Purpose

The article reports a benchmark of our Electro Magnetica Numerica, 3D electromagnetic field simulator, comparing the results of a planar patch antenna which is introduced by Vandenbosch et al.[1]

There are several benchmark models in the report [1], we take a simple planar patch model here.

 

Models

The planar patch antennas are fed by a microstrip line. One has electrically homogeneous substrate and another has inhomogeneous permitivity patch substrate just under the planar patch. Figure1shows the overview of the models, and dimensions are listed in Table1.

Figure 1: The overview of the planar patch antenna model.
includegraphics[width=12cm]{model_dimension.eps}

 

 

Table 1: Dimensions
id Length (mm)
d 1.52
Ws 3.8
L 15.2
L1 30.4
L2 5.7
H 5.07
Ls 76.0

 

Fig.2shows the inhomogeneous part in the substrate in the inhomogeneous model.

Figure 2: Patch Part of the inhomogeneous model.
Image inhomo_model

The primal relative permitivity $ varepsilon$ is $varepsilon =(3.38 - j0.0074)$, and the relative permitivity of the inhomogeneous patch part is $ varepsilon = (3.0 - j0.0039)$, where$ j$ is complex number unit.

Simulation Results

The S parameters of the two models that are described in the previous section are evaluated by the simulator. The signal is generated via Lumped element resistance model which is connected to the L1 microstrip line. Figure 3 shows the results.

Figure 3: S parameter of patch antennas on homogeneous substrate and inhomogeneous.
includegraphics[width=11cm]{S.eps}

Figure 3 indicates that the central frequency of the two models, homo and inhomo, are in Table 2.

 

Table 2: Simulated resonant frequency $ F_c$ for homo and inhomo models.
  $ F_c$
homo 5.33 GHz
inhomo 5.55 GHz

 

 Comparison with the other benchmarks

Table 3 and table 4 are reproduced of the central frequency fc from Vandenbosch et al.[1].

 

Table 3: The simulation benchmark results in case of homo by Vandenbosch et al.[1]
Software Package $ F_c$ (GHz)
MAGMAS 5.363
IE3D 5.335
FEKO 5.313
MOMENTUM 5.276
HFSS 5.305
CST MWS 5.28
Mesurement 5.173

 

 

 

Table 4: The simulation benchmark results in case of inhomo by Vandenbosch et al.[1]
Software Package $ F_c$ (GHz)
MAGMAS 5.615
IE3D 5.513
FEKO 5.472
MOMENTUM N/A
HFSS 5.539
CST MWS 5.499
Measurement 5.686


According to the paper [1], the measurement frequency data are expected to be smaller in homo case and larger in inhomo case. This is because the simulation results and the measurement results appeared differently.

The results of Electro Magnetica Numerica are comparable to the results of the other famous simulators. The authors [1] rated good to the benchmarked simulator and the EM should also rate the same.

 Summary

A benchmark from Vandenbosch et al.[1] is evaluated with our simulator, Electro Magnetica Numerica and the results shows the comparably good with the other simulators.

 Bibliography

1
Guy A. E. Vandenbosch and Alexander Vasylchenko.
A practical guide to 3d electromagnetic software tools.
www.intechopen.com, 2011.

Appendix: Electric Field Phasor at 5.0 GHz

Figure 4: Electric Field Distribution on x-y plane just above the antenna at 5.0 GHz.
[homo]Image homo_E_5Ghz_dist, [inhomo]Image inhomo_E_5Ghz_dist,

Appendix:Radiation Directivity at 5.0 GHz

Figure 5: Radiation Directivity at 5.0GHz.
[homo]Image homo_5Ghz_dir, [inhomo]Image inhomo_5Ghz_dir,

Appendix:Smith Chart

Figure 6: Impedance Smith Chart from 4.0 to 6.0 GHz.
[homo]Image homo_smith, [inhomo]Image inhomo_smith,

About this document ...

平面パッチアンテナのベンチマーク解析例

The translation was initiated by Hiroshi ABE on 2017-05-15

 

Hiroshi ABE
2017-05-15
FaLang translation system by Faboba