Multi-field variational formulations and mixed finite element approximations for electrostatics and magnetostatics

The final publication is available at link.springer.com[EN] In this paper we propose different multi-field variational formulations for electrostatics and magnetostatics, which can provide optimal discrete approximation of any particular vector field. The proposed formulations are constructed by appealing to mechanics point of view amenable to using general constitutive equations, which is quite different from electrostatics and magnetostatics formulations typical of physics and electrical engineering focusing on the corresponding global form suitable only for linear case. In particular, the formulations we propose can be combined with mixed discrete approximations that can ensure the continuity of tangential component of electric ormagnetic field and normal component of electric displacement and magnetic flux even for low order interpolations. The choice of this kind is quite different from currently favorite choice of high order finite element interpolations used for coupling electromagnetism with mechanics. The discrete approximation is based upon Whitney's interpolations representing the vector fields in terms of corresponding differential forms, with electric and magnetic fields as one-form and electric displacement and magnetic flux as two-form. The implementation of interpolations of this kind is made for 3D tetrahedron elements with non-standard approximation parameters defined not only at vertices (for zero-form), but at edges (for one-form) and at facets (for two-form). The results of several numerical simulations are presented to illustrate the performance of different formulations proposed herein.This work was supported jointly by Haut-deFrance Region (CR Picardie) (120-2015-RDISTRUCT-000010 and RDISTRUCT-000010) and EU funding (FEDER) for Chaire-deMecanique (120-2015-RDISTRUCTF-000010 and RDISTRUCTI000004). AI was also supported by IUF.Moreno-Navarro, P.; Ibrahimbegovic, A.; Ospina, A. (2020). Multi-field variational formulations and mixed finite element approximations for electrostatics and magnetostatics. Computational Mechanics. 65(1):41-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-019-01751-xS4159651Albanese R, Rubinacci G (1997) Finite element methods for the solution of 3d eddy current problems. In: Advances in imaging and electron physics, vol 102, pp 1–86. ElsevierAlotto P, Freschi F, Repetto M, Rosso C (2013) The cell method for electrical engineering and multiphysics problems: an introduction, vol 230. Springer, BerlinAngoshtari A, Shojaei MF, Yavari A (2017) Compatible-strain mixed finite element methods for 2d compressible nonlinear elasticity. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 313:596–631Arnold DN, Falk RS, Winther R (2006) Finite element exterior calculus, homological techniques, and applications. Acta Numerica 15:1–155Balanis CA (1999) Advanced engineering electromagnetics. Wiley, HobokenBamberg P, Sternberg S (1991) A course in mathematics for students of physics, vol 2. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeBochev PB, Robinson AC (2002) Matching algorithms with physics: exact sequences of finite element spaces. Collected Lectures on Preservation of Stability Under Discretization, pp 145–166Bossavit A (1988) A rationale for ‘edge-elements’ in 3-d fields computations. IEEE Trans Magn 24(1):74–79Bossavit A (1988) Whitney forms: a class of finite elements for three-dimensional computations in electromagnetism. IEE Proc 135(8):493–500Bossavit A (2010) Discrete magneto-elasticity: a geometrical approach. IEEE Trans Magn 46(8):3485–3491Desbrun M, Kanso E, Tong Y (2008) Discrete differential forms for computational modeling. In: Discrete differential geometry, pp 287–324. SpringerDular P, Geuzaine C (1997) Getdp: a general environment for the treatment of discrete problemsDular P, Hody J-Y, Nicolet A, Genon A, Legros W (1994) Mixed finite elements associated with a collection of tetrahedra, hexahedra and prisms. IEEE Trans Magn 30(5):2980–2983Felippa CA, Park KC, Farhat C (2001) Partitioned analysis of coupled mechanical systems. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 190(24–25):3247–3270Gil AJ, Ortigosa R (2016) A new framework for large strain electromechanics based on convex multi-variable strain energies: variational formulation and material characterisation. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 302:293–328Golias NA, Tsiboukis TD, Bossavit A (1994) Constitutive inconsistency: rigorous solution of maxwell equations based on a dual approach. IEEE Trans Magn 30(5):3586–3589Gradinaru V, Hiptmair R (1999) Whitney elements on pyramids. Electron Trans Numer Anal 8:154–168Hale HW (1961) A logic for identifying the trees of a graph. Trans Am Inst Electr Eng Part III Power Apparatus Syst 80(3):195–197Hammond P (2013) Electromagnetism for engineers: an introductory course. Elsevier, AmsterdamHammond P, Penman J (1976) Calculation of inductance and capacitance by means of dual energy principles. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, vol 123, pp 554–559. IETHammond P, Tsiboukis TD (1983) Dual finite-element calculations for static electric and magnetic fields. IEE Proc A (Phys Sci Measurement Instrum Manag Educ Rev) 130(3):105–111Ibrahimbegovic A (2009) Nonlinear solid mechanics: theoretical formulations and finite element solution methods, vol 160. Springer, DordrechtJackson JD (1999) Classical electrodynamics. Wiley, New YorkKameari A (1989) Three dimensional eddy current calculation using edge elements for magnetic vector potential. In: Applied electromagnetics in materials, pp 225–236. ElsevierKassiotis C, Ibrahimbegovic A, Niekamp R, Matthies HG (2011) Nonlinear fluid–structure interaction problem. Part I: implicit partitioned algorithm, nonlinear stability proof and validation examples. Comput Mech 47(3):305–323Kassiotis C, Ibrahimbegovic A, Niekamp R, Matthies HG (2011) Nonlinear fluid–structure interaction problem. Part II: space discretization, implementation aspects, nested parallelization and application examples. Comput Mech 47(3):335–357Keip Marc-André, Steinmann Paul, Schröder Jörg (2014) Two-scale computational homogenization of electro-elasticity at finite strains. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 278:62–79Ladevèze P, Pelle J-P (2005) Mastering calculations in linear and nonlinear mechanics, vol 171. Springer, New YorkMacneal RH, Harder Robert L (1985) A proposed standard set of problems to test finite element accuracy. Finite Elem Anal Des 1(1):3–20Manges J, Cendes Z (1996) Generation of tangential vector finite elements. Int Compumag Soc Newsl 3(1):4–10Mitchell BS (2004) An introduction to materials engineering and science for chemical and materials engineers. Wiley, HobokenMoreno-Navarro P, Ibrahimbegovic A, Pérez-Aparicio JL (2017) Plasticity coupled with thermo-electric fields: thermodynamics framework and finite element method computations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 315:50–72Moreno-Navarro P, Ibrahimbegovic A, Pérez-Aparicio JL (2018) Linear elastic mechanical system interacting with coupled thermo-electro-magnetic fields. Coupled Syst Mech 7(1):5–25Nédélec J-C (1980) Mixed finite elements in $$\mathbb{R}^3$$. Numer Math 35(3):315–341Penman J, Fraser J (1982) Complementary and dual energy finite element principles in magnetostatics. IEEE Trans Magn 18(2):319–324Razek A (1995) Computation of 3d electrostatic local fields and forces using complementarity of dual formulations. Application for capacitance and torque calculations in micromotorsRen Z (1995) A 3d vector potential formulation using edge element for electrostatic field computation. IEEE Trans Magn 31(3):1520–1523Ren Z (2009) On the complementarity of dual formulations on dual meshes. IEEE Trans Magn 45(3):1284–1287Repetto M, Trevisan F (2004) Global formulation of 3d magnetostatics using flux and gauged potentials. Int J Numer Meth Eng 60(4):755–772Schröder J, Keip M-A (2012) Two-scale homogenization of electromechanically coupled boundary value problems. Comput Mech 50(2):229–244Stark S, Semenov AS, Balke H (2015) On the boundary conditions for the vector potential formulation in electrostatics. Int J Numer Meth Eng 102(11):1704–1732Taylor RL (2012) Feap–a finite element analysis program. Version 8.4 Theory ManualTonti E (2013) The mathematical structure of classical and relativistic physics. Springer, New YorkVogel F, Bustamante R, Steinmann P (2012) On some mixed variational principles in electro-elastostatics. Int J Nonlinear Mech 47(2):341–354Wang J-S, Ida N (1993) Curvilinear and higher order ‘edge’ finite elements in electromagnetic field computation. IEEE Trans Magn 29(2):1491–1494Webb JP, Forgahani B (1993) Hierarchal scalar and vector tetrahedra. IEEE Trans Magn 29(2):1495–1498Yioultsis TV, Tsiboukis TD (1996) The mystery and magic of Whitney elements—an insight in their properties and construction. ICS Newsl 3:1389–1392Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL (1977) The finite element method, vol 36. McGraw-Hill, Londo

Non-negative mixed finite element formulations for a tensorial diffusion equation

We consider the tensorial diffusion equation, and address the discrete maximum-minimum principle of mixed finite element formulations. In particular, we address non-negative solutions (which is a special case of the maximum-minimum principle) of mixed finite element formulations. The discrete maximum-minimum principle is the discrete version of the maximum-minimum principle. In this paper we present two non-negative mixed finite element formulations for tensorial diffusion equations based on constrained optimization techniques (in particular, quadratic programming). These proposed mixed formulations produce non-negative numerical solutions on arbitrary meshes for low-order (i.e., linear, bilinear and trilinear) finite elements. The first formulation is based on the Raviart-Thomas spaces, and is obtained by adding a non-negative constraint to the variational statement of the Raviart-Thomas formulation. The second non-negative formulation based on the variational multiscale formulation. For the former formulation we comment on the affect of adding the non-negative constraint on the local mass balance property of the Raviart-Thomas formulation. We also study the performance of the active set strategy for solving the resulting constrained optimization problems. The overall performance of the proposed formulation is illustrated on three canonical test problems.Comment: 40 pages using amsart style file, and 15 figure

Breaking spaces and forms for the DPG method and applications including Maxwell equations

Discontinuous Petrov Galerkin (DPG) methods are made easily implementable using `broken' test spaces, i.e., spaces of functions with no continuity constraints across mesh element interfaces. Broken spaces derivable from a standard exact sequence of first order (unbroken) Sobolev spaces are of particular interest. A characterization of interface spaces that connect the broken spaces to their unbroken counterparts is provided. Stability of certain formulations using the broken spaces can be derived from the stability of analogues that use unbroken spaces. This technique is used to provide a complete error analysis of DPG methods for Maxwell equations with perfect electric boundary conditions. The technique also permits considerable simplifications of previous analyses of DPG methods for other equations. Reliability and efficiency estimates for an error indicator also follow. Finally, the equivalence of stability for various formulations of the same Maxwell problem is proved, including the strong form, the ultraweak form, and a spectrum of forms in between

The DPG-star method

This article introduces the DPG-star (from now on, denoted DPG$^*$) finite element method. It is a method that is in some sense dual to the discontinuous Petrov-Galerkin (DPG) method. The DPG methodology can be viewed as a means to solve an overdetermined discretization of a boundary value problem. In the same vein, the DPG$^*$ methodology is a means to solve an underdetermined discretization. These two viewpoints are developed by embedding the same operator equation into two different saddle-point problems. The analyses of the two problems have many common elements. Comparison to other methods in the literature round out the newly garnered perspective. Notably, DPG$^*$ and DPG methods can be seen as generalizations of $\mathcal{L}\mathcal{L}^\ast$ and least-squares methods, respectively. A priori error analysis and a posteriori error control for the DPG$^*$ method are considered in detail. Reports of several numerical experiments are provided which demonstrate the essential features of the new method. A notable difference between the results from the DPG$^*$ and DPG analyses is that the convergence rates of the former are limited by the regularity of an extraneous Lagrange multiplier variable

Some Key Developments in Computational Electromagnetics and their Attribution

Key developments in computational electromagnetics are proposed. Historical highlights are summarized concentrating on the two main approaches of differential and integral methods. This is seen as timely as a retrospective analysis is needed to minimize duplication and to help settle questions of attribution