Robert Koslover
Certified Consultant
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
14.11.2014, 17:34 GMT-5
The circular TE11 waveguide mode itself is not axisymmetric. That said, you may still be able to represent it with an axisymmetric model, if you introduce a factor (like exp(j*phi)) to account for the phi-angle dependence. However, since modeling purely analytic waveguide modes without any perturbing structures is seldom very interesting (since you would already know the answer analytically) then you might want to pursue a 3D model instead. Note that you can still have two symmetry planes (one PEC and one PMC), for a TE11 mode in a cylindrical guide. Of course, if you want to model bends, holes, or other perturbations to that waveguide, your symmetry may be broken in one or both of those planes, and so you may need to do a 3D model without any symmetry planes. If your problem isn't too computationally large, you should still be able to handle that. If it does become computationally large, consider using the linear (instead of the default quadratic) discretization setting of the elements, as that can make a huge difference in terms of both memory needed and computation time.
The circular TE11 waveguide mode itself is not axisymmetric. That said, you may still be able to represent it with an axisymmetric model, if you introduce a factor (like exp(j*phi)) to account for the phi-angle dependence. However, since modeling purely analytic waveguide modes without any perturbing structures is seldom very interesting (since you would already know the answer analytically) then you might want to pursue a 3D model instead. Note that you can still have two symmetry planes (one PEC and one PMC), for a TE11 mode in a cylindrical guide. Of course, if you want to model bends, holes, or other perturbations to that waveguide, your symmetry may be broken in one or both of those planes, and so you may need to do a 3D model without any symmetry planes. If your problem isn't too computationally large, you should still be able to handle that. If it does become computationally large, consider using the linear (instead of the default quadratic) discretization setting of the elements, as that can make a huge difference in terms of both memory needed and computation time.
Please login with a confirmed email address before reporting spam
Posted:
1 decade ago
16.11.2014, 03:07 GMT-5
I want to introduce loss tangent as material property in my model using RF Module.but whenever i add this property and it's value,it doesn't show green tick mark.so, what is solution for this?
I want to introduce loss tangent as material property in my model using RF Module.but whenever i add this property and it's value,it doesn't show green tick mark.so, what is solution for this?