{"id":394143,"date":"2024-11-16T00:19:41","date_gmt":"2024-11-16T00:19:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/forums\/topic\/optimal-meshing-for-accurate-geometry-sampling\/"},"modified":"2024-11-16T00:19:41","modified_gmt":"2024-11-16T00:19:41","slug":"optimal-meshing-for-accurate-geometry-sampling","status":"publish","type":"topic","link":"https:\/\/innovationspace.ansys.com\/forum\/forums\/topic\/optimal-meshing-for-accurate-geometry-sampling\/","title":{"rendered":"Optimal meshing for accurate geometry sampling"},"content":{"rendered":"

<p class=”MsoNormal”>Hello,<\/p><p class=”MsoNormal”> <\/p><p class=”MsoNormal” style=”text-align: justify;”>I am simulating the transmittance of an array of high-Q resonators. In my simulations, I use auto mesh to reduce the simulation time. <span style=”mso-spacerun: yes;”> <\/span>The issue is that the simulation results are sensitive to geometrical parameters. If I find interesting geometrical conditions in simulations and then apply constant mesh override region and restimulate the structure, the results will look completely different. To recover the previously found interesting condition, I would have to tweak the geometrical parameters. <span style=”mso-spacerun: yes;”> <\/span>I think the difference stems from the fact that the geometry simulated by Lumerical is different, depending on the meshing.<\/p><p class=”MsoNormal” style=”text-align: justify;”> <\/p><p class=”MsoNormal” style=”text-align: justify;”>My question is:<\/p><p class=”MsoNormal” style=”text-align: justify;”> <\/p><p class=”MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst” style=”text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;”><!– [if !supportLists]–><span style=”mso-bidi-font-family: Aptos; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;”><span style=”mso-list: Ignore;”>1.<span style=”font: 7.0pt ‘Times New Roman’;”>      <\/span><\/span><\/span><!–[endif]–>If I use the refractive index monitor, does it accurately display the factual geometry simulated by the structure?<\/p><p class=”MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle” style=”text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;”><!– [if !supportLists]–><span style=”mso-bidi-font-family: Aptos; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;”><span style=”mso-list: Ignore;”>2.<span style=”font: 7.0pt ‘Times New Roman’;”>      <\/span><\/span><\/span><!–[endif]–>If I use automesh, and start changing the pillar height by, say, 1.5 nm, the varying height is captured in optical simulations since my results change with height. If I use refractive index monitor, I indeed observe that the overall height of the pillar is roughly modified by 1.5 nm. At the same time, I also observe that the factual thickness from the refractive index monitor is significantly different as compared to the target thickness, which I prescribed. In some cases I observe that the software overlaps two materials in some regions, while I designed them to be placed sequentially (without the material overlap region). Is there a way to still use automesh and get an accurate representation of geometry?<\/p><p class=”MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle” style=”text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;”><!– [if !supportLists]–><span style=”mso-bidi-font-family: Aptos; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;”><span style=”mso-list: Ignore;”>3.<span style=”font: 7.0pt ‘Times New Roman’;”>      <\/span><\/span><\/span><!–[endif]–>What would be optimal strategies for accurately representing geometry? Should I use a mesh override region over the geometrical structure and make sure that the top and bottom of the pillar are aligned with the mesh grid lines?<\/p><p class=”MsoListParagraphCxSpLast” style=”text-align: justify; text-indent: -.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;”><!– [if !supportLists]–><span style=”mso-bidi-font-family: Aptos; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;”><span style=”mso-list: Ignore;”>4.<span style=”font: 7.0pt ‘Times New Roman’;”>      <\/span><\/span><\/span><!–[endif]–>When I run parameter sweeps with automesh, <span style=”mso-spacerun: yes;”> <\/span>I get results that look jugged. I presume this is because of geometry sampling. Is there a way to avoid this other than adding the mesh override region?<\/p><p class=”MsoNormal” style=”text-align: justify;”>Thank you!<\/p><p> <\/p><p> <\/p><p> <\/p><p><\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-394143","topic","type-topic","status-publish","hentry","topic-tag-mesh"],"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