Novel Method for Antenna Measurements Using SOL Without T Calibration

Masanobu Hirose* and Koji Komiyama

NMIJ, AIST, Umezono 1-1-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8568
E-mail: masa-hirose@aist.go.jp

Introduction

For two antenna measurements using a vector network analyzer (VNA), the
calibration of the VNA is essential for accurate measurements. In many kinds of
the calibration methods, the SOLT calibration [1] or the unknown thru method [2]
are commonly used. In the calibration process using one of the two calibration
methods, we must connect the two ports of the VNA directly or through a cable.
However it is troublesome or time-consuming. For example, when performing the
through calibration in an anechonic chamber, we must move a cable to connect
the two ports at antenna connectors, taking care not to destroy electromagnetic
absorbers on the floor.

To overcome the difficulty, we propose a novel calibration method that uses only
the Short-Open-Load (SOL) standards and requires no through connection. The
uncertainty of the measurements is the same as that of the unknown thru method
and almost the same as that of the SOLT calibration. That is, using the proposed
method, we can measure antenna characteristics as accurately as using the SOLT
calibration, without any through calibration procedure. To show the validity and
usefulness of the proposed method, we measured the S-parameters between two
log-periodic antennas. Comparing the results with those obtained by the unknown
thru method and the SOLT calibration method, S11 and S21 agreed with each other
within 0.001 and 0.03 dB in the operating band, respectively.

Proposed Method

The calibration procedure of the proposed method is the same as that of the
unknown thru method except through calibration. After the SOL calibration at
each port, we measure the antenna system (AUT) and obtain the S-parameters
between two antennas after calibration. Because many AUTs are reciprocal, the
AUT can be considered as a kind of cable used for through calibration. Therefore
the AUT is used as a device for through calibration and a device under test.

Using the transmission matrix [2], the measured transmission matrix is given as
Tm = αYA T AUT YB−1 (1)
where YA and YB are the matrices representing the error terms for measurement
system and determined by the SOL calibration at each port. TAUT is the
transmission matrix of the AUT. Because the AUT is reciprocal, the determinant
of TAUT is 1. Then α can be given as

1-4244-0878-4/07/$20.00 ©2007 IEEE 605

 det Tm det YB
α =± (2)
det YA
Therefore using (1) and (2), we can obtain TAUT or the S-parameter of the AUT.
Whereas the sign ambiguity exists in (2), S11 and S22 can be determined
completely. S21 or S12 depends on the sign. However, since only the magnitude of
S21 is often required in antenna measurements, we compare the S21s in dB scale in
the following. There is a way to recover the phase. However we do not discuss it
in the paper.

Uncertainties of Calibrated S-Parameter

Because uncertainties of calibrated results depend on each calibration method, we

have derived the uncertainties of S-parameters for each calibration method [3] and
found that the proposed method and the unknown thru method have the same
uncertainties. The differences of S11 and S21 obtained by the proposed method and
the conventional (SOLT) method are given as

S11P − S11C ≈ (δ1 + µ '2 ) S 21

2
, (1)
τ 1 +τ '2
S21P − S21C ≈ ( 2
)S21 (2)
where the sub-letters P and C indicate quantities associated with the proposed and
conventional (SOLT) methods. δ 1 , µ ' 2 τ 1 ,τ '2 are determined by residuals of
calibration standards and are less than in order 10-2 below 9 GHz for Type-N
standards. The differences of S22 and S12 have the same forms.

From (1), the differences of the reflection coefficients are estimated to be less
than 10-4 when the magnitude of S21 is less than 0.1. From (2), the transmission
differences are estimated to be less than 0.1 dB.

Measured Results

To show the usefulness of the proposed method and verify (1) and (2), we have
measured the two antenna system composed of two log-periodic antennas that are
normally used from 300 MHz to 2.2 GHz. The antennas were separated 3 m apart
and at 2 m height on the metal ground in an anechonic chamber.

Fig. 1 shows the measured S11 and S22 by the proposed method, which are
completely equal to the ones by the unknown thru method. Fig. 2 shows the
differences of the ones measured by the proposed and conventional methods. The
differences are in order 10-5 and less than 10-6 over 3 GHz because S21 is less than
– 40 dB over 3 GHz, as expected from (1).

Fig. 3 shows S21 obtained by the proposed method and the average of S12 and S21
obtained by the conventional and unknown thru methods. These quantities are
compared so as to be the same signal to noise ratio (SNR). As expected from (2),

606
they are almost the same above the noise level. These differences are shown in
Fig. 4 and can be explained by (2). The difference between the proposed and
unknown thru methods comes from the difference between those SNRs.

Conclusion

We have proposed a novel calibration method for a VNA in antenna

measurements. Because the proposed calibration method uses only SOL
calibration at each port, no through calibration process is required. Therefore the
calibration procedure can be simple and fast.

To show the effectiveness of the proposed method, we derived the equations for
the differences of S-parameters obtained by the proposed, unknown, and
conventional (SOLT) methods. To verify the equations and usefulness of the
proposed method, we measured S-parameters between two log-periodic antennas.
They agreed well with each other.

In the forthcoming paper, we will show that the SNR of the proposed method is
the same as those of the unknown thru method and the conventional method.

References:

[1] D. Blackham and K. Wong, ”Latest Advances in VNA Accuracy

Enhancements”, Microwave Journal, July 2005.s:

[2] A. Ferero and U. Pisani, “Two-Port Network Analyzer Calibration Using an

Unknown Thru”, IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave Letters, Vol. 2, No. 12,
pp.505-507, December 1992.

[3] U. Stumper, “Influence of TMSO Calibration Standards Uncertainties on

VNA S-Parameter Measurements”, IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement, Vol.
52, No. 2, pp.311-315, April 2003.
1.0

0.8 |S11|
|S22|
Magnitude

0.5

0.3

0.0
0 3 6 9
Frequency (GHz)

Fig. 1 S11 and S22 of two log-periodic antennas system measured by the proposed,
conventional (SOLT), and unknown thru methods.

607
 3.0E-05

|S11.proposed - S11.conv|
2.0E-05 |S22.proposed - S22.conv|
Difference

1.0E-05

0.0E+00
0 3 6 9
Frequency (GHz)

Fig. 2 Differences of S11 and S22 obtained by the proposed method and the
conventional method (SOLT). The proposed method is completely equivalent to
the unknown thru method as S11 and S22.

-10
S21.prposed
Average(S21,S12).conv
Average(S21,S12).unk
-40
(dB)

-70

-100
0 3 6 9
Frequency (GHz)

Fig. 3 Comparison of S21 measured by the proposed method and the averages of
S21 and S12 obtained by the conventional (SOLT) and unknown thru methods.

0.10

0.05
(dB)

0.00

-0.05 S21.proposed/Average(S21,S12).conv
S21.proposed/Average(S21,S12).unk

-0.10
0 3 6 9
Frequency (GHz)

Fig. 4 Differences between S21 measured by the proposed method and the
averages of S21 and S12 obtained by the conventional (SOLT) and unknown thru
methods.

608