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
2,805
Reaction score
296
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
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
 
I have recently moved into a new (rather ancient) house and had a few trips of my Residual Current breaker. I dug out my old Socket tester which tell me the three pins are correct. But then the Red warning light tells me my socket(s) fail the loop test. I never had this before but my last house had an overhead supply with no Earth from the company. The tester said "get this checked" and the man said the (high but not ridiculous) earth resistance was acceptable. I stuck a new copper earth...
Thread 'Electromagnet magnetic field issue'
Hi Guys We are a bunch a mechanical engineers trying to build a simple electromagnet. Our design is based on a very similar magnet. However, our version is about 10 times less magnetic and we are wondering why. Our coil has exactly same length, same number of layers and turns. What is possibly wrong? PIN and bracket are made of iron and are in electrical contact, exactly like the reference design. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks. edit: even same wire diameter and coil was wounded by a...
Thread 'Beauty of old electrical and measuring things, etc.'
Even as a kid, I saw beauty in old devices. That made me want to understand how they worked. I had lots of old things that I keep and now reviving. Old things need to work to see the beauty. Here's what I've done so far. Two views of the gadgets shelves and my small work space: Here's a close up look at the meters, gauges and other measuring things: This is what I think of as surface-mount electrical components and wiring. The components are very old and shows how...
Back
Top