Frequency-domain calculation of Smith-Purcell radiation for metallic and dielectric gratings
Frequency-domain calculation of Smith-Purcell radiation for metallic and dielectric gratings
Szczepkowicz, Andrzej;Schachter, Levi;England, Joel
2020-09-05 00:00:00
version: September 9, 2020 Frequency-domain calculation of Smith-Purcell radiation for metallic and dielectric gratings 1 2 3 ANDRZEJ SZCZEPKOWICZ, LEVI SCHÄCHTER, JOEL ENGLAND Institute of Experimental Physics, University of Wroclaw, Plac M. Borna 9, 50-204 Wroclaw, Poland Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA Abstract: The intensity of Smith-Purcell radiation from metallic and dielectric gratings (silicon, silica) is compared in a frequency-domain simulation. The numerical model is discussed and verified with the Frank-Tamm formula for Cherenkov radiation. For 30 keV electrons, rectangular dielectric gratings are less efficient than their metallic counterpart, by an order of magnitude for silicon, and two orders of magnitude for silica. For all gratings studied, radiation intensity oscillates with grating tooth height due to electromagnetic resonances in the grating. 3D and 2D numerical models are compared. © 2020 Optical Society of America 1. Introduction The Smith-Purcell (SP) radiation, observed for visible light in 1953 [1], has been shown to occur in a wide spectral region, from microwaves [2,3] generated using macroscopic gratings, to ultraviolet radiation [4, 5] from nanogratings. One foreseen application of this effect would be a highly tunable free-electron light source [6]. SP radiation might also be used for beam diagnostics in accelerators, for beam position monitoring [7–9] or longitudinal profile characterization [10–14]. New motivation to study SP radiation comes from the development of Dielectric Laser Accelerators (DLA) [15,16], which utilize the inverse Smith-Purcell effect. Electron beams from DLA may in turn be used to generate SP radiation in various spectral regions. The majority of experimental studies of SP radiation were carried out with metallic gratings. Some recent studies deal with dielectric gratings (eg. [6, 17]); this is caused by advances in dielectric nanofabrication, improved understanding of SP emission from dielectrics, and hope that dielectrics may in some cases outperform metals in radiation intensity [6]. Calculations of SP radiation intensity from gratings have a long history. Most analytical work to date considers only metallic gratings (exception: a very simplified model in Ref. [18] applied to sub-THz radiation). Ref. [19] reviews some of the analytical models, and their outcomes are compared in Refs [20, 21]. Many of the models build upon the seminal work by Toraldo di Francia [22], which treats both SP and Cherenkov radiation with the same formalism (“Cherenkovian effects”). The range of analytical methods include perturbative approaches valid for shallow gratings [23,24] and various surface current models [19,25–28] which are best suited for shallow gratings, but for high energies can also be applied to deep profiles [25]. Most of the analytical models involve some approximations and neglect resonant cavity effects in the grating. According to Ref. [20] the results of different analytical models may differ by up to six orders of magnitude. An exceptional position among the analytical models of SP radiation is held by the van den BergâĂŹs model [29–31]. According to the author the model is rigorous and is applicable to arbitrary grating profile. Although the model’s accuracy has been questioned [25], no one has explicitly shown the model to be inexact. The model does reproduce radiation intensity arXiv:2009.03811v1 [physics.acc-ph] 5 Sep 2020 oscillations with increasing tooth height [32], a resonant cavity effect in the grating. However, van den Berg’s approach is probably the most difficult of the SP models to apply and in the end requires nontrivial numerical calculations [25, 29, 33]. Metals are easier to deal with in analytical models than dielectrics, because with the perfect electric conductor boundary condition it is not necessary to solve for the field inside and on the other side of the grating. Regarding dielectric gratings, Sukhikh et al. [18] report analytical calculation of SP radiation from a teflon grating, however with several special assumptions: geometry of an inverted lamelar grating (rectangular grating) with substrate thickness approaching zero, SP radiation only to one side, and neglect of secondary refractions (resonances within the grating are not reproduced); the model has been applied in [18] for sub-THz radiation. In recent years an increasing number of purely numerical simulations of SP radiation were reported. Numerical simulations are equally applicable to metallic and dielectric gratings, although for a dielectric grating more time and memory resources are needed. The most common approach is a time-domain simulation; some recently used solvers are Lumerical FDTD [34–37] and CST [38–41]. The time of calculation is usually from hours to days on a single CPU machine. Another approach is a frequency-domain simulation, which is much faster if infinite gratings are assumed (simulation for one unit cell with periodic boundary conditions). This approach was used in Refs. [17, 37, 42]; however, none of these papers describes the method of simulation, and it is hard to deduce how radiation energy was calculated. A description of the simulation method can be found in papers which report frequency-domain calculations of Cherenkov radiation [43–45], but these papers do not compute radiated energy. All of the Refs. [17, 37, 42–45] use the Comsol frequency-domain solver [46]. The present work focuses on frequency-domain simulation of single-electron (“incoherent”) Smith-Purcell radiation with metallic and dielectric gratings. We start in Sect. 2 with a step-by- step description of calculation method for Smith-Purcell and Cherenkov radiation (“Cherenkovian effectsâĂŹâĂŹ [22]) using a frequency-domain numerical solver. Although simple in principle, the solution requires careful differentiation between phasors (as required by the numerical solver) and phasor densities (Fourier transforms) and proper interpretation of the well known expression Re» E H ¼, which is different for phasors and for phasor densities. Careful treatment leads to the solution that is correct in absolute terms, without spurious multiplicative constants. We verify our method by comparing the results for Cherenkov radiation with the exact analytical Frank–Tamm formula for radiated energy [47–49]. After the detailed deliberations on methodology we turn to applications. In Sect. 3 we use our frequency-domain model to compare directly radiation from gratings of fixed geometry and different materials, which to our knowledge has not yet been reported in the literature, except for the mentioned previously very limited model in Ref. [18], and except for a recent paper [6], which however compares theoretical upper bounds for SP radiation, not the actual computed values. In Sect. 4 we demonstrate that the model captures resonant effects in the grating. While energy oscillations with increasing tooth height have been reported previously for metallic gratings [32, 38, 39, 50], we demonstrate them for the first time for dielectrics. Section 5 briefly compares a numerical result from a three-dimensional (3D) and a two-dimensional (2D) model. This is an important issue, as the 3D models require large RAM memory and are more difficult to construct, so one usually starts with 2D modelling. Section 6 briefly describes radiation from triangular gratings, and Sect. 7 summarizes the paper. In all equations in this paper we use SI units. 2 2. Calculation of Smith-Purcell or Cherenkov radiation intensity with a frequency- domain solver 2.1. Phasors vs. phasor densities and the expression for energy To perform calculations using a numerical frequency-domain solver, we must carefully distinguish between phasors and phasor densities. In case of time-harmonic electromagnetic field we have j! t j! t j! t 0 0 0 J¹r; tº = Re»J¹rºe ¼ = »J¹rºe + J ¹rºe ¼ (1a) j! t j! t j! t 0 0 0 E¹r; tº = Re»E¹rºe ¼ = »E¹rºe + E ¹rºe ¼ (1b) and similarly for the B, D and H fields. The phasors, denoted here J¹rº, E¹rº : : :; are distinct from the temporal Fourier transforms (phasor spectral densities) J¹r; !º; E¹r; !º; : : :: j! t j! t j!t 0 0 J¹r; tº = »J¹rºe + J ¹rºe ¼ = e J¹r; !ºd! j!t = e »J¹rº¹! ! º + J ¹rº¹! + ! º¼ d! (2) 0 0 where we use a Fourier transform convention consistent with [51, 52]. Equation (2) implies that for time-harmonic fields, the Fourier transforms can be expressed in terms of the corresponding phasors as J¹r; !º = »J¹rº¹! ! º + J ¹rº¹! + ! º¼ (3a) 0 0 E¹r; !º = »E¹rº¹! ! º + E ¹rº¹! + ! º¼; etc. (3b) 0 0 2 2 Note the difference in units: J¹r; !º»s¹Am º¼, J¹rº»Am ¼, etc. Maxwell equations in the frequency domain („time-harmonic”) r E + j!B = 0 (4a) r H j!D = J (4b) r D = (4c) r B = 0 (4d) are valid both for phasors and for temporal Fourier transforms, and this may lead to confusion about the meaning of symbols J; E; : : : in a particular context. A frequency-domain solver in engineering-oriented software like Comsol expects a phasor expression for electric current I¹rº [A] (or current density J¹rº [A/m ]), and outputs phasors E¹rº [V/m] and B¹rº [T]. The total energy radiated through a surface is ¹ ¹ W = Re E¹rº H ¹rº dA dt (5) 1 surface 1 1 where E H is the complex Poynting vector [52] and Re» E H ¼ is the time-averaged power 2 2 flux density hPFDi »Wm ¼ (in Comsol it is called “Power flow, time average, Poav”). Note that for strictly harmonic fields expression (5) is infinite. We can “cheat” the solver by entering a temporal Fourier transform for current I¹r; !º instead of a phasor I¹rº, then the solver will use the same equations (4) as for phasors to calculate the Fourier transforms E¹r; !º, B¹r; !º; : : : Now the expression Re» E H ¼ has a different 3 2 2 interpretation and a different unit »s Wm ¼. As shown in Appendix A, the total radiated energy is now equal to ¹ ¹ W = 4 2 Re E¹r; !º H ¹r; !º dA d! (6) 0 surface | {z } dWd! where dWd! is the radiated energy per unit frequency. Here we use only positive frequencies to allow comparison with experimental results. The numerical factor 4 2 depends on which convention for Fourier transforms is used, here it is consistent with Equations (2), (8), (9). To obtain dWd! from the solver’s result, take the surface integral of hPFDi (Comsol: Poav) and multiply by 4 2; the result is in»J s¼ (for phasors it would be»Js¼). Depending on the software used, the “cheated” solver may signal wrong units. This can be resolved by multiplying the expression for current by an arbitrary frequency range !, for example by unit angular frequency ! = 1 [1/s] and dividing hPFDi by¹!º . The expression Re» E H ¼ is discussed in many electrodynamics texts for phasors E¹rº, H¹rº, but its interpretation for transforms E¹r; !º, H¹r; !º and the formula (6) cannot easily be found in textbooks. To calculate power using a phasor-based frequency-domain code, one needs to compare directly equations (5) and (6). Formulas similar to (6) appear in some papers dealing with analytical models of S-P radiation [24, 53, 54], but may be not evident to users of numerical frequency-domain codes (for example, this issue is not addressed in tutorials and manuals of Comsol [46]). Ref. [55] presents a heuristic argument for energy computation in a frequency domain solver, which however leads to results that are too small by a factor of 4. Adding to confusion, the expression Re E¹r; !º H ¹r; !º is sometimes called “Poynting vector in the frequency domain” [53], which can easily be misunderstood as the Fourier transform of the Poynting vector (these are distinct quantities with different units, see also Appendix A). Another source of confusion is that energy density may be defined on either ! 2 ¹