Eddy 

currents
(in accelerator magnets)

G. Moritz, GSI Darmstadt
CAS Magnets, Bruges, June 16‐25 2009
Introduction
• Definition
According to Faraday‘s law a voltage is induced in a conductor loop, if it is
subjected to a time-varying flux.As a result current flows in the conductor, if
there exist a closed path.
‚Eddy currents‘ appear, if extended conducting media are
subjected to time varying fields. They are now distributed in the conducting
media.

• Effects
• Field delay (Lenz ´s Law), field distortion
• Power loss
• Lorentz-forces

– Beneficial in some applications (brakes, dampers, shielding, induction

heating, levitated train etc.)

– Mostly unwanted in accelerator magnets: appropriate design

to avoid them / to minimize the unwanted effects.
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Outline

• Introduction
– Definition, Effects (desired, undesired)
• Basics
– Maxwell-equations
– Diffusion approach
• Analytical solutions: Examples
• Numerical solutions: Introduction of numerical codes
– Direct application of Maxwell-equations (small perturbation)
• Eddy currents in accelerator magnets
– Yoke, mechanical structure, resistive coil, beam pipe
• Design principles / Summary
• Appendix (references)

G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Basics
Maxwell-equations •Quasistationary approach
•No excess charge

Ampere‘s Law  H  j  H  ds   j  dA
B
A


Faraday‘s Law
 E    E  ds   t A B  dA
t
E  0  E  dA  0
A

B  0  B  dA  0
A

Material properties B  0  r H j E

G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Lenz‘s law "the emf induced in an electric circuit always 
acts in such a direction that the current it 
drives around a closed circuit produces a 
magnetic field which opposes the change in 
magnetic flux." 

Lenz‘s Law: Reason for field delay            slow diffusion process
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Field diffusion equation one way of eddy current calculation

 
vanish
j  E
   
 H  j     H    j   (  )

  B

 H  
2 H  E  
t t
1
 Magnetic diffusivity

•Assumption: σ uniform in space

 
•Diffusion equation does also exist also for current density j, magnetic Induction B and
magnet Vector Potential A !
•Having solved the differential equation for H, the eddy current density j can be
calculated by Ampere‘s Law and consequently the power loss P.
Analytical solutions: Half-space conductor (1D-approach)(1)
(following closely H.E. Knoepfel ‚Magnetic Fields‘)

2H z H z
 
x 2
t

Application of  Boundary conditions:
external field: Hz(t) Hz(0,t)=0          t<0
Solution Hz(x,t)   = ?       Hz(0,t)= Hz(t)     t≥0
Hz(x,0)= 0         0<x<∞

1. Step‐function field Hz(t) =H0=constant
2. Transient linear field Hz(t) = H0/t0*t
3. Transient sinusoidal field Hz(t) = H0*sin (ωt)
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Analytical solutions: Half-space conductor (1D-approach) (2)

1. Step‐function field Hz(t) =H0=constant
Hz(x,t)=H0*S(x,t) Diffusion time constant

 d   1  S ( x, t ) dt
With response function S(x,t)
and  S(x,0)=0 and S(x,t→∞)=1
0

1.0
9
= 110 , 0
0.8

0.6

H0 (A/m)
0.4

0.2 0.5 cm
1 cm
2 cm
0.0

x -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

 t (sec)

2 t Hz ( x , t )  H 0 (1  erf )
Similarity variable Special response function S(x,t)
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Analytical solutions: Half-space conductor (1D-approach) (3)

2. Transient linear field Hz(t) = H0/t0*t
0,007
excitation
0,006 0.1 cm
0.2 cm

H0   2 
  2
0,005

H z  x, t  
0.3 cm

t  1  2 erfc  
2
e 
Hz (A/m)

0,004

0,003

0,002
t0   
 H ( x, t )  H ( x, t )
0,001
s t
0,000

0,000 0,001 0,002 0,003 0,004 0,005 0,006 0,007

z z
H0
  H0
t (sec)
   d
t x  H z ( x, t )
t

t0 t0
0, if t >>τd

Field lag
H ed (x)
 Analytical solutions: Half space conductor (1D-approach) (4)

3. Transient  sinusoidal field Hz(t) = H0*sin (ωt)

H z ( x, t )  H ( x, t )  H ( x, t )
s
z
t
z
stationary transient

x
x 2
H ( x, t )  H 0  e
s 
 sin(t  ) 
z
 
Harmonic skin depth

G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
Skin depth as function of frequency and conductivity

Refer: Knoepfel, fig. 4.2‐5

G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Analytical solutions: Slab conductor (lamination)

Boundary conditions:for step function field
Hz(±d,t)=0          t<0
Refer to Knoepfel 4.2,  Table 4.2‐I
Hz(±d,t)= H0 t≥0 
Hz(x,0)= 0         ‐d<x<+d
Step‐function field (1D)
 nx 
 cos
 

2
t
4 d2
H z ( x, t )  H 0 1  4 d
n 1 e
n
 n  
 n 1  n2 2

n (1) 2
  n odd

LC iron, 1mm , µr=1000

 1  1m sec
Step‐function field (2D)

 nx my 
   cos cos t   2  n 2 m 2 
H z ( x, y, t )  H 0 1  4 2a 2b 
 n,m  4 /    2  2  n,m odd
  f (n.m)
2 e  n ,m
a b 
 n 1 m 1  
 
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
Analytical solutions: Field in the gap of an iron-dominated C-
dipole

2H 2H l H
z
For this special     0
case: x 2 y 2 g   l  t
 r 
y
G. Brianti et al., CERN SI/Int. DL/71‐3 (1971)
g
Case1 : g=0       Standard diffusion equation
x Case 2:               Special diffusion equation
l  g
b  r
l
a
2H 2H li  H 1 H
   0 
x 2
y 2
g t  1 t
g 1
1  
 0 l
With this  diffusivity κ1 we can use the slab solutions!
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
Analytical vs. numerical methods
pros cons
Analytical Methods physical •simple geometry
understanding (mainly1D/ 2D)
•Homogeneous,
isotropic and linear
materials
•simple excitation
Numerical Methods •complex geometry long computing
(3D) times
•inhomogeneous,
anisotropic and
nonlinear materials
•complex excitation

G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
Vector Potential A - the most common way of numerical eddy
current calculation
B   A  
 B    A 
 E       A      
t t  t 

  A
J  E  
t
  
Field calculation   B   A  J
2


 A
 A  
2
Find vector potential
t
Diffusion equation for Vector potential A

Sometimes the current  vector potential  T is used: j  T
Refer: MULTIMAG ‐ program for calculating and optimizing magnetic 2D and 
3D fields in accelerator magnets (Alexander Kalimov [[email protected]])
Widely used numerical codes for the calculation of eddy
current in magnets
• Opera (Vector Fields Software, Cobham Techn. Services, Oxford)
www.vectorfields.com
– FEM
– Opera 2d,AC and TR, Opera 3d, ELEKTRA , (TEMPO-thermal and
stress-analysis)
• ROXIE (Routine for the Optimization of Magnet X-Sections, Inverse Field
Calculation and Coil End Design) (S. Russenschuck, CERN)
https://espace.cern.ch/roxie/default.aspx
– BEM/FEM
– Optimization of cosnθ-magnets, coil coupling currents only
• ANSYS (ANSYS Inc.) www.ansys.com/
– Finite Element Method
– Direct and in-direct coupled analysis (Multiphysics)
• eddy current  heat  rising temperature  change resistivity 
change eddy current
– “This feature is important especially in the region of cryogenic
temperature. Because most of physical parameters depend highly on
temperature in that region” .
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
Direct application of maxwell equations -another way of eddy current calculation

Eddy Current effect handled as small perturbation:

•geometrical dimension << skin depth (high resistivity!)
•low field ramp rate B=(0,0, Bz)
1. Eddy currents in a rectangular thin plate • assumptions
•Field Bz only, uniform
z •d,h<<l
l
•d,h<<penetration depth s
y x (magnetically thin!)
d •Steady state: t>>τd
h
‐d/2 0 +d/2

Bz neglecting the resistance
From Faraday´s law (integral form) j y ( x)   x contribution of the ends,
 since 2d<<l
 2
From Ampere‘s law: Bz  2 d 2 
H eddy
( x)   x  
2 
z
4 
Top/bottom of a
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges,  rectangular beam pipe!
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
   j y ( x)  A    l  j y ( x)  h  dx
And then for the loss dP l
dP  
2 2

in an area A=hdx: A
d 2
lh d 3  2 1 d2  2
After integration P  2  dP  Bz or P / volume  Bz
0
12  12 

8 8000 Same formula  as for a thin 
SST,  = 5E-7 m slab!
Joule heat (watt/m)

CU,  = 5E-10 m

Joule heat (watt/m)

6 6000
formula
FEM formula
FEM
4 4000 For Copper: No small 
2 2000
perturbation
anymore!
0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

dB/dt (T/sec) dB/dt (T/sec)

2. Eddy loss in a long,thin cylinder (radius r, length l, (round thin beam pipe)
thickness d (r>>d))
r cos   r3  2 r 2
j B P  B dl or P  B 2
  V 2
3. Eddy loss of round plate/disk (radius r, thickness d , r>>d)
2
r
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges,  P  B 2
June 16 ‐ 25 2009 V 8
Resistivity ρ (Ohm*m) @300K/4K (typical)

300K 4K

LC steel (3% Silicon) 590  10‐9 440 x 10‐9

Stainless steel 720  10‐9 490  10‐9
Copper 17.4  10‐9 0.156  10‐9 Avoid copper!

G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Eddy currents in magnets

Different Magnet types

WF

Eddy currents in all conductive elements, 

especially in:
•iron yoke (low carbon iron)
Iron‐dominated
•mechanical structure (low carbon iron
magnets
• or stainless steel)
•Coil (Copper, superconductor)
• beam pipe (stainless steel

Coil dominated cos nθ‐ magnet
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
Laminated yoke (no isotropy!!)
Recap: thin slab
Laminated magnets with insulated 
P~d2*σ laminations and low conductivity!!

Packing factor fp = Wi / (Wi + Wa )
Wi ‐ thickness single lamination
Def.:  Wa ‐ thickness  of insulation 

Conductivity: σz=0   σxy≠0 
FLUX  Rel. permeability of laminations μr
DIRECTION
Effective permeability: µz,  µxy
z FLUX 
DIRECTION

z LAMINATION
LAMINATION

For laminations tangential to the flux: For laminations normal to the flux:

μeff = fp · (μr - 1 ) + 1 μeff = μr / (μr ‐ fp ∙ (μr ‐ 1))
 Laminated yoke : µxy, µz

• z , xy different for laminated

magnets (highly anisotropic!!) μr ~ 4080
xy
– xy = r(H)
– z
μr → 1
• fp = 1 : z = r(H) μ ~ 670
r

• fp < 1: z = 1 / (1 - fp)
z = 15 – 50 Electrical Yoke steel 3414 
μr ~ 20
z  for fp  = 0.95
μr ~ 15
μr ~ 10
μr → 1

(Courtesy of E. Fischer)
Laminated yoke : choice of iron
Low carbon silicon steel reduces

Eddy current losses due to higher resistivity Hysteresis losses due to lower coercivity

but

P.  Shcherbakov et al.,  Design Report  SIS 
300 6T dipole (2004) 
Practical limit
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
Iron losses (steel supplier)

Note: Steel suppliers give typically total losses at 50 Hz

Total losses = eddy losses (~ν2)

+ hysteresis losses (~ν)
+ anomalous losses (~ν1.5)

 
ν‐frequency (Hz)
 2 22 2
d ‐lamination thickness (m)
PW 3 
Eddy losses: Bpd ρ‐resistivity (Ohm*m)
m 6 Bp‐ Induction amplitude (T)

Hysteresis losses: from measurements wit a permeameter

Anomalous losses = rest P. Fabbriccatore, et al. 

G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
Technical design Report SIS 300 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009 4.5T model dipole 
Yoke design of pulsed magnets

• 2D‐design (ideal) No Bz, only Bx, By
– Appropriate lamination thickness d (practical limit 
0.3 mm)
– Low steel conductivity
– Low coercivity (to reduce the hysteresis
losses) z

• 3D‐design            exist Bz eddy currents in 
the lamination sheet surface
– Yoke end region
– Areas with low packing factor
z
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
Yoke end region

Large Bz components  
(up to 2.5T depending on 
the magnet)
Source of  eddy currents 
near the magnet end

GSI: SIS18 
dipole

Courtesy of F. Klos
 Results 25

A.Kalimov, et al., IEEE Transactions on Applied  20

t = 0.3 s

2
Superconductivity., vol.12, No.1 pp. 98‐101, 

Current density, A/cm

t = 1.1 s
15 t = 1.5 s
2002 (MT17)
t = 2.0 s

10

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

z, m
Eddy current lines on the yoke backside  . Current density distribution on the pole 
surface.  surface along the central line of the magnet
Yoke end
En d of ramp 0.05%

Field integral: difference between static and

Aperture field induced by the eddy currents dynamic value. field integral max: 48000 Gs.m
SIS100 sc dipole model – laminated yoke

µr(X,Y) ↔ original B(H) curve
µr(Z) = 15

eddy current power in laminated yoke 
(S. Koch, H. de Gersem, T. Weiland ( TU 
Darmstadt))

Eddy current power  in 
the yoke along the yoke
Vectors of BZ in yoke vs time (µz=25)

R. Kurnyshov et al., Report 
on FE‐R&D, Contract No. 5, 
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges,  GSI, October 2008
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
Vectors of eddy current density in yoke vs time (µz=25)

R. Kurnyshov et al., 
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges,  Report on FE‐R&D, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009 Contract No. 5, GSI, 
 Field relaxation at different longitudinal positions

SIS100
SIS 100 dipole Yoke

-4
Z=0  1.2x10
0.689 m
(Center of the magnet) -4
1.0x10
3.0x10
-4

1.17 m
-5
8.0x10 -4
2.0x10
By (T)
-5
6.0x10 -4
1.0x10

By (T)
-5
4.0x10 Around 0, 
>0,  max. 1G 0.0
-5
2.0x10
-4
-1.0x10
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 -4
-2.0x10
time (sec)
SIS100 dipole 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

•Linear ramp, up with 4 T/s, time (sec)

-3

•1.9 T 1.4x10 -3
-1.0x10
-3 1.01 m
•All curves start at t=0 at the 1.2x10 -3
-2.0x10

-3 -3
1.0x10 -3.0x10
end of the ramp

By (T)
-4 -3
-4.0x10 1.319 m
8.0x10
By (T)

-4
6.0x10 >0, max. 14 G -3
-5.0x10

-3
-4 -6.0x10
4.0x10
-3
-7.0x10
<0, max.60 G 
-4
2.0x10
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0.0 time (sec)
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
S. Y. Shim, to be published
time (sec)
 Transient field behaviour after a linear ramp

y Fitting function
x

Bt   B  1  e  t / 
Z
CNAO Scanning Dipole Magnet

max. center field: 0.3 T

500 T/s
Lamination thickness: 0.3 mm

z= 0 magnet center,
z=22.0 cm: end of yoke
 Field delay Diffusion time constant

Magnet center

By_max  0.7 % of maximum operation field

Time constant  some milliseconds

Remark: In a medical accelerator like CNAO the beam energy  is 
varied in small time steps less then the diffusion time constant!
Courtesy of S. Y. Shim
SIS 300 Dipole- eddy currents(direction and current density
in the magnet ends

4.5 T, 1T/s
3.0 T, 1T/s

M. Sorbi, et al., 
“Electromagnetic Design of the 
Coil‐Ends for the FAIR SIS300 
Model Dipole,” in Proc. ASC’08, 
Chicago, 2008
G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Variation of the packing factor along
the magnet
(Synchrotron dipole of the HIT-facility Heidelberg)

Six block structure leads to
•Variation of the DC‐field
•Field reduction  by eddy currents (induced by local Bz 
components) in the AC‐case

Courtesy of F. Klos
Eddy currents in mechanical structure

– Brackets
– Endplates
– Collar pins, Collar keys, Rods
– Shield, shell,

Try to avoid closed flux loops ! (for example by 
welding seams at the pole)

LHC dipole cold mass
Example: eddy curents in the copper shield of a sc dipole

R&D magnet GSI001
Bmod at 4T nominal field

Power density (W/m3) in the 
copper shield (resistivity: 2.5 
nm) at 4T nominal field and a 
ramp rate of 4T/s.
Maximum power density: 
270 kW/m3

Courtesy of H. Leibrock G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Eddy currents in Pins, Rods and Keys (SIS 300 dipole)

If possible: insulate them
to avoid closed flux looops! M. Sorbi et al. 
Technical Design Report 
SIS 300 4.5T model 
dipole 

Flux‐loop 
minimized!! G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
Eddy currents in resistive coil
SIS 18 dipole

Application of Biot‐Savart gives the eddy 
A. Asner et al., SI/Int.DL/69-2 9.6.1969 current contribution ito the field n the 
(Booster Bending Magnet) magnet gap

This case:
Eddy currents improve field quality!! 

G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 Elliptical beam pipe (SIS 100 dipole)

simulation of the eddy current loss density in the beam pipe

R. Kurnyshov et al., 
Thickness 0.3 mm
Report on FE‐R&D, 
Average loss: 4.9 W/m (0-2T, 4T/s)
Contract No. 5, GSI, 
For the use as cryopump: need to be cooled!) October 2008
Elliptical beam pipe (SIS 100 dipole)
- complete 3D model with ribs and cooling pipe

Designed to avoid closed flux loops

Current density (A/m2), central part

Cycle:0 ‐2T, 4 T/s
Average 4.9 pipe only
8.1 with tubes Current density (A/m2), end part
loss (W/m):
8.7 with tubes and ribs
Courtesy of S. Y. Shim
Summary: Pulsed magnet design principles
(to minimize eddy current effects)

• Insulated laminations
• Choice of iron
• Appropriate magnet design
– Avoid saturation (µr>>1)
– Rogowski‐profile of the magnet pole ends
– Slits in the end laminations
– Non‐conductive material at the magnet ends
– ‚long‘ magnets (also from the eddy current aspect!)
• Appropriate design of the mechanical structure
– Choice of materials (non‐conductive wherever possible)
– Avoid ‚bulky‘ components
– Avoid magnetic ‚flux loops‘
• Field Control (‚B‐Train‘)

G.Moritz,  'Eddy Currents',  CAS Bruges, 
June 16 ‐ 25 2009
 References
•Books
•Heinz E. Knoepfel, ‘Magnetic Fields’, John Wiley and
Sons, INC. , New York…., 2000
•Jack T. Tanabe, Iron dominated electromagnets:
design, fabrication, assembly and measurements,
WORLD Scientific 2005
•Y. Iwasa, ‘Case studies in superconducting magnets’,
Plenum Press, New York and London, 1994
•Reviews
•K. Halbach, ‘Some eddy current effects in solid core
magnets’, Nuclear Instruments and Methods, 107
(1973), 529-540
•E.E. Kriezis et al., 'Eddy Currents: Theory and
Applications', Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 80, NO. 10.
October 1992, p.1599-1589

Acknowledgement:
I am greatly indebted to S.Y. Shim for his help
during the preparation of this talk.