Zeland IE3D, Ansoft HFSS and CST comparison

[cyai]

zeland ie3d

I use three kinds of EM software to simulate PIFA, and I compare with the EM softwares.

1. IE3D, Moment of Method (MoM), suitable for 2-D planar antenna simulation.
resource support: low
2. CST, Perfet Boundary Approximation (PBA), suitable for 3-D antenna simulation
resoucre support: medium
3. HFSS, Finite Element Method (PEM), suitable for 3-D antenna simulation.
resource support: high

CST and HFSS are 3-D antenna simulator, but CST is a Time-Domain simulator; HFSS is a Frequency-Domain simulator. Although they have the similar results, CST can save simulation time more than HFSS.
By the way, CST is able to simulate UWB antenna from 2 ~ 13 GHz directly, without setting convergence region. But HFSS need to separate 2 or 3 convergence regions simulating UWB antenna.

 

[fekete]

zeland ie3d

Did you run a few examples (planar) on all simulators and compare results and simulation times?

 

[hthsu]

zeland ie3d 7

Do you have the example for the UWB antenna used for comparing the convergence behavior of HFSS and CST?

Thanks!

 

[egliu]

ansoft cst

do you agree that it need more experences to get a good resuls using HFSS

 

[dursun]

zeland fidelity

I agree, HFSS is powerfull, but it requires much work to get precise results. For example, I have been dealing with a problem of a monpole over a finite gnd (perpendicular to the groundplane) and haven't got good results yet because of the port definition and problems with the probe... Still working on it. If anyone could help.
I am also working in ie3d, it's is quite easy and results for planar structures are quite good.

Best regards
Ania

 

[owsunny]

zeland defining ports

as me to know ,CST also has Frequency-Domain simulator and HFSS has Time-Domain simulator

 

[adel_48]

zeland ie3d 14

Hi,

I think using HFSS and CST requires a good knowledge of the numerical techniques they use, that is why most of the users get incorrect results, specially when the error is concerned with feed modeling and source port definition.

However, I think that IE3D is much simpler in defining the ports (They are done semi-automatically). And it does not require much knowledge of the MoM method, except that concerning the convergence.

 

[abuantenna]

zeeland ie3d

Hi,

I designed many horn antennas using CST. When the lines/lamda is small then no problem. But, if the lines/lamda goes up, then you need realy super computer to do the design. Especially if you need to simulate complex structure like corrugated horns. There is also script language underneath CST and it is really nice.

By

 

[plasma]

hfss cst comparison

Hi cyai

goto

For ZELAND you don't right the Support Very good
(look for jian in Electromagnetic Design and Simulation forum. he is very helpfull you will get from him quick and good answer )

PL

 

[birdone]

ie3d hfss comparison

CST IS GOLD ENOUGH FOT RF

 

[cheng]

hfss to cst

If one may say that in CST MWS one may use a single setup from 2-13 Ghz on strongly radiating structure - he has no clue of what PML is or he cares not about accuracy.

 

[haitaoz]

comparison of ie3d,cst and hfss

From my experience of using HFSS,it becomes much easier with the latest version and there are quite a few free training all over the world.And the results fits the measurement as well.

 

[zhangjavier]

antenna simulator hfss cst

can I perform EM simulation of a RF circuit after layout use these tools?

 

[smallcat]

cst comparison

I think you should use IE3D for 2.5D structure, for example PIFA, you can get the accurate results in an efficient way.But for 3D structure, if you are not very familiar with CEM you should use HFSS.

 

[pennylsn]

.cst to .ie3d

is it possible to use Zeland Fidelity for modeling PIFAs??

 

[jian]

best 3d antenna modeling software hfss cst zeland

Hi, pennylsn:

You certainly can use FIDELITY to model PIFA antennas. I believe you e-mail us your FIDLEITY project. An engineer is checking it. He found some problem in your project and he has corrected it. He will send you the corrected one. Thanks!

 

[3dandyw]

cst vs ansoft

Hi,

HFSS and CST are good solution requiring some experience to fine tune their settings to get good solution.

I find that the approach of MICROSTRIPES (3D EM Solution) with their TLM approach makes it easier and provide great accuracy.

you may want to consider it (THE ALTERNATIVE)

good luck
AW

 

[ADS_RFMW]

compare hfss with cst simulation

Agilent too has 3D FEM EM tool (EMDS)...it is good for beginnners

 

[khouly]

zeland tutorial example

did u try it , i heard it is like the old HFSS of agilent

any comments about its accuracy , and speed , memory usage

khouly

 

[Waltz_Fan]

hfss frequency domain

anyway, ansoft HFSS is the tools, which need lots of time to analyzation, I think.