The classical Richtmyer–Meshkov (RM) instability develops when a planar shock wave interacts with a corrugated interface between two different fluids. A larger family of so-called RM-like hydrodynamic interfacial instabilities is discussed. All of these feature a perturbation growth at an interface, which is driven mainly by vorticity, either initially deposited at the interface or supplied by external sources. The inertial confinement fusion relevant physical conditions that give rise to the RM-like instabilities range from the early-time phase of conventional ablative laser acceleration to collisions of plasma shells (like components of nested-wire-arrays, double-gas-puff Z-pinch loads, supernovae ejecta and interstellar gas). In the laser ablation case, numerous additional factors are involved: the mass flow through the front, thermal conduction in the corona, and an external perturbation drive (laser imprint), which leads to a full stabilization of perturbation growth. In contrast with the classical RM case, mass perturbations can exhibit decaying oscillations rather than a linear growth. It is shown how the early-time perturbation behavior could be controlled by tailoring the density profile of a laser target or a Z-pinch load, to diminish the total mass perturbation seed for the Rayleigh–Taylor instability development.

In inertial confinement fusion (ICF), the possibility of ignition or high energy gain is largely determined by our ability to control the Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) instability growth in the target. The exponentially amplified RT perturbation eigenmodes are formed from all sources of the target and radiation non-uniformity in a process called seeding. This process involves a variety of physical mechanisms that are somewhat similar to the classical Richtmyer-Meshkov (RM) instability (in particular, most of them are active in the absence of acceleration), but differ from it in many ways. In the last decade, radiographic diagnostic techniques have been developed that made direct observations of the RM-type effects in the ICF-relevant conditions possible. New experiments stimulated the advancement of the theory of the RM-type processes. The progress in the experimental and theoretical studies of such phenomena as ablative RM instability, re-shock of the RM-unstable interface, feedout and perturbation development associated with impulsive loading is reviewed.

The response of a shock front to small preshock nonuniformities of density, pressure, and velocity is studied theoretically and numerically. These preshock nonuniformities emulate imperfections of a laser target, due either to its manufacturing, like joints or feeding tubes, or to preshock perturbation seeding/growth, as well as density fluctuations in foam targets, "thermal layers" near heated surfaces, etc. Similarly to the shock-wave interaction with a small nonuniformity localized at a material interface, which triggers a classical Richtmyer-Meshkov ͑RM͒ instability, interaction of a shock wave with periodic or localized preshock perturbations distributed in the volume distorts the shape of the shock front and can cause a RM-type instability growth. Explicit asymptotic formulas describing distortion of the shock front and the rate of RM-type growth are presented. These formulas are favorably compared both to the exact solutions of the corresponding initial-boundary-value problem and to numerical simulations. It is demonstrated that a small density modulation localized sufficiently close to a flat target surface produces the same perturbation growth as an "equivalent" ripple on the surface of a uniform target, characterized by the same initial areal mass modulation amplitude.

The feedout process transfers mass perturbations from the rear to the front surface of a driven target, producing the seed for the Rayleigh–Taylor (RT) instability growth. The feedout mechanism is investigated analytically and numerically for the case of perturbation wavelength comparable to or less than the shock-compressed target thickness. The lateral mass flow in the target leads to oscillations of the initial mass nonuniformity before the reflected rippled rarefaction wave breaks out, which may result in RT bubbles produced at locations where the areal mass was initially higher. This process is determined by the evolution of hydrodynamic perturbations in the rippled rarefaction wave, which is not the same as the Richtmyer–Meshkov (RM) interfacial instability. An exact analytical formula is derived for the time-dependent mass variation in a rippled rarefaction wave, and explicit estimates are given for the time of first phase reversal and frequency of the oscillations. The limiting transition from the case of RM perturbation growth at large density difference (low ambient density behind the rear surface) to the case of feedout (zero density) is studied, and it is shown that the latter limit is approached only if the ambient density is extremely low, less than 1/1000 of the preshock target density.

Perturbations that seed Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) instability in laser-driven targets form during the early-time period. This time includes a shock wave transit from the front to the rear surface of the target, and a rarefaction wave transit in the opposite direction. During this time interval, areal mass perturbations caused by all sources of nonuniformity (laser imprint, surface ripple) are expected to oscillate. The first direct experimental observations of the areal mass oscillations due to ablative Richtmyer-Meshkov (RM) instability and feedout followed by the RT growth of areal mass modulation are discussed. The experiments were made with 40 to 99 µm thick planar plastic targets rippled either on the front or on the rear with a sine wave ripple with either Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.