In electronics, a two-port network (a kind of four-terminal network or quadripole) is an electrical network (i.e. a circuit) or device with two pairs of terminals to connect to external circuits. Two terminals constitute a port if the Electric current applied to them satisfy the essential requirement known as the port condition: the current entering one terminal must equal the current emerging from the other terminal on the same port.Gray, §3.2, p. 172Jaeger, §10.5 §13.5 §13.8 The ports constitute interfaces where the network connects to other networks, the points where signals are applied or outputs are taken. In a two-port network, often port 1 is considered the input port and port 2 is considered the output port.
It is commonly used in mathematical circuit analysis.
Examples of circuits analyzed as two-ports are filters, , transmission lines, , and small-signal models for transistors (such as the hybrid-pi model). The analysis of passive two-port networks is an outgrowth of reciprocity theorems first derived by Lorentz.
In two-port mathematical models, the network is described by a 2 by 2 square matrix of . The common models that are used are referred to as - parameters, - parameters, - parameters, - parameters, and - parameters, each described individually below. These are all limited to linear networks since an underlying assumption of their derivation is that any given circuit condition is a linear superposition of various short-circuit and open circuit conditions. They are usually expressed in matrix notation, and they establish relations between the variables
which are shown in figure 1. The difference between the various models lies in which of these variables are regarded as the independent variables. These electric current and voltage variables are most useful at low-to-moderate frequencies. At high frequencies (e.g., microwave frequencies), the use of power and energy variables is more appropriate, and the two-port current–voltage approach is replaced by an approach based upon scattering parameters.
where
z_{11} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_1}{I_1} \right|_{I_2 = 0} & z_{12} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_1}{I_2} \right|_{I_1 = 0} \\ z_{21} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_2}{I_1} \right|_{I_2 = 0} & z_{22} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_2}{I_2} \right|_{I_1 = 0}\end{align}
All the -parameters have dimensions of .
For reciprocal networks . For symmetrical networks . For reciprocal lossless networks all the are purely imaginary.Matthaei et al, p. 29.
+ Table 1 ! !! Expression !! Approximation | ||
R_{21} = \left. \frac{V_2}{I_1} \right>_{I_2=0} | ||
R_{11} = \left. \frac{V_1}{I_1} \right>_{I_2=0} |
The negative feedback introduced by resistors can be seen in these parameters. For example, when used as an active load in a differential amplifier, , making the output impedance of the mirror approximately
where
y_{11} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{I_1}{V_1} \right|_{V_2 = 0} & y_{12} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{I_1}{V_2} \right|_{V_1 = 0} \\ y_{21} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{I_2}{V_1} \right|_{V_2 = 0} & y_{22} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{I_2}{V_2} \right|_{V_1 = 0}\end{align}
All the Y-parameters have dimensions of siemens.
For reciprocal networks . For symmetrical networks . For reciprocal lossless networks all the are purely imaginary.
where
This circuit is often selected when a current amplifier is desired at the output. The resistors shown in the diagram can be general impedances instead.
Off-diagonal -parameters are dimensionless, while diagonal members have dimensions the reciprocal of one another.
For reciprocal networks . For symmetrical networks . For reciprocal lossless networks and are real, while and are purely imaginary.
where
Often this circuit is selected when a voltage amplifier is wanted at the output. Off-diagonal g-parameters are dimensionless, while diagonal members have dimensions the reciprocal of one another. The resistors shown in the diagram can be general impedances instead.
Note: Some authors chose to reverse the indicated direction of I2 and suppress the negative sign on I2.
where
For reciprocal networks . For symmetrical networks . For networks which are reciprocal and lossless, and are purely real while and are purely imaginary.
This representation is preferred because when the parameters are used to represent a cascade of two-ports, the matrices are written in the same order that a network diagram would be drawn, that is, left to right. However, a variant definition is also in use,A. Chakrabarti, p. 581, , Dhanpat Rai & Co pvt. ltd.
where
The negative sign of arises to make the output current of one cascaded stage (as it appears in the matrix) equal to the input current of the next. Without the minus sign the two currents would have opposite senses because the positive direction of current, by convention, is taken as the current entering the port. Consequently, the input voltage/current matrix vector can be directly replaced with the matrix equation of the preceding cascaded stage to form a combined matrix.
The terminology of representing the parameters as a matrix of elements designated etc. as adopted by some authorsFarago, p. 102. and the inverse parameters as a matrix of elements designated etc. is used here for both brevity and to avoid confusion with circuit elements.
where the are the incident waves and the are the reflected waves at port . It is conventional to define the and in terms of the square root of power. Consequently, there is a relationship with the wave voltages (see main article for details).Egan, pp. 11–12
For reciprocal networks . For symmetrical networks . For antimetrical networks .Carlin, p. 304 For lossless reciprocal networks and Matthaei et al, p. 44.
-parameters are not as easy to measure directly as -parameters. However, -parameters are easily converted to -parameters, see main article for details.Egan, pp. 13–14
The combination rules need to be applied with care. Some connections (when dissimilar potentials are joined) result in the port condition being invalidated and the combination rule will no longer apply. A Brune test can be used to check the permissibility of the combination. This difficulty can be overcome by placing 1:1 ideal transformers on the outputs of the problem two-ports. This does not change the parameters of the two-ports, but does ensure that they will continue to meet the port condition when interconnected. An example of this problem is shown for series-series connections in figures 11 and 12 below.Farago, pp. 122–127.
As mentioned above, there are some networks which will not yield directly to this analysis. A simple example is a two-port consisting of a -network of resistors and . The -parameters for this network are;
Figure 11 shows two identical such networks connected in series-series. The total -parameters predicted by matrix addition are;
However, direct analysis of the combined circuit shows that,
The discrepancy is explained by observing that of the lower two-port has been by-passed by the short-circuit between two terminals of the output ports. This results in no current flowing through one terminal in each of the input ports of the two individual networks. Consequently, the port condition is broken for both the input ports of the original networks since current is still able to flow into the other terminal. This problem can be resolved by inserting an ideal transformer in the output port of at least one of the two-port networks. While this is a common text-book approach to presenting the theory of two-ports, the practicality of using transformers is a matter to be decided for each individual design.
A chain of two-ports may be combined by matrix multiplication of the matrices. To combine a cascade of -parameter matrices, they are again multiplied, but the multiplication must be carried out in reverse order, so that;
The transmission matrix for the entire network is simply the matrix multiplication of the transmission matrices for the two network elements:
Thus:
Where is the determinant of .
Certain pairs of matrices have a particularly simple relationship. The admittance parameters are the matrix inverse of the impedance parameters, the inverse hybrid parameters are the matrix inverse of the hybrid parameters, and the form of the -parameters is the matrix inverse of the form. That is,
For example, three-port impedance parameters result in the following relationship:
However the following representations are necessarily limited to two-port devices:
For example, consider impedance parameters
Connecting a load, onto port 2 effectively adds the constraint
The negative sign is because the positive direction for is directed into the two-port instead of into the load. The augmented equations become
The second equation can be easily solved for as a function of and that expression can replace in the first equation leaving ( and and ) as functions of
So, in effect, sees an input impedance and the two-port's effect on the input circuit has been effectively collapsed down to a one-port; i.e., a simple two terminal impedance.
Hybrid parameters (h-parameters)
h_{11} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_1}{I_1} \right|_{V_2 = 0} &
h_{12} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_1}{V_2} \right|_{I_1 = 0} \\
h_{21} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{I_2}{I_1} \right|_{V_2 = 0} &
h_{22} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{I_2}{V_2} \right|_{I_1 = 0}
\end{align}
Example: common-base amplifier
r_\mathrm{O}
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|}
+ Table 2
! !! Expression !! Approximation h_{21} = \left. \frac{ I_{2} }{ I_1 } \right>_{V_2=0} h_{11} = \left. \frac{V_1}{I_1} \right>_{V_2=0}
History
Inverse hybrid parameters (g-parameters)
g_{11} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{I_1}{V_1} \right|_{I_2 = 0} &
g_{12} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{I_1}{I_2} \right|_{V_1 = 0} \\
g_{21} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_2}{V_1} \right|_{I_2 = 0} &
g_{22} &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_2}{I_2} \right|_{V_1 = 0}
\end{align}
Example: common-base amplifier
+ Table 3
! !! Expression !! Approximation g_{21} = \left. \frac{ V_2 }{ V_1 } \right>_{I_2=0} g_{11} = \left. \frac{I_1}{V_1} \right>_{I_2=0} g_{22} = \left. \frac{V_2}{I_2} \right>_{V_1=0} g_{12} = \left. \frac{I_1}{I_2} \right>_{V_1=0}
ABCD-parameters
A &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_1}{V_2} \right|_{I_2 = 0} &
B &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. -\frac{V_1}{I_2} \right|_{V_2 = 0} \\
C &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{I_1}{V_2} \right|_{I_2 = 0} &
D &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. -\frac{I_1}{I_2} \right|_{V_2 = 0}
\end{align}
A' &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_2}{V_1} \right|_{I_1 = 0} &
B' &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. \frac{V_2}{I_1} \right|_{V_1 = 0} \\
C' &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. -\frac{I_2}{V_1} \right|_{I_1 = 0} &
D' &\mathrel{\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}} \left. -\frac{I_2}{I_1} \right|_{V_1 = 0}
\end{align}
\left[\mathbf{a}\right] &= \begin{bmatrix} a_{11} & a_{12} \\ a_{21} & a_{22} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} A & B \\ C & D \end{bmatrix} \\
\left[\mathbf{b}\right] &= \begin{bmatrix} b_{11} & b_{12} \\ b_{21} & b_{22} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} A' & B' \\ C' & D' \end{bmatrix}
\end{align}
Table of transmission parameters
Series impedance , impedance Shunt admittance , admittance Series inductor , inductance
, complex angular frequencyShunt inductor , inductance
, complex angular frequencySeries capacitor , capacitance
, complex angular frequencyShunt capacitor , capacitance
, complex angular frequencyTransmission line Clayton, p. 271. , characteristic impedance
, propagation constant ()
, length of transmission line ()
Scattering parameters (S-parameters)
Scattering transfer parameters (T-parameters)
Combinations of two-port networks
Series-series connection
Parallel-parallel connection
Series-parallel connection
Parallel-series connection
Cascade connection
Example
[\mathbf{b}]_1 &= \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -R \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}\\
\lbrack\mathbf{b}\rbrack_2 &= \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ -sC & 1 \end{bmatrix}
\end{align}
\lbrack\mathbf{b}\rbrack &= \lbrack\mathbf{b}\rbrack_2 \cdot \lbrack\mathbf{b}\rbrack_1 \\
&= \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ -sC & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -R \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \\
&= \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -R \\ -sC & 1 + sCR \end{bmatrix}
\end{align}
Interrelation of parameters
\left[\mathbf{y}\right] &= [\mathbf{z}]^{-1} \\
\left[\mathbf{g}\right] &= [\mathbf{h}]^{-1} \\
\left[\mathbf{b}\right] &= [\mathbf{a}]^{-1}
\end{align}
Networks with more than two ports
Collapsing a two-port to a one port
V_1 &= Z_{11} I_1 + Z_{12} I_2 \\
-Z_\mathrm{L} I_2 &= Z_{21} I_1 + Z_{22} I_2
\end{align}
I_2 &= -\frac{Z_{21}}{Z_\mathrm{L} + Z_{22}} I_1 \\[3pt]
V_1 &= Z_{11} I_1 - \frac{Z_{12} Z_{21}}{Z_\mathrm{L} + Z_{22}} I_1 \\[2pt]
&= \left(Z_{11} - \frac{Z_{12} Z_{21}}{Z_\mathrm{L} + Z_{22}}\right) I_1 = Z_\text{in} I_1
\end{align}
See also
Notes
Bibliography
h-parameters history
|
|