4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of plastic, high density carbon, and beryllium as indirect drive NIF ablators

Journal

PHYSICS OF PLASMAS
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/1.5018000

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344 (IM LLNL-JRNL-742613)]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Detailed radiation hydrodynamic simulations calibrated to experimental data have been used to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of three candidate indirect drive ablator materials now tested at the NIF: plastic, high density carbon or diamond, and beryllium. We apply a common simulation methodology to several currently fielded ablator platforms to benchmark the model and extrapolate designs to the full NIF envelope to compare on a more equal footing. This paper focuses on modeling of the hohlraum energetics which accurately reproduced measured changes in symmetry when changes to the hohlraum environment were made within a given platform. Calculations suggest that all three ablator materials can achieve a symmetric implosion at a capsule outer radius of similar to 1100 mu m, a laser energy of 1.8 MJ, and a DT ice mass of 185 mu g. However, there is more uncertainty in the symmetry predictions for the plastic and beryllium designs. Scaled diamond designs had the most calculated margin for achieving symmetry and the highest fuel absorbed energy at the same scale compared to plastic or beryllium. A comparison of the relative hydrodynamic stability was made using ultra-high resolution capsule simulations and the two dimensional radiation fluxes described in this work [Clark et al., Phys. Plasmas 25, 032703 (2018)]. These simulations, which include low and high mode perturbations, suggest that diamond is currently the most promising for achieving higher yields in the near future followed by plastic, and more data are required to understand beryllium. Published by AIP Publishing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available