Menu

Discussion Forum

New Discussion
Filtra

Note: This discussion is about an older version of the COMSOL Multiphysics® software. The information provided may be out of date.

Discussion Closed This discussion was created more than 6 months ago and has been closed. To start a new discussion with a link back to this one, click here.

port boundary condition vs. PML+port boundary condition

Posted 26 apr 2011, 11:17 GMT-4 RF & Microwave Engineering, Results & Visualization, Studies & Solvers Version 4.2a 5 Replies

Elif
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Hi all,

I get different results when I use port boundary condition and PML together than when I only use port boundary conditions for input and output. I've calculated transmittance and reflectance and the difference for transmittance is quite significant.

Why I have low transmission when I use PML and port together? Cannot port boundary condition prevent reflection?

I would appreciate any answers,

Thanks in advance..


5 Replies Last Post 12 giu 2013, 17:05 GMT-4
Shakeeb Bin Hasan
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 27 apr 2011, 06:35 GMT-4
May be because your system is not strongly single mode something which port boundaries are ideally suited for. All the modes apart from the specific mode the port can absorb get (partially) back-reflected resulting in erratic results.
May be because your system is not strongly single mode something which port boundaries are ideally suited for. All the modes apart from the specific mode the port can absorb get (partially) back-reflected resulting in erratic results.
Elif
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 27 apr 2011, 07:00 GMT-4

May be because your system is not strongly single mode something which port boundaries are ideally suited for. All the modes apart from the specific mode the port can absorb get (partially) back-reflected resulting in erratic results.


Thank you for your answer,

I am actually simulating a broad range but in single mode range even with very dense meshes I still obtain the same behaviour.
[QUOTE] May be because your system is not strongly single mode something which port boundaries are ideally suited for. All the modes apart from the specific mode the port can absorb get (partially) back-reflected resulting in erratic results. [/QUOTE] Thank you for your answer, I am actually simulating a broad range but in single mode range even with very dense meshes I still obtain the same behaviour.
Claus
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 6 set 2011, 10:44 GMT-4
To me it also sounds like you system is not strictly single mode.

I guess otherwise you made your system work combining ports and pmls. I am curious to hear how you made it work. Perhaps you could upload you mph file. I am trying to combine ports and pmls in 3d but I am getting a strange error, which means I can still run the simulations but the result is no fields. I should say my simulations are ok without pmls.
To me it also sounds like you system is not strictly single mode. I guess otherwise you made your system work combining ports and pmls. I am curious to hear how you made it work. Perhaps you could upload you mph file. I am trying to combine ports and pmls in 3d but I am getting a strange error, which means I can still run the simulations but the result is no fields. I should say my simulations are ok without pmls.
Elif
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 6 set 2011, 14:48 GMT-4
Hi Claus,

In order to combine port boundaries and PML, I followed the documentation in the below link, there is also case for 3D:

www.comsol.com/showroom/documentation/model/6141/
Hi Claus, In order to combine port boundaries and PML, I followed the documentation in the below link, there is also case for 3D: http://www.comsol.com/showroom/documentation/model/6141/
Yan Guan
Send Private Message Flag post as spam

Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam

Posted: 1 decade ago 12 giu 2013, 17:05 GMT-4

Hi Claus,

In order to combine port boundaries and PML, I followed the documentation in the below link, there is also case for 3D:

www.comsol.com/showroom/documentation/model/6141/


Hi Elif,

I can not open the link now. Is that possible you may send me the document? I have the problem that if I use PML and port together, there is no electric field.

Thank you very much.
[QUOTE] Hi Claus, In order to combine port boundaries and PML, I followed the documentation in the below link, there is also case for 3D: http://www.comsol.com/showroom/documentation/model/6141/ [/QUOTE] Hi Elif, I can not open the link now. Is that possible you may send me the document? I have the problem that if I use PML and port together, there is no electric field. Thank you very much.

Note that while COMSOL employees may participate in the discussion forum, COMSOL® software users who are on-subscription should submit their questions via the Support Center for a more comprehensive response from the Technical Support team.

Suggested Content