Antenna Array Design Based on Kaiser-Hamming Polynomials

Molnar, Goran; Ljubenko, Dorian; Jelavic-Sako, Andrea

doi:10.23919/eucap51087.2021.9411244

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Te frst possibility (containing N−r positive signs) has already been processed in the frst step (the node testing), whereas 2 N−r −1 possibilities wait to be explored along the branches growing from the node. Terefore, upper-and lower-bound constraints are used in (6) only for coefcients a k , k = 1, 2, ..., r. Te remaining coefcients are constrained only in their maximum absolute value, that is, |a k | ≤ Dt, k = r+1, r + 2, ..., N, whereas the corresponding nonconvex constraints |a k | ≥ t are omitted. Clearly, the solution of such an optimization problem might not satisfy (3).…”

Section: Global Solving Of Optimization Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pencil beam arrays are widely used in wireless communications [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and wireless power transmission [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. In both applications, they are utilized to direct the radiated energy into a specifed spatial region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many analytical [1][2][3][4][5][6] and optimization-based methods [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] provide pencil beams with low DRR. Analytical methods are based on popular windows and polynomials, for example, Gaussian [2] and ultraspherical [3] windows, as well as the Chebyshev [4], Gegenbauer [5], and Kaiser-Hamming [6] polynomials. Te methods in [2][3][4] provide a low DRR inherently, whereas [1,5,6] incorporate the requirement for low DRR as a design objective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Analytical methods are based on popular windows and polynomials, for example, Gaussian [2] and ultraspherical [3] windows, as well as the Chebyshev [4], Gegenbauer [5], and Kaiser-Hamming [6] polynomials. Te methods in [2][3][4] provide a low DRR inherently, whereas [1,5,6] incorporate the requirement for low DRR as a design objective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Optimum Synthesis of Pencil Beams with Constrained Dynamic Range Ratio

Matijaščić

Bellotti

Vučić

et al. 2022

International Journal of Antennas and Propagation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In antenna array design, low dynamic range ratio (DRR) of excitation coefficients is important because it simplifies array’s feeding network and enables better control of mutual coupling. Optimization-based synthesis of pencil beams allows explicit control of DRR. However, incorporating DRR into an optimization problem leads to nonconvex constraints, making its solving challenging. In this paper, a framework for global optimization of linear pencil beams with constrained DRR is presented. By using this framework, the methods for synthesis of pencil beams with minimum sidelobe level and minimum sidelobe power are developed. Both methods utilize convex problems suitable for the synthesis of pencil beams whose coefficients’ signs are known in advance. By incorporating these problems into a branch and bound algorithm, the procedures for global optimizations are formed which systematically search the space of all coefficient signs. The method for minimization of sidelobe power is further analyzed in the context of beam efficiency. It is shown that this method can be utilized in an approximate and at the same time global design of pencil beam arrays with maximum beam efficiency and constrained DRR. Based on this approach, a method for the design of pencil beam arrays with minimum DRR and specified beam efficiency is proposed.

show abstract

Section: Global Solving Of Optimization Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Optimum Synthesis of Pencil Beams with Constrained Dynamic Range Ratio

Matijaščić

Bellotti

Vučić

et al. 2022

International Journal of Antennas and Propagation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, the MTS is unable to reduce the SLL after a certain limit by increasing the current profile steepness. It may be due to the fact that with increasing the steepness, the dynamic range ratio (the ratio between adjacent element coefficients) is also increasing, thus increasing the mutual coupling between the unitcell elements [32]. To control the SLL without deteriorating the radiation characteristics significantly, the dynamic range ratio should be controlled.…”

Section: Sll Reduction Using Window Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Side lobe level reduction of metasurface transmit array

Ghosh

2022

Eng. Res. Express

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a study on the side-lobe level (SLL) reduction with transmission type metasurface (MTS) using the concept of non-uniform array technique and transmit array antenna. According to the non-uniform antenna array technique, the SLL can be controlled by controlling the amplitude and phase distribution simultaneously. Initially, transmit array concept is used to design the MTS. The radiation characteristics of the MTS antenna are analyzed by exciting with a rectangular patch antenna at a fixed feed position. The simulation results show a gain of 17.6 dB with SLL of −18:3 and −19 dB in φ = 0o and 90o-planes, respectively. Later, nonuniform array techniques are used to reduce the SLL by introducing various amplitude distribution functions on the MTS for a fixed focal distance. The MTS incorporates the amplitude tapering functions such as Kaiser, Hamming, Hanning, and Blackman distribution functions. The resulting SLLs are analyzed, and the achieved SLLs are far from the theoretical values. In order to further reduce and control the SLL, the Gaussian distribution function is used, which minimizes the SLL by optimizing the standard deviation(σ). A MTS with 16 × 16 unitcells is fabricated and measured with an optimized σ = 0:31. The measured SLL are −25:1 and −26:3 dB in φ = 0o and 90o-planes, respectively.

show abstract