Pdf - Magnetic Circuits Problems And Solutions

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: [ \Phi = \frac4001.99\times 10^6 \approx 0.201 \ \textmWb ]

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 ]

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). magnetic circuits problems and solutions pdf

So: [ \mathcalR_eq, branches = \frac(\mathcalR_o + 2\mathcalR_y)2 = \frac530.5 + 132.62 = 331.55 \ \textkA-t/Wb ] Wait – (2\mathcalR_y = 132.6), so (\mathcalR_o + 2\mathcalR_y = 530.5+132.6 = 663.1). Half of that is kA-t/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.

Let’s find gap length that gives (\mathcalR total = 312.5\ \textkA-t/Wb): [ \mathcalR g = \mathcalR total - \mathcalR iron = 312.5 - 497.4 = -184.9 \ \text(negative → impossible) ] Conclusion: The core is saturating or the permeability has dropped. A better problem would give (\Phi_healthy) first. Reluctance without gap: [ \mathcalR c,iron = \frac0

Given: After fault, (\Phi_actual = 0.8\ \textmWb) at (NI=250). So total reluctance = (250 / 0.8\times10^-3 = 312.5 \ \textkA-t/Wb). Core reluctance alone = (497.4 \ \textkA-t/Wb). If total reluctance is lower than iron alone, that’s impossible. Therefore: The original core for design purposes. The fault increased the gap.

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 ]

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)) A DC relay has a magnetic circuit that

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 .

Let (\Phi_c) = flux in center limb, (\Phi_o) = flux in each outer limb. By KFL (Kirchhoff’s flux law): (\Phi_c = 2\Phi_o) MMF equation around center-outer loop: [ NI = \Phi_o (\mathcalR_c + 2\mathcalR_y + \mathcalR_o) \quad \text(wait – this is wrong because center flux splits) ] Better: MMF = (\Phi_c \mathcalR_c + \Phi_o (\mathcalR_o + 2\mathcalR_y)) – no, that’s inconsistent.

Let’s correct the fault diagnosis realistically:

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 ]