ELEC2219: Electromagnetism for EEE

Coursework Assignment 1: Solution of a Capacitor Problem using the Finite Differences

Method and Tubes and Slices (TAS) Package
Contributes 17.5% to overall mark (ELEC2219)
Published: September 2015

1.

Objective

In this assignment you will solve a capacitor problem using different computational techniques.
You are expected to analyse the techniques based on their performance and to reach conclusions on
applicability of the techniques for various applications.

2.

Assessment details

The assignment contains three activities related to the same problem. You are asked to estimate the
capacitance C per unit length of a long air-filled capacitor using three techniques: finite-difference
solution using your own code, solution based on the Tubes and Slices method (TAS package) and
Finite Element solution (available within TAS package). You also need to look at an electric field
inside the capacitor.
Each student must submit an individual report. The report text (font size 12pt) is limited to 2 pages
(approximately 750 words) and a total of 5 pages including figures, tables and appendices. Content
exceeding this limit will not be considered for marking. Your report should contain:
representative plots or tables to demonstrate your results and to support your conclusions for
items listed in the marking scheme attached as Appendix A
analysis, comments and explanations of the observed results
conclusions on advantages and disadvantages of different methods and techniques
When marking the final report, credit will be particularly given for interesting comments and
observations, especially if they demonstrate that a thorough investigation has been conducted and
additional information through independent study has been acquired.
2.1. The capacitor problem
The schematic of the long air-filled capacitor is shown in Fig. 1. The origin has been placed at the
centre of the middle plate so that use can be made of symmetry and the first quadrant only needs to
be solved. The plane of symmetry, x = 0, is a flux line, so that V/x = 0. Also on y = 0, d/2<x<a/2,
V/y = 0. Correctly specified, therefore, the lower boundary consists of two segments with
different types of condition (potential and potential gradient).
Inside the capacitor, Laplace's equation for the electric potential V holds:

2V 2V

0.
x 2 y 2

(1)

The potential V0 may be taken as 100 V and the following dimensions assumed:
a = 20,

b = ??,

d = ??,

(the units of length are arbitrary, but if they are in meters the capacitance per unit length will be in
F/m). Note that the values of b and d are your personal values and will be given in a separate table.

Figure 1.
The capacitance per unit length
C

Q 4

V0 V0

d /2

q dx ,

(2)

where q is the electric charge density on the lower plate. By Gauss' theorem

div 0 E ,

(3)

where is a volumetric charge density. Applying the theorem to the middle plate

V
,
y

(4)

V
dx .
y

(5)

q 0 E y 0
and according to (2)
C

4
V0

d /2

Please note that the factor 4 in the above equation already accounts for the presence of four
identical parallel capacitors, as shown in Figure 1, while we only model one quadrant.
Equation (5) is simple to implement but its accuracy may be affected by the high field gradient
close to the edge of the electrode. Therefore, as an alternative, it might be advisable to select a
Gauss integration surface away from this edge, where field variation is less rapid. One possibility is
shown in Fig. 2 where the integration is performed half way in between the finite-difference nodes
and the relevant gradients may then be estimated using a simple two-point formula. In this case the
expression for the capacitance will take the form
d / 2 h / 2
h/2

4
V
V

dx
dy
0
V0 0 y
x
0

(6)

where h is the distance between the nodes of a regular grid. It is also possible to place the
integration surface even farther away from the electrode with suitable modifications to equation (6).
As the field variation becomes less rapid, and gradients smaller, the accuracy of the numerical
differentiation increases. You are encouraged to experiment with both equations (5) and (6).

integration of

V
y
integration of

V
x

Figure 2.
Both expressions (5) and (6) result from the same Gauss theorem (3), but numerically are likely to
give somewhat different results. Obviously, if the grid were to be made very fine (very small h) the
results would be much closer to each other.
Finally, the capacitance can also be found from energy considerations, as

Energy C

V02 QV0
E2
E2

0
dv length 0
dA , E gradV .
2
2
2
2
capacitor
section

(7)

2.2. Finite-difference solution

You are expected to modify the codes provided in order to obtain the value of C/0 for the capacitor
using successive over-relaxation (SOR) applied to the rectangular grid as shown in Fig. 3 and to
give a comprehensive analysis of the simulation results.

Figure 3.

Theory. The SOR method is based on the earlier Gauss-Seidel method in which the grid of nodes is
scanned repeatedly in a systematic manner applying equation (8) to each node in turn:

Vi , j

1
Vi1, j Vi, j 1 Vi, j 1 Vi1, j .
4

(8)

A satisfactory scanning sequence is to commence at the node nearest to the origin (1,1) in Fig. 3.
Because the boundary node (1,1) is already known it is possible to calculate V at (1,2) and scan by
columns until the node (M1, N1) in the opposite corner is reached. During the scan (k+1) the
finite-difference equation for node i,j is
Vi ,( kj 1)

1 ( k 1)
Vi 1, j Vi ,( kj 11) Vi ,( kj )1 Vi ( k1,) j ,

(9)

where the new values of V are used as soon as they are available. We now define the residual, or
displacement, at node i,j as

Ri(,kj1)

1 ( k 1)
Vi 1, j Vi ,( kj 11) Vi ,( kj )1 Vi ( k1,) j Vi ,( kj ) ,

(10)

being the change that occurs in Vi,j during scan (k+1). The SOR scheme is then

Vi ,( kj 1) Vi ,( kj ) Ri(,kj1) ,

(11)

where the original residual is increased by the relaxation factor which lies in the range 1 < 2.
The value of the SOR acceleration (or relaxation) factor may be taken as = 1.0 to start with. If the
optimum value 0 of can be found for a given problem, the SOR process will converge
significantly faster than the Gauss-Seidel method. The test for the satisfactory convergence of an
iterative method can be done by comparing the maximum value of Ri,j (found during each scan)
against a small fraction of the maximum potential (V0 in this case) the so called convergence in
continuum norm C . A suitable small fraction is 10-6. It is useful to print the residuals map so that
you have a useful check on the behaviour of the solution. The maximum number of scans allowed
should be set at 10*M*N. You can also look at the global error.
At the boundary nodes, where V/n = 0 is specified, the fictitious outside nodal value of V is set
equal to the inner value. For example, at a node i,j on the boundary x = 0 (Fig. 2), where i = 1,
V0, j V2, j (since i 1 = 0 ),

(12)

so that equation (8) becomes

V1, j

1
2V2, j Vi, j 1 Vi, j 1 .
4

(13)

Once the solution of equation (1) has been obtained, the capacitance may be found as a postprocessing exercise. This can be done by numerical integrations of either (5), or (6), or (7) (or
indeed all of them so that comparisons could be made). Take care with the numerical form of
equation (5). Instead of the usual 2-point formula, you may use the more accurate 3-point
approximation

V
1

3Vi,1 4Vi,2 Vi,3 ,

y 2h

(14)

for values of i at nodes on the lower plate (y = 0, 0 < x < d/2). Finally, you are advised to use either
trapezoidal or Simpson's rule for the numerical integration of equation (5).
You should experiment with different values of to find a near optimum value for each size of the
mesh; you should be able to find in literature simple expressions for estimating the optimum value.
Some algorithms allow for dynamic adjustment of as iterations progress. You should also use
different values of the step (h) in x and y directions to investigate how the accuracy of the solution
is affected by the refinement of the grid. A reasonable initial value of h would be 0.125, but smaller,
as well as larger, values could also be used.

2.3. Tubes and Slices (TAS)

For the method of Tubes and Slices, as well as for obtaining the finite-element solution, you will be
using the TAS program. The TAS software can be downloaded from the course web page available
at: https://secure.ecs.soton.ac.uk/notes_my/elec2219/coursework/Assignment_1/ as a file
TAS.EXE . The TAS software is a DOS operating system based program so it will not run directly
under the Windows environment or other modern operating system (Mac OS, Linux, etc). To run
TAS you will first need to install a DOS emulator. The DOSBox emulator is recommended and can
be downloaded for free from http://www.dosbox.com/
Before attempting your solutions you are advised to follow the TAS tutorial (Appendix 1 in the
text book [1]), as well as the animated Example available from the Welcome screen of the TAS
software.
Experiment with the TAS package to obtain close bounds to the value C/o (remember you are
doing this for one quadrant). In particular, try to reduce the error by moving the internal (and
boundary) construction points. Notice how the solution improves when the tube and slice lines
follow the expected correct solution more closely. Observe also the behaviour of the average of the
two bounds and therefore comment on the overall accuracy of the method.
Discuss how increasing the number of tubes and slices gives more degrees of freedom to achieve
better accuracy, but at the same time complicates the graphical solution as there are more points and
lines to control. Comment also on how the tubes and slices orthogonality (or lack of it) could be
used as a criterion for reshaping both distributions in order to obtain a better solution.
2.4. Finite-element solution
Instruct TAS to go into finite-element mode, refine the mesh that has been carried over, and
calculate C/o again. Experiment with different mesh shapes and densities to get a feel about what
influences the accuracy of the method. Note that the finite-element solution in TAS is done twice in
dual formulation and thus the overall error is always available and shown. Make a note of this error
for various mesh sizes and shapes to establish a relationship between the accuracy (and computing
times) and the level of mesh refinement. If possible, see how the quality of triangular elements (i.e.
whether they are close to equilateral or not for example long and thin) affects the overall
solution. Compare the field plots obtained from the finite-element module with your assumed
distributions using the tubes and slices approach.

3.

What else you need to do

To get the reference value for C you need to set up the model in TAS using your individual given
dimensions for the capacitor. The error band can be significantly reduced by increasing the number
of tubes and slices but mainly by improving their orthogonally.
When working in the FEM mode of TAS, you need to analyse the effects of the number of nodes on
the accuracy of the computations, as well as to indicate what the best shape for the elements is.
You are given a skeleton FD code for you to build upon and improve. The algorithm is a very
basic implementation of equations (9)-(13), a working version of the SOR method in its simplest
possible form assuming zero initial values for potential. You are expected to enhance and extend the
code to include a number of improvements, such as finding an optimum relaxation factor, exploring
the effects of different mesh sizes, experimenting with termination criteria and incorporating the
non-zero initial values for the potential, for example by making certain crude assumptions.

Performance studies should include an analysis of the dependence of the number of iterations and
computational times as functions of the mesh size h. How do these values vary between =1 and
optimum ? Plot the dependences in a log-log scale and comment on the observations. An
approximate value of the optimum may be pre-calculated and you will need to do some literature
searches to find different possibilities. In practice it is very important to understand what value of h
is required to achieve the specified accuracy. How is the accuracy of the predictions related to
termination criteria in the code? Consider the calculations of C as a post-processing operation and
analyse the effectiveness of the different methods. Why do different approaches have different
accuracy? Which termination criterion (local or global) is better for C calculations depending on the
method? Contrast your observations with accuracy of electric field calculations near sharp edges (as
a function of the mesh step h). Are you getting the same convergence rate as for the value of C?
Explain your observations.
Analyse the effects of the initial values of potential on the number of iterations and calculation
times. You can introduce a linear interpolation between boundary values as the first step but also
consider input from TAS and from simulations at larger mesh sizes h (so called multigrid approach).
In conclusions, compare TAS, FD and FE techniques in terms of the accuracy and the time needed
to achieve the solution. In your analysis consider the time required for coding.
A detailed marking scheme is attached; this should give you an idea about what is expected in your
report. You will note that critical analysis of results, thorough investigations, relevant observations
and meaningful conclusions are essential to achieve a good mark. This coursework is open ended
in a sense that any further investigation in addition to what has been suggested is very welcome.

References
[1] P. Hammond and J.K. Sykulski: Engineering Electromagnetism, Physical Processes and
Computation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994
ISBN 0 19 856289 6 (Hbk), ISBN 0 19 856288 8 (Pbk)

Deadline
Please note that you are expected to complete your work in week 6 and hand in your report by 4pm
on Thursday 5th November 2015. Any delay in handing in the report will incur a penalty in the
form of reduced final mark (at a rate of 10% reduction for each working day of late submission, up
to 5 working days, no submission is allowed after that; extension requests must be made in advance
via the Faculty Student Administration). The report should be submitted for marking in the USMC
Reception (First Floor Office). Please write clearly: ELEC2219: Electromagnetism for EEE
TAS, as appropriate, and do not forget to put your name on the cover.
Professor J.K. Sykulski
Dr I. Golosnoy
Dr. Mihai D. Rotaru
September 2015

Appendix A: Marking scheme

Assessment Criteria
Using TAS and FEM package:
Set up the model in TAS
Correct geometry, boundary conditions & initial
mesh set up
Refinement of TAS model
Changing number of tubes and slices,
orthogonality
Set up FEM model
Calculate capacitance by Finite Element method
FEM analysis
Effects of mesh refinement and shape of the
elements on accuracy
Code improvement:
MATLAB code for finite differences
improvements to find optimal iteration parameter
and to introduce different initial values for
potential
Performance studies and analysis:
Finding optimum value for alpha at different
values of mesh size h
Analytically predicted value for optimal alpha
and comparison with the one obtained
experimentally
Comparison of iteration numbers for fixed =1
and for optimal at different mesh sizes h
Conclusions on effectiveness of the technique
Analysis of computational time vs meshes size h
and vs iteration number
Further analysis and Performance
improvements:
Effects of post-processing on accuracy:
Comparison of C value calculated by energy
method, conservative div method and direct
differentiation with integrations (trapezoidal,
Simpson rules) for different h
Accuracy of electric field calculations near sharp
edges as a function of h
Effects of initial value for potential on iteration
numbers and calculation times (input from TAS
and multigrid approach)
Observe and comment on the effects of
convergence criteria on computational time vs
mesh size h (global L1, max error point C)
Conclusions:
General conclusions and comments on the FE,
FD and TAS

Outstanding

1.5

1.5

1.5

Good

Poor

Absent

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Total Mark
out of 17.5