Improving the accuracy of time-harmonic FE simulations in induction heating applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Surface heat treatment by induction heating (10-100 kHz) requires precise prediction and control of the depth of the induced phase transformation. This paper aims at identifying common issues with the measurement and modeling of magnetic properties used in induction heating simulations, and it proposes ways to improve the situation. Design/methodology/approach In particular, it is demonstrated how intrinsic magnetic properties (i.e. the B-H curve) of a sample can change during the magnetic characterization process itself, due to involuntary annealing of the sample. Then, for a B-H curve that is supposed perfectly known, a comparison is performed between multiple models, each one representing the magnetic properties of steel in time-harmonic (TH) finite element method simulations. Finally, a new model called “power-equivalent model” is proposed. This model provides the best possible accuracy for a known nonlinear and hysteretic B-H curve used in TH simulations. Findings By carefully following the guidelines identified in this paper, reduction of errors in the range of 5-10 per cent can be achieved, both at the experimental and modeling levels. The new “power-equivalent model” proposed is also expected to be more generic than existing models. Originality/value This paper highlights common pitfalls in the measurement and modeling of magnetic properties, and suggests ways to improve the situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".