This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
From Maxwell Garnett to Debye Model for
Electromagnetic Simulation of Composite Dielectrics
Part I: Random Spherical Inclusions
Francesco de Paulis, Student Member, IEEE, Muhammet Hilmi Nisanci,
Marina Y. Koledintseva, Senior Member, IEEE, James L. Drewniak, Fellow, IEEE, and Antonio Orlandi, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—A semianalytical approach to obtain an equivalent
Debye frequency dependence of effective permittivity for biphasic
materials with random spherical inclusions from the well-known
Maxwell Garnett (MG) mixing rule is proposed. Different combi-
nations of frequency characteristics of mixture phases (host and
inclusions) are considered: when at least one of the phases is fre-
quency independent; lossy (with dc conductivity); or with a known
single-term Debye frequency dependence. The equivalent Debye
models approximate very well the frequency characteristics ob-
tained directly from MG mixing rule. In some cases, there is an
exact match between the two models, and a good approximation is
achieved in the other cases and is quantified by the feature selec-
tive validation technique. The parameters of the derived equivalent
Debye model can be employed in full-wave time-domain numerical
electromagnetic codes and tools. This will allow for efficient wide-
band modeling of complex electromagnetic structures containing
composite materials with effective dielectric parameters obtained
through MG mixing rule.
Index Terms—Composite material, Debye model, frequency-
dependent material, spherical inclusions.
I. INTRODUCTION
HE efficient modeling of wideband performance of com-
T plex structures containing composite materials is an im-
portant issue in computational electromagnetics. This kind of
modeling is crucial for solving various problems related to elec-
tromagnetic compatibility (EMC), electromagnetic immunity
(EMI), and signal integrity. A composite material typically con-
tains 3-D random or aligned spatial distribution of inclusions
of one or a few different types in a host (matrix) material.
Since composite materials are typically complex structures, it
is conventional to homogenize their properties, including fre-
quency dependences of their electromagnetic properties (per-
mittivity and permeability) using various mixing rules, includ-
Manuscript received August 23, 2010; revised January 28, 2011 and April
14, 2011; accepted May 18, 2011.
F. De Paulis, M. H. Nisanci and A. Orlandi are with the UAq Electromag-
netic Compatibility Laboratory, Deptartment of Electrical Engineering, Uni-
versity of L’Aquila, L’Aquila 67100, Italy (e-mail: antonio.orlandi@univaq.it;
francesco.depaulis@univaq.it; muhammethilmi.nisanci@univaq.it).
M. Y. Koledintseva and J. L. Drewniak are with the Electromagnetic Compat-
ibility Laboratory, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO
65401 USA (e-mail: marinak@mst.edu; drewniak@mst.edu).
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/TEMC.2011.2158217
0018-9375/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
1
ing Bruggeman’s effective medium theory [1], or generalized
Bergman–Milton spectral function approach [2]. Homogeniza-
tion is convenient for using the effective permittivity and per-
meability in numerical simulations. Frequency-domain codes
require knowledge of the effective homogenized electromag-
netic parameters at every frequency point. This could be done
if the data of intrinsic electromagnetic parameters of the com-
posite phases (ingredients) are available for every frequency
point of interest. This is not always the case, since in practice
material parameters might be known only at a few selected fre-
quency points, and for matrix and inclusions these frequency
points could be significantly different. This makes it difficult to
obtain correct data to use in frequency-domain numerical sim-
ulations. Besides, wideband simulations of complex structures
with composite materials in frequency domain may be very
inefficient.
The wideband behavior analysis of these equivalent mate-
rials with effective electromagnetic parameters could be done
more efficiently using time-domain numerical techniques, e.g.,
the finite difference time-domain technique [3], or finite inte-
gration technique [4]. To model frequency dispersive materials
using time-domain codes, it is important to represent material
parameters as rational-fractional functions. These are the sums
of Debye terms [5] with poles of the first order in nonresonance
cases, and if frequency characteristics contain resonances, the
Lorentzian terms with the poles of the second order should be
added.
Even if the electromagnetic parameters of the composite’s
ingredients are known only in a few separate frequency points,
it is possible to restore their full Debye and Lorentzian data
by an accurate curve fitting, using an appropriate optimization
technique, e.g., based on a genetic algorithm or Legendre poly-
nomial and regression analysis algorithm [6]. Then, as soon as
the Debye and/or Lorentzian terms for intrinsic parameters of
each composite phase are known, they can be used in an appro-
priate homogenization procedure to obtain effective parameters
of the composite. The resultant frequency dependences for ef-
fective permittivity (or permeability) then could be represented
as a series of new Debye and/or Lorentzian terms.
Therefore, to numerically model a frequency-dispersive com-
posite material in time domain one should 1) obtain its ho-
mogenized effective electromagnetic responses, and 2) express
these properties as a sum of the Debye (and/or Lorentzian)
terms whose parameters should be computed. In majority of
EMC applications in RF and microwave frequency ranges, when
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
resonances in material parameters are not noticeable, it is suf-
ficient to approximate frequency characteristics of materials as
sums of the Debye terms only. For this reason, in the further
consideration we will omit Lorentzian terms.
It is attractive to get the Debye terms from the calculated
effective electromagnetic parameters of the given mixture di-
rectly, not applying any curve-fitting procedure. This means an
analytical derivation of the Debye parameters from the homog-
enization formula. Obtaining such formulas for fast computa-
tion of the Debye parameters from, for example, the Maxwell
Garnett (MG) mixing rule is the objective of this paper. Then
these Debye parameters could be directly used in any time-
domain code through either recursive convolution, or auxiliary
differential equation procedure, or any other algorithm that em-
ploys time-domain responses of materials [7].
It is known that the MG mixing rule [8] is the most widespread
and convenient formula for predicting electromagnetic behavior
of mixtures, if electromagnetic parameters, volume fractions,
and shapes of ingredients are known, assuming that these are
3-D random mixtures of inclusions in a host matrix.
The MG model is the so called quasi-static approximation.
It is valid, when the size of inhomogeneities is much less than
the wavelength in the medium. The MG model is applicable
to dielectric–dielectric mixtures, as well as mixtures containing
conducting inclusions in a dielectric host (matrix) at volume
concentrations of conducting inclusions below the percolation
threshold [9].
In the case of conducting inclusions, their volume fraction
should be less than the percolation threshold. Theoretically,
spherical inclusions may start touching each other in a 3-D
periodic lattice at the volume fraction above 47%. Practically,
in a random mixture, the limit is not more than 20%–30%, since
inclusions may interact and build conductive chains.
Intrinsic dielectric parameters of the host and inclusions in the
MG formulation can be functions of frequency in the general
case. In this paper, only effective permittivity will be consid-
ered, though the analogous analysis can be applied to effective
permeability as well.
The MG formula expresses the permittivity of an equivalent
homogeneous material as a function of the intrinsic permittivi-
ties of the host and inclusions, as well as the inclusions volume
fraction. The generalized MG formula contains depolarization,
or form factors of inclusions as well [1, p. 268]. However, the
expression of the MG mixing rule is not in the form of the Debye
law for permittivity.
Several approaches have been proposed to transform the MG
formula into a sum of Debye terms, including different curve-
fitting techniques [10]–[12]. However, any kind of curve-fitting
algorithm requires writing special codes for optimization, and a
user’s experience in setting proper initial parameters and criteria
for search the optimal parameters. Besides, curve fitting to a
multiterm Debye series may result in an increased complexity
of the optimization procedures. Though running of optimization
codes may be very fast (on the order of a few seconds), the
preparation may be difficult and time consuming.
This paper is devoted to the development of a
semianalytical approach to retrieve the Debye terms from the
MG model of biphasic frequency-dispersive dielectric materials
with randomly placed spherical inclusions. Once the analytical
expressions are developed, they can be easily implemented and
solved.
As soon as the mixture is described by the MG formalism
(within the limits of its validity), its frequency characteristics
of the complex effective permittivity can be represented as a
single-term or multiterm Debye dependence.
By means of the proposed formulation the parameters of
the Debye terms are computed based on the electromagnetic
characterization of the host and of the inclusions. Part II focused
on the development of the same approach for biphasic dielectric
materials with a random distribution of cylindrical inclusions.
II. SEMIANALYTICAL APPROACH
The analytical relationship between the electrical and geo-
metrical parameters of a biphasic dielectric material is given by
the MG equation [1], [13], [14]
3f εe (εi − εe )
εeff −M G = εe + (1)
εi + 2εe − f (εi − εe )
where εe is the electric permittivity of the host material, εi is
the electric permittivity of the inclusion material, and f is the
volume fraction (volume percentage of the inclusions in the
overall volume).
An N-term Debye model for dispersive dielectric material is
defined as
N
εsn − ε∞
ε D = ε∞ + (2)
n =1
1 + jωτn
where εsn and ε∞ are the nth static dielectric constant and the
high-frequency (optic limit) relative permittivity, respectively,
and τ is the Debye constant, or relaxation time.
The conductive material with conductivity σ over the mi-
crowave band can be modeled as
σ
ε D = ε∞ + (3)
jωε0
ε0 in (3) is the permittivity of vacuum.
The derivation of an equivalent Debye model from the
geometry-based MG model requires the identification of several
cases. Each case is based on the electric properties of both the
host and the inclusion materials. If the host matrix is relatively
nondispersive, it can be characterized by a constant dielectric
permittivity. However, if the host matrix is substantially lossy
and dispersive, it should be described in terms of at least the
first-order Debye model. As for inclusions, in some cases they
can be approximated as a dielectric with constant permittivity,
or with the Debye frequency dependence, or a lossy material
that requires a nonzero conductivity. Therefore, in this paper,
six different cases will be considered.
Case 1s: εe = constant, εi = constant.
Case 2s: εe = constant, εi = Debye.
Case 3s: εe = Debye, εi = constant.
Case 4s: εe = Debye, εi = Debye.
Case 5s: εe = constant, εi = conductive.
Case 6s: εe = Debye, εi = conductive.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

DE PAULIS et al.: FROM MAXWELL GARNETT TO DEBYE MODEL FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC SIMULATION 3

TABLE I
CASE OVERVIEW

The cases are identified by a progressive number followed

by an “s” standing for spherical inclusions. This is done to
separate them from the cylindrical inclusions considered in
Part II. The case of conductive host material is not considered,
since in the majority of cases matrix is dielectric, while inclu-
sions are conducting. All the cases are characterized by different
types and values of the host and inclusions material parameters.
These cases are summarized in Table I. The values in the table
are given just as particular cases, for which computations are
run. For example, εs = 2.2 corresponds to Teflon; inclusions
in the Cases 2c-A and 4c-A are Barium Titanate (they provide
high dielectric contrast with the Teflon host material); εs = 2.5
corresponds to chloroprene rubber inclusions, whose dielectric
contrast with Teflon is comparatively low). As for conducting
inclusions, the conductivity values are chosen in the range for
carbon.
Case 1s is characterized by constant dielectric properties for
Fig. 1. εe ff −M G for Cases 2s A – 6s A with f = 46.8%: (a) real part and
both host and inclusion materials. Thus, the constant value of (b) imaginary part.
εeff −M G (1) is ready to be used inside any time-domain nu-
merical simulation. The different properties and values of εe
and εi impact on the frequency dependence of εeff −M G . Fig. 1
show the real and imaginary parts of εeff −M G , computed by can obtain
(1), for the cases from 2s A to 6s A of Table I. The corre-
sponding B cases are not shown in these figures for sake of NUM (εeff −M G )
εeff −M G = (4a)
brevity. DEN (εeff −M G )
The real and imaginary parts of εeff −M G in Fig. 1 show a εe (εis + 2εe + 2f εis − 2f εe )
trend similar to that of an equivalent Debye model, which is NUM (εeff −M G ) =
εis + 2εe − f εis + f εe
very convenient to use in numerical simulations. Cases 2s, 3s,
and 5s can be related to a one-term Debye model. Cases 4s (εi∞ + 2εe + f εi∞ − 2f εe )
+ jεe ωτi
and 6s have frequency-dependent dielectric properties for both εis + 2εe − f εis + f εe
host and inclusion materials, and can be approximated by a (4b)
two-term Debye model. Thus, the key issue is to find the an-
εi∞ + 2εe − f εi∞ + f εe
alytical expressions for the parameters (εsD , ε∞D , τ D ) of the DEN (εeff −M G ) = 1 + jωτi .
εis + 2εe − f εis + f εe
equivalent Debye model as function of the parameters (εe , εi , f)
of the original MG model. This will be done in the Sections (4c)
later, separately for each of the five cases from Case 2s to
Case 6s. A one-term equivalent Debye model derived from (2) for
N = 1 can be rewritten in the same form as (4a)–(4c) as
A. Case 2s εsD − ε∞D NUM (εeq−Debye )
εeq−Debye = ε∞D + = (5a)
Case 2s is characterized by a constant εe for the host material, 1 + jωτD DEN (εeq−Debye )
and the one-term Debye model for εi (with parameters εis ,
NUM (εeq−Debye ) = εsD + jωε∞D τD (5b)
εi∞ , τ i ) representing the inclusions. After inserting the Debye
expression of εi in (1) and some algebraic manipulation, one DEN (εeq−Debye ) = 1 + jωτD . (5c)
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY

The parameters (εsD , ε∞D , τ D ) of the equivalent Debye model model associated with the geometry-based MG formulation re-
of εeff −M G are computed by equating (4b) to (5b), and (4c) to lated to Case 3s.
(5c) giving as result
C. Case 4s
εe (εis + 2εe + 2f εis − 2f εe )
εsD = (6a)
εis + 2εe − f εis + f εe Case 4s is characterized by the Debye dependence of both the
host εe (εes ,εe∞ ,τ e ) and the inclusions εi (εis ,εi∞ ,τ i ) dielectric
εe (εi∞ + 2εe + f εi∞ − 2f εe )
ε∞D = (6b) materials. This material configuration results in an effective
εi∞ + 2εe − f εi∞ + f εe permittivity εeff −M G of the MG model with two peaks in the
τi (εi∞ + 2εe − f εi∞ + f εe ) imaginary part, as shown by the dot-dashed curves Fig. 1(a)
τD = . (6c)
εis + 2εe − f εis + f εe and (b). This behavior cannot be approximated by a simple one-
term Debye model, as done for Cases 2s and 3s. The shape
This derivation implies that the original MG model for Cases
of the curves in Fig. 1 shows that there is a superposition of
2s is rigorously equivalent to a one-term Debye model.
at least two Debye terms due to the combined effect of two
materials (host and inclusions) with different Debye dispersion
B. Case 3s parameters.
Case 3s contains a host with a frequency-dependent εe and The corresponding mathematical model that approximates the
inclusions of constant εi . This case is dual to Case 2s. MG formulation (1), when εe and εi are described by single-term
However, (1) is not symmetric with respect to εe and εi . Debye dependencies (2), consists of the sum of three different
This means that substituting εe and εi in (1) does not result terms
in an expression similar to (4b) and (4c) with εe and εi inter-
εeff −M G ≈ εPart1−M G + εPart2−M G − εPart3−D . (8)
changed. Because of this the procedure of Case 2s can not be
followed. The first term in (8) εPart1−M G is the MG model (1) computed
Fig. 1 shows a one-term Debye-like behavior for εeff −M G for for the base material with constant high-frequency permittivity
Case 3s (subcase A in particular). The real part of εeff −M G−R is εe = εe ∞ and Debye inclusion material εi (εis ,εi∞ ,τ i ) as in (2).
characterized by the constant values at low (∼105 Hz) and “optic The second term in (8), εPart2−M G , is the MG model (1) com-
limit” frequencies (>1011 Hz) frequencies, and by a monotonic puted with the Debye host εe (εes ,εe∞ ,τ e ) as in (2) and constant
transition between these two values at around 1010 Hz. The parameters of inclusions, εi = εi∞ . These first two terms take
imaginary part εeff −M G−I is characterized by a peak value at into account the Debye behavior of εe and εi separately. How-
the same frequency of the transition of the real part, and goes to ever, the sum of these two terms takes into account twice the
zero at low and high frequencies. level of the high-frequency permittivity for both materials, thus
The mathematical limits of the real part εeff −M G−R at fre- a correction term is introduced, εPart3−D , as correction factor.
quency going to zero and to infinity are as in (7a) and (7b). It is constructed directly as a Debye model whose parameters
These are the static, εsD , and “optic limit” permittivity, ε∞D , of (εs −Part3 , ε∞−Part3 , τ Part3 ) need to be computed.
the equivalent Debye model of εeff −M G . The value of τ D is as The three parameters associated with εPart3−D are defined as
in (7c) follows. The left side term in (8) and also the first two terms
ε2es (2 − 2f ) + εes εi (1 + 2f ) on the right side of (8) are known; this assumption is employed
εsD = lim εeff −M G−R = and the limits of (8) for ω going to zero and infinity are com-
ω →0 εes (2 + f ) + εi (1 − f )
puted. This leads to approximate the static (εs−Part3 ) and high-
(7a) frequency (ε∞−Part3 ) permittivity of the correction Debye term
ε2e∞ (2 − 2f ) + εe∞ εi (1 + 2f ) as in (9a) and (9b), respectively. The τ Part3 parameter is simply
ε∞D = lim εeff −M G−R = approximated by averaging the relaxation time for the host τ e
ω →∞ εe∞ (2 + f ) + εi (1 − f )
and inclusion τ i materials (9c)
(7b)
εs−Part3 = lim εPart1−M G + lim εPart2−M G − lim εeff −M G
1 ω →0 ω →0 ω →0
τD = ∗ (7c)
ω (9a)
where ω∗ is the frequency at which the imaginary part of ε∞−Part3 = lim εPart1−M G + lim εPart2−M G
εeff −M G−I (1) reaches maximum. The derivative of εeff −M G−I ω →∞ ω →∞
with respect to ω at this frequency ω∗ goes to zero − lim εeff −M G (9b)
 ω →∞
∗ dεeff −M G−I (ω)  τe + τi
ω :  = 0. (7d) τPart3 = . (9c)
dω ω∗ 2
The closed-form expression for τ D is quite cumbersome and At this stage, all the three terms in (8) are evaluated in terms of
it is omitted herein; however, it is available in [15]. The value of the original MG model. The first two terms have the MG form,
ω ∗ can be alternatively evaluated by solving (7d) numerically. whereas the third one has a Debye form. In order to have a fully
The set of expressions (7a)–(7d) define an analytical procedure Debye description of (8), the first two terms should be converted
for deriving the parameters of a one-term equivalent Debye in the Debye form. This can be done similarly to procedures of
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

DE PAULIS et al.: FROM MAXWELL GARNETT TO DEBYE MODEL FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC SIMULATION 5

getting the first term εPart1−M G in Case 2s, and second term
εPart2−M G in Case 3s. After this algebraic manipulation (8)
becomes
εeff −M G = εPart1−D + εPart2−D − εPart3−D . (10)

D. Case 5s
Case 5s considers conductive inclusions εi (εi∞ ,σ i ) as in (3),
embedded in a dielectric host with constant εe .
A perfect equivalent Debye model can be derived in this case
following the same steps as done for Case 2s. The relationships
that provide the parameters of the equivalent Debye model are
the following:
εe (1 + 2f )
εsD = (11a)
1−f
εe (εi∞ + 2f εi∞ + 2εe − 2f εe )
ε∞D = (11b)
(εi∞ − f εi∞ + 2εe + f εe )
ε0 (εi∞ − f εi∞ + 2εe + f εe )
τD = . (11c)
σi (1 − f )

E. Case 6s
The conductive inclusions εi (εi∞ ,σ i ) in this case are em-
bedded in a Debye host material εe (εes ,εe∞ ,τ e ). The resultant
behavior of real and imaginary parts of the effective MG per-
mittivity is very similar to the two-term Debye model, as in
Case 4s. This can be stated by observing the dashed curves in Fig. 2. Comparison of the original MG model (solid curve) and the com-
Fig. 1. Therefore, the same approach as for Case 4s is applied puted equivalent Debye model (dashed curve) for Case 2s A: (a) real part and
for deriving an equivalent Debye model that approximates the (b) imaginary part. Average error AE = 0.0% both for the real and imaginary
part comparisons.
geometry-based MG model, and there are three terms as in (8)
defined as follows.
The first term εPart1−M G is a MG model computed by (1)
with constant εe = εe∞ and conductive inclusions εi (εi∞ ,σ i ) as
in (3). The second term εPart2−M G is a MG model computed
by (1) with the Debye εe (εes ,εe∞ ,τ e ) as in (2) and constant
εi = εi∞ taken at the “optic limit.” The third term εPart3−D is the
correction factor. It is described by the Debye model (εs−Part3 ,
ε∞−Part3 , τ Part3 ), which can be computed using (9a)–(9c).
For the values of the parameters considered in Case 6s it can
be obtained that ε∞−Part3 ≈ εs−Part3 with the difference less Fig. 3. GDM results for the pair of curve in Fig. 2 for f = 46.8%: (a) real part
than 1%. Therefore, the Debye model for εPart3−D reduces to a (Grade = 1, Spread = 1), and (b) imaginary part (Grade = 1, Spread = 1).
constant value εPart3 , and (8) becomes
εeff −M G = εPart1−M G + εPart2−M G − εPart3 . (12)
In order to have a fully Debye description of (12), the first two permittivity εeff −M G (1) are compared with the permittivity data
terms should be converted in the Debye form. This can be done εeq−Debye obtained using the equivalent Debye model. The pa-
by using the same procedures as for the first term εPart1−M G in rameters of the latter are evaluated by applying the proposed
Case 5s, and for the second term εPart2−M G as in Case 3s. The formulation. The agreement between the sets of curves that are
third term εPart3 is computed as (9a). Then compared is quantified by applying the feature selective valida-
εeff −M G = εPart1−D + εPart2−D − εPart3 . (13) tion (FSV) technique [16]–[19], as required by the recent IEEE
Standard P1597 [20]. The calculated figure of merit is the global
difference measure (GDM). GDM shows the global, i.e., gen-
eral trend and details or features, agreement between different
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
datasets. The differences between the curves are also quanti-
Five approaches developed earlier are applied to the cases fied computing the percentage average error AE, as in (14); this
presented in Table I. The real and imaginary parts of the MG procedure is applied to the same sets of datasets for which the
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY

Fig. 4. Comparisons of the original MG model (solid curve) and the com-
puted equivalent Debye model (dashed curve) for Case 3s A: (a) real part and
(b) imaginary part. Average error AE = 0.0% for the real part comparison;
AE = 0.07% for the imaginary part comparisons.
Fig. 5. Comparison of the original MG model (solid curve) and the com-
puted equivalent Debye model (dashed curve) for Case 2s B: (a) real part, and
(b) imaginary part. Average error AE = 0.03% for the real part comparison; AE
= 0.2% for the imaginary part comparisons.

GDM is evaluated
Re(εeff −M G (f )) − Re(εeff −Debye (f ))
E(f ) =
Re(εeff −M G (f ))
N
f =1 E (f )
AE = · 100.
N Fig. 6. GDM results for the pair of curve in Fig. 4 for f = 46.8%: (a) real part
The concentration of spherical dielectric inclusions in another
dielectric, the matrix, may be theoretically up to 46.8%, i.e.,
when inclusions almost start touching each other. This limit
is also theoretically applicable to conductive inclusions in a
dielectric, until inclusions touch each other in a dense 3-D
package. However, practically, it is known that the MG for
spherical conducting inclusions starts significantly deviate from
experiment at volume fractions exceeding about 20%–30% (this
is because of the arising more complex inclusion–inclusion
and inclusion–matrix interactions). In the following examples,
dielectric–dielectric mixtures (Cases 2s–4s) are “safely” consid-
ered up to the concentration of 46.8%. In the Cases 5s and 6s,
conducting inclusions in a dielectric matrix are considered also
at the concentrations up to the 46.8% limit. It is seen, though,
that in Case 6, when the matrix is the Debye dielectric, the repre-
sentation of the MG formula by the Debye parameters becomes
less accurate near the relaxation frequencies at the concentration
of conducting inclusions greater than ∼ 20%.
(14a)
(14b)
(Grade = 1, Spread = 1), and (b) imaginary part (Grade = 1, Spread = 1).
A. Case 2s
The first case considered is Case 2s A in Table I. This is the
case with the high contrast between the constant host permittiv-
ity εe = 2 and both Debye parameters of the inclusions, εis =
1900 and εi∞ = 280. This makes the effect of inclusions upon
the equivalent Debye model dominant.
Five different values of the volume fraction f = 2.5%, 8.4%,
20.1%, 39.3%, and 46.8% are considered; these cases allow
studying the formulation robustness with respect to the variation
of the inclusion volume fraction f. Fig. 2 shows the comparison
between the MG and the equivalent Debye models. There is a
perfect agreement between the pair of curves due to the fact that
the parameters in (6) are the exact solution of the set of equations
obtained equating (4b), (4c) and (5b), (5c). Fig. 3(a) and (b) show
the GDM parameter for the comparison of the corresponding
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
DE PAULIS et al.: FROM MAXWELL GARNETT TO DEBYE MODEL FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC SIMULATION
Fig. 7. Comparisons of the original MG model (solid curve) and the com-
puted equivalent Debye model (dashed curve) for Case 4s A: (a) real part, and
(b) imaginary part. Average error AE = 0.05% for the real part comparison; AE
= 17.9% for the imaginary part comparisons.
Fig. 8. GDM results for the pair of curve in Fig. 7 for f = 46.8. (a) Real part
(Grade = 1, Spread = 2), and (b) imaginary part (Grade = 3, Spread = 3).
real and imaginary parts as in Fig. 2. These calculations are
done for the volume fraction of f = 46.8%.
B. Case 3s
The values of the parameters associated with Case 3s A and
Case 3s B in Table I are considered for validating the method
proposed in Section II-B. Three values of volume fraction f =
2.5%, 20.1%, and 46.8% are used for computing the effective
permittivity (1) and its equivalent Debye model. The results are
presented in Figs. 4 and 5. They agree very well, even though the
equivalent Debye model does not stem from an exact solution,
but represents an approximation of the original model. Fig. 6
provides a quantification of the comparison through the FSV
technique. The FSV was applied to the datasets of Case 3s A
7
Fig. 9. Comparisons of the original MG model (solid curve) and the com-
puted equivalent Debye model (dashed curve) for Case 5s B. (a) Real part.
(b) Imaginary part. Average error AE = 0.0% both for the real and imaginary
part comparisons.
Fig. 10. GDM results for the pair of curve in Fig. 9 for f = 46.8%: (a) Real
part (Grade = 1, Spread = 2) and (b) imaginary part (Grade = 3, Spread = 3).
for the volume fraction of inclusions of f = 46.8%. From Figs. 3
and 6, it is seen that the approximated formulation in (7) and (8)
provides an excellent match with the exact one. A same FSV
response is achieved for Case 3s B.
C. Case 4s
The fourth case considers the host and the inclusions mate-
rials described by a Debye model. Case 4s A is selected for
running this comparison, since the Debye parameters associ-
ated with the inclusions are much higher (εis = 1900, εi∞ =
280) than those related to the host (εes = 2.5, εe∞ = 2.2). With
this choice, the differences between the two materials are more
noticeable. The comparison of the real and imaginary part of
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
Fig. 11. Comparisons of the original MG model (solid curve) and the com-
puted equivalent Debye model (dashed curve) for Case 6s A: (a) real part and
(b) imaginary part. Average error AE = 1.5% for the real part comparison;
AE = 51% for the imaginary part comparisons.
εeff −M G and εeq−Debye are given in Fig. 7(a) and (b), respec-
tively. The approximation introduced by the sum of the three
terms in (10) does not give a perfect agreement between the
original MG and the equivalent Debye models. However, the
main features introduced by the two Debye dependencies (due
to the host and inclusion materials) are reproduced. The good-
ness of the equivalent Debye model is quantified in Fig. 8 by
the FSV response.
D. Case 5s
The Case 5s is characterized by conductive inclusions. The
equivalent Debye model is derived analytically in terms of the
input dielectric properties of host material and inclusions in
the equivalent Debye model, as detailed in Section II-D. The
Case 5s B in Table I is considered for validating the derived
equivalent Debye model. The inclusion conductivity is σ i =
4·104 S/m. The comparison of the results is presented in Fig. 9.
The FSV quantification is shown in Fig. 10 for both the real and
the imaginary part. The fully analytical derivation employed in
this case leads to a perfect matching between the equivalent
Debye and the original MG models. This is because the equiv-
alent Debye model is obtained using the same approach as in
Fig. 12. Comparisons of the original MG model (solid curve) and the com-
puted equivalent Debye model (dashed curve) for Case 6s B: (a) real part, and
(b) imaginary part. Average error AE = 2.1% for the real part comparison;
AE = 54% for the imaginary part comparisons.
Case 2s. It is worth to note that Case 5s A with σ i = 4·103 S/m
demonstrates the similar model features.
E. Case 6s
Herein, the comparison of the original MG model εeff −M G
(1) and its equivalent Debye model εeq−Debye for Case 6s A is
provided. This case is related to conductive inclusions embedded
in a Debye-dependent host material. Cases 6s A (σ i = 4·103 )
and 6s B (σ i = 4·104 ) are considered for validating the proposed
approach. εeff −M G and εeq−Debye for Cases 6s A and 6s B are
compared in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively. The FSV results in
Figs. 13 and 14 are employed for quantifying the differences
between the two models. This combination of values provides
the worst approximation among all the cases.
The results of comparison for those two cases are very similar.
The equivalent Debye model has the same trend as the original
MG model, even though the derived Debye model is not able
to catch the first step in the real part (and the first peak in the
imaginary part) at around 1010 Hz for Case 6s A, and around
1011 Hz for Case 6s B.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
DE PAULIS et al.: FROM MAXWELL GARNETT TO DEBYE MODEL FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC SIMULATION
Fig. 13. GDM results for the pair of curve in Fig. 11 for f = 46.8%: (a)
Real part (Grade = 3, Spread = 3), and (b) imaginary part (Grade = 4,
Spread = 3).
Fig. 14. GDM results for the pair of curve in Fig. 12 for f = 46.8%: (a) Real
part (Grade = 2, Spread = 2), and (b) imaginary part (Grade = 4, Spread = 4).
IV. CONCLUSION
The method that we proposed is an efficient semianalytical
way for obtaining an equivalent Debye model from the MG
mixing rule for the permittivity of a composite dielectric ma-
terial. There is no need for special algorithms to curve-fit per-
mittivity of an equivalent homogeneous material to a series
of Debye terms. The computation time for running the devel-
oped analytical formulas is negligible (the order of millisec-
onds). Some cases are considered covering real-world combi-
nations of values for the host and inclusions materials. The
best matching between the MG mixing formulation and its
equivalent Debye model is obtained when only one ingredi-
ent in a biphasic mixture has a frequency dispersive behav-
ior, while the other is nondispersive. This conclusion holds
for Cases 2s, 3s, and 5s; the very good agreement between
the original MG model and the derived Debye model is con-
firmed by the FSV GDM parameter, it provides always an “ex-
cellent” agreement, and by the computed average error, it is
always less than 0.2%. The worst approximation is obtained
when both ingredients have a frequency dispersive response, as
for Cases 4s and 6s; the comparisons of the real parts is still
good; this is confirmed by both the FSV results (the “excel-
lent” bar is always the largest), and by the average error, always
less than 2.1%. The FSV outputs for the imaginary part com-
parisons include also the “fair” and “poor” bars, even though
the largest bar value is held by the “excellent” or the “very
good” category. The average error, in the imaginary part com-
parisons, is less meaningful since it is sensitive to the very small
values of the data toward dc and infinity; thus, small differ-
ences between the two models could lead to very large values
of the computed average error (i.e., more than 50% for the
Case 6s).
The practical outcome is to be able to incorporate bipha-
sic Debye model in time-domain simulations. This is impor-
9
tant for finding out whether the particular mixture satisfies in-
tended requirements. The practical scenarios can, for exam-
ple, be application of composite materials to reduce common-
mode currents, cavity resonances, absorb unwanted radiation,
or terminate unwanted coupling paths in particular EMI/EMC
problems.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Sihvola, Electromagnetic Mixing Formulas and Applications. Lon-
don, U.K.: IEE, 1999.
[2] K. Rozanov, M. Koledintseva, and J. Drewniak, “A new mixing rule for
predicting of frequency-dependent material parameters of composites,”
in Proc. URSI Int. Symp. Electromagn. Theory., Berlin, Germany, Aug.
2010, pp. 646–649.
[3] B. R. Archambeault, O. M. Ramahi, and C. Brench, EMI/EMC Computa-
tional Modeling Handbook, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer, 2001.
[4] T. Weiland, M. Timm, and I. Munteanu, “A Practical guide to 3-D simu-
lation,” IEEE Microw. Mag., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 62–75, Dec. 2008.
[5] A. Von Hippel, Dielectrics and Waves. Boston, London: Artech House,
1995.
[6] M. Koledintseva, J. Xu, S. De, J. Drewniak, Y. He, and R. Johnson,
“Systematic analysis and engineering of absorbing materials containing
magnetic inclusions for EMC applications,” IEEE Trans. Mag., vol. 47,
no. 2, pp. 317–323, Feb. 2011.
[7] A. Taflove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: The
Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method, 3rd ed. Norwood, MA: Artech
House, 2005.
[8] J. C. Maxwell Garnett, “Colours in metal glasses and metal films,” Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. London, Sect. A, vol. 3, pp. 385–420, 1904.
[9] A. N. Lagarkov and A. K. Sarychev, “Electromagnetic properties of com-
posites containing elongated conducting inclusions,” Phys. Review B.,
vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 6318–6336, 1996.
[10] M. Y. Koledintseva, S. K. Patil, R. W. Schwartz, W. Huebner, K. Rozanov,
J. Shen, and J. Chen, “Prediction of effective permittivity of diphasic
dielectrics as a function of frequency,” IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electri.
Insul., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 793–808, Jun. 2009.
[11] M. Y. Koledintseva, J. Wu, J. Zhang, J. L. Drewniak, and K.
N. Rozanov, “Representation of permittivity for multi-phase dielec-
tric mixtures in FDTD modeling,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Electro-
mag. Compat., Santa Clara, CA, Aug. 9–13, 2004, vol. 1, pp. 309–
314.
[12] I. M. De Rosa, R. Mancinelli, F. Sarasini, M. S. Sarto, and A. Tamburrano,
“Electromagnetic design and realization of innovative fiber-reinforced
broad-band absorbing screens,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.,
vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 700–707, Aug. 2009.
[13] X. Xu, A. Qing, Y. B. Gan, and Y. P. Feng, “Effective properties of
fiber composite materials,” J. Electromagn. Waves Appl., vol. 18, no. 5,
pp. 649–662, 2004.
[14] A. H Sihvola and J. A. Kong, “Effective permittivity of dielectric mix-
tures,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 420–429,
Jul. 1988.
[15] (2010). [Online]. Available: http://orlandi.ing.univaq.it/Uaq_Laboratory/
docs/mg2d/Equations_Part_I.pdf
[16] A. P. Duffy, A. J. M. Martin, A. Orlandi, G. Antonini, T. M. Benson,
and M. S. Woolfson, “Feature Selective Validation (FSV) for validation
of computational electromagnetic (CEM). Part I – The FSV Method,”
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 449–459, Aug.
2006.
[17] A. Orlandi, A. P. Duffy, B. Archambeault, G. Antonini, D. E. Coleby,
and S. Connor, “Feature selective validation (FSV) for validation of com-
putational electromagnetics (CEM). Part II—Assessment of FSV perfor-
mance,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 460–467,
Aug. 2006.
[18] A. Orlandi, Feature Selective Validation (FSV) Tool, down-
loadable at (2010). [Online]. Available: http://uaqemc.ing.univaq.it/
uaqemc/FSV_Tool/
[19] A. Duffy, Feature Selective Validation Technique, official webpage.
(2008). [Online]. Available: http://www.eng.cse.dmu.ac.uk/FSVweb/
[20] Standard for Validation of Computational Elecromagnetics Com-
puter Modeling and Simulation—Part 1, IEEE Standard P1597,
2008.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY

Francesco de Paulis (S’08) was born in L’Aquila,
Italy in 1981. He received the Laurea degree and
the Specialistic degree (summa cum laude) in elec-
tronic engineering both from University of L’Aquila,
L’Aquila, Italy, in 2003 and 2006, respectively. In
August 2006, he joined the Electromagnetic Compat-
ibility (EMC) Laboratory at the Missouri University
of Science and Technology (formerly University of
Missouri-Rolla) Rolla, where he received the M.S.
degree in electrical engineering in May 2008. He is
currently working toward in the Ph.D. degree at the
University of L’Aquila.
He was involved in the research activities at the UAq EMC Laboratory from
August 2004 to August 2006, L’Aquila and at the UMR EMC Laboratory, Rolla,
from August 2006 to May 2008. From June 2004 to June 2005, he had an intern-
ship at Selex Communications, L’Aquila, within the layout/SI/PI design group.
He is currently a Research Assistant at the UAq EMC Laboratory, University
of L’Aquila. His main research interests include in developing fast and efficient
analysis tool for SI/PI and design of high speed signal on PCB, RF interference
in mixed-signal system, EMI problem investigation on PCBs, and composite
material for shielding.
Mr. de Paulis received the Past President’s Memorial Award from the IEEE
EMC Society in 2010 and in 2011. He was the recipient of the Best Paper Award
at the IEEE International Symposium on EMC in 2009 and 2010, and the IEC
DesignCon Paper Award in 2010 and 2011.
Muhammet Hilmi Nisanci was born in Istanbul,
Turkey, in 1983. He received the B.S. and M.S. de-
grees from Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta,
Turkey, in 2006 and 2009, respectively, both in
electronic and telecommunication engineering. He
is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering at University of L’Aquila,
L’Aquila, Italy.
He was involved in the research activities at the
UAq Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Labora-
tory from February 2007 to March 2009, L’Aquila.
His research interests include the numerical analysis of general electromagnetic
problems, reverberation/anechoic chambers, interaction of electromagnetic field
with dielectrics and composite media, their modeling and application for EMC.
James L. Drewniak (F’09) received the B.S., M.S.,
and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, in 1985,
1987, and 1991, respectively.
He is currently with Electromagnetic Compati-
bility (EMC) Laboratory in the Electrical Engineer-
ing Department, Missouri University of Science and
Technology. His research and teaching interests in-
clude electromagnetic compatibility in high-speed
digital and mixed-signal designs, signal and power
integrity, electronic packaging, electromagnetic com-
patibility in power electronic based systems, electronics, and antenna design.
Dr. Drewniak is an Associate Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EMC.
Antonio Orlandi (M’90–SM’97–F’07) was born in
Milan, Italy in 1963. He received the Laurea degree
in electrical engineering from the University of Rome
“La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy, in 1988.
He was with the Department of Electrical En-
gineering, University of Rome “La Sapienza” from
1988 to 1990. Since 1990, he has been with the
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
L’Aquila, where he is currently a Full Professor
and Chair of the UAq Electromagnetic Compatibility
(EMC) Laboratory. He is the author of more than 230
technical papers in the field of electromagnetic compatibility in lightning pro-
tection systems and power drive systems. His current research interests include
numerical methods and modeling techniques to approach signal/power integrity,
EMC/EMI issues in high speed digital systems.
Dr. Orlandi is the recipient of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC
COMPATIBILITY Best Paper Award in 1997, the IEEE EMC Society Technical
Achievement Award in 2003, the IBM Shared University Research Award in
2004, 2005, and 2006, the CST University Award in 2004 and The IEEE In-
ternational Symposium on EMC Best Paper Award in 2009 and 2010. He is
currently Associate Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC
COMPATIBILITY, member of the “Education,” TC-9 “Computational Electro-
magnetics” and Past Chairman of the TC-10 “Signal Integrity” Committees
of the IEEE EMC Society. From 1996 to 2000 has been Associate Editor of
the IEEE TrANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, from 2001 to
2006 served as Associate Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MOBILE COM-
PUTING and from 1999 to the end of the Symposium was Chairman of the TC-5

Marina Y. Koledintseva (M’95–SM’03) received “Signal Integrity” Technical Committee of the International Zurich Symposium
and Technical Exhibition on EMC.
the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in 1996 in Radio Engi-
neering Department, Moscow Power Engineering In-
stitute (Technical University) – MPEI(TU), Moscow,
Russia, in 1984 and 1996, respectively.
From 1983 to 1999, she worked as a Researcher
with the Ferrite Laboratory of MPEI (TU), and from
1997 to 1999 combined research with teaching as
an Associate Professor in the same University. Since
January 2000, she has been working as a Research
Professor with the Electromagnetic Compatibility
(EMC) Laboratory of the Missouri University of Science and Technology
(MS&T), formerly known as the University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla. Her scien-
tific interests include microwave engineering, analytical and numerical modeling
of interaction of electromagnetic waves with complex geometries and materials,
engineering composite materials with desirable electromagnetic properties, and
their application for electromagnetic compatibility. She has published over 150
papers in peer-reviewed journal and proceedings of international conferences,
and is an author of seven patents (Russian Federation).
Dr. Koledintseva is a member of the TC-9 (Computational Electromagnet-
ics) and a Secretary of TC-11 (Nanotechnology) Committees of the IEEE EMC
Society.