-
Due to its unique characteristics, metal tungsten has been selected as the wall material for the tokamak magnetic confinement fusion device. The wall material directly interacts with the plasma for a long time, causing tungsten atoms and ions to be sputtered and ionized into different charge states, which then enter the tokamak device as plasma impurities. To ensure stable plasma combustion conditions, highly complex modeling is currently being conducted to evaluate the behavior of tungsten impurities and their impact on the tokamak plasma. This requires various high-precision atomic data for tungsten atoms and different ionized states of tungsten ions. Electron collision ionization, as a fundamental atomic physical process, is widely encountered in laboratory and astrophysical plasma environments. The parameters such as electron collision ionization cross-sections and rate coefficients are crucial for plasma radiation transport simulations and state diagnostics.Electron-impact single-ionization (EISI) cross sections of the ground state and metastable state for W6+ ions have been calculated using the level-to-level distorted-wave (LLDW) method. The contribution of direct ionization (DI) and excited autoionization (EA) cross sections to the total EISI cross section has been primarily considered.Comparison of our calculated results with the experimental data from Stenke et al. reveals that the EISI cross section considering only the ground state is significantly smaller than the experimental findings. Therefore, it is imperative to take into account the contribution from the metastable state. To determine the fraction of ions in long-lived energy levels within the parent ion beam, three models have been employed.Our results, which include the contribution of metastable states, agree well with the experimental spectrum of Stenke et al. Comparing with the theoretical calculations of Pindzola et al. our calculaiton provides a more comprehensive understanding of the electron-impact single-ionization processes for W6+ ions. The comparison is illustrated in Figure.Fig. Comparison of our W6+ ions fitting EISI with experiment[24]. Red、green and blue solid line respresent the results of the model 1、model 2 and model 3, respectively. The black solid line is the EISI cross section of ground state 4f145p6.
-
Keywords:
- Tungsten ions /
- Electron-impact /
- Metastable states /
- DI /
- EA
-
[1] Demura A V, Kadomtsev M B, Lisitsa V S, Shurygin V A 2015High Energy Density Physics 15 49
[2] Biedermann C, Radtke R, Seidel R, Pütterich T 2009Phys. Scr. T134 014026
[3] Colgan J, Pindzola M S 2012Eur. Phys. J. D 66 284
[4] Wirth B D, Nordlund K, Whyte D G, Xu D 2011MRS Bull. 36 216
[5] Preval S P, Badnell N R, O’Mullane M G 2019J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 52 025201
[6] Kramida A E, Reader J 2006Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 92 457
[7] Pütterich T, Neu R, Dux R, Whiteford A D, O’Mullane M G, Summers H P 2010Nucl. Fusion 50 025012
[8] Müller A 2015Atoms 3 120
[9] Pütterich T, Fable E, Dux R, O’Mullane M, Neu R, Siccinio M 2019Nucl. Fusion 59 056013
[10] Montague R G, Harrison M F A 1984J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 17 2707
[11] Rausch J, Becker A, Spruck K, Hellhund J, Borovik A, Huber K, Schippers S, Müller A 2011J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 44 165202
[12] Borovik A, Ebinger B, Schury D, Schippers S, Müller A 2016Phys. Rev. A 93 012708
[13] Schury D, Borovik A, Ebinger B, Jin F, Spruck K, Müller A, Schippers S 2020J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53 015201
[14] Stenke M, Aichele K, Harthiramani D, Hofmann G, Steidl M, Volpel R, Salzborn E 1995J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 28 2711
[15] Ballance C P, Loch S D, Pindzola M S, Griffin D C 2013J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 46 055202
[16] Pindzola M S, Griffin D C 1997Phys. Rev. A 56 1654
[17] Zhang D, Xie L, Jiang J, Wu Z, Dong C, Shi Y, Qu Y 2018Chinese Phys. B 27 053402
[18] Jin F, Borovik A, Ebinger B, Schippers S 2020J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53 075201
[19] Jonauskas V, Kynienė A, Kučas S, Pakalka S, Masys Š, Prancikevičius A, Borovik A, Gharaibeh M F, Schippers S, Müller A 2019Phys. Rev. A 100 062701
[20] Chen L, Li B, Chen X 2022Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer 285 108179
[21] Bao R, Wei J, Chen L, Li B, Chen X 2023Chinese Phys. B 32 063401
[22] Yan C L, Lu Q, Xie Y M, Li B L, Fu N, Zou Y, Chen C, Xiao J 2022Phys. Rev. A 105 032820
[23] Gu M F 2008Can. J. Phys. 86 675
[24] Stenke M, Aichele K, Hathiramani D, Hofmann G, Steidl M, Volpel R, Shevelko V P, Tawara H, Salzborn E 1995J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 28 4853
[25] Jonauskas V, Kučas S, Karazija R 2009Lithuanian J. Phys. 49 415
[26] Grant I P, McKenzie B J 1980J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 13 2671
[27] Kramida A, Ralchenko Yu, Reader J and NIAT ASD Team (2021). NISI Atomic Spectra Database
[28] Zhang S, Zhang F, Zhang D, Ding X, Jiang J, Xie L, Ma Y, Li M, Sikorski M, Dong C 2024Chinese Phys. B 33 033401
[29] Jonauskas V, Kynienė A, Kučas S, Pakalka S, Masys Š, Prancikevičius A, Borovik A, Gharaibeh M F, Schippers S, Müller A 2019Phys. Rev. A 100 062701
[30] Stenke M, Aichele K, Harthiramani D, Hofmann G, Steidl M, Volpel R, Salzborn E 1995J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 28 2711
[31] Dipti, Das T, Bartschat K, Bray I, Fursa D V, Zatsarinny O, Ballance C, Chung H K, Ralchenko Yu 2019Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 127–128 1
Metrics
- Abstract views: 112
- PDF Downloads: 3
- Cited By: 0
下载:
