EUROFUSION WPMAG-CP(16) 15457

A Panin et al.

Mechanical pre-dimensioning and

pre-optimization of tokamaks toroidal
coils featuring a winding pack layout

Preprint of Paper to be submitted for publication in

Proceedings of 29th Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT
2016)

This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Con-

sortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training pro-

gramme 2014-2018 under grant agreement No 633053. The views and opinions

expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission.

This document is intended for publication in the open literature. It is made available on the clear under-
standing that it may not be further circulated and extracts or references may not be published prior to
publication of the original when applicable, or without the consent of the Publications Officer, EUROfu-
sion Programme Management Unit, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 3DB, UK or e-mail
[email protected]

Enquiries about Copyright and reproduction should be addressed to the Publications Officer, EUROfu-
sion Programme Management Unit, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 3DB, UK or e-mail
[email protected]

The contents of this preprint and all other EUROfusion Preprints, Reports and Conference Papers are
available to view online free at http://www.euro-fusionscipub.org. This site has full search facilities and
e-mail alert options. In the JET specific papers the diagrams contained within the PDFs on this site are
hyperlinked
 Mechanical pre-dimensioning and pre-optimization of the tokamaks’
toroidal coils featuring the winding pack layout
Anatoly Panina, Wolfgang Biela, Philippe Mertensa, Francois Nuniob, Louis Zanic
a
Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Institut für Energie und Klimaforschung -Plasmaphysik, Partner of the Trilateral
Euregio Cluster (TEC), 52425 Jülich, Germany
b
Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives, CEA Saclay IRFU/SIS, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
c
Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives, CEA Cadarache IRFM/STEP, 13108 St-Paul Lez
Durance, France

The structural integrity of the superconducting magnets that are key elements of a fusion reactor must be
ensured. At an early design stage relatively simple calculation tools can greatly facilitate design optimization.
The main objective of this paper is the mechanical pre-dimensioning of the tokamak toroidal field coils prior to
their 3D numerical modelling. A calculation tool that reasonably estimates the mechanical strength of the coils
structural components under the dominating electromagnetic forces at the coil critical location is described. The
novelty of the approach is that it treats not only the massive coil casing but also the winding pack conductor jackets
under an essentially 3D stress state. The semi-analytical procedure features pre-optimization of the coil windings.
The minimum space requirements for the coil structural components are defined. The procedure has been
successfully benchmarked against the numerical solutions and has been used to pre-dimension the toroidal coils for
the current 2015 DEMO design.

Keywords: fusion magnets, electromagnetic loads, structural performance, semi-analytical pre-dimensioning.

1. Introduction These in-plane forces (Fig. 1, bottom) acting normal to

the winding centerline cause significant wedge
Successful operation of Demonstration Reactors is a compression in the coil case at the inner leg and expand
key step in the fusion development. High magnetic fields the coil both radially and vertically. In respect to the in-
produced by the superconducting magnets are crucial for plane loading the most critical coil region is at the
optimization of a fusion reactor performance. The main equatorial plane of its inner leg where the huge wedge
structural issues of the toroidal field coil (TFC) system compression is coupled with the coil vertical tension
are briefly overviewed in Chapter 2. (Fig. 2). The matter is usually aggravated by the lack of
Combinations of calculation approaches, reasonable space for supporting structures. At the outboard the coils
modelling simplifications and clever prioritization at are connected via the outer intercoil structures that resist
each analysis phase facilitate design optimization by coils cyclic tilting due to the out-of-plane forces due to
relatively simple and “inexpensive” calculation tools [1]. interaction of the coils currents with the magnetic fields
The mechanical pre-dimensioning of the magnets that is of the central solenoid, poloidal coils and plasma (Fig.
extremely useful and time saving at an early design stage 2). The latera1 coils’ deflection and fatigue are usual
is described in Chapter 3. The novelty of the approach is issues for the coil outboard. The strength of the coil case
that it deals not only with the mechanical strength of the and conductors is of concern (Fig. 2)
coil casing in the coil critical location (e.g. [2]) but also
treats in detail the winding pack wound with the cabled
conductor under an essentially 3D stress state. The
procedure features pre-optimization of the layered
windings by grading the radial and toroidal walls of the
conductor separately. Minimum space required for the
coil at the inboard is defined. The procedure has been
successfully benchmarked against FE solutions and used
to pre-dimension the toroidal coils for the ongoing 2015
European DEMO activity.

2. TF coil system structural issues

Typical TFC system (Fig. 1, top) comprises a number
of coils arranged symmetrically around the torus axis. At
the inboard the coils are wedged to support the
centripetal Lorentz forces due to the TFC energizing. Fig. 1. Example of TF coil structure.
_______________________________________________________________________________
author’s email: [email protected]
 R  1
Fzcoil = π ( B max ) Rin2 ln  out 
2

 Rin  m0 N coil
The vertical force taken by the coil inner leg can be
assumed as Fzinner ≈ 1 2 Fzcoil . The force share between
the coil case FzSS and the winding FzWP can be
calculated from Fzinner in proportion to their stiffness
when no case/WP poloidal sliding is assumed.

3.2 TFC stress-state: equatorial plane of inner leg

The coil case can be considered as a ring under the
uniform external pressure P0 coming from the WP (Fig.
Fig. 2. Tresca stress in the coil due to EM loading. 4, right). This pressure causes the significant wedge
compression s case
fi . The case vertical stress is determined

3. TFC pre-dimensioning and pre-optimization by the EM vertical force on the case and is defined as
3.1 Electromagnetic estimations for TFC
σ zSS = FzSS ASS where ASS is the case area.

Typical TFC cross-section is shown in Fig. 3. The TF The WP is considered as a bulk homogenized
coil can be considered like a set of the conducting shells structure having the orthotropic properties [4]. Loaded
[3]. The maximum toroidal magnetic field at the by the volumetric EM forces it presses on the ring (case)
equatorial plane of the inner leg is: and follows its inward movement. This inward
movement of the wedged coils also results in the
B max = m0 N coil I coil ( 2π Rin ) winding lateral compression σ WPy (Fig. 4). Its vertical
where: µ= 4π ⋅ 10−7 , N coil - number of coils, I coil - stress is determined by the vertical EM force taken by
the winding and is defined as σ WP = FzWP AWP where AWP
0
current through each coil. The maximum distributed z

pressure force in the winding and the maximum is the winding area.
cumulated pressure from the winding acting on the coil Let’s denominate PEM = FEM 2 R2α and
case are expressed as:
k = 2 Fpull FEM . Then the uniform pressure on the ring
FEM = 1 2 B max I coil and PEM
WP
= FEM HWP
FEM − 2 Fpull
=
(accounting for Fpull ) is: P0 = PEM (1 − k ) .
The vertical bursting force acting on the coil half 2 R2α
normal to its equatorial plane is calculated as:

Fig. 3. Typical TFC cross-section at the equatorial plane (left) and sketch of the simplified inner leg cross-section (right).

Fig. 4. Sketch of the model problem.

 The ring inward movement under the external pressure Thus, all important stress components in the case
coming from the winding (not accounting for Fpull ) in (hoop and vertical stresses - the radial one can be
neglected) and in the orthotropic WP (radial, lateral and
assumption of the generalized plane strain conditions is:
vertical ones) are available for the strength estimations.
R  R 2 + R12 
u xEM =
− PEM SS2  22 + vSS  , where: E SS , v SS -
E  R2 − R1 2
 3.3 Benchmarking of main results
steel Young’s modulus Poisson’s ratio.
Fig. 5 shows results of benchmarking of the main
The ring inward movement under P0 with account for stress components in the homogenized winding calculated
its toroidal contraction due to FzSS can be written: with the semi-analytical tool against the 3D FE
calculations. For the 2014 DEMO layout a very good
x = ux = ux
uWP case EM
(1 − k ) + uxZ , agreement was found. For the 2015 layout the lateral
stresses in the winding calculated with the tool turned out
σ zSS to be higher than those given by FE analysis. The matter
where: u xZ = −vSS R2 , σ zSS = FzSS ASS , ASS - case area. is that for this layout the coils’ wedging is not engaged all
E SS
over the WP width (Fig. 5, bottom) and the winding is
Denoting C1 = 2 tan(a ) HWP , the winding lateral
less compressed at the plasma side. This feature is
compressive strain due to its radial movement is written: planned to be implemented in the tool.
σ WP σ WP WP σ
WP
ε = u C1 = −v xy WP + WP − v yz zWP
WP WP x y
y x
Ex Ey Ey

where: σ WP
x is the x component of the winding radial

stress due to the volumetric EM loading, σ WP

z = FzWP AWP
and AWP is the winding area. If we denote:
ε ′y = v xy σE WP
x
WP
x , and C2 = E WP
y (winding Young’s
modulus) then:

σ WP
y = (ε WP
y + ε ′y + ε ′′y ) E WP
y =

= {C u
1
EM
x (1 − k ) + uxz  + ε ′y + ε ′′y }C2 (1)

On the other hand

Fpull cos a W tan a
=s WP = kPEM C3 , where: C3 = WP (2)
WWP tan a R2a
y

If we equate the expressions (1) and (2) then:

Fig. 5. Distribution of important stress components over the
C1 ( u xEM + u xz ) + ε ′y + ε ′′y  C2C3 winding grades (2014 & 2015 DEMO TFC layouts).
k=  (3)
PEM + C1u xEM ⋅ C2C3
3.4 Winding stresses: from global to local
Having the parameter k defined, one can calculate the
coil and WP inward movement u xcase = uWP
x , the case hoop
The calculated vertical tension and hoop compression
in the coil case can be reasonably considered as the
stress s case
fi and the winding lateral compression σ WP
y . maximum and minimum principal stresses. This makes it
The radial stress in the winding σ x can be assumed to possible to construct directly the equivalent Tresca stress
WP to be compared with the allowable primary membrane
increase linearly from zero at its plasma side to PEM at
stress for the case structural steel [5]. For the
the winding outside. To account for the distribution of σ x homogenized winding the calculated stresses need to be
and for a change of E WP
y through the winding (graded recalculated to the conductor walls that mostly take radial
and lateral compression coupled with the conductor
WPs) more general form of the expression (3) is written:
vertical tension. The procedure looks like:
Ngrade
=k ∑ C1 ( u xEM + u xz ) + ee
′y ( i ) + ′′y ( i )  ⋅ • The radial stress assumed to increase linearly
i =1
  through WP is calculated for each WP grade and
C2 ( i ) C3 ( i ) recalculated to the conductor radial walls.
⋅ Ngrade
(4) • The lateral stress is calculated for each WP grade
PEM + C1u xEM ⋅ ∑ C2 ( i ) C3 ( i ) and recalculated to the conductor toroidal walls.
i =1
• To construct the Tresca stress the compressive
stresses in the conductor walls are coupled with the
 vertical tension calculated for each WP grade and revealed no membrane stresses in the conductor violating
recalculated to the conductor walls. criteria as it was predicted while the conductors must be
• The calculated Tresca stress in the conductor walls further optimized regarding their wall bending (Table 2).
is checked against the allowable primary membrane
stress for each conductor grade [5].
Table 2. Linearized Tresca stress over the conductor jacket
Critical locations were found for the 2014 WP layout walls vs. allowable stresses (2015 TFC design).
where the calculated conductor stresses exceed the limit.
The “express” reconstruction of the conductor stress-state Radial Toroidal Allowable
in this location [1] revealed the same problem (Table 1). wall wall stress
Membrane, 591 583 667
MPa
Table 1. Linearized Tresca stress over the conductor jacket
walls vs. allowable stress (2014 TFC design, WP#2 option).
Membrane 891 858 867
+bending, MPa
Radial Toroidal Allowable
wall wall stress
Membrane, 669 648 667 4. Conclusions
MPa TFC pre-dimensioning and pre-optimization at an
early design stage was proved to be extremely effective.
A calculation tool that reasonably estimates the coil
3.5 Winding pre-optimization and TFC pre-
mechanical strength under the dominating EM loading
dimensioning
has been developed, benchmarked and used for coil pre-
• For the initial WP layout the important stress dimensioning and pre-optimization in the frame of the
components are calculated in the coil case and ongoing 2015 DEMO activity.
homogenized winding.
The approach novelty is that it treats the winding pack
• The Tresca stress is constructed for the case and for
conductor in detail under 3D stress-strain state. This
conductor walls (all grades) and compared with the
makes possible an effective pre-optimization of the
allowable primary membrane stresses.
layered windings by grading the radial and toroidal
• If the strength limits in the conductor walls are conductor walls separately. After the winding is
violated the mechanical optimization by grading the mechanically pre-optimized the requirements for the
radial and toroidal conductor walls separately starts. minimum coil space at its inner leg are defined.
• Since the radial stress doesn’t practically change
with grading the radial conductor walls are
optimized first. The “structural steel” is redistributed
Acknowledgments
between the radial walls of each grade regarding
changing radial pressure to satisfy strength criteria This work has been carried out within the framework
for each grade. The “left structural steel” is of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding
redistributed between the toroidal walls. from the Euratom research and training programme 2014-
• The new orthotropic winding properties are 2018 under grant agreement No 633053. The views and
calculated. The changed WP toroidal stiffness results opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those
in a change of the WP toroidal compression that, in of the European Commission.
turn, impacts on the case/WP radial movement.
• Basing on newly calculated stresses the available
structural steel is further redistributed between the References
toroidal conductor walls with the aim to satisfy
[1] A. Panin, et al., Approaches to analyze structural issues of
strength criteria. Several iterations are usually
needed (each requires recalculation of the winding the European DEMO Toroidal Field Coil System at an early
properties) to converge. Note that “mechanically design stage, IEEE trans. on applied superconductivity, Vol.
pre-optimized" design may not be feasible from 26, No. 4, 2016, doi: 10.1109/TASC.2016.2516998
manufacturing/assembly viewpoint. [2] J.-L. Duchateau , et al., Conceptual integrated approach
for the magnet system of a tokamak reactor, Fusion
There are two optimization options available: Engineering and Design, vol. 89, pp. 2606-2620, 2014,
1. The space allocated for the superconducting cable is doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2014.06.012
kept unchanged resulting, possibly, in not fully [3] R. J. Thome, J. M. Tarrh, MHD and Fusion Magnets, Field
mechanically optimized layout and Force Design Concepts, John Wiley & Sons, 1982
2. The full mechanical optimization on the expense of [4] Borovkov A.I. et al., FE Analysis of Effective Mechanical
the space for the superconducting cable. and Thermal Characteristics of Micro Heterogeneous
Toroidal Field Coils, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics,
The conductor stresses calculated for the 2015 WP
vol. 28, pp. 927-930, 1992
layout prior to 3D FE analysis proved to violate the
conductor stress limits. More space for the coil supporting [5] ITER Magnet Structural Design Criteria, Part 1: Main
was requested. For the changed coils the FE analysis Structural Components and Welds (ITER_D_2FMHHS),
Part 2: Magnet Windings (ITER_D_2ES43V), 2012