ADAPT computer model validation

31/07/2020 

Note: The IPR for the technology described in this article resides with ADAPT (a joint venture comprising
Atkins, Doosan Babcock and Orano). The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) owns the IPR
regarding the   use of this technology.
 
Atkins, as part of the ADAPT joint venture, have been commissioned to design and plan the
demolition of a concrete chimney barrel structure. A bespoke steel platform is being designed to
provide safe access to conduct the proposed demolition work. The structural design team led by Dale
Dickinson have designed the Suspended Platform with Incremental Descent (SPIDA) as depicted
below:

The design was developed using the Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis (RSA) package. This
software has been selected due to its ease of use, comprehensive design modules and readily
available integration with the Autodesk Revit and Autodesk Inventor CAD packages used for various
aspects of this design. The nuclear and conventional safety requirements imposed on this structure
dictate that a high level of confidence is required for its design, however the non-linear capability of
the RSA has not been routinely used on previous projects or with this client. Therefore, a decision has
been made to verify the RSA model by independently developing a finite element model using
Abaqus. The aim of the verification was to demonstrate that the non-linear capability of the RSA and
the modelling approach used were appropriate. This was demonstrated using a small selection of load
cases which involved applying a gravity type load in all three orthogonal directions.
The RSA modelling by Stefan Bozhkov showed good correlation when compared with the results
produced by Abaqus. The maximum displacements and deflected shapes showed a close match
which provided confidence that the stiffness of the structure had been modelled correctly. The
reaction forces matched well in the models which was important due to the non-linear boundary
conditions being modelled. The bending moments exhibited similar patterns in the two models but had
slightly different maximum and minimum results. Further investigation of the detailed element results,
however, demonstrated that there was a good level of correlation, and any disparity was likely due to
the different finite element discretisation employed by the two software packages.
If you’d like to learn more about this project, Berislav Kralj has published a paper on the knowledge
network about it here.