Bridge Circuit, Solving 5 Equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Opus_723
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bridge Circuit
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The original poster attempts to solve for the currents in a bridge circuit using Kirchhoff's Laws, having derived five equations for five unknowns. They express difficulty in managing the simultaneous equations and seek guidance on how to proceed.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants suggest organizing the equations into matrix form for systematic solving, while others recommend focusing on eliminating variables one at a time. There is discussion about the number of unknowns, including whether to incorporate the total current I_0 into the equations.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring various methods for solving the equations, including nodal and mesh analysis. Some guidance has been offered regarding the setup of equations and the importance of maintaining consistent current directions. Multiple interpretations of the problem setup are being discussed without a clear consensus on the best approach.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the need for additional equations to incorporate I_0 and the potential complexity of managing multiple unknowns. Participants are also considering the implications of using different analysis methods and the resulting dependencies on chosen reference points.

Opus_723
Messages
175
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



So I'm trying to solve for all of the currents in a bridge circuit (in terms of the input current and all of the resistances), and by using Kirchhoff's Laws I've got 5 equations that I can use to solve for my 5 unknowns. Unfortunately, I've never really solved this many equations simultaneously before, and I can't seem to get any of the unknowns.


Homework Equations



[itex]I_{0} = I_{1} + I_{3}[/itex]
[itex]I_{1} = I_{2} + I_{5}[/itex]
[itex]I_{4} = I_{3} + I_{5}[/itex]
[itex]I_{1}R_{1} + I_{5}R_{5} = I_{3}R_{3}[/itex]
[itex]I_{4}R_{4} + I_{5}R_{5} = I_{2}R_{2}[/itex]


The Attempt at a Solution



I've been playing around with substitution and adding the equations, but it's not helping much without knowing where to go with it, and it's hard to keep track of what I've already done. Does anyone have any advice for solving this many equations at once?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you find it difficult to organize and keep track of substitutions then you might want to turn to a method that enforces discipline... cast the equations into matrix form and solve by row reduction to upper triangular form and then back substitution. Could require a lot of paper to do symbolically!

Otherwise it's just a matter of staying focused on a plan of systematically eliminating one variable at a time (don't change ideas mid step) and reducing the number of equations until you're left with one equation in one unknown. Solve for that unknown and stick it back into the original equation set. Repeat until done.

If you are familiar with KVL and KCL and their use in mesh analysis or node voltage analysis methods then you can solve the circuit with just two or three separate equations rather than five :wink:
 
You have six unknowns, if you include I_0. I suppose I_0 is the current through the entire circuit? You would need to find another equation with I_0.


The easiest way to set up the equations, is to have only 2 unknown voltages for the nodes where R1&R2 and R3&R4 meet, and use Kirchhofs current law for these two nodes to get only two equations for the 2 unknown voltages.
 
Last edited:
willem2 said:
You have six unknowns, if you include I_0. I suppose I_0 is the current through the entire circuit? You would need to find another equation with I_0.
Io would be a 'given' value, the current driving the bridge. The other currents are to be expressed in terms of Io, so no additional equation would be required.
You need to pick a direction for the current through R_5, and stick with it. One of the equations 2/3 and one of the equation 4/5 has a wrong sign for the term with I_5 because of this.
I believe that the OP did pick and stick to a direction for I5, and that his equations are okay as-is. Note the potential drop directions as indicated in the following figure.
attachment.php?attachmentid=47188&stc=1&d=1336745706.gif

The easiest way to set up the equations, is to have only 2 unknown voltages for the nodes where R1&R2 and R3&R4 meet, and use Kirchhofs current law for these two nodes to get only two equations for the 2 unknown voltages.
I suspect that you'll need three equations for nodal analysis since there are four nodes total and only one can be chosen as the reference node. Nodes A and D do not comprise a supernode as they are not connected by a voltage source but rather a current source. On the other hand, if mesh analysis is used then the mesh current in the Io source loop can be deemed already solved -- it's Io.
 

Attachments

  • Fig1.gif
    Fig1.gif
    3.2 KB · Views: 681
gneill said:
I suspect that you'll need three equations for nodal analysis since there are four nodes total and only one can be chosen as the reference node. Nodes A and D do not comprise a supernode as they are not connected by a voltage source but rather a current source. On the other hand, if mesh analysis is used then the mesh current in the Io source loop can be deemed already solved -- it's Io.

What I do is use a voltage source with potential difference V. Then the potential at A is V, at D is 0, and V_B and V_C are the unknowns.

calculate I_1 through I_5 as a function of the unknowns, and then solve the 2 equations you get by using KCL in node B and C.
 
willem2 said:
What I do is use a voltage source with potential difference V. Then the potential at A is V, at D is 0, and V_B and V_C are the unknowns.

calculate I_1 through I_5 as a function of the unknowns, and then solve the 2 equations you get by using KCL in node B and C.

Yes, you can do that, but when you're done you'll have the currents in terms of V rather than Io, so one more equation (to find Io in terms of V) will be required, followed by substitution for V in all the current expressions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K