A Linear Model of Transmission Coefficients for Placement of Monopole Antennas

on Electrically Large Cylindrical Surfaces

Huapeng Zhao*, Siping Gao, Binfang Wang, and Weijiang Zhao

Institute of High Performance Computing, #16-16 Connexis North, 1 Fusionopolis Way, 138632, Singapore
Email: zhaoh@ihpc.a-star.edu.sg

Abstract

Based on the ray analysis of monopole excitation, this work proposes a linear model of transmission coefficients
against the logarithm of the distance between monopole antennas on electrically large cylindrical surfaces. The linear
model is determined by using two sample data, and it is then used to predict the transmission coefficient between two
monopole antennas. Given the desired level of transmission coefficient, the distance between monopole antennas can be
calculated using the linear spatial model, which is useful for the placement of monopole antennas on electrically large
cylindrical surfaces. Simulation results are presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed linear model.

1. Introduction

Modern aircrafts are equipped with numerous electronic devices, and careful electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)
design is needed to ensure their normal functionality. A top-down EMC pre-design method was proposed to achieve
system-level EMC of the aircrafts [1]. One of the main concerns in the aircraft EMC design is the antenna placement. By
properly placing antennas, interference between different devices can be reduced. The genetic algorithm was used to
successfully optimize the antenna placement on vehicles [2]. One key step for the optimization of antenna placement is
the analysis of antennas on large platforms. Such analysis can be conducted using full wave or asymptotic methods.

Among the full wave methods, the finite difference time domain method was applied for the analysis of antennas
on aircrafts in [3]. Furthermore, the coupling between airborne antennas was calculated by using the numerical
electromagnetic code based on the method of moments [4]. In order to reduce the effort of modeling the large platform,
the multi-level fast multipole method was used to accelerate the integral equation analysis of multiple airborne antennas
[5]. Recently, a multisolver domain decomposition method was developed for the modeling of complex airborne
antennas [6]. Although the full wave methods are accurate and flexible, they are usually computation intensive.

Considering the geometry characteristic of the aircraft, cylindrical surface was used to approximate the surface of
the aircraft [7]. This approximation allows simplification of the structure and significantly reduces the complexity of the
analysis. Furthermore, from ray analysis, closed form expression can be derived for fields generated by sources on
cylindrical surfaces [8, 9]. Hence, fast characterization of antennas can be achieved by approximating the aircraft surface
using cylindrical surface, which reduces the effort of optimizing the placement of antennas. However, a tedious
optimization process is still needed to find the optimal placement.

When optimizing the antenna placement, the transmission coefficient is a major concern [10]. In order to avoid
the tedious optimization process, this work proposes a linear model to characterize the transmission coefficients against
the distance between monopole antennas on cylindrical surfaces. The linear model is based on ray analysis of a monopole
on a cylindrical surface, and parameters of the model can be computed using two sample data. Once the parameters are
found, the distance between monopole antennas can be easily computed from the specified level of transmission
coefficient. The proposed method only requires two sample data and it significantly reduces the CPU time cost of finding
the antenna location satisfying the desired isolation level. The proposed method is described in Section 2. Section 3
presents simulation results to illustrate the efficacy of the proposed method.

2. The Proposed Method

According to [8], the electromagnetic fields due to a radial direction monopole dI on a cylindrical surface is
written as
− jk   
r 2
j  j j
(
dE Q Q′ =) dI Z 0 nˆ 1 − V (ξ ) +   U (ξ ) + T02 [U (ξ ) − V (ξ )]G0 (kt ) , (1.1)
2π   kt   kt  kt 
r − jk  ˆ j j   j 
dH (Q Q ′) = dI b 1 − V (ξ ) + T02 [U (ξ ) − V (ξ )] + tˆT0 [U (ξ ) − V (ξ )] G0 (kt ) , (1.2)
2π   kt  kt   kt 

978-1-4673-5225-3/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE

 r r
where dE and dH are the vector electric and magnetic fields, Q and Q ′ denote the positions
position of observation and
source, respectively, k is the wavenumber, and Z 0 is the free space wave impedance. Ass shown in Figure 1,
1 n̂ is the
unit vector normal to the surface at Q , tˆ is the unit vector tangential to the geodesic at Q , and bˆ = tˆ × nˆ .

t= (aφ0 )2 + z02 , T0 = cot δ , ξ = t (k 2)1 3 a − 2 3 (sin δ )4 3 , and G0 (kt ) = e − jkt t , where a is the radius of the cylindrical
surface, φ0 and z 0 are the differences of φ and z-coordinates between Q and Q ′ , respectively, and δ is the angle
between the axial direction and the geodesic at Q . In equation (1), U (ξ ) and V (ξ ) stand for the Fock functions and their
definition is given in the Appendix of [9].
[9]

Figure 1. A cylindrical surface with a monopole type excitation.

If φ0 = 0 , line of sight propagation happens, which results in relatively strong field strength at Q . Hence, special
care should be paid to the case of φ0 = 0 . If φ0 = 0 , δ = 0 and ξ = 0 . In this case, U (ξ ) and V (ξ ) are equal to one and
U ′(ξ ) , V ′(ξ ) and T0 [U (ξ ) − V (ξ )] reduce to zero. Furthermore, T02 [U (ξ ) − V (ξ )] = c1 (kt )
32
2 ka , where c1 =
− π e jπ 4
4 . Therefore,

   1 
r − jk   1   c1 (kt ) 2 1 
dE (Q Q ) φ 0 = 0 =
′ dI Z 0 n 1 −
ˆ 2 
+ j − G0 (kt ) , (2.1)
2π
  (kt )   2 ka kt 
  
   1 
r − jk  ˆ  c1 (kt ) 2 1 
dH (Q Q′) φ 0 = 0 = dI b 1 + j − G0 (kt ) . (2.2)
2π  2 ka kt 
   

We further assume that t ≥ λ . In this case, (kt ) >> 1 , and (kt )

2 −2
in (2.1) is negligible. The time-averaged
time Poynting
vector is then calculated as

r k 2 Z 0t − 2  −2 π 
dP (Q Q′) φ 0 = 0 ≈ tˆ (kt ) + (kt )−1 2 + 1 + π (kt )1 2 + π 2 kt  . (3)
8π 2  4ka 4ka 32(ka ) 

Enforcing the condition that power terms of kt are negligible, it is found that (3) can be written as

r k 2Z0 −2
dP(Q Q′) φ0 = 0 ~ tˆ t , (4)
8π 2
as long as
1 32 (ka )−2 << t λ << 8(ka )2 π 2 . (5)

(4) indicates that the power density at Q is proportional to t −2 if (5) is valid. For electrically large cylindrical surface, (5)
(
is usually satisfied. Therefore, for a short monopole antenna on an electrically large cylindrical surface, its radiated ra
power density may be characterized by (4). Since the transmission coefficient is proportional to the power density, the
transmission coefficient is proportional to t −2 as well. Because (5) may not be strictly satisfied if the electrical size of the
cylindrical surface is not sufficiently large compared to t λ , the transmission coefficient may not exactly follow t −2 .
Therefore, the following model is proposed to describe the transmission coefficient between monopole antennas on
electrically large cylindrical surface
C (t ) = αt β , (6)
which in dB scale is
CdB (t ) = 10β log10 t + 10 log10 α . (7)

(7) is a linear model of the transmission coefficient against the logarithm of the distance,, and the parameters α and β
can be determined using two sample data. After that, the distance corresponding to the desired level of transmission
coefficient can be easily computed by

β
t (CdB ) = 10C dB 10
α −1 . (8)

Note that (8) is derived from (7) with a few mathematical manipulations.

3. Results

The model considered is a half-cylindrical

half surface shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 presents the transmission
coefficients at 2.4 GHz calculated from the proposed model. α and β are determined using the simulated transmission
coefficients at the smallest and largest t.. It is seen that results from the proposed model agree well with FEKO. In Figure
3(b), the proposed model is used for the case of φ0 ≠ 0 . Although the agreement between the proposed model and FEKO
is degraded as φ0 increases, the agreement is still satisfactory, which means the proposed model is also applicable if φ0
that for fixed z 0 , the level of
is not very large. z 0 for every simulation data is indicated in Figure 3(b). Itt can be seen that,
transmission coefficient decreases as φ 0 increases. Hence, the antenna placement may be optimized with φ0 = 0 and the
level of transmission coefficient for φ0 ≠ 0 will be below the specified level.

Figure 2. Illustration of the half-cylindrical

cylindrical surface whose diameter and length are 0.376 m and 1.5 m, respectively.
The dots on the surface indicate locations
location where λ/4 monopole antennas are mounted.
mounted Dots along the axial
direction are equally distributed and they are labeled as H1, H2, … H11 (from left to right). Dots along the
tangential direction are labeled
label as V1 and V2 (from top to bottom).
bottom

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Transmission coefficient at 2.4 GHz versus the logarithm of distance between monopoles on the half-
cylindrical surface for (a) φ 0 = 0 and (b) φ0 ≠ 0 against φ0 = 0 , where z 0 for each simulation data is indicated.
indicated

In Figure 3(a), the value of β is -1.672. Equation (4) shows that β should be -22 if condition (5) is satisfied. For
the case of Figure 3(a), 8(ka ) π 2 = 72.38 and the largest value of t λ is 10. Hence, condition (5) is not well satisfied.
2

To investigate the behavior of β , wee further increase the frequency to 7.2 GHz.
GHz. Figure 4(a) shows the transmission
coefficient for φ0 = 0 . In the case of Figure 4(a), 8(ka ) π 2 = 651.46 and the maximum of t λ is 30. It is seen that the
2
value of β is closer to -2 compared to the case of Figure 3(a). In Figure 4(a), β is computed from samples at H2 and
H11. Figure 4(b) shows the variation of β as the location of the second sample moves from H11 to H3. It is seen that the
value of β is generally going towards -2 as the second sample moves from H11 to H3. This is because condition (5) is
better satisfied when the second sample is moving to H3.

(a) (b)
Figure 4. (a) Transmission coefficient at 7.2 GHz with the linear model determined by samples at H2 and H11; (b)
The value of β versus the location of the second sample.

4. Conclusions

This paper has proposed a linear model for the transmission coefficient between monopole antennas on cylindrical
surfaces. Simulations have been conducted to validate the proposed model. The behavior of model parameter has been
studied. It was found that β gets closer to -2 as ka increases and t λ decreases, which agrees with equations (4) and
(5). Furthermore, if z 0 is fixed, the level of transmission coefficient decreases as φ0 increases. Therefore, given the
specified level of transmission coefficient, the antenna placement can be optimized with φ0 = 0 . The transmission
coefficient will then be below the specified level for the case of φ0 ≠ 0 .

The proposed model can be used for monopole antenna placement on cylindrical surfaces like passenger planes
and missiles. Its parameters are determined by only two simulation data, which significantly reduces the number of
simulations needed for antenna placement. Once the parameters are known, the distance corresponding to the desired
transmission coefficient can be computed from (8).

5. References

1. D.-L. Su, B.-Q. Wang, D.-K. Jin, and S.-X. Ouyang, “EMC pre-design technologies on EW special aircraft,” Journal
of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1241-1245, 2006.
2. X.-W. Wang and F. Sha, “Optimization of vehicular antenna layout based on genetic algorithm,” Railway Computer
Application, vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1-4, 2011.
3. D.-L. Su, D.-F. Wang, M.-H. Wang, and C. Sun, “Electromagnetic compatibility analysis of plane antennas,” Journal
of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 228-230, 2002.
4. M. E. Aydemir, “Comparison of NEC simulation and measurement methods for the solution of coupling between
airborne antennas,” IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, CA, US, Aug 14-19, 2111, pp.
547-552.
5. X. Zhao, C. Liang, and Y. Zhang, “EMC characteristics of multiple airborne antennas,” Chinese Journal of
Computational Physics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 597-601, 2008.
6. X. Wang, Z. Peng, K.-H. Lim, and J.-F. Lee, “Multisolver domain decomposition method for modeling EMC effects
of multiple antennas on a large air platform,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 375-388, 2012.
7. D.-F. Wang and D.-L. Su, “Electromagnetic compatibility between antennas and cylinder aircraft,” Modern Radar, vol.
23, no. 5, pp. 80-82, 2001.
8. P. H. Pathak and N. Wang, “Ray analysis of mutual coupling between antennas on a convex surface,” IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag., vol. AP-29, no. 6, pp. 911-922, 1981.
9. S. W. Lee and S. Naini, “Approximate asymptotic solution of surface field due to a magnetic dipole on a cylinder,”
IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. AP-26, no. 4, pp. 593-597, 1978.
10. B.-Q. Wang, D.-L. Su, L.-M. Quan, and S.-X. Ouyang, “Measurement of isolation between antennas on EW special
aircraft,” Journal of Astronautic Metrology and Measurement, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1-5, 2007.