November 1997

On the Lorenz gauge1

Figure 1 shows the configuration thus assumed. Boundary conditions are

n e = 0 on S e (which amounts to saying that the workpiece is pinched
between two perfect conductors, in contact with S e0 and Se1 respectively) and
n h = 0 on S h (which implies n j = 0 there, and may be realized by coating
the domain with a highly permeable non-conductive material). The source
current2 j s, divergence-free (but with n js 0 on Se), is supposed to be
forced through the workpiece by some agency. Imagine, for instance, thin
highly conductive threads sunk in the bulk of D. Ohm's law is expressed, as
usual, by j = e + j s. Note that, by Ampre's theorem, the flux of j through
Se0 or Se1 will be zero.

A. Bossavit

First things first: It's Lorenz, the Dane L. Lorenz (the same one who introduced
retarded potentials [Lo]), not the Dutch H.A. Lorentz of Relativity. This was
pointed out by Whittaker in his History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity,
vol. 1 p. 268 [NC, Bl]). Van Bladel's advice, "The various authors of textbooks
who sinned against historical accuracy (...) should amend their references in
future printings of their books!" [Bl], does not seem to have been heeded yet.
We are interested in the eddy-current problem, and intend to discuss a
family of methods devised to make use of standard node-based finite elements,
vector-valued. In order to concentrate on this issue, and to avoid important but
distracting considerations about the way the field in non-conducting regions is
treated, we shall consider an artificial problem with only conductors (and a
source current) present. Stress, however, that the conductivity is not supposed to
be the same all over.

Let us introduce the functional spaces

A = {a IL2 rot(D) : n a = 0 on Se},
V = {v L2 grad(D) : v = 0 on Se},
and look for e in the form e = ia grad v, in the harmonic case (all fields
are complex-valued). A weak formulation is then, find {a, v} in A V such
that

S1

(1)
S

D (ia + v) (a' + v') + D 1 rot a rot a' = D js a'

for all {a', v'} in A V. (Note that D js v' = 0.) Please work out the
integrations by parts to see how this implies the right boundary conditions.

js

The solution of (1) is not unique. The kernel is made of all pairs {a, v}
such that ia + v = 0, and the same physical field e is represented by an
infinity of pairs {ai, v i}, the difference of any two of which is in this kernel.
This defines an equivalence relation, {a 1 , v1 } ~ {a2 , v2 } iff ia1 + v1 = ia2 +
v2 . A gauge is a rule by which a unique representative can be selected in each
such class. For instance, Coulomb gauge, div a = 0 plus the (indispensible, but
too often left unspecified) condition n a = 0 on S h , imposes v = 0 in D
and n v = 0 on Sh , hence v = 0.3

S0

Figure 1. The situation. The source-current js is supposed to flow through a

conductive workpiece D, the surface S of which is in two parts, the electric wall Se
(itself in two parts in this example), and the magnetic wall Sh.

We might as well be content with imposing the total intensity from top to bottom, and
not introducing js. But this is not compatible with the boundary condition n h = 0, which
should then be replaced by something less direct. Moreover, having j s as source will
facilitate the connection with the relevant literature.

Preprint of paper published later, in abridged and more polite form (but also, mangled by
the Journal's staff), as "On the Lorenz gauge", COMPEL, 18, 3 (1999), pp. 323-36.
-1-

One may discretize (1) via edge elements for a and nodal elements for v.
By the structural properties of the Whitney complex, this is exactly the same as
direct discretization of the e-equation with edge elements, and e is unique.
Non-uniqueness of a and v is not an issue, contrary to what [BP2] asserts.
See Ren's work [Re]. (A somewhat mysterious thing has been observed by
Ren: although the two methods are algebraically equivalent, convergence seems
generally to be faster with the a-v discretization than with the e one. If so, this
is a good reason to maintain the e = ia grad v splitting, even when using
edge elements.)

(2)

D (ia + v) (a' + v') + D 1 rot a rot a'

+ D 1 (div a + v) (div a' + v') = D js a'

for all {a', v'} in A^ V, where A^ = {a A : div a L 2 (D), n a = 0 on

Sh }. Indeed, this works:
Proposition 1. Problem (2) has a unique solution, which satisfies div a + v
= 0, and hence solves the problem.
Proof. Existence is by Lax-Milgram, with the right norm on A^. For uniqueness,
first take a' = 0 in (2), which yields

Our subject here is not edge elements, however, but nodal elements. With
nodal elements, the direct discretization of (1) gives terrible results, even though,
let's stress this, uniqueness is then enforced by the IP1 grad P 1 = {0}
property (cf. Bouillault's thesis). The problem is therefore not with nonuniqueness, but with conditioning of the discrete analogue of the rot( 1 rot)
operator, which is bad because of this property, precisely [B96]. To cure that,
anything that will replace this operator by a Laplacian is good, hence the guiding
idea to somehow introduce div( 1 grad) in (1) and make use of the rot rot =
grad div formula4 .

D (ia + v) v' = D 1 (div a + v) v' v' V,

then take v' = 0 and a' = grad w', with w' V, smooth, and n w' = 0 on Sh
(such elements of V form a dense set), yielding this time
D (ia + v) w' + D 1 (div a + v) div grad w' = 0.
Both things together give D 1 (div a + v) (w' div grad w') = 0 for all
smooth w' in V, which implies div a + v = 0, because there are enough
functions of the form w' div grad w' to fill out a dense subset of L2 (D)
(just solve the Poisson problem w' w' = f', given f'). This condition fixes
{a, v}, and the pair thus selected is seen to satisfy (1).

It seems that the implicit reasoning behind papers such as [BP1, BP2] has
been as follows. 1- We want to impose some gauge of the form div a + v =
0, where is for the moment some nonnegative constant (possibly 0, which
corresponds to the Coulomb gauge). 2- Since this is an additional constraint
on the unknowns, we try to enforce it by penalization, that is, by adding some
multiple of (div a + v)2 to the Lagrangian of the problem. 3- Keeping the
factor 1 for the sake of physical homogeneity, we are thus led to the tentative
modified formulation, find {a, v} in A^ V such that

The discretization of (2) can be done via nodal elements for both a and v.
No further problems. (Moreover, one may set to 0, the "DC to daylight"
ideal.) But there are four DoFs per node, which seems a waste. (The long-lasting
hope, expressed e.g. in [ES], was to have only three.) Since now div a = v,
let's eliminate v, in the case where > 0, of course. With v' = 0, (2) becomes
D (ia + v) a'+ D 1 rot a rot a' = D js a' a' A^,
and substituting 1 div a for v, we get

Lorenz gauge, historically, is the relation that holds between the scalar and vector potential
due to a given distribution of currents and charge, when computed via the "retarded potentials"
formulas: 00 t v + div a = 0. I don't know where the expression "Lorentz gauge", with or
without t, for the quite different formula v + div a = 0, comes from. The analogy, of
course, is clear: replace t by i , and remark that, dimensionally speaking, i is akin to
. Still, some documentation of the invention of the "Lorentz gauge", British style, would
be welcome.
4
Which doesn't work if is not constant, but let's not bother. This is heuristics, where
anything goes.

(3)

D i a a' + D 1 rot a rot a'

+ D 1 div a div( a') = D js a' a' A^,

if the integration by parts involved in this manipulation is valid. It is if is

uniform, and the result is then satisfactory: take = , hence the "Lorentz"
gauge. Then (3) can be discretized via nodal vectorial elements, and the v
-2-

In the case of a piecewise constant , we have div(a) = div a for all a

A, so factors cancel in (6), and the ordinary presentation of "Lorentz"
gauge is recovered. System (6) becomes

equation is effectively "decoupled". In the general case, of course, we are in

trouble.
What can be done? In my opinion, the right gauge should be
(4)

(7)

div(a) = 2 v

+ D 1 div a div a' = D js a' a' A.

(we don't assume = 0 and a constant any longer, just positive values),
which of course requires a different functional space than A^. Let's call it A ,
defined by

One might feel like saying, "well, this is just like (3), if = ". Not so. In (3),
the space was A ^, not A, and the equality which justifies our manipulation,
div(a) = div a, doesn't hold for all a's in A^. If one starts from (3),
assuming piecewise constant, and = , one finds

A = {a A : div(a) L2 (D), n (a) = 0 on Sh },

and equipped with the natural scalar product, D a a' + D rot a rot a' +
D div(a) div(a'). Provided A is still dense in IL2 (D)an essential property,
which is not automatically satisfied, this depends on one may succeed by
"penalizing" the gauge (4) again, trying to find {a, v} in A V such that
(5)

(8)

D i a a'+ D 1 rot a rot a' + D 1 div a div a'

+ [() 1 div a] n a'= D js a' a' A^ ,

a strange-looking formulation, and a spurious one anyway, since the conditions

under which (3) were derived do not hold. Let's file this for reference, however,
and go back to (7).

D (ia + v) (a' + v') + D rot a rot a'

+ D (2 ) 1 (div(a) + 2 v)(div(a') + 2 v') = D js a'

What of the constraint n a = 0 on ? If is not plane, that's fairly

annoying (either define normals at nodes, more or less arbitrarily, or evaluate
normal components inside faces of , with the result of hopelessly mixing
components of the vector-valued DoFs an ). One may look for relief in dualizing
the constraint. This entails, working in A ^ again, the introduction of a Lagrange
multiplier , a function living on , and instead of (7), find {a, } in A^
such that

for all {a', v'} in A V. Same method, same result ((4) does hold), and the
decoupling is now unconditional: one may eliminate v and solve for a in A
such that
(6)

D i a a' + D 1 rot a rot a'

D i a a' + D 1 rot a rot a'

+ D (2 ) 1 div(a) div(a') = D js a' a' A.

D i a a' + D 1 rot a rot a' + D 1 div a div a'

If is smooth, no problem (for then A coincides with A ^). If is

"too discontinuous", the required density doesn't hold any longer, and all is lost.
The realistic case, however, is when is piecewise smooth, with jumps about
some well-defined system of interfaces . Then, div(a) has a distribution
part concentrated on , which is the mapping [] n a . So the
requirement div(a) L2 (D) amounts to n a = 0, and we have

(9)

+ [n a'] = D js a' a' A^,

[n a] ' = 0 ' ,

where must be, technically, the Sobolev trace space H1/2(). Its natural
approximation, therefore, is by piecewise linear continuous functions on the
interface , i.e., by nodal scalar elements. Note the "mixed" nature of (9). The
comparison with (8) shows a similarity which may explain why (8) has occasionally
been considered.

A = {a A^ : n a = 0 on },
which is still dense in L 2 (D) all right. But of course the additional condition
n a = 0 on must be enforced at the discretized level, which is a not
unconsiderable nuisance. (How do they do it, by the way?)

Another interesting issue is the comparison between (2) and (7) in the case
-3-

of the Coulomb gauge, i.e., = 0. Then (2) becomes find {a, v} in A^ V

such that
(2')

general, it will result in algebraic constraints on the an s, hence a "mixed" system,

or as I prefer to say, a constrained linear system. Not a pleasant prospect.

D (ia + v) (a' + v') + D 1 rot a rot a'

+ D 1 div a div a' = D js a' {a', v'} A^ V.

References
[Bl]

We know that div a = 0. Hence, since div( (ia + v)) = 0, one may recover
v by v = i [] n a | . The a's in (7) and (2') are not the same: they
differ by the gradient of this v, up to the i factor. It's also an interesting
exercise to examine the difference between A^ and A by constructing the
orthogonal of the latter, in A ^, with respect to the IL2 div scalar product. The
same potential v then pops up.

[BP1]6
[BP2]7
[B85]

To sum up, which practical advice can one give? Let's not forget how
unrealistic the assumption " piecewise constant" can be. Users of commercial
codes who wish to treat induction heating problems, for instance, thus with
temperature-dependent conductivity, will not tolerate this kind of nonsense forever.
What one must assume is piecewise smooth, but varying , with known-in-advance
discontinuity surfaces (our ). The most sensible thing to do, of course, is to
use edge elements,5 that is, find e in W1 e such that
1

[B96]
[BET]8

[ES]
6

The introduction of this frequently quoted paper fails to mention edge elements, which
seriously warps the argumentation.
7
Say that "the requirement of numerical stability demands formulations involving unique
potentials", which is plainly wrong, as amply demonstrated by Ren's and Fujiwara's work
[F1, F2]. What they call "the Lorentz gauge" is v = div a where, "classically, = 1/
[6]", their ref. [6] being Van Bladel's book, Electromagnetic Fields, Hemisphere
(Washington), 1985. Say that this gauge works, with the added advantage of eliminating v,
only when is constant, and hence (this is a bit too rapidly said, in my view), "the Lorentz
gauge is equivalent to the Coulomb gauge".
8
Exemplifies the "segmented torus problem", and says "The result shown in Fig. 5 compares
well with those presented at the TEAM workshop [4]", where ref. [4] is Ren & Razek in the
Bivres workshop. Ren's paternity on the model is not fully acknowledged. The origin of the
"Lorentz gauge" idea cannot be traced from this paper. They quote [ES] for the idea of
eliminating v by "a transformation". But this is misleading. The idea in [ES] of a
"modified vector potential" actually consists in using the electric field e as primary variable
(the so-called modified vector potential being a primitive in time of e). The "governing
equation in A" they display, t A + rot(1 rot A) = 0, is the e-equation, as I indicated in
[B85]. As they say, "this equation produces a solution for A as long as the time derivative
term is computationally significant, otherwise the system becomes ill-conditioned, effectively
singular". True, but for node-based vectorial elements. It works quite well with edge
elements.

D i e e' + D rot e rot e' = iD j e'

for all e' in W 1 e, where W1 e is the edge-element space with DoFs set to 0 on
Se. But if one insists on nodal elements, the best course is with the formulation
(6): find a IP1 A such that
(10)

J. Van Bladel: "Lorenz or Lorentz?", IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine,

3 3 , 2 (1991), p. 69.
O. Biro, K. Preis: "On The Use of The Magnetic Vector Potential in the Finite
Element Analysis of Three-Dimensional Eddy Currents", IEEE Trans., MAG-25,
4 (1989), pp. 3145-59.
O. Biro, K. Preis: "Finite Element Analysis of 3-D Eddy Currents", IEEE
Trans., MAG-26, 2 (1990), pp. 418-23.
A. Bossavit: "Two dual formulations of the 3-D eddy-currents problem", COMPEL,
4 , 2 (1985), pp. 103-16.
A. Bossavit: "Edge elements for magnetostatics", Int. J. Numer. Modelling:
Electronic Networks, Devices and Fields, 9, 1 & 2 (1996), pp. 19-34.
C.F. Bryant, C.R.I. Emson, C.W. Trowbridge: "A Comparison of Lorentz Gauge
Formulations in Eddy Current Computations", IEEE Trans., MAG-26, 2 (1990),
pp. 430-3.
C.R.I. Emson, J. Simkin: "An Optimal Method for 3D Eddy Currents", IEEE

D i a a' + D 1 rot a rot a' + D (2 ) 1 div(a) div(a')

= D js a' a' IP1 A,

used with care. The conductivity should be approximated by node-based P 1

elements, with doubling of nodes on , to account for the discontinuity. The
assembly of (10) is then not too difficult. However, the constraint n a = 0 on
may not always be implementable by simply putting to 0 some DoFs. In
5

The "DC to daylight" issue is a red herring with edge elements. Just divide e by i , then
let tend to zero harmlessly. The limit case is the magnetostatics problem in vector
potential, which behaves fairly well, provided the right-hand side j s a' is properly treated.
(Starting from hs such that rot h s = j s, assembly by doing hs rot a', not rot hs a'. Cf.
Ren on this.)
-4-

Trans., MAG-19, 6 (1983), pp. 2450-3.

[F1] K. Fujiwara, T. Nakata, H. Ohashi: "Improvement of Convergence Characteristic of
ICCG Method for the A- Method Using Edge Elements", IEEE Trans.,
MAG-32, 3 (1996), pp. 804-7.
[F2] K. Fujiwara, N. Takahashi, T. Nakata: "Effect of Gauge Condition for Edge Element
on Convergence Characteristic of ICCG Method", Int. J. Appl. Electromagn.
in Materials, Supplement to No 6 (1995), pp. 259-62.
[Lo] L. Lorenz: "On the identity of the vibrations of light with electrical currents",
Philos. Mag., 34 (1867), pp. 287-301.
[NC]9 R.D. Nevels, K.J. Crowell: A Coulomb gauge analysis of a wire scatterer, IEE
Proc.-H, 137, 6 (1990), pp. 384-8.
[PB&] K. Preis, I. Bardi, O. Biro, C. Magele, G. Vrisk, K.R. Richter: "Different Finite
Element Formulations of 3D Magnetostatic Fields", IEEE Trans., MAG-28, 2
(1992), pp. 1056-9.
[Re] Z. Ren: "Autogauging of vector potential by iterative solverNumerical evidence",
in 3d Int. Workshop on Electric and Magnetic Fields (Proc., Lige, 6-9 May
1996), A.I.M. (31 Rue St-Gilles, Lige), 1996, pp. 119-24.

Some call the classical Lorenz gauge the "radiation gauge" (E = i A and B = ik A, in
Fourier space, with wavevector k). See
J.F. Nieves, P.B. Pal: "Third electromagnetic constant of an isotropic medium", Am. J.
Phys., 62, 3 (1994), pp. 207-16.

They quote Whittaker in a footnote, but write "Lorentz gauge", notwithstanding.

-5-