September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 1 Armor Configuration & Thermal Analysis 1.Parametric analysis in support of system studies 2.Preliminary.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
First Wall Heat Loads Mike Ulrickson November 15, 2014.
Advertisements

HAPL January 11-13, 2005/ARR 1 Overview of the HAPL IFE Dry Wall Chamber Studies in the US Presented by A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from John.
March 21-22, 2006 HAPL meeting, ORNL 1 Status of Chamber and Blanket Effort A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from: M. Sawan B. Robson G. Sviatoslavsky.
November 8-9, “Engineering Analysis” of He Retention & Release Experiments to Determine Desirable Engineered W Armor Microstructure A. René Raffray.
September 24-25, 2003 HAPL Program Meeting, UW, Madison 1 Report on Target Action Items A.R. Raffray and B. Christensen University of California, San Diego.
Assessment of Chamber Concepts for IFE Power Plants: The ARIES-IFE study Farrokh Najmabadi for the ARIES Team IFSA2001 September 9-14, 2001 Kyoto, Japan.
First Wall Thermal Hydraulics Analysis El-Sayed Mogahed Fusion Technology Institute The University of Wisconsin With input from S. Malang, M. Sawan, I.
April 6-7, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., Modeling of Inertial Fusion Chamber 1 Modeling of Inertial Fusion Chamber A. R. Raffray, F. Najmabadi, Z. Dragojlovic,
March 3-4, 2005 HAPL meeting, NRL 1 Target Survival During Injection…The Advantages of Getting Rid of the Buffer Gas Presented by A.R. Raffray Other Contributors:
May 31-June 1, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Assessment of Dry Chamber Walls as Preliminary Step in Defining Key Processes for Chamber Clearing Code 1 Assessment.
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures –
December 5-6, 2002 HAPL Program Workshop, NRL, Washington, D.C. 1 Enhancing Target Survival Presented by A.R. Raffray Other Contributors: M. S. Tillack,
June 14-15, 2007/ARR 1 Trade-Off Studies and Engineering Input to System Code Presented by A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego With contribution.
April 4-5, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., Modeling Analysis of Carbon Fiber Velvet Tested in RHEPP Ion Beam Facility 1 Modeling Analysis of Carbon Fiber Velvet.
A. R. Raffray, B. R. Christensen and M. S. Tillack Can a Direct-Drive Target Survive Injection into an IFE Chamber? Japan-US Workshop on IFE Target Fabrication,
February 3-4, nd US/Japan Target Workshop, GA, San Diego, CA 1 Heating and Thermal Response of Direct- Drive Target During Injection Presented by.
November th TOFE, Washington, D.C. 1 Thermal Behavior and Operating Requirements of IFE Direct-Drive Targets A.R. Raffray 1, R. Petzoldt 2, J. Pulsifer.
October 27-28, 2004 HAPL meeting, PPPL 1 Target Survival During Injection Presented by A.R. Raffray Other Contributors: K. Boehm, B. Christensen, M. S.
April 4-5, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., Chamber Clearing Code Development 1 Chamber Dynamics and Clearing Code Development Effort A. R. Raffray, F. Najmabadi,
May 28-29, 2008/ARR 1 Thermal Effect of Off-Normal Energy Deposition on Bare Ferritic Steel First Wall A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego.
April 10, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., Dynamic Chamber Armor Behavior in IFE and MFE 1 Dynamic Chamber Armor Behavior in IFE and MFE A. R. Raffray 1, G.
November 8-9, Considerations for Small Chambers A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from M. Sawan (UW), I. Sviatoslavsky (UW) and X. Wang (UCSD)
November 8-9, Blanket Design for Large Chamber A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from M. Sawan (UW), I. Sviatoslavsky (UW) and X. Wang (UCSD)
October 24, Remaining Action Items on Dry Chamber Wall 2. “Overlap” Design Regions 3. Scoping Analysis of Sacrificial Wall A. R. Raffray, J.
ARIES-IFE Assessment of Operational Windows for IFE Power Plants Farrokh Najmabadi and the ARIES Team UC San Diego 16 th ANS Topical Meeting on the Technology.
1 THERMAL LOADING OF A DIRECT DRIVE TARGET IN RAREFIED GAS B. R. Christensen, A. R. Raffray, and M. S. Tillack Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department.
Scoping Study of He-cooled Porous Media for ARIES-CS Divertor Presented by John Pulsifer Major contributor: René Raffray University of California, San.
Progress Report on Chamber Dynamics and Clearing Farrokh Najmabadi, Rene Raffray, Mark S. Tillack, John Pulsifer, Zoran Dragovlovic (UCSD) Ahmed Hassanein.
December 12-13, 2007/ARR 1 Power Core Engineering: Design Updates and Trade-Off Studies A. René Raffray University of California, San Diego ARIES Meeting.
Aug. 8-9, 2006 HAPL meeting, GA 1 Advanced Chamber Concept with Magnetic Intervention: - Ion Dump Issues - Status of Blanket Study A. René Raffray UCSD.
Nov 13-14, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Progress Report on Chamber Clearing Code Effort 1 Progress Report on Chamber Clearing Code Development Effort A.
Highlights of ARIES-IFE Study Farrokh Najmabadi VLT Conference Call April 18, 2001 Electronic copy: ARIES Web Site:
Impact of Magnetic Diversion on Laser IFE Reactor Design and Performance A. R. Raffray 1, J. Blanchard 2, A. E. Robson 5, D. V. Rose 4, M. Sawan 2, J.
January 1, 2002/ARR 1 1. “Overlap” Design Regions for IFE Dry Wall 2. Scoping Analysis of Condensation for Wetted Wall A. R. Raffray, D. Blair, J. Pulsifer,
June19-21, 2000Finalizing the ARIES-AT Blanket and Divertor Designs, ARIES Project Meeting/ARR ARIES-AT Blanket and Divertor Design (The Final Stretch)
Aug. 8-9, 2006 HAPL meeting, GA 1 Open Discussion on Advanced Armor Concepts Moderated by A. René Raffray UCSD HAPL Meeting GA, La Jolla, CA August 8-9,
August 30, 2001 A. R. Raffray, IFE Dry Chamber Wall Designs 1 IFE Dry Chamber Wall Designs A. R. Raffray and F. Najmabadi University of California, San.
1 MODELING DT VAPORIZATION AND MELTING IN A DIRECT DRIVE TARGET B. R. Christensen, A. R. Raffray, and M. S. Tillack Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.
March 20-21, 2000ARIES-AT Blanket and Divertor Design, ARIES Project Meeting/ARR Status ARIES-AT Blanket and Divertor Design The ARIES Team Presented.
October 27-28, 2004 HAPL meeting, PPPL 1 Overview of the Components of an IFE Chamber and a Summary of our R&D to Develop Them Presented by: A. René Raffray.
April 9-10, 2003 HAPL Program Meeting, SNL, Albuquerque, N.M. 1 Lowering Target Initial Temperature to Enhance Target Survival Presented by A.R. Raffray.
HAPL WORKSHOP Chamber Gas Density Requirements for Ion Stopping Presented by D. A. Haynes, Jr. for the staff of the Fusion Technology Institute.
October 27-28, 2004 HAPL meeting, PPPL 1 Overview of the Components of an IFE Chamber and a Summary of our R&D to Develop Them Presented by: A. René Raffray.
Neutronics Parameters for Preferred Chamber Configuration with Magnetic Intervention Mohamed Sawan Ed Marriott, Carol Aplin UW Fusion Technology Inst.
ARR/April 8, Magnetic Intervention Dump Concepts A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from: A. E. Robson, D. Rose and J. Sethian HAPL Meeting.
Fracture of Tungsten in a HAPL Chamber Jake Blanchard HAPL MWG Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin September 2003.
October 27-28, 2004 HAPL meeting, PPPL 1 Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Ceramic Breeder Blanket and Plan for Future Effort A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions.
June 2-3, 2004 HAPL meeting, UCLA 1 Progress on Target Survival Presented by A.R. Raffray Other Contributors: B. Christensen, M. S. Tillack UCSD D. Goodin.
Plan to Develop A First Wall Concept for Laser IFE.
February 5-6, 2004 HAPL meeting, G.Tech. 1 HAPL Blanket Strategy A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from M. Sawan and I. Sviatoslavsky UW HAPL Meeting.
July 11, 2003 HAPL e-meeting. 1 Armor Design & Modeling Progress A. René Raffray UCSD HAPL e-meeting July 11, 2003 (1)Provide Parameters for Chamber “System”
1 Neutronics Assessment of Self-Cooled Li Blanket Concept Mohamed Sawan Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI With contributions.
Update on Roughening Work Jake Blanchard HAPL MWG Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin e-meeting – July 2003.
1 Neutronics Parameters for the Reference HAPL Chamber Mohamed Sawan Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI With contributions.
February 5-6, 2004 HAPL meeting, G.Tech. 1 Chamber Tasks Coordination Presented by A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from J. Blanchard and the HAPL.
Temperature Response and Ion Deposition in the 1 mm Tungsten Armor Layer for the 10.5 m HAPL Target Chamber T.A. Heltemes, D.R. Boris and M. Fatenejad,
Plasma Processes, Inc. February 5-6, Engineered Tungsten for IFE Dry Chamber Walls HAPL Program Meeting Georgia Institute of Technology Scott O’Dell,
Effect of Re Alloying in W on Surface Morphology Changes After He + Bombardment at High Temperatures R.F. Radel, G.L. Kulcinski, J. F. Santarius, G. A.
March 3-4, 2005 HAPL meeting, NRL 1 Assessment of Blanket Options for Magnetic Diversion Concept A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from M. Sawan.
IFE Ion Threat Spectra Effects Upon Chamber Wall Materials G E. Lucas, N. Walker UC Santa Barbara.
1 A Self-Cooled Lithium Blanket Concept for HAPL I. N. Sviatoslavsky Fusion Technology Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI With contributions.
HAPL June 20-21, Overview of Chamber/Blanket Work Presented by A.R. Raffray UCSD With contributions from CTC Group and MWG Blanket contributions:
February 5-6, 2004 HAPL meeting, G.Tech HAPL Chambers and Materials Effort Introduction 2. Chamber Tasks Coordination Presented by: A. René Raffray.
350 MJ Target Thermal Response and Ion Implantation in 1 mm thick silicon carbide armor for 10.5 m HAPL Chamber T.A. Heltemes and G.A. Moses Fusion Technology.
1 Radiation Environment at Final Optics of HAPL Mohamed Sawan Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI HAPL Meeting ORNL March.
A. R. Raffray, J. Pulsifer, M. S. Tillack, X. Wang
Trade-Off Studies and Engineering Input to System Code
University of California, San Diego
Status of ARIES-CS Power Core Engineering
First Wall Response to the 400MJ NRL Target
Presentation transcript:

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 1 Armor Configuration & Thermal Analysis 1.Parametric analysis in support of system studies 2.Preliminary scoping analysis of the use of a porous armor layer A. René Raffray UCSD HAPL Program Meeting University of Wisconsin, Madison September 24-25, 2003

HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 2 Integrated Chamber Armor/FW/Blanket Analysis Required for Chamber System Studies Chamber engineering constraints are set by limits on maximum temp. and cyclic temperature behavior of armor (W) and of structural material (ferritic steel), which depend on: IFE system parameters –e.g. yield, rep rate, chamber size, protective gas density Chamber first wall and blanket design parameters for example configuration -e.g. coolant inlet and outlet temperatures, first wall structural material thickness, armor thickness and properties (including engineered materials) and heat transfer coefficient at coolant Use RACLETTE-IFE code in conjunction with photon and ion energy deposition models to provide series of runs to be used as input data for system studies -Update code to include a second layer in the geometry for modeling W + FS wall with a convective boundary condition at the coolant interface -Add capability to model over many cycles -Compare with other modeling results for consistency Coolant FS W q

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 3 Example Results Comparing W Temperature Histories for Armor Thicknesses of 0.05 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively 154 MJ yield No gas Rep Rate =10 R chamber = 6.5 m  FS = 2.5mm T coolant = 500°C  W =0.05mm  W =0.5mm Not much difference in maximum W temperature and in number of cycles to ramp up to the maximum temperature level Coolant (h) FS W q

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 4 Example Results Comparing FS Temperature Histories for W Armor Thicknesses of 0.05 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively 154 MJ yield No gas Rep Rate =10 R chamber = 6.5 m  FS = 2.5mm T coolant = 500°C Substantial differences in max. T FS and cyclic  T FS at FS/W interface depending on  W Can adjust T max by varying T coolant and h coolant Design for separate function and operating regime: -armor function under cyclic temperature conditions -structural material, coolant and blanket operation designed for quasi steady-state  W =0.05mm  W =0.5mm

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 5 Maximum T W, T FS,  T FS as a Function of Armor Thickness for Example Parameters Must be integrated with chamber system modeling for consistent overall blanket and armor design parameters For given IFE conditions and chamber parameters, set maximum possible  W (to minimize cyclic  T FS and FS T max and provide lifetime margin) that would accommodate: -maximum allowable T W -fabrication Maximum W temperature is virtually constant over range of armor thicknesses, ~ 3050°C

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 6 Procedure for Parametric Armor Analysis Utilize consistent parameters from steady state parametric study of example blanket/FW/power cycle configuration (FS/Li/Brayton Cycle) -parameters evolved on the basis of maximizing cycle efficiency while accommodating max. allowable T FS (~800°C for ODS FS) and T FS/Li (~600°C) -T coolant, convective heat transfer coefficient, and FS thickness set 1-mm W thickness assumed for analysis -maintain  T FS <~20° C for example cases -also applicable for higher energy density cases as increasing the W thickness in the range of ~1 mm has only a ~10°C effect on the max. T W -could be regarded as a mid-life or end of life scenario also For given fusion power from blanket analysis, calculate combination of yield, chamber radius and protective gas density which would maintain max. T W < assumed limit (2400 °C) -Utilize D. Haynes/J. Blanchard’s approximation to account for gas attenuation -Reduction in photon/burn ion/debris ion of 9%/1%/29% for 10mtorr Xe and R=6.5 m -Reduction of 16%/2%/48% for 20mtorr Xe and R=6.5 m -Conservative assumption: shift ion energy spectrum correspondingly -Heat in gas reradiated to surface over time  s

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 7 Summary of Armor Parametric Results for a Fusion Power of 1800 MW These results are used as input in the system code in combination with results from the blanket/FW/cycle parametric analysis for the given fusion power Example target survival constraints based on allowable q’’ for case with 100  m 10% dense foam and 4000 K Xe (& 16 K target)

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 8 Summary of Armor Parametric Results for a Fusion Power of 3000 MW

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 9 Scoping Study of Thermal Performance of Armor with a Porous Layer -PPI plans to develop nano-scaled engineered W for armor applications as part of current SBIR Phase I grant Work with PPI to help optimize material microstructure characteristics (e.g. microstructure characteristic dimension, porosity, pore sizes, heterogeneity) –Minimize resistance to migration and release of implanted He –Provide adequate heat transfer performance –Use RACLETTE-IFE with adjusted material property data and energy deposition input to help understand impact on integrated chamber armor/FW/blanket system

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 10 Ion Energy Deposition as a Function of Penetration Depth for a W Armor with a 10  m Porous Layer Maximum energy deposition decreases and energy penetration depth increases with increasing porosity of the porous layer

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 11 Ion Energy Deposition as a Function of Penetration Depth for a W Armor with a 10  m Porous Layer For these scoping calculations, fully dense k and  of W scaled to density of porous region Maximum armor temp. increases appreciably with increasing porosity but not with porous region thickness past ion penetration depth (<10  m) Important to minimize porosity of porous region but there is flexibility in setting its thickness Porous region might reduce peak thermal stresses on armor and allow for higher max. temp. limits

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 12 Assessing Relative Effects of Decrease in Thermal Conductivity and Density and Change in Ion and Photon Energy Deposition Profile in Porous Region Effect on max. T W of decrease in k in porous region dominates opposite effect due to broadening of energy deposition Similar results for different thicknesses of porous region (10 and 100  m)

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 13 Conclusions Scoping study of thermal performance of porous armor region has been performed -Max. T W dependent on porosity of porous region but virtually not on its thickness (past energy deposition depth) -Effect of lower thermal conductivity of porous region outweighs counterbalancing effect of energy deposition spread in porous region -Optimization of porous material based on providing least resistance to migration of implanted He ions while accommodating maximum W temperature constraint (i.e. providing acceptable heat transfer performance) Parametric study of armor performed to provide input for initial system studies -W thickness affects  T FS at FS/W interface but virtually not max. T W - Design armor based on transient conditions and FW and blanket based on quasi steady-state conditions -Study has yielded combination of yield, chamber radius and protective gas density which would maintain max. T W < assumed limit (2400 °C) for different fusion powers and consistent blanket/FW/cycle parameters