| Literature DB >> 27347974 |
Wenjuan Jiang1,2, Yunbo Shi3, Wenjie Zhao4, Xiangxin Wang5.
Abstract
The main part of the magnetic fluxgate sensor is the magnetic core, the hysteresis characteristic of which affects the performance of the sensor. When the fluxgate sensors are modelled for design purposes, an accurate model of hysteresis characteristic of the cores is necessary to achieve good agreement between modelled and experimental data. The Jiles-Atherton model is simple and can reflect the hysteresis properties of the magnetic material precisely, which makes it widely used in hysteresis modelling and simulation of ferromagnetic materials. However, in practice, it is difficult to determine the parameters accurately owing to the sensitivity of the parameters. In this paper, the Biogeography-Based Optimization (BBO) algorithm is applied to identify the Jiles-Atherton model parameters. To enhance the performances of the BBO algorithm such as global search capability, search accuracy and convergence rate, an improved Biogeography-Based Optimization (IBBO) algorithm is put forward by using Arnold map and mutation strategy of Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm. Simulation results show that IBBO algorithm is superior to Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm, Differential Evolution algorithm and BBO algorithm in identification accuracy and convergence rate. The IBBO algorithm is applied to identify Jiles-Atherton model parameters of selected permalloy. The simulation hysteresis loop is in high agreement with experimental data. Using permalloy as core of fluxgate probe, the simulation output is consistent with experimental output. The IBBO algorithm can identify the parameters of Jiles-Atherton model accurately, which provides a basis for the precise analysis and design of instruments and equipment with magnetic core.Entities:
Keywords: Arnold map; Jiles-Atherton model; biogeography-based optimization algorithm; differential evolution; fluxgate
Year: 2016 PMID: 27347974 PMCID: PMC4970030 DOI: 10.3390/s16070979
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Diagram of dynamic hysteresis loop measurement.
Figure 2Image of fluxgate probe and measurements system. (a) Fluxgate probe; (b) Measurements of fluxgate probe.
Influence of the parameters to the hysteresis loop.
| Parameters | Remanence | Coercive Force | dB/dH at Coercive Point | Loop Area | Maximum Magnetization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ↑ | -- | ↑ | -- | ↑ | |
| ↑ | -- | ↑ | -- | -- | |
| ↓ | -- | ↓ | -- | -- | |
| ↓ | ↓ | -- | ↓ | -- | |
| ↑ | ↑ | -- | ↑ | -- |
Figure 3Flow chart of improved Biogeography-Based Optimization (IBBO).
Identification results of fixed parameters.
| Parameters | GA | PSO | DE | BBO | IBBO | Theoretical Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.2346 | 1.2416 | 1.2348 | 1.2337 | 1.2423 | 1.24 | |
| 6.6773 | 8.3791 | 4.4841 | 6.9382 | 7.2841 | 9.18 | |
| 48.69 | 48.51 | 63.569 | 45.75 | 49.68 | 54 | |
| 0.686 | 0.464 | 0.751 | 0.611 | 0.318 | 0.338 | |
| 114.91 | 115.24 | 120.67 | 122.85 | 117.12 | 119.36 | |
| Fitness value | 0.096 | 0.0765 | 0.0963 | 0.105 | 0.0225 | -- |
| simulation time (s) | 241.91 | 256.53 | 654.21 | 201.36 | 197.25 | -- |
Figure 4Optimization process of fitness function.
Figure 5Hysteresis Loops for five different methods.
Figure 6Errors of five methods on ascending part.
Figure 7Experimental B-H hysteresis Loop and calculated B-H hysteresis Loop obtained by IBBO.
Identification results of permolloy.
| Parameters | Range | GA | PSO | DE | BBO | IBBO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [0.95, 1.05] | 0.9552 | 1.0221 | 0.9758 | 0.9738 | 1.0359 | |
| [10−3, 102] | 40.957 | 32.546 | 35.648 | 39.482 | 30.551 | |
| [1, 200] | 196.73 | 140.51 | 170.56 | 145.75 | 148.79 | |
| [0, 1] | 0.5423 | 0.4641 | 0.4561 | 0.6112 | 0.3876 | |
| [30, 80] | 41.321 | 45.244 | 43.234 | 38.852 | 39.512 | |
| Fitness value (T) | -- | 0.1707 | 0.0613 | 0.0682 | 0.0756 | 0.0544 |
| simulation time (s) | -- | 251.43 | 279.92 | 678.94 | 210.67 | 199.03 |
Figure 8Output of fluxgate probe.
Figure 9Simulation outputs of fluxgate probe.