Magnetic Circuits Problems And Solutions Pdf Guide

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.

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

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 . magnetic circuits problems and solutions pdf

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 ]

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. The center limb carries (\Phi_c)

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))

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). Flux: [ \Phi = \frac4001

Flux: [ \Phi = \frac4001.725\times 10^6 \approx 0.232 \ \textmWb ]

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.

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 ]