0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

12 просмотров14 страницOverview of design techniques for manifold-coupled multiplexers

Sep 24, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Overview of design techniques for manifold-coupled multiplexers

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

12 просмотров14 страницOverview of design techniques for manifold-coupled multiplexers

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Coupled Multiplexers

Richard J. Cameron and Ming Yu

A

lthough the principles of combining or

separating frequency diverse microwave

signals (channels) for interfacing with

a single port of an antenna system

have been known for many years

now, it was with the advent of satellite communica-

tion systems in the 1970s that the greatest technical

advances were made. In the satellite transponder

itself, the uplinked channel groups from a common

antenna need to be separated (demultiplexed) to

allow separate routing and processing before power

amplification and downlinking to (possibly) differ-

ent zones on Earth (Figure 1). Here, very high selec-

tivity is most critical to prevent adjacent channel

interference and multipath effects. It is usually pre-

ferred that the bulk of the channel selectivity task as

the channel passes through the transponder is done

by the input demultiplexer (IMUX) filters to keep

the output multiplexer (OMUX) filters as simple and

low-loss as possible.

On the high-power side, the channels for

© ARTVILLE

downlinking need to be efficiently combined into

one high-power composite output and transferred to diplexers in the basestations of cellular telephony sys-

the input port of an antenna feed system. Now, lowest tems. These devices perhaps have the most demanding

possible loss is a priority, with a certain amount of electrical and build-standard requirements of all, accom-

selectivity to suppress out-of-band spectral regrowth modating as they do both high- and low-power signals in

caused by nonlinearities in the power amplifiers [trav- close proximity within one housing. In some cases, these

eling wave tube amplifiers (TWTAs) or solid-state diplexers are located at the top of transmitter masts, and

power amplifiers (SSPAs)]. Further essential features there experience the worst of climatic extremes.

that will be required of the IMUX and OMUX subsys- This article offers a brief overview of the principles

tems and their filters will be noted later. of operation and the main design considerations for

A third category of multiplexers that have been finding four different multiplexer subsystem configurations.

widespread application lately are the transmit/receive The design method for the manifold multiplexer is

Richard J. Cameron and Ming Yu (ming.yu@ieee.org) are with COM DEV in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada.

explained in detail, using as an example the design and

optimization of a four-channel output multiplexer. A

more comprehensive review of waveguide (de)multi- High Power Amplifier

plexing systems—including practical information,

Low Noise

Output Multiplexer

design formulae, and a good bibliography—may be

Input Multiplexer

Receiver

found in [1].

Uplink

Over the past three decades, there have been many Antenna Antenna

advances in the design and implementation of multi-

plexing networks [1]–[23]. The most commonly used

configurations are:

• hybrid-coupled multiplexers, Figure 1. A simplified block diagram of a satellite payload.

• circulator-coupled multiplexers,

• directional filter multiplexers, and A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of

• manifold-coupled multiplexers. these multiplexer configurations is given in Table 1 [6].

Mux Coupled Mux Filter Mux Multiplexer

Advantages Advantages Advantages Advantages

–Amenable to a modular –Requires one filter per –Requires one filter –Requires one filter

concept. channel. per channel. per channel.

–Simple to tune, no –Employs standard –Simple to tune, no Most compact

interaction between design of filters. interaction between design.

channel filters. –Simple to tune. channel filters.

–No interaction between

channel filters.

–Total power in –Amenable to a modular –Amenable to a –Capable of realizing

transmission modes as concept. modular concept. optimum perfor-

well as reflection mode is mance, both in terms

divided by the hybrid so of absolute insertion

that only 50% of the loss and amplitude

power is incident on each and group delay

filter. Power handling is response.

thus increased and

susceptibility to voltage

breakdown is reduced.

–Two identical filters and –Signals must pass in –Restricted to realize –Complex design.

two hybrids are required succession through all- pole functions such –Tuning of the

for each channel. circulators, incurring as Butterworth and multiplexer can be

extra loss per trip. Chebyshev. time-consuming

–Line lengths between hybrids –Low-loss, high-power –Difficult to realize and expensive.

and filters require precise ferrite circulators are bandwidths greater –Not amenable to a

balancing to preserve circuit expensive. than 1%. flexible frequency

directivity. plan, i.e., change of a

–The physical size and weight –Higher level of passive –Restricted to the use channel frequency

of the multiplexer is intermodulation (PIM) of single-mode filters. will require a new

greater than other products than other multiplexer design.

approaches. configurations.

October 2007 47

f1,f2,...fn

f1 f1 f2 f2 fn fn

f1 f2 fn

Figure 2 shows a layout of a hybrid-coupled multi- Each channel in this case consists of a channel-dropping cir-

plexer. Each channel consists of two identical filters culator and one filter, as shown in Figure 3. The unidirec-

and two identical 90◦ hybrids. The main advantage of tional property of the circulator provides the same advan-

the hybrid-coupled approach is its directional proper- tages as the hybrid-coupled approach in terms of amenabil-

ty, which minimizes the interaction between the chan- ity to modular integration and ease of design and assembly.

nel filters. As a consequence, it is amenable to a mod- The insertion loss of the first channel is the sum of the inser-

ular concept, allowing the integration of additional tion loss of the channel filter and the insertion loss of the cir-

channels at a later date without disrupting the existing culator. The subsequent channels exhibit a relatively higher

multiplexer design, a requirement in some systems. loss due to the insertion loss incurred during each trip

Another key advantage of this approach is that only through the channel-dropping circulators. This is the most

half of the input power goes through each filter. Thus, common realization for input multiplexers.

the filter design can be relaxed when using this type of

multiplexer in high-power applications. On the other Directional Filter Approach

hand, it has the disadvantage of larger size since two Figure 4 illustrates a layout of a multiplexer realized by

filters and two hybrids per channel are required. connecting directional filters in series. A directional filter

Another design consideration of such multiplexers is is a four-port device in which one port is terminated in a

the phase deviation between the two filter paths that load. The other three ports of the directional filter essen-

the two signals undergo before they add constructive- tially act as a circulator connected to a bandpass filter.

ly at the channel output. The structure, therefore, must Power incident at one port emerges at the second port

be fabricated with tight tolerances to minimize the with a bandpass frequency response while the reflected

phase deviation. power from the filter emerges at the third port.

f1,f2,...fn f1 f2 fn

θ1 θ2 θn

f1 f2 fn f1,f2,...fn

f1 f2 f3 f4

Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4

Input Signals a b c d

f1,f2,f3,f4,f5 f5

48 October 2007

Directional filters, however, do not require the use of fer- The technique is readily applicable to

rite circulators. The waveguide version of a directional

filter is typically realized by coupling rectangular wave-

manifold multiplexers incorporating

guides operating in TE10 modes to a circular waveguide an arbitrary number of channels,

filter operating in TE11 modes. The microstrip version regardless of their bandwidths and

consists of one-wavelength ring resonators coupled to

one another and to two transmission lines. This multi-

channel separations.

plexing approach has the same advantages as the

hybrid-coupled and circulator-coupled approaches. It is,

however, limited to narrow-band applications. The design techniques for manifold multiplexers

underwent rapid development in the 1970s and 1980s

Manifold-Coupled Approach when it was realized that they were ideal for commu-

The manifold-coupled approach shown in Figure 5 is nication satellite payloads [4]–[7]. On the electrical side,

viewed as the optimum choice as far as miniaturization design techniques have advanced to the point where it

and absolute insertion loss are concerned. This type of is possible to combine an arbitrary number of channels,

multiplexer requires the presence of all the channel fil- regardless of their bandwidths and channel separa-

ters at the same time so that the effect of channel inter- tions. There are no restrictions on the design and imple-

actions can be compensated in the design process. It mentation of channel filters onto the manifold. The

implies that a manifold-coupled multiplexer is not manifold itself is a transmission line, be it a coaxial line

amenable to a flexible frequency plan; any change in the or a rectangular waveguide or some other low-loss

allocation of channels will require a new multiplexer structure. It is possible to achieve channel performance

design. Moreover, as the number of channels increases, in the multiplexer configuration close to that of a chan-

this approach becomes more difficult to implement. The nel filter by itself. No other multiplexer configuration

manifold-coupled multiplexer shown in Figure 5 acts as can match this performance.

a channelizer, but the same configuration can be used as

a combiner. Figure 6 shows a 19-channel multiplexer

employing a waveguide manifold. The manifold-cou-

pled concept can be implemented as well in planar cir- f1,f2,f3

cuits as shown in Figure 7, where three high-tempera-

ture superconductivity (HTS) microstrip filters are inte-

grated with a microstrip manifold [17]. In this particular

case, one of the channels is connected directly to the

manifold. Figure 8 show a three-channel L-band multi-

plexer using coaxial manifold and combline channel fil-

ters. The manifold-coupled multiplexer is widely used

for most OMUX applications today, and its design tech- f3

nique is the focus of this article.

Three common manifold multiplexer configurations

f1 f2

are shown in Figure 9, with all channel filters connected to

one side of the manifold (comb), to both sides (herring-

bone), and end-fed (applicable to either of the first two). Figure 7. A three-channel planar HTS multiplexer [17].

Figure 6. A 19-channel Ku-band waveguide multiplexer [21]. al manifold and combline channel filters [20].

October 2007 49

On the mechanical side, the entire structure may be design procedure has tended to utilize optimization

made to be very lightweight and compact, while methods to achieve the final design, in preference to the

rugged enough to withstand the vibrations and other more limited analytic techniques.

rigors of a launch into space. By using special materials,

the whole structure may be made to be electrically sta- Analysis of Common-Port Return Loss

ble in the presence of large environmental temperature and Channel Transfer Characteristics

fluctuations and be able to conduct dissipated RF ther- At the heart of any circuit optimizer is an efficient

mal energy efficiently to a cooling baseplate [20]. analysis routine, for the optimization will call the

analysis routine many thousands of times at different

frequencies as it progresses with the task of optimizing

Over the past three decades, there the various parameters [11]. In general, the two para-

have been many advances in the meters from which the overall cost function is built up

are the multiplexer common-port return loss (CPRL)

design and implementation of and the individual channel transfer characteristics.

multiplexing networks. During the optimization process, the subroutines to

calculate CPRL channel transfer characteristics at each

frequency sampling point will be called many times.

Design of the Manifold-Coupled Multiplexer Although it would be possible to construct an admit-

tance matrix for the whole multiplexer circuit and ana-

Design Methodology lyze it at each frequency point to obtain the desired

Since there are no directional or isolating elements in transfer and reflection data, this matrix will be quite

the manifold multiplexer (circulators, hybrids), all large for the multiplexer with a large number of chan-

channel filters are electrically connected to each other nel filters and will take a significant amount of CPU

through the near lossless manifold and the design of time to invert it even though it will be relatively sparse.

the manifold multiplexer has to be considered as a Moreover, a lot of data will be obtained that is not used

whole, not as individual channels. In the early days, a for the optimization.

number of ingenious techniques were invented [2]–[5], Later on in this section a piecewise optimization

[8], [9] to design the individual filters such that they strategy, which has been found to be quite efficient in

would properly interact with the other filters on the terms of computer CPU time, will be described [13],

same manifold and function virtually as if they were [14]. Part of the strategy involves optimizing the chan-

operating into a matched termination. However, with nel filters one after the other in a repeated cycle. As the

the dramatic increase in computer power that has optimization parameters of each filter in turn are being

become available in recent years, practical multiplexer optimized, it is only necessary to calculate the transfer

Channel 1

Channel 1

Channel Channel

Inputs Filters

Short

Channel 1 Channel 1

Manifold

Channel 1 Channel 1

Channel 2 Channel 2

Channel 3 Channel 3 Channel 3 Channel 3

Channel 3 Channel 3

Channel 4 Channel 4

Channel 4 Channel 4 Channel 4 Channel 4

Channel 5 Channel 5

Channel 5 Channel 5

Output

Output Output

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9. Common configurations for manifold multiplexers: (a) comb, (b) herringbone, and (c) one filter feeding directly into

the manifold.

50 October 2007

characteristic of this filter

alone; the others will be rela- Terminating

tively unaffected by the Impedance (=1Ω)

changes (assumed small)

being made to the filter that

is the object of the optimiz-

er’s attentions at this stage in

the cycle. Channel 3 Channel 2 Channel 1

Filter Filter Filter

To speed up the overall

optimization, it becomes Stub

more efficient to analyze nλ

≈

each filter’s input-to-com- 2

mon-port transfer character-

istic individually, in addition Common Short

Port J3 J2 J1

to the CPRL. The manifold of Circuit

the multiplexer may be most

conveniently represented as

nλ

an open-wire circuit, with a Interjunction Spacings ≈ Waveguide

2

short circuit at one end and Junction

three-port junctions spaced

along its length. The channel Figure 10. Open-wire model of waveguide manifold multiplexer (three-channel).

filters are located at the third

port of each junction and are

separated from the junction by short lengths of trans- ing the possibility for port 3 to be a different size as

mission lines (stubs) as shown in Figure 10. described in Figure 11.

If the manifold is waveguide, the junctions may be Because of reciprocity and the symmetry of the junc-

E-plane or H-plane, and since their intrinsic parame- tions about the vertical axis in Figure 11, S22 = S11 and

ters do not change during the optimization, they are S32 = S31 (H-plane) and S32 = −S31 (E-plane). This

best characterized with three-port S-parameters pre- means that only four parameters—S11 , S21 , S31 , and

calculated by a mode-matching routine and stored S33 —are needed to completely characterize the electri-

over a range of frequencies covering the bandwidths cal performance of the junctions. The S-parameter

of all the channel filters, or specifically at the frequen- matrices are calculated assuming a matched termina-

cies of the sampling points. Coaxial junctions are a spe- tion at each port, but if the termination at one port is

cial case of waveguide junction (H-plane). Typically, arbitrary, the two-port S-parameters between the other

the junctions are symmetric about ports 1 and 2, leav- two ports may be defined as follows.

Plane of Plane of

Y3=1 Symmetry Symmetry

a1

3 b1

3

3

Y1=1 1 2 Y2=1 a 1 2 a

b 1 2 b

Junction Junction Junction

S11 S12 S13 S11 S21 S31 S11 S21 S31

Figure 11. E--plane and H-plane waveguide junctions and S-parameter matrix representation.

October 2007 51

CPRL

The common port return loss (CPRL) computation at a

given frequency point (e.g., at a sample point) proceeds

Channel 3

Channel 2

Channel 1

as follows:

Filter

Filter

Filter

1) Determine the channel filter input admittances YF1 ,

YF2 , and YF3 at the frequency sample point and store

YF 2 YF 1 (see Figure 12).

YF 3

2) Now with known admittances at the port 3 of each

J3 J2 J1 junction, the transfer and reflection S-parameters

[S21 , S11 , see (2)] for each junction may be calculated

YM4 YM 3 YM 2 YM 1 and converted to [ABCD] matrices. Now working

from the short-circuit end, the manifold phase

lengths and the junctions may be cascaded, at each

Figure 12. CPRL computation.

stage calculating and storing the along-manifold

admittances YM1 , YM 2 , etc. as shown in Figure 12.

1 + S11i

YMi = , (3)

1 − S11i

Channel 2

Filter

YF 3 YF 1 nels on the manifold.

YF 2 The final admittance (YM4 in Figure 12) may be used

to calculate the CPRL

J3 J2 J1

1 + YMn+1

CP =

YM 2 1 − YMn+1

RLCP = −20 log10 CP (dB) (4)

Figure 13. Channel 2 transfer function calculation.

If only the manifold spacings θM1 , θM2 , . . . are being

1) Admittance YL2 (= 1) at port 2: optimized, then the filter input admittances YF1 , YF2 , . . .

etc. need only be calculated once at each sample fre-

quency and stored for the optimization of CPRL.

S11S13 S11 S13

=

S31

S33 S31 S33

Channel Transfer Characteristics

2 S221 kS21 S31

+ , (1) If optimization is now focused on an individual chan-

1 − 2 S11 kS21 S31 S231

nel filter and the transfer function between its input

and the common port is needed (e.g., for a rejection

where 2 = (1 − YL2 )/(1 + YL2 ), YL2 is the admittance sample point), the following procedure may be used:

at port 2 of the junction, and k = 1 for H-plane junc- Taking channel 2 as an example, as shown in Figure 13,

tions and -1 for E-plane junctions. This modified 1) Calculate the new YF2 for channel 2 with its newly

S–matrix also applies if an admittance YL1 is terminat- updated parameters.

ing port 1. It is only necessary to change the subscripts 2) The previously stored value of YM2 may be used in

from 2 to 1 and vice versa. conjunction with equation (1) to calculate S31 and

2) Admittance YL3 (= 1) at port 3: S11 for junction 2 with YM2 at its port 2.

3) The [ABCD] matrices for the channel 2 filter and the

S31 path of J2, and then the rest of the manifold

S11 S12 S12

S11 towards the common port (the manifold line length

=

S21 S22 S21

S22 between J2 and J3, then using equation (2) to find

the [ABCD] parameters of J3 terminated with YF3 at

3 S231 1 k

+ , (2) its port 3) may then be cascaded to calculate the

1 − 3 S33 k 1

transfer characteristic for channel 2. The process

may be repeated for the other channels.

where 3 = (1 − YL3 )/(1 + YL3 ), YL3 is the admittance For both common-port and transfer characteristics, the

at port 3 of the junction, and k has the same meaning as computations may be made assuming lossless (purely

before. These junction S-parameters may be easily con- reactive) components for the filter and stub networks.

verted to the [ABCD] transfer parameters using stan- Then noncomplex arithmetic may be used for the

dard formulas to enable cascading with the channel fil- matrix multiplications, inversions, and other calcula-

ters and stub/manifold line lengths. tions, and the process is considerably speeded up.

52 October 2007

Channel Filter Design

Being purely reactive (i.e., no resis- 1.5

tive elements between the channel Imaginary

inputs and the common-port out- Part

1

put), the channel filters of the mani- Real Part

fold multiplexer will react with each

0.5

other through the manifold itself. If

the channels are widely spaced, the

channel interactions are quite low, 0

because over one filter’s passband

Complex Input Admittance

the other filters are well into their −0.5 of Singly - Terminated Filter

reject regions and will be presenting (6th Degree Quasi - Elliptic)

short circuits at their ports nearest to −1

the manifold. The channel filters −2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

may be designed as doubly terminat- Freq (rad/s)

ed networks separate from the other (a)

filters and the manifold and, when 1.5

integrated onto the manifold, all that

is needed are adjustments to the

Input Admittance (MHOS)

1

along-manifold spacings and stub Real Part

lengths and minor adjustments to

the first three or four elements of the 0.5

Imaginary

filter to recover a good CPRL. Part

However, as the guard bands 0

between channel filters decrease

towards contiguity, they begin to Complex Input Admittance

−0.5

interact strongly along the mani- of Doubly - Terminated Filter

fold. Now significant adjustments (6th Degree Quasi - Elliptic)

to the filter parameters are needed −1

−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

in addition to the manifold and stub Freq (rad/s)

phase lengths to reach an acceptable (b)

CPRL. Although it is possible to

optimize doubly terminated filters Figure 14. Characteristics of the real and imaginary parts of prototype input

to operate in a contiguous channel admittance: (a) singly terminated filter and (b) doubly terminated filter.

environment, a starting point much

closer to the final optimal result is

2

obtained if singly terminated filter

Composite Admittance (MHOS)

tions. The design methods for singly

1

terminated filter prototypes are out-

lined in [2] and [18]. fo 3

The singly terminated filter net- 0

work is useful for the design of con-

fo1 fo 2

tiguous channel manifold multiplexers

because the contiguous singly termi- −1 Composite Admittance -

3 - Channel Contiguous Imaginary Part

nated channel filters along the mani-

fold tend to interact in a mutually ben- Multiplexer

eficial manner, providing a conjugate −2

−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5

match for each other at their launch Freq (rad/s)

points. This natural multiplexing effect

may be explained by studying the spe- Figure 15. Singly terminated filter at center frequency f with two contiguous

02

cial characteristics of the input admit- neighbors f01 and f03 . Composite admittances as seen from the common port of

tance of the singly terminated circuit the manifold.

looking in at the port opposite to the

terminated port (YF1 , YF2 , . . . etc. in Figure 12). teristic. It is close to unity over the filter’s passband,

The real part of the input admittance has the same dropping to near zero in the out-of-band regions. As fre-

characteristic as the filter’s own power transfer charac- quency increases from minus infinity, the imaginary part

October 2007 53

real part of the source most-

0 ly sees the unity load at the

4-Channel common port of the mani-

Contiguous MUX -

Superimposed

fold, the impedances at the

10 Channel Rejections input ports of the other

Preoptimization

Performance

channel filters being mostly

Rejection (dB)

20 tion characteristics.

Thus, a conjugate match

between the source and the

load has been partially

30

achieved for channel filter

f02 . Although it will not be

a perfect conjugate match,

40 it will be better than if dou-

12,450 12,500 12,550 12,600 12,650 12,700 12,750 12,800 12,850

bly terminated filters had

Frequency (MHz) been used, and it makes a

(a) good point from which to

0

start the optimization

process. The channels f01

and f03 at the edges of the

Common Port Return Loss (dB)

10

manifold, having a neigh-

bor on one side only, will

tend to have some small in-

20 band and rejection asym-

metries after the optimiza-

tion process.

30 4 - Channel Contiguous MUX -

Common Port Return Loss

Preoptimization Performance Optimization Strategy

The networks that model

40 even a moderate-sized wave-

12,500 12,550 12,600 12,650 12,700 12,750 12,800 guide manifold multiplexer

Frequency (MHz) tend to be quite complex.

(b)

An open-wire equivalent

circuit of a six-channel

Figure 16. Four-channel manifold multiplexer—pre-optimization: (a) superimposed channel manifold multiplexer with

transfer characteristics and (b) CPRL. sixth-degree quasi-elliptic

dual-mode filters has in

of the admittance increases from zero towards a positive the order of 90 frequency sampling points and 100 elec-

peak near to the lower passband edge, then traverses the trical elements of varying sensitivities and different con-

passband with a negative slope towards a negative peak straints that all need to be correctly valued before the

near the upper passband edge. It then slowly returns to overall multiplexer will operate to specification.

zero with a positive slope as frequency continues on If all these parameters are optimized simultaneous-

towards infinity. Figure 14 illustrates the variations of ly, not only will the amount of CPU time be enormous,

the real and imaginary parts of the admittance for singly but there is little likelihood that the global optimum

and doubly terminated prototype filters. will be attained, there being a myriad of shallow local

If the contiguous-band singly terminated filters are optimum solutions. With manifold multiplexers rou-

connected to the manifold with the zero impedance ter- tinely incorporating 20 channels, and perhaps up to 30

mination closest to the manifold junction, then the nega- in the future, global optimization is clearly unsuitable

tive in-band slope of the imaginary part of the admit- directly from the start.

tance will tend to cancel with the positive slopes of the For these reasons, most of the major satellite OMUX

two contiguous neighbors that extend into this filter’s designers and manufacturers have developed more effi-

passband. The result is illustrated in Figure 15, which cient methods for manifold multiplexer optimization.

shows that the imaginary parts of the source (the singly- Among these is the piecewise approach, optimizing

terminated filter) and the load (the other filters on the parts of the multiplexer separately in repeated cycles

manifold) have partially cancelled, while the unity-valued while converging upon an optimal solution. The parts or

54 October 2007

parameter groups being

referred to here might 0

include the first five elements 4 - Channel Contiguous

of each channel filter (nar- MUX

Superimposed Channel

row-band domain), or all the 10 Rejections

manifold interjunction or After Optimization of

Rejection (dB)

Manifold Spacings

stub lengths (wideband

domain). It is usual practice

20

to commence the optimiza-

tion process with the wide-

band sections first (parame-

ters relating to the manifold 30

and stubs), followed by a

shift in emphasis to the nar-

row-band sections (filter 40

parameters) as the CPRL 12,450 12,500 12,550 12,600 12,650 12,700 12,750 12,800 12,850

begins to take shape. A typi- Frequency (MHz)

cal design optimization pro- (a)

ject might proceed as follows:

0

• Design

1) Design the channel filter

Common Port Return Loss (dB)

transfer/reflection func-

tions to meet the individ- 10

ual in-band and rejection

specifications.

2) Synthesize the corre- 20

sponding coupling matri-

ces, doubly terminated if

the channel filter design

30

bandwidths (DBWs) are 4 - Channel Contiguous MUX -

separated by guard bands Common Port Return Loss

After Optimization of Manifold Spacings

greater than about 25% of

the DBWs, singly termi- 40

12,450 12,500 12,550 12,600 12,650 12,700 12,750 12,800 12,850

nated if otherwise. If

Frequency (MHz)

singly terminated proto-

types are to be used, a (b)

more practical design

results if the initial pro- Figure 17. Four-channel manifold multiplexer after optimization of manifold lengths:

(a) superimposed channel transfer characteristics and (b) CPRL.

totype is generated with

a low return loss to bring

the value of the termination at the end opposite to 2) Optimize stubs and the first three or four parame-

the manifold as close to unity as possible. ters of channel filter 1 [MS1 (filter manifold cou-

3. Set initial manifold spacings between E- or H-plane pling), M11 (first resonance tuning), and M12 (reso-

junctions at mλ g/2, where m is as low as possible for nance 1 to resonance 2 coupling)].

a convenient mechanical layout. Set the initial man- 3) Repeat the cycle for all the channels, possibly

ifold short/first junction spacing at λ g/4 (H-plane) omitting the stub length since this does not

or λ g/2 (E-plane). λ g is the wavelength in the mani- change much after the first cycle of optimization,

fold waveguide at the center frequency of the near- until the improvements in the cost function begin

est filter to the length of waveguide in the direction to become negligible.

of the common port. • Refinement

4. Set initial manifold junction-filter stub lengths at 1) Repeat optimization of manifold and stub lengths.

nλ g/2. Again, n should be as small as possible. 2) Reoptimization with a fine step on all of each chan-

• Optimization nel filter’s parameters, most lightly on the ele-

1) Design wideband components. Optimize spacings ments furthest away from the manifold, and not at

between the junctions and between the short and first all on the final coupling MLN (i.e., the input cou-

junction and the stub lengths. This often has the most pling to the multiplexer filter from the channel

dramatic effect in terms of improvement in CPRL. high-power amplifier).

October 2007 55

Demonstration

0 of the Piecewise

4 - Channel

Optimization Process

Contiguous MUX The piecewise optimization

Superimposed

10 process will be demonstrat-

Channel Rejections

After First ed through the optimization

Rejection (dB)

Parameters

Ku-band waveguide mani-

20

fold multiplexer. The chan-

nel electrical specifications

for this particular case were

30 satisfied with 5-2 quasi-

elliptic filters with 30-dB

rejection lobe levels and

40 DBWs of 38-MHz and 40-

12,450 12,500 12,550 12,600 12,650 12,700 12,750 12,800 12,850 MHz center frequency spac-

Frequency (MHz) ings, which falls within the

(a) definition of contiguity.

Designing the filters as

0

singly terminated proto-

types and attaching them to

Common Port Return Loss (dB)

10 Contiguous MUX -

Common Port

manifold spacings and stub

Return Loss lengths gives a poor perfor-

After First mance, as shown in Figure

Optimization of Filter

20 Parameters 16. The CPRL is poor and

one of the channels is unrec-

ognizable.

30 Figure 17 shows the dra-

matic improvement that

results from the optimiza-

tion of the along-manifold

40

12,450 12,500 12,550 12,600 12,650 12,700 12,750 12,800 12,850 lengths. Now the channel

rejection characteristics are

Frequency (MHz)

close to design, and the

(b)

average CPRL is on the

Figure 18. Four-channel manifold multiplexer after first optimization of filter parameters: order of 10 dB.

(a) superimposed channel transfer characteristics and (b) CPRL. Further improvement in

CPRL is obtained after first

optimization of the stub

lengths and the first four

0

parameters (first coupling

4 - Channel

iris MS1 , first cavity tuning

Common Port Return Loss (dB)

Contiguous MUX -

Common Port state M11 , second coupling

10 Return Loss

Final Optimized

M12 , second cavity tuning

Solution state M22 ) of each filter.

20

The computed response

following this procedure is

described in Figure 18. The

30 inner rejection lobe levels

are close to the design of

30 dB, but the outer lobe

40 levels—because there are

12,450 12,500 12,550 12,600 12,650 12,700 12,750 12,800 12,850 no neighbors on the outer

Frequency (MHz) side of the group—have

dropped to about 24 dB.

Figure 19. Four-channel manifold multiplexer: final performance of CPRL. The effect of not having a

56 October 2007

contiguous neighbor on one side is evident in the

rejection responses of channels 1 and 4—the lobe lev- The main advantage of the hybrid-

els and rejection slopes on the outer sides are not as coupled approach is its directional

steep as the sides with a contiguous neighbor. This property, which minimizes the

causes a small amount of asymmetric in-band distor-

tion to group delay and insertion loss as well. interaction between the channel filters.

Then the refinement of return loss optimization cycles

is carried out, and the final result is

shown in Figure 19. Now the CPRL

is above 23 dB over all the channel 20 Channel COMUX

bandwidths. The simulations have 0

all been made assuming a Qu factor

of 12,000, but the optimizations were −10

carried out with a lossless network

to speed up the process. Using a −20

RL and ILs (dB)

moderate-speed PC (700 MHz), the

−30

entire optimization process took

about 2 min.

−40

This optimization strategy

appears to work well even for larg-

−50

er numbers of channels. Figure 20

shows the CPRL and rejection char-

−60

acteristics of a manifold multiplexer 3,400 3,600 3,800 4,000 4,200

with 20 contiguous channels at C- Frequency (MHz)

band (fourth-degree filters) [21],

which was designed using the

Figure 20. 20-channel manifold multiplexer: superimposed channel transfer charac-

piecewise optimization process. teristics and CPRL.

This multiplexer has on the order of

300 frequency sampling points and

220 electrical elements of varying

Tuning Screw

sensitivities and different con-

straints that all need to be correctly

valued before the overall multiplex-

er will operate to specification.

Further Optimization

Using EM Techniques

Optimization techniques for multi- Dielectric Dielectric

plexer design have been developed Support Resonator

to a high degree of sophistication (a)

now, and worthy of note here is the

Input Output

space mapping technique [23], Waveguide Waveguide

Cavity 1 Cavity 4 Cavity 5

which involves optimizing a coarse

model [circuit or hybrid circuit

model with embedded electromag-

netic (EM)-modeled components]

and a fine model (e.g., full-wave

electromagnetic modeling). Because

of the large number of optimization

variables, the fine-model EM simu-

lator takes a formidable amount of

Cavity 2 Cavity 3

computer CPU time and has to be

used sparingly during the opti-

mization process. On the other Rod Coupling for M23

hand, the coarse simulator can ana- (b)

lyze the circuit very rapidly, espe-

cially if the S-parameters of fixed Figure 21. Fifth-degree DR filter structure: (a) side view and (b) top view.

October 2007 57

Ansoft HFSS is used as a fine model of every channel

A direction filter is a four-port device

and the network model is used as a coarse model.

in which one port is terminated in Ideal channel coupling values are obtained in the

a load. first step of the design procedure in the preceding sec-

tions. Space-mapping optimization [23] is then applied

to each channel to get the optimal channel dimensions.

and noninteracting elements (e.g., the manifold For example, the results of applying space-mapping

waveguide junctions) are modeled in advance by optimization to the first channel are shown in Figure 22

EM techniques and are available to the main pro- (seven iterations are required). An accurate multiplex-

gram either as look-up tables or with the call of a er model is obtained by replacing each channel with

rapid specialist routine. It, therefore, provides a the corresponding S-parameter sweep obtained by

means to simulate the manifold multiplexer with a HFSS at the optimal channel dimensions. As a result,

good degree of accuracy and efficiency. the new multiplexer model includes channel disper-

To illustrate the complete multiplexer design proce- sion and spurious modes. Finally, the manifold para-

dure including EM optimization, we consider a 10- meters are reoptimized to meet the required specifica-

channel manifold-coupled output multiplexer in the tions. Figure 23 compares the multiplexer ideal

frequency band of 3.5-4.25 GHz. Eight channels have a response and the EM response, where every channel is

bandwidth of 1.5%, and the remaining two have a replaced by its simulated S-parameters (by Ansoft

bandwidth of 0.8%. Every channel is a fifth-degree HFSS). The measured response of the multiplexer is

dielectric resonator (DR) filter as shown in Figure 21. shown in Figure 24. The spurious modes predicted by

0 0

−10

−20

−20

IL (dB)

|S21| (dB)

−30

−40

−40

−50 −60

−60

−80

−70 3.55 3.75 3.95 4.15 4.35 4.5

3.57 3.6 3.65 3.7 3.75

Frequency (GHz)

Frequency (GHz)

(a) Figure 23. The ideal response of the 10-channel DR

multiplexer prototype (solid line) versus the EM response

0 (dotted line).

−10

0

−20

|S11| (dB)

−30 −20

IL (dB)

−40 −40

−50

3.57 3.6 3.65 3.7 3.75 −60

Frequency (GHz)

(b) −80

3.55 3.75 3.95 4.15 4.35 4.5

Figure 22. Responses of the first channel of the 10-channel Frequency (GHz)

DR output multiplexer (solid line is the ideal response and

dotted line is the EM response at the optimal design para- Figure 24. Measured response of the 10-channel DR

meters); |S21 | and |S11 | in dB. multiplexer.

58 October 2007

EM analysis in Figure 23 correlate very well with the

measurements in Figure 24. Finally, a fully integrated

multiplexer assembly is shown in Figure 25 together

with input and output circuitry.

Conclusions

Following a brief review of different types of multi-

plexer configurations, a systematic design approach

has been outlined for the design of manifold-coupled

multiplexers. The piecewise approach, optimizing

parts of the multiplexer separately in repeated cycles

while converging upon an optimal solution, has

proved to be very effective for most practical appli-

Figure 25. A fully integrated C-band 10-channel multi-

cations. The technique is readily applicable to mani- plexer assembly with DR filters.

fold multiplexers incorporating an arbitrary number

of channels, regardless of their bandwidths and

channel separations. There are no restrictions on the the 1980s,” in Proc. AIAA 8 th Communications Satellite Systems

design and implementation of channel filters onto Conf., Apr. 1980.

the manifold; they may be asymmetric, and may [8] J.D. Rhodes and R. Levy, “Design of general manifold multiplex-

ers,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 111–123,

incorporate transmission zeros, group delay equal-

Feb. 1979.

ization zeros, or both. The manifold itself is a trans- [9] J.D. Rhodes and R. Levy, “A generalized multiplexer theory,” IEEE

mission line, be it a coaxial line or a rectangular Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 99–111, Feb. 1979.

waveguide or some other low-loss structure. The [10] D. Doust, et al., Satellite multiplexing using dielectric resonator

filters,” Microwave J., vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 93–166, Dec. 1989.

costly EM simulation is used economically on mani-

[11] J. Bandler, S. Daijavad, and Q.-J. Zhang, “Exact simulation and

fold junctions and channel filters through the use of sensitivity analysis of multiplexing networks,” IEEE Trans.

space-mapping optimization techniques, where EM- Microwave Theory Tech., vol. MTT-34, pp. 111–102, Jan. 1986.

based simulators are used to fine-model each multi- [12] D.S. Levinson and R.L. Bennett, “Multiplexing with high perfor-

mance directional filters,” Microwave J., pp. 92–112, Jun. 1989.

plexer channel and coupling matrix representation is [13] D. Rosowsky, “Design of manifold multiplexers,” in Proc. ESA

used to coarse-model the performance. Fine details Workshop on Microwave Filters, Jun. 1990, pp. 145–156 .

such as tuning screws may be included in the design [14] U. Rosenberg, D. Wolk, and H. Zeh, “High performance output

process. This design procedure takes into account the multiplexers for Ku-band satellites,” in Proc. 13 th AIAA

International Communication Satellite Conf., Los Angeles, Mar.

effects of dispersion and spurious modes and, as a 1990, pp. 747–752.

result, the overall design and final tuning time can be [15] C. Kudsia, R. Cameron, and W.C. Tang, “Innovation in microwave

significantly reduced. filters and multiplexing networks for communication satellite sys-

tems,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. MTT-40,

pp. 1133–1149, Jun. 1992.

Acknowledgement [16] M. Guglielmi, “Simple CAD procedures for microwave filters and

The authors would like to thank Prof. Raafat Mansour multiplexers,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. MTT-42,

for providing part of the material in the “Multiplexer pp. 1347–1352, Jul. 1994.

[17] R.R. Mansour, S. Ye, V. Dokas, B. Jolley, W.C. Tang, and C.

Configurations” section.

Kudsia, “System integration issues of high power HTS output

multiplexers,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. MTT-48,

References pp. 1199–1208, Jul. 2000.

[1] J. Uher, J. Bornemann, and U. Rosenberg, Waveguide Components [18] M.H. Chen, “Singly-terminated pseudo-elliptic function filter,”

for Antenna Feed Systems—Theory and CAD. Norwood, MA: Artech Comsat Technical Rev., vol. 7, pp. 527–541, Fall 1977.

House, 1993. [19] S. Lundquist, M. Mississian, M. Yu, and D. Smith, “Application

[2] G. Matthaei, L. Young, and M.T. Jones, Microwave Filters, of high power output multiplexers for communications satel-

Impedance Matching Networks and Coupling Structures. Norwood, lites,” in Proc. 19th AIAA Int. Communication Satellite System Conf.

MA: Artech House, 1985. and Exhibit, pp. 12–15, May 2001.

[3] E.G. Cristal and G.L. Matthaei, “A technique for the design of [20] S. Lundquist, M. Yu, D.J. Smith, and W. Fitzpatrick, “KU-band tem-

multiplexers having contiguous channels,” IEEE Trans. Microwave perature compensated high power multiplexers,” in Proc. 20th

Theory Tech., vol. MTT-10, pp. 88–93, Jan. 1964. AIAA Int. Commun. Satellite Syst. Conf. and Exhibit, May 12–15, 2002.

[4] A.E. Atia, “Computer aided design of waveguide multiplexers,” [21] M. Yu, “Design of multiplexers with many channels,” in Proc.

IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. MTT-22, pp. 322–336, Mar. IEEE International Microwave Symp., San Francisco, Jun. 2006.

1974. [22] M. Yu, “EM based `smart’ design techniques for filters and mul-

[5] M.H. Chen, F. Assal, and C. Mahle, “A contiguous band multi- tiplexers,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Microwave Symp., Fort Worth, Texas,

plexer,” Comsat Tech. Rev., vol. 6, pp. 285–307, Fall 1976. Jun. 6–11, 2004.

[6] C.M. Kudsia, J. Dorey, j. Heierli, K.R. Ainsworth, G.L.P. Lo, “A [23] M.A. Ismail, D. Smith, A. Panariello, Y. Wang, and M. Yu, “EM

new type of low loss 14 GHz high power combining network,” based design of large-scale dielectric resonator filters and mul-

in Proc. 9th Eur. Microwave Conf., England, Oct. 1979, pp. tiplexers by space mapping,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory

386–391. Tech. (Special Issue on Electromagnetics-Based Optimization of

[7] C.M. Kudsia, K.R. Ainsworth, and M.V. O’Donovan, “Microwave Microwave Components and Circuits), vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 386–392,

filters and multiplexing networks for communication satellites in Jan. 2004.

October 2007 59