Advances in Computational Mathematics and its Applications (ACMA) 203

Vol. 1, No. 4, 2012, ISSN 2167-6356

Copyright World Science Publisher, United States
www.worldsciencepublisher.org


Simulation Comparison between HFSS, CST and WIPL-D for
Design of Dipole, Horn and Parabolic Reflector Antenna
1
Fahad Shamshad Muhammad Amin

Department of Electrical Engineering Satellite Development and Research Centre
Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan Lahore, Pakistan

E-mail:
1
fahad.shamshad3@gmail.com

Abstract-- Antenna designs are becoming increasingly complex with recent advancement in the communication systems.
These days it is very important to sort out the software which is best suited to our required antenna design. Complex
antenna structures cannot be simulated without using these softwares, known as electromagnetic solvers. The important
criteria of simulations are accuracy of results, time and how electrically large structures can be simulated. In this paper three
famous electromagnetic solvers High Frequency Structure Simulator (HFSS), CST Microwave studio (Transient solver) and
Wires Plates and Dielectrics (WIPL-D) are compared for accuracy and simulation time with simulations of dipole, Horn and
parabolic reflector antenna. In the end pro and cons of these softwares are stated based on the simulation results.
Keywords-- HFSS; CST; WIPL-D; Dipole; Horn; Parabolic reflector


1. Introduction

Several real world electromagnetic problems are not
analytically solvable like scattering, radiation and
transmission of energy via waveguides because of
complexity of structures. Therefore use of computational
electromagnetic field (CEM) [1] is inevitable. It models the
interaction of electric and magnetic fields with physical
objects and their environment to find the numerical
approximation of Maxwells equations. Electromagnetic
solvers are result of advancement in this field. These are
specialized programs or softwares that solve the subset of
Maxwells equations [2] directly. Three different
electromagnetic solvers with different computational
electromagnetic techniques are compared in this paper.
Each technique has its advantages and drawbacks, the
knowledge of which helps to get best result out of these
softwares.
Softwares that are compared here are
HFSS stands for high frequency structure
simulator and based on finite element method
(FEM). [3]
CST stands for computer simulation technology
and based on finite domain time difference method
(FDTD).(Only transient solver for CST will be
considered here).[4]
WIPL-D stands for wires plates and dielectrics and
based on method of moments (MOM).[5]
Central to all computational electromagnetic methods is the
idea of discretizing (first calculated in small area by
gridding and then combine these to produce overall result)
some unknown electromagnetic property which is
Electric field for FEM
Electric and magnetic field for FDTD
Surface current for MOM
All simulations in this paper are performed on HP xw 8400
workstation Intel(R), Xenon(R) CPU, E5345@2.33 GHz
and 3GB of RAM. [6][7][8]

2. Dipole antenna comparison in HFSS and
WIPL-D
Dipole has been simulated in HFFS and WIPL-D.
Results and time taken by these solvers to simulate the
Fahad Shamshad & Muhammad Amin, ACMA, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 203-207, 2012 204

structure has been obtained from respective simulation
software. Gain and impedance plot of dipole in WIPL-D
and HFSS are given in Figure 1 . Parameters of dipole are
Frequency =300 MHz
Transmission line length = /4
Dipole length = /2
Radius of wire used =0.1mm
Frequency sweep =80 - 440 MHz
Step size =20 MHz
In HFSS dipole antenna is simulated inside the rectangular
shape Radiation boundary. All parameters in both softwares
are set to default except those who has been mentioned.



Figure 1(a). Dipole model in HFSS Figure 1(d). Dipole model in WIPL-D


Figure 1(b). 3D gain plot of dipole in HFSS Figure 1(e). 3D gain plot of dipole in WIPL-D



Figure 1(c). Impedance plot of dipole in HFSS Figure 1(f). Impedance plot of dipole on WIL-D

2.1 Observation
HFSS is not suitable for wire like structures. Its
gain value 2.77 dB is not close to the theoretical value .
Fahad Shamshad & Muhammad Amin, ACMA, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 203-207, 2012 205

Moreover HFSS took 26 minutes to complete this
simulation. The gain as calculated by the WIPL-D is 2.28
dB which is very close to theoretical value and almost the
same as gain calculated by the Necwin plus software for the
same structure. For this simulation WIPL-D took 31.20
seconds. Thus for wire like structures WIPL-D is about 50
times faster than HFSS.
3.1 DISH ANTENNA COMPARISON IN
CST AND WIPL-D
Dish is not suitable to design in HFFS due to its large
electrical length. So Dish antenna has been designed in
CST software with circular horn as a feed and results are
measured . Then same dish antenna has been exported to
WIPL-D Pro CAD software to compare the time taken by
both software's to run the simulation. Simulated results are
shown in Figure 2.
.
Dish parameters are
Diameter =600mm
Focal point =300mm
Thickness =0.01mm
Material =Perfect Electric Conductor
Taper angle =53.1
o

Horn parameters are
Upper radius of cone =30.88 mm
Lower radius of cone =15 mm
Waveguide length =31.25 mm
Waveguide radius =15 mm
Total length of horn =43.25 mm
Edge taper =11 dB
Material =Perfect Electric Conductor
Thickness of horn sheet =0.001 mm
Excited by =Wave port (In CST)
Dipole (In WIPL-D)


Figure 2(a). Dish antenna model in CST Figure 2(c). Dish antenna model in CST


Fig.2(d) 3D gain plot of dish in CST Fig.2(d) 3D gain plot of dish in CST

Fahad Shamshad & Muhammad Amin, ACMA, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 203-207, 2012 206


Fig.2(e) 3D gain plot of dish in CST Fig.2(e) 3D gain plot of dish in WIPL-D

3.1. OBSERVATION

Above simulation was run in CST using transient
solver and default mesh properties. CST took 1 hour 36
minutes to complete the above simulation while WIPL-D
took 9 min 35 sec for the same task. Thus WIPL-D is about
10 times faster than CST for dish antenna simulations.
Results are also very close to that of CST results. However
CST is more versatile giving us much more options as
compared to WIPL-D. For example CST give the phase
centre of Horn antenna used in this simulation while WIPL-
D have no such option. WIPL-D is best in terms of time and
wire-plate like structures (like dipole and helix) while
CST is more versatile and give us more options to see in
depth of our results.

4. Horn antenna comparison in HFSS and
CST
Horn antenna has been compared in HFSS and CST and
time taken by both the solvers to complete the above
simulation has been noted Figure 3.
Horn parameters are
Upper radius of cone =30.88 mm
Lower radius of cone =15 mm
Waveguide length =31.25 mm
Waveguide radius =15 mm
Total length of horn =43.25 mm
Edge taper =11 dB
Material =Perfect Electric Conductor
Thickness of horn sheet =0.1 mm
Excited by =waveport



Figure 3(a). Model of horn antenna in CST Figure 3(b). Model of horn antenna in HFSS

Fahad Shamshad & Muhammad Amin, ACMA, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 203-207, 2012 207


Figure 3(c). 3D gain plot of horn in CST Figure 3(e). 3D gain plot of horn in HFSS

Figure 3(d). 2D gain plot of horn in CST Figure 3(f). 2D gain plot of horn in CST
4.1 Observation
CST took about 4 minutes to complete the above
simulation with default mesh properties while HFSS took
40 seconds for the same task. Results are almost same. So
HFSS is better for narrow band frequency problems as horn
is operated on a single frequency.
5. Conclusion
Each software has its strong and weak points which
one must know to get the best results out of these. After
these simulations we conclude that WIPL-D is best suitable
to electrically large structures like parabolic dish. CST
transient solver is suitable for wide band antenna
simulations and electrically large structures but take lot of
memory and time. HFSS is not suitable for electrically
large and wire like structures but best for narrow bands
problems.
References
[1] Elliot P , The applied computational electromagnetic society, Antenna
and propagation Magazine , IEEE, Volume 33, Issue 1, 3
rd
August 2002,
pp..18-19.

[2] Mathew N.O.Sadiku , Elements of Electromagnetics, Edition 4, Oxford
University Press , Nov 2 , 2010.

[3] www.ansoft.com/products/hf/hfss/

[4] www.cst.com/

[5] www.wipl-d.com/

[6] Abdul Basit, Zain-ul-Aabidin Lodhi, Farhan Zafar, Waqar Aziz,
Design Analysis of /4 Monopole VHF Ground Plane Antenna, ,
Advances in Electrical Engineering Systems (AEES), Vol.1, No. 3, 2012,
pp. 146-151.

[7] Nabeel Arshad, Muhammad Ali J amal, Dur E Tabish, Saqib Saleem,
Effect of Wireless Channel Parameters on Performance of Turbo Codes,
Advances in Electrical Engineering Systems (AEES), Vol.1, No. 3, 2012,
pp. 129-134.

[8] Fahad Shamshad, Usman J aved, Saqib Saleem, Qamar-ul-Islam,
Physical Layer Aspects of 3GPPs Long TermEvolution (LTE), Advances
in Computer Science and its Applications (ACSA),Vol. 2, No. 1, 2012, pp.
287-2