No mesh, no convergence
There is no FEM mesh to refine, no relaxation parameter and no element order to sweep. The same input always returns the same output.
Every number, traceable.
AirInduct Sim results come from AirInduct’s proprietary physics models and are checked against published reference cases. What follows are the accuracy results, and an honest account of where the model stops.
How accurate is AirInduct Sim?
On the reference cases we check, AirInduct Sim matches coaxial circular-loop mutual inductance, on-axis field and skin-effect factor exactly, and self-inductance within about 4 %. The real limit is the model: it assumes air-core coils and a magnetostatic field, which suits inductive wireless power transfer from kilohertz to low megahertz. Ferrite, shielding plates, nearby metal, self-resonance and radiation are not modelled, and a FEM or full-wave tool is the right instrument when they dominate. AirInduct Sim does not publish a head-to-head percentage against commercial FEM packages, because any such figure depends on the mesh and settings chosen.
How we keep the solver honest
Checked against reference cases
Results are compared with published reference values. The open question is whether the air-core, magnetostatic model fits your problem, not whether the numbers converged.
No fitted models in the solver path
There are no surrogate models, neural nets or curve fits between your geometry and the reported coupling.
Deterministic
A result you publish today reproduces exactly on any later version, on any platform. The browser and mobile apps run the same solver.
Reference cases and measured accuracy
Mutual inductance, coaxial circular loops
Compared with published reference values
Delta
exact match
Self-inductance, circular loop
Compared with published reference values at an assumed 0.5 mm wire radius
Delta
≤ ~4 %
On-axis field, circular loop
Compared with the reference solution
Delta
exact match
Skin-effect resistance factor
Compared with the reference solution for a cylindrical conductor
Delta
exact match
What this does not cover
Matching a reference case is not the same as being right about your hardware. The magnetostatic model assumes the coil is small relative to a wavelength and ignores radiative behaviour, so it is appropriate for inductive WPT in the kilohertz-to-low- megahertz range and not for antenna or radiative problems.
Conductors are treated as simple current paths. Strong proximity effects in tightly-packed litz bundles, nearby ferrite and shielding, and lossy or permeable materials in the field volume are approximated or, in some cases, not modelled at all. If those dominate your design, a full-wave or FEM tool is the right instrument and we will say so.
We do not currently publish a head-to-head percentage against commercial FEM packages. Any such figure depends on the geometry, the mesh and the solver settings chosen for the comparison, and a single number quoted out of that context would be marketing rather than evidence.
Reproduce it yourself
The reference cases above are published and independently checkable — you do not have to take our word for any of them. Run the same geometry in a tool you trust and in AirInduct, and compare.
If you find a case where the simulator disagrees with the analytic result, that is a bug and we want it: email [email protected] with the geometry and we will publish the correction.