Undergrad Reducing NxN Matrix to 2x2 w/ Physical Constraints

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on reducing a symmetric NxN matrix to a 2x2 form using auxiliary constraints, specifically for voltage and current relationships in a system. Participants explore methods to eliminate variables, emphasizing the importance of expressing currents in terms of the new variables to simplify calculations. The conversation highlights the challenges of scaling this approach to larger matrices, such as a 9x9 system, and the desire for a programmatic solution to avoid tedious manual calculations. A matrix representation of voltage and current constraints is provided, leading to a solution involving matrix inverses. The overall goal is to streamline the reduction process while maintaining accuracy in the mathematical relationships.
waynewec
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Reducing an NxN matrix to a 2x2 by application of physical constraints
Gonna preface by saying I never thought linear algebra would be a class I would regret not taking so much... but in short the goal is to reduce an arbitrary symmetric NxN system using a set of auxiliary constraint relationships, e.g. for a 3x3

<br /> \begin{bmatrix}<br /> V_1\\<br /> V_2\\<br /> V_3\\<br /> \end{bmatrix}<br /> =<br /> \begin{bmatrix}<br /> L_{e11}&amp;L_{e12}&amp;L_{e12}\\<br /> L_{e21}&amp;L_{e22}&amp;L_{e23}\\<br /> L_{e31}&amp;L_{e32}&amp;L_{e33}\\<br /> \end{bmatrix}<br /> \cdot<br /> \begin{bmatrix}<br /> i_1\\<br /> i_2\\<br /> i_3\\<br /> \end{bmatrix}\\<br />
using the following constraints
##V_1=V_2=V_p##
##V_3=V_s##
##i_p=i_1+i_2##
##i_s=i_3##
to end up with an equivalent system with L_s, L_p, and M in terms of the starting L_{eij} matrix
<br /> \begin{bmatrix}<br /> V_p\\<br /> V_s\\<br /> \end{bmatrix}<br /> =<br /> \begin{bmatrix}<br /> L_p&amp;M\\<br /> M&amp;L_s\\<br /> \end{bmatrix}<br /> \cdot<br /> \begin{bmatrix}<br /> i_p\\<br /> i_s\\<br /> \end{bmatrix}<br />
For those interested in the context, this is an application specific usage of the method covered in https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/eej.23240 but they glossed a bit over some of the key linear math that I don't understand. Eventually I'll be extending this concept to quite large matrices with more complex auxiliary constraints, but for now I'd appreciate some guidance, and some good resources, to get me goin
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried just eliminating variables? ##V_1 = V_2## relates ##i_n## making it possible to express ##i_1## in terms of ##i_p## and ##i_s##. Clearly, ##i_2 = i_p - i_1## and ##i_3 = i_s## eliminates ##i_2## and ##i_3##.

I get something like,

##V_p = (L_{11}-L_{12})i_1 + L_{12}i_p + L_{13}i_s##
## 0 = (L_{11}-L_{12})i_1 + (L_{12}-L_{22})(i_p-i_1) + (L_{13}-L_{23})i_s##
## V_s = (L_{31}-L_{32})i_1 + L_{32}i_p + L_{33}i_s##

Okay, just use the second equation to eliminate ##i_1##.
 
Paul Colby said:
Have you tried just eliminating variables? ##V_1 = V_2## relates ##i_n## making it possible to express ##i_1## in terms of ##i_p## and ##i_s##. Clearly, ##i_2 = i_p - i_1## and ##i_3 = i_s## eliminates ##i_2## and ##i_3##.

I get something like,

##V_p = (L_{11}-L_{12})i_1 + L_{12}i_p + L_{13}i_s##
## 0 = (L_{11}-L_{12})i_1 + (L_{12}-L_{22})(i_p-i_1) + (L_{13}-L_{23})i_s##
## V_s = (L_{31}-L_{32})i_1 + L_{32}i_p + L_{33}i_s##

Okay, just use the second equation to eliminate ##i_1##.
Absolutely valid, and an approach I've used, but any changes made to constraints or the order of the input matrix requires extremely tedious manual calculations. I was hoping for a direction that relies on matrix mathematics and could be implemented programmatically. 3x3, not so bad - 9x9 will make me want to kill myself
 
Well, okay. The voltage constrains in matrix form,

##\left(\begin{array}{c} V_1 \\ V_2 \\ V_3\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c} V_p \\ V_s\end{array}\right)##

The current constraints in matrix form,

##\left(\begin{array}{c} i_p \\ i_s \end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c} i_1 \\ i_2 \\ i_3 \end{array}\right)##

More generaly,

##V = C V_c##

and

##I_c = D I##

Clearly,

##V_c = C^{-1} L D^{-1} I_c##

is the solution. All you need to do is figure out what ##C^{-1}## and ##D^{-1}## really mean.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
18K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
14K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K