Tyler

Anderson
Lab 2 Ring Resonator Lab
11/12/13

Introduction

Microwaves are a critical component of telecommunications, radar, and for heating in

microwave ovens and various industrial processes. Microwaves are an electromagnetic wave
that has a wave length shorter than a normal radio wave, but longer than an infrared wave.
Figure A shows where a microwave exists in the electromagnetic spectrum:

Figure A

In this lab report, the theory of microwave loss from a ring resonator will be explored,

and an analysis will help us conclude vital properties of the material. Two different ring
resonators (Alumina and FR4) will be used, and the dielectric constant, effective permittivity,
and the quality factor for each resonant device will be calculated. Causes of systematic and
random error will be discussed, along with a study of what factors contribute most to relative
error of the measured properties.


Experimental Apparatus

This lab experiment took place in the Electro-materials Test Lab in the Millennium Science
Complex. Optical Comparator

Capacitor
The capacitor that is designed in this lab is composed of thin polypropylene film with
evaporated aluminum on one side. Two small pieces of this film are cut, and the polypropylene
sides are then glued together, creating a parallel plate capacitor. The aluminum acts as the
conductor, and the polypropylene acts as the dielectric in between the conductor.

Aluminum

Polypropylene

LCR Meter

The LCR Meter is used to measure the

capacitance of the aluminum-polypropylene
capacitor. The meter determines the
capacitance by measuring the number of
coulombs per volt. The capacitance along with
the area is then used to calculate relative
permittivity.

Figure 1: "LCR Meter"

Dielectric Breakdown Apparatus

The Dielectric Breakdown Apparatus is the machine that is used to measure the breakdown
voltage level in a piece of thin-film polypropylene film. The Apparatus contains a 30kV source
that applies 500 V/s to the film until failure. The film is held by The Mushroom, which
contains high voltage connectors with interlock. A connected computer plots voltage vs. time,
and with this information the breakdown voltage can be calculated.

Data Analysis

Individual Data Analysis

For my ring resonator analysis, I used the alumina sample. The table below shows the initial
experimental results from my experiment:

Line Width
.277 mm
Sample Thickness
.654 mm
Ring Diameter
9.753 mm
Frequency
3.932 GHz
S21 Magnitude Peak
-21.6 dB
F
34.96 MHZ


The Quality factor is energy stored vs. energy lost, which is key when dealing with ring
resonating systems. The Quality Factor of the sample can be calculated using the following
formula while solving for r:

fo
QL =
3dBf

QL = 112.47
= 1.86
Parameters
Resonant Frequency (f0) = 3.932 GHz * 1000
Bandwidth at Half-Power ( )) = 34.96 MHz



Next, the effective permittivity can be calculated using the following equation while solving for
eeff. This permittivity is calculated at the resonant frequency of the substrate. At resonant
frequency it is assumed that the circumference of the ring is a whole number of frequency, thus
allowing the output signal to reach a maximum value. Therefore, the resulting equation for
permittivity at this value is:

Co n
Df
Rn

eff ( f Rn ) =

eff = 6.19

Parameters:
8
2

Speed of Light (C0) = 3 x 10 m/s
Nodes (n) = 1

Middle Diameter (D) = 9.753 mm

Resonant Frequency (fRn) = 3.932 GHz




Last, the relative dielectric constant can be determined. The relative dielectric constant is
established on both the shape of the ring resonator, and the effective permittivity of the
material. Figure X shows the dimensions of the ring resonator that are necessary for the
calculations.


The equation below relates all these factors to obtain our desired value r:

2 eff

r =

1 + 1 + 12 + 0.041

W
h

2
h

1 + 1 + 12

Parameters:
Height (h) = .654 mm
Width (w) = .277 mm
Effective Permittivity (eff) = 6.19

r = 9.77

Error Analysis

After all the class calculations were complete, it was vital to do an error analysis on the data to
determine lead causes of random and systematic error in the process. In the original excel
sheet, there were some error in excel input which were corrected in order to compute an
accurate error analysis. The below chart (Figure X) shows the average, variance, and relative
error of each measured constant and variable during the laboratory:

FR4
Variable

ALUMINA

Average

Variance

Line Width,
mm

3.024

0.125

11.71%

0.220

0.002

20.71%

Sample
Thickness,
mm

1.626

0.003

3.33%

0.652

0.000

1.41%

25.583

0.016

0.50%

9.741

0.010

1.03%

1.000

0.000

0.00%

1.000

0.000

0.00%

2.050

0.000

0.57%

3.959

0.003

1.28%

S21 Mag
Peak, dB
D f, MHz

-23.353

0.717

3.62%

-25.225

3.779

7.71%

46.949

3.109

3.76%

38.214

23.207

12.61%

QL

43.727

2.920

3.91%

104.306

155.331

11.95%

eeff

3.311

0.003

1.53%

6.141

0.039

3.20%

er

4.384

0.004

1.47%

9.834

0.141

3.82%

Ring
Dia.,mm
node
Frequency,
GHz

Rel Error

Average

Variance

Rel Error

Average, variance, and relative error were calculated using methods below:

Average: Average was calculated using the AVERAGE function on excel, which just takes
the mean of all the values
Variance: Variance (2) is calculated using the VAR function on excel, which implements
the following formula:

 Relative Error: Relative error is computed on excel by taking the absolute value of the
standard deviation of the data divided by the average, thus using this formula:

Relative Error = /

Standard deviation is a measure of how far data points are away from the average
value. So when standard deviation is small compared to average, all the collected data
points are close together, thus relative error is small.

When an error in a preliminary measurement such as diameter thickness or frequency occurs,
this error can propagate to the final desired value that is sought. The leading cause of error for
quality factor, effective permittivity, and relative permittivity are shown below. The leading
causes of error are calculate by substituting the relative error values of the preliminary
measurements into the formulas for the final constants we want to solve for, and then
determining which preliminary measurements sway the final calculations the most. If a vital
variable in the calculation has a high relative error, than it is a leading cause of relative error in
the final constant. In the below chart, Variable is the variable that contributes most to
relative error within the final calculations:

FR4
Final
Constant

Relative
Err

Variable

Var Rel
Error

QL

3.91%

3.76%

eeff

1.53%

Frequency

0.57%

er

1.47%

Line Width

11.71%

ALUMINA
Final
Constant

Relative
Err

Variable

Var Rel
Error

QL

11.95%

eeff

3.20%

Frequency

1.28%

er

3.82%

Line Width

1.28%

12.61%

Although already shown in the above table, we are going to take at the analysis of why
frequency as opposed to diameter is the leading cause of error in effective permittivity. The
relative error equation for effective permittivity is:

Since both frequency and diameter have an equal weight in the formula, frequency is the

higher contributor to error in effective permeability because it has the higher relative error. The
table below shows the values calculated from the left side of the equation and the right side of
the equation for both FR4 and Alumina:
FR4
Left Side
Value
1.53%

Right Side
Value
1.521%

%
Difference
0.50%

ALUMINA
Left Side
Value
3.20%

%
Right Side Value Difference
3.29%
2.77%

Thus, both methods of determining relative error of effective permittivity produce similar
results.

Results and Conclusions

In an experiment, when a measurement error occurs early on in an experiment, the

error cans detriment further calculations in the experiment. This theory is called error
propagation. In this lab, there were two phases to preliminary measurements: dimensioning of

the substrate using the optical comparator, and frequency calculating using the network
analyzer. Both of these measurement devices contributed to error propagations; however, for
the relative permittivity calculation, the network analyzer impeded a correct final value.
During the dimensioning part of the lab, there were several causes of random and
systematic error in the values. One systematic error was the measurement of the substrate
thickness. In Equation 5, which is a formula for determining the relative permittivity, the
thickness of air around the microstrip conductor is not included in the equation, even though it
lowers the overall dielectric constants of the material. Furthermore, random error is a major
part of measuring the line width and diameter. Even though the optical comparator is a precise
instrument, human error in this part of the experiment occurred in both the measurement of
the micro strip conductors, and possibly the manufacturing of the substrates. The material
manufacturer possible only had to make the ring resonator within a range of predetermined
specs, thus causing slightly different measurements in diameter values.
Although the dimensioning of the ring resonator caused error propagations, the
network analyzer was more to blame for error propagation in effective permittivity. Frequency
was the leading cause of error in effective permittivity calculations, and the frequency was
measured by taking the center frequency of the first peak of the sweep. There are a couple of
possible reasons for error in this analysis. This first reason could be the placement of the ring
resonator into the inter-continental micro strip fixture. Slightly different placements could
cause a different frequency in which D = n. Another potential cause of error in frequency
calculation could be the resolution of the oscilloscope that captures the waveforms. Although
we maximized resolution on the graph by focusing in on peaks, it is probable that each person
had a slightly different first peak due to the internal processing of the machine. Last, another
reason for error in frequency measurement is similar to one of the errors in diameter
measurement: the manufacturing specs of the substrates could be slightly different for every
sample. However; considering all factors, the relative error of the frequency and diameter were
both comparatively low for this experiment.
When calculating material properties and constants, it is instrumental to know how the
calculated values compare to literature values. For the relative dielectric constant of alumina,

the value from literature is 9.3 and our calculated value is 9.8. For the relative dielectric
constant of FR4, the value from literature is 4.8, and our calculated value is 4.384.



In Experiment 2, error in breakdown voltage could be caused by a few factors. The main issue
that would cause huge error would be placing the evaporated aluminum side of the thin film
downwards. In this case, the thin film conducting aluminum would be in contact with the
bottom conducting copper electrode, thus negating energy storage and capacitance. This would
cause the breakdown voltage to be much smaller than expected. Other causes of deviance from
the mean would be the placement of the foil on The Mushroom and the size of the piece of
foil cut. These factors could either increase or decrease breakdown voltages, depending on
relative placement or size magnitude. When the material reached its breakdown voltage, a
spark and hole formed in the material, thus indicating failure.







Figure 4: Failed Polypropylene Film

Weibull statistics were used
to help analyze error and predict characteristic breakdown strength. The Weibull modulus helps
to predict variability in the breakdown of brittle materials, or in this case the polypropylene
film.

Even though all the samples are practically identical, origins of flaws and defect diverge from
sample to sample. The higher the Weibull modulus, the less variability there is in breakdown
strength. The Weibull modulus in this experiment was 4.85, indicating that the results should
follow the standard Gaussian bell curve. This number can be heightened if the outliers were
removed in this experience. Using the Weibull modulus, the breakdown strength of a 10F
capacitor was estimated. This breakdown strength was lower then the calculated
breakdown strength of the 2.33 nF capacitor. Since thickness and material were held
constant, the area of this larger capacitor had to increase. A larger area capacitor with
constant material and thickness would have more defects and flaws, thus being more
susceptible to failure at a lower voltage. Therefore, this marvel makes smaller capacitors
even more useful in electronics.

Statistical analysis of class data also helped to calculate the characteristic breakdown
strength, relative permittivity, and energy density of polypropylene-aluminum film. The
breakdown strength was 7.59 x 108 V/m, and compared to most solid material, this number is
very high. For example, most glass is around 15 MV/m, most plastics are in the range of
17MV/m, and the majority of ceramic materials are around 10V/m. The reason for such high
breakdown strength is that polypropylene is an insulating thin film. The average relative
permittivity of the film was 1.87, which is a moderately small value compared to other
materials. Materials such as wood, nylon, and rubber all have higher values. Last, energy
density was estimated to be around 4.77 MJ/m3 , or 4.77KJ/L. Compared to other energy
storage materials, the energy density of polypropylene is rather small. Common energy storage
materials such as a battery (6.02 MJ/L), diesel fuel (37.4MJ/L), and Uranium
(1,546,000,000MJ/L) have much greater energy densities. These devices tower over
polypropylene because they use chemical and nuclear properties to store energy, whereas
polypropylene-aluminum energy density is caused by electricity, a much lower form of energy.

Suggestions

Overall, this lab was a success. I learned a lot about using statistics and error analysis to
quantify material failure. Better capacitor construction process and more time discussing the
features of the Electro-materials test lab could improve the experience even more.

References:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/relative-permittivity-d_1660.html