zeland ie3d
1. IE3D, Moment of Method (MoM), suitable for 2-D planar antenna simulation.
resource support: low
2. CST, Perfet Boundary Approximation (PBA), suitable for 3-D antenna simulation
resoucre support: medium
3. HFSS, Finite Element Method (PEM), suitable for 3-D antenna simulation.
resource support: high
CST and HFSS are 3-D antenna simulator, but CST is a Time-Domain simulator; HFSS is a Frequency-Domain simulator. Although they have the similar results, CST can save simulation time more than HFSS.
By the way, CST is able to simulate UWB antenna from 2 ~ 13 GHz directly, without setting convergence region. But HFSS need to separate 2 or 3 convergence regions simulating UWB antenna.
Did you run a few examples (planar) on all simulators and compare results and simulation times?
Do you have the example for the UWB antenna used for comparing the convergence behavior of HFSS and CST?
Thanks!
do you agree that it need more experences to get a good resuls using HFSS
I agree, HFSS is powerfull, but it requires much work to get precise results. For example, I have been dealing with a problem of a monpole over a finite gnd (perpendicular to the groundplane) and haven't got good results yet :( because of the port definition and problems with the probe... Still working on it. If anyone could help.
I am also working in ie3d, it's is quite easy and results for planar structures are quite good.
Best regards
Ania
as me to know ,CST also has Frequency-Domain simulator and HFSS has Time-Domain simulator
Hi,
I think using HFSS and CST requires a good knowledge of the numerical techniques they use, that is why most of the users get incorrect results, specially when the error is concerned with feed modeling and source port definition.
However, I think that IE3D is much simpler in defining the ports (They are done semi-automatically). And it does not require much knowledge of the MoM method, except that concerning the convergence.
Hi,
I designed many horn antennas using CST. When the lines/lamda is small then no problem. But, if the lines/lamda goes up, then you need realy super computer to do the design. Especially if you need to simulate complex structure like corrugated horns. There is also script language underneath CST and it is really nice.
By
Hi cyai
goto https://www.edaboard.com/ftopic145467.html
For ZELAND you don't right the Support Very good
(look for jian in Electromagnetic Design and Simulation forum. he is very helpfull you will get from him quick and good answer )
PL
CST IS GOLD ENOUGH FOT RF
If one may say that in CST MWS one may use a single setup from 2-13 Ghz on strongly radiating structure - he has no clue of what PML is or he cares not about accuracy.
From my experience of using HFSS,it becomes much easier with the latest version and there are quite a few free training all over the world.And the results fits the measurement as well.
can I perform EM simulation of a RF circuit after layout use these tools?
I think you should use IE3D for 2.5D structure, for example PIFA, you can get the accurate results in an efficient way.But for 3D structure, if you are not very familiar with CEM you should use HFSS.
is it possible to use Zeland Fidelity for modeling PIFAs?
Hi, pennylsn:
You certainly can use FIDELITY to model PIFA antennas. I believe you e-mail us your FIDLEITY project. An engineer is checking it. He found some problem in your project and he has corrected it. He will send you the corrected one. Thanks!
Hi,
HFSS and CST are good solution requiring some experience to fine tune their settings to get good solution.
I find that the approach of MICROSTRIPES (3D EM Solution) with their TLM approach makes it easier and provide great accuracy.
you may want to consider it (THE ALTERNATIVE)
good luck
AW
Agilent too has 3D FEM EM tool (EMDS)...it is good for beginnners
did u try it , i heard it is like the old HFSS of agilent
any comments about its accuracy , and speed , memory usage
khouly
anyway, ansoft HFSS is the tools, which need lots of time to analyzation, I think.