IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 42, NO.

9, SEPTEMBER 2006

2159

A Comparison of Single-Layer Coaxial Coil Mutual Inductance Calculations Using Finite-Element and Tabulated Methods
Thomas G. Engel and Stacy N. Rohe
Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211 USA Exelon Nuclear, Byron Generating Station, IL 61109 USA
Quick and accurate methods to calculate the mutual inductance of coaxial single layer coils remains important to this day in a large variety of engineering and physical disciplines. While modern nite-element electromagnetic eld codes can do this accurately, the engineer often requires only a rst- or second-order estimate before proceeding to the numerical analysis stage. Grovers tabular data, developed in the rst half of the 20th century, remains the standard for manually calculating mutual inductance for a wide variety of coil and wire forms. This investigation reports the accuracy of mutual inductance calculations for single-layer coaxial coils based on Grovers tables when compared to estimates obtained with a nite-element electromagnetic eld code (FEEFC). Since it is impractical to construct and characterize the numerous coils needed for this type of investigation, the FEEFC results are treated as actual inductance measurements. Grover reported his tabular data to be accurate within ve signicant digits excluding the cases when the coils are loosely coupled and when the coils are short. This investigation found Grovers tabular method to be inaccurate for loosely coupled and short coils, but also found that signicant error for closely coupled coils as well. The maximum error between Grovers tabular method and the FEEFC results is 9.8%. Knowing the error associated with Grovers method and the coil geometry for which the error occurs is an important aid for the engineer and scientist. Index TermsCoils, error analysis, induction measurement, modeling.

I. INTRODUCTION

UICK and accurate mutual inductance calculations of coaxial single-layer coils remains essential in many elds of engineering and science despite the advent of the digital computer [1][9]. While digital computers running modern codes can accurately calculate mutual inductance, the coil geometry must rst be programmed into the code and is often more time consuming than the calculation itself. In addition, the engineer often desires only a rst- or second-order estimate of the mutual inductance. The majority of work done in the area of inductance calculations occurred in the rst half of the 20th century. Starting with Neumanns formulation, Nagaoka, Olshausen, and Terezawa derived absolute formulas for the general case and Kirchhoff and Cohen for the concentric case [10]. Generally, these formulas involved elliptical integrals of the rst kind given by [11] (1) is the elliptic integral of the rst kind, is the where modulus and equal to with , and is the amplitude. Since closed form analytic solutions of elliptical integrals do not exist, series solutions were typically used to evaluate the elliptic integral prior to the invention of the digital computer. In 1933, Grover introduced a set of three standard tables and a single formula that allowed one to calculate the mutual inductance of a wide variety of coil geometries with high accuracy and without the use of a digital computer [10]. Grover

Fig. 1.

Geometry for the mutual inductance of two coaxial single-layer coils.

Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TMAG.2006.880687

used Clems series solution in combination with other seriesform solutions to obtain the high degree of accuracy for the elliptic integral values [12]. The error associated with Grovers tables is reportedly 10 to 10 , the higher error occurring when the coils are short or are loosely coupled [13]. When the coils are loosely coupled, a situation is created where the terms in Grovers formula nearly cancel making it difcult to obtain a high degree of accuracy. Grovers tables are widely used to manually calculate the mutual inductance of coaxial single-layer coils. Computer codes using Neumanns formulation, electromagnetic eld codes, or mathematical analysis software are more commonly used today when a high degree of accuracy is required. As for hand, or manual calculations, the accuracy of Grovers tabular method is unknown. Anecdotal evidence suggests errors as high as 40% and more. There are no comparative analyses of Grovers method in the open literature. One investigator found a more accurate method to evaluate the elliptic integral [13] of

0018-9464/$20.00 2006 IEEE

2160

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 42, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2006

Fig. 2. Percentage error for equal length coils.

Neumanns formulation and compared this result to Grovers tabular method but did not comprehensively examine the parameter space. Given the importance and common usage of Grovers tabular method in such elds as pulse power, electric machinery, and electromagnetic compatibility, a comparative analysis is needed. This investigation summarizes a thesis on this topic [14] and reports the accuracy of Grovers mutual inductance calculation when compared to results obtained with nite-element electromagnetic eld code (i.e., FEEFC) software. The FEEFC results in this investigation are used as a substitute for physical inductance measurements. Constructing and accurately characterizing the large number of coils needed for this type of investigation would be impractical, if not impossible. This investigation shows that Grovers claim of accuracy within ve signicant digits is not correct. With equal length concentric coils, the accuracy is three signicant digits. Any separation of the coils causes the accuracy to drop to 2 signicant digits. With unequal length coils, Grovers tabular data is signicant to 4 digits only. The accuracy of Grovers method decreases as the coil separation distance increases and also as the radii ratio increases with the largest error being 10%. Overall, the error is less for unequal length coils than for equal length coils. II. THEORY AND MODELING A. Grovers Tabular Method To nd the mutual inductance of two coaxial single-layer coils, Grover started with the geometry of Fig. 1. In that gure, and are the radial lengths, and are the axial lengths. The thickness of the coils is innitesimally small. The mutual inductance is given by the sum of four elliptic integrals which are functions of the four distances measured between the coils. With reference to Fig. 1, these four distances are given as

TABLE I COIL PARAMETER RANGES

where is the axial length of coil 1, is the axial length of coil 2, and is the separation of the two coil centers. It is to be noted that all dimensions in (2) are given in centimeters. Depending on , the coils could be partially inside, completely inside, or completely outside each other. Four corresponding diagonal distances can be calculated from (2) as

(3) where is the smaller coil 1 radius and is the larger coil 2 radius. The mutual inductance of coaxial single-layer coils is given by Grovers general formula as (4) is the mutual inductance given in is the coil 1 where winding density, and is the coil 2 winding density. The variables in (4) are the elliptic integral values and are given in Grovers tables according to the two look-up constants (5) and

(2)

(6)

ENGEL AND ROHE: COMPARISON OF SINGLE-LAYER COAXIAL COIL MUTUAL INDUCTANCE CALCULATIONS

2161

TABLE II COMPARISON BETWEEN GROVERS EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS AND THE FEEFC RESULTS

MatLab mathematical analysis software [15] was used to calculate Grovers mutual inductance in (4) over the coil parameter ranges listed in Table I. Two coil parameter ranges are listed in Table I. The rst parameter range was used for all analyses. The second coil parameter range is a subset of the rst range. With Grovers tables stored in Matlab, the look-up constants of (5) values. If the and (6) were calculated and used to nd the value needed interpolation, double interpolation was used. B. Finite-Element Electromagnetic Field Code Method Strictly speaking, experimental verication of Grovers tabular method requires the construction of a large number of coils with closely controlled tolerances. Stringent controls would have to be used to in order to accurately characterize the coils since any deviation in winding density or coil length could affect the measurements. Obviously, constructing such a large number of coils and accurately characterizing them is very impractical, if not impossible, and probably explains why an investigation of this nature has not been attempted before. A more practical method would be to use FEEFC software, treating the results obtained as experimentally measured values. There is a general consensus amongst users that well-known commercially available FEEFC software is accurate. The FEEFC software used in this investigation is MagNet by Infolytica [16]. The FEEFC solution assumes a two-dimensional (2-D) rotationally symmetric geometry and is solved using a magnetic vector potential formulation. Once the coil and winding parameter information is entered into the FEEFC, MagNet creates a 2-D rotationally symmetric construct of the two coils and an air space to enclose them. The air space boundary locates the innitely distant point in space where the electromagnetic eld is zero and serves to limit the extent of the computational domain. In the numerical model, the air box length is 300 times the larger coil length with a height 75 times the larger coil radius. The MagNet solution consists of stored energy, force, ux linkage, power loss, and current for each coil. The mutual inductance is solved using (7) is the mutual inductance, is the total ux linkage where in coil 1 due to ux produced by in coil 2 and is the total ux linkage in coil 2 due to ux produced by in coil 1. Total

ux linkage is the sum of the ux linkage for each coil turn. In this investigation, the turn-to-turn spacing is zero, while the coil thickness is 0.01 cm, in accordance with Grovers use of innitesimally thin current sheets. Further reductions in the coil thickness had no detectable affect on the FEEFC results. The stranded type of coil is used in MagNet to keep the current and coil turns separate. To achieve high accuracy in the FEEFC results, the h-adaptation in MagNet (i.e., nite-element grid) is set to rene 25% of the elements to a tolerance of 0.01%. The convergence tolerance for the FEEFC solution is 0.01% with a second-degree polynomial t. III. RESULTS Example calculations contained in Grovers published reports [10], [12] are generally accepted as accurate and are, therefore, used as to verify the accuracy of the FEEFC results. Table II shows the error between Grovers example calculations and the FEEFC results. The smallest error in this comparison is 0.01% occurring when coil 1 is 4 cm long, coil 2 is 50 cm long, and the separation between the coil centers is 0 cm while largest error is 1.07% occurring when coil 1 is 10 cm long, coil 2 is 6 cm long, and the separation between the coil centers is 18 cm. While 1% error is acceptable for manual calculations, one would expect a lower error value given Grovers statement of agreement to within 5 signicant digits. The next part of the experimental results consists of comparing Grovers and FEEFC results over a wide range of coil geometries. The coil geometries include those of practical interest such as equal radii, very different radii, equal lengths, different lengths, and very short coils. This analysis is performed by xing the coil lengths, turn densities, and radius of the larger coil while sweeping the separation distance and the radii ratio . It is noted that the smaller coil radius is affected by changes in . The results of this analysis can be seen in Figs. 3 and 4, which show the error between Grovers method and the FEEFC method to be %. In general and for all the all cases considered in this investigation, the error increases as increases, i.e., as the small coil radius approaches the large coil radius, which appears to contradict Grovers statement that error in his tabular data is largest for poorly coupled coils.

2162

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 42, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2006

Fig. 3. Percentage error for equal length coils for large .

Fig. 4.

Percentage error for unequal length coils.

Figs. 2 and 3 show the error between the Grovers method and the FEEFC method when the coil lengths are equal. In those gures, the error is very small for . As increases , the above 0.6 the error becomes larger, then when error increases even more and is greater than 5%. The maximum cm and error in Fig. 2 is 9.8% occurring when . The minimum error in Fig. 2 is 0.00095% occurring when cm and . One of the most remarkable trends in Fig. 3 is a signicant decrease in the error to 1% or less for and . Fig. 3 is an enlarged portion of the Fig. 4 data when and . Fig. 4 data illustrates the error between Grovers method and the FEEFC method when the coil lengths are not equal. For , there is approximately 0.2% or less error between the two methods. The majority of the error occurs for and for , again contradictory to Grovers claims. The minimum error in the data of Fig. 4 is 0.00171% when and while the maximum error is 5.7% and . when The results show that the claim of Grover that his tables are accurate to four or ve signicant digits does not appear to be correct. With equal length concentric coils, the accuracy is

three signicant digits. Any separation of the coils causes the accuracy to drop to 2 signicant digits. With unequal length coils, Grovers tabular data is signicant to 4 digits only when and . Otherwise, the accuracy decreases to only 1 digit. The loss in accuracy occurs when the four values are nearly equal, thereby canceling each other. From a geometric viewpoint, this investigation did nd agreement with Grovers claim that higher error is associated with very short or are loosely coupled coils. IV. CONCLUSION Mutual inductance calculations comparing Grovers tabular data method and an FEEFC method are performed. The majority of the results do not agree with the four to ve signicant digit accuracy reported by Grover. The results show the accuracy of Grovers method decreases as the coil separation distance increases and also as the radii ratio increases with the largest error being 10%. Overall, the error is less for unequal length coils than for equal length coils. While Grovers tabular method was not as accurate as claimed in comparison to calculations done with FEEFC, the tabular method remains an important and accurate means to

ENGEL AND ROHE: COMPARISON OF SINGLE-LAYER COAXIAL COIL MUTUAL INDUCTANCE CALCULATIONS

2163

manually calculate mutual inductance. The exact cause for the larger than expected error in Grovers tabular data is unknown, but [13] speculates the error is caused by the use of less-than-optimal series solution for the elliptic integrals. Future investigations should explore the use of other seriesform solutions that can potentially increase the accuracy of elliptic integral evaluation, as is done in [13], or compare Grovers tabular method directly to Neumanns formulation in the hopes of more accurate tabular data. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was supported by the Air Force Ofce of Scientic Research under Contract F49620-03-1-0350. REFERENCES
[1] S. Lee et al., Reduced modeling of eddy current-driven electromechanical system using conductor segmentation and circuit parameters extracted by FEA, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 14481451, May 2005. [2] O. A. Mohammed et al., High frequency PM synchronous motor model determined by FEA analysis, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 12911294, Apr. 2006. [3] S. I. Babic and C. Akyel, New analytical-numerical solutions for the mutual inductance of two coaxial circular coils with rectangular cross section in air, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 16611669, Jun. 2006. [4] D. Ban et al., Turbogenerator end-winding leakage inductance calculation using a 3-D analytical approach based on the solution of Neumann integrals, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 98105, Mar. 2005.

[5] K. Agarwal et al., Modeling and analysis of crosstalk noise in coupled RLC networks, IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Des. Integr. Circuits Syst., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 892901, May 2006. [6] T. Tera et al., Performances of bearingless and sensorless induction motor drive based on mutual inductances and rotor displacements estimation, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 187194, Feb. 2006. [7] S. Yu et al., Loop-based inductance extraction and modeling for multiconductor on-chip interconnects, IEEE Trans. Electron. Devices, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 135145, Jan. 2006. [8] S. Wang et al., Improvement of EMI lter performance with parasitic coupling cancellation, IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 12211228, Sep. 2005. [9] T. M. Zeeff et al., Traces in proximity to gaps in return planes, IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 388392, May 2005. [10] F. W. Grover, Tables for calculation of the mutual inductance of any two coaxial single layer coils, in Proc. IRE, vol. 21, 1933, pp. 10391049. [11] M. L. Boas, Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences. New York: Wiley, 1983, pp. 474479. [12] F. Grover, Inductance Calculations; Working Formulas and Tables.. New York: Van Nostrand, 1946. [13] T. H. Fawzi and P. E. Burke, The accurate computation of self and mutual inductances of circular coils, IEEE Trans Power App. Syst., vol. PAS-97, no. 2, pp. 464468, 1978. [14] S. N. Rohe, Investigation of the accuracy of Grovers method when solving for the mutual inductance of two single-layer coaxial coils, M.S. thesis, Univ. Missouri-Columbia, Dec. 2005. [15] MatLab, ver. 7 student. The MathWorks, Inc., 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760-2098. [16] MagNet, ver. 6.20. Infolytica Corporation, P.O. Box 1144, Station Place du Parc, Montreal, QC H2W 2P4, Canada.

Manuscript received March 21, 2006; revised June 27, 2006. Corresponding author: T. Engel (e-mail: engelt@missouri.edu).