Hello,
I'm struggling with another problem in the calculation of the magnetic flux density of two magnets. They have the same size with an edge length of 2mm and both magnets are aligned parallel on the xaxis with a distance of 1.8mm. Interestingly I got a different result for the flux in the 3D compared to the 2Dcalculation. So in the center of between the magnets I got ~400 mT for 2Dcalculation and only ~260 mT for 3D. What I'm doing wrong? Attached are the geometry and siffile.
Thanks
Markus
[Magnetostatic] different results for 2D and 3D calculation

 Posts: 5
 Joined: 14 Apr 2020, 17:52
 Antispam: Yes
[Magnetostatic] different results for 2D and 3D calculation
 Attachments

 flatpak2D.geo
 (1.58 KiB) Downloaded 92 times

 case.sif
 (2.87 KiB) Downloaded 102 times

 Posts: 812
 Joined: 25 Jan 2019, 01:28
 Antispam: Yes
Re: [Magnetostatic] different results for 2D and 3D calculation
In the 2D problem the magnetization is in the X direction, in the 3D problem it is in the Z direction. When I change the 3D to Magnetization 1 =
they both have the same answer.
they both have the same answer.

 Posts: 5
 Joined: 14 Apr 2020, 17:52
 Antispam: Yes
Re: [Magnetostatic] different results for 2D and 3D calculation
I recalculated everything and I'm still observing differences, same values as in previous posting. I'm interested in the flux density applied in y or z direction (perpendicular to the axes connecting the magnets). So I took "Magnetization 1" for the 2D problem (ydirectionaccording to ParaView) and "Magnetization2/3" for the 3D problem (y/zdirection ParaView). For the 2D problem I got values close to those calculated by another program (FEMM).
 Attachments

 flatpak.zip
 (295.38 KiB) Downloaded 97 times

 Posts: 812
 Joined: 25 Jan 2019, 01:28
 Antispam: Yes
Re: [Magnetostatic] different results for 2D and 3D calculation
I used a different approach for the 2D and got the same answer as yours, Looking at 3D.

 Posts: 812
 Joined: 25 Jan 2019, 01:28
 Antispam: Yes
Re: [Magnetostatic] different results for 2D and 3D calculation
Kevin

 Site Admin
 Posts: 3881
 Joined: 22 Aug 2009, 11:57
 Antispam: Yes
 Location: Espoo, Finland
 Contact:
Re: [Magnetostatic] different results for 2D and 3D calculation
Thanx Kevin, verification is vital. Indeed it is difficult to have same resolution in 2D and 3D. Helps if you access to larger computers. Elmer scales pretty well on these problems.
Peter
Peter

 Posts: 5
 Joined: 14 Apr 2020, 17:52
 Antispam: Yes
Re: [Magnetostatic] different results for 2D and 3D calculation
Thanks Kevin for your calculations, I used your siffiles (slightly adapted) for the calculations now. I'm still struggling with the problem. Attached are pictures (from ParaView) with additionally plotted lines through the center of the two magnets. The scale for the magnetic flux density Magnitude shows more or less the same maximum values ( 1.1T for 2D vs. 4.7T for 3D). Although it's quite different from you values. I finer mesh for 3D does not improve the result (mesh file size increased from ~60 MB to 4.6 GB refining the mesh two times more). From the line plots I get a value of ~400 mT in the center between the two magnets, which is not the same for 3D calculation (magnetization in zdirection) with 260 mT. Furthermore I expected a different shape for the flux in xdirection, similar to that one of the 2D calculation and with a value of 260 mT in the minimum.
Markus
Markus
 Attachments

 magnets.zip
 (420.46 KiB) Downloaded 99 times

 Posts: 812
 Joined: 25 Jan 2019, 01:28
 Antispam: Yes
Re: [Magnetostatic] different results for 2D and 3D calculation
A difference may be that my solid mesh is cubes not tetrahedrons. In general I get better results with cube elements.
It may be possible to use higher order elements using P elements.
I also made the thickness of the magnet in the Z direction 1 in the 3D. It is not defined in the 2D so I assume it is 1. If there is anything based on volume in 3D then it would be comparable to area in 2D if the thickness is 1.
It may be possible to use higher order elements using P elements.
I also made the thickness of the magnet in the Z direction 1 in the 3D. It is not defined in the 2D so I assume it is 1. If there is anything based on volume in 3D then it would be comparable to area in 2D if the thickness is 1.