3
\$\begingroup\$

I am trying to analyze the circuit given below:

enter image description here

The reference node is in the bottom with 0 V.

At nodes A and B writing down Kirchhoff’s first law equation trying to express each current in terms of the voltage across the branch.

My equation for node A looks like this:

$$ \frac{V_{G_1}-V_A}{R_1} - \frac{V_A-V_{reference}}{R_2} - \frac{V_A-V_{reference}}{R_3} + \frac{V_A-V_B}{R_4} + I_{G_2} = 0 $$

For node B:

$$ -I_{G_3} - \frac{V_B-V_{reference}}{R_5} - \frac{V_B-V_A}{R_4} + I_{G_2} = 0 $$

As of now I only have two equations and three unknowns. Therefore I am not sure if my solution attempt is correct.

\$\endgroup\$
16
  • \$\begingroup\$ VB - VA = VG2 is your last equation. With this, is the set solvable ? \$\endgroup\$
    – AJN
    Oct 4, 2020 at 17:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @AJN thanks and how about I_G2? \$\endgroup\$
    – ytho
    Oct 4, 2020 at 17:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ You are right. You can use Super Node concept in such situations. \$\endgroup\$
    – AJN
    Oct 4, 2020 at 17:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ You are right, that would be much easier but the assignment states we must use the node analysis \$\endgroup\$
    – ytho
    Oct 4, 2020 at 17:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ Since IG2 is common to both equations, you may be able to eliminate it by subtraction. \$\endgroup\$
    – AJN
    Oct 4, 2020 at 17:13

1 Answer 1

1
\$\begingroup\$

You have done a good job drawing arrows to represent your currents. When you apply Kirchoff's current law you are just saying all current into a node = all current out of a node.

Below I'll write the node A equation and will arbitrarily assign current into the node as positive:

$$ \frac{V_{G_1}-V_A}{R_1} - \frac{V_A-V_{reference}}{R_2} - \frac{V_A-V_{reference}}{R_3} - \frac{V_A-V_B}{R_4} - I_{G_2} = 0 $$

Equally as valid - i can arbitrarily assign current into the node as negative which would result in the following equation:

$$ -\frac{V_{G_1}-V_A}{R_1} + \frac{V_A-V_{reference}}{R_2} + \frac{V_A-V_{reference}}{R_3} + \frac{V_A-V_B}{R_4} + I_{G_2} = 0 $$

Clearly, these are both equivalent.

EDIT: Using your figure and adding an arrow for IG2. I will arbitrarily decide that current into node B is negative and write a KCL equation:

$$-I_{R_4} - I_{G_2} - I_{R_5} - I_{G_3} = 0$$

enter image description here

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ It surely does help to clarify things. So for node B: \$-I_{G_3} - \frac{V_A-V_B}{R_4} - \frac{V_B-V_{reference}}{R_5} + I_{G_2} = 0\$ correct? \$\endgroup\$
    – ytho
    Oct 4, 2020 at 18:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ You need to draw an arrow for IG2 first. If you draw it going out of node B and you put a + sign on your third term then your above equation will be correct. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 4, 2020 at 18:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ I suppose I can not draw it going out of node B since it is already going out of node A according to the first equation. Am I right? So changing the equation for nod B to \$-I_{G_3} - \frac{V_A-V_B}{R_4} - \frac{V_B-V_{reference}}{R_5} - I_{G_2} = 0\$ would be the right solution? \$\endgroup\$
    – ytho
    Oct 4, 2020 at 18:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, once you decide on the direction of the arrow you need to keep it while writing both node A and B equations. Your equation just above will be correct if you change the sign on the 3rd term to + (because as you have written that term it is a current leaving node B). \$\endgroup\$ Oct 4, 2020 at 18:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Isn't current \$I_{R_5}\$ entering node B because of the arrow that was already there? \$\endgroup\$
    – ytho
    Oct 4, 2020 at 18:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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