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

# Re: [femm] hist. losses in FEMM

- To: femm@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Re: [femm] hist. losses in FEMM
- From: David Meeker <dmeeker@ieee.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:23:30 -0400
- In-reply-to: <bhqnlu+kcak@eGroups.com>
- References: <bhqnlu+kcak@eGroups.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

jasiu2003 wrote:

> `Hi,
> I will solve the nonlinear problem with hysteressis losses.
> How can I define the PHI_{hmax} parameter for nonlinear materials?
> Thanks in advance.
> Jan
> `

This is a good question--it's not exactly obvious how this works internally. FEMM models hysteresis by defining a complex-valued BH curve. The program starts with the "virgin" magnetization curve that the user enters and generates an "effective" B-H curve by evaluating the amplitude of the fundamental of B(H sin(t)) for each value of H on the user-defined B-H curve. There are alternative ways of getting an "effective" B-H curve, which yield similar, but not exactly identical, results, but this way seems to make the most sense to me. The effective curve typically flattens out at higher flux densities than the DC curve.
Anyhow, the effective B-H curve is then used to evaluate a non-hysteretic permeability, mu = B(effective)/H. The maximum value of mu over the defined range of H, which we could be denoted as mumax, is the determined. A complex-valued B-H curve is then constructed, where the B corresponding to each value of H:
B= B(effective)*exp(-j*Phi_hmax*mu/mumax)
where j=sqrt(-1) and Phi_hmax is the parameter that you were talking about above.
So, what does this all have to do with losses? Well, we could define mu_h, the hysteretic permeability, as:
mu_h=mu*exp(-j*Phi_hmax*mu/mumax)
The hysteresis loss per unit volume per cycle is then directly related to the imaginary part of mu_h:
loss per cycle = - PI*Im(mu_h)*|H|^2
This is sort of a general _expression_, regardless of how one choses to structure mu_h. The way that FEMM models mu_h, the imaginary part is:
Im(mu_h)= - mu*sin(Phi_hmax*mu/mumax)
Since the "hysteresis angle", Phi_hmax, is usually a fairly small angle ("usually less than 20 degrees" per Stoll's "Analysis of Eddy Currents"), the imaginary part of mu_h is closly approximated by:
Im(mu_h)= - Phi_hmax*(mu^2)/mumax
If we jam this into the loss _expression_, we get:
Power loss = PI*(Phi_hmax*(mu^2)/mumax)*|H|^2
= PI*(Phi_hmax/mumax)*|B|^2
What the power loss form assumed by FEMM is actually doing is just assuming that hysteresis losses vary as |B|^2, and you can use the above _expression_ to pick a best-fit value of Phi_hmax based on experimental data for hysteresis power loss versus flux density. At any rate, this hysteresis angle=Phi_hmax*mu/mumax is suggested in an obscure paper by O'Kelly, "Hysteresis and eddy-current losses in steel plates with nonlinear magnetization characteristics," Proc. IEEE, 119(11):1675-1676, November 1972, in which OK results were reported for this method.
It is interesting to note, however, that this dependence is different from Steinmetz's Equation (e.g. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SteinmetzsEquation.html), a widely used way of guesstimating hysteresis losses, which suggests a dependence that's more like B^(1.6) at the flux density levels where you'd actually design an electric machine to operate. I didn't pick this form, however, because B^(1.6) would imply a hysteresis lag angle ill-behaved at low levels of flux density unless the B-H curve has a very specific form as B goes to zero.
Dave.

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

- References:
  - hist. losses in FEMM
    - From: "jasiu2003" <zimonj@wp.pl>

- Prev by Date: hist. losses in FEMM
- Next by Date: BELA and showmesh() command in LUA file
- Previous by thread: hist. losses in FEMM
- Next by thread: BELA and showmesh() command in LUA file
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread