The vector finite element analysis will be demonstrated using the quasi magnetostatic case as described in Subsection 5.1.3. The Galerkin method is applied to (5.15) and the weak formulation for the vector differential operator, as discussed in Section 3.3, is used. This gives the following expression
Adding an arbitrary gradient field (i. e.
) to
the magnetic field
does not alter
(5.17),
since the rotor operator of a gradient field is zero
(
). The solution will
remain unchanged like
Applying the substitution
![]() |
(5.19) |
in (5.18) leads to the following equation
In the literature the vector potential
of the current density
is often denoted as
T and the auxiliary scalar field
is denoted as
or
,
respectively. This gives the widely used names of the numerical procedure
for handling the quasi-static method -- T-
or T-
method [70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79].
Using this technique the finite element method can be combined with the
boundary integral method to diminish the number of unknowns taking into
account the unbounded regions [80]. Of coarse,
the dominant magnetic field model can be also considered from the equations
for the electrodynamic potentials from Subsection 5.1.2
to obtain expressions for the magnetic vector potential
and the electric scalar potential
for the quasi-magnetostatic
case [81].
In this chapter the finite element analysis with vector shape functions
for the approximation of
and with scalar shape functions
for the approximation of
is comprehensively explained. The same
can be applied for the electric field
from
Subsection 5.1.1 or for the electrodynamic potentials
and
from Subsection 5.1.2.
De facto (5.20) corresponds to the partial differential equation
Since there are two unknowns in (5.21) --
the vector field
and the scalar field
, an additional relation
between these two fields is required. Equation
(5.20) (or the equivalent one
(5.21)) is derived from (5.11) and
(5.13), but (5.12) has not been used.
With (4.7) it leads to
Equation (5.22) provides
the additional relation between
and
. Thus the
magnetic field
is obtained by solving the boundary
value problem, given by the partial differential equation system
consisting of (5.21)
and (5.22) for
and
In ideal dielectric regions (5.21) cannot
be used, because
. In such regions the current density
is zero and
can be expressed as gradient field like
Thus for the numerical analysis (5.24) can be used in the dielectric part of the simulation domain and (5.21), (5.22), and (5.23) can be applied in the remaining parts, respectively. However (5.24) is valid only for simply connected regions. For non-contiguous regions specific cutting algorithms have to be addressed [82,83,84,85]. Unfortunately, these algorithms are quite expensive pre-processing steps for complex structures. In this work it is preferred to assume low conductivity of the dielectrics and to use (5.21), (5.22), and (5.23) in the entire simulation domain. The conductivity in the dielectric regions should be sufficiently low with respect to the conductivity of the conducting areas. However, it should not be very low, because the first summand of the right hand side of (5.21) would increase dramatically and would lead to an extremely ill conditioned linear equation system.
The boundary
of the calculation domain
is
divided into a Dirichlet
boundary
for
and a Neumann boundary
for (5.21) and into a Dirichlet
boundary
for
and a Neumann boundary
for (5.21).
![]() |
The weighting of the residual of (5.21) and
the following weak formulation for the finite element analysis
has been already dealt with (5.20).
The same must be done for (5.22) as well.
For this purpose the residual of (5.22)
is weighted by a set of scalar functions
and then the first scalar Green's theorem is applied similarly as shown in Section 3.3 for the scalar differential operator. This leads to the equation
As usual for the finite element analysis the unknown vector function
is approximated by a sum of known vector functions multiplied by coefficients
The same is done for the scalar function
The functions
and
comply with the Dirichlet boundary
conditions for
and
, respectively.
The tilde sign written over the approximated field quantity is not used
any more. Of coarse it will be kept in mind that the sums
(5.27) and
(5.28) are approximations. As already mentioned
the coefficients
in the scalar approximation
(5.28) correspond to the scalar field
values in the nodes of the discretized domain. It will be shown
in Subsection 5.2.2
that the coefficient
in the vector approximation
(5.27) complies with the tangential component
of the field
along the global edge
of the discretized domain.
Similarly to the nodes, the edges are numbered globally for the entire domain
and locally in each element. Again there is a connectivity array which
binds the local (element) edge index with the corresponding global one.
The coefficients for both, nodes and edges lying at the Dirichlet
boundary, can be obtained from the Dirichlet boundary condition and are
arranged behind the unknown coefficients in the following way
![]() |
The unknown coefficients associated with the edges are numbered from
to
and the unknown ones associated with the nodes count from
to
,
respectively. The known coefficients for the edges given by the Dirichlet
boundary of (5.27) are numbered from
till
and the known coefficients for the nodes on the
Dirichlet boundary of (5.28) are numbered
from
to
. Thus the first
coefficients are unknown
and are the solution of the finite element calculation and the remaining
coefficients numbered from
to
are given by the Dirichlet boundaries.
Each global vector function
corresponds to the global edge
and is constructed from element functions
similarly
with the scalar functions
. In Subsection
5.2.2 it will be
demonstrated that
has no tangential component along
other edges except edge
. Thus the boundary term in
(5.20) can
be given in a different form as
![]() |
Since the global edge functions
with
have no tangential
component on the edges lying on the Dirichlet boundary
,
they must be perpendicular to
(or parallel
to
). As clearly shown by the third member of
(5.29) the boundary integral
in (5.20) has a contribution only for the
Neumann boundary
. Furthermore the following is assumed:
The electric field
is either perpendicular to
,
which means that
is zero in the last term of
(5.29), or the simulation domain is sufficiently
large and allows that
can be neglected on
.
Accepting this, the boundary term in (5.20)
vanishes
The boundary integral of (5.26) can be written in the following way
![]() |
The global node functions
are non-zero only in
the neighbor elements of the unknown nodes, which do not
belong to the Dirichlet boundary
and are
indexed by
. On the Dirichlet boundary
the global functions
are
defined to zero. Thus the boundary integral (5.31)
vanishes at the Dirichlet boundary
and
the integration domain is restricted to the Neumann boundary
. Additionally it is assumed that
the magnetic flux
is perpendicular to
on the surface
or that
it can be neglected on this surface. Thus the boundary
integral of (5.26)
is also set to zero
In such case it is often spoken of a homogeneous or zero Neumann
boundary conditions. It will be shown in the application section
that this is not a substantial restriction. Of coarse, it is important
to use a suitable model which fulfills the assumed criteria
as well as possible. For the sake of completeness a possible
discretization of the element matrices arising from the boundary integrals over
and
are given in the appendix in
Chapter B
and Chapter C.
With the above considerations about the boundary integral terms the base equations used for the further finite element assembling can be written
and
are substituted by their approximations
(5.27) and (5.28)
in (5.33) and (5.34)
where (5.36) is multiplied by
to obtain a
symmetric matrix. Thus,
,
,
and
are given by the expressions
Obviously the right hand side vector
can be calculated by (5.37)
where
,
, and
are expressed as in (5.38),
(5.39), and (5.40) and the corresponding ranges for the
global indexes
and
are taken from (5.41) and (5.42).