Understanding Time Domain Meshing in

CST MICROWAVE STUDIO®

When performing numerical solutions of Maxwell’s Equations in electromagnetic
simulations, it is well known that the quality and type of mesh used for discretizing
the computational volume plays a critical role in simulation speed and accuracy. In
fact, the choice of a particular meshing technique is often determined by the trade-
offs between speed, accuracy and memory requirements. In this respect, meshing in
the time domain stand outs because it offers a number of advantages over other
existing techniques such as those based on Finite Elements (FEM). In particular, it
offers more flexibility for achieving a good compromise between simulation speed and
accuracy. It is less memory demanding and it has a linear scaling of computational
effort (the simulation time increases in the same proportion as the number of mesh
cells), which is the best one can hope for in a numerical technique. For many
applications, this translates into the ability to simulate larger problems using fewer
computational resources in a shorter time.

The purpose of this paper is to provide our CST MICROWAVE STUDIO® user community
the required meshing knowledge and techniques so they can achieve the
aforementioned benefits. Both automated and “manual” meshing techniques are
discussed in detail.

1. Meshing Basics

In time domain methods, the type of mesh most commonly used is the so called
hexahedral mesh. A hexahedral mesh is that where the computational volume
(simulation space containing our model) is discretized by means of variable size
rectangular cuboids (in general, ∆x≠∆y≠∆z). Each cuboid is referred to as a mesh cell.
See Fig. 1.

a) b)

Fig. 1: Basic definitions of: a) mesh cell and b) hexahedral mesh.

In discretized form, each mesh cell represents a small volume in space where the
electric and magnetic fields are computed. Obviously, the more mesh cells we use for
discretization, the more accurately the field gradients will be captured. However, the
total number of mesh cells should not be increased carelessly as it will have a direct
impact on the total simulation time. Thus, it is important to use a mesh that is well
balanced and offers a good compromise between simulation speed and accuracy (See
Fig. 2).
July, 2010 1
 Fig. 2: A good mesh achieves a good compromise between simulation speed and accuracy.

2. Understanding Trade-offs in Time Domain Simulation

Before getting into a detailed discussion about meshing, it is important to understand

what constitutes a “good” mesh and how trade-offs come into play in time domain
simulations. For this, we first need to understand how a time domain simulation
works.

In the time domain, a simulation starts by exciting the computational volume

containing our model. Most commonly, the excitation is applied by means of a discrete
port (voltage, current or power source), a waveguide port, or a plane wave. The
excitation itself is a time domain signal, typically a Gaussian pulse. In CST MWS, the
width of the excitation signal is automatically adjusted to contain the desired spectral
content of interest given by the frequency range specified by the user.

After the excitation is applied, the time domain signal is numerically propagated
throughout the computational volume, as it does, its energy content will decay due to
various loss mechanisms. Part of the energy will be radiated, dissipated by lossy
materials, absorbed by the ports, etc. The simulation will stop when the energy has
decayed to a user-defined (convergence) level. The speed at which the energy will
decay depends on various mechanisms, most of which are inherent to the model itself
(amount of losses, Q-factor, etc.). However, it is true that the faster the signal is
propagated, the faster it will fill up the space and interact with the lossy components,
and the faster the simulation will end. The speed at which the signal is propagated in
the computational volume is determined by the so called time-step (the fields are
advanced in time by one time-step every iteration).

From this discussion, it is obvious that having a large time step would be
advantageous, however, the time step cannot be increased arbitrarily because it must
be small enough to satisfy the so-called Courant stability condition:
−1 / 2
1  1 1 1 
∆t max ≤  2
+ 2 + 2
u max  ∆x ∆y ∆z 
where umax is the maximum wave phase velocity within the model (determined by the
material properties). An analysis of this equation for a uniform mesh (∆l=∆x=∆y=∆z, for
all cuboids), reveals that the maximum allowed time step is determined by the mesh
size. The smaller the mesh size, the smaller the time step needs to be:
(
∆t max ≤ ∆l / umax 3 )
For a mesh of variable size, an analysis of the equation reveals that the maximum
allowed time step is generally determined by the mesh cell with the smallest

July, 2010 2
dimension in the computational model1. That is, by the cuboid with the shortest edge
[min(∆x,∆y,∆z), for all cuboids]. In what follows, we refer to such cuboid as the smallest
mesh cell.

Therefore, in order to maximize the time step, the smallest mesh cell must be as
large as possible. In general, the limiting factor determining the size of the smallest
mesh cell is the necessity to properly represent small features in critical areas of the
model where the fields need to be finely sampled. Thus the smallest mesh cell is
constrained by the minimum relevant feature size in the model that needs to be
finely meshed for simulation.

In addition to the smallest mesh cell size, the largest mesh cell size is also important
for simulation speed and accuracy. From the previous discussion, it seems obvious that
from the viewpoint of simulation speed, the larger the mesh cells the better.
Unfortunately, the mesh size cannot be increased arbitrarily because it is constrained
by numerical dispersion (as a result of space discretization, each frequency
component propagates at a slightly different velocity in the mesh). To minimize this
effect and ensure that the mesh is equally well behaved for all frequencies, the
shortest wavelength of interest must be spatially sampled at a rate of at least 10 mesh
cells per wavelength. This is shown in Fig. 3. Therefore, the largest cell size is
constrained by the shortest wavelength of interest which corresponds, of course, to
the highest frequency.

Fig. 3: The shortest wavelength of interest constrains the maximum mesh size because it must be
spatially sampled at a rate of at least 10 mesh cells per wavelength.

The total number of mesh cells is also important for simulation speed and accuracy.
The total number of mesh cells cannot be controlled directly; it is a result of the
min/max cell size which determine how many mesh cells are required to discretize
the computational volume. For fixed min/max cell size, the total number of mesh
cells is determined by the electrical size of the computational volume. That is, the
size of the model to be simulated in comparison to the shortest wavelength of
interest. In general, the total number of mesh cells will increase with electrically
larger models and higher simulation frequencies.

3. Global Mesh Settings Dialog in CST MWS

With the information in the previous section, we are ready to review the global “Mesh
Properties” dialog in CST MWS. The dialog is shown in Fig. 4.

1
In practice, the Courant condition ensures that, with every time step, the fields are not numerically propagated a
distance greater than that spanned by the smallest mesh cell.

July, 2010 3
Lines per wavelength: This setting specifies the number of mesh cells for the spatial
sampling of the shortest wavelength (highest frequency), a minimum of 10 is
recommended. Increasing this setting will increase the total number of mesh cells,
especially for electrically large problems (see the discussion below).

Lower Mesh Limit: This setting specifies the minimum number of mesh cells across the
diagonal of the smallest face of the box bounding the computational volume. This
setting is especially important for electrically small problems where the “Lines per
wavelength” does not have a good control over the mesh. In order to understand this,
consider for example an electrically small computational volume, say 10cm3, filled
with a dielectric (ε=4) and simulated at 100MHz. At 100MHz, the corresponding
wavelength is λ=c/(sqrt(ε)f)=150cm. Thus, the above setting would result in a mesh cell
every 15cm, which is obviously not enough for the proper discretization of the
computational volume. In this case, the mesh is controlled by the lower mesh limit.
Thus, increasing this setting increases the total number of mesh cells, especially for
electrically small problems.

Fig. 4: Global “Mesh Properties” dialog in CST MWS.

Mesh line ratio limit (MLRL): This setting specifies the allowed ratio between the largest
and the smallest mesh cell in the computational volume (MLRL=∆max/∆min). Because the
largest mesh cell (∆max) is already determined by the shortest wavelength and the
number of Lines per wavelength, increasing this setting will primarily decrease the size
of the minimum mesh cell (“Min. mesh step” in the Mesh summary dialog). Thus,
increasing this value will have two opposing effects: 1) smaller structural features in
the model will be properly meshed, 2) the total number of mesh cells will increase.
Please have in mind that the first point comes at the expense of longer simulation
times (due to a smaller time step), thus increase this setting for improving the mesh
but avoid meshing small features unless absolutely necessary. Note that the smallest
mesh step in a model can be highlighted in the mesh view under “Mesh

Show
Smallest Mesh Step”.

Alternatively, the “Smallest mesh step” can be directly specified in the dialog. This
feature can be useful when there is a priori knowledge of the smallest feature size in
the model that needs to be meshed.
July, 2010 4
Finally, please note that the “Mesh summary” section provides important information.
In particular, it shows the minimum and maximum mesh cell size, as well as the total
number of cells. Also, it shows the number of mesh planes along each axis Nx,Ny,Nz
(note that Ni=x,y,z-1 is the number of mesh cells along each axis). Thus, the total
number of mesh cells is given by the product: (Nx-1)*(Ny-1)*(Nz-1).

4. Advanced Meshing Strategies

In addition to the global mesh properties described in the previous section, CST MWS
offers unique meshing features that make it possible to generate a good mesh for a
wide variety of complex models. The advanced meshing technology in CST MWS
includes a number of powerful features that will be described next.
Advanced Meshing Technology in CST MWS

The time domain (transient) solver in CST MWS is based on the so called Finite
Integration Technique (FIT). Unlike other time domain methods, FIT supports a
number of unique advanced meshing features that differentiate it from other
numerical techniques. Such features include the so called PERFECT BOUNDARY
APPROXIMATION (PBA)®, THIN SHEET TECHNIQUE™ (TST) and MULTILEVEL SUBGRIDDING SCHEME™
(MSS).

PERFECT BOUNDARY APPROXIMATION (PBA)®

PBA refers to a proprietary technology that allows us to accurately represent
arbitrarily curved geometrical features in the model without resorting to any
geometrical simplifications. In particular, it helps to avoid the geometrical
simplifications typically incurred by the staircase approximation. The staircase
approximation results because in most time domain techniques, such as the Finite
Differences Time Domain (FDTD), a given mesh cell can only represent the material
properties (permittivity, permeability, etc.) of one type of material. Thus, when a
mesh cell is partially filled with two different materials, the ambiguity can only be
resolved by filling the cell with the material properties of one or the other material;
at best, with an average value based on the filling ratio between the two materials.
This situation is depicted in Fig. 5a.

a) b)

Fig. 5: Meshing of a sphere using: a) staircase approximation, b) PBA.

The technical details about PBA are outside the scope of this paper, however, it works
based on the fact that the path for integration (needed for the numerical solution of

July, 2010 5
Maxwell’s equations within each mesh cell), can be chosen to conform to the
geometry of the object inside the cell, rather than to the edges/faces of the cell
itself. In this way, the simulated structure and the electromagnetic fields can be
mapped to the hexahedral mesh. This allows a very good approximation of even
curved surfaces within the cuboid mesh cells. This situation is depicted in Fig. 5b.

THIN SHEET TECHNIQUE™ (TST)

In a way, TST can be viewed as an extension of PBA. That is, if PBA can be used to
conform to the geometry of a given object within a mesh cell, the same idea can be
extended to conform to the geometry of a thin metallic sheet inside a mesh cell.
These situations are shown in Fig.6a-b.

a) b)

Fig. 6: a) PBA implementation. b) TST implementation: “meshing” of a thin metallic sheet inside a cell.

From figure 6.b, the powerful meshing capabilities of TST become apparent. It allows
to properly represent thin metallic sheets without having to explicitly mesh them
using a fine mesh. This has a huge impact on total simulation time.

Despite the obvious power of these meshing techniques, there is a situation that
requires a word of caution. Neither PBA nor TST can properly handle the situation
when a mesh cell contains more than two independent non-metallic areas. Under
this situation, the electric and magnetic fields cannot penetrate the metallic objects
and become undetermined in the gap between the metallic objects. This situation is
depicted in Fig.7.

Fig. 7: Neither PBA nor TST can handle a mesh cell containing more than two non-metallic areas.
Instead, the entire cell is filled with PEC.

July, 2010 6
When this situation occurs, the entire mesh cell is represented in staircase mode and
filled with Perfect Electric Conductor (PEC) material. When such cells exist, CST MWS
will warn the user with the message “Some mesh cells/faces are represented in
staircase mode and have been filled with PEC”. This message appears on the top of
the main window when the mesh view option is selected (see Fig. 8). Staircase cells
are highlighted in the mesh by the color specified under “View
View
Options

Colors

Hexahedral mesh

Information”. Please note that staircase cells
can only be detected after the connectivity matrix has been calculated, for which the
simulation needs to be started.

Obviously, staircase cells can potentially create unwanted short circuits in the model
and should therefore be inspected. Of course, not all staircase cells are critical as in
many instances they will have insignificant impact on the device’s performance. Thus,
some staircase cells can be tolerated in exchange for a coarser mesh (fewer mesh
cells). This is especially true when they occur in regions far away from the critical
model components and do not change the device’s performance. The formation of
staircase cells can be controlled by refining the mesh, especially around the regions
where small metallic gaps are present.

In any event, when staircase cells are present in the mesh, they must be inspected to
ensure that they are not creating critical short circuits in the model. To this end, the
electrical connectivity feature (under “Results

Electrical Connections”) can be
quite useful.

Fig. 8: Staircase cells (in light blue) are highlighthed when the mesh view is enabled.

MULTILEVEL SUBGRIDDING SCHEME™ (MSS)

MSS refers to a proprietary technology that ensures that a very dense mesh is only
created within critical regions of the model. An example is shown in Fig. 9. As the
figure shows, MSS can help to reduce the total number of mesh cells but is also
subject to a trade-off. In particular, the computational overhead that results from the
complex interfaces caused by MSS is only justified if the total number of mesh cells is
decreased by a factor of 3-5. Unfortunately, this limits the number of models where
the use of MSS is clearly justified and is therefore not the default option. Also, note
that the spatial resolution of the fields on either side of the subgridded interface is
different. This requires interpolation of the fields as they propagate across the

July, 2010 7
interface. As expected, the interpolation can be less accurate in regions of strong field
gradients. Thus, the use of this feature is left at the user’s discretion. A typical
application where the use of MSS is fully recommended is the simulation of small
antennas inside large computational volumes.

Fig. 9: Mesh with MSS.

5. Special Mesh Properties Dialog in CST MWS

The advanced meshing features described in the previous section are contained in CST
MWS within the “Special Mesh Properties” dialog. This dialog can be accessed via the
“Specials…” button on the “Mesh Properties” dialog. See Fig. 10. In this section, the
settings that are relevant to the user are described.

Fig. 10: “Mesh Properties” and “Special Mesh Properties” dialogs in CST MWS.

Under the “General” tab, there are two settings that are important for the user. The
first one is the “Equilibrate mesh ratio” setting. As it was previously discussed, the
hexahedral mesh in the time domain is composed of cuboids. In general, the length of
the cuboids will vary throughout the computational volume. The length will be graded
from the smallest length, to the largest (pertaining to the smallest and largest mesh
cells, respectively). In general, a smoothly graded mesh is more accurate than a
poorly graded one with abrupt mesh transitions.

The “Equilibrate mesh ratio” setting controls how the grading occurs in the mesh. It
attempts to create a smooth transition between coarse and fine mesh regions by
July, 2010 8
controlling the relative size between neighboring mesh cells. In other words, this
setting determines the maximum allowable mesh size increase between neighboring
cells. We recommend the user to try this feature whenever possible. In general,
decreasing this setting will increase the quality of the mesh at the expense of
increasing the total number of mesh cells.

Another setting of relevance for the user is the “Refine at PEC / lossy metal edges by
factor:”. This option increases the spatial sampling at PEC or lossy metal edges. At
these edges, the automatic mesh generator is forced to increase the mesh density by
the given factor. This setting is very useful because at metal edges, singularities occur
in the electromagnetic fields. This means that the fields vary significantly near such
edges and must be sampled more frequently than elsewhere. We recommend the use
of this feature at the user’s discretion based on the intended application. Note that by
using a project template that is closest to your application, this setting is adjusted
automatically.

Fixpoints Tab
In the present discussion, it has been inferred that the mesh density can be controlled
by the different mesh settings. Then the following question arises: as the mesh density
is increased (mesh is refined), where are the new mesh lines (mesh cells are
composed of mesh lines of course) added in the model? The answer is that the new
mesh lines will be added, preferably, along the fix points contained in the structure. If
no fix points exist, then the mesh lines tend to be uniformly added throughout the
computational volume2.

The location of the fix points in the model is controlled by the settings on the
“Fixpoints” tab. The fix points are highlighted in the mesh by red dots. Also, the user
can specify fix points manually very easily. For this, enable the mesh view mode and
select points in the model in the usual way (Objects

Pick

Pick Point). The selected
points become user defined fix points automatically. The user-defined fix points are
highlighted in blue in the mesh as shown in Fig. 11. Although adding manual fix points
can be useful some times, we generally recommend using the default settings for
automatic fix point generation and work with fix points in combination with the local
mesh properties as will be described later on.

Fig. 11: Advanced mesh control options: a) default mesh settings.

b) Equilibrate mesh ratio at 1.1, c) Refine at PEC / lost metal edges by factor 2.
The red (blue) dots show the automatic (user defined) fix points.

2
Note that strictly speaking, not just a “mesh line” but a “mesh plane” is added at the location of fix points (see Fig. 1).

July, 2010 9
To conclude this section, it should be noted that all other settings in the “Special Mesh
Properties” dialog should be used at their default values or as determined by the
project templates.

6. Local Mesh Properties

The mesh settings discussed in the previous sections described how to optimize the
mesh in order to find a good compromise between simulation speed and accuracy.
However, for the majority of applications, the best compromise is not obtained by
global mesh settings alone but in combination with local mesh settings. The
combination of global and local mesh settings offers the granularity to ensure that
critical model components, or regions of space with strong field gradients, are
properly meshed. Under the same argument, it allows us to relax the mesh for non-
critical model components and in regions of space where fields are either weak or
weakly changing (both temporally and spatially). For example, when characterizing a
differential pair on a PCB or package, it makes sense to ensure a high quality mesh
around the diff pair itself, and to relax it in regions away from it where the fields are
weak. From this discussion, it is clear that the local mesh properties can be used more
effectively if there is a priori knowledge about the structure’s electromagnetic
behavior and the expected results. However, this is not indispensable.
The local mesh property settings are described next.

Local Mesh Properties dialog in CST MWS

Generally, the settings on the “Local Mesh Properties” dialog take higher precedence
and override the global mesh settings. In order to access the dialog, select a model’s
component by double clicking on it, or from the navigation tree, then right mouse
click on the main window and select “Local mesh properties” from the list. The dialog
is shown in Fig. 12.

Fig. 12: Local Mesh Properties dialog in CST MWS.

July, 2010 10
Most settings in the dialog are relevant for the user. The “Automesh and Simulation”
settings are as follows:

Priority: There are generally many fix points associated with the model components.
In order to keep the mesh count and mesh size under control, not all fix points can
have mesh lines across. In reality, as the mesh is refined, the fix points compete
among themselves for the new mesh lines. The mesh lines end up across the fix points
of the component with the highest priority. For the most part, this setting does not
need to be changed unless you have critical features in the model which are
competing meshwise with less important components. See Fig. 13 for an example.

Automesh fixpoints: This setting determines whether or not fix points of selected
components will be considered by the automatic mesh generator. Based on the
previous discussions, it is recommended to turn off the fix points for components of
low electrical importance, especially when located away from the main structural
features of interest. Also, it should be noted that a combination of fix points and a
high “Mesh line ratio limit” will generally lead to exceedingly small mesh cells thus
increasing the simulation time. Therefore, it is highly recommended to inspect the
mesh and make sure that the fix points in the model are not over constraining the
mesh unnecessarily. The mesh is over constrained when: a) The minimum mesh step is
determined by fix points which are not associated with the minimum geometrical
feature of interest in the model, b) The mesh is unnecessarily dense in regions where
fix points of components of low electrical importance were not turned off.

a) b)

Fig. 13: Fix points: a) effect of priority, b) effect of automesh.

Consider for simulation: This setting determines whether or not selected components
will be considered for simulation. It helps to exclude components from the model
without having to delete them. This can be used for what-if analyses where the effects
of removing (or adding) components are studied. Note that when a component is
excluded from simulation, we have the option to retain its mesh properties. This can
be used to locally refine a region in the computational volume. For example, we could
create a “dummy” brick with the appropriate local mesh properties (e.g. Dx,Dy,Dz) in
the region of interest and exclude it from simulation.
It is recommended to leave the “Material based refinement” and “Consider for bounding
box” settings on their default values.

The settings under the “Mesh refinement” section rarely need to be changed from
their default values. However, the user is encouraged to use them when appropriate.
Their definitions are as follow:

July, 2010 11
Use local edge refinement factor: This setting is similar to the “Refine at PEC / lossy metal
edges by factor”. It increases the refinement around edges of the selected object by the
specified factor.
Use local volume refinement factor: This setting increases the refinement within the
boundary of the selected object by the specified factor.

The settings under the “Maximum mesh step width” are probably the most widely
used on the “Local Mesh Properties” dialog.
Dx, Dy and Dz: These settings will force the automatic mesh generator not to exceed
this step width within the bounding box of the selected component. A maximum step
width for every coordinate direction can be specified. This feature can be applied to
components of high importance in the simulation, for example, it can be used to force
n number of lines across a dielectric layer by specifying Dz=Layer_thickness/n. In this
way, this feature can be used in order to refine a volumetric region occupied by
existing components, or in combination with a “dummy” component which is not
“Consider for simulation”.

Finally, it should be mentioned that in some applications, the use of “Local Mesh
properties” is not required on entire components. In such cases, it is recommended to
split the component into sub-components (using “Objects

Slice by uv plane”) and
only apply the “Local mesh properties” to the appropriate sub-components. Figure 14
shows an example of this.

Fig. 14: Consider splitting components into subcomponents for further “Local mesh properties”
granularity.

7. Automatic Mesh Refinement in the Time Domain

The mesh settings discussed in the previous sections described how to globally and
locally control the mesh throughout the computational volume in order to achieve a
good compromise between simulation speed and accuracy. An alternative approach
for handling the meshing of a particular model is to use the “Adaptive Mesh Refinement”
option. When this option is enabled, the mesh is gradually refined until the solution
(e.g. S-parameters) converges to some predefined user defined convergence criteria.
This relies on the well known principle that when solving equations numerically, in the

July, 2010 12
limit of an extremely fine mesh, the numerical solution converges to the analytical
(exact) solution.

There are a couple of points to emphasize when using “Adaptive Mesh Refinement” in
the time domain. In particular, the user should be aware of the differences between
doing mesh adaptation in the time and frequency domains. In the frequency domain
(e.g. FEM-based methods), the adaptive mesh refinement is typically done at only ONE
frequency (typically the highest frequency of interest). Once the solution is converged
at that frequency, the mesh is assumed to be valid (accurate) for all other
frequencies. In some instances, the user might specify additional frequency points for
mesh adaption based on a priori knowledge of the location of important resonances. In
short, mesh adaptation is only done at one (or very few) frequency point.

This is to be contrasted with mesh adaptation in the time domain, where the
broadband nature of the simulation lends itself to broadband mesh adaptation. In
other words, mesh adaptation in the time domain is inherently advantageous for doing
mesh adaptation in the entire frequency range of interest. Unfortunately, this benefit
does not come for free because essentially, for every pass of the mesh adaptation, a
complete time domain simulation needs to be performed. This can of course,
potentially lead to long simulation times. For this reason, “Adaptive Mesh Refinement” is
not the default approach and its use is left at the user’s discretion (see our
recommendations on the next page).

The “Adaptive mesh refinement” dialog can be accessed from the “Transient Solver
Parameters” dialog as shown in Fig. 15.

Fig. 15: “Adaptive Mesh Refinement” dialog in CST MWS.

The settings in the dialog are as follows:

Minimum and Maximum Number of passes: These settings determine the minimum and
maximum number of passes that will be performed for the mesh adaptation. The
mesh adaptation will run for at least the minimum number of passes, even if the stop
criteria are already met. Also, the mesh adaptation will stop after the maximum
number of passes is reached, even if the stop criteria for the mesh adaptation have

July, 2010 13
not been met. The maximum setting is useful to limit the total calculation time to
reasonable amounts.

Adaptation Stop Criteria: These settings determine the criteria to stop the mesh
adaptation. Note that S-parameters and/or 0D result templates can be used as stop
criteria.
In the former case, the change in the S-parameters has to be below a set threshold
(Maximum delta) for a number of consecutive passes (Number of checks) for the stop
criterion to be met. Also, the stop criteria can be based on changes on the full
frequency range (if “Use full range” is activated), or it can be limited to the frequency
range specified by the values in the Fmin/Fmax fields.
In the latter case, the relative change in a user defined 0D result template is used as
stop criterion. The relative change in the 0D result has to be below a set threshold
(Maximum relative delta) for a number of consecutive passes (Number of checks) for the
stop criterion to be met.

Refinement settings: For the most part, the default settings are recommended and the
user only needs to choose between “Energy based” or “Expert system based”
refinement. When choosing the “Energy based” strategy, the mesh refinement is
based on the given energy distribution of the electromagnetic fields inside the
calculation domain. That is, the mesh is more heavily refined in regions of high
electromagnetic energy. This has proven to be an effective approach for many
applications.
When using the “Expert system based” strategy, the mesh refinement is performed by
successively changing global mesh settings such as Lines per wavelength and Lower mesh
limit. This strategy is recommended for parametric sweeps and optimizations because
the mesh is adapted once and reused for subsequent simulations. The user is
encouraged to test the two strategies and determine which one is more appropriate
for their particular application.

Here are a few recommendations for the use of “Adaptive mesh refinement” in CST MWS:
- For preliminary simulations or when multiple simulation runs are needed in
the shortest possible time, restrict the adaptation to a few iterations (3-4)
or relax the “Maximum delta:” as much as possible.
- Start the adaptation with a coarse mesh in order to keep the mesh count as
low as possible.
- If doing mesh adaptation based on the convergence of the S-parameters,
consider reducing the “Frequency range” used for adaptation. A complete
simulation for each iteration is still required, but the mesh will convergence
faster.
- When using mesh adaptation for a parametric sweep or optimization, use
the “Expert system based” strategy. In contrast to the “Energy based”
strategy, the mesh adaptation is done only for the first simulation and then
turned off.

July, 2010 14
 - Consider using “Adaptive Mesh Refinement” in combination with one of our
high performance computing options, such as Graphics Processing Unit
(GPU) computing.

8. Summary

After describing the important aspects of meshing in the time domain in detail, this
section provides a summary and short reference.

1. Use the meshing flow recommended in Fig. 16.

Fig. 16: Recommended meshing flow in CST MWS.

2. In our experience, the best compromise between simulation speed and

accuracy (the best mesh) can be obtained by a combination of Local and
Global mesh settings. The user is highly encouraged to gain familiarity with
these settings.
3. Make sure that you understand the trade-offs of meshing in time domain.
The finer the mesh, the more accurate the solution but the longer the
simulation time. A good mesh provides a good compromise between
simulation speed and accuracy.
4. Minimize the number of mesh cells by restricting the simulation to the
frequency range of interest. For TEM modes (no cut-off frequency), it is
July, 2010 15
 recommended to include DC (Fmin=0), but do not increase Fmax
unnecessarily. This is particularly important for electrically large problems.

5. Make sure that the mesh meets the following minimum requirements:

July, 2010 16
 6. To achieve maximum performance, maximize the smallest mesh step as
much as possible. For this, avoid over meshing small structural features
unless strictly necessary.
7. Generally, do not explicitly mesh thin metallic layers. Let TST handle them.
8. Avoid staircase cells as much as possible by refining the mesh where
required. Pay special attention to small metallic gaps. When staircase cells
are present, make sure that they do not affect the electrical performance
of the model by creating unwanted short circuits.
9. Take advantage of PBA and TST as much as possible. Consider if MSS is
appropriate for your application.
10. Use a minimum spatial sampling ratio of 10 lines per wavelength.
11. Use the “Lower Mesh Limit” rather than the “Lines per wavelength” to control
the mesh for electrically small devices.
12. Avoid unnecessarily large values of “Mesh Line Ratio” limit, especially in
combination with fix points.
13. Minimize the meshing effort at the expense of longer simulation runs.
Consider using “Adaptive Mesh Refinement” or a fine mesh throughout the
computational volume in combination with one of our high performance
computing options, such as GPU or Distributed Computing, etc.

We hope that you found this document useful. Please do not hesitate to
contact your local support group if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Your CST Team

July, 2010 17