# Magnetostatic Equations

The magnetostatic equations that we start from are the following: $$\nabla\times\bf H = \bf J \label{ampere}$$ $$\nabla\cdot{\bf B}= 0 \label{mag_gauss}$$ $${\bf B} = \mu{\bf H}+\mu_0{\bf M} \label{const}$$ Where \eqref{ampere} is AmpĂ¨re's Law, \eqref{mag_gauss} is Gauss's Law for Magnetism, and \eqref{const} is a somewhat atypical way to write the Constitutive Relation between ${\bf B}$ and ${\bf H}$. The constitutive relation used here follows "Classical Electrodynamics" 3rd edition by J.D. Jackson and uses ${\bf M}$, measured in A/m, to represent the magnetization of a permanent magnet. Some sources would instead use ${\bf B}_r=\mu_0{\bf M}$ to represent a residual magnetization, measured in tesla. These conventions are, of course, mathematically equivalent but the choice made in this miniapp does seem a bit odd as I look at it now.

These equations can be combined if we make use of the fact that $\nabla\cdot{\bf B}=0$ implies ${\bf B}=\nabla\times{\bf A}$ for some vector potential ${\bf A}$. This leads to: $$\nabla\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf A}) = {\bf J}+ \nabla\times(\mu^{-1}\mu_0{\bf M})$$

This equation supports a current source density, a permanent magnetization, surface current boundary conditions, and fixed ${\bf A}$ boundary condition which can be used to apply an external magnetic field.

There also exists a special case in magnetostatics when the current density is equal to zero. In this case $\nabla\times{\bf H}=0$ which implies that the magnetic field can be computed as ${\bf H}=-\nabla\Phi_M$. This leads to the scalar potential formulation which we will not consider further except to say that the electrostatic solver, named volta, can be adapted to model such situations.

# The tesla Miniapp

The tesla miniapp models the magnetostatic equation for the magnetic vector potential ${\bf A}$. It includes source terms derived from a volumetric current source ${\bf J}$, magnetization vector ${\bf M}$, or surface currents ${\bf K}$. $$\nabla\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf A}) = {\bf J}+\nabla\times(\mu^{-1}\mu_0{\bf M})$$ $$\hat{n}\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf A}) = \hat{n}\times{\bf K}$$

The magnetic vector potential will be approximated in H(Curl) so that the left hand side operator is well defined. $${\bf A} \approx \sum_i a_i {\bf W}_i (\vec{x})$$

Inserting this into the left hand side of the equation and integrating the resulting equation against each H(Curl) basis function leads to the following weak form: \begin{align} \int_{\Omega}{\bf W}_{i}(\vec{x})\cdot[\nabla\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf A})]d\Omega & \approx \int_\Omega{\bf W}_i(\vec{x})\cdot\{\nabla\times[\mu^{-1}\nabla\times(\sum_j a_j{\bf W}_j(\vec{x}))]\}d\Omega \\ & = \sum_j a_j\{\int_\Omega{\bf W}_i(\vec{x})\cdot[\nabla\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf W}_j(\vec{x}))]d\Omega\} \end{align}

The expression in curly braces depends only on our material coefficient and our basis functions. This particular integral requires a little more manipulation to move the outermost curl operator onto the H(Curl) basis function. \begin{aligned} \int_\Omega{\bf W}_i(\vec{x})\cdot[\nabla\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf W}_j(\vec{x}))]\,d\Omega &=& \int_\Omega(\nabla\times{\bf W}_i(\vec{x}))\cdot(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf W}_j(\vec{x}))\,d\Omega \\ &-& \int_\Omega\nabla\cdot[{\bf W}_i(\vec{x})\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf W}_j(\vec{x}))]\,d\Omega \\ &=& \int_\Omega(\nabla\times{\bf W}_i(\vec{x}))\cdot(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf W}_j(\vec{x}))\,d\Omega \\ &-& \int_\Gamma\hat{n}\cdot[{\bf W}_i(\vec{x})\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf W}_j(\vec{x}))]\,d\Gamma \\ &=& \int_\Omega(\nabla\times{\bf W}_i(\vec{x}))\cdot(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf W}_j(\vec{x}))\,d\Omega \\ &+& \int_\Gamma{\bf W}_i(\vec{x})\cdot[\hat{n}\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf W}_j(\vec{x}))]\,d\Gamma \\ \end{aligned} The first integral remaining on the right hand side is implemented in MFEM as a BilinearFormIntegrator named CurlCurlIntegrator. The second integral, the boundary integral, gives rise to a Neumann boundary condition which will be discussed further in SectionÂ 2.1.3.

## Source Terms

### Current Density ${\bf J}$

The current density ${\bf J}$ requires special care. In order for the magnetostatic equations to possess a solution ${\bf J}$ must be in the range of the curl operator. Another way to say this is that the divergence of ${\bf J}$ must be zero. If $\nabla\cdot{\bf J}\neq 0$ we can correct this by adding the gradient of a scalar field. If we start with some initial estimate of the current density which we call ${\bf J}_0$, \begin{aligned} \nabla\cdot({\bf J}_0-\nabla\Psi) &=& 0 \\ \nabla\cdot\nabla\Psi &=& \nabla\cdot{\bf J}_0 \\ {\bf J}& = & {\bf J}_0 - \nabla\Psi \end{aligned}

The current density ${\bf J}$ computed in this manner will be divergence free and therefore it will be in the range of the curl operator.

Normally, in the continuous world, we simply define ${\bf J}$ directly, however, in the discrete world we can only approximate ${\bf J}$ so we must always perform this divergence cleaning procedure on our approximations of ${\bf J}$. Failure to do so can lead to lack of convergence or complete failure of the solve.

In MFEM the divergence cleaning procedure is handled by a class called DivergenceFreeProjector which is not a part of the MFEM library itself. It is provided as part of a collection of convenience classes in the miniapps/common subdirectory.

### Magnetization ${\bf M}$

The magnetization ${\bf M}$ is intended to represent permanent magnetics or other regions of prescribed magnetization. In the Tesla miniapp ${\bf M}$ is discretized using H(Div) basis functions which allow its tangential components to be discontinuous. Its curl appears in the magnetostatic equations as a source term and this curl operation ensures that this source lies in the range of the curl operator so no divergence cleaning operation is needed for this portion of the source.

In the Tesla miniapp this source is computed and applied on lines 338-343 in the TeslaSolver::Solve() function. The weak curl operator is configured on lines 168-175 in the TeslaSolver constructor.

### Surface Current ${\bf K}$

The integration by parts needed to create the weak form of the curl-curl operators also leads to a boundary integral: $$\int_\Gamma{\bf W}_i(\vec{x})\cdot[\hat{n}\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf W}_j(\vec{x}))]\,d\Gamma$$ This means that our weak curl-curl operator applied to ${\bf A}$ differs from the continuous curl-curl operator by a surface integral of the form: $$\int_\Gamma{\bf W}_i(\vec{x})\cdot[\hat{n}\times(\mu^{-1}\nabla\times{\bf A})]\,d\Gamma = \int_\Gamma{\bf W}_i(\vec{x})\cdot(\hat{n}\times{\bf H})\,d\Gamma$$

If we do nothing to account for this boundary integral we are implicitly setting it equal to zero which amounts to a boundary condition on the tangential part of the magnetic field i.e. $\hat{n}\times{\bf H}=0$. Another possibility is to set a surface current boundary condition i.e. $\hat{n}\times{\bf H}=\hat{n}\times{\bf K}$. This could be done by using a ParLinearForm object to integrate $\hat{n}\times{\bf K}$ over the portion of the boundary where ${\bf K}$ is non-zero and adding the resulting vector to the right hand side of the linear system.

However, this is not the approach used in the Tesla miniapp. In Tesla we employ a trick based on the Stoke's theorem. A surface current leads to a discontinuity in the tangential part of ${\bf H}$ on the boundary. Similarly, a discontinuity in ${\bf H}$ leads to a discontinuity in ${\bf A}$ on the boundary. Therefore we can set the tangential part of ${\bf A}$ to equal ${\bf K}$ and we get the correct behavior as long as we set the tangential part of ${\bf A}=0$ elsewhere on the boundary. To be honest I'm not sure how valid this approach is but it does seem to work and it can improve solver convergence. I would recommend confirming this approach before relying on it.

## Post-Processing

### Computation of ${\bf H}$

The magnetic field ${\bf H}$ needs to have tangential continuity so we approximate it using the H(Curl) basis: $${\bf H}\approx\sum_i h_i{\bf W}_i(\vec{x})$$

Recall that the magnetic flux ${\bf B}$ is approximated using the H(Div) basis due to the continuity of its normal component. $${\bf B}\approx\sum_i b_i{\bf F}_i(\vec{x})$$

To compute ${\bf H}$ from ${\bf B}$ we make use of the constitutive equation ${\bf B}=\mu{\bf H}$. Inserting our approximations and integrating this equation against each H(Curl) basis function we obtain the following: $$\sum_j h_j\int_\Omega\mu{\bf W}_i\cdot{\bf W}_j\,d\Omega = \sum_k b_k\int_\Omega{\bf W}_i\cdot{\bf F}_k\,d\Omega$$

This set of linear equations is equivalent to the matrix equation: $$M_1(\mu)h = M_{21}b$$

Where $M_1(\mu)$ is an H(Curl) mass matrix incorporating the material coefficient $\mu$ which is implemented in MFEM as a BilinearFormIntegrator named VectorFEMassIntegrator. The $M_{21}$ operator is a rectangular matrix which maps H(Div) to H(Curl) and is also built using the VectorFEMassIntegrator but with the default material coefficient which is equal to 1.

The solution of this linear system is usually obtained with a conjugate gradient iterative solver along with a diagonal scaling preconditioner. Since the matrix to be inverted is a mass matrix this solution is usually very efficient involving fewer than thirty solver iterations.

It is important to point out that an H(Curl) approximation usually has more degrees of freedom than a comparable H(Div) approximation. In the interior of the domain the density of degrees of freedom are approximately equal but H(Curl) approximations tend to have more degrees of freedom on the boundary. Consequently, this type of conversion can produce H(Curl) approximations with poor accuracy near the boundary. If the tangential components of ${\bf B}$ are nearly constant within the elements adjacent to the boundary the conversion can produce a good approximation. However, if these tangential components vary too rapidly non-physical oscillations can occur in ${\bf H}$. To alleviate these oscillations Dirichlet boundary conditions can be applied during the solution of ${\bf H}$ provided that reasonable values for $(\hat{n}\times{\bf H})\times\hat{n}$ can be determined. In the present magnetostatics context we can reuse any Neumann boundary conditions used during the solution of ${\bf A}$ since these were equivalent to setting $\hat{n}\times{\bf H}$ on the boundary.

### Magnetic Energy in a Region

The tesla miniapp does not compute the energy in the magnetic field but such a computation should be easy to add. There are two basic procedures for computing energy in MFEM. One involves a bilinear form and the other a linear form. The bilinear form approach makes sense when the energies of multiple fields will be computed with the same operator so that the cost of building the bilinear form can be amortized. In a magnetostatic problem the linear form approach is likely to be more efficient.

The usual formula for magnetic energy is $u = \frac{1}{2}\int_\Omega{\bf H}\cdot{\bf B}\,d\Omega$. There are many ways to compute this quantity in MFEM but perhaps the most convenient is to make use of a VectorCoefficient and a ParLinearForm. For example let's assume we have a coefficient for $\mu^{-1}$ and a GridFunction for ${\bf B}$ called Bgf:

{
VectorGridFunctionCoefficient BCoef(&Bgf);
ScalarVectorProductCoefficient HCoef(muInvCoef, BCoef);
ParLinearForm Hlf(&HDivFESpace);
Hlf.Assemble();

double energy = 0.5 * Hlf(Bgf);
}

This integral can be restricted to some region, defined by a set of element attributes, by incorporating a VectorRestrictedCoefficient.

Other forms of energy such as $\frac{1}{2}\int_\Omega{\bf J}\cdot{\bf A}\,d\Omega$ or perhaps $\int_\Omega{\bf M}\cdot{\bf B}\,d\Omega$ could be computed in a similar manner.

### Torque on a Current Density

Torque can also be defined as a volume integral so we can employ a technique similar to the one used for the energy computation. The important difference is that torque is a vector quantity so we will need to integrate each of its vector components separately. This will likely require custom coefficients but the procedure should be straightforward. The existing vector coefficient classes ScalarVectorProductCoefficient and VectorCrossProductCoefficient should serve as guides for how this can be accomplished.

### Torque on a Surface Current

In theory a surface integral can be computed in a very similar manner to a volume integral. However, discontinuous finite element spaces such as H(Curl), H(Div), or L2 create a complication. Approximations made with these discontinuous fields do not possess well defined values on surfaces. Consequently such an integral could lack precision or even be multi-valued.

To overcome this limitation it may be necessary to compute different contributions to the torque in different manners and combine the results. For example the normal component of ${\bf B}$ is well defined on surfaces. Therefore the force ${\bf K}\times{\bf B}$ may be inaccurate but the quantity $(\hat{n}\cdot{\bf B}){\bf K}\times\hat{n}$ will be more reliable. To obtain another contribution to the torque we can use the tangential components of ${\bf H}$ as $\mu{\bf K}\times[(\hat{n}\times{\bf H})\times\hat{n}]$. This of course assumes that we have an accurate representation of ${\bf H}$ on this surface which may not be the case if the surface is an outer boundary (see Section Computation of H).

# Appendix A: Magnetic Energy

class MagneticEnergy
{
private:
const ParGridFunction & b_;
const ParGridFunction & h_;

public:
MagneticEnergy(const ParGridFunction & b,
const ParGridFunction & h)
: b_(b), h_(h) {}

double ComputeEnergy()
{
VectorGridFunctionCoefficient h_coef(&h_);

ParLinearForm h_lf(b_.ParFESpace());
h_lf.Assemble();

return 0.5 * h_lf(b_);
}

double ComputeEnergy(const Array<int> & elem_attr_marker)
{
VectorGridFunctionCoefficient h_coef(&h_);

ParLinearForm h_lf(b_.ParFESpace());
const_cast<Array<int>&>(elem_attr_marker));
h_lf.Assemble();

return 0.5 * h_lf(b_);
}
};

# Appendix B: Torque

class Torque
{
private:
const ParGridFunction & b_;
const ParGridFunction & h_;
const ParGridFunction & j_;

public:
Torque(const ParGridFunction & b,
const ParGridFunction & h,
const ParGridFunction & j)
: b_(b), h_(h), j_(j) {}

void ComputeTorqueOnSurface(const Array<int> &bdr_attr_marker,
const Vector &cent, Vector &T);
void ComputeTorqueOnVolume(const Array<int> &vol_attr_marker,
const Vector &cent, Vector &T);
};

void Torque::ComputeTorqueOnSurface(const Array<int> &bdr_attr_marker,
const Vector &cent, Vector &trq)
{
trq = 0.0;

ParFiniteElementSpace * fes = b_.ParFESpace();
ParMesh *mesh = b_.ParFESpace()->GetParMesh();
ElementTransformation *eltrans = NULL;

Vector b, h, ht(3), nor(3), x(3), f(3), loc_trq(3);
loc_trq = 0.0;

for (int i=0; i<fes->GetNBE(); i++)
{
const int bdr_attr = mesh->GetBdrAttribute(i);
if (bdr_attr_marker[bdr_attr-1] == 0) { continue; }

eltrans = fes->GetBdrElementTransformation(i);
const FiniteElement &el = *fes->GetBE(i);

const IntegrationRule *ir = NULL;
if (ir == NULL)
{
const int order = 2*el.GetOrder() + eltrans->OrderW(); // <-----
ir = &IntRules.Get(eltrans->GetGeometryType(), order);
}

for (int pi = 0; pi < ir->GetNPoints(); ++pi)
{
const IntegrationPoint &ip = ir->IntPoint(pi);

eltrans->SetIntPoint(&ip);

CalcOrtho(eltrans->Jacobian(), nor);

double a = nor.Norml2();

eltrans->Transform(ip, x);

b_.GetVectorValue(*eltrans, ip, b);
h_.GetVectorValue(*eltrans, ip, h);

double bn = b * nor / a;
double hn = h * nor / a;
add(h, -hn / a, nor, ht);

f.Set(ip.weight * bn * bn / mu0_, nor);
f.Add(ip.weight * a * bn, ht);
f.Add(-0.5 * ip.weight * (mu0_ * (ht * ht) + bn * bn / mu0_), nor);

loc_trq[0] += (x[1]-cent[1]) * f[2] - (x[2]-cent[2]) * f[1];
loc_trq[1] += (x[2]-cent[2]) * f[0] - (x[0]-cent[0]) * f[2];
loc_trq[2] += (x[0]-cent[0]) * f[1] - (x[1]-cent[1]) * f[0];
}
}

MPI_Allreduce(loc_trq, trq, 3, MPI_DOUBLE, MPI_SUM, fes->GetComm());
}

void Torque::ComputeTorqueOnVolume(const Array<int> &attr_marker,
const Vector &cent, Vector &trq)
{
trq = 0.0;

ParFiniteElementSpace * fes = b_.ParFESpace();
ParMesh *mesh = b_.ParFESpace()->GetParMesh();
ElementTransformation *eltrans = NULL;

Vector b, j, x(3), f(3), t(3), loc_trq(3);
loc_trq = 0.0;

for (int i=0; i<fes->GetNE(); i++)
{
const int attr = mesh->GetAttribute(i);
if (attr_marker[attr-1] == 0) { continue; }

eltrans = fes->GetElementTransformation(i);
const FiniteElement &el = *fes->GetFE(i);

const IntegrationRule *ir = NULL;
if (ir == NULL)
{
const int order = 2*el.GetOrder() + eltrans->OrderW(); // <-----
ir = &IntRules.Get(eltrans->GetGeometryType(), order);
}

for (int pi = 0; pi < ir->GetNPoints(); ++pi)
{
const IntegrationPoint &ip = ir->IntPoint(pi);

eltrans->SetIntPoint(&ip);

eltrans->Transform(ip, x);

b_.GetVectorValue(*eltrans, ip, b);
j_.GetVectorValue(*eltrans, ip, j);

f[0] = j[1] * b[2] - j[2] * b[1];
f[1] = j[2] * b[0] - j[0] * b[2];
f[2] = j[0] * b[1] - j[1] * b[0];

t[0] = (x[1]-cent[1]) * f[2] - (x[2]-cent[2]) * f[1];
t[1] = (x[2]-cent[2]) * f[0] - (x[0]-cent[0]) * f[2];
t[2] = (x[0]-cent[0]) * f[1] - (x[1]-cent[1]) * f[0];