1

Electric Motors and Drives - Third Edition

Solutions to Review Questions - Chapter 7
1)

Primary and secondary voltages and turns are related by

V1
N
1 , hence
V2
N2

V2

N2
1
V1 240 120 Volts. Similarly N1I1 N 2 I 2 , hence
N1
2

I2

2
2 4 A.
1

To check we calculate the primary VA ( = 240 2), and the secondary VA ( = 120 4) to
confirm that they are the same.
2)

If the impedance connected to the secondary is Z 2 , then the secondary current is given by
V
I 2 2 . The referred (or apparent) impedance looking in at the primary is given by the ratio
Z2
V1
'
.
of primary voltage to primary current, i.e. Z 2
I1
Using the relationships

V1
N
1 and N1I1 N 2 I 2 , and then eliminating V2 and I 2
V2
N2

between the four equations yields the referred impedance as

Z 2'

N1

N2

Z2.

In this case, Z 2 is a 5 resistor, so the referred impedance is resistive and its magnitude is
200

50

given by Z 2'

5 80 . .

3)
From the voltage/turns relationship we deduce that the turns ratio is given by
N1
240

12.
N2
20
Now we can use the same approach as in question 2 to find the apparent resistance looking in at
the primary, i.e.

Z 2'

N1

N2

Z 2 12 30 4,320 .
2

V1
240

55.6 mA.
'
4320
Z2
Viewed from the mains, the transformer and its secondary load of 30 look like a 4,320
The primary current is therefore given by I1

resistor. The primary input power is therefore simply given by W1

240 2
4320

13.33 W.

2
4)

Our instinctive reaction to the thought of taking a hacksaw and cutting through the magnetic
circuit would surely be to recoil in horror and expect serious adverse consequences. In fact, as
we will see, this is one of the few situations where things turn out much better than we might
expect.
With the primary supplied at the rated voltage and frequency (assumed to be sinusoidal), the
peak magnetic flux in the core is given by the basic design equation (7.5), i.e.

V
V

.
N1 2 f N1

Strictly, this equation applies to the ideal transformer in which the resistance of the windings is
zero, but as explained in chapter 7 the resistance of the real transformer winding is sufficiently
small for us to apply the equation to the real transformer.
The flux equation shows that the flux is determined only by the voltage, the frequency and the
number of turns. The other variables that we might intuitively expect to have a bearing on the
flux (the reluctance of the core, and the current in the winding) are absent from the formula,
which of course tells us that they are of little or no consequence. We therefore conclude that if
we increase the reluctance of the magnetic circuit by making a cut, the flux will remain the
same.
This remarkable result stems from the feedback or self-stabilising nature of the flux, which, if
the primary resistance is zero, must induce in the primary winding an e.m.f. that is equal to the
applied voltage. The induced e.m.f. is determined by the magnitude of the flux, its rate of
change (i.e. frequency) and the number of turns, so these are the only parameters in the flux
formula.
In a real transformer with finite reluctance a current is required to produce the MMF needed to
drive the flux around the core: the magnitude of this magnetising current is directly
proportional to the reluctance of the core, so the better the magnetic circuit, the smaller the
magnetising current. So if the reluctance is increased by including an air-gap, the current will
automatically increase to produce the extra MMF now needed to maintain the flux at the level
specified by the voltage, turns and frequency.
We would therefore see an increase in the no-load (magnetising) current, but no change in the
secondary voltage since the flux is maintained at its rated value.
The magnetising reactance expresses the ratio of applied voltage to magnetising current, and
because the magnetising current has increased the reactance decreases in inverse proportion.
The on-load performance will be virtually unaffected, except that the increased magnetising
current will result in increased copper loss and a decrease in power-factor. But overall we
would rightly conclude that the saw-cut had remarkably little effect - certainly much less than
we might have feared!

3
5)

The approximate equivalent circuit is shown in Figure 7A: the upper part shows the no-load
condition (i.e. with the secondary open-circuited), and the lower part shows the situation at fullload.
Fig 7A here
Under no-load conditions there is no current through the leakage reactance and the resistance so
there is no volt-drop between the primary voltage V1 and the referred secondary voltage V2' ,
so the latter is given by V2' V1.
Using the primary voltage as the reference for phase-angles, at full-load, the referred secondary
'
current is given by I 2

V1
, and hence the referred secondary voltage is given
j 0.5 0.1 10

by

V1
V2'

j 0.5 0.1 10

100
10 V1

10.112.8

0.989 V1 2.8.

The output voltage on load is therefore 1.1% less than at no-load, and it lags the input by 2.8.
To find the full-load current we must add the magnetising current to the referred full-load
current (given by the first equation we derived), i.e.
V
V1
I f l I m I 2' 1
V1 j 0.0333 0.0988 j 0.0048
j 30
j 0.5 0.1 10
V1 0.0988 j 0.0381 0.106 V1 21o.
We can do a rough check on this by noting that at full-load the dominant impedance seen from
the supply is the load resistance of 10 . If we ignore the other elements, the full-load current
V 0o
would be simply 1
0.1V10o. This is very close in magnitude to the actual value (
10
0.106V1 ), but because the approximation ignores the lagging magnetising current, the
approximation yields an erroneous value for the phase-angle.
Turning now to the short-circuit condition, the referred secondary current is given by
I 2'

V1
1.96 V1 78.7 V1 0.384 j1.92 . To this we must add the
j 0.5 0.1

magnetising current to give the short-circuit current as

I s c I m I 2' V1 ( j 0.0333 0.384 j1.92) 1.99V1 78.9o.
Hence

I s c
I f l

1.99
18.8.
0.106

4
Once again we can do a rough check by noting that the dominant impedance under short-circuit
conditions is the leakage reactance of j0.5. If we ignore the resistance term, the short-circuit
V 0o
2V1 90o. Again the magnitude is close to the actual value ( 1.99V1 )
current will be 1
j 0.5
but the phase is wrong because we neglected the resistance.
The importance of leakage reactance in limiting the primary current to at least a manageable
value in the event of a secondary short-circuit is very apparent form these calculations.
6)

We can tackle this question by invoking one of the delightfully simple fundamental equations
of the induction motor, viz:Torque

Rotor Power Input

.
Synchronous Speed

The question says estimate which is reassuring and implies that we can make use of the
approximate equivalent circuit, Fig 7.16.
Under locked-rotor conditions, the slip is 1, so the rotor branch resistance is simply R2' . The
load branch then consists of R1 , R2' , and the leakage reactance. We know that all three
elements have much lower impedances than the impedance of the magnetising branch, so we
can assume that all of the input current and power goes into the load branch, and is dissipated in
R1 and R2' . Because these resistances are equal, the power divides equally, so the rotor input
power is 12 kW.
The synchronous speed is given by N S

120 f 120 60

3600 rev/min = 377 rad/sec.

p
2

Hence the locked-rotor (starting) torque is given by Tst

7)

6000
15.9 Nm.
377

Like the previous question, this one does not give us the equivalent-circuit parameters, and it
says estimate, rather than calculate, so we are expected to draw on our knowledge of the
general properties of single-cage motors, and in particular equation 7.22, i.e.
2

I
Tst
st s fl .
I fl
T fl

5
the synchronous speed is 1000 rev/min, the full-load speed is 950 rev/min so the full-load slip is
2

I
T
50/1000 = 0.05. Hence the starting torque is given by st st s fl 52 0.05 1.25.
I fl
T fl

Power
5000
T fl

50.3 Nm.
The full-load torque is given by
Hence using the result
Speed 950 2
60
T

1.25

50.3
62.8 Nm.
above the starting torque is given by st
8)

As with the previous two questions, section 7.8 contains most of the material needed to tackle
this one.
a) Equation 7.26 shows that the maximum or pull-out torque is inversely proportional to the
leakage reactance, so if the reactance increases from X T to 1.1 X T , the peak torque will be
1
Tmax 0.91Tmax .
reduced from Tmax to
1.1
b) The pull-out slip (i.e the slip at which maximum torque is developed) is given by equation
R'
7.25, i.e. s 2 . So again, if the reactance increases by 10%, the pull out slip will reduce
XT
from s to 0.91s, so the peak torque will occur at a higher speed.
c) Taking a physical viewpoint first, in the majority of induction motors the slip and rotor
frequency at full load are small, at most a few Hz, so the reactance associated with the leakage
inductance is small in comparison with the rotor resistance. The rotor current, torque and
power are therefore not much influenced by the rotor leakage inductance, so an increase of 10%
would have very little effect.
Alternatively, from the equivalent circuit viewpoint (with everything happening at the supply
frequency), we would say that under full-load conditions where the slip is much less than 1, the
R'
referred rotor resistance ( 2 ) will be the dominant impedance and will swamp the leakage
s
reactance, which will therefore have little influence on the rotor current, torque or output power.
d) Under locked-rotor conditions (s = 1), the dominant component of the impedance seen by
the supply is usually the leakage reactance. (This point is well illustrated in question 5.) An
increase of 10% in the leakage reactance will therefore reduce the starting current by a factor of
1/1.1, i.e. 0.91.

9)

The torque is proportional to the total rotor power, which in the equivalent circuit is the power
R2'
in the referred rotor resistance,
. If the torque is to remain the same, so must the rotor
s
power, and so therefore must the effective rotor resistance. Hence if the rotor resistance

6
increases by a factor of 1.2, the slip must increase by the same factor in order for

R2'
to remain
s

the same. the new slip is therefore 1.2 3.5 = 4.2%.

We could reach the same conclusion by arguing that for given torque we need to induce a given
current in the rotor. The induced voltage in the rotor is directly proportional to the slip, and the
rotor resistance is the dominant impedance, so a 20% increase in rotor resistance must be
compensated by a 20% increase in the slip to maintain the same current.
10)

In solving this question we will make extensive use of the sketches shown in Figure 7.B.
Fig 7B here
The diagram on the left represents conditions at full load (slip = s), while on the right the slip is
half of the full-load value.
We are advised to use the approximate equivalent circuit, so at full load the right-hand branch
consists of the total leakage reactance X and the effective resistance R2/s. The impedance
triangle is shown at the top left of Figure 7B: we are told that at full load the load component of
current lags the voltage by 15, so we know that the impedance angle at full load is 15.
Estimating the full-load current is simply a matter of adding the load and magnetising
components. The in-phase component of current is 40 cos 15 38.64 A, while the lagging
component is given by 8 40 sin 15 8 10.35 18.35 A. The total current is therefore
given by 38.64 2 18.352 42.8 A, and the power factor is 38.64/42.8 = 0.90.
When the slip is half of the full-load value, we first need to work out the rotor branch
impedance, referring to the impedance triangle on the right in Figure 7B. First we note from
X
sX
tan 15

,
R2
the left-hand triangle that
R2 and from the right-hand triangle
s
X
sX
tan

.
2 R2
2 R2 Combining these two equations gives 7.6.
s
The rotor branch impedance is the hypotenuse of the triangle, so the full-load impedance is
given by Z1

Hence

X
X
, while the impedance at half full-load slip is given by Z 2
.

sin 15
sin 7.6

sin 15
Z 2 Z1

sin 7.6

1.95 Z1.

We know that when the impedance is Z1 , the load

current is 40 A, so when the impedance is 1.95Z1 , the load branch current will be 40/1.95 =
20.5 A.

7
As before , we now need to add the rotor branch current of 20.5 A, lagging by 7.6 to the
magnetising current of 8 A lagging by 90. The in-phase component is
20.5 cos 7.6 20.32 A, while the quadrature component is
8 20.5 sin 7.6 8 2.7 10.7 A. The total current is therefore given by
20.32 2 10.7 2 22.9 A, and the power factor is 20.32/22.9 = 0.89.
11)

Fortunately we are told to assume that the voltage has been adjusted so that the air-gap flux
remains at its rated value. Hence as far as the rotor is concerned, the factor that determines the
torque is the speed of the rotor relative to the rotating flux wave.
At 50 Hz the synchronous speed is 3000 rev/min and so a slip of 0.04 corresponds to a slip
speed of 120 rev/min.
a) At 25 Hz the synchronous speed is 1500 rev/min, so given that the magnitude of the flux
wave is the same as when the motor was supplied at 50 Hz, the rotor will develop full torque
when its speed is 120 rev/min less than 1500, i.e. 1380 rev/min. The slip is given by 120/1500
= 0.08.
b) Similarly when the supply is 3 Hz, the synchronous speed is 180 rev/min so full torque will
be developed at a speed of 180 -120 = 60 rev/min. In this case the slip is given by 120/180 =
0.67.
In section 7.6.1 it is shown that the efficiency of the rotor is given by (1 - s) 100%, so in case
(b) the efficiency of the rotor is 33%. The overall efficiency of the motor is clearly less than the
efficiency of the rotor: in fact at this low frequency loss will be dominated by stator and rotor
copper losses, which are typically of similar order, so we can expect the overall efficiency to be
perhaps half the rotor efficiency, say around 15%.
The relevant part of the equivalent circuit for assessing the total current is shown in Figure 7C.
Fig 7C here
For the sake of simplicity the core-loss resistance has been omitted, because we are not given
any information to enable us to say how this would change with frequency, and in any case the
corresponding current component will be very small in comparison with the full-load current.
The upper sketch shows 50 Hz operation, the total current ( I1 ) being the sum of the magnetising
current ( I m ) and the rotor branch current ( I 2' ) . At 25 Hz, the reactances are halved as
compared with 50 Hz, and the supply voltage has been adjusted to keep the flux (and hence the
V
magnetising current) the same as at 50 Hz, i.e. the air-gap voltage is reduced from Vm to m .
2
Because the slip has doubled at 25 Hz, the rotor branch impedance sat 25 Hz is half of its 50 Hz
value, so the rotor branch current remains the same and so therefore does the total current.

8
Exactly the same arguments can be advanced for the 6 Hz case, though the numbers are less
convenient!
- End of Solutions Chapter 7 -