IEEE T R A K S A C T I O N S ON A N T E N N A S A N D PROP.AG.4TION. VOL. AP-33, NO.

4, A P R I L 1985 397

Analysis of a Microstrip Array and Feed Network

EDWARD H. NEWMAN, MEMBER, IEEE, AND JOHN E. TEHAN

Abstract-An analysis technique for a microstrip array is presented. The

array elements and mutual coupling between elements are analyzed by a f’
method of moments (MM)solution of the exact integral eqnation. The
combination of the microstrip array elements, plus the microstrip transmis-
sion line feed network is analyzed using a generalized ThCvenin theorem.
The method is applied to the specific problem of the series fed microstrip
array.
FEED PORT
I. INTRODUCTIOK

T HIS PAF’ER presents a technique,employingThivenin’s

theorem, for analyzing a microstrip array plus its microstrip
transmission line feed network. A microstrip antenna is a metal
patchprintedon a thin grounded dielectricslab. Theprimary
advantage ofmicrostripantennas is thatthey arelightweight, Fig. 1. Top and side view of a series fed microstrip array.
flush-mountable,and inexpensive to fabricate.Entire arrays,
plus theirfeednetworks,composed of microstrip transmission input impedance, fields, and the currents on the array elements
lines, can be etched or platedon a single substrate. and feed lines. The application of the Thkvenin’s theorem to the
In the past 15 years a tremendous amount of theoretical and series microstrip array is discussed in the next section. Following
experimentalworkhas been done on microstripantennas. The this, we briefly discuss the modeling of the feed for the junction
January 1981 issue of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNASA N D of a microstrip transmission line and a microstrip patch. Finally,
PROPAGATION was a special issue on microstrip antennas, and con- numerical results are compared to measurements.
tained excellent review articles onmicrostripantenna [ I ] and
array [2] technology. A recent advance in the analysis of micro- 11. THEORY
strip and other printed circuit antennas has been the application
of integral equation techniques, employing the exact Sommerfeld-A . Thhenin Equivalent
type slab Green’s function, for the analysis of individual elements Fig. 1shows the top and side views of an N element linear
as well as mutual coupling in arrays [3] -[8] . arrayof microstripantennas.Thesubstratehas thickness T
A microstrip series array consists of a linear array of micro- andpermittivity E , which is complexfor lossy substrates.The
strip elementsconnected in series by microstrip transmission exteriormedium is homogeneouswithparameters ( p o , eo)..
lines. This array configurationtendsto minimize thefeed line All fields and currents are considered to be time harmonic with
lengthsandthusthe feed line radiation. It also has advantages the e j w * timedependence suppressed. Theelements are inter-
for high power, steered beam, and frequency scanned arrays [9]. connected by microstrip transmission lines. The size and spacing
Themicrostrip series array was analyzed byJones, Chow: and of the microstrip elements, and the width of the microstrip feed
Seeto [ 101 who employed the transmission line model for the
~ lines (andthustheircharacteristicimpedanceandpropagation
microstrip elements. Here we also analyze the series fedmicro- constant)may be hfferent. Eacharray element is considered
strip array, however, our method has twoadvantages as compared to be a two-port, with input port P 2 n - 1 and output port P,,
to that of Jones et al. [IO] . First, we use the more exact integral on the nth element. The plus (+) marked termirial is considered
equationformulation,employingtheexactSommerfeld-type t o be on the microstrip patch, with the minus (-) marked terminal
Green’s function, to model individual microstrip elements as well directly below on the ground plane. Thus, the N elements can
as mutualcouplingbetweenelements [6]. Second, we usea be viewed as a2Ar-port.Themicrostriptransmissionlines are
generalized Thkvevenin theorem to include the effects of the trans- also viewed as a 2Nport feednetwork,withthe same ports.
mission line feed network. An advantage of this approach is that Thearray isconsidered t o be fedatport 1 by the impressed
it isclear howit can be extendedtofeednetworks of other current J i = a
i
A. This short constant filament of current has
configurations. The method permits one to calculate the array been found to be a reasonable model for an edge or coaxial (if
a small inductive reactance is added totheinputimpedance)
feed [ 51 , [ 71 , [ 1I] . Port Elr is terminated in a lumped loadZ , .
Manuscript received April 24, 1984; revised October 20, 1984. This work
was supported in part by the Department of the Navy, Office ofNaval The surface ‘current density on the kth element is denoted ik,
Research, Arlington, VA, under Contract N00014-78-C-0049 and by the k = 1, 2, ..., N .
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Research Office, North Carolina under The %‘-port arraytogether ~ 4 t hthe2N-port feed network
Contract DAAG39-81-K-0020 with The Ohio State University Research
Foundation. can be anal>/zedusing a generalized Thkvenin or Norton’s theorem
E. H. Newmaniswith the ElectroScience Laboratory, Department of [ 121. For electromagnetic problems, Mautz and Harrington [13]
Electrical Engineering, The Ohio State University, 1320 Kinnear Road, have put these theorems in a particularly useful form, and the
Columbus, OH 43212.
J . E. Tehan is with TRW Military Electronics Division, 1 Rancho Cannel, brief description below is taken from their work. Here we use
San Diego, CA 92128. . the Thkvenin theorem since it is more convenient, in this case,

0018-926X/85/0400-0397$01.00 01985 IEEE

398 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. AP-33, NO.4, APRIL 1985

TABLE I
A BRIEF D E ~ C R I ~ OOF
N SOME NOTATION

SYMBOL EQ. COMMENT

2k 5 sinusoidal
expansionltest on
mode patch k.
3k'Cn& 5 c u r r e n t on patch k due t o _?n ,
feed network removed rr
Cn 6 column vector
containing
coef.
the Cnk

'nt 8 r e a c t i o n between & and ,J,

'n 6 column vector
containing
elements
the vnl!

zkr 7 minus t hree a c t i o n between -

and
gk ge
-

[zl 6 N x N modal impedance matrix

with
elements Zka

9 7.17 e l e c t r if ci e l d of & r a d i a t i n g on t h e grounded

dielectricslab

b=i& 11 c u r r e n t on patch k due t o J i , feed network i n place

VFn 14 a r r a yv o l t a g ea tp o r t n. feednetwork inplace

15 c u r r e n t on s e c t i o n n o m
f i c r o s t r i pt r a n s m i s s i o nl i n e

_?n=zJn 4 c u r r ef inl a
t mpeaontrtt n

ii=zJi impressedf eo
ceur drpr oae rtntt 1

[ ZA] 4 a r r a y impedance m a t rriexf e r e n c et od 2N p o r t s

[ZF] 2 feed
network impedance m a t rriexf e r e n c et od 2N p o r t s

Vmn 4 v o l t a gpaeot r t m due t o h. feed

network removed
oc
Yn 10 o p e n - c i r c u i vt o l t a g ea pt o r t n due t o ,li
oc
Voc 1,lO column vector
containing
the
elements Vn
ci!
In 1 Thevenin cpuor ar et n t n
I 1 column vector
containing
coef.
the In.

to compute the open-circuit impedance matrix than the short-

circuit admittance matrix.
Unfortunately,thenotationfor this solution is complex.
However, we have attemptedto minimize theconfusionby ANTENNA Y
ARRAY
adhering to the followingconventions.

qg [%I
"
a
1) Lower case lettersandthesubscripts k and I ( k , I =
1, 2, -., N ) will be used t o refer to quantities referenced
to the N patch currents. The symbols i or c w irefer to
l
l
I

thepatchcurrentswithorwithoutthefeednetwork,
Fig. 2. Thevenin equivalent of the array plus its feed network.
respectively.
2) Upper case lettersandthesubscripts rn and n (m,n = Q
[Z,] is the open-circuit (i.e., with the antenna arrayremoved)
1, 2, -., 2N) will be used to refer to quantities referenced
impedancematrixforthe transmission linenetwork.Forthe
to the 2N feed ports.
series fed microstrip array, the transmission line feed matrix i s
Table I lists the notation for most of the important quantities. of the form
Additional notation is introduced in the,Appendix.
Fig. 2 shows the Thitvenin equivalent of the array connected [zF 1 1
.to the load or feed network. According to ThBvenin's theorem, LzF2 1
[ZFl=
the. port currents I , , I , ,
'--: 12N are a solution of the order 2N
matrix equation
[Z, + z F ] I = -Voc (11
1
where [Z,,] is thetwo-portimpedancematrixforthe nth
1

where [ZA1. and [Z,] are the 2N X 2N open-circuit impedance sectionofmicrostrip line connectingpatches n and n + 1. In
matrices for the array and feed network, respectively, and PC particular,
is the 2N open-circuit voltage vector. A typical element of Y O c ,
V:', is the voltage induced at port n by the impressed current,
with the feed network removed.
a
NEWLIAN AND TEHAN: MICROSTRIP A R R A Y A N D F E E D NETWORK 399

'k
--
V
+ 'Fn + hk-Lhk 7 I
-
F,2n
- Zn 1 Yn 5n+l
- -"F,Zn+l c Wk /2

1n+ -9k
I,
11
* 'k
Fig. 3. Geometry for the nth section of transmission line connecting patches b
Wk /2
n and n + 1.
t

where as seen in Fig. 3, L,,, Z F l land y, are the length, character- Fig. 4. Geometry of the kth rectangular microstrip patch.
istic impedance. and propagation constant, respectively, for the
rzth section of microstrip transmission line. minus the voltage induced by the unitamplitudemode gl at
Thenextstep is to compute the antenna array open-circuit port IZ (plus markedterminalontop).Thenchoosing J , = 1,
(i.e.: withthefeednetwork removed) impedancematrix [Z,] rz = 1, 2; -, 2 X , (4) becomes
referenced tothe 2N arrayfeedports.Atypicalelement of
[Z,] is given by

If we also choose J j = 1, then the impressed current is a unit

amplitude filament at port1, identical to J , , 2nd
where V,,, is the voltage atport m caused bytheconstant
current fdament J, = iJ,, at port n, and with the feed network
removed. Note that this filament is identical in form to the im-
pressed current:exceptthatit is locatedatport n, while the Thus, the vector V o Cis identical to the first column of[Z,] .
impressed filament is at port 1.
Since [ Z F ] , [ Z A ] , and voc have been definedby (2), (3),
The moment method (MM) solution for the voltage V m , is
(9), and (lo)? (1) may now be solved for the Thivenin current
straightforward [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [7] however, it will be summarized
vector I . According to Thivenin's theorem the total current on
~

here for completeness. In general the current on a patch is re-

presented as a summation of modes with both ; and polariza- > patch k, induced by Jj in the presence of the array plus the feed
network, is given by [ 131
tion. However, if the length and width of each patch are chosen
2 :v
so that the lowestorder polarized modedominates,thenthe
current on the kth patch can be reasonably approximated by the ik = (In + An)cnk& = ikgk, k = 1 , 2, ".,A', (1 1 )
n=l
single term [ 6 ]
where A, = Ji = 1 if n = 1 and zero otherwise. The input imped-
ance seen at port 1 is the ratio of the total voltage at port 1 to
the impressed current. However, since Ji = 1,

where the geometry of the kth patch is shown in detail in Fig. 4,

and k,, is the equivalent wavenumber [ 6 ] .The Appendix shows
howto generalize topatches of arbitrary size and shape. To
Generally u,k will be quite s m d udess port n is on patch k.
emphasize that we are computing the current on patch k due to
Thus, I ~ 1 I1% I 2 I > I ~ 1 I 3*..,and
the excitation J, at port rz, we have added the subscript 12. Thus,
c R k is the current amplitude on patch k due to excitation at port zin= -il VI 1 . .. (13)
n , and with the feed network removed. Using Galerkin's method, The currents on a particular section'of the microstrip trans-
the c n k , k = 1, 2, .-: N are the solution of the rank N matrix
mission line can be computed by first finding the port voltages
equation.
of that section of transmission line. Referring to Fig. 2, the volt-
[3]c,, = u,*, n = 1: 2,.'.,2 N , (6) age at the input and output of the nth section of microstrip feed
line is
where typical terms of the patch impedance matrix [ z ] and the x
modal excitation vector u, are given by [ 6 ] vF;211= -2
k= 1
ikU2n,k ~ - i n ' U 2 n , n (14a)

Zkt=-/[e,'&d.S, k.z=1,2,'..,IV: (7) '

VF,2n+le-YnLF1 + VF,2n eYnli,

Theintegrationsin (7) and (8) are over the surfaceof patch fFn(Zn) =
mode & and the
length of filament J,, respectively. Also, el is 22,, sinh ynL,
the electric field of g,, in the presence of the grounded dielectric
slab. - VF,2n+1eYnLn - vF , 2 n e-Tnln,
In (8), note that if J , = 1, then unl is numerically equal to 22, sinh 7,L,
400 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS A N D PROPAGATION, VOL. AP-33, NO. 4, APRIL 198s
9
Ignoringthedirectcontributionfromtheimpressedcurrent
Ji the total electric field of the array
is t'
ET=EA + EF (1 6 )
where EA and EF are the contributions from the array elements,
and feed lines, respectively. Normally the dominant field is
hr Ir
n=l

EF and the contribution from J i can be important in the design

T
of low sidelobe arrays.
t' 4
B. Simple Example
2
I
-J i 3 E
1-
Althoughthesolutionpresented above is fairlygeneral, it / t x
isalso complex in that it involves varioussummations,matrix ZL
Fig. 5. Top and side view of a microstrip patchterminated in a microstrip
operations,etc.Here we will analyzeamuchsimplerproblem transmission line.
which will result in simpler formulas, and permit a better under-
standing of how the array operates. The simple example is shown
Using (1 I), the patch current is
in Fig. 5. Here we have a single microstrip element terminated in
a microstrip transmission line of length L , ,propagation constant
y,, andcharacteristicimpedance Z , . Themicrostripline is
terminated in a load Z,, which could represent the input imped-
anceofadditionalarrayelementsattachedtotheendofthe and the input impedanceis
microstrip transmission line. For simplicity, port 2 is located at
the same y coordinate as port 1.
For this problem the feed network impedance matrix is

iZFl =["z;.'1
0
In (24) and (25), the second term is the modification caused by
the microstrip line connected to port 2. If the line were removed,
Z i = w, I , = 0, and (24) and (25) given the current and input
where impedance for an isolated patch.
If in Fig. 5 we set ZL = Z A ,,
then we have a simple model
for a two-element array (ignoring radiative coupling between the
two patches). If Z i = 2, ,,
then the current on patch1 and the
input impedance are reduced to one-half the value for isolated
Referring to (6) and (7), thepatchimpedancematrix [Z] has patch 1. Thus, although the array elements look as though they
,
only one element, denoted z1 . Because of the symmetric loca- are in series, they appear tobe in parallel as viewed from port 1.
tions of ports l and 2, the elements of the voltages in (8) obey
,
the symmetry u1 = -u2 ,. Ln this case, the solutions to (6) will C Infinite Periodic Array
be IfinFig. 5 we set 2, = Zin, then we have a model for an
infinite periodic array, one section of which is shown in Fig. 5.
This model neglects the radiative mutual coupling between the
elements. Inserting ZL = Zin into (25) produces the following
quadratic equation forZin:
The array open-circuit impedance matrix, given by (9), becomes
( z A I , t a n h y l L 1 +z,)zi2,+z:tadylL1Zin

- ZA 1 1 ~ ;tanhyIL1 =O. (26)

where The general solution in (26) is algebraically complex. However,
consider the special case of a design at resonance, where
ylLl = i d 2 (264
Note that zA1 is the input impedance of the isolated.patch 1.
Equation (1) then becomes
2, = ZA = realnumber.
Then taking the positive real root,

The solution to (22) is I , = 0 and

Si@larly it can be shown that the current on patch 1 is about

0.62 of the current for isolated patch 1.
NEWMAN A N D TEH.AN: MICROSTRIP ARRAY A N D FEED NETWORK 40 I

111. FEED MODEL MICROSTRIP TRANS. FEED

In order to generate accurate numerical results. one must have

a reasonable modelforthe feedregion, Le., thejunctionof a
microstrip transmissionlineand amicrostrippatch. Previous
experience indicates that.for electrically thin slabs, a constant
currentfilamentfromtheground plane tothepatch can be a
reasonable modelforthistype of edge feed [5], [7] [ 111.
~

Fig. 6(a) shows the top view of an edge fed patch, and Fig. 6(b)
shows the same patchbutwiththe edge feedmodeled by a
AIICROSTRIP
currentfilament.Notethatthecurrentfilament is not placed
at the edge, but rather is moved in a distance d from the edge.
The value of d affects the soiution through its effect on the
modal voltages of (8). To illustratethiseffect, Fig. 7 shows
h
the imaginary part(the real part is negligible) of themodal
voltage versus d for a 16.1 cm square patch on a slab with E,. = FEED
CURRENT
2.56, tan 6 = 0.0001, and at f = 300 MHz. Curves are shown for
slabs of thickness T = 0.216 cm, 0.648 cm, and 1.935 cm. Only
(b)
values of d near the edge are shown, and the following discus- Fig. 6 . Top view of an edge fed microstrip antenna showing (a) actual
sion only applies to values of d near the edge. On eachcurve, microstrip transmission line feed and (b) equivalent feed current.
the point d = T i s indicated with a heavy dot. Note that values
o f d < 0 represent feed locations off the patch.
The general shape ofthesecurvescan be understood as fol- d (X)
lows. The i polarizedelectric field intensityunderthepatch, -0.02 -001 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
and therefore the modal voltage, tends to be proportional to the
divergence of the patch current in the immediate vicinity of the T = 0.00216A
feed currentfilament [ l l ] . Near the edge, themodalcurrent
density of ( 5 ) varies as d. Thus, near the edge the divergence of
themodalcurrent is constant, which suggests thatthemodal
voltage should be constant. For d > T , this behavior is illustrated
in Fig. 7. For d < T the modal voltage drops, and finally reaches
a value at the edge (d = 0) of about one-half of the constantvalue
for d > T. The reason for this drop is that the amount of current
in the immediate vicinity of d = 0 is about one-half of the amount
of current in the immediate vicinity of a d > T. This has the ef-
fect of reducing the field intensity and the modal voltage at d = 0
byafactor of abouttwo, as compared to a value of d > T.
According to(21),theinputimpedance
square of the modal
selectedcan have uptoafactor
is proportionaltothe
voltage. Thus,for d < T. the value of d
of foureffectontheinput
:::[< L0.161X4

c y = 2.56
DIMENSIONS nsA
t aIN

T = 0.01935X
OR METERS
= 0.0001

impedance. Previous studies of the input impedance of a mono- -20

polenear the edge of a half-piane [14] showed that for attach-
ment points less than a few hundredths of a wavelength (a typical -22
value of 7J from the edge, the input impedance varies by only Fig. 7. Modal voltage versus the distance of the feed from the edge.
a few percent.Thus,althoughtheanaloa7 is notone-to-one,
we donot believe thattheinputimpedanceofamicrostrip they could approximate the true fi edge dependence. Due to
antenna would be reduced by a factor of four as one moved the difficulty and/or increasedc.omputer run timeneitherof
the feed point from d = T to d = 0. these were done. What was done was thatthe feed point was
The problem is that although our expansion mode of (5) is placed at d = T from the edge. This placed the feed in a region
a reasonable model for the patch current density, it is'a terrible wherethe divergence of our expansion mode is a reasonable
model for the divergence of the patch current as d + 0. The actual approximationtothe divergence ofthe truecurrent.Tothe
patchcurrent varies as as d goes.to zero, andthus.the di- extent that the actual impedance level is relatively constant as
vergence of theactualcurrenthasa l/& variation as d + 0. d 0, this is a .reasonable approximation.
+

We feel that thisincreasein the divergence as d + 0 will tend Previous solutions to the problem of the junction of a wire
to make the actual voltage and input impedance reasonably con- and.aplate,whether near [ 141 or away from an edge [15]
stant as d + 0. have required. an attachmentmode.Thisattachmentmode
There are at least three ways to include this edge effect in our enforcedcontinuityofcurrentatthe wire to plate .junction,
solution. First, we could replace the sinusoidal expansion mode and also theproper singularity ofthe platesurface current
of (5) with a new mode which explicitly enforcedtheproper densityinthe vicinityofthe attachmentpoint. Here we do
dependence. of thecurrent density as d + 0. Second. we not employ an attachment mode. The reason is that for high Q
could place many of the sinusoidal modes near the edge so that microstrip antennas,with electrically thinsubstrates,thecur-
 402 IEEE TRAXSACTIONS
ANTENNAS
PROPAGATION,
ON
AND VOL. AP-33, NO. 4, APRIL 1985

rent of (5) will dominatetheattachmentmodecurrentator

near resonance.
IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS
In this section we will present some numerical results which
illustratethe accuracy ofthetheoryand also someproperties
of the array.
Thefirstexample is shown in the insert in Fig. 8. Here we
havearectangular microstrip of length 5.55 cm and width 6.9 .'\A -CALCULATED
----MEASURED

cm, and on a substrate ofrelative permittivity E,. = 2.5, thick-

ness 0.079 cm: and tan 6 = 0.001. The patch is terminated in a
microstriptransmission.line of characteristic impedance 2, =
171 !2 andpropagationconstant y1 = j18.38. Notethatthe
input port and transmission line are centered with respect to the 111
width of the patch. The equivalent permittivity of the patch is
[6] eeq = 2.46 eo. Thecomputations are at f = 1685 MHz,
which is the computed resonant frequency (i.e., the frequency
at which the input impedance is real) for the isolated patch. At
this frequencytheinputimpedance of the isolated patch is
Zi, = Z A l l = 160 Q. Fig. 8 showsthecomputedand meas-
uredinputimpedance as a functionofthe transmissionline
length.Themeasurements are at f = 1671 MHz, whichis the
measuredresonantfrequencyforthe isolated patch.Thecom-
putations were made using (25) with Z , = 00. The agreement
between theory and measurements is good. Fig. 8. Input impedance of a microstrip antenna versus the length of the
The second example isa uniform array whose elements and terminating microstrip transmission line.
interconnecting transmission lines are identical to that described
above and shown in Fig. 8. The element spacing, and thus the .. .
length of the transmission lines, is 4.15 cm. Figs. 9(a), 9(b) show
the computedandmeasuredinputimpedance, respectively, I
versus frequency, and for N = 1, 2, and 3 element arrays. Note
that as the number of elements increases, the input impedance
tends to decrease.
The major discrepancy between the measured and computed
data is thatthemeasured results show a noticeableinductive
shift. This inductive shift is felt to be the result of higher order
modes in the microstrip patch, and cannot be predicted by the
simple one term current approximation of (5). A second limita-
tion of the theoretical solution is that we do not enforce con-
tinuityofcurrentatthemicrostrippatch/microstripfeed line
junctions.
V. SUMMARY
-Nm I
Amethod hasbeen presented, employinga generalizedThivenin
theorem: for the analysis of .a microstrip array plus its feedlines.
The method is applied to the series fed rectangular microstrip
4
array on a grounded dielectricslab. Formulas are obtained for
thearrayinputimpedanceandthecurrents on themicrostrip
arrayelementsandfeed lines.Oncethese currents are known,
it is straightforward to determine the arrayfields.
Numerical results are presented and compared with measure-
. ments for the array input impedance. It is felt that the accuracy
of these results could be improved by using more than one mode
per microstrip element in the MM solution, and by a more careful 3
treatment of the transmission line/microstrip element junction.

APPENDIX
(b)
MODIFICATION FOR GENERAL PATCHES
Fig. 9. Input impedance of an N = 1, 2, and 3 element series fed microstrip
array. (a) Measured. (b) Calculated.
InSection 11, andinparticular ( 9 , we assumed thatthe
patchcurrentscould be approximated by a single sinusoidal
NETWORK
AND NEWMAN
FEED TEHAN:
AND ARRAY
MICROSTRIP
function. This reduced thecomplexity of the remainingequa-
tions, but. also limited the results to rectangular patches, where
the currentis dominated by the lowest order; polarized resonance.
Here we will indicate how to modify theseresults for a com-
pletely general array composed of elements of varying size and
shape, and which may be large enough to support hi&er order
modeswithboth polarizations. Itmust be emphasized that
we areonlysettingup a formal solution: andthatcarryingit
to the point of numerical results would be much more difficult.
The basic approach will be to obtain a generalization of (5):
since mostofthe remaining equations will apply with minor
modification. Thus, we wish t o compute the currents on the array
caused by the current filament J, = J n i at port n, and with the
feednetwork removed. Regardless ofthecomplexityofthe
array, the current on the N array elements, with the feed net-
work removed, canbe written as
N’
r 101
p=1
where cn is thearraycurrentduetoexcitation at port n, the
g p are a known set of N’ basis or expansion functions, and the
cnP are a set of A“ unknown coefficients. Notethatthesub-
scripts p and q ( p , q = 1, 2, --,N’ > N) are exclusively used t o
reference t h e p or qth mode in thegeneral expansion of (28).
At this point, most of the results of Section 11-A apply if we
make the substitutions k + p , I + 4, and N -+ N’. In particular, r141
(6)-(8) represent a system of N ’ simultaneous equations which
could be solved for the cnP(n = 1, 2, -., 2N and p = 1, 2, .-,
A”) coefficients in (28). Equations (9) and (10) then give the
arrayopen-circuitimpedancematrixand voltage vector. As an
illustration of the substitutionsdescribed above, (9) becomes
N’
Edward H. Newman (S’67-M’74), for aphotograph and biography please see
p=1
page 678 of the July 1984 issue of this TRANSACTIONS.
Equation (1) can now be solved for the ThCvenin current vector
I. The total current on the array, with the feed network in place
is a generalization of (1 1), given by
2N N’ N’
Equations (12) and (14)-(17) then give other parameters of interest.
REFERENCES
[I] K. R. Carver and J . W. Mink, “Microstrip antenna technology,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-29, pp. 2-24, Jan. 1981.
403
R. J. Mailloux, J. F. McIvenna, and N. P. Kernweis, “Microstrip array
technology,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-29, pp. 25-
37, Jan. 1981.
[31 I. E. Rana andN. G . Alexopoulos, “Current distribution and input
impedance of printed dipoles,” ZEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol.
AP-29, pp. 99-105, Jan. 1981.
N. G . Alexopoulos and I. E. Rana, “Mutual impedance computation,”
r41
IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagar., vol. AP-29, pp. 106-111, Jan.
1981.
r51 D. M. Pozar, “Impedance and mutual coupling of rectangular microstrip
antennas,” ZEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-30, pp. 1191-
1196, Nov. 1982.
E. H. Newman, J. H. Richmond, and B. W.Kwan, “Mutual impedance
computation between microstrip antennas,” IEEE Trans. Microwave
Theory Tech., vol. MTT-31, pp. 941-945, Nov. 1983.
r71 M. D. Deshpande and M. C. Bailey, “Input impedance of microstrip
antennas,” ZEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-30, pp.645-
650, July 1982.
M. C. Bailey and M. D. Deshpande, “Integral equation formulation of
microstrip antennas,” ZEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-30,
pp. 651-656, July 1982.
r91 T. Metzler, “Microstrip seriesarrays,” ZEEE Trans. Antennas
Propagat., vol AP-29, pp. 174-178, Jan. 1981.
B. B. Jones, F. Y. M. Chow, and A. W.Seeto, “The synthesis of shaped
patterns with series-fed microstrip patch arrays,” ZEEE Trans. Anten-
nas Propagat., vol. AP-30, pp. 1206-1212, Nov. 1982.
E. H. Newman and P. Tulyathn, “Analysis of microstrip antennas using
moment methods,” ZEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-29, pp.
47-53, Jan. 1981.
H. J. Carlin and A. B. Giordano, Network Theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall, 1964, pp. 144-146.
J. R. Mautz and R. F. Harrington, “Modal analysis of n-port
scatterers,” ZEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-21, pp. 188-
199, Mar. 1973.
D. M. Pozar and E. H.Newman, “Analysis of a monopole mounted near
or at the edge of half-plane,’’ IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol.
AP-29, pp. 488-495, May 1981.
E.H. Newmanand D. M. Pozar, “Electromagnetic modeling of
composite wire and surface geometries,” IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propagat., vol. AP-26, pp. 784-789, Nov. 1978.
John E. Tehan was born in Newport, KY, on April
17, 1960. He received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in
electrical engineering from The Ohio State Univer-
sity, Columbus, in 1982 and 1984, respectively.
From 1982 to 1984 he was employed is a graduate
research associate by the ElectroScience Lab doing
research in analysis of microstrip patch antennas
using method of moment techniques. He is currently
working for TRW Military Electronics Division,
San Diego, CA, where he is involved in measure-
ments and analysis of RCS and antenna patterns.