Here is a problem, I am simulating a grounded coplanar waveguide with width of 0.29mm, space between trace and top ground is also 0.29mm, on the 0.127mm thickness substrate (3.0 of permitivity) at 77GHz. If I set my wave port with the size of HFSS provided formula, it's way wider than half wavelength,(roughly 2.9mm>1.24mm). How should I set my wave port size? I tried em:talk wave port calculator, it gave me 2*0 mm^2. It is too sensitive to port size at 77GHz.
Nitin Kumar ,,, I saw that ,,,, But if I create my port size as in that picture, it would be wider than half wavelength. Would it be OK for port to be bigger than half wavelength?
Another qustion, What is the real value of Gamma? is it the attenuation of higher order modes propagated in the transmission line? How can we make sure that all the higher order modes are attenuated? by looking at the real value of Gamma? or phase of Gamma (make sure it is 90 degrees).
I can see that port size can influence on those values, Do I hava to choose the port size by looking at those values,,,?
This Link may be useful to you:
https://www.google.com/search?q=waveport+dimensions+in+hfss&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi61Iy4uNXjAhXV8HMBHYgQBVYQ_AUIESgB&biw=1366&bih=657#imgrc=_ .
Anveshkumar Nella ,,, Maybe you misunderstood what I meant, I want to know if it is OK for wave port width bigger than half wavelength. Here is some design, dielectric material with height of 0.127 mm (Dk=3), trace width is 0.29 mm, trace height is 0.018 mm. If we create the wave port using the formula in the general HFSS guidance or that link you sent me, wave port size should be 3 mm*0.8 mm, but half wave length at 77 GHz is 1.24 mm for RO3003 material. 3 mm is way bigger than 1.24 mm.
Hayrat Akmj I also met this problem. Did you solve it? Or should I use lumped port instead.
Honestly, No. Wei Guorui ,,, But I am going with a slightly little in size than half-wave-length method....
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Graphs