{"id":365959,"date":"2024-05-08T02:27:39","date_gmt":"2024-05-08T02:27:39","guid":{"rendered":"\/forum\/forums\/topic\/comparison-of-eme-and-fdtds-trnasmission\/"},"modified":"2024-05-08T02:27:39","modified_gmt":"2024-05-08T02:27:39","slug":"comparison-of-eme-and-fdtds-trnasmission","status":"closed","type":"topic","link":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/forums\/topic\/comparison-of-eme-and-fdtds-trnasmission\/","title":{"rendered":"Comparison of EME and FDTD’s trnasmission"},"content":{"rendered":"

Hello everyone.<\/p>\n

I’m studying taper structures made of Silicon nitride.<\/p>\n

First, I conducted a simulation using the EME solver’s propagation sweep at a wavelength of 1310 nm to find out the propagation loss of a SiN taper.<\/p>\n

The result was as follows: I got a length of 5 um (propagation loss = 0.945). <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Then, to compare it with the EME solver’s propagation loss, I simulated the same structure(legnth = 5 um) using FDTD. <\/p>\n

At the wavelength of 1310 nm, I got a propagation loss of 0.999. I am curious why the data from the EME solver and FDTD are different. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I believe the two simulations should produce the same data. If anyone has experience with this or knows about it, please respond.<\/p>\n

I can provide additional structural parameters if asked.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Thanks,<\/p>\n

YOON.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-365959","topic","type-topic","status-closed","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t