Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Exact Sciences, Federal University of the Vales Jequitinhonha and Mucuri, Minas Gerais 39803-371, Brazil
Graduate Program in Electrical Engineering - Federal University of Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais 31270-901, Brazil
Department of Electrical Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais 31270-901, Brazil
To solve wave propagation problems involving change of medium, many authors employ the generalized finite element method with
plane wave enrichment and Lagrange multipliers to ensure interface constraints. However this approach produces ill conditioned and
nonpositive definite systems, making it hard to solve. This paper presents an approach based on the mortar element method that substi-
tutes the Lagrange multipliers with the advantage of generating sparse and positive definite systems. Various numerical aspects affecting
the generalized finite element method efficiency are analyzed by solving a 2-D scattering problem.
Index TermsGeneralized finite element method, Lagrange multipliers, mortar element methods, scattering problems.
Manuscript received July 07, 2011; revised October 12, 2011; accepted Oc- where and are the restriction of the total mag-
tober 15, 2011. Date of current version January 25, 2012. Corresponding author: netic field and the test function on and , respectively.
W. G. Facco (e-mail: werleyfacco@yahoo.com.br). The wave numbers and are constant in each subdomain.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. The function on corresponds to trun-
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMAG.2011.2173309 cate the domain with the second order Bayliss-Turkel ABC and
0018-9464/$31.00 2012 IEEE
608 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 48, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2012
(7)
A. Lagrange Multipliers
where
In general, enforcing interface constraints is typically done
by means of LM. In this case the contour integral over , in (1) (11)
and (2) is evaluated with
and may be calculated by line integrals over
(6)
(12)
and a mixed formulation is obtained.
FACCO et al.: HANDLING MATERIAL DISCONTINUITIES IN THE GENERALIZED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD 609
(13)
(14)
Using the condition (14) the unknowns over the whole do-
main can be linked as follows:
(15)
(16) Fig. 3. Real and imaginary parts of the magnetic field for GFEM-LM, along
the line C .
where is the global coupling matrix and is the identity
matrix.
Applying the coupling matrix on the generalized finite ele- A. GFEM With LM
ment system , we have Fig. 3 shows the real and imaginary parts of the magnetic
field solution evaluated numerically and analytically on the line
(17) . The magnetic
field calculated through the GFEM with directions of
To obtain the Hermitian condition the final system is premul- plane waves provides an excellent approximation to the analytic
tiplied by the conjugate of the coefficient matrix. Then, the re- solution [8]. It is observed that the absolute errors in the real
sultant system is sparse and positive definite and, therefore, it and imaginary parts are consistently below 0.0027 and 0.0015,
can be efficiently solved by a wide range of methods. respectively.
In this section, we present and analyze the computational re- The solution to the problem considering the GFEM with
sults obtained using the LM and MEM aproaches to enforce the MEM and directions of plane waves is shown in Fig. 4,
interface conditions in the GFEM. The model problem shown through which one observes that the solution for the magnetic
in Fig. 1 is solved by enriching the GFEM with plane waves field obtained by this method is as accurate as that of the LM
in different directions. The following data are employed in the with GFEM. The absolute error of the real and imaginary part
computations: does not exceed 0.0024 and 0.0016 along the line .
radius of the PEC surface, ;
C. -Convergence of the GFEM With MEM and LM
radius of the dielectric interface, ;
radius of truncation boundary, ; To analyze the convergence of the GFEM the accuracy of the
wave numbers, and . model is measured by the relative -norm error defined in
The radius lengths are normalized by the wavelength in the the whole computational domain as
subdomain . The computational domain was discretized
into 588 triangular elements, resulting in 991 edges and 353 (18)
nodes. Among these nodes, 90 are on the interface , as shown
in Fig. 2. To evaluate the coefficients of the system (9) we em- Fig. 6 shows the -convergence of real and imaginary parts
ployed Gauss-Legendre integration rule with 64 points inside of the magnetic field solution along the line by GFEM with
each triangle and 6 along each boundary edge. MEM and ML, , 4, 6, 8, 10. To obtain accurate results we
610 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 48, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2012
TABLE I
COMPUTATION TIME
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the State of Minas Gerais
Research FoundationFAPEMIG, Brazil, the Brazilian gov-
Fig. 6. Real and imaginary q -convergence of the GFEM with MEM solution ernment agency CAPES and National Council for Scientific and
versus the corresponding convergence of the GFEM with LM, for Mesh Fig. 2,
for q =2 , 4, 6, 8, 10.
Technological DevelopmentCNPq, Brazil.
REFERENCES
[1] I. Babuska and J. M. Melenk, Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng, no. 40, pp.
727758, 1996.
[2] A. Plaks, I. Tsukerman, G. Friedman, and B. Yellen, IEEE Trans.
Magn., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 14361439, May 2003.
[3] L. Proekt, S. Yuferev, I. Tsukerman, and N. Ida, IEEE Trans. Magn.,
vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 649652, Mar. 2002.
[4] T. Strouboulis, I. Babuska, and R. Hidajat, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech.
Eng., no. 195, pp. 47114731, 2006.
[5] L. Proekt and I. Tsukerman, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 38, no. 2, pp.
Fig. 7. View of nonzero elements for (left) MEM and (right) LM methods. 741744, Mar. 2002.
[6] C. Lu and B. Shanker, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 43, no. 3, pp.
10021012, Mar. 2007.
[7] D. Rodger, H. C. Lai, and P. J. Leonard, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 26,
need a minimum of 6 wave directions which leads to (6 353) no. 2, pp. 548550, Mar. 1990.
degree of freedom in the MEM and for the LM. [8] O. Laghrouche, P. Bettess, E. Perrey-Debain, J. Trevelyan, and R. Hi-
dajat, Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., no. 194, pp. 367381, 2005.
We see that the approach used to enforce boundary continuity [9] O. J. Antunes, J. P. A. Bastos, N. Sadowski, A. Razek, L. Santandrea,
does not affect the convergence. Fig. 5 shows the total magnetic F. Bouillault, and F. Rapetti, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 41, no. 5, pp.
field distribution around the diffracting cylinder. The numerical 14721475, May 2005.
[10] O. J. Antunes, J. P. A. Bastos, N. Sadowski, A. Razek, L. Santandrea,
results are reported on lower half surface of the mesh Fig. 2 and F. Bouillault, and F. Rapetti, IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 42, no. 4, pp.
the analytical results are shown on the other half. Note that the 599602, Apr. 2006.