1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Designing a circuit from a transfer function

  1. Feb 26, 2015 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    gIQbNcc.jpg

    2. Relevant equations


    3. The attempt at a solution
    So I know how to derive a transfer function from a given circuit, but not how to design a circuit from a transfer function like the one above. It seems like there's a huge amount of possible solutions and I don't know where to begin in trying to come up with one other than guessing and checking (which would take a lot of time that I don't have on exams). Is there a systematic method or a particular approach to solve problems like this?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 27, 2015 #2

    LvW

    User Avatar

    Yes - you are right, there are several possible circuit topologies. And - of course - many different impedance niveaus.
    But, I think, you have selected a good and simple structure, which works in priciple.
    However, I am afraid some values are not quite correct.
    I suppose you know about the superposition rule, which allows you to separately find the various values by setting all but one signal sources to zero?

    Questions: Why 4R2 between both opamps? Recalculate this value and - as a consequence - the time constant R1*C.
     
  4. Feb 27, 2015 #3

    NascentOxygen

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Once you remove the (+) input from ground, as you show for the second op-amp, then the (-) input is no longer a virtual earth. Have you analyzed that second op-amp arrangement to confirm the proportion of v3 in vo will be precisely what you hope it will be? :oops:
     
  5. Feb 27, 2015 #4
    Hey guys, thanks for your replies. I forgot to mention in my post that that solution isn't actually mine. It's my professors and I kind of just assumed it was right without checking it. It's problem 3 on this past exam:
    http://www.ece.tamu.edu/~spalermo/ecen325/exam1_spring2014.pdf

    If I use superposition with V1 only:

    Vo = sR1CV1

    V2 only:
    1st op-amps output is grounded and v3 is grounded so the 2nd op amp behaves like an inverting amplifier:
    Vo = -(4R2/4R2)V2
    Vo = -V2

    V3 only:
    Vo = (1+(4R2/4R2||R2)) * V3 * (R/2R)
    Vo = (1+5)V3(1/2)
    Vo = 3V3


    So Vo = sR1CV1 - V2 + 3V3

    If I did that correctly then this circuit really isn't a solution because it's missing the -4 in front of the V2 right?
     
  6. Feb 27, 2015 #5

    LvW

    User Avatar

    Yes - that`s the error. Therefore, I did recommend to recalculate this resistor betwen the opamps.
     
  7. Feb 27, 2015 #6
    Hm okay since I didn't come up with this particular circuit I'm going to try and start from scratch since I'm probably going to have to do this on the coming exam.

    Using two op-amps as a general template:
    Start with V1 on the first op-amp, and because there's an "s" there's probably a capacitor. Since it's positive and I'm using two op-amps, V1 should go into the inverting terminal of the first op amp and then into the inverting terminal of the second op amp.

    With V2 and V3 on the second op-amp, since V2 has a "-4" attached to it it will go into the inverting terminal of the second op-amp while V3 will go into the non-inverting terminal.

    Now it's just a matter of picking components. This is what I came up with:

    QKWQTlO.png
    My reasoning:
    V1 only:

    Vo = s(R3/R2)R1CV1

    V2 only:

    Vo = -(R3/R2)V2

    V3 only:

    Vo = [1+(R3/R2)][R4R5/(R4+R5)]V3

    Looking at V2, R3 has to equal 4 R2 to get -4 in front of V2.

    Looking at V1, since R3 = 4R2, R1C = 1/2 to get 2s in front of V1

    Looking at V3, since R3 = 4R2, The parallel connection of R4 and R5 has to equal 3/5 to cancel out the 5 from (1+(R3/R2)) and get the 3 in front of the R3:
    R4R5 = 3
    R4+R5 = 5

    ∴ R4 = 3/R5

    3/R5 + R5 = 5

    R5² - 5R5 + 3 = 0

    This will have two solutions, and I picked the one where R5 = 4.3, so then R4 = 0.7 (exact values included in figure).

    Would this be a valid solution?
     
  8. Feb 27, 2015 #7

    NascentOxygen

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Is there a resistor missing for v2? As drawn the (-) input is firmly fixed at v2.
     
  9. Feb 27, 2015 #8
    I made it similar to the first solution's circuit:
    proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FgIQbNcc.jpg
    where the Vo for V2 here is -(4R2/4R2) = -V2
    the resistor connected to V2 didn't matter here so I thought I didn't need it in my solution.
    Was that incorrect to assume?
     
  10. Feb 27, 2015 #9
    Wait now that I'm looking at it again maybe I didn't calculate V2 only correctly in the original solution.

    For this circuit
    s%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fproxy.php%3Fimage%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.imgur.com%252FgIQbNcc.jpg
    Shouldn't V2 only be:

    Vo = -[4R2 / (4R2||R2) ]*V2

    = -[4R2 / 4R2R2/5R2]*V2

    = -[4R2*5R2/4R2*R2]*V2

    = -(20/4)V2

    = -5V2

    If so I'll be back later to work on my solution some more
     
  11. Feb 27, 2015 #10
    Okay here's my new solution:
    EX2hoJI.png
    I connected a resistor to V2

    V1 only is still the same relation:

    Vo = s(R3/R2)R1*C*V1

    V2 only is now:

    Vo = -[R3(R6+R2)/(R6R2)] * V2

    V3 only is now:

    (1 + [R3(R6+R2)/(R6R2)]) * [(R4R5)/(R4+R5)] * V3

    If I make R3/R2 = 2, then R1*C must equal 1 to satisfy the first part.

    Then, R2 = R6 = 1, and R3 = 2 to satisfy the second part

    Then R4 and R5 are the same as I had them before.

    Is this solution correct?
     
  12. Feb 28, 2015 #11

    LvW

    User Avatar

    Sorry - it is not. Strat with R3/R2=4
     
  13. Feb 28, 2015 #12

    LvW

    User Avatar

    Sorry - read start /instead of strat).
     
  14. Feb 28, 2015 #13
    If I make R3/R2 = 4 that would cause problems for my V2 term wouldn't it?

    If R3/R2 = 4:

    For V2, -[R3(R6+R2)/(R6R2)] * V2 becomes

    -[4(R6+R2)/R6]V2

    To make this -4V2,
    R6 = 1
    R2 = 0
    which can't be

    Also sorry but could you show me what's wrong with my solution? Did I mess up on the math somewhere?
     
  15. Feb 28, 2015 #14

    LvW

    User Avatar

    For amplification of V2 you only need R3 and R6 (R2 is grounded).
     
  16. Feb 28, 2015 #15
    Ahh okay, thanks. I think I get the general gist of it now, I just need to be careful with the connections.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Designing a circuit from a transfer function
Loading...