You are on page 1of 3

I EEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETI CS, VOL. 32, NO.

5 , SEPTEMBER 1996
A Simple Vector Generalization of the
J iles-Atherton Model of Hysteresis
hi ders J . Bergqvist
Electric Power Engineering, Royal Iiistitute of Technology, 5-10044 Stockholm, Sweden
A LstTact- A vector generalization of t,he J iles-Atherton
model of ferromagnetic hysteresis is proposed. It gives a
differential equation relating vector magnetization to vec-
tor magnetic field and essentially retains the simplicity of
the original scalar model. The model can handle both t,he
isotropic and anisotropic case and is equivalent. to the scalar
model for unidirectional fields. It exhibits maj or features
of vector hysteresis such as rotational hysteresis and DC
magnetization.
I . I NTRODUCTI ON
HE presence of hysteresis iii soft steels causes losses
T that depend nontrivially on the flux deiisity wa,ve-
form. Another problem associa.ted with hysteresis is the
remanent magnetization after the disconnection of a de-
vice. Moreover, in for instance rotating machines and the
T-joints of transformer cores, the field is not restrained to
a fixed axis, giving rotational hysteresis effects which com-
plicate the situation further. To ca.lcula.te such effects, a
hysteresis model is needed that can lie used t80 est$iiiiate
magii&iza.tion curv-es, preferal~ly for arbitrary vect,orial
conditions. Apa.rt from agreeing with experiments, it, is
desirable for such a. iiiodel to be computationally efficient
and that the parameters used t,o characterize a nmterial
are few a.nd simple to determine.
Many different models for magnetic hysteresis have been
proposed over the years. Among the most widespread
approa,clies is that of Preisach-type inodels [l] and the
St,oiier-Wohlfa,rtli model [a] in which the iiiediurn is
treated as an eiiseinble of independent particles, ea.cli with
a simple relay-like hysteresis mechanism. By coiitrast in
t,he J iles-Atlierton (J -A) model [3], a differential equa.-
tioii between field a.iid the microscopically averaged inag-
net~izatioii is derived from tlie physical a,ssumptioii t ht ,
hysteresis arises due to defects in the i mteri al giving a
friction-like force opposing inotion of doiimin walls.
The J -A model has several attract~ive feat,ures, inc.ludiag
the use of few and physically rel akd material pa.rainet,ers,
computational efficiency a.nd simplicity of use. However,
the model is only defiiied for the one-diiiiensiona.1 case and
does therefore not treat situations involving va.riatioiis in
the direction of t,he field. The aiin of this work is to pro-
pose a simple forinalisin for generalizing t,he model to two
aiid three dimensions. Section I1 contains a brief descrip-
t,ion of the scalar model. Sectmion I11describes tlie proposed
vector generalizat,iori aiid section IV outlines soiiie oi its
iiiost importa.nt, properties mid shows some coiiiparisoiis
with experiments.
Maiiuscript received February 29, 1996.
This work was support,ed by the Swedish Research Chuncil for
Engineering Sciences.
4213
11. THI $ SCALAR MODEL
I n the J-A model, magnetization M i s represented as
the sum of tlie irreversible magnetization Mi due to do-
main wa.ll displacement and the reversible magnetization
mir due to domain wall bending. In tlie ideal, or lossless
ca.se, the relation between M and magnetic field H would
follow a single-va.lued curve called the anhysteretic curve
Man. The origin of 1iy:steresis is assumed to be defects
in the material which pin tlie domain walls and obstruct
changes in Mi. A change in MI , thereby produces an en-
ergy loss proportional to the magnitude of tlie change,
Here R is denoted the pinning coefficient and is related to
the density of pinning defects in the medium. A conse-
quence of (1) is that if M i changes cyclically with an a.m-
plitude ki, the net loss per cycle is Q =$ RldMil =4kl ki .
I t is well known that for real makri al s, the loss is well ap-
proximated by a. dependence of the type Q - Al p , where
/? is in tlie range 1.5 - 2.5. Ey. (1) may therefore overes-
tii-na.te the loss area of small hystteresis loops.
During a, iiiagnet,ization process, the ma,gnetization en-
ergy is tlle diiference bet,weeii tlie energy which would be
obtained in the lossless case minus t,he energy loss, giving
tlie energy balance equation
Mi dH - I Man dH, - 1 k IdMij
/ 7
(2)
Here He G H +aM i,s the effective field experienced
by iiidividual inagnet.ic inoiiients, with a tlie material-
dependent, mean field ~onst~ai i t. Substituting IdMi 1 =
6( dAJi / dN, ) dH,, where (5 5 sgn ( dH, / dt ) ,
Setting the iiitegrands on both sides equal gives
which can be rewritsten a:j
(4)
(5)
There is a.n inconsistency here ~vhi ch has been noted in
the past, [4] which is t ht if for instlance MI <&J an, and
clH, <0, then dM,/clH, <0 which contradicts ea,rlier as-
sumptions a.nd is also uiilihysical be1ia.viour. Methods for
modifying the equation tcl a.void a negative slope have been
4214
proposed [4], [5]. There ;einains the question of why this
effect, which looks like a mathematica,l necessit,y, emerges
in the first place. I t is liere suggested that the reason is
tlie fact t,ha.t (4) does not necessarily follow from (3) since
t,he integration limit,s on the two sides of the equality sign
in ( 3 ) are not necessarily equal. The condition used for
set8t8iiig uy (3) was not tha.t the field He wa.s t,he same for
the two processes but ra.ther that the supplied energy wa.s
tlie same. An inclica.tioii that there is a difference is t,lia.t if
me c.oiisider the case of a. cyclica.lly va.rying ina.giietization
wit11 amplit,ucIe A&, and (numerically) solve (5) , the result-
ing hysteresis loss will usually differ from the one predicted
by (1). On the other ha.nc1, (5) does give agreement with
a loss expression d Q =k6 dMi.
Here we adopt the modification used in [SI , which is
to assume t,ha.t whenever ( Ma n - Mi) dH, <0, tfliere is
no doiiia,in wall displacement so dAdi =0. Thi s can be
expressed by yeplacing (5) by
I
with t,he iiota,tion (z)+=x if 1c >0, (x)+ =0 if z 5 0.
ence hetmeeii Pi, and Adan, giving
The reversible componciit is proport,ioiial to tshe differ-
dM,- =c(c11vIan - ClMi),
( 7)
where c is an adjustable dimensionless parameter.
Eqs (6) a.ncl ( 7) ) can be combined into a. singleequat,ion
a.s follows: On one hand, d M =d M+ c l Mr =(I-C) dMi +
c clnCIa,, giving i.
1 - c
iik
dild =-[(Man - Mi) dN,]+ +ccZM,,,
On tlie other hand, (1 - c)(Ad,, - M, ) =Mal, - [Mi +
c(Adal, - M1)] =Ma, - M , so
(8)
1
6k
dM =-[(Man - M ) dNe]+ +c dM,, .
Thi s equation ca.n be used to incrementally determine Ad
for a.ny arbi trary variation of H or vice versa..
111. THE VECTOR GENERALI ZATI ON
The sca1a.r model is a, hysteresis model of t,he so-called
Diiliein t8ype [6] which means tlie relation het,weeii fiplcl
N aiid magnetization Ad can lie expressed on t,he forni
dM =f ( H , Ad, c / H/ l c Z H I) ctN. The vect,or geiieralization
proposed here consists of modifying the differential equa-
ti on t80 a. vector Duhein model, i.e. an expression of the
t,ype dl2 =YjH, J ?, dl?/jclI?l) . dg. The modifica.tion
t8reat8s the hysteresis iiiechanism for the isotropic, and aii-
isot,ropic cases. No a.t,tempt is made here however, to
inoclel the anliysteretic, anisotropic cha,racteristic.
In tlie sc,ala.r model , the magnetization strives t owar ds
tlie anliysteretic, value but, is hindered from rea.ching i t clue
to pinning. Thus, t,he difference Mall - iVl mar, as strated
in [:3] he interpreted as t8he force coinpelliiig cloma.iii ~~al l s
to mm:e and k a.s a. resistance to cliaiiges. I n the vector
+
case, one may similarly assume that the force is -
M , aiid t8he resistance to changes through piilniiig can be
represented by k which in the mi sotropi c ca.se may be
a symmetric tensor of tlie second rank reflecting possible
diffeyent pinning strengt,hs in different directions while in
the isotropic case i t is a sca,la.r. I t is here convenient to
introduce the a.uxilia.ry quantity
-
-
CJIianges 3 + in A?, are assuinec] parallell to gf, so
d Mi / l d M~ ] =gf / l gf ]. Also, in the s d ar case, Adi
changes oiily when the field is incremeiited in the direc-
tion of the force. I n the vector case, i t seems natural to
expect that changes occur only when gf . clz, >0 and are
then proportioiial to this quantity. These concepts lead to
the equation
wliich gives the irreversible component.
version of (7) is obviously to set
Coiiceriiiiig the reversible coinpoiieiit , a simple vector
dA?, =Z . (dGall - dn?i)
(11)
where 7 may, like k , be a. symmetri c tensor of tiie second
rank, clue to different capacity for domai n wall bending in
different directions.
Similar to the scalar case, (10) a.nd (11) can he rear-
ranged to read
t.
CCG=gflffl-qff . dl-i,]+ +7 . dn?,,
(12)
where *-I
j& =k (%fan - n?) (13)
From (12) and (13)) n? can be evaluated for any variation
of N. The c:qua.tioii contains no reference to the number of
diiiiensions and t,~i e evaluation of cl n? for any giveii dXf is
simple and fa.st,. I n ter m of computational simplicity aiid
speed, the model coinpa.res fa.vorably to for instance vector
Preisach models [1] and the Stoner-Wohlfarth model [a].
Because dee =dI? + dA?, t,he equation is implicit
wlien & f 0. Thi s does however not seein to be a serious
prohlein. Oiie possible technique is for instance to first
cliecIi if 2f . (cGi +ii: . +Z . dn/7,,) >0. If not,, tlieii dnJ7 =
c . cl!Ga1,; otherwise the + in (12) is ignored and the
resultiiig 1inea.r equa.tion with respect to d&f is solved.
+
-
+
I V. SOME MODEL PROPERTIES
If the field is restrained to a,ny fixed axis, the vector
model (12) behaves like the scalar model (8). Thi s is clear
if one considers the fa.c,t, that, for example in both (6) and
the 1-D case of (l o), d h f i >0 if a,iid oiily if both dN, >
0 and Ma, >M ai d then has the mi ne value in both
ca.ses. Thi s ineaiis that if the sca.1a.r model is ciiisidered to
lx sat#isfactory for unidirectional fields, tlie vect,or model
sliould autoiiia,tica.lly he as well if t,lie field does not deviate
4215
2.0
0
+2
. ! 0.0
r: -1.0
I
c
n
i
-2.0
Field [Nml Field [ A h ]
Fig. 1. Typical scalar behaviour. Material parameters MS =2.1 T,
a =50 Afm, k =S2 A/m, c =0.1, cy =k / Ms .
far from being unidirectional. Fig. 1 illustrates typical
one-dimensional behaviour with an anhysteretic function
Man( H) =Ms (coth(H/a) - a / H) . The left curve shows a
case when H is cycled with slowly decreasing amplitude,
while the right curve shows a case when the field is the
sum of two components, one with smaller ampl i hde and
higher frequency than the other. In the latter case, the
minor loop excursions deviate, notably from being closed
unlike in experiments. Thi s accommodation may be seen
as a flaw in the model which is thus not entirely well suited
to such processes. A modified model giving closed minor
loops was presented by J iles in [7], but it does not seem
possible to apply the technique to this vector model.
We next consider the alternating and rotational hystere-
sis loss. I n general, for a cyclic process, the net supplied
work $ . dn?, is the loss per cycle. The alternating loss
is the loss emerging when M goes back a,nd forth along a
fixed axis and is often expressed as a function of magne-
tiza.tion amplitude, Qal t(M). Incidentally, during a satu-
ration cycle, i t always holds that (Adan - M ) clH, 2 0 and
t,he loss, in a.ccorda.nce with (l), turns out to be exactly
Qait(Ms) =4MsI C , (14)
c2 result which can be used as a method to determine k
from experiments. It is robust and simple and does not
involve any other material parameters except M,. For
an anisotropic material, k can be similarly determined
from the loss in the mai n directions. The rotational hys-
teresis loss is the loss that appears if the field is rotating
with constant amplitude. I n the isotropic ca.se, the mag-
netization too will rotate wit81i a constant amplitude but
lag behind by some angle 6, giving a net loss per cycle
Qrot =ZTHM sin 4. Fig. 2a shows comparisons between
calculated al termti ng and rotational loss and experiments
performed on a sample of unoriented silicon steel using a
rotational single sheet tester [8]. The sample was slightly
anisotropic and alternating measurements were therefore
taken in the two main directions. IC was fit to the measured
alternating loss, leaving no adjustable parameter for the
rotational loss. I t is seen that the calculated rotational loss
is very close to a linear dependence 27ICA4 which appears
to be a good approximation in the range 0.5-1.5 T, but an
overesthati on for low and very high fields. In particular,
the experimentally observed dekrease of the Ql.ok(M) near
sat,uratioii is not given by t,he model. If k were a, func-
tion of n?, this phenomenon could be reproduced but this
u
CI
0 0 0 5 10 15 20
Magnetiration [TI Field [Ah]
Fig. 2. a) Measured and calculated rotational and alternating hys-
teresis loss vs magnetization amphtude. Alternating measure-
ments in rolling (RD) and transversal (TD) direction b) Illus-
tration of DC demagnetization.
might require additional material parameters.
Another well documented aspect of vector hysteresis is
that of DC magnetization. Thi s refers t80 the property
that if a field is applied in one direction and then removed,
the resulting remanence is erased if the field is increased
along the perpendicular direction. The model exhibits this
property as is illustrated. i n Figure 2b.
V. CONCLUSI ONS
A vector generalization of the J iles-Atherton model of
hysteresis has been proposed. There is no evidence that
it represents the best possible such generalization, but ha.s
the attractive features of maintaining the conceptual sim-
plicity of the scalar model and inherently exhibiting such
aspects of vector hysteresis as DC demagnetization and ro-
tational hysteresis. Because t,he model exhibits significant
accommodation of small hysteresis loops and a monoton-
ically increasing rotational loss, it appears unlikely that
it is as accurate as some vector Preisach models, e.g. [9].
However, due to its computational efficiency, small num-
ber of hysteretic material parameters, and simplicity of
use, i t could still be useful, especially for systems where
hysteresis effects are not the predominant concern.
RE~FERENCES
[l] I. D. Mayergoye, Matheroatieal models of hysteresis, Springer,
New York, 1991.
[ Z] E. C. Stoner and E. P. Viohlfarth, A mechanism of magnetic
hysteresis in heterogenous alloys, Trans. R. Soc. London, vol.
240, pp, 599, 194s.
[3] D. C. Jiles and D.L. Atherton, Theory of ferromagnetic hys-
t,eresis, J. M a p Magn. Mater., vol. 61, pp. 48, 1986.
[4] Kenneth H. Carpenter, A differential equation approach to mi-.
nor loops in the J iles-Atherton hysteresis model, IEEE Trans.
Mag. , vol. 27, pp. 4404, 1991.
[5] D. C. J iles, J . B. Thoelke. and M. E<. Devine, Numerical deter-
mination of hysteresis parameters for the modeling of magnetic
properties using the theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis, IEEE
Trans. Mag., vol. 28, pp. 27, 1992.
[6] Augusto Visintin, Diflerential model s of hysteresis, Springer,
Berlin, 1994.
[7] D. C. J iles, A self consistent generalized model for the calcula-
tion of minor loop excursions in the theory of hysteresis, IEEE
Trans. Mag., vol. 28, pp. 2602, 1992.
[8] S. A. Lundgren, A. J . Bergqvist, and S. G. Engdahl, A system
for dynamic measurements of magnetomeclianical properties pf
1995 Conf.
model of hysteresis, J . A p p l . Phus., vol. 73, pp. 5824, 1993.
ax-L;tr,trily exc;t,ed silicon-iron sheets, in Proc. of the ISEM
[9] A. A. Adly and I. D. Mayergoyz, A new vector Preisach-type