3-1 Modelling Considerations

Opera-3d Training Course
Power Conversion & Medical Physics & Transportation Power Systems

Electromechanical Science Applications
Devices
3-1:
3 1: Modelling Considerations for
electromagnetic models
Overview
Potential types
Use of TOTAL and REDUCED potentials
Post processing
Topological constraints
Accuracy
Discretization
Quadratic and linear elements
Coil fields
Far-field boundary
Skin-effect
2 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services
Opera version 15, November 2011

Review of Potential Types (1)
TOSCA electrostatics, current flow and SCALA

TOTAL electric scalar potential, V, is defined by
E = V
TOSCA magnetostatics
TOTAL magnetic scalar potential, , is defined by
H =
Should be used in magnetic material regions, including
permanent magnets
Will be set if potential type in a cell is Default
TOSCA magnetostatics (continued)

REDUCED magnetic scalar potential, , is defined by
H = + H S
Must be used in regions where source
currents (coils) exist
ELEKTRA, CARMEN, DEMAG and SOPRANO

Magnetic VECTOR potential, A, is defined by
A
E= V
t

ELEKTRA, DEMAG and CARMEN in reduced potential volumes,

reduced magnetic vector potential, Am, is given by
B = BS + Am
Applying Default choice for potential in the Modeller will
enforce the correct choice of potential type. In magnetic
problems with Biot-Savart coils (TOSCA, ELEKTRA, DEMAG and
CARMEN), Default gives:
Reduced potential (scalar or vector) in AIR
Total potential (scalar or vector) in other materials
Includes meshed coils for circuits
Choice of Potential
To use TOSCA magnetostatics, ELEKTRA, DEMAG

and CARMEN with Biot-Savart coils most effectively y
requires the user to make decisions on which
potential to use in regions of free space (material
AIR) where there are no coils.
Choice of potential can affect:

Speed
Speed
Accuracy
Images

Effect of Potential on Analysis Speed
Keep size of REDUCED potential small

Program must compute Biot-Savart integral at each
node in REDUCED region
Make shape of REDUCED region only just fit around
coils
Make all other AIR total potential
BUT!!!!!!!
Effect of Potential on Analysis Speed
Keep shape of REDUCED potential region simple
Programs compute the numerical line and surface

integrals of the coil fields on the interface surface
between REDUCED and TOTAL potentials
Connects TOTAL and REDUCED potentials together
See also lecture 1-4
Complex
p surface shapes
p g generate a complex p tree
to compute integrals at all nodes on the interface
Coil field values and integrals close to the coils take
longer to compute
More adaptive steps in numerical integration

Two options for a pair of saddle coils
Complex interface surface
REDUCED
region
Simple interface
surface
f
Complex interface takes

nearly 2 times longer to
solve in TOSCA
Effect of Potential on Accuracy
Keep interface of REDUCED potential far away from

coils
Integrals
Integrals can be performed more accurately
Make REDUCED potential region large
Extract from .RES file of simple interface saddle coil model

Note: Interface is close to coil in places
Discretisation
sc et sat o inadequate
adequate to model
ode co
coil fields
e ds at
at:
(0.250 , 0.175 , 0.900 ) (cm), error= 2.374% ******
(0.150 , 0.175 , 0.900 ) (cm), error= 1.984% ******
(0.300 , 7.500E-02,-0.900 ) (cm), error= 2.688% *******
(0.275 , 7.500E-02,-0.900 ) (cm), error= 4.788% ********
(0.225 , 7.500E-02,-0.900 ) (cm), error= 1.308% *****
Calculating coil fields: 42.1 s cp, 0.8 m elapsed

Extract from .RES file of complex

interface saddle coil model
Discretisation inadequate to model coil fields at:
(0.280 , 2.500E-02, 0.140 ) (cm), error= 6.097% ********
(0.280 , 2.500E-02,-0.277 ) (cm), error= 4.046% ******** (0.311 , 2.500E-02, 0.129 ) (cm), error= 10.434% **********
(0.310 , 2.500E-02,-0.254 ) (cm), error= 7.995% *********
(0.315 , 2.500E-02, 4.8E-02) (cm), error= 8.893% *********
(0.310 , 2.500E-02,-0.304 ) (cm), error= 7.984% ********* (0.313 , 2.500E-02, 2.3E-02) (cm), error= 28.327% ************
(0.310 , 2.500E-02,-0.354 ) (cm), error= 8.008% *********
(0.259 , 2.500E-02, 0.497 ) (cm), error= 1.037% *****
(0.310 , 2.500E-02,-0.404 ) (cm), error= 22.755% *********** (0.206 , 0.142 , 0.732 ) (cm), error= 1.316% *****
(0.310 , 2.500E-02,-0.454 ) (cm), error= 30.048% ************ (0.310 , 2.500E-02, 0.583 ) (cm), error= 14.910% **********
(0.259 , 2.500E-02,-0.496 ) (cm), error= 1.297% *****
(0.310 , 2.500E-02, 0.483 ) (cm), error= 37.426% ************
(0.280 , 2.500E-02,-0.577 ) (cm), error= 3.013% ******* (0.280 , 2.500E-02, 0.291 ) (cm), error= 5.186% ********
(0.182 , 0.172 ,-0.754 ) (cm), error= 3.191% *******
(0.310 , 2.500E-02, 0.383 ) (cm), error= 10.361% **********
(0.286 , 4.623E-02,-0.900 ) (cm), error= 2.488% ****** (0.310 , 2.500E-02, 0.433 ) (cm), error= 29.714% ************
((0.243 , 0.203 ,,-0.900 ) ((cm),
), error= 3.132% ******* (0 280 , 2.500E-02,
(0.280 2 500E 02 00.229229 ) (cm),
( ) error= 3.460%
3 460% *******
(0.280 , 2.500E-02,-7.4E-02) (cm), error= 5.257% ******** (0.310 , 2.500E-02, 0.282 ) (cm), error= 10.317% **********
(0.280 , 2.500E-02,-0.139 ) (cm), error= 4.444% ******** (0.310 , 2.500E-02, 0.232 ) (cm), error= 10.332% **********
(0.314 , 2.500E-02,-5.9E-02) (cm), error= 19.088% *********** (0.428 , 4.006E-02, 0.538 ) (cm), error= 2.981% *******
(0.318 , 2.500E-02,-3.6E-02) (cm), error= 30.005% ************ (0.268 , 0.210 , 0.900 ) (cm), error= 1.209% *****
(0.310 , 2.500E-02,-0.154 ) (cm), error= 7.954% ********* Calculating coil fields : 96.5 s cp, 1.8 m elapsed
(0.280 , 2.500E-02,-0.227 ) (cm), error= 3.493% *******
Field on line close to

TOTAL/REDUCED
interface

Summary
Two opposing requirements

Small REDUCED potential region close to coils
Biot-Savart fields at nodes are fast
Biot-Savart field integrals at interface are slow
Harder to get accurate integrals
Large REDUCED potential region with interface distant

from coils
Lots of nodes in REDUCED region => Biot-Savart fields at
nodes are slow
Biot-Savart field integrals at interface are fast
Easier to get accurate integrals
Default choice of potential usually gives large

REDUCED potential region
Choice of potential and post processing
Potential type also affects possibilities for field

evaluation in the Post-processor
Default
TOTAL potential
Total field values are recovered by nodal averaging
REDUCED potential
Total field values are recovered by summing nodal coil and
nodal magnetization (+ eddy current) fields
See also lecture 1-4

Choice of potential and post processing
Other possibilities in the Post processor
REDUCED
REDUCED potential
Coil fields may be re-computed at the evaluation point from
Biot-Savart expression
Any potential
Total fields may also be recovered by integration
Biot-Savart expression for fields from currents (source and eddy
currents)
Integration of magnetization
See lecture 2-1 for choosing field recovery method
Automatic cuts in TOSCA magnetostatics
Iron ring
Total magnetic
scalar potential
Rest of space
Reduced magnetic
scalar potential
Current carrying
coil

Iron ring completely surrounds current carrying coil

a problem!
Why?
Amperes law states:

H dl = I
But in total magnetic scalar potential regions:

H =
Contour integral of a gradient around a closed
contour is zero
Therefore,

.dl = 0 = I
The iron ring is a multiply connected region of

TOTAL potential
TOSCA introduces a cutting region
Extract from RES file

Checking connectivity of potential regions:
1 automatic potential cut has been added.

Multiply connected regions in TOSCA
Opera automatically inserts a cut

This makes the total potential
discontinuous
Field is continuous
Multiply connected regions
Not an issue that needs to be considered in

TOSCA current flow
TOSCA
TOSCA electrostatics
SCALA
SOPRANO
None of these programs use TOTAL and REDUCED
scalar potentials
In TOSCA magnetostatics, cuts are inserted
automatically.
ELEKTRA, CARMEN and DEMAG use reduced/total
vector potential
Also introduce automatic cuts for coil field integral
evaluation

Discretization
Opera-3d allows the user to choose which parts of the

model use LINEAR (1st order) and which parts use
QUADRATIC ((2nd order)) elements
Q
ELEKTRA, CARMEN, DEMAG & SOPRANO only use first order edge
elements irrespective of settings
Generally, it is too expensive to make all of a problem

QUADRATIC
e.g. 32946 tetrahedral elements make
6004 nodes - all linear elements
15688 nodes - mixed linear and quadratic elements (typically)
45836 nodes - all quadratic elements
Comments on discretization also apply to TEMPO,
STRESS and QUENCH
Discretization magnetic field models
Confine the QUADRATIC element regions to:

Parts
Parts of the model where a high accuracy is required
e.g. image region of an MRI magnet
Parts of the model where the field gradients are very
high e.g. end region of an electrical machine
Concentrate other elements in areas of interest

Use
U larger
l elements
l in
i the
h far-field
f fi ld
Use enough elements to model variation of

permeability in non-linear analyses

Curved surface elements
Forces quadratic elements on

curved surfaces of model
Curved surface elements
Linear elements throughout Curved surface elements
Note also the difference in the range of values

Discretization for skin-effect in ELEKTRA,

CARMEN, DEMAG and SOPRANO
In eddy current models, fields and currents decay

exponentially from the surface of conducting
materials.
1
Skin-depth =
f 0 r
x

J = J0 e
where J0 is the surface value and x is the normal direction to the

surface into the conductor

The finite element discretization of the model must

be adequate
q to represent
p the exponential
p decay.
y
Minimum discretization:
2 elements in the first skin-depth
1 element in the second skin-depth
Larger than skin-depth below second skin-depth
Better discretization leads to more accurate loss

calculations


Cell element size

= 5 mm
Top face element
size = 1 mm
36951 elements
in block
Use layered
mesh
Eddy currents induced in
copper plate at 500 Hz 1720
3 mm elements in
block
Layering types
Two types of layering are available
Geometric
Constructs new cells and copies surface mesh from top of cell to bottom of cell ->
>
top of next cell
Planar, cylindrical and spherical surfaces only
Mesh
Maps mesh non-uniformly into original cell
Available in regions that can be meshed with hexahedral or prism elements
Any shape surface

Geometric and mesh layering
Layering in the Modeller
Layering is also useful to aid the modelling of thin

structures in such applications as:
Machine
Machine air gaps
Magnetic wall shielding
Ship hulls
2 layers
Layering is specified as a face property: with
Type of layering geometric
layering
Number of layers
y
Depth of layers
May be functional
Direction of layering
Forward/Backward

Surface Impedance Boundary Condition
In some models, layering cannot produce elements

that can support accurate calculation of eddy
currents
Elements are so thin that mesh generation fails
Unsaturated steel at 10 kHz, 100 m
ELEKTRA-SS can use a surface impedance boundary

condition (SIBC)
Assumes
Assumes 1 1-dd skin-effect
skin effect theory
Interior of conducting medium is not included in the
model
SIBC switched on in material properties
Plate at 500 kHz using SIBC
Distribution of
currentt / fi
field
ld
inside plate is
not available
Integral values
such as force,
power dissipation
etc can be
calculated

Far-field boundary
The position of the far-field boundary affects the

solution
Real
Real space extends to infinity but the model is
artificially truncated
The boundary condition defines the types of image
of the model produced by truncation
NORMAL MAGNETIC says that field will be normal to
far-field boundary
TANGENTIAL
TANGENTIAL MAGNETIC says that th t field
fi ld will
ill be
b
tangential to far-field boundary
If REDUCED potential is at the boundary, these conditions
only apply to the field component represented by the
reduced potential
Far-field boundary
Permanent magnet with close boundary
Tangential magnetic Normal magnetic

Far-field boundary
The boundary needs to be far-enough away that it

does not affect the results in the area of interest.
Run 2 models with different types of boundary

condition. Does the solution in important regions
change beyond acceptable limit?
If it does, move the boundary 2 times as far away
Look at |B| on boundary (only needs 1 solution)

Half field from model
Half field from images
Important in shielding calculations
Far-field boundary
Application dependent
MRI magnet
Open system
Boundary at least 100 times magnet size
Motor and generator
Closed system
Tangential magnetic boundary at back of stator if
nott saturated
t t d
Suggestion - start at 10x object size if you

are unsure

3-1 Modelling Considerations

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3-1 Modelling Considerations

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Opera-3d Training Course

Power Conversion & Medical Physics & Transportation Power Systems

2 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Opera version 15, November 2011

Review of Potential Types (1)

TOSCA electrostatics, current flow and SCALA

Review of Potential Types (2)

TOSCA magnetostatics (continued)

ELEKTRA, CARMEN, DEMAG and SOPRANO

Opera version 15, November 2011

Review of Potential Types (3)

ELEKTRA, DEMAG and CARMEN in reduced potential volumes,

5 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

To use TOSCA magnetostatics, ELEKTRA, DEMAG

Choice of potential can affect:

6 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Opera version 15, November 2011

Effect of Potential on Analysis Speed

Keep size of REDUCED potential small

7 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Effect of Potential on Analysis Speed

Keep shape of REDUCED potential region simple

Programs compute the numerical line and surface

8 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Opera version 15, November 2011

Two options for a pair of saddle coils

Complex interface surface

Complex interface takes

Effect of Potential on Accuracy

Keep interface of REDUCED potential far away from

Extract from .RES file of simple interface saddle coil model

10 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Opera version 15, November 2011

Effect of Potential on Accuracy

Extract from .RES file of complex

11 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Effect of Potential on Accuracy

Field on line close to

12 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Opera version 15, November 2011

Two opposing requirements

Large REDUCED potential region with interface distant

Default choice of potential usually gives large

Choice of potential and post processing

Potential type also affects possibilities for field

14 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Opera version 15, November 2011

Choice of potential and post processing

Other possibilities in the Post processor

See lecture 2-1 for choosing field recovery method

15 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Automatic cuts in TOSCA magnetostatics

16 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Opera version 15, November 2011

Automatic cuts in TOSCA magnetostatics

Iron ring completely surrounds current carrying coil

Amperes law states:

Automatic cuts in TOSCA magnetostatics

The iron ring is a multiply connected region of

TOSCA introduces a cutting region

Extract from RES file

18 3-1: Modelling Considerations Cobham Technical Services

Opera version 15, November 2011

Multiply connected regions in TOSCA