hfss solution frequency
I simulated a structure with a solution frequency 63.85 MHz, which was desired frequency.
I repeated simulations with solution frequencies 100 MHz and 200 MHz.
Their S11 results were different from each other.
Which one was correct? I need 63.85 MHz, what do you suggest?
thanks.
Note:solution type is driven modal.
As u increase the solution frequency it would be better , but this would take more time to simulate.
usually the small element take it is lambda/30 try zo chek convergence first , ensure the delta s is correct , chek the pass number, and then what type of simulation type do u use?
after that be sure u using the required port, and then check for linear , fast or interpolating simualtion..
after checking all this and the error still exist , try to chech your structure again..
I hope that will hwelp u
hi
there is no error reported. the only problem different results.
well set the solution frequency to the maximum frequency you are trying to simulate in the frequency range.
Then try setting the frequency at the center frequency in the frequency range.
Try checking the convergence in the matrix data....the one which gives you the converge nearest to the set convergaence value, should give you accurate results.
check the convergence in matrix data whether it is converged first;
try to reduce the convergence criteria and re-run the simulation again;
the difference of simulated S11, what kind of difference is it? for example, whether all the resonance are still there? whether the resonant frequency shifted? If only the magnitude of resonace different, most possible reason is the sweep type you choosed, you may try discrete type, avoid to use interpolation type.
Regards,
hi asfadaa
all results were converged, I checked them.
difference is frequency shift.
thanks in advance.
what is the convergence criterial you set? what kind of sweep type did you select?
and what is the frequency shift between two simulations?
If you can post the porject file, I can spend some time to take look of it.
Regards,
haydar shalom,
How are you doing :)
1)
Copper skin depth in 100 Mhz is 6.7um.
Copper skin depth in 67 Mhz is 8.18um.
If you are using copper thicker than 25um than the losses should be calculated correctly in both frequencies. Otherwise you will need to solve inside the metal, or use the special skin depth meshing.
2) There could be impedance mismatches. When comparing the S-parameters always compare also Z0 (assuming waveport solution). If you are using a lumped port then Z0 will stay the same but S11 will be different because of an impedance mismatch.
3) You can always use 100Mhz for mesh adaptation and then add a single point frequency sweep on 67 Mhz. This is the best way to compare 100 Mhz and 67 Mhz results.
Regards,
Itai
hi itai
I was out of town, thank you I am fine. what about you?
1) I use 2D surfaces, not 3D objects as copper.
2)I use waveport. how can I compare Z0?
3)I simulate same sweep range with two different solution freq. Isn't that right?
THANKS A LOT
what is the solution frequency for pifa antenna
I want to konw...what is the solution frequency?
Hi heydar
How is it going? Did you finally find the reason for the frequency shift in resonant frequency due to solution frequency? I have exactly same problem and I couldn't find the reason in this conversation here. I appriciate if you email me the reason if you found it
Iman_B_1999@yahoo.com
Regards
Hi Guys
Sorry for late reply but I haven't been using HFSS for a long time. First of all it was optimized for high frequencies, so 64 MHz is too low. Recently I heard that they made modifications for lower frequencies.
Anyways, ideally all should give the same results. I would check the setup first, lumped elements are tricky. If everything looks ok I would trust higher frequencies.
In my case, I was simulating a birdcage coil which is a very complex structure. If you are designing simple loop coils, things are easier. At least you can build one and compare the results.
best