Optimization of Stranded-Wire Windings and

Comparison with Litz Wire on the Basis of Cost

and Loss
Xu Tang
C. R. Sullivan
Found in IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference, June 2004,
pp. 854860.
c 2004 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission
to reprint or republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or
for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists,
or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in other works must be
obtained from the IEEE.
Xu Tang and Charles R. Sullivan
Email: charles.r.sullivan@dartmouth.edu http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/inductor
8000 Cummings Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA
AbstractStranded wire with uninsulated strands has been
proposed as a low-cost alternative to litz wire. In this paper, we
develop a method to optimize stranded-wire designs on the basis
of cost and loss, and compare the results to optimized litz-wire
designs. A simply calculated parameter is shown to be useful to
predict when each type of wire is preferred. A method to extend
both loss prediction and optimization for arbitrary geometries
and waveforms is also introduced.
Deliberate oxidation of strands is proposed as a method to
improve performance of stranded wire, and to increase its range
of applicability. Experimental measurements with approximately
0.15 m oxide show dramatic increases in interstrand resistivity,
indicating that this approach could be very effective.
I. INTRODUCTION
Simple stranded wire without insulation on the individual
strands has recently been proposed as a cost-effective sub-
stitute for litz wire for reducing eddy-current loss in high-
frequency transformer and inductor windings [1]. Although
it seems self-evident that the individual copper strands that
constitute litz wire should be insulated to prevent circulating
currents and to effect the function of litz wire in reducing
losses, stranded wire with uninsulated strands, which we will
refer to simply as stranded wire, can be expected to reduce
circulating currents signicantly compared to solid wire. It
provides an intermediate alternative between the extremes of
litz wire and solid wire on both cost and the potential to reduce
circulating currents.
It appears that stranded wire is a useful alternative to
consider where the high cost of litz wire is prohibitive and
slightly higher losses can be tolerated. However, in such a
situation, it is also possible to choose a lower cost litz-wire
design. Choosing a litz-wire design is difcult, because of the
large design space of possible choices for number and diameter
of strands, many of which have high cost, high loss, or both.
Hence, careful optimization can be invaluable; the methods
in [2], [3], [4] narrow the design space to a smaller set of
alternatives, each of which provides the lowest possible loss
at any given cost. Thus, in order to determine when and where
stranded wire offers advantages, it is necessary to compare a
range of optimized designs, and show that the stranded wire
can provide lower cost at a given loss, or lower loss at a
given cost. We undertake such a comparison in this paper, by
combining the loss analysis of stranded wire in [1] with the
optimization of litz wire in [2].
Previous work on loss calculation in stranded wire is
reviewed in Section I-A. A method to nd the lowest-loss
This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy
under grant DE-FC36-01GO1106.
stranded-wire design for any given cost is described in Sec-
tion IV, based on a cost model developed in Section II.
Section III discusses an important parameter in the model:
interstrand resistivity, and introduces and tests a method to
improve it. The loss model is used to compare optimized
stranded- and litz-wire designs in Section V, including nding
a simple calculation that can be applied to a given design
problem to determine whether stranded wire will be advan-
tageous. In Section VI, the methods of Sections I-A, IV
and V are extended to address arbitrary waveforms that may
be different in each winding and two-dimensional (2-D) and
three-dimensional (3-D) eld geometries.
A. Loss Calculation
The calculation of high-frequency effects in stranded wire
developed in [1] is reviewed briey here, and in more detail
in Appendix I.
High-frequency winding loss effects include skin effect (the
tendency for high-frequency currents to ow on the surface of
a conductor) and proximity effect (the tendency for current
to ow in other undesirable patternsloops or concentrated
distributionsdue to the presence of magnetic elds generated
by nearby conductors). Ordinarily, proximity-effect losses are
dominant over skin-effect losses because in a multi-layer
winding the total magnetic eld is much larger than the eld
generated only by one strand or turn. For this reason, the loss
calculation in [1] focuses on proximity-effect loss.
In multi-strand windings, proximity-effect loss includes ef-
fects at both the strand level and the bundle level, as illustrated
in Fig. 1. Strand-level proximity effect may optionally be still
further divided into internal proximity effect (the effect of
other currents within the bundle) and external proximity effect,
but we instead consider the total proximity effect as a result of
the total eld at any given strand [2]. Strand-level effects are
usually not affected by the presence or absence of insulation
and standard litz-wire analysis [5], [6], [7], [8] can be applied
to uninsulated strands. The effect of increased length due
to twisting is addressed in [1], as reviewed in Appendix I,
resulting in this expression for power loss due to strand-level
proximity effect:
P
eddy, strand
=

2

B
2
d
4
s
n
128
c
(1 +

2
nd
2
s
4K
a
p
2
) (1)
where is the radian frequency of the sinusoidal excitation,
is the length of the bundle,
c
is the resistivity of copper,
p is the pitch of the twisting, n is the number of strands in
a bundle, d
s
is the diameter of each strand,

B
2
is the spatial
Optimization of Stranded-Wire Windings and Comparison
with Litz Wire on the Basis of Cost and Loss.
2004 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference Aachen, Germany, 2004
0-7803-8399-0/04/$20.00 2004 IEEE. 854
Proximity
Effect
Skin
Effect
Strand-level
Bundle-level
B
int
B
ext
B
ext
"Internal" "External"
Fig. 1. Types of eddy-current effects in bundled wire.
average of the squared peak magnetic ux density, and K
a
is
the strand packing factor, which is assumed to be independent
of the pitch. This model (1) is only valid if the strand diameter
is smaller than or comparable to a skin depth [9], [10], as is
the case in good litz- or stranded-wire designs. For 1-D eld
geometries, the average squared eld can be easily calculated
[11], [10]. An approach for more complicated geometries and
for non-sinusoidal waveforms is discussed in Section VI.
Predicting bundle-level proximity effect with nite conduc-
tivity between strands is more complex than predicting strand-
level effects. For this calculation, the conductivity between
strands is characterized by an effective resistivity of the
composite material comprising many strands,
ss
, measured
perpendicular to the strand or bundle axis. Typical values of

ss
range from 20 m to 200 m [1]. This important
parameter is discussed in more detail in Section III.
As reviewed in Appendix I, [1] derives an expression for
the bundle-level proximity-effect loss.
P
eddy, bundle
=
p
2

2

B
2
nd
2
s

32
ss
K
a
(1 +
n
2
d
2
s
4K
a
p
2
). (2)
This expression has been experimentally veried in [1].
From (2), we see that the bundle-level eddy-current loss
decreases as pitch is reduced. However, the other losses, P
r
=
I
2
rms
R
dc
and the strand-level eddy-current loss P
eddy, strand
given by (1), increase as pitch is reduced. Thus, the total loss
has a minimum value at an intermediate, optimal pitch, p
opt
.
In [1], this optimal pitch is found to be
p
opt
=
4

ss
nd
4
s
16
c
+
32I
2
rms

ss

2
B
2
nd
2
s
(3)
where I
rms
is the rms current in the winding under consider-
ation.
II. COST MODELLING
As discussed in [8], [2], optimizing litz-wire designs without
considering cost leads to the use of very large numbers of
ne strands that are prohibitively expensive. Thus, practical
optimization must include a cost model, particularly given that
the goal of using stranded wire is to reduce cost.
As was done in [2] for litz wire, we developed a curve-
t function for the cost per unit mass of stranded wire from
manufacturers pricing.
C
m,copper
(d
s
) = 0.46 +
0.49 10
26
m
6
d
6
s
+
2.5 10
9
m
2
d
2
s
(4)
The cost C
m,copper
(d
s
) in (4) is for stranded copper wire with
no strand insulation or bundle insulation, and is normalized to
a value of one for the cost per unit mass of large-strand litz
wire, so that the values can be compared directly with costs
from the curve-t model for litz-wire cost in [2],
C
m,litz
(d
s
) = 1 +
1.1 10
26
m
6
d
6
s
+
2 10
9
m
2
d
2
s
(5)
which has the same normalization.
For stranded wire, there is an additional complication: It
is necessary to insulate the overall bundle before a winding
can be constructed, whereas with litz wire, it is possible to
rely only on the strand insulation, or to add only serving (a
textile wrap) to mechanically protect the strands while still
relying on the strand insulation for electrical isolation between
turns. A thermoplastic insulation, such as PTFE (Teon), PVC,
polyester, polyuretahne, or polypropylene can be extruded
over a litz- or stranded-wire winding. The relative cost and
temperature ratings of these materials are listed in Table I.
The cost of this insulation is an important factor in determining
whether and when stranded wire is competitive with litz wire.
In some applications, thermoplastic such as PTFE is used
for bundle insulation on litz wire in order to increase the
dielectric strength for high voltage or for safety requirements.
In such cases, stranded wire is signicantly cheaper. However,
in other litz applications where no bundle insulation is used,
the extra cost of the bundle insulation must be subtracted from
the cost savings of using stranded wire.
We have also developed an approximate model for the cost
of coating per unit length, again based on manufacturers
pricing:
C
coating
= k
c1
_
n
K
a
d
s
+ k
c2
(6)
Coating litz wire costs more than coating stranded wire
because litz wire is more suceptible to mechanical and thermal
damage. Thus, the constant k
c1
takes on different values for
coating litz or stranded wire with the same PTFE insulation
(2 10
5
m
1
or 1.5 10
5
m
1
, respectively). For PTFE
insulation, the same value for k
c2
is used for either case,
2.4 10
9
. With these constants, (6) gives normalized values
compatible with (4) and (5). (i.e., as in (4) and (5), the values
are normalized to a value of one for large-strand litz wire.)
TABLE I
RELATIVE COST AND OPERATION TEMPERATURE OF SEVERAL BUNDLE
INSULATION MATERIALS.
Polypropylene PVC Polyester Polyurethane PTFE
Relative
cost 1 1.25 4 5 7
Operation
temperature 80 105 180 180 200
o
C
2004 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference Aachen, Germany, 2004
855
This means that (4), (5), and (6) can be used together to
compare costs of different strategies. Note that the constants
in these formulas are subject to change as wire technology
changes. However, even with different constants, the structure
of the model and general conclusions are likely to remain
unchanged.
III. INTERSTRAND RESISTIVITY
The interstrand resistivity could, in theory, be larger than
the bulk resistivity of copper because of two different effects.
Firstly, current owing between strands must crowd into a
narrow contact area. This bottleneck introduces extra re-
sistance. However, extensive analysis of this effect, including
calculations of contact area as a function of pressure and nite-
element analysis of the current ow [12], showed that the
resistance produced by this effect is much smaller than values
measured in practice, using measurement methods described
in [1]. Thus, we conclude that the resistance must be mostly
produced by contact resistance and surface contamination, for
example by a thin layer of surface oxidation.
Because even slight oxidation seems to substantially en-
hance resistance between strands, we propose increasing
resistivity by deliberately introducing slight oxidation. The
oxidation of copper is a complex process. The oxidation
rate depends on several factors including the temperature
and gas composition [13]. Different forms of oxidation rate
laws are observed in different temperature ranges [13]. At
high temperatures (above 800
o
C), a parabolic rate law is
observed [13]:
d
dt
=
k
1

(7)
where is the thickness of oxidation layer, t is the oxidation
time and k
1
is the parabolic scaling constant. At intermediate
temperatures (200 to 800
o
C), a cubic law is observed [13]:
d
dt
=
k
2

2
(8)
At lower temperatures (lower than 200
o
C), the oxidation
rate follows a reciprocal logarithmic law [13]. We can save
time by oxidizing the strands at very high temperature (above
1000
o
C). For simplicity in testing, we choose to oxidize the
strands at intermediate temperatures. For our purposes, we
do not need to nd a mathematical model for oxidation in
the temperature range we are interested in, but can instead
directly nd the thickness of oxidation layer grown in a given
time at a specic temperature from experimental data. Ten
minutes of oxidation at 256
o
C in normal air gives an oxidation
layer of thickness 0.15 m as calculated in [12] from the
experimental data in [13]. The oxidation thickness is much
smaller than the strand diameter (the diameter of strand 40
AWG is about 80 m, and the thickness of a single-build
magnet wire insulation is about 8 m). The increase of DC
resistance of a strand by such an oxidation layer can be
ignored.
In order to detect the loss difference between bare and
oxidized stranded wire, we need to choose wire in which the
bundle-level proximity-effect loss dominates over the strand-
level proximity-effect loss. Comparing (1) with (2), we nd
large pitch and small strand diameter should be used to achieve
this goal. So we chose wire consisting of 210 strands of
40 AWG with a pitch of 30 mm. We oxidized the strands of
one sample for 10 minutes at 200
o
C in normal air in an oven
and then twisted the oxidized strands into a bundle. The oven
was pre-warmed to 200
o
C before strands were put into it.
We used the direct proximity-effect loss measurement method
described in [1] to measure the proximity-effect loss in both
clean and oxidized wire samples, and found the interstrand
resistivity by tting the predicted curve to the measured curve.
Note that the strand-level proximity loss is not affected by
interstrand resistivity.
For the bare stranded wire, an interstrand resistivity of
150 m is chosen to t the measured curve, while for the
oxidized stranded wire, an interstrand resistivity of 450 m
is chosen to t the measured curve. The interstrand resistivity
is increased by about a factor of three due to oxidation. And
this resistivity is about 25 times the worst-case number of
20 m for bare wire [1]. In these two wire samples, the
bundle-level loss dominates over strand-level loss. The total
loss in the wire is reduced by about a factor of three due to
the oxidation of strands. We also nd that oxidized stranded
wire is easier to solder than litz wire.
In the wire industry, the typical annealing temperature is
about 700
o
C. At this temperature, the oxidation rate is about
100 times faster than at 200
o
C. This means an oxidation layer
of thickness 0.15 m can be grown in less than 10 seconds.
Thus oxidation of strands is a practical way to improve the
performance of stranded wire.
IV. OPTIMIZATION
There are many possible combinations of strand diameter
and number of strands (d
s
and n) for any given cost. We
wish to nd the combination that, for a given cost, provides
the minimum loss. For a particular strand size, d
s
, we can
calculate the number of strands, n, for the given cost, and
then calculate the power loss using the loss model described
in Section I-A. Thus, for a xed cost, we can calculate the
loss for any given strand diameter. We then use a numerical
optimization routine (the Nelder-Mead Simplex algorithm [14]
as implemented in the MATLAB function fminsearch) to
nd the strand diameter that yields the minimum power loss
for the given cost. We repeat this procedure for different costs
to nd the minimum loss for any given cost. A owchart of
this process is shown in Fig. 2.
V. COMPARING LITZ AND STRANDED WIRE
One way to compare litz wire and stranded wire is through
an example. We start by considering the same design example
used in [2] (RM5 ferrite core, number of turns N = 14,
frequency f = 1 MHz, bobbin window breadth b
b
= 4.93 mm,
core window breadth b
c
= 6.3 mm). Curves of minimum
loss at any given cost are shown for PTFE coated litz-wire
and PTFE stranded-wire windings with and without strand
oxidation in Fig. 3.
At the upper left of Fig. 3, the cost of the stranded-wire
winding is lower than the cost of the litz-wire winding for
2004 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference Aachen, Germany, 2004
856
Give design specification
Give a specific cost
Use the Matlab function
fminsearch
to find d
s
that yields
minimum loss in the winding
Normalize all losses and
costs to the loss and cost
of winding using AWG 44
Calculate n and
the loss
Generate the cost and loss
tradeoff curve
cost, d
s
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the procedure to generate cost and loss tradeoff curves.
the same loss. However, for a given increase in cost (corre-
sponding to using ner strands), the loss reduction is greater
for litz wire than for stranded wire. There is a point at which
the two curves intersect and to the right of this point, the litz-
wire winding performs better than the stranded-wire winding.
We denote the intersection point as the critical strand diameter,
d
crit
. If we have a design using a litz-wire winding with strand
diameter larger than d
crit
, a stranded-wire winding can provide
the same performance at a lower cost, whereas for designs
using strand diameters smaller than d
crit
, stranded wire offers
no advantage. Note that the oxidation signicantly extends the
region in which stranded wire has an advantage.
Although Fig. 3 clearly shows the cost and loss ranges
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
1
10
34
36
38
40
42
46
Normalized Cost
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

L
o
s
s
32
48
50
44
PTFEcoated stranded wire
PTFEcoated,
oxidized stranded wire
PTFEcoated Litz wire
Fig. 3. Cost and loss, for PTFE-coated litz-wire and PTFE-coated stranded-
wire windings, with and without oxidation. All are normalized to an optimal
cost/loss design using a PTFE-coated litz-wire winding with 44 AWG strands.
in which litz- or stranded-wire windings are preferable, the
designer must still make a choice between lower-loss, higher-
cost designs and higher-loss, lower-cost designs. Given de-
tailed information on the application, one can calculate the
cost of the power losses over the life of the equipment,
and compare that to the cost of a lower-loss winding as
described in [2]. However, it may be desirable to use lower
loss designs than this simple calculation alone would indicate,
because there may be additional equipment and energy-cost
savings from reduced cooling requirements, and because of
the environmental benets of reduced energy consumption.
Returning to the question of whether to choose litz or
stranded wire, we nd that the position of the point at which
the two curves intersect changes with six different parameters.
It would be desirable to nd a parameter that is a combination
of all these parameters such that the curve only depends on
the one new parameter. We suppose this parameter has the
following form:
X = b
c

a
1
c
N
a
2
f
a
3

a
4
ss
K
a
5
a
(9)
Through a series of numerical experiments, we found X to be
X =
b
c

c
Nf
ss
K
2
a
(10)
As long as this parameter stays constant, the intersection point
does not change (d
crit
stays constant). Fig. 4 shows d
crit
changing with X. A simple calculation of X provides an
easy way for a designer to determine whether stranded wire
is advantageous in a particular design, without the effort of
performing the full optimization of either type of winding.
After calculating X from (10) and nding d
crit
from Fig. 4,
a designer knows the range of strand diameters in which
stranded wire is advantageous. Note that Fig. 4 applies re-
gardless of whether oxidation is used; oxidation factors into
the value of X such that the same curve applies, but a given
design now falls on a different point on the curve. The larger
the value of X, the smaller the range of strand sizes for which
stranded wire is preferred. So if we have a design with a small
value of X, which corresponds to large number of turns, high
operation frequency and relatively small core window width,
stranded wire is often advantageous.
The comparison between litz and stranded wire depends on
whether one is considering using thermoplastic insulation on
both, or on only the stranded wire, and it depends on the type
of thermoplastic used. In our cost models and in the price
quotes we have seen, PTFE insulated stranded wire is always
more expensive than litz wire without bundle insulation. Thus,
litz wire is always preferred in that comparison. However,
stranded wire is often preferred if PTFE bundle insulation
would be used on the litz wire anyway. If PVC or other less
expensive bundle insulation can be used on the stranded wire,
stranded wire may be lower in cost even if no bundle insulation
is needed on the litz wire. Table II compares these costs, and
Fig. 4 includes a curve for this comparison (PVC insulation on
the stranded wire and no bundle insulation on the litz wire)
as well as a curve for PTFE on both types of wire. Both
curves indicate a substantial range in which stranded wire is
advantageous. The same example plotted in Fig. 3 is analyzed
2004 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference Aachen, Germany, 2004
857
10
-12
10
-10
10
-8
10
-6
10
-4
10
-2
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
X
d
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
(
A
W
G
)
PVC-insulated stranded wire
vs. litz wire with no bundle insulation
PTFE- coated stranded wire
vs. PTFE-coated litz wire
Fig. 4. Critical strand diameter as a function of X. For a given design, X
can be calculated, and d
crit
can be found from this curve. The best design
choices are then stranded wire with strand diameter larger than d
crit
or litz
wire with strand diameter smaller than d
crit
. Two curves are shown: one
for the choice between litz wire and stranded wire, both with PTFE bundle
insulation; and one for the choice between litz wire without bundle insulation
and stranded wire with PVC insulation.
TABLE II
RELATIVE COST PER UNIT LENGTH OF LITZ WIRE WITH NO BUNDLE
INSULATION AND STRANDED WIRE WITH PVC BUNDLE INSULATION.
32 36 40 44 50
Litz wire with no
bundle insulation 6.82 2.86 1.36 1 4.76
Stranded wire with
PVC bundle insulation 4.57 2.11 1.46 1.01 3.03
All wires consist of 105 strands. Costs are normalized to a value of one for
litz wire using 44 AWG strands.
again in Fig. 5, but this time comparing stranded wire with
PVC insulation to litz wire with no insulation, rather than
PTFE insulation on both. Note that although the regions where
stranded wire shows an advantage are similar in Figs. 3 and 5,
the size of the advantage is bigger in Fig. 5.
VI. MODIFICATION OF LOSS MODEL FOR ARBITRARY
WAVEFORMS AND 2-D OR 3-D FIELD GEOMETRY
Our loss-prediction model is developed based on sinusoidal
waveforms and 1-D eld analysis. This section modies the
loss model for arbitrary waveforms and 2-D or 3-D eld
geometry, based on the squared eld derivative (SFD) method
for calculating loss [15], which is reviewed in Appendix II.
The ac resistance factor, F
r
= R
ac
/R
dc
, for a litz-wire
winding with sinusoidal waveforms and 1-D eld geometry
[5], [6], [7], [8] can be expressed:
F
r
= 1 +

2

2
0
N
2
n
2
d
2
s
768
2
c
b
2
c
= 1 + k

n
2
j
A
2
s,j
(11)
where b
c
is the breadth of the core window, N is the number
of turns, k

represents constant terms in the rst form of the

expression lumped together, A
s
is the cross-sectional area of
a strand and the subscript j indicates the jth winding in a
multi-winding transformer. In [3], a procedure for calculating
k

for arbitrary waveforms and 2-D or 3-D eld geometry

10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
0
10
1
32
34
36
38
40
42
46
48
50
44
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50 52
Normalized Cost
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

L
o
s
s
32
34
36
38
40
42
46
48
50
44
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
Litz wire with no bundle insulation
Stranded wire with
PVC bundle insulation
Oxidized stranded wire with
PVC bundle insualtion
Fig. 5. Tradeoff lines for stranded wire with PVC bundle insulation and
litz wire with no bundle insulation. Also a tradeoff line for oxidized stranded
wire with PVC bundle insulation is shown. An interstrand resistivity
ss
=
450 m is used for oxidized stranded wire.
is derived, such that (11) can still be used to accurately
calculate losses, including the effects of fringing elds, mutual
resistance effects [16], and non-sinusoidal waveforms. The
calculation of k

[3] is based on the squared eld derivative

(SFD) method for calculating loss [15]; the necessary formulas
are summarized in Appendix II-A.
If we can rewrite the stranded-wire loss model in terms of
k

, we will be able to use the method in [3] (Appendix II-A)

to calculate k

and it will possible to calculate loss in stranded

wire for arbitrary waveforms and 2-D or 3-D eld geometries.
The ac resistance factor, F
r
, for a stranded-wire winding can
be expressed as:
F
r
= 1 +
P
eddy, strand
P
r
+
P
eddy, bundle
P
r
(12)
where P
r
is resistive power loss, I
2
rms
R
dc
. We insert the ex-
pression for optimal pitch (3) into the equation for P
eddy, bundle
(2) and nd F
r
as a function of k

:
F
r
= 1 + k

n
2
A
2
s
_
1 +
A
s
K
a
_

c

ss

n +
1
k

nA
3
s
_
(13)
Thus for any given core geometry and arbitrary waveforms,
we can calculate the value of k

using the method provided

in Appendix II-A (from [3]) and then nd the power loss in
a stranded-wire winding from:
P = F
r
P
r
= F
r
I
2
rms

nA
s
(14)
where F
r
is calculated from (13). In addition to using this
approach to calculate power loss, we can use the method
described in Section IV to generate cost and loss tradeoff
curves. The curves of critical diameter based on the parameter
X can also be used for arbitrary waveforms and geometries if
we calculate X in terms of k

by comparing an expression for

X with an expression for k

, both based on the simple 1-D

2004 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference Aachen, Germany, 2004
858
sinusoidal case. The result is:
X =

0

ss
K
2
a
_

2
c
1
k

. (15)
This allows one to determine whether a design with arbitrary
waveforms and geometries is a good candidate for stranded
wire by using the curves in Fig. 4; the applicability of the
analysis based on X is no longer limited to simple geometries
and waveforms.
VII. CONCLUSION
Stranded wire is an attractive low-cost alternative to litz
wire, but only in certain situations. Because of the large design
space of number and diameter of strands, and because of the
possibility of incurring very high loss if these parameters are
not chosen carefully, it is important to truly optimize either
a litz- or stranded-wire design. We have introduced a method
to optimize stranded-wire designs based on the experimentally
veried loss analysis in [1]. A simply calculated parameter has
been introduced to predict when each type of wire is preferred.
A method to extend both loss prediction and optimization for
arbitrary geometries and waveforms has also been introduced.
Deliberate oxidation of strands is proposed as a method
to improve performance of stranded wire, and to increase
its range of applicability. Experimental measurements with
approximately 0.15 m oxide show dramatic increases in
interstrand resistivity, indicating that this approach could be
very effective.
APPENDIX I
LOSS CALCULATION IN STRANDED WIRE
The loss calculations in [1] are briey reviewed below. Because
the bundle-level proximity effect losses are reduced by using smaller
pitch, it is important to include the effect of pitch on dc resistance
and on strand-level proximity effect.
A. DC resistance
The distance a strand travels is longer when it is twisted than when
it goes straight. With simple twisting, each strand will stay within one
cylindrical shell at a radius r, and thus will be longer than the overall
bundle by a factor of

d
p
=
1
cos()
=
_
p
2
+ (2r)
2
p
(16)
where p is the pitch, is the angle relative to straight axial travel,
and
d
is the actual length of the strand.
The overall dc resistance of a twisted bundle is the parallel
combination of the resistances of many such strands, each at a
different radius. Because of the different resistances, the dc current
will not be exactly equal for each strand. However, calculations are
simplied by assuming that the dc current owing in each strand is
the same, and this approximation was shown in [1] to be good to
better than 2% when the pitch is more than six times the diameter
of the bundle. On this basis, the dc resistance is found in [1] to be
R
dc
=
4
c

nd
2
s
(1 +

2
nd
2
s
4K
a
p
2
) (17)
where is the length of the bundle,
c
is the resistivity of copper,
and K
a
is a strand-packing factor dened in [1] as
K
a
=
A
e
A
b
(18)
a
p
Fig. 6. Integration loop used to nd voltage that induces current ow along
the marked path.
where A
b
is the overall bundle area and A
e
is the sum of the
cross sectional areas of all the strands, with the strand areas taken
perpendicular to the bundle, not perpendicular to the strands, such
that the cross sections are elliptical.
In (17), the factor
4
c

nd
2
s
represents resistance without twisting, and
the expression in the parentheses represents the effect of pitch.
B. Strand-level eddy-current loss
Standard proximity-effect power loss models [5], [7], [8], [17] for
ne strands (assuming the strand to be small compared to a skin
depth at the frequency of interest [9], [10], which will the case for
good designs) can be modied to include the effect of twisting as for
dc resistance, resulting in
P
eddy, strand
=

2

B
2
d
4
s
n
128
c
(1 +

2
nd
2
s
4K
a
p
2
) (19)
where

B
2
is the spatial average of the square of the peak value of
the ac ux density,

B, and B(t) varies at a radian frequency .
In typical transformer designs, a standard 1-D model of the eld
is sufcient to obtain the average value of

B
2
[11], [10],

B
2
=
1
3

_

0
N

I
b
w
_
2
(20)
where b
w
is the width of the winding window, N is the number of
turns and

I is the peak current.
C. Bundle-level eddy-current loss
In a twisted bundle with signicant resistance between strands, the
potential between a pair of strands can be calculated as the derivative
of the integral of the ux linked by the path shown in Fig. 6. The
area of the loop in Fig. 6 varies with the distance a between the
positions where potential is evaluated. We assume that the ux is
uniform throughout the bundle; that the eddy currents are not large
enough to signicantly reduce the ux. The situation in which eddy
current is large enough to reduce the ux is discussed in [1].
In a given cross section through the bundle, different strands are at
different points in the twist cycle, corresponding to different values
of a. Thus, the potential difference between a strand and the strand in
the corresponding position on the opposite side of the bundle may be
calculated as a function of the position in the bundle. This potential
drives the currents between strands. Reference [1] approximates the
network of discrete resistances between strands as a continuous
medium described by a resistivity
ss
in the plane perpendicular to
the axis. Thus, current and loss can be calculated from the electric
eld which is found from the gradient of potential. The resulting
time-average bundle-level proximity-effect loss is calculated in [1] to
be
P
eddy, bundle
=
p
2

B
2
nd
2
s

32
ss
K
a
(1 +
n
2
d
2
s
4K
a
p
2
). (21)
2004 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference Aachen, Germany, 2004
859
APPENDIX II
THE SFD METHOD FOR LOSS CALCULATION WITH
ARBITRARY WAVEFORMS AND GEOMETRIES
The SFD method [15] is a generalized version of an approach to
nonsinusoidal waveforms that has been widely used [8], [18], [19],
[20]. It is based on the dependence of losses on the squared derivative
of the eld, (
dB
dt
)
2
. It is valid when the diameter of a strand is small
compared to a skin depth, as is the case for a well-designed litz-wire
or stranded-wire winding.
Given the dependence of loss on (
dB
dt
)
2
, and given that B is a
linear function of the current in different windings, it is possible to
account for the losses resulting from these different currents using a
dynamic loss matrix D [15]
P
eddy
=
_
di
1
dt
di
2
dt

D
_
di
1
dt
di
2
dt
_
. (22)
The matrix D is calculated, independent of current waveforms, using
a series of simplied magnetostatic eld simulationsone for each
winding excited alone, and one for each possible pair of windings.
The accuracy of the SFD method has been experimentally veried in
[15].
A. Evaluation of k

The approach in Section VI is based on lumping factors that may

arise from conventional analysis or from the SFD method into a
factor k

, such that the optimization approaches developed for simple

waveforms and geometries apply more generally. This approach was
developed in [3].
To most easily nd k

for a particular winding (k

,j
), [3] denes
a modied dynamic resistance matrix with the stranding parameters
n and A
s
factored out:

D =
D
n
j
A
2
s,j
, and uses only the portion of

D
associated with losses in the winding of interest:

D
j
. Reference [15]
calculates D in terms of a loss coefcient,
j
for each winding j,
which accounts for the inuence of the stranding parameters on D.
To remove that inuence, [3] denes a modied loss coefcient:

j
=

j
n
j
A
2
s,j
=

w,j
4
c
. (23)
Here,
w
is the length of the entire winding, equal to the average
length of a turn multiplied by the number of turns:
w
N
t
.
One can calculate

D
j
from
j
and from the results of magneto-
static eld calculations of the eld due to unit current in each winding
[3]. The calculation of

D is expressed in terms of the eld due to
unit current in winding m,

B
m
, as

D
j
=
j
<
_

B
1

B
1

B
2

B
2

B
1

B
2

2
_

_ >
j
(24)
where <>
j
signies the spatial average over the region of the
winding j. As derived in [3], these parameters can be used to express
k

as
k
,j
=
_
di
1
dt
di
2
dt

D
j
_
di
1
dt
di
2
dt
_
I
2
rms,j

w,j

c
. (25)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks to New England Wire Technologies Corp., Lisbon,
NH, USA, for producing special wire samples.
REFERENCES
[1] X. Tang and C. R. Sullivan, Stranded wire with uninsulated strands as a
low-cost alternative to litz wire, in IEEE Power Electronics Specialists
Conference, 2003.
[2] C. R. Sullivan, Cost-constrained selection of strand wire and number
in a litz-wire transformer winding, IEEE Transactions on Power Elec-
tronics, vol. 16, no. 2, Mar. 2001.
[3] C. Sullivan, T. Abdallah, and T. Fujiwara, Optimization of a yback
transformer winding considering two-dimensional eld effects, cost
and loss, in Proceedings of 16th Annual Applied Power Electronics
Conference - APEC 2001, 2001, pp. 11622 vol.1.
[4] J. Pollock, T. Abdallah, and C. R. Sullivan, Easy-to-use CAD tools
for litz-wire winding optimization, in IEEE Applied Power Electronics
Conference, 2003.
[5] P. N. Murgatroyd, Calculation of proximity losses in multistranded
conductor bunches, IEE Proceedings, Part A, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 115
120, 1989.
[6] J. A. Ferreira, Analytical computation of ac resistance of round and
rectangular litz wire windings, IEE Proceedings-B Electric Power
Applications, vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 2125, Jan. 1992.
[7] B. B. Austin, The effective resistance of inductance coils at radio
frequency, The Wireless Engineer, vol. 11, pp. 1216, Jan. 1934,
summary of work by S. Butterworth.
[8] C. R. Sullivan, Optimal choice for number of strands in a litz-wire
transformer winding, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 14,
no. 2, pp. 283291, 1999.
[9] X. Nan and C. R. Sullivan, An improved calculation of proximity-effect
loss in high-frequency windings of round conductors, in 34th Annual
IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 2003.
[10] , Simplied high-accuracy calculation of eddy-current loss in
round-wire windings, in 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Special-
ists Conference, 2004.
[11] R. W. Erickson and D. Maksimovic, Fundamentals of Power Electronics,
2nd ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.
[12] X. Tang, Stranded wire with uninsulated strands as a low-cost alterna-
tive to litz wire, Masters thesis, Dartmouth College, 2003.
[13] K. Hauffe, Oxidation of Metals. Plenum Press, 1965.
[14] J. Lagarias, J. Reeds, M. Wright, and P. Wright, Convergence properties
of the Nelder-Mead simplex method in low dimensions, SIAM Journal
on Optimization, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11247, 1998.
[15] C. R. Sullivan, Computationally efcient winding loss calculation with
multiple windings, arbitrary waveforms, and two- or three-dimensional
eld geometry, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 16, no. 1,
2001.
[16] J. H. Spreen, Electrical terminal representation of conductor loss in
transformers, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 5, no. 4,
pp. 4249, 1990.
[17] E. C. Snelling, Soft Ferrites, Properties and Applications, 2nd ed.
Butterworths, 1988.
[18] S. Crepaz, Eddy-current losses in rectier transformers, IEEE Trans-
actions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-89, no. 7, pp. 1651
1662, 1970.
[19] P. N. Murgatroyd, The torroidal cage coil, IEE Proceedings, Part B,
vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 207214, 1980.
[20] W. Hurley, E. Gath, and J. Breslin, Optimizing the ac resistance
of multilayer transformer windings with arbitrary current waveforms,
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 36976,
Mar. 2000.
2004 35th Annual IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference Aachen, Germany, 2004
860