CI exam test 2 question 12, voltage drop

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Sparky Bill PE

Senior, Master, Professional, Licensed Electrical
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
303
Reaction score
149
Location
Chattanooga TN
Does anyone else get the same answer they do? I get closer to D. Why aren't they finding the "Z effective Impedance" instead of just using R and X?
image.png

image.png

 
which Z effective impedance are you using? The table 9 value at 0.85pf? Or did you somehow modify that Z value to 0.75pf?

Also, are you using the same equation as the solution: "V1=V-IZ" where I is the complex current value? If so, the answer does not come out closer to D even if you use the Z effective value from the table, its closer to 590.9A.

 
I used X = .04, and R = .038, then did .038cos(41.4)+.04sin(41.4) = .055. Then (.055*500)/1000 = .027. I*Z = 6.3 V, 600v -6.3 . 

 
All of their voltage drop solutions they just multiple R and X times the distance divided by 1000. They never mention Z or convert. I don't know why they aren't doing it, and am I supposed to be doing it? Every voltage drop problem I solve rather it be single phase or 3 phase involves a Z. 

 
Most of the practice exam problems that I've done involving NEC Chapter 9 Table 9 use the R and X values per unit length, instead of the effective Z at pf = 0.85.

I believe at one point there was kind of a debate between whether to use the R and X values or whether to use the effective Z value and convert it. But most problem solutions that I have seen involving Chapter 9 Table 9 use the individual R and X values instead the effective Z values at pf = 0.85, for higher accuracy.

 
Also, one more thing about the effective Z value. The table values listed for Z eff are specifically to be used ONLY for pf = 0.85. These listed table values cannot be listed for another pf value.

But, if you look closely at the notes under the end of Chapter 9 Table 9, you can use an alternate Z eff (per unit length) that can be calculated using:

Z eff = R cos(theta) + X sin(theta),

Where theta = arc cos(PF)

Hope this helps.

 
I'm not talking about .85 effective Z values. I'm talking about using the formula of Rcostheta+Xsintheta to obtain a Z. Then use your lengths to get the Z effective. I don't see how that path is ever the "wrong" path and when I "can't" use it. 

 
I'm not talking about .85 effective Z values. I'm talking about using the formula of Rcostheta+Xsintheta to obtain a Z. Then use your lengths to get the Z effective. I don't see how that path is ever the "wrong" path and when I "can't" use it. 
I just saw an explanation a few days ago from Zach's Oct 2020 live class that basically this Z eff value using R cos(theta) + X sin(theta) is just an approximation. The individual R and X values from the table for each conductor are more accurate than the Z eff value, from what I understand.

Maybe if Zach Stone sees this post, he can elaborate more on this. This is the best I can explain it...

 
I'm not talking about .85 effective Z values. I'm talking about using the formula of Rcostheta+Xsintheta to obtain a Z. Then use your lengths to get the Z effective. I don't see how that path is ever the "wrong" path and when I "can't" use it. 
I see and agree with your method not being wrong, until someone is able to explain why. Maybe email Complex Imaginary with this question for clarity

 
Back
Top