Circular Dependency Error: Modeling T-dependent BH Saturation in Frequency-Transient Study

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Hello everyone,

I am working on an Induction Heating simulation using the Frequency-Transient study step. My goal is to model a ferromagnetic workpiece heated above its Curie temperature (Tc), capturing two nonlinear effects simultaneously:

1. Magnetic Saturation: Dependent on ∣H∣ (B-H curve).
2. Phase Transition: The drop in permeability to unity as T>Tc.

I attempted to combine these effects by creating an analytic function for relative permeability:

mu_r_combined(T, H) = (mu_r_T(T) - 1) * mu_r_H(H) + 1

mu_r_T(T): Interpolation of relative permeability vs. Temperature.
mu_r_H(H): Interpolation of relative permeability derived from B-H curve data.
The logic is to scale the saturation curve by the temperature factor, ensuring μr→1 when T>Tc.

The Problem: When I define the material property using this function (passing the magnetic field norm, e.g., mf.normH or similar, as the argument), the solver fails with a Circular Dependency Error.

Is there a standard workaround for this error in the Frequency Domain? Or is there a better way to implement "Temperature-dependent Effective BH curve" to avoid manually defining μr?

Any advice on the correct setup to handle this nonlinearity would be appreciated.

Thank you!


2 Replies Last Post 6 feb 2026, 07:58 GMT-5
Magnus Olsson COMSOL Employee

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 week ago 28 gen 2026, 11:46 GMT-5

Hi Martin,

The problem is that the Magnetic Fields interface is based on the magnetic vector potential, A, so B= curl(A) is the primary quantity. So to compute H from the solution, you need to use your permeability function and then you get a circular dependency. One way to get around this is to define the permeability as a function of B and T. Another way is to use the Magnetic Field Formulation (MFH) where H is the dependent variable. There is no built-in Frequency-Transient study for that but you can hard-wire the equation form to Frequency Domain and also set the frequency in the main node for the Magnetic Field Formulation node and use a regular Time Dependent study. Keep in mind that the MFH interface will also require that you treat air and other insulators as having a small conductivity e.g. 1 S/m.

-------------------
Magnus
Hi Martin, The problem is that the Magnetic Fields interface is based on the magnetic vector potential, **A**, so **B**= curl(**A**) is the primary quantity. So to compute **H** from the solution, you need to use your permeability function and then you get a circular dependency. One way to get around this is to define the permeability as a function of **B** and T. Another way is to use the Magnetic Field Formulation (MFH) where **H** is the dependent variable. There is no built-in Frequency-Transient study for that but you can hard-wire the equation form to Frequency Domain and also set the frequency in the main node for the Magnetic Field Formulation node and use a regular Time Dependent study. Keep in mind that the MFH interface will also require that you treat air and other insulators as having a small conductivity e.g. 1 S/m.

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 3 hours ago 6 feb 2026, 07:58 GMT-5

Hi Martin,

The problem is that the Magnetic Fields interface is based on the magnetic vector potential, A, so B= curl(A) is the primary quantity. So to compute H from the solution, you need to use your permeability function and then you get a circular dependency. One way to get around this is to define the permeability as a function of B and T. Another way is to use the Magnetic Field Formulation (MFH) where H is the dependent variable. There is no built-in Frequency-Transient study for that but you can hard-wire the equation form to Frequency Domain and also set the frequency in the main node for the Magnetic Field Formulation node and use a regular Time Dependent study. Keep in mind that the MFH interface will also require that you treat air and other insulators as having a small conductivity e.g. 1 S/m.

Hello Magnus,

Thank you for the suggestions. I have tried both approaches, but unfortunately, I am still facing issues:

Defining permeability as μ(T, B): I inverted the function to depend on normB, but the solver failed immediately with: "Failed to find consistent initial values. Last time step is not converged." It seems the nonlinearity is too strong for the initial step.

Using Magnetic Field Formulation (MFH): This would solve the dependency, but my model relies on a multi-turn coil. The MFH interface does not seem to have the "Coil" domain feature (unlike the standard MF interface).

Is there a recommended way to represent a multi-turn coil in MFH, or is there another workaround for the circular dependency in the standard MF interface?

Thank you again for your help.

Martin

>Hi Martin, > >The problem is that the Magnetic Fields interface is based on the magnetic vector potential, **A**, so **B**= curl(**A**) is the primary quantity. So to compute **H** from the solution, you need to use your permeability function and then you get a circular dependency. One way to get around this is to define the permeability as a function of **B** and T. Another way is to use the Magnetic Field Formulation (MFH) where **H** is the dependent variable. There is no built-in Frequency-Transient study for that but you can hard-wire the equation form to Frequency Domain and also set the frequency in the main node for the Magnetic Field Formulation node and use a regular Time Dependent study. Keep in mind that the MFH interface will also require that you treat air and other insulators as having a small conductivity e.g. 1 S/m. Hello Magnus, Thank you for the suggestions. I have tried both approaches, but unfortunately, I am still facing issues: Defining permeability as μ(T, B): I inverted the function to depend on normB, but the solver failed immediately with: "Failed to find consistent initial values. Last time step is not converged." It seems the nonlinearity is too strong for the initial step. Using Magnetic Field Formulation (MFH): This would solve the dependency, but my model relies on a multi-turn coil. The MFH interface does not seem to have the "Coil" domain feature (unlike the standard MF interface). Is there a recommended way to represent a multi-turn coil in MFH, or is there another workaround for the circular dependency in the standard MF interface? Thank you again for your help. Martin

Reply

Please read the discussion forum rules before posting.

Please log in to post a reply.

Note that while COMSOL employees may participate in the discussion forum, COMSOL® software users who are on-subscription should submit their questions via the Support Center for a more comprehensive response from the Technical Support team.