International comparison on SST and Epstein measurements in grain-oriented Fe-Si sheet steel

Appino, C.; Ferrara, E.; Fiorillo, F.; Rocchino, L.; Ragusa, Carlo Stefano; Sievert, J.; Belgrand, Thierry; Wang, C.; Denke, Patrick; Siebert, Stefan; Norgren, Y.; Gramm, K.; Norman, S.; Lyke, R.; Albrecht, M.; Zhou, Xing; Fan, Wen; Guo, Xiaotao; Hall, Michael J.

doi:10.3233/jae-151978

Cited by 31 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dispersion around the reference value of the laboratories best estimate of the power loss measured by the Epstein (PEpst) and the SST (PSST) methods in GO sheets. The related intercomparison is discussed in [8]. N() is the number of laboratories whose best estimate Pi deviates from the reference value <P> by the relative quantity  = (Pi -<P>)/ <P>.…”

Section: ) Epstein Framementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A main advantage of the Epstein frame is the good reproducibility of the measurements, as verified by international comparisons [7] [8]. Fig.…”

Section: ) Epstein Framementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Single Sheet Tester will be specifically considered, because it allows for a flexible approach to material testing. SST measurements may show slightly inferior reproducibility with respect to the Epstein measurements [8], since the quality of the yoke, its losses, and the reluctance of the sheet-yoke contact region can play a role. A novel approach to the SST method [21], where the potential drop occurring in different parts of the magnetic circuit is automatically compensated by means of a feedback system, will be here highlighted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Should these be based on magnetic loss models or should they rely on empirical formulations, there is no alternative to precise loss measurements [3]. The standard measurement methods, based on the use of the Epstein frame [4] [5] or the Single Sheet Testing (SST) magnetizer with flux closing yokes [6], offer good reproducibility, as verified by a number of international comparisons [7] [8]. They are therefore assumed as reference methods for the definition of the material quality in the specification standards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are therefore assumed as reference methods for the definition of the material quality in the specification standards. However, both Epstein and SST methods generate systematic contributions to the measurement uncertainty [9] and the obtained loss figures can be appreciably different from the "true" loss values, those provided by accurate local measurements of the effective magnetic field strength and the flux density [8] [9] [10]. An example concerning non-oriented and grain-oriented Fe-Si steel sheets is shown in Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

1-D and 2-D Loss-Measuring Methods: Optimized Setup Design, Advanced Testing, and Results

Barrière

Appino²,

Ragusa

et al. 2018

IEEE Trans. Magn.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate measurements of magnetic losses in laminations are a prerequisite for their theoretical assessment, as well as for satisfying calculations of energy dissipation in engineering systems. The standardized and universally applied measurement method, used as a reference for the definition of the material quality in the specification standards, is based on the Epstein test frame magnetizer. Its success relies on the reproducibility of the performed measurements. Its limitations come, on the one hand, from cumbersome sample preparation and, on the other hand, from a certain divergence of the measured loss figures from the true loss figures. Similar systematic differences between measured and true loss values are also observed with the standard Single Sheet Tester method. In both cases, measurements under bi-dimensional induction are or cannot be envisaged. The design of new measurement setups and magnetizers overcoming the drawbacks of the Epstein and Single Sheet Tester methods and possibly becoming recognized Standards in the future is welcome, but challenging. This paper is devoted to a comprehensive discussion of the state of the art in the alternating and two-dimensional measurements of energy losses in soft magnetic materials for electrical applications. We will summarize, in particular, measuring solutions proposed in the current literature and we will discuss in detail recent developments achieved in the authors' labs regarding 1D measurements with compensated permeameters and 2D measurements at high inductions and high frequencies.

show abstract

Section: ) Epstein Framementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A main advantage of the Epstein frame is the good reproducibility of the measurements, as verified by international comparisons [7] [8]. Fig.…”

Section: ) Epstein Framementioning

confidence: 99%