Fringing in CST Microstripes
In every instance, the prototype antennas have produced a decrease in resonant frequency and an increase in return loss in comparison to the simulations. This implies that for some reason the prototype antennas have a greater total inductance than the simulation models.
My theory is that a possible cause of the increased inductance is that the 'fringing effect' in the prototypes is more than was accounted for in CST, as this would cause the increased inductance.
Is this likely to be the case, with CST not fully accounting for all fringing or is there another explanation for what I have observed?
Many Thanks
It hard to tell without detailed description of the prototypes you've built. It could be the material, feed configuration..etc... If you post more information about your prototypes and some results of what you observed between simulation and measured data, I reckon you will get more response to your query.
No. All EM effects (including fringing) are included in the EM solution.
However, EM simulators are only as good as the user who creates the model. If the meshing is too coarse, you will see differences. Also, the material properties might be different between simulation model and hardware. FR4 is an example of PCB material with large variation in epsilon, depending on the manufacturer.
Fringing CST Microstripes 相关文章:
- Ansys HFSS - Fringing Field Capacitance
- CST Postprocessing of multiple S-parameters (single frequency parameter extraction)
- Shielding Simulation in CST
- Illegal usage of S-Matrix, No impedance found error in cst
- Line impedance in CST
- CST dual polarized H-slot antenna is very well matched but has poor total efficiency