paper: more text
This commit is contained in:
parent
53a9b9f87c
commit
82eaace7fa
1 changed files with 43 additions and 18 deletions
|
|
@ -530,12 +530,12 @@ twisted inductors with winding count $n$ between $1$ and $25$, and twist count r
|
|||
spiral inductor) to $k=37$. All test inductors had an inner diameter of \qty{15}{\milli\meter} and an outer diameter of
|
||||
\qty{35}{\milli\meter}.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Inductance, Q-factor and DC resistance}
|
||||
\subsection{Inductance and DC resistance}
|
||||
|
||||
We measured inductance and Q-factor of each test coupon using a Keysight U1733C LCR meter at \qty{100}{\kilo\hertz}. We
|
||||
measured DC resistance using a Keysight 34465A multimeter in four-wire resistance mode. We further determined the
|
||||
self-resonant frequency of each inductor using a LiteVNA64 handheld vector network analyzer. The results of our
|
||||
measurements are shown in Table\ \ref{tab_inductor_params}.
|
||||
We measured the inductance and DC resistance of each test coupon using a Keysight U1733C LCR meter at
|
||||
\qty{100}{\kilo\hertz} for inductance and a Keysight 34465A multimeter in four-wire configuration for DC resistance. We
|
||||
further determined the self-resonant frequency of each inductor using a LiteVNA64 handheld vector network analyzer. The
|
||||
results of our measurements are shown in Table\ \ref{tab_inductor_params}.
|
||||
|
||||
We found our inductance approximation to be accurate within \qty{10}{\percent} and our ESR approximation to be accurate
|
||||
within \qty{20}{\percent} for inductors with three turns or more. For lower turn-count inductors, inductance
|
||||
|
|
@ -637,10 +637,29 @@ performance parameters.
|
|||
columns result from the solver failing to converge. Bolded values highlight the best performing two-layer coil
|
||||
of each turn count. Shaded rows indicate conventional single-layer ($k=0$) or two-layer ($k=1$) planar
|
||||
inductors.}
|
||||
\label{tab_coupons}
|
||||
\end{table*}
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Inductance and Frequency Behavior of Larger Coils}
|
||||
|
||||
To investigate the high-frequency behavior of twisted inductors further, we produced and measured several additional
|
||||
sample inductors, this time larger than before, and with more turns. The results of these measurements are shown in
|
||||
Table\ \ref{tab_wide_coils}. In these results, we can identify three clear trends. First, the ESR of twisted inductors
|
||||
is generally poorer when compared to two-layer spiral inductors. This increase in ESR is due to the large number of vias
|
||||
used in these sample inductors. It should be noted that while twisted inductors have worse ESR compared to conventional
|
||||
two-layer inductors, their ESR is still better than that of a single-layer inductor.
|
||||
|
||||
Our second observation is that in all cases we tested, twisted inductors outperform conventional inductors in
|
||||
self-resonant frequency by a considerable margin with an increase in SRF of up to \qty{50}{\percent} in our samples.
|
||||
|
||||
Our third observation is that unlike in the smaller inductors from Table\ \ref{tab_coupons}, in these larger instances,
|
||||
twisted inductors show increased inductance by approximately \qty{3.7}{\percent} for our smallest samples, and
|
||||
\qty{6.5}{\percent} for our largest samples. This behavior indicates that large twisted inductors indeed behave like a
|
||||
combination between a conventional planar spiral inductor and a conventional planar toroidal inductor. Comparing the
|
||||
magnitude of this increase with the measurements listed in Table\ \ref{tab_wide_coils} for planar toroidal inductors, we
|
||||
see that this effect exceeds what one would reach by a simple series configuration of both styles of inductor,
|
||||
indicating a contribution from flux linkage.
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{table}
|
||||
\begin{tabular}{cc|cc|ccc|c}
|
||||
$d_1$&
|
||||
|
|
@ -694,11 +713,13 @@ performance parameters.
|
|||
|
||||
\subsection{Coupling and its Sensitivity to Radial Offset}
|
||||
|
||||
The key performance criterion in our application is the voltage ripple that appears on the secondary side of a WPT link
|
||||
when one of the inductors is rotating. To experimentally evaluate the magnitude of this ripple in a realistic scenario
|
||||
across a large set of rotations and relative displacements, we created a test setup consisting of a 3D gantry built from
|
||||
an old 3D printer, with a fourth rotation axis provided by a small servo that allows us to position two inductor test
|
||||
coupons at arbitrary offsets and angles to one another while measuring their coupling.
|
||||
While our accidential findings that twisted inductors improve high-frequency performance are certainly welcome and may
|
||||
benefit many applications, the key performance criterion in our application is the voltage ripple that appears on the
|
||||
secondary side of a WPT link when one of the inductors is rotating. To experimentally evaluate the magnitude of this
|
||||
ripple in a realistic scenario across a large set of rotations and relative displacements, we created a test setup
|
||||
consisting of a 3D gantry built from an old 3D printer, with a fourth rotation axis provided by a small servo that
|
||||
allows us to position two inductor test coupons at arbitrary offsets and angles to one another while measuring their
|
||||
coupling.
|
||||
|
||||
\todo{pics of 3d printer test setup}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -836,14 +857,18 @@ measurements for some of these choices of parameters in a future paper.
|
|||
|
||||
\section{Conclusion}
|
||||
|
||||
In this paper, we introduced a novel layout approach for planar, multi-layer inductors inspired by classic basket-wound
|
||||
inductors used in the early days of radio. Our \emph{twisted} inductors produce field distributions that have better
|
||||
rotational symmetry along the inductor's main axis compared to either simple single-layer spiral inductors or
|
||||
counter-wound two-layer spiral inductors. Furthermore, we found that our sample twisted inductors have slightly higher
|
||||
self-resonant frequency compared to both traditional layouts. We base this evaluation on laboratory measurements on a
|
||||
set of 24 test inductors, which include an automated, four-dimensional mapping of the coupling between a pair of
|
||||
identical inductors. We provide both an analytical description of twisted inductor construction as well as a set of
|
||||
Open-Source tools for their design.
|
||||
In this paper, we introduced a novel layout approach for planar, multi-layer inductors loosely inspired by classic
|
||||
basket-wound inductors used in the early days of radio. Our \emph{twisted} inductors produce field distributions that
|
||||
have better rotational symmetry along the inductor's main axis compared to either simple single-layer spiral inductors
|
||||
or counter-wound two-layer spiral inductors, which yields lower output ripple in our rotating wireless power transfer
|
||||
application, enabling smaller and lighter secondary-side circuitry and improving efficiency.
|
||||
|
||||
Furthermore, besides the advantages twisted inductors show in our particular application, we found that our sample
|
||||
twisted inductors have improved self-resonant frequency, and slightly increased inductance compared to both conventional
|
||||
single-layer and two-layer planar inductors. We base this evaluation on laboratory measurements on a set of 39 sample
|
||||
inductors in total, including an automated, four-dimensional mapping of the coupling between a pair of identical
|
||||
inductors. We provide both an analytical description of twisted inductor construction as well as a set of Open-Source
|
||||
tools for their design.
|
||||
|
||||
\section*{Availability}
|
||||
This is version \texttt{\input{version.tex}\unskip} of this paper, generated on \today.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue