See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260541900

Empirical Verification of a Short-Coil Correction Factor

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · May 2014

DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2013.2281168

CITATIONS READS

20 1,100

4 authors:

Mark Kennedy Shahid Akhtar

Elkem AS Hydro Aluminium
50 PUBLICATIONS   319 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   431 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jon Arne Bakken Ragnhild E. Aune

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norwegian University of Science and Technology
31 PUBLICATIONS   178 CITATIONS    127 PUBLICATIONS   832 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Carbide removal from aluminium Melts View project

Elkem DC casting project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Kennedy on 16 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Empirical Verification of a Short Coil
Correction Factor
Mark W. Kennedy, Member, IEEE, Shahid Akhtar, Jon A. Bakken and
Ragnhild E. Aune, Member, IEEE
Abstract— The magnetic field produced in the air-gap by any
particular 'short coil' at a fixed current is affected by a highly
complex interaction between the coil and work piece geometries,
as well as changes in frequency. A frequency modified semi-
empirical short coil correction factor, based upon the formula
published by Vaughan and Williamson in 1945, is presented and
experimentally verified. This new equation is shown to predict
the total system reactive power and the average magnetic flux at
the surface of the work piece with typical differences of less than
2% at 50 Hz AC and to accurately predict work piece heating
rates typically within 5% for aluminum billets at 50 Hz to 500
kHz AC. The work piece real and reactive powers, as well as
total system reactive power, are compared with both analytic and
2D axial symmetric FEM model solutions as a function of
operating frequencies from 50 Hz to 500 kHz. Measured flux
density is compared to FEM and analytical predictions at 50 Hz.
Index Terms— Coils, Induction heating, Magnetic fields
I. INTRODUCTION
O PTIMAL induction system electrical design including both
the coil and power supply, requires accurate estimates of
the total system impedance, including the equivalent
resistance of the work piece, the total equivalent inductance of
the work-piece/coil [1], and the coil current required to induce
a given power (heating rate) in the work piece. The resonant
frequency for a given capacitor bank or the required
capacitance to achieve a given resonant frequency are
particularly impacted by the total system inductance, which in
turn is strongly influenced by coil/work-piece geometry
including variations in the size of the air-gap between the coil
and work piece.
Manuscript received November 28, 2012. Accepted for publication August
4, 2013. Copyright (c) 2009 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be
obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
M. W. Kennedy was with the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, N-7491, Norway and is now with Proval
Partners SA, 1004 Lausanne, Switzerland. (phone: 47-3814-0435; mobile: 47
9221-9891; e-mail: m.kennedy@provalp.com).
S. Akhtar was with Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU), Trondheim, N-7491, Norway and is now with Norsk Hydro, Håvik,
N-4265, Norway (e-mail: Shahid.Akhtar@hydro.com).
J. A. Bakken and R. E. Aune are with the Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, N-7491, Norway (e-mail:
jabakken@material.ntnu.no and ragnhild.aune@ntnu.no).
1
Analytical models have the potential to calculate the
required electrical parameters with sufficient accuracy,
provided that the equations correctly account for the impact of
system geometry. Many investigators have explored the
analytical solution to the heating of cylindrical work pieces in
helical coils, beginning with the heating of a cylindrical core
by Heaviside [2]. In Northrup’s patent filed in 1924 [3] he
introduced a ‘coupling factor’, C, which describes the
coupling of the magnetic flux inside the coil with the work
piece, i.e.:
2
D 
C   w  0.8 (1)
 Dc 
where C is the coupling factor governing the efficiency of
energy transfer between the coil and the work piece [unitless],
Dw the outer diameter of the work piece and Dc the inner
diameter of the coil, as shown in Fig. 1. Northrup’s equation
accounts for the increase in the magnetic flux density in the
air-gap, caused by the presence of a work piece.
Φw
Φg
Φc
sc
pc dc
Iw Ic
Dw
Dc
δw
tc δw
lc δc
δc
Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of a 10 turn induction coil with a billet slightly
longer than the coil [4]. Dc is the inner diameter of the coil, Dw the outer
diameter of the work piece, Dc - Dw the ‘air-gap’, lc the length of the coil, lw
the length of the work piece, Ic the current in the coil, Iw the current in the
work piece, c the electromagnetic penetration depth in the coil, w the
electromagnetic penetration depth in the work piece, tc the conducting
thickness of the coil, pc the pitch of the coil, dc the width of the coil, sc the
spacing of the coil, and c, g and w are the coil magnetic fluxes linking the
coil, air gap and work piece respectively.
Burch and Davis first suggested the use of the Nagaoka
coefficient (to be described in Section II) for short coils [5] as
a correction factor accounting for the shortness of the work
piece, in their seminal work of 1928 [6]. In 1945 Vaughan and

Williamson [7] presented a useful ‘high frequency’ formula
relating an empirically modified Nagaoka coefficient, which
accounted for the fractional volume of the coil ‘air-core’
occupied by the work piece in a manner similar to (1) and the
resulting impact on the magnetic flux density, i.e. assuming a
constant number of lines of flux forced to occupy a lower
‘air-gap’ annular area, π(Dc2 - Dw2)/4:
 D  2
  D 2
k N*  k N  1   w   w  , (2)
  Dc    Dc 
 
where kN is the Nagaoka coefficient [unitless] and k*N the
modified Nagaoka coefficient. Vaughan and Williamson
validated their formula empirically at 10 kHz with a number
of non-ferromagnetic cylindrical work pieces.
In 1957 Baker [8] introduced an alternate empirical method
of applying short coil correction to induction heating
problems, which has been applied by several researchers over
the intervening years. In 1960 Tudbury published a graphical
“Workpiece Shortness Correction Factor” [9], which has now
been shown to be the square of Vaughan and Williamson’s
1945 equation [4]. In 1974, Lavers et al. [10] proposed
perhaps the last improved analytical method to correct for coil
and work piece dimensions, but the method may have been
too complicated to become widely accepted. Recently, Finite
Element Modeling (FEM) has been used to design induction
systems both for coils [11] and as a step in the design of
power supplies [12].
In the present article, a new more accurate ‘coupling’ or
short coil correction factor will be presented, which is suitable
for use with analytical modeling of cylindrical geometry
induction heating systems at both low and high frequency.
This correction factor has been developed from clear electrical
and magnetic principles. Predictions made using this factor
have been validated via experimental measurements and axial
symmetric FEM models of magnetic fields, induced power in
the work piece and the total reactive power of the coil-work
piece system.
II. MAGNETIC FIELDS OF LONG AND SHORT ‘AIR-CORE’ COILS
Those working in the field of induction heating understand
that the rate of energy transfer from a coil to a work piece or
furnace charge is determined by the magnetic flux density in
the coil ‘air-gap’, and the resulting curl of the magnetic field
intensity inside the work piece. Defining the average magnetic
flux density at the work piece ‘air-gap’ boundary is therefore
critical to accurate estimation of the heating rate.
The magnetic flux density of a very long or infinite ‘air-
core’ coil can be found by applying Ampere’s law to the
empty solenoid. This approach yields the ‘long coil’ formula
for the homogeneous flux density, which has only one vector
component along the long axis of the coil (taken as the z-
direction):
2
0  r N c I c
B  , (3)
lc
where B∞ is the magnitude of the flux density produced by
length lc of a ‘very long’ coil, μ0 the magnetic permeability of
free space, μr the relative magnetic permeability with a
recommended value of ~1.0000 for air, Nc the number of coil
turns, and Ic the coil current.
A ‘short’ coil does not produce the same axial magnetic
flux density as a ‘long’ coil for the same applied current and
the flux density field has both radial and axial components.
The ‘average’ magnitude of the z-component of the magnetic
flux density produced by a short ‘air-core’ coil can be easily
found using the inductance, as this is simply the number of
flux linkages per unit current. In 1879 Lorentz [13] derived
the exact solution for the inductance of a ‘short’ or non-
infinite current sheet solenoid using elliptical integrals of the
first and second kinds. Lorentz’s equation was reformulated
by Nagaoka in 1909 [5] using the ratio of the coil ‘current
sheet’ or average diameter to the length, as a coil ‘shape
factor’, (Dcs/lc), i.e.:
k N 0  r N c 2 Dcs 2
Lc  , (4)
4lc
where Lc is the inductance of a short current sheet inductor, kN
is Nagaoka’s ‘short coil’ correction factor, Nc the number of
coil turns, Dcs the current sheet diameter and lc the length of
the coil. The Nagaoka coefficient can be solved for using
numerical techniques [14] to double precision.
Examination of (3) and (4) leads directly to the axial flux
density (z-direction) of a short coil, i.e.:
k N 0  r N c I c
Bz  . (5)
lc
In 1928 Wheeler [15] suggested an empirical formula for
the calculation of the inductance of single layer solenoidal
short coils with finite conductor thickness, which if
reformulated into SI units becomes the following:
rcs 2 N c 2
L H  , (6)
0.2286rcs  0.254 l c
where LμH is the inductance of a single layer short coil with
finite wire thickness [μH], rcs the equivalent current sheet
radius taken on the centre line of the conductors and lc the
length of the coil taken end-to-end over the stated number of
coil turns. Equation (6) has recently been reformulated by
Knight [16] to directly solve for the Nagaoka short coil factor
for any coil diameter to length ratio, i.e.:
1 , (7)
kN 
 D  c 
1  0.4502  c 
 lc 

where δc is the electromagnetic penetration depth into the coil:
1 most of the coil itself) at high frequency, concentrates the
c  , (8)
o  r c f
where σc is the electrical conductivity of the coil conductors,
μr the relative magnetic permeability with recommended
values of ~1.0000 for copper and aluminum and f the
frequency of the applied coil current. Dc+δc can be assumed
equal to the average coil diameter taken on the center-line of
the conductors at low frequency (i.e. the classical assumption
for the value of Dcs). Low frequency is defined as the
frequency where the electromagnetic penetration depth into
the coil conductor, δc is greater than or equal to the thickness,
tc for square or rectangular conductors or the diameter of the
coil conductor for round conductors, dc.
At high frequency, where δc ≤ tc or dc, it is necessary to
evaluate (4) at the ‘equivalent’ current sheet diameter by
substituting Dc+δc into (4). Induction systems are typically
designed using coils that have a conductor thickness greater
than two times the electromagnetic penetration depth and are
hence usually operated at ‘high frequency’ according to this
definition. The experimental program described in the present
article was conducted under low frequency conditions.
Equation (7) produces minor differences in the third
decimal place when compared to numerical solutions and
errors of less than half of one percent for coils of dimensions
typically used in induction heating. Given that current,
magnetic fields, and heat development are not typically
measured to this level of accuracy, it is concluded that (7) can
be applied to calculations without introducing any significant
error. Based on this, (7) is used throughout this article.
By using (7) it can be shown that it would be required to
have a coil with a shape factor (Dcs / lc) of 0.122 to have 95%
of the long coil magnetic flux density, and 0.048 to have 98%.
For typical induction coils with a shape factor of 1/1, the
magnetic flux density in the empty ‘air-core’ coil is less than
70% of the value produced by a long or infinite coil. Equation
(5) must therefore be used to accurately predict the ‘air-core’
flux densities of induction coils under most circumstances.
III. MAGNETIC FIELDS OF LONG AND SHORT COILS
CONTAINING A WORK PIECE
When a high electrical conductivity work piece is inserted
into an ‘air-core’ coil, currents are induced in the work piece.
According to Lenz’s law or the conservation of energy, the
induced current acts in a direction to oppose the magnetic
field produced by the coil. This has the effect of producing an
exponential decay in the magnetic field intensity with each
electromagnetic penetration depth (at a sufficiently high
frequency, where Dw > ~7δw [17]) in the volume occupied by
the work piece. At high frequency this acts to exclude the
applied field from most of the volume of the work piece. The
electromagnetic penetration depth in the work piece, δw is
defined as in (8), where σw is the electrical conductivity of the
work piece and σr has a recommended value of ~1.0000 for
aluminum alloys.
3
The exclusion of the coil’s magnetic field from most of the
area occupied by the work piece (and in a similar fashion from
lines of flux into the reduced area of the air-gap, resulting in
an increased flux density as can be predicted with (2).
Equation (2) assumes that the total lines of flux produced by a
given coil at a fixed current are not changed by the reduction
in coil area (e.g. due to the increased internal magnetic
reluctance). This factor assumes negligible penetration of the
magnetic field into both the work piece and the coil in a
manner similar to Northrup’s (1). Equation (2) can be directly
compared to the square root of (1), as will be shown later. For
complete coil ‘filling’, i.e. Dw = Dc, (2) becomes precisely
equal to 1 (rather than 0.8½ or ~0.95 from Northrup’s
equation). For an empty coil, (2) reduces to the Nagaoka
coefficient. Equation (2) assumes a uniform cylindrical shape,
but similar equations can be derived for alternate uniform
shapes. Volumetric corrections can also be found for shapes
with non-uniform vertical profiles.
Vaughan and Williamson’s assumption of negligible
electromagnetic penetration into both the coil and the work
piece is reasonable for high frequency operation with large
coils and work pieces. The present author’s postulated that at
low frequencies, (2) could be improved using frequency
correction as indicated below:
  D   2
  D   2
k N*  k N 1   w w   w  . (9)
w
  Dc   c    Dc   c 
 
Equation (9) is a semi-empirical one dimensional correction
factor, to correct for the two dimensional variation in the
magnetic flux density of a short coil, i.e. radial and axial
variation. At low frequency where there is significant
electromagnetic penetration into both the coil and the work
piece, the magnetic flux lines are not completely excluded
from the work piece or the coil, and the assumptions inherent
in (1) and (2) are not valid. Due to this, (9) assumes instead
that the total flux lines that would be predicted using (5) for
an empty coil at a fixed current, are concentrated in an
equivalent air-gap accounting for the penetration of the lines
of flux into both the coil and the work piece, i.e. (Dc + δc) -
(Dw - δw), resulting in a lower estimate of the air-gap flux
density than would be obtained using (2). Applying (9) with
(5) allows for the prediction of the average magnetic flux
density in the ‘effective’ air-gap, and to obtain a better
estimate of both the work piece heating rate, the overall
system inductance, and the reactive power.
Empirical verification is required to determine the accuracy
of (9) as a function of frequency (or electromagnetic
penetration depth), as well as coil and work piece dimensions
for the prediction of (i) work piece heating rate (real power),
(ii) total system reactive power, and (iii) the average air-gap
magnetic flux density. Empirical verification has been
conducted using non-ferromagnetic work pieces of various
aluminum alloys.
 4

IV. INDUCED REAL AND REACTIVE POWER IN THE WORK PIECE
The Poynting vector [18] gives the energy flux at the
surface of the work piece [W/m2], i.e.:
  
S  Es  H s .
The real power, Pw, and the reactive power, Qw, induced in
the work piece, can both be derived starting from (10):
Pw   Dw l Re  Es H z  ,
2(bei '  w ber w - bei w ber '  w )
and  ( w )  , (18)
ber 2 ( w )  bei 2 ( w )
where ber, ber’, bei and bei’ are the real and imaginary parts
(10) of the modified zero order Kelvin Bessel functions and their
derivatives, the solutions to which can be found using
numerical solvers [14] or look-up tables [19]. The solutions to
(17) and (18) have been plotted in Fig. 2 as a function of the
dimensionless reference depth ξw.
(11) 1.2 100

1 90
and Qw   Dw l Im  Es H z  , (12)

Electric Field Es and Surface

Phase Shift Between Suface

Magnetic Field Hz , Degrees

φ(ξw ), ψ(ξw ), unitless
0.8 80

where l is the length of the coil or the work piece whichever is

0.6 70
shorter, Es the complex RMS magnitude of the electric field φ(ξw) ψ(ξw) Phase shift
in the phi-direction (polar direction about the long axis of the 0.4 60

coil and work piece) at the surface, and Hz the RMS

0.2 50
magnitude of the magnetic field intensity in the z-direction
also taken at the surface of the work piece, i.e.: 0 40
0 2 4 6 8 10
ξ w , unitless
Bz
Hz  . (13) Fig. 2. Solutions for φ(ξw), ψ(ξw) and the phase shift between the electric and
0 r magnetic fields at the surface of the work piece as a function of ξw.

Close examination of (14) and (15) reveals that k*N2 is in fact

Provided the phase angle of the induced current in the work
an alternate type of ‘coupling factor’, C, as originally
piece is referenced to the phase of the magnetic flux density at
conceived by Northrup [3] and shown in (1). As frequency
the surface, Bz and Hz can be assumed to have only a real
increases, both φ(ξw) and ψ(ξw) will asymptotically approach
component, which greatly simplifies the resulting derivations.
values of 1, as shown in Fig. 2. Accurate ‘high frequency’
Following the derivation of Heaviside [2] for the heating of a approximations for (15) [4] and (16) can be made, at values of
core in a solenoidal coil using Lord Kelvin’s modified Bessel ξw>5 (with <1% error), when Dw φ(ξw) ≈ (Dw - δw) and ψ(ξw) is
functions, and substituting (13) into (11) and (12) yields: essentially a constant value of 1. Where the high frequency
approximation is valid, both the real and reactive power in the
2
 k* I N  1 work piece, show a f variation with frequency.
Pw   2 l  N c c   w ( w ) , (14)
 lc   w
V. TOTAL REACTIVE POWER OF THE COIL, THE AIR-GAP,
2 AND THE WORK PIECE
 k* I N  1
and Qw   2 l  N c c   w  ( w ) , (15) The total reactive power of the system, Qtotal, is produced by
 lc   w three types of flux linkages as shown in Fig. 1, i.e. (i) flux
within the windings of the coil, Фc, (ii) flux in the air-gap
where again l is a reference length, which is that of the coil or linking all of the turns of the coil, Фg, and (iii) flux linking the
of the work piece, whichever is shorter. The negative sign in work piece and all the turns of the coil, Фw:
(14) and (15) appears in the derivation due to the opposing
direction of the induced current and implies that the energy
Qtotal  Qc  Qg  Qw  I c2 X total  I c2 2 fLtotal (19)
flows are into the work piece. ξw is a type of dimensionless
reference depth found in many locations in induction
literature: where Qc is the reactive power produced by flux inside the
turns of the coil, Qg the reactive power produced by the flux
Dw between the coil and the work piece, Qw the reactive power
w  , (16) produced by flux linking the work piece with the turns of the
w 2 coil and given by (15), Xtotal the total reactance of the coil and
work piece, and Ltotal the total coil-work piece inductance,
and φ(ξw) and ψ(ξw) are defined by: which can be experimentally measured.
For a rectangular or square wire, Qc can be found using a
2(ber w ber’ w  bei w bei’ w ) modified version of (15) of a form similar to that
  w   , (17)
recommended by Baker [8] for high frequencies (δc ≤ tc), i.e.:
ber 2 ( w )  bei 2 ( w )

 Dc  c  k N* I c N c 
2
Qc  . (20)
lc c
Baker did not use the ‘short coil’ correction factor k*N.
Alternatively, in a manner similar to that suggested by Stansel
[20] using kN, or Vaughan and Williamson [7] without kN:
I c2 2 f k N* 0  r Ac N c2
Qc  I c2 2 fL*coil  , (21)
lc
where L*coil is the inductance due to the flux within the turns
of the coil itself in the presence of a work piece, and Ac is the
effective area occupied by both the coil turns and the coil flux
given by:
  Dc   c   Dc2 
2
Ac   . (22)
4 When the diameter of the work piece, Dw is zero, k*N becomes
Equation (20) does not include the correction factor (18) for
the phase angle between the magnetic and electric fields in the
coil, which is simply assumed to be 1. The electromagnetic
penetration depth in (20) is also assumed to be much smaller
than the coil conductor thickness or the diameter (δc<<tc or
dc). Equation (20) must therefore be acknowledged as being
only an approximation.
The area used with (21) is not defined except using the
empirical equation (22), making (21) also semi-empirical.
With some manipulation it can be shown that (20) and (21)-
(22), differ only by a factor of k*N, provided that Dc>>δc and
δc ≤ tc. If k*N is taken equal to 1.0, then (20) and (21) are
equivalent at ‘high frequency’.
At very high frequency, where δc<<tc, the coil reactive
power Qc can be safely assumed to be negligible. Relatively
large discrepancies in Qc at high frequency, therefore have
little impact on Qtotal. At low frequency (δc ≥ tc), Qc is not
negligible. Equations (21) and (22) then give more reasonable
results than (20), and (21) will therefore be used in the
calculations presented in the results and discussion sections of
the present work. When δc ≥ tc, tc should be substituted for δc
in (22). For round tubing dc should be used instead of tc.
A new equation is required to determine the reactive power
associated with the flux in the air-gap of the coil, Qg:
Qg  I c 2 2 f Lg , (23)
where Lg is the inductance of the air gap, and:
D 2 D 2  k N*
Lg  (Lc  Lcoil )  c 2 w  , (24)
 Dc  kN
where Lc is the inductance of the empty ‘air-core’ coil and
which can be found using (4) or (6), or measured
experimentally and Lcoil the inductance due to the flux within
the turns of the coil itself in the absence of a work piece. The
use of calculated values based on (4) or (6), may result in a
5
small additional error, which will be quantified in the
experimental section. As stated previously, where δc ≤ tc or dc,
it is necessary to evaluate (4) at the ‘equivalent current sheet
diameter’ by substituting Dc+δc into (4).
It must be noted that for an ‘air-core’ coil, Lc is the sum of
the ‘air-gap’ inductance, Lg, and the inductance of the coil,
Lcoil. It can be seen that when the work piece diameter, Dw is
equal to zero, (24) reduces to:
Lc  Lg  Lcoil . (25)
The inductance of the coil L*coil in the presence of a work
piece can be found from (21) and (22), i.e.:
k N* 0 r N c2   Dc   c   Dc 
 2 2
L*
coil  . (26)
lc 4
equal to kN, and (26) can then also be used to calculate Lcoil.
VI. EXPERIMENTAL
An experimental program was conducted to determine the
accuracy of (9) for work pieces and coils of three different
diameters, two different lengths, and two different electrical
conductivities. Data for the coils and work pieces are
summarized in Tables I and II and a representative picture is
shown in Fig. 3.
The impact of the reduced air-gap on the magnetic flux
density was measured directly using Hall Effect probes, the
heating rates of the work pieces were determined by calorific
measurements using the water cooled work pieces. The total
reactive power of the system (coil and work piece) was
measured electrically. A schematic of the experimental
apparatus is shown in Fig. 4, providing construction details.
Power was supplied by a 45 kVA 50 Hz transformer, which
delivered a sinusoidal current with minimal harmonics (as
observed using a power quality analyzer). Power
measurements (V, kA, kW, kVA, kVAr and power factor)
were taken using a power quality analyzer from Fluke, USA
(Fluke 43B), with a power measurement resolution of
0.1 kW. Coil current measurements were made with an
inductive current probe from Fluke, USA (i1000S), with an
accuracy of ±1% and a resolution of 1 A.
Measurements of the magnetic flux density were taken
using a Pacific Scientific OECO, USA (F.W. Bell model 6010
Gauss meter). Standardized axial Hall probes, with a
measuring error of < ±1% for AC magnetic fields were used.
Work piece IACS electrical conductivities were measured
using a General Electric Inspection Technologies, UK
(AutoSigma 3000) conductivity analyzer to within ±0.5%.
100% IACS conductivity is equivalent to 58 MS/m [21].
Work pieces were insulated to minimize heat losses, using
ultra-low thermal conductivity ceramic wool blankets, as
shown in Fig. 4. Imbedded type K thermocouples (±1.5 K)
provided reference temperatures to calculate the aluminum
 6

electrical conductivity at elevated temperature for use in the
analytical and FEM estimations. New equations to estimate
the electrical conductivity of aluminum alloys as a function of
temperature, based on a single representative room
temperature reading, have been developed and presented
elsewhere [23].
temperature at 0.1 oC resolution, such that the precision error
in the delta-temperature was in the order of ±0.05 oC,
compared to a typical measured ΔT of 2 to 5 oC. The water
flow rate was determined using data logged gain-in-weight
and time. The total weight difference, over the period of each
power reading, was then used to calculate the average flow,
which proved to have an error of <0.1%.

Fig. 3. Experimental work pieces taken from left to right, #1 to #3, and the 32
turn ’long’ induction coil #4 (132 mm average diameter, 218 mm long, and
(Dc+δc) / lc = 0.60). See Tables I and II for more details.

TABLE I
WORK PIECE DIMENSIONS AND
EXPERIMENTALCOMBINATIONS WITH COILS
(COIL #1 WITH WORK-PIECE #1 IS SHOWN AS “1-1” ETC).

Work Pieces 1 2 3
Alloy A356 6060 6060
Diameter, mm 75.0 95.0 95.0 Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the water-cooled and highly insulated billet
Length, mm 130.0 130.0 260.0 heating apparatus.
Measured IACS Electrical Conductivity at 293 K, % 48.4 56.2 53.4
Penetration depth δw (mm) at 50 Hz and 293 K from (8) 13.43 12.47 12.79 VII. SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
ξ w from (16) 3.948 5.388 5.252
φ (ξ w ) from (17) 0.8244 0.8640 0.8607 Eleven separate experiments and duplicates, were executed
Ψ(ξ w ) from (18) 1.0109 1.0044 1.0044 using a ‘high-low’ experimental design (22 sets of data).
Coil 1 1-1 1-2 Duplicates are indicated by A’s and B’s in the detailed
Coil 2 2-1 2-2
Coil 3 3-1 3-2
experimental data summarized in the Appendix Tables I-III.
Coil 4 4-3 Calorific heating results are presented in Fig. 5, and
compared with the results of the 2D axial symmetric FEM
TABLE II model (the validation of which is described in detail elsewhere
EXPERIMENTAL COILS [23, 24]), and the analytical solution using (7), (9) and (14).
Short Short Short Long Detailed results are given in Appendix Tables I-II.
Coils Coil Coil Coil Coil
1 2 3 4
Total measured system reactive power is plotted in Fig. 6
Average Diameter, mm 132 142 155 132 and compared with the results of predictions from (15), (21),
Height, mm 106 109 108 218
Diameter to Height ratio 1.24 1.30 1.44 0.60 and (23) and (24). See Appendix Tables I-III for details.
Number of Turns 16 16 16 32 Measurements were also taken of the z-component of the
Short Coil Correction Factor k N from (5) 0.641 0.630 0.607 0.786
Electrically Determined IACS Conductivity, % 80 80 80 80 magnetic flux density of both ‘air-core’ coils and coils with
Penetration depth δ c (mm) from (8) at 50 Hz and 293 K 10.45 10.45 10.45 10.45 work pieces, in order to verify the FEM models and determine
Total Length of Leads, cm 66 24 20 58
if the magnetic fields behaved in accordance with (9).
Coil Resistance at Maximum Current Including Leads, Ω 0.01047 0.01051 0.01157 0.02086
Coil Inductance, μH 26.38 29.08 33.39 61.93
All experimental results have been rendered dimensionless
Coil Inductance calculated using (4) and (7), μH 26.48 29.43 34.18 63.05 (and unaffected by minor experimental current variations) by
Coil Inductance calculated using (4) and (7) and *, μH 25.49 28.40 33.05 61.09 dividing by (3). Representative results from ‘short’ Coil #1 are
*
Modified Nagaoka Coefficient k N for Work Piece 1 from
Equation (9)
0.720 0.700 0.669 presented in Fig. 7 for the ‘air-core’ case on the centerline,
*
Modified Nagaoka Coefficient k N for Work Piece 2 from and at a number of different radii. Experimental data are
0.783 0.755 0.718
Equation (9)
*
compared against the analytical Biot-Savart solution evaluated
Modified Nagaoka Coefficient k N for Work Piece 3 from
Equation (9)
0.870 at discrete intervals, and the FEM model on the centerline. At
* Using Rosa’s round wire correction formula [22]. the other radii, experimental results (shown by discrete
symbols) are compared to FEM results, which are drawn using
Water temperatures were measured using Type K green lines. Duplicate results are provided to show
thermocouples ‘matched’ to give identical readings at room experimental reproducibility.
 7

2250
Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
In Fig. 8, the magnetic flux density measurements for Coil
#1 at 40.5 mm radius are shown, with and without Work-
Heating Rate (Power), W

1750 Piece #1. Results are compared to FEM model predictions,

the analytically calculated ‘air-core’ Nagaoka coefficient kN
1250 using (7), and the modified coefficient k*N using (9).

0.8
750 k * N = 0.72

Dimensionless Flux Density, Bz,r / B∞

0.75

250 0.7
1-1 1-1 1-2 1-2 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-2 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 4-3 4-3 4-3 4-3 k N = 0.64
0.65
Coil-Work Piece
Calorific FEM Equation (14)
0.6

0.55
Fig. 5. Measured calorific heating rate (power) comparison with 1D estimates,
0.5
using the frequency modified short coil correction factor (9) and analytical FEM 40.5 air-core 40.5 air-core
heating predictions of (14), and 2D axial symmetric FEM. Coil #1 with Work- 0.45
FEM 40.5 WP #1 40.5 WP #1
Piece #1 is shown as “1-1” etc.
0.4
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
11
Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Dimensionless Coil Length, x
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10
Fig. 8. Dimensionless flux density (z-component) as a function of the
Reactive Power, kVAr

9
dimensionless coil length for ‘short’ Coil #1 with ‘air-core’, and with Work-
8 Piece #1. Obtained values are compare with measured and FEM results at 40.5
7 mm radius with and without Work-Piece #1 [23].

6
VIII. DISCUSSION
5

4
Differences between the calorifically measured work piece
3
heating rate and the value calculated using (9) and (14) are
1-1 1-1 1-2 1-2 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-2 2-2 2-2 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 4-3 4-3 4-3 4-3 shown in Fig. 5 to be from <1% for Coil #4 with Work-Piece
Coil-Work Piece
#3 to <10% for Coil #2 with Work-Piece #2, with a typical
Experimental Equations (15), (21), (23) with (24) difference of ~5% for all coils and work pieces. The
magnitudes of the differences in the work piece power depend
Fig. 6. Measured reactive power comparison with 1D analytical equations on the work piece and on the coil geometries, as would be
(15), (21) and, (23) with (24). Coil #1 with Work-Piece #1 is shown as “1-1”
etc. expected when using a 1D semi-empirical correction factor,
such as the modified Nagaoka coefficient (9). The longer Coil
0.8 #4 and larger diameter Work-Pieces #2 and #3, yielded lower
0.75 differences, i.e. errors were minimized as the modified
Dimensionless flux density, Bz,r / B∞

k N = 0.64
0.7
Nagaoka coefficient approached a value of 1, as would also be
expected from an empirical correction factor. Further analysis
0.65
on work piece heating has been presented elsewhere [25].
0.6 The measured total coil/air-gap/work-piece reactive power
0.55 is compared with the sum of the analytical predictions found
0.5
using (15), (21), as well as (23) and (24) in Fig. 6. Results
indicate minor differences in the total from 0.4 % to 1.4%,
0.45
with a typical difference of ~0.8%. The break down of the
0.4 components of the total reactive power, and detailed
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless coil length, x
experimental data, can be found in Appendix Table III. The
measured coil ‘air-core’ inductances were used to calculate
the air-gap values given in Appendix Table III, using (23) and
FEM Center-Line FEM 40.5
(24), as this procedure gave the minimum error. Using the
FEM 50.5 FEM 59
Center-Line Center-Line duplicate
theoretical inductance values predicted by (4) and (7) would
40.5 duplicate add ~1.5% to the differences.
40.5
50.5 Coil #1 Biot-Savart Law (Dcs/lc)=1.24 The overall agreement in the total system reactive power
59 must be attributed to the accuracy, with which the modified
short coil correction factor estimates the average flux density
Fig. 7. Dimensionless flux density (z-component) as a function of
dimensionless coil length and radial position [mm] for ‘air-core’ Coil #1. of a coil containing a work piece. Given the predominance of
Obtained values are compare with measured, analytical and FEM results [23]. the coil and the air-gap contributions to the total system
reactive power, i.e. ~87% of the total, it would be assumed
 8

from (21) to (26) that k*N has an error of < ±1.4% (i.e. the internal cooling area available in the water cooled aluminum
largest error indicated in Appendix Table III). billets, it would not have been possible to adequately cool the
It is not possible to directly determine the accuracy of the work pieces at higher frequency. Virtual ‘experiments’ were
estimates of the individual components of the reactive power therefore conducted to compare model predictions made using
presented in Appendix Table III, i.e. Qc, Qg and Qw, from the the analytical model, with those made by 2D axial symmetric
experimental data. As Qg represents ~75% of the total modeling as a function of operating frequency.
inductance in these experiments, the low overall difference of Equations (4) and (7) have been used to predict both the
<1%, shown in Appendix Table III, implies that Qg has been low and high frequency inductances of the coils. This gives a
estimated to similar accuracy using the measured ‘air-core’ pure model vs. model comparison. Equation (4) has been
inductance values, (24) and (25). Examination of the evaluated at the ‘equivalent current sheet diameter’ at low
similarity of (14) and (15), would suggest that if the real frequency, i.e. Dc+dc, and at high frequency, i.e. Dc+δc.
The analytical and FEM model reactive power predictions
power of the work piece, Pw, can successfully be modeled by
are compared in Tables III and IV for the short Coil #1 with
the use of (14), that (15) should provide an estimate of the
Work-Piece #1, and for the long Coil #4 with Work-Piece #3.
work piece reactive power, Qw, of similar accuracy, i.e. ~1-
Experimental data for 50 Hz is presented for reference.
10% error.
In Fig. 7 the results of the ‘air-core’ axial flux density TABLE III
measurements for Coil #1 are compared with results of both ‘SHORT’ COIL #1, WORK-PIECE #1, AND CONDITION #1
the 2D axial symmetric FEM model, and the results of the (1001.0 A, COIL CONDUCTIVITY 4.3*107 S/m)
FEM
Biot-Savart law on the coil centerline, indicating the expected Reactive
radial and axial variation in the magnetic flux density. All Electrical Analytical Electrical- Power for Analytical-
measured magnetic flux densities were taken with a 6 mm Reactive Reactive Analytical round FEM
diameter probe and the results have therefore been plotted Frequency Power Power Difference wire Difference
(Hz) (VAr) (VAr) (%) (VAr) (%)
allowing for the average 3mm offset. Agreement between the 10 N/A 1.53E+03 1.54E+03 0.8
analytical, FEM and measured values in Fig. 7 is in the order 20 N/A 2.99E+03 2.95E+03 1.4
of ±1-2%. This is however, not the case near the ends of the 35 N/A 5.06E+03 4.91E+03 3.0
50 7.20E+03 7.12E+03 1.09 6.83E+03 4.1
coil, where the non-axial symmetry becomes most apparent, or 500 N/A 6.50E+04 6.22E+04 4.2
near to the coil tubing, where local variations caused by the 5000 N/A 6.10E+05 5.82E+05 4.5
round conductors (and any stacking imperfections) can be 50000 N/A 5.97E+06 5.63E+06 5.6
observed. FEM results for the outermost measurable radius 500000 N/A 5.93E+07 5.56E+07 6.2
Average: 3.7
clearly show that the coil does not behave like a perfect
‘current sheet’, and the local flux density variations caused by TABLE IV
the round tubing can be seen. An extremely tight mesh was ‘LONG’ COIL #4, WORK-PIECE #3, AND CONDITION #11
used to ensure high accuracy during both low and high (892.6 A, COIL CONDUCTIVITY 4.1*107 S/m)
frequency simulations [24]. FEM
Reactive
The close agreement of the FEM predictions with the Biot- Electrical Analytical Electrical- Power for Analytical-
Savart law and measured values, gives strong validation to the Reactive Reactive Analytical round FEM
2D axial symmetric modeling technique used. The details and Frequency Power Power Difference wire Difference
development of the FEM model are discussed elsewhere [23, (Hz) (VAr) (VAr) (%) (VAr) (%)
50 1.05E+04 1.06E+04 1.22 1.01E+04 4.5
24]. All calculations have been performed using the 500 N/A 8.67E+04 8.50E+04 2.0
commercial code of COMSOL® 4.2. 5000 N/A 7.63E+05 7.57E+05 0.7
The Nagaoka coefficient (0.64) is plotted in Fig. 7 for 50000 N/A 7.29E+06 7.23E+06 0.8
reference, and is fortuitously equal to the average of the 500000 N/A 7.18E+07 7.10E+07 1.1
Average: 1.8
measured values for the ‘air-core’ coil.
In Fig. 8 the 2D axial symmetric FEM model results are
The portion of the total reactive power contributed by the
compared with the measurements for Coil #1 with and without
Work-Piece #1, showing a 10% increase in flux density with coil and work pieces falls from ~10% at 50 Hz, to ~1% each
the presence of the work piece. The Nagaoka ‘short coil’ at 50 kHz. At high frequency the contributions of both coil
correction factor from (7), and the modified Nagaoka ‘short and work piece therefore become negligible, and the total
coil’ correction factor from (9) are indicated (0.64 and 0.72 reactive power becomes linear with frequency as predicted by
respectively, or a 12.5% increase). Differences of 0.9-3.6% (23). Errors in either coil or work piece reactive power
are observed comparing the discretely measured experimental estimates are then of little consequence.
values to the equivalent FEM results, with a typical difference Examination of Tables III and IV at either 50 kHz or 500
of 2.0%. kHz, gives an indication of the error in the magnetic field
estimation using (9) relatively independent of errors in the coil
IX. COMPARISON OF ANALYTICAL AND FEM REACTIVE and work piece fluxes. From Table III, one would expect an
POWER MODEL PREDICTIONS VS. FREQUENCY error in the order of 6% for the ‘short’ Coil #1, and from
Heating efficiency increases with frequency for a given Table IV an error in the order of 1% for the ‘long’ Coil #4.
work piece, as shown previous in Fig. 2. With the small The excellent agreement for the ‘long coil’ is not surprising as

it is more ‘ideal’ than the ‘short coil’, with a correction factor
closer to unity and a more homogenous magnetic field in both
the axial and radial directions.
Comparisons of real power as a function of frequency
calculated using (14), and using the 2D FEM model, were
previously published for conditions identical to Tables III and
IV [25]. The results showed typical differences of 4.3% and
0.8% respectively, and are in good agreement with the
reactive power calculations presented here.
CONCLUSIONS
The present investigation has shown that (i) the magnetic
field produced by a ‘short’ induction coil is lower in
magnitude than one would expect from the use of a ‘long coil’
formula such as (3), and (ii) that the magnetic field is strongly
influenced by the presence of a work piece and the size of the
air-gap. The improved ‘short coil’ correction factor (9), has
been proposed and experimentally validated at 50 Hz, for
application to axial symmetric induction heating. Good
agreement was achieved between measured reactive power,
and analytical model estimates at 50 Hz (typically <1%
difference).
Analytical and 2D axial symmetric FEM model reactive
power estimates were in good to acceptable agreement at
frequencies from 50 Hz to 500 kHz, with ‘typical’ differences
of less than 4% for the ‘short coil’, and 2% for the ‘long coil’,
over the entire range of frequencies.
The use of (9) reduces the magnitude of the errors in
heating and reactive power estimations for the work pieces
from a factor of two in comparison with making a ‘long coil’
assumption, i.e. assuming k*N = 1.0 for a ‘short coil’, to a
‘typical’ 5% error. This also represents a significant
improvement over results obtained using Vaughan and
Williamson’s original equation (2) at low frequency, which
gives a typical error of ~15% at 50 Hz for the cases
summarized in Appendix Table II.
The improved ‘short coil’ correction factor can be used to
estimate the average z-component of the magnetic flux density
of a ‘short coil’ containing a work piece, with an error of
<1%, based on the observed errors in the reactive power at 50
Hz.
Model estimates from high frequency imply errors of up to
about 6% for a ‘short coil’ with a relatively large air-gap (Coil
#1 and Work-Piece #1) when also predicting rather than
measuring the high frequency ‘air-core’ inductances.
The improved accuracy of (9) should allow for more
accurate design of axially symmetric heating systems, e.g.
billets and cylindrical furnaces, and metal flow control
systems, e.g. mold – ElectroMagnetic Stirring (EMS) in
continuous casting of steel, in the absence of FEM
simulations.
It is hoped that the 1D empirical correction factor proposed
in the present work, i.e. equation (9), will lead to the
development of more exact 2D correction factors, or to a
proper theoretically derived correction factor for use with high
precision analytical modeling.
9
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The present study was carried out as part of the RIRA
(Remelting and Inclusion Refining of Aluminium) project
funded by the Norwegian Research Council (NRC) - BIP
Project No. 179947/I40. The industrial partners involved in
the project are: Hydro Aluminium AS, SAPA Heat Transfer
AB, Alcoa Norway ANS, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (NTNU) and SINTEF Materials and
Chemistry. The funding granted by the industrial partners and
the NRC is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] O. Lucia, J. M. Burdío, I. Millán, J. Acero, and D. Puyal, "Load-
Adaptive Control Algorithm of Half-Bridge Series Resonant Inverter
for Domestic Induction Heating," Industrial Electronics, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 56, pp. 3106-3116, 2009.
[2] O. Heaviside, Electrical Papers Volume 1., London: Macmillan & Co.,
pp. 353-416, 1892.
[3] E.F. Northrup, "High-Frequency Induction Furnace," US patent
1,694,792, 1928.
[4] M. W. Kennedy, S. Akhtar, J. A. Bakken, and R. E. Aune, "Review of
Classical Design Methods as Applied to Aluminum Billet Heating with
Induction Coils," EPD Congress 2011, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,
2011, pp. 707-722.
[5] H. Nagaoka, "The inductance coefficients of solenoids," Journal of the
College of Science, vol. 27, pp. 18-33, 1909.
[6] C. Burch and N. Davis, An Introduction to the Theory of Eddy-Current
Heating, London: E. Benn Limited, 1928.
[7] J. Vaughan and J. Williamson, "Design of Induction-Heating Coils for
Cylindrical Nonmagnetic Loads," Transactions of the American
Institute of Electrical Engineers, vol. 64, pp. 587-592, 1945.
[8] R. Baker, "Design and calculation of induction heating coils'," AIEE
Trans, vol. 57, pp. 31-40, 1957.
[9] C. Tudbury, Basics of Induction Heating Volume 1., New York: John F.
Rider, 1960.
[10] J. Lavers and P. Biringer, "An Improved Method of Calculating the
Power Generated in an Inductively Heated Load," IEEE Transactions
on Industry Applications, pp. 273-278, 1974.
[11] A. Boadi, Y. Tsuchida, T. Todaka, and M. Enokizono, "Designing of
Suitable Construction of High-Frequency Induction Heating Coil by
Using Finite-Element Method," Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on, vol.
41, pp. 4048-4050, 2005.
[12] C. Carretero, O. Lucia, J. Acero, and J. Burdio, "Computational
Modeling of Two Partly-Coupled Coils Supplied by a Double Half-
Bridge Resonant Inverter for Induction Heating Appliances," Industrial
Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 10.1109/TIE.2012.2202360, pp. 1-
15, [Online] 4 June 2012.
[13] L. Lorenz, "Ueber die Fortpflanzung der Electricität," Annalen der
Physik, vol. 243, pp. 161-193, 1879.
[14] R. Weaver. http://electronbunker.ca/DL/NumericalExamples01.ods
[Online], 23 March, 2013.
[15] H. Wheeler, "Simple Inductance Formulas for Radio Coils,"
Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 16, pp. 1398-1400, 1928.
[16] D. Knight, "Part 1: Solenoid inductance calculation", October, 2012,
http://www.g3ynh.info/zdocs/magnetics/Solenoids.pdf, [Online], 23
March, 2013.
 10

[17] E. J. Davies, Conduction and Induction Heating. London: Peter APPENDIX TABLE II
SUMMARY OF WORK PIECE HEATING DATA COLLECTED
Peregrinus on behalf of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, pp. 95-
97, 1990. Average Work Work Work Work
Average Aluminum Piece Piece Piece Piece
[18] J. H. Poynting, "On the Transfer of Energy in the Electromagnetic Water Cp Delta T Aluminum Electrical Power Power Power Power
Field," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. Flow Water Water Temperature Conductivity Calorific FEM Equation (9) Equation (2)
Condition (g/s) (J/g/K) (K) (K) (MS/m) (W) (W) (W) (W)
175, pp. 343-361, 1884. 1-A 76.1 4.1942 1.99 310.2 26.62 636 623 659 732
[19] N. McLachlan, Bessel Functions for Engineers, Gloucestershire: 1-B 75.8 4.1941 1.99 310.3 26.62 634 623 659 732
2-A 76.7 4.1938 3.03 325.6 29.09 975 976 1035 1167
Clarendon Press, 1955, pp. 215 - 230. 2-B 70.8 4.1937 3.21 324.4 29.21 954 970 1029 1161
[20] N. Stansel, "Induction Heating - Selection of Frequency," American 3-A 68.9 4.1684 1.89 309.2 26.70 544 537 571 629
3-B 69.7 4.1685 1.87 309.1 26.72 543 536 570 627
Institute of Electrical Engineers, Transactions of the, vol. 63, pp. 755- 4-A 23.2 4.1709 5.53 336.6 24.65 536 541 576 637
759, 1944. 4-B 22.6 4.1710 5.66 337.4 24.59 534 542 577 638
5-A 36.4 4.1707 5.36 340.8 27.69 813 840 888 994
[21] Copper Wire Tables Circular No. 31: US Bureau of Standards, 1913. 5-B 35.9 4.1707 5.42 340.9 27.69 811 840 888 994
6-A 68.8 4.1691 2.78 321.2 29.43 798 825 873 974
[22] E. B. Rosa and F. Grover, "Formulas and Tables for the Calculation of
6-B 69.4 4.1691 2.75 321.0 29.46 795 824 872 974
Mutual and Self Induction," Scientific Papers of the Bureau of 7-A 30.8 4.1936 3.19 317.7 26.02 411 399 432 473
7-B 30.6 4.1936 3.17 317.7 26.03 407 398 431 472
Standards, vol. No. 169, pp. 5-231, 1916.
8-A 29.4 4.1930 4.20 327.2 25.31 518 508 549 602
[23] M. W. Kennedy, S. Akhtar, J. A. Bakken, and R. E. Aune, "Analytical 8-B 29.1 4.1931 4.25 327.6 25.28 520 508 549 602
9-A 75.2 4.1946 2.04 310.5 30.63 642 618 658 729
and FEM Modeling of Aluminum Billet Induction Heating with 9-B 75.2 4.1947 2.04 310.4 30.64 643 617 657 728
Experimental Verification,",Light Metals 2012, Hoboken: John Wiley 10-A 75.2 4.1930 5.98 323.8 27.95 1884 1888 1911 2042
10-B 75.0 4.1931 6.03 323.8 27.95 1894 1881 1903 2034
& Sons, 2012, pp. 269-275. 11-A 74.0 4.1943 2.40 299.6 30.29 746 713 721 769
[24] M. W. Kennedy, S. Akhtar, J. A. Bakken, and R. E. Aune, “Analytical 11-B 73.8 4.1943 2.37 299.4 30.31 736 713 722 770
Average Difference from Calorific Results: 2.3 5.4 15.6
and Experimental Validation of Electromagnetic Simulations Using
COMSOL®, re Inductance, Induction Heating and Magnetic Fields,”
COMSOL Conference 2011 - Proceedings CD, Burlington, MA: APPENDIX TABLE III
COMSOL, pp. 1-9, 2011. COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND
CALCULATED REACTIVE POWER
[25] M. W. Kennedy, S. Akhtar, J. A. Bakken, and R. E. Aune, "Improved
Air Work Total
Short Coil Corection Factor for the Induction Heating of Billets," 3rd Total Coil Gap Piece Calculated Absolute
International Symposium on High-Temperature Metallurgical Measured Reactive Reactive Reactive Reactive Difference
Reactive Power Power Power Power Measured-
Processing, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2012, pp. 373-382. Power Eq. (21) Eq.'s (23) and (24) Eq. (15) Equation (19) Calculated
Condition (kVAr) (VAr) (VAr) (VAr) (VAr) (%)
1-A 7.20 0.83 5.45 0.82 7.10 1.35
APPENDIX TABLE I 1-B 7.20 0.83 5.45 0.82 7.10 1.40
DETAILED EXPERIMENTAL DATA 2-A 6.34 0.95 4.14 1.21 6.31 0.51
2-B 6.30 0.95 4.12 1.21 6.28 0.36
Average Average 3-A 7.70 0.80 6.12 0.71 7.63 0.95
3-B 7.63 0.80 6.10 0.71 7.61 0.29
Total Average Total Average 4-A 7.60 0.79 6.00 0.73 7.52 1.07
Work Average Average Apparent Total Reactive Measured 4-B 7.60 0.79 6.01 0.73 7.52 1.01
5-A 6.90 0.90 5.03 1.05 6.97 1.02
Coil Piece Current Voltage Power Power Power Power
5-B 6.90 0.90 5.03 1.05 6.97 1.02
Condition (#) (#) (A) (V) (kVA) (kW) (kVAr) Factor 6-A 6.90 0.90 5.05 1.02 6.98 1.16
6-B 6.90 0.90 5.05 1.02 6.98 1.16
1-A 1 1 1001.3 13.25 13.30 11.13 7.20 0.84
7-A 7.38 0.69 6.10 0.54 7.32 0.81
1-B 1 1 1001.0 13.25 13.30 11.10 7.20 0.84 7-B 7.30 0.69 6.08 0.53 7.30 0.06
2-A 1 2 1028.0 13.30 13.71 12.16 6.34 0.89 8-A 9.30 0.87 7.69 0.69 9.24 0.66
8-B 9.30 0.87 7.68 0.69 9.24 0.70
2-B 1 2 1025.4 13.25 13.60 12.03 6.30 0.89 9-A 7.10 0.80 5.61 0.77 7.18 1.12
3-A 2 1 973.3 13.36 13.00 10.50 7.70 0.81 9-B 7.10 0.80 5.60 0.77 7.17 0.96
10-A 10.50 1.56 6.66 2.25 10.47 0.28
3-B 2 1 972.3 13.35 13.00 10.50 7.63 0.81
10-B 10.45 1.55 6.63 2.24 10.43 0.19
4-A 2 1 965.2 13.29 12.82 10.40 7.60 0.81 11-A 4.03 0.61 2.60 0.85 4.05 0.66
4-B 2 1 965.5 13.30 12.85 10.38 7.60 0.81 11-B 4.00 0.61 2.60 0.85 4.05 1.37
Average 7.35 0.88 5.49 0.96 7.34 0.82
5-A 2 2 992.0 13.32 13.20 11.30 6.90 0.85 Fraction of total reactive power: 12.0 74.7 13.1
5-B 2 2 992.0 13.31 13.20 11.30 6.90 0.85
6-A 2 2 994.0 13.30 13.23 11.30 6.90 0.85 In the appendix the data are presented by ‘Conditions’ where
6-B 2 2 994.0 13.29 13.20 11.30 6.90 0.85
A and B are replicates of each experimental data set. “1-A”
7-A 3 1 876.0 13.42 11.77 9.20 7.38 0.78
and “1-B” are therefore replicates of Condition #1, etc. Coil
7-B 3 1 874.3 13.40 11.70 9.18 7.30 0.78
8-A 3 1 983.6 15.24 15.00 11.80 9.30 0.79
numbers and work piece numbers for each Condition are only
8-B 3 1 983.4 15.25 15.00 11.80 9.30 0.79 given in Appendix Table I.
9-A 3 2 909.5 13.54 12.30 10.10 7.10 0.82
9-B 3 2 908.8 13.52 12.30 10.10 7.10 0.82
10-A 4 3 893.5 24.10 21.53 18.80 10.50 0.87
10-B 4 3 891.8 24.05 21.45 18.75 10.45 0.87
11-A 4 3 557.8 14.12 7.90 6.80 4.03 0.86
11-B 4 3 558.0 14.12 7.90 6.80 4.00 0.86

View publication stats