1

I'm trying to find the Thevenin equivalent of this circuit with respect to the diode.

enter image description here

I know the steps needed to find Vth and Rth and I was able to find Rth already (2.2222k) but I'm having a hard time finding Vth mainly because of the ground between between the lower 2k resisters and not next to the negative terminal of the source.

Can someone advise me of what I'm missing here or what I need to do?

Null
  • 7,448
  • 17
  • 36
  • 48
Amanda
  • 59
  • 2
  • 1
    convert each pair to Vth, Rth then solve. Assume Vpn=0.6 – Tony Stewart EE75 Jan 23 '22 at 07:38
  • 2
    What did you get for Rth? Vth is quite easy without even redrawing the circuit. Two voltage dividers when the diode is removed. – Spehro Pefhany Jan 23 '22 at 07:49
  • Thanks a lot! The plan is to theveninze the diode in this circuit and then solve for different Vpn values for the diode and see how this affects the circuit. The issue is I'm not sure how to convert each "pair" to Vth and Rth here. What do we mean by pair, and do I duplicate the 3V source? So I solve the first branch (2k ohm s+ 2k ohms) with it then the left branch with the same 3v too and add them up? What this analysis called if I want to read more about how and why this is done? Thank you so much. I'm just really confused with the placement of the ground there. – Amanda Jan 23 '22 at 07:49
  • I got 2.2222k for Rth – Amanda Jan 23 '22 at 07:53
  • 2
    Remove the diode and then find the voltage on the right (Vr) side and next, find the voltage on the left side (VL). And the Vth is Vr - VL. How do you get Rth = 2.2222k? – G36 Jan 23 '22 at 08:07
  • 1
    @Amanda What others have said: You can treat any pair of resistors, used as a divider pair and an ideal voltage source across them, as a Thevenin equivalent of a different ideal voltage source having a series resistance. As you have two such divider pairs, they can each be treated separately and then the analytic schematic is much simpler, allowing you to combine the two equivalent series resistances and take the difference of the two voltage sources. That's simpler still. And \$2\:\text{k}\Omega\mid\mid 2\:\text{k}\Omega+3\:\text{k}\Omega\mid\mid 2\:\text{k}\Omega=2.2\:\text{k}\Omega\$. – jonk Jan 23 '22 at 08:33
  • 1
    @Amanda You should find a rather small voltage difference. If your mental model of the diode is a fixed but non-zero voltage difference, for example, then you likely will "find" that the diode doesn't conduct. If your mental model of the diode is still simpler, having a zero voltage difference, then the diode conducts. But this situation is such that only the Shockley diode model is sufficient to compute a specific quantity for the resulting diode current. Just by way of seeing how complicated that can be for this situation, [see here](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/592785/38098). – jonk Jan 23 '22 at 08:43
  • From the question source, are you supposed to consider an ideal diode, with Vak = 0 V ? – TonyM Jan 23 '22 at 11:46
  • 1
    Thank you so much everyone! Thanks to your help I was able to understand how to do this and I figured it out. This circuit was to be analyzed using the ideal diode method (V_D) = 0 and then the constant voltage drop method with V_D =0.7 and discuss their accuracy, etc. My only difficulty was in finding the Thevenin equivalent circuit but now it's all good! Thanks again – Amanda Jan 24 '22 at 02:35
  • 1
    Please can you edit this new information into your question, so that people don't have to piece together the full question. Thanks. – TonyM Jan 24 '22 at 07:16

1 Answers1

3

First, I will present a method that uses Mathematica to solve this problem. I know that this approach is not 'smart' but this method will work all the time, even when the circuit is way complicated than this one.

Well, we are trying to analyze the following circuit:

schematic

simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab

When we use and apply KCL, we can write the following set of equations:

$$ \begin{cases} \text{I}_0=\text{I}_1+\text{I}_2\\ \\ \text{I}_3=\text{I}_1+\text{I}_5\\ \\ \text{I}_2=\text{I}_4+\text{I}_5\\ \\ \text{I}_0=\text{I}_3+\text{I}_4 \end{cases}\tag1 $$

When we use and apply Ohm's law, we can write the following set of equations:

$$ \begin{cases} \text{I}_1=\frac{\text{V}_\text{i}-\text{V}_1}{\text{R}_1}\\ \\ \text{I}_2=\frac{\text{V}_\text{i}-\text{V}_2}{\text{R}_2}\\ \\ \text{I}_3=\frac{\text{V}_1}{\text{R}_3}\\ \\ \text{I}_4=\frac{\text{V}_2}{\text{R}_4}\\ \\ \text{I}_5=\frac{\text{V}_2-\text{V}_1}{\text{R}_5} \end{cases}\tag2 $$

Using \$(2)\$ we can rewrite \$(1)\$ as follows:

$$ \begin{cases} \text{I}_0=\frac{\text{V}_\text{i}-\text{V}_1}{\text{R}_1}+\frac{\text{V}_\text{i}-\text{V}_2}{\text{R}_2}\\ \\ \frac{\text{V}_1}{\text{R}_3}=\frac{\text{V}_\text{i}-\text{V}_1}{\text{R}_1}+\frac{\text{V}_2-\text{V}_1}{\text{R}_5}\\ \\ \frac{\text{V}_\text{i}-\text{V}_2}{\text{R}_2}=\frac{\text{V}_2}{\text{R}_4}+\frac{\text{V}_2-\text{V}_1}{\text{R}_5}\\ \\ \text{I}_0=\frac{\text{V}_1}{\text{R}_3}+\frac{\text{V}_2}{\text{R}_4} \end{cases}\tag3 $$

Now, we can set up a Mathematica-code to solve for all the voltages and currents:

In[1]:=Clear["Global`*"];
FullSimplify[
 Solve[{I0 == I1 + I2, I3 == I1 + I5, I2 == I4 + I5, I0 == I3 + I4, 
   I1 == (Vi - V1)/R1, I2 == (Vi - V2)/R2, I3 == V1/R3, I4 == V2/R4, 
   I5 == (V2 - V1)/R5}, {I0, I1, I2, I3, I4, I5, V1, V2}]]

Out[1]={{I0 -> (((R1 + R2) (R3 + R4) + (R1 + R2 + R3 + R4) R5) Vi)/(
   R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
    R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)), 
  I1 -> ((R4 R5 + R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)) Vi)/(
   R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
    R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)), 
  I2 -> ((R3 R5 + R1 (R3 + R4 + R5)) Vi)/(
   R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
    R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)), 
  I3 -> (((R1 + R2) R4 + (R2 + R4) R5) Vi)/(
   R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
    R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)), 
  I4 -> ((R3 (R2 + R5) + R1 (R3 + R5)) Vi)/(
   R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
    R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)), 
  I5 -> (-R2 R3 Vi + R1 R4 Vi)/(
   R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
    R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)), 
  V1 -> (R3 ((R1 + R2) R4 + (R2 + R4) R5) Vi)/(
   R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
    R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)), 
  V2 -> (R4 (R3 (R2 + R5) + R1 (R3 + R5)) Vi)/(
   R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
    R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5))}}

Now, we can find:

  • \$\text{V}_\text{th}\$ we get by finding \$\text{V}_2-\text{V}_1\$ and letting \$\text{R}_5\to\infty\$: $$\text{V}_\text{th}=\frac{\text{V}_\text{i}\left(\text{R}_1\text{R}_4-\text{R}_2\text{R}_3\right)}{\left(\text{R}_1+\text{R}_3\right)\left(\text{R}_2+\text{R}_4\right)}\tag4$$
  • \$\text{I}_\text{th}\$ we get by finding \$\text{I}_5\$ and letting \$\text{R}_5\to0\$: $$\text{I}_\text{th}=\frac{\text{V}_\text{i}\left(\text{R}_1\text{R}_4-\text{R}_2\text{R}_3\right)}{\text{R}_1\text{R}_4\left(\text{R}_2+\text{R}_3\right)+\text{R}_2\text{R}_3\left(\text{R}_1+\text{R}_4\right)}\tag5$$
  • \$\text{R}_\text{th}\$ we get by finding: $$\text{R}_\text{th}=\frac{\text{V}_\text{th}}{\text{I}_\text{th}}=\frac{\text{R}_1\text{R}_4\left(\text{R}_2+\text{R}_3\right)+\text{R}_2\text{R}_3\left(\text{R}_1+\text{R}_4\right)}{\left(\text{R}_1+\text{R}_3\right)\left(\text{R}_2+\text{R}_4\right)}\tag6$$

Where I used the following Mathematica-codes:

In[2]:=FullSimplify[
 Limit[(R4 (R3 (R2 + R5) + R1 (R3 + R5)) Vi)/(
   R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
    R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)) - (R3 ((R1 + R2) R4 + (R2 + R4) R5) Vi)/(
   R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
    R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)), R5 -> Infinity]]

Out[2]=((-R2 R3 + R1 R4) Vi)/((R1 + R3) (R2 + R4))

In[3]:=FullSimplify[
 Limit[(-R2 R3 Vi + R1 R4 Vi)/(
  R3 R4 R5 + R1 R4 (R3 + R5) + R2 R3 (R4 + R5) + 
   R1 R2 (R3 + R4 + R5)), R5 -> 0]]

Out[3]=(-R2 R3 Vi + R1 R4 Vi)/(R1 R2 R3 + R2 R3 R4 + R1 (R2 + R3) R4)

In[4]:=FullSimplify[%2/%3]

Out[4]=(-R2 R3 Vi + R1 R4 Vi)/(R1 R2 R3 + R2 R3 R4 + R1 (R2 + R3) R4)

So, using your values we get:

  • $$\text{V}_\text{th}=\frac{3}{10}=0.3\space\text{V}\tag7$$
  • $$\text{I}_\text{th}=\frac{3}{22000}\approx0.000136364\space\text{A}\tag8$$
  • $$\text{R}_\text{th}=2200\space\Omega\tag9$$
Jan Eerland
  • 7,203
  • 12
  • 21
  • Thank you so much @J.W.L. Jan Eerland ! This is extremely helpful. I guess I just had no idea how to move from my circuit in the question to the circuit you have in the very beginning with a common ground! Once I did that (and learned the logic behind it) I was able to get those answers! Thanks again for all your help! – Amanda Jan 24 '22 at 02:32
  • @Amanda I am glad that I could help you, you are welcome! – Jan Eerland Jan 24 '22 at 08:46