

March 24, 2022 at 1:54 pmferruccio.pisanelloSubscriber
Hi,
I have confusion related to total absorbed power calculated by two different analysis groups.
I used analysis group "crosssection" to calculate Pabs_total as done in the Mie scattering example. This analysis group calculates power flow in/out of a box.
Also, I used the analysis group "Power absorbed (advanced)" to calculate Pabs_total as done in the Photothermal heating example. This analysis group uses the Joule heating formula.
My question/confusion is, are they both not supposed to give the same Pabs_total? However, I am getting different values of Pasb_total. Both analysis groups have the same dimensions in my simple problem.
for example for a 20nm dia gold sphere in water at 1mW/um2 power intensity at 530 nm,
the total absorbed power (pabs_total) is:
8e11 W with the analysis group "Power absorbed (advanced)"
2.5e7 W with the analysis group "crosssection"
as per literature, the value calculated by the analysis group "crosssection" is more reliable.
Can anyone please comment on this?

March 24, 2022 at 10:31 pmGuilin SunAnsys EmployeeThank you for bringing this issue.
You are right that the two methods do not give exactly the same result, even though in physics they should. In particular, when the absorbing object is small, the difference can be large.
I prefer to believe the 1RT (plane monitors) is more reliable (the crosssection analysis group) , provided that the mesh is uniform for both groups. The reason is: planar power monitor has builtin feature to calculate accurately the Poynting vector and accurate integration to get transmission. In the absorption group, it has two steps to get the absorption with 3D power monitor: calculate the absorption spatial density, with multiplication of Esquare and imaginary permittivity, which has more grid pints. and then integrate in space to get the final absorption ratio. The more post processing the more numerical error it can introduce.
To further improve the accuracy using the planar monitor, make sure it has enough area to get better integration accuracy. This can be done with larger monitor size and finer mesh.

 The topic ‘difference between Pabs_total calculated by analysis group’ is closed to new replies.
 Metalens
 Lumerical version change results in output discrepancy
 Ansys Insight：使用Checkpoint继续仿真被迫中断或已经仿真结束的文件
 怎么修改生成远场图片的横纵坐标以及坐标标签的字体大小
 FDTD antenna impedance
 EME得到的S参数与监视器结果不一致的问题
 如何直观计算3db带宽
 question about getting the Barry phase as a function of the rotational angle
 MODE: Strange mode result from FDE solver
 varFDTD半导体激光器建模方向及反射率设置问题

341

167

165

130

99
© 2024 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.