Engineering Second Order Circuit Analysis - Mesh - Issue with DE Setup

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on resolving issues with the differential equation (DE) setup for a second-order circuit analysis involving mesh equations. The initial conditions were corrected, emphasizing that while the current through an inductor must be continuous, the voltage across it does not have to be. The participants identified a dimensional inconsistency in the DE, leading to a discussion on using time constants to simplify algebraic manipulations. It was concluded that the terms in the final DE are dimensionless, and there were reminders to check for sign errors in the derivation of derivatives. The conversation highlights the importance of correctly establishing initial conditions and ensuring dimensional consistency in circuit analysis.
ghoti
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am sure I have mistaken my DE setup or my initial conditions assumption.

Homework Statement


[URL]http://ivila.net/E8.png[/URL]
R1 will be the middle Resistor
R2 the top one.

Homework Equations


i1' + R1/L i1 = R1/L i2
i2(R1+R2)*1/(R1) + 1/(R1*C)*integral(i2)=i1

The Attempt at a Solution


My initial conditions are i1(0) = 1A
Vl = L di1/dt
at (0+) VL = 0 therefore L di1/dt = 0 therefore di1/dt = 0
i1'(0) = 0
Substitute for i1 I end up with sqrt(2)exp(-2)cos(t+45')
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your first initial condition, i1(0) = 1A, is fine, but your second one, vL(0+)=0, is wrong. The current through an inductor must be continuous, but the voltage across it doesn't have to be.

The opposite is true for capacitors. The voltage must be continuous, but the current doesn't have to be. So the second initial condition would be vC(0) = 1 V.
 
Thanks vela, I have changed my working however I am still tragically stuck.

for the mesh, is = i1

initial conditions
i1(0) = 1A
Vc(0) = 1V

Mesh Equations
i_1 = (\frac{R_1+R_2}{R_1})i_2 + (\frac{1}{R_1C}) \int i_2
i_2 = (\frac{L}{R_1})\frac{di_1}{dt} + i_1

Sub (2) into (1)
i_1 = (\frac{R_1+R_2}{R_1})((\frac{L}{R_1})\frac{di_1}{dt} + i_1) + (\frac{1}{R_1C}) \int ((\frac{L}{R_1})\frac{di_1}{dt} + i_1)

Expand
i_1 = ((\frac{R_1+R_2}{R_1})(\frac{L}{R_1})\frac{di_1}{dt} + (\frac{R_1+R_2}{R_1})i_1) + (\frac{1}{R_1C})(\frac{L}{R_1}) (\int \frac{di_1}{dt} + \int i_1)

Simplify
i_1 = (\frac{L(R_1+R_2)}{R_1^2}\frac{di_1}{dt} + (\frac{R_1+R_2}{R_1})i_1) + (\frac{L}{R_1^2C})i_1 + (\frac{L}{R_1^2C})\int i_1

i_1 = \frac{L(R_1+R_2)}{R_1^2}\frac{di_1}{dt} + (\frac{(R_1^2C + R_1CR_2 + L)}{R_1^2C})i_1 + (\frac{L}{R_1^2C})\int i_1

\frac{L(R_1+R_2)}{R_1^2}\frac{d^2i_1}{dt} + (\frac{(R_1^2C + R_1CR_2 + L)}{R_1^2C} -1)\frac{di_1}{dt} + (\frac{L}{R_1^2C})i_1 = 0

Check if DE is dimensionally correct.
\frac{d^2i_1}{dt} + (\frac{R_1CR_2 + L}{CL(R_1+R_2)})\frac{di_1}{dt} + (\frac{1}{C(R_1+R_2)})i_1 = 0

I believe this to be incorrect due to the i1' term with an R/L coefficient, this is not dimensionally correct. CR^2/CLR gives a R/L term (no good) and L/CLR gives a 1/RC term, also no good. My understanding is that this co-ef should be some mixture of \tau

We will continue just to check

Put in a few numbers,
L = 0.5
C = 0.5
R1 = 1
R2 = 1

\frac{d^2i_1}{dt} - 0.5\frac{di_1}{dt} + i_1 = 0

i_1(0) = 1A
V_c(0) = 1V therefore V_r(0) = 1V
V_r(0) = V_l(0) = 1V
V_l = L\frac{di_1}{dt}

\frac{di_1}{dt} = 2

Putting the DE into MatLab (to save some time)
pretty(simplify(dsolve(' D2y-0.5*Dy+y=0' , ' Dy(0)=2' , ' y(0)=1 ' )))
results in,

1/15*exp(1/4*t)*(7*sin(1/4*15^(1/2)*t)*15^(1/2)+15*cos(1/4*15^(1/2)*t))

As predicted, miles off, I am expecting a pair of sine and cosine terms with a common coefficient of 1
 
After you substitute (2) into (1), differentiate the result to get rid of the integral, and let \tau_C = R_1C and \tau_L = L/R_1, both of which have units of time. Then you'll have

i_1' = \frac{R_1+R_2}{R_1}(\tau_L i_1'' + i_1') + \frac{1}{\tau_C} (\tau_L i_1' + i_1)

Collect terms to get

\frac{R_1+R_2}{R_1}\tau_L i_1'' + \left(\frac{R_1+R_2}{R_1}+\frac{\tau_L}{\tau_C}-1\right)i_1' + \frac{1}{\tau_C} i_1 = 0

It's pretty easy to see that result is dimensionally correct.
 
Working with \tau is a much simpler way to work the Algebra. I never thought of carrying around the time-constants are pairs but it makes complete sense. thankyou! should save me a lot of paper if nothing else.

I re-worked my solution from my initial mesh equations to your final result but I am confused about the final DE.

Does the \frac{\tau_L}{\tau_C} term not reduce to dimensionless?
 
Last edited:
Yes, that combination is dimensionless as is (R1+R2)/R1 and 1.

You also made a mistake deriving di1/dt. Check the signs in your equations.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
187
Views
57K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top