Fusion Engineering and Design 135 (2018) 165–173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fusion Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fusengdes

Calculation of magnetic field from steel rebar of building with machine T

producing high stray field
⁎
V. Amoskova, , A. Bazarova, V. Belyakova,b, E. Gapionoka, Y. Gribovc, M. Kaparkovaa, V. Kukhtina,
E. Lamzina, B. Lyublina, D. Ovsyannikovb, S. Sytchevskya,b
a
JSC "NIIEFA", Doroga na Metallostroy 3, St. Petersburg, 196641, Russia
b
St.Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, 199034, Russia
c
ITER Organization, Route de Vinon sur Verdon, CS 90 046, 13067 St. Paul Lez Durance Cedex, France

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Numerical verification is presented for modelling the magnetic effect of concrete structures reinforced with steel
ITER rebar. The model is based on the filling factor concept and takes into account magnetic anisotropy associated
Magnetic field with the rebar pattern. Test problems are solved that prove applicability of the model in case of nonlinear
Simulation properties of the reinforcement steel. A nonuniform field distribution is studied for a reinforced structure with an
Steel rebar
internal field source. Accuracy of simulated field maps with high gradients near ends of modelled structures has
Nonlinear properties
been assessed. The model has been verified in comparative computations with the use of other models. As an
Magnetic anisotropy
example, the proposed approach has been applied to a simplified magnetic model of the ITER tokamak complex.
Then fields perturbations associated with the tokamak building structures have been evaluated for the gas
breakdown at plasma initiation.

1. Introduction method to generalized conditions. They are: (i) nonlinear magnetic

properties of the reinforcement, (ii) non-uniform external field, (iii)
An efficient computational method has been proposed [1] for assess- complex geometry of reinforced slabs, (iv) multi-layered models. The
ment of field perturbations associated with concrete structures reinforced conditions (i) and (iv) are investigated using the same test problem of a
with steel rebar and, therefore, magnetized by machines with high stray reinforced slab in the uniform external field as in [1]. The conditions
magnetic field. The method utilizes a modified isotropic model that allows (ii) and (iii) are tested regarding the shielding effect of a hollow re-
for the percentage of steel and rebar pattern thus imitating the anisotropic inforced cube with a field source in its center.
effects. Such model offers much more realistic predictions with better Similar to the study [1], a comparison is made for the results ob-
accuracy and reduced computational cost as compared to the isotropic tained with 3 models, shown in Fig. 1 (sketch of cross-sections) and
model with a homogeneous reinforcement equivalent. Fig. 2 (3D finite element models):
The reinforced concrete structure of a building is modelled via al-
ternating planar isotropic layers of magnetic and nonmagnetic mate- 1) a detailed 3D model with realistic description of the shape, position,
rials. In the extreme case, the model is limited to a single isotropic and properties of every steel bar (Figs. 1a, 2a);
layer. Geometry and effective properties of every layer are pre- 2) an isotropic model in which the steel lattice is replaced by an
determined in detailed 3D field simulations over a periodicity cell of the equivalent homogeneous isotropic material with the filling factor
modelled lattice. determined as described in [2] (Figs. 1b, 2b);
The calculation technique was described in [1]. The method was ex- 3) a modified (layered) isotropic model with alternating layers of
amined for the conditions of (i) constant permeability of steel bars, (ii) homogeneous isotropic materials [1] (Figs. 1c–e, 2c).
uniform external field, (iii) rectangular reinforced slab, (iv) single layer
approximation. The layered model was verified in a comparison with the Test field simulations have been carried out with the use of the code
detailed model describing every bar of the lattice in a realistic way. KOMPOT [3,4] using the T-Ω method [5] in terms of the scalar magnetic
This paper is focused on applicability of the proposed computational potential.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Amoskov).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2018.07.026
Received 1 March 2018; Received in revised form 27 July 2018; Accepted 31 July 2018
0920-3796/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
V. Amoskov et al. Fusion Engineering and Design 135 (2018) 165–173

Fig. 1. Schematic view of computation models

of reinforced slab: detailed 3D model with
rebar (a), isotropic model (b), one-layered (c)
and two-layered (d,e) models. Non-magnetic
material is gray, magnetic material is more
dark (blue) (For interpretation of the refer-
ences to colour in this figure legend, the reader
is referred to the web version of this article).

Fig. 2. Structure 1: (a) detailed 3D model of reinforced slab, (b) isotropic model, (c) one-layered model.

In general, the field strength H at a point can be divided into two the layered model depend on μ very weakly. These parameters are [1]:
parts – H0 due to the source currents in free space and Hm due to iron the effective filling factor k1 for a magnetic layer with steel, defined as
magnetization. The T-Ω method [3] allows mathematical formulation the ratio of the effective susceptibility of the magnetic layer to the
of the magnetostatic problem in terms of the scalar potential Ω de- actual steel susceptibility, and the geometrical filling factor k2 for a
termined by the equation Hm = −grad Ω at the known field H0 given structure with magnetic layers, such that the product of k2 and the total
by Biot-Savart’s Law. In the case of a uniform external field, H0 is width of the structure gives the total width of the magnetic layers. In
simply a constant 3-component vector at any point. this case, they can be used as pre-determined parameters for the entire
Practical results are presented for field perturbations occurred in the layered model.
plasma region due to reinforced concrete structures of the ITER to- Two cases of the applied external field and comparative field si-
kamak building. The results are validated in comparative simulations mulations outside the reinforced slab with the detailed, isotropic, and
with the code KLONDIKE [4] using the layered and isotropic models for layered models are presented in Figs. 5–7.
the simplified global model of the Tokamak Complex [2]. In the external field parallel to the bars (along the axis Z), all three
models give near identical field distributions outside the slab at a dis-
tance of few bar spacings. With the external field directed normally to
2. Magnetic effect of steel rebar with nonlinear properties

The test model described in [1] has been used to verify the gen-
erality of the modelling approach. A reinforced concrete slab with
several criss-cross layers of steel bars in a uniform external field is
modelled. Non-linear properties of the steel bars are implemented via
the B–H curve [6,7] presented in Fig. 3. To assess the anisotropic effect
of the reinforcement, Structure 1 studied in [1] is considered:
Structure 1 is a 0.6 × 4 × 4 m reinforced slab with the steel volu-
metric filling factor k = 8%. Structure 1 is described in a Carthesian
coordinate system with its origin in the slab geometrical center and axes
parallel to the slab ends. Every two layers of steel bars are placed in the
YZ plane so that the bars in one layer are parallel to the axis Y while the
bars in another layer are parallel to the axis Z. The spacing between
bars in a layer is 0.1 m. The axis X is directed normally to the bars along
the short side. A uniform external field is taken equal to 100 G. Two
cases of the external field orientation are considered: parallel and
normal to the bar layers.
Fig. 2 illustrates the detailed model for Structure 1. The field and
relative permeability inside of two steel bars located along Z axis are
shown in Fig. 4. The plots demonstrate that μ varies greatly (approxi-
mately from 300 to 2300) within a bar. Nevertheless, such variations lie Fig. 3. B(H) curve for cold rolled steel in ITER tokamak building structures
within the typical range μ > 100, where characteristic parameters of [5,6].

166
V. Amoskov et al. Fusion Engineering and Design 135 (2018) 165–173

Fig. 4. Structure 1: (a) field and (b) relative permeability inside two steel bars located along Z axis for uniform external field Bz = 100 G, μ = f(H): 1 – peripheral
vertical bar (at X ≈ 0.3 m = halfwidth of slab), 2 – middle vertical bar (at X ≈ 0, center of slab).

Fig. 5. Reinforced slab in external uniform field: (a) Bz = 100 G and (b) Bx = 100 G.

the bar plane (along the axis X), the intrinsic field of the reinforcement For the reinforced slab, four factors, at least, should be taken in
in the isotropic model is 5–7 times higher. Depending on the direction consideration. They are: (i) the ratio of slab dimensions, (ii) the di-
of the intrinsic field this leads to an 8–10% increase (Fig. 7a) or de- rection of the applied field, (iii) directional dependence of the effective
crease (Fig.7b) of the resulting field. In contrast to the isotropic model, permeability of structures, (iv) the relative position of observation
the layered model provides much better accuracy, approaching the 3D points. In particular, when the applied field is perpendicular to the
model results. At a distance from the slab comparable with the bar plane of rebar stacking (Fig. 7), one can expect a minimal magnetiza-
spacing, the discrepancy in field evaluation between the layered and tion of the slab, because its thickness is about one order less than the
detailed 3D models does not exceed ∼0.1%. other two dimensions and the effective permeability of the slab in the
The results obtained can be qualitatively explained as follows. field direction is close to the one of free space.
Generally, a magnetized object can be considered as a permanent As seen from Figs. 6c and 7a, the effect of each factor (i) and (iii) is
magnet. Due to the configuration its own field, such magnet should of about one order. Unlike the isotropic model, which has the same
enhance the external magnetizing field at its poles, oriented perpendi- effective permeability in each direction and ignores the factor (iii), the
cularly to the field, and reduce the field at its lateral sides. The longer layered model enables taking into account magnetic anisotropy of the
the object in the direction of external field, the higher its magnetization structure, providing the accuracy of field computation achieved in the
and field. detailed 3D model.

167
V. Amoskov et al. Fusion Engineering and Design 135 (2018) 165–173

in a non-uniform external field. The test problem reproduces the main

features of the stray field of a tokamak (plasma and magnets) localized
inside a building made of reinforced concrete slabs. The solution has
been obtained using the detailed, isotropic and layered models.
A hollow cuboid structure with a field source inside was taken as the
test problem. The structure has dimensions of 4 m × 4 m × 4 m and is
formed with 6 reinforced slabs each 24 cm thick. The internal field
source is assumed to be a permanent magnet with sizes 50 cm × 50
cm × 50 cm and μ0M = 1 T located in the cube center. The magneti-
zation vector is directed along the vertical axis Z. Reinforcement per-
meability μ is 100. The lattice parameters corresponds to Structure 2 in
the previous study [1]: steel bars in a layer are spaced with a step of
25 cm, the filling factor is 4%, each bar has a square cross section of
2 cm × 2 cm. Bars in adjacent layers are oriented orthogonally. Each
slab is reinforced with a stack of 6 layers spaced with a step of 4 cm, or
3 pairs of criss-cross layers.
The detailed 3D model involves a realistic description of the steel
lattice and contains above 3⋅107 finite elements. The isotropic model
describes the structure as 6 homogeneous isotropic slabs, each 24 cm
thick, with an effective filling factor of 0.5 × 4% = 2%. The layered
model represents the reinforced structure as a single equivalent layer
with the total thickness determined as 24 cm × 0.093 = 2.232 cm and
the percentage of steel of 22%. The filling factors k1 = 0.22 and
k2 = 0.093 were predetermined in [1] at μ = 100. The FE mesh for both
isotropic and layered models has 7⋅106 elements.
The FE meshing for these models (a 1/8 of the structure) is illu-
strated in Figs. 8 and 9 presents the simulated field distributions.
The plots demonstrate that the reinforced structures may affect the
field inside the tokamak building in both ways: reducing the field in the
direction normal to the magnetization vector (i.e. along the axis X)
while magnifying it parallel to the magnetization vector (along the axis
Z). The stray field outside the building is always decreased.
As seen from Fig. 9, the isotropic model evaluates the intrinsic field
of the steel reinforcement by 50% higher at the mean than the detailed
model. This leads to a reduced resultant field in the plane normal to the
field source axis and increased field at the source axis. In the exterior,
the isotropic model underestimates the rebar effect by ∼30% at the
mean thus evaluating a higher resultant field. The error in the field
evaluation with the isotropic model is up to ± 10%.
The layered model provides much better match with the results
obtained with the detailed model. In this case the error in the evalua-
tion of the resultant field does not exceed ± 1%.

4. Double-layer isotropic model of reinforced structure

Previous numerical experiments have proven that the modified

isotropic model with a single magnetic layer is in many cases an ac-
ceptable approximation for a reinforced slab. Such model is adequate
for a structure with the thickness much less than its length or when the
studied region is far away from the slab ends. In other cases, a more
exact model is needed to account for the magnetic effect of the re-
Fig. 6. Structure 1: simulated field along axes X (a), Y (b), and Z (c) for uniform
inforcement.
external field Bz = 100 G (see Fig. 5a), μ = f(H). 1 – detailed 3D model
A dedicated study has been carried out to assess accuracy versus
(Fig. 2a), 2 – isotropic model (Fig. 2b), 3 – one-layered model (Fig. 2c).
number and locations of magnetic layers in the model. The modeled
structure in test simulations is given as a 0.6 m × 4 m × 4 m reinforced
The obtained results are similar to those reported in [1] for the slab with steel filling factor of 8%, spacing between bars in a layer
assumption of a constant μ. 0.1 m and relative permeability of 100 in a 100 G external field. Two
cases were simulated: with the external field oriented parallel and
3. Shielding effect in nonuniform field normal to the bar layers. A field distribution was specifically in-
vestigated near the slab (20 cm away from its surface) including end
The following test is devoted to comparison of the three methods in zones.
general situation with arbitrary oriented reinforced structures located The results have been obtained with the use of two double-layer

168
V. Amoskov et al. Fusion Engineering and Design 135 (2018) 165–173

Fig. 7. Structure 1: field along axes X (a) and Y (b) for uniform external field Bx = 100 G (see Fig. 5b), μ = f(H). 1 – detailed model (Fig. 2a), 2 – isotropic model
(Fig. 2b), 3 – one-layered model (Fig. 2c).

Fig. 8. Computational models for shielding effect problem of 6 reinforced slabs arranged as cuboid with internal field source (permanent magnet) in its center: (a)
detailed model, (b) isotropic model, (c) layered model. 1/8 of calculated domain.

Fig. 9. Shielding effect of wall (a) and ceiling (b) for internal field source μ0M = 1 T and steel rebar permeability μ = 100. 1 – detailed 3D model (Fig. 8a), 2 –
isotropic model (Fig. 8b), 3 – layered model (Fig. 8c); 4 – unperturbed internal field.

isotropic models. One double-layer model describes two isotropic A comparison of the results has shown that the modified isotropic
magnetic layers with their surfaces coincident with the external sur- models, both single-layer and double-layer, provide accurate field
faces of the modelled slab accurate to ± 0.3 m. In another model two evaluations at a distance from the ends of the reinforced slab. Near the
isotropic magnetic layers are located so that their central planes coin- slab ends (Z = 2.0 ± 0.5 m in Fig. 10, Y = 2.0 ± 0.5 m in Fig. 11) the
cide with the central planes of slab halves accurate to ± 0.15 m. single-layer model and the first double-layer model give a noticeable

169
V. Amoskov et al. Fusion Engineering and Design 135 (2018) 165–173

Fig. 10. Field along lines parallel to axis Z (Y = 0) for uniform external field Bz = 100 G: (а) through slab (X = 0), (b) distant from slab by 20 cm (X = ± 50 cm). 1 –
detailed 3D model (Fig. 1a), 2 – isotropic model (Fig. 1b), 3 – single-layer (Fig. 1c), 4–5 – double layer models (Fig. 1d,e).

Fig. 11. Field along lines parallel to axis Y (Z = 0) for uniform external field Bx = 100 G: (а) through slab (X = 0), (b) distant from slab by 20 cm (X = ± 50 cm). 1 –
detailed 3D model (Fig. 1a), 2 – isotropic model (Fig. 1b), 3 – single-layer (Fig. 1c), 4k5 – double layer models (Fig. 1d,e).

error in field evaluations as compared to the detailed 3D model. The with magnetic and non-magnetic isotropic layers as shown in Fig. 12b.
second double-layer model, however, gives results almost identical to The modified model was verified by comparative computations with
those from the detailed model. MMTC-1 in a same cross-section (Fig. 13). The ITER field was simulated
for the plasma initiation conditions at the gas breakdown [9]. From the
5. Layered magnetic model for ITER tokamak building design criteria, at plasma initiation the poloidal field level in the
breakdown region shall not exceed 20 G.
The first simplified magnetic model of the ITER tokamak complex, In the case under consideration, the field source is the Poloidal Field
MMTC-1 [2], shown in Fig. 12a, was constructed in 2008 for a pre- (PF) system of the tokamak. First, the total magnetic field of the to-
liminary assessment of field perturbations generated by ferromagnetic kamak complex with magnetic materials and energized PF coils is cal-
structures of the tokamak building [8,9] in the plasma region. MMTC-1 culated. Then, the field due to magnetized materials with their fixed
uses isotropic representation for building structures. magnetization is separately calculated at zero PF coil currents. Fig. 14
ITER field distributions were simulated with the use of the code shows the field of building structures with magnetic materials obtained
KOMPOT utilizing the differential formulation of the magnetic field with two magnetic models of the ITER tokamak complex in the plane
problem. Results were validated by comparative computations with the Y = 0 (Fig. 13). As seen, at an average field of 100 G, MMTC-1
code KLONDIKE based on the integral formulation [10]. A desired (Fig. 13a) evaluates the field by 30% higher than MMTC1.1 (Fig. 13b).
computational accuracy was demonstrated. This agrees with the results obtained in the previous Section and con-
The existing model MMTC-1 (Fig. 12a) has been modified so that to firms the conclusion that the isotropic model overestimates the intrinsic
take into account anisotropic properties of the steel rebar in the to- field of the steel rebar while the layered model demonstrates more
kamak building structures. In the modified model, MMTC-1.1, the re- accurate account of the reinforcement impact.
inforced structures are modelled as a double-layered structure formed The magnetic effect of the ITER building on the plasma should be

170
V. Amoskov et al. Fusion Engineering and Design 135 (2018) 165–173

Fig. 12. First simplified magnetic model of ITER tokamak complex: (a) MMTC-1, isotropic model, (b) MMTC-1.1, double-layered model. 1 – Bioshield, 2 – Cylinder
formed by port cell columns and doors, 3 – Basemat, 4 – Bioshield lid and floor of the level L4, 5 – Walls, 6 – Seismic Insulation Basemat.

corrected by PF system of the tokamak to meet design criteria (see [9] simulation in the regions near the ends of reinforced structures where
as example). the field distribution is most complicated. A single-layer model gives
a ± 1% error of the field evaluation and is quite adequate in many
practical cases.
6. Summary
The verification of layered models for reinforced structures was
made by a comparison with data obtained with the use of the first
A magnetic model for reinforced concrete structures is proposed
simplified –magnetic model of the ITER tokamak complex [2]. The
that allows for anisotropic properties of the rebar pattern. Anisotropic
results are found to be of practical consequence.
magnetic effects are modelled by means of a layered isotropic structure.
The field maps were generated with respect to the effect of the rebar
This enables reliable assessment of the field produced by steel re-
and steel doors magnetized by the tokamak stray field. The field eva-
inforcement of building structures magnetized by machines with high
luations were obtained for the gas breakdown at plasma initiation when
stray field.
the poloidal field in the plasma region should not exceed 20 G. An
The modelling approach was verified in numerical experiments with
average field from the reinforced structures inside the vacuum vessel
different models, including the detailed 3D model with realistic de-
was evaluated as high as 100 G. That means that the corresponding
scription of the geometry and magnetic properties for every steel bar.
corrections need to be done in the scenarios of currents flowing in the
The results demonstrated that the layered model provides sufficient
poloidal field coils.
generality and may be applied to reinforced structures with a complex
The verification of the proposed modelling approach makes it pos-
rebar pattern, non-linear magnetic properties, and non-uniform ex-
sible to proceed to practical implementation. The layered model re-
ternal field.
flecting the anisotropic effects of the reinforced building structures
Comparative simulations proved that a double-layer model enables
will be incorporated in detailed magnetic models of the Tokamak
accurate field evaluation, with a calculation error comparable with that
Complex.
of the detailed model. The double-layer model is suitable for field

171
V. Amoskov et al. Fusion Engineering and Design 135 (2018) 165–173

Fig. 13. Cross section of ITER building in plane Y = 0: magnets (coils with currents), vacuum vessel and simplified magnetic model of the tokamak complex -MMTC-
1 (a) and MMTC[HYPHEN]1.1 (b). Non-magnetic matetial is gray, magnetic material is more dark (blue) (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article).

Fig. 14. Magnetic field isolines (B = const, in G) from ITER building inside vacuum vessel: (a) MMTC-1, (b) MMTC-1.1.

172
V. Amoskov et al. Fusion Engineering and Design 135 (2018) 165–173

Disclaimer V.P. Kukhtin, E.A. Lamzin, S.E. Sytchevsky, Computation technology based on
KOMPOT and KLONDIKE codes for magnetostatic simulations in tokamaks, Plasma
Devices Oper. 16 (2008) 89.
ITER is a Nuclear Facility INB-174. The views and opinions ex- [5] C.J. Carpenter, Theory and application of magnetic shells, Proc. IEEE 114 (No. 7)
pressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the ITER Organization. (1967) 995–1000.
[6] M. El-Sherbiny, Representation of the magnetization characteristic by a sum of
exponentials, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, MAG-9 60 (March (1)) (1973).
References [7] V. Amoskov, A. Belov, V. Belyakov, Y. Gribov, V. Kukhtin, E. Lamzin,
N. Maximenkova, S. Sytchevsky, Assesment of error field from solitary ferromag-
[1] V.M. Amoskov, A.M. Bazarov, V.A. Belyakov, E.I. Gapionok, M.V. Kaparkova, netic elements located outside of ITER tokamak, Plasma Devices Oper. 16 (2008)
V.P. Kukhtin, E.A. Lamzin, B.V. Lyublin, S.E. Sytchevsky, Modelling of magnetic 171.
field perturbations in electrophysical devices due to the steel reinforcement of [8] V. Amoskov, A. Belov, V. Belyakov, Y. Gribov, V. Kukhtin, E. Lamzin,
buildings, ISSN 1063–7842, Tech. Phys. 62 (No.10) (2017) 1466–1472. N. Maximenkova, S. Sytchevsky, Stray magnetic field produced by ITER tokamak
[2] V. Amoskov, A. Belov, V. Belyakov, Yu. Gribov, V. Kukhtin, E. Lamzin, complex, Plasma Devices Oper. 17 (2009) 230.
N. Maximenkova, S. Sytchevsky, Assesment of error field from ferromagnetic sur- [9] V. Amoskov, A. Belov, V. Belyakov, Y. Gribov, A. Kavin, V. Kukhtin, E. Lamzin,
rounding of ITER tokamak: ferromagnetic rebar of tokamak complex building, K. Lobanov, N. Maximenkova, A. Mineev, S. Sytchevsky, Stray magnetic field at
Plasma Devices Oper. 16 (2008) 225. plasma initiation produced by ferromagnetic elements of the ITER tokamak com-
[3] A.V. Belov, T.F. Belyakova, I.V. Gornikel, V.P. Kukhtin, V.G. Kuchinsky, plex, Plasma Devices Oper. 17 (2009) 238.
E.A. Lamzin, A.G. Semchenkov, N.A. Shatil, S.E. Sytchevsky, 3D field simulation of [10] V. Amoskov, A. Bazarov, M. Kaparkova, V. Kukhtin, E. Lamzin, B. Lyublin, V.
complex systems with permanent magnets and excitation coils, IEEE Trans. Appl. Belyakov, S. Sytchevsky, Modeling magnetic effects of steel rebar of concrete sur-
Supercond. 18 (2008) 1609. roundings for electrophysical apparatus, Proceeding of RuPAC2016, THPSC007,
[4] V.M. Amoskov, A.V. Belov, V.A. Belyakov, T.F. Belyakova, Yu.A. Gribov, 553-555.

173