A Tale of Three LPAs: Some Notes on Zig-Zag Log-Periodic Arrays

1. Preliminaries and LPDAs

L. B. Cebik, W4RNL

In amateur radio literature on log-periodic arrays (LPAs), an interesting situation has arisen.
One of the many types of LPAs, the log-periodic dipole array (LPDA), has supplanted all other
types. Today, literature generally available to amateurs (with one exception) overlooks other
types of wire-based LPAs and provides detailed design information only on the LPDA. That
situation naturally aroused my curiosity. How well or poorly did other types of LPAs perform
relative to the easily modeled LPDA?

Two configurations of LPAs that were cotemporary with the earliest LPAs used structures
that the average builder might reasonably replicate: trapezoidal elements and saw tooth
elements in a zig-zag arrangement. Therefore, we obtain a 3-way comparison that gives us our
title, a tale of three LPAs. However, the situation is not as simple as this, since we find versions
that use a central boom and versions without the boom. Hence, we end up with the 5 varieties
shown in Fig. 1.

Next, we add in a second complication. Normally, we find the LPDA, composed of dipole
elements with a central 2-wire phase line transposed between each adjacent element, used in
single bays. However, to make a directional array from any of the zig-zag forms, we need two
bays, since the feedpoint is single-ended for a 1-bay version. In use, the 2-bay zig-zag LPAs
show an angle between the bays in the H-plane. Therefore, all of the zig-zag arrays, whether
using trapezoidal or saw-tooth elements, have a 3-dimensional structure, as shown in Fig. 2.
The sample zig-zag arrays show only boomless versions for clarity. We might have as easily,
but less clearly, used zig-zag LPAs with booms. The side and top view of the saw-tooth version
of the zig-zag array shows us how the array developed the “X” designation.

By comparison, we may consider the single-bay LPDA to be a 2-dimensional structure.

Nothing in the theory of LPDA development precludes the use of multiple bays, and some
commercial examples do exist. In developing our comparisons, we shall want to examine at
least 2-bay LPDAs to improve the scope of our comparisons. One critical variance between 2-
bay zig-zag LPAs and 2-bay LPDAs is a difference in how we feed the bays. Zig-zag arrays will
require a single series feed between the bays, while 2-bay LPDAs will require parallel in-phase
feeding.

We also need to find a common set of standards for the design of each array so that all
versions used in comparisons are in fact comparable. Setting aside the general tendency to try
to obtain the greatest performance from the least wire, we shall use fairly long-boom versions of
the arrays. Each array will use 20 elements per bay with design values that yield no anomalous
frequencies across a 50-200-MHz passband. To avoid pressing NEC modeling limitations
within the passband, all LPAs will use 0.1”-diameter (2.54-mm) lossless wire.

For various reasons that will become clear as we progress, the comparisons will require that
we take relatively small and orderly steps. In this part of our journey, we shall look at some
basic differences between the ways in which zig-zag and LPDA arrays are designed in classical
terms. In addition, since the LPDA is the modern standard LPA for radio amateurs, we shall set
up some base-line data for both single-bay and double-bay versions of the antenna. In part 2,
we shall survey trapezoidal zig-zag arrays including versions with and without booms. Part 3
will look at the X or saw tooth configuration of the zig-zag LPA, again including versions with
and without booms. The exercise has yielded a very large collection of NEC-4 modeling data,
far too much for inclusion in the main text of these notes. Therefore, I shall make available a
data appendix containing tabular and graphical information derived from each variation of each
LPA that we consider. At 45 pages, the data appendix will be almost as long as all three parts
of these notes combined.

Some LPA Background and Design Considerations

We may consider the years between the late 1950s and about 1970 as the period of peak
development in log periodic frequency-independent antennas. Earlier work exists and later
developments have improved the state of the art, but the indicated period was perhaps the most
productive. Much of the work emerged from the Antenna Lab at the University of Illinois
(Champagne-Urbana) or from the students and faculty after leaving Illinois. Paul Mayes kindly
provided me with a copy of his 1982 article, “Frequency-Independent Antennas: Birth and
Growth of an Idea,” which appeared in the August issue of the Antennas and Propagation
Society Newsletter of the IEEE. One may track the contents of this brief history of
developments by reading in chronological order the references in Chapter 14 of the third edition
of Johnson’s Antenna Engineering Handbook. Since our interests lie in wire-outline versions of
the LPA, we may pass over the fundamental work on conical log-periodic antennas and focus
more directly on linear antennas.

We may call our subject LPAs wire-outline arrays because they ultimately derived from solid
element versions. For example, we may picture the zig-zag bays in Fig. 1 as if each “tooth”
consisted of a solid surface of conductive material. Early tooth designs assumed many shapes,
many with curved structures that remind us that the LPA is based on limited arcs of a circle.
The discovery that straight elements did not significantly reduce performance potential led to the
substitution of wire outlines for the solid teeth. The counterpart of the boom in these early LPAs
also increased in width as one moved from the vertex outward to the longest element.
Shrinking the boom to a single wire led J. W. Carr to remove the boom altogether and still obtain
a workable LPA. Hence, we have the potential for both boomed and boomless zig-zag LPAs,
although in practice, only the X-array received much attention. Around 1970, I built a simple
boomless X LPA as an attic television antenna that served well to improve reception in Athens,
GA, from the network Atlanta stations about 70 miles distant.

In its most basic form and in terms that precede those we commonly use for LPDAs, the zig-
zag LPA requires attention to only 3 terms: τ, α, and ψ. Fig. 3 gives us a basic orientation to the
meanings of these terms.

The series of elements in the sketch have lengths and a distance from the vertex of the
angles determined by the value of τ. We may define τ in terms of the element lengths (L), the
distances from the vertex (R), or the spacing between elements (D):
We use the designation R for the distance from the vertex because each element is a straight-
line distortion of what should in principle be an arc. However, the arc sections are too small to
notice the distortion.

The distance from the longest element to the vertex depends upon its length. For this
exercise, I have cut the element to be a physical half-wavelength at the lowest operating
frequency. In practice, this element might be advisably somewhat longer. However, the slightly
deficient longest element will be serviceable to our comparisons, since we may compare the
degree of decrease in performance at the low end of the passband within the scans for each
LPA. Once we know the length of the longest element, the distance to the vertex, RV, is a
simple tan function:

Note that determining the distance requires that we select the angle α (as designated in Fig. 3).
At this point we encounter a difference between designations used for zig-zag designs and for
LPDAs. For zig-zag designs, α is the total angle from one edge of the array to the other. As
shown in Fig. 4, LPDAs nowadays define α as the angle from the centerline of the array to
either virtual edge line. To avoid confusion in the immediately following notes, I shall re-
designate the zig-zag angle as α’.

Unlike design procedures for LPDAs, zig-zag designs normally calculate element (L) and
spacing (R) dimensions by reference solely to τ and to α’. The length of element 2 is τ times the
length of element 1. The distance from the vertex to the position of element 2 is τ times RV.
When we are done adding elements, the array boom length is simply RV - Rn, where n is the
most forward element. The procedure is simple enough to admit of an equally simple
spreadsheet. Fig. 5 provides a sample, with the dimensional values that we shall eventually
employ in NEC-4 models of the three types of LPAs. Note that the worksheet has an entry
marked “L*1.6.” This is the length of an element with a resonant frequency that is 1.6 times the
highest operating frequency. This practice follows general guidelines for effective LPDA design,
but it may prove to be a limiting factor for at least some zig-zag designs.

Basic zig-zag design procedures do not require the term σ, which LPDAs depend upon for
more than one step in the design procedure. We may derive σ from α and τ in LPDA terms:

Most LPDA design literature recommends the use of the optimal values for σ:

In fact, many zig-zag designs employ values of what I shall call virtual σ that are close to
optimal. Where the literature seems oddest is in the occasional use of very low values of τ.
LPDA design recommends the use of values above 0.8—and considerably higher if feasible.
However, we may commonly find τ values from 0.6 to 0.7 in some zig-zag designs. The
modeled performance of some zig-zag designs using low values of τ eventually led to the use of
0.9 in the three models that we shall compare. See Fig. 5 for a visual account of why low
values of τ produce less than optimal results.

The three patterns all use the same values of α’ (60°) and of ψ (35°) for a trapezoidal zig-
zag LPA with a 50-200-MHz design range. (We shall examine ψ momentarily.) As we increase
the value of τ, the sidelobes diminish. However, as we reach a τ of 0.9, the pattern degrades in
a different manner, with a broader main lobe—almost a double lobe to match the enlarged rear
quartering lobes. This pattern results from the use of a value of α’ much larger than is optimal
for the value of τ.

By using a selected value of τ, we may calculate the optimal value of σ from LPDA design
recommendations. Next, we may back-calculate, using the recommended value of σopt, the
corresponding value of α’:

For a τ of 0.9, the optimal value of σ is about 0.1677. The corresponding value of α’ is very
close to 17°. The worksheet in Fig. 5 shows the entries for α’ and τ, along with the calculated
value of virtual σ as a check.

As shown in Fig. 3, zig-zag LPAs require two bays separated by an angle designated ψ.
Early designs favored relatively wide angles or high values of ψ. As we increase the value of ψ,
the gain increases but the front-to-back ratio decreases. As a consequence, designers settled
on a value for ψ experimentally, arriving at a compromise that best fit the research or
communications application at hand. Since the rates of change of gain and of the front-to-back
ratio are not constant at all frequencies within the operating range, there is no clear
mathematical relationship between the values of α’ and ψ. However, in a broad sense, we may
note in advance that the two angles are related so that decreases in the value of α’ result in
decreased values for ψ. To establish that fact for both trapezoidal and X versions of zig-zag
LPAs, we shall have to explore samples in Part 2 and 3 of these notes.

The exploration will employ NEC-4 models in free space using 0.1”-diameter lossless or
perfect wire. Modeling the elements for any type of LPA is routine with one exception. If we
multiply each value for R by –1, we obtain an X-coordinate for the element’s position. This
procedure offsets the array from the coordinate system center in accord with the calculated
value of RV, the distance of the element to the vertex of the array. Then we may rotate the bay
on the Y-axis using either an interface facility in the program (such as EZNEC Pro/4) or via the
GM command. As well, we need model only a single bay, since we may replicate that bay and
rotate the replica 180° on the X-axis. I have used a simple feedpoint system of running a wire
from the free ends of the two most forward elements. Experiments that extended wires to the
vertex produced no significant changes in the basic array performance, so I settled on the
simpler feedpoint modeling procedure.
 Segmenting NEC models of an LPA with a significant frequency range (in this case, 4:1)
generally require a compromise between adequate segmentation and model size. Ideally, the
segment length should be about 0.05-λ at the highest frequency used. Maintained this
segmentation density requires inverse τ-tapering of the number of segments per element as we
proceed from the vertex toward the longest element. Of course, the number of segments is an
integer, with consequential rounding. In an LPDA, the segment count must also be an odd
number to place the modeled phase line (a transmission line using NEC’s TL facility) at the
element center. Since the models are committed to a uniform wire diameter throughout (rather
than using τ-tapered element diameters), there is a limit to the level of segmentation, since that
is determined by the wavelength at a frequency about 1.6 times the highest frequency in the
passband. It is fairly easy to exceed recommended ratios between the wire radius and the
segment length for the most accurate results. The most common occurrence of the difficulty lies
in some of the sharp angles at wire junctions, where wires may penetrate the adjacent segment
center region and create current calculation errors without triggering a warning.

In all cases, the serious modeler must keep an eye on the average gain test (AGT) score to
hold it as close as feasible to the ideal value of 1.000. Since our goal is a comparison of
general properties and not an exercise that will result in a prototype, we may use values
between 0.995 and 1.005 as acceptable AGT scores.

The Single-Bay LPDA “Standard”

Isbell and Carrel’s work on the LPDA in the very early 1960s became encoded in many
forms, and the design procedures applicable to LPDAs appear in many sources. One often-
used progression appears in Chapter 1 of LPDA Notes and in Chapter 10 of The ARRL Antenna
Book, following the Rhodes’ QST article of November, 1973 (“The Log-Periodic Dipole Array,”
pp. 16-22). An additional version appeared in “Log-Periodic Antenna Design,” Ham Radio,
December, 1979, pp. 34-39. Examples of further design procedures appear in Lo and Lee,
Antenna Handbook (1993), Vol. 2, pp. 9-28, and in Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and
Design, 2nd Ed. (1997), pp. 561-563. There are computer programs devoted to LPDA design,
such as LPCAD 3.2, by Roger Cox, WB0DGF. We need not here track the progression of small
corrections that have improved the procedures over the years. The design that we shall use as
our sample derives simply from the dimensions in Fig. 5.

We may model a 20-element planar LPDA using a τ of 0.9 and a σ of 0.167 to arrive at an
array with a total angle across the virtual outline of the elements of about 17°. Although this
array has half the total elements of the 2-bay models that we shall explore in zig-zag models,
basic log-periodic theory takes it to be the equivalent of these arrays that require an optimized
value of ψ. Like the other models, our LPDA will use lossless 0.1”-diameter wire throughout in
order to equalize any comparisons. In ideal LPDA designs, the element diameter should have a
constant length-to-diameter ratio, which would therefore vary the element diameter by the value
of τ. In addition, practical versions of the array would use elements having a larger diameter
(usually aluminum tubing). The model also uses a 254-Ω phase-line to obtain a feedpoint
impedance centered on 200-Ω. A combination of larger elements, τ-tapered elements, and a
lower phase-line impedance might yield up to 1 dB additional gain over the version of the array
used in this exercise.

Fig. 7 shows the general outline of the LPDA, along with current magnitude distribution
graphs for 50, 125, and 200 MHz. The significant current magnitude on the rear elements at 50
MHz suggests that the array might benefit from a slightly longer rear element. As well, the 200-
MHz current graphic fails to show a second peak, suggesting that a few more forward elements
might also be useful to overall performance. The LPDA shows peak current on the element (or
elements) closest to self-resonance at the operating frequency.

In Fig. 8 we have a different perspective on the relative current magnitude distribution

among the LPDA elements. Because each element has two open or free ends, the current
distribution on each is perfectly symmetrical. At the lowest frequency within the operating
passband (50 MHz), the current on the forward-most element is about 7% of the peak current
on the most active element. No element is wholly inert.

Table 1 provides sample performance values at 50, 100, 150, and 200 MHz. Since the
planar LPDA is not subject to ψ as a variable, both tables are considerably shorter than their
zig-zag LPA counterparts. Fig. 9 follows with a gallery of E-plane and H-plane free-space
patterns at the sample frequencies. The performance data and the free-space plots confirm that
the LPDA has a slight deficiency in gain and in the front-to-back ratio at the lowest frequency.
Therefore, a slightly lower self-resonant frequency for the longest element might well increase
the low-end front-to-back ratio and decrease the range of value change—but without
significantly changing the average front-to-back value shown in the sweep summary. In addition,
one might add one or more dipoles at the forward end, if not to improve gain, then perhaps to
enhance pattern control at the upper end of the band. The LPDA shows an increasing
beamwidth in the H-plane as we increase the operating frequency, even though the E-plane
beamwidth varies by less than 6° across the operating passband.
Table 1. Sample performance values: single-bay LPDA: 20 elements, α’ = 17°, τ = 0.9, σ =
0.167

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 200-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.33 16.71 67.0 107.8 209 - j 5 1.05
100 8.19 30.77 63.0 94.6 196 - j 30 1.16
150 8.30 29.16 62.6 93.2 180 - j 19 1.16
200 7.88 28.38 63.7 109.4 182 - j 11 1.29

In Table 2 are the summery values derived from a frequency sweep across the entire
operating passband in 5-MHz increments.

Table 2. Sweep data summary, 50-200 MHz in 5-MHz increments: single-bay LPDA: 20
elements, α’ = 17°, τ = 0.9, σ = 0.167

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average

Gain dBi 7.33 8.52 1.19 8.09
Front-Back dB 16.71 44.56 27.85 28.93
E Beamwidth ° 60.8 66.4 5.6 63.7
H Beamwidth ° 83.8 109.4 25.6 99.8

Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 graph the data gathered from the frequency sweeps in terms of forward
gain, 180° front-to-back ration, feedpoint resistance and reactance, and the 200-Ω SWR. The
gain and front-to-back graphs shows the decrease in values below about 60 MHz. However, it
is useful to note that even with this seeming deficiency, the range of gain variation across the
operating passband is less than 1.2 dB. Equally notable is the 200-Ω SWR curve, which never
reaches a value of 1.3:1 across the band.

The LPDA is a single-bay array. Therefore, like any directional antenna composed of dipole
elements, the H-plane beamwidth is naturally wider than the E-plane beamwidth. The average
beamwidth values are similar to those that we associate with a long-boom (>0.32 λ) 3-element
Yagi (normally using larger-diameter elements), and the average LPDA forward gain is slightly
higher when we consider the element diameter used in the model (0.1”). (In comparison, a 3-
element Yagi with a short boom of less than 0.23 λ would show about a dB less gain and
somewhat larger beamwidth values.)

2-Bay LPDAs

Although I know of only a few commercial examples of wire LPDAs that use two bays, we
should examine the possibility to form one more comparator with the zig-zag LPAs that must
use two bays. Unlike early zig-zag LPAs that combined low values of τ with high values of ψ, a
successful 2-bay LPDA stack requires much narrower angles. In addition, the two LPDA bays
must be fed in phase. Nevertheless, the use of a constant angle between the bays provides a
constant distance between them as measured in wavelengths for any operating frequency. To
sample the performance trends for such arrangements, I created 2-bay models using ψ-angles
of 5°, 10°, and 15°. Fig. 12 shows the general outline of the models with side views of each
array angle.

For comparison with the single-bay data in Table 1, I extracted free-space information on
each model at 50, 100, 150, and 200 MHz. The additional data appear in Table 3. Compared
to the single-bay version, the parallel feed for the 20bay models yields a reference impedance
of 100 Ω for tabulating SWR values. Although a small matter, the highest SWR value is less
than 1.2:1, compared to the single-bay maximum value of nearly 1.3:1. At any of the sampled
values of ψ, the 2-bay LPDA is a very stable array with respect to the source impedance.

Table 3. Sample performance values: 2-bay LPDAs: 20 elements, α’ = 17°, τ = 0.9, σ = 0.167

Ψ = 5°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 200-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.09 18.10 61.4 83.2 94 - j 7 1.10
100 9.82 39.75 57.0 74.4 94 - j 9 1.12
150 9.88 47.35 57.0 74.2 97 - j 11 1.12
200 9.55 39.30 57.5 75.2 100 - j 11 1.11
Ψ = 10°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 200-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.35 14.28 61.0 73.2 89 - j 2 1.13
100 10.17 36.27 57.8 68.4 93 - j 8 1.11
150 10.31 42.41 57.4 66.4 98 - j 12 1.14
200 9.85 48.23 57.8 69.2 99 - j 12 1.13

Ψ = 15°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 200-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.70 11.19 61.6 61.7 88 + j 9 1.18
100 10.40 26.23 57.2 59.0 96 - j 2 1.04
150 10.20 29.51 60.6 62.0 101 - j 17 1.19
200 10.34 33.26 61.0 60.0 96 - j 17 1.19

To go with the data on the E-plane and H-plane beamwidths, Fig. 13 presents combined
free-space patterns for the version using a ψ-angle of 10°. As we increase the value of ψ, the
H-plane beamwidth decreases with almost no effect upon the E-plane beamwidth. At an angle
of 15°, the two beamwidth values are virtually equal.

Selecting the 2-bay model with ψ=10° as the graphic representative of all three 2-bay
models emerges most clearly if we tabulate some of the summary data from frequency sweeps
made for all of the models. Table 4 presents information that we may directly compare with the
information in Table 2 for the single-bay LPDA.
Table 4. Sweep data summary, 50-200 MHz in 5-MHz increments: 2-bay LPDAs: 20 elements,
α’ = 17°, τ = 0.9, σ = 0.167

Ψ=5°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 9.09 10.00 0.91 9.72
Front-Back dB 18.10 54.74 36.64 36.02
E Beamwidth ° 55.4 61.4 6.0 57.6

Ψ=10°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 9.35 10.79 1.18 10.00
Front-Back dB 14.28 63.75 49.47 35.93
E Beamwidth ° 54.0 61.0 7.0 57.8

Ψ=15°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 9.70 10.79 1.09 10.39
Front-Back dB 11.19 42.10 30.91 28.27
E Beamwidth ° 54.4 62.8 8.4 58.8

Early on, investigators recognized that as we increase the ψ-angle of an LPA, the gain
increases while the front-to-back ratio decreases. Ordinarily, the front-to-back ratio becomes
too small for effective directional array use before the gain ceases to rise. Those trends also
apply to 2-bay LPDAs, as the table indicates. The phenomenon shows up most clearly at the
lowest operating frequency, where gain is minimum due to the inadequate length of the rear
element in the model. However, the same situation also appears in the columns for maximum
and average values.
 Fig. 14 provides sweep graphs of free-space forward gain and the 180° front-to-back ratio of
the models using a ψ-angle of 10°. The performance weakness below 55 MHz shows itself very
clearly. Note also the smaller but evident decrease in gain performance at the high end of the
passband. 2-bay LPDAs tend to reflect whatever large or small weaknesses that we design into
the root single-bay version of the antenna. The front-to-back data, however, requires some
caution. Although the values are very high, compare the sample E-plane patterns in Fig. 13
with the corresponding single-bay patterns in Fig. 9. The 180° value of the front-to-back ratio is
not always a sufficient indicator of rearward performance. Examining the strongest rearward
lobes is always good practice in evaluating array performance.

Fig. 15 provides a graph of the feedpoint performance in terms of the source resistance and
reactance, as well as the 100-Ω SWR across the operating passband. Because the SWR
values use a different Y-axis maximum value relative to the values shown for the single-bay
model in Fig. 11, we may legitimately wonder if the smoothness of the curves in the present
graph is real or illusory. A comparison between the resistance and reactance curves in the two
graphs will establish that the double-bay array shows smoother impedance performance across
the operating range.

Table 5. LPDA sweep data summary, 50-200 MHz in 5-MHz increments: 20 elements, α’ = 17°,
τ = 0.9, σ = 0.167

Single-bay
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.33 8.52 1.19 8.09
Front-Back dB 16.71 44.56 27.85 28.93
E Beamwidth ° 60.8 66.4 5.6 63.7
H Beamwidth ° 83.8 109.4 25.6 99.8
Double-bay, Ψ=10°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 9.35 10.79 1.18 10.00
Front-Back dB 14.28 63.75 49.47 35.93
E Beamwidth ° 54.0 61.0 7.0 57.8

To determine whether the 2-bay LPDA provides a significant advantage over its single-bay
root antenna, let’s compare the summary sweep data for each, using the ψ=10° version of the
larger array. Table 5 allows some ready conclusions. For example, even though the arrays are
not optimally spaced relative to our experience with narrow-band antennas such as Yagi-Uda
arrays, we obtain a consistent 2-dB gain advantage from the double-bay LPDA. Although the
front-to-back ratio for the 2-bay antenna appears to be higher, the advantage may be illusory,
since the values at the lowest operating frequency show a reverse trend. Except for the lowest
operating frequencies, the front-to-back ratios of both versions of the LPDA are well above 20
dB, largely making comparisons academic.

One advantage of the 2-bay LPDA cannot be shown with free-space models. A single-bay
LPDA will normally be installed over ground at a constant physical height. For HF versions of
such arrays, the take-off angle will vary with the frequency of operation. We may angle a 2-bay
array in such a manner that the take-off angle is virtually constant across a wide frequency
range. TCI has long marketed an LPA with just such properties.

It is obvious that the text of these initial notes cannot contain all of the data gathered on all
of the LPDA models. Therefore, I have gathered the data collection for the LPDAs and the zig-
zag LPAs into a special appendix for leisurely viewing.

Conclusion to Part 1

In these initial notes, we have surveyed—perhaps too rapidly—some of the background and
design considerations that go into LPAs of all sorts. In addition, we have set up the now-
standard LPDA version of the antenna as a standard against which we may compare the
performance of both trapezoidal and X (saw tooth) LPAs in the next two parts of our sojourn in
the land of linear-element log-periodic arrays. Although 2-bay LPDAs are rare, I have included
models for them, since all of the ensuing zig-zag arrays must use a 2-bay structure to obtain
significant directional gain.

Where these notes differ most radically from older practice lies in the basic design
parameters. I have selected values of τ, σ, and α (or α’) that are optimally related. The choice
of τ=0.9 produces reliable good results with no anomalous frequencies in the sweep range,
even though it does not yield the maximum gain obtainable from an LPDA. Rather, it achieves
good performance while allowing NEC-4 models having a manageable size. Likewise, the
element diameter (0.1”) allows the models to avoid pressing any NEC-4 limitations, even though
fatter elements may produce higher gain values.

Values of ψ emerge from experimental modeling exercises, and the ultimate selection of a
ψ-angle may rest on performance objectives and construction limitations that fall outside the
scope of this exercise. My selection of a representative example for 2-bay LPAs will rest on the
simple appearance of best overall performance or other equally quasi-arbitrary criteria.
However, the data appendix will provide identical data for all models within the survey. Perhaps
the only partially emergent conclusion that we can draw so far regarding the optimal ψ-angle is
that as we increase the value of τ and reduce the value of α, the optimal value of ψ will also
decrease. The sampled ψ-angles for 2-bay LPDAs are significantly smaller than those we
encounter in older designs for trapezoidal and X LPAs.

In Part 2, we shall examine trapezoidal LPAs, both with and without booms. We may
compare the performance of the two zig-zag types and also compare both with LPDA
performance, since we shall use the same set of design parameters. As a bonus, we shall
examine a trapezoidal zig-zag array of older design.
 A Tale of Three LPAs: Some Notes on Zig-Zag Log-Periodic Arrays
2. The Trapezoidal Zig-Zag LPA

L. B. Cebik, W4RNL

Among the earliest 2-bay directional LPA designs was the trapezoidal zig-zag array. By
1960, Collins was producing a number of LPAs under the “327” designation, and an 11-60-MHz
trapezoidal array with self-supporting tubular elements proved to be perhaps the most
photogenic. The trapezoidal design also proved suitable for television reception with a design
range of 48 to 230 MHz. In fact, the operating range (50-200 MHz) that we use in our modeling
comparisons derives from the television LPDA, which radio amateurs adapted to use on 6, 4, 2,
and 1.25 meter bands, depending upon one’s location.

In this part of our exploration of the zig-zag LPA, we shall examine trapezoidal LPAs,
beginning with those that employ a boom. Fig. 1 shows the outline of a single trapezoidal bay,
a 2-bay version, and side views of a range of versions showing different ψ-angles. All of the
model outlines that appear in the figure employ a boom, the preferred configuration for the
trapezoidal LPA. However, boomless versions are also theoretically possible, so we shall
examine them also. Before we conclude this part, we shall also look at an older design from
amateur literature, one that uses quite different values for α, τ, and ψ than we are employing in
our attempt at a fair comparison among LPA varieties.

Early zig-zag LPAs generally used quite large values for α, mostly for the practically reason
of arriving at relatively short array boom lengths. 60° was perhaps the most common angle to
appear in literature and commercial designs. Arrays also used τ-values between 0.6 and 0.8 to
reduce the element count and arrive at a lighter overall structure. (Most LPDA literature
recommends no τ-value below about 0.8, with higher values necessary to reduce the potential
for the appearance of anomalous frequencies.) The most common ψ-angles seem to have
been 35° to 45°.

Our comparison designs all use the following values: α’ = 17°, τ = 0.9, σ = 0.167, the
optimum value for the selected value for τ. Therefore, the trapezoidal LPAs that we explore for
most of our work in this part will use the dimensions shown in Fig. 2. The trapezoidal element
lengths—counting only from side-to-side—will be identical to those used in Part 1’s LPDA. As
well, the models will use 20 elements per bay. All models will be in free space and use 0.1”
(2.54-mm) lossless wire for reasons outlined in Part 1.

NEC-4 models of the trapezoidal zig-zag LPA are necessarily larger than comparable LPDA
2-bay models, with some models exceeding 1600 segments. Trapezoids require wires for both
the boom (where used) and the wires that connect alternating element ends. The goal, within
the limits of the segmentation process is to have all segments be the same length throughout
the model. In addition, the segment length should also be within NEC limits at both the upper
and the lower end of the operating range.

A number of published designs show the most forward element end and the boom brought
to the vertex as a feedpoint location. However, considerable experimentation with variations
showed no significant difference in performance in any category between this complex system
and the simpler version used in the models. Models with booms add a wire that connects the
two booms at the short end of the array and places the model source at the center of this wire.
Models without booms add a wire connecting the free ends of the most forward element in each
bay, with the source at its center.
Trapezoidal LPAs with Booms

Trapezoidal LPAs with booms derive most clearly from early versions of log-periodic
structures using solid elements instead of the wire outline of those elements. We can easily
picture these bays by using Fig. 1 and simply filling in the area created by each closed
trapezoidal structure. Experimental designs also tended to use a boom that became wider as
the elements became longer, but practicalities reduced the boom to a constant diameter. In
commercial and amateur versions of the antenna, the boom often used a larger diameter than
the elements to provide structural support.

Trapezoids with booms show the general ability of a wire-outline version of the LPA to mimic
the behavior of their solid surface counterparts. Fig. 3 shows the 50-MHz current magnitude
distribution along the wires of an array. The lower section of the graphic reveals the parallel
current magnitude curves for each closed trapezoidal structure—at least for the longest
elements that allow visual resolution of the curves.

The upper portion of the figure is equally significant, but for a different reason. The LPDAs
shown in Part 1 presented the highest current magnitudes on the elements of the array closest
to self-resonance at the operating frequency. Hence, the highest current at 50 MHz occurred on
the second or third element from the rear of the array. In Fig. 3, the vertical lines represent
peak relative element current, while the horizontal lines portray the current along the booms
(upper lines) and the wire ends that close trapezoids (lower lines). Allowing for the sloping base
lines of each bay, the peak current at the lowest operating frequency occurs well forward of the
elements that are closest to self resonance. A similar situation will appear in boomless versions
of the zig-zag trapezoidal LPA and in X versions of the antenna.
 2-bay LPAs, with each bay transposing the closed trapezoids, are necessary to produce
directional properties. It is tempting to think of the booms as constituting a phase line
comparable to the line used to connect the dipoles of an LPDA. However, whenever we create
a ψ-angle of any significant proportions, the spacing between the booms is too great for the
structure to exhibit transmission-line properties. Indeed, the elements in each bay, with
alternating directions, are capable of showing relatively correct relationships to each other at
any given point along the length of the LPA, even without a boom. As we shall see, however,
the presence of the boom enhances performance considerably by replicating in a wire-outline
LPA the properties of the solid-surface LPA designs from which it derives.

One reason for including a version of the array using a ψ-angle of 0° is to allow us to see the
change in the reference feedpoint impedance as the ψ-angle increases and as any
transmission-line properties between booms disappear. We can see this and other changes by
surveying sample performance properties of the five versions of the array at 50, 100, 150, and
200 MHz. Table 1 provides the results in tabular form. Note initially the change in the
reference impedance for the reported SWR values between ψ-angles of 5° and 10°.

Table 1. Sample performance values of trapezoidal zig-zag LPAs using various ψ-angles

1. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 0° (flat array, 4” separation between bays)

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 225-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.17 27.83 70.6 113.8 240 - j 9 1.08
100 7.58 28.60 68.8 106.5 242 - j 2 1.08
150 7.61 24.91 67.8 107.4 222 - j 13 1.06
200 7.24 20.60 71.4 111.4 149 + j 28 1.55

2. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 5°

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 225-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 8.34 30.50 65.1 94.4 261 - j 13 1.17
100 8.43 29.21 65.2 94.2 239 - j 6 1.07
150 8.20 25.16 65.4 97.4 225 - j 0 1.00
200 7.71 20.13 68.8 103.4 149 + j 39 1.59

3. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 10°

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.16 26.94 64.0 82.8 293 + j 8 1.04
100 9.20 24.47 64.4 82.9 272 + j 33 1.17
150 8.90 20.91 65.0 85.6 259 + j 86 1.41
200 8.33 16.04 68.2 88.8 178 + j159 2.32

4. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 15°

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.63 22.63 64.8 71.2 321 + j 17 1.09
100 9.51 21.90 65.3 72.4 314 + j 78 1.29
150 9.19 18.57 66.6 73.6 306 + j173 1.76
200 8.52 13.71 69.0 74.4 241 + j307 3.02
5. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 20°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.86 16.26 67.2 60.8 326 + j 10 1.09
100 9.68 18.87 67.1 61.1 351 + j 96 1.40
150 9.16 17.00 72.4 61.8 348 + j244 2.12
200 8.59 12.56 72.0 62.4 345 + j460 3.80

The gain figures are especially interesting, since the only difference among the arrays is the
ψ-angle. At the lowest values of ψ, the gain at 50 MHz is significantly lower than the gain at 100
MHz. However, in the move between ψ=10° and ψ=15°, the 50-MHz gain rises to exceed the
gain at 100 MHz. For all values of ψ, the gain at 200 MHz drops relative to the gain at the two
middle frequencies in the sample. The decrease suggests that the design would benefit from
additional shorter elements at the forward end of the array—assuming that equal gain across
the operating passband is a desirable feature.

These characteristics are reflected in the impedance and SWR performance values. As we
increase the ψ-angle, the higher frequencies show increased reactance as measured against
the resistive component of the feedpoint impedance. The increasing reactive component also
shows up as ever-worsening high-end SWR values relative to the indicated reference
impedance.

Like all LPAs, increasing the ψ-angle produces increasing forward gain and decreasing
front-to-back ratio values.
 Deciding upon a representative version of the array to provide graphical samples of
performance is not easy for trapezoidal LPAs that have booms. Smaller values of ψ show
better impedance and front-to-back behavior, while larger ψ-angle values show higher gain. In
many ways, the 5° ψ-angle is a compromise. Still, as revealed in Fig. 4, the sample patterns for
the selected version of the array show excellent pattern control at all frequencies. The H-plane
pattern has a wider beamwidth than the E-plane pattern at this ψ angle. In fact, the E-plane and
H-plane values to not merge until the ψ-angle reaches about 20°. (The data and graphics for all
5 versions of the trapezoidal LPA with a boom appear in the special data appendix to this
series.)

The alternative method of data presentation that we used with the single- and double-bay
LPDAs is also applicable to our trapezoidal LPAs. Table 2 provides succinct summaries of
some of the key sweep information for all 5 models.

Table 2. Frequency sweep summery of trapezoidal zig-zag LPAs using various ψ-angles from
50 to 200 MHz

1. ψ = 0°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.11 8.10 0.99 7.60
Front-Back dB 20.60 28.60 8.00 25.70
E Beamwidth ° 65.0 71.6 6.6 68.4

2. ψ = 5°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.71 8.57 0.86* 8.35
Front-Back dB 20.13 32.04 11.91 27.12
E Beamwidth ° 63.0 68.8 5.8 65.0
*Least variation across the passband of the group

3. ψ = 10°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 8.33 9.29 0.96 9.07
Front-Back dB 16.04 27.52 11.48 22.63
E Beamwidth ° 62.7 68.2 5.5* 64.2
*Least variation across the passband of the group

4. ψ = 15°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 8.52 9.65 1.13 9.34
Front-Back dB 13.71 24.29 10.58 19.79
E Beamwidth ° 63.2 69.0 5.8 65.4

5. ψ = 20°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 8.59 9.91 1.32 9.46
Front-Back dB 12.56 19.98 7.42 16.79
E Beamwidth ° 63.4 72.4 9.0 67.2

The selected 5° ψ-angle shows at least 20-dB front-to-back ratio everywhere in the
operating range. As the sample patterns show, the 180° value is also the worst-case value for
this array. The average front-to-back value for the sweep decreases steadily with an increasing
ψ-angle value, while the average gain-value increases. The E-plane beamwidth values remain
relatively stable for all versions of the array. Indeed, the notations relating to the least variation
in a performance category are not very significant, since the array show relatively even behavior
in almost all versions. Except for the rapid decline in gain at the high end of the passband, the
sweep graph for both gain and front-to-back ratio in Fig. 5 for the 5° ψ-angle version reflects
smooth performance with only the normal fluctuations created by the periodic structure.
(Engineers already knew much of this behavior in the very late 1970s, as soon as method-of-
moments analysis became available.)
 Fig. 6 provides sweep information on the free-space feedpoint performance in terms of
resistance, reactance, and the 225-Ω SWR values. Performance is exceptionally smooth, with
only the final 20 MHz of the passband showing the somewhat aberrant rise in the SWR value.
As the graph shows, the rising SWR results from a combination of a sinking value for resistance
and a slowly rising value of inductive reactance. As we increase the ψ-angle, the impedance
curves become sharper with more sudden swings in value and especially a much greater rise in
the feedpoint’s inductive reactance. See the data appendix for details on the sweeps for all
versions of the boom-equipped trapezoidal LPA.

Since the comparisons that we are making lack the imposition of outside construction or
applications specifications, I have generally selected the representative example based on the
smoothness of performance across the operating passband. External criteria might easily alter
the selection for the design. In general, the representative trapezoidal LPA shows performance
about mid way between the single- and double-bay LPDAs, although one may alter that position
by a judicious selection of the ψ-angle. With a τ of 0.9, an α’ of 17°, and a σ of 0.167, the boom-
equipped trapezoidal LPA shows a high level of performance. It simplifies construction by not
requiring a phase line, but in return, it demands a 3-dimensional structure.

Trapezoidal LPAs without Booms

Although it is theoretically possible to construct boomless trapezoidal LPAs, they are far less
common than boomless LPAs using the X configuration. Both types of antenna offer some
simplifications of a wire structure. One could build wire or thin-tube UHF versions of the array
using a jig composed of a large board and nails to form corners with very small bending radii.
Fig. 7 shows the outline of such an array for 50-200 MHz, which uses the following values: τ =
0.9, α’ = 17°, and ψ = 20°. The array uses 20 elements, all 0.1” in diameter, with the longest
being a physical half-wavelength at the lowest operating frequency and the longest slightly
shorter than a half-wavelength at 1.6 times the highest operating frequency. The dimensions
are those in Fig. 2.
 Obviously, I consider boomless trapezoidal LPAs worth exploration, if only to compare the
results with the data collected on trapezoidal zig-zag LPAs with booms. In addition to the
outline, the figure contains current magnitude distribution graphs for 50, 125, and 200 MHz.
The curves are somewhat difficult to interpret for a trapezoidal zig-zag array because the lines
include current on the parallel elements (the vertical lines) and on the element-end linking wires
(more horizontal lines). The element currents show the peak value of the current, which may
occur anywhere along the element. Perhaps the most interesting fact about the curves is that
they do not show maximum values very close to the element that is closest to resonance, as
they do in comparable graphs for LPDAs. Instead, the peak current occurs generally much
farther forward along the array. In this respect, they share a common general feature with
boom-equipped versions of the array.

Part of the reason for the seemingly displaced current maximum that is most apparent at the
low end of the operating range results from the absence of the end-effect on the elements. Only
the longest element in each bay has a free end. The end-wires have significant current
magnitude and play a role in the transitions from one element to the next. As shown in the
isolated bay curves in Fig. 8, mid-element current magnitude on some of the middle-length
element may actually reach a minimum. Unlike the boom-equipped versions of the trapezoidal
LPA, the boomless versions show no signs of correspondence to solid-surface LPAs that
preceded them.

I modeled 4 versions of the 20-element trapezoidal zig-zag LPA, varying the value of ψ in 5°
increments from 10° to 25°. One might experimentally replicate the exercise by using a variable
angular brace in the general support structure for each bay. The volume of data collected is too
great for inclusion in these notes. Therefore, I have made available a final document to serve
as a data appendix for the complete data set. Here, we shall sample the data in two ways. The
first is a table of sample performance information for 50, 100, 150, and 200 MHz for each of the
4 versions of the array. See Table 3. The most immediately striking fact is that the reference
feedpoint impedance for the boomless trapezoids is about twice the value for version that use
booms. Besides the difference in the reference impedance, the SWR value progression for
each array resembles the progressions for versions with booms for ψ-angles between 10° and
20°. However, the cause of the rise is different. With boom-equipped arrays, the chief source
of higher SWR values was an increase in reactance. With the boomless versions, the chief
cause is a rapid rise in the feedpoint resistance.

Table 3. Sample performance values: trapezoidal array: 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9

1. ψ = 10°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 6.20 9.85 101.1 102.4 566 + j 79 1.16
100 6.49 16.31 95.8 104.6 562 + j 99 1.20
150 6.26 16.26 101.6 110.2 521 + j 37 1.17
200 3.05 7.27 182.0 173.8 723 + j595 2.44

2. ψ = 15°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 6.34 8.94 107.2 94.6 530 + j 13 1.14
100 6.88 16.55 94.5 90.6 534 + j100 1.24
150 6.56 16.23 99.8 96.8 543 + j 65 1.16
200 3.62 5.95 179.4 129.4 958 + j596 2.43

3. ψ = 20°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 6.20 6.97 120.0 86.6 559 + j 1 1.07
100 7.02 10.51 96.2 76.6 550 + j121 1.26
150 6.63 13.57 103.7 86.2 594 + j 87 1.16
200 4.48 4.68 170.0 93.6 1378 + j345 2.47

4. ψ = 25°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 5.81 7.58 143.2 84.8 692 - j 57 1.18
100 7.43 6.87 89.2 61.8 590 + j139 1.26
150 6.67 8.20 108.8 69.4 645 + j 97 1.19
200 5.00 5.99 165.0 79.8 1325 - j327 2.37

The sample performance values clearly show the general trend toward higher gain and a
lower front-to-back ratio as we increase the ψ-angle. The table does not include ψ-angles
below 10° because the forward gain is too small to be useful. As the table shows, if we widen
the ψ-angle, the gain performance at the lower end of the passband decreases, although it
gradually improves at the higher end of the operating range. The chief limiting factor at the
widest ψ-angle sampled is the rapid decline in the front-to-back ratio.

Selecting a representative version of the boomless trapezoidal LPA is difficult in the

absence of external specifications dictated by an intended application. For this collection, I
used an arbitrary but not irrelevant criterion: minimum variation of certain key values across the
passband. Two of the obvious performance categories are variations in forward gain and
variations in the E-plane beamwidth. We may gather the required information by performing
frequency sweeps from 50 to 200 MHz in 5-MHz increments. Table 4 provides a summary of
the sweep data used in making the selection.
Table 4. Sweep data summary, 50-200 MHz in 5-MHz increments: trapezoidal array: 20
elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9

1. Ψ = 10°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 3.05 7.64 4.59 5.97
Front-Back dB 7.27 17.85 10.58 14.26
E Beamwidth ° 76.8 182.0 105.2 108.1

2. Ψ = 15°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 3.62 7.93 4.31 6.31
Front-Back dB 5.95 17.75 11.80 14.14
E Beamwidth ° 76.6 179.4 102.8 108.6

3. Ψ = 20°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 4.48 8.20 3.72* 6.57
Front-Back dB 4.46 13.60 9.14 9.94
E Beamwidth ° 73.6 170.0 96.4* 109.7
*Least variation across the passband of the trapezoidal group

4. ψ = 25°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 4.84 8.89 4.05 6.79
Front-Back dB 3.97 8.68 4.71 6.52
E Beamwidth ° 65.4 173.4 108.0 111.6

One reason for not including variations in the front-to-back ratio among the criteria for the
selection of an optimal ψ-angle is a function of using the 180° front-to-back value. This value
changes more radically from one frequency to the next, even though the quartering rear
sidelobes may show a relatively constant worst-case front-to-back ratio. In addition, the front-to-
back ratio shows the smallest range of change when its values are also the lowest and the least
desirable generally.

One general feature of trapezoidal zig-zag arrays is a very wide average E-plane beamwidth
at every value of ψ. The E-plane beamwidth of a 3-element Yagi, for example, is about 60°,
while the lowest average E-plane beamwidth for the set of trapezoidal LPAs is 50° wider. In
addition, all versions of the trapezoidal LPA show considerable beamwidth variation across the
operating passband.

Based on the fact that the LPA with a 20° value for ψ shows the least variation in both gain
and beamwidth, I have selected it as the optimal version for this exercise. Nonetheless, the
average front-to-back ratio is under 10 dB, and the upper passband end design remains
suspect. I did not try to correct the design, since the values for α and τ will also be used with
the boomless X-version of the LPA. The 20° value for ψ also shows a weakness in the
correlation between the E-plane and the H-plane beamwidths. Since the array consists of 2
bays having a constant distance (relative to element length) between elements in the H-plane,
there is a ψ-angle at which the bays show nearly equal beamwidth values in both planes. For
the trapezoidal LPA, that angle is about 10°. Fig. 9 provides a gallery of overlaid E-plane and
H-plane free-space patterns at ψ=20° to demonstrate by how much the selected value for ψ
departs from equality. The data appendix will more clearly illustrate the rate of departure from
equality of beamwidth as the value of ψ increases from 10° upward.
 Fig. 10 graphs the forward gain and the 180° front-to-back ratio across the passband. It
shows a quite usable and relatively smooth set of values until the operating frequency exceeds
about 175 MHz. The upper-end weakness and the need for redesign become apparent,
especially from the front-to-back values. Fig. 11 reinforces the design limitations by showing
the rise in the feedpoint resistance and the 600-Ω SWR above the same break-point frequency.
Since the degradation of performance affects virtually all categories of data in the upper 25 MHz
of the design range, merely fussing with the feedpoint leads to improve the SWR value will not
affect the basic capabilities of the trapezoidal LPA. Nothing short of adding elements toward the
array vertex will do the job. We shall be interested in whether the X-version of the zig-zag LPA
also requires such treatment.

The absence of a boom in this set of trapezoidal arrays results in inferior performance in
several ways relative to corresponding versions equipped with booms. For ψ-angles between
10° and 20°, the boomless gain deficit is just about 3-dB on average. Moreover, the sweep
graphs for the entire collection of boom-equipped arrays are considerably smoother than those
for corresponding boomless arrays. Finally, the pattern smoothness of the boom-equipped
trapezoidal LPA show better control than do the patterns for any of the boomless versions. The
boomless trapezoidal zig-zag LPA seems hardly worth the effort of building, especially in a wire
version in which one may easily add a boom wire.

A Trapezoidal LPA with Boom from Amateur Archives

Early designs of trapezoidal arrays attempted to cover the television frequencies from 48 to
230 MHz and to include coverage of the amateur bands within that range. (For U.S. television
viewers, the range began at about 54 MHz because this country did not use channel 1. Until
the perfection of cable systems, channel-2 TVI from 6-meter transmitting equipment remained a
perennial problem.) The quest also included mechanical constraints in terms of boom length.
Therefore, both amateur and commercial designs resorted to fairly low values of τ and
correspondingly wide values of α’. Most of the designs from the 1960s have disappeared from
available literature. However, we may find samples of zig-zag LPA designs in Chapter 26 of the
1995 edition of Rothammels Antennebuch, edited by Alois Krischke, DJ0TR. See section 26.6,
“Logarithmisch periodische Antennen für VHF und UHF,” pp. 539-545. (Similar information
appears beginning on p. 479 in the original edition of Karl Rothammel, Y21BK, Antennenbuch of
1984.) In this part of our work, we shall be most interested in the boom-equipped version that
appears on pages 542-543 and is outlined in Fig. 12.

Fig. 13 provides the basic dimensions of the array. The calculated value of σ is very close
to optimal for the selected value of τ. The shortest element is self-resonant at a frequency well
above the “1.6F” specified in the basic calculations, suggesting but not guaranteeing good
performance at the high end of the operating range. The short forward element has a second
potential advantage: as shown in the outline, the element is close enough to the vertex of the
array to permit the use of short boom and final wire sections that join there. The only
modification of the original design that occurs in the model is the use of 0.1” (2.54-mm) lossless
wire as the conductor.

The array—using the relatively thin wire—shows a natural feedpoint impedance close to 300
Ω. Table 5 provides sample performance data for the free-space model at 50, 100, 150, and
200 MHz.
Table. 5. Sample performance values: 8 elements/bay, α = 60°, τ = 0.707, ψ = 45°

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 6.65 9.11 75.2 99.0 322 – j182 1.79
100 6.11 9.38 75.2 111.8 302 - j 18 1.06
150 6.07 8.94 75.6 101.8 297 - j 14 1.05
200 7.02 9.01 63.0 79.6 286 + j 5 1.05

As expected, the array performance shows a bias toward the high end of the band. The low
end of the operating range shows a perfectly usable but nevertheless high 300-Ω SWR value
relative to the other frequencies. The gain and front-to-back values are roughly comparable to
those we might obtain from a 2-element driver-reflector Yagi at each sampled frequency.

The relatively low forward gain and modest front-to-back ratios suggest that the patterns at
the sampled frequencies might show considerably more variation from one frequency to the
next when compared to the patterns in Fig. 4 for the main model with a τ of 0.9. The samples of
free-space E-plane and H-plane in Fig. 14 confirm the suspicion, especially with respect to the
H-plane patterns.

Table 6 summaries a few of the key performance categories across the operating range.
Perhaps the only worrisome value in the table is the wide range of E-plane beamwidth values
across the passband exhibited by the array. Despite the use of a low value of τ (0.707) and a
wide value of α’ (60°), the array show no anomalous frequencies at the 5-MHz increment for the
sweep scans shown in Fig. 15 and Fig. 16.
Table 6. Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz: 8 elements/bay, α = 60°, τ = 0.707, ψ = 45°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 5.10 7.02 1.92 6.34
Front-Back dB 6.90 11.75 4.85 9.67
E Beamwidth ° 54.6 96.0 41.4 74.1

One of the factors limiting array performance is the use of a very high value for ψ (45°).
Early trapezoidal LPAs tended to use ψ-angles between 35° and 45° in order to assure the
highest gain from the fewest elements. The present example is no exception. Without further
study, one cannot say if the design has used too high a value for ψ and hence reached a point
where the gain begins to drop. Apart from this open question, using a large ψ-angle to obtain
maximum gain results in mediocre front-to-back performance and equally mediocre pattern
control, as indicated by the range of E-plane beamwidth variation. Since the model uses
relatively thin elements to avoid modeling pitfalls, these questions will remain open to further
study.

I did experiment with incremental increases in the wire diameter. At a fairly low diameter (4-
mm), the gain suddenly jumped by about 5 dB with an accompanying drop in the feedpoint
impedance to values in the 50-75-Ω range. Checking the average gain test (AGT) values
showed that the source of the jumps was elevated wire interpenetration at angular junctions.
Corrected for the AGT value in each case, the array show an average gain rise of less than 0.1-
dB per millimeter increase in wire diameter. Corrected feedpoint impedance reports showed a
gradual decline from 300 Ω toward 200 Ω.

The end result is that the classic zig-zag trapezoidal LPA design that we have reviewed
yields fairly mediocre performance, although the performance does cover the entire passband
and may be acceptable for some applications. One may design the zig-zag array using wide
values of α’ and low values of τ without encountering the anomalous frequencies of reversed
patterns that are common to single-bay LPDAs trying to use the same values.

Conclusion to Part 2

Our brief journey through trapezoidal zig-zag LPAs has produced some interesting results.
Using the relatively high τ of 0.9 and the relatively narrow α’ of 17°--with accompanying low
values for ψ—the trapezoidal array equipped with a boom replicates many of the performance
characteristics of it solid-surface counterpart. It is capable of exceeding the gain of a single-bay
LPDA using the same design parameters, but falls short of a 2-bay LPDA. The front-to-back
ratio is good, if we compare it to typical Yagi performance, but falls short of what we may obtain
from an LPDA. The performance and impedance curves are generally quite smooth across the
operating passband. In short, the boom-equipped trapezoidal LPA is a very serviceable array
where the builder prefers not to wrestle with a phase line. In contrast, the theoretically possible
boomless version of the trapezoidal array has significantly lesser performance that hardly merits
construction.

Classic early trapezoidal zig-zag designs—with lower values of τ and much wider values of
α’—lack a convenient summery evaluation. Although relatively modest in general performance,
they can provide that performance over a wide frequency span and may prove to be adequate
for some applications. Optimizing such designs within their avowed limitations in boom length is
a task outside the scope of this study.

Theoretically, the X or saw tooth zig-zag LPA is the equivalent of the trapezoidal array. To
what degree theory holds up in practice—using our standard design parameters—will be the
subject of the final part in this series.
 A Tale of Three LPAs: Some Notes on Zig-Zag Log-Periodic Arrays
3. The X or Saw Tooth Zig-Zag LPA

L. B. Cebik, W4RNL

The trapezoid was not the only solid-surface element shape to have a wire-outline analog in
the development of LPAs. Performing similarly to the trapezoid was the saw tooth shape,
shown in wire-outline single-bay form in Fig. 1. Like the trapezoid, solid-surface forms used a
central boom composed of a line that grew wider as the distance from the vertex increased.
The wire-outline version reduced the central line to the diameter of the wire itself. Folding two
bays together produced a directional beam. From above, the pattern of elements formed the
series of Xs that yields the casual array name.

In the early 1960s, J. W. Carr discovered that he could remove the central boom and still
have a useful beam. Therefore, we shall have to see whether boomless X LPAs are more or
less successful than boomless trapezoidal arrays. Finally, we shall look at two amateur
examples of X LPAs using far less stringent design criteria than the ones we shall employ in our
main comparative study.

As we did for the LPDA and the trapezoidal zig-zag array, we shall impose design
parameters that best assure us of reasonable performance. Even though the arrays are too
long to be practical for most cases, they serve modeling needs well. When τ = 0.9, σ = o.167,
and α’ = 17°, we obtain worthwhile performance over all or most of the 50-200 MHz operating
passband. The ψ-angle will be subject to variation to explore any differences that it makes to
performance. The limits of NEC modeling dictate that we use rather thin wire, in this case, 0.1”
(2.54-mm) lossless wire for all elements. Each bay will use 20 elements, resulting in fairly
sizable models. As a review, Fig. 2 provides the spreadsheet page that indicates the
dimensions used in the models.

The zig-zag X LPA handles the dimensions in a slightly different manner than did the LPDA
and the trapezoidal arrays. If we think of a Cartesian axis as the centerline of the model, the
earlier LPAs defined each element as extending for Ln/2 on both sides of the centerline. The
saw tooth zig-zag alters the arrangement such that the first element extends from –L1/2 to
+L2/2. In the process, it also moves forward toward the vertex from R1 to R2. The next
element reverses and increments the process.

Fig. 3 shows the first element along with a simple solution to the question of where to
position the junction of the element with the boom at the array centerline. The position of
Rbm12, the boom section that extended from element 1 to element 2, relative to the array
vertex is proportional to the ratio of L1/2 to L1/2+L2/2. We may calculate the position of Rbm12
either from the proportionality of congruent triangles or by obtaining the tangent of the angle
shown as β in the diagram. Once we have the position of the first boom junction, we may find
all other junctions by multiply successively by the value of τ. Fig. 4 provides the calculated
values of Rbm for the X LPAs equipped with booms. The single-bay and the oblique double-
bay diagrams in Fig. 1 should suffice to confirm the accuracy of the method.
 As with earlier double-bay models, we shall not try to extend forward leads all the way to the
vertex. As Fig. 4 indicates, the distance from the forward-most element to the vertex is several
times longer than the distance between elements. Directly connecting the booms with a single
direct lead provides the most economical model with no harmful effects on the reported data.

X LPAs with Booms.

X or saw tooth LPAs equipped with central booms have current magnitude distribution
curves that are as difficult to decipher as their trapezoidal counterparts. Fig. 5 shows the
distribution curve set for one of the LPAs at 50 MHz. In the side view of the array, the nearly
level lines represent currents on the boom, while the more curved lines represent currents on
the angular elements. The face view of the array’s upper bay shows only the element currents.

Although more difficult to see due to the angularity of the elements, the boom-equipped X
LPA preserves some, if not most, of the properties associated with the solid-surface bay that the
wire-outline version approximates. Current magnitude may abruptly change as an element
intersects the boom, since the currents on each side are associated with a different saw-tooth
shape. In the side view, the most active region in terms of peak current magnitude for the X
LPA extends for a considerable distance toward the vertex. However, the element angles and
the disparate collection of wire sections involved do not allow us to see fine detail.

Fig. 1 shows the range of ψ-angles that we shall examine for X LPAs with booms. The data
will clarify why I limited the range to 0° to 20° in 5° increments. We may sample the
performance at each ψ-angle using the data in Table 1, which provides values for 50, 100, 150,
and 200 MHz.
Table 1. Sample performance values of X zig-zag LPAs using various ψ-angles

1. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 0° (flat array, 4” separation between bays)

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 250-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.28 15.70 64.2 99.2 276 - j 26 1.15
100 8.13 30.62 64.6 95.6 270 - j 33 1.16
150 8.29 27.14 64.2 94.6 246 - j 23 1.10
200 8.43 22.34 63.0 91.8 178 - j 12 1.41

2. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 5°

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 250-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.64 11.96 63.5 90.2 252 - j 78 1.36
100 8.64 29.77 63.8 88.0 267 - j 39 1.18
150 8.70 26.57 64.0 88.8 241 - j 20 1.09
200 8.79 22.60 62.4 86.8 175 - j 7 1.44

3. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 10°

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 8.25 9.06 62.8 77.0 324 – j138 1.56
100 9.38 23.42 64.0 76.3 307 - j 1 1.02
150 9.44 22.14 63.4 75.6 268 +j 44 1.21
200 9.27 18.23 63.0 75.8 197 + j 93 1.75
4. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 15°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 8.72 6.87 63.0 63.1 368 – j185 1.79
100 9.52 18.88 68.0 64.6 381 + j 38 1.30
150 9.65 18.81 65.8 63.2 303 + j 94 1.36
200 9.48 15.81 62.4 62.0 230 + j202 2.21

As we increase the value of ψ, the reference impedance for general SWR values increases
from 250 Ω to 300 Ω. One of the two major limiting factors in X LPA performance is the rising
reactance value as the ψ-angle increases, resulting in SWR values that exceed the normal 2:1
limit that we often employ as a standard. The other limitation is the gain and front-to-back
performance at the low end of the passband. The rising gain value at 50 MHz does not keep
pace with the rapidly declining front-to-back value at that frequency. We may re-affirm these
general impressions using summary frequency sweep data, shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Frequency sweep summery of X zig-zag LPAs using various ψ-angles from 50 to 200
MHz

1. ψ = 0°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.28 8.44 1.16 8.17
Front-Back dB 15.70 34.21 18.51 27.84
E Beamwidth ° 63.0 65.5 2.5 64.3

2. ψ = 5°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.64 8.84 1.20 8.64
Front-Back dB 11.96 30.93 18.97 26.87
E Beamwidth ° 62.4 64.6 2.2* 63.5
*Least variation across the passband of the group.

3. ψ = 10°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 8.25 9.52 1.27 9.31
Front-Back dB 9.06 25.85 17.69 21.75
E Beamwidth ° 62.6 65.4 2.8 63.8

4. ψ = 15°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 8.72 9.87 1.15* 9.56
Front-Back dB 6.87 22.01 15.14 17.49
E Beamwidth ° 62.1 69.8 7.7 65.5
*Least variation across the passband of the group.

Because the data with the smallest range of variation does not focus upon a single ψ-angle,
my selection of a representative array for graphical presentation is somewhat arbitrary. I
selected the version in which ψ = 5° for several reasons. The SWR remains below 2:1 across
the operating range. The average front-to-back ratio has not begun its rapid decline. As well,
the E-plane beamwidth shows the least variation across the operating range. Indeed, the
patterns shown in Fig. 6 display good control, allowing for the lesser performance of the X LPA
at the low end of the operating range. Any implementation of this array would naturally wish to
begin with a longer rear element.
 The sweep graph of free-space forward gain and 180° front-to-back ratio confirms the
general decline of performance below 60 MHz. Otherwise, the curves are exceptionally smooth.
Equally smooth are the impedance curves (resistance, reactance, and 250-Ω SWR) shown in
Fig. 8. Below 55 MHz, we can see a sudden turn in all of the values, although the sweep limits
do not inform us of where the curves go below 50 MHz. Nevertheless, the combination of
sweep performance graphs suggests that the span of good impedance performance is greater
than the span of peak gain and front-to-back performance.

Very little distinguishes the performance of boom-equipped trapezoidal LPAs and their X
counterparts, once we compensate for any deficiencies at one or the other end of the operating
passband. One might profitably study the corresponding data for all ψ-angles for both types of
arrays in the data appendix.

X LPAs without Booms

Carr’s innovation of removing the central boom from a zig-zag saw tooth bay resulted in a
usable configuration. Unlike the boomless trapezoidal array, the boomless X array saw
considerable use, especially in magazine plans for home-built television antennas. Therefore,
we shall examine this type of array, using our standard design parameters, to see how it
measures up against both the trapezoidal version and against the X LPA with a central boom.

The dimensions and design values are the same as used for the trapezoidal array and
outlined in Fig. 2. τ = 0.9 and α’ = 17°. The only difference is the omission of the side wires.
Each element extends from a point defined by the limit of one element to the opposite limit
determined by the value of τ applied to the initial limit. The result is two opposing bays of saw
tooth elements that form a series of Xs when viewed directly from above or below. Like the
trapezoidal array, the two bays have an angular separation determined by experimentally
selected values of ψ. The models of the X LPAs created a wire connecting the free ends of the
innermost elements on which to place the model source, since alternative lead arrangements
created no significant changes in performance.
 Because the X-version of the zig-zag LPA has no side wires, we may more easily see the
current magnitude distribution along the wires. In Fig. 9, the blue dots represent wire ends and,
therefore, changes in the wire direction. The green sections are the intervening wires as seen
from the array side. The accompanying general outline of this model, which uses a ψ of 10°,
provides an orientation to the wires from an oblique angle.

Like the trapezoidal zig-zag array, the X LPA shows the same tendency toward a maximum
current peak along each bay that is far forward of the corresponding element on an LPDA. As
well, the absence of wire free ends reveals that the current minimums do not necessarily occur
at the points where the wire changes direction. See Fig. 10, which shows significant differences
in the current curves relative to the version in Fig. 5. Note especially that some of the parallels
to the current of solid-surface elements are missing.

To allow more detailed comparisons between the trapezoidal and the X LPAs, we may look
at sample data at 50, 100, 150, and 200 MHz for the range of ψ-angles covered by this initial
exploration. The range of ψ-angles for the X LPA is not the same as for the trapezoidal
counterpart. X arrays have been successfully used when ψ = 0°, with a small separation
between the bays. In fact, we shall later discover that a ψ of 10° may be the most optimal angle
between bays when measured by the criteria used to select the optimal trapezoidal array.
Therefore, the sample includes ψ-angles of 0°, 10°, 15°, and 20°. Table 3 provides the results
of the sampling.

Table 3. Sample performance values: X (saw tooth) array: 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9

1. ψ = 0° (flat array, 4” separation between bays)

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω 500-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR SWR
50 6.51 11.66 84.6 117.4 477 + j 61 1.29 1.14
100 6.34 12.15 87.4 115.2 446 + j 57 1.37 1.18
150 6.86 15.69 79.6 103.4 504 – j119 1.32 1.27
200 5.79 16.53 107.2 134.0 301 + j 18 2.00 1.67

2. ψ = 5°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.42 11.42 76.4 99.0 573 – j160 1.32
100 7.50 14.18 73.2 93.4 458 - j 98 1.39
150 6.95 16.78 77.2 98.8 577 - j 6 1.04
200 6.35 18.14 100.4 124.8 307 - j 15 1.96

3. ψ = 10°

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.90 9.46 74.2 83.8 754 + j 78 1.29
100 7.32 18.82 82.4 91.4 619 - j 99 1.18
150 7.04 17.72 83.4 95.6 592 + j 82 1.15
200 7.21 16.69 90.2 96.6 332 - j 30 1.81

4. ψ = 15°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 8.34 7.53 73.4 69.0 726 + j 217 1.46
100 7.23 9.58 88.4 79.0 658 - j 87 1.18
150 7.27 13.34 89.6 79.6 672 + j 94 1.21
200 7.50 15.01 91.0 79.8 355 + j 20 1.69

5. ψ = 20°
Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω
MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 8.79 6.11 73.8 56.8 776 + j 302 1.66
100 6.48 4.12 106.8 71.2 629 - j 56 1.11
150 7.44 5.23 98.8 55.2 693 + j 33 1.16
200 7.71 7.60 92.0 68.0 440 + j 95 1.43

As was the case with the trapezoidal LPA, the X version of the array shows increasing gain
and decreasing front-to-back performance as we increase the ψ-angle. Also in concert with the
trapezoidal version, the X array shows an approximate feedpoint resistance of about 600 Ω.
The one exception to this rule is the flat version; here the impedance is closer to 500 Ω. The
entry for that version alone provides SWR values relative to both 600 Ω and 500 Ω. Notably,
none of the 200-MHz SWR values exceeds 2:1, and the performance does not radically
diminish at 200 MHz, as it did in the case of the trapezoidal LPA. Only the flat version of the
array shows a noticeable decrease in forward gain at the highest frequency within the operating
range.

The alternative way in which we may compare data both within the group of X LPAs and
between the trapezoidal and X types is to summarize the sweep data from 50 to 200 MHz. The
X LPA information appears in Table 4. There are three striking features within the table. First,
the optimal ψ-angle is about 10°, if we use the criteria of the smallest change in gain and the
smallest change in the E-plane beamwidth across the operating passband. We might have as
easily selected the version in which ψ = 5°, since the overall rate of performance change with
changes in the value of ψ is quite small. The selected ψ-angle angle is about half the value
required by the trapezoidal array.

Table 4. Sweep data summary, 50-200 MHz in 5-MHz increments: X (saw tooth) array: 20
elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9

1. Ψ = 0° (flat array, 4” separation between bays)

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 4.67 7.32 2.65 6.23
Front-Back dB 8.04 17.18 9.14 12.70
E Beamwidth ° 74.2 116.4 42.2 91.0

2. ψ = 5°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 6.19 7.53 1.34* 6.87
Front-Back dB 9.79 18.26 8.47 15.10
E Beamwidth ° 87.2 124.8 37.6 107.9
*Least variation across the passband of the group.

3. Ψ = 10°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 6.00 7.90 1.90 7.30
Front-Back dB 9.44 19.78 10.34 16.31
E Beamwidth ° 73.0 107.6 34.6* 84.0
*Least variation across the passband of the group.

4. Ψ = 15°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 5.27 8.62 3.35 7.49
Front-Back dB 7.51 18.06 10.55 12.26
E Beamwidth ° 65.6 134.2 68.6 86.5

5. ψ = 20°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 5.38 9.21 3.83 7.61
Front-Back dB 2.85 10.04 7.19 6.10
E Beamwidth ° 45.6 158.2 112.6 88.8
 In addition, the 10° ψ-angle also yields a very close coincidence between the E-plane and
the H-plane beamwidths, as shown in the gallery of patterns in Fig. 11. Indeed, when ψ = 10°,
we find a near symmetry in the patterns for the two planes. In general, the X array yields
narrower beamwidths than the trapezoid.

Second, average gain across all versions of the boomless X array tends to be higher by an
average of about 1 dB than the gain of the boomless trapezoidal LPA. Even with a ψ-angle of
0°, that is a flat array, the X LPA is capable of significant gain and a good front-to-back ratio,
which goes some distance to explaining the popularity of the design in home-built TV antennas.
The third notable factor is less debatable, since the range of change in both gain and the E-
plane beamwidth is much smaller among the boomless X LPAs than among the trapezoidal
counterparts. The general impression left by the X versions of the LPA is that they provide
better pattern control across the operating bandwidth than do the trapezoidal arrays.

Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 provide sweep graphs for the version of the array where ψ = 10°.
Graphs for the other versions of the X LPA appear in the data appendix document. The sweep
of forward gain and the 180° front-to-back ratio reveals that the design might benefit from a
slightly longer rear element. We also saw this feature in the corresponding sweep for the
trapezoidal array, but there, the effect was more pronounced at the low end of the operating
range. At the upper end of the range, the gain and the front-to-back ratio show no significant
decline, although the beamwidth tends to grow slowly with the operating frequency.

In common with the trapezoidal array, the X LPA SWR increases as the operating frequency
exceeds about 185 MHz. However, the rate of increase is much smaller than we encountered
with the trapezoidal array. Part of the reason for the slower rise in the 600-Ω SWR is the fact
that it is due to a declining feedpoint resistance, in contrast to the trapezoidal array that showed
a rapid rise in the feedpoint resistance at the upper end of the passband.

The boomless X or saw tooth LPA leaves the impression that it is generally superior to the
trapezoidal configuration in terms of performance at both ends of the operating passband and in
terms of pattern control. The optimal configuration requires a smaller ψ-angle, and even a flat
version is capable of reasonably good performance. The boomless X LPA still averages about
a 2-dB gain deficit relative to either type of array when equipped with a boom and a 1-dB deficit
relative to a single-bay LPDA. The boomless X LPA also has a somewhat lower front-to-back
average value than its boom-equipped counterpart. Still, if we measure simplicity of
construction against the deficits in performance, the boomless X LPA yields an honest debate,
whereas the boomless trapezoidal array performed too poorly to contemplate its use.

A Larger X LPA with Boom from Amateur Literature

Rothammels Antennenbuch contains not only a trapezoidal zig-zag array for potential home
replication, but as well 2 X LPAs. Unfortunately, each array uses a different set of design
parameters, so we can only sample their performance individually. Fig. 14 shows the outline of
the larger of two X LPAs with central booms. The array uses 12 elements, which suggest a
higher value of τ (0.84). Like the trapezoidal array that we examined in Part 2, the values of α’
and of ψ are 60° and 45°, respectively. Also like the trapezoidal array, the shortest elements
are close enough to the vertex the permit extensions of the final element and the boom to that
point.

The specified design range for the array was 48 to 230 MHz. However, calculations of the
element locations appear to have used a minimum design frequency of 50 MHz. The
dimensions appear in Fig. 15 in a 2-part table. The lower section shows the calculation of the
boom positions for the array. The models for this array used 2.54-mm (0.1”) diameter lossless
wire. Table 5 samples the arrays performance at 50, 100, 150, and 200 MHz.

Table. 5. Sample performance values: 12 elements/bay, α = 60°, τ = 0.84, ψ = 45°

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 5.64 3.09 72.9 92.2 375 – j458 3.64
100 8.49 11.88 67.8 74.0 294 + j 41 1.15
150 8.44 10.51 63.8 73.4 380 + j 0 1.27
200 8.69 11.50 63.2 74.6 225 - j 28 1.36

Although the trapezoidal amateur array that we looked at in Part 2 showed relatively smooth
gain and front-to-back performance for the entire passband, the X LPA shows a serious deficit
at the lowest sampled frequency. Moreover, the feedpoint impedance at this frequency shows a
very high reactive component, raising the 300-Ω SWR value to uncomfortably high levels.
Above the lowest frequency, the performance levels out at gain values only about 1 dB lower
than the X LPA using a τ of 0.9. However, the front-to-back values correspond only to those we
might obtain from a 2-element driver-reflector Yagi.

Table 6. Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz: 8 elements/bay, α = 60°, τ = 0.84, ψ = 45°

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average

Gain dBi 5.64 9.24 3.60 8.35
Front-Back dB 3.09 12.38 9.29 10.46
E Beamwidth ° 59.1 74.4 15.3 67.5

The sweep summary in Table 6 reveals the same set of impressions. Still, among arrays
with high values of ψ and α’, the array does show relatively smooth E-plane patterns without too
much variation in the beam width. However, as Fig. 16 makes clear, the array exhibits less
control over the rearward lobe structure. In terms of 1970-era television reception, the antenna
would be subject to interference from distant stations anywhere within the rearward quadrants.
 The sweep graphs in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18 confirm the tabular information. Note that the
performance drop near the lower end of the passband begins at a higher frequency than the
impedance deficit, a property that we have seen in other X LPAs.
A Smaller X LPA with Boom from Amateur Literature

Rothamel also presents a smaller X LPA that uses only 8 elements, with a τ of 0.707. The
ψ-angle remains a standard 45°. The listed value of α’ was 75°, but I had to reduce the angle to
70° to bring the listed dimensions into coincidence with standard calculations of element
dimensions. Fig. 19 shows the outline of the array.

The dimensions used in the model appear in Fig. 20, which again has an upper and a lower
section. The lower portion shows the relevant boom calculations. Like the larger X LPA, the
smaller version draws the end of the shortest element and the boom all the way to the vertex.
The distance is fairly short, as indicated by the smallest value of Rn in the dimension table.

Table 7 and Table 8 present the performance sampling information and the sweep data
summary, respectively. The performance deficiencies at the low end of the passband once
more stand out in both tables. The one interesting category is the 200-Ω SWR value set. The
small array manages to maintain values that are less than 2:1 at all sampled frequencies. Once
more, the X LPA impedance performance has broader-banded characteristics than the gain,
although the SWR does rise a small amount above 2:1 at 2 points in the passband.
Table. 7. Sample performance values: 8 elements/bay, α = 70°, τ = 0.707, ψ = 45°

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 200-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 4.09 1.75 75.7 134.0 203 – j112 1.73
100 6.96 10.73 66.8 89.6 223 + j 7 1.12
150 6.32 9.90 80.8 105.8 260 + j 28 1.33
200 6.92 9.67 79.4 99.6 209 - j 38 1.21

Table 8. Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz: 8 elements/bay, α = 70°, τ = 0.707, ψ = 45°

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average

Gain dBi 4.09 7.20 3.11 6.37
Front-Back dB 1.75 12.45 10.70 8.69
E Beamwidth ° 64.0 80.8 16.8 70.9

As we might expect from such a sparsely populated array, pattern control decays more
significantly than we found in the larger amateur X LPA. As shown in Fig. 21, the rearward
lobes of the array at all sampled frequencies allow for considerable interference from the rear.
The E-plane beamwidth values are close to those that are typical of a simple dipole.
 Fig. 22 and Fig. 23 provide sweep graphs that correlate with the tabular information. The
gain and front-to-back graph is notable for two reasons. First, the performance curves are
subject to sudden changes. Second, the low-end performance deficiencies cover a wider
portion of the total passband.
 The impedance graph reveals that the small X LPA undergoes more radical changes in both
resistance and reactance than the larger array. As well, we can easily find the SWR excursions
above 2:1 at 55 and 80 MHz, with a borderline case at 130 MHz.

Of the two old-style X LPA designs, only the larger version might pass muster for adequate
wide-band performance by 21st century standards—and then, only if we correct the deficiencies
at the lower end of the passband. While we make those corrections, we might also experiment
with the optimum value for the ψ-angle and not blithely accept the 45° standard that was
common when these designs emerged.

Conclusion

Our main goal in all three parts of this exercise has been to compare the performance of
“standard” LPDA design against zig-zag LPA designs that came earlier. To level of field of
comparison, we used a fixed set of design parameters for all of our candidate designs: τ = 0.9, σ
= 0.167, α’ = 17°. All arrays used 20 0.1”-diameter elements per bay. Since the zig-zag
designs required experimental selection of the ψ-angle, we let that factor be a variable.

Virtually none of the configurations showed exceptionless performance across the entire
passband, a condition that we created by limiting the compensatory steps normally used to
define the operative dimensions. Some versions showed weakness at the low end of the
operating range, while others saw declines nearer to the upper end. Virtually all of the designs
(with the exception of the boomless trapezoidal array) are subject to relatively easy reworking to
correct the deficiencies, but the result will be as many different designs as we have types of
LPAs.

Along the way, we have made some relevant comparisons between and among
configurations. Repeating those textual assertions might leave their foundations uncertain.
Therefore, by way of final summary, I have created Table 9, a compilation of the sweep
summaries of the representative arrays of all types covered in these notes. The data allow you
to draw your own conclusions. For further data on variations of each LPA type, see the data
appendix.

Table 9. Sweep data summary, 50-200 MHz in 5-MHz increments

LPDA, single-bay
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.33 8.52 1.19 8.09
Front-Back dB 16.71 44.56 27.85 28.93
E Beamwidth ° 60.8 66.4 5.6 63.7

Double-bay, Ψ=10°
Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 9.35 10.79 1.18 10.00
Front-Back dB 14.28 63.75 49.47 35.93
E Beamwidth ° 54.0 61.0 7.0 57.8

Trapezoidal zig-zag LPA, with boom, ψ = 5°

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.71 8.57 0.86 8.35
Front-Back dB 20.13 32.04 11.91 27.12
E Beamwidth ° 63.0 68.8 5.8 65.0

Trapezoidal zig-zag LPA, without boom, Ψ = 20°

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 4.48 8.20 3.72 6.57
Front-Back dB 4.46 13.60 9.14 9.94
E Beamwidth ° 73.6 170.0 96.4 109.7

X zig-zag LPA, with boom, ψ = 5°

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.64 8.84 1.20 8.64
Front-Back dB 11.96 30.93 18.97 26.87
E Beamwidth ° 62.4 64.6 2.2* 63.5

X zig-zag LPA, without boom, ψ =10°

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 6.00 7.90 1.90 7.30
Front-Back dB 9.44 19.78 10.34 16.31
E Beamwidth ° 73.0 107.6 34.6 84.0
 A Tale of Three LPAs: Some Notes on Zig-Zag Log-Periodic Arrays
Data Appendix

L. B. Cebik, W4RNL

The volume of data and its graphical representation for zig-zag LPAs is large enough to
exceed the limits of the original series of articles. Therefore, I am adding this appendix to
present the complete data set for each of the models considered in the main text. The data
appear in three successive groups: trapezoidal zig-zag LPAs, X (or saw tooth) zig-zag LPAs,
and LPDAs. All models use 20 elements (per bay), with τ = 0.9, α = 17°, and ψ variable. The
effective value of σ is 0.167. For all models, the lossless wire diameter is 0.1”. All modeling
used EZNEC Pro/4 (NEC-4). The following sketch is a reminder of the relative shapes of each
type of array. Zig-zag sketches do not show the central boom used in many models.

All arrays are modeled in free space. The data for each log-periodic model consists of the
following reports and graphics:

1. Table of sample performance values at 50, 100, 150, and 200 MHz

2. Gallery of E-plane and H-plane patterns for the same 4 frequencies

3. Table of summary statistical data from the frequency sweeps

4. Graph across passband of free-space forward gain and 180° front-to-back ratio

5. Graph across passband of the feedpoint resistance, reactance, and SWR

Sweep information covers 50 to 200 MHz in 0.5-MHz increments.

Trapezoidal Zig-Zag Log-Periodic Arrays

A. Trapezoidal Zig-Zag Arrays with Boom

1. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 0° (flat array, 4” separation between bays)

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 225-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.17 27.83 70.6 113.8 240 - j 9 1.08
100 7.58 28.60 68.8 106.5 242 - j 2 1.08
150 7.61 24.91 67.8 107.4 222 - j 13 1.06
200 7.24 20.60 71.4 111.4 149 + j 28 1.55

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.11 8.10 0.99 7.60
Front-Back dB 20.60 28.60 8.00 25.70
E Beamwidth ° 65.0 71.6 6.6 68.4
2. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 5°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 225-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 8.34 30.50 65.1 94.4 261 - j 13 1.17
100 8.43 29.21 65.2 94.2 239 - j 6 1.07
150 8.20 25.16 65.4 97.4 225 - j 0 1.00
200 7.71 20.13 68.8 103.4 149 + j 39 1.59

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.71 8.57 0.86* 8.35
Front-Back dB 20.13 32.04 11.91 27.12
E Beamwidth ° 63.0 68.8 5.8 65.0
*Least variation across the passband of the group
3. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 10°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.16 26.94 64.0 82.8 293 + j 8 1.04
100 9.20 24.47 64.4 82.9 272 + j 33 1.17
150 8.90 20.91 65.0 85.6 259 + j 86 1.41
200 8.33 16.04 68.2 88.8 178 + j159 2.32

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 8.33 9.29 0.96 9.07
Front-Back dB 16.04 27.52 11.48 22.63
E Beamwidth ° 62.7 68.2 5.5* 64.2
*Least variation across the passband of the group
4. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 15°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.63 22.63 64.8 71.2 321 + j 17 1.09
100 9.51 21.90 65.3 72.4 314 + j 78 1.29
150 9.19 18.57 66.6 73.6 306 + j173 1.76
200 8.52 13.71 69.0 74.4 241 + j307 3.02

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 8.52 9.65 1.13 9.34
Front-Back dB 13.71 24.29 10.58 19.79
E Beamwidth ° 63.2 69.0 5.8 65.4
5. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 20°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.86 16.26 67.2 60.8 326 + j 10 1.09
100 9.68 18.87 67.1 61.1 351 + j 96 1.40
150 9.16 17.00 72.4 61.8 348 + j244 2.12
200 8.59 12.56 72.0 62.4 345 + j460 3.80

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 8.59 9.91 1.32 9.46
Front-Back dB 12.56 19.98 7.42 16.79
E Beamwidth ° 63.4 72.4 9.0 67.2
B. Trapezoidal Zig-Zag Arrays without Boom

1. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 10°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 6.20 9.85 101.1 102.4 566 + j 79 1.16
100 6.49 16.31 95.8 104.6 562 + j 99 1.20
150 6.26 16.26 101.6 110.2 521 + j 37 1.17
200 3.05 7.27 182.0 173.8 723 + j595 2.44

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 3.05 7.64 4.59 5.97
Front-Back dB 7.27 17.85 10.58 14.26
E Beamwidth ° 76.8 182.0 105.2 108.1
2. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 15°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 6.34 8.94 107.2 94.6 530 + j 13 1.14
100 6.88 16.55 94.5 90.6 534 + j100 1.24
150 6.56 16.23 99.8 96.8 543 + j 65 1.16
200 3.62 5.95 179.4 129.4 958 + j596 2.43

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 3.62 7.93 4.31 6.31
Front-Back dB 5.95 17.75 11.80 14.14
E Beamwidth ° 76.6 179.4 102.8 108.6
3. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 20°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 6.20 6.97 120.0 86.6 559 + j 1 1.07
100 7.02 10.51 96.2 76.6 550 + j121 1.26
150 6.63 13.57 103.7 86.2 594 + j 87 1.16
200 4.48 4.68 170.0 93.6 1378 + j345 2.47

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 4.48 8.20 3.72* 6.57
Front-Back dB 4.46 13.60 9.14 9.94
E Beamwidth ° 73.6 170.0 96.4* 109.7
*Least variation across the passband of the group.
4. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 25°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 5.81 7.58 143.2 84.8 692 - j 57 1.18
100 7.43 6.87 89.2 61.8 590 + j139 1.26
150 6.67 8.20 108.8 69.4 645 + j 97 1.19
200 5.00 5.99 165.0 79.8 1325 - j327 2.37

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 4.84 8.89 4.05 6.79
Front-Back dB 3.97 8.68 4.71 6.52
E Beamwidth ° 65.4 173.4 108.0 111.6
X (Saw-Tooth) Zig-Zag Log-Periodic Arrays

A. X Arrays with Boom

1. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 0° (flat array, 4” separation between bays)

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 250-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.28 15.70 64.2 99.2 276 - j 26 1.15
100 8.13 30.62 64.6 95.6 270 - j 33 1.16
150 8.29 27.14 64.2 94.6 246 - j 23 1.10
200 8.43 22.34 63.0 91.8 178 - j 12 1.41

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.28 8.44 1.16 8.17
Front-Back dB 15.70 34.21 18.51 27.84
E Beamwidth ° 63.0 65.5 2.5 64.3
2. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 5°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 250-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.64 11.96 63.5 90.2 252 - j 78 1.36
100 8.64 29.77 63.8 88.0 267 - j 39 1.18
150 8.70 26.57 64.0 88.8 241 - j 20 1.09
200 8.79 22.60 62.4 86.8 175 - j 7 1.44

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.64 8.84 1.20 8.64
Front-Back dB 11.96 30.93 18.97 26.87
E Beamwidth ° 62.4 64.6 2.2* 63.5
*Least variation across the passband of the group.
3. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 10°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 8.25 9.06 62.8 77.0 324 – j138 1.56
100 9.38 23.42 64.0 76.3 307 - j 1 1.02
150 9.44 22.14 63.4 75.6 268 +j 44 1.21
200 9.27 18.23 63.0 75.8 197 + j 93 1.75

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 8.25 9.52 1.27 9.31
Front-Back dB 9.06 25.85 17.69 21.75
E Beamwidth ° 62.6 65.4 2.8 63.8
4. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 15°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 300-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 8.72 6.87 63.0 63.1 368 – j185 1.79
100 9.52 18.88 68.0 64.6 381 + j 38 1.30
150 9.65 18.81 65.8 63.2 303 + j 94 1.36
200 9.48 15.81 62.4 62.0 230 + j202 2.21

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 8.72 9.87 1.15* 9.56
Front-Back dB 6.87 22.01 15.14 17.49
E Beamwidth ° 62.1 69.8 7.7 65.5
*Least variation across the passband of the group.
B. X Arrays without Boom

1. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 0° (flat array, 4” separation between bays)

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω 500-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR SWR
50 6.51 11.66 84.6 117.4 477 + j 61 1.29 1.14
100 6.34 12.15 87.4 115.2 446 + j 57 1.37 1.18
150 6.86 15.69 79.6 103.4 504 – j119 1.32 1.27
200 5.79 16.53 107.2 134.0 301 + j 18 2.00 1.67

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 4.67 7.32 2.65 6.23
Front-Back dB 8.04 17.18 9.14 12.70
E Beamwidth ° 74.2 116.4 42.2 91.0
2. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 5°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.42 11.42 76.4 99.0 573 – j160 1.32
100 7.50 14.18 73.2 93.4 458 - j 98 1.39
150 6.95 16.78 77.2 98.8 577 - j 6 1.04
200 6.35 18.14 100.4 124.8 307 - j 15 1.96

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 6.19 7.53 1.34* 6.87
Front-Back dB 9.79 18.26 8.47 15.10
E Beamwidth ° 87.2 124.8 37.6 107.9
*Least variation across the passband of the group.
3. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 10°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.90 9.46 74.2 83.8 754 + j 78 1.29
100 7.32 18.82 82.4 91.4 619 - j 99 1.18
150 7.04 17.72 83.4 95.6 592 + j 82 1.15
200 7.21 16.69 90.2 96.6 332 - j 30 1.81

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 6.00 7.90 1.90 7.30
Front-Back dB 9.44 19.78 10.34 16.31
E Beamwidth ° 73.0 107.6 34.6* 84.0
*Least variation across the passband of the group.
4. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 15°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 8.34 7.53 73.4 69.0 726 + j 217 1.46
100 7.23 9.58 88.4 79.0 658 - j 87 1.18
150 7.27 13.34 89.6 79.6 672 + j 94 1.21
200 7.50 15.01 91.0 79.8 355 + j 20 1.69

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 5.27 8.62 3.35 7.49
Front-Back dB 7.51 18.06 10.55 12.26
E Beamwidth ° 65.6 134.2 68.6 86.5
5. 20 elements/bay, α = 17°, τ = 0.9, ψ = 20°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 600-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 8.79 6.11 73.8 56.8 776 + j 302 1.66
100 6.48 4.12 106.8 71.2 629 - j 56 1.11
150 7.44 5.23 98.8 55.2 693 + j 33 1.16
200 7.71 7.60 92.0 68.0 440 + j 95 1.43

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 5.38 9.21 3.83 7.61
Front-Back dB 2.85 10.04 7.19 6.10
E Beamwidth ° 45.6 158.2 112.6 88.8
Log-Periodic Dipole Arrays

1. 20 elements, α’ = 17°, τ = 0.9, σ = 0.167, single bay

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 200-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 7.33 16.71 67.0 107.8 209 - j 5 1.05
100 8.19 30.77 63.0 94.6 196 - j 30 1.16
150 8.30 29.16 62.6 93.2 180 - j 19 1.16
200 7.88 28.38 63.7 109.4 182 - j 11 1.29

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 7.33 8.52 1.19 8.09
Front-Back dB 16.71 44.56 27.85 28.93
E Beamwidth ° 60.8 66.4 5.6 63.7
H Beamwidth ° 83.8 109.4 25.6 99.8
2. 20 elements, α’ = 17°, τ = 0.9, σ = 0.167, double bay, ψ = 5°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 100-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.09 18.10 61.4 83.2 94 - j 7 1.10
100 9.82 39.75 57.0 74.4 94 - j 9 1.12
150 9.88 47.35 57.0 74.2 97 - j 11 1.12
200 9.55 39.30 57.5 75.2 100 - j 11 1.11

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 9.09 10.00 0.91 9.72
Front-Back dB 18.10 54.74 36.64 36.02
E Beamwidth ° 55.4 61.4 6.0 57.6
3. 20 elements, α’ = 17°, τ = 0.9, σ = 0.167, double bay, ψ = 10°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 100-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.35 14.28 61.0 73.2 89 - j 2 1.13
100 10.17 36.27 57.8 68.4 93 - j 8 1.11
150 10.31 42.41 57.4 66.4 98 - j 12 1.14
200 9.85 48.23 57.8 69.2 99 - j 12 1.13

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 9.35 10.79 1.18 10.00
Front-Back dB 14.28 63.75 49.47 35.93
E Beamwidth ° 54.0 61.0 7.0 57.8
4. 20 elements, α’ = 17°, τ = 0.9, σ = 0.167, double bay, ψ = 15°

Sample performance values

Frequency Max. Gain Front-Back E BW H BW Impedance 100-Ω

MHz dBi Ratio dB degrees degrees R +/- jX Ω SWR
50 9.70 11.19 61.6 61.7 88 + j 9 1.18
100 10.40 26.23 57.2 59.0 96 - j 2 1.04
150 10.20 29.51 60.6 62.0 101 - j 17 1.19
200 10.34 33.26 61.0 60.0 96 - j 17 1.19

Frequency sweep summary: 50-200 MHz

Category Minimum Maximum Δ Average
Gain dBi 9.70 10.79 1.09 10.39
Front-Back dB 11.19 42.10 30.91 28.27
E Beamwidth ° 54.4 62.8 8.4 58.8