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.
2D reflection & transmittion
Posted 20 mag 2010, 10:34 GMT-4 4 Replies
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Dear guys,
I want to use RF moduls with In-plane TE harmonic wave to simulate the optical properties of the Si/SiO2/Al interface.
I referred the Yang Yang, 'Simulation of Optical Properties of the Si/SiO2/Al Interface at the Rear of Industrially Fabricated Si Solar Cells'. However, I couldn't figure out what errors the part in my simulation has.
First, the incident TE wave propagates from the right to the left boundary by using the port condition.
At the upper & down edges of the domain, I use Floquet boundary conditions.
The excitation of TE waves Hoz=exp(-i*k1y*y), where k1y=k0_rfwh*real(n1)*sin(alpha).
And I got the index data from refractiveindex.info/ , not different with the index that the paper use.
And the wavelength is same as that.
But the results are obviously not reasonable.
I attached the file. Please check this simulation.
And any comments and suggestions are highly appreciated.
I want to use RF moduls with In-plane TE harmonic wave to simulate the optical properties of the Si/SiO2/Al interface.
I referred the Yang Yang, 'Simulation of Optical Properties of the Si/SiO2/Al Interface at the Rear of Industrially Fabricated Si Solar Cells'. However, I couldn't figure out what errors the part in my simulation has.
First, the incident TE wave propagates from the right to the left boundary by using the port condition.
At the upper & down edges of the domain, I use Floquet boundary conditions.
The excitation of TE waves Hoz=exp(-i*k1y*y), where k1y=k0_rfwh*real(n1)*sin(alpha).
And I got the index data from refractiveindex.info/ , not different with the index that the paper use.
And the wavelength is same as that.
But the results are obviously not reasonable.
I attached the file. Please check this simulation.
And any comments and suggestions are highly appreciated.
4 Replies Last Post 9 ago 2010, 21:24 GMT-4
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
I am sorry but in my limited time I could only look at your model file and not other stuff.
You want a TE-polarized plane wave to impign? If so, I would recommend you to see if there is a change by switching to scattering boundary condition. Both matched and port boundaries in comsol seem to be specifically made for supporting guided eigen modes which always propagate perpendicular to the cross-sectional boundary of the waveguides.
And I know that plane waves are also eigen modes in a loose sense "guided" in infinite space but still when you don't know internal implementation of the system it is always advisable to leave specific things for the specific ideas they were introduced for.
Similarly, change the right boundary to scattering boundary condition with no field excitation (zero TE field). This should work better. And if it doesn't hurt your cause, I would advise you to add a PML before scattering boundary on the right. This should give you the best results.
You want a TE-polarized plane wave to impign? If so, I would recommend you to see if there is a change by switching to scattering boundary condition. Both matched and port boundaries in comsol seem to be specifically made for supporting guided eigen modes which always propagate perpendicular to the cross-sectional boundary of the waveguides.
And I know that plane waves are also eigen modes in a loose sense "guided" in infinite space but still when you don't know internal implementation of the system it is always advisable to leave specific things for the specific ideas they were introduced for.
Similarly, change the right boundary to scattering boundary condition with no field excitation (zero TE field). This should work better. And if it doesn't hurt your cause, I would advise you to add a PML before scattering boundary on the right. This should give you the best results.
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi
Thank you for your kindness response !!
Following your tip, I changed the boundary setting to scattering condition. And also setting the PML at the right side edge of the module. But the result is same as before.
It's seems like different wavelength working in the medium.
If the wavelength is changed when the wave is getting into the medium, is that setting(fresnel equation) already in the COMSOL? or Do I have to set that things in it?
Thank you for your kindness response !!
Following your tip, I changed the boundary setting to scattering condition. And also setting the PML at the right side edge of the module. But the result is same as before.
It's seems like different wavelength working in the medium.
If the wavelength is changed when the wave is getting into the medium, is that setting(fresnel equation) already in the COMSOL? or Do I have to set that things in it?
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi, have you fix the problem?
I am also trying to bulit this model, but also failure.
I see your model file, there are two questions: first, your defination for incident angle is pi/18, should be 10 degree, if we got a correct result, we can plot the Power flow in arrow to check it.Second, for each Floquet periodictiy boundary condition, we should set each wave vector for them, i.e., k1x,k1y; k2x,k2y;k3x,k3y.
I tried change the Floquet periodictiy boundary condition as above-mentioned, but I still can not get right result. How about you?
I am also trying to bulit this model, but also failure.
I see your model file, there are two questions: first, your defination for incident angle is pi/18, should be 10 degree, if we got a correct result, we can plot the Power flow in arrow to check it.Second, for each Floquet periodictiy boundary condition, we should set each wave vector for them, i.e., k1x,k1y; k2x,k2y;k3x,k3y.
I tried change the Floquet periodictiy boundary condition as above-mentioned, but I still can not get right result. How about you?
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
Hi, I already tried those things you said. But, I couldn't solve.
I'm sorry that I can't help you.
Now I'm doing the simulation using another program.
I'm sorry that I can't help you.
Now I'm doing the simulation using another program.