See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237821839

Post processing for the vector finite element method: From edge to nodal
values

Article  in  COMPEL International Journal of Computations and Mathematics in Electrical · December 2005

DOI: 10.1108/03321640510615607

CITATIONS READS

6 199

3 authors:

Christian Vollaire François Musy

Ecole Centrale de Lyon Ecole Centrale de Lyon
202 PUBLICATIONS   1,925 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   404 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ronan Perrussel
French National Centre for Scientific Research
121 PUBLICATIONS   679 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wave Supply View project

REC-EM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by François Musy on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Post Processing for the Vector Finite Element
Method: from Edge to Nodal Values
Christian VOLLAIRE : CEGELY, UMR CNRS 5005, [email protected], Ecole

Centrale de Lyon, 69134 Ecully, France.

François MUSY : MAPLY, UMR CNRS 5585, [email protected], Ecole Centrale de

Lyon, 69134 Ecully, France.

Ronan PERRUSSEL : MAPLY, UMR CNRS 5585, CEGELY, UMR CNRS 5005

[email protected], Ecole Centrale de Lyon, 69134 Ecully, France.

Purpose

Propose post processing methods for the edge finite element method on a tetrahedral mesh.

They make it possible to deduce vector values on the vertices from scalar values defined on

the edges of the tetrahedra.

Approach

The new proposed techniques are based on a least squares formulation leading to a sparse

matrix system to be solved. They are compared in terms of accuracy and CPU time on a FE

formulation for open boundary – frequency domain problems.

Findings

1
A significant improvement of vector values accuracy on the vertices of the tetrahedra is

obtained compared to a classical approach with a very small additional computation time.

Originality

This work presents techniques allowing:

- To obtain the values at the initial nodes of the mesh and not inside the tetrahedra

- To take into account the discontinuity to the interface between two media of different

electromagnetic properties.

Keywords

Edge elements, finite element method, post processing

Research paper

2
Introduction

Edge-based finite elements (FE) are useful in modeling electromagnetic phenomena because

of their correct physical sense. Furthermore, it has been shown that better approximation of

the solution may be obtained compared to nodal-based FE [Webb, 1993]. The incomplete first

order edge finite element is commonly used in electromagnetic modeling. The degrees of

freedom are line integrals along the edges in the mesh. However, knowledge of the nodal field

values remains necessary for various reasons. Maximal values located at the interfaces can be

required to predict possible electric breakdowns. Nodal values may be necessary to achieve

some additional computation: induced currents in the conductors, dual field, source term for

coupled problem (magneto thermal), … [Zhao et al, 2000, Sekkak et al, 1994]. Post

processors for visualization are usually based on the nodal representation of the fields.

For vector finite elements, two techniques are commonly used to compute nodal values from

degrees of freedom [Volakis et al, 2000]:

- Only nodal values inside an element are computed from its edge values. However, this

method doesn’t give a unique value on its boundary, namely on the vertices.

- An average value of the nodal field is evaluated on each node and for each region by

taking into account the contribution of all the elements connected to the considered

node [Dibben et al, 1997].

The objective of this paper is to propose a method to compute accurate nodal values at the

vertices of a tetrahedral mesh. Our approach is validated on a FE formulation for open

boundary frequency domain problems. Spatial discretization is achieved using incomplete

first order tetrahedral edge elements [Yao Bi, 1996].

Reference method

3
A first and simplest method consists in computing local node values on each element of the

mesh from the edge values by means of the local edge basis. As explained by (1), a value at a

node is then obtained as an arithmetic mean involving the elements containing the node. For a

node at the interface between two regions, two values are obtained by averaging the field

values separately in each region. It is taken as reference in the following (method 1).

∑ E T (m)
6
T∋ m
E(m) = with E T (m) = ∑ αi pi (m) (1)
nT i =1

m is a node which belongs to nT elements. Associated to edge ei of tetrahedron T, pi is the

local shape function with αi as degree of freedom.

New approach

Let a complex vector field E be obtained from some computations with H(curl; Ω )-

conforming finite elements on a tetrahedral mesh τh of a bounded domain Ω of IR 3 . We are

seeking a "good representation" of E by a continuous vector field E* on τh. This problem

may be formalised by introducing the minimization problem:

Find a vector field E* ∈ Vh which minimizes E − E for all E in Vh (2)

4
Vh is the nodal conforming FE space of degree 1 defined on τh and || || is a norm induced by

a scalar product in H(curl; Ω ). Vector field E being given from incomplete first order edge

elements, it can be decomposed in the edge basis denoted (w e )e∈ε h , as:

E= ∑ αewe with α e = ∫ E.t : circulation of E along edge e (3)

e∈εh e

εh denotes the set of the edges in τh and t is an oriented tangent unit vector on edge e. So it

seems appropriate to introduce a norm deduced by the following scalar product:

⎛ ⎞⎛ ⎞
E,E′ θ
= (1 − θ ) ∫ E . E ′ + θ
Ω ∑ ⎜ ∫ ⎟ ⎜ ∫ ⎟⎟
⎜ E .t ⎟ ⎜ E ′.t (4)
e ∈ε h ⎝ e ⎠⎝ e ⎠

θ is a weight such that 0 ≤ θ < 1 . The limit case θ = 1 , for which the bilinear form , θ
does

not remain a scalar product on H(curl; Ω ), is tackled in the later.

By definition of the norm deduced by (4), the gap between vector fields E and E is

⎡ 2 ⎤1/ 2
2
E−E = ⎢ (1 − θ ) ∫ E − E +θ ∑ ∫ (E − E ).t ⎥ (5)
θ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ Ω e ∈ε h e ⎥⎦

By minimizing E − E , according to the choice of the weight θ, good approximation E* of

θ

E as well as preserving of the “circulation” along the edges may be expected.

5
The linear system to solve

For the norm defined by (5) with 0 ≤ θ < 1 , the minimization problem (2) is a least squares

problem with a unique solution E*. Moreover vector field E* is the orthogonal projection of

E into the space Vh for the scalar product (4). The unknown field E* can be decomposed as:

Nh
E* = ∑ ξi vi (6)
i =1

where (vi), i=1 to Nh (the nodal space dimension) is the nodal vector basis of the FE space Vh

and the unknown vector ξ = ( ξi ) , i=1 to Nh contains the values of each component of the field

E* on the vertices of the mesh τh. Writing that E* - E is orthogonal to any test function vi

gives ξ as solution to a linear system: A θξ = bθ . The matrix A θ , the Gram matrix associated

to the scalar product , θ

, is given by:

(A θ )ij = vi , v j i,j=1 to Nh (7)

θ

Then, A θ is real symmetric and positive definite for 0 ≤ θ < 1 . The right-hand side bθ is

given by:

( bθ )i= E, vi , i=1 to Nh (8)

θ

Numbering the unknowns according to the 3 components on the axes, the nodal basis can be

decomposed as

6
 ⎡ ϕi ⎤ ⎡0⎤ ⎡0⎤
⎢ 0 ⎥ i=1 to n, ⎢ϕ ⎥ i=1 to n ⎢ 0 ⎥ i=1 to n (9)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ i⎥ ,
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ϕi ⎥⎦

where ϕi , i=1 to n is the scalar nodal basis and n the number of vertices. It induces a partition

of the matrix A θ into a 3 by 3 block matrix with 9 (n × n) blocks:

⎡ A θXX A θXY A θXZ ⎤

⎢ ⎥
A θ = ⎢ A θYX A θYY A θYZ ⎥ (10)
⎢ ZX ⎥
⎢⎣ A θ A θZY A θZZ ⎥
⎦

and similarly for bθ and ξ with 3 (n × 1) blocks:

⎡ bθX ⎤ ⎡ξX ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
bθ = b θ ξ = ⎢ ξ Y ⎥
⎢ Y⎥
(11)
⎢ Z⎥ ⎢ Z⎥
⎢⎣ bθ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ξ ⎥⎦

Entries of the matrix

It is convenient to split the system as

A θ = (1 − θ)A 0 + θA1 and bθ = (1 − θ)b0 + θb1 (12)

Then from (4) and (7), it comes

7
 (A 0 )ij = ∫ vi .v j , i,j=1 to Nh (13)
Ω

(A1 )ij = ∑ ( ∫ vi .t)( ∫ v j.t) , i,j=1 to Nh (14)

e∈ε h e e

and from (4) and (8)

(b0 )i = ∫ E.vi , i=1 to Nh (15)

Ω

(b1 )i = ∑ ( ∫ E.t)( ∫ vi .t) , i=1 to Nh (16)

e∈ε h e e

From (9) and (13), it is easy to check that A 0 is given by:

⎛M 0 0 ⎞
A0 = ⎜⎜ 0 M 0 ⎟⎟ (17)
⎜ 0 0 M⎟
⎝ ⎠

where M is the usual (n × n) mass matrix defined by:

M ij = ∫ ϕi ϕ j , i,j=1 to n (18)
Ω

A1 is not a block diagonal matrix but it is easy to see from (19) that each block is as sparse as

M. Associated to each vertex a i of the mesh, we introduce the sets of edges

8
εih = {e ∈ εh / vertex a i is an extremity of edge e} . Then denoting by ex, ey, ez the 3

components on the axes of an oriented edge e, from

ex
∫ ϕi t x = if e ∈ εih , (19)
2
e

one gets

exey
(A1XY )ii = ∑ 4
(20)
e∈εih

and

exey
for i ≠ j (A1XY )ij = if e ∈ εih ∩ ε hj (21)
4

The entries of the other blocks of A1 can be easily deduced.

Entries of the right hand side

i
For each vertex ai of the mesh, let us introduce the associated set of edges: ε% h ={ e ∈ εh / edge

e and vertex ai belong to the same tetrahedron } and the set of elements: τih =support of vi

={T ∈ τh / ai is a vertex of tetrahedron T} and for each edge e ∈ εh , τeh =support of

we={T ∈ τh /e is an edge of tetrahedron T}. Then from (3),(9) and (15), it comes

9
 ⎡ ⎤
(b0X )i = ∑ αe ⎢ ∑ ∫ ( w e )x ϕi ⎥ , i=1 to n (22)
⎢ ⎥
i ⎣ T∈τh ∩τh T
e i
e∈ε% h ⎦

For T ∈ τeh ∩ τih , the value of ∫ ( w e )xϕi can be computed as follows.

T

For e = ab where a and b are vertices of tetrahedron T and denoting by λa , λ b the respective

associated barycentric co-ordinates, one gets:

⎧(∇λ b − 2∇λ a ) x if e ∈ εih and a i = a

mes(T) ⎪
⎪
∫ ( w e )xϕi = 20 η with η = ⎨(2∇λ b − ∇λ a )x if e ∈ εh and ai = b (23)
i

T ⎪
⎪⎩(∇λ b − ∇λ a ) x if e ∉ ε h
i

Because of equality ∫ E.t = αe , an explicit expression of the components of b1X is more

e

easily obtained from (9) and (16) as:

(b1X )i = ∑ αe ∫ ϕi .t x = ∑ αe
ex
2
(24)
e∈εih e e∈εih

Limit cases θ = 0 and θ = 1

In the particular case where θ = 0, the linear system reduces to A0ξ* = b0 . As pointed out

before, matrix A 0 has a block diagonal structure with mass matrices on the diagonal. To save

10
some computation time an explicit but approximate solution to the least squares problem can

be obtained. Mass-lumping technique can be implemented to obtain an explicit solution of the

least squares problem. The mass lumping allows to approximate the mass matrix by a

diagonal matrix [Zienkiewicz, 1970]:

β
∫v
2
i = with β = ∑ mes(T) (25)
Ω
4 T∈τi h

The components of the approximate solution are given by:

4 X
( ξ X )i = (b0 )i i=1 to n (26)
β

For θ = 1 , the minimization problem defined by (2),(5) is a pure discrete least squares

problem with one solution at least. The solutions satisfy the linear system A1ξ = StSξ = b1

where S is the rectangular matrix defined by:

for k=1 to cardinal ( εh ) Ski = ∫ vi .t i=1 to Nh e edge of number k (27)

e

Uniqueness of the solution is ensured if there exists no ξ ∈ IR N h − {0} such that S ξ =0. i.e. if

the columns of S are linearly independent. It requires that the number of lines card(εh ) is

larger than (Nh) the number of columns.

From (27), the uniqueness condition of the solution can be also written as

11
 there exists no E ∈ Vh − {0} such that ∫ E.t = 0 for any e ∈ εh
e

It can be translated into the following mesh characterization:

there is no vector field defined on the nodes such that E(c) ≠ 0 for some node c and

(E(a)+E(b)).e=0 for any edge e=ab.

In the numerical experiments presented above such a property appears to be satisfied by the

meshes. In particular, the necessary condition card(ε h ) ≥ N h is always satisfied.

Results and discussions

In the following, method 1 (local averaging) is the reference method, method 2 (energy

approximation) is obtained with θ=0, method 3 (circulation approximation) corresponds to

θ=1, method 4 (combination of circulation approximation with energy approximation) is

obtained for θ=1/2 , and method 5 corresponds to θ=0 with the mass lumping approximation.

For methods 2, 3, 4, a symmetric quasi-minimal residual method with SSOR preconditioning

(PQMR) is used to solve the matrix system A θ ξ= bθ .

The accuracy and the time required for each post processing method are tested on 3 examples.

In the first two examples, numerical results are compared with analytical solutions of

scattering of a plane wave by a sphere. Analytical solutions can be found in [Harrington,

1968] and numerical formulations of scattering problems are given in [Yaobi, 1996]. A 50

mm radius - sphere is meshed with 100 nodes on its surface. The frequency of the incident

plane wave is 1 GHz. Absorbing Boundary Condition (ABC) (1st order Engquist Majda) is

located at a half wavelength from the sphere. In order to estimate the influence of the Finite

12
Element discretization, a relative error estimator on the sphere’s surface (denoted by S) is

computed as

∑ αanal num
e − αe
Error = e∈S (28)
∑ α anal
e
e∈S

The edge values αenum are those obtained from the FE-code. Denoting by Hanal the analytical

solution to the magnetic formulation, the values αanal

e are approximations of ∫H
anal
.t
e

computed for an oriented edge e=ab with nodes a and b as:

H anal (a) + H anal (b) e

αanal
e = . (29)
2 e

The efficiency of the different post processing strategies is also evaluated on the surface of the

sphere by means of relative error estimators. For each of the five methods, 3 relative errors

concerning the nodal vector field, its normal component and its tangential component are

computed as

anal num
∑H (a) − H (a)
Error = a∈S (30)
∑H anal
(a)
a∈S

13
Where H indicates either the vector (3 components), or its normal component or its

tangential component. Nodal values H num (a) are given by the post processing methods from

the F.E. edge values αenum .

Scattering by a perfect electric conductor sphere:

In the first example (figure 1), the sphere is modeled as a perfect electrical conductor (PEC).

The problem is meshed with 4481 nodes and 22108 tetrahedral elements leading to 28161

edges (294 edges on the sphere’s surface). The edge values error, computed with (28), is

about 0.067. The total solving time (assembling and solving of the matrix system) with the FE

code is about 300s on a HP J5000. Note that the same solver as in the post processing is used

(217 iterations of PQMR).

Figure 1

Various relative errors are given in Table I which also contains the post processing costs.

Table I: relative errors (30), number of iterations of the PQMR and CPU time for the post

processing for the PEC sphere.

Method Relative error on 3 Relative error on Relative error Iterations Time

components tangential on normal ( in s)

component component

1 0.238 0.120 0.200 / 2

2 0.190 0.080 0.173 7 11

3 0.130 0.072 0.100 22 21

4 0.133 0.069 0.113 19 20

14
 5 0.255 0.161 0.200 / 1

On this first example, the methods with circulation approximation (mixed with energy

approximation in method 4, pure in 3) give close results and appear to be the most accurate.

From the reference method (method 1) the increase in precision on the nodal vector field is

about 0.1. The increase in time (about 21 s) is reasonable as compared with the time required

to solve the FE problem (436 s). With method 2 (pure energy approximation), the accuracy

gain is roughly divided by 2 (0.048) and disappears when the mass lumping is introduced

(method 5). The costs behave in similar ways.

Scattering by a magnetic sphere:

In the second example, the sphere is magnetic with µr = 3. A discontinuity of the magnetic

field at the surface of the sphere is therefore introduced and the interior (region 1) has to be

meshed. The same mesh as for the PEC sphere (figure 1) is used outside of the sphere (region

2). For the whole mesh, one gets 4547 nodes and 22783 tetrahedral elements leading to 28805

edges (294 edges on the sphere’s surface). The total time for FE solving is about 436 s (537

iterations of the PQMR). The edge values error, computed with (28), is about 0.149. The post

processing is made in the only region 2 (air) according to the analytical solution (Harrington,

1968).

Similarly as in Table I, Table II gives the results we obtain for each five methods. Compared

to the reference method, the least squares methods behave as in the PEC case.

Table II: relative errors (30), number of iterations of the PQMR and CPU time for the post

processing for the magnetic sphere.

15
 Method Relative error on 3 Relative error on Relative error Iterations Time

components tangential on normal (in s)

component component

1 0.265 0.133 0.230 / 2

2 0.188 0.098 0.163 7 9

3 0.127 0.092 0.087 20 19

4 0.129 0.089 0.090 18 19

5 0.289 0.129 0.260 / 1

Academic example:

In order to eliminate the error due to FE discretization, the performances of the post

processing methods are finally evaluated on an academic example on the same spherical

geometry. The same geometry and the same mesh as for the problem of scattering by the

dielectric sphere (example 2) are used. The vector field to post process is no longer the

solution to some scattering problem but a radial field analytically defined as (figure 2):

20r in region 1; 2000r in region 2 (31)

with r the radial component in spherical coordinates (r, θ, ϕ).

Figure 2

Approximate edge values are then evaluated as in (29). From these data, nodal values are

computed with the different post processing methods independently in both regions (table III).

16
 Table III: nodal values, number of iterations of the PQMR of the post processing for the

academic problem.

Method Normal Normal Tangential Tangential Iterations

component component component component

(region 1) (region 2) (region 1) (region 2)

1 1.2 71 0.019 0.081

2 1.1 87 0.002 0.177 8

3 1.0 100 3.10-14 8.10-12 23

4 1.0 98 1.10-5 0.004 20

5 1.2 70 0.003 0.108

Taking into account the starting field (31), the awaited results on the sphere surface should

be :

region 1: tangential component = 0; normal component = 1

region 2: tangential component = 0; normal component = 100

The results confirm an important increase of accuracy obtained with pure or mixed circulation

approximation methods. In particular exact results are given by method 3.

Conclusion

As shown from tables I, II and III, the most accurate vector fields are obtained with the

methods where some circulation approximation is satisfied. Theses methods are the most CPU

consuming. However, the time required for the post processing remains reasonable compared

17
to the total FE solving time. A significant improvement of the accuracy is so obtained with a

small additional computation time.

References

Dibben, C. D., Metaxas, R., (1997), "A Comparison of Errors Obtained with Withney and
Linear Edge Elements," IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 1524-1527.

Harrington, R. F., (1968), Field Computation by Moment Methods, MacMillan, New-York.

Sekkak, A., Pichon, L., Razek, A. (1994), "3-D FEM Magneto-Thermal Analysis in
Microwave Ovens," IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, vol. 30, No 5, pp. 3347-3350.

Volakis, L. J., Davdson, D. B., (2000) "Implementation Issues for Three Dimensional Vector
FEM Programs", IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 100-107.

Webb, J. P. (1993), “Edge element and what they can do for you,” IEEE Transaction on
Magnetics, vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 1460-1465.

Yao Bi, J. L., Nicolas, L., Nicolas, A (1996), "Vector absorbing boundary conditions for
nodal or mixed finite elements," IEEE Transaction on Magnetics, vol. 32, No 3, pp.848-853.

Zhao, H., Turner, I. W. (2000), "The Use of Coupled Computation Model for Studying the
Microwave Heating of Wood," Applied Mathematical Modelling, No 24, pp. 183-197.

Zienkiewicz, (1970), O. C., The Finite Element Method, Mc Graw-Hill Book Company.

Figures

18
 Absorbing Boundary Condition
(1st order Enquist Majda)

λ/2

k
H E
Figure 1 : H field modulus on a PEC sphere

2000 r

(region 1)

(0,0,0)
20r

Ø = 100 mm
(region 2)

Figure 2 : radial field of magnitude 20r in region 1 and 2000r in region 2

19

View publication stats