0
$\begingroup$

I am attempting to numerically solve a BVP for a solid core solenoid field. I am starting with:

$\vec{\nabla{}^2}\vec{A_r}=0$

$\vec{\nabla{}^2}\vec{A_\phi}=\frac{\mu}{\mu_0}\vec{J_\phi}$

$\vec{\nabla{}^2}\vec{A_z}=0$

in cylindrical coordinates where the current $J$ is traveling along a cylindrical surface in the $\phi$ direction. I am assuming that the current has been turned on for a time $t>>t_0$ so we ignore any hysteresis affects of ferromagnetic materials that produce non-linearity. So focusing on just the $\phi$ component, the $\mu$ is a function of space since we assume that the solid core of the solenoid is a cylinder of radius $R$ and length $L$. I can imagine then that $\mu(r,z)$ can be written in one of two ways:

$\mu(r,z) = \mu_sH(L-|z|)H(R-r) + \mu_0H(|z|-L)H(r-R)$

$\mu(r,z) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} \mu_s, & \text{if } r < R \text{ or } |z|<L\\ \mu_0, & \text{if } r > R \text{ or } |z|>L \end{array} \right\}$

Regardless of the way this can be written, although I would prefer to use the first method as that would be easier to implement within code, I notice that there is a discontinuity occurring. We know the magnetic field lines must be continuous across the boundary that describes the metal core and the vacuum around it. I saw on the wiki article for Heaviside that at $H(0)$ it looks like it's value becomes $0.5$. However, this still doesn't suffice continuity. Neither would implementing an extra parameter in the piecewise for $r = R \text{ or } |z|=L $. The only idea I had was using the analytic approximation for the Heaviside since that is continuous while taking $k\rightarrow\infty$. However, it still changes value over a finite domain and so it doesn't represent the reality of the system in which essentially the material's surface and vacuum are creating. How then can I create a $\mu$ function that forces continuity and is properly describing physical reality?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ It does not matter what value you assign to $H(t)$ at $t=0$ and the vector potential is continuous everywhere, even at the interface where $\mu$ is discontinuous. this may help $\endgroup$
    – hyportnex
    Apr 12, 2023 at 1:13
  • $\begingroup$ @hyportnex So essentially so long as my conditions include continuity that means that my $\mu$ function can be in either form I wrote. Why doesn't continuity matter in terms of the function that describes permeability? That would mean the BVPs trump any $\mu$ function I create, yet I would think that defining $\mu$ forces discontinuity since it's in the original Poison equation. I am using conditions 7, 8 and 10 from that post along with two more conditions for my specific problem. $\endgroup$
    – Sophia
    Apr 12, 2023 at 7:31
  • $\begingroup$ take a simple diff eq involving say, the signum function $sgn(x)=\pm 1$: $\frac{d}{dx}(sgn(x)\frac{dy}{dx})=0$ and solve it to find $y(x)$. Solve it and ask your self what does it matter if $sgn(0) = 0, 0.1 or -109.072$ when you integrate the equation for $y(x)$? Does the value of an integral change if you vary a single value of the integrand? $\endgroup$
    – hyportnex
    Apr 12, 2023 at 8:10
  • $\begingroup$ I worry that your conceptualisation of how you want to solve this problem is itself misguided. However, I will ignore that and mention another issue instead. Your magnetic ``constant" $\mu$ is specified wrongly. And your cylinder is length $2L$ if you have been using $|z|<L$ as the condition. I would suggest that you have $\mu = \mu_0 + (\mu_s-\mu_0)H(R-r)H(L-|z|)$ instead, because the specification of the conditions becomes much easier for you. $\endgroup$ Apr 13, 2023 at 6:56
  • $\begingroup$ I am doubting your starting equation. Was it derived from $\text{rot}\left(\mu(r,z)^{-1}\text{rot}\vec{A}\right)=\vec{J}\;\;$? $\endgroup$
    – HEMMI
    Apr 13, 2023 at 9:04

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.