pdf file - Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics

Micromegas
Electrostatics of MPGDs
Micro‐Wire
200
180
160
neBEM
FEM
Theoretical considerations
imply better performance by
the neBEM solver which
solves for the charge density
on boundary elements rather
than potential at a pre‐fixed
set of nodal points.
140
E (kV/cm)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Y (µm)
FEM: gap = 32µm
gap = 40µm
gap = 65µm
gap = 75µm
gap = 85µm
neBEM: gap = 32µm
gap = 40µm
gap = 65µm
gap = 75µm
gap = 85µm
E (kV/cm)
Total E field (kV/cm)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Y (µm)
300
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
neBEM Segmented
FEM Segmented
neBEM Mesh
FEM Mesh
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance * 10 micron
Numerical comparisons
1) neBEM results are as
accurate as FEM results in the
far‐field
2) In the near‐field, neBEM
performs better than FEM
3) No artificial truncation of
open domain is necessary
while using neBEM