Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Optimum coil design?

C

Calin Dorohoi

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi

I would like to know how to compute the shortest wire lenght required
to build a specific inductance given a certain wire diameter. My
question refers especially to multi-layer air-core coils.

Thank you.
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Calin Dorohoi wrote...
I would like to know how to compute the shortest wire length
required to build a specific inductance given a certain wire
diameter. My question refers especially to multi-layer
air-core coils.

This is a problem that out distant forefathers solved long ago.

The optimum highest inductance to wire-length ratio occurs in the
Brooks inductor. Its windings are square in cross section and have
a roughly 3:1 ratio of mean-diameter to length. Here's an excerpt
from a post I made on Dec 28th 1977, commenting on an article by
Robert Kesler, "Multilayer Air-Cored Coils," Electronics World +
Wireless World, Sept 1997 pg. 752-753.

"According to Grover, the theoretical optimum ratio for a coil with
minimum wire length, using a square-cross-section, has a mean-dia/
length ratio = 2.967. The famous 'Brooks Inductor' closely matches
this with an easy-to-remember 3.00. Your coils aren't quite square,
if I understand correctly, and are the equivalent of about 3.18.

"In Prof. P.N. Murgatroyd's definitive paper on this type of coil,
'The Brooks inductor: a study of optimal solenoid cross-sections,'
in IEE Proc., vol 133 B, 5, pp 309 - 314, Sept. 1986, we find that
(hard to wind) circular cross-section coils are about 1.1% higher
inductance than square coils, and rectangular coils are somewhat
worse. We also find that the ideal ratio 2.967 is at the center
of a rather broad minimum.

"One other comment. Brooks coils are non-optimum for many purposes.
Used at high-power, they have nasty overheating problems in the wire-
packed center. Murgatroyd has some nice design curves for picking
wire sizes and coil dimensions, based on wire current density. Other
coil configurations have much better air- or fluid-cooling access.

"Brooks coils, if used at moderately high frequencies, have very high
ac proxmity-effect losses (even when made with litz wire, I found),
but this can be dramatically reduced with other coil configurations."

I wrote about the other configurations at various times back then.

------
This was a busy time. This is from another post I made the same day:

* In Grover's famous book "Inductance Calculations" (Van Nostrand 1946,
reprinted Dover 1962), page 95, we find an exact formula for solenoids
wound with square cross-sections,

(2) L = 0.001 a N^2 Po uH/cm.

Po is a function of c/2a and is given in a lengthy table, varying from
60 for very short coils to a maximum of 7. For small cross-sections he
shows a hairy formula credited to Stefan in 1884.

* Relevant to this is the Brooks coil, a square-cross-section solenoid
that is an air-core-inductor champion: requiring minimum wire for a
given inductance. The cross-section below shows the Brooks coil's
easy-to-remember "four-squares" geometry: Two wire squares, spaced two
squares apart.
|
##### | #####
##### | #####
##### | #####
|-- a --|
| coil axis

The coil's mean diameter is 3.00 times its length and the winding height
equals its length. Grover (pages 94 and 98) provides a simple, precise
formula for the theoretical inductance. Rearranged, we have

(3) L = 1.35234 mu_o a N^2

where mu_o is the permeability of free space = 4 pi 10^-7 H/m
and a is the coil's mean radius.

(4) L = k1 Do N^2 N = sqrt ( L / k1 Do)

where Do is the outer diameter (twice the coil-form diameter),
and k1 = 0.006373 uH/cm or 0.016187 uH/inch.

--------------------

Here is what Bob Kesler wrote on Dec 27th (I have edited slightly):

The classic is the Wheeler formula. It has been around for some
70 years. I quote its metric version:

L = (7.87*N^2*M^2)/(3*M+9*B+10*C)

L inductance, nanoHenryes
N number of turns
M mean diameter of the coil
B width/length of the coil
C radial thickness of the coil
all dimensions in millimeters.

The formula is within +/- 1% if the three members of the denominator
are about equal. The above formula is only for calculating the
inductance, if you already know everything else. If you want to
_DESIGN_ a coil, use my method: It is for calculating the dimensions
of the coil, the # of turns AND the WIRE DIA from the given INDUCTANCE
and RESISTANCE of the coil. It yields the coil using the least amount
of copper possible.

In a nutshell:
0) Define target inductance (L nH) and resistance (R Ohms)
1) Calculate ideal mean dia of the coil: Mi = 0.0354*sqr(L/R)
2) Calculate the ideal # of turns: Ni = 1.07*sqr(L/M)
3) Calculate the ideal wire dia: Wi = 0.253*M/sqrN (mm)
4) Choose a realistic, available wire dia: W >= Wi
5) If the real Wire dia is different then Wi calculate M again:
- M = 3.08*L^0.2*W^0.8
6) The # of turns: N = 0.61*(L/W)^0.4
7) Coil length: B = M/3
8) Coil inner dia: I = 0.7*M
9) Coil outer dia: O = 1.3*M
10) The radial thickness of coil: C = 0.3*M
11) Check the resistance of the coil: R = M*N/(14250*W*W)
 
J

John Popelish

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winfield said:
Calin Dorohoi wrote...

This is a problem that out distant forefathers solved long ago.

The optimum highest inductance to wire-length ratio occurs in the
Brooks inductor. Its windings are square in cross section and have
a roughly 3:1 ratio of mean-diameter to length.
(snip)

What about cross sections of some other shape than square? Round,
triangular or elliptical, for example?
 
A

Active8

Jan 1, 1970
0
(snip)

What about cross sections of some other shape than square? Round,
triangular or elliptical, for example?

The cross section is not that of the winding form but that which is
formed by the turns - cut the tube into two semi-circular troughs,
IOW. So you're stuck with square, rectangular, and triangular for
all practical purposes. That's the way the integrations are
performed to calculate the inductance.

That's 3 of us that need Grover ;) I doubt it's worth the time to
design coils as physics problems.

I just took the inductance formula for a solenoid and rearranged it
so I could differentiate wire length wrt coil length and set it to
zero. It don't work! Either L must be 0 or turns must be infinite.

Too many variables. Maybe it's doable, but today ain't my day for
this. Poorly specified problem, too. Sounds like homework.
 
J

John Popelish

Jan 1, 1970
0
Active8 said:
The cross section is not that of the winding form but that which is
formed by the turns - cut the tube into two semi-circular troughs,
IOW. So you're stuck with square, rectangular, and triangular for
all practical purposes. That's the way the integrations are
performed to calculate the inductance.

That's 3 of us that need Grover ;) I doubt it's worth the time to
design coils as physics problems.

I just took the inductance formula for a solenoid and rearranged it
so I could differentiate wire length wrt coil length and set it to
zero. It don't work! Either L must be 0 or turns must be infinite.

Too many variables. Maybe it's doable, but today ain't my day for
this. Poorly specified problem, too. Sounds like homework.

I am talking about the shape of the cross section of the winding.
Just because you can not think of a good way to wind wire in an
arbitrary winding cross section does not mean that the question is
pointless.
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Popelish wrote...
What about cross sections of some other shape than square? Round,

"circular cross-section coils are about 1.1% higher inductance than
square," with respect to the Brooks inductor configuration.
triangular

See the Murgatroyd-D coils I wrote about.
or elliptical, for example?

dunno.
 
A

Active8

Jan 1, 1970
0
I am talking about the shape of the cross section of the winding.
Just because you can not think of a good way to wind wire in an
arbitrary winding cross section does not mean that the question is
pointless.

Uh, don't underestimate me. If I had a flared out former, I'd surely
be able to do an elliptical x section. Not sure why we'd want to do
this or what purpose it would serve. If there's an application, then
it's worth figuring out.
 
J

John Popelish

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winfield said:
John Popelish wrote...

"circular cross-section coils are about 1.1% higher inductance than
square," with respect to the Brooks inductor configuration.


See the Murgatroyd-D coils I wrote about.

Where can I find a picture?

Just from geometric generalities, it seems that a circular cross
section world be best, and a hollow circular cross section should have
lowest proximity effects. But I have been wrong lots of times. If I
get inspired, I will make Mathcad sweat over this a bit.
 
K

Ken Smith

Jan 1, 1970
0
Active8 wrote: [...]
I am talking about the shape of the cross section of the winding.
Just because you can not think of a good way to wind wire in an
arbitrary winding cross section does not mean that the question is
pointless.

I had some "ball coils" made once. I'm sure the method could be extended
to other shapes.

A center shaft forms the internal surface of the coil. It is turned by
the winding machine.

A Delrin(sp) mold in the shape of the outside of the coil is made with a
hole to fit over the center shaft.

A narrow slit is made in this outer mold to permit the wire to enter and
be swept back and forth as the winding is done.

The coil is then wet wound with a slow setting very runny epoxy. After
the windings are completed, the whole assembly is left in the hot box over
night. In the morning the shaft is pulled out and the mold parted.

The disadvantage is that this really wants to make a scramble winding.
 
C

Calin Dorohoi

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Win

Thank you for the info, it was very helpful indeed.
I think I should explain why I asked this.
I was confronted with this problem when designing coils for speaker
crossovers, the questien arose naturally. By looking at the Wheeler
formula (I'll come back later to the "Wheeler" issue), I said to
myself: there are 3 independent parameters (if we consider wire
diameter a constant), the same inductance can be obtained using
different coil dimensions (int/ext diameter & height), but the length
varies with them, so what's the optimum? I took a piece a paper and
began to differentiate like crazy, just to end up with an equation
that I decided to label as analitically unsolvable. By reading this,
one could draw a conclusion: I'm an engineer rather than a physicist
:)
That's because that I tried to solve analitically an optimum problem
that was derived from an approximative formula, and that's Wheeler's.
It is clear that it's an approximation, there sould be an integral in
it. OK, with this in mind, I wrote a Matlab script to solve it
numerically, and I ended up with some results that are very close to
the Brooks inductor. After all, my "work" wssn't for nothing.
The engineer was pretty satisfied with the results, knowing that they
may be very inaccurate! (some might have turned their heads with
disgust by now)
But the repressed physicist inside kept asking himself "what is the
mathematically correct way to solve this problem?"
And Win explained that perfectly, thanks again.
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Popelish wrote...
Where can I find a picture?

I've written much about Murgatroyd's D coils when I was investigating
them (probably in 1997), and thought I had put up some ASCII drawings,
but couldn't find any on Google, or saved in my computer. Basically
the inductor is an air-core toroid type, made from six pieces, each of
which is a large D wound with a triangular cross section. The inductor
is assembled by placing the triangular straight portion of all the Ds
side by side, thereby filling 360-degrees and completing a toroid shape.
Generally the six sections are wired in series, but they can be wired in
other ways to get different inductance values.

The design seems clever and attractive, and Prof. Murgatroyd has worked
out all the math. But the coil's problems are serious and both stem from
the high current density where the six triangles are placed side-by-side,
causing overheating for DC use, and excessive loss for ac applications.
Just from geometric generalities, it seems that a circular cross
section world be best, and a hollow circular cross section should
have lowest proximity effects. But I have been wrong lots of times.
If I get inspired, I will make Mathcad sweat over this a bit.

Perhaps for skin effect, but not for proximity effect, which drives
the effective current flow to zero on the _inner_ side of the wires.
 
R

Reg Edwards

Jan 1, 1970
0
I have always found skin and especially proximity effect confusing when
calculating the AC resistance of a coil of wire, because the current in the
wire must be constant throughout its whole length.

Is not the proximity effect due to exactly the same fundamental causes as
skin effect? Yet the turns embedded deep in the bundle must be affected
more by proximity effect than those on the outside. The distribution of
resistance cannot be uniform along the wire length.

But perhaps I have nothing to worry about.
 
J

John Popelish

Jan 1, 1970
0
Reg said:
I have always found skin and especially proximity effect confusing when
calculating the AC resistance of a coil of wire, because the current in the
wire must be constant throughout its whole length.

Is not the proximity effect due to exactly the same fundamental causes as
skin effect? Yet the turns embedded deep in the bundle must be affected
more by proximity effect than those on the outside. The distribution of
resistance cannot be uniform along the wire length.

But perhaps I have nothing to worry about.

Skin effect in a wire is caused by the magnetic field caused by the
current passing through that wire. This is symmetric around the
wire's center line. Proximity effect is caused by the combined
magnetic effects of the currents in all nearby wires. This can be
very non symmetric. In effect, the wire does not have a constant
effective cross section in all parts of a coil. There are some
pinches.
 
R

Roy McCammon

Jan 1, 1970
0
Winfield said:
from a post I made on Dec 28th 1977, commenting on an article by

wow, you've been active on use net far longer than I had imagined.
 
R

Roy McCammon

Jan 1, 1970
0
Reg said:
I have always found skin and especially proximity effect confusing when
calculating the AC resistance of a coil of wire, because the current in the
wire must be constant throughout its whole length.

Is not the proximity effect due to exactly the same fundamental causes as
skin effect? Yet the turns embedded deep in the bundle must be affected
more by proximity effect than those on the outside. The distribution of
resistance cannot be uniform along the wire length.

Hello Reg,
That is my understanding also. When I've tried to
model it, I let the proximity effect be proportional
to skin effect with an unknown proportionality constant.

Strictly for visualization, I see the skin effect as
restricting the current to the narrow outer surface
of the wire and then the proximity effect as denying
portions of that outer skin to current. Assuming
hexagonal packing, I've modeled the current flow
as restricted to six symmetric sectors of the wire.
 
T

Terry Pinnell

Jan 1, 1970
0
Here's an excerpt from a post I made on Dec 28th 1977,

Had they invented electricity by then? <g>

I'm guessing I had my first PC around 1982 (the IBM original?). You
were clearly one of The UseNet Pioneers!
 
W

Winfield Hill

Jan 1, 1970
0
Terry Pinnell wrote...
Had they invented electricity by then? <g>

I'm guessing I had my first PC around 1982 (the IBM original?).
You were clearly one of The UseNet Pioneers!

Sorry, I meant 1997. I think I first got on usenet in 1994.
Hmm, the 10th anniversary should be coming up anytime now.
 
T

The Phantom

Jan 1, 1970
0
wow, you've been active on use net far longer than I had imagined.

And not only that, but he was commenting on an article that wasn't
to be published until 20 years later! He should be on Art Bell.
 
Top