<div dir="ltr">Hi Gilles,<div><br></div><div>If I look at your picture, both the XZ and YZ plane should have the "anti-symmetry" boundary condition I think?</div><div>XY should probably have a symmetry condition.</div><div>I simulated a similar structure once with a vector potential formulation and used the following boundary conditions on 1/8 of a sphere:</div><div><br></div><div><div> SurfAir = Region[ 300 ];</div><div> SurfSym = Region[ 310 ];</div><div> SurfAsym = Region[ { 320, 321 } ];</div></div><div><br></div><div><div>Constraint {</div><div><span class="gmail-Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>{ Name a; Type Assign;</div><div><span class="gmail-Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Case {</div><div><span class="gmail-Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>{ Region SurfAir; Type Assign ; Value 0.; }<span class="gmail-Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div><span class="gmail-Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>{ Region SurfSym ; Type Assign ; Value 0. ; }<span class="gmail-Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>// Symmetry cuts</div><div><span class="gmail-Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>}</div><div><span class="gmail-Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>}<span class="gmail-Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>}</div></div><div><br></div><div>So the "anti-symmetry" does not get any constraints and due to the symmetry constraints it appears a gauge constraint is no longer required.</div><div>Not sure if this translates to the scalar potential.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Jasper</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:45 PM, gilles quemener <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:quemener@lpccaen.in2p3.fr" target="_blank">quemener@lpccaen.in2p3.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:#330066"><div>Hi,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Currently I am trying to formulate and solve a magnetostatic problem using the scalar potential method.<br></div><div>This problem is sketched on the attached picture. I have some difficulties finding how to formulate the boundary </div><div>conditions when simulating only 1/8 of the problem.<br></div><div><br></div><div>For the Z = 0 plane it's fine w/ Neumann BC,i.e.t nothing in the formulation.</div><div> For the Y = 0 plane, I use Dirichlet BC with null scalar potential.</div><div>My problem is how to express the anti-symmetry : upward field / magnetization in permanent magnets on X>0<br></div><div>and downward direction in the X<0 half space. </div><div>I have tried to require null scalar potential on plane X=0, but the answer does not look correct. </div><div>Without any condition on this X=0 plane, I also get incorrect results.<br></div><div>Could it be only null scalar potential on the Z-axis ? Then I am a bit confused.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for any help,<br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div> <span style="color:#003366"> Gilles <br></span></div><br></div><div><table style="width:792px;table-layout:fixed;height:145px" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td style="width:200px;text-align:left"></td><td><span style="color:#000080;font-size:10pt"></span><span style="color:#000080;font-size:10pt"></span></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
getdp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:getdp@onelab.info">getdp@onelab.info</a><br>
<a href="http://onelab.info/mailman/listinfo/getdp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://onelab.info/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/getdp</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>