File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 Publisher Website: 10.1109/APS.2008.4619724
 Scopus: eid_2s2.055649114911
Supplementary

Citations:
 Scopus: 0
 Appears in Collections:
Conference Paper: EFIE and MFIE, why the difference?
Title  EFIE and MFIE, why the difference? 

Authors  
Issue Date  2008 
Citation  2008 Ieee International Symposium On Antennas And Propagation And Usnc/Ursi National Radio Science Meeting, Apsursi, 2008 How to Cite? 
Abstract  EFIE (electric field integral equation) suffers from internal resonance, and the remedy is to use MFIE (magnetic field integral equation) to come up with a CFIE (combined field integral equation) to remove the internal resonance problem. However, MFIE is fundamentally a very different integral equation from EFIE. Many questions have been raised about the differences. First, it has often been observed that EFIE has better accuracy than MFIE. On the other hand, MFIE has better convergence rate when solved with an iterative solver [1,2], Also, EFIE has lowfrequency breakdown, but MFIE does not have an apparent lowfrequency problem [3]. We will perform error analysis to explain why EFIE has better accuracy compared to MFIE [47]. Mathematical analysis shows that EFIE has a smoothing operator, while MFIE has a nonsmoothing operator [810]. This difference often gives rise to better accuracy for EFIE compared to MFIE. MFIE is a second kind integral equation while EFIE is a first kind integral equation [10]. Hence, the eigenvalues of the EFIE operator tends to cluster around the origin, while the eigenvalues of the MFIE operator are shifted away from the origin. Consequently, when solved with an iterative solver, the convergence behavior of MFIE is superior to that of EFIE. It is wellknown that EFIE suffers from the lowfrequency breakdown problem. MFIE does not suffer from apparent lowfrequency breakdown, but it suffers from lowfrequency inaccuracy [3], All these problems can be taken care of by performing the looptree decomposition. The EFIE operator is often known as the ℒ operator and the MFIE operator is often known as the K operator in the literature. The ℒ operator is a symmetric operator while the K operator is an asymmetric operator. In some integral equations such as those involving dielectric interfaces, these two operators appear simultaneously. They also appear concurrently in the invocation of the equivalence principle. Their discretization often gives rise to an illconditioned matrix representation. We will discuss the reasons and present some remedies for them. More will be discussed at the conference presentation. © 2008 IEEE. 
Persistent Identifier  http://hdl.handle.net/10722/183011 
References 
DC Field  Value  Language 

dc.contributor.author  Chew, WC  en_US 
dc.contributor.author  Davis, CP  en_US 
dc.contributor.author  Warnick, KF  en_US 
dc.contributor.author  Nie, ZP  en_US 
dc.contributor.author  Hu, J  en_US 
dc.contributor.author  Yan, S  en_US 
dc.contributor.author  Gürel, L  en_US 
dc.date.accessioned  20130502T05:18:05Z   
dc.date.available  20130502T05:18:05Z   
dc.date.issued  2008  en_US 
dc.identifier.citation  2008 Ieee International Symposium On Antennas And Propagation And Usnc/Ursi National Radio Science Meeting, Apsursi, 2008  en_US 
dc.identifier.uri  http://hdl.handle.net/10722/183011   
dc.description.abstract  EFIE (electric field integral equation) suffers from internal resonance, and the remedy is to use MFIE (magnetic field integral equation) to come up with a CFIE (combined field integral equation) to remove the internal resonance problem. However, MFIE is fundamentally a very different integral equation from EFIE. Many questions have been raised about the differences. First, it has often been observed that EFIE has better accuracy than MFIE. On the other hand, MFIE has better convergence rate when solved with an iterative solver [1,2], Also, EFIE has lowfrequency breakdown, but MFIE does not have an apparent lowfrequency problem [3]. We will perform error analysis to explain why EFIE has better accuracy compared to MFIE [47]. Mathematical analysis shows that EFIE has a smoothing operator, while MFIE has a nonsmoothing operator [810]. This difference often gives rise to better accuracy for EFIE compared to MFIE. MFIE is a second kind integral equation while EFIE is a first kind integral equation [10]. Hence, the eigenvalues of the EFIE operator tends to cluster around the origin, while the eigenvalues of the MFIE operator are shifted away from the origin. Consequently, when solved with an iterative solver, the convergence behavior of MFIE is superior to that of EFIE. It is wellknown that EFIE suffers from the lowfrequency breakdown problem. MFIE does not suffer from apparent lowfrequency breakdown, but it suffers from lowfrequency inaccuracy [3], All these problems can be taken care of by performing the looptree decomposition. The EFIE operator is often known as the ℒ operator and the MFIE operator is often known as the K operator in the literature. The ℒ operator is a symmetric operator while the K operator is an asymmetric operator. In some integral equations such as those involving dielectric interfaces, these two operators appear simultaneously. They also appear concurrently in the invocation of the equivalence principle. Their discretization often gives rise to an illconditioned matrix representation. We will discuss the reasons and present some remedies for them. More will be discussed at the conference presentation. © 2008 IEEE.  en_US 
dc.language  eng  en_US 
dc.relation.ispartof  2008 IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation and USNC/URSI National Radio Science Meeting, APSURSI  en_US 
dc.title  EFIE and MFIE, why the difference?  en_US 
dc.type  Conference_Paper  en_US 
dc.identifier.email  Chew, WC: wcchew@hku.hk  en_US 
dc.identifier.authority  Chew, WC=rp00656  en_US 
dc.description.nature  link_to_subscribed_fulltext  en_US 
dc.identifier.doi  10.1109/APS.2008.4619724  en_US 
dc.identifier.scopus  eid_2s2.055649114911  en_US 
dc.relation.references  http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2s2.055649114911&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage  en_US 
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid  Chew, WC=36014436300  en_US 
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid  Davis, CP=7404361596  en_US 
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid  Warnick, KF=7003381644  en_US 
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid  Nie, ZP=7103290485  en_US 
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid  Hu, J=36551374800  en_US 
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid  Yan, S=23109710800  en_US 
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid  Gürel, L=7004393069  en_US 