Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-tlp4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T11:27:55.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Modelling of a variable length gas cell target for laser wakefield acceleration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2025

Runfeng Luo*
Affiliation:
The John Adams Institute, Imperial College London , London, UK
Greg Christian
Affiliation:
The John Adams Institute, Imperial College London , London, UK
Michael Backhouse
Affiliation:
The John Adams Institute, Imperial College London , London, UK
Nelson Lopes
Affiliation:
GoLP/Instituto de Plasmas e Fusão Nuclear, Instituto Superior Técnico , Lisboa, Portugal
Saleh Alatabi
Affiliation:
The John Adams Institute, Imperial College London , London, UK
Michael Bloom
Affiliation:
The John Adams Institute, Imperial College London , London, UK
Matthias Maier
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University , College Station, Texas, USA
Zulfikar Najmudin
Affiliation:
The John Adams Institute, Imperial College London , London, UK
*
Correspondence to: R. Luo, The John Adams Institute, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BZ, UK. Email: runfeng.luo18@imperial.ac.uk

Abstract

We present time-dependent two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) fluid simulations of a gas cell with a variable length of 0–5 cm, designed for laser wakefield acceleration. The cell employs an output nozzle producing extended density ramps, which can facilitate the production of high-quality electron beams. In both geometries, the simulations demonstrate uniform density inside the cell. In the 3D case, the mean density inside the cell reaches a density nonuniformity below $1\%$ after 100 ms. The density equilibrium time, $\tau$, scales with the ratio of cell volume-to-outlet area, a relationship that is not captured by the 2D simulations showing five times shorter equilibrium time. We present a method to determine $\tau$ from fluid simulations, allowing the estimation of the minimum delay required to enable a uniform target density. Such uniformity prevents uncontrolled electron injection from density ripples, which has direct implications for optimizing beam quality and reproducibility in wakefield acceleration.

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 (https://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 in association with Chinese Laser Press
Figure 0

Figure 1 A computer-aided design (CAD) rendering of the cell geometry along with a zoomed-in view of the nozzle at the laser exit.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Helium atomic density distribution and uniformity for the 2D cell without a piston. (a) Transverse slices of the density distribution at 5 and 50 ms. (b) Mean helium atomic density in the gas cell as a function of time after gas release. (c) Temporal evolution of density uniformity (standard deviation) in the gas cell.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Helium atomic density distribution and uniformity for the 2D cell geometry with a piston. (a) Transverse slices of the density distribution at 5 and 50 ms. (b) Mean helium atomic density in the gas cell as a function of time after gas release. (c) Temporal evolution of density uniformity (standard deviation) in the LWFA region.

Figure 3

Figure 4 Visualization of the 3D cell geometry in Gmsh.

Figure 4

Figure 5 Helium atomic density distribution and uniformity for the 3D cell geometry. (a) Transverse slices of the density distribution at 5 and 300 ms. (b) Mean helium atomic density in the entire cell and in the LWFA region as a function of time after gas release. (c) Temporal evolution of density uniformity (standard deviation) in the entire cell and the LWFA region.

Figure 5

Table 1 Comparison of the equilibrium time obtained from simulations (${\tau}_\mathrm{sim}$) with the theoretical value (${\tau}_\mathrm{theory}$) predicted by Equation (1), along with the percentage difference between them.

Figure 6

Figure 6 Convergence scan of the density down-ramp profile using 2D simulations.