Analysis on Tripolar Pad for Inductive Power
Transfer Systems
Seho Kim, Grant A. Covic, and John T. Boys
skim281@aucklanduni.ac.nz, ga.covic@auckland.ac.nz, j.boys@auckland.ac.nz
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
The University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract—Inductive Power Transfer (IPT) systems have been
proposed as a promising solution for charging electric vehicles
(EVs). The design of magnetic structures is an important aspect
of IPT systems to maximise power transfer capability and min-
imise leakage magnetic field. This paper investigates a recently
proposed Tripolar Pad (TPP), to show how different coil and
ferrite shapes impact the power transfer capability and leakage
magnetic field of this particular IPT system in comparison to a
conventional circular/square pad (CP). The simulation findings
are validated using a prototype TPP and CP in the laboratory.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Inductive power transfer (IPT) is a method of transferring
power across an air gap using magnetic resonance without any
physical contact [1]–[5]. An IPT system couples power from
a primary pad to a secondary pad in a similar principle to
transformers. However, in contrast to conventional transform-
ers, an IPT system can be considered as a “loosely” coupled
transformer since a relatively large air gap is present between
the primary and secondary pads. Most practical IPT systems
over the past three decades use resonance to achieve power
transfer at a high efficiency despite the relatively low magnetic
coupling [1].
The inherent nature of wireless power transfer systems
enables some advantages to be realised in comparison to other
charging methods. An IPT system is electrically isolated and
immune to wear and tear of mechanical components since no
physical contacts are required. Environmental variables such
as water, dirt or chemicals do not impact the power transfer
capability of IPT systems, which make it ideal for applications
in harsh environments. Applications of IPT systems have
included clean rooms, materials handling systems, automatic
guided vehicles (AGVs) and battery charging systems in the
past [6]–[11]. More recently, IPT systems hvae been proposed
for charging of EVs under both stationary and dynamic
conditions with increasing lateral and vertical tolerances.
An important aspect of IPT systems is the design of the
magnetic structures for the primary and the secondary. Numer-
ous structures have been proposed to improve the performance
of IPT systems in the past including circular/square pad (CP)
and double-D pad (DDP) [12]–[17]. The disadvantage of many
of these simple primary topologies is that the magnetic field
shapes generated from the single coil pads are fixed to the
‹,((( 
unique shapes determined by the coil and the ferrite and
therefore limit their compatibility between different magnetic
structures. This disadvantage is exacerbated in situations such
as EV charging, where the primary and the secondary are not
guaranteed to be ideally aligned.
Recently, multi-coil magnetic structures such as the bipolar
pad (BPP) and the tripolar pad (TPP) have been proposed to
allow magnetic field shapes to be varied depending on the
displacement of the secondary pad [18], [19]. The BPP and
the TPP utilise two and three mutually decoupled independent
coils respectively. These mutually decoupled coils can be
energised separately without interfering with other adjacent
coils. The principle of how mutual decoupling is achieved for
each topology is described in detail in [19], [20]. By exploiting
this advantage of the mutually decoupled coils, individual
control of the primary currents is possible. The ability to
set different magnitude and phase of the primary currents in
each of the coils allows different magnetic field shapes to be
generated by the BPP and the TPP.
Generally, the coil shape chosen for the BPP is naturally an
elongated shape to increase the magnetic flux pipe between
the two coils [13], however, the TPP has more options since
it involves three mutually decoupled coils. This paper investi-
gates three possible shapes of coils and ferrite for the TPP and
discusses the suitability of each of the shapes for IPT systems.
A square shaped CP primary is included in the comparison as
a point of reference, since the CP primary is simple, well-
known and has been used in many different IPT systems in
the past. The comparisons between the three differently shaped
TPP primaries and the reference CP primary are made in terms
of keff , which is described in detail in [21], and in the leakage
magnetic field (Bleak ).
keff is used in this paper to show how much VA effort the
power supply has to exert compared to the uncompensated
power (Su ) the secondary receives, where:
2
Su = Voc Isc = V Apri keff (1)

Su
keff = (2)
V Apri
2
Pout = Su Qs = V Apri keff Qs (3)
 FE1 FE1
CU1 CU2 FE2 CU1 CU2 FE2

CU5 CU5
CU4 CU3 CU4 CU3
An example of the OL OL
overlapping between
adjacent coils for (a) (b)
mutual decoupling FE1
CU2 FE2 CU1 CU2 FE2

CU4 OL

FE3 CU3

CU5
X X

CU1 CU3 Y CU4 Z

FE1

(c) (d)

Fig. 1. Top and side view of (a) circular, (b) hexagonal and (c) triangular shaped TPP and (d) square shaped CP. One of the overlapping parts of the coils
are shaded in each of the TPP shapes.

Voc and Isc are open-circuit voltage and short-circuit current evaluated for the best design that generates the lowest Bleak
respectively and V Apri refers to the total VA in the primary for a given Su in the secondary.
coils. Qs refers to the Q factor of the secondary circuit.
II. T RIPOLAR PAD OVERVIEW
While the TPP coils are ideally mutually decoupled at all
Three possible TPP shapes for investigation are shown in
times, this is not always the case due to the displacement of
Fig. 1 with overlapping parts for mutual decouplings between
the secondary changing the magnetic field path to introduce a
the coils shaded. The mutual decoupling between the pads are
small, but measurable magnetic coupling between the primary
required to freely control the primary currents in the primary
coils [22]. In all practical operating conditions, however, any
coils [18] with the least effort from the power supply [21]
mutual coupling between the primary coils is small and can
as discussed previously. All of the TPP coils overlap with
be ignored. Nevertheless, keff used in this paper considers
adjacent coils side by side as shown in Fig. 1.
the impact of mutual coupling between the primary coils by
In the past, pads such as the CP or the DDP could have
considering the reflected impedances between all of the coils
ferrite bars placed in the direction of the magnetic field path
present in the system. The controller used for the operation
to improve the magnetic coupling and this is possible because
maximises keff of the TPP presented in this paper using
the CP and the DPP only generate one type of magnetic
an exhaustive search controller for optimal primary currents
field shape. The TPP operates best when a continuous ferrite
described in [21]. The exhaustive search controller calculates
sheet is used since the magnetic field shapes of the TPP
the possible keff of the TPP for every possible combination of
primaries need to be changed depending on the displacement
primary current magnitude and phase in the TPP to find the
of the secondary to achieve the highest keff . To enable a
best combination of primary current magnitudes and phase for
fair comparison, all three TPP shapes in the simulations use
the TPP coils to minimise the effort required by the primary
continuous 5 mm ferrite sheets that match the shape of the
to transfer the required power.
coils. The total area and volume of the copper and ferrite have
This control optimisation also tends to naturally reduce the been designed deliberately to be as similar as possible between
leakage magnetic field labelled Bleak around the system. Bleak the TPP primaries and the CP primary. The dimensions for all
is the unwanted stray magnetic field that may potentially be of the TPP primaries, the CP primary and the CP secondary
harmful to humans [23]. Consequently, the TPP shapes are are presented in the Appendix.


 For simplicity, a CP secondary identical to the shape of the
0.20
CP primary shown in Fig. 1 has been chosen as the secondary
pad. The primary currents in the primary pads are adjusted
to ensure that Su is identical for all systems independent of 0.15
the primary pad. The air gap between the primary and the

keff
secondary is 150 mm and is determined from the top of the 0.10
CP
primary to the bottom of the secondary. The CP secondary is Circular TPP
displaced between ±150 mm in both the X and Y directions 0.05 Hexagonal TPP
from the centre of the three TPP primaries or the CP primary. Triangular TPP
The three TPP primaries shown in Fig. 1 optimise the three 0.00
primary coil current magnitudes and phases for the highest −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
keff to the CP secondary using the exhaustive search controller X (mm)
described in [21] to achieve an output power of 3.3 kW. The
maximum VA rating of each of the TPP coils is bound by the Fig. 2. keff for circular, triangular and rectangular TPP and CP primaries
inductance of the coils and the rated currents of the Litz wire, when the CP secondary is displaced ±150 mm in X direction.
which is determined as 46 A for this investigation. As such,
if one of the TPP coils with a higher magnetic coupling to
the CP secondary cannot supply the required VA to meet the 0.20
power requirements, other coils with lower coupling would
have to be energised to result in a lower keff . 0.15

III. S IMULATION OF T RIPOLAR PAD S HAPES keff 0.10

CP
The TPP and CP primaries shown in Fig. 1 were simulated Circular TPP
using JMAG to show the variations in keff when the secondary 0.05 Hexagonal TPP
was displaced in both the X and Y directions as shown in Fig. Triangular TPP
4. When the CP secondary is near the ideal alignment, the CP 0.00
primary is generating the optimal magnetic field shape for the −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
CP secondary so naturally its highest keff is achieved here. Y (mm)
The optimal magnetic field shape required for the highest keff
changes as the CP secondary is displaced further away from
Fig. 3. keff for circular, triangular and rectangular TPP and CP primaries
this ideal alignment and since the CP primary cannot change when the CP secondary is displaced ±150 mm in Y direction.
the magnetic field shape, keff decreases rapidly.
The TPP can change the magnetic field shape depending on
the position of the secondary. Due to this ability to generate 0.20
different magnetic field shapes, keff of the TPP primary is
less sensitive to the displacement of the secondary. Among 0.15
TPP primaries, the circular and hexagonal shapes have similar
keff values which is expected due to the close resemblance of
keff

0.10
CP
the two shapes. The triangular TPP, however, has a skewed
Circular TPP
keff profile as shown in Fig. 4, where keff is much higher if 0.05 Hexagonal TPP
the secondary is displaced in one direction than the other due
Triangular TPP
to the coil shape.
0.00
Using keff from Fig. 4, Bleak for each of the TPP and −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
the CP primaries were simulated as shown in Fig. 5. The
X and Y (mm)
peak Bleak was measured using four XZ and Y Z planes
800 mm from the centre of the CP secondary as shown in
the example. Bleak is measured for all four planes around the Fig. 4. keff for circular, triangular and rectangular TPP and CP primaries
when the CP secondary is displaced ±150 mm in both the X and Y
system to account for humans being present in any direction to directions.
a stationary EV while it is charging. The peak Bleak for each
primary is tabulated in Table I. The PPL refers to the output
power divided by the peak leakage magnetic field expressed The CP primary resulted in a relatively low keff when the
as P P L = Pout /Bleak . For fair comparison between the CP secondary was displaced as shown in Fig. 4, which increased
and TPP primaries, the output power was designed to be 3.3 the required primary VA compared to the TPP shapes. As a
kW with a fixed Qs of 7 for all displacements. This means the result of high primary VA in the CP primary, all of the three
peak Bleak from each of the primary pads can be found while TPP shapes showed lower peak Bleak than the CP primary at
the primaries are transferring the same Su to the secondaries. ±150 mm displacements as shown in Table. I. As expected,


 Magnetic Flux
Density (μT)
0.065

0.052
(a) 0.039

0.026

0.013

(b)

Fig. 5. Example of a JMAG simulation for circular TPP to CP secondary Fig. 6. Representation of magnetic field in the ferrite sheet for (a) the
showing Bleak in two of the four XZ and Y Z planes. hexagonal and (b) the circular shaped TPP.

TABLE I
P EAK Bleak AND PPL OF TPP AND CP PRIMARIES TO THE CP 0.20
SECONDARY AT OUTPUT POWER OF 3.3 kW.

Primary:Secondary X and Y displacement Peak Bleak PPL 0.15

CP:CP (150 mm, 150 mm) 84.0 μT 39.3
(-150 mm, -150 mm) 84.0 μT 39.3
keff

CP:CP
Circular TPP:CP (150 mm, 150 mm) 44.7 μT 73.8
0.10
Circular TPP:CP (-150 mm, -150 mm) 42.5 μT 77.6 CP
Hexagonal TPP:CP (150 mm, 150 mm) 74.8 μT 44.1 0.05 Circular TPP
Hexagonal TPP:CP (-150 mm, -150 mm) 39.0 μT 84.6
Triangular TPP:CP (150 mm, 150 mm) 73.3 μT 45.0 Wider Circ. TPP
Triangular TPP:CP (-150 mm, -150 mm) 43.5 μT 75.9 0.00
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150
X (mm)
the skewed keff of the triangular TPP from Fig. 4 is translated
into a skewed peak Bleak . The peak Bleak of triangular TPP at
Fig. 7. keff for circular, triangular and rectangular TPP and CP primaries
150 mm displacement is almost twice as much as −150 mm when the CP secondary is displaced ±150 mm in X direction.
displacement.
Contrary to expectations, the hexagonal TPP, which has a
relatively symmetric keff profile, resulted in a skewed Bleak polarised pads similar to what is shown in [21]. In the case of
similar to the triangular TPP. This is due to sharp corners this investigation when there are only non-polarised pads as
of the ferrite structure in the hexagonal TPP, which acts as the secondary, such as the CP, the coil widths can be modified
a point of convergence for the magnetic field as shown in to improve keff of the TPP to the CP secondary further. In
Fig. 6. The circular TPP, which does not have any sharp the simulations, a circular TPP was modified to increase the
corners, resulted in the lowest overall peak Bleak for both CU5 from 32 mm to 96 mm, while keeping a constant outer
150 mm and −150 mm displacements since the magnetic field coil diameter (CU2). The increase in CU4 in the circular TPP
distribution in the ferrite is more even. The differences in keff correspondingly increased keff to the CP secondary as shown
of circular TPP to CP was such that Bleak of the circular TPP in Fig. 7.
resulted in being almost half of Bleak of CP primary in both
displacements. V. P RACTICAL VALIDATION
As an example to validate the findings, both a prototype
IV. M ODIFICATION ON T RIPOLAR PAD C OIL W IDTH
circular TPP and a CP secondary were constructed in the
The TPP coil widths are determined by the dimension labels laboratory as shown in Fig. 8. Since the prototype pads were
CU4 and CU5 as shown in Fig. 1. Generally, the inside coil slightly different in shape and size to the simulation TPP due
width (CU4) is designed to be as wide as possible, while to the limitations in the blocks of ferrite available, new sets of
the outside coil width (CU5) is designed to be as narrow simulations were conducted to validate the simulations. Using
as possible to improve keff to polarised pads such as DDP the prototype TPP and CP, the effective coupling factor was
[13]. The TPP shapes shown in Fig. 1 are all optimised for measured for secondary displacements between ±150 mm in


 A PPENDIX
Dimensions of the TPP and CP primaries and CP secondary
presented in Fig. 1 are shown in the following Table III. All
dimensions are in millimetres.

TABLE III
D IMENSIONS FOR THE MAGNETIC STRUCTURES USED IN THE
(a) (b) SIMULATIONS .

Fig. 8. Prototype (a) circular TPP and (b) CP secondary implemented in the Circular Hexagonal Triangular CP CP
Label
laboratory. TPP TPP TPP Primary Secondary
CU1 600 570 600 600 220
CU2 4 4 4 4 4
CU3 32 32 32 600 270
0.35 CU4 96 96 96 120 48
0.30 CU5 32 32 32 - -
FE1 670 640 670 670 250
0.25 FE2 5 5 5 5 5
FE3 - - - 670 300
0.20
keff

OL 182 182 202 - -

0.15
0.10
Simulation Results R EFERENCES
0.05 Experimental Results
[1] G. Covic and J. Boys, “Modern trends in inductive power transfer for
0.00 transportation applications,” IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected
−150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 28–41, March 2013.
X (mm) [2] S. Hui, W. Zhong, and C. Lee, “A critical review of recent progress
in mid-range wireless power transfer,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 4500–4511, Sep 2014.
[3] S. Choi, B. Gu, S. Jeong, and C. Rim, “Advances in wireless power
Fig. 9. Simulation and practical experimental results for the prototype TPP
transfer systems for roadway-powered electric vehicles,” IEEE Journal
primary to prototype CP secondary in the laboratory.
of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.
18–36, March 2015.
[4] J. M. Miller, P. T. Jones, J. M. Li, and O. C. Onar, “ORNL experience
TABLE II
and challenges facing dynamic wireless power charging of EV’s,” IEEE
L EAKAGE MAGNETIC FIELD MEASUREMENTS ±800 mm IN X DIRECTION
Circuits and Systems Magazine, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 40–53, Second quarter
FROM THE CENTRE OF THE TPP PRIMARY AT OUTPUT POWER OF 1 kW.
2015.
Secondary Sim. Bleak (μT) Exp. Bleak (μT) [5] S. Y. R. Hui, “Magnetic resonance for wireless power transfer [a look
displacement (mm) 800 mm −800 mm 800 mm −800 mm back],” IEEE Power Electronics Magazine, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 14–31,
(150, 150) 14.7 14.5 16.9 16.7 March 2016.
(-150, -150) 17.5 16.7 18.5 17.9 [6] P. Sergeant and A. Van den Bossche, “Inductive coupler for contactless
power transmission,” IET Electric Power Applications, vol. 2, no. 1, pp.
1–7, Jan 2008.
[7] J. Hirai, T.-W. Kim, and A. Kawamura, “Study on intelligent battery
charging using inductive transmission of power and information,” IEEE
X and Y direction as shown in Fig. 9. The Bleak was measured Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 335–345, Mar
for the prototype system as shown in Table II. Note that Bleak 2000.
measured here is simply taken from ±800 mm in X direction [8] S. Y. R. Hui and W. W. C. Ho, “A new generation of universal contactless
battery charging platform for portable consumer electronic equipment,”
of the centre of the primary pad to show that the results from IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 620–627,
the simulation and the practical system are in agreement. May 2005.
[9] W. Zhong, X. Liu, and S. Hui, “Analysis on a single-layer winding array
structure for contactless battery charging systems with free-positioning
VI. C ONCLUSION and localized charging features,” in IEEE Energy Conversion Congress
and Exposition (ECCE 2010), 2010, pp. 658–665.
Three different coil and ferrite shapes were presented and [10] A. Zaheer, M. Budhia, D. Kacprzak, and G. A. Covic, “Magnetic design
of a 300 W under-floor contactless power transfer system,” in 37th
investigated for the Tripolar Pad (TPP) in terms of effective Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON
coupling factor (keff ) and leakage magnetic field (Bleak ). All 2011), Nov 2011, pp. 1408–1413.
three TPP shapes have performed better than an equivalent CP [11] N. Soltani, M. S. Aliroteh, M. T. Salam, J. L. P. Velazquez, and
R. Genov, “Low-radiation cellular inductive powering of rodent wireless
primary in both keff and Bleak due to the ability of the TPP to brain interfaces: Methodology and design guide,” IEEE Transactions on
change its magnetic field shape depending on the displacement Biomedical Circuits and Systems, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, Mar 2016.
of the secondary. The simulations have found that a circular [12] M. Budhia, G. Covic, and J. Boys, “Design and optimization of circular
magnetic structures for lumped inductive power transfer systems,” IEEE
shaped TPP resulted in a symmertric keff profile and generated Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 3096–3108, Nov
the lowest peak Bleak when a circular/square pad (CP) sec- 2011.
ondary was displaced to the worst case alignments. Different [13] M. Budhia, J. T. Boys, G. A. Covic, and C. Y. Huang, “Development
of a single-sided flux magnetic coupler for electric vehicle IPT charging
coil widths were investigated to show that for a non-polarised systems,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 60, no. 1,
secondary pad, wider coil widths result in a higher keff . pp. 318–328, Jan 2013.


[14] S. Raabe and G. Covic, “Practical design considerations for contactless
power transfer quadrature pick-ups,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 400–409, Jan 2013.
[15] J. Huh, S. Lee, W. Lee, G. Cho, and C. Rim, “Narrow-width inductive
power transfer system for online electrical vehicles,” IEEE Transactions
on Power Electronics, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 3666–3679, Dec 2011.
[16] S. Choi, S. Jeong, E. Lee, B. Gu, S. Lee, and C. Rim, “Generalized
models on self-decoupled dual pick-up coils for large lateral tolerance,”
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 6434–6445,
Nov 2015.
[17] M. Bertoluzzo, G. Buja, and H. K. Dashora, “Lumped track layout
design for dynamic wireless charging of electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans-
actions on Industrial Electronics, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, Mar 2016.
[18] A. Zaheer, H. Hao, G. Covic, and D. Kacprzak, “Investigation of
multiple decoupled coil primary pad topologies in lumped IPT systems
for interoperable electric vehicle charging,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1937–1955, April 2015.
[19] S. Kim, A. Zaheer, G. Covic, and J. Boys, “Tripolar pad for inductive
power transfer systems,” in 40th Annual Conference of the IEEE
Industrial Electronics Society (IECON 2014), 2014, pp. 3066–3072.
[20] A. Zaheer, G. A. Covic, and D. Kacprzak, “A bipolar pad in a
10-kHz 300-W distributed IPT system for AGV applications,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 3288–3301,
July 2014.
[21] S. Kim, A. Tejeda, G. A. Covic, and J. T. Boys, “Analysis on mutually
decoupled primary coils for IPT systems for EV charging,” in IEEE
Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE 2016), 2016.
[22] P. Sen and T. De Swiet, “Effects of shape, proximity and ferrite materials
on resistive losses in multi-conductor transmission lines and antennas,”
Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications, vol. 11, no. 12, pp.
1685–1701, 1997.
[23] ICNIRP, “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and
magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz),” Health Physics, vol. 99, no. 6, pp.
818–836, 2010.