Comparison of Extrapolation Methods for Truncated Cable Response Transfer Functions Used in De-Embedding Time-Domain Measurements

IF 1 Q4 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC IEEE Letters on Electromagnetic Compatibility Practice and Applications Pub Date : 2022-01-25 DOI:10.1109/LEMCPA.2022.3145340
David Martinez;Fernando Albarracin-Vargas;Juan Galvis;Gideon N. Appiah;Felix Vega;Chaouki Kasmi;Nicolas Mora
{"title":"Comparison of Extrapolation Methods for Truncated Cable Response Transfer Functions Used in De-Embedding Time-Domain Measurements","authors":"David Martinez;Fernando Albarracin-Vargas;Juan Galvis;Gideon N. Appiah;Felix Vega;Chaouki Kasmi;Nicolas Mora","doi":"10.1109/LEMCPA.2022.3145340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This letter presents a comparison of three extrapolation methods used to reconstruct the missing parts of truncated cable response transfer functions (TFs) used to de-embed measured transient electromagnetic signals. In the first method (M1), the magnitude of the known TF at the extreme frequencies is kept constant for all the unknown frequencies. The second method (M2) uses a linear extrapolation of the magnitude of the known TF at the highest frequency and a decade earlier. The third method (M3) uses the known portions of the TF to extract its minimum phase function, using the discrete Hilbert transform integrals. The performance of the three methods is analyzed for different rise times of the incident field and with practical signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the oscilloscope input. For noise-free signals, M1 and M2 outperform M3 for almost all the considered rise times. On the other hand, the three methods produce errors within the same order of magnitude for noised signals. Given the complexity and computational time required to implement M3, it is suggested that M1 or M2 are used in practical applications.","PeriodicalId":100625,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Letters on Electromagnetic Compatibility Practice and Applications","volume":"4 1","pages":"16-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Letters on Electromagnetic Compatibility Practice and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9690944/","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This letter presents a comparison of three extrapolation methods used to reconstruct the missing parts of truncated cable response transfer functions (TFs) used to de-embed measured transient electromagnetic signals. In the first method (M1), the magnitude of the known TF at the extreme frequencies is kept constant for all the unknown frequencies. The second method (M2) uses a linear extrapolation of the magnitude of the known TF at the highest frequency and a decade earlier. The third method (M3) uses the known portions of the TF to extract its minimum phase function, using the discrete Hilbert transform integrals. The performance of the three methods is analyzed for different rise times of the incident field and with practical signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the oscilloscope input. For noise-free signals, M1 and M2 outperform M3 for almost all the considered rise times. On the other hand, the three methods produce errors within the same order of magnitude for noised signals. Given the complexity and computational time required to implement M3, it is suggested that M1 or M2 are used in practical applications.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
去嵌入时域测量中截断电缆响应传递函数外推方法的比较
这封信对用于重建截断电缆响应传递函数(TF)缺失部分的三种外推方法进行了比较,截断电缆响应传输函数用于嵌入测量的瞬态电磁信号。在第一种方法(M1)中,对于所有未知频率,在极端频率处的已知TF的幅度保持恒定。第二种方法(M2)使用在最高频率和十年前的已知TF的幅度的线性外推。第三种方法(M3)使用TF的已知部分来提取其最小相位函数,使用离散希尔伯特变换积分。分析了三种方法在不同入射场上升时间和示波器输入实际信噪比下的性能。对于无噪声信号,M1和M2在几乎所有考虑的上升时间上都优于M3。另一方面,这三种方法对噪声信号产生相同数量级的误差。考虑到实现M3所需的复杂性和计算时间,建议在实际应用中使用M1或M2。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
2025 Index IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatiblity Practice and Applications Table of Contents Front Cover Editorial: Message From the Editor-in-Chief IEEE ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY SOCIETY
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1