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.
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. magnetic circuits problems and solutions pdf
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)). Given: After fault, (\Phi_actual = 0
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 ] If total reluctance is lower than iron alone,
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 ]
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))