Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Daniel L. Dault;Lance Griffiths;
Pages: 10 - 19 Abstract: We examine validation of computational electromagnetic (CEM) codes through the lens of the Electromagnetic Code Consortium (EMCC), a group of U.S. government and associated CEM practitioners that was active from the 1980s through the 2010s. Available EMCC validation cases are summarized, and several practical validation challenges, lessons learned, and recommendations are provided. Finally, one of the original EMCC cases, the metallic “business card,” is revisited to illustrate some challenges of matching modeled and measured results and their possible resolution. An integrated team-based approach to constructing validation cases and diagnosing discrepancies between modeled and measured data is recommended. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:26 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Jon T. Kelley;Brian A. MacKie-Mason;David A. Chamulak;Clifton C. Courtney;Ali E. Yilmaz;
Pages: 20 - 31 Abstract: This article reviews a recently developed benchmark suite for quantifying the performance of alternative computational approaches to solving radar cross-section (RCS) problems in aerospace applications. The Austin RCS Benchmark Suite 1) contains 20 problem sets, with 1,303 unique benchmark scattering problems, whose geometries, material properties, excitations, and quantities of interest are precisely defined; 2) organizes the problems along six dimensions according to the difficulty of computing their solutions; 3) provides reference RCS results for a select subset of the problems in each problem set, totaling 83 unique problems with reference results, obtained from full-wave computations in addition to analytical or measurement results; 4) includes models and sample meshes that define complex geometries as well as equations that define complex material properties for the problems that are most difficult to replicate independently; and 5) is available in online repositories. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:26 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Jean-Louis Guiraud;Philippe Ratajczak;Yannick Béniguel;Quentin Carayol;Hervé Stève;Gildas Kubické;Jérôme Simon;Matthieu Lecouvez;Toufic Abboud;
Pages: 32 - 42 Abstract: This article presents the “Institut Supérieur de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace” (ISAE) workshop. It is a benchmarking workshop dedicated to radar cross-section (RCS), antennas, and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) problems. It has existed for 30 years with a biennial frequency. It is open to anyone bringing some inputs to the community of participants. The article outlines its organization and main features. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:26 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Frank Weinmann;Magnus Gustavsson;Åsa Andersson;Fredrik Laurén;Andrey V. Osipov;Johannes Bökler;Andrej Konforta;Victoria Gómez-Guillamón Buendía;Stefania Monni;David Poyatos Martínez;David Escot Bocanegra;
Pages: 43 - 50 Abstract: The workshop “Radar Signatures & EM Benchmarks” has been established by the European Defence Agency (EDA) in 2017, with the aim of bringing together scientific experts in the field of electromagnetic scattering simulations, specifically in the context of radar signatures. The 3rd workshop was held in 2023, and a few months prior to the workshop, several test cases were published on the workshop’s webpage, which served as benchmarks to compare results obtained by different simulation codes. It turned out that such activities are extremely important for the community, both for the comparison of simulation results and evaluation of tools as well as for the interesting discussions among the leading experts in the field. This paper will provide insights into the workshop by presenting some of the recent test cases and showing some exemplary evaluation of the data computed by the participants. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:27 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Heidi Barnes;Kemal Aygün;Michael J. Hill;Zhichao Zhang;Kaisheng Hu;Jonatan Aronsson;Pavel Paladhi;Jayaprakash Balachandran;Bobi Shi;Rohit Sharma;José E. Schutt-Ainé;Vladimir I. Okhmatovski;
Pages: 51 - 63 Abstract: This article describes current initiatives to form benchmarks for the characterization of electronic packages. Four available benchmarks representing typical cases for signal integrity (SI) and power integrity (PI) analysis and varying in complexity from simple microstrip line to a full package model are intended to serve as standardized cases for testing the performance and accuracy of the modeling tools. While the benchmarks, consisting of CAD model files as well as simulated and measured network parameters, are publicly available and described in the accompanying manual, the emphasis in this article is on the description of challenges encountered in creating measured data, the development of modeling capabilities in the computational tools essential for accurate and expedient electromagnetic (EM) analysis of the benchmarks, and common practices going into matching of the simulated to the measured data. Ongoing efforts toward the standardization of densely packed interconnects for die-to-die interfacing on advanced packages, also known as heterogeneous integration (HI), are discussed in the context of the Open Compute Project (OCP). Emerging needs for benchmarking and standardization of test cases and training datasets for machine learning (ML)-assisted characterization of high-speed channels are also outlined. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:26 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Danilo Erricolo;
Pages: 64 - 75 Abstract: Exact analytical solutions of canonical electromagnetic scattering problems that have been developed in the last 30 years are reviewed to emphasize that many geometrical shapes exist for the validation of computational electromagnetic (CEM) methods. The focus is on exact solutions that can be computed as the sum of series expansions, where the expansion coefficients are known analytically and do not require, for example, the solution of a system of equations. The introduction of a class of artificial materials, known as isorefractive, has enabled the development of new analytical solutions, some of which involve complications not previously found, such as involving different materials, sharp edges, and cavities. In addition, other complicated geometries have been examined to create new exact solutions, without requiring the use of isorefractive materials. Many numerical evaluations exist for the new exact solutions so that for the purposes of numerical validations, one could simply use the existing ones. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:26 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Omkar H. Ramachandran;B. Shanker;
Pages: 76 - 86 Abstract: To a large extent, particle-in-cell (PIC) methods have become the default means of understanding plasma physics. As a result, there are a spate of codes, public and otherwise, that are heavily used. Most of these codes fall under two categories: 1) they largely deal with electrostatic problems or 2) are 1D/2D. As a result, there is a paucity of benchmarking tests that can be used to validate codes and methods that are used to analyze 3D problems. This is especially true when designing methods that seek to break conventional analysis methods, like using unstructured meshes or implicit time-stepping schemes. This review seeks to address this need. We present a number of results that one can use to validate and benchmark 3D electromagnetic finite-element method PIC (EM-FEMPIC) codes for collisionless plasma and beam dynamics systems. Three test cases are presented in significant detail, including beam expansion due to static space-charge expansion, the acceleration of a relativistic bunch by an radio-frequency (RF)-accelerating structure, and benchmarks of accuracy and energy conservation of the particle push. The presented results are compared against either analytical data or those from other codes. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:27 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Eli Lansey;Genevieve Hankins;Isroel Mandel;Richard Martelly;Jocelyn Slater;Naomi R. Greenberg;
Pages: 87 - 94 Abstract: In this article, we illustrate some examples of how using spheres for computational electromagnetics (CEM) validation provides a range of challenges and broadly meaningful results. We show how complications that arise with validating using spheres can be representative of the issues that occur when modeling more complex objects. However, using spheres makes it easier to identify and understand these issues and discrepancies. We also describe how spheres present demanding problems for the CEM validation and benchmarking of both small- and large-size problems. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:27 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Andrew Maicke;Jon T. Kelley;Ali E. Yilmaz;
Pages: 95 - 108 Abstract: The realized performance (error–cost tradeoff) of three computational electromagnetic (CEM) methods, which use parallel algorithms on a supercomputer to predict the radar cross section (RCS) of complex targets, are quantified using the Austin RCS Benchmark Suite. The article demonstrates how modern benchmark suites can be used to evaluate CEM methods empirically and compare their performances objectively. The Austin RCS Benchmark Suite [1], [2] has recently been populated with 20 carefully selected problem sets that span a wide range in six dimensions of computational difficulty [3]. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:26 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Jessica Arkel;
Pages: 112 - 116 Abstract: Provides society information that may include news, reviews or technical notes that should be of interest to practitioners and researchers. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:26 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Rajeev Bansal;
Pages: 118 - 118 Abstract: Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906) was so moved by the beauty of Maxwell’s equations that he blurted out [2]: “War es ein Gott, der diese Zeichen schrieb'” (Was it a god who wrote these signs') His expression was not original (borrowed from Goethe’s Faust) but the sentiment was spot on as many physicists since have attested to. Frank Wilczek, winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in physics, writing about Maxwell’s equations, said that the situation “takes on a life of its own, with the fields dancing as a pair, each inspiring the other” [2]. Going beyond electromagnetics and looking at the world at large, Wilczek told the German magazine Der Spiegel in an interview that “the world is a piece of art, produced according to a very peculiar style. What I find particularly striking is the outstanding role of symmetry” [2]. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:27 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
C. J. Reddy;
Pages: 140 - 142 Abstract: Presents reviews for the following list of books, Sparse Phased Array Antennas: Theory and Applications. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:27 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:
Branislav M. Notaroš;
Pages: 144 - 148 Abstract: Provides society information that may include news, reviews or technical notes that should be of interest to practitioners and researchers. PubDate:
TUE, 22 APR 2025 09:17:26 -04 Issue No:Vol. 67, No. 2 (2025)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
