Introduction
1820
---rb
Theta=40 d
The design equation for the reflection coefficientphase for each element is
1a21
where Qiis the reflection coefficient phase, R,is the distance from the phase
center of the feed to each element, r, is the vector from the center of the
reflectarray to each element, and reis the unit vector in the main beam direction.
The length of each element is then adjusted to produce the desired phase.
An interesting effect occurs if the specularly reflected field is included in
the analysis of [3]. At the design frequency of the reflectarray, the scattered field
from the patches is of nearly equal amplitude and has an approximate phase
difference of 180 degrees as compared to the specularly reflected field. This
effectively eliminates the specular reflection, and there is no loss of efficiency due
to the specular reflection.
-10
-16
m
-26
-30
-36
40
46
-10040
do 40 -20
0 20 40
80 1010
Theta (degrees)
-10040 do 40 1 0 0 20 40
w w
100
Theta (degrees)
1822
two different designs are compared. The two designs exhibit similar performance
in most areas, however, the reflectarmy using variable size patches has a slightly
larger bandwidth, which is expected because of the absence of tuning stubs. The
increase in bandwidth may also result from the fact that the r e f l m y consists of
many Merent sized patches, each operating at a slightly different resonant
frequency. The bandwidth is dehed in this case as the gain bandwidth I& down
from the peak gain, and the reflectmay of [2] exhibits a bandwidth of 3.7% while
the reflectarray using variable size patches has a 4.6% bandwidth.
Table 1. Micmstrip nfledarray perfomawe comparison.
[2]
[3]
1823