1
A Practical Approach to Power Factor
Definitions: Transmission Losses, Reactive
Power Compensation, and Machine Utilization
Francisco de León, Senior Member, IEEE, and José Cohen, Non Member
Abstract-- This paper presents an analysis of some of the defi-
nitions of power factor as applied to nonlinear and unbalanced
systems and gives alternatives to the use of a single power factor.
The three most important practical functions of power factor for
linear balanced circuits are the computation of the increment in
the transmission losses, the computation of the required reactive
compensation and the information to specify (or design) ma-
chines. So far, the three have not been considered simultaneously
for nonlinear and unbalanced circuits. In the paper we show that,
for the general case, the three purposes cannot be achieved con-
sistently with only one power factor. We propose alternatives that
are completely general and applicable to linear and/or nonlinear,
balanced and/or unbalanced circuits. In addition, we present a
strategy for the optimal reactive compensation that yields the
minimum transmission losses.
Index Terms-- Power Factor. Power Definitions. Nonlinear Sys-
tens. Three-Phase Unbalanced Systems. Transmission Losses.
Optimal Reactive Power Compensation. Machine Utilization.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE definition of powers, including power factor (PF), for
three-phase unbalanced and nonlinear systems has been
the cause of much discussion for more than 80 years [1]. In
the past ten years alone, more than 20 papers on power factor
and definitions of powers have been published. A few exam-
ples are references [2-16] and [27-38] where many different
mathematical expressions for powers and/or power factor are
given. Recently, the main thrust of the discussion can be at-
tributed to two different schools of thought, one from
Emanuel [10-13], [28-29] and the other from Czarnecki [14-
19] [27]. Another view is given by Shepherd and Zand [38]
and Sharon [5] who proposed a quality factor as a weighted
function of cos(φ1) and the current and voltage distortion fac-
tors. The lack of a generally accepted definition for power
factor is already discussed in books, see [20]. Practicing en-
gineers need reliable definitions of power factor because all
measuring devices work based on a given definition. Accurate
power factor definitions and metering are of paramount im-
portance since virtually all electric power supply companies
charge (or fine) when a customer’s power factor falls below
certain value.
F. de León is with CYME International T&D, 1485 Roberval, Suite 104
St-Bruno QC Canada J3V 3P8 (e-mail: fdeleongm@hotmail.com).
J. Cohen is with Departamento de Ingeniería Eléctrica, División de Estudios
de Posgrado, Facultad de Ingeniería – UNAM, 04510 - México, D.F., México
(e-mail: jcohenmex@hotmail.com).
1-4244-0493-2/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE.
Currently there is no consensus of which definition of
power factor should be used. We believe that one of the prob-
lems is the lack of physical existence of the variables involved
in most of them. Basically the definitions of powers and PF
proposed for nonlinear and unbalanced situations have been
“extended” from the linear case. Most use Fourier analysis
(although other mathematical tools have also been used) and
the physical meaning of the expressions is explained after-
wards. In our practical approach the definition of power fac-
tor starts from the physical quantities of engineering interest,
namely the increment in losses, the required amount of reac-
tive compensation and the machine utilization. We use three
individual factors to account for the effects of an ‘imperfect’
load on those three important parameters. A perfect load con-
sists of a balanced set of voltages and currents, mutually dis-
placed 120 degrees, that are sinusoidal and in phase. This
condition yields simultaneously the minimum losses in the
transmission system, the maximum utilization of machines
and requires no reactive power compensation. Any deviation
from this ideal situation produces extra expenses to the power
utility and must be accounted for accurately. So far, there is
no PF definition for general operating conditions capable of
performing the three functions simultaneously.
A. The Numerical Coincidences of Powers and Power Factor
in Linear Balanced Circuits
The entire power theory for balanced AC systems is based
on the fact that the instantaneous power p(t)=v(t)i(t) can be
decomposed into two (and only two) time varying and or-
thogonal functions. For nonlinear and/or unbalanced circuits
power can be (and frequently is) decomposed into more than
two terms. The traditional power theory complies (in average
only) with Poynting’s Theorem because the orthogonal func-
tions are precisely two, one of them, the active power, is al-
ways positive (or zero) and the other one, the reactive power,
has a zero average. Thus, for linear single-phase circuits the
following expressions apply
1T
P=
T0
∫ v(t ) i(t ) dt = Vrms Irms cos(φ )
Q = Vrms Irms sin (φ ) (1)
S = Vrms Irms
Engineers have found sound physical meaning to the prod-
uct Vrms Irms cos(φ) because it is numerically identical to the
average power P obtained from the integral. The reactive
power Q is defined as a by-product with sound uncontested
 2

tested meaning for linear and balanced circuits. In addition, II. TRANSMISSION LOSSES
because of the orthogonality of P and Q, all the tools of trigo- To supply a given load with average power P, any deviation
nometry apply and the important apparent power S also has a of the load from a pure resistance equal for all three phases
definite physical meaning. These numerical coincidences pro- increases the transmission losses (see Appendix for a proof).
duce a comprehensive power theory. In [21] we have exam-
No consensus has been reached on which definition of power
ined briefly the limitations of the physical meaning of this
factor and apparent power gives the true information when the
power decomposition. Czarnecki [27] has raised a set of ques-
system is unbalanced and/or nonlinear.
tions and problems with the definitions of powers and power
factor. For linear circuits, an important number called the Lyon in 1933 analyzed several physical interpretations of
power factor can be defined with two numerically equivalent power factor for linear balanced systems [22]. One of them is
expressions the ratio of the actual power to the greatest power that the
given effective current and the given potential can produce.
P
PF = = cos(φ ) (2) Another interesting interpretation of power factor, given by
S Buchholz, explained by Goodhue [23] and recently revived by
For sinusoidal and balanced conditions, PF of (2) can be used Emanuel [10], is the relation between the actual transmission
simultaneously for three very important practical functions. losses and the minimum possible transmission losses. This
First, it serves as a measure of the increase in the transmission concept has been included in the new IEEE Standard [29].
losses (actual losses = minimum losses / PF2 ) due to the
To account for the increase in transmission loses we de-
characteristics of the load. Second, Q has the information for
fine the loss factor Kp as the ratio between the actual trans-
the reactive compensation from Q = Vrms Irms sin(acos(PF)).
mission losses and the ideal condition, or minimum transmis-
Finally, it gives the utilization factor (or rating) of the power
sion losses
conversion equipment (S=P/PF).
Actual Transmissi on Losses
Kp = (4)
B. Extensions to Nonlinear and/or Unbalanced Circuits Minimum Transmissi on Losses
In attempts to extend the power factor definitions, applica-
Equation (4) is completely general and applicable to any
ble for linear circuits, to nonlinear circuits, researchers have
possible operating condition. Kp =1 only when the circuit is
used Fourier analysis to define powers. However, the defini-
linear, sinusoidal, balanced and the current and voltage are in
tions always show inconsistent physical meanings. Fourier
phase. Theoretical and numerical tools exist to compute with
analysis gives an infinite number of power terms that cannot
acceptable accuracy the transmission losses under linear, dis-
easily be clustered into two clearly defined powers. Therefore,
torted, balanced or unbalanced conditions. See for example
the definitions do not comply with Poynting’s Theorem where
[20] for modeling and computation details.
only two instantaneous components exist: consump-
For a nonlinear single-phase circuit, the definition of power
tion/generation and changes in storage of electric and mag-
factor given in (3) can be used to compute the increase in the
netic energy. Among other powers that do not have physical
transmission losses when they are proportional to Irms2 and
existence in Maxwell’s terms are: distortion, non-active, ficti-
Vrms2. The minimum transmission losses are
tious and scattered. The following definitions still have sound 2
physical meaning: 2 ⎛ P ⎞
P loss min = R Irms min =R ⎜ ⎟ (5)
T ∞ ⎝ Vrms ⎠
1
P= ∫ v(t ) i(t ) dt = ∑ Vrmsn Irmsn cos(φn )
T 0
The actual transmission losses are
n =0
S = Vrms Irms (3) P lossactual = R Irms 2 (6)
P Dividing (6) by (5) we have
PF =
S 2 2 2
P lossactual Irms ⎛ Vrms Irms ⎞ ⎛ S⎞ 1
Kp= = =⎜ ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ = (7)
However, Q can take many forms and PF of (3) can no P lossmin 2
Irmsmin ⎝ P ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
P PF 2
longer be used for reactive compensation. This PF still has the
information of the increase in transmission losses when the For a linear three-phase unbalanced circuit, the transmis-
losses are proportional to Irms2 and Vrms2. sion losses are:
For unbalanced situations, the definitions become even P lossactual = R ( Irmsa2 + Irmsb2 + Irmsc2 ) (8a)
more problematic. Frequently, symmetrical components are The minimum losses are obtained when the circuit is balanced
combined with Fourier analysis to define powers. Therefore, and the currents are in phase with the voltage (see Appendix),
many formulas for P, Q, S, PF, and so on, with different prop- therefore the minimum losses are
erties and physical meanings have been proposed. Their 2
⎛ P ⎞
physical existence has been largely discussed [1-38]. In their P loss min = 3 R Irms min
2
= 3 R ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
(8b)
book [38], Shepherd and Zand state, ‘The distortion voltam- ⎝ 3 Vrms ⎠
peres, D, like the reactive voltamperes, Q; has no independ- Vrms is the phase to neutral voltage and P is the three-phase
ent physical existence. Any such decomposition of SS is en- active power flowing in the line. The loss factor Kp, when the
tirely mathematical and subject to the whims and interpreta- voltage is balanced and the current is unbalanced, is obtained
tion of individuals’. by the ratio of Plossactual over Plossmin
 3

2 2 2 2 Under linear conditions, the temperature of the hot spot is

P loss actual 3 Vrms ( Irms a + Irmsb + Irmsc )
Kp = = (9)
2 proportional to Irms2 and therefore:
P loss min P
When the phase voltages are unbalanced and the losses are
Pmaxideal 1
proportional to the voltages we get Km = =Kp = (12)
Pactual PF 2
(Vrmsa2 + Vrmsb2 + Vrmsc2 ) ( Irmsa2 + Irmsb2 + Irmsc2 ) 1 (10)
Kp = = For nonlinear conditions the eddy currents produce a very
2 PF 2
P different thermal distribution and Km ≠ Kp.
where the power can be computed from the phase voltages (to
neutral) and the phase currents from:
IV. REACTIVE COMPENSATION
T The most conflicting of all power definitions for nonlinear
1
[va(t ) ia(t ) + vb(t ) ib(t) + vc(t ) ic(t)] dt
T ∫0
P= and unbalanced circuits has been the reactive power Q. Most
of the available definitions fail to give a consistent physical
Equation (10), which includes a definition of S, has been meaning. Moreover, they cannot be used to compute the ade-
proposed in [10]. For most applications, equation (10) yields quate capacitor that would minimize the losses or the size of
acceptable results; however, one should be aware of its limita- the energy conversion equipment.
tions. The series resistance is assumed to be independent of We propose a reactive compensation factor as follows:
frequency. When dealing with sharp distortions or high fre- Actual Transmission Losses
Kc = (13)
quency harmonics, this assumption might not be accurate Minimum Transmission Losses after Reactive Compensati on
enough. Similarly, the shunt losses assume a constant conduc-
In most cases, connecting a shunt capacitor with the load re-
tance, but neither hysteresis nor eddy losses are always truly duces the transmission losses. Detailed modeling and exten-
proportional to the square of the rms voltage (or flux density). sive simulation can be used to calculate the value of the com-
The field penetration effects and minor loops are not consid- pensating capacitor or inductor.
ered in (10). When the transmission losses can be assumed as produced
by a constant series resistance, and therefore proportional to
Irms2, we can compute the shut capacitor that would minimize
III. MACHINE UTILIZATION losses (see Fig. 1). Under those circumstances Kc would be
The capacity of generators and transformers cannot be fully 2
Irmsactual
utilized when the load they supply is not perfect (linear and Kc =2
(13)
IrmsN
balanced). All machines are rated in terms of apparent power
Where IrmsN is the rms current after compensating. The in-
(in voltamperes) rather than active or average power (W).
stantaneous compensated line current (according to KCL) is
This recognizes that for linear conditions the winding losses
are proportional to the square of the current at 50/60 Hz. Cur- d
i N (t ) = i(t ) + icap (t ) = i (t ) + C
v(t ) (14)
rently, there is no need to rate machines in terms of apparent dt
power (S) since accurate designs must consider the real After compensation the rms line current as a function of the
characteristics of the current. shunt capacitor is
The K-rating of transformers is commonly used to estimate 2
the derating of a transformer when it is subjected to nonlinear 1T 2 1 T⎡ d ⎤
Irms N (C ) = ∫ i N (t ) dt = ∫ i (t ) + C dt v(t )⎥ dt (15)
situations. The K-rating of transformers has been misleading T0 T 0 ⎢⎣ ⎦
[24], and it is in fact wrong. The loss of life in a power trans- We take the derivative with respect to C to minimize
former is directly related to the temperature of the hot spot, IrmsN(C). The capacitor that yields the minimum compen-
which the K-rating does not consider. Perhaps a finite element sated rms current is given by
simulation considering the electromagnetic and thermal fields T
⎡ d ⎤
simultaneously could be the best way to estimate the machine ∫ ⎢i (t ) dt v(t )⎥ dt
utilization factor. C =− 0 ⎣ 2
⎦ (16)
We propose the use of a machine utilization factor Km as a
T
⎡d ⎤
∫ ⎢ dt v(t )⎥ dt
measure of the increase in the machine size caused by the 0 ⎣ ⎦
particularities of the load. For example, due to the characteris- There have been previous attempts to minimize the reac-
tics of a non-ideal load a machine can supply a maximum av- tive power, see for example [25] and [26]. However, there are
erage power Pactual. Under ideal conditions the same machine important differences in the way the compensating capacitor
is able to supply a larger load with an average power is calculated. In this paper, we compute the capacitor that
Pmaxideal. A machine utilization factor Km is defined as yields the minimum transmission losses after compensation.
Pmaxideal In [25] and [26] a given definition for reactive power or cur-
Km = (11) rent, is minimized.
Pactual
 4

V. EXAMPLES
In Table 1 we present several single-phase examples. The
iN(t) i(t) instantaneous voltage is v(t) = √2 (100) sin (ω t) for all cases.
They all have an average power P = 5000 [W]. The first case
icap(t) (Figure 2a) shows the ideal conditions, Kp = Kc = 1, C = 0, and
thus Irms = IrmsN. The next column (case b) corresponds to a
v(t) C Load linear series R-L load. Note that PF = cos (φ1), and Kp = Kc. In
addition, the optimal reactive compensation reduces the com-
pensated rms current to its minimum.
Case “c” corresponds to a single-wave rectifier supplying a
resistive load. As we expected PF ≠ cos (φ1), with Kp = 2 and
Fig.1. Circuit for shunt reactive compensation
Kc = 1. Note that while the transmission losses double, no
shunt capacitor reduces the rms current drawn from the line.
The case when the voltage is sinusoidal is very important,
The circuit cannot be compensated for reactive power. The
representing the desired operating conditions. In addition,
next column (case d) is when the half-wave rectifier supplies
when the voltage is non-sinusoidal many other operating and
an RL load. Now a shunt capacitor is capable of reducing the
billing issues arrive. Thus, if v(t) = V sin(ωt), the capacitor for rms current drawn from the line. The minimum possible IrmsN
optimal compensation is computed from is obtained by computing the capacitor with (16).
2 1T
∫ [i (t ) cos(ωt )] dt
The case of Figure 2e corresponds to back-to-back SCRs
C =− (17)
ωV T0 with symmetrical fire angles at α = π / 2 and α = 3π / 2 feed-
ing a restive load. Even though the load is purely resistive, we
If the current is produced by a linear circuit and given by
find a shunt capacitor that reduces the rms current. Contrast
i(t) = I sin(ωt+φ), the capacitor that reduces the rms current this with the next case (f) where we have two GTO feeding a
of the circuit is
resistive load. The conduction is from π/4 to 3π/4 and 5π/4 to
I Irms 7π/4. Note that now it is not possible to reduce the rms cur-
C=− sin (φ ) = − sin (φ ) (18)
ωV ω Vrms rent with a shunt capacitor. We can proven that for discon-
tinuous current, shunt reactive compensation is only possible
From where one can easily find the traditional reactive
when the current reaches or goes beyond the voltage zero
power Q as
crossing on both semi cycles. Energy can be exchanged be-
Q = S sin (φ ) = Vrms Irms sin (φ ) = − Vrms 2 ω C (19) tween the load and the compensating capacitor or inductor
We note that for the linear case C and Q have many numeri- only when a continuous path can be established.
cally equivalent expressions. When the resulting capacitor has An arbitrary nonlinear continuous case (g) is presented for
a negative value, it should be interpreted that an inductor is illustration. In the table we give its Fourier coefficients, The
needed instead of a capacitor. The value of such inductor last column (h) of Table 1 shows the case of a series R-C
would be load. The calculated shunt capacitor for optimal compensation
is negative. Therefore, what we need is a shunt inductor. Ac-
1
L= 2 (20) cording to (20) its value is L = 6.32 mH.
ω C Table 2 shows three-phase cases with average power of 15
kW. The first column is the ideal case of a resistive and bal-

Linear Linear Nonlinear Nonlinear SCR GTO (R) h ⎮i⎮[A] θ [rad] Linear
DR DRL R = 1 Ω π/4 - 3π/4 1 81.65 -0.524
R= 1.174 Ω R=0.7094 Ω α = π / 2 5π/4 - 7π/4 3 25 -0.33 R= 1.174 Ω
R=2Ω L= 2.61 mH R=1Ω L= 1.5 mH 5 -10 -0.11 C=2.69 mF
Irms [A] 50 65.27 70.71 83.95 70.71 55.28 60.79 65.27
Irms1 [A] 50 65.27 50 58.85 59.27 50 57.74 65.27
S = Vrms Irms [VA] 5000 6527 7701 8395 7701 5528 6079 6527
PF = P / S 1 0.766 0.707 0.596 0.707 0.904 0.822 0.766
cos (φ1) 1 0.766 1 0.85 0.567 1 0.866 0.766
Kp= 1 / PF2 1 1.704 2 2.819 2 1.222 1.478 1.704
C [µF] Eq. (16) 0 1113 0 823 844 0 766 -1113
IrmsN [A] Eq. (15) 50 50 70.71 78 63.14 55.28 535 50
Kc Eq. (13) 1 1.704 1 1.158 1.254 1 1.291 1.704
Case – Figure a – 2a b – 2b c – 2c d – 2d e –2e f – 2f g – 2g h – 2h
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF LINEAR AND NONLINEAR CASES WHEN P=5000 W.
 5
200 200
anced load. The second column shows the case when phase
“a” is open. Note that the apparent power definition implicit
0 0
in (10) can be used for the computation of the transmission
loss increase. Also note that it is not possible to find a shunt
200
capacitor able to provide reactive compensation. The next 200
0 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.02
column presents the case when the load is linear (R-L) and (a) (b)
unbalanced. Once again the apparent power of (10) can be
200
used to predict the increase in the transmission losses. This 200

case can be fully compensated with the capacitors given in the

table. The last column shows the balanced case of three 0 0
GTO’s, the three-phase case of Figure 2f, feeding a resistive
load. It is not possible to provide reactive compensation for 200 200
0 0.01 0.02
this case. 0 0.01 0.02

(c) (d)

200 200
TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF THREE-PHASE CASES (P=15 KW).

0 0
Ideal Open Linear GTO’s
Phase a Unbalanced Balanced
Irmsa [A] 50 0 65.27 (-40°) 55.29 200 200
Irmsb [A] 50 75 53.20 (-20°) 55.29 0 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.02

Irmsc [A] 50 75 100 (-60°) 55.29 (e) (f)

SA* [VA] 15000 15000 21848 16587
SV**[VA] 15000 18371 26987 16587 200 200

Kpa 1 0 1.704 1.222

Kpb 1 2.25 1.132 1.222 0 0
Kpc 1 2.25 4 1.222
Kp 1 1.5 2.279 1.222
SV2 / P2 1 1.5 2.279 1.222 200 200
0 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.02
Ca [µF] 0 0 1113 0
Cb [µF] 0 0 483 0 (g) (h)
Cc [µF] 0 0 2297 0
Figure 2. Voltage and current for the different cases.
Kca 1 1 1.704 1
- - - Voltage
Kcb 1 1 1.132 1 ––– Current
Kcc 1 1 4 1
IrmsNa [A] 50 0 50 55.29
IrmsNb [A] 50 75 50 55.29
IrmsNc [A] 50 75 50 55.29 VII. APPENDIX - MINIMUM TRANSMISSION LOSSES
* SA =Vrmsa Irmsa + Vrmsb Irmsb + Vrmsc Irmsc Theorem: If the transmission losses are proportional to
**SV2 = (Vrmsa2 + Vrmsb2 + Vrmsc2) (Vrmsa2 + Vrmsb2 + Vrmsc2) Irms2, for a given load with average power P and sinusoidal
SA is the arithmetic apparent power while SV is the vector (or geomet- voltage v(t), any deviation of the load from a pure resistance
rical) apparent power as defined in the IEEE Std. 1459-2000 [38]. and equal in all three phases produces an increment in the
transmission losses. We will use two lemmas to prove the
theorem.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
We have presented an engineering approach to the defini- Lemma 1: If the transmission losses are proportional to
tion of power factor applicable to nonlinear and unbalanced Irms2, for a given average power P and sinusoidal voltage v(t),
circuits. For these circuits we account individually for three any deviation of the load from a pure resistance increases the
very important engineering functions: the increase of trans- transmission losses.
mission losses, the increase in machine rating and the needed
reactive compensation caused by the particularities of the
load. While for linear and balanced circuits the information Proof: Let the instantaneous voltage and current be:
for the three functions is contained in the standard power fac- v(t ) = V1 sin ( ωt + α 1 )
tor, PF = P/S= cos(φ), for nonlinear and/or unbalanced cir- ∞ (21)
cuits we need to use three independent factors. One factor is i(t ) = ∑ I n sin(nω t + β n )
n=0
used for the information on the increase of transmission
losses, a second one for sizing machines and a third one for The average (or active) power is (with φ1 = β1 - α1):
the information on reactive power compensation. We have 1T 1
also proposed an optimal reactive compensation technique
P= ∫ v (t ) i (t ) dt = 2 V1 I1 cos(φ1 ) = Vrms1 Irms1 cos(φ1 ) (22)
T0
that minimizes the compensated rms line current yielding the
The losses in the transmission system resistance are propor-
minimum transmission losses.
tional to Irms2 expressed as:
 6

⎛1T ⎞ ∞ The solution of (32) gives Irmsb = Irmsc. A different re-

PR = R Irms 2 = R ⎜⎜ ∫ i(t ) 2 dt ⎟⎟ = R ∑ Irms n2
⎝T 0 ⎠ n=0
We note that all terms in (23) are positive. The objective of
the power system supplier is to maximize P while minimizing
PR. To minimize PR we see that each Irmsn term should be
minimized. Thus the ideal conditions are when
min{Irms1 } n =1
Irms n = 0 ∀ n ≠ 1
Equation (24) implies that the system is linear since all
harmonics, with exception of the fundamental, need to be
zero. From (22) we have that
P Alternating Methods of Power Resolution in a Large Industrial Plant”,
Irms1 =
Vrms1 cos(φ1 )
The minimum Irms1 for a given power P at a determined volt-
age Vrms1 is when cos(φ1) = maximum = 1. Thus φ1=0 and
therefore the current must be in phase with the voltage. This
situation is characteristic of a resistive load.
Lemma 2: If the transmission losses are proportional to
Irms2 and equal in all three phases for a given load P, any
unbalance in the current produces an increment in the trans-
mission losses.
Proof: The total losses in the transmission systems are
given by
PT = R Irms a2 + R Irms b2 + R Irms c2
Above we have shown that the minimum losses in a single-
phase circuit are obtained when the current is in phase with
the voltage. For those conditions the instantaneous power is
given by:
p (t ) = v a (t ) i a (t ) + v b (t ) ib (t ) + v c (t ) i c (t )
2 2 2 (27)
p (t ) = VI a sin (ωt ) + VI b sin (ωt + 2π / 3) + VI c sin (ωt + 4π / 3)
We have assumed that the voltages are perfectly balanced.
The average three-phase active power flowing in the line P,
for a Vrms phase to neutral voltage, is given by
P = Vrms ( Irms a + Irmsb + Irmsc )
Thus for a constant power delivered and a constant applied
voltage we have
Irms a + Irms b + Irms c = K
where K is a constant defined by the target average power and
the applied voltage. We can re-arrange (29) as
Irms a = K − Irms b − Irms c
Substituting (30) in (26) we get
(23)
arrangement of (29) yields Irmsa = Irmsb. Therefore we arrive
to the expected result that to minimize the transmission losses
the load needs to be balanced, or
Irms a = Irms b = Irms c (33)
(24)
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] Preliminary Report of the Special Joint Committee, “Power Factor in Poly-
phase Circuits”, AIEE Transactions, July 1920, pp. 1449-1450. Compan-
ion papers and discussions extent to page 1520.
[2] J.H.C. Pretorius, J.D. Van Wyk, and P.H. Swart, “An Evaluation of Some
(25) IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 15, No. 3, July 2000, pp.
1052-1059.
[3] F. Ghassemi, “New Concept in AC Power Theory”, IEE Proceedings on
Generation, Transmission, and Distribution, Vol. 147, No. 6, November
2000, pp. 417-424.
[4] E. Wilczynski, “Total Apparent Power of the Electrical System for Peri-
odic, Deformed Waveforms”, IEEE Proceedings on Electric Power Ap-
plications, Vol. 147, No. 4, July 200, pp. 281-285.
[5] D. Sharon, “Power Factor Definitions and Power Transfer Quality in
Nonsinusoidal Situations”, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and
Measurement, Vol. 45, No. 3, June 1996, pp. 728-733.
[6] P. Salmerón and J.C. Montaño, “Instantaneous Power Components in
Polyphase Systems Under Nonsinusoidal Conditions”, IEE Proceeding on
Science Measurements and Technology, Vol. 143, No.2, March 1996, pp.
151-155.
[7] P.S. Filipski, Y. Baghzouz, and M.D. Cox, “Discussion of Power Defini-
tions Contained in the IEEE Dictionary”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 3, July 1994, pp. 1237-1244.
(26) [8] A. Ferrero and G. Supeti-Furga, “A New Approach to the Definition of
Power Components in Three-Phase Systems Under Nonsinusoidal Condi-
tions”, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. 40,
No. 3, June 1991, pp. 568-577.
[9] M.T. Chen, H.Y. Chu, C.L. Huang, and L.W. Fei, “Power-Component
Definitions and Measurements for a Harmonic-Polluted Power Circuit”,
IEE Proceedings-C, Vol. 138, No. 4, July 1991, pp. 299-306.
[10] A.E. Emanuel, “The Buchholz-Goodhue Apparent Power Definition: The
Practical Approach for Nonsinusoidal and Unbalanced Systems”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 13, No.2, April 1998, pp. 344-350.
[11] A.E. Emanuel, “On the Definition of Power Factor and Apparent Power in
Unbalanced Polyphase Circuits with Sinusoidal Voltage and Currents”,
IEEE Transactions of Power Delivery, Vol. 8, No.3, July 1993, pp. 841-
852.
[12] IEEE Working Group on Nonsinusoidal Situations: Effect on Meter Per-
(28) formance and Definitions of Power, “Practical Definitions for Powers in
Systems with Nonsinusoidal Waveforms and Unbalanced Loads: A Dis-
cussion”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 11, No. 1, January
1996, pp. 79-101.
[13] A.E. Emanuel, “Powers in Nonsinusoidal Situations. A Review of Defini-
(29) tions and Physical Meaning”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol.
5, No. 3, July 1990, pp. 1377-1389.
[14] L.S. Czarnecki, “Comments on Active Power Flow and Energy Accounts in
Electrical Systems with Nonsinusoidal Waveforms and Asymmetry”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 11, No. 3, July 1996, pp. 1244-
(30) 1250.
[15] L.S. Czarnecki, “Power Related Phenomena in Three-Phase Unbalanced
Systems”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 10, No. 3, July

PT = R K { 2 2 2
+ Irms b + Irms c − 2 K Irms b − 2 K Irms c + Irms b Irms c }(31) 1995, pp. 1168-1176.
[16] L.S. Czarnecki, “Misinterpretation of Some Power Properties of Electric
Circuits”, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 9, No. 4, October
To minimize the transmission losses, we take the derivative 1994, pp. 1760-1769.
with respect to the rms currents as follows: [17] L.S. Czarnecki, “What is Wrong with the Budeanu Concept of Reactive
and Distortion Power and Why It should be Abandoned”, IEEE Transac-
∂ PT 2K
= 0 → 4 Irmsb + Irmsc = tions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. IM-36, No. 3, Septem-
∂ Irmsb R ber 1987, pp. 834-837.
(32) [18] L.S. Czarnecki, “Considerations on the Reactive Power in Nonsinusoidal
∂ PT 2K
= 0 → Irmsb + 4 Irmsc = Situations”, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement,
∂ Irmsc R Vol. IM-34, No. 3, September 1985, pp. 399-404.
 7

[19] L.S. Czarnecki, “Minimization of Reactive Power under Nonsinusoidal Francisco de León (S’86, M’92, SM’02) was
Conditions”, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, born in Mexico City in 1959. He received the
Vol. IM-36, No. 1, March 1987, pp. 18-22. B.Sc. and the M.Sc. (summa cum laude) degrees in
[20] J. Arrillaga, N.R. Watson, and S. Chen, “Power System Quality Assess- Electrical Engineering from the National
ment”, John Wiley & Sons, 2000, Chapter 3. Polytechnic Institute (Mexico), in 1983 and 1986
[21] J. Cohen, F. de León, and L.M. Hernández, “Physical Time Domain Rep- respectively, and obtained his Ph.D. degree from
resentation of Powers in Linear and Nonlinear Electrical Circuits”, IEEE the University of Toronto, Canada, in 1992. He
Transaction on Power Delivery, Vol. 14, No. 4, October 1999, pp. 1240- has held several academic positions in Mexico and
1249. has worked for the Canadian electric industry.
[22] W.V. Lyon, “Reactive Power and Power Factor”, AIEE Transactions, Currently working with CYME International
Vol. 52, September 1933, pp. 763-770. Companion papers and discussions T&D, he develops professional grade software for
extend from page 744 to 801. power and distribution systems.
[23] W.M. Goodhue, “Discussion to Reactive Power and Power Factor”, AIEE
Transactions, Vol. 52, September 1933, pp. 787.
[24] L.W. Piece, “Transformer Design and Application Considerations for
Nonsinusoidal Load Currents”, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applica- José Cohen was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina
tions, Vol. 32, No. 3, May/June 1996, pp. 633-645. in 1951. He received his B.Sc. in Electronic
[25] L. Czarnecki, “Minimization of Reactive Power under Nonsinosidal Con- Engineering from Instituto Politécnico Nacional,
ditions”, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol. Mexico in 1983. He obtained his M.Sc. and Ph.D.
IM-36, No. 1, March 1987, pp. 18-22. from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
[26] D. Sharon, “Reactive-Power Definitions and Power-Factor Improvement (UNAM) in 1990 and 1999 respectively.
in nonlinear Systems”, IEE Proceedings, Vol. 120, No. 6, June 1973, pp. Currently, he is a professor in the School of
704-706. Engineering at UNAM. His main interests are in
[27] L. Czarnecki, “On Some Misinterpretations of the Instantaneous Reactive power electronics, clean energy and electronic
Power p-q Theory” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, Vol. 19, No. instrumentation.
3, May 2004, pp. 828-836.
[28] A. Emanuel, “Summary of IEEE Standard 1459: Definitions for the Meas-
urement of Electric Power Quantities Under Sinusoidal, Nonsinusoidal,
Balanced, or Unbalanced Conditions”, IEEE Transactions on Industry Ap-
plications, Vol. 40, No. 3, May/June 2004, pp. 869-876.
[29] IEEE Std. 1459-2000, “IEEE Trial-Use Standard Definitions for the
Measurement of Electric Power Quantities under Sinusoidal, Non-
sinusoidal, Balanced or Unbalanced Conditions”.
[30] H. Lev-Ari and A. Stankovic, ”Hilbert Space Techniques for Modeling
and Compensation of Reactive Power in Energy Processing Systems”,
IEEE Transactions on Circuits And Systems—I: Fundamental Theory and
Applications, Vol. 50, No. 4, April 2003, pp. 540- 556.
[31] T. Zheng, E. Makram, and A. Girgis, “Evaluating Power System Unbal-
ance in The Presence of Harmonic Distortion”, IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, Vol. 18, No. 2, April 2003, pp. 393- 397.
[32] T.H. Fu and C.J. Wu. “Load Characteristics Analysis of ac and dc Arc
Furnaces Using Various Power Definitions and Statistic Method”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 17, No. 4, October 2002, pp. 1099-
1105.
[33] F. Ghassemi, “New Concept in AC Power Theory”, IEE Proceedings on
Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Vol. 147, No. 6, November
2003, pp. 417-424.
[34] E. Wilczynski, “Total Apparent Power of The Electrical System For Peri-
odic, Deformed Waveforms”, ”, IEE Proceedings on Power Applications,
Vol. 147, No. 4, July 2000, pp. 281-285.
[35] S.J. Jeon,” Definitions of Apparent Power and Power Factor in a Power
System Having Transmission Lines With Unequal Resistance”, IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 20, No. 3, July 2005, pp. 1806 –
1811.
[36] J.L. Willems, “Reflections on Apparent Power and Power Factor in Nonsi-
nusoidal and Polyphase Situations”, IEEE Transactions on Power Deliv-
ery, Vol. 20, No. 3, July 2005, pp. 1806 – 1811.
[37] J.L. Willems, JA. Ghijselen and A.E. Emanuel, “The Apparent Power
Concept and the IEEE Standard 1459-2000”, IEEE Transactions on Power
Delivery, Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2005, pp. 876-884.
[38] W. Shepherd and P. Zand, “Energy Flow and Power Factor in Nonsinusoi-
dal Circuits”, Cambridge University Press, 1979.