Recently, I want to simulate the temperature with the plasmonic structure.however, the simulation time is too long to calculate.It’s normal or not. Please check the mode. The absorption power had obtained in FDTD solution.owing to the model is too large to uploaded, which email can I send with my model?
@houchaoj You can upload your file on one of file sharing services and share the link here.
The model and parameters is in this link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=10NU1i10lZ-2pTZcW3UTWgY-Wt9JzKcJN
Please check it. I find if the surrounding structure canceled, the simulation can be done. However, if all structure is included, the simulation will last at least 3 days and there is no progress. And it last in meshing status. How to modified the mesh quality for obtain the simulation results.
Sorry to the many talks for my problem.
The meshing problem in your simulation is due to two reasons:
- The mesh override object with max edge of 0.1nm is too small for a 3D simulation and also unnecessary and should be disabled.
- You have a layer of a material called MoS2 which has a thickness of 0.6nm. This will force the meshing algorithm to form mesh elements inside this layer which have a max edge length less than 0.6nm (this is why the mesh override is not necessary for this layer) and therefore many elements are formed because of the dimensions of simulation region. Unfortunately there is no way around this unless you increase the thickness of this layer or eliminate it from the simulation (which might make sense considering the thickness of the layer which might have negligible effect on heat transport).
Thank you for your helpful advice.I have another problem about the scale factor in the heat source. Please see the picture. what’s the meaning of scale factor and how to set up for the practice simulation. I had try different value, it will have a great influence on the temperature.
Thank you for your help again.
follow by above problem, the absorption power from light irradiation have achieved in FDTD mode and the matlab data used for the Padbs, which had calculated under practice optical power. So I think this scale factor should be 1. Is it right or wrong?