Investigation of Darwin Model with Two Types of Coulomb Gauge Condition in Frequency-Domain Electromagnetic Finite-Element Method

Kaimori, Hiroyuki; Mifune, Takashi; Kameari, A.

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-11818-0_60

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Under any of these assumptions, the fields are said to be quasistatic, with the resulting fields being called electro‐quasistatic (EQS) and magneto‐quasistatic (MQS) for ∂ t B = ∂ B / ∂t = 0 and ∂ t D = 0 , respectively. More recently, the interest of the engineering community has been shifted toward electromagnetic quasistatic (EMQS) field models, 1–7 that is, models that are able to capture all effects—resistive, inductive, and capacitive—excluding radiation, such as for instance the two‐step Darwin model 8 . This two‐step approach is based on the observation that MQS fields can be gauged by first solving an EQS problem and then employing the resulting EQS current as a source term for the equation that governs the MQS field.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study on electromagnetic quasistatic time‐domain field calculations

Henkel

Kasolis

Schöps

et al. 2022

Int J Numerical Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electromagnetic quasistatic field models, which take into consideration resistive, inductive, and capacitive effects, have been introduced for electrical engineering applications whose geometrical characteristics, combined with the operational frequencies, suggest negligible radiation phenomena. Here, a monolithic variant of a previously proposed two‐step electromagnetic quasistatic algorithm and a two‐step time‐domain Maxwell formulation are presented, together with relevant initial‐boundary value problems. In view of numerical experiments, the fields that are obtained with the two‐step electromagnetic quasistatic algorithm, its monolithic variant, and the two‐step time‐domain Maxwell formulation are compared and turn out to be in good agreement.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%