Ampere's law to calculate the B field from a balanced three-phase system

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Ampere's law to calculate the magnetic field (B field) generated by a balanced three-phase system. Participants explore the implications of the law in scenarios where the net current is zero and consider alternative methods for calculating the magnetic field at specific points, particularly in relation to high voltage transmission lines.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about using Ampere's law, noting that the net current from three balanced conductors is zero, leading to the conclusion that the B field should also be zero.
  • Another participant agrees that the balanced three-phase currents add to zero, suggesting that the B field is indeed zero at a distance from the conductors.
  • Some participants point out that while integrating B around a loop may yield zero, there could still be a magnetic field at individual points due to the contributions from each conductor.
  • A suggestion is made to use the Biot-Savart law to calculate the magnetic field at specific points by summing the contributions from each conductor.
  • There is a reference to empirical data showing non-zero B field values near high voltage transmission lines, prompting a discussion about the need to consider individual conductors rather than the system as a whole.
  • One participant proposes that the geometry of the conductors and the observer's position must be taken into account when applying Ampere's law to individual conductors.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of choosing the correct Amperian loop to enclose the current of interest, which affects the calculation of the magnetic field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the net current in a balanced three-phase system is zero, leading to a zero B field when applying Ampere's law in a certain way. However, there is disagreement on how to approach the calculation of the B field at specific points, with some advocating for the use of Biot-Savart law and others emphasizing the need to consider individual conductors. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best method to calculate the B field in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in applying Ampere's law to the entire system without considering the individual contributions of each conductor. The discussion highlights the dependence on the observer's position and the geometry of the conductors, as well as the need for careful selection of the Amperian loop.

  • #31
Power transmission is really out of my field

but applying basics it would seem to me related to mutual inductance, ie the proximity of the lines let's them couple flux raising apparent impedance..

So it's not a power loss, that would make heat
but an increase in reactance that would require more volts to push along the same power.

I anticipate a brief introductory lesson from somebody who's experienced in that field...

old jim
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
jim hardy said:
Power transmission is really out of my field

but applying basics it would seem to me related to mutual inductance, ie the proximity of the lines let's them couple flux raising apparent impedance..

So it's not a power loss, that would make heat
but an increase in reactance would require more volts to push along same power.

I anticipate a brief introductory lesson from somebody who's experienced in that field...

old jim
Yes @jim hardy I think I could also use a little more introductory material in regard to how the power transmission lines work that keep the power going in all of our cities. It is so easy to just flip a switch and the lights go on, but the reason it is so easy is that plenty of people have worked very hard to figure out a lot of details that make it work so well. :) :)
 
  • #33
Hi all, good thread for a newbie like me. I studied the document @jim hardy posted in post #6 and got one question to ask regarding the document.

Document link: http://www.emfs.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Howtocalculatethemagneticfieldfromathree.pdf

Everything is clear until page 4, up til they write "We now need to resolve each current into an in-phase and an out-of-phase component. We do this using a phasor diagram:" Why is this step necessary?

We can calculate the magnitude of \vec{B}(t) at point P using:

B_n(t) = \frac{\mu _0 i_n(t)}{2\pi r_p}​

We now have the magnitude of \vec{B}(t) (see figure below, which is from the pdf document linked in post #6)
To get B_x(t) and B_y(t), we do the following:

B_{y}(t) = \vec{B}(t) cos(\theta) and -B_x(t) = \vec{B}(t) sin(\theta) (minus sign based on the figure)​

Now we have the x and y component of B_y(t) from let's say phase A, we can do the same for phase B and C, just remember to use proper distance r, proper angle \theta and proper value of B_{a,b,c}.

To get the magnitude we can do:
\vec{B}_{resultant}(t) = \vec{B}_a(t) + \vec{B}_b(t) + \vec{B}_c(t)
or if we just care about the magnitude and not direction
B_{resultant}(t) = \sqrt{(B_{a,x}(t)+B_{b,x}(t)+B_{c,x}(t))^2 + (B_{a,y}(t)+B_{b,y}(t)+B_{c,y}(t))^2}

Doing it like this I do not have to worry about resolving each current into an in-phase and an out-of-phase component like shown in the pdf document.

Appreciated if someone could look over my calculations and tell me if this resolving of currents is necessary or not.

Thanks
Skjermbilde1.JPG
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-9-2_16-9-18.png
    upload_2017-9-2_16-9-18.png
    3.9 KB · Views: 584
  • #34
@Bavuka The phasor diagram method can perhaps be better explained with trigonometric calculations: ## \\ ## If we begin with ## A cos(\omega t)+Bcos(\omega t+\phi)=Acos(\omega t)+B(cos(\omega t)cos(\phi)-sin(\omega t)sin(\phi)) ## which can be written in the form ## S=Ccos(\omega t)+Dsin(\omega t) ## by grouping terms. There is an algebraic trick that is used next: ## \\ ## ## S=\sqrt{C^2+D^2} [cos(\omega t) \frac{C}{\sqrt{C^2+D^2}}+sin(\omega t) \frac{D}{\sqrt{C^2+D^2}}]##. ## \\ ## This can be written as ## S=Ecos(\omega t-\theta) ## where ## E=\sqrt{C^2+D^2} ## with ## cos(\theta)=\frac{C}{\sqrt{C^2+D^2}} ## and ## sin (\theta)=\frac{D}{\sqrt{C^2+D^2}} ## so that ## tan(\theta)=D/C ##. (Recall the trigonometric identity for the expansion of ## cos(\omega t-\theta) ##).## \\ ## The process here to do this calculation was to divide the terms up into ## cos(\omega t) ## and ## sin(\omega t) ##. We did it for just two ## cos(\omega t +\phi) ## terms, (the first one has ## \phi=0 ##), but you could do it for any number of them. In the problem at hand (the three phase electrical system with ## \omega =2 \pi f ## and ## f=60 \, Hz ##), we have 3 signals: one with ## \phi=0 ##, one with ## \phi=\pi/3 ##, and one with ## \phi=2 \pi/3 ##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bavuka and jim hardy
  • #35
Ok, now for the tiresome lesson. o_O

Power can be lost in transmission only via resistance. ##I^2R##

There are several ways to calculate the max power transfer of a transmission line.

  1. One is the thermal limit proportional to those ##I^2R## losses and ambient temperature. High loads on hot days make the lines sag. If they sag too much they short out on tree branches. That's what started the 2003 blackout in Ohio.
  2. Stability limits are related to the series reactance in complicated ways. Reactance can be changed by mutual coupling to nearby lines. (Which is the point relevant to this thread)

Which limit is most limiting depends mostly on the length of the line.

Fun thread.:smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim hardy and Charles Link
  • #36
Bavuka said:
Everything is clear until page 4, up til they write "We now need to resolve each current into an in-phase and an out-of-phase component. We do this using a phasor diagram:" Why is this step necessary?

[ I haven't forgot you, just this one was going to take some study and i had to use daylight to finish putting side back on the barn. ]

I think Charles did a better job with the algebra and Latex than i could.

If i understand your question the answer is simple -

It's difficult to add in polar notation . I don't know how to do it.

One of the three flux's X components is of the form Asin(ωt) , one is Bsin(ωt-120°) and one is Csin(ωt+120°).
A, B and C differ because of the different radii from observer to each phase of the transmission line..
likewise their Y components.
Bavuka said:
To get the magnitude we can do:
⃗Bresultant(t)=⃗Ba(t)+⃗Bb(t)+⃗Bc(t)
once for X components and once for Y components ? Sure,
but because they're 120 degrees apart
I'd have to convert them EDIT to polar from polar to rectangular notation to add them.

phasor4xmissionlineflux.jpg

(please pardon misspelling of rectangular , )

same exercise for Y components.

Maybe you know some math shortcut that i don't.

old jim
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bavuka
  • #37
OliskaP said:
Thanks for the replies. I looked at a table which showed typical values of B at a distance x from a 420 kV transmission line, and they were not zero. So if I would want to calculate the value of B below the transmission line at ground level, I would have to use Biot-Savart equation on each conductor and sum them up?
Yes.
Ampere's law gives the total integral of the B field (actually ∫B⋅ds) surrounding one or more current-carrying wires. But if the wires are separated you lose symmetry and the value of B will vary as you go around any amperian loop.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim hardy and (deleted member)

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
755
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K