March 24, 2022 at 1:54 pmferruccio.pisanelloSubscriber
I have confusion related to total absorbed power calculated by two different analysis groups.
I used analysis group "cross-section" to calculate Pabs_total as done in the Mie scattering example. This analysis group calculates power flow in/out of a box.
Also, I used the analysis group "Power absorbed (advanced)" to calculate Pabs_total as done in the Photothermal heating example. This analysis group uses the Joule heating formula.
My question/confusion is, are they both not supposed to give the same Pabs_total? However, I am getting different values of Pasb_total. Both analysis groups have the same dimensions in my simple problem.
for example for a 20nm dia gold sphere in water at 1mW/um2 power intensity at 530 nm,
the total absorbed power (pabs_total) is:
8e-11 W with the analysis group "Power absorbed (advanced)"
2.5e-7 W with the analysis group "cross-section"
as per literature, the value calculated by the analysis group "cross-section" is more reliable.
Can anyone please comment on this?March 24, 2022 at 10:31 pmGuilin SunAnsys EmployeeThank you for bringing this issue.
You are right that the two methods do not give exactly the same result, even though in physics they should. In particular, when the absorbing object is small, the difference can be large.
I prefer to believe the 1-R-T (plane monitors) is more reliable (the cross-section analysis group) , provided that the mesh is uniform for both groups. The reason is: planar power monitor has built-in feature to calculate accurately the Poynting vector and accurate integration to get transmission. In the absorption group, it has two steps to get the absorption with 3D power monitor: calculate the absorption spatial density, with multiplication of E-square and imaginary permittivity, which has more grid pints. and then integrate in space to get the final absorption ratio. The more post processing the more numerical error it can introduce.
To further improve the accuracy using the planar monitor, make sure it has enough area to get better integration accuracy. This can be done with larger monitor size and finer mesh.
Viewing 1 reply thread
Ansys Innovation Space
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Boost Ansys Fluent Simulations with AWS
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) helps engineers design products in which the flow of fluid components is a significant challenge. These different use cases often require large complex models to solve on a traditional workstation. Click here to join this event to learn how to leverage Ansys Fluids on the cloud, thanks to Ansys Gateway powered by AWS.
Earth Rescue – An Ansys Online Series
The climate crisis is here. But so is the human ingenuity to fight it. Earth Rescue reveals what visionary companies are doing today to engineer radical new ideas in the fight against climate change. Click here to watch the first episode.
Subscribe to the Ansys Blog to get great new content about the power of simulation delivered right to your email on a weekly basis. With content from Ansys experts, partners and customers you will learn about product development advances, thought leadership and trends and tips to better use Ansys tools. Sign up here.Trending discussions
- “Import optical generation” or “delta generation rate”?
- Why am I getting “process exited without calling finalize”, and how do I fix it?
- Using a license file on a new license server
- Ansys Insight: Diverging Simulations
- Error: addfdtd is not a valid function or a variable name
- Questions about the calculation of the cross-polarization conversion efficiency of metasurface
- Error on Lumerical device
- Ansys Insight: About override mesh in FDTD: its use and settings
- Finding your Ansys (or Lumerical) account number
- Lumerical – error message when trying to open from Linux terminal
Top Rated Tags
© 2023 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.Ansys does not support the usage of unauthorized Ansys software. Please visit www.ansys.com to obtain an official distribution.