How do the results obtained from those software packages compare with actual practical results?
That's a terrific question. Personnally I can say that HFSS behaves very poorly on the computation of losses: I could not match in any way the low frequency resistance of a CPW line, with even with improved meshing and Solve Inside option for metal lines, it gives far less losses than the real case. ADS instead matched exactly both DC measurements and analytical equations.
For our work on reflectarrays, we have done some comparative studies about this. The results showed good similarity between CST and HFSS. (Off course measured results have some discrepancies). Theoretically HFSS more accurate results because of its solving technique but it costs us more resources and hence also takes more time to simulate the same structure as compared to CST.
Thats my experience in reflectarray design, Hope others can also share with us there experience about this.
HFSS and CST can give fairly comparable results. When compared with practical measurements, two issues arise. The first is how faithfully HFSS and CST models represent the fabricated sample. The second issue is that practical measurements can suffer from reflections from the measurement environment.
Can every body discuss about impact of Radiation Box in CST? When I simulate a Wireless Power Transfer System (f=6.78 MHz), I chose distance from Radiation Box to Objects is D 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 (mm). The results were far differents both in S21 and resonant frequency f0. Do you have any guide for deciding Radiation Box in CST?
Radiation box should be at least 0.25 lambda and hence in your case it should be greater than 11062mm. After this probably result will be same.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Electromagnetics