Date post: | 06-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nikola-jaksic |
View: | 236 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 13
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
1/13
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
2/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
technically challenge to design a thermal insulation for a device with central
temperatures in the range of 100 mill. K (plasma column centre) and 4 K
(superconducting coil) with a distance of about 0.6m (Fig. 2). By reason of thesmall distance between the structural elements (< 10 mm) with a temperature
difference of about 300 K, it is important to avoid a contact between the
elements during operation. A contact of structural elements with different
temperatures causes high cryogenic losses and could initiate a so called quench
(loss of the superconducting properties) of the superconducting coils.
Therefore, it is necessary to predict the element position during operation as
precise as possible.
The behaviour of such a complex structure can be reliable predicted by means
of extensive finite element (FE) analyses only. The principal aim of structural
analysis is to create a global model of the experimental device and additionallya majority of sub-models for each system and critical components. The global
model has been extensively used for mechanical and thermal analyses [2].
These analyses have shown, that the structure reacts highly sensitive onto
changes of initial contact gap widths, contact friction factor and other
parameters like bolt pretension, general coil stiffness definition, etc.. The main
reasons for the high sensitivity of the structure are multiple internal
geometrical nonlinearities.
As a consequence, it has been decided to perform a benchmark analysis with an
entirely independent FE model with the aim to increase the confidence on the
analysis results. The benchmark analysis procedure is the main subject of thispaper.
1: Introduction
The plasma fusion research is focused world wide on two different types of
experimental devices tokamak and stellarator with different principles of
plasma confinement. The world's largest plasma fusion experimental device of
the stellarator type, called Wendelstein-7X (W7-X) (Fig. 1), is presently being
built at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plasmaphysics (IPP). The aim of the
experiment is to prove the reactor validity of the stellarator research line in
addition to the tokamak research line. The inherent property of the stellarators
is a true steady state operation which is of major interest for fusion reactors.
The superconducting magnet system with the support structure represents the
core of the device and will be the main subject. The important characteristic of
the magnet geometry is the five-fold symmetry and the modularity of the coil
arrangement system (Fig. 4). The coil system consists of 50 module field coils
(MF) and 20 ancillary field coils (AF). Due to symmetry conditions within a
module, there exist five MF and two AF coils types only. The coils are
arranged toroidally inside a cryostat which has an average large diameter of
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
3/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
11m. The MF coils are wound with 6, the AF coils with 3 double layers of a
cable in conduit conductor, which is cooled by forced flow supercritical helium
at a temperature of approximately 4 K.
Figure 1: Assembly of the fusion experimental device W7-X, a birds eye view
Figure 2: Cross-
Section
through
the
experimental device,0
0=
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
4/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
Figure 3: Assembly of a superconducting magnet coil W7-X
The cable is build by 243 NbiTi/Cu strands which are enclosed by an
aluminium alloy jacket (16 x 16 mm), shown in Figure 3. The winding pack by
itself is not strong enough to withstand the high electromagnetic forces [4].Therefore, individually adapted coil housings (e.g. the cast steel 1.3960) with
sufficient cross section have to be designed to encapsulate the windings and to
support the remaining integral forces. The embedding of a quartz sand-armed
resin guarantees a gap-less transmission of the electromagnetic forces of the
superconducting strands through the conductor jackets via the basic insulation
to the coil housing. The considerable residual forces of the modules have to be
balanced: First by a central support ring, secondly by lateral support elements
between the coils and thirdly by additional lateral pads near the inside
circumference of the coil set. The main features of the superconducting coil
system are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: W7-X - coil system parameters
Number of module field coils (MF) 50
Number of ancillary coils (AF) 20
Main radius of module field coils 1.5 m
Min. distance plasma-coil 0.3 m
Max. Current in the conductor 18.2 kA
Max. Magnetic induction on axis 3.0 T
Max. Magnetic induction at the coil 6.7 T
Max. Stored magnetic field energy 0.62 GJ
Time for discharge of magnetic energy 5 s
Max. Force on a coil 3.76 MN
2: Description of the FE-Model
2.1: General
The FE-model is reduced to 1/10th of the whole system by the introduction of
special boundary conditions and consists of 5 MF and 2 AF coils (Fig. 5). This
is possible because the original geometry as well as loading of the structure
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
5/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
obey specific symmetry properties. The derivation of the special symmetry
definition is described detailed in [1]. Neglecting the influence of gravity, a 36
sector model can be built using these boundary conditions. Considering thegravity, an extension to a 72 sector model has to be realized.
Figure 4: Coil arrangement of fusion experimental device with axes of symmetry
2.2: FE-Model Preparation
The FE-Model for the benchmark analysis has been done very carefully -
taking into account all essential physically and geometrically features of the
structure as accurate as possible keeping in mind the global model size. Here
some examples:
Modelling of geometrical nonlinearities contact surfaces
Modelling of structural junction elements bolts, weld seams
Modelling of special shaped contact surfaces spherical
interface boundary surface
Taking into account different material and frictional properties
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
6/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
Figure 5: FE-Model of fusion experimental device top view
Figure 6: Suspension of the coil casing 1 on the support ring side view to the coil
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
7/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
Figure 7: Discretization of the coil cross-section a.) MF-coil and b.) AF-coil
Figure 8: Narrow Support Element Figure 9: Central Support Extension
(Cross-Section) (Cross-Section)
Table 2: FE-Model main parameters
Node number 368369
Element number 340000
Number of contact surfaces pairs 11
Number of contact surfaces 104
Number of contact segments 100000
The general principle of the coil support structure (Fig. 5) is: Each particular
coil housing is fully separated from each other and has to carry the primary
load caused by electromagnetic forces due to the current of the coils within the
magnetic field. The toroidal arrangement of the MF coil housing is fixed to the
central support ring with special joints, called central support elements (CSE),
at two locations (Fig. 6) only. Additionally, a mutual support between adjacent
coil housings is realized by intermediate joints which are manly loaded by
compressive loads. These intermediate joints (located at different positions at
the circumference of the coils) are operating with different functions: At the
regions of small distances between the coils (internal segment of the coil
a.) b.)
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
8/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
housing), the intermediate joints, realized by contact elements, are balancing
the forces between two adjacent coils.
These intermediate joints, so called narrow support element (NSE), (Fig. 8)have an essential effect on the lateral stiffening of the structure. Other
intermediate joints, so called lateral support element (LSE), are responsible for
the stabilization of the equilibrium of the coil arrangement in lateral direction.
The housings of the AF coils are fixed to the central support ring at two
locations in a similar way like MF coils. Additionally, these AF coils are fixed
laterally at both sides. This fixation is realized using the contact surface
capability so that the radial displacement (viewed in local coordinate system of
the coil) is performed without constraints. The counter part of the lateral
fixation, called planar support elements (PSE), is constrained to the housings of
the MF coils. Additional contact elements (CE) positioned at the top and
bottom side of the coils in the half module symmetry surface increase the
lateral stiffness of the coil arrangement additionally. The coil housing
connection of the both MF and AF coils to the support ring (via CSE) has been
realized using a bolted connection (Fig 9). Due to the geometrical
requirements, the CSE consist of 2 separated parts, one belongs to the coil
housing and the other one to the support ring. This involves some additional
investigations of the connecting elements.
3: Benchmark analysis results
The ADINA [5, 6] code has been used for the present benchmark analysiswhereas the ANSYS [7] code has been used for the long-term analysis. The
most important differences in the model definition are summarized in table 3.
Table 3: Main models definition differences
ANSYS ADINA
General Mesh Definition
inside of Solids MeshContinuity
Discontinuous Continuous
NSE Geometry Definition Approximately CAD-Model complying
Bolt and Pin Distribution
(Planar Coils)Approximately CAD-Model complying
Solution Contact Algorithm Penalty Method Constraint Function
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
9/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
Model Mesh Size Totally 360000 Elements 340000 Elements
Because of the necessity to make the results of both models comparable, the
general boundary conditions for bothFE-Models have been mutually agreed.Correspondingly, the so called Low-Iota load case has been applied to the
36 model, conditions like cool down and gravitational forces are neglected.
A first information of the behaviour of the structure for a particular boundary
conditions case is given by the result of the displacements (Fig. 10).
Figure 10: Displacement Magnitude of ADINA Model Top View
The comparison of the displacements given by the ANSYS code shows
similar values. Nearly the same displacement pattern could be found withinthe whole structure in both cases. The maximum displacement (limited on a
small quite sensitive area) amounts by the ADINA model 18.66 mm and by
the ANSYS model 16.5 mm.
The next step in the benchmark analysis belongs to the comparison of the
cross-sectional forces and moments for the most stressed structural
elements like CSE and LSE. By reason of comparison, the cutting surface
for the evaluation of the cross-sectional loads has been exactly predefined.
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
10/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
The notation in the table 4 e.g. NPC1Z1 means central support extension
at coil 1 upper and NPC1Z2 means central support extension at coil 1
lower, etc..
Table 4: Cross-Sectional Forces at CSE
ANSYS ADINA ANSYS ADINA ANSYS ADINA
CSEFx Fx dev Fy Fy dev Fz Fz Dev
MN MN % MN MN % MN MN %
NPC1Z1 0,714 0,714 0,0% 0,259 0,177 5,9% 1,214 1,082 9,6%
NPC1Z2 -3,146 -3,317 5,2% 0,242 0,189 1,6% -0,707 -0,568 4,2%
NPC2Z1 -0,764 -0,896 9,6% -0,332 -0,431 7,2% 1,015 1,050 2,5%
NPC2Z2 -0,651 -0,605 3,7% -0,002 -0,074 5,8% -1,079 -1,073 0,5%
NPC3Z1 -1,021 -1,047 2,2% 0,186 0,080 8,7% 0,617 0,635 1,4%
NPC3Z2 -2,080 -2,088 0,3% 0,614 0,661 2,0% -0,909 -0,888 0,9%NPC4Z1 0,130 0,161 3,6% -0,036 -0,007 3,4% -0,861 -0,830 3,5%
NPC4Z2 -2,016 -2,022 0,3% 0,106 0,014 4,3% -0,746 -0,841 4,4%
NPC5Z1 0,055 0,082 3,4% -0,703 -0,754 6,3% -0,375 -0,355 2,5%NPC5Z2 1,446 1,578 8,7% -0,097 -0,106 0,6% -0,090 -0,119 1,9%
Table 5: Cross-Sectional Forces at LSE
ANSYS ADINA ANSYS ADINA ANSYS ADINA
LSEFx Fx dev Fy Fy dev Fz Fz dev
MN MN % MN MN % MN MN %
LSE1-1 0,305 0,277 2,0% 1,032 0,933 7,0% -0,983 -0,964 1,3%
LSE1-2 0,344 0,327 1,9% 0,402 0,342 7,1% 0,665 0,716 6,0%LSE2-3 0,304 0,302 0,5% 0,266 0,233 6,8% 0,277 0,294 3,5%
LSE3-4 0,080 0,095 2,1% 0,703 0,686 2,5% -0,043 -0,073 4,2%
LSE4-5 -0,886 -0,936 3,6% 1,055 1,088 2,3% 0,087 0,068 1,4%
LSE5-6 -1,058 -1,069 0,8% 1,030 1,082 3,5% 0,134 0,142 0,6%
The notation in the table 5 e.g. LSE1-1 means lateral support element
between coil type 1 and 50 and LSE1-2 means lateral support element
between coil type 1 and 2, etc..
The comparison of cross-sectional forces and moments is very important
and a very strictly criterion too, for the confidence to the results of the
benchmark analysis. The result values vary with a slightly position change
within the area of interest, the fineness and the style of the mesh might
influence the results as well. Nevertheless, the comparison of the cross-
sectional forces and moments show sufficient agreement. For the
comparison, the significant values of the results have been taken only.
Values with low contribution have been neglected by reason of relevance.
The comparison of the cross-sectional forces (Tables 4 and 5) show a total
maximum deviation of less than 10%. The maximum deviation of
correspondent cross-sectional moments has been found to be within 30%.
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
11/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
Furthermore, the contact forces at the NSEs have been compared as well.
Note, the contact property definition in the models have been done by a
different way also. Moreover, the FE models use different contact solutionalgorithms (Table 3) to solve the contact problems.Table 6: Contact Forces
ANSYS ADINA
Pads Fx Fx dev
MN MN %
50E2--> 1E2 0,692 0,624 10,2%
In spite of entirely different contact definition, the contact forces are in
good agreement as well. The example in table 6 for the contact surfaces
between the coils 1 and 50, which are representative for relevant values,shows a contact force deviation of about 10%. A maximum deviation of the
contact forces for contact surfaces with fewer relevancies has been found to
be within 30%.
Additionally to the above described benchmarking, the ADINA global
model allows an advanced analysis of all narrow support elements. Such a
detailed analysis of all NSEs was not possible in global model of the long-
term analysis. This part of the analysis has been done by means of trials for
a particular element and a particular load as a worst case analysis.
Correspondingly, the model can be used for an additional result evaluation
like contact surface pressure, contact surface area in contact, contactslipping, etc.. A confident analysis for narrow support element results is
extremely important for the reliability of the whole device since these
elements are the most stressed elements in the structure with loads at the
mechanical limit. Figures 9 and 10 show an example of contact surface
pressure and contact surface sliding for an individual narrow support
element between coil housing 1 and 50.
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
12/13
8/3/2019 Paper NAFEMS Final1
13/13
SIMULATION OF COMPLEX NON-LINEAR STRUCTURES IN
LARGE SCALE ANALYSIS
5.Bathe K. J., Finite Element Procedures, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ 07458, 1996.
6.ADINA R&D Inc., A finite element computer program for Automatic
Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis - System 8.5, 71 Elton
Avenue, Watertown, MA 02472 USA, 2001.
7.ANSYS, Engineering Analysis System, Release 10.0A1, ANSYS Inc.