- Cst microwave studio mesh settings generator#
- Cst microwave studio mesh settings Patch#
- Cst microwave studio mesh settings trial#
- Cst microwave studio mesh settings Pc#
- Cst microwave studio mesh settings simulator#
It is critical that you copy their geometry near the feedpoint as closely as possible. The attachment shows that the result was roughly similar to the paper's results, that is, good return loss from around 1.8GHz to around 2.4GHz.īy far the most critical elements to this design lie closest to the feedpoint. I made up a quick model to reflect the dimensions in the paper, but did not tune it carefully. A beginner will probably find that the process of tuning the mesh sizes for fewest meshcells vs most accurate results is the most laborious and sometimes hard to understand part of using a tool like CST.
Cst microwave studio mesh settings trial#
This is a difficult process for me because I don't understand all the variables but trial and error plus understanding what mesh sizes I really want seems to give a good result most times.
Cst microwave studio mesh settings generator#
Often, I find that the automatic mesh generator doesn't provide accurate results and I have to tune my mesh. The biggest trouble I usually get into with my models is inappropriate meshcell sizes.
Cst microwave studio mesh settings simulator#
This would generate the smallest number of meshcells so the simulator would compute more quickly than with my method.
Cst microwave studio mesh settings Patch#
When I load an example of a patch antenna provided by CST, I note that they just use Open as their boundary for five of the six planes, and place an electric (Et=0) boundary behind their pcb. As an antenna designer, I have typically used the boundary condition Open (Add Space) in order to insure that my nearest fields are not hitting the boundary as this seems to give me the best results. Other conditions do similar critical things, so it is very important to define the right boundary conditions. Obviously this would have a severe effect on the model. If you define the boundary to be an electric (Et=0) boundary, then this is effectively the same as placing a perfect ground plane on that boundary of the rectangle that contains your model. If you specify OPEN, the simulator effectively places perfectly matched microwave absorber material at the boundary, which guarantees that this plane appears to be open space.
Cst microwave studio mesh settings Pc#
A 12G RAM PC was able to simulate one large model in CST (but took days) but unable at all in HFSS.The boundary condition defines the radiating environment of the model. CST can also handle electrically larger structures than HFSS on the same computer, but it'll take a long time to simulate (CST puts a lot of demand on processor, HFSS puts a lot on RAM). If you're only interested in a few frequencies, use frequency domain/HFSS.īoth are very accurate and can be just as good in different situations, but sometimes you have to know what you're doing in setting up the simulations. If you have a wideband structure, don't use HFSS or CST's frequency domain solver. If you have a high-Q structure, don't use CST's time domain solver. HFSS is much easier to mesh with the automatic refinement, but can generate huge meshes. Of course, you have to know what you're doing sometimes - from experience, using a stripline feed not quite aligned with other geometric features can take a while to get meshed correctly, often done manually. It's easier to do finer/variable meshing for particular parts of the model than in HFSS. Since it's broadband it will make a good comparison between FD and TD solvers.Īlong the lines of the previous post, CST gives you more control over meshing. Now that I have access to both I want to try a log-periodic dipole array I designed in HFSS and measured. All three agreed well but the CST TD solver was faster with less memory I don't have specific numbers. When evaluating CST for purchase I gave them a patch antenna design that I simulated in HFSS and measured. I prefer CST (we recently purchased it) since I can choose between TD and FD solvers. This is only one type of problem so you can't conclude one is better than the other. The error curves for the CST solvers are smooth and monotonically decreasing. The error for HFSS looks good at 100 seconds, however as mesh density (and analysis time) increase the error diverges. If you skip to the last page in the spreadsheet you will see a comparison between HFSS and CST (both FD and TD solvers). I never did post the updated version with CST so here it is: Which is better in discontinuously hfss or cstĪ couple of years ago I posted stripline benchmark results to compare 2.5D and 3D tools.
0 kommentar(er)
