THE MICROWAVE RESPONSE OF

ULTRA THIN MICROCAVITY ARRAYS

Submitted by

JAMES ROBERT BROWN

To the University of Exeter

as a thesis for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

June 2010

This thesis is available for library use on the understanding that it is copyright material
and that no quotation from this thesis may be published without proper
acknowledgement.

I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified
and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a
degree by this or any other University.

______________________________

1
 Abstract

The ability to understand and control the propagation of electromagnetic radiation underpins a

vast array of modern technologies, including: communication, navigation and information

technology. Therefore, there has been much work to understand the interaction between

electromagnetic waves and metal surfaces, and in particular to design materials the

characteristics of which can be tailored to produce a desired response to microwave radiation. It

is the objective of this thesis to demonstrate that patterning metal surfaces with sub-wavelength

apertures can afford hitherto unrealised control over the reflection and transmission

characteristics of materials which are an order of magnitude thinner than those employed

historically.

The work presented herein aims to establish ultra thin cavity structures as novel materials for

the selective absorption and transmission of microwave radiation. Experimental and theoretical

approaches are used to elucidate the mechanism that allows such structures to produce highly

efficient absorption via the excitation of standing wave modes in structures that are two orders

of magnitude thinner than the operating wavelength. Also considered is how this same

mechanism mediates transmission of selected frequencies through similarly thin structures.

Later chapters focus on ultra thin cavity structures which, through higher-order rotational

symmetry, exhibit resonant absorption which is almost completely independent of incident and

azimuthal angle and polarisation state. A detailed studied of the absorption bandwidth of these

devices is also presented in the context of fundamental theoretical limitations arising from the

thickness and magnetic permeability of the structure.

2
This thesis is dedicated to my wonderful Sharmi: now that it is finished we
get our weekends back!

3
It is best to keep an open mind, but not so open that one’s brain falls out.

Richard Dawkins, 2007

4
 Table of contents

ABSTRACT______________________________________________________________ 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS____________________________________________________5

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES___________________________________________9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS________________________________________________19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS_________________________________________________20

CHAPTER 1:

Introduction ______________________________________________________________23

CHAPTER 2:

The interaction of microwaves with metal surfaces

2.1 Introduction___________________________________________________________25

2.2 The scattering of electromagnetic radiation by matter__________________________25

2.2.1 Radar Cross Section (RCS)____________________________________________26

2.2.2 Electromagnetic scattering regimes _____________________________________30

2.2.2.1 Rayleigh scattering_______________________________________________30

2.2.2.2 Resonant scattering_______________________________________________30

2.2.2.3 Optical scattering________________________________________________31

2.2.3 Scattering from periodically textured surfaces_____________________________33

2.2.3.1 The phenomenon of diffraction _____________________________________33

2.2.3.2 Diffraction gratings_______________________________________________34

2.3 Surface waves_________________________________________________________36

2.3.1 Surface wave excitation ______________________________________________37

2.4 Materials for the absorption of microwave radiation ___________________________40

2.4.1 Underpinning absorption mechanisms ___________________________________40

2.4.2 Conventional absorbing materials_______________________________________44

2.5 Current research in electromagnetic materials ________________________________47

2.6 Important applications for absorbing materials _______________________________49

5
CHAPTER 3:

Modelling

3.1 Introduction___________________________________________________________53

3.2 The finite element approach______________________________________________ 53

3.3 An overview of HFSS___________________________________________________ 54

3.3.1 Assembling the structure to be simulated_________________________________ 54

3.3.2 Assigning material properties__________________________________________ 55

3.3.3 Boundary conditions_________________________________________________ 57

3.3.4 Excitations_________________________________________________________60

3.3.5 Meshing___________________________________________________________61

3.3.6 Post-processing _____________________________________________________64

3.4 Modelling approaches used in this thesis ____________________________________65

3.4.1 Mono-grating reflection structures _____________________________________ 65

3.4.2 Mono-grating transmission structures ___________________________________ 68

3.4.3 Bi-grating reflection structures ________________________________________ 70

3.4.4 Tri-grating reflection structures ________________________________________ 72

3.4.5 Broadband structures ________________________________________________ 77

3.4.5.1 Non-parallel slits_________________________________________________77

3.4.5.2 Multi-layer structures _____________________________________________79

3.5 Summary_____________________________________________________________80

CHAPTER 4:

The microwave reflectivity and transmissivity of a low-loss dielectric layer disposed between

two metallic layers perforated periodically by sub-wavelength slits

4.1 Introduction___________________________________________________________81

4.2 Background___________________________________________________________82

4.3 Experimental__________________________________________________________84

4.3.1 Fabrication of samples_______________________________________________ 84

4.3.2 Definition of polarisation state, angles of incidence and azimuth______________ 87

6
 4.3.3 Measurement of microwave reflectivity and transmissivity___________________87

4.3.3.1 Focused horn____________________________________________________87

4.3.3.2 Long path length azimuthal scan apparatus____________________________ 88

4.4 Results and discussion__________________________________________________ 90

4.4.1 Reflection sample___________________________________________________ 90

4.4.2 Optimisation of resonance depth_______________________________________ 97

4.4.2.1 Optimisation by altering core material properties_______________________101

4.4.2.2 Optimisation by altering core thickness_______________________________103

4.4.2.3 Optimisation by altering slit width__________________________________ 106

4.4.3 Polarisation conversion effects________________________________________ 108

4.4.4 Transmission samples_______________________________________________ 110

4.4.4.1 Aligned slits ___________________________________________________ 110

4.4.4.2 Off-set slits ____________________________________________________114

4.5 Summary____________________________________________________________ 116

CHAPTER 5:

Reduction of azimuthal and incident angle sensitivity and polarisation conversion effects – bi-

gratings

5.1 Introduction__________________________________________________________118

5.2 Experimental_________________________________________________________118

5.3 Results______________________________________________________________119

5.4 Polarisation conversion effects___________________________________________126

5.5 Dispersion___________________________________________________________129

5.6 Conclusions__________________________________________________________130

CHAPTER 6:

Minimisation of azimuthal and incident angle sensitivity and polarisation conversion effects –

tri-gratings

6.1 Introduction__________________________________________________________132

7
 6.2 Experimental details___________________________________________________133

6.3 Theory______________________________________________________________134

6.4 Results______________________________________________________________136

6.4.1 Tri-grating sample 1________________________________________________ 136

6.4.2 Tri-grating sample 1 – polarisation conversion___________________________ 144

6.4.3 Tri-grating sample 2________________________________________________146

6.4.4 Tri-grating sample 2 – polarisation conversion___________________________ 153

6.5 Summary_____________________________________________________________ 154

CHAPTER 7:

Methods for achieving maximum absorption bandwidth

7.1 Introduction__________________________________________________________156

7.2 Experimental ________________________________________________________ 157

7.3 Theory______________________________________________________________160

7.4 Results______________________________________________________________163

7.4.1 Standard mono-grating______________________________________________163

7.4.2 Structure 1 – multiple discrete repeat periods ____________________________165

7.4.3 Structure 2 – multiple continuous repeat periods__________________________168

7.4.4 Structure 3 - Multi-layering __________________________________________172

7.4.5 Structure 4 - Multiple permittivities ___________________________________175

7.5 Conclusions _________________________________________________________178

CHAPTER 8:

Conclusions

8.1 Summary of thesis_____________________________________________________180

8.2 Ideas for future work___________________________________________________182

8.3 List of publications ____________________________________________________186

REFERENCES___________________________________________________________188

8
 List of figures and tables

Figure 2.1 RCS for a metallic sphere. The circumference is given in wavelengths and the RCS is
normalised to the actual cross sectional area of the sphere (this figure has been adapted
from Knott
(1993))________________________________________________________________32

Figure 2.2 A p-polarised wave incident on a grating structure (a) 3-D projection (b) plan
view_______________________________________________________________________35

Figure 2.3 A p-polarised electromagnetic wave incident on the interface between two media
___________________________________________________________________________37

Figure 2.4 Diagramatical representation of the plasmon dispersion relation_______________39

Figure 2.5 Waves incident on a typical absorbing material____________________________42

Figure 2.6 Plot of the simulated reflectivity of a Dallenbach layer for a p-polarised wave at
different angles of incidence___________________________________________________44

Figure 2.7 A typical Salisbury screen (a) geometry (b) simulated reflectivity for a p-polarised
wave over a range of incident angles_____________________________________________46

Figure 3.1 Plots of typical finite element meshes constructed using HFSS (a) 3-D projection of
the initial mesh for a typical microcavity structure, 1258 tetrahedra (b) cropped 2-D side
elevation of the initial mesh for a typical microcavity structure, 1258 tetrahedra (c) 3-D
projection of the final mesh for typical microcavity structure 43401 tetrahedra (d) cropped 2-D
side elevation of the final mesh for typical microcavity structure 43401 tetrahedra_________62

Figure 3.2 Mono-grating structure as modelled in HFSS (a) Selected Dimensions and materials
(b) Boundary conditions_______________________________________________________66

Figure 3.3 Finite element mesh for the mono-grating reflection structure (a) 3-D projection (b)
Cropped 2-D projection, metal layers marked by black lines___________________________68

Figure 3.4 Diagram of the off-set transmission structure______________________________69

9
Figure 3.5 Diagram showing the bi-grating model (a) the model geometry (b) the finite element
mesh_______________________________________________________________________72

Figure 3.6 The tri-grating sample geometries (not to scale) and the co-ordinate system used
(a) 3-D projection of tri-grating 1 (b) 3-D projection of tri-grating 2, tm = 18 μm, tc = 356 μm, ws

= 0.3 mm, λg 2 = λg1 = 10 mm, θ is the polar angle, φis the azimuthal
angle_____________74

Figure 3.7 Forming the tri-grating structures without inputting irrational numbers (a) metal plate
(30 x 30) mm with three slits spaced 10 mm apart (b) second set of slits added and rotated by
60° about the z-axis (c) third set of slits added and rotated by -60° about the z-axis (d)
translation of first set of slits by 5 mm in the z-direction (e) subtraction of all three sets of slits
from the metal layer, two unit cells can be seen_____________________________________75

Figure 3.8 Plots of selected parts of the final finite element mesh for the tri-grating structures
(a) for tri-grating 1 (b) for tri-grating 2____________________________________________77

Figure 3.9 Multiple continuous repeat periods with alternate saw-tooth slits_______________78

Figure 3.10 Multi-layer microcavity structure (a) 3-D projection of multi-layer structure, 2
periods shown (b) end projection of multi-layer_____________________________________79

Figure 4.1 Cross-section through the substrate material The dielectric core is FR4 – a Glass
Reinforced Plastic (GRP) composite material with a permittivity of (4.17 + i0.07)
_________85

Figure 4.2 Cross-section through the microcavity samples (a) the reflection sample (b) the first
transmission sample with slits perfectly aligned (c) the second transmission sample with
slits perfectly mis-aligned
_________________________________________________________86

Figure 4.3 Definition of polarisation state, incident (θ ) and azimuthal (φ ) angle (a) TE or s-
polarised – the E-vector is perpendicular to the plane of incidence (b) TM or p-polarised – the
E-vector is contained within the plane incidence ____________________________________87

10
Figure 4.4 Photograph of the focused horn apparatus The VNA can be seen in the
background, the reference aperture can be seen in the centre. The focal length
of the system is adjusted by a stepper motor attached to the nearest mirror
(out of shot to the
left)___________________________________________________________
______88

Figure 4.5 Schematic of the long path length, azimuthal-scan apparatus set up for measurements
of bi-static reflectivity_________________________________________________________89

Figure 4.6 Schematic of the long path length, azimuthal-scan apparatus set up for measurements
of transmission_______________________________________________________________90

Figure 4.7 Experimental Reflected intensities for reflection sample shown as greyscale plots (a)
Rpp data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 16 º (b) Rss data as a function of
frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 16 º (c) Rpp data as a function of frequency and
azimuthal angle at θ = 57 º , dashed line corresponds to expected position of diffraction edge
(d) Rss data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 57 º
____________________________91

Figure 4.8 Line plots of the reflectivity of the reflection sample as measured experimentally at
incident angles of θ =16 ° and θ = 57 .4° for (a) p-polarisation and φ =0° (b) s-
polarisation and φ =90 °
_______________________________________________________________ 93

Figure 4.9 Reflectivity of the reflection sample as measured experimentally and simulated by
the finite element model: P-polarisation incident at θ = 57 .4° and φ =0°
_______________ 94

Figure 4.10 Behaviour of the electric field within the dielectric core of the ultra thin cavities as
simulated by the finite element model (a) Instantaneous magnitude of the electric field at 7.1
GHz, plotted at a phase corresponding to peak field strength, the black line represent the copper
layers, blue corresponds to 0 V/m, red corresponds to 20 v/m, incident wave amplitude 1 V/m
(b) z-component of the electric field along a line through the centre of the core parallel to the x-
axis (c) Instantaneous the electric field vector at 7.1 GHz, plotted at a phase corresponding to

11
peak field strength, blue corresponds to 0 V/m, red corresponds to 20 v/m, incident wave
amplitude 1 V/m_____________________________________________________________ 95

Figure 4.11 Waves incident on the ultra thin cavity structure__________________________97

Figure 4.12 Reflectivity of the ultra-thin cavity structure as a function of frequency for
different values of imaginary permittivity as simulated using the finite element model (a) for
values of imaginary permittivity (eps’’) between 0.02 and 0.2 (b) for values of imaginary
permittivity (eps’’) between 0.2 and 0.9_________________________________________102

Figure 4.13 Field plots showing the instantaneous magnitude of the electric field for different
values of imaginary permittivity, scale runs from 0 V/m (blue) to 50 V/m (red), incident wave
amplitude was 1 V/m in all cases (a) imaginary permittivity = 0.02 (b) imaginary permittivity =
0.08 (c)imaginary permittivity = 0.2 (d) imaginary permittivity = 0.4 (e) imaginary permittivity
= 0.9_____________________________________________________________________103

Figure 4.14 Reflectivity versus frequency as predicted by the finite element model for structures
of differing core thickness_____________________________________________________104

Figure 4.15 Field plots showing the instantaneous magnitude of the electric field for different
core thicknesses, scale runs from 0 V/m (blue) to 40 V/m (red) and the incident wave amplitude
was 1V/m in all cases (a) core thickness = 100 μm (b) core thickness = 120 μm (c) core
thickness = 150 μm (d) core thickness = 180 μm (e) core thickness = 250 μm (f) core thickness
= 356 μm __________________________________________________________________106

Figure 4.16 Reflectivity as a function of frequency for the ultra thin cavity arrays with different
slit widths_________________________________________________________________107

Figure 4.17 Experimental polarisation-converted reflected intensities for reflection sample

shown as greyscale plots (a) Rps data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at
θ = 16 º (b) Rsp data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 16 º (c) Rps data as
a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 57 º (d) Rsp data as a function of frequency
and azimuthal angle at θ = 57 º
________________________________________________110

Figure 4.18 Transmission as a function of frequency for the aligned slit structure as measured
using the focused horn system and simulated using the finite element model ____________110

12
Figure 4.19 Plots of the electric field at 7.2 GHz for the aligned transmission structure: blue
corresponds to 0 V/m and red to 20 V/m and the incident wave amplitude was 1 V/m (a) the
instantaneous magnitude of the electric field plotted at a phase corresponding to peak field (b)
the instantaneous electric field vector plotted at a phase corresponding to peak
field______________________________________________________________________111

Figure 4.20 Plots of the instantaneous magnitude of the electric field at different frequencies for
the aligned transmission structure, scale runs from 0 V/m (blue) to 20 V/m (red) and the
incident wave amplitude was 1 V/m in all cases (a) 7.2 GHz (b) 7.4 GHz (c) 7.6
GHz______________________________________________________________________114

Figure 4.21 Transmission as a function of frequency for the off-set slit structure as measured
using the focused horn system and simulated using the finite element model____________114

Figure 4.22 Plots of the electric field at 13.12 GHz for the off-set transmission structure, scale
runs from 0 V/m (blue) to 20 V/m (red) and the incident wave amplitude was 1 V/m in both
cases (a) the instantaneous magnitude of the electric field plotted at a phase corresponding to
peak field (b) the instantaneous electric field vector plotted at a phase corresponding to peak
field______________________________________________________________________115

Figure 5.1 (a) The mono-grating sample geometry (not to scale) and the co-ordinate system
used: θ is the polar angle, φ is the azimuthal angle, λg = 10 mm, ws = 0.3 mm (b) 3-D
projection of the bi-grating, λg1 = λg2 (c) Cross-section through the bi-grating structure, tm = 18
μm, tc = 356 μm, ws = 0.3 mm, λg2 = λg1 =10 mm, sample area 500 mm by 500 mm_______119

Figure 5.2 Reciprocal space diagram for the bi-

grating______________________________120

Figure 5.3 Bi-grating sample (a) Experimental Rpp data as a function of frequency and
azimuthal angle at θ = 57° (b) Experimental Rss data as a function of frequency and azimuthal
angle at θ = 57° (c) Line plot showing comparison of measured data to the predictions of the
numerical model: Rpp θ = 57°, φ = 45° (d) Prediction of the electric field vector distribution
at a phase corresponding to peak field strength on the upper surface of the lower metal layer for
a {1, 1} mode at 10.93 GHz: the longest arrows correspond to enhancements of 13 times the
injected field_______________________________________________________________121

Figure 5.4 Bi-grating sample (a) Incident wavevector and electric vectors on the lower surface
of a metal patch, and the resulting charge distribution for: φ = 0°, p-polarization (b) φ = 0°,

13
s-polarization (c) φ = 45°, p-polarization and (d) φ = 45°, s-
polarization________________123

Figure 5.5 Distribution of the electric field on the upper surface of the lower metal layer plotted
at a phase corresponding to maximum field (a) The (2,0) mode at φ = 90° and 13.9 GHz (b)
The (0,2) mode at φ = 0° and 13.9 GHz (c) The degenerate (2,0) and (0,2) modes at φ =
45°, at 14.55 GHz (d) The (2,1) mode at φ = 45°, 16.6
GHz_____________________________125

Figure 5.6 Experimental polarisation-converted reflected intensities for reflection sample

shown as greyscale plots (a) Rps data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at
θ = 16 º (b) Rsp data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 16 º (c) Rps data as
a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 57 º (d) Rsp data as a function of frequency
and azimuthal angle at θ = 57 º
________________________________________________127

Figure 5.7 Distribution of the electric field on the upper surface of the lower metal layer plotted
at a phase corresponding to maximum field for the degenerate (2, 0) and (0, 2) modes as
excited by an s-polarised wave φ = 45°, θ = 57 .4° at a frequency of 14.585
GHz________129

Figure 5.8 Dispersion plots determined from the frequency of the modes supported by the bi-
grating sample at φ = 0° and 45º with (a) p-polarized and (b) s-polarization incident
radiation__________________________________________________________________130

Figure 6.1 The tri-grating sample geometries (not to scale) and the co-ordinate system used:
θ is the polar angle, φis the azimuthal angle, λg = 10 mm, ws = 0.3 mm (a) 3-D projection
of tri-grating 1 (b) 3-D projection of tri-grating 2 (c) Cross-section through the tri-grating

structure, one set of slits shown for clarity, tm = 18 μm, tc = 356 μm, ws = 0.3 mm, λg 2 = λg1
=10 mm, sample area 500 mm by 500
mm_______________________________________________133

Figure 6.2 Reciprocal space diagrams for the tri-gratings showing: (a) the scattering vectors
and reciprocal lattice points (b) with a series of circles centred on the origin having radii at
which resonant modes are expected_____________________________________________135

14
Figure 6.3 Tri-grating sample 1: (a) Experimental Rpp data as a function of frequency and
azimuthal angle at θ =16 ° ; (b) Experimental Rss data as a function of frequency and
azimuthal angle at θ =16 ° ; (c) Experimental Rpp data as a function of frequency and
azimuthal angle at θ = 43 ° ; (d) Experimental Rss data as a function of frequency and
azimuthal angle at θ = 43 °
_________________________________________________________________137

Figure 6.4 Tri-grating samples 1 and 2: (a) Line plot showing comparison of measured data to
the predictions of the numerical model for tri-grating 1: R pp θ = 43 ° , φ =30 ° ; (b) Line plot
showing comparison of measured data to the predictions of the numerical model for tri-grating
2: Rpp θ = 43 ° , φ =30 °
______________________________________________________139

Figure 6.5 Tri-grating sample 1: predictions of the electric field vector distribution at phases
corresponding to peak field strengths on the upper surface of the lower metal layer for: (a) an
8.35 GHz, p-polarised wave incident at θ = 43 ° φ =−90 ° ; (b) an 8.35 GHz, s-polarised
wave incident at θ = 43 ° φ =−90 ° ; (c) a 15 GHz, p-polarised wave incident at θ = 43 °
φ =−90 ° ; (d) a 15 GHz, s-polarised wave incident at θ = 43 ° φ =−90 ° , the longest
arrows correspond to enhancements of 15 times in all
cases___________________________________________141

Figure 6.6 Diagrams showing the incident electric field and resulting charge distribution for a
15 GHz s-polarised wave incident at (e) φ =−90 ° ; (f) φ =−60 °
______________________143

Figure 6.7 Tri-grating sample 1: predictions of the electric field vector distribution at phases
corresponding to peak field strengths on the upper surface of the lower metal layer for: (a) an
17.3 GHz, p-polarised wave incident at θ = 43 ° , φ =−90 ° ; (b) a 17.8 GHz, p-polarised
wave incident at θ = 43 ° , φ =−90 ° , the longest arrows correspond to enhancements of 15
times in both
cases_________________________________________________________________144

Figure 6.8 Experimental polarisation-converted reflected intensities for tri-grating sample 1

shown as greyscale plots (a) Rps data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at
θ = 16 º (b) Rsp data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 16 º (c) Rps data as
a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 43 º (d) Rsp data as a function of frequency

15
and azimuthal angle at θ = 43 º
________________________________________________145

Figure 6.9 Tri-grating samples 1 and 2: (a) Experimental Rpp data as a function of frequency
and azimuthal angle at θ =16 ° for tri-grating sample 2; (b) Experimental Rss data as a
function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ =16 ° for tri-grating sample 2; (c)
Experimental Rpp data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 43 ° for tri-
grating sample 2; (d) Experimental Rss data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at
θ = 43 ° for tri-grating sample 2 (e) Experimental Rpp data as a function of frequency and
azimuthal angle at θ = 43 ° for tri-grating sample 1; (f) Experimental Rss data as a function of
frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 43 ° for tri-grating sample
1________________________________147

Figure 6.10 Tri-grating sample 2: predictions of the electric field vector distribution at phases
corresponding to peak field strengths on the upper surface of the lower metal layer for: (a) an
8.1 GHz, p-polarised wave incident at θ = 43 ° , φ =−60 ° ; (b) a 8.1 GHz, s-polarised wave
incident at θ = 43 ° , φ =−60 ° ; (c) a 13.8 GHz, p-polarised wave incident at θ = 43 ° ,
φ =−60 ° ; (d) a 13.8 GHz, s-polarised wave incident at θ = 43 ° , φ =−60 ° , the longest
arrows correspond to enhancements of 15 times in all
cases_________________________________________151

Figure 6.11 Tri-grating sample 2: (a) prediction of the electric field vector distribution at a
phase corresponding to peak field strength on the upper surface of the lower metal layer for: a
16.4 GHz, p-polarised wave incident at θ = 43 ° , φ =−60 ° ; (b) diagram showing the
incident electric field and resulting charge distribution for a p-polarised wave incident at
φ =−90 ° ; (c) diagram showing the incident electric field and resulting charge distribution
for a s-polarised wave incident at φ =−90 °
____________________________________________________152

Figure 6.12 Tri-grating sample 2: (a) prediction of the electric field vector distribution at a
phase corresponding to peak field strength on the upper surface of the lower metal layer for: a
17.1 GHz, s-polarised wave incident at θ = 43 ° , φ =−60 ° ; (b) prediction of the electric
field vector distribution at a phase corresponding to peak field strength on the upper surface of
the lower metal layer for: a 18.3 GHz, s-polarised wave incident at θ = 43 ° , φ =−60 °
_______153

Figure 6.13 Experimental polarisation-converted reflected intensities for tri-grating sample 2

shown as greyscale plots (a) Rps data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at
16
θ = 16 º (b) Rsp data as a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 16 º (c) Rps data as
a function of frequency and azimuthal angle at θ = 43 º (d) Rsp data as a function of frequency
and azimuthal angle at θ = 43 º
________________________________________________154

Figure 7.1 The microcavity structure geometries (not to scale) and the co-ordinate system used:

θ is the incident angle, φ is the azimuthal angle, ws is the slit width, λg is the repeat period
of the structure (a) 3-D projection of a standard mono-grating structure in which all slits run
parallel (b) Cross-section through the standard mono-grating structure (c) 3-D projection of
Structure 1, multiple discrete repeat periods (d) Plan view projection of Structure 2, multiple
continuous repeat periods with alternate saw-tooth slits (e) 3-D projection of Structure 3, multi-
layer structure, 2 periods shown (f) end projection of Structure 3, multi-layer structure, 2
periods shown (g) 3-D projection of Structure 4, multiple refractive
indices___________________________________________________________________159

Figure 7.2 Response of an example Salisbury screen absorber as predicted using the finite
element model (a) reflectivity in decibels versus frequency (b) reflectivity in decibels versus
wavelength________________________________________________________________160

Figure 7.3 Theoretical and experimental data for standard mono-grating (a) Reflectivity in
decibels versus wavelength as predicted by the finite element model and measured
experimentally (b) Reflectivity in decibels versus wavelength as predicted by the finite element
model for mono-grating structures of differing core thickness (c) Percent of narrowband
bandwidth limit versus core thickness for the a series of mono-grating
structures_________________________________________________________________164

Figure 7.4 Multiple discrete period structures (a) Reflectivity in decibels versus wavelength for
structure with dielectric core thickness of 190 μm (b) Reflectivity in decibels versus
wavelength as predicted by the finite element model for multiple discrete period structures of
differing core thickness (c) Percent of narrowband bandwidth limit versus core thickness for
the a series of multiple discrete period structures (d) Cross-section of modified multiple
discrete repeat period structure, (e) Reflectivity in decibels versus wavelength as predicted by
the finite element model for multiple discrete period structures with different values of t2
_________________________________________________________________________167

Figure 7.5 Multiple continuous period structures (a) Reflectivity in decibels versus wavelength
as predicted by the finite element model and measured experimentally (b) Reflectivity in
decibels versus wavelength as predicted by the finite element model for multiple continuous

17
period structures of differing core thickness (c) Percent of narrowband bandwidth limit versus
core thickness for the a series of multiple continuous period structures (d) Plot of the
instantaneous electric field vector on the upper surface of the lower metal layer at a wavelength
of 47 mm and a phase corresponding to peak field, the longest arrows correspond to 30 V/m
(an enhancement of 30 times the incident field), dashed lines added to indicate position of slits
(e) Plot of the magnitude of the instantaneous electric field on the upper surface of the lower
metal layer at a wavelength of 40 mm and a phase corresponding to peak field, dark blue areas
correspond to 0 V/m, green areas to 20 V/m (f) Plot of the magnitude of the instantaneous
electric field on the upper surface of the lower metal layer at a wavelength of 36 mm and a
phase corresponding to peak field, dark blue areas correspond to 0 V/m, green areas to 20 V/m
and red areas to 30 V/m______________________________________________________171

Figure 7.6 Multi-layer structures (a) Reflectivity in decibels versus wavelength for structure
with dielectric core thicknesses t1 = 0.13 mm, t2 = 0.12 mm, t3 = 0.1 mm, t4 = 0.075 mm, (b)
magnitude of the electric field at a wavelength of 20.2 mm and at a phase corresponding to
peak field for the N = 1 mode, scale runs from 0 V/m to 90 V/m (c) magnitude of the electric
field at a wavelength of 20.2 mm and at a phase corresponding to peak field for the N = 3
mode, scale runs from 0 V/m to 15 V/m (d) magnitude of the electric field at a wavelength of
20.9 mm and at a phase corresponding to peak field for the N = 1 mode, scale runs from 0 V/m
to 50 V/m (e) magnitude of the electric field at a wavelength of 20.2 mm and at a phase
corresponding to peak field for the N = 3 mode, scale runs from 0 V/m to 20 V/m________173

Figure 7.7 Multiple-permittivity structure (a) Reflectivity in decibels versus wavelength for
structures with a range of dielectric core thicknesses (b) Percent of narrowband bandwidth
limit versus core thickness for the series of multiple-permittivity structures (d) Reflectivity in
decibels versus wavelength as predicted by the finite element model for multiple-permittivity
structures with different values of loss tangent in the cavity with εr = 3.5 _______________177

Figure 8.1 Hybrid transmission structures (a) array of slits in the upper metal layer, single slit
in the lower metal layer (b) rotation of slits in lower metal layer relative to those in the upper
metal layer, layers shown separately (c) progressive reduction in slit number to concentrate
field_____________________________________________________________________183

Figure 8.2 Pseudo-fractal multi-layer absorbing structure___________________________184

Figure 8.3 Absorbing structures in which each cavity contains dielectric media of different
refractive index____________________________________________________________185

18
Table 7.1 Resonant wavelengths in millimetres for Structure 4 – Multi-layer structure as
predicted using (7.4) and observed using HFSS___________________________________174

List of abbreviations

E-Vector – electric field vector

FEA – Finite Element Analysis
GRP – Glass Reinforced Plastic
HFSS – High Frequency Structure Simulator (software)
MathCAD – Mathematical Computer Aided Design (software)
PCB – Printed Circuit Board
Q-Factor – Quality Factor
RCS – Radar Cross Section
RF – Radio Frequency
Rpp – reflection coefficient when both receiver and transmitter are p-polarised

19
Rps – reflection coefficient when transmitter is p-polarised and receiver is s-polarised
Rsp – reflection coefficient when transmitter is s-polarised and receiver is p-polarised
Rss – reflection coefficient when both receiver and transmitter are s-polarised
TE – Transverse Electric polarisation (s-polarised)
TM – Transverse Magnetic polarisation (p-polarised)
VNA – Vector Network Analyser
µm - microns

Acknowledgements

The successful (if protracted) completion of this thesis owes much to many people other than

myself. That I even contemplated undertaking an MPhil which slowly morphed into a PhD can

be credited to (or should that be blamed on?) Professor Chris Lawrence. Chris is one of the most

encouraging and self-less individuals I have ever been fortunate enough to meet, and marries a

tireless work ethic to his wonderfully inquisitive approach to science, resulting in a breadth of

knowledge that spans fields as diverse bio-inspiration and radio frequency tagging. His support

20
and enthusiasm is contagious and I would not be here writing this had I not experienced it first

hand during our time together at QinetiQ.

My thanks must also go to those at QinetiQ who agreed to fund my studies and also pitched-in

with useful suggestions throughout my time there, not the least of which is my long-time office

mate Dr. Pete Hobson. Pete has a unique and very entertaining perspective on life which

becomes magnified when he has consumed even the minutest quantities of alcohol, as many of

us at QinetiQ had the joy of witnessing! Rumours abound that he wrote his PhD thesis by

driving a radio-controlled tank up and down his keyboard; it is that sort of innovation coupled

with that ever-so-slightly messy desk of his that assure me he is a professor in waiting. My

thanks also go to the likes of Dr. Benny Hallam who, during his cameo at QinetiQ imparted

much wisdom on those who met him including me.

Being a part-time student based a long way from the university has the potential to leave one

feeling isolated from the rest of the group, particularly when visits to the university were as

infrequent as mine! However, when I walked back into the department after my usual six-month

absence there was a core of people who not only remembered who I was but welcomed me back

as if one of their own. That always gave me a tremendous feeling and I much appreciate the

friendship that I was shown by several people. At the top of that list is Dr. Matt Lockyear who

as well as providing me with numerous funny moments during my visits, was also incredibly

patient and supportive and always stopped what he was doing in order to help me. I

experienced similar altruism from the like of Dr. James Suckling and Dr. Rob Kelly who never

failed to assist me whenever I had forgotten how to set-up the kit correctly, again!

Officially Professor Roy Sambles was my supervisor, and I must thank Roy for being a highly

enthusiastic supervisor: his level of knowledge is quite remarkable and he applies it with energy

and passion. I must also mention the invaluable contribution of Dr. Alastair Hibbins who was

my unofficial oracle throughout my visits to Exeter. Alastair was always something of a role

model to me both in terms of his scientific knowledge and ability to articulate it, and more

21
recently in terms of hairstyles – as Pete Hobson likes to remind me! Anyway, my thanks to him

for providing knowledge and guidance that proved both accurate and useful.

I would like to formally acknowledge that in addition to the measurements I myself performed,

I was occasionally assisted in data collection by C A M Butler as a consequence of our having

been colleagues at QinetiQ. Specifically she helped me collect data on the reflectivity at 43°

incidence of the bi-grating and tri-grating structures of Chapters 5 and 6 respectively.

Furthermore, the data appearing in the first paper “Squeezing millimetre waves into microns,”

was taken by Dr. Alastair Hibbins after the equivalent data I took was inadvertently deleted

from a shared computer. The data included in Chapter 4 are from subsequent measurements

which I performed myself. The analysis of the form of the resonant modes supported by both

the reflection and transmission structures of Chapter 4 is taken from the first paper as written by

Dr. Alastair Hibbins and this has been acknowledged within the text of that chapter. Later work

in Chapter 4 concerning the effect of changes to the geometry of the reflection structures and

the mechanism by which their response is optimised is entirely my own.

The majority of the work in Chapter 5 appeared in the second paper "Angle-independent

microwave absorption by ultrathin microcavity arrays" and was undertaken and written by

myself with my co-authors acting as internal reviewers and providing essential insights and

guidance. Similarly the work in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 is entirely my own but was

extensively reviewed by Professor J. Roy Sambles, Dr. Alastair Hibbins and Professor Chris

Lawrence, all of whom made useful suggestions which I have incorporated.

22
23