See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/3306009

Accurate Evaluation of Magnetic- and Electric-Field Losses in Ground Systems

Article  in  IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine · January 2008

DOI: 10.1109/MAP.2007.4455847 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
7 898

2 authors:

Luis Dorado Valentino. Trainotti

24 PUBLICATIONS   224 CITATIONS   
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
34 PUBLICATIONS   206 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Electromagnetic Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luis Dorado on 03 February 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Accurate Evaluation of Magnetic and Electric Field
Losses in Ground Systems
Luis A. Dorado, Graduate Student Member, IEEE, and Valentino Trainotti, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract— The efficiency of ground-based antennas is highly
determined by the power dissipated in the ground plane, which
can be separated into H-field and E-field losses.
In this paper, a new approach is presented for the separation of
ground losses, which is based on Joule’s law and it is theoretically
valid at any frequency. Nevertheless, some simplifications can be
applied in the low and medium frequency bands, where the earth
soil behaves like a good conductor.
In the analysis, the antenna ground plane has been divided
into two zones: a) the artificial ground plane, where a radial
wire ground screen is used, and b) the natural ground plane or
bare soil up to a circular boundary half-wavelength from the
antenna base. In order to avoid an overestimated penetration of
fields in the artificial ground plane, the previous theory has been
extended by introducing the concept of effective skin depth.
The monopole non-zero equivalent radius effect has been taken
into account by means of a modified current distribution. Also,
the case of short top-loaded antennas is treated.
H-field and E-field losses have been analyzed by means of
equivalent resistances and computed numerically as functions of
frequency in LF and MF bands for different antenna dimensions,
ground screens and soil physical conditions, and some results have
also been obtained by Moment Method simulations.
Index Terms— H-field loss, E-field loss, Soil losses, Grounding,
Ground plane, Radial wire ground screen, Artificial ground
plane, Natural ground plane, Ground plane loss resistance, LF
MF AM broadcast antenna, LF MF AM transmitting antenna,
Monopole antenna, Short antenna, Short monopole, Quarter-
wave monopole, Top-loaded monopole, Joule’s law.
I. I NTRODUCTION
I N THE EFFICIENCY calculation of ground-based an-
tennas, of paramount importance is the determination of
the power dissipated in the ground plane [1], which can be
separated into the so-called H-field and E-field losses [2]. The
H-field loss is associated with the tangential magnetic field on
the ground surface, while the E-field loss is due to the vertical
electric field immediately above the ground plane, both losses
can then be computed separately and simply added. In [3]
Wait has given some justification for this separation at low
frequencies by means of the normal Poynting vector flow into
the earth.
In this paper, the separation into H-field and E-field losses is
performed by applying Joule’s law in the earth volume below
the ground plane surface. Despite this novel approach could in
principle be applied at any frequency, ground loss calculations
become simpler when the earth soil can be considered as a
L. A. Dorado is with University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
(e-mail: luis dorado@ieee.org).
V. Trainotti is with University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
(e-mail: vtrainotti@ieee.org).
1
good conductor, which really occurs in the low and medium
frequency bands.
The ground plane below the antenna can be divided into
two zones: a) the artificial ground plane, where a radial wire
ground screen is frequently used in order to increase the soil
conductivity, and b) the natural ground plane or bare soil up
to a circular boundary half-wavelength from the antenna base.
From the vertical electric field viewpoint, the ground screen
can be replaced by a perfectly conducting sheet buried at an
effective depth h [2], which increases almost linearly as a
function of the separation between radial wires. The electric
field is then considered as penetrating down to the ground
screen effective depth h, this being a good approximation
when h is small compared to the soil skin depth δ, that is
h ¿ δ. However, when this requirement cannot be met, a
modification to the calculations must be proposed in order to
avoid an overestimated penetration of fields. This has been
achieved by defining an artificial ground plane effective skin
depth δg .
In order to take into account the monopole non-zero equiv-
alent radius effect, a modified antenna current distribution is
presented in Section II.
In Section III, the near magnetic and electric fields on the
ground plane are obtained and Joule’s law is applied for the
derivation of the H-field and E-field loss resistances, which
can then be added to give the total ground plane equivalent
loss resistance. These calculations are described in detail in
Sections IV and V including both artificial and natural ground
planes. Also, the case of short top-loaded monopoles is treated
in Section VI.
Finally, in Section VII the relative importance of the H-field
and E-field losses is analyzed as a function of frequency for
different antenna dimensions, ground screens and soil physical
conditions, where some results are also obtained by means of
Moment Method simulations.
II. M ONOPOLE C URRENT D ISTRIBUTION
The monopole antenna of height H is analyzed using the
geometry sketched in Fig. 1, where a cylindrical coordinate
system (ρ, φ, z) is used.
From a variational point of view, a zeroth-order approxi-
mation to the monopole current distribution is the sinusoidal
function [4], [5]
I0
I0 (z) = sin β(H − z) 0≤z≤H (1)
sin βH
where I0 is the base current, at z = 0. This approximation
neglects the effect of the monopole non-zero equivalent radius,
 2

A. Near Fields
With reference to a cylindrical coordinate system (ρ, φ, z),
as shown in Fig. 1, the near magnetic and electric field
components Hφ and Ez can be obtained from the modified
zeroth-order current distribution in (2). Assuming a perfectly
conducting ground, the near field expressions for a sinusoidal
current distribution can be obtained from any antenna book
[4], [5], [9]–[12].
Then, for a monopole of height H with the modified zeroth-
order current distribution in (2), the near magnetic and electric
fields just above the ground surface, at z = 0+ , are given by

K I0 ¡ −j β r1 ¢
Hφ (ρ, 0) = j e − e−j β ρ cos βH (4)
2πρ
µ ¶
+ e−j β r1 e−j β ρ
Ez (ρ, 0 ) = −j 60 K I0 − cos βH (5)
Fig. 1. Monopole antenna geometry. r1 ρ
where
p
a, over its input impedance and gives infinite values for heights r1 = H2 + ρ2 (6)
H = λ/2, λ, . . . [6]. Electromagnetic fields are also affected
by this singularity, due to the factor 1/ sin βH in (1). is the distance from the antenna top to a point on the ground
By using a first-order current distribution, it has been found surface, and ρ is the distance from the antenna base to the
that a modified zeroth-order current can be used for obtaining same point.
electromagnetic fields, that is [7] When the ground plane is not perfectly conducting, the
electric field develops a small radial component, Eρ , which is
given by the boundary conditions on the artificial and natural
Ĩ0 (z) = K(βH, βa) I0 sin β(H − z) (2)
ground planes, then Eρ is related to the magnetic field Hφ as
where the complex correction factor K = K(βH, βa) takes follows
into account the monopole non-zero radius effect. ½
In ground losses calculations, only |K|2 is required as −Zg Hφ (ρ, 0) for a < ρ < R0
Eρ (ρ, 0) = (7)
a correction factor, it is referred to as the K2 -factor and −Zs Hφ (ρ, 0) for ρ > R0
expressions for its determination can be found in [7]. where Zg and Zs are the artificial and natural ground plane sur-
For infinitesimally thin monopoles, with a height to radius face impedances, respectively, and R0 is the artificial ground
ratio H/a → ∞, the K2 -factor becomes plane radius.
Due to the continuity of the tangential field components,
1
|K|2 = 2 (3) Hφ and Eρ , across the air-soil interface, there is no need to
sin βH distinguish between z = 0+ and z = 0− for them. However,
which is a good first approximation for thin short and quarter- the normal electric field component, Ez , is discontinuous
wave monopoles. across the air-soil interface, and then Ez (ρ, 0+ ) is not equal
to Ez (ρ, 0− ).
Although the near field components Hφ (ρ, 0) and Ez (ρ, 0+ )
III. G ROUND P LANE
correspond to a perfectly conducting ground plane, measure-
The power dissipated in the ground plane will be calculated ments indicate that the actual ones are practically the same
up to a circular boundary half-wavelength from the antenna close to the antenna base [13], because they are not appreciably
base, because for distances greater than half-wavelength the affected by the finite soil conductivity in the low and medium
wave impedance is practically resistive and near to that of free frequency bands, if σ/(ω²) À 1 [14], [15]. Only for a
space (377 Ω) [1], and losses in this far-field zone are taken distance greater than half-wavelength from the antenna base,
into account in the surface wave propagation calculations [8]. the field intensities along the earth are really affected by the
As shown in Fig. 1, the circular ground plane surface half- soil physical constants and the diffraction due to the spherical
wavelength in radius is divided into two zones, earth [8].
(a) The artificial ground plane, where a radial wire
ground screen is used to increase the soil conduc- B. Ground Plane Power Loss
tivity up to a distance ρ = R0 ≤ λ/2. Due to the finite soil conductivity, σ, electromagnetic fields
(b) The natural ground plane or bare soil, from ρ = R0 penetrate into the soil and conduction currents flowing below
to ρ = λ/2. the ground plane surface produce a power dissipation.
 3

In the lower conducting half-space, with reference to the IV. H-F IELD L OSSES
cylindrical coordinate system of Fig. 1, the conduction current The ground plane H-field loss, WH , can be expressed as
density, Jc , has a radial component, Jρ , and a vertical one, Jz .
There is also an electric field, E, with a radial component, Eρ , WH = WAH + WNH (15)
and a vertical one, Ez . Therefore, the total power dissipated
as ohmic loss below the ground plane surface, Wgp , will be where WAH is the artificial ground plane H-field loss and
given by Joule’s law, that is [4], [5], [10] WNH is the natural ground plane H-field loss. Because this
last zone is a homogeneous ground, it is convenient to an-
Z Z
1 1 alyze it first, then the results will easily be extended to the
Wgp = Re E·J?c dΩ = Re (Eρ J?ρ +Ez J?z ) dΩ (8) inhomogeneous artificial ground plane zone by changing the
2 Ω 2 Ω
soil surface impedance.
where Ω is the earth volume where ohmic losses take place.
Thus, the total ground plane power loss can now be ex-
pressed as the sum of two terms, Wgp = WH + WE , the first A. Natural Ground Plane H-Field Loss
one is referred to as the H-field loss, The soil intrinsic impedance, Zs , can be calculated from
Z its physical constants, conductivity σ and permittivity ², as
1
WH = Re Eρ J?ρ dΩ (9) follows [4], [5]
2 Ω
s
while the second one is known as the E-field loss, j ω µ0
Z Zs = Rs + j Xs = (16)
1 σ + jω²
WE = Re Ez J?z dΩ (10)
2 Ω where µ0 = 4π · 10−7 [H/m], ω = 2 π f and f is the operating
Therefore, the ground plane losses can be considered as frequency [Hz]. Also, the soil propagation constant, γs , is
being caused by two different processes [2]. The H-field power given by [4], [5]
loss is due to the radial currents flowing in the lossy ground p
forced by the electric field radial component, Eρ , which is γs = αs + j βs = j ω µ0 (σ + j ω ²) (17)
related to the magnetic field, Hφ , through the ground plane
Actually, (16) is a good approximation to the surface
surface impedance. On the other hand, the E-field power loss
impedance of the soil if its complex refractive index has a
occurs when the electric field vertical component, Ez , forces
magnitude somewhat greater than one and provided the sine
a flow of vertical conduction currents into the soil.
of the complex angles of incidence in the antenna plane wave
It must be pointed out that this separation of ground losses is
spectrum does not have a bound much greater than one [16].
in principle valid at any frequency if the exact field expressions
These conditions are fulfilled by antennas operating in the low
are used. However, the power loss calculations are simplified
and medium frequency bands, where the soil behaves like a
when the earth soil can be considered as a good conductor,
good conductor, because σ/(ω²) À 1.
which occurs in the low and medium frequency bands.
The radial electric field component below the ground plane,
Eρ , can be written as
C. Ground Plane Loss Resistance
The ground plane loss resistance, Rgp , is defined as the ratio Eρ (ρ, z) = Eρ (ρ, 0) eγs z for z ≤ 0 (18)
of the total ground plane power loss, Wgp , to the square of
while the radial current density, Jρ , is given by Ohm’s law,
the antenna effective input current, |I0 |2 /2, that is [1]
2 Wgp Jρ (ρ, z) = σ Eρ (ρ, z) for z ≤ 0 (19)
Rgp = (11)
|I0 |2
The earth volume below the natural ground plane surface,
where |I0 | is the amplitude of the antenna input current. where the H-field loss occurs, extends from z = 0 down to
Due to the separation of the total power loss into H-field and a distance in the order of a skin depth, δ. Nevertheless, this
E-field losses, two equivalent loss resistances can be defined. region must be considered of infinite extent below the earth
Thus, the H-field loss resistance, RH , is defined as surface in the power loss calculations, because the natural
exponential decay of fields will automatically concentrate the
2 WH
RH = (12) power loss in a finite region.
|I0 |2 Then, the natural ground plane H-field loss will be
while the E-field loss resistance, RE , is given by
Z 2π Z λ/2 Z 0
2 WE 1
RE = (13) WNH = dφ ρ dρ σ | Eρ (ρ, z) |2 dz (20)
|I0 |2 2 0 R0 −∞

Then, the ground plane loss resistance can be written as or

Z λ/2 Z 0
2
Rgp = RH + RE (14) WNH = π σ | Eρ (ρ, 0) | ρ dρ e2αs z dz (21)
R0 −∞
 4

Invoking the boundary condition in (7) for ρ > R0 , and C. H-Field Loss Resistance
taking into account that Rs = σ |Zs |2 /(2 αs ), the natural Summing up the H-field losses in the artificial and natural
ground plane H-field loss becomes ground planes, the H-field loss resistance will be
Z λ/2
"Z
WNH = π | Hφ (ρ, 0) |2 Rs ρ dρ (22) 2π R0
R0 RH = | Hφ (ρ, 0) |2 Rg (ρ) ρ dρ
|I0 |2 a
where the soil surface resistance is given by the real part of Z #
λ/2
(16) or 2
+ Rs | Hφ (ρ, 0) | ρ dρ (29)
s p R0
µ0 1 + σ 2 /(ω ²)2 + 1 In general, these integrals cannot be evaluated in closed
Rs = (23)
2² 1 + σ 2 /(ω ²)2 form and they will be computed numerically. Nevertheless,
When the soil can be considered as a good conductor, so approximate analytical expressions for their calculation can
that σ/(ω²) À 1, its surface resistance simplifies to [4], [5] be found in [7].
When the near magnetic field in (4) is inserted into (29), it
r can be noted that the H-field loss resistance RH is proportional
∼ ω µ0
Rs = (24) to |K|2 , as it is the case for the radiation resistance [7].
2σ
Therefore, both resistances are affected by the antenna height
It might be mentioned that (22) could also be obtained by to radius ratio, H/a, in the same manner.
means of the normal Poynting vector flow into the earth, but
this procedure appears to omit the E-field loss due to the use V. E-F IELD L OSSES
of the soil surface impedance for normal incidence, as it has
The ground plane E-field loss, WE , can be expressed as
been pointed out by Wait [3], [17].
Nevertheless, by applying Joule’s law both H-field and E-
WE = WAE + WNE (30)
field losses have appeared naturally as a consequence of the
separation into vertical and horizontal conduction current flows where WAE is the artificial ground plane E-field loss, while
in the earth. WNE is the natural ground plane E-field loss. As for the
H-field losses, the homogeneous natural ground plane will
be analyzed first and the results will be extended to the
B. Artificial Ground Plane H-Field Loss
inhomogeneous artificial ground plane after introducing the
The impedance of a wire screen of N conductive radials in concept of ground screen effective depth, h.
free space is given by [18], [19]
µ ¶ A. Natural Ground Plane E-Field Loss
j ω µ0 ρ 2πρ
Zr (ρ) = ρ ln + Zi (25)
N N a0 N The electric field vertical component below the ground
plane, Ez , can be expressed as
where ρ is the distance from the ground screen center, N is
the number of radials, a0 is the radius of the radial wires, and Ez (ρ, z) = Ez (ρ, 0− ) eγs z for z < 0 (31)
Zi is their internal impedance per unit length, which can be
approximated by [4], [5] while the vertical current density, Jz , as
r µ ¶
∼ ω µ0 1 + j Jz (ρ, z) = σ Ez (ρ, z) for z < 0 (32)
Zi = (26)
2 σc 2 π a0
Due to the continuity of current flow, the displacement
where σc is the wire conductivity. current immediately above the ground surface must equals the
When the radial wire ground screen is laid down into the sum of the conduction and displacement currents just below
soil, the resulting artificial ground plane surface impedance, it, that is [2]
Zg , is given by the parallel combination of Zs and Zr [20]–
[22], therefore,
j ω ²0 Ez (ρ, 0+ ) = Jz (ρ, 0− ) + j ω ² Ez (ρ, 0− ) (33)
Zs Zr (ρ)
Zg (ρ) = Rg (ρ) + j Xg (ρ) = (27) or
Zs + Zr (ρ) j ω ²0
Ez (ρ, 0− ) = Ez (ρ, 0+ ) (34)
σ + jω²
Then, by knowing the surface resistance Rg (ρ), the artificial
ground plane H-field loss will be given by a straightforward Then, the natural ground plane E-field power loss will be
extension of (22), that is given by
Z R0 Z Z Z
2π λ/2 0
WAH = π | Hφ (ρ, 0) |2 Rg (ρ) ρ dρ 1
(28) WNE = dφ ρ dρ σ | Ez (ρ, z) |2 dz (35)
a 2 0 R0 −∞
 5

or
Z λ/2 Z 0
− 2
WNE = π σ | Ez (ρ, 0 ) | ρ dρ e2αs z dz (36)
R0 −∞

where the earth volume where the E-field loss occurs has been
considered of infinite extent below the natural ground plane
surface.
Taking into account (34) and that the soil skin depth is
δ = 1/αs , the natural ground plane E-field loss becomes

Z λ/2
(ω ²0 )2 σ δ
WNE = π | Ez (ρ, 0+ ) |2 ρ dρ (37)
σ + (ω ²)2
2
R0 2
It can be seen from this expression that the E-field loss can
be considered as concentrated within an effective skin depth, Fig. 2. Sketch of the effective earth volume where the E-field loss occurs.
δs = δ/2 = 1/(2 αs ), given by
1 The vertical electric field, Ez , between the soil surface, at
δs = r hp i (38)
ω 2 µ0 ² 1 + σ 2 /(ω ²)2 − 1 z = 0, and a conducting sheet, at z = −h, can be calculated by
solving Maxwell’s equations with boundary conditions in this
Then, from the power dissipation point of view, a constant soil region. When this is done, assuming that σ 2 /(ω²)2 À 1,
vertical electric field penetrates into the soil down to half a the following solution is obtained:
skin depth δ. If σ/(ω²) À 1, the soil effective skin depth can
be approximated by j ω ²0 cosh γs (z + h)
Ez (ρ, z) = Ez (ρ, 0+ ) (42)
r σ + jω² cosh γs h
∼ 1
δs = (39) for −h < z < 0. A somewhat improved expression for Ez
2 ω µ0 σ
can be obtained if ² is replaced by (² − ²0 ) in the propagation
This new result supersedes the wrong assumption √ given in constant γs given by (17).
[2] without theoretical justification, where δs = δ/ 2 is used
Then, the artificial ground plane E-field power loss will be
instead of δs = δ/2.
given by

B. Artificial Ground Plane E-Field Loss (ω ²0 )2 σ

WAE = π
In the artificial ground plane, where a radial wire ground σ 2 + (ω ²)2
screen is used, the vertical electric field penetrates into the Z R0 Z 0
ρ dρ
soil according to the separation between radial wires, which | Ez (ρ, 0+ ) |2 | cosh γs (z + h) |2 dz (43)
a | cosh γs h |2 −h
increases as the distance ρ from the screen center is increased.
The ground screen can then be replaced by an equivalent Since the integration from z = −h to z = 0 can be carried
perfectly conducting sheet buried at an effective depth h, given out analytically, it follows that
by [2]
Z R0
· µ ¶ µ ¶¸ (ω ²0 )2 σ
ρ ρ 1 WAE = π | Ez (ρ, 0+ ) |2 δg (ρ) ρ dρ (44)
h(ρ) = ln + ξ ln (40) σ 2 + (ω ²)2 a
N N a0 1 − e−a0 N/ρ where the artificial ground plane effective skin depth, δg , is
where given by
σ 2 + ω 2 (²2 − ²20 ) − 2 ω 2 ² ²0 1 βs sinh 2 αs h + αs sin 2 βs h
ξ = (41) δg = (45)
σ 2 + ω 2 (² + ²0 )2 2 αs βs cosh 2 αs h + cos 2 βs h
For good conducting soils, when σ/(ω²) À 1, ξ approaches It should be pointed out that the artificial ground plane
one. Also, it is assumed that the ground screen is located effective skin depth, δg , approaches the soil effective skin
just below the soil surface, at z = 0− , which is a good depth, δs , when the ground screen effective depth, h, tends
approximation if the screen depth is a negligible fraction of to infinity, that is, when no radial wire ground screen is
the soil skin depth δ. used. Also, if the number of radials, N, is great enough so
Therefore, the earth volume below the artificial ground that h ¿ δs , it can be shown that δg ∼ = h, which is the
plane surface, where the E-field loss takes place, extends from usual approximation used to calculate the E-field loss and,
z = 0 to z = −h. This is shown in Fig. 2, where the soil in our knowledge, the only available up to date [2]. Then, the
effective skin depth δs in the natural ground plane is also effective skin depth in (45) is a new result which extends the
indicated. previous theory.
 6

22
C. E-Field Loss Resistance Rg SOIL
20
With the results obtained for the E-field loss in the artificial [Ω] Rs
18 N 30
and natural ground planes, the E-field loss resistance becomes 16

14 60
"Z 12
R0
2 π (ω ²0 )2 σ
RE = | Ez (ρ, 0+ ) |2 δg (ρ) ρ dρ 10
120
|I0 |2 σ 2 + (ω ²)2 a 8

Z # 6 180
λ/2
+ δs | Ez (ρ, 0+ ) |2 ρ dρ (46) 4

2
R0
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
where the integrals cannot in general be evaluated in closed ρ/λ
form and will be computed numerically. In Appendix A,
analytical approximations are obtained for the case of short Fig. 3. Artificial ground plane surface resistance, Rg , as a function of
distance, ρ/λ, for different numbers of radials, N, at 1 MHz and over average
top-loaded antennas, but can also be used for quarter-wave soil (a0 = 5 · 10−6 λ, σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10).
monopoles.
It can be seen that the E-field loss resistance RE is also δ /λ SKIN DEPTH
g
proportional to |K|2 when the near electric field in (5) is 0.016
δ/λ
inserted into (46), as it is the case for the H-field loss and 0.014
h/λ
radiation resistances. 0.012 δs/λ
30
0.01
VI. S HORT T OP -L OADED M ONOPOLES 60
0.008
The ground plane loss resistance concept has been useful 120
0.006
for the performance analysis of short top-loaded antennas of δg/λ
0.004 180
heights H ≤ 0.1λ, for which the effect of the finite height
N h/λ
to radius ratio, H/a, can be neglected [1], [23]. Also, it is of 0.002

practical interest the case of a resonant top-loaded antenna, 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
with a current distribution ρ/λ

Fig. 4. Artificial ground plane effective skin depth, δg , and ground screen
I(z) = I0 cos βz (47) effective depth, h, as functions of distance, ρ/λ, for different numbers of
radials, N, at 1 MHz and over average soil (a0 = 5 · 10−6 λ, σ = 0.01 S/m,
In this case, the near magnetic and electric fields immedi- ²r = 10).
ately above the ground surface, at z = 0+ , are given by [1]
µ ¶ frequency of 1 MHz and for an average soil of conductivity
I0 e−jβr1 H
Hφ (ρ, 0) = cos βH + j sin βH (48) σ = 0.01 S/m and relative permittivity ²r = 10. It can be
2π ρ r1
appreciated that Rg increases smoothly with distance, tending
to the soil surface resistance Rs , and that it is smaller for the
j I0 e−jβr1 higher numbers of radials, as would be expected.
Ez (ρ, 0+ ) =
µ 2 π ²0 ω ¶ In the case of the E-field loss resistance, RE , it is affected
H cos βH j βH cos βH β sin βH by the artificial ground plane effective skin depth, δg , which
+ − (49)
r31 r21 r1 is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of distance, ρ/λ, for different
p numbers of radials, N, at the frequency of 1 MHz and for an
where r1 = H2 + ρ2 . average soil (σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10). It can be seen that δg
Therefore, the H-field and E-field loss resistances are also increases almost linearly with distance, it reaches a maximum
given by (29) and (46), but with the near fields replaced by of about 0.7 of a skin depth δ, and then oscillates tending to
these new expressions. the soil effective skin depth δs = δ/2.
In Fig. 4, it is also plotted the ground screen effective depth,
VII. N UMERICAL R ESULTS h, which always increases with distance ρ/λ, and when h ¿ δs
In order to evaluate the relative importance of H-field and E- the approximation δg ∼ = h holds. However, it can be seen that
field losses, their equivalent resistances RH and RE have been the restriction h ¿ δs can be relaxed to h ≤ δs .
computed numerically for ground-based monopole antennas It might be mentioned that the integrand of the first term
from 100 kHz to 3 MHz, covering the low (150-250 kHz) and in (46) becomes oscillatory when h is in the order of the
medium (535-1705 kHz) frequency bands. soil effective skin depth δs , so either iterative quadrature rules
For fixed antenna dimensions, frequency and soil physical or some a priori numerical treatment should be used in this
constants, the factor affecting the H-field loss resistance, RH , case. Also, care must be taken for short antennas (H ¿ λ),
is the artificial ground plane surface resistance, Rg , which is because the subtraction of nearly equal numbers appears in the
plotted in Fig. 3 as a function of distance, ρ/λ, for different computation of fields, leading to high roundoff errors, which
numbers of radials, N, of radius a0 = 5 · 10−6 λ, at the can be alleviated by using double precision arithmetics [24].
 7

TABLE I 1
RH 10 0.50
M ONOPOLE H-F IELD L OSS R ESISTANCE RH [Ω].
RE 0.25
[Ω] 100
f H/λ H/λ H/λ H/λ H/λ H/λ
— 0.1 0.1 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.10
−1
MHz PEC COPPER PEC COPPER PEC COPPER 10
H/λ
0.1 0.241 0.242 1.62 1.63 4.23 4.23 0.50
−2
0.2 0.273 0.274 2.00 2.01 5.72 5.72 10
0.25
0.3 0.295 0.297 2.28 2.28 6.82 6.83 RH
0.4 0.313 0.315 2.50 2.50 7.74 7.75 10
−3 0.10 RE
0.5 0.329 0.332 2.69 2.70 8.55 8.56 0.1 0.5 1 2 3
f [MHz]
0.6 0.344 0.347 2.86 2.87 9.28 9.29
0.7 0.357 0.361 3.02 3.04 9.96 9.96 Fig. 5. H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH and RE , as functions of
0.8 0.370 0.374 3.17 3.19 10.6 10.6 frequency for different monopole heights, H/λ, and over an average soil
(H/a = 100, N = 120, R0 = 0.25λ, a0 = R0 /105 , σ = 0.01 S/m,
0.9 0.383 0.387 3.31 3.33 11.2 11.2
²r = 10).
1.0 0.394 0.399 3.45 3.46 11.7 11.8
1.5 0.448 0.453 4.05 4.07 14.2 14.3 2
10
2.0 0.496 0.502 4.57 4.59 16.4 16.4 RH RH
R RE 0.50
2.5 0.540 0.547 5.05 5.07 18.4 18.4 E
1
3.0 0.581 0.589 5.49 5.52 20.2 20.2 [Ω] 10
0.25

TABLE II 0
10 H/λ
Q UARTER -WAVE M ONOPOLE G ROUND P LANE L OSS R ESISTANCE Rgp . 0.10
0.50
−1
10
f Num. MoM Num. MoM Num. MoM
— RH RH RE RE Rgp Rgp 0.25
−2
MHz Ω Ω mΩ mΩ Ω Ω 10 0.10
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0.1 1.03 1.05 0.54 0.57 1.03 1.05 H/a
0.2 1.35 1.38 1.49 1.58 1.35 1.38
0.3 1.60 1.64 2.63 2.79 1.60 1.64 Fig. 6. H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH and RE , as functions
of monopole height to radius ratio, H/a, for different heights, H/λ, at 1
0.4 1.82 1.86 3.92 4.14 1.82 1.86 MHz and over average soil (N = 120, R0 = 0.25λ, a0 = R0 /105 ,
0.5 2.01 2.06 5.31 5.61 2.02 2.07 σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10).
0.6 2.18 2.23 6.81 7.18 2.19 2.24
0.7 2.35 2.40 8.41 8.85 2.36 2.41
0.8 2.50 2.56 10.1 10.6 2.51 2.57 conductivity σc can be appreciated in all cases, so here on only
0.9 2.65 2.71 11.9 12.5 2.66 2.72 ground screens with PEC radial wires will be considered.
1.0 2.79 2.85 13.7 14.4 2.80 2.86 In Table II, the H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH and
1.5 3.41 3.49 24.1 25.2 3.43 3.52 RE , have been obtained by numerical integration (Num.) and
2.0 3.95 4.05 36.1 37.7 3.99 4.09 are shown as functions of frequency for a quarter-wave mono-
2.5 4.45 4.56 49.4 51.7 4.50 4.61 pole (H = 0.25λ) with a height to radius ratio H/a = 100,
3.0 4.90 5.02 64.1 66.9 4.96 5.09 and a quarter-wave 120 radials ground screen over average
soil (R0 = 0.25λ, N = 120, a0 = R0 /105 , σ = 0.01 S/m,
²r = 10). The ground plane loss resistance, Rgp = RH + RE ,
The finite conductivity of the ground screen radial wires, is also shown as well as the results of simulations by the
σc , has only some minor effect on the H-field loss resistance Method of Moments (MoM) [25]. Good agreement can be
RH , because the horizontal currents flowing in the radial seen between these two methods, and that the E-field loss
wires predominate over the vertical ones, which are completely resistance RE is of about 1% of the H-field one, RH . It must
negligible in a metallic medium even at microwave frequencies be mentioned that the MoM gives only the antenna input
[5]. Therefore, the E-field loss resistance RE is not affected impedance and the total input power, then it is not possible to
by σc in the range of frequencies analyzed. separate the ground losses into H-field and E-field losses in
In Table I, the H-field loss resistance, RH , is presented as a a straightforward way using this numerical method. For this
function of frequency for different antenna heights, H/λ, for a reason, the MoM has been used to compute the near fields on
height to radius ratio H/a = 100, an artificial ground plane of the ground surface, and the equivalent resistances RH and RE
radius R0 = 0.25λ with N = 120 radial wires of cross-section were obtained from them applying the theory presented here.
radius a0 = 5 · 10−6 λ, and over average soil (σ = 0.01 S/m, In order to evaluate the antenna height effect, Fig. 5 shows
²r = 10). The results for perfectly electric conducting (PEC) the H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH and RE , as
radial wires (σc = ∞) and copper wires (σc = 5.8 · 107 S/m) functions of frequency for different monopole heights, H/λ,
have been computed. A negligible influence of the finite wire and over average soil. It can be seen that the E-field loss
 8

2
RH 10
1 0.01 RH R
RE 10 H/λ H
RE R
[Ω] 0.25 E
0.50
0
10 [Ω] 101
0.50
0.25
−1
10 0.01
0
R0/λ 0.25 10
0.50 0.10
−2
10
RH −1 0.50
10
−3
10
RE
0.25
0.1 0.5 1 2 3 0.10
f [MHz] −2
10
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 R /λ
0
Fig. 7. Quarter-wave monopole H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH and
RE , as functions of frequency for different artificial ground plane radii, R0 /λ, Fig. 9. H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH and RE , as functions of
and over average soil (H = 0.25λ, H/a = 100, N = 120, a0 = R0 /105 , artificial ground plane radius, R0 /λ, for different monopole heights, H/λ,
σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10). at 1 MHz and over average soil (H/a = 100, N = 120, a0 = 5 · 10−6 λ,
σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10).
1
10
R 30 16
H
RE RH
60
14
[Ω] 100 120 / 180 [Ω]
12

10
−1 a0/λ
10 30 / 60
N 8

6
120 / 180
−2
10 4 10−7
RH
10−6
2
R
E 10−5
10
−3 10−4
0
0.1 0.5 1 2 3 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 R0/λ
f [MHz]

Fig. 8. Quarter-wave monopole H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH Fig. 10. Quarter-wave monopole H-field loss resistance, RH , as a function of
and RE , as functions of frequency for different numbers of radials, N, and artificial ground plane radius, R0 /λ, for different ground screen wire radii,
over average soil (H = 0.25λ, H/a = 100, R0 = 0.25λ, a0 = R0 /105 , a0 /λ, at the frequency of 1 MHz and over average soil (RE ∼ = 18 mΩ,
σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10). H = 0.25λ, H/a = 100, N = 120, σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10).

increases faster with frequency, but it is at most 2% of the
H-field loss at the higher frequencies and for quarter and
half-wave monopoles. In the case of the short monopole of
height H = 0.1λ, a somewhat greater difference of about 4%
is obtained.
As it has been pointed out, the H-field and E-field loss
resistances are proportional to |K|2 , which takes into account
the effect of the monopole non-zero equivalent radius. In
Fig. 6, the H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH and RE ,
are plotted as functions of the monopole height to radius
ratio, H/a, for different antenna heights, H/λ, at 1 MHz and
over average soil. For the quarter-wave (H = 0.25λ) and
short (H = 0.1λ) monopoles, both resistances are practically
independent of the ratio H/a, but for the half-wavelength
monopole (H = 0.5λ) both resistances increase as the H/a
relationship is increased. This is a known effect due to the
behavior of the factor |K|2 and it is described in [7].
In Fig. 7, the effect of the artificial ground plane radius,
R0 /λ, can be seen for a quarter-wave monopole with a 120
radials ground screen over average soil, where it appears that
the E-field loss is less sensitive to the length and numbers of
radials. This is confirmed by Fig. 8 for the same case, where
a quarter-wave ground screen is used (R0 = 0.25λ).
In Fig. 9, the H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH and
RE , are shown as functions of the artificial ground plane
radius, R0 /λ, for different monopole heights, H/λ, at 1 MHz
and over average soil. It can be seen that the H-field loss
decreases as the length of radials is increased, but the E-field
loss is practically independent of the ground screen radius R0 ,
which is an indication that the E-field loss is more concentrated
close to the antenna base.
It has been found that the radial wire radius, a0 , has a
negligible influence on the E-field loss resistance RE , but
it can produce some appreciable effect on the H-field loss
resistance RH . This is shown in Fig. 10, where the H-field
loss resistance, RH , is plotted as a function of the artificial
ground plane radius, R0 /λ, for different ground screen wire
radii, a0 /λ, for a quarter-wave monopole at the frequency of
1 MHz and over average soil. The E-field loss resistance has
practically the constant value of RE ∼ = 18 mΩ. It can be seen
that the H-field loss resistance is greater for thinner radial
wires, because the wire ohmic losses are greater.
In Fig. 11, the quarter-wave monopole H-field and E-field
loss resistances, RH and RE , can be seen as functions of
frequency for a quarter-wave 120 radials ground screen in dry
soil (σ = 0.001 S/m, ²r = 4), average soil (σ = 0.01 S/m,
²r = 10), and wet soil (σ = 0.03 S/m, ²r = 20). As would
be expected, both H-field and E-field losses increase with
frequency and are lower for good conducting soils. In the
worst case of dry soil, the E-field loss is one tenth of the
 9

1
RH 10 0.001 / 4 0
0.1
10
RE 0.01 / 10 R
H 0.05
[Ω] 100 0.03 / 20 RE RH
H/λ
σ / εr 0.001 / 4
[Ω] RE
−1 −1
0.025
10 10
0.01

−2 0.025
10 0.01
0.01 / 10
RH 0.05
−2
10
−3 0.03 / 20 RE 0.1 H/λ
10

0.1 0.5 1 2 3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
f [MHz] f [MHz]

Fig. 11. Quarter-wave monopole H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH Fig. 13. Short top-loaded monopole H-field and E-field loss resistances,
and RE , as functions of frequency for different soil conditions (H = 0.25λ, RH and RE , as functions of frequency in MF band for different monopole
H/a = 100, N = 120, R0 = 0.25λ, a0 = R0 /105 ). heights, H/λ, and over average soil (a = 6·10−3 m, N = 120, R0 = 0.25λ,
a0 = 1.5 · 10−3 m, σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10).
RH 0.1
R 0.05 Rgp Rgp
E 100 R0/λ 0.10
0.025 RH 100 RH
[Ω] 0.25
0.01
RE RE
−1
10 [Ω] 0.50
RH
H/λ
RE
0.01 10
−1

−2
10 0.025
0.05
−3 0.1
10 −2
10
0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25
f [MHz] 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.1
H/λ
Fig. 12. Short top-loaded monopole H-field and E-field loss resistances,
RH and RE , as functions of frequency in LF band for different monopole Fig. 14. Short top-loaded monopole ground plane loss resistances, Rgp ,
heights, H/λ, and over average soil (a = 6 · 10−3 m, N = 30, R0 = 0.05λ, RH and RE , as functions of monopole height, H/λ, for different artificial
a0 = 1.5 · 10−3 m, σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10). ground plane radii, R0 /λ, at 1 MHz and over average soil (a = 6 · 10−3 m,
N = 120, a0 = 1.5 · 10−3 m, σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10).

H-field one at the higher frequencies.

In the case of short top-loaded monopoles, the E-field loss
decreases as the antenna height H is increased, as Fig. 12
shows, where the H-field and E-field loss resistances, RH and
RE , are plotted as functions of frequency in LF band (150-
250 kHz) for different monopole heights, H/λ, with a ground
screen of radius R0 = 0.05λ and N = 30 radials over an
average soil (σ = 0.01 S/m, ²r = 10).
It should be noticed that this behavior of RE is opposite to
that shown in Fig. 5 for non top-loaded monopoles, because a
top-loaded antenna tends to concentrate the electric field closer
to its base as the antenna becomes shorter. Also, in Fig. 12
it can be seen that the E-field loss is approaching the H-field
loss as the antenna height becomes lower. For example, when
H = 0.01λ the E-field loss is of about 10% of the H-field one.
In MF band (535-1705 kHz), the E-field loss becomes
comparable to the H-field loss for antenna heights H less than
0.05λ, as Fig. 13 shows, where a quarter-wave 120 radials
ground screen is used (R0 = 0.25λ, N = 120). For the case
H = 0.01λ, the E-field loss resistance RE cannot be neglected
because it becomes greater than the H-field loss resistance RH .
Figure 14 shows the short top-loaded monopole H-field and
E-field loss resistances, RH and RE , as functions of monopole
height, H/λ, for different artificial ground plane radii, R0 /λ,
with N = 120 radials, at the frequency of 1 MHz and over
average soil. The total ground plane loss resistance, given by
Rgp = RH + RE , is also shown.
In Fig. 14, only one curve is shown for the E-field loss
resistance RE , because it is practically independent of the
ground screen radius R0 /λ, but this is not the case for the
H-field loss resistance RH . It can be appreciated that the E-
field loss begins to become important for antennas shorter
than 0.05λ, and the ground plane loss resistance Rgp has a
minimum which depends on the artificial ground plane radius
R0 for a given antenna height H.
Thus the E-field loss resistance RE can be neglected and
then the approximation Rgp ∼ = RH can be used only for
antenna heights H ≥ 0.05λ. For antenna heights H < 0.05λ,
the E-field loss resistance can be obtained by using the
approximation given in Appendix A.
VIII. C ONCLUSIONS
The separation of the power dissipated in the ground plane
into H-field and E-field losses has been established by applying
Joule’s law and analytical expressions have been obtained for
their evaluation.
H-field and E-field losses have been analyzed by means of
the equivalent resistances RH and RE , respectively. From this
analysis, it can be pointed out the following:
• The new concepts of effective skin depths in the artificial
and natural ground planes have been introduced. It has
 10

been found that the ground screen effective depth h

is only an approximation to the artificial ground plane δs σ
effective skin depth δg when the number of radials N is RNE = 2 2 2
large enough. This was a limitation in the past [2] and ½ 2 π σ +· ω ² ¸
1 4
then has now been removed. H2 cos2 βH −
4 (H2 + R20 )2 (4 H2 + λ2 )2
• Ohmic losses in the ground screen radial wires are within
1
1% of the total ground losses, therefore they could be + (βH cos βH − 2 sin βH) βH cos βH
neglected even when a large number of radials is used. 2 µ ¶
1 4
• The E-field loss is at least one order of magnitude −
lower than the H-field loss for non top-loaded monopoles H2 + R20 4 H2 + λ2
2
µ ¶¾
operating in the low and medium frequency bands. In the β 2 4 H 2 + λ2
+ sin βH ln (52)
particular case of quarter-wave and half-wave monopoles, 2 4 (H2 + R20 )
the E-field loss resistance RE is a negligible fraction of These expressions are valid if 2 π R0 /N ≤ δs , and can also
the total ground plane loss resistance Rgp = RH + RE . be used for a quarter-wave monopole (H = 0.25λ), because its
• For non top-loaded monopoles higher than 0.1λ, the H- current distribution is given by (47). In this case, the quarter-
field and E-field loss resistances are not only functions of wave monopole finite height to radius ratio, H/a, can be taken
the soil constants and the length and number of radials, into account if the preceding equations are multiplied by the
but they are functions of the monopole height to radius correction factor |K|2 [7].
ratio, H/a, too.
• For short top-loaded monopoles (H ≤ 0.1λ), the E-field
loss resistance RE cannot in general be neglected for A PPENDIX B
antennas shorter than 0.05λ, especially in the medium G LOSSARY OF S YMBOLS
frequency band. a Monopole equivalent radius [m].
a0 Radius of ground screen radial wires [m].
αs Soil attenuation constant [Neper/m].
β Free space phase constant (β = 2π/λ) [rad/m].
A PPENDIX A
βs Soil phase constant [rad/m].
S HORT T OP -L OADED M ONOPOLE E-F IELD L OSS
δ Soil skin depth [m].
R ESISTANCE
δg Artificial ground plane effective skin depth [m].
δs Soil effective skin depth [m].
It is convenient to write the E-field loss resistance as follows ² Soil permittivity [F/m].
²r Soil relative permittivity (²r = ²/²0 ).
Eρ Horizontal near electric field [V/m].
RE = RAE + RNE (50)
Ez Vertical near electric field [V/m].
f Operating frequency [Hz].
where RAE is the E-field loss resistance of the artificial ground γs Soil propagation constant [1/m].
plane, and RNE is the E-field loss resistance of the natural H Monopole height [m].
ground plane. h Ground screen effective depth [m].
If the number of radials, N, in the wire screen is great Hφ Near magnetic field [A/m].
enough so that h ¿ δs , then δg ∼ = h ∼ = 2πρ/N [2]. Under I0 Amplitude of the antenna input current [A].
√
these conditions, the first integral in (46) with the near electric j −1 imaginary unit.
field in (49) can be evaluated analytically to give |K|2 Factor to take into account the finite ratio H/a.
λ Free space wavelength [m].
½ · N Number of radials in the ground screen.
σ 1 2 R0 ρ Radial distance from the antenna base [m].
RAE = cos βH
2 2 2
N (σ + ω ² ) 4 2 (H + R20 )
2 R0 Artificial ground plane radius [m].
¸ RE E-field loss resistance [Ω].
1 R0 H2 R0
+ arctan − Rg Artificial ground plane surface resistance [Ω].
2H H (H2 + R20 )2
1 Rgp Ground plane loss resistance [Ω].
+ (βH cos βH − 2 sin βH) βH cos βH RH H-field loss resistance [Ω].
2 µ ¶
1 R0 R0 Rs Soil surface resistance [Ω].
arctan − 2 σ Soil conductivity [S/m].
H H H + R20
µ ¶¾ σc Ground screen radial wire conductivity [S/m].
2 2 R0 ω Radian frequency (ω = 2 π f) [rad/s].
+ β sin βH R0 − H arctan (51)
H WE E-field power loss [W].
WH H-field power loss [W].
In the case of the natural ground plane E-field loss resis- Xg Artificial ground plane surface reactance [Ω].
tance, all integrations can be carried out to yield Xs Soil surface reactance [Ω].

Zg ArtificialViewground plane surface impedance [Ω].
publication stats
Zs Soil surface impedance [Ω].
R EFERENCES
[1] V. Trainotti and L. A. Dorado, Short Low and Medium Frequency Antenna
Performance, IEEE A&P Magazine, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 66-90, October
2005. 54th Annual IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Symposium
Proceedings, October 2004, Reprinted in QEX May-June 2005.
[2] A. D. Watt, VLF Radio Engineering, Pergamon Press, N. Y., 1967.
[3] J. R. Wait, A Note on E-Field and H-Field Losses for Ground-Based
Antennas, Proc. IEEE, pp. 366, February 1963.
[4] V. Trainotti, W. G. Fano and L. A. Dorado, Ingenierı́a Electromagnética
II, Nueva Librerı́a, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2005.
[5] E. C. Jordan, Electromagnetic Waves and Radiating Systems, Prentice-
Hall Inc., N. Y., 1950.
[6] P. S. Carter, Circuit Relations in Radiating Systems, Proc. IRE, vol. 20,
no. 6, pp. 1004, June 1932.
[7] L. A. Dorado and V. Trainotti, Simplified Calculation of Ground Losses
in Low and Medium Frequency Antenna Systems, IEEE A&P Magazine,
vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 70-81, Dec. 2006.
[8] V. Trainotti, Simplified Calculation of Coverage Area for MF AM Broad-
cast Station, IEEE A&P Magazine, pp. 41-44, June 1990.
[9] J. D. Kraus, Antennas, Mc. Graw Hill, N. Y., 1950, 1988, 2002.
[10] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory Analysis and Design, John Wiley &
Sons, N. Y., 1982, 1997, 2004.
[11] W. L. Stutzman and G. A. Thiele, Antenna Theory and Design, John
Wiley & Sons, N. Y., 1982, 1998.
[12] S. A. Schelkunoff and H. T. Friis, Antenna Theory and Practice, John
Wiley & Sons, N. Y., 1952.
[13] V. Trainotti, MF AM Asymmetric Vertical Dipole Antenna Measure-
ments, IEEE Trans. on Broadcasting, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 333-339, Dec.
1996.
[14] J. E. Storer, The Impedance of an Antenna over a Large Circular Screen,
J. of App. Physics, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1058-1066, August 1951.
[15] J. R. Wait and W. J. Surtees, Impedance of a Top-Loaded Antenna of
Arbitrary Length over a Circular Grounded Screen, J. of App. Physics,
vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 553-555, May 1954.
[16] J. R. Wait, The Scope of Impedance Boundary Conditions in Radio
Propagation, IEEE Trans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 28, no.
4, pp. 721-723, July 1990.
[17] J. R. Wait, On The Power Absorbed by an Electric Dipole Just Above a
Conducting Half Space, IEEE A&P Soc. International Symposium, 1997
Digest Vol. 1, pp. 240-243, 13-18 July 1997.
[18] J. R. Wait, The Impedance of a Wire Grid Parallel to a Dielectric
Interface, IRE Trans. Microwave Theory and Tech., pp. 99-102, April
1957.
[19] F. R. Abbott, Design of Optimum Buried-Conductor RF Ground System,
Proc. IRE, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 846-852, July 1952.
[20] J. R. Wait, A Study of Earth Currents Near a VLF Monopole Antenna
with a Radial Wire Ground System, Proc. IRE, pp. 1539-1541, August
1958.
[21] J. R. Wait, Effective Impedance of a Wire Grid Parallel to the Earth’s
Surface, IRE Trans. A&P, pp. 538-542, Sept. 1962.
[22] T. Larsen, A Survey of the Theory of Wire Grids, IRE Trans. Microwave
Theory and Tech., pp. 191-201, May 1962.
11
[23] V. Trainotti and L. A. Dorado, On the Crossed Field Antenna Per-
formance, IEEE Trans. on Broadcasting, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 299-317,
Sept. 2006. 55th Annual IEEE Broadcast Technology Society Symposium
Proceedings, October 2005.
[24] W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling and B. P. Flannery
Numerical Recipes in C, The Art of Scientific Computing, Cambridge
University Press, N. Y., pp. 29, 1997.
[25] L. A. Dorado, EMMCAP(R) , Electromagnetic Modeling Computation
and Analysis Program, http://www.emmcap.com.ar/
Luis A. Dorado was born in Tucuman, Argentina,
in 1976. He received the Electronic Engineering
Degree from the Universidad Nacional de Tucuman,
Argentina, in 2001.
He is an assistant professor of Numerical Analysis
at the Engineering Faculty, University of Buenos
Aires, and is currently working toward the Ph.D.
degree.
He has developed commercial and academic sim-
ulation software related to computational electro-
magnetics, especially moment method algorithms for
computing radiation and scattering from wire structures and antennas.
He is currently working on new numerical and analytical analysis tools and
techniques for solving problems in these areas. His research interest include
computer simulation of EMC problems and antennas over real ground.
Valentino Trainotti was born in Trento, Italy, in
1935. He received the Electronic Engineering De-
gree from the Universidad Tecnologica Nacional,
Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1963.
His post-graduate coursework on antenna mea-
surements and geometric theory of diffraction was
completed at California State University in 1981 and
Ohio State University in 1985.
He has worked from 1963 to 2003 at CITEFA
as the Antenna & Propagation Division Chief Engi-
neer.
His work also includes being on the Engineering Faculty at the University
of Buenos Aires as a part-time Full Professor of Electromagnetic Radiation
and Radiating Systems for graduate students.
He is an IEEE Senior Member, Member of the IEEE Ad-Com BTS Society,
IEEE BT Transactions Associate Editor, IEEE BTS Argentina Chapter Chair,
URSI Commission B Argentina Chair, and 1993 IEEE Region 9 Eminent
Engineer.
He has worked more than thirty years developing and measuring antenna
systems for several applications from LF to SHF.