Partial and total dielectronic recombination rate coefficients for W55+ to W38+

Preval, S P and Badnell, N R and O'Mullane, M G (2017) Partial and total dielectronic recombination rate coefficients for W55+ to W38+. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 50 (10). 105201. ISSN 0953-4075 (https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/aa6a3c)

[thumbnail of Preval-etal-JPBAMOP2017-Partial-and-total-dielectronic-recombination-rate-coefficients]
Preview
Text. Filename: Preval_etal_JPBAMOP2017_Partial_and_total_dielectronic_recombination_rate_coefficients.pdf
Accepted Author Manuscript

Download (926kB)| Preview

Abstract

Dielectronic recombination (DR) is the dominant mode of recombination in magnetically confined fusion plasmas for intermediate to low-charged ions of W. Complete, final-state resolved partial isonuclear W DR rate coefficient data is required for detailed collisional-radiative modelling for such plasmas in preparation for the upcoming fusion experiment ITER. To realize this requirement, we continueThe Tungsten Project by presenting our calculations for tungsten ions W55+ to W38+. As per our prior calculations for W73+ to W56+, we use the collision package AUTOSTRUCTURE to calculate partial and total DR rate coefficients for all relevant core-excitations in intermediate coupling (IC) and configuration average (CA) using κ-averaged relativistic wavefunctions. Radiative recombination (RR) rate coefficients are also calculated for the purpose of evaluating ionization fractions. Comparison of our DR rate coefficients for W46+ with other authors yields agreement to within 7-19% at peak abundance verifying the reliability of our method. Comparison of partial DR rate coefficients calculated in IC and CA yield differences of a factor ∼ 2 at peak abundance temperature, highlighting the importance of relativistic configuration mixing. Large differences are observed between ionization fractions calculated using our recombination rate coefficient data and that of Pütterich et al [Plasma Phys. and Control. Fusion 50 085016, (2008)]. These differences are attributed to deficiencies in the average-atom method used by the former to calculate their data.