Content uploaded by Massimiliano Fratoni
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Massimiliano Fratoni on Dec 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHAMBER DESIGN FOR THE
LASER INERTIAL FUSION ENERGY (LIFE) ENGINE
Jeffery F. Latkowski1, Ryan P. Abbott1, Sal Aceves1, Tom Anklam1, Andrew W. Cook1, James DeMuth1, Laurent Divol1,
Bassem El-Dasher1, Joseph C. Farmer1, Dan Flowers1, Massimiliano Fratoni1, Thad Heltemes2, Jave Kane1,
Kevin J. Kramer1, Richard Kramer3, Antonio Lafuente1,4, Gwendolen A. Loosmore1, Kevin R. Morris1, Gregory A. Moses2,
Britton Olson1, Carlos Pantano3, Susana Reyes1, Mark Rhodes1, Rick Sawicki1, Howard Scott1, Max Tabak1, Scott Wilks1
1Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550
2Department of Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI 53706
3Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 61801
4ETSI Industriales, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Email: latkowski@llnl.gov
The Laser Inertial Fusion Energy (LIFE) concept is
being designed to operate as either a pure fusion or
hybrid fusion-fission system. The present work focuses on
the pure fusion option. A key component of a LIFE
engine is the fusion chamber subsystem. It must absorb
the fusion energy, produce fusion fuel to replace that
burned in previous targets, and enable both target and
laser beam transport to the ignition point. The chamber
system also must mitigate target emissions, including
ions, x-rays and neutrons and reset itself to enable
operation at 10-15 Hz. Finally, the chamber must offer a
high level of availability, which implies both a reasonable
lifetime and the ability to rapidly replace damaged
components. An integrated design that meets all of these
requirements is described herein.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Laser Inertial Fusion Energy (LIFE) Engine is a
laser-based energy system that can be constructed as
either a pure fusion machine or as a fusion-fission
hybrid.1 As a starting point, the LIFE effort has focused
on the ability to provide fusion power on a timescale
consistent with the needs of the marketplace, to deliver
commercial power production from the 2030s.2 This
necessitates the operation of pre-commercial plant in the
2020s. This plant is denoted by a self-consistent facility
“point design” known as LIFE.1, while plants in the first
commercial fleet are denoted as LIFE.2.
The pre-commercial plant, LIFE.1, is likely to have a
fusion power of ~ 400 MW, a plant size which results in
engineering breakeven and demonstrates fully integrated
system operation. Due to similar thermal and neutron
wall loadings, LIFE.1 is relevant to either the pure fusion
or fusion-fission hybrid options for LIFE.2 and beyond.
The hybrid options are addressed in ref. 3-4.
For any LIFE engine, the chamber is an important
subsystem, and it must satisfy a number of complex,
interrelated requirements. These flow down from the
LIFE primary criteria and overall plant requirements.
They include:
• Fabricate from commercially available materials;
• Capture and transmit thermal power to the balance of
plant (capable of 0.5-1.5 MW/m2 thermal load);
• Operate at high temperature for good thermal
efficiency (T ≥600°C for ηth ≥40%);
• Remove residual target debris from previous shots
(material recovery ≥99%);
• Maintain high system availability for consistency
with overall plant availability of ≥92%;
• Produce tritium to replace that burned in previous
targets (tritium breeding ratio ≥1.08);
• Enable successful target and laser beam propagation
to chamber center (laser propagation efficiency
≥95%);
• Reset for the next shot (support 10-15 Hz operation).
Through careful design and the selection of indirect-drive
targets, the LIFE chamber meets the above requirements.
II. THE USE OF INDIRECT-DRIVE TARGETS
Interestingly, a critical component of the LIFE
chamber design is the selection of indirect-drive targets.
Not only will LIFE-relevant, indirect-drive targets be
tested on the National Ignition Facility, but they enable a
different approach to protection of the chamber from the
most troublesome target emissions. While the thermal
fragility of direct-drive targets requires that the chamber
contain no more than mTorr of gas (really just unburned
54 FUSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VOL. 60 JULY 2011
D-T fuel), indirect-drive targets are thermally robust and
can accommodate much higher gas pressures within the
chamber.
5
Specifically, the LIFE chamber design uses
xenon as a fill gas at a density of 6 μg/cc.
The xenon within the chamber is able to completely
range-out the ~ 10% of target output that is emitted as
ions. In fact, the ions are stopped within a ball of gas that
is only decimeters in radius. An additional 12% of the
target output is emitted as x-rays that are conservatively
approximated as a 200 keV Maxwellian. These x-rays are
significantly attenuated in the xenon, and the prompt x-
ray heating of the wall is only 210°C (from an ambient
600°C). Over timescales of hundreds of microseconds,
the gas re-emits soft x-rays and a Marshak wave arrives at
the chamber wall. Between pulses, the first wall nearly
reaches ambient temperature. Then, the secondary pulse
heats the wall by ~230°C. Figure 1 shows the time-
dependent heating of the first wall for LIFE.2 with a
fusion yield of 147 MJ and a chamber radius of 5.7
meters. These low-temperature pulses mean that a bare
metal can be used as the first wall; refractory armor is
unnecessary.
Fig. 1. The 6 μg/cc of xenon fill gas limits the LIFE first
wall heating to two pulses of 210-230°C.
Due to the benefits of the xenon fill gas, the LIFE
chamber can utilize near-term materials while being quite
compact and enjoying a long lifetime. For LIFE.1, the
400 MW fusion system is coupled with a 3.4-m-radius
modified-HT9 (or a similar material) chamber. LIFE.2
has a fusion power of 2200 MW and would utilize a 5.7-
m-radius chamber constructed from 12YWT or another
oxide-dispersion strengthened ferritic steel (ODS-FS).
On LIFE.1, the first wall would be subject to a damage
rate of 10 displacements per atom per full-power-year of
operation (10 dpa/fpy). The LIFE.2 first wall would
experience 25 dpa/fpy.
The xenon gas is initially heated to several eV, but it
rapidly cools by radiation to a temperature of ~ 0.5 eV.
At that time, the charge state of Xe is very close to zero,
and it “stalls” from a radiative cooling perspective.
Unless convection or radiative cooling from residual
target debris provides significant additional cooling, the
gas temperature at the time of the next shot (67 ms later)
will be ~ 6000 K. Thermal analysis of the target during
injection indicates that this thermal load can be handled
by the incoming target.
5
Laser propagation through the hot Xe is acceptable as
shown in Figure 2. Only 1-2% of the incoming, 3ω laser
is expected to be lost to inverse Bremsstrahlung near the
target as the laser reaches peak intensity.
Fig. 2. Laser beam propagation through 6 μg/cc xenon
results in minimal transmission losses.
Interaction with residual lead target debris is
significant in that there will be stimulated Raman,
however, the transition decay time is sufficiently long (1-
10 ns) that one can excite all Pb atoms without any
significant loss of laser energy. As a result of this,
aggressive “chamber clearing” is not necessary. A
clearing ratio of just 1% per shot can be used to remove
target debris for disposal or possible recycling.
III. CHAMBER MECHANICAL DESIGN
There are several key features to the LIFE chamber
design. These include its modularity, the lack of
beamtube connections to the chamber, the fact that the
chamber is not the primary vacuum barrier, and the
selection of liquid lithium as the primary coolant for both
the first wall and blanket.
Figure 3 shows a model of the LIFE vacuum vessel
with the first wall, blanket and support structure (these
combine to form “the chamber”) sitting inside. The
Latkowski et al. LIFE CHAMBER DESIGN
FUSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VOL. 60 JULY 2011 55
chamber consists of eight identical sections, which would
be factory built and shipped to the power plant site. Two
chamber sections would be mounted within a support
structure to form a ¼-section of the chamber. This unit
would provide common coolant injection and extraction
manifolds for the two chamber sections. The completed
¼-section of the chamber would be transported to the
engine bay for installation. Installation requires only the
connection of four cooling pipes per ¼-section: two for
the first wall and two for the blanket. The two systems
are independently plumbed to allow greater flexibility in
optimizing flow rates and coolant temperatures.
Fig. 3.The LIFE chamber consists of eight identical
modules assembled into ¼-sections for transport to the
engine bay.
Cooling connections will be made using
mechanically-driven hydraulic couplers with integral ball
valves. This technology is in use on oil supertankers and
can be adapted to high-temperature, corrosion-resistant
materials such as molybdenum, Mo alloys such as TZM,
and other materials. Use of such materials is prohibited
for the main structural materials, but cooling connections
can be made far outside the region of high neutron fluxes.
It is important to note that chamber installation does
not require any connections to be made or broken for the
forty-eight laser beam ports. While the lasers themselves
obviously propagate to the center of the chamber, the
beamtubes stop at the wall of the vacuum vessel.
Equally important is the fact that the chamber
modules do not serve as the primary vacuum barrier. In
fact, they need not physically touch. In some locations,
steps will be utilized to reduce streaming. In other
locations, the spaces between chamber modules will be
used by the target tracking and engagement systems. The
shield design will provide further protection to the
vacuum vessel.
Figure 4 shows the details of a chamber module. The
first wall is composed of a series of 10-cm-diameter
tubes. Advantages of pipes include high strength-to-
weight ratio and ease of fabrication. The first wall pipes
are plumbed in parallel and are attached to injection and
extraction plena mounted to the sides of the blanket.
Small gaps between first wall pipes limit the exposure of
the blanket to high surface heat fluxes.
Fig. 4. The LIFE first wall is composed of steel tubes that
are mounted to coolant plena on the sides of the blanket.
To enable the laser beams to reach chamber center
forty-eight openings totaling ~3% solid-angle are
provided. At the beamports, the pipes are routed radially
outward and then they wrap around on the back side of
the blanket. Additional openings are provided at the top
and bottom of the chamber for interfaces with the target
injection system and the debris clearing / vacuum
pumping / target catching systems, respectively.
The blanket is designed such that the coldest coolant
is delivered to the structural materials. This is accom-
Latkowski et al. LIFE CHAMBER DESIGN
56 FUSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VOL. 60 JULY 2011
plished through use of “skin cooling” with the coolant
entering the blanket at the top and flowing down at high
speed through a trapezoidal cooling channel. The coolant
turns around when it reaches the bottom of the blanket
and then flows up through the bulk region at much lower
speed. Figure 5 provides a cut through the mid-plant of
the blanket. The low temperature and high speed in the
skin region provides the most effective cooling.
Fig. 5. The LIFE blanket utilizes skin cooling to maintain
structural material strength and corrosion resistance.
Zinkle and Ghoniem state that ferritic-martensitic
steels are compatible (corrosion is <5 μm/year) with clean
liquid lithium to temperatures of 550-600°C.
6
Coolant
entering the blanket at 550°C will reach a temperature of
600°C at the bottom of the blanket. Further heating in the
bulk of the blanket can be allowed through use of non-
structural insulating panels. Tungsten is compatible with
liquid Li to more than 1300°C.
6
The current LIFE point
design provides Li at an exit temperature of 800°C.
Advanced designs that could provide even higher
temperatures are under consideration. Although it uses a
single coolant, such designs are similar to the Dual
Coolant Lead Lithium blanket design proposed by Tillack
and Malang.
7
The LIFE chamber is designed according to the
ASME piping code.
8
Specifically, the LIFE chamber is
designed to 1/3 of a given material’s ultimate tensile
strength, 2/3 of its yield strength, 2/3 of its creep rupture
strength and a 0.01% creep rate per 1000 hours.
Temperature-dependent properties are used in such
evaluations. These properties can be seen in Figure 6.
For LIFE.1, an HT9 chamber could be as small as
2.7 meters in radius, however, a radius of 3.4 m has been
selected to limit the damage rate to 10 dpa/fpy in order to
provide a chamber lifetime of 1 year. The superior
strength at temperature shown by 12YWT and other
ODS-FS materials enables ~8× as much fusion power
with a chamber radius of only 5.7 m. Although clearly
more data is needed, the void swelling lifetime of ferritic-
martensitic steels is likely to be more than 100 dpa or
>4 fpy in LIFE.2.
6
IV. THE USE OF LIQUID LITHIUM COOLANT
Liquid lithium is the primary coolant for both the first
wall and blanket in LIFE. Lithium has many advantages
as well as a couple of disadvantages that are well-known.
Engineering controls are included in the design to
mitigate risks associated with the disadvantages.
Fig. 6. Near-term materials such as HT9 could be used for
LIFE.1, with ODS-FS materials, such as 12YWT, being
used on LIFE.2 and enabling high temperature operations.
Advantages of liquid Li include its low density and
resulting low hydrostatic pressures and stresses. It has
good heat transfer properties (Pr ~ 0.05) and excellent
corrosion properties as long as the coolant is maintained
in a relatively pure state (e.g., <100 wppm nitrogen).
Mass transfer from the hot to the cold leg requires
attention, and it may ultimately dictate the maximum
temperature rise allowed within a given cooling circuit.
9
Lithium melts at only 181°C, and thus freeze-up is
less of a concern than for LiPb or molten salt coolants. Li
has the widest spread between its melting and boiling
temperatures of any element. Its low viscosity and den-
sity and high specific heat result in a low pumping power.
Lithium is a low-activation coolant that offers
superior tritium breeding capability. In fact, the tritium
breeding is good enough to allow multiple blanket
modules on LIFE.1 to be dedicated to materials testing.
Sufficient tritium can be produced without the need for
beryllium, which has health and safety, economic,
radiation swelling, supply chain, and public perception
challenges.
Lithium’s challenges include its fire hazard and its
high solubility for tritium. The risks related to the former
are quite similar to those for all liquid metal systems (e.g.
Na, NaK) and can be reduced through prevention,
detection and mitigation features such as avoiding water
Latkowski et al. LIFE CHAMBER DESIGN
FUSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VOL. 60 JULY 2011 57
in the vicinity of liquid lithium cooling lines and heat
exchangers, using steel liners on concrete surfaces that
could be exposed to liquid lithium, and using inert gases
to avoid Li-air reactions in the event of a leak.
Additionally, lithium inventories are segregated to the
extent possible.
Lithium’s affinity for hydrogen isotopes, including
tritium, means that permeation is much less of a concern
than it is for molten salt coolants. This affinity requires
that tritium recovery systems be utilized in order to
maintain the tritium inventories to levels that are
acceptable from a safety perspective. Fortunately, such a
tritium recovery process was developed and demonstrated
in the mid-1970s by Maroni and his group at Argonne
National Laboratory.10
The Maroni process works by intimately contacting
the liquid lithium with a molten lithium salt such as LiCl-
KCl. The lithium and salt are subsequently centrifugally
separated, and the tritium is removed as a gas following
electrolysis of the salt.10 Figure 7 shows a schematic of
the tritium recovery process.
Fig. 7. Tritium can be removed from liquid lithium by
intimate contact with a molten salt and subsequent
electrolysis of that salt.
All parts of the Maroni process were demonstrated,
however, they were not integrated into a complete system.
For LIFE, full flow processing of the lithium can limit the
tritium content to only 100 weight parts per billion
(wppb). This would require approximately eighty units
such as those built and demonstrated by Maroni (45 cm in
height and 25 cm in diameter). An integrated system
would occupy approximately 30 m3, including piping and
redundancy. The power consumed would be only ~ 1
MWe. With this process, the total tritium inventory
within the lithium loops is expected to be only ~ 40 g.
V. NEUTRONICS PERFORMANCE
V.A. Tritium Breeding and Chamber Energy Gain
The LIFE chamber design easily produces sufficient
tritium without the use of beryllium or lithium isotopic
enrichment. The current point design has a tritium
breeding ratio (TBR) of 1.59 and a chamber energy gain
of 1.10. The chamber energy gain is defined as the ratio
of the sum of the nuclear heating (neutrons and neutron-
induced gamma-rays), x-ray heating and debris heating to
the initial energy of 17.6 MeV that is released from every
fusion reaction. Note that this is called the “chamber
energy gain.” Blanket energy gain would be an
inaccurate label due to the fact that a significant portion of
the gain occurs within the first wall.
Past studies have shown that excess TBR can be
traded for additional energy gain.11-12 Ongoing work has
achieved a chamber energy gain, including penetrations
for beamports, target injection and pumping, as high as
1.23 while reducing the TBR to 1.05. Optimization of the
chamber energy gain, TBR, and thermal efficiency is
underway. From a first order systems analysis
perspective, the product of the chamber energy gain and
the thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency is the figure
of merit. While exceptionally high chamber energy gains
may be achievable, these may require the use of materials
that limit the maximum temperature, and thus, the thermal
efficiency of the chamber. In combination, we estimate
the product of chamber energy gain and thermal
conversion efficiency to be in the region of 0.6.
V.B. Waste Management
If used with published compositions, HT9 steel
would not qualify for disposal via shallow land burial as
specified by Fetter et al.13 The use of 1% molybdenum
leads to large production of 99Tc, which is a waste
disposal hazard. Past work has demonstrated that
tungsten can be substituted for the molybdenum found in
HT9.14 By reducing both the Mo and Nb (produces 94Nb)
impurities to the parts per million levels, it is possible for
modified-HT9 to qualify for shallow land burial after
1-4 fpy of operation on LIFE.1. Such a composition is
amenable to manufacture using existing production
processes. A similar level of impurities must be achieved
for 12YWT or alternate ODS-FS materials to qualify for
shallow land burial after years of operation on LIFE.2.
V.C. Residual Dose Rates
12YWT and other ODS-FS materials have acceptable
residual dose rates that will enable the use of remote
equipment for their routine maintenance. Figure 8 shows
the residual dose rate, following 1 fpy of LIFE.2
operation, at the back surface of the blanket once the
lithium coolant has been drained. Within several hours,
as 56Mn decays with its 2.6-hour half-life, the residual
dose rate falls to less than 104 Gy/hour. An additional
order of magnitude reduction is achieved by ~ 10 days of
decay as 187W decays with its 24-hour half-life. Beyond
approximately 4 days of decay, 54Mn (312-day half-life)
dominates the residual dose rate.
Latkowski et al. LIFE CHAMBER DESIGN
58 FUSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VOL. 60 JULY 2011
VI. ACCELERATED DAMAGE TESTING
The LIFE.1 chamber, which will be constructed from
modified-HT9 or a similar material, will experience a
damage rate of 10 dpa/fpy and will likely have a lifetime
in the range of 1-2 fpy. Although there is significant
nuclear experience with HT9, there is relatively little with
the ODS-FS materials and a testing campaign is needed.
While 12YWT and other ODS-FS materials can be tested
to a certain extent using currently available reactors and
methods such as ion beam irradiation, an adequate
14 MeV neutron source is not available at this time.
Rather than waiting for construction of expensive,
dedicated fusion materials testing facilities, we propose to
use the LIFE.1 facility as a platform to test structural
materials and even integrated components for use on
LIFE.2 and subsequent facilities.
Fig. 8. Residual dose rates from the LIFE chamber fall to
remote maintenance levels within ~ 4 hours of decay.
LIFE benefits from the fact that samples and even
components can be placed closer to the fusion source and
be exposed to increased neutron damage rates without
quenching or otherwise significantly distorting the fusion
plasma. As a result, it is possible to complete many
cycles of sample exposures during a relatively limited
testing timeframe. For example, by placing samples ~75
cm from the center of the LIFE.1 chamber, one can
provide a 10× damage rate increase relative to the
expected LIFE.2 first wall damage rate. If 10% of the
solid angle is devoted to such a test (possible given the
exceptional TBR from liquid Li), then a front-facing area
of 0.7 m2 could be accommodated. Such a component, if
flat and square in cross section, would experience a 1.3×
variation in the damage rate from the center to the corner.
This is quite similar to the 1.2× variation expected in the
largest sections of a LIFE.2 blanket module.
The use of smaller components and/or reduced
acceleration rates can limit the damage gradients, if
desired. For example, 10 cm samples could be tested at a
20× damage rate acceleration with <1% variation across
their surfaces.
Although the LIFE.1 system availability will likely
be low in the beginning, it is reasonable to expect there
will be a total of ~1.5 fpy during years 2-6 of its
operation. By accelerating the damage by 10×, LIFE.1
can provide the equivalent of ~15 fpy of exposure.
Assuming a conservative lifetime limit of only 2 fpy
(equal to 50 dpa), many cycles of exposure can be
provided during this 5-year operational window. It is
envisioned that accelerated testing would be completed in
phases that include material coupons, samples with welds
or other joining methods, and sub-scale integrated
components.
A detailed design of the LIFE.1 Accelerated Damage
Testing (ADT) system is currently underway. Significant
challenges faced by the ADT system and program include
handling the increased thermal load (12 MW/m2 rather
than the 1.2 MW/m2 level expected at the LIFE.2 first
wall), neutron damage gradients, remote maintenance,
and multi-scale materials modeling. Fortunately, the
ADT has reduced requirements in other areas: it does not
have to breed tritium due to the superior TBR in the rest
of the LIFE.1 blanket, and its thermal shield does not
need to operate at high temperatures since thermal
conversion efficiency is not a consideration.
Risks associated with accelerated testing will be
mitigated in a couple of ways. First, ADT samples will
not all receive a 10× acceleration; instead, there will be a
variety of damage rates in the samples. These will likely
range from 0.4-10×. This broad range of data will enable
development of a sufficient understanding of rate-
dependent effects. Second, it is important to note that the
ADT program will include extensive use of fast fission
and ion beam facilities for code development and
validation purposes.
Finally, once ADT results are used to provide the
initial qualification of LIFE.2 structural materials, it will
be possible to continue ADT operations and provide
additional data that might support a “lifetime extension”
to damage levels beyond 50 dpa.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
A LIFE point design has been developed along with a
LIFE delivery plan. A pre-commercial plant, LIFE.1, will
demonstrate full integration of LIFE systems as well as
provide a materials testing platform to support material
selection for LIFE.2. Commercial plants could be either
pure fusion or fusion-fission hybrid machines.
Construction and operation of LIFE.1 is relevant to both
options.
Latkowski et al. LIFE CHAMBER DESIGN
FUSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VOL. 60 JULY 2011 59
The selection of indirect-drive targets is not only
interesting due to the ability to test such targets on the
NIF. Due to their compatibility with relatively high
chamber gas pressures, indirect-drive targets also offer a
solution to the chamber ion damage problem that plagues
direct-drive concepts. Both target injection and laser
beam propagation are consistent with high-Z chamber gas
densities of 1-10 μg/cc. By averting ion damage and
greatly reducing thermal pulsing at the first wall, gas-
protected chambers avoid the need for refractory armor
and offer compact, maintainable chambers that can be
constructed from near-term materials.
Through factory-built, modular chamber design, it is
possible to reduce costs, speed maintenance and reduce
the risks associated with materials selection for a hostile
environment. Simple, easy-to-fabricate designs and rapid
maintenance due to minimal connections in the engine
bay significantly mitigate the uncertainties associated
with materials performance and survivability. This
increases plant availability relative to past ideas.
Use of liquid lithium with demonstrated, compact
tritium recovery technologies provides a low radiological
hazard due to low inventory and low permeation without
use of beryllium. Lithium’s exceptional tritium breeding
enables use of a large solid-angle fraction on LIFE.1 for
accelerated damage testing of LIFE.2 materials as well as
offering the possibility of high chamber energy gains on
LIFE.2 and beyond. Lithium’s high-temperature
compatibility with tungsten offers a high-efficiency
blanket option utilizing insulating panels.
Accelerated damage testing can be performed on
LIFE.1 without negatively affecting the fusion plasma. A
robust program utilizing multiple irradiation sources (fast
fission and multi-beam ion) and multi-scale materials
modeling is needed to enable use of LIFE.1 damage rates
that are as high as 10× that expected during LIFE.2
operations. The ability to perform materials qualification
on LIFE.1 during the 2020s is a key element in the plan to
deliver commercial fusion energy in the 2030s, which is
consistent with the expected needs of the marketplace.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was performed under the auspices of the
U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore
National Security under contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.
REFERENCES
1. E. MOSES, T. DIAZ DE LA RUBIA, J. F.
LATKOWSKI, et al., “A Sustainable Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Based On Laser Inertial Fusion Energy
(LIFE),” Fusion Science and Technology, 56, 2, 566-
572 (2009).
2. T. ANKLAM, A. J. SIMON, W. R. MEIER, and S.
S. POWERS, "LIFE Economic and Commercial
Pathway," this issue (2011).
3. K. J. KRAMER, J. F. LATKOWSKI, R. P.
ABBOTT, et al., “Neutron Transport and Nuclear
Burnup Analysis for the Laser Inertial Confinement
Fusion-Fission Energy (LIFE) Engine,” Fusion
Science and Technology, 56, 2, 625-631 (2009).
4. K. J. KRAMER, M. FRATONI, J. F. LATKOWSKI,
et al., "Fusion-Fission Blanket Options for the Laser
Inertial Fusion Energy (LIFE) Engine," this issue
(2011).
5. R. MILES, M. SPAETH, K. MANES, et al.,
"Challenges Surrounding the Injection and Arrival of
Targets at IFE Target Chamber Center," this issue
(2011).
6. S. J. ZINKLE and N. M. GHONIEM, "Operating
temperature windows for fusion reactor materials,"
Fusion Engin. Des. 51-52 (2000) 55-71.
7. M. S. TILLACK and S. MALANG, "High
performance PbLi blanket," Proc. 17th IEEE/NPSS
Symp. on Fusion Energy, San Diego, CA (1997)
1000-1004.
8. Process Piping: ASME Code for Pressure Piping,
B31, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 2008.
9. J. E. SELLE and D. L. OLSON, "Lithium
Compatibility Research -- Status and Requirements
for Ferrous Materials," presented at the National
Association of Corrosion Engineers Annual Meeting,
Houston, TX (1978).
10. V. A. MARONI, R. D. WOLSON, and G. E.
STAAHL, "Some Preliminary Consideration of a
Molten-Salt Extractions Process to Remove Tritium
from Liquid Lithium Fusion Reactor Blankets,"
Nucl.Technol. 25 (1975) 83 and MARONI, V.A.,
"Process for Recovering Tritium from Molten
Lithium Metal," United States Patent 3,957,597, May
18, 1976.
11. E. GREENSPAN and S. K. HO, "Blanket Energy
Multiplication Enhancement Without Afterheat
Safety Hazards," Proceedings of the Thirteenth IEEE
Symposium on Fusion Engineering, Knoxville, TN
(1989) 62-65.
12. W. R. MEIER and E. C. MORSE, "Blanket
Optimization Studies for the HYLIFE ICF Reactor,"
LLNL Report UCRL-91522 (Sept. 1984), Fusion
Technol. 8 (1985) 2681.
13. S. A. FETTER, E. T. CHENG, and F. M. MANN,
"Long-term Radioactive Waste from Fusion
Reactors: Part II," Fusion Eng. Des. 13 (1990) 239-
246.
14. R. L. KLUEH and E. E. BLOOM, "The development
of ferritic steels for fast induced-radioactivity decay
for fusion reactor applications," Nucl. Eng. Des. 2
(1985) 383-389.
Latkowski et al. LIFE CHAMBER DESIGN
60 FUSION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY VOL. 60 JULY 2011
