Open mdovgialo opened 1 month ago
Tested Dirichlet BC, which just enforces given potential (zero) at some surfaces Air cube for boundaries was increased to 0.5 meter in size, with the 4 spheres (0.09 meter radius) being in the middle of it Meshes are coarse: 5 mm max element size
4 spheres in air, realistic radii and conductivities
Tested positions:
Monopole at the center
All curves are re-grounded at z=-0.05
boundary without electrode explodes into 1e9 range inside of the spheres, and quickly decays to 0 towards the boundaries of the domain
Top of the sphere:
re-grounded at 0.08
Boundary only BC, without ground electrode has potential of gigavolts inside the sphere, and has a different decay, symmetrical, unlike others, due to no 0 enforement inside of the spheres, but also shape is slightly different from other MFEM solutions. More than that MFEM solution with only far boundary BC follows free space kCSD curve EXACTLY until the boundary of the materials!!!
Grounding electrode on the sphere introduces artifacts. Let's look at them:
1 Amper point source, location: just below the skull in the brain: 0,0,0.0785
(domain spans from -0.1 to 0.2)
Just to compare:
Dipole at 0,0,0.3
All curves are re-grounded at z=-0.04
Most likely due to having GIANT monopole potentials inside the 4 spheres the boundary only BC potential for dipoles has floating point quantization issues (dipole is simulated using 2 point sources)
Re-grounding at z=-0.06
Maybe, despite the giant potential jump on skin-air boundary, the far boundary only BC is the most correct?
Mesh boundary conditions (grounding placement) can have interesting effects on the resulting potential and correction fields. Need to test.
Seems like far boundary creates results in the biggest agreement with analytical solutions for monopoles. Dipoles are fine with local grounding electrode, because they decay faster. Also far boundary only breaks dipoles in MFEM forward solver due to calculating differences of in a very big number...