ARIES Workshop 20010607 Dry Wall Response to the HIB (close-coupled) IFE target Presented by D. A. Haynes, Jr. for the staff of the 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

Initial Results from ARIES-IFE Study and Plans for the Coming Year Farrokh Najmabadi for the ARIES Team Heavy-ion IFE Meeting July 23-24, 2001 Lawrence.

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.

May 27, 2002 A. R. Raffray, et al., IFE Chamber Walls: Requirements, Design Options, and Synergy with MFE Plasma Facing Components 1 IFE Chamber Walls:

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.

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.

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.

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

March 8, 2001 A. R. Raffray, et al., Assessment of Carbon and Tungsten Dry Chamber Walls under IFE Energy Depositions Assessment of Carbon and Tungsten.

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,

Design Windows and Trade-Offs for Inertial Fusion Energy Power Plants Farrokh Najmabadi ISFNT 6 April 8-12, 2002 Hotel Hyatt Islandia, San Diego Electronic.

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,

ARIES Inertial Fusion Chamber Assessment M. S. Tillack, F. Najmabadi, L. A. El-Guebaly, D. Goodin, W. R. Meier, J. Perkins, R. R. Peterson, D. A. Petti,

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

Laser-Driven IFE Power Plants— Initial Results from ARIES-IFE Study Farrokh Najmabadi For the ARIES Team Third US-Japan Workshop on Laser-Driven Inertial.

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.

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.

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.

November 8-9, Considerations for Small Chambers A. René Raffray UCSD With contributions from M. Sawan (UW), I. Sviatoslavsky (UW) and X. Wang (UCSD)

May 5-6, 2003/ARR 1 Town Meeting on Liquid Wall Chamber Dynamics ARIES Town Meeting Hilton Garden Inn, Livermore, CA May 5-6, 2003 Background and Goals.

Modeling of Assisted and Self- Pinch Transport D. V. Rose and D. R. Welch Mission Research Corporation C. L. Olson Sandia National Laboratories S. S. Yu.

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.

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.

ARIES-IFE: An Integrated Assessment of Chamber Concepts for IFE Power Plants Mark Tillack for the ARIES Team 19th IEEE/NPSS SOFE January 22-25, 2002 Atlantic.

Highlights of ARIES-IFE Study Farrokh Najmabadi VLT Conference Call April 18, 2001 Electronic copy: ARIES Web Site:

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

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

 Analyze & assess integrated and self-consistent IFE chamber concepts  Understand trade-offs and identify design windows for promising concepts. The.

ARIES-IFE Study L. M. Waganer, June 7, 2000 Page 1 Considerations of HI Beam and Vacuum System Arrangement L. Waganer The Boeing Company 7 June 2001 ARIES.

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.

Ion Mitigation for Laser IFE Optics Ryan Abbott, Jeff Latkowski, Rob Schmitt HAPL Program Workshop Los Angeles, California, June 2, 2004 This work was.

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.

Fracture of Tungsten in a HAPL Chamber Jake Blanchard HAPL MWG Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin September 2003.

LA-UR “Mini-Workshop” on Coordination of IFE Target Thermo-Mechanical Modeling and DT Ice Experiments LANL, UCSD, and General Atomics at Los Alamos.

Coming attractions This is the first of five related presentations: Graphite Chamber Issues and trade-offs (Haynes) CONDOR: a flock of badgers (Moses)

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

Fusion Magic? “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Radical, transformative technologies typically appear ‘impossible’

O AK R IDGE N ATIONAL L ABORATORY U. S. D EPARTMENT OF E NERGY 1 Update on Helium Retention Behavior in Tungsten D. Forsythe, 1 S. Gidcumb, 1 S. Gilliam,

Update on Roughening Work Jake Blanchard HAPL MWG Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin e-meeting – July 2003.

A. Schwendt, A. Nobile, P. Gobby, W. Steckle Los Alamos National Laboratory D. T. Goodin, G. E. Besenbruch, K. R. Schultz General Atomics Laser IFE Workshop.

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.

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,

Phase Changes Notes on 3.3 Temperature  Temperature will not change during a phase change.  Once a substance reaches the temperature required for a.

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.

Operating Windows in Tungsten- Coated Steel Walls Jake Blanchard – MWG Greg Moses, Jerry Kulcinski, Bob Peterson, Don Haynes - University of Wisconsin.

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.

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

Ion Mitigation for Laser IFE Optics Ryan Abbott, Jeff Latkowski, Rob Schmitt HAPL Program Workshop Atlanta, Georgia, February 5, 2004 This work was performed.

Progress on HAPL Foam Shell Overcoat Fabrication Presented by Jared Hund 1 N. Alexander 1, J. Bousquet 1, Bob Cook 1, D. Goodin 1, D. Jasion 1, R. Paguio.

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.

Clicker #1 The two balloons above are the same size but contain different gases. How do the pressures inside the balloons compare? A) The pressures are.

Dry-Wall Target Chambers for Direct-Drive Laser Fusion

IFE Wetted-Wall Chamber Engineering “Preliminary Considerations”

Clicker #1 The two balloons above are the same size but contain different gases. How do the pressures inside the balloons compare? A) The pressures are.

University of California, San Diego

Clicker #1 The two balloons above are the same size but contain different gases. How do the pressures inside the balloons compare? A) The pressures are.

Aerosol Production in Lead-protected and Flibe-protected Chambers

First Wall Response to the 400MJ NRL Target

Presentation transcript:

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 University of Wisconsin

ARIES Workshop Summary/Outline The target output from the close-copled HIB target is substantially different from that of the direct-drive laser driven targets, in that its dominant non-neutronic threat component is from x-rays. Protecting the first wall from these x-rays requires more buffer gas than either SOMBRERO or the AU-coated NRL targets. Comparison of threat spectra First wall survival Future work

ARIES Workshop Though the total yields of the SOMBRERO and high yield closely-coupled HIB targets are similar, the partitioning and spectra of the non-neutronic output differ significantly. Over 25% of the yield from this target is in x-rays, compared with 5% of SOMBRERO’s, or 1% of the NRL Au-coated targets’.

ARIES Workshop X-ray Spectra The x-ray spectrum of the HIB target is harder than that of the SOMBRERO, but not so hard as the NRL Au- coated target. “Quantity has a certain quality all its own.” If our goal is to prevent vaporization in a 6.5m chamber, we must include a buffer gas at pressures above those required for SOMBRERO.

ARIES Workshop The gas density and equilibrium wall temperature have been varied to find the highest wall temperature that avoids vaporization at a given gas density. Vaporization is defined as more than one mono- layer of mass loss from the surface per shot. The use of Xe gas to absorb and re-emit target energy increases the allowable wall temperature substantially. 6.5m Graphite chamber results: Chamber survives at 1000C, at 240mTorr, 1450C at 300mTorr

ARIES Workshop Surface Temperature and Temperature Profiles for 6.5m Graphite chamber, T_equilibrium=1000C The first peak in temperature is due to the prompt x-rays. The second is due to the re-radiation of the x-ray and ion energy by the Xe buffer gas.

ARIES Workshop The amount of Xe necessary to prevent wall vaporization for the 6.5m graphite chamber and the CC HIB target is also sufficient to stop all the ions except the knock-ons. Per shot accumulation: (240mTorr, 1000C T_eq.) D6.698E+16 T7.020E+16 P5.596E+15 3He7.592E+11 4He2.515E+13 Does the accumulation of hydrogen and helium isotopes in the 1 st mm of the wall at this rate pose a problem?

ARIES Workshop The x-ray deposition length in W is considerably shorter than that of C. To avoid first wall degradation, between 0.3 and 1 Torr of Xe is required to protect a W first wall at 6.5m from the CC HIB target, and a T_eq of 1000C.

ARIES Workshop Conclusion and future work Xe density-T_equilibrium operating windows for the closely coupled HIB indirect drive target have been defined. The large fraction of this targets yield in x-rays (115MJ) necessitates some form of first wall protection for a 6.5m C or W wall. The amount of Xe required to protect the first wall from vaporization by x-rays is sufficient to stop all but the energetic knock-on ions. Is the accumulation of H and He isotopes in the first mm of the wall a problem? Xe density-T_equilibrium operating windows for the closely coupled HIB indirect drive target have been defined. The large fraction of this targets yield in x-rays (115MJ) necessitates some form of first wall protection for a 6.5m C or W wall. The amount of Xe required to protect the first wall from vaporization by x-rays is sufficient to stop all but the energetic knock-on ions. Is the accumulation of H and He isotopes in the first mm of the wall a problem? Future work: Finish write up of dry wall chamber physics work.