Laminated Material¶
The Lamination module ships two parallel material classes — one per magnetic model — that share the same parameter set and the same underlying physics. See the overview for the laminate geometry, the two eddy-current channels and the relevant references.
| Magnetic model | Material class |
|---|---|
| Time-Domain Magnetic | TimeDomainMagneticLaminationMaterial |
| Time-Harmonic Magnetic | TimeHarmonicMagneticLaminationMaterial |
The two classes implement the same constitutive law and differ only in how the in-sheet eddy-current correction is wired into the formulation — as a separate weak form in the time domain, as an imaginary part of the complex reluctivity in the frequency domain.
Effective constitutive tensors¶
In the local frame both tensors are diagonal with two equal in-plane components and a distinct out-of-plane component.
Magnetic permeability.
The in-plane direction is an arithmetic mean (continuity of \(H_\parallel\) across iron/air interfaces); the out-of-plane direction is a harmonic mean (continuity of \(B_\perp\)):
The permeability tensor used is therefore
Electric conductivity.
Electric current cannot flow across the insulating interlayers, so \(\sigma_\perp = 0\). In-plane the conductivity is reduced by the volume fraction of conducting material:
This \(\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\) accounts only for the homogenised \(\vec{j}_{\alpha\beta}\) — the macroscopic eddy-current loops in the lamination plane.
In-sheet eddy-current correction¶
The component \(\vec{j}_{\beta\gamma}\) — the in-sheet loop driven by the parallel flux variation \(\partial_t \vec{B}_\alpha\) — has a known analytical structure1 by solving the 1-D Faraday equation across the sheet thickness. In the thin-sheet limit the in-sheet current density varies linearly with the through-thickness coordinate. The correction is given as an augmentation of the magnetic-field strength2: $$ \vec{H} = \bar{\boldsymbol{\mu}}^{-1}\,\vec{B} + \underbrace{\frac{\sigma\,d^2}{12}\,\partial_t \vec{B}}{\displaystyle \vec{H}\text{LS}}, $$
where \(\vec{H}_\text{LS}\) is the lamination-stack augmentation that accounts for the in-sheet eddy currents.
Validity range¶
The first-order augmentation \(\vec{H}_\text{LS}\) neglects the in-sheet skin effect and is therefore valid when the in-sheet skin depth \(\delta_{\alpha\beta} = \sqrt{2 / (\omega\,\mu_\perp\,\sigma_\parallel)}\) exceeds about half the sheet thickness:
For 0.5 mm silicon-steel (\(\sigma = 5 \times 10^6\,\mathrm{S/m}\), \(\mu_r = 1000\)) at 50 Hz, \(\delta_{\alpha\beta} \approx 1.0\,\mathrm{mm}\) and the ratio is \(\sim 0.5\) — well inside the validity range. For thinner sheets or lower frequencies the approximation is better; for thicker sheets or frequencies above a few kHz at these material parameters the linear \(\gamma\)-expansion breaks down.
A second length scale, the penetration depth into the stack \(\delta_\gamma = \sqrt{2 / (\omega\,\mu_\parallel\,\sigma_\parallel)}\), governs the mesh size near the stack ends. Because \(\mu_\parallel \gg \mu_\perp\) for typical iron laminates, \(\delta_\gamma \ll \delta_{\alpha\beta}\) — the perpendicular flux decays much faster from the stack ends than the in-plane skin depth would suggest, and the boundary layer at the stack ends should be resolved accordingly.
Parameters¶
| Argument | Units | Description |
|---|---|---|
name |
– | Material name. |
marker |
– | Volume marker of the laminated region. |
sheet_permeability |
N/A² | Magnetic permeability \(\mu\) of a single ferromagnetic sheet. May depend on \(\vert\mathbf{B}\vert\) for nonlinear iron. |
sheet_conductivity |
S/m | Electric conductivity \(\sigma\) of a single ferromagnetic sheet. |
stacking_direction |
– | Unit vector \(\vec{e}_\gamma\) normal to the sheets (the lamination plane is perpendicular to it). |
stacking_factor |
– | Volume fraction \(F \in (0,\,1]\) of the magnetic phase. \(F = 1\) recovers a pure-iron stack with no insulating interlayer. |
lamination_thickness |
m | Thickness \(d\) of a single sheet (used only by the in-sheet eddy-current correction). |
has_eddy_currents |
– | If True (default), the homogenised eddy-current channel \(\bar{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\) is added to the formulation. |
with_homogenization_correction |
– | If True (default), the in-sheet eddy-current correction \(\vec{H}_\text{LS} = (\sigma d^2 / 12)\,\partial_t \vec{B}\) is wired in. Disable to study the bare anisotropic constitutive law in isolation. |
All scalar / vector parameters accept the standard mufem coefficient
inputs (CffConstantScalar, CffConstantVector, field-dependent
coefficients, …).
Time-Domain Magnetic¶
import mufem
from mufem import Vol
from mufem.electromagnetics.module.lamination import (
TimeDomainMagneticLaminationMaterial,
)
iron_material = TimeDomainMagneticLaminationMaterial(
name="Core",
marker="Core" @ Vol,
sheet_permeability=mufem.CffConstantScalar(1000.0),
sheet_conductivity=mufem.CffConstantScalar(5.0e6),
stacking_direction=mufem.CffConstantVector(0.0, 0.0, 1.0),
stacking_factor=mufem.CffConstantScalar(0.95),
lamination_thickness=mufem.CffConstantScalar(0.5e-3),
)
time_domain_magnetic_model.add_materials([iron_material])
Time-Harmonic Magnetic¶
import mufem
from mufem import Vol
from mufem.electromagnetics.module.lamination import (
TimeHarmonicMagneticLaminationMaterial,
)
iron_material = TimeHarmonicMagneticLaminationMaterial(
name="Core",
marker="Core" @ Vol,
sheet_permeability=mufem.CffConstantScalar(1000.0),
sheet_conductivity=mufem.CffConstantScalar(5.0e6),
stacking_direction=mufem.CffConstantVector(0.0, 0.0, 1.0),
stacking_factor=mufem.CffConstantScalar(0.95),
lamination_thickness=mufem.CffConstantScalar(0.5e-3),
)
time_harmonic_magnetic_model.add_materials([iron_material])
References¶
-
P. Dular, J. Gyselinck, C. Geuzaine, N. Sadowski and J. P. A. Bastos, A 3-D Magnetic Vector Potential Formulation Taking Eddy Currents in Lamination Stacks Into Account, IEEE Trans. Magn., 39(3), 1424–1427 (May 2003). doi:10.1109/TMAG.2003.810386. ↩
-
H. De Gersem, S. Vanaverbeke and G. Samaey, Three-Dimensional–Two-Dimensional Coupled Model for Eddy Currents in Laminated Iron Cores, IEEE Trans. Magn., 48(2), 815–818 (February 2012). doi:10.1109/TMAG.2011.2172924. ↩