[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

# Re: [femm] DC vs AC results

- To: femm@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Re: [femm] DC vs AC results
- From: David Meeker <dmeeker@ieee.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:46:02 -0400
- In-reply-to: <20030721213733.15303.qmail@web10901.mail.yahoo.com>
- References: <20030721213733.15303.qmail@web10901.mail.yahoo.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3.1; MultiZilla v1.4.0.3J) Gecko/20030425

Michael Craft wrote:

> `Question:
> If I apply a very slow AC current (~0.1 Hz) to my
> model (as opposed to a DC excitation) I will get a
> higher flux density (and field intensity) than the
> results for just DC. Shouldn't these be very similar?
> The descrepency is on the order of 26% increase. I
> am trying to evaluate the effect of eddy currents vs
> frequency, but I need to know the cause of this large
> difference.
> Thanks,
> Michael Craft`

I'm guessing that you have saturated iron in your model--that is where this behavior can arise.
Anyhow, this is actually what the program is intended to do. There's a brief blurb on this in Appendix A.4 of the manual. Anyhow, remember that the response of a problem with saturation is nonlinear--you put in a sine wave of current, but you don't get out a sine wave of flux if there is saturation--the peak flux densities get clipped. The idea of the nonlinear time harmonic solver is to try to determine the amplitude of the fundamental of the saturated flux density. To do this, the program determines an "apparent" B-H curve that is used for AC problems by assuming that H varies sinusoidally. This effective B-H curve is used for any problem where the frequency is not exactly equal to zero (e.g. 0.1 Hz). The program then computes the fundamental of B[H] (essentially by convolving B with H). Now, the resulting amplitude of the fundamental can be at a higher flux density than with the DC curve. To see why this happens, consider a square wave that varies between -1 and 1. In this case, the amplitude of the fundamental component is 4/Pi, or about 1.27324. This is about 27% higher than the peak of the square wave. You get the same sort of effect with the B-H curve.
Now, why, one might ask would one go to the trouble of creating an "effective" B-H curve? Although it tends to over-report the peak values of flux density, the whole idea is to get accurate values for quantities like losses and forces--something which this approach does pretty well, relative to the amout of effort required to get the solution. FEMM also does some fairly subtle things, like including (a somehwhat rudimentary model of) hysteresis, and deriving effective BH curves including saturation, eddy currents, and hysteresis for laminated regions.
If you want to read more, a couple good places to look are:
A. G. Jack and B. C. Mecrow, ”Methods for magnetically nonlinear problems involving significant hysteresis and eddy currents,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 26(2):424-429, March 1990.
G. Paoli, O. Biro, and G. Buchgraber, "Complex representation in nonlinear time harmonic eddy current problems," IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 34(5):2625-2628, September 1998
Dave.

    --
    David Meeker
    dmeeker@ieee.org
    http://femm.berlios.de/dmeeker

- References:
  - DC vs AC results
    - From: Michael Craft <mjcraft78@yahoo.com>

- Prev by Date: DC vs AC results
- Next by Date: Re: [femm] Re: Need some help fo my masters
- Previous by thread: DC vs AC results
- Next by thread: flux distribution in an induction motor on full-load
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread