Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Microstrip and Printed Antenna Design Telecommunications 3Rd Edition Randy Bancroft Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF
Microstrip and Printed Antenna Design Telecommunications 3Rd Edition Randy Bancroft Online Ebook Texxtbook Full Chapter PDF
https://ebookmeta.com/product/microstrip-antenna-design-for-
wireless-applications-1st-edition-praveen-kumar-malik/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/microstrip-antenna-design-for-
wireless-applications-1st-edition-praveen-kumar-malik-
sanjeevikumar-padmanaban-jens-bo-holm-nielsen/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/fundamentals-of-web-
development-3rd-edition-randy-connolly/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-power-of-comics-and-graphic-
novels-culture-form-and-context-3rd-edition-randy-duncan/
Best Easy Day Hikes Orange County 3rd Edition Randy
Vogel Bruce Grubbs
https://ebookmeta.com/product/best-easy-day-hikes-orange-
county-3rd-edition-randy-vogel-bruce-grubbs/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-art-of-communication-improving-
your-fundamental-communication-skills-3rd-edition-randy-fujishin/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/antenna-architectures-for-future-
wireless-devices-koul/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/metamaterials-for-antenna-
applications-1st-edition-amit-k-singh/
IET HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES PBTE0830
The Institution of Engineering and Technology is registered as a Charity in England & Wales
(no. 211014) and Scotland (no. SC038698).
This publication is copyright under the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright
Convention. All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or
private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic
reproduction in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing
Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publisher
at the undermentioned address:
The Institution of Engineering and Technology Michael Faraday House Six Hills Way,
Stevenage Herts, SG1 2AY United Kingdom
www.theiet.org
While the authors and publisher believe that the information and guidance given in this work
are correct, all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when making use of them.
Neither the authors nor publisher assumes any liability to anyone for any loss or damage
caused by any error or omission in the work, whether such an error or omission is the result of
negligence or any other cause. Any and all such liability is disclaimed.
The moral rights of the authors to be identified as authors of this work have been asserted by
them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
A catalogue record for this product is available from the British Library
1 Microstrip antennas
1.1 The origin of microstrip radiators
References
2.6 Efficiency
References
3.2 Directivity
References
References
References
6 Microstrip arrays
6.1 Planar array theory
7 Printed antennas
7.1 Omnidirectional microstrip antenna
7.1.1 Low sidelobe omnidirectional MSA
7.1.2 Element shaping of OMA
7.1.3 Single-short omnidirectional microstrip antenna
7.1.4 Corporate-fed omnidirectional microstrip antenna
References
References
References
References
D.3 Decibels
D.3.1 Historical origin of the decibel (dB)
D.7 Attenuators
D.7.1 Example 3
References
References
References
Index
Preface
The first and second edition of this book were written for designers of planar
microstrip antennas; the third edition expands on this. It includes details and
subjects that are useful to the physical realization of microstrip and printed
antennas that are generally not found in more academic works. An appendix on
balun design and analysis has been added, as a number of printed antennas require
a balanced feed and impedance matching. This book is written with commercial
applications in mind, but is also of use for aerospace and other fields. The designs
selected have been useful to the author over his career, along with ones that are
clearly of utility.
There are many very complex microstrip antenna designs in the literature, but
this volume emphasizes simplicity, and accessible mathematical designs, rather
than offering a geometry, and rationalizing the resonances and properties in an ad
hoc manner. This text includes the most recent work available from researchers in
the field of microstrip and printed antennas. This book is intended to be a
succinct, accessible, handbook, which provides useful, practical, simple, and
manufacturable antenna designs. It also includes references which allow the
reader to investigate more complex designs.
The third edition has a considerable number of additions to the material in
earlier editions, which I hope will make concepts presented clearer. The
efficiency analysis of rectangular and circular microstrip antennas is expanded
upon. Full-wave analysis software (HFSS) made it possible to separate out
radiative, conductor, and dielectric losses, and an extra loss that is thought to be
some manner of surface wave loss. The fields inside of copper conductors were
computed to produce as accurate modeling as possible. The impedance bandwidth
of quarter-wave microstrip antennas versus relative permittivity is more
thoroughly examined. Series/parallel feed structures in microstrip arrays have
been added to this edition. The Vivaldi antenna section has been rewritten,
demonstrating that common textbook design geometry limits the antenna's
intrinsic impedance bandwidth. A number of useful designs have been added, and
the appendices expanded.
This edition of the text uses updated nomenclature. First, the term dielectric
constant has been eliminated. The author has measured the relative permittivity of
numerous materials in transmission lines (waveguide and coax), cavities, and with
microstrip methods. Dielectric permittivity generally changes with frequency and
is not constant. The IEEE Standard Definitions of Terms for Radio Wave
Propagation (IEEE Std 211-1997) no longer accepts the term dielectric constant.*
It allows the terms permittivity, electric permittivity and dielectric permittivity. I
will also use relative permittivity for permittivity normalized to free space.
Another nomenclature change is increased, and more effective use of metric
quantities. Like the use of dielectric constant, centimeters are eschewed from this
text. The use of metric prefixes separated by 1000 (metric triads) is implemented.
The use of commas as triad separators has been eliminated, and thinspaces replace
them instead. In the case of a four digit number, either a space or no space is
implemented depending on context. If a table contains values up to four digits, the
space is generally suppressed. If the table has entries with five digits or more,
then usually the space is inserted into the four digit values. The prefix cluster
around unity: centi, deci, deca, and hecto are atavistic prefixes and should not be
used in a modern context.† It was realized that in metric building construction, the
use of millimeters as the everyday small metric unit essentially eliminated the use
of a decimal point on drawings, decreasing errors. The side of a house can be 23
000 mm and also immediately understood as 23 m. The use of centimeters is
forbidden in metric construction standards. It was noted by metrication expert Pat
Naughtin, that when comparing numbers in a table, choosing a metric prefix that
allows integer representation produces easy cognitive comparison of numbers in
tables. Microwave engineers have done this when they use 2450 MHz rather than
switching to 2.450 GHz. If a frequency sweep is from say 850 MHz to 2450
MHz, it makes no sense to introduce a cognitive discontinuity by switching to
GHz at 1000 MHz. There is no reason to immediately change metric prefixes at
1000. In everyday work, millimeters, grams, and milliliters allow one to use
integers to express length, mass, and volume. When possible, the thickness of
dielectric substrates will be given in micrometers ( m). This allows substrates to
be described with integers over the microwave and millimeter wave regions of the
electromagnetic spectrum.
The anachronistic term mil, is not a formally accepted unit of length, and will
not be used. The appropriate metric unit: micrometers or nanometers will be
employed. When an antenna design is articulated in millimeters, the dimensions
will all be in millimeters. The thickness of microwave substrates are best
designated in micrometers m as it produces integer values (similar to the pre-
metric integer values 10 mil, 20 mil, etc.). I have done this with comparison tables
in this book, but when substrate thicknesses are part of a design in millimeters,
they are presented as millimeters. For high-frequency work, micrometers can be
easier to work with than millimeters and should be used appropriately. The term
micron is a slang term for micrometer ( m) and should not be used in technical
papers. The term micron hides the dimensions under discussion with an argot.
Micron is sometimes thought to be an inch-based pre-metric quantity, introducing
a source of potential error.
When describing insertion loss, the use of the pre-metric dB/inch will not be
used. It is far preferable to use dB/100 mm. This produces larger numerical values
than dB/inch, which often have more utility. An insertion loss of 4 dB/100 mm is
effortlessly converted to 40 dB/1 000 mm or 40 dB/m. Converting 4 dB/in to
dB/foot, or dB/yard, requires more cognitive effort.
In the second edition of this book, in Appendix A, Table A.1, on p. 237, the
thickness of copper foil in terms of its weight per square foot is given. Typical
textbooks express 0.5 ounce copper as possessing a thickness of 0.0007 inches, or
0.01778 mm. Generally, the smallest unit of pre-metric measure in the US is the
inch,‡ which is then illegitimately assigned a metric prefix to produce a similar
number of decimal places, rather than thinking in, and using, the metric system. In
this edition, Table A.1 on page 291, is a metric-only table that relates grams per
square meter to foil thickness in micrometers. For instance 150 grams per square
meter is equivalent to a foil thickness of 16.87 m (0.000 664 inches). The
mixing of feet and inches used in the US designation is avoided, and the potential
confusion it creates. Manufacturers weigh the amount of copper foil they have
deposited, rather than measuring its thickness. The US designations are presented
in Table A.2.
When I was an undergraduate, I saw a directional coupler with a calibration
graph on it in KiloMegaCycles. We have made some progress, but there is much,
much room for metric improvement.
*Thiel,D.V., “Using the Right Terms,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, October 2010, Vol.
52, No. 5, p. 192.
†Bancroft, R., The Dimensions of the Cosmos, Outskirts Press, 2016.
‡The smallest is the barleycorn which is 1/3 inch and used to define shoe sizes.
Chapter 1
Microstrip antennas
References
[1] H. Schlesinger, The Battery, Harper, 2010, pp. 228–229.
[2] Grieg, D.D., and Englemann, H.F., “Microstrip—A Transmission Technique
for the Kilomegacycle Range,” Proceedings of The IRE, 1952, Vol. 40, No.
10, pp. 1644–1650.
[3] Deschamps, G.A., “Microstrip Microwave Antennas,” The Third Symposium
on The USAF Antenna Research and Development Program, University of
Illinois, Monticello, Illinois, October 18–22, 1953.
[4] Bernhard, J.T., Mayes, P.E., Schaubert, D., and Mailoux, R.J., “A
Commemoration of Deschamps' and Sichak's `Microstrip Microwave
Antennas': 50 Years of Development, Divergence, and New Directions,”
Proceedings of the 2003 Antenna Applications Symposium, Monticello,
Illinois, September 2003, pp. 189–230.
[5] Gutton, H., and Baissinot, G., “Flat Aerial for Ultra High Frequencies,”
French Patent No. 703113, 1955.
[6] Wu, T.T., “Theory of the Microstrip,” Journal of Applied Physics, March
1957, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 299–302.
[7] Barrett, R.M., “Microwave Printed Circuits—A Historical Survey,” IEEE
Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 3, No. 2, March
1955, pp. 1–9.
[8] Wheeler, H.A., “Transmission Line Properties of Parallel Strips Separated by
a Dielectric Sheet,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory of Techniques,
Vol. MTT-13, March 1965, pp. 172–185.
[9] Purcel, R.A., Massé, D.J., and Hartwig, C.P., “Losses in Microstrip,” IEEE
Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 16, No. 6, June
1968, pp. 342–350.
[10] Purcel, R.A., Massé, D.J., and Hartwig, C.P., Errata: “Losses in Microstrip,”
IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 16, No. 12,
December 1968, p. 1064.
[11] Denlinger, E.J., “Radiation from Microstrip Radiators,” IEEE Transactions
on Microwave Theory of Techniques, Vol. 17, April 1969, pp. 235–236.
[12] Watkins, J., “Circular Resonant Structures in Microstrip,” Electronics
Letters, October 1969, Vol. 5, No. 21, pp. 524–525.
[13] Howell, J.Q., “Microstrip Antennas,” IEEE International Symposium Digest
on Antennas and Propagation, Williamsburg, Virginia, December 11–14,
1972, pp. 177–180.
[14] IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, January 1981.
[15] Munson, R.E., “Conformal Microstrip Antennas and Microstrip Phased
Arrays,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, January 1974,
Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 235–236.
[16] Lo, Y.T., Solomon, D., and Richards, W.F., “Theory and Experiment on
Microstrip Antennas,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagations,
1979, Vol. AP-27, pp. 137–149.
[17] Hildebrand, L.T., and McNamara, D.A., “A Guide to Implementational
Aspects of the Spatial–Domain Integral Equation Analysis of Microstrip
Antennas,” Applied Computational Electromagnetics Journal, March 1995,
Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 40–51, ISSN 1054–4887.
[18] Mosig, J.R., and Gardiol, F.E., “Analytical and Numerical Techniques in the
Green's Function Treatment of Microstrip Antennas and Scatterers,” IEE
Proceedings, March 1983, Vol. 130, Pt. H, No. 2, pp. 175–182.
[19] Mosig, J.R., and Gardiol, F.E., “General Integral Equation Formulation for
Microstrip Antennas and Scatterers,” IEE Proceedings, Vol. 132, Pt. H, No.
7, December 1985, pp. 424–432.
[20] Mosig, J.R., “Arbitrarily Shaped Microstrip Structures and Their Analysis
with a Mixed Potential Integral Equation,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave
Theory and Techniques, February 1988, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 314–323.
[21] Tavlov, A., and Hagness, S.C., Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-
Difference Time-Domain Method, Second Edition, Artech House, 2000.
[22] Tavlov, A., Ed., Advances in Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-
Difference Time-Domain Method, Artech House, 1998.
[23] Licul, S., Petros, A., and Zafar, I., “Reviewing SDARS Antenna
Requirements,” Microwaves & RF, September 2003.
[24] US Patent No. US 6,307,525 B1 2017-04-07.
[25] Milligan, T., Modern Antenna Design, McGraw Hill, 1985, pp. 8–9.
Chapter 2
Rectangular microstrip antennas
Numerous full wave analysis methods have been devised for the rectangular
microstrip antenna [1–4]. Often these advanced methods require a considerable
investment of time and effort to implement and are thus not convenient for
computer-aided design (CAD) implementation.
The two analysis methods for rectangular microstrip antennas which are most
popular for CAD implementation are the transmission line model and the cavity
model. In this section, we will address the least complex version of the
transmission line model. The popularity of the transmission line model may be
gauged by the number of extensions to this model which have been developed
[5–7].
The transmission line model provides a very lucid conceptual picture of the
simplest implementation of a rectangular microstrip antenna. In this model, the
rectangular microstrip antenna consists of a microstrip transmission line
terminated with a pair of loads at either end [8,9].
As presented in Figure 2.2(a), the resistive loads at each end of the
transmission line represent loss due to radiation. At resonance, the imaginary
components of the input impedance seen at the driving point cancel, and
therefore, the driving point impedance becomes exclusively real.
Figure 2.2 (a) The transmission line model of a rectangular microstrip antenna is
a transmission line with two terminating loads. A driving point is
chosen along the antenna length L which can be represented as a sum
of L1 and L2. The two transmission line sections each contribute to the
driving point impedance. The antenna is readily analyzed using a pair
of edge admittances separated by two sections of a transmission
line of characteristic admittance Y0. (b) The microstrip antenna may
be fed at one of its radiating edges using a transmission line. In this
case, the transmission line model is augmented with a feed line of
characteristic admittance of length connected to a radiating
edge. The driving point admittance Y is then computed at the end of
this feed line
where is the input admittance at the end of a transmission line of length L(=
b), which has a characteristic admittance of and a phase constant of
terminated with a complex load admittance . In other words, the microstrip
antenna is modeled as a microstrip transmission line of width W(= a), which
determines the characteristic admittance, and is of physical length L(= b) and
loaded at both ends by an edge admittance , which models the radiation loss.
This is shown in Figure 2.2(a).
Using (2.1), the driving point admittance at a driving point
located between the two radiating edges is expressed as
Approximate values of and Be may be computed using 2.4 and 2.5 [10]:
The effective relative dielectric permittivity ( ) is given as
The value Δl is the line extension due to the electric field fringing at the edge
of the patch antenna. The physical size of a resonant microstrip patch antenna
would be were it not for the effect of fringing at the end of the rectangular
microstrip antenna.1 We may use equation (2.7) to correct for this effect and
compute the physical length of a rectangular microstrip antenna, which will
resonate at a desired design frequency .
The first feed method is called a coaxial probe feed,2 as shown in Figure
2.3(a). The outer shield of a coaxial transmission line is connected to the
groundplane of the microstrip antenna. Metal is removed from the groundplane
which is generally the same radius as the inside of the outer coaxial shield. The
coaxial center conductor then passes through the dielectric substrate of the patch
antenna and connects to the patch. Feeding the antenna in the center (i.e. at a/2)
suppresses the excitation of a mode along the width of the antenna. This feed
symmetry enforces the purest linear polarization along the length of the patch
which can be achieved with a single direct feed.
Figure 2.3 Common methods used to feed a rectangular microstrip antenna. (a)
Coaxial feed probe. (b) Microstrip transmission line feed along a
nonradiating edge. (c) Microstrip transmission feed along a radiating
edge. (d) Microstrip feed line into a cutout in a radiating edge which
is inset to a 50 Ω driving point
The second feed method, shown in Figure 2.3(b), drives the antenna with a
microstrip transmission line along a non-radiating edge. This feed method is
modeled in an identical manner to the coaxial probe feed when using the
transmission line model; in practice, it can often excite a mode along the width of
the patch when and cause the antenna to radiate with an elliptical
polarization. The advantage of this feed method is that it allows one to use a 50 Ω
microstrip transmission line connected directly to a 50 Ω driving point
impedance, which eliminates the need for impedance matching.
The third feed method, Figure 2.3(c), is to drive the antenna at one of its
radiating edges with a microstrip transmission line. This disturbs the field
distribution along one radiating edge which causes slight changes in the radiation
pattern. The impedance of a typical resonant rectangular ( ) microstrip
antenna at a radiating edge is around 200 Ω. This edge resistance at
resonance. In general, one must provide an impedance transformation to 50 Ω for
this feed method. This is often accomplished using a quarter-wave impedance
transformer between the radiating edge impedance and a 50 Ω microstrip feed
line. A quarter-wave transformer has a larger bandwidth than the antenna element
and therefore does not limit it. It is possible to widen a rectangular microstrip
antenna ( ) so the edge resistance at resonance is 50 Ω. In this special case,
no impedance transformer is required to feed the antenna with a 50 Ω microstrip
transmission line at a radiating edge.
A fourth feed method, illustrated in Figure 2.3(d), is to cut a narrow notch out
of a radiating edge far enough into the patch to locate a 50 Ω driving point
impedance. The removal of the notch perturbs the patch fields. A study by Basilio
et al. indicates that a probe-fed patch antenna has a driving point resistance which
follows an , a patch with an inset feed is measured to follow an
function, where [11]. More complex
relationships have also been developed [12]. One can increase the patch width,
which increases the edge conductance, until at resonance, and the edge impedance
is 50 Ω. The inset distance into the patch goes to zero which allows one to
directly feed a patch for this special case using a 50 Ω microstrip line at a
radiating edge. The patch width is large enough in this case to increase the
antenna gain considerably.
Equation (2.8) may be used to compute the resonant length (L) of a
rectangular microstrip antenna. The cutback value is given by (2.7) and the
effective relative permittivity, , is given by (2.6):
Figure 2.4(a) is the antenna without an electric field present. Figure 2.4(b),
just to the right of (a), is Derneryd’s element analyzed with a thermal LCS, which
shows the first (lowest order) mode of this antenna. The frequency for this first
mode is reported to be 3.10 GHz. A sinusoidal source at 3.10 GHz with FDTD
was used to model this antenna. The FDTD plot is of the total magnitude of the
electric field in the plane of the antenna. The FDTD simulation thermal plot is
very similar to the shape of the measured LCS thermal pattern. We see two
radiating edges at either end of the antenna in the lowest mode with two non-
radiating edges on the sides.
Figure 2.4(c) has Derneryd’s measured LCS results with the antenna driven at
6.15 GHz. The LCS visualization shows the next higher order mode one would
expect from transmission line theory. The electric field seen at either side of the
center of the patch antenna along the non-radiating edges still contribute little to
the antenna’s radiation. In the far field3, the radiation contribution from each side
of the non-radiating edges cancel. The FDTD thermal plot result in Figure 2.4(c)
is once again very similar in appearance to Derneryd’s LCS thermal measurement
at 6.15 GHz.
The next mode is reported by Derneryd to exist at 9.15 GHz. The measured
LCS result in Figure 2.4(d) and the theoretical FDTD thermal plot once again
have good correlation. As before, the radiation from the non-radiating edges will
cancel in the far field.
The LCS method of measuring the near fields of microstrip antennas is still
used, but other photographic and probe measurement methods have been
developed as an aid to the visualization of the fields around microstrip antennas
[16–19].
The cavity walls are slightly larger electrically than they are physically due to
the fringing field at the edges; therefore, we extend the patch boundary outward
and the new dimensions become and which are
used in the mode expansion. The effect of radiation and other losses is
represented by lumping them into an effective dielectric loss tangent as defined in
(2.19):
The effective loss tangent for the cavity is computed from the total Q of the
cavity:
The total quality factor of the cavity consists of four components: , the
dielectric loss; , the conductor loss; , the radiation loss; and , the
surface wave loss:
Figure 2.6 When (a > b), the TM10 mode is the lowest order mode (lowest
resonant frequency) for a rectangular microstrip antenna. The TM01
mode has the next highest resonant frequency
When the situation is reversed, TM01 becomes the mode with the
lowest resonant frequency and TM10 has the next lowest resonant frequency.
If , the two modes TM10 and TM01 maintain their orthogonal nature,
but have identical resonant frequencies.
The integer mode index m of TMmn is related to half-cycle variations of the
electric field under the rectangular patch along a. Mode index n is related to the
number of half-cycle electric field variations along b. In the case of the TM10
mode, the electric field is constant across any slice through b (i.e. the
direction), and a single half-cycle variation exists in any cut along a (i.e. the
direction). Figure 2.4 shows a narrow patch driven in the TM01, TM02, and TM03
mode according to cavity model convention.
One notes that the electric field is equal to zero at the center of a rectangular
patch for both the TM10 and TM01 modes. This allows a designer the option of
placing a shorting pin in the center of the rectangular patch without affecting the
generation of either of the two lowest order modes. This added shorting pin or via
forces the groundplane and rectangular patch to maintain an equivalent DC
electrostatic potential. In many cases, the build-up of static charge on a patch
antenna is undesirable from an electrostatic discharge (ESD) point of view, and a
via may be placed in the center of the rectangular patch to address the problem.
Figure 2.7(a) shows the general network model used to represent a rectangular
microstrip antenna. The TM00 mode is the static (DC) term of the series [27]. As
described previously, the TM10 and/or TM01 are two lowest order modes which
are generally driven in most applications. When this is the case, the other higher
order modes are below cut-off and manifest their presence as an infinite number
of small inductors which add in series with the driving point impedance. The
convergent sum of these inductances may be lumped into a single series inductor
which represents the contribution of the higher order modes to the driving point
impedance. As the substrate thickness h of a microstrip patch increases, the
contribution of the equivalent series inductance of the higher order modes to the
driving point impedance becomes larger and larger, which produces a larger and
larger mismatch, until the patch antenna can no longer be matched by simply
choosing an appropriate feedpoint location. The cavity model does not include the
small amount of intrinsic self-inductance introduced by a coaxial feed probe [26].
Increasing the thickness of the substrate also increases the impedance bandwidth
of the element. These two properties (impedance bandwidth and match) may need
to be traded off in a design.
Figure 2.7 Network models used to represent a rectangular microstrip antenna:
(a) general model and (b) narrow band model which is valid for the
TM10 mode
The cavity model is accurate enough to use for many engineering designs. Its
advantage is that it is expressed with closed-form equations, which allow efficient
computation and ease of implementation. Its disadvantage is its accuracy when
compared with more rigorous methods.
The cavity model equations presented previously were implemented for a
rectangular patch antenna with a = 34.29 mm and a resonant length of b = 30.658
mm (TM01). The feed point is 7.595 mm from the center of the patch,
and 7.734. The dielectric thickness is (0.120 inch) with and
(these values are in Table 2.1). The measured maximum return loss of a
patch fabricated using these dimensions is 30.99 dB at 2.442 GHz. The FDTD
method was also used to analyze this patch antenna. The impedance results for the
cavity model, FDTD, and measurement is presented in Figure 2.8. The cavity
model predicts a maximum return loss at 2.492 GHz, which is about a 2% error
versus measurement. FDTD predicts 2.434 GHz which is a 0.33% error. These
resonance values are presented in Table 2.2. The cavity model predicts a larger
bandwidth for the first resonance than is actually measured, and it is fairly good at
predicting the next higher resonance but then deviates significantly. The
groundplane size of the fabricated antenna, also used in the FDTD analysis, is
63.5 mm × 63.5 mm with the dielectric flush to each groundplane edge.
Table 2.1 A 2.45 GHz linear microstrip antenna (groundplane dimensions = 63.5
mm × 63.5 mm)
a b h ϵr tan δ
34.29 mm 30.658 mm 3.048 mm 3.38 0.0027 a/2 7.733 mm
Figure 2.9 (a) Top view of a rectangular microstrip patch with a pair of
equivalent slots located at a distance a apart. The electric fields
across the slots radiate in phase. (b) Side view FDTD thermal plot of
the electric field for the patch analyzed in Figure 2.8 fed with a square
coaxial cable. This plot demonstrates that the radiating electric fields
are approximately constant at each radiating edge of the patch and
extend for a distance which is nearly the thickness of the substrate.
(Note that the virtual short circuit at the center of the patch, under the
antenna, is clearly visible)
The radiating slots have a length b and are estimated to be of h (the substrate
thickness) across. The two slots form an array. When the dielectric substrate is air
, the resonant length a is nearly . When a pair of radiation sources
have this spacing in free space, the array produces a maximum directivity. As the
dielectric permittivity increases, the resonant length of the patch along a
decreases, which decreases the spacing between the radiating slots. The slots no
longer optimally add broadside to the rectangular microstrip antenna, which
decreases the directivity and hence increases the pattern beamwidth.
The electric field from a single slot with a voltage across the slot of is
given as [28]:
For two slots spaced at a distance a apart the E-plane radiation pattern is
The angle θ is measured from the -axis and is measured from the -axis.
The directivity of a microstrip antenna can be approximated by starting with
the directivity of a single slot [10]:
In the case of a microstrip antenna with a pair of radiating slots, the directivity
is
Table 2.3 Directivity (dB) of a square linear microstrip antenna versus (2.45
GHz, h = 3.048 mm, tan δ = 0.0005) [square groundplane dimensions
for FDTD = 63.5 mm × 63.5 mm (antenna centered)]