Pdf: Magnetic Circuits Problems And Solutions

Given: Core length (l_c = 0.15 \ \textm), area (A = 4 \ \textcm^2), (\mu_r = 600) (still valid). What is the effective air gap length that explains the reduced flux? (Ignore fringing first, then discuss if fringing would make the gap larger or smaller.) 3. Complete Solutions Solution 1 – Toroidal Core (a) Reluctance of core: [ \mathcalR_c = \fracl_c\mu_0 \mu_r A = \frac0.4(4\pi \times 10^-7)(800)(5\times 10^-4) ] [ \mathcalR_c = \frac0.4(1.0053 \times 10^-3) \approx 398 \ \textkA-turns/Wb ]

Mistake: Desired flux is (1.2\ \textmWb) – that’s higher than actual? No, problem says: after fault, measured flux = 0.8 mWb at same current. So with fault: [ \mathcalR total,fault = \frac2500.8\times 10^-3 = 312.5 \ \textkA-t/Wb ] Without fault, if no gap: (\mathcalR iron \approx 497\ \textkA-t/Wb) – but that would give even lower flux? Contradiction.

Comparison: No-gap flux was 1.005 mWb → with gap, flux drops by ~80% ! Why? The gap reluctance dominates even though it’s tiny (1 mm vs 400 mm). Solution 3 – Fringing Effect (a) Effective gap area: (A_g,eff = 1.2 \times A = 1.2 \times 5\times 10^-4 = 6\times 10^-4 \ \textm^2) [ \mathcalR g,new = \frac0.001(4\pi\times 10^-7)(6\times 10^-4) \approx 1.327\times 10^6 ] Total reluctance: [ \mathcalR total = 3.98\times 10^5 + 1.327\times 10^6 = 1.725\times 10^6 ]

Flux: [ \Phi = \frac4001.725\times 10^6 \approx 0.232 \ \textmWb ] magnetic circuits problems and solutions pdf

Percent change from Problem 2: [ \frac0.232 - 0.2010.201 \times 100 \approx +15.4% ] Fringing reduces reluctance → increases flux. Ignoring fringing underestimates performance. Solution 4 – Series-Parallel Circuit Step 1 – Reluctances (all (\mu = 1000 \mu_0))

The center limb carries (\Phi_c). That flux splits into two paths, each with total reluctance (\mathcalR_branch = \mathcalR_o + 2\mathcalR_y). The center limb reluctance is in series with the parallel combination of the two branch reluctances.

Ah – critical insight: If the core originally had , its reluctance is 497 kA-t/Wb. Then flux would be (250/497k \approx 0.503 \ \textmWb), not 1.2 mWb. So the “desired” 1.2 mWb must have come from a different core or higher current. The problem as written is inconsistent – an excellent teaching point: always check if numbers make physical sense . Given: Core length (l_c = 0

Center limb: [ \mathcalR_c = \frac0.1(4\pi\times 10^-7)(1000)(6\times 10^-4) \approx 132.6 \ \textkA-t/Wb ] Each outer limb: [ \mathcalR_o = \frac0.2(4\pi\times 10^-7)(1000)(3\times 10^-4) \approx 530.5 \ \textkA-t/Wb ] Yoke (each, two yokes in series effectively for each flux path): [ \mathcalR y = \frac0.05(4\pi\times 10^-7)(1000)(6\times 10^-4) \approx 66.3 \ \textkA-t/Wb ] Total for one outer path (center → yoke → outer limb → yoke → center): [ \mathcalR outer, total = \mathcalR_c + 2\mathcalR_y + \mathcalR_o ] [ = 132.6 + 2(66.3) + 530.5 = 795.7 \ \textkA-t/Wb ] But careful: The two outer paths are after the center limb.

MMF: (\mathcalF = NI = 200 \times 2 = 400 \ \textA-turns) [ \Phi = \frac\mathcalF\mathcalR_c = \frac400398 \times 10^3 \approx 1.005 \ \textmWb ]

Total reluctance seen by MMF: [ \mathcalR_total = \mathcalR c + \mathcalR eq,branches = 132.6 + 331.55 = 464.15 \ \textkA-t/Wb ] MMF = (300 \times 1.5 = 450 \ \textA-turns) [ \Phi_c = \frac450464.15 \times 10^3 \approx 0.969 \ \textmWb ] Then (\Phi_o = \Phi_c / 2 = 0.4845 \ \textmWb) Complete Solutions Solution 1 – Toroidal Core (a)

Flux density in yokes = same as center limb area? Yokes have (A=6\ \textcm^2), but they carry (\Phi_c)? No – yokes carry the outer branch flux? Actually each yoke segment carries (\Phi_o) if symmetric. Check: At top yoke, flux from center splits: half to left outer, half to right outer. So yoke carries (\Phi_o). [ B_yoke = \frac0.4845\times 10^-36\times 10^-4 = 0.8075 \ \textT ] Desired flux (\Phi_des = 1.2 \ \textmWb) with (NI = 250 \ \textA-turns) (since (0.5 \times 500)).

Hint: By symmetry, the two outer limbs carry equal flux. A DC relay has a magnetic circuit that should produce (\Phi = 1.2 \ \textmWb) at (I = 0.5 \ \textA) with (N = 500). After years of use, the measured flux is only (0.8 \ \textmWb) at the same current. You suspect an unexpected air gap has developed (e.g., due to corrosion or mechanical wear).

Reluctance without gap: [ \mathcalR c,iron = \frac0.15(4\pi\times 10^-7)(600)(4\times 10^-4) \approx 497.4 \ \textkA-t/Wb ] MMF = (\Phi \mathcalR) → (250 = (1.2\times 10^-3) \times \mathcalR total,des ) So (\mathcalR_total,des \approx 208.3 \ \textkA-t/Wb) – but that’s than iron reluctance alone? That’s impossible.

Flux density: [ B = \frac\PhiA = \frac1.005\times 10^-35\times 10^-4 = 2.01 \ \textT ] Good – below saturation for typical iron. Solution 2 – With Air Gap (a) Core reluctance same as above: (\mathcalR_c \approx 398 \ \textkA-turns/Wb) Gap reluctance: [ \mathcalR g = \fracl_g\mu_0 A = \frac0.001(4\pi\times 10^-7)(5\times 10^-4) \approx 1.592 \times 10^6 \ \textA-turns/Wb ] Total reluctance: [ \mathcalR total = 3.98\times 10^5 + 1.592\times 10^6 = 1.99 \times 10^6 \ \textA-turns/Wb ]