914 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO.

2, MAY 2010

Power Electronic Transient Load Model for Use

in Stability Studies of Electric Power Grids
Matthew Rylander, Member, IEEE, W. Mack Grady, Fellow, IEEE, Ari Arapostathis, Fellow, IEEE, and
Edward J. Powers, Fellow, IEEE

AbstractThis paper develops a new large-signal transient load

model to represent the composite power electronic load at a net-
work bus. Traditional load models do not account for the tran-
sient responses of power electronic loads which occur at the onset
and clearing of voltage sags. The new model is supported with ac-
tual utility fault response data and laboratory controlled tests. This
paper shows that power electronic loads have a unique impact on
generator rotor angle swings compared to those using conventional
load models.
Fig. 1. Actual utility voltage sag (dashed line) and current (solid line) response
Index TermsLoad model, power electronics, transient re- on a distribution feeder.
sponse, voltage sag.

I. INTRODUCTION

N developing our large-signal transient load model, we

I begin by observing load response data recorded on a typical
12.47-kV residential feeder at the substation bus. Fig. 1 shows
the normalized voltage (dashed line) and current (solid line)
for a five-cycle, 15% single-phase voltage sag. This sag is the
result of a single-phase fault on the transmission system.
The majority of the feeder load draws 60-Hz sinusoidal cur-
rent, but the fraction of load that is single-phase power elec-
tronic (PE) causes a triangular peaked current distortion (ob-
serve pre-sag portion of Fig. 1). The current distortion is due
to capacitor-filtered diode-bridge rectifiers in the PE loads. The
rectifiers cause the load to draw power from the ac system for a
short interval near the peak of the voltage waveform. For the rest
of the power frequency cycle, the PE load is effectively discon-
nected from the ac system. During this time, the load is powered
by the dc load capacitor.
Using the load decomposition technique developed in [1], the
Fig. 1 power electronic load percentage is estimated to be 10%
of the total MW demand and has the current response shown
in Fig. 2. It is clear in Fig. 2 that the transient response of the
PE load is quite different from that of traditional linear loads
discussed in [2][4].
Manuscript received May 11, 2009; revised August 06, 2009. First published
November 13, 2009; current version published April 21, 2010. This work was
supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant ECS-0424169
and in part by the Office of Naval Research through the Electric Ship Research
and Development Consortium. Paper no. TPWRS-00344-2009.
M. Rylander is with the Electric Power Research Institute, Knoxville, TN
37932 USA (e-mail: mrylander@epri.com).
W. M. Grady, A. Arapostathis, and E. J. Powers are with the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712
USA (e-mails: grady@mail.utexas.edu; ari@mail.utexas.edu; ejpowers@mail.
utexas.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2032351
0885-8950/$26.00 2009 IEEE
Fig. 2. Estimated power electronic load current response for the event in Fig. 1
(same scale).
As seen in Figs. 1 and 2, the PE load momentarily discon-
nects from the ac system at the onset of the sag. At this time, the
individual PE loads continue to be powered by the dc capacitors
in the bridge rectifiers. During the sag, the dc capacitors grad-
ually discharge to new steady state voltages. As the capacitor
voltages decay, individual PE loads at various points along the
feeder slowly begin to reconnect to the system. At voltage sag
recovery, there is a substantial power inrush to recharge the load
capacitors back to their original DC voltages.
Using switching models to mimic the actual dynamics of in-
dividual PE loads in transient simulations is computationally
burdensome and unnecessary. This fact has led to averaging
techniques for modeling composite loads (i.e., generalized state-
space averaging for small-signal stability [5]).
This paper develops a composite model for a group of PE
loads along a network feeder that is suitable for large-signal
stability while at the same time can be used with common sta-
bility programs. The composite load, whose fundamental cur-
rent waveform is closely in-phase with voltage, is modeled at
the network bus as the fundamental average active power be-
cause even though the ac current waveform is rich in harmonics,
only the fundamental is participating to produce significant ac-
tive power. The linkage between our model and a stability pro-
gram is the time-varying, one-cycle average power at every bus
at every time step that accurately represents the composite PE
load.
RYLANDER et al.: POWER ELECTRONIC TRANSIENT LOAD MODEL
Fig. 3. Circuit diagram for single-phase power electronic load.
II. STABILITY LOAD MODELS
Load modeling is an ongoing process to develop new and
improve existing models. Organizations such as the Western
Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) and Electric Power Re-
search Institute (EPRI) are involved in load modeling efforts due
to their impact on voltage and transient stability studies [6], [7].
In these studies, load models are vital components to acquire
accurate simulation results.
The polynomial (ZIP) linear load model and induction motor
model are commonly used in dynamic simulations. The ZIP
model is an algebraic function of system voltage which captures
the static response of loads. The induction motor model captures
the loads dynamic behavior due to a step voltage change. A
generic representation of the induction motor model is described
in [8] and [9] to have an exponential recovery type response. The
exponential recovery is due to low voltage tap changers that step
voltage over several seconds and therefore restore system load.
The response of the PE load is not captured by the ZIP model
because the PE load takes several cycles before reaching steady
state. Only after reaching steady state does the PE load represent
a constant power load.
The PE load does have a similar attribute to the exponential
response of the induction motor in that the load increases to
nominal during a sag and decays to nominal after the sag clears.
The PE load exponential response, however, is caused by the
capacitor voltage varying after a step voltage change. Unique to
the PE load exponential response is that the energy dissipated by
the capacitor during a voltage sag is recovered by the capacitor
after the sag clears. The response is fast dynamic whereas the
time constant for the induction motor exponential recovery can
be on the order of several seconds.
The actual dynamics of the PE load are complex and consider-
ably different than those of other conventional loads. Similarly,
the PE load exponential response is also unique.
III. MODEL FOR PREDICTING POWER ELECTRONIC
LOAD TRANSIENT RESPONSE
To understand the single-phase PE load response shown in
Fig. 2, the load is explained using a simple capacitor-filtered
diode-bridge rectifier (DBR) model. A circuit diagram of this
model is shown in Fig. 3.
The PE load capacitor C experiences a voltage restoring
and discharging interval twice every power frequency cycle.
As shown in Fig. 4 for half a 60-Hz cycle, the dc capacitor
voltage is initially above the ac system voltage . capacitor voltage
This reverse biases the diode bridge and effectively disconnects
the load from the ac system. At this time, the dc capacitor
discharges to provide power to the load. At the moment the
absolute value of is greater than , two of the four
915
Fig. 4. Power electronic load dc capacitor voltage response to ac system
voltage.
diodes are forward-biased and the capacitor voltage begins
to restore with a short pulse of current from the ac system.
In Fig. 4, the restoration of is delayed due to system
inductance (see arrow). After drops below and
the current in the line goes to zero, the capacitor begins to
discharge again. These restoring and discharging intervals give
the PE load its unique transient response illustrated in Fig. 2.
The differential equations describing the restoring and dis-
charging intervals are given in (1) and (2), respectively:
(1)
(2)
The time domain solution for the discharging interval (2) is
(3)
where constant dc load power and DBR capacitance dictate
the ride-through capability of the load during which time the
capacitor provides all power to the load.
A. Individual Load Response During a Fault
Our objective is to develop an expression for the one-cycle
average active power response of the PE load seen by the ac
system during voltage sags. To do this, we average the ac load
power waveform (product of ac system voltage and
ac power electronic load current) and the actual dynamic capac-
itor voltage using a 60-Hz sliding window. These av-
eraged waveforms illustrate the PE load response which varies
depending on voltage sag depth.
1) Shallow Sags: We divide voltage sags into two categories,
shallow and deep. These categories correspond to the system
voltage magnitude relative to the PE load pre-fault steady state
. The capacitor voltage is
unique for each load and dependent on the circuit elements in
Fig. 3. Typically, is approximately 0.9 .
The transient response of an individual PE load to a shallow
voltage sag is shown in Fig. 5. For shallow sags, the pre-fault
916
Fig. 5. Peak system voltage and one-cycle average dc capacitor voltage along
with one-cycle average ac system PE load during a shallow sag.
Fig. 6. Load capacitor exponential voltage decay during a fault.
steady state capacitor voltage is less than the peak
system fault voltage .
Because is less than , a portion of the load
remains online immediately after the fault occurs at time
. is less than the total load since the capacitor voltage at
is greater than the fault steady state capacitor voltage
(i.e., the load is no longer in steady state). Laboratory voltage
sag measurements show that system power drawn by the load at
the onset of the fault is approximately
(4)
The remaining recovery of the load is determined knowing
the exponential time constant of the one-cycle average dc
load capacitor voltage decay. The capacitor voltage decays to
a new steady state based on the RLC components of the cir-
cuit and the rectifier dynamics which affect the restoring and
discharging intervals (1) and (2). The exponential one-cycle av-
erage voltage decay is illustrated in Fig. 6, where it is compared
to the actual dynamic capacitor voltage and the rectified system
voltage. The exponential voltage decay time constant is ap-
proximately 40 msec in this example.
As the load capacitor voltage exponentially decays to the new
steady state, the increasing difference between source and load
voltage causes the one-cycle average ac load current to expo-
nentially rise with the same time constant . Therefore, the in-
dividual PE load one-cycle average power, provided by the ac
system, increases as seen in the bottom half of Fig. 5 and has
the same time constant as voltage.
2) Deep Sags: Now consider the case when is greater
than (Fig. 7). The individual load effectively discon-
nects from the system until the load capacitor discharges to the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO. 2, MAY 2010
Fig. 7. Peak system voltage and one-cycle average dc capacitor voltage along
with one-cycle average ac system PE load during a deep sag.
peak fault voltage. During this time, the load remains energized
by the dc capacitor. The length of time that the load rides-
through the fault before reconnecting to the system is found with
(3) rearranged as
(5)
When the capacitor voltage reaches the peak fault voltage, the
load begins to draw system power. The increase in PE load has
the same time constant as the capacitor exponential voltage
decay from the peak fault voltage to the steady state voltage in
the fault.
B. Composite Load Response During a Fault
For practical reasons, a composite PE load model is needed
for every bus in a stability study. The composite load can be
modeled as
1) lumped at the network bus; or
2) distributed across the network feeder.
In the lumped model, the composite load is treated as one large
individual load where the parameters in Fig. 3 change because
the individual loads are effectively in parallel. The capacitance
and power increase, while the system impedance (R and L) de-
creases. In the distributed model, the composite load takes into
account the cumulative effect of individual loads reconnecting
to the system across the network feeder.
The individual PE loads can have a different ride-through as
indicated by , , and in Fig. 8(a). The voltage response
of the lumped composite load has the weighted average ride-
through and exponential voltage decay time constant from
to as indicated by the dashed line in Fig. 8(a)
[1]. The lumped composite load voltage response is then used
to determine the lumped and distributed composite load power
responses.
An illustration of the lumped composite load ac power re-
sponse (dashed line) to the deep sag can be seen in Fig. 8(b)
along with the distributed composite load response (dash-dot
line). At time , the composite load voltage is equal to the
peak fault voltage, and the lumped load begins to reconnect to
the ac system. However, it is not until time , when the com-
posite load voltage is 50% from the peak fault voltage to the new
steady state, that 50% of the load is supplied by the system. The
time to reach after the fault occurs is . The
RYLANDER et al.: POWER ELECTRONIC TRANSIENT LOAD MODEL 917

Fig. 9. Peak system voltage and one-cycle average dc capacitor voltage along
with one-cycle average ac system PE load after a fault is cleared.

Fig. 8. (a), (b). Individual response (solid lines), lumped composite response
(dashed lines), and distributed composite response (dash-dot line) for power
electronic load during a fault for a) dc capacitor voltage and b) ac system PE
load.
Fig. 10. Load capacitor exponential voltage rise after a fault is cleared.

fraction of load supplied by the system is 99% at approximately

[1]. where , , and characteristics
Since half of the total PE load has a ride-through less than and are found knowing and and solving the system of
, the distributed load begins to reconnect to the system before equations using (6). If a portion of the composite load drops out
time . For the well-distributed composite PE load, the effect due to low system voltage, would decrease accordingly.
of the individual loads reconnecting to the system causes the
continuous increase in load whose response begins at the onset C. Composite Load Response After a Fault
of the voltage sag (time ) and lasts until voltage recovery. Assuming no portion of the composite PE load drops out
This is shown by the dash-dot line in Fig. 8(b), and is described during the fault, then as the fault is cleared, 100% of the total PE
in [1] as load is online consuming full load power. However, the com-
posite load requires additional energy to recharge the dc load
capacitor back to the pre-fault voltage. As the capacitor charges
exponentially with time constant to the pre-fault voltage
(6) , the one-cycle average system power decays with the
same exponential time constant to the nominal power. The
post-fault lumped and distributed composite load responses are
The shape factor and fault time constant are determined by similar and can be seen in Fig. 9.
and . For shallow sags (i.e., ) The post-fault exponential voltage rise with time constant
is compared to the actual capacitor voltage and rectified
(7) system voltage in Fig. 10. The time constant is approxi-
mately 20 msec in this example.
(8) The energy necessary to recharge the capacitor of the com-
(9) posite load is shown by the shaded region in Fig. 11. For the
exponential response, this region is equal to
For deep sags (i.e., )
(13)
(10)
(11) The additional energy is equal to the energy supplied
by the capacitor of the composite PE load during the fault.
Avoiding the actual PE load dynamics, we can use the load
(12)
recovery during the fault to calculate the amount of energy
918
Fig. 11. Energy dissipated E and recovered E by dc load capacitor.
dissipated. The capacitive energy dissipated, shown by the
shaded region in Fig. 11, is equal to
(14)
which has an upper bound when the dc capacitor is completely
discharged. If the load drops out at a certain capacitor voltage
, the energy discharged would be further limited to
(15)
Knowing is equal to , we can solve for the initial increase
in power at fault clearing with (13) rearranged as
(16)
The post-fault composite PE load transient response depends
on the energy discharged by the capacitor during the fault and
the exponential voltage rise time constant . The response
starts when the fault is cleared (time ) and is described in
[1] as
(17)
IV. LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
To help validate our model, we conducted a number of
controlled laboratory experiments where we performed voltage
sags on actual composite PE loads [1]. The previous method
in Section II, which is based on the actual system conditions
and load, is then used to analytically solve the composite load
transient characteristics. The response of the derived model is
compared to that of the actual composite load.
The following two experiments using
1) high system impedance and
2) low system impedance
illustrate typical scenarios for load response. The high and low
system impedances are the R and L values given in Table I which
correspond to Fig. 3.
A. High System Impedance
In this experiment, three individual PE loads, which form one
composite load, are served from a 120-Vac system with high
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO. 2, MAY 2010
TABLE I
LABORATORY COMPOSITE LOAD PARAMETERS AND CHARACTERISTICS
R and L are inserted in series with the 120-Vac supply.
Fig. 12. Actual and simulated composite power electronic load one-cycle av-
erage power response with high system impedance.
impedance and are subjected to a 20% voltage sag. The high
impedance causes a significant voltage drop to the dc load ca-
pacitor. This results in being approximately equal to
(i.e., shallow sag).
The solved PE load transient characteristics for this experi-
ment are given in Table I and are used to simulate the load re-
sponse shown in Fig. 12. The figure also shows the actual com-
posite load average power transient response. Due to a low pass
filtering effect caused by one-cycle averaging of the instanta-
neous power waveform, the initial power appears to increase
and sudden transitions appear more gradual. These actual and
simulated responses are similar.
B. Low System Impedance
The experiment is repeated with a low impedance system.
The low impedance causes to be greater than
(i.e., deep sag). The actual and simulated composite load re-
sponses are shown in Fig. 13.
V. APPLYING THE MODEL TO ACTUAL FEEDER DATA
We now apply our model to the actual feeder response from
Figs. 1 and 2. The response shown is representative of more than
100 events that we viewed. Again, our objective is to develop
the average power expression suitable for stability studies. The
three-step process to develop the model is to
1) decompose the current waveform in Fig. 1 to obtain the PE
load current shown in Fig. 2;
RYLANDER et al.: POWER ELECTRONIC TRANSIENT LOAD MODEL
Fig. 13. Actual and simulated composite power electronic load one-cycle av-
erage power response with low system impedance.
Fig. 14. Actual and simulated composite power electronic load one-cycle av-
erage power response for utility feeder event from Figs. 1 and 2.
TABLE II
UTILITY EVENT LOAD MODEL CHARACTERISTICS
2) determine the actual one-cycle average power response for
the event (Fig. 14) by using the voltage sag in Fig. 1 and
estimated current response in Fig. 2;
3) determine the PE load model characteristics to fit the model
to the averaged waveform shown in Fig. 14. For this event,
the load momentarily disconnects at the onset of the fault
and then reaches near steady state in five cycles. The post-
fault response reaches near steady state in three cycles. The
fault shape factor with a time constant . , and
The post-fault time constant . reactive power load is constant impedance.
Alternatively, the model can be fit to the product of voltage
and current in Fig. 1 when taking into account the 60-Hz
load. The composite load transient characteristics are repeated
in Table II and are the input to (6) and (17) to generate the
simulated load response shown in Fig. 14.
919
Fig. 15. University of Texas at Austin power system one-line diagram.
The response can be different if the feeder impedance or
amount of PE load significantly changes (i.e., rural versus urban
feeders). Observing the actual response for particular feeders
provides the best characteristics for those composite PE loads.
We recommend the characteristics in Table II for the majority
of moderate voltage sags.
The response can also be different if the voltage sag is con-
siderably deeper. Due to insufficient utility data, we have not
observed the response for deep voltage sags. Our predictions
from laboratory experiments are that
the fault time constant and shape factor continue to
increase until the voltage sag is deep enough that the PE
load no longer reconnects to the system in the fault; and
the post-fault inrush occurs with a slightly longer time con-
stant due to the additional energy discharged by the
load capacitors and slower recovery of system voltage [1].
VI. IMPACT ON ELECTRIC POWER GRID
In this section, our PE load model is incorporated into a sta-
bility program [10]. We examine the impact of the model on the
transient response of the University of Texas at Austin campus
100-MW power system. The simplified one-line diagram of the
power system is shown in Fig. 15.
All values are in per unit on 100-MVA and 12-kV base. The
load, located at the Harris bus, is at the maximum power ca-
pability for all three UT generators. On the right side of the
Harris bus is the equivalent Electric Reliability Council of Texas
(ERCOT) system. The system parameters for ERCOT have a
high inertia due to the overall size and strength of the system,
thus resembling an infinite bus.
Four simulations are performed using the following four ac-
tive power load models:
100% constant impedance load;
100% constant power load;
50% PE, 50% constant impedance load;
100% PE load.
The PE load model transient characteristics are ,
(response similar to Fig. 14). The
A fault is applied similar to that observed on the utility feeder
which begins at 0.05 sec, lasts six cycles, and creates a 20%
voltage sag at the Harris bus. The rotor swing of generator 8 is
shown in Fig. 16 for each load type. The rotor accelerates fastest
for the cases with the PE load due to the severity of lost load at
920 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 25, NO. 2, MAY 2010

resources and lead to prolonged simulations, the model is based

on the average system power drawn by the PE load. Beginning
at the onset of the fault, the composite PE load recovers as

(18)
At fault clearing, the load transient response is

(19)

The techniques described in this paper are used to derive the

composite load model characteristics. Alternatively, the charac-
teristics can be estimated by observing actual load fault response
data. For moderate utility voltage sags, we have observed the
PE load transient response and determined that the appropriate
Fig. 16. Generator 8 rotor angle swings due to a six-cycle 20% voltage sag
characteristics are best described as
beginning at 0.05 s. onset power ;
fault time constant ;
fault shape ; and
post-fault time constant .
The PE load response has a unique impact on generator rotor
angle swings. This is due to generator transient damping which
increases as the PE load increases during the fault and is further
amplified during the post-fault inrush. For the example given in
this paper, our preliminary results show that when compared to
the 100% constant impedance load, the 50% PE and 50% constant
impedance load improves the rotor angle first swing response.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank Austin Energy for providing
the contributions of feeder data.

Fig. 17. Generator 8 rotor angle swings expanded from Fig. 16.
the onset of the fault. However, the PE load reconnects in the
fault and demands additional power after the fault clears. This
response increases the generator decelerating forces and damps
the rotor swing.
The one second rotor response for generator 8 is shown in
Fig. 17. The rotor swings the highest for the constant impedance
load followed by the 50/50, PE, and then the constant power
load. For the 100% PE load, the additional post-fault inrush
causes the second half of the first swing to be less than all other
cases. Similar rotor swings occur for generators 7 and 9.
This example illustrates that the manner in which the PE load
reconnects to the system directly affects the generator transient
damping and rotor response. It is unclear at this time, however,
how large concentrations of PE loads could affect systems that
are more complex.
VII. CONCLUSION
This paper develops an exponential recovery type PE load
model for use in system stability studies. Since switching
models and actual dynamic equations require vast computer
REFERENCES
[1] M. Rylander, Single-phase nonlinear power electronic loads: Mod-
eling and impact on power system transient response and stability,
Ph.D. dissertation, Elect. Eng. Dept., Univ. Texas, Austin, TX, May
2008.
[2] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1994, pp. 271313.
[3] IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic Performance,
Load representation for dynamic performance analysis, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 472482, May 1993.
[4] W. W. Price, K. A. Wirgau, A. Murdoch, J. V. Mitsche, E. Vaahedi, and
M. A. El-Kady, Load modeling for power flow and transient stability
computer studies, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 180187,
Feb. 1988.
[5] A. Emadi, Modeling of power electronic loads in AC distribution sys-
tems using the generalized state-space averaging method, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 9921000, Oct. 2004.
[6] D. Kosterev, A. Meklin, J. Undrill, B. Lesieutre, W. Price, D. Chassin,
R. Bravo, and S. Yang, Load modeling in power system studies:
WECC progress update, presented at the IEEE Power and Energy
Society General MeetingConversion and Delivery of Electrical
Energy in the 21st Century, Jul. 2008.
[7] A. Maitra, A. Gaikwad, P. Pourbeik, and D. Brooks, Load model
parameter derivation using an automated algorithm and measured
data, presented at the IEEE Power and Energy Society General
MeetingConversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in the 21st
Century, Jul. 2008.
[8] D. J. Hill, Nonlinear dynamic load models with recovery for voltage
stability studies, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 166176,
Feb. 1993.
[9] W. Xu and Y. Mansour, Voltage stability analysis using generic
dynamic load models, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 9, no. 1, pp.
479493, Feb. 1994.
[10] Matlab Simulink, ver. 7.1, The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA, 2008.
RYLANDER et al.: POWER ELECTRONIC TRANSIENT LOAD MODEL
Matthew Rylander (M02) received the Ph.D. degree from the University of
Texas at Austin in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
His research includes load response modeling and harmonic analysis of non-
linear loads. He is currently a Power Systems Engineer at the Electric Power
Research Institute in Knoxville, TN.
W. Mack Grady (F00) received the Ph.D. degree from Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
He is a Professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of
Texas at Austin. He worked for six years as a System Planning Engineer for
Texas Utilities in Dallas (now Oncor).
Dr. Grady is a Registered Professional Engineer in Texas.
921
Ari Arapostathis (F07) received the B.S. degree from the Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, and the Ph.D. degree from the University
of California, Berkeley.
He is currently with the University of Texas at Austin, where he is a Pro-
fessor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. His research
interests include stochastic and adaptive control theory, the application of dif-
ferential geometric methods to the design and analysis of control systems, and
hybrid systems.
Edward J. Powers (F83) received the B.S. degree from Tufts University, Med-
ford, MA, the M.S. degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA, and the Ph.D. degree from Stanford University, Stanford, CA,
all in electrical engineering.
He is the Texas Atomic Energy Research Foundation Professor in En-
gineering, and Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering with the
University of Texas at Austin. His primary professional interests lie in the
innovative application of digital higher-order statistical signal processing in
the analysis, interpretation, and modeling of time series data characterizing
nonlinear physical phenomena.