arxiv: v1 [math.na] 16 Oct 2018

Transcription

1 An FFT-accelerated direct solver for electromagnetic scattering from penetrable axisymmetric objects Jun Lai and Michael O Neil arxiv:8.767v [math.na] 6 Oct 28 October 7, 28 Abstract Fast, high-order accurate algorithms for electromagnetic scattering from axisymmetric objects are of great importance when modeling physical phenomena in optics, materials science (e.g. meta-materials), and many other fields of applied science. In this paper, we develop an FFT-accelerated separation of variables solver that can be used to efficiently invert integral equation formulations of Maxwell s equations for scattering from axisymmetric penetrable (dielectric) bodies. Using a standard variant of Müller s integral representation of the fields, our numerical solver rapidly and directly inverts the resulting second-kind integral equation. In particular, the algorithm of this work () rapidly evaluates the modal Green s functions, and their derivatives, via kernel splitting and the use of novel recursion formulas, (2) discretizes the underlying integral equation using generalized Gaussian quadratures on adaptive meshes, and (3) is applicable to geometries containing edges. Several numerical examples are provided to demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of the aforementioned algorithm in various geometries. Introduction While many scattering problems in computational electromagnetics require the solution to Maxwell s equations in arbitrary complex geometries (e.g. radar scattering from aircraft, capacitance extraction, etc.), it is often useful to study the same scattering problems in somewhat simpler geometries, namely axisymmetric ones. This problem, of computing scattered waves in axisymmetric geometries, has a very rich history in the electrical engineering community [3, 4, 36], and recently several groups have built specialized high-order solvers for particular applications in plasma physics [34], resonance calculations [23], and utilizing novel integral representations [2]. In this work, we address this problem for penetrable axisymmetric bodies which may contain edges, and therefore adaptive discretizations of the geometry are required. School of Mathematical Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang. Research was supported in part by the Funds for Creative Research Groups of NSFC (No. 62) and the Major Research Plan of NSFC (No ), laijun6@zju.edu.cn Courant Institute, New York University, New York, NY. Research was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research under award numbers #N and #N oneil@cims.nyu.edu.

2 In regions free of electric charge and current, with electric permittivity ɛ and magnetic permeability µ, the time harmonic Maxwell s equations (THME) can be reduced to: E = iωµh, H = iωɛe, E =, H =, (.) where ω denotes the angular frequency; the time dependence on the fields of e iωt has been suppressed. It will also be useful to define the wavenumber k = ω ɛµ, where we assume that I(k). In general, the material parameters are allowed to be spatially dependent tensors. There are two canonical boundary value problems in classical electromagnetics, that of scattering from perfect electric conductors (PECs) and scattering in non-conducting (dielectric, or penetrable) materials with piecewise constant material propertries. In this work, we will focus on the latter scattering problem. This problem offers a surprising regime in which the mathematical and physics model (i.e. Maxwell s equations) is very well understood and agrees very closely with experimental phenomena. With this in mind, it is useful to construct numerical methods which accurately solve the underlying equations in order to complement, or partially replace, experimental design methods. Integral equation methods for boundary value problems in axisymmetric geometries has received much attention over the past decade, likely due to the increase in computational power (thereby enabling high-resolution experiments to be performed on a desktop or laptop) and the persistent mathematical and computational difficulties of designing high-order methods in general, complex geometries (e.g. quadrature design, geometry generation, etc.). Axisymmetric solvers based on a separation of variables approach, as in this work, provide a robust test-bed for the same integral equations which are used in general geometries, not to mention that several axisymmetric geometries are of real-work physical importance. Axisymmetric integral equation methods have been developed for boundary value problems for Laplace s equation, the Helmholtz equation [35, 2], and recently, Maxwell s equations [23] using a variety of discretization schemes, solvers, and methods for evaluating the so-called modal Green s functions. We do not seek to review the entire literature here, but rather will reference appropriate sources throughout the manuscript. The integral equation formulation and solver of this work have three main features: () a novel method for evaluating higher derivatives of the modal Green s functions based on kernel splitting and recurrence relations, (2) an adaptive discretization of the generating curve based on generalized Gaussian quadratures, and (3) an integral equation formulation and discretization scheme which is compatible with geometries that contain edges. Recently, a solver for both PEC and dielectric scattering problem based on the generalized Debye source formulation [, ] was described in [2]. This solver, while also of high-order and stable for all frequencies (including the low-frequency limit ω ), is currently restricted to globally smooth geometries. The integral equation method of this paper, based on the classic one due to Müller, is free from spurious resonances and is of Fredholm secondkind on smooth geometries (and well-conditioned on those with edges). We do not address the situation in which ω. The standard integral representations based on Müller s formulation for penetrable media include terms which are O(ω ), and therefore require some care in the static limit. Discussions of this issue can be found in [24]. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the Müller integral representation, and its dual form, for electromagnetic fields in piecewise constant penetrable media. Section 3 details the transformation of a surface integral equation along an axisymmetric 2

3 Figure : An axisymmetric object Ω is illuminated by a time harmonic incident wave (E inc,h inc ). The object is penetrable with dielectric coefficients (ε,µ ). The background material is homogeneous with dielectric coefficients (ε,µ ). surface into a sequence of decoupled integral equations along a curve in two dimensions using the Fourier transform in the azimuthal direction. Details of the fast kernel evaluation based on a kernel splitting technique and recursion formulas are given in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the high-order discretization of the sequence of line integrals using an adaptive mesh and generalized Gaussian quadratures for the associated weakly singular integral operators. Numerical examples are given in Section 6, including scattering results in both smooth and non-smooth geometries. Section 7 concludes the discussion with drawbacks, observations, and future research. 2 Integral Equation Formulations Consider an axisymmetric object Ω with rotational symmetry with respect to the z-axis. That is to say, its boundary Γ = Ω is generated by rotating a curve in the xz-plane about the z-axis. For mathematical and notational consistency, we will assume that Ω is a closed region. Furthermore, assume that Ω is located in a homogeneous background, as shown in Figure. The background, which is exterior to Ω, will be denoted by Ω = R 3 \ Ω, also a closed region with the same boundary Γ. In what follows, the object will be modeled as penetrable (i.e. non-conducting) with electric permittivity ε and magnetic permeability µ, while the background medium has permittivity ε and permeability µ. Both the interior and exterior material parameters are considered to be constant within each region, with the characteristic wavenumbers given as k = ω ε µ, k = ω ε µ. (2.) Many problems of considerable interest in real-world phenomena (e.g. computing radar cross sections) take the form of scattering problems. In this regime, the total field (E tot,h tot ) is the sum of two pieces: an incident field (E inc,h inc ) and a scattered field (E,H). Both the incoming and scattered field are assumed to satisfy Maxwell s equations, and therefore so 3

4 does the total field. As mentioned above, penetrable media is non-conducting and does not support electric current. Along interfaces of penetrable media, the physical boundary condition states that the tangential components of the total field are continuous across Γ : [n E tot ] =, [n H tot ] =, on Γ. (2.2) Here, [ ] denotes the jump across Γ and n is the unit normal along Γ that points into the unbounded region Ω. Furthermore, in order to guarantee well-posedness of the corresponding boundary value problem, the scattered field (E, H) must satisfy the Silver-Müller radiation condition at infinity: ( x lim x x x ε E(x) ) µ H(x) =. (2.3) In what follows, we will denote the exterior scattered field by (E,H ) and the interior scattered field by (E,H ). Since it is assumed that the incoming field is generated from sources in the background, inside Ω we simply have E = E tot and H = H tot. Therefore the jump condition (2.2) along Γ can be written as n (E inc + E ) = n E, n (H inc + H ) = n H. (2.4) We now turn to a derivation of the Müller Integral Equation, and its dual formulation. 2. The Müller Integral Equation As discussed in the introduction, the goal of this paper is to design an efficient numerical solver for the time-harmonic Maxwell s equations, given in (.), with transmission boundary conditions (2.4) along the surface of axisymmetric objects. We will refer to this as the Transmission Boundary Value Problem (TBVP). Using a properly formulated integral equation method automatically ensures that the scattered field obey the radiation condition (2.3) at infinity. We start by defining a single-layer vector potential. Let J be a vector field supported along the surface Γ. Then the single-layer potential due to J is given by S k J(x) = G k (x,y)j(y)da(y), (2.5) Γ where it is assumed that x Γ. Here, the function G k (x,y) is the free space Green s function for the three dimensional Helmholtz equation: G k (x,y) = eik x y x y. (2.6) For x Γ, the integral operator S k is weakly-singular and continuous across Γ. We now derive an integral equation for the TBVP based on what is referred to as the direct method. The Stratton-Chu formulation [26] provides a Green s-like reproducing formula for the incoming field in Ω using tangential traces of the fields on Γ. Inside Ω, the incident field (E inc,h inc ) satisfies iωε E inc = S k iωµ H inc = S k ( ) ( n H inc iωε S ) k n E inc, ( ) ( n E inc iωµ S ) k n H inc. (2.7) 4

5 Furthermore, according to the Extinction Theorem [3], in the interior Ω, the exterior scattered field (E,H ) satisfies = S k (n H ) iωε S k (n E ) = S k (n E ) iωµ S k (n H ), (2.8) and likewise, in the exterior (the background) Ω, the interior scattered field (E,H ) satisfies = S k (n H ) + iωε S k (n E ), = S k (n E ) + iωµ S k (n H ). (2.9) In order to derive an integral equation along the boundary Γ, we now let x approach the boundary Γ from the interior for equation (2.7) and (2.8), and from the exterior for equation (2.9). Taking the limit of the tangential components of both sides of equations (2.7)- (2.9), where the tangential direction is defined on a parallel surface with respect to Γ [32], and using the jump property of boundary integral operators [8] and the transmission condition (2.4), we obtain the following boundary integral equation: where we have set iωε n E inc = iω 2 (ε + ε )M + ( ( K k K ) k J iω ε N k ε N ) k M, iωµ n H inc = iω 2 (µ + µ )J ( ( ) (2.) K k K ) k M iω µ N k µ N k J, J = n H tot, M = n E tot, (2.) and the boundary-to-boundary layer potential operators K k and N k are defined as K k J = n S k J, (2.2) N k J = n S k J. (2.3) Both of the operators K k and N k have singular kernels; the operator K is defined in the Hadamard finite part sense, and the operator N is defined as a Cauchy principal value. The operator N k in (2.3) appears in the classic Magnetic Field Integral Equation (MFIE), and is in fact a weakly-singular integral operator. Integral equation (2.) is the well known Müller formulation for electromagnetic scattering from dielectric objects. Due to the presence of only the difference of the hypersingular operators K, note that equation (2.) is a secondkind integral equation when Γ is smooth. By the Fredholm alternative, the existence of a solution follows from the uniqueness, which one can show is guaranteed if R(k) > and I(k). See [3]. When the boundary Γ is not smooth, but rather contains edges and corners, the integral operators in (2.) are not compact, but merely bounded on the appropriate Sobolev space. In this case the proof of uniqueness is slightly more involved, but the results still hold. See [26], Theorem 5.52 for details. Our numerical examples will include geometries that are both globally smooth and merely piecewise smooth (i.e. containing edges). We see similar high-order convergence in both cases using the same high-order discretization scheme. Once equation (2.) has been solved for the surface currents J and M, the exterior and interior scattered fields can be evaluated using similar Green s-like identities. For x Ω, 5

6 we have that and for x Ω, we have that E = iωε S k J S k M, H = iωµ S k M S k J, E = iωε S k J + S k M, H = iωµ S k M + S k J. (2.4) (2.5) 2.2 A Dual Formulation Another approach that is commonly used to derive an integral equation for the TBVP is known as the indirect method. It is based on the fact that the pair of vector potentials S k J and S k J/ik, set to the be the electric field and magnetic field, respectively, automatically satisfy the THME(k). The radiation condition is also automatically satisfied via the use of layer potentials. With this in mind, we keep the same representation for the exterior field as before in (2.4), and merely replace the appropriate dielectric constants with their interior counterparts for the interior field to write: E = iωε S k J S k M H = iωµ S k M S k J. (2.6) Note that the representation above is merely negating the formula in (2.5). A priori, due to the representation, these interior and exterior fields automatically satisfy Maxwell s equations. We merely need to solve for J and M to satisfy the transmission conditions. As before, the integral equation along Γ can be obtained by taking the limit of the tangential components of representations (2.4) and (2.6) as x approaches the boundary and then forming linear combinations to enforce the transmission boundary condition. This procedure results in the integral equation: n E inc = M + ( ) J ( N k N ) k M, n H inc = J iω K k K k iω ε ε ( K k ) K k µ µ M ( ) (2.7) N k N k J. This system of integral equations is the dual form of equation (2.) [7]. The dual form integral equation has similar properties to the classical Müller integral equation. When the boundary Γ is smooth, equation (2.7) is also Fredholm second-kind and admits a unique solution when R(k) > and I(k). In the case of boundaries with edges and corners, since the integral operators are similar we have the same regularity and uniqueness results. However, do note that the currents J and M in equation (2.7) do not represent tangential traces of the fields anymore. However, the advantage of equation (2.7) is that we are able to easily construct an exact solution to the TBVP in each of the regions using the integral representations. This provides true verification of the accuracy of 6

7 the numerical solver. In the numerical experiments, we solve equation (2.7) for accuracy verification and equation (2.7) for obtaining tangential traces of the fields. In the next section, we discuss the high-order discretization of equation (2.) and (2.7) along the boundaries of axisymmetric objects. 3 Fourier representation of the boundary integral operators Discretizing integral equations in complex geometries in three dimensions to high order is non-trivial and currently rather computationally expensive. It is an area of active research [3]. However, there exist many interesting applications of electromagnetic scattering from axisymmetric objects (for instance, parabolic reflectors [6], buried mines and unexploded ordnances [4], etc); in this case, variables can be separated in cylindrical coordinates resulting in a system of decoupled line integrals. The discretization and solution of integral equations along curves in two dimensions is a much easier problem, and very efficient schemes exist [2, 35, 3, 3, 9]. The resulting Fourier decomposition scheme easily parallelizes and can address a range of rather complicated axisymmetric geometries. Discussion and details regarding the discretization of scalar-valued integral equations along bodies of revolution are contained in [35, 2]; the vector-valued case, in particular integral equation methods for Maxwell s equations, are discussed in [23]. To avoid redundancy with existing work, we follow the discussion and notation in [29] rather closely. As before, assume that Ω denotes an axisymmetric object (i.e. body of revolution) with boundary Γ. The boundary will be assumed to be smooth or contain a small number of edges. Cylindrical coordiantes will be given as (r, θ, z), and we will denote the standard unit vectors by (e r,e θ,e z ). Furthermore, we assume that the generating curve γ is parameterized counterclockwise by (r(s), z(s)), where s denotes arclength. This implies that the unit tangential vector along the generating curve (and Γ itself) is t(s) = r (s)e r +z (s)e z, with r and z denoting differentiation with respect to arclength, i.e. r = dr/ds. The unit exterior normal n is then given by n(s) = z (s)e r r (s)e z. The surface current J on Γ can be written in terms of these coordinates as J = J t + J 2 e θ. Since Γ is always smooth in the azimuthal direction, taking the Fourier expansion of J and J 2 with respect to θ yields ( ) J(r,z) = J m (r,z)t + Jm(r,z)e 2 θ e imθ. (3.) m As above, the dependence of the unit vectors on the variables r,θ,z will be omitted unless needed for clarity. We begin with the following lemma, which is given in [29], of which the proof is by direct computation. Lemma 3. The vector potential S k J in cylindrical coordinate has the Fourier expansion ( ) S k J(r t,θ t,z t ) = c m (r t,z t )e r + cm(r 2 t,z t )e θ + cm(r 3 t,z t )e z e imθ t (3.2) m 7

8 where cm(r t,z t ) = Jm(s)r(s)r (s)gm(r 2 t,z t,r(s),z(s))ds i γ c 2 m(r t,z t ) = i Jm(s)r(s)r (s)gm(r 3 t,z t,r(s),z(s))ds + γ Jm(s)r(s)g 2 m(r 3 t,z t,r(s),z(s))ds, (3.3) γ Jm(s)r(s)g 2 m(r 2 t,z t,r(s),z(s))ds, (3.4) γ cm(r 3 t,z t ) = Jm(s)r(s)z (s)gm(r t,z t,r(s),z(s))ds, (3.5) γ and the target point is denoted as (r t,θ t,z t ) = (r(t),θ t,z(t)). The kernels above are defined by where gm(r e ikρ t,z t,r,z) = ρ e imϕ dϕ, (3.6) g 2 m(r t,z t,r,z) = g 3 m(r t,z t,r,z) = e ikρ cosmϕ cosϕ dϕ, (3.7) ρ e ikρ sinmϕ sinϕ dϕ, (3.8) ρ ρ = rt 2 + r2 2r t r cosϕ + (z t z) 2 (3.9) ϕ = θ t θ, and (r,z) = (r(s),z(s)). The functions g i m are commonly referred to as modal Green s functions. Using Lemma 3., we can obtain the azimuthal Fourier decomposition of the boundaryto-boundary layer potentials N k J and K k J: N k J(r t,θ t,z t ) = (( ) ( ( c m c3 m z t + t c 2 c 2 ) m m + r z t r t r t imcm t r t m + r t and by using the fact that K k J = n ( k 2 S k J + S k J ) we have ( K k J(r t,θ t,z t ) = [k 2 cmt 2 + ( ) ( ) im z tc m 3 + r tc m eθ + m rt 2 cm + im cm m2 r t r t rt 2 ( ( + z t cm + 2 cm + im cm c 3 ) ( m r t z t z t r t r t z t zt 2 + r t rt 2 ] ))e θ im rt 2 cm 2 + im cm cm 3 r t r t r t z t e imθ t, ( ) im cm 3 c2 m ))e r t z θ e imθ t, (3.) t cm 2 + im c 3 ) m t r t z t c m + r t c m r t + 2 c m r 2 t (3.) where, since this is a boundary-to-boundary operator, we denote the gradient of γ at (r t,z t ) as γ(t) = (r t,z t ). In order to evaluate the layer potentials N k J and K k J rapidly, the values of c m, c 2 m and c 3 m, as well as their derivatives, need to be computed efficiently. The evaluation of the coefficients c i m can be performed in two steps: () Compute g i m and its derivatives, and then (2) integrate g i m and its derivatives (according to the above formulae for c i m) along the generating curve γ. There are no known numerically useful closed-form expressions for g i m, 8

9 and unfortunately, the evaluation of these functions will turn out to be the bottleneck of the resulting solver. An efficient scheme for computing them is very important. Expansions of these functions in terms of half-order Hankel functions has, as of yet, proven to be somewhat expensive to compute [9] and designing robust contour integration methods for large values of m is quite complicated [8]. Furthermore, note that since g i m has a singularity when z t = z(s), special care must be taken during the integration along γ. In the next two sections, we give a detailed discussion on the evaluation and integration of the modal Green s functions. 4 Fast Kernel Evaluation Given the important role they play in solving PDEs and integral equations in axisymmetric domains, the speed of evaluating the kernel functions (3.6)-(3.8) is a very important consideration as it can affect the overall efficiency of the entire solver. Due to the existence of singularities in the free-space Green s functions, specialized routines must be developed for the evaluation of the modal Green s functions. In [29], we previously applied adaptive Gaussian quadrature to evaluate g i m. Although high accuracy was achieved, the algorithm was time consuming as every matrix entry required several calls to an adaptive integration routine. In this section, we adopt an accelerated method based on recurrence relations and kernel splitting, as discussed in [2, 22, 2], and further develop an efficient evaluation procedure for computing first and second derivatives of g i m based on novel recurrences. Let (r(s),z(s)) be replaced by (r s,z s ) for notational simplicity. Using the fact that ρ in equation (3.9) is an even function with respect to ϕ on [,2π], we observe that gm 2 = g m+ + g m, gm 3 = g m+ g m 2 2i for any mode m. In general, unless the wave numbers of the dielectric object and background media are particularly high, only a modest number of Fourier modes m are needed for high-precision discretizations of the integral equations. Once the incoming data has been Fourier transformed along the azimuthal direction on the boundary, the number of Fourier modes needed in the discretization can be determined based on the decay of the coefficients of the data. We will denote this number, the bandwidth of the data in the azimuthal direction, as M >. Therefore, our goal is to evaluation all g i m for m M. Furthermore, based on the relations in (4.), we need only to evaluate g m and its derivatives efficiently; the other functions can be obtained by linear combinations. When the target (r t,z t ) is far away from the source (r s,z s ), the integral in (3.6) can be discretized using the periodic trapezoidal rule with 2M + points and therefore the fast Fourier transform (FFT) can be used to evaluate g m for m = M,...,M. However, for (r t,z t ) near (r s,z s ), the integrand is nearly singular and a prohibitively large number of discretization points would be needed to obtain sufficient quadrature accuracy. To overcome this difficulty, we adopt the kernel splitting technique, which has been successfully applied in [22, 2, 2, 35]. The main idea is to explicitly split the integrand into smooth and singular parts. Fourier coefficients of the smooths parts can be obtained numerically via the FFT, and it turns out that the coefficients of the singular part can be obtained analytically via recurrence relations. The Fourier coefficients of the original kernel can then be obtained via discrete convolution. See the previous references for thorough details, particularly [2], (4.) 9

10 which provides estimates on the size of the FFT needed and other important tuning parameters. In the following subsections, we discuss details of evaluating g m and its first and second derivatives for fixed sources and targets. Previous work on evaluating modal Green s functions has avoided second derivatives because the formulations did not involve hypersingular terms. However, the Müller formulations require the evaluation of the difference of hypersingular operators, which necessitates the following new discussion. 4. Evaluation of the Modal Green s Function We begin by splitting g m into two parts: gm(r cos(kρ) 2π i sin(kρ) t,z t,r s,z s ) = ρ e imϕ dϕ + ρ e imϕ dϕ = A m + A 2 m. (4.2) The integrand in A 2 m is analytic with respect to ϕ since the singularity is removable for ρ =. Therefore, the FFT can be applied directly to find all A 2 m for M m M at the cost of O(M logm). Note that special care must be taken in evaluating the kernel in A 2 m for small values of ρ; a truncated Taylor series about ρ = is an easy solution. For A m, we first consider the case k = and denote it by ˆl m. As shown in [35, 7], it holds that e ˆl imϕ m = ρ dϕ where = cosmϕ r 2t + r2 s 2r t r s cosϕ + (z t z s ) 2 dϕ = 2π cosmϕ dϕ r t r s 8(χ cosϕ) = 2π Q r t r m /2 (χ), s (4.3) χ = r2 t + r2 s + (z t z s ) 2 2r t r s (4.4) and Q m /2 (χ) is the Legendre function of the second kind of half-degree. It can be evaluated by the following recursion formula [33]: with Q m /2 (χ) = 4 m 2m χq m 3/2(χ) 2m 3 2m Q m 5/2(χ) (4.5) Q /2 (χ) = ( ) 2 2 χ + K, χ + Q /2 (χ) = χq /2 (χ) 2(χ + )E ( ) 2, χ + and where K and E are the complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kinds. While standard from the theory of orthogonal polynomials, we provide a derivation of the above (4.6)

11 recurrence formula in the appendix. This derivation is useful in order to obtain efficient recurrence relations for higher derivatives. Unfortunately, the recurrence formula (4.5) is unstable for increasing m, and therefore Miller s algorithm must be implemented [5]. For χ, the forward recurrence is only mildly unstable, and can be used with caveats. See [2] for estimate on the number of terms that can be evaluated accurately in this regime. In order to evaluate g m for k, we apply the convolution technique proposed in [35] with a slight modification. Note that A m is merely the Fourier transform of a product of functions, which can be computed as a discrete convolution: A m = f (ϕ)l(ϕ)dϕ = 2π n= ˆ f n ˆlm n, (4.7) where ˆ f m denotes the mth Fourier series coefficient of the function f : fˆ m = f (ϕ)e imϕ dϕ. (4.8) The representation of A m in (4.7) is a discrete convolution with infinite extent, which is impractical for numerical purposes. However, since f = cos kρ is an analytic function of ϕ, its Fourier series converges rapidly. Therefore, the above convolution can be truncated: A m = 2π N n= N ˆ f n ˆlm n, (4.9) where N is chosen such that ˆ f n ɛ for some user-specified precision ɛ >. As is well known [5], discrete convolutions can be computed efficiently using the FFT and properties of the discrete Fourier transform (DFT). Denoting by D the matrix of the DFT, we have: A = D DA = D D ( f ˆ ˆl) = D ( Df ˆ D ˆl ) = D ( D 2 f D ˆl ) = D ( f D ˆl ) (4.) where denotes the cyclic convolution, denotes the pointwise Hadamard product of two vectors, and the last identity follows from the fact that f is an even function. Note that a larger extent of coefficients ˆl n will be needed than for f ˆ n due to the definition of the convolution; denote this bandwidth as M. Due to the fact that the coefficients f ˆ n decay rapidly, this sequence can be zero-padded easily (and recall that ˆl n is obtained analytically). In practice, the bandlimit M is determined based on the desired number of coefficients A m and subsequently all FFTs are of size 2M +, with f being computed from a (2M + )-equispaced sampling of f on [,2π).

12 4.2 Evaluation of the First Derivatives of g m Let us now focus on the derivative of g m with respect to r t. The evaluation of the derivative with respect to z t is similar. The derivative with respect to r t is given as gm = (ikρe ikρ e ikρ )r d r t ρ 3 e imϕ dϕ, (4.) where r d = r t r s cosϕ. Splitting the kernel on the right hand side of (4.) into smooth and singular parts leads to gm = r t i (kρ cos(kρ) sin(kρ)) r d e imϕ dϕ = B m + B 2 m + B 3 m. ρ 3 k sin(kρ)r d ρ e imϕ dϕ cos(kρ)r d ρ 3 e imϕ dϕ (4.2) By Taylor expansion, one can easily see that the integrands in B m and B 2 m are analytic with respect to ϕ due to the removable singularities. Therefore, once again the FFT is an efficient means to evaluate B m and B 2 m. For B 3 m, we again consider the case when k = and r d =, which is denoted by ˆp m, ˆp m = ρ 3 e imϕ dϕ = cosmϕ (r 2 t + r2 s 2r t r s cosϕ + (z t z s ) 2 ) cosmϕ = (2r t r s ) 3/2 dϕ (χ cosϕ) 3/2 = (2r t r s ) 3/2 S m(χ). 3/2 dϕ (4.3) It can be shown that S m (χ) is related to the value Q m /2 (χ). Specifically, the following formula holds for m : S m (χ) = 8 ( 2m)χ Q m /2(χ) ( 2m)Q m 3/2 (χ) χ 2. (4.4) A proof of the above formula is contained in the appendix. The value ˆp m can easily be obtained once Q m /2 (χ) has been computed. With p m available, the value of B 3 m can be obtained via a convolution technique similar to the evaluation of A m. A nearly identical procedure can be carried out to compute g m/ z t. 4.3 Evaluation of the Second Derivatives of g m The procedure for evaluating the second partial derivatives of g m is very similar to that of evaluating the first partial derivatives, as detailed in the previous section. We now discuss the evaluation of 2 g m/ r 2 t only, again since the evaluation of 2 g m/ z 2 t and 2 g m/ z t r t is 2

13 very similar. Taking the second derivative of gm with respect to r t have, 2 gm rt 2 = (ik ikρeikρ e ikρ ρ 2 ikρ2 e ikρ 2e ikρ ) ρ 3 r2 d ρ 2 + ikρeikρ e ikρ ρ 2 ρ r2 d ρ 3 e imϕ dϕ. (4.5) In order to apply the kernel splitting technique, we now decompose the right hand side in the above formula into the sum of six terms, listed according the order of the singularities in their integrands: 2 gm = Cm + Cm 2 + Cm 3 + Cm 4 + Cm 5 + Cm 6 (4.6) with Cm = C 2 m = C 3 m = C 4 m = Cm 5 = C 6 m = r 2 t ikρ coskρ i sinkρ e imϕ dϕ, k sinkρ ρ ρ 3 ρ e imϕ dϕ, ik 2 sin(kρ) r2 d ρ ρ 2 e imϕ dϕ, ( ( kρ sinkρ k 2 cos(kρ) coskρ ρ 3 (coskρ)r 2 d ρ 5 e imϕ dϕ, e imϕ dϕ. ρ 2 )) ik coskρ i sinkρ r 2 d ρ ρ 3 e imϕ dϕ, (4.7) Let us examine each term closely. By Taylor expansion, the integrand in Cm is analytic. It can therefore be evaluated via the trapezoidal rule. To evaluate Cm, 2 since the singularity in the integrand is /ρ, we can apply the same method as evaluating A m in Section 4.. The singularity in the integrand of Cm 4 is /ρ 3, and it can be evaluated following the discussion regarding the computation of B 3 m in Section 4.2. The singular part of the integrand of C3 m is /ρ2. Consider the Fourier transform of /ρ 2 with respect to ϕ, which we denote by ĥm, ĥ m = = e imϕ ρ 2 = 8πr t r s = T πr t r m (χ). s dϕ cosmϕ rt 2 + r2 (s) 2r t r(s)cosϕ + (z t z(s)) dϕ 2 cosmϕ (χ cosϕ) dϕ The following recursion formula for T m for m can be derived (proof in appendix): (4.8) T m+ (χ) = 2χ T m (χ) T m (χ) (4.9) 3

14 which has the same recurrence relation as Chebychev polynomials but with the initial two terms T (χ) = 2π χ 2 (4.2) T (χ) = 2π + χt (χ). (4.2) For C 5 m and C 6 m, their singular terms are /ρ 3 and /ρ 5, respectively. Although there are no essential difficulties in evaluating them using the same kernel splitting technique, note that they will eventually be used when evaluating the second derivative of c i m in equations (3.3) (3.5). This requires the evaluation of hypersingular kernels. However, this numerical difficulty can be avoided by observing that only the difference of C 5 m and C 6 m for different wavenumbers k and k appear in the integral equations (2.) and (2.7). The order of the singularity in evaluating C 5 m or C 6 m can be reduced by instead only evaluating the difference kernel. Denote by C 5,k i m i =,. By direct computation, we have: and C 6,k i m the dependence on wavenumber k i for C 5,k m C 5,k m = C 6,k m C 6,k m = ( ) cosk ρ cosk ρ ρ 2 ρ e imϕ dϕ ) r 2 d ρ 2 ρ 3 e imϕ dϕ. ( cosk ρ cosk ρ (4.22) Therefore, the singularities in the integrand of the differences of C 5,k i m or C 6,k i m are /ρ and /ρ 3, respectively. Their evaluation follows the same procedure as evaluating A m and B 3 m. Once all the values of Cm i have been obtained, the evaluation of 2 gm/ r 2 is obtained via linear combination. Remark For a fixed target r t,z t and source r s,z s the evaluation of ˆl m, ˆp m and ĥm in equations (4.3), (4.3) and (4.8) dominate the cost of kernel evaluation. However, these values can be reused during the computation of the value of g m and its derivatives. This offers a signifcant savings on the cost of kernel evaluation. 5 Generalized Gaussian Quadrature Once a scheme is in place to evaluate the modal Green s functions and their derivatives, the next step is to discretize each decoupled modal integral equation along the generating curve γ. We use a Nyström-like method for discretizing the integral equations. Since the modal Green s functions have logarithmic singularities [9, 7], any efficient Nyström-like scheme will require a quadrature that accurately evaluates weakly-singular integral operators. For high-order integration, one can construct the quadrature based on the kernel splitting technique as in [27]. However, this will become tedious given the various order of singularities in the derivatives of g i m. For our numerical simulations, we implemented a panel-based discretization scheme using generalized Gaussian quadratures to evaluate the layer potentials. See [4, 9] for an in-depth discussion of generalized Gaussian quadrature schemes. The panel-based discretization scheme of this paper, as opposed to that based on hybrid-gauss trapezoidal rules [], as presented in [34, 2], allow for adaptive discretizations, in particular, axisymmetric surfaces in three dimensions with edges and points. 4

15 To this end, given a logarithmically-singular kernel g and smooth function ψ, our goal is to evaluate, with high-order accuracy, the integral Sψ(x) = g(x, y) ψ(y) ds(y). (5.) γ Assume that the generating curve γ is smooth and parametrized as γ(s), where s is arclength. The total arclength will be denoted by L. We first divide [,L] into N panels. The division can be either uniform or nonuniform, depending on the particular geometry. Each of the N panels, and therefore any function supported on it, is discretized using p scaled Gauss-Legendre nodes. In a true Nyström discretization scheme, the layer potential above is approximated as N p Sψ(x lm ) w lmij g(x lm,y ij )ψ(y ij ), (5.2) i= j= where x lm is the mth Gauss-Legendre node on panel l, y ij is the jth Gauss-Legendre node on panel i, and w lmij is the Nyström quadrature weight. However, it is generally numerically difficult to derive efficient, high-order accurate Nyström schemes in which the quadrature nodes are the same as the discretization nodes (i.e. the points at which ψ are sampled, the p Gauss-Legendre nodes on each panel). Often it can be very beneficial to use additional (or at least different) quadrature support nodes for approximating the integral. These support nodes and corresponding weights in our case were computed using the scheme of [4]. To this end, we instead approximate the layer potential Sψ in (5.) by Sψ(x lm ) N i= j= p K(x lm,y ij )ψ(y ij ), (5.3) where K is the quadrature kernel. For non-adjacent panels (i.e. when the source and target are well separated), we simply set K(x lm,y ij ) = w ij g(x lm,y ij ), where w ij is the standard scaled Gauss-Legendre weight on panel i. Therefore, for non-adjacent panels, the order of accuracy is expected to be 2p, although rigorous analysis and estimates on the number of digits obtained requires knowledge of the regularity of the density function ψ. On the other hand, along adjacent panels and self-interaction panels, a pre-computed generalized Gaussian quadrature is applied. More specifically, to compute the integral over panel γ i at a target x lm on the same (or adjacent) panel, we approximate Sψ(x lm ) as Sψ(x lm ) = g(x lm,y)ψ(y)ds(y) γ i = p c ij j= p c ij I j (x lm ), j= Γ i g(x lm,y)p i j (y)ds(y) where P i j is the scaled Legendre polynomial of degree j on panel γ i and c ij are the Legendre expansion coefficients of the degree j interpolating polynomial for ψ. For a fixed x lm, each I j (x lm ) contains no unknowns and can be evaluated via a pre-computed high-order generalized Gaussian quadrature. The number of nodes required in these quadratures may vary. (5.4) 5

16 Details on generating these quadratures are discussed in [4], and an analogous Nyström-like discretization scheme along surfaces in three dimensions is discussed in [3]. In our numerical examples, we use 6th-order generalized Gaussian rules which contain 6 support nodes and weights for self-interacting panels (which vary according to the location of the target) and 48 support nodes and weights on adjacent panels (which are target independent). Furthermore, note that each c ij can be obtained via application of a p p transform matrix acting on values of ψ. Denote this transform matrix as U i, and its entries as U i jn. Inserting this into (5.4), we have Sψ(x lm ) = = = p c ij I j (x lm ) j= p j= n= n= p Ujn i ψ(y in)i j (x lm ) p p U jn i I j(x lm ) ψ(y in) j= p K(x lm,y in )ψ(y in ). n= The above formula provides the expression for the quadrature kernel K in this case. In the case that γ is only piecewise smooth, a graded mesh near the corners is used to maintain high order accuracy. After uniform discretization of each smooth component of γ, we perform a dyadic refinement on panels that impinge on each corner point. We then apply the pth order generalized Gaussian quadrature on each of the refined panels. This procedure, along with proper quadrature weighting, has been shown to converge with high order [2]. 6 Numerical Examples In this section, we apply our algorithm to compute electromagnetic scattering from various penetrable axisymmetric objects. In order to verify the accuracy of our algorithm, we choose to test the extinction theorem by solving the dual Müller formulation (2.7) with an artificial solution. Specifically, we define the field in Ω to be generated by a current loop l located in Ω : E = S k l J, H = S k iωµ l J, (6.) where l is a small loop centered at (x,y,z ) and located in the plane z = z. Throughout all the numerical examples, we let the center of the loop l be (.4,.5, 5.) with radius.42. The current is set to be J = e θ, where e θ is the unit vector direction of l. The field in Ω is simply set to be zero, i.e. E =, H =. These specified fields are used to generate the boundary data in the transmission problem. Since both fields satisfy Maxwell equations in Ω and Ω with wavenumber k and k respectively, by uniqueness, we should recover the fields by solving equation (2.7) if the jump condition across Γ is consistent with the difference of the specified solutions. 6 (5.5)

17 To compute tangential field traces from an actual scattering problem, we solve Müller s formulation (2.) with an incident plane wave: E inc (x) = (d p) d exp(ik d x), H inc (x) = d pexp(ik d x), (6.2) where d is the propagation direction and d p is an orthogonal polarization vector; both are unit vectors. Throughout all the examples, we let d = (cosθ sinϕ, sinθ sinϕ, cosϕ ), p = (cosθ 2 sinϕ 2, sinθ 2 sinϕ 2, cosϕ 2 ), (6.3) with θ = π/3, ϕ = 2π/3, θ 2 = π/2, and ϕ 2 = π/3. The far field pattern of the scattered wave can be found by letting x in (2.4) and using the asymptotic form of the Green s function (2.6): E tot (θ,ϕ) = ( iωε k 2 e Γ ) e ik e x y J(y)ds(y) y e ik e x y Γ J(y)ds(y) Γ + y e ikex y J(y)ds(y), (6.4) Γ where θ [,2π] is the azimuthal angle, ϕ [,π] is the angle with respect to the positive z axis, and x = (cosθ sinϕ,sinθ sinϕ,cosϕ) is a point on the unit sphere. Furthermore, we denote by y the gradient operator with respect to y and Γ as the surface divergence operator on Γ. The norm of H tot is the same as that of E tot. We make use of the following notation in the subsequent tables that present data from our scattering experiments: k e : the exterior wavenumber, k i : the interior wavenumber, N f : the number of Fourier modes in the azimuthal direction used to resolve the solution. In other words, the Fourier modes are N f, N f +,...,N f,n f. N pts : the total number of points used to discretize γ, T matgen : the time (secs.) to construct the relevant matrix entries for all integral equations, T solve : the time (secs.) to compute the LU -factorization of the system matrices for all modes, T add : the time (secs.) to solve with an additional right-hand side once the matrix is factorized, E error : the relative L 2 error of electric and magnetic field measured at a few randomly points placed inside Ω. 7

18 5 Far field(db) Far field(db) (a) RJ x. (b) H tot (,π/2). (c) H tot (, ). Figure 2: A penetrable torus with interior k i = 5. and background k e =.. The accuracy that controls the kernel evaluation (i.e. where to truncate Fourier coefficients in the discrete convolutions) and the number of Fourier modes in the decomposition of the incident wave is set to be 2. We apply the Nyström-like discretization described earlier in Section 5 to solve the line integral equations with p = 6 on each panel. All experiments were implemented in Fortran 9 and carried out on an HP workstation with twenty 2.7Ghz Intel cores and 28Gb of RAM. We made use of OpenMP for parallelism across decoupled Fourier modes, and simple block LU -factorization using LAPACK for matrix inversion. Various fast direct solvers such as [6, 25, 3, 28] could be applied if larger problems were involved. No effort was made to further accelerate our code. Lastly, it is generally difficult to analytically parameterize the generating curve with respect to arclength. In the following examples, the generating curve is sampled at Legendre nodes in some parameter t, not necessarily arclength. Any previous formulae which assumed arclength can be easily adjusted with factors of ds/dt to account for the parameterization metric. Remark 2 The examples we tested here are all for the scattering of a single object. The algorithm, however, can be extended to the scattering of multiple axisymmetric objects by transforming the incident field into the local coordinate of each object[7, 9]. This will be explored in our future investigation. Example : Scattering from a Torus Consider a torus with the generating curve given by r(t) = 2 + cos(t), z(t) =.5sin(t), t [,2π). (6.5) We solve the scattering problem of the torus at several wavenumbers, with accuracy results shown in Table. By using around 25 points per wavelength, we are able to achieve 8 digits of accuracy for most of the cases. Note that the CPU time is dominated by the generation of matrix elements, which (as expected) roughly scales quadratically with the number of unknowns. For the same number of unknowns, the computational time depends linearly on the number of Fourier modes. Although the linear system for each mode is decoupled from the other modes, which makes parallelization straightforward, the computational time T solve presented in Table is the total matrix inversion time via sequential solve. Despite its O(N f Npts 3 ) complexity, it is still much smaller than T matgen. Once the matrix is factorized, additional solves for new right hand sides are very fast. For an incident plane wave with exterior wavenumber k e =. and k i = 5., Figure 2 shows the tangential trace of the electric field and the far field pattern at ϕ = π 2 and θ =, 8

19 5 5 Far field(db) Far field(db) (a) RJ x. (b) H tot (,π/2). (c) H tot (, ). Figure 3: A penetrable star-fish Ω with interior k i = 5. and background k e =.. respectively. When ϕ = π/2, we find a maximum at θ = π/3 and a minimum near θ = /3. This is due to specular reflection. Example 2: Scattering from a Rotated Starfish For the second example, we consider an axisymmetric object whose generating curve is given by r(t) = [2 +.5cos(5π(t ))] cos(π(t.5)), (6.6) z(t) = [2 +.5cos(5π(t ))] sin(π(t.5)), for t [,]. We refer to this object as the rotated starfish, as shown in Figure 3. Although the generating curve is open, the object is globally smooth. We therefore apply a uniform panel discretization to the parameter space [, ]. Table 2 provides the accuracy results for various wavenumbers and discretization refinements. We obtain 8 to 9 digits of accuracy by using a sufficient number of discretization points per wavelength. The computational time is again dominated by the matrix generation, T matgen. Once the matrix is generated and factored, the time for additional solves is negligible. Figure 3 shows the scattering results with an incident plane wave incidence for k i = 5 and k e =. The far field pattern oscillates around θ = π/3. This effect is a combination of specular reflection and the changing geometry. The far field is notably small near θ = /3; this location is in the shadow region with respect to the direction of the incident wave. Example 3: Scattering from a Droplet In this example, we consider the scattering of a droplet with parametrization of the generating curve given by r(t) = sin(πt) cos[.5π(t.5)], (6.7) z(t) = sin(πt)sin[.5π(t.5)] +.5, for t [.5,]. It has a point singularity at t =, as shown by Figure 4. To resolve this singularity, we first apply a uniform chunk discretization to the parameter space [.5, ]. Then for the panel that is adjacent to the point we apply ten dyadic refinements, which yields a graded mesh. The scattering results at different wavenumbers are given in Table 3. The table shows more than 8 digits accuracy for scattering at various wavenumber, which implies the point singularity of the droplet is fully resolved. Figure 4 illustrates the scattering results with an incident plane wave for k i = 5 and k e =. Unlike the previous two examples, the far field pattern at ϕ = π/2 and θ = are quite 9

20 Far field(db) -5-2 Far field(db) (a) RJ x. (b) H tot (,π/2). (c) H tot (, ). Figure 4: A penetrable droplet Ω with interior k i = 5. and background k e =.. smooth due to the special geometry and observation angle. However, it also reaches the minimum near θ = /3 due to the specular reflection. Example 4: Scattering from a Cylinder We next consider scattering from a cylindrical geometry whose generating curve has vertices given by V = {(, ), (, ), (,), (,)}, (6.8) see Figure 5. Once again, the generating curve is open but gives rise to a smooth surface when crossing the z-axis. However, this geometry contains edges at the top and bottom of the cylinder. Due to the corner singularity of the generating curve, dyadic refinement is applied to each segment. In particular, for the two panels that are adjacent to the corner, we refine each of them multiple times, yielding a graded mesh. The size of the last panel depends on the wavenumber, and it can be on the order of 5 for wavenumber k e = 2. This dyadic refinement leads to more than discretization points for all tested wavenumbers. Detailed results are shown in Table 4, with accuracies compared to the exact solution. At small wavenumber, we obtain approximately 8 digits of accuracy; this accuracy slowly deteriorates as the wavenumber increases. This is due to a stronger singularity near the corner at higher wavenumbers (since the characteristic length-scale of the singularity is on the order of the wavelength). More digits can be obtained if additional refinement and L 2 -weighting of the system matrix were implemented. As we can see from Table 4, once the system is fac- 5-5 Far field(db) Far field(db) (a) RJ x. (b) H tot (,π/2). (c) H tot (, ). Figure 5: A penetrable cylinder Ω with interior k i = 5. and background k e =.. 2

21 Table : Results for the scattering of a penetrable torus at different wavenumber. k e k i N f N pts T matgen (s) T solve (s) T add E error E 6.48E-2.8E E E+ 3.29E- 2.64E-2 4.6E E E 8.59E-2 3.E E+ 3.56E- 3.24E-2.E E E 8.59E E E E+ 5.85E- 4.63E E+2.97E 6.99E-2.6E E E+ 5.36E- 2.8E E E+ 8.37E- 2.66E E E 9.8E E E+2.83E+ 4.4E- 3.37E E+3 3.3E+ 8.37E-.E-8 Table 2: Results for the scattering of a rotated star-fish at different wavenumber. k e k i N f N pts T matgen (s) T solve (s) T add E error E+ 4.6E- 3.35E-2.24E E+.57E+ 6.59E E E+2 7.E+ 2.6E-.5E E+.78E+ 6.48E-2 2.4E E+2 7.2E+ 2.59E- 9.74E E E+ 7.3E-.45E E+2.97E+ 6.99E-.5E E E+.84E- 4.4E E+2 4.2E+ 8.4E- 4.6E E+2 2.2E+ 3.34E- 3.39E E E+ 4.46E- 3.58E E E+ 5.E- 3.E-9 2

22 Table 3: Results for the scattering of a droplet at different wavenumber. k e k i N f N pts T matgen (s) T solve (s) T add E error E+ 3.24E- 6.E-2 2.7E E+ 7.4E- 8.39E-2.86E E E.84E- 5.E E+ 5.47E- 7.59E-2.24E E E.84E- 2.59E E+2.3E+ 9.27E- 6.76E E+2.97E 2.28E- 5.8E E+2.99E 2.52E-.3E E+2.2E+ 9.27E- 3.43E E E 6.7E- 3.48E E+2 8.9E 5.88E- 6.2E E+2.E+ 8.E-.45E- Table 4: Results for the scattering of a cylinder at different wavenumber. k e k i N f N pts T matgen (s) T solve (s) T add E error E E+ 5.3E- 4.E E+3 7.3E+ 7.26E- 2.56E E+3.35E+2.3E 9.32E E E+ 6.63E-.54E E+3.34E+2.42E 5.92E E+3 3.6E+2 2.6E 9.74E E E+ 9.5E-.9E E+3.7E+2.3E 3.95E E E E 2.24E E+3 2.9E+2.5E 3.54E E E+2.6E.39E E E+2 2.8E.32E-7 22