Benchmark of full Maxwell 3-dimensional electromagnetic field solvers on prototype cavity-backed aperture antenna

Vrancken, M.; Schols, Yves; Aerts, Wim; Vandenbosch, Guy A. E.

doi:10.1016/j.aeue.2006.07.001

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected for the normal operation of electrical circuits, this is not a resonant or radiating structure, but the example is still chosen for its realistic nature, the complicated but well-defined geometry, the availability of reference results, and the fact that good results were obtained with all solvers. A similar software benchmark on an electrically large and radiating cavity-backed aperture antenna is reported upon in a separate communication [17].…”

Section: Device Under Computationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Benchmark of full Maxwell 3D electromagnetic field solvers on an SOIC8 packaged and interconnected circuit

Vrancken

Aerts

Vandenbosch

2006

Int J RF and Microwave Comp Aid Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The MAGMAS3D full Maxwell electromagnetic field solver developed at Katholieke Universiteit. Leuven is benchmarked with several commercially available solvers in the analysis of a complete industry-standard SOIC8 (single-outline integrated circuit with eight leads) circuit, packaging, and interconnection topology. The benchmark deals with predicted results as well as computer speed and memory. The benchmark description and results should give practicing engineers valuable insights into (at least part of) the products on the presentday full-wave 3D EM simulation market.

show abstract

Section: Device Under Computationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Benchmark of full Maxwell 3D electromagnetic field solvers on an SOIC8 packaged and interconnected circuit

Vrancken

Aerts

Vandenbosch

2006

Int J RF and Microwave Comp Aid Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study does not include the comparison of Graphical User Interfaces (GUI), price/performance ratio, user friendliness, etc.. To our knowledge, such an extensive benchmark study over a large variety of solvers and for several structures was not yet documented. In [1] and [2] a comparable analysis was conducted using four different solvers, but only for one structure. An accuracy and speed benchmark on six EM solvers was presented in [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking of software tools for small planar antenna analysis

Vandenbosch

Vasylchenko

Raedt

2010

2010 International Workshop on Antenna Technology (iWAT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the framework of the European Network of Excellence on Antennas ACE, in 2005 the working group on software initiated a benchmarking action. At the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven this lead to a thorough investigation of six simulation tools, five well-known commercial ones and one in-house developed. They were confronted with each other for four different antennas. Two of these antennas can be considered "small antennas". It is crucial to point out that all possible efforts have been done to guarantee the most optimal use of each of the software packages, to study in detail any discrepancies between the solvers, and to assess the remaining simulation challenges. The study clearly highlights the importance of understanding EM simulation principles and their inherent limitations.

show abstract

“…To our knowledge, such an extensive benchmark study over a large variety of solvers and for several structures was only reported in [50], which is the core paper providing most of the basic material for this section. In [51] and [52] a comparable analysis was conducted using four different solvers, but only for one structure. An accuracy and speed benchmark on six EM solvers was presented in [53] for four different antennas, but the physical link between simulation results for a specific antenna problem and the applied solution method has not yet been generally established.…”

Section: Benchmarkingmentioning

confidence: 99%