October 6, 2023 at 12:39 amHandon UmSubscriber
The RCWA and FDTD show different reflectance results in the same regular pyramid structure.
I know the RCWA has a relatively lower accuracy than FDTD, so I tried to improve the accuracy of RCWA results.
I have changed the number of relative interfaces k vectors, the number of relative interfaces, and the k domain.
RCWA results show something changed as k vector increases and the number of relative interfaces, but the results are still different from the FDTD result.
(k domain didn't affect the accuracy of results.)
I don't know the reason why the RCWA shows a big difference from FDTD.
The value of k has been increased to the level that the computer's memory can run programs.
Is there a way to improve the accuracy of RCWA to a level similar to that of FDTD?
The simulation results and my program files are attached below.
If you can, please check my setting of FDTD and RCWA in fsp files.
October 6, 2023 at 5:47 pmAmrita PatiAnsys Employee
Thanks for sharing detailed results of your convergence tests! There could be a number of reasons why the FDTD and RCWA results don't match.
- Material Fitting: Both RCWA and FDTD use the multi-coefficient model for material fitting. I would recommend you to check the material fitting in both the cases to see how they compare.
- Mesh/k-vectors: You mentioned that the k-vectors do not affect the results, it can be because the structure does not need a large number of k-vectors and attains convergence with a small number. But, did you do convergence testing in FDTD wrt the mesh refinement? I am just curious about how confident you are about the FDTD results.
- Can you also check the index result in both FDTD and RCWA to see how the structure is resolved?
Sorry, I am not allowed to download any files, but would you be able to share screenshots of the simulation region in FDTD and the screenshots of Mesh Settings and Boundary Conditions Tab of FDTD?
October 7, 2023 at 12:06 pmHandon UmSubscriber
Thanks for your kind reply.
First, I set a result from PVlighthouse's calculator (OPAL2) as a reference. And the trend is similar between the reference and my FDTD results.
So I can be confident with my FDTD results.
The problem is the RCWA results. It's quite different from the reference and FDTD results.
I found the index results and material fitting are okay.
Why do the current RCWA results differ from FDTD?
Also, I checked the link so that you can download my files.
October 10, 2023 at 4:58 pmAmrita PatiAnsys Employee
Thanks for sharing additional details. I apologize for the late reply, I was off for a day and we also had a long weekend here. Let me think about this in more detail. I will get back to you soon.
October 20, 2023 at 6:44 amHandon UmSubscriber
Can I ask you if there is something you figured out for my queries?
I'm still waiting for your reply.
October 20, 2023 at 8:07 pmAmrita PatiAnsys Employee
Sorry I completely missed out on this post. So, the thing is that we are not allowed to download files from ALF as per policy. From the screenshot of the geometry tab I do not see any issue with the setup of the structure. In cases like this we can only advise user to perform convergence testing with larger number of interfaces and k-vectors until they see the expected behavior/results. I would like to point out that PVlighthouse's calculator result doesn't consider any material absorption which is not the case here in FDTD or RCWA. But the main problem is that the results of FDTD and RCWA are not converging. I would ask you to a run the simulation with an arbitrarily large number of k-vectors and interfaces. Check if you see any resemblance to the expected values. Check the "use tangent vector field" (typically used for metal-dielectric intefaces or high index-contrast) in this calculation as well. If you still do not see any improvement, let me know. I will try to get more details from you and run some tests.
October 26, 2023 at 12:25 amHandon UmSubscriber
In the case of 0.5 um pyramid,
When the pyramid structure is made of several layers by a script, the results of FDTD and RCWA converge well.
However, the results start to show a difference again when the pyramid size increases.
It seems that more memory would be needed to run the RCWA accurately.
October 26, 2023 at 1:11 amAmrita PatiAnsys Employee
Thanks for letting me know! It is nice to see that you have found an approach to solve the problem that I myself wouldn't have thought of. It is very interesting that you are attaining convergence when you create this pyramid using 10/100/200 rectangles but at the same do not see that when using similar number of interfaces in the RCWA algorithm. The algorithm should automatically divide the pyramid into this layered structure, the user shouldn't have to worry about this step. One question for you, I see that you have compared the reflection from the layered structure in FDTD and RCWA. But how does the reflectance of the layered structure in RCWA compare to the reflectance of the smooth structure in FDTD?
I still think that this is worth more investigation on our end. I will try to bring this up in one of our internal meetings and let you know if we gain some insights into it.
October 26, 2023 at 7:00 amHandon UmSubscriber
I missed one thing in my test.
The size of the pyramid structure in my latest reply is 0.5 um while the size of the first pyramid that occurs a large gap in the result of RCWA is 5 um.
When the pyramid size increases, it starts to show a difference between the FDTD and RCWA.
I think the thing is that an increase in the pyramid size requires a lot of resources to get accurate results.
I sincerely apologize for my mistake.
October 27, 2023 at 4:53 pmAmrita PatiAnsys Employee
No worries at all. That is correct, you will require more resources in FDTD and RCWA. That's why we ask customers to do convergence testing. At least, with regard to the mesh accuracy.
- 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.
- “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
- Finding your Ansys (or Lumerical) account number
- Error on Lumerical device
- Ansys Insight: About override mesh in FDTD: its use and settings
- Lumerical – error message when trying to open from Linux terminal
© 2023 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.