3064

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 45, NO. 8, AUGUST 2009

High-Fidelity Magnetic Equivalent Circuit Model for an Axisymmetric Electromagnetic Actuator

Mark A. Batdorff and John H. Lumkes
Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
A computationally inexpensive magnetic equivalent circuit (MEC) improves axisymmetric electromagnet design and modeling tools by accurately capturing fringing and leakage effects. Lumped parameter MEC models are typically less accurate for modeling electromagnetic devices than distributed parameter nite-element models (FEMs). However, MEC models require signicantly less computational time to solve than FEMs and therefore lend themselves to applications where solution time is critical, such as in optimization routines, dynamic simulation, or preliminary design. This paper describes how fringing permeances in axisymmetric electromagnetic devices can be derived and then included in a MEC model. Including fringing eld effects signicantly decreases error in the MEC model, creating a more accurate, or high delity, magnetic equivalent circuit (HFMEC). Eighty-nine electromagnets with unique geometries, coil currents, and materials were modeled with MEC, HFMEC, and FEM methods. The axisymmetric HFMEC developed in this work had 67% less average force error and 88% less average ux error compared to traditional MEC results while still being computationally inexpensive to solve. Index TermsElectromagnetic analysis, electromagnetic elds, electromagnetic forces, magnetic circuits.

I. INTRODUCTION UMPED parameter magnetic equivalent circuit (MEC) models can have signicant amounts of error when predicting force, ux, and inductance in electromagnetic devices. Distributed parameter models such as nite-element modeling (FEM) give more accurate results but are computationally expensive. Optimization routines can require on the order of 10 solutions [1], [2] and therefore FEM solution time can be prohibitive. FEM computational time is also problematic for other applications such as dynamic simulation where many solutions are required [3][9]. In these cases an accurate and computationally inexpensive modeling technique would be benecial. To reach this goal, work has been done on the meshing and matrix solving efciency of FEMs [4], [10][12]. Work has also been done to create hybrid MEC/FEM models with the intention of capturing the computational efciency of MECs and the accuracy of FEM [7], [13][16], [41], [42]. Alternatively, the work presented in this paper chooses to improve the accuracy of axisymmetric MECs to reach the goal of creating a computationally inexpensive and accurate model. Different methods are illustrated in Fig. 1. Many MECs completely neglect magnetic fringing at air gaps [2], [7], [8], [17][22] which causes signicant errors. Other work empirically measures parameters and then incorporates them into the model [19], [23], [24], but this process is unacceptable for design and optimization as it requires fabrication and measurement. Previous work has derived fringing permeances for planar extruded devices using only geometry information [1], [3], [25][28]. If these fringing effects are included an accurate, but computationally inexpensive, high-delity magnetic equivalent circuit (HFMEC) can be created [1], [3], [6], [29].
Manuscript received November 06, 2008. Current version published July 22, 2009. Corresponding author: J. H. Lumkes (e-mail: lumkes@purdue.edu). Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TMAG.2009.2017531

Fig. 1. Alternative electromagnetic modeling approaches trying to achieve a common goal.

The new work presented in this paper is a methodology for deriving fringing permeances in axisymmetric devices such as solenoid actuators. The axisymmetric fringing permeances are then combined into a traditional MEC, creating a HFMEC, which is solved using conventional methods. After the circuit is solved, useful information such as force, ux, and inductance can be extracted from the circuit results. In this work the accuracy of the MEC and HFMEC are quantied by comparing force and ux results to that of an axisymmetric FEM. Since FEM accurately captures fringing and leakage effects, comparing the magnetic equivalent circuits to FEM instead of measurement allows for evaluation of each fringing path. A properly meshed FEM with correct boundary conditions has been shown to be an accurate and acceptable baseline for checking model accuracy [2], [3], [6]. II. ELECTROMAGNET GEOMETRY The electromagnet used in this analysis is a plunger style actuator shown in Fig. 2. The wound coil was assumed to ll the entire void of the electromagnet as shown in Fig. 3, although it is possible to model partially lled voids as in [1]. The electromagnet shown in Figs. 2 and 3 has a hollow center; however, many geometries and aspect ratios were modeled including solid center designs, in which case is simply set to

0018-9464/$26.00 2009 IEEE

BATDORFF AND LUMKES: HIGH-FIDELITY MAGNETIC EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT MODEL FOR AN AXISYMMETRIC ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTUATOR

3065

Fig. 4. Traditional MEC (a) and HFMEC (b). Permeances P are reciprocals of reluctances R. Fig. 2. Axisymmetric electromagnet cross section.

The axial coordinates of the nodes can be written (4) (5) (6) (7) The MEC and HFMEC are shown in Fig. 4. All permeances must be calculated in order to solve these circuits. Five permeances can be calculated using (8) presented in [25] (8)
Fig. 3. Electromagnet node locations.

zero. Although it is not the focus of this paper it should be briey mentioned that hollowing the center of an electromagnet will decrease force generated, but also drastically decrease the eddy-current lag time. Therefore, hollow center electromagnets can be advantageous for high-speed transient applications where motion dynamics are dominated by eddy-current lag. III. PERMEANCE CALCULATIONS In order to nd branch permeances the positions of each node ( and ) shown in Fig. 3 must rst be calculated. Note that and , and beadditional nodes have been added between , and (i.e., and ) to break the circuit into tween more pieces to more accurately capture the high radial ux density and permeability gradient. Adding additional nodes would further increase accuracy but would also increase the computational solution time. The radial coordinates of the nodes can be written (1) (2) (3)

, is cross sectional where absolute permeability area (perpendicular to ux), and is path length (parallel to ux). Permeances , , , and can be found by substituting cross sectional areas and lengths into (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) where s and s are given dimensions and node locations shown in Fig. 3. The traditional way to calculate the permeance of the air gap, , for a MEC neglecting fringing is to use (8) (13) where is the permeability of free space and s and are shown in Fig. 3. Permeances of annular sections where ux travels radially require more complex equations to adjust for the axisymmetric

3066

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 45, NO. 8, AUGUST 2009

Fig. 5. Geometry for integrating stator radial permeances.

Fig. 7. Integral geometry for inner gap fringing, P .

Fig. 6. Fringing and leakage elds for the four additional permeances included in the HFMEC.

effects. The reluctance for these sections can be found by integrating radially as shown in Fig. 5 [25] (14) where is absolute material permeability and other parameters are shown in Fig. 5. Since permeance is the inverse of reluctance, the permeance can be written by inverting (14) (15) Four more permeances can be found by substituting dimensions into (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) where s and s are dimensions and node locations shown in Fig. 3. Using the nine permeances [(9)(13) and (16)(19)], a traditional MEC [Fig. 4(a)] can be created and solved. To improve

accuracy and create a HFMEC, three additional fringing permeand one leakage permeance must ances be calculated and included in the circuit [see Figs. 4(b) and 6]. and elds The leakage permeance eld, , overlaps as shown in Fig. 6. Magnetic elds are not linear systems and some error is introduced by assuming they can be linearly superimposed. The new work presented in this paper is the method for deriving these additional axisymmetric fringing and leakage permeances. As in previous planar HFMEC work [1], we will assume that the fringing ux lines are composed of quarter circles and a straight segment. This requires some knowledge and intuition of the approximate path that fringing ux will take. The integration limits for permeances , , , and are dened below for all aspect ratio geometries: (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27)

A. Calculating Inner Gap Fringing Permeance, Fringing permeance is calculated by rst nding magnetic , and then integrating over to nd total path ux density, ux, . The magnetomotive force (MMF) drop of the dashed segment of the ux loop shown in Fig. 7 is temporarily neglected as we are only interested in the MMF drop of the air path (28) is the magnetomotive force, is the effective where path length taking into account axisymmetric effects, and is the integration variable shown in Fig. 7.

BATDORFF AND LUMKES: HIGH-FIDELITY MAGNETIC EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT MODEL FOR AN AXISYMMETRIC ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTUATOR

3067

To account for axisymmetric effects, the effective length was modied to change inversely with radius. The integral was then solved as a 2-D planar problem with an extruded length equal to the circumference, , at the reference radius, (29) The effective length can be calculated by summing the length of two quarter circles and a straight segment of length (Fig. 7)

(30)
Fig. 8. Integral geometry for rst outer gap fringing, P

The circumference at reference radius,

, is (31)

Substituting (20), (21), (37), and (31) into (35) yields Total ux can be calculated by integrating ux density with respect to and multiplying by the extruded depth, (38)

(32) Permeance is calculated by solving the integral in (38) Substituting (28) into (32), and recognizing that constant with respect to , yields and are (39)

(33)

B. Calculating First Outer Gap Fringing Permeance, The outer fringing permeance, , can be found in a manner . See Fig. 8. The similar to the inner fringing permeance, linearized effective length is

By denition permeance is expressed in [30] as (34) Substituting (33) into (34) yields

(40)

The circumference at the reference radius, (35)

, is (41)

Substituting (22), (23), (40), (41), into (35) yields Substituting (20), (21), (30), and (31) into (35) yields (42) (36) Permeance is calculated by solving (42) There is no analytical, closed-form solution to (36). In order to solve the integral in (36) the effective length, , is lin. In order to linearize the length, it earized and called was assumed that half of the arc acted at the reference radius, , and the other half of the arc and the straight segment acted . When linearized, (30) becomes at radius (37)

(43) C. Calculating Second Outer Gap Fringing Permeance, The second outer gap fringing permeance, , can be found in a manner similar to the other gap fringing permeances, and . See Fig. 9.

3068

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 45, NO. 8, AUGUST 2009

Fig. 9. Integral geometry for second outer gap fringing, P

. Fig. 10. Integral geometry for leakage ux, P .

The length of the straight segment for is shown as Fig. 9. Length can be written for any geometry as

in D. Calculating Leakage Permeance, For solvability reasons the previously calculated permeances assumed that all the windings were linked. The leakage permeance does not assume that all ux is linked and only links the enclosed current. The total current enclosed is shown as hatched in Fig. 10 and is calculated in (49)

(44) The linearized effective length is

(45) The circumference at the reference radius, , is

(49) where is the number of coil turns, is coil current, and s are shown in Fig. 10. The integral form of Amperes law is given in [22], [30] as

(46) Substituting (24), (25), (45), and (46), into (35) yields (50) is shown in Fig. 10. where is magnetic eld intensity and Similar to the other permeance calculations, the MMF drop of the dotted segment of the ux loop shown in Fig. 10 is temporarily neglected as the air ux path is the only path of importance to us at this time. The path length, , can be written as

(47)

Permeance is calculated by solving (47) (51) (48) The axisymmetric permeances calculated in (39), (43), and (48) will be similar in value to permeances approximated using 2-D formulas presented in [1]. However, the axisymmetric permeance will be slightly smaller than its 2-D approximaand will be tion. Similarly axisymmetric permeances slightly larger than their 2-D approximations. This behavior is anticipated and helps verify that the permeances derived in this work properly capture axisymmetric effects. Substituting (49) and (51) into (50) yields

(52) Rearranging (52) to solve for gives

(53)

BATDORFF AND LUMKES: HIGH-FIDELITY MAGNETIC EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT MODEL FOR AN AXISYMMETRIC ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTUATOR

3069

TABLE I HFMEC BRANCH LIST

The total energy contained in a linear magnetic eld [31] can be written as

Fig. 11. Iterative solution block diagram used to solve for nonlinear permeable materials.

(54) The electromagnet modeled in this research is excited from a known current, although it is possible to congure magnetic circuits so they are voltage driven [2], [6], [7], [34][36]. For the traditional MEC the permeance from node 0 to node , neglects fringing and can be written as 8,

In air (or copper) the magnetic ux density can be written

(55) Substituting (26), (27), (53), and (55) into (54) yields

(60) For the HFMEC the permeance from node 0 to node 8, includes fringing permeances and can be written as ,

(56)

Solving the integral in (56) gives

(61) The HFMEC also includes leakage permeance, , in branch 10 whereas the MEC does not. The branch list solution will yield branch uxes and node potentials. Average ux density can be found by dividing branch ux by branch area.

(57) Rearranging (54) and solving for yields

(58) Substituting (57) into (58) yields leakage permeance

(62) where is branch average magnetic ux density, is branch is average branch cross sectional area, and the magnetic ux, subscript denotes the branch number. Flux density can then be used to nd permeability to iteratively solve for materials with nonlinear B-H curves. The average cross sectional areas of branches are calculated as follows:

(59)

IV. CIRCUIT SOLUTION Once the permeances are calculated, the magnetic equivalent circuit can be solved by creating a branch list. Branch lists are a common way to solve electrical and magnetic circuits [1], [22], [32], [33]. The branch list for the HFMEC circuit shown in Fig. 4 is shown in Table I. (63) (64) (65)

3070

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 45, NO. 8, AUGUST 2009

TABLE II MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM ELECTROMAGNET PARAMETER VALUES OVER 89 MODEL VERIFICATION POINTS

TABLE IV ELECTROMAGNET PARAMETERS

329 of the total 89 test points were modeled using a piecewise linear B-H
curve for nonlinear permeance AISI 1010 steel. Parameter used to generate electromagnet force versus displacement curve TABLE III AVERAGE MEC AND HFMEC FORCE AND FLUX ERRORS OVER 89 ANALYSES (Fig. 12).

Error was calculated with respect to FEM results

(66) (67) (68) For materials with constant permeability, the magnetic circuit can be solved in a single iteration. In reality, material permeability is nonlinear and is a function of magnetic ux density. Therefore, when modeling materials with nonlinear B-H curves, an iterative solution is needed as shown in Fig. 11. A relaxation factor is used to ensure solution stability. Convergence is determined when the change of the solution from one iteration to the next is below some threshold. In dynamic simulations the magnetic equivalent circuit results from the previous time-step can be used as the initial conditions. This minimizes the number of iterations required before convergence. Magnetic force is found using (69) presented in [15], although it is possible to nd force a variety of other ways [2], [6][8], [17], [22]
Fig. 12. Electromagnet force versus displacement curve generated from electromagnet parameters given in Table IV.

armature displacement, (69) can be written as

, between them. When discretized,

(70) is the inverse of permeability given in (60) or (61), where is the ux between node 0 and node 8 given from the and branch list solution. Although inductance is not calculated in this work, it can be extracted from magnetic equivalent circuits as in [1], [3]. Transient effects due to eddy-current effects can also be included by simple rst-order lag terms [19], [22], [37][39], [43] or by more accurate, but more complicated techniques [2], [6]. V. RESULTS

(69) where is magnetic ux and is the rate of change of reluctance with respect to armature position. Numerical differentiation was used to approximate by solving the circuit at two separate geometries with a small

MEC, MEC with Roters graphical fringing methods [25], and HFMEC force and ux results were compared to FEM solutions for 89 different electromagnet analyses. The analyses were run covering a large spectrum of geometry aspect ratios, applied currents, and for both linear and nonlinear material permeabilities summarized in Table II.

BATDORFF AND LUMKES: HIGH-FIDELITY MAGNETIC EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT MODEL FOR AN AXISYMMETRIC ELECTROMAGNETIC ACTUATOR

3071

TABLE V SOLUTION BRANCHES/NODES

If very high accuracy is required, HFMEC can be used for the initial analysis to locate the optimal range of designs, and FEM for the nal analysis.
APPENDIX TABLE VI

the number of elements required for FEM is dependent on geometry and desired accuracy.

The average force and ux errors from the 89 simulations are shown in Table III. Error was calculated with respect to FEM results. In these studies, Ansofts Maxwell 2-D axisymmetric nite-element package with adaptive meshing was used [40]. Solutions began to converge with around 1000 elements; however, at least 10 000 elements were used to ensure complete convergence. To also verify model accuracy an electromagnet with parameters given in Table IV was analyzed. Forces generated by the electromagnet using a MEC, MEC-Roters, HFMEC, and FEM are plotted in Fig. 12. It is shown that the HFMEC, which includes the derived axisymmetric fringing effects, matches signicantly better with FEM results than both the MEC and MEC-Roters methods. The required computational solution time of a MEC, HFMEC, or FEM is related to the number unknowns (branches or elements) and is of the order (71) is the number of unknowns and the exponent dewhere pends primarily on solution methods and is typically [12]. FEM solution methods typically take advantage of matrix sparsity. The HFMEC will require slightly more solution time than the MEC because four additional branches are added to account for fringing and leakage. However, the MEC and HFMEC will both require orders of magnitude less computational time than a FEM as shown in Table V by the number of branches or elements that need to be solved. Similar work shows that HFMEC solution time can be as much as 10 000 times quicker than a 3-D FEM [1]. VI. CONCLUSION Several fringing and leakage permeances for an axisymmetric solenoid actuator were derived. The traditional MEC and the new HFMEC were compared to FEM results using 89 different electromagnet congurations. It has been shown that including the axisymmetric fringing effects derived in this work reduced the average force error by 67% and the average ux error by 88%. This is a signicant accuracy improvement without significant computational solution time increase. However, even after including fringing effects, the HFMEC still has 9.2% average force error and that may be unacceptable for some applications.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Dr. S. Sudhoff of Purdue University for his assistance and advice on the work presented. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Center for Compact and Efcient Fluid Power under Grant EEC-0540834. REFERENCES
[1] J. Cale, S. D. Sudhoff, and L.-Q. Tan, Accurately modeling EI core inductors using a high-delity magnetic equivalent circuit approach, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 4046, Jan. 2006. [2] B. Lequesne, Dynamic model of solenoids under impact excitation, including motion and eddy currents, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 11071116, Mar. 1990. [3] A. Balakrishnan, W. T. Joines, and T. G. Wilson, Air-gap reluctance and inductance calculations for magnetic circuits using a SchwarzChristoffel transformation, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 654663, Jul. 1997. [4] W. N. Fu, S. L. Ho, H. L. Li, and H. C. Wong, An effective method to reduce the computing time of nonlinear time-stepping nite-element magnetic eld computation, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 441444, Mar. 2002. [5] E. S. Hung and S. D. Senturia, Generating efcient dynamical models for microelectromechanical systems from a few nite-element simulation runs, J. Microelectromech. Syst., vol. 8, pp. 280289, 1999.

3072

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 45, NO. 8, AUGUST 2009

[6] M. Piron, P. Sangha, G. Reid, T. J. E. Miller, D. Ionel, and J. Coles, Rapid computer-aided design method for fast-acting solenoid actuators, in Proc. 1998 IEEE Industry Applications Conf. (Part 1), St. Louis, MO, Oct. 1215, 1998, pp. 197204. [7] B. V. Murty, A new approach for the analysis of dynamic behavior of solenoid actuators with time dependent voltage input, in 1990 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual MeetingIAS-25, Seattle, WA, Oct. 712, 1990, pp. 318324. [8] R. Ando, M. Koizumi, and T. Ishikawa, Development of a simulation method for dynamic characteristics of fuel injector, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 37153718, Sep. 2001. [9] V. Zoppig, K. Feindt, T. Strohla, and E. Kallenbach, Fast acting switching valves for servopneumatics, in Proc. IEEE/ASME Int. Conf. Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM03), 2003, vol. 1, pp. 302307. [10] R. Lee and V. Chupongstimun, A partitioning technique for the nite element solution of electromagnetic scattering from electrically large dielectric cylinders, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 737741, May 1994. [11] R. Grosso, C. Luerig, and T. Ertl, Multilevel nite element method for adaptive mesh optimization and visualization of volume data, in Proc. IEEE Visualization Conf., Phoenix, AZ, 1997, pp. 387394. [12] J. Shaeffer, Direct solve of electrically large integral equations for problem sizes to 1 M unknowns, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 23062313, Aug. 2008. [13] J. Hur, S.-B. Yoon, D.-Y. Hwang, and D.-S. Hyun, Analysis of PMLSM using three dimensional equivalent magnetic circuit network method, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 41434145, Sep. 1997. [14] A. Yoshitake, K. Harada, T. Todaka, Y. Ishihara, and K. Hirata, Dynamic analysis of a linear oscillatory actuator under feedback control, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 16621665, Mar. 1997. [15] J. P. Karidis, Modeling and Optimization of Fast-Acting Electromagnetic Actuators, Ph.D. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1983. [16] M. A. Juds and J. R. Brauer, AC contactor motion computed with coupled electromagnetic and structural nite elements, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 35753577, Nov. 1995. [17] J. J. Feeley, Simple dynamic model for eddy currents in a magnetic actuator, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 453458, Mar. 1996. [18] C. Gunselmann and J. Melbert, Improved motion control and energy consumption for sensorless electromagnetical actuators, in 2003 IEEE 58th Vehicular Technology Conf., Orlando, FL, Oct. 69, 2003, pp. 32893293. [19] A. Hughes, J. M. Stephenson, and C. Sloan, Dynamic modelling and control of a normal-force actuator, IEE Proc. Electric Power Appl., vol. 145, no. 5, pp. 449454, Sep. 1998. [20] K. S. Peterson, A. G. Stefanopoulou, and J. Freudenberg, Current versus ux in the control of electromechanical valve actuators, in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., Portland, OR, 2005, pp. 50215026. [21] J. R. Brauer and J. H. Lumkes, Jr., Coupled model of a magnetic actuator controlling a hydraulic cylinder and load, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 917920, Mar. 2002. [22] J. R. Brauer, Magnetic Actuators and Sensors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and IEEE Press, 2006. [23] Z. Dongsheng, M. Xuesong, H. Xiaohong, and T. Aifen, Modeling dynamic magnetic force and robust control, in 16th IEEE Int. Conf. Control Applications, Singapore, Oct. 13, 2007, pp. 349354.

[24] J. Pohl, M. Sethson, P. Krus, and J.-O. Palmberg, Modelling and simulation of a fast 2/2 switching valve, in 5th Int. Conf. Fluid Power Transmission and Control, Hangzhou, China, 2001. [25] H. C. Roters, Electromagnetic Devices. New York: Wiley, 1941. [26] K. J. Binns and P. J. Lawrenson, Analysis and Computation of Electric and Magnetic Field Problems. New York: Macmillan, 1963. [27] W. A. Roshen, Fringing eld formulas and winding loss due to an air gap, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 33873394, Aug. 2007. [28] M. A. Juds, Notes on Solenoid Design. Milwaukee, WI: Eaton Corporate R&D, Jul. 15, 2004. [29] S. D. Sudhoff, B. T. Kuhn, K. A. Corzine, and B. T. Branecky, Magnetic equivalent circuit modeling of induction motors, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 259270, Jun. 2007. [30] J. D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984. [31] S. Ramo, J. R. Whinnery, and T. V. Duzer, Fields and Waves in Communication Electronics, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1994, p. 844. [32] X. Dexin, Y. Xiuke, and Z. Yihuang, A direct eld-circuit-motion coupled modeling of switched reluctance motor, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 573576, Mar. 2004. [33] A. Demenko, Three dimensional eddy current calculation using reluctance-conductance network formed by means of FE method, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 741745, Jul. 2000. [34] P. S. Sangha and D. Rodger, Design and analysis of voltage fed axisymmetric actuators, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 32403243, Sep. 1994. [35] S. Stpien and A. Patecki, Modelling and position control of voltage forced electromechanical actuator, COMPELInt. J. Comput. Math. Electr. Electron. Eng., vol. 25, pp. 412426, 2006. [36] D. Deepika, S. Stanton, and B. Knorr, Multi-domain modeling and simulation of a linear actuation system, in Proc. 2003 Int. Workshop Behavioral Modeling and Simulation (BMAS03), 2003, pp. 7681. [37] J. R. Brauer and I. D. Mayergoyz, Finite-element computation of nonlinear magnetic diffusion and its effects when coupled to electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic systems, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 537540, Mar. 2004. [38] J. R. Brauer and Q. M. Chen, Alternative dynamic electromechanical models of magnetic actuators containing eddy currents, in Proc. 12th Conf. Computation of Electromagnetic Fields (COMPUMAG99), Oct. 2528, 1999. [39] Y. Okada, K. Matsuda, and B. Nagai, Application of a high speed solenoid actuator to linear hydraulic servo-mechanism, in Fluid Control and Measurement, Tokyo, Japan, 1986, pp. 183188. [40] Ansoft [Online]. Available: http://www.ansoft.com/ [41] J. Hur, S.-B. Yoon, D.-Y. Hwang, and D.-S. Hyun, Analysis of PMLSM using three dimensional equivalent magnetic circuit network method, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 41434145, Sep. 1997. [42] A. Yoshitake, K. Harada, T. Todaka, Y. Ishihara, and K. Hirata, Dynamic analysis of a linear oscillatory actuator under feedback control, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 16621665, Mar. 1997. [43] J. R. Brauer and Q. M. Chen, Alternative dynamic electromechanical models of magnetic actuators containing eddy currents, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 13331336, Jul. 2000.