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

Figure 1: "LCR Meter"

The LCR Meter is used to measure the

capacitance of the aluminumpolypropylene 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.

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
Sample Thickness
Ring Diameter
Frequency
S21 Magnitude
Peak
F

.277 mm
.654 mm
9.753 mm
3.932 GHz
-21.6 dB
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:

QL

fo
3dBf

QL =
112.47
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:

eff ( f Rn

Co n
)
Df
Rn

eff = 6.19
Parameters:
Speed of Light (C0) = 3 x 10 8 m/s2
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

h
1 12
W

1
2

0.04 1
h

1 1 12

r = 9.77

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

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

Rel Error

Average

Variance

Line
Width,
mm

Rel Error

3.024

0.125

11.71%

0.220

0.002

20.71%

Sample
Thicknes
s, mm

1.626

0.003

3.33%

0.652

0.000

1.41%

Ring
Dia.,mm
node

25.583
1.000

0.016
0.000

0.50%
0.00%

9.741
1.000

0.010
0.000

1.03%
0.00%

Frequenc
y, GHz

2.050

0.000

0.57%

3.959

0.003

1.28%

S21 Mag
Peak, dB
D f, MHz

-23.353
46.949

0.717
3.109

3.62%
3.76%

-25.225
38.214

3.779
23.207

7.71%
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%

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

QL

Relative
Err
3.91%

Variable
F

Var Rel
Error
3.76%

eeff

1.53%

er

1.47%

Frequenc
y
Line
Width

0.57%
11.71%

ALUMINA
Final
Constant

Relative
Err

QL

11.95%

eeff

3.20%

er

3.82%

Variable

Var Rel
Error

F
Frequenc
y
Line
Width

12.61%
1.28%
1.28%

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

Right Side
Value

%
Differenc
e

3.20%

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