Euro 50, Tripod Calculation

8 Oct 2001
Holger Riewaldt, Mette Owner-Petersen
Lund Observatory, Box 43, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden, holger@astro.lu.se, Tel.: +46-46-22 215 75

Abstract:
Some results are shown from a simple static and modal analysis for the EURO50 tripod
structure with the FEM program ANSYS. Based on the results, the optical consequences are
estimated.

1 The FE Model of the Tripod

Most of the tripod is modeled with BEAM 189 elements (linear, three-dimensional beam
element with three nodes and quadratic interpolation, 6 DOF at each node). One element is
used for each frame member. Figure 1 shows the beam elements as lines in different colors
depending on their cross sections. All beams are assumed as pipes with the cross sections
given in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the model with its real diameters for beams and spars.
Earlier calculations (see section 5) have shown that it is difficult to obtain a first eigen-
frequency that is high enough without stabilizing wires (goal is >2.5 Hz for the tripod in order
to get >2 Hz for the whole telescope). The legs must be rather wide in that case and obscure
more area on the primary mirror. Therefore, steel wires with 50 mm diameter connect the
middle of the legs with the corners of the mirror cell and give lateral stiffness. Pretension is
assumed for the wires and they are modeled with LINK 8 elements (linear, three-dimensional
spar elements with two nodes, uniaxial tension-compression element, 3 translation DOF at
each node). Mette Owner-Petersen has shown with a ZEMAX-Calculation that the
disturbance of the PSF due to the wires is minor.
The combined mass for mirror and the box above it is assumed as 4500 kg and combined in a
single point with a MASS 21 element (point element with 6 DOF and different mass and
rotary inertia). The box is assumed to be very stiff with a very high Young’s modulus because
only the deformation of the tripod legs shall be studied. The box is modeled with LINK 8
elements without mass because the mass is gathered in the mass element.
The boundary conditions are shown in Figure 1. The legs and the wires are attached to the
mirror cell that is assumed to be infinitely stiff for this calculation. Each leg is fastened in five
points with all 6 DOF set with zero displacement. The wires are connected to the edge of the
mirror cell in three points and also these points are fastened with all 6 DOF.

Table 1: Cross sections for beam elements according to DIN 2448 “Nahtlose Stahlrohre”

Section Dimensions [mm] Color in Figure 1

1 273.0 x 6.3 light blue
2 273.0 x 6.3 purple
3 273.0 x 6.3 red
4 273.0 x 7.1 blue
5 273.0 x 6.3 pink
6 355.6 x 8.0 green
7 406.4 x 14.2 orange
8 - not used
9 406.4 x 10 yellow
 2
Table 2: Characteristics of the used Elements

Tripod parts Element Material Material properties Real constants

Legs BEAM 189 steel ν=0.3, E=2.1e11 N/m2, ρ=7850 kg/m3 different cross sections
Box over M2 LINK 8 dummy ν=0.3, E=1e20 N/m2, ρ=0 kg/m3 section area 0.005 m2
M2 MASS 21 steel ν=0.3, E=2.1e11 N/m2, ρ=7850 kg/m3 m=4500 kg in x, y, z
Wires LINK 8 steel ν=0.3, E=2.1e11 N/m2, ρ=7850 kg/m3 section area 1.9635e-3 m2
for 0.05 m diameter

2 Static Analysis with Gravity

The mass of the tripod is: 4500 kg for the secondary mirror and the box above it (mass
element), 3500 kg for the six wires and 111,500 kg for the tripod beam structure, altogether
about 120,000 kg. Three cases are calculated with g=9.81 m/s2 and different elevation angles:
˘ Telescope at zenith, 90 deg, Figure 3. Largest deformation in the lower parts of the leg
stiffeners with about 5 mm (sum of all three spatial directions). At the top unit, the
largest deformation is 1-1.5 mm.
˘ 45 deg, Figure 4. Largest deformation is about 24 mm. At the top unit, the largest
deformation is about 12 mm.
˘ 15 deg, Figure 5. Largest deformation is about 32 mm. At the top unit, the largest
deformation is about 16 mm.
The deformations become rather large for smaller angles. The gravitational influence is
constant, however, and the displacement of the secondary mirror will always be the same for a
certain elevation angle. This displacement can easily be corrected by moving the secondary.

3 Static Analysis of Wind Influence

A static wind load in negative x-direction is assumed on the telescope in zenith position
(90 deg) with v = 12 m/s, ρair = 1.2922 kg/m3. This gives a static pressure of p = 93 N/m2 on
the structure. According to Figure 6, the area for the main structural members is determined
(small beams and beams with little effective area in the wind direction are neglected), the
forces on these members are calculated and put onto the nodes at the top end of the respective
member, see Figure 7.
The displacement plot in Figure 8 shows a maximum displacement of about 1 mm in the
middle of the two rear legs (sum of displacements in all spatial directions). The important
value for the optics is the displacement of the top unit, however, which is about 0.3 mm. This
displacement must be corrected by the live optics or by moving the secondary mirror.
The displacement of the secondary mirror is the most important data for a later correction
algorithm. Figure 9 shows the sum of displacements for the nodes in the box above the
secondary. Between this box and the secondary itself will later be a nutator to correct for the
displacement.
Table 3 shows the displacement of the nodes in the lower plane (see numbers in the figure).
Displacement in x-, y- and z-direction (ux, uy, uz), the sum of the displacements in all three
directions (usum) and the rotations around x-, y- and z-axis (rotx, roty, rotz) are all with
respect to the global coordinate system.
 3
Table 3: Displacement of nodes due to wind
NODE UX UY UZ USUM ROTX ROTY ROTZ
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [rad] [rad] [rad]
3720 -0.3683 -0.0018 0.0168 0.3687 3.55e-7 1.57e-5 1.95e-6
3721 -0.3679 -0.0024 0.0004 0.3680 -3.40e-6 1.41e-5 2.34e-6
3722 -0.3688 -0.0025 -0.0034 0.3688 0.00 0.00 0.00
3723 -0.3697 -0.0024 0.0000 0.3697 5.75e-6 1.76e-5 -4.77e-6
3724 -0.3693 -0.0018 0.0166 0.3697 7.92e-7 2.13e-5 -5.29e-6
3725 -0.3685 -0.0033 -0.0271 0.3695 4.70e-6 1.03e-5 2.50e-6
3726 -0.3691 -0.0033 -0.0272 0.3701 4.93e-6 1.24e-5 2.61e-6

4 Modal Analysis

The first ten eigenfrequencies have been calculated and some of them are shown in Figure 10.
MODE FREQUENCY (Hz)
1 3.21
2 3.25
3 3.26
4 3.79
5 4.04
6 4.05
7 6.70
8 6.71
9 7.25
10 7.55

5 Earlier calculations

The above described calculation has the internal number 4 and the main characteristics are
˘ The tripod legs are 4 m wide at the base and only 2 m wide at the top.
˘ Lateral wires to the mirror edge give additional stiffness to the legs.
˘ Use of different cross sections for the beams, optimized total mass.
˘ Total mass of about 120,000 kg.
Here is a brief description of the differences to the three earlier calculations:
˘ Number 1 and 2 (slightly different layout for the diagonal stiffeners within the legs):
The legs are 2 m wide over the whole length. The lowest eigenfrequency is about
1.2 Hz. Only two different (and rather large) cross sections are used for the beams and
the tripod is not optimized to spare weight. The total mass is about 202,000 kg.
˘ Number 3: The legs are 4 m wide over the whole length, 7 different cross sections are
used for the beams, no lateral wires are used. The total mass is about 135,000 kg, the
lowest eigenfrequency is 2.5 Hz. This would be okay if the tripod would not be that
wide and produce such a large shadow on the primary.

6 Optical Consequences of the Tripod Motion

The relative motion of the secondary mirror with respect to the primary mirror will result in
two kinds of errors: The pointing will be changed and the image quality will deteriorate due to
coma. Calculations in Zemax provide the following magnitudes of these effects:
 4
Decentering of M2:

Pointing: 5.2 arcsec/mm (1)

Coma: 2.75 waves/mm at λ = 2.2 µm (2)

Tilt of M2 around vertex:

Pointing: 9.9 arcsec/arcmin (3)

Coma: 2.79 waves/mm at λ = 2.2 µm (4)

It should be noticed that rotation around the centre of curvature of M2 will induce coma
without pointing change and that rotation of M2 around the common (with M1) conical focus
will induce pointing change without coma.
The expected magnitude of tilt and coma caused by wind induced tripod motion is important
in relation to establishing the needed dynamical range for the wavefront sensors. There will be
two types of wavefront sensors. One type, most likely to be Shack Hartman sensors are
intended for measuring the wavefront distortions (excluding global tilt) associated with
several laser guide stars (LGS) and the other one is intended for measuring global tilt
(pointing) using one or more natural stars (NGS). The magnitude of the wavefront signals
associated with the atmospheric fluctuations are given below for r0 = 1 m corresponding to
λ = 2.2 µm.

Atmospheric effects:
λ
Seeing spot radius (HWHM): α see = 0.49 = 0.22 arcsec (5)
r0

λ
Angle of arrival fluct.: α arr = 0.43 = 0.10 arcsec (one projection) (6)
D1/6 r05/6
5/6
D
Wavefront RMS incl. tilt: RMS incl = 1.0  = 4.2 waves (7)
 r0 
5/6
D
Wavefront RMS excl. tilt: RMS excl = 0.37  = 1.5 waves (8)
 r0 

Sensor dimensioning

The seeing spot radius determines the needed field for the LGS sensors. Picking a subimage
field equal to four times the seeing spot diameter we get
Sub-image field: αsub = 1.76 arcsec (9)
Picking a sub-aperture width of r0 (projected onto M1), the radius of the sub-image spots will
be roughly λ/r0, which following the Nyquist criterion should be sampled by two pixels
leading to:
Sub-image field: 8x8 pixels (10)
 5
It is crucial that the LGS image spots are not “kicked out” of the sub-image frames either by
an excessive global tilt component due to tripod motion or by the accompanying coma
contribution. For this reason in particular the wind induced LGS pointing errors in the
Gregorian focus must either be small or they must be compensated on M2, that is before the
LGS sensor foci are reached. In this context it will probably be necessary to have tilt sensors
both in the Gregorian focus (working on a LGS) and in the final focus (working on NGS).
The LGS tilt signal should then be used to control M2 to ensure that the LGS aberration
signals stay within the dynamical range of the sensors. The NGS tilt signal should be used to
control a mirror somewhere after the Gregorian focus in the relay system. It is important to
realize that eliminating the LGS pointing error by M2 tilt or decentering may well induce an
additional component in the NGS pointing signal. A change of the LGS launching direction
either due to mechanical tilt of the launching system with respect to a global coordinate
system, or because of inadequate pointing stability of the laser will cause the LGS to move on
the sky. If this motion is compensated by M2 tip tilt, it will be directly transferred to the NGS
and the science object.
On page 3, the motions of the seven lower nodes of the top unit are listed for the case of a
steady wind load of 12 m/sec. Taking the average over the nodes as a fair guess of relative M2
motion we get

ux = -0.369 mm uy = -0.0025 mm uz = -0.0034 mm

rotx = 0.388 arcsec roty = 2.7 arcsec

Using “worst case values” of M2 decentering as 0.4 mm and M2 tilt as 3 arcsec, the
expressions (1) – (4) lead to

Decentering of M2:

Pointing error: 2 arcsec

Coma: 1.1 waves

Tilt of M2:

Pointing error: 0.5 arcsec

Coma: 0.13 waves

Comparing the coma values with the atmospheric RMS contribution stated in (8), it is seen
that they are of equal orders of magnitude and hence most probably present no additional
problems for the LGS sensor dynamical range.

7 Conclusions

As mentioned above, the FE model and the assumed boundary conditions are somewhat
simplified which introduces an error. The simplifications are small, however, and it is
assumed that the calculated deformations are in the right order of magnitude and that the real
deformations will not differ from the calculated by more than a factor of two.
Taking this into account, it can be stated, that the general shape of the tripod is feasible and
that lateral wires are necessary. Without these wires, the deformations due to gravity and wind
would be significantly higher and the first eigenfrequency would be too low.
 6
The Zemax-calculation gives an estimate for the expected pointing error and coma due to
decentering and tilt of the secondary mirror. The pointing error of 2 arcsec due to decentering
is of great concern since it is 20 times as big as the atmospheric tilt contribution of 0.10 arcsec
listed in (6). The total tilt should be reduced to the telescope diffraction limit of 0.01 arcsec.
In this context it should be kept in mind that there might be additional tilt contributions from
the LGS stabilisation on M2 and from pedestal motion (tilt) of the telescope.
There is no doubt that the NGS tilt-sensor will require a quite large dynamical range, and that
putting up realistic requirements for this range will require a more elaborate mechanical
modelling of the telescope including all mirrors plus the laser launching system.

8 Figures

Figure 1: Elements with Boundary Conditions, Line Representation

 7

Figure 2: Elements with real Diameters

Figure 3: Static Analysis with Gravity, 90 deg

 8

Figure 4: Static Analysis with Gravity, 45 deg

Figure 5: Static Analysis with Gravity, 15 deg

 9

Figure 6: Area for the Wind Load

Figure 7: Boundary Conditions and applied Wind Forces

 10

Figure 8: Deformation due to Wind Load

Figure 9: Deformation due to Wind Load, Box above Secondary

 11

Mode 1, 3.206 Hz Mode 2, 3.255 Hz

Mode 3, 3.264 Hz Mode 4, 3.793 Hz

Mode 5, 4.047 Hz Mode 6, 4.052 Hz

Mode 7, 6.695 Hz Mode 8, 6.708 Hz

Figure 10: Eigenmodes

12