RADAR UNWANTED

EMMISSIONS

ITU WP 8B Radar Seminar

A personal
view
J R Holloway

September 2005 GENEVA

All data in this presentation comes from
public domain sources

Unwanted Emission Limits

Before 2003 no SE limit for radar

From 2003 new radars must meet Cat A or Cat B SE limits
Cat A -60 dB
Cat B -100 dB
Class B being proposed to be adopted in Europe.
OOB Definition of the extent by the emission masks
Current Mask
Design Aim
Status of Limits
SE levels part of radio regulations
Boundary part of regulation
OOB mask is a recommendation
Design aim for new OOB 2006/2012
7

Current Unwanted Emission

Limits Cat A&B
Current Unwanted Emission Mask
Cat A

0
Power dB

-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
0.1

10

Cat B

100

x BW-40dB Bandwidth
8

Design Aim

When the OOB Mask was introduced a

design aim was also introduced.
This proposed to increase the Roll off
to 40 dB/dec
If this is not agreed then the aim falls
JRG is considering what should
replace the design aim

Design Aim Unwanted Emissions Cat

A&B

Power dB

"Design Aim" Unwanted Emission

Cat A
Mask
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
0.1

10

Cat B

100

x Bw-40dB
10

Problems With Current Mask

Mask perceived to be too relaxed at

estimating 40 dB Bandwidth
Mask perceived to be too relaxed in
terms of Roll-off for trapezoidal
pulses
Magnetron Radars find it difficult to
meet current mask
Impossible to meet design aim
11

Problems With Mask

Mask perceived to be too relaxed
at estimating 40 dB Bandwidth
Mask perceived to be too relaxed
in terms of Roll-off for trapezoidal
pulses.
Magnetron Radars find it difficult
to meet current mask

Impossible to meet design aim

12

Sensitivity of Equation for Bw-40 FM

Pulsed

Bw-40dB gets large when

tr0
Bc gets large

B 40

K
A
2 Bc
tr
t tr

14

FM Trapezoidal Pulses vs Mask

Mask
15 MHz

Value
10 MHz

15

Practical Bandwidths

Measured
MHz

Calculated
16
MHz

3 dB BW

20 dB BW

40 dB BW

3 dB BW

20 dB BW

40 dB
BW

2.5

3.6

10

2.5

7.8

25.7

16

Problems With Mask

Mask perceived to be too relaxed
at estimating 40 dB Bandwidth
Mask perceived to be too relaxed
in terms of Roll-off for trapezoidal
pulses.
Magnetron Radars find it difficult
to meet current mask

Impossible to meet design aim

17

Trapezoidal Pulse

Two roll-off rates

20 dB/dec
40 dB/dec

20 dB/dec

40 dB/dec

19

Problems With Mask

Mask perceived to be too relaxed
at estimating 40 dB Bandwidth
Mask perceived to be too relaxed
in terms of Roll-off for trapezoidal
pulses.
Magnetron Radars find it difficult
to meet current mask

Impossible to meet design aim

21

Magnetron: Difficult to meet

current OOB Limits
Marine Navigation Radar
X band Magnetron - Short Pulse Mode

0
-10

Failure

Radar An tenna Fixed

-20

Radar An tenna Rotating

Mask

-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
8.00

8.25

8.50

8.75

9 .00

9.25

9.50

9.75

10.00

10.25

10.50

10.75

Frequency (GHz)

22

Coaxial Magnetron: Cat B Limits

Failure Zones
Meteorological Radar - Ground Based
C band Magnetron
0

N
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d
P
o
w
e
rM
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
i
n
5
1
1
K
H
z
B
w
(
d
B
)

-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
5.3

5.3

5.4

5.4

5.5

5.5

5.6

5.6

5.7

5.7

5.8

5.8

5.9

5.9

6.0

6.0

Frequency (GHz)

23

JRG Work on New Mask

Looking into how a better estimate of the reference

bandwidth.
Non linear chirps
Limit excessive bandwidths due to

Large Chirps

Fast Rise Times

Looking into what roll-off can be practically achieved
How Roll-off Relates to RB
Looking into the special problems associated with.
Magnetron based radars
FM CW radars
24

Trade Off Reference Bandwidth

vs Roll-off

If the Reference Bandwidth is accurately calculated

20 dB roll-off looks achievable
40 dB roll-off looks difficult
These are theoretical however in practice distortions
make things worse

26

Practical Issues To Reduce

Unwanted Emissions

Use High Compression ratios

Use slow rise and fall times
Shape pulses to remove
discontinuities
Use Filters

27

Practical Issues cont

Magnetrons
Below rotation can use high Q filters
Multi pulse length systems have to use a
filter wide enough to meet narrowest pulse
Above rotation systems have limited space
OOB match of filters could upset
Magnetron and cause more emissions
Cost

28

Practical Issues Filters

Are Lossy can contribute twice TX & RX

Can cause wild heat (active arrays)
Can take up space
Can cause oscillation out of band if not
well matched
Can distort want signal if too narrow
Limit the peak power due to arcing
Costly
29

Practical Issues

Linear Beam Tube Transmitters

Can use moderate compression ratios
Difficult to control rise and fall times
Single channel systems can use High
Q channel Filters
Agile systems can only use band
limiting filters
See Illustration
30

Practical Issues cont:

Solid State Lumped Transmitters

Can use higher compression ratios
Easier to control rise and fall times
(slow down)
Single channel systems can use
High Q channel Filters
Agile systems can only use band
limiting filters of High Q
35

Practical Issues cont:

Solid State Distributed Transmitters

Can use higher compression ratios
Easier to control rise and fall times
Agile systems can only use band
limiting filters with a moderate Q

36

Practical Issues

Active Array Systems

Can use very high compression
ratios
Difficult to control rise and fall
times
Agile systems can only use band
limiting filters of very low Q
Or Low pass filters
37

Illustration: Solid State ATC

Can make use off

Fixed Operating Frequencies
Long pulses
Slow rise & fall times

Many radar applications cannot

make use of all these
advantages
38

Solid State ATC radar

Civil Air Traffic Control Radar - Ground Based
S band Solid State
Known interference signals removed
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
2

10

11

12

13

14

Frequency (GHz)

39

Conclusions to Date

Currently there is some scope for improving the

mask
Solid State systems are better than linear beam
devices and cross field devices
Larger time bandwidth products
There some scope for pulse shaping in Solid State
transmitters
OOB Filters are effective for fixed frequency systems
Agile systems are more problematic
Limited scope for OOB control

OOB control not realistic in active arrays

40

END
Thank you
John Holloway

41