Education Column

Karl F. Warnick
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
459 Clyde Building
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602 USA
Tel: +1 (801) 422-1732; E-mail: warnick@ee.byu.edu

Antenna Efficiency and the Genius of the

IEEE Standard for Antenna Terms

t a 2007 Square Kilometre Array Design Studies

(SKADS) workshop in Dwingeloo, Wim van Cappellen
of the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy (ASTRON)
gave a presentation on figures of merit, in which he memorably compared antenna terms to apples. What seems like a
simple, homogeneous fruit comes in all colors and varieties.
Similarly, a survey of antenna literature and textbooks shows
that authors use a wide variety of antenna figures of merit, often
not in compliance with the relevant IEEE Standard Denitions
of Terms for Antennas [1]. Since this standard is now in the
process of revision by the Antennas and Propagation Society
Antenna Standards Committee, it seems worthwhile to consider
the standard, and clarify some common misunderstandings and
inconsistent usages.
One class of terms for which a wide range of usages can
be found are those related to efficiency. The standard lists five
types of efficiencies for antennas:
2.15 antenna efficiency of an aperturetype
antenna. For an antenna with a specified planar
aperture, the ratio of the maximum effective area of
the antenna to the aperture area.
2.115 effective area (of an antenna) (in a given
direction). In a given direction, the ratio of the
available power at the terminals of a receiving
antenna to the power flux density of a plane wave
incident on the antenna from that direction, the
wave being polarization matched to the antenna.
See: polarization match.
2.16 antenna [aperture] illumination efficiency.
The ratio, usually expressed in percent, of the
maximum directivity of an antenna [aperture] to its
standard directivity. Syn: normalized directivity.
See: standard [reference] directivity.
NOTEFor planar apertures, the standard directivity is
calculated by using the projected area of the actual antenna

236

AP_Mag_Aug_2012_Final.indd 236

in a plane transverse to the direction of its maximum

radiation intensity.

2.282 polarization efficiency. The ratio of the

power received by an antenna from a given plane
wave of arbitrary polarization to the power that
would be received by the same antenna from a plane
wave of the same power flux density and direction
of propagation, whose state of polarization has
been adjusted for a maximum received power. Syn:
polarization mismatch factor.
2.308 radiation efficiency. The ratio of the total
power radiated by an antenna to the net power
accepted by the antenna from the connected transmitter.
2.373 solidbeam efficiency. The ratio of the power
received over a specified solid angle when an
antenna is illuminated isotropically by uncorrelated
and unpolarized waves to the total power received
by the antenna.
Of these, three of the efficiency terms are largely uncontroversial. Solid-beam efficiency is rarely used. A Google
Scholar search finds only six articles that use this term, and
two of them are papers of my own, which only briefly mentioned the term but did not apply it. Polarization efficiency is
straightforward. Radiation efficiency is ubiquitous, and also
typically used in ways that are consistent with the IEEE standard. Some authors include mismatch or reflection loss in
radiation efficiency, but most adhere to the standard, which
does not.
Antenna efficiency and antenna illumination or aperture
efficiency are less straightforward. While these terms are also
in common use in the antenna community, there is considerable disagreement among the many papers and textbooks that
use and apply these terms. According to van Cappellens survey
of the literature, five out of ten authors used the term aperture
efficiency for what the IEEE defines as antenna efficiency.

IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 4, August 2012

9/3/2012 4:39:41 AM

According to the standard, aperture efficiency does not include

antenna losses, but antenna efficiency does. In general, antenna
efficiency is the product of aperture efficiency and radiation
efficiency. Aperture efficiency as defined includes the effect of
spillover, but some authors exclude spillover.

Embedded element efficiency for large, active arrays

[2].

For terms that have already been defined in the IEEE

standard, authors, paper reviewers, and members of the antennas
and propagation community should think carefully before using
a term in a way that conflicts with the standard. As I suspect that
the majority of the misuses of existing terms are due to lack of
education, I will close by encouraging educators in the antennas
and propagation field to draw on the IEEE Standard Denitions
of Terms for Antennas as a resource in course development and
teaching. The next generation of antenna and RF engineers will
benefit from less confusion and greater precision in their use of
important figures of merit for communication systems, radars,
sensors, and other applications.

Array efficiency, related to the SNR improvement at

the arrays output relative to the SNR of a reference
antenna [3].

Featured Contribution

Beyond misuses of existing terms, there are many efficiency-related terms that are used in the literature but are not
found in the standard. Examples include:

Sub-efficiencies that contribute to aperture efficiency (spillover efficiency, blockage efficiency,

diffraction efficiency, reflector transparency efficiency, illumination efficiency, taper efficiency, and
phase efficiency).

Decoupling efficiency, which measures mutual coupling effects in array antennas [4].

Noise-matching efficiency, which measures impedance mismatches in active receiving antennas [5].

Total efficiency, radiated efficiency, overall efficiency, and other efficiencies that include reflection
loss at the antenna port (i.e., efficiencies related to
realized gain).

Multiple-element antenna efficiency for MIMO systems [6].

Absorption efficiency for receiving antennas [7].

Continuing with the theme of antenna terms, this issues

Education Column featured contribution by John Mahoney
considers in depth the often-quoted rule-of-thumb relationships
between antenna directivity and beamwidth. If you have ever
wanted to understand how to arrive at a more precise formula,
this contribution is the place to look.

References
1. IEEE Standard Denitions of Terms for Antennas, IEEE Std
145-1993.
2. P. W. Hannan, The Element-Gain Paradox for a PhasedArray Antenna, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, AP-12, July 1964, pp. 423-433.
3. E. Jacobs, A Figure of Merit for Signal Processing Reflector
Antennas, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation,
AP-33, 1, January 1985, pp. 100-101.

A further survey of the literature would likely show that

authors have used many other flavors of efficiencies over the
years to quantify the performance of various types of antenna
systems. Most of these usages of terms not found in the standard are probably reasonable and justifiable.

4. M. Ivashina, M. Kehn, P.-S. Kildal, and R. Maaskant,

Decoupling Efficiency of a Wideband Vivaldi Focal Plane
Array Feeding a Reflector Antenna, IEEE Transactions on
Antennas and Propagation, AP-57, 2, February 2009, pp. 373382.

Within various application areas, it is often necessary to

isolate specific aspects of the performance of an antenna system
that cannot be covered in a coarse-grained standards document.

5. K. F. Warnick, M. Ivashina, R. Maaskant, and B. Woestenburg,

Noise-Based Antenna Terms for Active Receiving Arrays,
IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation,
Chicago, IL, July 8-14.

When new antenna-related terms achieve widespread

acceptance, they can be proposed for inclusion in the IEEE
standard to the Antenna Standards Committee (currently
chaired by Michael Francis at NIST in Boulder, CO, USA;
e-mail: francis@boulder.nist.gov) or the Antenna Definitions
Working Group (chaired by Antoine Roederer; e-mail: roederer.
antoine@gmail.com). Two of the terms listed above noisematching efficiency and a total efficiency for example, are
currently moving through the approval process for inclusion in
the next version of the IEEE standard for antenna terms.

6. J. X. Yun and R. G. Vaughan, Multiple Element Antenna

Efficiency and its Impact on Diversity And Capacity, IEEE
Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, AP-60, 2, February 2012, pp. 529-539.
7. J. B Anderson and A. Frandsen, Absorption Efficiency of
Receiving Antennas, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation, AP-53, 9, September 2012, pp. 2843-2849.

IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 4, August 2012

AP_Mag_Aug_2012_Final.indd 237

237

9/3/2012 4:39:41 AM

On the Relationship Between the Directivity

and the Half-Power Beamwidth in QuasiSymmetric Pencil-Beam Radiation Patterns
John D. Mahony
5 Bluewater View, Mount Pleasant, Christchurch 8081 New Zealand
E-mail: johndmahony@gmail.com

Abstract
In antenna theory, the formulae relating the directivity and the half-power beamwidth are reexamined in the case of
pencil-beam radiation patterns from large grounded apertures, both square and circular. It is shown that the differences
among them can be reconciled by taking into account, for example, effects due to sidelobes. Effects due to an apertureedge taper are also addressed.
Keywords: Directivity; HPBW (half-power beamwidth); aperture theory; antennas; antenna radiation patterns

1. Introduction

n the literature, there are oft quoted formulae that relate the
directivity, D0 say, of a pencil-beam radiation pattern to the
HPBW (half-power beamwidth) product in orthogonal planes.
To a first approximation, the formulae are usually quoted in the
form
D0 =

(1)

Here, is the HPBW in degrees (or in radians, as the case may

be), and K is a constant, or figure of merit, that has been the
subject of recent discussion [1, pp. 50-55]. In this dialogue,
different values for the figure of merit were discussed. In the
case of a degree format, these values were (i) a figure of
2

=
K ( 4 )(180 ) 41253 , due to J. D. Kraus [2]; (ii) a revised
figure of K = 32400 , due to R. S. Elliott [3] in the context of
radiation from a large planar array; and (iii) a figure of
K

the same time, a modification to the power pattern of Tai and

Pereira will be proposed, which will facilitate agreement with
directivity results from the models of Kraus and Elliott.
Thereafter, the same exercise will be repeated for a uniformly illuminated, large, circular aperture, and effects due to
an aperture-edge taper will be briefly acknowledged.

2. The Square Aperture in an

Infinite Ground Plane
A schematic diagram of the aperture geometry is shown in
Figure 1. In this figure, a rectangular Cartesian coordinate
system is shown, with an arbitrarily shaped aperture in the xy
plane, which can be either square or circular. Also shown in the
figure is a far-field point, P, that subtends polar angles ( , )

2.1 Elliotts Result

16 ln ( 2 )(180 ) 36407 , due to Tai and Pereira [4].

This last figure arose from a cos ( ) power pattern, and it is

close to the arithmetic mean of the first two. In general, it is not
possible to drive the latter model to agree with results from the
other two without modification.
The purpose of this note is in part educational, and in part
a review of the above results within the context of the theory of
radiation from a large, grounded, uniformly illuminated square
aperture, to see reasons for the differences among them. At
238

AP_Mag_Aug_2012_Final.indd 238

Results for radiation from a uniform distribution on a

grounded square aperture are well known [1, pp. 665-676].
Accordingly, the directivity, D0 , is given by the expression
D0 = 2 /2

(2)

F ( , ) sin ( ) d d
0

IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 4, August 2012

9/3/2012 4:39:41 AM

affect the sidelobe structure of the radiation pattern. It can be

replaced by unity for the purpose of HPBW calculations, provided the aperture is large. The fine detail of the radiationpattern characteristics are to be found in the factor g ( , ) ,
which in the principal planes = 0, / 2 , becomes
2

sin ( )
g ( , ) =
.

(5)

At the HPBW points in these planes,=

g ( , 0 ) g=
( , 2 ) 0.5
, from which it follows that
=
1.391557 4 .
Figure 1. An arbitrarily shaped aperture in the xy plane,
and a farfield point, P, subtending polar angles ( , ) .

where F ( , ) is a normalized radiation intensity factor, given

by
F ( , ) = f ( , ) g ( , ) ,

(3a)

where

This last value for will be adopted as a very good approximation to the root. The HPBW angle is denoted by ( = 2 ),
and the corresponding relationship between and ( b ) at
the HPBW point is obtained from Equations (4c) and (4d), in
the form

( b ) sin ( 2 )

(3b)

4.

(7)

If 2 is small enough for sin ( 2 ) to be replaced by 2 ,

the relationship between and ( b ) at the HPBW point may

then be further approximated by the expression

( b )

f ( , ) = 1 sin 2 ( ) cos 2 ( )

(6)

2.

(8)

Typically, this approximation is useful if 5 ( = 36 ), or,

and

b 5 2 1.4105 . The directivity for the uniform

2

sin ( X ) sin (Y )
g ( , ) =
.
Y
X

(3c)

distribution is well known [5, pp. 177], being given in this

2

instance by D0 = 4 ( b ) . A substitution for this approxi2

In the above, and respectively denote the usual radiationpattern angles, off and around the apertures boresight. The
terms X and I are defined in terms of these angles as follows:
X = cos ( ) ,

(4a)

Y = sin ( ) ,

(4b)

mate value of ( b ) in terms of then yields D0 ( ) .

It is a simple matter to express this result in terms of degrees, to
capture a value of 32400 for the constant K . It has been
established here within the context of radiation from a large
aperture, and, not surprisingly, it is the same as the result due to
Elliott, which was established within the context of radiation
from a large square array.

where

2.2 Krauss Result

= sin ( ) ,

(4c)

= b .

(4d)

denotes the wavelength of operation, and b denotes the

apertures side length.
The quantity f ( , ) of Equation (3) is a relatively
slowly varying multiplicative factor that does not significantly

In order to appreciate how the result due to Kraus might be

established within the context of radiation from a large,
grounded, uniformly illuminated square aperture, it will be
fruitful to consider the directivity expression of Equation (2)
when sidelobes in the radiation pattern are ignored and when
the pattern is assumed to be circularly symmetric, the pattern in
any cut being that which obtains in the principal planes,
given by Equation (5). The integration in Equation (2) will
terminate at the first null, where = b , which is small, since

IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 4, August 2012

AP_Mag_Aug_2012_Final.indd 239

239

9/3/2012 4:39:41 AM

the aperture is large. Terms involving sin ( ) in the integrand

may then be replaced by as before, so that after performing
the integration, the directivity to the first null, DN say, is
given by
DN / b

2 2

(1 0.5 )
2

sin 2 ( )

other formats above, provided the directivity and HPBW are

related, for example, by an equation of the type of Equation (1).
In the process, both and can be related to the aperture
size. First, equating the directivity given by Equation (12) to
that given by Equation (1), it follows that
2 ( + 1)

(9)

1+

The term involving in the integrand leads to an integrated

factor that is of a second order of smallness and may be
neglected. After due consideration, the remaining integration
can be performed analytically to give
4 2
.
Cin ( 2 )

(10)

integral, Ci ( 2 ) [6, pp. 231], and it has the value 2.437653.

Since 2 at the HPBW point, it follows that

DN K 2 , where K 3 Cin ( 2 ) . is in radians, but if
it is in degrees, the figure of merit is K 41756 . This value for
the constant is close to that which is attributable to Kraus, viz.
41253, being different by about only 0.05 dB.
The directivity result due to Kraus can thus be viewed
much as that which obtains for the main beam only in Elliotts
radiation pattern. Effects due to sidelobes have been ignored.

2.3 A Modification to the Idealized cos ( )

Power Pattern of Tai and Pereira
The modified idealized radiated power pattern in this
instance is assumed to be circularly symmetric, of the form
cos ( ) , for 0 / 2 ,

(11)

cos ( ) , for / 2 .

2
.
K

(12)

This directivity figure reduces to that of [4] and [1] when = 0

. The parameter accounts for a small backward-radiating
sidelobe, and it provides an additional degree of freedom that
can be used to force agreement between the directivity result of
the modified idealized pattern and that from either one of the

240

AP_Mag_Aug_2012_Final.indd 240

(13b)

Secondly, at the HPBW angle ( = 2 ) in the idealized pattern,

cos ( 2 ) = 0.5

(14a)

= ln ( 2 ) ln cos ( 2 ) .

(14b)

or

Typically, for a specified HPBW angle , Equation (14) is

used to determine a value for the parameter , and Equation (13) allows for a subsequent determination of the corresponding value for , after having first specified a value for
the constant K . In the case of Krauss result, K = 4 when the
HPBW angle is in radians, and K = 2 in the case of Elliotts
result. The associated directivity is then given by Equation (12).
Alternatively, if the aperture size is specified first instead of the
HPBW angle, a relationship of the type given by Equation (7)
must first be employed to determine the corresponding value
for the HPBW angle .
It is possible to make useful approximations in the above.
For example, in Equation (14b), a small-argument approximation, involving two terms of the Bernoulli expansion for
ln cos ( 2 ) [6, pp.75] can be used to obtain the following

approximate result for :

It can be shown by pattern integration that the directivity for

this power pattern is simply
D0 =2 ( + 1) (1 + ) .

(13a)

+=
1 2 ( + 1)

Here, Cin ( 2 ) is an entire function that is related to the cosine

or

DN

8ln ( 2 )

ln ( 2 )
3

(15)

It follows then from Equation (13) that

+1

1
K

ln ( 2 ) 2
16 ln ( 2 ) + 2 1
.
3

(16)

Finally, if the relationship between the HPBW angle and the

aperture size (assumed large) is as given by Equation (8), the
above may be rewritten in terms of the aperture size as follows:

IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 4, August 2012

9/3/2012 4:39:42 AM

7.060339 0.231049

F ( , ) = f ( , ) g ( , ) ,

(17)

(19a)

where

and

f ( , ) = 1 sin 2 ( ) cos 2 ( ) ,
2
1.099029
1
+ 1 11.090355 +
.
K
b

(18)

Values of the directivity calculated using these approximations

in Equation (12) are in error (when compared with exact calculations) by about 0.1 dB if b = 1.7 ; the error is reduced as
the aperture size increases. If the aperture is very large,
approaches the value of 0.123688 in Elliotts case, and the value
of 0.117458 in Krauss case.

(19b)

2J ( )
g ( ) = 1
.

(19c)

In the above, and respectively denote the usual polar

angles, off and around the apertures boresight.
As before, = sin ( ) , but now = 2 a , where a
denotes the apertures radius, and as usual denotes the wavelength.

It is of interest to note from these approximations that if

the parameter is assumed a priori to be zero in the above,
then the first term for on the right-hand side of Equation (15)
leads to the directivity formulation of Tai and Pereira [4].
Moreover, the reader might care to appreciate that it is not
possible in Elliotts case to reconcile the results of the different
directivity formulations of Equations (1) and (12) when = 0
, but it is possible to so do in Krauss case, provided 5.5
(see also [1, pp. 54-55). Finally, it is of interest to plot the
principal-plane radiation patterns due to Elliott (and, ergo, the
Kraus single-beam pattern), to see that the pattern due to Tai
and Pereira lies pretty much between these two other patterns
when all share the same HPBW value. This is left as an exercise
for the reader.

Typically, the quantity f ( , ) in Equation (13) is a

relatively slowly varying multiplicative factor that does not
significantly affect the sidelobe structure of the radiation pattern. It can be replaced by unity for the purpose of HPBW
calculations, provided the aperture is large. The fine details
regarding the radiation pattern are to be found in the factor
g ( ) , which in this instance is circularly symmetric around
the apertures boresight.

3. The Circular Aperture in an

Infinite Ground Plane

which, when 2 is small (large aperture), may be approximated by the result

In order to parallel the arguments above for the square

aperture, attention will be focused on pencil-beam radiation
from a grounded circular aperture supporting a uniform distribution, first when patterns sidelobes are taken into account,
and then when they are ignored. The steps in the procedure are
identical to those described above for the square aperture. The
difference is in the details, because the trigonometric functions
arising in the square-aperture case must be replaced by cylindrical functions. Accordingly, many of the comments above for
the large square aperture are also relevant to the large circular
aperture. Thereafter, a brief acknowledgement will be given to
the effect of an edge taper on the aperture distribution.

3.1 A Result After Elliott

Radiation from a uniform distribution on a large grounded
circular aperture is well known [1, pp. 695]. The directivity, D0
, is given by Equation (2), where now F ( , ) is a normalized
radiation-intensity factor given by

If is presumed small (large aperture), the half-power

beamwidth occurs when g ( ) = 0.5 , that is, when
1.616340 . Hence,

) sin ( 2 )
( a=

( a )

(20)

1.616340 =
0.514497 .

(21)
( = 36 ), or,

This approximation is useful if 5

( a ) 5 (1.616340 ) 2 0.82 .

Since the directivity for a

2

large circular aperture is simply D0 = ( 2 a ) , an elimination of ( a ) leads to the result D0 = K 2 , where

K 10.450220 and ( = 2 ) is in radians. If is in degrees,
then the approximate value of the associated figure of merit is
K 34306 . This figure is higher than Elliotts figure of 32400
for the uniform distribution on a large square aperture. This
serves to indicate that if a large circular aperture and a large
square aperture have the same directivity when supporting a
uniform distribution, then the HPBW of the former will be
1.028994 times larger than the HPBW of the latter. Conversely,
if they have the same HPBW figure, then their directivities will
differ by about 0.25 dB.

IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 4, August 2012

AP_Mag_Aug_2012_Final.indd 241

1.616340
=
( 2 ) 0.257249 ,

241

9/3/2012 4:39:42 AM

3.2 A Result After Kraus

It is also instructive to parallel the steps in Section 2, and

examine the effect on the directivity of ignoring sidelobes in the
uniform distribution pattern for this aperture shape, so that
pattern integration is terminated at the first null. From Equation (19), the first null arises when g ( ) = 0 , which occurs at

the point where

=
sin ( ) 3.831706 . Denoting = N at
this point, it follows that N will be small if the aperture is
large, and so N 3.831706 . The directivity, DN say, to the
first null in Equation (2) may thus be approximated by the
expression
DN

2
UL

2 1 0.5
0

J12 ( )

(22)

20.948347 0.231049

(24)

and

+1

2
0.638039
1
11.090355 +
,
K
a

(25)

where now K assumes the values of 10.450205 (after Elliott)

or 12.473632 (after Kraus). As before in the case of the square
aperture, it is possible to reconcile the various directivity values. Specifically, values of the directivity calculated using these
approximations in Equation (12) are in error by about 0.1 dB if
a = 0.99 , and the error is reduced as the aperture size
increases. If the aperture is very large, approaches the value
of 0.061257 in Elliotts case, and the value of 0.110896 in
Krauss case.

where UL = N . The second term in the integral may be inte-

( )

grated explicitly and is O N2 , which may be neglected. The

dominant contribution to the integral arises from the first term
in the integrand, which, again, after substitution from Equation (21) in the case of a large aperture, may be integrated
directly to give the result
DN

2
1 J 02 ( 3.831706 )

10.450220
1 J 02

( 3.831706 ) 2

12.473632

(23)

In the above, ( = 2 ) is the HPBW in radians and thus

K = 12.473632 . However, if it is expressed in degrees, the
associated merit figure is K 40949 , which is, again, in close
proximity to the well-known result due to Kraus, giving a
directivity figure difference of about 0.03 dB.

4. Aperture Edge-Taper Effects

The above discussion focused on aspects of directivity
associated with a uniform aperture distribution. A similar
process can be adopted to take into account the effect on the
directivity of an aperture edge taper, and the necessary steps
will be briefly explained below with reference to an infinite
edge taper on a large circular aperture. In order to implement
the procedures, it will be necessary to obtain a relationship
between the HPBW angle and the aperture size, so that a value
can be determined for the constant K . Then approximate values for the parameters and can be determined in terms of
the aperture size via Equations (15) and (16), ready for use in
the directivity formula of Equation (12).
To illustrate the point, the simple parabolic distribution on
a circular aperture will be considered. Information concerning
this distribution can be found in [5, pp. 195], where it can be
appreciated that the directivity for this aperture distribution is
simply
D = 0.75

3.3 The Modified Idealized and

Circular-Aperture Pattern Directivities

( ),

4 a 2

(26)

and the relationship between the HPBW angle and the aperture
size is (to two decimal places)

The steps taken in Section 2.3 can be taken here to deter1.27

mine values for the modified, idealized pattern parameters

.
(27)
2a
and that will lead to directivity agreement between the above
models for the circular aperture. Equations (11) to (16) are not
The constant K is related to the HPBW angle via Equation (1),
aperture specific and will be relevant here, since the main-beam
and so it follows from Equations (26) and (27) that for this
radiation from the circular aperture is circularly symmetric.
distribution,
However, the approximations of Equations (17) and (18) are
aperture specific, and in the case of the large circular aperture,
2
1.27
must be replaced by
(28)
K ( 0.75 ) 4 2
=
11.94 .
2
242

AP_Mag_Aug_2012_Final.indd 242

IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 4, August 2012

9/3/2012 4:39:43 AM

From Equations (15) and (16),values for the parameters and

are then
a

13.75 0.23

(29)

6. Acknowledgements

and
2

0.23
.
a

+ 1 0.93 +

incorporate effects due to a small backward-radiating sidelobe.

It has also been shown that effects due to an aperture edge taper
can be taken into account in the modified model.

(30)

The directivities for different aperture sizes are then given by

Equation (12). In the limiting case of a very large aperture,
0.07 . If greater accuracy is required in the above, then it
will be necessary to determine Equation (27) to a much greater
accuracy. This exercise can be carried out for a variety of edge
tapers on both circular and square apertures, provided information relating the HPBW to the size of the aperture is available, together with information about its directivity. It is left as
an exercise for the reader to pursue such matters.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

Various relationships among the directivity and the
HPBW have been reviewed in the case of radiation from uniform distributions on large apertures, both square and circular.
It has been shown that the results can be reconciled with those
obtained from an idealized model by modifying the model to

The author is pleased to acknowledge helpful comments

from referees.

7. References
1. Constantine A. Balanis, Antenna Theory Analysis and Design,
Third Edition, New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2005.
2. J. D. Kraus, Antennas, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1988.
3. R. S. Elliott, Beamwidth and Directivity of Large Scanning
Arrays, The Microwave Journal, January 1964, pp. 74-82.
4. C.-T. Tai and C. S. Pereira, An Approximate Formula for
Calculating the Directivity of an Antenna, IEEE Transactions
on Antennas Propagation, AP-24, 2, March 1976, pp. 235-236.
5. Samuel Silver, Microwave Antenna Theory and Design, New
York, Dover Publications, Inc., 1965.
6. M. Abramowitz and A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical
Functions (Ninth Printing), New York, Dover Publications, Inc.

IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 54, No. 4, August 2012

AP_Mag_Aug_2012_Final.indd 243

243

9/3/2012 4:39:43 AM