Performance of station array configurations Sparse vs. Dense, Regular vs Random Jaap D. Bregman AAVP Workshop,Cambridge, 2010-12-09.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
P. M. Livingston (Presentation from a few years back) An 80 meter Aerostat-borne Phased Array for Field-Day.
Advertisements

Jan Geralt Bij de Vaate DS4-T4 Wideband Integrated Antennas DS4-T4 Jan Geralt Bij de Vaate ASTRON.
Update on Measurements and Simulations at Cambridge: SKALA element + LNA Eloy de Lera Acedo Nima Razavi Ghods Cavendish Laboratory University of Cambridge.
Schediwy: Advantages and Disadvantages of Sparse Aperture Arrays Fermilab: October 2009.
Sparse Array Geometry Mr. Ahmed El-makadema Professor A.K Brown.
Global EoR Experoments Ron Ekers, CSIRO CAASTRO Global EoR Workshop Uluru, 17 July 2013.
Probing the field of Radio Astronomy with the SKA and the Hartebeesthoek Radio Observatory: An Engineer’s perspective Sunelle Otto Hartebeesthoek Radio.
Chapter 6 Antennas Antenna Basics
Parkes “The Dish”. 19’ M83 Parkes “The Dish” VLA, Very Large Array New Mexico.
Radio Telescopes Large metal dish acts as a mirror for radio waves. Radio receiver at prime focus. Surface accuracy not so important, so easy to make.
Paul Alexander, Peter Hall Design Issues and Implementation ChallengesAAVP 2010 Design issues and implementation challenges Paul Alexander and Peter Hall.
BDT Radio – 1b – CMV 2009/09/04 Basic Detection Techniques 1b (2009/09/04): Single pixel feeds Theory: Brightness function Beam properties Sensitivity,
Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy 1 ASTRON is part of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) From LOFAR design to SKA1 System.
Phased-Array Feed Measurements at Green Bank Karl Warnick, Brian Jeffs Jonathan Landon, Mike Elmer Roger Norrod, Rick Fisher.
BDT Radio – 2a – CMV 2009/10/06 Basic Detection Techniques 2a (2009/10/06): Array antennas Theory: interferometry & synthesis arrays Introduction Optical.
BDT Radio – 2b – CMV 2009/10/09 Basic Detection Techniques 2b (2009/10/09): Focal Plane Arrays Case study: WSRT System overview Receiver and.
Prototype SKA Technologies at Molonglo: 2. Antenna and Front End G.B. Warr 1,2, J.D. Bunton 3, D. Campbell-Wilson 1, R.G. Davison 1, R.W. Hunstead 1, D.A.
Sascha D-PAD Sparse Aperture Array.
SKA AA-low: LPD antenna (SKALA) & path towards AAVS0 at Cambridge Eloy de Lera Acedo University of Cambridge 1 AAVP 2011: Taking the AA programme into.
Dec 2010 AAVP Cambridge workshop AAVP AAVS1/2-low demonstrators Jan Geralt Bij de Vaate.
Array Antenna Designs for the SKA-AAlo Eloy de Lera Acedo 1 AAVP 2010, Cambridge, UK. 10/12/10.
AA-mid demonstrator Dion Kant AAVP – 10 December 2010, Cambridge, UK.
LOFAR Antenna Systems Dion Kant, Wim van Cappellen AAVP – 10 December 2010, Cambridge, UK.
Name1 SKA(DS) System Design Aspects 4 th SKADS Workshop, Lisbon, 2-3 October 2008 SKA(DS) System Design Aspects: building a system Laurens Bakker.
Advanced MWA tile beam models Randall Wayth – ICRAR/Curtin University.
Memory Aid Help.  b 2 = c 2 - a 2  a 2 = c 2 - b 2  “c” must be the hypotenuse.  In a right triangle that has 30 o and 60 o angles, the longest.
Multiwavelength Continuum Survey of Protostellar Disks in Ophiuchus Left: Submillimeter Array (SMA) aperture synthesis images of 870 μm (350 GHz) continuum.
SKA AA-Low Station Configurations and Trade-off Analysis Nima Razavi-Ghods, Ahmed El-Makadema AAVP 2011, ASTRON, Dwingeloo Dec
Random Media in Radio Astronomy Atmospherepath length ~ 6 Km Ionospherepath length ~100 Km Interstellar Plasma path length ~ pc (3 x Km)
Fundamental Antenna Parameters
Phased Array Feeds John O’Sullivan SKANZ 2012 CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science,
Analysis of Low Frequency Phased Array Stations Dr. Nima Razavi-Ghods Dr. Eloy de Lera Acedo Cambridge AAVP 2010, 09/12/10 1.
Oct. 16, 2006 Midterm Next Class Assignment #4 is Marked
Widefield Astronomy and Technologies for the SKA November 2009 at Limelette, Belgium The SKA AA-lo array; E.M. simulation and design Eloy de Lera.
Andreas Horneffer for the LOPES Collaboration Detecting Radio Pulses from Air Showers with LOPES.
Which dipoles to use to optimize survey speed? –What tapering? –Trade-off between sensitivity, FOV and low side-lobe levels –Station beam stability, pointing.
Paul Alexander & Jaap BregmanProcessing challenge SKADS Wide-field workshop SKA Data Flow and Processing – a key SKA design driver Paul Alexander and Jaap.
Rosie Bolton SKADS Workshop April 10th 2008 SKADS Costing work: beyond the benchmark scenario Rosie Bolton Paul Alexander, Andy Faulkner and SKADS Costing.
Electromagnetic Design of Broadband Antenna Feed Systems for the Northern Cross Radio Telescope (Bologna, Italy) Designed Broad Band Antenna Feed Systems.
Kristian Zarb Adami Danny Price M E Jones & the AADC Single vs Dual Band Considerations Instruments:
LOFAR LOw Frequency Array => most distant, high redshift Universe !? Consortium of international partners… Dutch ASTRON USA Haystack Observatory (MIT)
NASSP Masters 5003F - Computational Astronomy Lecture 14 Reprise: dirty beam, dirty image. Sensitivity Wide-band imaging Weighting –Uniform vs Natural.
Tenth Summer Synthesis Imaging Workshop University of New Mexico, June 13-20, 2006 High Dynamic Range Imaging Craig Walker.
Array for Microwave Background Anisotropy AMiBA SZ Science AMiBA Team NTU Physics Figure 4. Simulated AMiBA deep surveys of a 1deg 2 field (no primary.
CODALEMA A Cosmic Ray Radio Detection Array ICRC 2007, 3-11 July Merida, Mexico CODALEMA A Cosmic Ray Radio Detection Array Didier Lebrun, LPSC Grenoble.
June, 2006 ASC presentation Design of Arrays with Minimum Side Lobes Leonid Kogan National Radio Astronomy Observatory.
RF Propagation No. 1  Seattle Pacific University Basic RF Transmission Concepts.
SKA1-LOW CONFIGURATION CONSULTATION WS P. Dewdney
EoR/Cosmic Dawn SWG Feedback on SKA1-Low Array Configuration Cath Trott Brad Greig, Leon Koopmans, Andrei Mesinger, Garrelt Mellema, Jonathan Pritchard.
Antenna Basics.
ANTENNA THEORY : Analysis and design Third edition
Detecting Ultra High Energy Neutrinos with LOFAR M.Mevius for the LOFAR NuMoon and CR collaboration.
DESIGN PARAMETRES AT BASE STATION Prittu Ann Thomas Roll no :14.
SAGE meeting Socorro, May 22-23, 2007 WIDAR Correlator Overview Michael P. Rupen Project Scientist for WIDAR & Software.
Calculating Beam Pattern Inaccuracies and Their Implications
A new calibration algorithm using non-linear Kalman filters
Nicolas Fagnoni – Cosmology on Safari – 14th February 2017
The Low Frequency Array (LOFAR)
Medichats 14 October 2008 ADC bit number and input power needed, in new radio-astronomical applications View of the Medicina Radiotelescopes - Italy Eng.
Mid Frequency Aperture Arrays
Improved radio data analysis with LOPES Katrin Link, for the LOPES Collaboration #0404, ICRC 2011, Beijing.
AAVS1 Calibration Aperture Array Design & Construction Consortium
Phased Array Feeds SKANZ 2012 John O’Sullivan
Phased Array Feeds Wim van Cappellen
Imaging and Calibration Challenges
Pulsar Timing with ASKAP Simon Johnston ATNF, CSIRO
HERA Imaging and Closure
Ham ANTENNAS: A practical introduction to The THEORY AND operation
WELCOME.
An Overview of Antennas:
Presentation transcript:

Performance of station array configurations Sparse vs. Dense, Regular vs Random Jaap D. Bregman AAVP Workshop,Cambridge,

Overview Setting the Scene for SKA-Low –Some Antenna Basic –Why Sparse Arrays for F < 300 MHz LOFAR 20 – 240 MHz (sparse, regular & random) –Station & Array Calibratability –Element & Sparse Array Beam –EM-coupling effects Vivaldi Element & Array (dense regular) Antenna Cost Extrapolation –Peak sensitivities for SKA Low –Balancing Lowest against Highest frequency octave Conclusions (combine)

Setting the Scene for SKA-Low Memo 125 defines SKA 1 with 2 Synthesis Arrays –100 M€ for AA-Low70 – 450 MHz2000 m 2 z = 10 –100 M€ for Dishes0.3 – 10 GHz1000 m 2 /K0.45 – 3 GHz Effective supporting surveys requires –30% of cost in Receivers, Beamforming, Correlation & Imaging –70% of cost in collecting area & Low Noise Amplifier What could we do with 70 M€ in view of –Limitations set by the Sky –Limitations set Antenna Theory –Limitations set by Ionosphere calibration –Limitations set by Station Beam calibration

Some Antenna Basic Array has set of N antenna element separated by a pitch P When /2 > P we are in the dense regime and A e = N P 2 = N p 2 /4 A dense array has a projected area ~ cos(  ) with zenith angle  A dipole above a ground plane has a beam pattern ~ cos(  ) in H-plane and ~ cos 2 (  ) in E-plane, A free dipole above ground has A e = 2 /  with beam solid angle  ~ 3 In the sparse regime are the pitch cells not fully filled so A e < P 2 and sparse < ( 3/4 ) 1/2 P A dipole with length L and height H above a ground plane has below resonance impedance Z ~ 377 L H / 2 (real part) The EM coupling between the elements in the dense regime increases the effective impedance in a dense array, which is important to get appropriate matching to low noise amplifiers

Why Sparse Arrays for F < 300 MHz Sparse Array stations have –Aeffective < Aphysical –Ae ~ N   –Tsky ~  –Sensitivity Ss ~ Ts / Ae ~  –Typical source flux So ~  –Source Count N(S > So) ~ So -1 –Beam solid angle   / Ap –So constant detection sensitivity –But sources/beam ~  Expo-Shell configuration –Exponential decreasing element separation towards centre of station –LBA 50% subsets of LOFAR –Select 50% of elements to limit sparseness at higher frequencies 60 MHz subset 30 MHz subset

LOFAR 20 – 240 MHz Two different sparse array configurations –Randomized expo-shell for 96 elements MHz –24/48/96 Tiles with 16 elements on regular grid MHz Two different dipole like elements –Free standing thin wired short inverted V-dipole –Boxed Vertical bowtie as fat dipole –Both above ground plane Descent receiver noise match –LBA sky noise limited MHz –HBA sky noise limited MHz

Station & Array Calibratability VLA 75 MHz could not be selfcalibrated –A single single source available in only a few fields –Ae/Ap = 0.15 is too small –Beam too wide, 25 m dish to small for ionosphere patch size –1.5 MHz bandwidt not enough with 10 sec to match ionosphere LOFAR will do full ionosphere multi direction selfcal –40 m remote stations allow multi direction at 120 MHz –30 m core stations could provide combined solution for core –56 m international stations still see partly resolved calibrators –10 MHz, 10 sec, allows for ~20 directions when Ae/Ap = 1.0 –33 m station at 60 MHz Ae/Ap = 0.47 reasonable ionosphere needed –83 m station at 30 MHz Ae/Ap = 0.29 good ionosphere needed

Element & Sparse Array Beam Include EM Coupling –Pitch < few wavelength –Element beam gets ~30 % bumps –Every element beam is “different” Effective Station Beam –Average element beam depends on direction in which array is pointed –Also for element impedance to which LNA needs to matched –Average element pattern has blind angles for specific freq & directions –Especially for regular array –Array factor has grating lobes –Randomization reduces both effects Ignore EM Coupling –True in very sparse arrays –True for arrays like WSRT –Not true for ATA Effective Station beam –Product of element beam and “array factor” –Element beam is smooth –Array factor has side lobes –Array factor has grating lobes –Array factor independent of direction where it is pointed to

Vivaldi Element & Array Free Vivaldi is wide band –At least 3 octaves –However narrow beam Array of connected elements –Good impedance P/2 <  < 4 P –Constant Ae = Ap for  > P 3 -1/2 –Cos (  ) “element” beam  > P –Narrower “element” beam  P –In sparse regime Ae/Ap ~  –Array factor has grating lobes –No grating for  < 47 o at  = P 3 -1/2

Antenna Cost Extrapolations LOFAR Actuals –Free LBA element (~2 m)€ 150 –Container + Combiner + Cables€ 500 –5*5 m 2 Tile + Combiner + Cables€ 1800 –Embedded HBA element + delay€ 75 –Production for ~5,000 LBA ~3000 HBA Extrapolated SKA Upper Bound Costs – 8 element cluster6*6 m 2 k€ 1.7(2 m separation) –16 element bowtie tile6*6 m 2 k€ 3.0 –32 element Vivaldi tile6*6 m 2 k€ 4.5 –64 element Vivaldi tile6*6 m 2 k€ 6.0

Peak Sensitivity for 70 M€ in antenna arrays “Tiles” of 6*6 m2 with 8 or 16 dipoles and 32 or 64 Vivaldi elements Frequency and element pitch increment 2 1/2 Purple is receiver noise dominated Yellow is relevant EoRrange Blue is actual LOFAR range Red is relevant Pulsar range * indicates max frequency with 3 sr element beam and  max = 47 o to avoid grating lobes A p 1.5 km km km km 2 Freq T sys A e8 /T s A e16 /T s A e32 /T s A e64 /T s MHz Km 2 K * * * * * * * *

Balancing Lowest against Highest octave Tiles of 6*6 m 2 with 64 elements have unprecedented sensitivity in MHz range or 2 < z < 6 Free element clusters provide best sensitivity for EoR application Combining Vivaldi tiles in centre of a station with dipole clusters in expense ratio 1:2 gives 720 m 2 /K at 85 & 400 MHz and 1220 m 2 /K at 170 MHz In “Dense” regime could tapering reduce the station side lobes In the sparse regime will grating lobes rise above the horizon when the array is pointed toward large zenith angles and pick up sky noise and disturbing sources.

Conclusions A full 1 km 2 array could be realized Combine Vivaldi tiles and Dipole clusters in station –Still 720 m 2 /K at 85 & 400 MHz –Peak sensitivity of 1220 m 2 /K at 170 MHz at octave “centre” of band Calibratability limits practical ranges of sparse regime –1 octave in Sky noise limited regime by  ~  –1/2 octave In receiver noise limited regime by additional Ae ~  Full instantaneous U,V-coverage for core possible Stay for EoR in “dense” regime –Avoid grating lobes and blind angles –Apply taper to reduce side lobes –Reduces sensitivity for low frequency