Electromagnetic launcher (coil launcher)

Air-core coil driven by a direct current pulse

Energy source: Photovoltaic solar panels (a total 5 kW panel system was proposed)

The energy is boosted to 200 V using a boost converter and stored in a capacitor bank.

The stored energy is discharged through an air-core coil during launch with a 1000 A direct current pulse.

No magnetic rail.

Launcher coil: air-core, wound with 245.33 m of No. 4 AWG copper wire (~488 turns).

Coil specifications:  Length: 0.316 m  Radius: 0.08 m  Area: 0.02 m²  Coil inductance≈20mH  Resistance: 0.2 Ω

It is a short-to‑medium range system intended for military use, designed to launch a 1‑kg projectile to a distance of 1 km.

Energy stored in the capacitor bank:800 J (joules) + 220 W (heat loss) ≈ 11,000 J total.

Launch duration: ~1 second

Boost converter efficiency: 85%

Total system power requirement: 1500 W from solar, but the recommended panel power is 5 kW (to compensate for efficiency losses and charging duration).

Launch exit velocity: 140 m/s

The system’s ability to operate solely on solar energy makes this study unique.

Compared to conventional superconducting systems: it offers a cheaper, portable, low-cost, and simpler design.

Heat is a significant issue: the coil is exposed to 200,000 W of heat in 1 second, with a cooling duration of 17.4 minutes. Forced air convection (fan) was used for cooling. To achieve shorter cooling times, fan power must be increased, which in turn raises energy requirements.

Since coil insulation is limited to 80˚C, the system’s maximum temperature is restricted to 75˚C.

The boost converter and the launch coil were fully simulated using LTSpice, while the thermal behavior of the system was analyzed through ANSYS APDL.

Since the system can operate solely on photovoltaic panels, the proposed design is suitable for military mobile operations.

MPPT (Maximum Power Point Tracking) was not implemented, although it was recommended for future iterations of the system.

Recommendation: System performance may be further enhanced by employing low-resistance conductors, superconducting winding materials, and a liquid-cooled thermal management architecture.

[2]

Three-coil Toroidally-Coupled Reconnection Electromagnetic Launcher (TCREL)The system is based on the Toroidal Reconnection Electromagnetic Launcher (TREL) architecture.

Three coaxially arranged driving coils

The coils are powered by a pulse capacitor bank, delivering high-current pulses (peak current: 5587 A)

A dual-metal-plate armature is used in the TCREL system, whereas the conventional REL employs a single-plate armature.

Coil structure:TCREL: Three-coil configuration (each stage contains three coils)REL: Two-coil configuration (each stage contains two coils)

Insulation and mechanical reinforcement: Coils are encapsulated with epoxy resin, providing a deformation-resistant structure.

The inductance gradient (dL/dx) and the inter-coil magnetic interactions are optimized in the design.

The distance has not been specified.

Initial voltages:REL: 1494 VTCREL: 2500 V

The capacitors were tested at different voltage levels (ranging from 1494-2500 V).

Muzzle exit velocities after launch:

REL: 122.6 m/s

TCREL: 148.4 m/s

TREL (multi-module structure): 157.5 m/s

TREL achieved the highest velocity thanks to its multi-stage configuration.

Efficiency:REL: 8.248%TCREL: 15.818%TREL: 32.717% (highest)

Structural strength: TCREL > REL

TREL > TCREL

Current and force: TCREL has ~100 A higher current than REL → this nearly doubles the force.

Magnetic flux lines spread outward in the TCREL configuration, whereas in the TREL design they concentrate toward the center → this increases thrust efficiency.

Stress analyses (deformation cloud plots) indicate that the TREL configuration is the most stable and mechanically robust structure.

The TCREL system is faster and more efficient than the REL design, and it can also be modularly converted into the TREL architecture.

Simulations were performed using Maxwell and MATLAB, and validated through LCR bridge measurements.

[3]

Alternating-current (AC) electromagnetic launcher system

Grid-connected single-coil system enabling sequential (serial) firing

Single-coil coilgun architecture experimentally tested

Projectile acceleration via AC-powered magnetic field

Capacitor-free system, allowing continuous firing with AC

Triac switching system coupled with a TMS320F28335 DSP microcontroller

Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) for grid synchronization

Projectile position is estimated sensorlessly based on the coil current difference

Artificial Neural Network (Time-Delay MLNN) predicts projectile position with 94.67% accuracy

Coil structure:Single-phase, powered by AC. No additional sensors are required.Current variations are monitored by the microcontroller to perform position estimation.

Artificial intelligence algorithm:

Two-hidden-layer MLNN, predicting projectile position using historical current data.

Real-time processing: integrated with the embedded system.

The exact launch distance is not specified; however, the system is laboratoryscale and based on shortrange experimental tests.

Since it is capacitorless, it operates directly from the mains supply.

A 220/12 V, 1 kVA transformer is used to provide a lowvoltage, highcurrent configuration.The ACS71230A current sensor and the LV25P voltage sensor were used for measurement.

The velocity value is not directly provided.

To control the projectile velocity, the coil energization timing is precisely adjusted.

The initial velocity is maximized by cutting off the energy at the moment when the current differences reverse direction.

A sensorless projectileposition estimation algorithm was developed.

With the MLNN:–Positionzone prediction accuracy: 94.67%–The acceleration region and the central position of the projectile are successfully classified.

The recoil‑force issue is largely mitigated using this method.

The system is scalable to multistage coilgun architectures.

Serial firing with an AC power source is possible (no capacitor‑charging delay).

ANN outputs are used to optimize triac firing (trigger) timing.

The firing angle was experimentally tested at different phases, such as 75° and 90°.

A total of 60 launch tests were conducted, and classification was performed based on currentdifference patterns.

MLNN training was carried out using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm.

Data processing: normalized current‑difference signals were used to create a time‑series dataset for training.

[4]

For rail (conductive) systems, this is not a direct launch system, but a study focused on the optimization of the launcher component.

Copper + AISI 4340 steel composite structure

Composite type: Copper on top and steel at the bottom – duallayer structure

Current applied: 25,000 A (pulsed peak current)

Rail geometry: Symmetric U‑type, 5 mm projectile contact width

Rail length: 100 mm (for the simulation model)

No direct launch was performed.

Conductivity within the rail, temperature distribution, and electromagnetic field intensity were analyzed.

The exact energy consumption has not been provided.

Velocity data is not available.

Composite rail materials resistant to electrical and thermal stresses in rail electromagnetic launcher systems have been proposed.

ANSYS Workbench – electromagnetic + thermal analysis

Important data regarding thermal stress were reported: heating in the copper rail exceeds 500 °C, whereas the composite rail structure reduces this value to below 300 °C.

Within the rail, the magnetic field intensity reaches up to 1.35 T in copper, whereas in the composite it is more evenly distributed. The contact surface between the projectile and the rail experiences less damage, thereby increasing the system’s lifespan.

Analysis method: 3D coupled electromagnetic and thermal solution (ANSYS Maxwell + Thermal Solver)

The study is significant for improving rails, which are the most wear-prone and costly components in rail electromagnetic launcher systems.

[5]

Reluctance type electromagnetic launcher (REL) based on the minimum reluctance principle

Singlecoil (singlestage) configurationIt operates on the principle of generating a pulsed magnetic field to accelerate a ferromagnetic projectile.

Pulsed power supply: supported by a bridge-type capacitor circuit

Main components:

1 capacitor (800 µF, 1200 V initial voltage)

2 IGBT switches

4 fast-recovery diodes

1 current-limiting inductor

System components:Ferromagnetic projectileDrive coil (Lcoil) and its resistance (Rcoil)Single-coil (single-stage) structure

Gap between projectile and coil: 3.5 mm

Projectile height = drive coil height (for maximum thrust efficiency)

Initial position P: Distance between the projectile’s front end and the coil’s front edge = 20 mm

The net travel distance is not specified.

Motion simulations were conducted over the 0-10 ms interval.

Initial capacitor energy: ≈576 J

With the improved circuit:

– Residual current is recovered as energy

– Charging time is reduced

– Energy efficiency is increased

The velocity value is not specified.

Improved circuit:

– Reduces residual current in the drive coil to zero

– Recovered energy is used for the next cycle

– Launch efficiency is significantly increased

Simulation tools used: Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and a custom-developed SPICE‑style circuit model

Advantage of performing both charging and discharging cycles with a single capacitor in the circuit

Proposed for applicability in low-cost reluctance launcher systems

The residual current recovery feature suppresses the counterforce behind the projectile

[6]

It is a launch system supported by magnetic levitation and a linear motor.

High-temperature superconductors (YBCO) and neodymium magnets (NdFeB) are used for magnetic levitation.

A HIWIN LMC-A6 linear motor is employed for launching.

Rails: A total of 6 modules, each containing 192 magnets, providing an overall length of 5760 mm.

Magnets: NdFeB magnets measuring 15 × 15 × 5 mm.

Superconductors: YBCO cylinders with a critical temperature of 92 K (21 mm diameter, 8 mm height).

Motor: Maximum velocity of 5 m/s and maximum acceleration of 100 m/s².

Launch Carriage: 0.8 kg aluminum frame, with a total system mass of 8 kg.

VR Integration: Full simulation and analysis capability using Unity and Oculus Quest 2.

Depends on initial conditions:– In an unactuated system: ~85 m track length required.– With 3 N thrust and 0.043 rad yaw angle: only ~14.5 m of track is sufficient.

No specific numerical values are provided; however, a constant linear-motor thrust of 60 N is assumed.

Liquid nitrogen is used for cooling the superconductors.

Take-off velocity: in the unactuated condition 58.5 m/s, and with low thrust and an appropriate angle 24-28 m/s.

The UAV completes take-off within 0.95-2.7 s.

The most critical factors in the UAV’s take-off are the presence of thrust and the pitch angle.

A small initial pitch angle combined with a low level of thrust significantly reduces the required take-off distance and velocity.

VR support enables better comprehension of simulations in engineering analyses.

The system is modular in structure and can therefore be applied to different types of UAVs. Since the superconducting system can generate lift even at low velocities, take-off and landing are safer compared to conventional systems.

This system was developed as an EU-supported test platform within the GABRIEL Project.

Simulations were prepared in MATLAB, and the results were transferred to a VR environment using Unity.

UAV control algorithms have not yet been integrated into the simulation; manual control and synchronization were assumed.

Although the system is designed for micro-class UAVs, the modeling framework is scalable to larger systems.

[7]

Electromagnetic launcher (coilgun)

A singlecoil, linearexit system designed for ferromagnetic projectiles

An aircraftmounted launch ramp intended for deploying micro/nano satellites into space.

Magnetic flux is increased by reducing reluctance through an ironyoked magnetic circuit.

A capacitor bank (2 × 2500 µF, 450 V) transfers high energy to the coil in a short time.

The system includes an SCRthyristor launch circuit and a microcontrollerbased triggering and velocity measurement unit.

Coil specifications:Length: 20 mmNumber of turns: 100Inner diameter: 15 mmWire: Dualstrand winding using 2 × 0.8 mm diameter wireResistance: 0.125 Ω

Iron yoke: Made of soft iron; 4 mm and 6.6 mm variants were tested.

Capacitor capacity: 5000 µF (total)

Supply voltage: Between 60 and 140 V

The system is designed for shortrange experimental measurements. The actual launch distance is not specified; however, it is intended to be suitable for lowaltitude inspace launches of microsatellites.

For a 5 mF capacitor charged to 100 V: 25 J of stored energy.The energy efficiency (η) was measured by determining how much of this electrical energy is converted into kinetic energy.

Maximum exit velocity: 14.9 m/s (at 140 V)Velocity measurement: conducted using two optical sensors spaced 10 mm apart.

Efficiency: 2.78 % (with iron yoke system)

The iron yoke increased velocity by 17 % and efficiency by 36 %.

The iron yoke completes the magnetic circuit around the coil, increasing magnetic flux lines.It also increases the inductance variation, thereby enhancing the launch force.

Projectiles made of non-ferromagnetic materials (e.g., copper or aluminum) show almost no movement; the presence of magnetic dipoles is critical for projectile propulsion.

Higher velocities were achieved at the same voltage, making the system more efficient and energy-saving.

From an application perspective, flying launch ramps aim to deploy satellites from the upper layers of the atmosphere.

•Magnetic flux lines were visualized using FEMM4.2 simulations.

Higher performance at the same voltage was achieved through the reluctance reduction strategy.

A single-coil structure was employed, aiming for a compact and optimized design rather than multi-stage systems.

[8]

Synchronous Induction Coil Launcher (SICL)

Designed for the electromagnetic launch of high-mass projectiles using a multi-stage coil system. Pulsed current is employed for the launch.

The system consists of drive coils and an armature. The armature is an aluminum cylindrical structure, and the magnetic field interactions have been analyzed in detail.

Threedimensional magnetic field modeling was performed using the Biot-Savart law and the principle of magnetic superposition.

The drive coils are wound with Litz wire, which allows for high current density and uniform current distribution.

Drive coil:Coil voltage: 3500 VPeak current: ~33 kACoil composition: Litz wire, cross-sectional area 56.25 mm²Length: approximately 10 mm per applicable segment.

Magnetic field values:Axial magnetic field in single-stage system: 8.69 TRadial component: 1.45 T

The magnetic field is symmetric without the armature; adding the armature distorts the field, making it asymmetric.

Not specified, but the system has typically been tested experimentally in a laboratory environment.

Intended application: longrange electromagnetic launch of highmass payloads (e.g., missile defense, microsatellites).

Capacitor bank voltage: 3500 V

Peak current: approximately 30-33 kA

The stored energy is likely on the order of several kilojoules, although no explicit numerical value is provided.

The article does not specify the projectile’s launch velocity.

The primary focus is on magnetic field distribution and modeling.

However, indirectly, a high magnetic field implies high force and thus the potential for high launch velocity.

The magnetic field simulations closely match the numerical model calculated in MATLAB.

When the armature is added, countereddy currents slow down the rise and fall rates of the magnetic field.

Using two coil stages distorts the field distribution due to field superposition, reducing overall symmetry.

The skin effect causes the magnetic field to concentrate near the surface at high frequencies, which is particularly significant in aluminum armatures.

Measurements were carried out using onedimensional Hall probes and validated through simulation.

In tests where the armature position was kept fixed, the measurements and the modeling showed good agreement.

It is recommended that electronic components be placed close to the armature head to avoid being affected by the magnetic field.

The influence of the metal enclosure reduces the magnetic field due to countereddy currents.

[9]

MultiPole Field Electromagnetic Launcher (MFEML)

Structure generating radial launch force with a spiral sling coil and multiple acceleration coils

Multistage linear system designed to propel largemass projectiles at high velocities

Spiral cylindrical sling coil: Provides the initial motion (initial velocity: 0.05 m/s).

Acceleration coils (8 units): Sequentially triggered to provide the main acceleration (maximum velocity: 78.19 m/s).

Each coil is triggered by a capacitor bank.

A magnetic equivalent circuit model has been developed.

Separate formulas have been presented for magnetic reluctances and magnetic flux lines.

Sling coil:Cylindrical structure, 2 mm × 16 mm, 30 turns, multilayer winding,Charging: 200 µF, 40 kV.

Acceleration coil:Rectangular cross-section, 8 units,Inner dimensions: 18 × 18 mm, outer dimensions: 28.5 × 28.5 mm, length: 10.55 mm, 50 turns,Charging: 400 µF, 50 kV.

• A long-range launch capability is targeted through the use of a multistage structure.

•For the sliding coil: 160 J

For the acceleration coil: 500 J

Muzzle velocity: 78.19 m/s (octapole system)

Hexapole: 61 m/s, decapole: 84.22 m/s

•Reluctance distribution and inductance formulas dependent on projectile position have been derived in detail.

The force generated by each coil has been calculated according to position.

Flux leakage and current layer thicknesses have been considered to obtain more accurate results.

The spiral catapult coil generates the force required for initial movement (initial thrust: 60 kN).

Total force: 100 kN

MFEML demonstrates that it can be an alternative to chemical and hydraulic systems due to its high force and velocity capacity.

The effect of different pole numbers (6, 8, 10) on system performance has been tested.

The model has been validated using FEA (Finite Element Analysis).

The developed method realistically accounts for details such as coil shape, reluctance, and flux density.

The proposed inductance formulas can be adapted for any arbitrary coil shape and size.

Thanks to electrical equivalent circuit analyses, theoretical and design simulations can be performed synchronously.

[10]

Launcher with a high-temperature superconductor passive magnetic suspension system

Linear motor-assisted magnetic levitation catapult system

Contactless launch solution optimized for UAV takeoff and landing

YBCO superconductors (cooled with liquid nitrogen)

Magnetic levitation achieved using the Meissner effect and flux pinning phenomenon

Magnetic rails + launch platform + linear motor + launch carriage with duralumin frame

System vibrations and moments passively balanced by levitation forces

Launch carriage lift gap: ~6.6 mm equilibrium point, maximum lift 17.3 mm

Mass of the launch carriage: Not specified, but analyses conducted for masses liftable by the superconductors

Motor: Linear motor, carriage moved with constant 20 N force for 1 second

Superconductors: Enhanced flux pinning effect achieved when cooled at 3 mm magnetic field distance

In the simulation:2-second motion duration,The carriage travels a total distance of 14.2 meters

Direct energy consumption is not provided numerically. However, the system uses a linear motor moving with constant force, and its energy can be controlled.

The carriage reached a maximum velocity of 14 m/s and was then decelerated.

The UAV leaves the carriage at a velocity of 24 m/s after 2.2 seconds.

Launch distance: 28 meters (windless scenario).

Vibration damping is low but controlled (typical for the current system).

A constant acceleration can be applied to the UAV, ensuring a smooth takeoff.

The Meissner effect and flux pinning passively balance external disturbances and load imbalances.

In lateral slip conditions, the system oscillates but tends to hold the UAV at the center.

Wind effects have been analyzed: headwind reduces the launch distance, tailwind increases it.

Simulations have validated the design for safe UAV takeoff and landing.

This study presents a detailed dynamic and aerodynamic analysis of the previously examined GABRIEL system.

The mathematical model is represented as a six-degree-of-freedom system and simulated in MATLAB.

Both longitudinal and lateral motions have been investigated.

UAV model: Micro UAV Bullit (1.27 kg, 0.84 m wingspan).

The separation velocity from the launch cart, launch forces, and wind effects have been incorporated into the simulation.

[11]

ermanentmagnet (PM) coilgun

A projectile made of a neodymium magnet (N52 grade) is used instead of a ferromagnetic slug

Singlecoil, upwardlaunch configuration

The energized coil generates a magnetic field and pushes the PM (neodymiummagnet) projectile

The PM itself serves as the magnetic source

As the projectile reaches the coil’s center, the coil reverses its excitation polarity, converting pull into push and increasing acceleration

Static electromagnetic simulations were performed using Ansys Maxwell

PM projectile:Neodymium N52 Density: 7.45 g/cm³Mass: 40.1 gVolume: ~5.38 cm³

Coil: 25 mm length, 1000 turnsCurrent: 4 APolarity reversal applied at the coil center

Force: Maximum ~22 - 25 NProvides 4 - 5 times higher force compared to a ferromagnetic projectile

Launch distance of a single 50 mm (5 cm) coil

Excitation energy: approximately 0.825 J

After subtracting gravitational energy: kinetic energy ≈ 0.805 J

PM projectile: v = 6.3 m/s

Ferromagnetic projectile in the same system: v = 2.8 m/s

Higher force and velocity were achieved by using permanent magnets (PM).

If synchronized coils are implemented in a multistage structure, the velocity and force can be further increased.

High performance in a compact package makes the system suitable for mobile platforms, minilaunchers, and spacelaunch applications.

PM projectiles are both lighter and more energetic than ferromagnetic ones.

The costto performance ratio can be better, as the required energy input is lower.

Modeling was performed using both theoretical formulas and electromagnetic simulation.

Force-distance curves were used to calculate the net force area applied to the projectile (0.825 J).

Polarity reversal during projectile travel is critical; proper synchronization significantly improves performance.

[12]

Solarpowered electromagnetic coil launcher

Based on a boost converter, capacitor bank, and aircore coil system

Energy source: Solar panels with a total capacity of 5 kW

Energy from the sun → boost converter → 200 V capacitor bank

Charged capacitor → discharges into the coil at 1000 A

Coil: Aircore, No.4 AWG wire (245.33 m length), 0.2 Ω resistance, 20 mH inductance

•Coil current: 1000 A (1second shot)

Coil voltage: 200 V

Energy conversion: Target potential energy: 1 kg × 9.8 m/s² × 1000 m = 9800 J

Total energy requirement (including losses): ~11,000 J

Boost converter: 85% efficiency, operates between 96 - 200 V

Forced air cooling system with fan: added for thermal management

Vertical launch target: 1000 m

The simulation was modeled to meet this target

A vertical launch system designed to propel a single projectile to an altitude of 1 km

Total energy requirement supplied by solar panels: ~11,000 J

Charging time: Depends on solar irradiance, average ~160 seconds

Fan power is also supplied from this energy → cooling system limit: 1.5 kW total system power

Required launch velocity: ≈140 m/s

This system proposes a portable launcher that operates solely on solar energy, independent of the grid.

Overheating is the most critical design issue: the coil faces 200,000 W of heat generation in 1 second. Maximum allowable coil temperature: 75˚CCooling time: 17.4 minutes (with air fan system, h = 73 W/m²K)

The developed system is simple and low-cost, capable of operating in harsh environments such as deserts. Standard copper wire is used instead of superconductors.

The boost converter design was simulated in LTspice, and the system logic follows three stages: charge – standby – launch.

Thermal analysis: Validated using Ansys APDL and an analytical model. Solved under fixed temperature and convection boundary conditions.A nonlinear relationship exists between the heat transfer coefficient and fan velocity.

Future recommendations: Improvement suggestions include using superconducting wire, fluid cooling, and a hybrid solar + wind system.An MPPT algorithm and soft-switched converters could enhance overall system efficiency.

[13]

Electromagnetic catapult type launch system

System used: Dual-sided superconducting magnet linear synchronous motor (SCLSM).

Iron-core and air-core SCLSM structure:Superconducting magnets (SCM): 4 units

Iron-core structure → used for magnetic field guidance and leakage flux suppression

Ring windings (armature winding) employed → provides high winding density and low torque ripple

Pole pitch (τ): 1.04 m

SCM specifications:Current: 210 ANumber of turns: 2340 turnsLength: 0.94 mHeight: 0.48 mThickness: 25.4 mm

Armature:Current: 2000 ANumber of turns: 10 turnsHeight: 0.42 mWidth: 0.5 m

Launch distance not specified

Detailed energy data not provided

Total electromagnetic force with four SCMs: 64.8 kN (thrust force)

Thrust density: 109.83 kN/m³

A similar system at Holloman Air Force Base, USA, achieved a launch velocity of 186.9 m/s

The iron-core system compared to the air-core system:

- 2 times higher magnetic flux density

- More uniform field distribution

Leakage flux density:

- Average gap flux: 1.84 T

- Leakage flux: 0.30 T → leakage ratio ≈ 16.3%

Optimum air gap: 30 mm → 65.12 kN maximum thrust

Armature width and height significantly affect performance:

- Width = 360 mm → highest thrust density

- Height ≈ 0.38-0.40 m → optimal

Saturation does not reduce system energy efficiency, as the iron core is used solely for magnetic field guidance

Simulations: ANSYS Maxwell + Finite Element Method

Superconducting magnets have been successfully used in both Japanese Maglev trains and U.S. rocket sled tests

Moving-magnet motor configuration is more stable than moving-coil designs and does not require cable connections

Application areas: aircraft launches, space support systems, high-velocity rail testing, Maglev platforms

[14]

Permanent magnet (PM) linear synchronous electromagnetic launcher

AC-powered linear machine structure designed to achieve high thrust during launch

•Inverted U-type structure: Armature positioned between two permanent magnets (PM)

Wing-type structure: PM is movable, stator armature on both sides

Coil types:-Distributed winding-Concentrated winding- Ring winding

PM (Neodymium magnet) + AC-excited coil combination

Coil current: 150 A (in the experimental prototype)

Leakage magnetic field magnitude varies with winding type:- Distributed winding: highest EMI- Concentrated winding: lowest EMI

PM magnetic field is static, AC coil field varies over time

Inverted U structure stands out as the design with the least environmental magnetic leakage

Launch distance not specified

Exact energy value is not specifiedHowever, 150 A current in the coils indicates that the system is relatively high-powered

Velocity data is not provided

Electromagnetic interference (EMI) can cause deviations in sensitive components such as UAV compasses.

Suppressing stray magnetic fields is critical, especially in UAV systems.

Inverted U structure with concentrated winding → lowest stray field.

Analytical model validated with 3D finite element analysis.

Beyond 600 mm, stray field drops below 100 μT → safe zone for UAV systems.

EMI suppression methods were proposed:- Semi-enclosed shielding systems- Body covering with high-permeability metal plates (silicon steel)

Increasing material thickness results in stronger EMI attenuation

In the prototype system, stray fields from both PM and coil sources were measured separately, yielding values close to the analytical model

Control strategy used: structure compatible with MTPA (Maximum Torque per Ampere)

UAV navigation sensors should be positioned at least 600 mm away from the launcher

[15]

Electromagnetic launching system (EMLS)

TPMLL (Tubular Permanent Magnet Linear Launcher), i.e., tubular permanent magnet linear launcher

Moving part:- Outer section: 5 permanent magnets + 5 ferromagnetic rings- Inner section: Aluminum tube

Stator:- Consists of 3 small stator segments forming an outer casing- Each segment contains 2 stator teeth, one yoke, and bread-type circular windings- Between segments: 2 non-ferromagnetic rings

Air gap: between stator and moving part

Structure: entirely tubular and circularly symmetric

Magnet type: NdFeB (Neodymium)

Stator material: Silicon steel (50W470)

Excitation current: 10 A

Coil turns: 30

Stroke length: –6 mm to +6 mm

Stator outer diameter: 63 mm (fixed)

Laminate carrier thickness: 67.5 mm (fixed)

Three main parameters analyzed in optimization:- Permanent magnet width- Permanent magnet thickness- Stator yoke thickness

No specific launch distance is provided; this is a laboratory-scale prototype.

Power consumption is not directly specified.

No velocity value is provided

Sensitivity analysis showed that three parameters (magnet width, magnet thickness, stator yoke thickness) are the most critical.

According to these three parameters:

- Increase in average force (T̄)

- Decrease in ripple coefficient (c)

- Decrease in copper loss/thrust ratio (k)

Optimum values:

-Permanent magnet width: 10 mm

-Permanent magnet thickness: 4 mm

-Stator yoke thickness: 3.6 mm

Optimization algorithm used: fuzzy optimization iteration + weight determination algorithm

Software used: FLUX (2D finite element analysis)

Three-objective optimization: maximize thrust, minimize ripple, minimize copper loss

[16]

Linear displacement converted into rotational motion.

Magnetic launcher + ferromagnetic circuit + rotating NdFeB magnets + coil combination. (Rotational motion is used for electricity generation based on changes in magnetic flux.)

Central Magnet: Ø8.2 mm × 2.1 mm NdFeB magnet

Magnetic Launchers: 4.8 mm × 4.8 mm × 2 mm NdFeB

Coil (Prototype): 1250 turns, L = 20 mH, Rs = 150 Ω

Coil (Industrial): 1000 turns, L = 12.8 mH, Rs = 120 Ω

Wire Diameter: 80 µm copper wire

Ferromagnetic Circuit: 4 × 500 µm FeSi3% layers

Total Volume: 3.5 cm³ (30.5 mm × 21 mm × 5.5 mm)

Displacement is short but sufficient for energy conversion.

Prototype → ProducedEnergy: 1.235 mJEnergy Density: 350 µJ/cm³

Industrial → Produced Energy: 750-1000 µJEnergy Density: 214-285 µJ/cm³

Input Mechanical Energy: 2.21 mJEfficiency ηEH ≈ 56%

Oscillation frequency after rotation: 70 Hz

Approximately 1.235 mJ of energy is transferred within 60 ms

High energy output is achieved through a magnet placed directly inside the coil and guided magnetic flux.

It can generate energy during both forward and backward movements, thus operating symmetrically.

The device behavior has been thoroughly simulated using MATLAB/Simulink and finite element modeling, and experimentally validated.

The developed system is suitable for battery-free autonomous switches that convert button movement into electricity.

It has been commercialized (by Legrand®).

[17]

A multi-stage coilgun, with each stage controlled by a coil and a capacitor.

Staged coils: Each powered independently by its own capacitor.

Magnetic sensors: Detect the projectile’s position and trigger the next coil.

Control system: Each coil is sequentially triggered with precise timing to provide successive thrust.

Coil design:– Length: 35 mm– Inner diameter: 12 mm – Outer diameter: 36 mm– Number of turns: 700

Projectile:– Material: Iron (ferromagnetic)– Length: 45 mm– Diameter: 10 mm

Capacitor:– Capacitance: 4700 µF – Voltage: 450 V

Magnetic field:– Up to ~1 T at the coil center

Software used:– COMSOL Multiphysics (magnetic field + force analysis)

Singlecoil analysis:– Effective launch region ≈ 35 mm (approximately equal to the coil length)

Multistage launcher:– Each stage is assumed to have similar dimensions to the singlecoil module (≈35 mm active acceleration length)

For each stage: approximately 476 J.

According to the simulation data:The projectile exit velocity with a single coil is approximately 40-50 m/s.

With a multistage configuration, the goal is to increase this value to above 100 m/s.

Magnetic force-time graphs:

-The direction of the force changes according to the position of the projectile within the coil (first attracting, then decelerating).

Optimal positioning:

-The next coil should be activated before the projectile reaches the center of the coil.

Verification through simulation:

-Force-time and velocity-time curves are consistent with physical expectations.

Importance of timing:

-Delayed triggering → loss of velocity

- Early triggering → the next coil becomes active before sufficient acceleration occurs → low efficiency

- It is emphasized that the launching system should operate together with precise control algorithms.

The authors propose this model particularly for laboratorytype prototype coilguns.

As application areas, the precise launching of smallmass objects, magnetic weapon prototypes, and experiment sets intended for educational purposes are listed.

The model has been validated through highly detailed COMSOL simulations, providing robust electromagnetic force and energy analyses.

[18]

A stagedcoil electromagnetic launcher (coilgun) provides linear acceleration by applying impulsive magnetic force to a metal projectile using low voltage.

Advanced currentshaping circuit:Each coil is triggered with a dedicated discharge module, achieving a longer-duration and controlled current profile.

IGBT-controlled triggering system: Timed by a microcontroller

Each stage consists of an independent capacitor + coil + IGBT + snubber circuit.

Number of coils: 3

Number of turns per coil: 600

Wire diameter: 0.9 mm

Coil resistance (each): 0.5-0.8 Ω

Coil inductance: 750 µH

Capacitor capacity / voltage: 1,000 µF / 50 V

Total stage length: ~300 mm (each coil ≈ 10 cm)

-

Energy per stage: 1.25 J

Output velocity achieved with 3 stages ≈ 22.75 m/s

Smoother current-time profile

More stable acceleration

Current spikes between stages are prevented, reducing energy loss

Analysis was performed using both an experimental prototype and SPICE-based circuit simulation.

The design is particularly suitable for safe, low-voltage coilgun systems intended for educational and laboratory purposes.

[19]

Linear launcher motor (LM)

Piston-like linear motion driven electromagnetically (aiming to replace conventional internal combustion engine pistons)

Solenoid (coil)-based electromagnetic drive system

Softsteel AISI 1008 yoke and piston body

Number of coil turns: 400

Coil wire diameter: 4.1 mm

Coil height: 39.75 mm

Coil length: 224.5 mm

Piston diameter: 80 mm

Piston length: 121.2 mm

Yoke and piston material: AISI 1008 soft steel

Maximum displacement (piston motion): 75 mm

Energy calculations have not been provided

Unloaded: ~6.1 m/s

Loaded (100 A): 2.5 m/s

Compared to piston systems, linear launcher motors have:-Less mechanical friction-Fewer moving parts-Lower maintenance requirements

JMAG was used for 2D magnetic analysis

It was used together with MATLAB/Simulink for dynamic and static performance evaluation

The applicability of this system in lowpower transportation systems, such as light electric vehicles, has been emphasized

Application target: Invehicle electromagnetic linear actuator as an alternative to ICE motors

Particularly suitable for compact and lowcost applications

Has the potential to eliminate up to 35% energy losses present in mechanical pistonbased motor systems

[20]

No direct launching system has been introduced

The fundamentals of magnetic launcher systems have been explained in detail

The fundamental supporting elements on which magnetic systems are based have been explained

Focus has been placed on the technical material properties

In this theoretical study, no measured launch distance is provided

A conceptual framework regarding energy transfer has been presented

It does not include any velocity or dynamic results

The flux density-field relationship in coil systems has been explained theoretically

Supporting theoretical content

[21]

Seriesconnected augmented fourpole railgun model

Seriesconnected augmented system: There is a series connection between the main and auxiliary rails.

The auxiliary rails are mounted outside the main rails.

Number of rails: 8 (4 main + 4 auxiliary)

The auxiliary rails are placed to increase magnetic flux density and provide electromagnetic shielding.

Armature: Square crosssection, optimized by trimming the corners.

Material: Copper and aluminum are used for both the rails and the armature.

Rail structure parameters: 1200 mm × 1200 mm × 2500 mm

Distance is not specified; it is a short range test setup

Not specified

The projectile exit velocity is not directly provided.Total electromagnetic thrust of the unaugmented launcher: 28,710 NTotal electromagnetic thrust of the augmented launcher: 63,853 N

The C type current distribution transmitted the electromagnetic force to the armature more efficiently.

The augmented system produced approximately 3.7-4.8 times greater electromagnetic force.

It is proposed for the electromagnetic launching of heavy smart munitions.

The research is supported by both numerical analysis and the finite element method (FEM).

[22]

The focus of the article is not a direct launching process; instead, it is the development of a magnetic field measurement apparatus integrated into the projectile within a railgun system.

Measurement technology used in the system:B-dot probe (detects magnetic flux variation)FPGA-controlled data acquisition and recording to local FRAM memoryElectromagnetic shielding (copper, aluminum, magnetic, and hybrid mate

B-dot probe: 4 turns, 64 mm² coil area

FPGA: Cyclone I EP1C3T100CN8

ADC chip: AD9280 (8-bit, 32 MSPS, 95 mW)

Memory: FRAM FM25L256, 256 KB, 20 MHz

Housing size: 19 mm × 39 mm (cross-section), 40 mm (length)

Voltage regulation: 7.4 V → 3.3 V and 1.5 V outputs via battery module

Data processing: MATLAB

No projectile firing was performed

The in-projectile sensor system has very low power consumption (approximately 100 mW).

A low-velocity static measurement was performed.

The projectile-mounted measurement device developed is capable of accurately measuring the in-bore magnetic field of the electromagnetic rail system.

This study concerns the characterization of railgun systems using an in-munition sensor.

It provides critical data for modeling factors such as corrosion damage, electromagnetic interference, and armature current.

[23]

Electrodynamic launcher of the railgun type.

MASEL-type modular augmented electromagnetic launcher (Modular Augmented Stage Electromagnetic Launcher)

A structure supported by eight magnetization loops (16 magnetization rails)

The magnetization rails are added to the conventional rails to increase magnetic flux density

Main rails: 2, conventional rails carrying current

Magnetization loops: 8 loops → total of 16 magnetization rails

Armature mass: 72 grams

Current type: I(t), time-varying current

Modeling methods: Maxwell’s equations + vector potential + finite difference method

Numerical implementation: COMSOL + “dummy armature” method

Not explicitly stated, but calculations were performed along the launch channel used for the MASEL launcher

Numerical modeling indicates that the armature traveled 33 mm (for t = 0.2 ms)

The energy value is not provided directly.

Calculated exit velocity: 394.3 m/s

Fullscale experiment velocity: 376.9 m/s

The magnetization rails nearly double the magnetic field intensity.

Under the same current, the magnetizationassisted structure produces a higher Lorentz force than the conventional structure.

Thanks to the magnetization rails, similar velocities can be achieved under conditions where a conventional railgun would require twice the current.

Acceleration data obtained from numerical modeling strongly agree with experimental results.

The “dummy armature method” operates approximately 1000 times faster than other methods while providing comparable accuracy.

The “dummy armature” method provides highaccuracy solutions with low computational resources.

This study offers a robust computational framework for optimizing magnetizationassisted rail systems.

[24]

The electromagnetic launcher (EML) is based on the principle of propulsion by magnetic force through a solenoid structure.

The design and optimization were carried out based on solenoidbased electromagnets.

Solenoid‑type electromagnet: Plugnut, coil, core, cap, and yoke

Material combinations: SS430 (steel), copper, CRS (cold‑rolled steel), PVC, aluminum, NdFe35 (neodymium magnet)

Force-current relation:

– Target force: 1960 N

–Required current: Approximately 167.6 A

Load mass: 200 kg, lifted over a distance of 50 m

At 30˚ inclination: 49,000 J (min)

At 90˚ inclination: 98,000 J (max)

No velocity value is provided

Type1 solenoid produced 2193.2 N of force, representing the most costeffective design.

Type2 solenoid produced 2115.7 N of force.

Optimal combination:- Plugnut: SS430- Coil: Copper- Core: SS430- Cap & Yoke: CRS

Advantages of the solenoidtype electromagnet, such as high efficiency, low cost, reduced heating tendency, and easy selection with Python, are emphasized.

In this study, a real launch system is not constructed; only the selection, design, and evaluation of the electromagnet are performed.

The launcher system has not been physically tested and is limited to theoretical and software-based modeling.

All designs were tested with 2D and 3D modeling using ANSYS Maxwell software.

The selection algorithm is implemented in Python, recommending the optimal electromagnet combination based on user-provided inputs such as distance, force, current, and material.

[25]

The electromagnetic launcher (EML) operates by triggering electromagnets through contactless energy transfer to achieve propulsion.

An inductively coupled electromagnetic launcher operating with a wireless power transfer (WPT) system

Transmitter coils – placed along the track

Receiver coil – connected to the moving carrier (armature)

Power is transferred via magnetic field variation

Launch coils: One transmitter coil per segment

On the carrier: 2.5 cm diameter receiver coil

Coil material: Enameled copper wire (AWG24)

Transmission distance: 1.5 - 2 cm (between transmitter and receiver)

Launcher rails: Mechanical rail system; not magnetic rails

Control: Arduino Mega 2560 with IR sensor-based position feedback for triggering

Tested on a track approximately 120 cm long

Total energy consumption is not explicitly provided

The article does not provide a precise numerical exit velocity.

The system appears to be designed primarily for demonstration and proofofconcept purposes rather than achieving high projectile velocities.

Wireless power transfer is one of the first methods applied in launch systems.

IR sensor-based position detection combined with Arduino-controlled triggering offers a low-cost and modular design.

WPT efficiency between segments was measured to be approximately 70-80%.

This system is a laboratorylevel prototype, not intended for defense applications or heavyload launching.

Because the receiver coil on the carrier is small, WPT efficiency can drop rapidly — indicating a need for improvement in future designs.

[26]

Electromagnetic Launch (EML) — Coilgun.

Operates with a projectile that includes a permanent magnet (Neodymium N52).

An electromagnetic acceleration system based on a coil (solenoid) launcher.

Coil Structure: Each coil consists of approximately 200 turns and is driven with a current of 2 A.

Coil Configuration: One or two coils are placed inside a glass tube, and the coil polarities can be reversed.

Projectile: An N52grade neodymium permanent magnet is used as the projectile.

Mass: 40.1 grams

Dimensions: Diameter ≈ 19 mm, length ≈ 30 mm

Singlecoil setup: 50 mm

Dualcoil setup: 50 mm spacing between the coils + additional separation

Energy transfer obtained from simulation:

- Single coil: 0.086 J

- Dual coil: 0.17 J

Singlecoil system: Simulation: 2 m/s, Experimental: 1.5 m/s

Dualcoil system: Simulation: 2.9 m/s, Experimental: 3.0 m/s

The PM (permanent magnet) projectile achieved approximately 10 times higher velocity compared to a ferromagnetic projectile.

PM projectiles are more efficient because they can be accelerated by both attractive and repulsive forces.

Experimental data closely matched simulation results.

The prototype system was implemented using lowcost Arduino, optical sensors, and an L293N driver.

Friction losses during launch were not included in the simulation.

The scalability of the developed system has been demonstrated, providing a basis for more advanced systems.

[27]

Electromagnetic rail launcher (EML)

Complete system modeling powered by an aircore compulator (alternator-type energy source)

Compulatortype power supply: Used to generate highcurrent pulses for electromagnetic launch applications.

Magneticfield generation: Provided through the conductive launcher rails.

Comprehensive physics modeling: Includes friction, Velocity Skin Effect (VSE), and eddy currents.

Rails: Conductive metallic rails (typically aluminum or copper).

Projectile: Conductive, equipped with a sliding contact (armature).

Rail structure: Straight, parallelrail configuration, 3D modeled in the simulation environment.

Power source: Aircore compulator (including rotor and stator).

Simulation environment: EN4EM (Electromagnetic Numerical for EML) — proprietary software developed by the authors.

Modeling scope: Electromagnetic field, thermal effects, friction forces, eddy currents, Velocity Skin Effect (VSE), material stresses.

Operating frequency: Compulator output frequency modeled up to approximately 300 Hz.

Sliding contacts: Modeled in detail, including contact loss and friction effects.

A 1meter track simulation was conducted through modeling.

Rail length and projectile dimensions are not explicitly provided; however, the system is stated to be suitable for full-scale military applications.

The exact energy value is not provided numerically; however, the compulator’s output current is modeled in the range of several hundred kiloamperes.

Using the EN4EM software, the entire system is solved based on energy-momentum balance principles.

Weak interaction model: 1450 m/s

Strong interaction model: Approximately 1300 m/s

The EN4EM software is a comprehensive 3D analysis tool developed for electromagnetic rail launcher systems.

The inclusion of friction, eddy currents, the Velocity Skin Effect (VSE), and thermal phenomena in the model enables more realistic and physically consistent velocity predictions.

The timevarying output current of the compulsator has a pronounced influence on the launch profile and the resulting electromagnetic propulsion force.

Modeling the magnetic field distributions at the rail-projectile interface provides critical insights into the projectile’s centering behavior, stability, and contact quality.

This study is one of the rare works that focuses on a full-system analysis, encompassing the entire process from energy generation to projectile exit, rather than examining only the coil or rail components.

Highfidelity modeling has been conducted for military applications, including hypersonic projectiles and missile platforms.

The specific material properties of the rails and the projectile are not explicitly stated in the study.

[28]

Coilgun (Coil-Based Electromagnetic Launcher)

A coilgun system that has been enhanced and modified to generate very high-intensity pulsed magnetic fields.

A Modified AC Magnet (MBM) configuration is employed.

To concentrate and direct the magnetic field, the system incorporates disk-shaped electromagnetic shields (constructed from segmented aluminum) and a superconducting cryogenic environment (liquid nitrogen or liquid helium).

The magnetic field is designed to reach its peak value and decay within a very short time interval.

Rails: No conventional rails are used; the projectile travels along the launch channel without physical contact.

Coil Type: Very large-diameter pulsed coils (designated MBM1, MBM2, …).

Coil-Projectile Ratio: The inner diameter of each coil is approximately $D_c\approx 10\times D_p$ (projectile diameter).

Shields: Segmented, disk-shaped aluminum shields employed for eddy-current control.

Cooling: The disk shields are cooled with liquid nitrogen or helium, enhancing their electrical conductivity.

Projectile: Equipped with a diode-based cylindrical winding, which is excited during each MBM stage transition.

Propulsion Mechanism: A bidirectional force system termed the Push-Pull Electromagnetic Launcher (PPEL).

Although a precise distance is not specified, the system is modular in nature, and therefore, a theoretically unlimited number of MBM units can be integrated.

It is indicated that the system may be employed in applications such as satellite launch systems or long-range artillery projectiles.

No numerical value is given, but: The coils used have a large diameter → energy transfer ∝ Dc².

The velocity is not precisely specified; however: magnetic field intensity reaches up to 100 Tesla.

Magnetic pressure: 40,000 atmospheres (~4 GPa).

With these values, it is projected that projectiles could reach high velocities on the order of 2 - 2.5 km per second.

The PPEL system differs from classical railguns and coilguns in that it uses both pushing and pulling forces simultaneously, resulting in more efficient acceleration.

Because the projectile moves without contact, there are no frictional losses or energy disturbances caused by mechanical contact.

The disk-shield system allows the magnetic field to be guided and concentrated into a narrow region.

If the system is cooled to a superconducting state, μr → 0, creating a diamagnetic environment that maximizes field focusing on the projectile.

Thanks to its high energy density, it is suitable for missions such as orbital impact operations (“Space Sniper”).

The coil inside the projectile is energized only during the moment of passage, minimizing energy loss.

By directing eddy currents, excessive magnetic field compression is prevented.

Its modular architecture makes the system scalable and suitable for multiple applications.

[29]

Railgun-based electromagnetic launcher.

The launcher operates using a pulsed power supply (PPS)

A modular capacitorbased PPS system with a total capacity of 4 MJ has been developed.

The PPS is configured to be compact, portable, and capable of delivering high pulse currents.

Rails: Copper alloy, square cross-section of 25 mm × 25 mm, length of 3 meters.

Barrel structure: Glassreinforced composite material, supported with steel bolts for mechanical integrity.

Armature: Ctype aluminum alloy, fixed and conductive.

No permanent magnets or coilbased field generation are used; the magnetic field is produced solely by the PPS.

No specific range is stated; total barrel length is 3 meters.

Experiment A: 850 kJ PPS energy was used.

Experiment B: 992 kJ PPS energy was used.

PPS modules have a capacity of 250 kJ and can be scaled modularly up to 4 MJ.

Experiment A: 42 g / 850 kJ / 2778 m/s / 2590 m/s (Simulation).

Experiment B: 130 g / 992 kJ / 1560 m/s / 1480 m/s (Simulation).

A 3D Finite Element (FE) model provided detailed electromagnetic and mechanical analyses covering both the launcher and the PPS.

Velocity Skin Effect (VSE) was included in the model as the key parameter influencing current distribution in the rails and armature at high velocities.

A timedependent analysis was conducted on the components of the launcher resistance (AC resistance, back EMF, VSE resistance), demonstrating that VSE becomes dominant at high velocities.

Magnetic flux density up to 22.5 T was achieved.

Instead of a moving armature, the model used a fixed armature with externally defined velocity and displacement to reduce computational load.

[30]

Electromagnetic Launching (EML)

Fourrail railgun generating a quadrupole magnetic field (CFREL and the enhanced ECFREL types).

Quadrupole Magnetic Field Structure

Improved magnetic field shielding through a primary + auxiliary rail configuration

Reduction of magnetic interference and field leakage at the armature center

• Main Rail (copper + steel composite): Copper (400×15×40), Steel (400×5×40)

Auxiliary Rail: Copper (400×20×40)

Copper: High conductivity (5.8×10⁷ S/m)-Steel: High hardness and wear resistance-Aluminum Armature: Lightweight and high conductivity (3.8×10⁷ S/m)

Launch Coils: Instead of a dedicated coil structure, the magnetic field is generated by passing a 500 kA current at 2 kHz through the rails

Skin effect and eddy currents were taken into account

Hollow, quadrupolestructured armatüre

The armature contains four drainage springs to guide current flow and increase conductivity

Dimensions: 80 × 80 × 40 mm

-Structure: Extended rear tail for improved contact efficiency

Simulationbased study → no specific launch distance provided

The analyzed launch section was modeled up to approximately 180 mm

Current amplitude: 500 kA, frequency: 2 kHz

Net energy consumption not specified; thermal ablation and energy efficiency were analyzed

ECFREL (proposed): Fx (kN): 0.953 / Fy (kN): 1.568 / Fz (kN): 89.465 / Total Force (kN): 89.484

CFREL (baseline): Fx (kN): 1.032 / Fy (kN): 2.562 / Fz (kN): 40.044 / Total Force (kN): 40.139

No explicit velocity value given, but thrust was reported to have increased significantly

Current density at the armaturerail interface was reduced by 10.1%

Magnetic shielding capacity increased by a factor of 2.42 in ECFREL

Electromagnetic force nearly doubled

Structural deformation was prevented by reducing Y and Zaxis forces on the armature

Highaccuracy electromagnetic analysis was conducted using the Finite Element Method (FEM)

Weaknesses of CFREL (high current density, narrow shielding region, low thrust) were successfully mitigated with ECFREL

For future work, compactification and field optimization are recommended due to the large structural volume

[31]

Reluctance type electromagnetic coil launcher.

Reverseforce suppression was implemented using a dumping resistor.

Reverseforce suppression was examined via two methods: the opencircuit method (more effective but risky) and the resistordamping method (safer and more suitable for engineering applications).

Coil: 400 turns, copper wire, 50 mm length, 20 mm thickness

Armature: Q235 steel, hollow cylindrical structure, 15 mm length, 18 mm diameter, 40 g

Capacitor: 340 μF - 780 V → ~103.5 J stored energy

Dumping Resistor: 5ohm resistor connected

Modeling: 2D axisymmetric finite element analysis using Ansoft Maxwell

According to simulation data, the projectile was propelled forward by 240 mm.

Energy was discharged in a controlled manner using the dumping resistor

Approximate energy: 103.5 J

Singlestage classical reluctance launcher: 13.9 m/s

Reverseforce suppressed by opencircuit method: ~20 m/s

Twostage launcher with resistor: 29.8 m/s

The opencircuit method suppresses reverse force effectively but is unsafe

Final projectile velocity is 114% higher with the resistorbased method

Experimental and simulation results show strong agreement

This method is suitable for compact, lowcost, portable electromagnetic launchers

In electronic circuit design, resistorbased damping is recommended over opencircuit switching

Losses such as eddy currents and velocity skin effect (VSE) were not considered in the simulations

[32]

Inductiontype electromagnetic launcher (MFEL - Multipole Field Electromagnetic Launcher).

Duallayer, multipole magneticfield structure.

The inner and outer layers each consist of six saddleshaped coils placed with a 30° angular offset.

Coil Type: Saddleshaped, 12 coils in total (six inner, six outer)

Coil Wire: 1.5 mm enamelled copper wire

Coil Inductance: Inner: 49.686 µH, Outer: 56.22 µH

Coil Resistance: Inner: 145.498 mΩ, Outer: 168.678 mΩ

Armature: Slotless, hollow cylindrical aluminium sleeve (2A12 alloy)

Support Structure: Cylindrical fiberglass tube with heavynylon base

Capacitor Bank: 400 µF capacitor, charged up to 2500 V

Circuit: Each layer is driven by its own capacitor bank, discharged simultaneously

Travel distance is not specified, but the armature motion was tested in a single stage.

Voltage: 2500 V

Energy: 1.25 J (single layer), 2.5 J (dual layer)

Voltage: 2500 V - Linear velocity: 3.37 m/s - Rotational speed: 40.97 rpm

Voltage: 20 kV (simulation) - Linear velocity: 183.79 m/s - Rotational speed: 3666.17 rpm

The new structure enables simultaneous linear and rotational motion.

The rotational motion provides gyroscopic stabilization, helping the projectile maintain its trajectory.

The duallayer configuration produces higher linear and angular velocities compared to the singlelayer design.

The SDMFEL design can be integrated with other launcher systems.

The experimental system is operated using an FPGAbased data acquisition and control platform.

Simulation and experimental results are generally consistent, although some discrepancies arise due to factors such as friction and mechanical deformation.

Suggested improvements include the use of higher voltages, reducing circuit resistance, and improving manufacturing quality.

[33]

Railgun (electromagnetic railtype launcher)

Magneticfieldconstrained architecture.

Magneticfield confinement achieved using permanent magnets.

This system aims to prevent uncontrolled spreading of the magnetic field and to enable the generation of a highly efficient and welltargeted Lorentz force.

Rail Material: Highconductivity metal (assumed copper)

Magnets: Neodymium (NdFeB) permanent magnets arranged in various configurations

Simulation Tools: Ansys Maxwell 2D and 3D electromagnetic simulations

Rail Widths: 4 mm, 5 mm, 6 mm

Rail Gaps: 20 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm

Current Application: DC current applied through the launcher coils

Llaunch distance is provided, as the study focuses on simulating magneticfield and force distributions rather than projectile motion.

No energy assessment is included, since the work is an optimizationoriented design study.

No launch or velocity data are reported.

Increasing rail width (4 mm → 6 mm) leads to stronger magneticfield generation.

Decreasing the gap between rails (40 mm → 20 mm) results in a more concentrated and centrally focused magnetic field.

The highest Lorentz force and most effective field profile are obtained with rails 6 mm wide and spaced 20 mm apart.

This configuration provides both efficient energy utilization and precise generation of targeted launch force.

The paper presents only magneticfield distribution and electromagneticforce simulations.

It serves as a preliminary analysis for design optimization.

The configuration is potentially suitable for military or precisionguided munitionlaunch systems requiring controlled electromagnetic force.

[34]

Electromagnetic launcher - DSLIM (Double-Sided Linear Induction Motor).

Multi-layer secondary plate structure (copper + aluminum); secondary topology optimized to increase terminal velocity.

Launcher dimensions: 600 mm; Payload: 4 kg (drone); Power: 4 kW, 3-phase AC supply.

DSLIM test setup includes adjustable air gap - 10 mm Al plate or 3 mm Cu + 2×1 mm Al composite.

Motor length: 600 mm

Power: 4 kW (3-phase AC supply)

Terminal velocity with conventional plate = X m/s (numerical value not provided).

Terminal velocity increase with three-layer optimized plate: 28.37%.

Total increase compared to conventional topology (including optimization): 36.21% + 5.68% = 41.89%.

Behaves similarly to the deep bar effect, providing optimum torque during launch.

Results validated through 3D FEM simulations and experimental testing.

Launcher focuses on terminal velocity against a fixed payload, with power factor and force ripple as secondary considerations.

Experimental deviations exist due to high friction.

[35]

Electromagnetic Launcher (Coilgun / Reluctance type).

Capacitor bank, thyristor triggering, PIC16f877A-controlled velocity and voltage measurement circuit.

Coil inner diameter: 15 mm

Four different coil lengths: 15 mm, 20 mm, 50 mm, 100 mm

Capacitor bank: 5000 µF - 450 VDC

Power supplies: 2 × 12 V, 5 V, 6 V, 500 V DC

Measurement range: 10 mm (for velocity measurement); projectile length: 20 mm (ferromagnetic).

Maximum charging voltage: 230 V (tested with parallel and series configurations).

Maximum velocities:– 20 mm coil, parallel connection, 200 V: 14.87 m/s– Conical coil, 230 V: 9.22 m/s– Straight coil, 230 V: 2.87 m/s

The 20 mm coil achieved the highest velocity and maximum efficiency (3.01%).

The conical coil is significantly more efficient than the straight coil; it reduces deceleration forces.

Parallel winding method provides higher velocity compared to series winding.

Inductance variation (∆L = 60-64 µH) is directly correlated with the maximum velocity.

The entire system was physically constructed.

Velocity measurements were performed between two light gates (10 mm apart).

Magnetic flux lines were simulated using FEMM 4.2.

The conical coil reduced projectile lag effects and improved overall performance.

[36]

Modular Augmented Staged Electromagnetic Launcher.

Independent power feed unit (PFU) for each segment

Equal-length segment design

Coil and rail geometry optimized to increase magnetic coupling

Advanced electromagnetic modeling based on 3D FEM was used

Rail width: 5 mm• Distance between rails: 9 mm

Number of coil turns: 8 (optimum)

Total number of segments: 14-16 (variants tested)

Current: Up to 67.9 kA in the main circuit

Load: Simulated with properties similar to real ammunition

Modeling: Comparative analyses using 3D FEM and timedomain solvers

Launch length not explicitly given, but analyses were conducted using fixed segment lengths

Velocity distribution analyses were performed through simulation depending on the segment configuration

Different segmentation strategies were tested with constant total energy input

Each segment’s PFU (Power Feed Unit) is independently controlled

Energy, efficiency losses, and system stability were evaluated, though values were not presented directly in joules

With synchronous segmentation: 1.8 km/s

With equallength segmentation and optimization: 2.272 km/s

Improvement: approximately 41.9% increase in velocity

Equallength segment design delivered higher performance than synchronous segmentation

Precise design of coil turn count and rail geometry played a critical role in velocity improvement

As the number of segments increases, terminal velocity rises; however, the optimum is between 14 and 16

FEM analyses show consistency with physical test results

Provides a guiding model for highvelocity projectile systems and railgun applications

Independence of driver segments ensures system stability

[37]

Two-Stage Reluctance Coil Launcher (an electromagnetic system accelerating a ferromagnetic armature using coil current).

IGBT-based dual energy recovery circuits:- Type 1: Stores residual energy in a capacitor for use in the next shot.- Type 2: Transfers energy from the previous stage instantly to the next stage.

Capacitor: 820 µF

Voltage: 406 V (Type 1), 600/406 V (Type 2)

Armature: 45# carbon steel, 25.6 g

Coil: Copper

Switch: IGBT (650 V, 480 A)

Two-stage configuration

Stage 1 IGBT duration: 2 ms

Stage 2 duration: 0.8 ms

Trigger delay: 2 ms

Initial energy: 135 - 213 J

Type 1: 10 J energy recovery, 10.36% efficiency

Type 2: 36.5 J energy recovery, 10.49 - 12.26% efficiency

Classical: 27.5 m/s (7.16%)

Type 1: 33.1 m/s (10.36%)

Type 2: 41.8 m/s (10.5 - 12.3%)

Classical: 27.5 m/s (7.16%)

Type 1: 33.1 m/s (10.36%)

Type 2: 41.8 m/s (10.5 - 12.3%)

Energy recovery reduces drag, improving velocity and efficiency. Simulation and experimental results are consistent (stable over 400 tests). ±0.02 ms IGBT error is negligible.

[38]

Inductive-type Electromagnetic Launcher (IEL) with a ring-shaped, dual-fin armature structure.

• Fixed-core + coil configuration. The magnetic field is generated by coil current, providing thrust via the Lorentz force. Analyzed using FEMM and ANSYS.

Voltage: 100-500 V DC

Current: 80 A

Maximum magnetic flux density: 0.039 T

Coil: 48 mm height, 42.75 mm width

Armature: 27 mm height, 50 mm width, 90 mm length

Air gap: 2 mm

• Armature has a 600 mm long dual-fin structure. Launch motion is linear, accelerated by Lorentz force.

Simulated at 100-500 V.

- Resistances: R₁ = 0.1 Ω, R₂ = 100 Ω, R₃ = 5000 Ω.

-Capacitors: 0.0004 µF and 0.1 µF.

At 500 V, generates 156 N force and 2 m/s velocity; under the same conditions, output velocity can scale up to 425 m/s.

Magnetic flux density analysis observed flow along 10 flux tubes. Self and mutual inductances were calculated using the magnetic circuit model. Simulation indicates suitability of the model for high-velocity applications.

The model is applicable to compact, high-velocity systems. Thrust increases linearly with voltage (65 N → 156 N). Velocity increase is proportional to energy efficiency.

[39]

Four-stage Synchronous Induction Coil Launcher (SICL); two energy directions were compared: PP (current in the same direction) and PN (current in opposite direction).

The objective was to increase armature velocity by manipulating coil current directions (PP-PN). Analysis was performed using FEM (ANSYS Maxwell 2022R2). Each coil was triggered with individual timing.

Four-stage coil system

Coil inner radius: 43 mm

Length: 20 mm, 40 turns, copper wire

Armature: Aluminum, 50 g, 20 mm length

Capacitor: 0.6 mF (stages 1 - 2, 1 kV) / 0.266 mF (stages 3-4, 1.5 kV)

Stage gaps tested: D = 5 mm and D = 15 mm. Optimal triggering position and duration were individually determined for each stage.

300 J input energy applied per stage. In PN configuration, energy loss is reduced due to flyback diodes. In PP, induced currents are limited because currents are in the same direction.

For D = 5 mm, PP is faster.

For D = 15 mm, PN is faster.

In PN, braking force is low, achieving exit velocities up to 70-80 m/s.

Coil current direction and stage spacing determine launch efficiency.

PP is more efficient at short distances,

PN at longer distances. Induced current direction governs acceleration and braking.

Current direction selection must consider system geometry. Diode placement and mutual inductance affect the system. Simulation results are consistent with theoretical models.

[40]

Flat-coil type electromagnetic launcher. Three models were compared:

APAS (Aluminum Plate Armature)

ICAS (Inductive Coil Armature)

DFAS (Direct-Fed Armature)

Analysis based on FEM and numerical simulations. Thrust is generated through coil-current interaction. DFAS employs direct-contact feeding, whereas the others use inductive feeding.

DFAS peak current: 21.1 kA

ICAS peak current: 28.3 kA

APAS peak current: 28.0 kA

Magnetic induction (peak): 4.7 T (DFAS) - 0.008 T (APAS)

Voltage: 1-1.5 kV

Material: Aluminum alloy

The model is intended for low-mass projectiles. Motion occurs in the 0-51 m/s range over a short distance (<1 m). Current direction and armature type determine acceleration.

DFAS: 29.7%

APAS: 24.4%

ICAS: 13.4% DFAS achieves higher efficiency with lower current.

DFAS: 51 m/s APAS: 46.2 m/s ICAS: 34.2 m/s

DFAS demonstrates the highest efficiency.

APAS is the safest in terms of electromagnetic shielding.

ICAS is unstable under high flux.

Flat structure allows for volume savings.

Maximum stress in all systems < 42.5 MPa.

APAS shielding performance is limited to 0.008 T.

The requirement for sliding contacts in DFAS may pose engineering challenges.

APAS is simpler, more cost-effective, and practically applicable.

[41]

Multi-stage Electromagnetic Coil Launcher (EMCL); multi-phase system with GFRP insulating structure.

• Three-phase, six-coil configuration with GFRP-insulated body. Coils are T2 copper with a phenolic epoxy resin matrix reinforced with glass fiber. Thermal, electromagnetic, and structural fields are integrated into a FEM model.

Coils: 6 units (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2)

Current: 70 kA peak (three-phase pulse)

Magnetic field: 19 T (maximum)

Temperature rise: 293 → 301 K (over 3 ms)

Material: GFRP + epoxy

Model: 2D axisymmetric, 4-node elements

Acceleration duration ≈ 3.5 ms; diameter: 120 mm; multi-stage phase sequence (A-B-C). Stress and deformation analyses conducted axially and radially.

Three-stage pulsed current applied in each phase; maximum 70 kA sustained over 3 ms. Local energy density limited by 17-19 T field.

Experimental velocity data not provided; focus is on insulating deformation rather than projectile velocity. Performance degradation observed under stress.

Primary damage mechanisms: stress exceedance and accumulation of plastic deformation.

Temperature increase is low (~10 K), so thermal degradation is negligible.

Weak regions of GFRP: inner wall and inter-phase partitions.

Short-circuit currents accelerate crack formation.

Service life of GFRP is limited; current design is inadequate for long-term use.

Fiber orientation should align with electromagnetic loading.

Proposed improvement: radial/axial “disconnect-type” design.

Insulating and mechanical performance should be optimized concurrently.

[42]

Electromagnetic Railgun (EM Railgun) - analysis of conductive/magnetic shielding effects for the casing and internal system.

2D axisymmetric model; shield materials: copper, aluminum (conductive); low-carbon steel, permalloy (magnetic). Simulation results are compared with experiments.

Input current: double exponential pulse, 2694 A peak, decays over 23.4 ms

Magnetic field: 3.6 T (without shielding)

Shield thickness: 5 mm

Material properties: copper (6 × 10⁷ S/m), aluminum (3.77 × 10⁷ S/m), steel (8.4 × 10⁶ S/m), permalloy (1.7 × 10⁶ S/m)

Analysis conducted at measurement points (P1-P9) along the core; firing duration ≈ 0-20 ms; casing length 400 mm

1 MJ pulse power system; 3.2 mF capacitor bank; voltage range 0 - 25 kV; current peak 2694 A

Velocity measurement not performed - focus is on magnetic field variation. Simulation and experimental curves show good agreement (max difference ≈ 0.1 T)

Copper shield reduces peak field by 19.7% (1.91 dB)

Aluminum: 11.4% (1.05 dB)

Steel: 3.6% (0.32 dB)

Permalloy: 0.1% (0.1 dB)

Multi-layer shields (outer conductive + inner magnetic) achieved the best results, with attenuation up to 61 dB

Shield delays the peak of the magnetic field and increases the pulse width

Most efficient configuration: highly conductive material at the rear, high-permeability material at the front

Measured delay in dynamic firing test: 7.2 ms

Shielded structure exhibits smoother and lower-noise magnetic field variation.

[43]

Hybrid armature electromagnetic coil launcher. Combination of reluctance and induction type coil systems.

Ferromagnetic + conductive (aluminum) armature combined. Ferromagnetic tip aligned with the end of the coil, conductive tip aligned with the coil center. Simulation and experimental validation performed.

Diameters: 11.8 mm, 18.4 mm, 50 mm

Ferromagnetic: 45# steel

Conductive: aluminum

Capacitor: 1 - 3 kV

Current: 8 - 70 kA range

Model: 2D axisymmetric FEM

11.8 mm: single stage

18.4 mm: 7 stages

50 mm: single stage

Stage spacing optimized (D = 5 - 15 mm)

11.8 mm: 1000 V

18.4 mm, 7-stage: 1 kV

50 mm: 1000-3000 V

Energy efficiency: 2 - 9%• Input energy: ~1 - 2 MJ

11.8 mm: 16-17 m/s

18.4 mm: 53-58 m/s

50 mm: 16.6-52.1 m/sm/s

Small diameter (11.8 mm): pure ferromagnetic armature more efficient (4.9%)

Medium diameter (18.4 mm): hybrid achieves best efficiency, 9.12% (↑4%)

Large diameter (50 mm): 2000 V → 7.87% efficiency (↑5%), 3000 V → efficiency decreases due to magnetic saturation

Hybrid structure increases efficiency, but effectiveness decreases at high voltage

Efficiency improvement is limited by diameter

Simulation and experiment show good agreement

For practical applications, diameter-based hybrid selection is recommended

[44]

Electromagnetic railgun - efficiency estimation improved with Artificial Neural Network (BP) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO).

Three-layer PSO-BP neural network (4 input, 9 hidden, 1 output neurons). Data obtained from experimental results. PSO optimizes network weights to reduce error.

Input variables: Rail spacing (14 - 22 mm), Rail height (14 - 20 mm), Curvature height (0 - 2 mm), Rail thickness (6 - 10 mm)

Learning rate: 0.05

Training: 1000 iterations

Cross-section optimized through parameter variation: 14-22 mm range. Experimentally, efficiency was measured, not velocity.

BP and PSO-BP models trained over 1000 epochs. Energy variations were not directly measured, but neural network errors: BP MAE = 0.70%, PSO-BP MAE = 0.28%

Neural network predicts efficiency, not launch velocity. Launch velocity was not used experimentally.

Efficiency increase per parameter:- Rail spacing ↑ → +0.71%/mm- Rail height ↑ → +0.61%/mm- Curvature height ↑ → +1.10%/mm- Rail thickness ↑ → −0.19%/mm

Parameter influence order: Curvature height > Rail spacing > Rail height > Rail thickness

PSO-BP model prediction accuracy: 99.1%

PSO-BP method can predict electromagnetic launcher efficiency with high accuracy.

Average absolute error reduced by 59%.

AI-based prediction models are applicable in design optimization.

[45]

Electromagnetic (EM) Space Launcher – analysis of railgun, coilgun, and linear motor-based systems for spacelaunch applications. Includes both Earthbased and Moonbased scenarios.

Different systems compared:  -Railgun  -Coilgun (Lunatron, Mass Driver)  -Linear synchronous motor (LSM)

Energy storage options: capacitors, inductors, MHD or MFCG systems.

Energy requirement: 100 MJ/kg (for 8 km/s, with 32% efficiency).

Achieved velocities: 5 km/s (railgun), 1 km/s (coilgun).

Pulsedpower system cost: ≈500,000 $/MJ.

Target: <10,000 $/MJ (50× cost reduction).

For LEO, 7.8 km/s is required, but 9 km/s is targeted to compensate for atmosphere + gravity.

Escape velocity: 11.2 km/s.

On the Moon, required velocities: 1.65-2.38 km/s (easily achievable).

Launching a 1kg payload to 8 km/s requires 100 MJ input energy.

Electricity cost: 2.8 $/kg (4× cheaper than chemical fuel).

However, pulsedpower hardware is expensive.

Laboratory railguns: 5 km/s

Coilguns: 1 km/s

Lunar environment target: 2.38 km/s (feasible).

EM launch is highly efficient in terms of propellant, but system cost is high.

Absence of atmosphere on the Moon allows exceeding material and velocity limits more easily.

Major limiting factors: cost and power density.

“MagLifter” and “Startram” concepts are discussed as examples.

Earthbased EM launch is limited by aerodynamic heating.

Moonbased systems (LEMMA, Mass Driver) are feasible.

For human transport, liquidbreathing support (to withstand high Gloads) has been proposed.

EM systems are strategic for space defense and resource transport.

[46]

Three-phase modular linear-rotary switched reluctance launcher (MLRSRL). Hybrid structure capable of producing both rotational and linear motion.

Modular stator and rotor:

6 ferromagnetic rings

Each ring has 6 U-shaped ferromagnetic blocks

Three-phase windings are used for both linear and rotary power generation.

Material: 50DW470 silicon steel

Average magnetic flux density: 1.6-1.8 T

3-phase, centralized winding configuration

Stator/rotor air gap optimized

Rotor: 20 mm module depth, 4 mm edge width

Linear motion range: 0-90 mm

Rotary structure: 12/10 poles

Phase gaps: 5-15 mm

Average current: 7-9 A (CCC control)

Voltage: ~1 kV

Energy model: FEM + Simulink, including magnetic saturation

Average torque: 42.7 Nm

Average thrust: 145.5 Nm

Torque ripple: 68.8%

Thrust ripple: 64.5%

Modular design shortens the magnetic path, increasing torque density by 38% and thrust density by 44%.

Manufacturing cost reduced by 31%.

Optimal parameters: α = 27°, β = 29°, h₁ = 20 mm, h₂ = 4 mm.

3D magnetic flux distribution in the air gap has been optimized.

Saturation analysis and sensitivity testing achieved maximum performance.

Lighter and more efficient compared to conventional LRSRL.

[47]