Introduction to Cassegrain antenna

Srinivasan Ashwyn from June 01th 2009 to June 07th 2009

Introduction

A number of microwave antennas have been developed which employ double-reector systems. Each of these antennas has retained one or more particular benets not obtainable with the ordinary single-reector type. While the various designs may dier from each other to considerable degree, there are certain basic features which are common to all. The basic microwave antenna derived from the cassegrain telescope is shown in Fig. 1.1. The microwave reectors, which will be called the main dish and the sub dish. The microwave feed is a small antenna along with a transmitter or reciever.

Figure 1.1: Cassegrain antenna Analysis of the operation of a Cassegrain antenna system may be performed with the same semi-optical approximation commonly employed with an ordinary single-dish antenna. Usually the feed is suciently small so that the wave radiated by the feed can be described 1

Introduction to a Cassegrain antenna

by the far-eld pattern of the feed before reaching the sub dish, and the wave incident on the sub dish appears to travel along the rays originating from a point centered on the feed. The sub dish, which must be large enough to intercept the useful portion of the feed radiation, ordinarily reects this wave essentially according to ray optics. On reaching the main dish, the wave is again reected according to ray optics, and because of parallel and the wavefront has the at shape which is usually desired. The amplitude of the emergent wave across the aperture has a taper which is determined by the radiation pattern of the feed, modied by the addition tapering eect of the antenna geometry. The far-eld patern of the antenna is, of course, a diraction pattern whose characteristics depend on the amplitude taper of the emergent wave.

Geometry

The classical Cassegrain geometry, shown in Fig. 2.1, employs a parabolic contour for the main dish and a hyperbolic contour for the sub dish. One of the two foci of the hyperbola is the real focal point of the system, and is located at the center of the feed; the other is a virtual feed point which is the real focal point of the system, and is located at the center of the feed; the other is a virtual focal point which is located at the focus of the parabola. As a result, all parts reected from both surfaces, travel equal distances to a plane in front of the antenna.

Figure 2.1: Geometry of Cassegrain system

Introduction to a Cassegrain antenna In the case of the main dish, the relationship is

1 1 Dm tan m = (2.1) 2 4 Fm the positive sign applies to Cassegrain forms and the egative sign to the Gregorian forms. In the case of the sub dish, the relationships are Fc tanv =2 , tanr Ds sin 1 ( r ) Lv 2 v 1 =2 1 Fc sin 2 (v + r ) The countour of the main dish is given by the equation xm =
2 ym 4Fm

(2.2) (2.3)

(2.4)

The contour of the sub dish is given by the equation xs = a where e= 1+ ys b

2

(2.5)

Fe a= 2e b = a e2 1

1 (v + r ) sin 2 , 1 sin 2 (v r )

(2.6) (2.7) (2.8)

The quantities e,a and b are the parameters of the hyperbola,e is the eccentricity, a is half the transverse axis, and b is half the conjugate axis. In Fig. 2.2 two series are shown in which the curvature of the sub dish is modied from the classical convex shape to a at, and nally a concave shape. As this is done, the diameter of the sub dish increases. The rst series shows the case in which the main dish is held invariant; this yields a progressive increase in the required feed beamwidth, and a progressive increase in the axial dimension of the antenna. In the second series the feed beamwidth is held invariant; in this case, the main dish becomes progressively atter, and the axial dimension of the antenna progressively increases.

Introduction to a Cassegrain antenna

Figure 2.2: Cassegrain modications From Fig. 2.3 to Fig. 2.7, a series is presented in which the beamwidth of the feed is progressively increased while the overall dimensions of the antenna are held xed. Fig. 2.3 to Fig. 2.5 are similar to those shown in Fig. 2.2. In Fig. 2.6, the main dish has degenerated to a at contour and the sub dish has degenerated to a parabolic contour; here, the at main dish may be replaced at any distance from the sub-dish, out to the region where the ray-optical approximation begins to fail. Fig. 2.7 carries the progression to the ridiculous extreme of a concave elliptical sub dish and a convex parabolic main dish, with the former being larger than the later.

Introduction to a Cassegrain antenna

Figure 2.3: Cassegrain form-I

Figure 2.4: Cassegrain form-II

Introduction to a Cassegrain antenna

Figure 2.5: Cassegrain form-III

Figure 2.6: Cassegrain form-IV

Introduction to a Cassegrain antenna

Figure 2.7: Cassegrain form-V In Fig. 2.8 which is classical Gregorian, is drawn so as to have the same over-all size and the same feed beamwidth as the classical Cassegrain in the Fig. 2.3. Under these conditions, the Gregorian form requires shorter focal length for the main dish. In Fig. 2.9, the feed has been moved to a location between the main dish focus and the sub dish. But this form has several disadvantages making it unattractive it most antenna applications.

Introduction to a Cassegrain antenna

Figure 2.8: Gregorian form-I

Figure 2.9: Gregorian form-II

Introduction to a Cassegrain antenna

3
3.1

Equivalence Concepts
Virtual feed

One concept which is helpful in understanding and predicting the essential performance of a Cassegrain antenna is that of a virtual feed. As shown in Fig. 3.1, the combination of real feed and sub dish is considered as being replaced by a virtual feed at the focal point of the main dish. Thus th antenna becomes an ordinary single-dish design, having the same main dish but a dierent feed.

Figure 3.1: Virtual-feed concept If both the virtual and real feeds had dimensions much larger than a wavelength, the conguration of the virtual feed could be determined by nding the optical image of the real feed in the sub dish. For the classical Cassegrain conguration shown in Fig. 3.1 , the virtual feed has an eective aperture smaller than that of the real feed, and has a correspondingly broader beamwidth. The beamwidth increase is the result of the convex curvature of the sub dish; the ratio of virutal-feed to real-feed beamwidth is indicated by quantity v c (3.1)

Introduction to a Cassegrain antenna

10

3.2

Equivalent parabola

As shown in the Fig. 3.2, the combination of main dish and sub dish is considered as being replaced by equivalent focusing surface, drawn with dashed lines in the gure, at a certain distance from the real focal point. The properties of this focusing element can be determined from a study of the Principal surfaceof the Cassegrain system. This surface is dened as thhe locus of intersection of incoming rays parallel to the antenna axis with the extension of the corresponding rays converging towards the real focal point as indicated in the Fig. 3.2. It happens that for the Cassegrain system, the principal surfacehas a parabolic contour, and the focal length of this parabola exactly equals the distance from its vertex to the real focal point. As a result, this surface could be employed as a reecting dish which would focus as incoming plane wave toward the real focal point in exactly the same manner as does the combination of main and sub dish. Thus the antenna again becomes an ordinary single-dish design, but this time having the same feed and a dierent main dish.

Figure 3.2: Equivalent-parabola concept The following equations provide the relationship between the equivalent parabola, the antenna parameters shown in Fig. 3.2, and some of the parameterspreviously menioned: 1 Dm 1 = tan r , 4 Fe 2 xe =
2 ye , 4Fe

(3.2) (3.3)

Introduction to a Cassegrain antenna tan 1 Fe Lr e+1 2 v = = = 1 Fm Lv e1 tan 2 r

11

(3.4)

Clearly the positive sign applies to the Cassegrain form and the negative sign to the Gregorian form. The rst two equations describe the equivalent parabola itself, in terms of its equivalent focal length. The last equation presents the various alternate expression for the ratio of equivalent focal length to focal length of the main dish. It is evident that with the classical Cassegrain system, the equivalent focal length is greater than the focal length of the main dish.