Jump to content
shan25

UTD for dielectric coated PEC plate

Recommended Posts

I applied dielectric coating to PEC plate and computed nearfield results using UTD and MoM. Thickness of the layered dielectric was set to be lambda/200. Result obtained by UTD for observation points in spherical coordinates with theta>70 deg looks identical to result obtained from a PEC plate. I have attached the result figure and feko model files. Can you please comment on the result. 

4lambda4lambda_dielectric_coating_plate_dipole_MOM.cfx

4lambda4lambda_dielectric_coating_plate_dipole_UTD.cfx

4lambda4lambda_pec_plate_dipole_UTD.cfs

result.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @shan25,

 

I gues this is due to the UTD formulation in the shadow area. For a larger plate (e.g. 40x40 lambda) the effect will show up for Theta >90° only which is the shadow region here. Please note, 4x4 lambda is extremely small for an asymptotic method like UTD.

I will wait for further info from the developer and then let you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @shan25,

 

The feedback from the developmet:

This is the expected behaviour, as for UTD the effect of coatings is only taken into effect for the reflected rays (there are no transmitted rays here for a PEC plate backed with a coating, but even for a transparent TDS sheet there are no direct rays in the current UTD formulation - this is well documented and also I believe the Feko solver will give a warning).

In the shadow region, the only contributions to the fields are edge and corner diffracted rays, and for these, always the PEC formulas are used, i.e. if you add a coating to the plate or not will indeed not have any impact on the field in the shadow region, and also in fact not in the region where there is no reflected ray, only the incident rays (i.e. between the ISB - incident shadow bounday - and RSB - reflection shadow boundary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Torben,

 

I was expecting this answer. As the wedge and corner diffracted fields from feko were predicting fields as if the plate is of PEC type. You can convey to feko developer that for a homogeneous dielectric slab/coating  UTD wedge and corner diffracted formulates can be easily modified. It also seems to me that UTD corner diffracted formulations implemented in feko is based on this paper "First-order equivalent current and corner diffraction scattering from flat plate structures". This formulation is not accurate I noticed it when comparing UTD results with MoM.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...