Transmission equations
Formalism used to model transmission through thin layers or another material
Spectral hybrid transmission model
Scope and geometry
For example, we want to model phonon transport through a SiGe layer embedded in Si crystal. A phonon crossing this inclusion experiences two sequential interface events:
entrance: Si → SiGe
exit: SiGe → Si
Thus, the total transmission probability is the product of the two steps:
where is the incident angle in Si, is the transmitted angle inside SiGe determined by Snell’s law (4), is the angular frequency, and the branch/polarization. The SMMM model is used in the simulation and is summarized here. A detailed description is provided in [1].
Equation used in the code
For each material m and branch p, the code interpolates the dispersion relation to obtain km and thus the wavelength:
The interface specularity depends on the roughness and follows Ziman’s exponential law. It is different from the angle-dependent specularity equation used in FreePATHS. For the SMMM model, this equation is angle-independent. (Eq. 32 in [1]).
In case of specular scattering, the transmitted phonons are diverted, satisfying Snell's law (Eq. 18 in [1]):
with the incident angle between the projection to the x-y plane and y-axis and the exit angle, and are the group velocities of the incident and transmitted material, respectively. In case of:
no real transmitted angle exists: the code sets
and returns a specular reflection. In that case, only the diffuse channel can still transmit phonons across the layer.
In scattering primitives with “2T” signature, two tests are made:
Entry Si → SiGe
Exit SiGe → Si
Both must lie in , otherwise the code sends a specular reflection.
Specular (AMM-like) transmission.
For the specular transmission we use the classical AMM form with acoustic impedances
(Eq. 20 in [1], which that paper writes as with and ):
where is obtained from Snell’s law.
Note that the cosines in the denominator are crossed: pairs with and with . This is the standard oblique-incidence acoustic result written with the angle-corrected impedances . The uncrossed form agrees at normal incidence but over-estimates transmission at oblique incidence (for Si/SiGe LA at 1 THz, 0.990 instead of 0.928 at 60°). FreePATHS used the uncrossed denominator until 2026-09-25; results produced with VerticalPlane before that date are slightly under-reflective at oblique incidence.
The MTM detailed-balance prefactor of Eq. 25 in [1],
is not applied — a deliberate simplification. For Si/SiGe it equals 0.98, 0.91 and 0.70 at 0.5, 1 and 2 THz, so omitting it makes the layer slightly more transmissive at low frequency (of order 3 percentage points in at 1 THz).
Diffuse (DMM-like) transmission.
For the diffuse scattering, we use the equation below (Eq. 30 in [1]):
One interface: spectral convex combination (SMMM form)
Following the spectral mixed-mismatch idea, the total transmissivity of one interface is the convex combination of the specular and diffuse parts weighted by the incident-side specularity:
(The reverse direction uses and the corresponding angles and specularity.)
Two interfaces in series (Si→SiGe then SiGe→Si)
For the SiGe mini-layer, we evaluate:
and combine them as:
In practice, we compute wave vectors from the tabulated dispersions, then wavelengths, then , ; we obtain from Snell’s law, and finally evaluate the equations above.
Modeling notes (as coded)
Elastic, branch-conserving scattering: no inelasticity or polarization conversion; transmissions are branch-wise (LA/TA) and elastic.
Total internal reflection (TIR): if , then and only the diffuse formula contributes.
Independent sequential events: the two interfaces (entry/exit) are treated as independent; coherent interference and internal multiple reflections are neglected for simplicity; this matches the intended use for thin, rough, incoherent mini-layers.
Angle handling: is used in the AMM formula to avoid sign issues for grazing angles in numerical implementation.
MTM prefactor omitted: the specular channel implements Eq. 20 of [1], not the MTM-corrected Eqs. 25–26; see the note under Specular (AMM-like) transmission above.
Justification for the 2T construction
Representing the SiGe layer as a finite mini-rectangle naturally yields two heterogeneous boundaries. The 2T product allows the inclusion to act as a virtual slab, forcing an entry (Si→SiGe) and an exit (SiGe→Si) event, each mixed by roughness-dependent specularity via the SMMM equations.
A simple per-frequency, per-branch model that captures roughness at both interfaces while respecting detailed balance between AMM and DMM.
By contrast, if the geometry involves only a single Si/SiGe boundary (for example, a rectangle of SiGe inside the Si sample), the proper choice is the 1T case: drop the 2T formula and use the single-interface SMMM instead.
Not currently implemented. The 1T code path (
alpha_total_1Tand theRectangularBulkscatterer that was its only caller) was removed in October 2026 as unfinished work — it had never been functional. The single-interface equations above remain correct and are the building blocksalpha_total_2Tuses for each of its two crossings, so a 1T scatterer can be recoded from this page if a single-boundary inclusion is needed.
References
X. Ran and B. Cao, Roughness dependence of phonon-interface thermal transport: Theoretical model and Monte Carlo simulation, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024302 (2024).
Last updated