[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [femm] continuum model of proximity losses (was Re: various induction machine questions)
Muchlis Achmad wrote:
The example below really helps. I like to ask further questions on the
subject:
Is there a good reference paper on getting a closed form solution for
apparent resistance and inductance of a coil similar to the example below?
I don't really have a reference for any closed-form solutions to these
sort of problems.
Better yet, what if we have an iron-core coil, will FEMM still give an
answer which is closed to the exact solution of the eddy current effect?
There's nothing in particular in the derivation that assumes the
presence or absence of an iron core--in theory, the same approach ought
to work just fine either way.
So, I tried out a few more examples. For an axisymmetric air-cored coil
(just the same as the planar one in the example, but run as an
axisymmetric problem instead), the results are also an excellent match
to the full discrete-wire model. I also bumped up the frequency to
100kHz, and the match is still really good for the air-cored coil.
Then, I looked into some iron cored problems. The results were still
pretty good, but for some cases, there was like a 10% difference between
the continuum approximation and the full model. In the particular case
with the worst match, I was analyzing a pot-cored inductor with an air
gap. What was going on is that most of the prox. losses were occuring in
only a few turns of the wire that happened to be sitting in the fringing
field of the gap. One thing that the continuum model assumes is that the
field "source" field that drives the prox losses can be
well-approximated as constant across the area of the wire. For these
turns sitting in the fringing field, there is actually a pretty big
field gradient over the area of the wire--the assumptions used in
deriving the continuum model break down a bit in this region. This is
probably what causes the difference.
How does FEMM take into account the hysteresis of the iron material?
Currently, FEMM models hysteresis effects through the use of a
complex-valued magnetic permeability. This is sort of a crude model of
hysteresis, but it was easy to incorporate into the program... There's a
nice section on this approach in Stoll's "Analysis of Eddy Currents."
Much more recently, Hollaus and Biro talk about a generalized version
for use with a nonlinear BH curve in their paper,
K. Hollaus and O. Biro, “Derivation of a complex permeability from the
Preisach model,” IEEE Trans. Magnetics,
vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 905–908, 2002.
Also, what if we have a core that is moving such in motor or solenoid,
how do we take into account the back emf effect to the FEMM solution?
The program really only addresses static configurations. In the past,
people have use FEMM to help identify parameters in circuit models (or
just flux linkages), which could then be used in combination with motion.
Dave.