Clarification of Onderdonk's Fuse Equation Assumptions

  • Thread starter Thread starter tempneff
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Assumptions Fuse
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Onderdonk's Fuse Equation, specifically its assumptions and empirical accuracy when applied to various wire types, particularly 37 gauge copper wire. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings, practical applications, and limitations of the equation in the context of wire fusing behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assumptions behind Onderdonk's Fuse Equation, particularly regarding wire length and ambient conditions.
  • Another participant suggests that the wire must be sufficiently long to avoid cooling effects from connections and mentions the influence of airflow on fusing currents.
  • Temperature is specified to be in Celsius and area in circular mils, with one participant noting the use of short wire lengths that may not align with standard practices.
  • There is a suggestion to conduct experiments under varying conditions, such as enclosing the wire in a tube, to better understand fusing behavior.
  • Some participants propose that the formula may be more accurate for thicker wires rather than very thin ones like 37 gauge.
  • One participant asserts that the formula is incorrect, suggesting changes to the equation and highlighting assumptions about cooling and the definition of time in the context of melting.
  • Another participant notes that while the theory is interesting, practical alternatives exist for fast fuse action.
  • Historical context is provided regarding Onderdonk's original considerations for high-voltage transmission lines and the equation's age.
  • There is a mention of arcing issues related to insulators, which may complicate the application of the equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views regarding the assumptions and accuracy of Onderdonk's Fuse Equation, with no consensus reached on its validity or applicability to different wire types. Multiple competing perspectives on the equation's assumptions and empirical results remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations such as the dependence on wire length, cooling effects, and the specific conditions under which the equation was derived. There are unresolved mathematical interpretations and assumptions regarding the equation's parameters.

tempneff
Messages
82
Reaction score
3
Hi all,

I am trying to get an understanding of Onderdonk's Fuse Equation:

##I_{fuse}=Area*\frac{\sqrt{log\left(\frac{T_{melt-T_{ambient}}}{234-T_{ambient}}+1\right)}}{33*Time}##

Empirically I do not see that this function accurately depicts the behavior of the wires I am using. For example, I hooked up a 37 gauge copper wire to a current source with 3A. I verified the values in this chart of Onderdonk's values for copper against the equation and found that they agree. I should have seen the wire break within a second, however it glowed but did not break. It took nearly 5A to melt it.

I'd like to know what assumptions were made for this equation to work? Such as length of wire, ambient pressure maybe...

Thanks in advance, I love this site.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
What units did you use for the area and for the temperature parameters?

The wire needs to be sufficiently long so that the middle section is not cooled by the mounting connections.

Forced or convective airflow will cool the wire and so require higher currents before fusing. I do not know the original airflow assumption.

A ceramic or glass tube will reduce thermal radiation and lower the current needed to fuse the wire. You would need to correct the Tambient if in a tube to the temperature of the tube inside wall.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: tempneff
Temperature is in Celsius, area is in circular mils. I didn't think to try longer wires, I have been using wires I thought would be comparable to standard electronic fuse ~3/4 inch.
 
tempneff said:
Hi all,

I am trying to get an understanding of Onderdonk's Fuse Equation:

##I_{fuse}=Area*\frac{\sqrt{log\left(\frac{T_{melt-T_{ambient}}}{234-T_{ambient}}+1\right)}}{33*Time}##

Empirically I do not see that this function accurately depicts the behavior of the wires I am using. For example, I hooked up a 37 gauge copper wire to a current source with 3A. I verified the values in this chart of Onderdonk's values for copper against the equation and found that they agree. I should have seen the wire break within a second, however it glowed but did not break. It took nearly 5A to melt it.

I'd like to know what assumptions were made for this equation to work? Such as length of wire, ambient pressure maybe...

Thanks in advance, I love this site.

It could be worth while,doing the experiment with the wire under various conditions - enclosed in a tube, wrapped in fibreglass etc. to find when you could actually achieve fusing. You may have been 'borderline' with your test, even though the dissipated power at 5A is 25/9 times the power with 3A (approx) - which doesn't look to be very borderline, I admit.

If you are doing these experiments with a view to actually applying the results for a circuit design, it would be wise just to work on recommended practice, which is much more conservative. Alternatively, if you want to make a fuse, then I believe Tin is the preferred metal.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: tempneff
Looks like this is an approximate formula and 37 gauge is very thin. Maybe, the formula better aproximates melting of thicker wires?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: tempneff
First, the formula is incorrect. The " 33*Time " should be under the square root radical. Second the denominator 234-Ta should be 234+Ta. The two primary assumptions are (a) no cooling, not from convection, conduction, nor radiation (Thus rapid heating assumption), and (b) time is the time TO the melting temperature, not that plus the time to actually melt the copper. Thus, the relevant time is short, from one to 10 seconds, depending on who you read.
 
As a bit of theory, this is interesting but, if a fast fuse action is needed in practice, there are many better ways of doing it.
I'd bet that all that work was done before the luxury of alternatives was available for protecting sensitive stuff.
 
Actually, Onderdonk was considering the copper wires that supported the poles and insulators of high-voltage transmission lines. He wanted to determine the minimum wire size necessary to carry a short-circuit for a time period long enough for the circuit protection devices to kick in. His equation dates back no later that 1928. We have found no references earlier than that.
 
DGBUCAD said:
Actually, Onderdonk was considering the copper wires that supported the poles and insulators of high-voltage transmission lines. He wanted to determine the minimum wire size necessary to carry a short-circuit for a time period long enough for the circuit protection devices to kick in. His equation dates back no later that 1928. We have found no references earlier than that.
Hmm, but I would think that melting point of wires is much above allowed termal stress of the insulators.
 
  • #10
The problem was arcing across the insulators because of dust or moisture. Here is where this is discussed: E. R. Stauffacher, “Short-time Current Carrying Capacity of Copper Wire,” General Electric Review, Vol 31, No 6, June 1928
 

Similar threads

Finding current and temperature of platinum wire
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Verification of Ampere-Maxwell Law
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K