1 / 20

Systems Analysis for Modular versus Multi-beam HIF Drivers *

Systems Analysis for Modular versus Multi-beam HIF Drivers *. 15th International Symposium on Heavy Ion Inertial Fusion June 7-11, 2004 Princeton, NJ. Wayne Meier – LLNL Grant Logan – LBNL.

latona
Download Presentation

Systems Analysis for Modular versus Multi-beam HIF Drivers *

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Systems Analysis for Modular versus Multi-beam HIF Drivers* 15th International Symposium on Heavy Ion Inertial Fusion June 7-11, 2004 Princeton, NJ Wayne Meier – LLNL Grant Logan – LBNL * This work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by University of California, Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories under contracts No. W-7405-Eng-48 and DE-AC03-76SF00098. The Heavy Ion Fusion Virtual National Laboratory

  2. Outline • Introduction / Motivation for modular drivers • R&D advances needed • Design trades for all-solenoid modules • Number of modules • Ion mass • Solenoid/quadrupole hybrid options • Optimal transition energy • Potential improvements for multi-beam, quad-focus accelerator • Future work

  3. Modular drivers have potential advantages but also present some new challenges • Primary motivation is to address development cost issue with conventional multi-beam linacs • Modularity is proven approach for lasers • Disadvantage for HI accelerator is need for induction cores for each beam • Circumvented by reducing number of beams, using lower mass ions (higher current per beam), and double pulsing each module on each shot • Solenoid magnets are best for large currents, especially at low ion energy

  4. Solid state lasers have taken advantage of modular development Beamlet NIF The Beamlet laser was a single-beam, scientific prototype of the 192-beam National Ignition Facility (NIF).

  5. We are considering a range of options for modular HI drivers • Single-beam solenoid accelerator, tens of accelerators for driver • Hybrids: Solenoids at front end feeding single-beam quad section, tens of accelerators • Solenoids feeding multi-beam quad section, tens of accelerators • All quads (multi-beam), tens of accelerators • A systems code is being developed for consistent comparisons

  6. Key developments required for this approach • Large aperture source/injectors (~30 cm radius) • Double pulsing • Neutralized drift compression to pulse duration required by target (10’s of ns) • Larger spot size target (~5 mm radius) • Plasma channel (assisted pinch) or compensated neutralized ballistic focusing (See talks by Simon Yu and Ed Lee)

  7. Hybrid target allows larger spot size beams ~ 5 mm radius Hohlraum Shine shield Beams Capsule

  8. Example design point parameters illustrate the features of the modular design • Total driver energy = 6.7 MJ • Number of modules = 24 (12 per side) • Double pulsing (48 total beam pulses) • Energy per pulse = 140 kJ • Ion = Neon+1 (A = 20) • Final ion energy = 200 MeV • Core radial build = 0.62 m • Acceleration gradient = 0.28 – 2.4 MV/m • Accelerator length = 125 m • Accelerator efficiency = 33%

  9. Example beam parameters for this case • Initial/final ion energy = 0.9 MeV / 200 MeV • Charge per pulse = 0.70 mC • Initial pulse duration = 20 ms • Pre-accel bunch compression = 8x  2.5 ms • Beam current into accelerator = 280 A • Pulse length = 7.2 m = constant • Line charge density = 97 mC/m • Final pulse duration = 0.17 ms • Beam current at exit of accelerator = 4.1 kA

  10. Magnetic pulse compression, especially at higher ion energy is cost effective at 100 MeV 100 MeV 150 MeV Total Cost, $/m Cost, $/m Cost, $/m 50 MeV Magnetic comp Switching Pulse compression factor Pulse compression factor Pulse compression factor

  11. Magnet bore is held constant; occupancy decreases due to increasing gap with higher accel gradient Solenoid spacing Occupancy fraction Meters Winding radius Pipe radius Beam radius Ion energy, MeV

  12. Optimal initial pulse duration is ~ 20 ms Ed = 6.7 MJ 24 modules Total Total cost, $B Accelerator Injector Initial pulse duration, ms

  13. A small number of modules would be best, but target requires ~24 for drive symmetry and pulse shaping Ed = 6.7 MJ Ne+ (A = 20) Tf = 200 MeV

  14. Driver cost increases with increasing ion mass -A = 20 (Neon) is our base case Ed = 6.7 MJ 24 Modules Tf = 10A MeV

  15. A transition to quad focusing at ~120 MeV has a slight benefit for single beam modules Total Solenoids Total cost, $B Injector Quads Ion energy for transition to quads, MeV

  16. If beams could be split at transition, quads become attractive at lower ion energy 4 beams per module in quad section Total Solenoids Total cost, $B Injector Quads Ion energy for transition to quads, MeV

  17. Neutralized drift compression and relaxed focusing requirements also benefit multi-beam, quad-focus drivers 1 accelerator Ne+1 Tf = 200 MeV 3.2 MJ/pulse Double pulsing (6.4 MJ total) Total Total cost, $B Front end (Injector + ESQ) Number of beams Electrostatic quads up to ~ 6 MeV Magnetic quads for remainder

  18. Neutralized drift compression/focusing + hybrid targets may reduce costs by ~50 % for both conventional multiple-beam quadrupole and modular solenoid driver options for IFE Multiple-beam quad linac driver Modular solenoid linac driver 3000 “Robust Point Design” 2500

  19. Findings are promising for modular drivers • Modular drivers are a potentially attractive option with: • Low mass ions (< 40 amu) • 10’s of modules (not 100’s) • Neutralized drift compression • Relaxed target spot size requirements • All-solenoid modules or solenoid-to-quad hybrid modules are comparable in cost • If feasible, beam splitting at transition to quads would be beneficial • Neutralized drift compression and larger spot size targets also benefit standard multi-beam, quad-focus linacs

  20. More systems modeling work is needed • Improve injector model – dominates in some cases • Beam focusing models (including pulse shaping) are needed for new schemes • Determine target gain scaling with beam spot size • Compare high-current modular drivers using large spot size targets to low-current multi-beam linacs using smaller spot size targets

More Related