Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About shan25

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Are you University user?

Recent Profile Visitors

632 profile views
  1. I am looking to specify the complex tensor which are the cross-coupling dyadic terms describing the magneto-electric effect
  2. Is it possible to model bi-anisotropic media in FEKO? Under anisotropic material definition I could find options for defining permittivity and permeability tensors, but in addition to it I want to define tensor for electric and magnetic coupling terms. Is there a way to define it in FEKO?
  3. I simulated the model in FEKO 2019.3 and got the same plot as shown in my previous comment. I feel the periodic boundary condition in FEKO is not very reliable.
  4. When I ran the attached model with the correct mesh the feko solver reports the following error message ERROR 50228: The boundary mesh elements of the unit cell are not consistent with the periodic boundary condition Can you please provide a solution for this issue 2_5lambda2_5lambda_anisotropic_slab_4_4_8_PW_FEM.cfx
  5. I found out that when I don't use periodic boundary condition the mesh looks correct as below but when I specified periodic boundary condition and re-meshed the model then the anisotropic region gets defined as air. Which causes the total scattered field to equal to the incident field. Is this a bug in FEKO when using PBC?
  6. As you mentioned I reduced the size of the slab and checked if the mesh are defined correctly for different regions. But the total near field result looks still not right 2_5lambda2_5lambda_anisotropic_slab_4_4_8_PW_FEM.cfx
  7. Hi Mel, Can you please attach your model with the correct mesh. Thanks
  8. When I tried to mesh the attached model I get the following error message "Error 17860: The voxel grid generator has failed due to the maximum number of voxels being exceeded." I have an academic FEKO license. May I know the reason for this error message 16lambda8lambda_anisotropic_slab_4_4_8_PW_FDTD.cfx
  9. I used PBC to define an infinitely extended anisotropic slab. I highly doubt the near field results predicted by feko, as the total field is approximately equal to the incident field I have attached the CADFEKO model, can you let me know if the PBC are defined correctly. 5lambda5lambda_anisotropic_slab_4_4_8_PW_FEM.cfx
  10. Simulation ran when I selected phase shift option in periodic boundary condition setting as specify manually and set the phase shift in u1 and u2 directions to be zero. In post feko I compared the efield obtained by plate- PBC vs plate UTD simulation. In UTD simulation I asked the solver to include only reflection which in turn means the plate is infinitely extended. The near field results looks acceptable only for certain observation points I have attached both feko models. As a next step I want to define an infinitely extended anisotropic slab by using periodic boundary condition. plate_pec.cfx plate_pec_utd.cfx
  11. I want to define an infinite PEC plate by using periodic boundary condition in FEKO. When I ran the attached model I always get the following error message. ERROR 32730: A solution is not possible for this combination of frequency, periodic spacing and phase shift. Please change one of these quantities slightly. Can you have a look at the model and let me know how to model an infinite plate in feko? plate_pec.cfx
  12. Hi Torben, I was expecting this answer. As the wedge and corner diffracted fields from feko were predicting fields as if the plate is of PEC type. You can convey to feko developer that for a homogeneous dielectric slab/coating UTD wedge and corner diffracted formulates can be easily modified. It also seems to me that UTD corner diffracted formulations implemented in feko is based on this paper "First-order equivalent current and corner diffraction scattering from flat plate structures". This formulation is not accurate I noticed it when comparing UTD results with MoM.
  13. I applied dielectric coating to PEC plate and computed nearfield results using UTD and MoM. Thickness of the layered dielectric was set to be lambda/200. Result obtained by UTD for observation points in spherical coordinates with theta>70 deg looks identical to result obtained from a PEC plate. I have attached the result figure and feko model files. Can you please comment on the result. 4lambda4lambda_dielectric_coating_plate_dipole_MOM.cfx 4lambda4lambda_dielectric_coating_plate_dipole_UTD.cfx 4lambda4lambda_pec_plate_dipole_UTD.cfs
  14. Hi Mel, Thanks for your reply. I tried modeling the structure using FEM solver. I get this error ERROR 50058: Missing buffer zone for the anisotropic FEM region when coupling MoM and FEM I don't have any MoM regions in the model. I get the same error message when enabling/disabling "Decouple from MoM" in solver settings. Can you please explain the reason for this error message. anisodielectric_slab_xy_plane_4GHz_WH1_T_004_biaxial_2_2_8_FEM.cfx
  15. Hi I am modeling a thin bi-axial anisotropic slab with plane wave illumination using FDTD solver. In order to validate result from FDTD I made the anisotropic tensor to be isotropic and modeled the structure using MOM-MLFMM solver. When I compared the near field results I find a shift in total electric field for certain observation points. I have attached the model and postfeko file for your reference. Can you please have a look at the FDTD solver model and let me know if I have to change any simulation settings. Thanks, Shan25 anisodielectric_slab_xy_plane_4GHz_WH1_T_004_biaxial_2_2_2.cfx anisodielectric_slab_xy_plane_4GHz_WH1_T_004_biaxial_2_2_2_MOM.cfx
  • Create New...