Calculating Average and Reactive Power in Complex Circuits

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating average and reactive power in complex circuits, specifically focusing on a voltage source and various impedance branches. Participants are exploring the application of Kirchhoff's laws, complex number simplifications, and the implications of phase angles in their calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents equations for average power and reactive power, expressing uncertainty about the power factor angle and how to simplify complex numbers.
  • Another participant questions the interpretation of the current calculation, suggesting that both currents should be considered in the capacitor branch and challenges the formulation of Kirchhoff's equation.
  • There is a discussion about the meaning of the phase angle of <0 degrees, with some suggesting it indicates that the sources are in phase, while others believe it may not be relevant to the calculations.
  • Participants provide various methods for converting between polar and rectangular forms of complex numbers, emphasizing the need to verify these methods.
  • One participant calculates the average power delivered and absorbed by different components but expresses confusion regarding the reactive power calculations, suggesting that they may all result in zero.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on several points, including the correctness of Kirchhoff's equation, the interpretation of phase angles, and the calculations of reactive power. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions regarding the phase angles and the specific definitions of power in the context of the circuit. There are also concerns about the accuracy of the mathematical steps taken in the calculations.

Who May Find This Useful

Students and practitioners interested in electrical engineering, particularly those dealing with circuit analysis and power calculations in complex circuits.

PH^S!C5
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
1. Homework Statement [/
1) Find the average and relative power for the voltage source and for each impedance branch. Are they absorbing or delivering average power/magnetizing VARS?

Homework Equations


Those derived and
average power=P=((Vm*Im)/2)*(cos(theta(v)-theta(i))
reactive power=Q=((Vm*Im)/2)*(sin(theta(v)-theta(i))

The Attempt at a Solution


These are the equations that I derived from the schematic:

for the first loop on the left, there really is no need for big equations since: R1=50 ohms
Then V=IR => I = V/R => I= (340<0 degrees/50 ohms)= 17/125 <0 degrees

such that for the second loop we want to find i2, and I derived this equation:
(-j100)*i2-(i2-i1)(-j100)+80*i2+(j60)*i2=0

substitute for i1 into the equation above and solve for i2 but I am not sure if this is correct.
Also, how would you simplify complex numbers, or do I need to use phasor notation (how do I do that)?

To calculate the average power, we simply use the formula mentioned above. But what do we input for the power factor angle?So, if it is positive power, it is an absorbing component otherwise it delivers the power if negative result.

Then to obtain the magnetizing VARS is only for the capacitor, so we use the same formulas but only the name changes right?

Thank you for your time!
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
for the first loop on the left, there really is no need for big equations since: R1=50 ohms
Then V=IR => I = V/R => I= (340<0 degrees/50 ohms)= 17/125 <0 degrees

Assuming that you were given that Vg = 340V, and you are correct in that I = V/R, can you explain what 17/125 < 0 degrees means.

such that for the second loop we want to find i2, and I derived this equation:
(-j100)*i2-(i2-i1)(-j100)+80*i2+(j60)*i2=0

I believe there's something wrong with the part that takes into account the current through the capacitor. You should count both the i1 current and the i2 current, though in opposite directions so what remains is the difference of the two i.e. the part of the current that will actually travel along the capacitor branch. At the moment you are counting the i2 current and the 'difference between i2 and i1' current. If we rearrange/factorise the math in that section, (-j100)*i2-(i2-i1)(-j100), we get (-j100)*(i2-i2+i1) = (-j100)*i1, which is not the [STRIKE]droids[/STRIKE] current we are looking for. Otherwise, the Kirchoffs equation around the loop looks good.

substitute for i1 into the equation above and solve for i2 but I am not sure if this is correct.

The process sounds good since you have only one equation and only one unknown, so it should work.

Also, how would you simplify complex numbers, or do I need to use phasor notation (how do I do that)?

Given (X +/- iY) +/- (A +/- iB) = (X +/- A) +/- i(Y +/- B)
Given (X +/- iY) * (A +/- iB) expand as per normal algebra albeit keeping in mind i^2 = -1
Given (X +/- iY) / (A +/- iB) convert from rectangular to polar

Given (X < Y) +/- (A < B) convert from polar to rectangular
Given (X < Y) *// (A < B) = (X *// A) < [Y + B for *] OR [Y - B for /]

For Polar --> Rectangular: X < Y = Xe^(iY) = X{cos(Y) + i*Sin(Y)}
For Rectangular --> Polar: (X +/- iY) = sqrt(X^2 + Y^2) < tan^(-1)(Y/X)
Or a number of calculators do this bit for you nowadays.

These are the rules I use (from memory, you should double check them).
 
I think that the <0 degrees just means that the sources are in phase but I think you are right in that they may be irrelevant in the calculations.

so, is this correct for Kirchoff's equation?
-j100(i2-i1)+81*i2+(j60)*i2=0
I think that the <0 degrees just means that the sources are in phase but I think you are right in that they may be irrelevant in the calculations.

so, is this correct for Kirchoff's equation?
-j100(i2-i1)+80*i2+(j60)*i2=0

if so,
=> -j100*i2-(340/50)*(-j100) +80i2+j60*i2=0
=> -j40*i2+680j+80i2=0
=> solving for i2=(-j680/(-j40+80))=(-j68/(-j4+8))=17j/(j-2) A

so i have i1=6.8A and i2=17j/(j-2)

To find the average power: P=(Vm*Im/2)*cos (theta(v)-theta(i))
since theta is zero we ignore this and substitute cos (...)=1?

Psource=(340*i1)*1=(340*6.8)=-2312 W delivering power and no magnetizing vars?
P50ohm=2312 W absorbing power
Pc=Vm*(I2-I1)= Vm*(17j/(j-2) -6.8)?
PL=(i2/R)*(i2) = ((i2)^2)/R =(j17340)/(j^2-j4=4)
where c stands for capacitor, L for inductor

and the reactive power: P=(Vm*Im/2)*sin(theta(v)-theta(i))
let sin(0)=0

Psource=0 W
P50ohm=0W
Pc=0 W??
PL=0W??
 
Last edited:
I think that the <0 degrees just means that the sources are in phase but I think you are right in that they may be irrelevant in the calculations.

When you have an angle of 0, it usually means that that component is the reference i.e. everything else is leading or lagging relative to that specific component.

The bit I was curious about was how (340 < 0) / 50 = 17 / (125 < 0). You solved i1 = 6.8A, but what math / explanation leads to the bold part of the equation.

so, is this correct for Kirchoff's equation?
-j100(i2-i1)+80*i2+(j60)*i2=0

This equation says to me that you expect a voltage rise due to i2 across the capacitor, a voltage drop due to i1 across the capacitor, a voltage rise due to i2 across the resistor, and a voltage rise due to i2 across the inductor. If you label these voltage polarities on your diagram, are the voltages due to i2 arranged so they have the same polarity around the loop?

if so,
=> -j100*i2-(340/50)*(-j100) +80i2+j60*i2=0
=> -j40*i2+680j+80i2=0
=> solving for i2=(-j680/(-j40+80))=(-j68/(-j4+8))=17j/(j-2) A

so i have i1=6.8A and i2=17j/(j-2)

That math looks good, assuming that you have the previous equation correct.
 
Also, after you look into the KVL, if i1 = 6.8A and V = IR, what is the voltage drop across the 50R resistance and what does that mean for the rest of the circuit?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K