Analyze the Results

Analyze the radiation patterns, key performance indicators, and 3D results of your simulations to evaluate each antenna's performance.

Antenna Placement provides you with access to various tools to review and evaluate the performance of each installed antenna. These tools allow you to compare the performance of an antenna in different locations on the platform. Radiation pattern plots display the far-field directivity in section planes, while key performance indicators (KPIs) summarize your results using discrete quantities, such as the minimum gain or the coverage efficiency. When you combine these tools with the ability to review 3D plots of the far-field directivity, you can make comprehensive quantitative and qualitative judgments about your antenna placement.

In this example, you review the radiation patterns of the front and middle coverage tests to determine if the coverage is omnidirectional. Then, you review and compare the coverage efficiency and 3D far-field directivity to decide which antenna placement is better for installation.

This task shows you how to:

Analyze the Radiation Patterns

  1. From the Radiation Patterns section of the Assistant, click Radiation Patterns .
    The app displays the far-field directivity curves of both coverage tests in the predefined section plane, Phi = 90° (that is, the X-Z plane.) Each curve is shown in a distinct color and paired with a legend to help you distinguish which plot belongs to which coverage test.

  2. Analyze the far-field directivity curves.
    The two curves are generally uniform and symmetrical. They are similar in the angular range of −120° (becoming more positive) to 120°, but they vary from 120° (becoming more positive) to 240°. For both coverage tests, there are no structures impeding the coverage above the installed antenna, which could explain the similarities between the curves. With regard to their dissimilarities, the front coverage test's curve has more coverage underneath the aircraft than the middle coverage test. You can attribute this difference to the aircraft's wings impeding the middle coverage test's coverage.
  3. Optional: From the Section options, select a different section plane.

    As you did in the previous step, keep in mind how the aircraft's structure might affect the directivity curve.

    The coverage tests have similar directivity curves in both the Theta = 90° and Phi = 0° section planes (that is, the X-Y and Y-Z planes, respectively.)
  4. Close the dialog box.

Compare the Key Performance Indicators

  1. From the Performance Indicators section of the Assistant, click Performance Indicators .
    Performance Trade-off opens, and it displays the KPIs of both coverage tests in tabular format. The KPIs in the analysis case are the default KPIs specified in the master simulation project and a KPI for the coverage efficiency.
  2. Compare the total radiated power, total efficiency, and coverage efficiency of both coverage tests by defining requirements.
    1. From the EM_KPIs_Total Radiated Power row, click Edit to specify a requirement.
    2. From the Objective options, select Maximize to prompt the app to highlight the most positive value when comparing the KPIs.
    3. Click Apply.

      The app compares the total radiated power of both coverage tests.

      For the front coverage test, the app highlights the total radiated power value in green to indicate that it meets your requirement.
    4. Similarly, define requirements to easily see which coverage test has the maximum total efficiency and coverage efficiency.
      The app highlights the total efficiency and the coverage efficiency of the front coverage test in green. Based on the three KPIs for which you defined requirements, the frontmost placement candidate is in a better position than the middle placement candidate.
  3. In the table header for the front coverage test, select the circle .
    The app defines the front coverage test as the reference data set. The app then compares the middle coverage test to the front coverage test in terms of the percent difference between their absolute values. The percent difference between the two coverage tests supports the previous conclusion that the frontmost placement candidate is in a better position than the middle placement candidate.

Compare the 3D Results

  1. Open the 3D results of your coverage tests.
    1. In the table header for the front coverage test, click and then click Preview .
      The aircraft with the front-installed antenna opens in a new Physics Simulation Review window.
    2. Click the menu , and then click Results to select the various 3D results available to you.
    3. Select Farfield Tasks.
      The window displays a plot of the 3D far-field directivity.
    4. Repeat the steps above to open a second window for the middle coverage test.

      Physics Simulation Review synchronizes the windows.

  2. Compare the plots by interacting with the 3D area of one window.
    The rounded shape of the far-field directivity above the installed antennas is generally smooth, round, and similar. When you view the underside of the aircraft, the wings impede the directivity of the antenna installed at the middle of the passenger cabin.

    After comparing the two coverage tests, the frontmost placement candidate performs better.

  3. Save your work.

Congratulations, you have successfully completed this example.