Special Issue on Green Power Supplies, 2015

Title:

Half Size Reduction of DC Output Filter Inductors with the

Saturation-gap Magnetic Bias Topology

Running Head:

Half Size Inductors with Saturation-gap Topology

Andres Revilla Aguilar & Stig Munk-Nielsen
Aalborg University
Pontoppidanstraede 101. 9220-DK
Aalborg East, Denmark
Tel.: + 45 9940 9240
E-Mail: are@et.aau.dk; smn@et.aau.dk
URL: http://www.et.aau.dk

Abstract

Filter inductors are probably one of the heaviest and more voluminous components found in

power supplies of most electronic devices. A known technique to reduce the inductor size in DC

applications is the use of permanent magnet inductors (PMIs). One of the latest developed

biasing topologies, termed the Saturation-gap, uses two standard UU cores simultaneously

biased by PMs. This paper presents a size reduction design strategy, implemented on a 10A

5mH output filter inductor pair of a DC-DC converter, using the Saturation-gap topology. Two

different PMIs designs are presented. The standard filter and the two versions using PMIs were

physically implemented and tested in the power electronics lab. The two different implemented

PMIs filters present 50% core volume reduction and 25% and 50% copper volume reduction

respectively. The measurements on the three filters are compared with simulation results using

finite element analysis (FEA) with FEMM software.

 I. INTRODUCTION

Inductors are probably one of the heaviest and more voluminous components found in most

power electronic converters. Permanent magnet inductors (PMIs) can be used in place of

standard inductors operating in DC applications. PMIs present a higher energy density than

standard non-biased inductors and can minimize the weight and size requirements [1] - [13].

These special kinds of inductors utilize permanent magnets (PMs) in order to introduce an

opposing bias magnetic flux in the core material, effectively extending the saturation current

limit. The different core and PM topologies used on PMIs, has been evolving from its early

beginnings [3]. The main limitations of the first basic topologies have been minimized at

expenses of using specially design non-standard core shapes [11] - [14].

One of the recently develop PMI topologies, the Saturation-gap, can be implemented using

standard U cores, avoiding the need of special shaped cores and the related manufacturing

process. This topology uses one pair of magnets simultaneously biasing two non-coupled

inductors [1] - [3]. This is especially suitable for applications using a symmetric pair of inductors,

one at the positive and other at the negative terminal, like: the output filter in power converters,

the DC link in motor drives, etc… .

Fig. 1. Block Diagram of output filters inductors topologies. a) Standard Output Filter inductor pair. b) Output filter
with the Saturation-gap biasing configuration, it uses two non-coupled Inductors, simultaneously biased with a
single pair of permanent magnets (PMs).
 Fig. 2. Typical Inductance vs Current profiles of three inductor types. The colored areas are representative of
storable energy and are proportional to inductor size. The typical operation current range of a DC output filter is
defined between the red lines (Imax, Imin). F1 and F2 indicate the bias magnetization force introduced in PMI1
and PMI2 respectively.

In this paper, the Saturation-gap biasing topology has been used to reduce the size of the output

filter pair of a DC to DC converter. The block diagram of the conventional and the PMI filter

versions are shown in fig.1. The filter, including the two inductors in series, is required to provide

an inductance of 5mH and operate at a DC current level of 9A, with a ripple current from 8A

(𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) to 10A (𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 ). The current ripple frequency is 30kHz.

Fig.2. presents the typical inductance vs current (LvsI) profile of a standard inductor and two

PMIs with different size reduction strategies. The area enclosed by the LvsI profiles is

representative of storable energy and is proportional to the physical size of the inductor. Non-

biased inductors present a symmetric LvsI profile, with a linear range extending from –𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 to

𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 . This paper presents two different PMI design approaches. The first PMI design shifts the

LvsI profile, concentrating its linear region from 0A to 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 . This approach can be described as

full linear biasing, and is commonly found in the related PMI literature [1] - [15]. In order to

further reduce the inductor size requirements, a second PMI design is been implemented, where

the linear region of the LvsI profile have been further concentrated to the operating current

region, from 𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛 to 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 . This approach can be described as oversaturated biasing or non-linear

biasing. The PMI filter implemented with the design approach of full linear biasing (PMI1),
achieve 50% core reduction, and 25% copper volume reduction. The PMI filter implemented with

the oversaturated biasing approach (PMI2), achieves 50% reduction in both core and copper

volume. The following section II covers a basic summary of the relevant theory background,

including the basics on inductor sizing, permanent magnet characterization and a review of the

evolution of PMIs topologies. Section III presents the basic design procedure with saturation-gap

where the two size reduction approaches are calculated. Section IV covers the implementation

and empirical measurements perform on the physical units. Section V presents the 2D FEA

simulations implemented with FEMM software and the measured and simulated results are

compared. Finally section VI summarizes the conclusions and future research on the subject.

II. BACKGROUND THEORY

A. Inductor sizing

The first step of an inductor design is to determine the basic sizing limitations of the inductor

operation requirements. The product of the maximum operating current, 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 and nominal

inductance, 𝐿𝑁 requirements must satisfy the following expression:

𝐿𝐼 = 𝐿𝑁 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐵𝑆𝑎𝑡 𝑁𝐴𝑐

(1)

Where, 𝐵𝑆𝑎𝑡 is the saturation flux density of the core material, 𝐴𝑐 is the area cross-section of the

core and 𝑁 is the number of turns. The 𝐿𝐼 product is a constant, particular of each specific

design requirement, and it defines the maximum achievable area for the LvsI profile of a given

inductor design. A generic 𝐿𝐼 product area of unity value is depicted by the blue lines in Fig.3.

The requirements of the 𝐿𝐼 product can be achieved by different compromises in the choice of

the core material (𝐵𝑆𝑎𝑡 ), number of turns and area cross-section. Different strategies exist to

determine these compromises, as function of the optimization target. Most common targets are:

Minimal losses, Minimal thermal resistance, Minimal size or Minimal cost [4] - [7].
 Fig. 3. LvsI profile of an inductor as function of air-gap length. Blue curve is a generic unity LI product region.
Orange line represents the LvsI profile for each air-gap length. Left: short air-gap; Center: long air-gap; Right: non-
constant length air-gap.

After the parameters in (1) have been chosen, according to the desired target, the air-gap length

must be adjusted in order to define the nominal inductance range. Assuming the total reluctance

is dominated by the air-gap, the nominal inductance, 𝐿𝑁 can be defined by:

𝑁2
𝐿𝑁 =
𝑅𝑔

(2)

Where the reluctance of the air-gap, 𝑅𝑔 can be calculated by:

𝑙𝑔
𝑅𝑔 =
𝜇0 𝐴𝑔

(3)

Where 𝑙𝑔 is the length of the air-gap along the flux axis, 𝜇0 is the permeability of free air and 𝐴𝑔

is the area cross-section of the air-gap. For a given cubic air-gap with dimensions: [𝑙𝑥 ; 𝑙𝑦 ; 𝑙𝑔 ], in

order to account for the fringing flux outside the gap, a commonly found approach is to calculate

𝐴𝑔 as:

𝐴𝑔 = (𝑙𝑥 + 𝑙𝑔 )(𝑙𝑦 + 𝑙𝑔 )

(4)
 Fig. 4. Second Quadrant of the Hysteresis Loops of a Lineal Permanent Magnet. In purple is the Intrinsic (or
polarization) curve. In blue is the Extrinsic (or normal) curve. HK, BK indicates the threshold of irreversible
demagnetization (knee-point). Green, blue and grey areas represents: stored energy, effective energy product and
co-energy, respectively.

In Fig. 3. It is shown the approximate LvsI profiles of three hypothetical air-gaps. The longer the

air-gap, the bigger the reluctance and lower the nominal inductance, 𝐿𝑁 . Saturation occurs at the

current value at which 𝐿𝑁 intersects with the 𝐿𝐼 area limit (blue curves). The use of non-constant

length air-gaps produces non-linear LvsI profiles. Some inductor applications and can benefit

from these LvsI profiles presenting higher 𝐿𝑁 values at low currents and therefore optimize the

used 𝐿𝐼 product [16].

B. Permanent Magnets

Permanent magnets PMs, are used to provide the desired biasing flux in PMIs. A careful choice

of the PM material and dimensions is required for the design of PMIs. The basic characterization

parameters can be analyzed by the PMs demagnetization curves, as depicted in Fig. 4. The

intrinsic curve (purple) represents the polarization, J achieved in the PM material as function of

the applied magnetizing field, 𝐻. This measurement is typically done in a magnetic short circuit

condition. The extrinsic curve (blue) represents the flux density 𝐵 produced by the PM as
function of the magnetic field, 𝐻 after being magnetized. The operation point of the PM can be

calculated as a function of the applied demagnetizing field, 𝐻.

ɸ = 𝐴𝑃𝑀 𝐵 = 𝐴𝑃𝑀 (𝐵𝑟 + 𝜇𝑃𝑀 𝐻)

(5)

Where ɸ is the actual PM flux, 𝐴𝑃𝑀 is the area cross-section of the PM, 𝐵 is the magnetic flux

density, 𝐵𝑟 is the remanent flux density and 𝜇𝑃𝑀 is the permeability of the PM. In cases where no

demagnetization field is applied, the operation point can be calculated using:

𝐻𝑐 𝑙𝑃𝑀
ɸ=
𝑅𝑃𝑀 + 𝑅𝑙

(6)

Where, 𝐻𝑐 is the coercive force of the PM, and 𝑙𝑃𝑀 is the PM length along its axes of

magnetization. 𝑅𝑃𝑀 is the reluctance of the PM and 𝑅𝑙 is the reluctance of the media

surrounding the PM or load reluctance. The blue area in Fig.4. represents the effective magnetic

energy product sourced by the PM, at a given operation point. Applying an external

demagnetizing field, 𝐻 or increasing the load reluctance, 𝑅𝑙 , decreases the PM’s operation point,

increasing the stored energy in the PM, represented by the green area in Fig. 4.

Rare-earth PM materials, like NdFeB or SmCo present a linear extrinsic curve in the second

quadrant, as depicted in Fig. 4. As long as the operation point of the PM is kept within the linear

region, no irreversible demagnetization would take place. The knee-point at the extrinsic curve

represents a threshold for irreversible demagnetization losses. Typically, PM suppliers provide

demagnetization curves and/or BK HK values as function of temperature. Increasing the

temperature reduces the linear range, bringing the knee-point towards the 2nd quadrant. The

minimum operation point for the PM at the maximum working temperature of the PMI must be

within the limit of the linear region [17] – [19].

 Fig. 5. Permanent Magnet Inductor Biasing Topologies. Left: PM inside air-gap; Center: PM near air-gap; Right:
The Saturation-gap. Green vectors represent magnetic flux from the PMs. Green vectors represent flux from the
coils. Vectors in opposing directions produce biasing.

C. Inductor Biasing Topologies

The specific core shapes and PMs topologies used in PMIs have been evolving from its early

beginnings. The basic characteristics of the main topologies, found in the literature, are sketch

on Fig. 5. The red vectors represent flux induced by the coils and green vectors represent flux

induced by the PMs. In the following, the main advantages and limitations of the different

topologies are summarized:

Basic topology: PM inside the air-gap.

The first designs of PMIs date back to the early 1960’s [4] - [7], with the development of barium

ferrite PMs. These first designs consisted of standard gaped inductors with a permanent magnet

inserted in the air-gap. Fig. 4. (left) shows the basic configuration. The use of standardized core

shapes allows for the use of common inductor design techniques, by introducing correction

factors for the effective 𝐵𝑆𝑎𝑡 in presence of the PMs flux. This arrangement can effectively

introduce a certain amount of bias flux. There is however several limitations intrinsic to this

configuration:

 The flux from the coil is passing directly through the PM. Strong demagnetizing field and

eddy currents at the PM become a design limitation.

  The maximum PM dimensions are limited by the air-gap size. This implies a limitation in

the maximum bias flux and coercivity introduced by the PM.

These limitations greatly reduced the applicability of this basic topology and more sophisticated

configurations proceed through the years. On the other hand, the relatively recent development

of rare-earth PM materials have improve the design tradeoffs and extending the range of

applicability of this basic topology [10][15].

PM near the air-gap

In order to overcome the limitations of placing the PM inside the air-gap, a logical approach has

been to place the PMs in the vicinity of the air-gaps. This strategy can effectively lower the

demagnetizing fields at the PM and minimize eddy currents. On the other hand, the use of non-

standard core shapes implies a higher production cost and requires the development of specific

inductor design techniques. Relevant documentation on this topology is mostly limited to patent

documents. A long list of particular designs with different core shapes and PMs, based on this

topology can be found in patent documents. Only four scientific publications have been found

regarding the design of PMIs with this topology [11] - [14]. In Fig. 4. (center), an example design

of this topology (from [14]) is depicted.

The Saturation-Gap

A new biasing concept is been recently develop [1] – [3]. This topology, as depicted in Fig. 4.

(right), can be implemented using standard UU or UI core shapes with no air-gaps. PMs in this

topology are perpendicular and outside the flux path of the coils, avoiding demagnetizing fields

at the PMs and minimizing eddy currents. One pair of PMs is simultaneously biasing two

inductors. The flux linkage among these two inductors is zero and therefore they are mutually

decoupled. This can be appreciated observing the coil’s flux paths (red vectors) in Fig. 4. On the

other hand, both inductors can be connected in series and operate as a single inductor. The

permanent magnets in this topology perform two distinct functions:

 To introduce the desired biasing flux in the longest section of the cores.
  To induce certain level of magnetic saturation in a localized section of the cores. This

section presents higher reluctance and performs the equivalent purpose of the typical air-

gap.

The following section presents a design procedure with the saturation-gap topology.

III. DESIGN WITH SATURATION-GAP

A. Basic MEC model

In order to provide an intuitive understanding, of the flux and reluctance behavior, in a

saturation-gap topology, the simplified magnetic equivalent circuit (MEC) presented in Fig. 6.

can be considered. The biased section of each core is defined as the bias reluctance, 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 and

the saturated section of each core is defined as the saturation-gap reluctance, 𝑅𝑠𝑔 . Since the

relative permeability, 𝜇𝑟 in any core material, is a function of the instantaneous flux density, 𝐵,

these reluctances are depicted as non-lineal resistors. The basic current source model is used

for the PMs. The internal reluctance of the PMs, 𝑅𝑃𝑀 can be calculated as:

𝑙𝑃𝑀
𝑅𝑃𝑀 =
𝜇0 𝜇𝑟 𝐴𝑃𝑀

(7)

The same approximation taken in (4) can be used in order to account for the fringing flux at the

borders of the PM. The remanent flux, ɸ𝑟 is calculated as:

ɸ𝑟 = 𝐴𝑃𝑀 𝐵𝑟

(8)

The actual PM’s flux, ɸ𝑃𝑀 , introduced in the core reluctances (𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 and 𝑅𝑆𝑔 ) is calculated as:

ɸ𝑃𝑀 = 𝐴𝑐 (𝐵𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 + 𝐵𝑆𝑔 ) = ɸ𝑟 − ɸ𝑑

(9)
 Fig. 6. The Saturation-gap topology. Simplified MEC model (left) and Operation Mode Analysis (right). Three
operation modes as function of PMs flux over core area cross-section (ɸPM/AC). Green areas delimit the linear
region of the BH curves of the core material; Red areas delimit the non-linear region. Orange and blue markers
represents the operation point of RSg and Rbias at initial flux condition (I = 0A). QSE is the Quasi Saturated
Equilibrium flux density.

Where ɸ𝑑 is the self-demagnetization flux through 𝑅𝑃𝑀 . The value of ɸ𝑃𝑀 can also be calculated

using (6), and substituting:

𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 𝑅𝑆𝑔
𝑅𝑙 =
𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 + 𝑅𝑆𝑔

(10)

Taking the PM current source as reference, the core reluctances (𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 and 𝑅𝑆𝑔 ) appear in

parallel configuration. Taking the coil voltage source as reference, the core reluctances (𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠

and 𝑅𝑆𝑔 ) appear in series configuration. This can be observed looking at the flux vectors

depicted in the schematic in Fig. 5. (right).

B. Quasi Saturated Equilibrium QSE

The basic flux and reluctance behavior in a saturation-gap topology and the concept of the quasi

saturated equilibrium QSE, have been introduced in [2][3]. The QSE can be defined as: the limit

flux density achievable at any point in the length of the core by a given PM. When the flux

density at the saturation-gap reluctance, 𝑅𝑆𝑔 reaches the QSE value, the topology presents a

linear inductor behavior. Increments in flux at 𝑅𝑆𝑔 , due to increments in the coil’s current, are
compensated by equivalent decrements of PM’s operation point, lowering the induced PM’s flux

ɸ𝑃𝑀 and maintaining the QSE at 𝑅𝑆𝑔 . In the MEC model presented in Fig. 6., the current source

ɸ𝑟 is in parallel with both: 𝑅𝑆𝑔 and 𝑅𝑃𝑀 . The reluctance value of 𝑅𝑆𝑔 at the QSE flux density level

is equal to the PM’s reluctance 𝑅𝑃𝑀 . This can be used with (2) in order to define the nominal

inductance Ln at the linear inductor region.

𝑁2 𝑁2
𝐿𝑁 = =
𝑅𝑆𝑔 𝑅𝑃𝑀

(11)

C. Operation Modes

The initial flux conditions can be defined as the total flux density, in 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 and 𝑅𝑆𝑔 , at zero current

(𝐵[0𝐴]). Three different operation modes has been identified, as function of the initial flux

conditions 𝐵[0𝐴].

ɸ𝑃𝑀
𝐵[0𝐴] =
𝐴𝑐

(12)

In Fig. 6. (right) are represented the characteristic LvsI profiles of each operation mode. The

operation point, at initial flux conditions of 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 and 𝑅𝑆𝑔 are depicted in the BH diagram as the

blue and orange markers respectively. The basic characteristics of each operation mode are

summarized in the following:

Sub-Saturated

 The flux density 𝐵[0𝐴] at 𝑅𝑆𝑔 is below the QSE.

 The flux density 𝐵[0𝐴] at 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 is within the linear region at the 3rd quadrant.

This operation mode produces LvsI profiles similar to those of a non-constant length air-gap.

The reluctance value of 𝑅𝑆𝑔 (at 𝐵[0𝐴]) is relatively low and the instantaneous inductance is quite

high. As current increases, the flux density 𝐵, at 𝑅𝑆𝑔 approaches QSE and the inductance
decreases reaching its nominal value (11). Further increase of the current at this state is

equivalent to the next operation mode, full linear bias.

Full Linear Bias

 The flux density 𝐵[0𝐴] at 𝑅𝑆𝑔 has reached the QSE.

 The flux density 𝐵[0𝐴] at 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 is at the limit of the linear region (−𝐵𝑆𝑎𝑡 ) at the 3rd

quadrant.

As current increases, the flux density, 𝐵 at 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 moves towards the 1st quadrant and the

operation point of the PM decreases, maintaining the QSE at 𝑅𝑆𝑔 . The value (11), of the nominal

inductance, 𝐿𝑁 remains constant while 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 is operating within the linear region of the 1st and 3rd

quadrants. The saturation current, 𝐼𝑠𝑎𝑡 , is determined when 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 reaches the non-linear region

at the 3rd quadrant.

Over-Saturated

 The flux density 𝐵[0𝐴] at 𝑅𝑆𝑔 has reached the QSE.

 The flux density 𝐵[0𝐴] at 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 is at the non-linear region at the 3rd quadrant.

The totality of the core is saturated, the reluctance value of both 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 and 𝑅𝑆𝑔 is relatively high

and the instantaneous inductance is very low. As current increases, the flux density 𝐵, at 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠

approaches the linear region at the 3rd quadrant and the inductance increases approaching its

nominal value (11). Further increase of the current at this state is equivalent to the operation

mode, full linear bias.

D. Design Procedure

PMI Sizing

The first step is to define the required LI constant of the design. For standard inductors, the LI

constant is defined by (1). The limit of the LI area, as depicted by the blue curve in Fig. 3, is

asymptotic with both axes (𝐼 = 0𝐴 and 𝐿 = 0𝐻). In the case of non-biased inductors, the axes

𝐼 = 0𝐴 is equivalent to the zero flux axes ( 𝐵 = 0𝑇 ). In the case of PMIs the 𝐵 = 0𝑇 axes is
equivalent to the 𝐼 = 𝐹 axes. Where 𝐹 is the biasing magnetization force, as depicted in Fig. 2.

Accordingly, the LI constant of a PMI can be defined as:

𝐿𝐼 = 𝐿𝑁 ( 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐹⁄𝑁) = 𝐵𝑆𝑎𝑡 𝑁𝐴𝑐

(13)

The factor 𝐹⁄𝑁 is equal to the current at which 𝐵 = 0𝑇. For designs in Full Linear Bias operating

mode:

𝐹⁄ = 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑁 2

(14)

For designs in Over-Saturated operating mode:

𝐹⁄ = 𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑁 2

(15)

Once the required LI constant is defined, the different compromises in the choice of the core

material (𝐵𝑆𝑎𝑡 ), 𝑁 and 𝐴𝑐 , can be made based on the desired design priority (minimal losses,

minimal size, etc… ). On the other hand, some limitations in the choice of core size and number

of turns must be taken into account in order to provide a sufficient window area, 𝑊𝑎 for the coil

and to provide enough space for the required PM size.

Defining PM flux

The second step is to define the required ɸ𝑃𝑀 at zero current. This parameter defines the active

operation mode as indicated in Fig. 6. The choice of the operation mode stabilizes the

requirements of the PM material (𝐵𝑟 ) and its area cross-section, 𝐴𝑃𝑀 and can be calculated as:

ɸ𝑃𝑀 = 𝐴𝑃𝑀 𝐵𝑟 = 𝐴𝑐 (𝐵𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 + 𝐵𝑆𝑔 )

(16)

For Full Linear Bias mode of operation, 𝐵𝑆𝑔 is equal to QSE and 𝐵𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 is equal to 𝐵𝑠𝑎𝑡 .
 Fig. 7. FEMM Model of the Implemented Inductors. The STD model presents only one inductor from the filter pair.
The biased models PMI1 and PMI2 include both inductors from the filter pair. Depth into the page is 28 mm. Core
material: Ferrite MF198A; Core shape: U 46x40x28; STD:[g=2.4 mm; N=95]. PMI1:[a=30mm; b=1mm; N=95].
PMI2:[a=4mm; b=0.2m N=62].

For Over-Saturation mode of operation, 𝐵𝑆𝑔 is equal to QSE and 𝐵𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 is equal to the desired

displacement of the zero flux axes. The QSE value is specific of each core material and PM

reluctance, 𝑅𝑃𝑀 , and it is independent of the PM’s strength or energy density product [3]. A

good estimation is to choose a value between 150% to 200% of 𝐵𝑠𝑎𝑡 .

Defining the Nominal Inductance

The last step is to define the nominal inductance, 𝐿𝑁 according to (11). This determines the

required PM reluctance, 𝑅𝑃𝑀 and accordingly its length, 𝑙𝑃𝑀 . If the resultant 𝑙𝑃𝑀 is too small for

practical uses, a smaller value of 𝑁, needs to be choose in the compromises taken after (13).

Once the basic material properties and dimensions, of both core and PMs, are defined, it is

possible to use small adjustments in the relative positions of PMs and cores, in order to fine tune

the desired LvsI profile. These adjustments are indicated as: distances a and b in Fig. 7.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASUREMENTS

The output filter, of a DC to DC converter, has been implemented using the Saturation-gap

biasing topology, with the design priority of minimal size. The complete filter, including two non-

coupled inductors as in Fig.1., is required to provide an inductance of 5mH. The operation

current range is defined from 8A (𝐼𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) to 10A (𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑥 ). The frequency of the current ripple is

30kHz.

The standard filter, STD and two different PMIs designs have been implemented, following the

procedure from section III. The first design, PMI1 uses a saturation-gap topology operating in

Full Linear Bias mode. The second design, PMI2 uses a saturation-gap topology operating in

Over-Saturation mode, concentrating the linear region, of the LvsI profile, to the operative

current range.

The basic profile of the three different filter inductors is depicted in Fig. 7. The specific design

Table 1 Design Parameters and Technical Characteristics of the Implemented Filters.

Table 2: Design Parameters and Technical Characteristics of the Implemented Filters.

parameters and characteristics of the three filter inductors are summarized in Table. 1.

The electric performance of the three implemented filters has been characterized using a Wayne

Kerr 3260B Magnetic Analyzer with WK3265B bias unit. The first test, performed on each filter

(including two inductors in series), measures the incremental Inductance, 𝐿 and the Equivalent

Series Resistance, ESR as a function of DC current. The measurement stimulus is 500mV AC

with a frequency of 30kHz. The test is repeated with different levels of DC current, from 0 to 20A.

The obtained LvsI and ESRvsI profiles of the three filters are presented in Fig. 8. (Top Left) and

(Top Right), respectively. A second test is been perform in order to see the losses behavior of

the filters as function of frequency. In Fig. 8. (Bottom Left) and (Bottom Right) it is presented the

Quality Factor, Q and the ESR as a function of frequency. The used stimulus is 500mV AC with

10A DC bias. The measurement is repeated for a set of stimuli frequencies ranging from 10kHz

to 50kHz.

Fig. 8. Inductor characterization measurements. Perform with WK3260B + WK3265 magnetic analyzer.
Measurements performed on the three complete filters (including the two inductors in series). Top: Inductance (L)
and Equivalent Series Resistance (ESR) as function of DC current (I); Stimuli: 500mV AC 300 kHz. Bottom:
Quality Factor (Q) and ESR as function of frequency; Stimuli: 500mV AC 10A DC.
 Fig. 9. Inductance vs Current (LvsI) profile of three filter inductor pairs. Left: Standard Inductors (STD); Center:
Biased Inductors (PMI 1); Right: Over-saturated Biased Inductors (PMI 2). Black curves represent measured data.
Green curves represent simulated data with FEMM.

V. FEA SIMULATIONS

The three filter inductors have been simulated using FEA with the software FEMM. The used

models are shown in Fig. 7. The PMs and cores specifications in Table 1. have been used for

the FEMM models. The non-hysteretic BH curve of the core material is also required. The BH

loop, of the used ferrite cores, has been measured following the procedure presented in [20].

The non-hysteretic curve is calculated from the BH loop data, following the method presented in

[21]. FEMM simulations are based on a 2D magneto-static analysis and magneto-dynamic

effects, like eddy currents, are not predicted by the simulations. The static calculation of the

models is repeated for a set of currents from 0A to 20A in steps of 0.5A.

Fig. 9. shows the LvsI profiles, obtained from the simulations data, compared with the empirical

measurements of the three filters. The LvsI profiles, predicted with FEMM, present some

deviations from the measured profiles. These deviations are more sever in the PMI models. The

limitations of the 2D magneto-static analysis, makes the tool not suitable for accurate design. On

the other hand, the simulations provide a good tool for the analysis and understanding of the

basic behavior of the saturation-gap topology.

Fig. 10. presents a sequence of simulation plots, from the two PMI models, at different currents.

The flux density, 𝐵 is represented with the color scale. The black lines are equipotential contours

of magnetic vector potential (or A-field) and must not to be mistaken with magnetic flux, ɸ. The

A-field contours represent the path of net magnetic flux, taking into account the magnetic
 Fig. 10. Finite Element Analysis. Left: PMI1; Center: PMI2; Right: Representation of Generic Saturation-gap flux
behavior. FEMM: Color represent: Magnetic Flux Density; Black lines: Equipotential A-field contours (net magnetic
flux contours). Schematic representation (right): Green lines represent flux from PMs; Red lines represent flux
from the windings.
cancelations of the biasing effect. In the right column at Fig. 10. it is represented the generic
behavior of the magnetic flux interactions between the coils and the PMs. The flux, ɸ generated

by the PMs is represented in green. The flux, ɸ generated by the coils is represented in red.

Magnetic cancellations are represented by shading the individual flux lines. The behavior of the

models can be summarized in the following stages:

 At 0A, all the flux is introduced by the PMs. The flux distribution between 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 and

𝑅𝑆𝑔 defines the operation mode. The PMs are at their maximum operation point,

close to 𝐵𝑟 . The portion of the core, delimiting 𝑅𝑆𝑔 , presents its shortest length.

 As current increases, new magnetic flux is introduced in the core. The flux density at

𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 decreases, due to magnetic cancelations. The resulting net magnetic flux

paths, delimiting 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 and 𝑅𝑆𝑔 is increasing the effective length of 𝑅𝑆𝑔 . Energy is

being stored in the PMs, lowering their operation point. The 𝑅𝑆𝑔 portion of the core is

asymptotically approaching the QSE flux density (purple).

 At a current level of 6A in PMI1 and 9A in PMI2, the 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 portion of the core

presents zero net magnetic flux. All the A-field contours are contained in 𝑅𝑆𝑔 .

 As current increases further, more flux is introduced without cancellation effects. The

path of magnetic flux introduced by the coils can easily be recognized now. The flux

density in 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 increases. The flux density in 𝑅𝑆𝑔 is, at some extent, equilibrated by

a decrease in the operation point of the PMs. The inductor reach its saturation

current, when the flux density at 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑠 reaches the saturation region.

In order to avoid irreversible losses in the PMs, their operation point, at the maximum operating

current, must be above the 𝐵𝐾 value. Fig. 11. shows the flux density of the PMs at different

current levels. The maximum operating current is 10A. The PMs stay above 𝐵𝐾 even for currents

higher than the 𝐼𝑠𝑎𝑡 of the inductor.

 Fig. 11. Flux density in the permanent magnets at different current levels (Operation peak current is 10A, green
line). Data from FEMM simulations. Length is the PM dimension perpendicular to the axes of magnetization.
Reference 0 mm is the point closer to the other PM. The red line ( B K = 120mT ) is the PM’s flux density threshold
of irreversible losses at maximum working temperature 80ºC.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

The inductors of an output filter for a DC to DC converter have been implemented using the

Saturation-gap biasing topology. Two different PMI designs have been implemented targeting

maximum size reduction. The relevant analysis and design procedures have been presented.

The designs have been physically implemented and tested. The measurement results show a

significant size reduction while presenting the same inductance within the operating current

range. The PMI designs achieve 50% core volume reduction and 25% and 50% copper volume

reduction. The implemented PMI filters present higher losses than the standard filter. The use of

PMs with higher resistivity can reduce the total losses. On the other hand, the required PM area

cross-section will increase and over-saturated states like in PMI2, may not be possible.

Simulations based on 2D magneto-static FEA can provide a good analysis tool, but they do not

provide the required precision for design purposes. The development of more sophisticated 3D

models, and the design optimization, targeting minimum losses, will also be the focus of future

work.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] Andres Revilla Aguilar, and Stig Munk-Nielsen, “Method for introducing bias magnetization in ungaped cores:

The Saturation-Gap,” Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC) 2014, 29th Annual

IEEE, pp 721 - 725. 16-20 March 2014.

[2] Andres Revilla Aguilar, Stig Munk-Nielsen, Marco Zuccherato and Hans-Jørgen Thougaard, “Size reduction

of a DC line choke using saturation gap and biasing with permanent magnets,” PCIM Europe 2014, pp 1667

– 1674. 20-22 May 2014.

[3] Andres Revilla Aguilar, and Stig Munk-Nielsen, “Design analysis and simulation of magnetic biased inductors

with Saturation-Gap,” Power Electronics and Applications (EPE'14-ECCE Europe), 2014 16th European

Conference on, pp 1 - 11. 2014.

[4] J.T. Ludwig, “Design of optimum inductors using magnetically hard ferrites in combination with magnetically

soft materials,” Journal of Applied Physics. Volume 29, Issue 3, pp. 497-499. Mar 1958.

[5] J.T. Ludwig, “Inductors biased with permanent magnets. Part I: Theory and analysis,” American Institute of

Electrical Engineers, Part I: Communication and Electronics, Transactions of the. Volume 79, Issue 3, pp.

273-278. July 1960.

[6] J.T. Ludwig, “Inductors biased with permanent magnets. Part II: Design and synthesis,” American Institute of

Electrical Engineers, Part I: Communication and Electronics, Transactions of the. Volume 79, Issue 3, pp.

278-291. July 1960.

[7] J.T. Ludwig, “Inductors biased with permanent magnets,” Electrical Engineering, Volume 80, Issue 6, p 408.

June 1961.

[8] Akio Nakamura, and Junpei Ohta, “A new reverse-biased choke coil,” Proceedings of Powercon 9 C-5. TDK-

Electronics Company Ltd. Power Concepts, Inc. July 1982.

[9] Teruhiko Fujiwara, and Hatsuo Matsumoto, “A new downsized large current choke coil with magnet bias

method,” Telecommunications Energy Conference, 2003. INTELEC ´03. The 25th International. IEEE, pp.

416-420. October 2003.

[10] Rafal Wrobel, Neville McNeill, and Phil H. Mellor, “Design of a high-temperature pre-biased line choke for

power electronics applications,” Power Electronics Specialists Conference. PESC 2008. IEEE, pp 3171–

3177. Jun 2008.

[11] Kuo Baoquan, Song Liwei, Zhang Qianfan, and Cheng Shukang, “The principle and design of the permanent

magnet bias DC reactor,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Electrical Machines and

Systems, ICEMS 2001. Volume 1, pp. 230-232. August 2001.

[12] G.M. Shane, and S.D. Sudhoff, “Permanent magnet inductor design,” Electric Ship Technologies

Symposium, IEEE, pp. 330-333. 10-13 April 2011.

[13] G.M. Shane, and S.D. Sudhoff, “Design and Optimization of Permanent Magnet Inductors,” Applied Power

Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC) 2012, 27th Annual IEEE, pp 1770 – 1777. Feb 2012.

[14] G.M. Shane, and S.D. Sudhoff, “Design Paradigm for permanent-magnet-inductor-based power converters,”

IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol 28, NO 4, pp 880 – 893. December 2013.

[15] Zhigang Dang and Jaber A. Abu Qahouq, “Permanent magnet toroid power inductor with increased

saturation current,” Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC) 2013, 28th Annual IEEE,

pp 2624 – 2628. March 2013.

[16] ABB, “Reducing AFD-caused harmonics at partial load conditions.” TECH Notes ABB. 2005.

[17] C.M. Andrews, “Understanding permanent magnets,” TECH Notes Group Arnold.

[18] H. Lovatt and P. Watterson, “Energy stored in permanent magnets,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 35(1)

pp 505-507. Jan 1999.

[19] David Meeker, “Magnetic Circuit Derivation of Energy Stored in a Permanent Magnet,” FEMM online

documentation, http://www.femm.info/wiki/PMEnergy.

[20] W.L.Soong, “BH curve and iron loss measurements for magnetic materials,” Power Engineering Briefing

Note Series, PEBN 5, pp 3 – 4. May 2008.

[21] Stig Munk-Nielsen and Hans Christiansen, “A simple and accurate non-linear transformer model including

hysteresis implemented in matlab/Simulink,”