Review of Experimental Circuit Analysis

EE 3313L, Electronics I
Luke Macfarlan

Carmen de los A. Selva Lpez

John Brown University

Siloam Springs, USA
MacfarlanL@jbu.edu

John Brown University

Siloam Springs, USA
SelvaC@jbu.edu

Abstract This laboratory report presents an introduction to

analyzing circuits and creating Thvenin and Norton equivalent
circuits. Norton and Thvenin equivalent circuits were produced
for a given DC circuit using a digital multimeter (DMM),
oscilloscope, and LTSPICE simulation results as well as
theoretical calculations. The INorton, VThvenin, and Req were
theoretically found and the measured results agreed. An AC
circuit was measured experimentally. The circuit was also
analyzed theoretically to find the Thvenin and Norton equivalent
circuits.

I.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this lab was to analyze circuits having AC

and DC voltages to find Norton and Thvenin equivalent
circuits. Using circuit analysis, any circuit with a constant
frequency can be modeled as a circuit with one power source
and one impedance component. These simplified circuits are
called Thvenin and Norton equivalent circuits. Thvenin
equivalent circuits use a voltage source in series with the
impedance, and Norton equivalent circuits use a current source
for a power supply in parallel with the impedance. Because large
circuits can be simplified into two simple circuit components,
these equivalent circuit models are extremely useful in circuit
analysis. In Section II.A, a DC circuit was analyzed using a
DMM, LTSPICE, and mathematical theory to find the Thvenin
and Norton equivalent circuits. In Section II.B, an AC circuit
was analyzed with a DMM, oscilloscope, LTSPICE, and
mathematical theory to create Thvenin and Norton equivalent
circuits.
II.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

A. Analysis of DC Circuit
In order to analyze a circuit with a DC input voltage, the
circuit in Fig. 1 was constructed. The actual values of all circuit
components were measured before the circuit construction and
are shown in Table I. To calculate the output voltage in the load
(marked as Vout in Fig. 1), the Thvenin/Norton equivalent
theorem was applied, which states
=

(1)

where Isc is the current that flows through a wire used to short
the load resistance, Voc is the open-circuit voltage across the load
terminals, and Zeq is the Thvenin/Norton equivalent impedance
at the load terminals when zeroing the DC voltage.

Fig. 1. Circuit with DC Input

The load resistance (R5) was removed and a series of source

transformations accomplished through Ohms Law in terms of
(1). The Thvenin/Norton equivalents were calculated using the
measured values of the resistors. The open-circuit voltage and
short-circuit current were measured using a DMM. The load
resistance was removed to measure the open-circuit voltage
across R4 and then replaced by a short-circuit connection to
measure the short-circuit current through it.
TABLE I. Component Values for Circuits in Figs. 1 and 2
Measured
Nominal

Circuit Component
R1

1 k

0.9826 k

R2

2 k

1.9921 k

R3

1 k

0.9891 k

R4

2 k

1.9869 k

R5

2 k

1.9840 k

The LTSPICE software was used to simulate the opencircuit voltage, the short-circuit current, and the output voltage
with the load resistance. The calculation, measurements and
simulation results for the open-circuit voltage and short-circuit
current are shown in Table II and III, respectively. The
Thvenin/Norton equivalent resistance was determined by two
methods.

TABLE II. Calculated and Measured OpenCircuit Voltage

Percent Error
Open-Circuit Voltage

Technique
Calculated

3.653 V

DMM

3.649 V

0.11%

Simulation

3.662 V

0.23%

TABLE III. Calculated and Measured Short-Circuit Current

Percent Error
Short-Circuit Current

Technique
Calculated

4.066 mA

DMM

4.014 mA

1.28%

Simulation

4.065 mA

0.02%

The first method was dividing the measured open-circuit

voltage by the measured short-circuit current using the measured
values. The second method was disconnecting and shorting the
power supply and then measuring the resistance at the output
with the DMM in its resistance mode. The values of the
measurements, simulation, and calculations are shown in Table
IV.
TABLE IV. Calculated and Measured Thvenin/Norton Equivalent Resistance
Percent Error
Technique
Equivalent Resistance
Calculated (Theory)

0.8985 k

Calculated
(Measurement)
Calculated
(Simulation)

0.9091 k

1.18%

0.9005 k

0.22%

DMM

0.8990 k

0.05%

In addition to the open-circuit voltage and the short-circuit

current simulations, the output voltage of the circuit in Fig. 1
was measured with its load resistance. The output voltage was
then simulated on the Thvenin and Norton equivalent circuits
in LTSPICE by adding the load resistance and simulating the
voltage across the load. The simulation results are shown in
Table V.
TABLE V. LTSPICE Simulation of the Output Voltage
Percent Error
Output Voltage

Technique
Calculated

2.5184 V

Thvenin Circuit

2.5144 V

0.16%

Norton Circuit

2.5145 V

0.15%

DMM

2.5217 V

0.11%

B. Analysis of AC Circuit
In order to analyze a circuit with an AC input voltage, the
circuit shown in Fig. 2 was constructed. The actual values of the
circuit components, shown in Table 1, were measured with a

Fig. 3 Oscilloscope Measurement of Vi in the Circuit shown in Fig. 2

DMM. The root-mean-square (RMS) value of Vi was measured

using a DMM as well as using an oscilloscope. The DC input of
the circuit shown in Fig.1 was replaced with an AC source of 3
V peak-to-peak signal and a frequency of 1 kHz. A nominal
1.5V peak-to-peak signal was created on the waveform
generator, and then the oscilloscope measurement showed that
the correct signal was produced, as shown in Fig. 3. The RMS
value of Vi was calculated using
a
Vrms =
(2)
2
where a is the amplitude of the sinusoidal signal. The
theoretical RMS voltage across Vi was 1.061 V. The DMM, and
oscilloscopes measurement of Vi were 1.0596 V, and 1.06 V,
respectively. The voltage was then simulated using LTSPICE,
having an RMS value of 1.0583 V.
The RMS value across the output voltage (marked as Vout in
Fig. 2) was calculated using phasor with an input voltage of
1.5 0o V and mesh current equations for each loop. The RMS
voltage of Vout was then measured with an oscilloscope and a
DMM. The graph of the oscilloscope measurement is shown in
Fig. 4. The calculated and measured values of the RMS value of
Vout are shown in Table VI, as well as the percent error.
The RMS value of Vout was simulated using LTSPICE. The
amplitude of the simulated signal was 377.0 mV. The graph of
the waveform simulation is shown in Fig. 5.
The Thvenin/Norton equivalent circuits for the circuit of
Fig. 2 were determined theoretically using phasor analysis. The
load resistance was removed and a series of source
transformation were applied using (1).
TABLE VI. Values for Output Voltage in RMS in the Circuit Shown in Fig. 2
Percent Error
Technique
RMS Value

Fig. 2. Circuit with AC Input

Calculated

264 mV

DMM

259.68 mV

1.63%

Oscilloscope

261 mV

1.14%

Fig. 6 LTSPICE Simulation for Vout in the Norton Equivalent Circuit for the
Circuit Shown in Fig. 2 with RMS Value
Fig. 4 Oscilloscope Measurement of Vout in the Circuit Shown in Fig. 2

The RMS value of Vout in the Thvenin and Norton

equivalent circuits were simulated in LTSPICE. The graph of
the waveform is shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 for the Norton and
Thvenin equivalent circuits, respectively.
TABLE VII. Values for Output Voltage in RMS in the Circuit Shown in Fig. 2
Percent Error
Technique
RMS Value
Calculated

264 mV

LTSPICE (AC Circuit)

266.53 mV

0.96%

LTSPICE (Thvenin)

265.33 mV

0.50%

LTSPICE (Norton)

265.17 mV

0.44%

The results of the Thvenin/Norton equivalent circuits were

used to simulate the RMS value of the output voltage by adding
the load resistance and simulating the voltage across the load.
The RMS value of Vout in the Thvenin/Norton equivalent
circuits are shown in Table VII.

Fig. 5 LTSPICE Simulation for Vout in the Circuit Shown in Fig. 2 with RMS
Value

Fig. 7 LTSPICE Simulation for Vout in the Thvenin Equivalent Circuit for the
Circuit Shown in Fig. 2 with RMS Value

III. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this laboratory section was to analyze AC
and DC circuits in order to create Thvenin and Norton
equivalent circuits. This purpose was accomplished through
theoretical calculations, measurements and waveform
simulations. After measuring all the circuit components with a
DMM, the circuit shown in Fig. 1 was constructed. The output
voltage was measured with a DMM. In order to objectively
evaluate the accuracy of the results, the output voltage of the
circuit shown in Fig. 1 was theoretically calculated using the
Thvenin and Norton theorem and was also simulated in the
LTSPICE simulation software. Equivalent circuit values were
found using LTSPICE. The equivalent circuits were created and
tested in the software as well, and the resultant values were
compared to the experimental values and found to agree, having
percent errors less than 2%.
The circuit shown in Fig. 2 was constructed and the voltage
source was tested to ensure that it provided the proper signal.
Like for the previous circuit, the output voltage was measured
with a DMM, and an oscilloscope was used, as well. Norton
and Thvenin equivalent circuits for the circuit were found
theoretically using phasor analysis. The output voltage was then

simulated using LTSPICE. Lastly, the Norton and Thvenin

equivalent circuits found previously were constructed in
LTSPICE and the output voltage was simulated. All the
techniques found the output voltage to be approximately 260
mV. The precision of the results implies that valid equivalent
circuit models were found for the circuit in Fig. 2.
IV. CONCLUSION
This laboratory was oriented to analyze the results obtained
by applying different techniques in the AC and DC circuits. The
results that are discussed in sections I.A and I.B were obtained
with the aid of a DMM, an oscilloscope, theoretical calculations,
and the LTSPICE software. The percent of error in each
technique deviated by less than 2%, which was likely due the
systematic error of the electronic devices.
The open-circuit and short-circuit values for the DC circuit
shown in Table II and III reveal consistency in accurate
measurement and calculations. First, the voltage values were
approximately one-third of the voltage source, which is
reasonable for a circuit with four resistors. Additionally, all three
techniques used to measure the values agreed, having percent
error values of less than 2%. The consistency between
techniques implies that the measurements and calculations were
performed properly.
The equivalent resistance values for the DC circuit shown in
Table IV were determined by applying the two methods
previously described. The theoretical, simulation, and DMM
values agree, having under 0.1% error, implying that these
measurements were performed properly. However, the
calculated resistance using the previously obtained open-circuit
voltage and short-circuit current was significantly different,
having a percent error of 1.18%. Since the previous values were
rounded and not perfectly accurate, the slightly higher percent
error was like due to compiled errors during calculations.
The output voltage values shown in Table V are consistent.
All the measurements matched, having a percent error of less
than 0.2%. Additionally, the values were around one-fourth of
the voltage input, which is reasonable for a circuit with five
resistors. The relatively small percent error values imply that the
circuit was constructed and analyzed properly. The accuracy of
these results means that both Thvenin and Norton are valid
equivalent circuits of the circuit in Fig. 1.
The output voltage values for the AC circuit, shown in Table
VI, mostly make sense. The two measurements had percent
errors under 2%. Additionally, the RMS value intuitively make
sense because the values were roughly one-sixth of the input
voltage amplitude. The percent error likely results from the
varying nature of the applied signal. Because the AC signal is
continually changing, the equipment likely cannot measure the
voltage as precisely as the DC voltage values.
The input voltage measured by oscilloscope, as shown in
Fig. 3, makes sense because it changes from -1.52 V to 1.54 V,
which is reasonably close to the 1.5 V amplitude voltage desired.
Additionally, the frequency was found to be 999.977 Hz, which
is extremely close to the 1 kHz signal desired. The discrepancy
likely results from slight errors in the equipment, both on the
part of the oscilloscope and the waveform generator.
The simulated output voltage values, shown in Table VII,
make sense. All the values had percent errors under 1%.

Additionally, the values were roughly one-sixth of the initial

input voltage amplitude, which is a reasonable assumption for a
circuit with (initially) five resistors.
The oscilloscope measurement of Vout, shown in Fig. 4,
makes sense. The frequency was found to be 999.980 Hz, which
is close to the 1 kHz signal applied (frequency in a circuit with
one power source should not change). Additionally, the signal
approximately matches the simulated signal shown in Fig. 5
since the RMS value varied by only approximately 5 mV. The
discrepancy in these results is likely due to small errors in the
oscilloscope. These errors are understandable because the signal
is continually changing, and the equipment cannot collect every
point of data.
The data shown in Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and Fig. 7 confirm the
validity of the Norton and Thvenin equivalent circuits. All
three plots agree, having similar RMS values and amplitudes.
Since all the graphs have approximately equal values, the
Norton and Thvenin equivalent circuits model the original
circuit in Fig. 2 properly.
APPENDIX
i. Benefits of Thvenin and Norton Equivalent Circuits
The Thvenin and Norton equivalent circuits are extremely
useful for circuit analysis. Large circuits can be simplified into
a small circuit through just a few calculations. If different loads
need to be attached to the circuit, this simplification because
immensely useful. For example, an equivalent circuit for a
battery or power supply greatly assists circuit analysis because
repeated calculations of large circuits can be avoided. Beyond
purely analytical purposes, Thvenin and Norton equivalent
circuit models are much easier to view and understand their
contribution to the circuit intuitively because they have fewer
components. Therefore, these circuits allow ideas to be
conveyed much easier.
ii. Understanding Gleaned
Through this lab, a better comprehension of circuit analysis
using equivalent circuits was gained, and greater familiarity with
the LTSPICE software was achieved. Although the concepts
were understood before, the practice helped solidify the
understanding, especially since the equivalent circuits were
found beyond theoretical calculations. This understanding will
prove useful for future projects if a Thvenin or Norton circuit
must be created using techniques not used before. This lab also
provided more familiarity with the LTSPICE software. The
ability to adjust many properties within the software was gained,
like the background color for the simulation graphs. This
software is useful because, even if necessary circuit components
and sources are not available, LTSPICE can still be used to
analyze a circuit.