electronics
Article
Super Directional Antenna—3D Phased Array Antenna Based
on Directional Elements
Benzion Levy 1, *, Ely Levine 2 and Yosef Pinhasi 1
Citation: Levy, B.; Levine, E.; Pinhasi,
Y. Super Directional Antenna—3D
Phased Array Antenna Based on
Directional Elements. Electronics 2022,
11, 2233. https://doi.org/10.3390/
electronics11142233
Academic Editor: Giovanni
Andrea Casula
Received: 9 May 2022
Accepted: 7 July 2022
Published: 17 July 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11142233
1 Faculty of Engineering, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel; yosip@ariel.ac.il
2 Afeka College of Engineering, Tel Aviv 6910717, Israel; elyl@afeka.ac.il
* Correspondence: benzionl@gmail.com; Tel.: +972-3-958-5844
Abstract: This paper describes an antenna design approach for achieving super directivity in an
AESA (Active Electronic Scanned Array) radar using an unconventional 3D phased array (PA)
antenna concept based on directional Yagi–Uda elements. The proposed scheme is shown to have
a wider scanning feature, with higher directivity in comparison to the same geometry dipole array
without increasing the element number. The antenna’s microwave design includes an antipodal
Yagi–Uda antenna element that is implemented efficiently on a microstrip PCB using a balun (balance–
unbalance)-fed network. This type of antenna is valuable in restricted aperture scans for achieving a
narrow antenna beam that increases the angular resolution and measurement precision of tracked
targets and also enlarges the detection range or, alternatively, achieves the same performance with
a lower number of elements—meeting the goal of low-cost production. The notable result of the
high antenna directivity was obtained by both the element and the array architecture, which allowed
for improvements in the Array Factor (AF) directivity by increasing the element’s spacing and
broadening the scan sector, achieved via the suppression of the element’s Grating Lobe (GL). Another
important benefit of this antenna design is the superior coupling reduction caused by its enlarged
element distances, which are very significant in electronic scans. An outstanding opportunity to
exploit this low coupling can be found in separated MIMO radar architecture. Other benefits of this
design’s architecture are the support of a combined module and antenna on a unified board thanks to
the End-Fire radiation pattern, its low frequency sensitivity, and its low-cost manufacturing.
Keywords: phased array; AESA; antenna; radar; directivity; Array Factor; element pattern; Yagi–Uda
antenna; End-Fire; MIMO
1. Introduction
Phased Array (PA) Steering Antenna Technology is conventionally used in the military
for radar and satellite applications [1] and is nowadays also a trend in new applications
for commercial purposes, due to the growing need for higher data rates in communication
devices such as 5G cellular devices and the IoT [2]. This technology has a lot of perfor-
mance advantages in comparison to conventional mechanical scan antennae [3], such as
multifunctionality, switching beams, supporting desired scan times, the ability to track a
high number of targets, flexibility in using special and dedicated beams with adequate
waveform parameters according to the target demand, nulling [4], improved system re-
liability achieved by the avoidance of moving parts, and graceful degradation [5]. The
performance of an AESA antenna is widely affected by many technical parameters [6], such
as the grid type, the distance between elements, the element directivity, the bandwidth, the
scan angle aperture, and the coupling between elements—which is usually an undesired
physical phenomenon that is difficult observe analytically [7].
It is common to implement an antenna array in order to achieve wide spatial coverage
by using omni directional antenna technologies, such as a patch or dipole antenna distanced
by λ/2 between each element [8]. Unfortunately, this type of array has low directivity and
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 2 of 23

therefore suffers from major disadvantages such as needing a high element number or
higher element power, with severe cooling requirements for avoiding phase deviations—
which spoil the monopulse angle measurement. Super-directive arrays have been popular
in the academic world since they provide higher directivity than uniformly excited antenna
arrays of the same length. Considerable research on the possibilities of super-directive
arrays has been carried out over the years, finding theoretical limits such as the Array
Pattern (AP) and directivity versus the distance between elements, the tolerance, and the
bandwidth under different assumptions [9]. Some other studies have used optimized
polynomial techniques to generate super-directive array functions by changing the number
of elements and array length with altered array parameters [10] or denser elements [11].
Studies show that reasons for avoiding directional elements in classical PAs include both
the coupling that occurs between elements that affects the AP and angular scan restriction
due to the element pattern (EP) [7].
The present paper proposes a new approach for designing an AESA antenna coverage
range, assuming a given number of elements, by developing an uncommon 3D array based
on a directional Yagi–Uda element with an H-pattern of ±20◦ [12]. Consequently, a very
high antenna gain was achieved in both the transmit and receive modes. The main principle
that enabled these super directivity linear feed antennas depended on the unchanged
element’s directivity in comparison to the complicated techniques of Parasitic Loaded
Super-Directivity [13] and feed structures with a variable phase [14]. The element directivity
was doubly exploited to both achieve high system gain and to suppress the Grating Lobes
(GL), which allowed for increases in the azimuth AF (Array Factor) directivity by increasing
the azimuth element distances from 0.75λ in a conventional scanned array by ±20◦ , up
to λ.
The CST results for a 4 × 4 Yagi–Uda element array with a distance of λ between
adjacent elements showed the achievement of a narrow azimuth and elevation beam width
and, consequently, high directivity improvement-including coupling-in comparison to
standard dipole arrays. Better performances could certainly be reached in separated radar
architecture [15]-utilizing MIMO radar techniques [16] by spacing the element grid to an
equivalent 2λ to significantly reduce the coupling to neglected values of less than −30 dB.
Consequently, the high AP achieved increased the detection ranges, with a significantly
lower RF intensity for each element-or, alternatively, achieved the same performance with
a lower number of elements, according to the radar equation [17]. Another benefit of this
antenna structure is the opportunity of supporting a combined module and antenna on
a unified board thanks to the End-Fire radiation pattern [18], which makes it cheap and
makes mass production possible.
The selected element type was based on a Yagi–Uda antenna that was efficiently
implemented on a microstrip PCB using an optimal balun [19] (balance–unbalance)-fed
network with an antipodal antenna. This type of antenna was selected due to its high
directivity, narrow band, and End-Fire radiation pattern. The antipodal implemented the
dipole on two different microstrip layers: one on the top and the other on the bottom,
achieving high isolation between the left and right parts of the dipole. This implementation
also reduced the element size thanks to the 180◦ phase shifter (PS) and splitter elimination,
while also efficiently improving the element. In [20], balun implementation of a dipole
with a taper ground was suggested, but it was found to be inefficient-presenting with back
transmitting-and therefore, we instead the use of a superior rectangular ground.
This paper is divided into three sections: In the first section, we state the background
of the super directive array theory and describe the design algorithm and simulation. In the
second section, we show a design of a 3D directional Yagi–Uda element and array using CST
simulation software and compare it to a dipole array. In the third section, the directional
3D Yagi–Uda array and the dipole array are measured and compared in a configuration
of two-dimensional element spacing of λ in azimuth and 0.7λ in elevation. Finally, an
equivalent 2λ spacing is suggested for separated MIMO radars with independent coupling.

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233
directional 3D Yagi–Uda array and the dipole array are measured and compared in a con-
figuration of two-dimensional element spacing of 𝜆 in azimuth and 0.7𝜆 in elevation. Fi-
nally, an equivalent 2𝜆 spacing is suggested for separated MIMO radars with independ-
3 of 23
ent coupling.

2.
2. Background
Background
2.1.
2.1. Super
Super Directive
Directive Array
Array Theory
Theory
The
The AP
AP is
is the
the product
product of
of the
the Element
Element Pattern
Pattern (EP)
(EP)and
andthe
theAF,
AF, assuming
assuming nono coupling
coupling
betweenelements,
between elements,where
wherethethe
APAP corresponds
corresponds to the
to the totaltotal
arrayarray pattern.
pattern. The AFThe
is aAF is a
math-
mathematical
ematical representation
representation of the of the gain
array arrayand
gain
theand
EP the EP corresponds
corresponds to the element
to the element pattern
pattern [21,22].
[21,22].
The following
The following AP AP equation
equation waswas used,
used, shown in Equation (1):

𝐴𝑃(𝑒𝑙,
AP (el, az𝑎𝑧)
) ==AF
𝐴𝐹(𝑒𝑙,
(el, az𝑎𝑧)𝐸𝑃(𝑒𝑙,
) EP(el, az𝑎𝑧)
) (1)
(1)
The system coordination that was selected for the array simulations is depicted in
The system coordination that was selected for the array simulations is depicted in
Figure 1 and was fit to the elevation and azimuth parameters, with the following equa-
Figure 1 and was fit to the elevation and azimuth parameters, with the following equations
tions and results presented accordingly:
and results presented accordingly:

Figure 1. Element Array in the X–Z plane.

Figure 1. Element Array in the X–Z plane.
The AF is expressed as:
The AF is expressed as:
Ne
AF (el, az) = ∑ In ( xn , zn )e− jk{ xn cos (el ) sin(az)+zn sin (el )} (2)
𝐴𝐹 (𝑒𝑙, 𝑎𝑧) =n=1 𝐼 (𝑥 , 𝑧 )𝑒 { ( ) ( ) ( )} (2)
where xn , zn are the element positions on the X–Z plane, In is the excitation coefficients, Ne
where 𝑥 , 𝑧 are
is the number of elements,
the element and k is the wave
positions X–Z plane, 𝐼 is the excitation coefficients,
on thenumber.
𝑁 isWhen scanning,
the number an additional
of elements, and 𝑘phase
is thewill be added
wave number. to In as follows:
When scanning, an additional phase will be added to 𝐼 as follows:
In ( xn , zn ) = Wn ( xn , zn )e− jk{ xn cos (el0 ) sin (az0 )+zn sin (el0 )} (3)
𝐼𝑛 (𝑥𝑛 , 𝑧𝑛 ) = 𝑊𝑛 (𝑥𝑛 , 𝑧𝑛 )𝑒−𝑗𝑘{𝑥𝑛 cos(𝑒𝑙0 ) sin(𝑎𝑧0 )+𝑧𝑛 sin(𝑒𝑙0 )} (3)
where 𝑊
where Wn isis the
theelement
elementtapering
taperingand and𝑎𝑧az, 0𝑒𝑙
, elexpresses
0 expresses thethe scanned
scanned direction
direction in az-
in the the
azimuth and elevation, correspondingly. Substituting Equation (3) for (2) we get:
imuth and elevation, correspondingly. Substituting Equation (3) for (2) we get:
Ne

𝐴𝐹 (𝑒𝑙, 𝑎𝑧) AF ) =, 𝑧∑)𝑒Wn ([ xn{ , zn()e)− jk([ xn {) cos (el( ) sin

= (el,𝑊az(𝑥 ) (
( az)−cos (el0 ) sin ( az0 )}+zn {sin (el )−sin (el0 )}]
)} { ( ) ( )}] (4)
(4)
n =1

The common element type used in PA is omni-directional, with a typical gain of

4–5 dB [23] for lower scan sensitivity and to avoid coupling effects. Therefore, the AP is
determined mostly by the AF and not by the EP, which is ideally isotropic. The known
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 4 of 23

array beamwidth approximation for an omni-directional, lossless, array-based antenna is

expressed as follows:
λ λ
θ3dB ≈ [rad] = 57 [deg] (5)
D D
The approximate relationship between the E-plane beamwidth BWE , the H-plane
beamwidth BWH , and a gain of a surface-wave antenna depends only on the array aperture,
according to the following equation [24]:

4πDx Dz ∼ 30000
G ∼
= 2 = (6)
λ BWE BWH

Assuming a one-dimensional azimuth scan and keeping the element spacing d as

0.75λ, we avoid GL in the desired scan of ± az = 20◦ —according to Equation (7) for an
omni-directional element-based array [25].

λ
d< (7)
1 + |sin( az)|

In this paper, we show that Equation (7) is not suitable for a directional-based array,
which could achieve better results in both gain and scanning aperture. The following
section will detail the key idea and the design algorithm for analyzing this.

2.2. Super Directive Array Design Algorithm

Since a restricted scan aperture is required, high antenna directivity is achievable-
improving the AF directivity by increasing the element spacing and broadening the scan
sector thanks to the element’s GL suppression. To find the parameters of the AF according
to the desired optimization goal of the AP, we use Equation (4), where Nx , Nz are the
number of elements on the z-axis and x-axis, correspondingly, and d x , dz are the element
spacing defined by d x = xn − xn−1 and dz = zn − zn−1 . While using a directional element
pattern in an antenna array, we can achieve both higher systems gain and an extended
scan aperture in comparison to a dipole array with the same geometry. This enhanced
performance is achieved thanks to the high element directivity and the GL suppression,
which allow for increases in the AF directivity by increasing element distancing. The flow
chart in Figure 2a shows an algorithm for designing a super-directive array according to
the system design goals. Figure 2b,c show an example of designing a directive array with a
10◦ azimuth scan while meeting the design goal of a peak-to-sidelobe (PSL) larger than 10.
The selection of the design working point is dependent on the optimization goal and will
be detailed in Section 3.
Electronics 11, 2233
2022, 2022,
Electronics 11, 2233 5 of 26 5 of 23

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 6 of 26

(a)
Array Pattern AF ElementGain
0

-5

-10
abs(AF)/max(AF)

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

°
(b) (c)
Figure 2. (a) Flow chart of a super-directive array design; (b) Yagi–Uda element and AF with a 10°
Figure 2. (a) Flow chart of a super-directive array design; (b) Yagi–Uda element and AF with a 10◦
azimuth scan; (c) Azimuth array pattern based on a Yagi–Uda element with a 10° azimuth scan.
azimuth scan; (c) Azimuth array pattern based on a Yagi–Uda element with a 10◦ azimuth scan.
3. Yagi–Uda Array Element
The selected element type was a Yagi–Uda antenna due to its high directivity, high
efficiency, narrow band demand adequate for the PA and radar limitations, and an End-
Fire radiation pattern for unified module realization. The procedure of the Yagi–Uda an-
 -45

-50
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

°
(b) (c)
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 6 of 23
Figure 2. (a) Flow chart of a super-directive array design; (b) Yagi–Uda element and AF with a 10°
azimuth scan; (c) Azimuth array pattern based on a Yagi–Uda element with a 10° azimuth scan.

3. Yagi–Uda Array Element

The selected element type was a Yagi–Uda antenna due to its high directivity, high
efficiency,
efficiency,narrow
narrowband
banddemand
demandadequate
adequate forfor
thethePAPAand radar
and limitations,
radar andand
limitations, an End-Fire
an End-
radiation pattern
Fire radiation for unified
pattern module
for unified realization.
module The procedure
realization. The procedure of theofYagi–Uda antenna
the Yagi–Uda an-
design included a microstrip dipole pre-design with the further addition
tenna design included a microstrip dipole pre-design with the further addition of direc- of directors for
optimal performance in terms of the Return Loss, directivity, and a beamwidth
tors for optimal performance in terms of the Return Loss, directivity, and a beamwidth matching
a 40 degree ±20 ◦ scan range. The microwave design method consisted of quarter wave
matching a 40 degree ±20° scan range. The microwave design method consisted of quar-
matching with driver-
ter wave matching withand director-tuning
driver- optimization,
and director-tuning meeting the
optimization, bandwidth
meeting demand.
the bandwidth
This implementation
demand. method utilized
This implementation methodthe efficient
utilized thedesign
efficientof adesign
balun-fed network to
of a balun-fed reduce
network
the element size by eliminating the needs of the RF-splitter and 180 ◦ PS, as well as to
to reduce the element size by eliminating the needs of the RF-splitter and 180° PS, as well
reduce the transmission
as to reduce line losses
the transmission line and errors
losses and from
errors thefrom
PS corners. The antipodal
the PS corners. antenna
The antipodal
implemented the dipole on two different microstrip layers-both
antenna implemented the dipole on two different microstrip layers—both on the top on the top and on and
the
bottom-achieving high isolation between the left and right parts of the dipole
on the bottom—achieving high isolation between the left and right parts of the dipole and and providing
another
providingdesign optimization
another parameter,parameter,
design optimization as shown inasFigure shown3.in Figure 3.

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 7 of 26

(a)

(b) (c)
Figure 3. (a) One-sided dipole antenna implementation fed by Phase Shifter and Splitter microwave
Figure 3. (a) One-sided dipole antenna implementation fed by Phase Shifter and Splitter microwave
components; (b) Top views of an antipodal dipole antenna without splitter and phase shifter com-
components; (b) Top views of an antipodal dipole antenna without splitter and phase shifter compo-
ponents; (c) Bottom view of the antipodal dipole antenna including a rectangular ground.
nents; (c) Bottom view of the antipodal dipole antenna including a rectangular ground.
TheThe
antenna’s system
antenna’s design
system requirements
design are are
requirements shown in Table
shown 1: 1:
in Table
Table 1. System Design Requirement.

Denotation Symbol Value

Operating frequency fo 2.4 GHz
Beamwidth Az/El BW Az = 12.5 deg; El = 18 deg;
Scan aperture 𝜃 < 40 deg
Directivity D 20 dB
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 7 of 23

Table 1. System Design Requirement.

Denotation Symbol Value

Operating frequency fo 2.4 GHz
Beamwidth Az/El BW Az = 12.5 deg; El = 18 deg;
Scan aperture θ <40 deg
Directivity D 20 dB
Bandwidth B 200 MHz
Side lobe level SLL <−10 dB
Element number in Azimuth Nx 4
Element number in Elevation Nz 4

3.1. Typical Element

The element’s design requirements are shown in Table 2:
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 8 of 26
Table 2. Element Design Requirement.

DenotationTable 3. Dipole results. Symbol Value

Operating frequency Denotation fo Symbol Value
2.4 GHz
Dielectric substrate50 ohms transition Line er FR4—4.3
L_50_ohms 5 mm
Thickness length t 0.035 mm
50 ohms transition Line h_sub
Height of the dielectric substrate 1 mm
W_50_ohms 1.9 mm
width
Return loss S11 <−15 dB
Rectangular ground width W_ground 35 mm
Impedance of the antenna dipole 73 Ohms
Quarter wave transformer
Directivity D L_quarter 24.25
9 mm
length
Beamwidth Quarter wave transformer BW 60 deg
W_quarter 0.6 mm
width
Dipole width W_driver 0.6 mm
The dipole pre-designHalf antenna simulation usingL_driver
Dipole length CST software achieved the
25.77 mmresults in
Figure 4 with the parameters that is shown in Table 3.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 4. (a) Return Loss magnitude; (b) Far-Field 3D pattern of dipole antenna; (c) 2D Far-Field
Figure 4. (a) Return Loss magnitude;
azimuth (b)
view; (d) 2D Far-Field
Far-Field 3Dview.
elevation pattern of dipole antenna; (c) 2D Far-Field
azimuth view; (d) 2D Far-Field elevation view.
3.2. Directive Element
The design of the 3D super-directive antenna included multi-objective optimization,
finding that the parameter set in Table 4 and Figure 5 brought the desired directivity,
Return Loss, and Beamwidth according to the design requirements.
 Table 4. Yagi–Uda Results.

Parameter Symbol Value

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 8 of 23
50 ohms transition line
L_50_ohms 5 mm
length
50 ohms transition line width W_50_ohms 1.9 mm
Table 3. Dipole results.
Rectangular ground width W_ground 35 mm
Quarter wave transformer
Denotation Symbol Value
L_quarter 26 mm
length
50 ohms transition Line length L_50_ohms 5 mm
Quarter wave
50 ohms transformer
transition Line width W_50_ohms 1.9 mm
Rectangular W_quarter 0.8 mm
width ground width W_ground 35 mm
Quarter wave transformer length L_quarter 24.25 mm
Dipole width W_driver 0.8 mm
Quarter wave transformer width W_quarter 0.6 mm
Half dipole length
Dipole width L_driver
W_driver 25.8 mm0.6 mm
Substrate widthlength
Half Dipole W_subL_driver 60 mm
25.77 mm
Substrate length L_sub 120 mm
DirectorElement
3.2. Directive width W_director 0.6 mm
Director width L_director
The design of the 3D super-directive antenna included multi-objective39 optimization,
finding that the parameter set in Table 4 and Figure 5 brought the desired27
Director distance D_directors directivity, Return
Number
Loss, of directorsaccording to the
and Beamwidth #Directors
design requirements. 3

(a)

(b)
Figure 5. (a)
Figure Yagi–Uda
5. (a) element—Top
Yagi–Uda view.;
element—Top (b)(b)
view.; Yagi–Uda element—Bottom
Yagi–Uda view.
element—Bottom view.

Simulating with high dense meshing on the conductors, we obtained the results in
Figure 6:
From the cartesian plots, we see that the peak-to-sidelobe (PSL) ratio in the azimuth
axis was ~25 dB, which was much higher than the elevation’s PSL of ~10 dB. Consequently,
further GL suppression by the element is possible in the azimuth axis, and thus, higher
distancing between elements in this direction is also possible.
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 9 of 23

Table 4. Yagi–Uda Results.

Parameter Symbol Value

50 ohms transition line length L_50_ohms 5 mm
50 ohms transition line width W_50_ohms 1.9 mm
Rectangular ground width W_ground 35 mm
Quarter wave transformer length L_quarter 26 mm
Quarter wave transformer width W_quarter 0.8 mm
Dipole width W_driver 0.8 mm
Half dipole length L_driver 25.8 mm
Substrate width W_sub 60 mm
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 Substrate length L_sub 120 mm 10 of 26
Director width W_director 0.6 mm
Director width L_director 39
Director distance D_directors 27
Simulating
Number ofwith high dense meshing
directors on#Directors
the conductors, we obtained the 3results in
Figure 6:

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 6. (a) Return Loss; (b) Farfield plot of the Yagi–Uda antenna; (c) Elevation Farfield directivity
Figure 6. (a) Return Loss; (b) Farfield plot of the Yagi–Uda antenna; (c) Elevation Farfield directivity
(polar view); (d) Elevation Farfield directivity (cartesian view); (e) Azimuth Farfield directivity
(polar view);
(polar view);(d)
(f)Elevation Farfielddirectivity
Azimuth Farfield directivity(cartesian
(cartesianview).
view); (e) Azimuth Farfield directivity (polar
view); (f) Azimuth Farfield directivity (cartesian view).
From the cartesian plots, we see that the peak-to-sidelobe (PSL) ratio in the azimuth
axis was ~25 dB, which was much higher than the elevation’s PSL of ~10 dB. Consequently,
further GL suppression by the element is possible in the azimuth axis, and thus, higher
distancing between elements in this direction is also possible.

3.3. Element Measurement

3.3.1. Coupling Measurements
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 10 of 23

3.3. Element Measurement

3.3.1. Coupling Measurements
Mutual coupling between elements in an antenna’s array is an undesired physical
phenomenon that is difficult to analytically observe. The coupling of a typical dipole
depends on various parameters such as impedance matching and directivity degradation,
which are exponentially affected by the element distances [7] and are severely impaired
when scanning. Further distancing of the elements due to the element pattern results in the
major accomplishment of reductions in undesired coupling.
For estimating the coupling, we built a test model of a Yagi–Uda antenna [26] with
a similar gain and beamwidth (but different line widths as a PCB was not used) and
measured its mutual coupling (S21) using a Network Analyzer in both the vertical and
horizontal positions. From the measured results of the following setups, shown in Table 5
and Figure 7, we could infer that the adjacent elements distanced above 1.5λ had neglected
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 mutual influences (<−30 dB). 11 of 26

Table 5. Yagi–Uda coupling measurements between adjacent elements (S12) in the vertical and
Mutual coupling between elements in an antenna’s array is an undesired physical
horizontal positions.
phenomenon that is difficult to analytically observe. The coupling of a typical dipole de-
pends on various
Element’s parameters such as impedance
Distance Vertical matching and directivity degradation,
Horizontal
which are exponentially affected by the element distances [7] and are severely impaired
0.58λ Further distancing of the−elements
when scanning. 18 dB due to the element pattern −22results
dB in
0.67λ
the major accomplishment of reductions in−19 dB
undesired coupling. −23 dB
estimating the coupling, we built−a21
For0.75λ dBmodel of a Yagi–Uda antenna
test −24
[26]dB
with a
similar 0.83λ
gain and beamwidth (but different −line
23 dBwidths as a PCB was not used)−26
anddBmeas-
ured its0.92λ −26 dB Analyzer in both the vertical
mutual coupling (S21) using a Network −29and
dB hori-
1.00λ
zontal positions. −26
From the measured results the following setups, shown in−Table
of dB 31 dB5 and
Figure 7, we could infer that the adjacent−elements
1.50λ 34 dB distanced above 1.5𝜆 had −44neglected
dB
mutual influences (< −30 𝑑𝐵).

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure Figure 7. (a) Coupling

7. (a) Coupling between
between two adjacent
two adjacent horizontal
horizontal elements;
elements; (b)(b) Couplingbetween
Coupling betweentwo
twoadjacent

verticaladjacent vertical
elements; (c)elements;
Coupling(c) Coupling
betweenbetween two adjacent
two adjacent horizontalelements
horizontal elements inin
2.42.4
GHz, 𝑑 =d = λ;
GHz, x
𝜆; (d) Coupling between two adjacent vertical elements in 2.4 GHz,
(d) Coupling between two adjacent vertical elements in 2.4 GHz, dz = 0.7λ. 𝑑 = 0.7𝜆

Table 5. Yagi–Uda coupling measurements between adjacent elements (S12) in the vertical and hor-
izontal positions.

Element’s Distance Vertical Horizontal

0.58𝜆 −18 dB −22 dB
 Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 12 of 26

1. 00𝜆 −26 dB −31 dB

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 1.50𝜆 −34 dB −44 dB 11 of 23

3.3.2.
3.3.2. GainGain
andand Beamwidth
Beamwidth Measurements
Measurements
WeWe measured
measured the the antenna’s
antenna’s element
element gaingain in the
in the Farfield
Farfield Chamber
Chamber andand computed
computed the the
antenna’s gain and bandwidths. The measurements
antenna’s gain and bandwidths. The measurements were were performed with
with the MiDAStool
the MiDAS
tool[27]
[27]and
and compared
compared to aa reference
referenceantenna.
antenna.Corresponding
CorrespondingtotothetheRFRF simulation,
simulation, thethe
achieved
achieved results
results of the
of the directional
directional antenna
antenna hadhad a larger
a larger directivity
directivity 5 𝑑𝐵
of 5ofdB in both
in both thethe
azimuth
azimuth andand elevation
elevation as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure 8. 8.

(a)
Yagi Yagi

Dipole Dipole

(b) (c)
Figure
Figure 8. Farfield
8. (a) (a) Farfield antenna
antenna measurement
measurement setupsetup (b) Horizontal
(b) Horizontal gain measurements
gain measurements of the Yagi–
of the Yagi–Uda
Uda and dipole element; (c) Elevation gain measurements of the Yagi–Uda and dipole element.
and dipole element; (c) Elevation gain measurements of the Yagi–Uda and dipole element.

3.4.3.4. Algorithm
Algorithm for the
for the Array
Array Pattern
Pattern Simulation
Simulation
Taking
Taking the the antenna’s
antenna’s element
element pattern
pattern results
results fromfrom CST, CST, andand assuming
assuming no no coupling,
coupling,
we we simulated
simulated forfor
thethe super-directivity
super-directivity domain
domain az0 , el0, ,𝑒𝑙d x,, 𝑑dz ,)𝑑that
D (𝐷(𝑎𝑧 ) that would
would meet
meet thethe
sys-sys-
temtem requirement
requirement PSL𝑃𝑆𝐿
of of >> M M𝑑𝐵, whereMMisisaasystematic
dB, where systematic parameter requirement. The Thefol-
lowingscheme
following schemein inFigure
Figure99was
wasachieved
achievedforforthe
thesimulation
simulationof ofaa2-dimensional
2-dimensionaldomain
domain of
of the
thedesigned
designeddipoledipoleandandYagi–Uda
Yagi–Udaelements.
elements.According
According toto thethe graph,
graph, wewecancan
seesee
thatthat
a a
typical phased
typical phasedarray, based
array, on aondipole
based antenna
a dipole antennawith dx =
with 𝑑 λ/2, = 𝜆/2, hashas
a wider scan
a wider aperture
scan aperture
than a Yagi–Uda
than a Yagi–Uda antenna at point
antenna A, due
at point to the
A, due Yagi–Uda
to the Yagi–Uda pattern.
pattern. However,
However,at point
at pointB, B,
d x =𝑑 λ,=the ◦ —thanks to the GL
where
where 𝜆, directional antenna
the directional had an
antenna hadability to scan
an ability toup scanto ± up35to ±35°—thanks to the
suppression by the directive
GL suppression element element
by the directive pattern, where
pattern,thewhere
dipolethe antenna
dipolehas no possibility
antenna of
has no possi-
scanning. When d
bility of scanning. x = When 𝑑 = 1.4𝜆 (point C), we achieved the largest azimuth gain of the
1.4λ (point C), we achieved the largest azimuth gain of the Yagi–Uda
array-with the maximum azimuth gain according to Equation (6)—at the expense of the
possibility of having no scan benefits.
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 13 of 26

Yagi–Uda array—with the maximum azimuth gain according to Equation (6)—at the ex-
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 12 of 23
pense of the possibility of having no scan benefits.

Figure 9. Element Array in X–Z plane; A—Dipole Array with d = 0.5λ; B—Yagi-Uda array with
Figure 9. Element Array in X–Z plane; A—Dipole Array with x𝑑 = 0.5𝜆; B—Yagi-Uda array with
d = 1λ; C—Yagi-Uda array with d = 1.4λ; D—The super-directivity domain.
𝑑 x = 1𝜆; C—Yagi-Uda array with x𝑑 = 1.4𝜆; D—The super-directivity domain
The presented paper compared the performances of an equivalent Yagi–Uda array
The presented
and dipole paper compared
array, elaborating the performances
on the electromagnetic of an equivalent
simulations Yagi–Uda
and measurements array
with
and dipole array, elaborating on the electromagnetic
d x = λ (point B), to show both gain and scan benefits. simulations and measurements with
𝑑 = 𝜆 (point B), to show both gain and scan benefits.
4. Three-Dimensional Active Electronic Scanned Array Simulations
4. Three-Dimensional
4.1. Active
Array Factor and Array Electronic
Pattern Scanned Array Simulations
Simulations
AF is Factor
4.1. Array a mathematical
and Arrayrepresentation of the array gain constructed only by the element’s
Pattern Simulations
phase superposition, which is affected by the element’s geometric position. In a standard
AF is a mathematical representation of the array gain constructed only by the ele-
AESA, the AF is the critical component that determines the array performance due to its
ment’s phase superposition, which is affected by the element’s geometric position. In a
omni-directional element pattern. Unlike in usual cases, our Yagi–Uda element pattern had
standard AESA, the AF is the critical component that determines the array performance
directivity, and thus, this had to be taken into consideration. The full antenna’s AP was
due to its omni-directional
a product element
of the electromagnetic pattern.
element Unlike in
simulation usual
taken cases,
from CSTour
andYagi–Uda
the MATLABelement
pattern
simulation of the AF. Simulating an array of a 4 × 4 horizontal dipole (Figure 10) andfull
had directivity, and thus, this had to be taken into consideration. The the an-
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 tenna’s AP was a product of the electromagnetic element simulation taken 14 of
from CST26 and
Yagi elements (Figure 11) with dx = λ, dz = 0.7λ, we obtained the following results for the
the
AF MATLAB
and AP forsimulation of theofAF.
azimuth angles Simulating
0, 10, and 15. an array of a 4 × 4 horizontal dipole (Figure
10) and the Yagi elements (Figure 11) with 𝑑𝑥 = 𝜆, 𝑑𝑧 = 0.7𝜆, we obtained the following
results for the AF and AP for azimuth angles of 0, 10, and 15.
abs(AF)/max (AF)

abs(AF)/max (AF)

(a) (b)
Array Pattern AF ElementGain
Figure 10. Cont. 0
X X
-5 Y Y

-10
/max (AF)

-15

-20

-25
 abs(
abs(
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 13 of 23

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233  (a) (b) 14  of  26 

 
Array Pattern AF ElementGain
0
X X
-5 Y Y

-10
abs(AF)/max (AF)

-15

-20
abs(AF)/max (AF)

abs(AF)/max (AF)
-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

°
(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 10. 10.
(a)(a) Azimuth
Azimuth AFAF andElement
and ElementPattern
Patternof
ofaadipole
dipole array
array without
without scanning;
scanning;(b)
(b)Azimuth
Azimuth
 
Array Pattern of a dipole array without scanning; (c) Azimuth AF and Element Pattern of a dipole  
Array Pattern of a dipole array without scanning; (c) Azimuth AF and
(a) array with azimuth scans of 5 degrees; (d) Azimuth Array Pattern of(b)  Element Pattern of a dipole
a Yagi–Uda array with azimuth
array with azimuth
scans of 5 degrees. scans of 5 degrees; (d) Azimuth Array Pattern of a Yagi–Uda array with azimuth
 
scans of 5 degrees.
Array Pattern AF ElementGain
0 Array Pattern AF ElementGain
0
-5
-5
-10
abs(AF)/max (AF)

-10
abs(AF)/max (AF)

-15
-15
-20
-20
-25
-25
-30

-30
-35

-35
-40

-40
-45

-45
-50
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-50
-80 -60 -40 -20 °0 20 40 60 80
(a)
 
(b) °  
(a)  (b) 
Array Pattern AF ElementGain
0

-5

-10
abs(AF)/max (AF)

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

  °  
(c)  (d) 

Figure 11. Cont.

 Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 15 ofof 2326 
14
 

Array Pattern AF ElementGain

0

-5

-10
abs(AF)/max (AF)

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

  °  
(e)  (f) 
Figure 11. (a) Azimuth AF and Element Pattern of a Yagi–Uda array without scanning; (b) Azimuth 
Figure 11. (a) Azimuth AF and Element Pattern of a Yagi–Uda array without scanning; (b) Azimuth
Array Pattern of a Yagi–Uda array without scanning; (c) Azimuth AF and Element Pattern of a Yagi–
Array Pattern of a Yagi–Uda array without scanning; (c) Azimuth AF and Element Pattern of a
Uda array with azimuth scans of 10 degrees; (d) Azimuth Array Pattern of a Yagi–Uda array with 
Yagi–Uda array with azimuth scans of 10 degrees; (d) Azimuth Array Pattern of a Yagi–Uda array
azimuth scans of 10 degrees; (e) Azimuth AF and Element Pattern of a Yagi–Uda array with azimuth 
with azimuth
scans  scans of 10
of  15  degrees;  (f) degrees;
Azimuth  (e)Array 
Azimuth AF of 
Pattern  anda Element Pattern
Yagi–Uda  array of a Yagi–Uda
with  azimuth array
scans with
of  15 
azimuth scans of 15 degrees; (f) Azimuth Array Pattern of a Yagi–Uda array with azimuth scans of
degrees. 
15 degrees.
We can see that in the same geometry, scanning with the dipole array was impossible 
We can see that in the same geometry, scanning with the dipole array was impossible
due to its having a PSL that is lower than that required, while the Yagi–Uda array had a 
due to its having a PSL that
scanning possibility of  is lower than that required, while the Yagi–Uda array had a
15°. It should be noted that the azimuth was focused due to the 
scanning possibility of ± 15 ◦ . It should be noted that the azimuth was focused due to the
large element distance. 
large element distance.
4.2. Dipole and Yagi–Uda Array Electromagnetic Simulations 
4.2. Dipole and Yagi–Uda Array Electromagnetic Simulations
Setting the 2‐dimensional element spacing to  𝑑𝑥 𝜆 and  𝑑𝑧 0.7𝜆  and simulating 
Setting the 2-dimensional element spacing to dx = λ and dz = 0.7λ and simulating a
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 a dipole array of 4 × 4 elements in CST, we obtained the realized gain and the bandwidths 
16 of 26
dipole array of 4 × 4 elements in CST, we obtained the realized gain and the bandwidths
for the azimuth and elevation (Figures 12 and 13). 
for the azimuth and elevation (Figures 12 and 13).

 
 
(a)  (b) 
(a) (b)
Figure 12. (a) Array of a 4 × 4 dipole element; (b) Element pattern within an array of 4 × 4 dipole 
elements. 
Figure 12. (a) Array of a 4 × 4 dipole element; (b) Element pattern within an array of 4 × 4 dipole
Figure 12. (a) Array of a 4 × 4 dipole element; (b) Element pattern within an array of 4 × 4
elements.
dipole elements.  
Calculating the gain of the 4 × 4 dipole array according to the approximation in
Equation (8) for the omni-directional array, we get:

30000 30000
G∼
= = ∼ 18.3 dBi (8)
BWE BWH 17.4◦ ·25.4◦

 
 (a) (b)
Figure 12. (a) Array of a 4 × 4 dipole element; (b) Element pattern within an array of 4 × 4 dipole
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 elements. 15 of 23

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 17 of 26

(a)

(b)
Figure 13. (a) Array pattern of 4 × 4 dipole elements—Azimuth’s cartesian view; (b) Array pattern
Figure 13. (a) Array pattern of 4 × 4 dipole elements—Azimuth’s cartesian view; (b) Array pattern
of 4 × 4 dipole elements—Elevation’s cartesian view.
of 4 × 4 dipole elements—Elevation’s cartesian view.
Calculating the gain of the 4 × 4 dipole array according to the approximation in Equa-
tion (8) for the omni-directional array, we get:
30000 30000
𝐺≅ = ~18.3𝑑𝐵𝑖 (8)
𝐵𝑊 𝐵𝑊 17.4° ∙ 25.4°
Setting the two-dimensional element spacing to 𝑑𝑥 = 𝜆 and 𝑑𝑧 = 0.7𝜆 and simulat-
ing the entire Yagi–Uda array with 4 × 4 elements in CST, we obtain the results in Figures
14 and 15. The results in Figure 14c show a directivity improvement in a single dipole
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 16 of 23

Setting the two-dimensional element spacing to dx = λ and dz = 0.7λ and sim-

ulating the entire Yagi–Uda array with 4 × 4 elements in CST, we obtain the results
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 in Figures 14 and 15. The results in Figure 14c show a directivity improvement in18a of
single
26
dipole element from ~5 dB (Figure 12b) to 8.5 dB, taking into account the coupling.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 14.14.
(a)(a) Array
Array ofof4 4××44Yagi–Uda
Yagi–Uda elements—Top
elements—Top view;
view; (b)
(b)Element
Elementpattern
patternwithin
withinanan
array of of
array
4 × 4 Yagi-Uda elements—Back view; (c) Element pattern within an array of 4 × 4 Yagi-Uda
4 × 4 Yagi-Uda elements—Back view; (c) Element pattern within an array of 4 × 4 Yagi-Uda elements—
elements—Front view; (d) Element pattern inside an array of 4 × 4 Yagi-Uda element—Top mesh
Front view; (d) Element pattern inside an array of 4 × 4 Yagi-Uda element—Top mesh view.
view.

As we can see in Figure 15, the array pattern of the entire super-directivity antenna
achieved the desired requirement of azimuth angular width of 12.5 degrees and elevation
angular width of 18 degrees. Calculating the gain of the 4 × 4 Yagi–Uda array according to
the approximation in Equation (9), we obtained a 2.5 dB-larger gain:

30000 30000
G∼
= = ∼ 21 dBi (9)
BWE BWH 12.6◦ ·17.7◦
 (c) (d)
Figure 14. (a) Array of 4 × 4 Yagi–Uda elements—Top view; (b) Element pattern within an array of
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 17 of 23
4 × 4 Yagi-Uda elements—Back view; (c) Element pattern within an array of 4 × 4 Yagi-Uda ele-
ments—Front view; (d) Element pattern inside an array of 4 × 4 Yagi-Uda element—Top mesh view.

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 19 of 26

(a)

(b)

Figure 15. Cont.

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 20 of 26
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 18 of 23

(c)
Figure 15. (a) Array pattern of 4 × 4 Yagi–Uda elements—3D view (Gain, Realized gain); (b) Array
Figure 15. (a) Array pattern of 4 × 4 Yagi–Uda elements—3D view (Gain, Realized gain); (b) Array
pattern of 4 × 4 Yagi–Uda elements—Azimuth’s cartesian view; (c) Array pattern of 4 × 4 Yagi–Uda
pattern of 4 × 4 Yagi–Uda elements—Azimuth’s cartesian view; (c) Array pattern of 4 × 4 Yagi–Uda
elements—Elevation’s cartesian view.
elements—Elevation’s cartesian view.
As we can see in Figure
5. Three-Dimensional Active15, the arrayScanned
Electronic pattern Array
of the Measurements
entire super-directivity antenna
achieved the desired requirement of azimuth angular width
5.1. Dipole Array vs. Yagi–Uda Array Measurement without Scanning of 12.5 degrees and elevation
angular width of 18 degrees. Calculating the gain of the 4 × 4 Yagi–Uda array according
For validating the above simulations, we constructed the entire phased array antenna
to the approximation in Equation (9), we obtained a 2.5 dB-larger gain:
consisting of the 4 × 4 antenna’s elements and measured it in a Farfield chamber, as shown
in Figure 14a. The tested antennas were 30000 30000and dipole, as shown in Figure 14b,c,
both Yagi–Uda
𝐺≅ = ~21𝑑𝐵𝑖 (9)
and had the same geometrics as 𝐵𝑊 𝐵𝑊 above
simulated 12.6°for
∙ 17.7°
the purpose of comparisons.
The theoretical array’s directivity limit is discussed in [28], showing the relationship
between the directivity, side lobes, and the array spacing. An analysis of the Linear
5. Three-Dimensional Active Electronic Scanned Array Measurements
Modified Yagi–Uda array is shown in [29], using four commercial off-the-shelf antennas
5.1.
and Dipole Arraytheir
optimizing Vs. Yagi–Uda
radiationArray
patternMeasurement
synthesis towithout Scanning
maximize the main lobe by modifying
theirFor validating
topology. the2D
This above
UHFsimulations,
array achievedwe constructed the entire
low directivity phased array
in comparison toantenna
our 3D
consisting of the array.
super-directive 4 × 4 antenna’s elements
Comparing and measured
the directivity it inYagi–Uda
of the a Farfieldarray
chamber, as shown
to the dipole
in Figure
array 14a. The
in Figure 16d,tested antennas were
an improvement both
of 2.5 dBYagi–Uda and dipole,
was achieved, which isascomparable
shown in Figure
to the
14b,c, and had the
electromagnetic same geometrics as simulated above for the purpose of comparisons.
simulation.

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233
between the directivity, side lobes, and the array spacing. An analysis of the Linear Mod-
ified Yagi–Uda array is shown in [29], using four commercial off-the-shelf antennas and
optimizing their radiation pattern synthesis to maximize the main lobe by modifying their
topology. This 2D UHF array achieved low directivity in comparison to our 3D super-
directive array. Comparing the directivity of the Yagi–Uda array to the dipole array 19 ofin
23
Figure 16d, an improvement of 2.5 dB was achieved, which is comparable to the electro-
magnetic simulation.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 16.
16. (a)
(a) Farfield
Farfield antenna
antenna measurement setup; (b)
measurement setup; (b) Full
Full 44 ×
× 44Yagi
Yagi array;
array; (c)
(c) Full
Full 44 ××44Yagi
Yagiarray;
array;
(d) Pattern 4 × 4 array of Yagi elements vs dipole elements and reference antenna without scanning
(d) Pattern 4 × 4 array of Yagi elements vs. dipole elements and reference antenna without scanning
at 2.4 GHz.
at 2.4 GHz.
5.2.
5.2. Dipole
Dipole Array
Array Vs.
vs. Yagi–Uda Array Measurements
Yagi–Uda Array Measurements withwith Scanning
Scanning
Testing
Testing the above array
the above array over
over several
several frequencies
frequencies andand with
with azimuth/elevation
azimuth/elevation scans,scans,
we
we obtained
obtained the
the bandwidth
bandwidth and and spatial
spatial gain
gain performances
performances of of five
five beams
beams forfor the
the azimuth
azimuth
and
and elevation.
elevation.The
Thescans
scansofof0°,0◦±10°,
, ±10±20°
◦ , ±20in◦the
in azimuth
the azimuth 0°, ±14°,
and and 0◦ , ±±28°
14◦ , ±in28 ◦ in ele-
elevation
were
vation implemented by linearbyphase
were implemented linearshifting with delay
phase shifting withlines andlines
delay the constructing architec-
and the constructing
ture of the vertical and horizontal feeding networks, as displayed in Figure
architecture of the vertical and horizontal feeding networks, as displayed in Figure 17a,b. 17a,b. The
measured results displayed in Figure 17c,d show the impossibility of
The measured results displayed in Figure 17c,d show the impossibility of scanning with scanning with the
dipole due due
the dipole to itstolow PSL—whereas
its low PSL—whereas scanning is possible
scanning withwith
is possible the the
Yagi–Uda
Yagi–Uda array, as
array,
displayed
as displayedin Figure
in Figure17e,f, as itasmeets
17e,f, the the
it meets requirement
requirement of 𝑃𝑆𝐿 > 10>𝑑𝐵,
of PSL 10 thanks to the
dB, thanks toele-
the
ment’s
element’sGLGLsuppression.
suppression.
In addition, the average measured gain of the directional array scanned beams is
greater by 2.5 dB than that of the dipole array, as displayed in Figure 17e,f.

5.3. Efficiency
The losses in the system consisted of the PCB’s dielectric loss of 0.5 dB and 2 dB in the
antenna. The matching loss (return loss) was negligible as the antenna was matched.
Comparing the evaluated directivity based on the measured gain with the theoretical
directivity, we obtained the following efficiency results, in Table 6, for each antenna type
for both the azimuth and elevation.
 Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 22 of 26

Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 In addition, the average measured gain of the directional array scanned beams20isof 23
greater by 2.5 dB than that of the dipole array, as displayed in Figure 17e,f.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 17. Cont.

Electronics 2022,
Electronics 2022, 11,
11, 2233
2233 23
21 of 26
of 23

(g) (h)
Figure 17.
Figure 17. (a)
(a) Azimuth
Azimuthfeed
feednetwork
networksetup;
setup;(b)
(b)Elevation
Elevationfeed
feednetwork
networksetup; (c)(c)
setup; Azimuth
Azimuthgain of
gain
dipole array with azimuth scanning; (d) Elevation gain of dipole array with elevation scanning; (e)
of dipole array with azimuth scanning; (d) Elevation gain of dipole array with elevation scanning;
Azimuth gain of the Yagi–Uda array with azimuth scanning; (f) Elevation gain of the Yagi–Uda
(e) Azimuth gain of the Yagi–Uda array with azimuth scanning; (f) Elevation gain of the Yagi–Uda
array with elevation scanning; (g) Azimuth gain comparison of the Yagi–Uda and dipole arrays at
array with
2.3 GHz elevation
with scanning;
scanning; (g) Azimuth
(h) Azimuth gain comparison
gain comparison of theofYagi–Uda
the Yagi–Uda and dipole
and dipole arrays
arrays at
at 2.45
2.3
GHz GHz with
with scanning; (h) Azimuth gain comparison of the Yagi–Uda and dipole arrays at 2.45 GHz
scanning.
with scanning.
5.3. Efficiency
Table 6. Array efficiencies.
The losses in the system consisted of the PCB’s dielectric loss of 0.5 dB and 2 dB in
the antenna. The matching loss (return
Measuredloss) wasMeasured
negligible as the antenna was matched.
Antenna Type Az/El Directivity D0 = 4πA/λ2 η Aperture
Gain
Comparing the evaluated directivity based(Gain on the measured gain with the theoretical
+ Loss)
directivity,
Dipole
we obtained
Azimuth
the following efficiency results,
15.5 dBi 17.5 dBi
in Table20.3
6, dBi
for each antenna
−3 dB type
for both the azimuth
Dipole and elevation.15 dBi
Elevation 17 dBi 20.3 dBi −3.3 dB
Yagi–Uda Azimuth 17.3 dB 19.3 dBi 20.1 dBi −0.8 dB
Yagi–Uda Elevation 17.3 dB 19.3 dBi 20.1 dBi −0.8 dB
Table 6. Array efficiencies.

As we can see, the efficiency Measured

of the Yagi–Uda array was superior than that of the dipole
Antenna Measured
array Az/El
and corresponded to the results Directivity D0 = 4πA/λ² η Aperture
Type Gain of the CST simulation, where the difference between
(Gain
the gain and the realized gain in Figure 15a was ~1 dB. + Loss)
Dipole Azimuth 15.5 dBi 17.5 dBi 20.3 dBi −3 dB
6. Discussion
Dipole and Conclusions15 dBi
Elevation 17 dBi 20.3 dBi −3.3 dB
In this paper,
Yagi–Uda a design approach
Azimuth 17.3 dBand the implementation
19.3 dBi of a super-directive
20.1 dBi −0.8antenna
dB
array was presented.
Yagi–Uda Elevation This type of
17.3 dB antenna is valuable
19.3 dBi in a restricted
20.1 dBi aperture
−0.8 dB for
scan
achieving a narrow antenna beam that increases the angular resolution and measurement
precision
As we of tracked
can see,targets and alsoof
the efficiency enlarges the detection
the Yagi–Uda arrayrange or, alternatively,
was superior than thatachieves
of the
the same
dipole performance
array with a lower
and corresponded to the number
results ofofthe
elements-meeting the goal
CST simulation, where theofdifference
low-cost
production.
between theThe gaindesign
and theof realized
the directional
gain inarray
Figurewas based
15a was on
~1 the
dB. Yagi–Uda microstrip PCB
and in both simulations and measurements showed a significant directivity improvement of
∼
6. 2.5 dB in comparison
Discussion to a dipole array with azimuth spacing of λ, as well as the possibility
and Conclusions
of scanning at ±20◦ with no GL. Some applications for the super-directive antenna could
In this paper, a design approach and the implementation of a super-directive antenna
be in radars for high-range performance, in wireless communication for high data rates,
array was presented. This type of antenna is valuable in a restricted aperture scan for
and also for wireless power transfer (WPT)-achieving high performance with much less
achieving a narrow antenna beam that increases the angular resolution and measurement
power. Remarkable improvements were achieved in radars due to the scanning needs and
precision of tracked targets and also enlarges the detection range or, alternatively,
the two-directional gains-both in the transmitter and receiving modes—which is equivalent
achieves the same performance with a lower number of elements—meeting the goal of
to enlarging the radar maximum range by 33%, the opportunity of the azimuth scan by 40◦ ,
low-cost production. The design of the directional array was based on the Yagi–Uda mi-
and resulting in three times less power according to the radar equation.
crostrip PCB and in both simulations and measurements showed a significant directivity
The design working point of a phased array system, exploiting the benefits of this
improvement of ~2.5 𝑑𝐵 in comparison to a dipole array with azimuth spacing of 𝜆, as
super directive antenna by both enlarging the scanning aperture and achieving higher
well as
gain, the possibility
should of scanning
take into account at ±20°ofwith
the tradeoff no GL. Some
the desired applications
scan coverage and,for the super-
consequently,
directive
choose the antenna
number ofcould be and
elements in optimized
radars for high-range
element performance,
places. The opportunityin wireless
of choosing
 and receiving modes—which is equivalent to enlarging the radar maximum range by
33%, the opportunity of the azimuth scan by 40°, and resulting in three times less power
according to the radar equation.
The design working point of a phased array system, exploiting the benefits of this
super directive antenna by both enlarging the scanning aperture and achieving higher
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 22 of 23
gain, should take into account the tradeoff of the desired scan coverage and, consequently,
choose the number of elements and optimized element places. The opportunity of choos-
ing the appropriate design for meeting these requirements provides a larger degree of
the appropriate
freedom, design
including in for
themeeting
numberthese requirements
of elements, providespower,
the element a larger degree
and of freedom,
unconventional
including
element spacing that is larger than the classical 𝑑 < | ( )|. Moreover, this element
in the number of elements, the element power, and unconventional design’s
λ
spacing that is larger than the classical d < 1+|sin ( az )|
. Moreover, this design’s architecture
architecture supports a combined module and antenna on a unified board thanks to the
supports a combined module and antenna on a unified board thanks to the End-Fire
End-Fire radiation pattern and its low-cost manufacturing, which should be evaluated.
radiation pattern and its low-cost manufacturing, which should be evaluated.
Superior super-directive results could probably be achieved using spacing of 2𝜆 and
Superior super-directive results could probably be achieved using spacing of 2λ and
implementing a MIMO radar technique for generating a uniform grid array spaced at 𝜆
implementing a MIMO radar technique for generating a uniform grid array spaced at
[30,31]. This virtual array was achieved using DBF [32] technology and equivalently du-
λ [30,31]. This virtual array was achieved using DBF [32] technology and equivalently du-
plicated the receivers, as shown in Figure 18, thanks to the significant reduction in unde-
plicated the receivers, as shown in Figure 18, thanks to the significant reduction in undesired
sired coupling, which strongly depends on spacing—as discussed and displayed in Figure
coupling, which strongly depends on spacing—as discussed and displayed in Figure 7.
7. Such a design could achieve very high directivity in separated radar architecture [15],
Such a design could achieve very high directivity in separated radar architecture [15],
especially for FMCW in automotive car radars.
especially for FMCW in automotive car radars.

Figure 18. Separated

Figure18. Separated radar
radar with
with MIMO
MIMO DBF
DBFvirtual
virtualarray
arrayduplication.
duplication.

AAchallenge
challengeforforthe
theradar
radarutilization
utilizationofofthe
thesuper-directive
super-directive concept
conceptin in
receiving
receivingmode
modeis
the GL presence in undesired directions. This can be solved by some processing
is the GL presence in undesired directions. This can be solved by some processing tech- techniques
including taperingtapering
niques including in transmission to improve
in transmission tothe sidelobes,
improve the suppressing undesired clutter
sidelobes, suppressing unde-
in the receiving mode with null. Other opportunities for utilizing this concept
sired clutter in the receiving mode with null. Other opportunities for utilizing this concept that should
be
thatexamined
should be include focusing
examined energy
include in theenergy
focusing near field using
in the nearelement phaseelement
field using optimization
phase
and using this design for implementing phased arrays in THz,
optimization and using this design for implementing phased arrays in THz, whichwhich better exploits the
better
sufficient needs of wider feed lines in comparison to patch antenna feed lines.
exploits the sufficient needs of wider feed lines in comparison to patch antenna feed lines.
Author Contributions: B.L. wrote and performed the simulations; B.L. and E.L. carried out the LAB
Author Contributions: B.L. wrote and performed the simulations; B.L., E.L. carried out the LAB
measurements;
measurements; B.L.
B.L.,and
Y.P.Y.P. conceived
conceived the theory;
the theory; B.L.,B.L.
Y.P.and Y.P.the
wrote wrote theAll
paper. paper. All have
authors authors
readhave
and
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This
Funding: This research
researchreceived
receivedno
noexternal
externalfunding.
funding
Data
DataAvailability Statement:All
AvailabilityStatement: Alldata
dataincluded
includedininthis
thisstudy are
study available
are upon
available request
upon by by
request contacting
contact-
the corresponding author.
ing the corresponding author.
Conflicts
Conflictsof Interest:The
ofInterest: Theauthors
authorsdeclare
declareno
noconflict
conflictofofinterest.
interest.

References
References
1. Brookner, E. Developments and breakthroughs in radars and phased-arrays. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Radar Conference
(RadarConf), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2–6 May 2016.
2. Buttazzoni, G.; Babich, F.; Vatta, F.; Comisso, M. Geometrical synthesis of sparse antenna arrays using compressive sensing for 5G
IoT applications. Sensors 2020, 20, 350. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Bocon, P.; McGree, T.; Renfro, J. Phased Array Performance Characteristics and Compliance with Satcom Military Standards. In
Proceedings of the MILCOM 2005—2005 IEEE Military Communications Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, USA, 17–20 October 2005.
4. Haupt, R. Phase-only adaptive nulling with a genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 1997, 45, 1009–1015. [CrossRef]
5. Cheston, T.C.; Frank, J. Phased Array Radar Antennas. In Radar Handbook, 2nd ed.; Skolnik, M.I., Ed.; McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA,
USA, 1990; pp. 7.1–7.36.
6. Hansen, R.C. Basic Array Characteristics. In Phased Array Antennas, 2nd ed.; Chang, K., Ed.; WILEY: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 7–40.
7. Singh, H.; Sneha, H.L.; Jha, R.M. Mutual coupling in phased arrays: A review. Int. J. Antennas Propag. 2013, 2013, 348123. [CrossRef]
8. Balanis, C.A. Arrays: Linear, planar, and circular. In Antenna Theory, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 266–270.
Electronics 2022, 11, 2233 23 of 23

9. Baktır, Y. Investigation of Superdirective Antenna Arrays. Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, 2009.
10. Dawoud, M.; Hassan, M. Design of superdirective endfire antenna arrays. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 1989, 37, 796–800. [CrossRef]
11. Tai, C. The optimum directivity of uniformly spaced broadside arrays of dipoles. IRE Trans. Antennas Propag. 1964, 12, 447–454. [CrossRef]
12. Eibert, T.F. Fundamentals of Antennas, Arrays, and Mobile Communications. In Antenna Engineering Handbook, 4th ed.;
Volakis, J.L., Ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 3–23.
13. Haskou, A.; Sharaiha, A.; Collardey, S. Design of Small Parasitic Loaded Superdirective End-Fire Antenna Arrays. IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag. 2015, 63, 5456–5464. [CrossRef]
14. Wideband Pattern Reconfigurable Printed-Yagi Antenna Array Based on Feed Structure. Available online: https://www.scielo.
br/j/jmoea/a/xYZNm9pH7kxF6FBbshzPv8L/?format=html (accessed on 1 July 2022).
15. Huizing, A.G. Scalable multifunction RF system: Combined vs. separate transmit and receive arrays. In Proceedings of the 2008
IEEE Radar Conference, Rome, Italy, 26–30 May 2008; pp. 1–6.
16. Cohen, D.; Cohen, D.; Eldar, Y.C. High resolution FDMA MIMO radar. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2019, 56, 2806–2822. [CrossRef]
17. Levanon, N. Radar Principles; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 4–5.
18. Kildal, P.S. Array antennas. In Foundation of antenna engineering; Kildal Antenn AB: Gothenburg, Swedan, 2015; pp. 346–348.
19. Elliott, R.S. The Design of Feeding Structures for Antenna Elements and Arrays. In Antenna Theory and Design; John Wiley & Sons:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 355–358.
20. Chen, G.-Y.; Sun, J.-S. A printed dipole antenna with microstrip tapered balun. Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett. 2004, 40, 344–346. [CrossRef]
21. Richards, M.A. Introduction to Radar Systems. In Fundamentals of Radar Signal Processing; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY,
USA, 2005; p. 16.
22. Collin, R.E. Antennas and Radiowave Propagation; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
23. Kaschel, H.; Ahumada, C. Design of Rectangular Microstrip Patch Antenna for 2.4 GHz applied a WBAN. In Proceedings
of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Automation/XXIII Congress of the Chilean Association of Automatic Control
(ICA-ACCA), Concepcion, Chile, 17–19 October 2018; pp. 1–6.1.
24. Zucker, F.J. Fundamentals of Antennas, Surface-Wave Antennas. In Antenna Engineering Handbook, 4th ed.; Volakis, J.L., Ed.;
McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 10–14.
25. Elliott, R.S. Linear array analysis. In Antenna Theory and Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003; p. 125.
26. Wallace, R.; Dunbar, S. 2.4 GHz YAGI PCB Antenna; Texas Instrument Application Note DN034. Available online: https:
//www.ti.com.cn/cn/lit/an/swra350/swra350.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022).
27. Ertas, M.; Siva, A.; Dalkara, T.; Uzuner, N.; Dora, B.; Inan, L.; Idiman, F.; Sarica, Y.; Selçuki, D.; Oğuzhanoğlu, A.; et al. Validity and
Reliability of the Turkish Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire. Headache J. Head Face Pain 2004, 44, 786–793.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Elliott, R.S. Linear array: Synthesis. In Antenna Theory and Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003; p. 156.
29. do Nascimento Silva, C.; de Melo, D.L.; de Oliveira, J.A.; da Silva, A.L.A.; de Oliveira, A.B.; Barboza, A.G.; do Nascimento, D.L.S.;
de Filgueiras Gomes, D.; de Melo, M.T.; Kleinau, B.A.; et al. Analysis of a Linear Modified Yagi-Uda array using Particle Swarm
Optimization for the Radiation Pattern Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Microwaves,
Antennas, Communications and Electronic Systems (COMCAS), Tel Aviv, Israel, 1–3 November 2021; pp. 395–400.
30. Savy, L.; Lesturgie, M. Coupling effects in MIMO phased array. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Radar Conference (Radar-Conf),
Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2–6 May 2016; pp. 1–6.
31. Chen, X.; Zhang, S.; Li, Q. A Review of Mutual Coupling in MIMO Systems. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 24706–24719. [CrossRef]
32. Steyskal, H. Digital beamforming. In Proceedings of the 1988 18th European Microwave Conference, Stockholm, Sweden,
15 September 1988; pp. 49–57.