Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-13T20:24:19.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ultra-Wideband Six-Port Network Miniaturization—Matching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2023

Tzichat M. Empliouk
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece
Petros I. Bantavis
Affiliation:
Greenerwave, Paris, 75002, France
Christos I. Koltsidas
Affiliation:
Ericsson, Standards & Technology-HW Research, Kista, Sweden
Theodoros N. F. Kaifas
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece
George A. Kyriacou*
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece
*
Corresponding author: George A. Kyriacou; Email: gkyriac@ee.duth.gr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, a new design approach for the six-port (SP) junction is introduced. The proposed design includes a generalized broadband matching and smooth miniaturization scheme and is extendable for any passive multiport structure. A multilayer technology and a microstrip to slot coupling operation are employed for the designed SP, which comprises power divider and three hybrid couplers. The conducted measurements of the constructed SP junctions validates the design approach. Optimal performance of the SP network in terms of miniaturization, bandwidth, and response accuracy were obtained for the 5G low band.

Information

Type
Passive Components and Circuits
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with the European Microwave Association.
Figure 0

Table 1. Multilayer SP networks comparison

Figure 1

Figure 1. (a) Six port network topology. (b) Elliptically shaped multilayer 3 dB HC (b1-top) and multilayer PD (b2-bottom). SP denotes symmetry plane.

Figure 2

Figure 2. PD even and odd mode analysis: (a) equivalent circuit, (b) odd mode, and (c) even mode [35] but without an isolation resistor.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Simulated S-parameters (left) and the phase difference of output ports (right) of the power divider of Fig. 1(b)2.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Wideband matching of passive devices. (a) Matching a component to Z0 (real-to-complex matching). (b) Interstage matching of two components (complex-to-complex matching).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Wideband matching of multilayered HC and PD. (a) Power divider (PD), (b) hybrid coupler (HC), and (c) meander line (ML) used for matching.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Input impedance versus frequency for HC ports and P-1 of the PD. The low (Zlow) and high (Zhigh) impedances are denoted by arrows.

Figure 7

Table 2. Estimated hyperbolic mean of HC and PD (Fig. 5) for each of their ports

Figure 8

Figure 7. Characteristic impedance $Z_{0}^{\prime}$ of the three line sections when W is (a) W = 0.91 mm (initial) and (b) W = 1.01 mm (fine-tuned in CST).

Figure 9

Figure 8. The Smith Chart locus for the input impedance of the three lines when width is (a) W = 0.91 mm and (b) W = 0.82–1.02 mm.

Figure 10

Figure 9. Input impedance locus on the Smith chart for the HC itself and the HC when the three different matching lines are attached to its ports as shown in Fig. 5.

Figure 11

Figure 10. VSWR of the HC connected with the three different matching lines (Figure 5).

Figure 12

Figure 11. Implemented (a) SL-SP and (b) ML-SP networks for the 0.6 to 3 GHz band. Dimensions (in mm): $l_{m1}=11.6$ (actual 20.9), $l_{m2}=8.6$ (actual 16.5), $l_{m3}=9.2$ (actual 18.3), and $l_s=19.1$ (actual 22).

Figure 13

Table 3. Final values of the designed SP junctions.

Figure 14

Figure 12. Constructed SL-SP (left) and ML-SP (right): (a) front view and (b) rear view.

Figure 15

Figure 13. Transmission coefficients for the SP of Fig. 12 (right) when input port-1 is excited ($S_{i_1},\ i=3-6$); subscript m denotes measurements.

Figure 16

Figure 14. Transmission coefficients for the SP of Fig. 12 (right) when input port-2 is excited ($S_{i_2},\ i=3-6$); subscript m denotes measurements.

Figure 17

Figure 15. Simulated and measured VSWR of SP of Fig. 12 (right) for input ports 1 and 2 and output ports 3, 4, 5, and 6. Subscript m denotes the measurements.

Figure 18

Figure 16. Phase deviation of the relative phase differences of the SP of Fig. 12 (right), for output ports 3, 4, 5, and 6 when ports 1 and 2 are excited ($ph3i_1, ph3i_{1_m}$, $ph3i_2, ph3i_{2_m}$). Subscripts i and m denote the excited and measurement’s port, respectively. Ideal values for the phase differences are noted in the parentheses.

Figure 19

Figure 17. Simulated and measured magnitude of q-points for Fig. 17(a) ML-SP and Fig. 17(b) SL-SP. Subscript m denotes measurements.

Figure 20

Figure 18. Simulated and measured Phase of q-points for (a) ML-SP and (b) SL-SP. Subscript m denotes measurements.