Journal of
Marine Science
and Engineering
Article
A New Simple Method to Design Degaussing Coils Using
Magnetic Dipoles
Huanghuang Jin 1 , Hong Wang 2 and Zhihong Zhuang 2, *
Citation: Jin, H.; Wang, H.; Zhuang,
Z. A New Simple Method to Design
Degaussing Coils Using Magnetic
Dipoles. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10,
1495. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse10101495
Academic Editor: Carlos Guedes
Soares
Received: 13 September 2022
Accepted: 11 October 2022
Published: 14 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10101495
1 School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Huangshan University, Huangshan 245041, China
2 School of Electronic and Optical Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology,
Nanjing 210094, China
* Correspondence: nustcn@yahoo.com.cn
Abstract: Since submarines are mostly made of ferromagnetic materials, anti-submarine warfare
aircraft detect submarines using all kinds of magnetometers. In order to make the submarine
magnetically silent, it is usually equipped with degaussing coils to neutralize the magnetic anomaly.
However, with the increased size of the submarine, more coils are needed by conventional degaussing
methods, and the degaussing system becomes complex to design and implement. To simplify
the design of submarine degaussing coils and improve their degaussing accuracies, this paper
presents a novel and efficient method of the degaussing coil design, which is based on the simplest
equivalent model of multiple magnetic dipoles. First, the influence of the magnetic moment and
spatial distribution of multi-magnetic dipoles on the equivalent effects with different spatial scales
were studied. Then the simplest model of multiple magnetic dipoles was proved to capably model
complex ferromagnets. We simulated the degaussing coils of a submarine by COMSOL Multiphysics
software to verify the validity of the simplest modeling method and the design of the coils. The
simulation results show that the magnetic anomaly induced by the submarine was reduced by at
least 99% at different ranges.
Keywords: degaussing coils; magnetic dipole; magnet simulation; submarine; COMSOL
1. Introduction
With the continuous progress of submarine silencing technology, most of the subma-
rine’s underwater noise has been close to (or even lower than) the level of the ocean back-
ground noise. Acoustic detection alone cannot address the need for modern anti-submarine
warfare and optical methods have also been severely challenged [1]. Aeromagnetic ex-
ploration technology has the advantage of a large detection range, short execution time,
and not being affected by a complex marine environment [2,3], so it is considered by the
west as the most reliable non-acoustic detection method to improve the anti-submarine
warfare [4]. Represented by P-3C and P-8A anti-submarine aircraft of the US Army, they
are equipped with high-precision magnetic anomaly detection equipment, and magnetic
anomaly detection has become an important means of underwater target detection [5].
The main sources of a submarine’s magnetic field are, firstly, the main part, called
the fixed magnetic field, which is induced by ferromagnetic materials magnetized by the
Earth’s magnetic field in long-term accumulation, secondly, the so-called induced magnetic
field caused by a submarine’s operation in the Earth’s magnetic field, thirdly, eddy currents
by rolling, and the last is the stray field due to various onboard equipment [6–8]. The
fixed magnetic field is acquired during the submarine’s construction. The stray field is
the least contributor, which is mainly due to the onboard generator, distribution cable,
communication system, and so on [9].
Compared with the induced magnetic field, eddy currents (by rolling), and the stray
field, the fixed magnetic field contributes the most, and the induced magnetic field changes
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 2 of 17

according to the position, course, and azimuth of the submarine under the Earth’s magnetic
field [10]. Therefore, in order to make the submarine magnetically silent, the countermea-
sure system should be installed aboard a submarine to reduce its effect on the Earth’s
magnetic field disruption and makes the submarine virtually undetectable by magnetic
mines or other devices [11]. The system design is mainly aimed at the influence of the
fixed magnetic field [12]. There are two main ways to construct a degaussing system—
deperming stations (so as to temporarily eliminate the magnetization), and degaussing
coils installed onboard to generate an opposing field, which is comparatively more efficient
and, thus, more widely used [13,14]. Precisely speaking, the purpose of degaussing is to
minimize the effect of the submarine’s fixed magnetic field to a level that is undetectable at
different altitudes [15], as shown in Figure 1. So, in the design of degaussing coils, the most
important thing is to decide the optimum degaussing currents and installation positions
individually allotted to degaussing coils [16].

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 1. The submarine’s fixed magnetic field before and after degaussing. (a) The submarine before
degaussing coil installation; (b) Submarine after degaussing coil installation; (c) Submarine’s fixed
magnetic field before degaussing; (d) Submarine’s fixed magnetic field after degaussing.

In order to accurately determine degaussing currents and the installation positions of

degaussing coils, a distributed equivalent model of the submarine is needed. For vessel tar-
gets, high-precision magnetic field models commonly used include uniformly magnetized
rotating ellipsoid array models, uniformly magnetized rotating ellipsoid and magnetic
dipole array hybrid models [17], numerical models based on the three-dimensional finite
element method, etc. [18–20]. In engineering applications, the finite element method has
some problems, such as a large number of calculations and difficulty in obtaining real-time
distributions of spatial magnetic fields. The other models mentioned above are based on
the idea of magnet simulation, which uses magnetic fields generated by magnetic sources
with specific magnetic moments to simulate the magnetic field of vessels [21]. However,
there are also some problems with the magnet simulation method: (1) it is difficult to
obtain magnetic field distribution data of large vessels by means of field measurements;
(2) in order to establish a high-precision magnetic field model, the simulation accuracy is
generally improved by increasing the number of magnetic sources, and the increase in the
number of magnetic sources also increases the amount of computer fitting calculations,
which brings great complexity to the solution of the equivalent equation. In addition,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 3 of 17

for the determination of the direction, magnitude, and distribution of the magnetic mo-
ment in the magnet simulation method, there is no clear and effective method system at
present. The traditional submarine equivalent degaussing coils have to consider vertical,
longitudinal, and athwartship coil installation at the same time [22], resulting in a high
implementation–complexity installation.
To simplify the design of submarine degaussing coils and improve the degaussing
accuracy, a coil design method based on a multi-magnetic dipole simplest-equivalent
model is proposed in this paper. Given the problems existing in the magnet simulation
method, the influence of the number, distribution, and magnetic moment direction of the
equivalent magnetic dipoles on the equivalent effect of the magnetic field distribution on the
measuring plane under different spatial scales was studied, and the basis for establishing
the simplest equivalent model of multiple magnetic dipoles was given. A submarine
model was taken as an example. COMSOL Multiphysics simulation software was used
to evaluate the equivalent effect of the model. COMSOL Multiphysics is a commercial
finite element package that allows users to build complex models simply using a GUI.
Further advantages of COMSOL are its ability to couple different physical effects in the
same model and that it has a large built-in library of meshing tools, numerical solvers,
and post-processing tools [23]. On this basis, the simplest design method of submarine
degaussing coils was proposed. According to the simplest equivalent model of the multi-
magnetic dipole, the design requirements of the coil currents and installation positions
were clearly proposed, which greatly simplified the existing design process of degaussing
coils. Finally, the degaussing effect was verified by COMSOL Multiphysics.

2. Theoretical Basis of the Magnet Simulation Method

From the point of view of the atomic structure of matter, the spin-induced interaction
between electrons in ferromagnetic materials is very strong, and under this interaction,
small spontaneously magnetized regions called magnetic domains are formed in ferro-
magnetic materials [24]. Magnetic domains are small magnetized areas with different
directions in order to reduce magnetostatic energy during the spontaneous magnetization
of ferromagnetic materials. Domain structure is a basic component of the ferromagnet [25].
When the ferromagnet is in the neutral state of original demagnetization, the mag-
netization vector of each domain in the ferromagnet is taken in different directions, so
the magnetism is not displayed externally at the macro level [26,27]. When ferromagnets
are in an external magnetic field, domains with small angles between the direction of
spontaneous magnetization and the direction of the external magnetic field expand with
the increase of the external magnetic field and further shift the direction of magnetization
of the domain towards the direction of the external magnetic field. Some domains with
large angles between spontaneous magnetization and external magnetic field gradually
decrease in volume, and ferromagnetism appears macroscopic. As the external magnetic
field increases, these effects increase until all magnetic domains are saturated along the
external magnetic field. Because the magnetic moments of each unit in each magnetic
domain have been neatly arranged, they have strong macroscopic magnetism [28].
According to the domain theory above, the magnetic induction field distribution of
ferromagnets in magnetized space is formed by the superposition of a series of magnetic
domains in the ferromagnet. The volume shape distribution of the magnetic domain is
closely related to the microscopic properties of the material. For the microstructure magnetic
domain, the magnetic field distribution can be equivalent to that of the magnetic dipole
outside a certain height range. The superimposed magnetic fields of multiple magnetic
domains can be equivalent to magnetic objects with known magnetic field distribution,
which is called the magnet simulation method or equivalent magnetic source method.
For the vessel magnetic induction field, the magnetic field models of magnetic targets are
commonly used, including the rotating ellipsoid model, magnetic dipole array model, and
the hybrid model of the rotating ellipsoid and magnetic dipole array [29].
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 4 of 17

3. Effect of Magnetic Moment Distribution of the Equivalent Magnetic Dipole Array

on an Equivalent Effect
3.1. Definition of the Spatial Scale
In practical engineering applications, compared with the other two models, the mag-
netic dipole array model greatly reduces the computational complexity of the model, and
at the same time, it has good equivalent accuracy when the magnetic field distribution is
equivalent at a long distance. At present, the influence of the number of magnetic dipoles,
the size and direction of the magnetic moment, and the distribution of magnetic dipoles on
the equivalent effect of ferromagnet magnetic field distribution in magnetic dipole array
model has not been systematically studied.
The study and analysis of the equivalent effect of magnetic field distribution of the
ferromagnet is based on the specific measurement plane and the structural size of the
ferromagnet. Therefore, the concept of the spatial scale is proposed in this paper, i.e., the
spatial scale is defined as α = H/L T , where H is the height of the measurement plane and
L T is the maximum structural size of the ferromagnet or magnetic dipole array.

3.2. Determination of the Magnetic Moment Direction for Multi-Magnetic Dipole

Equivalent Model
Submarines and other vessel targets are generally made of high-strength alloy steel,
and their shells are ferromagnetic materials. In the process of processing and manufactur-
ing, repeated changes in residual stress of the material, the rise and fall of temperature, and
the influence of the local geomagnetic field, will cause the formation of non-hysteresis mag-
netization in ferromagnetic materials, which is attributed to the permanent magnetic field
of the target [30]. The formation of the permanent magnetic field is the static magnetization
process of ferromagnetic materials, and the magnetization of internal magnetic domains
mainly includes the displacement magnetization process and the rotational magnetiza-
tion process of magnetic domains. Domain wall displacement magnetization refers to the
spontaneous magnetization direction close to the direction that the external magnetic field
grows (under the action of the external magnetic field); the adjacent domain with a large
deviation from the direction of the spontaneous magnetization direction and the direction
of the external field are correspondingly compressed, so that the position of the domain
wall changes; the process of magnetic domain rotation magnetization is the process in
which all magnetic moments in the magnetic domain rotate uniformly toward the direction
of the external magnetic field under the action of the external magnetic field [31].
Therefore, when using the equivalent model of multiple magnetic dipoles to figure out
the equivalent magnetic field of targets, such as vessels, it can be seen from the magnetic
domain theory that most of the internal magnetic domains will eventually tend to be con-
sistent with the direction of the external magnetic field, i.e., the direction of the equivalent
magnetic dipole moment can be determined in the same arrangement of magnetization
directions as the external field.
By studying the equivalent effect of two magnetic dipoles with different directions
of the magnetic moments to a single magnetic dipole, it can be further confirmed that the
directions of the magnetic moments of the multiple magnetic dipoles must belong to the
same directions. The magnetic induction intensity generated by a single magnetic dipole at
a measuring point in space is
µ0
B= (3(M · r)r − r 2 M) (1)
4πr5
where µ0 is the relative permeability, M is the magnetic moment vector of the magnetic
dipole, and r is the relative position vector of the measuring point to the magnetic dipole.
As shown in Figure 2, the magnetic induction intensity B1 , B2 generated by two magnetic
dipoles M1 , M2 , which is equivalent to the magnetic induction intensity B0 generated by a
single magnetic dipole M0 , should satisfy the vector superposition principle: B0 = B1 + B2 .
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 5 of 17

Figure 2. The equivalent schematic diagram of equivalence between two magnetic dipoles and a
single magnetic dipole.

(1) Considering extreme cases, when the measurement point is far away from the
magnetic source: r0 = r1 = r2 , where there is
µ0
B0 = (3(M0 · r0 )r0 − r02 M0 )
4πr5
µ0
B1 + B2 = (3(M1 · r0 )r0 − r02 M1 + 3(M2 · r0 )r0 − r02 M2 )
4πr5 (2)
µ
= 0 5 (3(M1 · r0 + M2 · r0 )r0 − r02 (M1 + M2 ))
4πr
i.e.,
3(M1 · r0 + M2 · r0 )r0 − r02 (M1 + M2 ) = 3(M0 · r0 )r0 − r02 M0
Therefore,
3((M1 + M2 − M0 ) · r0 )r0 = r02 (M1 + M2 − M0 ) (3)
(
3((M1 + M2 − M0 ) · r0 ) = r02
i.e., condition 1: M1 + M2 = M0 or condition 2: must be
r0 = M1 + M2 − M0
satisfied. From condition 2: 3r02 = r02 , so obviously condition 2 is untenable. Therefore, the
necessary condition for two magnetic dipoles to be equivalent to a single magnetic dipole
is: M1 + M2 = M0 .
(2) We consider two magnetic dipoles with different magnetic moment directions, and
verify that there is no equivalent single magnetic dipole solution under the above magnetic
moment equivalent conditions.
The mean absolute percentage error of the total field value of the magnetic induction
field at each measurement point is defined for the equivalent effect assessment (mean
absolute percentage error, MAPE). Furthermore, we define the equivalent consistency (EC)
as: EC = 1 − MAPE. The equivalent effect satisfies when the equivalent consistency is
higher than 99%.
The equivalent effects of two magnetic dipoles with the same directions and different
directions of the magnetic moment are compared on the measurement plane with a spatial
scale of 3, wherein the equivalent single magnetic dipole position is spatially traversed
close to two magnetic dipoles. As shown in Figure 3, it can be seen that when the magnetic
moment direction is inconsistent, it cannot meet the equivalent consistency of higher than
99%. Meanwhile, when the magnetic moment direction is consistent, it can always search
out the equivalent single magnetic position that satisfies the equivalent effect.
To summarize, when using the equivalent model of multi-magnetic dipoles to carry
out the equivalent magnetic fields of targets, such as vessels, it can be seen from the theory
of magnetization of magnetic domains that most of the internal magnetic domains will
eventually coincide with the direction of the external magnetic field. Furthermore, it is
confirmed by simulation results that the magnetic moment direction of equivalent magnetic
dipoles belongs to the same magnetization direction.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 6 of 17

Figure 3. Equivalent consistency of two magnetic dipoles with the same and different directions of
magnetic moment.

3.3. The Simplest Equivalent Condition of the Magnetic Moment Magnitude and Distribution of
Magnetic Dipoles
The simplest equivalent condition of multi-magnetic dipoles is to find out the equiva-
lent spatial magnetic field distribution of the target ferromagnet with the minimum number
of magnetic dipoles under a specific spatial scale condition.
Firstly, the equivalent condition of two magnetic dipoles equivalent to a single mag-
netic dipole is discussed. As mentioned above, the magnetic moment conditions of two
magnetic dipoles equivalent to a single magnetic dipole are as follows: the direction of the
magnetic moment of two magnetic dipoles is consistent with that of the single magnetic
dipole, and the sum of magnetic moments is equal to that of the single magnetic dipole. The
distribution of the magnetic moment of two magnetic dipoles determines the position of
the equivalent single magnetic dipole. The mean square error of each component between
the superposition magnetic induction field of two magnetic dipoles and the magnetic
induction field of a single magnetic dipole on the measurement line is used to evaluate the
equivalent effect quantitatively. Assuming that the ratio of the magnetic moments of two
magnetic dipoles is M2 /M1 = 3. Magnetic dipoles are located at (−1, 0, 0) m and (1, 0, 0)
m, respectively, and the spatial scale is taken as 10. Then, the measurement line is set as
( x, 0, z), x ∈ (−∞, +∞). The equivalent effects of the three components of the magnetic
induction field are calculated as:
 R +∞ 1 2 2
 Ex = − ∞ ( 5 (3( m1x ( x − x1 ) + m1z z ) · ( x − x1 ) − m1x (( x − x1 ) + z ))+
2 + z2 ) 2



 (( x − x 1 )
1 2 2
5 (3( m2x ( x − x2 ) + m2z z ) · ( x − x2 ) − m2x (( x − x2 ) + z ))−



2 + z2 ) 2



 (( x − x 2 )
1 2 2 2
5 (3( m0x ( x − x0 ) + m0z z ) · ( x − x0 ) − m0x (( x − x0 ) + z ))) dx



2 + z2 ) 2

 (( x − x 0R)
+∞

 m1y m2y m0y 2
Ey = −∞ ( 3 + 3 − 3 ) dx
(( x − x ) 2 + z 2 ) 2 (( x − x ) 2 + z 2 ) 2 (( x − x ) 2 + z 2 ) 2

 R +∞ 1 2 0
1 2 2
Ez = −∞ ( 5 (3( m1x ( x − x1 ) + m1z z ) · z − m1z (( x − x1 ) + z ))+



− 2 + z2 ) 2



 (( x x 1 )
1 2 2
5 (3( m2x ( x − x2 ) + m2z z ) · z − m2z (( x − x2 ) + z ))−



− 2 + z2 ) 2


 (( x x 2 )
1

2 2 2
5 (3( m0x ( x − x0 ) + m0z z ) · z − m0z (( x − x0 ) + z ))) dx



(( x − x0 )2 +z2 ) 2

The relationship between the equivalent single magnetic dipole position and the
equivalent mean square error of the magnetic induction intensity is shown in Figure 4. The
optimal position distribution of the equivalent single magnetic dipole is proportional to
the magnitude distribution of magnetic moments of two magnetic dipoles (the ratio of
magnetic moment is 3:1, and the equivalent error tends to be 0 when the equivalent single
magnetic dipole is located at 3/4 of the connection line).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 7 of 17

Figure 4. The relationship between the position distribution of the equivalent magnetic dipole and
the equivalent error, when the magnetic moment ratio is 3:1.

In order to further determine the distribution law of equivalent single magnetic dipole
position under the condition of different ratios of magnetic moments of two magnetic
dipoles, assume that the ratio of magnetic moment magnitude increases from 0.1 to 10, and
we obtain the equivalent single magnetic dipole position, i.e., the minimum equivalent error
position, as shown in Figure 5. The fitting curve is x0 = ( p − 1)/( p + 1), where p = M2 /M1 .
Thus, the equivalent single magnetic dipole position satisfies the proportional relationship
with the magnitude distribution of the magnetic moments of two magnetic dipoles.

Figure 5. The relationship between the position of the equivalent single magnetic dipole and the ratio
of the magnetic moment of two magnetic dipoles.

3.4. Magnetic Field Distribution Equivalent Consistency of Multiple Magnetic Dipoles with the
Same Magnetic Moment to Single Magnetic Dipole
In order to determine the simplest equivalent effectiveness of two magnetic dipoles
at a specific spatial scale, the equivalent effects of two and three magnetic dipoles to a
single magnetic dipole on the measurement plane are calculated and evaluated at different
spatial scales.

3.4.1. Equivalent Consistency of Two Magnetic Dipoles to a Single Magnetic Dipole

Magnitudes of magnetic moments of two magnetic dipoles are set, respectively, to half
of that of an equivalent single magnetic dipole, and directions of magnetic moments are
consistent with that of the single magnetic dipole. The single magnetic dipole is located in
the middle of two magnetic dipoles. Spatial scales are 0.5, 1, 3, and 4, respectively (i.e., the
measurement height is respectively 0.5, 1, 3, and 4 times the distance between two magnetic
dipoles). The total field distribution generated by two magnetic dipoles and that generated
by the single magnetic dipole are shown in Figure 6.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 8 of 17

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 6. The total magnetic field distributions of two magnetic dipoles and a single magnetic dipole
under different spatial scales (the upper picture shows the total magnetic field distribution of a single
magnetic dipole, and the lower picture shows the total magnetic field distribution of two magnetic
dipoles). (a) Spatial scale is 0.5; (b) Spatial scale is 1; (c) Spatial scale is 3; (d) Spatial scale is 4.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 9 of 17

3.4.2. Equivalent Consistency of Three Magnetic Dipoles to Single Magnetic Dipole

Magnitudes of magnetic moments of three magnetic dipoles are set as 1/3 that of
an equivalent single magnetic dipole, and the directions of the magnetic moments are
consistent with the single magnetic dipole. The single magnetic dipole is located in the dis-
tribution center of three magnetic dipoles and spatial scales are 0.5, 1, 3, and 4, respectively.
The equivalent consistency of 2 and 3 magnetic dipoles under different spatial scales are
shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison of the equivalent consistency of the total magnetic field between two or three
magnetic dipoles and a single magnetic dipole with different spatial scales.

Spatial Scale 0.5 1 3 4

EC of two magnetic dipoles 72.45% 92.61% 99.15% 99.52%
EC of three magnetic dipoles 78.07% 95.11% 99.43% 99.68%

The following conclusions can be drawn from the above results: (1) Under the condi-
tion of large spatial scale, the direction of the magnetic moment should be consistent with
that of the equivalent single magnetic dipole when the distribution of magnetic induction
field of the multiple magnetic dipole array is equivalent to that of a single magnetic dipole;
(2) When two magnetic dipoles are equivalent to a single magnetic dipole, the sum of the
magnetic moments of two magnetic dipoles is equal to the magnetic moment of the single
magnetic dipole. Moreover, the position distribution of the equivalent single magnetic
dipole is affected by magnitudes of magnetic moments of two magnetic dipoles; (3) The
larger the spatial scale, the higher the equivalent consistency. Two magnetic dipoles already
have a satisfying equivalent consistency higher than 99%.

3.5. Simplest Equivalent Conditions of Multi-Magnetic Dipole Arrays

When using the magnet simulation method to perform ferromagnetic equivalence, a
large number of ellipsoids or magnetic dipole arrays are generally used to improve the
equivalent accuracy. From the above simulation results, it can be seen that under relatively
large spatial scale conditions, a smaller number of magnetic dipole arrays have achieved
satisfying equivalent consistency. Therefore, it is necessary to study the simplest equivalent
combination of multiple magnetic dipole arrays under different spatial scales to reduce the
computational complexity. Assuming a uniformly distributed multi-magnetic dipole array
with a magnetic dipole number of 2 N and the spacing between magnetic dipoles is L, the
array line length is (2 N − 1) ∗ L. The measurement height is equivalent to the line length.
The array is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Schematic diagram of the multi-magnetic dipole array.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 10 of 17

Assuming that the number of multiple magnetic dipoles is 4, as shown in Figure 8, the
measurement height H = (4 − 1) ∗ L = 3L meets the required equivalent condition. After
one equivalent into two magnetic dipoles, the maximum distance between the two magnetic
dipoles is 3L. Thus, the measurement height and spacing are equal, and it cannot meet the
equivalent condition. Similarly, it can be seen that the simplest equivalent condition of the
multiple magnetic dipole array under a specific spatial scale condition involves finding
out the number of magnetic dipoles contained in the last equivalent when the multiple
magnetic dipole array cannot meet the condition of continuing the next equivalent.

Figure 8. Layer-by-layer equivalent diagram of the multi-magnetic dipole array.

It can be deduced from the above example that when the spatial scale is 1, the maxi-
mum spacing between magnetic dipoles can be (2 M − 1) ∗ L after equivalent M times. Thus,
the simplest equivalent conditions of multiple magnetic dipole arrays must satisfy both
(2 N − 1) ∗ L ≥ 3 ∗ (2 M − 1) ∗ L and (2 N − 1) ∗ L ≤ 3 ∗ (2 M+1 − 1) ∗ L. M can be obtained
by rounding M = N − 2. Therefore, when the spatial scale is 1, no matter how large N is,
the array’s simplest equivalent model is the four-magnetic dipole array.
To summarize, it can be seen that under the condition of a small spatial scale, the
simplest equivalent conditions for multiple magnetic dipoles are as follows: when the
spatial scale is from 1 to 3, the number of the simplest equivalent magnetic dipoles is 4.
When the spatial scale is from 1/3 to 1, the number of the simplest equivalent magnetic
dipoles is 8. Moreover, the rest can be done in the same manner. The directions of magnetic
moments are consistent with those of the equivalent magnetic dipole moments in the
large spatial scale, and the sum of magnetic moments is equal to that of the equivalent
magnetic dipole.

4. The Spatial Distribution of the Submarine’s Magnetic Induction Field Obtained by

COMSOL Simulation Software
As mentioned above, another problem with the magnet simulation method is that
the magnetic field distribution of large vessels is difficult to obtain by means of onsite
measurements. To solve the problem of the submarine magnetic induction field, COMSOL
Multiphysics AC/DC module is based on the finite element method. By solving the
following basic equations for the static magnetic field and establishing the boundary
conditions using magnetic shielding characteristics and external insulation against the
magnetization field, the spatial distribution of the submarine magnetic induction field
under the known geomagnetic background field can be obtained.
In the region without the current, the basic equation of the static magnetic field is
as follows:
∇ × H = 0 (Maxwell − Ampere Law) (4)
The magnetic scalar potential Vm satisfies the following relationship:

H = ∇Vm (5)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 11 of 17

The constitutive relationship between the magnetic induction and magnetic field
strength is:
B = µ0 µr H (6)
and ∇ × B = 0 (Gauss’s Law of magnetism). The equation for the magnetic scalar potential
can be obtained as:
− ∇ · (µ0 µr ∇Vm ) = 0 (7)
For the submarine magnetic induction field, the background field is known as the
geomagnetic field, then the differential equation to be solved is:

− ∇ · (µ0 µr ∇Vm + Be ) = 0 (8)

where Be is the background geomagnetic field. Taking a large submarine as the research
object, we establish its geometric model. The background geomagnetic field vector, shell
thickness, and material relative permeability are given according to the real situation as
far as possible. The submarine model and its total magnetic field distribution on different
measurement planes are shown in Figures 1 and 9.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 9. Schematic diagram of the spatial distribution of the submarine magnetic induction field.
(a) The spatial scale is 1; (b) The spatial scale is 0.5; (c) The spatial scale is 0.3.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 12 of 17

As can be seen from the COMSOL simulation results, with the decrease of the spatial
scale, the distribution characteristics of the submarine magnetic moment are gradually
prominent. The results are consistent with the above conclusion, indicating that the smaller
the spatial scale, the more magnetic dipoles are needed for the equivalent of the submarine
magnetic induction field.

5. Verification of the Multi-Magnetic Dipole Simplest Equivalent Model of the

Submarine Magnetic Induction Field Distribution by COMSOL
The simplest multi-magnetic dipole equivalent modeling method for ferromagnet in a
specific spatial scale involves the following steps. (1) The magnetic moment vector of the
far-field single magnetic dipole model is solved by using the magnetic induction field data
of the large spatial scale measurement plane. (2) Determine the three-dimensional (length,
width, and height) spatial scale of the ferromagnet by considering the measurement height
and the size of the ferromagnet. (3) According to the simplest equivalent condition of
the multi-magnetic dipoles, the magnitude and distribution of the magnetic moment of
each magnetic dipole are solved by using the data of the magnetic induction field of the
measurement plane.
As shown in Figure 10, for the submarine, a ferromagnet with an incomplete regular
shape, the center point along the long axis is taken as the origin according to its shape
characteristics. Its far-field equivalent magnetic dipole position is assumed as (x0 ,0,z0 ), and
the magnetic moment is assumed as M = (Mx ,My ,Mz ). Thus, according to Equation (1), by
obtaining more than two known magnetic induction field values of measurement points,
the equation set can be established as Equation (9). We use the L–M (Levenberg–Marquardt)
algorithm to solve the above five unknown parameters. The 1stOpt optimization fitting
software is applied for the parameter solution.

Figure 10. Schematic diagram of the relationship between the submarine’s near- and far-field
magnetic dipole model and measurement points.
 µ
0 2 − r2 ) M + 3r r M + 3r r M ) = B

5
((3rix i x ix iy y ix iz z ix
4πr




 µ0 i
2 − r2 ) M + 3r r M + 3r r M ) = B
((3riy
5 i x ix iy y iy iz z iy (9)
 4πr i
 µ0

2 − r2 ) M + 3r r M + 3r r M ) = B

 ((3riz i x ix iz y iy iz z iz
4πri5


where, ri = (rix , riy , riz ) is the displacement vector of each measurement point to the
single magnetic dipole and Bi = ( Bix , Biy , Biz ) is the magnetic induction intensity vector
measured at each measurement point. By solving the COMSOL submarine model, the
magnetic moment vector of the far-field single magnetic dipole is obtained as M = (1.5161 ∗
106 , −3.5530 ∗ 103 , 6.4737 ∗ 103 ) Am2 .
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 13 of 17

The magnetic induction intensity distribution of the submarine model is obtained on

the measurement plane with a spatial scale of 1. Since the other two dimensions of the
submarine are much smaller than the measurement height, the simplest four-magnetic
dipole model is established as shown in Figure 10. The direction of the magnetic moment
of each magnetic dipole is the same as that of the far-field single-magnetic dipole model.
Therefore, the magnetic moment vectors of the four magnetic dipoles must satisfy



 M 1 = p1 M




 M 2 = p2 M

M = p M
3 3
(10)


 M 4 = p4 M




 p1 + p2 + p3 + p4 = 1

p , p , p , p > 0
1 2 3 4

By solving seven independent unknowns, including the magnetic dipole position, the
simplest multi-magnetic dipole model of the submarine can be obtained when the spatial
scale is greater than or equal to 1.
Assuming that the magnetic induction intensity vector at the measurement point Q j ( x j , y j , z j )
on the measurement plane of spatial scale 1 is Bj = ( Bjx , Bjy , Bjz ), the equivalent equa-
tions are established according to the superposition of magnetic vectors as follows, where
rij = (rijx , rijy , rijz ) is the displacement between the measurement point Q j and the ith
magnetic dipole Di .
 µ0
 ∑4i=1 2 − r2 ) M + 3r r M + 3r r M ) = B
((3rijx ij ix ijx ijy iy ijx ijz iz ix
4πrij5





 4 µ0 2 − r2 ) M + 3r r M + 3r r M ) = B
∑ i =1 ((3rijy ij iy ijx ijy ix ijy ijz iz iy (11)
 4πrij5


4 µ0 2 − r2 ) M + 3r r M + 3r r M ) = B
 ∑ i =1 ((3rijz

iz ijx ijz ix ijy ijz iy iz

ij
4πrij5


In order to evaluate the equivalent effect of this simplest multi-magnetic dipole model,
we compare the field data of multiple measurement planes with a spatial scale greater than
or equal to 1 with the calculated data of the model, as shown in Figure 11. Moreover, we
calculate its equivalent consistency under multiple spatial scale conditions, as shown in
Figure 12.
It can be seen that the simplest model of four magnetic dipoles established with the
spatial scale of 1 has a high equivalent consistency when the spatial scale is greater than or
equal to 1, and the equivalent consistency increases with the increase of the spatial scale.

(a) (b)

Figure 11. Cont.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 14 of 17

(c) (d)

Figure 11. Total magnetic field distribution calculated with the simplest multiple magnetic dipole
model and the COMSOL submarine model. (a) The spatial scale is 1 (the simplest multi-magnetic
dipole model); (b) The spatial scale is 1 (the COMSOL submarine model); (c) The spatial scale is 2 (the
simplest multi-magnetic dipole model); (d) The spatial scale is 2 (the COMSOL submarine model).

Figure 12. Equivalent consistency of the simplest multiple magnetic dipole model with multiple
spatial scales.

6. Design and Verification of the Degaussing Coils

Since the traditional degaussing coil design involves coil windings in three direc-
tions, the distributions of the windings and current size calculations are complicated; the
installation is also extremely complicated. Based on the simplest multi-magnetic dipole
model proposed in this paper, the degaussing coil design only needs to calculate the in-
stallation direction of the coil winding, according to the magnetic moment direction of
the multi-magnetic dipole, which greatly simplifies the installation difficulty. In addition,
since the measurement height is generally more than three times the size of the coil, each
degaussing coil can be regarded as a magnetic dipole. According to the coil magnetic
moment formula M = N IS (N denotes the number of winding turns, I denotes the current
size, and S denotes the area vector), the degaussing coil design can be fulfilled simply by
the calculation of the number of winding turns and the current size.
According to the calculation of the above multi-magnetic dipole model, the magnetic
moments of four magnetic dipoles are 0.0774, 0.2953, 0.5196, and 0.1078 times the magnetic
moments of the equivalent single magnetic dipole, respectively, and the installation posi-
tions are −12.97, −44.56, 21.17, and 27.55 m, respectively. The degaussing coils are set in
COMSOL simulation software as shown in Figure 1.
Comparing the magnetic induction intensity of multiple measurement planes be-
fore and after degaussing, as shown in Figures 13 and 14, the following conclusions can
be drawn:
(1) On the measurement plane with a spatial scale greater than or equal to 1, the mag-
netic induction field can be reduced by more than 99% after installing the degaussing coils.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 15 of 17

(2) With the increase of the spatial scale, the degaussing effect becomes more significant,
since the equivalent consistency increases therewith.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 13. The magnetic induction intensity of multiple measurement plans before and after degauss-
ing. (a) The spatial scale is 1 (before degaussing); (b) The spatial scale is 1 (after degaussing); (c) The
spatial scale is 2 (before degaussing); (d) The spatial scale is 2 (after degaussing); (e) The spatial scale
is 3 (before degaussing); (f) The spatial scale is 3 (after degaussing).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 16 of 17

Figure 14. Percentage of the reduced cumulative magnetic induction intensity of multiple measure-
ment planes.

7. Discussions and Conclusions

There are some disadvantages (e.g., a large number of calculations and complex
configurations) of to the degaussing coil system in the methods used for degaussing sub-
marines [22]. The simplest method proposed in this paper only requires the arrangement
of degaussing coils magnetized in one direction, so that the operational difficulty of the
degaussing coil system is reduced. In addition, the simplest multi-magnetic dipole model
can effectively reduce the number of calculations of the equivalent coil current, since the
method largely reduces the equivalent optimization parameters. Furthermore, COMSOL
simulation results verified the equivalent accuracy of the method and the accuracy of the
proposed method is much higher compared with the accuracy of traditional demagnetiza-
tion methods [15,16].
In this paper, by studying the influence of the number, distribution, size, and direction
of the magnetic moments of the magnetic dipoles on the equivalence at different spatial
scales, the simplest equivalent modeling method for multi-magnetic dipoles is systemati-
cally proposed. The magnetic field distribution of the submarine was obtained by COMSOL
Multiphysics simulation software and the modeling method was verified. Furthermore,
given the high installation complexity problem of three-dimensional degaussing coils,
based on the simplest multi-magnetic dipole model, a simplified method for degaussing
the coil design is proposed, and the effectiveness of the degaussing coils was verified
by COMSOL. The method can hopefully improve the deperming efficiency for vessels
in practice.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, resources, review, supervision, and funding acquisition,

Z.Z.; methodology, writing—original draft preparation, data curation, formal analysis, and investiga-
tion, H.J.; validation and software, H.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61871229),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U2141237), Start Project of Huangshan University
Talents (2022xkjq002), and Anhui University Natural Science Research Project (KJ2021A1037).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1495 17 of 17

References
1. Schettini, R.; Corchs, S. Underwater Image Processing: State of the Art of Restoration and Image Enhancement Methods. EURASIP
J. Adv. Signal Process. 2010, 2010, 746052. [CrossRef]
2. Jin, H.H.; Guo, J.; Wang, H.B.; Zhuang, Z.H.; Qin, J.; Wang, T.L. Magnetic Anomaly Detection and Localization Using Orthogonal
Basis of Magnetic Tensor Contraction. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2020, 58, 5944–5954. [CrossRef]
3. Fan, L.M.; Zheng, Q.; Kang, X.Y.; Zhang, X.J.; Kang, C. Baseline optimization for scalar magnetometer array and its application in
magnetic target localization. Chin. Phys. B 2018, 27, 060703. [CrossRef]
4. Deans, C.; Marmugi, L.; Renzoni, F. Active underwater detection with an array of atomic magnetometers. Appl. Opt. 2018, 57,
2346–2351. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Daken, H.H.; Shoukry, M.K. Tension-Bearing Couples (TBC), Part I*: FEM Validation of Proposed Analysis Approach, Approach
Enhancement, Results Comparisons and Evaluation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Aerospace Sciences and
Aviation Technology, Seattle, WA, USA, 24–26 May 2011.
6. Modi, A.; Kazi, F. Magnetic-Signature Prediction for Efficient Degaussing of Naval Vessels. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2020, 56, 1–6.
[CrossRef]
7. Tarr, P.B. Method of Measuring Magnetic Effects due to Eddy Currents. U.S. Patent 4,648,041, 3 March 1987.
8. Varma, R.A.R. Design of Degaussing System and Demonstration of Signature Reduction on Ship Model through Laboratory
Experiments. Phys. Procedia 2014, 54, 174–179. [CrossRef]
9. Modi, A.; Kazi, F. Electromagnetic Signature Reduction of Ferromagnetic Vessels Using Machine Learning Approach. IEEE Trans.
Magn. 2019, 55, 1–6. [CrossRef]
10. Lee, H.Y.; Im, S.H.; Park, G.S. Effects of Electro-Magnetic Properties of Obstacles in Magnetic Resonant Wireless Power Transfer.
Energies 2021, 14, 7469. [CrossRef]
11. Poteete, S. Navy’s N-Layer Magnetic Model with Application to Naval Magnetic Demining. Master’s Thesis, University of
Washington, Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
12. Mahdi, C.I.; Hasril, N.; Nik, H.N.Y.; Abdul, R.A.M.; Roslan, S.; Hambali, A.M. An Overview of Ship Magnetic Signature and
Silencing Technologies. Defence S T Tech. Bull. 2019, 12, 176.
13. Gonjari, V.; Rakshe, T.; Khadse, S. Magnetic silencing of naval ships using ridge regression. Int. J. Res. App. Sci. Eng. Tech. 2017,
5, 756–760.
14. Norgen, M.; He, S. Exact and explicit solution to a class of degaussing problems. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2000, 36, 308–312. [CrossRef]
15. Kim, J.W.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, J.H.; Lee, H.B.; Chung, H.J. Efficient Search Method of Deperming Protocol for Magnetic Silence of
Vessel. J. Magn. 2017, 22, 85–92. [CrossRef]
16. Liu, H.D.; Ma, Z.L. Optimization of Vessel Degaussing System Based on Poly-population Particle Swarm Algorithm. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, Harbin, China, 5–8 August 2007; pp. 3133–3137.
17. Qu, X.H.; Yang, R.J.; Shan, Z.C. Analysis and comparison on magnetic field modeling method of submarine. Ship Sci. Tech. 2011,
33, 7–11.
18. Bruce, M.I. Quadrature rules for brick based finite elements. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 1971, 3, 293.
19. El, O.Y.; Rioux, D.F.; Brunotte, X.; Meunier, G. Finite element modeling of unbounded problems: Use of a geometrical transforma-
tion and comparison with the boundary integral method. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2002, 32, 1401–1404.
20. Brunotte, X.; Meunier, G.; Bongiraud, J.P. Ship magnetizations modelling by the finite element method. IEEE Trans. Magn. 1993,
29, 1970–1975. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, W.; Zhang, G.Y.; Chen, W.T. Submarine math model of magnetic moment separation research based on magnet simulation
method. Ship Sci. Tech. 2011, 33, 42–46.
22. Sarwito, S.; Prananda, J.; Koenhardono, E.S.; Kurniawan, A.W. Study of Calculation of Degaussing System for Reducing Magnetic
Field from Submersible Vehicle. Int. J. Mar. Eng. Innov. Res. 2017, 1, 68–75. [CrossRef]
23. Bulter, S.L.; Sinha, G. Forward modeling of geophysical electromagnetic methods using COMSOL. Comput. Geosci. 2016, 97, 1–10.
24. Fan, J.M.; Zhao, M.C.; Liu, S.L.; Zhu, Z. Summary of ship comprehensive degaussing. J. Phy. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1827, 012014.
[CrossRef]
25. Jamali, M.; Narayanapillai, K.; Hyunk, J.; Yang, H. Detection of domain wall eigenfrequency in infinity-shaped magnetic
nanostructures. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012, 101, 062401. [CrossRef]
26. Ivanova, A.I.; Semenova, E.M.; Zhadanova, O.V.; Rostova, T.V.; Grechishkin, R.M. Colloid-SEM method for the investigation of
magnetic domain structures. Micron 2020, 137, 102899. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Vakhitoy, R.M.; Maksutoya, F.A.; Solonetsky, R.V.; Gareeva, Z.V.; Pyatakov, A.P. Mechanisms of the Electric Field-Induced
Displacement and Transformation of Magnetic Domain Boundaries. Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. Phys. 2020, 84, 536–538. [CrossRef]
28. Yoon, S.G.; Suh, S.J.; Yoon, D.H. The change of the magnetic domain and the magnetism property in rare-earth-substituted garnet
single-crystal films. J. Korean Phys. Soc. 2006, 48, 81–83.
29. Lev, F.; Ben, Z.K. Spherical and spheroidal shells as models in magnetic detection. IEEE Trans. Magn. 1999, 35, 4151–4158.
30. Holmes, J.J. Exploitation of a Ship’s Magnetic Field Signatures; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2006.
31. Halgedah, S.; Fuller, M. The dependence of magnetic domain structure upon magnetization state with emphasis upon nucleation
as a mechanism for pseudo-single-domain behavior. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 1983, 88, 6505–6522. [CrossRef]