Leakage inductance calculation of complex transformer constructions based on a simple two-coil inductor model

Abstract

The paper presents a set of systematic matrices performance, such as operation derived from Kirchhoff's Node Law with the base of a simple two-coil inductor model to deduce leakage conversion efficiency and electromagnetic interference inductances of windings seen from the schematic point of (EMI). In order to understand better the characteristics of view. This method provides a platform in calculating leakage transformer with different kinds of winding construction, a inductances of complex transformer structures. Its robustness simple robust method in a systematic way with accurate covers different kinds of concentric winding structures where estimation of leakage inductance is essential. Here we by getting accurate values of mutual inductances between all propose a method with the general characteristic of a combinations of winding elements in a pair-wise sense, transformer fully determined by a closed-form matrix accurate leakage inductances can be deduced through the without any simulations. Experimental results are provided to matrices operation without any computational simulations. In justify the accuracy of such matrices operations. essence, such operation reduces lots of difficult magnetic problems within a transformer into determination of mutual II. FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMER MODEL IN and self inductances of winding elements through a simple FREQUENCYDOMAIN two-coil inductor model. The approach has been implemented on PowerESIM [5] [6], a web base server type A. Definition of a Winding Element in a transformer power converter design program, for reader to test. A primary or secondary winding shown in the schematic level may consist of several winding portions in a physical transformer. An example is shown in Fig. 1 to demonstrate I.

A Generalized Common-Mode Current Cancelation Approach for Power Converters

“…II. REVIEW OF [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. For example, references [1][2][3][4][5] and references [6][7][8][9][10] discuss the suppression of i CM1 and i CM2 respectively.…”

“…REVIEW OF [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. For example, references [1][2][3][4][5] and references [6][7][8][9][10] discuss the suppression of i CM1 and i CM2 respectively. Although the techniques in [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] can successfully attenuate either i CM1 or i CM2 , they are inefficient to cancel both i CM1 and i CM2 simultaneously.…”

“…For example, references [1][2][3][4][5] and references [6][7][8][9][10] discuss the suppression of i CM1 and i CM2 respectively. Although the techniques in [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] can successfully attenuate either i CM1 or i CM2 , they are inefficient to cancel both i CM1 and i CM2 simultaneously. If i CM2 is much larger than i CM1 , the techniques in [1][2][3][4][5] will be quite limited, as indicated in [1].…”

“…If i CM2 is much larger than i CM1 , the techniques in [1][2][3][4][5] will be quite limited, as indicated in [1]. Similarly, if i CM1 is dominant, the techniques in [6][7][8][9][10] are inefficient. Furthermore, in some cases, i CM1 and i CM2 can cancel each other when they are out of phase, using the techniques which can only attenuate either i CM1 or i CM2 may actually increase the total CM noise.…”