Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
X, FEBRUARY 20XX
I. D EFINITIONS
ARIOUS definitions1 given so far for reference and cross
polarizations [1][3] are presented below.
Ludwig-1: Projection of the electric field vector onto the
two Cartesian unit vectors x
and y lying in the aperture plane
uref = y
(1)
u
cross = x
.
u
ref = sin cos 2+cos2
1sin sin
(2)
cos
u
cross = cos sin
.
2
2
1sin sin
u
cross = cos sin .
1
cos tan ( )
(5)
II. S UMMARY
OF THE
P REVIOUS C ONCLUSIONS
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. XX, NO. X, FEBRUARY 20XX
~ linearly
E
~E
polarized (kx , ky , kz ) = G (, )
~ circular disc (, )
E
quasiarray
=
=
TABLE I
FAR -F IELD G REEN S F UNCTIONS C ORRESPONDING TO U NIT-I MPULSE
E LECTRIC AND M AGNETIC C URRENT S OURCES O RIENTED A LONG
D IFFERENT D IRECTIONS [7]
~ E (, )
G
cos cos sin
cos sin + cos
Source Current
J~e = (x) (y) (z) x
sin
sin cos cos
cos cos sin
sin
jkejkr
4r
where =
(6)
Z 2
~ E [, ( )] exp [jk0 sin cos ( )] d d
A ()
A () G
0
( 0
)
(
)
i
X h
X
(ml) Hankel
jm
E
~
Cm
Dl () 2 (j)
A,(ml) () e
m=
~ circular ring (, )
E
quasiarray
= R0
(7)
l=
i
X h
X
(ml)
E
jm
~
Cm
D () 2 (j)
J(ml) (k0 R0 sin ) e
= R0
m=
l=
(8)
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. XX, NO. X, FEBRUARY 20XX
TABLE II
P OLARIZATION D EFINITIONS AND THEIR C ORRESPONDING O PTIMAL
S OURCE C URRENTS
Polarization Definition
J~e
Source Current(s)*
J~m
Ludwig-2 ( = 0)
Ludwig-3I ( = 1)
Ludwig-3II ( = )
(sin x
cos y)
() =
(11)
~ E (, ) represents the
For the case of circular quasi-arrays, G
element pattern of the element placed at = 0.
From (6), it is evident that in the case of unidirectional
sources, overall far-field pattern is multiplication of space
factor with the corresponding far-field Greens function. So,
for a unidirectional source, entire polarization information
is preserved in the Greens function alone. This type of
simplification is not possible for the case of non-unidirectional
sources as can be seen from (7) and (8). In such cases, overall
polarization information can only be obtained by evaluating
the entire field pattern.
From the above discussion, it can be concluded that a standard cross-polarization can only be defined for unidirectional
sources. In practice, such a definition is very useful because
many practical antennas are nominally unidirectional (e.g.,
microstrip rectangular patch antenna, horn antenna).
6 An antenna system composed of identical but not neccessarily identically
oriented elements is defined as quasi-array [8]. In particular, in this paper, it
is assumed that the orientation of elements is a function of as denoted in
(7) and (8).
7 In deriving (8), radius of the circular ring quasi-array is assumed to be
R0 (i.e., A () = ( R0 )).
All the previous cross polarization definitions were primarily defined for either electric, magnetic or Huygens current
elements. For different polarization definitions and their corresponding optimal sources, please refer to Table II. It is
evident from the table that a definition which is optimal for
electric dipole element cannot be optimal for either magnetic
or Huygens element and vice versa. Since Ludwig-3II is
optimal for the E-field aperture model (i.e., for magnetic
current source), it cannot simultaneously be optimal for the
H-field aperture model. Therefore, the ideal definition for the
H-field aperture source is the Ludwig-2 definition.
From the above discussion, it would make sense to combine
all the previous definitions by treating the radiating source
as a hybrid element. In order to combine them, one more
parameter is used in this paper. The parameter (not to be
confused with the permittivity) is the same one that was used
in [5] to characterize the perfect feed for reflector antennas.
Thus, introduction of into the polarization definition has two
purposes:
1) represents the combination of two mutually orthogonal
electric and magnetic current sources.
2) To induce parallel currents on a reflector, feed source
should be a hybrid element with magnetic to electric
strength ratio equal to , where is the eccentricity of
the reflector [5].
So, for a hybrid element (J~e =
y and J~m =
x,
as shown in the inset of Fig. 3), radiated electric field can
be obtained through Table I and is given by (12). If the
hybrid element is further rotated8 counterclockwise about the
origin in the xy-plane by an angle R , then its normalized
polarization direction is given by (13). For equals to 0, 1 and
, (13) reduces9 to the Ludwig-2, Ludwig-3I and Ludwig-3II
definitions, respectively.
If the AUT needs to be rotated in any arbitrary direction,
then Euler angles R and R can be used [12]. For the
sequence of rotation, please see the numbering denoted in Fig.
3. There are many different conventions to choose possible
Euler angles. However, in this paper, authors stick to the
notation shown in Fig. 3. The orthogonal rotation matrix
the time being, Euler angles R and R are assumed to be zero.
values for Ludwig-2, Ludwig-3I and Ludwig-3II are 0, 0 and
( + 90 ), respectively.
8 For
9 R
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. XX, NO. X, FEBRUARY 20XX
h
i
~ hybrid = sin (cos + ) + cos (1 + cos )
E
u
ref = q
2
sin R (cos + ) + cos R (1 + cos )
1 cos2 ( R ) sin2 + 2 cos + 1 sin2 ( R ) sin2
h
Euler
~ hybrid
E
= (r21 cos cos + r22 cos sin r23 sin + r11 sin r12 cos )
i
+ (r21 sin + r22 cos + r11 cos cos + r12 cos sin r13 sin )
V. C OMPARISON
(12)
(13)
(16)
OF D IFFERENT P OLARIZATION
D EFINITIONS
c c s c s
s c + c c s s s
= c s s c c s s + c c c s c (14)
s s
c s
c
In the above matrix, element representation has been simplified. For example, c means cos R and s means sin R .
Finally, if the AUT is oriented such that J~e y and J~m
x , then the hybrid element can be represented in the global
coordinate system as
J~e
J~m
=
r21 x
+ r22 y + r23 z
= (r11 x
+ r12 y + r13 z) .
(15)
The Ludwig-3I definition corresponds to the standard measurement practice and is ideal for feed sources which should
be Huygens sources [5]. Two practical examples for Huygens
sources are, pyramidal and corrugated horn antennas. Even
though easy to implement, the Ludwig-3I definition is not
optimal for electric and magnetic dipoles. At the same time,
Ludwig-2 and Ludwig-3II definitions are not optimal for
Huygens sources. So, all these definitions are restricted to only
one type of source. So, in this paper authors unified these individual definitions into a generalized definition. Such a general
definition is easier to implement in full-wave electromagnetic
simulators too.
Another conclusion is that the Ludwig-3II definition should
not be regarded as the generalized Ludwig-3I definition. They
each serve entirely different purposes. The Ludwig-3I definition was defined from the view point of reflector antennas and
is ideal for Huygens sources. At the same time, the Ludwig3II definition was defined for magnetic current sources and is
analogous to the Ludwig-2 definition. If Ludwig-3II is used
as a standard definition for feed sources, then a feed source
with zero cross polarization induces antisymmetric fields in the
reflector aperture. So, in the authors opinion, the Ludwig-3II
definition should be treated as an entirely new definition.
While defining the Ludwig-3I definition, its main purpose
was to characterize reflector antenna feeds. Since active phased
array antennas are replacing reflector antennas in many areas,
it is time to revisit how we define the cross polarization. Also,
the advent of microstrip patch antennas neccesates a revision
in the cross polarization definition. So, a new definition which
has a broader scope to encompass wider spectrum of antennas
is needed. Authors believe that this paper addressed some of
these issues.
Finally, if the AUT is meant to feed a paraboloid reflector,
then Ludwig-3I must be the standard definition. However,
for applications in which the AUT is used as a standalone
source, antenna engineer should be given a choice to choose
an appropriate value (depending upon the application and
the AUT type).
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. XX, NO. X, FEBRUARY 20XX
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Ludwig, The definition of cross polarization, IEEE Transactions
on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 116119, 1973.
[2] J. E. Roy and L. Shafai, Generalization of the ludwig-3 definition
for linear copolarization and cross polarization, IEEE Transactions on
Antennas and Propagation, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 10061010, 2001.
[3] , Corrections to generalization of the ludwig-3 definition for
linear copolarization and cross polarization, IEEE Transactions on
Antennas and Propagation, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 638639, 2004.
[4] G. Knittel, Comments on the definition of cross polarization, IEEE
Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 917918,
1973.
[5] I. Koffman, Feed polarization for parallel currents in reflectors generated by conic sections, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 3740, 1966.
[6] G. Knittel, The polarization sphere as a graphical aid in determining the
polarization of an antenna by amplitude measurements only, Antennas
and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 217 221,
Mar. 1967.
[7] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design. Hoboken, NJ:
John Willey, 2005.
[8] H. L. Knudsen, The field radiated by a ring quasi-array of an infinite
number of tangential or radial dipoles, Proceedings of the IRE, vol. 41,
no. 6, pp. 781789, 1953.
[9] H. Knudsen, Radiation from ring quasi-arrays, IRE Transactions on
Antennas and Propagation, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 452472, 1956.
[10] T. Rahim and D. E. N. Davies, Effect of directional elements on the
directional response of circular antenna arrays, IEE Proceedings H
Microwaves, Optics and Antennas, vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 1822, 1982.
[11] L. Josefsson and P. Persson, Conformal Array Antenna Theory and
Design. Hoboken, NJ: John Willey, 2006.
[12] H. Goldstein, C. P. Poole, and J. Safko, Classical Mechanics. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley, 2002.