Comparison of three formulations for eddy-current and skin effect problems

Abstract

Three finite-element formulations based on different definitions of current density are compared. Formulations I and II are based on incomplete equations for total and source current densities, respectively. Formulation III is based on a complete equation for source current density. To validate the third formulation, a one-dimensional test problem is solved analytically for the magnetic field intensity. The formulations are applied to a nondestructive testing example and a three-phase bus-bar example. Results show that errors due to the use of incomplete equations for current densities increase with frequency and conductor dimensions.

Modeling and finite element analysis of transduction process of electromagnetic acoustic transducers for nonferromagnetic metal material testing

“…The results of circumstance 1) in Figs.8 and 9 is in accordance with those in Ref. [10], which verifies the validity and correctness of the presented model and method.…”

“…Circumstance 1) is in agreement with the circumstance in Ref. [10], in which the skin effect and proximity effect are considered and the bias magnetic field is uniform and only has perpendicular component. The value of 0.190 7 T is chosen as the reference value, which is the largest value in Fig.5.…”

Computational analysis of power frequency devices by a novel hybrid quasi-static finite difference–finite element technique

“…The analysis of power frequency problems has been very important due to the numerous related applications and is still considered to be state of the art in computational electromagnetics [1]. From a strictly mathematical, and therefore numerical, point of view, the quasi-static problem has certain difficulties.…”

Design of Double-Sided Linear Permanent Magnet Eddy Current Braking System

“…When designing, the braking demand, mechanical structure space and strength should be considered. Besides, with the consideration of the skin effect [21], the thickness of the secondary should be slightly less than the skin depth to ensure that magnetic field can pass through the secondary. Assume that with the consideration of these physical constraints, the smallest possible d s is obtained.…”