Viewing the Results

View and post-process the results in POSTFEKO.

  1. Compare the input reflection coefficient of the two methods on a Smith chart.
    Figure 1. The input reflection coefficient of the aperture coupled patch in POSTFEKO.

    Note: The model using an infinite plane is a good approximation of the SEP model.
  2. Compare the realised gain (in dB) at boresight of both methods on a Cartesian graph.
    Figure 2. Far field realised gain over frequency.

    Note: The far fields have a similar shape and the center frequency deviates by less than 2%. Increase the size of the finite substrate to obtain an even better comparison between the two methods.
  3. Compare computational resources for the two methods.
    Table 1. Memory and runtime requirements for the two methods.
    Model Approximate number of triangles RAM [MByte] Runtime [% of full SEP]
    SEP 10000 3500 100
    Infinite ground plane 1500 19 9.5
    Note: Use an infinite ground plane to reduce the number of triangles and the computational resources.