Partial Differential Equations - Modelling and ... - ResearchGate
Partial Differential Equations - Modelling and ... - ResearchGate Partial Differential Equations - Modelling and ... - ResearchGate
Electromagnetic Scattering 109 Scattering Width, dB Co-volume /120 Co-volume /15 uniform FETD /120 FETD /15 uniform FETD /15 refined Viewing Angle, degrees Fig. 12. Simulation of scattering of a plane TE wave by a PEC NACA0012 aerofoil of length λ showing a comparison between the computed and benchmark scattering width distributions. Table 4. Simulation of scattering of a plane TE wave by a PEC NACA0012 aerofoil of length λ. Mesh FETD Co-volume Speed up resolution spc time, s E SW spc time, s E SW ratio Uniform 59 12. 6.00 46 0.4 0.9 30 Refined 97 20. 2.14 99 0.6 0.5 33 shown in Fig. 13(a). The simulations are advanced for 150 cycles and the typical distribution of the contours of the computed total magnetic field in the domain, excluding the PML, is shown in Figure 13(b). A comparison of the computed scattering width distributions is given in Figure 14. Also shown on this figure is the scattering width distribution computed using a high order finite element frequency domain (FEFD) simulation [LMHW02]. The number ofstepspercycleis57fortheco-volumeschemeand59fortheFETDmethod and, for this example, the co-volume scheme requires 31 seconds of cpu time, while the FETD method requires 1980 seconds. This represents a speed-up of a factor of 65.
110 I. Sazonov et al. (a) (b) Fig. 13. Simulation of scattering of a plane TE wave by a PEC cavity showing (a) the unstructured mesh employed, (b) the computed total magnetic field after 150 cycles. Scattering Width, dB Viewing Angle, degrees Fig. 14. Simulation of scattering of a plane TE wave by a PEC cavity showing a comparison of the scattering width distributions computed, after 150 cycles, by FETD, the co-volume scheme and a FEFD method. 7 Conclusions The numerical performance of an explicit unstructured mesh co-volume time domain scheme and a standard finite element time domain method has been compared for a number of electromagnetic wave propagation and scattering examples. To ensure the efficiency of the co-volume approach, the smooth Delaunay–Voronoï dual meshes that are used are generated using a stitching method. The numerical examples that have been considered show that the co-volume method is 30–60 times faster than the finite element method for two-dimensional scattering problems. In addition, the co-volume method
- 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 and 108: 100 I. Sazonov et al. Fig. 1. An ex
- Page 109 and 110: 102 I. Sazonov et al. H z 1 exact F
- 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: 108 I. Sazonov et al. 6.4 Scatterin
- 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
- Page 159 and 160: Domain Decomposition Approach for C
- Page 161 and 162: Domain Decomposition Approach for C
- Page 163 and 164: Domain Decomposition Approach for C
- Page 165 and 166: Domain Decomposition Approach for C
Electromagnetic Scattering 109<br />
Scattering Width, dB<br />
Co-volume /120<br />
Co-volume /15 uniform<br />
FETD /120<br />
FETD /15 uniform<br />
FETD /15 refined<br />
Viewing Angle, degrees<br />
Fig. 12. Simulation of scattering of a plane TE wave by a PEC NACA0012 aerofoil<br />
of length λ showing a comparison between the computed <strong>and</strong> benchmark scattering<br />
width distributions.<br />
Table 4. Simulation of scattering of a plane TE wave by a PEC NACA0012 aerofoil<br />
of length λ.<br />
Mesh FETD Co-volume Speed up<br />
resolution spc time, s E SW spc time, s E SW ratio<br />
Uniform 59 12. 6.00 46 0.4 0.9 30<br />
Refined 97 20. 2.14 99 0.6 0.5 33<br />
shown in Fig. 13(a). The simulations are advanced for 150 cycles <strong>and</strong> the<br />
typical distribution of the contours of the computed total magnetic field in<br />
the domain, excluding the PML, is shown in Figure 13(b). A comparison of<br />
the computed scattering width distributions is given in Figure 14. Also shown<br />
on this figure is the scattering width distribution computed using a high order<br />
finite element frequency domain (FEFD) simulation [LMHW02]. The number<br />
ofstepspercycleis57fortheco-volumescheme<strong>and</strong>59fortheFETDmethod<br />
<strong>and</strong>, for this example, the co-volume scheme requires 31 seconds of cpu time,<br />
while the FETD method requires 1980 seconds. This represents a speed-up of<br />
a factor of 65.