Hi everyone, Is there a benchmark/comparison for the performance of the package for higher index contrast configurations like a waveguide (silicon on insulator or other)? The FAQ mentions that the convergence will be slower but it would be interesting to know how much slower and how it compares to other methods. Does anyone have information about this?
top of page
Wavesim Forum Group
Public·10 members
Hi all,
I have a question regarding Wavesim capabilities. I am a beginner to EM simualtions.
Can it be used for periodic structures (varying refractive index as cosine function in 16micron depth). I am using RCWA (Maxwells equations) for this which has to descretize a 16 micron thickness into hundreds of layers to give good result. I was wondering if wavesim will provide a faster solution for this. I am interested in polarisation, diffraction, reflection and transmission of my structure.
Thank you.
Swapnil Mache
Sep 27, 2024
Hi, Imaad. Welcome to the Wavesim forum! If my understanding of RCWA is correct, it requires a constant refractive index in the z-direction (for each layer). Is that right? Assuming yes, Wavesim does not have this limitation, and you can assign a different refractive index for every pixel/voxel. I think there's some potential for improvement in speed or accuracy, or maybe even both! We can help you set up a simulation to test this.
When the domain decomposition will be out??
Swapnil Mache
Oct 07, 2024
The Python code with domain decomposition of the MBS for the Helmholtz equation is now out on GitHub! The arXiv preprint that goes along with it: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02395
Welcome to our group Wavesim Forum Group! A space for us to connect and share with each other. Start by posting your thoughts, sharing media, or creating a poll.
bottom of page
Thanks for the response. I checked the Brueker and Osnabrugge papers. But was curious cause those compare for low index contrast. Particularly the Brueker case fig 6 has a 3500x difference in time. @Swapnil you mention a factor 53 vs 3500. Both are solid improvement. Can you comment on why sometimes the speed increase vs FDTD is larger than in other cases? @Evangelos Marakis: From a user perspective I would say I care about the total volume I can simulate in reasonable times with reasonable accuracy. If FDTD needs finer meshing for that, it just factors into that total volume. More or less all methods struggle with high index contrast so it's nice to see you a comparative advantage also in those cases. The other tricky case is metals, where FDTD and others need even finer grid steps.