IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AhTTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. AP33, NO. IO, OCTOBER 1985
position for ideal thinwire monopoles. Section V considers two monopole array designs (square and hexagonal lattices) with comparisons of measured and calculated data. 11. ANALYSIS OF INFINITE ARRAYS
OF
MONOPOLES
I. INTRODUCTION ERIODIC PLANAR phased array antennas are generally designed to provide close to uniform element gain over a portion of a hemisphere. The ideal element gain pattern for many applications has a cosine variation from broadside. Peak gain occurs at broadside and wide angle scanning out to 60 is possible with many array element designs [l]. The present study considers an element design for wideangle scanning phased arrays in which a pattern null rather than a pattern maximum is formed at broadside. For certain phased array antenna applications, maximum gain is desirable away from broadside with minimum gainor a null occuring at broadside [2]. A twodimensional periodic monopole array provides this type of pattern coverage. Phased arrays of monopoles with sinusoidal current distribution have been investigated in [3j and good wideangle scanning properties waveguide were shown. An infinite array analysis and simulation were used to obtain the activearray scan impedance. The infinite array scan impedance for monopoles has also been computed in [4]using a pulse basis point matching moment method approach. In this paper, both finite and infinite array analyses are used to investigate the behavior of periodic monopole phased arrays. An expression for the active impedance of an infinite array of monopoles, expressed as a plane wave summation, is given in Section 11. Section III contains a brief description of the finite array formulation which is an application of the method of moments. The finite array analysis is used in Section IV to show how the element gain pattern and input impedance are affected by the array size and by element
ManuscriptreceivedNovember 15, 1984: revised May 28, 1985. This work was sponsored by the Department of the Air Force. Theauthor is withtheLincolnLaboratory.MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, P.O.Box 73, Lexington, MA 02173.
The analysis used in this paper is an application of a general theory developed in [5] and [6j, in which the infinite array is formulated as a periodic surface with arbitrarily shaped identical linear elements. An array of vertical monopoles with a skewed lattice on a ground plane, shown in Fig. 1, can be analyzed as a periodic surface in free space, by use of image theory. Each monopole element has a vertical image in the ground plane. The ground plane canberemovedand an equivalent freespace periodic dipole array results. The input impedance of the dipole array is twice that of the monopole array and the element gain of the dipole array is onehalf that of the monopole array. The details of the input impedance derivation are given in [7]. First, the field radiated by a periodic infinite array of Hertzian dipoles is determined utilizing the Poisson sum formula. Next, an assumed piecewise sinusoidal transmitting current distribution is imposed on the Hertzian element, and the total radiated field is found by single integration. An exterior element identical in shape to the reference element of the infinite array is exposed to the field of the infinite array, and the induced voltageis determined by a second integration. The active input impedance of a reference element of the array is found by displacing the exterior element one wire radius (denoted r,J from the reference element and computing the ratio of the induced voltage to the terminal current. The result for the active array input impedance is
(1)
P
d,, d,, A 1
= 27r/x, the element spacings, the lattice skew parameter, the monopole length,
1119 The array radiated field is given by the product of the single isolated element pattern and the array factor using the moment method currents. The scattering matrix of mutual coupling coefficients is computed from the normalized impedance matrix by using the following relation [ 101: S=[zf][z+f]' where
(4)
(1. 01
Fig. 1.
in a general
In ( 3 , 2, is the feedline characteristic impedance and f is the identity matrix. In the matrix S, the element represents the ratio of the signal received at the nth array element to the signal transmitted by the kth element. If the center element is chosen as a reference, then the active reflection coefficient is given by [ l l ] , [12], [13]
20 X
4
sx
SY
(Os, &)
the impedance of free space, = rw cos 4, = r,*.sin 4, is the observation angle about the axis of the monopole, = sin 0, cos 4,, = sin 0, sin r$s, the scan angles,
To better understand the electrical behavior of a large phased array of monopoles, itisof interest toshowsome results for finite arrays of various sizes. The examples given are for onequarter wavelength monopoles with onehalf wavelength spacing on a square grid. The monopoles are The above equation is a rapidly converging series requiring assumed to be electrically thin, with a wire radius of 0.001 X. terms up to Ikl I 20, In I I 20. Fora wire diameter (d) The finite array formulation is utilized to compute the element greater than approximately 0.002 X it is necessary to compute an average value of the input impedance for a series of gain pattern and input impedance. Finite arrays up to size 25 observation angles. Ten uniformly spaced observation angles rows by 25 columns are treated here. Additionally, the infinite array analysis is used for comparison and good agreement is are sufficient for wire diameters up to about 0.02 X. shown. A listing and description of the Fortran computer III. ANALYSIS OF FINITE ARRAYS OF MONOPOLES program used to analyze finite and infinite arrays of monoA method commonly selected for the analysis of thinwire poles can be found in [7]. Consider first the radiation pattern (Eo component) of a antennas is the method of moments [8]. A sinusoidalsingle monopole antenna on an infinite ground plane. As Galerkin's version of the method of moments formulation shown in Fig. 2 (solid curve) there is a null on axis ( 0 = 0") was used to analyze periodic monopole arrays on an infinite and the elevation pattern peak occurs as expected at 0 = 90". ground plane. A similar analysis for parallel dipoles assuming Now, consider the radiation patterns of the center element of sinusoidal basis functions and point matching is given in [9]. the five row by five column passively terminated monopole The currents In1,m = 1, 2, .,N induced in the monopole array shown in Fig. 3. The elevation pattern (4 = 0") for this array elements are given in matrix form as array is shown in Fig. 2. The principal plane peak gain occurs I=Z'V (2) at 0 = 38". Successive elevation radiation patterns for the center monopole of 9 x 9, 11 x 11, and 25 x 25 arrays are where Z is the opencircuit mutual impedance matrix and V is included in Fig. 2. The peak element gain occurs close to 0 = the voltage excitation matrix. Note: for rectangular grid 50" as the array size grows. For the 11 x 11 array, the arrays, blockToeplitz symmetry [8] is used in reducing the element gain pattern hasonlysmall differences whencomcpu time and computer storage required to solve (2). pared to the results obtained for the 25 X 25 array. The The input impedance of the mth array element is computed element gain pattern for the infinite array of monopoles is also from shown in Fig. 2 . The peak gain is 2.7 dBi and occurs at 0 = 50". This compares quite closely to the element gain pattern peak computed for the 25 x 25 array which is 2.9 dBi. For the
1120
IEEETRANSACTIONSONANTENNASANDPROPAGATION,
30 f
_...__ .
.
1; ........ INFINITE
I
90
60
I
I
40
30
I 30
I
60
90
19 (deg)
Fig. 2. Theoretical center element gain pattern (@ = 0" cut) as a function of monopole array size. Monopole ]en,& wire radius is 0.001 X, and element spacing is N2.
is X/4,
J
Fig. 3.
5 x 5 monopole aray with center element excited and surrounding elements passively terminated.
11 X 11 array the azimuthal pattern variation at 0 = 55 is approximately + 0.3 dB as shown in Fig. 4. Also, the center element input impedance versus array size is summarizedin Table I. The inputimpedance of the h/4 monopole withW 2 element spacing tends to be purely resistive as the numberof surrounding loaded monopolesincreases, and the resistance is insensitive to m a y size. The behavior of elements near the edge of the monopole array is of general interest. Consider, for example, the 11 X 11 array shown in Fig. 5. The principal plane gainpatterns for
O
.
rn
2
5
PEAK
CENTER ELEMENT
10 0
60
120
180
240
300
360
Fig. 4. Conicalpatterncut for the centermonopole of an 1 1 X 11 array. Monopole length is M4, wire radius is 0.001 A, and element spacing is h/2.
FENN: MONOPOLE PHASED ARRAY ANTENNAS TABLE I THEORETICAL INPUT IMPEDANCE FOR THE CENTER ELEMENT PASSIVELYTERMIh'ATEDMONOPOLEARRAYS
ARRAY SIZE
1121
OF
NO. ROWS
1
3
1
3
5 7 7
25 49 81 121 625
38.8
j 3.2
9 11 25
11 25
Monopole length is AM, wire radius is 0.001 X, and element spacingis x/2 on a square grid.
Y
5.
4.
3.
2.
l .
. . . .
.
. . . .
.
. . . .
.
. . . .
. .
t . I I . I I . I I . I
'
. . . .
(121
. . . .
. . . . . . 
. . . .
. . . .
.
2.
3.
4.
5. 5
4
. . . .
121ELEMENTMqNOPOLE
3
. . . .
2
. . . .
1
. ! . . . I I . . . . . . . . ARRAY . . I I . . . . .
ll.ll
I
. . . .
4
. . . .
5
J a
.20t
25
?
CENTER COLUMN
301
35
40
t
I

(3.0)   
(2.0) (1,O)

90
30
Fig. 5 .
i
f
0
I
60
1
90
30
(deg)
Fig. 6. Theoretical element gain patterns as a function of element position along the center row of an 1 1 X 11 monopole array. Monopole length is A/ 4, wire radius is 0.001 h, and element spacing is X/2.
the elements along the center row are shown in Fig. 6 . Approximately 2.2 dB of asymmetry occurs between the two (left and right) peak values of the edge element pattern. The edgeadjacent element (4, 0) has about 1.2 dBof pattern asymmetry. For monopoles two or more elements away from the edge element, the pattern peak asymmetry is less than 0.5 dB. Next, the input impedance of a few elements of the 121 element array is given in Table 11; the center element, a comer element, and an edge element of the center row. The real part of the input impedance is seen to be relatively insensitive to element position in the array and the imaginary part varies by less than 10 W. The active input impedance of the monopole array is now considered. For an infinite array of monopoles the active input impedance as a function of scan angle 8, is shown in Fig. 7.
The active input impedance for the 11 x 11 array compares quite closely to the infinite array data. The magnitude of the reflection coefficient for the 11 X 11and infinite arrays is shown in Fig. 8 for the principal and diagonal planes scans. The reflection coefficient minimum is seento occur in the vicinity of Os = 60". One ofthe conclusions that can be madefrom the above data is that a large array of monopoles has good wideangle scanning capability. Basedon the theoretical element gain pattern, scanning with low gain loss is possible from approximately 30" to 60" from broadside. In reference to the infinite array data and 25 x 25 array data, it is apparent that the center element in an 11 row by 11 column array behaves very similar to that in a much larger array.
,
1122
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTEhWAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. AP33, NO. 10, OCTOBER 1985
TABLE II
THEORETICAL INPUT IMPEDANCE AT VARIOUS ELEMENT POSITIONS IN AN 1 1 X 1 1 MONOPOLE ARRAY
ELEMENTPOSITIONIN 11 X 11 ARRAY
CENTERELEMENT EDGEELEMENT
(0.0)
38.5 + j 2.0
39.7 39.7
+ +
j 7.0 j 11.7
CORNERELEMENT ISOLATEDELEMENT
36.5 + j 21.0
Monopole length is W4.wire radius is 0.001 X, and element spacing is A12 on a square grid.
1.00
9 
I( I I
2
075
I 
2
0 V
05C
\
bs = 0
CENTER ELEMENT
\\
11
  INFINITE ARRAY
I I I
I I V L
1 1A R R A Y
 01
I
I
1 00
3 t(3
2
a
075
t
Lu
2
0 V
050
U 025
W
0 I 
.\ \
11
X 1 A1 RRAY
'
v0
a
0
I
20
I
30
I
40
I
50
I
60
I
80
O
90
70
S C A NA N G L E
Os ldegl
(b)
(b)
Fig. 8. Theoretical center element reflection coefficient magnitude as a function of scan angle for infinite and finite m a y s of monopoles. Monopole length is M4, wireradius is 0.001 X, andelementspacing is M 2 . (a) Principal plane. (b) Diagonal plane.
Fig. 7. Theoretical active input impedance as a function of scan angle for infinite and finite arrays of monopoles. Monopole lengthis M4, wire radius is 0.001 X, andelementspacing is M2. (a)principalplane (b) diagonal plane.
1123
v. 121ELEMENTSQUARE
THEORY
Basedonthe thinwire monopole array data given in the previous section, a 121element square grid array is considered well representative for demonstrating the element performance in a large array. To verify the theory, it was decided to build an array at Lband operating over the frequency range 1.2 to 1.4 GHz. Assuming an interelement spacing of 4.2 inl this yields a 42 in by 42 in array. At a center frequency of 1.3 GHz the element spacing is 0.462 X. The diameter of the monopole elements was chosen to be 0.125 inches which is 0.0148 X at the high frequency 1.4 GHz; hence, the thin wire formulation is applicable. The monopole element length can be optimizedtheoretically by computing the center element active array reflection coefficient over the desired scan sector and frequency bandwidth. After running a number of cases, a length of 2.5 in (0.275b) was deemed appropriate. Each monopole element was constructed by soldering a 1/8 in diameter brass rod to the center pinof a typeN panel connector. A photograph of one ofthe array elements is shown in Fig. 9. A 4 ft by 4 ft square sheet of aluminum was usedfor the array ground plane. The element mountingholes were machined such that the base region of each monopole is flush with the ground plane. A sketch of the overall array configuration isgivenin Fig. 10 and a photograph of the assembled 121element array is shown inFig. 1 1. For farfield pattern measurements, the center element is driven and the surrounding elements are terminated in 5 0 4 resistive loads. The measured center element gain elevation patterns (4 = 0") from 1.2 GHz to 1.4 GHz are given in Fig. 12. Included are the corresponding finite array theoretical gain patterns which compare quite closely to the measured data. The differences between the calculated and measured peak gains can be attributed to the assumption of an infinite ground plane in the theoretical model and small experimental measurement crrors. Fig. 13 shows measured conical pattern cuts from 1.2 to 1.4 GHz for 0 = 5 5 " . The E 8 (principal) polarized pattern is seen to be nearly omnidirectional. The crosspolarized component (E d) is down by more than 30 dB. These patterns confirm that wideangle scanning is practical with a monopole element. Next, to measure the complex mutual coupling in a passive array, the center element is connected to the transmitter and the received voltage is measured at each of the surrounding elements. Except for the transmitting element and the receiving element, all elements are terminated in 50ohm resistive loads. Fig. 14(a) shows a plot of the amplitude of the coupling coefficients along the center row at 1.3 GHz. Fig. 14(b) is the corresponding phase received at each element. The measured amplitude is in good agreement with the theory. However, there is a noticeable shift in phase between the measured and theoretical data. This is likely due in part to two approximations in the analysis. One is that a delta gap model is used for the feed region rather than the actual coaxial aperture. Second, the analysis assumes a one mode sinusoidal current distribution on the monopole which is not exact. It is useful to note that the received amplitude is down by 40 dBat the edge
Fig. 9. Cylindricalmonopoleelement.
Fig. 10.
121elementmonopolearraylayout.
Fig. 11.
in anechoic
elements. Thus, little change in the results would be expected by increasing the array size. Using the measured coupling coefficients in (6), the active input impedance as a function of scan angle can be computed. This is done for the principal plane scan (4,=0") in Fig. 15 for 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 GHz. The three curves are measured data, finite array theory, and infinite array theory. Other than a slight phase displacement, there is good agreement between theory and experiment. The data in Fig. 15 may be useful in further optimization of the input impedanceby applying standard impedance matching techniques [ 141. The optimization would be with respect to a selected bandwidth and scan sector. VI. HEXAGOKAL LATTICE INFIKITE ARRAY RESULTS The results of the present analysis are compared now to calculated and measured data in the literature for hexagonal lattice infinite arrays. Herper andHessel [3] performed a similar infinite array analysis (combination unit cell and variational impedance technique) which also assumed a
1124
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. AP33, NO. 10, OCTOBER 1985
"
ELEMENT
a 0
2025
3035
,, THEORY
MEASURE0
60
"
THEORY MEASURED 30
60 90
THEORY MEASURED
I
I
 40
90 60
30
30
90 90
60
30
90
60
30
30
60
90
FROM BROADSIDE
e (deg) ANGLE
FROM BROADSIDE
(deg)
(a) (b) (C) Fig. 12. Measuredandtheoreticalcenterelementgainpattern for the 12lelement monopolearray.Elevationcut at 6 = 0". Monopole length is 2.5 in. wire radius is 0.0625 in. and element spacing is 4.2 in. (a) 1.2 GHz. (b) 1.3 GHz. (c) 1.4 GHz.
z
i !
SE
OW
Sl,O
10I
s1.0
A .
?+\
OILL 2  2 0 
I '
so.0
1.3 GHz
A
' 1
(4
s
~,SZ.O
\
u o 0 LL
3&
30
5
w
to
0 40':

,.
, d '
'h:3.0
\
5
t
W
1020
'
THEORY
s4.0'p'~L
s5.0
1 4 ~ 5 ~
E, (Principal Polarization)
CENTER ELEMENT
5 0 , 1 1 MEASURED 1 1 1 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3
2
2 I 
30
E, (Cross Polarization)
m
'0
360
300
240
(a)
u
U U
0
0
CENTER ELEMENT
20
30
40
p6
z
U .
180
120
(Cross Polarization)
/
3 0
0
0
108 180
36
[C')
60
36
108
180
a
X
o
54
3
2
1
6,ANGLE ABOUT BROADSIDE (deg) Fig. 13. Measured center element radiation pattern for the 12lelement monopole array. Conical cut at 0 = 5 5 " . Monopole length is 2.5 in, wire radius is 0.0625 in, and element spacing is 4.2 in. (a) 1.2 GHz. (b) 1.3 GHz. (c) 1.4 GHz.
@)
Fig. 14. Coupling coefficient as a function of position for the 121element monopolearray.Centerelement is transmitting and elementsalongthe center row (row # 0 in Fig. 7) are receiving. Monopole length is 2.5 in, wire radius is 0.0625 in, and element spacing is 4.2 in. (a) Magnitude. (b) Phase.
sinusoidal current distribution. They used the waveguide simulation technique to verify the theoretical active array input impedance for a few scan angles. The array parameters used were monopole length = 0.25 A, monopole diameter = 0.02 X, and element spacing = 0.55 X at the center frequency. Their results are reproduced in Fig. 16 along with a comparision of the present theory. The 45 scan angle data are all in goodagreement. For the 65 scan angle the agreement is not as good, but this is likely attributed to the single sinusoid current distribution assumption and the deltagap model previously mentioned. Even with the simple model, however, the correct scan angle dependence and frequency behavior are
O O
predicted. Agreement is expected to improve with the use of multiple overlapping sinusoidal expansion fimctions and the magnetic frill voltage generator model [SI. An example of an infinite monopole phased array has also been given in [4] by Schuman, Pflug, and Thompson. They chose as parameters; I = 0.3 X,d = 0.02 X, spacing = 0.577 X (hexagonal lattice), andcomputed the active array scan impedancein a single plane.Theymodeled the monopole current with four pulse basis functions and used a plane wave expansion to obtain the scan impedance. Their results are
1125
75
v)
THIS THEORY
E 2
8 z
W
. .
50
5 l P
2
w
IMAGINARY
25
> Io
4
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fig. 17. Theoretical active array impedance as a function of scan angle for infinite arrays of monopoles with hexagonal lattice. Monopole len,@ = 0.3 A, wire radius = 0.01 X, and element spacing is 0.577 X.
presented in Fig. 17 along with those obtained by the present theory and good agreement is indicated.
VII. CONCLUSION
This paper has described the theory and experimental results for twodimensional periodic monopole phased array antennas. An infinite array planewave representation of the active impedance was given for monopoles; with sinusoidal current, arranged on a general skewed grid. A sinusoidalGalerkin's version of the method of moments was used to analyze finite arrays. Element gain patterns and active input impedance were computed both for finite and infinite arrays of thin cylindrical monopoles. The effects of the array size and element position on the element gain pattern and input impedance were shown. Good agreement for element gain patterns, mutual coupling, and input impedance was obtained between theory and measurements for a 121element monopole array. The center element gain pattern indicates good pattern coverage at wide angles from broadside. The radiation pattern is vertically polarized andnearly omnidirectional at a fixed angle from broadside. Wide angle scanningout to 60" withpeakgain occuring near 50" from broadside is possible with this antenna configuration. Natural sidelobe suppression would occur in the vicinity of broadside because of the monopole element pattern null. Good agreement between the present infinite array analysis and calculated and measured data for hexagonal lattices was shown. Finally, there is the issue of blind spot occurrence in thinmonopole phased arrays. Asis wellknown, blind spots are often due to the presence of higherorder modes within the array unit cell [ 11. The above analysis has assumed that the transmitting current distribution is a single piecewisesinusoidal function. The assumption of a symmetric current distribution on the equivalent dipole is valid because the monopole image current is always symmetric with the current onthe monopole. The current vector direction is essentially parallel to the orientation of the thin monopole andthe azimuthal (phi) component of current is negligible. Thus, higherorder modes are not provided for in the model. However, since the
(C)
Fig. 15. Measured and theoretical center element active input impedance of monopole arrays. Monopole length is 2.5 in, wire radius is 0.0625 in, and element spacing is 4.2 in. (a) 1.2 GHz. (b) 1.3 GHz. (c) 1.4 GHz.
1.0
1 .o Fig. 16. Theoretical and measured active array impedance as a function scan angle for infinite arrays of monopoles with hexagonal lattice.
of
1126
monopole length is close to M4, the fundamental resonance, it is very unlikely that higher order modes would exist to any appreciable degree. Based on these considerations andthe presented theoretical and experimental results, blind spots are not expected to occur for phased arrays of thin monopoles.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to express his gratitude to Mr. W. Rotman, Dr. A.J. Simmons, Dr. A.R. Dion, and Dr. G.N. Tsandoulas for technical discussions. The construction and RF measurements of the 121element monopole array were organized by Mr. R.J. Burns. Computer programming was 1972. performed by Ms. D.L. Washington and Mr.D.S. Besse. Technical discussions with Professor B.A. Munk of The Ohio State University ElectroScience Laboratory are sincerely appreciated.
REFERENCES R. J. Mailloux. Phased array theory and technology, Proc. IEEE, vol. 70. pp. 246291, Mar. 1982. E. J. Kelly and G. N. Tsandoulas, A displaced phase center antenna concept for space based radar applications, in IEEE Eascon, Sept. 1983,pp.141148. J. C.HerperandA.Hessel,Performance of X14 monopole in a phased array. IEEE Antennas and Propagat. SOC., 1975 Symp. Digest. pp. 3013M. H. K. Schuman, D. R. M u g , and L. D. Thompson, Infinite planar arrays of arbitrarily bent thin wire radiators, IEEE Trans. Anrenna Propagat., vol. AP32, no. 3, pp. 364377, Apr. 1984.
[5] B. A. Munk and G . A. Burrell. Planewave expansion for arrays of arbitrarilyorientedpiecewiselinearelementsand its applicationto determining the impedance of a single linear antenna in a lossy halfspace. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP27,no.3,pp. 331343, May 1979. [6] T. W. Korbau.Application of theplanewaveexpansionmethod to periodicarrayshavinga skewed gridgeometry,OhioStateUniv. ElectroSci. Lab. Tech. Rep. AFALTR77112 (Oct. 1977). [7]A. J. Fenn,Monopolephasedarrayantennaevaluation fora low altitude space based radar, MIT Lincoln Lab. Project Rep. SRT2, Aug. 1983. [8] W. L. Stutzman. and G . A. Thiele, Antenna Theory and Design. New York: Wiley. 1981. [9] 0. C. Williams and C. E. Hickman. Computer determination of currentdistributiononarbitrarilylocatedparallelcenterfeddipoles with terminals in a common ground plane. IEEE Tram. Antennas July Propagat., 540541. pp. [lo]C. G . Montgomery,R. H. Dickeand E. M. Purcell, Principles of icowave Circuits, MassachusettsInst.Technol.,RadiationLab. Series, 8. New York:McGrawHill,1948.pp.147149. [ 111 R. C. Hansen, Ed.. Microwave Scanning Antennas, Vol. II: Array Theory and Practice. New York: Academic, 1966, pp. 213216. [12] N. R. Brennecke and W. N. Moule, Uses of fences to optimize operating impedance of phased arrays. using an improved measuring technique, IEEE Antennas Propagat. Soc. Int. Symp. Dig., 1964, pp.134142. [13] N. Amitay, V. Galindo, and C. P. Wu, Theory and Analysis of Phased Array Antennas. New York: Wiley. 1972, p. 22. [14]R. L. Thomas. A Practical Introduction to Impedance Matching. Dedham. MA: Artech House, 1976.
Alan J. Fenn (S74M78), for a photograph and biography please see page 564 of the Joly 1982 issue of this TRANSACTIONS.