4.8 Article

Asymmetric Coil Sets for Wireless Stationary EV Chargers With Large Lateral Tolerance by Dominant Field Analysis

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS
Volume 29, Issue 12, Pages 6406-6420

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TPEL.2014.2305172

Keywords

Electrical vehicle (EV); EV charger; inductive power transfer; wireless power transfer

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea - Korea Government (MSIP) [2010-0029179]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2010-0029179] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Asymmetric coil sets for wireless stationary electric vehicle (EV) chargers, which has significantly larger lateral tolerance than previous ones, is proposed. The pick-up coil set is much smaller than the power supply coil set, thereby allowing large lateral and longitudinal displacements as well as robustness to air-gap displacement. Electromagnetic field (EMF) is reasonably reduced by arranging magnetic poles along the EV's moving direction so that alternating magnetic flux through adjacent poles cancels each other. A dominant field analysis useful for complex vector magnetic flux simulation is newly proposed, which is applicable to any resonating coils of an inductive power transfer system (IPTS). Furthermore, a hysteresis loss model is suggested, which appropriately reflects the partial core saturation on a system analysis. A prototype IPTS including the proposed coil sets were designed and successfully verified by experiments. In the quick charging mode, maximum output power of 15 kW, large lateral displacement of 40 cm, longitudinal displacement of 20 cm, air gap of 15 cm were achieved, and low EMF of 6.1 mu T at 20 kHz was achieved in the normal charging mode of 5 kW.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available