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.

Accuracy of CST when changing the size of Radiation Box (compare CST and HFSS)

Status
Not open for further replies.

nvt088

Member level 4
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
79
Helped
10
Reputation
20
Reaction score
10
Trophy points
8
Location
Jupiter
Activity points
509
Hi everyone.
I want to discuss about the impact of Radiation Box in CST simulation.
I have a system include 2 loops and a spiral coil (a Wireless Power Transfer, WPT System). My purpose is to calculate Resonant frequency of Spiral coils and S21(dB) in CST. Range of frequency = 1 MHz to 10 MHz.
In antenna simulation, Radiation box should be lamda/4 far from Antenna. But in this simulation, it's impossible to do that because of low frequency.
When I change the distance from Boundary Box to Object in CST: D = 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 mm, the results change a lot, both resonant frequency and S21.
The target frequency f0 in a WPT system is 6.8 MHz, so if f0 changes 0.5 MHz, it's a problem

Note that: Results in CST is not stable. But in HFSS, it's very stable. In HFSS, f0= 6.7 MHz even when I change D = 2500 or 4000 mm. But I can not use HFSS because it's really low, expencially when I want to simulate a more complex system.
HFSS results also very differ from CST results

1. Do you have any solution to make CST more stable and correct? For example: Meshing...
2. How to choose the size of Radiation box in CST?
3. How to make a same results between HFSS and CST.

Thank you very much for reading.

Radiation Boundary in CST.PNGRESULTS.PNGResults in HFSS.PNG
 

From the screenshot, it seems that the distance to your simulation boundary is only 2-3x larger than the distance to your pickup coils. It is no surprise that the simulation boundary can change results if it is so close. Carefully check what settings you have used for the boundary condition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nvt088

    nvt088

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Thank volker@muehlhaus very much.
In CST, Results is unstale. But in HFSS, Results are very stable even when size of radiation boundary is small or large.

Do you have any idea about Meshing of CST and Settings to make results correct? Because using CST is much faster than HFSS in simulating big systems?
Or do you have any idea to make HFSS simulation faster?
Many thanks^^
 

In CST, Results is unstale. But in HFSS, Results are very stable even when size of radiation boundary is small or large.

Check the type of boundary conditions that you have used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nvt088

    nvt088

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Check the type of boundary conditions that you have used.
Thank volker@muehlhaus very much.

The boundary conditions in CST is always PML. And in HFSS, I used Radiation Boundary.
I think that PML should be stable, right? So, why results in CST is not stable?

Many thanks
 

Hi, Even I am interested in knowing what should be the typical size of boundary box in CST.
I have used HFSS a lot but I am new to CST & just started learning it. HFSS has lot of tricks.
For CST, we have experts in this forum. hope they will help.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top