{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025974025974025976, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.485981308411215, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Accuracy of Three Different Six Stages SS-FDTD Methods for Modeling Narrow-Band Electromagnetic Applications

Recently, three different six stages split-step finite difference time domain (SS-FDTD) methods introduced for removing the FDTD Courant-Friedrichs-Levy (CFL) stability limit. Accuracy performance of these methods for modeling narrow-band electromagnetic applications is studied. Numerical example carried out in two-dimensional domain shows that when the CFL stability limit is exceeded, the accuracy of the classical FDTD scheme is maintained only with the splitting scheme that solves the field equations at each FDTD sub-stage alternatively between the x and y directions.