Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Appendix
A. 1 The software codes of the measurement and the post processing
Fig. A 1.1. The diagram panel of the excitation software
Fig. A 1.2. The visualization of the measured curves in the filtering software
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 1.3. Taking a subset of the measured elements in the filtering software
Fig. A 1.4. The error calculation in the initializing software
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
A. 2 Measured hysteresis loops excited with sinusoidal waves versus the tensile stress with one winded lamination
Fig. A 2.1. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 2.2. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 2.3. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 2.4. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 2.5. The difference of the coercive field Hc values versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz
measurement frequency
Fig. A 2.6. The difference of the energy losses versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement
frequency
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 2.7. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 2.8. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 2.9. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 2.10. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 2.11. The difference of the coercive field Hc values versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz
measurement frequency
Fig. A 2.12. The difference of the energy losses versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement
frequency
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 2.13. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 2.14. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 2.15. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 2.16. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 2.17. The difference of the coercive field Hc values versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz
measurement frequency
Fig. A 2.18. The difference of the energy losses versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement
frequency
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 2.19. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 2.20. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 2.21. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 2.22. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 2.23. The difference of the coercive field Hc values versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz
measurement frequency
Fig. A 2.24. The difference of the energy losses versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement
frequency
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 2.25. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 2.26. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 2.27. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 2.28. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 2.29. The difference of the coercive field Hc values versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz
measurement frequency
Fig. A 2.30. The difference of the energy losses versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement
frequency
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
A. 3 Measured hysteresis loops excited with sinusoidal waves versus the measurement frequency with one winded lamination
Fig. A 3.1. Measured hysteresis loops versus the measurement frequency at 0 MPa stress (measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 3.2. Measured hysteresis loops versus the measurement frequency at 0 MPa stress (measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 3.3. Coercive field Hc values versus the
measurement frequency at 0 MPa tensile stress Fig. A 3.4. Energy losses versus versus the measurement frequency at 0 MPa tensile stress
Fig. A 3.5. The difference of the coercive field Hc values versus the measurement frequency at 0
MPa tensile stress
Fig. A 3.6. The difference of the energy losses versus the measurement frequency at 0 MPa
tensile stress
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 3.7. Measured hysteresis loops versus the measurement frequency at 34.16 MPa stress
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 3.8. Measured hysteresis loops versus the measurement frequency at 34.16 MPa stress
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 3.9. Coercive field Hc values versus the
measurement frequency at 34.16 MPa tensile stress Fig. A 3.10. Energy losses versus versus the measurement frequency at 34.16 MPa tensile
stress
Fig. A 3.11. The difference of the coercive field Hc values versus the measurement frequency at
34.16 MPa tensile stress
Fig. A 3.12. The difference of the energy losses versus the measurement frequency at 34.16 MPa
tensile stress
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 3.13. Measured hysteresis loops versus the measurement frequency at 68.33 MPa stress
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 3.14. Measured hysteresis loops versus the measurement frequency at 68.33 MPa stress
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 3.15. Coercive field Hc values versus the
measurement frequency at 68.33 MPa tensile stress Fig. A 3.16. Energy losses versus versus the measurement frequency at 68.33 MPa tensile
stress
Fig. A 3.17. The difference of the coercive field Hc values versus the measurement frequency at
68.33 MPa tensile stress
Fig. A 3.18. The difference of the energy losses versus the measurement frequency at 68.33 MPa
tensile stress
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 3.19. Measured hysteresis loops versus the measurement frequency at 102.49 MPa stress
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 3.20. Measured hysteresis loops versus the measurement frequency at 102.49 MPa stress
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 3.21. Coercive field Hc values versus the measurement frequency at 102.49 MPa tensile
stress
Fig. A 3.22. Energy losses versus versus the measurement frequency at 102.49 MPa tensile
stress
Fig. A 3.23. The difference of the coercive field Hc values versus the measurement frequency at
102.49 MPa tensile stress
Fig. A 3.24. The difference of the energy losses versus the measurement frequency at 102.49 MPa
tensile stress
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 3.25. Measured hysteresis loops versus the measurement frequency at 136.66 MPa stress
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 3.26. Measured hysteresis loops versus the measurement frequency at 136.66 MPa stress
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 3.27. Coercive field Hc values versus the measurement frequency at 136.66 MPa tensile
stress
Fig. A 3.28. Energy losses versus versus the measurement frequency at 136.66 MPa tensile
stress
Fig. A 3.29. The difference of the coercive field Hc values versus the measurement frequency at
136.66 MPa tensile stress
Fig. A 3.30. The difference of the energy losses versus the measurement frequency at 136.66 MPa
tensile stress
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
A. 4 Measured hysteresis loops with sinusoidal and triangular excitation by the modified Epstein frame
Fig. A 4.1. Hysteresis loops at 0 MPa stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal and at
1s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.2. Hysteresis loops at 34.16 MPa stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal and at 1s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.3. Hysteresis loops at 68.33 MPa stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal and at 1s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.4. Hysteresis loops at 102.49 MPa stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal and at 1s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.5. Hysteresis loops at 136.66 MPa stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal and at 1s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.6. The coercive fields Hc versus the stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal and
at 1s periodic time with triangular excitation
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 4.7. Hysteresis loops at 0 MPa stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal and
at 0.5 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.8. Hysteresis loops at 34.16 MPa stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.5 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.9. Hysteresis loops at 68.33 MPa stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.5 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.10. Hysteresis loops at 102.49 MPa stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency with
sinusoidal and at 0.5 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.11. Hysteresis loops at 136.66 MPa stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.5 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.12. The coercive fields Hc versus the stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency with
sinusoidal and at 0.5 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 4.13. Hysteresis loops at 0 MPa stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal and at
0.2 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.14. Hysteresis loops at 34.16 MPa stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.2 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.15. Hysteresis loops at 68.33 MPa stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.2 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.16. Hysteresis loops at 102.49 MPa stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency with
sinusoidal and at 0.2 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.17. Hysteresis loops at 136.66 MPa stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.2 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.18. The coercive fields Hc versus the stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency with
sinusoidal and at 0.2 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 4.19. Hysteresis loops at 0 MPa stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal and at
0.1 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.20. Hysteresis loops at 34.16 MPa stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.1 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.21. Hysteresis loops at 68.33 MPa stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.1 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.22. Hysteresis loops at 102.49 MPa stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency with
sinusoidal and at 0.1 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.23. Hysteresis loops at 136.66 MPa stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.1 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.24. The coercive fields Hc versus the stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency with
sinusoidal and at 0.1 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 4.25. Hysteresis loops at 0 MPa stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal and at
0.05 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.26. Hysteresis loops at 34.16 MPa stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.05 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.27. Hysteresis loops at 68.33 MPa stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.05 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.28. Hysteresis loops at 102.49 MPa stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency with
sinusoidal and at 0.05 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.29. Hysteresis loops at 136.66 MPa stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency with sinusoidal
and at 0.05 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Fig. A 4.30. The coercive fields Hc versus the stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency with
sinusoidal and at 0.05 s periodic time with triangular excitation
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
A. 5 Measured hysteresis loops excited with sinusoidal waves versus the tensile stress with two winded laminations
Fig. A 5.1. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 5.2. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 5.3. Coercive field Hc values versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 5.4. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 5.5. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 5.6. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 5.7. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 5.8. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 5.9. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 5.10. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 5.11. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 5.12. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 5.13. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 5.14. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 5.15. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 5.16. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 5.17. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 5.18. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 5.19. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 5.20. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
A. 6 Measured hysteresis loops excited with sinusoidal waves versus the tensile stress with three winded laminations
Fig. A 6.1. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 6.2. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 6.3. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 6.4. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 6.5. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 6.6. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 6.7. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 6.8. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 6.9. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 6.10. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 6.11. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 6.12. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 6.13. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 6.14. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 6.15. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 6.16. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 6.17. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 6.18. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 6.19. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 6.20. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
A. 7 Measured hysteresis loops excited with sinusoidal waves versus the tensile stress with one winded lamination in transverse direction
Fig. A 7.1. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 7.2. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 7.3. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 7.4. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 1 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 7.5. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 7.6. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 7.7. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 7.8. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 2 Hz measurement frequency
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 7.9. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 7.10. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 7.11. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 7.12. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 5 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 7.13. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 7.14. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
Fig. A 7.15. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 7.16. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 10 Hz measurement frequency
Fig. A 7.17. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the tensile screw system)
Fig. A 7.18. Measured hysteresis loops versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
(measured by the modified Epstein frame)
Fig. A 7.19. Coercive field Hc values versus the
tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency Fig. A 7.20. Energy losses versus the tensile stress at 20 Hz measurement frequency
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
References
[1] C. Appino, G. Durin, V. Basso, C. Beatrice, M. Pasquale, G. Bertotti, Effect of stress anisotropy on hysteresis and Barkhausen noise, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 85, no 8, 1999, pp. 4412–4414.
[2] D. L. Atherton, B. Szpunar, J. A. Szpunar, A new approach to Preisach diagrams, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 23, 1987, pp. 1856–1865.
[3] T. Barbarics, A. Gilányi, Sz. Gyimóthy, A. Iványi, Problems of Preisach model applying in finite element method, Periodica Polytechnica Ser. El. Eng. (Budapest), vol. 38, no. 1, 1994, pp. 5-16.
[4] J. Barros, T. Ros-Yanez, L. Vandenbossche, L. Dupre, J. Melkebeek, Y. Houbaert, The effect of Si and Al concentration gradients on the mechanical and magnetic properties of electrical steel, J. Magn. and Mag. Mat., vol. 290–291, 2005, pp. 1457–1460.
[5] C. Beatricea, O. Bottauscio, M. Chiampi, F. Fiorillo, A. Manzin, Magnetic loss analysis in Mn–Zn ferrite cores, J. Magn. and Mag. Mat., vol. 304, 2006, pp. 743–745.
[6] A. Belahcen, Coupled magneto-elastic FE model for simulation of electrical machines, International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics, vol. 19, 2004, pp. 135–138.
[7] A. Belahcen, Magnetoelastic coupling and Rayleigh damping, COMPEL, The International Journal for Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, vol. 23, no. 3, 2004, pp. 647–654.
[8] A. Belahcen, Magnetoelastic coupling in rotating electrical machines, IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 41, no. 5, 2005, pp. 1624–1627.
[9] A. Belahcen, Magnetoelasticity, Magnetic Forces and Magnetostriction in Electrical Machines, Doctoral Thesis, Espoo, Helsinki University of Technology, 2004.
[10] A. Belahcen, Vibrations of rotating electrical machines due to magnetomechanical coupling and magnetostriction, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 42, no. 4, 2006, pp. 971–974.
[11] M. E. H. Benbouzid, S. A. Spornic, C. Body, Computer-Aided Design of Magnetostrictive Devices Using Terfenol–D, ETEP, European Transactions on Electrical Power, vol. 7, no. 5, 1997, pp. 351–159.
[12] G. Bertotti, General properties of power losses in soft ferromagnetic materials, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 24, 1988, pp. 621–630.
[13] G. Bertotti, Hysteresis in Magnetism for Physicists, Materials Scientists, and Engineers, Torino, Italy, Academic Press. 1998.
[14] M. Besbes, Z. Ren, A. Razek, A Generalized Finite Element Model of
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
[15] M. Besbes, Z. Ren, A. Razek, Finite Element Analysis of Magneto-Mechanical Coupled Phenomena in Magnetostrictive Materials, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 32, no. 3, 1996, pp. 1058–1061.
[16] O. Bíró, Edge element formulation of eddy current problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., vol. 169, 1999, pp. 391–405.
[17] O. Bíró, K. Preis, Finite element analysis of 3-D eddy currents, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 26, 1990, pp. 418–423.
[18] O. Bíró, K. Preis, K. R. Richter, On the use of the magnetic vector potential in the nodal and edge finite element analysis of 3d magnetostatic problems. IEEE Trans.
Magn., 1996, pp. 651–654.
[19] O. Bíró, K. R. Richter, CAD in electromagnetism, in series Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, Academic Press, New York, 1991.
[20] J. E. L. Bishop, The influence of a random domain size distribution on the eddy-current contribution to hysteresis in transformer steel, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., vol. 9, 1976, pp. 1367–1377.
[21] A. Bossavit, Edge-element Computation of the Force Field In Deformable Bodies, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 28, no. 2, 1992, pp. 1263–1266.
[22] A. Bossavit, Computational Electromagnetism, Academic Press, Boston, 1998.
[23] O. Bottauscio, D. Chiarabaglio, C. Ragusa, M. Chiampi, M. Repetto. Analysis of isotropic materials with vector hysteresis, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 34, 1997, pp. 1258–1260.
[24] O. Bottauscio, M. Chiampi, D. Chiarabaglio, Iron losses in soft magnetic materials under periodic non-sinusoidal supply conditions, Physica B, vol. 275, 2000, pp. 191–196.
[25] O. Bottauscio, M. Chiampi, D. Chirabaglio, M. Repetto, Preisach-type hysteresis models in magnetic field computation, Physica B, vol. 275, 2000, pp. 34–39.
[26] O. Bottuascio, M. Chiampi, C. Ragusa, Transient analysis of hysteretic field problems using fixed point technique, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 39, no. 3, 2003, pp. 1179–1182.
[27] R. M. Bozorth, Ferromagnetism, Toronto, Van Nostrand, 1951.
[28] C. A. Brebbia. The Boundary Element Method for Engineers, Pentech Press, London, 1980.
[29] M. Brokate, J. Sprekels, Hysteresis and Phase Transitions, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996.
[30] S. Chikazumi, Physics of Ferromagnetism, Clarendon, Oxford, 1997.
[31] S. Chikazumi, Physics of Magnetism, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
[32] A. E. Clark, in: E. P. Wohlfarth (ed.) Ferromagnetic Materials, Elsevier, Amsterdam, vol. 1, 1980, pp. 531–589.
[33] COMSOL, COMSOL Multiphysics User’s Guide, COMSOL AB, 2006.
Attila Sipeky, PhD Theses 2009
[34] B. D. Cullity, Introduction to Magnetic Materials, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1972.
[35] S. J. Daniel, Parameter Identification for the Preisach Model of Hysteresis, Doctoral Thesis, Blacksburg, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2001.
[36] R. M. Del Vecchio, An efficient procedure for modeling complex hysteresis processes in ferromagnetic materials, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 16, 1980, pp. 809–811.
[37] E. Della Torre, Gy. Kádár, Hysteresis modeling: II. Accommodation, IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 23, no. 5, 1987, pp. 2823–2825.
[38] E. Della Torre, Gy. Kádár, Vector Preisach and the moving model, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 63, 1988, pp. 3004–3006.
[39] E. Della Torre, J. Oti, Gy. Kádár, Preisach modeling and reversible magnetization, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 26, 1990, pp. 3052–3058.
[40] E. Della Torre, Magnetic Hysteresis, New York, IEEE Press, 1999.
[41] E. Della Torre, Magnetization calculation of fine particles, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 22, 1986, pp. 484–489.
[42] Y. Dong Yan, E. D. Torre, Particle interaction in numerical micromagnetic modeling, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 67, 1990, pp. 5370–5372.
[43] T. Duong, I. D. Mayergoyz, On numerical implementation of hysteresis models, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 21, 1985, pp. 1853–1855.
[44] L. R. Dupre, F. Fiorillo, J. Melkebeek, A.M. Rietto, C. Appino, Loss versus cutting angle in grain-oriented Fe-Si laminations, J. Magn. and Mag. Mat., vol. 215-216, 2000, pp. 112–114.
[45] L. R. Dupre, L. Vandenbossche, P. Sergeant, Y. Houbaert, R. Van Keer, J. Melkebeek, Optimization of a Si gradient in laminated SiFe alloys, J. Magn. and Mag. Mat., vol. 290-291, 2005, pp. 1491–1494.
[46] L. R. Dupre, O. Bottuascio, M. Chiampi, M. Repetto, J. Melkebeek, Modeling of electromagnetic phenomena in soft magnetic materials under unidirectional time periodic ux excitation, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 35, no. 5, 1999, pp. 4171–4184.
[47] F. Fiorillo, C. Appino, C. Beatrice, F. Garsia, Magnetization process under generically directed field in GO Fe–(3 wt%)Si laminations, J. Magn. and Mag.
Mat., vol. 242–245, 2002, pp. 257–260.
[48] F. Fiorillo, C. Appino, Static and dynamic losses in amorphous alloys versus peak induction and applied stress, J. Magn. and Mag. Mat., vol. 112, 1992, pp. 272–274.
[49] F. Fiorillo, Measurement and Characterization of Magnetic Materials, San Diego, Elsevier, 2004.
[50] Gy. Fodor, Electromagnetic Fields (in Hungarian), Műegyetemi Kiadó, 1996.
[51] K. Fonteyn, A. Belahcen, A. Arkkio, Properties of electrical steel sheets under