which indicates that F(z,, z 2 ) has roots moving outside r/ at

z1=- 1 and z, =- l .
CONCLUSIONS
I n this paper, a systematic procedure for constructing entries
of the polynomial array for
n
F(x,z) = o,(x)z
JO
has been given. The polynomial array is then applied to testing
the stability o,f 2-D filters. Ths is achieved by first forming a real
polynomial F( xl, z2) from F( zi, z2 1, then constructing the ap-
propriate polynomial array for F(x,, z 2 ) and finally applying the
appropriate stability test. This procedure has been proved to be
equivalent to testing F(zl, z2) directly
The proposed procedure has some advantages and disadvan-
tages. On the negative side, the order of z2 has been doubled (but
only requires testing of up to row 2 n 2 - 2 of the array). On the
other hand, the polynomial array can be constructed systemati-
cally by a simple computer program. In addition, the transforma-
tion into real coefficient polynomial also allows many known
results in table form test for real polynomials to be applied to
2-D filters.
APPENDIX A
PROOF OF THEOKEM 2.1.
Proof: Equation (9) is obvious from (l ), (4), and (5). To
prove equation (10) we expand (5) using (9),
Ci - l ,O.kXk - 1, n - I +1 - j , k X k
- 1 k - 0 1:-0
-
ni2- n,2-
. -
0 6 U, . Y2 6 21-1
v1 +v z - k
n,2
=2 r , j , k X k
k - 0
The above expansion uses a theorem which expresses a determi-
nant, each of its elements is the sum of h terms, as the sum of h
determinants, where rn is the order of the original determinant
u11.
REFERENCES
[l ]
G. A. Maria and M. M. Fahmy, On the stability of two-dimensional
digital filters, I EEE Truns. Audi o Elecrroucout.. vol. AU-21, pp.
470-472, 1973.
B. M. Karan and M. C. Srivastava. A new t est for 2-D filters, I EEE
Truns. Circuits S.v.rr., vol. CAS-33. pp. 807-809, 1986.
121
Optimal Linear Phase Digital Filter Design by
One-Phase Linear Programming
ALFRED T. J OHNSON. J R.
A h.strucr -An improked linear programming algorithm for the design of
optimal linear phase FIR filter\ with eltra time- or frequency-domain
constraints is pre\ented. After stating the problem a\ the minimization of a
linear function of filter parameter4 with linear con,traint\. a method is
given for choosing an initial basic fea\ible \elution of the dual probleni
without the need to introduce artificial variable,. This reduce\ significantlj
the number of iterations of the re\ ised rimplex algorithm needed to reach
the optimal solution.
I . INTRODUC~ION
Linear programming has been a useful tool in the design of
linear phase digital filters, particularly when time-domain con-
straints are applied. Rabincr [l ] discusses the use of linear
programming to design linear phase FI R filters with constraints
on the peak ovcrshoot of the step response. Steiglitz [2] shows
how to satisfy monoticity constraints using linear programming.
More recently, linear programming has been used by Liang et al.
to design optimal Nyquist and related linear phase filters [3], and
Samueli [4] makes use of an algorithm based on linear program-
ming to design Nyquist filters with non-negative frequency re-
sponse. The main purpose of this paper is to show how to find an
initial basic feasible solution without the use of artificial vari-
ables. This reduces significantly the number of iterations required
to reach the optimal solution compared to the usual two phase
algorithm.
11. FORMULATING THE BASIC PROBLEM
The frequency response of a linear phase symmetric FIR
digital filter with an odd length impulse response N is
where P =( N +1)/2. In formulating the design as a linear
Manuscript received February 23. 19x9 This paper was recommended by
The author is with the Department of Electrical Engineering. School of
I EEE Log Number 89308.
Associate Editor Y C. J enq.
Engineering. Widener University. Chester. P A 1901 3.
0098-4094/90/04OO-0554$01 .OO 01990 IEEE
ILLI. IILZNSACIIONS ON CIKCUIIS ANI ) S' rSl t \Is. VOI.. 37. NO. 4. APRIL 1990 555
program, w is usually evaluated on a uniform grid
wJ =2 n j / M, J =0,1: . . . M/ 2 .
( 2 )
The grid density M is chosen to be sufficientl! large to provide
good resolution. In the examples in thi, paper M =16,V.
Let D, be the desired frequency response at frequency U,. A
tolerance is defined around each point, and the frequency re-
sponse is required to lie in the range
D, - W, r <H, <DJ +W, r , J =0,l ; . . , M/ 2
(3)
sstisficd in equality. In making this choice, however. it is impor-
tant to avoid violating the non-negativity constraints, y >0 in
(7). It will now be shown that these constraints are met if the
initial choice of basic constraints alternates between upper and
lower bounds.
From ( 5 ) . P +1 constraints are selected to be satisfied in
equality. This corresponds to choosing P +1 of the variables in
vector J ' to be basic variables. All other elements of .y are zero.
Let J', be the vector of basic variables. It is necessary to show
that >0.
. -
where HJ =H( wJ ) and W, >0 is the weighting for the tolerance
at wJ. The optimization problem may now be written
minimize r
subject to
From (7) i t is known that
B,.,=(.=[l 0 0 ... 0IT (8)
uhere B is the dimension ( P +1) square matrix containing the
columns of A corresponding to the basic variables y,. From the
definition of A given in (6), each element in the second row of B
is known to be either 1, i f the column corresponds to an upper
bound, or - 1, if the column corresponds to a lower bound. If all
active constraints are chosen to be on either an upper bound only
or on a lower bound only, then (8) implies that
/ =0,1.. . . , M/ 2 (4)
Equation (4) is a linear program in thi: P +1 Parameters - r , 1 7 0 %
h,, . . . , h,-,, subject to M +2 constraints, where ( M 7 2) >>
( P +1). This linear program can be written
- W, r +HJ <D,
maximize c7X.
subject to
J =1
ATx Q h.
x arbi trq
( 5 ) which implies further that at least one element of yB is negative.
It is necessar)., therefore, to choose at least one constraint on an
where cT is the length P +1 row vector [l 0 0 . . 01, hr is
upper bound and at least one on a lower bound. It is shown
the length M + 2 row vector [ Do " ' D M ~ - DO - D, below that choosing constraints which alternate between upper
. . ' - DM, 2 1 , x = [ - r ho h, ' . . h p - l ] , and
and lower bounds is sufficient to guarantee that y, >0.
W; , i =l
- cos2n( i -2) j / M ,
cos2m(;-2)j /M, 2 < ; ~ P+1; j i sanupperbound ( 6 )
2 <i Q P +l ; J is alower bound.
I n a standard form linear program. the number of constraints
is no greater than the number of unknouns, and so the primal
problem stated in ( 5 ) is not in standard form. The dual of ( 5 ) is
the standard form linear program [ 5]
minimize /f
subject to
A,, =c
), >0.
( 7 )
I n the application presented here, Ihe ( P +1) constraint equa-
tions in (7) contain a very large number of unknowns ( M +2) >>
( P +1). Steiglitz [2] presents a Fortran program to solve this
problem using the revised simplex method in two phases. In
Phase I, artificial variables are introduced in order to create a
feasible vertex of ( 7) , and the cost function is taken to be the sum
of the artificial variables. Phase I terminates when all of the
artifical variables have been removed from the problem. In Phase
11, the cost function is changed to the one in (7). The optimal
solution to the Phase I1 program is the optimal solution to the
primal problem given by (4) or ( 5) .
111. ONE-PHASE METHOD
A useful property relating the primal problem ( 5 ) and its dual
(7) is that every vertex of (6) is a nor t wessuri / r. feusihle vertex of
( 5 ) [ 5] . As a consequence of this property, it is easy to pick a
vertex of (6) without introducing artifical variables. One simply
chooses a set of P +1 constraints in ( 3) or ( 5 ) to be uc'ricie, i.e.,
The active constraints in ( 5 ) may be written xTB =hi , where
h, is a dimension ( P +1) vector containing the active elements of
h. Ths combined with (8) becomes
b i . v B= x T c = - r . ( 9)
Recall that the elements of h, are the desired values of the
frequency response at points in the initial basis (multiplied by
- 1 if the element corresponds to a lower bound). I t is important
to note that the desired values of the frequency response in vector
h, may be specified without affecting y B, since, as (8) shows, ye
is the first column of B- ' , and B does not depend on the desired
frequency response. Let the desired values be 0 at every fre-
quency in the basis except at one lower bound, where the desired
value is set to unity. It is shown in the next paragraph that this
choice of desired values along with constraints that alternate
between upper and lower bounds assure that r is positive.
Equation (9) now shows that the element of y, which corre-
sponds to the unity frequency sample is non-negative. Repeating
this process at all lower bounds in the basis proves that all
elements of .vB corresponding to lower bounds are non-negative.
In a similar manner, it can be shown that the elements of ~b
corresponding to upper bounds are non-negative, by choosing the
desired values to be zero except at one upper bound, where the
desired value is chosen to be - 1.
It remains to be shown that the desired values chosen in the
previous paragraph assure a positive r if the constraints alternate
between upper and lower bounds. This result follows from the
number of slope changes which the frequency response of (1)
556 I t t t TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS, VOL. 37, NO. 4, APRIL 1990
r > O
SPECIFIED VALUE -
r c O
* INTERPOLATED VALUE WITH r >0 ----
x INTERPOLATED VALUE WITH r <0
L LOWERBOUND
U UPPERBOUND
L U L U L U L U
(4
L U L U L U L U
Fig 1 Interpolation of frequency samples uith P =7. (a) Nonzero sample ispositive at lower bound (b) Nonzero sample is negative
at upper bound.
may exhibit. The slope of the frequency response
P - 1
dl / dw =- ih, sin iw, 0 <w 6 71
I =1
may exhibit no more that P ~ 2 sign changes. Let the frequency
samples corresponding to the P +I basic constraints alternate
between upper and lower bounds. If r is sufficiently positive,
H( w ) interpolates the frequency samples with no more that P - 2
sign changes in slope. However, if r <0, the frequency response
requires P - 1 slope sign changes in order to interpolate the
samples.
These results are illustrated for P =7 in Fig. 1, which all
samples but one have been chosen to be zero in accordance with
the proof above. In Fig. l(a) all sample values are assigned a zero
value except for a positive value at one lower bound. With r >0
the frequency response interpolates the data with P - 2 =5 sign
changes, but with r <0 the frequency response must undergo
P - 1 =6 sign changes to interpolate the data. In Fig. l(b) all
sample values are zero, except that a negative value is assigned to
one upper bound. The frequency response is able to interpolate
the data with only 4 sign changes with r >0 but again requires 6
sign changes if r <0. It has been shown that a sufficient condi-
tion for y, 3 0 is that basic constraints alternate between upper
and lower bounds. It should be emphasized that this argument is
unchanged if additional constraints (such as monoticity con-
straints or limits on the step response overshoot) are added, as
long as no new parameters are introduced in the primal problem
given in ( 5) .
Samueli presents an algorithm in which only P +1 constraints
are imposed (41, and these are chosen initially to alternate be-
tween the upper and lower bounds. The linear programming
problem, similar to (4), is then solved for the the filter coeffi-
cients. Since the number of constraints is equal to the number of
unknowns, this is equivalent to a matrix inversion. The frequency
response is searched for the extremal frequencies, which become
the constraint frequencies for the next iteration. The process is
repeated until the error does not decrease significantly. The main
objective is to create the effect of a very dense grid of frequencies
without having the numerical problems associated with a very
large number of constraints. The algorithm appears to require
more computation than the one presented here, particularly since
a search for the extremal frequencies is required in each iteration.
This may be worthwhile in cases where it is important to locate
the extremal frequencies very accurately, as they would normally
fall between grid points in a conventional linear programming
solution.
In the Steiglitz algorithm [2], the data needed by the revised
simplex algorithm is stored in a ( P +2) by ( P +2) matrix called
CARRY, partitioned as follows:
In dropping Phase I, it is necessary to initialize CARRY, whch
can be accomplished as follows: Referring to (5) and (7), i., =
b;B-'= x, b =K ' c , andA f =- r is the cost. Since c =
[l 0 0 . . . 0IT, then b is the first column of B- ' . Further-
more, the first element of ?, is - r . Thus the one-phase method
557
0 up u s
Fig. 2 . Typical optimal FI R low-pass frequency response.
does not require storing the first column of CARRY. The cost of
eliminating Phase I, therefore, is the cost of computing the
inverse of B. The time required to compute this inverse is
somewhat longer (between about one and two times longer, in the
authors experience) than a complete iteration of the revised
Simplex algorithm, which, in addition to the pivot, requires
testing each of the non-basic variables in (7) to find an incoming
basic variable for the next pivot.
It is expected that the number of iterations (vertices visited by
the revised simplex algorithm) required to reach the optimum is
reduced, if the initial vertex is chosen close to the optimal
solution. Thus, although any P +1 constraints may be chosen to
be initially active (as long as they alternate between upper and
lower bounds), i t is advantageous to choose constraints as close
to the optimum as possible.
IV. CHOOSING AN I NI TI AL VERTEX
The optimal solution of (7) is a feasible and optimal solution
of (4) in which the active constraints correspond to the extremal
frequencies. A typical optimal low-pass frequency response is
shown in Fig. 2. The end points of the bands are always on the
error boundary, except possibly at frequencies 0 and T. In
addition, the extremal points alternate between the upper and
lower boundaries. In the results presented here, both end points
have been included in each band in the initial estimate of the
extreme points. The total number of such points (twice the
number of bands) is subtracted from the total ( P +1 extremal
points), and the remaining points are divided among the bands in
rough proportion to the bandwidths. Within each band the
estimate of the extremal frequencics could be spaced uniformly
over frequency, but the number of iterations can be reduced by
spacing the points closer together near the band edges. No
attempt has been made to optimize the initial choice, but the
following rule (stated for two bands) has been found to work
well, and it has been used in the examples.
Let n p be the estimate of the number of extremals in the
passband, Bp and B, be the width of the passband and stop-
bands respectively (expressed as a fraction of the sampling fre-
quency), and E be the ratio of the passband tolerance to the
stopband tolerance. Then
n p = [1.91+(P-3)BP/( Bp+Bs)-0.24861nE] (10)
where [ . I denotes the nearest integer. The estimate of the ex-
tremals is
1 [ MB,(l - (1 - i/( n p - 1) ) l I]
i =0,l ; . . , P - np (Stopband)
The initial constraints are chosen to alternate between the upper
and lower bounds (according to Fig. l ), in such a way that the
highest frequency of the passband is on the lower bound and the
lowest frequency in the stopband is on the upper bound.
If the design contains additional constraints on the frequency
response (such as monoticity constraints) or time-domain con-
straints (such as limits on the peak overshoot of the step re-
sponse), the initial basis found from (10) and (11) cannot be
expected to be a good estimate of the optimal solution, but it still
produces a feasible initial basis for solving (7). In the design of
Nyquist low pass filters, an excellent initials basis can be com-
puted using a modification of the rule above. This is described
completely in Example 3.
In the examples which follow, Steiglitzs program has been
modified both to eliminate Phase I in the manner described
558
above, and, where necessary, to introduce time-domain con-
straints. All examples were executed in Microsoft Pascal using
double precision arithmetic on an IBM PC with an 8087 math
co-processor.
V. EXAMPLES
Example I : This example is based on the 33 tap low-pass
specification given by Steiglitz [2]. The passband is from 0 to 0.25
and the stopband is from 0.2969 to 0.5, where frequencies are
expressed fractions of the sampling frequency. The tolerance
weights were chosen to be 1 in the stopband and 100 in the
passband. The optimal filter has a maximum stopband gain of
- 55.911 dB. Steiglitz's algorithm requires 27 iterations in Phase I
and 81 total iterations. (Small differences from those reported in
[2] are due to a slightly different choice of grid density M) . The
one phase method requires 33 iterations. Execution times on the
IBM PC are 129 sec for the two phase Steiglitz algorithm and
57 sec for the one phase algorithm.
I n our experience, the one phase method requires about 13% to
61% as many iterations and about 20% to 65% of the execution
time required by the two phase method.
Example 2: This example is the same as example 1, except that
monoticity constraints are introduced in the passband frequency
response, as described by Steiglitz 1.21. The optimal filter has a
maximum stopband gain of - 50.228 dB. The Steiglitz algorithm
requires 58 iterations in Phase I, 112 total iterations and 257 sec
of execution time. The one-phase method requires 40 iterations
and 96 sec of execution time.
Example 3: I n this example a Nqquist (zero symbol interfer-
ence) low-pass filter is designed. Such filters have a unit pulse
response with equally spaced zero crossings. Mintzer [6] has
shown that the impulse response must obey the constraints
h,=l /L ,
h,=O, i =L .2L ;.. ( 12)
where L is the oversampling factor.
Samueli [4] points out that it i:j not necessary to impose
constraints on the passband frequency response (other than con-
straints indirectly imposed by (12)), and therefore the optimiza-
tion problem of (3) becomes
minimize r
subject to
P - l
D, - W, r Q 2 h, cos2.nij/M <D, +W, r , j E stopband
i = O
i Q I
where I ={L ,2L ,3L ;..} .
The stopband lies in the range (I- +a).ir/L d w Q T, and the
passband lies in the range 0 Q w <(1 - a) n/ L, where Q is known
as the excess bandwidth factor.
Since all extremal frequencies lie in the stopband, there is no
error in estimating the division of extremals among the bands.
Instead of (lo), therefore, we use the exact result n p =0 and
n, =P - [ ( P -1)/L], where [.I means the integer part of the
division, and n, is the number of stopband extremals. This
results in a more consistant improvement in execution time,
compared with the two-phase linear programming solution. In
addition, it has been found that nearly equal spacing of the initial
constraint frequencies results in quicker execution times, so in
(l l ), the exponent 1.5 is replaced by 1.1, and only the stopband
extremal estimates are computed.
The length 39 linear phase FI R Nyquist filter given in (31 with
oversampling factor L =4 and excess bandwidth factor CL= 0.15
will be designed. The one and two phase linear programming
algorithms modified as described give results which are essen-
tially identical to those reported by Samueli, with a maximum
passband deviation of 0.417 dB and stopband attenuation of
34.87 dB. The Steiglitz two phase algorithm requires 24 iterations
in Phase I, 69 total iterations and 115 sec of execution time. The
one phase linear programming algorithm requires only 12 itera-
tions and 24 sec of execution time.
VI . CONCLIJ SIONS
A one-phase lincar programming algorithm has been applied to
the design of optimal linear phase FI R filters. This algorithm
saves considerable computation time compared to conventional
two-phase linear programming algorithm for linear phase FIR
filter optimization, while retaining the advantage of allowing
extra time and frequency domain constraints to be imposed
easily. li c
REFERENCES
L. R. Rahiner. "The desgn of l ~ni te impulse rcsponse digital filters using
linear programming tcchniqucs." Be// S, \ I Tedi J . \01 51. no. 6. pp.
11 77-1 19X. J ul k- Aug.. 1Y77
K Stciglitr. "Optimal design of FI R digital filters wi th monotone paa-
hand response," I El : l ; Truii,. A(.riu\r . S p c wh , .S,,qtiul Pr oceui t r g. \ol
ASSP-27. pp 643-64'). Dec.. 1Y70
J L Liang. R J P. DeFigueiredo. and F C. I-iu. "Deaign o f optimal
Nbquibt. partial rc\ponsc. .Vth hand. and nonuniform tap ,pacing FI R
digital filter, using lincar programming tcclinique.\." II,-L'C Tru,i\. C i l v uiis
.St'.\r. vol CAS-32. pp 3x6-392. Apr. 19x5
H Saniucli. "On the design o f optimal cquiripple FI R digital filters for
data tran>mision application\." I Trui i ~. Ci r c u i r \ .Si .sI.. \ol. CAS-35.
pp 1542-1546. Dec 1Y8X
M Sinionnard. I i i i w r Pro,qruiiitiiiiiq (translated from the French b?
W S J cwel l ). Engle\vood Cliff,. NJ . Prentics-Hall. 1966 chap. 5
F Mintier. "On half-hand. third-hmd. and .Vth hand FI R filters and
Trui15 , 3 ~o u. \ i . S ~ J P ~ Y I ~ . Sigizul Pro1es.\tiiq. \i o1 ASSI'-
30. pp. 734-738. Oct. 10x2.
The Infeasibility of Self-Regulating
Constant-Current-Fed Class E
Power Inverters
ROBERT E. ZULI NSKI , J ULI O C. MANDOJ ANA. ANI )
KELLY J . HERMAN
Ahsfruct -Because of their high operating efficiency, class E circuits
have been shonn to be useful in high-frequenc? power interters and
converters. Typical circuits are constant-current-fed, i.e., they require an
RF choke in the dc-feed line, and must obtain load regulation by means of
appropriate feedback control. A class E interter with finite dc-feed induc-
tance that provides perfect load regulation without feedback control has
been suggested [13)-115). However, such class E circuits generally ha\ e
higher sensitivities to component \ariatiom (except load resistance) than
do their constant-current-fed counterparts. Thus, the possibilih of load-
independent operation of consrant-current-fed class E imerters is of
interest. This paper shows that there is no wag to configure a constant-cur-
Manuscript received No\cmber 3. I Y X X : re\ised April 13. 19XY This work
was supported b? thc National Scicnce Foundation under Grant ECS-8707669
This paper wdb recommended h\ Associ at e Editor C A T. Salama.
The author>arc with the Department of Electrical Engineering. Michigan
Technological Unirersit). Houghton. MI 49Y31
I EEE Log Nuinher XY33906.
0098-4094/90/0400-0558$01 .OO a1990 IEEE