Continue to Site

Welcome to 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, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Register Log in

Perfect E boundary HFSS

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bou

Full Member level 3
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
159
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
16
Activity points
0
Hello

I m a new user of HFSS, I try to simulate an antenna

When I assign a perfect E boundary to the top face of my antenna and ground plane I get an S11=-16 dB that is correct but when I don't use it I get S11=-10 db..

Am I obliged to use this boundary? What does it change in my design? does it have any influence in radiation pattern??

Thank you for your help
 

yes you should apply pec boundary for metallic surfaces.
 

My antenna conductors are made with copper (PCB 2 layers)

In this case all the conductors faces must have perfect E boundary or just the upper and bottom faces??
 

It is better to have all faces assigned pec.
 

Is it the same thing, if I choose as material perfect conductor instead of copper?
 

no it is not the same. perfect condusctor usually doesn't take metallic losses into account.
 

To resume, for the design of a copper antenna, I choose copper as material I design the condcutors and after that I choose all faces and I assign perfect E boundary for better simulation

Is that right?
 

or you can assign material pec instead of copper. that would be faster. It is up to you.
 

But you have just said that it wasn't the same thing
 

using a metal takes into consideration losses. using pec instead is much faster. The results are not the same but are pretty close to each other.
Regards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bou

    B

    Bou

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
moh.haroun said:
using a metal takes into consideration losses. using pec instead is much faster. The results are not the same but are pretty close to each other.
Regards.
Click to expand...

Thank you moh.haroun for your replies :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top