AMazing hysteresis groundbreaking theory that will be the best ever and save china.

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 3

AMazing hysteresis groundbreaking theory that will be the best ever and save china.

© All Rights Reserved

- 1D-2D-3D Linear and Nonlinear Amplification
- Etabs Tutorial
- Seismic Isolation
- Full Text 01
- FE Verif. by Abaqus
- History FEA.doc
- 13_600
- Compare FEA Codes
- A110x-Datasheet
- Ssec Tip 100
- Algor
- Fem
- HVT Group Assignment
- 7ME1 Finite Element Method, I Mid-term Paper
- Mechanics 37
- 2.DU M.Sc. 2018
- 06484956
- Thesis
- Matlab Saturable Transformer.pdf
- CFD EX

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

3, MARCH 2012

1115

Using a Generalized Positive-Feedback Theory

Robert G. Harrison, Life Senior Member, IEEE

Department of Electronics, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada

A generalization of the previously-described positive-feedback theory of first- and second-order reversal curves permits modeling of

minor loops of arbitrarily high order . The validity of the theory is tested by using it to model various types of high-order phenomena

(

3), including symmetrical and asymmetrical spirals as well as closed minor loops, in a variety of different hard and soft ferromagnetic materials that exhibit the return-point memory property.

Index TermsAnhysteresis, demagnetizing spiral, energy summation, high-order loop, high-order return curve, hysteresis, magnetization, minor loop, recoil loop, return-point memory.

I. INTRODUCTION

HE successful modeling (and prediction) of high-order

minor loops in ferromagnetic materials has long been a

stringent test of the capability of a hysteresis model. Hitherto,

there seems to have been no single physical theory that can explain the detailed behavior of low- and high-order minor loop

phenomena in both hard and soft materials.

This paper introduces a generalized positive-feedback

(G-PFB) theory that can successfully model a variety of major

loops, symmetric and asymmetric minor loops, as well as

demagnetization spirals, in different types of soft and hard

ferromagnetic materials. The term generalized is used in the

sense that it can model minor loop segments of arbitrarily high

order, in many materials with parameters conforming to the

assumptions made in deriving the theory. The work described

here is an extended version of a previously-described physical

theory that was able to model first-order reversal curves [1] and

recoil loops [2].

In practical applications, high-order minor loops and their

associated hysteresis losses play an important part in characterizing the behavior of inductors, transformers, motors, generators, and numerous electromechanical devices. Examples include the calculation of iron-rotor hysteresis losses due to minor

- loops [3], and complex minor loops in motor cores due to

-fields with high-order time harmonics [4]. In addition, in the

area of material characterization, it has been suggested that by

measuring a set of minor loops with various field amplitudes,

it would be possible to obtain much information on lattice defects in ferromagnetic materials [5]. Conversely, by comparing

such loops with their theoretical counterparts, the G-PFB theory

could be related to the presence of lattice defects.

Models based on the G-PFB theory are expected to be ideally

suited for the formulation of finite-element codes because they

intrinsically provide as a function of , as required by FEM

procedures based on the magnetic vector potential .

Manuscript received June 22, 2011; revised September 14, 2011; accepted

September 27, 2011. Date of publication October 06, 2011; date of current version March 02, 2012. Corresponding author: R. G. Harrison (e-mail: rgh@doe.

carleton.ca).

Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online

at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMAG.2011.2170846

employed numerous different approaches, of which the two

dominant ones have been the Preisach model (PM) and its

descendents, and the Jiles-Atherton (JA) model and its variants.

Below, we survey these and some other models that have been

used for minor loops.

1) Preisach Models: The classical, generalized (nonlinear), average, and feedback1 versions of the PM have all

been used to simulate demagnetizing spirals of orders up to 6 in

various tape-recording materials [6][9]. A moving version of

the PM, together with a full set of measured symmetric closed

minor loops, was used to model minor loops in a very hard

SmFeCo material [10]. A PM incorporating a description of domain-wall motion could produce horizontally-congruent minor

loops and nested closed minor loops up to order 10 in very soft

materials [11]. Kdrs bilinear product model version of the

PM, which does not suffer from the non-physical congruency

property of the classical PM, has been used to model recoil

loops and demagnetization spirals up to order 14 in Alnico and

certain steels [12]. A measured major loop, together with a

simplified PM, was used to model low-order minor loop losses

in FeSi [13]. Preisach models have several problems:

a) They are not closely related to the physics of magnetic

materials. Instead, they rely on empirical techniques

involving the identification of the parameters of analytic functions such the Lorentzian, Log-Gauss, or

Gauss-Gauss distributions that are used to represent the

Preisach function. In the case of generalized versions

of the PM in its scalar or vector implementations, these

identification procedure can become computer intensive.

b) Because of its mathematical structure, the classical PM

predicts vertical congruency in its strict sense, that is, all

minor loops resulting from input field variations between

the same two extrema are congruent. This congruency is

not generally obeyed in reality [14], [15]. The nonlinear

[16] and average [17] versions of the PM both show the

property of equal vertical chords, a relaxed version of

congruency. In the average version this property is history-dependent.

1The feedback referred to here is a mathematical PM technique entirely

unrelated to the present G-PFB theory.

1116

should

be the sum of irreversible and reversible components

and

. The classical PM (CPM) provides only the

component, but in reality the magnetization has both irreversible and reversible properties. To include an

component, various different (empirical) modifications to

the CPM have been proposed. These include the moving

and product versions of the PM [18], [19], as well as an

approach that considers a distribution with an additional

of

Dirac delta-function singularity on the line

the Preisach plane,2 that produces a reversible term in

the PM [10], [17]. A problem with the assumption that

is that experiment shows that

is itself a function of

[18]. It has been concluded

that the concept of irreversible magnetization implicit

should be regarded as a convenient label and

in

should not be taken as a measure of thermodynamic irreversibility [20].

d) FEM electromagnetic-field calculations employing the

vector potential require the applied field as a function of the magnetization , whereas the PM provides

. Until recently, the computational cost of iteratively calculating

from

was relatively high [15],

[21], but Davino et al. have reported an algorithm that

overcomes this problem [22].

e) The classical PM does not include reversible

magnetization.

2) Jiles-Atherton Models: The original JA model [23] could

not model physically-reasonable minor loops. A subsequent

modification [24] provided a way to do so, but required the

magnetizations at both extremities of a minor loop to be known

a priori, and hence could not accommodate arbitrary applied

field variations. A proposed further modification requiring only

the initial point of the loop could deal with arbitrary excitations

and initial conditions; however no comparison with measured

data was provided [25]. An optimization procedure was used

to find the parameters of both the original JA model (and its

inverse), and thereby obtain agreement between modeled and

measured minor loops [26]; improved recoil loop representations were achieved through further empirical modifications

[27], [28]. An empirical variation of the classical JA model to

ensure minor-loop closure was also proposed [29].

Problems with JA models include the following:

a) They do not naturally produce closed minor loops; a fix is

needed to do that.

b) As in the Preisach models, see above, all JA models

involve a decomposition of the magnetization into reand irreversible

components, but the

versible

physical reality of this is questionable [2], [20].

3) Other Models: Other prior approaches that have been investigated for minor loops include the following.

An empirical anisotropic vector hysteresis model,

involving a population of pseudoparticles and the

Prandtl-Ishlinskii friction-like representation of hysteresis [30].

An empirical-phenomenological algebraic limiting-loop

proximity model [31].

A quasi-physical energetic model [32].

2Here

An empirical model involving an equivalent elliptical loop that has the same area as the physical major loop (or

smaller ellipses in the case of minor loops), from which the

estimated irreversible hysteretic loss in soft core materials could be calculated using a transient FEM analysis. To

make this work, the wiping-out rule was imposed [33].

Stop and play models that employ input-dependent

shape functions. The main advantage of these models is

that they provide an inverse in closed analytic form. Although they still need function identification procedures,

they are sometimes claimed to be as efficient as, or more

efficient than, the PM [4], [34]. If a parallel architecture

(for example FPGA) is used, then the stop and play models

can indeed be more efficient than the PM. However for a

serial architecture, as in a PC, then the PM is faster, and

the JA model faster still (but less acccurate).

A copy-and-translate technique in a static hysteresis

model [35].

A procedure involving finite-element modelling plus

Madelungs rules to estimate minor hysteresis loops in

a representation defined by a measured initial-magnetization curve, a set of demagnetization curves, data for

straight-line recoil loops, and a measured symmetric

major loop [36].

An empirical piecewise-linear model defined as superposition of hysteresis operators in a resistor-inductor circuit

[37].

The difficulty with most of these empirical and quasi-physical

modeling approaches is that they need a fitting procedure or

special mathematical fixes to make them work.

Here we introduce an entirely different theory based on

quantum/classical physics that can be used to model high-order

minor-loop phenomena with good accuracy. No function identification procedures are needed. This paper generalizes the

positive-feedback hysteresis model described previously [1],

[2] in such a way that th-order minor loops and curve segments, closed minor loops of arbitrary order, and asymmetric

demagnetizing spirals can be calculated.

II. THEORY

According to the present scalar theory, the basis of which

was explained in detail in [1], [2] and [38], ferromagnetic hysteresis always has its origin in a positive-feedback process of

QM origin occuring at the micromagnetic scale. This leads to the

logically necessary concept of quasi-macroscopic QM particles,

each consisting of a chain of magnetons, conveniently referred

to as a supermagneton, extending across the width of a domain

[1]. A parallel ensemble of many such spicular quasi-particles

constitutes a 3-D array occupying the volume of a domain. In

this theory the average length of a supermagneton is magnetons, where the distance between individual magnetons depends

on the crystal lattice structure. As shown in [38] this theory results in the following positive-feedback (PFB) equation for the

magnetization :

(1)

where

is the saturation magnetization, is the vacuum permeability,

is the Bohr magneton, is the Boltz-

1117

is the QM

component of the total applied field , and is the Weiss exchange-field coefficient. In normalized form (1) is simply

(2)

where

is the

. From this it is evident that

Curie temperature, and

the magnetization is a function of itself, thereby giving rise to

magnetization

a PFB process. The result is an S-shaped

function, complete with unidirectional jumps that account for

hysteretic irreversibility. In this work, (2) is inverted to provide

a QM expression that is suited for field summation:

(3)

The hysteresis operator defined by (2), or equivalently (3),

shows a local memory hysteresis. That is, the output depends

only on the input and the current state of magnetization. As

shown in [1], [2], and [38], the overall magnetic state of the

system can be found by summing the relevant contributions to

(this is equivalent to an energy summation).

the total field

associated with the

Thus the anhysteretic field component

mesoscopic domain structure must be included in the sum. In an

isotropic medium in which magnetization changes are mediated

by rotation of domain magnetic moments

, the anhysteresis

is given by a Langevin function

. As demonstrated in [1],

[2], the corresponding anhysteretic field contribution is given

by

(4)

where

is the ratio between magneton and domain

moments. We remark that (4) could be written more generally

as

(5)

where

is a generalized anhysteresis function (or lookup

table) describing non-Langevin behavior. The field-sum should

also include a macroscopic global demagnetizing field term

(6)

where

and

is the demagnetization factor. Summing the above field terms we get the field sum (equivalently,

energy sum)

(7)

where O.T. stands for other terms (anisotropy-energy field, etc.)

as required. The minimum requirement for this summation is the

presence of the first two terms: if

is omitted then hysteretic

loops (major or minor) have perfectly vertical sides, seldom

seen in reality; without

there will be no PFB and consequently no hysteresis!

In the case of minor loops, a non-local memory hysteresis also

comes into play, where the output depends on the complete magnetization history. Explicit equations for the major loop, FORC,

and SORC according to the PFB theory, based on (1)(7), and

incorporating return-point memory (RPM) effects, have already

algorithm. Reversible segments are shown in thick line, irreversible segments in

thin line. Odd-order and even-order segments are shown in dark and light gray

respectively (blue and green online). Normalized parameters are given in the

inset.

RPM was given in the same reference. In the next section we

generalize those equations in order to describe th-order reversal curves, under the condition that the physical requirements

for full RPM are satisfied. The th-order reversal curves will be

referred to as NORCs (symbolized as ). For each order of reversal curve, two different types are possible, one type having

both reversible and irreversible segments, the other having only

a reversible component.

The resulting generalized PFB theory is used here in a

fast-acting algorithm for computing arbitrary high-order minor

loops and spirals. To illustrate the versatility of this algorithm,

Fig. 1 depicts theoretical asymmetric demagnetization spirals

that commence from two different points on the descending

branch of a major loop.

The quasi-static scalar G-PFB model described above is limited to magnetic materials and situations that conform to the initial assumptions made in its derivation. Thus the material should

be homogeneous and isotropic (or else uniaxially anisotropic

with the -field parallel or perpendicular to an easy axis [1]),

and free from external or internal magnetomechanical stresses.

However, the model is often found to give useful results even

when some of these requirements are not fully met. According

to (1), inter-particle interactions are included as a mean-field approximation through the exchange-field parameter . In certain

circumstances, inclusion of higher-order interactions might improve the accuracy, but this has been found unnecessary in the

materials studied here.

A. Generalized Algorithm for Minor Loop Segments

It is important to notice that in this work the subscripts rev

and irr that refer to reversible and irreversible -fields have

an entirely different meaning from the usage in the Preisach

1118

Fig. 2. Theoretical asymmetric demagnetization spirals (continuous curves). (a) A low-order spiral in which NORC 0 has both lower-reversible (L ) and

ascender-irreversible (A ) segments and is therefore Type-LA. The major loop 0 is indicated in dashed line. (b) Part of a higher-order spiral in which NORC 0

has only a lower-reversible (L ) segment and is therefore Type-L. In (a) and (b), n is an odd integer. In this figure, P are reversal points, X are reversal fields,

Y are reversal magnetizations, and Y are bifurcation magnetizations [2]. Reversible segments are shown in bold line, irreversible segments as light arrows,

reversal points as open circles, and bifurcation points as diamonds. The connectors, due to the RPM effect, are shown as dotted lines with arrows.

reversible and irreversible magnetizations , see [2].

1) Reversible-Field Summation: We write the th-order field

sum

for a reversible

(upper) or

(lower) segment

of a NORC, see Fig. 2, in the form of the normalized reversiblefield summation

key field components occurring in (8) and (9) are:

The term

for the reversible part of the QM S-curve,

as given by the complete expression

(10)

(8)

where

is the reversible part of the hysteretic QM field

. The term

is a generalization of the the first- and

second-order center-point magnetizations of the symmetric but

-offset S-shaped curves that are caused by the QM-PFB

process, while

is the center-point magnetization of the

-offset th-order minor anhysteresis curve, as explained in [2].

The remaining terms in (8) are

the coercive field,

the domain-size parameter, and

the local demagnetizing

parameter.

2) Irreversible-Field Summation: There is an analogous

th-order field sum

for an irreversible

(ascending)

or

(descending) segment of a NORC, written here as an

irreversible-field summation

The term

for the irreversible part of the QM

S-curve, which is

(11)

The term

(12)

The term

(13)

(9)

where

is the irreversible part of the hysteretic QM field

, and the other terms are as in (8). Generalizing the field

equations previously obtained for FORCs (1ORCs) and SORCs

(2ORCs) [2], we deduce the key th-order equations shown in

the following sub-section.

when is odd and

when

is even.

In the following, the separation of minor branches into odd

and even types is only for descriptive convenience, and is due

to the choice of a FORC starting on the descender of the major

loop. If a FORC starts from the major-loop ascender then the

odd branches become even and the even ones become odd.

which shows a low-order demagnetization spiral, and Fig. 2(b)

which depicts part of a higher-order demagnetization spiral.3 We

shall also refer to portions of the flow chart of Fig. 3. For simplicity, the sum field

will be written as

in what

follows.

Fig. 2(a) shows a fourth-order demagnetization spiral that

starts from point 1 on the descender branch of a major loop. In

. From

order to explain the algorithm this point is labeled

) there is a Type-LA NORC

point 1 to point 2 (labeled

(blue online) consisting of reversible lower segment

followed by irreversible ascender

. Then from point 2 to

) there is a Type-UD NORC

(green

point 3 (labeled

followed

online) consisting of reversible upper segment

(green) that aims at memory

by irreversible descender

point 1 (dotted line) because of the RPM effect. However, fulfillment of this aim is thwarted by the field reversal at point

3. The penultimate part of the spiral is a Type-LA NORC (labeled ) from point 3 to point 4 (blue), consisting of reversible

followed by irreversible ascender

that

lower segment

aims at memory point 2 (dotted line). Contrary to intuition,

the chains of ascending and descending connectors, shown in

dotted line, do not form smooth curves. Instead, each connector

aims along its own trajectory towards its own memory point.

(green) conThe final part of the spiral, a Type-UD NORC

followed by

, goes from point 4 directly

sisting of

to memory point 3, again because of RPM, uninterruped by any

further field reversal.

Fig. 2(b) depicts a seventh-order demagnetization spiral that

illustrates a Type-L fully-reversible NORC

going from point

). Here

7 (labeled ) back to memory point 6 (labeled

has no

segment because its bifurcation magnetization

is

greater than its reversal magnetization

. In spite of appearis actually Type-UD because,

ances, the preceding NORC

, it would have extended to

in the absence of reversal field

). The resulting closed loop between

point 5 (labeled

and

is a Rayleigh loop [39], [40].

4) Equations for an Odd-Order NORC: In the following discussion we refer to Fig. 2, and also to Fig. 3 which shows a simplified flow chart for the algorithm. When is odd, there are two

possible types of th-order return curve (NORC) , depending

on whether the bifurcation magnetization4

is greater or

less than the

th-order reversal magnetization

. If

, as it is in Fig. 2(a) and in frame 6 of Fig. 3, then

has both

(lower) and

(ascender) segments and is des, as in

ignated Type-LA (two components). But if

Fig. 1(b) and frame 5 of Fig. 3, then

has only an

segment and is called Type-L (one component). It is not known a

priori whether

is Type-L or Type-LA. This problem can be

resolved by initially assuming that

is Type-L, and then calculating the th-order bifurcation magnetization

. If it is

found that

, then the assumption was correct. Otherwise

must be Type-LA, in which case

and

has to be be re-calculated.

3The

curves in Figs. 1(a) and (b) were all derived using the present theory.

bifurcation magnetization Y

is the value of y at which the QM

. It is the magnetization at which the NORC

S-shaped curve has @x =@y

segment changes from reversible to irreversible [2].

4The

=0

1119

( Odd,

):

The investigation requires evaluation of the th-order reversal

at the th-order field-reversal point

, see

magnetization

,

Fig. 2(a), (b). For a Type-L NORC, for which

occurs where th-order reversal field

cuts

magnetization

, see for example Fig. 2(b)

the reversible upper segment

and frame 2 of Fig. 3, and is given by the zero of the bounded

function

(14)

where

denotes an error (depending on ), and the notameans that variable is to be restricted to

tion

to . However, for a Type-LA NORC,

the search interval

, magnetization

occurs where

for which

cuts the irreversible descender

, see Fig. 2(a)

field

and frame 1 of Fig. 3, and is therefore given by the zero of the

function

(15)

We next show how to calculate the NORC in each case.

): A Type-L

b) Calculating a Type-L NORC ( Odd,

segment , which is necessarily reversible and odd-order, see

Fig. 2(b) and frame 5 of Fig. 3, is given by

(16)

The unknown center-point magnetizations

and

for

segment

can be determined by solving the following pair

of nonlinear simultaneous equations:

(17)

(18)

using a 2-D constrained optimization routine [2]. Suitable initial

and

;

conditions are

constraints are

and

. Having determined

and

, the bifurcation magnetization at the boundary between reversible and irreversible segments of the NORC is found to be

(19)

If the initial assumption that

turns out to be true,

then

is indeed Type-L (having only a reversible component

) and is given by a bounded form of (16):

(20)

However, if it is found that that

, then

must be

Type-LA, in which case revised magnetizations

and

need to be calculated, as discussed next.

c) Calculating a Type-LA NORC ( Odd,

): If it

is determined that

, then

has both

and

components and is Type-LA, see Fig. 2(a) and frame 6 of Fig. 3.

In this case revised magnetizations

and

have to be calculated by solving the following pair of simultaneous nonlinear

1120

Fig. 3. Simplified flow chart for calculating demagnetization spirals and minor loops of arbitrary order n.

equations:

(21)

(22)

where (21) is the same as (17) but (22) is different from (18).

Again, a 2-D constrained optimization routine can be used, with

the same initial conditions and constraints as used for the Type-L

calculation using (17) and (18). Magnetization

is found by

recalculating (19), while the lower (reversible) segment

of

1121

Fig. 4. Summary of the G-PFB algorithm depicted in the flow chart of Fig. 3.

bound:

magnetization

occurs where reversal field

cuts the irre, see frame 3 of Fig. 3, and is therefore

versible ascender

given by the zero of the bounded function

(23)

The (irreversible) ascender component

NORC can be plotted (later, because

using

of the Type-LA

is not yet known)

(24)

5) Equations for an Even-Order NORC: When is even,

the calculations follow a similar pattern as when is odd, but

with certain differences. There are again two possible types of

NORC, depending on whether the bifurcation magnetization

is less or greater than the

th order reversal magnetization

. If

, as in frame 8 of Fig. 3, then

has

both

(upper) and

(descender) segments and is designated

Type-UD (two components). But if

, as in frame 7

of Fig. 3, then

has only an

component, and is Type-U.

and

segments appear in Fig. 2. Again, we

Examples of

is Type-UD consisting of both

do not know initially whether

and

segments, or Type-U having only an

segment.

We solve the problem by assuming that

is Type-U with only

an

segment, and then calculating

. If

, then

the assumption was correct. Otherwise

, and

has both

and

components, and is Type-UD, so that

must be recalculated.

a) Finding Reversal Magnetization

( Even,

):

, magnetizaFor a Type-U NORC, for which

tion

occurs where field

cuts the reversible lower segment

, see frame 4 of Fig. 3, and is given by the zero of the

bounded function

(26)

We now show how to calculate the NORC in each case.

b) Calculating a Type-U NORC ( Even,

): A

Type-U segment, which is reversible and even-order, is given

by (16). The unknown magnetizations

and

are found

by re-solving nonlinear simultaneous (17) and (18), with initial

conditions

and

. The

constraints remain

and

. The NORC bifurcation field

and magnetization

are given by a recalculation of (19) and (20), respectively.

, see Frame 7 of

If it turns out to be true that

Fig. 3, then

has only an

component given by an expression similar to (23) but with different limits:

(27)

But if it is found that

, then

must have both

and

components, and is Type-UD. In this case revised

magnetizations

and

must be determined, as explained

in the next section.

c) Calculating a Type-UD NORC ( Even,

): If

, see Frame 8 of Fig. 3, then

it is found that

must have both

and

components, and is Type-UD. In this

case revised magnetizations

and

have to be determined

by re-solving simultaneous nonlinear equations (17) and (18),

using the same initial conditions and constraints as for Type-U.

Then the

segment is given by a recalculation of (27) with

different limits:

(28)

(25)

1122

TABLE I

DATA FOR ISOMAX

in Isomax [6] compared with theoretical results (continuous curves). Reversible

curve segments are shown in heavy line, irreversible segments in light line.

of the Type-UD

NORC can be plotted, once

is known, using

(29)

d) Including a Paramagnetic Magnetization Component:

A paramagnetic component of the magnetization can be included by adding to the calculated value of

a term

;

or in normalized form, by adding to the calculated value of a

, where

is the paramagnetic susceptibility.

term

6) Summary of the Algorithm: The above sequence of calculations is summarized in Fig. 4, which refers to the flow chart of

Fig. 3.

III. APPLICATIONS OF THE THEORY

For an initial test of the generalized positive-feedback

(G-PFB) theory, Isomax was chosen. This is a recording

medium consisting of nonoriented Co-doped -Fe O particles of low acicularity [6], [41]. It has properties in close

conformity with the assumptions of this version of the theory,

that the material is isotropic and that magnetization changes

occur primarily through domain rotation, and consequently

it has a Langevin-type anhysteresis [1]. Then we investigate

how well the theory works for examples of ferromagnetic

materials ranging from very soft (

A/m) to very hard

(

A/m).

line) compared with theory (gray, blue, green online). The 1ORC is almost coincident with the major loop. Reversible segments are in bold line, irreversible

segments in light line. Measured data are courtesy of I. Mayergoyz [7].

via domain rotation. Relevant data are listed in Table I. The fundamental exchange-field and domain-width parameters and

occurring in (1) can be calculated from the measured data using

the following expressions [2]:

(30)

and

(31)

are the exchange field coefficient

and the domain

width

.

B. Eighth-Order Demagnetization Spiral: -Fe O

Fig. 5 compares data for a measured asymmetric third-order

demagnetizing spiral in Isomax with a modeled spiral according

to the present G-PFB theory. Reasonable agreement is observed

for the major loop

and for the

, and

segments, as

Fig. 6 compares theoretical and measured asymmetric eighthorder demagnetization spirals for a Co-coated -Fe O magnetic tape [7]. Even though the agreement for the outer loops is

imperfect, accuracy improves as increases, indicating the robustness of the algorithm. Relevant data are listed in Table II.

1123

= 111

Fig. 7. (a) A theoretical major loop with a quasi-symmetric demagnetization spiral of order n

, computed for Isomax using the G-PFB theory (odd/evenorder NORCs are blue/green online). Open circles are reversal points, diamonds are bifurcation points. (b) The vertex curve obtained by plotting the calculated

demagnetization reversal points (circles).

TABLE II

DATA FOR GAMMA FERRIC OXIDE

Fundamental quantities derived from the measured parameters in Table II are the exchange field coefficient

and

the domain width

.

C. High-Order Demagnetization Spirals and Their

Relationship to the Initial-Magnetization Curve

As seen in Fig. 2, demagnetization curves of arbitrarily

high order can be calculated using the G-PFB theory. Fig. 7(a)

shows a quasi-symmetric example, again for Isomax. Here an

alternating -field of progressively decreasing amplitude is

applied to the sample, resulting in a demagnetization spiral

of order 111. The boundary between reversible

and

irreversible

segments is demarcated by the bifurcation points (diamonds). The reversal points

(small

circles) lie on the vertices of the minor

segments, and are

reproduced in Fig. 7(b) as a vertex curve. The parameters

used to generate these curves are as in Table I.

The central part of Fig. 7(a) is magnified in Fig. 8 to show the

nested Rayleigh loops that are typically seen at low

fields.

Since these loops consist of Type-U and Type-D segments only,

they identify a region of reversibility, as discussed in [39], [40].

Because the NORCs in Fig. 7 are so closely spaced, the demagnetization spiral strongly resembles a typical magnetization

spiral, as would be obtained by starting with an AC-demagnetized specimen and then applying an alternating sequence of

Fig. 8. Enlargement of central region of Fig. 7(a), showing in bold line the

lenticular Rayleigh quasi-loops that characterize the low-field reversible region.

The rest of the spiral is shown in light gray line.

curves for an Sm-Fe-Co material has been obtained Cornejo et

al. [10]. Commenting on this set, it has been remarked that the

line connecting the loop tips is known as the normal or initial

magnetization curve [42]; a similar observation occurs in [43].

These comments prompt the idea that in an isotropic material

such as Isomax, wherein both magnetization and demagnetization processes are mediated primarily by rotation of the domain

moments

, each half of the demagnetization vertex curve

shown in Fig. 7(b) should be equivalent to an initial magnetization (IM) curve. To test this notion, Fig. 9 compares the measured IM curve [6] with the theoretical vertex curve according

to the G-PFB theory. The rather close agreement seems to confirm this idea. Note that the vertex points associated with the

fully-reversible Type-U and Type-L segments, shown as black

1124

Fig. 9. Enlargement of the theoretical first-quadrant vertex curve (open circles) of Fig. 7(b), compared with the experimental initial-magnetization (IM)

curve for Isomax (red online), from [6]. The portion of the theoretical IM curve

associated with low-field reversibility is shown as black dots.

be expected5.

This result suggests a possible new way of investigating certain aspects of the behavior of ferromagnetic materials. In Fig. 9,

the IM curves agree because a Langevin-type anhysteretic is

consistent with the properties of Isomax. As pointed out in [1],

the Langevin function is derived on the assumption that magnetization and demagnetization processes take place only via rotation of individual domain magnetization vectors

[44]. Thus,

if there is a significant difference between the measured and the

Langevin-theory IM curves, it means that other magnetization

processes, such as nucleation and domain-wall motion, are also

at work.

Fig. 10 illustrates how a set of closed minor loops can be generated by the G-FPB theory. In Fig. 10(a) the major loop (black)

contains three instances of a 1ORC (FORC, blue) starting at a

reversal field such as

, leading to a closed minor loop consisting of a 2ORC (SORC, green) followed by a 3ORC (red).

Each such trajectory is analogous to that in Fig. 5, but is constrained to being cycled between

and

. Loop closure occurs because (a) the G-PFB theory incorporates the return-point

memory (RPM) effect, and (b) the reversal fields

and

recur. In Fig. 10(b) the 1ORCs are suppressed, and the resulting

isolated minor loops are compared with measured data (dotted

line) [6]. The agreement is seen to be close. It is observed that

whereas the classical Preisach model imposes vertical congruency on closed minor loops [14], [15] the G-PFB theory imposes

no such non-physical behavior.

5The IM curve will of course revert to reversiblity when it reaches the upper

(reversible) segment of the major loop.

(S-CMLs) can be obtained by starting with a demagnetized

specimen, and then applying to it an alternating -field whose

amplitude is increased in a sequence of discrete steps [10],

[45]. In this theoretical discussion, normalized parameters will

be used for mathematical simplicity. In principle, an S-CML

can be generated by any pair of minor segments

and

such that their reversal fields and magnetizations satisfy

and

respectively. By definition an

S-CML has to be centered at the origin of the

plane.

Using the G-PFB theory, the simplest way an S-CML can be

generated is by a 2ORC followed by a 3ORC, similarly to Fig. 5,

but with the vertex (reversal) fields equal and opposite, so that

, see Fig. 11. It is also necessary that the vertex

. However, it is not sufficient

magnetizations satisfy

to just specify the reversal fields and then expect to get a perfect

S-CML: one also needs to know by what route the vertex points

of the S-CML should be approached. A simple possibility is to

start at point 1 on the major loop , and then to traverse

from point 1 to point 2, followed by

from point 2 to point 3,

and finally

from point 3 back to point 2. However, unless the

value of

is correctly chosen one will not even get a closed

minor loop. With luck, one may get a (maybe closed) minor loop

that has vertex fields at

, but uncontrolled vertex magnetizations. Neither is one free to choose any arbitrary point of the

plane as one of the two vertices of an S-CML. Both vertices have to be points on the initial-magnetization curve (IMC).

No other points are eligible.

In the next section, we describe a mathematical procedure for

generating perfectly symmetric CMLs.

1) Method: The situation is shown in Fig. 11, which was generated using typical parameters for Isomax, which closely conforms to the basic assumptions of the G-PFB theory as presently

formulated [1], [2]. To obtain a

type S-CML,

three conditions must be satisfied.

1) The fields at points 2 and 3 must be equal and opposite, so

that

.

2) The magnetizations at points 2 and 3 must also be equal

and opposite:

.

3) The two vertex points

and

must lie

upon the IMC.

For the case illustrated in Fig. 11, the sought S-CML can be

generated only by initiating a specific 1ORC at point 1 on the

is Type-LA and its irreversible ascender

major loop . Here

segment

(thin line) has the general equation

(32)

see (24). Thus we can determine the centerpoint magnetizations

and

that characterize

by solving the simultaneous

equations

(33)

1125

Fig. 10. Three closed asymmetric minor loops in Isomax. (a) In this instance, each minor loop is reached via a 1ORC (blue online), and consists of a 2ORC (green

online) followed by a 3ORC (red online). In the case of the uppermost loop, the 3ORC overlaps the 1ORC. (b) Comparison between the theoretical curves (gray,

1ORCs suppressed) and measured data (dots) [6]. Reversible segments are shown in thick line, irreversible segments in thin line.

Fig. 12. Comparison between calculated (continuous line) and measured data

(dots) for four nested symmetric closed minor loops in a soft 6.5% Si-Fe material. As in other figures, thick lines indicate reversibility, thin lines irreversibility.

Measured data are courtesy of V. Basso [46].

Fig. 11. A (normalized) scenario for calculating a symmetrical closed minor

loop in Isomax. The 1ORC 0 , the 2ORC 0 , and the 3ORC 0 are in color

online. Thick lines indicate reversibility, thin lines irreversibility The theoretical

initial magnetization curve (IMC) is shown in dotted line (magenta online).

and

(34)

Once curve

is known, magnetization

can be found by

solving (33). The required starting field

for curve

is then

found from the intersection of curves and . The theoretical

IM curve is also plotted in Fig. 10: it does indeed pass exactly

through the vertices of the S-CML, at points 2 and 3.

2) Symmetric Loops: Comparison With Measurement:

a) Very Soft Si-Fe Material: Fig. 12 compares calculated

symmetric closed minor loops with measured data due to Basso

et al. for a very soft 6.5% Si-Fe specimen that was annealed for

1 hr at 1100 C, then ac-demagnetized [46]. This material has a

coercivity of only

A/m. Relevant data are listed in Table III.

The agreement is seen to be reasonable.

Fundamental quantities derived from the measured data in

Table III are the exchange field coefficient

and the domain width parameter

.

b) Very Hard Sm-Fe-Co Material: Fig. 13 gives a result

for symmetric closed minor loops in an exchange-coupled

nanocrystalline Sm Fe Co sample that has a high coercivity of

A/m. This value of

is 75 000 times

larger than for the material shown in Fig. 12, demonstrating the

very wide-range capability of the G-PFB modeling procedure.

Other relevant data are given in Table IV.

1126

TABLE III

DATA FOR 6.5%Si-Fe

et al. [10], shown in dotted line, is compared with continuous curves calculated

using the G-PFB theory.

TABLE IV

DATA FOR Sm-Fe-Co

are the exchange field coefficient

and the domain

width

.

IV. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This paper has introduced a generalized positive-feedback

(G-PFB) theory that can be used to model hysteretic major and

high-order minor loop phenomena in materials that display the

return-point memory property. Based on previous work concerning modeling FORCs and SORCs [1], [2], this energy-summation theory works for arbitrary-order NORCs. It is shown

that there are two different types of NORC, one being fully reversible, the other having both reversible and irreversible segments. The key features of this theory are:

The essence of the theory is contained in only four algebraic equations. Computation times are short because numerical iterations are required only when solving pairs of

simultaneous nonlinear equations.

No extra mathematical fixes or curve-fitting procedures are

neededonly the physical parameters of the material.

Unlike numerous other modeling approaches, the field

is treated as a function of magnetization

, rather

than the inverse. This is a major advantage when using

the G-PFB theory to develop codes for finite-element

modeling (FEM).

Hysteretic behavior and the associated irreversibility are

caused by discontinuous jump phenomena due to a theoretical S-shaped quantum-mechanical (QM) magnetization curve that is inherent in the fundamental physics.

The total field is the sum of (at least) QM, anhysteretic,

and demagnetizing field contributions. This is equivalent

to an energy summation.

The paper develops algebraic even and odd th-order equations for the two different NORC types, and provides detailed

explanations using both typical high-order curves and a flowchart of the algorithm.

Important results and conclusions:

The capabilities of the resulting algorithm have been

demonstrated for materials with coercivities ranging from

A/m to 18 A/m (a ratio of 75 000:1).

Unlike the well-known Preisach model (PM), the present

theory imposes no non-physical vertical or horizontal congruencies on minor loops [15].

Also unlike the PM, no computer-intensive function identification or curve-fitting procedures are required.

Minor loops and spirals are governed by the same laws as

the major loop.

The theory shows that there exists a close relationship

between a quasi-symmetric high-order demagnetizing

spiral and the initial magnetizing curve (IMC), in that

the calculated vertices of successive minor loop segments

all lie along the measured IMC. This is the inverse

of Bertottis experimental observation for magnetizing

spirals. The theory also demonstrates that there is a close

relationship between the IMC and the shape of the major

loop.

High-order demagnetizing spirals automatically produce

lenticular Rayleigh loops that tend to be reversible. This is

consistent with numerous experimental observations that

the IMC is reversible at low -fields [39], [47].

The accuracy of the theoretical curves does not deteriorate

as the order increases.

The G-PFB algorithm described in Section II.A constructs

the possible trajectory (not necessarily the whole branch)

from a reversal point to the next memory point (due to the

RPM effect), which may or may not be a reversal point.

This means that the set of reversal points does not need to

can be

be known a priori, because a new branch

initiated on the fly at any point on branch .

The accuracy of the derived algorithm has been tested by

using it to calculate results for comparison with measured data

for (a) demagnetizing spirals up to 8th order, (b) nested closed

1127

Fig. 14. (a) CPU times to calculate up to 11 reversal branches. (b) The CPU times to calculate up to 111 branches.

minor loops in a variety of materials, and (c) a 111th-order demagnetization spiral, the vertices of which reproduced the measured initial-magnetization curve very closely. As would be expected, the most accurate results were obtained for a material

(Isomax) whose properties closely conform to the initial theoretical assumptions. However, other kinds of material can be

modeled quite well, all with the same theory.

Fig. 14(a) shows the measured CPU times (using a Dell PC

with Intel Core 2 Quad CPU at 2.39 GHz and 3.25 GB RAM,

with non-optimized Matlab code) to compute demagnetization

spirals with various numbers of reversal branches from 1 to

11, while Fig. 14(b) shows the corresponding result up to 111

branches, as shown in Fig. 7(a).

Demagnetizing factor

Sample temperature [K]

Curie temperature [K]

Weiss exchange-field coefficient

Domain width, measured in magnetons

Vacuum permeability

H/m

Paramagnetic susceptibility

2) Normalized Physical Quantities:

Local demagnetizing parameter

Sample temperature

Ratio between magneton and domain

moments

APPENDIX

As in [2], the notation

means

is defined, for magnetizations in the range

that the field

to , by the nonlinear function

. Other specialized notations follow.

1) Physical Quantities:

Domain parameter

Global demagnetizing factor

Sum field6

Sum field

[A/m]

Magnetization

QM field component

th order bifurcation field [A/m]

Boltzmanns constant

Sum field

J/K

Coercive field

Magnetization [A/m]

Saturation magnetization [A/m]

6In

were written as x .

1128

th-order reversal magnetization

th-order sum bifurcation magnetization

Center-point magnetization of the th

order QM S-curve due to PFB

Center-point magnetization of the th

order anhysteretic curve due to domain

rotation and size-variation

3) Segments of an th-Order Reversal Curve (NORC)

Reversible lower segment

Irreversible ascender

Irreversible descender

4) Specialized Functions:

Langevin anhysteresis function

Generalized anhysteresis function

Reversible normalized-field function

Irreversible normalized-field function.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author thanks Dr. I. Mayergoyz of the University of

Maryland for permission to reproduce the measured data used

in Fig. 5, Dr. V. Basso of the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca

Metrologica, Turin, Italy, and Dr. D. R. Cornejo of the Instituto

de Fisica, Universidade de So Paulo, Brazil, for permission

to re-use the measured data employed in Figs. 11 and 12,

respectively. He also thanks the anonymous reviewers for their

cogent comments. This work was supported by the Natural

Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada under

Discovery Grant 1340-2005 RGPIN.

REFERENCES

[1] R. G. Harrison, Physical theory of ferromagnetic first-order return

curves, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 19221939, Apr. 2009.

[2] R. G. Harrison, Positive-feedback theory of hysteretic recoil loops in

hard ferromagnetic materials, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 47, no. 1, pp.

175191, Jan. 2011.

[3] O. Bottauscio, G. Pellegrino, P. Guglielmi, M. Chiampi, and A. Vagati,

Rotor loss estimation in permanent magnet machines with concentrated windings, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 39133915,

Oct. 2005.

[4] T. Matsuo, Y. Terada, and M. Shimasaki, Representation of minor

hysteresis loops of a silicon steel sheet using stop and play models,

Physica B, vol. 372, pp. 2529, 2006.

[5] S. Takahashi, S. Kobayashi, Y. Kamada, and T. Shishido, Similarity

rules of minor hysteresis loops in Fe and Ni materials, J. Magn. Magn.

Mater., vol. 320, pp. 20562061, 2008.

[6] K. Wiesen and S. Charap, A better scalar Preisach algorithm, IEEE

Trans. Magn., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 24912493, Nov. 1988.

[7] I. D. Mayergoyz, G. Friedman, and C. Salling, Comparison of the classical and generalized Preisach hysteresis models with experiments,

IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 39253927, Sep. 1989.

Preisach model of hysteresis, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 28, no. 5, pp.

22682270, Sep. 1992.

[9] I. D. Mayergoyz and A. A. Adly, Numerical implementation of the

feedback Preisach model, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 28, no. 5, pp.

26052607, Sep. 1992.

[10] D. R. Cornejo, M. LoBue, V. Basso, G. Bertotti, and F. P. Missell,

Moving Preisach model analysis of nanocrystalline SmFeCo, J. Appl.

Phys., vol. 81, no. 8, pp. 55885590, Apr. 1997.

[11] V. Basso, Hysteresis models for magnetization by domain wall motion, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 22072212, Jul. 1998.

[12] O. Henze, W. M. Rucker, M. Jesenik, V. Gorican, M. Trlep, A. Hamler,

and B. Stumberger,

Hysteresis model and examples of ferromagnetic

materials, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 11511154, May

2003.

[13] E. Barbisio, F. Fiorillo, and C. Ragusa, Predicting loss in magnetic

steels under arbitrary induction waveform and with minor hysteresis

loops, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 18101819, Jul. 2004.

[14] I. D. Mayergoyz, Mathematical models of hysteresis, IEEE Trans.

Magn., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 603608, Sep. 1986.

[15] E. Dlala, J. Saitz, and A. Arkkio, Inverted and forward Preisach

models for numerical analysis of electromagnetic field problems,

IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 19631973, Aug. 2006.

[16] I. D. Mayergoyz and G. Friedman, Generalized Preisach model of

hysteresis, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 212217, Jan. 1988.

[17] I. D. Mayergoyz, Mathematical Models of Hysteresis and Their Applications. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 2003.

[18] E. Della Torre, Preisach modeling and reversible magnetization,

IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 30523058, Nov. 1990.

[19] M. Emura, D. R. Cornejo, and F. P. Missell, Reversible and irreversible magnetization in hybrid magnets, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 87, no.

3, pp. 13871394, 2000.

[20] D. C. Crew, S. H. Farrant, P. G. McCormick, and R. Street, Measurement of magnetic viscosity in a Stoner-Wohlfarth material, J. Magn.

Magn. Mater., vol. 163, pp. 299312, 1996.

[21] N. Takahashi, S. Miyabara, and K. Fujiwara, Problems in practical

finite element analysis using Preisach hysteresis model, IEEE Trans.

Magn., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 12431246, May 1999.

[22] D. Davino, A. Giustiniani, and C. Visone, Fast inverse Preisach

models in algorithms for static and quasistatic magnetic-field computations, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 862865, Jun. 2008.

[23] D. C. Jiles and D. L. Atherton, Ferromagnetic hysteresis, IEEE Trans.

Magn., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 21832185, Sep. 1983.

[24] D. C. Jiles and D. L. Atherton, Theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis

(invited), J. Appl. Phys., vol. 55, pp. 21152120, Mar. 15, 1984.

[25] K. H. Carpenter, A differential equation approach to minor loops in

the Jiles-Atherton hysteresis model, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 27, no.

6, pp. 44044406, Nov. 1991.

[26] J. V. Leite, N. Sadowski, P. Kuo-Peng, N. J. Batistela, and J. P. A.

Bastos, The inverse Jiles-Atherton model parameters identification,

IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 13971400, May 2003.

[27] J. V. Leite, N. Sadowski, P. Kuo-Peng, and A. Benabou, Minor loops

calculation with a modified Jiles-Atherton model, J. Microw., Optoelectron. Electromagn. Appl., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 4954, Jun. 2009.

[28] J. V. Leite, A. Benabou, and N. Sadowski, Accurate minor loops calculation with a modified Jiles-Atherton model, Int. J. Comput. Math.

Elect. Electron. Eng., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 741749, 2009.

[29] A. Benabou, J. V. Leite, S. Clnet, C. Simo, and N. Sadowski, Minor

loops modelling with a modified Jiles-Atherton model and comparison with the Preisach model, J. Magn. Magn. Mater., vol. 320, pp.

10341038, 2008.

[30] A. Bergqvist, A. Lundgren, and G. Engdahl, Experimental testing of

an isotropic vector hysteresis model, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 33, no.

5, pp. 41524154, Sep. 1997.

[31] L. A. L. de Almeida, G. S. Deep, A. M. N. N. Lima, and H. Neff,

Limiting loop proximity hysteresis model, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol.

39, no. 1, pp. 523528, Jan. 2003.

[32] H. Hauser and R. Groessinger, Directional dependence and minor

loops of magnetization of Ba- and Sr-ferrites, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol.

39, no. 5, pp. 28872889, Sep. 2003.

[33] D. Lin, P. Zhou, W. N. Fou, Z. Baics, and Z. J. Cendes, A dynamic

core loss model for soft ferromagnetic and power ferrite materials in

transient finite element analysis, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 40, no. 2,

pp. 13181321, Mar. 2004.

[34] T. Matsuo, Y. Terada, and M. Shimasaki, Stop model with input-dependent shape function and its identification methods, IEEE Trans.

Magn., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 17761790, Jul. 2004.

T. Matsuo, Generalization of the classical method for calculating dynamic hysteresis loops in grain-oriented electrical steels, IEEE Trans.

Magn., vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 21132126, Sep. 2008.

[36] A. M. Michaelides, J. Simkin, P. Kirby, and C. P. Riley, Permanent

magnet (de-) magnetization and soft iron hysteresis effects: A comparison of FE analysis techniques, Int. J. Comput. Math. Elect. Electron.

Eng., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 10901096, 2010.

[37] B. Cannas and S. Cincotti, Higher order reversal hysteresis curves

approximation by a piecewise linear circuit model of hysteresis, IEEE

Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 13491352, May 2003.

[38] R. G. Harrison, A physical model of spin ferromagnetism, IEEE

Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 950960, Mar. 2003.

[39] S. Chikazumi and C. D. Graham, Physics of Ferromagnetism. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 498.

[40] S. Zapperi, A. Magni, and G. Durin, Microscopic foundations of the

Rayleigh law of hysteresis, J. Magn. Magn. Mater., vol. 242245, pp.

987992, 2002.

[41] J. U. Lemke, An isotropic particulate medium with additive Hilbert

and Fourier field components, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 53, no. 3, pp.

25612566, Mar. 1982.

1129

1998, p. 19.

[43] J. L. Hay and R. I. Chaplin, Dynamic simulation of ferromagnetic

hysteretic behaviour by digital computer, Simulation, pp. 185191,

Dec. 1975, see Fig. 1.

[44] S. Chikazumi and S. H. Charap, Physics of Magnetism. New York:

Wiley, 1964, pp. 6063.

[45] S. Koyabashi, N. Kikuchi, S. Takahashi, H. Kikuchi, and Y. Kamada,

Scaling analysis of minor loops in ferromagnets with large uniaxial

anisotropy, J. Magn. Magn., vol. 322, pp. 15161518, 2010.

[46] V. Basso, G. Bertotti, A. Fortuna, and M. Pasquale, Preisach model

study of the connection between magnetic and microstructural properties of soft magnetic materials, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 31, no. 6, pp.

40004005, Nov. 1995.

[47] R. M. Bozorth, Ferromagnetism. New York: Van Nostrand, 1951, p.

480.

- 1D-2D-3D Linear and Nonlinear AmplificationЗагружено:Terry Cheiffetz
- Etabs TutorialЗагружено:Benny Sofyan Hartadi
- Seismic IsolationЗагружено:pluto_narko
- Full Text 01Загружено:kfali
- FE Verif. by AbaqusЗагружено:hasib
- History FEA.docЗагружено:Lauren Harris
- 13_600Загружено:Rega Saputra
- Compare FEA CodesЗагружено:desibanda73
- A110x-DatasheetЗагружено:Fabiano Formagini
- Ssec Tip 100Загружено:bladeyus1
- AlgorЗагружено:Ivan
- FemЗагружено:محمد تانزيم ابراهيم
- HVT Group AssignmentЗагружено:Siti Farhana
- 7ME1 Finite Element Method, I Mid-term PaperЗагружено:डॉ. कनिष्क शर्मा
- Mechanics 37Загружено:jpjalli
- 2.DU M.Sc. 2018Загружено:Ruchi Raj
- 06484956Загружено:Jacob Anderson
- ThesisЗагружено:Iqbal A. Latif
- Matlab Saturable Transformer.pdfЗагружено:george_cpp2
- CFD EXЗагружено:juchaca36
- heat transferЗагружено:ramakrishnaing
- Importance of Transient ResponseЗагружено:Pawan Kumar
- Lecture 2Загружено:alfrinjarj
- DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE WITH TWO ENDS FIXED ON VERTICAL WALL USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSISЗагружено:IAEME Publication
- effectofpin solonovЗагружено:halimsha
- 79- Magnetic-ﬁeld-induced superelasticity of ferromagnetic thermoelastic martensites experiment and modeling.pdfЗагружено:mohammadreza91
- The_Impact_of_Porous_Media_Heterogeneity.pdfЗагружено:Amanda Góes
- Yang_JCAMЗагружено:Bonn Silva
- 1-s2.0-S0010854504003133-mainЗагружено:Muzamil Shah
- Solving Large Complex ProblemsЗагружено:Annie Hill

- Maxwell_v16_L03_Static_Magnetic_Solvers.pdfЗагружено:VahidJam
- isbn9789512292776.pdfЗагружено:CasualKilla
- High-field Self-starting Permanent-magnet Synchronous Motor - 04643350 - 1981Загружено:CasualKilla
- MMPA Magnet Design GuideЗагружено:CasualKilla
- Maxwell v16 L02 Geometry OperationsЗагружено:VahidJam
- Challenges for Newspapers from going onlineЗагружено:CasualKilla
- Maxwell v16 L01 IntroductionЗагружено:CasualKilla
- Use of Carter's Coefficient With Narrow Teeth - 05248314 - 1967Загружено:CasualKilla
- m400-50aЗагружено:CasualKilla
- Design Criteria of High Performance Synchronous Reluctance MotorsЗагружено:Yusuf Yaşa
- Vagati1997 - Design of Low-Torque-Ripple Synchronous Reluctance MotorsЗагружено:CasualKilla
- PM412 Chapter 12 - Project Evaluation Communication Implementation and Closeout - Lecture 2Загружено:CasualKilla
- Linear ActuatorsЗагружено:CasualKilla
- Groover Manufacturing 2Загружено:Thale1905
- Groover Manufacturing 1Загружено:Shashank Agrawal

- Advanced Alignment Alberta ModuleЗагружено:Rick Conrad
- COMPARISON OF KNOCK IN SI AND CI ENGINES (1).pptxЗагружено:karthiyuven
- Modelling of Concrete CarbonationЗагружено:Pablo Benitez
- Reaction MechanismЗагружено:Siddarth Singh
- Experiment 9Загружено:May Lacdao
- Interferometric Modulator DisplayЗагружено:Midhu Mohan
- Pgwv32Загружено:Ayudhia Pangestu Gusti
- Clay and Clay BodyЗагружено:Shannon Boone
- Exam 1 8.022Загружено:Abhik Sarkar
- Ciz Shapiro Fluid Solid SubstitutionЗагружено:Glusm
- 282345792 APhO Theoretical Problems 2000 2013Загружено:Anonymous iYU9pd
- Wrc 537 Cige Noz b Op 1Загружено:metroroad
- Some Number-Theoretical ConstantsЗагружено:Skonto Riga
- TN27 Australian Standard for Precast BC and HeadwallЗагружено:gemotorres
- Silica Gel InfoЗагружено:ram_joshi12
- Spray ChamberЗагружено:kang1995
- Flares ImЗагружено:nelsonsena
- Mirrors and LensesЗагружено:Remi Eyonganyoh
- QCP for ZueitinaЗагружено:Latifa Traya
- 241913202 Sample PapersЗагружено:00ScribdScribdScribd
- 3550 Strat i Graphy TextЗагружено:Ezadin Baban
- Math Truths their SimpleProofsЗагружено:V Venkata Narayana
- E-Line_KAM_KAPЗагружено:atulasodekar
- PPT-final..Загружено:Ramu Ketkar
- 2SB1269Загружено:James Conrad Ramos
- PerformanceЗагружено:imrananjum75
- Magnetised Accretion Discs in Kerr SpacetimesЗагружено:York Zeng
- BE 2008 CivilЗагружено:dandewjanger
- Chromatography Chemistry SbaЗагружено:JasonKoylass
- Synthesis, Characterization and Catalytic Performance of Mo-TUD-1Загружено:Anoop