Magnetic Circuits Problems And Solutions Pdf | CERTIFIED |

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.

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 ] magnetic circuits problems and solutions pdf

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 . Mistake: Desired flux is (1

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. Contradiction

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)