Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pfetzingm

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Are you University user?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello Alejandro, thanks for your quick response! Stay healthy and have a nice day! Best regards, Michael
  2. Hello everyone, during a FLUX2D training, I have been shown how to export models and geometries, respectively from FLUX2D to MotorFLUX. I know, there is a macro, which can arrange this by generating an EXCEL file with the geometry information. Could you please provide that macro or tell me, where to find it? I was looking for it @ ALTAIR Connect, but I couldn't find, so please help me out. Thanks in advance! Best regards, Michael
  3. Hello Alejandro, after succesfully setting up the FLUX MATLAB API, I can control FLUX via MATLAB. So far, so good, but I don't get any graphical feedback except from a console window. I would like to see the simulation model or the simulations, but it seems like, the simulations are performed in the background and I get only insight in the simulation results. For example, if I excute FMP_executeJythonCommand(serverUid, 'newProject()') within a MATLAB script, I expected, that the FLUX user interface would appear, but instead, a new project is silently created in the background. I tried differend arguments for the FLUX server, but all I can see is the console via args={strcat(NUMERICAL_MEMORY_LABEL,'600000000'),strcat(CHARACTER_MEMORY_LABEL,'600000000'),strcat(GUI_MEMORY_LABEL,'600'),strcat(LANGUAGE_LABEL,'2'),strcat(CONSOLE_LABEL,'1')}; serverUid = FMP_startLocaleServer(FLUX2D_64,LOCALEWRKDIR,args); Is there any possibility in the arguments for the server to make the user interface visible? I couldn't find any information in the API handbook, except from the attached table. Best regards, Michael
  4. Hello Alejandro, thanks for your response. I agree with you, that adjusting loss parameters may correct the material behavior. Unfortunately, even lamination manufacturer cannot support us with data from non-finally annealed laminations. Maybe, a nice feature in future FLUX releases could be, when assigning material for a region, that the material behavior can be adjusted via a parameter representing the punching edge width. For the affected regions from punching edges, a lower stacking factor can be used in loss calculation (resulting in higher flux density amplitudes). But still, the B(H) magnetization behavior of the material needs to be adjusted and that's actually the crux. I hope you can regard this issue in future releases... Best regards, Michael
  5. Hello! In the sake of simulation accuracy, we want to consider effects for lamination materials originating from punching edges and stacking / packaging / bundling within our simulation models. As Veigel has shown in https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000084543/15671960, packaging has significant influences on iron losses (up to 60 % more losses from packaging and punching edges than reference values from manufacturers). Bauer mentioned in https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783658242718, that one way to consider influences from punching edges is to use parameters for impacted regions from lamination materials, that were not finally heat treated and annealed, respectively, resulting in higher losses and differing magnetization behavior. One question, that still remains, is, how to model influences from packaging in FLUX? However, I wanted to ask, if there are any lamination materials within the FLUX material explorer, which may behave like non-finally annealed laminations regarding losses and magnetization curves? Thanks in advance for any response! Best regards, Michael
  • Create New...