project net-emc: numerical simulation report (cimne)
TRANSCRIPT
PROJECT NAME: NET-EMC
PROJECT NET-EMC: NUMERICAL SIMULATION REPORT (CIMNE)
CIMNE - International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering Parque Mediterráneo de la Tecnología (PMT) c/ Esteve Terradas nº5 - Edificio C3 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona, Spain) www.cimne.com Castelldefels (Barcelona, Spain) - March 2012
PROJECT NAME: NET-EMC
DOCUMENT HISTORY
Version Date Authors E-mail
01
23/03/2012
Xavi Roca Martí Coma Rubén Otín Javier Mora
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
3/70
CONTENTS
1. SCOPE
2. REFERENCES
3. TERMINOLOGY
3.1 ABBREVIATIONS
3.2 DEFINITIONS
4. FEEDING MODELS - CURRENT PROBE
5. FEEDING MODELS - COAXIAL
6. GEOMETRICAL VARIATIONS INSIDE A METALLIC BOX
7. AIRCRAFT MOCK-UP
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
4/70
1. SCOPE In this report are showed the finite element simulations performed by CIMNE in the frame of the Eurostars project E! 4648 NET-EMC. The objective is to show the influence of the geometry in the distribution of the electromagnetic fields and assets the performance of analytical approaches when a canonical structure changes.
2. REFERENCES
[1] R. Otin. Regularized Maxwell equations and nodal finite elements for electromagnetic field computations in frequency domain. CIMNE M-123, ISBN: 978-84-89925-03-8, 2011. [2] Dirk Baumann, Christophe Fumeaux, Pascal Leuchtmann, Rudiger Vahldieck, Finite-Volume Time-Domain (FVTD) Method and its Application to the Analysis of Hemispherical Dielectric- Resonator Antennas. IEEE MTT-S Digest, 2003.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
5/70
3. TERMINOLOGY
3.1 ABBREVIATIONS
ERMES Electric Regularized Maxwell Equations with Singularities
FEM Finite Element Method
Mod(E) Electric field modulus
PEC Perfect Electric Conductor
PMC Perfect Magnetic Conductor
3.2 DEFINIT IONS
ERMES Finite element tool developed by CIMNE.
GiD A universal, adaptive and user-friendly graphical user interface for geometrical modelling, data input and visualisation of results for all types of numerical simulation programs (www.gidhome.com).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
6/70
4. FEEDING MODELS - CURRENT PROBE The objective of this and the next section is to see what feeding model fits better with the measured behavior of the antennas used by the UPC. Here we test the current probe feeding model.
4.1 Case 9-12: Transverse posit ion of the antennas
In this case of study the feeding model is a current probe located at the base of the antenna. A volumetric current is imposed at the base of the antenna, in the z-axis direction. A general view of the geometry is shown in Fig 4.1.
Fig 4.1. General view of the geometry and position of the antennas. It is shown half of the box.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
7/70
The dimensions of the antenna are shown in Fig 4.2.
Fig 4.2. Geometry of the antennas.
The analysis has been done only with half of the box; the other half has been replaced by a PMC condition on the symmetry plane of the box. PEC condition is applied on the other walls of the metallic box.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
8/70
Fig 4.3. FEM mesh (538911 2nd order Lagragian elements.)
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
9/70
Fig 4.4. S12 for the case 9-12. ERMES results are compared with measurements.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
10/70
4.2 Case 9-13: Longitudinal posit ion of the antennas
In this case of study the feeding model is an impulse current at the base of the antenna. A volumetric current is imposed at the base of the antenna, in the z-axis direction. A general view of the geometry is shown in Fig 4.1. The differences with the case 9-12 are in the positioning of the antennas inside the box. .
Fig 4.5. General view of the geometry and positioning of the antennas. It is shown half of the box
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
11/70
The dimensions of the antennas are shown in Fig 4.6.
Fig 4.6. Geometry of the antennas.
The analysis has been done only with half of the box, the other half has been replaced by a PMC condition on the symmetry plane of the box. PEC condition is applied on the other walls of the metallic box.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
12/70
Fig 4.7. FEM mesh (494713 2nd order Lagragian elements.)
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
13/70
Fig 4.8. S12 for the case 9-13. ERMES results are compared with measurements
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
14/70
4.3 Case 6: Non-symmetric posit ioning of the antennas
This case is similar to cases 9-12 and 9-13. The same model of antenna and feeding is used, the differences is in the positioning of the antenna which are located in the same place as the coaxials showed in the next section. The results are shown in fig. 4.9
Fig 4.9. S12 for the case 6. ERMES results are compared with measurements and the FDTD simulations performed by the UPC.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
15/70
5. FEEDING MODELS - COAXIAL
In this section we are going to test the coaxial model of ERMES. We will test different approaches to model the geometry of the coaxial and its connexion to the box. The feeding of the coaxial is done by imposing a Robin boundary condition at the base of the coaxial and assuming that only the TEM mode is propagating. First we validate the model comparing the S11 parameter of a hemispherical dielectric resonator antenna calculated by different computational methods and then we apply the same model to the box used in the previous section. The scattering parameters of the antennas inside the box were measured by the UPC.
5.1 Hemispherical dielectr ic resonator antenna.
The first case is a hemispherical dielectric-resonator antenna. The objective is to validate the coaxial model of ERMES with the results given in [2]. The geometry and dimensions are shown in Fig. 5.1. The antenna is surrounded by a dielectric hemisphere, with a permittivity of 9.5. The electric permittivity of the coaxial is 2.33.
Fig.5.1 - Dimensions of the antenna in mm
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
16/70
Fig.5.2 - Dimensions of the antenna with the dielectric hemisphere and the vacuum hemisphere.
Fig.5.3 - Global mesh for the whole geometry.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
17/70
Fig.5.4 - Mesh of the singularity area of the antenna.
Fig.5.5 - Scattering parameters calculated with different tools
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
18/70
5.2 Coaxial feeding: problem set-up
We tested different geometry approaches to the modeling of the coaxial, all of them located at the same place, inside a box. The main difference between cases is the geometry of the feeding port. In cases 2 to 6 the positioning of the antennas and the dimensions of the box are the same. The geometry of the box and the position of the antennas, for the cases 2 to 6, are shown in figures Fig and Fig respectively.
Fig 5.6. Dimensions of the box.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
19/70
Fig 5.7. Position of the antennas in [mm].
The condition PEC has been applied on the wall of the box. The different geometries of the feeding model and their particularities are detailed below.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
20/70
5.3 Case 2: Coaxial 50 Ohms Antenna with protruding dielectr ic
This case of study is a coaxial antenna. Dimensions and geometry are shown in Fig 5.7 and 5.8. The pink volume is dielectric material with a relative electric permittivity of 2.0.
Fig 5.7. Geometry of the antenna.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
21/70
Fig 5.8. Dimensions of the antenna.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
22/70
Fig 5.9. FEM mesh of the box with the antennas (805881 2nd order Lagrangian elements)
Fig 5.10. Detail of the mesh.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
23/70
Fig 5.11. Case 2: coaxial 50 Ohms Antenna with protruding dielectric
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
24/70
5.4 Case 3: Coaxial 50 Ohms Antenna with hidden dielectr ic
This case of study is a coaxial antenna similar to the previous one but with the geometry showed in Fig. 5.12. Dimensions are shown in Fig 5.13. The pink volume is dielectric material with a relative electric permittivity of 2.0.
Fig 5.12. Geometry of the antenna.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
25/70
Fig 5.13. Dimensions of the antenna, in [mm].
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
26/70
Fig 5.14. FEM mesh of the box with the antennas (912180 2nd order Lagrangian elements)
Fig 5.15. Detail of the mesh.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
27/70
Fig 5.16. Case 3: Coaxial 50 Ohms Antenna with hidden dielectric
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
28/70
5.5 Case 4: Coaxial 24 Ohms Antenna without dielectr ic
The fourth case is an antenna without dielectric material. The geometry and dimensions are shown in Fig. 5.17.
Fig 5.17. Dimensions of the antenna, in [mm].
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
29/70
Fig 5.18. FEM mesh (720482 2nd order Lagragian elements).
Fig 5.19. Detail of the mesh.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
30/70
Fig 5.20. Case 4: Coaxial 24 Ohms Antenna without dielectric.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
31/70
5.6 Case 5: Coaxial 28 Ohms without dielectr ic.
The 5th case is also an antenna without dielectric material but with different coaxial dimensions compared with the previous one. The geometry and dimensions are shown in Fig. 5.21.
Fig 5.21. Dimensions of the antenna, in [mm].
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
32/70
Fig 5.22 FEM mesh (537945 2nd order Lagragian elements).
Fig 5.23 Detail of the mesh.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
33/70
Fig 5.24. Case 5: Coaxial 28 Ohms without dielectric.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
34/70
5.7 Case 7: Coaxial 50 Ohms Antenna with protruding dielectr ic encased
This case is similar to the coaxial 50 Ohms antenna with the protruding dielectric (case 2), with the difference that, now, the dielectric is surrounded by a metallic wall. Geometry and dimensions showed in Fig. 5.25.
Fig 5.25. Dimensions of the antenna for the case 7, in [mm].
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
35/70
Fig 5.26 Detail of the mesh
Fig 5.27. Case 7: Coaxial 50 Ohms Antenna with protruding dielectric encased
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
36/70
6. GEOMETRICAL VARIATIONS INSIDE A METALLIC BOX
In this section we are going to make small changes in the geometry to see the effect of these changes in the transmission coefficients of the antennas.
6.1 Case 5-10: Coaxial 28 Ohms without dielectr ic: 100 mm length
In this case the antenna is similar to the one used in the case 5 but with different length. The geometry and dimensions are shown in Fig 6..
Fig 6.1. Dimensions of the antenna, in [mm].
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
37/70
Fig 6.2. FEM mesh (1477605 2nd order Lagragian elements).
Fig 6.3. Detail of the mesh.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
38/70
Fig 6.4. S12 ERMES results for the case 5-10.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
39/70
6.2 Case 5-05: Coaxial 28 Ohms without dielectr ic: 5 mm length
In this case the antenna is similar to the one used in case 5 but with different length. The geometry and dimensions are shown in Fig. 6.5.
Fig 6.5. Dimensions of the antenna, in [mm].
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
40/70
Fig 6.6. Detail of the mesh.
Fig 6.7. S12 ERMES results for the case 5-05.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
41/70
6.3 Comparison between Coaxial 28 Ohms without dielectr ic: di f ferent lengths
Fig 6.8. S12 calculated with ERMES for the cases of the coaxial 28 Ohms without dielectric and different antenna lengths (cases 5, 5-05 and 5-10).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
42/70
6.4 Case 5-A: Coaxial 28 Ohms without dielectr ic: 10 mm length. Rounded corners box.
This case is an antenna similar to previous cases but with the particularity that the corners of the box are rounded with a radius of 34 mm. The antenna and the ports are equivalent to 5.6 Case 5: Coaxial 28 Ohms without dielectric.
Fig 6.9. Corner rounded box.
Fig 6.10. FEM mesh (568516 2nd order Lagragian elements).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
43/70
Fig 6.11. S12 ERMES results in case 5-A.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
44/70
6.5 Results comparison between the rounded corners' box and the standard box.
Fig 6.12. S12 for the cases of the standard box (case 5) and rounded corner box (case 5-A).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
45/70
6.6 Case 5-empty: Box without screen
Now we are going to analyze the effect on the scattering parameters of different objects located inside a metallic box. The reference box and the positioning of the antennas are showed in fig. 6.13.
First, we are going to analyze the reference box empty. It will be used as a reference to see the effects of the objects. A general view of the geometry is shown in figures 6.13 and 6.14. The analysis has been done only in a half of the box. A PMC boundary condition was applied as shown in fig. 6.15. A PEC boundary condition is applied in the walls of the box.
Fig 6.13. Positioning of the antennas.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
46/70
Fig 6.14. Geometry of the case 5-empty.
Fig. 6.15. PMC condition.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
47/70
Fig 6.16. FEM mesh (157604 2nd order Lagrangian elements).
Fig 6.17. Detail of the mesh.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
48/70
Fig 6.18. S12 for the case 5-empty.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
49/70
6.7 Case 5-Q: Box with rectangular hole screen
In this case we place a metallic wall with a rectangular hole in the middle of the box. The hole is centered in the wall, and its dimensions are 10 cm width x 2 cm height. A general view of the geometry is shown in Fig. 6.19.
Fig 6.19. General view of the geometry.
Fig 6.20. FEM mesh (862683 2nd order Lagrangian elements).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
50/70
Fig 6.21. S12 ERMES results of the case 5-Q.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
51/70
6.8 Case 5-R: Box with circular hole screen
In this case there is a metallic wall with a circular hole in the middle of the box. The hole is centered in the wall, and its radius is 2.523 cm, having the same area than the rectangular hole in previous case. A general view of the geometry is shown in Fig 6..
Fig 6.22. General view of the geometry.
Fig 6.23. FEM mesh (689814 2nd order Lagrangian elements).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
52/70
Fig 6.24. S12 ERMES results for the case 5-R.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
53/70
6.9 Results comparison between empty box and the same box with circular and rectangular hole screens.
Fig 6.25. S12 for the empty box (case 5-empty) and the same box with circular (case 5-R) and rectangular (case 5-Q) hole screens.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
54/70
6.10 Case 5-P: Box with dielectr ic sphere
In this case there is a sphere made of a dielectric material with a relative electrical permittivity of 41.3 in the middle of the box. The radius of the sphere is 2.523 cm, having the same radius than the circular hole in case 5-R. A general view of the geometry is shown in Fig 6.
Fig 6.26. General view of the geometry.
Fig 6.27. FEM mesh (117660 2nd order Lagrangian elements).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
55/70
Fig 6.28. S12 ERMES results of the case 5-P.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
56/70
6.11 Result comparison for the box with a dielectr ic sphere and the empty box
Fig 6.29. S12 for the empty box (case 5-empty) and the same box loaded with a dielectric sphere (case 5-P).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
57/70
7. AIRCRAFT MOCK-UP
The objective of this section is to see how the field pattern changes inside the aircraft mock-up when the basic geometry changes. We analyse the electric field pattern for three frequencies (f = 100MHz, 200MHz and 300 MHz) and in three different geometrical set-ups. A dipole antenna is located in the middle of the aircraft roof. We show the modulus of the normalized electric field (normalized to its maximum value, En = E/Emax) Three different geometries have been studied:
Canonical aircraft: a half of the aircraft’s fuselage without the cockpit.
Aircraft with cockpit.
Aircraft with dummies: the same geometry than the canonical aircraft adding some dummies. The antenna used in all the cases is 5 cm height and has a diameter of 0.4 cm. The feeding of the antenna is a current probe with 0.5 cm of height and 0.2 cm of diameter. The CAD geometry employed is shown in Fig. 7.1. On the external surfaces of the fuselage have been applied PEC conditions. In the symmetry plane we applied a PMC boundary. The dummies were also considered PEC.
Fig. 7.1. CAD geometry.
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
58/70
Fig 7.2 - Canonical aircraft at f = 100 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.3 - Canonical aircraft at f = 100 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
59/70
Fig 7.4 - Aircraft with cockpit at f = 100 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.5 - Aircraft with cockpit at f = 100 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
60/70
Fig 7.6 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 100 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.7 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 100 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
61/70
Fig 7.8 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 100 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.9 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 100 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
62/70
Fig 7.10 - Canonical aircraft at f = 200 MHz - Mod (En)
Fig 7.11 - Canonical aircraft at f = 200 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
63/70
Fig 7.12 - Aircraft with cockpit at f = 200 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.13 - Aircraft with cockpit at f = 200 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
64/70
Fig 7.14 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 200 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.15 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 200 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
65/70
Fig 7.16 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 200 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.17 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 200 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
66/70
Fig 7.18 - Canonical aircraft at f = 300 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.19 - Canonical aircraft at f = 300 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
67/70
Fig 7.20 - Aircraft with cockpit at f = 300 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.21 - Aircraft with cockpit at f = 300 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
68/70
Fig 7.22 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 300 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.23 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 300 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
69/70
Fig 7.24 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 300 MHz - Mod (En).
Fig 7.25 - Aircraft with dummies at f = 300 MHz - Mod (En).
Eurostars Project E! 4648 NET-EMC
NET-EMC - Numerical simulation report (CIMNE) 23/03/2012
Page
70/70
8. CONCLUSIONS
In this report is shown the some of the numerical simulations performed in CIMNE in the frame of the project NET-EMC.
The main conclusion is that, although ERMES is a valuable tool for solving electromagnetic problems in frequency domain with complex geometries, it can be computationally expensive if we want to solve wide frequency band problems with small geometrical details as small dipoles or wires. For these cases a time domain method (as FDTD, FVTD, etc) can be a better option.
Another important conclusion is that when we depart from the canonical geometry (adding dummies, different cockpit shapes, etc) important changes can be expected in the field pattern. This has to be taken into account when extrapolating results from our semi-analytical models to reality.