0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm experimenting with compensation topologies for inductive WPT systems and have a small confusion. The general WPT industry uses compensation networks to cancel out reactive components in the transmit and reciever side and therefore improve efficiency.

What I noticed is that the industry mostly uses Series-Series or Series-Paralell compensation topology.
I did some experiments and it doesnt add up.

So here is the picture for Series-Series topology: enter image description here

And Series-Non compensated: enter image description here

In the pictured we see the frequency response at node north of R1 and C2 (or transformer in non compensated mode).

In Series-Series topology we see that the gain at resonance is around 4 dB, but in Series-non compensated at resonance the gain is 9 dB.

Why is it so?

And if somebody has some literature to share on the topologies, feel free to share!

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you have access to ieeexplore, this paper would be a good reference. \$\endgroup\$ – Pojj Nov 29 '18 at 15:20
1
\$\begingroup\$

The trick you are missing here is the coupling factor.

At reasonable levels of coupling (and that means down to maybe k = 0.2), the two tuned circuits (primary and secondary) de-tune (or de-resonate) each other and you get a smaller level of power transfer. As coupling reduces below circa 0.1 you get the two resonant circuits behaving more like separate tuned circuits and you can gain a benefit compared to just primary tuning.

Try altering k to a lower value and make the comparison: -

enter image description here

So, with a coupling of 0.1, I see a nice peak and decent throughput (16 dB voltage gain). As coupling gets larger the throughput falls. I guess it's non-intuitive but there are things about coupled tuned circuits that aren't immediately obvious.

If you modeled coil resistance into the picture, you would reach a small coupling value where the throughput would begin to rapidly fall-away. With perfect coils and capacitors this doesn't happen!

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ About the detuning: Did some simulations, it really is non-intuitive. So in an experiment it would be that the most effiecient power transfer wouldn't be at the smallest distance between coils, but at some distance where the coupling coefficient would be at a value where the voltage/current gain would be highest. Right? \$\endgroup\$ – Raitis Bērziņš Nov 29 '18 at 7:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ For any gap there is always an optimum tuning position that will maximize throughput. But, don't proceed without simulating the real losses in the coils because it will side-step you from reality. There's nothing inefficient about low power transfer until you introduce lossy components. Without the lossy components, power-in still equals power-out because there is no loss only voltage amplification or attenuation. \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka Nov 29 '18 at 8:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.