Article

Sub-domain approach for coupling thin magnetic

shells with h-conformal magnetostatic finite element
formulations
Vuong Dang Quoc 1,∗ and Christophe Geuzaine 2
1 School of Electrical Engineering, Hanoi University of Science and Technology
2 University of Liège, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, ACE, B-4000 Liège, Belgium
* Correspondence: vuong.dangquoc@hust.edu.vn; Tel.: +84963286734

Version May 17, 2020 submitted to Journal Not Specified

1 Abstract: This paper proposes a sub-domain approach with h-conformal magnetostatic finite element
2 formulations for correcting the errors from the thin shell approximations, that replace volume
3 thin regions by surfaces with interface conditions. However, these approximations usually neglect
4 curvature effects next to corners and edges. The sequence from the surface-to-volume correction
5 problem is presented as a process of the several subproblems that can decompose a full problem
6 into subproblems, including inductors and thin magnetic regions. Each step of the process will be
7 separately performed on its own sub-domain and sub-mesh instead of solving the full problem. This
8 allows to reduce the time computation.

9 Keywords: Magnetostatic finite element formulation; magnetic scalar potential; magnetic fields; thin
10 shells; sub-domain technique.

11 1. Introduction
12 Modeling of thin shells (TSs) usually assume that local fields in thin magnetic regions are
13 approximated by a priori 1-D analytical distributions across the shell thicknesses [1], [2]. This means
14 that the interior of volume thin regions is not meshed and is rather removed from the studied domain
15 introduced by surfaces with impedance-type transmission conditions linked to the inner-analytical
16 distributions. This leads to negligible edges and corners of thin shells, in creasing with the thickness.
17 In order to overcome this disadvantage, the subproblem method for the magnetodynamic probem
18 with the dual formulation has been recently proposed for one-way coupling [3]-[6].
19 In this paper, a sub-domain technique is proposed for the h − φ conformal magnetostatic finite
20 element formulation so as to improve the local fields (magnetic scalar potential, magnetic flux density
21 and magnetic field) appearing around edges and corners of thin shells. The scenario of the method
22 permits to couple sub-domains in three steps (Fig. 1 and 2):

23 • Step 1: A reduced problem attending with stranded inductors is first considered on a simplified
24 mesh without any thin regions (Fig. 1 and 2, top right).
25 • Step 2: A TS is added with very coarse mesh that does not contain stranded inductors anymore
26 (Fig. 1 and 2, bottom right).
27 • Step 3: A volume correction replaced the TS finite element (FE) with an actual thin region is
28 corrected inaccurcies of the TS (Fig. 1 and 2, bottom left).

29 The relation between steps is constrained by volume sources (VSs) expressed changes of the
30 permeability and conductivity in the conductive regions or by surface sources presented changes
31 of interface conditions (ICs) across surfaces. In each step, the problem is independently solve in a

Submitted to Journal Not Specified, pages 1 – 8 www.mdpi.com/journal/notspecified

 Version May 17, 2020 submitted to Journal Not Specified 2 of 8

32 sub-mesh and its surrounding without depending on the meshes of other sub-domains, which permit
33 to distinct mesh refinements. The method is validated on a practical problem.

Γ = Γh ∪ Γe
n

thin region(Ωt ) Γt = n Γu = Γh,u ∪ Γe,u

Ωs or Ωm
Ωs or Ωm ΩC
c j s , hs

+
Γk = Γh,k ∪ Γe,k actual volume transition layer Γp = Γh,p ∪ Γe,p
Ωc,k air
TS
ΩC
c,k ΩC
c,p γt = γp
+
n n

Figure 1. Devision of a complete domain into three sub-domains.

Figure 2. Devision of a complete mesh into three sub-meshes.

 Version May 17, 2020 submitted to Journal Not Specified 3 of 8

34 2. Canonical Magnetostatic problem

A canonical magnetostatic problem q presented at step q is solved in a domain Ωq , with boundary
∂Ωq = Γq = Γh,q ∪ Γe,q . The set of maxwell’s equations, constitutive laws and boundary conditions
(BCs) of the SPs q give [4]-[8]:
curl hq = jq , div bq = 0 , (1a-b)

bq = µ p hq + bs,q , n · bq |Γe,q = 0 , [n · bq ]γq = b f ,q , (2a-b-c)

where hq is the magnetic field (A/m), bq is the magnetic flux density (T), jq is the electric current
density (A/m2 ), µq is the magnetic permeability (H/m) and n is the unit normal exterior to Ωq . The
source field bs,p in (2 a) is a VS that accounts for volume changes from the current problem q (with µq
and σq ) to the next problem p (q =p) (with µ p and σp ), i.e.

bs,p = (µ p − µq )hq . (3)

The surface field b f ,q in (2 c) is the SS. The notation [·]γq = |γq+ − |γq− express the discontinuity of a
quantity across the negative and positive sides (γq+ and γq− ) of any interface γq in Ωq . The SS b f ,q is
generally defined as zero for classical homogeneous BCs. If non-zero, it defines a possible SS that has
to account for special phenomena appearing in the idealized thin region between γq+ and γq− [4], [5].
In addition, the magnetic field in (1 a) is split in two parts hs,q and hs,r , i.e.

hq = hs,q + hr,q , (4)

where hr,q is the reaction field due to the magnetization of the magnetic materials and hs,q is a source
magnetic field generated by the imposed current density js,q such that

curl hs,q = js,q . (5)

35 3. Sequence of FE weak formulations: Step 1 (SP q) → step 2 (SP p) → step 3 (SP k)

36 3.1. Weak formulation for inductor model - Step 1 (SP q)

The magnetostatic weak formulation (hq -φ-conformal formulation) for Step 1 (SP q) is obtained
via the magnetic Gauss’s law (1b), i.e.

−(µq hs,q , grad φq0 )Ωq + (µq grad φq , grad φq0 )Ωq + hn · bq , φq0 iΓe,q −γt,q + h−[n · bq ]γt,q , φq0 iγt,q = 0,
∀φq0 ∈ Hh,q
10
( Ω q ), (6)

37 where Hh,q 10 ( Ω ) is a function space presented in Ω including the basis functions for φ as well as for
q q p
38 the test function φq0 . Notation of (· , ·)Ωq is volume integral in Ω p and < · , · >Γ p is the surface integral
39 on Γ p , of the product of their vector field arguments. The surface term hn · bq , φq0 iΓe,q −γt,q in (6) accounts
40 for a natural BC of type (2 b), usually zero, and the source field hs,q is defined via a projection method
41 of a known distribution js,q in (5).

42 3.2. Weak formulation for TS model - Step 2 (SP p)

The TS FE model step 2 (SP p) is defined via the IC h[n · b p ]γt,p , φ0p iγt,p (with q ≡ p) in (6). It is
used to weakly express the magnetic flux density TS IC proper to the weak form of SP p, i.e.

(µ p grad φ p , grad φ0p )Ω p + hn · b p , φ0p iΓe,p −γt,p + h[n · b p ]γt,p , φ0p iγt,p = 0, ∀φ0p ∈ Hh,p
10
( Ω p ). (7)
 Version May 17, 2020 submitted to Journal Not Specified 4 of 8

The trace discontinuity term h[n · b p ]γt,p , φ0p iγt,p in (7) is analysed as [2]

h[n · b p ]γt,p , φ0p iγt,p = h[n · b p ]γt,p , φc,p

0 0
+ φd,p 0
iγt,p = h[n · b p ]γt,p , φc,p 0
iγt,p + hn · b p |γ+ , φd,p iγ+ , (8)
t,p t,p

0 i
where the term h[n · b p ]γt,p , φc,p γt,p in (8) is obtained from [2]

0
h[n · b p ]γt,p , φc,p iΓt,p = −hµ p d p hs,p , grad φ0p iΓt,p + hµ p d p grad φ p , grad φ0p iΓt,p . (9)

0 i + in (8) is weakly presented via the surface source integral term, i.e. h n ·
The term hn · b p |γ+ , φd,p
t,p γ t,p
0 i + = −hn · b | + , φ0 i + = − b , where b
b p |γ+ , φd,p
t,p γt,p
q γ d,p γ t,p
f ,q f ,q is a SS naturally expressed through the
t,p
weak formulation of SP q in (6), i.e.

0 0 0
hn · bq |γ+ , φd,p iγ+ = −(µq grad φq , grad φd,p )Ω+p =γ+p + (µq hs,q , grad φd,p )Ω+p =γ+p = −b f ,q . (10)
t,p t,p

The volume integrals in (10) are also limited to a single layer of FEs on the positive side of Ω+
p touching
+
Γt,p . Substituting (10) and (9) into (6) to get the final weak form of SP p, i.e.

(µ p grad φ p , grad φ0p )Ω p − hµ p d p hs,p , grad φ0p iΓt,p + hµ p d p grad φ p , grad φ0p iΓt,p
0 0
−(µq grad φq , grad φd,p )Ω+p + (µq hs,q , grad φd,p )Ω+p + hn · b p , φ0p iΓe,p −γt,p = 0, ∀φ0p ∈ Hh,p
10
( Ω p ). (11)

43 At the discrete level, the source fields φq and hs,q , initially in mesh of SP q, have to be transferred to the
44 mesh of SP p via a projection method [9]

45 3.3. Weak formulation for volume correction - Step 3 (SP k)

The TS solution obtained from SP p in (11) is then corrected by the volume correction SP k via a
VS given by (3), with h p = grad φ p and hq = hs,q − grad φq . Hence, the weak form of SP k is

(µk grad φk , grad φk0 )Ωk + (−(µk − µ p )grad φ p , grad φk0 )Ωk + hn · bk , φk0 iΓe,k −γt,k
+((µk − µ p )(hs,q − grad φq ), grad φk0 )Ωk + h[n · bk ]γt,k , φk0 iγt,k = 0, ∀φk0 ∈ Hh,k
10
(Ωk ) (12)

46 At the discrete level, the source quantities (φq , hs,q and φ p ) in (12) defined in SP q and SP p are also
47 projected to the mesh of SP k via a projection method presented in next Section.
Simultaneously to the VS, the SS has to suppress the TS discontinuity of SP p in SP k via the IC, i.e.
It can be defined via the TS discontinuity, i.e.

[n · bk ]γt,k = −[n · b p ]γt,k . (13)

IC (12) is weakly expressed through the last surface integral in (13), with γt,k = γt,p . The involved
trace discontinuity [n · bk ]γt,k is naturally expressed as

h[n · bk ]γt,k , φk0 iγt,k = −h[n · b p ]γt,k , φk0 iγt,k . (14)

48 3.4. Transformation of solutions between sub-meshes

As presented above, the source fields φq , hq obtaining from the previous meshes of SP i (e.g. SP q)
are transferred to the mesh of SP p, or the field φ p resulting from SP q is projected to the mesh of SP k,
i.e. [9]

(hq,p−proj , h0 )Ωs,p = (hq , h0 )Ωs,p , ∀h0p ∈ Hh,p

1
( Ω p ), (15)
 Version May 17, 2020 submitted to Journal Not Specified 5 of 8

49 where h0p ∈ Hh,p

1 ( Ω ) is curl-conform function space for the p-projected source h
p q,p−proj (the projection
50 of hq on mesh of SP p) and the test function h0 defined on Ωs,p .
For a magnetic scalar potential φ p , it can project the grad of φq instead of the potential φq , i.e. [9]

(grad φq,p−proj , grad φ0 )Ωs,p = (grad φq , grad φ0 )Ωs,p , ∀φ0p ∈ Hh,p

10
( Ω p ), (16)

51 where φ0p ∈ Hh,p

10 ( Ω ) is grad-conform function space for the p-projected source φ
p q,p−proj (the projection
52
0
of φq on mesh of SP p) and the test function φ defined on Ωs,p .

53 4. Application test
54 The practical test is a shielded problem. It consists of a plate located in the middle of two stranded
55 inductors that an excitation current flows (Fig. 3). The magnetic shields (screen up and down) cover
56 the plate and the stranded inductors, for µr,screen = 1 and µr,plate = 200. The test is considered in 2-D
57 case.

Ls
shield or screen up
y d
Hs Cdx Cdy plate

x
z
Cy Ind-2 Cx Ind-1 Hy
shield or screen down

Figure 3. Geometry of a 2-D shielding problem (d = 3 ÷ 7.5 mm, L pl = 2 m, Ls = 2 m+2d , Hs = 0.4 m,

Hy = 0.14 m, Cdx = 0.8 m, Cdy = 0.01 m, Cy = 0.2 m, Cx = 0.05 m).

Figure 4. Distribution of magnetic scalar potentials for the stranded inductors alone SP q (φq , left),
addition of TS solution SP p (φ p , middle) and volume correction SP k (φk , right), for a thickness d = 5mm.

Figure 5. Distribution of magnetic flux densities (b =µ(hs -Gradφ) for stranded inductors alone SP q
(left), addition of the TS model SP p (middle) and volume correction SP k (right), for a thickness d = 5mm.
 Version May 17, 2020 submitted to Journal Not Specified 6 of 8

58 As presented, the test is herein performed in three steps. The solutions on the magnetic scalar
59 potential φ of each SP in magnetostatics are illustrated in Figure. 4. An initial problem SP q including
60 the stranded inductors alone is solved on a sub-domain without the shielding plate and screens (up
61 and down) (Fig. 4, φq , left). The TS approximations SP q that does not include the stranded inductors
62 anymore are then added (Fig. 4, φ p , middle). The volume corrections with actual volumes covering the
63 shielding plate and screens are finally improved errors to overcome the TS approximations [1], [2], for
64 d = 5mm, µr,screen = 1 and µr,plate = 200.

1.2
Magnetic flux density 10-3(T)

0.8

0.6

0.4
d=5mm, TS approximation
d=5mm, correction
0.2 d=5mm, reference
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Position along the shielding plate (m)
Figure 6. Magnetic flux density on TS solution and volume correction along the shielding plate, with
the effect of d, for a 2-D model.

100
Errors before correction B (%)

d=3mm
d=5mm
80 d=7.5mm
60

40

20

0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Position along the shielding plate (m)
100
Errors after correction B (10-2%)

d=3mm
d=5mm
d=7.5mm
10

0.1

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Position along the shielding plate (m)
Figure 7. TS inaccuracy on the magnetic flux density along the shielding plate before making a
correction (top) and after a correction (bottom), for different effects of d.

65 In the same way, the distribution of magnetic flux densities for each SP obtained from the different
66 sub-domains is shown in detail (Fig. 5). The sequence (step 1 (SP q) → step 2 (SP p) → step 3 (SP k) of
 Version May 17, 2020 submitted to Journal Not Specified 7 of 8

67 each solution in a three step is also pointed out from the left hand side to right hand side, with the
68 thickness d = 5mm.
69 The significant inaccuracies on the magnetic flux densities of the TS approximation solution (SP p)
70 along the shielding plate is corrected by the volume correction (SP k) indicated in Figure 6. The error
71 reaches approximately 35% near in the middle of plate, for d = 5 mm (µr,screen = 1 and µr,plate = 200).
72 The volume solution is then checked to be similar to the reference solution in the computation from
73 the traditional finite element method (FEM) [10].

100
Correction of magnetic flux (%)

d=3mm
d=5mm
80 d=7.5mm

60

40

20

0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Position along the screen up (m)
Figure 8. Relative (improvement) correction of the magnetic flux density along the screen up for
different effects of d.

74 The relative inaccuracy on the magnetic flux densities before making corrections is presented
75 in Figure. 7 for different thicknesses. The error can reach 92% at the end regions of the plate, for d
76 = 7.5 mm, and 75% with the smaller thickness d = 3 mm (Fig. 7, top) (µr,screen = 1 and µr,plate = 200).
77 Accurate local improvements with volume correction SP k are verified to be exact to the reference
78 solution or complete volume FE solution (Fig. 7, bottom). The errors are less than 0.1% for both cases.
79 The relative improvements (corrections) of the TS magnetic flux along the screen up is presented
80 in Figure. 8 for different screen thicknesses. It can reach several tens of percents in the screen up, up to
81 47% near the edge of the screen up, for d = 7.5 mm. It reduces to be lower than 40% for d = 5 mm, or
82 30% for d = 3 mm (µr,screen = 1 and µr,plate = 200).

83 5. Discussion and Conclusions

84 In this research, a sub-domain technique for coupling thin magnetic shells has been successfully
85 developed with h-conformal magnetostatic finite element formulation for correcting the errors of
86 the magnetic scalar potential, magnetic flux density and magnetic flux around edges and corners
87 appearing from the TS FE approximation [1], [2].
88 The achieved results of the method are compared to be quite similar to the reference solution in
89 computation of the traditional FEM. This is also a very good validation between the studied technique
90 and the FEM [10]
91 The proposed technique has been successfully carried out with a sequence of a three steps. Its
92 extension could be also performed with a sequence of a two way-coupling, considering to the case of
93 multi layers-TS with different characteristics in next study.
94 The source-codes of this technique have been being extended based on the source-codes of
95 the subrpoblem method that was developing by author and two Prof. Patrick Dular and Prof.
96 Christophe Geuzaine at the Dept of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Liege,
97 Belgium. They will be then ran and simulated in the background of the Getdp (http://getdp.info)
98 and Gmsh (http://gmsh.info) softwares developed by Prof. Patrick Dular and Prof. Christophe
99 Geuzaine [11], [12]. These are the open-source codes for anyone to be able to write adapt source-codes
100 for solving studied problems (if possible).
 Version May 17, 2020 submitted to Journal Not Specified 8 of 8

101 Author Contributions: This paper mainly contributes to the expended subproblem method for correcting the
102 errors appearing from the TS approximation [1], [2]. All the main constributions, extended source-codes and the
103 obtained results of this article have developed by author.
104 Conflicts of Interest: The author declares that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this
105 paper.

106 References
107 1. Tsuboi, H., Asahara, T., Kobaysashi, F. and Misaki, T. (1997), “Eddy current analysis on thin conducting
108 plate by an integral equation method using edge elements," IEEE Trans. Magn., Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 1346-9.
109 2. C. Geuzaine, P. Dular, and W. Legros, “Dual formulations for the modeling of thin electromagnetic shells
110 using edge elements,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 799–802, 2000.
111 3. P. Dular, Vuong Q. Dang, R. V. Sabariego, L. Krähenbühl and C. Geuzaine, “Correction of Thin Shell Finite
112 Element Magnetic Models via a Subproblem Method,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1158–1161,
113 2011.
114 4. Vuong Q. Dang, P. Dular, R. V. Sabariego, L. Krähenbühl and C. Geuzaine, “Subproblem Approach for Thin
115 Shell Dual Finite Element Formulations,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 407–410, 2012.
116 5. Vuong Q. Dang, P. Dular, R. V. Sabariego, L. Krähenbühl, C. Geuzaine “Subproblem Approach for Modelding
117 Multiply Connected Thin Regions with an h-Conformal Magnetodynamic Finite Element Formulation,” in
118 EPJ AP., vol. 63, no. 1, 2013.
119 6. P. Dular and R. V. Sabariego, “A perturbation method for computing field distortions due to conductive
120 regions with h-conform magnetodynamic finite element formulations," IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 43, no. 4,
121 pp. 1293-1296, 2007.
122 7. Vuong Quoc Dang and Quang Nguyen Duc, “Coupling of Local and Global Quantities by A Subproblem
123 Finite Element Method Application to Thin Region Models,” ASTESJ, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 40–44, 2019.
124 8. Vuong Quoc Dang and Christophe Geuzaine, “Using edge elements for modeling of 3-D Magnetodynamic
125 Problem via a Subproblem Method,” Sci. Tech. Dev. J.; 23 (1), pp. 439–445, 2020.
126 9. C. Geuzaine, B. Meys, F. Henrotte, P. Dular and W. Legros, “A Galerkin projection method for mixed finite
127 elements," IEEE Trans. Magn., Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 1438-1441, 1999.
128 10. S. Koruglu, P. Sergeant, R.V. Sabarieqo, Vuong. Q. Dang, M. De Wulf, “Influence of contact resistance on
129 shielding efficiency of shielding gutters for high-voltage cables,“ IET Electric Power Applications.,Vol.5,
130 No.9, (2011), pp. 715-720.
131 11. C. Geuzaine and J.-F. Remacle “Gmsh: a three-dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in
132 pre- and post-processing facilities,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 79(11), pp.
133 1309-1331, 2009.
134 12. P. Dular and C. Geuzaine “GetDP reference manual: the documentation for GetDP, a general environment
135 for the treatment of discrete problems,” University of Liege, 2013.

136 © 2020 by the authors. Submitted to Journal Not Specified for possible open access publication
137 under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
138 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).