Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'far field'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Altair Support Forum
    • Welcome to Altair Support Forum
    • Installation and Licensing
    • Modeling & Visualisation
    • Solvers & Optimization
    • Multi Body Simulation
    • Conceptual design and Industrial design
    • Model-Based Development
    • Manufacturing Simulation
    • CAE Process Automation
  • Academic Partner Alliance Forum
    • APA - Composites
    • APA - CFD & Thermal
    • APA - Vehicle Dynamics
    • APA - Manufacturing
    • APA - Crash and Safety
    • APA - Noise, Vibration and Harshness
    • APA - System Level Design
    • APA - Structural and Fatigue
    • APA - Marine
    • APA - Optical Design
  • Japanユーザーフォーラム
    • ユーザーフォーラムへようこそ
    • Altair製品の意外な活用例
    • インストールとライセンス
    • モデリング(プリプロセッシング)
    • シミュレーション技術(ソルバー)
    • データ可視化(ポストプロセッシング)
    • モデルベース開発
    • コンセプト設計と工業デザイン
    • 製造シミュレーション
    • CAE プロセスの自動化
    • 学生向け無償版
    • エンタープライズソリューション

Categories

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Interests


Organization

Found 5 results

  1. Hello, I am trying to understand the results of the CMA of a meandered monopole on a ground plane. The modal significance plot shows two dominant modes (mode 1 and 4). The curve looks smooth and consistent so I expect no mode tracking error here. However, when I look at the far field patterns of the modes and cycle through the frequencies (see below) I noticed that the patterns change very drastically. Mode 1 seems to be the lambda/2 dipole mode at 850 MHz (doughnut pattern) but it changes very quickly above 1.1 GHz. Mode 4 starts as a double-doughnut (similar to 2xlambda dipole) but changes into the single doughnut shape at 1.2 GHz. The total radiation pattern obtained through "Standard configuration" changes only very slightly. So my question is how to interpret the quickly changing far field patterns. I know that FEKO is tracking the modes according to current densitiy correlation. But shouldn't there be some consistency of the far field patterns, too? Is there a tracking error? Or is this the expected characteristic? I am just starting out with CMA. Thanks, Christian meandered_monopole.cfx
  2. Dear All, I have an issue concerning the use of “Double NeGative” (DNG) metamaterials. The issue regards either the electromagnetic scattering of plane waves from DNG metamaterial cylinders or the evaluation of the reflection coefficient for waveguides partially filled with metamaterials. I firstly considered an indefinite (along the z axis), homogeneous cylinder having radius = 4lambda in the case of normally incident plane wave with TM polarization at f = 300MHz (see Fig. 1 in attached files). The cylinder is filled up with a DNG metamaterial having eps_r= -2.2, while mu_r<0 changes from case to case. An indefinite cylinder has been obtained with periodic boundary conditions. The result from FEKO is compared with a cylindrical wave expansion (see “Normal Incidence Plane Wave Scattering by Conducting Circular Cylinder: TMzPolarization” – Advanced Engineering Electromagnetic, Constantine A. Balanis). FEKO and the cylindrical wave expansion agree for mu_r =-1 (see Fig. 2) and for mu_r = -1.2 (see Fig. 3), while they disagree for mu_r= -1.3 and mu_r = -1.5 (see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). Please, find attached the related .cfx file and relative figures. In the second case, I considered an X-band rectangular waveguide structure (see Fig.6) partially filled with a DNG metamaterial, now with epr_r = -2 and mu_r<0 changing from case to case, and terminated with a short circuit. The result from FEKO has been compared with waveguide theory. While for mu_r from -1 to -1.2 the reflection coefficient is ok, for mu_r = -1.5 (or in general lower than mu_r=-1.3) the phases of the numerical and analytical reflection coefficients differ: the numerical phase is -79.7° while the analytical one is -105.1°. Again, the .cfx file is attached. Thank you very much for any help. A_Case1a_metacylinder_DNG_epsr2.2_mur1.cfx A_Case1b_metacylinder_DNG_epsr2.2_mur1.2.cfx A_Case1c_metacylinder_DNG_epsr2.2_mur1.3.cfx A_Case1d_metacylinder_DNG_eps_2.2_mu_1.5.cfx B_Case1a_Rectangular_Waveguide_ partially_filled_memetamaterial_DNG_epsr2_mur1_.cfx B_Case1b_Rectangular_Waveguide_ partially_filled_memetamaterial_DNG_epsr2_mur1.3_.cfx B_Case1c_Rectangular_Waveguide_ partially_filled_memetamaterial_DNG_epsr2_mur12_.cfx B_Case1d_Rectangular_Waveguide_ partially_filled_memetamaterial_DNG_epsr2_mur1.5_.cfx
  3. Is there any option in feko to import far field radiation pattern E theta and E phi? Please help
  4. Hi, In my simulation ,I requested 3D far field patterns. After running the simulation, when checked the far-field output in postfeko I get the following error 'Error 16030: Does not contain axes which can be plotted on a 3D view '. I could not figure out how to solve this. Similarly, I can not find the near fields as POSTFEKO says 'missing data' . I am not sure how to fix this error. any help would be greatly appreciated..! Thanks
  5. How to request near and far fields for horn antenna in FEKO?
×
×
  • Create New...