2016 10th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/eucap.2016.7481227
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bridging the simulations-measurements gap: State-of-the-art

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The differences mainly occur at an absolute level of −10 dB and below. Considering the benchmarking study made in [ 37 ], this can be seen as acceptable.…”
Section: Prototype Performancementioning
confidence: 97%
“…The differences mainly occur at an absolute level of −10 dB and below. Considering the benchmarking study made in [ 37 ], this can be seen as acceptable.…”
Section: Prototype Performancementioning
confidence: 97%
“…Since the start of the EuCAP in 2006, EurAAP's Software WG has organized yearly or biannual convened sessions at this symposium. A thorough overview of the WG's activities covered in the last six meetings can be found in the corresponding "Meeting Reports" columns in IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine [1]- [6].…”
Section: Session Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The goal of benchmarking this year was to further upgrade the results to More details can be found in [5] and [6].…”
Section: Benchmarked Antennamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the start of the EuCAP in 2006, EurAAP's Software WG has organized yearly or biannual convened sessions at this symposium. A thorough overview of the WG's activities covered in the last six meetings can be found in the corresponding "Meeting Reports" columns in IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine [1]- [6].…”
Section: Session Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 2016, one of the three benchmarked antennas was the GSM antenna, with triple-frequency-band operation and coplanar waveguide feeding [11], [4]- [6] (Figure 2). The surprising conclusion of the 2016 run was that, while all of the simulations agreed quite well with each other and all of the measurements also agreed quite well one with another, there was a large discrepancy between the simulations and the measurements (Figure 3).…”
Section: Benchmarked Antennamentioning
confidence: 99%