![cpml fdtd cpml fdtd](https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/bf21c84fd47af44d2ff9232fd8dd6220a23a0f8a/2-Figure1-1.png)
One major drawback of FDTD is that it is essentially a brute-force calculation where the computation time scales as the fourth order of the simulation domain size, and the memory requirements as the third order.
#Cpml fdtd full
In nanoplasmonics, and especially for nanoantennas and oddly-shaped scatterers, this is due to the fact that purely analytical methods are not possible, and to calculate the near-fields properly one needs a full simulation. In 2014, over 2700 articles have been published in the field of plasmonics involving the FDTD method. Due to its ability to handle complex structures and materials, the FDTD method has become a very important tool in nanophotonics and nanoplasmonics over the past decade.
#Cpml fdtd software
Lumerical declares that the number of studies using its FDTD commercial software is growing faster than 50% per year. The FDTD method is a very broadly applicable and powerful technique for computational electromagnetics.
#Cpml fdtd how to
We determine how to optimally setup the simulation domain, and in so doing we find that performing scattering calculations within the near-field does not necessarily produces large errors but reduces the computational resources required. Generally, a mesh size of 0.25 nm is required to achieve convergence of results to ∼ 1%. Per-component meshing increases the accuracy when complex geometries are modeled, but the uniform mesh works better for structures completely fillable by the Yee cell ( e.g., rectangular structures). Double-precision arithmetic is needed to avoid round-off errors if highly converged results are sought. We find that the Drude model with two critical points correction (at least) must be used in general. We consider different ways to set-up the simulation domain, we vary the mesh size to very small dimensions, we compare the simple Drude model with the Drude model augmented with two critical points correction, we compare single-precision to double-precision arithmetic, and we compare two staircase meshing techniques, per-component and uniform. We consider gold and silver at optical wavelengths along with three “standard” nanoplasmonic structures: a metal sphere, a metal dipole antenna and a metal bowtie antenna – for the first structure comparisons with the analytical extinction, scattering, and absorption coefficients based on Mie theory are possible. The availability of a high-performance computing system (a massively parallel IBM Blue Gene/Q) allows us to do this for the first time. Although the method may be well-established in other areas of electromagnetics, the peculiarities of nanoplasmonic problems are such that a targeted study on convergence and accuracy is required. However, a comprehensive study on the convergence and accuracy of the method for nanoplasmonic structures has yet to be reported. Use of the Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD) method to model nanoplasmonic structures continues to rise – more than 2700 papers have been published in 2014 on FDTD simulations of surface plasmons.
![cpml fdtd cpml fdtd](https://www.mdpi.com/electronics/electronics-10-01135/article_deploy/html/images/electronics-10-01135-g003.png)
Asterisk ( * ) - Example: "elect*" retrieves documents containing "electron," "electronic," and "electricity".Improve efficiency in your search by using wildcards.Example: (photons AND downconversion) - pump.Example: (diode OR solid-state) AND laser.Note the Boolean sign must be in upper-case. Separate search groups with parentheses and Booleans.Keep it simple - don't use too many different parameters.