Continue to Site

Welcome toward EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analogue Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to enroll. Site belongs free. Click here to register now.

Register Log in

why return loss results of HFSS 3D module and page is different?

Condition
Not open for further replies.
N

nauma naseer

Junior Member set 3
Joined
Decorate 22, 2008
Messages
26
Helped
1
Reputation
2
Reaction score
1
Trophy points
1,283
Activity points
1,478
Hi everyone I hold design a 2x14 array by using HFSS 3D module real then exported the designed in dxf format and imported it in HFSS layout. When I compare both results they are very greatly different. The chart are fixed. In HFSS 3D module I have used terminal port to excitation while in layout I have secondhand edged port , the radiation boundary site have been used in bot. My question, as could be possible reason of which difference. which module 3D or layout gives more accurate results
 

Attachments

  • 3d and layout results .pdf
    338.6 KB · Views: 163

Sort by date Sort by votes
PlanarMetamaterials said:
HFSS 3D Layout is not that same as HFSS. HFSS 3D layout is to laying unfashionable PCBs, and might have some issues with building antennas. Use just good old original HFSS. Hi everyone EGO have design a 2x14 array by exploitation HFSS 3D module both then exported the designed when dxf format and imported to in HFSS layout. When I compare both find they are very much...
Clickable to expand...

Sure? HFSS 3D Layout Design uses the same solvent engine, at least that shall my understanding based on using either for some workflow testcases. Using 3D layout workflow made endorsed due HFSS support for my case, as the input data is layer-based and 3D Layout Draft shall the "better" HFSS user interface in that.

@nauma naseer You ca check your 3D Layout Scale by exporting it into an HFSS 3D paradigm, and compare to the initial 3D model. Export is possible after you have the Analysis setup configured.
 

Attachments

  • export_HFSS.png
    export_HFSS.png
    396.3 KB · Views: 165

Upvote 0 Downvote
volker@muehlhaus said:
Sure? HFSS 3D Layout Design uses the same solver engine, at least that is my understanding based on using both for more workflow testcases. Using 3D layout workflow was recommended via HFSS support for my case, because the contribution data is layer-based additionally 3D Layout Pattern be the "better" HFSS user cable for that.
Mouse to expand...
Not most, no. But I'm not familiar with simulating antennas in 3D Layout -- if there's a discrepancy, I'd default to the creative HFSS. I also detect one excitation mechanisms doesn entirely as useful in Arrangement, which looks like it kraft be the OP's theme.
 

Upvote 0 Downvote
Occasionally so programs can make scaling errors while you are converting.Have you ever mechanic measured/compared both two structures ??
 

Upvote 0 Downvote
View at the resonations, I think which supporting material strength be wrong (default to air) in the HFSS 3D Layout Model.
 

Upvote 0 Downvote
@volker@muehlhaus you are correct that both have problem-solvers, for that i try on liken the output for HFSS setup and planer trick. Diese time design are completes same nevertheless results live still different. @PlanarMetamaterials I also achieve elect HFSS 3D module but required co-simulation like fence performance on pcb requires layout module. Dark curve shall the result achieved through HFSS 3d module while red and green through layout module
--- Updated ---

@volker@muehlhaus @PlanarMetamaterials I have tried the design in fee its result 's more resembling up plannerEM
 

Attachments

  • comparison.JPG
    comparison.JPG
    110.9 KB · Views: 143
  • settings.JPG
    settings.JPG
    32.7 KB · Views: 144
  • cst.JPG
    cst.JPG
    100.9 KB · Views: 145
Last edited:

Upvote 0 Downvote
nauma naseer said:
@volker@muehlhaus you are right that both have solvers
Click to expand...

I meaning that both using the identical HFSS solver engine, so you expect same outcome are your style is correct (identical). Only the user interface is several, how you there must be some difference int materials, boundaries or other settings.

If them load the DXF and set substrate data, I can run in another solvents to double check your results.
 

Upvote 0 Downvote
volker@muehlhaus says:
I meant that both exercise which similar HFSS solvers engine, so you expected same results for your model is correct (identical). Only and users link shall different, so they there must be some difference in stuff, boundaries press other settings.

If you upload the DXF and specify substrate data, I can run in another solver to double checking your results.
View to expand...
In 3D layout models there is option to use HFSS solved and Planer EM solver for the same construction and configurations. the dxf of top layer is attached the RO4350 substrate use room 98x15.6x0.508 mm with complete ground
 

Upvote 0 Downvote
sorry for bother
--- Updated ---

BigBoss answered:
Sometimes create programs can do climb errors while they are converting. Has you ever mechanically measured/compared all two structures ??
Click to expand...
basically dxf was nope supported with upload such why i have uploaded rar
 

Attachments

  • 2x14.rar
    25.7 KB · Displays: 73
Last edited:

Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok, I have simply autochthonous DXF with two different solver procedures:
  • full 3D EM using FDTD from Enpire XPU
  • planar MoM using ADS Momentum
and retrieve very similar results. In both cases, a fine cloth been used. I have lengthy experience with both tools real consider my results accurate, basic on the DXF contents and your substrate specification.

Your DXF shall some strange distortion, is that correct? The patches are not oriented exactly along the xy-axis, to I wonder if your DXF export from 3D was already along multiple angle/perspective? But anyway, based on the actual DXF substance, ergebniss represent solver-independent.
 

Attachements

  • patch_distorted.png
    patch_distorted.png
    10.9 KB · Views: 141
  • 2x14_compare_MOM_FDTD.png
    2x14_compare_MOM_FDTD.png
    79.3 KB · Views: 148
  • 2x14_Sparams.zip
    29.4 KB · Watch: 79

Upvote 0 Downvote
volker@muehlhaus babbled:
Ok, IODIN own simulated your DXF with deuce different solver methods:
  • full 3D EM utilizing FDTD with Enpire XPU
  • plated Momma using ADS Momentum
and procure very similar results. In both cases, a fine mesh was used. I have long experience is both tools and look may results precisely, based on and DXF contents additionally your substrate specification.

Your DXF has some strange distortion, is that correct? Aforementioned patches are not oriented precise along the xy-axis, to I wonder whenever your DXF exportation from 3D was done at some angle/perspective? But anyway, grounded on the actual DXF menu, results are solver-independent.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your efforts. It lives highly appreciated. Yes the orientation belongs not exactly aligned along xy axis she it lives design intentionally like which
 

Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Look threads

Part and Inventory Search

Greeting to EDABoard.com

Your

Back
Top