IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 39. NO.

12, DECEMBER 1991 1753

Polarization Properties of Offset
Dual-Reflector Antennas
^a-Shing Chu, FelloM; IEEE
AbstractoT an offset dual-refiector antenna design of zero
geometrical pptics cross polarization, the diffraction-itiduced
cross polarizations calculated from the differentia phase shift
between the fundamental TEM^o and higher order TEMj
Gaussian beam modes, which represent principal and cross-
polarization components, respectively, are in agreement wi th
measured data. Since this residual cross polarization in the main
reflector aperture is in approximate phase quadrature wi th the
principal polarization, the far-field cross polarization is in phase
wi th the principal polarization. Thus, both principal polariza-
tions exhibit the same slight rotation for agiven far-field direc-
ti on. An important consequence is the preservation of orthogo-
nality between two orthogonal linear polarizations from the
feed.
I. INTRODUCTION
I
T is now well known that an offset dual-reflector antenna
can be designed to elimnate geometrical optics cross po-
larization in the main reflector aperture [l]-[3]. However,
dif'raction efects may cause substantial residual cross polar-
ization in a practical offset Cassegrainian or Gregorian an-
tenna, especially one with small subreflectors. Discussions on
the possibility of an offset conguration for the new Green
Bank radio telescope [4] stimulated interest in better under-
standing of this problem.
The imperfect cancellation between main-reflector induced
cross-polarization and subreflector induced cross-polarization
can be attributed to the relative phase shift between principal
polarization and cross-polarization fields in propagation be-
tween subreflector and main reflector [5], [6]. An approxi-
mate prediction can be obtained by the phase shift between
two Gaussian beammodes, the fundamental TEMQO and a
higher order TEMQI mode, which represent the principal
polarization and cross-polarization components, respectively
[5], [7]. The calculated residual cross polarizations for offset
Cassegrainian and Gregorian configurations are slightly dif-
ferent fromeach other. These approximate predictions will be
compared here with experimental data [8]-[10] and with
computer-simulation results [4] based upon physical optics
diflfraction by both subreflector and main reflector. The com-
puter simulation gives numerical results without the physical
insight, as discussed later.
Computer calculations using the geometrical theory of
diffraction for the subreflector and physical optics for the
main reflector appeared to underestimate the cross-polarized
radiation by an order of magnitude [6], [8]. Recent work
indicates that diffraction eflfects due to surface curvature are
more pronounced than the edge diffraction [8]. A Gaussian
beammode, which is an approximate theory of Fresnel zone
diffraction [11], accounts for the efects of surface curvature,
Manuscript received March 19, 1991; revised August 21, 1991.
The author is with AT&T Bell Laboratories. Crawford Hill Laboratory,
Holmdel, NJ 07733-0400.
IEEE Log Number 9104566.
whereas the geometrical theory of diffraction only takes care
of edge diffraction. Furthermore, thee aforesaid residual
cross polarization is essentially polarization rotation in the far
field radiation. and thus keeps the orthogonality between two
principal linear polarizations. We shall discuss the reasoning
behind this simple obser\'ation and its important implications.
II. DIFFRACTION-INDUCED CROSS POLARIZATION
An oftset reflector antenna with linearly polarized excita-
tion was found to give considerable cross-polarized radiation
[12]. The reflector-induced cross polarizations of an offset
dual-reflector antenna often tend to cancel each other. Gra-
ham[1] first suggested that proper orientation of the subre-
flector in an offset Cassegrainian antenna can achieve exact
cancellation of cross polarization within geometrical optics
approximation. The required orientation of the subreflector
for both offset Cassegrainian and Gregorian configurations
shown in Fig. 1 is given by [3]
a e + l 3
tan = tan
2 e - l 2
(1)
where the ellipticity e is greater or less than unity for the
hyperboloidal or ellipsoidal subreflector, and thus accounts
for the opposite rotations of a with respect to the subreflec-
tor axis in Fig. 1. The promise of zero cross polarization has
eluded realization experimentally. A very low lev el of mea-
sured cross polarization was obtained [13] only when the
subreflector was very large in terms of wavelength.
Let US use the Gaussian mode representation of the princi-
pal and cross-polarization fields propagating between the
subreflector and the main reflector. The equations for the
TEMQO and TEMQJ modes representing the two polarizations
are listed in the Appendix. Assuming that the geometry of the
dual reflector antenna satisfies (1), the cross polarization
induced at the main reflector would exactly cancel the cross
polarization produced by the subreflector if there is 0or
180phase shift between the TEMQO and TEMQI modes
(i.e., perfect geometrical optics condition for Cassegrainian
or Gregorian configuration). However, a relative phase devi-
ation 6 fromthe geometrical optics condition yields a resid-
ual cross-polarization^mplitude, 2 sin (5/2)(X^), where
is the cross-polarization amplitude of a single offset reflector.
This residual cross polarization for small 8 is shown in Fig.
2 to be in approximate phase quadrature with the principal
polarization component in the main reflector aperture. The
relative phase deviation is shown in the Appendix to be
5 =
tan
2
-1 ( A)
TT
tan
2
(2)
where the plus and minus signs correspond to offset Grego-
rian and offset Cassegrainian antennas, respectively, and
0018-926X/91S01.00 1991 IEEE