Tube Seam Annealing – SNR vs VL Page 1 ASM 2000

Computer Simulation of Induction Heating Processes

Dr. Valentin S. Nemkov, Chief Scientist
Mr. Robert C. Goldstein, Research Engineer
Centre for Induction Technology, Inc.
1388 Atlantic Blvd., Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Phone (248) 393-2200
Fax (248) 393-0277

Abstract pure “trial and error” method.

Induction heating computer simulation is a powerful
tool for process design and optimization, induction coil
design, equipment selection, as well as education and
business presentations. The authors share their vast
experience in the practical use of computer simulation
for different induction heating and heat treating
processes. A comparison of simulation versus the
experimental “trial and error” method is discussed. The
importance of accurate description of material
properties for obtaining adequate results of simulation
is also discussed. A “Rule of Pyramid” strategy for
efficient use of computer simulation is described. This
rule states that a designer should begin process or coil
development with a simple program and progressively
move to the more complicated and time-consuming
software. This method reduces the time and effort
required for induction heating process design.
Examples of computer simulation for induction heating
process design are presented.
Introduction
The induction heating technique has several inherent
advantages. Induction heating generates internal heat
sources that can provide high available power densities
and high selectivity of heating in the depth and along
the surface, which is very important for local heat
treating. Induction heating can work in any processing
atmosphere (air, protective gas, vacuum), has very low
stand-by losses and is a clean process well suited to the
industrial environment.
Due to these advantages, induction heating has been
used in many industrial applications. However,
induction heating has long been thought of as a “black
art”. This is due to the complexity of the mathematical
description of the induction heating processes.
Most induction heating systems have been designed
through the use of “Rules of Thumb” which were
developed through experimental results and simple
analytical approximations of induction heating
phenomena for a given geometry. Another approach to
induction heating system development is based on a
These traditional methods for induction coil and
process design are time consuming and expensive due
to having to manufacture and modify several inductors.
These methods are also limited in what cases they can
be applied to. For example, the induction coil and
process setup for single shot hardening of an
automotive shaft can take more than one month of
intensive work on the shop floor using production
equipment.
These traditional methods don’t provide the
developer with a good understanding of what is going
on in a given induction heating system or information
on why a given induction system worked or didn’t work
properly. Finally, this experience stays with the
developer and there is no good record left behind for
future process designers.
Today, more and more induction heating designers
are shifting their development process from traditional
empirical methods to computer simulation or a
combination of both. Long considered an impractical
or purely scientific tools due to limitations on computer
hardware and software available, computer simulation
is gaining ground as a cost-effective solution for
induction coil and process design.
Faster computers and better, more user-friendly
software packages improve the speed and accuracy of
computer simulation. With proper problem setup and
software, the accuracy of computer simulation is
limitless provided you have correct material properties.
Computer simulation provides induction process
designers with a wealth of information on the system
dynamics. It also can be used to explain, demonstrate
and predict the process sensitivity to changes of an
induction system. With a powerful laptop, it is even
possible to run computer simulation for some cases “in
the field” for fast adaptation to changes in the process
parameters. The results of computer simulation can
also be retained and used as a record and teaching tool
for others who did not work on the problem directly.
Tube Seam Annealing – SNR vs VL Page 2
Strategy and Tools for Simulation
The programs for simulation of induction heating
and quenching processes may be classified as 1-D
coupled (electromagnetic + thermal), 2-D
electromagnetic, thermal, or coupled, and 3-D
electromagnetic or thermal. The majority of 2-D and 3-
D programs used for induction heating simulation
originate from the companies specialized in
development of general purpose software for
calculation of physical fields in electrical engineering.
For induction heating simulation, we use only a part of
whole package, usually an “eddy current block”, a
“thermal block”, or a combination of these blocks with
an electric circuit block (power supply circuitry). The
programs usually do not have the proper databases
necessary for induction heating or the explicit means for
simulation of the induction heating machine
performance (scanning, pushing of billets etc.). Many of
them must be adapted for simulation of real induction
heating processes. Flux 2D is probably the exception
from the rule, because it has been developed taking into
account the special features of induction heating
processes [1].
Process
Control
Machine Operating Power Supply
Mode Circuits
Thermal Process Electromagnetic
(Heating) Process
Cooling Stresses
Quenching
Structural Distortions
Transformations
Figure 1 Main process in induction heat treating
machine
Induction heating coil designs and operating
conditions are very diverse and different programs are
necessary in order to meet the practical needs.
Theoretically we can assume that a single, universally
coupled 3-D program would be able to meet all the
ASM 2000
major needs of the simulation of induction heating
systems. However, at the present time, no program like
this exists despite tremendous progress in computer
hardware and software tools. Any 3-D code requires
powerful computers and the process of simulation is
knowledge and time consuming. Workstations or the
most powerful personal computers must be used. One
week of work for a skilled operator may be used as an
estimate for the average time for one case study
electromagnetic simulation. This estimate takes into
account the operator’s laborious preparation of input
data, checking and correction of the almost inevitable
errors or inaccuracies, geometry and mesh construction,
physical property and boundary condition description,
calculation itself, the analysis of the results and
parameter variation (design iterations). The complexity
of 3-D analysis and the required skill of the user makes
a direct 3-D optimization of induction heating processes
and systems rather difficult. A strategy based on a
hierarchical use of programs is the most effective [2].
For most cases, the first stage in the simulation of
the induction heating system should be a 1D coupled
program. This allows you to study the influence of
frequency, power density, quench type, and time
variations on the process. The ranges of interest can be
studied quickly and effectively. A good estimate for the
heating time, coil power, coil voltage, and coil current
level can be made from the results of the 1-D simulation
[2,3].
3D
2D, Structural +
Thermal
2D, Electromagnetic +
Thermal
1D, Electromagnetic + Thermal
Figure 2 A rule of pyramid for computer simulation of
induction heating
The second stage in the simulation may be done
using 2-D electromagnetic or coupled code. The coil
current, tube profile, coupling distance and magnetic
flux concentrator dimensions that furnish the required
field and power intensity may be determined. With this
strategy, a 3-D simulation and/or experiments are only
required for the coil design correction for the end zones
where 3-D effects are significant.
The above analysis is based on the author’s current
experience, but we believe that it reflects the existing
situation in general. An inductor, in many cases, is
Tube Seam Annealing – SNR vs VL Page 3
made from a solid piece of copper by machining and it
is difficult and expensive to modify it after it has
already been built. Computer simulation plus the
application of versatile magnetic flux controllers made
of magnetodielectric materials provide an effective
solution for the coil design [4].
This general approach may be called "a rule of
pyramid". It states that more simple programs must be
used as a basis for the further use of more complicated
packages (Fig. 2) [2].
Simulation Versus Experiments
For many cases, computer simulation provides very
exact results and experimental tests may be quite
unnecessary. Through heating of billets is an example
of this type of process. The system geometry is simple,
material properties are relatively well defined
(especially at high temperatures), and the magnetic
permeability is equal to one during the major part of the
process. In this case, only electromagnetic and thermal
processes need to be simulated. For other processes, the
accuracy of the results obtained from simulation may be
lower. Surface hardening is a good example of this,
because of the more complex nature of the process.
More phenomena must be involved in the simulation to
obtain the final results. The initial part of the coil design
problem and process simulation may be rather far from
the final metallurgical result. The case depth and
hardness are separated from the coil design and power
supply setup by electromagnetic and thermal process,
quenching and structural transformations. Inaccuracies
during each stage of computer simulation can
accumulate resulting in more significant final
discrepancies.
There are three sources of inaccuracy in computer
simulation: errors in mathematical description of the
process, in computation and in material properties or
process parameters. The errors of computation depend
strongly on the algorithm of the process simulation and
the discretization of the problem in space and time.
These errors may usually be controlled by the program
itself or the user and can be reduced to a negligible
value. Electromagnetic and thermal processes are quite
accurately described by the Maxwell and diffusion
(Fourier) equations respectively. With correct physical
properties of materials, the solution of these equations
may definitely be accurate. The processes of structural
transformations and quenching have no accurate
mathematical description. Existing descriptions of these
processes are approximations of experimental data with
parameters depending on the material composition and
operating conditions [2]. These parameters and the
inaccuracy in the physical properties of the material to
be treated are the main sources of error in simulation.
ASM 2000
Specific heat and thermal conductivity as functions
of temperature are necessary for simulation of any
heating process. For induction heating, we also need to
know electrical resistivity versus temperature and
magnetic permeability versus temperature and field
strength. The errors in temperature field prediction
resulting from material properties inaccuracy depend on
the process type. For through heating and surface
hardening they may be rather small because the total
volume or a surface layer of steel is nonmagnetic during
the final stage of the cycle and the material properties
are well defined. Correct temperature prediction in the
simulation of the tempering process where the steel is
magnetic and the properties at the elevated temperatures
are not as well defined may be more difficult. Errors in
the prediction of the results of structural
transformations, residual strengths and distortions may
be more significant.
However, the results of computer simulation are
very valuable even if they are not quite correct. With a
series of calculations, the user can find the system’s
response to the intended (process design) or unintended
(input data tolerance) variation of parameters. He can
then design or modify the process without experimental
tests. Even more, an automatic optimization of the coil
and process design may be effectively performed in
some cases. For example, an optimal distribution of the
coil ampere-turns may be found which provides a
desired power or temperature pattern in the length of
the workpiece [2].
A simulation’s accuracy may be improved by using
the results of experiments or by a study of material
properties for the different stages and parameters of the
process. The existing data on structural transformation
in steel during heating and cooling refers mainly to
furnace heating conditions. The local heat
concentration, high heating speeds and short processing
cycles typical for the induction method influence
material response to heat treatment. A special study of
steels` properties for the purposes of induction heating
computer simulation is strongly desired. It is especially
important for the powder metal parts industry, where
information on electromagnetic and thermal properties
is almost non-existent.
The situation in computer simulation changes
quickly and according to the opinion of experts,
“computer simulation is one of the main trends in
improvement of the induction heating processes” [2].
Computer Simulation of Seam Annealing
Process
Induction heating is used for many stages in the tube
industry. Typically, induction heating is used for tube
Tube Seam Annealing – SNR vs VL Page 4
welding, seam annealing, tube heat treating, tube
cutting, and sometimes tube bending.
This study focuses on the seam annealing portion of
the process for 0.4% carbon steel. The tube is 2” in
diameter with a 1/8” wall thickness. In the welding
seam area, the tube needs to be annealed (heated to
above 800 C) to remove the stresses induced in the
welding process and improve the microstructure. The
production rate is 3.8 feet per second.
Figure 3. Half of geometry for simulation of vertical
loop case, 2mm grid
Figure 4. Half of geometry for simulation of split-n-
return case, 2mm grid
Typically, one of two induction coil styles are used
for this process, split-n-return or vertical loop [5].
These two coil styles provide the majority of their
heating under a central or main leg with magnetic flux
concentrator. The difference between the two coils is
the return path for the induction coil current. Vertical
loop inductors return the coil current above the main leg
of the induction coil (Figure 3). In split-n-return coils,
ASM 2000
the coil current is split in two halves and returned along
the sides of the part (Figure 4). Until now, there are no
published studies on which induction coil style
performs better.
Figure 5. Final temperature distribution for vertical
loop inductor
Figure 6. Final temperature distribution for split-n-
return inductor
To study the performance of these two induction coil
styles for seam annealing, the 2-D coupled software
Flux 2D was used for computer simulation. Half of this
plane parallel geometry was used for simulation due to
a plane of symmetry. The same current is applied to
both coils such that the losses in the buswork,
transformer and power supply circuitry will be the
same. The frequency used for simulation is 10 kHz. In
the seam annealing process, there is a continuous feed
of tube underneath the inductor. For simulation, the
time corresponds to the position of a section of the tube
under the coil.
Tube Seam Annealing – SNR vs VL Page 5
The maximum temperature at the end of the coil in
the vertical loop (Figure 5, Table 1) and the split-n-
return (Figure 6, Table 1) with the same current applied
are within 2 percent (959 and 934 C respectively) and
the distributions are close to the same. The highest
temperature is directly under the face of the main leg of
the respective inductors for both cases. The heating
outside of the area under the face of the main leg is
negligible for both induction coil styles. The power
required for the vertical loop induction coil style is
slightly less than for the split-n-return inductor, but the
electrical efficiency is slightly lower (Table 1). This is
due to better utilization of the power in the workpiece
for the vertical loop inductor. When adjusted to the
same maximum temperature, the vertical loop inductor
will require 4% less power.
Vertical Loop Inductors
Figure 7 shows the magnetic field lines at the end of
heating for the vertical loop inductor. The field lines
from the main leg of the inductor penetrate into the non-
magnetic area under the face of the main leg of the
inductor and are concentrated in the magnetic material
near magnetic/non-magnetic boundary (temperature 750
C). There are less field lines surrounding the return leg
of the induction coil, but they do interact with the
magnetic flux concentrator.
In seam annealing processes, both the coil copper
and magnetic flux controller are heavily loaded. The
interaction of the top turn with the magnetic flux
controller causes a wide area of high flux density
(greater than 0.5 T) in the top portion of the
concentrator where it is farthest from the copper which
provides the cooling. This can lead to a concentrator
overheating and eventual failure (Figure 8).
If the return leg of the induction coil is made wider,
the magnetic field lines around the return leg are much
flatter. This leads to less interaction between the top
leg and the concentrator and less field lines around the
top leg (Figure 9) which means less coil voltage is
required (321 V compared to 378 V). The wider return
leg also leads to reduced flux density in the
concentrator (Figure 10), which improves the induction
coil performance. It also leads to lower losses in the
return leg (6.9 compared to 7.6 kW), but this amount is
insignificant when compared to the total power (248
kW). This inductor produces an almost identical heat
pattern as the one with the same size tube for the return
leg as for the main leg.
For both of the vertical loop inductors, the induced
currents are focused under the main leg of the inductor
and return relatively uniformly around the surface of the
tube with highest density in the magnetic material near
the magnetic/non-magnetic boundary.
ASM 2000
Split-n-Return
Figure 11 shows the magnetic field lines at the end
of heating for the split-n-return inductor. The field lines
from the main leg of the inductor penetrate into the non-
magnetic area under the face of the main leg of the
inductor and are concentrated in the magnetic material
near magnetic/non-magnetic boundary (temperature 750
C). The return leg has even less field lines than the
vertical loop inductors, which leads to a lower coil
voltage (272 V) and higher coil power factor. The flux
density in the magnetic flux concentrator for the split-n-
return coil style is much less than for the vertical loop
(Figure 12). With this lower flux density, there are no
questions about the induction coil reliability, because
the losses in the concentrator increase at a rate slightly
higher than the square of flux density.
The induced currents are focused under the main leg
of the inductor with highest density at the
magnetic/non-magnetic boundary. The currents return
along the surface of the tube with highest density under
the face of the return leg, however this peak is much
less than under the main leg and produces a small
amount of heating.
Results of Study
The split-n-return and the vertical loop induction coil
styles perform similarly for seam annealing of a 2”
carbon steel tube with a ¼” wall thicknes and a
production rate of 3.8 feet per second. The vertical loop
induction coil requires slightly less power than the split-
n-return. However, the split-n-return has a higher
power factor and reliability, very important factors in
tube production which is usually running continuously
and any shutdown causes a great deal of lost
production. The vertical loop induction coil’s
performance can be improved using a wider return leg.
Both induction coil styles can be effectively used when
properly designed and the final decision must be made
based on mechanical and maintenance considerations.
This study is not performed for the optimization of
this induction system. It is performed for comparison
of the two induction styles. Further improvements to
this system can be made through modification of the
copper coil and magnetic flux controller geometry. All
induction coils compared in this study used Fluxtrol A
magnetic flux controlling material. It has already been
established that without a magnetic flux controller, the
induction coil performance would be extremely poor for
this type of system, especially in the case of the vertical
loop inductor [6].
Tube Seam Annealing – SNR vs VL Page 6 ASM 2000

Figure 7. Vertical loop, magnetic Figure 8. Vertical loop, color Figure 9. Vertical loop with wide
field lines map of concentrator flux ensity return leg, magnetic field lines

Figure 10. Vertical loop with Figure 11. Split-n-return, Figure 12. Split-n-return, color
wide return leg, color map of magnetic field lines map of concentrator flux density
concentrator flux density

Style Coil V Coil I Coil Loss Tube P Max T(C) Efficiency Total Power
VL Same 378 2200 36.0 216 934 85.7% 252
VL Wide 321 2200 31.8 216 938 87.0% 248
SNR 272 2200 31.1 236 959 88.0% 267

Table 1. Summary of the results of study. VL Same = vertical loop with same return tube
VL Wide = vertical loop with wide return tube SNR = split-n-return
Tube Seam Annealing – SNR vs VL Page 7
Conclusions
Computer simulation is an effective tool for
induction heat treating process and coil design. There is
no universal program that can accurately simulate every
feature of the induction heat treating process. The
authors suggest a heirarchic approach, whereby the
simpler software packages are used as a basis for the
more complicated simulations if they are required. This
approach has been used in practice and has been found
to greatly reduce design time and process development
costs. The main source of error in simulation of the
induction heat treating processes lies in the accuracy of
the material property and heat transfer coefficient data.
More experimental study must be done in this area to
create a database for accurate simulation of induction
heat treating processes. The described case study for
steel tube seam annealing confirms the capabilities of
computer simulation in both generic and specific
problems. The results of this study reveal that the
performance of split-n-return and vertical loop
induction coils when properly design provide close to
the same temperature profile with approximately the
same power. However, there are some differences
between the two which must be considered when
selecting the coil style for a give application.
ASM 2000
References
[1] Fontanet, A., Flux 2D, Flux 3D - Tools for Induction
Heating Modeling. Cedrat-Recherche, France, 1996.
[2] Nemkov V.S., et al. Computer Simulation of
Induction Heating and Quenching Processes 2nd
International Conference on Quenching and Control of
Distortion, Prague, Czech Republic, March 1999
[3] Ruffini R.S., Ruffini R.T. and Nemkov V.S.,
Advanced Design of Induction Heat Treating Coils, Part
I: Design Principles, Industrial Heating, June 1998.
[4] Ruffini R.S., Ruffini R.T. and Nemkov V.S.,
Advanced Design of Induction Heat Treating Coils, Part
II: Magnetic Flux Concentration and Control, Industrial
Heating, November 1998.
[5] Lupi S. et. al. Induction Heating: Industrial
Applications. U.I.E. 1992
[6] Ruffini R.T., Nemkov V.S., Goldstein R.C.
Prospective for Improved Magnetic Flux Control in
Induction Heating Technique. 20th ASM Heat Treating
Soceity Conference . St. Louis, MO Oct.9-12, 2000