Status of Systems Code

Development
Zoran Dragojlovic, Rene Raffray,
Charles E. Kessel


ARIES Meeting in Atlanta, GA,
December 2007
Overview of Most Recent Updates
TF Coil
Structural support of the TF coil was
thoroughly examined. New models
for estimating the casing thickness
were developed and compared to
previously suggested solution.
Bucking Cylinder
Supports the TF Coil in radial
direction. Has simple geometry.
Thickness estimated based on hoop
stress, as suggested by L.
Bromberg.
Central Solenoid and PF Coils
PF coil locations, currents and their
corresponding thicknesses are
based on an algorithm from Chuck
Kessel.
Material composition and relevant
volumetric fractions are given by
Leslie Bromberg.
Currently, we are using a simple
distribution of coils on top and
bottom, as shown in the figure.
Thickness of the PF casing is
determined by hoop stress.
PF Coils
TF Coil
Central
Solenoid
Bucking Cylinder
Topic 1: Structural Support of PF
Coil
Equations for TF coil structural support suggested by Leslie
Bromberg at a previous meeting (General Atomics, June 2007) were
examined due to his own assertion that the cross sectional thickness
of the casing was too low.
We determined that these equations were consistent with a picture
frame model of the TF coil. In this model, the coil is envisioned as a
frame-like composition of straight beams that are subjected to
bending and compression due to an approximated effective
magnetic force acting on top and bottom of the coil.
The only discrepancy between the equations mentioned above and the
picture frame model is that the top thickness defined by the equations
is exactly 4 times smaller than the one predicted by the model.
We explored more realistic variants of the same model and came up
with several alternatives to the original equations, which all provide
a considerably thicker cross section of the magnet structure. These
alternatives and the final choice of the structural support model will
be discussed in the following slides.
Previously Suggested Equations To
Determine Coil Casing Thickness
Prior to examining these equations, we knew only that they were
based on simple bending of a beam and what the inputs and outputs
output were.
Searching the literature for exactly the same expressions yielded no
result, so we decided to try reverse engineering and recreate the
model that these equations can be derived from.
o
T
R B
A
2
2 2
=
( )
1 2 1
1 2
1
2
2
1
ln
R R R
R R
R
R
R
A s

+
|
.
|

\
|
=
( )
1 2 2
1
2
1 1 2
2
ln
R R R
R
R
R R R
A s

|
.
|

\
|

=
m
s
t
o
1
1
=
5 . 1
2
2
=
m
s
t
o
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
1
2
2
2 2
2
1 1
3
ln
R
R
A
R s R s
R
( )
3
3 2 2 2
8
3
R
R R R s
a
b
o

=
inner leg thickness outer leg thickness top/bottom thickness
R
1
inner radius of TF coil
R
2
outer radius of TF coil
Picture Frame Model
This model was suggested in P.H. Titus, Structural Design of High
Field Tokamaks, PSFC/JA-03-9 and consists of four straight beams
connected into a frame.
The force distribution along the beams is shown on the right, based
on R. W. Moses, Jr. and W. C. Young: Analytic Expressions of
Magnetic Forces on Sectored Toroidal Coils, UWFDM-143, 1975.
1
R
2
R
r
z
r
z
N
B R
I
0
0 0
2

t
=
N r
B R
N
B R B R
r
N
B R
r
N
r
NI
f
l
0
2
0
2
0
0
0 0 0 0
2
0
0 0 0
2
0
1
1
2
4 4

t

t
t

=
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
= =
Force per unit length.
Current:
N
B R
C
f
0
2
0
2
0

t
=
r
C
f
f
l
=
l
f
Top of The Picture Frame Was Initially Approximated as
A Simply-Supported Beam Bending Under Effective
Magnetic Force
Total magnetic load acting the beam was replaced by a single force.
End reactions S
1
and S
2
were derived from a free body diagram.
The maximum deflection corresponds to the location of the single
magnetic force.
1
S
2
S
F
M
bending moment
|
|
.
|

\
|
= = =
} }
1
2
ln
2
1
2
1
R
R
C dr
r
C
dr f F
f
R
R
f
R
R
l
Total force acting on the beam:
( )
1 2
2
1
2
1
R R C rdr
r
C
rdr f M
f
R
R
f
R
R
l
= = =
} }
Total bending moment:
Location of the maximum deflection:
|
|
.
|

\
|

= =
=
1
2
1 2
ln
R
R
R R
F
M
R
M FR
c
c
Solution is Identical to Previously Suggested
Equations, With A Single Exception
We got exactly the same equations, except for the top beam, which
is thicker by a factor of 4 than the one originally suggested by Leslie.
To date we do not know where this difference comes from.
( )
1 2
1 2
1
2
2
1 2
2
1
ln
R R
R R
R
R
R
C
R R
R R F
S
f
c

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
=

=
1 2
1
2
1 1 2
1 2
ln
R R
R
R
R R R
C S F S
f

|
|
.
|

\
|

= =
End Reactions:
( )
( )
1 2 2
1
2
1 1 2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
1 2 1
1 2
1
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
1
1
1
ln
2
2
ln
2
2
R R R
R
R
R R R
B R
N
R
S
s
R R R
R R
R
R
R
B R
N
R
S
s

|
|
.
|

\
|

= =

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
= =

t
End Reactions per unit perimeter length:
Exact match
with
previously
suggested
values is
obtained !
3
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2 2
2
1 1 2 2 1 1
ln
2
R
R
R B R
R s R s
F
R S R S
R
c
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
+
=

Location of the maximum deflection:

Exact
match!
( )
max 3
3 2 2 2
6
o R
R R R s
a

=
Beam thickness at location of
max. deflection Previous
equations
use 3/8
instead of 6.
Improvements of the Picture
Frame Model
In order to obtain a more realistic solution and
explain the discrepancy related to the
thickness of the top coil, we made several
improvements to the Picture Frame model,
including
1. Replacing the single magnetic force by a continuous
load.
2. Replacing the simply-supported beams by the fixed-
end beams. This results in a less flexible frame,
which is closer to the actual TF coil.
3. Taking the hoop stress into account, in addition to
bending.

Table of Cases Considered

Case
Bending of Top Beam
Hoop Stress
End-Support Type Load from
Magnetic Force
a none
b none
c none
d none
e none
f none
g no bending no bending
h
Note: all the cases assume annular cross
section: rectangular casing with coils inside.
coils
Bending Moments For Different Loading and
End-Support Cases
In both beam configurations, replacing the single force with the actual hyperbolic load
yields a reduction of bending moment by a factor of 2.
Case with four different forces is obtained for verification purposes and is very close
to the actual continuous load.
Fixed-end beam has a lower, better distributed moment along the beam. It predicts
that the maximum bending occurs at the upper and lower left curvature of the coil,
which is realistic.
simply-supported beam
fixed-end beam
max.
bending
moment
max.
bending
moment
beam
Casing Thicknesses Predicted by Models Considered
close to ARIES-AT (14 cm)
The thicknesses are obtained on a range of plasma
major radii from 5.1 to 6.9 meters and a fixed B
T
of
5.5 T.
The most realistic case of bending is the fixed-end
beam with continuous load.
The original equations applied to the data point close
to ARIES-AT produce a casing thickness of 15 cm,
which is close to the 14 cm used in the ARIES-AT.
The most realistic case was derived assuming that
both hoop stress and bending stress coexist curve
(3) in the figure.
MPa 600
max
= o
MPa 965
max
= o
(ARIES-AT
value)
(Stainless Steel SS316)
TF Coils Estimated by Using Different Structural
Models, Compared to the ARIES-AT
Case with o
max
= 965 MPa and both hoop stress and bending included is the best
candidate for the systems code. The coil is thicker but not very far from the ARIES-AT.
(0) original
equations
(3) hoop stress
+ bending
ARIES-AT
MPa 600
max
= o
MPa 965
max
= o
Further Improvements of the Model
In order to take into account the effect of
the TF coil curvature, we considered the
following improvements:
Scaling of the straight beam to achieve the
same maximum stress as in the equivalent
arched beam. Two examples are shown in the
following slides.
Solving for the bending moment on a half a
circle, which is closest to the D-shaped coil.
This would be the most accurate treatment
and may require some numerical integration.
Example 1: A cantilever beam with uniform load was scaled to
achieve the same maximum stress as in the similar arched beam.
L
q
q
( )
2
2
L x
q
M =
x
u
2
2
2
*
1
3
|
.
|

\
|
= =
L
x
bh
qL
b
b
o
o
( ) u cos 1
2
= qL M
L
( ) ( )
|
.
|

\
|

+ =
|
.
|

\
|

+ =
h
x L
L
h
h
x L
bh
qL
bh
qL
b
6
1
3
1 . 1 6
1
3
1 . 1
2
2
*
o
h - beam thickness
Arched Beam
Straight Beam
Correction Factors
Ratio of maximum moments:
2
max
max
= =
straight
arched
M
M
M
r
Ratio of maximum stresses:
29 . 2
max
max
= =
straight
arched
r
o
o
o
To achieve the same stress as in the arched beam, the straight beam uniform load q needs
to be multiplied by 2.29 or the length L multiplied by sqrt(2.29).
Example 2: Scaling of a fixed-end beam.
L
q
q
x
u
L
h - beam thickness
Arched Beam
Straight Beam
Correction Factors
Ratio of maximum moments:
64 . 1
max
max
= =
straight
arched
M
M
M
r
Ratio of maximum stresses:
35 . 2
max
max
= =
straight
arched
r
o
o
o
The scaling ratio for the fixed-end beam is very close to the cantilever beam, however we
expect this number to be much smaller when the uniform load is replaced by the hyperbolic
one. Solving the actual bending of the arched coil is the best option.
2 2 12
2 2
qx
x
qL qL
M + =
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ = =
2
2
2
*
6
1
3 L
x
L
x
bh
qL
b
b
o
o
|
.
|

\
|
= u u
t
sin cos
4
2
2
qR
M
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
u u
t
u u
t
o
sin cos
4
3
3
1 . 1
sin cos
4 3
1
3
1 . 1
2
2
*
L
h
h
L
bh
qL
bh
qL
b
TF Coil Structural Support Summary
and Future Plans
We tested the previously suggested equations for TF coil
casing thickness by adopting a simple picture frame
model and comparing several different variants of this
model between each other and against the results
obtained by the original equations. A simple hoop stress
model was added to the analysis, as well.
The comparison indicates that the original equations
indeed provide a casing that is thin, judged by
comparison with the case that takes into account hoop
stress only. A model of coil that includes a combination
of hoop stress and bending was considered instead. It
predicts a casing that is comparable to the one used in
ARIES-AT provided that the same maximum stress in
the material was used.
We are planning to improve our model by taking into
account the actual coil shape and test it by finite element
method.
Topic 2: Addition of Central Solenoid and
PF Coil Algorithm

Outline of the algorithm:
1. Determine the PF coil currents at given q
95
and scale to
plasma current.
2. Calculate the flux swing required to ramp up to I
p
.
3. Calculate the forward and back bias coil currents.
4. Determine the maximum current in each PF coil.
5. Calculate the coil thickness based on the superconductor
current density j
SC
.
Assumed the maximum allowed magnetic field in coil to be
18T.
Calculated the area fractions of different components based
on Leslie Brombergs recommendations for PF coil.
6. Define the end-point of PF coil distribution to allow room
for the maintenance port and pumping duct.
7. If the PF coils are too thick to allow for the maintenance
port and pumping duct, reject the data point.
8. Generate the contours of the PF coils.
9. Calculate the volume for the costing analysis.

Comparison Between New Geometry and ARIES-AT
Data point 788: B
T
= 6T, R = 5.1 m.
ARIES-AT: B
T
= 5.856T, R = 5.2 m.
The biggest difference between the two configurations is in the number and sizes of
the PF coils.
ARIES-AT: 22 coils total, excluding the maintenance coils.
New configuration: 36 coils total.
New Geometry, Data Point 788 ARIES-AT
Elimination of Operating Data Points
Based on Power Core Design
The Systems Code is programmed to eliminate any data
point that doesnt allow a reasonable configuration and
function of the power core.
Current criteria for elimination:
Central Solenoid or Bucking Cylinder: inner radius less than
zero. All data points pass.
TF Coil: B
Tmax
out of range defined by the superconductor
material properties. Rejected 7 points.
PF Coil: Maximum magnetic field at the PF coil greater than 18T,
rejected 21 points.
PF Coil: Coil size too big to allow room for the maintenance port
and pumping duct. rejected 12 points.
Total rejected: 40 data points.
Impact of Recent Upgrades of Engineering Algorithms on
Cost of Electricity
The algorithm before the upgrades of the TF and PF coils is considered as basis.
For a small range of data points with BT = 5.5 T and 5 m < R < 7 m, the impact of
different stages of upgrade on the cost of electricity was evaluated by comparison
against the basis.
The data show that the magnets did not change their cost significantly after the
upgrade, therefore there is no impact on the cost of electricity.
There is a large difference between the costs of YBCO to Nb3Sn, therefore switching
from the former type of magnet to the latter would have a significant impact on the
COE.

60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Plasma Major Radius
C
o
s
t

o
f

E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

[
m
i
l
l
/
k
W
h
e
]
Basis
TF Coil Upgraded
PF Coil Upgraded
Nb3Sn instead of
YBCO
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Plasma Major Radius
C
o
s
t

o
f

M
a
g
n
e
t
s

[
M
$

(
1
9
9
2
)
]
Conclusions and Future Work
Even though the recent engineering upgrades do not
make a significant impact on the cost of electricity, they
were made in an effort to have valid engineering and
physics in the code.
We recommend an additional level of refinement in the model of
TF coil structure by taking the coil curvature into account and by
including the out of plane loads. However, costing analysis can
be done independently of this work since small changes in the
casing thickness do not impact the cost.
Number and size of PF coils seems very different from the
ARIES-AT. Is this reasonable?
Les Waganer has recently completed the power core
costing algorithm and rearranged the overall costing
accounts into more logical units. The impact of his work
on the systems code will be addressed at the next
meeting.