[Help] CPW-fed planar monopole in C$T MW$

Status
Not open for further replies.

Element7k

Advanced Member level 1
Joined
May 7, 2003
Messages
434
Helped
26
Reputation
52
Reaction score
19
Trophy points
1,298
Location
TherealLapland
Activity points
4,278
Hi all,

I am trying to simulate a CPW planar monopole and has taken the attached example to try out in C$T. However using the dimensions in the attached paper, I didn't get the desired return loss response as described by the authors. Can someone pls help to see if similar results are obtained in IE3D and as compare with MW$? I need to know if I have done something wrong in the MW$ project or if the dimensions in the paper is inaccurate.

Hope you can all help

Cheers,
Element7k
 

I am just wondering if anyone has got close to the results that was presented in the paper? I am awaiting for any comments that will come through.

Thanks

Element7k
 

Hi there...

I am getting an error everytime I try to download your upped files...
General Error

The selected Attachment does not exist anymore

404 File Not Found: The File files-eboard/broadband_cpw.pdf does not exist.
Click to expand...

Is something wrong ? The download counter works fine but no success(xx times downloaded) hehe

Maybe could re-upload them?

mogwai.
 

I've also had difficulties when trying to simulate antennas provided by different authors (mainly from K.L. Wong book: Planar antennas for wireless communication).

The problem is to model return loss correctly. I've had errors around +10dB or even more. Of course, me neither have an idea if the measures in the book are inaccurate. I've also tried to increase mesh density. In one particular problem there was, however not significant effect if model had 10'000 or 600'000 cells.

I wonder if anyone have managed to model return loss trustable with C$T? Maybe I'll try Ansoft HFSS because it's also available to me.

Regards,

Markus
 

Hi mogwai,

I have updated the files. Please try downloading again. I will very much appreciate any help.

Thanks in advance.

Element7k

mogwai said:
Hi there...

I am getting an error everytime I try to download your upped files...
General Error
Click to expand...
 

markus said:
I've also had difficulties when trying to simulate antennas provided by different authors (mainly from K.L. Wong book: Planar antennas for wireless communication).
Click to expand...

The dim provided in the book are usually incomplete so guessing is needed for some of the values. Maybe this may led to inaccuracy. Moreover, some of the antennas are tuneable. K L W0ng does not usually mention what values to twitch so that makes life difficult for someone trying to replicate the antenna.


Most designs in K L Wong books need slight alterations and they are mostly simulated with 1E3D or HF$$. (Maybe dim altered because of commerical reasons) However, I feel if it is a submission to a education journal, such as the electronics letters, I think I should be able to obtain similar results at the first goal with having to alter any dim. :?

markus said:
I wonder if anyone have managed to model return loss trustable with C$T? Maybe I'll try Ansoft HFSS because it's also available to me.
Click to expand...

We have made numerous antennas including CPW ones and got good results with C$T.

Regards,
Element7k
 

The best results I could run from your project in MWS are attached...

Increased accuracy level (-50db - AR off) gives better results for return loss levels, but resonances are still offset in frequency...

Probably the dimensions are altered in the proposed design...
There is an apparent double-resonance near 2GHz but is not as clear as in the paper...

Maybe you have to run some parametrics to see how it behaves ... :?

Hope this helps a little bit

cheers!
mogwai.
 

Hi mogwai!!

thanks for the simulation run. It does help as it confirms that CST can only get so close and the dims does need to be changed. It will be brilliant if anyone using IE3D can verify this result.

Cheers,
Elment7k

mogwai said:
The best results I could run from your project in MWS are attached...
mogwai.
Click to expand...
 

results of ie3d
and you can take ie3d10 for trial now , it's free for 60 days.
 

Dear Divan,

thanks for posting the ie3d results. They do seem closer to what is presented in the paper now. Did you change any dimensions? Maybe there is some port mode problems with my model in CST. I will have to investigate. However, as I am not a regular user of IE3D, I have one more question, about how to feed a CPW in IE3D? Is is fed in the usual edge fed manner? Or is there a special way in which you can define a CPW port?

Any help is appreciated.

Element7k
 

Hello!
i had tryed to use all dimensions from article, dxf file is included in archive ( full ie3d model set as well ).
substrate FR4 #1.6 mm, Er=4.3 , tand=0.02

mesh parameters was as
Highest freq = 7 GHz
20 cells / wavelenghth, 2007 cells in total
edge cells subdivision was OFF , so this was not so good, but i had no time to solve better .

SMSi Solver was used.

Coplanar port definition you can make as : Port-> Port for Edge group ,
after that Right mouse click you define "+Port" , Left mouse click will define "-Port" . Cells for deembedding arms = 3 (need more i guess , this by default)

Model is not good and result at ~5GHz is defferent from reference because. You can improve it if make automatic edge cells and may be migrate to 3d model, but i'm not sure in last sentence.
 

Have anyone tried it with HFSS. I have tried it without any success. Anyone can help? It seems that CPW feed is a probem with most simulator. I got a better sresult (still does not agree well with the paper) with lump feed but no luck with waveport. there is also a result from CST with lump port.
 


Hi, friend!

I'm also trying to simulate that CPW monopole in MWS. First I've noted that your FR4 has εr=4.4 instead 4.9 (?)
Anyway the port impedance is ~70Ω, is that correct? I guessed that the line was designed for 50Ω.

BTW, I will have a new machine with two AMD 64bit processors and 4GB of RAM
Still not real-time tunning of antennas but hope speed improvement will be significant..
 

    Element7k

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Hi eirp,

the FR4 in the paper was 4.4. Thanks for highlighting the port impedance I will change the CPW to 50 ohm and see if it coincide with results published. I believe this antenna can achieve UWB bandwidth by changing the geometry slightly. Any suggestions?

lol dual processor AMD 64! Did you build the machine yourself? Forgive my ignorance but have you tried to see if the 4 GB of RAM is actually addressable in term of expanding EM problem size or is it just making the computer run faster?

Cheers,
Element7k

 

The 4 GB of RAM won't help unless you are using Windows XP64 (64 bit windows) and the 64 bit version of CST MWS. With the standard, 32-bit Windows XP, that largest amount of RAM a single allocation in a program can address is 2 GB. UNLESS you find the special boot switch in XP Pro that will let you address up to 3 GB. The 4th GB is still useful though, so your OS can use it and not force you to swap to disk when you work on a problem that takes up to 3 GB though.

--Max
 


Hi,

of course I'm talking about 64bit system + 64bit MWS.
My machine allows max amount 12GB of RAM, anyway I think that 4GB is fine for the beginning

Added after 2 minutes:


element7k: I haven't time to build computers, this is done by external company and of course i would not pay for it
I'm facing some EM problems where my current 2GB aren't enough, the RAM must be in pairs so I had to choose between 1+1GB or 2+2GB

e.
 

So, what's the last conclusion ? To use waveguide port or lumped port to drive the CPW in CST?

Regards
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…