Microwave Assignment – 1

Q: Design a LPF for cut-off frequency of 2GHz, which offers a 30 dB attenuation at 6GHz;
(i) maximally flat
(ii) 0.5 dB equal ripple Chebyshev filter

Maximally flat:
Based on the given data and comparing it with the Attenuation VS Normalized frequency for
maximally flat prototypes we get the order of the filter as N=3.

Attenuation VS Normalized frequency for maximally flat low pass filter

Prototype for 3rd order maximally flat low pass filter

From the table we can get Element Values for Maximally Flat Low-Pass Filter Prototypes
L1= L3= 1
C2= 2
Further Impedance scaling is done to get the required filter with specifications at 2GHz

Lk’ = R0*Lk/ (ωc), Ck = Ck*R0/ (ωc)

ωc = 2*pi*fc; fc= 2GHz
Final circuit has L1=L3= 3.979 nH and C2=3.183pF
Chebyshev filter:
For an equal-ripple low-pass filter with a cut-off frequency ωc = 1 rad/sec, the power loss
ratio from is PLR = 1 + k2Tn2 (ω) where 1 + k2 is the ripple level in the pass band.

Observing the graph for Attenuation VS Normalized frequency for 0.5 dB equal ripple
Chebyshev low pass filter we get the order of the filter as N=3.

Attenuation VS Normalized frequency for 0.5 dB equal ripple Chebyshev low pass filter
Observing the table for the values for the 0.5 equal ripple filter prototype
Applying impedance scaling to the elements using the formula used above we get the final
circuit

L1 = L3 = 6.351 nH C2 = 1.745 pF R4=50 Ω

Thus the two required filters have been designed considering the ideal lumped parameter
model.
 Distributed parameter model

K
P=p1

P=p1
Z=Z1

Z=Z1
K

Z=Z2
P=p1

Distributed parameter 3rd order Low pass filter

For Chebyshev 0.5 dB filter Z1=79.81 Ω Z2=45.59 Ω

For Maximally flat filter Z1=50 Ω Z2=25 Ω

Chebyshev Lumped parameter filter

Maximally flat distributed parameter
 Microwave Assignment – 2

Q: Design a LPF for cut-off frequency of 2GHz, which offers a 30 dB attenuation at 6GHz;
(i) maximally flat
(ii) 0.5 dB equal ripple Chebyshev filter using shunt stub micro strip technology.

Based on the given data and comparing it with the Attenuation VS Normalized frequency for
maximally flat prototypes we get the order of the filter as N=3.
From the table we can get Element Values for Maximally Flat Low-Pass Filter Prototypes
L1= L3= 1
C2= 2
We use Richards’ transformations to convert series inductors to series stubs, and shunt
capacitors to shunt stubs. The characteristic impedance of a series stub (inductor) is L, and
the characteristic impedance of a shunt stub (capacitor) is 1/C.

For commensurate line synthesis, all stubs are λ/8 long at ω = ωc. (It is usually most
convenient to work with normalized quantities until the last step in the design.) The series
stubs would be very difficult to implement in micro strip line form, so we will use one of the
Kuroda identities to convert these to shunt stubs.
First we add unit elements at either end of the filter.
These redundant elements do not affect filter performance since they are matched to the
source and load (Z0 = 1).
Then we can apply Kuroda identity to both ends of the filter.
Further Impedance scaling is done to get the required filter with specifications at 2GHz

Maximally flat low pass filter using shunt stub

Chebyshev low pass filter using shunt stub

 Microwave Assignment – 3

Q: Design a LPF for cut-off frequency of 2GHz, which offers a 30 dB attenuation at 6GHz;
(i) maximally flat
(ii) 0.5 dB equal ripple Chebyshev filter using stepped filters

3rd Order low pass filter using stepped filter

Inference:
Comparing the filter responses for maximally flat filter in all the three cases it comes
to the observation that in case of distributed parameter model the insertion loss
monotonically increases, whereas in the rest two cases there is a local maxima at
around 4GHz.
Comparing the filter responses for Chebyshev filter in all the three cases it comes to
the observation that the insertion loss monotonically increases in lumped parameter
model; the insertion loss has a maxima at 3.9GHz for distributed parameter model
and at 4GHz for shunt stub model.
When comparing the responses of the other models to the stepped filter model the
response is pretty stable for both insertion and return loss.