See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235263208

Numerical determination of Jiles-Atherton model parameters

Article  in  COMPEL International Journal of Computations and Mathematics in Electrical · March 2009

DOI: 10.1108/03321640910929344

CITATIONS READS
12 894

5 authors, including:

David W P Thomas John Paul

University of Nottingham 70 PUBLICATIONS   790 CITATIONS   
318 PUBLICATIONS   4,014 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Sérgio Henrique Lopes Cabral

Universidade Regional de Blumenau
44 PUBLICATIONS   142 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Green Lion Devours The Sun. View project

On the final version of the article for the ARWTr (http://arwtr2016.webs.uvigo.es/) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sérgio Henrique Lopes Cabral on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0332-1649.htm

Jiles-Atherton
Numerical determination of model
Jiles-Atherton model parameters parameters
Xiaohui Wang, David W.P. Thomas, Mark Sumner and John Paul
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Nottingham, 493
Nottingham, UK, and
Sérgio H.L. Cabral Received April 2008
Revised June 2008
Department of Electrical Engineering, Universidade Regional de Blumenau, Accepted June 2008
Blumenau, Brazil

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a robust method to estimate the parameters of
Jiles-Atherton model of ferromagnetic hysteresis by fitting the model to symmetrical hysteresis loops.
The performance of the method is evaluated by both theoretical and experimental data.
Design/methodology/approach – Jiles-Atherton model with five parameters describes the
hysteretic behaviour of ferromagnetic materials. To calculate the model parameters, the most
common data displaying the hysteresis features are the hysteresis loops stimulated by symmetrical
steady state excitations, e.g. sinusoidal sources. Using the characteristic equations at specific points on
these hysteresis loops, the Jiles-Atherton model parameters can be determined by curve fitting and
numerical optimized iteration.
Findings – Practicality and robustness were not well considered by the conventional parameter
estimation method: the initial curve starting from demagnetization is not always available and a direct
iterative algorithm to solve the characteristic equations is sensitive to the initial values of the iteration
and the evaluation order of the equations because of two main reasons. The first one is that the
basic equation group has non-unique solutions, which is caused by the nonlinearity of the
characteristic equations and the fact that there are more unknown quantities (i.e. five model
parameters) than the equations available; the second reason is the multimodal feature of the problem,
which means that there are many local minima for the iteration algorithm to be trapped in. So curve
fitting around the loop tips is proposed before numerical iteration. The goal is to make the initial
values, particularly saturation magnetization Ms, not far away from the desired solution to increase
the possibility of converging to a physical result. The optimized iterative method with the enhanced
ability to avoid local minima and find global roots is then applied to obtain the model parameters.
Originality/value – The proposed method overcomes the difficulties of the other techniques which
assume zero remanence. It is also robust as it is guaranteed to converge to physical solutions. The
method can facilitate further development and it formed the preliminary basis of our earlier work,
where the variation of the Jiles-Atherton model parameters with different magnetic field strengths was
investigated and applied to the simulation of transformer inrush current.
Keywords Electrical engineering, Modelling, Electromagnetic fields
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
COMPEL: The International Journal
The applications of the physical-based Jiles-Atherton hysteresis model ( Jiles and for Computation and Mathematics in
Atherton, 1984, 1986) to the simulation of ferromagnetic hysteresis have been Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Vol. 28 No. 2, 2009
developed for many years. Carpenter (1991) used the differential equations in the model pp. 493-503
to simulate minor loops. Based on the Jiles-Atherton model, Deane (1994) described the q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0332-1649
dynamics of a nonlinear circuit comprising an inductor with a hysteretic core and DOI 10.1108/03321640910929344
COMPEL driven by a square wave voltage source. The premise of any successful application is
28,2 the effective estimation of the model parameters for magnetic materials. Jiles et al.
(1992) presented a direct iterative approach using the characteristic equations derived
from the origin point, the coercive point, the remanence point and the tip of a single
hysteresis loop. This approach, however, is sensitive to the initial conditions of the
iteration and the evaluation order of the equations as demonstrated in the following
494 section. In addition, the initial curve starting from demagnetization is not always
available from practical devices.
In this paper, a robust method to determine the Jiles-Atherton model parameters
numerically is presented. It is first tested on a theoretical hysteresis loop and then an
experimental estimation is performed.

2. Problems associated with the conventional method

The Jiles-Atherton hysteresis model, which is derived from a phenomenological
description of the magnetization process (Jiles, 1998), decomposes the whole
magnetization M into the reversible component Mrev and the irreversible component
Mirr:

M ¼ M rev þ M irr ð1Þ

They are linked with magnetic field intensity H by modified Langevin function (3) and
the differential equation (4):

M rev ¼ cðM an 2 M irr Þ ð2Þ


H þ aM a
M an ¼ M s cot h 2 ð3Þ
a H þ aM

d M irr dm ðM an 2 M irr Þ
¼ ð4Þ
dH kd 2 aðM an 2 M irr Þ
where dm and d are given by:
8
1 : if dH 8
>
>
< dt . 0 and M an . M irr <1: dH
.0
dt
dH
dm ¼ 1 : if dt , 0 and M an , M irr d¼ dH
>
> : 21 ,0
: 0 : otherwise dt

a, a, c, k and Ms are five model parameters to be estimated for different magnetic

materials according to their behaviour. The conventional parameter estimation method
suggests that the characteristics derived from the specific points of the hysteresis loops
should be related to the Jiles-Atherton model parameters by equations (5)-(8):
.
Origin point:

Ms
xðinÞ ¼ c ð5Þ
3a
 .
Coercive point:
" #
Jiles-Atherton
M anðcÞ 1 model
k¼ aþ 1 ð6Þ
12c c
12c xðcÞ 2 12c xanðcÞ
parameters

495
.
Remanence point:
k
M ðrÞ ¼ M anðrÞ þ ð7Þ
a
12c þ xðrÞ 2c1xanðrÞ

.
Loop tip on ascending curve:
ð1 2 cÞkxðtaÞ
M ðtaÞ ¼ M anðtaÞ 2 ð8Þ
axðtaÞ þ 1

where the suffixes in, c, r and ta refer to the origin point, the coercive point, the remanence
point and the loop tip on the ascending curve, respectively, as shown in Figure 1.
The direct iterative procedure is: firstly set some initial values for a, a, k and c; secondly
successively determine c from equation (5), k from equation (6), a from equation (7) and a
from equations (8) and (3), respectively, and repeat the second step until convergence.
But in cases where the hysteresis loop starts without demagnetization, equation (5)
becomes impractical because of the absence of the initial curve from origin point as
shown in Figure 1. Alternatively, we suggest that equation (9) replaces equation (5), as
the domain walls remain pinned on the defect sites and hence d Mirr / dH ¼ 0 at the
loop tip of the descending curve. According to equations (1) and (2), we can put:

x 106
1.5 loop tip at descending curve

remanence point loop tip at

1
ascending curve
Magnetization M (A/m)

0.5

0
origin point coercive point

–0.5
Figure 1.
Hysteresis loop and
–1 characteristic points of
magnetic material with
Ms ¼ 1,470,000 A/m,
–1.5 a ¼ 40 A/m, a ¼ 0.00008,
–1,000 –800 –600 –400 –200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
k ¼ 60 A/m and c ¼ 0.55
Magnetic field intensity H (A/m)
COMPEL dM
jtd ¼ c
d M an
jtd
28,2 dH dH
which gives:
xðtdÞ
c¼ ð9Þ
xanðtdÞ
496
where the suffix (td) refers to the loop tip of the descending curve.
The direct iterative procedure is affected largely by the initial conditions. To
demonstrate this problem, a hysteresis loop of the specific magnetic material with the
known parameters is provided as shown in Figure 1. Then the direct iterative procedure
described above is applied to this hysteresis loop. Table I shows five outcomes due to the
different initial conditions. The first one converges to the correct results as the initial
values are close. In example 2, the minor errors in a, a, k and c lead to unphysical results
and similarly in example 3, the minor error in Ms only leads to an unphysical results
again. In example 4, the values with the errors in all initial parameters produce the
incorrect results and in example 5 the procedure does not converge.
Summarily only when the initial conditions are close enough to the true values, can
the correct results be obtained by direct iteration. Particular attention should be paid to
example 3. It indicates that the deviation of the initial value of saturation
magnetization Ms, even though all the other parameters are set to their exact true
values, also causes incorrect unphysical negative results. But in the conventional

Initial conditions Results from direct iteration Comments

Example 1 Ms ¼ 1,470,000 A/m Ms ¼ 1,470,000 A/m Correct

a ¼ 40 A/m a ¼ 40.07 A/m
a ¼ 0.00008 a ¼ 0.00007952
k ¼ 60 A/m k ¼ 59.3 A/m
c ¼ 0.55 c ¼ 0.5476
Example 2 Ms ¼ 1,470,000 A/m Ms ¼ 1,470,000 A/m Incorrect (unphysical negative result)
a ¼ 42 A/m a ¼ 33.56 A/m
a ¼ 0.00009 a ¼ 2 0.00006873
k ¼ 58 A/m k ¼ 2 38.07 A/m
c ¼ 0.53 c ¼ 0.4159
Example 3 Ms ¼ 1,450,000 A/m Ms ¼ 1,450,000 A/m Incorrect (unphysical negative result)
a ¼ 40 A/m a ¼ 23.32 A/m
a ¼ 0.00008 a ¼ 2 0.00005653
k ¼ 60 A/m k ¼ 2 69.9 A/m
c ¼ 0.55 c ¼ 0.6326
Example 4 Ms ¼ 1,450,000 A/m Ms ¼ 1,450,000 A/m Incorrect (unphysical negative result)
a ¼ 50 A/m a ¼ 23.33 A/m
a ¼ 0.00009 a ¼ 2 0.00005591
k ¼ 20 A/m k ¼ 2 68.91 A/m
c ¼ 0.25 c ¼ 0.6313
Example 5 Ms ¼ 1,400,000 A/m N/A Does not converge
a ¼ 50 A/m
Table I. a ¼ 0.00009
Effect of initial conditions k ¼ 20 A/m
on iteration results c ¼ 0.25
parameter estimation, saturation magnetization Ms observed manually from the Jiles-Atherton
hysteresis loop that is regarded as saturated enough, inevitably contains significant
measurement error.
model
parameters
3. Proposed numerical method to determine Jiles-Atherton model
parameters
The sensitivity of the direct iteration to the initial conditions can be attributed to two 497
main reasons:
(1) the non-unique solutions of the equation group (6)-(9), which is caused by their
nonlinearity and the fact that there are more unknown quantities than the
available characteristic equations; and
(2) the multimodal feature of the problem, which implies that there are many local
minima for the iteration algorithm to be trapped in.
We therefore propose the following approach to overcome these difficulties.
3.1 Reduce the number of the unknown parameters and choose reasonable initial
conditions that are not far away from the desired solution
The number of the independent equations available is only four whereas five model
parameters are required to be estimated. (Observing saturation magnetization Ms
manually from the saturated hysteresis loop should not be treated as an effective
estimate due to the considerable error). So it is desirable to find if one of the five
Jiles-Atherton model parameters can be determined by a straightforward approach in
advance of the iterative solution of equations (6)-(9). As stated in Jiles et al. (1992),
irreversible magnetization M irr < M within the area close to the loop tip and on the
ascending curve. Hence, derived from equation (1) to (3):


H þ aM a
M < M an ¼ M s cot h 2 ð10Þ
a H þ aM
This implies that the points near the loop tip, on the ascending curve and close enough
to saturation are on the curve given by equation (10). Similarly, as shown in Figure 2,
the tips of the different hysteresis loops should also be on the same curve defined by
equation (10).
If there are enough sets of such kind of points, i.e. the points in the area near the
saturation tip or alternatively if the tips of different hysteresis loops are available, the
parameter Ms, a and a can be worked out by a least-square curve fitting. After that
the parameters c and k can also be calculated from equations (9) and (6), respectively.
Following these steps, the quantity of the parameter Ms can be regarded as the final
value and the number of the unknown parameters is reduced by one. The other four
parameters calculated, i.e. a, a, c and k can be considered to be reasonable initial
conditions before the iterative processing of equations (6)-(9).

3.2 Optimize the iterative processing

Regarding the multimodal problem, it is reported that some optimization methods,
e.g. stochastic simulated annealing (Corana et al., 1987; Lederer et al., 1999) are able to
strengthen the ability of the iteration to avoid local minima and converge to global
roots. In this paper, the numerical iterative algorithms, Levenberg-Marquardt,
COMPEL x 106
28,2
1

Magnetization M (A/m)
0.5 loop tips
498 on the same curve

–0.5

Figure 2.
Tips of different
hysteresis loops are –1
on the same curve given
by equation (10) –100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Magnetic field intensity H (A/m)

Conjugate Gradient or Quasi-Newton approaches (MathSoft Inc., 2000) are advised to

be applied to the equation group comprising (6)-(9), starting from the initial conditions
calculated by the anhysteretic curve fit described above.

4. Validation of proposed method

To evaluate the performance of the proposed method, two examples are studied. In the
first one, the data of the hysteresis loops are derived from theoretical simulation and
hence the true values of the relevant model parameters are known before the
processing. The parameters calculated by the proposed method are compared with
the true values to estimate the accuracy. In the second example, the hysteresis
loop is measured from the open-circuit test on a single phase transformer.
The accuracy is assessed by comparing the hysteresis loop reproduced on the basis
of the parameters determined by the proposed method with the original experimental
loops.

4.1 Example 1
Firstly, three hysteresis loops are obtained by theoretical simulation of the magnetic
material with known parameters (Paul et al., 2003; Thomas et al., 2006):
Ms ¼ 1,470,000 A/m, a ¼ 40 A/m, a ¼ 0.00008, k ¼ 60 A/m and c ¼ 0.55 (Figure 3).
Three loop tips are simulated and listed in Table II.
The data in Table II are fitted to the expression in equation (10) by least-squares
approach. After that, equations (9) and (6) are applied to work out the initial conditions
for the parameter c and k:
 x 106 Jiles-Atherton
1.5 model
2
1 parameters
1 3
Magnetization M (A/m)

0.5 499
0

–0.5
Figure 3.
–1 Hysteresis loops obtained
Loop tip 1: H=242.9 M=1276053
Loop tip 2: H=170 M=1205781
from known parameters:
Loop tip 3: H=127.4 M=1133439 Ms ¼ 1,470,000 A/m,
–1.5 a ¼ 40 A/m, a ¼ 0.00008,
–250 –200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200 250
k ¼ 60 A/m and c ¼ 0.55
Magnetic field intensity H (A/m)

Loop tip 1 Loop tip 2 Loop tip 3

H (A/m) 127.4 170 242.9 Table II.

M (A/m) 1,133,439 1,205,781 1,276,053 Quantities at loop tips

M s ¼ 1; 473; 000 A=m

a ¼ 38:3 A=m
a ¼ 0:00003391 ð11Þ
k ¼ 25:56 A=m
c ¼ 0:5017

The values of a, a, k and c in equation (11) are used as the initial conditions when
Levenberg-Marquardt method is employed. Finally, the results after the optimized
iteration and compared with the true values are listed in Table III.
Table III indicates that the estimation of the parameter Ms is accurate and the other
four parameters converge to reasonable agreement to the true values from the
reasonable initial conditions calculated by curve fitting.

Initial value After optimized iteration True value

Ms (A/m) 1,473,000 1,473,000 1,470,000

a (A/m) 38.3 42.34 40 Table III.
a 0.00003391 0.00008373 0.00008 Results of Jiles-Atherton
k (A/m) 25.56 55.62 60 model parameters
c 0.5017 0.522 0.55 determination
COMPEL 4.2 Example 2
The proposed method is applied to an experimental hysteresis loop obtained by the
28,2 open-circuit test on a single phase transformer (shown in Figure 4). The H-M quantities
of three points on the ascending curve and close enough to the loop tip are given in
Table IV.
Equation (10) is fitted to the data in Table IV by least-squares approach again so
500 that the parameters Ms, a and a are calculated. After that, the parameters c and k are
found by equations (9) and (6), respectively. The initial results are listed as follows:
M s ¼ 1; 497; 000 A=m
a ¼ 190:4 A=m
a ¼ 0:00008423 ð12Þ
k ¼ 39:07 A=m
c ¼ 0:36

a, a, k and c in equation (12) are used as the initial values for Levenberg-Marquardt
iteration method next. The final results after the iteration are listed in Table V.
The hysteresis loops are reproduced in Figure 5 using the results listed in
Table V. The similarity between the original experimental hysteresis loop and the

x 106
1
0.8 3
2
0.6 1
Magnetization M (A/m)

0.4
0.2
0
–0.2
–0.4
–0.6
Figure 4.
Hysteresis loop from –0.8
experiment and the three
data points close to loop –1
–400 –300 –200 –100 0 100 200 300 400
tip are indicated
Magnetic field intensity H (A/m)

Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Table IV.
Quantities close H (A/m) 245 313.3 394.4
to loop tip M (A/m) 685,600 805,000 913,900
reproduced ones is assessed by correlation coefficient. The dotted line in Figure 5 Jiles-Atherton
shows that the hysteresis loop with the estimated parameters obtained from the model
optimized iteration (the third column in Table V) can basically fit the original
experimental loop (the correlation coefficient is 0.9962), although there are some parameters
errors especially in the ascending curve. If a better fit is desired, a minor manual
adjustment can be performed. This manual adjustment is not mandatory, but it
can produce a better reproduction of the original experimental hysteresis loop as 501
the dark solid line in Figure 5 (the correlation coefficient is 0.9983). Actually the
difference of the parameters between with and without the manual adjustment is
very small (less than 5 per cent). The similarity of the hysteresis loops indicates
that the proposed method to determine the Jiles-Atherton model parameters is
valid providing a physical solution with very good agreement to experimental
measurements.

Difference between the

After iteration only and After iteration and results with and without
Initial without manual minor manual manual adjustment
value adjustment adjustment (per cent)

Ms (A/m) 1,497,000 1,497,000 1,497,000 0.0

a (A/m) 190.4 463.2 474.6 2.4 Table V.
a 0.00008423 0.0009393 0.0009081 3.4 Results of Jiles-Atherton
k (A/m) 39.07 132.1 138.7 4.8 model parameters
c 0.36 0.378 0.374 1.1 determination

x 106
1
0.8
0.6
Magnetization M (A/m)

0.4
0.2
0
–0.2
experiment loop
–0.4 reproduced loop with parameters
after optimized iteration and
–0.6 without manual adjustment
reproduced loop with parameters
Figure 5.
–0.8 after optimized iteration and Comparison between
with minor manual adjustment experimental hysteresis
–1 loop and reproduced
–400 –300 –200 –100 0 100 200 300 400
hysteresis loops
Magnetic field intensity H (A/m)
COMPEL 5. Conclusion
28,2 The difficulty with the conventional parameter estimation procedure for the
Jiles-Atherton hysteresis model lies in its sensitivity to the initial conditions of the
iteration and the evaluation order of the equations. We propose a solution where
reasonable initial conditions, particularly saturation magnetization Ms, can be derived
from anhysteretic curve fitting before the optimized iteration algorithm with an
502 enhanced ability to converge to global root is applied. The examples calculated on both
theoretical and experimental data demonstrate that this proposed method is effective.
It should be applicable to any magnetic material which has a hysteretic loop that can
be represented by the Jiles-Atherton model. This method formed the preliminary basis
of the paper (Wang et al., 2008), where the variation of the Jiles-Atherton model
parameters with different magnetic field strengths was investigated and applied to the
simulation of transformer inrush current. In addition, more examples of successful
parameter estimation can be found in Wang et al. (2008).

References
Carpenter, K.H. (1991), “A differential equation approach to minor loops in the Jiles-Atherton
hysteresis model”, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 4404-6.
Corana, A., Marchesi, M., Martini, C. and Ridella, S. (1987), “Minimizing multimodal functions of
continuous variables with the ‘simulated annealing’ algorithm”, ACM Transactions on
Mathematical Software, Vol. 13, pp. 262-80.
Deane, J.H.B. (1994), “Modeling the dynamics of nonlinear inductor circuits”, IEEE Transactions
on Magnetics, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 2795-801.
Jiles, D.C. (1998), Introduction to Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, Chapman & Hall, London.
Jiles, D.C. and Atherton, D.L. (1984), “Theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis”, Journal of Applied
Physics, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 2115-20 (invited paper).
Jiles, D.C. and Atherton, D.L. (1986), “Theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis”, Journal of Magnetism
and Magnetic Materials, Vol. 61, pp. 48-60.
Jiles, D.C., Thoelke, J. and Devine, M. (1992), “Numerical determination of hysteresis parameters
for the modeling of magnetic properties using the theory of ferromagnetic hysteresis”,
IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, Vol. 28, pp. 27-34.
Lederer, D., Igarashi, H., Kost, A. and Honma, T. (1999), “On the parameter identification and
application of the Jiles-Atherton hysteresis model for numerical modelling of measured
characteristics”, IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1211-4.
MathSoft Inc. (2000), MathCAD User’s Guide with Reference Manual, MathSoft Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Paul, J., Christopoulos, C. and Thomas, D.W.P. (2003), “Time-domain simulation of nonlinear
inductors displaying hysteresis”, COMPUMAG 2003, Saratoga Springs, New York, NY,
pp. 182-3.
Thomas, D.W.P., Paul, J., Ozgonenel, O. and Christopoulos, C. (2006), “Time-domain simulation of
nonlinear transformers displaying hysteresis”, IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, Vol. 42,
pp. 1820-7.
Wang, X., Thomas, D.W.P., Sumner, M., Paul, J. and Cabral, S.H.L. (2008), “Characteristics of
Jiles-Atherton model parameters and their application to transformer inrush current
simulation”, IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 340-5.
About the authors Jiles-Atherton
Xiaohui Wang received his BE and ME degrees in Electrical Engineering from Xi’an Jiaotong
University, China in 2001 and 2004, respectively. Now he is PhD candidate in School of Electrical model
and Electronic Engineering, University of Nottingham and expected to graduate in 2008. His parameters
PhD dissertation involves transformer protection based on simulation of inrush current and
internal fault by incorporating time domain transmission line method (TLM) and modified
Jiles-Atherton hysteresis model. His research interests cover power system protection
and simulation, condition monitoring and virtual instrument. Xiaohui Wang is the 503
corresponding author and can be contacted at: xiaohui.wang@ieee.org
David W.P. Thomas was born in Padstow, UK, on 5 May 1959. He received the BSc degree in
Physics from Imperial College of Science and Technology, the MPhil degree in Space Physics
from Sheffield University, and the PhD degree in Electrical Engineering from Nottingham
University, in 1981, 1987 and 1990, respectively. In 1990 he joined the Department of Electrical
and Electronic Engineering at the University of Nottingham as a Lecturer where he is now an
Associate Professor. His research interests are in electromagnetic compatibility, electromagnetic
simulation, power system transients and power system protection. He has over 100 research
papers and two patents.
Mark Sumner received the BE degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from Leeds
University in 1986 and then worked for Rolls Royce Ltd in Ansty before embarking on research
work in induction motor drives at Nottingham University. He received his PhD in 1990, and after
working at Nottingham as a research assistant, was appointed Lecturer in October 1992 and
Senior Lecturer in 2004. His research interests cover microprocessor control of power electronic
systems including advanced sensored and sensorless induction motor drives research, active
filters, system identification and the development of new converter topologies.
John Paul was born in Peterborough, UK, in 1960. He received the ME and the PhD degrees in
electrical and electronic engineering from the University of Nottingham, UK, in 1994 and 1999,
respectively. His PhD dissertation involved the application of signal processing and control
system techniques to the simulation of general material properties in time-domain TLM. He is
currently employed as a Senior Research Fellow with the George Green Institute for
Electromagnetics Research at the University of Nottingham. His research interest is in the
development and application of signal processing techniques for material modeling in
time-domain computational electromagnetics.
Sérgio H.L. Cabral is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Electrical Engineering at FURB –
Fundação Universidade Regional de Blumenau, Brazil. He received his BS in Electrical
Engineering from the Universidade Federal Fluminense, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1989. In 1994
he received his MSc in High-voltage Techniques and Equipment from COPPE/Universidade
Federal do Rio de Janeiro. He received his PhD from the Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina in
2003. He joined the FURB in 1994 where he is involved with academic and research activities, by
including several research projects. His areas of interest are the high-voltage tests, earthing and
grounding techniques, power and distribution transformers, induction machines and power
quality.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats