University of New Hampshire

University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository

Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship

Winter 2016

Investigation of Magnitude and Phase Errors in Waveguide

Samples for the Nicolson-Ross-Weir Permittivity Technique
Paul Galvin
University of New Hampshire, Durham

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis

Recommended Citation
Galvin, Paul, "Investigation of Magnitude and Phase Errors in Waveguide Samples for the Nicolson-Ross-
Weir Permittivity Technique" (2016). Master's Theses and Capstones. 891.
https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/891

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire
Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized
administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact
Scholarly.Communication@unh.edu.
INVESTIGATION OF MAGNITUDE AND PHASE ERRORS IN WAVEGUIDE SAMPLES

FOR THE NICOLSON-ROSS-WEIR PERMITTIVITY TECHNIQUE

BY
Paul Galvin
B.S.E.E. University of New Hampshire, May 2013

THESIS

Submitted to the University of New Hampshire

In Partial Fulfillment of
The Requirements of the Degree of

Master of Science
in
Electrical Engineering

December 2016
This thesis/dissertation has been examined and approved in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Electrical Engineering by:

Thesis Director, Kent A. Chamberlin

Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering

Kondagunta Sivaprasad

Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering

Allen D. Drake

Associate Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering

On August 9, 2016

Original approval signatures are on file with the University of New Hampshire Graduate School.

iii
 DEDICATION

To my family,

for all the encouragement they’ve given over the years

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to formally thank Dr. Kent Chamberlin, Dr. Allen Drake, and Dr. Kondagunta
Sivaprasad for all their guidance both with this project and across all my studies.

I would also like to express my gratitude for all the staff at Amphenol-TCS for the time and
resources they supplied to help me accomplish this research.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication .................................................................................................................................. iv

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... v

Table of Contents....................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... viii

Abstract....................................................................................................................................... x

Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Overview of the Work ................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Plane wave Incident on an Infinite Slab........................................................................ 2

1.3 Plane Wave Incident on a Dielectric Slab with a Finite Thickness ................................ 6

Chapter 2: Electromagnetic Wave Model ..................................................................................13

2.1 Permittivity Calculations from Waveguide Transmission .............................................13

2.2 Permittivity Correcting Method ....................................................................................23

2.3 Error Modeling Method ...............................................................................................24

Chapter 3: Simulations ..............................................................................................................26

3.1 Raw Simulation Data ..................................................................................................26

3.2 Reduction of Permittivity Errors ...................................................................................33

Chapter 4: Discussion of Results ..............................................................................................41

4.1 Half-Wavelength Discontinuities in NRW Technique ...................................................41

4.2 Nicolson-Ross-Weir Best Practices .............................................................................44

vi
Chapter 5: Conclusions .............................................................................................................47

5.1 Simulations .................................................................................................................47

5.2 Nicolson-Ross-Weir Methodology ...............................................................................48

5.3 Future Work ................................................................................................................49

Appendices ...............................................................................................................................50

Appendix A: Calculation of Phase Constant and Infinite Slab Reflection Coefficient from S-

Parameters ...............................................................................................................................51

Appendix B: Calculation of Relative Permittivity and Permittivity, Three Region Plane Wave

Excitation ..................................................................................................................................54

Appendix C: Calculation of Relative Permittivity and Permittivity, Three Region TEM or TE wave

Excitation ..................................................................................................................................56

Appendix D: Waveguide Material Mode ....................................................................................61

Appendix E: Nicolson-Ross-Weir Material Measurement Technique .........................................62

List of References .....................................................................................................................63

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Plane Wave Incident on an Infinite Length of Material ................................................. 3

Figure 2: Multi-Region Dielectric Measurement Setup................................................................ 6

Figure 3: Multi-Region Dielectric Measurement Setup Cross-Section ........................................ 7

Figure 4: Finite Thickness Dielectric Slab Inside a Waveguide..................................................14

Figure 5: Infinite Slab of Dielectric Material with Non-Normal Angle of Incidence ......................16

Figure 6: Orientation of the Phase Constant Terms ..................................................................19

Figure 7: Teflon, S11 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity ......................................................27

Figure 8: Teflon, S11 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity .............................................28

Figure 9: Teflon, Inverse S11 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity .........................................28

Figure 10: Teflon, Inverse S11 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity ...............................29

Figure 11: Plexiglas, S11 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity ...............................................30

Figure 12: Plexiglas, S11 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity .......................................30

Figure 13: Teflon, S21 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity ....................................................31

Figure 14: Teflon, S21 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity ...........................................32

Figure 15: Plexiglas, S21 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity ...............................................32

Figure 16: Plexiglas, S21 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity .......................................33

Figure 17: Teflon, S11 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability ............35

Figure 18: Teflon, S11 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability ....35

Figure 19: Plexiglas, S11 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability ........36

Figure 20: Plexiglas, S11 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability 37

Figure 21: Teflon, S21 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability ............38

Figure 22: Teflon, S21 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability ....38

Figure 23: Plexiglas, S21 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability ........39

Figure 24: Plexiglas, S21 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability 39

viii
Figure 25: Impedance Diagram for Lossless Transmission Line with Two Reflections ..............41

Figure 26: Ripple as a Function of d / λ .....................................................................................42

Figure 27: 0.5 Inch Teflon Sample, S21 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity .........................43

Figure 28: 0.5 Inch Teflon Sample, S21 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity, ................44

Figure 29: Teflon, Real Part of Permittivity with S11 Phase and Material Thickness Errors ........45

Figure 30: Teflon, Imaginary Part of Permittivity Phase and Material Thickness Errors .............46

Figure 31: MATLAB Code for Creating S-Parameters ...............................................................61

Figure 32: NRW MATLAB Code With Permeability Fixing Ability ..............................................62

ix
 ABSTRACT

Investigation of Magnitude and Phase Errors in Waveguide Samples for the Nicolson-Ross-Weir

Permittivity Technique

By Paul Galvin

University of New Hampshire, December 2016

The Nicolson-Ross-Weir (NRW) technique is a commonly-used method for measuring

the electromagnetic properties of low-loss materials. The technique entails placing the material

under test in a waveguide, and then inferring the electromagnetic properties of that material

from the reflection and transmission coefficients measured at the ends of the guide.

While NRW technique generally provides reliable and accurate results, there are

conditions where errors can arise. Some of the known errors are attributed to sample

preparation, although errors have been observed even with perfectly-prepared samples. Those

errors generally result in an overestimation of loss and unrealistic values for permeability, and

they are shown to be associated with phase errors in the reflection and transmission

coefficients. The work reported here shows the relationship between measurement phase

errors and how they impact estimated electromagnetic property values. Further, an approach to

correct for those errors when evaluating non-magnetic materials is given.

x
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 serves to outline the organization for the remainder of the research. This chapter
details the process to calculate the relative permittivity from plane-wave reflections, which is
used as the building block for the full development of the Nicolson-Ross-Weir equations in
Chapter 2. Additionally, this chapter will define terms, geometries, and concepts that will be
referenced throughout the remainder of the work.

1.1 Overview of the Work

The Nicolson-Ross-Weir (NRW) technique is a method of calculating the relative

permittivity and relative permeability of a material by measuring the reflections and transmission

from an incident electromagnetic wave on a slab of the material. While the NRW technique

provides accurate and reliable results in most cases, there are identifiable conditions where

measurements of the permittivity of common dielectrics provide values for permittivity and loss

that are unrealistic. In most cases, it is the imaginary portion of the complex permittivity that is

susceptible to these errors. This work demonstrates that these errors are artifacts of phase

errors introduced in the measurement process, and a simple mathematical reduction can

improve results such that they prove useful.

Sections 1.2 and 1.3 begin describing the NRW technique by analyzing plane-wave

reflection and transmission for a dielectric sample. Since any traveling wave incident upon a

discontinuity will cause both a reflected and transmitted wave from the plane of incidence, the

magnitude of the reflection and transmission coefficients is related to the electromagnetic

properties of that material. For a plane-wave with normal incidence upon an infinite slab of a

dielectric, the ratio of the reflected to incident waves is sufficient to calculate the relative

1
permittivity of the material in a straightforward manner. Section 1.3 extends the equations for

this infinite-slab incidence to a case where the material under test has a fixed, known, thickness.

For practical considerations, NRW measurements typically take place in a rectangular

waveguide. Section 2.1 describes the equations necessary to compute the relative permittivity

of the material in a waveguide, which is complicated by non-normal angles of incidence. The

equations given in Section 2.1 are the full complement of equations associated with the NRW

technique, and they can be used to calculate the reflection and transmission coefficients within

a waveguide.

The work presented here uses a mathematical model, separate from the NRW, to

construct and calculate the reflection and transmission coefficients caused by a known material

inside an X-Band waveguide. Section 2.2 details the model created to determine the reflection

and transmission coefficients, insert known phase errors into these terms, and then use the

NRW technique to solve for the error influenced permittivity and permeability terms.

Additionally, Section 2.3 describes the method used to reduce the effect the phase errors have

on the final permittivity calculation. The results from the modeling are included in Chapter 3,

with Chapters 4 and 5 dedicated to discussion of the results, in addition to conclusions and

future work in this field.

1.2 Plane wave Incident on an Infinite Slab

Figure 1 shows a plane wave incident upon an infinite slab of a dielectric material. The

fields are oriented for convenience, such that the electric field E is a vector exclusively in the x-

direction ( E  E x ), the magnetic field H is exclusively in the y-direction ( H  H y ), and the

Poynting vector S is exclusively in the z-direction ( S  S z ). Due to this simplification of the

geometry, the electric field will be denoted simply as E, where a positive value indicates an

electric field propagating in the positive x-direction, and a negative value indicates an electric

2
field propagating in the negative x-direction. Similarly, the magnetic field and Poynting vector

will be denoted simply as H and S respectively. Notation extends to include subscripts

indicating the measurement region the field exists in, as well as a superscript indicating incident

waves (i), reflected waves (r), or transmitted waves (t).

Figure 1: Plane Wave Incident on an Infinite Length of Material

By measuring the propagating waves incident and reflected from the infinite dielectric

slab, the input reflection coefficient for the system can be determined. It is known that the

reflection coefficient for a two-region configuration can be calculated using the intrinsic

impedances of each region. The intrinsic impedance, η, is defined as the ratio of electric field

strength to magnetic field strength. For a plane wave, the following equation defines the

intrinsic impedance

E µ r µr
    0  1 2 0 (1)
H  r
r

3
The dependence of the permittivity of the dielectric in determining its intrinsic impedance is what

enables using the reflection coefficient to calculate the relative permittivity. In this example,

there are two regions. Region 1, free-space, has an intrinsic impedance  1  1 2 0  Ω . For this

work, the infinite-slab reflection coefficient  m n denotes the reflection coefficient from an

incident wave in material m, incident upon an infinite slab of material n. In this particular

example,  1 2 is therefore the reflection coefficient for a wave in free-space incident upon the

infinite dielectric slab in region 2. Additionally, for this example,  in , the measured reflection

 2 1
coefficient from a reflected wave in region 1, is equivalent to  1 2 . Since  1 2  with  1
 2 1

and  in being known εr can be calculated assuming the material is non-magnetic (therefore µr,

can be forced to 1+j0).

µr  µr  µr
1 2 0  1 2 0 1 2 0  1 1
 2 1 r  r  r
 in   1 2     (2)
 2  1 µr  µr  µr
1 2 0  1 2 0 1 2 0  1 1
r r r
 

Next, multiplying both sides by the denominator simplifies the equation.

 µr  µr
  1   12  1
r  r
 
(3)
µr µr
 12   12  1
r r

Next, rearranging the terms to isolate the relative permittivity to the same side of the equation

enables solving for permittivity.

4
 µr µr
 12     12  1
r r
(4)
µr
(  1 2  1)    1 2  1
r

µr
Dividing both sides of the equation by (  1 2  1 ) finally isolates the term, and multiplying
r

both the top and bottom of the right side of the equation by -1 returns a simpler format for the

equation.

µr   12  1 1   12
  (5)
r  12  1 1   12

With the equation solved in terms of both the relative permittivity and the relative permeability, it

is now possible to solve for only the relative permittivity. By squaring both sides of the equation,

as well as substituting the value of 1 for  r , the equation is solved in terms of only the relative

permittivity.

2
r 1  1   12 
    (6)
r r  1   12 

Finally, taking the inverse of both sides of the equation results in an equation fully solved for the

relative permittivity.

2
 1  Γ 12 
r
   (7)
 1  Γ 12 

This final equation shows that for this infinite slab example, the reflection coefficient is a

sufficient measure to calculate the relative permittivity of the material, provided it is known to be

a non-magnetic material. If the material were magnetic, with an unknown μ r , the ratio of

5
relative permeability and relative permittivity could be calculated, but they could not be

separated from one another without further information.

1.3 Plane Wave Incident on a Dielectric Slab with a Finite Thickness

The previous example is unrealistic since an infinite slab of dielectric is unrealizable,

although it does demonstrate the relationship between reflection coefficient and the

electromagnetic properties of a material. When the z-dimension of the dielectric slab is reduced

from being infinitely thick to having a set thickness, d, a third region is introduced. For this

example, this third region is free-space, just like region 1. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate a

realizable measurement setup, wherein there is a known thickness to the material being tested.

Figure 2: Multi-Region Dielectric Measurement Setup

6
 Figure 3: Multi-Region Dielectric Measurement Setup Cross-Section

The goal of this section is to derive a new equation relating the fields reflected from the

finite-slab to the infinite-slab reflection coefficient described in Section 1.2. That relationship will

enable the permittivity to be calculated from finite-slab reflection coefficient.

As in the infinite-slab case, the input reflection coefficient is determined by measuring

the ratio of the reflected wave to the incident wave at the boundary of the dielectric slab. The

first reflection source is the boundary between regions 1 and 2, and the second is the boundary

between regions 2 and 3. The infinite-slab reflection coefficient between the free-space in

region 1 and the dielectric in region 2 would be Γ 1 2 , while the infinite-slab reflection coefficient

for between the dielectric in region 2 and the free-space in region 3 would be Γ 2 1 . These two

reflection coefficients are both based upon the same two intrinsic impedances, with the only

7
difference is which material the incident wave is travelling in. As such, the only difference

between the two is the sign, therefore Γ 1 2   Γ 2 1 .

Since the two boundaries are not isolated from the rest of the system, the input reflection

coefficient is neither Γ 1 2 nor Γ 2 1 . Despite that, these terms remain useful during the calculation

process. Since Γ 1 2 is a function of the dielectric permittivity and permeability alone, by solving

for Γ 1 2 permittivity can be calculated. Therefore, the goal is to calculate the input reflection

coefficient Γ in in terms of the infinite slab reflection coefficient Γ 1 2 to enable solving for the

permittivity.

The input reflection coefficient is the reflection coefficient seen at the boundary between

regions 1 and 2. It is dependent upon the intrinsic impedance of region 1, which is free-space,

and the impedance seen looking into the system from that boundary. In the previous example,

since there was dielectric for an infinite distance in the z-direction, this was simply the intrinsic

impedance of the dielectric material. In this case, the free-space in region 3 acts as a load to

the system, creating a standing wave internal to region 2. Therefore, the realized impedance

internal to region 2 varies along the z-direction. The input reflection coefficient is based upon

this impedance at distance –d from the region 2 to region 3 boundary.

 L  0    d  1
 in   (8)
L 0    d   1

The next step is to determine the function   z  which describes the impedance at a

point inside region 2 at a distance, z, from the region 2 to region 3 boundary. Note that z starts

at zero at the right boundary, and increases to the right. Impedance is a concept which

describes the relationship between the electric and magnetic fields at a given point. Inside

8
region 2, two traveling waves exist, the wave transmitted from region 1, S 2t , and the wave

reflected from the region 2 to region 3 boundary, S 2r . These need to be added.

E2  E2
t r
E
   (9)
H
t r
H H 2 2

In order to continue solving, the waves need to be put in terms of one another. In this

case, the two waves are separated by a distance of d. Therefore, the reflected wave, S 2r is

dependent on the wave transmitted into region 2 S 2t propagating a distance of d, then being

reflected by the infinite slab reflection coefficient  2 1 . Therefore the following relationships

exist:

 jβ z d
E 2  Γ 21 E 2 e
r t

 jβ z d
(10)
  Γ 21 H 2 e
r t
H 2

Note that the reflected magnetic field is negative since propagation for the reflected wave is in

E2  H
r r
the opposite direction as the incident wave, 2
must point in the negative z-direction.

Additionally, β z is the phase constant for the z-oriented portion of the travelling wave. For this

example, since the travelling wave is entirely in the z-direction, β z   .

r
The fields E 2r and H 2
are defined at the region 2 to region 3 boundary, while the fields

t
E2 and H 2t are both defined at the region 1 to region 2 boundary. Therefore, to determine the

superposition of the two fields at distance z, propagation factors must be applied to each term.

The reflected fields both must travel a distance z in the negative direction, thus it has a

jβ z z
propagation factor of e . The fields transmitted into region 2 both must travel a distance d+z,

 jβ z  d  z 
therefore have a propagation factor of e .

9
  jβ z  d  z  jβ z z
z  E2e
t r
E 2e  j z  d  z   jβ z d j z z
  21 E 2 e
t t
E E 2e e
 z    j z  d  z 
H z H 2e
t  jβ z  d  z 
 H 2e
r jβ z z
H 2e
t
  21 H 2 e
t  jβ z d
e
j z z

(11)
e 
 j z  d  z   j z d  z 
E2
t   21e e
 j z  d  z 
  21e
 j z d  z 

 z  
e 
t j z  d  z   j z d  z  2 j z d  z   j z d  z 
H 2   21e e   21e

With an equation for observed impedance as a function of distance in terms of the propagation

constant, the infinite slab reflection coefficient, and the intrinsic impedance of region 2, the input

reflection coefficient can now be solved by substituting in the observed impedance at distance –

d.

j z ( d  d )  j z  d  d 
e   21e 1   21e
 j2 zd
2 1 2 1
j z  d  d   j z  d  d 
   d  1 e   21e 1   21e
 j2 zd

 in    (12)
   d   1 j z  d  d  j2 zd
  j z  d  d  1   21e
e   21e 2 1
2 1  j2 zd
j z  d  d   j z  d  d  1   21e
e   21e

From here, two additional substitutions can be made. Since region 1 is free-space,  1   0 .

Additionally, the intrinsic impedance in region 2 can be replaced by (1). Those two substitutions

allow the following reductions:

 µ r  1   21e
 j2 zd
  µ r  1   21e
 j2 zd
 
0     0 0      1 
e r  1   21e
 j2 zd  e r  1   21e
 j2  zd

    
 in  
 j2 zd
 µ r  1   21e   µ r  1   21e
 j2 zd
 
0    j2zd   0 0      1 
e r  1   21e  e r  1   21e
 j2zd

    
(13)
 j2  zd
 µ r  1   21e 
   j2 zd   1
 e r  1   21e 
Γ in 
 j2 zd
 µ r  1   21e 
   j2 zd  1
 e r  1   21e 

10
In an attempt to consolidate terms (5) is used to remove the permittivity and permeability terms.

Additionally,  2 1 is replaced with   1 2 .

 j2  zd  j2 zd  j2 zd
 1   12   1   12 e  1   12 e   12   12 e
2

   j2  zd  1  j2  zd  j2  zd
1
 1   12   1   12 e 1   12 e   12   12 e
2

 in    j2  zd  j2  zd
(14)
 j2  zd
1   12 e   12   12 e
2
 1   12   1   12 e 
   1  j2  zd  j2  zd
1
 j2  zd
1   12 e   12   12 e
2
 1   12   1   12 e 

The rightmost term was obtained by expanding the factorization.

The final reduction step is to multiply the top and bottom of the equation by

 j z d  j z d
1   12 e   12   12 e
2
in order to reduce the equation to a single fraction.

 j2 zd  j2  zd  j2  zd  j2  zd
(1  1)  (  1 2   1 2 )  (   1 2 e   12 e )  ( 12 e   12 e
2 2
)
S 1 1   in 
 j2 zd  j2  zd  j2 zd  j2  zd
(1  1)  (  1 2   1 2 )  (  1 2 e   12 e )  (   12 e   12 e
2 2
)
(15)
 12 1  e 
 j2  zd
 j2 zd
2  12  2  12 e
S 1 1  Γ in   j2  zd
  j2  zd
1   12 e
2
2  2  12 e
2

The above result is the most reduced form for the input reflection coefficient in terms of

the infinite slab reflection coefficient  1 2 . Unlike previously, when the equations were entirely in

terms of known or measured variables, this time there are two unknown quantities,  1 2 and  z .

Further, both terms are dependent upon both the relative permittivity and the relative

permeability. By assuming the relative permeability is 1+j0, as was done in the previous

example, both terms become functions of only the relative permittivity. Despite this, there is still

no analytic method to solve for the permittivity, and an iterative approximation method would be

required.

Instead, a different approach is taken. Since the environment for region 1 is the same

as region 3, it is practical to measure the total transmission through the system. Following the

11
same approach as was used to calculate the reflection coefficient, the net transmission

coefficient is calculated to be the following:

E3
t
1    e2
12
 j z d

S 21  T    j2zd
(16)
1   12 e
i 2
E1

With both the transmission and reflected fields measured, and both equations in terms only of

the unknowns  1 2 and  z , there is sufficient information to solve analytically for each term

independently. Since these are non-linear relationships, solving for the unknowns is not a

straightforward problem. A technique for solving this system is shown in Appendix A .

Once  1 2 is obtained, the same process as before can be used to calculate the

permittivity:

2
 1  Γ 12 
r
   (17)
μr  1  Γ 12 

One additional benefit, however, is the information obtained by solving for  z . The following

equation describes the phase constant for a wave travelling in a material:


  r r
(18)
c

A primary advantage of this method is that due to having two separate equations entirely

in terms of the relative permeability and the relative permittivity, it is now possible to solve for

both values simultaneously. Appendix B details the mathematics necessary to convert the

phase constant and the infinite slab reflection coefficients to the relative permittivity and relative

permeability values.

12
 CHAPTER 2: ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE MODEL

Chapter 2 provides the background on the model of the waveguide used to measure reflection
and transmission coefficients. This Chapter also shows how the Nicolson-Ross-Weir (NRW)
technique of calculating permittivity and permeability values from the reflection and transmission
coefficients measured in a hollow, rectangular waveguide. Additionally, it describes the
generation of the S-Parameters from the basic permittivity, sample size, and waveguide size
parameters. Finally, it outlines the theory being tested in this work to assess the reliability of the
Nicolson-Ross-Weir technique in the presence of measured phase errors.

2.1 Permittivity Calculations from Waveguide Transmission

The examples used thus far to illustrate the relationship between electromagnetic

properties and the reflection and transmission coefficients have been for plane waves normally

incident on a boundary. However, because of practical considerations, measurements are

performed in waveguide structures, where wave propagation is not TEM. Consequently, the

plane-wave relationships given above must be modified to accommodate the TE or TM waves

propagating in a waveguide.

Rectangular waveguides are used almost exclusively to measure reflection and

transmission coefficients, and the waveguides are operated using the lowest-order mode, the

TE10 mode. The advantages here are that it is known that across a given bandwidth, the

medium supports only a single mode of operation, and thus all measured waves can be

assumed to be TE10 waves. Additionally, the rectangular geometry allows for very simple

preparation of samples, which can be easily controlled to very precise specifications. Figure 4

shows the system as it applies in a waveguide.

13
 Figure 4: Finite Thickness Dielectric Slab Inside a Waveguide

This figure shows that the primary disadvantage of this method is the incident waves no

longer have normal incidence to the boundary. The goal for this section is to expand the

equations from Section 1.3 to work for any TEM or TE wave. With this goal, the full Nicolson-

Ross-Weir method will be shown. Additionally, it will be shown that these new equations can be

used for plane-wave excitation as well as the waveguide modes, and therefore are not new, but

rather a more complete version of the governing equations.

The following equation details the angle of an incident wave in the yz-plane relative to the

forward z-direction.

 2 
 fc 
 i  cos
1  1   (19)

  f  
 

14
In this equation, f c is the cutoff frequency for an empty waveguide for the mode being used,

and f is the frequency of the input wave.

The equations in Section 1.3 were designed with particular requirements in order to be

scalable to this more complex situation. Thanks to this effort, many of the equations already

developed are still valid. In particular, the equations shown as well as in Appendix A used to

calculate Γ 1 2 and  z from S 1 1 and S 2 1 remain unchanged. The difference due to the oblique

incidence is in the calculation of relative permittivity and relative permeability from Γ 1 2 and  z .

The issue with the waveguide transmission is that the phase constant,  , and the

infinite-slab reflection coefficient, Γ 1 2 are complicated by the introduction of a non-normal angle

of incidence. Figure 5 shows the pertinent fields for analyzing the new reflection coefficient for

the infinite dielectric slab case.

15
 Figure 5: Infinite Slab of Dielectric Material with Non-Normal Angle of Incidence

This figure details two different angles for the traveling wave, an incident angle in the free-space

(  i ), and a second for the transmitted wave inside the dielectric (  t ). Snell’s law determines the

relationship between these two variables.

n 1 s in   i   n 2 s in   t  (20)

where n is the index of refraction, which is defined as n  r

 r . Snell’s law is useful for the

NRW process, since all direct wave measurements are in free-space, it is impossible to directly

measure the angle of transmission internal to the medium, thus Snell’s law allows us to put it

terms of other known information.

16
 The electric field in this TE orientation is perpendicular to the plane of incidence.

Therefore, this is referred to as a perpendicular polarization. The Fresnel reflection coefficient

for perpendicular polarization is defined as the following:

 2 c o s  i    1 c o s  t 
Γ 12  (21)
 2 c o s  i    1 c o s  t 

By dividing the top and bottom of the equation by  2 , the equation can be put in terms of the

1 0 0 r
relative permittivity and permeability, since   r
:
2 0 0
r r

2 1
c o s  i   c o s  t  c o s  i   r
c o s  t 
2 2 r
Γ 12   (22)
2 1
c o s  i   c o s  t  c o s  i   r
c o s  t 
2 2 r

Next, the  t must be eliminated. Rewriting Snell’s law, the following can be calculated for  t :

n 1 s in   i   n 2 s in   t 
n1
s in   t   s in   i  (23)
n2

 1   s in    
s in   i    s in
1 1
 t  s in
i
  
 r r 
 n2   

The angle of the transmitted wave only occurs in (23) inside a cosine term. The trigonometric

identity c o s  s in  1 x   1  x 2 is used to reduce the trigonometric operations required.

2
  s in      s in     s in
2
 i 
1
c o s ( t )  c o s  s in  
i
1
i
   1 (24)
  r r   r r  r
     r

17
(24) is now substituted back into (22) in order to remove the unknown value of  t .

 i 
2
s in
c o s  i   r
c o s  t  c o s  i   r
1
r r r
Γ 12  
r
(25)
 i 
2
s in
c o s  i   r
c o s  t  c o s  i   r
1
r r r r

Next, (19) is substituted into (25) to remove any reference to the angle.

  2  
 fc 
s in  c o s  
1
1 
2

  2      f  
 fc    
cos  cos  
1
1  
r
1
   f   r r
 
r

Γ 12  (26)
   2

2   fc 
s in cos
1
 1  

  2      f  
 fc    
cos  cos   
1
1  
r
1
   f   r r
 
r


Using the trigonometric identity s in  c o s  1 x   1  x 2 again also reduces the equation for the

infinite slab reflection coefficient.

2
 2 
  2
  f  
 1  1  c     fc 
2

  f  
2     2  
 f     f   f 
1  c   r
1 1  c   r
1
 f  r r r  f  r r r
Γ 12   (27)
2 2
 2   fc 
 2 
  fc   2  
 1  1  


 f   f 
 1  c   r
1
  f    r r
 f 
2
   f  r
 
1  c   r
1
 f  r r r

18
 2
 fc 
2  
 f   f 
1  c   r
1
 f  r r r
Γ 12  (28)
2
 fc 
2  
 f   f 
1  c   r
1
 f  r r r

The phase constant is simpler to adjust for the waveguide operation. The equations for

the plane-wave incidence were all defined using the z-directional phase constant,  z . In that

example, the Poynting vector was entirely in the z-direction, so that was equivalent to the phase

constant. In this example, since the Poynting vector is at an angle in the yz-plane,  z must be

calculated. Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between  z and  .

Figure 6: Orientation of the Phase Constant Terms

Therefore, the following mathematical relationship is shown.

z
  (29)
c o s  t 

(24) is substituted into (29) in order to remove the dependence on the transmitted angle.

z z
   (30)
c o s  t  s in
2
 i 
1
r r

19
Finally, (19) is used to replace the incidence angle values with known frequency values.

Additionally, the trigonometric identity s in  c o s  1 x   1  x 2 further reduces the equation for the

phase constant.

z z z
   
2 2
  2  
 2   f 
2   fc    11   c 
 
2
s in cos
1
 1    f  
  1  1  c     f 
  f    
 1
  i    f    r
1   r
r  
r 1
r r
(31)
z
 
2
 fc 
 
 f 
1
r r

The equation for the phase constant can be further reduced by squaring both sides of the

equation, followed by multiplying both sides of the equation by the denominator.

z
2

 
2
2
 fc 
 
 f 
1
r r

  fc  
2

   
  f  
 1  z
2 2


(32)
r r 
 
 
 

2
 fc 

2
 
 f 
   z
2 2

r r

20
The goal behind all of these equations is to eventually calculate the relative permeability and

relative permittivity. Therefore, any attempt to convert between the phase constant and the z-

direction oriented phase constant must not rely on these values, since they will be unknown until

the end of the calculation process. By substituting the definition of (18) into the equation, these

terms can be removed.

2 2 2
   fc    fc 
 r r    r r   2 2
 c   f   fc    fc   f c 
z         
2 2 2 2 2
 
r r
r r  fc   fc  (33)
2
 f c 2 
z   
2 2

 c 

c
The final substitution comes from the identity   .
f

2
 2 
z   
2 2
 (34)
 c 

Where  c is the cutoff wavelength. Finally, taking the square root of both sides solves for the

 z term.

2
 2 
z   
2
 (35)
 c 

Additionally, the equation could be solved for  :

2
 2 
  z 
2
 (36)
 c 

21
This equation is now entirely in terms of known constants,  r , and r
. Therefore, in conjunction

with the equation for the reflection coefficient, there is sufficient information to solve for both the

relative permittivity and permeability, as was done in Section 1.3

Despite the added complexity caused by the waveguide requiring oblique angles of

incidence, the equations developed above are far more robust. Due to the reliance on the cutoff

frequency, these equations are valid for all TEM and TE mode waves, in any transmission

medium, as long as the cutoff frequency can be calculated. For plane-waves and TEM mode

waves, the cutoff frequency is set to 0. It can be seen, that for cutoff frequencies of 0 (infinite

cutoff wavelength), the equations for phase constant and reflection coefficient reduce to their

representations from Section 1.3.

2
 0 
2  
 0   f   r  r
1    r
1 1 r
  1
 f  r r r
*  
r
Γ 12  
r r
(37)
2  r  r
 0  1 r
  1
  r  
 
2
 0   f 
r r

1    r
1
 f  r r r

2
 2 
  z    z  z
2 2
 (38)
  

Appendix C details the mathematics involved in using the calculated  and Γ 1 2 terms in

order to solve for the relative permittivity and relative permeability. The following two equations

show the final results.

22
  
 
1  Γ 12   c z 
r    (39)
1  Γ 12    f 
2

 1  c  
  f  

0   1  
2
z
2 2

     (40)
 r   2   c  
r

2

Using these equations to take a measured set of Scattering Parameters and using them

to calculate the relative permittivity and permeability is referred to as the Nicolson-Ross-Weir

method. In most texts, the equations are provided. It continues to be noteworthy that these

equations apply to both TEM and TE waves, as TEM mode waves will have a cutoff frequency

of 0, and the equations proceed to reduce to the plane-wave equations detailed in example 2.

2.2 Permittivity Correcting Method

The objective of this work is to develop a method to eliminate, or at least minimize,

errors when using the NRW technique to estimate the permittivity of low-loss, non-magnetic

materials. For non-magnetic materials, the relative permeability should always have a value of

1 + j0. Since in (71) the relative permittivity value is dependent upon the value calculated for

relative permeability in (69) any error caused by S-Parameter measurements, sample

preparation, sample thickness values, or waveguide dimensions, will affect both the permittivity

and the permeability. Since the permittivity is calculated from both the S-Parameters and the

permeability value, there are two variables in the permittivity calculation process that will contain

this error. By forcing the permeability to the known correct value (i.e., µr = 1+j0), the number of

errant terms in the permittivity calculation can be reduced.

23
 Mathematically forcing the permeability to a fixed value is not in itself new to the NRW

technique. This work aims to prove that the small phase errors that occur in VNA

measurements are a significant cause of error in the imaginary portion of the relative

permittivity, and that through this correction a more accurate calculation is obtained. In addition,

an effort to quantize this error correction is proposed. Finally, the best practices for the NRW as

a whole are compared to the ideal conditions for this work, to determine what the ideal

measurement situation for non-magnetic materials truly is.

2.3 Error Modeling Method

This work utilizes the equations presented in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, as well as

Appendices A, B, and C in order to create a full model which uses permittivity, thickness, and

waveguide dimension inputs to calculate S-Parameters, and then uses those S-Parameters to

calculate the permittivity and permeability of the sample. The model will impose controlled

errors into the S-Parameter calculation process so that the effect of known errors on the final

permittivity results. The errors introduced will be phase errors on S11 and S21, as S-typical

measured phase errors are more unstable than magnitude errors The most important part of

this work uses the method in Section 2.3 to force the permeability to 1+j0 in order to reduce the

errors in calculation of the permittivity.

The equations in Section 2.1 show the relationship between S-Parameters and

electromagnetic properties for a wave travelling in a NRW test setup. Section 2.1 also detailed

the NRW technique to convert these S-Parameters and physical system properties back into

electrical properties. The modeling method is implemented in Mathworks’ MATLAB software

package.

The first stage of the modeling method uses the work detailed in Section 2.1 to calculate

S-Parameters. This method uses Equations (15,16,18,19,28,35) to convert the input

24
parameters to a set of equivalent S-Parameters. This function allows the model to vary and

specify the mechanical length of the sample (d), the relative complex permittivity of the sample

(εr), the y-dimensional size of the waveguide opening (a), and the frequency range to be

simulated. This method assumes that the waveguide is fully filled so that the distance from the

measurement port to the air-to-dielectric boundary is zero. The S-Parameters returned are from

the air-filled waveguide end pieces, measured from a distance of zero to the sample under test.

The relevant code may be found in Appendix D.

The final stage of the modeling method uses the work detailed in Section 2.1 to calculate

the permittivity and permeability using the Nicolson-Ross-Weir technique. It is assumed that

there are no errors in measurements, and the NRW technique is followed exactly through

Equations (45,48,50-52,69,71). This function allows the model to vary and provide the S11 and

S21 parameters, the sample thickness (d), the y-dimensional size of the waveguide opening (a),

and the frequency range used. Additionally, the method allows the model to specify whether the

relative permeability should be calculated as defined in (69), or if it should be forced to be 1.

The function returns the complex relative permittivity and the complex relative permeability. The

function may be found in Appendix E.

Between these sections, errors are introduced in a controlled manner. This model

allows any of the parameters used by the NRW technique in Appendix E to be varied to

determine the role they play in total error. For this research, only the phase of S11 and S21 are

varied. The intent of the research is to show that the limitations imposed by current VNA

technology and cabling introduces enough phase error that a precise value of complex

permittivity for low-loss materials cannot be obtained without utilizing the permeability fix

described in Section 2.2.

25
 CHAPTER 3: SIMULATIONS

Chapter 3 provides three-dimensional simulated data for Nicolson-Ross-Weir waveguide

measurements of a variety of metal walls and filling materials. Advantages of simulated data
include the ability to create idealized situations where there are no air gaps, material
deformities, or non-homogenous materials. The results in this chapter are intended to be used
in conjunction with the measured results, and not as a replacement for physical measurements.

3.1 Raw Simulation Data

The NRW technique has unacceptable accuracy errors in low-loss material

measurements [5]. The goal of this section is to attribute these errors to the phase stability of

VNA measurements. To demonstrate the impact of measurement errors on estimated complex

permittivity, two common dielectric materials, Teflon and Plexiglas, will be used as examples in

this section. Teflon is commonly used as the insulator in cable design, and Plexiglas is the

primary insulator in printed circuit boards. Teflon is very low loss, with a complex permittivity of

2.1 - j0.00063 at 10 GHz [6]; Plexiglas has higher loss , with complex permittivity of 3.45 –

j0.138 at 10 GHz [6].

A Vector Network Analyzer is a precision piece of equipment which measures the

amplitude and phase of signals in a two-port system. In order to use a Vector Network

Analyzer, coaxial cables must be attached to the ports. These cables have phase instabilities

due to temperature variations and due to mechanical bends. For phase-sensitive

measurements, such as the measurements that will be used for NRW calculations, phase-stable

cables are typically used. Phase-stable cables are more resistant to phase changes caused by

flexing cables or temperature changes. Typical phase stability for cables in the X-Band

frequency range of 8.2-12.4 GHz is ±2-3° [7]. This work will analyze for a maximum deviation

of 2°, in order to estimate the errors in a system where the user is using the best equipment

possible.

26
 All simulations in this chapter include the dielectric losses from the low-loss materials,

but do not account for waveguide conductor losses. With the length of the waveguides being

used here, the conductor losses are low enough that they can be ignored without introducing

appreciable measurement inaccuracies [2].

The first two simulations show the results of the NRW technique measuring 0.3 inches of

Teflon when the phase error of S11 is varied from 0° to 2°, and when the phase error is varied

from -2° to 0°.

Figure 7: Teflon, S11 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity

27
 Figure 8: Teflon, S11 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity

Figure 9: Teflon, Inverse S11 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity

28
 Figure 10: Teflon, Inverse S11 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity

Figure 7 - Figure 10 show that the orientation of the phase error controls whether the

relative permittivity error is a positive or negative direction, but not the magnitude of the error.

Interestingly, the real portion of relative permittivity has increasing error with positive phase

error, and decreasing error with negative phase change, while the imaginary portion has

decreasing error with positive phase error, and increasing error with positive phase change.

Since the magnitude of the errors caused does not vary based on positive or negative phase

errors, only the case of negative phase change will be highlighted for the remainder of this work.

Figure 7 shows that the real portion of the permittivity is affected in a minor way by these

phase issues. Figure 8 shows that the imaginary portion is much more affected, with substantial

errors. The maximum percentage error across all simulations in Figure 8 is 7000% compared to

the 0° phase error case, which is a deviation from the known imaginary portion of permittivity by

0.045.

29
 The next simulation is for Plexiglas also using a 0.3 inch sample and varying S11 from 0°

to 2°.

Figure 11: Plexiglas, S11 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity

Figure 12: Plexiglas, S11 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity

30
Figure 11 and Figure 12 show that the S11 phase errors cause imaginary permittivity errors for

the higher loss Plexiglas as well as the low-loss Teflon shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. The

maximum error on the imaginary portion of permittivity is more with a maximum deviation from

the known imaginary portion of permittivity by approximately 0.15, but the maximum percentage

error is lower at 108%. For applications requiring precise control of the total network losses, this

measurement error is still too great to accept.

The next simulations are 0.3 inches of Teflon and Plexiglas with the phase error of S21

varying from 0° to 2°.

Figure 13: Teflon, S21 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity

31
Figure 14: Teflon, S21 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity

Figure 15: Plexiglas, S21 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity

32
 Figure 16: Plexiglas, S21 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity

Aside from the issue at 11-11.5 GHz, it is seen that the imaginary portion of permittivity

has approximately the same total errors with S21 phase errors as with S11 phase errors. The

real portion has slightly higher error with S21 phase errors than with S11 phase errors.

3.2 Reduction of Permittivity Errors

Traditionally, there exists two main identifiable sources of error in the NRW technique,

which use different methods to compensate. The first is the previously mentioned half-

wavelength sample issue. Typically, there exists two main strategies to deal with this issue.

The first is curve fitting the permittivity results, in order to compensate for a narrow-band issue.

The primary issue here is this is taking an otherwise complete set of equations and replacing it

with an estimation based on averaging. The second is to intentionally keep samples shorter

than one half-wavelength in the material, even at the highest frequency. This method works

well, but does require a decent estimate of the material’s permittivity ahead of sample

preparation, as well as the ability to properly prepare potentially small samples.

33
 The second known issue is sample preparation. When the sample is loaded into the

waveguide, if it is not properly cut or molded, there will be some amount of gap around the

edges. In these regions, the model for a filled waveguide will be incorrect, and the results are

jeopardized. Additionally, for small samples, such as those for higher permittivity materials

attempting to remain electrically shorter than one half-wavelength, small thickness errors can be

problematic for accurate results. This source is the primary blame for most wide-band errors in

the NRW technique. For non-magnetic materials, the primary method to increase accuracy is to

force the permeability to be one. This increases the accuracy by removing a known source of

error in the calculation for permittivity.

This work shows that most errors are in fact S11 and S21 phase errors, not from poor

sample preparation, but rather inadequate fixturing. While poor sample preparation may cause

similar issues, it is in most situations easier to control the sample preparation to have less than

2° of phase error than it would be to control the fixturing to that tolerance. With this goal, the

work sets out to prove that the same technique of forcing the permeability to one that has been

proven effective for sample errors will work for phase errors.

The following simulations replicate the S11 phase errors from Section 3.1, but with the

NRW technique forcing the permeability to one with the goal of reducing raw errors. The first

simulation is 0.3 inches of Teflon with S11 phase errors ranging from 0° to 2°.

34
 Figure 17: Teflon, S11 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability

Figure 18: Teflon, S11 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability

35
Immediately it can be seen that the maximum deviation from the known value for the imaginary

portion of permittivity has been reduced from nearly 0.045 to approximately 0.007. This reduces

the percentage error from being 7000% to only 1000%. While still very high, this is a dramatic

increase in performance.

The next simulation is 0.3 inches of Plexiglas with S11 phase errors ranging from 0° to 2°.

Figure 19: Plexiglas, S11 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability

36
 Figure 20: Plexiglas, S11 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability

Again the maximum deviation from the known value for imaginary permittivity dropped from 0.15

to only 0.037, which represents a drop from 108% error to 27%. This error is far more

manageable, and while still high, is likely within useable ranges for many applications.

The final two simulations are for 0.3 inches of Teflon and Plexiglas with S21 phase errors

ranging from 0° to 2°.

37
 Figure 21: Teflon, S21 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability

Figure 22: Teflon, S21 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability

38
 Figure 23: Plexiglas, S21 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability

Figure 24: Plexiglas, S21 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity with Known Permeability

39
These simulations continue to support the hypothesis that phase errors make up a large portion

of NRW technique errors, and that by forcing the relative permeability to one, most of these

errors are significantly reduced. This follows from (71), which shows that the permeability and

the propagation constant are the two sources in the calculation of the permittivity which are

affected by the S-Parameter phase error. By removing the error in permeability by using the

known value, the error is reduced.

40
 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

This chapter aims to explain and discuss the results from the waveguide model obtained in
Chapter 3. It attempts to draw connections with accepted best practices for using the Nicolson-
Ross-Weir technique, to improve real-world measurements with the best efficiency.

4.1 Half-Wavelength Discontinuities in NRW Technique

When measuring S-Parameters periodic ripple with respect to frequency in the reflection

and insertion parameters due to a mismatched line is common. To illustrate this effect, the

lossless transmission line shown in Figure 25 will be used.

Figure 25: Impedance Diagram for Lossless Transmission Line with Two Reflections

When stimulating the transmission line from port 1, reflections occur at two locations, one with

reflection coefficient Γ, and the second with reflection coefficient –Γ. Any reflections caused at

the second discontinuity have a chance to be re-reflected at the first discontinuity, causing

standing waves to be present along the line [3]. At port 1, the relative phase of the two reflected

signals is determined by the length of the distance d. Therefore, for wavelengths where d is an

41
integer number of half-wavelengths long, the two reflections are 180° out-of-phase, and

therefore the standing waves seen at port 1 are minimal. When d is an integer number of

quarter-wavelengths but not half-wavelengths, the two reflection are in-phase, and create a

maximum standing wave. (15) in Chapter 1 shows the effective input reflection coefficient to the

input of Figure 25.

d
 j 4
2  zd
For a lossless line, e is simplified further to e 
[3]. Figure 26 shows the S11 parameter

d
as the value of is adjusted from 0 to 1 for Γ = 0.5.


Figure 26: Ripple as a Function of d / λ

Figure 2 shows that as the distance between the two discontinuities is an integer number

of half-wavelengths long, the magnitude of reflections (S11) is at a minimum and the magnitude

of transmission (S21) is at a maximum [3]. Conversely, at one-quarter wavelength away from

42
these locations, reflections are at a maximum while transmission loss is at a minimum [3]. At

locations where S11 is at a minimum, (48) has accuracy limitations due to the denominator of

(45) approaching zero. Due to limited precision from measurements, common practice dictates

maintaining that sample thickness remain less than one-half wavelength in the material at the

highest frequency of interest.

These issues were seen in Figure 15 and Figure 16 at about 11 – 11.5 GHz is due to the

electrical length of the material being exactly ½ wavelength long at that frequency. This is true

also for the Teflon case, if the sample length was increased. See Figure 27 and Figure 28.

Figure 27: 0.5 Inch Teflon Sample, S21 Phase Errors, Real Part of Permittivity

43
 Figure 28: 0.5 Inch Teflon Sample, S21 Phase Errors, Imaginary Part of Permittivity,

The errors for Teflon are more notable due to the lower loss through the dielectric.

Since Teflon is very low loss, the reflections cancel almost entirely, causing the result of the

division to be very unstable with small S21 phase errors. This instability with low-loss material

with half-wavelength sample lengths is a known issue, which this work associates with the

measurements seen in Figure 15 and Figure 16.

4.2 Nicolson-Ross-Weir Best Practices

The main NRW best practices can be summarized by the following three items: keep the

sample electrically thin, ensure that the sample fully fills the waveguide holder, and force the

relative permeability to unity for non-magnetic materials. This research agrees with these

previous assessments, but asserts that the reasoning to force the permeability to a fixed value

is not to protect from user error, but rather phase instability due to instrumentation errors. The

Vector Network Analyzer has very low phase errors, but the cabling used to connect the

44
analyzer to the fixture can have significant phase errors, even after calibration. This work

shows that these errors are causing a significant portion of error in the calculation of the

imaginary permittivity. Simulations show that errors for the imaginary part of the relative

permittivity are loosely related to the error in thickness, but very large errors in the measurement

of the sample thickness are necessary to create small changes in the imaginary part of the

relative permittivity. On the other hand, thickness error is very tightly coupled to the real part of

the relative permittivity. See Figure 29 and Figure 30 for a comparison between thickness

errors and phase errors. Note that the scale required for Figure 30 shows the no error case

being approximately equivalent to the case where the measured thickness of the sample is 10%

larger than the actual thickness.

Figure 29: Teflon, Real Part of Permittivity with S11 Phase and Material Thickness Errors

45
 Figure 30: Teflon, Imaginary Part of Permittivity Phase and Material Thickness Errors

These figures show that the imaginary portion of permittivity is not tightly related to

errors in the measurement of the sample thickness. On the other hand, the real portion of

permittivity is very sensitive to these thickness measurement errors. This suggests that the

source of the observed error is not from sample preparation, as is often suggested, but rather

instrumentation errors related to the phase of the measurement, as was shown in Chapter 3.

With this in mind, care may be taken to reduce these phase errors as much as possible, by

using phase stable cables, avoiding bending or heating cables between calibration steps and

measurements, and using other measurement best practices. These steps will reduce the

measurement phase errors, which will increase the overall measurement quality. Remaining

errors can be further reduced by forcing the relative permeability to one as was shown in

Chapter 3.

46
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS

Chapter 5 combines the results gathered in previous chapters in order to provide a top-level
analysis of the comprehensive research. Comparison is made to the mathematical theories to
how the measured and simulated data match the mathematical model. Potential suggestions
will be outlined for future work to reduce the remaining error sources.

5.1 Simulations

Simulations show a clear pattern where the phase errors that are common in VNA

measurements create notable errors in the capability to calculate the imaginary portion of the

relative permittivity, as was suggested by the hypothesis of this work. This error was able to be

reduced by an order of magnitude by forcing the relative permeability to one, which can be done

for all non-magnetic materials. In theory, this method will work for magnetic materials with

known permeability values as well, by setting the permeability to its known value.

Simulations additionally showed phase errors on S11 and S21 terms contributed equally to

measurement inaccuracies. This is relevant, since phase errors on both ports 1 and 2 can

cause errors, and cannot be reduced independently. This requires that phase stability be

ensured for both VNA ports used in measurements.

The following table shows the phase errors both using the direct NRW technique and

with the permeability fixing method.

47
 Percentage Percentage
Phase Error Corrected
Material Calculated Error Calculated Corrected
Source Error
Error Error
Teflon S11 Phase Error 0.0449 7127.0% 0.0060 947.6%

S21 Phase Error 0.0441 7000.0% 0.0060 947.6%

Plexigla S11 Phase Error 0.1542 110.4% 0.0477 34.5%

s S21 Phase Error 0.1107 80.2% 0.0271 19.6%

Table 1: Maximum Error in Imaginary Part of Permittivity

Table 1 was constructed using the maximum error for each simulation shown in Chapter

3. Exceptions were made for the Plexiglas simulation at around 11 – 11.5 GHz, since this large

error was due to another known issue in the NRW technique. Therefore all reported numbers

exclude the 11 – 11.5 GHz region for the Plexiglas simulations. All reported numbers were from

2° phase error simulations, since these were in all simulations the cases with largest calculation

error.

5.2 Nicolson-Ross-Weir Methodology

This research proposes that the current method of Nicolson-Ross-Weir calculations be

used, with the relative permeability set to a known value for increased accuracy. This is in-line

with current standard practices for the NRW technique. This work showed that measurement

phase errors cause significant errors on the calculation of the imaginary portion of permittivity,

which was a previously undocumented source of error. Reducing phase errors from

instrumentation should take priority over fixturing errors, as it was shown in Section 4.2 that

instrumentation errors are more significant than fixturing errors. It was shown that these errors

can be significant in the scope of permittivity measurements, and that they are more significant

than all non-minor thickness errors or sample preparation mistakes. With this in mind, more

focus needs to be spent on fixturing methodology and other methods to reduce the sensitivity of

phase noise to calculation errors.

48
 5.3 Future Work

This research highlighted an area of instrumentation where there was a significant

limitation, and addressed the common method of error reduction by specifying the permeability

that is in use today that is applicable to reduce the fixturing concerns. More work should be

placed on finding additional methods to reduce the sensitivity to these fixturing problems, since

higher and higher frequency measurements will have more phase inaccuracies. One potential

source of exploration could be reducing phase errors by using measurements of the fixture in

both forwards and backwards. Modern VNAs measure all ports in a single sweep, so this is

information that is already being collected and is available for algorithms to use. Since the two

ports have their own unique phase errors, the S11 and S22 phase errors are not identical, and

therefore the redundant information if used correctly could be used to identify the errors.

49
APPENDICES

50
APPENDIX A: CALCULATION OF PHASE CONSTANT AND INFINITE

SLAB REFLECTION COEFFICIENT FROM S- PARAMETERS

The goal of this section is to use the measured Scattering Parameters, S 1 1 and S 2 1 , to

calculate the infinite-slab reflection coefficient  1 2 and the z-direction phase constant The

following two equations were derived in Section 1.2, which will be manipulated to solve for the

reflection coefficient and the phase constant.

 12 1  e 
 j2 zd

S 1 1   in   j2 zd
(41)
1   12 e
2

E3
t
1    e 2
12
 j z d

S 21  T    j2zd
(42)
1   12 e
i 2
E1

First the reflection coefficient is solved for. To solve for the reflection coefficient, two auxiliary

variables, V1 and V2 are defined.

 1 2  1  Γ 1 2  e
 zd 2  zd
 Γ 12 e
2

V1  S 2 1  S 1 1  2  zd
(43)
1  Γ 12 e
2

  1 2  1  Γ 1 2  e
 zd 2  zd
 Γ 12 e
2

V 2  S 21  S11  2  zd
(44)
1  Γ 12 e
2

These auxillary variables are now used to solve for the variable  , which is defined as the

following:

51
 1  V 1V 2 S11  S 21  1
2 2

   (45)
V1  V 2 2 S11

By multiplying  by 2  1 2 and expanding the terms, the following relationship can be found:

2 Γ 12 Χ  1  Γ 12
2
(46)

By rearranging the terms to the same side of the equation, the following can be found:

 12  2  12   1  0
2
(47)

With this equation, Γ 1 2 can be solved in terms of  by using the quadratic equation.

 12     1
2
(48)

There are two possible solutions to the quadratic equation listed above, but only one of which is

a valid answer. By forcing the answer to fit  1 2  1 [2].

The second step is to calculate the z-direction phase constant  z . (41) and (42) are

used to determine the propagation constant, with the variable Γ12 now calculated [2]:

 j zd  j zd  j2 zd  j2  zd
Γ 12  e  Γ 12 e  Γ 12 e  Γ 12  Γ 12 e
2 3

 j2  zd
S 11  S 21   1  Γ 12 e
2

  j2  zd  j zd  j zd  j2 zd
1   S 21  S11   1  Γ 12 e  Γ 12  Γ 12 e  Γ 12 e  Γ 12 e
2 2 3 2

 j2 zd (49)
1  Γ 12 e
2

 j z d  j z d  j2  zd  j2  zd
S 11  S 21    Γ 12 e  Γ 12 e  Γ 12 e
2 3
1e  j z d
  j zd  j zd
e  k
1   S 21  S11   1  Γ 12  Γ 12 e  Γ 12 e
2 3

 S S  
11 21
ln  
 1   S 11
 S 21    ln  k  ln ( e
 jd  z
)
   z (50)
 jd  jd  jd

52
(50) provides an ambiguity relating to the phase of the imaginary portion of the natural log. The

natural log operation will return an imaginary value between ±π, rather than the true phase

delay through the material. (50) can be rewritten as the following [2]:

ln k  j    2 n 
z 
k
fo r n  0 ,1, 2 ,  (51)
 jd

(51) removes the phase ambiguity through the positive integer value n. The value of n is

equivalent to the number of full 360° phase rotations since the DC operating point. Therefore

the value of n may be computed through the following equation:

d
 k
df
n  (52)
2

53
 APPENDIX B: CALCULATION OF RELATIVE PERMITTIVITY AND

PERMITTIVITY, THREE REGION PLANE WAVE EXCITATION

The goal of this section is to create equations for the relative permittivity and permeability in

terms of the phase constant and the infinite-slab reflection coefficient. The following two

equations from Section 1.3 are used.

2
 1   12 
  (53)
r

r  1   12 

2
 c 
r r
  (54)
  

By combining (53) and (54), the relative permittivity and permeability can be both solved

simultaneously.

Beginning with multiplying both sides of (53) by μ r :

2
 1  Γ 12 
r
 μr   (55)
 1  Γ 12 

Then, substituting this into (54) yields the following:

2 2
 1  Γ 12   c 
rr     (56)
 1  Γ 12    

2
 1  Γ 12 
Next, dividing the   term from both sides of the equation isolates the relative
 1  Γ 12 

permeability term.

54
 2 2
  c   1  Γ 12 
r 
2
   (57)
    1  Γ 12 

Finally taking the square root of both sides of the equation solves for the relative permeability.

 c  1  Γ 12 
r    (58)
  1  Γ 12 

Using this known relative permeability, the relative permittivity can be calculated very simply

using (55).

55
 APPENDIX C: CALCULATION OF RELATIVE PERMITTIVITY AND

PERMITTIVITY, THREE REGION TEM OR TE WAVE EXCITATION

With the new reflection coefficient and phase constant in terms of the relative permittivity

and relative permeability of the material being testing, the equations can be manipulated to

provide equations for relative permittivity and permeability. The first step in reaching a complete

answer is to solve the phase constant equation for the permittivity.


  r r
c

c
r r
 (59)


2
1  c 
r
  
r   

This equation for relative permittivity in terms of the known operating angular frequency, phase

constant, as well as the unknown relative permeability can be inserted into (28). This reduces

the reflection coefficient equation to only having a single unknown value,  r .

56
 2 2
1  c   fc 
2    
 f  r   
2
 fc   f 
1  c   1
2   r 1  c 
2
 f   f   f 
1  c   r
1 r  
 f  r r r
r   
Γ 12   (60)
2 2 2
 fc  1  c   fc 
2   2    
 f   f   f  r     f 
1  c   r
1 1  c   1
r r r
2
 f   f  1  c 
r
r
 
r   

2 2 2

 c   fc   fc 
2
    2  
 f      f   f  c  f 
1  c   1 1  c   1
r r
2 2 2
 f   c   f   c 
   
     
Γ 12   (61)
2 2 2

 c   fc   fc 
2
    2  
 f      f   f  c  f 
1  c   1 1  c   1
r r
2 2 2
 f   c   f   c 
   
     

The first step is to multiply both sides of the equation by the denominator.

 2  2
 fc   fc 
 
2   2  
  fc  c  f    fc  c  f 
Γ 12  1    1   1    1 (62)
r r
2 2

  f   c    f   c 
   
       
 

2 2
 fc   fc 
2   2  
 fc  c  f   fc  c  f 
Γ 12 1    Γ 12 1  1    1 (63)
r r
2 2
 f   c   f   c 
   
     

The next step is to gather the terms with  r on the same side of the equation.

57
 2 2
 fc   fc 
    2 2
c  f  c  f   fc   fc 
1  Γ 12 1  1    Γ 12 1  
r r
2 2
 c   c   f   f 
   
     
(64)
 2 
 fc 
 
  2
 c  f    fc 
1  Γ 12  1   1  Γ 12  1  
r
2

  c    f 
 
    
 

Finally, dividing by the right side of the equation, and multiplying by  r results in an equation

entirely in terms of the relative permeability.

 2 
 fc 
 
 
 c  f  
 1   2 2 

2

  c     c   fc 

     
1  Γ 12       1  Γ 12       f  
r       (65)
1  Γ 12    fc 
2
 1  Γ 12    f 
2

 1     1  c  
  f 
   f  
 
 
 

If the phase constant was calculated earlier, this equation is sufficient for calculating the relative

permeability. Most texts prefer to put the equation in terms of the measured phase constant,

 z . By substituting (36) the phase constant can be adjusted to the measured phase constant.

  
 2    f c 
2 2
 
2
2
 c 
2
 fc    c  
 z    
2
   
        
1  Γ 12       f   1  Γ 12     c    f 
r   
   (66)
1  Γ 12    f 
2
 1  Γ 12  
 f 
2 
1  c   1  c  
 
 f    f  
 
 

58
   2 2
  f 2
2 
 2  c   c   2  
z       
c

        c    f  
1  Γ 12     
r  (67)
1  Γ 12  
 f 
2 
 1  c  
  f  
 

2 1 c
The next two substitutions are  and  fc .
 f c

 2 2 2   
  zc   fc   f  2
     zc  
        c 
  
1  Γ 12      f   f  1  Γ 12      
r       (68)
1  Γ 12  
 f 
2
 1  Γ 12    f 
2

 1  c    1  c  
  f     f  
 

 
 
1  Γ 12   c z 
r    (69)
1  Γ 12    f 
2

 1  c  
  f  

Finally, to get the relative permittivity, the now calculated relative permeability can be inserted

back into the following equation.

2
1  c 
r
   (70)
r   

As was the case for the relative permeability, most texts prefer to use the measured z-

directional phase constant rather than the actual phase constant. Again, using (36) to replace

the phase constant with the measured z-directional phase constant allows this change.

59
 2 
1  c   2  2   1   0   2  2    0  2  
2 2 2 2 2
z
2

                       
r      c    r  2    c    r   2 
r z z
2  c  
2

        
(71)
0   z  1  
2
2 2

     
 r   2  c  
r 2

  

60
 APPENDIX D: WAVEGUIDE MATERIAL MODE

Section 2.1 outlined the process for which to convert a series of electrical and physical

properties into Scattering Parameters which may be used by the Nicolson-Ross-Weir technique.

The following code utilizes (15,16,18,19,28,35) in order to successfully perform this operation.

Figure 31: MATLAB Code for Creating S-Parameters

61
 APPENDIX E: NICOLSON-ROSS-WEIR MATERIAL MEASUREMENT

TECHNIQUE

.Section 2.1 described the NRW technique for converting S-Parameters to the

permittivity and permeability values. This code follows Equations (45,48,50-52,69,71) to

compute the permittivity and permeability. It additionally allows for the option to not compute

permeability, with the goal of increasing the quality of the permittivity computation.

Figure 32: NRW MATLAB Code With Permeability Fixing Ability

62
 LIST OF REFERENCES

[1] A. M. Nicolson and G. F. Ross, “Measurement of the Intrinsic Properties of Materials by

Time-Domain Techniques,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 377–382,

1970.

[2] W. B. Weir, “Automatic Measurement of Complex Dielectric Constant and Permeability,”

Proc. IEEE, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 33–36, 1974.

[3] C. A. Balanis, Advanced Engineering Electromagnetics. Danvers, Ma: John Wiley &

Sons, 1938.

[4] A. N. Vicente, G. M. Dip, and C. Junqueira, “The step by step development of NRW

method,” SBMO/IEEE MTT-S Int. Microw. Optoelectron. Conf. Proc., pp. 738–742, 2011.

[5] A. L. De Paula, M. C. Rezende, and J. J. Barroso, “Modified Nicolson-Ross-Weir (NRW)

method to retrieve the constitutive parameters of low-loss materials,” SBMO/IEEE MTT-S

Int. Microw. Optoelectron. Conf. Proc., pp. 488–492, 2011.

[6] C. T. Johnk, Engineering Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, 2nd ed. Danvers, Ma: John

Wiley & Sons, 1988.

[7] H. Karstensen, I. Koufogiannis, E. Sorolla, G. Kress, M. Mattes, M. Rupflin, J. Fuchs, and

K. Wettstein, “Phase stable RF cable for space applications,” Sp. Passiv. Compon. Days,

vol. 304, no. September, pp. 2–12, 2013.

63