March 18, 2022 at 9:28 amJeonSubscriber
I am trying to compare Poynting vector (P) with the value calculated using E and H.
First, I found that the results of the two expressions below are different.
(light traveling in the z direction, monitor located in free space)March 18, 2022 at 8:19 pmGuilin SunAnsys EmployeeYou would not be able to get Ex/Hy=eta0 =377 since this value is valid for plane wave only in vacuum. Now you are simulating a nano scale structure, the fields you obtained are not plane wave. Please think it over. I would suggest that you simulate vacuum only by disabling the nano structure, and verify this value. Please note that when the textbook gives 120Pi, it is for real valued plane wave E and H fields.
March 21, 2022 at 9:49 amJeonSubscriberThanks for the reply.
However, my simulation results were sufficiently uniform plane waves. Sorry for not giving you enough information before.
Even when a film of the same height as the nanostructure was placed instead of the nanostructure array, the same result was obtained.
Fortunately, in the process of checking it, I think I found the reason. Increasing the mesh auto accuracy level made the difference significantly smaller.
Even when the level is low, Ez at that point (or plane) is almost zero and it is a sufficiently uniform plane wave (compared to the error). So I don't think I've found a clear reason yet, but I found a solution anyway.
Thanks again for your reply, and any additional comments would be appreciated.
March 21, 2022 at 7:30 pmGuilin SunAnsys EmployeeYou are right that with higher mesh accuracy the result can converge.
For the field profile from monitor, although it seems uniform, it is not as only two digits are shown. if you use min and max, it can show you the difference.
It seems your result has imaginary part of the impedance, than it means E and H are not phase matched, eg, not a simple plane wave. If you test a free space, you may find more info.
I did a test with mesh accuracy 2, and using the following script:
The E and H fields are much more uniform:
but the min and max are
The error is mainly from discrete mesh: E and H are not located at the same position in Yee cell internally. The output is the result of interpolation, which can introduce additional error also.
March 22, 2022 at 10:52 amJeonSubscriberNow I have a clear understanding of the reason for the difference.
Thank you so much for your reply.
Viewing 4 reply threads
Ansys Innovation Space
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
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?
- Error on Lumerical device
- Using a license file on a new license server
- Error: addfdtd is not a valid function or a variable name
- Ansys Insight: Diverging Simulations
- Ansys Insight: Transmission results greater than one
- Ansys Insight: About override mesh in FDTD: its use and settings
- Is there a Lumerical script command to output the Simulation and Memory requirements?
- Ansys Insight: Convergence issues in CHARGE
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.