Abstract
Three differential equations based on different definitions of current density are compared. Formulation I is based on an incomplete equation for total current density (TCD). Formulations II and III are based on incomplete and complete equations for source current density (SCD), respectively. Using the weak form of finite element method (FEM), three formulations were applied in a spiral coil electromagnetic acoustic transducer (EMAT) example to solve magnetic vector potential (MVP). The input impedances calculated by Formulation III are in excellent agreement with the experimental measurements. Results show that the errors for Formulations I & II vary with coil diameter, coil spacing, lift-off distance and external excitation frequency, for the existence of eddy-current and skin & proximity effects. And the current distribution across the coil conductor also follows the same trend. It is better to choose Formulation I instead of Formulation III to solve MVP when the coil diameter is less than twice the skin depth for Formulation I is a low cost and high efficiency calculation method.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
