2264 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 65, NO.
6, JUNE 2018
Efficient Calculation of Impedance Matrices for
Vacuum Electronic Device Circuit Structures
Vadim Jabotinski , Member, IEEE , David Chernin, Thomas M. Antonsen, Jr., Fellow, IEEE ,
Alexander N. Vlasov, Senior Member, IEEE , John C. Rodgers, Igor A. Chernyavskiy , Member, IEEE ,
and Baruch Levush, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract — We present a computationally efficient
method for the calculation of impedance matrices of a
large class of standing- and traveling-wave structures
used in klystrons, traveling-wave tubes, and other
vacuum electronic (VE) devices. By treating the gaps
as “lumped ports,” this method avoids the time and
disk spaces consuming steps employed in [1], which
required postprocessing the electromagnetic fields from
a finite-element (FE) simulation. By applying analytical
transformations to the impedance matrix, we show that it
may be cast in a form suitable for the large-signal 1-D and
2-D beam-wave interaction codes CHRISTINE-CC [4], [5]
and TESLA-Z [1]. These transformations are formulated in
a way to avoid numerical errors near structure resonance
frequencies (singularity points). We also derive and apply
formulas by which the impedance matrix of a structure
may be constructed from the impedance matrices of
its component parts, without additional FE simulations;
by inverting the algebraic operations, we show that the
impedance matrix of a structure from which a selected
subsection has been removed may also be computed.
Application of these formulas greatly facilitates the
accurate calculation of the impedance matrices of large
complex circuits that are difficult or impossible to model
whole in a single FE simulation.
Index Terms — Impedance matrix, lumped port, vacuum
electronic (VE) device, wave port.
I. I NTRODUCTION
I N A recent paper, Chernyavskiy et al. [1] formulated and
illustrated the use of an impedance matrix model of a
large class of standing- and traveling-wave structures used in
vacuum electronic (VE) devices. These structures generally
consist of a series of single or multigap cavities as in a
klystron, or a periodic structure such as a folded waveguide
Manuscript received October 31, 2017; revised December 26, 2017
and February 5, 2018; accepted February 21, 2018. Date of publication
March 6, 2018; date of current version May 21, 2018. This work was
supported in part by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
under Contract HR0011-16-C-0080 with Leidos, Inc., and in part by the
Office of Naval Research. The review of this paper was arranged by
Editor L. Kumar. (Corresponding author: Vadim Jabotinski.)
V. Jabotinski, D. Chernin, and T. M. Antonsen, Jr., are with
Leidos, Reston, VA 20190 USA (e-mail: vadim.j.jabotinski@leidos.com;
david.p.chernin@leidos.com; antonsen@eng.umd.edu).
A. N. Vlasov, J. C. Rodgers, I. A. Chernyavskiy, and B. Levush are with
the Naval Research Laboratory, Electronic Science and Technology
Division, Washington, DC 20375 USA (e-mail: alexander.vlasov@
nrl.navy.mil; john.rodgers@nrl.navy.mil; igor.chernyavskiy@nrl.navy.mil;
baruch.levush@nrl.navy.mil).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TED.2018.2809638
0018-9383 © 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.
or coupled cavity circuit as in many traveling wave tubes
(TWTs).1 An electron beam interacts with the electromagnetic
(EM) fields supported by the structure at gaps separated by
drift spaces. RF power is coupled into and out of the structure
by waveguides or coaxial couplers. The EM properties of
both single-beam- and multiple beam circuit structures can
be described using this formulation.
Use of an impedance matrix description of the physical
structure in place of lumped element models such as the
Curnow model [2] for coupled cavity circuits or hybrid models
that include transmission line sections for folded waveguide
circuits [3] provides an accurate representation of the detailed
effects of the full 3-D geometry and materials of the structure.
Use of lumped element or hybrid models requires the user
to find values of the lumped element components (inductors
and capacitors) and transmission line properties such that
the dispersion and impedance of the model circuits closely
match those of the physical structure. Finding such values can
be a difficult, nonlinear algebraic, or transcendental problem
that may or may not have a solution. In addition, some
common circuit features, such as high-loss regions, velocity
tapers, severs, matching sections, and windows, which may
be difficult or impossible to represent using a lumped element
model, may be modeled accurately using an impedance matrix.
The impedance matrix, therefore, provides a mean by which
the full EM properties of the physical 3-D circuit may be
accurately represented in 1-D and 2-D beam-wave interaction
codes such as CHRISTINE-CC [4], [5] and TESLA-Z [1].
Chernyavskiy et al. [1] demonstrated an approach to com-
puting the impedance (Z-) matrix elements using the 3-D
finite-element (FE) EM code HFSS.2 In that approach, each
generalized port (input and output waveguide and interaction
gap) is separately excited by a current, and the resulting volt-
ages are computed at each port. In the case of the interaction
gaps, the excitation is taken to be a uniform sheet current
flowing in the axial direction between the edges of the gap.
The computation of the port voltages in response to these
excitations requires the calculation of certain integrals over
the electric fields at the wave ports and at each gap. These
integrals are computed in a postprocessing step, after the EM
simulation is completed. This turns out to be a time-consuming
1 The impedance matrix model as currently formulated does not apply to
helix structures.
2 HFSS is a trademark of Ansys, Inc.
JABOTINSKI et al.: EFFICIENT CALCULATION OF IMPEDANCE MATRICES
process since the EM fields must be saved during the run and
then readback from a hard disk or other storage device and
processed.
In this paper, which is an expansion of our IVEC 2017 con-
ference paper of the same title [6], we present a more
computationally efficient method for computing the impedance
matrix that does not require any postprocessing of the EM
fields. Depending on the specific structure, this method can
be orders of magnitude faster than that of the method used
in [1].
Central to our method is the representation of each inter-
action gap as a “lumped port.” Lumped ports are idealized,
infinitesimally thin current-carrying sheets, the ends of which
are terminated on conducting surfaces in the simulation; one
can imagine the lumped port to be connected to an exter-
nal transmission line of some specified impedance, but this
transmission line is not explicitly included in the simulation
domain. With wave ports defined at the input and output ports
and lumped ports defined at the gaps, an FE code such as
HFSS or Analyst computes internally and automatically an
impedance matrix; no postprocessing is required. A feature
in Analyst, not available in HFSS, allows the user to define
cylindrical lumped ports required to represent the gaps in a
cylindrical beam tunnel. Consequently, we have used Analyst
exclusively in this paper.
As a practical matter, the size of a structure for which the
Z-matrix may be accurately computed using any FE code is
limited by available computer memory. We demonstrate that
by an application of Kirchoff’s laws, it is possible to construct
the impedance matrix of a large structure from the impedance
matrices of its component parts. For example, in order to
compute the impedance matrix of a TWT with a uniform
periodic circuit and no sever, it is necessary to make only
three runs of an FE code—one for the input waveguide and
coupler, one for a single circuit period, and one for the output
waveguide and coupler. The Z-matrix for the full structure,
no matter how many periods long, may be computed simply
from the impedance matrices of these three substructures,
using the formulas provided below.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II gives the
definition of the model impedance matrix, including definitions
of the port voltage and current. We go on to explain how
the modified impedance matrix required by the large-signal
codes CHRISTINE-CC and TESLA-Z may be obtained simply
from the classical impedance matrix produced by Analyst.
Some of these results were discussed but not derived in [6].
We give a numerical example in Section II, and show that
the Z-matrix element values obtained using our method agree
with those obtained from HFSS using the method described
in [1]. Section III contains the formulas for the Z-matrix of a
composite structure expressed in terms of the Z-matrices of its
component parts. We also provide the inverse of the joining
formulas, which enable the computation of the Z-matrix of a
structure from which a substructure has been removed. This is
the first publication of these formulas; these were not included
in [6]. An application of the joining formula is illustrated in
an example. Section IV contains a brief summary.
2265
II. C ALCULATION OF THE Z- M ATRIX
The classical impedance (Z-) matrix for a passive network
is defined by the linear relation V = Z I , where V is a vector
of port voltages and I is a vector of port currents. As in [1],
we consider the input and output ports and the interaction
gaps of a general VE device circuit to be generalized ports of
a multiport network. The waveguide interfaces are defined as
“wave” ports and the gaps as “lumped” ports. The voltages and
currents at the ports are defined in terms of certain integrals
over the electric and magnetic fields at the ports, in such a
way that the product of the voltage and current is the power
flowing into the port. Different definitions of voltage and
current in terms of the fields will result in different values
for the elements of Z.
A wave port in Analyst is defined as a simulation boundary
region representing a waveguide termination on which is
applied an outgoing wave boundary condition for a specified
number of waveguide modes. The modal current on a wave
port is defined as the inward (into the simulation region)
flowing current in the walls of the waveguide. The modal
voltage on a wave port is defined as V = 2P/I ∗ , where P
is the power flowing into the port and the asterisk denotes
complex conjugate.
A lumped port in Analyst is an infinitesimally thin current-
carrying sheet internal to the simulation region and terminated
on electrical conductors. The electric current between the
terminations flows through a set of filaments constituting the
sheet, which also produces magnetic field. The voltage at a
lumped port is defined as the average over the filaments. The
voltage for each filament is given by the electric field integral
along the current flowing in the filament on the port surface.
By definition, Z i, j gives the voltage response of port i
in response to a current excitation of port j assuming that
all ports, except the excited port, are terminated in open
circuits. The FE EM codes compute this model Z-matrix.
However, for the analysis of VE structures that involve inter-
action of electron beam with the RF fields, we need different
Z-matrices with matching terminations at the boundary
(power) wave ports and open terminations at the internal
ports at the gaps. Two techniques for obtaining such structure
Z-matrix have been presented in [1] using the current sources
for gap excitation and in [6] using the model Z-matrix obtained
from EM simulation. The latter provides remarkably faster
computation time. As described in [6], obtaining the structure
Z-matrix includes inversion of the model Z-matrix, inverted
matrix modification, and one more matrix inversion that yields
the structure Z-matrix. The matrix inversion can lead to
numerical errors near frequencies at which Z-matrix is singular
(noninvertible) that is near frequencies of the normal modes
of the structure with all ports open. We demonstrate below,
how to avoid these inaccuracies by using an explicit formula
in which inversion of Z is avoided.
We denote the classical impedance matrix computed
by Analyst by Z A and the port voltages and currents
by V A and I A
V A = Z A I A. (1)
2266
Analyst computes and writes the matrix Z A for as many
discrete frequencies as desired to a text file for later use.
However, Z A cannot be used directly by the large-signal
codes since 1) the definitions of wave port modal voltages
and currents and 2) the boundary conditions on the modal
fields at the wave ports are different for the classical Z-matrix
computed by Analyst and for the large-signal codes.
To transform Z A to the impedance matrix we need, we first
define a matrix Z̃ using the definitions of voltage and current
used in the large-signal codes. We refer the reader to [1] for
details. We denote by V and I the port voltages and currents
defined in [1] and define the ratio
Ij V jA
ξj ≡ = (2)
I jA Vj
where j is a wave port index. We note that the product of
voltage and current is the same for both definitions. For wave
ports, ξ j depends on the wave port (waveguide) mode. For a
TE10 mode of a rectangular waveguide, for example, it may
be shown (see Appendix) that

π b
TE10
ξ = (3)
2 2a
where a and b are the width and height of the waveguide. If j
is the index of a lumped port, then it turns out that ξ j = 1,
which is due to the fact that the definitions of the current and
voltage at the gaps are the same in Analyst and the large-signal
codes. It follows from (2) that:
Z̃ ij = ξi ξ j Z ijA . (4)
We must next account for the fact that the large-signal codes
assume matched, not open, and terminations at the wave ports.
In order to do this, we must add the characteristic (matched)
wave port admittances to the inverse of Z, and then reinvert
(see [1] for details). The result is that the impedance matrix
Z required by the large-signal simulations is
Z ≡ Y −1 (5)
where the admittance matrix Y is given by
−1
Y = Z̃ + Y0 (6)
where Y0 is a diagonal matrix whose only nonzero values are
the characteristic admittances of the wave port modes, which
appear only in those rows corresponding to wave port indices.
The matrix Y is, therefore, the admittance matrix for the
structure computed with matched loads at the wave ports and
short circuits at the lumped ports. It follows that Z = Y −1 is
the impedance matrix for the structure computed with matched
loads at the wave ports and open circuits at the lumped ports.
It is Z given in (5) that is required by the large-signal codes
CHRISTINE-CC and TESLA-Z.
In [6], we arrived at the Y -matrix transformation (6) by
different approaches, which used the equivalent circuit of a
multiport network.
It follows from (5) and (6) that:
Z = Z̃ (I N + Y0 Z̃ )−1 (7)
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 65, NO. 6, JUNE 2018
Fig. 1. Folded waveguide Ka -band power booster.
where I N is the identity matrix of dimension N × N and N
is the total number of ports. The form of the matrix (I N +
Y0 Z̃ ) is simple and its inversion is straightforward; for two or
fewer wave ports, comprising most cases of practical interest,
the inverse may be written down analytically for any number
of lumped ports. The inverse of Z̃ itself is never needed or
computed.
We have applied our method to the computation of the
Z -matrix for the 27 gap folded waveguide Ka -band power
booster [7], as shown in Fig. 1. The dimension of the Z-matrix
is 29 × 29, including the wave ports at the ends of the input
and output waveguides. The Analyst mesh consisted of approx-
imately 150-K total cells (∼5.57-K per gap-to-gap period) and
took approximately 17 min on an Intel Xeon W5580 desktop
computer to compute the complete Z-matrix at 105 discrete
frequencies; the time required for the calculation correspond-
ing to (7) is insignificant. The corresponding calculation on
the same computer using approximately the same mesh, and
using direct excitation of each gap and postprocessing the
fields using HFSS took approximately 2-1/2 h, which is a
factor of ∼9 longer. Plots of selected Z -matrix elements versus
frequency from Analyst using lumped ports at the gaps and
from HFSS using current excitation at the gaps are shown in
Fig. 2. The excellent level of agreement shown is typical of
that for all elements of the matrix.
III. Z-M ATRICES FOR J OINED AND
S EPARATED S TRUCTURES
RF structures with large numbers of coupled cells can
be difficult or impossible to model accurately with 3-D FE
EM codes because of computer memory limitations, due to
the requirement that the mesh be sufficiently fine to resolve
geometrical features adequately within each cell. For example,
the simulation of the 27 gap power booster (Fig. 1) using
Analyst employed meshes of up to 528-K elements. High-gain
TWT circuits, however, can be 50, 100, or even a few hundred
periods in length. The memory and runtime requirements
for the computation of the Z-matrix of such a structure are
enormous.
Fortunately, it is possible to construct the impedance matrix
of a structure by combining the impedance matrices of their
composite parts; it is also possible by inverting the joining
equations to compute the impedance matrix of a structure from
which a substructure has been removed.
JABOTINSKI et al.: EFFICIENT CALCULATION OF IMPEDANCE MATRICES 2267

Fig. 3. Substructures have wave ports at the coupling slot and beam
tunnel planes and lumped ports at the gaps. The ports are highlighted in
violet.

Fig. 4. Block diagram showing port indexing and categories.

We designate the impedance matrices of the structures to be

joined by Z 1 and Z 2 and that of the combined structure as Z C .
The port indexing order is shown in Fig. 4. Various studies
of cascaded connections of multiport networks have appeared
in [8]–[10]. In particular, Simpson [8] provides equations for
the resulting scattering matrix of the combined structure. For
our application, however, to describe electron beam interaction
with multimodal EM fields in VE structures, direct calculation
of the Z-matrices is required. We present below the Z-matrix
equations obtained for the combined and separated structures.
We define three categories of ports: essential, shared, and
junction in Fig. 4. Essential ports belong to Z 1 only and remain
present in Z C after joining. Junction ports are those to be
joined, and are, therefore, present in equal numbers in both Z 1
and Z 2 . Shared ports are associated with Z 2 and Z C . Essential
and shared ports may be either wave or lumped ports; junction
ports must be wave ports.
We write the impedance matrices in block form
 
Z 1;EE Z 1;EE
Z1 = (8)
Z 1;JE Z 1;JJ
and similarly for Z 2 and Z C ,where subscripts E, J, and S
Fig. 2. Impedance matrix elements calculated from Analyst (blue line) denote the essential, junction, and shared ports, respectively.
versus those obtained from postprocessing of HFSS simulation We apply Kirchhoff’s laws and eliminate the voltage and
(red dots). Port 1 is the input waveguide and ports 7, 12, and 25 are the
5th, 10th, and 23rd interaction gaps, respectively, counted from the input. current variables associated with the junctions. The result after
some algebra is
⎧
A. Joined Structures ⎪ Z C;EE = Z 1;EE − Z 1;EJY+ Z 1;JE
⎪
⎪
⎨
We assume that we are given impedance matrices for two Z C;ES = Z 1;EJ Y+ Z 2;JS
ZC = (9)
structures to be joined at a set of common (wave) ports; an ⎪
⎪ Z C;SE = Z 2;SJ Y+ Z 1;JE
⎪
⎩
example is illustrated in Fig. 3. In this example, the substruc- Z C;SS = Z 2;SS − Z 2;SJ Y+ Z 2;JS
tures are joined at the beam tunnel and the coupling slot, both
of which are treated as wave ports in the FE simulation. where Y+ ≡ (Z 1;JJ + Z 2;JJ )−1 .
2268 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 65, NO. 6, JUNE 2018

Fig. 5. (a) Z11 of the structure on the right-hand side of Fig. 3, as calculated using (9) to combine the impedance matrices from separate Analyst
simulations of the substructures (blue line) and from a single Analyst simulation of the whole structure (red dots). Port 1 is the input waveguide port.
The frequency range starts at the lower cutoff frequency of the folded waveguide. (b) As in (a), for Z14 , port 1 is the input port; port 4 is the second
gap counted from the input port. (c) As in (a), for Z5,7 , wave port 5 is at the slot and lumped port 7 is at the nearest gap to port 5.

The application of Kirchoff’s laws is fully equivalent to accurate results. Each additional mode simply adds one addi-
matching EM fields (“mode matching”) at the junction ports. tional port (row and column) to the impedance matrices. The
We note that it is usually necessary to include more than sizes of the Z1 and Z2 matrices depend on the number of
one waveguide mode at the junction ports in order to obtain port modes retained in the analysis. For example, for three
JABOTINSKI et al.: EFFICIENT CALCULATION OF IMPEDANCE MATRICES 2269

removal of sections during different stages of the optimization

process.
We again omit the algebra involved and simply state that
inversion of (9) gives
⎧
⎪
⎪ Z 1;EE = Z C;EE + Z C;ESY− Z C;SE
⎪
⎨Z
1;EJ = Z C;ES Y− Z 2;SJ
Z1 = (10)
⎪
⎪ Z 1;JE = Z 2;JS Y− Z C;SE
⎪
⎩
Z 1;JJ = −Z 2;JJ + Z 2;JS Y− Z 2;SJ
where Y− ≡ (Z 2;SS − Z C;SS )−1 .

IV. S UMMARY AND C ONCLUSION

Fig. 6. Relative difference between the value of |Z5,7 | as computedus-
ing (9) with 1, 2, or 3 modes at the junction ports and as computedby a
simulation of the whole structure.
modes retained for each of the junction ports of the 6-port
substructures in Fig. 3, the sizes of Z1 and Z2 are 10 × 10 and
14 × 14, respectively.
We also note that for the proper use of (9) one has to take
into account the spatial orientation of the port modes with
respect to the global coordinate system used by the FE code in
order to define the directions of the port currents and voltages
for computing the impedance matrix elements.
As an example, we consider combining two substructures at
the input end of the folded waveguide structure from Fig. 1,
as illustrated in Fig. 3. Some selected results using (9) are
shown in Fig. 5(a)–(c), which are plots of the real and imagi-
nary parts of Z 11 , Z 14 , and Z 57 , respectively, of the combined
structure versus frequency obtained from (9) (blue line) using
the impedance matrices of the two separate substructures from
Analyst, and for the whole structure from Analyst (red dots).
Port 1 is the input port; port 4 is the second gap from the
input port; port 5 is the slot on the right end, and port 7 is the
gap nearest the slot. In this case, three modes of the junction
ports were included in the calculations. The number of modes
is a user-defined option for the FE simulation.
Fig. 6 illustrates the effect of including different numbers of
junction port modes. The relative difference is shown between
the values of |Z 5,7| as computed using (9) with 1, 2, or
3 modes at the junction ports and as computed by a simulation
of the whole structure. Use of three modes gives a relative
difference of less than 1% for all frequencies.
Equation (9) may be applied iteratively to build the Z-matrix
of a structure of arbitrary length. We have applied this method
to construct the Z-matrix of the entire 27 gap power booster
±1/2
circuit of Fig. 1 and have found excellent agreement between
the Z-matrix constructed by multiple applications of (9) and
the simulation of the full structure, as long as at least three
modes are included at the junction ports.
B. Separated Structures
We next consider the problem of separating the structure
represented by Z 2 from that represented by Z C in order to
determine the matrix Z 1 for the remaining structure. One
application is that the optimization of the number of circuit
sections in a traveling wave circuit in order to maximize
gain; such an optimization may require the addition or the
By treating the interaction gaps in VE device circuits as
lumped ports in an FE simulation using Analyst, we have
shown that the impedance matrix required for large-signal
analysis can be evaluated significantly faster than by using
a previously described method [1] in which the gaps were
individually excited with a sheet current and the fields post-
processed using HFSS. The difference in runtime is almost
entirely due to the need to write, reread, and postprocess
the fields in the method used in [1]. We have also pre-
sented formulas that allow the impedance matrix of joined
or separated structures to be computed, without the need
for additional time-consuming FE simulations. Use of the
methods described in this paper make practical the use of the
impedance matrix model for research and design applications,
including performance optimization and stability analysis of
single- or multiple beam VE devices using either standing or
traveling wave circuits interacting with an electron beam at
gaps separated by drift spaces.
A PPENDIX
C URRENT AND VOLTAGE R ATIOS FOR
WAVE P ORT M ODES
For a wave port of an arbitrary cross section, Analyst
computes and displays a value of port impedance defined as
Z pA ≡ V A /I A ≡ 2P/|I A |2 (A1)
for each mode, where I A and P are the modal current and
power flowing into the circuit. The port impedance used in the
large-signal codes, however, is different. The modal voltage
and current in those codes are defined such that their ratio is
the wave impedance
Z wave
p ≡ V /I = Z 0 1 − ωc2 /ω2 (A2)
√
where Z 0 ≡ μ0 /ε0 ≈ 376.7 , ωc is the mode cutoff
frequency and ω is the signal frequency. The upper (+) sign
in the exponent of (A2) applies to TM modes; the lower (−)
sign applies to TE modes. It follows that:
√ A
ξ = Z p /Z wave
p . (A3)
As an example, we may compute an explicit formula for ξ
for the dominant TE10 mode of a rectangular waveguide. For
this mode, the power flowing into the circuit is
ab
P= E 0 H1 (A4)
4
2270 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 65, NO. 6, JUNE 2018

where a and b are the waveguide dimensions and E 0 and H1 [10] B. D. O. Andersen and S. Vongpanitlerd, Network Analysis and Synthe-
are the peak transverse electric and magnetic fields. sis: A Modern Systems Theory Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA:
Prentice-Hall, 1973, p. 548.
The current flowing into the circuit (same as flowing out)
is obtained by integrating the magnetic field along the interior
surface of the waveguide. We find
2a
IA = H1 . (A5) Vadim Jabotinski (M’11) received the M.Sc.
π degree in radio-physics and electronics from
The port voltage is inferred from the power and current Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine,
in 1983.
using V A = 2P/I A∗ , from which we find He has been with the Naval Research Labo-
πb ratory, Washington, DC, USA, since 2009. He
VA =
E0 . (A6) is currently a Senior Research Scientist with
4 Leidos, Reston, VA, USA.
It follows that the Analyst port impedance V A /I A for
the TE10 mode is:
π 2 b E0
ZA = . (A7)
8 a H1
The ratio E 0 /H1 is the wave impedance. It follows David Chernin received the Ph.D. degree in
from (A3) that: applied mathematics from Harvard University,
 Cambridge, MA, USA, in 1976.
I VA π b Since 1984, he has been with Leidos (formerly
ξ ≡ A =
TE10
= (A8) Science Applications International Corporation),
I V 2 2a Reston, VA, USA, where he is currently a Senior
which is (3) in the text. It may be shown similarly that (A8) Staff Scientist.
holds for the TEn0 mode for any value of n.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Dr. J. DeFord and
Mr. B. Held of National Instruments/AWR, Mequon, WI,
USA, for assistance with Analyst. The views, opinions and/or Thomas M. Antonsen, Jr., (M’87–SM’02–F’12)
findings expressed are those of the authors and should not be received the Ph.D. degree from Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, NY, USA, in 1977.
interpreted as representing the official views or policies of the He is currently a Professor of physics and an
Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. Approved for electrical and computer engineering and electro-
Public Release, Distribution Unlimited. physics with the University of Maryland, College
Park, MD, USA.

R EFERENCES
[1] I. A. Chernyavskiy, T. M. Antonsen, J. C. Rodgers, A. N. Vlasov,
D. Chernin, and B. Levush, “Modeling vacuum electronic devices using
generalized impedance matrices,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 64,
no. 2, pp. 536–542, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TED.2016.2640205.
[2] H. J. Curnow, “A general equivalent circuit for coupled-cavity slow-
wave structures,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. MTT-13, Alexander N. Vlasov (M’95–SM’03) received
no. 5, pp. 671–675, Sep. 1965, doi: 10.1109/TMTT.1965.1126062. the Ph.D. degree in physics from Moscow State
[3] T. M. Antonsen, A. N. Vlasov, D. P. Chernin, I. A. Chernyavskiy, and University, Moscow, Russia, in 1987.
B. Levush, “Transmission line model for folded waveguide circuits,” He has been with the Naval Research Labora-
IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 2906–2911, Sep. 2013, tory, Washington, DC, USA, since 2008, where
doi: 10.1109/TED.2013.2272659. he is currently the Head of the Theoretical and
[4] D. Chernin et al., “Large-signal multifrequency simulation of coupled- Computational Electromagnetic Section.
cavity TWTs,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 58, no. 4,
pp. 1229–1240, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1109/TED.2011.2106504.
[5] D. Chernin, T. M. Antonsen, A. N. Vlasov, I. A. Chernyavskiy,
K. T. Nguyen, and B. Levush, “1-D large signal model of folded-
waveguide traveling wave tubes,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 61,
no. 6, pp. 1699–1706, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.1109/TED.2014.2298100.
[6] V. Jabotinski, D. Chernin, and T. Antonsen, “Efficient calculation of
impedance matrices for VE device circuit structures,” in Proc. Int. Vac.
Electron. Conf. (IVEC), London, U.K., Apr. 2017, pp. 1–2. John C. Rodgers was with the Naval Research
[7] B. Levush et al., “Multi-kW 35 GHz TWT power-booster development,” Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA. He serves
in Proc. 15th IEEE Int. Vacuum Electron. Conf. (IVEC), Monterey, as a Volunteer Faculty of the U.S. Naval Acad-
CA, USA, vol. 24. Apr. 2014, pp. 125–126, doi: 10.1109/IVEC.2014. emy, Annapolis, MD, USA, where he teaches
6857521. and tutors a variety of physics and engineering
[8] G. R. Simpson, “A generalized n-port cascade connection,” in IEEE courses.
MTT-S Int. Microw. Symp. Dig., Los Angeles, CA, USA, Jun. 1981,
pp. 507–509, doi: 10.1109/MWSYM.1981.1129978.
[9] B. D. O. Anderson and R. W. Newcomb, “Cascade connection for
time-invariant n-port networks,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., vol. 113, no. 6,
pp. 970–974, Jun. 1966, doi: 10.1049/piee.1966.0161.
JABOTINSKI et al.: EFFICIENT CALCULATION OF IMPEDANCE MATRICES
Igor A. Chernyavskiy (M’05) received the Ph.D.
degree in physics from the Institute of High Cur-
rent Electronics, Tomsk, Russia, in 1996.
Since 2011, he has been a Research Physicist
with the Naval Research Laboratory, Washing-
ton, DC, USA.
2271
Baruch Levush (F’01) received the Ph.D.
degree in plasma physics from Tel-Aviv Univer-
sity, Tel Aviv, Israel, in 1981.
In 1995, he joined the Naval Research Labo-
ratory, Washington, DC, USA, as a Theory and
Design Section Head. Since 2012, he has been
a Superintendent of the Electronics Science and
Technology Division.