AC circuit analysis -- mesh and nodal

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
187 replies · 60K views
gneill said:
If you do a KVL "walk" around the second loop in a clockwise fashion, does v3 cause a potential rise or a potential drop?
V3 will cause a potential drop due to assumed current (clockwise) and it passing from + to - on the source.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have redrawn the polarity of impedances and voltage sources in the attached image.

Mesh 1 -

v1 - (z1)(I1) - (z4)(i1 - i2) = 0

v1 - (2)(i1) + (5j)(i1) -(5j)i2 = 0

120 = (2 - 5j)i1 + (5j)i2

Mesh 2

-v3 - (z5)(i2 - i3) - (z4)(i2 - i1)

-v3 -(4j)(i2) +(4j)(i3) +(5j)(i2) - (5j)(i1)

-v3 = +(4j)(i2) - (4j)(i3) -(5j)(i2) +(5j)(i1)


-14.14 - 14.14j = + (5j)(i1) - (1j)(i2) -(4j)i3



Mesh 3 -

-v2 - (z5)(i3 - i2) - (z3(i3)

-v2 -(4j)(i3) +(4j)(i2) - (4j)(i3)

-120j = -(4j)(i2) + (4 +4j)(i3)the answers are slightly diffrerent from last time but still no joy in the spreadsheet
 

Attachments

  • Polarity and current direction.png
    Polarity and current direction.png
    42.7 KB · Views: 914
  • new results spreadsheet.png
    new results spreadsheet.png
    29.4 KB · Views: 905
donpacino said:
wow... your equation for mesh two is not correct.
are you probing for someone to do just your work for you?
you have been told multiple times that there is a problem with your equation for mesh 2. Its hard to be more clear.

gneill said:
If you do a KVL "walk" around the second loop in a clockwise fashion, does v3 cause a potential rise or a potential drop?

Thanks for the help, for some reason. the spreadsheet given to me just is not calculating the mesh currents. i have tried an internet calculator and it calculates it just fine.
 

Attachments

  • correct results matrix.png
    correct results matrix.png
    7.2 KB · Views: 1,012
brabbit87 said:
Thanks for the help, for some reason. the spreadsheet given to me just is not calculating the mesh currents. i have tried an internet calculator and it calculates it just fine.

I had a similar problem with the spreadsheet.

I'm currently working through the nodal analysis..

I have got to..

[itex]V_20(1/Z_1+1/Z_4+1/Z_3+1/Z_5)+(V_1/Z_1-V_3/Z_3-V_3/Z_5)[/itex]

is this correct...I'm struggling to simply further. My next step is to solve for values in brackets. Minus second brackets, divide by 1st brackets... I hope that's clear?! am i on the right lines?
 
ProfNut said:
I had a similar problem with the spreadsheet.

I'm currently working through the nodal analysis..

I have got to..

[itex]V_20(1/Z_1+1/Z_4+1/Z_3+1/Z_5)+(V_1/Z_1-V_3/Z_3-V_3/Z_5)[/itex]

is this correct...I'm struggling to simply further. My next step is to solve for values in brackets. Minus second brackets, divide by 1st brackets... I hope that's clear?! am i on the right lines?
Like gneil had said to me previous to now. I had mixed my directions up going into the supernode.

I drew current arrows into the supernode and did the 4 equations based on that. And simplified. Bearing in mind you need an initial equation for v30 to substitute into it.

Hope it helps
 
brabbit87 said:
Like gneil had said to me previous to now. I had mixed my directions up going into the supernode.

I drew current arrows into the supernode and did the 4 equations based on that. And simplified. Bearing in mind you need an initial equation for v30 to substitute into it.

Hope it helps

My initial equations:

[itex](V_20-V_1/Z_1)+(V_20/Z_4)+(V_30-V_2/Z_3)+(V_30/V_5)=0[/itex]
And;
[itex] V_30=V_20-V_5[/itex]

Subsitute;

[itex](V_20-V_1/Z_1)+(V_20/Z_4)+(V_20-V_5/Z_3)-(V_2/Z_3)+(V_20-V_5/Z_5)-(V_3/z_5)=0[/itex]
 
ProfNut said:
My initial equations:

[itex](V_20-V_1/Z_1)+(V_20/Z_4)+(V_30-V_2/Z_3)+(V_30/V_5)=0[/itex]
And;
[itex] V_30=V_20-V_5[/itex]

Subsitute;

[itex](V_20-V_1/Z_1)+(V_20/Z_4)+(V_20-V_5/Z_3)-(V_2/Z_3)+(V_20-V_5/Z_5)-(V_3/z_5)=0[/itex]
Can't really see the equation as I'm on the phone app. But you know the current from the mesh analysis. So you can compare and tinker.
 
Hi gneill, I am having a little trouble with the matrix spread sheet when entering my values. I have read through this forum and notice that my answers are the same as that in post #31 and #33 which you say are correct. But when i put these figures into the matrix spread sheet it is incorrect. I noticed in post #73 that you suggested in loop 2 the -jI2 should in fact be a jI2. my calculations for loops two are as below;

-(14.142-j14.142)+(-j5)I1-(j4+(-j5)I2+j4I3

(-14.142-j14.142)=j5I2-jI2-j4I3

Thanks

Screen Shot 2015-11-12 at 20.42.46.png
 
HI Hndstudent. As far as I can see the values that you show entered in the spreadsheet look fine. There should be no reason why it cannot solve it assuming that the spreadsheet itself is properly coded.

I see that the spreadsheet displays det(R) = 0 and det(X) = 0. If the spreadsheet is rejecting the problem because of zero determinants here, then it is incorrect. For while those determinants are indeed zero, it is more important that det(R + jX) be nonzero, which it is.
 
gneill said:
HI Hndstudent. As far as I can see the values that you show entered in the spreadsheet look fine. There should be no reason why it cannot solve it assuming that the spreadsheet itself is properly coded.

I see that the spreadsheet displays det(R) = 0 and det(X) = 0. If the spreadsheet is rejecting the problem because of zero determinants here, then it is incorrect. For while those determinants are indeed zero, it is more important that det(R + jX) be nonzero, which it is.
I gneill, the spreadsheet is off the Universities Blackboard. Would you recommend that I contact them and inform them that there is a problem with it? Or is there something that i can do to fix it?

Thanks
 
Hndstudent said:
I gneill, the spreadsheet is off the Universities Blackboard. Would you recommend that I contact them and inform them that there is a problem with it? Or is there something that i can do to fix it?

Thanks
I'm not familiar with the spreadsheet so I don't know how its implemented, or what Excel skill set would be required to debug it. It may be doing the heavy lifting in macros. It may be best to contact the University to see if they've had other reports on it.

Myself I use MathCad to solve these sorts of things.
 
gneill said:
I'm not familiar with the spreadsheet so I don't know how its implemented, or what Excel skill set would be required to debug it. It may be doing the heavy lifting in macros. It may be best to contact the University to see if they've had other reports on it.

Myself I use MathCad to solve these sorts of things.
Ok thanks gneil. Whilst i have been waiting for the university to reply regarding the matrix, I was working through my equations for each loop again and for loop1 I have;
v1-z1I1-z4(I1-I2)=0

if z1=2 , z4=-j5 and v1=120

then 120=(2+j5)I1-j5I2 (is this not correct?)

as before I had 120=(2-j5)I1-j5I2.

Thanks
 
Hndstudent said:
v1-z1I1-z4(I1-I2)=0

##120 - 2 I_1 - (-j5)(I_1 - I_2) = 0 ##
##120 - (2 - j 5) I_1 - j5 I_2 = 0 ##
##120 = (2 - j5) I_1 + j5 I_2 ##
 
gneill said:
##120 - 2 I_1 - (-j5)(I_1 - I_2) = 0 ##
##120 - (2 - j 5) I_1 - j5 I_2 = 0 ##
##120 = (2 - j5) I_1 + j5 I_2 ##
Cheers gneil. The university confirmed what you said about the spread sheet and it eventually worked :)

however, for my next problem on 2b, I have factorised and multiplied by conjugates to end up with the following;

v20(-0.1667-j0.028)+(17.896+j7.670)=0

Im just not sure how to get v20 on its own?

Thanks
 
Surely it would just be some algebra? Your v20 only appears once in the expression so you should be able to move its term to one side of the equation, then proceed as usual (straightforward if tedious complex number work).
 
gneill said:
Surely it would just be some algebra? Your v20 only appears once in the expression so you should be able to move its term to one side of the equation, then proceed as usual (straightforward if tedious complex number work).

That answer was obviously very wrong. however, this is where I am at but i am still getting an incorrect answer. can you advise me on where I am going wrong please

-v20(0.75+j0.05)+(67.071+j30)=0
(67.071+j30)=v20(0.75+j0.05)

divide both sides by (o.75+j0.05);

[(67.071+j30)/(0.75+j0.05)]=v20

I= v20/z4

but I'm not getting the same answer as in part A
 
It's difficult to jump into the middle of a derivation that uses numbers rather than symbols. Can you back up a bit and tell me what v20 is (which node it is in the circuit) and show your initial node equation? (I'm presuming that you're using a supernode thanks to the presence of V3).
 
gneill said:
It's difficult to jump into the middle of a derivation that uses numbers rather than symbols. Can you back up a bit and tell me what v20 is (which node it is in the circuit) and show your initial node equation? (I'm presuming that you're using a supernode thanks to the presence of V3).
hi gneill, i started off with

((v1-v20)/z1) + (-v20/z4) + ((-20-v3)/z5) + (v2-(v20-v3)/z3)=0

thanks
 
Okay, so you're summing currents into the supernode. I think there's a sign issue with the third term. I'm seeing

##\frac{0 - (v20 - v3)}{z5} = \frac{-(v20 - v3)}{z5} = -\frac{v20 + v3}{z5}##
 
gneill said:
Okay, so you're summing currents into the supernode. I think there's a sign issue with the third term. I'm seeing

##\frac{0 - (v20 - v3)}{z5} = \frac{-(v20 - v3)}{z5} = -\frac{v20 + v3}{z5}##

Hi gneill, when you say there is a sign issue with the 3rd term, are you saying that (-(v20+v3)/z5) is incorrect?

this is what i have so far, and I have tried changing the signs but I keeping on getting a wrong answer.

-v20(1/z1 + 1/z4 + 1/z5 + 1/z3) + ( v1/z1 + v3/z5 + v2/z3 +v3/z3)=0

does this look correct?

thanks
 
gneill said:
Yes, I think that looks good.
Im obviously going wrong somewhere when calculating the brackets.

Im ending up with v20= (67.071+j30)/(0.75+j0.05)

is it my numerator or denominator that is incorrect? or both!?

thanks
 
Hi Folks,

Sorry to revive an old thread but I am on the same unit and the notes are not helping me much!

What I have so far is -

Mesh 1
V1-(Vz1)-(Vz4)=0
V1-(I1Z1)-((I1-I2)Z4)=0
V1-I1(Z1-Z4)+(I2Z4)=0
120-I1(2+j5)-I2(-j5)=0

Mesh 2
-V3-Vz5+Vz4=0
-V3-Z5(I2-I3)+Z4(I2-I1)=0
-V3-(Z5I2)+(Z5I3)+(Z4I2)-(Z4I1)=0
-V3-(j4I2)+(j4I3)+(j5I2)-(j5I1)=0
-V3-(j1I2)+(j4I3)-(J5I1)=0

Mesh 3
-(Vz3)-V2-(Vz5)=0
-(I3Z3)-V2-(I3-I2)Z5=0
-(I3Z3)-V2-(Z5I3)+(Z5I2)=0
-I3(Z3-Z5)-V2+Z5I2=0 (Z5 term moved to the left end in next step)
(I2j4)-I3(4-j4)-V2=0

When I put the above into my spreadsheet (same excel one as posted earlier) I am not getting the answer I expected. I have done the nodal analysis (next question) but this doesn't fit with that answer.

Can anyone spot any obvious mistakes in my loop walks?

Thanks in advance
Mac
 
macca67 said:
Hi Folks,

Sorry to revive an old thread but I am on the same unit and the notes are not helping me much!

What I have so far is -

Mesh 1
V1-(Vz1)-(Vz4)=0
V1-(I1Z1)-((I1-I2)Z4)=0
V1-I1(Z1-Z4)+(I2Z4)=0##~~~~~~~##← Sign issue with the I1 term: Why is Z4 negative?
120-I1(2+j5)-I2(-j5)=0

Mesh 2
-V3-Vz5+Vz4=0##~~~~~~~~## ← Sign issue with the Vz4 term: Why is Vz5 negative and Vz4 positive?
-V3-Z5(I2-I3)+Z4(I2-I1)=0##~~~~~~~##← Sign issue with the Z4 term
-V3-(Z5I2)+(Z5I3)+(Z4I2)-(Z4I1)=0
-V3-(j4I2)+(j4I3)+(j5I2)-(j5I1)=0
-V3-(j1I2)+(j4I3)-(J5I1)=0

Mesh 3
-(Vz3)-V2-(Vz5)=0
-(I3Z3)-V2-(I3-I2)Z5=0
-(I3Z3)-V2-(Z5I3)+(Z5I2)=0
-I3(Z3-Z5)-V2+Z5I2=0 (Z5 term moved to the left end in next step)
(I2j4)-I3(4-j4)-V2=0

When I put the above into my spreadsheet (same excel one as posted earlier) I am not getting the answer I expected. I have done the nodal analysis (next question) but this doesn't fit with that answer.

Can anyone spot any obvious mistakes in my loop walks?

Thanks in advance
Mac
See the red flagged lines.
 
Hi gneil,

thanks for the reply.

In Mesh one I have tried to justify my thinking but see the error now, thanks.

In mesh two I put Vz4 as a positive as I think the +ve term would be at the top of z4. I started top left of the mesh and walked clockwise, -v3 as I come to the + side first, same for Vz5, for Vz4 I thought the side I would meet first would be -ve, so gave it a +ve in the initial walk round.

In mesh 1 I had Vz4 as +ve at the top, does it need to stay +ve at the top when I walk mesh 2?
 
What you need to consider when you "walk" over a component is whether or not your walk is in the same direction as the current that pertains to the term you are writing.

Before you took your KVL walk you assigned current directions for the mesh currents. In this case they are all clockwise. When you walk over a component in the same direction as a current you will have a potential drop due to that current. When you walk against a current flow you have a potential rise.

Consider mesh 2. The mesh current is clockwise and if you walk the loop clockwise all the resistors encountered will show a potential drop for that mesh current. This includes Z4. So you must find the drops: I2(Z4 + Z5). The border components of the mesh will have the currents of the bordering meshes flowing in the opposite direction to the mesh 2 current and your "walk" will be against the directions of those currents. So for mesh 2 you will see potential rises of I1Z4 and I3Z5.

When in doubt, on the schematic sketch in the potential changes for all the assumed currents. That should help when writing out the equations:
upload_2016-5-2_22-22-0.png


By inspection then:

+(I1)(Z4) - (I2)(Z4 + Z5) + (I3)(Z5) = 0
 
Got to the bottom of it, many thanks for your help!
 
does I = -6.84008+j17.3988?
for nodal way
 
Sorry made a mistake in calculation so i have :
V20(0.75+J0.05)=67071+J30
V20=91.6872+J33.875
V20/Z4=I
I=91.6872+J33.875/-J5
I=-6.7775+J18.3374