Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 99 references

Review of the AC Loss Computation for HTS using the H-formulation

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review establishes that the H-formulation finite-element model, which solves Maxwell's equations using the magnetic field as state variables, has become the de facto standard for calculating AC losses in high-temperature…

desk verdict A useful review of the H-formulation for HTS AC losses; the 10-50% accuracy claim needs qualification and Eq. (14) has a typo, but it deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02176 v3 pith:I5DSNYFE submitted 2019-08-06 cond-mat.supr-con

Boyang Shen , Francesco Grilli , Tim Coombs This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords H-formulationAClosseshigh-temperaturesuperconductorsfiniteelementmethodpower-lawresistivityhomogenizationmulti-scalemodelingT-Aformulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that the H-formulation finite-element model—solving Maxwell's equations with the magnetic field as the state variable—has become the de facto standard for calculating AC losses in high-temperature superconductors. Its central quantitative claim is that computed losses typically agree with measurements to within 10-50%, which the paper presents as satisfactory given uncertainties in tape characterization, assumed uniformity, and measurement noise. The review documents the governing equations, extensions from 2D cross-sections to axisymmetric and 3D geometries, and techniques such as homogenization and multi-scale modeling that make large coils and magnets computable. It also identifies a genuine limitation: for DC-biased conductors with AC ripple, the power-law resistivity model predicts a slow relaxation of current profiles, so loss values depend on when in the cycle they are evaluated. A reader should care because AC losses set the cryogenic burden of every HTS power device, and this method is what practitioners actually use to estimate them before building hardware.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the H formulation: Faraday's law rewritten as $\nabla\times(\rho\nabla\times\mathbf{H}) = -\partial(\mu\mathbf{H})/\partial t$, with the magnetic field components as the state variables. The superconductor enters through a power-law resistivity $\rho(J) = \frac{E_c}{J_c(B)}\left(\frac{J}{J_c(B)}\right)^{n(B)-1}$, which captures the nonlinear E-J characteristic, field-dependent critical current density, and flux creep. The divergence-free condition on $\mathbf{B}$ is enforced by choosing divergence-free initial conditions, and transport currents are imposed via integral constraints on each conductor. This machinery is what lets a single formulation handle tapes, cables, coils, and magnets in 2D, axisymmetric, and 3D geometries, with AC losses computed as the cycle-averaged integral of $\mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{E}$ over the superconducting domain.

What would settle it

Measure the electric-field-versus-current-density curve of an HTS coated conductor under DC bias with a small AC ripple, at low electric fields, and compute the cyclic AC loss at two different moments during the slow relaxation that the power-law predicts; if the measured field is systematically below the power-law curve (as the experiments cited in the review suggest) or the loss depends strongly on the evaluation time, the central 10-50% accuracy claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the H formulation, implemented in finite elements with a nonlinear power-law resistivity, has become the community's default tool for AC-loss estimation in HTS, and that this status is justified by its accuracy and flexibility. Across the reviewed studies, calculated losses match experiments within 10-50%, and the model has been extended from a single tape to stacks, Roebel and CORC cables, pancake and racetrack coils, fault current limiters, transformers, and multi-thousand-turn magnets. The formulation is invariant to coordinate system, so the same equations serve 2D longitudinal, axisymmetric, and full 3D problems, with integral current constraints imposing transport currents in individual conductors. The review's own evidence, however, shows that the power-law E-J relation produces a slow relaxation of current profiles after transients, and that for DC-biased conductors experiments suggest a critical-state-like behavior at low electric fields, which makes the accuracy claim regime-dependent.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy estimate of 10-50% rests on the power-law resistivity model—with field-dependent $J_c(B)$ and $n(B)$—faithfully describing HTS dissipation in the simulated regimes; if that constitutive law is wrong, for example under DC bias with small AC ripple, the stated accuracy band does not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Engineers can use the H formulation to estimate AC losses in HTS tapes, cables, coils, and magnets with a stated accuracy of 10-50% against measurements, which is sufficient for many design choices.
  • Homogenization and multi-scale methods reduce simulation time by factors of 50-60 for large coils while keeping loss differences below about 1% in the cases reviewed.
  • Full 3D models are needed for twisted conductors, racetrack coils at medium and high currents, and end effects, because 2D planar models can miss these contributions.
  • For DC-biased conductors with AC ripples, cyclic loss values should be interpreted with caution, because the power-law model predicts a slow relaxation of current profiles and a critical-state-like E-J may be more appropriate at low electric fields.
  • The H formulation's leading role is not guaranteed: the T-A formulation is faster for thin coated conductors, but H retains an edge in flexibility for other geometries and materials.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 10-50% band is taken as a community benchmark, a natural next step is a systematic comparison of the H formulation and the T-A formulation on the same set of coil and cable geometries, reporting both accuracy against experiment and compute time; the review's evidence suggests H will remain more flexible for cases with magnetic materials and 3D effects.
  • The cited experiments on DC-biased conductors point to a possible refinement: a hybrid E-J law that behaves like the power law during large transients but approaches critical-state-like behavior at low electric fields would likely remove the relaxation ambiguity and extend the formulation's validity.
  • The review implies that the main source of the 10-50% uncertainty is not the solver but the input data, primarily characterization of Jc(B) anisotropy and tape-to-tape variation; a set of fully characterized reference tapes would let model error be separated from data error.
  • Because the paper does not quantify how the 10-50% band is distributed across geometries, one could test whether accuracy is systematically worse for 3D twisted cables than for 2D stacks; the review's examples suggest such a gradient but do not state it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This review article surveys the H-formulation finite-element method for computing AC losses in high-temperature superconductors. It presents the governing equations (Faraday's law with a nonlinear power-law resistivity), the 2D longitudinal and axisymmetric reductions, 3D extensions, and homogenized/multi-scale modeling strategies. It then reviews applications to tapes, coils, cables, magnets, electrical machines, fault current limiters, transformers, and SMES, and concludes with a discussion of popularity, ease of implementation, computational efficiency, and typical accuracy. The central claims are that the H formulation has become the de facto standard for AC-loss simulation and that calculated losses generally agree with experiment to within 10-50%.

Significance. If the central claims are properly qualified, this is a useful reference review for the applied superconductivity community. Its strengths are the broad literature coverage, the clear presentation of the formulation in different geometries, the practical implementation hints (structured meshes, current constraints, air-domain resistivity), and the honest enumeration of drawbacks (large air-domain cost, limited parallelization in COMSOL, black-box code). It also points to publicly available model files, which is valuable for reproducibility. The main weakness is that the headline accuracy statement is asserted rather than derived from a systematic synthesis of the reviewed papers, and the paper itself contains evidence of regimes where that accuracy band does not hold.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (13)-(14)] The axisymmetric governing equations as printed are not the equations that follow from Eqs. (10)-(12). With Er=Ez=0 and Bθ=0, Faraday's law gives ∂Eθ/∂z = ∂(µHr)/∂t and Eθ/r + ∂Eθ/∂r = -∂(µHz)/∂t. Equation (13) instead has a negative left-hand side matched to a positive right-hand side, and Eq. (14) repeats Hr on the right-hand side instead of Hz. Because this section is the implementation reference for axisymmetric coils and windings, these sign and subscript errors should be corrected or explicitly explained before publication.
  2. [Section 4, accuracy paragraph] The statement that 'the accuracy can be quantified as varying between 10% and 50%' is presented without a methodological basis or qualification. The paper's own Section 3.1 (refs [65], [66], [69]) documents a DC-bias/AC-ripple regime in which the power-law E-J law causes loss values to depend on where on a slowly descending relaxation curve they are evaluated, and ref [69] states that neither the power-law nor the critical-state model captures the observed behavior. Several cited validations are also conditional: Section 3.2.1 (ref [76]) matches experiment only after separately adding copper-lead losses computed with a 3D model, Section 3.3.3 (ref [94]) reports good agreement only above 50% of Ic, and Section 2.4 (ref [46]) reports errors up to 20% for the multi-scale method under a uniform-current starting assumption. The 10-50% range should therefore be presented as regime-dependent, with a short description of how it was compiled and which exceptions apply.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is displayed in a garbled form on the right-hand side; it should express that the divergence of ∂(µH)/∂t is zero once the curl term is removed. Please correct the typesetting so the equation reads ∇·[∂(µH)/∂t] = 0 (up to sign).
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. (7)] The field dependence notation is inconsistent: the prefactor is written as Ec/Jc while the power-law factor uses Jc(B) and n(B). The prefactor should use Jc(B) as well, or the notation should be defined once to avoid ambiguity in implementation.
  3. [Section 4, implementation paragraph] Matlab is not a finite-element software package per se; if the authors mean the PDE Toolbox or a code written in MATLAB, the sentence should say so explicitly for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the H-formulation review is a self-contained survey whose claims rest on Maxwell's equations, a stated constitutive law, and literature validation, not on conclusions identical to their inputs.

full rationale

This is a review paper with no new derivation chain, so the main circularity patterns (fitted input called prediction, uniqueness imported from authors, ansatz smuggled via citation) do not arise. The H-formulation equations (1)-(2) are Faraday's law rewritten with a stated power-law resistivity (7); AC losses are computed by integrating the physical dissipation J·E over the superconductor domain (8), with currents imposed through the integral constraint (6). No parameter is fitted to the AC-loss values that are then called predictions, and no target result is assumed through its definition. The accuracy band of 10-50% in Section 4 is presented as an empirical literature summary, not as a consequence of the model equations; Section 3.1 explicitly documents regimes, such as DC-bias with AC ripples (references [65]-[69]), where the power-law model is unreliable, which is a limitation rather than a circular step. The paper's self-citations, including [22], [25], [26], [30], [36], [37], [46], and [77], supply historical context, tutorial material, and examples of validation, but none is load-bearing in the sense of being the only support for a claim that reduces to itself; the 'de facto standard' statement is supported by an external citation-counting observation about 45 research groups. Because the central content is a review of externally published and experimentally benchmarked implementations, the derivation is self-contained and no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review, so it introduces no new free parameters and no new postulated entities. The central claims depend on standard Maxwellian physics and on the empirical power-law model for HTS resistivity, plus common modeling simplifications such as high-resistivity air and geometric symmetry reductions.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Maxwell's equations, in particular Faraday's law ∇×E = -∂B/∂t, govern the electromagnetic behavior of the superconductor.
    Section 2.1 builds the model directly on Faraday's equation. This is standard physical law, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption For type-II superconductors in power applications, the relative permeability µr is 1 and the E-J relationship is a power law with parameters Ec, Jc(B), and n(B).
    Section 2.1, Eq. (7). The power-law resistivity is an empirical characterization of HTS tapes. The accuracy of the reviewed AC loss predictions depends on this constitutive law.
  • standard math The divergence-free condition ∇·B = 0 is preserved in time if it holds initially, because the divergence of a curl is zero.
    Section 2.1, Eqs. (4)-(5). This is a mathematical identity given sufficient smoothness of the solution.
  • domain assumption The air domain can be represented as a high-resistivity material so that no current flows outside the conductors.
    Section 2.1, paragraph on the space around conductors. This approximation is practical but can cause current leakage in 3D models when resistivity is too low, as noted in Section 3.1 (Stenvall et al.).
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric and 2D models assume translational or rotational symmetry, so that material properties are constant along the conductor length and the current has only one component.
    Section 2.2. These reductions are valid only for long, straight conductors or perfectly axisymmetric coils, which is an idealization of real devices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Review of the AC Loss Computation for HTS using the H-formulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I5DSNYFE

@misc{pith2026190802176,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Review of the AC Loss Computation for HTS using the H-formulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I5DSNYFE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02176}
}
abstract

This article presents a review of the finite element method (FEM) model based on the $H$ formulation of Maxwell's equations used to calculate AC losses in high temperature superconductor (HTS) tapes, cables and windings for different applications. This model, which uses the components of the magnetic field as state variables, has been gaining a great popularity and has been in use in tens of research groups around the world. This contribution first reviews the equations on which the model is based and their implementation in finite element method programs for different cases, such 2D longitudinal and axis-symmetric geometries, 3D geometries. Modeling strategies to tackle large number of HTS tapes, such as multi-scale and homogenization methods, are also introduced. Then, the second part of the article reviews the applications for which the $H$ formulations has been used to calculate AC losses, ranging from individual tapes, to complex cables and large magnet windings. Afterwards, a section is dedicated to the discussion of the $H$ formulation in terms of computational efficiency and easiness of implementation. Its pros and cons are listed. Finally, the last section draws the main conclusions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02176 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transport AC losses of an HTS double pancake coil (2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Normalized current density distribution of a three-phase Cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Transport losses in an HTS tape with magnetic substrate calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 3D simulations of two twisted superconducting filaments carrying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation of a matrix of 10×200 tapes, representative of the turns in the cross section of a high-field magnet. Due to the symmetry of the prob￾lem, only 5×100 tapes are simulated. The top figures represent the current density and magnetic flux density distributions o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [77]

    Zermeno V, Grilli F and Sirois F 2013 Superconductor Science and Technology 26 052001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/ 26/5/052001

    doi:10.1088/0953-2048/ 2013

  2. [69]

    Lahtinen V, Pardo E, ˇSouc J, Solovyov M and Stenvall A 2014 Journal of Applied Physics 115 113907 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1. 4868898

    doi:10.1063/1 2014

  3. [76]

    Grilli F, Zerme˜ no V, Vojenˇ ciak M, Pardo E, Kario A and Goldacker W 2013 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 23 5900205 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2013.2238987

    arXiv 2013

  4. [65]

    2012.2233842

    Lahtinen V and Stenvall A 2013 IEEE Transactions on Applied Su- perconductivity 23 4900505 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC. 2012.2233842

    arXiv 2013

  5. [66]

    Xu Z and Grilli F 2015 Superconductor Science and Technology 28 104002 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/28/10/104002

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-2048/28/10/104002 2015

  6. [94]

    Hong Z, Sheng J, Zhang J, Lin B, Ying L, Li Y and Jin Z 2012 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 22 5600504 35

    work page 2012

  7. [46]

    Qu´ eval L, Zerme˜ no V M R and Grilli F 2016 Superconductor Sci- ence and Technology 29 024007 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-2048/29/2/024007

    2016

  8. [1]

    Larbalestier D, Gurevich A, Feldmann D M and Polyanskii A 2001 Nature 414 368–77 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/35104654

    work page doi:10.1038/35104654 2001

Show all 99 references
  1. [2]

    Hassenzahl W V, Hazelton D W, Johnson B K, Komarek P, Noe M and Reis C T 2004 Proceedings of the IEEE 92 1655–1674 URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2004.833674

    2004

  2. [3]

    Parizh M, Lvovsky Y and Sumption M 2017 Superconductor Sci- ence and Technology 30 014007 URL https://doi.org/10.1088% 2F0953-2048%2F30%2F1%2F014007

    2017

  3. [4]

    Uglietti D 2019 Superconductor Science and Technology 32 053001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1361-6668%2Fab06a2

    2019

  4. [5]

    Hahn S, Kim K, K, Hu X, Painter T, Dixon I, Kim S, Bhattarai K R, Noguchi S, Jaroszynski J and Larbalestier D C 2019 Nature 570 496- 499 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1293-1

    2019 doi

  5. [6]

    Snitchler G, Gamble B, King C and Winn P 2011 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 21 1089–1092 URL https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TASC.2010.2100341

    2011

  6. [7]

    Huang Z, Ruiz H S, Zhai Y, Geng J, Shen B and Coombs T A 2016 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 26 5202105 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2016.2523059

    2016

  7. [8]

    Schwenerly S W, McConnell B W, Demko J A, Fadnek A, Hsu J, List F A, Walker M S, Hazelton D W, Murray F S, Rice J A, Trautwein C M, Shi X, Farrell R A, Bascuhan J, Hintz R E, Mehta S P, Aversa N, Ebert J A, Bednar B A, Neder D J, McIlheran A A, Michel P C, Nemce J J, Pleva E F...

    1999 doi

  8. [9]

    1109/77.920054

    Iwakuma M, Funaki K, Kajikawa K, Tanaka H, Bohno T, Tomioka A, Yamada H, Nose S, Konno M, Yagi Y, Maruyama H, Ogata T, Yoshida S, Ohashi K, Tsutsumi K and Honda K 2001 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 11 1482–1485 URL https://doi.org/10. 1109/77.920054

    2001

  9. [10]

    Maguire J F, Schmidt F, Bratt S, Welsh T E, Yuan J, Allais A and Hamber F 2007 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 17 2034–2037 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2007.898359

    2007

  10. [11]

    Noe M and Steurer M 2007 Superconductor Science and Technology 20 R15–R29 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/20/3/R01

    2007 doi

  11. [12]

    Wang X, Dai W, Hu J, Luo E and Zhou Y 2008 Performance of a Stirling-Type Pulse Tube Cooler for High Efficiency Operation at 100Hz Proceedings of the 16th International Cryocooler Conference, May 17-20, 2008 in Atlanta, Georgia URL http://hdl.handle.net/ 1853/38769

    2008

  12. [13]

    Norris W 1970 Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 3 489–507 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/3/4/308

    1970 doi

  13. [14]

    Halse M R 1970 Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 3 717–720 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/3/5/310

    1970 doi

  14. [15]

    Brandt E H and Indenbom M 1993 Physical Review B 48 12893–12906 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.48.12893

    1993 doi

  15. [16]

    Zeldov E, Clem J, McElfresh M and Darwin M 1994 Physical Review B 49 9802–9822 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.49.9802

    1994 doi

  16. [17]

    Mawatari Y 1996 Physical Review B 54 13215–13221 URL https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.54.13215

    1996 doi

  17. [18]

    1016/S0921-4534(97)01583-9

    K-H M¨ uller 1997Physica C 289 123–130 URL https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0921-4534(97)01583-9

  18. [19]

    1016/S0921-4534(98)00638-8

    K-H M¨ uller 1999Physica C 312 149–167 URL https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0921-4534(98)00638-8

  19. [20]

    org/10.1103/PhysRevB.77.104505 28

    Mawatari Y 2008 Physical Review B 77 104505 URL https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevB.77.104505 28

    2008 doi

  20. [21]

    Mikitik G P, Mawatari Y, Wan A T S and Sirois F 2013 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 23 8001920 URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2013.2245504

    2013

  21. [22]

    Shen B, Li C, Geng J, Zhang X, Gawith J, Ma J, Liu Y, Grilli F and Coombs T A 2018 Superconductor Science and Technology 31 075005 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6668/aac294

    2018 doi

  22. [23]

    Kajikawa K, Hayashi T, Yoshida R, Iwakuma M and Funaki K 2003 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 13 3630–3633 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2003.812415

    2003

  23. [24]

    Pecher R, McCulloch M, Chapman S J, Prigozhin L and Elliott C M 2003 Institute of Physics Conference Series 181

    2003

  24. [25]

    Hong Z, Campbell A M and Coombs T A 2006 Superconductor Sci- ence and Technology 19 1246–1252 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-2048/19/12/004

    2006

  25. [27]

    http://www.comsol.com

    Finite-element software package Comsol Multiphysics. http://www.comsol.com

  26. [28]

    Bossavit A and V´ erit´ e J C 1983IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 19 2465–2470 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.1983.1062817

    1983

  27. [29]

    1108/03321641111101195

    Ainslie M D, Flack T J, Hong Z and Coombs T A 2011 COMPEL: The International Journal for Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering 30 762–774 URL https://doi.org/10. 1108/03321641111101195

    2011

  28. [30]

    2018.2881491

    Shen B, Coombs T A and Grilli F 2019 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 29 5900205 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC. 2018.2881491

    2019

  29. [31]

    1016/0921-4534(93)90592-E 29

    Rhyner J 1993 Physica C 212 292–300 URL https://doi.org/10. 1016/0921-4534(93)90592-E 29

    1993

  30. [32]

    Grilli F, Sirois F, Brault S, Brambilla R, Martini L, Nguyen D N and Goldacker W 2010 Superconductor Science and Technology 23 034017 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/23/3/034017

    2010 doi

  31. [33]

    Robert B C, Fareed M U and Ruiz H S 2019 Materials 12 2679 URL https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12172679

    2019 doi

  32. [34]

    Grilli F, Zermeno V M R, Pardo E, Vojenciak M, Brand J, Kario A and Goldacker W 2014 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 24 4801005 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2013.2282182

    2014

  33. [35]

    1109/TASC.2007.902144

    Grilli F, Brambilla R and Martini L 2007 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 17 3155–3158 URL https://doi.org/10. 1109/TASC.2007.902144

    2007

  34. [36]

    og/10.1088/0953-2048/23/2/025001

    Nguyen D N, Ashworth S P, Willis J O, Sirois F and Grilli F 2010 Superconductor Science and Technology 23 025001 URL https://doi. og/10.1088/0953-2048/23/2/025001

    2010 doi

  35. [37]

    thesis Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

    Kr¨ uger P A C 2014 Optimisation of hysteretic losses in high- temperature superconducting wires Ph.D. thesis Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

    2014

  36. [38]

    1088/0953-2048/27/12/124013

    Zerme˜ no V M R, Kr¨ uger P, Takayasu M and Grilli F 2014Supercon- ductor Science and Technology 27 124013 URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/0953-2048/27/12/124013

  37. [39]

    G¨ om¨ ory F,ˇSouc J, Ad´ amek M, Ghabeli A, Solovyov M and Vo- jenˇ ciak M 2019Superconductor Science and Technology32 124001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6668/ab4638

    doi

  38. [40]

    Zhang M and Coombs T A 2012 Superconductor Science and Tech- nology 25 015009 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/25/1/ 015009

    2012 doi

  39. [41]

    Clem J R 1982 Physical Review B 26 2463 URL https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.26.2463

    1982 doi

  40. [42]

    Ainslie M D and Fujishiro H 2015 Superconductor Science and Tech- nology 28 053002 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/28/5/ 053002 30

    2015 doi

  41. [43]

    2016.2520210

    Zou S, Zerme˜ no V M R and Grilli F 2016IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 26 8200705 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC. 2016.2520210

    2016

  42. [44]

    2012.03.007

    Grilli F, Brambilla R, Sirois F, Stenvall A and Memiaghe S 2013 Cryo- genics 53 142–147 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics. 2012.03.007

    2013 doi

  43. [45]

    Zermeno V M R, Abrahamsen A B, Mijatovic N, Jensen B B and Soerensen M P 2013 Journal of Applied Physics 114 173901 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4827375

    2013 doi

  44. [47]

    Zerme˜ no V M R and Grilli F 2014 Superconductor Science and Tech- nology 27 044025 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/27/4/ 044025

    2014 doi

  45. [48]

    Queval L and Ohsaki H 2013 IEEE Transactions on Applied Supercon- ductivity 23 5201905 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2013. 2251252

    2013 doi

  46. [49]

    Hong Z and Coombs T A 2010 Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 23 1551–1562 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10948-010-0812-y

    2010

  47. [50]

    2010.2091388

    Rodriguez-Zermeno V M, Mijatovic N, Træholt C, Zirngibl T, Seiler E, Abrahamsen A B, Pedersen N F and Sørensen M P 2011IEEE Transac- tions on Applied Superconductivity 21 3273–3276 URL 10.1109/TASC. 2010.2091388

    2010

  48. [51]

    Shen B, Li J, Geng J, Fu L, Zhang X, Li C, Zhang H, Dong Q, Ma J and Coombs T 2017 Physica C 541 40–44 URL https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physc.2017.07.013

    2017 doi

  49. [52]

    1088/0953-2048/22/5/055014 31

    Nguyen D N, Grilli F, Ashworth S P and Willis J O 2009 Supercon- ductor Science and Technology 22 055014 URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/0953-2048/22/5/055014 31

    2009

  50. [54]

    1088/0953-2048/25/12/125020

    Zhang M, Kvitkovic J, Pamidi S V and Coombs T A 2012 Supercon- ductor Science and Technology 25 125020 URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/0953-2048/25/12/125020

    2012

  51. [55]

    Ainslie M D, Yuan W and Flack T J 2013 IEEE Transactions on Ap- plied Superconductivity 23 4700104 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ TASC.2012.2227639

    2013

  52. [56]

    1109/TASC.2014.2373514

    Ainslie M D, Di H, Jin Z and Cardwell D A 2015 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 25 4602305 URL https://doi.org/10. 1109/TASC.2014.2373514

    2015

  53. [58]

    de Bruyn B J H, Jansen J W and Lomonova E A 2016 IEEE Trans- actions on Magnetics 52 9000104 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ TMAG.2016.2529006

    2016

  54. [59]

    Liang F, Yuan W, Zhang M, Zhang Z, Li J, Venuturumilli S and Patel J 2016 Superconductor Science and Technology 29 115006 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/29/11/115006

    2016 doi

  55. [60]

    Shen B, Li C, Geng J, Dong Q, Ma J, Gawith J, Zhang K, Li Z, Chen J, Zhou W, Li X, Sheng J, Li Z, Huang Z, Yang J and Coombs T A 2019 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 29 8201105 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2019.2901650

    2019

  56. [61]

    Lyly M, Zermeno V, Stenvall A, Lahtinen V and Mikkonen R 2013 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 23 6000105 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2012.2228532

    2013

  57. [62]

    Lahtinen V, Lyly M, Stenvall A and Tarhasaari T 2012 Superconductor Science and Technology 25 115001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-2048/25/11/115001 32

    2012

  58. [63]

    Lyly M, Lahtinen V, Stenvall A, Rostila L and Mikkonen R 2014 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 24 121–129 URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2014.2308255

    2014

  59. [67]

    Hong Z, Yuan W, Ainslie M, Yan Y, Pei R and Coombs T 2011 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 21 2466–2469 URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2010.2084065

    2011

  60. [68]

    Ying L, Xu J, Sheng J, Lin B, Jin Z, Hong Z and Li Z 2013 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 23 5900704 URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2013.2245373

    2013

  61. [70]

    Goldacker W, Grilli F, Pardo E, Kario A, Schlachter S and Vojenciak M 2014 Superconductor Science and Technology 27 093001 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/27/9/093001

    2014 doi

  62. [72]

    Grilli F and Pardo E 2010 Superconductor Science and Technology 23 115018 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/23/11/115018

    2010 doi

  63. [73]

    Pardo E and Grilli F 2012 Superconductor Science and Technology 25 014008 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/25/1/014008 33

    2012 doi

  64. [74]

    1109/TASC.2016.2536652

    Grilli F, Vojenˇ ciak M, Kario A and Zerme˜ no V 2016IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 26 4803005 URL https://doi.org/10. 1109/TASC.2016.2536652

    2016

  65. [75]

    Thakur K, Raj A, Brandt E and Saastry S 2011 Superconductor Sci- ence and Technology 24 065024 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-2048/24/6/065024

    2011

  66. [78]

    van der Laan D C, Weiss J D and McRae D M 2019 Superconductor Science and Technology 32 033001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6668/aafc82

    2019

  67. [79]

    Majoros M, Sumption M D, Collings E W and van der Laan D C 2014 Superconductor Science and Technology 27 125008 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/27/12/125008

    2014 doi

  68. [80]

    Sheng J, Vojenˇ ciak M, Terzio˘ glu R, Frolek L and G¨ om¨ ory F 2017IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 27 4800305 URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2016.2632901

    2016

  69. [81]

    Terzio˘ glu R, Vojenˇ ciak M, Sheng J, G¨ om¨ ory F, C ¸ avu¸ s T F and Belenli ˙I 2017 Superconductor Science and Technology 30 085012 URL https: //doi.org/10.1088/1361-6668/aa757d

    2017 doi

  70. [82]

    Ainslie M D, Flack T J and Campbell A M 2012 Physica C 472 50–56 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physc.2011.10.008

    2012 doi

  71. [83]

    Kr¨ uger P A C, Zerme˜ no V M R, Takayasu M and Grilli F 2015IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 25 4801505 URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2014.2368715

    2014

  72. [84]

    Grilli F, Zerme˜ no V M R and Takayasu M 2015Physica C 518 122–125 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physc.2015.03.007 34

    2015 doi

  73. [85]

    1109/TASC.2017.2786726

    Kan C, Wang Y, Yuan X, Li Y and Hou Y 2018 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 28 8200206 URL https://doi.org/10. 1109/TASC.2017.2786726

    2018

  74. [86]

    Makong L, Kameni A, Bouillault F and Masson P 2018 IEEE Trans- actions on Magnetics 54 7202904 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ TMAG.2017.2771438

    2018

  75. [87]

    Escamez G, Sirois F, Lahtinen V, Stenvall A, Badel A, Tixador P, Ramdane B, Meunier G, Perrin-Bit R and Bruzek C ´E 2016 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 26 4701907 URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2016.2533024

    2016

  76. [88]

    org/10.1088/0953-2048/28/12/125004

    Xia J, Bai H, Lu J, Gavrilin A V, Zhou Y and Weijers H W 2015 Superconductor Science and Technology 28 125004 URL https://doi. org/10.1088/0953-2048/28/12/125004

    2015 doi

  77. [89]

    Ainslie M D, Rodriguez-Zermeno V M, Hong Z, Yuan W, Flack T J and Coombs T A 2011 Superconductor Science and Technology 24 045005 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/24/4/045005

    2011 doi

  78. [90]

    1109/TASC.2013.2239341

    Zhang M, Chudy M, Wang W, Chen Y, Huang Z, Zhong Z, Yuan W, Kvitkovic J, Pamidi S V and Coombs T A 2013 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 23 5900604 URL https://doi.org/10. 1109/TASC.2013.2239341

    2013

  79. [91]

    Zhang M, Yuan W, Kvitkovic J and Pamidi S 2015 Superconductor Science and Technology 28 115011 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-2048/28/11/115011

    2015

  80. [92]

    Li Y, Feng F, Li Y, Song P, Zou S, Wu M, Gu C, Zeng P and Qu T 2017 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 27 1–6 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2016.2641044

    2017

  81. [93]

    de Bruyn B J H, Jansen J W and Lomonova E A 2017 Superconductor Science and Technology 30 095006 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6668/aa7c74

    2017

  82. [95]

    Jia Y, Ainslie M D, Hu D and Yuan J 2017 IEEE Transactions on Ap- plied Superconductivity 27 5600805 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ TASC.2017.2656619

    2017

  83. [96]

    Song W, Jiang Z, Zhang X, Staines M, Badcock R A, Fang J, Sogabe Y and Amemiya N 2018 Cryogenics 94 14–21 URL https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cryogenics.2018.07.003

    2018 doi

  84. [97]

    Pardo E, Staines M, Jiang Z and Glasson N 2015 Superconductor Science and Technology 28 114008 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-2048/28/11/114008

    2015

  85. [98]

    Wang Z, Tang Y, Ren L, Li J, Xu Y, Liao Y and Deng X 2017 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 27 4701005 URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2016.2646480

    2017

  86. [99]

    Morandi A, Gholizad M B, Grilli F, Sirois F and Zerme˜ no V M R 2016 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 26 5700606 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2016.2535271

    2016

  87. [100]

    2014.2341255

    Lorin C, Netter D and Masson P J 2015 IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity 25 8200212 URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC. 2014.2341255

    2015

  88. [101]

    Superconductors URL https://gitlab.onelab.info/doc/models/ wikis/Superconductors

  89. [102]

    HTS Modelling Workgroup URL http://www.htsmodelling.com/

  90. [103]

    1088/1742-6596/97/1/012030

    Sirois F, Dione M, Roy F, Grilli F and Dutoit B 2008 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 97 012030 URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1742-6596/97/1/012030

    2008

  91. [104]

    Zhang H, Zhang M and Yuan W 2017 Superconductor Science and Technology 30 024005 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6668/ 30/2/024005 36

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.