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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hongjie Zhang Purge gas flow impact on tritium permeation Integrated simulation on tritium permeation in the solid breeder unit FNST, August 18-20, 2009.
Advertisements

September 24-25, 2003 HAPL meeting, UW, Madison 1 Armor Configuration & Thermal Analysis 1.Parametric analysis in support of system studies 2.Preliminary.
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.
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.
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.
Design Considerations for Beam Port Insulator Rings
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,
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.
Integrated Effects of Disruptions and ELMs on Divertor and Nearby Components Valeryi Sizyuk Ahmed Hassanein School of Nuclear Engineering Center for Materials.
Prediction of Fluid Dynamics in The Inertial Confinement Fusion Chamber by Godunov Solver With Adaptive Grid Refinement Zoran Dragojlovic, Farrokh Najmabadi,
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.
Chamber Dynamic Response Modeling Zoran Dragojlovic.
Beam Interaction with Chamber Aerosols D. R. Welch and D. V. Rose, MRC C. L. Olson, SNL S. S. Yu, LBNL October 2-4, 2002 Presented at the ARIES Project.
October 24, Remaining Action Items on Dry Chamber Wall 2. “Overlap” Design Regions 3. Scoping Analysis of Sacrificial Wall A. R. Raffray, J.
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.
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:
PHY 102: Waves & Quanta Topic 11 EM Radiation from atoms John Cockburn Room E15)
RRP:10/17/01Aries IFE 1 Liquid Wall Chamber Dynamics Aries Electronic Workshop October 17, 2001 Robert R. Peterson Fusion Technology Institute University.
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.
John Santarius and Greg Moses University of Wisconsin HAPL Project Meeting PPPL December 12-13, 2006 Effects of Long Mean-Free-Path Ions on Shock Breakout.
Modelling of the Effects of Return Current in Flares Michal Varady 1,2 1 Astronomical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 2 J.E.
Ion Mitigation for Laser IFE Optics Ryan Abbott, Jeff Latkowski, Rob Schmitt HAPL Program Workshop Los Angeles, California, June 2, 2004 This work was.
Fracture of Tungsten in a HAPL Chamber Jake Blanchard HAPL MWG Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin September 2003.
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.
Coming attractions This is the first of five related presentations: Graphite Chamber Issues and trade-offs (Haynes) CONDOR: a flock of badgers (Moses)
Progress Report on SPARTAN Simulation of IFE Chamber Dynamics Farrokh Najmabadi and Zoran Dragojlovic HAPL Meeting March 3-4, 2005 Naval Research Laboratory.
/15RRP HAPL Dec 6, Robert R. Peterson Los Alamos National Laboratory and University of Wisconsin Calculations of the Response of Inertial Fusion.
Center for Radiative Shock Hydrodynamics Fall 2011 Review PDT and radiation transport Marvin L. Adams.
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 Chambers Work John Santarius, Greg Moses, and Milad Fatenajed HAPL Team Meeting Georgia Institute of Technology February 5-6, 2004.
Libor Novák. The Coulomb potential which the particles have to overcome in order to fuse is given by: This relation can be applied at distances greater.
Magnetic Deflection of Ionized Target Ions D. V. Rose, A. E. Robson, J. D. Sethian, D. R. Welch, and R. E. Clark March 3, 2005 HAPL Meeting, NRL.
Update on Roughening Work Jake Blanchard HAPL MWG Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin e-meeting – July 2003.
HIGH ENERGY DENSITY PHYSICS: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS WITH Z PINCHES N. Rostoker, P. Ney, H. U. Rahman, and F. J. Wessel Department of Physics and Astronomy.
Edge-SOL Plasma Transport Simulation for the KSTAR
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.
1 Deuterium retention and release in tungsten co- deposited layers G. De Temmerman a,b, and R.P. Doerner a a Center for Energy Research, University of.
Modeling of Surface Roughening M. Andersen, S. Sharafat, N. Ghoniem HAPL Surface-Thermomechanics in W and Sic Armor UCLA Workshop May 16 th 2006.
John Santarius and Greg Moses University of Wisconsin HAPL Project Meeting Oak Ridge National Laboratory March 21-22, 2006 An Approach to Analyzing Long.
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,
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 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.
1 Observations of Linear and Nonlinear Dust Acoustic Waves* Bob Merlino, Jon Heinrich Su Hyun Kim and John Meyer Department of Physics and Astronomy The.
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.
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.
Time-Resolved X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy of Warm Dense Matter J.W. Lee 1,2,6, L.J. Bae 1,2, K. Engelhorn 3, B. Barbel 3, P. Heimann 4, Y. Ping 5, A.
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.
Chamber Dynamic Response Modeling
BUCKY Simulations of Z and RHEPP Experiments
Valeryi Sizyuk Ahmed Hassanein School of Nuclear Engineering
Dry-Wall Target Chambers for Direct-Drive Laser Fusion
IFE Wetted-Wall Chamber Engineering “Preliminary Considerations”
Aerosol Production in Lead-protected and Flibe-protected Chambers
First Wall Response to the 400MJ NRL Target
Presentation transcript:

Target threat spectra Gregory Moses and John Santarius with Thad Heltemes, Milad Fatenejad, Matt Terry and Jiankui Yuan Fusion Technology Institute University of Wisconsin-Madison High Average Power Laser Program Meeting Lawrence Livermore National Lab June 20-21, 2005

Outline of presentation Collisional hydrodynamic expansion or kinetic ions as the threat spectrum model. Kinetic target source term – chamber gas – first wall simulation with BUCKY. –Empty foam target source term. –Tungsten first wall physical data. –Tungsten first wall response to x-rays and ionic debris for Xe and Ar chamber gases. Ion instability analysis using Clark, et. al. Conclusions

Empty foam target and 10.5 m W chamber filled with 8 mTorr Xe 343 MJ Yield –4.57 MJ x-rays –81.8 MJ ions –252 MJ neutrons 8 mTorr Xe gas –Sesame eq. of state –IONMIX non-LTE opacities W first wall –Sesame eq. of state –YAC LTE opacities

X-ray and ion spectra (taken from Perkins’ fax) X-ray spectrum computed directly from 3 T blackbody fit. Group-wise ion spectra (#/keV) converted to ion bunches of N g ions at average group energies E g (keV) for each specie. Total ion energy adds to MJ rather than 81.8 MJ

Tungsten properties and BUCKY first wall modeling Thermal conductivity data from ITER Materials Handbook. Specific heat data from NIST.gov thermochemistry database. BUCKY transitions between solid state data and plasma data. Heats of fusion and vaporization are treated using specific heat function in BUCKY model. Solid finite difference zones are “released” when vaporization temperature is reached in BUCKY model. J / s-cm-eV J / g-eV

Cumulative target energy deposition in Xe gas and W wall Energy (J) 75% of x-ray and ion energy reaches wall. Total duration of ion flux on wall is about 10  s. Deposition in W Deposition in Xe

Temperature (eV) Tungsten surface temperature (varies with splitting parameter) 11,605 K / eV 2400 K 100x splitting smooths temperature response

Temperture (eV) 2205 K 1106 K 1625 K 1857 K 2089 K 1393 K 2400 K 928 K Tungsten surface temperature vs. time

Tungsten temperature vs. time at various depths from surface Temperature (eV) 1  m 5  m 10  m 100  m Surface

Tungsten wall temperature movie

Comparison of ion energy deposition for Xe & Ar chamber gas Ar Xe

First wall surface temperature vs. time for Xe and Ar gas T max = 2287 K for Ar T max = 2205 K for Xe

Zone-by-zone instability analysis performed on the HAPL target Based on the NRL HANE and SN 1987A Papers. Slight modifications of theory were done to account for streaming of ions and electrons in both directions with streams of different temperatures. –Post-processed using Mathematica ®. –Details shown at right.

Two-stream instabilities appear to play only a small role during target plasma expansion Ion-ion instability Ion-acoustic instability Near ignition, potentially unstable zones (in black) appear at the shock front. Main shock wave then propagates stably. Instabilities may affect the pressure-driven Au expansion. Calculations needed to evaluate whether wavelengths and growth times allow these instabilities to be important (seems unlikely).

Future plans for kinetic-ion modeling 1.Implement zone-by-zone diffusion in BUCKY. – Summer, Generate detailed ion energy spectra at first wall. –Summer/early Fall, Perform more detailed assessment of potential two-stream instabilities. – Fall, 2005, if evaluated as worth pursuing by NRL/UW consensus 4. Simulate empty foam target with BUCKY to allow complete analysis.

Conclusions Collisional hydrodynamic expansion of HAPL target into 50 mTorr Xe gas yields no disturbance at 6.5 m. Shock is dissipated about 2 m from chamber center. Ion instability analysis suggests that collisional expansion model is unlikely to be valid. Integrated BUCKY simulation of kinetic target source term – chamber gas – first wall response is being used in “production mode”.

Conclusions For chamber radius of 10.5 m, 8 mTorr Xe chamber gas and 343 MJ empty foam target spectra, maximum temperature in tungsten first wall is predicted to be 2205 K at 3.6  s. For 8 mTorr Ar gas, maximum surface temperature is 2287 K. Anomalous ion kinetic transport due to ion instabilities appears to be low probability for target expansion conditions.

Extra slides