IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 69, NO.
10, OCTOBER 2022
Model Order Reduction for Delayed PEEC Models
With Guaranteed Accuracy and Observed Stability
Lihong Feng , Luigi Lombardi , Peter Benner , Daniele Romano, and Giulio Antonini , Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract— In this work, a stable and accurate model order
reduction method for large-scale partial element equivalent
circuit (PEEC) models with many delays is proposed. The method
reduces the dimension of the original model by interpolating the
original transfer function. The interpolation points are iteratively
selected using a greedy algorithm. An efficient error estimator for
the reduced transfer function makes the greedy algorithm very
successful in both, properly selecting the interpolation points and
tightly measuring the error of the reduced transfer function. The
resulting reduced-order model is accurate both in the frequency
and in the time domain. Numerical tests have shown that the
reduced-order model successfully filters the instability behavior
of the original model and exhibits stability over a large time
interval.
Index Terms— Partial element equivalent circuit (PEEC)
method, model order reduction, greedy algorithm, error
estimation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE design of high-speed circuits requires the time-delay
phenomena due to the propagation delays to be taken into
account. It occurs in modeling and designing interconnects
in circuit packaging and printed circuit boards (PCBs). Large
scale time-delay systems with many delays are very time con-
suming to simulate both in the frequency and the time domain.
Many model order reduction (MOR) techniques have been
proposed and successfully applied to reduce the complexity
and dimension of large-scale systems [1]–[4]. During the past
years, quite a few efforts are sought to speed up the simulation
of time-delay systems [5]–[7], including PEEC models [8], via
different MOR methods [5], [9], [10]. All those methods tried
to apply the conventional moment-matching methods [11] by
approximating the original non-rational transfer function with
a rational function using truncated power series expansion. The
resulting moment-matching property of the reduced transfer
Manuscript received 28 February 2022; revised 12 June 2022; accepted
3 July 2022. Date of publication 14 July 2022; date of current version
29 September 2022. This article was recommended by Associate Editor P.
A. Beerel. (Corresponding author: Giulio Antonini.)
Lihong Feng and Peter Benner are with the Max Planck Institute for
Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany
(e-mail: feng@mpi-magdeburg.mpg.de; benner@mpi-magdeburg.mpg.de).
Luigi Lombardi is with Micron Semiconductor, 67051 Avezzano, Italy
(e-mail: luigilombardi89@gmail.com).
Daniele Romano and Giulio Antonini are with the UAq EMC Laboratory,
Department of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, Uni-
versity of L’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy (e-mail: daniele.romano@univaq.it;
giulio.antonini@univaq.it).
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSI.2022.3189389.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCSI.2022.3189389
1549-8328 © 2022 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4177
function is only satisfied for the approximate transfer function.
In [12], a physics-based MOR method for PEEC circuits is
proposed. The method presented in [13] is a direct mesh-based
MOR method. Both the works in [12] and [13] are limited to
quasi-static problems.
In [14], a parameterized MOR technique for circuits
described by the delayed PEEC method is presented.
An implicit multiparameter moment matching algorithm is
used for the moments related to the design parameters. The
parameterized reduced-order model (ROM) is constructed only
at a fixed frequency. Many ROMs must be constructed for
many different frequency samples. Inverse Laplace transform
is applied to the frequency domain solution to obtain the time-
domain response, which requires a second-stage approxima-
tion: truncating a Padé approximation.
In a recent work [15], the original transfer function is
not approximated before MOR. A reduced transfer function
which interpolates the original transfer function at iteratively
chosen interpolation points is obtained using greedy algo-
rithms. A reduced-order model (ROM) is derived via applying
Petrov-Galerkin projection to the original PEEC model that
is, for future reference, referred to as the full-order model
(FOM). The interpolation property of the reduced transfer
function is also proved in [15], but essentially follows from the
structure-preserving interpolatory model reduction framework
introduced in [16]. At each iteration of the greedy algorithm,
the frequency at which the approximate L∞ -error between the
original transfer function and the reduced transfer function
is attained, is selected as the interpolation point. It is then
used to compute new basis vectors that are combined with the
previous basis vectors to update the ROM. Novel algorithms
are proposed in [15] to numerically compute the L∞ -error.
The method nevertheless has some weak points. The ROMs for
most of the tested models are usually not accurate and unstable
in the time domain though the corresponding reduced transfer
functions approximate the original transfer functions well in
frequency domain. Moreover, the L∞ error measure used to
stop the algorithm has no direct relation to the magnitude error
of the reduced transfer function, especially for multiple input
and multiple output systems, and it tends to overestimate the
true error of the reduced transfer function.
The proposed method in this work overcomes the above
difficulties of the existing works. Firstly, it also interpolates the
original transfer function H (s) instead of an approximation or
truncation of H (s). Secondly, it employs a new error estimator
proposed in [17] to measure the magnitude error of the reduced
transfer function. The new error estimator tightly catches the
4178 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 69, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2022

true error of the reduced transfer function. Thirdly, the ROMs The unknown vector is:
are not only accurate but also stable in the time domain.
In contrast to the L∞ -error, the new error estimator is a x(t) = [i (t) φsr (t) φi (t) v d (t) qs (t)]T ∈ nu ×1 ,
more intuitive and straightforward error measure. Due to the
tightness of the error estimator, the greedy algorithm converges where i (t) represents the branch currents, φsr (t) the scalar
in only a few iterations by selecting a few interpolation points potentials for surface nodes, φi (t) the scalar potentials for
in a very wide frequency band. The ROM accurately catches internal nodes, v d (t) the excess capacitance voltages for
the behavior of the FOM in both the frequency domain and dielectric branches and qs (t) the surface charges [8]. The state
the time domain. Finally, we construct a single ROM for the space matrices E, A and B are:
PEEC model, which is accurate for all the frequencies in the ⎡ ⎤
frequency domain of interest. Our time domain response is L p(Q S) 0 0 0 0
n b ×n ns n b ×n ni n b ×n bd n b ×n p
obtained by directly simulating the ROM in the time domain ⎢ n b ×n b ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥ MT
without a second stage of approximation [14]. ⎢ n ns ×n b n ns ×n ns n ns ×n ni n ns ×n bd ⎥ n ns ×n p
⎢ ⎥
Compared to our proceedings paper [18], this work con- ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
E =⎢ n ni ×n b n ni ×n ns n ni ×n ni n ni ×n bd n ni ×n p ⎥ ,
tributes most of the numerical analysis which is missing ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 Cd 0 ⎥
in [18]. New contributions of this work include: the adaptation ⎢ n bd ×n b n bd ×n ns n bd ×n ni n bd ×n bd n bd ×n p ⎥
⎣ ⎦
of an error estimator from [17] to time-delayed PEEC models 0 0 0 0 0
n p ×n b n p ×n ns n p ×n ni n p ×n bd n p ×n p
is explored. Numerically computing the error estimator is ⎡ ⎤
detailed. Instability of the ROMs obtained by the method −R −As −Ai − 0
×n ×n ×n ×n ×n
in [15] is observed and empirically improved. Numerical ⎢ n b b n b ns n b ni n b bd n b p
⎥
⎢ A T −G le 0 0 0 ⎥
comparison with the method in [15] in both frequency-domain ⎢ s n ×n nns ×n ⎥
ni n ns ×n bd n ns ×n p ⎥
⎢ nns ×nb ns ns
and time-domain is provided. The proposed algorithm is tested ⎢ AT ⎥
A=⎢
⎢ nni ×ni 0 0 0 0 ⎥
n ni ×n ns n ni ×n ni n ni ×n bd n ni ×n p ⎥ ,
on two more PEEC models with up to 191 delays and some ⎢ Tb ⎥
16,000 degrees of freedom. ⎢  0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ nbd ×nb nbd ×n ns n bd ×n ni n bd ×n bd n bd ×n p ⎥
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we describe ⎣ ⎦
0 M 0 0 −P (Q S)
the PEEC method and the time-delayed PEEC model under n p ×n b n p ×n ns n p ×n ni n p ×n bd n p ×n p
consideration. In Section III, the proposed method is discussed ⎡ ⎤
I 0
in detail. We first introduce a greedy algorithm for delayed ⎢ nb ×nb n b ×n ns
⎥
⎢ 0 I ⎥
PEEC models. Then instability of the method in [15] is ⎢ nns ×nb n ns ×n ns ⎥
⎢ ⎥
analyzed and improved. A new error estimator in [17] is B =⎢ 0
⎢ nni ×nb
0 ⎥,
n ni ×n ns ⎥
extended to time-delayed PEEC models based on which a new ⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎢ n ×n ⎥
greedy algorithm is proposed. More details on computing the ⎣ bd b n bd ×n ns ⎦
error estimator for MOR of the delayed PEEC models are 0 0
n p ×n b n p ×n ns
addressed. Section IV presents numerical tests of the proposed
greedy algorithm on three large-scale delayed PEEC models where n b , n ns , n ni , n bd and n p represent the number of
with hundreds of delays. Behavior of the ROMs in both branches, surface nodes, internal nodes, dielectric cells and
frequency domain and time domain are compared with the surface cells, respectively. Furthermore, L p(Q S) and P (Q S) are
ROMs obtained from the algorithms in [15]. Conclusions are the quasi static partial inductance and coefficients of potential
given in Section V. matrices where propagation delays have been neglected, Cd
II. D ELAYED PEEC M ODELS is the excess capacitance matrix, R is the branches resistance
The PEEC method is an integral equation - based method matrix, As is the incidence matrix for the surface nodes, Ai is
which solves Maxwell’s equations using the electric field the incidence matrix for the internal nodes,  is the dielectric
integral equation and the continuity equation [8], [19]–[21]. region selection matrix, M is the surface to node reduction
Several different formulations have been proposed through the matrix and G le is the load conductance matrix (assuming for
years for the PEEC method. Each formulation is characterized simplicity of notation that only resistive lumped elements are
by a different set of variables which may confer particular connected to the PEEC model). The source vector u(t) is:
numerical properties to the model. Since we need to keep 
v (t)
explicit the propagation delays for both partial inductances and u= s ,
potential coefficients, the choice which better fits our needs is i s (t)
the one proposed in [22].
where v s (t) and i s (t) are the voltage and current sources
A. Brief Introduction to the PEEC Method which are applied to branches and nodes, respectively. In this
In this subsection, we briefly present the PEEC method formulation, the surface charges qs are kept as unknowns
in [22], based on which we derive our time-delayed PEEC avoiding the inversion of the potential coefficients matrix
models in the next subsection. The modified nodal analy- P (Q S). It is also worth observing that the proposed PEEC for-
sis (MNA) form of the adopted formulation is: mulation, based on separate charge and current basis functions,
d x(t) demonstrates favorable low-frequency behavior, as confirmed
E = Ax(t) + Bu(t). in [23], [24].
dt

Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
FENG et al.: MOR FOR DELAYED PEEC MODELS WITH GUARANTEED ACCURACY AND OBSERVED STABILITY 4179

B. Time-Delay Formulation of the PEEC Model
When propagation delays are considered and modeled as
center to center delays between the spatial support of basis
functions, partial inductances L p and coefficients of potential
P are expanded in the time domain as
d
C. MOR for the Delayed PEEC Model
A ROM of the delayed PEEC model, which has the
same delays as the original system, can be obtained via
Petrov-Galerkin projection using two projection matrices
W, V , i.e.,

d
Ê j ż(t − τ j ) = Â j z(t − τ j ) + B̂u(t),
L p(t) = L p j δ(t − τ j ),
j =0 j =0
j =0
ŷ(t) = Ĉ z(t), ∀ t ≥ 0, (5)

d
P(t) = P j δ(t − τ j ), (1) where Ê j = EjV ∈
WT Â j = Rr×r ,
AjV ∈ B̂ =
WT Rr×r ,
j =0 W T B ∈ Rr×m , Ĉ = C V ∈ R p×r , with r  n being the
where δ(t) denotes the delta Dirac function and 0 = τ0 < order of the ROM. The original state vector x(t) in (3) can be
τ1 < . . . < τd represent a set of significant delays. Delay τ0 = recovered by the approximation: x(t) ≈ V z(t). The transfer
0 occurs in the self (diagonal) terms and for basis functions function of the ROM is
for which the center to center delay is smaller than the time Ĥ (s) = Ĉ K̂−1 (s) B̂,
step and account for instantaneous magnetic and electric field  
interactions. where K̂(s) = s dj =0 Ê j e−sτ j − dj =0 Â j e−sτ j . In [15], the
The expressions of L p(t) and P(t) in (1) imply that following interpolation property for delay systems is proved.
matrices E and A are decomposed in the Laplace domain as Proposition 1: Let a delay system be given by E 0 , . . . , E d ,
A0 , . . . , Ad , τ1 , . . . , τd , B, C and let s0 ∈ C be a fixed

d expansion point. Define the sequence of matrices (Kk )∞ k=0 ∈

E(s) = E j e−sτ j , Cn×n by
j =0

d
−sτ j
K0 (s0 ) = s0 e−s0 τ j E j − e−s0 τ j A j ,
A(s) = Aje . (2) j =0 j =0
j =0

d
(−τ j )k−1 −s0 τ j
(−τ j )kd

When matrices E(s) and A(s) in (2) are transformed back Kk (s0 ) = e E j + s0 e−s0 τ j E j
(k − 1)! k!
to the time domain and applied to the unknown vector x(t), j =0 j =0
the following time-delay formulation of the PEEC model is

d
(−τ j )k
obtained: − e−s0 τ j A j ∀ k ≥ 1,
k!
j =0

d

E j ẋ(t − τ j ) = A j x(t − τ j ) + Bu(t), which satisfies K(σ ) = ∞ k=0 Kk σ , with s = s0 + σ . Here
k

j =0 j =0 K(s) is defined in (4). Use these to define two other sequences

y(t) = C x(t), ∀ t ≥ 0 (3) of matrices (Fk )∞
k=0 ⊂ C
n×m and (G )∞ ⊂ Cn× p recursively
k k=0
as
with an initial condition x(t) = (t) ∈ Cn , ∀ t ∈ [−τd , 0].
F0 (s0 ) = K0 (s0 )−1 B,
Here, E 0 , . . . , E d , A0 , . . . , Ad ∈ Cn×n , B ∈ Cn×m , C ∈ k−1
C p×n , 0 = τ0 < τ1 < . . . < τd and n is called the order

−1
Fk (s0 ) = −k!K0 (s0 ) Kk−i Fi ,
of the delay system.
i=0
Equations (3) are a set of delayed differential equations
of the neutral type (NDDE). They can be solved by the G 0 (s0 ) = (K0 (s0 ))−T C T ,
k−1
Lobatto III-C method that provides a numerical solution which

−T T
is accurate to order 2 for the differential equation scheme, G k (s0 ) = −k!(K0 (s0 )) Kk−i (s0 ) G i .
i=0
as shown in [25]. Accurate time domain simulations for
delayed PEEC circuits have also been obtained using the Let V, W ∈ Cn×r be projection matrices and Ĥ be the transfer
backward Euler formulas [22], [26], [27]. It should be pointed function of the corresponding ROM.
out that the PEEC method is able to reproduce the DC solution • If F0 (s0 ), . . . , Fl (s0 ) ∈ Range(V ), then
better than other integral equation-based techniques, like the H (i) (s0 ) = Ĥ (i) (s0 ) ∀ i = 0, . . . , l.
Method of Moments (MoM) [28] by virtue of the fact that
it keeps the charges and currents effects separate, making it • If G 0 (s0 ), . . . , G k (s0 ) ∈ Range(W ), then
more robust than the MoM in relation to the low frequency c T H (i) (s0 ) = c T Ĥ (i)(s0 ) ∀ i = 0, . . . , k.
breakdown problem [24].
The transfer function of the delay system is defined as: • If F0 (s0 ), . . . , Fl (s0 ) ∈ Range(V ) and
G 0 (s0 ), . . . , G k (s0 ) ∈ Range(W ), then
H (s) = CK−1 (s)B, (4) H (i) (s0 ) = Ĥ (i) (s0 ) ∀ i = 0, . . . , l + k + 1.
 
where K(s) = s dj =0 E j e−sτ j − dj =0 A j e−sτ j . Here, (·)(i) denotes the i -th derivative of a function.

Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4180 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 69, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2022

Note that for l = k = 1, this is a particular instance of the

general interpolation result from [16].
Proposition 1 shows that the reduced transfer function Ĥ (s)
and its i -th (i = 1, . . . , N) order derivatives interpolate the
original transfer function H (s) and its corresponding deriva-
tives at the interpolation point s0 , respectively. In this work,
we use this Lemma to construct a projection matrix V , so that
a ROM is computed via Galerkin projection using W = V .
It can be seen that when V is constructed following the above
Lemma, the reduced transfer function interpolates the original
transfer function rather than any truncated approximation,
up to the lth derivative.
From the expressions of Fi and G i , i ≥ 1, we can see
that they are much more complicated to compute than F0 and
G 0 , especially for systems with many delays, e.g., d ≥ 100.
Therefore it is desired that only F0 and G 0 are used to compute
the projection matrices V and W , respectively and obtain the
ROM from W, V following (5). However, if only a single inter-
polation point s0 is used, then the resulting ROM is inaccurate
for problems with wide frequency band. Multiple interpolation
points must be considered. A proposition is proposed in [15]
to show the multiple-point interpolation property of the ROM.
For completeness, we repeat it as below.
Proposition 2:
• If F0 (si ) ∈ Range(V ), i = 1, . . . , l, then H (si ) = Fig. 1. Greedy interpolation for delayed PEEC models.
Ĥ (si ), i = 1, . . . , l.
• If G 0 (si ) ∈ Range(W ), i = 1, . . . , l, then H (si ) =
Ĥ (si ), i = 1, . . . , l.
• If F0 (si ) ∈ Range(V ) and G 0 (si ) ∈ Range(W ), i = Therefore, ∗0 might be seen as an estimation of H − Ĥ L∞ ,
which takes the supremum in a finite interval of s. A heuristic
1, . . . , l, then H (si ) = Ĥ (si ) and H
(si ) = Ĥ
(si ), i =
algorithm H-greedy is proposed in [15], where ∗0 is computed
1, . . . , l.
by taking some samples of ω from [ω, ω] and take ∗0 as the
The proposition says that if only F0 (si ), i = 1, . . . , l, are
included in Range(V ), then the reduced transfer function Ĥ
interpolates the original transfer function at the interpolation
points si , i = 1, . . . , l. However, different interpolation points
result in ROMs with quite different accuracy. Therefore, how
to properly select the interpolation points so as to obtain a
ROM with acceptable accuracy and dimension is the key of
MOR for delayed PEEC models.
III. T HE P ROPOSED I NTERPOLATION M ETHOD
We propose to use a greedy procedure presented in the
following Algorithm 1, shown in Fig. 1, to iteratively select the
interpolation points. The robustness of the procedure mainly
depends on the efficiency of the error measure ∗ (s) in Step 7
of the algorithm.
A. A Greedy Algorithm and the Error Measure in [15]
The greedy procedure of Algorithm 1, shown in Fig. 1,
is initially introduced in [15], where ∗ (sk+1 ) =: ∗0 is
maximal value of H (j ω) − Ĥ(j ω) over those samples. It is
clear that this heuristic method is unreliable and ∗0 may have
different values when different (number of) samples are taken.
Another more advanced algorithm SSI-greedy is also proposed
in [15]. However, SSI-greedy faces high computational com-
plexity as there are two many loops of iteration where not
only the FOM needs to be simulated but also the ROMs need
to be simulated for many times during the iterations of the
algorithm, which constitute the main computational cost of
SSI-greedy. Numerical tests in [15] also show that SSI-greedy
is much slower than H-greedy for large models, though it is
more reliable.
It is worth pointing out that since ∗0 corresponds to the
maximum of the spectral norm of H (j ω) − Ĥ (j ω) in a
finite interval of s, this error measure does not directly reflect
the actual magnitude of the reduced transfer function error,
(s) := max |Hi j (s) − Ĥi j |, i = 1, . . . , p, j = 1, . . . , m. The
i, j
subscript i j means the i, j -th entry of the transfer function.
It is shown in [15] that measuring the error of the reduced
defined as ∗0 = max H (j ω) − Ĥ (j ω). Here,  ·  is transfer function using the L∞ -norm tends to overestimate
ω∈[ω,ω]
the spectral norm of a matrix, [ω, ω] is the frequency band of (s). This is also seen in the Tables I-II, Fig. 10, Fig. 14,
interest. Recall the definition of the L∞ -norm of any matrix Fig. 12 and Fig. 16 in Section IV, where the L∞ -errors
function f (s) ∈ C p×m :  f L∞ = sup  f (j ω), where s = (Valid.er) are still much larger than the given error tolerance,
ω∈R but from the figures, the errors (s) of those ROMs are already
j ω, j is the imaginary unit, and ω is the angular frequency. very small.

Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
FENG et al.: MOR FOR DELAYED PEEC MODELS WITH GUARANTEED ACCURACY AND OBSERVED STABILITY 4181

B. Stable Versions of the Algorithms in [15] Inserting X r (s) = K−1 (s)R pr (s) into the last equality in (8),
We find that H-greedy and SSI-greedy in [15] produce we get
ROMs that are unstable in the time domain. This probably H (s) − Ĥ (s) = C(s)X r (s). (10)
is caused by the Petrov-Galerkin projection. In this work,
we propose to replace the Petrov-Galerkin projection in In [17], instead of solving the system (9) of the FOM dimen-
H-greedy and SSI-greedy with Galerkin projection by equating sion, a ROM of (9) is first constructed by computing another
W to V , i.e., W = V , and only compute V during the projection matrix Vr , i.e.,
greedy iterations. Finally, the ROMs are obtained by applying
VrT K(s)Vr Z r (s) = VrT R pr (s). (11)
Galerkin projection to the FOM using V . We name the
Galerkin versions of H-greedy and SSI-greedy as H-greedy-G An approximate solution X̃ r (s) to (9) is obtained by X̃ r (s) =
and SSI-greedy-G, respectively. It will be demonstrated in Vr Z r (s). Replacing X r (s) in (10) with X̃ r (s), we obtain the
Section IV that H-greedy-G and SSI-greedy-G do construct error estimator for Ĥ (s):
ROMs that are stable in the time domain, while the ROMs
obtained from H-greedy and SSI-greedy are not stable. H (s) − Ĥ (s) ≈ C(s) X̃ r (s) =: D(s).
In the next section, we propose a new error estimator leading
In this work, we consider the matrix max-norm of the error,
to a fast-to-compute ∗ (s) in Step 7 of Algorithm 1 reported
i.e.,
in Fig. 1. Moreover, the error estimator directly measures
the magnitude of the reduced transfer function error, i.e.,
(s). Therefore, it is a more intuitive error measure. It is
demonstrated in Section IV that (s) can be tightly estimated
by the new error estimator. The proposed algorithm based on
the new error estimator also uses Galerkin projection to avoid
instability of the ROMs in the time domain.
C. The New Error Estimator
In the following, we introduce an error estimator for the
reduced transfer function Ĥ (s) of the ROM for the delayed
PEEC model in (3). The error estimator is initially proposed
in [17] and applied to MNA formulated circuit examples
without delay. Since the error estimator is applicable to any
linear system, we consider adapting it to the delayed PEEC
models in this work. Detailed description of the error estimator
for the delay system in (3) is as follows. Define a primal
system in the frequency domain as
K(s)X pr (s) = B,
The reduced primal system is defined as
K̂(s)Z pr (s) = B̂,
so that X̂ pr (s) := V Z pr (s) well approximates the solution
X pr (s). The primal residual is defined as
R pr (s) = B − K(s) X̂ pr (s).
Following the definition of Ĥ (s) and the reduced primal
system (7), we obtain the error between H (s) and Ĥ (s):
||H (s) − Ĥ (s)||
H (s) − Ĥ (s)max ≈ D(s)max = max |Di j (s)| =: (s),
ij
(12)
where Di j (s) is the i, j -th entry of error matrix D(s). Finally,
we use the maximum as our error estimator (s) for esti-
mating the error of Ĥ (s). On the one hand, it is shown
in [17] that (s) can tightly estimate the error of Ĥ (s) in
the sense that is is very close to the true error of Ĥ (s).
On the other hand, computing the error estimator (s) is
much faster than computing the true error defined as (s) =
max |Hi j (s) − Ĥi j (s)|, where the original transfer function
ij
H (s) needs to be computed, which involves computational
cost with complexity of the FOM dimension n. Note that
computing (s) needs only an approximate solution computed
from the ROM of the primal-residual system (9). Moreover,
constructing the ROM (11) of this system can be done in
parallel with constructing the ROM of the original system.
In particular, the projection matrix Vr can be computed in
(6) parallel with V during the iteration of Algorithm 1 reported
in Fig. 1. Based on the new error estimator (s), we propose
a new algorithm reported in Fig. 2, denoted as Algorithm 1,
(7) where the error measure ∗ (s) in Step 7 of Algorithm 1 is
replaced by (s) and computation of (s) for the PEEC
model in (3) is specified.
Remark 1: From the analysis in [17], Vr should be com-
puted in the same way as computing V , but with a different
interpolation point skr at every iteration. Since otherwise,
if sk = skr , then (s) is identically zero [17]. It is also analyzed
in [17], that sk should be far away from skr to avoid (s)
being close to zero leading to underestimation of the true error.
In the subsequent iterations, skr , k > 1, is chosen such that
rr (s)2 (rr (s) is defined in Step 8 of Algorithm 2, reported
= C(s)(K−1 (s)B(s) − V K̂−1 (s) B̂(s))
in Fig. 2), is maximized to make sure that skr is different
= C(s)K−1 (s)(B(s) − K(s) V K̂−1 (s) B̂(s)) from sk . As has been mentioned before, we use Galerkin
  
X̂ pr (s):=V Z pr (s) projection to construct the ROM, i.e., W = V , so that the
−1 cost of constructing W in Steps 4-5 of Algorithm 1, reported
= C(s)K (s)R pr (s), (8) in Fig. 1, is saved in Algorithm2.
Define the primal-residual system as below, Remark 2: Different error estimators for the reduced trans-
fer function are proposed in [17]. Theoretical analyses in [17]
K(s)X r (s) = R pr (s). (9) indicate that (s) has the least computational complexity,

Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4182 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 69, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2022

Fig. 3. Three coplanar microstrips.

Fig. 2. The proposed greedy algorithm for delayed PEEC models.

while numerical tests there show that (s) is one of the

tightest error estimators. Therefore, we choose to use (s)
in this work.
Next, we apply the proposed Algorithm2, reported in Fig. 2, Fig. 4. Microstrip filter geometry adopted for the numerical example.
to three large-scale delayed PEEC models and present the
numerical results both in the frequency domain and in the
into four 256 GB partitions. The results in the time domain
time domain. Algorithm2 is also compared with the algorithms
are obtained with MATLAB R2020a running on a computer
H-greedy and SSI-greedy proposed in [15], as well as their sta-
with Core i7-8565U and 40GB of RAM.
ble versions H-greedy-G and SSI-greedy-G from section III-B.

IV. N UMERICAL T ESTS A. The PEEC Models

We first describe the structures of three PEEC models in
subsection IV-A, then we compare the results of Algorithm2,
reported in Fig. 2, with those of H-greedy, SSI-greedy and
H-greedy-G, SSI-greedy-G in terms of both accuracy and
wall time1 in the frequency domain. The speed-ups with
1) Coplanar Microstrips: In this example, we consider the
three coplanar microstrips structure shown in Fig. 3. The width
of the metal strips is m w = 0.178 mm, the thickness of metal
strips and ground plane is m t = 0.035 mm while the left
and right wing of the microstrips are wd = 3 mm. Finally,
respect to simulating the FOM are also presented. The time-
domain results are shown afterwards in subsection IV-C. The
stability of the ROMs derived from Algorithm 2, H-greedy-
G and SSI-greedy-G can be clearly seen from the figures.
Numerical tests in the frequency domain and the time domain
are done separately by two of the coauthors on their available
computers. Tests in the frequency domain are done with
MATLAB R2016b on a computer server with 4 Intel Xeon
E7-8837 CPUs running at 2.67 GHz, 1 TB main memory, split
1 This is also called the wall clock time. It is “the actual time taken from
the start of a computer program to its termination. In other words, it is the
difference between the time at which a task finishes and the time at which
the length of each strip is  = 5 cm, the thickness of the
dielectric is dt = 0.8 mm, and the spacing between 2 strips
is s = 0.3 mm. The relative dielectric constant is set to be
εr = 4 and the conductivity of the metal is assumed to be
σ = 5.8 · 107 S/m. The six ports, located between the ends of
each strip and the ground plane below, are terminated on load
resistors Rload = 50 . The order of the FOM is n = 16, 644,
and there are d = 168 significant delays. The frequency band
of interest is [0, 10] GHz.
2) Microstrip Filter: The 3D structure of a microstrip filter
is depicted in Fig. 4. The physical dimensions for the geometry
of the 3D structure are: wzl = 0.5 mm, wz0 = 1.125 mm,
the task started.” (from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elapsed-real- wzC = 4 mm, zl = 18.3 mm, z0 = 1 mm, zC = 14.1 mm,
time) w = 2.4 cm  = 2zl + 2z0 + zC tm = 100 μm ts = 100 μm

Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
FENG et al.: MOR FOR DELAYED PEEC MODELS WITH GUARANTEED ACCURACY AND OBSERVED STABILITY
Fig. 5. The three-port microstrip power-divider circuit.
td = 508 μm. The two ends of the microstrip are terminated
on 50  resistors. The order of the FOM is n = 12, 132, and
there are d = 190 delays. The interesting frequency band is
[0, 5] GHz.
3) Three-Port Divider: A three-port microstrip
power-divider circuit has been modeled. The structure
is shown in Fig. 5 (P1 , P2 and P3 denote the ports). The
dimensions of the circuit are [20, 20, 0.5] mm in the
[x, y, z] directions and the width of the microstrips is set
as 0.8 mm. Furthermore, the dimensions l X 1 , lY 1 , and lY 3
are 9, 7.2 and 7.2 mm, respectively. The relative dielectric
constant is εr = 2.2. All the ports are terminated on 50 
resistances. The order of the FOM is n = 10, 626, and it has
d = 93 delays. The interesting frequency band is [0, 20] GHz.
Simulating the FOM in both the frequency domain and
the time domain is very time consuming, which could take
up to 1.5 days to finish computing the transfer function at
1000 frequency samples, and needs over 2 hours to finish one
simulation in the time domain for the largest system. After
the ROM is constructed, simulating the ROM can be done in
seconds to minutes. This will be illustrated from the following
numerical tests on the three models.
B. Frequency Domain Results
This subsection presents the results of the proposed algo-
rithm and the existing greedy algorithms in the frequency
domain. For ease of read, some common variables in the tables
and figures are listed as below.
• r : the order of the ROM. n: the order of the FOM. I ter
is the number of iterations for the algorithm to converge.
• The error tolerance ε for the ROMs are set to be
ε = 1 × 10−3 .
• Valid.er: the validated error. The finally obtained ROM is
tested on a separate test set including 1000 frequency
samples. The test set is much larger than the set of
frequency samples used by H-greedy, H-greedy-G and the
training set of Algorithm 2, reported in Fig. 2. To test the
efficacy of the error estimators used in the algorithms,
the validated errors are taken according to the corre-
sponding error estimators. In particular, for algorithms
H-greedy, H-greedy-G, SSI-greedy and SSI-greedy-G, the
validated error is the L∞ -error of the reduced transfer
function computed over a set of 1000 samples of ω, i.e.,
4183
• “SP-off” in the tables is the speed-up factor of the
algorithm when the offline time of constructing the ROM
is included. Let T-off be the wall time of running each
algorithm till convergence, which is also the offline time
of constructing the ROM. Tr be the online simulation
time of computing the reduced transfer function at the
1000 validation samples, and Tf be the online simulation
time of computing the original transfer function at the
same samples, then SP-off=Tf/(T-off+Tr). It is the ratio
between the FOM simulation time and the offline ROM
construction time plus the online ROM simulation time.
“SP-on” is the online speed-up factor, when only the
online simulation time of the ROM is considered, i.e.,
SP-on=Tf/Tr. It is the ratio between the online FOM
simulation time and the online ROM simulation time.
• For the H-greedy algorithm, samples of s need to be taken
in order to compute the approximate L∞ -error. We take
n H = 100 samples of s over the interesting frequency
band, since it is shown in [15] that n H = 50 produces
less reliable ROMs than n H = 100.
• For the SSI-greedy algorithm, an optimization algorithm
needs to be implemented as an inner loop, at each
iteration of SSI-greedy. It is shown in [15] that a sam-
ple optimization approach obtains the best results. The
number of samples there is taken as n S = 5 or n S = 10.
We use n S = 5 in this work, as it produced results almost
as good as n S = 10 as demonstrated in [15], while the
algorithm converges much faster with n S = 5.
• For algorithms H-greedy-G and SSI-greedy-G, we use the
same n H = 100 and n S = 5 to compute the ROMs.
• The “error estimator” in Figs. 6-8 means the maximal
error estimator over the training set , i.e., max (si ),
i=1,...,n 
where n  is the number of samples in  used in
Algorithm 2. The “true error” is the maximal magnitude
of the reduced transfer function error evaluated at the
samples in , i.e., max (si ).
i=1,...,n 
• In all the figures, the waveforms indicated by the legend
“FOM” are the corresponding results from simulating
the FOM.
Tables I-III present the results of the proposed Algorithm 2
(shown in Fig. 2), H-greedy, SSI-greedy, as well as their
Galerkin versions: H-greedy-G, SSI-greedy-G. The offline,
online speed-ups, the iteration numbers, the order of the
finally derived ROM and the validated error are listed for
each algorithm. When the offline time of constructing the
ROMs are considered, all algorithms have achieved speed-
ups. In particular, Algorithm 2 is faster than the SSI-greedy
algorithms, but is a bit slower than the H-greedy algorithms.
If only the online simulation time is considered, the speed-ups
SP-on are significant, since any ROM simulation can be done
within seconds to minutes, which is negligible as compared
max H (j ωi )− Ĥ (j ωi ). For Algorithm 2, the vali- to the FOM simulation that takes hours. The order of the
i=1,...,1000 derived ROM is only slightly bigger if not smaller. The most
dated error is the maximal magnitude error of the reduced important is the ROMs obtained from Algorithm 2 are the
transfer function evaluated at the same 1000 samples with most accurate ones. The errors of the ROMs after validation
s = j ω, i.e., max (si ), where (si ) is defined in are either below the error tolerance or very close to the error
i=1,...,1000
subsection III-A. tolerance. In contrast, the existing greedy algorithms cannot

Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4184 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 69, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2022
TABLE I
C OPLANAR M ICROSTRIP : n = 16, 644, 168 D ELAYS
TABLE II
M ICROSTRIP F ILTER : n = 12, 132, 190 D ELAYS
TABLE III
M ICROSTRIP P OWER -D IVIDER : n = 10, 626, 93 D ELAYS
construct ROMs with the required accuracy, the validated
errors are much larger than the error tolerance ε for most cases.
It is clear that the proposed Algorithm 2 outperforms the other
algorithms in terms of the above comparison quantities.
In Table III, the validated error of the ROM computed
by Algorithm 2 is still a bit larger than the tolerance 0.001.
This might be caused by too few (50) training samples in the
training set  for this model with very wide frequency band
[0, 20] GHz. If we increase the number of training samples
from 50 to 70, then the ROM has maximal error 0.001 over
the 1000 validation samples, which meets the error tolerance.
For the case of using 50 training samples, when checking
the error estimator (s) on the 1000 validation frequency
samples, we find that the maximal value of (s) is also 0.0037.
This implicates that the error estimator tightly estimates the
true error, so that we could adaptively update the training
set  by only watching this highly reliable error estimator.
A technique for adaptively updating the samples in the training
set based on efficient a posteriori error estimator is recently
proposed in [29] and has been successfully used in model order
reduction of large-scale electromagnetic models that have large
frequency bands. The technique can be applied to adaptively
sample the training set of Algorithm 2. Since the focus of
this work is on applicability and robustness of the new error
estimator (s) for model reduction of time-delayed PEEC
models, detailed application of the adaptive sampling approach
could be considered in a future work.
Figures 6-8 plot the behavior of the proposed error estimator
by comparing the error estimator with the true error at each
iteration of Algorithm 2. The error estimator is robust for
Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 6. Coplanar microstrips: error decay in the greedy iterations, true error
vs error estimator.
Fig. 7. Microstrip filter: error decay in the greedy iterations, true error vs
error estimator.
all the three models and behaves as a tight error bound,
except for the first iteration for the microstrip filter model.
This is reasonable, since the ROM is not yet accurate in the
beginning, and the accuracy of the error estimator depends
on the accuracy of the ROM. As has been analyzed in [17],
the more accurate the ROM, the less possible that the error
estimator underestimates the true error.
We further compare the proposed algorithm with the exist-
ing greedy algorithms in terms of accuracy in the frequency
domain. We plot the magnitudes of the transfer functions of
the FOM and the ROM as well as the corresponding phases or
angles, respectively. It should be pointed out that although the
validated errors for the existing greedy algorithms H-greedy,
SSI-greedy, H-greedy-G, SSI-greedy-G are very big, it does
not mean the magnitude error or phase error of Ĥ (s) is also
that big, since the validated errors in Tables I-III are the
L∞ -error that has no direct relation with the magnitude error,
especially for multiple-input and multiple-output systems con-
sidered in this work.
In fact, ROMs constructed by all the greedy algorithms
produce transfer function magnitudes and phases (or angles)
FENG et al.: MOR FOR DELAYED PEEC MODELS WITH GUARANTEED ACCURACY AND OBSERVED STABILITY 4185

Fig. 8. Microstrip power-divider: error decay in the greedy iterations, true Fig. 10. Coplanar microstrips: magnitude errors of the reduced transfer
error vs error estimator. function from input port 1 to output port 1 computed by different algorithms.

Fig. 9. Coplanar microstrips: magnitude of the transfer function from input Fig. 11. Coplanar microstrips: phase of the transfer function from input
port 1 to output port 1 computed by Algorithm 2 and FOM simulation. port 1 to output port 1 computed by Algorithm 2 and FOM simulation.

that are indistinguishable from those of the original transfer

functions for all the three PEEC models. To avoid redundancy,
we only present the transfer function magnitude, phase and
angle computed by Algorithm 2, reported in Fig. 2, and the
FOM simulation, respectively; we compare the algorithms
using only the coplanar microstrip model and only present
the results for two entries of the transfer matrix H11(s)
and H16(s), the results for the other entries are omitted.
Furthermore, to clearly present the accuracy of different ROMs
constructed by different algorithms, we plot the errors of the
reduced transfer functions in terms of magnitude, phase and
angle.
Figure 9 shows the transfer function from input port 1 to
output port 1, i.e. the 1, 1-th entry H11(s) of H (s), computed
by Algorithm 2 and by simulating the FOM, respectively.
Figure 10 plots the magnitude errors of the reduced transfer Fig. 12. Coplanar microstrips: phase error of the reduced transfer function
functions computed by different algorithms. It is seen that from input port 1 to output port 1 computed by different algorithms.
H-greedy and H-greedy-G have the biggest errors that are
larger than 0.01 at some frequencies, while the largest errors
of other algorithms are much smaller and around 10−4 . values of the phase errors by different algorithms are plotted
Figure 11 plots the phase of H11(s) computed by in Fig. 12. Again, the transfer functions computed by H-greedy
Algorithm 2 and that by the FOM simulation. The absolute and H-greedy-G have the biggest phase errors.

Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4186 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 69, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2022
Fig. 13. Coplanar microstrips: magnitude of the transfer function from input
port 1 to output port 6 computed by Algorithm 2 and FOM simulation.
Fig. 14. Coplanar microstrips: magnitude error of the reduced transfer
function from input port 1 to output port 6 computed different algorithms.
Fig. 15. Coplanar microstrips: angle of the transfer function from input
port 1 to output port 6 computed by Algorithm 2 and FOM simulation.
Figures 13 and 15 present the results for the transfer
function from input port 1 to output port 6, i.e., the 16-th
entry H16(s) of H (s). Finally, Figures 14 and 16 show the
Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 16. Coplanar microstrips: angle error of the reduced transfer function
from input port 1 to output port 6 computed by different algorithms.
corresponding magnitude errors and the absolute values of the
angle errors computed by different algorithms. This time, the
reduced transfer functions computed by Algorithm 2, H-greedy
and H-greedy-G have similar errors, and are a bit larger than
the errors of the transfer functions computed by SSI-greedy
and SSI-greedy-G. However, note that all the errors are smaller
than 0.001, which is already very small.
In summary, H-greedy and H-greedy-G produce larger
errors than the other algorithms in the frequency domain,
though the results of all the algorithms are acceptable. SSI-
greedy and SSI-greedy-G are the slowest algorithms, which
consume much more offline time than others.
C. Time Domain Results
Time domain simulations of Differential Delayed Equations
of the Neutral type (NDDE), like the ones arising from the
delayed-PEEC method, are often challenging to solve using
Marching on Time (MoT) methods because of the late-time
instabilities that may appear. While alternative methods like
the Numerical Inversion of the Laplace Transform (NILT)
exhibit interesting properties as shown in [30], for general
purposes, MoT represents the most widespread way to solve
time domain systems. The time domain simulations of the
FOM and ROMs have been performed by means of the
Backward Differentiation Formula of second order (BDF2)
based solver with triangular basis function for time interpo-
lation [22]. Transient behavior of the ROMs obtained from
different greedy algorithms are presented in this subsection.
Likewise, the time-domain ROM simulation needs neglegible
runtime as compared to the time-domain FOM simulation.
To avoid repetition, we do not provide the wall time of the
ROM and FOM simulation in the time domain. The input
signals used for each PEEC model is plotted in Fig. 17. There,
the coplanar microstrips and the microstrip power-divider have
the same input signal, while the input signal for the microstrip
filter has more time-delay. The performance of each ROM
at different output ports of the same model are very similar.
Therefore, we only show the results of the ROMs at one
randomly chosen output port for each PEEC model. For the
FENG et al.: MOR FOR DELAYED PEEC MODELS WITH GUARANTEED ACCURACY AND OBSERVED STABILITY
Fig. 17. Input signals for the three PEEC models.
Fig. 18. Coplanar microstrips: FOM response at port 1.
coplanar microstrips and the microstrip filter, we show the
results at port 1 and the results at port 3 are presented for the
microstrip power-divider model.
1) Coplanar Microstrips: This part presents the results for
the coplanar microstrips model. The FOM response at port 1
is plotted in Fig. 18, where the waveform begins to blow
up at time around 15 nanoseconds (ns). On the contrary, the
response of the ROM produced by Algorithm 2 in Fig. 20
is stable till 20 ns. The ROMs by H-greedy and SSI-greedy
cannot give rise to meaningful outputs that are plotted in
Fig. 19, though the ROM by SSI-greedy is accurate in the fre-
quency domain (see Figs. 10, 12, 14, 16). However, if Galerkin
projection is applied to construct the ROMs, the corresponding
algorithms H-greedy-G and SSI-greedy-G construct ROMs
that are stable all through the whole time interval. The
outputs are plotted in Fig. 20. Note that the output waveform
produced by the ROM of SSI-greedy-G is not identically
zero at later time and has almost invisible oscillations around
zero. H-greedy-G behaves similarly with SSI-greedy-G, and it
produces a ROM that is even more stable than SSI-greedy-G
in the time domain. The above phenomenon also implicates
that the instability of the ROMs might be caused by the
Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4187
Fig. 19. Coplanar microstrips: H-greedy- and SSI-greedy-ROM responses
at port 1.
Fig. 20. Coplanar microstrips: SSI-greedy-G-, H-greedy-G, Algorithm 2-
ROM responses responses at port 1.
Petrov-Galerkin projection. This conclusion is further justified
by the results for the other two PEEC models.
2) Microstrip Filter: The results for the microstrip filter
are analyzed in this part. Figure 21 plots the FOM response
at port 1, which again blows up at 15 ns before the final
time 20 ns. The ROM response by Algorithm 2 in Fig. 23
is still stable till the final time. Once more, the Galerkin
projection based algorithms H-greedy-G and SSI-greedy-G
construct ROMs that are also accurate and stable in the time
domain, as can be seen from Fig. 23. It is interesting to see that
H-greedy also constructs a ROM that is stable and accurate in
time domain, see Fig. 22. Note that ROMs constructed by all
the algorithms have accurate results in the frequency domain
for the microstrip filter model, though they are not shown in
subsection IV-B.
3) Microstrip Power-Divider: The results for the microstrip
power-divider model are similar to those for the coplanar
microstrips model and are presented in Figs. 24- 26. The FOM
response blows up already at 5 ns, while the ROM response
of Algorithm 2 is stable till 20 ns. The ROMs constructed
by H-greedy and SSI-greedy cannot reproduce the output
4188 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 69, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2022

Fig. 21. Microstrip filter: FOM response at port 1.

Fig. 24. Microstrip power-divider: FOM response at port 3.

Fig. 22. Microstrip filter: H-greedy- and SSI-greedy-ROM responses at

port 1. Fig. 25. Microstrip power-divider: H-greedy- and SSI-greedy-ROM
responses at port 3.

Fig. 23. Microstrip filter: H-greedy-G- and SSI-greedy-G-,

Algorithm 2-ROM responses at port 1. Fig. 26. Microstrip power-divider: SSI-greedy-G-, H-greedy-G-, Algo-
rithm 2-ROM responses at port 3.

waveforms. In contrast, the Galerkin projection based ROMs

by H-greedy-G and SSI-greedy-G produce accurate and stable In general, SSI-greedy and H-greedy produce unstable
outputs. The frequency-domain results of all the ROMs are ROMs (with only one exception) in the time domain, though
also accurate for the microstrip power-divider model. SSI-greedy is very accurate in the frequency domain. In most

Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
FENG et al.: MOR FOR DELAYED PEEC MODELS WITH GUARANTEED ACCURACY AND OBSERVED STABILITY
Fig. 27. Modified gram-schmidt process for orthogonalizing the columns of
V1 with the columns in an orthogonal matrix V .
cases, H-greedy behaves worse than others both in the fre-
quency and in the time domain, though it uses much less
offline time (T-off) than SSI-greedy. SSI-greedy-G has slight
oscillations in the time domain for the coplanar microstrips
model. Finally, considering runtime, accuracy and stability, the
proposed Algorithm 2 is most efficient. The results in the time
domain show that Galerkin projection produces ROMs that are
more stable, since all ROMs derived using Galerkin projection
are stable, and only a single Petrov-Galerkin ROM derived by
H-greedy for the microstrip filter model is stable. A method,
based on linear matrix inequalities, to study the input-to state
stability of PEEC models with multiple non-commensurate
time delays has been presented in [31] but it becomes ineffi-
cient when a large number of delays is considered. To the best
knowledge of the authors, theoretical analysis on the stability
of the ROMs for time-delayed PEEC models with a large
number of delays rarely appear in the literature. It should be
an interesting topic for future research.
V. C ONCLUSION
A robust model order reduction algorithm for time-delayed
PEEC models is proposed in this work. A tight error estimator
is the key factor that make the algorithm successful both in the
frequency domain and in the time domain. Computing the error
estimator involves computing two residuals that are introduced
by the ROM of the FOM and another ROM of a residual
system. Constructing the ROM of the residual system can be
simultaneously implemented with the targeted ROM construc-
tion within one greedy algorithm. The error estimator is much
cheaper than the previously proposed error estimator making
the greedy algorithm much more efficient than the existing
greedy algorithms. Compared with the existing methods for
time-delay systems, which interpolate an approximation of
the original transfer function, the resulting proposed algorithm
interpolates the original transfer functions directly, leading to
more accurate results in the frequency domain. Results in both
Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4189
the frequency domain and the time domain for three large-scale
PEEC models with up to 191 delays support our analysis and
demonstrate the robustness of the proposed algorithm.
A PPENDIX
This appendix summarizes the modified Gram-Schmidt
process, reported in Fig. 27, applied in this work.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Cullum, A. Ruehli, and T. Zhang, “A method for reduced-order
modeling and simulation of large interconnect circuits and its application
to PEEC models with retardation,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Analog
Digit. Signal Process., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 261–273, Apr. 2000.
[2] P. Benner, S. Gugercin, and K. Willcox, “A survey of projection-based
model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems,” SIAM Rev.,
vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 483–531, 2015.
[3] A. C. Antoulas, C. A. Beattie, and S. Gugercin, Interpolatory Meth-
ods for Model Reduction (Computational Science & Engineering).
Philadelphia, PA, USA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,
2020.
[4] P. Benner, S. Grivet-Talocia, A. Quarteroni, G. Rozza,
W. H. A. Schilders, and L. M. Silveira, Model Order Reduction:
System- and Data-Driven Methods and Algorithms, vol. 1. Berlin,
Germany: De Gruyter, 2021.
[5] E. R. Samuel, L. Knockaert, and T. Dhaene, “Model order reduction of
time-delay systems using a Laguerre expansion technique,” IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1815–1823, Jun. 2014.
[6] E. R. Samuel, D. Deschrijver, F. Ferranti, L. Knockaert, and T. Dhaene,
“Multipoint model order reduction for systems with delays,” in IEEE
MTT-S Int. Microw. Symp. Dig., Aug. 2015, pp. 1–3.
[7] E. R. Samuel, L. Knockaert, and T. Dhaene, “Matrix-interpolation-based
parametric model order reduction for multiconductor transmission lines
with delays,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 62, no. 3,
pp. 276–280, Mar. 2015.
[8] A. E. Ruehli, G. Antonini, and L. Jiang, Circuit Oriented Electromag-
netic Modeling Using the PEEC Techniques. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley,
2017.
[9] W. Tseng, C. Chen, E. Gad, M. Nakhla, and R. Achar, “Passive order
reduction for RLC circuits with delay elements,” IEEE Trans. Adv.
Packag., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 830–840, Nov. 2007.
[10] F. Ferranti, M. S. Nakhla, G. Antonini, T. Dhaene, L. Knockaert, and
A. E. Ruehli, “Multipoint full-wave model order reduction for delayed
PEEC models with large delays,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 959–967, Nov. 2011.
[11] A. Odabasioglu, M. Celik, and L. T. Pileggi, “PRIMA: Passive reduced-
order interconnect macromodeling algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Comput.-
Aided Design Integr. Circuits Syst., vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 645–654,
Aug. 1998.
[12] Y. Dou and K.-L. Wu, “A passive PEEC-based micromodeling circuit
for high-speed interconnection problems,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory
Techn., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 1201–1214, Mar. 2018.
[13] Y. Dou and K.-L. Wu, “Direct mesh-based model order reduction of
PEEC model for quasi-static circuit problems,” IEEE Trans. Microw.
Theory Techn., vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 2409–2422, Aug. 2016.
[14] L. Lombardi, Y. Tao, B. Nouri, F. Ferranti, G. Antonini, and M. S.
Nakhla, “Parameterized model order reduction of delayed PEEC cir-
cuits,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 859–869,
Jun. 2020.
[15] D. Alfke, L. Feng, L. Lombardi, G. Antonini, and P. Benner, “Model
order reduction for delay systems by iterative interpolation,” Int.
J. Numer. Methods Eng., vol. 122, no. 3, pp. 684–706, Feb. 2021.
[16] C. Beattie and S. Gugercin, “Interpolatory projection methods for
structure-preserving model reduction,” Syst. Control Lett., vol. 58, no. 3,
pp. 225–232, Mar. 2009.
[17] L. Feng and P. Benner, “On error estimation for reduced-order modeling
of linear non-parametric and parametric systems,” ESAIM, Math. Model.
Numer. Anal., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 561–594, Mar. 2021.
[18] L. Feng, L. Lombardi, G. Antonini, and P. Benner, “Stable macromodels
for delayed PEEC models with error estimation,” in Proc. Int. Appl.
Comput. Electromagn. Soc. (ACES) Symp., Aug. 2021, pp. 1–4.
[19] A. E. Ruehli, “Inductance calculations in a complex integrated circuit
environment,” IBM J. Res. Develop., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 470–481,
Sep. 1972.
4190 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—I: REGULAR PAPERS, VOL. 69, NO. 10, OCTOBER 2022

[20] A. E. Ruehli and P. A. Brennan, “Efficient capacitance calculations
for three-dimensional multiconductor systems,” IEEE Trans. Microw.
Theory Techn., vol. MTT-21, no. 2, pp. 76–82, Feb. 1973.
[21] A. E. Ruehli, “Equivalent circuit models for three-dimensional multi-
conductor systems,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. MTT-22,
no. 3, pp. 216–221, Mar. 1974.
[22] C. Gianfagna, L. Lombardi, and G. Antonini, “Marching-on-in-time
solution of delayed PEEC models of conductive and dielectric objects,”
IET Microw., Antennas Propag., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 42–47, Jan. 2019.
[23] M. Taskinen and P. Ylä-Oijala, “Current and charge integral equation
formulation,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 58–67,
Jan. 2006.
[24] D. Gope, A. Ruehli, and V. Jandhyala, “Solving low-frequency EM-CKT
problems using the PEEC method,” IEEE Trans. Adv. Packag., vol. 30,
no. 2, pp. 313–320, May 2007.
[25] A. Bellen, N. Guglielmi, and A. E. Ruehli, “Methods for linear systems
of circuit delay differential equations of neutral type,” IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 212–215,
Jan. 1999.
[26] A. Ruehli, U. Miekkala, A. Bellen, and H. Heeb, “Stable time domain
solutions for EMC problems using PEEC circuit models,” in Proc. IEEE
Symp. Electromagn. Compat., Aug. 1994, pp. 371–376.
[27] W. Pinello, A. C. Cangellaris, and A. Ruehli, “Hybrid electromagnetic
modeling of noise interactions in packaged electronics based on the
partial-element equivalent-circuit formulation,” IEEE Trans. Microw.
Theory Techn., vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 1889–1896, Oct. 1997.
[28] R. F. Harrington, Field Computation by Moment Methods. Malabar,
India: Krieger, 1982.
[29] S. Chellappa, L. Feng, V. de la Rubia, and P. Benner, “Adaptive interpo-
latory MOR by learning the error estimator in the parameter domain,” in
Model Reduction of Complex Dynamical Systems (International Series of
Numerical Mathematics), vol. 171, P. Benner, T. Breiten, H. Faßbender,
M. Hinze, T. Stykel, and R. Zimmermann, Eds. Cham, Switzerland:
Birkhäuser, 2021, pp. 97–117.
[30] L. Lombardi et al., “Time-domain analysis of retarded partial element
equivalent circuit models using numerical inversion of Laplace trans-
form,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 870–879,
Jun. 2021.
[31] G. Antonini and P. Pepe, “Input-to-state stability analysis of partial-
element equivalent-circuit models,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg.
Papers, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 673–684, Mar. 2009.
Peter Benner received the Diploma degree
in mathematics from the RWTH Aachen
University, Aachen, Germany, in 1993, the
Ph.D. degree in mathematics from the University
of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, and the TU
Chemnitz-Zwickau, Germany, in February 1997,
and the Habilitation (Venia Legendi) degree in
mathematics from the University of Bremen,
Germany, in 2001. After spending a term as
a Visiting Associate Professor with the TU
Hamburg-Hamburg, Germany, he was a Lecturer in
Mathematics with the TU Berlin, Germany, from 2001 to 2003. Since 2003,
he has been a Professor of mathematics in industry and technology with
the TU Chemnitz. In 2010, he was appointed as one of the four Directors
of the Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems,
Magdeburg, Germany. Since 2011, he has been an Honorary Professor with
the Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Germany. His research
interests include scientific computing, numerical mathematics, systems
theory, and optimal control. He is a SIAM Fellow (Class of 2017).
Daniele Romano was born in Campobasso, Italy,
in 1984. He received the Laurea degree in computer
science and automation engineering from the Uni-
versity of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy, in 2012, and the
Ph.D. degree in 2018. Since 2012, he has been with
the UAq EMC Laboratory, University of L’Aquila,
focusing on EMC modeling and analysis, algorithm
engineering, and speed-up techniques applied to
EMC problems.

Lihong Feng received the Ph.D. degree in com-

putational mathematics from Fudan University,
Shanghai, in 2002. She received an Alexander-von-
Humboldt Fellowship for the period 2007–2009
and worked at the host university TU Chemnitz.
Since 2010, she has been a Senior Scientist at
the Max Planck Institute for Dynamics of Complex
Technical Systems in Magdeburg, and became a
Team Leader with the CSC Group headed by Peter
Benner. Her research interests include model order
reduction and fast simulation of complex models
arising from engineering applications, such as fluid dynamics, chemical
engineering, and mechanical engineering and electrical engineering, numerical
analysis, and scientific computing.

Giulio Antonini (Senior Member, IEEE) received

the Laurea degree (cum laude) in electrical engineer-
Luigi Lombardi received the Laurea (M.D.) and ing from the University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy,
Ph.D. (cum laude) degrees in electronic engineering in 1994, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engi-
from the University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy. neering from the University of Rome “La Sapienza”
In early 2018, he was a Visiting Researcher with in 1998. Since 1998, he has been with the UAq
the Department of Electronics, Carleton Univer- EMC Laboratory, University of L’Aquila, where he
sity, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Since November 2018, is currently a Professor. He has authored more than
he has been working as a Design Engineer with the 300 papers published on international journals and in
Non Volatile Memory (NVM) Design Team, Micron the proceedings of international conferences. He has
Semiconductor, Avezzano, Italy. also coauthored the book Circuit Oriented Electro-
magnetic Modeling Using the PEEC Techniques (Wiley–IEEE Press, 2017).
His research interests are in the field of computational electromagnetics.

Authorized licensed use limited to: HANGZHOU DIANZI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on April 23,2023 at 06:19:21 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.