Comparison of Models for the Impedance of a Probe

in a Parallel Plate Waveguide and a Microstrip Patch

Hao Xu, David R. J ackson, and J effery T. Williams
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Houston, Houston, Texas, 77204-4005, USA
Introduction
Four different models for the input impedance of a cylindrical coaxial-fed probe
of radius a in an infinite parallel plate waveguide of height h (Fig.1) are
compared. These models include a uniformcurrent model, a cosine current model,
a gap voltage source model, and a coaxial frill model. These different models treat
the vertical variation of the fields within the substrate and the field with varying
degrees of rigor. The simplest one assumes a uniformcurrent on the probe. The
second one assumes that the probe current has a cosine function variation along
the length of the probe. The third model assumes that a voltage excites the probe
across a finite vertical gap between the probe and the ground plane, in the region
0 <z <A. The fourth model assumes a radial l l p distribution of impressed field
Ep across the aperture feed, which corresponds to the TEM mode of the feeding
coaxial cable (inner radius a, outer radius b). Numerical HFFS simulation data is
also compared with the results of these models in order to draw reliable
conclusions about the accuracy of these models as a function of the substrate
thickness.
As an extension of these results, a simple CAlD formula for the probe inductance
of a coaxial feed probe for a rectangular microstrip patch antenna (Fig. 2) is also
introduced.
Summary of Models for a ]Probe in Parallel-Plate
Waveguide
A. Uniform Current Model.
If a uniform z-directed surface current on the probe is assumed, the probe
impedance can be readily obtained as [l], [2]
where kb and r ] l are the wavenumber and intrinsic impedance of the substrate,
respectively.
0-7803-7846-6/03/517.00 62003 IEEE 124
B. Cosine Current Model
An improved model assumes that the surface current density is a cosine
function, I ( z ) =I , cos@, ( z - h)) . Using this current, the field within the
waveguide is found by a Fourier series analysis. The complex power radiated into
the waveguide is then found, and fromthis the input impedance is obtained as [3]
C. Gap feed Model
In this model the feed is assumed to be a region of impressed uniformvertical
electric field in the region O< z < A on the surface of the metal probe,
corresponding to a one Volt feed. After matching the boundary condition at
p =a [3], the input admittance is found fromthe current at z =0 as
L
D. Magnetic Frill Model
In this model the coax aperture is closed off with conductor by the equivalence
principle, and a magnetic surface current is placed on the bottomconducting plate
in the region a <p <b . For a one-volt feed, the current I ( z ) on the metal probe
is then determined exactly by using reciprocity [3], and the input admittance is
found fromthe current at z =0. Omitting the details, the final result is
Probe Feed for a Rectangular Patch Antenna
The probe inductance of a rectangular microstrip antenna (Fig. 2) varies with the
feed position, and this is not accounted for by the infinite parallel-plate waveguide
model. To address this problem, it is noted that the patch has approximately a
PMC boundary at the four edges. Using image theory, the field inside the patch
cavity is the sumof the contributions fromthe original probe and an infinite two-
125
dimensional set of images. If the probe is close to an edge, there will be one
image current with a primary influence. If we just take only one image current
into account, and use the uniformcurrent model, the following formula for the
probe impedance is obtained,
where s is the distance of the probe center to the nearest edge
Results
Figure 3 shows that the uniform, cosine, and frill models agree well when the
waveguide height h is small. But when the height becomes large, the three models
begin to diverge significantly fromone another. The HFFS simulation data agrees
with the frill model very well, even when the height of the waveguide reaches a
quarter of a wavelength.
An interesting observation, based on numerical experimentation, is that that gap
provided the ratio of the probe radius a (the i.nner radius of the frill) to the outer
radius of the frill b is chosen to correspond to a 50 P coax.
The probe reactance for a cylindrical probe feed in a rectangular patch antenna
(Fig. 2) is calculated in three different ways: Z;, fromEq. (l), Z,? fromEq. (5),
and an accurate calculation fromthe cavity model. Fromthis comparison (not
shown here), it appears that a good approxi.mate CAD formula for the probe
reactance is Z, , =max( Z , , , Z p ) . With this formula, the maximum error occurs
at the intersection point of the two curves, and is about 552.
model agrees very well with the frill model if a gap height A =(b - 0) / 3 is used,
Conclusions
All four models agree (uniform, cosine, gap, and frill) agree well for small
waveguide heights, but the differences become quite large as the waveguide
height increases. The fiill model is the most accurate of the four, and agrees well
with numerical HFFS results, even for large heights. The gap source model gives
results that are almost identical to the frill model, provided the size of the gap
source is chosen as A =( b - U ) / 3 .
The case of a coaxial probe feed for a rectangular microstrip patch antenna was
also considered. The finite dimensions of the patch cause the probe impedance to
deviate quite a bit fromthe infinite parallel-plate waveguide results. However, a
simple one-termimage theory correction to the infinite parallel-plate waveguide
impedance was shown to give satisfactory results for the probe impedance of the
patch antenna.
126
References
[ I ] D.C. Chang, On the Electrically Thick Monopole, Part 1 - Theoretical
Solution IEEE
[2] W.F. Richards, J .R. Zinecker, R. D. Clark, and S. A. Long. Experimental
and Theoretical Investigation of the Inductance Associated with the
Microstrip Antenna Feed. Electromugnetics, Vol. 3, no. 3-4, J uly-Dec.
1983.
Trans. Antennas undPropugut., Vol. AP-16, J an 1968.
[3] R. F. Hamngton, Time-Hurmonic Electromagnetic Fields, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., New York, 1961.
5
C
a
Fig. 1. Coaxial probe feed in an Fig. 2. Coaxial probe feed for a
infinite parallel-plate waveguide. rectangular microstrip patch antenna.
. . . . . . . . Uniform current model 1 1
500 I
1
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Cosine current model
_ _ _ _
0 HFFS simulation
0 0.005 0.01 0.01 5 0.02 0.025
Fig. 3. Probe resistance versus the height of the waveguide h in meters. E, =2.2,
U =0.635 mm, f= 2 GHz, Z, =50 Q (corresponding to b =2.19 mm).
127