A Charge Conserving Exponential Predictor Corrector FEMPIC Formulation for Relativistic Particle Simulations

The state of art of charge conserving electromagnetic finite element particle-in-cell (EM-FEMPIC) has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few years. These advances have primarily been achieved for leap-frog time stepping schemes for Maxwell solvers, in large part, due to the method strictly following the proper space for representing fields, charges, and measuring currents. Unfortunately, leap-frog-based solvers (and their other incarnations) are only conditionally stable. Recent advances have made it possible to construct EM-FEMPIC methods built around unconditionally stable time-stepping methods while conserving charge. Together with the use of a quasi-Helmholtz decomposition, these methods were both unconditionally stable and satisfied Gauss’ laws to machine precision. However, this architecture was developed for systems with explicit particle integrators where fields and velocities were off by a time step. While completely self-consistent methods exist in the literature, they follow the classic rubric: collect a system of first-order differential equations (Maxwell and Newton equations) and use an integrator to solve the combined system. These methods suffer from the same side effect as earlier—they are conditionally stable. Here, we propose a different approach; we pair an unconditionally stable Maxwell solver to an exponential predictor corrector (PC) method for Newton’s equations. As we will show via numerical experiments, the proposed method conserves energy within a particle-in-cell (PIC) scheme, has an unconditionally stable electromagnetic (EM) solve, solves Newton’s equations to much higher accuracy than a traditional Boris solver, and conserves charge to machine precision. We further demonstrate benefits compared with other polynomial methods to solve Newton’s equations, like the well-known Boris push.

[1]  J. Luginsland,et al.  An Envelope Tracking Approach for Particle in Cell Simulations , 2022, 2208.12795.

[2]  O. H. Ramachandran,et al.  Quasi-Helmholtz decomposition, Gauss' laws and charge conservation for finite element particle-in-cell , 2021, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[3]  B. Shanker,et al.  Time integrator agnostic charge conserving finite element PIC , 2021, Physics of Plasmas.

[4]  Martin Campos Pinto,et al.  Variational Framework for Structure-Preserving Electromagnetic Particle-in-Cell Methods , 2021, Journal of Scientific Computing.

[5]  B. Shanker,et al.  A Set of Benchmark Tests for Validation of 3-D Particle in Cell Methods , 2021, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.

[6]  J. Amaya,et al.  The relativistic implicit Particle-in-Cell method , 2019, Journal of Physics: Conference Series.

[7]  Takayuki Umeda,et al.  On the Boris solver in particle-in-cell simulation , 2018, Physics of Plasmas.

[8]  Jianyuan Xiao,et al.  Structure-preserving geometric particle-in-cell methods for Vlasov-Maxwell systems , 2018, Plasma Science and Technology.

[9]  Martin Campos Pinto,et al.  Charge-conserving FEM–PIC schemes on general grids☆ , 2014 .

[10]  Fernando L. Teixeira,et al.  Exact charge-conserving scatter-gather algorithm for particle-in-cell simulations on unstructured grids: A geometric perspective , 2014, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[11]  Jian Liu,et al.  Why is Boris algorithm so good , 2013 .

[12]  Hong Qin,et al.  Geometric integration of the Vlasov-Maxwell system with a variational particle-in-cell scheme , 2012, 1401.6723.

[13]  R. Marchand,et al.  PTetra, a Tool to Simulate Low Orbit Satellite–Plasma Interaction , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.

[14]  Stefano Markidis,et al.  The energy conserving particle-in-cell method , 2011, J. Comput. Phys..

[15]  Stefano Markidis,et al.  Development of implicit kinetic simulation methods, and their application to ion beam propagation in current and future neutralized drift compression experiments , 2010 .

[16]  Jian-Ming Jin,et al.  Application of Tree-Cotree Splitting to the Time-Domain Finite-Element Analysis of Electromagnetic Problems , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation.

[17]  Jin-Fa Lee,et al.  Removal of spurious DC modes in edge element solutions for modeling three-dimensional resonators , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques.

[18]  F. Teixeira,et al.  Geometric finite element discretization of Maxwell equations in primal and dual spaces , 2005, physics/0503013.

[19]  B Shahine,et al.  Particle in cell simulation of laser-accelerated proton beams for radiation therapy. , 2002, Medical physics.

[20]  R. Lemke,et al.  Three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulation study of a relativistic magnetron , 1999 .

[21]  John P. Verboncoeur,et al.  An object-oriented electromagnetic PIC code , 1995 .

[22]  O. Picon,et al.  A finite element method based on Whitney forms to solve Maxwell equations in the time domain , 1995 .

[23]  A. Bossavit Whitney forms: a class of finite elements for three-dimensional computations in electromagnetism , 1988 .

[24]  G. Deschamps Electromagnetics and differential forms , 1981, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[25]  O. C. Zienkiewicz A new look at the newmark, houbolt and other time stepping formulas. A weighted residual approach , 1977 .

[26]  E. M. Lifshitz,et al.  Classical theory of fields , 1952 .

[27]  B. Shanker,et al.  UNCONDITIONALLY STABLE TIME STEPPING METHOD FOR MIXED FINITE ELEMENT MAXWELL SOLVERS , 2020, Progress In Electromagnetics Research C.

[28]  Andreas Glaser,et al.  A New Class of Highly Accurate Solvers for Ordinary Differential Equations , 2009, J. Sci. Comput..

[29]  E. Tonti Finite Formulation of the Electromagnetic Field , 2001 .

[30]  L. Kettunen,et al.  Yee‐like schemes on a tetrahedral mesh, with diagonal lumping , 1999 .