1 / 10

Updated Heavy Ion Driver Parameters for Snowmass Point Design

This paper presents the updated parameters for a heavy ion driver in the Snowmass Point Design, including beam energy, number of beams, ion type, energy, pulse duration, current, and accelerator length. The design also includes details on chamber transport, multiple ion sources/injectors, multiple-beam acceleration, and drift compression. The paper concludes with an evaluation of the overall system design and possibilities for reducing driver cost and Cost of Energy (COE).

martinezmary
Download Presentation

Updated Heavy Ion Driver Parameters for Snowmass Point Design

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. Updated Heavy Ion Driver Parameters for Snowmass Point Design Wayne R. Meier Lawrence Livermore National Lab Per Peterson UC Berkeley ARIES Meeting July 1-2, 2002 General Atomics, San Diego * This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.

  2. Driver parameters for 6.4 MJ point design Beam energy: foot pulse = 2.9 MJ, main pulse = 3.5 MJ, total = 6.4 MJ Number of beams: 56 foot, 56 main, 112 total Ion = Xe+1 (A = 131) Final ion energy: foot = 2.1 GeV, main = 2.5 GeV Initial/final pulse duration in accelerator: 30 ms / 200 ns (all beams) Final pulse duration on target: foot = 30 ns, main = 8 ns Initial current/beam: 0.83 A (both) Final current/beam at final focus: foot = 0.83 kA, main = 3.1 kA Accelerator length: ~ 2 km Drift compression and redirection length: 350 m Driver efficiency = 45% Driver capital cost: direct ~$1B, total ~$2B

  3. Reference 112-beam, 6.4 MJ Driver 1.6 MeV 0.83 A/beam 30 ms 112 beams 2.1 - 2.5 GeV Xe+1 123 A/beam 200 ns Bending Final focusing 2 km 350 m Chamber transport Common Multiple Ion Source/ Injectors Multiple-Beam Acceleration Target Input 6.4 MJ Yield 400 MJ Drift compression Induction Cores 24,000 tons Relative beam bunch length at end of: injection acceleration drift compression Foot = 2.1 GeV, 30 ns, 0.83 kA/beam Main = 2.5 GeV, 8 ns, 3.1 kA/beam

  4. A focus half angle of 15 mrad gives about minimumspot size for both foot and main pulse beams Foot Main 2.3 mm 2.0 mm

  5. A 9×9, 112-beam array has been designed • Beam-line parameters: • beam half angle: 15 mrad • cylindrical jet standoff from beam cone to permit gravity deflection and pointing errors: 5-mm • cylindrical jets have diameter of 90% of the liquid envelope diameter to allow for surface roughness • Array parameters: • 56 main pulse beams, 56 foot pulse beams • spacing between beam array rows: 6° • main pulse • maximum beam angle: 24.7° • minimum beam angle: 18.0 • foot pulse • maximum beam angle: 19.0° • minimum beam angle: 8.5° UC Berkeley

  6. A 112-beam configuration (56 foot-pulse / 56 main pulse) Chamber Beam Map 26 Foot / 26 Main UC Berkeley

  7. Cylindrical jet configuration for 9x9 array These jets are orthogonal to inner rows of jets UC Berkeley

  8. 9x9 array showing beam tubes and magnets at 6 meters Detailed mechanical design of the beam tubes is needed to determine where steel, coolant, voids, and other materials will be located to allow injection/ extraction of vortex flow and optimize shielding UC Berkeley

  9. The 6.4 MJ, 5.9 Hz point gives near optimum COE COE vs Driver energy COE vs Rep-rate Net power = 1000 MWe

  10. HIF VNL is pulling together a self-consistent point design for a power plant • Target design accommodates larger final focus array consistent with liquid protection geometry • Final focus design configuration meets target spot size requirements • Activation, radiation damage, and heating of final focus array are being evaluated • Overall systems model have been updated and shows that the design point is near optimal for current assumptions • Possibilities to reduce driver cost and COE continue to be part of HIV VNL R&D

More Related