2
\$\begingroup\$

the Bessel filter transfer function is defined via bessel polynomials. If we consider for example a 2nd order filter, the transfer function is: $$ H(s) = \frac{3}{s^2+3*s+3} $$ I wanted to build a simulation for such a filter with a Sallen-Key-Architecture. Therefore I consulted this design guide by TI. They define the transfer function of a 2nd order low pass as:

enter image description here

Ao is 1 since I want the gain to be unity. I looked at the table below in order to correctly calculate the C- and R-values.

enter image description here

Hence the transfer function becomes: $$ H(s) = \frac{1}{0.618*s^2+1.3617*s+1} $$

I ran the simulation and looked at the bode plot. It showed the desired result (the -3db cutoff frequency was as calculated).

However I do not understand why the transfer function looks so differently. Its definetely not a Bessel polynomial. I checked the step response and observed an overshoot of 0.4% as one would expect for a Bessel filter. Therefor I have 3 Questions:

  1. How come that the transfer function in the ti design guide is not a bessel polynomial.
  2. Should the pole location of a 2nd order Bessel filter be the same for any filter with a certain cutoff frequency?
  3. Can a second order bessel low pass have a different Q factor than 0.5773?

Thanks!

|improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The constant in the denominator for the last equation H(s) must be "1" instead of "3". Last question: NO!. It is the Q factor only that determines the Bessel response. \$\endgroup\$ – LvW Mar 13 '17 at 14:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ you are right, it was a typo. Still doesnt have to do much with a bessel polynomial. \$\endgroup\$ – luis Mar 13 '17 at 14:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ Why not? It is a typical filter function with a frequency response called "Thomson-Bessel". What is your problem? Of course, the filter function is not identical to the "mathematical Bessel polynominal". \$\endgroup\$ – LvW Mar 13 '17 at 15:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't understand why you have this mathematical definition on the one side, and a transfer function that is completely different on the other side. Where do these coefficients come from? \$\endgroup\$ – luis Mar 13 '17 at 16:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The coefficients of the so-called Bessel filters are calculated on the requirement of a maximally flat group delay in the passband (to be compared with a maximally flat amplitude for Butterworth filtes). It can be shown that during calculation of the coefficients we make use of the known Bessel polynominals (this is a rather involved procedure) - but this does not mean that the magnitude of the transfer function has response which looks like Bessel functions. It is - as mentionmed - the mathematical procedure behind the finding of the coefficients. OK? \$\endgroup\$ – LvW Mar 13 '17 at 16:07
2
\$\begingroup\$

How come that the transfer function in the ti design guide is not a bessel polynomial.

Let's look at the transfer function you have written: -

\$H(s) = \dfrac{1}{0.618s^2+1.3617s+ 1}\$

Rearranging: -

\$H(s) = \dfrac{1.6181}{s^2+2.2034s+ 1.6181}\$

The equation is now in standard form : \$H(s) = \dfrac{\omega_n^2}{s^2+2\zeta\omega_ns+ \omega_n^2}\$

And clearly \$\omega_n\$ = \$\sqrt{1.6181}\$ hence 2.2034/\$\sqrt{1.6181}\$ = 1.732. This bit is important because it is \$\sqrt3\$.

For a Bessel 2nd order low pass filter 2\$\zeta\$ = \$\sqrt3\$ hence zeta is 0.866.

enter image description here

Picture source

In the picture I've manipulated R to give me a damping ratio (zeta) of precisely 1.732 - look at the peak in the step response - 1.00433 volts - exactly right for Bessel. Look at the phase delay plotted on the upper graph - maximally flat and gradually becoming 90 degrees at the natural resonant frequency. Fd (the damped frequency) is precisely 0.5 - also indicative of Bessel.

Can a second order bessel low pass have a different Q factor than 0.5773?

0.5773 is the reciprocal of \$\sqrt3\$ and no it has tto be that Q for a Bessel LPF.

|improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The reason the polynomial is different is for the frequency scaling. A non-scaled Bessel (OP's first formula) will have \$\omega_0=\sqrt{3}\$, with an attenuation of ~-1.597dB@1Hz -- nothing unusual, Bessel is normally for flat group delay, not frequency -- so TI scaled it so that it's the classical -3dB. \$\endgroup\$ – a concerned citizen May 2 '18 at 16:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @aconcernedcitizen why not make this an answer rather than pinning it to my answer unless, of course you are too-subtley pointing out an error in my answer that I'm too stupid to recognize? \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka May 2 '18 at 16:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ I had written this as a comment so that the answer to which I am making the comment can be updated, if necessary. But if you say it should be an answer, so be it. I don't know where did the "stupid" come from. \$\endgroup\$ – a concerned citizen May 2 '18 at 16:40
3
\$\begingroup\$

A Bessel filter has, as you correctly show in your first formula, \$\omega_0=\sqrt{3}\$. It's not unusual if you think that, normally, a Bessel filter is used for its flat group delay, rather than its frequency behaviour (as @LvW says in his comment). But implementing a filter with that transfer function will give a ~1.597dB@1Hz attenuation, which doesn't make the response a classical one. So, TI applied a frequency scaling so that the attenuation is -3dB@1Hz. As it so happens, the squared frequency (pulsation) is \$\phi\$=1.618..., after which they re-arranged the terms to fit their opamp topology.

|improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.