I was given this transfer function and instructed to use a Sallen-key cascaded with a 1st order filter to achieve it.


The first order transfer function is


So if I choose \$c=10\mu F\$, then \$R=159\Omega\$.

That leave the Sallen-key transfer function to be


So \$A\$ must be equal to \$1\$ and \$\frac{1}{R^2C^2}=628^2\$. The same values for R and C as the first order filter work here.

The problem is that middle term, \$628s=\frac{2}{RC}\$. This contradicts the other values. It works fine if this was a typo and that term was meant to be \$\frac{1}{2}\$ that value. Did I make a mistake here? I've wasted hours deriving and rederiving the transfer function for the filter to no avail.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Although the answer given suits, note the gain of first order transfer function did not necessarily have to be 628. In other words: \$(628)^3\$ doesn't have to be factored as \$(628) \cdot (628)^2\$ but could e.g. have been factored as \$(157) \cdot (1256)^2\$ as well \$\endgroup\$ – Huisman Dec 9 '19 at 10:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ The transfer function must written in a low-entropy format with a leading term while the numerator over the denominator is unitless: factor \$628^3\$ and you end-up with \$H(s)=\frac{1}{1+\frac{s}{\omega_p}}\frac{1}{1+\frac{s}{Q\omega_0}+(\frac{s}{\omega_0})^2}\$. This is a unity-gain low-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of \$\omega_p=\frac{1}{628}\$ followed by a second-order filter with a unity \$Q\$ also tuned at \$\omega_0 = \omega_p\$. Rewriting transfer functions the proper way is key in understanding their asymptotical responses. \$\endgroup\$ – Verbal Kint Dec 9 '19 at 12:39

Start with a 2nd order low pass filter transfer function in its general form: -

$$H(s) = \dfrac{\omega_n^2}{s^2 + 2\zeta\omega_ns + \omega_n^2}$$

And then mulitply this with a single order low pass filter transfer function: -


Giving you this: -

$$\dfrac{\omega_n}{s+\omega_n}\cdot \dfrac{\omega_n^2}{s^2 + 2\zeta\omega_ns + \omega_n^2}$$

Can you see that this is the same form as your equation and therefore, \$2\zeta\omega_n\$ must equal \$\omega_n\$ or put differently, \$\zeta\$ = 0.5.

The problem you have in your analysis is that you haven't factored-in the effect of zeta (\$\zeta\$) and a sallen key filter can quite often have a zeta below 1 because this can optimize the transfer function. Look up butterworth sallen key filters for example.

| improve this answer | |
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is ζ the same as Q, defined as 1/(3-A)? I thought that term was meant to be ω/Q \$\endgroup\$ – griffin175 Dec 9 '19 at 10:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ zeta = 1/(2Q) or Q = 1/(2*zeta) \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka Dec 9 '19 at 10:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ That makes perfect sense. I can't believe I got stuck on this for 5 hours. Thank you \$\endgroup\$ – griffin175 Dec 9 '19 at 10:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm going to have to retract the "that makes sense" part of my statement. After investigating further I found that I was at least partially correct. Q is 1/(3-A) so Q must be 1/2 and therefore zeta = 1. The contradiction remains. The solution was as @Huisman mentioned, to factor the numerator differently. This leaves the first order filter with a gain of its own and this works with an active filter. \$\endgroup\$ – griffin175 Dec 10 '19 at 3:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ You said The same values for R and C as the first order filter work here. and I assumed this was up for grabs. Yes, if you insist that R1=R2 and C1=C2 (for the sallen key) then you are forced into the scenario where Q = 0.5 and \$\zeta\$=1. And, it has to follow that the numerator is factored differently. \$\endgroup\$ – Andy aka Dec 10 '19 at 8:05

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.