕ

slide-15
SLIDE 15

3D VanLeer Minmod Slope Limiting via Quadratic Programming

limiter slope MINMOD s VanLeer' to reduces this 2 = 1D, For and : subject to ) ( 2 1 Minimizing by Find : problem g Programmin Quadratic e it thru th modify we s constraint s VanLeers' violates

1 VL max VL min 1 2 VL VL

n Q Q w Q Q Q Q Q w Q Q If

n n

〉 〈 = 〉 〈 ≤ ≤ 〉 〈 −

∑ ∑

= = l l l l l l l l l l

boundaries

  • n

nodes for boundaries general

  • n

nodes for 1 ) 1 ( : Nodes For node sharing elements all

  • ver

max) min, ( : limits ion stabilizat VanLeer node at

  • f

around n fluctuatio ) 2 1 = ( let K, element each In , , : t requiremen Physical

max min, max min

symmetry Q Q Q Boundary l Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ,...n , Q Q Q E P

face bndry l l l

= = 〉 〈 + 〉 〈 − → 〉 〈 〉 〈 = 〉 〈 〉 〈 ≤ ≤ 〉 〈 〉 〈 ≡ + 〉 〈 = ≥ ω ω ω ω δ δ δ ρ

l l

l l

  • Positivity of density,

pressure must be enforced.

  • VanLeer’s shock

stabilization limits the fluctuations of variables around their average values within an element.

  • Our 3D unstructured

mesh generalization of VanLeer’s stabilization has a unique and simple solution.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Lapidus Artificial Viscosity

  • 3D strong shocks need “extra”

diffusive artificial viscosity.

  • We use Lapidus type artificial

viscosity.

  • Used only in vicinity of strong

shocks to keep 2nd order accuracy in smooth regions.

  • Our DGM implementation:

Correction to the Roe Flux for interior faces.

∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫

∂ ∂ ∂ + − ∂ ∂ +

Γ Γ ± − − = ≈ = ± Γ > < − > < − Γ → Γ → ∆ ∆ → ∇ ⋅ ∇ + = ⋅ ∇ + ∂

K g i i g i i K i L L Roe i Roe i L ity Vis Lapidus L t

c v v v v N l D A A l D F N F N t x D A D S F A

K K * * * * * K K K K K K cos

d d ) | ) ( | |, ) ( | ( max .3 , face the

  • f

side either

  • n

elements 2 the to refers ) (d ] [ ) (d ) (d : shocks strong near faces interior For : tion implementa DGM Our ) , ( as ) ( λ κ λ κ φ φ φ

α α α α α α α α l l l

r r r 43 42 1 r r r r

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Need for Lapidus Viscosity

2 . at time viscosity Lapidus With 13 . at time viscosity pidus Without La : ) at vs. ( mesh

  • f

Plot ) 26 , ( at 6) (0,-70.746 velocity Normal : BC 1 , 619 . , 26 hexes

  • f

mesh 1 x 6 x 208 Limit Godunov mode Lagrangian Geometry ) , , ( Cartesian 3D )] 1 ( 10000 , 7466 . 70 , 4 [ ] , , [ ) 1 , , 1 ( ] , , [ 26 13 : , 13 : , 5/3 with gas Law Ideal : State Initial : contact no and shock strong Very : Problem Tube Shock = = = = = ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ − − = = ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ = = = t t z x y x z y x z y x P v P v x Right x Left v v

Right x Left x z y

γ ρ ρ γ γ

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Shock Stabilized Solution

To avoid tampering with the solution in situations where accuracy is required, we implemented a hybridization scheme that smoothly interpolates from adiabatic (Rayleigh-Taylor) flows to strong shock regions

flows adiabatic s s shocks strong r r s r B B sB B r rB s B Hybrid

Godunov RK Godunov VL hybrid

near 1 with rate production entropy measures near with strength shock measures 1 , , : where ] ) 1 ( [ ) 1 ( : variables primitive

  • f

blend a Construct → → ≤ ≤ > < ≡ + − + − =

α α α α α α

slide-19
SLIDE 19

C++ Object Oriented Code

Cell Class

tets, pyramids, prisms, hexes

Face Class

triangles, quads

Node Class

C++ Class Structure:

EOS Class

Ideal Gas, Real Gas, Sesame Table Lookup

  • Mesh Generator creates class objects and appropriate pointers across the

various classes

  • Physics modules process objects through class virtual functions using

pointers to access data across classes

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Parallelization Strategy

  • Domain Decomposition of Physical Space
  • Each PE only knows about a piece of the whole domain

plus a layer of ghost cells.

  • Use of the SPMD programming model
  • Communication between processors via MPI
  • Input Files: Modification of AVS UCD file to allow for

ghost cells and cell ownership

  • Contain PE ownership of cells
  • Contain local and global sequence number of nodes and

cells

  • Output Files: Every processor writes its own file (no ghost

cell information is written)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Parallelization of the Hydro Package

Three kind of objects are required:

  • Calculation of fluxes:

– need fields across faces

  • Calculation of Van Leer limiting:

– need average fields of cells around nodes.

  • Calculation of Lagrangian motion:

– needs normal velocity that zeros mass flux

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Mesh Partitioning for Hydro

PE2 PE1 PE0 PE3 Needed for fluxes Needed for fluxes Needed for VL, vgrid Also VL, vgrid Also VL, vgrid

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Examples

slide-24
SLIDE 24
slide-25
SLIDE 25
slide-26
SLIDE 26

Hydro Test Problems

  • Noh Implosion Problem, 1D Spherical Geometry
  • Sedov Point Explosion, 2D Cylindrical Geometry
  • Rayleigh-Taylor Instability, 2D & 3D Cartesian Geometries
  • Imploding Sphere with Tetrahedral Mesh, 3D Cartesian Geometry
slide-27
SLIDE 27

Noh Implosion Problem

geomtries ) ( for ) 2 , 1 , ( where ) / 1 ( , , 1 : h region wit unshocked Outer , , : h region wit shock

  • post

Central : shock expanding an by separated regions 2 : solution analytical Similar

  • Self

boundary. symmetry a into ) 1 ( ity unit veloc with ) 1, ( gas cold initially

  • f

Impact pherical indrical,s planar,cyl g r t v P v P P v v v P

g s s s

= − = = − = = = = = − = = = ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ

at vs. and

  • f

Plots 3 / 64 , 64 3 / 4 sphere

  • uter
  • n
  • 1

Velocity Normal : BC 4 / , 2 / , 1 hexes

  • f

mesh 1 x 1 x 128 , 1 , 1 , 5/3 : with gas Law Ideal : Condition Initial gas imploding y sphericall a

  • f

stagnation simulates ) , , ( Geometry Spherical 1D = = = = = = = ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ = − = = = φ θ ρ ρ π φ π θ ρ γ γ φ θ r P P U d Shock Spee r P v r

s s s r

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Sedov Point Explosion Problem

− − −

→ + = → → + = → → − + = → = = = = = = = = 1 / , ) 1 /( 2 1 / , ) 1 /( 2 1 / , ) 1 /( ) 1 ( 151667 . 1 : 3 / 5 For ) / ( ) 5 / 2 ( : ) / ( : : Solution Analytical Similar

  • Self

Shock. Strength Infinite ) ( , , , : Gas Cold Law Ideal ensity Constant D : Condition Initial

2 5 / 1 3 5 / 1 2 3 s s s s s s s s s s

r r U P P r r U u u r r k t E k U Velocity Shock t E k r Position Shock x E E v P γ ρ γ γ γ ρ ρ ρ γ ρ ρ δ ρ ρ γ r r 1 at time for vs. / , / , ) vs. ( mesh

  • f

Plot 3 / 5 , 4935889 . , 1 Velocity Normal : BC 2 , 125 . 1 , Hexes

  • f

Mesh 45 x 1 x 45 ) , , ( Geometry l Cylindrica 3D Mode Lagrangian = = = = = = ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ z r P P z r E z r z r

s s

ρ ρ γ ρ π θ θ

slide-29
SLIDE 29

3D Rayleigh-Taylor Instability

10 Interface at Ratio Density R 1) 1)/(R

  • (R

, ) / g (2 Rate Growth Linear z .00045 .001, , / 2 ) ( ) cos( ) cos(k .5 z :

  • n

Perturbati : Interface .33671717 g , 1 . 1 , d g P P 2 for , ) / ( 10 for , ) / ( 100 10 : Gas Ideal

1/2 2 / 1 2 2 x 9 / 1 9 / 1

= = + = = ∆ = = = + = = = = = ∫ + = ≤ ≤ = ≤ ≤ = = α λ α π χ λ λ π χ δ λ λ ρ λ λ ρ λ ρ γ

y x y

k k k y k x z l z z l z z l z

modes r rectangula & square 3D 2D, : for time vs. ude) Log(amplit

  • f

Plot .1 amplitude when interface

  • f

Plot : 2D for 3 : mode r Rectangula : mode Square Velocity Normal : BC Mode Lagrange 2 , 5 . , hexes 40 x 20 x 20 : Grid Geometry ) ( Cartesian 3D λ λ λ ≈ = = = = ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤

y y x y x

k k k k k z y x x,y,z

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Unstructured Mesh Implosion

  • Unstructured Tetrahedral Mesh
  • 3D Cartesian (x,y,z) Geometry
  • Icosahedral wedge domain bounded by:
  • 28,208 Tetrahedra (50 radial cells)
  • 5791 nodes & 58,455 faces
  • Grid generated by: LaGriT

(www.t12.lanl.gov/~lagrit)

  • Domain decomposed by: METIS

(www-users.cs.umn.edu/~karypis/metis)

  • 64 Processing Elements (PE)

) 5 / , 5 1 (cos ) , ( 5 / : 2 1 :

1

π φ θ π ϕ ± = ± = =

and

  • rigin

through plane planes azimuthal r sphere

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Unstructured Mesh Implosion

27.46 ) max( run 1D 26, ) max( run 3D .6 .58, , 56 . at s. Density v

  • f

Plots 4 / /2, , 1 hexes, 1 x 1 x 200 run comparison ) , , ( Geometry D 1 563 . ) max( with 6 . at Density

  • f

view

  • n
  • Side

:

  • f

Plot 3 / 4 : BC motion Grid ALE mode Lagrange 1, : IC Gas Law 5/3 Ideal = ≈ = ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ = = = = = = = ρ ρ π ϕ π θ ϕ θ ρ γ t r r r Spherical z t P d Constraine v P

bndry

r

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Integrated Hydro Test Problems

  • Laser Driven Capsule.
  • Radiation Driven Capsule.
  • Electron Thermal Conduction.
  • Details in: Journal of Computational Physics 170, 81-111 (2001).
slide-33
SLIDE 33

Solution Method

Use Operator Splitting. Processes are solved in the following order:

– Hydrodynamics – Material Properties – Laser Energy Deposition – Heat conduction – Radiation Transport – Synchronization

) , , , , ( e p E ρ ρ ρ v ,...) , , , (

v R P

c T κ κ ) (

e

S ) (T ) , ( T Er ) , , ( T E e

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Equations of Interest

field radiation the

  • f

t coefficien diffusion derivative Lagrangian coupling matter to radiation laser) a to due (e.g. source external flux, heat

  • f

divergence Force, gravity ) ( ) ( ) ( ( = = = = = = − ∇ ⋅ ∇ = + + + ⋅ = ⋅ ∇ + ∂ = ⋅ ∇ + ∂ = ⋅ ∇ + ∂

ν νε ε ε ν ν ν νε ε ε ρ ρ

ρ ν ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ D dt d K S H K u D u dt d d K S H E

νε E t t t

g v g F g F v v)

v

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Laser Ray Tracer

density critical density, electron 1 1 plasma ed unmagnetiz cold a In 2 c dt d motion

  • f

Equation Ray

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

= = − = − =         −∇ =

c e c e pe

n n n n ω ω η η x

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Approximations

  • Constant density in a cell

– Advantages:

  • Easy to implement
  • Good for highly underdense plasmas
  • Ray equation of motion is linear in time within a cell

– Disadvantages:

  • Trajectories may be inaccurate
  • Constant density gradient in a cell

– Advantages:

  • Rays can refract inside cell, and cell boundaries
  • Energy deposited more evenly
  • Ray equation is quadratic in time within a cell

– Disadvantages:

  • Care needed to solve face crossing equation (slow wandering rays)
slide-37
SLIDE 37

Radiation Package

  • The equations are:
  • Note that the transport term in the T equation is missing,

since it has been split off, in the numerical scheme.

  • In the diffusion approximation there is no guarantee that

the radiation will travel at c. Most codes use a flux limiting, ie.

[ ] [ ]

4

) / 4 ( ) ( , ) ( ) ( T c T B E T B c T c E T B c E D E

r P t v r P r r r t

σ ρκ ρ ρκ = − − = ∂ − + ∇ ⋅ ∇ = ∂

[ ]

|) | / | )(| / 2 ( 1 / 3

r r r r R r

E E c D D l c D ∇ + → =

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Laser Driven Capsule

  • 12 Beams with circular cross-section and 101 rays each
  • Beams are distributed on the vertices of an Icosahedron
  • Physical Domain: (11,580 tets, 2053 nodes, 23,320 faces)
slide-39
SLIDE 39

Laser Driven Capsule

  • Choose parameters to create different regions of dominance of

physics packages (laser, heat conduction, hydro)

  • Absorbed laser energy is a source of heat which is quickly diffused
  • ver the surface and drives a supersonic thermal wave inward.
  • When heat wave slows down, hydro takes over and an imploding

shock wave arises

slide-40
SLIDE 40
  • Ideal gas EOS:
  • Heat Flux:
  • Laser critical density
  • Initial radius:
  • Initial density:
  • Initial temperature: 1 eV
  • Boundary pressure
  • Laser: 12 beams, circular cross section.
  • Intensity:
  • Laser pulse: Flat top, on t=0, off t=2 ns
  • At t=12ns, max(r) = 50 x initial density

Laser Driven Capsule

KeV) ergs/(g 10 c , 4 . 1

15 v =

= γ

19 2 / 5

10 , , = = ∇ − χ χ χ χ T T

3

g/cm 001668 . =

c

ρ

c

r r r r ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ ρ 01 . ) ( , 2 ) 16 15 ( , 10 ) 8 7 (

c c

= = = ≤

3 7

erg/cm 10 67 . 6 ) , 10 / ( ⋅ = = T p p

c b

ρ

2 13 W/cm

10 875 . 2 ⋅

cm 2 .

0 =

r

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Radiatively Driven Capsule

  • 10 cells in the gas, 12 in fuel and 11 in

ablator (5104 tets, 1246 nodes, 10,915 faces)

  • Use LANL SESAME tables
  • IC: T=.001 keV,
  • BC:

– Hydro: Pbdry=58. GPa (corresponds to Be at ρ=1.85 g/cc and T) – Heat Conduction: F=0 – Radiation: Energy source (correspond to Tr = 0.16 keV)

  • Mesh generated with LaGrit and partitioned

with METIS

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Radiatevely Driven Capsule

  • Thin imploding ablator shell.
  • Electron & radiation T coupled in central region.
  • From central region to ablation front, electron & radiation T is cold.
  • Beyond ablation front, electron & radiation T coupled.
slide-43
SLIDE 43

Profiles just after shock bouncing time

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Profiles just after shock bouncing time

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Conclusions on DG ALE Hydro scheme

  • DGM is a viable ALE hydro scheme on

3D unstructured meshes

  • Robustness requires further work on:

artificial viscosities, velocity filtering, & mesh relaxation

  • Symmetry & local postprocessing on

unstructured meshes………?????????

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Summary

  • Described the multi-physics unstructured 3D parallel code: ICF3D
  • Tested the different physics packages independently and in

combination.

  • Show parallel efficiency and scalability to large number of

processors.

  • Demonstrate the ability of computing on arbitrarily unstructured

meshes

  • Show accuracy of results.
  • Needs more work on hydro scheme:
  • Artificial Viscosity
  • Velocity filtering
  • Mesh relaxation
  • Unstructured mesh refinement