Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-2bdfx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-14T08:36:30.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Challenges of preliminary investigation of high repetition rate experiments enabling new paths on high energy density physics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2025

Donaldi Mancelli*
Affiliation:
Institute of Plasma Physics & Lasers, University Research & Innovation Centre, Hellenic Mediterranean University, Rethymno, Crete, Greece Department of Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering, Hellenic Mediterranean University, Chania, Crete, Greece
Alessandro Tentori
Affiliation:
University of Bordeaux, CNRS, CEA, CELIA, Talence, France
Didier Raffestin
Affiliation:
University of Bordeaux, CNRS, CEA, CELIA, Talence, France
Diluka Singappuli
Affiliation:
University of Bordeaux, CNRS, CEA, CELIA, Talence, France
Jean-Marc Chevalier
Affiliation:
CEA, DAM, CESTA, Le Barp, France
Oldrich Renner
Affiliation:
Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, Prague, Czech Republic The Extreme Light Infrastructure ERIC, ELI Beamlines Facility, Dolní Brezany, Czech Republic
Miroslav Krus
Affiliation:
Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, Prague, Czech Republic
Michal Krupka
Affiliation:
Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, Prague, Czech Republic Department of Radiation and Chemical Physics, FZU – Institute of Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Sushil Kumar Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation and Chemical Physics, FZU – Institute of Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic Laser-Plasma Department, Institute of Plasma Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic Department of Physics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
Roman Dudzak
Affiliation:
Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, Prague, Czech Republic Department of Radiation and Chemical Physics, FZU – Institute of Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
Shubham Agarwal
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation and Chemical Physics, FZU – Institute of Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic Department of Surface and Plasma Physics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Gabriel Schaumann
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Kernphysik, Darmstadt, Germany
Noaz Nissim
Affiliation:
Applied Physics Division, Soreq NRC, Yavne, Israel
Yair Ferber
Affiliation:
Applied Physics Division, Soreq NRC, Yavne, Israel
Eran Greenberg
Affiliation:
Applied Physics Division, Soreq NRC, Yavne, Israel
Artem S. Martynenko
Affiliation:
GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
Paul Neumayer
Affiliation:
GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
Michael Tatarakis
Affiliation:
Institute of Plasma Physics & Lasers, University Research & Innovation Centre, Hellenic Mediterranean University, Rethymno, Crete, Greece Department of Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering, Hellenic Mediterranean University, Chania, Crete, Greece
Katarzyna Batani
Affiliation:
Institute of Plasma Physics and Laser Microfusion (IPPLM), Warsaw, Poland
Dimitri Batani
Affiliation:
University of Bordeaux, CNRS, CEA, CELIA, Talence, France
*
Corresponding author: Donaldi Mancelli; Email: dmancelli@hmu.gr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this work, we discuss the challenges related to the preliminary investigation of high repetition rate (HRR) experiments in the field of high energy density (HED) physics, and we present the results of preparation experiments done at the Prague Asterix Laser System (PALS) laser facility conducted with the aim of defining the needed developments in target design, real-time diagnostics and data collection needed to meet HRR requirements. Although the PALS laser facility is not an HRR facility, it has served as a valuable test bed for advancing diagnostic techniques and refining target design in preparation for HRR experimental platforms. HRR operation will result in improved statistical errors of the experimental results, in particular for experiments related to equation of state studies in extreme conditions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

In recent years, new laser facilities have been developed that allow to deliver kJ-long pulses at repetition rates much higher than what was possible until the recent past (typically 1 laser shot/minute). Examples of such facilities are the L4n laser at ELI beamlines (Ref. Reference Jourdain, Chaulagain, Havlík, Kramer, Kumar, Majerová, Tikhonchuk, Korn and Weber1), the DiPOLE100X at Eu-XFEL (Refs Reference Mason, Banerjee, Smith, Butcher, Phillips, Höppner, Möller, Ertel, De Vido and Hollingham2, Reference Banerjee, Mason, Phillips, Smith, Butcher, Spear, De Vido, Quinn, Clarke and Ertel3), the Matter in Extreme Conditions (MEC) platform at LCLS (Refs Reference Nagler, Arnold, Bouchard, Boyce, Boyce, Callen, Campell, Curiel, Galtier, Garofoli, Granados, Hastings, Hays, Heimann, Lee, Milathianaki, Plummer, Schropp, Wallace, Welch, White, Xing, Yin, Young, Zastrau and Lee4, Reference Glenzer, Fletcher, Galtier, Nagler, Alonso-Mori, Barbrel, Brown, Chapman, Chen, Curry, Fiuza, Gamboa, Gauthier, Gericke, Gleason, Goede, Granados, Heimann, Kim, Kraus, MacDonald, Mackinnon, Mishra, Ravasio, Roedel, Sperling, Schumaker, Tsui, Vorberger, Zastrau, Fry, White, Hasting and Lee5) and the high-energy/high-intensity laser facility PHELIX of the GSI (Refs Reference Bagnoud, Aurand, Blazevic, Borneis, Bruske, Ecker, Eisenbarth, Fils, Frank, Gaul, Goette, Haefner, Hahn, Harres, Heuck, Hochhaus, Hoffmann, Javorková, Kluge, Kuehl, Kunzer, Kreutz, Merz-Mantwill, Neumayer, Onkels, Reemts, Rosmej, Roth, Stoehlker, Tauschwitz, Zielbauer, Zimmer and Witte6, Reference Zs. Major, Zielbauer, Brabetz, Ohland, Zobus, Roeder, Reemts, Kunzer and Götte7). Such facilities offer for the first time the possibility of performing high-energy density (HED) physics experiments (Ref. Reference Drake8) at a high repetition rate (HRR). HED refers to conditions in which the energy density in matter exceeds $10^{11}\, \mathrm{J/m}^3$ and pressures are above $1\,\mathrm{Mbar}$ (Ref. Reference Drake8). Current large-scale laser facilities already allow accessing HED conditions, but the shot rate is very low going from 1 shot every ${30}\,\mathrm{minutes}$ (for instance, at PALS (Ref. Reference Jungwirth, Cejnarova, Juha, Kralikova, Krasa, Krousky, Krupickova, Laska, Masek, Mocek, Pfeifer, Präg, Renner, Rohlena, Rus, Skala, Straka and Ullschmied9)) to a typically one shot per day to MJ-scale facilities (like NIF (Ref. Reference Miller, Moses and Wuest10) or LMJ (Ref. Reference Miquel, Batani and Blanchot11)). Facilities operating at HRR will not only allow for more experimental results. They will also offer the possibility of attaining data with statistical significance, with error bars obtained from the standard deviation from several laser shots. This can open a new era in HED physics. We must specify that the HRR in the domain of HED refers to shot rate of the order of $1\,\mathrm{minute}$ today, possibly approaching $0.1\,\mathrm{Hz}$ to ${1}\,\mathrm{Hz}$ in the future. This is different from what is achieved with Petawatt (PW) short laser facilities which are currently operating at a repetition rate of several Hz and may achieve $\sim100\,\mathrm{Hz}$ in the near future. In any case, the possibility of performing HRR experiments is not only related to laser performance. It requires the use of an adequate diagnostic system and target holders that will allow multiple shots. In HED physics, diagnostics are used to measure and characterize the properties of matter under extreme conditions. They can provide information on various physical quantities, including temperature, density, pressure and the equation of state (EOS) of the material (Refs Reference Mancelli, Errea, Tentori, Turianska, Larreur, Katagiri, Ozaki, Kamimura, Kamibayashi and Ishida12, Reference Zhang, Yang, Yang, Guan, Duan, Yang, Liu, Shen, Batani, Singappuli, Lan, Yongsheng, Huo, Liu, Yulong, Yang, Sanwei, Wang, Yang, Zhao, Zhang, Sun, Kang and Batani13). Overall, diagnostics play a critical role in HED physics experiments by providing the data needed to understand the behaviour of matter in extreme conditions (Refs Reference Batani14, Reference Hye-Sook Park, Celliers, Coppari, Eggert, Krygier, Lazicki, Mcnaney, Millot, Ping, Rudd, Remington, Sio, Smith, Knudson and McBride15). As technology continues to advance, new and more sophisticated diagnostic techniques will continue to be developed, enabling researchers to gain deeper insights into the properties of matter at the extremes of pressure, temperature and density.

Although many diagnostics have been extensively used on low repetition rate experimental platforms, their suitability for HRR operation must be investigated (Ref. Reference Batani, Colaïtis, Consoli, Danson, Gizzi, Honrubia, Kühl, Pape, Miquel and Perlado16).

In addition, the target requirements are also different: HRR operation implies the need for positioning and aligning the target also at HRR using a dedicated motorized target holders, but it also implies that a laser shot on a given target will not affect, damage or even destroy the targets to be shot afterwards. A characterization of the debris emitted by the target is also needed, in view of the protection of the targets, the diagnostic and the laser optics themselves.

In this context, we conducted an experimental campaign at the PALS (Ref. Reference Jungwirth, Cejnarova, Juha, Kralikova, Krasa, Krousky, Krupickova, Laska, Masek, Mocek, Pfeifer, Präg, Renner, Rohlena, Rus, Skala, Straka and Ullschmied9) laser facility to explore the challenges related to HRR operation. Although PALS is a single-shot low repetition rate facility (allowing 1 shot every ∼30 min), several questions related to the preparatory study of HRR experiments can also be studied here. Development of a target holder compatible with HRR requirements and debris mitigation were among the main challenges investigated in the campaign. At the same time, this campaign has offered the possibility of implementing new diagnostic tools which were previously not available in the facility, such as Shock Chronometry (SOP), Velocity Interferometry System for any Reflector (VISAR) and Photon Doppler Velocimetry (PDV) which will also be described in this paper.

Experimental setup

PALS laser facility

The iodine laser facility PALS (Ref. Reference Jungwirth, Cejnarova, Juha, Kralikova, Krasa, Krousky, Krupickova, Laska, Masek, Mocek, Pfeifer, Präg, Renner, Rohlena, Rus, Skala, Straka and Ullschmied9) can deliver energy in exam of $200\,\mathrm{J}$ with pulse duration of $250\,\mathrm{ps}$ full width at half maximum (FWHM) at the third harmonic ( $\lambda_{3\omega} = 438\,\mathrm{nm}$). The beam was focused to a $400\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ FWHM focal spot on target using phase-plate, giving an intensity of $\sim 10^{14} \mathrm{W/cm}^2$. We utilized multi-layer targets consisting of $10\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ CH, $400\, \mathrm{nm}$ Au and $100\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ $\mathrm{SiO}_2$ of dimensions $1.4 \times 1.4 \ \mathrm{mm}^2$ supported by aluminium frames. The design of the experimental setup is shown in Figure 1. Target frames and alignment cameras were mounted separately on a three-axis motion system as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Experimental setup: the VISAR and SOP respectively measure the reflectivity and the self-emission of the shocked sample on the rear side to infer the shock velocity.

Figure 2. CAD design of details of the interaction chamber showing the target manipulator along with the alignment camera and the needle required for referencing the target chamber center (TCC). Red cone represents the converging laser beam at the third harmonic.

Experimental setup – target design

So far targets for low repetition rate HED experiments are designed individually and individually aligned. However, HRR facilities have to overcome this barrier and use targets which are compatible with HRR operation. One simple design consists of the large-framed sample as shown in Figure 2A and B, with motorized three or more axis motion system with $\mu\mathrm{m}$ accuracy and user-friendly control system.

In our experiment, the targets and target frame were designed and fabricated by Technische Universität Darmstadt (TUDa). Frame dimensions, the number of targets per frame and distances between targets are of primary importance. These parameters must be fine-tuned and need to be adapted for each experiment, according to the actual target characteristics and laser parameters. In our experimental campaign, each frame contained nine targets which were shot in a row without breaking the vacuum in order to simulate the conditions similar to HRR as shown in Figure 3. The frame contains alignment markers for target positioning. Each target is prepared separately and installed inside a hole in the frame, protecting neighbouring targets from debris ejected after the laser shot both in the forward and backward direction. Several target frames containing 3 × 3 targets with different designs have been tested in the experimental campaign at the PALS laser facility. The targets are separated by a distance of 12 mm, which was found to be sufficient to avoid damage to neighbouring targets from the shock propagating along the frame when firing a specific target. Figure 4 shows target frames with orthogonal and circular openings for the laser cone. The distance between individual targets might have to be scaled with laser energy. A compromise between a safe distance between targets and a large number of targets per frame is essential to ensure compatibility with HRR experiments. The entire target alignment process is based on software developed in Python programming language. The concept, motion control software and user interface were implemented and tested by the target laboratory of TUDa.

Figure 3. Conceptual design of the aluminium-framed target to be used with the detailed layer thicknesses and the laser cone. In the projected cut of the proposed design, we show details on the height of the target and the thickness of the base-plate of the frame where the targets are glued.

Figure 4. A and C framed target with rectangular opening, and in the second column B and D, the frame with circular openings. In both cases, the frames included dummy targets, alignment markers and the multi-layered sample of interest.

Raw-data formatting

Development and commissioning of HRR facilities also need the implementation of new data formatting standards to assist real-time data handling and analysis, providing feedback during and experimental campaign. For instance, raw data produced on HRR facilities can be stored in hierarchical format HDF5 (Ref. 17) that allow managing very large data file format of the order of ∼100 GB. The HDF5 format is also applied to several hydro and particle in cell codes as well (e.g. FLASH MHD code (Refs Reference Dubey, Antypas, Ganapathy, Reid, Riley, Sheeler, Siegel and Weide18Reference Tzeferacos, Fatenejad, Flocke, Graziani, Gregori, Lamb, Lee, Meinecke, Scopatz and Weide22), SMILEI (Ref. Reference Derouillat, Beck, Pérez, Vinci, Chiaramello, Grassi, Flé, Bouchard, Plotnikov, Aunai, Dargent, Riconda and Grech23), EPOCH (Ref. Reference Arber, Bennett, Brady, Lawrence-Douglas, Ramsay, Sircombe, Gillies, Evans, Schmitz, Bell and Ridgers24), etc.) due to its versatile features. The advantages and some key parameters of HDF5 format are the following:

  1. (1) Efficient Storage and Access: HDF5 is designed to handle large amounts of data efficiently. Supports chunking and compression, which can significantly reduce file size and improve I/O performance.

  2. (2) Portability: HDF5 files are platform-independent, ensuring that data can be shared and accessed across different computing environments without compatibility issues (conventional computer to high-performance computing (HPC) systems).

  3. (3) Scalability: HDF5 can manage datasets that are too large to fit into memory, making it suitable for HPC applications.

  4. (4) Metadata Support: HDF5 supports the storage of rich metadata alongside the actual data. This can include information about the origin, structure and the meaning of data, which is essential for data analysis and reproducibility.

  5. (5) Compatibility with Multiple Programming Languages: HDF5 has APIs for various programming languages, including C, C++, Fortran, Python and Java, being accessible to a wide range of developers and researchers.

  6. (6) Parallel I/O: HDF5 supports parallel I/O operations, enabling efficient data read/write operations in HPC environments.

  7. (7) Community and Support: HDF5 has a strong user community and extensive documentation, helping users troubleshoot issues.

Overall, HDF5 is a powerful tool for managing complex data in scientific computing, engineering and various data-intensive applications, providing both flexibility and efficiency in data storage and retrieval. Data handling and storing can be further assisted with modern tools and algorithms by machine learning and maybe using AI. HDF5 format is a standard format for many research facilities around the world including large-scale laser facilities (OMEGA at LLE, users can access the diagnostics data database after the experiment) and research centres not related to laser plasma such us particle accelerators CERN or GSI FAIR, where big data are produced, stored and made available in real time to researchers.

Debris characterization

Debris production is a common issue in HED physics experiments that can affect the accuracy of measurements and damage experimental equipment. Debris can be generated by a variety of processes. Typical results of debris generated from multilayered planar targets irradiated under different laser drive conditions are presented in Figure 5. Several types of debris can be generated during HED physics experiments, including:

  • Plasma debris, which is generated by the ablation of the target material and the interaction of laser light with the target. Plasma debris can interfere with measurements by scattering or absorbing light and can also cause damage to experimental equipment by depositing energy in unwanted locations.

  • Solid debris, which is generated by fragmentation of the target material due to compression and heating, as shown in Figure 5. Solid debris can damage experimental equipment by impacting and scratching surfaces. Debris is also generated by the interaction of high-energy particles with the target material. These can cause damage to experimental equipment by depositing energy in unwanted locations and can also be a safety hazard for researchers.

    Figure 5. (Top) Examples of debris collected on shield in several PALS shots, at different laser drive conditions and target composition. Setup of the laser drive, target and debris shield in planar geometry. The distance between target and shied is ∼4 cm. High-quality transparent plastic debris shields were used and replaced after each shot. (Bottom) Six representative debris shield scans are presented for different laser energies and target configurations. These include $25\, \mu\mathrm{m}$ Al foils used in shots (#60956–#60961) at laser energies of 151.8, 118.7, 51 and 165 J, as well as stepped targets for shot #61041 ( $10\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ CH/ $10\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ Al base/ $33\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ Al step / $51\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ BN step) and shot #61045, with laser energies of 112 and 133 J, respectively.

There are several methods for mitigating the effects of debris in HED physics experiments. Shielding can be used to protect experimental equipment from debris by placing a barrier between the target and the equipment. For instance, in future experimental campaign pre-pulses can be used to reduce the amount of plasma debris generated during an experiment by ablating some of the target material before the main laser pulse. The target design can be optimized to minimize the amount of debris generated during an experiment. For example, targets can be designed with a smooth surface to reduce fragmentation or with multi-layers structured to reduce plasma debris. Diagnostic design can be optimized to minimize the effects of debris on measurements. For example, diagnostic equipment can be placed in a way that minimizes the amount of debris that reaches it. Also a motorized tapes acting as debris shield can be implemented on HRR facilities or a large-framed shield holder coupled to the target frame can be used as an alternative option. Future work should investigate the cumulative effects of debris on optical components and target alignment reliability over multiple consecutive shots in HRR conditions (1–10 Hz).

Diagnostics

The development of a precise diagnostic for HED physics in HRR conditions is crucial for understanding fundamental physics (Refs Reference Nuckolls, Wood, Thiessen and Zimmerman25Reference Betti and Hurricane28). Diagnostic approaches suitable for HRR operation can be divided in three groups as follows: of course, to work in HRR, these diagnostics must be coupled to active detectors, e.g. replacing films with multi-channel plates detectors.

  1. (1) Optical diagnostics

  2. (2) X-ray Diagnostics

  3. (3) Particle Diagnostics

Each of these diagnostics provides unique insights into different aspects of plasmas created by high-energy lasers, making them essential tools for advancing our understanding of these complex systems. In the following, we will just focus on the use of optical diagnostics related to studies of shock waves and EoS experiment (VISAR, SOP and PDV). These are indeed examples of diagnostics, which are employed frequently in HED physics experiments, and which provide online and real-time detection, therefore they are suited for HRR operation. Indeed, these are the diagnostics developments which we have introduced at the PALS laser facility in the framework of the present work.

Shock diagnostics – PDV

PDV is a diagnostic technique commonly used in fluid dynamics, shock physics and material science to measure velocity profiles and shock velocities in high-speed events. It is a non-intrusive method that relies on the Doppler shift of light to determine velocities. PDV is a fibre-based diagnostic suited for the extreme conditions created by high-speed impact, explosives, pulsed power machines such us Z-pinch (Refs Reference Slutz, Herrmann, Vesey, Sefkow, Sinars, Rovang, Peterson and Cuneo47Reference Slutz, Gomez, Hansen, Harding, Hutsel, Knapp, Lamppa, Awe, Ampleford, Bliss, Chandler, Cuneo, Geissel, Glinsky, Harvey-Thompson, Hess, Jennings, Jones, Laity, Martin, Peterson, Porter, Rambo, Rochau, Ruiz, Savage, Schwarz, Schmit, Shipley, Sinars, Smith, Vesey and Weis49) or X-pinch devices (Ref. Reference Zakharov, Ivanenkov, Kolomenskij, Pikuz, Samokhin and Ulshmid50) and in high-power laser–matter interactions. PDV is a heterodyne laser interferometry that operates on the principle of the Doppler effect. A probe beam is sent to the surface of the target of interest. A portion of the reflected light is collected together and interferes with the incoming probe light in a sensors, usually a photo-diode or a photomultiplier tube. As the target moves, the reflected light undergoes a frequency shift proportional to the target velocity, which produces a beating with the incoming (unshifted) light. This allows the frequency shift to be detected by the sensor and using short-time Fourier transform algorithm and the Doppler equation, PDV can measure velocities of reflecting surface ( or reflecting particles) with high precision (Refs Reference Nissim, Greenberg, Werdiger, Horowitz, Bakshi, Ferber, Glam, Fedotov-Gefen, Perelmutter and Eliezer51, Reference Boutoux, Chevalier, Arrigoni, Berthe, Beuton, Bicrel, Galtie, Hébert, Clanche, Loillier, Loison, Maury, Raffray and Videau52).

PDV is a compact diagnostic, suitable for laser–matter interaction, which can be adapted to HRR experiments (Ref. Reference Strand, Goosman, Martinez, Whitworth and Kuhlow53), and gives valuable information about high-speed phenomena without disturbing the system under study. Some indicative cases are listed below:

  • Shock Physics: PDV is used to measure shock velocities and study the propagation of shock waves in materials.

  • Fluid Dynamics: It helps characterize the flow of fluids in high-speed events such as explosions or impacts.

  • Material Science: PDV is used to study the behaviour of materials under extreme conditions, such as high pressure or temperatures.

From the data collected by the fast detector, it is also possible to get accurate values for the shock breakout times. This can be done by measuring the signal on the same scope as a timing fiducial (e.g. a reflection of the drive-laser). Using short-time Fourier analysis procedure on the obtained PDV signal, we obtain a spectrogram.

From this we can obtain shock velocities in transparent materials or either free-surface velocity or the velocity of the debris ejected from the shocked sample. Since the PDV imaging lens attached to the fibre typically collects data from a small region of the sample (in an area of < $100\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ diameter), this makes it ideal for stepped targets, where multiple probe fibres can be set on the rear side of the target and at different angles, hence probing deferent regions were particle population can be different. Figure 6 shows the fast particle population obtained from two probes placed at different angles 0 and 20 for the multi-layered planar target. In Figure 6A at early times ( $0-4\,\mu\mathrm{s}$), we observe a population of fast particles with high particle velocity $ \gt \gt 500\,\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$. These fast particles quickly leave the field of observation. At later times $ \gt (4\,\mu\mathrm{s})$, we observe two distinct populations of particles in free flight with velocities of $\sim500$ and $\sim 150\,\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$. On the other hand at 20 (Figure 6B), and at times $ \gt 20\,\mu\mathrm{s}$, one can observe a large population of particles with velocities on the order of $400\,\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$, and a lower population of particles with high velocity. For the plasma, the typical expansion takes place at $10^5\,\mathrm{ms}^{-1}$ (for a temperature of the order of a few hundreds eV). However, the plasma recombines and vanishes more quickly while the particle debris can travel in free flight to larger distances.

Figure 6. Results from PDV for shot #55017 for target CH/Au/SiO2 the laser intensity was $\approx 3\times 10^{14} \mathrm{W/cm}^2$ on target with the fibres placed to look at two different angles 0 (A), and 20 (B), respectively.

Shock diagnostics – SOP

VISAR and SOP have been widely used in laser-shock experiments, and their combination can provide the spatial and temporal evolution of hydrodynamic parameters related to the shock propagation in the target. The optical line used in our experiment at PALS experiment for SOP and VISAR is shown in Figure 1. The field of view of diagnostics and spatial resolution can be measured by placing a grid on the target chamber centre and shine with an alignment HeNe laser. The result is shown in Figure 7A with a line out taken from raw data in Figure 7B. This results in field of view (active observable area) of the order of ∼ $750\,\mu\mathrm{m}$. Multiple imaging optical configurations were utilized and evaluated. The first configuration used a doublet achromat as the main imaging lens referred to as f1 in Figure 1. In the second configuration, we replaced the f1 lens with a photographic objective (Tamron 1:1,8 f=50 mm), which yielded a better imaging quality. A two-lens system was employed to capture the shock break out signal and direct it into a Hamamatsu Streak camera working in the visible range.

Figure 7. Grid test target was placed at TCC to optimize the SOP collection optics line and measure the extension of the field of view and spatial resolution. The separation of the cells is $130\,\mu\mathrm{m}$.

Typical shock emission signal obtained from SOP is shown in Figure 8. The drive parameters for shot #55029 for CH/Au/SiO2 target, irradiated at 3ω light, with energy 113 J giving an intensity on target $3.6 \times 10^{14}\mathrm{W\,cm}^{-2}$. The sweep window on the streak was set at $20\,\mathrm{ns}$ and the slit width was of the order of $150\,\mu\mathrm{m}$. Notice that in case transparent materials are used as ablators, it is advisable to put a very thin opaque layer (≤ 100 nm of aluminium or carbon) to avoid the effect of laser shine-through.

Figure 8. SOP results: (A) Self-emission from the rear side of a shocked target ( $10\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ CH/ $0.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ Au/ $100\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ SiO2). The small signal on the left is a time fiducial taken from the interaction beam, (B) line out of the previous image (shot #55029), with laser energy 113 J at 3ω giving an intensity of the order of ( $3.6 \times 10^{14}\mathrm{W\,cm}^{-2}$).

Finally, Figure 9A shows the SOP image obtained by focusing the laser beam on an Al-stepped target. The target included a $10\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ CH foil (with anti shine-through layer, 200 nm) followed by a $10\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ Al base and a $38\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ Al step. In the SOP image, the shock breakout at the base and the shock breakout at the step are clearly visible. This configuration is often used in laser-driven shock-EOS experiments, where Al is often used as a reference material (Refs Reference Al’tshuler, Kormer, Bakanova and Trunin54, Reference Mitchell, Nellis, Moriarty, Heinle, Holmes, Tipton and Repp55). Since the thickness of the step is known, the results from SOP allow one to obtain the average shock velocity in the step. In the case of stationary shocks, this allows recovering all the thermodynamical quantities of Al by knowing its Hugoniot curve.

Figure 9. (A) Typical SOP image of shock breakout from the stepped target (shot PALS #61033), horizontal dashed lines indicate the break out time in base (tbase) and in the step (tstep) of the sample. (B) Typical reflectivity image obtained from VISAR, for the same stepped sample. Strong signal of reflectivity is observed from the Al step up to breakout time.

Shock diagnostics – VISAR

VISAR is a velocity interferometer that measures the velocity of a reflective surface by measuring the Doppler effect induced on a probe laser beam that illuminates this moving surface. It has been introduced by researchers from Los Alamos, and later it has been mainly used for experiments relative to laser-driven shock and studies of materials at extreme pressures. VISAR is based on the Mach–Zehnder interferometer coupled to a streak camera to obtain a time-resolved measurement (Refs Reference Barker and Hollenbach56Reference Bolme and Ramos60). At PALS, we implemented a system based on 2-inch optics which used a green laser system at 527 nm as source of the probe VISAR beam. The duration of such laser pulse could be adjusted from 50 to 320 ns. During the initial stage, we begin the alignment and optimization of VISAR setup with an energy of around 4 mJ and a pulse duration of approximately 50 ns FWHM. At the maximum power level, we used a pulse energy of ( $18.0\,\pm\,0.2$) mJ with a FWHM duration of $320\,\pm\,10$ ns. These are the input settings for the VISAR laser probe, specifically for the first mirror of the optical setup. In this experiment, the system was only used as a reflectivity diagnostics (i.e. one of the two arms of the interferometer is cut out). Figure 9B shows the reflectivity image obtained from the same shot of the SOP image in Figure 9A. We see on the right of the image the reflection from the surface of the Al step, which suddenly stops when the shock breaks out from Al rear surface. The reflection from the Al base was weak due to a problem in surface reflectivity of this target (and significant surface roughness). The horizontal intensity spikes are due to the beating between the different modes of the probe laser (not a single mode laser).

Both the VISAR and SOP systems used the same objective lens, namely the Tamron 1:1,8 f=50 mm lens. Outside the vacuum chamber (60 cm from the objective), we positioned a dichroic mirror. This mirror had the purpose of reflecting the green probe beam emitted by the VISAR probe, while simultaneously allowing the remaining emitted light for the SOP system to pass through. The beam was subsequently sent to a Mach–Zehnder interferometer with 2-inch optics and then directed by set of mirrors and lenses to the slit of an Optronis Optical streak camera with S20 photocathode sensitive to visible range.

Hydro simulation

To interpret our experimental results, we performed 1D radiative hydrodynamic simulations with the code MULTI (Ref. Reference Ramis, Schmalz and Meyer-Ter-Vehn61). The laser pulse was Gaussian in time with a plateau duration of 250 ps at FWHM at 3ω. A set of SESAME tables was used to perform the hydrodynamic simulations: table 7770 of parylene, SESAME table 2700 for gold and SESAME 7385 for quartz (Ref. 62). Tabulated EOS for different materials can be generated using quotidian equation of state (Ref. Reference More, Warren, Young and Zimmerman63) and an updated version of it FEOS in SESAME format and PrOpacEOS (Ref. 64) code as well. The target thicknesses were $10 \,\mu\mathrm{m}$ CH – $0.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ Au – $100\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ $\mathrm{SiO}_2$. Figure 10 shows the density map reproducing the shot #55029. We see a shock breakout in the gold/ $\mathrm{SiO}_2$ interface at $0.65\,\mathrm{ns}$. This is compatible with the breakout time observed on SOP signal.

Several similar hydrodynamic simulations codes are extensively used by the laser plasma-community (e.g. 1D MULTI (Ref. Reference Ramis, Schmalz and Meyer-Ter-Vehn61), LILAC (Ref. Reference Delettrez, Epstein, Richardson, Jaanimagi and Henke65), ESTER (Ref. Reference Bardy, Aubert, Bergara, Berthe, Combis, Hebert, Lescoute, Rouchausse and Videau66), HYADES (Ref. Reference Larsen and Lane67), etc.).

Figure 10. Density map from radiative hydrodynamic simulations using the MULTI code. Simulation indicates shock breakout at the gold–quartz interface at $0.65\,\mathrm{ns}$. The target and laser parameters were the same as the ones stated in Section 2.

Although such 1D hydro are quite fast, in order to allow their use in real time could be possible to combine them with physics-assisted machine learning methods combined with genetic algorithm’s. This method could also be implemented and coupled to 2D or 3D hydro codes such as MULTI-2D (Ref. Reference Ramis, Meyer ter Vehn and Ramirez68) and FLASH code (Refs Reference Fryxell, Olson, Ricker, Timmes, Zingale, Lamb, MacNeice, Rosner, Truran and Tufo19Reference Tzeferacos, Fatenejad, Flocke, Graziani, Gregori, Lamb, Lee, Meinecke, Scopatz and Weide22), which on the other hand require more computational time as well. Such codes will provide valuable information on the planarity of the shock wave that is moving through the sample. Moreover, physics-assisted machine-learning is also necessary for handling large amount of data that are generated from such simulations on large HPC systems and from the HRR experiments. While AI and machine-learning offer potential for HRR diagnostic development and simulation codes, their application and validation are still pending, as for this study we do not present such results since it was not the main focus of this experimental campaign. Finally, they could assist with the interpretation of the diagnostics results (Ref. Reference Amit, Mosseri, Even-Hen, Schneider, Fisher, Datz, Cohen and Nissim69).

Conclusions

In this paper, we presented some of the technical challenges related to the development of HRR experimental platforms for HED physics using high-power laser facilities. Such facilities (e.g. L4n ELI beam lines) may open new perspectives in HED science which were not accessible using low-repetition-rate facilities. They may allow getting increased sets of data with statistical significance. New development pathways must be addressed to facilitate the needs of the HRR facility in terms of targets, safety, simulation codes, diagnostics, data handling and analysis in real time. Future work will need expertise from both inside and outside the laser-plasma community to improve and use these techniques in experiments. We will also need to identify specific scientific goals that novel approaches can achieve in the field of HRR science. In future experimental campaigns, further validation under real HRR conditions, with consecutive shots at high frequency (e.g. 1–10 Hz), will be necessary to confirm the suitability of VISAR, SOP and PDV for HRR.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge financial support from the LASERLAB-EUROPE Access to Research Infrastructure activity within the EC’s Seventh Framework Program (No. 871124). We would like to acknowledge that Donaldi Mancelli was funded by the Hellenic Mediterranean University within the project ‘Proposal for post-doctoral research at the Institute of Plasma Physics and Lasers (IPPL) of Hellenic Mediterranean University (HMU)’ in the context of the 2607/Φ.120/04-05-2022 call of HMU for post-doctoral research. The work of A.S. Martynenko was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The involved teams have operated within the framework of the Enabling Research Project: ENR IFE.01.CEA, ‘Advancing shock ignition for direct-drive inertial fusion’. We acknowledge that targets and target frames were designed and fabricated by Technische Universität Darmstadt (TUDa). This research work was also supported by the Ministry of Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (Project No. LM2023068 and LM2018114 (PALS RI)). Finally, we thank the technical staff of PALS for their help in running the experiments.

References

Jourdain, N, Chaulagain, U, Havlík, M, Kramer, D, Kumar, D, Majerová, I, Tikhonchuk, VT, Korn, G and Weber, S (2020) The L4n laser beamline of the P3-installation: Towards high-repetition rate high-energy density physics at ELI-Beamlines. Matter and Radiation at Extremes 6, 015401.10.1063/5.0022120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, P, Banerjee, S, Smith, J, Butcher, T, Phillips, J, Höppner, H, Möller, D, Ertel, K, De Vido, M and Hollingham, I (2018) Development of a 100 J, 10 Hz laser for compression experiments at the high energy density instrument at the European XFEL. High Power Laser Science and Engineering 6, e65.10.1017/hpl.2018.56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S, Mason, P, Phillips, J, Smith, J, Butcher, T, Spear, J, De Vido, M, Quinn, G, Clarke, D and Ertel, K (2020) Pushing the boundaries of diode-pumped solid-state lasers for high-energy applications. High Power Laser Science and Engineering 8, e20.10.1017/hpl.2020.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagler, B, Arnold, B, Bouchard, G, Boyce, RF, Boyce, RM, Callen, A, Campell, M, Curiel, R, Galtier, E, Garofoli, J, Granados, E, Hastings, J, Hays, G, Heimann, P, Lee, RW, Milathianaki, D, Plummer, L, Schropp, A, Wallace, A, Welch, M, White, W, Xing, Z, Yin, J, Young, J, Zastrau, U and Lee, HJ (2015) The matter in extreme conditions instrument at the linac coherent light source. Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 22, 520525.10.1107/S1600577515004865CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glenzer, SH, Fletcher, L B, Galtier, E, Nagler, B, Alonso-Mori, R, Barbrel, B, Brown, SB, Chapman, DA, Chen, Z, Curry, CB, Fiuza, F, Gamboa, E, Gauthier, M, Gericke, DO, Gleason, A, Goede, S, Granados, E, Heimann, P, Kim, J, Kraus, D, MacDonald, MJ, Mackinnon, AJ, Mishra, R, Ravasio, A, Roedel, C, Sperling, P, Schumaker, W, Tsui, YY, Vorberger, J, Zastrau, U, Fry, A, White, WE, Hasting, JB, Lee, HJ (2016) Matter under extreme conditions experiments at the linac coherent light source. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 092001.10.1088/0953-4075/49/9/092001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnoud, V, Aurand, B, Blazevic, A, Borneis, S, Bruske, C, Ecker, B, Eisenbarth, U, Fils, J, Frank, A, Gaul, E, Goette, S, Haefner, C, Hahn, T, Harres, K, Heuck, H-M, Hochhaus, D, Hoffmann, DHH, Javorková, D, Kluge, H-J, Kuehl, T, Kunzer, S, Kreutz, M, Merz-Mantwill, T, Neumayer, P, Onkels, E, Reemts, D, Rosmej, O, Roth, M, Stoehlker, T, Tauschwitz, A, Zielbauer, B, Zimmer, D and Witte, K (2010) Commissioning and early experiments of the PHELIX facility. Applied Physics B 100, 137150.10.1007/s00340-009-3855-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zs. Major, UE, Zielbauer, B, Brabetz, C, Ohland, JB, Zobus, Y, Roeder, S, Reemts, D, Kunzer, S and Götte, S (2024) High-energy laser facility PHELIX at GSI: latest advances and extended capabilities. High Power Laser Science and Engineering 12, e39.10.1017/hpl.2024.17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, RP (2010) High-energy-density physics. Physics Today 63, 2833.10.1063/1.3455249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungwirth, K, Cejnarova, A, Juha, L, Kralikova, B, Krasa, J, Krousky, E, Krupickova, P, Laska, L, Masek, K, Mocek, T, Pfeifer, M, Präg, A, Renner, O, Rohlena, K, Rus, B, Skala, J, Straka, P and Ullschmied, J (2001) The Prague asterix laser system. Physics of Plasmas 8, 24952501.10.1063/1.1350569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, GH, Moses, EI and Wuest, CR (2004) The national ignition facility: enabling fusion ignition for the 21st century. Nuclear Fusion 44, S228.10.1088/0029-5515/44/12/S14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miquel, J-L, Batani, D and Blanchot, N (2020) Overview of the laser mega joule (LMJ) facility and PETAL project in France. The Review of Laser Engineering 42, 131.10.2184/lsj.42.2_131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancelli, D, Errea, I, Tentori, A, Turianska, O, Larreur, H, Katagiri, K, Ozaki, N, Kamimura, N, Kamibayashi, D, and Ishida, K (2021) Shock Hugoniot data for water up to 5 mbar obtained with quartz standard at high-energy laser facilities. Laser and Particle Beams Volume 2021 2021 e2.10.1155/2021/4141522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H, Yang, Y, Yang, W, Guan, Z, Duan, X, Yang, M, Liu, Y, Shen, J, Batani, K, Singappuli, D, Lan, K, Yongsheng, L, Huo, W, Liu, H, Yulong, L, Yang, D, Sanwei, L, Wang, Z, Yang, J, Zhao, Z, Zhang, W, Sun, L, Kang, W and Batani, D (2024) Equation of state for boron nitride along the principal Hugoniot to 16 Mbar. Matter and Radiation at Extremes 9, 057403.10.1063/5.0206889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batani, D (2016) Matter in extreme conditions produced by lasers. Europhysics Letters 114, 65001.10.1209/0295-5075/114/65001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hye-Sook Park, SJMA, Celliers, PM, Coppari, F, Eggert, J, Krygier, A, Lazicki, AE, Mcnaney, JM, Millot, M, Ping, Y, Rudd, RE, Remington, BA, Sio, H, Smith, RF, Knudson, MD and McBride, EE (2021) Techniques for studying materials under extreme states of high energy density compression. Physics of Plasmas 28, 06090110.1063/5.0046199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batani, D, Colaïtis, A, Consoli, F, Danson, CN, Gizzi, LA, Honrubia, J, Kühl, T, Pape, SL, Miquel, J-L and Perlado, JM (2023) Future for inertial-fusion energy in Europe: a roadmap. High Power Laser Science and Engineering 11, e83.10.1017/hpl.2023.80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For more information on HDF5, visit: https://www.hdfgroup.org/solutions/hdf5/.Google Scholar
Dubey, A, Antypas, K, Ganapathy, MK, Reid, LB, Riley, K, Sheeler, D, Siegel, A and Weide, K (2009) Extensible component-based architecture for flash, a massively parallel, multiphysics simulation code. Parallel Computing 35, 512522.10.1016/j.parco.2009.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryxell, B, Olson, K, Ricker, P, Timmes, FX, Zingale, M, Lamb, DQ, MacNeice, P, Rosner, R, Truran, JW and Tufo, H (2000) Flash: An adaptive mesh hydrodynamics code for modeling astrophysical thermonuclear flashes. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 131, 273.10.1086/317361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calder, AC, Fryxell, B, Plewa, T, Rosner, R, Dursi, LJ, Weirs, VG, Dupont, T, Robey, HF, Kane, JO, Remington, BA, Drake, RP, Dimonte, G, Zingale, M, Timmes, FX, Olson, K, Ricker, P, MacNeice, P and Tufo, HM (2002) On validating an astrophysical simulation code. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 143, 201.10.1086/342267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, DR, Shigemori, K and Azechi, H (2005) Laser-produced blast wave and numerical simulation using the flash code. Laser and Particle Beams 23, 513519.10.1017/S026303460505069XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tzeferacos, P, Fatenejad, M, Flocke, N, Graziani, C, Gregori, G, Lamb, DQ, Lee, D, Meinecke, J, Scopatz, A and Weide, K (2015) FLASH MHD simulations of experiments that study shock-generated magnetic fields. High Energy Density Physics 17, 2431.10.1016/j.hedp.2014.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derouillat, J, Beck, A, Pérez, F, Vinci, T, Chiaramello, M, Grassi, A, Flé, M, Bouchard, G, Plotnikov, I, Aunai, N, Dargent, J, Riconda, C and Grech, M (2018) Smilei : A collaborative, open-source, multi-purpose particle-in-cell code for plasma simulation. Computer Physics Communications 222, 351373.10.1016/j.cpc.2017.09.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arber, TD, Bennett, K, Brady, CS, Lawrence-Douglas, A, Ramsay, MG, Sircombe, NJ, Gillies, P, Evans, RG, Schmitz, H, Bell, AR, Ridgers, CP (2015) Contemporary particle-in-cell approach to laser-plasma modelling. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 57, 126..10.1088/0741-3335/57/11/113001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuckolls, J, Wood, L, Thiessen, A and Zimmerman, G (1972)Laser Compression of Matter to Super-High Densities: Thermonuclear (CTR) Applications. Nature 239, 139142.10.1038/239139a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basov, NG, Gus’kov, SY and Feokistov, LP (1992) Thermonuclear gain of ICF targets with direct heating of ignitor. Journal of Soviet Laser Research 13, 396399.10.1007/BF01124892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, MG (1997) Review of Inertial Confinement Fusion. Astrophysics and Space Science 256, 125139.10.1023/A:1001108213155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betti, R and Hurricane, OA (2016) Inertial-confinement fusion with lasers. Nature Physics 12, 435448.10.1038/nphys3736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aliverdiev, A, Batani, D, Dezulian, R, Vinci, T, Benuzzi-Mounaix, A, Koenig, M and Malka, V (2008) Hydrodynamics of laser-produced plasma corona measured by optical interferometry. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 50, 105013.10.1088/0741-3335/50/10/105013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batani, D, Santos, J, Forestier-Colleoni, P, Mancelli, D, Ehret, M, Trela, J, Morace, A, Jakubowska, K, Antonelli, L and del Sorbo, D (2019) Optical time-resolved diagnostics of laser-produced plasmas. Journal of Fusion Energy 38, 299314.10.1007/s10894-019-00218-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, KL, Pasley, J, Green, JS, Batani, D, Baton, S, Evans, RG, Gizzi, L, Heathcote, R, Gomez, CH, Koenig, M, Koester, P, Morace, A, Musgrave, I, Norreys, PA, Perez, F, Waugh, JN and Woolsey, NC (2009) Temperature profiles derived from transverse optical shadowgraphy in ultraintense laser plasma interactions at $6\times10^{20}\mathrm{w/cm}^2$. Physics of Plasmas 16, 056707.10.1063/1.3133024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenzer, SH and Redmer, R (2009) X-ray thomson scattering in high energy density plasmas. Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 16251663.10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manclossi, M, Santos, JJ, Batani, D, Faure, J, Debayle, A, Tikhonchuk, VT and Malka, V (2006) Study of ultraintense laser-produced fast-electron propagation and filamentation in insulator and metal foil targets by optical emission diagnostics. Physical Review Letters 96, 125002.10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.125002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bubo, M, Ren, J, Wang, S, Wang, X, Yin, S, Feng, J, Wei, W, Xing, X, Chen, B, and Zhang, S (2022,) Plasma spectroscopy on hydrogen-carbon-oxygen foam targets driven by laser-generated hohlraum radiation. Laser and Particle Beams Volume 2022 2022 e15.Google Scholar
Ravasio, A, Koenig, M, Le Pape, S, Benuzzi-Mounaix, A, Park, HS, Cecchetti, C, Patel, P, Schiavi, A, Ozaki, N, Mackinnon, A, Loupias, B, Batani, D, Boehly, T, Borghesi, M, Dezulian, R, Henry, E, Notley, M, Bandyopadhyay, S, Clarke, R, and Vinci, T (2008) Hard x-ray radiography for density measurement in shock compressed matter. Physics of Plasmas, 15, 060701.10.1063/1.2928156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morace, A, Fedeli, L, Batani, D, Baton, S, Beg, FN, Hulin, S, Jarrott, LC, Margarit, A, Nakai, M, Nakatsutsumi, M, Nicolai, P, Piovella, N, Wei, MS, Vaisseau, X, Volpe, L and Santos, JJ (2014) Development of x-ray radiography for high energy density physics. Physics of Plasmas 21, 102712.10.1063/1.4900867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonelli, L, Atzeni, S, Schiavi, A, Baton, SD, Brambrink, E, Koenig, M, Rousseaux, C, Richetta, M, Batani, D, Forestier-Colleoni, P, Bel, EL, Maheut, Y, Nguyen-Bui, T, Ribeyre, X and Trela, J (2017) Laser-driven shock waves studied by x-ray radiography. Physical Review E 95, 063205.10.1103/PhysRevE.95.063205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbato, F, Atzeni, S, Batani, D, Bleiner, D, Boutoux, G, Brabetz, C, Bradford, P, Mancelli, D, Neumayer, P, Schiavi, A, Trela, J, Volpe, L, Zeraouli, G, Woolsey, N and Antonelli, L (2019) Quantitative phase contrast imaging of a shock-wave with a laser-plasma based X-ray source. Scientific Reports 9, 18805.10.1038/s41598-019-55074-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nishimura, H, Mishra, R, Ohshima, S, Nakamura, H, Tanabe, M, Fujiwara, T, Yamamoto, N, Fujioka, S, Batani, D, Veltcheva, M, Desai, T, Jafer, R, Kawamura, T, Sentoku, Y, Mancini, R, Hakel, P, Koike, F and Mima, K (2011) X-ray spectroscopy to study energy transport of a low-z, reduced mass target irradiated with a high-intensity laser pulse. High Energy Density Physics 7, 117123.10.1016/j.hedp.2011.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, O, Smid, M, Batani, D and Antonelli, L (2016) Suprathermal electron production in laser-irradiated Cu targets characterized by combined methods of x-ray imaging and spectroscopy. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 58, 075007.10.1088/0741-3335/58/7/075007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morace, A and Batani, D (2010) Spherically bent crystal for X-ray imaging of laser produced plasmas. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 623, 797800.10.1016/j.nima.2010.02.130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeraouli, G, Gatti, G, Longman, A, Pérez-Hernández, JA, Arana, D, Batani, D, Jakubowska, K, Volpe, L, Roso, L and Fedosejevs, R (2019) Development of an adjustable Kirkpatrick-Baez microscope for laser driven x-ray sources. Review of Scientific Instruments 90, 063704.10.1063/1.5091103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ducret, J-E, Batani, D, Boutoux, G, Chance, A, Gastineau, B, Guillard, J-C, Harrault, F, Jakubowska, K, Lantuejoul-Thfoin, I, Leboeuf, D, Loiseau, D, Lotode, A, Pes, C, Rabhi, N, Said, A, Semsoum, A, Serani, L, Thomas, B, Toussaint, J-C and Vauzour, B (2018) Calibration of the low-energy channel Thomson parabola of the LMJ-PETAL diagnostic sepage with protons and carbon ions. Review of Scientific Instruments 89, 023304.10.1063/1.5009737CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tchorz, P, Szymanski, M, Rosinski, M, Chodukowski, T and Borodziuk, S (2023) Capabilities of thomson parabola spectrometer in various laser-plasma- and laser-fusion-related experiments. Nukleonika 68, 2936.10.2478/nuka-2023-0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, SK, Krupka, M, Krasa, J, Istokskaia, V, Dostal, J, Dudzak, R, Pisarczyk, T, Cikhardt, J, Agarwal, S and Klir, D (2024) Hot electron emission characteristics from thin metal foil targets irradiated by terawatt laser. Laser and Particle Beams 42, e2.10.1017/lpb.2023.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, AS, Schlossberg, DJ, Appelbe, BD, Chandler, GA, Crilly, AJ, Eckart, MJ, Forrest, CJ, Glebov, VY, Grim, GP, Hartouni, EP, Hatarik, R, Kerr, SM, Kilkenny, J and Knauer, JP (2023) Neutron time of flight (nToF) detectors for inertial fusion experiments. Review of Scientific Instruments 94, 061102.10.1063/5.0133655CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slutz, SA, Herrmann, MC, Vesey, RA, Sefkow, AB, Sinars, DB, Rovang, DC, Peterson, KJ and Cuneo, ME (2010) Pulsed-power-driven cylindrical liner implosions of laser preheated fuel magnetized with an axial field. Physics of Plasmas 17, 056303.10.1063/1.3333505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slutz, SA and Vesey, RA High-Gain Magnetized Inertial Fusion. Physical Review Letters 025003, 15.Google Scholar
Slutz, SA, Gomez, MR, Hansen, SB, Harding, EC, Hutsel, BT, Knapp, PF, Lamppa, DC, Awe, TJ, Ampleford, DJ, Bliss, DE, Chandler, GA, Cuneo, ME, Geissel, M, Glinsky, ME, Harvey-Thompson, AJ, Hess, MH, Jennings, CA, Jones, B, Laity, GR, Martin, MR, Peterson, KJ, Porter, JL, Rambo, PK, Rochau, GA, Ruiz, CL, Savage, ME, Schwarz, J, Schmit, PF, Shipley, G, Sinars, DB, Smith, CI, Vesey, RA and Weis, MR Enhancing performance of magnetized liner inertial fusion at the Z facility. Physics of Plasmas 25, 112706.10.1063/1.5054317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zakharov, SM, Ivanenkov, GV, Kolomenskij, AA, Pikuz, SA, Samokhin, AI and Ulshmid, I (1982) Wire x-pinch in a high-current diode. Pis’ma v Zhurnal Tekhnicheskoj Fiziki 8, 10601063.Google Scholar
Nissim, N, Greenberg, E, Werdiger, M, Horowitz, Y, Bakshi, L, Ferber, Y, Glam, B, Fedotov-Gefen, A, Perelmutter, L and Eliezer, S (2021) Free-surface velocity measurements of opaque materials in laser-driven shock-wave experiments using photonic doppler velocimetry. Matter and Radiation at Extremes 6, 046902.10.1063/5.0046884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutoux, G, Chevalier, J-M, Arrigoni, M, Berthe, L, Beuton, R, Bicrel, B, Galtie, A, Hébert, D, Clanche, JL, Loillier, S, Loison, D, Maury, P, Raffray, Y and Videau, L (2023) Experimental evidence of shock wave measurements with low-velocity ( $ \lt $ 10 m/s) and fast dynamics ( $ \lt $ 10 ns) capabilities using a coupled photonic doppler velocimetry (pdv) and triature velocity interferometer system for any reflector (visar) diagnostic. Review of Scientific Instruments 94, 033905.10.1063/5.0107499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strand, OT, Goosman, DR, Martinez, C, Whitworth, TL and Kuhlow, WW (2006) Compact system for high-speed velocimetry using heterodyne techniques. Review of Scientific Instruments 77, 083108.10.1063/1.2336749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al’tshuler, LV, Kormer, SB, Bakanova, AA and Trunin, RF (1960) Equation of state for aluminum, copper, and lead in the high-pressure region. Sov. Phys. JETP 11, 573.Google Scholar
Mitchell, AC, Nellis, WJ, Moriarty, JA, Heinle, RA, Holmes, NC, Tipton, RE and Repp, GW (1991) Equation of state of Al, Cu, Mo, and Pb at shock pressures up to 2.4 Tpa (24 Mbar). Journal of Applied Physics 69, 29812986.10.1063/1.348611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, LM and Hollenbach, RE (1972) Laser interferometer for measuring high velocities of any reflecting surface. Journal of Applied Physics 43, 46694675.10.1063/1.1660986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, LM and Schuler, KW (1974) Correction to the velocity-per-fringe relationship for the visar interferometer. Journal of Applied Physics 45, 36923693.10.1063/1.1663841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomquist, DD and Sheffield, SA (1983) Optically recording interferometer for velocity measurements with subnanosecond resolution. Journal of Applied Physics 54, 17171722.10.1063/1.332222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celliers, PM, Bradley, DK, Collins, GW, Hicks, DG, Boehly, TR and Armstrong, WJ (2004) Line-imaging velocimeter for shock diagnostics at the omega laser facility. Review of Scientific Instruments 75, 49164929.10.1063/1.1807008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolme, CA and Ramos, KJ (2013) Line-imaging velocimetry for observing spatially heterogeneous mechanical and chemical responses in plastic bonded explosives during impact. Review of Scientific Instruments 84, 083903.10.1063/1.4817307CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramis, R, Schmalz, R and Meyer-Ter-Vehn, J (1988) Multi — a computer code for one-dimensional multigroup radiation hydrodynamics. Computer Physics Communications 49, 475505.10.1016/0010-4655(88)90008-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
T4 Group LANL. EOS SESAME tables developed at the Los Alamos laboratory (SESAME report on the Los Alamos equation-of- state library, report no. LALP-83-4, 1983, and report LA-UR-92-3407, 1992, T4 group LANl, Los Alamos). Report LA-UR-92-3407, 1992.Google Scholar
More, RM, Warren, KH, Young, DA and Zimmerman, GB (1988) A new quotidian equation of state (QEOS) for hot dense matter. The Physics of Fluids 31, 30593078.10.1063/1.866963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delettrez, J, Epstein, R, Richardson, MC, Jaanimagi, PA and Henke, BL (1987) Effect of laser illumination nonuniformity on the analysis of time-resolved x-ray measurements in UV spherical transport experiments. Physical Review A 36, 39263934.10.1103/PhysRevA.36.3926CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bardy, S, Aubert, B, Bergara, T, Berthe, L, Combis, P, Hebert, D, Lescoute, E, Rouchausse, Y and Videau, L (2020) Development of a numerical code for laser-induced shock waves applications. Optics & Laser Technology 124, 105983.10.1016/j.optlastec.2019.105983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, JT and Lane, SM (1994) Hyades—a plasma hydrodynamics code for dense plasma studies. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 51, 179186.10.1016/0022-4073(94)90078-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramis, R and Meyer ter Vehn, J, and Ramirez, J (2009) Multi2d – a computer code for two-dimensional radiation hydrodynamics. Computer Physics Communications, 180, 977994.10.1016/j.cpc.2008.12.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amit, G, Mosseri, I, Even-Hen, O, Schneider, N, Fisher, E, Datz, H, Cohen, E, and Nissim, N (2022) Particles detection system with cr-39 based on deep learning. Laser and Particle Beams Volume 2022 2022 e12.10.1155/2022/3820671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Experimental setup: the VISAR and SOP respectively measure the reflectivity and the self-emission of the shocked sample on the rear side to infer the shock velocity.

Figure 1

Figure 2. CAD design of details of the interaction chamber showing the target manipulator along with the alignment camera and the needle required for referencing the target chamber center (TCC). Red cone represents the converging laser beam at the third harmonic.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Conceptual design of the aluminium-framed target to be used with the detailed layer thicknesses and the laser cone. In the projected cut of the proposed design, we show details on the height of the target and the thickness of the base-plate of the frame where the targets are glued.

Figure 3

Figure 4. A and C framed target with rectangular opening, and in the second column B and D, the frame with circular openings. In both cases, the frames included dummy targets, alignment markers and the multi-layered sample of interest.

Figure 4

Figure 5. (Top) Examples of debris collected on shield in several PALS shots, at different laser drive conditions and target composition. Setup of the laser drive, target and debris shield in planar geometry. The distance between target and shied is ∼4 cm. High-quality transparent plastic debris shields were used and replaced after each shot. (Bottom) Six representative debris shield scans are presented for different laser energies and target configurations. These include $25\, \mu\mathrm{m}$ Al foils used in shots (#60956–#60961) at laser energies of 151.8, 118.7, 51 and 165 J, as well as stepped targets for shot #61041 ($10\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ CH/$10\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ Al base/ $33\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ Al step /$51\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ BN step) and shot #61045, with laser energies of 112 and 133 J, respectively.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Results from PDV for shot #55017 for target CH/Au/SiO2 the laser intensity was $\approx 3\times 10^{14} \mathrm{W/cm}^2$ on target with the fibres placed to look at two different angles 0 (A), and 20 (B), respectively.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Grid test target was placed at TCC to optimize the SOP collection optics line and measure the extension of the field of view and spatial resolution. The separation of the cells is $130\,\mu\mathrm{m}$.

Figure 7

Figure 8. SOP results: (A) Self-emission from the rear side of a shocked target ($10\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ CH/$0.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ Au/ $100\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ SiO2). The small signal on the left is a time fiducial taken from the interaction beam, (B) line out of the previous image (shot #55029), with laser energy 113 J at 3ω giving an intensity of the order of ($3.6 \times 10^{14}\mathrm{W\,cm}^{-2}$).

Figure 8

Figure 9. (A) Typical SOP image of shock breakout from the stepped target (shot PALS #61033), horizontal dashed lines indicate the break out time in base (tbase) and in the step (tstep) of the sample. (B) Typical reflectivity image obtained from VISAR, for the same stepped sample. Strong signal of reflectivity is observed from the Al step up to breakout time.

Figure 9

Figure 10. Density map from radiative hydrodynamic simulations using the MULTI code. Simulation indicates shock breakout at the gold–quartz interface at $0.65\,\mathrm{ns}$. The target and laser parameters were the same as the ones stated in Section 2.