{"id":165464,"date":"2022-01-11T20:42:02","date_gmt":"2022-01-11T20:42:02","guid":{"rendered":"\/forum\/forums\/topic\/why-am-i-seeing-a-significant-difference-in-coupling-efficiency-from-eme-to-fdtd\/"},"modified":"2023-06-28T16:55:48","modified_gmt":"2023-06-28T16:55:48","slug":"why-am-i-seeing-a-significant-difference-in-coupling-efficiency-from-eme-to-fdtd","status":"closed","type":"topic","link":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/forums\/topic\/why-am-i-seeing-a-significant-difference-in-coupling-efficiency-from-eme-to-fdtd\/","title":{"rendered":"Why am I seeing a significant difference in coupling efficiency from EME to FDTD?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

I am simulating the evanescent coupling between two waveguides after the waveguides overlap for some distance X (i.e. how much light is transmitted from waveguide A to waveguide B when the waveguides overlap for some distance X). I have identical simulations setup in EME and FDTD (they have identical mesh sizes over the waveguides of 10 nm , very fine non uniform conformal variant 1 background meshes, PML boundary conditions, same simulation region size in Y\/Z, etc.). The structures of the two waveguide are also the same (identical dimensions between simulations with the smallest feature size being 50 nm). When simulating in FDTD, the transmission for a 5 um by 5 um output monitor located 15 um after the waveguides stop overlapping is around 67%. When the monitor is located 100 um from when the waveguides stop overlapping, this is still 67%. A 20 um by 20 um monitor located at 1um from when overlapping finishes shows 98% transmission, while the same size monitor at the 15 um position shows around 87%, and again the same monitor at the 100 um position shows around 72%. The EME simulation always shows 87% for the abs(S_21)^2 and abs(S_12)^2 matrix value for a 5um by 5um port size. When I run a propagation sweep in EME to determine if the distance between the end of the overlapping region and the final port makes a difference, I find the value is 87% regardless of how long this distance is. <\/p>\n

This seems like a significant discrepancy between EME and FDTD for the same simulation, and I'm not sure which simulation to trust before I can continue with design development. Please see my attached screenshots of the settings I'm using below. I would like to determine why the difference is occurring and make sure EME and FDTD match one another to within 2%. Thanks so much for any assistance (is there a way to upload my simulation file?).<\/p>\n

\n
\nScreen Shot 2022-01-11 at 3.03.10 PM.png
\n<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-165464","topic","type-topic","status-closed","hentry","topic-tag-coupling","topic-tag-fdtd","topic-tag-photonics"],"aioseo_notices":[],"acf":[],"custom_fields":[{"0":{"_bbp_author_ip":[""],"_bbp_old_reply_author_name_id":["Anonymous"],"_bbp_old_is_reply_anonymous_id":["false"],"_btv_view_count":["618"],"_bbp_likes_count":["0"],"_bbp_subscription":["240293"],"_bbp_status":["publish"],"_bbp_topic_status":["unanswered"],"_bbp_topic_id":["165464"],"_bbp_forum_id":["27833"],"_bbp_engagement":["2592","240293"],"_bbp_voice_count":["2"],"_bbp_reply_count":["2"],"_bbp_last_reply_id":["202543"],"_bbp_last_active_id":["202543"],"_bbp_last_active_time":["2022-01-12 23:30:34"]},"test":"drewskimit-edu"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topics\/165464","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topics"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/topic"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topics\/165464\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165464"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}