This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2884655, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
A Loewner Interpolation Method for Power
System Identification and Order Reduction
C. M. Rergis, Student Member, IEEE, Innocent Kamwa, Fellow, IEEE , Roni Khazaka, Senior
Member, IEEE and A.R. Messina, Fellow, IEEE
 reduction can be applied. However, in many practical
Abstract— An accurate framework for power system
identification and model order reduction based on the Loewner
matrix method is proposed. In this approach, frequency
responses corresponding to non-symmetrical non-square MIMO
transfer functions are introduced as tangential data in the
Loewner interpolation process. Such responses can be either
computed efficiently when explicit large sparse models are
available or measured when only black-box models are at
disposal.
Numerical results are discussed for a couple of well-reported
multi-machine test systems. The accuracy of the produced models
and comparison against other state-of-the-art techniques are then
discussed.
Index Terms— Frequency response, Loewner matrix, Power
systems electromechanical models, Power systems model order
reduction, System Identification.
I. INTRODUCTION
S identification and model order reduction in power
YSTEM
system linear models [1]-[2] are an active field of great
importance because of the relevance of linear control
schemes in power system models. Some works [3]-[6] to
describe the significance of the extraction of linear models for
control purposes. The key to these approaches is the
construction of highly accurate Reduced-order Models
(ROMs) in a computationally efficient way which can capture
dynamics along the electromechanical frequency range.
Reduction techniques based on linear theory, such as
truncated balanced realization [7]-[10] and moment matching
[11]-[13] have been successfully applied to power system
electromechanical models. A comprehensive presentation of
recent approaches to power system model reduction can be
found in [12]-[16].
These methods necessitate the availability of a (typically
large) model in the form of a linear system on which model
his paragraph of the first footnote will contain the date on which you
submitted your paper for review. It will also contain support information,
inclThis work was supported in part by the National Council of Science and
Technology of Mexico (CONACYT) under Grant 282178.
C. M. Rergis and A. R. Messina are with CINVESTAV, Guadalajara,
Mexico (e-mail: cmorales@gdl.cinvestav.mx; aroman@gdl.cinvestav.mx).
I. Kamwa is with Hydro-Quebec/IREQ, Power Systems and Mathematics,
Varennes, QC J3X 1S1, Canada (e-mail: kamwa.innocent@ireq.ca).
R. Khazaka is the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0E9, Canada (e-mail:
roni.khazaka@mcgill.ca).
0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
applications, the only model available is a black-box model in
the form of frequency domain data obtained using
measurements or simulation. An example of such cases is
when using proprietary models or simulation tools that do not
give access to the internal equations. For such applications,
techniques based on system identification or fitting are
needed.
Black-box modeling, system identification, and reduction
schemes have to face the absence of an explicit model to
reduce. In power systems bibliography time domain-based
techniques have been applied for monitoring and control
purposes in electromechanical oscillation studies [17]-[18].
Frequency domain based techniques such as matrix fitting [19]
have also been proposed for the extraction of network
equivalents for electromagnetic transient analyses.
Following the works of Antoulas et al. [20]-[22], a radically
different approach based on the Loewner matrix framework
has been recently proposed for rational interpolation of
frequency data. A review of this technique in the context of
linear system applications is given in [23]-[24]. In previous
works [25]-[26], Loewner matrix interpolation was shown to
be very useful for black-box macromodelling of large
microwave structures with many inputs and outputs. In the
context of power system applications, the Loewner matrix
method was first used by Gurrala [27] for modelling frequency
dependent network equivalents.
In this paper, a comprehensive framework for system
identification and model order reduction for linear power
system models based on the Loewner matrix framework is
proposed.
The main contribution of this work is to build on the aspects
of the method such as proposed on [26] as the first and
pioneering application of Loewner matrix method to power
systems electromechanical models. Results of this work focus
on the identification problem in simulation environments, but
as presented, the approach is also applicable to model
reduction schemes. An essential contribution of this work
relies on the ability of the method to identify MIMO non-
symmetric non-square linear systems, from empirical or
computed frequency response data, with more accuracy in a
particular frequency range than currently available techniques.
The document is organized as follows. Section II describes
the frequency domain interpolation framework and introduces
the Loewner method in matrix form. Section III describes the
strategies for the implementation of the Loewner method for
power systems model order reduction and identification.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2884655, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
2

Numerical results are presented in Section IV. Final comments The previous approach is especially well suited for the
appear in Section V and Section VI shows the used references. analysis of large sparse power system models. In the following
subsection, this previously described approach will be applied
II. A FREQUENCY DOMAIN INTERPOLATION FRAMEWORK in detail within the Loewner matrix method framework
In this section, the generalized realization framework is following the works from [22] and [26].
introduced. Also, the solution to this problem towards the B. A standard Loewner matrix method
Loewner matrix method is proposed. An important feature of In this section, the construction of the models form (1) to (3)
this framework relays on its applicability to both the reduction is proposed using the Loewner matrix method. For the sake of
of linear models and the extraction of linear models from brevity, only a short overview of the standard Loewner matrix
measured frequency data. framework is presented [26]. Mainly, it is focused on the main
A. The generalized realization problem steps of the algorithm in [25].
If the input-output direct relation is neglected the The application of the Loewner matrix method requires
generalized realization problem consists in constructing the frequency data of the form:
state space representations Σ:=(E,A,B,C) from the array of
data giving by the set { ( sk,H(sk) ) : {sk}i∊ ; {H(sk)}i ∊ m,p; s , H  s ,1  k  N
k k (4)
H(x)=C(xE‒A)-1B , ∀x∊{sk} }, where m and p are the number
of outputs and inputs in the model respectively. Such where each element of the set {sk}i∊ is a single frequency at
realizations have the form: which some frequency response from an unknown model
HE(s)∊ m,p is measured. In case the model is already known it
Ex  Ax  Bu can be said that {sk} is a frequency at which the transfer
(1)
y  Cx function of the model H(s)∊ m,p is sampled. N is the number
of elements of {sk}. The elements of the set (4) are appended
with the complex conjugates at negative frequencies
where x∊ n,u∊ p and y∊ m are the state, input and output
vectors respectively and {E,A}∊ n, n, B∊ n,p and C∊ m,n are
real matrices of proper dimensions. s , H  s  s , H  s   s , H  s 
k k k
H
k l l
(5)
There exists different software which can provide frequency
responses form a wide range of non-explicit models. Also, the where 1≤ l ≤ 2N, and the symbol (.)H denotes the Hermitian
frequency response of a particular transfer function can be transpose. Then, following the matrix format tangential
computed if an explicit linear model is known, or measured interpolation approach, the resulting data in (5) are partitioned
from application of low-level multi-sine probing inputs and into two sets, one containing the odd frequency samples along
frequency-domain processing of resulting synchrophasor with their complex conjugates, and the other containing the
recorded signals [28]- [29]. In either case, the first step for the even samples along with their complex conjugates:
extraction of a linear model in the generalized realization
framework will consist of obtaining the frequency response of
the desired part of the model to be captured. Then after the
s , H  s    , H   , , H  
l l k k k k (6)
construction of (1) a projection of the state vector into a
reduced basis of the form x =Txr will lead to a reduced model Considering 2N=N1+N2, with N1 and N2 the number of odd
of the form: and even frequency samples respectively. Then it is possible
to build the set of matrices
Exr  A r xr  Br u
(2) H   j   H i 
y  Cr x r  L  j ,i 
 j  i
where xr∊ r, Ē=T-1ET, Ā=T-1AT, =T-1B, and T-1T=I∊ r,r,  j H   j   i H i 
with r < n. If the pseudo inverse of matrix Ē exists, (2) takes  M  j ,i  (7)
the form:  j  i

xr  A r xr  B r u
(3)
y  Cr x r
where Ar= Ē-1Ā and Br= Ē-1 . The quality of this model can
be measured in terms of its transfer function of the form
Hr(s)= Cr(sI‒Ar)-1Br as an approximation of the transfer
function of the original model H(s)= C(sE‒A)-1B by the use
of the H-∞ norm of the difference between both of them given
by: ||H(s) ‒ Hr(s)||∞.
F  j  H   j  ,  W i  H i 
These matrices are of dimensions {L,M}∊ N¹m,N²p , F∊ N¹m,p
and W∊ m, N²p . They are called the Loewner matrix (L), the
shifted Loewner matrix (M), and the input (F) and output (W)
matrices associated with μk, and υk, respectively. Of particular
interest, the Loewner matrices form a linear subspace in the
space of all complex N1m x N2p matrices. Equivalent real
matrices can be computed regarding a similarity
transformation

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2884655, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
3

L Re  G l LG r H , M Re  G l MG r H representations. It is easy to observe that the order of the

Loewner matrices increases as more inputs, outputs and
FRe  G l F , WRe  WG r H
frequency points are used for the interpolation. Therefore the
 I p  jI p  (8) number of frequency points should be concentered in a certain
1
G r  j ,k 
I 
 p  jI p 
2 range of interest.
When a standard Loewner matrix method is performed to
1 I  jI 
 G l  j , k   I m  jI m  reduce the order of a large-scale model whose actual transfer
2 m m function is known, suitable norms can be used as metrics of
in which {Ip∊ p, Im∊ m } denote identity matrices of proper the accuracy of the obtained ROM.
dimensions, and the jk-th block element of matrices Gr and Gl Suppose the transfer function of a ROM obtained with the
correspond to the diagonal and off-diagonal elements so that Loewner matrix method using an interpolation set of
the Hermitian symmetry is preserved. frequency points {sk,H(sk,)} is given by Hr(s)| {χk,H(χk)}. The
A direct relationship between matrices (8) and a Loewner accuracy of the ROM in terms of the maximum Hankel
interpolation model of the form (1) is given by [22]: singular value of the system can be given by:

H  s   C  sE  A  B  WRe  MRe  sLRe  FRe H  s   Hr  s 

1 1
(9)   (13)
k ,H k  

Using this notion, assume now that a realization for the data
in (6) that solves the problem in IIA is given by:
LRe x L  M Re x L  FReu
(10)
y   WRe x L
with xL∊ N²p. Following strong theoretical concepts a reduced
basis is obtained using a singular value decomposition (SVD)
of the regular part of the Loewner matrix pencil, (xLRe‒MRe),
x∊{μk}∪{υk}. The wrong choice of x could lead to ill-
conditioned matrices; to avoid such thing the extraction of the
energy of the Loewner matrix is proposed for the construction
of a reduced and consistent model. The singular value
decomposition LRe = ΦΣΨH, where Σ is a diagonal matrix
containing the singular values, σ, while Φ and Ψ are
orthonormal matrices is computed. To select the order r of the
reduced model an energy criterion is given by:
 i
r
In the following section, two different approaches to the
extraction of the frequency data given in (4) are proposed. The
first approach is suitable when a linearized model of a large
sparse system is available. The second one is proposed when
such a model is not available, but the inputs of the underlying
black-box macro-model can be manipulated (empirically or by
simulation) with certain freedom using probing signals.
III. MODEL ORDER REDUCTION AND SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION
In this section, a general framework for model order
reduction and system identification of black-box macromodels
based on the Loewner matrix technique is proposed. In both
cases, the resulting models are suitable for control design.
Note that while the passivity of Loewner matrix based
macromodels has been studied in previous work such as in
[26], we do not address it in this paper. The main reason is that
passivity is important primarily in the context of transient
network simulations which is not relevant to this work.

E  i 1
 (11)
  A. Order reduction in large sparse linear models
q
j 1 j
One of the applications of the Loewner interpolation
method proposed in this work is the extraction of ROMs from
can be used, where q is the number of non-zero singular
values of LRe and ε is the percentage of the energy to be large sparse linear system models. For such purposes consider
retained (e.g., 99.9%). The model is then extracted by an a model with the form (1) is provided, then (4) is given by:
oblique projection using the two orthonormal matrices Φr and
Ψr, which are constructed by taking the first r columns of Φ, s , H  s    j , C  jE  A 
k k k
1

B

(14)
and Ψ, respectively. First, the product of the state equation in
(10) and matrix ΦrH is obtained. Then the projection xL = Ψrxr
is used to finally get a reduced order model (ROM) with a where H(sk)∊ m,p, and jωk∊ . Now consider that the
form given by: frequency domain responses from linear transfer functions can
be given as:
xr  Er 1A r x r  Er 1B r u (12)
H  jk   C  jE  A  B
1
(15)
y  Cr x r
CX B  jk 
H
where Er=Φr LReΨr, Ar=ΦrHMReΨr, Br=ΦrHFRe, and finally
Cr=-WReΨr . Notice that the matrix -1
Er always exists because By adequately expressing the matrix product with respect to
the singular value decomposition of LRe matrix is used in the the term given by XB(jωk) =( jωk E-A)-1B, it can be seen that:
construction of Φr and Ψr.
The selection of r is key for the performance of the ROMs H  jk   CXB  jk  (16)
since a bad choice of this parameter tends to lead to unstable

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2884655, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
4

m,p
with XB(jωk)∊ .Now notice that this implies a relation
given by:
 jE  A  XB  jk   B (17)
The previous form allows fast solutions for XB in terms of a
suitable sparse LU factorization as performed by references
[5], [8]. In the latter references, using sparse representations of
models of the form (1) helps to improve the efficiency of the
extraction of the controllability and observability subspaces.
In this case, it similarly helps to enhance the extraction of
linear model frequency responses. Finally, the set of data used
in the Loewner method is given as follows:
s , H  s    j , CX  j 
k k k B k
(18)
Once (18) is obtained, the proposed Loewner matrix method
introduced in section IIB can be applied to extract ROMs.
B. System Identification using frequency response
When explicit models of power system electromechanical
oscillations are not available or large-scale models lead to
linearized versions with critical numerical errors the Loewner
matrix method can be used as an identification tool to obtain
small-signal models. Consider a transient stability model of
the form
x  f  x, u 
(19)
y  g  x, u 
where again {y,g}∊ m,{x,f}∊ n, u∊ p are the output and
input vectors, respectively.
To obtain a set of tangential data to be interpolated by the
Loewner matrix method, consider a large amount of probing
test signals of the form:
u  ei sin k t  0  (20)
such that ei∊ p is the i-th column of a proper identity matrix,
ωk corresponds to a frequency of a selected range ωk ∊{χk} ,
the phase of reference is set to zero ϕ0 = 0, and α must be of a
high enough level to provide signal responses of sufficient
magnitude, e.g., above numerical or background noise floor
for actual tests, but sufficiently weak to avoid any given
nonlinear effect on (19).
Assume now that the q-th output of the model by the action
of the i-th test input yq,i will be given by:
A key point from the extraction of the frequency response is
the existence of a reliable method for phase shift
measurement. By measuring the phases in both signals (20)
and (21) the relative phase shift between them (θq,i – ϕ0) can
be detected even if the method itself generates a phase error at
the signals proving signal (e.g., ϕ0 ≠ 0). Band-limited multi-
sine signal probing associated with empirical transfer function
estimation is also an effective mean to improve phase and
magnitude accuracy [29].
The measured magnitude and phase can be collected in the i-
th column of the empirical array HE(jωk)∊ m,p for each jωk as
a complex number given by
  q ,i j q ,i 0  
 
Re  H E  jk   q ,i  Re 

e 
 (22)
  q ,i j q ,i 0  
 
Im  H E  jk   q ,i  Im 

e 

Finally, the Loewner matrix technique can be applied at the set
of data given by:
s , H  s    j , H  j .
k k k E k (23)
Again the advantage of this classical approach to measure
frequency responses relies on the freedom for selecting any
desirable frequency from any frequency range ωk ∊{χk}.
This feature is key because with a larger input-output
behavior the dimensions of the set of Loewner matrices (7)
can still provide a feasible computation of the SVD process if
the amount of interpolation data sk decreases.
Furthermore, the duration of time-domain simulations for
each signal might be significant because of the presence of ŷq,i.
However, decreasing the number of needed frequency
response components, results in a substantial reduction of the
computational effort required to build the data set.
Other well-known approaches like the use of multi-
sinusoidal probing test signals [29]-[31], and the application of
numerical transforms, could be applied to enhance the
efficiency of the frequency response extraction but are not
addressed on this document.
Drawing on the presented approaches a novel technique for
both, model order reduction and model identification based on
the Loewner matrix method is introduced. The advantages of
this method will be explored in the following section.
IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS

yq,i  yˆ q,i   q,i sin k t   q,i   q,i

(21)
where ŷq,i is the transient response of the selected output and
vanishes as time increases, βq,i represents the magnitude gain,
θq,i is the phase deviation and ηq,i is an offset value to be
removed. Several methods to estimate the parameters in this
model [29] have been successfully used in the literature, and
this is not directly addressed in the paper.
In this section, results for both, model order reduction and
identification are presented.
A flowchart showing the application of the proposed method
for power system models is presented in Fig 1. For the order
reduction case, a test network known as bips1450 [32] is used,
while for model identification the IEEE 50-machine 145-bus
test network [33] is analyzed. In this analysis, we assume that
a reliable linear model is not available for the identification
case.

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2884655, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
5

Fig. 2. H-∞ norm of the unreduced model on four different logarithmically

spaced frequency bands.

In a case A, 15 logarithmically spaced points were used for

each decade. The most significant number of changes in the
slope of the H-∞ norm appears in the first two decades.
Therefore, in a second case B, the number of logarithmically
spaced frequency points sampled was increased to 40 in the
decades {χ1} and {χ2}.
The transfer function of (24) was solved using sparse
solution techniques as discussed in section III.A, and then the
Loewner matrices (7) were built. For reference and
comparison, the Loewner matrix LRe has dimensions
LRe∊ 224,232 for case A, and LRe∊ 432,424 for case B.
The Truncated Balanced Realization (TBR) algorithm,
implemented in Matlab using the functions „balreal‟ and
„minreal,‟ reported a reduced model of order r=30 for a
Fig.1. Application of the Loewner matrix method for the extraction of threshold of 0.001 in the energy of the Hankel singular values
linear equivalents in power systems models. of the system. Considering the same value of r, the Loewner
matrix method was compared against S-LRCF-ADI [9], the
A. Order reduction of large sparse linear models extended Krylov Subspace method (E-KSM) [12], and the
In what follows, the accuracy of the produced ROMs to Fourier series (FS) approximation [11].
capture the slowest system dynamics is assessed. A brief TABLE I
description of the characteristics of bips1450 is summarized as SOME COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DIFFERENT METHODS
follows. The DAE model of this system is of the form, S-LRCF- extended FS
Loewner
method ADI KSM approx.
matrix C
[9] [12] A [11] B
 I 0  x   A11 A12   x   B1 
0 0  z    A     u type of TBR TBR moment interpolation
     21 A 22   z  B 2  (24) method based based matching
x
y  C1 C2     Du
z  execution 24.7023 (A)
time [s]* 42.9744 22.2120 229.2899 39.4081 (B)

where x∊ 1450, z∊ 9848,u∊ 4, and y∊ 4. The reference ▪iterations:

▪# Fourier
voltage signals from Itaipu, Xingo, Jacui and Tucurui power ▪shift: 10 76(contr.) ▪# samples:
coef.: 500
parameters ▪iterations:225 72(obsrv.) 57(A)
stations are the inputs to the control vector. ▪ω0:13.01
▪tolerance: 107(B)
The terminal power deviations for the same four generators rad/s
1x10-12
define the output matrix. As the model itself is just a approx. 17.439 T(A)
linearization of the original system, it is not possible to obtain flops** 875.352 T 1.260 T 11.843 T 385.895 T(B)
other input-output pairs of interest for this particular model. A
The fastest, B The simplest to implement, C The best match in the lowest
The frequency response of the H-∞ norm of the original frequency range. *Computed using (8) in a Matlab 2014 with an Intel
model is given by Fig 2. To determine the number of processor Core i5 3320M CPU @ 2.6 GHz. It is the mean of 1000 run tests.
frequency points used in the Loewner matrices, these ** Assuming sparse matrix representations are not used at any of the methods.
frequency data can be analysed. The different decades in the
response were referred to as {χ1},{χ2},{χ3},{χ4}.

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2884655, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
6

Three different tests were performed. Test no.1 aimed to

analyse the ability of the proposed technique to identify
MIMO linear systems with many input and outputs. In test
no.2, the performance of the proposed technique was
compared against two methods widely used in both industry
and research. Finally, test no.3 assessed the performance of
the proposed technique for the extraction of accurate models
in a specific frequency range of interest.

1) Preliminary test: Extraction of the frequency response

Fig. 3. a) Comparison between the maximum singular value for the Full
Model and the ROM produced by S-LRFC-ADI [9], non-sparse version of
Extended Krylov Subspace [12], Fourier Series Approximation [11] and the
Loewner technique as described in Section II. b) Errors in %.
As a first step, frequency domain data was obtained from
time domain simulations. In these studies, the input signals are
the machine mechanical power and the exciter reference
voltages; the output signals are the bus voltage magnitudes.
Single-sine probing signals of the form (20) were injected, one
at a time, for each input. The signals corresponded to each
frequency ωk from a set of 20 logarithmically spaced
frequency points at each decade from 10-2 to 102 rad/sec.
At each step of the nonlinear simulation in [36], the system
was excited with the probing forcing input functions using the
PSTV3 scripts „mex_sig.m‟ and „pm_sig.m‟ in Matlab.
To avoid triggering saturation and retain only linear
behavior, a set of tests searching for superposition were
conducted. From these analyzes a value α = 0.001 pu was
found to provide satisfactory results.

Fig. 3 shows a comparison between the H-∞ norm of the

original model and the ROMs of the mentioned methods.
It appears that the Loewner technique achieves better results,
matching more accurately the low-frequency band dynamics
though using multiple frequency points around the selected
frequency range. This stands as an important feature for power
systems electromechanical models where low-frequency
ranges are of interest.
Table I presents a comparison of the Loewner matrix method
against the other three mentioned methods regarding CPU
time for case A and case B.
In the following subsection, a study of identification is
performed in the IEEE-50 machine test system.

B. Identification of linear equivalents using frequency

responses
In the context of linear control schemes, a more interesting
application for the Loewner matrix method is related to its
performance for black-box system identification [4]. In this
study, three different tests were performed on the IEEE 50
machine, 145-bus, test system [33], which is available at [34].
Machines 1-6 are represented with 4th order models, while the
rest of the machines are described by classical models. The
data of the exciters of the first six machines are available at
reference [35].
The Power System Toolbox (PSTv3) in Matlab [36], [37]
was used to perform non-linear simulations. For this study, the
system model is assumed to be a nonlinear black box model of
the form (19), and the resulting identified model is a linearized Fig. 4. Frequency response comparison: input = Vref1 , output =ω1. The orange
representation of it at the current operating point. A 0.01 sec line corresponds to the actual frequency response of the linear model provided
integration time step was adopted for all simulations in the by „PSTV3‟ [36]-[37]. The black dashed line corresponds to the measured
study. frequency response. Error in % is shown at the bottom.

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2884655, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
The first parts of all the signals were cut off from the
records to capture only the steady-state behavior, considering
that all the transient dynamics with damping higher than
1.75% had already died away.
The magnitude gain and the phase shift measured at the
output signals associated with an input at a giving frequency
ωk correspond to a sample of the linear transfer function of the
model at that specific frequency.
To compute (22) the fast Fourier transform was applied to
all input and output signals. It should be stressed that, even if a
Hann window was used, the ratio (βq,i/α) and the phase
difference (θq,i -ϕ0) are able to extract the required information
for the construction of (23).
From the set (23), considering the Nyquist frequency, all
samples corresponding to frequencies above 20 Hz were
ignored resulting in N=64 frequency points.
Fig. 4 depicts the match between the measurements and the
frequency response of a linearized model obtained using the
„svm_mgen.m‟ script for the same given input-output pair, and
at the same frequency points.
Fig. 5. H-∞ norm of the linearized and identified model by Loewner matrix
method.
Fig. 6. Comparison between the linearized model eigenvalues and the
identified model eigenvalues.
2) Test no. 1: Extraction of MIMO linear models
For this first test, the frequency response measurements
derived in the previous section were used. The Loewner
matrix method was applied considering 50 inputs and 195
outputs corresponding to all generator mechanical power
references as inputs, and all generator speed deviations and
voltage magnitude response signals at all 145 buses in the
network as outputs.
0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
7
The Loewner matrices were built based on the approach in
(7). For reference, the reported Loewner matrix had
dimensions LRe∊ 12480,3200.
Giving these parameters and using the criterion in (13) set
to a tolerance corresponding with the value ε =1 x 10-4, the
order of the obtained adjusted model was found to be r =117
(for reference the non-linear system has 118 states).
Figs. 5-6 depict frequency domain comparison and a map of
the eigenvalues of the linearized version of the system versus
the identified Loewner model respectively. Notice that an
attempt to capture the same number of inputs and outputs in a
time domain based realization technique will raise enormous
computational issues.
The associated high dimensions of equivalent Hankel based
models would generate out-of-memory errors (in Matlab),
solved by reducing the number of time domain samples, at the
cost of losing frequency domain resolution by undersampling
time-domain responses.
3) Test no.2: Comparison against other techniques
To compare against other identification methods described
in the power systems literature a new test was performed.
Using a similar procedure as before new frequency responses
were extracted using the reference voltage of the six modeled
exciters as inputs and the same outputs as the previous case.
Two main methods were taken as baselines; the first one is
the eigensystem realization algorithm (ERA) [17], [38]-[39],
which is a reliable classical technique that has been applied
successfully for the same problem presented in this work.
Two different versions of ERA were implemented, the
most basic version reported in reference [39] which uses
impulse responses (A), and a version that can be implemented
in practical cases [17],[36]. The later uses responses to pulse
inputs with specified short duration instead of impulse
responses for model extraction (B).
The second method is a modified version of the matrix
fitting technique [19], [38], this method was chosen as a
reference because the same data used by Loewner matrix
method can be used for the extraction of a model. It is also the
most popular method within the frequency-domain network
equivalent research group [40], whose main goal is developing
simulation tools for large-scale power system electromagnetic
transient studies.
For the first case of the ERA method, namely ERAA, the
procedure was implemented as it appears in reference [39].
The use of a unit impulse may introduce nonlinear behavior in
the system response; to extract linear responses, the magnitude
of the prove impulse (Kronecker delta) was then scaled to
a=0.01 pu according to the results of several superposition
tests.
As the linear model of the system is available, the general
gain of the system was computed, and a correction factor for
the range of interest was applied to the identified model. Since
this method is the only method using an excitation close to an
actual impulse response, it was used as ERA benchmark
reference.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2884655, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
8

For the second version of ERA, namely ERAB, time domain Also, notice a mismatch in the ERA cases for lower
solutions of the model were obtained for a probing signal frequencies. Fig. 8 and Table III provide an insight of the
corresponding to a 0.01 pu amplitude pulse of a duration of captured eigenvalues for the three techniques.
0.2 seconds. In both cases, these probing inputs were injected
at the six voltage reference of the modeled exciters. A linearity
test was also performed to asses that only linear behavior was
excited by the signals. A total of 14 seconds for each
simulation was retained using an integration step of 0.05
seconds. These settings were adopted for both cases, ERAA
and ERAB to simulate enough time span to reach the steady-
state conditions, while obtaining Hankel matrices whose
dimensions remain small enough to allow SVD to fit into
memory limits.
For the Loewner matrix method, all the proving signals and
parameters were set to be the same values as in the previous
tests no 1. The only differences were the selected inputs and
outputs, which in this case are the same as specified above in
ERA methods.
For model identification using matrix fitting method, the
code related to [40] was modified to work with non-
symmetrical non-square transfer functions H(s) instead of the
typical admittance matrix for which the original code was
developed. The same frequency points (N=64) used in the
Loewner case were chosen for the matrix fitting.
TABLE II
SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DIFFERENT METHODS
matrix Loewner Fig. 7. a) H-∞ norm of the linearized and identified model by Loewner matrix
method ERAA ERAB method (teal) the ERA method (black & blue) and Matrix fitting method (red).
fitting matrix
b) Error in percentage.
type of time time frequency frequency
method domain domain domain domain

threshold *** 99.99% 99.99%

- 99.99%
1x10-2 1x10-3
order of the
r=130 r=70 r=40 r=41
model

probing { { ( ) ( )
input** ( )

signals per 1 1 64+ 64+

input

dimensions
of a basis Hkl∊ 27300,840
Hkl∊ 27300,840
X∊ 48010
LRe∊ 12484,384

matrix*
*Implies the SVD of the Hankel matrices (Hkl) and the Loewner matrix
(LRe); and the mean square solution of the vector X. ** α=0.001, a=0.01. ***
Given by the percentage of the energy of a basis matrix. +For the extraction of
the frequency response.
The selected order of approximation for matrix fitting was
set to r =40 to be consistent with the results for the Loewner
case. The iterations were set to it =5. The same weight wht = 1
was applied to all frequencies. Table II depicts a comparison
of the signals and other characteristics of the different
methods, such as the number of signals per input or
dimensions of the bases for the extraction of linear models.
Fig. 7 shows for reference the comparison between the
linearized models and the three identification H-∞ norms. As
shown, more iteration is needed in the Matrix fitting identified
system in order to obtain a better match between the norms.
Fig. 8. Comparison of eigenvalues between the linearized model and the
identified models Loewner (teal), ERA (black & blue) and Matrix fitting
(red).
Observe that time-domain-solution based methods such as
ERAB, a practical version of ERA, requires fewer simulations.
(Table II). However, the match obtained in the linear modes
for the proposed version is higher. Notice also, for this case,
with the same information the Matrix fitting method obtained
less accuracy in the identification of the corresponding linear
modes.
4) Test no.3: Extraction of equivalents for a given frequency
band
In this final test, the frequency range of interest was set to
0-0.1 Hz, in the aim of capturing all frequency modes in the
range of the common low-frequency oscillation mode (global
system-wide mode) which is a challenging task for currently
available identification techniques.

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2884655, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 9

TABLE III
SLOWEST IDENTIFIED EIGENVALUES AT THE DIFFERENT MODELS
Loewner matrix
linearized model ERAA[39]* ERAB [38]
matrix fitting [40]
-0.4934± j0.3437 -0.4934± j0.3438 -0.4890 ± j0.3263 - -
-0.2971± j0.3763 -0.2971± j0.3763 -0.2968± j0.3769 - -0.3059± j0.3845
-0.3351± j0.4554 -0.3349± j0.4554 -0.3338± j0.4550 -0.3330± j0.4538 -0.3506± j0.4139
-0.6079 ± j0.5233 -0.6106± j0.5216 -0.6256± j0.5269 -0.6056± j0.4852 -
-0.4194 ± j0.5307 -0.4194 ± j0.5308 -0.4175± j0.5318 - -0.4104± j0. 5094
-0.6653 ± j0.7137 -0.6646 ± j0.7148 -0.6805± j0.6908 -0.6885± j0.7386 -0.6218± j0. 7314
*Benchmark for reference
methodology is that of the stability analysis of large power
Using the same procedure for the extraction of the frequency system models subject to severe topology changes.
response of the system and considering the same inputs and Hence, its application for control purposes, tuning, and
outputs again as in test no. 2, a new set {χk} was defined using validation, in a wide geographical area over a wide frequency
only 4 logarithmically spaced frequency points between the range is straightforward. Extracting frequency responses at
values of 10-1 and 1 rad/sec. A Loewner method based state- different frequency points enables a single frequency control
space model was constructed to capture 99.99% of the energy model covering inter-area, local modes and other frequency
in the singular values of the Loewner matrix. The order of the ranges of interest; with high accuracy in each band.
obtained adjusted model was found to be r =15. Fig. 9 shows Furthermore, the arbitrary selection of input injection points
the match between the modes of the actual linearized model makes the previous concept suitable for tuning all kinds of
and the obtained Loewner based model for this test. modulation based controls such as HVDC, renewable energy
or smart loads controls.
Finally, giving the ability of the method to extract models
with a considerable number of inputs and outputs, independent
system operators can better locate oscillations sources for
different topologies.

V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we developed and tested a new model
reduction and linear black-box system identification scheme
designed for capturing electromechanical dynamics of large
power systems, based on Loewner matrix interpolation. The
new approach can handle large non-square multi-input multi-
output systems, using computed or measured frequency
Fig. 9. Comparison between the exact linearized model and Loewner based response data. Its application to electromechanical models was
model eigenvalues corresponding to four logarithmically spaced frequency evaluated extensively on large-scale multi-machine examples
points in the range 0.1-1 rad/sec.
TABLE IV and then compared with and shown to be superior to the
5 LARGEST RESIDUES FOR THE MODE @ 0 .52 RAD/SEC (WORST MATCH) current state of the art techniques, especially the popular
original captured
input output matrix fitting method when both are provided with the same
residue residue
frequency response data. In particular, the proposed method
1 0.2229∟30.79° 0.2200∟30.37° VREF5 ||V|| BUS #110
2 0.1975∟43.21° 0.1856∟41.59° VREF5 ||V|| BUS #93 was able to reduce or identify the large systems and extract the
3 0.1901∟38.11° 0.1794∟36.59° VREF5 ||V|| BUS #33 target natural modes with high fidelity using a relatively small
4 0.1901∟38.11° 0.1794∟36.59° VREF5 ||V|| BUS #35 number of frequency data samples.
5 0.1893∟38.11° 0.1787∟36.59° VREF5 ||V|| BUS #34
Even though presented results focused on the extraction of
Table IV shows the captured residues corresponding to the the modes of a particularly challenging frequency range
mode with the worst match for the frequency range of interest. related to system frequency-response control, the user can
Notice that the Loewner matrix associated to this case is of select any frequency band of interest in the proposed method
dimensions LRe∊ 780,24 proving that, provided that accurate quite arbitrarily to retain desirable information. The previous
frequency response data is available, the Loewner matrix makes the technique suitable for different intended purposes,
method potentially results in an adequate identification of the based on selective, logarithmically spaced, frequency response
dynamics of interest for control proposes with lower data.
computational effort than other comparable techniques. The drawback of the presented approach when dealing with
5) Discussion system identification is the need for effective strategies to
Loewner matrix method allows the extraction of a linear compute or measure frequency responses of the power system
model from a set of data from multiple frequency ranges at the under consideration. Another related issue is the lack of an a
same time. Linear models extracted by this method can priori strategy for selecting the number of needed frequency
provide insight into the system stability characteristics where domain samples achieved a given level of model accuracy.
conventional small signal analysis is not feasible. A particular These critical aspects of the method are left out as open
scenario of interest envisaged for the application of this research topics for now.

0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2884655, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
REFERENCES
[1] J. H. Chow, “Power Systems Coherency and Model Reduction,” Springer,
New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2013, pp. 1-9.
[2] U.D. Annakkage, N.C. Nair, Y. Liang, et al.: “Dynamic system
equivalents: a survey of available techniques”, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv.,
vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 411–42, 2012.
[3] I. Kamwa, G. Trudel and L. Gerin-Lajoie (1995), "Low-order black-box
models for control system design in large power systems," Proceedings of
Power Industry Computer Applications Conference, Salt Lake City, UT,
USA, pp. 190-198.
[4] D. Rimorov, A. Heniche, I. Kamwa, S. Babaei, G. Stefopolous and B.
Fardanesh, "Dynamic performance improvement of New York state
power grid with multi-functional multi-band power system stabiliser-
based wide-area control," IET Gener. Transm. Dis., vol. 11, no. 18, pp.
4537-4545, Dec 2017
[5] R. Eriksson and L. Soder, "Wide-area measurement system-based
subspace identification for obtaining linear models to centrally coordinate
controllable devices," IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 988-
997, April 2011.
[6] J. Zhang, C. Lu and Y. Han, "MIMO identification of power system with
low level probing tests: applicability comparison of subspace methods,"
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2907-2917, Aug. 2013.
[7] G. Troullinos and J.F. Dorsey., “Application of balanced realizations to
power system equivalents,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol.30, no.4,
pp.414,416, Apr 1985.
[8] B. Marinescu, B. Mallem and L. Rouco (2007), "Model reduction of
interconnected power systems via balanced state-space
representation," European Control Conference (ECC), 2007, Kos, pp.
4165-4172.
[9] F. D. Freitas, J. Rommes and N. Martins, “Gramian-based reduction
method applied to large sparse power system descriptor models”, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23, no. 3., pp. 1258-1270, 2008.
[10] D. Chaniotis and M. A. Pai, “Model reduction in power systems using
Krylov subspace methods,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 20, no. 2, pp.
888–894, May 2005.
[11] C. M. Rergis, A. R. Messina and R. J. Betancourt (2016). "Fourier-based
accurate reduced-order model for Linear power systems
applications," 2016 IEEE PES Transmission & Distribution Conference
and Exposition-Latin America (PES T&D-LA), Morelia, pp. 1-6.
[12] Z. Zhu, G. Geng and Q. Jiang. “Power system dynamic model reduction
based on extended Krylov subspace method”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 4483-4494, 2016.
[13] G. Scarciotti, "Low computational complexity model reduction of power
systems with preservation of physical characteristics," IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 743-752, Jan. 2017.
[14] J. Qi, J. Wang, H. Liu and A. D. Dimitrovski, "Nonlinear Model
Reduction in Power Systems by Balancing of Empirical Controllability
and Observability Covariances," in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 114-126, Jan. 2017.
[15] M. K. Transtrum, A. T. Sarić and A. M. Stanković, "Measurement-
Directed Reduction of Dynamic Models in Power Systems," in IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 2243-2253, May 2017.
[16] C. Sturk, L. Vanfretti, Y. Chompoobutrgool and H. Sandberg,
"Coherency-independent structured model reduction of power
systems," 2015 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, Denver,
CO, 2015, pp. 1-1.
[17] I. Kamwa, R. Grondin, E. J. Dickinson and S. Fortin, "A minimal
realization approach to reduced-order modelling and modal analysis for
power system response signals," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8, no. 3,
pp. 1020-1029, Aug 1993.
[18] J. J. Sanchez-Gasca and J. H. Chow, "Performance comparison of three
identification methods for the analysis of electromechanical
oscillations," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 995-1002, Aug
1999.
[19] B. Gustavsen and A. Semlyen, "Rational approximation of frequency
domain responses by vector fitting", IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 14,
no. 3, pp. 1052-1061, July 1999.
0885-8950 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
10
[20] A. C. Antoulas and B. D. Q. Anderson. "On the scalar rational
interpolation problem." IMA J. Math. Control I., vol. 3, no. 2-3, pp. 61-
88, 1986.
[21] A. J. Mayo, A. C. Antoulas, “A framework for the solution of the
generalized realization problem,” Linear Algebra and its Applications
425, pp. 634-662 (2007).
[22] S. Lefteriu and A. C. Antoulas, "A new approach to modeling multiport
systems from frequency-domain data," IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided
Design Integr. Circuits Syst., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 14-27. Jan. 2010.
[23] P. Benner, S. Gugercin, and K. Willcox. "A survey of projection-based
model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems." SIAM
review, vol 57, no.4, pp.483-531, 2015.
[24] A. C. Antoulas, “Approximation of large-scale dynamical systems”.
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics SIAM, Houston, TX,
USA: Rice University Press, 2005,pp. 1-489.
[25] M. Kabir and R. Khazaka , "Macromodeling of distributed networks from
frequency-domain data using the Loewner matrix approach," IEEE
Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 3927-3938. Dec.
2012.
[26] M. T. Kassis, M. Kabir, Y. Q. Xiao and R. Khazaka, "Passive reduced
order macromodeling based on Loewner matrix interpolation," IEEE
Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 2423-2432. Aug. 2016.
[27] G. Gurrala, "Loewner matrix approach for modelling FDNEs of power
systems." Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 125, pp. 116-123, 2015.
[28] J. W. Pierre, N. Zhou, F. K. Tuffner, J. F. Hauer, D. J. Trudnowski and
W. A. Mittelstadt, "Probing Signal Design for Power System
Identification," in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 2,
pp. 835-843, May 2010.
[29] K. Gurudatha Pai and J. W. Pierre, "Statistical analysis of empirical
magnitude and phase response estimates with applications to power
system identification," 2011 North American Power Symposium, Boston,
MA, 2011, pp. 1-7.
[30] R. Achar and M. S. Nakhla, "Simulation of high-speed interconnects,"
in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 693-728, May 2001.
[31] T. L. Vandoorn, F. M. De Belie, T. J. Vyncke, J. A. Melkebeek and P.
Lataire, "Generation of multisinusoidal test signals for the identification
of synchronous-machine parameters by using a voltage-source inverter,"
in IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 430-439, Jan. 2010.
[32] Rommes J. 2006. Homepage of Joost Rommes. [Online] Available at:
https://sites.google.com/site/rommes/software. Accessed on Jan 11,2018.
[33] Chairman: V. Vittal, "Transient stability test systems for direct stability
methods," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 37-43, Feb 1992.
[34] Power Systems Test Case Archive, 50 Generator Dynamic Test Case.
[Online] Available at:
https://www2.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca/dyn50/pg_tcadd50.htm.
Accessed on Jan 03 2018.
[35] S. Liu, “Assessing placement of controller and nonlinear behavior of
electrical power system using normal form information ,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Dept. Elec. and Comp. Eng., Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA,
USA, 2006.
[36] J. H. Chow and K. W. Cheung, "A toolbox for power system dynamics
and control engineering education and research," IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1559-1564, Nov 1992.
[37] Power Systems Toolbox Webpage [Online] Available at:
http://www.eps.ee.kth.se/personal/vanfretti/pst/Power_System_Toolbox_
Webpage/PST.html. Accessed on Jan 03 2018.
[38] I. Kamwa and L. Gerin-Lajoie, "State-space system identification-toward
MIMO models for modal analysis and optimization of bulk power
systems," in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
326-335, Feb. 2000.
[39] J.-N. Juang, Applied System Identification. New Jersey, USA: PTR
Prentice-Hall, 1994, pp. 133–147.
[40] B. Gustavsen, "Computer code for rational approximation of frequency
dependent admittance matrices," in IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 17,
no. 4, pp. 1093-1098, Oct 2002..