Outline
Stability
of
uid
systems
modal
limit
short
Gme
dynamics,
matrix
exponenGal
RecepGvity
resolvent
norm
Resonance
limit
Adjoint
modes
SensiGvity
Structural
sensiGvity
Baseow
sensiGvity
Cirrus
clouds
developing
in
a
jet
stream
over
Saudi
Arabia
and
the
Red
Sea.
The
picture
was
taken
from
the
Space
ShuVle
(NASA)
TransiGon
to
turbulence
Transition is a complex physical
process
critically depends on the
disturbance environment
is parameterdependent
is important for the design of
fluid systems
TransiGon
to
turbulence
Transition is a compex physical
process
critically depends on the
disturbance environment
is parameterdependent
is important for the design of
fluid systems
TransiGon
to
turbulence
Transition is a compex physical
process
critically depends on the
disturbance environment
is parameterdependent
is important for the design of
fluid systems
Classical TransiGon
outflow
secondary 3D
instability
turbulent spots
Branch II
exponential
growth of 2D
TS waves
Branch I
flat plate
high velocity
low velocity
contours of 2
vortices
inflow
hairpin vortices
Bypass
TransiGon
High levels of freestream turbulence
(>1%) exponential
growth of TS waves is
bypassed
outflow
(decaying)
freestream turbulence
turbulent spots
(laminar) streaks
high velocity
low velocity
contours of 2
inflo
w
flat plate
Hydrodynamic oscillators:
Global
instability
Intrinsic
frequency
Local
absolute
instability
(WKB)
Boundary
layer
under
freestream
turbulence
Noise amplifiers:
Globally
stable
Broadband
frequency
spectrum
Local
convecGve
instability
(WKB)
Stability analysis
Hydrodynamic
stability
SoluGons
of
NavierStokes:
CoueVe,
Poiseuille,
boundary
layer,
Jet
Boundary layer
Stability
Stable
Neutral
Unstable
CondiGonally
(nonlinearly)
stable
Overview
Stability
analysis
Baseow
and
disturbances
Linearised
equaGons
Normal
modes,
waves
Thermal instability
Laminarturbulent transiGon
Stability
analysis
1. Linear
stability:
steady
base
ow,
soluGon
of
NavierStokes
ekv.
U = (U, V, W ) ,
2.
Disturbances
u(xi , t),
T = T (xi )
T (xi , t)
u
= A(U)u
t
e i t
5. Assume
u(xi , t) = u
= A(U)
u
egienvalue
problem
i u
(y)eikx+imz
PerturbaGons
u(xi , t) = u
T = T (y)
i t
Wavevector (k, m)
+i
k
m
i
>0
Unstable
Complex
frequency
Wavenumber
in
xdirecGon
Vavenumber
in
zdirecGon
=0
Neutral
<0
Stable
z
T0
x or y
T0
T0
x or y
T0
T0
x or y
T0
Ra =
d4
RayleighBenard
instability
z
T0
x or y
T0
RayleighBenard
instability
Rayleigh number: ratio between buoyancy forces (temperature
gradient) and viscous forces the governing parameter
RayleighBenard
instability
Rayleigh number: ratio between buoyancy forces (temperature
gradient) and viscous forces the governing parameter
Plane
Poiseuille
ow
Reynolds number: ratio between inertial forces and viscous forces the
governing parameter
Plane
Poiseuille
ow
Reynolds number: ratio between inertial forces and viscous forces the
governing parameter
Plane
Poiseuille
ow
Reynolds number: ratio between inertial forces and viscous forces the
governing parameter
Questions
Can
we
explain
the
success
and
failure
of
stability
theory
for
the
two
examples?
Is
there
a
beVer
way
to
invesGgate
the
stability
of
plane
Poiseuille
ow
(and
many
other
wallbounded
shear
ows)?
Energy equation
SubcriGcal
transiGon
The
nonlinear
terms
of
the
NavierStokes
equaGons
conserve
energy
During
transiGon
to
turbulence
we
observe
a
substanGal
increase
in
kineGc
perturbaGon
energy,
even
for
Reynolds
numbers
below
the
criGcal
one.
SubcriGcal
transiGon
The
nonlinear
terms
of
the
NavierStokes
equaGons
conserve
energy
During
transiGon
to
turbulence
we
observe
a
substanGal
increase
in
kineGc
perturbaGon
energy,
even
for
Reynolds
numbers
below
the
criGcal
one.
The increase in energy for subcritical Reynolds numbers is
related to a linear process, without relying on an
exponential instability;
SubcriGcal
transiGon
The
nonlinear
terms
of
the
NavierStokes
equaGons
conserve
energy
During
transiGon
to
turbulence
we
observe
a
substanGal
increase
in
kineGc
perturbaGon
energy,
even
for
Reynolds
numbers
below
the
criGcal
one.
The increase in energy for subcritical Reynolds numbers is
related to a linear process, without relying on an
exponential instability;
linear instability without an unstable eigenvalue!
Nonmodal approach
d
q = Lq
dt
q(t = 0) = q0
2
2
= wjH wj
w2 = hw, wi
Gw 2
w G Gw
=
w 2
wH w
1/2
GH Gvi =
= max
w
2 =1
Gw
Gv1 2
=
,
v1 2
1,
i vi
v1
Gv1 = u1
Eigenvalue decomposition
 exp(tL)2 =  exp(tSS
S:
Column
eigenvector
:
Diagonal
eigenvalues
1 2

Lower bound
e2t
max
 exp(tL)2
Upper bound
 exp(tL)2 =  exp(tSS
S2 S
1 2 2t
 e
)2
max
max
Condition number:
1 2 2t
 e
max
1 2

max
Condition number:
1 2 2t
 e
max
1 2

Nonnormality
2
1 2
 = 1
1 2

4me
1 dE
hq0 , (L + LH )q0 i
 0+ =
E dt
hq0 , q0 i
1 dE
 0+ =
E dt
H
(L
+
L
)
max
F(L) =
hLq, qi
zz =
hq, qi
hLq, qi
zz =
hq, qi
convex
Nonnormal system
Normal system
d
q2 = 2<{hLq, qi}
dt
Normal system
Nonnormal system
RayleighBenard
convecGon
T0
x or y
T0
Plane
Poiseuille
ow
NonNormal stability problem
The numerical range is larger than the convex hull of the
spectrum
The numerical range crosses into the unstable halfplane
before the spectrum
Initial Energy growth occur before asymptotic instability
The spectrum governs the flow behavior only at long times
Nonmodal
analysis
1 dE
 0+ =
E dt
H
(L
+
L
)
max
 exp(tL)2
max
Re = 1000, = 1
Re = 2500, = 1,
=1
Re = 2500, = 0,
=2
Bypass
transiGon
SupercriGcal
Poiseuille
ow,
Re = 10000
Over short time horizon,
streamwise independent streaks
are favored
Streak
transient
growth
Modal growth
of TollmienSchlichting waves
Classical TransiGon
outflow
secondary 3D
instability
turbulent spots
Branch II
exponential
growth of 2D
TS waves
Branch I
flat plate
high velocity
low velocity
contours of 2
vortices
inflow
hairpin vortices
Bypass
TransiGon
High levels of freestream turbulence
(>1%) exponential
growth of TS waves is
bypassed
outflow
(decaying)
freestream turbulence
turbulent spots
(laminar) streaks
high velocity
low velocity
contours of 2
inflo
w
flat plate
amplicaGon output
amplicaGon output
A = U V H
AV = U
1
v1
u1
= A2
amplicaGon output
svd(exp(t L)) = U V H
G(t ) =  exp(t L)
exp(t L)
v1
u1
amplicaGon output
svd(exp(t L)) = U V H
G(t ) =  exp(t L)
exp(t L)
v1
u1
=2
NonModal
Growth
Liftup mechanism in shear layers
(Ellingsen & Palm 1975, Landahl 1980)
Streamwise
vortices
Outline
Stability
of
uid
systems
modal
limit
short
Gme
dynamics,
matrix
exponenGal
RecepGvity
resolvent
norm
Resonance
limit
Adjoint
modes
SensiGvity
Structural
sensiGvity
Baseow
sensiGvity
RecepGvity
Interested
in
the
response
of
a
uid
system
to
external
excitaGons
(free
stream
turbulence,
roughness,
acousGc
waves)
d
q = Lq + f
dt
External forces
qp =
Zt
0
exp((
t)L)f ( )d
OpGmal
response
Linear
problem:
consider
the
case
of
harmonic
forcing
f = fei!t
qp = (i!
L)
Written as an inputoutput
problem: optimal response

qp 
(i! L)
R(!) = max
= max
f f 
f
f
f
= (i!
L)

1
(i!
dist{i!, }
S:
Column
eigenvector
:
Diagonal
eigenvalues
Eigenvalue decomposition
L)
 = S(i!
1
 (S)
dist{i!, }
1
(i!
dist{i!, }
(S) = 1
S:
Column
eigenvector
:
Diagonal
eigenvalues
Eigenvalue decomposition
L)
 = S(i!
1
 (S)
dist{i!, }
1
(i!
dist{i!, }
(S)
S:
Column
eigenvector
:
Diagonal
eigenvalues
Eigenvalue decomposition
L)
 = S(i!
1
 (S)
dist{i!, }
OpGmal
forcing
Singular
value
decomposiGon
svd
of
the
resolvent
norm
(i!
L)
f = (i!
AmplicaGon

qp  = f = 1
(i!
L)
L)
 qp
Output
R(! ) = (i!
v1
u1
L)

R(!)
= 0,
=2
= 1,
=1
R(!)
Re = 2500, = 0,
=2
Re = 2500, = 1,
=1
L)
f
H(!) = C(i!
L)
H1 =
max
1<!<1
max (H)
u
v
w
Jovanovic & Bamieh, JFM, 2004
fy
fz
Adjoint
system
hp, qi = q H p
Inner product
Adjoint system
Eigenmodes/values
Biorthogonality
i qi = Lqi ;
+
j qj
+
hqm
, qn i =
= LH qj+
mn
Adjoint
system
Eigenmodes/values
i qi = Lqi ;
Biorthogonality
h(LH
+
hqm
, (L
m )qn i
+
= hqm
, (L
+
)q
m m,
+
j qj
L+
= LH qj+
qn i = 0
n )qn i
=0
+
)hq
m
m , qn i = 0
+
hqm
, qn i =
mn
Biorthogonality
Expand solution
q(t) =
mn
i q i e
mt
q0
compute coefficients
using biorthogonality
n
hqn+ , q0 i =
X
i
m hqn+ , qm i = n
(u, p)
(f + , m+ )
Differentiable fields
Sum and multiply
0=
@u
+ L(U, Re)u + rp = 0
@t
ru=0
@u
+ L(U, Re)u + rp f + + (r u)m+
@t
Z t Z
@u
+ L(U, Re)u + rp f + + (r u)m+
@t
0
D
Z tZ +
Z t
Z
+
@f
@u
f
u
+ L+ (U, Re)f + + rm+ + p(r f + ) +
+
rJ
@t
@t
0
D
0
D
where
1 2
L(U, Re)u = U ru + u rU
r u
Re
1 2 +
L+ (U, Re)f + = U rf + rU f + +
r f
Re
J = U (u f + ) +
1
(rf + u
Re
ru f + ) + m+ u + pf +
Z t Z
@u
+ L(U, Re)u + rp f + + (r u)m+
@t
0
D
Z tZ +
Z t
Z
+
@f
@u
f
u
+ L+ (U, Re)f + + rm+ + p(r f + ) +
+
rJ
@t
@t
0
D
0
D
Definition of adjoint problem
@u
+ L(U, Re)u + rp = f
@t
u(t) f + (t)
u(0) f + (0) =
Z tZ
0
ru=Q
f f + + Qm+ +
J n
u(0) f + (0) =
Z tZ
0
f f + + Qm+ +
Z tZ
0
J n
f + (t) = u(t)
f f + + Qm+ +
J n
u(0) f + (0) =
Z tZ
0
f f + + Qm+ +
Z tZ
0
J n
f + (t) = u(t)
f f + + Qm+ +
J n
u2 (t)
= f + (0)
u(0)
u2 (t)
= f+
f
u(0) f + (0) =
Z tZ
0
f f + + Qm+ +
Z tZ
0
u2 (t)
= m+
Q
J n
f + (t) = u(t)
f f + + Qm+ +
J n
u(0) f + (0) =
Z tZ
0
f f + + Qm+ +
Z tZ
0
f + (t) = u(t)
f f + + Qm+ +
uwall
Re
rf + + m+ n
J n
J n
Outline
Stability
of
uid
systems
modal
limit
short
Gme
dynamics,
matrix
exponenGal
RecepGvity
resolvent
norm
Resonance
limit
Adjoint
modes
SensiGvity
Structural
sensiGvity
Baseow
sensiGvity
Structural
sensiGvity
SensiGvity
to
internal
changes
A(p)q = Bq
Governing
parameter:
Reynolds
number,
base
ow,
wavenumber
Perturbation expansion
(A + A)(q + q) = ( +
)B(q + q)
Structural
sensiGvity
SensiGvity
to
internal
changes
A(p)q = Bq
Governing
parameter:
Reynolds
number,
base
ow,
wavenumber
Perturbation expansion
(A + A)(q + q) = ( +
(A
B)q + (A
B) q + ( A
)B(q + q)
B)q + ( A
B) q = 0
Higher order
Structural
sensiGvity
SensiGvity
to
internal
changes
A(p)q = Bq
Governing
parameter:
Reynolds
number,
base
ow,
wavenumber
Perturbation expansion
(A + A)(q + q) = ( +
(A
B) q + ( A
)B(q + q)
B)q 0
Structural
sensiGvity
SensiGvity
to
internal
changes
(A
B)q 0
B) q + ( A
q + (A
q + (A
B) = 0
(A+
B) q + q + ( A
B + )q + = 0
B)q 0
Structural
sensiGvity
SensiGvity
to
internal
changes
A(p)q = Bq
Perturbation expansion,
linearize and use adjoint
q + Aq
= +
q Bq
rp
q + rp A q
=
q + Bq
Gradient:
constraint
opGmizaGon
(C.
Cossu)
ut = ( @x + @xx + (x))u
= U + icu
Eigenvalue sensitivity
rp
q + rp A q
=
q + Bq
A
u= u
r A =
@x
r = u
+ r A u
=
r = <{r }
A+ u
+ =
=
u
+ @x u
r ! = ={r }
Sensitivity of frequency
+ i!
Linearized NavierStokes
Eigenvalue sensitivity
q + Aq
= +
q Bq
A=
( U )r
u
u
r( U )
A
u= u
A+ u
+ =
=
rU = r
u+ u
(r
u) H u
+
+ i!
Newton, SFD
Linearized NS
Adjoint NS
Global modes
Adjoint modes
Sensitivity
Localized forcing
base flow modifications
Receptivity
Forcing, boundary
conditions, mass sources
u
+
v+
1.
base
ow
2.
global
modes
3.
adjoint
modes
and receptivity
4.
sensiGvity,
wavemaker
uwavemaker
vwavemaker
1.
base
ow
2.
global
modes
3.
adjoint
modes
and receptivity
4.
sensiGvity,
wavemaker
SpaGal feedback
1.
base
ow
2.
global
modes
3.
adjoint
modes
and receptivity
4.
sensiGvity,
wavemaker
5.
sensiGvity
to
base
ow
modicaGons
Hydrodynamic oscillators:
Global
instability
Intrinsic
frequency
Local
absolute
instability
(WKB)
Boundary
layer
under
freestream
turbulence
Noise amplifiers:
Globally
stable
Broadband
frequency
spectrum
Local
convecGve
instability
(WKB)
Stability
analysis
Oscillators Modal analysis

Largest
Eigenvalue
gives
the
asymptoGc
behavior
Noise amplifiers Nonmodal analysis
OpGmal
iniGal
condiGon
IniGal
condiGon
that
gives
the
maximum
energy
growth
at
a
xed
nal
Gme.
OpGmal
forcing
(pseudospectra)
Forcing
funcGon
the
gives
the
maximum
energy
of
the
regime
response
when
the
forcing
is
applied
with
a
xed
frequency
Instability
mechanisms:
Globally
unstable
ows
The
ow
elds
behave
like
an
oscillator
Huerre
&
Monkewitz,
Annu.
Rev.
Fluid
Mech.,
1990
In
weakly
parallel
ows
the
WKBJ
approach
idenGes
a
specic
spaGal
posiGon
in
the
absolutely
unstable
region
which
acts
as
a
wavemaker.
Chomaz,
Annu.
Rev.
Fluid
Mech.,
2005
A
concept
similar
to
that
of
wavemaker
can
be
introduced
by
invesGgaGng
where
in
space
a
modicaGon
in
the
structure
of
the
problem
produces
the
largest
drio
of
the
eigenvalue:
determine
the
region
where
feedback
from
velocity
to
force
is
most
eecGve
Giannep & Luchini, Journal of Fluid Mech., 2007, Pralits et al, 2010
Produc4on
Structural sensi4vity
Produc4on
Eigenvalue
drio
Eigenvalue
drio
Passive
control
Wake
control
by
means
of
small
obstacles
in
the
ow
Small
control
cylinder
as
localized
structural
perturbaGon:
First
term
of
LambOseen
expansion
for
drag
at
low
Re
Imaginary part
= 1.8
SensiGvity
w.r.t.
perturbaGons
(spectral
norm)
Pralits et al, JFM, 2010
Imaginary part
= 1.8
SensiGvity
w.r.t.
base
ow
(spectral
norm)
Pralits et al, JFM, 2010
Imaginary part
= 1.8
Total
SensiGvity
(spectral
norm)
Pralits et al, JFM, 2010
Imaginary part
= 4.85
SensiGvity
w.r.t.
perturbaGons
(spectral
norm)
Pralits et al, JFM, 2010
Imaginary part
= 4.85
SensiGvity
w.r.t.
base
ow
(spectral
norm)
Pralits et al, JFM, 2010
Imaginary part
= 4.85
Total
SensiGvity
(spectral
norm)
Pralits et al, JFM, 2010
0
velocity
0.5
0
0.5
1
2
3
1
4
1
0.5
0.5
50
100
200
250
time
1.4
150
1.2
0.5
velocity
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
1
0
1
0.5
0.5
20
40
60
80
100
time
120
140
160
180
Instability
mechanisms:
Noise
ampliers
The
aim
of
the
present
work
is
to
extend
the
sensiGvity
analysis
to
ow
behaving
as
noise
ampliers
Huerre
&
Monkewitz,
Annu.
Rev.
Fluid
Mech.,
1990
The
target
of
the
analysis
is
the
largest
singular
value
of
the
system.
We
consider
the
resolvent
norm
in
frequency
domain.
Schmid
&
Henningson,
Stability
and
TransiGon
of
shear
ows,
2001
A
concept
similar
to
that
of
wavemaker
can
be
introduced
by
invesGgaGng
where
in
space
a
modicaGon
of
the
base
ow
produces
the
largest
drio
of
the
opGmal
response:
waveamplier
Brandt
et
al.,
Journal
of
Fluid
Mech.,
2011
, S=
M + L(U)
R Rf , f
(u, u)
(R f , R f )
=
=
(f , f )
(f , f )
(f , f )
=2
{(f ) u
Constrained opGmizaGon
K=
u , S(U) u
a , S (U) a
f}
u
f ,
Lioup
TSwaves
Outline
Stability
of
uid
systems
modal
limit
short
Gme
dynamics,
matrix
exponenGal
RecepGvity
resolvent
norm
Resonance
limit
Adjoint
modes
SensiGvity
Structural
sensiGvity
Baseow
sensiGvity
SOME MORE
Timedependent
ows
Generalize
to
Gmeperiodic
and
Gmedependent
ows
Relate
nonmodal
analysis
to
opGmizaGon
problems
d
q = L(t)q
dt
With solution
q(t) = A(t)q0
Propagator
Initial
condition
Inputoutput
analysis
Seek
opGmal
energy
amplicaGon
hq, qi
G(t) = max
q0 hq0 , q0 i
Inputoutput
analysis
Seek
opGmal
energy
amplicaGon
hq, qi
G(t) = max
q0 hq0 , q0 i
hA(t)q0 , A(t)q0 i
= max
q0
hq0 , q0 i
Inputoutput
analysis
Seek
opGmal
energy
amplicaGon
hq, qi
G(t) = max
q0 hq0 , q0 i
hA(t)q0 , A(t)q0 i
= max
q0
hq0 , q0 i
hAH (t)A(t)q0 , q0 i
= max
q0
hq0 , q0 i
Inputoutput
analysis
for
Gmedependent
system
hAH (t)A(t)q0 , q0 i
G(t) = max
q0
hq0 , q0 i
AH A is a normal matrix
(n)
(n)
A q0
Inputoutput
analysis
for
Gmedependent
system
(n+1)
q0
updaGng
(n)
q0
(n)
(n)
A q0
A
direct
problem
(n)
scaling
(n)
Aq0
(n)
Aq0
AH
adjoint problem
Inputoutput
analysis
for
Gmedependent
system
updaGng
(n+1)
q0
(n)
= (n) AH A q0
(n)
q0
direct problem
(n)
scaling
(n)
Aq0
A
(n)
Aq0
AH
adjoint problem
(n)
scaling
direct
problem
Pq0 (n)
PH Pq0 (n)
adjoint
adjoint
problem
problem
We wish to maximize
q2
J=
! max
2
q0 
d
q = L(t)q
dt
Listen Carlo Cossu on Friday!
ComputaGonal
issues
One vs two inhomogeneous directions:
state vector, matrix, operation count
0
q1
B q2 C
B C
C
q=B
B C
@ A
qN
L 2 CN N O(N 2 )
3
O(N )
State vector
Matrix size
Operation count
q1,1
B q1,2 C
B
C
B
q=B C
C
@ A
qN,N
L2C
N 2 N 2
O(N 4 )
O(N 6 )
ComputaGonal
issues
One vs two inhomogeneous directions:
state vector, matrix, operation count
L2C
N 2 N 2
O(N 4 )
storage
O(N 6 )
CPU time
Arnoldi
algorithm
AcGon
of
the
linear
operator
within
an
orthonormal
basis
V
H
L
System matrix
Orthogonal
basis
System matrix:
Hessenberg
matrix
Orthogonal
basis
Arnoldi
algorithm
AcGon
of
the
linear
operator
within
an
orthonormal
basis
V
Represent
stability
matrix
by
a
loworder
approximaGon
based
on
V
H
L
System matrix
Hessenberg
matrix
Orthogonal
basis
Hessenberg
matrix
Only multiplication by L are necessary
Eig(L) Eig(H)
Base flow
Summary
Stability
of
uid
systems
nonnormal
operators
are
ubiquitous
in
uid
ow
problems
nonmodal
(mulGmodal)
eects
therefore
dominant
nonmodal
analysis
computaGonally
more
costly,
many
extensions
possible
though
Tutorials
Consider Poiseuille or Couette flow
OrrSommerfeld and Squire system for
3D disturbances
i
u
= 2 (D
v
)
k
i
w
= 2 ( D
v + )
k
Tutorials
Consider Poiseuille or Couette flow
TransientGrowth.m"
G(t) for selected ,; Re and given max time
Resolvent.m
R(omega) for selected ,; Re
NumRange.m
Numerical range for selected ,; Re
Tutorials
Consider Poiseuille or Couette flow
Neutral_a_Re.m"
Eigenvalues and G(t) for selected and given max time,
for a range of and Re
Neutral_alpha_beta.m
Eigenvalues and G(t) for given Re and max time, for a
range of ,
OptimalDisturbance.m
Optimal disturbance and response for selected ,; Re
Tutorials
Consider Poiseuille or Couette flow
Sens_OptDist.m"
Structural sensitivity of least stable mode and
q + Aq
= +
q Bq
Extra slides
Stability
Stable
Unstable
Neutral
Nonlinearly
unstable
Stability
deniGons
E=
1
2
ui ui dV
V
E(t)
lim
t E(0)
Stable:
CondiGonally stable:
: E(0) <
Globally stable:
Linearly unstable:
Monotonically stable:
Stable
0
dE
<0
dt
t>0
Re < ReE
Re < ReG
Re > ReL
Stability
analysis
Search
for
ReE:
monotonically
stable
ows
Linear
analysis:
ReL
Amplitude
? ReG
?
Disturbance equaGons
Energy equaGon
V
V
ui uj
ui
xj
Ui
xj dV
ui
xj dV
Stability
analysis
Search
for
ReE:
monotonically
stable
ows
Linear
analysis:
ReL
Amplitude
? ReG
?
Linear analysis
Linear
analysis
u
= L(U, t; Re) u
t
Timeindependent
problem:
eigenvalue
problem
in
Gme.
Ex?
u(xi )e ),
u = L(U ; Re) u
u(xi , t) = (
Classic
1d
problem:
OrrSommerfeld,
Squire
system
for
parallel
ows
t
2
2
= wjH wj
Gw 2
w G Gw
=
w 2
wH w
1/2
GH Gvi =
= max
w
2 =1
Gw
Gv1 2
=
,
v1 2
1,
i vi
v1
Gv1 = u1