Comparison of the Preisach and Jiles‐Atherton models to take hysteresis phenomenon into account in finite element analysis

Abstract

In this communication, the Preisach and Jiles‐Atherton models are studied to take hysteresis phenomenon into account in finite element analysis. First, the models and their identification procedure are briefly developed. Then, their implementation in the finite element code is presented. Finally, their performances are compared with an electromagnetic system made of soft magnetic composite. Current and iron losses are calculated and compared with the experimental results.

Application of a PSO algorithm for identification of the parameters of Jiles-Atherton hysteresis model

“…The rest of the particles in the initial population have been determined randomly. The calculations have been repeated 2 N times. In this case the randomly located particles move towards the leader from the first stage and search area around his position.…”

“…In the Jiles-Atherton model [2,7,12,19], it is assumed that the magnetization M of a material is caused by the factors representing reversible M rev and irreversible M irr processes during the magnetization of the core:…”

A new ferromagnetic hysteresis model for soft magnetic composite materials

“…(16). After the rearrangement, the model is described by As seen, the parameters of the new model preserve similarities with the parameters of the Jiles-Atherton ferromagnetic hysteresis model [11][12][13]. The similarity in physical behaviour and the role of each parameter is described in the text when the parameter is introduced.…”

A combined hysteresis and eddy-current model developed for a wide frequency range in electric machine applications

“…The two models which are mostly used in literature are the Preisach model and the Jiles-Atherton model [2]. While the first one is a pure phenomenological model for which parameter identification needs numerous measured hysteresis loops, the Jiles-Atherton model is using parameters with physical meaning and origin.…”

“…As the induced voltage is very small at this frequency, the minimum flux density which could be measured was about 0.77 T. For the dynamic measurements the flux density was kept small with 0.07 T in order to reach with the limited output voltage of the test bench voltage amplifiers a frequency of 4 kHz. The specific loss according to (22) was chosen for a better comparison of hysteresis losses p h and eddy current losses p e calculated with classical Steinmetz equations with the loss coefficient k h and k e according to 2 …”