Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SUBBAND-DOMAIN UNIVERSAL LINE MODELING FOR
ROBUST POWER SYSTEM TRANSIENT SIMULATION
A Dissertation Presented
by
Paraskevas Argyropoulos
to
The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Electrical Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, Massachusetts
August 2018
ii
ABSTRACT
Currently available transient simulation packages which include frequency dependent
transmission line (FDTL) elements rely on the use of either the J. Marti method or the Universal
Line Modeling (ULM) method. The advantage of the J. Marti method is that the N-phase FDTL
can be modeled by N-independent single-phase FDTL circuits which is very robust for transposed
or nearly transposed FDTLs. The disadvantages of this method become evident as one deviates
from the transposed-line assumption such as in the case of asymmetric-lines or underground cables.
The Universal Line Modeling (ULM) method is a generalization of the J. Marti method and opts to
model the FDTL directly in the phase-domain. This method is capable of modeling arbitrary
FDTLs, not limited to the transposed and nearly transposed cases as opposed to the J. Marti method.
The disadvantages of this method however are increased computational complexity as well as
numerical considerations due to high-order rational function approximation (RFA) modeling.
This dissertation introduces a procedure for modelling a network of frequency-dependent
transmission lines (FDTL) by means of a perfect-reconstruction filter-bank (PR-FB), which allows
us to decompose the transient simulation problem into independent narrow-band (subband)
problems. This allows us to: (i) obtain insights regarding the behavior of the transients within
frequency-bands of interest (ii) use low order approximations to reduce the complexity of the
overall system, (iii) improve numerical stability, (iv) leverage parallel processing capability of
modern computers to increase simulation speed, and (v) employ distributed computing frameworks
such as Hadoop MapReduce to increase simulation speed. We use several examples to demonstrate
the utility of our subband-ULM method, including a single-phase FDTL, a three-phase FDTL, and
a single-phase FDTL network based on the IEEE 5-bus grid.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Review of Circuit Theory Fundamentals ............................................................... 4 1.2 Distributed Computing Fundamentals ................................................................... 5 1.3 FDTL Modeling using Rational Function Approximations .................................... 7 1.4 FDTL Modeling using Subband Rational Function Approximations ...................... 9 1.5 Subband Transient Simulation Results .................................................................. 13
CHAPTER 2 Frequency Dependent Transmission Line (FDTL) Modeling Fundamentals... 15
2.1 Two-Port Representation ...................................................................................... 18 Special Case: Single-Phase FDTL ........................................................................ 22
2.2 Rational Function Approximations (RFAs) ........................................................... 25 Modeling the Weighting Function: The J. Marti Model and the Modal
Transform .................................................................................................... 27 Modeling the Weighting Function: The Universal Line Modeling (ULM)
method ......................................................................................................... 28 Special Case: Single-Phase Transmission Line ..................................................... 33
2.3 Discretization of the Continuous-Time Model ....................................................... 35
CHAPTER 3 QMF Filter Banks and Phasor Banks............................................................. 38
3.1 Perfect Reconstruction Tree-Structured QMF Filter Banks .................................... 38 3.2 Phasor Banks ........................................................................................................ 43
Measures of Reconstruction Numerical Robustness .............................................. 46 Optimally Robust FIR Filter ................................................................................. 48 Optimally Robust IIR Filter.................................................................................. 49 Special Cases ....................................................................................................... 52
CHAPTER 4 Subband Vector Fitting ................................................................................. 53
4.1 Case #1: Arbitrary Transfer Function (Toy Problem) ............................................ 54 4.2 Case #2: Single-Phase FDTL ................................................................................ 63 4.3 Case #3: Three-Phase FDTL ................................................................................. 64
CHAPTER 5 Transient Simulation and Accuracy of Combined Model ............................... 70
5.1 Case #1: Arbitrary Transfer Function (Toy Problem) ............................................ 70 Transient Simulation Results ................................................................................ 74
5.2 Case #2: Single-Phase FDTL ................................................................................ 77 5.3 Case #3: Three-Phase FDTL ................................................................................. 84
iv
CHAPTER 6 Scalable, Multiphase, Discrete Simulation of Frequency Dependent
Transmission Line (FDTL) Networks .......................................................................... 86
6.1 Introduction: Transfer Function based simulation vs. Y-matrix approach............... 86 6.2 Y-matrix equivalent circuits of fundamental components ...................................... 87
Multiphase Resistor (P-phase) .............................................................................. 88 Multiphase Capacitor (P-phase) ........................................................................... 90 Multiphase Inductor (P-phase) ............................................................................. 92 Simulation Examples and Unit tests ..................................................................... 94
6.3 Y-matrix equivalent circuit of an arbitrary characteristic impedance (P-phase) ...... 96 Simulation Examples and Unit tests ..................................................................... 101
6.4 Recursive computation of an arbitrary propagation function (P-phase) .................. 103 Simulation Examples and Unit tests ..................................................................... 105
6.5 Y-matrix equivalent circuits of single-phase FDTL ............................................... 107 6.6 Y-matrix equivalent circuits of multi-phase FDTL ................................................ 111 6.7 Arbitrary FDTL Network Simulation Procedure .................................................... 117 6.8 Y-matrix based FDTL simulation results ............................................................... 121
Simulation #1: Single-Phase FDTL (2-nodes) ...................................................... 121 Simulation #2: IEEE 5-Bus FDTL system (single-phase)...................................... 124 Simulation #3: Three-Phase FDTL (2-nodes) ....................................................... 130
CHAPTER 7 Concluding Remarks..................................................................................... 132
7.1 Summary of dissertation contributions .................................................................. 132 7.2 Further Research Topics ....................................................................................... 134
APPENDIX I Modal Transform in a Transposed Transmission Line .................................. 135
APPENDIX II Relations between Real and Imaginary Parts of a Causal Transfer
Function ...................................................................................................................... 139
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 142
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Block diagram of a Hadoop MapReduce job. ..................................................... 6
Figure 1.2: Subband transient analysis by means of a perfect reconstruction filter bank. ...... 6
Figure 1.3: Single-phase (N=1) transmission line viewed as a two-port network. ................. 7
Figure 1.4: Frequency Dependent (FD) single-phase characteristic impedance Z0(jω): (i) magnitude response (top), (ii) phase response (bottom). .......................................... 8
Figure 1.5: Frequency Dependent (FD) single-phase weighting function A(jω):
(i) magnitude response (top), (ii) phase response (bottom). .......................................... 8
Figure 1.6: Two Channel PR QMF Filter-Bank. .................................................................. 9
Figure 1.7: Logarithmic frequency tree-structured Analysis Filter Bank. ............................. 10
Figure 1.8: Multi-band Logarithmic frequency tree-structured Analysis Filter Bank. ........... 10
Figure 1.9: Ten-channel logarithmic frequency Daubechies-12 (D12) analysis filter bank magnitude responses. ................................................................................................... 11
Figure 1.10: High order Z0(s) (blue) vs. low order Z0,j(s) subband approximations (dashed
colored segments). ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 1.11: High order A(s) (blue) vs. low order Aj(s) subband approximations (dashed
colored segments). ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 1.12: (i) Broadband-source excitation voltage (solid-black), and (ii) 10-Subband
decomposition of (i) (solid-colored) ............................................................................. 13
Figure 1.13: Subband circuit responses viewed as independent network solutions
(transient simulations) ................................................................................................. 14
Figure 1.14: Sinusoidal energization of open-circuited line (peak voltage at t=0) based on the: (i) full order model {Z0(s), A(s)} (blue), (ii) low order {Z0,j(s), Aj(s)} using the
PR filter bank (red). The input voltage is shown in black. ............................................ 14
Figure 2.1: N-Phase transmission line circuit model. ........................................................... 15
Figure 2.2: N-Phase transmission line viewed as a two-port network. .................................. 18
Figure 2.3: SimPowerSystems power_lineparam 3-phase (default) tower configuration. ...... 19
Figure 2.4: Frequency Dependent (FD) 3-phase characteristic admittance Y0(jω)
magnitude responses. ................................................................................................... 20
vi
Figure 2.5: Frequency Dependent (FD) 3-phase characteristic admittance Y0(jω) phase
responses. .................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.6: Frequency Dependent (FD) 3-phase weighting function eigenvalues
λk{A1(jω)}: (i) magnitude responses (left), (ii) phase responses (right). ........................ 21
Figure 2.7: Single-phase (N=1) transmission line viewed as a two-port network. ................. 22
Figure 2.8: Frequency Dependent (FD) single-phase characteristic impedance Z0(jω): (i) magnitude response (top), (ii) phase response (bottom). .......................................... 23
Figure 2.9: Frequency Dependent (FD) single-phase weighting function A(jω): (i)
magnitude response (top), (ii) phase response (bottom). ............................................... 24
Figure 2.10: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M1(jω) magnitude responses .... 29
Figure 2.11: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M1(jω) phase responses ........... 30
Figure 2.12: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M2(jω) magnitude responses .... 30
Figure 2.13: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M2(jω) phase responses ........... 31
Figure 2.14: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M3(jω) magnitude responses. ... 31
Figure 2.15: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M3(jω) phase responses. .......... 32
Figure 3.1: Two Channel PR QMF Filter-Bank. .................................................................. 38
Figure 3.2: Logarithmic frequency tree-structured Analysis Filter Bank. ............................. 40
Figure 3.3: PR Filter Bank viewed as a combination of forward and inverse DWT. ............. 40
Figure 3.4: Ten-channel logarithmic frequency Daubechies-2 (Haar/D2) analysis filter bank magnitude responses. .......................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.5: Ten-channel logarithmic frequency Daubechies-6 (D6) analysis filter bank
magnitude responses. ................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.6: Ten-channel logarithmic frequency Daubechies-12 (D12) analysis filter bank
magnitude responses. ................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.7: Ten-channel logarithmic frequency FIR2CHPR-based (N=99) analysis filter
bank magnitude responses. .......................................................................................... 43
Figure 3.8: Filter-bank interpretation of dynamic phasors .................................................... 44
Figure 3.9: Simplified perturbation model for a PR filter-bank. ........................................... 46
Figure 3.10: FIR vs IIR magnitude responses of the prototype analysis filter H(z). .............. 49
vii
Figure 4.1: Transfer function data: (i) magnitude response (top), (ii) phase response
(bottom). ..................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 4.2: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Zj(z) subband approximations (colored
segments). ................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 4.3: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z0(z) subband-0 approximation (red).
Zoomed-in responses. .................................................................................................. 57
Figure 4.4: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z1(z) subband-1 approximation (red).
Zoomed-in responses. .................................................................................................. 58
Figure 4.5: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z2(z) subband-2 approximation (red). Zoomed-in responses. .................................................................................................. 58
Figure 4.6: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z3(z) subband-3 approximation (red).
Zoomed-in responses. .................................................................................................. 59
Figure 4.7: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z4(z) subband-4 approximation (red).
Zoomed-in responses. .................................................................................................. 59
Figure 4.8: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z5(z) subband-5 approximation (red).
Zoomed-in responses. .................................................................................................. 60
Figure 4.9: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z6(z) subband-6 approximation (red).
Zoomed-in responses. .................................................................................................. 60
Figure 4.10: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z7(z) subband-7 approximation (red). Zoomed-in responses. .................................................................................................. 61
Figure 4.11: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z8(z) subband-8 approximation (red).
Zoomed-in responses. .................................................................................................. 61
Figure 4.12: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z9(z) subband-9 approximation (red).
Zoomed-in responses. .................................................................................................. 62
Figure 4.13: High order Z0(s) (blue) vs. low order Z0,j(z) subband approximations (dashed
colored segments). ....................................................................................................... 63
Figure 4.14: High order A(s) (blue) vs. low order Aj(z) subband approximations (dashed
colored segments). ....................................................................................................... 64
Figure 4.15: Subband FD admittance matrix Y0,j(jω) magnitude responses. ......................... 65
Figure 4.16: Subband FD admittance matrix Y0,j(jω) phase responses. ................................. 65
Figure 4.17: Subband FD weighting function eigenvalues λk,j{A1(jω)} (i) magnitude
responses (left), (ii) phase responses (right). ................................................................ 66
Figure 4.18: Subband FD idempotent matrix M1,j(jω) magnitude responses. ........................ 66
viii
Figure 4.19: Subband FD idempotent matrix M1,j(jω) phase responses................................. 67
Figure 4.20: Subband FD idempotent matrix M2,j(jω) magnitude responses. ........................ 67
Figure 4.21: Subband FD idempotent matrix M2,j(jω) 𝑝hase responses. ............................... 68
Figure 4.22: Subband FD idempotent matrix M3,j(jω) magnitude responses. ........................ 68
Figure 4.23: Subband FD idempotent matrix M3,j(jω) phase responses................................. 69
Figure 5.1: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. “combined” transfer function Z(z) based on the low order subband RFAs Zj(z) and the choice of a D2/Haar filter bank (red). ...................... 71
Figure 5.2: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. “combined” transfer function Z(z) based on the low
order subband RFAs Zj(z) and the choice of a D6 filter bank (red). .............................. 71
Figure 5.3: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. “combined” transfer function Z(z) based on the low
order subband RFAs Zj(z) and the choice of a D12 filter bank (red). ............................ 72
Figure 5.4: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. “combined” transfer function Z(z) based on the low order subband RFAs Zj(z) and the choice of a FIR2CHPR-based (N=99) filter bank
(red). ........................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 5.5: Transient responses based on the: (i) full order model Z(s) (blue), (ii) low
order Zj(z) models using the D2/Haar filter bank (red). ................................................ 74
Figure 5.6: Transient responses based on the: (i) full order model Z(s) (blue), (ii) low
order Zj(z) models using the D6 filter bank (red). ......................................................... 75
Figure 5.7: Transient responses based on the: (i) full order model Z(s) (blue), (ii) low order Zj(z) models using the D12 filter bank (red). ....................................................... 75
Figure 5.8: Transient responses based on the: (i) full order model Z(s) (blue), (ii) low
order Zj(z) models using the FIR2CHPR (N=99) filter bank (red). ............................... 76
Figure 5.9: High order Z0(s) (blue) vs. low order Z0,j(z) subband approximations (dashed colored segments). ....................................................................................................... 79
Figure 5.10: High order A(s) (blue) vs. low order Aj(z) subband approximations (dashed
colored segments). ....................................................................................................... 80
Figure 5.11: (i) Broadband-source excitation voltage (solid-black), and (ii) 10-Subband
decomposition of (i) (solid-colored) ............................................................................. 81
Figure 5.12: Subband circuit responses viewed as independent network solutions (transient simulations) [open-ended line] ..................................................................... 82
Figure 5.13: Subband circuit responses viewed as independent network solutions
(transient simulations) [short-ended line] ..................................................................... 82
ix
Figure 5.14: Sinusoidal energization of open-circuited line (peak voltage at t=0) based on
the: (i) full order model {Z0(s), A(s)} (blue), (ii) low order {Z0,j(z), Aj(z)} using the PR filter bank (red). The input voltage is shown in black. ............................................ 83
Figure 5.15: Sinusoidal energization of short-circuited line (peak voltage at t=0) based on
the: (i) full order model {Z0(s), A(s)} (blue), (ii) low order {Z0,j(z), Aj(z)} using the
PR filter bank (red). ..................................................................................................... 83
Figure 5.16: Sinusoidal energization of open-circuited line (peak voltage at t=0) based on
the: (i) full order model {Y0(s), λk{A1(s)}, Mk(s)} (blue), (ii) low order {Y0,j(z),
λk,j{A1(z)}, Mk,j(z)} using the PR filter bank (red). The input voltage is shown in black. .......................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 5.17: Sinusoidal energization of short-circuited line (peak voltage at t=0) based on
the: (i) full order model {Y0(s), λk{A1(s)}, Mk(s)} (blue), (ii) low order {Y0,j(z), λk,j{A1(z)}, Mk,j(z)} using the PR filter bank (red). ....................................................... 85
Figure 6.1: Continuous-time representation of resistor in the time-domain (left) and
complex-frequency (Laplace) domain (right). .............................................................. 88
Figure 6.2: Time-domain, Continuous-time representation of resistor (left). Discrete-time representation of resistor (right). .................................................................................. 89
Figure 6.3: Continuous-time representation of capacitor in the time-domain (left) and
complex-frequency (Laplace) domain (right) (initial condition included). .................... 90
Figure 6.4: Time-domain, Continuous-time representation of capacitor (left). Discrete-
time representation of capacitor (right). ....................................................................... 92
Figure 6.5: Continuous-time representation of inductor in the time-domain (left) and complex-frequency (Laplace) domain (right) (initial condition included). .................... 92
Figure 6.6: Time-domain, Continuous-time representation of inductor (left). Discrete-
time representation of inductor (right). ......................................................................... 94
Figure 6.7: Time-domain, Continuous-time representation of test circuit ............................. 94
Figure 6.8: Time-domain, Discrete-time representation of test circuit .................................. 95
Figure 6.9: Analytical (continuous-time) response (solid-blue) vs. discrete-time simulator
(solid-red) ................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 6.10: Continuous-time characteristic impedance (top) and Foster-form (cascade)
RC-implementation (bottom) ....................................................................................... 97
Figure 6.11: Continuous-time characteristic impedance (left). Discrete-time equivalent
circuit (right) ............................................................................................................... 98
Figure 6.12: Continuous-time simulator (solid-red) vs. discrete-time simulator (solid-
blue) for a characteristic impedance response............................................................... 102
x
Figure 6.13: Analytical (continuous-time) response (solid-red) vs. discrete-time simulator
(solid-blue) for a propagation function response........................................................... 106
Figure 6.14: Continuous-time two-port model for single-phase FDTL (complex-
frequency domain) ....................................................................................................... 107
Figure 6.15: Discrete-time equivalent circuit for single-phase FDTL ................................... 109
Figure 6.16: Continuous-time two-port model for multi-phase FDTL (complex-frequency domain) ....................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 6.17: Discrete-time equivalent circuit for multi-phase FDTL .................................... 114
Figure 6.18: Two terminal, continuous-time, single-phase FDTL network ........................... 121
Figure 6.19: Two terminal, discrete-time equivalent, single-phase FDTL network ............... 121
Figure 6.20: Receiving-end voltage: simulation based on the: (i) full order model
broadband (blue), (ii) low order subband model (red). ................................................. 122
Figure 6.21: Receiving-end current: simulation based on the: (i) full order model
broadband (blue), (ii) low order subband model (red)................................................... 123
Figure 6.22: IEEE 5-Bus network topology ......................................................................... 124
Figure 6.23: IEEE 5-Bus network topology with FDTL annotations .................................... 125
Figure 6.24: IEEE 5-Bus, node-3 voltage: (a) broadband simulation (blue), (b) low-order
subband simulation (red) ............................................................................................. 128
Figure 6.25: IEEE 5-Bus, node-4 voltage: (a) broadband simulation (blue), (b) low-order subband simulation (red) ............................................................................................. 128
Figure 6.26: IEEE 5-Bus, node-3 current: (a) broadband simulation (blue), (b) low-order
subband simulation (red) ............................................................................................. 129
Figure 6.27: Two terminal, continuous-time, 3-phase FDTL network .................................. 130
Figure 6.28: Two terminal, discrete-time equivalent, 3-phase FDTL network ...................... 130
Figure 6.29: Three-phase receiving-end voltage: simulation based on the: (i) full order
model broadband (blue), (ii) low order subband model (red). ...................................... 131
Figure 6.30: Three-phase receiving-end current: simulation based on the: (i) full order
model broadband (blue), (ii) low order subband model (red). ...................................... 131
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Vector fitting based RFAs Z0(s) and A(s) ............................................................ 33
Table 2.2: Absolute value of the poles of Z0(z) and A(z)...................................................... 37
Table 4.1: Subband frequency range decomposition. ........................................................... 53
Table 4.2: Vector fitting based high-order RFA Z(s)............................................................ 55
Table 4.3: Absolute value of the poles of Z(z). .................................................................... 56
Table 5.1: Subband frequency range decomposition. ........................................................... 79
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Accurate power system fault location studies such as ones based on travelling wave
methods [1] typically require electromagnetic transient program (EMTP) simulations over a very
wide range of frequencies (up to 1MHz) [2]. Obtaining a broadband, rational function
approximation (RFA) that describes each power system component (such as the characteristic
impedance 𝑍(𝑠) and propagation/weighting function 𝐴(𝑠) of a frequency dependent transmission
line) is essential for accurate transient simulation [3, 30]. Continuous-time (CT) RFA methods such
as vector fitting (VF) [4] applied on a broadband system [0Hz(dc)-1Mhz] result in a stable but high
order approximant 𝑍(𝑠). Discretization of the high-order 𝑍(𝑠) results in a discrete-time (DT)
transfer function 𝑍(𝑧), and is prone to numerical instability due to pole-clustering around the unit
circle [5].
Currently available transient simulation packages which include frequency dependent
transmission line (FDTL) elements rely on the use of either the J. Marti method [3] or the Universal
Line Modeling (ULM) method [7, 8]. The J. Marti method employs a broadband, high-order RFA
on the N-decoupled modes (N-eigenvalues) of an N-phase transmission line. This is achieved by
decomposing the N-phase transmission line into N-independent circuits by means of a fixed-modal
transform. The advantage of this method is that the N-phase FDTL can be modeled by
N-independent single-phase FDTL circuits. The solution of each circuit is finally recombined by
means of a fixed eigen-vector matrix also known as the Clarke transform. This approach is very
robust for transposed or nearly transposed FDTLs where the assumption of a fixed eigenvector-
matrix is valid. The disadvantages of this method become evident as one deviates from the
transposed-line assumption such as in the case of asymmetric-lines or underground cables. In such
2
cases the eigen-vector matrix becomes frequency-dependent and needs to be taken under
consideration using the RFA modeling process [3]. The Universal Line Modeling (ULM) method
is a generalization of the J. Marti method and opts to model the FDTL directly in the phase-domain.
This method is capable of modeling arbitrary FDTLs, not limited to the transposed and nearly
transposed cases as opposed to the J. Marti method. The disadvantages of this method however are
increased computational complexity due to the broadband, high-order RFAs associated with
modeling the FDTL directly in the phase-domain [7, 8] as well as numerical considerations due to
high-order RFA modeling.
This work introduces a filter-bank technique which allows us to decompose the transient
simulation problem into independent narrow-band (subband) problems. The fundamental idea
behind our proposed approach is that every linear, time-invariant (LTI) system can be mapped into
a collection of uncoupled subband versions of the same problem by means of a frequency-selective
Analysis Filter-bank (AFB). By decomposing the broadband problem into subbands we are able to
reduce the bandwidth required for modeling the FDTL in each subband which allows us to use low
order RFAs. This in turn results in more robust discretization. Moreover, since the subbands are
uncoupled, we are able to process each one of them independently by means of distributed/parallel
processing. The use of subband modeling allows us to: (i) obtain insights regarding the behavior of
the transients within frequency-bands of interest (ii) use low order approximations to reduce the
complexity of the overall system, (iii) improve numerical stability, (iv) leverage parallel processing
capability of modern computers to increase simulation speed, and (v) employ distributed computing
frameworks such as Hadoop MapReduce to increase simulation speed [6]. In summary, the
proposed method constitutes a subband alternative to the distributed parameter FDTL using an
electromagnetic transient simulation program (EMTP), and is very suitable for simulating typical
transient power-system phenomena such as: (i) line energization, (ii) capacitor-switching, and (iii)
fault simulation [1, 2].
3
This dissertation is organized as follows: Chapter 2 provides the fundamentals of modeling
a multi-conductor (𝑁 −phase) frequency dependent transmission line (FDTL) by means of high-
order RFAs [4] based on: (i) the modal decomposition [3], and (ii) the Universal Line Modeling
(ULM) method [7] using the idempotent (spectral) decomposition [8]. Moreover, a discussion
regarding discretization and numerical stability considerations is provided. In Chapter 3 we
introduce the fundamentals of perfect reconstruction filter banks (PR-FBs) and multirate
processing, which are essential for constructing (accurate) subband low order RFAs. In particular,
two classes of PR filter banks are presented: (i) logarithmic-frequency, tree-structured quadrature
mirror filter (QMF) banks [9], and (ii) Phasor Banks [10-12]. In Chapter 4 we use the tools
developed in Chapter 3 to decompose the single high-order RFA broadband simulation problem
into several subbands and apply low-order RFAs in each one of them. This is carried out for both
single-phase and three-phase FDTL data based on Chapter 2. In Chapter 5 we study how a particular
choice of PR-FB affects the accuracy of transient simulation by computing the frequency response
of the “combined” transfer function. This is because in Chapter 4 we implicitly assumed that the
prototype analysis filter 𝐻0(𝑧) is an ideal lowpass filter. Deviations from this assumption are
investigated in this chapter. Finally, in Chapter 6 we introduce the discrete-time, 𝑌-matrix state-
space based approach for simulating networks consisting of one (or more) FDTLs. This approach
is very suitable for simulating an arbitrarily large network without introducing significant
complexity in deriving the model (scalability). The 𝑌-matrix state-space based approach is used to
simulate several FDTL networks in order to establish proof of principle and feasibility of the
proposed subband-ULM method.
4
1.1 Review of Circuit Theory Fundamentals
The fundamental idea behind the proposed work lies within the concept of superposition
which holds true for a linear, time-invariant (LTI) system such as a transmission line [13]. This
concept is used throughout circuit analysis. Some variations of this fundamental principle include:
(i) Sinusoidal steady-state analysis using complex-numbers as a special case of the Fourier
transform for purely sinusoidal excitations [14].
(ii) Transient response analysis using the Laplace transform as a generalization of (i) [14].
(iii) 𝑁 −phase FDTL transient modeling using the Laplace transform and the modal transform
(Eigen-decomposition of the 𝑁 −phases) as a generalization of (ii) [3] .
(iv) 𝑁 −phase FDTL transient modeling directly in the phase domain by means of the Laplace
transform and the (idempotent) spectral decomposition of the phases as a generalization of
(iii) [7].
In this work we generalize approach (iv) by using a subband, 𝑁 −phase modeling
technique directly in the phase domain by means of the Laplace transform and the (idempotent)
spectral decomposition of the phases. The subband analysis is achieved by means of a perfect
reconstruction filter bank which decomposes all currents/voltages (or equivalently the
excitations/sources) into narrow band subcomponents [9]. An oversimplification of this approach
which can be helpful to understand the fundamental principle can be viewed by exploring approach
(i) in the case where the source consists of multiple purely sinusoidal excitations. In this case
several independent circuits can be constructed, each one of them characterized by its own set of
complex numbers, and be solved independently. All results are then combined (reconstructed) in
the time-domain after an inverse Fourier/Phasor transform is applied on each sub-circuit.
5
1.2 Distributed Computing Fundamentals
A distributed computation platform such as Hadoop consists fundamentally of two
subcomponents: (a) The Hadoop distributed file system (HDFS), and (b) the MapReduce
framework. MapReduce consists of the following methods/processes:
(i) Map: which according to the definition, takes an input list of ‘keys’ and ‘values’ and
produces another list of ‘key’ and ‘values’. It is a transformation (set of rules) which takes
as an input large amounts of data (or equivalently a large problem) and partitions it into
several smaller jobs/problems [6].
(ii) Reduce: Which according to the definition, takes an input list of ‘keys’ and ‘values’ and
produces a list of ‘values’ alone. It is a transformation (set of rules) which handles all the
results from intermediate jobs (after the ‘map’ stage) and combines them back together
(reconstruction). Fig. 1.1, shows the block diagram of a MapReduce job [6].
(iii) Finally, this framework consists of more details (such as data/job replication within
clusters) in order to achieve high reliability in case one of the clusters/jobs fails to complete
[6].
From Fig. 1.1 we observe that the structure of a MapReduce process is analogous to the concept
of applying a subband decomposition by means of a perfect reconstruction filter bank (Fig. 1.2).
In particular, the analogies for modeling an FDTL are the following: (i) “MAP” = “Analysis filter
bank”, (ii) “REDUCE” = “Synthesis filter bank”, and (iii) “JOBS” = “subband transient sub-
simulations”.
6
Figure 1.1: Block diagram of a Hadoop MapReduce job.
Figure 1.2: Subband transient analysis by means of a perfect reconstruction filter bank.
7
1.3 FDTL Modeling using Rational Function Approximations
An FDTL is uniquely characterized by its: (i) characteristic impedance 𝑍0(𝑠) ∈ ℂ [𝛺],
weighting function 𝐴(𝑠) ∈ ℂ [1], and (iii) length ℓ ∈ ℝ [𝑘𝑚]. This allows us to construct a two-
port representation for the FDTL which is suitable for time-domain transient simulation by means
of a circuit solver (Chapter 2) (Fig. 1.3).
Figure 1.3: Single-phase (N=1) transmission line viewed as a two-port network.
𝐼𝑘(𝑠) =𝑉𝑘(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)− [𝑉𝑚(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)+ 𝐼𝑚(𝑠)] 𝐴(𝑠) (1.1𝑎)
𝐼𝑚(𝑠) =𝑉𝑚(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)− [𝑉𝑘(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)+ 𝐼𝑘(𝑠)] 𝐴(𝑠) (1.1𝑏)
Typical FD data for 𝑍0(𝑗𝜔) and 𝐴(𝑗𝜔) for a given length “ℓ” are shown in Figs. 1.4, 1.5 (solid
blue lines). In order to facilitate accurate numerical simulation of an FDTL, the FD data need to be
fitted by means of a rational function approximation (RFA) [3, 4]. A prominent numerical
technique for obtaining such continuous-time RFAs is based on vector fitting [4]. The solid-red
lines in Figs. 1.4, 1.5 correspond to the result of high-order RFAs by means of vector fitting.
Finally, in order to support discrete-time simulation using a fixed-step solver the continuous-time
RFAs are converted to discrete-time RFAs by means of a generalized bilinear transform
(Chapter 2). This approach results in high-order RFAs which lead to increased computational
complexity and are prone to numerical instability after the discretization step is applied.
8
Figure 1.4: Frequency Dependent (FD) single-phase characteristic impedance Z0(jω):
(i) magnitude response (top), (ii) phase response (bottom).
Figure 1.5: Frequency Dependent (FD) single-phase weighting function A(jω): (i) magnitude response (top), (ii) phase response (bottom).
9
1.4 FDTL Modeling using Subband Rational Function Approximations
In order to construct low-order RFAs (Chapter 4) that match the original (broadband)
FDTL data very closely, we propose to employ the concept of a Perfect Reconstruction Filter Bank
(PR-FB) (Chapter 3). A 2-channel perfect reconstruction filter bank is characterized by: (i) the
analysis stage filters {𝐻0(𝑧), 𝐻1(𝑧)}, (ii) the frequency partition (subband domain), and (iii) the
synthesis stage filters {𝐺0(𝑧), 𝐺1(𝑧)} (Fig. 1.6) [9].
Figure 1.6: Two Channel PR QMF Filter-Bank.
Perfect reconstruction (PR) means that
𝑦[𝑛] = 𝑥[𝑛 − 𝑛0] (1 .2)
for some (integer) delay 𝑛0.
A convenient way to support more than two-subbands is realized by expanding the analysis
filters into scales as shown in Fig. 1.7. This approach also results in a logarithmic frequency
structure in the subbands. The equivalent of a multi-subband PR-FB using the expansion of
Fig. 1.7 is shown in Fig. 1.8 [9]. Our objective is to fit a low order rational function model in each
subband so that it closely resembles the high order frequency responses 𝑍0(𝑗𝜔), 𝐴(𝑗𝜔).
10
Figure 1.7: Logarithmic frequency tree-structured Analysis Filter Bank.
Figure 1.8: Multi-band Logarithmic frequency tree-structured Analysis Filter Bank.
Experimenting with different perfect reconstruction filter banks suggests that choosing a
prototype analysis filter 𝐻0(𝑧) which corresponds to a good lowpass filter (in terms of passband
ripple and stopband attenuation) is a desired characteristic for decoupling the broadband simulation
into narrowband sub-simulations (Chapter 5).
Typical frequency responses of the analysis filters (AF) in each band are shown in Fig. 1.9.
11
Figure 1.9: Ten-channel logarithmic frequency Daubechies-12 (D12) analysis filter bank
magnitude responses.
The resulting low-order (second-order) transfer functions { ��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑗(𝑧) ; 𝑗 = 0,1, … ,9 }
based on vector fitting and the ten-channel (𝑀 = 10) PR-FB of Fig. 1.9 are all stable. Details
regarding our proposed subband FDTL modeling technique are provided in Chapter 4.
Figs. 1.10, 1.11 show plots of the high-order {��0(𝑠), ��(𝑠)} vs. the low-order discrete-time
approximations {��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑗(𝑧)}. The bandwidth of each subband is defined by the x-coordinates
corresponding to two consecutive solid black dots in Figs. 1.10, 1.11.
12
Figure 1.10: High order Z0(s) (blue) vs. low order Z0,j(s) subband approximations (dashed colored segments).
Figure 1.11: High order A(s) (blue) vs. low order Aj(s) subband approximations (dashed colored
segments).
13
1.5 Subband Transient Simulation Results
Each subband circuit characterized by { ��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑗(𝑧) ; 𝑗 = 0,1, … ,9 } can be solved
independently by means of parallel/distributed processing. The resulting subband transient
simulations can: (i) be viewed individually in order to obtain insights regarding the effect of a
particular transient within a frequency band of interest, and (ii) be reconstructed through the
synthesis filter-bank (Fig. 1.8) in order to obtain the equivalent broadband transient simulation
result. Details regarding our proposed subband FDTL transient simulation are provided in
Chapter 4. Fig. 1.12 shows the broadband voltage-source and its 10-subband decomposition used
to excite an open-circuited line. Fig. 1.13 shows the independent network solutions (transient
responses) using the subband-sources of Fig. 1.12 and the low order RFAs of Figs. 1.10, 1.11.
Finally, Fig. 1.14 compares the transient response (receiving-end voltage of an open-circuited line),
due to sinusoidal voltage energization (peak voltage at 𝑡 = 0), of the original CT high-order system
{��0(𝑠), ��(𝑠)} to the low-order PR filter bank proposed approach after the synthesis filter bank
(reconstruction stage). Transient simulation of the {��0(𝑠), ��(𝑠)} based system was carried out using
a variable-step solver, while simulation of the {��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑗(𝑧)} based PR filter bank system was
done using a fixed step 𝛥𝑡 = 1𝜇𝑠 solver. The two responses match indeed very closely.
Figure 1.12: (i) Broadband-source excitation voltage (solid-black), and (ii) 10-Subband
decomposition of (i) (solid-colored)
14
Figure 1.13: Subband circuit responses viewed as independent network solutions (transient
simulations)
Figure 1.14: Sinusoidal energization of open-circuited line (peak voltage at t=0) based on the: (i)
full order model {Z0(s), A(s)} (blue), (ii) low order {Z0,j(s), Aj(s)} using the PR filter bank (red).
The input voltage is shown in black.
CHAPTER 2
Frequency Dependent Transmission Line (FDTL) Modeling Fundamentals
A N-phase frequency dependent transmission line (FDTL) is fully characterized by the
following per unit length parameters: (i) resistance 𝑹 ∶= 𝑹(𝑗𝜔) = 𝑹𝑇(𝑗𝜔) ∈ ℝ𝑁×𝑁[𝛺/𝑘𝑚], (ii)
inductance 𝑳 ∶= 𝑳(𝑗𝜔) = 𝑳𝑇(𝑗𝜔) ∈ ℝ𝑁×𝑁[𝐻/𝑘𝑚], (iii) capacitance 𝑪 ∶= 𝑪(𝑗𝜔) = 𝑪𝑇(𝑗𝜔) ∈
ℝ𝑁×𝑁[𝐹/𝑘𝑚], (iv) conductance 𝑮 ∶= 𝑮(𝑗𝜔) = 𝑮𝑇(𝑗𝜔) ∈ ℝ𝑁×𝑁[𝑆/𝑘𝑚], and (v) transmission line
length ℓ ∈ ℝ [𝑘𝑚]. Moreover, we can define: 𝒁(𝑗𝜔) = 𝒁𝑇(𝑗𝜔) = [𝑹(𝑗𝜔) + 𝑗𝜔𝑳(𝑗𝜔)] ∈
ℂ𝑁×𝑁[𝛺/𝑘𝑚] and 𝒀(𝑗𝜔) = 𝒀𝑇(𝑗𝜔) = [𝑮(𝑗𝜔) + 𝑗𝜔𝑪(𝑗𝜔)] ∈ ℂ𝑁×𝑁[𝑆/𝑘𝑚] so that 𝒁 ∙ 𝒀 = (𝒀 ∙
𝒁)𝑇 ∈ ℂ𝑁×𝑁[𝑘𝑚−2] and 𝒇(𝒁 ∙ 𝒀) = [𝒇(𝒀 ∙ 𝒁)]𝑇 ∈ ℂ𝑁×𝑁[𝑓(𝑘𝑚−2)] where 𝒇(. ) represents a
function of a matrix [7]. Parameters (i-iv) are positive definite matrices and functions of the analog
angular frequency (𝜔 ∈ ℝ [𝑟𝑎𝑑/𝑠𝑒𝑐], 𝜔 = 2𝜋𝐹, 𝐹 ∈ ℝ [𝐻𝑧]). The diagonal elements correspond
to “self” values and the off-diagonal elements correspond to cross-coupling values based on the
conductor type and the tower geometry [13]. Given these parameters and the fundamental circuit
model of a transmission line of Fig. 2.1 we can obtain the telegraph equations [13].
Figure 2.1: N-Phase transmission line circuit model.
16
(𝐾𝑉𝐿): − 𝒗(𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝛥𝑥 ∙ 𝑹 ∙ 𝒊(𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝛥𝑥 ∙ 𝑳 ∙𝜕
𝜕𝑡𝒊(𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝒗(𝑥 + 𝛥𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝟎 (2.1𝑎)
(𝐾𝐶𝐿) : − 𝒊(𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝛥𝑥 ∙ 𝑪 ∙𝜕
𝜕𝑡𝒗(𝑥 + 𝛥𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝛥𝑥 ∙ 𝑮 ∙ 𝒗(𝑥 + 𝛥𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝒊(𝑥 + 𝛥𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝟎 (2.1𝑏)
where 𝒗(𝑥, 𝑡) ∈ ℝ𝑁[𝑉], 𝒊(𝑥, 𝑡) ∈ ℝ𝑁[𝐴] are the voltage and current N-phase vectors respectively.
By rearranging the terms in (2.1) and applying the definition of the derivative
( lim𝛥𝑥→0
𝒇(𝑥+𝛥𝑥,𝑡)−𝒇(𝑥,𝑡)
𝛥𝑥≜
𝜕
𝑑𝑥𝒇(𝑥, 𝑡)) we obtain:
𝜕
𝜕𝑥𝒗(𝑥, 𝑡) = − [𝑹 ∙ 𝒊(𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝑳 ∙
𝜕
𝜕𝑡𝒊(𝑥, 𝑡)] (2.2𝑎)
𝜕
𝜕𝑥𝒊(𝑥, 𝑡) = − [𝑮 ∙ 𝒗(𝑥, 𝑡) + 𝑪 ∙
𝜕
𝜕𝑡𝒗(𝑥, 𝑡)] (2.2𝑏)
Finally, the Laplace transform ( 𝐹(𝑠, 𝑥) ≜ 𝐿{𝑓(𝑡, 𝑥)} ) applied on (2.2) yields the telegraph
equations:
𝜕
𝜕𝑥𝑽 = −𝒁 ∙ 𝑰 (2.3𝑎)
𝜕
𝜕𝑥𝑰 = −𝒀 ∙ 𝑽 (2.3𝑏)
where 𝑽 ∶= 𝑽(𝑥, 𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑁[𝑉] is the Laplace transform of the N-phase voltage vector, 𝑰 ∶= 𝑰(𝑥, 𝑠) ∈
ℂ𝑁[𝐴] is the Laplace transform of the N-phase current vector, 𝒁 = 𝒁𝑇 ∶= 𝒁(𝑠) = 𝑹 + 𝑠 ∙ 𝑳 ∈
ℂ𝑁×𝑁[𝛺/𝑘𝑚] is the per unit length impedance matrix and 𝒀 = 𝒀𝑇 ∶= 𝒀(𝑠) = 𝑮+ 𝑠 ∙ 𝑪 ∈
ℂ𝑁×𝑁[𝑆/𝑘𝑚] is the per unit length admittance matrix.
The (matrix-vector) wave equations for the voltages and currents can be obtained from (2.3) by
differentiation in terms of “𝑥”:
𝜕2
𝜕𝑥2𝑽 − 𝒁 ∙ 𝒀 ∙ 𝑽 = 𝟎 (2.4𝑎)
𝜕2
𝜕𝑥2𝑰 − 𝒀 ∙ 𝒁 ∙ 𝑰 = 𝟎 (2.4𝑏)
17
The solutions of the (matrix-vector) wave equations are:
𝑽 = 𝒆−√𝒁∙𝒀∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑽1 + 𝒆+√𝒁∙𝒀∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑽2 (2.5𝑎)
𝑰 = 𝒆−√𝒀∙𝒁∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑰1 + 𝒆+√𝒀∙𝒁∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑰2 (2.5𝑏)
Where 𝑽1, 𝑽2, 𝑰1 , 𝑰2 are constants which depend on boundary conditions, 𝒁 ∙ 𝒀 = [𝒀 ∙ 𝒁]𝑇 ∈
ℂ𝑁×𝑁[𝑘𝑚−2] , and {𝒆±√𝒁∙𝒀∙𝑥 , 𝒆±√𝒀∙𝒁∙𝑥} ∈ ℂ𝑁×𝑁[1] are matrix-exponential functions [15, 16].
Given the eigenvalue-eigenvector decomposition of a matrix "𝑨 ∈ ℂ𝑁×𝑁": 𝑨 = 𝑴 ∙ 𝜦 ∙ 𝑴−1 where
"𝑴 ∈ ℂ𝑁×𝑁" is the eigenvector matrix and "𝜦 ∈ ℂ𝑁×𝑁" is the diagonal eigenvalue matrix, a
function of a matrix 𝒇(𝑨) ∈ ℂ𝑁×𝑁 (such as the matrix exponential) is defined as:
𝒇(𝑨) = 𝑴 ∙ 𝒇(𝜦) ∙ 𝑴−1, where 𝒇(𝜦) corresponds to element-wise operations along the diagonal
elements. Furthermore, 𝒇1(𝑨) ∙ 𝒇2(𝑨) = 𝒇2(𝑨) ∙ 𝒇1(𝑨) [16].
By combining the solutions of the wave equations (2.5) and the telegraph equations (2.3) we have:
𝜕
𝜕𝑥[𝒆−√𝒁∙𝒀∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑽1 + 𝒆
+√𝒁∙𝒀∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑽2] = −𝒁 ∙ 𝑰 ⇒
𝑰 = 𝒀0 ∙ [𝒆−√𝒁∙𝒀∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑽1 − 𝒆
+√𝒁∙𝒀∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑽2] (2.6𝑎)
𝜕
𝜕𝑥[𝒆−√𝒀∙𝒁∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑰1 + 𝒆
+√𝒀∙𝒁∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑰2] = −𝒀 ∙ 𝑽 ⇒
𝑽 = 𝒁0 ∙ [𝒆−√𝒀∙𝒁∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑰1 + 𝒆
+√𝒀∙𝒁∙𝑥 ∙ 𝑰2] (2.6𝑏)
where 𝒁0 ∈ ℂ𝑁×𝑁[𝛺] is the characteristic impedance matrix and 𝒀0 ∈ ℂ
𝑁×𝑁[𝑆] is the characteristic
admittance matrix with properties:
𝒀0 ≜ 𝒁−1 ∙ √𝒁 ∙ 𝒀 = 𝒁0
−1 = [√𝒀 ∙ 𝒁]−1∙ 𝒀 = √𝒀 ∙ 𝒁 ∙ 𝒁−1 (2.7𝑎)
𝒁0 ≜ 𝒀−1 ∙ √𝒀 ∙ 𝒁 = 𝒀0
−1 = [√𝒁 ∙ 𝒀]−1∙ 𝒁 = √𝒁 ∙ 𝒀 ∙ 𝒀−1 (2.7𝑏)
18
2.1 Two-Port Representation
A two-port representation of the FDTL can be obtained by setting the following boundary
conditions: sending-end voltage/current 𝑽(𝑥 = 0, 𝑠) = 𝑽𝑘, 𝑰(𝑥 = 0, 𝑠) = 𝑰𝑘 and receiving-end
voltage/current 𝑽(𝑥 = ℓ, 𝑠) = 𝑽𝑚 , 𝑰(𝑥 = ℓ, 𝑠) = −𝑰𝑚 (Fig. 2.2).
Figure 2.2: N-Phase transmission line viewed as a two-port network.
This allows us to solve the boundary value problem of (2.5) in terms of the unknown constants
𝑽1, 𝑽2, 𝑰1, 𝑰2.
𝑽𝑘 = 𝒁0 ∙ 𝑰𝑘 + 𝑨2 ∙ [𝒁0 ∙ 𝑰𝑚 + 𝑽𝑚 ] (2.8𝑎)
𝑽𝑚 = 𝒁0 ∙ 𝑰𝑚 + 𝑨2 ∙ [𝒁0 ∙ 𝑰𝑘 + 𝑽𝑘 ] (2.8𝑏)
𝑰𝑘 = 𝒀0 ∙ 𝑽𝑘 −𝑨1 ∙ [𝒀0 ∙ 𝑽𝑚 + 𝑰𝑚] (2.8𝑐)
𝑰𝑚 = 𝒀0 ∙ 𝑽𝑚 −𝑨1 ∙ [𝒀0 ∙ 𝑽𝑘 + 𝑰𝑘 ] (2.8𝑑)
𝒁0 = 𝒁0𝑇 = 𝒀0
−1 = √𝒁 ∙ 𝒀 ∙ 𝒀−1 (2.8𝑒)
𝒀0 = 𝒀0𝑇 = 𝒁0
−1 = √𝒀 ∙ 𝒁 ∙ 𝒁−1 (2.8𝑓)
𝑨1 = 𝑨2𝑇 = 𝑒−ℓ∙√𝒀∙𝒁 = 𝒀0 ∙ 𝑨2 ∙ 𝒁0 (2.8𝑔)
𝑨2 = 𝑨1𝑇 = 𝑒−ℓ∙√𝒁∙𝒀 = 𝒁0 ∙ 𝑨1 ∙ 𝒀0 (2.8ℎ)
19
where 𝑰𝑘, 𝑰𝑚, 𝑽𝑘, 𝑽𝑚 ∈ ℂ𝑁𝑥1 are vectors and functions of the Laplace variable 𝑠, 𝒁0(𝑠) ∈
ℂ𝑁𝑥𝑁 [𝛺] is the characteristic impedance matrix, 𝒀0(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑁𝑥𝑁 [𝑆] is the characteristic admittance
matrix, and 𝑨1(𝑠) = 𝑨2𝑇(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑁𝑥𝑁 [1] is the weighting (propagation) function matrix.
The frequency responses can be obtained by setting 𝑠 = 𝑗𝜔 in (2.8).
For one of the simulation examples studied in this work and without loss of generality, we
consider a three-phase (𝑁 = 3) FDTL. In particular, MATLAB’s SimPowerSystems
POWER_LINEPARAM function was used to generate the (slightly non-transposed) FD data
characterized by the default tower configuration (DefaultLineParameters.mat), with 𝐺(𝑗𝜔) = 30 ∙
𝑰 [𝑛𝑆/𝑘𝑚] ∀𝜔 ∈ ℝ where 𝑰 is the NxN identity matrix and ℓ = 161𝑘𝑚.
The magnitude and phase responses of 𝒀0(𝑗𝜔) based on the (default) tower configuration
(Fig. 2.3) are shown with solid-blue in Figs. 2.4, 2.5. Only the lower triangular portion of the matrix
is shown since the upper part can be obtained through the symmetry property 𝒀0(𝑗𝜔) = 𝒀0𝑇(𝑗𝜔).
The magnitude and phase responses of the eigenvalues associated with 𝑨1(𝑗𝜔) = 𝑨2𝑇(𝑗𝜔), that is,
𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑗𝜔)} = 𝜆𝑘{𝑨2(𝑗𝜔)} ; 𝑘 = 1,2, . . , 𝑁 based on this tower configuration are shown with solid-
blue in Fig. 2.6.
Figure 2.3: SimPowerSystems power_lineparam 3-phase (default) tower configuration.
20
Figure 2.4: Frequency Dependent (FD) 3-phase characteristic admittance Y0(jω) magnitude
responses.
Figure 2.5: Frequency Dependent (FD) 3-phase characteristic admittance Y0(jω) phase responses.
21
Figure 2.6: Frequency Dependent (FD) 3-phase weighting function eigenvalues λk{A1(jω)}: (i)
magnitude responses (left), (ii) phase responses (right).
As an illustration, consider two simple examples of a boundary conditions:
Open-ended / open-circuit Line: 𝑽𝑘 = 𝑬𝑠 (source voltage), 𝑰𝑚 = 𝟎 where (2.8) simplify to
𝑽𝑘 = 𝑬𝑠 (2.9𝑎)
𝑽𝑚 = 𝑨2 ∙ [2 ∙ 𝑬𝑠 −𝑨2 ∙ 𝑽𝑚 ] (2.9𝑏)
𝑰𝑘 = 𝒀0 ∙ [𝑬𝑠 −𝑨2 ∙ 𝑽𝑚 ] (2.9𝑐)
𝑰𝑚 = 𝟎 (2.9𝑑)
22
Short-ended / short-circuit Line: 𝑽𝑘 = 𝑬𝑠 (source voltage), 𝑽𝑚 = 𝟎 where (2.8) simplify to
𝑽𝑘 = 𝑬𝑠 (2.10𝑎)
𝑽𝑚 = 𝟎 (2.10𝑏)
𝑰𝑘 = [𝑰 + 𝑨12 ] ∙ 𝒀0 ∙ 𝑬𝑠 + 𝑨1
2 ∙ 𝑰𝑘 (2.10𝑐)
𝑰𝑚 = −𝑨1 ∙ [𝒀0 ∙ 𝑬𝑠 + 𝑰𝑘 ] (2.10𝑑)
Where 𝑰 ∈ ℝ𝑁×𝑁 is the identity matrix.
Special Case: Single-Phase FDTL
For the special case corresponding to a single-phase FDTL (𝑁 = 1) the matrix-vector two-
port relations of (2.8) reduce to the following (scalar) expressions (Fig. 2.7):
Figure 2.7: Single-phase (N=1) transmission line viewed as a two-port network.
𝐼𝑘(𝑠) =𝑉𝑘(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)− [𝑉𝑚(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)+ 𝐼𝑚(𝑠)] 𝐴(𝑠) (2.11𝑎)
𝐼𝑚(𝑠) =𝑉𝑚(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)− [𝑉𝑘(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)+ 𝐼𝑘(𝑠)] 𝐴(𝑠) (2.11𝑏)
𝑍0(𝑠) = √𝑅(𝑠) + 𝑠𝐿(𝑠)
𝐺(𝑠) + 𝑠𝐶(𝑠) (2.11𝑐)
𝛾(𝑠) = √(𝑅(𝑠) + 𝑠𝐿(𝑠))(𝐺(𝑠) + 𝑠𝐶(𝑠)) (2.11𝑑)
23
𝐴(𝑠) = 𝑒−𝛾(𝑠)ℓ (2.11𝑒)
where 𝑍0(𝑠) ∈ ℂ [𝛺] is the characteristic impedance, 𝛾(𝑠) ∈ ℂ [1/𝑘𝑚] is the propagation function
and 𝐴(𝑠) ∈ ℂ [1] is the weighting function.
MATLAB’s SimPowerSystems POWER_LINEPARAM function was used to generate the
FD data based on the default tower configuration with one conductor, with 𝐶(𝑗𝜔) =
10.713 𝑛𝐹/𝑘𝑚, 𝐺(𝑗𝜔) = 30 𝑛𝑆/𝑘𝑚 ∀𝜔 ∈ ℝ and ℓ = 161𝑘𝑚.
The frequency responses of 𝑍0(𝑠) and 𝐴(𝑠) based on this configuration can be obtained by
setting 𝑠 = 𝑗𝜔 in (2.11) and are shown in Figs. 2.8, 2.9 respectively.
Figure 2.8: Frequency Dependent (FD) single-phase characteristic impedance Z0(jω):
(i) magnitude response (top), (ii) phase response (bottom).
24
Figure 2.9: Frequency Dependent (FD) single-phase weighting function A(jω): (i) magnitude
response (top), (ii) phase response (bottom).
As an illustration, consider two simple examples of a boundary conditions:
Open-ended / open-circuit Line: 𝑉𝑘 = 𝐸𝑠 (source voltage), 𝐼𝑚 = 0 where (2.9) simplify to
𝑉𝑘 = 𝐸𝑠 (2.12𝑎)
𝑉𝑚 = 2 ∙𝐴
1 + 𝐴2∙ 𝐸𝑠 (2.12𝑏)
𝐼𝑘 = 1 − 𝐴2
1 + 𝐴2∙𝐸𝑠𝑍0 (2.12𝑐)
𝐼𝑚 = 0 (2.12𝑑)
Short-ended / short-circuit Line: 𝑉𝑘 = 𝐸𝑠 (source voltage), 𝑉𝑚 = 0 where (2.10) simplify to
𝑉𝑘 = 𝐸𝑠 (2.13𝑎)
𝑉𝑚 = 0 (2.13𝑏)
25
𝐼𝑘 = 1 + 𝐴2
1 − 𝐴2∙𝐸𝑠𝑍0 (2.13𝑐)
𝐼𝑚 = −2𝐴
1 − 𝐴2∙𝐸𝑠𝑍0 (2.13𝑑)
2.2 Rational Function Approximations (RFAs)
A constant-parameter (CP) method is a fast but crude approach of modeling a transmission
line: It uses a single frequency value 𝜔0 to represent the entire bandwidth of interest, that is,
𝒀0(𝑗𝜔) = 𝒀0(𝑗𝜔0) ∀𝜔 ∈ ℝ, and 𝑨1(𝑗𝜔) = 𝑨1(𝑗𝜔0) ∀𝜔 ∈ ℝ, where 𝜔0 = 2𝜋𝐹0 and 𝐹0 =
{50, 60} 𝐻𝑧. The CP method tends to severely overestimate the high-frequency transients [3].
A far more accurate technique relies on the use of rational functions ��0(𝑠), ��1(𝑠) that
closely match 𝒀0(𝑠) and 𝑨1(𝑠) respectively. A rational function {𝐺(𝑠) ≜ 𝐾∏ (𝑠−𝜁𝑖)𝑀𝑖=1
∏ (𝑠−𝑝𝑖)𝑁𝑖=1
, 𝑁 < 𝑀} is
uniquely determined by its gain "𝐾", poles {𝑝𝑖 ; 𝑖 = 1,… ,𝑁} and zeros {𝜁𝑖 ; 𝑖 = 1,… ,𝑀} and is
required in order to represent a realizable system [17]. A prominent numerical technique for
obtaining RFAs is based on vector fitting [4, 18]. Vector fitting may be applied on a frequency
dependent matrix (such as the one describing 𝒀0(𝑗𝜔)) in order to obtain a transfer function matrix
characterized by a common set of poles but different zero sets for each element of the matrix [4].
Using MATLAB’s RATIONALFIT function we obtain such high-order RFAs. The solid-blue lines
in Figs. 2.4-2.6 correspond to the measurement data based on (2.8), Fig. 2.3 and the solid-red lines
in Figs. 2.4-2.6 correspond to the result of high-order RFAs by means of vector fitting. The resulting
RFAs ��0(𝑠), ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑗𝜔)} ; 𝑘 = 1,2, . . , 𝑁 are minimum phase, that is, 𝑅𝑒{𝑝𝑖} < 0, 𝑅𝑒{𝜁𝑖} < 0 ∀𝑖
and of order 16, 8 respectively.
26
It is important to note at this point that ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑗𝜔)} cannot be directly obtained from
𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑗𝜔)} because the latter contains an unknown delay term 𝜏𝑘 ∈ ℝ [𝑠𝑒𝑐] which is heavily
influenced by the transmission line length ℓ. This delay can be estimated using Bode’s gain-phase
relation [19] (Appendix II). This relation states that the phase-response of 𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑗𝜔)} although
known from the data, can be uniquely obtained from its magnitude response at a single analog
frequency 𝜔0 ∈ ℝ [𝑟𝑎𝑑
𝑠𝑒𝑐] using [19]
𝑀𝑘(𝑗𝜔0) =𝜋
2∫
𝑑𝑊𝑘𝑑𝜈
𝑓(𝜈)𝑑𝜈+∞
−∞
(2.14𝑎)
𝑓(𝜈) =2
𝜋2ln (𝑐𝑜𝑡ℎ (
|𝜈|
2)) (2.14𝑏)
𝑊𝑘(𝜈) = 𝑙𝑛|𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑢)}| (2.14𝑐)
𝑢 = 𝜔0 ∙ 𝑒𝜈 (2.14𝑑)
where 𝑀𝑘(𝑗𝜔0) ∈ ℝ ; 𝑘 = 1,2, … ,𝑁. Once the phases are computed via (2.14) the delays can be
estimated using
��𝑘 =𝑀𝑘(𝑗𝜔0) − 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒{ 𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑗𝜔0)} }
𝜔0 (2.15)
Numerical evaluation of (2.14) and substitution in (2.15) for the 3-phase data given and for several
frequencies 𝜔0 results consistently in ��1 = 540.35𝜇𝑠𝑒𝑐, ��2 = 538.50𝜇𝑠𝑒𝑐, and ��3 = 538.92𝜇𝑠𝑒𝑐
(Fig. 2.6). Once the delays ��𝑘 are computed we can obtain accurate estimates ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} of
𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} using
��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} = ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} ∙ 𝑒−𝑠��𝑘 (2.16)
The phase responses shown in Fig. 2.6 (right) are a comparison between ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} (solid-
red) and 𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} ∙ 𝑒+𝑠��𝑘 (solid-blue) 𝑘 = 1,2, … , 𝑁, that is, the delays ��𝑘 extracted from the
data. We observe that the phase responses match indeed very closely except at the regions where
the magnitude responses are equal to zero in which case the phase has no meaning.
27
Modeling the Weighting Function: The J. Marti Model and the Modal Transform
Although detailed approximations ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} of 𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} using Bode’s formula and
vector fitting were obtained, the problem of approximating 𝑨1(𝑠) has not yet been addressed. The
modal decomposition method [3] assumes that the eigenvectors associated with 𝑨1(𝑠) are
frequency-independent and are given by the Clarke (matrix) transform 𝑽 (Appendix I). For this
example:
𝑨1(𝑠) = 𝑽 ∙ 𝜦(𝑠) ∙ 𝑸 (2.17𝑎)
𝜦(𝑠) = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔{𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} ; 𝑘 = 1,2,3} (2.17𝑏)
𝑽 = 𝑸−1 (2.17𝑐)
𝑽 = [1 1 11 −2 11 1 −2
] (2.17𝑑)
𝑸 =1
3[1 1 11 −1 01 0 −1
] (2.17𝑒)
This allows us to solve three independent scalar (single-phase) transmission-line problems
in the eigenvalue (modal) domain and construct the three-phase solution using the constant 𝑽,𝑸
matrices [3]. Moreover, since all transmission lines in a large network use the same eigenvector
matrices 𝑽,𝑸 the entire network can be decomposed to three independent networks each one of
them consisting of single-phase transmission-lines. Although this model is attractive due to its
simplicity, it is accurate only for fully transposed (symmetric) lines. The more asymmetric the line
is, the more inaccurate the model becomes, especially in the study of underground cables [7]. An
extension of the modal transform relies on the use of frequency-dependent eigenvectors
𝑽(𝑗𝜔), 𝑸(𝑗𝜔) but fails to extend to a network consisting of multiple transmission lines because
𝑽(𝑗𝜔), 𝑸(𝑗𝜔) differ (in principle) for each transmission-line and thus we cannot transform an entire
network to a modal domain.
28
Modeling the Weighting Function: The Universal Line Modeling (ULM) method
The Universal Line Modeling (ULM) method [7] is based on the idempotent (spectral)
decomposition [8] and allows us to solve a network of transmission lines directly in the (matrix-
vector) phase-domain. The idempotent (spectral) decomposition of 𝑨1(𝑠) in terms of its
eigenvector matrices 𝑽(𝑠), 𝑸(𝑠) is given by:
𝑨1(𝑠) = ∑𝑴𝑘(𝑠) ∙
𝑁
𝑘=1
𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} (2.18𝑎)
𝑴𝑘(𝑠) = 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) ∙ 𝒒𝑘𝑇 (𝑠) (2.18𝑏)
𝑽(𝑠) = [𝒗1(𝑠), 𝒗2(𝑠), … , 𝒗𝑁(𝑠)] ∈ ℂ𝑁𝑥𝑁 (2.18𝑐)
𝑸(𝑠) = [𝒒1(𝑠), 𝒒2(𝑠), … , 𝒒𝑁(𝑠)] ∈ ℂ𝑁𝑥𝑁 (2.18𝑑)
where 𝒗𝑘(𝑠), 𝒒𝑘𝑇 (𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑁𝑥1, are the eigenvectors of 𝑨1(𝑠) and 𝑴𝑘(𝑠) ∈ ℂ
𝑁𝑥𝑁 are the (rank-1)
idempotent matrices. Unlike the infinite choices of eigenvectors for a given matrix, the idempotent
(spectral) decomposition is unique [8]. The ULM method relies on (frequency-dependent) RFAs
that approximate: (i) the eigenvalues 𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑗𝜔)}, and (ii) the idempotent matrices 𝑴𝑘(𝑗𝜔). For
the 3-phase example studied in this work (𝑁 = 3) and thus 3 such RFAs are required. RFAs for
{𝑴𝑘(𝑗𝜔); 𝑘 = 1,2,3} are obtained the same way as RFAs for 𝒀0(𝑗𝜔). The magnitude and phase
responses of {𝑴𝑘(𝑗𝜔); 𝑘 = 1,2,3} based on the tower configuration of Fig. 2.3 are shown with
solid-blue in Figs. 2.10-2.15.
In particular, the solid-blue lines in Figs. 2.10-2.15 correspond to the measurement data
based on (2.8, 2.18) and the solid-red lines in Figs. 2.10-2.15 correspond to the result of high-order
RFAs by means of vector fitting. The resulting RFAs ��1(𝑠), ��2(𝑠), ��3(𝑠) are minimum phase,
that is, 𝑅𝑒{𝑝𝑖} < 0, 𝑅𝑒{𝜁𝑖} < 0 ∀𝑖 and of order equal to 13, 13, 1 respectively. Finally, the
idempotent matrices corresponding to the Clarke transform (2.17) are shown in Figs. 2.10-2.15
using dashed-black lines. From Figs. 2.10-2.15 we observe that: (i) the line is non-transposed since
29
the data-specific idempotent matrices (solid-blue) differ from the Clarke-based matrices (dashed-
black), and (ii) the high-order RFAs (solid-red) match the data-specific idempotent matrices (solid-
blue) very closely.
Figure 2.10: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M1(jω) magnitude responses
30
Figure 2.11: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M1(jω) phase responses
Figure 2.12: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M2(jω) magnitude responses
31
Figure 2.13: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M2(jω) phase responses
Figure 2.14: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M3(jω) magnitude responses.
32
Figure 2.15: Frequency Dependent (FD) idempotent matrix M3(jω) phase responses.
Finally, an idempotent matrix-based RFA ��1(𝑠) corresponding to 𝑨1(𝑠) is given by:
��1(𝑠) = ∑��𝑘(𝑠) ∙
𝑁
𝑘=1
��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} (2.19𝑎)
��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} = ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)} ∙ 𝑒−𝑠��𝑘 (2.19𝑏)
This allows to replace {𝒀0(𝑠), 𝑨1(𝑠)} with {��0(𝑠), ��1(𝑠)} in (2.8) and express the problem in terms
of RFAs in the time domain by means of the inverse Laplace transform:
𝒗𝑘(𝑡) = ��0(𝑡) ∗ 𝒊𝑘(𝑡) + ��2(𝑡 − ��𝑘) ∗ [��0(𝑡) ∗ 𝒊𝑚(𝑡) + 𝒗𝑚(𝑡) ] (2.20𝑎)
𝒗𝑚(𝑡) = ��0(𝑡) ∗ 𝒊𝑚(𝑡) + ��2(𝑡 − ��𝑘) ∗ [��0(𝑡) ∗ 𝒊𝑘(𝑡) + 𝒗𝑘(𝑡)] (2.20𝑏)
𝒊𝑘(𝑡) = ��0(𝑡) ∗ 𝒗𝑘(𝑡) − ��1(𝑡 − ��𝑘) ∗ [��0(𝑡) ∗ 𝒗𝑚(𝑡) + 𝒊𝑚(𝑡)] (2.20𝑐)
𝒊𝑚(𝑡) = ��0(𝑡) ∗ 𝒗𝑚(𝑡) − ��1(𝑡 − ��𝑘) ∗ [��0(𝑡) ∗ 𝒗𝑘(𝑡) + 𝒊𝑘(𝑡)] (2.20𝑑)
where lower-case denotes the inverse Laplace transform of the corresponding upper-case (matric-
vector) function and “*” denotes linear convolution.
33
Special Case: Single-Phase Transmission Line
For the single-phase (𝑁 = 1) studied in this work the characteristic impedance and
weighting function (2.19) are scalar functions and there is no requirement for a spectral
decomposition to eigenvalues and idempotent matrices. Using MATLAB’s RATIONALFIT
function we obtain such scalar high-order RFAs (Figs. 2.8, 2.9). The solid blue lines in Figs. 2.8,
2.9 correspond to the measurement data based on (2.11) and the dashed red lines in Figs. 2.8, 2.9
correspond to the result of high-order RFAs by means of vector fitting. The poles and zeros of the
RFAs are shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Vector fitting based RFAs Z0(s) and A(s)
��0(𝑠) ��(𝑠)
Zeros
𝜁𝑖(1)
Poles
𝑝𝑖(1)
Zeros
𝜁𝑖(2)
Poles
𝑝𝑖(2)
-1.23e+6 -1.75e+9 -1.28e+5 + j6.33e+5 -1.04e+5 + j2.02e+5
-1.49e+5 -1.19e+6 -1.28e+5 - j6.33e+5 -1.04e+5 - j2.02e+5
-2.29e+4 -1.43e+5 -2.04e+5 + j1.77e+5 -8.05e+4 + j5.09e+4
-3.76e+3 -2.17e+4 2.04e+5 - j1.77e+5 -8.05e+4 - j5.09e+4
-633 -3.56e+3 -1.47e+4 -2.73e+4
-106 -600 -4.24e+3 -1.15e+4
-18.25 -101 -863 -3.81e+3
-4.74 -16.57 -86.25 -837
-0.3791 -3.55 -85.1
-0.39
From Table 2.1 we observe that: (i) both RFAs are minimum phase, that is, 𝑅𝑒{𝑝𝑖(1,2)
} < 0,
𝑅𝑒{𝜁𝑖(1,2)
} < 0 ∀𝑖, (ii) the orders of ��0(𝑠) and ��(𝑠) are 10, 9 respectively. Finally the RFAs ��0(𝑠)
and ��(𝑠) are given by
��0(𝑠) =𝐵1(𝑠)
𝐴1(𝑠)=∏ (𝑠 − 𝜁𝑖
(1))9𝑖=1
∏ (𝑠 − 𝑝𝑖(1))10
𝑖=1
(2.21𝑎)
��(𝑠) =𝐵2(𝑠)
𝐴2(𝑠)=∏ (𝑠 − 𝜁𝑖
(2))8𝑖=1
∏ (𝑠 − 𝑝𝑖(2))9
𝑖=1
(2.21𝑏)
34
Using Bode’s gain-phase relations (2.14, 2.15) the estimated delay term 𝜏 ∈ ℝ [𝑠𝑒𝑐] associated
with 𝐴(𝑠) is �� = 539.93𝜇𝑠𝑒𝑐 (Fig. 2.9). Once �� is computed we can obtain an accurate estimate
��(𝑠) of 𝐴(𝑠) using
��(𝑠) = ��(𝑠)𝑒−𝑠�� (2.22)
The phase response shown in Fig. 2.9 is a comparison between ��(𝑠) and 𝐴(𝑠)𝑒+𝑠��, that is,
the delay �� extracted from the data. We observe that the phase responses match indeed very closely
except at the region where the magnitude response is equal to zero in which case the phase has no
meaning. Finally, the matrix-vector equations (2.20) reduce to
𝑖𝑘(𝑡) = 𝑣𝑘(𝑡) ∗ ��0(𝑡) − [𝑣𝑚(𝑡) ∗ ��0(𝑡) + 𝑖𝑚(𝑡)] ∗ ��(𝑡 − ��) (2.23𝑎)
𝑖𝑚(𝑡) = 𝑣𝑚(𝑡) ∗ ��0(𝑡) − [𝑣𝑘(𝑡) ∗ ��0(𝑡) + 𝑖𝑘(𝑡)] ∗ ��(𝑡 − ��) (2.23𝑏)
��0(𝑠) =1
��0(𝑠) (2.23𝑐)
��(𝑠) = ��(𝑠) = 𝑒+𝑠�� (2.23𝑑)
where lower-case denotes the inverse Laplace transform of the corresponding upper-case function
and “*” denotes linear convolution
35
2.3 Discretization of the Continuous-Time Model
In this section we shall establish a connection between the concept of recursive convolution
[3, 20] and the well-known bilinear transform [5, 17]. A popular technique for evaluating the
convolution integrals in (2.20, 2.23) using a fixed-step (𝛥𝑡) discrete simulator is based on the
following idea [3, 20]. Consider a delay-transfer function 𝐻(𝑠) with simple (multiplicity=1),
possibly complex, stable poles (𝑅𝑒{𝑝𝑗} < 0), and 𝑁 < 𝑀. Its rational function expansion is given
by
𝐻(𝑠) ≜𝑆(𝑠)
𝐹(𝑠)=∑𝐻𝑗(𝑠)
𝑁
𝑗=1
=∑𝑟𝑗
𝑠 − 𝑝𝑗
𝑁
𝑗=1
𝑒−𝑠𝜏 (2.24)
𝑠𝑗(𝑡) ≜ 𝑓(𝑡) ∗ ℎ𝑗(𝑡) = 𝑟𝑗∫ 𝑓(𝑡 − 𝑢)𝑒𝑝𝑗(𝑢−𝜏)𝑑𝑢
+∞
𝜏
(2.25)
A recursive relation between 𝑠𝑗(𝑡) and 𝑠𝑗(𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) of the form
𝑠𝑗(𝑡) = 𝑐0𝑠𝑗(𝑡 − 𝛥𝑡) + 𝑐1𝑓(𝑡 − 𝜏) + 𝑐2𝑓(𝑡 − 𝜏 − 𝛥𝑡) (2.26𝑎)
𝑐0 = 𝑒𝑝𝑗𝛥𝑡 (2.26𝑏)
𝑐1 = −1
𝑝𝑗−1 − 𝑒𝑝𝑗𝛥𝑡
𝑝𝑗2𝛥𝑡
(2.26𝑐)
𝑐2 =𝑒𝑝𝑗𝛥𝑡
𝑝𝑗+1− 𝑒𝑝𝑗𝛥𝑡
𝑝𝑗2𝛥𝑡
(2.26𝑑)
can be established by: (i) applying integration by parts, (ii) setting 𝑑𝑓(𝑡−𝑢)
𝑑𝑢≈𝑓(𝑡−𝜏−𝛥𝑡)−𝑓(𝑡−𝜏)
𝛥𝑡 [20],
and (iii) ignoring the scaling factor 𝑟𝑗. Standard digital signal processing (DSP) notation allows us
to rewrite (2.26) as
𝑠𝑗[𝑛] = 𝑐0𝑠𝑗[𝑛 − 1] + 𝑐1𝑓[𝑛 − 𝐿] + 𝑐2𝑓[𝑛 − 1 − 𝐿] (2.27𝑎)
36
𝐿 = ⌊𝜏
𝛥𝑡⌋ (2.27𝑏)
Where ⌊. ⌋ denotes the “floor” operation. Taking the z-transform of (2.27) leads to a
discrete-time transfer function of the form:
𝐻𝑗(𝑧) ≜𝑆𝑗(𝑧)
𝐹(𝑧)=𝑐1 + 𝑐2𝑧
−1
1 − 𝑐0𝑧−1𝑧−𝐿 (2.28)
After ignoring the delay term 𝑧−𝐿 , it can be shown that the mapping 𝐻𝑗(𝑠) ↔ 𝐻𝑗(𝑧) is a
generalized bilinear transform [5] of the form 𝑠 =𝐴+𝐵𝑧−1
𝐶+𝐷𝑧−1 with 𝐴 = 1 + 𝑝𝑗𝑐1, 𝐵 = 𝑝𝑗𝑐2 − 𝑐0, 𝐶 =
𝑐1, 𝐷 = 𝑐2. Furthermore, assuming that the product 𝑝𝑗𝛥𝑡 is small enough so that the approximation
𝑒𝑝𝑗𝛥𝑡 ≈ 1+ 𝑝𝑗𝛥𝑡 is valid, reveals that the mapping 𝐻𝑗(𝑠) ↔𝐻𝑗(𝑧) (2.26-2.28) corresponds to the
well-known forward rectangular bilinear transform 𝑠 =1−𝑧−1
𝛥𝑡∙𝑧−1 [15]. In this work, discretization of
𝐻𝑗(𝑠) is carried out using the “prewarped Tustin” bilinear transform, namely [15]
𝐻𝑗(𝑠)
𝑠=𝜔0,𝑗
𝑡𝑎𝑛(𝜔0,𝑗𝛥𝑡
2)
∙ 1−𝑧−1
1+𝑧−1
→ 𝐻𝑗(𝑧) (2.29)
where 𝜔0,𝑗 is the analog angular frequency (Chapter 4). This allows us to leverage the stability and
frequency representation properties of the classical Tustin transform while maintaining accuracy at
a particular frequency of interest 𝜔0,𝑗 via prewarping [5]. Accuracy around a particular frequency
is a very desirable characteristic when we decompose a broadband simulation to several
narrowband sub simulations (Chapter 3).
Finally, although the Tustin transform guarantees stability in the discrete time domain,
we may still encounter numerical instability due to pole clustering (numerical multiplicity) around
the unit circle. This can be illustrated by means of the following example. Consider 𝐻(𝑠) =1
𝑠−𝑝
and the mapping (2.29) with 𝜔0,𝑗 = 0, so that 𝐻(𝑧) =
𝛥𝑡
2−𝑝𝛥𝑡(1+𝑧−1)
1−(2+𝑝𝛥𝑡
2−𝑝𝛥𝑡)𝑧−1
. The pole of 𝐻(𝑧) is located at
37
𝑧 =2 + 𝑝𝛥𝑡
2 − 𝑝𝛥𝑡 (2.30)
If 𝛥𝑡 ≪ 𝑝 then 𝑧 → 1, resulting in a marginally-stable discrete-time system 𝐻(𝑧). Now let
us consider a system 𝐻(𝑠) with three poles {𝑝1, 𝑝2, 𝑝3} so that 𝑝3 ≫ 𝑝1 and 𝑝3 ≫ 𝑝2. The condition
number 𝐾 ≜𝑚𝑎𝑥|𝑅𝑒{𝑝𝑖}|
𝑚𝑖𝑛|𝑅𝑒{𝑝𝑖}| is large and the step size 𝛥𝑡 should be of the order of
1
|𝑅𝑒{𝑝3}| for accurate
simulation [15, 20]. This results in {𝑝1𝛥𝑡, 𝑝2𝛥𝑡} → 0 so that two poles {𝑧1, 𝑧2} → 1, resulting in
numerical instability [5, 17].
Table 2.2 shows the absolute value of the poles of the single-phase discretized, high-order
transfer functions ��0(𝑧), ��(𝑧) clearly illustrating the numerical instability (shaded entries).
Similarly, for the 3-phase example studied in this work, a few of the absolute value of the poles of
the discretized, high-order transfer functions ��0(𝑧), { ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑧)} , ��𝑘(𝑧) ; 𝑘 = 1,2,3 } are
unstable (greater than one) illustrating the numerical instability. In Chapter 4 we improve numerical
stability by employing narrowband (subband) processing with low order RFA models.
Table 2.2: Absolute value of the poles of Z0(z) and A(z)
ABS( Poles of
��0(𝑧) )
ABS( Poles of
��(𝑧) )
0.9977 0.9022
1.0062 0.9022
1.0062 1.0058
1.0000 0.9976
1.0000 0.9976
0.9918 0.9807
0.9918 0.9754
0.9784 0.9227
0.8668 0.9227
0.2523
CHAPTER 3
QMF Filter Banks and Phasor Banks
In order to construct low-order RFAs (Chapter 4) that match the original (broadband)
FDTL data very closely, the concept of a Perfect Reconstruction Filter Bank (PR-FB) shall be
employed. In particular we shall study the structure of two PR-FB classes: (i) Logarithmic-tree
quadrature mirror filter banks (QMF) [9], and (ii) Phasor banks [10-12].
3.1 Perfect Reconstruction Tree-Structured QMF Filter Banks
A 2-channel perfect reconstruction filter bank is characterized by: (i) the analysis stage
filters {𝐻0(𝑧), 𝐻1(𝑧)}, (ii) the frequency partition (subband domain), and (iii) the synthesis stage
filters {𝐺0(𝑧), 𝐺1(𝑧)} (Fig. 3.1) [9].
Figure 3.1: Two Channel PR QMF Filter-Bank.
39
Perfect reconstruction (PR) means that
𝑦[𝑛] = 𝑥[𝑛 − 𝑛0] (3 .1)
for some (integer) delay 𝑛0. A convenient, and frequently used, set of choices for 𝐻0(𝑧), 𝐻1(𝑧),
𝐺0(𝑧), 𝐺1(𝑧) with the PR property is provided by the family of FIR para-unitary quadrature mirror
filters (QMF). This family is completely specified by the constraints
1) 𝐻0(𝑧) ∶ ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑁 = 𝑜𝑑𝑑 (3.2)
2) 𝐻1(𝑧) = 𝑐 ∙ 𝐻0#(−𝑧) , |𝑐| = 1 (3.3)
3) |𝐻0(𝑒𝑗𝜔)|
2+ |𝐻0(𝑒
−𝑗𝜔)|2= 2 (Power complementary property) (3.4)
For the synthesis Filters:
4) 𝐺0(𝑧) = 𝐻0#(𝑧) (3.5)
5) 𝐺1(𝑧) = 𝐻1#(𝑧) (3.6)
Where "#" denotes conjugate reversal of a polynomial, namely
𝐻0 (𝑧) ≜ ℎ0 (0) + ℎ0 (1)𝑧−1 +⋯+ ℎ0 (𝑁)𝑧
−𝑁 ⇒
𝐻0#(𝑧) ≜ ℎ0
∗(𝑁) + ℎ0∗(𝑁 − 1)𝑧−1 +⋯+ ℎ0
∗(1)𝑧−(𝑁−1) + ℎ0∗(0)𝑧−𝑁 (3.7)
The QMF constraints (3.2-3.6) reduce the design task to finding a (prototype) FIR low-pass filter
𝐻0(𝑧) that satisfies (3.3), since 𝐻0(𝑧), 𝐻1(𝑧), 𝐺0(𝑧), 𝐺1(𝑧) are all expressed in terms of this filter.
Logarithmic frequency structure in the subbands is realized by expanding the analysis
filters into scales as shown in Fig. 3.2. The Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) constitutes a
special case within the family of tree-structured filter banks [9]. The equivalent of the
forward/inverse DWT represented as a filter bank is shown in Fig. 3.3 [9]. Our objective is to fit
low order rational function models in each subband so that it closely resembles the high order
frequency response 𝒀0(𝑗𝜔) , { 𝜆𝑘{𝑨1(𝑗𝜔)} ,𝑴𝑘(𝑗𝜔); 𝑘 = 1,2,3 } of Chapter 2.
40
Figure 3.2: Logarithmic frequency tree-structured Analysis Filter Bank.
Figure 3.3: PR Filter Bank viewed as a combination of forward and inverse DWT.
Experimenting with different perfect reconstruction filter banks suggests that choosing a
prototype analysis filter 𝐻0(𝑧) which corresponds to a good lowpass filter (in terms of passband
ripple and stopband attenuation) is a desired characteristic for decoupling the broadband simulation
into narrowband sub-simulations (Chapter 5). All filter banks used in this work are members of the
Quadrature-Mirror Filter (QMF) bank family, so that only the (prototype analysis) filter 𝐻0(𝑧)
needs to be specified. The other filters {𝐻1(𝑧), 𝐺0(𝑧), 𝐺1(𝑧)} are determined by the QMF design
specification (3.2-3.6). In particular, {𝐻0(𝑧), 𝐻1(𝑧), 𝐺0(𝑧), 𝐺1(𝑧)} were constructed using: (a) a
Daubechies-2 (Haar) FB, (b) a Daubechies-6 FB, (c) a Daubechies-12 FB, and (d) using
41
MATLAB’s FIR2CHPR with order 𝑁 = 99 and passband-edge frequency 𝑓𝑝 = 0.45 [9, 17]. The
frequency responses of the analysis filters (AF) in each band are shown in Figs. 3.4-3.7.
Experimental results suggest that the order of 𝐻0(𝑧) can be reduced down to 𝑁 = 6 − 12,
while still maintaining good frequency separation. Moreover, members of the Daubechies family
(i.e., D-12 FB) constitute good choices for achieving frequency separation in the subbands due to
the MAXFLAT property, that is, a flat passband and monotonic rejection in the stopband [9, 17].
Figure 3.4: Ten-channel logarithmic frequency Daubechies-2 (Haar/D2) analysis filter bank
magnitude responses.
42
Figure 3.5: Ten-channel logarithmic frequency Daubechies-6 (D6) analysis filter bank magnitude
responses.
Figure 3.6: Ten-channel logarithmic frequency Daubechies-12 (D12) analysis filter bank magnitude responses.
43
Figure 3.7: Ten-channel logarithmic frequency FIR2CHPR-based (N=99) analysis filter bank magnitude responses.
3.2 Phasor Banks
The classical dynamic phasor representation is based on the so-called Short-Time Fourier
Trasform (STFT): we associate a Fourier series representation with the (continuous-time) signal
segment {𝑥(𝑠); 𝑡 − 𝑇 < 𝑠 ≤ 𝑡} where we consider "t" as a parameter, viz.
𝑥(𝑠) = ∑ 𝑋𝑘(𝑡)𝑒𝑗𝑘𝜔𝑠
∞
𝑘=−∞
, 𝑡 − 𝑇 < 𝑠 ≤ 𝑡 (3.8𝑎)
𝑋𝑘(𝑡) =1
𝑇∫ 𝑥(𝑠)𝑒−𝑗𝑘𝜔𝑑𝑠𝑡
𝑡−𝑇
(3.8𝑏)
44
Here 𝜔 =2𝜋
𝑇, where 𝑇 is the duration of a cycle (or the period in a steady state).
Phasor Banks provide a generalization of the well-known discrete Gabor transform [9, 21,
22], which can be (equivalently) viewed as a perfect reconstruction M-channel uniform DFT filter
bank (Fig. 3.8). We define a Phasor Bank as a filter bank that satisfies the following conditions:
Figure 3.8: Filter-bank interpretation of dynamic phasors
(i) Causal & stable:
Phasor Banks are targeted for applications that require dynamic processing, namely
processing carried out online in real time, using digital signal processing hardware/software, one
sample at a time. As a consequence, all processing must be causal and stable.
(ii) No Decimation:
In contrast to filter banks designed for coding applications, which employ down-sampling
to achieve the smallest possible data rate subject to the constraint of perfect reconstruction, we opt
to avoid down-sampling altogether, so that 𝐷 = 1 in Fig. 3.8. The resulting single-rate processing
scheme allows for a closer relation between our discrete-time generalized Dynamic Phasors and
the continuous-time systems from which our signals of interest are acquired, as well as greater
flexibility in the selection of the Phasor Bank synthesis stage [10]. This type of filter-bank is known
in the literature as fully oversampled [23].
45
(iii) Uniform DFT-like structure:
Both analysis and synthesis filters have a uniform DFT-like structure, that is, they can be
expressed in terms of a prototype analysis filter 𝐻(𝑧) (PAF) and a prototype synthesis filter 𝐺(𝑧)
(PSF) respectively, viz.
𝐻𝑘(𝑧) = 𝐻(𝑒−𝑗𝑘𝜔0𝑧) (3.9𝑎)
𝐺𝑘(𝑧) = 𝑒−𝑗𝑘𝜔0𝛥𝐺(𝑒−𝑗𝑘𝜔0𝑧) (3.9𝑏)
where 0 ≤ 𝑘 ≤ 𝑀 − 1, 𝑀 represents the number of channels, 𝜔0 ≜2𝜋
𝑀, and Δ is the controllable
reconstruction delay (Fig. 3.8). When Δ = 0 the expressions (3.9) coincide with the definition of a
uniform DFT filter bank.
(iv) Unconstrained Analysis Filter:
The prototype analysis filter 𝐻(𝑧) of the Phasor Bank is unconstrained and thus can be
designed to meet the specifications of a particular application of interest. For example, when used
for dynamic frequency analysis in electric power systems, the analysis stage should be highly
frequency selective. This reduces the leakage between frequency bands and allows unambiguous
association of each Dynamic Phasor 𝒳𝑘(∙) with a single harmonic (Fig. 3.8).
(v) Controllable 𝛥 −Delay Perfect Reconstruction (PR):
Perfect reconstruction indicates that 𝑦[𝑛] = 𝑥[𝑛 − 𝛥], where 𝛥 is the reconstruction delay
(Fig. 3.8). Control applications usually require zero reconstruction delay, which cannot be
achieved, for instance, with paraunitary QMF filter banks. The reconstruction delay 𝛥 of our Phasor
Banks is a design parameter, with any desired (integer) value in the range [0,𝑀 − 1], and is entirely
independent of the analysis stage of the phasor bank. The perfect reconstruction requirement
𝑦[𝑛] = 𝑥[𝑛 − 𝛥] for a phasor-bank with given causal 𝐻(𝑧), 𝐺(𝑧) reduces to [10].
46
𝑓[𝑛] = {
1
𝑀 𝑛 = 𝛥
0 𝑛 = 𝛥 + 𝑙𝑀, . 𝑙 ≥ 1
(3.10)
where 𝐹(𝑧) ≜ 𝐻(𝑧)𝐺(𝑧), and 𝑓[𝑛] represents the impulse response of 𝐹(𝑧) [10]. Thus, 𝐹(𝑧) is a
delayed version of a Nyquist filter [9]. Since 𝐻(𝑧) is unconstrained, 𝐺(𝑧) is responsible for
satisfying (3.10). Because we do not down-sample the phasor-domain coefficients, every 𝐻(𝑧) has
(infinitely) many matching choices of 𝐺(𝑧) that satisfy the PR condition (3.10). This added freedom
of choice allows us to customize the selection of 𝐺(𝑧) with respect to other metrics of performance,
such as reconstruction numerical robustness.
Measures of Reconstruction Numerical Robustness
Numerical robustness (a.k.a "stability of reconstruction") refers to the effects of
perturbations/errors in 𝒳𝑘[𝑛] on the reconstructed signal 𝑦[𝑛] [24], (Fig. 3.9).
Figure 3.9: Simplified perturbation model for a PR filter-bank.
Using vector-matrix notation, let 𝑨, 𝑺 represent the input-output signal space mappings induced by
the analysis (AFB) and synthesis (SFB) filters, respectively (Fig. 3.9). Thus, we have
𝜂𝑟𝑜𝑏(𝑨, 𝑺) = ‖𝜟𝐱‖ ‖𝐱‖⁄
‖𝜟𝒛‖ ‖𝒛‖ ⁄≤ ‖𝑨‖ ∙ ‖𝑺‖ (3.11)
47
which is true for every norm, where 𝒛 represents the collection of all 𝒳𝑘 's (Fig. 3.9). Including the
requirement of perfect reconstruction (i.e., ∙ 𝑨 = 𝑰 ) we conclude that ‖𝑨‖ ∙ ‖𝑺‖ ≥ 1, so that
numerical robustness of filter banks is synonymous with reducing the product ‖𝑨‖ ∙ ‖𝑺‖. The
minimum value of this product ( ‖𝑨‖ ∙ ‖𝑺‖ = 1 ) is achieved by using: (i) the canonical left inverse
( 𝑺 = 𝑨+ ), and (ii) making 𝑨 unitary [9]. This optimal solution is not causal, and attempting to
make it causal results in significant reconstruction delay. We shall focus here on the Euclidean
vector norm, so that
𝜂𝑟𝑜𝑏(𝑨, 𝑺) =
‖𝛥𝐱‖2 ‖𝐱‖2
√ ∑ ‖𝛥𝒳𝑘‖2
2 𝑀−1𝑘=0
∑ ‖𝒳𝑘‖22𝑀−1
𝑘=0
(3.12)
Notice that the same robustness index values are obtained when we replace the Euclidean
norm in (3.12) by the "RMS - norm" ‖𝐱‖𝑅𝑀𝑆 ≜ lim𝑁→∞
√ 1
𝑁∑ |𝑥[𝑛]|2𝑁−1𝑛=0 , which is more appropriate
for persistent (finite power) signals. This allows us to model the perturbations 𝛥𝒳𝑘(∙) as
independent white noise processes, all with the same variance, and the input signal 𝑥[𝑛] as a
stationary ergodic process.
Using these assumptions along with causality, stability and the property (3.9), the
robustness index (for 𝑁 → ∞) is minimized by selecting 𝐺(𝑧) as the solution of the linearly
constrained quadratic optimization problem:
min𝒈 1
2‖𝒈‖2
2 (3.13𝑎)
subject to
𝓗𝒈 = (1
𝑀)𝒆0 (3.13𝑏)
48
where 𝓗 is a lower-triangular (block-Toeplitz) matrix, viz.,
𝓗 = [
ℎ𝛥 ⋯ ℎ0 0 ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ℎ𝛥+𝑀 ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ℎ0 0 ⋯ ⋯ℎ𝛥+2𝑀 ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ℎ𝑀 ⋯ ℎ0 0⋮ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱
] (3.14𝑎)
𝒆0 ≜ [ 1 0…0 ]𝑇 (3.14𝑏)
The optimally robust solution of (3.13) is given by
[𝑔[0]
𝑔[1]⋮
]
𝑜𝑝𝑡
= (1
𝑀)𝓗†𝒆0 (3.15)
where 𝓗† denotes the generalized (Moore-Penrose) inverse of this infinite matrix. The resulting
optimal impulse response 𝒈𝑜𝑝𝑡 has infinite length, since 𝓗† and 𝒆0 have infinite dimensions. The
optimal IIR solution can be approximated, to any desired level of accuracy, by truncating 𝓗, 𝒆0 to
finite size, which results in an FIR approximation for 𝒈𝑜𝑝𝑡 .
Optimally Robust FIR Filter
The optimally robust solution (3.15) often turns out to be FIR. For instance, when 𝐻(𝑧) is
FIR with 𝑑𝑒𝑔{𝐻(𝑧)} ≤ 𝑀 −1, the expression (3.15) reduces to
𝐺𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧) =1
𝑀∑ |ℎ[𝑙]|2𝛥𝑙=0
∑ℎ∗[𝛥 − 𝑙]𝑧−𝑙𝛥
𝑙=0
(3.16)
where the asterisk (*) denotes complex conjugation. Thus, the constraint 𝑑𝑒𝑔{𝐻(𝑧)} ≤ 𝑀 − 1
induces a similar constraint for the (optimally-robust) 𝐺(𝑧). The family of phasor banks with FIR
𝐻(𝑧) and 𝐺(𝑧) of degree 𝑀 − 1 or less is known as Windowed-FIR phasor banks [10]. Since the
frequency selectivity of such an 𝐻(𝑧) is quite limited (Fig. 3.10), we turn our attention in the
following section to phasor banks that employ an IIR prototype analysis filter 𝐻(𝑧).
49
Figure 3.10: FIR vs IIR magnitude responses of the prototype analysis filter H(z).
Optimally Robust IIR Filter
In view of the need to truncate the expression (3.15) to finite dimensions, we consider in
this section optimized choices of the prototype synthesis filter 𝐺(𝑧) that are FIR of a prescribed
length. In particular, when the prototype analysis filter 𝐻(𝑧) satisfies a mild regularity condition,
the optimal FIR 𝐺(𝑧) can be expressed, without approximation, in terms of finite dimensional
matrices.
Theorem 3.1: (Optimal FIR 𝐺(𝑧))
Consider a given IIR prototype analysis filter 𝐻(𝑧) = 𝑏(𝑧) 𝑎(𝑧)⁄ with 𝑑𝑒𝑔{𝑏(𝑧)} ≤ 𝑑𝑒𝑔{𝑎(𝑧)} ≤
𝑀 − 1 , so that 𝑎(𝑧) ≜ ∑ 𝑎[𝑖]𝑧−𝑖𝑀−1𝑖=0 and 𝑏(𝑧) ≜ ∑ 𝑏[𝑖]𝑧−𝑖𝑀−1
𝑖=0 . Let {𝑝𝑖 ; 1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑀 − 1} denote
the poles of this filter (i.e., the roots of 𝑎(𝑧)), and assume that
50
𝑝𝑖𝑀 ≠ 𝑝𝑗
𝑀 for all 𝑖 ≠ 𝑗 (3.17)
Then, the optimally-robust FIR prototype synthesis filter 𝐺𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧) of a prescribed length 𝐿𝑔 is given
by 𝐺𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧) = 𝛾𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧)𝑎(𝑧) where 𝛾𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧) is an FIR filter of length 𝐿𝛾 ≜ 𝐿𝑔 − 𝐿𝑎 + 1 whose
impulse response is
𝜞𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 1
𝑀(𝑫𝑇𝑫)−
12 (𝑩(𝑫𝑇𝑫)−
𝑇2)†
𝒆0 (3.18𝑎)
or, equivalently,
𝜞𝑜𝑝𝑡 = 1
𝑀(𝑫𝑇𝑫)−1𝑩𝑇[ 𝑩(𝑫𝑇𝑫)−1𝑩𝑇 ]−1𝒆0 (3.18𝑏)
with 𝒆0 ≜ [1 0…0]𝑇 , and
𝑫 ≜
[ 1 0 ⋯ ⋯ ⋯𝑎1 1 0 ⋯ ⋯⋮ 𝑎1 1 0 ⋯
𝑎𝐿𝑎−1 ⋮ ⋱ ⋯ ⋯
0 𝑎𝐿𝑎−1 ⋱ ⋯ ⋯
⋮ 0 ⋱ ⋯ ⋯⋮ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱]
(3.18𝑐)
𝑩 ≜ [𝑏𝛥 ⋯ 𝑏0 ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯0 ⋯ ⋯ 𝑏𝑀−1 ⋯ 𝑏0 0 ⋯⋮ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱ ⋱
] (3.18𝑑)
Both 𝑩 and 𝑫 are finite dimensional, viz., [𝑩] = 𝐾 × 𝐿𝛾, [𝑫] = 𝐿𝑔 × 𝐿𝛾 , where 𝐾 ≜ 1 +
floor (𝐿𝛾+𝐿𝑏−𝛥−2
𝑀). We use the notation 𝐿𝑔 to denote the length of the impulse response of the FIR
filter 𝐺(𝑧), i.e., 𝐿𝑔 ≜ 𝑑𝑒𝑔{ 𝐺(𝑧) } + 1 and similarly for 𝐿𝛾 , 𝐿𝑎 , 𝐿𝑏 . Also, (𝑫𝑇𝑫)1/2 is the lower
triangular Cholesky factor of the symmetric positive-definite matrix 𝑫𝑇𝑫 ∎
Theorem 3.1 guarantees that 𝐹(𝑧) = 𝐻(𝑧)𝐺(𝑧) is FIR, so that the perfect reconstruction
condition (3.10) gives rise to a finite set of linear equations whose optimal solution is given by
(3.18). Typically, 𝐻(𝑧) is the product of a classic filter technique (such as Butterworth, Chebyshev,
51
etc.) in which condition (3.17) is rarely violated (Fig. 3.10). The following theorem shows that the
PR condition can sometimes be satisfied with a specially structured IIR 𝐹(𝑧).
Theorem 3.2: (Optimal IIR 𝐺(𝑧))
Consider a given IIR prototype analysis filter 𝐻(𝑧) =𝑏(𝑧)
𝑎(𝑧) where the poles of 𝑎(𝑧) satisfy (3.17),
and a prototype synthesis filter of the form 𝐺(𝑧) =𝑐(𝑧)
𝑝0(𝑧). A necessary condition for 𝐹(𝑧) ≜
𝐻(𝑧)𝐺(𝑧) to satisfy the PR condition (3.10) is that 𝑐(𝑧) = 𝛾(𝑧)𝑎(𝑧) for some polynomial 𝛾(𝑧),
and that all roots of 𝑝0(𝑧) violate (3.17), namely ∀𝑝𝑖 ∃𝑝𝑗, 𝑗 ≠ 𝑖, such that 𝑝𝑖𝑀 = 𝑝𝑗
𝑀. With this
condition satisfied, there are multiple choices of 𝛾(𝑧) that result in Perfect Reconstruction (PR).
∎
One simple choice of 𝑝0(𝑧) consists of a collection of complex pole pairs
{ (𝑝𝑗, 𝑝𝑗∗) ; 0 ≤ 𝑗 ≤ 𝐿 − 1 } such that 𝑝𝑗 = 𝑟𝑗𝑒
𝑗𝜋
𝑀. Thus 𝑝0(𝑧) ≜ ∏ {1 − 2𝑟𝑗 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝜋
𝑀)𝑧−1 +𝐿−1
𝑗=0
𝑟𝑗2𝑧−2}. The resulting optimization problem is now non-linear since we are optimizing for both
𝛾(𝑧) and the special pole magnitudes 𝑟𝑗 . The optimally-robust IIR prototype synthesis filter with
𝛾(𝑧) of a given length 𝐿𝛾 and 𝑝0(𝑧) as in Theorem-3.2, with prescribed pole magnitudes 𝒓 ≜
{𝑟0, … , 𝑟𝐿−1} is given by 𝐺𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧) =𝛾𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧)𝑎(𝑧)
𝑝0(𝑧) so that 𝐹(𝑧) ≜ 𝐻(𝑧)𝐺(𝑧) =
𝑏(𝑧)𝛾𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧)
𝑝0(𝑧), as required
by Theorem-3.2. The optimal choice of 𝛾𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧) coefficients depends on 𝒓 and is given by
𝜞𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝒓) =1
𝑀(𝑫1
𝑇𝑫1)−12 (𝑩1(𝑫1
𝑇𝑫1)−𝑇2)†
𝒆0 (3.19)
where 𝑫1 ∶= 𝑫1(𝒓) = 𝑷0−1𝑫, 𝑩1 ∶= 𝑩1(𝒓) = 𝑩𝑷0
−1 and 𝑷0 ∶= 𝑷0(𝒓) is the lower-triangular
Toeplitz matrix associated with 𝑝0(𝑧). Also, (𝑫1𝑇𝑫1)
1/2 is the lower triangular Cholesky factor of
the symmetric positive-definite matrix 𝑫1𝑇𝑫1. Since 𝑷0 is a square matrix of infinite size, this
approach requires truncation as opposed to the method based on (3.18).
52
Special Cases
(i) The optimized Windowed-FIR Phasor Bank [10] is a special case of Theorem-3.1. It is obtained
by setting 𝑎(𝑧) = 1 so that 𝐺𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧) = 𝛾𝑜𝑝𝑡(𝑧) and 𝑫 = 𝑰 is an identity matrix. Since the rows of
𝑩 are mutually orthogonal, 𝑩𝑩𝑇 is a diagonal matrix.
(ii) The optimized Constrained FIR (CFIR) solution (3.18) can be obtained from the Constrained
IIR (CIIR) solution (3.19) by setting 𝑝0(𝑧) = 1 and 𝑃0 = 𝐼, that is, there are no special poles of
𝐺(𝑧) that violate (3.17).
CHAPTER 4
Subband Vector Fitting
In this chapter we opt to use the tools presented in Chapter 3 in order to decompose the
single high-order RFA broadband simulation problem into several subbands and apply low-order
RFAs in each one of them. In particular, we shall study three examples: (i) Generic transfer function
(toy-problem) in order to establish proof of principle, (ii) single-phase FDTL based on the data of
Chapter 2, and (iii) 3-phase FDTL based on the data of Chapter 2. For all examples we shall use
the same logarithmic-tree QMF perfect reconstruction filter-bank characterized by 10-channels
(𝑀 = 10). The frequency ranges [𝑓1(𝑗), 𝑓2(𝑗)] ∈ ℝ [𝐻𝑧] of each subband are described by (4.1)
(Table 4.1)
[𝑓1(𝑗), 𝑓2(𝑗)] ; 𝑓1
(𝑗)= {
2𝑗−1
𝛥𝑡 ∙ 2𝑀 , 𝑗 > 0
0 , 𝑗 = 0 , 𝑓2
(𝑗)= 𝑓2
(𝑗+1) (4.1)
Table 4.1: Subband frequency range decomposition.
Band
𝑗
𝑓1(𝑗) [𝐻𝑧] 𝑓0
(𝑗) [𝐻𝑧] 𝑓2
(𝑗) [𝐻𝑧]
0 0 488.28 976.56
1 976.56 1464.84 1953.16
2 1953.16 2929.69 3906.25
3 3906.25 5859.38 7812.50
4 7812.50 11718.80 15625.00
5 15625.00 23437.50 31250.00
6 31250.00 46875.00 62500.00
7 62500.00 93750.00 125000.00
8 125000.00 187500.00 250000.00
9 250000.00 375000.00 500000.00
54
Moreover, discretization 𝐻𝑗(𝑠) → 𝐻𝑗(𝑧) is carried out for each band by means of the
prewarped Tustin bilinear transform (Chapter 2) with 𝜔0,𝑗 = 𝜋(𝑓1(𝑗)+ 𝑓2
(𝑗)) ∀ 𝑗 > 0 and
𝜔0,𝑗 = 0 for 𝑗 = 0 in order to match the DC frequency. The simulation step was chosen to be
𝛥𝑡 = 1𝜇𝑠 as outlined in Chapter. 2.
4.1 Case #1: Arbitrary Transfer Function (Toy Problem)
For the purposes of our simplistic simulation example and without loss of generality let us
consider a lowpass, broadband continuous-time (CT) 𝑍(𝑠) with bandwidth up to 500kHz. The solid
blue lines in Fig. 4.1 correspond to frequency dependent data and the solid red lines in Fig. 4.1
correspond to the result of a 15th-order RFA ��(𝑠) by means of vector fitting. The poles and zeros
of ��(𝑠) are shown in Table 4.2.
Figure 4.1: Transfer function data: (i) magnitude response (top), (ii) phase response (bottom).
55
Table 4.2: Vector fitting based high-order RFA Z(s).
��(𝑠) : ⍺ = 1
Poles
𝑝𝑖
Zeros
𝜁𝑖
-88188.65 -95985.9154
-87222.21 -92092.7167
-72457.11 -85505.6159
-66808.09 -75656.8273
-65817.73 -72372.4254
-64029.30 -68686.0463
-47584.31 -48051.4785
-47469.10 -47983.1591
-46480.94 -39780.6546
-36650.95 -37503.705
-32483.34 -32836.0047
-28677.03 -16752.5817
-7272.89 -11264.5052
-3452.15 -7502.9093
-2777.26 -7302.6899
From Table 4.2 we observe that: (i) the RFA is minimum phase, that is, 𝑅𝑒{𝑝𝑖} < 0, 𝑅𝑒{𝜁𝑖} < 0
∀𝑖, and (ii) the order of ��(𝑠) is 15. Finally the RFA ��(𝑠) is given by
��(𝑠) =𝐵(𝑠)
𝐴(𝑠)= ⍺
∏ (𝑠 − 𝜁𝑖)15𝑖=1
∏ (𝑠 − 𝑝𝑖)15𝑖=1
(4.2)
Table 4.3 shows the absolute value of the poles of the discretized, high-order transfer
function ��(𝑧), clearly illustrating the numerical instability (yellow-shaded entries).
56
Table 4.3: Absolute value of the poles of Z(z).
ABS( Poles of ��(𝑧) )
1.1294
1.1294
1.0975
1.0975
1.0414
1.0414
0.9733
0.9733
0.9060
0.9060
0.8505
0.8505
0.8141
0.8141
0.8014
The resulting second-order transfer functions { ��𝑗(𝑧) ; 𝑗 = 0,1, … ,9 } based on vector
fitting and the ten-channel (𝑀 = 10) PR-FB are all stable. Figs. 4.2-4.12 show plots of the high-
order ��(𝑠) vs. the low-order discrete-time subband approximations ��𝑗(𝑧) = 𝐾𝑗𝐵𝑗(𝑧)
𝐴𝑗(𝑧). The
bandwidth of each subband is defined by the x-coordinates corresponding to two consecutive solid
black dots in Fig. 4.2. We observe that construction of the subband approximations ��𝑗(𝑧) depends
on the number of channels (𝑀 = 10), 𝛥𝑡 and 𝑍(𝑠) but not the particular choice of a PR-FB
(Figs. 3.4-3.7). The effect of the latter in terms of accuracy in the transient simulation is studied in
more detail in Chapter. 5. Figs. 4.3-4.12 correspond to zoomed-in versions of Fig. 4.2 and are
intended to show the vector fitting accuracy of the low-order subband models within the bandwidth
determined by the x-coordinates enclosed by the two solid black dots.
57
Figure 4.2: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Zj(z) subband approximations (colored segments).
Figure 4.3: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z0(z) subband-0 approximation (red). Zoomed-in
responses.
58
Figure 4.4: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z1(z) subband-1 approximation (red). Zoomed-in responses.
Figure 4.5: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z2(z) subband-2 approximation (red). Zoomed-in
responses.
59
Figure 4.6: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z3(z) subband-3 approximation (red). Zoomed-in
responses.
Figure 4.7: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z4(z) subband-4 approximation (red). Zoomed-in
responses.
60
Figure 4.8: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z5(z) subband-5 approximation (red). Zoomed-in responses.
Figure 4.9: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z6(z) subband-6 approximation (red). Zoomed-in
responses.
61
Figure 4.10: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z7(z) subband-7 approximation (red). Zoomed-in responses.
Figure 4.11: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z8(z) subband-8 approximation (red). Zoomed-
in responses.
62
Figure 4.12: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. low order Z9(z) subband-9 approximation (red). Zoomed-in responses.
Finally, the transfer functions { ��𝑗(𝑧) ; 𝑗 = 0,1, . . ,9 } are given by
��0(𝑧) = 0.0187271 + 0.010618𝑧−1 − 0.98938𝑧−2
1 − 1.975𝑧−1 + 0.97509𝑧−2 (4.3𝑎)
��1(𝑧) = 0.092861 + 0.0097279𝑧−1 − 0.99027𝑧−2
1 − 1.8604𝑧−1 + 0.86056𝑧−2 (4.3𝑏)
��2(𝑧) = 0.602331 + 0.0092821𝑧−1 − 0.99072𝑧−2
1 − 1.0702𝑧−1 + 0.070684𝑧−2 (4.3𝑐)
��3(𝑧) = 0.216811 + 0.0079067𝑧−1 − 0.99209𝑧−2
1 − 1.6827𝑧−1 + 0.68302𝑧−2 (4.3𝑑)
��4(𝑧) = 0.381511 + 0.054585𝑧−1 − 0.94542𝑧−2
1 − 1.2989𝑧−1 + 0.32249𝑧−2 (4.3𝑒)
��5(𝑧) = 0.9081 + 0.087394𝑧−1 − 0.91261𝑧−2
1 − 0.18089𝑧−1−0.72794𝑧−2 (4.3𝑓)
��6(𝑧) = 1.01291 + 0.092274𝑧−1 − 0.90773𝑧−2
1 + 0.038487𝑧−1 − 0.93188𝑧−2 (4.3𝑔)
��7(𝑧) = 1.02051 + 0.095003𝑧−1 − 0.905𝑧−2
1 + 0.054273𝑧−1 − 0.94398𝑧−2 (4.3ℎ)
63
��8(𝑧) = 1.0231 + 0.10431𝑧−1 − 0.89569𝑧−2
1 + 0.060605𝑧−1 − 0.9393𝑧−2 (4.3𝑖)
��9(𝑧) = 1.04061 + 0.1809𝑧−1 − 0.8191𝑧−2
1 + 0.10698𝑧−1 − 0.89301𝑧−2 (4.3𝑗)
4.2 Case #2: Single-Phase FDTL
The resulting second-order transfer functions { ��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑗(𝑧) ; 𝑗 = 0,1, … ,9 } based on
vector fitting and the ten-channel (𝑀 = 10) PR-FB are all stable. Figs. 4.13-4.14 show plots of the
high-order {��0(𝑠), ��(𝑠)} vs. the low-order discrete-time approximations {��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑗(𝑧)}. The
bandwidth of each subband is defined by the x-coordinates corresponding to two consecutive solid
black dots in Figs. 4.13, 4.14.
Figure 4.13: High order Z0(s) (blue) vs. low order Z0,j(z) subband approximations (dashed colored
segments).
64
Figure 4.14: High order A(s) (blue) vs. low order Aj(z) subband approximations (dashed colored segments).
4.3 Case #3: Three-Phase FDTL
The resulting second-order transfer functions ��0,𝑗(𝑧), { ��𝑘,𝑗{𝑨1(𝑧)} , ��𝑘,𝑗(𝑧) ; 𝑘 =
1, 2, 3 ; 𝑗 = 0,1, … ,9 } based on vector fitting and the ten-channel (𝑀 = 10) PR-FB are all stable.
Figs. 4.15-4.23 show plots of the high-order {��0(𝑠), ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)}, ��𝑘(𝑠)} (solid-blue) vs. the low-
order discrete-time approximations {��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑘,𝑗{𝑨1(𝑧)}, ��𝑘,𝑗(𝑧)} (dashed-colored). The
bandwidth of each subband is defined by the x-coordinates corresponding to two consecutive solid
black dots in Figs. 4.15-4.23.
65
Figure 4.15: Subband FD admittance matrix Y0,j(jω) magnitude responses.
Figure 4.16: Subband FD admittance matrix Y0,j(jω) phase responses.
66
Figure 4.17: Subband FD weighting function eigenvalues λk,j{A1(jω)} (i) magnitude responses
(left), (ii) phase responses (right).
Figure 4.18: Subband FD idempotent matrix M1,j(jω) magnitude responses.
67
Figure 4.19: Subband FD idempotent matrix M1,j(jω) phase responses.
Figure 4.20: Subband FD idempotent matrix M2,j(jω) magnitude responses.
68
Figure 4.21: Subband FD idempotent matrix M2,j(jω) 𝑝hase responses.
Figure 4.22: Subband FD idempotent matrix M3,j(jω) magnitude responses.
69
Figure 4.23: Subband FD idempotent matrix M3,j(jω) phase responses.
CHAPTER 5
Transient Simulation and Accuracy of Combined Model
The result of low order RFAs in each subband compared to the original high-order RFA
was studied in detail in Chapter 4 using three examples. Although we were able to obtain a very
close match between the RFAs, we did not consider the effect of choosing a particular analysis
filter bank (Figs. 3.4-3.7). In fact, we implicitly assumed that the prototype analysis filter 𝐻0(𝑧) is
an ideal lowpass filter. In this chapter we study how a particular choice of PR-FB affects the
accuracy of transient simulation by computing the frequency response of the “combined” transfer
function ��(𝑧), namely, the frequency response of the low-order RFAs ��𝑗(𝑧) including the PR-FB
characterized by 𝑀 = 10 channels and a particular choice of {𝐻0(𝑧), 𝐻1(𝑧), 𝐺0(𝑧), 𝐺1(𝑧)}
(Fig. 3.3). In particular, we shall study the effect of a particular choice of PR-FB for the same three
examples as in Chapter 4, namely: (i) Generic transfer function (toy-problem) in order to establish
proof of principle, (ii) single-phase FDTL based on the data of Chapter. 2, and (iii) 3-phase FDTL
based on the data of Chapter. 2.
5.1 Case #1: Arbitrary Transfer Function (Toy Problem)
For this example we compute the “combined” transfer function ��(𝑧), namely, the
frequency response of the low-order RFAs ��𝑗(𝑧) including the PR-FB characterized by 𝑀 = 10
channels and a particular choice of {𝐻0(𝑧), 𝐻1(𝑧), 𝐺0(𝑧), 𝐺1(𝑧)} (Fig. 3.3) for the 4-different
choices of prototype-analysis filters 𝐻0(𝑧) as seen in Figs. 3.4-3.7. The resulting “combined”
transfer functions ��(𝑧) for these four combinations of 𝐻0(𝑧) are shown below (Figs. 5.1-5.4)
71
Figure 5.1: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. “combined” transfer function Z(z) based on the low order subband RFAs Zj(z) and the choice of a D2/Haar filter bank (red).
Figure 5.2: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. “combined” transfer function Z(z) based on the low order subband RFAs Zj(z) and the choice of a D6 filter bank (red).
72
Figure 5.3: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. “combined” transfer function Z(z) based on the low order subband RFAs Zj(z) and the choice of a D12 filter bank (red).
Figure 5.4: High order Z(s) (blue) vs. “combined” transfer function Z(z) based on the low order
subband RFAs Zj(z) and the choice of a FIR2CHPR-based (N=99) filter bank (red).
73
From Figs. 3.4-3.7, 5.1-5.4 we observe that: (a) increasing the length of the prototype
analysis filter 𝐻0(𝑧) improves frequency selectivity for each channel; (b) the plots of ��(𝑧)
(Figs. 5.1-5.4) suggest that a filter length of 6 − 12 results in a good match, and further increase of
filter length offers negligible improvement.
So far we have established two design parameters. The first design parameter is the number
of channels (𝑀 = 10) which is related to the order of the subband RFAs. For instance, more
channels would allow us to reduce the orders of ��𝑗(𝑧) down to one, while fewer channels would
make the second order approximations chosen for ��𝑗(𝑧) inaccurate with the extreme case being a
single channel (𝑀 = 1; no subbands) approximation, where the entire 15-order model would be
required. The second design parameter is related to the frequency selectivity of the prototype
analysis filter 𝐻0(𝑧) associated with the perfect reconstruction filter bank chosen (Fig. 3.1). The
effect of a particular PR-FB choice can be studied by computing the “combined” transfer function
��(𝑧) between the input 𝑥[𝑛] and the output 𝑦[𝑛] (Fig. 3.3). This captures: (a) the low-order RFAs
that were computed in Chapter 4, and (b) the choice of the PR-FB itself (ex: D2, D6, D12, etc.).
Figs. 5.1-5.4 show the frequency responses of the “combined” transfer functions. The solid blue
lines in Figs. 5.1-5.4 represent the frequency responses of the high-order CT RFA ��(𝑠) and the
solid red lines represent the “combined” frequency responses based on the low-order subband RFAs
��𝑗(𝑧) for different PR-FB choices. To be more specific, Fig. 5.1 shows that a D2-PR-FB constitutes
a very poor choice since the magnitude mismatch between RFAs is large over the entire frequency
range. This can be attributed to the poor frequency selectivity of the D2-PR-FB. From Fig. 5.2 we
observe that a D6-PR-FB constitutes a major improvement over a D2-PR-FB in both magnitude
and phase over the entire frequency range. From Fig. 5.3 we observe that a D12-PR-FB offers a
slight improvement over a D6-PR-FB, especially in the phase response for frequencies greater than
10kHz. Finally, from Fig. 5.4 we observe that an 𝑁 = 99 order FIR2CHPR-based PR-FB offers
negligible improvement over a D12-PR-FB. This analysis suggests that while frequency
74
separation/selectivity of the PR-FB is an important characteristic for accurate transient simulation
it does not have to be perfect. A D6-PR-FB or a D12-PR-FB are sufficient choices (Figs. 3.5, 3.6).
Transient Simulation Results
Figs. 5.5-5.8 compare the transient responses, due to a periodic square wave input, of the
original CT high-order system ��(𝑠) to the low-order PR filter bank approach proposed, for different
choices of analysis filters, that is, D2, D6, D12, and FIR2CHPR 𝑁 = 99 respectively. Transient
simulation of the ��(𝑠) based system was carried out using a variable-step solver, while simulation
of the ��𝑗(𝑧) based PR filter bank system was done using a fixed step 𝛥𝑡 = 1𝜇𝑠 solver. From
Fig. 5.5 we observe a large mismatch in the responses, while Figs. 5.6-5.8 reveal a close match
between the two responses as predicted from our earlier analysis of the “combined” transfer
function.
Figure 5.5: Transient responses based on the: (i) full order model Z(s) (blue), (ii) low order Zj(z)
models using the D2/Haar filter bank (red).
75
Figure 5.6: Transient responses based on the: (i) full order model Z(s) (blue), (ii) low order Zj(z) models using the D6 filter bank (red).
Figure 5.7: Transient responses based on the: (i) full order model Z(s) (blue), (ii) low order Zj(z)
models using the D12 filter bank (red).
76
Figure 5.8: Transient responses based on the: (i) full order model Z(s) (blue), (ii) low order Zj(z)
models using the FIR2CHPR (N=99) filter bank (red).
77
5.2 Case #2: Single-Phase FDTL
We may use the tools presented in Chapters 2, 3, 4 in order to simulate a single-phase
FDTL using our proposed subband-ULM approach. The inputs to our design procedure are: (i) the
FDTL per-unit-length parameters and tower geometry configuration (Sec. 2.1), and (ii) the driving
inputs (sources) and terminal conditions of the FDTL network (ex. Open-ended and short-ended
buses) (Sec. 2.1).
In particular the steps associated with our subband-ULM procedure are the following:
Extracting the delay component of the propagation/weighting function 𝐴(𝑠) using Bode’s gain-
phase relation (Sec. 2.2). In our example the estimated delay is equal to 𝜏 = 539.93𝜇𝑠.
Choosing the perfect reconstruction filter-bank (PR-FB) that is appropriate for the FDTL data
of interest. In this example we employ a logarithmic-frequency, tree-structured, QMF perfect
reconstruction filter-bank characterized by a Daubechies-6 (D6) prototype analysis filter
𝐻0(𝑧), and 10-channels (𝑀 = 10) (Chapter 3).
Obtaining a rational function approximation (RFA) for the (continuous-time) characteristic
impedance 𝑍(𝑠), and the propagation/weighting function 𝐴(𝑠) (after we extract the delay) for
each subband (Sec. 2.2). In our example we used second-order RFA for each subband.
Performing the RFAs in the subbands allows us to: (i) obtain insights regarding the behavior
of the transients within frequency-bands of interest (ii) use low order approximations to reduce
the complexity of the overall system, (iii) improve numerical stability, (iv) leverage parallel
processing capability of modern computers to increase simulation speed, and (v) employ
distributed computing frameworks such as Hadoop MapReduce to increase simulation speed.
Mapping each subband, low-order RFA pair {𝑍𝑗(𝑠), 𝐴𝑗(𝑠)} into a discrete-time equivalent
{𝑍𝑗(𝑧), 𝐴𝑗(𝑧)} using the prewarped Tustin bilinear transform (Sec. 2.3), applied to a partial
fraction expansion of {𝑍𝑗(𝑠), 𝐴𝑗(𝑠)}.
78
Obtaining a difference equation which represents the FDTL configuration of interest. In
particular we study the network equations of an open-ended and short-ended FDTL for each
subband (Sec. 2.1).
Decomposing the driving input-signals (sources) into its subband components.
Solving each subband network in terms of the desired voltages and currents. These are the
receiving-end subband voltages and receiving-end subband currents for the open-ended and
short-ended configurations respectively.
Reconstructing each subband voltage/current of interest using the synthesis filter-bank.
In summary, we employ a logarithmic-frequency, tree-structured, QMF perfect
reconstruction filter-bank characterized by 10-channels (𝑀 = 10). The frequency ranges
[𝑓1(𝑗), 𝑓2(𝑗)] ∈ ℝ [𝐻𝑧] of each subband are shown below (Table 5.1)
The discretization 𝐻𝑗(𝑠) → 𝐻𝑗(𝑧) is carried out for each band by means of the prewarped
Tustin bilinear transform (Chapter 2) with 𝜔0,𝑗 = 𝜋 (𝑓1(𝑗)+ 𝑓2
(𝑗)) ∀ 𝑗 > 0 and 𝜔0,𝑗 = 0 for 𝑗 = 0
in order to match the DC frequency. The simulation step was chosen to be 𝛥𝑡 = 1𝜇𝑠 as outlined in
Chapter 2.
𝑓1(𝑗)= {
2𝑗−1
𝛥𝑡 ∙ 2𝑀 , 𝑗 > 0
0 , 𝑗 = 0 , 𝑓2
(𝑗)= 𝑓1
(𝑗+1) (5.1)
79
Table 5.1: Subband frequency range decomposition.
Band
𝑗
𝑓1(𝑗) [𝐻𝑧] 𝑓0
(𝑗) [𝐻𝑧] 𝑓2
(𝑗) [𝐻𝑧]
0 0 488.28 976.56
1 976.56 1464.84 1953.16
2 1953.16 2929.69 3906.25
3 3906.25 5859.38 7812.50
4 7812.50 11718.80 15625.00
5 15625.00 23437.50 31250.00
6 31250.00 46875.00 62500.00
7 62500.00 93750.00 125000.00
8 125000.00 187500.00 250000.00
9 250000.00 375000.00 500000.00
Figure 5.9: High order Z0(s) (blue) vs. low order Z0,j(z) subband approximations (dashed colored
segments).
80
Figure 5.10: High order A(s) (blue) vs. low order Aj(z) subband approximations (dashed colored
segments).
The resulting second-order transfer functions { ��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑗(𝑧) ; 𝑗 = 0,1, … ,9 } based on
vector fitting and the ten-channel (𝑀 = 10) PR-FB are all stable. Figs. 5.9, 5.10 show plots of the
high-order {��0(𝑠), ��(𝑠)} vs. the low-order discrete-time approximations {��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑗(𝑧)}. The
bandwidth of each subband is defined by the x-coordinates corresponding to two consecutive solid
black dots in Figs. 5.9, 5.10.
For the purposes of our single-phase, FDTL transient simulation example we consider the
cases of an open-circuited line given by 𝑉𝑚 = 2 ∙𝐴
1+𝐴2∙ 𝐸𝑠 (2.12b), and a short-circuited line given
by 𝐼𝑚 = −2𝐴
1−𝐴2∙𝐸𝑠
𝑍0 (2.13d). The problem with this approach is that it is not scalable for larger
networks. We address this issue in Chapter 6 by means of introducing a “master circuit” and a “sub-
circuit” update equation.
81
Finally, we compare the transient simulation results of our proposed subband-ULM method
for a single-phase FDTL. Fig. 5.11 shows the broadband voltage-source and its 10-subband
decomposition used to excite an open-circuited and a short-circuited line. Figs. 5.12, 5.13 show the
independent network solutions (transient responses) using the subband-sources of Fig. 5.12 and the
low order RFAs of Figs. 5.9, 5.10 for an open-ended and short-ended line respectively. Figs. 5.14,
5.15 compare the transient response, due to sinusoidal voltage energization (peak voltage at 𝑡 = 0),
of the original CT high-order system {��0(𝑠), ��(𝑠)} to the low-order PR filter bank proposed
approach after the synthesis filter bank (reconstruction stage). Transient simulation of the
{��0(𝑠), ��(𝑠)} based system was carried out using a variable-step solver, while simulation of the
{��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑗(𝑧)} based PR filter bank system was done using a fixed step 𝛥𝑡 = 1𝜇𝑠 solver. The two
responses match indeed very closely. Finally, Fig. 5.14 represents the receiving-end voltage of an
open-circuited line given by (2.12b) while Fig. 5.15 represents the receiving-end current of a short-
circuited line given by (2.13d).
Figure 5.11: (i) Broadband-source excitation voltage (solid-black), and (ii) 10-Subband
decomposition of (i) (solid-colored)
82
Figure 5.12: Subband circuit responses viewed as independent network solutions (transient
simulations) [open-ended line]
Figure 5.13: Subband circuit responses viewed as independent network solutions (transient
simulations) [short-ended line]
83
Figure 5.14: Sinusoidal energization of open-circuited line (peak voltage at t=0) based on the: (i)
full order model {Z0(s), A(s)} (blue), (ii) low order {Z0,j(z), Aj(z)} using the PR filter bank (red).
The input voltage is shown in black.
Figure 5.15: Sinusoidal energization of short-circuited line (peak voltage at t=0) based on the: (i)
full order model {Z0(s), A(s)} (blue), (ii) low order {Z0,j(z), Aj(z)} using the PR filter bank (red).
84
5.3 Case #3: Three-Phase FDTL
Figs. 5.16, 5.17 compare the transient response, due to sinusoidal voltage energization
(peak voltage at 𝑡 = 0), of the original CT high-order system {��0(𝑠), ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)}, ��𝑘(𝑠)} to the
low-order PR filter bank approach proposed. Transient simulation of the
{��0(𝑠), ��𝑘{𝑨1(𝑠)}, ��𝑘(𝑠)} based system was carried out using a variable-step solver, while
simulation of the {��0,𝑗(𝑧), ��𝑘,𝑗{𝑨1(𝑧)}, ��𝑘,𝑗(𝑧)} based PR filter bank system was done using a
fixed step 𝛥𝑡 = 1𝜇𝑠 solver. The two responses match indeed very closely. Finally, Fig. 5.16
represents the receiving-end voltage of an open-circuited line given by (2.9b) while Fig. 5.17
represents the receiving-end current of a short-circuited line given by (2.10d).
Figure 5.16: Sinusoidal energization of open-circuited line (peak voltage at t=0) based on the: (i)
full order model {Y0(s), λk{A1(s)}, Mk(s)} (blue), (ii) low order {Y0,j(z), λk,j{A1(z)}, Mk,j(z)} using the PR filter bank (red). The input voltage is shown in black.
85
Figure 5.17: Sinusoidal energization of short-circuited line (peak voltage at t=0) based on the: (i) full order model {Y0(s), λk{A1(s)}, Mk(s)} (blue), (ii) low order {Y0,j(z), λk,j{A1(z)}, Mk,j(z)}
using the PR filter bank (red).
CHAPTER 6
Scalable, Multiphase, Discrete Simulation of Frequency Dependent
Transmission Line (FDTL) Networks
6.1 Introduction: Transfer Function based simulation vs. Y-matrix approach
In this chapter we introduce the discrete-time, 𝑌-matrix state-space based approach for
simulating networks consisting of one (or more) FDTLs. This is an alternative to the transfer-
function based approach discussed in Chapter 5 and (2.9, 2.10). Although both methods are
functionally equivalent, the 𝑌-matrix, state-space approach is better suited for scalability, that is,
simulating an arbitrarily large network without introducing significant complexity in deriving the
model. The objective is to start with continuous-time, time-domain expressions for electrical
components and derive a discrete-time equivalent circuit which is characterized by the following,
discrete-time, state-space equations:
𝒀[𝑛] ∙ 𝒗[𝑛] = 𝒊[𝑛] + 𝒊𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕[𝑛 − 1] (6.1𝑎)
𝒊𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕[𝑛] = 𝑓( 𝒗[𝑛] , 𝒊𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕[𝑛 − 1] ) (6.1𝑏)
Where 𝒀[𝑛] ∈ ℂ𝑁𝑥𝑁 represents the known admittance matrix, 𝒊[𝑛] ∈ ℂ𝑁𝑥1 represents the known
input current-sources, 𝒊𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕[𝑛 − 1] ∈ ℂ𝑁𝑥1 represents a known history/memory term and 𝒗[𝑛] ∈
ℂ𝑁𝑥1 is the unknown voltage vector.
At every simulation-step we solve (6.1a) for 𝒗[𝑛] and update the history/memory term of
(6.1b). The memory term of (6.1b) depends on the voltage solution of (6.1a) and its previous value.
It is essentially a first-order (discrete state-space) difference equation. An equivalent circuit which
can be described by (6.1) forms the basis of a scalable discrete-time simulator for an arbitrarily
large electrical network consisting of FDTLs and other fundamental components. We shall refer to
87
(6.1a) as the “master circuit” equation since the resulting voltage vector 𝒗[𝑛] corresponds to a
physical network (measurable) quantity. Finally, we shall refer to (6.1b) as the “sub-circuit” update
equation since the resulting current/voltage quantities correspond to auxiliary variables that are not
part of the physical network. These auxiliary variables correspond to non-measurable
current/voltage quantities that were introduced as part of the modeling process.
6.2 Y-matrix equivalent circuits of fundamental components
In this section we present the derivation of a discrete, multiphase (𝑃-phase), 𝑌-matrix
equivalent circuit for the three fundamental circuit components. Namely, multiphase (a) resistor,
(b) capacitor, (c) inductor. These fundamental components shall be reused when building the
𝑌-matrix based FDTL model. Derivation of the discrete, 𝑌-matrix based equivalent circuit may be
realized using the generalized bilinear transform. The generalized bilinear transform allows us to
construct a general model which can later be reduced to equivalent circuits that have better accuracy
around a particular frequency (ex: DC-focused using Tustin transform, or arbitrary frequency
focused which are more suitable for subband approximations). Finally, the recursive convolution
approximation will be presented as a special case of the generalized bilinear transform. This is
essentially a pole-dependent bilinear transformation which is used in FDTL modeling (Chapter 2).
We shall use the following notation thought the chapter:
(1) Lower-case, bold quantities represent vectors.
(2) Upper-case, bold quantities represent matrices.
(3) 𝐿{. } Represents the Laplace transform and “𝑠” is the Laplace operator
(4) 𝑠 = 𝑓(𝑧) Represents the z-domain representation of a continuous-time 𝑠-domain transfer
function. Such mapping could be a generalized bilinear transform, namely, 𝑠 = 𝑓(𝑧) =
𝑏0+𝑏1∙𝑧−1
𝑏2+𝑏3∙𝑧−1
88
(5) 𝑍−1{. } Represents the inverse 𝑍-transform.
(6) [ 𝑓(. ) ] Represents the physical units of quantity 𝑓(. ).
(7) 𝑓(0−) Represents the initial condition for quantify 𝑓(. ).
(8) 𝑇𝑠 Represents the fixed-step simulation size. [ 𝑇𝑠 ] = 𝑠𝑒𝑐 , 𝑇𝑠 =1
𝐹𝑠 .
(9) 𝛿[𝑛] Represents the discrete-time (Kronecker) delta function. 𝛿[𝑛] = {1, 𝑛 = 00, 𝑛 ≠ 0
Our objective is to obtain recursive relations of the form (6.1) which are suitable for scalable
simulation of arbitrarily large networks.
Multiphase Resistor (P-phase)
The following figure (Fig. 6.1), represents the continuous-time circuit schematic of a 𝑃-phase
resistor
Figure 6.1: Continuous-time representation of resistor in the time-domain (left) and complex-
frequency (Laplace) domain (right).
Where
Voltage: 𝒗𝑅(𝑡) ∈ ℝ𝑃×1, [𝒗𝑅(𝑡)] = 𝑉
Current: 𝒊𝑅(𝑡) ∈ ℝ𝑃×1, [𝒊𝑅(𝑡)] = 𝐴
Resistance: 𝑹 ∈ ℝ𝑃×𝑃, [𝑹] = Ω
89
Discretization:
𝒗𝑅(𝑡) = 𝑹 ∙ 𝒊𝑅(𝑡)𝐿{.}⇒ 𝒗𝑅(𝑠) = 𝑹 ∙ 𝒊𝑅(𝑠)
𝑠=𝑓(𝑧)⇒
𝒗𝑅(𝑧) = 𝑹 ∙ 𝒊𝑅(𝑧)𝑍−1{.}⇒ 𝒗𝑅[𝑛] = 𝑹 ∙ 𝒊𝑅[𝑛] ⇒
𝒊𝑅[𝑛] = 𝒀𝑅 ∙ 𝒗𝑅[𝑛] (6.2𝑎)
𝒀𝑅 = 𝑹−1 (6.2𝑏)
Where:
𝒗𝑅[𝑛] ∈ ℝ𝑃×1 , 𝒊𝑅[𝑛] ∈ ℝ
𝑃×1 , 𝒀𝑅 ∈ ℝ𝑃×𝑃 , [ 𝒀𝑅 ] = 𝑆
We observe that (6.2) is in the desired form (6.1) where 𝒊𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕[𝑛] = 𝒊𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕[𝑛 − 1] = 𝟎. This
is expected since resistors are memoryless elements. Finally, 𝒀𝑅 = 𝑹−1 need only to be computed
once, since it is not a function of time “𝑛”.
The following figure (Fig. 6.2) represents the discrete-time equivalent circuit for an 𝑃-
phase resistor.
Figure 6.2: Time-domain, Continuous-time representation of resistor (left). Discrete-time
representation of resistor (right).
90
Multiphase Capacitor (P-phase)
The following figure (Fig. 6.3), represents the continuous-time circuit schematic of an 𝑃-phase
capacitor
Figure 6.3: Continuous-time representation of capacitor in the time-domain (left) and complex-
frequency (Laplace) domain (right) (initial condition included).
Where
Voltage: 𝒗𝑐(𝑡) ∈ ℝ𝑃×1, [𝒗𝑐(𝑡)] = 𝑉
Current: 𝒊𝑐(𝑡) ∈ ℝ𝑃×1, [𝒊𝑐(𝑡)] = 𝐴
Capacitance: 𝑪 ∈ ℝ𝑃×𝑃, [𝑪] = F
Discretization:
𝒊𝑐(𝑡) = 𝑪 ∙𝑑
𝑑𝑡𝒗𝑐(𝑡)
𝐿{.}⇒
𝒊𝑐(𝑠) = 𝑪 ∙ ( 𝑠 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(𝑠) − 𝒗𝑐(0−) ) ⇒
𝒊𝑐(𝑠) = 𝑠𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(𝑠) − 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(0−)
𝑠=𝑓(𝑧)⇒
Let 𝑠 = 𝑓(𝑧) =𝑏0+𝑏1∙𝑧
−1
𝑏2+𝑏3∙𝑧−1 be the generalized bilinear transform, then:
𝒊𝑐(𝑧) =𝑏0 + 𝑏1 ∙ 𝑧
−1
𝑏2 + 𝑏3 ∙ 𝑧−1∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(𝑧) − 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(0
−) ⇒
𝑏2 ∙ 𝒊𝑐(𝑧) + 𝑏3 ∙ 𝑧−1 ∙ 𝒊𝑐(𝑧) = 𝑏0 ∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(𝑧) + 𝑏1 ∙ 𝑧
−1 ∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(𝑧)
−𝑏2 ∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(0−) − 𝑏3 ∙ 𝑧
−1 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(0−) ⇒
91
𝒊𝑐(𝑧) =𝑏0𝑏2∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(𝑧) − 𝑧
−1 ∙ [ 𝑏3𝑏2∙ 𝒊𝑐(𝑧) −
𝑏1𝑏2∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(𝑧) +
𝑏3𝑏2∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(0
−)] − 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(0−)
𝑍−1{.}⇒
𝒊𝑐[𝑛] = 𝒀𝐶 ∙ 𝒗𝑐[𝑛] − 𝒉𝐶[𝑛 − 1] − 𝒊𝑐(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] (6.3𝑎)
𝒀𝐶 =𝑏0𝑏2∙ 𝑪 (6.3𝑏)
𝒊𝑐(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] =
1
𝑇𝑠∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(0
−) ∙ 𝛿[𝑛] = 𝐼0(𝐶)∙ 𝛿[𝑛] (6.3𝑐)
𝒉𝐶[𝑛 − 1] =𝑏3𝑏2∙ 𝒊𝑐[𝑛 − 1] −
𝑏1𝑏2∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐[𝑛 − 1] +
𝑏3𝑏2∙1
𝑇𝑠∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(0
−) ∙ 𝛿[𝑛 − 1] (6.3𝑑)
Now 𝒉𝐶[𝑛] may be expressed as a function of 𝒉𝐶[𝑛 − 1] as follows:
𝒉𝐶[𝑛] = (𝑏0𝑏3 − 𝑏1𝑏2𝑏0𝑏2
) ∙ 𝒀𝐶 ∙ 𝒗𝑐[𝑛] −𝑏3𝑏2∙ 𝒉𝐶[𝑛 − 1] (6.3𝑒)
The discrete-time equivalent circuit of the 𝑃-phase capacitor may be summarized by (6.4) and
Fig. 6.4:
𝒊𝑐[𝑛] = 𝒀𝐶 ∙ 𝒗𝑐[𝑛] − 𝒉𝐶[𝑛 − 1] − 𝒊𝑐(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] (6.4𝑎)
𝒀𝐶 =𝑏0𝑏2∙ 𝑪 (6.4𝑏)
𝒊𝑐(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] =
1
𝑇𝑠∙ 𝑪 ∙ 𝒗𝑐(0
−) ∙ 𝛿[𝑛] = 𝐼0(𝐶)∙ 𝛿[𝑛] (6.4𝑐)
𝒉𝐶[𝑛] = (𝑏0𝑏3 − 𝑏1𝑏2𝑏0𝑏2
) ∙ 𝒀𝐶 ∙ 𝒗𝑐[𝑛] −𝑏3𝑏2∙ 𝒉𝐶[𝑛 − 1] (6.4𝑑)
𝒉𝐶[−1] = 0 (6.4𝑒)
Where:
𝒗𝑐[𝑛] ∈ ℝ𝑃×1 , 𝒊𝑐[𝑛] ∈ ℝ
𝑃×1 , 𝒊𝑐(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] ∈ ℝ𝑃×1 , 𝒉𝐶[𝑛] ∈ ℝ
𝑃×1 , 𝒀𝐶 ∈ ℝ𝑃×𝑃 , [ 𝒀𝐶 ] = 𝑆.
We observe that (6.4) is in the form of (6.1) with: 𝒀[𝑛] = 𝒀𝐶 , [𝑛] = 𝒗𝑐[𝑛] , 𝒊[𝑛] = 𝒊𝑐[𝑛] +
𝒊𝑐(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] , 𝒊𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕[𝑛] = 𝒉𝐶[𝑛] , and (6.4d) corresponds to (6.1b).
92
Figure 6.4: Time-domain, Continuous-time representation of capacitor (left). Discrete-time
representation of capacitor (right).
Multiphase Inductor (P-phase)
The following figure (Fig. 6.5), represents the continuous-time circuit schematic of an 𝑃-phase
inductor
Figure 6.5: Continuous-time representation of inductor in the time-domain (left) and complex-
frequency (Laplace) domain (right) (initial condition included).
Where
Voltage: 𝒗𝐿(𝑡) ∈ ℝ𝑃×1, [𝒗𝐿(𝑡)] = 𝑉
Current: 𝒊𝐿(𝑡) ∈ ℝ𝑃×1, [𝒊𝐿(𝑡)] = 𝐴
Inductance: 𝑳 ∈ ℝ𝑃×𝑃, [𝑳] = H
Discretization:
𝒗𝐿(𝑡) = 𝑳 ∙𝑑
𝑑𝑡𝒊𝐿(𝑡)
𝐿{.}⇒
93
𝒗𝐿(𝑠) = 𝑳 ∙ ( 𝑠 ∙ 𝒊𝐿(𝑠) − 𝒊𝐿(0−) ) ⇒
𝒗𝐿(𝑠) = 𝑠𝑳 ∙ 𝒊𝐿(𝑠) − 𝑳 ∙ 𝒊𝐿(0−)
𝑠=𝑓(𝑧)⇒
Let 𝑠 = 𝑓(𝑧) =𝑏0+𝑏1∙𝑧
−1
𝑏2+𝑏3∙𝑧−1 be the generalized bilinear transform, then:
𝒗𝐿(𝑧) =𝑏0 + 𝑏1 ∙ 𝑧
−1
𝑏2 + 𝑏3 ∙ 𝑧−1∙ 𝑳 ∙ 𝒊𝐿(𝑧) − 𝑳 ∙ 𝒊𝐿(0
−) ⇒
𝒊𝐿(𝑧) =𝑏2𝑏0∙ 𝑳−1 ∙ 𝒗𝐿(𝑧) + 𝑧
−1 ∙ [ 𝑏3𝑏0∙ 𝑳−1 ∙ 𝒗𝐿(𝑧) −
𝑏1𝑏0∙ 𝒊𝐿(𝑧) +
𝑏3𝑏0∙ 𝒊𝐿(0
−)] +𝑏2𝑏0∙ 𝒊𝐿(0
−)𝑍−1{.}⇒
𝒊𝐿[𝑛] = 𝒀𝐿 ∙ 𝒗𝐿[𝑛] + 𝒉𝐿[𝑛 − 1] + 𝒊𝐿(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] (6.5𝑎)
𝒀𝐿 =𝑏2𝑏0∙ 𝑳−1 (6.5𝑏)
𝒊𝐿(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] =
1
𝑇𝑠∙𝑏2𝑏0∙ 𝒊𝐿(0
−) ∙ 𝛿[𝑛] = 𝐼0(𝐿)∙ 𝛿[𝑛] (6.5𝑐)
𝒉𝐿[𝑛 − 1] =𝑏3𝑏2∙ 𝑳−1 ∙ 𝒗𝐿[𝑛 − 1] −
𝑏1𝑏2∙ 𝒊𝐿[𝑛 − 1] +
1
𝑇𝑠∙𝑏3𝑏0∙ 𝒊𝐿(0
−) ∙ 𝛿[𝑛 − 1] (6.5𝑑)
Now 𝒉𝐿[𝑛] may be expressed as a function of 𝒉𝐿[𝑛 − 1] as follows:
𝒉𝐿[𝑛] = (𝑏0𝑏3 − 𝑏1𝑏2𝑏0𝑏3
) ∙ 𝒀𝐿 ∙ 𝒗𝐿[𝑛] −𝑏1𝑏0∙ 𝒉𝐿[𝑛 − 1] + (
𝑏0𝑏3 − 𝑏1𝑏2
𝑏02 ) ∙ 𝒊𝐿(0
−) ∙ 𝛿[𝑛] (6.5𝑒)
Finally, the discrete-time equivalent circuit of the 𝑃-phase inductor may be summarized by (6.6)
and Fig. 6.6:
𝒊𝐿[𝑛] = 𝒀𝐿 ∙ 𝒗𝐿[𝑛] + 𝒉𝐿[𝑛 − 1] + 𝒊𝐿(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] (6.6𝑎)
𝒀𝐿 =𝑏2𝑏0∙ 𝑳−1 (6.6𝑏)
𝒊𝐿(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] =
1
𝑇𝑠∙𝑏2𝑏0∙ 𝒊𝐿(0
−) ∙ 𝛿[𝑛] = 𝐼0(𝐿)∙ 𝛿[𝑛] (6.6𝑐)
𝒉𝐿[𝑛] = (𝑏0𝑏3 − 𝑏1𝑏2𝑏0𝑏3
) ∙ 𝒀𝐿 ∙ 𝒗𝐿[𝑛] −𝑏1𝑏0∙ 𝒉𝐿[𝑛 − 1] + (
𝑏0𝑏3 − 𝑏1𝑏2
𝑏02 ) ∙
1
𝑇𝑠∙ 𝒊𝐿(0
−) ∙ 𝛿[𝑛] (6.6𝑑)
𝒉𝐿[−1] = 0 (6.6𝑒)
94
Where: 𝒗𝐿[𝑛] ∈ ℝ𝑃×1 , 𝒊𝐿[𝑛] ∈ ℝ
𝑃×1 , 𝒊𝐿(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] ∈ ℝ𝑃×1 , 𝒉𝐿[𝑛] ∈ ℝ
𝑃×1 , 𝒀𝐿 ∈ ℝ𝑃×𝑃 , [ 𝒀𝐿 ] = 𝑆.
We observe that (6.6) is in the form of (6.1) with: 𝒀[𝑛] = 𝒀𝐿 , [𝑛] = 𝒗𝐿[𝑛] , 𝒊[𝑛] = 𝒊𝐿[𝑛] +
𝒊𝐿(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛] , 𝒊𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕[𝑛] = 𝒉𝐿[𝑛] , and (6.6d) corresponds to (6.1b).
Figure 6.6: Time-domain, Continuous-time representation of inductor (left). Discrete-time
representation of inductor (right).
Simulation Examples and Unit tests
In this section we validate the discrete-time equivalent circuits of (6.2, 6.4, 6.6) by comparing the
simulated output to known analytical responses.
For the following circuit (Fig. 6.7)
Figure 6.7: Time-domain, Continuous-time representation of test circuit
95
With parameters: = 2Ω , 𝐿 = 1𝐻 , 𝐶 = 1𝐹 , 𝑣𝑐(0−) = 10𝑉 , 𝑖𝐿(0
−) = 5𝐴
The analytical solution for 𝑖𝐿(𝑡) is:
𝑖𝐿(𝑡) = 5 ∙ 𝑒−𝑡 ∙ (1 + 𝑡) ∙ 𝑢(𝑡) , where 𝑢(𝑡) = {
1, 𝑡 ≥ 00, 𝑡 < 0
The discrete-time equivalent circuit based on (6.2, 6.4, 6.6) is shown below (Fig. 6.8)
Figure 6.8: Time-domain, Discrete-time representation of test circuit
The circuit of Fig. 6.8 has two (master) nodes {𝐴, 𝐵} thus the simulation 𝑌-matrix based equations
are:
[𝑌𝑅 + 𝑌𝐶 −𝑌𝑅−𝑌𝑅 𝑌𝑅 + 𝑌𝐿
] ∙ [𝑣𝑐[𝑛]
𝑣𝐿[𝑛]] = [
00] + [
ℎ𝑐[𝑛 − 1]
−ℎ𝐿[𝑛 − 1]] + [
𝒊𝑐(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛]
−𝒊𝐿(𝐼𝐶)[𝑛]
]
𝑖𝐿[𝑛] = 𝑌𝑅 ∙ (𝑣𝑐[𝑛] − 𝑣𝐿[𝑛])
Where all parameters are according to definitions (6.2, 6.4, 6.6).
Finally, Fig. 6.9 compares the analytical response of this circuit (solid-blue) to the discrete-
time simulator (solid-red). The responses indeed match very closely, thus validating the discrete-
time models developed in (6.2, 6.4, 6.6)
96
Figure 6.9: Analytical (continuous-time) response (solid-blue) vs. discrete-time simulator (solid-red)
6.3 Y-matrix equivalent circuit of an arbitrary characteristic impedance (P-phase)
In this section we present the derivation of a discrete, multiphase, 𝑌-matrix equivalent
circuit for a characteristic impedance. The characteristic impedance is a rational function and the
first essential component of an FDTL.
Characteristic Impedance (𝑃-phase)
Voltage: 𝒗(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×1, [𝒗(𝑠)] = 𝑉
Current: 𝒊(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×1, [𝒊(𝑠)] = 𝐴
Impedance: 𝒁(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃, [𝒁(𝑠)] = Ω
97
The 𝑃-phase characteristic impedance element from Fig. 6.10 can be described by the following
transfer-function matrix expression
𝒗(𝑠) = 𝒁(𝑠) ∙ 𝒊(𝑠) (6.7)
where we assume 𝒁(𝑠) to be a proper rational function with a partial fraction expansion as follows:
𝒁(𝑠) = ∑1
𝑠 − 𝑝𝑛∙ 𝑲𝑛
𝑁
𝑛=1
, 𝑲𝑛 ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃 (6.8)
Combining (6.7) and (6.8) yields:
𝒗(𝑠) = ∑𝒗𝑛(𝑠)
𝑁
𝑛=1
(6.9𝑎)
𝒗𝑛(𝑠) =1
𝑠 − 𝑝𝑛∙ 𝑲𝑛 ∙ 𝒊(𝑠) (6.9𝑏)
Eq. (6.9) may be realized by means of a cascaded (Foster-form) RC network as shown below
(Fig. 6.10)
Figure 6.10: Continuous-time characteristic impedance (top) and Foster-form (cascade) RC-
implementation (bottom)
98
From the (Foster-form) RC network of (Fig. 6.10) we may derive the following. We assume
zero initial conditions
𝒊(𝑠) = 𝒊𝑅𝑛(𝑠) + 𝒊𝐶𝑛(𝑠) ⇒ (𝑹𝑛−1 + 𝑠𝑪𝑛) ∙ 𝒗𝑛(𝑠) ⇒
(𝑠𝐼 + 𝑪𝑛−1 ∙ 𝑹𝑛
−1) ∙ 𝒗𝑛(𝑠) = 𝑪𝑛−1 ∙ 𝒊(𝑠) (6.10)
Equating (6.9) and (6.10) yields:
𝑪𝑛 = 𝑲𝑛−1 (6.11𝑎)
𝑹𝑛−1 = −𝑝𝑛 ∙ 𝑲𝑛
−1 (6.11𝑏)
Eq.(6.11) describes the equivalent (Foster-form) RC network parameters given a
characteristic impedance of the form (6.8). In order to obtain a discrete-time equivalent circuit we
substitute each 𝑹𝑛 and 𝑪𝑛 component from the (Foster-form) RC network with its discrete-time
equivalent component as derived in (6.2, 6.4) and figures (6.2, 6.4). Substitution and application of
fundamental circuit theory properties (such as source transformation, etc.) allows us to obtain the
following simplified discrete-time equivalent circuit which is very suitable for scalable simulation
(Fig. 6.11). This can be summarized by the following equations:
Figure 6.11: Continuous-time characteristic impedance (left). Discrete-time equivalent circuit (right)
99
Start with a given characteristic impedance matrix 𝒁(𝑠) = 𝒁𝑇(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃
𝒁(𝑠) = ∑1
𝑠 − 𝑝𝑛∙ 𝑲𝑛
𝑁
𝑛=1
(6.12𝑎)
And a choice of a generalized bilinear transform 𝑠 = 𝑓(𝑧)
𝑠 = 𝑓(𝑧) =𝑏0 + 𝑏1 ∙ 𝑧
−1
𝑏2 + 𝑏3 ∙ 𝑧−1 (6.12𝑏)
The discrete equivalent circuit parameters are:
𝒀𝑛 = (𝑏0𝑏2− 𝑝𝑛) ∙ 𝑲𝑛
−1 (6.12𝑐)
𝒀𝑇𝑂𝑇 = (∑𝒀𝑛−1
𝑁
𝑛=1
)
−1
(6.12𝑑)
𝒊[𝑛] = 𝒀𝑇𝑂𝑇 ∙ 𝒗[𝑛] − 𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇[𝑛 − 1] (6.12𝑒)
Where we solve (6.12e) for 𝒗[𝑛] and the update term 𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇[𝑛] is computed by the following steps:
[ 𝒀1 + 𝒀2 −𝒀2 𝟎 … 𝟎−𝒀2 𝒀2 + 𝒀3 −𝒀3𝟎⋮𝟎
−𝒀3 𝒀3 + 𝒀4 ⋱ −𝒀𝑁−1−𝒀𝑁−1 𝒀𝑁−1 + 𝒀𝑁]
∙
[ 𝒗2[𝑛]
𝒗3[𝑛]⋮⋮
𝒗𝑁[𝑛]]
=
[ 𝒀1 ∙ 𝒗[𝑛]𝟎⋮⋮𝟎 ]
+
[ 𝒉𝐶2 [𝑛 − 1] − 𝒉𝐶1[𝑛 − 1]
𝒉𝐶3 [𝑛 − 1] − 𝒉𝐶2[𝑛 − 1]
⋮⋮
𝒉𝐶𝑁[𝑛 − 1] − 𝒉𝐶𝑁−1[𝑛 − 1]]
(6.12𝑓)
A short-hand for (6.12f) may be given by:
�� ∙ ��[𝑛] = ��[𝑛] + ��[𝑛 − 1] (6.12𝑔)
Where: �� ∈ ℂ𝑃∙(𝑁−1)×𝑃∙(𝑁−1) is a symmetric block-tridiagonal matrix, with 𝑃 × 𝑃 blocks, and
��[𝑛] ∈ ℂ𝑃∙(𝑁−1)×1 , ��[𝑛] ∈ ℂ𝑃∙(𝑁−1)×1 , ��[𝑛] ∈ ℂ𝑃∙(𝑁−1)×1.
100
The objective is to solve for the “sub-circuit” voltage vector ��[𝑛] given the “master” voltage value
𝒗[𝑛] obtained from (6.12e).
The “sub-circuit” history terms ��[𝑛] are updated as follows:
𝒉𝐶𝑛[𝑛] =1
𝑏2∙ [𝑏0𝑏3 − 𝑏1𝑏2
𝑏2] ∙ 𝑲𝑛
−1 ∙ ( 𝒗𝑛[𝑛] − 𝒗𝑛+1[𝑛] ) −𝑏3𝑏2∙ 𝒉𝐶𝑛[𝑛 − 1] (6.12ℎ)
∀𝑛 ∈ {1,2, … ,𝑁 − 1}
𝒉𝐶𝑁[𝑛] =1
𝑏2∙ [𝑏0𝑏3 − 𝑏1𝑏2
𝑏2] ∙ 𝑲𝑁
−1 ∙ ( 𝒗𝑁[𝑛] − 0 ) −𝑏3𝑏2∙ 𝒉𝐶𝑁[𝑛 − 1] (6.12𝑖)
Again, we shall refer to (6.12f, 6.12g, 6.12h, 6.12i) as the “sub-circuit” update equations
because they correspond to the capacitive terms inside the (Foster-form) RC network and are
“hidden” from any other interconnections that may occur with other characteristic impedance
elements.
Finally, the “master circuit” update equation is:
𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇[𝑛] = 𝒀𝑇𝑂𝑇 ∙ ∑ 𝒀𝑛−1 ∙ 𝒉𝐶𝑛[𝑛]
𝑁
𝑛=1
(6.12𝑗)
In summary: The master circuit equation (6.12e) corresponds to (6.1a) and sub-circuit equation
(6.12j) corresponds to (6.1b) in terms of our scalable network representation.
101
Simulation Examples and Unit tests
In this section we validate the discrete-time equivalent circuits of (6.12) by comparing the simulated
output to known analytical responses.
The responses shown in Fig. 6.12 are obtained as follows:
Input Source Description: 3-phase input current source 𝒊(𝑡) = [𝑖1(𝑡), 𝑖2(𝑡), 𝑖3(𝑡)]𝑇 with
components:
𝑖1(𝑡) = 𝑢(𝑡) − 𝑢(𝑡 − 1) + 𝑢(𝑡 − 2) − 𝑢(𝑡 − 3) + 𝑢(𝑡 − 4),
𝑖2(𝑡) = 𝑢(𝑡) − 𝑢(𝑡 − 2) + 𝑢(𝑡 − 4),
𝑖3(𝑡) = 𝑢(𝑡) − 𝑢(𝑡 − 4) where 𝑢(𝑡) = {1, 𝑡 > 00, 𝑡 < 0
is the continuous-time step function.
System Description: A (continuous-time) 3 × 3 characteristic impedance transfer function
matrix with individual rational transfer functions of order 16.
The voltage response shown in solid-red “𝑣𝑐” corresponds to the output of a continuous-time
based simulator (using MATLAB’s “lsim” function). In particular, this is the second phase of
the 3-three phase response voltage vector. Typical solvers for continuous-time simulation are
“Runge-Kutta” methods of order “𝑁” (RK-N).
The voltage response shown in solid-blue “𝑣𝑑” correspond to the output of the scalable,
discrete-time simulator based on (6.12). In particular, this is the second phase of the 3-three
phase response voltage vector.
Error metric: ‖𝑣𝑐−𝑣𝑑‖∞‖𝑣𝑐‖∞
. We observe that the two responses match very closely (within 2.3%)
using this relative-error metric.
102
Figure 6.12: Continuous-time simulator (solid-red) vs. discrete-time simulator (solid-blue) for a characteristic impedance response.
Fig. 6.12 compares the continuous-time simulator-based response of this circuit (solid-blue) to the
discrete-time simulator described by (6.12) (solid-red). The responses indeed match very closely
(within 2.3%), thus validating the discrete-time models developed in (6.12).
103
6.4 Recursive computation of an arbitrary propagation function (P-phase)
In this section we introduce a recursive expression for computing the output of a
propagation function. The propagation function is a delay-rational function and the second essential
component of an FDTL.
Propagation Matrix Function (𝑃-phase)
Here we consider the dimensionless propagation matrix function: 𝑨(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃, [𝑨(𝑠)] = 1.
This typically corresponds to a delay-transfer function of the form:
𝑨(𝑠) = 𝑯(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏 (6.13)
so that an input “𝒙(𝑠)” , output “𝒚(𝑠)” relationship can be written as:
𝒚(𝑠) = 𝑨(𝑠) ∙ 𝒙(𝑠) = 𝑯(𝑠) ∙ 𝒙(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏 (6.14)
The function “𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏” corresponds to a pure delay term by “𝜏” seconds and 𝑯(𝑠) may be
expressed by the following partial fraction expansion:
𝑯(𝑠) = ∑1
𝑠 − 𝑝𝑛∙ 𝑲𝑛
𝑁
𝑛=1
(6.15)
Consequently,
𝒚(𝑠) = ∑𝑲𝑛 ∙ 𝒚𝑛(𝑠)
𝑁
𝑛=1
(6.16𝑎)
𝒚𝑛(𝑠) =1
𝑠 − 𝑝𝑛∙ ��(𝑠) (6.16𝑏)
��(𝑠) = 𝒙(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏 (6.16𝑐)
Discretization of (6.16) may be achieved (for example) by means of “recursive
convolution” as discussed in Chapter 2. “Recursive convolution” can be alternatively viewed as a
special, pole-dependent bilinear transform of the form:
𝑠 = 𝑓(𝑧; 𝑛) =𝑏0(𝑛)+ 𝑏1
(𝑛)∙ 𝑧−1
𝑏2(𝑛)+ 𝑏3
(𝑛)∙ 𝑧−1
(6.17𝑎)
104
𝑏2(𝑛)= 1 (6.17𝑏)
𝑏0(𝑛)=𝑝𝑛 ∙ 𝑐1
(𝑛)+ 1
𝑐1(𝑛)
(6.17𝑐)
𝑏1(𝑛)=−(𝑐0
(𝑛)− 𝑝𝑛 ∙ 𝑐2
(𝑛))
𝑐1(𝑛)
(6.17𝑑)
𝑏3(𝑛)=𝑐2(𝑛)
𝑐1(𝑛) (6.17𝑒)
𝑐0(𝑛)= 𝑒𝑝𝑛∙𝑇𝑠 (6.17𝑓)
𝑐1(𝑛)= −
1
𝑝𝑛−(1 − 𝑒𝑝𝑛∙𝑇𝑠)
𝑝𝑛2 ∙ 𝑇𝑠
(6.17𝑔)
𝑐2(𝑛)=𝑒𝑝𝑛∙𝑇𝑠
𝑝𝑛+(1 − 𝑒𝑝𝑛∙𝑇𝑠)
𝑝𝑛2 ∙ 𝑇𝑠
(6.17ℎ)
And the recursive expression for computing the output 𝒚[𝑛] is:
𝒚𝑛[𝑛] = 𝑐0(𝑛) ∙ 𝒚𝑛[𝑛 − 1] + 𝑐1
(𝑛) ∙ 𝒙[𝑛 − 𝑇𝐴𝑈] + 𝑐2(𝑛) ∙ 𝒙[𝑛 − 𝑇𝐴𝑈 − 1] (6.17𝑖)
𝒚[𝑛] = ∑𝑲𝑛 ∙ 𝒚𝑛[𝑛]
𝑁
𝑛=1
(6.17𝑗)
𝑇𝐴𝑈 = 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 (𝜏
𝑇𝑠 ) (6.17𝑘)
Thus, in order to summarize, given an input-output relationship of the form:
𝒚(𝑠) = 𝑨(𝑠) ∙ 𝒙(𝑠) = 𝑯(𝑠) ∙ 𝒙(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏 (6.18𝑎)
Where “𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏” corresponds to a pure delay term by “𝜏” seconds and 𝑯(𝑠) may be expressed by the
following partial fraction expansion:
𝑯(𝑠) = ∑1
𝑠 − 𝑝𝑛∙ 𝑲𝑛
𝑁
𝑛=1
(6.18𝑏)
105
The discrete-time recursive convolution-based relation is given by (Chapter 2):
𝑐0(𝑛)= 𝑒𝑝𝑛∙𝑇𝑠 (6.18𝑐)
𝑐1(𝑛)= −
1
𝑝𝑛−(1 − 𝑒𝑝𝑛∙𝑇𝑠)
𝑝𝑛2 ∙ 𝑇𝑠
(6.18𝑑)
𝑐2(𝑛)=𝑒𝑝𝑛∙𝑇𝑠
𝑝𝑛+(1 − 𝑒𝑝𝑛∙𝑇𝑠)
𝑝𝑛2 ∙ 𝑇𝑠
(6.18𝑒)
𝒚𝑛[𝑛] = 𝑐0(𝑛)∙ 𝒚𝑛[𝑛 − 1] + 𝑐1
(𝑛)∙ 𝒙[𝑛 − 𝑇𝐴𝑈] + 𝑐2
(𝑛)∙ 𝒙[𝑛 − 𝑇𝐴𝑈 − 1] (6.18𝑓)
𝒚[𝑛] = ∑𝑲𝑛 ∙ 𝒚𝑛[𝑛]
𝑁
𝑛=1
(6.18𝑔)
𝑇𝐴𝑈 = 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 (𝜏
𝑇𝑠 ) (6.18ℎ)
From (6.18g) we observe that the current value of 𝒚[𝑛] depends only on history terms, since 𝒚𝑛[𝑛]
is a function of 𝒚𝑛[𝑛 − 1] , 𝒙[𝑛 − 𝑇𝐴𝑈] , 𝒙[𝑛 − 𝑇𝐴𝑈 − 1] (6.18f). These equations are
incorporated in the FDTL model (Section 6.5).
Simulation Examples and Unit tests
In this section we validate the discrete-time equivalent expressions of (6.18) by comparing the
simulated output to known analytical responses.
The responses shown in Fig. 6.13 are obtained as follows:
Input Source Description: 3-phase voltage source 𝒗(𝑡) = [𝑣1(𝑡), 𝑣2(𝑡), 𝑣3(𝑡)]𝑇 with
components:
𝑣1(𝑡) = 𝑢(𝑡) − 𝑢(𝑡 − 1) + 𝑢(𝑡 − 2) − 𝑢(𝑡 − 3) + 𝑢(𝑡 − 4),
𝑣2(𝑡) = 𝑢(𝑡) − 𝑢(𝑡 − 2) + 𝑢(𝑡 − 4),
𝑣3(𝑡) = 𝑢(𝑡) − 𝑢(𝑡 − 4)
where “𝑢(𝑡)” is the continuous-time step function, namely, 𝑢(𝑡) = {1, 𝑡 > 00, 𝑡 < 0
106
System Description: A (continuous-time) 3 × 3 propagation transfer function matrix with
individual rational transfer functions of order 16.
The voltage response shown in solid-red “𝑣𝑐” corresponds to the output of a continuous-time
based simulator. In particular, this is the first phase of the 3-three phase response voltage vector.
The voltage response shown in solid-blue “𝑣𝑑” correspond to the output of the scalable,
discrete-time simulator based on (6.18). In particular, this is the first phase of the 3-three phase
response voltage vector.
Error metric: ‖𝑣𝑐−𝑣𝑑‖∞‖𝑣𝑐‖∞
. We observe that the two responses match very closely (within 2.4%)
using this relative-error metric.
Fig. 6.13 compares the continuous-time simulator based response of this circuit (solid-
blue) to the discrete-time simulator described by (6.18) (solid-red). The responses indeed match
very closely (within 2.4%), thus validating the discrete-time models developed in (6.18).
Figure 6.13: Analytical (continuous-time) response (solid-red) vs. discrete-time simulator (solid-
blue) for a propagation function response.
107
6.5 Y-matrix equivalent circuits of single-phase FDTL
In this section we present the derivation of a discrete, single-phase, Y-matrix equivalent
circuit for the single-phase FDTL using the fundamental components derived in sections 6.2-6.4.
Single-Phase FDTL:
The objective is to obtain a discrete-time equivalent circuit for a single-phase FDTL that is suitable
for scalable simulation in networks consisting of multiple FDTLs. Fig. 6.14 shows the continuous-
time model of a single-phase FDTL. The FDTL is fully characterized by: (i) the characteristic
impedance 𝑍0(𝑠) , (ii) the propagation function 𝐴(𝑠), and (iii) it’s length “ ℓ ”. Both quantities
{ 𝑍0(𝑠) , 𝐴(𝑠) } are scalars for a single-phase FDTL. From Fig. 6.14 we may obtain the following
relations for the two ports.
Figure 6.14: Continuous-time two-port model for single-phase FDTL (complex-frequency
domain)
Sending-end Voltage: 𝑉𝑘(𝑠) ∈ ℂ, [𝑉𝑘(𝑠)] = 𝑉
Sending-end Current: 𝐼𝑘(𝑠) ∈ ℂ, [𝐼𝑘(𝑠)] = 𝐴
Receiving-end Voltage: 𝑉𝑚(𝑠) ∈ ℂ, [𝑉𝑚(𝑠)] = 𝑉
Receiving-end Current: 𝐼𝑚(𝑠) ∈ ℂ, [𝐼𝑚(𝑠)] = 𝐴
Characteristic Impedance: 𝑍0(𝑠) ∈ ℂ, [𝑍0(𝑠)] = Ω
Propagation Function: 𝐴(𝑠) ∈ ℂ, [𝐴(𝑠)] = 1
108
Sending-End Current “ 𝐼𝑘(𝑠) ” :
𝐼𝑘(𝑠) =𝑉𝑘(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠) − [ 𝑉𝑚(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)+ 𝐼𝑚(𝑠) ] ∙ 𝐴(𝑠) (6.19)
Receiving-End Current “ 𝐼𝑚(𝑠) ” :
𝐼𝑚(𝑠) =𝑉𝑚(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠) − [ 𝑉𝑘(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)+ 𝐼𝑘(𝑠) ] ∙ 𝐴(𝑠) (6.20)
We may define the following terms:
𝐻𝑚𝑘(𝑠) =𝑉𝑚(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)+ 𝐼𝑚(𝑠) (6.21𝑎)
𝐻𝑘𝑚(𝑠) =𝑉𝑘(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)+ 𝐼𝑘(𝑠) (6.21𝑏)
We assume that the propagation function “𝐴(𝑠)” can be expressed as a product of a proper
rational function and a pure delay term, namely
𝐴(𝑠) = 𝜆(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏 (6.21𝑐)
𝜆(𝑠) = ∑𝑘𝑛(𝜆)
𝑠 − 𝑝𝑛(𝜆)
𝑁𝜆
𝑛=1
(6.21𝑑)
We also assume that the characteristic impedance “𝑍0(𝑠)” is a proper rational function with
𝑍0(𝑠) = ∑𝑘𝑛(𝑍0)
𝑠 − 𝑝𝑛(𝑍0)
𝑁𝑍0
𝑛=1
(6.21𝑒)
So that the sending and receiving end currents become:
𝐼𝑘(𝑠) =𝑉𝑘(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠) − 𝐻𝑚𝑘(𝑠) ∙ 𝜆(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒
−𝑠∙𝜏 (6.22𝑎)
𝐼𝑚(𝑠) =𝑉𝑚(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠) − 𝐻𝑘𝑚(𝑠) ∙ 𝜆(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒
−𝑠∙𝜏 (6.22𝑏)
109
Manipulating (6.21) and (6.22) yields the following continuous-time recursive relations:
𝐻𝑚𝑘(𝑠) = 2 ∙𝑉𝑚(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)− 𝐻𝑘𝑚(𝑠) ∙ 𝜆(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒
−𝑠∙𝜏 (6.23𝑎)
𝐻𝑘𝑚(𝑠) = 2 ∙𝑉𝑘(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠)− 𝐻𝑘𝑚(𝑠) ∙ 𝜆(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒
−𝑠∙𝜏 (6.23𝑏)
If we define the following terms:
𝑦𝑚(𝑠) = 𝜆(𝑠) ∙ ( 𝐻𝑚𝑘(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏 ) (6.24𝑎)
𝑦𝑘(𝑠) = 𝜆(𝑠) ∙ ( 𝐻𝑘𝑚(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏 ) (6.24𝑏)
So that (6.22) becomes:
𝐼𝑘(𝑠) =𝑉𝑘(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠) − 𝑦𝑚(𝑠) (6.25𝑎)
𝐼𝑚(𝑠) =𝑉𝑚(𝑠)
𝑍0(𝑠) − 𝑦𝑘(𝑠) (6.25𝑏)
This may be viewed as superposition of a characteristic impedance-based term and a
recursive-convolution based-term. Discretization of (6.2-6.25) involves substitution of (6.12) and
(6.18) that were derived previously as building blocks.
Finally, the discrete-time equivalent circuit that is suitable for scalable simulation of
networks with several FDTLs is shown in below (Fig. 6.15). The discrete-time equations associated
with this network are summarized below:
Figure 6.15: Discrete-time equivalent circuit for single-phase FDTL
110
Compute { 𝑦(𝑚)[𝑛], 𝑦(𝑘)[𝑛] } by using (6.18) and 𝑇𝐴𝑈 = 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 (𝜏
𝑇𝑠).
Then solve the following (6.26) for { 𝑣𝑘[𝑛], 𝑣𝑚[𝑛] }
𝑖𝑘[𝑛] = 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇 ∙ 𝑣𝑘[𝑛] − ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘) [𝑛 − 1] − 𝑦(𝑚)[𝑛] (6.26𝑎)
𝑖𝑚[𝑛] = 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇 ∙ 𝑣𝑚[𝑛] − ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑚) [𝑛 − 1] − 𝑦(𝑘)[𝑛] (6.26𝑏)
ℎ𝑘𝑚[𝑛] = 2 ∙ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇 ∙ 𝑣𝑘[𝑛] − 2 ∙ ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘) [𝑛 − 1] − 𝑦(𝑚)[𝑛] (6.26𝑐)
ℎ𝑚𝑘[𝑛] = 2 ∙ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇 ∙ 𝑣𝑚[𝑛] − 2 ∙ ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑚) [𝑛 − 1] − 𝑦(𝑘)[𝑛] (6.26𝑑)
Finally, update { ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘) [𝑛], ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇
(𝑚) [𝑛] } using (6.12) and Fig. 6.11.
111
6.6 Y-matrix equivalent circuits of multi-phase FDTL
In this section we present the derivation of a discrete, multiphase, 𝑌-matrix equivalent
circuit for the single-phase FDTL using the fundamental components derived in sections 6.2-6.4.
Multi-Phase FDTL (𝑃-phases):
The objective is to obtain a discrete-time equivalent circuit for a 𝑃-phase FDTL that is suitable for
scalable simulation in networks consisting of multiple FDTLs. Fig. 6.16 shows the continuous-time
model of a single-phase FDTL. The FDTL is fully characterized by: (i) the characteristic admittance
matrix 𝒀0(𝑠) , (ii) the propagation function matrix 𝑨(𝑠), and (iii) it’s length “ ℓ ”. From Fig. 6.16
we may obtain the following relations for the two ports.
Figure 6.16: Continuous-time two-port model for multi-phase FDTL (complex-frequency
domain)
Sending-end Voltage: 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×1, [𝒗𝑘(𝑠)] = 𝑉
Sending-end Current: 𝒊𝑘(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×1, [𝒊𝑘(𝑠)] = 𝐴
Receiving-end Voltage: 𝒗𝑚(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×1, [𝒗𝑚(𝑠)] = 𝑉
Receiving-end Current: 𝒊𝑚(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×1, [𝒊𝑚(𝑠)] = 𝐴
Characteristic Admittance: 𝒀0(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃 , [𝒀0(𝑠)] = S
Characteristic Impedance: 𝒁0(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃, [𝒁0(𝑠)] = Ω
Propagation Function: 𝑨1(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃, [𝑨1(𝑠)] = 1
112
Characteristic Impedance/Admittance matrix properties:
𝒀0(𝑠) = 𝒀0𝑇(𝑠) = 𝒁0
−1(𝑠) (6.27𝑎)
𝒁0(𝑠) = 𝒁0𝑇(𝑠) = 𝒀0
−1(𝑠) (6.27𝑏)
Propagation function matrix properties:
𝑨1(𝑠) = 𝑨2𝑇(𝑠) (6.27𝑐)
Where “𝑨1(𝑠)” and “𝑨2(𝑠)” are terms derived when expressing the FDTL two-port equations in
terms of current and voltage respectively.
Sending-End Current “ 𝒊𝑘(𝑠) ” :
𝒊𝑘(𝑠) = 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) − 𝑨1(𝑠) ∙ [ 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑚(𝑠) + 𝒊𝑚(𝑠) ] (6.28𝑎)
Receiving-End Current “ 𝒊𝑚(𝑠) ” :
𝒊𝑚(𝑠) = 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑚(𝑠) − 𝑨1(𝑠) ∙ [ 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) + 𝒊𝑘(𝑠) ] (6.28𝑏)
Eigen/Spectral Decomposition of the propagation function matrix “𝑨1(𝑠)”
𝑨1(𝑠) = 𝑽(𝑠) ∙ 𝚲(𝑠) ∙ 𝑸(𝑠) = ∑𝑴𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝
𝑃
𝑝=1
(6.29)
Where:
𝚲(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃 is a diagonal matrix consisting of complex-frequency dependent eigenvalues
𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∈ ℂ
𝐕(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃 , (𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃 , 𝐐(𝑠) = 𝑽−1(𝑠) are the eigenvector matrices associated with 𝚲(𝑠),
with eigenvectors { 𝒗𝑝(𝑠) , 𝒒𝑝(𝑠) } ∈ ℂ𝑃×1 respectively.
𝑴𝑝(𝑠) = 𝒗𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝒒𝑝𝑇(𝑠) ∈ ℂ𝑃×𝑃 is the (rank-1) idempotent/spectral decomposition matrix
associated with 𝜆𝑝(𝑠).
𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝 is a pure-delay term that can be extracted from 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) by means of Bode’s gain-phase
relation.
113
Substituting (6.29) in (6.28) yields:
𝒊𝑘(𝑠) = 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) −∑𝑴𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∙ [ 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑚(𝑠) + 𝒊𝑚(𝑠) ] ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝
𝑃
𝑝=1
(6.30𝑎)
𝒊𝑚(𝑠) = 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑚(𝑠) −∑𝑴𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∙ [ 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) + 𝒊𝑘(𝑠) ] ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝
𝑃
𝑝=1
(6.30𝑏)
Where we can define the quantities { 𝒉𝑘𝑚(𝑠) , 𝒉𝑚𝑘(𝑠) } in the same way as the single-phase FDTL:
𝒉𝑚𝑘(𝑠) = 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑚(𝑠) + 𝒊𝑚(𝑠) (6.31𝑎)
𝒉𝑘𝑚(𝑠) = 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) + 𝒊𝑘(𝑠) (6.31𝑏)
So that (6.30) becomes:
𝒊𝑘(𝑠) = 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) −∑𝑴𝑝(𝑠) ∙ [ 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝒉𝑚𝑘(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝 ]
𝑃
𝑝=1
(6.32𝑎)
𝒊𝑚(𝑠) = 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑚(𝑠) −∑𝑴𝑝(𝑠) ∙ [ 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝒉𝑘𝑚(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝 ]
𝑃
𝑝=1
(6.32𝑏)
The recursive equations of { 𝒉𝑘𝑚(𝑠) , 𝒉𝑚𝑘(𝑠) } are:
𝒉𝑚𝑘(𝑠) = 2 ∙ 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑚(𝑠) −∑𝑴𝑝(𝑠) ∙ [ 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝒉𝑘𝑚(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝 ]
𝑃
𝑝=1
(6.33𝑎)
𝒉𝑘𝑚(𝑠) = 2 ∙ 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) −∑𝑴𝑝(𝑠) ∙ [ 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝒉𝑚𝑘(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝 ]
𝑃
𝑝=1
(6.33𝑏)
We may now define the current sources associated with the recursive convolution terms:
𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑚) (𝑠) = ∑𝑴𝑝(𝑠) ∙ [ 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝒉𝑚𝑘(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒
−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝 ]
𝑃
𝑝=1
(6.34𝑎)
𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑘) (𝑠) = ∑𝑴𝑝(𝑠) ∙ [ 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝒉𝑘𝑚(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒
−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝 ]
𝑃
𝑝=1
(6.34𝑏)
114
So that (6.32, 6.33) simplify to:
𝒊𝑘(𝑠) = 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) − 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑚) (𝑠) (6.35𝑎)
𝒊𝑚(𝑠) = 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑚(𝑠) − 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑘) (𝑠) (6.35𝑏)
𝒉𝑚𝑘(𝑠) = 2 ∙ 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑚(𝑠) − 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑘) (𝑠) (6.35𝑐)
𝒉𝑘𝑚(𝑠) = 2 ∙ 𝒀0(𝑠) ∙ 𝒗𝑘(𝑠) − 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑚) (𝑠) (6.35𝑑)
We observe that (6.35) look very similar to the expressions derived for the single-phase
FDTL, namely, superposition of a characteristic impedance based term and a recursive-convolution
based-term. Discretization of (6.35) involves substitution of (6.12) and (6.18) that were derived
previously as building blocks.
Finally, the discrete-time equivalent circuit that is suitable for scalable simulation of
networks with several FDTLs is shown in below (Fig. 6.17). The discrete-time equations associated
with this 𝑃-phase FDTL network are summarized below:
Figure 6.17: Discrete-time equivalent circuit for multi-phase FDTL
Compute { 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑚) [𝑛] , 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉
(𝑘) [𝑛] } by using (6.34, 6.18) and 𝑇𝐴𝑈𝑝 = 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 (𝜏𝑝
𝑇𝑠). This involves the
computation of “ 2 ∙ 𝑃 ” recursive convolutions for each sending and receiving nodes { 𝑘 , 𝑚 }.
Namely, each { 𝑴𝑝(𝑠) , 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ; 𝑝 = 1,… , 𝑃} have their own partial-fraction expansions
{𝑐0(𝑀,𝑝;𝑛) , 𝑲𝑀,𝑝;𝑛 ; 𝑝 = 1,… , 𝑃} , {𝑐0
(𝜆,𝑝;𝑛) ,𝑲𝜆,𝑝;𝑛 ; 𝑝 = 1,… , 𝑃} respectively, and go through the
process of (6.18) independently to construct{ 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑚) [𝑛] , 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉
(𝑘) [𝑛] }.
115
For example, the computation of 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑚) [𝑛] is carried out by the following steps:
From (6.34a) we may define 𝜽𝑝(𝑠) ∶= [ 𝜆𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝒉𝑚𝑘(𝑠) ∙ 𝑒−𝑠∙𝜏𝑝 ]. This corresponds to a single
recursive convolution of the form (6.18f, 6.18g), namely
𝜽𝑝;𝑛[𝑛] = 𝑐0(𝜆,𝑝;𝑛)
∙ 𝜽𝑝;𝑛[𝑛 − 1] + 𝑐1(𝜆,𝑝;𝑛)
∙ 𝒉𝑚𝑘[𝑛 − 𝑇𝐴𝑈(𝑝)] + 𝑐2
(𝜆,𝑝;𝑛)∙ 𝒉𝑚𝑘[𝑛 − 𝑇𝐴𝑈
(𝑝) − 1]
𝜽𝑝[𝑛] = ∑𝑲𝜆,𝑝;𝑛 ∙ 𝜽𝑝;𝑛[𝑛]
𝑁
𝑛=1
And (6.34a):
𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑚) (𝑠) = ∑ 𝑴𝑝(𝑠) ∙ 𝜽𝑝(𝑠)
𝑃𝑝=1 corresponds to reapplication of (6.18f, 6.18g) so that
𝒚𝑝;𝑛[𝑛] = 𝑐0(𝑀,𝑝;𝑛)
∙ 𝒚𝑝;𝑛[𝑛 − 1] + 𝑐1(𝑀,𝑝;𝑛)
∙ 𝜽𝑝[𝑛] + 𝑐2(𝜆,𝑝;𝑛)
∙ 𝜽𝑝[𝑛 − 1]
𝒚𝑝[𝑛] = ∑𝑲𝑀,𝑝;𝑛 ∙ 𝒚𝑛[𝑛]
𝑁
𝑛=1
Finally:
𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑚) [𝑛] = ∑𝒚𝑝[𝑛]
𝑃
𝑝=1
We repeat the same process for 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉(𝑘) [𝑛].
Then solve the following (6.36) for { 𝒗𝑘[𝑛], 𝒗𝑚[𝑛] }
𝒊𝑘[𝑛] = 𝒀𝑇𝑂𝑇 ∙ 𝒗𝑘[𝑛] − 𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘) [𝑛 − 1] − 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉
(𝑚) [𝑛] (6.36𝑎)
𝒊𝑚[𝑛] = 𝒀𝑇𝑂𝑇 ∙ 𝒗𝑚[𝑛] − 𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑚) [𝑛 − 1] − 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉
(𝑘) [𝑛] (6.36𝑏)
𝒉𝑘𝑚[𝑛] = 2 ∙ 𝒀𝑇𝑂𝑇 ∙ 𝒗𝑘[𝑛] − 2 ∙ 𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘) [𝑛 − 1] − 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉
(𝑚) [𝑛] (6.36𝑐)
𝒉𝑚𝑘[𝑛] = 2 ∙ 𝒀𝑇𝑂𝑇 ∙ 𝒗𝑚[𝑛] − 2 ∙ 𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑚) [𝑛 − 1] − 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉
(𝑘) [𝑛] (6.36𝑑)
Then update { 𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘) [𝑛] , 𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇
(𝑚) [𝑛] } by using (6.11) and Fig. 6.11.
116
Remarks:
(1) For a fully transposed FDTL the idempotent matrices 𝑴𝑝(𝑠) are frequency independent
(constants), namely: 𝑴𝑝(𝑠) = 𝑴𝑝 thus reducing the computational complexity of the
simulator.
(2) The 𝑃-phase relations of (6.36) reduce to the single-phase relations of (6.26) by setting 𝑃 = 1.
Equations (6.36) apply to both broadband and subband simulations. Each subband has its own
equivalent circuit as described by (6.36). The partial fraction expansions of the characteristic
admittance and propagation functions are the only quantities that differ per subband.
117
6.7 Arbitrary FDTL Network Simulation Procedure
In this section we provide an outline of the steps involved in constructing and simulating an
arbitrary network which consists of multiple FDTLs and other fundamental components (ex.
sources, loads).
Step #1: Master Circuit Y-Matrix Construction (N-Nodes)
Starting from the network schematic (ex. IEEE 5-Bus grid, etc.), obtain the 𝑌-matrix network
equations by visual inspection using the following steps:
(i) The 𝑌-matrix is diagonal with elements that correspond to the sum of all admittance terms
(sources, loads, and transmission lines) at each node {1,…,N}.
(ii) The source vector “𝑰𝑠[𝑛]” corresponds to the presence (or absence) of a source at each node.
(iii) The history terms “𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇[𝑛 − 1], 𝒚[𝑛]” associated with the transmission lines correspond to
sums of connections that enter each node.
(iv) The history term “𝒉𝐿𝐶[𝑛 − 1]” corresponds to the sum of all capacitive/inductive loads that
are connected to each node.
The outlined procedure is “scalable” in the sense that steps (i-iv) are straight-forward to implement
for an arbitrarily large network by visual inspection.
Step #2: FDTL Sub-Circuit Construction
Starting from the tower geometry of each FDTL obtain (for each subband) the rational function
approximation (RFA) associated with each characteristic impedance 𝒁0(𝑠) and construct the
discrete-time (Foster-form) RC sub-circuit update equations based on (6.12) and the network
topology. This will produce sub-circuit update equations that resemble (6.1b) for the characteristic
impedance of each FDTL.
118
Step #3: FDTL Recursive Convolution Construction
Starting from the tower geometry of each FDTL obtain (for each subband) the rational function
approximation (RFA) associated with each propagation function 𝑨(𝑠) and construct the recursive
convolution update equations according to (6.18) and the network topology. This will produce
update equations that resemble (6.1b) for the propagation function of each FDTL.
Step #4: Source/Load Update Equation Construction
Construct the update equation for each individual capacitive or inductive source/load component,
based on (6.4, 6.6). This will produce update equations that resemble (6.1b) for each source/load
L, C individual component.
Step #5: Subband (Parallel) Computation Setup
Choose the perfect reconstruction filter-bank (PR-FB) parameters: (a) prototype analysis filter
𝐻0(𝑧), and (b) number of subbands “𝑀”. Then decompose each source to “𝑀” subband sources
using the analysis filter bank. Each subband source is to be processed in parallel using a distributed
computational framework (such as Hadoop, MapReduce). The computational savings due to this
step are of the order of “𝑀” due to downsampling/decimation.
Step #6: Subband Simulation Procedure
At this step all equations are in the standardized form of (6.1a, 6.1b) for the master circuit and the
sub-circuit respectively. For each parallel job (subband source), the following procedure is carried
out for each time instant “𝑛”:
(i) Solve the master circuit equation (6.1a) for 𝒗[𝑛].
(ii) Update the sub-circuit equations for each individual component: (a) Characteristic
impedance; (b) Propagation function; (c) Individual (lumped) L, C components
(iii) Go back to step (i) can compute for the next simulation step: 𝑛 → 𝑛 + 1.
119
Step #7: Broadband Transient Response
In this step we collect all subband transient simulation responses and recombine them through the
synthesis filter-bank in order to construct the broadband transient responses (voltages, currents) of
interest.
Computational Complexity
For a 𝑃-phase FDTL network with “𝑁” nodes/buses, “𝐿” FDTLs and “𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋” maximum-RFA
order, the computational complexity per time instant is given by the following two components:
The matrix associated with the “master circuit” is block-diagonal with block-size “𝑃” and
dimensions “𝑃 ∙ 𝑁 × 𝑃 ∙ 𝑁”. Thus, the complexity of solving the master circuit equation (6.1a)
is 𝑂(𝑁 ∙ 𝑃3).
The matrices associated with the “𝐿” characteristic impedance sub-circuits are 𝑃-block
tridiagonal with dimensions “𝑃 ∙ 𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋 × 𝑃 ∙ 𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋”. The complexity associated with solving
the sub-circuit time-update equation (6.1b) for a single FDTL is 𝑂(𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋 ∙ 𝑃3) using Thomas’s
block-tridiagonal algorithm [25, 26]. Thus, for “𝐿” FDTLs the computational complexity is
𝑂(𝐿 ∙ 𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋 ∙ 𝑃3).
Adding these two partial costs results in a combined cost of 𝑂(𝑃3 ∙ 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝑁, 𝐿 ∙ 𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋}). Finally,
the graph describing the network consists of a single connected component, so that 𝐿 ≥ 𝑁 − 1.
Thus the combined computational cost simplifies to 𝑂(𝑃3 ∙ 𝐿 ∙ 𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋). We observe that the
combined cost is linear in the number of FDTLs, while “𝑃” and “𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋” are independent of the size
of the network. Moreover, the level of connectivity of most electric power networks is such that
𝐿
𝑁≤ 2 (sparsely connected networks). In fact, for the IEEE 5-bus, 9-bus, 14-bus, 30-bus and
57-bus networks this ratio does not exceed 1.5. Thus, we conclude that the total cost of our subband
procedure is also linear in size of the network, which can be quantified either in terms of the number
of FDTLs, or in terms of the number of buses.
120
At each time-instant, the computational savings per subband are of the order of the
multiplicative factor “1
𝑟” (the smaller the better), where 𝑟 ≜
𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋(𝑏𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑)
𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋(𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑) . Subband transient
simulation allows us to use low-order RFAs, so that 𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋(𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑)
≪ 𝑅𝑀𝐴𝑋(𝑏𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑑)
and thus 𝑟 ≫ 1
allowing for significant savings in computation. Furthermore, 𝑀-subband transient simulation
allows us to employ parallel/distributed processing frameworks so that the desired broadband
transient responses (voltages, currents) are obtained “𝑀” times faster compared to a traditional
broadband (single-threaded) simulator.
Finally, we need to account for the overhead associated with setting-up a parallel job and
filtering through the analysis and synthesis filters. If the time duration of the simulation is
sufficiently large, then the overhead associated with setting up the parallel jobs and filtering through
the PR-FB becomes negligible.
In the next section (Sec. 6.8) we provide a collection of single-phase and three-phase FDTL
networks that illustrate the use of the general procedure outlined here.
121
6.8 Y-matrix based FDTL simulation results
In this section we provide simulation results utilizing the single-phase and multi-phase FDTLs as
part of simple (2-node) and more complicated networks (more than two-nodes).
Simulation #1: Single-Phase FDTL (2-nodes)
We shall explore the following network (Fig. 6.18) which consists of (i) a single voltage source,
(ii) a single-phase FDTL, (iii) a load termination. The purpose of this example is to verify that we
can obtain the same results as with the non-scalable, analytical (transfer function) based approach
of (2.12, 2.13).
Figure 6.18: Two terminal, continuous-time, single-phase FDTL network
Figure 6.19: Two terminal, discrete-time equivalent, single-phase FDTL network
122
After transforming the voltage source to a current source, and substituting the discrete-time
equivalents for each component, we have the circuit shown in Fig. 6.19.
This circuit is characterized by the two master nodes {𝑘,𝑚} and following network
equations:
[𝑌𝑠 + 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇 0
0 𝑌𝐿 + 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇] ∙ [
𝑣𝑘[𝑛]
𝑣𝑚[𝑚] ] = [
ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘) [𝑛 − 1] + 𝑦(𝑚)[𝑛]
ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑚) [𝑛 − 1] + 𝑦(𝑘)[𝑛]
]
If 𝑌𝐿 → 0 we have an open-ended line. The following figure (Fig. 6.20) matches the results from
(2.12).
Figure 6.20: Receiving-end voltage: simulation based on the: (i) full order model broadband
(blue), (ii) low order subband model (red).
If 𝑌𝐿 → +∞ we have a short-ended line. The following figure (Fig. 6.21) matches the results from
(2.13).
123
Figure 6.21: Receiving-end current: simulation based on the: (i) full order model broadband (blue), (ii) low order subband model (red).
The simulation results agree with Chapter 5. The main difference is that we employ the
(scalable) 𝑌-matrix network approach instead of the analytical (transfer function based) relations
of (2.12, 2.13).
124
Simulation #2: IEEE 5-Bus FDTL system (single-phase)
We shall explore the following network which corresponds to the IEEE 5-Bus system topology
(Fig. 6.22).
Figure 6.22: IEEE 5-Bus network topology
The red-numbers enclosed in a square indicate the master node numbers associated with this IEEE
5-Bus system.
In addition, we may annotate the FDTLs as follows (Fig. 6.23) in order to avoid producing
a detailed equivalent circuit as the one presented in Fig. 6.19.
(i) Blue numbers enclosed by a circle indicate the FDTL number.
(ii) {𝑘,𝑚} correspond to the sending-end and receiving-end nodes used for each FDTL.
125
Figure 6.23: IEEE 5-Bus network topology with FDTL annotations
Obtaining analytical relations of the form (2.12, 2.13) for this network is a non-trivial task. Using
the scalable 𝑌-matrix based approach developed in this chapter results in the following relations
(which may be obtained by visual inspection of Fig. 6.23)
𝒀 ∙ 𝒗[𝑛] = 𝑰𝑠[𝑛] + 𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇[𝑛 − 1] + 𝒚[𝑛] + 𝒉𝐿𝐶[𝑛 − 1] (6.37𝑎)
Where 𝑰𝑠[𝑛] = [ 𝐼𝑠1 , 𝐼𝑠2 , 𝐼𝑠3 , 𝐼𝑠4 , 𝐼𝑠5 ]𝑇 𝜖 ℝ5×1 is the input current-source vector of this topology,
with
𝐼𝑠1 = 𝑌𝐺1 ∙ 𝑉𝐺1[𝑛] , 𝐼𝑠2 = 𝑌𝐺2 ∙ 𝑉𝐺2[𝑛] , 𝐼𝑠3 = 𝐼𝑠4 = 𝐼𝑠5 = 0.
The (time-independent) admittance matrix associated with this network topology is:
𝒀 = 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑔{𝑌1, 𝑌2, 𝑌3, 𝑌4 , 𝑌5} 𝜖 ℝ5×5 (6.37𝑏)
With:
𝑌1 = 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇(1)+ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇
(2)+ 𝑌𝐺1 (6.37𝑐)
𝑌2 = 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇(1)+ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇
(3)+ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇
(4)+ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇
(5)+ 𝑌𝐺2 + 𝑌𝐿2 (6.37𝑑)
𝑌3 = 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇(2)+ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇
(3)+ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇
(6)+ 𝑌𝐿3 (6.37𝑒)
𝑌4 = 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇(4)+ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇
(6)+ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇
(7)+ 𝑌𝐿4 (6.37𝑓)
𝑌5 = 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇(5)+ 𝑌𝑇𝑂𝑇
(7)+ 𝑌𝐿5 (6.37𝑔)
126
The (Foster-form) RC sub-circuit update equation vector associated with the characteristic
impedances of the FDTLs based on (6.12) is shown below (6.38):
𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇[𝑛 − 1] = [ ℎ𝑇1 , ℎ𝑇2 , ℎ𝑇3 , ℎ𝑇4 , ℎ𝑇5 ]𝑇 𝜖 ℝ5×1 (6.38𝑎)
ℎ𝑇𝑗 ∶= ℎ𝑇𝑗[𝑛 − 1] , { 𝑗 = 1,2,3,4,5 } (6.38𝑏)
ℎ𝑇1 = ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘1)[𝑛 − 1] + ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇
(𝑘2)[𝑛 − 1] (6.38𝑐)
ℎ𝑇2 = ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑚1)[𝑛 − 1] + ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇
(𝑘3)[𝑛 − 1] + ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘4)[𝑛 − 1] + ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇
(𝑘5)[𝑛 − 1] (6.38𝑑)
ℎ𝑇3 = ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑚2)[𝑛 − 1] + ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇
(𝑚3)[𝑛 − 1] + ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘6)[𝑛 − 1] (6.38𝑒)
ℎ𝑇4 = ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑚4)[𝑛 − 1] + ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇
(𝑚6)[𝑛 − 1] + ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘7)[𝑛 − 1] (6.38𝑓)
ℎ𝑇5 = ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑚5)[𝑛 − 1] + ℎ𝑇𝑂𝑇
(𝑚7)[𝑛 − 1] (6.38𝑔)
The recursive convolution update equation vector associated with the propagation functions of the
FDTLs based on (6.18) is shown below (6.39):
𝒚[𝑛] = [ 𝑦𝑇1 , 𝑦𝑇2 , 𝑦𝑇3 , 𝑦𝑇4 , 𝑦𝑇5 ]𝑇 𝜖 ℝ5×1 (6.39𝑎)
𝑦𝑇𝑗 ∶= 𝑦𝑇𝑗[𝑛] , { 𝑗 = 1,2,3,4,5 } (6.39𝑏)
𝑦𝑇1 = 𝑦(𝑚1)[𝑛] + 𝑦(𝑚2)[𝑛] (6.39𝑐)
𝑦𝑇2 = 𝑦(𝑘1)[𝑛] + 𝑦(𝑚3)[𝑛] + 𝑦(𝑚4)[𝑛] + 𝑦(𝑚5)[𝑛] (6.39𝑑)
𝑦𝑇3 = 𝑦(𝑘2)[𝑛] + 𝑦(𝑘3)[𝑛] + 𝑦(𝑚6)[𝑛] (6.39𝑒)
𝑦𝑇4 = 𝑦(𝑘4)[𝑛] + 𝑦(𝑘6)[𝑛] + 𝑦(𝑚7)[𝑛] (6.39𝑓)
𝑦𝑇5 = 𝑦(𝑘5)[𝑛] + 𝑦(𝑘7)[𝑛] (6.39𝑔)
The update equation that corresponds to individual capacitive or inductive source/load
components based on (6.4, 6.6) is shown below (6.40). The elements of (6.40) are all zero because
we consider purely resistive (memoryless) terminations for this example.
𝒉𝐿𝐶[𝑛 − 1] = [ 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ]𝑇 𝜖 ℝ5×1 (6.40)
127
In summary, (6.37a) corresponds to the desired (scalable) form of (6.1a) and (6.38-6.40)
along with (6.12h-j, 6.18, 6.4d, 6.6d) correspond to the desired (scalable) form of (6.1b).
The order of updating the equations associated with this network are as follows (Section 6.7):
(i) Construct the 𝑌-matrix (once) according to (6.37b-g).
(ii) Solve (6.37a) for 𝒗[𝑛]. This is the “master circuit” equation as defined in (6.1a).
(iii) Update the characteristic impedance terms of the FDTL according to (6.38) and (6.12).
These equations depend on 𝒗[𝑛]. These are “sub-circuit” equations as defined in (6.1b).
(iv) Update the propagation matrix terms of the FDTL according to (6.39) and (6.18). These
equations depend on 𝒗[𝑛]. These are “sub-circuit” equations as defined in (6.1b).
(v) Update the capacitive/inductive load terms according to (6.40) and (6.4, 6.6). These
equations depend on 𝒗[𝑛]. These are “sub-circuit” equations as defined in (6.1b).
(vi) Go back to step (ii) “master-circuit” and repeat for each simulation step.
The outlined procedure is “scalable” in the sense that the “master-circuit” equation is straight-
forward to obtain for an arbitrarily large network by visual inspection. The “sub-circuit” equations
are decoupled from the “master-circuit” in the sense that they only depend on their corresponding
node-voltage and previous states (6.1b).
We observe that the broadband-based simulation matches the one based on subband vector fitting
(Figs. 6.24-6.26).
128
Figure 6.24: IEEE 5-Bus, node-3 voltage: (a) broadband simulation (blue), (b) low-order subband
simulation (red)
Figure 6.25: IEEE 5-Bus, node-4 voltage: (a) broadband simulation (blue), (b) low-order subband
simulation (red)
129
Figure 6.26: IEEE 5-Bus, node-3 current: (a) broadband simulation (blue), (b) low-order subband
simulation (red)
130
Simulation #3: Three-Phase FDTL (2-nodes)
We shall explore the following network (Fig. 6.27) which consists of (i) a single 3-phase voltage
source, (ii) a 3-phase FDTL, (iii) a 3-phase load termination. The purpose of this example is to
verify that we can obtain the same results as with the non-scalable, analytical (transfer function)
based approach of (2.9, 2.10).
Figure 6.27: Two terminal, continuous-time, 3-phase FDTL network
After transforming the voltage source to a current source, and substituting the discrete-time
equivalents for each component, we have the following circuit (Fig. 6.28).
Figure 6.28: Two terminal, discrete-time equivalent, 3-phase FDTL network
This circuit is characterized by the two master nodes {𝑘,𝑚} and following network equations:
[𝒀𝑠 + 𝒀𝑇𝑂𝑇 0
0 𝒀𝐿 + 𝒀𝑇𝑂𝑇] ∙ [
𝒗𝑘[𝑛]
𝒗𝑚[𝑚] ] = [
𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑘) [𝑛 − 1] + 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉
(𝑚) [𝑛 − 1]
𝒉𝑇𝑂𝑇(𝑚) [𝑛 − 1] + 𝒉𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑉
(𝑘) [𝑛 − 1]]
131
If 𝒀𝐿 → 𝟎 we have an open-ended line. The following figure (Fig. 6.29) matches the results from
(2.9).
Figure 6.29: Three-phase receiving-end voltage: simulation based on the: (i) full order model broadband (blue), (ii) low order subband model (red).
If 𝒀𝐿 → +∞ we have a short-ended line. The following figure (Fig. 6.30) matches the results from
(2.10).
Figure 6.30: Three-phase receiving-end current: simulation based on the: (i) full order model
broadband (blue), (ii) low order subband model (red).
CHAPTER 7
Concluding Remarks
7.1 Summary of dissertation contributions
The main contributions of this dissertation are summarized below. Publications directly
related to this dissertation are [11, 12, 27-29].
Decomposition of the broadband transient simulation problem into a collection of
decoupled narrow-band problems. Since each subband can be simulated independently of
the rest, the simulation can be carried out in parallel, possibly using distributed
computational frameworks.
Independent analysis of transient responses at each subband. We may isolate a specific
narrow-band voltage/current transient response and independently study its contribution to
the broadband simulation. This may allow us to classify certain transient simulations
according to their frequency content.
Reduction of the RFA order in each subband, due to the narrow subband bandwidth. This
results in: (a) computational cost reduction, as compared to the standard (broadband)
simulation approach, (b) numerical stability robustness due to the improved (not as tightly
clustered) pole pattern of the subband RFA.
Introduction of the prototype analysis filter frequency response (𝐻0(𝑧) in the wavelet
version) as a customizable mean of controlling the quality of simulation and the choice of
RFA order. This constitutes a tradeoff between simulation performance and computational
cost.
133
Efficient discretization of the continuous-time FDTL model (Sec. 2.3). In particular,
discretization of the subband RFAs is carried out using the “prewarped Tustin” bilinear
transform (2.29), which allows us to leverage the stability and frequency representation
properties of the classical (DC-centered) Tustin transform while maintaining accuracy at a
particular frequency of interest 𝜔0 via prewarping. Accuracy around a particular frequency
𝜔0 ≠ 0 is a very desirable characteristic when we decompose a broadband simulation to
several narrowband sub simulations.
Derivation of a 𝑌-matrix equivalent circuit (complete with recursive time-update
equations) for the characteristic impedance and (delay-compensated) propagation function
of a polyphase, non-transposed FDTL.
Derivation of a 𝑌-matrix equivalent circuit (complete with recursive time-update
equations) for polyphase, (lumped) passive components (resistor, capacitor, inductor).
Development of a complete subband-domain electromagnetic transient simulation program
(SD-EMTP) for arbitrarily sized (and structured) network of buses, FDTLs, generators and
loads as demonstrated using the IEEE 5-Bus network topology (Sec. 6.8).
Demonstration of the efficiency of SD-EMTP by means of computational savings per-
subband and utilization of parallel/distributed computational frameworks (Sec. 6.7).
Demonstration of linear-scalability of the SD-EMTP to grids of any size and structure.
Construction of a novel efficient (uniform subband) filter bank, as a customizable
alternative of the paraunitary QMF filter bank (Phasor banks, Sec. 3.2).
134
7.2 Further Research Topics
As part of the future/further research section we propose to investigate the following:
Model subband network/topology changes using the method of equivalent current
injection.
Complete validation of our subband procedure on a “larger-scale” 3-phase (or multi-phase)
network subband simulation (similar to the IEEE 5-Bus system of Chapter 6).
Provide detailed computational cost comparison between the broadband and subband
transient simulations.
Analyze/optimize selection of the prototype analysis filter 𝐻0(𝑧).
Analyze/optimize RFA order selection for each subband.
Examine the effect of network non-linearities.
APPENDIX I
Modal Transform in a Transposed Transmission Line
A transposed transmission line has characteristics that remain invariant under flipping of
any two phases. This means that its 𝒁(𝑠) and 𝒀(𝑠) matrices have the general form
[𝑎 𝑏 𝑏𝑏 𝑎 𝑏𝑏 𝑏 𝑎
] ≜ (𝑎 − 𝑏) ∙ 𝑰 + 𝑏 ∙ [111] ∙ [1 1 1] (𝐴1.1)
where 𝑰 ∈ ℝ3×3 is the identity matrix and their product has the same form.
Since this 3 × 3 matrix is circulant, its eigenvalues and eigenvectors can be determined from the
properties of such matrices [16]. However, the eigenvectors are highly non-unique. For instance:
In addition to the columns of a 3 × 3 DFT matrix, we can also choose the eigenvectors from the
Clarke transform, and we can even have choices that contain only 1, 0, and -1 elements.
In general, the eigenvalue/eigenvector equation which corresponds to (A1.1) is:
(𝑎 − 𝑏) ∙ 𝒙 + 𝑏 ∙ [111] ∙ [1 1 1] ∙ 𝒙 = 𝜆 ∙ 𝒙 (𝐴1.2)
or equivalently:
(𝜆 + 𝑏 − 𝑎) ∙ 𝒙 = 𝑏 ∙ [111] ∙ {[1 1 1] ∙ 𝒙} (𝐴1.3)
This equation has two distinct solutions:
𝜆 + 𝑏 − 𝑎 ≠ 0 ⇒ 𝜆 = 𝑎 − 𝑏 + 𝑁 ∙ 𝑛 ↔ 𝑥~ [111] (𝐴1.4𝑎)
𝜆 = 𝑎 − 𝑏 ↔ 𝑥 ⊥ [111] (𝐴1.4𝑏)
where 𝑁 = 3. Thus we have a single eigenvalue defined by (A1.4a), and (𝑁 − 1) identical
eigenvalues (𝑎 − 𝑏) whose corresponding eigenvectors reside in the orthogonal complement of
136
𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 { [111] }. The choices include: (i) the DFT matrix:
1
√3∙ [
1 1 1
1 𝑒−𝑗2𝜋
3 𝑒−𝑗2𝜋
3
1 𝑒−𝑗2𝜋
3 𝑒−𝑗2𝜋
3
], (ii) the Clarke
matrix (transposed and rearranged): √2
3∙
[ √2
21 0
√2
2−1
2
√3
2
√2
2−1
2−√3
2 ]
, and (iii) many others.
In general the matrix constructed from the eigenvectors has the form: [𝑎 𝑎1 𝑏1𝑎 𝑎2 𝑏2𝑎 𝑎3 𝑏3
] where:
(i) 𝑎1 + 𝑎2 + 𝑎3 = 0, and (ii) 𝑏1 + 𝑏2 + 𝑏3 = 0 are needed to satisfy the constraint in (A1.4b).
Thus we still have 5 −degrees of freedom and a great amount of flexibility.
If we restrict the eigenvector matrix to be real-valued and orthogonal, then 𝑎 = ±1
√3 and
we get a set of 5 −constraints, namely:
𝑎1 + 𝑎2 + 𝑎3 = 0 (𝐴1.5𝑎)
𝑏1 + 𝑏2 + 𝑏3 = 0 (𝐴1.5𝑏)
𝑎1𝑏1 + 𝑎2𝑏2 + 𝑎3𝑏3 = 0 (𝐴1.5𝑐)
𝑎12 + 𝑎2
2 + 𝑎32 = 1 (𝐴1.5𝑑)
𝑏12 + 𝑏2
2 + 𝑏32 = 1 (𝐴1.5𝑒)
so that we have only 1 −degree of freedom left (5 −equations in 6 −unknowns). If we set, for
instance 𝑎1 = 0 (or 𝑎2 = 0) we get the Clarke transform. ∎
In general, we can choose to express all variables in terms of 𝑎1. Thus 𝑎3 = −(𝑎1 + 𝑎2),
𝑏3 = −(𝑏1 + 𝑏2) and so 𝑎1𝑏1 + 𝑎2𝑏2 + (𝑎1 + 𝑎2)(𝑏1 + 𝑏2) = 0 from which we can extract 𝑏2,
viz., (2𝑎2 + 𝑎1)𝑏2 = −(2𝑎1 + 𝑎2)𝑏1 or
𝑏2 = −𝜉 ∙ 𝑏1 (𝐴1.6𝑎)
𝜉 ≜2𝑎1 + 𝑎22𝑎2 + 𝑎1
(𝐴1.6𝑏)
137
Now 𝑏12 + (𝜉 ∙ 𝑏1)
2 + [(1 − 𝜉) ∙ 𝑏1]2 = 1 or 2 ∙ 𝑏1
2 ∙ (1 − 𝜉 + 𝜉2) = 1⇒
𝑏1 = ±1
√2 ∙ (1 − 𝜉 + 𝜉2) (𝐴1.7)
Finally, 𝑎12 + 𝑎2
2 + (𝑎1 + 𝑎2)2 = 1 results in the quadratic equation (in terms of 𝑎2):
2 ∙ 𝑎12 + 2 ∙ 𝑎1 ∙ 𝑎2 + 2 ∙ 𝑎2
2 = 1 ⇒
𝑎22 + 𝑎1 ∙ 𝑎2 + (𝑎1
2 −1
2) = 0 ⇒
𝑎2 =1
2∙ [−𝑎1 ±√𝑎1
2 − 4 ∙ (𝑎12 −
1
2)] ⇒
𝑎2 =1
2∙ [−𝑎1 ±√2− 3 ∙ 𝑎1
2] (𝐴1.8)
Since we have restricted our discussion to real-valued eigenvectors, we must have:
|𝑎1| ≤ √2
3 (𝐴1.9)
This assumption also guarantees that 𝜉 =2𝑎1+𝑎2
2𝑎2+𝑎1 is well defined.
Indeed: 2 ∙ 𝑎2 + 𝑎1 = [−𝑎1 ±√2 − 3 ∙ 𝑎12] + 𝑎1 = ±√2− 3 ∙ 𝑎1
2 ≠ 0 for |𝑎1| < √2
3 so that the
option of setting |𝑎1| = √2
3 is excluded.
In summary,
|𝑎1| < √2
3 (𝐴1.10𝑎)
𝑎2 =1
2∙ [−𝑎1 ± √2− 3 ∙ 𝑎1
2] (𝐴1.10𝑏)
𝑎3 = −(𝑎1 + 𝑎2) (𝐴1.10𝑐)
𝑏1 = ±1
√2 ∙ (1 − 𝜉 + 𝜉2) (𝐴1.10𝑑)
138
𝜉 =2𝑎1 + 𝑎22𝑎2 + 𝑎1
(𝐴1.10𝑒)
𝑏2 = −𝜉 ∙ 𝑏1 (𝐴1.10𝑓)
𝑏3 = −(𝑏1 + 𝑏2) = (𝜉 − 1) ∙ 𝑏1 (𝐴1.10𝑔)
If we now set: 𝑎1 = 0, we get:
𝑎2 = ±√2
2 , 𝑎3 = −𝑎2 , 𝜉 = +
1
2 , 𝑏2 = −
1
2∙ 𝑏1 , 𝑏1 = ±√
2
3 , 𝑏3 = −
1
2∙ 𝑏1
The choices of signs give us 8 −posibilities which are all the Clarke transform, namely:
[±1 0 00 ±1 00 0 ±1
] ∙
[
1
√30 √
2
3
1
√3
√2
2−1
2∙ √2
3
1
√3−√2
2−1
2∙ √2
3
]
(𝐴1.11)
In addition we can exchange the roles of the 2nd and 3rd columns, and we can permute the order of
all 3 −rows: all these are essentially the same transformation. ∎
APPENDIX II
Relations between Real and Imaginary Parts of a Causal Transfer Function
Let ℎ(𝑡) be a real-valued, causal and stable impulse response of an LTI system, with
transfer function 𝐻(𝑠) so that it is analytic in 𝑅𝑒{𝑠} > −𝑎 for some 𝑎 > 0. Define the symmetric
and skew-symmetric components of ℎ(𝑡), i.e.,
ℎ𝑒(𝑡) ≜1
2∙ [ℎ(𝑡) + ℎ(−𝑡)] (𝐴2.1𝑎)
ℎ𝑜(𝑡) ≜1
2∙ [ℎ(𝑡) − ℎ(−𝑡)] (𝐴2.1𝑏)
where ℎ𝑒(0) = ℎ(0) and ℎ0(0) = 0. The Fourier transform of (A2.1) yields:
𝐻𝑒(𝑗𝜔) =1
2∙ [ 𝐻(𝑗𝜔) + 𝐻∗(𝑗𝜔) ] = 𝑅𝑒{ 𝐻(𝑗𝜔) } (𝐴2.2𝑎)
𝐻𝑜(𝑗𝜔) =1
2∙ [ 𝐻(𝑗𝜔) − 𝐻∗(𝑗𝜔) ] = 𝑗 ∙ 𝐼𝑚{ 𝐻(𝑗𝜔) } (𝐴2.2𝑏)
where “*” denotes the complex conjugate and ∫ ℎ(−𝑡)𝑒−𝑗𝜔𝑡𝑑𝑡+∞
−∞= ∫ ℎ(𝑢)𝑒𝑗𝜔𝑢𝑑𝑢
+∞
−∞= 𝐻∗(𝑗𝜔)
for a real-valued function ℎ(𝑡). Since ℎ(𝑡) is one sided, we have
𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑡) ∙ ℎ(𝑡) = {ℎ(𝑡), 𝑡 > 0 0, 𝑡 ≤ 0
(𝐴2.3)
because, by definition, 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(0) = 0. Moreover:
𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑡) ∙ ℎ(−𝑡) = { 0, 𝑡 ≥ 0 −ℎ(−𝑡), 𝑡 < 0
(𝐴2.4)
In other words 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑡) ∙ ℎ(𝑡) = ℎ(𝑡) and 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑡) ∙ ℎ(−𝑡) = −ℎ(−𝑡) except for 𝑡 = 0.
Consequently, for all 𝑡,
𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑡) ∙ ℎ𝑒(𝑡) =1
2∙ [ ℎ(𝑡) − ℎ(−𝑡) ] = ℎ𝑜(𝑡) (𝐴2.5)
140
Mapping this into the frequency domain results in
ℱ{ 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑡) } =2
𝑗𝜔≜ 𝐺(𝑗𝜔) (𝐴2.6)
and
𝐻𝑜(𝑗𝜔) = 𝐺(𝑗𝜔) ∗ 𝐻𝑒(𝑗𝜔) = ∫2
𝑗(𝜔 − 𝑢)
+∞
−∞
∙ 𝐻𝑒(𝑗𝜔)𝑑𝑢
2𝜋 (𝐴2.7)
where “*” denotes linear convolution. This provides us with a relation between 𝑅𝑒{ 𝐻(𝑗𝜔) } and
𝐼𝑚{ 𝐻(𝑗𝜔) } viz.,
𝐼𝑚{ 𝐻(𝑗𝜔) } = −1
𝜋∫
1
𝜔 − 𝑢∙ 𝑅𝑒{ 𝐻(𝑗𝑢) }𝑑𝑢
+∞
−∞
(𝐴2.8)
Because of the singularity at 𝑢 = 𝜔 this integral has to be interpreted as the Cauchy
principal value. The relation described by (A2.8) can be converted to integration in [0, +∞) instead
of (−∞,+∞). Notice that
∫1
𝜔 − 𝑢∙ 𝑅𝑒{ 𝐻(𝑗𝑢) }𝑑𝑢
0
−∞
= ∫1
𝜔 + 𝑣∙ 𝑅𝑒{ 𝐻(−𝑗𝑣) }𝑑𝑣
+∞
0
(𝐴2.9)
But, since ℎ(𝑡) is real, 𝑅𝑒{ 𝐻(−𝑗𝑣)} = 𝑅𝑒{ 𝐻(𝑗𝑣)} so that
𝐼𝑚{ 𝐻(𝑗𝜔) } = −1
𝜋[∫
1
𝜔 − 𝑢∙ 𝑅𝑒{ 𝐻(𝑗𝑢) }𝑑𝑢
+∞
0
+∫1
𝜔 + 𝑢∙ 𝑅𝑒{ 𝐻(𝑗𝑢) }𝑑𝑢
+∞
0
] ⇒
𝐼𝑚{ 𝐻(𝑗𝜔) } =2𝜔
𝜋∫
1
𝑢2 −𝜔2∙ 𝑅𝑒{ 𝐻(𝑗𝑢) }𝑑𝑢
+∞
0
(𝐴2.10)
Now, suppose that 𝐻(𝑠) = 𝑒𝛾(𝑠) is a causal and stable transfer function. This means that
its region of convergence (ROC) is 𝑅𝑒{𝑠} > −𝑎 for some 𝑎 > 0. Under the assumption that 𝛾(𝑠)
can be viewed as the transfer function of a causal stable system we can apply (A2.10) to 𝛾(𝑗𝜔).
141
Thus, let 𝛾(𝑗𝜔) = 𝛼(𝑗𝜔) + 𝑗 ∙ 𝛽(𝑗𝜔), so that 𝛽(𝑗𝜔) =2𝜔
𝜋∫
1
𝑢2−𝜔2∙ 𝛼(𝑗𝑢)𝑑𝑢
+∞
0, where
𝛼(𝑗𝜔) = 𝑙𝑛| 𝐻(𝑗𝜔) |.
Integration by parts, and changing the integration variable to 𝑣 ≜ 𝑙𝑛 (𝑢
𝜔) results in
𝛽(𝑗𝜔) =1
𝜋∫𝑑𝑀
𝑑𝑣∙ 𝑙𝑛 (𝑐𝑜𝑡ℎ (
|𝑣|
2))𝑑𝑣
+∞
−∞
(𝐴2.11)
where 𝑀(𝑣) = 𝛼(𝑢)|𝑢=𝜔∙𝑒𝑣 = 𝛼(𝜔 ∙ 𝑒𝑣).
In summary for any stable minimum-phase system 𝐺(𝑗𝜔), the phase ∠𝐺(𝑗𝜔) is uniquely
related to the magnitude |𝐺(𝑗𝜔)| by:
∠𝐺(𝑗𝜔) =1
𝜋∫𝑑𝑀
𝑑𝑣∙ 𝑊(𝑣)𝑑𝑣
+∞
−∞
(𝐴2.12𝑎)
𝑀(𝑣) = 𝑙𝑛 ( |𝐺(𝑢)||𝑢=𝜔∙𝑒𝑣
) = 𝑙𝑛( |𝐺(𝜔 ∙ 𝑒𝑣)| ) (𝐴2.12𝑏)
𝑊(𝑣) = 𝑙𝑛(𝑐𝑜𝑡ℎ (|𝑣|
2)) (𝐴2.12𝑐)
𝑣 ≜ 𝑙𝑛 (𝑢
𝜔) (𝐴2.12𝑑)
This result is known as Bode’s Gain-Phase Relation. ∎
REFERENCES
[1] M. Mirzaei, M.Z. Kadir, E. Moazami and H. Hizam, “Review of Fault Location Methods for Distribution Power System,” Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3),
pp. 2670-2676, 2009.
[2] F.H. Magnago and A. Abur, “Fault Location Using Wavelets,” IEEE Trans. on Power Del.,
Vol 13, No 4, pp. 1475-1480, Oct 1998.
[3] J.R. Marti, “Accurate Modelling of Frequency-Dependent Transmission Lines in
Electromagnetic Transient Simulations,” IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems.,
Vol PAS-101, No 1, pp. 147-157, Jan 1982.
[4] B. Gustavsen and A. Semlyen, “Rational approximation of frequency domain responses by
vector fitting,” IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 1052–1061, July 1999.
[5] V.K. Ingle, Digital Signal Processing using MATLAB, Bookware Companion Series, 2007.
[6] C. Lam, Hadoop in action, Manning publications, 2011.
[7] A. Morched, B. Gustavsen and M. Tartibi, “A universal model for accurate calculation of
electromagnetic transients on overhead lines and underground cables,” IEEE Trans. on
Power Del., Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 1032-1038, July 1999.
[8] F.J. Marcano and J.R. Marti, "Idempotent Line Model: Case Studies," International
Conference on Power Systems Transients (IPST), Seattle, WA, June 22–26, 1997.
[9] P.P. Vaidyanathan, Multirate Systems and Filter Banks, Prentice Hall, 1999.
[10] H. Lev-Ari and A.M. Stankovic, “Phasor Banks: Customizable Filter Banks for Robust
Dynamic Time Frequency Analysis,” 40th - North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Calgary, Canada, Sept. 2008.
[11] P. Argyropoulos, H. Lev-Ari, A.M. Stankovic, “Customizable frequency selective filter
banks for robust dynamic frequency analysis,” IEEE North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Champaign, IL, Sept. 9-11, 2012.
[12] P. Argyropoulos, H. Lev-Ari, A.M. Stankovic, “IIR Phasor Banks: Causal, delay-free,
numerically robust, customizable, uniform-DFT-like perfect reconstruction filter banks,” IEEE International Conference om Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP),
Vancouver, BC, May 26-31, 2013.
[13] A.R. Bergen and V. Vittal, Power Systems Analysis, Prentice Hall, 2000.
[14] R.A. Decarlo and P.M. Lin, Linear Circuit Analysis, Oxford University Press, 2001.
[15] K. Ogata, Discrete-time Control Systems, Prentice Hall, 1995.
143
[16] G. Strang, Linear Algebra and its applications, Brooks Cole, 2005.
[17] A.V. Oppenheim, Discrete-Time Signal Processing, Prentice Hall, 1993.
[18] R. Zeng and J. Sinsky, "Modified Rational Function Modeling Technique for High Speed
Circuits," IEEE MTT-S Int. Microwave Symp. Dig., San Francisco, CA, June 11–16, 2006.
[19] J.Bechhoefer, “Kramers-Kronig, Bode, and the meaning of zero,” Am. J. Phys 79, 1053-1059
(2011).
[20] W.S. Meyer and H.W. Dommel, “Numerical Modelling of Frequency-Dependent Transmission-Line Parameters in an Electromagnetic Transients Program,” IEEE Trans.
Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-93, pp. 1401-1409, Sept/Oct 1974.
[21] R. Cristi, Modern Digital Signal Processing, Thomson (Brooks/Cole), Pacific Grove, CA, 2004.
[22] S. Qian and D. Chen, “Discrete Gabor Transform,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., Vol. 41, No. 7,
July 1993, pp. 2429-2438.
[23] Z. Cvetkovic and M. Vetterli, “Oversampled Filter Banks,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., Vol. 46,
No. 5, pp. 1245-1255, May 1998.
[24] G.H. Golub and C.F. Van Loan, Matrix Computations, Johns Hopkins Studies in Mathematical Sciences, 3rd Edition, 1996.
[25] L.H. Thomas, Elliptic problems in linear difference equations over a network, Watson Sci.
Comput. Lab. Rept., Columbia University, New York, 1949.
[26] A.A. Samarskii, E.S. Nikolaev, Methods for solving finite-difference equations, Nauka,
Moscow, 1978.
[27] P. Argyropoulos, H. Lev-Ari and A. Abur, “Subband, Universal Line and Cable Modeling
for Robust Power System Transient Simulation,” IEEE North American Power Symposium
(NAPS), Charlotte, NC, Oct. 2015.
[28] P. Argyropoulos, H. Lev-Ari and A. Abur, “Subband Transmission Line Modelling for
Robust Power System Transient Simulation,” IEEE PES General Meeting (PES-GM),
Denver, CO, July. 2015.
[29] P. Argyropoulos and H. Lev-Ari, “Numerically Stable, Computationally Efficient, Filter
Bank Based Modeling of Transfer Functions for Power System Transient Simulation,” IEEE
Power and Energy Conference at Illinois (PECI), Urbana, IL, Feb. 2015.
[30] A. Abur, O. Ozgun and F.H. Magnago, “A Wavelet Transform Based Method for Improved
Modeling of Transmission Lines,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol 18, No 4, pp. 1432-
1438, Nov. 2003.