Antenna Array and Power Feed Design ( Agile sprint)
The following pages are the memo we sent to our client, along with feedback about our design
from the company representatives. In our memo we go over the agile sprint process as outlined
in the document “Agile Sprint Algorithm”. We briefly explained each of the steps, along with the
actions we took to accomplish them. We have been in constant communication with our client,
so they had a good understanding of where we were in the process of our design.
The feedback from Max was less specific. He had a little concern about us dividing tasks, but
this was a specific requirement for the design sprint when working individually on our
subsystem. John’s feedback gave specific bulletined notes that reflected portions of our block
diagram. He gave good advice about the impedance matching of our design, giving specific
values that we can start with regarding our feedline
Dear Max and John
This memo will recap and present the results of our team’s design sprint. The sprint was a twoweek process, consisting of five stages. The first stage was to map the ideas for the sprint,
which we decided on a block diagram for our design process. We designated John as our
team’s decider and Ally as the historian. With our end objective in mind, we contacted you to fill
in the details of what our design needed to be and narrow the scope of our initial brainstorming.
The second stage of the sprint was to disassemble the system into subsystems and amass
competing solutions for each subsystem. We defined four subsystems for our design: antenna,
simulation, power feed, and manufacturing. With four team members, we were able to assign
each subsystem to a member to start individually creating as many possible solutions and
ideas. This led to the third stage of the sprint where we came together, shared our ideas and
voted on the best solutions for each subsystem. We were sharing and contributing our ideas,
drafting different block diagrams, and demonstrating initial simulations.
With these refined solutions, we were able to create a block diagram that reflects the sprint
process. It has a work flow connecting our subsystems, going further into the details and
considerations required to complete each task. We have steps to achieve the initial prototype,
with an iterative feedback technique to hone our design. Then after a strong base design is
completed, we have ideas for spring to explore to go into more details.
We hope this accurately reflects your expectations of us. Any feedback, questions or concerns
you have from this memo and block diagram can be discuss. We appreciate your time and input
and are excited to start creating some patch antennas.
– Feedback from John
Hi all – thanks for sending the info. Here are some initial thoughts:
Antenna design process looks good
o Inset-fed patch antenna is baseline design, simple to design (~1 hr)
o Impedance match is set by inset distance into patch element, but could also include quarter-wave
impedance matching transformer if needed at each feedpoint
o Impedance of single element is commonly 50 Ohms to match system impedance of feedline. For
this type of series / parallel feed approach, you may want the feedpoint impedances to be
different (need to study this to see if different impedances are needed along the line to match
the entire array).
o The main input at the center of the two series-fed branches could be designed to have the
necessary 50 Ohm input impedance but with 100 Ohm output impedance to each array. This is
a natural splitter (see link below). I guess my thought here is that the impedances can be
selected as needed along the array, but the overall input impedance just needs to be 50 Ohms.
Simulation approach looks good
o ADS moment-method solver for 2D geometries is applicable and runs quickly
o Feedline approach and simulated performance will be key to overall design success
I had thought PCBs would be fabricated by external vendor such as Sierra Circuits not on
o May be good to compare use of Rogers materials vs Panasonic Megtron6 to see if there are cost
differences, we use Rogers which is more expensive but from what I’ve heard Megtron6 may be
equivalent performance with lower cost
Feedback from Max
We have received and reviewed your agile sprint memo, and we are satisfied that this
deliverable has been met. The presented design process is sound and should result in the right
deliverables, which are a complete design with detailed simulations and theoretical calculations
of performance by the end of this semester, and a manufactured and fully validated (with
measurements) unit produced next semester.
Purchase answer to see full attachment