Making Bode Amplitude Plot of LC Filter in Matlab

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on creating a theoretical Bode Amplitude plot for an LC filter in Matlab, with the transfer function provided. The user encounters issues with their plot appearing flat after a certain frequency point, leading to questions about the accuracy of the parallel resistance value (19.49 Ω), which may be too low for effective filter response. Suggestions include verifying whether this resistance should be series instead of parallel and correcting the transfer function code by including a missing 's' term. Adjusting the resistance to approximately 1 kΩ improves the plot's accuracy, indicating the importance of correct resistance values in filter design. The conversation highlights the relationship between resistance, quality factor, and filter performance.
roam
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



I'm trying to make a theoretical Bode Amplitude plot of the following circuit in Matlab:

sm6q6b.jpg


The transfer functions is given by

##T=\frac{V_{out}}{V_{in}}=\frac{R_2}{R_2+z_p}##

##z_p=R_p|| j \omega L || \frac{1}{j \omega C} = \frac{R_p}{1+ j R_p (\omega C - \frac{1}{\omega L})}##

Where ##R_p## is the parallel loss resistance of the inductor (~19.49 Ω). R2=300, C=22.09 nF, L=10.08 mH.

I know that the graph is supposed to look like a notch (trap) filter, here is an experimental graph of this same filter:

xcnh94.jpg


The Attempt at a Solution



Here is the code I used to make a theoretical plot:

R=1440.96;
C=22.09e-9;
Rp=19.49;
R2=300;
L=10.08e-3;

s = tf('s');
z=Rp/(1+(Rp*C)+(Rp/(s*L)));
sys = R2/(R2+z);
h = bodeplot(sys);
setoptions(h,'FreqUnits','Hz','PhaseVisible','off');
grid;

But my plot looks like this:

2vcdrm9.jpg


And after the 103 point it's completely flat.

What is wrong with my code? :confused:

Any help is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
19.49Ω seems a disastrously low parallel resistance equivalent. I think it will wreak havoc on a filter's response. Are you sure that isn't meant to be a series resistance of 19.49Ω?

I can't comment on matlab.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
roam said:
Code:
z=Rp/(1+(Rp*C)+(Rp/(s*L)));
I think you forgot an 's' in there. It should be:
Code:
z=Rp/(1+(Rp*s*C)+(Rp/(s*L)));
But I doubt it makes any difference. Like NascentOxygen wrote, that RLC circuit will be extremely lossy, i.e. its Q factor will be very low/bandwidth will be very high.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Judging by the "experimental graph of this same filter", Rp is likely closer to 20 kΩ than 20 Ω.
 
Thank you so much for the feedback.

NascentOxygen said:
19.49Ω seems a disastrously low parallel resistance equivalent. I think it will wreak havoc on a filter's response. Are you sure that isn't meant to be a series resistance of 19.49Ω?

I can't comment on matlab.
Yes, I think 19.49 Ω may be the series resistance of the inductor (I measured it using an RCL meter, I will double check this).

But according to my book the parallel resistance Rp may be calculated from the graph using the quality factor relationships:

##Q_p = \frac{R_p}{\omega_0 L}=\omega_0 R_p C##

##Q= Q_p \sqrt{1-2|T_{min}|^2}##

Qp being the quality factor of the parallel inductor-capacitor combination, and Q is the actual quality factor of the filter (a measure of the sharpness of the peak).

|Tmin| is the minimum value of the transfer function (minimum value of |T|), which occurs when |zp| is a maximum (at resonant frequency ##\omega_0 =1/\sqrt{LC}##).

In my plot Tmin is my last data point where it is equal to -0.080 dB (or 1.01 in linear magnitude), so

##1.01 = \frac{V_{out}}{V_{in}}= \frac{300}{300+z_p} \implies z_p = -2.97##

zp and Rp are related by:

##z_p=\frac{R_p}{1+jR_p(\omega C - \frac{1}{\omega L})}##

But then how do I solve for ##R_p## from this impedance? How can I get rid of the j's in the denominator? (I'm looking for a way to solve for Rp without actually having to measure it experimentally).

gneill said:
Judging by the "experimental graph of this same filter", Rp is likely closer to 20 kΩ than 20 Ω.

Yes, when I vary the resistance to to Rp≈1 kΩ, the theoretical graph starts to look right.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K