6

I am losing my mind over this.

I am trying to design a Deliyannis-Friend section and I am stuck in a loop and don't know what to do. These is the circuit and its equations.

enter image description here

Based on this I have devised a design method.

The design starts by setting equal capacitors, \$ C_1 = C_2 = C \$, and choosing the value of capacitance \$ C \$. Taking the expression of \$ K_p \$ and \$ Q \$, results in

\begin{equation} \frac{|K_p|}{Q} = \frac{ \displaystyle 1+\frac{R_f}{R_g}}{ \displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{R_1}{R_2}}} \,, \label{eq:DFderiv1} \end{equation}

By choosing the ratio \$ \displaystyle \beta = \frac{R_2}{R_1} \$, the ratio \$ \displaystyle \alpha = \frac{R_f}{R_g} \$ comes as

\begin{equation} \alpha = \frac{|K_p|}{Q} \times \frac{1}{\displaystyle \sqrt{\beta}} -1 \,, \label{eq:DFderiv2} \end{equation}

which leads to the design constraint

\begin{equation} 0 < \beta < \left(\frac{|K_p|}{Q}\right)^2 \,. \label{eq:DFderiv3} \end{equation}

Now, from the chosen ratio \$ \beta \$, resistors \$ R_1 \$ and \$ R_2 \$ can be calculated as

\begin{equation} R_1= \frac{1}{\omega_p \times C} \times \frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta}} \,, \label{eq:DFderiv4} \end{equation}

and

\begin{equation} R_2= \frac{\sqrt{\beta}}{\omega_p \times C} \,. \label{eq:DFderiv5} \end{equation}

Finally, with \$ \alpha \$ and choosing \$R_g\$,

\begin{equation} R_f= \alpha \times R_g \,. \label{eq:DFderiv6} \end{equation}

Ok, into a practical design with \$ K_p = - 0.5 \$ and \$ Q = 5 \$ and \$ \omega_p = 10000 \$

I choose \$ C = 10 \, \text{nF} \$. As \$ 0 < \beta < 0.01 \$ I choose the middle value \$ \beta = 0.005 \$ This allows as to obtain \$ R_1 = 141.42 \, \text{k$\Omega$} \$ and \$ R_2 = 707.11 \, \text{$\Omega$} \$

Plugging this into the \$ \omega_p \$ expression does allow to obtain the \$ \omega_p \$ value of \$ 10000 \$. So until this point we are keeping our sanity.

Now comes \$ \alpha \$. It is equal to \$ \alpha = -1 + \sqrt{2} \$. So choosing \$ R_g = 141.42 \, \text{k$\Omega$} \$ follows that \$ R_f = 58.578 \, \text{k$\Omega$} \$.

And now plugging these values in the gain and Q expressions gives \$ Q = 22.4 \$ and \$ K_p = -0.0035 \$

What is actually going on here? Where was my mistake? Did I accidentally divide by zero or something? Forgot a sign? I am losing my mind I swear...

UPDATE MAY 20

Ok, so a new attempt. I have decided to actually redefine \$ \alpha \$ as \$ \displaystyle 1 + \frac{R_f}{R_g} \$

So here are the three equations I have

$$ K_p = - \frac{\alpha}{\frac{2}{\beta}- \left(\alpha - 1\right)} $$

$$\frac{1}{Q} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\beta}} - (\alpha -1) \sqrt{\beta}$$

$$\frac{K_p}{Q} = - \alpha \sqrt{\beta} $$

So replacing the third equation on the second allows to obtain

$$ \frac{1}{Q} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\beta}} + \frac{K_p}{Q} + \sqrt{\beta} $$

Solving for \$ \sqrt{\beta} \$ gives two solutions:

$$\beta_1 = \left( \frac{1-K_p}{2Q} \times \left( 1 + \sqrt{1 - \frac{8Q^2}{(1-K_p)^2}} \right) \right)^2$$

$$\beta_2 = \left( \frac{1-K_p}{2Q} \times \left( 1 - \sqrt{1 - \frac{8Q^2}{(1-K_p)^2}} \right) \right)^2$$

and \$ \alpha \$ can be calculated with

$$\alpha = -\frac{K_p}{Q \sqrt{\beta}} $$

I have tried to solve this using Mathematica

Clear[Kp, Q]
condbeta1 = (1 - Kp)/(2*Q)*(1 + Sqrt[1 - (8 Q^2)/(1 - Kp)^2]);
condalpha1 = -Kp/Q*1/condbeta1;
condbeta2 = (1 - Kp)/(2*Q)*(1 - Sqrt[1 - (8 Q^2)/(1 - Kp)^2]);
condalpha2 = -Kp/Q*1/condbeta2;
Reduce[condbeta1 > 0 && condalpha1 > 1 && Q > 0 && Kp < 0, Kp]
Reduce[condbeta2 > 0 && condalpha2 > 1 && Q > 0 && Kp < 0, Kp]

My logic was that:

  1. \$ \sqrt{\beta_1} \$ and \$ \sqrt{\beta_2} \$ should be positive numbers. When I did this manually I have arrived with the condition that @Tesla23 arrived: \$ K_p < 1 - \sqrt{8} Q \$.
  2. The second condition is that \$ \alpha \$ should be bigger than 1.
  3. Additionaly the quality factor Q shall be positive and the gain Kp shall be negative.

This allows to obtain

  1. The first solution is only valid for \$ Q>\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \$ in which case \$ -2Q^2 < K_p \leq 1 - 2\sqrt{2}Q\$
  2. As for the second solution, it is valid for \$ 0 < Q \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \$ in which case \$ K_p < -2Q^2 \$ or for \$ Q > \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \$ in which case \$ K_p < 1 - 2\sqrt{2}Q\$.

This seems to solve the problem.

Granger Obliviate
  • 1,391
  • 10
  • 29
  • Did you start out by reading *"High-Q factor circuit with reduced sensitivity"* by T. Deliyannis, 1968, from Electronics Letters, 4(26), 577? (It's what I'd do, anyway.) [Note figure 1(c) from the paper.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ih2L6.png) – periblepsis May 18 '23 at 00:40
  • (Hmm. Just noted a mistake by the author. Or, at least it looks like one to me right now.) – periblepsis May 18 '23 at 01:03
  • @periblepsis I am still not being able to figure this out, this is horrible – Granger Obliviate May 18 '23 at 02:29
  • If I set \$\tau_{_0}=R_1\,C_2\$, \$\tau_{_1}=R_2\,C_1\$, \$\tau_{_2}=R_1\,C_1\$, & \$\eta=\frac{\tau_{_0}}{\tau_{_1}}+\frac{\tau_{_2}}{\tau_{_1}}-\frac{R_a}{R_b}\$. Then I get \$K_p=-\frac1{\eta}\left(1+\frac{R_a}{R_b}\right)\$, \$\omega_{_p}=\frac1{\sqrt{\tau_{_0}\,\tau_{_1}}}\$, \$\zeta=\frac12\eta\sqrt{\frac{\tau_{_1}}{\tau_{_0}}}\$, & \$Q=\frac1{\eta}\sqrt{\frac{\tau_{_0}}{\tau_{_1}}}\$. The author then sets \$r=\frac{R_1}{R_2}\$ & \$q=\frac{C_2}{C_1}\$ (using your naming, which is the opposite of his) and then moves on to define similar \$\tau\$ terms but using \$r\$ and \$q\$, instead. – periblepsis May 18 '23 at 02:37
  • By the way, I used the authors nomenclature for \$C_1\$ and \$C_2\$, which is the opposite of your writing. And I use his left-side naming of \$R_a=R_f\$ and \$R_b=R_g\$, where yours is on the right side. So if you want to use any of what I just wrote in the prior comment, you will need to look at his 1(c) schematic that I already posted to you above. I chose not to use your schematic, preferring his. – periblepsis May 18 '23 at 02:44
  • The author claims (but doesn't demonstrate in the short letter) that sensitivity of Q to components in the filter is minimized by setting the two capacitor values to the same value. (I don't want to bother with the differential equations right now to confirm the claim.) So I can see why your approach (or that gathered up from someone else writing on the topic) of setting the two capacitor values to be the same may be a correct part of the algorithm. I'll add a +1. Maybe someone will save us both some time. – periblepsis May 18 '23 at 02:51
  • @periblepsis this seems to be a very difficult problem, no one is being able to help, I don't know what to do. – Granger Obliviate May 19 '23 at 01:43
  • I'll take a look at it, then. Might not be immediate (today), though. – periblepsis May 19 '23 at 01:46
  • Thank you. I will also move on writing some text. This is for my thesis and I have been stuck all week with the work to deliver at the end of the month, so I really need to move forward and stop hitting my head on the wall. Thank you in advance for your time and your help. There might be a design algorithm somewhere, I'll actually open a question asking. I know that here by dividing Kp with Q I am losing a degree of freedom and beta can't be arbitrarily chosen... – Granger Obliviate May 19 '23 at 01:49
  • I think I found a problem with your Q. Care to recheck your result? Last term, by the way. The other two look right to me. – periblepsis May 20 '23 at 12:25
  • Hi @periblepsis, around 5-10 minutes ago I have updated my solution. Yes in my Q value the capacitors are swapped although, as they are equal and always appear on a ratio it does not affect the result. – Granger Obliviate May 20 '23 at 12:36
  • Okay. Thanks. (Doesn't look updated yet to me but your point is still taken.) Then I will proceed spending some more time. Just wanted to be sure. – periblepsis May 20 '23 at 13:03
  • Your Kp also seems to have a problem. It doesn't seem to have a difference of zero with what I come up with. It should, of course, but it doesn't. I'll have to spend a little time to see exactly why. (I'm taking into account the -1 power.) – periblepsis May 20 '23 at 13:13
  • Never mind. It's the C1 C2 problem again. – periblepsis May 20 '23 at 13:36

2 Answers2

2

@Granger Obliviate, I did not check your derivations in detail. But some time ago I have analyzed this filter structure in detail. I have chosen another approach - perhaps it can help a bit?

Here is my transfer function:

H(s)=-[s(1+m)k2RC]/[1+sRC(2-mk2)+s²k2R²C²]

with: m=Rf/Rg ; k2=R2/R ; R=R1 ; C1=C2=C.

This leads to:

  • Midband gain Ao=Q(1+m)SQRT(k2)
  • Pole frequency wp=1/[RCSQRT(k2)]
  • Pole-Q Qp=SQRT(k2)/(2-mk2)

Approach: Choose Qp, wp, C and k2.

Hint: My analyses have shown that the best trade-off between a moderate Ao value and a low componenet spread can be reached for k2=1.

EDIT From one of the comments above I have learned that you are interested in the sensitivity of Qp against passive tolerances. This a rather simple task.

The definition of the sensitivity figure "S_Qp" against a parameter "x" is S_Qp=(x/Qp)(dQp/dx). So you have nothing to do than to find the differential quotient - and to find S according to the definition. Then, you can analyze the expression in order to see under which conditions the value of S would be at a minimum.

Example: It is the purpose of the Deliyannis modifikation (pos. feedback) to enhance the Q-value. Therefore, we can expect that any tolerance of the factor "m" will have a comparable large influence of Qp. As an example, the product mk2 must not assume a value of "2" (infinite Qp).

Let us finde the sensitivit S_Qp against m. Applying the above definition, the calculation gives

S_Qp (against m)=(m/Qp)(dQp/dm)=mk2/(2-mk2).

From this, it is clear that we should try to make the product mk2 as small as possible.

LvW
  • 24,857
  • 2
  • 23
  • 52
  • Thank you for your contribution. Is Qp the same as Q in your design? I can't "choose" Qp though. I am supposed to impose the gain, the quality factor and the frequency and design the components knowing that. – Granger Obliviate May 20 '23 at 08:37
  • For a second-order bandpass the Q-value (midfrequency divided by the 3-dB bandwidth) is identical to the pole-Q (Qp=1/2d with d=damping ratio). Remember that the pole location is decribed by wp and Qp only - and that both pole parameters (wp, Qp) do appear in the transfer functions denominator for lowpass, highpass and bandpass. – LvW May 20 '23 at 08:57
2

The problem you are trying to solve is to find values for \$\alpha\$ and \$\beta\$ that satisfy the two equations for \$K_P\$ and \$Q\$.

The problem you have solved is to find values for \$\alpha\$ and \$\beta\$ that satisfy the equation for \$\frac{|K_P|}{Q}\$, but not the separate equations for \$K_P\$ and \$Q\$. You need to add one of these in as a requirement.

I suggest you write these two equations out, eliminate one variable (\$\alpha\$ or \$\beta\$) and solve. If I have done it correctly, I think you will find a separate condition \$|K_P| > \sqrt{8} Q - 1\$, which your attempted design fails.

Also, your equations don't match your schematic - the capacitor values are swapped. This doesn't really matter as you assume they are equal, but it's still wrong.

Tesla23
  • 2,928
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9
  • Hi! Thank you for your comment! I am trying to go for your approach I might update my answer with that later. Can you also please provide me some steps you have taken? Also yes I did realize my capacitors are swapped and have updated the expressions with that taken into account. – Granger Obliviate May 20 '23 at 08:38
  • You have two equations in two unknowns, they are nonlinear and you have to figure out how to get solutions. I have given you a hint, it's your thesis.. – Tesla23 May 20 '23 at 09:57
  • Hi again. Thank you I think I have figured it out, can you please check my update? I think there are no further constraints to the design to be taken into account. – Granger Obliviate May 20 '23 at 12:31
  • I haven't worked through it, but it looks much better. I also got a quadratic in \$\sqrt{\beta}\$. Well done. – Tesla23 May 20 '23 at 21:41