DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 1 Thin liquid Pb wall protection for IFE chambers D. A. Haynes, Jr. and R. R. Peterson Fusion Technology Institute.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

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

Advertisements

DAH, UW-FTI ARIES-IFE, April 2002, 1 Results from parametric studies of thin liquid wall IFE chambers D. A. Haynes, Jr. Fusion Technology Institute University.

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.

Relevant one dimensional simulations of prompt physics in thick liquid design Presented by D. A. Haynes, Jr. for the staff of the Fusion Technology Institute.

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,

RRP:3/9/01Aries IFE 1 Parametric Results for Gas-Filled Chamber Dynamics Analysis Aries Workshop March 8-9, 2001 Livermore, CA Robert R. Peterson and Donald.

IFSA, Kyoto, Japan, September Dry Chamber Wall Thermo-Mechanical Behavior and Lifetime under IFE Cyclic Energy Deposition A. R. Raffray 1, D. Haynes.

Vapor Conditions Including Ionization State in Thick Liquid Wall IFE Reactors Presented by D. A. Haynes, Jr. for the staff of the Fusion Technology Institute.

September 3-4, 2003/ARR 1 Liquid Wall Ablation under IFE Photon Energy Deposition at Radius of 0.5 m A. René Raffray and Mofreh Zaghloul University of.

Design Considerations for Beam Port Insulator Rings

The Heavy Ion Fusion Virtual National Laboratory UC Berkeley Christophe S. Debonnel 1,2 (1) Thermal Hydraulics Laboratory Department of Nuclear Engineering.

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,

September 3-4, 2003/ARR 1 ARIES-IFE ARIES Project Meeting Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia September 3-4, 2003 Summary of Issues, Results,

Advanced Energy Technology Group Mechanisms of Aerosol Generation in Liquid-Protected IFE Chambers M. S. Tillack, A. R. Raffray.

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,

HYDRODYNAMIC EVOLUTION OF IFE CHAMBERS WITH DIFFERENT PROTECTIVE GASES AND PRE-IGNITION CONDITIONS Zoran Dragojlovic and Farrokh Najmabadi University of.

Impact of Liquid Wall on Fusion Systems Farrokh Najmabadi University of California, San Diego NRC Fusion Science Assessment Committee November 17, 1999.

Design Windows for IFE Chambers and Target Injection Farrokh Najmabadi for the ARIES Team US/Japan Workshop on Target Fabrication December 3-4, 2001 General.

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.

June7-8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Completion of Assessment of Dry Chamber Wall Option Without Protective Gas, and Initial Planning Activity for Assessment.

July 1, 2002/ARR 1 Scoping Study of FLiBe Evaporation and Condensation A. R. Raffray and M. Zaghloul University of California, San Diego ARIES-IFE Meeting.

Chamber Dynamic Response Modeling Zoran Dragojlovic.

Action Items For ARIES-IFE Study Farrokh Najmabadi ARIES Project Meeting June 19-21, 2000 University of Wisconsin, Madison Electronic copy:

Findings and Recommendations from Wetted-Wall IFE Designs Jeff Latkowski Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory March 9, 2001 Work performed under the.

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.

Progress Report on Chamber Dynamics and Clearing Farrokh Najmabadi, Rene Raffray, Mark S. Tillack, John Pulsifer, Zoran Dragovlovic (UCSD) Ahmed Hassanein.

Laser IFE Program Workshop –5/31/01 1 Output Spectra from Direct Drive ICF Targets Laser IFE Workshop May 31-June 1, 2001 Naval Research Laboratory Robert.

Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin - Madison NRL IFE Concepts Project 9/19/ Output Calculations for Laser Fusion Targets ARIES Meeting.

January 8-10, 2003/ARR 1 1. Pre-Shot Aerosol Parameteric Design Window for Thin Liquid Wall 2. Scoping Liquid Wall Mechanical Response to Thermal Shocks.

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:

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,

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Update on IFE Aerosol Analysis J.P. Sharpe INEEL Fusion Safety Program.

ILE, Osaka Concept and preliminary experiment on protection of final optics in wet-wall laser fusion reactor T. Norimatsu, K. Nagai, T. Yamanaka and Y.

Design Considerations for Thin Liquid Film Wall Protection Systems S.I. Abdel-Khalik and M.Yoda Georgia Institute of Technology ARIES Project Meeting,

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.

RRP:10/17/01Aries IFE 1 Liquid Wall Chamber Dynamics Aries Electronic Workshop October 17, 2001 Robert R. Peterson Fusion Technology Institute University.

Diversion of Plasma in Beam Port with a Vertical Magnetic Field D. R. Welch, D. V. Rose, S. S. Yu and W. Sharp Presented at the ARIES Project Meeting April.

HAPL WORKSHOP Chamber Gas Density Requirements for Ion Stopping Presented by D. A. Haynes, Jr. for the staff of the Fusion Technology Institute.

ARR/April 8, Magnetic Intervention Dump Concepts A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from: A. E. Robson, D. Rose and J. Sethian HAPL Meeting.

1 4/22/2002 ARIES1 Fusion Technology Institute 4/22/2002 Dynamics of Liquid Wall Chambers R.R. Peterson, I.E. Golovkin, and D.A. Haynes University of Wisconsin.

Moving Solid Walls Type of Moving Walls: 1- Solid pebbles falling down under gravity for intercepting ion and X-ray radiation. 2- Moving metallic surfaces.

/15RRP HAPL Dec 6, Robert R. Peterson Los Alamos National Laboratory and University of Wisconsin Calculations of the Response of Inertial Fusion.

ARIES Workshop Dry Wall Response to the HIB (close-coupled) IFE target Presented by D. A. Haynes, Jr. for the staff of the Fusion Technology Institute.

Ch. 11 States of matter. States of Matter Solid Definite volume Definite shape Liquid Definite volume Indefinite shape (conforms to container) Gas Indefinite.

J. Hasegawa, S. Hirai, H. Kita, Y. Oguri, M. Ogawa RLNR, TIT

Heat. Heat Energy: Heat is thermal energy transferred from one object to another. Do not confuse heat and temperature! There are three mechanisms of heat.

SPARTAN Chamber Dynamics Code Zoran Dragojlovic and Farrokh Najmabadi University of California in San Diego HAPL Meeting, June 20-21, 2005, Lawrence Livermore.

Status of HAPL Tasks 1 & 3 for University of Wisconsin Gregory Moses Milad Fatenejad Fusion Technology Institute High Average Power Laser Meeting September.

-Plasma can be produced when a laser ionizes gas molecules in a medium -Normally, ordinary gases are transparent to electromagnetic radiation. Why then.

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,

Target threat spectra Gregory Moses and John Santarius with Thad Heltemes, Milad Fatenejad, Matt Terry and Jiankui Yuan Fusion Technology Institute University.

Target threat spectra Gregory Moses and John Santarius Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin-Madison HAPL Review Meeting March 3-4, 2005.

Fusion Technology Institute 4/5/2002HAPL1 Ion Driven Fireballs: Calculations and Experiments R.R. Peterson, G.A. Moses, and J.F. Santarius University of.

HEIGHTS Integrated Models for Liquid Walls in IFE A. Hassanein and HEIGHTS Team Presented at the ARIES Meeting April 22-23, 2002, Madison, WI.

IFE Ion Threat Spectra Effects Upon Chamber Wall Materials G E. Lucas, N. Walker UC Santa Barbara.

Liquid Walls Town Meeting May 5, 2003, Livermore, CA Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by University of California Lawrence.

Modeling of Z-Ablation I. E. Golovkin, R. R. Peterson, D. A. Haynes University of Wisconsin-Madison G. Rochau Sandia National Laboratories Presented at.

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.

BUCKY Simulations of Z and RHEPP Experiments

Can a Direct-Drive Target Survive Injection into an IFE Chamber?

UNIT - 4 HEAT TRANSFER.

IFE Wetted-Wall Chamber Engineering “Preliminary Considerations”

University of California, San Diego

Aerosol Production in Lead-protected and Flibe-protected Chambers

First Wall Response to the 400MJ NRL Target

Presentation transcript:

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 1 Thin liquid Pb wall protection for IFE chambers D. A. Haynes, Jr. and R. R. Peterson Fusion Technology Institute

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 2 Summary/Outline We present results from vaporization and preliminary condensation calculations. BUCKY simulations are presented for the ~400MJ closely coupled HIB target and the laser direct-drive NRL target (160MJ) in a thin liquid wall (1mm Pb) chamber. For chambers with radii of 4.5m and 6.5m, and a starting chamber pressure of 1mTorr, these preliminary results indicate that the chambers recover before the next shot, assuming a 5Hz rep. rate. Brief review of relevant processes and examples of BUCKY simulation of them. Vaporization results Preliminary condensation results Future work

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 3 Wetted-Wall Chamber Physics Critical Issues Involve Target Output, and First Wall Response Target Output Simulations (BUCKY, etc) Target Disassembly Energy Partition Target Output Simulations (BUCKY, etc) Target Disassembly Energy Partition Liquid Dynamics Simulations (BUCKY) X-ray Deposition Vaporization Self-Shielding Shocks in Liquid Liquid Dynamics Simulations (BUCKY) X-ray Deposition Vaporization Self-Shielding Shocks in Liquid Chamber Recovery Simulations (1-D: BUCKY, 2, 3-D TSUNAMI, ?) Re-condensation, Substrate Survival Chamber Recovery Simulations (1-D: BUCKY, 2, 3-D TSUNAMI, ?) Re-condensation, Substrate Survival X-rays, Ion Debris, Neutrons Vapor Mass Impulse Rep-Rate Target Design Wall Design Low T, Hi  Opacity Liquid Properties Beam Transport Criteria Vapor Opacity

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 4 We have obtained or generated relevant Pb properties Thermal properties linked by ARIES web site nts/element_info.cfm?Element_ID=Pb T melt = 601K T vap = 2022K Q vap = J/g Heat capacity = J/kg-K Thermal conductivity = 31.4 W/m-K Cold attenuation coefficients from Biggs and Lighthill EOS and Opacity for Pb calculated using FTI’s UTAOPA

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 5 BUCKY divides the mesh into two types of zones, vapor zones which participate in the hydrodynamic motion, and condensate zones which do not move. As vaporization/condensation occurs, zones are dynamically reclassified. Vapor Condensate 1 Initial condition (pre-shot) 2 After prompt x-rays from target strike the condensate, superheated vapor zones are created at high temperatures and densities 3 As the newly vaporized zones move out into the chamber, radiating and absorbing target ions 4 The heat and radiation from the newly created vapor zones further vaporizes the condensate 5 As the vapor cools, zones re-condense, Leaving the hydridynamic mesh and re-joining the condensate

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 6 Of the two targets considered here, the HIB target is considerably more threatening

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 7 Target x-ray deposition, initial vaporization, and shock Target x-rays are rapidly deposited in the protecting liquid. Vapor rapidly moves off of surface t ~ 1-10 ns Impulse launches shocks that might damage substrate and/or splash liquid. 4.5m radius, HIB target in 1mm Pb thin liquid wall protected chamber, T cool =600C: The prompt x-rays heat the 1mTorr Pb gas to high temperatures and high ionization stages (~100eV at center of chamber). Of the 119MJ of target x-rays, 9MJ are deposited volumetrically in the liquid, and approximately 110MJ vaporize and ionize the first 4.6 microns (11.6kg) of Pb (vapor is heated to 10s of eV). Peak shock loading (over-pressure) of 1.5e4 J/cm 3 occurs during this time.

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 8 Comparison of target x-ray spectra and Pb attenuation lengths 95% of the HIB target’s x-ray energy is emitted at energies where the attenuation length is less than 1 micron.

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 9 Snapshot: 4.5m radius chamber, HIB target, 10ns Chamber gas (including blow-off from wall) conditions vary by many orders of magnitude 10ns after the target goes off.

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 10 Target ions are mostly stopped in the vapor, with only the most energetic particles reaching the liquid. Debris Ions are stopped in vapor and the energy is re-radiated, some of it going to the liquid causing more vaporization. t ~ 1-10  s 4.5m radius, HIB target in 1mm Pb thin liquid wall protected chamber, T cool =600C: Of the 22MJ of energy in target ions, only 5.3 MJ are deposited in the wall, penetrating 0.646mm into the liquid. The remaining 16.7MJ of target ion energy is deposited in the chamber gas and the vaporized liquid. As the energy is re-radiated, the total vaporized mass increases to 20.94kg. By 10  s, the target chamber gas and vapor have cooled to 1.4eV and less than 0.2eV, respectively.

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 11 For the 4.5m radius chamber with a thin Pb liquid wall, and the HIB target at around 100  s, shock fronts from target blast and interact, and blind continuation of 1-d simulation results deserves skepticism. Plan of attack: “Homogenize” chamber, converting bulk kinetic energy into thermal energy. Start condensation run from these conditions. Geometry dependent uncertainty: how long does it take to homogenize, and will there be any x-ray pulse produced by stagnation on axis?

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 12 Preliminary modeling of the condensation phase (no effects from non- condensable target ions trapped in gas or vapor, lack of self-consistency between starting vapor pressure (1mTorr) and final vapor pressure) Condensation occurs as vapor atoms transit the Knudsen layer, which becomes filled with non- condensable gas. t ~ ms Vapor atoms migrate towards Knudsen layer at thermal velocity

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 13 Re-establishment of conditions suitable for target injection t ~ ms Vapor density and temperature are suitable for beam transport and target injection Protecting liquid is re-established. We need to decide on the parameters space in which we want to identify operating windows, and what constitutes an acceptable design: Target Output Driver/Transport Method Radius Liquid Wall temperature

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 14 To obtain consistent chamber (pre-shot and post-condensation), the simplest “knob” is the temperature at the back of the thin liquid. In BUCKY, the vaporization and condensation rates are calculated using the kinetic theory model described by Labuntsov and Kryukov (Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 22, 989 (1979). Vaporization rate is proportional to the saturation vapor pressure, which depends strongly on T vap,0 /T condensate. Condensation rate depends on vapor pressure of condensable material in the chamber.

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 15 Summary of these preliminary results 1mm thick Pb liquid wall, starting Pb vapor density 1mTorr, all ions are stopped within chamber or within liquid HIB target 4.5m chamber radius Amount of material vaporized: 21.4kg Maximum over-pressure: E+04 (J/cm 3 ) Time (post-homogenization) to reach vapor equilibrium: 0.15s (600C T cool, 0.2mTorr) 6.5m chamber radius Amount of material vaporized: 38.5kg Maximum over-pressure: E+03 (J/cm 3 ) Time (post-homogenization) to reach vapor equilibrium: 0.2s (600C T cool, 0.2mTorr), 0.15s (685C T cool, 1.4mTorr) NRL160 target 4.5m chamber radius Amount of material vaporized: 9.2kg Maximum over-pressure: E+03 (J/cm 3 )

DAH, RRP, UW - FTI ARIES-IFE, January 2002, 16 Conclusions/Summary We present results from vaporization and preliminary condensation BUCKY simulations are presented for the ~400MJ closely coupled HIB target and the laser direct-drive NRL target (160MJ) in a thin liquid wall (1mm Pb) chamber. For chambers with radii of 4.5m and 6.5m, and a starting chamber pressure of 1mTorr, these preliminary results indicate that the chambers recover before the next shot, assuming a 5Hz rep. rate. 1mm of liquid Pb protects permanent target chamber structures from x-ray and ion loads with a 1mTorr initial chamber gas pressure. We will investigate the effects of higher pressures before the next ARIES meeting Chamber conditions are re-established by 0.2s after homogenization. How long does that homogenization take? The transit time for the shock waves from the target and the flash vaporization is on the order of a few tenths of a millisecond. Are 5 of these periods enough? Are 1000 needed? Experiment or higher dimensional simulations may be required if the latter is more likely than the former. A self-consistent chamber pressure pre- and post-shot can be attempted to be achieved by varying T cool. These results are preliminary. I’d like to benchmark the condensation part of the code with experiment, or at least with CONRAD, and also take into account the effects any non-condensable target material left in the chamber, and the thermal properties of the equilibrium liquid composition.