Next Article in Journal
Recent Progress in Hybrid Solar Cells Based on Solution-Processed Organic and Semiconductor Nanocrystal: Perspectives on Device Design
Next Article in Special Issue
Destruction of Fibroadenomas Using Photothermal Heating of Fe3O4 Nanoparticles: Experiments and Models
Previous Article in Journal
Process Control Strategies in Chemical Looping Gasification—A Novel Process for the Production of Biofuels Allowing for Net Negative CO2 Emissions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Distribution of Magnetic Field in 400 kV Double-Circuit Transmission Lines
Open AccessArticle

3-D Integral Formulation for Thin Electromagnetic Shells Coupled with an External Circuit

1
Department of Power Systems, School of Electrical Engineering, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Hanoi City 100000, Vietnam
2
Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G2Elab, F-38000 Grenoble, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(12), 4284; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10124284
Received: 11 May 2020 / Revised: 16 June 2020 / Accepted: 19 June 2020 / Published: 22 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Numerical and Analytical Methods in Electromagnetics)

Abstract

The aim of this article is to present a hybrid integral formulation for modelling structures made by conductors and thin electromagnetic shell models. Based on the principle of shell elements, the proposed method provides a solution to various problems without meshing the air regions, and at the same time helps to take care of the skin effect. By integrating the system of circuit equations, the method presented in this paper can also model the conductor structures. In addition, the equations describing the interaction between the conductors and the thin shell are also developed. Finally, the formulation is validated via an axisymmetric finite element method and the obtained results are compared with those implemented from another shell formulation.
Keywords: electromagnetic modelling; integral formulation; skin effect; thin shell approach; mutual inductance; finite element method; partial element equivalent circuit method electromagnetic modelling; integral formulation; skin effect; thin shell approach; mutual inductance; finite element method; partial element equivalent circuit method

1. Introduction

All of the electromagnetic phenomena occurring in the electrical systems are described by Maxwell’s equations, together with the constitutive material laws. It is a set of partial differential equations associated with the relationships of electromagnetic field (E, H) distributing into space and varying into time, the distribution of currents and charges (J, ρ) and material properties (μ, σ) [1,2].
In order to compute the electromagnetic field (i.e., solutions to Maxwell’s equations), an analytical method or a numerical method can be used. For these devices with simple geometries, a correct analytical solution can be identified. However, in some general cases, especially for the complex structure of electrical devices, the numerical methods are used as a sole solution. The numeric methods applied in modelling of electromagnetic fields can be divided into two categories: finite methods like FEM (Finite Element Method), FVM (Finite Volume Method) and the numerical integration methods such as BEM (Boundary Elements method), MoM (Methods of Moments), PEEC method (Partial Element Equivalent Circuit) [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. The choice of an appropriate method totally depends on the physical phenomena that need modelling such as the physical phenomena in high or low frequencies, with or without magnetic material, considering the effect of inductance or capacitance, external excitation source. However, there is no universal, optimal method for these problems, and the choice of the most suitable method depends on the nature of the electrical devices and their operation range.
Generally, the electromagnetic modelling of structures including thin shell model and thin wires is a complex problem in the fields of electrical engineering. Its geometry is characterized by a high ratio of the length and the thickness. Thus, the use of a volume mesh leads to a large number of elements and/that makes this method expensive and time consuming to apply to practical devices. Furthermore, due to the skin effect, when the skin depth δ is thinner than the thickness e, the size of the studied meshes must be smaller than that of the skin depth. This leads to the difficulties when the thickness of some parts of the structures is very small in comparison with the overall size of the actual devices.
The shell element formulations have recently been developed by many authors in order to cope with difficulties in thin plate models, e.g., with the boundary element method (BEM) [3], with the finite element method (FEM) [5] and with the integral methods [11,14,15,16]. In [11], we presented a coupling method between the Partial Element Equivalent Circuit (PEEC) and an integro-differential method to model the devices that include thin electromagnetic shells and complicated conductor systems. However, this coupling formulation cannot be applied to problems when the skin depth is low in comparison with the thickness of the thin shell. In [14], the authors presented a hybrid of volume and surface integral formulations for the eddy current solution of the conductive regions with arbitrary geometry. However, this formulation cannot be used for the magnetic material and as in [11], the skin effect is not yet considered. In [16], we developed a general shell element formulation for modelling of thin magnetic and conductive regions. The thin shell is modelled by an integral method to avoid meshing the air region. As in [3,5,15], the field variation through the thickness is considered. Based on a simple discretization of the shell averaged surface, the number of unknowns is greatly reduced. However, this formulation is not suitable for model systems with complex conductive structures.
In this paper, a hybrid integral formulation is proposed to allow the modelling of an inhomogeneous structure constituted by conductors and thin magnetic and conductive shells in the general case (δ > e or δ ≈ e or δ < e). The modelling of thin magnetic and conductive shell regions is determined thanks to the integral formulation in [15,16]. A method that allows the modelling of the contributions of the inductors fed with the alternating currents will be presented in Section 3. The coupling formulations for integrating the interaction between conductors and thin shells material will be fully developed in Section 4. Finally, two numerical examples are presented in Section 5. The results obtained from this formulation are compared with those obtained from the FEM. Strong and weak points of our formulation are also analyzed.

2. Thin Shell Equation

A thin electromagnetic shell (Ω) with thickness e, conductivity σ and linear permeability μr in this study is illustrated in Figure 1, where Г1 and Г2 are the surface boundaries of the shell with the air region.
The electromagnetic behavior for the side “1” of the shell regions is represented by [15,16]:
Γ 1 gra d s w ( α H 1 s β H 2 s ) d Γ + j ω Γ 1 w B 1 n 1 d Γ = 0 ,
where δ is the skin depth associated to the shell; a = ( 1 + j ) / δ ; α = a / σ th ( a e ) , β = a / σ sh ( a e ) ; w is a set of nodal surface weighting functions; H1s and H2s are the tangential magnetic fields on both sides Г1, Г2 and n1 is the normal vector of the side Г1.
The symmetrical equation corresponding to the other side of the shell is obtained by simply exchanging the indices “1” and “2”:
Γ 2 g r a d s w ( α H 2 s β H 1 s ) d Γ + j ω Γ 2 w B 2 n 2 d Γ = 0 ,
where n2 is the normal vector corresponding the side “2” of the shell.
Equations (1) and (2) are written on the averaged surface Г of the thin shell region. Subtracting Equations (2) and (1) leads to:
( α + β ) Γ g r a d s w ( H 2 s H 1 s ) d Γ + j ω Γ w ( 2 B a n ) d Γ = 0 ,
where B a = ( B 1 + B 2 ) / 2 is defined as the averaged induction and n denotes the normal vector of the surface Г (Figure 1).
The expressions related to the tangential magnetic fields on both sides and the outside of the shell are:
H 1 s = H 01 s g r a d s ϕ 1 ;   H 2 s = H 02 s g r a d s ϕ 2
where H01s and H02s are the tangential fields generated by the inductors at side Г1, Г2 and ϕ 1 , ϕ 2 denote the corresponding reduced scalar magnetic potentials.
By using (4) and assuming the small variations of H0s through the thickness of the thin shell, Equation (3) becomes:
( α + β ) Γ g r a d s w g r a d s Δ ϕ d Γ + 2 j ω Γ w B a n d Γ = 0 ,
where Δ ϕ = ϕ 1 ϕ 2 is the scalar magnetic potential discontinuity.
Using magnetization law of the linear material, equation (5) can be rewritten as:
( α + β ) Γ g r a d s w g r a d s Δ ϕ d Γ + 2 j ω μ 0 μ r μ r 1 Γ w M a n d Γ = 0 ,
where M a = ( M 1 + M 2 ) / 2 is defined as the averaged magnetization.
On the averaged surface Г, the total magnetic field Ha is the sum of the inductor field H0, the field created by magnetization HM and the field created by the eddy currents flowing in the shell HEC:
H a ( P ) = H 0 ( P ) + H M ( P ) + H EC ( P )
where P is a point located in the surface region Г.
The field HM is equal to [10]:
H M ( P ) = g r a d 1 4 π Ω ( M r ) r 3 d Ω
where r is the vector between the integration point on Ω and the point P.
By using Biot and Savart law, the field HEC can be written as:
H EC ( P ) = 1 4 π Ω J × r r 3 d Ω ,
where J denotes the eddy current density of the thin shell.
The integration of the tangent magnetization through the depth of the thin shell is written as follows [3,5,16]:
e / 2 + e / 2 M dz = G ¯ ( M 1 + M 2 ) 2 = G ¯ M a ,
where G ¯ = th [ ( 1 + j ) e / 2 δ ] / [ ( 1 + j ) e / 2 δ ] .
Using (10), Equation (8) becomes:
H M ( P ) = g r a d G ¯ 4 π Γ ( M a r ) r 3 d Γ .
The equivalent shell current K is defined as [3]:
K = e / 2 + e / 2 J dz = n × g r a d Δ ϕ .
Using (12), Equation (9) becomes:
H EC ( P ) = 1 4 π Γ n × g r a d Δ ϕ × r r 3 d Γ .
Combining (11) with (12), Equation (7) is rewritten as:
H a ( P ) = H 0 ( P ) g r a d G ¯ 4 π Γ ( M a r ) r 3 d Γ + 1 4 π Γ n × g r a d Δ ϕ × r r 3 d Γ .
Let us consider a linear magnetic law for the material M a ( P ) = ( μ r 1 ) H a ( P ) , then Equation (14) becomes [10,11]:
M a ( P ) μ r 1 = H 0 ( P ) g r a d G ¯ 4 π Γ ( M a r ) r 3 d Γ + 1 4 π Γ n × g r a d Δ ϕ × r r 3 d Γ ,
In [16], Equations (6) and (15) have been resolved and validated by the comparison with the axisymmetric FEM and the FEM 3D with the shell elements. Let us note that in the proposed equations, the integrals are determined only by the surface numerical integration. Therefore, the 3D implementation is simple and reliable. The comparison results with different ratios (e/δ) have demonstrated the ability and the advantages of the method.

3. Conductor System Modelling

We now consider m volume conductors fed with alternating sources placed in an air region. The external electric field incident at point P can be written [7,8,9]:
E ext ( P ) = J c ( P ) σ + j ω A ( P ) + g r a d V ( P ) ,
where A(P) is the vector potential and V(P) is the scalar potential.
The magnetic vector potential generated by the current density Jc is:
A ( P ) = k = 1 m μ 0 4 π Ω c k J c r d Ω ,
where Ω c k is the volume of the conductor k; r is the distance between the integration point on Ω c k and the point P.
In the context of the quasi-stationary regime operated at the frequency range up to ten MHz, it is possible to neglect the capacitive effect. Equation (16) is written in the form:
E ext ( P ) = J c ( P ) σ + j ω k = 1 m μ 0 4 π Ω c k J c r d Ω .
The PEEC method is particularly pertinent and reliable to solve this kind of problem. Let us assume that the current density in each conductor is uniform. For each conductor, Equation (18) can be associated to the electrical equivalent circuit presented by the self and mutual inductances in series with the resistances [8,9]. In most respects, what we know about this approach is difficult to the magnetic material or the magnetic conductive material. However, the mesh of the air region can be neglected and some conventional SPICEs-like or Saber circuit solvers can be employed to analyze the equivalent circuit. As a result, the behavior of several electrical devices that have electrical interconnections can be studied in only one system. With all of the advantages described above, the PEEC is well-suited for modelling real industrial devices [17,18,19,20,21].
Despite these clear advantages, this technique has a major drawback due to the necessity to store a fully dense matrix inherent to the use of the integral formulation in Maxwell’s equation. Consequently, this approach is strongly limited in modelling large-scale electrical devices requiring substantial meshes. Let us denote N as the number of unknown then the needed memory for the fully dense matrix storage leads to O(N2) and the computational costs of a direct solver (LU-decomposition) increases in proportion to O(N3). For example, a large size modelling problem containing 50,000 unknowns requires at least 50,000 × 50,000 × 8 bytes or approximately 20 GB in the memory to store a fully dense matrix and the computational costs of finding one solution by direct solver are roughly several weeks. In order to study the characteristic of the devices in a frequency range or in a period of time by the PEEC method, the total computational costs must be multiplied with the number of frequency or the time steps. Moreover, none of the circuit solvers can handle the equivalent circuit composing of 50,000 × 50,000 basic circuit elements RLMC (resistor, inductor, partial inductor, and capacitor). Overall, in both cases the computational time tends to infinity, or it is impossible to solve. To solve this problem, the algorithms coupling different matrix compression algorithms or the model order reduction technique with integral methods have been developed with the purpose of limiting matrix storage [19,21].
In addition, the expansion of the PEEC method for more general problems has been investigated [11,18,20]. However, this method is still difficult for considering special structures such as a circular coil, thick circular coil, and thin disk coil. This drawback can be easily improved by using the semi-analytic methods developed in [22,23].

4. Coupling Thin Shell with Circuit Equation

We now consider a general system composed of m conductors and thin magnetic conductive shell (volume Ω and average surface Γ ) (Figure 2). Let us assume that the current density in each conductor is uniform.

4.1. Influence of the Conductor Current on the Thin Region

The term H0 in Equation (15) can be computed by using Biot and Savart law:
H 0 ( P ) = k = 1 m 1 4 π I k S k Ω c k l k × r r 3 d Ω ,
where Ik and Sk are respectively the current and the cross section of the conductor k; Ω c k is the volume of conductor k; l k is the vector unit of current direction in the conductor k and r is the vector between the integration point on Ω c k and the point P where the field is expressed.
Equation (15) is then rewritten as:
M a ( P ) μ r 1 = k = 1 m 1 4 π I k S k Ω c k l k × r r 3 d Ω g r a d G ¯ 4 π Γ ( M a r ) r 3 d Γ + 1 4 π Γ n × g r a d Δ ϕ × r r 3 d Γ .

4.2. Influence of Thin Shell Magnetization on the Conductor

In order to take into account the influence of the field created by the thin shell magnetization, we have to integrate the magnetic vector potential AM generated by the magnetized thin shell on the conductor. This magnetic vector potential is expressed as [11,24]:
A M ( P ) = μ 0 4 π Ω M × r r 3 d Ω ,
where r denotes the vector between the integration point and the point P.
Using (10), Equation (21) can be rewritten as:
A M ( P ) = μ 0 G ¯ 4 π Γ M a × r r 3 d Γ

4.3. Influence of Thin Shell Eddy Current on the Conductor

The eddy current J in the thin shell generates a magnetic potential vector on the conductor:
A EC ( P ) = μ 0 4 π Ω J r d Ω ,
where r is the distance between the integration point on Ω and the point P.
Using (12), Equation (23) can be rewritten as:
A EC ( P ) = μ 0 4 π Γ n × g r a d Δ ϕ r d Γ .
Combining (17), (22), (23), Equation (18) is rewritten as:
E ext ( P ) = J ( P ) σ + j ω k = 1 m μ 0 4 π Ω c k J c r d Ω + j ω μ 0 G ¯ 4 π Γ M a × r r 3 d Γ + j ω μ 0 4 π Γ n × g r a d Δ ϕ r d Γ .

4.4. Final System of Equations

Equations (6), (20) and (25) are solved by using a numerical method. The most suitable way is to mesh the averaged surface Γ into n triangular elements and p nodes. Let us assume that the tangential component of the eddy current and the magnetization in each element are uniform.
The Galerkine projection method is then applied to Equation (6), and we get the following matrix system [11,15,16]:
[ A ] · [ M ] + [ B ] · [ Δ Φ ] = 0 ,
where:
[M] is a complex vector of dimension 3n; [ Δ Φ ] is a complex vector of dimension p;
[A] is a (p × 3n) matrix expressed as follows:
A ( i , k ) = 2 j ω μ 0 μ r μ r 1 Γ w i n k d Γ = 0 ,
[B] is a (p × p) sparse matrix and can be written as:
B ( i , k ) = ( α + β ) Γ g r a d s w i g r a d s w k d Γ .
A matrix system representing Equation (20) can also be determined thanks to a point matching approach at the element centroids. This linear matrix system is expressed as [10,11,16]:
( [ I d ] μ r 1 + [ F ] ) · [ M ] [ C ] · [ Δ Φ ] [ D ] · [ I ] = 0 ,
where [Id] represents the identity matrix; [F] is a (3n × 3n) dense matrix; [C] is a (3n × p) also dense matrix; [D] is a (3n × m) matrix and [I] is a (m × 1) vector. The coefficients of these matrices are expressed as follows:
F ( i ,   j ) = [ ( G ¯ 4 π g r a d Γ j u j · r i r i 3 d Γ ) , u i ]
where [,] is defined as the scalar product operator and ui is the vector basis of the element i and ri is the vector between the integration point on Γj to the centroid of the element i.
C ( i , j ) = 1 4 π Γ n j × g r a d w i × r i r i 3 d Γ .
D ( i , j ) = 1 4 π 1 S j Ω c j l j × r i r i 3 d Ω .
By integrating Equation (25) on each conductor, we have the link between the partial voltages of the conductors to the currents flowing in them. Thus, the voltage appearing on the conductor k is given by:
U k = R k I k + j ω i = 1 m m i k I i + j ω i = 1 n m i k f M a i + j ω i = 1 p m i k q · ϕ i ,
where Rk is the resistance of the kth conductor; mik is the mutual inductance between the two conductors k, i; m i k f is defined as the mutual inductance between the magnetization Mai of the shell element and the conductor k; m i k q is defined as the mutual inductance between the scalar magnetic potential discontinuity Δϕ of the shell node and the conductor k. These mutual inductances are expressed as follows:
m i k = μ 0 4 π 1 S i S k Ω c k Ω c i l i l k r d Ω c i d Ω c k ,
m i k f = μ 0 G ¯ 4 π 1 S k Ω c k Γ i u i × r r 3 d Γ l k d Ω c k ,
m i k q = μ 0 4 π 1 S k Ω c k Γ i n i × g r a d w i r d Γ l k d Ω c k ,
where ui is a basis vector of magnetizations; ni is the normal vector of the element Γi and l k is the vector unit of the current direction in the conductor k. Let us note that the mutual inductance terms mik can be calculated by the well-known semi-analytic formulas in [7,8,9,22,23]. Whereas, the terms m i k f , m i k q are computed with a standard numerical integration.
Writing Equation (33) for all conductors, we get a matrix system known as the impedance matrix system:
[ U ] = [ Z ] · [ I ] + [ L f ] · [ M ] + [ L q ] · [ Δ Φ ] ,
where [Z] is a (m × m) matrix; [U] is a (m × 1) vector; [ L f ] is a (m × 3n) matrix and [ L q ] is a (m × p) matrix.
Finally, the algebraic linear systems (26), (29) and (37) is considered as p + 3n + m complex unknowns:
[ A B 0 M o M C D L f L q Z ] × [ M Δ Φ I ] = [ 0 0 U ]
where M o M = [ I d ] μ r 1 + [ F ] is usually called the magnetic moment method matrix.
Let us note that Equation (29) has a disadvantage when the permeability of the material is high. Indeed, in such cases, the matrix term [ I d ] / ( μ r 1 ) becomes very small in comparison with the [F] matrix. This can lead to the singularity of matrix [MoM]. It should be noted that for the linear case, the simpler formulations can be developed. In such cases, Laplace equation is applied in the whole electromagnetic thin shell regions. Formulation (30) can be determined by a surface integral equation generated by charge distributions (Coulombian approach) or current distributions (Amperian approach) located on the surface area bounding the volume Ω of the thin shell region. In such configuration, only this surface area must be discretized. Consequently, the degrees of freedom of the obtained matrix system is lower. Moreover, Newton-Raphson algorithm can be easily used for the non-linear case [25].
Besides, in order to solve the equation system (38) with a reduced number of degrees of freedom, a Kirchhoff’s mesh rule is introduced. Consequently, the current and the voltage values become associated to each of the independent circuit mesh. The coupling formulation has been implemented for 3D geometry.

5. Numerical Examples

In this section, we consider two numerical examples. To valid our formulation, three numerical methods are compared. The first one is a 3D shell element FEM coupled with the circuit equations [5]. In this modelling, a special care is proposed for the mesh around the conductor to ensure accurate results. The second one is a 2D FEM formulation. This approach has already shown its good precision with a few numbers of elements and is considered as the reference. The last one is our coupling integral formulation.

5.1. Validation Through an Academic Example

In the first example, a thin magnetic conductive disk is considered with the circular conductor fed by a voltage of 1V and a frequency of 10Hz (Figure 3).
The device parameters are presented as below:
Thin disk:
Electrical conductivity σdisk = 6 × 107 S/m
Permeability μr = 200
R = 1 m, e = 50 mm
The skin depth δ = 1.45 mm is smaller than the disk’s thickness
Conductor:
Electrical conductivity σ conductor = 5.79 × 107 S/m
h = R/4 = 0.25 m
This academic example is solved by three numerical methods, where the first one is the axisymmetric FEM, the second one is a shell element formulation implemented in 3D FEM method [5] and the last one is the proposed integral method with the surface elements. In order to valid our method and to compare different approaches, we mainly focus on the computed current in the conductor and the magnetic field in the air region close to the device (calculated on the path AB, for A (0.25; 0; 0.1) and B (0.25; 0; 0.25)).
Let us note that the problem must be meshed very finely to have an accurate result with the FEM 3D (Table 1 and Figure 4) because of the high variations of the fields around the conductor. The current values greatly vary according to the number of the elements.
If the axisymmetric FEM is considered as our reference, the coupling integral method leads to an error of 0.1% (Table 1). Our method leads to more accurate results than the same shell element formulation but considering the air region treated with the 3D FEM.

5.2. A Pratical Device Example

The second test problem is the modelling of a practical device proposed by the EDF (Electricité de France) [26]. The power station “Folies” is equipped with a three-phase reactance to limit short-circuit currents. In this case, the current in each reactance is 1000 A phase-shifted with 120 degrees, the frequency is 50 Hz (Figure 5).
The parameters are presented as below (Figure 6):
Outside diameter: ∅e = 1.6 m
Inside diameter: ∅i = 0.74 m
Winding thickness: ep = 0.5 m
Center distance: Ent = 1.4 m
In nominal conditions, a three-phase reactance generate a leakage induction in the neighborhoods. In order to minimize this electromagnetic disturbance, an electromagnetic shielding and a passive loop are added between the magnetic field source and the protected area (Figure 7). The device parameters are presented as below:
Passive loop:
Permeability μr = 1,
Electrical conductivity σ = 3.03 × 107 S/m
Section radius rs = 9.25 mm
Zloop = 3.85 m
Shielding:
Permeability μr = 20,000,
Electrical conductivity σ = 2.2 × 106 S/m
Thickness = 3.5 mm
Zshielding = 5.15 m
The skin depth δ = 0.339mm is thinner than the shielding’s thickness.
The last case is tested by our integral method and the FEM 3D with shell elements. Let us note that this example is in 3-dimensional space and cannot be modelled by the 2D FEM. The current values in the passive loop and the current distribution in the shells are also compared.
The obtained results from the coupling method converge quite close to the current values presented in Table 2. Figure 8 also shows that the surface distribution of the current in the shell is quite similar to the two methods. The results achieved by the coupling integral method are very encouraging. The convergence is reached with few elements (about 1000 elements).
However, some matrices of Equation (38) are fully populated and compression algorithms must be applied if there is a large number of elements. The coupling of the model order reduction techniques or the matrix compression algorithms with some integral methods clearly demonstrates its efficiency. For example, the coupling of a matrix compression algorithm like the FMM and the MoM or the PEEC method has reduced the computation time and the memory requirements down to more than 10 times and the compressed ratio is more than 80 percent [18,27]. Moreover, the acquired model can be reused to build a real circuit, which is easy to employ in all conventional SPICEs-like circuit solvers [28,29].

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we have presented a coupling integral method in order to model thin magnetic and conductive regions which can be coupled with an external electric circuit. This coupling enables the model of conductors with complex shapes, and various skin effects across the thickness of the thin shell are taken into account. Two numerical examples have been presented and the results highlighted the accuracy of the solution provided by our proposed method. In our suggestions, the problem dense matrix and the full memory need could be solved with the compression algorithms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation: T.L.-D. and G.M.; Investigation: T.L.-D.; Data Curation: T.L.-D.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, Writing—Review & Editing: T.L.-D. and G.M; Funding Acquisition: T.L.-D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Ministry of Education and Training, Vietnam, under grant number B2018-BKA-11-CtrVL.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this paper:
FEMFinite Element Method
FVMFinite Volume Method
BEMBoundary Elements method
MoMMethods of Moments
PEECPartial Element Equivalent Circuit

References

  1. Salon, S.; Chari, M.V.K. Numerical Methods in Electromagnetism; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  2. Meunier, G. The Finite Element Method for Electromagnetic Modeling; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  3. Krähenbühl, L.; Muller, D. Thin Layers in electrical engineering. Example of Shell Models in Analyzing Eddy-Currents by Boundary and Finite Element Methods. IEEE Trans. Magn. 1993, 29, 1450–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Igarashi, H.; Kost, A.; Honma, T. A Three-Dimensional Analysis of Magnetic Fields around a Thin Magnetic Conductive Layer Using Vector Potential. IEEE Trans. Magn. 1998, 34, 2539–2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Guérin, C.; Meunier, G. 3-D Magnetic Scalar Potential Finite Element Formulation for Conducting Shells Coupled with an External Circuit. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2012, 48, 323–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dang, Q.V.; Dular, P.; Sabariego, R.V.; Krahenbuhl, L.; Geuzaine, C. Subproblem Approach for Thin Shell Dual Finite Element Formulations. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2012, 48, 407–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hoer, C.; Love, C. Exact Inductance Equations for Rectangular Conductors with Applications to More Complicated Geometries. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand.-C. Eng. Instrum. 1965, 69C, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ruehli, A.E. Equivalent circuit models for three dimensional multiconductor systems. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 1974, 22, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Clavel, E.; Roudet, J.; Foggia, A. Electrical modeling of transformer connecting bars. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2002, 38, 1378–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chadebec, O.; Coulomb, J.-L.; Janet, F. A review of Magnetostatic Moment Method. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2006, 42, 515–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Le-Duc, T.; Chadebec, O.; Guichon, J.M.; Meunier, G. Coupling between partial element equivalent circuit method and an integro-differential approach for solving electromagnetics problems. IET Sci. Meas. Technol. 2012, 6, 394–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ishibashi, K.; Andjelic, Z.; Pusch, D. Nonlinear Eddy Current Analysis by BEM Minimum Order Formulation. IEEE Trans. on Magn. 2010, 46, 3085–3088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ishibashi, K.; Andjelic, Z.; Takahashi, Y.; Takamatsu, T.; Tsuzaki, K.; Wakao, S.; Fujiwara, K.; Ishihara, Y. Ishihara. Some Treatments of Fictitious Volume Charges in Nonlinear Magnetostatic Analysis by BIE. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2012, 48, 463–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bettini, P.; Passarotto, M.; Specogna, R. Coupling Volume and Surface Integral Formulations for Eddy-Current Problems on General Meshes. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2018, 54, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Le-Duc, T.; Meunier, G.; Chadebec, O.; Guichon, J.M. A New Integral Formulation for Eddy Current Computation in Thin Conductive Shells. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2012, 48, 427–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Le-Duc, T.; Meunier, G.; Chadebec, O.; Guichon, J.M.; Bastos, J.P.A. General integral formulation for the 3D thin shell modelling. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2013, 49, 1989–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Camillis, L.; Ferranti, F.; Antonini, G.; Vande Ginste, D.; De Zutter, D. Parameterized Partial Element Equivalent Circuit Method for Sensitivity Analysis of Multiport Systems. IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Manuf. Technol. 2012, 2, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Meunier, G.; Guichon, J.M.; Chadebec, O.; Bannwarth, B.; Krähenbühl, L.; Guérin, C. Unstructured–PEEC Method for Thin Electromagnetic Media. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2020, 56, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nguyen, T.S.; Guichon, J.M.; Chadebec, O.; Meunier, G.; Vincent, B. An independent loops search algorithm for solving inductive PEEC large problems. Prog. Electromagn. Res. M. 2012, 23, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lombardi, L.; Romano, D.; Antonini, G. Efficient Numerical Computation of Full-Wave Partial Elements Modeling Magnetic Materials in the PEEC Method. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 2020, 68, 915–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ferranti, F.; Nakhla, M.S.; Antonini, G.; Dhaene, T.; Knockaert, L.; Ruehli, A.E. Multipoint full-wave model order reduction for delayed PEEC models with large delays. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2011, 53, 959–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ishida, K.; Itaya, T.; Tanaka, A.; Takehira, N. Mutual inductance of arbitrary-shaped coils using shape functions. IET Sci. Meas. Technol. 2019, 13, 1085–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Babic, S.I.; Akyel, C. New analytic-numerical solutions for the mutual inductance of two coaxial circular coils with rectangular cross section in air. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2006, 42, 1661–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Antonini, G.; Sabatini, M.; Miscione, G. PEEC modeling of linear magnetic materials. IEEE Int. Symp. Electromagn. Compat. 2006, 1, 93–98. [Google Scholar]
  25. Carpentier, A.; Chadebec, O.; Galopin, N.; Meunier, G.; Bannwarth, B. Resolution of Nonlinear Magnetostatic Problems with a Volume Integral Method Using the Magnetic Scalar Potential. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2013, 49, 1685–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abakar, A.; Meunier, G.; Coulomb, J.L.; Zgainski, F.X. 3D Modeling of Shielding Structures Made by Conductors and Thin Plates. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2000, 36, 790–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nguyen, T.S.; Guichon, J.M.; Chadebec, O.; Labie, P.; Coulomb, J.L. Ships Magnetic Anomaly Computation with Integral Equation and Fast Multipole Method. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2011, 47, 1414–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nguyen, T.S.; Duc, T.L.; Tran, T.S.; Guichon, J.M.; Chadebec, O.; Meunier, G. Adaptive Multipoint Model Order Reduction Scheme for Large-Scale Inductive PEEC Circuits. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2017, 59, 1143–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nguyen, T.S.; Le Duc, T.; Tran, S.T.; Guichon, J.M.; Chadebec, O.; Sykulski, J. Circuit realization method for reduced order inductive PEEC modeling circuits. Compel. Int. J. Comput. Math. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2016, 35, 1203–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Thin region and associated notations [16].
Figure 1. Thin region and associated notations [16].
Applsci 10 04284 g001
Figure 2. Representation of a general problem with conductors and thin electromagnetic shell.
Figure 2. Representation of a general problem with conductors and thin electromagnetic shell.
Applsci 10 04284 g002
Figure 3. Thin magnetic conductive disk and conductor.
Figure 3. Thin magnetic conductive disk and conductor.
Applsci 10 04284 g003
Figure 4. Magnetic field on path AB.
Figure 4. Magnetic field on path AB.
Applsci 10 04284 g004
Figure 5. Three phase reactance in the power station “Folies”.
Figure 5. Three phase reactance in the power station “Folies”.
Applsci 10 04284 g005
Figure 6. Parameters of three reactances.
Figure 6. Parameters of three reactances.
Applsci 10 04284 g006
Figure 7. Geometry of the test case “Folies”.
Figure 7. Geometry of the test case “Folies”.
Applsci 10 04284 g007
Figure 8. Surface distribution of the current (A/m) in the thin shell for the test case “Folies”: (a) FEM 3D with shell elements; (b) Integral method.
Figure 8. Surface distribution of the current (A/m) in the thin shell for the test case “Folies”: (a) FEM 3D with shell elements; (b) Integral method.
Applsci 10 04284 g008
Table 1. Current values in the conductor, where j is an imaginary unit.
Table 1. Current values in the conductor, where j is an imaginary unit.
FEM Axisymmetric
Number of elements15,00030,00055,000
Current values (A)1905.95 − j493.12 1905.78 − j492.87 1905.75 − j492.86
FEM 3D with shell elements
Number of elements130,000500,000950,000
Current values (A)1866.75 − j460.521841.78 − j505.481839.23 − j509.75
Integral method
Number of elements3008001000
Current values (A)1908.21 − j495.441907.85 − j495.371907.76 − j495.35
Table 2. Current values in the passive loop, where j is an imaginary unit.
Table 2. Current values in the passive loop, where j is an imaginary unit.
FEM 3D with Shell Elements
Number of elements450,000800,0001,100,000
Current values (A) 619.14 + j1946.05602.72 + j1878.72606.87 + j1870.24
Integral method
Number of elements4308501020
Current values (A) 615.21 + j1742.30619.86 + j1745.98621.38 + j1746.60
Back to TopTop