Accurate finite-difference time-domain simulation of anisotropic media by subpixel smoothing

doi:10.1364/OL.34.002778

« Show journal navigation

Accurate finite-difference time-domain simulation of anisotropic media by subpixel smoothing

Ardavan F. Oskooi, Chris Kottke, and Steven G. Johnson »View Author Affiliations

Optics Letters, Vol. 34, Issue 18, pp. 2778-2780 (2009)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OL.34.002778

View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (227 KB)

Journal Search
Article Lookup

Article Tools

Citations

Alert me when this article is cited
Export Citation/Save

Article Navigation

▸ Article Outline
– Abstract
– References and links

Article Tools
Full Text
Article Info
References
Cited By
Figures
Metrics
Download PDF

Viewing Equations in the
HTML Article

Optimal Viewing Recommendations

Full Text
Article Info
References (15)
Cited By
Figures (3)
Metrics

Abstract

Finite-difference time-domain methods suffer from reduced accuracy when discretizing discontinuous materials. We previously showed that accuracy can be significantly improved by using subpixel smoothing of the isotropic dielectric function, but only if the smoothing scheme is properly designed. Using recent developments in perturbation theory that were applied to spectral methods, we extend this idea to anisotropic media and demonstrate that the generalized smoothing consistently reduces the errors and even attains second-order convergence with resolution.

We show how accuracy in finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulations [1

A. Taflove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method , 3rd ed. (Artech, 2005),

] can be significantly improved for interfaces between anisotropic materials by careful selection of a subpixel smoothing scheme based on recent developments in perturbation theory [2

C. Kottke, A. Farjadpour, and S. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036611 (2008). [CrossRef]

]. This extends our previous work for interfaces between isotropic media [3

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], combined with a recently proposed scheme for stable FDTD in anisotropic media [4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

], and replaces our previous heuristic proposal for anisotropic-material interfaces [5

S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, Opt. Express 8, 173 2001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Ordinarily, the presence of discontinuous material interfaces degrades the accuracy of FDTD to first-order

[O (Δ x)]

from the usual second-order

[O (Δ x^{2})]

accuracy [6

A. Ditkowski, K. Dridi, and J. S. Hesthaven, J. Comp. Physiol. 170, 39 (2001).

], but our work demonstrates how an appropriate choice of subpixel smoothing can both restore second-order asymptotic accuracy and give the lowest errors compared with competing schemes even at modest resolutions. Subpixel smoothing has an additional benefit: it allows the simulation to respond continuously to changes in the geometry, such as during optimization or parameter studies, rather than changing in discontinuous jumps as interfaces cross pixel boundaries. This technique additionally yields much smoother convergence of the error with resolution, which makes it easier to evaluate the accuracy and enables the possibility of extrapolation to gain another order of accuracy [4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

]. The ability to handle anisotropic materials is becoming increasingly important via the use of anisotropic materials to represent arbitrary coordinate transformations in Maxwell’s equations [7

A. J. Ward and J. B. Pendry, J. Mod. Opt. 43, 773 (1996). [CrossRef]

], most prominently to design cloaking metamaterials [8

J. B. Pendry, D. Schurig, and D. R. Smith, Science 312, 1780 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Our smoothing scheme requires preprocessing of the materials and does not otherwise modify the FDTD algorithm. It is therefore particularly simple to implement (free software is available [9

Meep FDTD, http://ab-initio.mit.edu/meep.

]).

Our basic approach, as described previously [2

C. Kottke, A. Farjadpour, and S. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036611 (2008). [CrossRef]

, 3

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], is to smooth the structure to eliminate the discontinuity before discretizing, but because the smoothing itself changes the geometry we use first-order perturbation theory to select a smoothing with zero first-order effect. For isotropic materials, this approach made rigorous a smoothing scheme that had previously been proposed heuristically [10

R. D. Meade, A. M. Rappe, K. D. Brommer, J. D. Joannopoulos, and O. L. Alerhand, Phys. Rev. B 48, 8434 (1993). [CrossRef]

, 11

S. G. Johnson, R. D. Meade, A. M. Rappe, K. D. Brommer, J. D. Joannopoulos, and O. L. Alerhand, Phys. Rev. B 55, 15942 (1997).

, 12

J.-Y. Lee and N.-H. Myung, Microwave Opt. Technol. Lett. 23, 245 (1999). [CrossRef]

] and explained its second-order accuracy [3

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Advances in perturbation theory have enabled us to extend this scheme to interfaces between anisotropic materials, initially for a plane-wave method [2

C. Kottke, A. Farjadpour, and S. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036611 (2008). [CrossRef]

]. Here, we adapt the technique to FDTD, combined with a recent FDTD scheme with improved stability for anisotropic media [4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

]. Although this Letter focuses on the case of anisotropic electric permittivity ε, exactly the same smoothing and discretization schemes apply to magnetic permeabilities μ owing to the equivalence in Maxwell’s equations under interchange of ε/μ and

E ∕ H

We define an interface-relative coordinate frame as in Fig. 1 , so that the first component “1” is the direction normal to the interface. Previously, for an interface between two isotropic materials

ε^{a}

and

ε^{b}

, we showed that the proper smoothed permittivity (in this coordinate frame) at each point is [3

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]

\tilde{ε} = (\begin{matrix} {⟨ ε^{- 1} ⟩}^{- 1} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & ⟨ ε ⟩ & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & ⟨ ε ⟩ \end{matrix}),

(1)

where

〈 \dots 〉

denotes an average over one pixel. For an interface between anisotropic materials, we showed that the following subpixel smoothing scheme is the appropriate choice (having zero first-order perturbation) [2

C. Kottke, A. Farjadpour, and S. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036611 (2008). [CrossRef]

\tilde{ε} = τ^{- 1} [⟨ τ (ε) ⟩],

(2)

where τ(ε) and its inverse are defined by

τ (ε) = (\begin{matrix} - \frac{1}{ε_{11}} & \frac{ε_{12}}{ε_{11}} & \frac{ε_{13}}{ε_{11}} \\ \frac{ε_{21}}{ε_{11}} & ε_{22} - \frac{ε_{21} ε_{12}}{ε_{11}} & ε_{23} - \frac{ε_{21} ε_{13}}{ε_{11}} \\ \frac{ε_{31}}{ε_{11}} & ε_{32} - \frac{ε_{31} ε_{12}}{ε_{11}} & ε_{33} - \frac{ε_{31} ε_{13}}{ε_{11}} \end{matrix}),

(3)

τ^{- 1} [τ] = (\begin{matrix} - \frac{1}{τ_{11}} & - \frac{τ_{12}}{τ_{11}} & - \frac{τ_{13}}{τ_{11}} \\ - \frac{τ_{21}}{τ_{11}} & τ_{22} - \frac{τ_{21} τ_{12}}{τ_{11}} & τ_{23} - \frac{τ_{21} τ_{13}}{τ_{11}} \\ - \frac{τ_{31}}{τ_{11}} & τ_{32} - \frac{τ_{31} τ_{12}}{τ_{11}} & τ_{33} - \frac{τ_{31} τ_{13}}{τ_{11}} \end{matrix}) .

(4)

The derivation of this result is nontrivial [2

C. Kottke, A. Farjadpour, and S. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036611 (2008). [CrossRef]

] and we will not repeat it here, but we point out that Eq. (1) is now obtained as the special case for isotropic ε.

An additional difficulty for anistropic media occurs in FDTD: to accurately discretize the spatial derivatives, each field component is discretized on a different grid. In the standard Yee discretization for grid coordinates

[i, j, k] = (i Δ x, j Δ y, k Δ z)

, the

E_{x}

and

D_{x}

components are discretized at

[i + 0.5, j, k]

, while

E_{y} ∕ D_{y}

are at

[i, j + 0.5, k]

and

E_{z} ∕ D_{z}

are at

[i, j, k + 0.5]

A. Taflove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method , 3rd ed. (Artech, 2005),

]. At each time step,

E = ε^{- 1} D

must be computed, but any off-diagonal parts of ε couple components stored at different locations. For example, a nonzero

{(ε_{x y})}^{- 1}

means that the computation of

E_{x}

requires

D_{y}

, but the value of

D_{y}

is not available at the same grid point as

E_{x}

, as depicted in Fig. 1. One approach is to average the four adjacent

D_{y}

values and use them in updating

E_{x}

, along with

{(ε_{x y})}^{- 1}

at the

E_{x}

point [3

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

]. This approach, however, is theoretically unstable and leads to divergences for a long simulation [4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

]. Instead, a modified technique was recently shown to satisfy a necessary condition for stability with Hermitian ε [4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

]: as depicted in Fig. 1, one first averages

D_{y}

[i, j \pm 0.5, k]

and multiplies by

{(ε_{x y})}^{- 1}

[i, j, k]

, and then averages the two results at

[i, j, k]

and

[i + 1, j, k]

to update

E_{x}

[i + 0.5, j, k]

. (Although [4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

] derives no sufficient condition for stability with inhomogeneous media once the Yee time discretization is included, this method has been stable in all numerical experiments to date [4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

].) We use this scheme here, and find that it greatly improves stability compared with the simpler scheme from our previous work [3

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. The subpixel averaging is performed as follows. At the

E_{x}

point

[i + 0.5, j, k]

[light gray dot (orange online) in Fig. 1], the smoothed

\tilde{ε}

is computed by Eq. (2), averaging over the pixel centered at that point. Then

\tilde{ε}

is inverted to obtain

{({\tilde{ε}}^{- 1})}_{x x}

, which is stored at the

E_{x}

point. The subpixel averaging

\tilde{ε}

is also performed for a pixel centered at the

[i, j, k]

point [black dot (blue online)] halfway between two

D_{y}

points [dark gray dot (red online)], and

{({\tilde{ε}}^{- 1})}_{x y}

is computed and stored at that point. This is similar for other components. (Note that the

\tilde{ε}

tensor from (2) must be rotated from the interface-normal to Cartesian coordinates at each point.) Thus, for each Yee cell in three dimensions, the subpixel averaging is performed four times, obtaining

{({\tilde{ε}}^{- 1})}_{x x}

[i + 0.5, j, k]

{({\tilde{ε}}^{- 1})}_{y y}

[i, j + 0.5, k]

{({\tilde{ε}}^{- 1})}_{z z}

[i, j, k + 0.5]

, and all the off-diagonal components are at

[i, j, k]

—in other words, we apply the same averaging procedure in Eq. (2) to pixels centered around different points/corners in the Yee cell, and then for each point we store only the components of

ε^{- 1}

necessary for that point. Each component of

ε^{- 1}

need only be stored at most once per Yee cell, so no additional storage is required compared to other anisotropic FDTD schemes. After this smoothing, the anisotropic FDTD scheme proceeds without modification.

To illustrate the discretization error, we compute an eigenfrequency ω of a periodic (square in 2D or cubic in 3D, period a) lattice of dielectric ellipsoids made of

ε^{a}

surrounded by

ε^{b}

, a photonic crystal [13

J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, R. D. Meade, and J. N. Winn, Photonic Crystals: Molding the Flow of Light (Princeton U. Press, 2008).

]. We choose

ε^{a, b}

to be random positive-definite symmetric matrices with random eigenvalues in the interval [1

A. Taflove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method , 3rd ed. (Artech, 2005),

, 5

S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, Opt. Express 8, 173 2001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] (1.45, 2.81, and 4.98) for

ε^{a}

and in [9

Meep FDTD, http://ab-initio.mit.edu/meep.

, 13

J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, R. D. Meade, and J. N. Winn, Photonic Crystals: Molding the Flow of Light (Princeton U. Press, 2008).

] (8.49, 8.78, and 11.52) for

ε^{b}

. We compute the lowest ω for an arbitrary Bloch wave vector

k = (0.4, 0.2, 0.3) 2 π ∕ a

, giving wavelengths comparable with the feature sizes. In an FDTD simulation with Bloch-periodic boundaries and a Gaussian pulse source, we analyze the response with a filter-diagonalization method [14

V. A. Mandelshtam and H. S. Taylor, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 6756 (1997). [CrossRef]

] to obtain the eigenfrequency ω, obtaining the relative error

| ω - ω_{0} | ∕ ω_{0}

by comparison with the “exact”

ω_{0}

from a plane-wave calculation [5

S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, Opt. Express 8, 173 2001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] at a high resolution. We looked at eigenvalue bands 1 and 15 (in 2D) or 1 and 13 (in 3D), where the higher band is clearly non-plane-wave-like (see inset fields), to counter suggestions that subpixel averaging may perform poorly for higher bands [4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

We compare the new smoothing technique of Eq. (2) to the nonsmoothed case as well as to two simple smoothing techniques: using the mean

〈 ε 〉

[15

S. Dey and R. Mittra, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. 47, 1737 (1999). [CrossRef]

] and also the harmonic mean

{⟨ ε^{- 1} ⟩}^{- 1}

. We do not compare with a previous heuristic that we had proposed without the benefit of perturbation theory [5

S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, Opt. Express 8, 173 2001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], since our previous paper already demonstrated that this heuristic (which does not yield zero first-order perturbation) is much less accurate than the new method [2

C. Kottke, A. Farjadpour, and S. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036611 (2008). [CrossRef]

], and first-order FDTD accuracy for that heuristic was also shown in [4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

] [who did not examine the isotropic case where Eq. (1) remains correct].

Results from 2D and 3D simulations are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 , respectively. In both cases, similar to our previous results for isotropic materials [3

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], the new smoothing algorithm has the lowest error, often by 1 order of magnitude or more, and it is the only technique that appears to give second-order accuracy in the limit of high resolution. (The simple mean

〈 ε 〉

does better than the harmonic mean

{⟨ ε^{- 1} ⟩}^{- 1}

, probably because it treats roughly two of the three field components correctly [3

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].) Similar accuracy is obtained for both lower and higher (non-plane-wave-like) bands at comparable resolutions per wavelength (although higher bands require greater absolute resolution per a, of course, because their wavelengths are smaller). As we have noted, apparent quadratic convergence obtained in a single structure [5

S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, Opt. Express 8, 173 2001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] can sometimes be fortuitous [2

C. Kottke, A. Farjadpour, and S. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036611 (2008). [CrossRef]

], but we have confidence in these results (obtained now in multiple settings) because they are backed by a clear theory rather than an ad hoc heuristic.

Because the new smoothing scheme greatly improves the accuracy of FDTD simulation for anisotropic materials, without increasing the computational/storage cost (other than a one-time preprocessing step), it should be an attractive technique and subsumes our previous scheme [3

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. A remaining challenge is to accurately handle objects with sharp corners, where the resulting field singularities are known to degrade the accuracy to between first- and second-order once the smoothing eliminates the first-order error [3

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. We are hopeful that an accurate smoothing can be developed for corners once the corresponding perturbation theory is derived.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the MRSEC program of the National Science Foundation (NSF) under award DMR-0819762 and the Army Research Office through the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies under contract DAAD-19-02-D0002.

References and links

1.	A. Taflove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method , 3rd ed. (Artech, 2005),
2.	C. Kottke, A. Farjadpour, and S. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036611 (2008). [CrossRef]
3.	A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.	G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).
5.	S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, Opt. Express 8, 173 2001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.	A. Ditkowski, K. Dridi, and J. S. Hesthaven, J. Comp. Physiol. 170, 39 (2001).
7.	A. J. Ward and J. B. Pendry, J. Mod. Opt. 43, 773 (1996). [CrossRef]
8.	J. B. Pendry, D. Schurig, and D. R. Smith, Science 312, 1780 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.	Meep FDTD, http://ab-initio.mit.edu/meep.
10.	R. D. Meade, A. M. Rappe, K. D. Brommer, J. D. Joannopoulos, and O. L. Alerhand, Phys. Rev. B 48, 8434 (1993). [CrossRef]
11.	S. G. Johnson, R. D. Meade, A. M. Rappe, K. D. Brommer, J. D. Joannopoulos, and O. L. Alerhand, Phys. Rev. B 55, 15942 (1997).
12.	J.-Y. Lee and N.-H. Myung, Microwave Opt. Technol. Lett. 23, 245 (1999). [CrossRef]
13.	J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, R. D. Meade, and J. N. Winn, Photonic Crystals: Molding the Flow of Light (Princeton U. Press, 2008).
14.	V. A. Mandelshtam and H. S. Taylor, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 6756 (1997). [CrossRef]
15.	S. Dey and R. Mittra, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. 47, 1737 (1999). [CrossRef]

Fig. 1 Schematic 2D Yee FDTD discretization near a dielectric interface, showing the method [4

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. [CrossRef] 226, 1085 (2007).

] used to compute the part of

E_{x}

that comes from

D_{y}

and the locations where various

ε^{- 1}

components are required.

Fig. 2 Relative error Δω/ω for an eigenmode calculation with a square lattice (period a) of 2D anisotropic ellipsoids (right inset) versus spatial resolution (units of pixels per vacuum wavelength λ) for a variety of subpixel smoothing techniques. Straight lines for perfect linear (dashed) and perfect quadratic (solid) convergence are shown for reference. Most curves are for the first eigenvalue band (left inset shows

E_{z}

in unit cell), with vacuum wavelength

λ = 4.85 a

. Hollow squares show new method for band 15 (middle inset), with

λ = 1.7 a

. Maximum resolution for all curves is

100 pixels ∕ a

Fig. 3 Relative error Δω/ω for an eigenmode calculation with a cubic lattice (period a) of 3D anisotropic ellipsoids (right inset) versus spatial resolution (units of pixels per vacuum wavelength λ), for a variety of subpixel smoothing techniques. Straight lines for perfect linear (dashed) and perfect quadratic (solid) convergence are shown for reference. Most curves are for the first eigenvalue band (left inset shows

E_{x}

x y

cross-section of unit cell), with vacuum wavelength

λ = 5.15 a

. Hollow squares show new method for band 13 (middle inset), with

λ = 2.52 a

. New method for bands 1 and 13 is shown for resolution up to

100 pixels ∕ a

OCIS Codes
(000.4430) General : Numerical approximation and analysis
(160.1190) Materials : Anisotropic optical materials
(050.1755) Diffraction and gratings : Computational electromagnetic methods

ToC Category:
Materials

History
Original Manuscript: May 26, 2009
Revised Manuscript: July 30, 2009
Manuscript Accepted: August 14, 2009
Published: September 9, 2009

Citation
Ardavan F. Oskooi, Chris Kottke, and Steven G. Johnson, "Accurate finite-difference time-domain simulation of anisotropic media by subpixel smoothing," Opt. Lett. 34, 2778-2780 (2009)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/abstract.cfm?URI=ol-34-18-2778

Sort: Author | Year | Journal | Reset

References

A. Taflove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method, 3rd ed. (Artech, 2005),
C. Kottke, A. Farjadpour, and S. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036611 (2008). [CrossRef]
A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. 226, 1085 (2007). [CrossRef]
S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, Opt. Express 8, 1732001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
A. Ditkowski, K. Dridi, and J. S. Hesthaven, J. Comp. Physiol. 170, 39 (2001).
A. J. Ward and J. B. Pendry, J. Mod. Opt. 43, 773 (1996). [CrossRef]
J. B. Pendry, D. Schurig, and D. R. Smith, Science 312, 1780 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Meep FDTD, http://ab-initio.mit.edu/meep.
R. D. Meade, A. M. Rappe, K. D. Brommer, J. D. Joannopoulos, and O. L. Alerhand, Phys. Rev. B 48, 8434 (1993). [CrossRef]
S. G. Johnson, R. D. Meade, A. M. Rappe, K. D. Brommer, J. D. Joannopoulos, and O. L. Alerhand, Phys. Rev. B 55, 15942 (1997).
J.-Y. Lee and N.-H. Myung, Microwave Opt. Technol. Lett. 23, 245 (1999). [CrossRef]
J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, R. D. Meade, and J. N. Winn, Photonic Crystals: Molding the Flow of Light (Princeton U. Press, 2008).
V. A. Mandelshtam and H. S. Taylor, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 6756 (1997). [CrossRef]
S. Dey and R. Mittra, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. 47, 1737 (1999). [CrossRef]

IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech.

S. Dey and R. Mittra, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. 47, 1737 (1999). [CrossRef]

J. Chem. Phys.

V. A. Mandelshtam and H. S. Taylor, J. Chem. Phys. 107, 6756 (1997). [CrossRef]

J. Comp. Physiol.

A. Ditkowski, K. Dridi, and J. S. Hesthaven, J. Comp. Physiol. 170, 39 (2001).

J. Comput. Phys.

G. Werner and J. Cary, J. Comput. Phys. 226, 1085 (2007). [CrossRef]

J. Mod. Opt.

A. J. Ward and J. B. Pendry, J. Mod. Opt. 43, 773 (1996). [CrossRef]

Microwave Opt. Technol. Lett.

J.-Y. Lee and N.-H. Myung, Microwave Opt. Technol. Lett. 23, 245 (1999). [CrossRef]

Opt. Express

S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, Opt. Express 8, 1732001. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Opt. Lett.

A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, and G. Burr, Opt. Lett. 31, 2972 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Phys. Rev. B

R. D. Meade, A. M. Rappe, K. D. Brommer, J. D. Joannopoulos, and O. L. Alerhand, Phys. Rev. B 48, 8434 (1993). [CrossRef]
S. G. Johnson, R. D. Meade, A. M. Rappe, K. D. Brommer, J. D. Joannopoulos, and O. L. Alerhand, Phys. Rev. B 55, 15942 (1997).

Phys. Rev. E

C. Kottke, A. Farjadpour, and S. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E 77, 036611 (2008). [CrossRef]

Science

J. B. Pendry, D. Schurig, and D. R. Smith, Science 312, 1780 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Other

Meep FDTD, http://ab-initio.mit.edu/meep.
A. Taflove and S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: the Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method, 3rd ed. (Artech, 2005),
J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, R. D. Meade, and J. N. Winn, Photonic Crystals: Molding the Flow of Light (Princeton U. Press, 2008).

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Click here to see a list of articles that cite this paper