This sections will describe my (gserdyuk) analysis of gnucap nonlinear solver, comparison of it to classic Newton notation and notes which will appear on the course of the study.

Let us consider vector system of equations

` F = Y*X + N(X) + I =0 (1) `

where

- Y - linear matrix (here - impedance)
- X - unknows (here - node voltages)
- N(X) - currents of nonlinear branches
- I - free vector

To solve that simultaneous equations with newton algorithms:

`F_c = F(X_c) (2)`

`S_c = inv(dF/dX)*F_c; (3)`

`X_n = X_c-S_c; (4)`

- X_c - current vector of independent values
- F_c - current value of nonlinear function (1)
- S_c - step at current iteration
- dF/dX = J - jacobian matrix, calculated at value X_c
- X_n - vector of independent values at next step

Note - this formula does not contain damp factor - it will e considered later

Such series of X_c have to converge to solution point X_* where F(X_*)=0.

*Simplest case of Newton method in gnucap - no damping, no incremental calculation.*

Gnucap uses a bit modified formulation of formulas (2) - (4) to solve same equations (1).

` FG(X) = dN/dX*X_c-N(X)-I; (5) `

` FG_c = FG(X_c) ; (6) `

` X_n = inv(J)*FG = inv(J)*(dN/dX*X_c-N-I) ; (7) `

` J = dF/dX `

` where FG, dF/dx, dN/dX and N are calculated in point X_c `

namely:

- a) Modified error function does not contain linear term Y*X;
- b) Jacobian in gnucap formulation is the same as in original formulation ( dF/dx, not dFG/dx ) ;
- c) solution of equaton (7) gives new X point instead of the newtonian step.
- d) values dN/dX(X_c) - N(X_c) are calculated from each device whoich operation point is changed - so it saves computation resources.

Indeed. Lets make substitutions:

` X_n = X_c-inv(J)*F = X_c-inv(J)*(I+N+Y*X_c) = `

` = inv(J)*J*X_c-inv(J)*(I+N+Y*X_c) = inv(J)*(J*X_c-I-N-Y*X_c) = `

` = inv(J)*(dN/dX*X_c+Y*X_c-I-N-Y*X_c) = `

finally

` = inv(J)*(dN/dX*X_c-I-N); `

Where all values J, dN/dX, N are caluclaed in point X_c Note that

` J= dF/dX = dN/dX+Y (8) `

This has some consequences (see below).

Damped Newton instead of update formula (4) uses smaller step:

`X_n = X_c-k_c*S_c; (9)`

where k is damping factor.

There is formal proof that process (9) converges globally under certain conditions and keeps quadratic convergence rate if k=1.

I.e. at the some iteration “current”, when next point X_n is calculated, reduced step is used. After that, F and J are caclulated exactly at value X_n.

Gnucap implements somehow modified approach here too.

When X_n is calculated, Gnucap computes element parameters at value X_n, but then calculates FG and J as:

`FG_n = (1-k)*FG(X_c) + k*FG(X_n) (10)`

`J_n = (1-k)*J(X_c) + k*J(X_n) (11)`

Thus FG_c and J_c are linear interpolation between FG(X_c)=FG_c and FG_n

But should be

`FG_c=FG( (1-k)*X_c+k*X_n ) (12)`

Same for Jacobian.

This excludes from consideration higher order derivatives of F(X) and (partially) reduces sense of dumping.

*NB. This is my understanding of Gnucap gumping. If somebody have different opinion - please post it here.*

Currently is planned to implement solver which will use 12 instead of 10,11. I will report results of numeric experiments.

To implement linear search along Newtonian direction it is desired to have strict measure - is next point is better than current or not. Such measure can be F or ||F|| - indeed - at solution point we have F=0 and ||F||=0.

Unfortunately Gnucap formulation does not give F, but rather calculate FG, which does not tend to zero as X_c → X*. So - new measure has to eb introduced.

To calculate F we can use the following formula:

`F_c = J_c * X_c - FG (13)`

This will require keeping original Jacobian matrix. In case of incremental processing it may mean an issue - we will investigate incremental processing later

Newton Numeric Example - compares standard and modified newton steps; damped step

Programing Details - describeы programming details of solver

Queues and OPT::bypass - covers **bypass** mode and queues