x-fdtd 3rd party tutorial

Well, I agree with you that a planar EM code is not best for this. However, I think you may find this is a big challenge for a full 3D code, if you are talking about simulating a space with volume on the order of an entire building.

A hybrid approach is probably best. There are several university teams that working with hybrid approaches that combine a localized volume meshing solution for the immediate area surrounding the antenna with a more generalized method to compute the cross-coupling between the localized volume mesh domains.

Good luck!

--Max

FEKO are best and powerful 3D EM simulator.

FEKO is a state of the art computer code that uses various frequency domain techniques to analyze a broad spectrum of electromagnetic problems. It features a powerful graphical user interface that is quick and easy to use with a variety of 3D CAD tools and import filters that make the problem setup process a simple task. Various computational techniques and solution visualization options are available. This complete simulation solution makes FEKO applicable to many industries.


Numerical Analysis Techniques in FEKO
http://www.feko.info/feko-product-info/technical
1. MOM
2. MOM / MLFMM
3. MOM / FEM
4. PO
5. GO
6. UT

Applications of FEKO
http://www.feko.info/applications
1. Bio Electromagnetics
2. RF Components
3. 3D EM Circuits
4. Antenna Design
5. Radome Design
6. Antenna Placement
7. Scattering Analysis
8. EMC Analysis
.....

webhugo:

This reads like an advertisement. Do you work for FEKO?

I see you list several MoM variants. Can you explain the differences? You list all the solvers with acronyms, but you don't tell us much about these solvers. And what does MOM/FEM mean? Is it a hybridized code that uses MOM for accuracy simulation of plates and wires, and couples to some sort of FEM solution for volume analysis?

It would be nice to have information that engineers can use in better understanding where the FEKO software could be used, and what its strengths are.

Try to avoid general statements like "FEKO are best and powerful 3D EM simulator". I think we can see by the many comments on this thread that there are many very good 3D EM simulators out there (both commerical and public domain) and the "best" one will depend on applications. I bet we can find applications for which FEKO is not the "best" 3D EM tool, and others for which FEKO is the "best." It will depend on the applications and the relative strengths of the tool we are considering.

--Max

So wondful words!

HFSS and CST IMHO haved their own advantages and disadvantages and difficult select the absolutely the best ...

2.5D SONNET
3D CST HFSS MICIAN WASP-NET

I use IE3D Zeland.It's very fast end friendly for antenna analysis.You can simulated 2.5D and some 3D structures.For 3D structures you must now very good this profram.When you have very complex design,I use Ansoft HFSS.

Max and webhugo:

Of course we could find applications for which FEKO would not be the best tool, that is true about all software tools.

Not all of the tools cover all applications, so for a particular application they cannot all be applied. So, for a particular application, some of them are completely useless.

For electrically large structures, for instance, despite the MLFMM, FEKO can still be inferior to some other MoM codes.

and what is the software more cost/effective for antenna′s simulating?

S-par to SPICE of SIDEA works really slow.


Added after 4 minutes:

Interesting link:
http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/modeling/software/

Hi All,

I am on the lookout of some EM field solver which allows me to integrate the solved electric field on chosen path.

I have looked into Momentum, Sonnet Lite and Ansoft Designer SV but haven't been able to do this.

Any help/directions will be appreciated.

Thanks

willdoit, do you have an sample statement fo the problem? Are you going to use measured near field as excitation source in 3D fullwave modeling? Or you are interested in field further radiated by active structure represented as solved field points?

Hey e_m_c

I wanted to simulate planar transmission lines and find the emf (∫E.dl)between two opposite points on the conductors.

I am not planning to use the data in any other simulations. I am hoping that that I'll get different results depending on the path that I chose. I sort of have to convince my adviser that this indeed is true.

So far all the EM solvers I have seen seem to be giving only graphical output. Does one (other that simply for the sake of finding it) never really need any numerical answers in their work?

Seems, you need to extract the field values along the simulated path and perform further data processing in Matlab. What kind of paths you are going to test? Is it PCB-traces based structure or something different?

It can be a PCB trace. I am just interested in verifying a simple theoretical result. Everything ideal will also work fine for me - Two ideal parallel conductors in vacuum terminated properly would do.

That's a nice idea of not relying on the EM tool for integration. But we need to find a way to get the E-field data for atleast one specific time.

There is a good overview of EM modeling techniques and simulators on the Clemson website at http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/modeling/ .

Hi,

Having used AWR's and Ansoft's products, I would highly suggest HFSS for complex problems and Ansoft Designer for planar EM.

Joline.

Why? We are engineers, so we are interested in technical reasons why you prefer these Ansoft tools.

I have encountered many situations in which that Axiem, Sonnet or Emsight results where not as accurate in details. I haven't had such problem with HFSS yet, and because Ansoft has the capability of linking to HFSS design, that makes it a winner.

--Joline.

Sounds like marketing text to me. Can you be more specific? What are these details and why would Ansoft designer be more accurate?