websights

Fill out the form to download

Required field
Required field
Not a valid email address
Required field
Required field

  • Set up your own cloud-native simulation in minutes.

    • Documentation

    SimScale DocumentationValidation CasesTEAM 24 Validation Case

    TEAM 24 Validation Case

    The TEAM 24 validation case belongs to electromagnetics. This test case aims to validate the following parameters:

    • BH magnetic permeability curve
    • Closed coils
    • Forces and torques result control
    • Coil current

    SimScale’s simulation results were compared to measured data presented in TEAM Workshop Problem 24\(^1\).

    View Project

    Geometry

    The geometry used in the TEAM 24 validation case is similar to a switched reluctance machine. The assembly contains 2 closed copper coils, a steel rotor, and a steel stator. For a total of 0.35 seconds of analysis, the torque on the rotor (around Z axis) and the current on the coils are analyzed.

    team 24 validation case geometry electromagnetics
    Figure 1: TEAM 24 test rig configuration with 2 closed coils, a rotor, and a stator

    An air domain is created around the assembly in order to run the simulation. The resulting geometry is the following:

    team 24 geometry with flow region
    Figure 2: Final geometry used in the present validation case

    Analysis Type and Mesh

    Analysis Type: Electromagnetics

    Model: Time-Transient Magnetostatics

    Mesh and Element Types: The meshes from this validation case were created in SimScale with the Standard meshing algorithm.

    Find below an overview of the meshes used in this validation study:

    MeshMesh TypeNodesElement Type
    Coarse MeshStandard3572973D tetrahedral
    Moderate MeshStandard7905893D tetrahedral
    Fine MeshStandard23508063D tetrahedral
    Table 1: Standard mesh metrics. The meshes consist exclusively of tetrahedral elements

    Figure 3 shows how the finest mesh captures the surfaces of the assembly:

    team 24 mesh validation
    Figure 3: Finest mesh appearance, with 2350806 nodes

    Simulation Setup

    Material:

    • Air: flow region
      • Material behavior: Soft magnetic
      • \((σ)\) Electric conductivity: 0 \(S/m\)
      • Magnetic permeability type: Constant
      • \((μ_r)\) Relative magnetic permeability: 1
      • Core losses: None
    • Copper: both coils
      • Material behavior: Soft magnetic
      • \((σ)\) Electric conductivity: 5.7e7 \(S/m\)
      • Magnetic permeability type: Constant
      • \((μ_r)\) Relative magnetic permeability: 1
      • Core losses: None
    • Steel: rotor and stator
      • Material behavior: Soft magnetic
      • \((σ)\) Electric conductivity: 4.54e6 \(S/m\)
      • Core losses: None
      • Magnetic permeability type: BH curve, available in Team Problem 24\(^1\), and for download below
    BH-CurveDownload

    Coils:

    Two coils with the same setup are present in this validation case.

    Since a quarter model is used, the setup involves an open coil with the following settings:

    • Topology: Closed
    • Coil type: Stranded
    • Number of turns: 3500
    • Wire diameter: 0.001 \(m\)
    • Additional resistance: 0 ohms
    • Excitation: Voltage
    • \(U(t)\) Voltage: a time-dependent table definition with the curve below, which was sampled from the reference publication\(^1\).
    Sampled-points-from-voltage-curveDownload

    Boundary Conditions:

    All 6 external air volume faces receive a magnetic flux tangential boundary condition.

    boundary condition emag validation team 24
    Figure 4: Boundary condition configuration for the TEAM 24 validation case.

    Reference Solution

    The reference publication\(^1\) presents experimental data for torque on the rotor due to the coils, as well as the currents on the coil.

    Result Comparison

    A mesh sensitivity study was performed with a set of three meshes, focusing on the torques observed on the rotor. The figure below shows, for the last timestep, how the torque around the Z direction evolves as more nodes are added to the mesh:

    mesh sensitivity study team 24 validation
    Figure 5: Mesh sensitivity study, showing torque results in the last timestep for the coarse, moderate, and fine meshes.

    The sensitivity study shows great stability between the moderate and fine meshes, despite the great increase in mesh density, indicating mesh-independent results.

    Find below a comparison between the fine mesh results and experimental data\(^1\) for torques on the rotor around the Z-direction:

    torque rotor emag simulation validation
    Figure 6: Fine mesh results versus experimental data for torque on the rotor

    As previously discussed, the currents on the coils have also been compared against experimental data\(^1\):

    currents on coil team 24
    Figure &: Fine mesh results versus experimental data for currents on the coil

    The simulation results shows good agreement with trends that were measured for torques on the rotor and currents on the coils.

    References

    Last updated: August 11th, 2025

    Contents