Finding Thevenin Equivalent Circuit

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
11 replies · 16K views
opticaltempest
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I am working on the following problem:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2478/thevpo9.jpg

I am stuck on this seemingly simple circuit problem. I've worked many Thevenin circuit problems in my introductory circuit analysis. This problem is from a new class and seems different. I realize that I must first find the open-circuit voltage at the terminals. After that I need to the Thevenin equivalent resistance by using

[tex]\LARGE R_{Th}=V_{Th}/I_{sc}[/tex].

First let me find the open-circuit voltage [tex]v_{oc}[/tex]. Is this correct?

We know the circuit current is [tex]g_mv[/tex]. Thus the open circuit voltage which is the voltage across the voltage-controlled current source is

Using KVL:

[tex]\LARGE -v_s+v-v_{oc}=0 \implies v_{oc}=v-v_s[/tex]

and

[tex]\LARGE v=(g_mv)R_1[/tex].

So we have

[tex] \LARGE v_{oc} = (g_mv)R_1-v_s \implies<br /> \LARGE v_{oc} = (0.002v)(50k\Omega)-v_s \implies<br /> \LARGE v_{oc} = 100v-v_s[/tex]

Does this look correct for the open circuit voltage?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
V_oc = voltage across controlled current source, and assuming +polarity on the arrow-head end, you then have V_oc = Vs - V = Vs - IR where I is given by -gm V (passive ref scheme)
 
Does this solution look correct? I see where I was wrong while finding the open-circuit voltage.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1340/image0001tv1.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4223/image0002xe6.jpg

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9513/image0003zi6.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
judging by the final diagram with + on top and - on bottom at output, your short circuit current may have been defined in the wrong direction, hence leading to an overall -ve sign error.
 
opticaltempest said:
Hello,

I am working on the following problem:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2478/thevpo9.jpg

I am stuck on this seemingly simple circuit problem. I've worked many Thevenin circuit problems in my introductory circuit analysis. This problem is from a new class and seems different. I realize that I must first find the open-circuit voltage at the terminals. After that I need to the Thevenin equivalent resistance by using

[tex]\LARGE R_{Th}=V_{Th}/I_{sc}[/tex].

First let me find the open-circuit voltage [tex]v_{oc}[/tex]. Is this correct?

We know the circuit current is [tex]g_mv[/tex]. Thus the open circuit voltage which is the voltage across the voltage-controlled current source is

Using KVL:

[tex]\LARGE -v_s+v-v_{oc}=0 \implies v_{oc}=v-v_s[/tex]

and

[tex]\LARGE v=(g_mv)R_1[/tex].

So we have

[tex] \LARGE v_{oc} = (g_mv)R_1-v_s \implies<br /> \LARGE v_{oc} = (0.002v)(50k\Omega)-v_s \implies<br /> \LARGE v_{oc} = 100v-v_s[/tex]

Does this look correct for the open circuit voltage?

The current [tex]g_mv[/tex] is entering the minus terminal of [tex]v[/tex], so you should have [tex]v = -g_mvR_1[/tex] or [tex]v\left[1+g_mR_1]=0[/tex] so, [tex]v = 0[/tex] and [tex]v_{oc}=v_s[/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CEL said:
or [tex]v\left[1+g_mR_1]=0[/tex] so, [tex]v = 0[/tex] and [tex]v_{oc}=v_s[/tex]

How did you get this? Why isn't it

[tex]v_{oc}=v_s-v[/tex] ?

Thanks
 
opticaltempest said:
How did you get this? Why isn't it

[tex]v_{oc}=v_s-v[/tex] ?

Thanks

It is! But since [tex]v=0[/tex], [tex]v_{oc}=v_s-0=v_s[/tex].
 
your expression is pretty much correct, all you need is to look at the limit as v->0. basically R_th has to be infinite... such equivalent circuit does not exist in real life, only in the realm of an analysis tool.
 
I'm still confused. Why is [tex]v=0[/tex] and not left as [tex]v=-g_mvR_1[/tex]?

Why do we need to look at the limit of [tex]v[/tex] as [tex]v \rightarrow 0[/tex] ?

Correction: limit of [tex]R_{Th}[/tex] as [tex]v \rightarrow 0[/tex]
 
Last edited:
opticaltempest said:
I'm still confused. Why is [tex]v=0[/tex] and not left as [tex]v=-g_mvR_1[/tex]?

Why do we need to look at the limit of [tex]v[/tex] as [tex]v \rightarrow 0[/tex] ?

Correction: limit of [tex]R_{Th}[/tex] as [tex]v \rightarrow 0[/tex]

You have [tex]v[/tex] in both members of the equation [tex]v=-g_mvR_1[/tex]. So, unless [tex]g_mR_1=1[/tex], which it is not, you must have [tex]v=0[/tex].
Short circuiting the output you have [tex]i_{sc}=\frac{v_s}{R_1}+g_mv[/tex].
Since [tex]v=v_s[/tex], [tex]i_{sc}=\frac{v_s}{R_1}+g_mv_s=v_s\left[\frac{1}{R_1}+g_m\right][/tex]
So
[tex]R_{th}=\frac{v_{oc}}{i_{sc}}=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{R_1}+g_m}=\frac{R_1}{1+g_mR_1}[/tex].
 
Thanks CEL and mjsd for all of the help on this problem. It now makes sense. I found out the answer is R=495 ohms and vth=vs. This is definitely the correct answer when I substitute the given values into the problem. Thanks again!