Pyramidal Horn Gain Prediction : Evolution of Formulations

K.T. Selvan, P.H. Rao, P. Ramakrishna, B. Subba Rao SAMEER Centre for Electromagnetics,2nd Cross Road, ClT Campus, Taramani, Madras 600 113.

Introduction :

Calibration of antennas for state-of-the-art field strength measurements above 1 GHz needs standard antennas that have given values known to within f0.1 dB.Since this requirement often exceeds the verified accuracy of calculated gain values, these standards must in general be established by making absolute gain measurements. However the required precision measurements are "costly and complex". Therefore attempts have been continuing to accurately predict the gain of standard EMC antennas. The pyramidal horn antenna, by virtue of its such desirable features as gain stability, accurate gain computability, ruggedness and wide bandwidth, is one of the most widely used antennas for generating standard electromagnetic field. Naturally the prediction of its gain is significant. The advent of the geometrical theory of diffraction, in particular, has led to various formulations to predict the pyramidal horn gain. All these methods aim to match as close as possible with measuremedt. In this paper the rather interesting evolution of pyramidal horn gain prediction formulations is examined. Their relative performance is also discussed.
Evolution of formulations :
An expression for tne far-field on-axis gain of the pyramidal horn was derived originally by Schelkunoff [l]. The chief assumption in this derivation is that the field distribution over the wave front is the same as would exist if the horn were continued. It has
476

since been found that for small horns of < 10 dBi gain, this formda can be as much as 1 dB in error. Braun 2 2 3 improved Schelkunoffs formula by incorporating the space phase error, determined by the distance of the receiving aperture fiom the transmitting aperture. He thereby showed that the point at which the true far-field gain is realized cannot be D % . He specified by the expression 2 presented a set of E- and H- plane correction curves to be used for correcting the gain measured at finite ranges. Questioning Braunls assumption that the transmitted power could be averaged over the receiving aperture, Chu and Semplak [3] used the near-field power transmission formula to calculate the correction ratios. In a more recent work Monk 141 compared finite range corrections computed from the methods of Brauh and Chu and Semplak. Pointing out that the two methods make several common approximations, he attributed the difference between the- two correction factors to Braun's additional &sumption of averaging the incident field over the receive horn aperture. Monk hrther deduced that Chu and Semplak's equations are more exact than Braun's. Where as the methods of Braun and Chu and Semplak were intended to be used to correct gain measured by two-antenna method at close ranges to give correct farfield gai4 Jull [5,6] presented explicit txpressions for predicting the on-axis gain of pyramidal horn by incorporating finiterange effects into Schelkunoff s formula. Further he employed the geometrical theory of diffraction to include multiple diffraction

and dieacted fields reflected fiom the horn interior in an approximate way in the Schelkunoffs gain formula and reported some improvement in agreement with experiment. The path length error approximation that characterized all these works was avoided by Maybell [7], who used numerical integration for the direct calculation of the gain correction factors. His analysis, however, did not include difiaction effects fiom the aperture edges. As it stands now, Maybell's seems to be the latest reported work on pyramidal horn gain prediction. However, it is perhaps not the most accurate of the available formulations, as it does not consider diffraction effects. Numerical results : The following table compares the far-field gain of a pyramidal horn with a = 19.441 cm, b = 14.399 cm, LE =31.9996 cm, and LH = 34.2509 cm, as computed based on these formulations at a frequency of 10 GHz with the measured results of Slayton [7] and English [7]. English's result is taken to be the benchmark for reference.
Author

and Jull (with single diffraction term) also. For horns with small gains, difEaction terms probably become significant and therefore Jull's multi-difltiaction approach can be expected to work better. However, it is difficult to ascertain without accurate experimental data, which of the approaches is closest to the measurement. Thus the "costly and complex" measurement process is nevertheless needed for obtaining horn gain data to aid hrther study on theoretical formulations. References:
1. S.A.Schelkunoff, "Electromagneticwaves," D.Van Nostrand,1943, pp. 360-365.
2.

E.H. Braun, "Gain of electromagnetic horns", Proc. IRE,vol. 41, pp 109-1 15,
January 1953.

3. T.S. Chu and R.A. Semplak, "Gain of electromagnetic horns, "Bell Syst. Tech.J., vol. 44, pp. 527-537, March 1965.

4. A.D. Monk, "Pyramidal horn gain prediction and finite range correction, " Marconi Review, pp. 224-243, Fourth Quarter 198 1.
5. E.V. Jull, "Finite-range gain of sectoral and pyramidal horns," Electron Lett., vol. 6, pp. 680-681, October 15, 1970.

English (Measurement) Slayton (Measurement) Schelkunoff

22.252

+O.OOO

22.250
22.385 22.385 22.385 22.174 22.234 22.265

+ 0.002

" B
Jull ( w i t hsingle diniaction ) Jull (double diffraction) Jull (horn in!enor diffraction)

- 0.133 - 0.133
+ 0.078 + 0.018

- 0.133

6. E.V. Jull "Errors in the predicated gain of pyramidal horns," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-21, pp. 25-31, January 1973.

7 . M.J. Maybell, "Pyramidal horn gafn

calculation with improved accuracy," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP 41, pp. 884-889, July 1993.

Ma*fl

- 0.013

Concluding comments : It has been noted [7] that for moderately large horns with gains in excess of 15 dB, the classical formula of Schelkunoff is accurate to about 0.2 d B b or better and that for small horns of <10 dB gain, it can be as much as 1 dB in error. Understandably, these accuracy estimates would hold for the results of Braun
471