## Abstract The perfect‐electric‐conductor (PEC) condition implementation for the alternating‐direction‐implicit finite‐difference time‐domain (ADI‐FDTD) method is discussed in this article. By comparing different implementation strategies, it shows that the most accurate implementation method is t
Implementation of connection boundary for HIE-FDTD method
✍ Scribed by Juan Chen; Jianguo Wang
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2008
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 307 KB
- Volume
- 50
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0895-2477
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
The implementation of connection boundary for the hybrid implicit‐explicit finite‐difference time‐domain (HIE‐FDTD) method is discussed in this article. It shows that the incident field of the HIE‐FDTD method must be split into two time steps. Compared with the implementation method commonly used in the conventional FDTD scheme, this method is weakly conditionally stable and has higher accuracy. The theory proposed in this article is validated through numerical examples. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microwave Opt Technol Lett 50: 1347–1352, 2008; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/mop.23390
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract We present a parallel implementation of the three‐dimensional alternating direction implicit finite‐difference time‐domain (ADI‐FDTD) method in Cartesian coordinates using the message passing interface (MPI) library. Parallel implementations not only speed up computations but also incre
A subregion connection method is de¨eloped for the FDTD method to analyze compound conducting structures. The transmission and reflection characteristics of wa¨eguide components and the radiation of a wa¨eguide aperture antenna are taken as numerical examples to show the practical applications of th
## Abstract In this paper, a novel two‐dimensional unconditionally stable finite‐difference time‐domain (2D US‐FDTD) method based on the Crank–Nicolson (CN) scheme is proposed. In particular, in the proposed 2D US‐FDTD method the field components are defined at only two time steps __n__ and __n + 1
## Abstract Current implementations of the Mur 1st‐order absorbing boundary condition (Mur1) in the alternating‐direction implicit finite‐difference time‐domain (ADI‐FDTD) method treat the intermediate (half‐step) variables as electromagnetic field quantities that are an approximate solution to Max