The purpose of this work is to develop an improved equivalent circuit model for air-core transformers operating at higher frequencies. By refining the classical Cauer-based representation, this study aims to achieve more accurate impedance and current behavior over a wide frequency range, with particular emphasis on improving low-frequency performance.
This research uses a full field-circuit modeling approach. Initially, a finite element method (FEM) of coupled coils is formulated to capture electromagnetic interactions. These complex matrix equations are then reduced using the Padé via Lanczos (PvL) method, which accurately approximates the frequency response while significantly lowering the computational order. Based on the reduced model, impedance characteristics are determined for both magnetizing and horizontal branches. A modified circuit structure is then proposed and rigorously validated by comparing its performance − specifically impedance characteristics and current waveforms − against field-model simulations under various load conditions.
The analysis demonstrates that the classical equivalent circuit fails to accurately reproduce the impedance behavior of the magnetizing branch at lower frequencies. The proposed modified structure rectifies this, achieving significantly better agreement with results of field-model. Simulation results confirm that the proposed equivalent circuit in the more accurately replicates both the amplitude and phase of load currents, eliminating the discrepancies found in the classical model.
This study identifies a limitation of the classical Cauer-based representation of the magnetizing branch in air-core transformers, related to its improper low-frequency behavior. It is shown that the traditional structure does not satisfy the zero-pulsation boundary condition, leading to a non-zero remainder in the PvL approximation and reduced modeling accuracy at low frequencies. To overcome this issue, a physically consistent modification is proposed by introducing an additional resistance R0 into the magnetizing branch. By combining field-based parameter extraction with PvL reduction, the method preserves computational efficiency while significantly improving low-frequency accuracy, providing a reliable tool for wide-frequency analysis of higher-frequency coupled systems.
1. Introduction
The modern analysis and design of magnetic circuits increasingly demand highly accurate mathematical representations that effectively capture the physical properties of real-world systems. While maintaining a high level of modeling fidelity is essential, the evaluation of these systems’ operational states must also remain computationally efficient. Consequently, there is a persistent search for analysis and synthesis methods that ensure rapid convergence and minimal computational overhead. Simultaneously, the ongoing advancement of electronic technologies has enabled the development of systems operating with greater efficiency at progressively higher frequencies. This trend necessitates modeling approaches capable of capturing circuit behavior across wide frequency ranges.
Magnetic circuits incorporating air core coils − commonly referred to as air-core transformers [Figure 1(a)] are widely used in various higher frequency applications, such as wireless power transfer (WPT) systems (Kurzawa et al., 2020; Mulders et al., 2022). In practical engineering, the precise design and optimization of such resonant systems heavily rely on accurate wideband modeling. Even minor phase discrepancies in the equivalent circuit can lead to significant detuning of the resonant converters, resulting in reduced energy transfer efficiency and increased thermal losses. Due to the complex electromagnetic phenomena that govern the operation of such systems, their analysis is ideally conducted using full field-based models (Demenko et al., 2014; Kurzawa, 2023). However, given the substantial computational cost associated with these models, designers often opt for simplified circuit-based or circuit-field models.
The two parts are labelled a and b. In part a, two circular coils are placed close together, partially overlapping, illustrating magnetic coupling between them. In part b, the equivalent electrical circuit is shown. The left side includes an input voltage U one and current i one passing through a resistor R one and an inductance labelled L one minus M. The right side includes an output voltage U two and current i two passing through resistor R two and inductance labelled L two minus M. A central branch connects the two sides through a mutual inductance M, with a current labelled i one minus i two flowing vertically. The diagram represents the coupled coil system as an equivalent circuit with mutual inductive interaction.Air-core transformer (a) view and (b) classical equivalent circuit
The two parts are labelled a and b. In part a, two circular coils are placed close together, partially overlapping, illustrating magnetic coupling between them. In part b, the equivalent electrical circuit is shown. The left side includes an input voltage U one and current i one passing through a resistor R one and an inductance labelled L one minus M. The right side includes an output voltage U two and current i two passing through resistor R two and inductance labelled L two minus M. A central branch connects the two sides through a mutual inductance M, with a current labelled i one minus i two flowing vertically. The diagram represents the coupled coil system as an equivalent circuit with mutual inductive interaction.Air-core transformer (a) view and (b) classical equivalent circuit
In this work, authors propose an analysis of a magnetically coupled coil system using a circuit-field model. In this approach, values of the lumped parameters of circuit are calculated using the field model and subsequently implemented in dedicated software. In the authors’ software, the Pade via Lanczos (PvL) method was used (Kurzawa, 2022), enabling the synthesis of an equivalent circuit based on Cauer circuits. It is worth noting that, in the most basic modeling approach, magnetically coupled coil systems may be represented using a classical equivalent circuit of an air-core transformer, as illustrated in Figure 1.
In many circuit analyses, it is sufficient to use a classic equivalent model. However, when circuit calculations are performed for different values of the supply frequency, it is recommended to use Foster or Cauer circuits. The theoretical foundation for the Cauer Ladder Network (CLN) synthesis traces back to classical network theory (Cauer, 1958), and its modern implementations have been proven highly effective for electromagnetic field modeling (e.g. Kameari et al., 2018; Shindo et al., 2020). The application of such equivalent circuits enables the analysis of the system without the need for multiple calculations of lumped parameters for different frequency values, which speeds up the analysis process of the investigated system. An example of an equivalent circuit for a magnetically coupled coil system using Cauer circuits is shown in Figure 2.
The diagram presents a combined electrical network labelled first Cauer circuits at the top and second Cauer circuit at the bottom. The upper section contains two mirrored ladder networks with resistors labelled R H n, R H two, R H one, and inductors labelled L H n, L H two, L H one connected between input current i one and output current i two. The lower section shows a ladder network with series resistors R M one, R M two, R M n and shunt inductors L M one, L M two, L M n connected between input voltage u one and output voltage u two. Nodes are marked with connection points indicating series and parallel links between elements.Equivalent circuit of an air-core transformer using Cauer circuits of the first- and second order
The diagram presents a combined electrical network labelled first Cauer circuits at the top and second Cauer circuit at the bottom. The upper section contains two mirrored ladder networks with resistors labelled R H n, R H two, R H one, and inductors labelled L H n, L H two, L H one connected between input current i one and output current i two. The lower section shows a ladder network with series resistors R M one, R M two, R M n and shunt inductors L M one, L M two, L M n connected between input voltage u one and output voltage u two. Nodes are marked with connection points indicating series and parallel links between elements.Equivalent circuit of an air-core transformer using Cauer circuits of the first- and second order
This approach can be found in many literature sources, for example Otomo et al. (2018) and Kurzawa et al. (2020). It allows for the analysis of the system over a wide range of frequency variations. In constructing the equivalent circuit of an air-core transformer, many authors use the classical approach (see Figure 2).
The parameters of Cauer circuits can be determined using several techniques, including fitting methods (Belahcel et al., 2015; Shimotani et al., 2016a;Wojciechowski et al., 2020; Kurzawa et al., 2025) as well as Model Order Reduction (MOR) approaches (Shimotani et al., 2016b;Sato et al., 2017; Kurzawa, 2023). MOR methods reduce the original full-order system to a simplified model with fewer state variables while preserving the essential dynamic characteristics of the system. This substantially decreases computational complexity and improves the efficiency of frequency-response analysis. MOR techniques commonly used for determining Cauer network parameters include PvL method or Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) method. In practice, classical fitting methods are also widely applied, which enable accurate reconstruction of frequency characteristics (Shimotani et al., 2016a).
In this work, the PvL method was used due to its high accuracy and efficiency in modeling systems with nonlinear frequency characteristics.
2. Methodology for determining parameters of Cauer circuits
The procedure for determining the equivalent parameters of Cauer circuits using the Padé via Lanczos method is presented in Figure 3. The first step involves formulating the finite element method (FEM) equations that describe the analyzed system. In the work, the system under consideration is an air-core transformer consisting of two magnetically coupled coils. Next, by applying the PvL algorithm, the transmittance of the system and the parameters of the Cauer circuits are obtained.
The diagram illustrates a modelling workflow. A field model of coupled coils leads to finite element equations, which are processed using a Pade via Lanczos method. This step determines substitute parameters for a Cauer circuit. The output shows equivalent circuits: a first-order Cauer circuit with series resistors R one to R n and shunt inductors L one to L n, and a second-order Cauer circuit with series resistors R M one to R M n and shunt inductors L M one to L M n. Arrows indicate the transformation from field model to circuit representation.Procedure for formulating Cauer equivalent circuits using the PvL method
The diagram illustrates a modelling workflow. A field model of coupled coils leads to finite element equations, which are processed using a Pade via Lanczos method. This step determines substitute parameters for a Cauer circuit. The output shows equivalent circuits: a first-order Cauer circuit with series resistors R one to R n and shunt inductors L one to L n, and a second-order Cauer circuit with series resistors R M one to R M n and shunt inductors L M one to L M n. Arrows indicate the transformation from field model to circuit representation.Procedure for formulating Cauer equivalent circuits using the PvL method
To determine the equivalent parameters of the Cauer circuits for the analyzed transformer, the PvL method was used. This technique enables the reduction of the order of the matrix equations obtained from the field model, allowing for an accurate representation of the system’s frequency response. The parameter identification process begins with formulating the FEM equations that describe the electromagnetic coupling phenomena occurring within the coils of the air-core transformer. The field equations were obtained using in-house software (Kurzawa and Wojciechowski, 2022; Kurzawa, 2023; Tuck–Lee et al., 2008; Feldmann and Freund, 1995; Sato and Igarashi, 2013). For the analyzed system, the field equations can be expressed in the general matrix form:
where: l and b are unit vectors, is complex vector representing the input and output voltages of the analyzed system, A represents the stiffness matrix of FEM equations, whereas B is the damping matrix accounting for eddy currents and conductivity. The complex vector represents the sought magnetic fluxes and currents, and vector represents the system response (Kurzawa, 2023).
Equation (1) are transformed into its operator form using the Laplace transform. Then, the expansion point s0 is defined as , where fmax denotes the maximum frequency considered in the analysis. The choice of the maximum frequency as the expansion point was strictly deliberate, as it ensures the highest numerical stability and accuracy in the upper frequency band, where skin and proximity effects are most pronounced. By defining the parameter σ (where representing the neighborhood around the point), the system transmittance is obtained in the following form:
where: , and is the identity matrix.
Since the direct diagonalization of the full matrix Λ is computationally expensive for large number of variables of FEM equations, the PvL approach is used. This powerful MOR technique, originally introduced for linear circuit analysis by Feldmann and Freund (1995), combines Padé approximation with the Lanczos process, enabling the replacement of the large N × N matrix with a tridiagonal Lanczos matrix Tq of significantly lower order qxq, where q ≪ N. In this study, a modified Lanczos algorithm proposed in (Sato and Igarashi, 2016) was implemented by the authors for computing the matrix Tq. After determining the Lanczos matrix according to the system transmittance can be expressed as the following function:
where: contains the q eigenvalues of the matrix Tq, while the values μj and νj are components of the vectors µ and ν; the matrix Sq represents the eigenvectors of the Lanczos matrix Tq. The function obtained above is a function of the variable s in the Laplace domain.
To convert the operator-form expression (3) into its frequency-domain representation, the inverse substitution , is applied, yielding:
Although the tridiagonal Lanczos matrix Tq can be directly expanded into a continued fraction to directly yield Cauer network parameters, our numerical workflow uses the pole-residue (partial fraction) representation derived from the eigen-decomposition of Tq. This form allows us to efficiently evaluate the system’s broadband frequency response in the form of impedance which is subsequently used to synthesize the multi-branch Cauer parameters via our network-fitting routine. The parameters of the Cauer circuit are determined based on this known impedance of the system, expressed by the following relationship:
In the process of estimating the lumped parameters, the authors adopted a classical approach based on the analysis of two operating states of the air-core transformer, namely: (a) the short-circuit state and (b) the no-load state.
For the no-load condition, the input impedance Z0(ω) was determined using equation (5), under the constraint of zero current in the secondary winding, i.e. i2 = 0 (see Figure 2):
In an analogous manner, the short-circuit impedance was determined by applying the condition u2 = 0, i.e.:
The obtained functions and were generated by running the FEM-PvL reduction procedure twice under these two distinct boundary conditions. Subsequently, they were used to determine the parameters of the individual branches of the equivalent circuit. Assuming a perfectly symmetric air-core transformer, the short-circuit impedance is equally divided between the primary and secondary horizontal branches. Therefore, the impedance of the horizontal branches, denoted as , was determined using the following relationship:
While the parameters of the magnetizing branch, denoted as , were determined from:
3. Improved equivalent circuits
The classical approach described in (Otomo et al., 2018; Kurzawa and Wojciechowski, 2022) and shown in Figure 2 allows the system to be analyzed over a wide range of frequency variations. In this method, the vertical branch includes the magnetizing inductance, noted as LM1, which plays the key role. The remaining parameters of this branch represent the dynamic behavior of the system.
However, the authors noted that the system shown in Figure 2 exhibits a specific drawback. Upon examining the applied Cauer circuit representing the magnetizing branch, it should be noted that the impedance (ω) in the pulsation domain does not satisfy the following condition, where:
which is revealed when representing systems operating at lower pulsations. Therefore, authors have proposed a modification of the equivalent circuit from Figure 2.
The paper considers a system consists of two magnetically coupled air core coils (Kurzawa, 2023) [Figure 1(a)]. To determine the parameters of the equivalent circuit, a classical approach was used, in which the parameters were determined form the open-circuit test and test of short-circuit state. The parameters of the horizontal branch were defined based on the short-circuit test, while those of the magnetizing branch were solved using both the open-circuit and short-circuit tests − that is, the impedance values Z0(ω) for the open-circuit condition (no-load state) and Zz(ω) for the short-circuit condition. Finally, the parameters of the horizontal branch were calculated using the relations:
whereas the parameters of the magnetizing branch were determined from:
where and its graphical form can be presented in the following figure.
Analyzing the function (ω) from Figure 4 across the entire pulsation spectrum, the authors observed that the use of the circuit shown in Figure 2 leads to discrepancies. It should be noted that when a second-order Cauer circuit is used to represent the magnetizing branch, the resulting circuit does not satisfy condition (10), as the expression describing ZM for this circuit is equal to zero, whereas it should equal a constant value. From a theoretical circuit-modeling standpoint, this non-zero limit at ω → 0 represents the static (DC) resistive properties of the system. In the fundamental derivation of the T-equivalent circuit, the magnetizing branch impedance is formulated as . Consequently, at extremely low frequencies, the static DC resistance of the physical windings is algebraically distributed among both the horizontal branches and the magnetizing branch. The classical Cauer topology for the magnetizing branch (Figure 2) begins with a parallel inductor LM1. At DC conditions, this inductance acts as a short circuit, artificially forcing the equivalent DC resistance of this branch to zero and thus violating the fundamental physical boundary condition of the static resistance distribution in the T-model. This theoretical limitation is strictly identified by the PvL algorithm, which yields a nonzero remainder (a constant value) from the division of the polynomials describing the function (ω). Therefore, this remainder is not merely a numerical artifact of the approximation process, but a direct physical reflection of the static resistive component. Based on this solid theoretical observation, the authors propose a physically consistent modification to the circuit by explicitly introducing this boundary parameter as an additional resistance R0, resulting in the improved equivalent circuit shown in Figure 5.
The plot shows impedance Z subscript M in ohms on the vertical axis against electrical pulsation omega in radians per second on the horizontal axis, scaled by ten to the power of three. Two main curves are displayed: a dashed line representing the equivalent circuit and a solid line representing the modified equivalent circuit. Both increase approximately linearly with frequency and overlap closely at higher values. At low frequency, the curve starts above the dashed line, highlighted by arrows and labels. A second dashed horizontal line near the bottom indicates a reference impedance level.Dependencies of the magnetizing branch impedance as a function of pulsation ω for the considered example
The plot shows impedance Z subscript M in ohms on the vertical axis against electrical pulsation omega in radians per second on the horizontal axis, scaled by ten to the power of three. Two main curves are displayed: a dashed line representing the equivalent circuit and a solid line representing the modified equivalent circuit. Both increase approximately linearly with frequency and overlap closely at higher values. At low frequency, the curve starts above the dashed line, highlighted by arrows and labels. A second dashed horizontal line near the bottom indicates a reference impedance level.Dependencies of the magnetizing branch impedance as a function of pulsation ω for the considered example
The electrical network diagram is divided into three sections. Two similar sections at the top are labelled first Cauer circuits. Each contains a vertical chain of resistors labelled R H one, R H two, and R H n, connected with horizontal inductors labelled L H one, L H two, and L H n between nodes. These sections connect to a central node. Below, a section labelled second Cauer circuit contains a horizontal chain of resistors labelled R M one, R M two, and R M n, with vertical inductors labelled L M one, L M two, and L M n connected between upper and lower nodes. A resistor labelled R zero connects the lower node to the bottom line. The left side shows input current i 1 and voltage u 1, while the right side shows output current i 2 and voltage u 2.Modified equivalent circuit of an air transformer using Cauer circuits with additional resistance R0
The electrical network diagram is divided into three sections. Two similar sections at the top are labelled first Cauer circuits. Each contains a vertical chain of resistors labelled R H one, R H two, and R H n, connected with horizontal inductors labelled L H one, L H two, and L H n between nodes. These sections connect to a central node. Below, a section labelled second Cauer circuit contains a horizontal chain of resistors labelled R M one, R M two, and R M n, with vertical inductors labelled L M one, L M two, and L M n connected between upper and lower nodes. A resistor labelled R zero connects the lower node to the bottom line. The left side shows input current i 1 and voltage u 1, while the right side shows output current i 2 and voltage u 2.Modified equivalent circuit of an air transformer using Cauer circuits with additional resistance R0
4. Results
This section presents selected simulation results for the system of magnetically coupled coils analyzed in this work. Table 1 summarizes the resistance and inductance values obtained from the proposed circuit–field model using the PvL synthesis procedure described in Section 2. The listed parameters correspond to both the horizontal branch and the magnetizing branch of the equivalent transformer circuit, including the additional resistance R0 (represented by row n = 0). The parameter n denotes the order of approximation, which corresponds to the number of consecutive RL branches in the Cauer circuits. Each subsequent line (n = 1 to 6) represents additional lumped parameters calculated to capture frequency-dependent phenomena, such as skin and proximity effects, with increasing precision.
Synthesized resistance and inductance values for the horizontal (RHn, LHn) and magnetizing (RMn, LMn) branches for consecutive approximation orders n, including the proposed modification parameter R0 (at n = 0)
| n | RHn [Ω] | LHn [µH] | RMn [Ω] | LMn [µH] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.025 | 9.711 | 0.039 | 10.137 |
| 2 | 0.036 | 4.934 | 29.666 | 26.243 |
| 3 | 4.651 | 15.691 | 197.649 | 203.179 |
| 4 | 24.707 | 34.415 | 207.628 | 580.461 |
| 5 | 101.658 | 69.194 | 175.147 | 938.043 |
| 6 | 321.003 | 171.006 | 13.193 | 116.625 |
| 0 (R0) | – | – | 0.025 | – |
| n | RHn [Ω] | LHn [µH] | RMn [Ω] | LMn [µH] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.025 | 9.711 | 0.039 | 10.137 |
| 2 | 0.036 | 4.934 | 29.666 | 26.243 |
| 3 | 4.651 | 15.691 | 197.649 | 203.179 |
| 4 | 24.707 | 34.415 | 207.628 | 580.461 |
| 5 | 101.658 | 69.194 | 175.147 | 938.043 |
| 6 | 321.003 | 171.006 | 13.193 | 116.625 |
| 0 (R0) | – | – | 0.025 | – |
As detailed in Table 1, the higher-order parameters (n = 1 to 6) capture the high-frequency dynamic behaviors of the transformer, such as skin and proximity effects, which become increasingly dominant at higher pulsations. Conversely, the proposed modification parameter R0 (n = 0) strictly governs the static DC characteristics of the magnetizing branch. This clear separation of frequency-dependent phenomena confirms the capability of the PvL synthesis to accurately map complex electromagnetic interactions into distinct lumped elements.
Based on the equivalent parameters obtained for the analyzed transformer, the impedance fitting functions ZM(ω) for the magnetizing branch and ZH(ω) for the horizontal branch were determined as functions of the electrical pulsation ω, using equations (8) and (9). The impedance characteristics ZM(ω) and ZH(ω) are presented in Figures 6 and 7, respectively.
The line graph shows the vertical axis labelled Z M in ohms and the horizontal axis labelled omega in radians per second. The horizontal axis includes a multiplier of 10 to the power of three. A single line starts near zero at low omega and increases steadily as omega increases. The line shows a continuous upward trend without fluctuations. The spacing of grid lines is uniform across the plot.Impedance characteristics as a function of the electrical pulsation for the magnetizing branch
The line graph shows the vertical axis labelled Z M in ohms and the horizontal axis labelled omega in radians per second. The horizontal axis includes a multiplier of 10 to the power of three. A single line starts near zero at low omega and increases steadily as omega increases. The line shows a continuous upward trend without fluctuations. The spacing of grid lines is uniform across the plot.Impedance characteristics as a function of the electrical pulsation for the magnetizing branch
The line graph shows the vertical axis labelled Z H in ohms and the horizontal axis labelled omega in radians per second. The horizontal axis includes a multiplier of 10 to the power of three. A single line begins at a small value near zero and increases steadily as omega increases. The rise is smooth with no visible fluctuations. The grid is evenly spaced across the plot.Impedance characteristics as a function of the electrical pulsation for the horizontal branch
The line graph shows the vertical axis labelled Z H in ohms and the horizontal axis labelled omega in radians per second. The horizontal axis includes a multiplier of 10 to the power of three. A single line begins at a small value near zero and increases steadily as omega increases. The rise is smooth with no visible fluctuations. The grid is evenly spaced across the plot.Impedance characteristics as a function of the electrical pulsation for the horizontal branch
As can be observed from the presented characteristics, the impedance of both the horizontal and magnetizing branches remains non-zero even at low ripple values. This confirms that the condition defined by equation (10) is satisfied. Moreover, the monotonic increase in impedance with pulsation indicates consistent inductive behavior in both branches, validating the correctness of the proposed equivalent circuit representation and demonstrating good agreement between the fitted impedance functions and the physical characteristics of the transformer.
In this work, the current waveforms at the load of the system with Rload = 10 Ω were also analyzed for various values of the supply frequency. Simulations were performed for both the classical equivalent circuit using Cauer networks and the modified equivalent circuit proposed in this study, also based on Cauer networks (see Figure 8).
The two circuit diagrams are labelled a and b. Each diagram shows a network connected to an alternating source labelled U on the left and a load resistor labelled R load on the right. In both diagrams, upper sections contain vertical chains of resistors labelled R H one, R H two, and R H n with horizontal inductors labelled L H one, L H two, and L H n connected between nodes. A middle section includes a horizontal chain of resistors labelled R M one, R M two, and R M n with vertical inductors labelled L M one, L M two, and L M n connected to a lower line. The lower line connects to a resistor labelled R zero in diagram b. Currents labelled i c one and i c two are indicated along the main path.Equivalent circuit of an air transformer using Cauer circuits (a) classical (b) modified
The two circuit diagrams are labelled a and b. Each diagram shows a network connected to an alternating source labelled U on the left and a load resistor labelled R load on the right. In both diagrams, upper sections contain vertical chains of resistors labelled R H one, R H two, and R H n with horizontal inductors labelled L H one, L H two, and L H n connected between nodes. A middle section includes a horizontal chain of resistors labelled R M one, R M two, and R M n with vertical inductors labelled L M one, L M two, and L M n connected to a lower line. The lower line connects to a resistor labelled R zero in diagram b. Currents labelled i c one and i c two are indicated along the main path.Equivalent circuit of an air transformer using Cauer circuits (a) classical (b) modified
The peak values of the resulting current waveforms and the phase shift between them were compared. Figures 9–11 show a comparison of the load current waveforms for electrical pulsations of 3.14 krad/s, 31.4 krad/s and 314 krad/s, which correspond to supply frequencies of 500 Hz, 5 kHz and 50 kHz, respectively. The load current of the classical equivalent circuit is denoted as (orange), while the corresponding current in the modified equivalent circuit is marked as (blue).
The graph shows the vertical axis labelled current I in amperes and the horizontal axis labelled time t in milliseconds. Two sinusoidal waveforms are plotted. One waveform labelled I M has a larger amplitude, while the other labelled I has a smaller amplitude and is phase shifted. Horizontal reference lines mark I M max and I max. The waveform I M reaches a higher peak than I. The two signals repeat periodically with a consistent phase difference. A note indicates I M max divided by I max equals 0.85 and phi equals 28.98 degrees.Comparison of current waveforms I for the classic circuit and the modified circuit at an electrical pulsation of 3.14 krad/s
The graph shows the vertical axis labelled current I in amperes and the horizontal axis labelled time t in milliseconds. Two sinusoidal waveforms are plotted. One waveform labelled I M has a larger amplitude, while the other labelled I has a smaller amplitude and is phase shifted. Horizontal reference lines mark I M max and I max. The waveform I M reaches a higher peak than I. The two signals repeat periodically with a consistent phase difference. A note indicates I M max divided by I max equals 0.85 and phi equals 28.98 degrees.Comparison of current waveforms I for the classic circuit and the modified circuit at an electrical pulsation of 3.14 krad/s
The time series plot shows current in amperes against time in milliseconds. Two sinusoidal waveforms are shown, a solid line labelled I superscript M and a dashed line labelled I. Both signals have nearly identical amplitudes, reaching the same maximum value indicated as I max and I superscript M max. The curves overlap closely across several cycles, indicating strong agreement. A highlighted zoomed inset shows a slight horizontal shift between the two waveforms, representing a small phase difference. A note on the plot indicates the amplitude ratio I superscript M max divided by I max equals one point zero zero four and a phase difference of approximately two point zero two degrees.Comparison of current waveforms I for the classic circuit and the modified circuit at an electrical pulsation of 31.4 krad/s
The time series plot shows current in amperes against time in milliseconds. Two sinusoidal waveforms are shown, a solid line labelled I superscript M and a dashed line labelled I. Both signals have nearly identical amplitudes, reaching the same maximum value indicated as I max and I superscript M max. The curves overlap closely across several cycles, indicating strong agreement. A highlighted zoomed inset shows a slight horizontal shift between the two waveforms, representing a small phase difference. A note on the plot indicates the amplitude ratio I superscript M max divided by I max equals one point zero zero four and a phase difference of approximately two point zero two degrees.Comparison of current waveforms I for the classic circuit and the modified circuit at an electrical pulsation of 31.4 krad/s
The time series plot shows current in amperes against time in milliseconds. Two sinusoidal waveforms are presented, a solid line labelled I superscript M and a dashed line labelled I. The amplitudes of both signals match exactly, indicated by equal values for I superscript M max and I max. The curves overlap almost perfectly across multiple cycles, showing strong agreement. A zoomed inset highlights a minimal horizontal offset between the two curves, indicating a very small phase shift. The annotation states that the amplitude ratio I superscript M max divided by I max equals one, and the phase difference is approximately zero point one eight degrees.Comparison of current waveforms I for the classic circuit and the modified circuit at an electrical pulsation of 314 krad/s
The time series plot shows current in amperes against time in milliseconds. Two sinusoidal waveforms are presented, a solid line labelled I superscript M and a dashed line labelled I. The amplitudes of both signals match exactly, indicated by equal values for I superscript M max and I max. The curves overlap almost perfectly across multiple cycles, showing strong agreement. A zoomed inset highlights a minimal horizontal offset between the two curves, indicating a very small phase shift. The annotation states that the amplitude ratio I superscript M max divided by I max equals one, and the phase difference is approximately zero point one eight degrees.Comparison of current waveforms I for the classic circuit and the modified circuit at an electrical pulsation of 314 krad/s
While Figures 9–11 provide an intuitive, time-domain visualization of the phase-shift discrepancies at specific operating frequencies (typical for inverter-fed systems), a comprehensive wideband evaluation of the model is necessary to fully capture its dynamic behavior. To precisely determine the range of applicability and assess the numerical stability of the proposed model across the entire frequency spectrum, a comparative analysis of current amplitude and phase characteristics was performed. Figure 12 presents the secondary current amplitudes, while Figure 13 illustrates the phase shift φ discrepancy between the waveforms obtained using the classical approach and those resulting from the improved model. The analysis of Figure 12 indicates significant discrepancies in current amplitude determination within the low pulsation range, which is a direct consequence of the classical approach’s limitations in representing the DC component at low frequencies. Convergence of the current amplitudes for both considered circuit structures occurs only at an angular frequency of ω = 35 krad/s (corresponding to approximately 5.5 kHz). Above this value, both models exhibit acceptable agreement, confirming the validity of the network synthesis for higher operating electrical pulsation. A decisive argument for using the modified structure with an additional resistance R0 is further provided by the phase discrepancy analysis presented in Figure 13. In wireless power transfer systems and impulse systems, correct representation of the phase shift is crucial for the precise determination of power losses and resonant parameters. As demonstrated, for a pulsation of ω = 50 krad/s (approximately 10 kHz), the application of the model based on the classical approach generates a phase error of 0.83°, which disqualifies it for high-precision broadband analyses. A high level of phase representation accuracy (discrepancy below 0.2°) is achieved by the classical equivalent circuit model only in the high pulsation range exceeding 300 krad/s (approximately 50 kHz) – see Figure 11. These results clearly demonstrate that incorporating the R0 parameter into the magnetizing branch of the transformer equivalent circuit is essential to ensure the physical consistency of the model in both steady-state and transient conditions at lower power supply pulsation. The proposed modification effectively eliminates discrepancies resulting from the undefined behavior of the classical Cauer circuits as ω → 0, rendering the model a universal tool for the analysis of magnetically coupled systems operating in a wideband regime.
The plot presents the ratio of I superscript M max to I max on the vertical axis against angular frequency omega in radians per second on the horizontal axis, scaled by ten to the power of three. A solid curve starts below one and rises steeply, then gradually levels off, approaching one. A dashed horizontal line marks the value one as a reference. The curve slightly overshoots near unity before stabilising close to one across higher frequencies. An annotation indicates that as omega approaches infinity, the ratio tends to one, showing convergence of measured and reference current amplitudes.Comparison of secondary current amplitudes calculated using the classical and improved equivalent circuit models as a function of pulsation ω
The plot presents the ratio of I superscript M max to I max on the vertical axis against angular frequency omega in radians per second on the horizontal axis, scaled by ten to the power of three. A solid curve starts below one and rises steeply, then gradually levels off, approaching one. A dashed horizontal line marks the value one as a reference. The curve slightly overshoots near unity before stabilising close to one across higher frequencies. An annotation indicates that as omega approaches infinity, the ratio tends to one, showing convergence of measured and reference current amplitudes.Comparison of secondary current amplitudes calculated using the classical and improved equivalent circuit models as a function of pulsation ω
The plot presents phase angle phi in degrees on the vertical axis against angular frequency omega in radians per second on the horizontal axis, scaled by ten to the power of three. A solid curve starts above fifty degrees at low frequency and decreases steeply, then gradually flattens as it approaches zero. A dashed horizontal line marks zero degrees as a reference. An annotation indicates that as omega approaches infinity, phi of omega tends to zero, showing diminishing phase difference at higher frequencies.Phase shift φ discrepancy of between current waveforms obtained for the classical approach and the improved model as a function of pulsation ω
The plot presents phase angle phi in degrees on the vertical axis against angular frequency omega in radians per second on the horizontal axis, scaled by ten to the power of three. A solid curve starts above fifty degrees at low frequency and decreases steeply, then gradually flattens as it approaches zero. A dashed horizontal line marks zero degrees as a reference. An annotation indicates that as omega approaches infinity, phi of omega tends to zero, showing diminishing phase difference at higher frequencies.Phase shift φ discrepancy of between current waveforms obtained for the classical approach and the improved model as a function of pulsation ω
5. Conclusions
This study successfully proposes and validates an improved equivalent circuit for air-core transformers powered by higher frequency sources. Authors have identified a fundamental theoretical limitation in the classical Cauer-based representation of the T-equivalent model, specifically its failure to satisfy the DC boundary condition. Because the traditional structure completely short-circuits the magnetizing branch at zero frequency, it inaccurately distributes the static resistive properties of the windings, leading to significant low-frequency discrepancies. By using the PvL algorithm, authors have demonstrated that this missing static component manifests mathematically as a non-zero remainder in the model order reduction process. Authors have corrected this physical inconsistency by explicitly introducing an additional resistance R0 into the magnetizing branch. The comprehensive wideband analysis confirms that the proposed modified structure achieves good agreement with the full field-based model. It eliminates the amplitude and phase differences present in the classical approach at lower frequencies, while seamlessly preserving computational efficiency and high-fidelity representation of eddy-current phenomena at high frequencies. Consequently, the improved model provides a highly reliable, physically consistent and universally applicable tool for the wideband analysis of magnetically coupled systems. From a practical standpoint, the proposed methodology bridges the gap between complex electromagnetic field theory and circuit engineering, enabling designers of modern resonant converters and WPT systems to significantly reduce computational overhead, accelerate the prototyping phase and ultimately develop more energy-efficient power electronics.

