Polarizablity of 2D and 3D conducting objects using method of moments

Shahpari, Morteza; Thiel, David V.; Lewis, Andrew

doi:10.21914/anziamj.v54i0.6405

“…There are several independent derivations that provide similar results [35,40,43,44,47,114,117,118], see also (5.4) and (6.6) for this case. In addition, many antenna designs are shown to perform close to the bounds, see [6,9,35,43,96] and Fig. 15.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Physical Bounds of Antennas

Gustafsson¹,

Tayli²,

Cismasu³

2016

Handbook of Antenna Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design of small antennas is challenging because fundamental physics limits the performance. Physical bounds provide basic restrictions on the antenna performance solely expressed in the available antenna design space. These limits offer antenna designers a-priori information about the feasibility of antenna designs and a figure of merit for different designs. Here, an overview of physical bounds on antennas and the development from circumscribing spheres to arbitrary shaped regions and embedded antennas are presented. The underlying assumptions for the methods based on circuit models, mode expansions, forward scattering, and current optimization are illustrated and their pros and cons are discussed. The physical bounds are compared with numerical data for several antennas.

show abstract

“…With this method [33], polarizability of each optimized antenna was computed. The method was verified using direct comparison with theoretical values for spheroids [33]. Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation Into the Gustafsson Limit for Small Planar Antennas Using Optimization

Shahpari

¹

,

Thiel

²

,

Lewis

³

2014

IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fundamental limit for small antennas provides a guide to the effectiveness of designs. Gustafsson et al, Yaghjian et al, and Mohammadpour-Aghdam et al independently deduced a variation of the Chu-Harrington limit for planar antennas in different forms. Using a multi-parameter optimisation technique based on the ant colony algorithm, planar, meander dipole antenna designs were selected on the basis of lowest resonant frequency and maximum radiation efficiency. The optimal antenna designs across the spectrum from 570 to 1750 MHz occupying an area of 56mm×25mm were compared with these limits calculated using the polarizability tensor. The results were compared with Sievenpiper's comparison of published planar antenna properties. The optimised antennas have greater than 90% polarizability compared to the containing conductive box in the range 0.3 < ka < 1.1, so verifying the optimisation algorithm. The generalized absorption efficiency of the small meander line antennas is less than 50%, and results are the same for both PEC and copper designs.

show abstract

“…For other structures the polarizability is calculated numerically using the method of moments [32,63,66,96] or the finite element method [103], see App. C. The polarizability and the associated bound on D/Q are approximated by rational functions for cylinders and planar rectangles in [32], see also the MATLAB code [45].…”

Section: Forward Scattering Sum Rulementioning

confidence: 99%

Physical Bounds of Antennas

Gustafsson¹,

Tayli²,

Cismasu³

2015

Handbook of Antenna Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design of small antennas is challenging because fundamental physics limits the performance. Physical bounds provide basic restrictions on the antenna performance solely expressed in the available antenna design space. These limits offer antenna designers a-priori information about the feasibility of antenna designs and a figure of merit for different designs. Here, an overview of physical bounds on antennas and the development from circumscribing spheres to arbitrary shaped regions and embedded antennas are presented. The underlying assumptions for the methods based on circuit models, mode expansions, forward scattering, and current optimization are illustrated and their pros and cons are discussed. The physical bounds are compared with numerical data for several antennas.

show abstract

Polarizablity of 2D and 3D conducting objects using method of moments

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Physical Bounds of Antennas

Physical Bounds of Antennas

An Investigation Into the Gustafsson Limit for Small Planar Antennas Using Optimization

Physical Bounds of Antennas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About