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 ]
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)
Flux: [ \Phi = \frac4001.99\times 10^6 \approx 0.201 \ \textmWb ] magnetic circuits problems and solutions pdf
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.
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
Flux: [ \Phi = \frac4001.725\times 10^6 \approx 0.232 \ \textmWb ]
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. Solution 3 – Fringing Effect (a) Effective gap
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.
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 ]
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 .