Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1. Introduction
2. Ground plane for an electric dipole. The /4-rule
3. Method of images
4. Extensions of the image method-corner reflector
5. Finite ground plane – Geometrical Optics
6. Front-to-back ratio
7. Phase center of an antenna with the ground plane/reflector
8. Example – parabolic reflector
9. Edge diffraction model for the sheet ground plane
Problems
1. Introduction
Virtually every antenna has a certain ground plane or a reflector. The primary goal of the
ground plane is to shape the antenna pattern (increase gain in the desired directions) and
minimize the backlobes or sidelobes or, which is the same, minimize radiation to or
reception from unwanted directions. The ground plane also has an effect on the antenna
impedance, but this effect is typically not very profound, except for metal or dielectric
surfaces closely spaced to the antenna. The design of a proper ground plane may be a
significant challenge.
The most straightforward example is the ground plane of the path antenna – the PCB
ground – or that of the VHF car monopole antenna – the car exterior. Similarly, for
airborne antennas, the ground plane is the airplane fuselage. For other symmetric dipole-
like antennas, the ground plane is typically a metal or wire conducting reflector; which
should simultaneously serve as a neutral or common voltage reference for the antenna
feeding circuit. In particular, for vertical wireless communication dipoles, the ground is
represented by the Earth surface. In this section, we will review basic analytical models of
solid metal ground planes and reflectors for dipole-like antennas including the edge effects
and the simple diffraction mechanisms.
There are three common analytical models that greatly help us to understand and analyze
the effect of a ground plane or a reflector on the antenna, and to design an appropriate
antenna ground plane. They include
XV-1
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
and are commonly referred to as high-frequency methods. These models will be outlined
in the present Section, as applied to some simple antenna examples.
Even today, a large ground plane or a large reflector present a challenge for numerical
modeling of antennas as the electrical size of the complete structure increases and often
can no longer be handled with a full wave simulator, whether FEM, or FDTD, or MoM,
with an accuracy necessary for low-noise applications. Hence, the value of the related
analytical models greatly increases.
Interestingly, the same analytical models find applications in a broader area of wireless
communications that includes wireless channel estimation and path loss estimation for an
indoor or outdoor environment. The ray tracing model, which is currently widely
employed for channel estimation in terrains, uses these theories.
XV-2
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Neglecting field divergence, one has a solution in the form of plane waves in time domain,
with zero phase at z d
E xfor (t , z ) E x 0 cos( t k z ( z d ))
E xinc (t , z ) E x 0 cos( t k z ( z d ))
(1)
E xref (t , z ) E x 0 cos( t k z ( z d ))
k kz
The reflected wave has been selected in such a way that it satisfies the boundary condition
on the metal surface at z=0, i.e.
Note that Eq. (1) is the exact solution to the reflection problem in plane wave geometry.
Thus, the total forward radiated field becomes a combination of two signals
phase shifted by
2k z d (4)
but Eq. (4) for the phase shift is generally more important to us. It says that the resulting
phase shift includes two contributions:
i. the shift of or the E-field phase reversal due to the reflection from a PEC
boundary;
ii. plus the shift 2k z d 4 d / , which corresponds to time delay of a reflected
signal over the travel distance of 2d.
If there were no phase reversal (e.g. a perfect magnetic boundary was present instead of a
metal boundary), the dipole close to ground plane would radiate forward twice the field
(and four times the power) compared to that in free space. When phase reversal is present,
the total forward radiation is nearly zero when d 0( ) . So is the input resistance
of the antenna. This is why the dipole close to a metal surface is a very poor antenna
radiator. The physical reason for it is the appearance of surface induced currents on the
metal ground plane that are oppositely directed and radiate a field in anti-phase with the
main current.
XV-3
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
The optimal separation distance – optimal for the maximum total radiated field – is
achieved when in Eqs. (4) and (5) is zero or a multiple of 2 , i.e. when d / 4 , or
d 3 / 4 , or etc. This separation distance is an important design parameter, not only for
the horizontal dipole above a ground plane but also in many other cases.
The phase reversal at the reflection from the metal boundary is responsible for a number
of interesting effects. In particular, the right-handed circularly polarized (RHCP) signal
will be reflected as the left -handed circularly polarized (LHCP) signal from a metal
boundary, and vice versa. Here, we can immediately see a way to eliminate or reduce a
multipath: if an antenna is intended for RHCP reception then it will only receive the
original RHCP signal but will reject at least its first reflections that are LHCP.
Finally we note that the above derivation (Eq. (5)) can indeed be done in the phasor form
and the final result becomes
E total
x (t , z d ) 2 E x 0 cos( / 2) exp( j / 2) 2 j sin(k z d )E x 0 exp( jk z d ) (6)
The term in square brackets is recognized as the array factor – see below in the following
Sections. The term exp( jk z d ) is of little importance to us– it contributes to the absolute
solution phase only.
As another example of the general character of the “/4” rule, which may appear in many
other situations, let us consider a feed of a standard horn that is typically given by a
coaxially-driven monopole in the cavity – see Fig.2. The length of the monopole is mostly
defined by the impedance matching criteria and may vary from horn to horn. However, the
horn’s feed separation from the side wall is again close to d / 4 , to enable the proper
reflection.
3. Method of images
The next question is how does the ground plane work for other separation distances and
elevation angles different from zenith? Unfortunately, the answer cannot be given in
closed form for an arbitrary antenna and a finite ground plane. However, the exact answer
can be given for an arbitrary antenna over an infinite ground plane using the so-called
image method – see Fig. 3.
XV-4
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
The idea of the image method is simple and powerful: let’s remove the PEC ground plane
but put another (image) dipole at the distance –d from the origin, i.e. symmetrically versus
the ground plane position. It is then clear that the required boundary condition
Et 0 (7)
is satisfied everywhere on the plane of the ground due to field cancellation – see Fig. 1.
This fact can proved for the tangential E-component by field superposition, not only for
normal incidence direction, but also for any point in the xy-plane. Thus, the two dipoles
will radiate in the upper hemisphere as one dipole above the ground plane since both
configurations satisfy Maxwell’s equations and the same boundary conditions. The
radiation to the lower hemisphere must be zero, but this is not the case for the image
method. Therefore, the image method works only for the exterior problem (upper
hemisphere that includes the dipole) and cannot formally provide the null in the interior
(lower hemisphere).
Fig. 3a. Method of images for a horizontal dipole above a ground plane. The ground plane effect
is replaced by that of the image dipole.
How does current in the image dipole flow? Fig. 3b illustrates the answer to this question:
remember that the radiated E-field is always directed parallel with the current. To satisfy
the PEC boundary conditions we thus need two oppositely directed currents. When put
close to one another, the opposite currents radiate two oppositely directed fields that also
cancel each other – one might say that the antenna is “shorted out” and becomes itself a
non-radiating transmission line.
XV-5
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
The ground plane alters both the antenna impedance and the radiation pattern. The image
method allows us to find the corrected dipole impedance and the resulting radiation
pattern analytically. Let’s start with the impedance first. The treatment in what follows
will be essentially that of Ref. [3]. Two dipoles: the original one and the image are
mutually coupled through the impedance matrix (see Section II)
V1 Z 11 Z 12 I 1
V Z Z 22 I 2
(7)
2 21
where index 1 corresponds to the original dipole; index 2 – to the image. For reciprocal
identical antennas, the mutual and self- impedances are identical, i.e.
Z 12 Z 21 , Z 11 Z 22 (8)
The active or driving-point impedance of the original dipole (the impedance under
presence of the image dipole) becomes from Eq. (7)
V1 I
Z 1d Z 11 Z 12 1 Z 11 Z 12 (9)
I1 I2
since currents I 1 , I 2 are equal in magnitude but are oppositely directed – see Fig. 3b. Once
Z 12 is known as in Section II, the dipole impedance above the ground plane simply
coincides with Z 1d from Eq. (9). One special case that should be evaluated is when the
separation d approaches zero. Then Z 12 Z 11 (two dipoles tend to coincide) and
Z 1d 0 , which again means that the original antenna is “shorted out”.
Now, let’s proceed with the radiation pattern of a single horizontal infinitesimally small
dipole [1] centered at origin and oriented along the x-axis. The pattern is conveniently
XV-6
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
presented in spherical coordinates. The phasor of the electric field has the form (Section
IV)
kI 0 l exp( jk r )
E j 1 sin 2 sin 2 (10)
4 r
If the dipole were of a finite length, with the sinusoidal current distribution, the pattern
expression would become as in Section IV.
We know that neither the pattern magnitude nor its polarization should change when we
move the dipole (or any other antenna) by a certain finite distance, say d, from the origin
– any linear translation cannot change the pattern magnitude or add new polarization
components. What changes, however, is the phase since the signal from the dipole spaced
closer to the observation point will arrive earlier, no matter how large the absolute
distance to that point is. Thus, for d translation along the z-axis, one needs to replace r in
the phase factor exp( jk r ) in Eq. (10) by a new distance r. According to the law of
cosines and Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Radiation geometry in spherical coordinates. The dipole offset from the origin is given by
d.
2
d d
r 2 r 2 d 2 2rd cos ; r r 2 d 2 2rd cos r 1 2 cos
r r
(11)
XV-7
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
with d/r being a small parameter , 1 . Using Taylor series expansion and keeping
only dominant terms, one has
d
r r 1 cos O( 2 ) ; r r d cos rO( 2 ) (12)
r
where E1, 2 are the fields radiated by the original dipole and by the image dipole,
respectively; I 1, 2 I 0 . The total field is given by their sum, i.e.
kI 0 l exp( jk r )
Etotal (r , , ) [2 j sin( kd cos )] j 1 sin 2 sin 2 (14)
4 r
Once again we recognize the factor in square brackets as the array factor – one may want
to compare this result to Eq. (6) at =0. One reason for emphasizing this name is that the
linear pattern of two dipoles (or one dipole above the ground plane) is obtained as the
single pattern multiplied by the array factor – see Eq.(10). Another reason is that the array
factor does not really change from antenna to antenna: if we repeat the above derivation
not for the infinitesimally small dipole but for a dipole of arbitrary length we will have
exactly the same array factor in front of the corresponding single-dipole pattern.
However, the array factor will change if the current directions in two dipoles were not the
opposite (phase shift of ) but the same (phase shift of 0). This happens, for example, for a
horizontal dipole above a PMC ground plane. Another (and more important) example is
that of the vertical dipole above the ground plane, when the image current flows in the
same direction as the current in the actual dipole [1]. Instead of subtracting two exponents
in the case of the opposite current flow
one should add them together in order to obtain the array factor in the form
The antenna arrays considered in the following text extensively use the array factor for
pattern synthesis. However, more generic (phased) arrays usually use a certain prescribed
(not necessarily 0 or ) phase shift between the individual elements.
XV-8
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
The method of images is shown schematically in Fig. 5a. It assumes three image dipoles
(one for every plane plus one “balancing” image dipole). All four dipoles (the original one
plus three images) form two polar dipole pairs that cancel the tangential E-field on both
corner planes. Again, the field outside the corner angle is non-physical and should be
ignored.
The method of images is a reasonable assumption when the corner plates are rather long
and the dipole is located far way from the corner edges. Again, this method allows us to
find the dipole impedance and the resulting radiation pattern. These calculations are done
in particular in [3] and in many other sources – see [6]; we will consider them below as an
example.
Fig. 5a. The corner reflector with corner angle of 90 deg – top view – and the related method of
images.
The method of images could be applied to other corner angles, for example 60 deg – see
Fig. 5b ([6]). There are five image dipoles now, according to the anticipated symmetry.
XV-9
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Fig. 5b. Corner reflector with corner angle of 60 deg – top view – and the related method of
images.
According to [6] , the method of images is applicable for corner angles equal to 180 deg/n,
where n is any positive integer. This is a well-known fact in electrostatics. Corners of 180
degrees (flat sheet), 90, 60, 45 degrees, etc., can be treated by this method. The
performance of corner reflectors of intermediate angles cannot be determined by this
method but can be interpolated approximately from the others.
Could the method of images be applied to a corner angle higher than 180 deg? Such an
opportunity would be really inviting since the corner becomes an infinite metal wedge and
one might be able to treat the wedge diffraction problem – one of the most complicated
problem for any kind of ray tracing algorithm – by a simple mean. Unfortunately, the
images need to be place into free space for such an approach; this circumstance violates
the image method itself.
For each reflector, there is an optimum feed-to-vertex spacing. If the spacing becomes too
small, the radiation resistance decreases and becomes comparable to the loss resistance of
the system which results in an inefficient antenna. For very large spacing, the system
produces undesirable multi-lobes, and it loses its directional characteristics [2]. The length
of the sides of the 90 corner reflector is mostly taken to be twice the distance from the
vertex to the feed L 2 s . The height (H) of the reflector is usually taken to be about 1.2
XV-10
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
to 1.5 times greater than the total length of the feed element, in order to reduce radiation
towards the back region from the ends.
Figs. 5c and 5d show typical UHF corner reflectors at 433 MHz, with variable flare angle.
The antenna impedance bandwidth covers the band from 415MHz to at least 465 MHz.
The fine impedance tuning could be made by a slight variation of the distance s, without
affecting much the radiation pattern. The corner ground plane is not floating; it is always
connected to the outer conductor of the coaxial split-tube balun.
Fig. 5d. Typical wide-radiation angle UHF corner reflector dipoles at 433 MHz. Antenna Lab,
ECE Dept./WPI.
XV-11
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Fig. 6. Geometrical optics approximation for a dipole above a finite ground plane.
According to geometrical optics, the field everywhere within the reflection boundary (RB)
in Fig. 6 is a combination of the incident (line-of-sight or LOS signal) and the reflected
signal (RS). The field everywhere outside the reflection boundary but still inside the
XV-12
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
shadow boundary (SB) is the LOS signal from the dipole. The field below the shadow
boundary is zero. The diffracted field in Fig. 6 is ignored.
6. Front-to-back ratio
Is the field in the shadow zone really zero? If it is, then a small reflector might be
completely sufficient for a dipole antenna. In practice, however, one prefers to use
reflectors as large as possible, despite apparent size and weight constraints. This points us
to the fact that a finite ground plane does not quite follow the laws of geometrical optics.
In order to estimate the accuracy of geometrical optics, consider first a numerical example
of a half-wave strip (o blade) dipole spaced a quarter wavelength apart from the square
ground plane of a variable size. The geometry is shown in Fig. 7; the dipole width is
/150.
Fig. 7. Geometry for a half-wave dipole with quarter wave separation. The xz-plane is the E-plane
of the dipole; the yz-plane is the H-plane. The size, G, of the ground plane shown in this figure is
approximately 1.7.
We will further vary the ground plane size, G, as 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 and start
looking at two radiation patterns: total gain in the E-plane of the antenna (the xz-plane)
and total gain in the H-plane (the yz-plane). For the selected dipole geometry, total gain is
close to elevation gain. The corresponding results (both rectangular and polar plots) are
shown in Fig. 8 that follows. These are obtained with Ansoft HFSS software (using
radiation boundary of a sufficiently large size and fine meshes with about 100,000
tetrahedra).
XV-13
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Fig. 8. Radiation pattern of the dipole above a finite ground plane of variable size. Left –
rectangular plot; right – the equivalent polar plot.
One can see from Fig. 8 that there is in fact no shadow zone beneath the ground plane.
Moreover, the radiation in the backward direction is quite significant. The backward
radiation indeed decreases, when the ground plane size increases, but not monotonically.
The ratio of power gain at zenith (in the direction of maximum radiation) to the gain in the
opposite direction (at nadir) is called the front-to-back ratio. For the gain in dB, this ratio
is just a difference between two gain values. For the present example, this ratio is given in
Table 2.
XV-14
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Table 2. Front-to-back ration for horizontal dipole as a function of ground plane size
(square ground plane).
1.0 ~14 dB
1.5 ~21 dB
2.0 ~21 dB
One can see that performance obviously improving as the size of the ground plane
increases. From the view point of performance/size ratio, the most beneficial is perhaps
the ground plane on the size of about 1.5 – the incremental performance deteriorates after
this point.
Note that the full-wave numerical simulations for a large ground plane meet considerable
difficulties. For example, in Ansoft HFSS, even the flat ground plane of 3-4 can hardly
be simulated at present (accurate front-to-back ratio) on an ordinary PC, either with the
radiation box or with the PML. For antenna modeling on large metal platforms, including
aircrafts and ships, other methods are necessary that are considered below.
Note: Why is the ground plane important? Consider one example: a GPS antenna.
You already know how weak the received signal could be. Now, imagine all the
noise that is coming from Earth ground and surroundings. If the ground plane does
not block it properly, this noise may entirely mask the useful signal.
For a simple dipole without the ground plane, the far-field is given by Eq. (10). Its
inspection shows that the phase front is angle-independent and is also frequency-
independent. The phase center coincides with the physical center of the antenna.
XV-15
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
For a dipole (and any other antenna) with a reflector the situation changes. Consider Eq.
(14) for the horizontal dipole pattern above the infinite ground plane. Even though there
seems to be no explicit phase variation in the far field, remember that radius-vector r is
now measured from the ground plane. Therefore, the phase center is now the center of the
ground plane, for any frequency and for any dipole height. In other words, it is located
exactly in the middle between the dipole and its image.
When the ground plane is that of finite size or just small, the phase center is expected to be
located somewhere between the ground plane and the dipole – see Fig. 9 – for the effect of
the ground plane is less profound. It is also expected to have an angular dependence,
especially at low elevation angles versus the ground plane.
Fig. 9. A schematic that illustrates the phase center of the dipole antenna above a finite ground
plane.
Tranquilla and Best [7] have investigated the phase center of a monopole above a
concentric wire-made ground plane. The ground plane was an array of eight quarter-
wavelength radial ground plane rods. They found that the computed distance from the
monopole base to the phase center varies between 0.12-0.15 except at zenith where the
abrupt phase reversal in the field leads to a discontinuity in the plot of the phase center
location. The angular position information indicates that the phase center remains near but
not on the actual monopole axis (z>0) except for observation angles approaching the
zenith or ground plane angles. This is contrary to DeJong’s formulation [8], which places
the phase center along the negative monopole image axis. See also early Carter's work [9].
The phase center of horn antennas has been investigated in great detail - see [1] for a list
of references - for it is critical in the proper design of a horn-fed reflector antenna.
XV-16
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Based on the GO model, one can establish the form of the surface needed to satisfy those
specifications. We will use the Snell’s law given by first expression in Eq. (16b). It is also
more convenient to use indexes inc and ref instead of 1 and 2. With reference to Fig. 10,
Eq. (16b) reads
S inc S ref 2(n S ref )n (16c)
where n n1 x n2 y is the unit surface normal, S inc cos x sin y , S ref 1 x 0 y .
Symbols x , y denote unit vectors in the x- and y-directions, respectively. Substitution into
Eq. (16c) gives
n1 sin , n2 cos (16e)
2 2
XV-17
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
The surface equation can then be established based on the expression of the surface
normal. An easier way, however, is to use the identity
FS SQ 2 f (16f)
which again states that the plane wave of constant phase is created by the reflector. With
reference to Fig. 10, we arrive at the surface equation in the form
f
SF , SQ cos , (16g)
sin / 2
2
Consider Fig. 6 again. When the signal from the dipole reaches the edge of the ground
plane a diffraction occurs so that the edge will start to radiate in all directions, including
the antenna backlobe. Hence, the shadow zone disappears. The diffraction phenomenon
becomes significant in a number of antenna applications. In particular, the design of a
large parabolic reflector antenna is impossible without taking into account the diffraction
effects (see below in this Section).
The scattering problem on a 2D metal wedge might appear to be similar to that of the
corner reflector but the corner angle should now be greater than 180 deg – see section 1.4
above. Unfortunately, this circumstance makes it impossible to apply the image method.
Instead, one has to develop a more complicated solution that extensively uses Bessel
functions. Below, we will generally follow the Sommerfeld’s solution given in terms of
1
The original Sommerfeld’s derivation is complicated and it is skipped not only in the classic antenna books
[1],[3],[4] but also in more advanced EM sources [11]. The derivation of the Sommerfeld’s result from a
series of Bessel functions on the order of n+1/2i s given in [12],[15].
XV-18
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Fresnel integrals. We will first consider the “knife edge” diffraction and then proceed to a
more complicated wedge diffraction.
9.1. Incident field Consider the geometry shown in Fig. 11a. The incident field is a plane
wave (not a dipole) that is polarized in z-direction – it is thus TM to z wave according to
the generally accepted terminology2. We introduce cylindrical coordinates
Fig. 11a. Metal edge excited by a plane wave (“knife edge” diffraction).
In the phasor form, the incident plane wave field in Fig. 11a is given by
E zinc E 0 exp( jk r ), k k cos inc , k sin inc ,0 (18)
E zinc E 0 exp( jk x x jk y x) E 0 exp( jkr [cos inc cos sin inc sin ]) (19)
2
In this and in some other contexts, acronyms TM and TE are mostly used to specify the direction of the
electric field and magnetic field in a plane traveling wave. Originally however, the separation into TM and
TE modes comes from waveguide physics where it has a significant physical meaning.
XV-19
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Eq. (19) yields the well-known representation of the plane wave in cylindrical coordinates
Simultaneously, for the plane wave reflected back from the infinite metal ground plane,
It is usually the matter of convenience what field is sought: the scattered field or the total
field. Since the incident field is known a priori both approaches should yield the same
result. In the present problem, we will proceed with the total field. The solution for the
total field is assumed to have the same TM polarization form. In cylindrical coordinates,
this can be represented by
E ztotal E zinc E zscatt E 0 exp( jR cos( inc )) E 0 exp( jR cos( inc )) (23)
In that case, the scattered field is just the reflected field and no special full-wave analysis
of the scatterer is necessary in contrast to other examples. Now, for a semi-infinite ground
plane (the edge), one may extend Eq. (23) by
where E is a solution to Maxwell’s equations with the augmented boundary conditions that
becomes the plane wave far enough from the edge. Sommerfeld has found that
XV-20
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
j
E ( R, inc ) E 0 exp( jR cos( inc ))
2
exp( j ) d (25)
where
inc
2 R cos (26)
2
The integral
1
F ( ) exp( j )d , 2
exp( j
2
) d (27)
0
2 j
is the original the Fresnel integral; it is now common to use Fresnel integrals C and S3 in
the form
1 2 2
F ( ) C jS , F ( ) F ( ) (28)
2 j 2 j
The asymptotic behavior, which is mostly needed for the analytical solution in the far
field, is as follows
exp( j 2 )
F ( ) at
2 j
(29)
exp( j 2 )
F ( ) - at
j 2 j
Note that for the TE plane wave incidence4 (E-field is perpendicular to the edge corner),
the E-field in Eqs. (23)-(25) is replaced by the H-field, which is now parallel to the edge,
u u
1 2 1
3
Integrals S (u ) sin
0 2
x dx and C (u ) cos x 2 dx are implemented in Mathematica and
0 2
MATLAB (in Version 7.1.0 R14 of 2005 but not in the most recent versions of MATLAB).
4
Quite often in the literature, the TE incidence case is designated as the hard-surface case whereas the TM
incidence case is designated as the soft-surface case, by analogy with acoustics (Neumann or Dirichlet
boundary conditions, respectively).
XV-21
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
and the minus sign on the right-hand side of Eqs. (23),(24) is replaced by plus, that is
[11],[12],[15]
j
H ( R, inc ) H 0 exp( jR cos( inc ))
exp( j2 )d
(30b)
where the separation is now made of the scattered field into the reflected one and the
diffracted one. There are three solution regions marked in Fig. 11a. We’ll consider every
of them separately:
Region I, above the reflection boundary RB-Fig. 11b. In that region, both the incident
wave and the reflected wave exist. Furthermore,
inc inc
cos 0, cos 0, at R
2 2
in both terms on the right hand side of Eq. (24). According to Eqs. (24)-(29),
XV-22
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Region II, between the reflection boundary RB and shadow boundary SB-Fig.11c. In
that region,
inc inc
cos 0, cos 0, at R
2 2
and there should not be a reflected wave. The use of Eqs. (24)-(29) gives precisely the
expected result:
XV-23
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
inc inc
cos 0, cos 0, at R
2 2
Neither the incident wave nor the reflected wave is expected to exist. The use of Eqs. (24)-
(29) again confirms this conclusion,
XV-24
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Note that the diffraction coefficient has the same form in all three cases. Again, for TE
plane wave incidence on a edge, the diffraction coefficient has the same form as in Eq.
(31) but relates to the H-field, with the minus sign in curled brackets replaced by a plus
[11]. In the dimensionless form,
1 exp( jR ) 1 1
E zdiff E 0 (33a)
2 2 j R cos(( inc ) / 2) cos(( inc ) / 2)
1 exp( jR ) 1 1
H zdiff H 0 (33b)
2 2 j R cos(( inc ) / 2) cos(( inc ) / 2)
One can now generalize the above result to state that the diffracted ray (diffraction
coefficient) from an edge is also given by Eq. (31) when an arbitrary incident field at the
edge is given by E 0 . This field can be that of a plane wave, a line source, a finite-length
dipole, or the field from a previous diffraction.
XV-25
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
References
[1] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory. Analysis and Design, Wiley, New York, 2005 3rd
ed., pp. 883-884.
[2] R.C. Johnson and H. Jasik, “Antenna Engineering Handbook”, third edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1993.
[3] T. A. Milligan, Modern Antenna Design, Wiley-IEEE Press, New York, 2005.
[4] W. Stutzman and G. A. Thiele, Antenna Theory and Design, Wiley, New York,
1998, 2nd edition.
[5] L. Diaz and T. A. Milligan, Antenna Engineering Using Physical Optics, Artech
House, Boston, 1996.
[6] J. D. Kraus, “The corner reflector antenna,” Proceedings of the I.R.E., Nov. 1940,
pp. 514-519.
[7] J. M. Tranquilla and S. R. Best, "Phase center considerations for the monopole
antenna, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagation, vol. AP-34, no 5, pp. 741-744, May,
1986.
[8] G. DeJong, “The phase centre of a monopole antenna,” Radio Sci., vol. 17, no. 2, pp.
349-355, 1982.
[12] H. Bateman, The Mathematical Analysis of Electrical and Optical Wave Motion on
The Basis of Maxwell’s Equations, Diver Publications, Inc., 1955.
[13] J. Van Bladel, Singular Electromagnetic Fields and Sources, IEEE Press,
Piscataway, NJ, 1991.
XV-26
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
Review Questions
1. Please, formulate the /4 rule for the dipole with a metal ground plane in your own
words.
2. A dipole operates at 1GHz. At which distance from the dipole should the ground
plane be located?
3. What is the maximum gain for the dipole with a properly located ground plane?
4. Which ground plane size is most beneficial for the dipole from the viewpoint of
performance/size ratio, in terms of operating wavelength ?
XV-27
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
6
5
More precisely, units for surface impedance are This is a difficult question; integrate over
not exactly Ohms but Ohms per square – see azimuthal angle first and then introduce a new
Section III. integration variable t cos .
XV-28
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
XV-29
ECE529/ECE539 Section XV Antenna reflector
XV-30