August 22, 2019 at 6:20 pmEthanWangSubscriber
I follow the build-in Getting Started guide on Radar Cross Section to do a computation on the scattering by a dieletric sphere. The bistatic RCS result from HFSS (even after many refinement passes) still seems to be pretty off from the Mie theory solution.
The PEC cube in the guide is changed into a dielectric sphere of relative permittivity = 2.56. The simulation is done at 300MHz. The distance between PML and sphere is set to be 1 meter > λ/4. The incident wave is a plane wave towards +z, with E-field polarized along x-axis. After 16 adaptive passes, the solution has a delta energy ~ 0.001, and the sphere mesh has about 480k tetrahedrons. The normalized Bistatic RCS on E-plane looks closed to Mie theory, while on H-plane, it looks pretty off.
I check the Mie theory solution, for example in Figure 7.11 (Section 7.4.4) on page 356 from the text book Theory and Computation of Electromagnetic Fields amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Computation-Electromagnetic-Fields-Wiley/dp/1119108047/
I would like to know why this discrepancy happens and how to mitigate it. Thanks in advance !
August 22, 2019 at 10:54 pmEthanWangSubscriber
PS : In the plots, Mie theory solution is shown in orange, HFSS in blue. The Mie theory solution look identical to the textbook plot, which can be found on page 356. You can find a book preview on google book: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Theory+and+Computation+of+Electromagnetic+Fields
November 14, 2020 at 4:34 pmHamadSubscriberI have exactly the same issue. Can anyone help?n
November 16, 2020 at 7:57 amAndyJPSubscriberHFSS is a FINITE element method. I.e. there is a space segmentation. It naturally leads to missing the target. The original feature of HFSS is adaptive meshing algorithm, which iteratively finds important areas for denser meshing, bringing you closer to truth, without requiring a supercomputer cluster and terabytes of RAM.nI would say, your plots are almost equal to your theoretical computation. The fit is really good in important areas. You would not get better in experiment. nYou can get better result with denser meshing.nBut the power of HFSS is in solving arbitrary geometry with arbitrary properties, which no analytic method can solve. nSo you are just too picky to unimportant details, missing the main thing.n
November 18, 2020 at 10:27 amrtkAnsys EmployeeHello,nThe Analysis settings seem to be fine and what you could check about is the Boundary settings, like whether the boundary conditions are same in all the directions. You were saying like you got good results in one plane and other plane showing off results. So there are chances of the boundary condition discrepancies.nOtherwise, if every setup is intact then I would say the plot you got might be the correct one for the Model under simulation.nnRegards,n
- 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.
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?
- 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
© 2023 Copyright ANSYS, Inc. All rights reserved.