which software to simulate and optimise Ku microstrip filter

use which one to simulate high frequency circuit?
hfss?
Zeland Ie3d?
cst?
sonnet?
ensemble?
which one is the fastest?which one is most precise?
thanks

Re: which software to simulate and optimise Ku microstrip fi

i used ie3d before to optimize some passive stuctures it is simple , and fast

khouly

Re: which software to simulate and optimise Ku microstrip fi

Hi,

I used Momentum from Agilent ADS design suite, it was fast and very accurate, spot on with measurements.

flyhigh

Re: which software to simulate and optimise Ku microstrip fi

Hi

Use Zeland IE3D it's the best one from all. Accurate and fastest
For this purpose
you can import your GDSII file or sat. dxf. gerber

PL

Re: which software to simulate and optimise Ku microstrip fi

Whenever anyone talks about "accuracy" they are wearing a hat labeled "sales". This is true whether it is a vendor, user, or researcher.

Engineers, on the otherhand, are interested in "error", and they figure out how much it is quantitatively and precisely.

If you would like a simple test you can use for figuring out exactly what error is for any EM analysis tool, see the thread at:



in the EM section of EDAboard. This describes a very simple test you can use to see exactly what the error is for a very simple structure. All the EM tools should converge to zero error given infinite analysis time, so what you need to consider is how much error there is for a given amount of analysis time.

Now, I am going to say Sonnet (I work for Sonnet) has the smallest (by far!) error for a given amount of analysis time. But do not believe me for one second! And do not believe anyone else for one second! Check it for yourself. Should require no more than one hour per tool to check this out, including time spent learning the tool from scratch. And then you will see for yourself.

In the case of Sonnet, you can run the test using the free SonnetLite, download at (www.sonnetsoftware.com).

Hi
I have a suggestion for you.
for a microstrip filter Microwave Office,CST,IE3D are good choice for comfortable and fast optimization.
but they are not accurate.of course CST is better in some extent.
on the other hand HFSS is very accurate but time consuming.
A good approuch is to primerily analyse and optimize your structure with faster software and after getting primery answer finally optimize your structure with HFSS.
regards.

Re: which software to simulate and optimise Ku microstrip fi

Hi mahdithdn -- Thanks for taking the time to give your opinion rather than remaining silent. It is very much appreciated.

Basically, I don't know where this "volume meshing is slower but more accurate than surface meshing" idea came from, but it is very wide spread and it is totally wrong.

First, if you have infinite computer resources, all correct EM tools will give essentially the same answer provided you use a sufficiently fine mesh. For time domain tools, like CST, you have to also get enough of the impulse response. For FEM tools, like HFSS, you also have to get the current to converge.

Thus, we have to check how much error there is as a function of analysis time. This is easiest to do for a simple circuit for which we know the exact answer. One such circuit is the stripline standard discussed above. Do the test on all tools that you can get hold of. Look at the calculated Zo and compare it to the known exact answer. Any difference is error. Refine the mesh and plot the error as a function of analysis time.

If you can't get Zo from the tool, make the line width so that the exact Zo is exactly 50 Ohms and the length is exactly 1/4 wavelength, then 100*mag(S11) = percent error in Zo. Mag(S11) = 0.01 means 1% error in Zo. (You probably should do this for volume meshing tools, they usually have an independent 2-D solver that calculates Zo. You want to evaluate the 3-D solver, not the 2-D solver.)

We did this for CST and we were given results for HFSS. What we found is that CST is clearly better than HFSS. That is why we decided to represent CST in North America. Of the volume meshing tools it is simply the best. If CST had not been clearly better (or even just a little bit better), we would have stayed out of volume meshing.

We also found that for this circuit at 0.1% error, Sonnet is about 1000X faster than HFSS. If we back off to 3% error, it is now only about 100X faster, for this circuit and for our specific set up. (The volume meshing FEM HFSS, not the surface meshing MoM Ensemble HFSS was used.)

But...Don't believe me or anyone else!!!! After all, I work for a (kind of) competitor of all these tools. Do the test for yourself, on your computer, using stripline dimensions and substrates similar to whatever you use in your work.

If nothing else, use the Ensemble part of HFSS for your planar circuits (I have not seen test data on Ensemble, but if it is a correctly done, being an MoM surface meshing code, it should achieve a given level of accuracy much faster than any volume meshing code).

You will find that volume meshers are great for 3-D arbitrary structures and surface meshers work great on planar structures, and in practice there is actually very little that either tool can do well in the other's territory.

In the US, the national motto is, "In G0d we trust." To that, as scientists and engineers we add, "All others must have proof." So, don't trust me. Get proof.

Re: which software to simulate and optimise Ku microstrip fi

Although I think it is grossly overpriced, I have seen good correlation between testing and predictions with HFSS at Ku band.