Lund University

MMTN45– Production Technology 2

Lab 2 & Simulation 2

Aamer Siddiqui & Anirudh Kashyap

Contents
Simulation Assignment Summary ................................................................................................................ 3
Part A ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Part B ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Lab Experiment Summary ............................................................................................................................ 9
5.1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 9
5.1.1....................................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1.2....................................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1.3....................................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1.4....................................................................................................................................................... 9
5.1.5..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Sample Calculations for Austenitic Steel................................................................................................ 10
5.4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
5.4.1..................................................................................................................................................... 12
5.4.2..................................................................................................................................................... 13
5.4.3..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Comparison between the Simulation and Experiment ................................................................................ 13
Temperature ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Time- Temperature ................................................................................................................................. 14
Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Heating and cooling Power ..................................................................................................................... 15

Table of Figures
Figure 1.Graph of Power(W) vs time(s) for Aluminum ............................................................................... 4
Figure 2.Graph of Power(W) vs time(s) for Austenitic Steel ....................................................................... 4
Figure 3.Graph of Power(W) vs time(s) for Carbon Steel ........................................................................... 5
Figure 4.Graph of Efficiency vs Material( Solution 1; Carbon Steel, Solution 2; Austenitic Stainless Steel,
Solution 3; Aluminum................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5.Graph of Efficiency vs Coil-workpiece distance ............................................................................ 8
Figure 6.Graph of Power vs Coil-workpiece distance .................................................................................. 8
Figure 7. Calculation for 𝐿𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 ................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8. Water Temperature for Simulated Model .................................................................................... 14
Figure 9. Temperature - Time Graph .......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 10. Efficiency .................................................................................................................................. 15
Simulation Assignment Summary

In this simulation assignment we will be studying the experimental setup used in the experimental induction
heating task. The setup consists of a planar coil suspended above the workpiece and the workpiece is
positioned on an aluminum plate, which is water cooled.
The induced power in the workpiece will be transferred to the aluminum plate and cooled away. The
temperature of the system will reach an equilibrium, which is determined by the power balance between
the induced power in the workpiece and the cooling power.
The simulation is further divided into 2 parts. The first part is simulation with Frequency Transient method
and the second part is Frequency Stationary method. The transient solver will solve the thermal response
in its transient state, meaning,. the solver will calculate the problem stated by the heat transfer interface at
predefined times. The result would in this case be more related to the temperature evolution in the model,
but the stationary solver will only show the steady-state solution. The simulation is carried out for 3 different
materials: Carbon Steel, Austenitic Stainless Steel and Aluminum.
Furthermore, simulation is carried out to study the effect of coil-workpiece distance on the efficiency of
induction heating.

Part A

Question 1: How can you tell if the system is stationary

Answer: The system is stationary when the heating power is equal to the cooling power i.e when the total
amount of heat produced in the workpiece equals to the amount of heat absorbed by cooling.

Question 2: Does the system reach stationary?

Whether the system reached stationary or not depended on the material used.
Considering Carbon steel, we have
For aluminum, we have workpiece power of 88.05W and the cooling power is 87.5W
Therefore, the solution hasn't reached a steady state
Figure 1.Graph of Power(W) vs time(s) for Aluminum

For Austenitic Stainless steel, we have workpiece power of 235W and the cooling power is 257W. Since
the workpiece power and cooling power are not equal the solution hasn't reached a steady state

Figure 2.Graph of Power(W) vs time(s) for Austenitic Steel

For Carbon Steel, we have workpiece power of 1780W and the cooling power is 1770.9W
Therefore, the solution hasn't reached a steady state
Figure 3.Graph of Power(W) vs time(s) for Carbon Steel

Part B

Question 1: How does the efficiency change when heating different materials?
It can be observed that the carbon steel (solution1) has the highest efficiency compared to austenitic
stainless steel(Solution 2) and Aluminum(Solution 3)
The high efficiency in carbon steel is due to the material being ferromagnetic material. Ferromagnetic
materials attract the magnetic field and hence have higher current density and net flux that can be
attained in the workpiece.
On the other hand Aluminium exhibits lowest efficiency. This is because aluminium is a paramagnetic
material and has low permeability. Hence have lower current density and net flux. Also, having higher
electrical conductivity, Aluminium offers lesser resistivity to eddy currents resulting in low heat
generation.
Austenitic stainless steel also is a paramagnetic substance with low permeability and relatively lower
electrical conductivity in comparison with Aluminium. Therefore there is more resistivity to eddy currents
and hence higher amount of heat generation in the material, resulting in efficiency between Carbon steel
and Aluminum

Figure 4.Graph of Efficiency vs Material( Solution 1; Carbon Steel, Solution 2; Austenitic Stainless Steel, Solution 3; Aluminum

Question 2: Is there balance between the workpiece power and cooling power? If there is imbalance: what
is causing this imbalance and why does the solver converge to a stationary solution?
As we can see in the graph, there is a balance between the workpiece power and cooling power. However,
the balance exists only in the solutions 1 and 3 (Carbon steel and Aluminum respectively), where the sum
of workpiece power and cooling power results in zero.
The imbalance in power in austenitic stainless steel is due to the fact that austenitic steel has high
penetration depth which in-turn results in lower surface current density and heat generation. Hence the
imbalance in workpiece power and cooling power.
Figure__: Graph of sum of power of workpiece and cooling for 3 materials( Solution 1; Carbon Steel,
Solution 2; Austenitic Stainless Steel, Solution 3; Aluminum

Question 3: Compare the solution of the frequency-transient to the frequency-stationary. Does the two
studies give the same solution?

The frequency transient method provides solutions calculated at predefined time intervals. The stationary
solver, however, shows only a steady state solution. The results obtained from both the methods do not
exactly match with each other. Hence frequency transient and frequency stationary methods do not give
the exact same solution. But the values are however close.

Question 1: How does the efficiency change with coil-workpiece distance?

As it can be observed in the graph, with increase in the coil offset from 5mm to 200mm, the efficiency
reduces drastically.
This is because when the coil is placed closed to the workpiece, there is more current induced in the
workpiece and in a shorter time and with increase in distance the induction of heat is drastically reduced.
The magnetic field is the strongest when the workpiece is closest to the coil. The strength of the magnetic
field is inversely proportional to the square of the coil workpiece distance. Hence with increase in coil-
workpiece distance, efficiency reduces.
Figure 5.Graph of Efficiency vs Coil-workpiece distance

Question 2: What happens to the workpiece power when the distance is increased?
As we can observe in the graph, the workpiece power decreases with increase in coil workpiece distance.
With increase in distance the magnetic flux decreases on the workpiece and hence decreases the induced
power.

Figure 6.Graph of Power vs Coil-workpiece distance

Lab Experiment Summary
This lab, we study the effect of the coil height on the heating of a workpiece materials and the response of
different workpiece materials. The setup consists of a coil, a power unit, a cooling base, and coil stand.
The basic theory behind the setup is the transfer of power from the magnetic field into heat on the
workpiece. The heat generated by the magnetic field on the workpiece is then transferred into the flowing
cooled water channels that transfer the heat by conduction. This in turn warms the water and it is then
measured to evaluate the system. Some of the basics of the experiment are answered below.

5.1
5.1.1
Take note of design factors, such as number of turns, dimension of individual turns, conductor material
etc. Are there anything else integrated in the coil design?
The coil is designed in such a way that it is a Litzy wire that is wrapped in a bi- circular format with
insulation on it. It is made of copper with 7 turns in each layer and 14 turns in total. The coil has a width
and height of 7.5mm and has an effective cross-sectional area of 28mm2. It can also be observed that a
cooling coil runs in-between of the two layers.

5.1.2
Take note of the workpiece geometry. What material is the workpiece made of?
The work piece is a rectangular sheet with a length of 0.29 m and a thickness of 2mm. The sheet is made
of carbon steel, aluminum, and Austenitic Stainless steel.

5.1.3
What material is the cooling unit made of? How is the cooling provided? How is the workpiece attached
to the cooling unit?
The cooling plate consists of 5 channels that have a square cross-section, with an area of 36mm^2 and
fillets of 0.5mm. These are entrenched inside an aluminum block (Which has a flat top) and run parallel to
each other in a continuous channel.

5.1.4
What parameters are continuously logged? Where and how are they measured?
The cooling system primarily consists of channels with attached sensors. The system allows the heat
transfer from the plate/workpiece to the fluid in the system and carries it out to the outlet. It consists of
flow rate sensor (located after the inlet and before cooling block) and temperature sensors, which measure
the Flow rate in (l/min) and the temperature at the outlet and inlet in degree Celsius. It also consists of a
datalogger or signal/Data acquisition (DAQ) that helps collect the sensor readings.
5.1.5
Take a note of the values of the resonant capacitor circuit, and the transformers turns ration. What
parameters are logged by the power system? Where and how are they measured?
The power system consists of Control unit a transformer, capacitors, and interface to the grid. This system
powers the coil and the internal cooling pump. The interface logs in the power delivered, frequency, and
the cooling temperature., current phrases and voltages. The transformer ratio is 28:3 ad the resonant
capacitance is 3uF.

Sample Calculations for Austenitic Steel.

At steady state Heating power = cooling power is assumed.

𝑃𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛 = 𝑃𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙 = 𝜌𝑉𝐶𝑝 (𝑇𝑖 − 𝑇𝑜)

 0.73 4200
𝑃𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙 = 1000 ∗ ∗ ∗ (8.7 − 13.8)
60 1000
𝑷𝑪𝒐𝒐𝒍 = 𝟐𝟔𝟎. 𝟔𝟏 𝑾

𝑃𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑁𝑃 1 28
𝑅𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 = 𝐼𝑠1 = 𝐼 = ∗ 5.94 = 55.44𝐴
𝐼𝑠2 𝑁𝑆 𝑃 3
𝑃𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙 260.61
𝑅𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 = 2 = = 0.08479
𝐼𝑠 55.442

Figure 7. Calculation for 𝐿𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙

𝐿𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 2 ∑ 2𝜋(30 + 𝑟𝑛 ) (𝑟𝑛 = 3.75, 11.25, 18.75, 26.25, 33.75, 41.25, 48.75) = 4.948 𝑚
𝑛=1

𝑳𝑪𝒐𝒊𝒍 = 𝟒. 𝟗𝟒𝟖 𝒎

𝐿𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 4.95
𝑅𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 1 = 28𝑥10−6 ∗ 58.1𝑥106 = 0.00304 𝑂ℎ𝑚
𝜎𝐴𝑐

𝑃𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 𝑅𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 ∗ 𝐼𝑠2 = 0.00304 ∗ (55.44)2

𝑷𝑪𝒐𝒊𝒍 𝑳𝒐𝒔𝒔 = 𝟗. 𝟑𝟒 𝑾

𝑃𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙 260.61
𝑛𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 = =
𝑃𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙 + 𝑃𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 260.61 + 9.34
 𝒏𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 = 𝟗𝟔. 𝟓𝟒%

𝑃𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑙 260.61
𝑛𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 = =
𝑃𝐺𝑟𝑖𝑑 608.85

𝒏𝑺𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒎 = 𝟒𝟐. 𝟖𝟎%

𝑅𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝐶𝑜𝑠∅ = 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 (𝑅𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 = 𝑅𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 + 𝑅𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 )
2 )2
√𝑅𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 + (2𝜋𝑓𝐿𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙

𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑭𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟑𝟑𝟎

The calculations for the other samples were done on excel and attached below is the
table=le of results.

Parameter Name Carbon Carbon Aluminum Austenitic

Steel 10 Steel 30 Steel
Flow Rate 0.74 0.70 0.725 0.73
Temp in 8.8 9 8.8 8.7
Temp out 50 25 11.1 13.8
Time to SS 500 500 10 500
Cooling power (W) 2096.1 784 116.725 260.61
Heating Efficiency (%) 99.55 98.88 92.81 96.54

Total System Efficiency 94.54 71.00 32.26 42.8

(%)
Power Factor 0.249 0.1056 0.0159 0.0327

5.4
5.4.1
Describe the measurement procedure in general. Why do you have to wait for the setup to reach steady
state?

The workpiece is laid on the cooling plate and fixed on it using the vacuum pump. The coil
distance is set, and the experiment is started until it reaches steady state. The values are taken
after the workpiece reaches steady state. This is done as the transient values have rising
temperature and therefore cannot be accurate to represent the system. Therefore, at a steady state
the values are less time dependent.
5.4.2
How will distance and workpiece material affect the (a) power factor, (b) the efficiency and (c) heating
power?

Power Factor & Heating Power- it is the ratio of the real power absorbed by the workpiece to
the apparent power. It is observed that a lower height has a higher power factor, which means
that the workpiece at lower distance is drawing lower for the same amount of useful power
transferred. This means that there is lesser energy lost in the system. This also translates that
more power is needed to cool the system in the case of lower distance as less energy is wasted
and therefore the cooling power is higher for lower distance. In the case of other samples, it is
evident that aluminum followed by austenitic steel has lowest power factor. This explains that
more energy is being lost in the system , this can be attributed to the paramagnetic behavior of
the materials and their relatively low permeabilities as compared to Carbon steel. Again, it can
be said that less power is required for cooling because there is lesser energy being transferred to
the system and more is wasted due to the nature of the materials.

Efficiency - From the table above it is evident that heating efficiency and the overall system
efficiency decreases when the coil distance is increased. This is because the magnetic field has to
travel larger distance to interact with the workpiece, and magnetic field strength is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance, therefore it loses its energy over larger distances. In
the case of different materials, it is observed that the efficiency directly depends on the way the
material interacts with the magnetic fields. In the case of of aluminum and austenitic steel, the
efficiency is considerably lower as both are paramagnetic, and both have lower permeability than
carbon steel.
5.4.3
Discuss potential error sources for this laboratory setup

The sources of error can be as follows

1) Magnetic Interactions from surrounding objects i.e. environmental factors
2) Vacuum created might not be effective and hence the heat transfer is not ideal
3) Convection through air and conduction are also major influencers to the heat transfer
kinetics.

Comparison between the Simulation and Experiment

Temperature
It is clear that the temperature is dependent on the efficiency of the energy that is being
transferred between the magnetic field into heat. It is evident that increasing the distance
decreases the temperature of the workpiece as the efficiency is educed due to the decrease in the
magnetic field strength. In the case of the different samples , it is seen that the inlet and outlet
temperature do not vary a lot in case of Aluminum and Austenitic steel and the reason for that is
the paramagnetic nature and lower permeability. Although the major difference between the
simulated and experiment values are that simulated values (83 Degree Celsius) are much higher
than the experimented value ( 50 Degree Celsius). The main reason for that is the perfect
isolation of the simulated model, where there are no interactions with the environment.
Material Experimental Temp (C) Simulated Temp (C)
Carbon Steel 50 80
Austenitic Steel 13.8 20
Aluminum 11.1 13

Figure 8. Water Temperature for Simulated Model

Time- Temperature
The simulated model has a more even curve, with gradual increase in the slope. It stabilizes to a
fix point or reached steady state after 700 seconds whereas the experimental values seem to
reach steady state after 1000 seconds, which is much slower. The reason for faster steady state
time is that the simulated case is idealized and is free of environmental factors and interferences.
The reason the curve is smoother is because it is being measured by the software, whereas the
actual sensors are at play in the experiment and hence it isn’t as smooth.

Figure 9. Temperature - Time Graph

Efficiency
From the fig attached below it is estimated that the efficiency for the simulated model (99.595%
) is almost similar to the experimental value at (98.88%). These higher values for the experiment,
because the efficiency is directly dependent on the Rheat and Rcoil loss. Although Rcoil loss
remains the same as the coil parameters are constant but the Rheat increases and therefore the
efficiency is also increased.

Material Experimental Efficiency (%) Simulated Efficiency (%)

Carbon Steel 98.88 99.595
Austenitic Steel 96.54 96.07
Aluminum 92.81 90.13

Figure 10. Efficiency

Heating and cooling Power

It is evident from the table below that higher cooling power is required in the experimental case
as compared to the simulation. The cooling power required in the experiment is higher because
of the effects of convection and radiation, which are neglected in the simulation. This increases
the required heating power and hence the required cooling power. The other effect could be the
assumption that the metal sheet is completely flat without any gaps or ridges which does not
disrupt the heat transfer.
Material Experimental HP (W) Simulated HP (W)
Carbon Steel 2096.1 1780.2
Austenitic Steel 260.6 259.72
Aluminum 116.72 88.12