By Victor W. Quinn, Chief Technology Officer, Tabtronics Inc.
,
Intuitive design techniques based on normalized
loss and energy densities demonstrate real benefits
for optimizing transformer configurations.
T
he size, performance and cost of a power
electronic system are closely linked to the
like parameters of the magnetic components.
Since custom power transformers are widely
used, transformer design is a frequent design
process that has a significant impact on system performance.
Yet most high-frequency transformers use less than 25% of
the available core window for efficient current conduction.
Two factors cause this relatively poor utilization: insulation
requirements and eddy current losses.
Insulation requirements generally limit the total winding
conductor cross-sectional area to less than half of the available
core window. Induced high-frequency eddy currents often
increase the apparent winding resistances by 50% or more.
Therefore, less than 25% of the available core window is used
effectively (Fig. 1). Interleaved windings, multifilar conduc-
tors, Litz wire and other approaches can decrease eddy current
effects. However, these techniques add additional insulation
penalties, which further reduce the net cross-sectional win-
dow area available for the winding conductors.
Typical Core Window Utilization
100%
75%
Insulation
and Shields
50%
Eddy Current Loss Penalty
25%
Net Conductor Area
0%
Fig. 1. Typical core window utilization in a high-frequency transformer.
Power Electronics Technology October 2005
Geneseo, N.Y.
Despite much published literature concerning the evalua-
tion of transformer loss and energy at high frequencies, con-
tinued widespread interest in transformer design methods
indicates that many designers seek more intuitive techniques
to evaluate tradeoffs and assure an optimal configuration.
This interest is understandable because many methods lead
the designer to make repeated trial configurations until
obtaining a satisfactory result. While Finite Element Analysis
(FEA) and commercial software facilitate the evaluation
of many trial configurations, the designer’s imagination of
improved configurations is fueled by understanding and
insight.
A transformer design approach using normalized loss
and energy densities inspires concepts of equivalent winding
thicknesses that intuitively display optimal conductor and
interleaving configurations.
Low-Frequency Transformer Design
Classical transformer design methods evaluate the
potential volt-ampere (VA) capacity of a selected core
in comparison to the VA requirement of a given power
supply application. The VA capacity of a selected core is
fundamentally limited by a consideration of losses with
respect to temperature rise or efficiency requirements. At low
frequencies, currents within conductors are largely uniform
throughout the conductors’ cross-sections. Therefore,
dissipation for a given winding is readily calculated using the
material resistivity and the geometric parameters of length
and cross-section for the conductor. At low frequencies, for
coils with multiple windings having uniform mean lengths of
turn, minimum total loss is achieved by selecting appropriate
conductors for each winding to yield uniform current density
throughout the coil. For uniform resistivity, mean length of
turn and current density, the low-frequency dissipation of
a coil is given by:
Low-frequency coil loss = ρ × Cond VOL × J
2
14 www.powerelectronics.com
 DESIGN METHODS

�x IW = GW��

Secondary
�y 2 IW = 2 GW��
Normalized

Primary
Conductor
Thickness
IL = GI��

Fig. 3. Cross-sectional view of winding with definitions of insulation

thickness.
length of turn and uniform current density, the low-
Conductor frequency magnetic energy is:
Current Cross-Section
Normalized low-frequency magnetic energy =
Fig. 2. Depiction of a normalized conductor.
µ 0 ∆y
∆y
Thickness
6 ∆x
where  is the conductor resistivity, CondVOL denotes the where 0 is the permeability constant for free space.
effective total conductor volume, and J is the winding RMS While coil insulation increases loss by decreasing the
current density. effective thickness of the conductor for the normalized
Low-frequency loss can be rewritten using the concept winding, coil insulation increases magnetic energy in the
of normalized resistance: portion by increasing the effective thickness of coil regions
 
2 subject to magnetic-field penetration:
Low-frequency coil loss = Ω  ∑ NIi  Normalized low-frequency magnetic energy =
 i 
µ 0 ∆y  IL (2n L − 1)(n L − 1) 
where  is the resistance of a theoretically equivalent  ThicknessCU + + 3IW 
6 ∆x  2 nL 
single-turn winding yielding the specified total CondVOL,
and NIi represents the RMS
amp-turn product for the ith
winding in the coil. Insulation considerations generally limit the conductor area
The single-turn resistance
 is given by the expression: to less than half of the available core window area.
ρ × ∆y
∆y
Ω= where ThicknessCU denotes the thickness of the accu-
∆x × Thickness mulated copper conductors, nL is the number of conductor
where y is the effective conductor length (or mean layers in the winding portion, IL is the interlayer insulation
length of turn), x is the conductor width, and Thickness thickness, and IW is the interwinding insulation thickness
is the conductor thickness (Fig. 2). The denominator of (Fig. 3). (Note that total interwinding insulation thickness is
this expression is equivalent to the total conductor cross- 2IW since each portion is taken to contribute half of the total
sectional area. interwinding insulation thickness.) Following the result for
Therefore, low-frequency coil loss can be readily estimated normalized resistance, low-frequency magnetic energy for
using the normalized single-turn resistance  and the square a selected winding portion can be estimated using normal-
of the sum of the RMS amp-turn products for all windings ized low-frequency magnetic energy (LFMENORM) with the
in the coil. The accuracy of this loss estimate depends on the square of the sum of the RMS amp-turn winding product
accuracy of the estimate for the total conductor cross-sectional in the portion:
area. Insulation considerations generally limit the conductor Low-frequency magnetic energy =
area to less than half of the available core window area. The  
2

dominant insulations are those that isolate windings from LFME NORM  ∑ NIi 
core (bobbin), windings from other windings (interwinding)  PORTION 
and layers from other layers (interlayer). The conductor For a specific application and a transformer having given
thickness of the normalized winding can be estimated by conductor and core regions, the normalized expression
reducing the available core window height by the anticipated for low-frequency winding loss can be combined with an
bobbin, interwinding and interlayer thicknesses. empirically derived core loss result to yield:
This approach may be extended to low-frequency Total low-frequency transformer loss =
magnetic energy in the coil. For a normalized, nonmagnetic, F
FCOIL × N p2 + CORE
single-portion primary conductor, having uniform mean N nP

Power Electronics Technology October 2005 16 www.powerelectronics.com

 DESIGN METHODS

Sum of 10 Harmonics Sum of 10 Harmonics

2 2

Amplitude
Amplitude
Dissipation Model 00 2 4 6 8
Magnetic Energy Model 00 2 4 6 8

6-� Thick Single-Turn Reference 6-� Thick Single-Turn Reference

-2 Layer Insulation = 0.5 � -2
Interlayer Insulation = 0.5 � Phase Phase
Interwinding Insulation = � Interwinding Insulation = �

40% 150%
Effective Winding Thickness Ratio

Effective Winding Thickness Ratio

35% 125%
5 Layers
30% 5 Layers
4 Layers 100%
25% 3 Layers 3 Layers
20% 2 Layers 75%
15% 4 Layers 2 Layers
50%
10% 1 Layer
25%
5%
1 Layer
0% 0%
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1
Available Winding Height Available Winding Height

Fig. 4. Loss-equivalent thickness for a bridge transformer primary. Fig. 5. Energy-equivalent thickness for a bridge transformer primary.
∆yy
∆
where FCOIL and FCORE are parameters relating exponential e0 (R = 0, B) × µ 0 δ(NI)2
functions of primary turns (NP) to coil and core losses, ∆x
respectively, and n is the empirically derived exponential where  is the skin depth for the conductor material
variation of core loss with magnetic flux density. Without at the specified frequency, x represents the width of the
a constraint of core saturation, the value of primary turns conductor layer, y represents the mean length of turn of the
that minimizes this expression for total low-frequency conductor layer, R is the ratio of sinusoidal surface magnetic-
transformer loss is given by: field intensities, B is the ratio of conductor thickness to skin
depth, and p0 and e0 are the dimensionless density functions
n × FCORE
NP = n +2 for loss and magnetic energy, respectively.
2 × FCOIL Although p0 and e0 are functions involving complex terms,
Therefore, low-frequency transformer design involves the resultant expressions are similar to the low-frequency
normalized empirical core loss data and estimation of expressions presented earlier because they largely depend
effective total conductor volume considering insulation, on simple geometric factors and the square of the amp-
clearances, electrostatic shields and other coil cross-sectional turn product. As a mathematical approach for calculation
area penalties. of dissipation, effective conductor thickness can be taken
as the skin depth divided by the loss-density function. The
High-Frequency Transformer Design loss-density function adjusts the effective thickness as a
High-frequency power electronic applications cause added result of induced magnetic-field and current distributions
transformer design considerations. Coil loss is significantly within the conductor layer. In truth, conductor thickness is
affected by induced eddy currents within the conductors as a not changing with excitation. The theoretical convenience
result of magnetic-field intensities. Further, high-frequency of equivalent thickness is merely a simplifying calculation
excitation and circuit topology requirements generate method to evaluate net dissipation and stored energy effects
constraints on leakage inductance (stray magnetic energy). in a conductor layer. Effective thickness represents the effects
The inherent complex waveshapes necessitate consideration of complex current density and magnetic-field distributions,
of dc and higher-order harmonic components. which vary greatly within the conductor cross-sections.
For a single-conductor layer, having one conductor surface Therefore, the dimensionless density functions yield intuitive
at zero magnetic-field intensity, high-frequency conductor calculations of loss and magnetic energy using the equivalent
loss and magnetic-energy storage can be calculated using the low-frequency expressions. Further derivations will be
concept of dimensionless density functions[1]: required to consider the general case for a multiple-layer
Conductor layer power = winding undergoing complex excitation.
∆y
∆y
p0 (R = 0, B) × ρ (NI)2 Nonsinusoidal Currents
∆x × δ
Transformer winding current may contain a bias
component, and in this event, the winding current can be
Conductor layer magnetic energy = represented by the harmonic decomposition:

www.powerelectronics.com 17 Power Electronics Technology October 2005

 DESIGN METHODS

Sum of 10 Harmonics Sum of 10 Harmonics

2 2

Amplitude

Amplitude
Dissipation Model 1 Magnetic Energy Model 1
6-� Thick Single-Turn Reference 6-� Thick Single-Turn Reference
Interlayer Insulation = 0.5 � 00 2 4 6 8
Layer Insulation = 0.5 � 00 2 4 6 8

Phase Phase
Interwinding Insulation = � Interwinding Insulation = �
40% 150%
5 Layers
Effective Winding Thickness Ratio

Effective Winding Thickness Ratio

35% 4 Layers 125%
30% 3 Layers
2 Layers 100%
25%
20% 75%
5 Layers
15% 50% 4 Layers
3 Layers
10% 2 Layers
25%
5% 1 Layer
1 Layer
0% 0%
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1
Available Winding Height Available Winding Height

Fig. 6. Loss-equivalent thickness for a bridge transformer secondary. Fig. 7. Energy-equivalent thickness for a bridge transformer secondary.
IDC = α 0 × IRMS where nl is the number of layers, G1 is the interlayer
IRMS1 = α1 × IRMS insulation thickness and GW is the interwinding insulation
thickness for the selected winding portion.
IRMSk = α K × IRMS
Although the expressions for loss and magnetic energy
where IRMSk is the RMS current value at the kth harmonic, invoke complex density terms that appear formidable, let’s
IRMS is the RMS value of the complex waveshape, and K is turn our attention to simple graphical methods using concepts
the ratio of the RMS value of the kth harmonic to the RMS of effective normalized winding thickness and normalized
value of the complex waveshape. winding height. These concepts are readily accomplished
The equivalent loss-density function for a given layer is using common computer methods and facilitate graphical
then given by: recognition of optimal coil designs considering insulation
(1 − R)2
p0 equiv (R , B1 ) = α 02 + ∑ i α 02 p0 (R , i × B1 ) and eddy current penalties.
B1 i

where B1 is the ratio of conductor thickness to skin depth Equivalent Thickness Methods
for the first harmonic. As described earlier, the transformer design process
Similarly, the equivalent ac magnetic-energy density involves the calculation of coil loss in consideration of a VA
function for a given layer is: requirement arising from circuit application conditions. For
low frequencies, the total coil loss can be evaluated using the
αi2
e0 equiv (R , B1 ) = ∑ R,, i × B1 )
e0 (R product of the single-turn resistance of a volume-equivalent
i i single-turn conductor and the square of the amp-turn product
These equivalent density functions can be used to derive through the conductor cross-section. We will seek a similar
expressions for loss- and energy-equivalent conductor intuitive calculation method for loss and magnetic energy in
thicknesses: a winding portion undergoing complex excitation.
Loss-equivalent thickness = To this end, we will develop a graphical relationship
δ between the effective winding thicknesses and the physical
2 utilization of an available winding height. This graphical
 n nL
 1 
∑ equiv  1 −
 n  p0 equiv ,B
 n 1 
approach facilitates the selection of optimal layers and winding
n =1 L interleaves, including the effects of layer-insulation thickness
and considering constraints of maximum leakage-inductance
Magnetic-energy-equivalent thickness = energy and maximum coil height. Loss and magnetic energy
can then be evaluated following the expressions for low
[
δ 3 × GW +
G I (2n L − 1)(n L − 1)
2 nL
frequency applied to a normalized conductor having the
appropriate equivalent thickness.

] This method is illustrated in Figs. 4 through 9 as applied to

2
nL
 n  1 
+ 6∑   e0 equiv  1 − , B1  a winding portion with maximum overall winding thickness
n =1  n   n 
L
of six skin depths, five conductor layers maximum, and

Power Electronics Technology October 2005 18 www.powerelectronics.com

 PET ad-4c 1/2pg•9-05 9/12/05 5:05 PM Page 1

EXACTING
PERFORMANCE
High Energy & Surface Mount
MOVs
CKE manufactures a wide range of metal oxide
varistors (MOVs) for your unique requirements.
From low voltage radial lead styles to high
energy packages, we build to OEM specs
or provide direct replacements.

CKE also offers:

� Selenium Surge Suppressors
� Silicon Rectifiers
� Custom Assemblies
� Silicon Carbide Varistors

Lucernemines, PA 15754
(724) 479-3533
(724) 479-3537 (Fax)
info@cke.com

For FREE SAMPLES, visit our Web site www.cke.com

Sum of 10 Harmonics Sum of 10 Harmonics

Amplitude

2
Amplitude

2
1 Magnetic Energy Model 1
Dissipation Model 00
6-� Thick Single-Turn Reference 00 6-� Thick Single-Turn Reference 2 4 6 8

InterLayer Insulation = 0.5 �

2 4 6 8
Layer Insulation = 0.5 � Phase
Phase Interwinding Insulation = �
Interwinding Insulation = �
40% 150%
Effective Winding Thickness Ratio
Effective Winding Thickness Ratio

35% 125%
5 Layers
30%
4 Layers 100%
25% 3 Layers 5 Layers
2 Layers 75%
20%
3 Layers
4 Layers
15% 50% 2 Layers
10% 1 Layer
1 Layer 25%
5%
0% 0%
0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1
Available Winding Height Available Winding Height

Fig. 8. Loss-equivalent thickness for a forward transformer primary. Fig. 9. Energy-equivalent thickness for a forward transformer primary.
interlayer- and interwinding-insulation thicknesses of half a Fig. 4 shows that maximum loss-equivalent-wind-
skin depth each. Figs. 4 and 5 pertain to the primary winding ing thickness is achieved when 88% of the winding
of a transformer used in a bridge configuration operating at height is used with five conductor layers. For this con-
62.5% duty cycle. The current was normalized to yield unity figuration, the loss-equivalent-winding thickness is 28% of
RMS value. the available winding height. However, as a result of

www.powerelectronics.com 19 Power Electronics Technology October 2005

 DESIGN METHODS
Hi-Rel Mil /Aero
the equivalent wind- Magnetics Solutions
Bridge Transformer Dissipation at 80°C ing thickness and in
720-W output
this case achieve 40%
5.0 of the available wind-
See us at
4.5 ing height. Therefore, Power Systems World
Oct 25-27, Baltimore
4.0 an interleaved con- Booth 828
3.5 figuration that splits
3.0 the winding into two
2.5 portions of two lay-
2.0 ers each dissipates
1.5 30% less power than
1.0
the optimal single-
Winding loss w inding-por tion
0.5
Core loss configuration. This
0.0
70.0% 62.5% 60.0% 55.0% 50.0% analysis can be read-
Duty Cycle ily extended to other
interleave strategies
Fig. 10. Measured total loss of 150-kHz bridge transformer providing by considering the
12 V at 60 A. constraint on avail-
able winding height
Forward Transformer Dissipation at 25°C
to be 1/n, where n
100-W output is the number of in-
1.00
terleaved winding
portions. Resultant-
loss and energy-
0.75 equivalent thickness-
For high performance and reliability,
es will respectively
Datatronics is the magnetics solutions
increase and decrease
0.50 by a factor of n with leader in mil-aero electronics. Our high
appropriate inter- voltage,Data Bus and LAN components
leaving. offer exceptional reliability in harsh
0.25 When an opti- environments for critical avionics,
Winding loss mal winding strat- navigation and control applications.
Core loss egy is selected, the
0.00 We offer a range of custom
40.0% 35.2% 30.0% 25.0% resultant-loss and & standard devices including:
Duty Cycle magnetic-energy-
equivalent winding High Voltage Magnetics
Fig. 11. Measured total loss of 100-kHz forward transformer providing thicknesses can be Single, Dual and Low Profile
20 V at 5 A. used to determine 1553 Data Bus Magnetics

magnetic energy stored in insulation the normalized dissipation and en- Military and Space Level
regions, the corresponding magnetic- ergy storage for equivalent single-turn LAN Magnetics

energy-equivalent-winding thickness conductors. These results are readily LAN 10baseT, 10 /100base T
is 92% of the available winding height scaled for the specific application using MIL-PRF-27, MIL-PRF-21038,
(Fig. 5). Interleaving effects can be the square of the amp-turn product MIL-STD-981 Compliance
readily evaluated by considering con- through the cross-section. ISO 9001 / 9002
structions that fit within a fraction The secondary current of the bridge
of the available winding height. For transformer contains a dc bias compo-
> Free white paper and catalog
example, a simple interleave of two por- nent because rectifier elements force
Visit us on the web for our
tions can be examined by considering unidirectional currents. Figs. 6 and 7 free White Paper entitled
winding configurations that fit within display the results for one of the half “Measuring Transformer
Distributed Capacitance” &
half of the available winding height. secondaries again operating at 62.5% Catalog or call 888-889-5391.
In Fig. 4, when winding height is duty cycle. The significant dc compo- datatronicsromoland.com
limited to 50%, two layers provide a nent causes thicker conductors to have
maximum equivalent thickness of 20%. greater benefit; therefore, two por-
However, two portions can be used tions of a single layer each provide the
with an interleave strategy to double lowest winding dissipation with a

www.powerelectronics.com 21 Power Electronics Technology October 2005

 DESIGN METHODS
�����������
combined loss-equivalent thickness
����� ����������� of 48%. Fig. 7 indicates that the lowest
ac magnetic energy is also achieved

�����������
with two single-layer portions, yield-
������������������ ing a total magnetic-energy-equiva-
lent thickness of 17%. Note that this
��� �������� equivalent thickness is correlated to the
RMS current of the total waveshape,
�������������������� �������� including the dc bias component.
The forward-converter application
also generates a significant bias
component in the current waveshape.
For a duty cycle of 35.2%, Fig. 8

��� indicates that two portions of two

layers each are the preferred choice
to minimize loss with a combined
loss-equivalent thickness of 40%. The
harmonic distribution of the forward
converter causes thick single-layer
portions to be less beneficial. Clearly,
optimal transformer design depends
on an accurate definition of application
waveshapes and constituent harmonic
components.

Transformer Examples
Two transformers were designed
using the methods outlined earlier.
Fig. 10 summarizes total transformer
dissipation at 80°C as a function of duty
cycle for a bridge transformer operating
at 150 kHz and providing 12 V at 60 A.
Fig. 11 displays the results at 25°C for a
forward transformer operating at 100
kHz and providing 20 V at 5 A.
Open-circuit test methods were
used to measure core loss at each of the
harmonic components of application
voltage. Short-circuit test methods
were used to measure ac resistance and
evaluate ac winding loss at each of the
����� harmonic components of application
�������������� current. DCR test methods were
used to evaluate dc loss of windings
���
conducting bias currents. Figs. 10 and
�������������� 11 summarize total dissipation using
�������� these comprehensive methods. Both
��������������������� transformers achieve efficiencies in
excess of 99%. PETech
��������
���������������������� References
1. Quinn, V. “New Technology Reduces
Eddy Current Dissipation in Windings,”
Properties and Applications of Magnetic
Materials Conference Record, 2005.

Power Electronics Technology October 2005 22 www.powerelectronics.com