-
-
August 30, 2017 at 10:49 pm
holloway
SubscriberFolks,
I'm designing a binary traveling wave phase modulator on an integrated circuit process using HFSS and ADS. Active devices are used as switches. Nominal impedances for these devices at a given bias point were obtained via circuit models. This nominal impedance (in the "switch on" and "switch off" states were used to tune a full-wave model by using lumpedRLC boundary conditions. The model was driven with two lumped ports (a slot line input and microstrip output). The HFSS-simulated results match physical expectations.
The lumped RLC boundary conditions were then replaced (the same surface objects were utilized) with lumped ports. The resultant 4-port was simulated in HFSS and the S-Matrix was exported (normalized, of course, to 50 Ohm). This touchstone file was then utilized in a circuit simulation (ADS) to re-create the previously-simulated response by loading the two "new" ports with the same complex impedances previously used. The resultant 2-port response differs significantly from the original HFSS-only modeled response.
I've included a PDF with some of the details. In short, wave ports have been attempted on the input and output ports. Different characteristic impedances for the new "switch terminal ports" have been tried. The model has been split into two sections in an attempt to prevent any wave circulation in the 4-port structure. The fields around the new switching ports have been verified to be TEM in nature.
None of these changes have significantly changed the response I see in ADS.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
-
April 29, 2019 at 4:31 pm
ansysqueries
SubscriberHi holloway, I have been facing a similar problem. There is a significant difference in the results when lumped RLCs are replaced by lumped ports and then the snp file is exported to ADS to recreate the same results. Have you found any solution to this problem? Any help will be appreciated.
-
April 29, 2019 at 5:43 pm
Peter Serano
Ansys Employee@holloway - Your issues are coming up because you are defining a differential port in HFSS and then modeling it as a single-ended port with common ground reference in ADS. - Instead of using ADS, I would recommend using the built-in circuit simulator inside ANSYS Electronics Desktop.
Take a look at this post for instructions on how to setup a circuit model with differential ports in the AEDT Circuit Simulator: https://forum.ansys.com/forums/topic/lumped-rlcs-vs-lumped-ports-in-hfss-substantial-difference-in-the-results/
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Earth Rescue – An Ansys Online Series
The climate crisis is here. But so is the human ingenuity to fight it. Earth Rescue reveals what visionary companies are doing today to engineer radical new ideas in the fight against climate change. Click here to watch the first episode.

Ansys Blog
Subscribe to the Ansys Blog to get great new content about the power of simulation delivered right to your email on a weekly basis. With content from Ansys experts, partners and customers you will learn about product development advances, thought leadership and trends and tips to better use Ansys tools. Sign up here.
- simulation completed with execution error on server
- Signing up as ANSYS Support Coordinator
- How to export Ansys Maxwell simulation results for post-processing in matlab or in .csv file
- Maxwell, HFSS or Q3D?
- Error
- Unable to assign correctly the excitations in a coil
- Running ANSYS HFSS on the HPC (it runs on Linux only)
- Running ANSYS HFSS on multiple nodes on SLURM based cluster
- Intersect errors with model with complex structure
- Number of parallel paths in Ansys Maxwell
-
2646
-
2110
-
1337
-
1118
-
461
© 2023 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.