Paper Log Number: 109

Coated Particle Fuel for Radioisotope Power Systems

(RPSs) and Radioisotope Heater Units (RHUs)

Joseph A. Sholtis, Jr.1, Ronald J. Lipinski2, and Mohamed S. El-Genk3

1
Sholtis Engineering & Safety Consulting, P.O. Box 910, Tijeras, NM 87059-0910
Phone/FAX/Voice Mail: (505) 281-4358; E-Mail Address: Sholtis@aol.com
2
Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM 87185-1146
Phone: (505) 845-7311; FAX: (505) 284-3651; E-Mail Address: rjlipin@sandia.gov
3
Institute for Space & Nuclear Power Studies, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1341
Phone: (505) 277-5442; FAX: (505) 277-2814; E-Mail Address: mgenk@unm.edu
CAMERA READY MANUSCRIPT prepared for:

16th Symposium on Space

Nuclear Power & Propulsion
Albuquerque, New Mexico
31 January - 4 February 1999

submission date: 12 October 1998

Author to whom correspondence should be sent: Joseph A. Sholtis, Jr.

Sholtis Engineering & Safety Consulting
2 Oso Drive, Suite 200
Tijeras, NM 87059-7632
Phone/FAX/Voice Mail: (505) 281-4358
E-Mail Address: Sholtis@aol.com

Coated Particle Fuel for Radioisotope Power Systems

(RPSs) and Radioisotope Heater Units (RHUs)
Joseph A. Sholtis, Jr.1, Ronald J. Lipinski2, and Mohamed S. El-Genk3
1
Sholtis Engineering & Safety Consulting, P.O. Box 910, Tijeras, NM 87059-0910
Phone/FAX/Voice Mail: (505) 281-4358; E-Mail Address: Sholtis@aol.com
2
Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM 87185-1146
Phone: (505) 845-7311; FAX: (505) 284-3651; E-Mail Address: rjlipin@sandia.gov
3
Institute for Space & Nuclear Power Studies, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1341
Phone: (505) 277-5442; FAX: (505) 277-2814; E-Mail Address: mgenk@unm.edu

Abstract. Coated particle fuel offers great promise for advanced radioisotope power systems (RPSs) and radioisotope
heater units (RHUs) being pursued for future U.S. solar system exploration missions. Potential benefits of this fuel
include improved design flexibility and materials compatibility, enhanced safety and performance, and reduced
specific mass and volume. This paper describes and discusses coated particle fuel, with emphasis on its applicability,
attributes, and potential benefits to future RPSs and RHUs. Additionally, this paper identifies further analyses and
verification testing that should be conducted before a commitment is made to fully develop this fuel. Efforts to date
 indicate there is every reason to believe that the potential benefits of coated particle fuel to future RPSs and RHUs can
be demonstrated with a modest, phased analytical and verification test effort. Thus, developmental risk appears
minimal, while the potential benefits are substantial. If coated particle fuel is pursued and ultimately developed
successfully, it could revolutionize the design and space use of future RPSs and RHUs.

BACKGROUND / INTRODUCTION
Since 1961, more than twenty-five U.S. space missions have used more than eight different types of RPSs and
RHUs (Bennett et al., 1996; Sholtis et al., 1994; Bennett et al., 1981; Corliss and Harvey, 1964). Those RPSs and
RHUs have enabled spectacular scientific discoveries as part of the Apollo missions to explore our moon, the
Pioneer and Voyager flyby missions past the outer planets of our solar system, the Viking and Mars Pathfinder
missions to study the surface of Mars, the Ulysses mission to study the polar regions of our sun, and the Galileo
and Cassini missions to study Jupiter and Saturn, respectively. In every case, those RPSs and RHUs have met or
exceeded established performance, reliability, and safety standards (Bennett et al., 1996; Sholtis et al., 1994).

Each RPS and RHU developed in the U.S. has involved an incremental improvement over its predecessor in
performance, reliability, size/weight, and safety. From the outset in the U.S., multiple containment barriers have
been incorporated into the design of each RPS and RHU to prevent any harmful release and dispersion of the
radioactive fuel material into the biosphere under normal and off-normal conditions, as well as accident situations
that could occur (Lange and Mastal, 1994; Sholtis et al., 1994). For the current U.S. systems, i.e., the General-
Purpose Heat Source, Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (GPHS-RTG) and the Light-Weight Radioisotope
Heater Unit (LWRHU), the fuel which is in the form of a pressed plutonium-238 dioxide pellet, is encapsulated
within a high temperature refractory alloy clad, surrounded by successive layers of high temperature graphite and
graphite composite materials for insulation and thermomechanical protection (Schock, 1981; Schock, 1980).
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the fuel and fuel containment structures for the GPHS-RTG and LWRHU, respectively
(LMMS, 1996/1997; Johnson, 1997).

FIGURE 1. General-Purpose Heat Source (GPHS) design.

 FIGURE 2. Light-Weight Radioisotope Heater Unit (LWRHU) design.
The pressed plutonium-238 dioxide fuel, used in both the GPHS and the LWRHU, has excellent chemical
stability, extremely low solubility, and a high melting point. The refractory alloy clad materials (i.e., iridium in
the GPHS, and platinum-30% rhodium in the LWRHU) have high melting points, for metals, and good (i.e.,
acceptable) ductility over their range of operating temperatures. Graphitic materials incorporated into the current
systems, like pyrolytic graphite/carbon (PG or PyC) and carbon-bonded carbon fiber (CBCF) graphite, are
excellent high temperature insulators. And, the fine-weave pierced fabric (FWPF) carbon-carbon (i.e., graphite)
composite used in the current systems, has excellent strength and durability as well as impact resilience, thermal
protection, and ablative capabilities. (LMMS 1996/1997; Johnson, 1997; Tate, 1982; Schock, 1981; Schock, 1980)

Although these materials are very rugged and have served their intended purpose extremely well, the cladding
materials currently in use do have some limitations, with important implications to the design, that can now be
improved upon in future RPSs and RHUs. First, the cladding materials currently in use are very heavy. Iridium,
which has a density of 22.65 gm/cc, is the heaviest of all metals; platinum-30% rhodium, with a density of 17.62
gm/cc, is not much lighter (ASM, 1990). Second, both the iridium in the GPHS, and the platinum-30% rhodium in
the LWRHU, must not be allowed to overheat and approach their melting points of ~2725 K and ~2180 K,
respectively (ASM, 1980). Moreover, the iridium in the GPHS must not be permitted to overheat to the point
where grain growth occurs, since this leads to brittleness (Schock, 1980). Furthermore, under certain accident
situations, the platinum-30% rhodium clad material in the LWRHU must not be allowed to overheat near the
melting point of any credible eutectic that could form (e.g., ~2030 K for the platinum-30% rhodium/carbon
eutectic; ~1390 K for the platinum-30% rhodium/aluminum eutectic) (Johnson, 1997; McCulloch et al., 1996;
McCulloch et al., 1997). It should be noted here that clad overheating in the GPHS or LWRHU, which could
potentially occur in an accident as a result of liquid and/or solid propellant fires or inadvertent out-of-orbit reentry
through the Earth's atmosphere, has been addressed in the current designs through the incorporation of graphitic
materials as insulators (Schock, 1980; Schock, 1981; LMMS, 1996/1997; Johnson, 1997). Lastly, the iridium clads
in the GPHS, must not be permitted to overcool substantially below their normal operating temperature of ~1648
K. This is because the iridium loses ductility as it cools; for the GPHS, cladding temperatures should not be
allowed to go below 1173 K (Schock, 1980). That is, as the iridium cladding temperature drops from ~1600 K, the
amount of strain to failure that can be tolerated by the cladding decreases at an accelerated rate, becoming
unacceptable at and below 1173 K (George, 1998). It should be noted here that clad overcooling, which could
potentially occur in an accident as a result of immersion in a pool of liquid propellants or immediately following
the heat pulse from an inadvertent reentry through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere prior to Earth
surface impact, has also been addressed in the GPHS design through the incorporation of graphitic materials as
insulators (Schock, 1980; Bennett, 1998; LMMS, 1996/1997). Consequently, if the temperature constraints of the
refractory alloy cladding materials currently in use could be eliminated, through the incorporation of lighter
materials with a broader temperature capability, significant size and weight improvements could be achieved for
future RPSs and RHUs. That is, if the metal cladding materials could be removed, along with any associated
graphitic materials needed for clad overheating and overcooling protection, where both are replaced with a lighter
material that assures fuel containment integrity, then substantial reductions can be achieved in RPS and RHU
specific mass and volume. Coated particle fuel offers a way to achieve this objective. Moreover, coated particle
fuel offers other important design, compatibility, performance, and safety benefits for future RPSs and RHUs.

DESCRIPTION, ATTRIBUTES, AND BENEFITS OF COATED PARTICLE FUEL

Figure 3 provides a crossectional view of the generic design of a single spherical coated fuel particle for future
RPSs and RHUs. This design closely mirrors that of TRISO coated fuel particles developed for and used in U.S.
high temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) (Chernikov, 1991; Fukuda et al., 1991; Stansfield, 1991). TRISO
coated fuel particles were developed and produced for HTGRs as an extremely rugged fuel with high-temperature
strength, radiation stability, and fuel as well as fission product containment integrity (Fukuda et al., 1995;
Deryugin et al., 1992; Stansfield, 1991; Stansfield et al, 1983). Coated particle fuel, with a variety of fuel and
coating materials, has also been incorporated into advanced U.S. terrestrial reactor designs for the Northwarning
and Army Nuclear Power programs, as well as advanced propulsion reactor designs for the NERVA/Rover and
Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (SNTP) programs pursued by the U.S. (Homan et al., 1991; Mathews et al.,
1991; Dobranich and El-Genk, 1991; Gunn, 1989; Koenig, 1986; Hogerton, 1963).
Isotropic PyC, 10 m (5 m)

ZrC, 30m (20 m)

Isotropic PyC, 5 m (5 m)

Fuel Kernel
PuO 2 or PuC

800m (500m)

Dimensions in parenthesises are for secondary particles.

FIGURE 3. Generic coated fuel particle design for RPSs and RHUs.
(Note: Dimensions shown are subject to change.)

The expected fuel kernel material for future RPSs and RHUs is plutonium-238 dioxide. However, if a higher fuel
loading is desired, plutonium-238 monocarbide could be used. Three coatings are shown in Figure 3; however,
the actual number and thickness of the coatings will be established based on further study to assure adequate fuel
containment integrity under normal, off-normal, and credible accident situations.

To increase the packing fraction when many coated fuel particles are loaded in a matrix, two particle sizes are
currently envisioned. For radiological safety enhancement, all particles will be larger than 300 m in diameter (to
ensure they cannot be inhaled); thus, they will be much larger than 10 m in diameter (to ensure they cannot be
deposited in the lung) (Hoover, 1998). That is, all coated particles used will be--unquestionably--not only non-
respirable, but also non-inhalable, by design. It should also be pointed out that plutonium uptake through intact
fuel particle coatings is not plausible, and that all alpha particles emitted by radioactive decay of the plutonium-
238 dioxide fuel cannot traverse the fuel particle coatings (Hoover, 1998). Therefore, no harmful radiobiological
effects can occur as long as the fuel particle coatings remain intact--even if coated fuel particles were accidentally
released or dispersed in the biosphere and some were ingested. That is, intact coated fuel particles, if ingested,
would simply pass through the body as innocuous graphite particles, that would be excreted without any
radiobiological effects whatsoever (Hoover, 1998).

For future RPSs and RHUs, it is envisioned that the coated fuel particles will be uniformly loaded, dispersed, and
bound within a high temperature matrix material of either graphite or a graphite composite. A portion of a generic
coated particle fuel form is depicted in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4. Schematic of a portion of a generic coated particle fuel form, showing 2 sizes of
coated fuel particles embedded within a graphite or graphite composite matrix.
The important design constraint here is that the matrix material be mechanically weaker than the fuel particle
coatings. This will help to assure that any fuel form fractures that might occur (e.g., during or as a result of an
accident) will preferentially result in breakup of the fuel form matrix material without severely threatening the
coatings and their fuel containment integrity.

Using such a basic dispersion fuel form construction approach, i.e., involving a matrix material loaded with coated
fuel particles, provides almost limitless fuel form and heat source size/shape design flexibility. In fact, it might
even make the production of heat paint or heat tape practicable. Moreover, when the matrix material is graphite or
a graphite composite, it guarantees compatibility and integrity with the required graphite composite reentry
aeroshell that must surround the fuel form when designing the heat source for an RPS or RHU. Also, because
there is no longer any refractory alloy cladding in the design, a significant mass and volume savings can be
achieved for future RPSs and RHUs. An estimated savings in the range of ~25-35% is potentially achievable--
without jeopardizing the system's launch or reentry accident containment integrity. Moreover, a broader
temperature range would be available, for accommodating a broader spectrum of available energy conversion
technologies, if the metal cladding materials could be eliminated using coated particle fuel.

Therefore, coated particle fuel offers great promise for improving specific mass and volume, enhancing safety,
adding design flexibility, assuring materials compatibility, and improving the performance of future RPSs and
RHUs. A summary of the benefits and supporting attributes of coated particle fuel for RPSs and RHUs follows:
1. Improved Design Flexibility
 Coated particles can be dispersed/loaded within graphite or graphite composite matrix, which can be
formed into virtually any shape desired.
 Can vary coated particle fuel (Pu 238C versus Pu238O2), kernel size, and use more than one coated
particle size to meet different thermal powers and power densities.
2. Improved Performance
 Graphite coatings, aeroshell, and matrix materials have extremely high temperature capability and
assured compatibility.
 Temperature constraints are effectively removed.
 Metal cladding can be eliminated
 Graphitic insulator materials can be removed.
 Mass and volume can be reduced, leading to more compact RPSs and RHUs.
  Operational temperature range is increased, permitting the use of a broader spectrum of energy
conversion technologies.
3. Improved Specific Mass and Volume
 Metal cladding can be eliminated.
 Graphitic insulator materials can be removed.
 Mass and volume of fuel form and aeroshell can be reduced; ~25%-35% savings are possible.
 Packing fraction can be increased by using more than one size of coated particles.
 Fuel loading and power density can be increased by going from Pu 238O2 to Pu238C.
4. Enhanced Safety
 Multilayer coatings provide several containment barriers for plutonium; with no venting required.
 Additional barriers provided by matrix material and surrounding aeroshell.
 Rugged, high-temperature coatings/barriers protect against plutonium release and isolate plutonium
from the biosphere.
 No adverse radiobiological impacts are plausible--to flora or fauna--for intact coated fuel particles.
 Particles are non-respirable & non-inhalable (i.e., particles always > 300m and >> 10m).
 Ingestion of intact coated fuel particles would simply result in their excretion, with no
radiobiological effects (i.e., alpha particles from decay of plutonium-238 cannot penetrate
coatings and biological uptake of plutonium is not plausible with coatings).

There is every reason to believe that these benefits can be demonstrated with a modest analytical and verification
test effort. That effort is addressed below.

REQUIRED FURTHER STUDY

Coated fuel particle and fuel form design and design optimization, followed by very focused analysis and selective
testing, are required to verify and quantify the benefits of coated particle fuel for future RPSs and RHUs.
Although coated particle fuel offers a tremendous advantage in design flexibility, design and operational
requirements for the coated fuel particles and fuel forms of future RPSs and RHUs must first be established. Based
on those requirements, baseline coated fuel particle and fuel form designs for future RPSs and RHUs can be
generated and optimized. Those optimized coated fuel particles and fuel forms must then be analyzed for the full
spectrum of normal, off-normal, and accident conditions that could occur. Emphasis here should be given to
evaluating and assuring containment integrity of the fuel particle coatings. This is particularly important, at the
fuel form and heat source levels, for accidents involving severe thermal and mechanical insults, such as explosion
overpressures, projectiles, fragment and hard surface impacts, and liquid and solid propellant fires arising from
launch accidents, as well as thermal shock, aerodynamic heating, and ablation during reentry accidents.

To accomplish this, a reliable simulation and analysis model, or code, must first be obtained and validated. For
ease of use, the authors believe that any of several currently available PC-based software packages with computer
aided design (CAD), finite element analysis (FEA), computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and high resolution
graphics display capabilities would be ideally suited to the task. In order to validate the code package, it will be
necessary to model the current LWRHU and GPHS hardware, run cases for which test data are available, compare
the code results to the actual test results, and calibrate the code so that predictive code results agree with actual
test results over a wide range of test conditions. Once this is done, there is reasonable confidence that the code
will provide realistic predictions when it is used to model coated particle fuel and fuel forms for future RPS and
RHU designs. In addition, this analysis approach can provide a way to quantify the benefits actually gained from
the use of coated particle fuel. This can be accomplished by analytically inserting an optimized coated particle
fuel form into the existing GPHS and LWRHU, i.e., replacing the plutonia fuel pellet(s), metal clad(s), and
associated graphitic insulator materials with coated particle fuel, and then analyzing the system’s performance
(under normal and off-normal operational conditions) and response (under normal, off-normal, and accident
situations) to the same set of conditions characterized during the systems’ extensive hardware qualification and
safety test programs.

If the outcome of such an analysis effort supports the benefits promised by coated particle fuel for future RPSs and
RHUs, then a very selective and focused verification test effort would be justified. And, if that test effort also
yields promising results, then the production of prototypical fuel for full-scale RPS and RHU qualification and
safety testing could proceed. Thus, a phased coated particle fuel analysis, verification test, and
qualification/validation test effort is practical.

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS

Coated particle fuel offers great promise for reducing specific mass and volume, enhancing safety, adding design
flexibility, assuring materials compatibility, and improving the performance of future RPSs and RHUs. Moreover,
efforts to date indicate there is every reason to believe that these benefits can be demonstrated, with a modest,
phased analytical and verification test effort. Thus, developmental risk appears minimal, while the potential
benefits are substantial. If coated particle fuel is pursued and ultimately developed successfully, it could
revolutionize the design and space use of future RPSs and RHUs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and encouragement they have received from their respective
organizations. Special thanks are due Dr. Nestor Ortiz, of Sandia National Laboratories, for his continued interest
in advancing this concept for development and space application. The authors also thank Mr. Tim George, of Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Mark D. Hoover, of Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, and Dr. Gary L.
Bennett, of Metaspace Enterprises, for their comments and suggestions--all of which served to improve this paper.

REFERENCES
ASM, Metals Handbook, ”Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose Materials,“ Volume 2, ASM
International, The Materials Information Society, Materials Park, OH, 1990.
Bennett, G. L., Lombardo, J. J., and Rock, B. J., “Development and Use of Nuclear Power Sources for Space Applications,”
Astronautical Sciences 29, No. 4, 321-342 (1981).
Bennett, G. L., Hemler, R. J., and Schock, A., “Space Nuclear Power: An Overview,” Propulsion and Power 12, No. 5, 901-
910 (1996).
Bennett, G.L., Metaspace Enterprises, Emmett, ID, personal communication, 18 September 1998.
Chernikov, A. S., “HTGR Fuels and Fuel Elements,” Energy 16, 295-308 (1991).
Corliss, W. D. and Harvey, D. G., Radioisotopic Power Generation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.
Deryugin, A. I., et al., “Behavior of HTGR Coated Fuel Particles and Elements in Tests Under Normal and Accident
Conditions,” Atomic Energy 73, No, 3, 709-715, (1992).
Dobranich, D. and El-Genk, M.S., “Thermal Stress Analysis of the Multilayered Fuel Particles of a Particle Bed Reactor,”
Nuclear Technology 94, 372 (1991).
Fukuda, K., et al., “Irradiation Behavior of HTGR Coated Particle Fuel at Abnormally High Temperature,” Nuclear
Engineering and Design 157, No. 1-2, 221-230 (1995).
Fukuda, K., et al., “Research & Development of HTGR Coated Particle Fuel,” Nuclear Science & Technology 28, No. 6, 570-
581 (1991).
George, T., Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, personal communications, 16 & 23 September and 5 October
1998.
Gunn, S. V., “Development of Nuclear Rocket Engine Technology,” in Proceedings of the 25th Joint Propulsion Conference,
Monterey, CA, 10-12 July 1989, Paper# 89-2386, AIAA, 1989.
Hogerton, J.F., The Atomic Energy Deskbook, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, 1963.
Homan, F. J. et al., “Particle Fuels Technology for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion,” in Proceedings of the Joint Conference on
Advanced Space Exploration Initiative Technologies, Cleveland, OH, 4-6 September 1991, Paper# 91-3457, AIAA, 1991.
Hoover, M.D., Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory, Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM, personal
communication, 2 October 1998.
Johnson, E.W., “Light Weight Radioisotope Heater Unit (LWRHU) Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the Cassini
Mission,” EG&G Mound Applied Technologies Report MLM-3826, UC-713, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy,
Germantown, MD under Contract DE-AC04-88-DP43495, February 1997.
Koenig, D. R., “Experience Gained from the Space Nuclear Rocket Program (ROVER),” Los Alamos National Laboratory
Report LA-10062-H, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 1986.
Lange, R. G. and Mastal, E. F., “A Tutorial Review of Radioisotope Power Systems,” in A Critical Review of Space Nuclear
Power and Propulsion 1984-1993, edited by M. S. El-Genk, New York, NY, AIP Press, 1994, pp. 1-20.
LMMS (1996/1997), “GPHS-RTGs Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) in Support of the Cassini Mission,“ Lockheed
Martin Missiles & Space (LMMS), Valley Forge Operations Report, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy,
Germantown, MD, under Contract DE-AC03-91SF18852, CDRL C.3, 1996-1997.
Mathews, R. B., et al., “Carbide Fuels for Nuclear Thermal Propulsion,” in Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Advanced
Space Exploration Initiative Technologies, Cleveland, OH, 4-6 September 1991, Paper# 91-3455, AIAA, 1991.
McCulloch, W.H., et al., “Power Systems SubPanel (PSSP) Evaluation of NASA’s Mars Pathfinder Mission,” PSSP Report
prepared for the Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP), Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, May
1996.
McCulloch, W.H., et al., “Power Systems SubPanel (PSSP) Report to the Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel (INSRP)
for the NASA Cassini Space Mission,” August 1997, in “Supporting Technical Studies Prepared for the Cassini Mission
Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel Safety Evaluation Report,” INSRP, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Washington, DC, October 1997.
Schock, A., “Design, Evolution and Verification of the ‘General-Purpose Heat Source’,” in Proceedings of the 15th
Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Seattle, WA, 18-20 August 1980, Paper# 809203, AIAA, 1980,
pp. 1032-1043.
Schock, A., “Light-Weight Radioisotope Heater Unit,” in Proceedings of the 16th Intersociety Energy Conversion
Engineering Conference, Atlanta, GA, 9-14 August 1981, Paper# 819175, AIAA, 1981, pp. 343-354.
Sholtis, J. A., Jr., et al., “U.S. Space Nuclear Safety: Past, Present, and Future,” in A Critical Review of Space Nuclear Power
and Propulsion 1984-1993, edited by M. S. El-Genk, New York, NY, AIP Press, 1994, pp. 269-303.
Stansfield, O. M., et al., “Interaction of Fission Products and SiC in TRISO Fuel Particles: A Limiting HTGR Design
Parameter,” General Atomics Report GA-A17183-116-77, General Atomics, San Diego, CA, September 1983.
Stansfield, O. M., “Evolution of HTGR Coated Particle Fuel Design,” Energy 16, No. 1-2, 33-45, (1991).
Tate, R. E., “The Light Weight Radioisotope Heater Unit (LWRHU): A Technical Description of the Reference Design,” Los
Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-9078-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, 1982.