## Antenna array design with Chebychev polynomials

March 23, 2015 ece1229 , , , ,

Prof. Eleftheriades desribed a Chebychev antenna array design method that looks different than the one of the text .

Portions of that procedure are like that of the text. For example, if a side lobe level of $$20 \log_{10} R$$ is desired, a scaling factor

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:20}
x_0 = \cosh\lr{ \inv{m} \cosh^{-1} R },
\end{equation}

is used. Given $$N$$ elements in the array, a Chebychev polynomial of degree $$m = N – 1$$ is used. That is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:40}
T_m(x) = \cos\lr{ m \cos^{-1} x }.
\end{equation}

Observe that the roots $$x_n’$$ of this polynomial lie where

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:60}
m \cos^{-1} x_n’ = \frac{\pi}{2} \pm \pi n,
\end{equation}

or

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:80}
x_n’ = \cos\lr{ \frac{\pi}{2 m} \lr{ 2 n \pm 1 } },
\end{equation}

The class notes use the negative sign, and number $$n = 1,2, \cdots, m$$. It is noted that the roots are symmetric with $$x_1′ = – x_m’$$, which can be seen by direct expansion

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:100}
\begin{aligned}
x_{m-r}’
&= \cos\lr{ \frac{\pi}{2 m} \lr{ 2 (m – r) – 1 } } \\
&= \cos\lr{ \pi – \frac{\pi}{2 m} \lr{ 2 r + 1 } } \\
&= -\cos\lr{ \frac{\pi}{2 m} \lr{ 2 r + 1 } } \\
&= -\cos\lr{ \frac{\pi}{2 m} \lr{ 2 ( r + 1 ) – 1 } } \\
&= -x_{r+1}’.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The next step in the procedure is the identification

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:120}
\begin{aligned}
u_n’ &= 2 \cos^{-1} \lr{ \frac{x_n’}{x_0} } \\
z_n &= e^{j u_n’}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This has a factor of two that does not appear in the Balanis design method. It seems plausible that this factor of two was introduced so that the roots of the array factor $$z_n$$ are conjugate pairs. Since $$\cos^{-1} (-z) = \pi – \cos^{-1} z$$, this choice leads to such conjugate pairs

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:140}
\begin{aligned}
\exp\lr{j u_{m-r}’}
&=
\exp\lr{j 2 \cos^{-1} \lr{ \frac{x_{m-r}’}{x_0} } } \\
&=
\exp\lr{j 2 \cos^{-1} \lr{ -\frac{x_{r+1}’}{x_0} } } \\
&=
\exp\lr{j 2 \lr{ \pi – \cos^{-1} \lr{ \frac{x_{r+1}’}{x_0} } } } \\
&=
\exp\lr{-j u_{r+1}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Because of this, the array factor can be written

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:180}
\begin{aligned}
\textrm{AF}
&= ( z – z_1 )( z – z_2 ) \cdots ( z – z_{m-1} ) ( z – z_m ) \\
&=
( z – z_1 )( z – z_1^\conj )
( z – z_2 )( z – z_2^\conj )
\cdots \\
&=
\lr{ z^2 – z ( z_1 + z_1^\conj ) + 1 }
\lr{ z^2 – z ( z_2 + z_2^\conj ) + 1 }
\cdots \\
&=
\lr{ z^2 – 2 z \cos\lr{ 2 \cos^{-1} \lr{ \frac{x_1′}{x_0} } } + 1 }
\lr{ z^2 – 2 z \cos\lr{ 2 \cos^{-1} \lr{ \frac{x_2′}{x_0} } } + 1 }
\cdots \\
&=
\lr{ z^2 – 2 z \lr{ 2 \lr{ \frac{x_1′}{x_0} }^2 – 1 } + 1 }
\lr{ z^2 – 2 z \lr{ 2 \lr{ \frac{x_2′}{x_0} }^2 – 1 } + 1 }
\cdots
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

When $$m$$ is even, there will only be such conjugate pairs of roots. When $$m$$ is odd, the remainding factor will be

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:160}
\begin{aligned}
z – e^{2 j \cos^{-1} \lr{ 0/x_0 } }
&=
z – e^{2 j \pi/2} \\
&=
z – e^{j \pi} \\
&=
z + 1.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

However, with this factor of two included, the connection between the final array factor polynomial \ref{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:180}, and the Chebychev polynomial $$T_m$$ is not clear to me. How does this scaling impact the roots?

### Example: Expand $$\textrm{AF}$$ for $$N = 4$$.

The roots of $$T_3(x)$$ are

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:200}
x_n’ \in \setlr{0, \pm \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} },
\end{equation}

so the array factor is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:220}
\begin{aligned}
\textrm{AF}
&=
\lr{ z^2 + z \lr{ 2 – \frac{3}{x_0^2} } + 1 }\lr{ z + 1 } \\
&=
z^3
+ 3 z^2 \lr{ 1 – \frac{1}{x_0^2} }
+ 3 z \lr{ 1 – \frac{1}{x_0^2} }
+ 1.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

With $$20 \log_{10} R = 30 \textrm{dB}$$, $$x_0 = 2.1$$, so this is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:240}
\textrm{AF} = z^3 + 2.33089 z^2 + 2.33089 z + 1.
\end{equation}

With

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:260}
z = e^{j (u + u_0) } = e^{j k d \cos\theta + j k u_0 },
\end{equation}

the array factor takes the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevSecondMethod:280}
\textrm{AF}
=
e^{j 3 k d \cos\theta + j 3 k u_0 }
+ 2.33089
e^{j 2 k d \cos\theta + j 2 k u_0 }
+ 2.33089
e^{j k d \cos\theta + j k u_0 }
+ 1.
\end{equation}

This array function is highly phase dependent, plotted for $$u_0 = 0$$ in fig. 1, and fig. 2.

This can be directed along a single direction (z-axis) with higher phase choices as illustrated in fig. 3, and fig. 4.

These can be explored interactively in this Mathematica Manipulate panel.

# References

 Constantine A Balanis. Antenna theory: analysis and design. John Wiley \& Sons, 3rd edition, 2005.

## Chebychev antenna array design

March 22, 2015 ece1229 , , , ,

In our text  is a design procedure that applies Chebychev polynomials to the selection of current magnitudes for an evenly spaced array of identical antennas placed along the z-axis.

For an even number $$2 M$$ of identical antennas placed at positions $$\Br_m = (d/2) \lr{2 m -1} \Be_3$$, the array factor is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:20}
\textrm{AF}
=
\sum_{m=-N}^N I_m e^{-j k \rcap \cdot \Br_m }.
\end{equation}

Assuming the currents are symmetric $$I_{-m} = I_m$$, with $$\rcap = (\sin\theta \cos\phi, \sin\theta \sin\phi, \cos\theta )$$, and $$u = \frac{\pi d}{\lambda} \cos\theta$$, this is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:40}
\begin{aligned}
\textrm{AF}
&=
\sum_{m=-N}^N I_m e^{-j k (d/2) ( 2 m -1 )\cos\theta } \\
&=
2 \sum_{m=1}^N I_m \cos\lr{ k (d/2) ( 2 m -1)\cos\theta } \\
&=
2 \sum_{m=1}^N I_m \cos\lr{ (2 m -1) u }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This is a sum of only odd cosines, and can be expanded as a sum that includes all the odd powers of $$\cos u$$. Suppose for example that this is a four element array with $$N = 2$$. In this case the array factor has the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:60}
\begin{aligned}
\textrm{AF}
&=
2 \lr{ I_1 \cos u + I_2 \lr{ 4 \cos^3 u – 3 \cos u } } \\
&=
2 \lr{ \lr{ I_1 – 3 I_2 } \cos u + 4 I_2 \cos^3 u }.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The design procedure in the text sets $$\cos u = z/z_0$$, and then equates this to $$T_3(z) = 4 z^3 – 3 z$$ to determine the current amplitudes $$I_m$$. That is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:80}
\frac{ 2 I_1 – 6 I_2 }{z_0} z + \frac{8 I_2}{z_0^3} z^3 = -3 z + 4 z^3,
\end{equation}

or

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:100}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
I_1 \\
I_2
\end{bmatrix}
&=
{\begin{bmatrix}
2/z_0 & -6/z_0 \\
0 & 8/z_0^3
\end{bmatrix}}^{-1}
\begin{bmatrix}
-3 \\
4
\end{bmatrix} \\
&=
\frac{z_0}{2}
\begin{bmatrix}
3 (z_0^2 -1) \\
z_0^2
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

The currents in the array factor are fully determined up to a scale factor, reducing the array factor to

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:140}
\textrm{AF} = 4 z_0^3 \cos^3 u – 3 z_0 \cos u.
\end{equation}

The zeros of this array factor are located at the zeros of

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:120}
T_3( z_0 \cos u ) = \cos( 3 \cos^{-1} \lr{ z_0 \cos u } ),
\end{equation}

which are at $$3 \cos^{-1} \lr{ z_0 \cos u } = \pi/2 + m \pi = \pi \lr{ m + \inv{2} }$$

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:160}
\cos u = \inv{z_0} \cos\lr{ \frac{\pi}{3} \lr{ m + \inv{2} } } = \setlr{ 0, \pm \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2 z_0} }.
\end{equation}

showing that the scaling factor $$z_0$$ effects the locations of the zeros. It also allows the values at the extremes $$\cos u = \pm 1$$, to increase past the $$\pm 1$$ non-scaled limit values. These effects can be explored in this Mathematica notebook, but can also be seen in fig. 1.

The scale factor can be fixed for a desired maximum power gain. For $$R \textrm{dB}$$, that will be when

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:180}
20 \log_{10} \cosh( 3 \cosh^{-1} z_0 ) = R \textrm{dB},
\end{equation}

or

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:200}
z_0 = \cosh \lr{ \inv{3} \cosh^{-1} \lr{ 10^{\frac{R}{20}} } }.
\end{equation}

For $$R = 30$$ dB (say), we have $$z_0 = 2.1$$, and

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:chebychevDesign:220}
\textrm{AF}
= 40 \cos^3 \lr{ \frac{\pi d}{\lambda} \cos\theta } – 6.4 \cos \lr{ \frac{\pi d}{\lambda} \cos\theta }.
\end{equation}

These are plotted in fig. 2 (linear scale), and fig. 3 (dB scale) for a couple values of $$d/\lambda$$.

To explore the $$d/\lambda$$ dependence try this Mathematica notebook.

# References

 Constantine A Balanis. Antenna theory: analysis and design. John
Wiley & Sons, 3rd edition, 2005.

## Questions about bill C-51 to my “representative” John McCallum in parliment.

Hi John,

As a new home owner in the Markham-Unionville riding it appears you are my representative in parliament. I have some questions about the Canadian Bill C-51, which appears is being carried along with the spree of fear porn that the media is pushing after the recent shooting at the capital.

I would like to know the following:

– Who are the specific authors of this bill? If they were bureaucrats and lawyers that were not members of parliament themselves, who were the members of parliament that backed their work?

– Who are the primary financial backers of the members of parliament that either wrote or supported the writing of this bill?

– Are there any known copies of this bill that precede the capital shooting? If so, the same questions apply to the authors or supporters of those bills.

Sincerely,

Peeter Joot

A copy of this letter and any associated correspondence will be made publicly available.

## Updated notes for ece1229 antenna theory I’ve now posted a first update of my notes for the antenna theory course that I am taking this term at UofT.

Unlike most of the other classes I have taken, I am not attempting to take comprehensive notes for this class. The class is taught on slides which go by faster than I can easily take notes for (and some of which match the textbook closely). In class I have annotated my copy of textbook with little details instead. This set of notes contains musings of details that were unclear, or in some cases, details that were provided in class, but are not in the text (and too long to pencil into my book), as well as some notes Geometric Algebra formalism for Maxwell’s equations with magnetic sources (something I’ve encountered for the first time in any real detail in this class).

The notes compilation linked above includes all of the following separate notes, some of which have been posted separately on this blog:

## Image theorem

In the last problem set we examined the array factor for a corner cube configuration, shown in fig. 1.

### Motivation

This is a horizontal dipole antenna placed next to a metallic corner. The radiation at points in the interior of the cube have contributions due to the line of sight field from the antenna as well as reflections. We looked at an approximation of ground reflections using the \underlineAndIndex{Image Theorem}, modeling the ground as a perfectly conducting surface. I completely misunderstood that theorem and how it should be applied. As presented it seemed like a simple way to figure out the reflection characteristics. This confused me since it did not seem consistent with Fresnel reflection theory. I did try to reconcile to the two, but that reconciliation only appeared to work for certain dipole orientations, and that orientation dependence remained an open question.

It turns out that the idea of the Image Theorem is to find a source configuration that contains the specified source, but contains enough other sources that the tangential component of the electric field superposition is zero on the conducting surface, as required by Maxwell’s equations. This allows the boundary to be completely removed from the problem.

Thinking of the corner cube configuration as a reflection problem, I positioned sources as in fig. 2.

Because of the horizontal orientation of the dipole, I argued that the reflection coefficient should be -1. The reflection point is a bit messy to calculate, and it turns out to zeroth order in $$h/r$$ the $$\sin\theta$$ magnitude scaling of the reflected (far-field) field is present for both reflected rays. I though that this was probably because the observation point lays at the same altitude for both the line of sight ray and the reflected ray.

Attempting this problem as a reflection problem makes it much more difficult than it needs to be. It turns out that the correct image source placement for this problem is that of fig. 3.

This wasn’t at all obvious to me. The key is understanding that the goal of the image source placement isn’t to figure out how the reflection will occur, but to manufacture a source configuration for which the tangential component of the electric field is zero on the conducting surface.

### Image placement for infinite conducting plane.

Before thinking about the corner cube configuration, consider a horizontal dipole next to an infinite conducting plane. This, and the correct image source placement is illustrated in fig. 4.

I’ll now verify that this is the correct image source. This is basically a calculation that the tangential components of the electric fields from both sources sum to zero.

Let,

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:imageTheorem:20}
r = \Abs{\Bs – \Br_0},
\end{equation}

so that the magnetic vector potential for the first quadrant dipole has the form

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:imageTheorem:40}
\BA = \frac{A_0}{4 \pi r} e^{-j k r} \zcap.
\end{equation}

With

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:imageTheorem:60}
\begin{aligned}
\kcap &= \frac{\Bs – \Br_0}{s} \\
\tilde{\BE} &= \zcap – \lr{\zcap \cdot \kcap} \kcap,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

the far-field electric field at the point $$\Bs$$ on the plane is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:imageTheorem:80}
\BE = -j \omega \frac{A_0}{4 \pi r} e^{-j k r} \tilde{\BE}.
\end{equation}

If the normal to the plane is $$\ncap$$ the tangential component of this field is the projection of $$\BE$$ on the direction

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:imageTheorem:100}
\pcap = \frac{\kcap \cross \ncap}{\Abs{\kcap \cross \ncap}}.
\end{equation}

That tangential component is directed along

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:imageTheorem:120}
\lr{\tilde{\BE} \cdot \pcap } \pcap
=
\lr{\lr{\zcap – \lr{\zcap \cdot \kcap} \kcap} \cdot \lr{\kcap \cross \ncap}} \frac{\kcap \cross \ncap}{\Abs{\kcap \cross \ncap}^2}.
\end{equation}

Because the triple product $$\kcap \cdot \lr{\kcap \cross \ncap} = 0$$, the tangential component of the electric field, provided $$\kcap \cdot \ncap \ne 0$$, is

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:imageTheorem:140}
\BE_\parallel
=
-j \omega \frac{A_0}{4 \pi r} e^{-j k r} \zcap \cdot \lr{\kcap \cross \ncap} \frac{\kcap \cross \ncap}{ 1 – \lr{ \ncap \cdot \kcap }^2 }.
\end{equation}

Now the wave vector direction for the second quadrant ray on the plane is required. Both $$\kcap’$$ and $$\Bs’$$ are reflections across the plane. Any such reflection has the value

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:imageTheorem:160}
\begin{aligned}
\Bx’
&= \lr{ \Bx \wedge \ncap} \ncap – \lr{ \Bx \cdot \ncap } \ncap \\
&= – \lr{ \ncap \wedge \Bx + \ncap \cdot \Bx } \ncap \\
&= – \ncap \Bx \ncap.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This multivector product nicely encapsulates the reflection operation. Consider a reflection against the y-z plane with normal $$\Be_1$$ to verify that this works

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:imageTheorem:180}
\begin{aligned}
-\Be_1 \Bx \Be_1
&=
-\Be_1 \lr{ x \Be_1 + y \Be_2 + z \Be_3 } \Be_1 \\
&=
-\lr{ x – y \Be_2 \Be_1 + z \Be_3 \Be_1 } \Be_1 \\
&=
-\lr{ x \Be_1 – y \Be_2 + z \Be_3 } \\
&=
– x \Be_1 + y \Be_2 + z \Be_3.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

This has the x component flipped in sign and the rest left untouched as desired for a reflection in the y-z plane.

The second quadrant field will have $$\kcap’ \cross \ncap$$ terms in place of all the $$\kcap \cross \ncap$$ terms of \ref{eqn:imageTheorem:140}. We want to know how the two compare. This calculation is simply done using the dual form of the cross product temporarily

\begin{equation}\label{eqn:imageTheorem:200}
\begin{aligned}
\kcap’ \cross \ncap
&=
-I \lr{ \kcap’ \wedge \ncap} \\
&=
&=
-I \gpgradetwo{ {-\ncap \kcap \ncap} \ncap} \\
&=
I \gpgradetwo{ \ncap \kcap } \\
&=
I \ncap \wedge \kcap \\
&=
-\ncap \cross \kcap \\
&=
\kcap \cross \ncap.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

So, provided the image source in the second quadrant is oppositely oriented (sign inversion), the tangential components of the two will sum to zero on that surface.

Thinking back to the corner cube, it is clear that an image source opposite to the source across from one of the walls will result in a zero tangential electric field along this boundary as is the case here (say the y-z plane). A second pair of sources opposite from each other anywhere else also about the y-z plane will not change that zero tangential electric field on this surface, but if the signs of the sources is alternated as in fig. 3 it will also result in zero tangential electric field on the z-x plane, which has the desired boundary value effects for both surfaces of the corner cube.