IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS101, No. 10 October 1982
A ONESTEP FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR MULTICONDUCTOR SKIN EFFECT PROBLEMS
J. Weiss Research and Development Center Westinghouse Electric Corporation PA Pittsburgh,
ABSTRACT
A onestep procedure is developed to solve the skin effect problem in multiconductor busbars. The procedure differs from previous solutions in that it treats the source (or quasistatic) current density in each conductor as an unknown. It couples the solution of the diffusion equation to Ampere's law, and allows for the finite element solution of skin effect problems to be obtained directly in one step from the currents imposed by the power system in each conductor.
INTRODUCTION The design of multiconductor busbars in electric devices and in power systems has been an everpresent challenge to the field analyst. The principal design characteristic of these busbars is their dynamic impedance, a quantity easily obtained from a knowledge of the current flow paths in the busbars. However, the solution of the current flow paths is dependent not only on the nature of the conductor structure, but also on the current levels imposed by the external power system in each separate conductor. Straightforward field analysis of the problem gives the eddy current generated in each conductor from a specified source current distribution; however, the combined eddy and source currents do not add to give the correct total current values imposed by the power system, unless additional constraints are imposed. Techniques to impose power system constraints in the steadystate multipath eddy current problem are varied [115] and include iterative procedures, modal network solutions and superposition. With the single exception to be discussed shortly, these procedures require multiple field solutions of the problem and, therefore, cost considerably more than solutions of simple, unconstrained eddy current problems [15]. For example, the superposition technique requires that N field solutions be determined for an i conductor busbar problem before imposing the power system constraints, the N solutions providing a basis for the constrained
The exception to computing multiple field solution in skin effect problems is the integrodifferential equation approach developed by Konrad [16]. In this procedure, a single integrodifferential equation, with a single unknown (the vector potential) is employed to solve the constrained multipath eddy current field problem directly. While Konrad's procedure is indeed elegant and is efficient compared to other procedures, it too has limitations: A higher level of complexity is inherent in the integrodifferential equation approach, and the sparsity of the finite element coefficient matrix in the integrodifferential approach is limited.
This paper presents a new formulation of the steadystate multipath eddy current problem. The approach taken in this paper represents a significant departure from established techniques because it treats the source current density as an unknown in the solution process. In essence, the method consists of imposing Ampere's law on the electromagnetic field model by solving a coupled system of differential and algebraic equations for the two unknowns  the magnetic vector potential and the source current dhnsity vector  given the total measurable current Ik flowing in conductor C . The procedure is an easy k one to understand and to implement, and provides a simple and elegant onestep solution technique for the multipath eddy current problem.
THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EQUATIONS
In multipath eddy current problems where charges and displacement currents are negligible, the steady state time harmonic electromagnetic field is governed by Maxwell's equations
curl H = J
(1)
curl E =  jwB
VB = 0 VD
=
(2)
(3)
problem.
(4)
where E is the electric field, D is the electric flux, H is the magnetic field, B is the magnetic flux intensity, and J is the current density vector. Let a vector potential be defined with the equation B = curl A (5)
A paper recommended and approved by the 82 WM 1022 IEEE Rotating Machinery Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society for presentation at the IEEE PES 1982 Winter Meeting, New York, New York, January 31February 5, 1982. Manuscript submitted September 1, 1981; made available for printing November 10, 1981.
Equation (5) solves equation (3) exactly and may be substituted into equation (1) to give 1 _ _ (6) curl  curl A = J
Assuming that the vector potential and the current density vector are invariant in the longitudinal direction, equation (6) reduces to
3797 1 J (div  grad A) (7) VP The relationship between the electric field E and the vector potential A is obtained by substituting equation (5) in equation (2) and integrating. The result
is
However, in this case, we know a priori that J is equal to a different unknown constant J in each sk conductor C We may therefore take to be the k k function which is unity in conductor k and is zero elsewhere
k
k
= 
ijA
 Vf
(8)
where 4 is a scalar potential function. Let the current density J be separated into two components
J=j
s
ak k
(12)
one
f 1
=
inside conductor k
(15)
otherwise
+Je +
(9) 9
obtains
where J is the source current density vector and J is the eddy current density vector related to scalar and vector potentials as follows
Siwq
A 1
(16a)
Js
J
aVf 1
=aV4)*l
(10) ~~~~~~~~~~~~(10) l
woqt Uq
(16b) 1b
=  jwoA
(11)
It should be noted that neither J nor J can be s e measured physically; they are introduced here for mathematical convenience. Only the total current distribution J can be measured physically, and therefore only J provides a meaningful description of the current distribution in the conductors. For a straight conductor, the impressed field E and the current density J are uniform over the conductor cross section, both in the electrostatic case and in the quasistationary time harmonic case, provided the electric conductivity of the conductor is independent of position [17]. We may therefore combine equations (7), (9) and (11) to give
Ai,
[ J
3a.
x
aa. a
+a.
ay
) ds
(17)
T=
iJ
a .a.ds
I
(18)
Ji
ds
(19)
Am
(div  grad)A

jwaA + J
(12a)
(12b)
m'th
jwA + J = J
IJd m
Jsk
(20)
as the system of equations to be solved subject to the appropriate boundary conditions. In these equations A and J are the unknowns, while J is specified in the integraf form
J ds = I
J
and 8sk is
gsk
jw
(21)
ds
(13)
(13)
Equation (16b) is an expression of Ampere's law in matrix form. It may be derived as follows: Ampere's law states that
k
where Ik is the current flowing in conductor Ck of crosssection , k = 1, . ...N.
Im
Hie d
(22)
Qk
The peculiar form of equations (12) is probably the reason so many elaborate methods of solving multipath eddy current problems have been developed before the straightforward one presented here. The obvious thing to do for the analyst is to substitute equation (12b) into equestion (12a) thus eliminating the unknown J from the equations; yet in this case, s one must not do the obvious. FINITE ELEMENT FORMULATION In applying the finite element procedure, the unknowns A and J are usually approximated in terms of interpolation polynominals ca. and i. as A = E A.
Applying Stoke's theorem to equation (22) and substituting 1V for equationl(22) andnsub1m r
JA
(div
grad)A ds
(23)
Equations (16a) and (16b) are valid for a single element in the traditional sense. To obtain the corresponding discrete representation for the entire problem, it is necessary to extend the assemblage of finiteelements in the usual way. In an N conductorproblem, thlere results
a.i
si Si (14)
Js
3798
5(s + jwT)
j
Li jwaQt ::i
ra A1 r
0
s=
1 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 2
0 0
[J4~~~~~'](24)
1
0
0
l 2
l jXaQ jw J l gsS L j
where the matrix Q has N columns, column k of which contains the quadrature weights q for conductor k, and n is an N by N diagonal matrix of conductor areas Q k. The numerical formulation of the problem in this manner results in a complex symmetric matrix where in addition to the vector potential, unknowns g k are introduced at each conductor or group of conductors over which the total current is specified.
0
O
1
O 0
0
l
2
0
0
O 0
O 0
O 0
l
1
l
2
(28)
1
0 0
4
1 0 0 0
0
1
4 1 0 0
0
0
1 4
0
0 1
0
0 0
0
0 0
1 T = 6
0
0
1 0
0
2 0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
(29)
Q =L
( 8
7
1 12
(30)
AA= 0
By substituting the assembled matrices into (24) the following complex matrix equation results
1+i
3
6
0 4
X
I
1
1
=4
Air
1
0
0
5 Conductor
4 3
12
67
1
2+j6
1_j I
.2
6 +O
]
0j2
A5
c3
2 j
2hisproblem are
o
o
0 0 ii i2
=
0
0
0
+
2+j2
1 1
(3
0
A6
Fig. 1.
0
2
:
QT
The above equation yields the following results for vector potential and the source current density
1he
l/2J (27) A 6~~~~~~~~~~~~ The assembled [S], [T], and [Q] matrices for the seven line elements in Fig. 1 are evaluated as
_ l l/2
A1 A2 A A4
A
1 =
=~ 5 .18
12.0
15.29  j 3.02
 j 3 .26
= =
=
(32)
+ j 14.74
A7
Js
= =
4.0
2.95
3799
The total current density J is given by the sum of the source current density J 5 and the eddy current
,,Pa,
density
jwiA,
il 10.31lj
2
0.44.1
0.56
0.54
= =
0.07 j
0.72

0.56
0.97
j9 0.65
j 0.06
(33)
2.03
2.03
i5
2.95 +j 2.74
=4.03
Table 1 shows excellent agreement between the first order one dimensional finite element solution of J, the second order two dimensional finite element solution of J and the analytical solution given in reference [16]. Consider next the threephase busbar problem illustrated schematically in Fig. 2. In this problem, the three busbars carry currents of different phases as set by the power system. In addition, a conducting shield surrounds the busbars on all sides, but carries no net current, although it does support eddy currents. Figure 3 presents a contour plot of the magnitude of the magnetic vector potential distribution or magnetic flux distribution in the busbars at the instant when Il= 500A, I2= lOOOA and I= 500A. Figure 4 depicts the flux distribution 3 2.083 msec (oneeighth of a cycle) later. At this instance the total current values are I = 965.9A, I = 707.1A and I 3 = 258.8A. These solutions have been 2 compared in some detail with analytical solutions where possible, and with previously published solutions [13] and excellent agreement was obtained.
Fig. 3.
Contours of equal magnetic vector potential magnitudes (or magnetic flux distribution) for the shielded threephase busbar arrangement at the instant when the currents IOOOA, in the conductors are I,= 500A, I and I = 500A.
El"
rl
LZ> re
"
I:]
L 11
l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Analytical Solution
1
Fig. 4. Contours of equal magnetic vector potential magnitudes (or magnetic flux distribution) for the shielded threephase busbar arrangement at the instant when the currents 965.9A, I2= 707.1A in the conductors are I 1 and I3= 258.8A.
2nd Order
2D
0.51
Lst Order
.1D
0.56
0.22  j 0.42
0.31  J 0.44
0.0035 
Fig. 2.
~~
arrangement.
1.96 1...L...I~~~~~
.405
+ j 0.18
.7305
1.96
+ j 0.18
j0.65
j 0.06
Table 1.
Comparison between the new finite element method and the analytical solution.
3800 CONCLUSION
A new procedure has been developed to solve the classical steady state skin effect problem. The procedure is based on a coupled solution of the diffusion equation and Ampere's law. It differs from previous work because it treats the source current density as an unknown and allows a one step solution of the problem. It is shown that power system constraints are embedded in a natural way within the electromagnetic field model through the total measurable excitation current.
[10]
M.V.K. Chari and Z. J. Csendes, "Finite element analysis ofthe skin effect in current carrying conductors," IEEE Trans. Mag., Vol. Mag13, pp. 11251127, 1977. formulation of threedimensional magnetic field and eddy current problems," Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Vol. 124, pp. 6674, 1977.
[12]
The matrix equation generated in the procedure is the same as that obtained with the ordinary complex Poisson equation solution except for the addition of N rows and columns in an N conductor problem. The accuracy and solution time of the new procedure are therefore virtually the same as that required for ordinary finite element analysis. The solution technique is illustrated by a simplified example of a one dimensional slot embedded conductor and a two dimensional threephase busbar arrangement. Numerical results for the eddy current density are in excellent agreement with those obtained by an exact solution and with those published in the literature. The method is simple and elegant and is valid for any number of distinct series or parallel connected conductors of arbitrary cross sections.
REFERENCES
, "A network approach to the numberical solution of eddy current problems," IEEE Trans. Mag., Vol. Magll, pp. 15171522, 1975. Z. J. Csendes and A. Konrad, "Electric machine modeling and power system constraints," Presented at the Conf. on Electric Power Problems: The Mathematical Challenge, Seattle, WA, March 1820, 1980. P. Silvester and C.R.S. Haslam, "Magnetoelluric modelling by the finite element method," Geophys. Prospecting, Vol. xx, pp. 872891, 1972. J. Weiss and Z. J. Csendes, "Finite element solution of eddy currents in asynchronous generator rotors," International Conference on Electrical Machines, Athens, Greece, Sept. 1980. A. Konrad, "The numerical solution of steadystate skin effect problems  an integrodifferential approach," IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, Vol. MAG17, No. 1, Jan. 1981.
P. Silvester, Modern Electromagnetic Fields, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, PrenticeHall, 1968.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[I]
[2] [3]
[17]
C. W. Trowbridge, "Applications of integral equation methods for the numerical solution of magnetostatic and eddy currents problems," Proceedings of International Conference on Numerical Methods in Electrical and Magnetic Field Problems, Santa Margherita, Italy, 1976.
solving static field and eddy current problems via Fredholm integral equations," IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, Vol. MAG15, No. 3, May, 1979.
P. Silvester, A. Konrad, J. L. Coulomb, and J. C. Sabonnadiere, "Modal network representation of slotembedded conductors," Elec. Machines ElectroMech., Vol. l, pp. 107122, 1977. P. Silvester, "Modal network theory of skin effect in flat conductors," Proc. IEEE, Vol. 54, pp. 11471151, 1966.
[5]
[6]
[7]  , "Skin effect in Multiple and polyphase conductors," Presented at the IEEE Winter Power Meeting, New York, Jan. 28  Feb. 2,
1968, Paper 68TP22 PWR.
[8]  , "AC resistance and reactance of isolated rectangular conductors," IEEE Trans. Power, App. Syst., Vol. PAS86, pp. 770774, 1967. skin effect and eddy current problems," Presented at the IEEE Summer Power Meeting, Mexico City, Mexico, July 1977, Paper A7766166.
[9]
3801
does it not appear in subsequent equations? Discussions 18) Why does Q in equation (26) change to C in equation (29)? A. Konrad (General Electric Company, Schenectady, NY): The paper 19) Equation (30), when solved does not yield the results given in by the authors Dr. J. Weiss and Prof. Z. J. Csendes addresses a pro (31). This can be seen by substituting the values of Al, A2 and Js from blem of current interest to engineers and designers and is one of a number of papers written on the subject by several researchers of which (31) into the first row of (30). While the matrix equation (30) follows references rl]r9] . on y a tew examp es. The theme ot t 1e present directlyare incorrect. (23), the last row and column of the coefficient Liiirences are only few examples. ne tneme of the matrixHfrom equation 2 d ea paper is a good deal similar in approach as well as in content to an integrodifferential formulation developed by this discusser and published n20) How dd the authors obtain the 2nd order 2D solution referred to e in the January 1981 and 1982 issues . .> ...........on Magnetics < . however, of IEEE Transactions > ..........21)a On page 4 the authors refer [10], [11]. This discusser, .... . has the following comments on dif shielded threephase bus bar problem to an analytical 2.solution of the shown in Figure A reference to wishes seek clarificationin ferent aspects of thne authors' paper and WIShes to seek( clarifi'cation in.. the originator of such an analytical solution is in order here. A table of of ther of others. respect results showing the comparison mentioned by the authors should have 1) This paper in its present form as is available at this 1982 Winter been included. Meeting suffers from a number of typographical errors, mathematical 22) The authors state that excellent agreement was obtained between inconsistencies and statements, in this discusser's view, not fully sup their results for the bus bar in and the results
ferenpt
ward one for skin effect problems. In view of the several papers presented on the subject of skin effect problems and a one step single variable integrodifferential method presented by this discusser in the above references [10], [11], the statement by the authors is contestable and at best is highly subjective. 3) On page 2, following equation (11), the authors state that the . source currentensity cannot be measured physically. This statement is d measud p y. T density canno
2) In the paragraph following equation (13) the first sentence imfolowng eqauthors is the first straightforplies that the method plies that the prah presented by the authorsisthefirststraight
reference [13] of their paper. Since no flux values are given in reference [13], only the flux plots, the conductors thermore, contour lines inhow can excellent agreement effect occurs)Fur(where skin be claimed? are
problem
published
4) The plural form of the word multiconductor in the title does not seem to be correct. 5) The word principle should be principal in the first paragraph of the Introduction. several times in the 6) The word integrodifferential which appears severaltimesint fourth paragraph should not be hyphenated. 7) B is the magnetic flux density, not the magnetic field intensity as stated after equation (4). 8) In equation (2) E appears as a scalar quantity. (9) through (13) J appear asscalar 9) In equations (7) and (9) through (13) A and J appear as scalar
sourcecurruen
6outhewoaraphintegrouldifferenotialwhihenappears
23) in the Con sionte auo sa tha rd 23) In the Conclusion the authors state that their method differs from previous work because it treats the source current density as an unknown and allows a one step solution of the problem. As can be seen from references [10] and [11] presented by this discusser, the integrodifferential method also treats the source current density as an unknown and allows a direct, one step solution of the vector potentiali distribution. The only difference is that the vector potent s o f a tsal solutionifiS obtaied first and the source current density is computed separately needed g Simlarly, m the integrodifferential method described in references [10] also embedded in aby this discusser, the power system constraints and [11] presented natural are way within the electromagnetic field model through the total measurable excit'ation current. Moreover, the o is asorali an nurodtt serie iodifferenga th method is also valid for any 'number of distinct series
or parallel connected conductors of arbitrary crosssections as demonstrated in reference [11] presented by this discusser.
Integrodifferential
E do o 12) Equations (16a) and (16b) do not follow from the application of (16a) and rierquations (16b Galerkin's Criterion to equations (12a) and (12b) as ow stated. How does the second column of the coefficient matrix in equations (16a) and (16b) acquire CV~~~~~~~~~~~. acquire the factor 9o? 13) Without dispute, equations (12a) and (12b) are of the differential and algebraic type, respectively. This is in disagreement with the state tegrodifferential etd. Perhaps, et should d ertionrehere that the integrodifferential by ment in the last paragraph of the Introduction that a coupled system of differential equations will be solved. On the other hand, equations (16a) method presented by thas dnscusserin references [10t and [11] is very and (16b) appear to be the discretized equivalents of a differential equa simply to program by anyone with a clear understanding of the ap tion and an integral equation, respectively. Does this mean that the proach. authors are not solving an integrodifferential system of equations? The authors seem to imply that the integrations in equation (16b) usREFERENCES ing NewtonCotes quadrature weights are a result of the Galerkin process. This is incorrect. The integrations are in fact a result of the constraint expressed by equation (13). [1] 0. W. Andersen, "Finite element solution of skin effect and eddy current problems," presented at the IEEE PES Summer Meeting, 14) Following the authors' line of reasoning and by using equations Mexico City, Mexico, July 1722, 1977, Paper A 77 6166. (17) through (22) one cannot arrive at the symmetric matrix equation given by (16a) and (16b). An asymmetric system is obtained. In the [2] M. V. K. Chari and Z. J. Csendes, "Finite element analysis of the skin effect in current carrying conductors," IEEE Trans. Magn., form shown, both equations (16a) and (16b) as well as equation (23) are vol. MAG13, pp. 11251127, 1977. incorrect. [3] P. Silvester, "Modal network theory of skin effect in flat conduc15) According to the statement following equation (19) Im in equators," Proc. IEE, vol. 54, pp. 11471151, 1966. tion (16b) is the total current in finite element em of area Am. Im appears on the right hand side of (16b). How do the authors know what [4] P. Silvester, "Skin effect in multiple and polyphase conductors," presented at the IEEE Winter Power Meeting, New York, Jan. the total current is in each finite element before actually solving the skin 28Feb. 2, 1968, Paper 68 TP 22PWR. effect problem? It was stated in the last paragraph of the Introduction [5] P. Silvester, A. Konrad, J. L. Coulomb, and J. C. Sabonnadiere, that the total measurable current Ik flowing in conductor Ck is the "Modal network representation of slotembedded conductors," given quantity. If the authors' answer to this is that equations (16a) and Elec. Machines ElectroMech., vol. 1, pp. 107122, 1977. (16b) are written for a single finite element (the mth one), then their [6] P. Silvester, S. K. Wong, and P. E. Burke, "Modal theory of skin statement in the paragraph following equation (22) about assembly of effect in single and multiple turn coils," Presented at the IEEE the element contributions to obtain a global representation being done Summer Power Meeting, Portland, OR, June 1523, 1971, Paper in the usual way is incorrect.The assembly process exhibits the same 71 TP 523PWR. peculiarities as in the case of the integrodifferential approach [10], [11]. [7] U. Costache, "Calculation of eddy currents and skin effect in non16) With regard to the first paragraph under Application of the magnetic conductors by the finite element method," Ref. roum. Method, the infinitesimally thin slot embedded conductor shown in sci. techn., Ser. electrotechn. et energ., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 357363, Figure 1 does not appear in the book by Lammeraner and Stafi. It ap1976. pears in reference [10] presented by this discusser. [8] N. Mullineux, J. R. Reed, and I. J. Whyte, "Current distribution 17) What is the significance of the symbol A in equation (26)? Why
read conductor.
11) In the sentence before equation (15) the word conduction should
12)erkin's
integrodifferential method of [10] and [11] seems to be the idea of obtamng the unknown source current density simultaneously with the vector potential distribution. The price the authros pay for this is that they must solve a larger matrix equation. While there may be a few more zero elements in the resulting coefficient matrix, the bandwidth compared with the matrix obtained from the integrodifferential method is larger. time, the ~computer Unlesstheir authors can demonstrate a definite reduction inapproach offers no clear advantage over the in todifferetial,mth od.
Therefore, the only difference between the authors' approach and the
3802 in sheet and foilwound transformers," Proc. Inst. Elec. Eng., vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 127129, Jan. 1969. [9] J. Donea, S. Giuliani, and A. Philippe, "Finite elements in the solution of electromagnetic induction problems," Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 359367, 1974. [10] A. Konrad, "The numerical solution of steadystate skin effect problems  An integrodifferential approach," IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. MAG17, pp. 11481152, 1981. [11] A. Konrad, "Integrodifferential finite element formulation of twodimensional steadystate skin effect problems," IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. MAG18, pp. 284292. In comparing this paper with that of Konrad (16), this discusser finds no significant differences in technical approach, only differences in execution. Konrad's approach yields a fuller symmetric matrix, while this approach yeilds a matrix with a banded structure reminiscent of finite difference potential problems. The usual banded matrix solver algorithms will perform equally well (poorly?) with either approach, although some of the "skyline" solver algorithms might prefer the approach given in this paper. Newer conjugate gradient method solvers would be equally happy with either approach. The choice of which one to use is dependent upon the user's computer resources. REFERENCES
J. A. Mallick (General Electric Company, Schenectady, NY): The skin effect problem in current carrying conductors illustrates the difficulty in coupling a two dimensional field solution with an external circuit constraint. Too often one blindly solves field problems while forgetting the original assumptions implicit in the problem statement. Since the "infinite length" two dimensional assumption can be replaced by a finite length problem bounded by two infinitely conducting planes, the implicit assumption here is that all conducting members are shorted at the "end", werevr thse my b. Th qain,sc 'sends", wh1erever th1ese may be. The use of constraint equations, suchn mathematias here,allowsonetomodfythese"connectio is done e is is he o cally at the expensl of increased prdblet complexity this " the ri f cmext t marrying circuit theory and fild thzeory. whnere th ese selfconsistent eddy current solution methods will pay off is in the solution of magnetically nonlinear problems, and this discusser looks forward to seeing fura the. r work in this a rea. efi this pro of skin This problem of skin effects in current carryAng conductorsef.s(16 A.K this discusser recommends that paperspapers by read in )nd these and (A)), and this discusser parallel so that the reader can appreciate the differences in the approach. This present paper unfortunately suffers from a rather large number of basic technical and presentation errors. One should note that the equation system given by equation (16) is an incorrect representation of the differential equation and constraint equation given in (12), as a simple matrix multiplication will quickly show. The right hand column of the system matrix contains the extraneous multiplier jcot; its removal leaves an equation system which is consistent. Unfortunately this error is propagated throughout the rest of the paper, yielding a matrix equation (30) which is not satisfied by the solution vector given (31). When the extraneous jcog term is removed, the matrix equation (16) is made nonsymmetric, but it can be made symmetric by rewriting equation (12b) as:
[A] A. Konrad, "Integrodifferential Finite Element Formulation of TwoDimensional Steady State Skin Effect Problems", IEEE Trans. on Magnetics, VOL. MAGll, No. 1, January 1982, pp. 284292. Manuscript received February 18, 1982.
us.fcntan
this
ped
asrwellommeinds thatw
by
drefd i6
maintain that treating Js as an explicit unknown on par with the vector potential A, as is done in this paper, has the triple advantage of simplifying the problem formulation, of reducing the complexity of the computer code, and of speeding up the computation. To put the present work in the proper perspective, we must consider as the background to both this paper and to the integrodifferential
technique, the superposition solution technique published by Csendes and Konrad [13]. In the superposition approach, the skin effect problem
been solved many times in the literature. The significance of the new apT the prac s IS tatiIt treats the q ity (alledhe source current dni roach that tres Js called the source urrent densit t in the paper) for the first time as an explicit unknown, on the same level as the vector potential A, and not as a second quantity. While one can argue that Js appears implicitly in other previous formulations, we
in our work. It is unfortunate, however, that pressed the Jcsensin outhorsartunate, hever, that pressed by Zt able to read they were not discussions the paper in the proper perspective and, did not hence,each of usunderstand the significance of the new approach. has has the multiconductor skin effect As
Weiss and Z. J. Csendes: The authors are pleased by the interest ex.
stated,
problem
euantit
div  grad A
jwaA
= J
(dl)
inside conductor k
otherwise.
A
(D2)
jwa JX Imposing the constraint (D3) This discusser feels that the term "Galerkin process" is misleading J  when applied to the resulting equation system (16). Inspection reveals integrated over each conductor crosssection then provides a matrix that only equation (12a) is subjected to the Galerkin method usually ap equation for the multipliers ck in the superposition solution plied in finite element approximations; that is, the residual equation is N multiplied by the finite element approximation polynomials and inteA = grated over the solution space. Equation (16b) is obtained from (12b) by cA (D4) a simple integration over the element area, which is not a true Galerkin k=1 operation; the term "collocation" might be more appropriate here. Equation (22) is missing a minus sign. Equation (23) has the ex It is shown in reference [13] that the coefficients ck are identical to the traneous jCo" multiplier propagated from equation (16). On page 3, row source current densities Jk in each conductor matrix "C" appears in equation (29), but this discusser cannot see ,k = 1, .... N (D5) ck = Jk where this fits into the asssembly of the matrix equations. As mentioned previously, matrix equation (30) is not satisfied by the values given in equation (31); however, if one divides the last column and last row of It may therefore be argued that reference [13] is the first paper in which the system matrix by "j", one can obtain the solutions given in (31). Js is treated as an unknown, although the superposition technique is Table 1 on page 4 mentions a second order, two dimensional solution clearly a circuitous route for computing it. The next development in the solution of the skineffect problem is which does not appear in the paper; I can only assume that it must be for the same slot embedded conductor. Perhaps the authors can Dr. Konrad's integrodifferential technique in which equations (Dl) and (D3) are solved by eliminating Js from the equations and replacing elaborate. The three phase bus bar solutions given in figures 3 and 4 would be equations (Dl) and (D3) by a single integrodifferential equation. While more useful if some dimensions and conductivities were given. As it is, Js may be computed from the integrodifferential solution after comthe skin effect in the bars is difficult to evaluate. The bars appear to be puting A as Dr. Konrad states, the fact remains that the integrodifferenexcluding all the flux, and might just as well have been represented by tial approach does not solve for A and Js from a coupled system of equations. some surface currents.
3803
We may summarize the three competing procedures for solving skin effect problems as follows:
01
Present paper
Superposition Integrodifferential
yes no yes
i~s
In hindsignt, of course, the approach presented in this paper, that of solving equations (Dl) and (D3) directly as a coupled system of equations for A and Js, appears to be so obviously the logical choice one wonders why it wasn't done first. However, it is not proper to claim after its publication that there is "no significant difference in technical approach" between the simple direct solution and the complicated indirect one  and then to pretend that the complicated procedure included the simple one as well. If the present technique represents the Solution of an "integrodifferential system of equations" because it solves equations (DI) and (D3) then so does the superposition technique which also solves equations (Dl) and (D3) and also uses quadrature formulas to evaluate the integrals. By this fallacious reasoning one would conclude that the integrodifferential technique is included in the superposition method, since the superposition approach was developed first. One0 gets the feeling of "sour grapes" from Dr. Konrad's discussion: He canI
;~2asio
&
a ~~
_jwo ds
LJ
s jw w
ds
L
authors pay. .".The fact is that he did not think of it. The remaining substantial criticism by the discussors is their confusion with regard to Galerkin's method. Since Galerkin's method is so well known, we had omitted some of the details in the derivation. However, since there appears to be some doubt in the application of Galerkin's method in this case, we are happy to fill in the details. In matrix form, equations (12) are:
2 V jwo

jwoy
r ~~~
Introducing equations (15) and (13) into (D8) gives equation (16). The point to emphasize in the above is that it is a "straight" Galerkin procedure. The discussors are wrong in thinking that the Galerkin technique may be applied without integrating over the solution region. A Galerkin method for modeling a differential or algebraic equation without integrating over the problem region is a contradiction in terms. As can be seen above, the integral Jds is inherent in the Galerkin process and is not generated ad hoc. Indeed, one of the beauties of the approach is the natural (13) is embedded in the analysis. way in which the constraint equation
~~~~~~present
It
f1gk
I.jW
L~~~WO woj i
LI
are
L jJ ~(D6) ~ ~ ~ ~6~
approximated
as
A]
II
II
~~~~~~~~~twodimensional ~~~~~~~~~~~~boundary
(D)
where a] and pare row vectors containing the approximation functions al and P~i of the paper. In standard Galerkin form, we substitute (D7) into (D6), premultiply by:
Winter Meeting manuscript. These have been corrected. We regret that the letter J in the place of g in equation (16) made it appear that this equation was not symmetric and, that the numbers in equation (31) did not add up. (Equation (16) is indeed symmetric and the numbers do indeed add up.) The secondorder, twodimensional finite element solution of the slotembedded conductor was obtained by running a secondorder, finite element computer program with Neumann conditions on the sides. We did not say that an analytical solution of the shielded threephase bus bar problem exists. The comslotembedded conductor problem. We are puzzled by Dr. Konrad's question concerning the comparison of flux values with the solution given in reference (13]. Doesn't he remenber that one of the authors (Csendes) was his coauthor on this paper, and his friend?