Photonics

Photonics

Topics related to Lumerical and more.

Different Farfield Results 2D vs 3D Simulation

    • jacob.breakfield.2
      Subscriber

      When performing a 2D simulation, I achieve different results from when I perform a 3D simulation of the same model. For one, the x-values of the peaks are matching, but the intensities are not. The x-axes of the plots are different but that should just be a conversion. Another clarification, I'm taking a slice at uz = 0 for the 3D simulation to get a 2D plot of the intensity in the farfield. The model is a diffraction grating with a source injecting in the forward Y-direction. The monitor for the given results is placed just above the device, where the light should be exiting. For the 2D simualtion, there should be no z-direction. For the 3D simulation, the grating ranges from -3 to 3 in the z-direction. Like I said before, I would assume taking a slice at 0 would give the same results.

      I'm not sure if there are settings for the visualizer that I have incorrect or if there if I should be doing somehting diffrent with the dimensions of the model/simulation.

      Shown below is the 3D simulation plot. 

      Shown below is the 2D simulation plot. Only settign that was changed was the FDTD being set to a 2D simulation.

    • jacob.breakfield.2
      Subscriber

      Upon further investigation, I have noticed that E2 may be calculated differently for the 3D and 2D case. How could I find out how E2 is calculated, and why would it be different for the different simulation types? Or at least, why should the farfield results be different.

    • Guilin Sun
      Ansys Employee

      Without details of your structure, I can just give you some general feedbacks.

      2D means the 3rd dimension is infinitely long, without and variation. Does your 3D simulation enforce this behaviour? if not, it is normal you get different results.

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.