394 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 3, NO.

3, JULY 2022

A Versatile Unified Model for Inductive Power

Transfer (IPT) Systems
Weihao Dong , Udaya K. Madawala, Fellow, IEEE, and Craig A. Baguley , Member, IEEE

Abstract—Efficient and cost-effective inductive power transfer

(IPT) systems essentially require reactive power compensation
networks. To select and design compensation networks best suited
to meet the specific requirements of any particular application,
the modeling and investigation of each type of compensation are
required. Traditional approaches using separate models for each
compensation type are repetitive and inefficient. Therefore, this
article proposes a novel unified model for IPT systems that can be
easily adapted to investigate the suitability of any type of compen-
sation network. It is applicable to the design of uni-, or bidirectional
IPT systems. Its utility is apparent from the ease with which it can
be used to evaluate key performance indicators of IPT systems that
are affected by compensation network design. The proposed unified
model is benchmarked against experimental results from already
published work, highlighting its benefits and verifying its accuracy.
Index Terms—Compensation network, inductive power transfer
(IPT), unified model, wireless power transfer (WPT).
I. INTRODUCTION
IRELESS power transfer (WPT) systems based on in-
W ductive power transfer (IPT) technology are now used
in many applications requiring electrical power transfer from a
supply to a load without the need for physical contacts. Examples
illustrating the range of IPT applications include transcutaneous
power transfer in Watts for the supply of energy to implanted
medical devices [1], to ship to shore power transfer in MW
for electric ferry battery charging [2]. Common to all IPT
applications is the need to achieve high levels of efficiency and
tolerance to varying operating conditions. Designing to meet
these targets requires knowledge of the structure and operation
of IPT systems.
Fig. 1 shows the block diagram of a conventional IPT system.
Power flow can be uni- or bidirectional between the primary and
secondary sides, depending on the design of circuitry within the
dc–ac and ac–dc blocks [3]. Magnetically coupled coils on both
Manuscript received May 17, 2021; revised August 7, 2021 and October 15,
2021; accepted October 26, 2021. Date of publication November 9, 2021; date
of current version July 13, 2022. (Corresponding author: Weihao Dong.)
Weihao Dong and Udaya K. Madawala are with the Department of
Electrical Computer and Software Engineering, The University of Auck-
land, Auckland 1010, New Zealand (e-mail: dwei130@aucklanduni.ac.nz;
u.madawala@auckland.ac.nz).
Craig A. Baguley is with the Department of Engineering Computer and
Mathematical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland 1010,
New Zealand (e-mail: craig.baguley@aut.ac.nz).
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at
https://doi.org/10.1109/JESTIE.2021.3126421.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JESTIE.2021.3126421
Fig. 1. Typical IPT system.
sides, represented by inductors Lpt and Lst , are separated by
an air-gap across which the power transfer takes place through
mutual inductance, M . Lpt forms a resonant circuit with a
primary compensation network and, in a like manner, Lst forms
a resonant circuit with a secondary compensation network. By
operating at resonance, each of the primary and secondary coil
reactances can be tuned out, eliminating the reactive power
demanded from the IPT system supply. This realizes significant
benefits, as the losses and VA ratings of IPT system components
are reduced. Consequently, IPT systems essentially employ re-
active power compensation networks. However, challenges still
exist, as power transfer stability and efficiency can be sensitive
to variations in key parameters affecting resonance [4], [5].
For many applications, such variations may be expected due
to changes in M , as well as component values. In addition,
the type of compensation network employed greatly influences
the system performance, as this affects the reflected load and
its dependence on system parameters. Therefore, the selection
of the best compensation network type and its analysis for a
particular IPT application is important and depends critically on
application requirements.
In the past, multiple compensation networks have been pro-
posed to meet the requirements of various IPT applications.
These include the LCL [3], [6], and hybrid types [7]–[10], in
addition to four basic types, comprising the parallel–parallel
(PP), series-series (SS), parallel-series (PS), series-parallel (SP)
alternatives [1], [11], [12]. However, since the characteristics of
each compensation network type can vary widely, comparison
is difficult. To analyze and compare the characteristics of an
IPT system designed with different compensation networks, two
approaches are possible. These include separate modeling and
unified modeling approaches. Separate modeling uses differ-
ent mathematical models for each compensation network type,
while unified modeling needs only one mathematical model.
Separate modelling is commonly applied and used to derive
the conditions to meet specific IPT system requirements, such as
Zero Phase Angle (ZPA) operation, maximum efficiency track-
ing, and constant current (CC) or constant voltage (CV) output

2687-9735 © 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 14:05:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 DONG et al.: VERSATILE UNIFIED MODEL FOR IPT SYSTEMS
Fig. 2. Unified IPT system model.
characteristics. Using separate models, a comparison between
the performance of different compensation network types can
then be obtained. In [13], the general boundary conditions for
IPT systems operating at, or near ZPA are derived. The input
impedance is expressed in the form of a polynomial with quality
factor (Q) as the variable. The voltage transfer function of SS and
SP compensation network types is analyzed to obtain the condi-
tions for achieving CV output and maximum ac–ac efficiency in
[14]. However, for each of [13] and [14], the need for separate
models makes analysis and comparison complicated, repetitive
and inefficient. The same problems also exist in [15] and [16].
A unified approach is more convenient and can reveal the
similarities and differences between compensation networks
more comprehensively but is difficult to realize. This is because
different compensation network types have different structures
and, thus, different characteristics [17]. There have been some
works that come close to realizing a unified model that meets all
design needs. In [18], the four basic compensation network types
are excited by current and voltage sources and compared, and
the conditions for optimal efficiency, maximum power output,
CC or CV output are derived. However, the coil losses are not
considered when analyzing the maximum power condition, and
the efficiency condition is only applicable to the tuned situation.
This makes it impossible to conduct a comprehensive analysis
of the system over the range of all practical operating conditions.
In [19], a general method that models four basic compensation
networks as a gyrator is presented. This enables manipulations to
the circuit diagram instead of the circuit equations. However, this
approach can only be used for the analysis of lossless simplified
models, making it impossible to directly and accurately calculate
all currents and voltages of the system, and their dependence on
system parameters.
Unified modeling approaches based on two-port networks
regard the coils and the compensation network as black boxes,
making it suitable for deriving ZPA, CC, or CV conditions.
In [20], a two-port network-based modeling approach is pro-
posed to achieve a CC or CV output while realizing ZPA and
soft switching. A similar approach to model capacitive power
transfer systems is introduced in [21]. Further extensions using
two-port network-based approaches include for modeling hybrid
compensation types [9] and cascading two-port networks to
model higher-order compensation networks [22], [23]. Similar
methods using a multistage LC network, T-circuit or Π-circuit
can model high-order compensation networks [24], [25]. How-
ever, for two-port network-based approaches, as well as those
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 14:05:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
395
relying on multi-stage LC networks, T-circuits, or Π-circuits, it
is difficult to conduct a comprehensive analysis of systems. This
is because certain voltages and currents within the system cannot
be accessed. Moreover, the conversion between compensation
networks requires component values to be changed. Thus, and
according to the literature, a unified modelling approach that
meets the needs of IPT system designers by allowing for the
determination of all key parameters does not exist for all types
of compensation network.
This article, therefore, proposes an advance in the form of
a novel, unified IPT system model that can be easily adapted
to allow for compensation network analysis and comparison at
the design stage of an IPT system for any given application. It
offers significant advantages, as issues of complexity, repetition,
and inefficiency resulting from the use of separate models can
be avoided, and the design information shortcomings of current
unified approaches are overcome. The proposed model presented
in the following.
1) Facilitates the investigation of any of the four basic, or
hybrid compensation network types without the need to
change any component values.
2) Clearly, accurately, and easily evaluates important steady-
state characteristics of compensation network designs,
including in terms of sensitivity to variations of system
parameters, efficiency and level of power transfer under
both tuned and detuned conditions.
3) Easily facilitates time-domain analysis to investigate the
effects of harmonic components.
4) Incorporates the losses of coils and compensation net-
works, as well as for converters, which can be determined
based on a time-domain analysis.
The rest of the article is organized as follows. In Section II,
the concepts and theory underlying the proposed unified model
are presented. Benchmarking results for the four basic forms of
compensation networks are presented in Section III-A and for
hybrid compensation networks in Section III-B. Section III-C
presents a case study, highlighting the versatility of the proposed
unified model. Finally, Section IV concludes this article.
II. UNIFIED MODEL OF AN IPT SYSTEM
Fig. 2 shows the proposed unified model of a bidirectional
IPT system. The bidirectional IPT system model can also be
used for the analysis of unidirectional IPT systems, therefore
modeling based on the bidirectional IPT system ensures the
 396 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 3, NO. 3, JULY 2022

to the capacitive and inductive components can be defined as


ZLpi.n = RLpi.n + jXLpi.n + jXCpi.n = RLpi.n + jωLpi.n
(3)

ZLpt.n = RLpt.n + jXLpt.n + jXCpt1.n = RLpt.n + jωLpt.n
(4)

ZLsi.n = RLsi.n + jXLsi.n + jXCsi.n = RLsi.n + jωLsi.n
(5)

ZLst.n = RLst.n + jXLst.n + jXCst1.n = RLst.n + jωLst.n
(6)
Fig. 3. Norton (a) and Thevenin (b) equivalent circuits for solving    

Ipt.n , Ist.n .
where Lpi.n , Lpt.n , Lsi.n , Lst.n are the equivalent inductances
considering Cpi.n , Cpt1.n , Csi.n , and Cst1.n , respectively. In
turn, this allows for the impedance definitions
 
versatility of the unified model, making it suitable for a wider ZLpi.n ZCpt2.n ZLpt.n ZCpt2.n
range of application scenarios. The unified model can be used for Zp.n =  , Zpr.n =  (7)
ZLpi.n + ZCpt2.n ZLpt.n + ZCpt2 .n
analyzing hybrid types and four basic compensation networks

types. By replacing the secondary side H-bridge with a diode ZLsi.n ZCst2.n Z ZCst2.n
Zs.n =  , Zsr.n =  Lst.n (8)
rectifier, a unified unidirectional IPT system can be realized. ZLsi.n + ZCst2.n ZLst.n + ZCst2.n
In this case, Vsi may be replaced by an ac resistance, and the
mathematical model shown in this section adapted as appropriate The Thevenin equivalent circuits for the coil and converter
to model unidirectional IPT power flow. In order to simplify currents can each be separately used to determine the converter
the analysis, the unified model can be regarded as comprising output voltage. Based on the Thevenin equivalent circuits, the
two subsystems. Subsystem one of coils Lpt.1 and Lst.1 , and whole model can be given by (9) shown at the bottom of this
subsystem two of coils Lpt.2 and Lst.2 . The parameters of page, with parameters An to Hn defined by
different subsystems are distinguished by subscript n.  
An = Zp.n + ZLpt.n En = Zpr.n + ZLpi.n


A. Mathematical Model Bn = Zs.n + ZLst.n Fn = Zsr.n + ZLsi.n
 
To derive a model that is general for any type of compensa- Cn = Zp.n /ZLpi.n Gn = Zpr.n /ZLpt.n
tion, the converter currents (Ipi.n and Isi.n ) and coil currents  
(Ipt.n and Ist.n ) of each subsystem need to be obtained. Based Dn = Zs.n /ZLsi.n Hn = Zsr.n /ZLst.n . (10)
on the model shown in Fig. 2 and through network analysis, Equation (9) is a unified model of an IPT system. The diagonal
the Norton and Thevenin equivalent circuits in Fig. 3(a) and (b), zero matrices indicate that the effects of cross-coupling and
respectively, can be obtained to solve for the coil currents of each intercoupling of hybrid systems are ignored. If the zero matrices
subsystem. Norton and Thevenin equivalent circuits can also be are replaced with a cross-coupled and an intercoupled M matrix,
obtained to solve for the converter currents of each subsystem. the effects of cross-coupling and intercoupling of hybrid systems
For these circuits, the induced voltages are can be taken into consideration.
Table I shows the conditions that the hybrid compensation net-
Vpr.n = jωMn Ist.n (1)
works with four connection relationships should meet, in order to
Vsr.n = jωMn Ipt.n (2) calculate the key voltages and currents of each subsystem. These
include (Vpi.n and Vsi.n ) and (Ipi.n , Isi.n , Ipt.n , and Ist.n ), as
 ω (rad/s) is the angular frequency of operation, Mn =
where well as the converter currents (Ipi and Isi ). The four-connection
kn Lpt.n Lst.n (H) denotes the mutual inductance, and kn is relationship allows for the parallel-input-parallel-output (PIPO),
the coupling coefficient. Equivalent model impedances related parallel-input-series-output (PISO), series-input-parallel-output

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
Vpi.1 A1 /C1 jωM1 /C1 0 0 Ipt.1
⎢ Vsi.1 ⎥ ⎢ jωM1 /D1 B1 /D1 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ Ist.1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ Vpi.1 ⎥ ⎢ 0 jωM1 G1 E1 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ Ipi.1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ Vsi.1 ⎥ ⎢ jωM1 H1 0 0 F1 ⎥ ⎢ Isi.1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥. (9)
⎢ Vpi.2 ⎥ ⎢ A2 /C2 jωM2 /C2 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ Ipt.2 ⎥
⎢ Vsi.2 ⎥ ⎢ jωM2 /D2 B2 /D2 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ Ist.2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎣ Vpi.2 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 jωM2 G2 E2 0 ⎦ ⎣ Ipi.2 ⎦
Vsi.2 jωM2 H2 0 0 F2 Isi.2

Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 14:05:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 DONG et al.: VERSATILE UNIFIED MODEL FOR IPT SYSTEMS 397

TABLE I (Vpi.n and Vsi.n ) of each subsystem can be obtained by

CONNECTION RELATIONSHIP
E1 Vpi + E2 G1 jωM1 Ist.1 − E1 G2 jωM2 Ist.2
Vpi.1 = (16)
(E1 + E2 )
E2 Vpi − E2 G1 jωM1 Ist.1 + E1 G2 jωM2 Ist.2
Vpi.2 = (17)
(E1 + E2 )
F1 Vsi + F2 H1 jωM1 Ipt.1 − F1 H2 jωM2 Ipt.2
Vsi.1 = (18)
(F1 + F2 )
F2 Vsi − F2 H1 jωM1 Ipt.1 + F1 H2 jωM2 Ipt.2
Vsi.2 = . (19)
(F1 + F2 )
The converter currents of each subsystem can be calculated
by
(SIPO), series-input-series-output (SISO) compensation net-
work types to be modeled and analyzed. A parallel (or series)- An Bn + ω 2 Mn2 (1 − Cn Gn )
Ipi.n = Vpi.n
input denotes the two compensation networks at the input port En (An Bn + ω 2 Mn2 )
are connected in parallel (or series), while a parallel (or series)- ωMn An Dn Gn
output means the compensation networks at the output port are −j Vsi.n (20)
En (An Bn + ω 2 Mn2 )
connected in parallel (or series).
By solving (9) and using the connection relationship in Table I, ωMn Bn Cn Hn
Isi.n = − j Vpi.n
the coil current and converter current of any hybrid and any basic Fn (An Bn + ω 2 Mn2 )
compensation network can be obtained. An Bn + ω 2 Mn2 (1 − Dn Hn )
To demonstrate how the unified model can be used to analyze + Vsi.n . (21)
Fn (An Bn + ω 2 Mn2 )
hybrid compensation networks, the SISO compensation network
type is taken as an example to derive the coil and converter Finally, according to Table I, the currents (Ipi and Isi ) can be
currents. The coil current can be calculated by (11)–(14) shown obtained. For other types of hybrid compensation networks, the
at the bottom of this page. Based on the coil currents, voltages currents and voltages can be solved in a similar approach.

Ipt.1 = Vpi [A2 B1 B2 C1 E1 (F1 + F2 ) + B2 C2 D1 E2 F1 H2 (−1 + C1 G1 )ω 2 M1 M2 − B1 C1 E1 (−1 + C2 G2 )

× (F1 + F2 − D2 F1 H2 )ω 2 M2 2 ]/Zeq + Vsi [−A2 B2 D1 F1 (E1 + E2 − C1 E2 G1 )jωM1 − A2 B1 C1 D2 E1 F2 G2 jωM2
− D1 F1 [E2 (−1 + C1 G1 ) + E1 (−1 + C2 G2 )](−1 + D2 H2 )jω 3 M1 M2 2 ]/Zeq (11)
Ist.1 = Vp i [−A2 B2 C1 E1 (F1 + F2 − D1 F2 H1 )jωM1 − A1 B2 C2 D1 E2 F1 H2 jωM2 − C1 E1 [F2 (−1 + D1 H1 )
+ F1 (−1 + D2 H2 )](−1 + C2 G2 )jω 3 M1 M2 2 ]/Zeq + Vsi [A1 A2 B2 D1 F1 (E1 + E2 )
+ A2 C1 D2 E1 F2 G2 (−1 + D1 H1 )ω 2 M1 M2 − A1 D1 F1 (E1 + E2 − C2 E1 G2 )(−1 + D2 H2 )ω 2 M2 2 ]/Zeq (12)
Ipt.2 = Vp i [A1 B1 B2 C2 E2 (F1 + F2 ) − B2 C2 E2 (−1 + C1 G1 )(F1 + F2 − D1 F2 H1 )ω 2 M1 2 + B1 C1 D2 E1 F1 H1
× (−1 + C2 G2 )ω 2 M1 M2 ]/Zeq + Vsi [−A1 B2 C2 D1 E2 F1 G1 jωM1 − A1 B1 D2 F2 (E1 + E2 − C2 E1 G2 )jωM2
− D2 F2 [E2 (−1 + C1 G1 ) + E1 (−1 + C2 G2 )](−1 + D1 H1 )jω 3 M1 2 M2 ]/Zeq (13)
Ist.2 = Vp i [−A2 B1 C1 D2 E1 F2 H1 jωM1 − A1 B1 C2 E2 (F1 + F2 − D2 F1 H2 )jωM2 − C2 E2 [F2 (−1 + D1 H1 )
+ F1 (−1 + D2 H2 )](−1 + C1 G1 )jω 3 M1 2 M2 ]/Zeq + Vsi [A1 A2 B1 D2 (E1 + E2 )F2 − A2 D2 F2 (E1 + E2 − C1 E2 G1 )
× (−1 + D1 H1 )ω 2 M1 2 + A1 C2 D1 E2 F1 G1 (−1 + D2 H2 )ω 2 M1 M2 ]/Zeq (14)
where the equivalent impedance Zeq can be defined by
Zeq = A1 A2 B1 B2 (E1 + E2 )(F1 + F2 ) + (A2 B1 C1 D2 E1 F2 G2 H1 + A1 B2 C2 D1 E2 F1 G1 H2 )ω 2 M1 M2
+ A1 B1 (E1 +E2 − C2 E1 G2 )(F1 +F2 − D2 F1 H2 )ω 2 M2 2 +A2 B2 (E1 + E2 − C1 E2 G1 )(F1 + F2 − D1 F2 H1 )ω 2 M1 2
+ [E2 (−1 + C1 G1 ) + E1 (−1 + C2 G2 )][F2 (−1 + D1 H1 ) + F1 (−1 + D2 H2 )]ω 4 M1 2 M2 2 (15)

Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 14:05:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 398 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 3, NO. 3, JULY 2022

TABLE II
TUNING AND CONVERSION METHOD

Fig. 4. Experimental prototype.

By setting all the elements in the lower right corner of the

impedance matrix in (9) to be zero, the unified model can be
used to analyze the four basic compensation networks. In this
case, the voltages Vpi.n and Vsi.n are equal to converter output
voltages Vpi and Vsi , respectively. The currents Ipi.n and Isi.n
are equal to currents Ipi and Isi , respectively. The converter
currents can be calculated by (20) and (21). The coil currents
can be calculated by

B n Cn ωMn Dn (a) Ipt and (b) Ist as M varies with Pout maintained at 200 W.
Ipt.n = Vpi.n − j Vsi.n (22) Fig. 5.
An Bn + ω 2 Mn2 An Bn + ω 2 Mn2
ωMn Cn An Dn
Ist.n = −j Vpi.n + Vsi.n . III. RESULTS
An Bn + ω 2 Mn2 An Bn + ω 2 Mn2
(23) In this section, and in order to demonstrate the accuracy
of the proposed unified model to a high degree of rigor, the-
Through using voltages and currents, the average secondary oretical results obtained for various forms of compensation
side ac power (Pout ) is given by networks using the proposed unified model are benchmarked
against previously reported and already experimentally verified
∗
Pout = −Re {Vsi Isi }. (24) work. This approach also avoids the unnecessary experimental
revalidation of already reported work. In addition to bench-
Using (24) and through determining losses (Ploss ) at every marking theoretical to experimental results, a comparison is also
frequency component, ac–ac efficiency (ηac ) is given by made to simulation results obtained using SIMULINK/ PLECS
software, to further validate the model. Benchmarking results
Pout for the four basic forms of compensation networks are pre-
ηAC = . (25)
Pout + Ploss sented in Section III-A and for hybrid compensation networks in
Section III-B. Section III-C presents a case study, highlighting
The analysis can be extended to estimate the dc–dc efficiency, the versatility of the proposed unified model.
which can be achieved by calculating the converter losses us-
ing the converter currents and voltages and switch parameters
A. Benchmarking for Basic Compensation Networks
together with ηac .
The experimental prototype used to benchmark unified mod-
elling results for a SS type compensation network is shown in
B. Tuning and Conversion Method Fig. 4. It comprises a DSP controlled dual active bridge with
From the unified model in (9), the hybrid and four basic com- DD type pads with the parameters given in [4]. The operating
pensation networks can be mathematically represented. Tuning frequency is 85 kHz. Other circuit parameters are listed in
capacitances can be selected with knowledge of inductances and Table III. The experimental results in Fig. 5, Fig. 9(a) and (b) are
the equations listed in Table II. For each subsystem in the model done by our research group and have been published in [4], [7],
in Fig. 2, conversion between systems with any of the four basic and [8], respectively. These results are verified experimentally
compensation networks can be realized by placing a short circuit by using the prototype shown in Fig. 4 or similar prototypes in the
across a component, or opening the connection to a component, lab, as different compensation types need different experimental
as per Table II. conditions. Since we have already experimentally verified SS,

Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 14:05:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 DONG et al.: VERSATILE UNIFIED MODEL FOR IPT SYSTEMS
TABLE III
PARAMETERS OF BASIC COMPENSATION NETWORKS
Fig. 6. Pout as RL.DC is varied from 6 to 16 Ω.
Fig. 7. Vsi as Vdp varies from 20 to 70 V.
PS- PIPO –PS, and PS-SISO-PS compensation types, therefore,
it helps to avoid verifying the same compensation types experi-
mentally again. For further support to the validity of the proposed
model, three more published experimental results external to
our research group are added for benchmarking PS, SP, and PP
compensation types, which are shown in Figs. 6 to 8.
The circuit parameters used to obtain the unified model, and
the SIMULINK/PLECS simulation results are listed in Table III
for each of the SS (Case I), PS (Case II), SP (Case III), and PP
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 14:05:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
399
(Case IV) types of compensation. The power ratings of cases I,
II, III, and IV are 1 kW, 2.5 kW, 160 W, and 1 kW, respectively.
These circuit parameters are the same as those reported for
each of the experimental cases, with suitable control techniques
applied. To show the unified model is accurate for a range of
IPT system variables, benchmarking for each form of compen-
sation is undertaken for currents, power levels, ac voltages and
efficiency levels under varying M , input dc voltage (Vdp ) dc
load resistance (RLDC ) conditions. The results of benchmarking
are shown in Figs. 5–8. It is apparent that close agreement
exists between the unified modeling (theo) and experimental
(exp) results for each of the IPT system variables benchmarked.
This shows the accuracy of the proposed approach. In addition,
each of Figs. 5 to 8 includes simulated results obtained from
MATLAB/SIMULINK models of IPT systems with all four
compensation network types. As apparent, close agreement
with the unified modeling results exists, further verifying the
proposed approach.
Fig. 5 shows results that benchmark those obtained from the
unified modeling of an IPT system with SS compensation against
experimental results from [4], for Ipt and Ist . A dual phase shift
control strategy is employed to maintain Pout at 200 W under
different values of M . The phase shift (θ) of Vsi with respect
to Vpi with an SS compensation network is maintained at 90°.
For the simulated results in Fig. 5, θ for IPT systems with PS,
SP and PP compensation networks are maintained at −90°. The
results show that the SS and PP forms of compensation have
minimal variations of both Ipt and Ist as M varies.
Fig. 6 shows results that benchmark those obtained from the
unified modeling of an IPT system with PS compensation with
experimental results taken from [11], as Pout varies with RLDC .
The pulse width of the primary converter (α) is maintained con-
stant at 165°, and the primary and secondary dc voltages (Vdp and
Vds ) are maintained constant at 300 V and 600 V, respectively.
The secondary-side converter is operated as a resistive load to
make RLDC ranging from 6 to 16 Ω by varying the secondary
pulse width (β) and θ. As apparent, the power levels for IPT
systems with all forms of compensation varies and rises with
RLDC for the PP and SS forms of compensation and falls for the
PS and SP forms.
Fig. 7 shows results that benchmark those obtained from the
unified modelling of an IPT system with SP compensation with
experimental results from [12], as Vsi varies with Vdp . Angle α
is maintained at 165°, Vdp is varied from 20 to 70 V, and Vds
is maintained constant at 300 V. Angles β and θ are varied to
ensure the secondary converter operates as a fixed resistive load
and to be 8/π 2 × 5.5 Ω. As apparent, greatest changes in Vsi
with Vdp occur with PS compensation.
Fig. 8 shows results that benchmark those obtained from the
unified modeling of an IPT system with PP compensation against
experimental results taken from [26], for ηac as RLoad is varied.
Angles β and θ are varied to ensure the secondary converter
operates as a resistive load and ranges from 30 to 120 Ω. Vdp and
Vds are maintained constant at 100 V and 200 V, respectively. M
is maintained at 40 μH. As apparent, PP compensation exhibits
the least sensitivity of efficiency to a varying RLoad .
 400 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 3, NO. 3, JULY 2022
Fig. 8. ηac as RLoad varies from 30 to 120 Ω.
Fig. 9. Pout versus x-axis misalignment for (a) PS-PIPO-PS type and (b)
PS-SISO-PS type hybrid networks under power rating of 3.3 kW.
B. Benchmarking for Hybrid Compensation Networks
The unified model of an IPT system with a hybrid compensa-
tion network with parallel compensation applied to coils Lpt.1
and Lst.1 , series compensation applied to coils Lpt.2 and Lst.2 ,
and the compensation networks on the input and output sides
connected in parallel (PS-PIPO-PS), are benchmarked against
experimental results presented in [8]. In addition, the results of
the unified modelling of a PS-SISO-PS hybrid compensation
network type (with the input and output compensation networks
connected in series) are benchmarked against experimental re-
sults presented in [7]. Both systems are designed to deliver
3.3 kW of power.
The model parameters used are listed in Table IV for Case I
(PS-PIPO-PS) and Case II (PS-SISO-PS), as taken from [8] and
[7]. The parameters shown in Case III in Table IV are for a case
study in Section III-C, which aims for comparing performances
of six different hybrid compensation networks. For systems of
Case I and II, angles α and β are maintained at 180°, and θ
is maintained at –90°. Fig. 9(a) and (b) shows close agreement
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 14:05:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TABLE IV
PARAMETERS OF HYBRID COMPENSATION NETWORKS
between the unified model and experimental results for both
forms of hybrid compensation network. This verifies the unified
model accuracy.
C. Case Study
It is desirable for hybrid compensation networks to exhibit
minimal power sensitivity and achieve high ac–ac efficiency,
even as M varies. Therefore, a case study is presented using
the unified model to investigate the effects of variations in
M . To show the versatility of the proposed unified model, the
performance of six types of hybrid compensation networks is
compared, including the PS-PIPO-PS, PP-SIPO-PS, PS-PISP-
SS, PP-PISO-PS, PS-SISO-PS, and PS-SIPO-SS types. The
system parameters are shown in Table IV Case III, and the coil
parameters are taken from [8].
For the power stability comparison, the angles α and β are ad-
justed to make the systems transmit 3.3 kW under the condition
with M equal to 24.6 μH. Angle θ of all six hybrid compensation
types are maintained at −90°. Angles α and β are kept constant,
and power output fluctuations of the six compensation networks
as M varies are shown in Fig. 10. The PS-SISO-PS type has
the most stable power output. Its power fluctuation is 14.52 %
when M is 33 μH and has a downward trend as M increases.
The PS-PIPO-PS type has a similar fluctuation range to that of
the PS-SISO-PS. Its power fluctuation is −16.88 % when M is
33 μH, but with an upward trend. The other four compensation
types all have more significant power fluctuations.
For the efficiency comparison, Pout is maintained at 3.3 kW
by controlling α and β. Angle θ of all six hybrid compensation
types is maintained at −90°. The results are shown in Fig. 11.
The PS-SISO-PS type has the highest efficiency in all cases, and
the efficiency of the PS-PIPO-PS type is slightly lower than that
of the PS-SISO-PS type. In addition, when M is greater than
28.98 μH, the PS-SIPO-SS type can obtain higher efficiency
than the PS-PIPO-PS, but its power fluctuation is greater, which
is −21.64 % when M is 33 μH.
 DONG et al.: VERSATILE UNIFIED MODEL FOR IPT SYSTEMS
Fig. 10. Pout as M varies with Pout maintained at 3.3 kW when M is
24.6 μH.
Fig. 11. ηac as M varies with Pout maintained at 3.3 kW.
Based on the analysis of power stability and efficiency, the
PS-SISO-PS type has the best performance for IPT applications
that require constant power outputs at a power level of 3.3 kW.
IV. CONCLUSION
A novel unified model has been proposed that can be sim-
ply adapted to allow IPT systems employing various types of
compensation networks to be investigated. This represents an
advance in terms of the ease with which IPT systems employing
different compensation networks can be compared and evaluated
at a design stage. Accuracy of the proposed approach was shown
through benchmarking against previously reported experimental
results. A case study showed that the proposed model can be
easily used for selecting the proper compensation network of
the IPT systems for a particular application.
REFERENCES
[1] Q. Chen, S. C. Wong, K. T. Chi, and X. Ruan, “Analysis, de-
sign, and control of a transcutaneous power regulator for artificial
hearts,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 23–31,
Feb. 2009.
[2] G. Guidi, J. A. Suul, F. Jenset, and I. Sorfonn, “Wireless charging
for ships: High-power inductive charging for battery electric and plug-
in hybrid vessels,” IEEE Electrific. Mag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 22–32,
Sep. 2017.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 14:05:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
401
[3] U. K. Madawala and D. J. Thrimawithana, “A bidirectional inductive
power interface for electric vehicles in V2G systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 4789–4796, Oct. 2011.
[4] Y. Liu, U. K. Madawala, R. Mai, and Z. He, “An optimal multivari-
able control strategy for inductive power transfer systems to improve
efficiency,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 8998–9010,
Sep. 2020.
[5] Y. Liu, U. K. Madawala, R. Mai, and Z. He, “Zero-phase-angle controlled
bidirectional wireless EV charging systems for large coil misalignments,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 5343–5353, May 2019.
[6] D. J. Thrimawithana and U. K. Madawala, “A generalized steady-state
model for bidirectional IPT systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron.,
vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 4681–4689, Oct. 2013.
[7] L. Zhao, D. J. Thrimawithana, U. K. Madawala, A. P. Hu, and C. C.
Mi, “A misalignment-tolerant series-hybrid wireless EV charging system
with integrated magnetics,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 34, no. 2,
pp. 1276–1285, Feb. 2018.
[8] L. Zhao, D. J. Thrimawithana, and U. K. Madawala, “Hybrid bidirectional
wireless EV charging system tolerant to pad misalignment,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 7079–7086, Sep. 2017.
[9] X. Qu, Y. Yao, D. Wang, S.-C. Wong, and K. T. Chi, “A family of
hybrid IPT topologies with near load-independent output and high tol-
erance to pad misalignment,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 35, no. 7,
pp. 6867–6877, Jul. 2019.
[10] G. Li and H. Ma, “A hybrid IPT system with high-misalignment tolerance
and inherent CC-CV output characteristics for EVs charging applications,”
IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., early access, Sep. 2021.
[11] Y. Chen, H. Zhang, S.-J. Park, and D.-H. Kim, “A switching hybrid
lcc-s compensation topology for constant current/voltage EV wireless
charging,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 133 924–133 935, Sep. 2019.
[12] Y. Wang et al., “A double-t-type compensation network and its tun-
ing method for IPT system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 53, no. 5,
pp. 4757–4767, Sep./Oct. 2017.
[13] C.-S. Wang, G. A. Covic, and O. H. Stielau, “Power transfer capability
and bifurcation phenomena of loosely coupled inductive power trans-
fer systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 148–157,
Feb. 2004.
[14] W. Zhang, S.-C. Wong, K. T. Chi, and Q. Chen, “Analysis and comparison
of secondary series-and parallel-compensated inductive power transfer
systems operating for optimal efficiency and load-independent voltage-
transfer ratio,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 2979–2990,
Sep. 2013.
[15] W. Zhang, S.-C. Wong, K. T. Chi, and Q. Chen, “Load-independent duality
of current and voltage outputs of a series-or parallel-compensated inductive
power transfer converter with optimized efficiency,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel.
Topics Power Electron., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 137–146, Mar. 2014.
[16] J. L. Villa, J. Sallan, J. F. S. Osorio, and A. Llombart, “High-misalignment
tolerant compensation topology for ICPT systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 945–951, Feb. 2011.
[17] W. Dong, U. Madawala, and C. Baguley, “A new modelling technique
for inductive power transfer (IPT) systems,” in Proc. IEEE 12th Energy
Convers. Congr. Expo.-Asia, May 2021, pp. 485–490.
[18] Y. H. Sohn, B. H. Choi, E. S. Lee, G. C. Lim, G.-H. Cho, and C. T.
Rim, “General unified analyses of two-capacitor inductive power transfer
systems: Equivalence of current-source SS and SP compensations,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 6030–6045, Nov. 2015.
[19] Y. H. Sohn, B. H. Choi, G.-H. Cho, and C. T. Rim, “Gyrator-based analysis
of resonant circuits in inductive power transfer systems,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 6824–6843, Dec. 2015.
[20] X. Qu, Y. Jing, H. Han, S.-C. Wong, and K. T. Chi, “Higher order com-
pensation for inductive-power-transfer converters with constant-voltage
or constant-current output combating transformer parameter constraints,”
IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 394–405, Jan. 2016.
[21] E. Abramov, I. Zeltser, and M. M. Peretz, “A network-based approach
for modeling resonant capacitive wireless power transfer systems,” CPSS
Trans. Power Electron. Appl., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 19–29, 2019.
[22] J. Lu, G. Zhu, D. Lin, Y. Zhang, J. Jiang, and C. C. Mi, “Unified load-
independent ZPA analysis and design in cc and cv modes of higher order
resonant circuits for WPT systems,” IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrific., vol. 5,
no. 4, pp. 977–987, Dec. 2019.
[23] J. Lu, G. Zhu, D. Lin, Y. Zhang, H. Wang, and C. C. Mi, “Realizing constant
current and constant voltage outputs and input zero phase angle of wireless
power transfer systems with minimum component counts,” IEEE Trans.
Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 600–610, Apr. 2020.
 402 IEEE JOURNAL OF EMERGING AND SELECTED TOPICS IN INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 3, NO. 3, JULY 2022
[24] S. Sinha, A. Kumar, B. Regensburger, and K. K. Afridi, “Design of
high-efficiency matching networks for capacitive wireless power transfer
systems,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., early access,
Sep. 2020.
[25] J. Lu, G. Zhu, D. Lin, S.-C. Wong, and J. Jiang, “Load-independent
voltage and current transfer characteristics of high-order resonant network
in IPT system,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Topics Power Electron., vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 422–436, Mar. 2018.
[26] Y. Chen, N. Yang, Q. Li, Z. He, and R. Mai, “New parameter tuning
method for LCC/LCC compensated IPT system with constant voltage
output based on LC resonance principles,” IET Power Electron., vol. 12,
no. 10, pp. 2466–2474, 2019.
Weihao Dong received the B.E. degree in electrical
engineering and automation from the Hebei Univer-
sity of Technology, Tianjin, China, in 2016 and the
M.E. degree in electrical engineering from Tianjin
Polytechnic University, Tianjin, China, in 2019. He
is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in elec-
trical and electronic engineering with The University
of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
His current research interests include wireless
power transfer and its application.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on May 25,2023 at 14:05:13 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Udaya K. Madawala (Fellow, IEEE), received the
B.Sc. (hons.) degree in electrical engineering from
the University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka,
in 1986 and the Ph.D. degree in power electronics
from The University of Auckland, Auckland, New
Zealand, in 1993 (as a Commonwealth Doctoral
Scholar).
He is currently a Full Professor, and holds a num-
ber of patents related to wireless power transfer
and power converters. His research interests include
power electronics, wireless power transfer, vehicle-
to-grid applications, and renewable energy.
Dr. Madawala, who is a Distinguished Lecturer of the IEEE Power Electronic
Society and consultant to industry, has served both the IEEE Power Electronics
and Industrial Electronics Societies in numerous roles, relating to editorial, ad-
visory, conference, technical committees, and chapter activities. He is currently
an Associate Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS,
and a member of both the Administrative Committee and Global Relationship
Committee of the IEEE Power Electronics Society. He was the General Chair
of the 2nd IEEE Southern Power Electronics Conference (SPEC)- 2016, held in
New Zealand, and is also the Chair of the SPEC Steering Committee.
Craig A. Baguley (Member, IEEE) received the
Ph.D. degree in electrical and electronic engineering
from The University of Auckland, Auckland, New
Zealand, in 2011.
He is currently with the Auckland University of
Technology, Auckland. His research interests in-
clude high-voltage pulse transformer design, high-
frequency induction heating, electrical muscle stim-
ulation techniques, and high-current power supply
design.