Jump to content

Alejandro Rodríguez

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Alejandro Rodríguez

  1. Dear Balaji, Thank you for your kind answer. If you have more questions we will be glad to help. Best regards. Alejandro
  2. Hello, Sorry for this late answer. With this information it is very difficult to know what is going wrong in the importing process. Anyway, in the case of a format problem, you can always import a txt as a gerber file: you should select “all files” in the importing wizard. Please, check also the gerber version of your files. Flux PEEC is qualified to import RS-274X, but problems could arise when using other versions. Hope this helps. Best regards. Alejandro
  3. Dear Balaji, I am not sure to fully understand your questions. I think that all your commentaries are correct, a transient magnetic simulation in Flux seems the best way to manage this kind of simulation. I advise you to define the high-power conductor as non-meshed coil, since it is primarily an excitation. The excited device/s can be defined either as solid conductor or coil conductor depending of its nature. You can also define a sensor to evaluate the flux embraced by the excited coil. From this sensor, you can evaluate the induced voltage. Moreover, if you have also defined a circuit for your excited conductor you will be able also to evaluate the parasitic current. Hope this helps. Best regards. Alejandro
  4. Hi Jerome, Yes, of course you can use all the functionalities of phyton in your script, including loops and “if” conditions. Problem here is, once you have launched the resolution, Flux is not going to take any other python command until the end of this resolution process. One possible solution is to launch a solving process with only a few steps, verify your stop condition, then modify your solving scenario adding new steps and launch the resolution of these new steps. You can repeat this schema in an iterative way until your stop condition has been reached. Best regards,
  5. Hello Michael, You will find this macro in Flux macro's library. To load it into your Flux project you should go through the menu Project -> Macro -> Load and, in the pop-up, choose the folder Macros_FluxMotor. There you should choose the macro according to the motor’s part you want to generate (magnets, slots, etc.). Hope this helps, Best regards, Alejandro
  6. Hello Jerome, Unfortunately, Flux 2D does not have this functionality. Best regards, Alejandro
  7. Hello Jerome, Unfortunately, this is not enough information to say what is going wrong in your project. There are several different reasons which may explain this behaviour: a wrong material definition, a poor meshing along skin depth (less than two elements along this depth), wrong frequency, etc… As a matter of fact, induction heating process is very dependent on the magnetic properties of the material to be heated. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to heat properly a steel but not a composite. Please, check material permeability to be sure you are modelling the material correctly. Maybe a parametric study on this parameter can help. Best regards,
  8. Bonjour, Je vous prie de trouver à continuation les réponses à vos commentaires : -Maillage : Les maillage est, habituellement, un point délicat dans une majorité de projets. Si vous voulez un maillage uniforme dans la longueur du dispositif je vous conseil d’utiliser le maillage mappé. De la même façon, vous pouvez définir une relaxation de maillage moins importante dans le volume pour éviter un maillage plus relâché dans la partie centrale. Pour assurer un maillage suffisant dans l’épaisseur de peau, je vous conseil d’utiliser la fonctionnalité « mesh generator : Layers » (dans l’image). Vous trouverez un exemple de comment procéder dans cette vidéo : https://altairengineering.fr/resource/altair-flux-new-feature-overview (minute 1:50). Je vous partage aussi un pdf qu’explique d’une façon concise et complète les différentes possibilités de maillage qui vous sont offertes par Altair Flux. -Symétrie : Pour savoir la raison de cet écart je devrais avoir le projet. Peut-être, il s’agit de la connexion des parties symétrisées (en série ou en parallèle) mais aussi la façon de calculer l’impédance (elle peut être directement indiquée par l’utilisateur ou bien calculée à partir des caractéristiques du matériau). J’espère que cette réponse vous sera utile. Bonne journée. Alejandro 4_Mesh-Altair_Flux.pdf
  9. Hello, Yes, you can simulate this. The simplest way is to define the coil and the conductor and the movement you want, in the same way that the actuator example does. The best application to do this is the transient magnetic one. Then, you should associate the coil with a circuit since the magnetic interaction is not directly generating a current but a voltage. The final current you will obtain will greatly depends on the circuit connected to your coil. Actually, the circuit is the only remarkable difference between the example (where the current is seen as a input) and your problem (where the movement is the input and the voltage/current the output). Since your question is quite general, I advise you to do the actuator example first. Once you get familiar with it the next step is to change the circuit, replacing the sources by resistances and seeing what is happening from a physics point of view. Finally, you can use this case as inspiration to build your own project. Hope this helps. Best regards, Alejandro
  10. Hello Rory, The problem was completely different that I have imagined. Actually, it was a geometrical problem, the moving magnets volumes were not assembled with the air volumes, that means that these magnets did not "see" the rest of the geometry from a magnetic point of view. In other words, these magnets were completely isolated. I do not know the source of this problem, but it is likely something related with geometry import or the geometry treatment in the modeler. I have corrected this problem and now you are having more coherent results. Please, find the corrected project attached. Good luck with your research! Best regards, Alejandro RORY_ROTATING_MAGNETS_CORRECTED.FLU.zip
  11. Hi Aravind, I am sorry for this late answer. In fact, situation in Europe is quite difficult at this moment. I hope you and your family and friends are also doing fine during this pandemic period. Regarding your problem, I think you should define a parameter inside FLux and to link it to a Simulink source, you will find a complete example of how to do this kind of connexions in the file attached (pdf file + flux project). Following this same logic, you can define your circuit in Flux (using, in this case, a transient simulation instead of a magnetostatic one, since circuit options are not available in magneto static). The circuit variables (such as the voltage of your source) can be defined as parameters and read from a simulink input, as explained in the pdf attached. A final advise is that you should start defining your project in Flux and make it works alone, without Simulink. At this stage, parameters coming from simulink can be defined as known variables or constants. In a second step you can make Flux works together with Simulink. I think this is the best way to get confidence in your project and to make the possible physical problems independent from coupling ones. Hope this example helps you in your own project definition. Best regards, Alejandro FluxSimulink.zip
  12. Hi Rory, The way you are representing the torque is correct, and it seems that now you have a proper mechanical set definition. From these images, I do not know exactly what the problem is. It seems quite probable that the torque generated by the right moving magnet is cancelled by the left one. I am sorry, but the only way to help you further is to have your project to work on it, if you want to share it. Hope this helps Best regards, Alejandro
  13. Hi, Sorry for my late answer. Please, find below the answer to your questions. · To define the magnet orientation along z axis, stablish the orientation variables as shown in the image. In fact, it is a matter to choose the proper coordinate system and angle. You can also represent your Br orientation before resolution through the menu Physics -> Display arrows on magnet. · This type of collision should not be possible. If I have understood correctly, your magnets are moving inside the air region (in yellow). Your magnets must remain inside this region at any time, this will automatically avoid collision with the external (fixed) magnets. Please, check your mechanical set options and the time instant you are simulating in your scenario and make sure your air region is compressible and not part of the moving mechanical set. · Sorry for the low quality of my image in the previous post. You are right, the best way to represent the torque of the moving part is the formula TorqueElecMag(MOBILE). Best regards, Alejandro
  14. Hello, You are welcome. I advise you to check your magnets orientation, you have defined their Br following x axis but, seeing your geometry, it seems more likely to me that Br orientation follows z axis. You can update the orientation through the menu physics -> Material -> Orient material for volume region. Regarding magnetic torque, the best way to obtain it is to represents the global torque of the mechanical set: Curve-> 2D curve (I/O parameter)-> new 2D curve and then to define the formula select the mechanical set option (see the image attached). Hope this helps. Best regards. Alejandro
  15. You are welcome. Do not worry. We are here to help. Have a nice day.
  16. Hi Andoni, Probably this problem arises because you have generated different solid bodies in the same physical space. You need to combine all these objects. In the modeler, there are several possibilities to do so, depending if you want to merge all the bodies in the same volume or to create different volumes. In order to combine all bodies in the same entity you should carry out an union (see image below, the icon in the left, with an u), or an assembly to divide the bodies into different volumes without collisions between them (icon in the right, with an a). Hope this helps. Best regards. Alejandro
  17. Hello, The problem here is in the mechanical set definition, I guess you have defined your magnets in yellow as a rotating mechanical set and magnets in purple as fixed and you do not have defined the yellow box of air as compressible. In order to solve your project, you need to define a mechanical set compressible and assign it to the yellow box of air. This is the way to that the yellow air area must be remeshed each time step, otherwise Flux will not be able to consider the movement. Hope this helps. Best regards. P.S: The method shown in the tutorial does not work in your case because, in the tutorial, there exists a sliding surface (i.e., the border between moving and fixed part is a well-defined revolution surface. That quality makes the remeshing unnecesary), which is not your case.
  18. Hi Aravind, When you create your connector, you should decide which parameters will be fed from Simulink, then you can connect Simulink sources to them. You do not need to use voltage source directly in Simulink, rather you should define another input in Simulink (sine wave or any other) and them assign the parameter it is piloting as temporal value of your current source. Nearly everything is parametrizable in Flux: you can parametrize your voltage source value inside Flux and the resistance of your circuit component, including solid conductors. To simulate your device, you should define the blue and red volumes as solid conductors and then generate a circuit to link them to a circuit. Finally, you can choose which faces are the input and outputs of your solid conductor. Hope this helps. Best regards,
  19. Dear Andoni, About the difference between active power and Joule losses I think you will find an explanation in Flux help, more precisely: C:/ProgramFiles/Altair/2019/flux/Flux/Help/Flux/english/Website/index.html?InterpretationDesResultatsPuissancesEtPertes.htm where C:/ProgramFiles/Altair/2019/ should be replaced by your Flux installation directory. Hope this helps. Best regards, Alejandro
  20. Hi Aravind, You are welcome. I have not a clue about why your simulink is not able to read your F2MS file, since now your Flux and your Simulink versions are compatible. Please, try to generate a new file with another name just to be sure this is not a path problem. Best regards, Alejandro
  21. Hello Balaji, In fact, if your values are changing when you change the infinity box size, that means that it is to small for your problem. It can be a meshing problem but, most probably, the reason is that your physics is not well represented with such small infinity box. As Andoni says, the infinity box limits should be “long enough” your device. In other words, flux should be quite low when reaching the infinity box boundary, otherwise it is too small. Given fixed rules to decide when a box is “big enough” is not a simple task, and there are not infallible rules, since it depends on device geometry and physics. For example, if you are representing a motor surrounded by a ferromagnetic stator, most of the flux will be confined inside the machine, with very low leakage flux going to the air, in this case you can define a small infinity box. On the contrary, if the device is on air with no ferromagnetic material limiting it, box sized required will be higher. As a rule of the thumb, we advise to establish the internal size of the infinity box between 1.2 and 2 times the device radius. Best regards, Alejandro
  22. Dear Mostafa, There are two things that are worthwhile to notice for LS model users. Firstly, that this is a mathematical model, made to fit with real measures. That means that the concerning of the model is to get a good global value, while values for each instant are less significant, that is why usually waveform are not very relevant. Secondly, iron losses are positive because the realignment of the magnetic domains takes energy to be done, but a small fraction of this power can be given back when these domains goes through a lower energy configuration. Therefore, for some given instants, losses can appear as negative, though globally it will always be positive. Best regards, Alejandro
  23. Hello Aravind, I think the problem is that you have indicated as directory C:\Program Files\MATLAB\R2018a\bin, it should be C:\Program Files\MATLAB\R2018a, instead. Try this, I think it is going to work. Best regards, Alejandro
  24. Dear Aravind, Your settings are right, electric applications have less option than magnetic ones. Best regards,
  25. Hi Mostafa, Unfortunately, I think you are right, this problem is probably related with Matlab version compatibility. For the moment, Matlab R2019a is not qualified for coupling with Flux. Please, see the table below to check versions compatibility. Best regards,
  • Create New...