Time-Domain Modeling of Group-Delay Characteristics of Ultra-Wideband Printed-Circuit Antennas Hung-Jui Lam, Yingying Lu, Huilian Du, Poman P.M. So and Jens Bornemann Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P6 Canada
Outline Introduction/Motivation Ultra-Wideband Printed-Circuit Antennas Phase Center Calculations Group Delay Calculations Coplanar UWB Antenna Microstrip UWB Antenna Conclusions
Introduction/Motivation Ultra Wide-Band (UWB) technology has received increased attention with the release of the 3.1-10.6 GHz band. UWB antennas in printed-circuit technologies within relatively small substrate areas is of primary importance in short-range and high bandwidth applications. UWB systems involve the transmission and reception of short pulses; the variations of radiated amplitudes and phases over frequency contribute to the distortion of the pulse. Phase distortions are represented by either a varying phase center over frequency or by the group delay. This presentation focuses on a time-domain approach (transient analysis) to determine the group delay of printedcircuit UWB antennas. The TLM method (MEFiSTo-3D) is used as a simulation tool.
Ultra-Wideband Printed-Circuit Antennas Examples: Microstrip 3.1-10.6 GHz Variations 300 ps Choi, Park, Kim, Park, MOTL, No. 5, March 2004 Chuang, Lin, Kan, Microw. J., Jan. 2006 and Lin, Kan, Kuo, Chuang, MWCL, Oct. 2005
Ultra-Wideband Printed-Circuit Antennas Examples: Coplanar measured Ma,Tseng,Trans AP, Apr. 2006 Nikolaou, Anagnostou, Ponchak, Tentzeris, Papapolymerou,,APS Dig., 2006
Phase Center Calculations - Method I Frequency domain Far field Calculate the spherical wave front in the far field. Compute the apparent phase center along the antenna surface or axis. Time consuming! Ф1=Фo Ф1 =Фo Ф2=Фo Ф3=Фo Ф2 =Фo Ф3 =Фo C1 C2
Phase Center Calculations - Method II Frequency domain Near field From a reference point on the surface of the antenna, compute the phase variation in the near field over the main beam. A valid phase center location is detected if the phase variation over the main beam is within a few degrees. phase center No longer an option in HFSS! microstrip circuit Rambabu, Thiart, Bornemann, Yu, Trans. AP, Dec. 2006
Group Delay Calculations Time domain Generate a pulse covering the respective frequency spectrum. Excite antenna and detect radiated pulse. Fourier transform both pulses and record phase response. Calculate the group delay from the derivative of the phase response. Setup in MEFiSTo-3D Note that the model includes the coax-to-cpw transition.
Input pulse 2.0 40-90 Normalized E-field 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0-0.5 E(t) Normalized Amplitude / db 38 36 34 32 E(f) Phase / degrees -180-270 -360-450 -540 Φ(f) -1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 t/ns 30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-630 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Radiated pulse 0.010 0 0 Normalized E-field 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000-0.002-0.004-0.006-0.008 E θ E ϕ Normalized Amplitude / db -10-20 -30-40 -50 E θ E ϕ Phase / degrees -1000-2000 -3000 < ( E θ ) < ( E ϕ ) -0.010 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 t/ns -60 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-4000 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Coplanar UWB Antenna z θ x ϕ E θ E ϕ y New CPW UWB antenna for 3.1-10.6 GHz band Lam, Bornemann, EMC Symp., July 2007
330 0 Normalized Radiation Patterns 30 E θ (θ,π/2) E θ (π/2, ϕ) 330 0 30 300 60 300 60 270 E-plane (Eθ) 3 GHz 4 GHz 6 GHz 8 GHz 10 GHz -40-30 -20-10 0 90 270 H-plane (Eθ) 3 GHz 4 GHz 6 GHz 8 GHz 10 GHz -40-30 -20-10 0 90 240 120 240 120 210 150 210 150 300 330 180 0 30 60 300 H-plane (Eφ) 330 3 GHz 4 GHz 6 GHz 8 GHz 10 GHz 180 0 30 60 270 E-plane (Eθ) -40-30 -20-10 0 3 GHz 90 4 GHz 6 GHz 8 GHz 10 GHz 270-40 -30-20 -10 0 90 240 120 240 120 210 150 E θ (θ,0) E ϕ (π/2,ϕ) 210 150 180 180
Input Return Loss ( S 11 ) 0-10 S 11 / db -20-30 -40 HFSS MEFiSTo -50 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Input reflection coefficient: Comparison between HFSS and MEFiSTo Note: Coax-to-CPW transition included in both models
Group Delay and Amplitude 2.0-40 -50 Amplitude Variation (3.1-10.6 GHz): Group delay / ns 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Note: Group Delay Variation (3.1-10.6 GHz): (E θ ) < 163 ps (E ϕ ) < 620 ps E / db -60-70 -80-90 -100 E θ < 8.7 db E ϕ < 23 db 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Group delay variation in principal polarization is better than other published values. Variation in amplitudes are consistent with HFSS computations of radiation patterns.
Microstrip UWB Antenna 4.0 VSWR 3.5 3.0 Lin, Kan, Kuo, Chuang, MWCL, Oct. 2005 2.5 VSWR 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 measured (incl connector) HFSS (incl connector) MEFiSTo (no connector) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MEFiSTo probe Measured VSWR < 3.7 (3.1 10 GHz) < 2.5 (4.1 10 GHz)
Group Delay and Amplitude 2.5-40 Group Delay Variation (3.1-10 GHz): -50 Group delay / ns 2.0 1.5 1.0 (E θ ) < 231 ps (E ϕ ) < 1.9 ns E / db -60-70 -80-90 0.5 0.0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-100 -110-120 Amplitude Variation (3.1-10 GHz): E θ < 8.8 db E ϕ < 31 db 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Note: Group delay variation is inferior to that of the CPW antenna. Amplitude variations in main polarization are almost identical.
3.1 10.6 GHz VSWR Comparison Coplanar Antenna 2.03 Microstrip Antenna 3.7 Group Delay Variation Amplitude variation < 163 ps < 8.7 db <231 ps < 8.8 db Note: Peak gain of CPW antenna: 1.7 5.1 dbi Comparable nearly omnidirectional radiation patterns; characteristic deteriorates towards 10 GHz.
Conclusions The Transmission-Line Matrix method in form of MEFiSTo-3D is applied to determine the group delay characteristics of printed-circuit UWB antennas. It is found that transient (time-domain) analysis has several advantages over frequency-domain phase center computations. The method is applied to two different printed-circuit UWB antennas, and their performances are compared. The design in CPW technology outperforms a comparable design using microstip circuitry.