Dry-Wall Target Chambers for Direct-Drive Laser Fusion
Laser IFE WorkshopLaser IFE WorkshopFebruary 6-7, 2001February 6-7, 2001
Naval Research LaboratoryNaval Research Laboratory
Gerald L. Kulcinski, Robert R. Peterson and Donald A. Haynes
presenting for the staff of the Fusion Technology Institute
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Program Plan for the Design of Dry-Wall Target Chambers for Direct Drive Laser Fusion-U. of Wisconsin (WBS 3.1-3)
Overall Objective…………..Integrated direct drive fusion chamber concept
FY 01 Deliverables……… 1. Calculate threat spectra to first wall and assess methods to eliminate wall ablation.
2. Identify injection conditions that will allow several direct drive targets to survive to thermal environment inside the chambers.
3. Design blanket and shielding to protect critical components.
4. Incorporate innovative concepts into previous designs.
Relevance of Deliverables NIF-Wall survival (1,3), Safety (3)
DP/NNSA-Reaction products, opacity modeling (1)
Energy-IFE Power Plants (1,2,3,4)
FY01 Funding $500 k
Threat Spectra
Threat Spectra
New Chamber Blanket Design
New Chamber Blanket Design
FW Response
FW Response
Target Heating
Target Heating
Shielding of Critical Components
Shielding of Critical Components
50 %
20 %
30 %
Previous WorkPrevious Work
Incorporate into Improved Chamber Design
Incorporate into Improved Chamber Design
Elements of UW FY 01-02 Research on Dry Wall Target Chambers for Direct Drive Laser Fusion
MF A M J J A S DO N J
Chronology of UW Work on Dry Wall Laser Chambers
Threat Spectra and Target HeatingThreat Spectra and Target Heating
Blanket/FW Design and ShieldingBlanket/FW Design and Shielding
Incorporate into Improved Chamber Design
Incorporate into Improved Chamber Design
Threat Spectra and Target Heating
Robert Peterson Donald Haynes Igor Golovkin Greg Moses Elsayed Mogahed Igor Sviatoslavsky Paul Wilson John Santarius Gerald Kulcinski
Threat Spectra and Target Heating
Robert Peterson Donald Haynes Igor Golovkin Greg Moses Elsayed Mogahed Igor Sviatoslavsky Paul Wilson John Santarius Gerald Kulcinski
Improved Chamber Design
Igor Sviatoslavsky Mohamed Sawan Robert Peterson Gerald Kulcinski
Improved Chamber Design
Igor Sviatoslavsky Mohamed Sawan Robert Peterson Gerald Kulcinski
Chamber Design and Shielding
Mohamed Sawan Laila El-Guebaly Doug Henderson Hesham Khater Elsayed Mogahed Igor Sviatoslavsky Gerald Kulcinski
Chamber Design and Shielding
Mohamed Sawan Laila El-Guebaly Doug Henderson Hesham Khater Elsayed Mogahed Igor Sviatoslavsky Gerald Kulcinski
Key Personnel for FY01-02 Work on Laser Fusion Chambers-University of Wisconsin
Target Output and First Wall Calculations for Laser Fusion Chambers
US-Japan Workshop on Laser FusionUS-Japan Workshop on Laser FusionJanuary 25-27, 2001January 25-27, 2001
Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Robert R. Peterson, Donald A. Haynes and Igor E. Golovkin
University of Wisconsin-MadisonFusion Technology Institute
Objective of Present Study
• To understand if the recent NRL direct drive target design can survive in a SOMBRERO-type dry wall chamber (no vaporization of C-C composite)
• To investigate the degree to which the Xe fill gas could be reduced to lower the aerodynamic frictional heating of direct drive targets.
• Apply latest analysis methods and explore the possibility of innovative injection techniques in dry wall chambers
Roadmap to Calculate IFE Wall/Target Survival Conditions
NRL
Sombrero
Target
Output
BUCKY
Gas
Protection
Gas
Species
Gas
DensityRadius
OpacityEOSOPA IONMIX
BUCKY
First Wall
T(t)
Twall
Material
BUCKY
First Wall Vaporization?
Target
Injection
no
yesBUCKY
Friction
T4
Velocity
Distance in Chamber
Straight
Tube
T > 1.5 K?
Chamber Works!
no
ANSYS
yes
NRL
Sombrero
Target
Output
Gas
Protection
First Wall
T(t) Vaporization?
Gas
Species
Gas
DensityRadius Twall
T > 1.5 K?
Chamber Works!
Friction
T4
Velocity
Target
Injection
Distance in Chamber
Straight
Tube
MaterialOpacity
BUCKY
EOSOPA IONMIX
BUCKY BUCKY BUCKY
no
yes
yes
no
ANSYS
First Wall Erosion and Target Heating During Injection are Competing Concerns in Direct-Drive Laser Fusion Dry-Wall Target Chambers
Chamber Physics Critical Issues Involve Target Output, Gas
Behavior and First Wall Response
Design,Fabrication,
Output Simulations,(Output Experiments)
Design,Fabrication,
Output Simulations,(Output Experiments)
Gas Opacities,Radiation Transport,
Rad-Hydro Simulations
Gas Opacities,Radiation Transport,
Rad-Hydro Simulations
Wall Properties,Neutron Damage,
Near-Vapor Behavior,Thermal Stresses
Wall Properties,Neutron Damage,
Near-Vapor Behavior,Thermal Stresses
X-rays,Ion Debris,Neutrons
Thermal Radiation,
Shock
Target Output Gas Behavior Wall Response
UW uses the BUCKY 1-D Radiation-Hydrodynamics Code to Simulate Target, Gas Behavior and Wall Response.
• 1-D Lagrangian MHD (spherical, cylindrical or slab).
BUCKY, a Flexible 1-D Lagrangian Radiation-Hydrodynamics Code; Useful in Predicting Target Output and Target Chamber
Dynamics
• Thermal conduction with diffusion.
• Applied electrical current with magnetic field and pressure calculation.
• Equilibrium electrical conductivities
• Radiation transport with multi-group flux-limited diffusion, method of short characteristics, and variable Eddington.
• Non-LTE CRE line transport.• Opacities and equations of state from EOSOPA or SESAME.
BUCKY, a Flexible 1-D Lagrangian Radiation-Hydrodynamics Code; Useful in Predicting Target Output and Target Chamber
Dynamics
• Thermonuclear burn (DT,DD,DHe3) with in-flight reactions.
• Fusion product transport; time-dependent charged particle tracking, neutron energy deposition.
• Applied energy sources: time and energy dependent ions, electrons, x-rays and lasers (normal incidence only).
• Moderate energy density physics: melting, vaporization, and thermal conduction in solids and liquids.
• Benchmarking: x-ray burn-through and shock experiments on Nova and Omega, x-ray vaporization, RHEPP melting and vaporization, PBFA-II K emission, …
• Platforms: UNIX, PC, MAC
Direct-Drive Targets Under Consideration Have Different Output
DT Vapor
DT Fuel
Foam + DT
1 CH + 300 Å Au
0.265g/cc
0.25 g/cc1.50 mm
1.69 mm
1.95 mm
DT Vapor
DT Fuel
Foam + DT
1 CH
0.265g/cc
0.25 g/cc1.22 mm
1.44 mm
1.62 mm
Direct-drive Laser Targets
CH
SOMBRERO (1990) NRL (1999) NRL (1999)
Laser Energy: 1.3 MJLaser Type: KrFGain: 127Yield: 165 MJ
Laser Energy: 1.6 MJLaser Type: KrFGain: 108Yield: 173 MJ
Laser Energy: 4 MJLaser Type: KrFGain: 100Yield: 400 MJ
Debris Ions 94 keV D - 5.81 MJ141 keV T - 8.72 MJ138 keV H - 9.24 MJ188 keV He - 4.49 MJ 1600 keV C - 55.24 MJTotal - 83.24 MJ per shot
Standard Direct-Drive Radiation Tailored-Wetted Foam Wetted Foam
DT Vapor
DT Fuel3.0 mm
2.7 mm2.5 mm
Spectra:•Calculated with BUCKY•Calculated by NRL•Calculated with Lasnex
Spectra:•Not Yet Calculated
The energy partition and spectra for SOMBRERO were supplied by DOEand need to be calculated.
Time (ns)
Po
sitio
n(m
m)
0 0.5 1 1.5 21.9
1.925
1.95
1.975
2
2.025
2.05
2.075
2.1
NRL DD-3515 Au zones
Laser
Au
CH
DT-wetted Foam
Laser Quickly Burns though 300 Ǻ Au and Radiatively Pre-Heats the Ablator
•Close-up of laser burning through thin gold and plastic shells of NRL target
•Gold and plastic are hot and rapidly rarifying, probably not in local thermodynamic equilibrium.
•Gold is expanding at 75 km/s from laser blow-off.
Time (ns)
Po
sitio
n(c
m)
0 10 20 300
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
NRL DD-43
Au
CH
DT-wetted foam
DT
Implosion, Burn and Explosion of NRL Radiation Smoothed Direct-Drive Laser Fusion Target
•22% of DT ice is burned; NRL and LLNL get about 32 %, though peak R (LLNL) and bang time (NRL) do agree.
•This calculation yielded 115 MJ; another, 200 MJ
•Very little DT in wetted foam is burned.
•Other yields would be achieved with further tuning.
•Target expands at a few time 108 cm/s and radiates.
Ion Spectrum for NRL Radiation Pre-Heated Target Depends on Yield
Ion Energy (eV)
Nu
mb
er
of
Ion
s
103 104 105 106 107 108 1091016
1017
1018
1019
1020 DTHCAuHe
NRL-DD-43
Ion Spectrum from 115 MJ NRL Laser Target
Wetted Foam
Plastic
Au
DT Ice
DT Gas
SOMBRERO
Ion Energy (eV)
Nu
mb
er
of
Ion
s
103 104 105 106 107 108 1091016
1017
1018
1019
1020 DTHCAuHe
NRL-DD-49
Ion Spectrum from 160 MJ NRL Laser Target
Wetted Foam
Plastic
Au
DT Ice
DT Gas
SOMBRERO
•The particle energy of each species in each zone is then calculated as mv2/2 on the final time step of the BUCKY run. This time is late enough that the ion energies are unchanging. The numbers of ions of each species in each zone are plotted against ion energy.•The spectra from direct fusion product D, T, H, He3, and He4 are calculated by BUCKY but they don’t make it out of the target.•The ion spectra is more energetic for 200 MJ yield
Ion Spectrum for 115 MJ Yield NRL Target Ion Spectrum for 200 MJ Yield NRL Target
Open collimator LOS 1/2 8” from Z
Pin Hole Camera10 degrees tilt to center. 9” from center of camera hole plate to blast shield.
L I D
CR39 film measures ion energy through damage track lengths.
Z-pinch x-ray source
Ion Spectrum Experiments on Z are in Progress to Validate Target Output Calculations
SHOT # 603 06/26/00 16:13
Damage by ions
Z X-rays
CR39detector
Ablator Material
Concept
Ion track analysis and supporting BUCKY simulations are in progress.
X-ray Spectra from Targets is Changed by High Z Components and Yield
•X-ray spectra are converted to sums of 3 black-body spectra.
•Time-dependant spectra are in Gaussian pulses with 1 ns half-widths and are used in chamber simulations.
• Time-integrated fluences are shown for 115 MJ and 200 MJ NRL and 400 MJ SOMBRERO.
•The presence of Au in the NRL targets adds emission in spectral region above a few keV.
•At higher yield the Au is more important.
Photon Energy (eV)
No
rma
lize
dX
-ra
yF
lue
nce
101 102 103 104 105 10610-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
160 MJ115 MJSOMBRERO
NRL-DD-43NRL-DD-49
X-ray Spectrum from 115 MJ and 160 MJ NRL and SOMBRERO Laser Targets
Time (ns)
X-r
ay
Po
we
r(T
W/c
m2)
0 10 20 3010-1
100
101
102
103
NRL-DD-43
X-ray Emission from 115 MJ NRL Laser Target
NRL 116 MJ
NRL 200 MJ
SOMBRERO 400 MJ
The threat spectrum can be thought of as arising from three contributions: fast x-rays, unstopped ions, and
re-radiated x-rays
Some debris ions are deposited in chamber gas, which re-radiates the energy in the form of soft x-rays
The x-rays directly released by the target are, for Xe at the pressures contemplated for the DD target, almost all absorbed by the wall.
Some debris ions are absorbed directly in the wall.
The wall (or armor) reacts
to these insults in a
manner largely
determined by it’s
thermal conductivity and stopping
power.
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
1e-8 1e-7 1e-6 1e-5 1e-4 1e-3
Time (s)
Wa
ll S
urfa
ce T
em
pe
ratu
re (
C)
Prompt X-rays 9MJ
Ions absorbed by the wall (1.2MJ)+Re-radiated
energy (27MJ)
For example, the first wall does not vaporize for the SOMBRERO target in a 6.5m radius chamber filled with 0.1 torr Xe and a wall equilibrium temperature of 1450C.
•The separation in time of the insults from the prompt x-ray, the ions, and the re-radiated x-rays is crucial to the survival of the wall.
•The Xe serves to absorb the vast majority of the ion energy and almost half of the prompt x-rays and slowly re-radiates the absorbed energy at a rate determined by the Plank emission opacity of the Xe.
For the current calculations, IONMIX has been used to generate Non-LTE Xe opacity tables
Xe Average charge state, n_i = 1e16/cc
0
10
20
30
40
50
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Electron Temperature (eV)
Ave
rage
Cha
rge
Sta
te
IONMIX
LTE
EOSOPA (LTE) / IONMIX COMPARISON: Xe 1e16/cc
1.E-02
1.E-01
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04
Photon Energy (eV)
Ro
sse
lan
d G
rou
p O
pa
city
(cm
^2/g
)
IONMIX 1 eV
EOSOPA 1 eV
IONMIX 100 eV
EOSOPC 100 eV
•Xe gas at or below 0.5 Torr in Density is not in LTE.
•The Xe opacity can differ substantially between LTE (EOSOPC) and Non-LTE (IONMIX).•IONMIX opacities are used in this study.
•Non LTE (IONMIX) ionization is substantially below the LTE (Saha) ionization.
A scan of Xe density holding the first wall equilibrium temperature fixed at 1450C was performed to examine the onset of vaporization.
SOMBRERO TARGET in 6.5m C Chamber, Equilibrium Wall Temperature of 1450C
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Xe Density (Torr)
Tem
pera
utre
(C
)
1st Peak T_wall (C)
2nd Peak T_wall (C)
T_sublimination att_vap
Initial SublimationTemperature (C)
Direct Energy Deposition on Wall, SOMBRERO Target in 6.5m C Chamber, Equilibrium Wall Temperature of 1450C
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Xe Density (Torr)
Ene
rgy
(MJ)
or
Ma
ss (
g) X-ray EnergyDeposited in Wall(MJ)
Ion EnergyDeposited in Wall(MJ)
Amount Vaporized(g)
•For the SOMBRERO target in a 6.5m graphite chamber, the prompt x-rays are the major threat.
•Even at 0.05 Torr Xe, 78MJ of the 83MJ of ion energy is absorbed by the gas, slowly re-radiated to contribute to the second peak in temperature.
•The sublimation threshold occurs when the prompt x-rays loading is above 1.88 J/cm2 for x-rays with the SOMBRERO spectrum, for this equilibrium wall temperature.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
SOMBRERO NRL 400MJ "NRL"
No
n-n
eutr
on
ic T
arg
et O
utp
ut
(MJ) IONS
X-rays
The SOMBRERO and NRL targets differ significantly in yield, partitioning, and spectra. These differences lead to very
different target chamber dynamics.
•Even if the NRL spectra are scaled up by the ratio of the total yields (400/165), it poses considerably less threat to the target chamber.
• It has fewer of the dangerous, prompt x-rays and a different ion spectrum.
• For instance, the first wall survives at conditions where the SOMBRERO target vaporizes 6.7g of wall material per shot. (This assumes that the energy is increased by increasing the flux, and not the shape, of the spectra..)
Surface Temperature as a Function of Time, 0.05 Torr Xe, T_equilibrium = 1450C
1400
1800
2200
2600
3000
3400
1.00E-08 1.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.00E-05
Time (s)T
em
pe
ratu
re (
C)
SOMBRERO SCALED NRL
1.E+00
1.E+01
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
1.E+08
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Photon Energy (keV)
X-r
ay
Sp
ect
rum
(J/
keV
)
SCALED NRL (5.6MJ X-rays)
SOMBRERO (22.5MJ X-rays)
Detail: Carbon and deuterium deposition and X-ray spectra for SOMBRERO and Scaled NRL Targets in 6.5m Radius C Chamber
SOMBRERO
1.E+14
1.E+15
1.E+16
1.E+17
1.E+18
1.E+19
1.E+20
1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Depth (cm)
Num
ber
of D
epos
ited
Ions
D Hydro
C Hydro
Scaled NRL
1.E+14
1.E+15
1.E+16
1.E+17
1.E+18
1.E+19
1.E+20
1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00
Depth (cm)
Num
ber
of D
epos
ited
Ions
D_Hydro
C_Hydro
D_Knockon
The spectra differ primarily due to the Au and knock-ons in the NRL spectrum and the 55MJ of 1.6MeV C ions in the SOMBRERO spectrum. The NRL knock-ons heat the 1st mm of the wall volumetrically.
Xe density is 50 mtorr and wall temperature is 1450 ° C.
A C-C Target Chamber Can Survive, with Proper Gas Protection and Wall Temperature
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Xe Density (Torr)
Max
.Equ
ilibr
ium
Wal
l Tem
p. to
Avo
id
Vap
oriz
atio
n (C
)
SOMBRERO Target
NRL Target
Chamber Radius of 6.5m
•A series of BUCKY calculations have been performed of the response of a 6.5 m radius graphite wall to the explosions of SOMBRERO and NRL targets. Time-of-flight dispersion of debris ions is important, especially for low gas density.
•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.
NRL
Sombrero
Target
Output
Gas
Protection
First Wall
T(t) Vaporization?
Gas
Species
Gas
DensityRadius Twall
T > 1.5 K?
Chamber Works!
Friction
T4
Velocity
Target
Injection
Distance in Chamber
Straight
Tube
MaterialOpacity
BUCKY
EOSOPA IONMIX
BUCKY BUCKY BUCKY
no
yes
yes
no
ANSYS
First Wall Erosion and Target Heating During Injection are Competing Concerns in Direct-Drive Laser Fusion Dry-Wall Target Chambers
Target Injection for Laser Fusion Chambers
US-Japan Workshop on Laser FusionUS-Japan Workshop on Laser FusionJanuary 25-27, 2001January 25-27, 2001
Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLawrence Livermore National Laboratory
G.L. Kulcinski, E. A. Mogahed, and I. N. Sviatoslavsky
University of Wisconsin-MadisonFusion Technology Institute
Assumptions For NRL Target Heating Calculations
• Injection velocity = 400 m/s
• Target spectral reflectivity = 99%
• Transport distance in chamber = 2 m (tube)• Thermal diffusivity of CH @ 18 K = 0.009 cm2/s
• T at DT/CH interface < 1.5 K
• Tumbling target (symmetric heat transfer)
The HeatFlux
Absorbed inthe OuterSurface ofthe Target
Depends onthe FW
Temperatureand theTarget
Emissivity 0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Thermal Radiation Heat FluxAbsorbed by the Target
Ra
dia
tio
n H
ea
t F
lux
Ab
so
rbe
d (
W/c
m2)
First Wall Temperature (K)
Emissivity of the First Wall (Carbon) = 0.8
Target Reflectivity = 0.00.2 0.40.6
0.8
0.90.95
0.99
The Heat Flux Due to Aerodynamic Friction on the Target Outer Shell is Strongly Dependant on the Chamber Gas Density and the
Velocity of the Target.
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
200 250 300 350 400
Surface Heat Flux Due to Friction for a 4 mm Target
Su
rfa
ce
He
at
Flu
x D
ue
to
Fri
cti
on
(W
/cm
2)
Target Speed (m/s)
0.0001 Torr
0.0005 Torr
0.001 Torr
0.005 Torr
0.01 Torr
0.05 Torr
0.1 Torr
0.5 Torr
1 Torr of Xe gas
After Eckert and McAdams
0.0002 Torr
Frictional Heat Flux for a 4 mm Diameter Target
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
200 250 300 350 400
Surface Heat Flux Due to Friction for a 6 mm Target
Su
rfa
ce
He
at
Flu
x D
ue
to
Fri
cti
on
(W
/cm
2)
Target Speed (m/s)
0.0001 Torr
0.0005 Torr
0.001 Torr
0.005 Torr
0.01 Torr
0.05 Torr
0.1 Torr
0.5 Torr
1 Torr of Xe gas
After Eckert and McAdams
0.0002 Torr
Frictional Heat Flux for a 6 mm Diameter Target
UW has started the use of a 2-D Monte-Carlo Hydrodynamics Code from Sandia to Model Frictional Target Heating
This calculation was performed with the Icarus code by Tim Bartel of SNL.
Since the collisional mean-free-path is the same order as the target size, a detailed calculation is needed.
Angle from Target Equator (degrees)
Pre
ssu
re(P
a)
-60 -30 0 30 600
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Monte-Carlo Frictional Heating Calculation
Xe density = 3.2 1014 cm-3 (0.009 Torr)
T = 1500 K
mfp = 2.2 mm
Sound speed = 364 m/s
Target diameter = 4 mm
Injection speed = 400 m/s
-.0006 0 .0006 0012 -.0012 Axial Distance from Target Center (m)Angle from Target Equator (degrees)
Su
rfa
ceH
ea
tF
lux
(W/c
m2)
-90 -60 -30 0 30 60 900
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8Xe density = 3.21014 cm-3
T = 1500 Kmfp = 2.2 mmSound speed = 364 m/sTarget diameter = 4 mm
Monte-Carlo Frictional Heating Calculation
Xe density = 3.2 1014 cm-3 (0.009 Torr)
T = 1500 K
mfp = 2.2 mm
Sound speed = 364 m/s
Target diameter = 4 mm
Injection speed = 400 m/s
Monte-Carlo Frictional Heating Calculation
-.0006 0 .0006 0012 -.0012 Axial Distance from Target Center (m)
The Heat Flux Due to Aerodynamic Friction on the Target Outer Shell is Strongly Dependant on the Chamber Gas Density and the
Velocity of the Target.
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
200 250 300 350 400
Surface Heat Flux Due to Friction for a 4 mm Target
Su
rfa
ce
He
at
Flu
x D
ue
to
Fri
cti
on
(W
/cm
2)
Target Speed (m/s)
0.0001 Torr
0.0005 Torr
0.001 Torr
0.005 Torr
0.01 Torr
0.05 Torr
0.1 Torr
0.5 Torr
1 Torr of Xe gas
After Eckert and McAdams
0.0002 Torr
Frictional Heat Flux for a 4 mm Diameter Target
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
200 250 300 350 400
Surface Heat Flux Due to Friction for a 6 mm Target
Su
rfa
ce
He
at
Flu
x D
ue
to
Fri
cti
on
(W
/cm
2)
Target Speed (m/s)
0.0001 Torr
0.0005 Torr
0.001 Torr
0.005 Torr
0.01 Torr
0.05 Torr
0.1 Torr
0.5 Torr
1 Torr of Xe gas
After Eckert and McAdams
0.0002 Torr
Frictional Heat Flux for a 6 mm Diameter Target
Max
Ave
CROSS-SECTION OF SOMBRERO CHAMBER
The Target Injection Tube Protects the Target from Thermal Damage During Injection
• A target injection tube extends from the top of the chamber to within 2 meters of the chamber center.
• It consists of a tungsten core which is He gas cooled in a closed cycle cooling system.
• The tungsten core is surrounded by a carbon double tube assembly cooled by Xe gas, extending 0.5m beyond the tungsten core.
• The Xe gas after cooling the carbon tube enters the chamber replenishing the chamber buffer gas.
• The tungsten core is stationary, but, the carbon tube is slowly moved forward at the rate at which the carbon evaporates.
• The target is shielded from high temperature radiation from the first wall, and by tube differential pumping avoids frictional heating with the buffer gas along most of its trajectory.
GraphiteTungsten
Thick. = 0.3 cm
Thick. = 0.2 cm
Thick. = 0.3 cm
Thick. = 0.3 cm
Outer Diameter = 5 cmInner Diameter = 1 cm
Inner Diameter = 2.4 cm
Cross-Section of the Target Injection Tube
Section B-B
Graphite
Section A-A
86420.001
.01
.1
1
10
Pressure Profile in Target Injection Tube as a
Function of Distance from Chamber Center
Distance Along Injection Tube (m)
Gas P
ressu
re P
rofi
le in
Tu
be (
torr
)
Target Injection Tube Chamber Center
Molecular flow regimeThroughput 8e-5 torr l/s.cm2Pumping speed 34 cm3/s
TARGET INJECTION TUBE DETAILS
PARAMETERS OF TARGET INJECTION TUBE Material ID (cm) OD (cm) t (cm)
Inner W tube W 1.0 1.6 0.3Outer W tube W 2.4 3.0 0.3Coolant Flow area He 1.6 2.4 0.4Inner Graphite tube C 3.0 3.4 0.2Outer Graphite tube C 4.4 5.0 0.3Coolant Flow area Xe 3.4 4.4 0.5
THERMAL HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS OF TARGET INJECTION TUBE
W tube coolant He gasLength of W tube(m) 4.0Nuclear heating in W tube (Kw) 86.0He gas pressure (atm) 80.0Inlet temperature (K) 77Outlet temperature (K) 300He gas velocity (m/s) 21Average temperature of inner W wall (K) 250Graphite tube coolant XeLength of tube (m) 4.5Nuclear heating in graphite tube (Kw) 48.0Radiant heating in graphite tube (Kw) 30.0Xe gas pressure (atm) 10Inlet temperature (K) 300Outlet temperature (K) 1174Xe gas velocity (m/s) 81Average temperature of inner graphite tube (K) 1000
A
A B
B
GraphiteTungsten
Thick. = 0.3 cm
Thick. = 0.2 cm
Thick. = 0.3 cm
Thick. = 0.3 cm
Outer Diameter = 5 cmInner Diameter = 1 cm
Inner Diameter = 2.4 cm
Cross-Section of the Target Injection Tube
Section B-B
Graphite
Section A-A
The Neutron Irradiated Thermal Conductivity of Graphite at 1-2 dpa Approaches the Unirradiated Value at High Temperatures
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Irradiation and Test Temperature-°C
% o
f U
nir
radia
ted V
alu
e
A-05 CX-2002U
N-112 DMS-678Source: Bonal and Wu, Phys Scripta, T64, 1996
First Wall Temperature Transient Range(First Few Microns)-Sombrero-91
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Irradiation Temperature, oC
40
30
20
10
3
2
1
0
x 1022
AXZ 5Q1
AXZ 5Q1
AXZ 5Q1
AXF 8Q1
AXF 8Q1
AXF 8Q1
LOWER BOUND
AXF
GRAPHNOL N3M
Bounds from Kasten et al.
Data from Kennedy et al.
POCO Grades
CSF
GILSOCARBON
PGA
The Useful Lifetime of Graphite is a Functionof the Neutron Irradiation Temperature
Birch & Brocklehurst, 1987
Fusion Technology Institute • University of Wisconsin
Region Excluded due to Radiation Damage Accumulation
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Xe Density (Torr)
Ma
x.
Eq
uil
ibri
um
Wa
ll T
em
p.
to A
vo
id
Va
po
riza
tio
n (
C)
SOMBRERO WALL ConstraintNRL WALL ConstraintSOMBRERO TARGET (200 m/s, 6.5m, 0.2 Reflectivity)NRL TARGET (400 m/s, 2m, 0.99 Reflectivity)NRL TARGET (400 m/s, 6.5m, 0.99 Reflectivity)
Chamber radius of 6.5mTumbling Target
It is Difficult to Find an Operational Regime for the NRL Target in a Dry-Wall Chamber
(Assuming 1.5 K Fuel Temperature Rise)
160 MJ
400 MJ
Chamber radius of 6.5 mTumbling target
Survivability of Targets and C-C First Walls in SOMBRERO Dry Wall
Chamber with No Fill Gas
Target
First Wall
SOMBRERO
NRL
Yes(TFW<2,100 °C)
Yes(if TFW<1,600 °C)
No(evaporation, unless TFW < RT)
Yes(if TFW<1,500 °C)
Survivability of Targets and C-C First Walls in SOMBRERO Dry Wall
Chamber with 0.1 Torr Xe Fill Gas
Target First Wall
SOMBRERO
NRL
Yes(if TFW<2,100 °C)
No(frictional heating, TFW << RT)
Yes(TFW<1,600°C)
No Solution(TFW<< RT))
Survivability of Targets and C-C First Walls in SOMBRERO Dry Wall
Chamber with 0.01 Torr Xe Fill Gas
Target
First Wall
SOMBRERO
NRL
Yes(TFW<2,100 °C)
Yes(if TFW<1,600 °C)
No(evaporation, unless TFW < RT)
Yes(if TFW<1,600 °C)
Parametric Studies for Laser Chamber Analysis, Feb. to Oct. 2001
• Targets NRL-ref, SOMBRERO, NRL-400
• Temp Rise in DT, K 1.5, 5, 10
• Target Reflectivity 0.2, 0.9, 0.99
• Injection Velocity, m/s 200, 400
• Distance Target Exposed, m 2, 6.5, 8
• FW Material C-C, SiC, W
• Cavity Gas Xe, Kr
• Gas Pressure, Torr 0, 0.01, 0.1
FY 2001 | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
FY 2001 | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
Laser Dry-Wall Chamber Program Plan
Power Plant Point Design
Imbed Two Chamber Designs into Sombrero Reference
Scope New Ref Design
Full Analysis of Improved Dry Wall Ref. Design
Experimental Validation of Materials
Establish operational parameters for FW/Blk
Test Thermal Life & PrepareIrr. Capsules
Begin First Material Radiation Damage Studies
Experimental Results On Radiation Damage of Chamber Materials
Chamber Clearing
Test time to damp cavity gas
Define Cavity Gas Dynamics
Experiment on Target Injection in Hot Turbulent Dilute Gas
Reestablish Baseline Target InjectionParameters
Establish Operating Windows (sufficient for 1,000 MWe)
Target Spectra Exp. & Survival
Incorporate New Target Designs
Experiments on Target Heating
New Target Survival Criteria
Safety and Environment
Establish Allowable Inventory & Release
Experiments on T2 & Radioisotope Release
Design Basis Accident Analysis