Int. J. Electron. Commun.

(AEÜ) 100 (2019) 47–55

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Electronics and

Communications (AEÜ)
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aeue

Regular paper

Simple EBG surface for X-band radar cross section reduction

M. Gholipour, N. Azadi-Tinat ⇑, J. Ghalibafan
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Robotic, Shahrood University of Technology, P.O. Box 3619995161, Shahrood, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, an Electromagnetic Band-Gap (EBG) structure that consists of the two type square patch
Received 19 May 2018 located on the FR4 substrate is proposed. The equivalent circuit model of the unit cell is presented and
Accepted 2 January 2019 analyzed. The reflection phases of the proposed structure validates the feature of radar cross section
reduction. The results show the wide operation frequency band of 6.65 GHz to 12.95 GHz, where the
bandwidth of 64% is achieved for this structure compared to Perfect Electric Conductor (PEC). The pro-
Keywords: posed EBG structure is studied for different radiation angles and different polarization.
Electromagnetic Band-Gap (EBG)
Ó 2019 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
Artificial Magnetic Conductor (AMC)
Radar Cross Section Reduction (RCSR)

1. Introduction
The RCS shows the detectability of an object by radar. A larger
RCS means that an object is more easily detected. There have been
two general ways of active cancellation and inactive cancellation to
reduce the radar cross section, which includes using Radar Absor-
bent Material (RAM) or changing targets geometry such as EBG
structures [1]. The phase of the reflection coefficient in a typical
EBG structure varies from
180° to 180° and resonates at the
phase of 0°. In some previous works, the EBG structure is also
known as an Artificial Magnetic Conductor (AMC) where the phase
of reflection coefficient is between
90° and +90°. In this paper,
two EBG structures are used to create a phase difference of 180°,
called EBG1 and EBG2. We propose this structure to enhance the
bandwidth of RCS reduction.
The Salisbury proposed one of the first absorbents that was
made by one lossy resistive dielectric sheet placed on quarter of
wavelength above the perfect electric conductor. The main disad-
vantages of this structure are high thickness and the frequency/
angle dependence [2]. To improve these disadvantages, the wide-
band absorbers were proposed by using of a several resistive plates
with k/4 space. However, the weight and volume of these absor-
bers are more than a custom absorber. Another way of RCS reduc-
tion in high frequency bands is changing the geometric shape of
the target which causes the angle of incidence wave is different
from the angle of radiation wave. The shaping method is an opti-
mal way, but it affects the other radiation characteristics. To solve
this problem, the high-impedance screens [3] the EBG and PEC in a
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: azadi@shahroodut.ac.ir (N. Azadi-Tinat), jghalibafan@shah-
roodut.ac.ir (J. Ghalibafan).
checkerboard structure [4] and the metamaterial absorber [5] are
used. By using EBG and PEC in checkerboard structure, the differ-
ence between the phases of the reflected waves from each element
becomes 180°, and therefore due to wave’s cancellation, the RCS is
reduced. However, this structure had a narrow bandwidth of about
5%. For higher bandwidth, the two EBGs put together on one
checkerboard was proposed in [6]. The bandwidth of this structure
was about 12%. As another example, in [7] about 40.2% bandwidth
was achieved by using two different sizes of EBGs. In other work, a
checkerboard configuration with two different EBG structures was
proposed, where the bandwidth was about 26.7% [8]. The square
and the hexagonal EBG checkerboard surfaces were used to
increase the bandwidth of about 60% in [9].
In this paper, a new checkerboard EBG configuration that con-
sists of two type square patch located on the FR4 substrate is pro-
posed. The 64% bandwidth is achieved for this EBG structure.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the EBG
cells and its equivalent circuit model. The analysis of RCS and for-
mulations are given in Section 3. The simulation results for differ-
ent incident wave and different angles are given in this section.
Section 4 shows the fabricated structure and measured results.
2. The proposed EBG structure
Fig. 1 shows the proposed EBG structure. As shown in this fig-
ure, the structure has two simple cells of EBG1 and EBG2. The
EBG1 cell consists of a two type of square patches placed on the
FR-4 substrate with a thickness of 3.2 mm and relative permittivity
of 4.3. The EBG2 cell is patch less substrate named EMP (empty). It
must be note that the overall dimensions of EBG1 and EBG2 are the
same.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeue.2019.01.001
1434-8411/Ó 2019 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
48 M. Gholipour et al. / Int. J. Electron. Commun. (AEÜ) 100 (2019) 47–55

impedance. The capacitances can be calculated based on the fol-

lowing equations [10,11]:
eeff a2
C1 ¼ ð1Þ
h

eeff b2
C2 ¼ ð2Þ
h

Dcosh
C 3 ¼ 4ae0 eeff H ð3Þ
2p

Fig. 1. The EBG structure (a) the unit cell of EBG1 (b) the unit cell of EBG2 (EMP).

a
a¼ cosðhÞ ð4Þ
D

er þ 1 er
1 1
Fig. 2 shows the equivalent circuit model of the unit cell of eeff ¼ þ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð5Þ
EBG1. As shown in this figure, the EBG1 is modeled by a capaci- 2 2 1 þ 12 Dh
tances network between metallic plates. The Capacitance C1 is



1 
due to the effect of four-corner patches with the ground plane. ps
Capacitance C2 is the effect of the middle square with the ground H ¼ ln sin þG ð6Þ
2D
plane, and capacitance C3 is coupling capacitance between the
middle square patch and the four square patches around it. Zl 2
h 2
i
and Zline are transmission line impedances of corner patches and 0:5ð1
b2 Þ ð1
b4 ÞðAþ þ A
Þ þ 4b2 Aþ A

G¼ 2 2 4
ð7Þ
middle patch with ground plane, respectively. Z0 is free space ð1
b4 Þ þ ð1 þ b4
b8 ÞðAþ þ A
Þ þ 2b6 Aþ A

Fig. 2. The equivalent circuit model of the EBG1 unit cell.

Fig. 3. Reflection phase of circuit model analysis and full-wave simulation.

 M. Gholipour et al. / Int. J. Electron. Commun. (AEÜ) 100 (2019) 47–55 49

Table 1 To validate the model of Fig. 2, the reflection phase of EBG1 is

The gemerical and electrical calculated and compared with the full-wave simulated results
parameters of the EBG1 cell.
obtained by CST software (see Fig. 3). The values of designed
Parameters Value parameters are shown in Table 1. The incident angle h is zero in
D 15 mm this consideration.
s 0.5 mm As shown in Fig. 3, the results of circuit model analysis verify
a 7 mm the full-wave simulation results.
h 3.2 mm
er 4.3
Z0 377 X 3. Analysis of RCS reduction
C1 0.0264 pF
C2 0.006 pF
C3 17.68 pF
Generally, the RCS reduction (RCSR) of a checkerboard surface
that consists of two EBGs, can be estimated by [12]:
 2
ejp1 þ ejp2
RCSR ¼ 10log ð9Þ
1 2
A ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð8Þ
D 2 where p1 and p2 are the reflection phases of the two EBG cells. Fig. 4
1  k sinh
ðkcosh
2D
Þ
Shows RCS reduction based on Eq. (9). As shown in this figure, when
In these equation D, s, a, b, h, b, er , k, and h are the width of each the difference phase of two EBGs is between 180° ± 37°, the RCS
cell, the distance between the middle patch and the patches in the reduction is below
10 dB that is desired in this work.
corners, width of the middle square patch, width of the corner As mentioned in the past section, the proposed checkerboard
square patches, the substrate thickness, the wave vector, the rela- structure consists of EBG1 and EBG2. Fig. 5 shows the reflection
tive permittivity of substrate, free space wavelength, and incident phases of the EBG1 and EBG2. The reflection phases of EBG1 and
angle, respectively. EBG2 passes through zero at frequency of 6 GHz and 11.3 GHz,

Fig. 4. The calculated RCS reduction for a checkerboard surface.

Fig. 5. Simulated reflection phases of the proposed EBG1 and EBG2.

50 M. Gholipour et al. / Int. J. Electron. Commun. (AEÜ) 100 (2019) 47–55

respectively. The phase difference is also shown in this figure. The

region with phase difference between 180° ± 37° is the desired fre-
quency range where the RCS reduction is happened.

Fig. 8. The simulated normal incident 3-D RCS pattern of the proposed structure in
Fig. 6 at frequency of 7.5 GHz.

To consider the RCS reduction of the proposed structure, we use

a finite checkerboard with 4  4 cells of EBG1 and 4  4 cells of
EBG2, as shown in Fig. 6.
In the next, the pattern of normal incidence is simulated to real-
ize RCSR bandwidth, and then the monostatic’s pattern in details
including oblique wave incidence with TE and TM polarization is
considered.

A. Normal incidence
Fig. 6. The proposed finite checkerboard surface. In this section, the RCSR of the proposed structure in Fig. 6 for
normal incident wave (where h = 0°) is considered. Fig. 7(a) shows

Fig. 7. The RCS reduction for the proposed EBG structure. (a) Calculated by equation of (9), (b) Simulated by CST software.
 M. Gholipour et al. / Int. J. Electron. Commun. (AEÜ) 100 (2019) 47–55
Fig. 9. The simulated normal incident 2-D RCS pattern of the proposed structure in Fig. 6 and the same-size PEC plane at frequency of 7.5 GHz.
Fig. 10. The simulated oblique incident 3-D RCS pattern of the proposed structure
in Fig. 6 at frequency of 7.5 GHz for TEz polarization.
the calculated RCS reduction based on equation of (9), where the
phase of p1 and p2 are the reflection phases of EBG1 and EBG2 given
in Fig. 5. In addition, Fig. 7(b) shows the simulated RCS reduction
for the structure in Fig. 6. The both calculated and simulated
results in Fig. 7 show the frequency bandwidth of more than 60%
for RCS reduction.
51
The 3-D bistatic pattern of the RCS at frequency of 7.5 GHz is
illustrated in Fig. 8. As shown in this figure, we have four lobes
at four angles u = 45°, 135°, 225° and 315°. The RCS pattern of
the proposed structure in compare with same-size PEC plane is
shown in Fig. 9. Based on this figure, in planes of u = 0° and
u = 90°, the maximum RCS of the proposed structure is 19.3 dB less
than the maximum RCS for the PEC. In the diagonal plates of
u = 45° and 135° the maximum RCS of the proposed structure is
seen at angle of h = 26° that is 7.2 dB less than the maximum RCS
for the PEC.
B. Oblique incidence
In this section, we consider the oblique incident, where the
plane of incident wave is matched to h = 30° and u = 90°. In this
case, the two polarization TEz and TMz are investigated.
 TEz polarization
The 3-D RCS pattern of TEz polarization is shown in Fig. 10. As
shown in this Figure, the four lobes are created in the opposite
direction of the incidence wave.
Fig. 11 shows 2-D monostatic RCS patterns at 7.5 GHz along the
principal planes (u = 0°, 90°) and diagonal planes (u = 45°, 135°). As
shown in Fig. 11(a), in the planes of u = 0° and u = 90°, the
52 M. Gholipour et al. / Int. J. Electron. Commun. (AEÜ) 100 (2019) 47–55

Fig. 11. The simulated oblique incident 2-D RCS pattern of the proposed structure in Fig. 6 and the same-size PEC plane at frequency of 7.5 GHz for TEz polarization.

 TMz polarization

Finally, the 3-D and 2-D RCS pattern of TMz polarizations are
shown in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. As shown in this figures,
the proposed structure shows similar behavior for TEz and TMz
polarization.
One of the drawbacks of the EBG structures is their dependence
on the wave incidence angle. Fig. 14 shows the RCS reduction of the
proposed structure in Fig. 6 for some different incident angles and
compares with the same-size PEC plane. As the results of TEz and
TMz are similar, the only TEz polarization results is peresented in
Fig. 14. Table 2 summarizes the frequency bandwidth of RCS reduc-
tion for different incident angles. Based on the results given in
Table 2, the maximum bandwidth is more than 90% that is
achieved at angle of 60°.
Fig. 12. The simulated oblique incident 3-D RCS pattern of the proposed structure
in Fig. 6 at frequency of 7.5 GHz for TMz polarization.
4. The fabricated structure and measured results

The proposed structure shown in Fig. 6 is fabricated and tested.

maximum RCS of the proposed structure is 10 dB less than the Fig. 15 shows test setup where, at frequency of 7.5 GHz the wave is
maximum RCS of the PEC. However, in diagonal planes of u = 45° transmitted vertically to the structure. The measured pattern is
and u = 135°, the RCRS is decreased. shown in Fig. 16.
 M. Gholipour et al. / Int. J. Electron. Commun. (AEÜ) 100 (2019) 47–55 53

Fig. 13. The simulated oblique incident 2-D RCS pattern of the proposed structure in Fig. 6 and the same-size PEC plane at frequency of 7.5 GHz for TMz polarization.

Fig. 14. The RCS reduction bandwidth of TEz polarization for different incident angles.

As shown in Fig. 16, the simulated and measured RCS reduction As shown in Table 3, compared to the previous works, the band-
is 9 dB and 11.5 dB, respectively. This difference between simu- width of the proposed structure is increased to more than 60%. The
lated and measured results is due to inaccuracy of the fabrication proposed structure is low cost, easy for fabrication and FR4 is used
process and test setup. which is easily available substrate.
54 M. Gholipour et al. / Int. J. Electron. Commun. (AEÜ) 100 (2019) 47–55

Table 2 5. Conclusion
The RCS reduction bandwidth of TEz polariztion for
different incident angles.
This paper proposes a new checkerboard EBG structure for RCS
Incident angle 10 dB RCSR bandwidth reduction. Comparing to previous works, this structure is low cost,
0° 64% easy for fabrication and FR4 is used which is easily available sub-
10° 0% (84% for RCSR <
5.7 dB) strate. The results show a wide frequency band of operation for
20° 24% (85% for RCSR <
5.7 dB)
the proposed structure. Furthermore, the polarization and incident
30° 70.7%
40° 77.6% angle have not severe destructive effect on its RCS behavior. So,
50° 89% this checkerboard EBG structure is a good candidate for designing
60° 91.14% a low-visibility radar targets.

Fig. 15. (a) The fabricated checkerboard EBG structure in Fig. 6 (b) The test setup.

Fig. 16. The simulated and measured results of RCS pattern at frequency of 7.5 GHz.

Table 3
Comparison between results of proposed structure and similar studies.

Substrate Substrate thickness Unit cell dimension (mm2) Wavelength of center Frequency range (GHz) Mono-static RCSR
(mm) frequency (mm) Bandwidth (%)
[1] RO4003 1.52 24  24 10 15.75–41.3 90
[7] RO3010 1.27 24  24 19 13.5–17.9 40
[9] RO5880 6.35 15  15 48 3.8–8.8 60
[11] Plasma dielectric 6.35 15  15 30 7–13 60
This work FR4 3.2 15  15 30 6.65–12.95 64
 M. Gholipour et al. / Int. J. Electron. Commun. (AEÜ) 100 (2019) 47–55 55

References [7] Galarregui JCI et al. Broadband radar cross-section reduction using AMC
technology. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 2013;61(12):6136–43.
[8] Chen W, Balanis CA. Bandwidth enhancement for RCS reduction using
[1] Ameri E, Esmaeli SH, Sedighy SH. Wide band radar cross section reduction by
checkerboard EBG surfaces. In: 16th international symposium on antenna
thin AMC structure. AEU - Int J Electron Commun 2018;93:150–3.
technology and applied electromagnetics (ANTEM); 2014.
[2] Salisbury WW. Absorbent body for electromagnetic waves. US Patents 1952;
[9] Chen W, Balanis CA, Birtcher CR. Checkerboard EBG surface for wideband radar
US2599944A.
cross section reduction. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 2015;63(6):2636–45.
[3] Jenn DC. Radar and laser cross section engineering. Washington DC: The
[10] Fallah M, Vadjed-Samiei MH. Designing a bandpass frequency selective surface
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2005.
based on an analytical approach using hexagonal patch-strip unit cell.
[4] Paquay M et al. Thin AMC structure for radar cross- section reduction. IEEE
Electromagnetics 2014;35(1):25–39.
Trans Antennas Propag 2007;55(12):3630–8.
[11] Ghayekhloo A, Afsahi M, Orouji AA. Checkerboard plasma electromagnetic
[5] Singh D, Srivastava VM. Analysis of RCS for dual band slotted patch antenna
surface for wideband and wide-angle bistatic radar cross section reduction.
with a thin dielectric using shorted stubs metamaterial absorber”. AEU - Int J
IEEE Trans Plasma Science 2017;45(4):603–9.
Electron Commun 2018;93:53–62.
[12] Chen W, Balanis CA, Birtcher CR. Dual wide-band checkerboard surfaces for
[6] Simms S, Fusco V. Chessboard reflector for RCS reduction. Electron Lett
radar cross section reduction. IEEE Trans Antennas Propag 2016;64(9):4133–8.
2008;44(4):316–7.