2006
DOI: 10.1109/jlt.2006.874570
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance evaluation of several implicit FDTD methods for optical waveguide analyses

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…7. We note again that the observed accuracy of LOD-FDTD is poorer than that of ADI-FDTD in this case, differently from other examples [24], [29], [30]. Fig.…”
Section: B Relative Accuracymentioning
confidence: 51%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…7. We note again that the observed accuracy of LOD-FDTD is poorer than that of ADI-FDTD in this case, differently from other examples [24], [29], [30]. Fig.…”
Section: B Relative Accuracymentioning
confidence: 51%
“…The relative performance of various unconditionally stable FDTD methods was recently evaluated, e.g., consisting of positive-index media only [30]. In the present study, we evaluate unconditionally stable FDTD methods in more challenging problems including negative-index media.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared with the 3-D FDTD and ADI-BOR-FDTD result, they show good agreement and at least 80% of computational time to the ADI counterparts. Nakano, 2006), the numerical results is comparable to the ADI counterparts which has second-order accurate in time. Although the locally 1-D (LOD)-BOR-FDTD is developed, but no dispersive media was considered.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…Examples of these implicit methods are Crank-Nicolson (CN) FDTD [9], alternating direction implicit (ADI) FDTD [10], locally one-dimensional (LOD) FDTD [11,12] and Laguerre-FDTD [13,14]. A lot of comparisons concerning the CPU-time and accuracy of these implicit schemes have been reported [15]- [17]. Compared to explicit methods, they all reduce the number of time steps per simulation at the expense of a higher computational effort per time step.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%