Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Diagonalization of Impedance Matrix

Status
Not open for further replies.

pancho_hideboo

Advanced Member level 5
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,847
Helped
767
Reputation
1,536
Reaction score
732
Trophy points
1,393
Location
Real Homeless
Activity points
17,490
Generally an impedance matrix [Z] is a complex symmetrical matrix.
It is neither a real symmetrical matrix nor a Hermitian matrix.

However a complex impedance matrix [Z] can be diagonalized.
I don't think any impedance matrix [Z] can be diagonalized.
How can I interpret whether diagonalization is possible or not physically >
 

Diagonalization is only possible iff there exists a complete set of eigenvectors.

Is [Z] a Hermitian matrix?

See Horn and Johnson's Matrix Analysis.
 

Diagonalization is only possible iff there exists a complete set of eigenvectors.
I know such very basic thing.

Is [Z] a Hermitian matrix?
No. [Z] is not a Hermitian matrix.

Here [Z]T means transpose of [Z], [Z]+ means conjugate transpose of [Z].

For lossless reciprocal circuit, [Z] is a pure imaginary symmetrical matrix which is a skew Hermitian Matrix at same time.
[Z]T==[Z], [Z]+==-[Z]
[Z]T*[Z]==[Z]*[Z]T, [Z]+*[Z]==[Z]*[Z]+
In this case, eigenvectors are real, eigenvalues are pure imaginary.
We can always diagonalize [Z] by Orthogonal Matrix. It is not by Unitary Matrix.

On the other hand, for reciprocal circuit with loss, [Z] is neither a real symmetrical matrix nor Hermitian Matrix. It is complex symmetrical matrix.
[Z]T==[Z], [Z]+!=[Z]
[Z]T*[Z]==[Z]*[Z]T, [Z]+*[Z]!=[Z]*[Z]+
However we can still diagonalize [Z] by Orthogonal Matrx. It is not by Unitary Matrix.

Of course, if eigenvectors are not linearly independent, diagonalization is impossible.

How can I interpret whether diagonalization is possible or not physically ?
 
Last edited:

I think it may be instructive to look at diagonalization of the matrix in the first place.

If we have such a diagonalization, then: [Z]I = Iλ, with λ being the eigenvalues and I being the currents. This means that, since the impedance matrix definition is V = [Z]I, that:

V = Iλ.

I.e., there exists a certain set of currents for which all of the corresponding voltages are related by the same value (λ, or if you prefer, a modal impedance Zm).

As to what this means physically.... good question. A series of impedances connected to all ports might do it; but I can't think what purpose it might serve.
 

Code:
Z = [2,   j,   0;
     j,   2, j*2;
     0, j*2,   2]

This [Z] is neither Hermitian, Skew-Hermitian nor Unitary, yet it is Symmetric and Normal.
This [Z] can be diagonalized by Orthogonal Matrix, [P].
Code:
[P, D] = eig(Z)

P =

   0.3162 + 0.0000i   0.8944            -0.3162          
   0.7071             0.0000 - 0.0000i   0.7071          
   0.6325 - 0.0000i  -0.4472 + 0.0000i  -0.6325 - 0.0000i


D =

   2.0000 + 2.2361i        0                  0          
        0             2.0000 - 0.0000i        0          
        0                  0             2.0000 - 2.2361i

Code:
Z = [2,   j,   0;
     j,   2, j*2;
     0, j*2,   [color=red]2.1[/color]]

This [Z] is also neither Hermitian, Skew-Hermitian nor Unitary, yet it is Symmetric.
However [Z] is not Normal.

This [Z] still can be diagonalized by [P]
However [P] is neither Unitary nor Orthogonal Matrix.
Code:
[P, D] = eig(Z)

P =

   0.3162 + 0.0057i   0.8942            -0.3162 + 0.0057i
   0.7071             0.0000 - 0.0179i   0.7071          
   0.6322 - 0.0170i  -0.4473 - 0.0000i  -0.6322 - 0.0170i


D =

   2.0400 + 2.2354i        0                  0          
        0             2.0200 + 0.0000i        0          
        0                  0             2.0400 - 2.2354i

How can I interpret ?
 
Last edited:

[P, D] = eig(Z)


(Case-1)
Z = [1, j; j, 1]
Z : Symmetric=1
Z : Hermitian=0
Z : Skew-Hermitian=0
Z : Orthogonal=0
Z : Unitary=0
Z : Normal=1

P = [0.7071,0.7071; 0.7071,-0.7071]
P : Orthogonal=1
P : Unitary=1
rank(P)=2
det(P)=-1+j*-5.88785e-017
cond(P)=1

D = [1.0000+1.0000*j,0; 0,1.0000-1.0000*j]


(Case-2)
Z = [1, j; j, 2]
Z : Symmetric=1
Z : Hermitian=0
Z : Skew-Hermitian=0
Z : Orthogonal=0
Z : Unitary=0
Z : Normal=0

P = [0.7071,-0.6124+0.3536*j; 0.6124-0.3536*j,0.7071]
P : Orthogonal=0
P : Unitary=0
rank(P)=2
det(P)=0.75+j*-0.433013
cond(P)=1.73205

D = [1.5000+0.8660*j,0; 0,1.5000-0.8660*j]


(Case-3)
Z = [1, j; j, 3]
Z : Symmetric=1
Z : Hermitian=0
Z : Skew-Hermitian=0
Z : Orthogonal=0
Z : Unitary=0
Z : Normal=0

P = [0.7071,0.7071*j; -0.7071*j,0.7071]
P : Orthogonal=0
P : Unitary=0
rank(P)=1
det(P)=2.10734e-008+j*0
cond(P)=9.49063e+007

D = [2.0000,0; 0,2.0000]

Eigenvalues are degenerated and Eigenvectors are not linearly independent in Case-3.
 

Just for example.
220px-RC_Series_Filter_%28with_V%26I_Labels%29.svg.png

For series RC circuit, [Z] can not be diagonalized at omega=2/(R*C).
 

For series RC circuit, [Z] can not be diagonalized at omega=2/(R*C).
Thanks for very good example.

Why is a diagonalization impossible in this frequency ?
What does this frequency mean?
This frequency is twice of 3-dB cutoff frequency.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top