In this episode your host and Co-Founder of PADT, Eric Miller is joined by Brent Stucker, the Director of Additive Manufacturing at Ansys to discuss the innovative capabilities of the Ansys additive suite of tools and it’s impact on the effectiveness of 3D printing for manufacturing and design.
If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!
In this episode your host and Co-Founder of PADT, Eric Miller is joined by PADT’s Systems Support & Application Engineer Josh Stout for a discussion on how OptiSLang helps to increase the robustness and reliability of simulation, as well as a look at what new features are in the 2020 R2 updated version.
If you would like to learn more about this update, you can view Josh’s webinar on the topic here:
https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/15747/458229
If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!
Simulation is becoming an integral part of our customers’ product development processes, and new horizons await. By combining different physics into a multidisciplinary approach, phenomena can be investigated more holistically and optimized to a greater degree. Additionally, simulation processes can be standardized and shared across teams, allowing simulation novices to gain more direct access to simulation.
Time-consuming manual searches for the best and most robust design configuration can now be accelerated by adding state-of-the-art algorithms for design exploration, optimization, robustness and reliability analysis. Through the power of interactive visualization and artificial intelligence technologies, engineers and designers can gain a better understanding of their design and make the right decisions in less time.
The process integration and design optimization solution that enables all the above is Ansys optiSLang.
Join PADT’s Mechanical Application Engineer and Systems Expert Josh Stout for an exploration of this interconnected tool and what new capabilities are available in it’s 2020 R2 release.
If this is your first time registering for one of our Bright Talk webinars, simply click the link and fill out the attached form. We promise that the information you provide will only be shared with those promoting the event (PADT).
You will only have to do this once! For all future webinars, you can simply click the link, add the reminder to your calendar and you’re good to go!
In this episode your host and Co-Founder of PADT, Eric Miller is joined by PADT’s Senior Staff Technologist Jim Peters for a discussion on the new capabilities available within Ansys Motion 2020 R2. With an integration into Mechanical, users can take advantage of multi-use models resulting in substantial time savings.
If you would like to learn more about this update, you can view Jim’s webinar on the topic here:
https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/15747/455203
If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!
Ansys Motion, now in the Mechanical interface, is a third generation engineering solution based on an advanced multibody dynamics solver that enables fast and accurate analysis of rigid and flexible bodies and gives an accurate evaluation of physical events through the analysis of the mechanical system as a whole.
Ansys Motion uses four tightly integrated solving schemes (rigid body, flexible body, modal & meshfree EasyFlex) that give the user unparalleled capabilities to analyze in any combination imaginable. Large assemblies with millions of degrees of freedom can be studied with the effects of flexibility and contact included. With an integration into Mechanical, users can take advantage of multi-use models resulting in substantial time savings.
Join PADT’s Senior Staff Technologist, Jim Peters for an exploration of what this tool has to offer, and how seamlessly it integrates with the Ansys Mechanical interface.
If this is your first time registering for one of our Bright Talk webinars, simply click the link and fill out the attached form. We promise that the information you provide will only be shared with those promoting the event (PADT).
You will only have to do this once! For all future webinars, you can simply click the link, add the reminder to your calendar and you’re good to go!
In this episode your host and Co-Founder of PADT, Eric Miller is joined by PADT’s Simulation Support Manager Ted Harris for a discussion on what’s new in the Ansys Mechanical APDL 2020 R2 release.
If you would like to learn more about this update, you can view Ted’s webinar on the topic here:
https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/15747/452033
If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!
The Ansys finite element solvers enable a breadth and depth of capabilities unmatched by anyone in the world of computer-aided simulation. Thermal, Structural, Acoustic, Piezoelectric, Electrostatic and Circuit Coupled Electromagnetics are just an example of what can be simulated. Regardless of the type of simulation, each model is represented by a powerful scripting language, the Ansys Parametric Design Language (APDL).
APDL is the foundation for all sophisticated features, many of which are not exposed in the Workbench Mechanical user interface. It also offers many conveniences such as parameterization, macros, branching and looping, and complex math operations. All these benefits are accessible within the Ansys Mechanical APDL user interface.
Join PADT’s Simulation Support Manager, Ted Harris for a look at what’s new for MAPDL in Ansys 2020 R2, regarding:
If this is your first time registering for one of our Bright Talk webinars, simply click the link and fill out the attached form. We promise that the information you provide will only be shared with those promoting the event (PADT).
You will only have to do this once! For all future webinars, you can simply click the link, add the reminder to your calendar and you’re good to go!
In this episode your host and Co-Founder of PADT, Eric Miller is joined by PADT’s Application Engineer Robert McCathren for a look at how Ansys 2020 R2 empowers SPEOS users to go further than ever before with enhancements that improve the handling of complex sensors, project preview and computation.
If you would like to learn more about this update, you can view Robert’s webinar on the topic here:
https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/15747/449021
If you have any questions, comments, or would like to suggest a topic for the next episode, shoot us an email at podcast@padtinc.com we would love to hear from you!
PADT & Ansys are excited to announce Level Up with Ansys Mechanical, a free virtual technical conference on Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 10 a.m. EST.
For the past 50 years, Ansys Mechanical continues to be the go-to finite element analysis platform for structural analysis, and they’re just getting warmed up. Join visionary Ansys product development, product management and engineering leaders as they provide expert insights on Mechanical’s technology advances and preview the platform’s future.
From those engineers looking to boot up their simulation experience to those seeking to step up their simulation skills, and even those operating in “beast mode”, who execute large and complex workflows, this action-packed event showcases how Mechanical radically transforms product design.
Highlights include:
Learn the latest with scripting and automation to save valuable time
Discover how to lightweight product designs with structural optimization methods
Understand how to couple multiple physics to assess performance in the real world
And so much more
Catch the thought-provoking plenary presentation, engage with Ansys’ brightest during the live Q&A, and interact with fellow engineers during live polls.
Leveraging the all-new Ansys Discovery product early in your product design processes will drive substantial gains in engineering productivity, spur innovation and increase your product’s overall performance.
Join #Ansys on July 29th, 11:00 am EDT for this virtual launch event where visionary leaders will deliver dynamic insights on the product, perform cutting-edge technology demonstrations and share real-world customer successes.
There are three main goals of the licensing changes in the latest release of ANSYS:
Deliver Ansys licensing using the FlexLM industry standard
Eliminate the Ansys licensing interconnect
Provide modular licensing options that are easier to understand
Finally – and this is the whopper (or Double Double if you’re an In-N-Out kind of analogy person) – this new licensing model eliminates the need for upgrading the Ansys License Manager with every software update. (please pause for shock recovery)
If you’re still shocked and would to like see a “shocked groundhog” compilation, check this out.
Why is this significant? Well, this was always a
sticking point for our customers when upgrading from one version to the next.
Here’s how that usually plays out:
Engineers eager to try out new features or overcome software defects, download the software and install it on their workstations.
Surprise – software throws an obscure licensing error.
Engineer notifies IT or Ansys Channel partner of issue.
After a few calls, maybe a screenshare or two, its determined that the license server needs to be upgraded.
The best-case scenario – IT or PADT Support can get it installed in a few minutes and engineer can be on his way.
The usual scenario – it will take a week to schedule downtime on the server and notify all stakeholders and the engineer is left to simmer on medium-low until those important safeguards are handled.
What does this all mean?
Starting in January 2020, all new Ansys keys
issued will be in the new format and will require upgrading to the 2020R1
License manager. This should be the last mandatory license server upgrade
for a while.
Your Ansys Channel Partner will contact you ahead
of your next renewal to discuss new license increments and if there are any
expected changes.
Your IT and Ansys support team will be
celebrating in the back office the last mandatory Ansys License Manager upgrade
for a while.
How to upgrade the Ansys License Manager?
Download the latest license manager through the
Ansys customer portal:
Make sure that you run the installed as an administrator
for best results.
Make sure license server is running and has the
correct licenses queued:
Look for the green checkmark in the license management center window.
Start your application and make sure everything looks good.
This was a high-level flyover of the new Ansys Licensing released with version 2020R1. For specifics contact your PADT Account manager or support@padtinc.com .
In this article I will cover a Voltage Drop (DC IR) simulation in SIwave, applying realistic power delivery setup on a simple 4-layer PCB design. The main goal for this project is to understand what data we receive by running DC IR simulation, how to verify it, and what is the best way of using it.
And before I open my tools and start diving deep into this topic, I would like to thank Zachary Donathan for asking the right questions and having deep meaningful technical discussions with me on some related subjects. He may not have known, but he was helping me to shape up this article in my head!
Design Setup
There are many different power nets present on the board
under test, however I will be focusing on two widely spread nets +1.2V and
+3.3V. Both nets are being supplied through Voltage Regulator Module (VRM),
which will be assigned as a Voltage Source in our analysis. After careful
assessment of the board design, I identified the most critical components for
the power delivery to include in the analysis as Current Sources (also known as
‘sinks’). Two DRAM small outline integrated circuit (SOIC) components D1 and D2
are supplied with +1.2V. While power net +3.3V provides voltage to two quad
flat package (QFP) microcontrollers U20 and U21, mini PCIE connector, and hex
Schmitt-Trigger inverter U1.
Fig. 1. Power Delivery Network setting for a DC IR analysis
Figure 1 shows the ‘floor plan’ of the DC IR analysis
setup with 1.2V voltage path highlighted in yellow and 3.3V path highlighted in
light blue.
Before we assign any Voltage and Current sources, we need to
define pin groups for all nets +1.2V, +3.3V and GND for all PDN component
mentioned above. Having pin groups will significantly simplify the reviewing
process of the results. Also, it is generally a good practice to start the DC
IR analysis from the ‘big picture’ to understand if certain component gets
enough power from the VRM. If a given IC reports an acceptable level of voltage
being delivered with a good margin, then we don’t need to dig deeper; we can
instead focus on those which may not have good enough margins.
Once we have created all necessary pin groups, we can assign
voltage and current sources. There are several ways of doing that (using wizard
or manual), for this project we will use ‘Generate Circuit Element on
Components’ feature to manually define all sources. Knowing all the components
and having pin groups already created makes the assignment very
straight-forward. All current sources draw different amount of current, as indicated
in our setting, however all current sources have the same Parasitic Resistance
(very large value) and all voltage source also have the same Parasitic
Resistance (very small value). This is shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Note: The type of the current source ‘Constant Voltage’ or
‘Distributed Current’ matters only if you are assigning a current source to a
component with multiple pins on the same net, and since in this project we are
working with pins groups, this setting doesn’t make difference in final results.
Fig. 2. Voltage and Current sources assigned
Fig. 3. Parasitic Resistance assignments for all voltage and current sources
For each power net we have created a voltage source on VRM and multiple current sources on ICs and the connector. All sources have a negative node on a GND net, so we have a good common return path. And in addition, we have assigned a negative node of both voltage sources (one for +1.2V and one for +3.3V) as our reference points for our analysis. So reported voltage values will be referenced to that that node as absolute 0V.
At this point, the DC IR setup is complete and ready for
simulation.
Results overview and validation
When the DC IR simulation is finished, there is large amount
of data being generated, therefore there are different ways of viewing results,
all options are presented on Figure 4. In this article I will be
primarily focusing on ‘Power Tree’ and ‘Element Data’. As an additional source
if validation we may review the currents and voltages overlaying the design to
help us to visualize the current flow and power distribution. Most of the time
this helps to understand if our assumption of pin grouping is accurate.
Fig. 4. Options to view different aspects of DC IR simulated data
Power Tree
First let’s look at the Power Tree, presented on Figure 5. Two different power nets were simulated, +1.2V and +3.3V, each of which has specified Current Sources where the power gets delivered. Therefore, when we analyze DC IR results in the Power tree format, we see two ‘trees’, one for each power net. Since we don’t have any pins, which would get both 1.2V and 3.3V at the same time (not very physical example), we don’t have ‘common branches’ on these two ‘trees’.
Now, let’s dissect all the information present in this power tree (taking in consideration only one ‘branch’ for simplicity, although the logic is applicable for all ‘branches’):
We were treating both power nets +1.2V and +3.3V as separate voltage loops, so we have assigned negative nodes of each Voltage Source as a reference point. Therefore, we see the ‘GND’ symbol ((1) and (2)) for each voltage source. Now all voltage calculations will be referenced to that node as 0V for its specific tree.
Then we see the path from Voltage Source to Current Source, the value ΔV shows the Voltage Drop in that path (3). Ultimately, this is the main value power engineers usually are interested in during this type of analysis. If we subtract ΔV from Vout we will get the ‘Actual Voltage’ delivered to the specific current source positive pin (1.2V – 0.22246V = 0.977V). That value reported in the box for the Current Source (4). Technically, the same voltage drop value is reported in the column ‘IR Drop’, but in this column we get more details – we see what the percentage of the Vout is being dropped. Engineers usually specify the margin value of the acceptable voltage drop as a percentage of Vout, and in our experiment we have specified 15%, as reported in column ‘Specification’. And we see that 18.5% is greater than 15%, therefore we get ‘Fail_I_&_V’ results (6) for that Current Source.
Regarding the current – we have manually specified the current value for each Current Source. Current values in Figure 2 are the same as in Figure 5. Also, we can specify the margin for the current to report pass or fail. In our example we assigned 108A as a current at the Current Source (5), while 100A is our current limit (4). Therefore, we also got failed results for the current as well.
As mentioned earlier, we assigned current values for each Current Source, but we didn’t set any current values for the Voltage Source. This is because the tool calculates how much current needs to be assigned for the Voltage Source, based on the value at the Current Sources. In our case we have 3 Current Sources 108A, 63A, 63A (5). The sum of these three values is 234A, which is reported as a current at the Voltage Source (7). Later we will see that this value is being used to calculate output power at the Voltage Source.
Fig. 5. DC IR simulated data viewed as a ‘Power Tree’
Element Data
This option shows us results in the tabular representation. It lists many important calculated data points for specific objects, such as bondwire, current sources, all vias associated with the power distribution network, voltage probes, voltage sources.
Let’s continue reviewing the same power net +1.2V and the power distribution to CPU1 component as we have done for Power Tree (Figure 5). The same way we will be going over the details in point-by-point approach:
First and foremost, when we look at the information for Current Sources, we see a ‘Voltage’ value, which may be confusing. The value reported in this table is 0.7247V (8), which is different from the reported value of 0.977V in Power Tree on Figure 5 (4). The reason for the difference is that reported voltage value were calculated at different locations. As mentioned earlier, the reported voltage in the Power Tree is the voltage at the positive pin of the Current Source. The voltage reported in Element Data is the voltage at the negative pin of the Current Source, which doesn’t include the voltage drop across the ground plane of the return path.
To verify the reported voltage values, we can place Voltage Probes (under circuit elements). Once we do that, we will need to rerun the simulation in order to get the results for the probes:
Two terminals of the ‘VPROBE_1’ attached at the positive pin of Voltage Source and at the positive pin of the Current Source. This probe should show us the voltage difference between VRM and IC, which also the same as reported Voltage Drop ΔV. And as we can see ‘VPROBE_1’ = 222.4637mV (13), when ΔV = 222.464mV (3). Correlated perfectly!
Two terminals of the ‘VPROBE_GND’ attached to the negative pin of the Current Source and negative pin of the Voltage Source. The voltage shown by this probe is the voltage drop across the ground plane.
If we have 1.2V at the positive pin of VRM, then voltage drops 222.464mV across the power plane, so the positive pin of IC gets supplied with 0.977V. Then the voltage at the Current Source 0.724827V (8) being drawn, leaving us with (1.2V – 0.222464V – 0.724827V) = 0.252709V at the negative pin of the Current Source. On the return path the voltage drops again across the ground plane 252.4749mV (14) delivering back at the negative pin of VRM (0.252709V – 0.252475V) = 234uV. This is the internal voltage drop in the Voltage Source, as calculated as output current at VRM 234A (7) multiplied by Parasitic Resistance 1E-6Ohm (Figure 3) at VRM. This is Series R Voltage (11)
Parallel R Current of the Current source is calculated as Voltage 724.82mV (8) divided by Parasitic Resistance of the Current Source (Figure 3) 5E+7 Ohm = 1.44965E-8 (9)
Current of the Voltage Source report in the Element Data 234A (10) is the same value as reported in the Power Tree (sum of all currents of Current Sources for the +1.2V power net) = 234A (7). Knowing this value of the current we can multiple it by Parasitic Resistance of the Voltage Source (Figure 3) 1E-6 Ohm = (234A * 1E-6Ohm) = 234E-6V, which is equal to reported Series R Voltage (11). And considering that the 234A is the output current of the Voltage Source, we can multiple it by output voltage Vout = 1.2V to get a Power Output = (234A * 1.2V) = 280.85W (12)
Fig. 6. DC IR simulated data viewed in the table format as ‘Element Data’
In addition to all provided above calculations and explanations, the video below in Figure 7 highlights all the key points of this article.
Fig. 7. Difference between reporting Voltage values in Power Tree and Element Data
Conclusion
By carefully reviewing the Power Tree and Element Data reporting options, we can determine many important decisions about the power delivery network quality, such as how much voltage gets delivered to the Current Source; how much voltage drop is on the power net and on the ground net, etc. More valuable information can be extracted from other DC IR results options, such as ‘Loop Resistance’, ‘Path Resistance’, ‘RL table’, ‘Spice Netlist’, full ‘Report’. However, all these features deserve a separate topic.
As always, if you would like to receive more information related to this topic or have any questions please reach out to us at info@padtinc.com.
HFSS offers different method of
creating and simulating a large array. The explicit method, shown in Figure
1(a) might be the first method that comes to our mind. This is where you create
the exact CAD of the array and solve it. While this is the most accurate method
of simulating an array, it is computationally extensive. This method may be
non-feasible for the initial design of a large array. The use of unit cell (Figure
1(b)) and array theory helps us to start with an estimate of the array
performance by a few assumptions. Finite Array Domain Decomposition (or FADDM)
takes advantage of unit cell simplicity and creates a full model using the
meshing information generated in a unit cell. In this blog we will review the
creation of unit cell. In the next blog we will explain how a unit cell can be
used to simulate a large array and FADDM.
In a unit cell, the following assumptions are made:
The pattern of each element is identical.
The array is uniformly excited in amplitude, but not necessarily in phase.
Edge affects and mutual coupling are ignored
Fig. 2 An array consisting of elements amplitude and phases can be estimated with array theory, assuming all elements have the same amplitude and element radiation patterns. In unit cell simulation it is assumed all magnitudes (An’s) are equal (A) and the far field of each single element is equal.
A unit cell works based on
Master/Slave (or Primary/Secondary) boundary around the cell. Master/Slave
boundaries are always paired. In a rectangular cell you may use the new Lattice
Pair boundary that is introduced in Ansys HFSS 2020R1. These boundaries are
means of simulating an infinite array and estimating the performance of a
relatively large arrays. The use of unit cell reduces the required RAM and
solve time.
Primary/Secondary (Master/Slave) (or P/S) boundaries can be
combined with Floquet port, radiation or PML boundary to be used in an infinite
array or large array setting, as shown in Figure 3.
Fig. 3 Unit cell can be terminated with (a) radiation boundary, (b) Floquet port, (c) PML boundary, or combination of them.
To create a unit cell with P/S boundary, first start with a single element with the exact dimensions of the cell. The next step is creating a vacuum or airbox around the cell. For this step, set the padding in the location of P/S boundary to zero. For example, Figure 4 shows a microstrip patch antenna that we intend to create a 2D array based on this model. The array is placed on the XY plane. An air box is created around the unit cell with zero padding in X and Y directions.
Fig. 4 (a) A unit cell starts with a single element with the exact dimensions as it appears in the lattice
Fig. 4 (b) A vacuum box is added around it
You notice that in this example
the vacuum box is larger than usual size of quarter wavelength that is usually used
in creating a vacuum region around the antenna. We will get to calculation of this
size in a bit, for now let’s just assign a value or parameter to it, as it will
be determined later. The next step is to define P/S to generate the lattice. In
AEDT 2020R1 this boundary is under “Coupled” boundary. There are two methods to
create P/S: (1) Lattice Pair, (2) Primary/Secondary boundary.
Lattice Pair
The Lattice Pair works best for
square lattices. It automatically assigns the primary and secondary boundaries.
To assign a lattice pair boundary select the two sides that are supposed to
create infinite periodic cells, right-click->Assign
Boundary->Coupled->Lattice Pair, choose a name and enter the scan angles.
Note that scan angles can be assigned as parameters. This feature that is introduced
in 2020R1 does not require the user to define the UV directions, they
are automatically assigned.
Fig. 5 The lattice pair assignment (a) select two lattice walls
Fig. 5 (d) Phi and Theta scan angles can be assigned as parameters
Primary/Secondary
Primary/Secondary boundary is the same as what used to be called Master/Slave boundary. In this case, each Secondary (Slave) boundary should be assigned following a Primary (Master) boundary UV directions. First choose the side of the cell that Primary boundary. Right-click->Assign Boundary->Coupled->Primary. In Primary Boundary window define U vector. Next select the secondary wall, right-click->Assign Boundary->Couple->Secondary, choose the Primary Boundary and define U vector exactly in the same direction as the Primary, add the scan angles (the same as Primary scan angles)
Fig. 6 Primary and secondary boundaries highlights.
Floquet Port and Modes Calculator
Floquet port excites and
terminates waves propagating down the unit cell. They are similar to waveguide
modes. Floquet port is always linked to P/S boundaries. Set of TE and TM modes
travel inside the cell. However, keep in mind that the number of modes that are
absorbed by the Floquet port are determined by the user. All the other modes
are short-circuited back into the model. To assign a Floquet port two major
steps should be taken:
Defining Floquet Port
Select the face of the cell that you like to assign the Floquet port. This is determined by the location of P/S boundary. The lattice vectors A and B directions are defined by the direction of lattice (Figure 7).
Fig. 7 Floquet port on top of the cell is defined based on UV direction of P/S pairs
The number of modes to be
included are defined with the help of Modes Calculator. In the Mode Setup tab
of the Floquet Port window, choose a high number of modes (e.g. 20) and click
on Modes Calculator. The Mode Table Calculator will request your input of
Frequency and Scan Angles. After selecting those, a table of modes and their
attenuation using dB/length units are created. This
is your guide in selecting the height of the unit cell and vaccume box. The
attenation multiplied by the height of the unit cell (in the project units,
defined in Modeler->Units) should be large enough to make sure the modes are
attenuated enough so removing them from the calcuatlion does not cause errors.
If the unit cell is too short, then you will see many modes are not attenuated
enough. The product of the attenuatin and height of the airbox should be at
least 50 dB. After the correct size for the airbox is calcualted and entered,
the model with high attenuation can be removed from the Floquet port
definition.
The 3D Refinement tab is used to control the inclusion of the modes in the 3D refinement of the mesh. It is recommended not to select them for the antenna arrays.
Fig. 8 (Left) Determining the scan angles for the unit cell, (Right) Modes Calculator showing the Attenuation
In our example, Figure 8 shows
that the 5th mode has an attenuation of 2.59dB/length. The height of
the airbox is around 19.5mm, providing 19.5mm*2.59dB/mm=50.505dB attenuation
for the 5th mode. Therefore, only the first 4 modes are kept for the
calculations. If the height of the airbox was less than 19.5mm, we would need to
increase the height so accordingly for an attenuation of at least 50dB.
Radiation Boundary
A simpler alternative for Floquet port is radiation boundary. It is important to note that the size of the airbox should still be kept around the same size that was calculated for the Floquet port, therefore, higher order modes sufficiently attenuated. In this case the traditional quarter wavelength padding might not be adequate.
Fig. 9 Radiation boundary on top of the unit cell
Perfectly Matched Layer
Although using radiation boundary
is much simpler than Floquet port, it is not accurate for large scan angles. It
can be a good alternative to Floquet port only if the beam scanning is limited
to small angles. Another alternative to Floquet port is to cover the cell by a
layer of PML. This is a good compromise and provides very similar results to
Floquet port models. However, the P/S boundary need to surround the PML layer
as well, which means a few additional steps are required. Here is how you can
do it:
Reduce the size of the airbox* slightly, so after adding the PML layer, the unit cell height is the same as the one that was generated using the Modes Calculation. (For example, in our model airbox height was 19mm+substrte thickness, the PML height was 3mm, so we reduced the airbox height to 16mm).
Choose the top face and add PML boundary.
Select each side of the airbox and create an object from that face (Figure 10).
Select each side of the PML and create objects from those faces (Figure 10).
Select the two faces that are on the same plane from the faces created from airbox and PML and unite them to create a side wall (Figure 10).
Then assign P/S boundary to each pair of walls (Figure 10).
*Please note for this method, an auto-size “region” cannot be used, instead draw a box for air/vacuum box. The region does not let you create the faces you need to combine with PML faces.
Fig. 10 Selecting two faces created from airbox and PML and uniting them to assign P/S boundaries
The advantage of PML termination over Floquet port is that it is simpler and sometimes faster calculation. The advantage over Radiation Boundary termination is that it provides accurate results for large scan angles. For better accuracy the mesh for the PML region can be defined as length based.
Seed the Mesh
To improve the accuracy of the PML model further, an option is to use length-based mesh. To do this select the PML box, from the project tree in Project Manager window right-click on Mesh->Assign Mesh Operation->On Selection->Length Based. Select a length smaller than lambda/10.
Fig. 11 Using element length-based mesh refinement can improve the accuracy of PML design
Scanning the Angle
In phased array simulation, we are mostly interested in the performance of the unit cell and array at different scan angles. To add the scanning option, the phase of P/S boundary should be defined by project or design parameters. The parameters can be used to run a parametric sweep, like the one shown in Figure 12. In this example the theta angle is scanned from 0 to 60 degrees.
Fig. 12 Using a parametric sweep, the scanned patterns can be generated
Comparing PML and Floquet Port with Radiation Boundary
To see the accuracy of the
radiation boundary vs. PML and Floquet Port, I ran the simulations for scan
angles up to 60 degrees for a single element patch antenna. Figure 13 shows
that the accuracy of the Radiation boundary drops after around 15 degrees
scanning. However, PML and Floquet port show similar performance.
Fig. 13 Comparison of radiation patterns using PML (red), Floquet Port (blue), and Radiation boundary (orange).
S Parameters
To compare the accuracy, we can also check the S parameters. Figure 14 shows the comparison of active S at port 1 for PML and Floquet port models. Active S parameters were used since the unit cell antenna has two ports. Figure 15 shows how S parameters compare for the model with the radiation boundary and the one with the Floquet port.
Fig. 14 Active S parameter comparison for different scan angles, PML vs. Floquet Port model.
Fig. 15 Active S parameter comparison for different scan angles, Radiation Boundary vs. Floquet Port model.
Conclusion
The unit cell definition and options on terminating the cell
were discussed here. Stay tuned. In the next blog we discuss how the unit cell
is utilized in modeling antenna arrays.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
