Domain Decomposition for Electromagnetic Field Simulation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current domain decomposition methods for simulating electromagnetic fields face challenges in achieving high convergence rates across a broad range of applications, particularly due to the limitations of first-order Robin transmission conditions which only damp propagation errors and not evanescent errors, and higher-order conditions suffer from poor convergence properties due to sensitivity to Robin coefficients.

Innovation Solution

The use of higher-order Robin transmission conditions, optimized for fast convergence by selecting suitable Robin coefficients based on mesh size, frequency of electromagnetic fields, and basis order of finite elements, along with a domain-decomposition formulation using block lower triangular subdomain matrices and a modified Gauss-Seidel preconditioner for iterative solution.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If first-order Robin transmission conditions are used, then the mathematical problem is well-posed and convergence occurs, but the convergence rate is slow because propagation errors are damped but evanescent errors are not

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconvergence of simulationVSAvoidconvergence rate
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies parameter changes by transitioning from first-order to higher-order Robin transmission conditions. Specifically, second-order Robin conditions are used to damp both propagation and evanescent errors, thereby improving the convergence rate while maintaining the well-posedness of the mathematical problem. This parameter change in the order of the transmission condition directly addresses the contradiction between reliability and productivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Productivity

If higher-order Robin transmission conditions are used, then the convergence rate may be improved, but the convergence becomes highly sensitive to the choice of Robin coefficients

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconvergence rateVSAvoidsensitivity to coefficients
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent systematically changes the parameters (Robin coefficients) based on the specific problem characteristics such as frequency, mesh size, and material properties. By establishing systematic methods to select these parameters, the patent reduces the sensitivity to coefficient choice while maintaining the high convergence rate benefits of higher-order conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent incorporates feedback mechanisms where the Robin coefficients are selected based on problem-specific parameters and convergence behavior. This feedback approach allows the method to adapt to different scenarios, reducing sensitivity to arbitrary coefficient choices while maintaining optimal convergence rates.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Measurement precision

If direct solvers are used for large three-dimensional problems, then an exact solution can be obtained, but prohibitive amounts of memory are required

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesolution accuracyVSAvoidmemory requirements
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies segmentation by dividing the large three-dimensional domain into multiple subdomains. This domain decomposition transforms the single large linear system into multiple smaller subsystems that can be solved more efficiently. The segmentation enables the use of iterative solvers with reduced memory requirements while maintaining solution accuracy through proper interface conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent substitutes the direct solver approach (mechanical system) with an iterative solver approach. This substitution replaces the memory-intensive direct inversion with an iterative process that uses less memory, particularly when combined with domain decomposition and appropriate preconditioning strategies.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Quantity of substance

If iterative solvers are used for large systems, then memory requirements are reduced, but the number of iterations required for convergence increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvememory requirementsVSAvoidcomputational time
Core Design Contradiction:
Quantity of substanceVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses domain decomposition to segment the problem into subdomains, which enables the use of efficient iterative solvers on each subdomain. This segmentation, combined with appropriate preconditioning, reduces the number of iterations required for convergence while maintaining low memory requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent optimizes convergence by changing parameters such as using higher-order transmission conditions and selecting appropriate Robin coefficients based on problem characteristics. These parameter changes accelerate convergence, reducing the number of iterations and thus the computational time while maintaining the memory efficiency of iterative solvers.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS8510091B1Domain decomposition formulations for simulating electromagnetic fields
Publication Date: 2013.08.13 ANSYS INC
  • US8510091B1 patent drawing
  • US8510091B1 patent drawing
  • US8510091B1 patent drawing

AI summary

Disclosed are domain-decomposition approaches to simulations of electromagnetic fields may that, in various embodiments, use second-order Robin transmission conditions at subdomain boundaries.