AWR Design Environment - Recent Threads

RE: adding internal port to small loop antenna

OscPn — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 07:31:20 GMT

Refer to AWR Design Environment Simulation and Analysis Guide, to know more about ports and it's Application

adding internal port to small loop antenna

AD202606089244 — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:55:11 GMT

how to add internal port in design of small loop antenna after creating gap in ring structure? even after selecting option of add internal port, it does not get added at the required place..

RE: adding internal port to small loop antenna

AD202606089244 — Sat, 13 Jun 2026 07:05:17 GMT

Thank you very much for your guidance and support through your reply. Apart from internal port, there is only edge port & point port available in options. I could not see differential port or series port. As per your suggestion I also went through example of dipole antenna and I tried that one. After drawing a rectangle with thick metal layer, I added internal port to that rectangle in between its structure & simulated it. But it is not getting simulated. Kindly guide.

RE: 3D EM absorber simulation

CurtisAWR — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 21:27:15 GMT

You can try using the Analyst-MP application instead of through MWO. In that program you can set up ports and run simulations without needing to start in MWO. You would need specific Analyst-MP features in your license file, which I am assuming you have.

3D EM absorber simulation

rrlagic — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 13:49:19 GMT

Hello!

Truing to enter AWR MWO simulations based on past experience and general knowledge seems to be pretty steep. On the other hand I could not find a similar example, so I could look into it first. So I am asking community to suggest example or the topics to be studied first.

I want to use AWR MWO to study microwaves reflection from surfaces, like m/w absorber being illuminated by plane wave as a very first problem. I see many examples for circuits simulations, here I'd like to learn, how to simulate kind of distributed system, ideally estimate its characteristics, like S11.

Please suggests initial steps.

RE: adding internal port to small loop antenna

OscPn — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 11:40:52 GMT

In AXIEM, internal ports are not intended to be placed across a physical gap in a structure. An internal port represents an infinitesimally small (zero-length) connection, so it cannot span a real geometric break such as the gap you created in the loop antenna.

That is why, even after selecting the “Add Internal Port” option, the port does not get added at the desired location across the gap—the tool is behaving as designed.

Key Points:

Internal ports are used to excite or probe current/voltage within a continuous conductive region.
They cannot bridge a physical discontinuity (like a gap in a ring or loop antenna).
To better understand correct placement and polarity, it is recommended to review the AXIEM documentation on internal ports and refer to the installed example “Dipole Antenna”, which demonstrates proper usage.

Recommended Approach for Your Case:

If your goal is to model and excite a physical gap in the loop structure, you should instead use:

Differential ports, or
Series ports

These port types are specifically designed to handle excitation across a finite gap and will allow proper simulation of the antenna behavior.

Layout Pin Names Property in AWRDE 25.1

SandyRF — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 10:49:41 GMT

A new layout shape Pin Name property supports more complex pin connectivity configurations. Individual shapes or layout instances can be turned into physical pins in layout by setting the Pin Name parameters on the shape Properties dialog box Net Properties tab. This pin model is recommended for Virtuoso Studio RF users who want to create IP that is interoperable with Virtuoso Studio as the new pin model uses the same connectivity model that Virtuoso Studio uses.

RE: 3D EM absorber simulation

OscPn — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 07:24:43 GMT

For port addition in Clarity, you may check following link:

Article (20515591) Title: Port Overview: Clarity Layout Workbench and Clarity 3D Layout
URL: ask.cadence.com/.../article-viewer

RE: 3D EM absorber simulation

rrlagic — Sun, 07 Jun 2026 19:30:53 GMT

Well, I have spent couple days fighting through the interface with help of AI tools and whatever I do the last stop is defining the port. I have tried with Analyst, still available in my setup, with Clarity - I can produce layered substrate, define boundary conditions on side walls of the enclosure to make the wave TEM, but whatever I do - just can't add excitation port at the top of the enclosure. Would appreciate if someone share their example or recipe. In my current mood if I hear that's impossible to do might be a relief too.

Thanks.

RE: 3D EM absorber simulation

rrlagic — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 20:45:50 GMT

Thank you for this hint too. I guess I need some reading in that direction to proceed.

RE: 3D EM absorber simulation

CurtisAWR — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 14:43:25 GMT

The types of analysis you wish to do require a 3D EM solver, which (in the Cadence suite of tools) would be the Clarity 3D Workbench. This is the tool you should be evaluating for this task.

AWRDE is primarily an RF/Microwave circuit / system simulator. It will seamlessly operate with other Cadence tools such as the Clarity 3D Workbench, so that the results of these external solvers can be used with the circuit / system simulations you do in AWRDE.

How Can AI Transform RF Design and Simulation for Next-Gen 6G Systems?

OscPn — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 09:42:35 GMT

How can Artificial Intelligence be effectively applied to the simulation, modeling, and design of RF components and systems for 6G applications? Looking for insights, tools, experiences, and best practices from the community.

CPW ports definition, explicit ground and union of metals

Romolo Marcelli — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 14:12:40 GMT

Hello to everybody.

I have some concerns about the correct definition of ground in a CPW configuration defined within the AWR Microwave Office AXIEM simulator.

In the past years, I received the suggestion to use differential ports, like "1" for the signal and "-1" for the lateral ground. Of course, the same for port "2" or others. Reading again a post on this Community I have seen that somebody suggests to use "1" for the signal and "2" for the lateral ports. So, is it the same or one is better than the other?

Again, when a CPW grounded (GCPW) is studied, is it sufficient to use a metal on the bottom boundary or it must be connected to the surface using via holes to have the metal surfaces at the same potential, i.e., ground?

To end, I noticed that adding pieces of metal and making the union of them does not involve a redefinition of the metal sheet as a whole, because if such a metal is close to the I/O ports of the CPW structures, I am forced in filling all the side with the "-1" port to confirm. It seems that apparently I have one metal sheet, but in fact putting a differential port where I added some metal maintains the memory of the past configuration, forcing me in extending the "-1" definition to such a ghost metal... like in the figure attached.

RE: CPW ports definition, explicit ground and union of metals

Romolo Marcelli — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 09:33:58 GMT

Thank you very much. This actually means that a CPWG probably needs a few via holes along the path to ensure the ground conditions.

RE: CPW ports definition, explicit ground and union of metals

OscPn — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 07:53:55 GMT

1. No, this does not appear to be a software issue; it is related to the experimental setup. The software attempts to emulate the experimental conditions.
2. The boundary conditions defined in the experimental setup should be replicated in the software. For simulation purposes, a differential port is sufficient.

RE: 3D EM absorber simulation

rrlagic — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 16:37:14 GMT

Thanks for the hint. Digesting materials available on the net it looks that solver like Analyst is capable to solve scattering on the structure problem, while others are tailored to something like a circuit.

My ultimate goal is to simulate normal and oblique incidence of plane wave onto complex multilayered surface made of dielectrics, metal patches, and probably lumped varactors between them, kind of smart surface. I am confident there will be challenges to reach the final goal, so I restrict myself to simpler problem of single material layer absorber, for which I could have analytical solution to verify.

So yes, there was good hint to start with EM solver and observe boundary conditions for enclosure.

What makes me stuck, is how do I perform measurement of such kind of structure? Say, at this point I'd like to have S11 at air-surface boundary at normal incidence. How do I set up that measurement? It looks that they require a port, and port in turn requires metal to be attached to. How do I define that? How could I define either normal or oblique incidence? We are having really hard time learning the tool without relevant example.

Thanks in advance.

RE: How do I choose the right simulator in AWR?

CurtisAWR — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 01:37:53 GMT

1. I don’t know off-hand of any specific examples where switching between Default Linear and APLAC Linear shows a noticeable difference in results / performance. However, you can reference this link from the relevant section of the Help Manual to see where APLAC Linear Subcircuit Caching can specifically result in performance improvements.

2. Note that Spectre will yield a simulation in Linux, and I think you said you are in Windows. MWO in Windows will indeed generate the netlist, but you would need the solver to generate the data simulation, and this is a Linux requirement.

3. The Configuration menu reflects a list of Simulation Configurations available (either as the Default configuration, or specific Switch Lists, defined by the user). The best way for you to learn about them is to click the “Help” menu on that dialog, and on the resulting Help page, to click again on the Switch View Concepts link in the Configuration row of the table. See this link for more information on how -- and why you might -- set up a Switch List.

How do I choose the right simulator in AWR?

AnalogMonk — Thu, 28 May 2026 09:02:43 GMT

Hi all,

When I try to run a simple linear simulation, I see multiple simulator options like:

Default Linear
APLAC Linear
Spectre Linear

At first glance, they all seem to do the same thing (just linear simulation), but clearly they’re not identical.

My questions:

Is Default Linear always enough, or should I be using APLAC/Spectre?
Are these just different engines for the same math, or do they behave differently in practice?
In what scenarios do you switch from one to another?

RE: 3D EM absorber simulation

CurtisAWR — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 23:30:19 GMT

I suspect you will need an EM solver like Analyst / Clarity, or at least AXIEM, to effectively model the effects of a lossy boundary like an absorber.

You could create a 3D EM Structure and then open its Enclosure node -- and then go to the Boundary Conditions Tab -- to set the way in which the structure's boundaries are terminated. You can of course set them as Open or Perfect Conductor, but you can also set them to be a material which you specifically define in the Material Defs. tab of the STACKUP.

See screenshots below.

RE: How do I choose the right simulator in AWR?

AnalogMonk — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 09:22:24 GMT

Thanks for sharing the details. I have few more questions related to this:

1. Can you share a practical example where switching from the default linear simulator to APLAC resulted in a noticeable improvement in results or performances?

2. When I select the spectre simulator on my windows machine it throws an error. However, I noticed that it generates a netlist (.scs). How did it generates without that solve? - snap attached

3. What is the purpose of 'configuration' button in the simulator settings? Are there any scenario or measurement where we can change that?

RE: CPW ports definition, explicit ground and union of metals

Romolo Marcelli — Fri, 29 May 2026 09:51:25 GMT

Hi, I am still studying the differences between CPW and CPWG with Microwave Office AXIEM. Actually, for CPWG I solved the simulation problems using a number of via holes physically connecting the lateral ground plane on the top of the substrate with the bottom metal, to assure a ground to the studied structure. Nevertheless, I have a few conceptual problems: (1) the presence of via holes solved for me the comparison between a semi-lumped approach simulated circuitally (where the parameter GND=1 emulates the CPWG library elements) and the electromagnetic result; but, is this only a SW problem, or experimentally, I really need the via holes? (2) If I am simulating the simple CPW, is the differential port definition enough to have a "real" result, or do I also need more specific boundary conditions to try a direct comparison with the experiment?

RE: CPW ports definition, explicit ground and union of metals

Romolo Marcelli — Fri, 29 May 2026 09:51:00 GMT

RE: How do I choose the right simulator in AWR?

OscPn — Fri, 29 May 2026 08:21:20 GMT

Hi AnalogMonk,

For most cases, the default Linear simulator is the fastest and best option.

In some cases, APLAC Linear subcircuit caching can improve simulation time, so APLAC may be preferred.

The Spectre solver is available only on Linux.

Other solver engines are also available, such as APLAC HB in Microwave Office, and VSS has its own separate solvers.

Depending on the application, you can switch between solvers, and each measurement in AWR automatically enables the appropriate solver.

RE: Change license type on Linux for AWR Design Environment

OscPn — Wed, 13 May 2026 10:00:21 GMT

For installing AWR on Linux, refer to the following article:

Article (20519653) Title: Step-By-Step Guide to Install AWR 25.1 Release on Linux
URL: support.cadence.com/.../ArticleAttachmentPortal

Regarding license modifications, you can NOT make any changes directly in the license file. For your specific requirement, I recommend contacting the provider of your current license file or following the license file generation process while clearly outlining your requirement.

Change license type on Linux for AWR Design Environment

DK202604288645 — Tue, 12 May 2026 17:31:27 GMT

I am looking to install AWR Design Environment on Linux and change the license type used from Standard to Flexnet.

Is there any way to do this? Without changing license I cannot use University License to launch the application.

Thanks