How can I calculate core losses given only frequency?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jrp051680
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Core Frequency
AI Thread Summary
To calculate core losses at different frequencies when only given losses at 120Hz and 60Hz, one can use the relationships for eddy current and hysteresis losses. Eddy current losses are proportional to B^2 f^2, while hysteresis losses are roughly proportional to B^1.6 f. The flux density can be considered inversely proportional to frequency at constant voltage, allowing for a simplified equation to express losses as a function of frequency. While the exact values for constants related to the core material are unknown, they can be determined using the provided data points. This approach offers a method to estimate core losses across varying frequencies despite some inherent approximations.
jrp051680
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I cannot seem to figure this out. I know total core losses at 120Hz and 60Hz are 100w and 32w respectively for some unknown constant ac voltage. I can't seem to figure out how to go about finding core losses at other frequencies or separating eddy and hysteresis losses. Can anybody shed some light on this for me?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I used the search terms: "core losses" steinmetz

and found this paper: http://people.clarkson.edu/~pillayp/c28.pdf

The paper and its references should help you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the reply. The problem I am having is that I don't know the max flux density Bm or what the core material is to be able to calculate Ke, Kh or n. There has to be a simple answer to this that I must be overlooking and its driving me crazy. Thanks for the link.
 
Is this a real world problem or an exercise (book problem)? I'd try the following approach for a somewhat simplistic (as in my not be completely accurate for a real world problem) solution.

The eddy current loss component is usually modeled as proportional to B^2 f^2 and the hysteresis loss component as proportional to B^{1.6} f^1. Here however the B^1.6 term is only a fairly rough approximation and different materials may use a slightly different constant (to 1.6) there. In any case, if we take the above relationships as correct then we can find a fairly simple solution.

P_L = k_1 B^2 f^2 + k_2 B^{1.6} f^1

It's also approximately true that at constant voltage the flux will be inversely proportional to frequency.

So,

P_L(n) = k_1 \left( \frac{B_1}{n} \right)^2 (n f_1)^2 +k_2 \left( \frac{B_1}{n} \right)^{1.6} (n f_1)^2

You don't know B but you do know that for a given voltage that B_1 is a constant so you can lump it (and f_1) with the constants k1 and k2 to get the above into a simple function of "n" (and of course the two lumped constants that you can determine from your two data points).
 
Last edited:
Very basic question. Consider a 3-terminal device with terminals say A,B,C. Kirchhoff Current Law (KCL) and Kirchhoff Voltage Law (KVL) establish two relationships between the 3 currents entering the terminals and the 3 terminal's voltage pairs respectively. So we have 2 equations in 6 unknowns. To proceed further we need two more (independent) equations in order to solve the circuit the 3-terminal device is connected to (basically one treats such a device as an unbalanced two-port...
suppose you have two capacitors with a 0.1 Farad value and 12 VDC rating. label these as A and B. label the terminals of each as 1 and 2. you also have a voltmeter with a 40 volt linear range for DC. you also have a 9 volt DC power supply fed by mains. you charge each capacitor to 9 volts with terminal 1 being - (negative) and terminal 2 being + (positive). you connect the voltmeter to terminal A2 and to terminal B1. does it read any voltage? can - of one capacitor discharge + of the...
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Back
Top