Received: 28 May 2020 Revised: 21 December 2020 Accepted: 19 January 2021

DOI: 10.1002/jnm.2868

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Multi-coil electromagnets: An accurate magnetic equivalent

circuit, cost, and energy management

Ali Hashemi | Parsa Yazdanpanah Qaraei

Department of Electrical Engineering,

Faculty of Mohajer, Isfahan Branch,
Technical and Vocational University
(TVU), Isfahan, Iran
Correspondence
Ali Hashemi, Department of Electrical
Engineering, Faculty of Mohajer, Isfahan
Branch, Technical and Vocational
University (TVU), Isfahan, Iran.
Email: ahashemi@tvu.ac.ir
Abstract
Using nonintegrated multiple coils in an electromagnet is a way to manage
energy and reduce maintenance costs. In order to model and analyze the
lifting force and the magnetic field in different zone of the electromagnet, an
exact magnetic equivalent circuit (MEC) is required. In this paper, an accurate
MEC to analyze dual-coil electromagnets is presented. MATLAB and ANSYS
MAXWELL software are used to analyze the proposed MEC and simulate the
magnetic field and the lifting force, respectively. In multi-coil electromagnets,
if a coil burns out, the electromagnet will still be able to lift the loads with a
percentage of the nominal load weight. Also, it is only necessary to replace the
burned coil, which reduces the maintenance costs of the electromagnet. Flexi-
bility in winding excitation is another advantage of using multiple coils in elec-
tromagnets. In this case, one or more coils can be excited according to the
weight of the load. This feature not only increases the lifetime of the coils but
also reduces the energy consumption of the electromagnet and no need to use
expensive power electronic converters to continuously control the current of
coils. To evaluate the proposed MEC, the laboratory platform of an electromag-
net was made to lift a load of 100 kg in the air gap of 2 mm and tested in two
modes, single-coil and dual-coil. The analytical, simulation, and experimental
results have very good agreement, indicating the high accuracy of the
proposed MEC.

KEYWORDS
electromagnet, energy consumption management, flexibility, lifting force, magnetic equivalent
circuit

1 | INTRODUCTION

Electromagnets have a wide range of applications in the industry, including magnetic cranes for lifting and moving
objects. There are many scientific sources on electromagnet and its applications. The main differences between these
sources are the geometric structure of the core, the location of the coil, the nodding of the core, the magnetic equivalent
circuit (MEC) of the electromagnet, and the method of its analysis.
In Refs. 1-3, different structures of ferromagnetic cores such as U-I and E-I have been investigated, and the effect of
coil location on magnetic field and flux distribution has been evaluated. In Refs. 4-6, some techniques for designing
electromagnets used in Maglev trains are introduced. In Refs. 7,8, various MECs are presented for nodal analysis of the

Int J Numer Model El. 2021;e2868. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jnm © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 1 of 15
https://doi.org/10.1002/jnm.2868
2 of 15 HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI

electromagnets and formulas for calculating lifting force are proposed. In Ref. 9, two algorithms for analyzing and
designing electromagnets have been proposed.
The MEC model of E-I core electromagnet presented in Refs. 7,8, has some misplaced nodes and leakage
permeances, which reduce the analysis accuracy.
In this paper, a new MEC is presented to predict fringing fields and leakage fluxes of multi-coil electromagnets with
high accuracy. For this purpose, the improper nodes and permeances in commonly used MECs, which presented in pre-
vious articles for single-coil electromagnet will be suitable placed and mathematically corrected, respectively. The pro-
posed MEC is then generalized for modeling and analysis of a sample dual-coil electromagnet. Using MATLAB and
ANSYS MAXWELL software, the proposed MECs are analyzed and magnetic field and lifting force of the electromagnet
simulated. Finally, the laboratory platform of magnetic crane was made to lift a load of 100 kg in 2 mm air-gap and
tested in two modes, single-coil and dual-coil. The analytical, simulation, and experimental results were compared to
validate and evaluate the MECs proposed in this paper.
In addition, the lifting force flexibility, energy consumption, and maintenance costs of the dual-coil electromagnet
will be studied in comparison with the single-coil electromagnet.
It should be noted that the choice of two coils in this article is only for demonstrating the proposed idea. The pro-
posed MEC in this article can be generalized to more coils. By optimizing based on performance and energy manage-
ment, the number of coils can be determined to improve the operation of the electromagnet.

2 | MECS OF THE ELECTROMAGNETS

2.1 | Single-coil E-I electromagnet

Figure 1A shows the 3-D schematic structure of an E-I core electromagnet stimulated with single integrated coil. To
bring the MEC of this structure, the various parts of the electromagnet are nodded and named, respectively, as shown
in Figure 1B. It is important to realize that there is no unique choice in nodding. The role of the nodes is to break the
circuit into regions which may be treated as a simple permeances; either linear or nonlinear. Nodes should cover all
analytical parts of the core.
Arrows in Figure 1B, show the main path of the magnetic flux into the ferromagnetic core. When the I-shaped (bar)
is close to the E-shaped of the core portion, most of the magnetic field is placed on the core path. In the vicinity of the
air gap, the same magnetic poles are formed at the end of the side arms and the opposite magnetic pole at the end of
the middle arm. These provide the conditions for magnetic force to lift the bar. During this process, some part of the
magnetic flux does not go through the core, which is called leakage flux. The leakage flux is due to nonzero air perme-
ability. In the air gaps, the magnetic field lines are no longer confined by the core, so they ‘bulge’ out beyond the

F I G U R E 1 E-I core electromagnet with single integrated coil A, schematic structure; B, nodding and main path of the magnetic flux; C,
half of the proposed MEC
HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI 3 of 15

outlines of the core before curving back to enter the bar, reducing the field strength in the gap. The bulges are called
fringing field.9
The MEC of single-coil E-I electromagnet is presented in Refs. 7,8. But, some nodes and leakage permeances are
misplaced, as follows:

1. The winding on the core is equivalent to a source of magnetomotive force (MMF) with a series permeance, due to its
physical dimensions. Therefore, placing a leakage permeance in parallel with the MMF source is not logical and
should be corrected.
2. Depending on the location of the coil, the horizontal leakage permeance must be parallel to it. But in Refs. 7,8, the
vertical leakage permeance is parallel to the coil.
3. The spool on which the coil is wrapped, has a thickness. Therefore, the coil is a short distance from the core. Due to
the small amount of created air permeances, they can be ignored. But the core permeance at the top of the coil must
be considered.

To solve these mistakes, an accurate MEC must be use. The half of the proposed MEC is shown in Figure 1C.
Because of the symmetry, it is sufficient to analyze half of the MEC. It can be reduced the software computing time.
If i is the coil current and N is the number of coil's turns, the MEC will have a MMF source equal to Ni (At). The
permeances in the MEC can be categorized into several groups.7-9
Core Permeances: These permeances are calculated and determined by considering the nonlinear behavior of the fer-
romagnetic B-H curve and the dimensions of different parts of the core. More accurate values of these permeances are
given by Equations (1) to (8):

wc d
P01 = μðBÞ ð1Þ
h1 + w2b

wc d
P12 = μðBÞ ð2Þ
dw

wc d
P23 = μðBÞ ð3Þ
h2

wi d
P45 = μðBÞ wc ð4Þ
2 + ws + w2e

we d
P67 = μðBÞ ð5Þ
h2

we d
P78 = μðBÞ ð6Þ
dw

we d
P89 = μðBÞ ð7Þ
h1 + wb =2

wb d
P09 = μðBÞ wc ð8Þ
2 + ws + w2e

Leakage Permeances: The nonzero magnetic permeability of the air causes some of the magnetic flux does not
completely pass through the core and leaks from different parts of core to its surroundings. Leakage fluxes are so signif-
icant in accurate definition of MEC. In order to calculating leakage fluxes, the configuration and location of the coil on
the core are important.
To calculate the leakage permeances, these following inherent assumptions are considered:
4 of 15 HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI

1. Because of the high permeance of the core compared to the permeance of the air, the drop in MMF is negligible
throughout the core material.
2. Leakage paths have the constant magnetic field intensity.

The energy stored in a magnetically linear inductor can be derived as

1
E = ðNiÞ2 P ð9Þ
2

where P is the leakage permeance.

On the other hand, the energy stored in a linear magnetic material and spatially varying fields is given with:
ð
1
E = μ0 H 2 dV ð10Þ
2
V

where μ0 is the permeability of free space, H is the magnetic field intensity, and dV is volumetric integration variable
over the volume of the coil window. From (9) and (10), the permeance is achieved as
ð
μ0
P= H 2 dV ð11Þ
ðNiÞ2
V

The horizontal leakage permeances in different parts of the electromagnet (core) are calculated from
Equations (12) to (19):

dw d
Ps = 2Phl11 = 2μ0 ð12Þ
3ws
 
dw π minðwe , wc =2Þ
P27 = 2Phl12 = 2μ0 ln 1 + ð13Þ
3π ws

h1 d
Phbo11 = μ0 ð14Þ
ws
 
h1 π minðwe, wc=2Þ
Phbo12 = μ0 ln 1 + ð15Þ
π ws

P18 = Phbo = Phbo11 + 2Phbo12 ð16Þ

h2 d
Phbu11 = μ0 ð17Þ
ws
 
h2 π minðwe, wc=2Þ
Phbu12 = μ0 ln 1 + ð18Þ
π ws

P36 = Phbu = Phbu11 + 2Phbu12 ð19Þ

In Equation (12), Ps represents the leakage permeance due to flux leakage from the coil. The main part of the path
of this leakage flux is the air inside the slot. This is the reason it is put directly across the MMF source series with P12 in
Figure 1C. It should be noted that if Ps is placed only across the MMF source, it will have no effect on the performance
of the MEC and lifting force calculations.
HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI 5 of 15

The vertical leakage permeances are caused by the leakage of magnetic flux from the top of E-part to the I-part of the
core through the slot. They are located between the corresponding nodes in the MEC. The values of these Permeances
are calculated by Equations (20) to (25):

μ0 ww d
Pvl11 = ð20Þ
3 ds + x
 
ww π minðwb , wi Þ
Pvl12 = 2μ0 ln 1 + ð21Þ
3π ds + x

P04 = 2Pvl = 2ðPvl11 + 2Pvl12 Þ ð22Þ

ðws −ww Þd
Pvb11 = μ0 ð23Þ
ds + x
 
ws −ww π minðwb ,wi Þ
Pvb12 = μ0 ln 1 + ð24Þ
π ds + x

P59 = Pvb = Pvb11 + 2Pvb12 ð25Þ

In the side view of the core, as shown in Figure 2, the exterior adjacent conductor leakage (or face) flux consists of
two paths, an ‘internal’ leakage path that penetrates the winding and an “external” path does not enter the winding.
The face permeance of the coil is calculated by Equation (26):

P0,3 = 2Pf = 2ðPint + Pext Þ ð26Þ

where

 2  !
wc w2w dw ww dw πww
Pint = μ0 2 − + ln 1 + ð27Þ
πww 2 π π dw

 
wc dw + π minðwb + h1 , h2 Þ
Pext = μ0 ln ð28Þ
π dw + πww

Permeances due to air gap: These permeances are caused by the air gap and fringing effect. They are calculated by
Equations (29) to (34):

FIGURE 2 Different paths for face leakage permeance

6 of 15 HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI

wc d
Pcd = μ0 ð29Þ
x
 
wc π minðh2 ,wi Þ
Pcff = Pcfb = μ0 ln 1 + ð30Þ
π x

 
2d π minðh2 , ws =2
Pcfi = Pefi = μ0 ln 1 + ð31Þ
π 2x

we d
Ped = μ0 ð32Þ
x

P34 = Pcx = Pcd + 2Pcff + 2Pcfi ð33Þ

P56 = Pex = Ped + 2Peff + Pefo + Pefi ð34Þ

By using the nodal analysis in MATLAB software, the proposed MEC shown in Figure 1C can be analyzed. There-
fore, the magnetic field in different parts of the MEC can be calculated.
In Refs. 8,9, the method of calculating the lifting force of the electromagnet (Fe) is presented as

1 ∂L 2
Fe = − i ð35Þ
2 ∂x

where L is the inductance of the MEC associated with the equivalent permeance of the circuit (P) and calculates as

L = N 2P ð36Þ

The power losses of the coil can be easily calculated as follows:

PL = Ri2 ð37Þ

where R is the electrical resistance of the wire and is obtained from Equation (38):

l
R= ð38Þ
σS

where l is the wire length in (m), S is the cross-sectional area of the wire in (m2), and σ is the conductivity of the wire
which is equal to 5.851375 × 107 (1/Ω m) for the copper.
The thermal energy of the wire can be calculated from the Equation (39).

Q = PL × t ð39Þ

where Q is the heat generated in (J) and t is the coil excitation time in (s).
The temperature of the wire can be obtained from Equation (40):

Q = mCp ΔT ð40Þ

where m is the mass of wire in (kg), Cp is the specific heat of wire in (J/kg C), and ΔT is the temperature changes
in ( C).

ΔT = T ∞ −T 0 ð41Þ
HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI 7 of 15

T∞ and T0 are the final and initial coil temperatures, respectively.

If the calculated temperature (T∞) in Equations (40) and (41) exceeds the tolerable insulating temperature of the
wire, the wire insulation will be melted and the coil will be burned. By given the characteristics of the wire, the safe
operating time (ts); that is, the maximum operating time of the electromagnet before its coil is going to burn, can be cal-
culated using Equations (39) to (41).

2.2 | Proposed dual-coil E-I electromagnet

Figure 3A shows the geometric structure of the E-I core electromagnet with two nonintegrated coils. The selected nodes
for nodal analysis are shown in Figure 3B. Since the execution time of the circuit analysis is directly related to the num-
ber of nodes, it has been tried to improve the speed of software circuit analysis using the features of symmetry.
Figure 3C shows half of the proposed MEC. Each coil is equivalent to one MMF source in the MEC. The most of
permeances in the proposed MEC are calculated and determined with the same manner such as single-coil case, except
vertical and face permeances.10-12
Figure 4 shows the different paths for vertical leakage flux, which are created by coils and core.
Each path generates an equivalent leakage permeance as shown in Figure 3. Assuming that the coils are of the same
width, these permeances are calculated by Equations (42) to (45):
"    2  #
2d h2m 2 2l1 πhm
Pv1 = μ0 2 − h m l1 + ln 1 + ð42Þ
πww 2 π π 2l1

where l1 = h1 + dw.

F I G U R E 3 Dual-coil electromagnet with E-I core A,

geometrical structure; B, location of nodes; C, half of the
proposed MEC
8 of 15 HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI

FIGURE 4 Different paths for vertical leakage flux

FIGURE 5 Different paths for face leakage flux

"    2  #
2d h2m 2 2l2 πhm
Pv2 = μ0 2 − h m l2 + ln 1 + ð43Þ
πww 2 π π 2l2

where l2 = h2 + dw + x.
 
d w3w − h3m
Pv3 = μ0 ð44Þ
3w2w ðds + x Þ

 
ww π minðwb , wi Þ
Pfv = μ0 ln 1 + ð45Þ
3π ds + x

The different paths for face permeances are shown in Figure 5.

Assuming hm is smaller than h1 and h2, these permeances are calculated by Equations (46) to (49):
"  2  #
wc h2m dw1 hm dw1 πhm
P f 1 = μ0 2 − + ln 1 + ð46Þ
πww 2 π π dw1

"  2  #
wc h2m dw2 hm dw2 πhm
P f 2 = μ0 2 − + ln 1 + ð47Þ
πww 2 π π dw2

"  2  #
wc w2w −h2m le ðww −hm Þ le le + πww
P f 3 = μ0 2 + + ln ð48Þ
πww 2 π π le + πhm

 
wc le + πr M
Pf ,ext = μ0 ln ð49Þ
π le + πww
HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI 9 of 15

where le = dw1 + hm + dw2 and rM = min(wb + h1, h2).

The corresponding permeances, as shown in Figure 3, are calculated by Equations (50) to (54):
 
P03 = 2 × Pv1 + Pf 1 ð50Þ

P25 = 2 × Pf 2 ð51Þ

P26 = 2 × Pv2 ð52Þ

 
P05 = 2 × Pf 3 + Pf ,ext ð53Þ

 
P06 = 2 × Pv3 + 2Pfv ð54Þ

If the number of turns of each coil in dual-coil electromagnet is equal to half the number of turns of the integrated
coil in single-coil electromagnet, the total MMF of the MEC will not change:

N N
total MMF ffi F s1 + F s2 = i + i = Ni ð55Þ
2 2

On the other hand, by halving the length of the wire in the coils, the heat loss of each coil will be halved, according
to Equations (37) to (39).

3 | ELECTR OM AGNET A NALY SIS A ND S IM U LATION

To ensure the accuracy of the proposed MEC, an electromagnet was analyzed and simulated using MATLAB and
ANSYS MAXWELL. For this purpose, a single-coil electromagnet with E-I core was first selected according to
Figure 2A. The core dimensions in (mm) are

w e = w b = w i = 32; w c = 56;w s = 35; d = 55:5; ds = 96;Air gap = x = 2

The magnetic core material is chosen to be Magnesil. It is a kind of silicon-iron alloy which has nonlinear magnetic
behavior and its saturation point is about 1.6 (T). Figure 6 shows the DC hysteresis loop of Magnesil.13 Due to the exci-
tation of the coil with DC current and using the MATLAB-CURVE FITTING toolbox, the Magnesil permittivity as a
function of magnetic field, μ(B) can be approximated as

μðBÞ = a6 B6 + a5 B5 + a4 B4 + a3 B3 + a2 B2 + a1 B + a0 ð56Þ

where the coefficients an are as follows:

a6 = 0.052957255252733;
a5 = −0.271976568977320;
a4 = 0.501434829366580;
a3 = −0.422212421883767;
a2 = 0.165473815851318;
a1 = −0.003744138108988;
a0 = 0.001848588227572;

In single-coil mode, 390-turns winding was selected and the current is assumed to be 5 (A). This generates the
MMF source equals to 1950 (At) in the MEC. This coil has h1 = 7 (mm) distance from the top of the core. The width
and height of the coil in (mm) are ww = 6.6 and dw = 78.5, respectively.
In the second step, the proposed scheme was implemented and the 390-turns winding was replaced in accordance
with Figure 3A with two smaller nonintegrated 195-turns windings. The space between coils is equal to 4 (mm), and
10 of 15 HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI

FIGURE 6 Magnesil DC hysteresis loop13

FIGURE 7 Lifting force vs air gap distance for single-coil and dual-coil electromagnets

each coil is excited by 5 (A) electric current. Therefore, the total MMF will not change relative to the single-coil mode.
Each coil has dimensions equal to dw = 38 and ww = 6.6 both in (mm).
In Figures 7, the MATLAB and ANSYS MAXWELL results for lifting force of the single-coil and the proposed dual-
coil electromagnets are shown and compared. It is obvious that there is no noticeable difference between the results.
Figure 8 shows the magnetic field simulation results of the single-coil and dual-coil electromagnets in ANSYS MAX-
WELL software. As can be seen, in both electromagnets, the magnetic field inside the core under the coils has the
highest value. In each section of the core, some of the magnetic flux and field leak into the surrounding space or due to
the fringing effect deviate from the main path. The fringing fields are clear in this figure.
Table 1 represents a comparison between the MATLAB and ANSYS MAXWELL magnetic field results in the impor-
tant parts of the electromagnets (based on Figure 8). Part of the difference between the results is in how the magnetic
HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI 11 of 15

FIGURE 8 Magnetic field simulation of the electromagnets (air gap = 2 mm) A, single-coil; B, dual-coil (i1 = i2 = 5 A)

TABLE 1 Comparison of the magnetic field in single and dual-coil electromagnet

MATLAB ANALYSIS Error

Magnetic Field of
Electromagnets (T) Air gap = 2 ANSYS Proposed Sudhoff Proposed Sudhoff
(mm), I = 5 (A) Sym. MAXWELL MEC MEC MEC MEC
Single-coil Under the coil A 0.903 0.9053 0.97837 0.25% 8.3%
Middle air gap B 0.653 0.6677 0.7947 2.1% 21.7%
Left air gap C 0.528 0.5474 0.6954 3.5% 31.7%
Right air gap D 0.525 0.5474 0.6954 4.1% 32.4%
Dual-coil Under upper A1 0.839 0.8577 — 2.2% —
(proposed) coil
Under lower A2 0.817 0.8418 — 2.9% —
coil
Middle air gap B 0.651 0.6675 — 2.5% —
Left air gap C 0.534 0.5476 — 2.5% —
Right air gap D 0.531 0.5476 — 3% —

field is calculated in the two software. ANSYS MAXWELL is based on finite element method (FEM), but MEC analysis
in MATLAB is based on nodal analysis.
Also, in simulation, the determination of magnetic field measurement points in each region is done approximately
and manually. In Table 1, the results of traditional MEC analysis for single-coil electromagnet are presented, too. The
MEC and its permeances are extracted by Sudhoff's method.8 In order to evaluate the accuracy of MECs, their error in
calculating the magnetic field of the electromagnet, in comparison with the simulation results, is presented. It is
observed that the error of proposed MEC is too smaller than the Sudhoff's MEC.

4 | CONSTRUCTION AND M EASUREMENT

The single-coil and the proposed dual-coil electromagnets were made and tested. Figure 9 shows the built-in electro-
magnets. In this figure, the proposed mechanical platform to test and measure electromagnet's properties is also shown.
During the winding of a coil, attention should be paid to the thermal expansion of the core and the wire so that the
stretching and bending of the wire does not damage its insulating coating.14
12 of 15 HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI

F I G U R E 9 Constructed electromagnets A, Single-coil; B, dual-

coil; C, platform

Table 2 presents the physical characteristics of both electromagnets. Maximum temperature (TMax) that the
wire can withstand without burning the insulation is 180 ( C). In single-coil electromagnet, the winding has 1.7
(Ω) resistance. When the coil is excited by a 5 (A) current, the power dissipated in the wire is equal to 42.5 (W).
According to Equations (39) to (41), regardless of the role that the core plays in heat transfer, it is expected that
after 789.7 (s) the temperature of the coil will reach 180 ( C). After that, the wire insulation melts and the coil
burns. In proposed dual-coil electromagnet, each winding has 0.85 (Ω) resistance and the power dissipation of each
coil is 21.2 (W). By using Equations (39) to (41), the safe operating time, that is, the time caries each coil to reach
180 ( C), without considering the core effects, is equal to 789.7 (s), which is the same value as calculated in the
single-coil electromagnet.
From these approximate calculations, it can be concluded that the use of dual coil does not cause the coil burns
faster. Even due to the increase in the effective cross-sectional area of the coil with the core, the safe operating time can
be expected to increase, because the core plays an important role in heat transfer and cooling.
The lifting force results of analysis, simulation and measurement for each electromagnet are presented in Figure 10.
As can be seen, the results of the lifting force are in good agreement; that is, the experimental results confirm the ana-
lytical method and simulations and indicate the high accuracy of the proposed MEC in this paper. In Table 3, the
results obtained for the proposed dual-coil electromagnet when only one of the coils is excited are also presented. Com-
paring the results of excitation of one coil with the results of excitation of both coils indicates that the lifting force of
electromagnet is reduced to about 25% of the nominal value. It is clear, according to Equations (35) and (36), the lifting
force of the electromagnet is proportional to square of the MMF source value. When only one coil is excited, the MMF
source value is halved, so the force will be a quarter of the rated value.
Another advantage of the proposed dual-coil electromagnet is that the coils can be excited independently and in
proportion to the weight of the load. Figure 11 shows the proposed electromagnet's lifting force, when only one of the
coils is excited. It is clear that the results of these two software are good compatibility and agreement. Also, comparison
of Figure 10 with Figure 11 shows that if only one coil is excited, the electromagnet will have about 25% of the its
HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI 13 of 15

T A B L E 2 Electromagnets Core Material Magnesil (97% Fe + 3% Si)

specifications
Dimensions (mm) we = wb = wi = 32;
wc = 56; ws = 35;
d = 55.5; ds = 96;
h1 = 7; Air gap = 2
Weight (mass) 3375 (gr)
15-17
Coil Winding wire Material Copper (cu)
Nominal conductor diameter 1 (mm)
Max. overall diameter 1.124 (mm)
Specific heat (Cp) 0.368 (J/gr K)
Max. current density 7.62 × 106 (A/m2)
Insulation Type: PEI
Class: H
TMax = 180 ( C)
Single-coil Turn no. N = 390
Dimensions (mm) ww = 6.6
dw = 78.5
length l = 78.14 (m)
Resistance R = 1.7 (Ω)
Weight (mass) M = 570 (gr)
Dual-coil (proposed) Turn no. N1 = N2 = 195
Dimensions (mm) ww1 = ww2 = 6.6
dw1 = dw2 = 38
length l1 = l2 = 39 (m)
Resistance R1 = R2 = 0.85 (Ω)
Weight (mass) M1 = M2 = 285 (gr)
Spool Material Thermoplastic
Thickness 2 (mm)
Mass Single-coil: 90 (gr)
Dual-coil: 47 (gr)

FIGURE 10 Comparison between lifting force of the single-coil and dual-coil electromagnets in different excitation current of coils (air
gap = 2 mm)
14 of 15 HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI

FIGURE 11 Lifting force of the dual-coil electromagnet when only one coil is excited (air gap = 2 mm)

nominal lifting force. Therefore, there is no need to stimulate both windings to lift light loads. This reduces energy con-
sumption and prolongs the life of the coils.

5 | C ON C L U S I ON

In this paper, the idea of a multiple nonintegrated coils electromagnet was proposed. The goals of the proposed idea are
to reduce energy consumption and maintenance costs, as well as increase the lifetime of the coil and the performance
flexibility of the electromagnet. For this purpose, an accurate MEC for dual-coil electromagnet was introduced. In order
to evaluate the proposed MEC, the laboratory platform of the electromagnet was built to lift a load of 100 kg in 2 mm
air gap.
Experimental results were compared with those obtained from the nodal analysis of the proposed MEC in MATLAB
and also with simulated results in ANSYS MAXWELL software. Comparing the results confirmed the high accuracy of
the proposed MEC. Also, ANSYS MAXWELL simulation takes about 100 s. In the proposed idea, no need to change the
dimensions of the core, the integrated coil of the electromagnet is replaced with two or more smaller independent coils.
Smaller coils have lower power losses and are more flexible in performance at the loads with different weights. The flex-
ibility and independent excitation of the coils not only reduces energy consumption but also increases the lifetime of
the coils. Another advantage of the proposed idea is that the coils of electromagnet are nonintegrated. Therefore, if one
of the coils burns, it is only necessary to replace the burned coil. Under these conditions, the second coil is still active
and the electromagnet will be able to move objects up to 25% of the nominal load. This will reduce the cost of
maintaining the electromagnet. The proposed MEC in this article can be generalized to more coils. By optimizing, the
number of coils can be determined to improve the performance of the electromagnet.

ORCID
Ali Hashemi https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9710-2350

R EF E RE N C E S
1. Biswas PK, Banerjee S. ANSYS simulation based comparative study between different actuators and guide-ways used in DC electromag-
netic suspension systems. International Journal on Electrical Engineering and Informatics. 2012;4(2):217-230.
HASHEMI AND YAZDANPANAH QARAEI 15 of 15

2. Banerjee S, Biswas PK, Bhaduri R, Sarkar P. A comparative study between different structures of rail and actuator used in electromag-
netic levitation systems. Proc. PEMD-2010, UK. London: IET Institution of Engineering and Technology; 2010:954-959. https://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5522471.
3. Biswas PK, Bannerjee S. Analysis of U-I and U-U type rail and actuator used in electromagnetic levitation system using FEM software.
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering. 2012;2(5):32-40.
4. Choi JY, Sung SY, Jang SM, Lee SH. Design and dynamic analysis of magnetically levitated electromagnets with low-resolution position
sensor. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. 2012;48(11):4546-4549.
5. Bakhvalov Y, Grechikhin V, Kravchenko O, Yufanova A. Optimal design of shell-type electromagnets of XY-coordinate electric actuator.
Proc. ICPDS-2016, Russia. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2016:94-97. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7756715/.
6. Kolimas L, Sul P. Computer design of electromagnets. Proc. EIIC-2015, Poland; 2015:211-214. https://doi.org/10.18638/eiic.2015.4.1.479.
7. Cale J, Sudhoff SD, Tan LQ. Accurately modeling EI core inductors using a high-Fidelity magnetic equivalent circuit approach. IEEE
Transactions on Magnetics. 2006;42(1):40-46.
8. Sudhoff S. D. Power Magnetic Devices, A Multi-Objective Design Approach. New Jersey: IEEE Press Series on Electromagnetic IEEE Press-
Wiley; 2014.
9. Hashemi A, Gharaei PY. A novel method for field analysis and design of electromagnet used in lifting applications.
Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications. 2019;8(4):32-38.
10. Pokharel S, Dimitrovski A. Analytical modeling of a gapless ferromagnetic core reactor. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics. 2020;56(2):
1-10.
11. Pokharel S, Dimitrovski A. A gapless ferromagnetic Core reactor-magnetic equivalent circuit and inductance. IEEE PEGSM-2019,
Atlanta, GA, USA. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2019.
12. Pokharel S, Dimitrovski A. Analytical modeling of a ferromagnetic core reactor. IEEE NAPS-2019, Wichita, KS, USA. Piscataway, NJ:
IEEE; 2019.
13. WMT MLC. Transformer and Inductor Design Handbook. 3rd ed. Monticello, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 2004. http://www.dekker.com.
14. Zickler T. Basic design and engineering of normal-conducting, iron-dominated electromagnets. 2010:65-102. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/
papers/1103/1103.1119.pdf.
15. LWW Group. Technical Data for Winding Wire. [Online] https://lww.se/wp-content/uploadss/2017/06/LWW-brochure-2016-pdf.
Accessed Dec 15, 2019.
16. Ohta S. Temperature classes of electrical insulators. Three Bond Technical News. 1985;1(13):1-10.
17. Ibeh CC. Thermoplastic Materials: Properties, Manufacturing Methods, and Applications. New York, NY: CRC Press; 2011. https://www.
routledge.com/Thermoplastic-Materials-Properties-Manufacturing-Methods-and-Applications/Ibeh/p/book/9781420093834.

How to cite this article: Hashemi A, Yazdanpanah Qaraei P. Multi-coil electromagnets: An accurate magnetic
equivalent circuit, cost, and energy management. Int J Numer Model El. 2021;e2868. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jnm.2868