Delta and star transformation of AC circuits

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the delta and star transformations of AC circuits, specifically focusing on balanced three-phase loads. Participants are addressing a homework problem that involves calculating equivalent loads and power consumption based on given impedances and line voltage.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose calculating the equivalent single delta load from the given Y-connected loads using the transformation formulas.
  • Others discuss the need to combine two delta loads into one before performing further transformations.
  • There is a suggestion to use the product over sum rule for combining impedances in the delta configuration.
  • One participant questions the correctness of their diagram for part (c) and seeks clarification on how to form the equations for the transformation.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about the calculations for power consumption and the implications of line versus phase voltage in the delta configuration.
  • One participant mentions the importance of using the complex conjugate of the current when calculating complex power.
  • Disagreement arises regarding whether to multiply the power by three again after calculating the power for one impedance.
  • Participants clarify that the line voltage is the voltage across the delta load, which affects the power calculations.
  • Some participants correct earlier calculations and refine their understanding of combining Y-connected loads into a single load.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach consensus on several points, including the correct approach to calculating total power and the implications of combining loads. There are competing views on how to interpret the transformations and the calculations involved.

Contextual Notes

Some calculations are left incomplete, and there are unresolved questions regarding the application of the product over sum rule and the treatment of line versus phase voltage in the context of power calculations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students studying electrical engineering, particularly those focusing on AC circuit analysis and transformations between delta and star configurations.

  • #31
brenfox said:
Hi, regarding question d. This is how I expressed my working out to get my answer (looking at the previous posts I now realize my answer is wrong but would like to know if my train of thought is correct)
Total impedance = 45+j45
In what way is that the "total impedance"? Total impedance of what?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
For part C would the circuit look like this (see picture) before I make it into 1 single Y load.
 

Attachments

  • Part C.PNG
    Part C.PNG
    817 bytes · Views: 647
  • #33
Spongecake said:
For part C would the circuit look like this (see picture) before I make it into 1 single Y load.
Part C also specifies: "...and with the star-points of the two Y-sub-circuits connected together," What do you suppose is meant by that?
 
  • #34
Would it be like this?
 

Attachments

  • d.JPG
    d.JPG
    9.8 KB · Views: 534
  • #35
Spongecake said:
Would it be like this?
That would be my interpretation, yes.
 
  • #36
ok brilliant i will give it a go. Thank you for your help gneill
 
  • #37
So i have worked out that each of the impedance's would be 7.5+j7.5
Is this correct?
 
  • #38
Spongecake said:
So i have worked out that each of the impedance's would be 7.5+j7.5
Is this correct?
Yes. But you could have verified this by checking the earlier parts of this thread.
 
  • #39
gneill said:
Yes. But you could have verified this by checking the earlier parts of this thread.

Hi Gneill,
Reading through the thread, I can't quite figure out why part (c) is the same as part (b). I have labelled up his drawing to reflect these calcs:
So Zy1=45+j45Ω
Zy2=ZΔ / 3 = 15+j15

Would each Y1 impedance not be in parallel with a Y2 impedance hence the calculation for part (c) would then be:
Zy combined = ((45+j45)(15+j15)) / ((45+j45)+(15+j15)) = j1350 / (60+j60)

j1350 / (60+j60) multiplied by conjugate = (81000+j81000) / 7200 = 11.25+j11.25 Ω
upload_2019-1-22_21-55-18.png
upload_2019-1-22_22-1-11.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-1-22_21-52-12.png
    upload_2019-1-22_21-52-12.png
    3.6 KB · Views: 331
  • upload_2019-1-22_21-55-18.png
    upload_2019-1-22_21-55-18.png
    4.4 KB · Views: 534
  • upload_2019-1-22_22-1-11.png
    upload_2019-1-22_22-1-11.png
    3 KB · Views: 551
  • #40
Jason-Li said:
Reading through the thread, I can't quite figure out why part (c) is the same as part (b). I have labelled up his drawing to reflect these calcs:
So Zy1=45+j45Ω
Zy2=ZΔ / 3 = 15+j15
Zy1 is not 45+j45Ω. It's the original given value of (15 + j15)Ω
 
  • #41
gneill said:
Zy1 is not 45+j45Ω. It's the original given value of (15 + j15)Ω

Sorry got a bit lost there, I follow you now and have gotten 7.5Ω.

One other query regarding part (d), I have calculated out the same procedure as mentioned earlier in this thread using P = 3VI for total power consumed, which gives 11481.667-j11481.667. Could I assume that the 'imaginary' number here is effectively Reactive power Q? So my final answer should be 11481.667W or 11.48kW?

I know you mentioned that real power is just P = VI but should that not be S = VI, hence using the two numbers I get for S = VI would then be reactive & real power rather than using P = VI which would be the wrong formula technically?
 
  • #42
Jason-Li said:
One other query regarding part (d), I have calculated out the same procedure as mentioned earlier in this thread using P = 3VI for total power consumed, which gives 11481.667-j11481.667. Could I assume that the 'imaginary' number here is effectively Reactive power Q? So my final answer should be 11481.667W or 11.48kW?
The imaginary part is the reactive power, yes. I think you might have forgotten to take the complex conjugate of the current when you calculated ##p = V I##, as the sign of the imaginary component is suspect (to me).

The final real power consumed is 11.48 kW as you've stated.

Jason-Li said:
I know you mentioned that real power is just P = VI but should that not be S = VI, hence using the two numbers I get for S = VI would then be reactive & real power rather than using P = VI which would be the wrong formula technically?
I'm not sure where this question comes from as it's been a long time since the thread has been active and I haven't re-read through all the posts.

You can calculate the complex power by ##S = V I^*##, where ##I^*## is the complex conjugate of the current ##I##. ##P = VI## wouldn't make sense if V and I are both complex numbers, as ##P## must be strictly real.
 
  • #43
gneill said:
You can calculate the complex power by S=VI∗S=VI∗S = V I^*, where I∗I∗I^* is the complex conjugate of the current III. P=VIP=VIP = VI wouldn't make sense if V and I are both complex numbers, as PPP must be strictly real.

I see, that does answer why it should be S = VI* thanks. Why is it you multiply by the conjugate? Would the negative Q value not mean it was leading?
 
  • #44
Jason-Li said:
Why is it you multiply by the conjugate? Would the negative Q value not mean it was leading?
It's related to the fact for finding the power you want the phase difference between the current and voltage. Say that the voltage phasor ##V## has some phase angle ##\phi_V## and the current phasor ##I## some phase angle ##\phi_I##. Multiplying these two phasors would yield ##|V||I|## with a phase angle of ##\phi_V + \phi_I##. But you want the phase difference, ##\phi_V - \phi_I##. Taking the complex conjugate of the current gives you this.

You should be able to find the mathematical derivation of the complex power in a textbook, or via google.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Jason-Li

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K