When to Use a Two-Port Representation for a Quadripole in External Circuits?

AI Thread Summary
A two-port representation of a quadripole is useful when analyzing its interaction with external circuits, particularly in linear and permanent networks. The process involves creating a spanning tree of the quadripole's internal structure, extending it to the external network, and writing equations for current and voltage equilibrium. It is crucial to add constraints for port currents and define auxiliary unknowns for port voltages to ensure accurate modeling. Solutions derived from the two-port representation may not always satisfy the original network's equations, necessitating a check of Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) for validity. This highlights the importance of verifying solutions when employing a two-port model to avoid infinite or incorrect solutions.
cianfa72
Messages
2,784
Reaction score
293
TL;DR Summary
Conditions to be fulfilled to employ (one of ) the 2-port network representation of a quadripole (four-terminal electrical network) in the analysis of a complete 'external' electrical network.
Hello,

I'm struggling with the conditions under which makes sense employ a two-port 'external' representation of a quadripole (four-terminal electrical network) when interconnected to an external circuit (to take it simple assume a linear + permanent electrical network).

Starting from circuit theory I elaborated the following:

Take a quadripole (four-terminal network) interconnected to an 'external' circuit. Do not place any constrains about the current entering in each of the four terminal (no 'port' constrains for the currents). From a network analysis point of view we can proceed as follows:
  1. choose a tree spanning just the quadripole internal structure (directed graph) up to its four terminals
  2. extend this tree to the overall 'external' network starting from those 4 terminals
  3. write the equations for the equilibrium of currents at each node belonging to the complete network (actually N-1 nodes suffices)
  4. write the KVLs for the voltage equilibrium at the fundamental loops (f-loop) w.r.t the chosen tree
  5. write the BCEs (Branch Constitutive Equations) for each element branch
We can now proceed as follows:
  • add 2 constrain equations for the 'port' current condition at each of the 'coupled' terminal pair (port)
  • add 2 auxiliary unknowns for the port voltages + the 2 related equations defining them w.r.t the branches of the chosen tree spanning the quadripole internal structure
The set of equations involving only the unknowns for branches inside the quadripole, is formally the same as the set of equations for the same quadripole closed on 2 external indeterminate bipoles (one for each port). A solution of the first system of equations is actually also a solution for the network you get replacing the quadripole with (one of) its 2-port network 'representation' (note that the set of equations for the last one is actually obtained as linear combinations of the equations belonging to the first one).

The other way around, a solution of the second one (the complete network you get replacing the quadripole with its 2-port representation) might not be a solution of the first one (the fundamental loops involving the not 'coupled' quadripole's terminals are actually not included in the equations set)

Thus, we have to explicitly check for those KVL when taking in account any solution of the last network to be sure it is actually a solution of the network we started with.

What do you think about, does it make sense ?

ps. same question shows up in other (italian) forum.
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Any idea? I'm aware of this is a theoretical question...
 
Just to take an example consider the following circuit having unique solution. If we choose to employ the quadripole (four-terminal network) two-port V(I) representation we get a system of equations having this time infinte-1 solutions (we can pick for instance I2 as parameter).

As shown below (sorry it is in Italian :wink:) adding the disregarded KVL equation the solution became unique (it is the solution of the first system for I2 parameter equals to ##\frac {3} {4}##).

This actually seems to be an example of what I said above: we need to explicitly check the solutions we get solving the network when two-port network model is employed.

page1.jpg
page2.jpg
page3.jpg
 
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Hello dear reader, a brief introduction: Some 4 years ago someone started developing health related issues, apparently due to exposure to RF & ELF related frequencies and/or fields (Magnetic). This is currently becoming known as EHS. (Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which adverse symptoms are attributed.) She experiences a deep burning sensation throughout her entire body, leaving her in pain and exhausted after a pulse has occurred...
Back
Top