eefundi
Newbie
Hello,
I have been trying to simulate Chebyshev couplers in HFSS, but none of the results are as expected.
Even the simple examples in Pozar's and Collin's books are giving very different results.
I went back to simulating the Bethe hole coupler examples and they are also giving different results.
After doing a parametric sweep, I found that expected results are produced at different offsets (or different frequencies for the same offset).
The below images are for example 6.1 in Collin's book (Foundations for Microwave Engineering).
I had initially moved past the Bethe hole design and began designing Chebyshev couplers, but when the results were far from expected, I figured I should go back and confirm the Bethe hole results. Now I'm stuck here.
Is there any conventional way to compensate for this shift?
I would appreciate any feedback very much!
Thanks,
Fundi
I have been trying to simulate Chebyshev couplers in HFSS, but none of the results are as expected.
Even the simple examples in Pozar's and Collin's books are giving very different results.
I went back to simulating the Bethe hole coupler examples and they are also giving different results.
After doing a parametric sweep, I found that expected results are produced at different offsets (or different frequencies for the same offset).
The below images are for example 6.1 in Collin's book (Foundations for Microwave Engineering).
Calculated coupling factor and directivity
Parametric sweep of offset for same radius in example, shows the directivity is closest to the expected value at an offset of 6 mm rather than 4.64 mm as in the example (port 4 is coupled and port 3 is isolated)
I had initially moved past the Bethe hole design and began designing Chebyshev couplers, but when the results were far from expected, I figured I should go back and confirm the Bethe hole results. Now I'm stuck here.
Is there any conventional way to compensate for this shift?
I would appreciate any feedback very much!
Thanks,
Fundi