Spiner vs EOSPAC6: capabilities, performance, and accuracy considerations

Abstract

The Cross-Cutting Capabilities Project (XCAP) has significant interest in collecting and implementing a common set of libraries to be used across the various production hydro-codes at LANL. A common set of libraries will help facilitate comparisons between codes. In addition to minimizing variables for comparisons and physics validation, efforts toward optimization and porting of packages for future architectures will be more efficient. As part of this push Singularity is being considered as an inclusive materials interface library. One crucial part of this library is the importing, inverting, and interpolation of equation of state (EOS) data. Currently the Lagrangian Applications Project (LAP) and Safety Applications Project (SAP) are using EOSPAC6 for delivery EOS data. The Eulerian Applications Project (EAP) has historically used TEOS and more recently an implementation of Singularly via a package called Spiner for EOS interpolation. Singularity currently has the option of using several analytical EOS models, directly employing SESAME via Spiner, or directly using SESAME via EOSPAC6 (not optimized yet). Assuming Singularity moves forward as a common platform for the implementation of materials models, a decision will need to be made on which EOS interpolation package XCAP should move forward with, given resources and people are finite. We will attempt to address pros and cons of Spiner and EOSPAC6 and the trade-offs that should be considered during the decision making process. This report is intended as an ASC-PEM-EOS perspective on what is needed in an EOS interpolation package. Performance and Accuracy sections will mostly address data from comparison studies in LA-UR-22-22699.