Saturday, December 14, 2024

Do Common-mode Currents Split Equally across Circuit Conductors?

This post discusses common-mode currents in circuits, examining the commonly-held belief that a cable's common-mode currents are divided equally among the cable's conductors.  It is a companion piece to my blog post on transmission-line common-mode currents:  https://k6jca.blogspot.com/2024/12/do-common-mode-currents-split-equally.html

Introduction:

When designing electronic circuitry for products, one requirement is to ensure that any unintentionally radiated EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) is below limits set by EMC (Electromagnetic Compatibility) specifications.

Although EMI emissions can sometimes be generated by a voltage (e.g. high voltage nodes in off-line switching power supplies), in my experience EMI emissions are more often created by unintentional currents within the electronic system. These EMI-creating currents are commonly known as "common-mode currents," and they can have current-loop paths (the complete path that a current take, outbound from the source and then back again) whose encompassed-area is large, resulting in significant magnetic-field induced EMI.

On the other hand, "differential-mode" currents are currents of intentionally created signals and, if their routes are well designed, both the signal's path to its load and its return path will be in close proximity.  The loop area enclosed by the entire differential-mode current path should be small and thus magnetic-field EMI radiation from this signal minimized.

Given a two wire cable, it is commonly accepted that the differential-mode currents on such a cable will be of equal magnitude and flow in opposite directions, while common-mode currents, if they exist, will be of equal magnitude but flow in the same direction, as shown in the diagram, below (adapted from Introduction to Electromagnetic Compatibility, C. R. Paul, Wiley Interscience, NY, 1992):


But must common-mode currents across multiple conductors always be equal?


Unequal Common-mode Currents in Electronic Systems:

Below is an image (from a Murata Manufacturing Company, Ltd. document) illustrating how differential-mode and common-mode currents might exist within an electronic system.

Note that the differential-mode currents are equal in magnitude and travel in opposite directions on well-defined circuit paths.  They are driven by the "Signal Source," which is a differential-mode voltage.

In the circuit above, the "Noise Source" is a common-mode voltage.  The combination of this common-mode voltage (Vcm) and the differential-mode voltage (Vdm) would be modeled per the illustration below, such that Vcm attaches to the midpoint of Vdm, making Vdm balanced with respect to Vcm:

The circuit's common-mode currents, in this case generated by an unwanted noise voltage, travel in the same direction on the two conductors along a path that includes parasitic capacitance coupling of the load to ground.  But are these two common-mode currents equal?

In the diagram below I've added parasitic capacitances to ground at the load-end of each wire.  Note that the common-mode currents on the two wires will only be equal if the capacitances are equal -- that is, if the circuit load is balanced with respect to ground.  


Therefore, if the impedance-to-ground seen by Vcm looking into one wire is different from the impedance Vcm sees looking into the other wire, the common-mode currents will not be equal.


Analysis of the Circuit's Currents:

The following images provide a more in-depth analysis of the circuit:










So, we have shown that the equations: I1 = Ic + Id and I2 = Ic - Id (and therefore the equations Ic = (I1 + I2)/2 and Id = (I1 - I2)/2) are not always true, but instead their applicability is a function of circuit component values and the balance-about-ground of the differential-voltage driving the circuit.


Another Interesting Observation:

Recall that R3 is the load for our differential-mode signal, Vdm.  Let's examine the equation for the current through R3:


We do not want Vcm (i.e. a noise source) to corrupt the Vdm signal across R3!  To prevent this from occurring in the circuit above, R2*R4 should equal R1*R5.


SPICE Simulations:

The following SPICE simulations can give us actual values of the currents in each component.  With these currents, we can test if and when Ic = (I1 +I2)/2 and Id = (I1-I2)/2 are true.  


Note that the following values for current calculated with LTSpice are the same values as would be calculated using the equations derived with MATLAB, shown earlier in this post.

LTSpice with Balanced Vdm and Balanced Load:

In the circuit below Vdm equals 1 volt (i.e. Vdm1 = Vdm2 = 0.5V), and it is balanced with respect to ground (e.g. when Vcm is set to 0 for Vdm analysis).  That is, its midpoint is referenced to ground.

Also, the "parasitic loads to ground," R4 and R5, are of equal value and balanced with respect to ground.

To analyze the currents when driven by Vcm alone, Vdm is set to 0 (i.e. the Principle of Superposition) and the circuit simulated.

Similarly, to analyze the currents when the circuit is driven by Vdm, Vcm is set to 0 and the circuit is simulated.

Total currents are calculated with both Vdm and Vcm set to 1 volt .  Note that the total currents should equal the sum of the Vcm-driven currents plud the Vdm-driven currents.


Recall our equations Ic = (I1 + I2)/2 and Id = (I1 - I2)/2.  I1 is equal to the total current through R1, which is 0.0131 Amps.

Similarly, I2 is equal to the total current through R2, which in the circuit above is -0.0087 Amps (negative because I2 is defined to travel from left-to-right, while the current through R2 is actually traveling right-to-left).

Per the equations for Ic and Id:

     Ic = (I1 + I2)/2 = (0.0131-0.0087)/2 = 0.0022 A

     Id = (I1 - I2)/2 = (0.0131+0.0087)/2 = 0.0109 A

Note that the calculated value for Ic exactly matches the simulated values of the Vcm-driven currents through R1 and R2.

Similarly, the calculated value for Id exactly matches the simulated values of the Vdm-driven currents through R1 and R2.

Therefore, for the circuit above, the equations Ic = (I1+I2)/2 and Id = (I1-I2)/2 are TRUE.


LTSpice with Unbalanced Vdm and Balanced Load:

Now let's examine the same circuit, but with the Vdm source unbalanced (i.e. single-ended drive).  Note that the Vdm drive remains unchanged at 1V.


Calculating Ic and Id, recall that I1 = IR1 and I2 = IR2.  Using the "Total Current" values from the LTSpice simulation:

     Ic = (I1 + I2)/2 = (0.0142-0.0075)/2 = 0.0034 A

     Id = (I1 - I2)/2 = (0.0142+0.0075)/2 = 0.0109 A

If we compare these values to the values generated with LTSpice, we can easily see that the common-mode currents through R1 and R2 ae each 0.0022 A, not the calculated value of Ic = 0.0034 A.

Similarly, the circuit's Vdm-driven currents through R1 and R2 do not equal Id.  In fact, a portion of the differential-mode current travels out through the parasitic resistors R4 and R5 and takes the long way back to Vdm (i.e. via Vcm), rather than returning via R2.

Therefore, for the circuit above, the equations Ic = (I1+I2)/2 and Id = (I1-I2)/2 are FALSE.


LTSpice with Balanced Vdm and Unbalanced Load:

Finally, suppose that, with respect to ground, Vdm is balanced but the load is unbalanced -- in this case, R4 = 500 ohms and R5 = 400 ohms.


Calculating Ic and Id, recall that I1 = IR1 and I2 = IR2.  Using the "Total Current" values from the LTSpice simulation:

     Ic = (I1 + I2)/2 = (0.0128-0.0085)/2 = 2.15 mA

     Id = (I1 - I2)/2 = (0.0128+0.0085)/2 = 10.65 mA

If we compare these values to the Vcm-driven values of IR1 and IR2 generated with LTSpice, we can easily see that the common-mode currents through R1 and R2 are 2.0 and 2.5 mA, respectively, not each 2.15 mA.

Similarly, the Vdm-driven currents through R1 and R2, are also unequal.  In fact, a portion of the differential-mode current travels out through Vcm and takes the long way back to Vdm2 via the parasitic resistor R5.

Also, in this circuit we can see that a small portion of the Vcm-driven current goes through R3.  If R3 is our load for the differential-drive signal Vdm, then, if Vcm is an unwanted noise source, we have corrupted Vdm's signal across R3 with this noise.

Therefore, for the circuit above, the equations Ic = (I1+I2)/2 and Id = (I1-I2)/2 are FALSE.


Conclusions:

Although there is often an assumption that common-mode current in a cable must be equally distributed across the cable's conductors, in fact it is possible for the conductors to have different amounts of common-mode current.  Ditto for the differential-mode current.

In addition, if a circuit is not perfectly "balanced", it is possibly for a common-mode noise voltage to add unwanted noise to a differential-signal's load.


Standard Caveat:

As always, I might have made a mistake in my equations, assumptions, drawings, or interpretations.  If you see anything you believe to be in error or if anything is confusing, please feel free to contact me or comment below.

And so I should add -- this information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Thursday, December 5, 2024

Do Common-mode Currents Split Equally across Transmission-Line Conductors?

(This blog post is a companion piece to my post on circuit cable common-mode currents, found here: https://k6jca.blogspot.com/2024/12/do-common-mode-currents-split-equally_14.html)

Are common-mode currents equal on a transmission line's conductors?  Let's look at two cases: a coaxial cable transmission line and a two-wire (e.g. twin-lead) transmission line.

Coaxial Cable Transmission Line

If the transmission line is a coaxial cable, the answer is no.

Although a coax cable consists of two conductors, the center conductor and the shield, electrically it behaves as though there are three conductors:  the center conductor, the inner-surface of the shield, and the outer-surface of the shield.

The RF signal is applied between the center conductor and the shield.  Due to physics, the signal travels on the center conductor and the inner-surface of the shield (assuming the shield has adequate thickness).  For the purpose of transporting energy from the transmitter to the antenna, the outer-surface of the coax plays no role, and the EM fields of the forward and returning currents are completely contained within the coax -- these two currents do not radiate beyond the coax.

However, the outer-surface of the coax has an undesired effect where it attaches to the antenna -- it behaves as an extra wire that is attached between one side of the antenna and the distant transmitter, running the length of the coax transmission line.  As such, it becomes a radiating part of the antenna.

The current flowing on this outer surface (and radiating RF energy) is also commonly called a "common-mode current".  Note that this common-mode current is only on the outside of the coax cable, and only it is the cause of coax cable RF emissions.


So, on a coax cable, common-mode current is only carried on the shield (its outer surface) but not on the center conductor.  The common-mode current is not distributed equally across the coax cable's conductors.


Two-wire Transmission Line

Next, consider a two-wire (e.g. twin-lead) transmission line.

A two-wire transmission line does not have the same self-shielding properties as a coax cable, and there isn't a "third" conductive element (i.e. the coax shield's outer surface) that acts as an unintentional RF radiator.

But an antenna & transmitter system can have unequal common-mode currents on a two-wire transmission line if the system is unbalanced.

Unbalance can occur if any of the following conditions exist:

  1. The antenna elements are unmatched, either in length with respect to each other, or in position with respect to ground.
  2. The transmitter is not balanced with respect to ground.      
  3. The two wires of the transmission line are unequal in length, or one wire is closer to ground or conductive objects than the other wire.

Let's examine antenna imbalance and transmitter imbalance (skipping transmission line imbalance).  I'll use EZNEC for the antenna simulations.

The first simulation will be of a dipole that is balanced with respect to the length of its elements and their position with respect to ground.  The voltage source driving the antenna is also balanced with respect to ground in the sense that the voltage source's "midpoint" is tied to ground, so that, if one side of the transmission line is positive with respect to ground (e.g +0.5V), the other side is negative (e.g. -0.5V), and vice-versa.

This balanced voltage source is implemented with two identical in-phase voltage sources so that the total voltage swing is twice the amplitude of a single source.


In the EZNEC models, below, I'm going to accentuate any common-mode coupling paths and also minimize the effects of SWR by making the transmission line only 5 feet long.  At 3.5 MHz, this length is a very small fraction of a wavelength, nevertheless, it is still a transmission line.

Balanced Dipole Antenna and Transmitter:

In the antenna diagram below, you can see that the balanced voltage source consists of two series-connected 0.5 V sources (resulting in 1V of drive) with ground connected between them.  The dipole consists of two 50 foot elements, so it is 100 feet long.  But its height is only 5 feet above ground.

The transmission line is simply two #12 wires run in parallel with spacing of 1.2 inches (0.1 feet) between the two wires.  No thought was given to the line's characteristic impedance.  It is what it is.

The EZNEC simulation shows that for this balanced-antenna and balanced-source configuration, there are no common-mode currents -- the currents are differential only.  There is no current on the wire attached to ground.


EZNEC currents for this antenna:


Balanced Dipole, Unbalanced Transmitter:

Let's unbalance the voltage source driving the balanced antenna by removing the 0.5V source in wire 4 (as shown in the previous antenna diagram) and change the value of the remaining source from 0.5 volts to 1 volt, so that, overall, the magnitude of the driving voltage remains the same.

The dipole, itself, remains unchanged, that is, it remains balanced.

Below are the EZNEC results.  Clearly the currents in the transmission line are unbalanced, and the majority of current follows a path through wires 1, 3, 6, and 5 (the wire to ground).  This is common-mode current, and it is only on one of the transmission line's two wires (wire 3), not both.


EZNEC currents for this antenna:


By the way, the higher this antenna is raised, the smaller and smaller will be the current imbalance between the currents on the dipoles two radiating elements.  But these two currents will not be equal.

Unbalanced Dipole, Balanced Transmitter:

Let's return to a balanced voltage source driving the transmission line and change the balanced dipole to be unbalanced.  The simplest way to do this is to change the length of one of the dipole's elements, so let's change the length of the right-hand element to zero (that is, remove it).  The dipole is now a unipole.

Again, the EZNEC results show that the majority of the current flows through wires 1, 3, 6, and 5.  So again, there is significant common-mode current in this antenna system, but only on one wire (wire 3) of the two-wire transmission line.


EZNEC currents for this antenna:



Conclusions:

Although there is often an assumption that common-mode current in a cable must be equally distributed across the cable's conductors, in fact it is possible for the conductors to have different amounts of common-mode current.

Similarly, the two wires of a two-wire transmission line (e.g. twin-lead) can have mismatched amounts of common-mode current on them.


Standard Caveat:

As always, I might have made a mistake in my equations, assumptions, drawings, or interpretations.  If you see anything you believe to be in error or if anything is confusing, please feel free to contact me or comment below.

And so I should add -- this information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.