4.8 Article

A Transmitter or a Receiver Consisting of Two Strongly Coupled Resonators for Enhanced Resonant Coupling in Wireless Power Transfer

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS
卷 61, 期 3, 页码 1193-1203

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2013.2257151

关键词

Coupled resonance; enhanced coupling; inductive power; multiple resonators; resonant frequency tuning; resonator topology; wireless power transmission

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2005-2001282]
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Korean Government
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2005-2001282] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a novel resonator structure for efficiency and transferred power improvements: a transmitter (a receiver) that consists of two strongly coupled resonators. The two strongly coupled resonators are embedded within a transmitter device (a receiver device) and behave as a single resonator with enhanced performances. Unlike the conventional four-coil system, the first and the fourth resonators are also designed to have high loaded-Q and maximum cross couplings. Therefore, the first and the fourth resonators also take part in the coupled resonance with opposite-side resonators. This provides additional energy exchange path. The exact design guidelines are provided for each different resonance topology from analytical derivation. It is analyzed and experimentally demonstrated that the efficiency and the transferred power are increased by the proposed two-resonator technique. For a 30 cm x 25 cm parallel-resonant transmitter and an 18 cm x 16 cm parallel-resonant receiver at 13-cm distance, the efficiency and the transferred power with the proposed technique are 65.2% and 17.2 W, respectively, whereas those values without the proposed technique are only 37.3% and 6.2 W.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据