Partial Differential Equations - Modelling and ... - ResearchGate
Partial Differential Equations - Modelling and ... - ResearchGate Partial Differential Equations - Modelling and ... - ResearchGate
Electromagnetic Scattering 101 6 Numerical Examples A number of examples will be presented which enable a comparison to be made between the accuracy and the performance of the FETD approach and the co-volume algorithm on unstructured meshes. 6.1 Narrow Waveguide The first example involves the simulation of the propagation, in the positive x-direction, of a plane harmonic TE wave, of wavelength λ, in a narrow rectangular waveguide. The waveguide occupies the region 0 ≤ x ≤ 200λ and its width, 0.4λ, is small enough to avoid the generation of any wave normal to the direction of propagation. Two unstructured meshes, with spacing δ ≈ λ/15 and δ ≈ λ/30, are generated using the stitching method. The majority of the elements are almost equilateral triangles which exhibit all the desired mesh quality properties [ZM06]. To enable a comparison with the results produced by the traditional Yee scheme, two structured triangular grids are generated, using the vertex spacings δ = λ/15 and δ = λ/30. On these meshes, the covolume scheme of the equations (11) and (12) reduces to the classical Yee scheme. Figure 2 shows the structured mesh with δ = λ/15 and the unstructured mesh with δ ≈ λ/15. The solution is advanced for 170 cycles, using the maximum allowable time step. For each case considered, the computed distribution of the magnetic field, between x = 139λ and x = 141λ, is compared with the exact distribution in Figure 3. It can be seen that the Yee scheme on the structured grid and the co-volume scheme on the unstructured grid maintain the amplitude of the propagating wave, while the FETD scheme fails to maintain the amplitude. It can also be observed that the phase velocity is under-predicted by both the Yee and the co-volume schemes and is overpredicted by the FETD scheme. However, the phase velocity obtained on the unstructured meshes with the co-volume scheme is more accurate than the phase velocity obtained using the traditional Yee scheme on the structured (a) (b) Fig. 2. Details of the meshes employed for the propagation of a plane harmonic TE wave in a waveguide: (a) the structured mesh with δ = λ/15; (b) the unstructured mesh with δ ≈ λ/15.
102 I. Sazonov et al. H z 1 exact FETD Yee Co-volume H z 1 0 139 140 x 141 (a) exact Yee FEDT Co-volume 0 139 140 x 141 (b) Fig. 3. Propagation of a plane harmonic TE wave in a waveguide: magnetic field after 170 cycles at a distance x ≈ 140λ, using (a) δ ≈ λ/15, (b) δ ≈ λ/30. mesh. Table 1 compares the computational performance of the algorithms, in terms of the required number of steps per cycle (spc), the CPU time needed (time), the computed phase velocity (C) and the maximum amplitude (A) of the magnetic field in the range 0 ≤ x ≤ 160λ. This table also enables computation of the speed-up factor, between the co-volume method and FETD, which is achieved on both meshes. The effect of dispersion error on the phase velocity, as a function of time step, is shown in Figure 4. A theoretical phase velocity of one was specified for the present computation. This figure shows the computed phase velocity, for various values of the time step, on the unstructured meshes using the co-volume scheme and the FETD scheme and, on the structured meshes, using the Yee scheme, compared to the theoretically expected Yee values [TH00]. The phase velocity achieved using the co-volume method is much superior to the phase velocity expected from the structured grid implementation.
- Page 57 and 58: 46 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski 2 A L
- Page 59 and 60: 48 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski S:T=
- Page 61 and 62: 50 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski minim
- Page 63 and 64: 52 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski 6 On
- Page 65 and 66: 54 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski Fig.
- Page 67 and 68: 56 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski and
- Page 69 and 70: 58 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski 7 Num
- Page 71 and 72: 60 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski Fig.
- Page 73 and 74: 62 E.J. Dean and R. Glowinski Assum
- Page 75 and 76: Higher Order Time Stepping for Seco
- Page 77 and 78: u n+1 h Optimal Higher Order Time D
- Page 79 and 80: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 81 and 82: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 83 and 84: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 85 and 86: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 87 and 88: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 89 and 90: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 91 and 92: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 93 and 94: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 95 and 96: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 97 and 98: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 99 and 100: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 101 and 102: Optimal Higher Order Time Discretiz
- Page 103 and 104: 96 I. Sazonov et al. To provide a p
- Page 105 and 106: 98 I. Sazonov et al. In the first s
- Page 107: 100 I. Sazonov et al. Fig. 1. An ex
- Page 111 and 112: 104 I. Sazonov et al. (a) (b) Fig.
- Page 113 and 114: 106 I. Sazonov et al. Scattering Wi
- Page 115 and 116: 108 I. Sazonov et al. 6.4 Scatterin
- Page 117 and 118: 110 I. Sazonov et al. (a) (b) Fig.
- Page 119 and 120: 112 I. Sazonov et al. [MHP96] K. Mo
- Page 121 and 122: 114 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall I R
- Page 123 and 124: 116 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall imp
- Page 125 and 126: 118 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall alo
- Page 127 and 128: 120 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall (a)
- Page 129 and 130: 122 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall D C
- Page 131 and 132: 124 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall 8.6
- Page 133 and 134: 126 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall 0.3
- Page 135 and 136: 128 R. Sanders and A.M. Tesdall [TR
- Page 137 and 138: 132 S. Lapin et al. Ω R γ Ω 2 Γ
- Page 139 and 140: 134 S. Lapin et al. ∫ ∂ 2 ∫
- Page 141 and 142: 136 S. Lapin et al. Ω R γ Fig. 3.
- Page 143 and 144: 138 S. Lapin et al. 4 Energy Inequa
- Page 145 and 146: 140 S. Lapin et al. 5 Numerical Exp
- Page 147 and 148: 142 S. Lapin et al. Fig. 6. Contour
- Page 149 and 150: 144 S. Lapin et al. Fig. 9. Obstacl
- Page 151 and 152: Domain Decomposition and Electronic
- Page 153 and 154: Domain Decomposition Approach for C
- Page 155 and 156: Domain Decomposition Approach for C
- Page 157 and 158: Domain Decomposition Approach for C
Electromagnetic Scattering 101<br />
6 Numerical Examples<br />
A number of examples will be presented which enable a comparison to be<br />
made between the accuracy <strong>and</strong> the performance of the FETD approach <strong>and</strong><br />
the co-volume algorithm on unstructured meshes.<br />
6.1 Narrow Waveguide<br />
The first example involves the simulation of the propagation, in the positive<br />
x-direction, of a plane harmonic TE wave, of wavelength λ, in a narrow rectangular<br />
waveguide. The waveguide occupies the region 0 ≤ x ≤ 200λ <strong>and</strong> its<br />
width, 0.4λ, is small enough to avoid the generation of any wave normal to the<br />
direction of propagation. Two unstructured meshes, with spacing δ ≈ λ/15<br />
<strong>and</strong> δ ≈ λ/30, are generated using the stitching method. The majority of the<br />
elements are almost equilateral triangles which exhibit all the desired mesh<br />
quality properties [ZM06]. To enable a comparison with the results produced<br />
by the traditional Yee scheme, two structured triangular grids are generated,<br />
using the vertex spacings δ = λ/15 <strong>and</strong> δ = λ/30. On these meshes, the covolume<br />
scheme of the equations (11) <strong>and</strong> (12) reduces to the classical Yee<br />
scheme. Figure 2 shows the structured mesh with δ = λ/15 <strong>and</strong> the unstructured<br />
mesh with δ ≈ λ/15. The solution is advanced for 170 cycles, using the<br />
maximum allowable time step. For each case considered, the computed distribution<br />
of the magnetic field, between x = 139λ <strong>and</strong> x = 141λ, is compared<br />
with the exact distribution in Figure 3. It can be seen that the Yee scheme on<br />
the structured grid <strong>and</strong> the co-volume scheme on the unstructured grid maintain<br />
the amplitude of the propagating wave, while the FETD scheme fails<br />
to maintain the amplitude. It can also be observed that the phase velocity<br />
is under-predicted by both the Yee <strong>and</strong> the co-volume schemes <strong>and</strong> is overpredicted<br />
by the FETD scheme. However, the phase velocity obtained on the<br />
unstructured meshes with the co-volume scheme is more accurate than the<br />
phase velocity obtained using the traditional Yee scheme on the structured<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
Fig. 2. Details of the meshes employed for the propagation of a plane harmonic TE<br />
wave in a waveguide: (a) the structured mesh with δ = λ/15; (b) the unstructured<br />
mesh with δ ≈ λ/15.