716 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—II: EXPRESS BRIEFS, VOL. 61, NO.
9, SEPTEMBER 2014
Stability Preserving Model Reduction Technique and
Error Bounds Using Frequency-Limited Gramians
for Discrete-Time Systems
Muhammad Imran and Abdul Ghafoor
Abstract—A frequency-limited interval Gramians-based
balanced model reduction technique for discrete-time systems is
proposed. The technique provides stable models and also yields
frequency-response error bounds. Numerical examples are also pre-
sented. The results are comparable with other existing frequency-
limited interval Gramians-based model reduction techniques.
Index Terms—Error bound, limited-frequency Gramians,
model reduction.
I. I NTRODUCTION
M ODEL reduction has gained significant attention in the
last few decades, particularly in modeling of complex
systems, circuit design, and very-large-scale integration circuits
[1]–[10]. Approximating a higher order system to a lower
order system by retaining the fundamental properties of the
original system is the ultimate goal of model reduction. Model
reduction techniques tend to retain essential properties of the
original system (including input–output behavior and stability)
and yield reduced-order models with less approximation error.
Balanced truncation [11] is a widely used model reduction
technique, which ensures stability of reduced-order systems and
also yields a priori error bound [12]. A balanced truncation
technique for discrete-time systems was proposed in [13] and
[14]. Other techniques for model reduction (including Hankel
optimal approximation [15], Krylov technique [16], and Pade
approximation [17]) are also useful.
Model reduction techniques approximate a full-order system
for the whole frequency range; however, several model reduc-
tion problems (such as controller reduction) draw attention to
certain frequency intervals rather than the whole frequency
range. This leads to the introduction of a frequency weighting
concept in model reduction. Enns [12] extended the balanced
truncation technique to incorporate frequency weights for input,
output, and both-sided cases. This technique may provide un-
stable reduced-order models for stable original systems [18]. To
circumvent the instability problem of Enns’ technique, several
other techniques have been proposed in the literature [19]–[22].
Some other related works also appear in [23]–[27].
Manuscript received April 21, 2014; revised May 22, 2014; accepted June 12,
2014. Date of publication August 8, 2014; date of current version September 1,
2014. This brief was recommended by Associate Editor G. J. Dolecek.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Military
College of Signal, National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad
44000, Pakistan (e-mail: m.imran@mcs.edu.pk; abdulghafoor-mcs@nust.
edu.pk).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this brief are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCSII.2014.2346688
1549-7747 © 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
A technique for achieving a good approximation error within
the desired frequency interval was proposed by Wang and
Zilouchian [28] for discrete-time systems. This technique does
not involve explicit weights as in Enns’ technique. However,
this technique may also yield unstable reduced-order models
for stable original systems [29]. Moreover, it carries no error
bounds. This instability issue was addressed in [29], where a
frequency-response error bound also appears.
In [29], two algorithms were proposed. Algorithm 1 ensures
stability by taking absolute values of eigenvalues. This may
cause a large change in some eigenvalues and no effect on the
remaining eigenvalues. Algorithm 2 ensures stability by taking
only positive eigenvalues and truncating negative eigenvalues.
Therefore, Algorithms 1 and 2 in [29] do not have a similar
effect on all eigenvalues.
In this brief, a frequency-limited balanced truncation tech-
nique for discrete-time systems is proposed, which provides sta-
ble reduced-order models by working toward a similar effect on
all eigenvalues. The proposed technique provides comparable
frequency-response error and yields easily computable a priori
error bounds. Numerical examples are given to show the useful-
ness and comparison of the proposed technique with the existing
frequency-limited balanced model order reduction techniques.
II. WANG AND Z ILOUCHIAN ’ S T ECHNIQUE [28]
Here, we review Wang and Zilouchian’s [28] frequency-
limited interval Gramians-based model reduction technique for
discrete-time systems.
Let a discrete-time system be given as
H(z) = C(zI − A)−1 B + D (1)
where A ∈ Rn×n , B ∈ Rn×m , C ∈ Rp×n , D ∈ Rp×m ,
{A, B, C, D} is its nth order minimal realization, m is
the number of inputs, and p is the number of outputs. The
controllability and observability Gramians
π
1 −1 −1
P = (ejω I − A) BB T (e−jω I − AT ) dω
2π
−π
π
1 −1
Q= (e−jω I − AT ) C T C(ejω I − A)−1 dω
2π
−π
respectively, satisfy the following discrete-time Lyapunov
equations:
AP AT − P + BB T = 0
AT QA − Q + C T C = 0.
IMRAN AND GHAFOOR: MODEL REDUCTION TECHNIQUE AND ERROR BOUND USING FREQUENCY-LIMITED GRAMIANS 717

A model order reduction problem is to find Let the new controllability PIG and observability QIG
Gramians, respectively, be calculated by solving the following
Hl (z) = C1 (zI − A11 )−1 B1 + D1 (2) Lyapunov equations:
which approximates the original system (in the desired fre- APIG AT − PIG + BIG BIG
T
=0 (5)
quency range [ω1 , ω1 ], 0 ≤ ω1 ≤ ω2 ≤ π), where A11 ∈ Rl×l , A QIG A − QIG + CIG CIG = 0
T T
(6)
B1 ∈ Rl×m , C1 ∈ Rp×l , and D1 ∈ Rp×m with l < n.
Let the frequency-domain controllability interval Gramian where BIG and CIG are the new fictitious input and output
PWZ and the observability interval Gramian QWZ , respectively, matrices, respectively, defined as
be defined as 
 UIG (SIG − sn I)1/2 , for sn < 0
1 −1 −1 BIG =
PWZ = (ejω I − A) BB T (e−jω I − AT ) dω U S ,
1/2
for sn ≥ 0
2π  IG IG

δω (RIG − rn I)1/2 VIG
T
, for rn < 0
1 −1 −1
CIG = 1/2 T
QWZ = (e−jω I − AT ) C T C(ejω I − A) dω. RIG VIG , for rn ≥ 0.
2π
δω The terms UIG , SIG , VIG , and RIG are calculated as
T T
These Gramians PWZ and QWZ are the solution of the follow- XWZ = UIG SIG UIG and YWZ = VIG RIG VIG , where SIG =
ing Lyapunov equations: diag(s1 , s2 , s3 , . . . , sn ), RIG = diag(r1 , r2 , r3 , . . . , rn ), s1 ≥
s2 ≥ · · · ≥ sn , and r1 ≥ r2 ≥ · · · ≥ rn .
APWZ AT − PWZ + XWZ = 0 (3) Let a contragredient transformation matrix T (used to trans-
AT QWZ A − QWZ + YWZ = 0 (4) form the original system) be obtained as

where T T QIG T = T −1 PIG T −T = diag(σ1 , σ2 , σ3 , . . . , σn )

XWZ = BB T F H + F BB T where σj ≥ σj+1 , j = 1, 2, 3, . . . , n − 1, σl > σl+1 . Reduced-
YWZ = C T CF + F H C T C  order models are calculated by partitioning the transformed
ω2 − ω 1 1 −1 realization.
F =− I+ (ejω I − A) dω.
4π 2π Remark 2: Since XWZ ≤ BIG BIG T
, YWZ ≤ CIG T
CIG ,
δω BIG BIGT
≥ 0, CIG T
CIG ≥ 0, PIG > 0, and QIG > 0, the
F H is the Hermitian of F , and δω is the integration interval realization (A, BIG , CIG ) is minimal. Moreover, the reduced-
[ω1 , ω2 ]. order systems are guaranteed to be stable.
Let Theorem 1: The following error bound for the pro-
posed technique holds  ifthe rank conditions rank[BIG B] =
T T QWZ T = T −1 PWZ T −T = diag{σ1 , σ2 , σ3 . . . , σn } rank[BIG ] and rank CCIG = rank[CIG ] (which follows from
[29]) are satisfied, i.e.,
where σj ≥ σj+1 , j = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1, σl > σl+1 , and T is a
contragredient matrix used to transform the original system 
n

realization. The reduced models are obtained by partitioning H(z) − Hl (z)∞ ≤ 2LIG KIG  σj
j=l+1
the transformed realization.
Remark 1: The symmetric matrices XWZ and YWZ obtained where
by the above procedure may not guarantee to be positive semi- 
definite; hence, the reduced-order models calculated by Wang CVIG (RIG − rn I)−1/2 , for rn<0
LIG = −1/2
and Zilouchian’s technique [28] may not be stable [29]. This CVIG RIG , for rn≥0

issue was solved in [29], and error bounds were also derived. (SIG − sn I)−1/2 UIG
T
B, for sn<0
KIG = −1/2 T
SIG UIG B, for sn≥ 0.
III. M AIN R ESULTS
 
In [29], two algorithms were presented to address the sta- Proof: Since rank[BIG B] = rank[BIG ] and rank CCIG =
bility issue. In algorithm 1 [29], the symmetric matrices XWZ rank[CIG ], the relationships B = BIG KIG and C = LIG CIG
and YWZ are ensured positive/semipositive definite by taking hold. By partitioning BIG = B IG1
BIG2
and CIG = [CIG1 CIG2 ]
the square root of absolute values of the eigenvalues. This may and substituting B1 = BIG1 KIG and C1 = LIG CIG1 , respec-
sometimes lead to a large change in some eigenvalues and may tively, yield
not affect other eigenvalues (of XWZ and YWZ ). On the other
end, algorithm 2 [29] ensures the positive definiteness of the H(z)
 − Hl (z)∞−1 
matrices XWZ and YWZ by retaining only positive eigenvalues =C(zI − A) B −−1C1 (zI − A11 ) B1 ∞
−1 
and truncating negative eigenvalues. This algorithm also does 
= LIG CIG (zI − A) BIG KIG 
not have a similar effect on all eigenvalues (of XWZ and YWZ ). −1 
In this brief, a technique is proposed where effort is to have  −LIG CIG1 (zI − A 11 ) BIG1 KIG ∞
= LIG CIG (zI − A) BIG
−1

a similar effect on all eigenvalues of indefinite matrices XWZ
−CIG (zI − A ) −1
B K 
and YWZ . The reduced-order model obtained is guaranteed to 1 11 IG 1 IG ∞
be stable. Moreover, it yields frequency-response error bound 
≤ LIG  CIG (zI − A) BIG −1

and improved frequency-response error. −CIG (zI − A11 )−1 BIG  KIG .
1 1 ∞
718 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—II: EXPRESS BRIEFS, VOL. 61, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2014

If {A11 , BIG1 , CIG1 } is a reduced-order model obtained by TABLE I

R EDUCED -O RDER S YSTEMS IN THE F REQUENCY R ANGE 0.3π TO 0.5π
partitioning a balanced realization {A, BIG , CIG }, we have
[14], [15]
  
n
 CIG (zI −A)−1 BIG −CIG (zI −A11 )−1 BIG  ≤ 2 σj .
1 1 ∞
j=l+1

Therefore

n
H(z) − Hl (z)∞ ≤ 2LIG KIG  σj .
j=l+1

Remark 3: For the case when symmetric matrices XWZ ≥ 0

and YWZ ≥ 0, then PWZ = PIG and QWZ = QIG . Other-
wise, PWZ < PIG , QWZ < QIG , and (λj [PWZ QWZ ])1/2 ≤
(λj [PIG QIG ])1/2 .
Remark 4: When XWZ ≥ 0 and YWZ ≥ 0, then
XIG T
= BIG BIG = XWZ − sn I
YIG = CIG CIG = YWZ − rn I
T

PIG = PWZ + Pad

QIG = QWZ + Qad

which is shown by writing (5) and (6) as

A(PWZ + Pad )AT − (PWZ + Pad )
+ (XWZ − sn I) = 0, for sn < 0
AT (QWZ + Qad )A − (QWZ + Qad )
+ (YWZ − rn I) = 0, for rn < 0
APad AT − Pad − sn I = 0, for sn < 0
AT Qad A − Qad − rn I = 0, for rn < 0.
Remark 5: To ensure efficient computation, Hammarling’s
technique [30] is used to obtain Cholesky factors of Gramian
matrices from the original system realization without actually
computing controllability and observability Gramian matrices,
respectively. Note that, in the case of Wang and Zilouch-
ian’s technique, Hammarling’s technique is not applicable (due
to possibility of having XWZ ≥ 0 and YWZ ≥ 0). However,
Hammarling’s technique is applicable to Ghafoor and
Sreeram’s algorithms (1 and 2) and proposed techniques. For
example, in the proposed technique, we can apply Ham-
marling’s technique on the realization {A, BIG , CIG }. More-
over, the computation cost using Hammarling’s technique for
the proposed and Ghafoor and Sreeram’s algorithms remains
the same.
IV. N UMERICAL E XAMPLES
Example 1: Consider a fourth-order stable discrete-time sys-
tem [18] represented by
Fig. 1. Frequency-response error comparison of the reduced-order systems.
Table I shows reduced-order systems obtained by using
Wang and Zilouchian’s [28], Ghafoor and Sreeram’s algorithms
(1 and 2) [29], and proposed techniques in the frequency range
0.3π to 0.5π, respectively. Note that the reduced-order models
obtained for the first and second orders are unstable for Wang
and Zilouchian’s [28] technique, whereas the Ghafoor and
Sreeram’s algorithms (1 and 2) [29] and proposed technique
yields stable reduced-order systems. The reduced third-order
model (not shown in Table I) obtained by these techniques
is stable.
Example 2: Consider a sixth-order stable discrete-time sys-
tem represented by the equation at the bottom of the page.
Fig. 1 represents the frequency-response errors, σ[H(z) −
Hl (z)], where Hl (z) is the fourth-order reduced model pro-
duced by balanced truncation [11], Wang and Zilouchian’s [28],
Ghafoor and Sreeram’s algorithms (1 and 2) [29], and proposed
techniques, respectively. The frequency interval for computing
the error response is 0.35π to 0.45π. Fig. 2 represents a magni-
fied view of the frequency-response error.
Example 3: Consider a sixth-order stable discrete-time sys-
tem represented by

z3 z 5 + 5z 4 + 7z 3 + 8z 2 + 10z + 1
H(z) = . H(z) = .
z4 + 1.1z 3 − 0.01z 2 − 0.275z − 0.06 4z 6 + 3.5z 5 + 3z 4 + 2z 3 + 1.2z 2 + z + 0.4

0.011z 6 + 0.0635z 5 + 0.1653z 4 + 0.2169z 3 + 0.1565z 2 + 0.7124z + 0.0882

H(z) =
z 6 − 1.5z 5 + 2.3z 4 − 2.1z 3 + 1.5z 2 − 0.69z + 0.2
IMRAN AND GHAFOOR: MODEL REDUCTION TECHNIQUE AND ERROR BOUND USING FREQUENCY-LIMITED GRAMIANS 719

Fig. 2. Frequency-response error comparison—magnified view.

Fig. 4. Frequency-response error comparison—magnified view.

Fig. 3. Frequency-response error comparison of the reduced-order systems.

Fig. 3 represents the frequency-response errors σ[H(z) −
Hl (z)], where Hl (z) is the second order reduced model pro-
duced by balanced truncation [11], Wang and Zilouchian’s [28],
and Ghafoor and Sreeram’s algorithms (1 and 2) [29] and
proposed techniques, respectively. The frequency interval for
computing error response is 0.5π to 0.7π. Fig. 4 represents
a magnified view of the frequency-response error, where the
unweighted balanced truncation plot is not shown because of
its large value.
Example 4: Consider a sixth-order stable discrete-time sys-
tem represented by the equation at the bottom of the page.
Fig. 5 represents the magnitude and phase of the frequency
response errors, i.e., σ[H(z) − Hl (z)], where Hl (z) is the
fourth-order reduced model produced by using Wang and
Zilouchian’s [28], Ghafoor and Sreeram’s algorithms (1 and 2)
[29], and proposed techniques, respectively. The frequency
interval for computing the error response is 0.37π to 0.42π.
Fig. 5. Frequency response with magnitude and phase error comparison of the
reduced-order systems.
Fig. 6 represents a magnified view of the magnitude and phase
of frequency-response errors. It is observed that the proposed
technique compares well with other existing techniques when
both the magnitude and the phase of frequency-response errors
are considered in the desired frequency interval. Note that the
reduced-order models obtained using Wang and Zilouchian’s
technique is unstable, having a pole at z = 1.5699.
Discussion: It is observed (from Examples 2 to 4) that in the
desired frequency interval, Wang and Zilouchian’s technique
gives better approximation error, but it sometimes yields un-
stable reduced-order models as given in Example 1. The pro-
posed technique provides comparatively good approximation
as compared to Ghafoor and Sreeram’s algorithms (1 and 2)
in the desired frequency interval. Ghafoor and Sreeram’s tech-
nique algorithms (1 and 2) and proposed techniques have the

0.0107z 6 + 0.0642z 5 + 0.1595z 4 + 0.2168z 3 + 0.1525z 2 + 0.0704z + 0.0009

H(z) =
z 6 − 1.4637z 5 + 2.2838z 4 − 2.0587z 3 + 1.4467z 2 − 0.6746 + 0.1825
720 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS—II: EXPRESS BRIEFS, VOL. 61, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2014
Fig. 6. Frequency response with magnitude and phase error comparison—
magnified view.
advantage of providing stable reduced-order models and carry
error bounds also.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this brief, a frequency-limited Gramians-based model
order reduction technique for discrete-time systems has been
presented. Simulation results show that the proposed technique
compares well with other existing frequency-limited Gramians-
based model order reduction techniques in the desired fre-
quency range.
R EFERENCES
[1] X. Chen and J. T. Wen, “Positive realness preserving model reduction with
H∞ norm error bounds,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory
Appl., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 23–29, Jan. 1995.
[2] J. T. Hsu and L. Vu-Quoc, “A rational formulation of thermal circuit mod-
els for electrothermal simulation. II. Model reduction techniques [power
electronic systems],” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl.,
vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 721–732, Sep. 1996.
[3] T. Auba and Y. Funahashi, “Interpolation approach to Hankel-norm model
reduction for rational multi-input multi-output systems,” IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 987–995,
Dec. 1996.
[4] Y. Dolgin and E. Zehab, “Model reduction of uncertain FIR discrete-
time systems,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 51, no. 8,
pp. 406–411, Aug. 2004.
[5] J. Cullum, A. Ruehli, and T. Zhang, “A method for reduced-order mod-
eling 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.
[6] J. M. Wang, C. C. Chu, Q. Yu, and E. S. Kuh, “On projection based algo-
rithms for model order reduction of interconnects,” IEEE Trans. Circuits
Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 1563–1585, Nov. 2002.
[7] Q. Yu, J. M. L. Wang, and E. S. Kuh, “Passive multipoint moment match-
ing model order reduction algorithm on multiport distributed interconnect
networks,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 46,
no. 1, pp. 140–160, Jan. 1999.
[8] P. Julian, A. Desages, and B. D’Amico, “Orthonormal high-level canon-
ical PWL functions with applications to model reduction,” IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 702–712,
May 2000.
[9] B. Yan, S. X. Tan, and B. McGaughy, “Second order balanced truncation
for passive order reduction of RLC K Circuits,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst.
II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 942–946, Sep. 2008.
[10] A. Davoudi, J. Jatskevich, P. L. Chapman, and A. Bidram, “Multiresolu-
tion modeling of power electronics circuits using model-order reduction
techniques,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 60, no. 3,
pp. 810–823, Mar. 2013.
[11] B. C. Moore, “Principal component analysis in linear systems: Control-
lability, observability, model reduction,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. AC-26, no. 1, pp. 17–32, Feb. 1981.
[12] D. F. Enns, “Model reduction with balanced realizations: An error bound
and a frequency weighted generalization,” in Proc. IEEE CDC, Las Vegas,
NV, USA, Dec. 1984, pp. 127–132.
[13] L. Pernebo and L. M. Silverman, “Model reduction via balanced state
space representation,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. AC-27, no. 2,
pp. 382–387, Apr. 1982.
[14] U. M. Al Saggaf and G. F. Franklin, “An error bound for discrete re-
duced order model of a linear multivariable system,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 815–819, Sep. 1987.
[15] K. Glover, “All optimal Hankel-norm approximation of linear multivari-
able systems and their L∞ —Error bounds,” Int. J. Control, vol. 39, no. 6,
pp. 1115–1193, Jan. 1984.
[16] P. Benner, T. Breite, and T. Damm, “Krylov subspace methods for model
order reduction of bilinear discrete-time control systems,” Proc. Appl.
Math. Mech., vol. 1, no. 10, pp. 601–602, Dec. 2010.
[17] O. Ismail, B. Bandyopadhyay, and R. Gorez, “Discrete interval system re-
duction using Pade approximation to allow retention of dominant poles,”
IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 44, no. 11,
pp. 1075–1078, Nov. 1997.
[18] V. Sreeram, B. D. O. Anderson, and A. G. Madievski, “New results on
frequency weighted balanced reduction technique,” in Proc. IEEE ACC,
Seattle, WA, USA, Jun. 1995, pp. 4004–4009.
[19] C. A. Lin and T. Y. Chiu, “Model reduction via frequency weighted bal-
anced realization,” Control–Theory Adv. Technol., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 341–
451, Mar. 1992.
[20] K. Campbell, V. Sreeram, and G. Wang, “A frequency weighted discrete
system balanced truncation method and an error bound,” in Proc. ACC,
Chicago, IL, USA, Jun. 2000, pp. 2403–2404.
[21] A. Varga and B. D. O. Anderson, “Accuracy enhancing methods for the
frequency-weighted balancing related model reduction,” in Proc. IEEE
CDC, Orlando, FL, USA, Dec. 2001, pp. 3659–3664.
[22] M. Imran, A. Ghafoor, and V. Sreeram, “Frequency weighted model order
reduction technique and error bounds for discrete time systems,” Math.
Probl. Eng., vol. 2014, pp. 498 453-1–498 453-8, Mar. 2014.
[23] W. M Muda, V. Sreeram, and H. H. C. Lu, “Passivity-preserving frequency
weighted model order reduction techniques for general large-scale RLC
systems,” in Proc. IEEE CCARV, Singapore, Dec. 2010, pp. 1310–1315.
[24] T. Breiten, C. Beattie, and S. Gugercin, Near Optimal Frequency
Weighted Interpolatory Model Reduction, Preprint, Max Planck Institute
Magdeburg Preprint MPIMD/13-15, 2013.
[25] H. R. Shaker, “Upper and lower bounds of frequency interval Gramians
for a class of perturbed linear systems,” in Proc. IFAC Symp. Robost
Control Design, Denmark, Jun. 2012, pp. 713–716.
[26] S. Sahlan, A. Ghafoor, and V. Sreeram, “A new method for the model
reduction technique via a limited frequency interval impulse response
Gramian,” Math. Comput. Model., vol. 55, no. 3/4, pp. 1034–1040,
Feb. 2012.
[27] P. Vuillemin, C. P. Vassal, and D. Alazard, A Frequency-Limited H2
Model Approximation Method With Application to a Medium-Scale Flex-
ible Aircraft, Advances in Aerospace Guidance, Navigation and Control.
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2013.
[28] D. Wang and A. Zilouchian, “Model reduction of discrete linear system
via frequency domain balanced realization,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I,
Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 830–837, Jun. 2000.
[29] A. Ghafoor and V. Sreeram, “Model reduction via limited frequency
interval Gramians,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 55,
no. 9, pp. 2806–2812, Oct. 2008.
[30] S. J. Hammarling, “Numerical solution of the stable, non-negative definite
Lyapunov equation,” IMA J. Numer. Anal., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 303–323,
Jul. 1982.