How to Simplify and Sketch RLC Circuit Analysis?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the analysis of an RLC circuit, focusing on deriving expressions for current in both time and phasor forms, and exploring methods for sketching magnitude and phase versus frequency plots. Participants share their approaches, challenges, and suggestions related to circuit behavior at different frequencies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster (OP) presents a complex expression for current and seeks simpler methods for analysis and sketching.
  • One participant suggests evaluating the current at low and high frequencies to understand circuit behavior, indicating that the inductor and capacitor behave as short circuits under these conditions.
  • The OP expresses difficulty in sketching the phase response, noting that simulation results appear overly complicated.
  • Another participant critiques the OP's initial equations, stating that impedance calculations should involve complex numbers and that the phase should not be independent of frequency.
  • There is a suggestion to use admittance for parallel components to simplify calculations.
  • Participants discuss the implications of the phase angle introduced by the voltage source and its relevance to the analysis.
  • One participant mentions the complexity of the frequency response graph due to the second-order LC network and suggests looking up rules for constructing asymptotes related to resonant networks.
  • There are multiple exchanges regarding the clarity of previous posts and whether certain critiques should be disregarded, indicating confusion and disagreement about the correctness of earlier statements.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the phase should vary with frequency due to reactive components, challenging the notion that it could be constant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of the OP's equations and the implications of the phase angle. There is no consensus on the best approach to simplify the analysis or the validity of the initial expressions presented by the OP.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the OP's phase expression appears to contradict the expected behavior of reactive components, indicating potential misunderstandings in the analysis. The discussion includes references to the complexity of the frequency response due to the circuit's second-order nature.

Lunat1c
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Consider the circuit show below, where V1 = V_{peak}sin(\omega t - 36^\circ)

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9687/rlc.png

I wish to find an expression for I in the time domain and in phasor form and then sketch the magnitude/phase vs frequency plots. I already managed to get a solution but it seems way too complex to be able to sketch the above mentioned plots from it. So I'm just going to list my solution and perhaps someone will be kind enough to suggest other ways to tackle this problem (if there are any).

to find i(t):
V1(t) = i(t)R_1 + i(t)\bigg[2 \pi fL || \frac{1}{2 \pi fC} || R_2\bigg]

But f = \frac{\omega}{2 \pi}

Hence, V1(t) = i(t)R_1 + i(t)\bigg[\omega L || \frac{1}{\omega C} || R_2\bigg] = i(t)\bigg[R_1 + \frac{\omega LR_2}{R_2 + \omega^2 LCR_2 + \omega L}\bigg]

After substituting for V1 and simplifying, I ended up with:

i(t) = \frac{\omega^2 LCR_2 + \omega L + R_2}{\omega^2 LCR_1R_2 + \omega L(R_1+R_2) + R_1R_2}V_{peak} sin(\omega t - 36^\circ)

Which seems ok.

Now, for the phasor part:
v(j \omega) = i(j \omega)R_1 + i(j \omega)\bigg[j\omega L || \frac{1}{j\omega C} || R_2\bigg] = i(j \omega)R_1 + i(j\omega)\bigg[\frac{1}{\frac{1}{j \omega L} + j \omega C + \frac{1}{R_2}}\bigg] = i(j\omega)\bigg(R_1 + \frac{j\omega LR_2}{R_2 - \omega^2 LCR_2 + j\omega L}\bigg) = i(j \omega)\bigg(\frac{R_1R_2 + j \omega LR_1 - \omega^2 LCR_1R_2 + j\omega LR_2}{R_2 + j \omega L - \omega^2 LCR_2}\bigg)

Hence, i(j \omega) = \frac{R_2(1 - \omega^2 LC) + j \omega L}{R_1R_2 + j \omega L (R_1+R_2) - \omega^2 LCR_1R_2}v(j \omega)

And now I proceded to finding |\bar{I}| and \phi

Note that V1 = V_{peak}sin(\omega t - 36^\circ)= V_{peak} \angle{-36^\circ}

\bar{I} = \frac{\sqrt{R_2^2(1 - \omega^2 LC)^2 + (\omega L)^2}}{\sqrt{R_1^2R_2^2(1 - LC \omega^2)^2 + (\omega L)^2(R_1 + R_2)^2}} V_{peak}
and
\phi = tan^{-1}\frac{\omega L}{R_2(1 - \omega^2 LC)} - 36^\circ - tan^{-1}\frac{\omega L(R_1+R_2)}{R_1R_2 - \omega^2 LCR_1R_2}

How would one go about sketching this without the help of any software package? There must be another way to solve this problem which is way simpler. Any ideas? Any help will be greatly appreciated
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
In your expression for current, set w to a low value (e.g., w=0) to allow you to determine the current at low frequencies. Set w to a high value (e.g., w -> infinity) to determine the current at high frequencies. The current will reach a maximum or minimum where the circuit is resonant, i.e., close to w = 1/ sqrt (LC).

Looking at your circuit, when w is low the inductor appears as a short-circuit, so the load is basically R1 to ground. When w is high, the capacitor appears as a short-circuit, so again the load is basically R1 to ground. Your expression for i should support these figures. (It's an easy check.)
 
That is honestly what I did for the current magnitude. However, when it came to the phase I just couldn't sketch the whole thing. I simulated the circuit and the phase is just too complicated!
 
Unfortunately, the first equations are incorrect. You can't compute the impedance of a resistive and reactive component in parallel by pretending they are both purely resistive or reactive. You have to use complex numbers thruout.

Look at your expression for i(t). The phase of i with respect to V is independent of w! You know that's not right.

BTW when you see parallel components it's much easier to use admittance, susceptance and conductance than their impedance duals. So for example I can readily write
Y = G2 + jwC + 1/jwL for the parallel network, where G2 = 1/R2. Then Z = 1/Y and i = V/(Z + R1)

(BTW giving you V at a lagging angle of 36 degrees makes little sense. I would ignore it until the very end, then with your i(t) expression you can just subtract 36 deg for the phase angle. Which I think you've already done. That number has no meaning in the context of your schematic unless there is in addition some external time reference defining phase = 0.)

When you started using complex numbers that part looks OK though I haven't checked your math. If done right your complex expression for current is what you use for getting i(t): compute i(jw) = i1 + j i2, then
i(t) = √[i1^2 + i2^2]sin(wt + φ), φ = arc tan i2/i1. Minus 36 deg of course.

The frequency response graph is made complicated by the second-order LC network. As another poster suggested, the parallel circuit looks like infinite impedance at w^2 = 1/LC so your graph of |i|will start flat at i = V/R1, droop down to i = V/(R1 + R2) at
w = 1/√LC, then pick up & flatten again to V/R1 at high frequencies. I have to confess I forgot the rules on constructing the asymptotes for a resonant network, but you should be able to dig them up somewhere. They involve the damping coefficient ζ and "Q" of the i/V transfer function, both of which are just functions of your component values. Hopefully some kind and informed soul will help us?

Graph log |i| on the y-axis and log w or log f on the x axis.

For the phase, graph phase in degrees on the y-axis and log w or log f on the x axis. Keep track of the signs of i1 and i2. Example: arc tan (-1/2) is not the same angle as arc tan (1/-2.) All logs are base 10.
 
Forget the edit. Should be OK as is.
 
Last edited:
rude man said:
Forget the edit. Should be OK as is.
I think you should indicate more clearly exactly what the reader should "forget"? Are you saying the reader should disregard your entire post where you pointed out [apparently] glaring errors in his analysis? If so, perhaps it might be possible to request an administrator delete your posts in this thread.
 
NascentOxygen said:
I think you should indicate more clearly exactly what the reader should "forget"? Are you saying the reader should disregard your entire post where you pointed out [apparently] glaring errors in his analysis? If so, perhaps it might be possible to request an administrator delete your posts in this thread.

What I meant was that my post of 4:40 a.m. on 9/21/11 is OK. Sorry.
 
rude man said:
What I meant was that my post of 4:40 a.m. on 9/21/11 is OK. Sorry.

So you stand by your post stating
Look at your expression for i(t). The phase of i with respect to V is independent of w!

In that case I'm now confused. The OP's post appears not to have been edited subsequent to your criticism, yet in it he provides a formula for phase that involves both w and w2, just as one would expect.
 
nascent - yes, his expression for i(t) contains w and w^2 but that is the amplitude, not the phase. His phase is a constant 36 degrees! Phase will obviously vary with w since there are reactive components.

And if we disregard the 36 degrees, which as I say is a nonsensical spec to begin with, then he has 0 phase shift between V and i thruout 0 < w < ∞ !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K