Meteorol. Appl.

5, 149–156 (1997)

Design and performance of an acoustic antenna

for a phased array Doppler sodar
Yoshiki Ito, Kaijo Corporation, Sakae-cho, Hamura-shi, Tokyo 205, Japan

An acoustic array antenna which has a narrow main lobe and suppressed sidelobes is studied. The
directivity function formed by the multiple point sources is used to estimate the aperture of an array and
the spacing between the transducer elements to make a desired beam. Then the aperture tapering based
on a Chebyshev distribution and the effect of an acoustic shield are evaluated to suppress the sidelobe
radiation. The total performance of the phased array system has been examined by comparison with
tower instruments. The field test shows that the measured beam pattern agrees with the calculated one
and the sodar-derived winds have a correlation of 0.96 and a standard deviation of differences of about
0.47–0.52 m s–1 compared with in situ measurements. These statistical values are as good as or even
better than those from the previous experiment.

1. Introduction Doppler sodar showed a systematic bias in mean wind

Measurements of the total horizontal wind in the lower
planetary boundary layer by acoustic remote sensing
were first achieved by Beran & Clifford (1972).
Supported by numerous field tests and comparisons
since then, a conventional tri-monostatic or bistatic
Doppler sodar has been widely used to measure wind
profiles up to several hundred metres. A phased array
Doppler sodar, however, has been used often in recent
work (e.g. Vogt & Thomas, 1994). The author devel-
oped the phased array Doppler sodar, which uses five
beams (Ito et al., 1989), and evaluated its performance
in the International Sodar Inter-comparison
Experiment (ISIE) at Boulder Atmospheric Observa-
tory (BAO) in 1988 (Gaynor et al., 1990). Instead of
three parabolic reflectors in a tri-monostatic Doppler
sodar, the phased array system can make five direc-
tional acoustic beams (i.e. a vertical beam and four
steering beams to the north, south, east and west)
which are synthesised from the signals with phase shifts
in an electro-dynamic speaker array. The horizontal
mean winds derived from two pairs of beams in oppo-
site directions contain less influence of beam refraction
than those derived from three beams and less influence
of misalignment of the level for antenna installation. In
addition to these advantages, a five-beam system has
the additional information to correct measurement
errors, and provides the wind variances with the com-
pensation of such measurement errors. The details of
them are discussed by Ito (1997).
In the ISIE, comparisons of wind speed between the
sodar and sonic anemometers on the BAO tower
showed the rms differences to be 0.89 m s–1 (Takehisa
et al., 1991). The 5×5 array system used in the ISIE
was, however, sometimes disturbed by fixed echoes.
In another case, a commercially available phase array
profiles (Vogt et al., 1994) and there was the problem
of acoustic emission into the surroundings (Vogt &
Thomas, 1994). Thus, the phased array system has
some room for improvement, especially in its acoustic
performance. It is important to study the conditions
required to make the beam of the phased array system,
because the beam synthesis of the system is highly
dependent on the combination of acoustic transducer
elements, and is more complicated than that of the
old-type sodar using a parabolic reflector. Based upon
knowledge of the array antennas for radar systems,
consideration is given to improving the directivity of
acoustic array antennas by choosing a better arrange-
ment of electro-dynamic transducer elements to have
specified aperture and directivity. The newly-
designed array antenna is tested by making compar-
isons with tower instruments making wind measure-
ments.
2. Outline of the system
Figure 1 shows the array antenna used in this study.
The acoustic sources consist of 216 low-cost transducer
elements, and the array aperture is contained in a
square with 150 cm sides. The 16×16 array of elements
are triangularly cut off by ten elements in each of the
four corners to make the symmetric beam. The spacing
length d between the elements is about 0.6λ, with λ
being the wave length at the operating frequency of 2.1
kHz. Each element is an electro-dynamic speaker
which has a folded-horn diameter of 90 mm and a rated
power of 5 W. The sound pressure level at the fre-
quency range of 2.1 to 2.7 kHz is better than 100 dB
W–1 at 1 m. Variations in the sound pressure level are
within 2 dB of each other, but some elements go out of
tolerance by up to 40–50 degrees on the phase lag,
149
 14698080, 1998, 2, Downloaded from https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1350482798000681 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Y Ito
transmitting power and receiving sensitivity toward the
centre of the array is achieved by assigning a weighting
factor to each row or column of elements. If we apply
a Chebyshev polynomial to the weighting factor, the
synthesised acoustic field is optimised to suppress side-
lobes. This is the so-called aperture tapering. The 16-
channel transmitter/receiver signals have a phase shift
of 74 between adjacent channels to steer the main lobe
to 20 from the zenith. The hardware used in the system
is described in Ito et al. (1995). The preliminary exper-
iment has been carried out under the specifications
summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Specifications of the phased array Doppler

sodar

Parameter Value
Operating frequency 2100 Hz
Transducer array 16×16 (216 elements)
Nominal output power 600 watts (electric)
Antenna aperture 2.1 m2
Zenith angle of steering beams 20°
Figure 1. Photograph of the phased array antenna (top view).
Beam width 10°
Beam arrangement 5 beams
therefore it is necessary to select the element we use. (4 orthogonal, 1 vertical)
Pulse length > 10 m s (programmable)
Figure 2 shows the radiation pattern of the transducer
Pulse repetition period > 2 s (programmable)
element compared with the approximated radiation
Doppler frequency estimation FFT
from a spherical source of 90 mm in diameter. This
shows that the spherical approximation exactly repre-
sents the radiation within 60° of the centre of the beam
and the practical sidelobe radiation is not more than 3. Design and evaluation of beam pattern
that estimated with the spherical radiation.
The principle of beam formation by an array antenna in
To make five directional beams, the 16-channel trans- a radar system has been studied for many years (e.g.
mitting signals with phase shifts are provided to the Skolnik, 1962). An application to the acoustic remote
row or column transducer elements. Increasing the sensing has been discussed in the following papers:

Figure 2. Radiation pattern of the transducer element; the measured radiation pattern (A), the polynomial approximation of
the measured pattern (B) and the approximated radiation from a spherical source of the same diameter (C).

150

Stephanou & Mavrakis (1986), Ito et al. (1989), Bradley
& Roberts (1990), Liaskas et al. (1994) and Khanna &
Sharma (1996). Here, the author examines the charac-
teristics and the optimum arrangement under con-
straints inherent in the acoustic array: for example, the
finite aperture of the transducer element being larger
than a half wavelength, the directivity of the element
and the effect of an acoustic shield. The directivity
function R(θ) of the radiation pattern is defined by the
product of the element factor Re(θ) generated from an
individual source element and the array factor Ra(θ) ,
the latter being the pattern of an array composed of
isotropic elements.
2 J1 ( χe ) sin Mχ a
R (θ ) = Re (θ ) ⋅ Ra (θ ) = ⋅ (1)
χe M sin χ a
where
χe = π De (sin θ − sin θ0 ) / λ, χ a = πd (sin θ − sin θ0 ) / λ
J1 is the first-order Bessel function, De the aperture of
an element, θ the angle from the zenith, θ0 the steering
angle of the main lobe, λ the wavelength, and d the
spacing length between the elements. Besides the direc-
tivity of each element determined by Re(θ), equation (1)
shows that the directivity depends on the ratio d/λ and
the number of acoustic sources M.
Figure 3 indicates the directivity function R(θ) for M =
5, 10, 16, where Re(θ) is approximated by the radiation
from spherical sources of χe = χa. We can design the
beam pattern (i.e. the number of sidelobes, these side-
lobe levels and the beam widths) in each multiple point
source from this figure. Even though a large value of M,
inevitable with the large aperture, makes intensive
directivity, the large sidelobe appears at χa = π; there-
fore, it is necessary to choose χa < 2.5, i.e. d/λ <
0.8(1+sin θ0)–1. This means that we should choose the
relation d/λ < 0.8 for a vertical beam and d/λ < 0.6 for
a steering beam of θ0 = 20o . Similarly the beam width
Ψ, defined as the double angle of R1/2(θ) being reduced
to half of its centre value depends on the number of ele-
ments M and the acoustic spacing d/λ as shown in
Figure 3. Directivity function R(θ) synthesised from the mul-
tiple point sources. Each point is assumed to be a spherical
source of χe= χa .
14698080, 1998, 2, Downloaded from https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1350482798000681 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Acoustic antenna for a phased array Doppler sodar
Figure 4. Following the conventional sodar system,
which has been used with the beam width of about 10°
(Kaimal et al., 1980), an aperture diameter D (7Md)
larger than 7λ/cos θ0 is recommended. For the antenna
with aperture tapering mentioned in the following, we
need a somewhat larger D of about 9.5λ/cos θ0 to make
this beam width.
To suppress the sidelobe radiation, aperture tapering
with a Chebyshev distribution is employed in the pre-
sent system. It gives the optimum aperture distribution
which minimises the beamwidth for a given sidelobe
level; conversely it produces the lowest sidelobe level
when the beamwidth is specified. The details of this
technique are found in the literature (e.g. van der Maas,
1954). The aperture tapering is carried out by giving the
gradation of transmitting power and receiving sensitiv-
ity to the transducer elements for each row or column
of the array.
In an even symmetric array, the acoustic sources with
the weighting factors of amplitude W(m) form the
directivity, as follows:
M /2
1
Rat (θ ) =
2W0
∑ W (m ) {exp [ j ( 2m − 1) χ a ] + ( 2)
m =1
exp [ − j ( 2m − 1) χ a ]}
where
M /2
W0 = ∑ W (m )
m =1
and Rat(θ) denotes the array factor for aperture
tapering. If we apply a Chebyshev polynomial to
Figure 4. Beam width Ψ as a function of the product of the
number of source elements M and the acoustic spacing d/λ .
The arrows indicate the value of M d/ λ which provides a
beam width of 10° for no taper and tapered cases.
151
 14698080, 1998, 2, Downloaded from https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1350482798000681 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Y Ito
Table 2. An example of the weighting factor of amplitude W(m) required to suppress the sidelobe by –35 dB accord-
ing to an eight-stage Chebyshev distribution

Edge Centre
m 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
W(m) 0.172 0.245 0.384 0.540 0.697 0.838 0.943 1

approximate the summation term in equation (2), the
weighting factor W(m) can be chosen to reduce the
maxima in the range 0< χa< π in Figure 3. An example
of the weighting factors calculated for the eight-stage
gradation is listed in Table 2. These factors are
designed to suppress the sidelobe by 35 dB below the
centre of the beam. The resultant beam pattern is
shown in Figure 5, where the element factor Re(θ) is
given by the measured radiation. Even though the
beam width becomes broad and the transmitted total
power decreases by a factor of 0.6 in the present case,
Figure 5 shows that the sidelobe radiation with aper-
ture tapering is more suppressed than that without
tapering or in comparison with the radiation from a
spherical source of the same size in diameter. The 5×5
array tested in the ISIE has a broad main lobe and large
sidelobes.
The ideas discussed above have produced a phased
array Doppler sodar which has an antenna using a
16×16 array with 216 elements. Cutting off ten ele-
ments in each of the four corners can make the beam
nearly symmetric in space. Figure 6 shows the beam
patterns with and without aperture tapering computed
from a planar array composed of 216 elements. We can
expect that the aperture tapering mentioned here sup-
presses the sidelobe level by 10 dB below the non-
tapered basic beam pattern. To make sure the computa-
tion of the directivity function is accurate, the antenna
gain pattern has been checked experimentally. The
measured radiation beam pattern is plotted in Figure 6,
where the beam is designed to steer at 20o from the
zenith. The radiated acoustic pressure was measured by
a condenser microphone which was kept at a distance
of 4 m from the array to avoid interference in the region
of the acoustic near field. Each plot is averaged over
several data points, since there is some scatter in the
measured signals within 2 dB. Although the calibrated
main lobe in Figure 6 is somewhat broad and the beam
tilt shows 21o rather than the expected value of 20o, the
resulting data support the current acoustic design. The
measured radiation shows that the sidelobe level
around the main lobe is less than –30 dB. This agrees
with the computation. Even though it was difficult to

Figure 5. Directivity function of 16 row or column array: without aperture tapering (A) and with tapering (B), in comparison
with a spherical radiation (C). Directivity function for a 5×5 array without aperture tapering is also shown (D).

152

Figure 6. Measured radiation pattern in comparison with the calculated patterns formed by the planar arrays with and with-
out aperture tapering composed of 216 source elements.
get accurate measurements, the sidelobe level in the
horizontal direction (θ = 90o) was less than –40 dB.
Reduction of the horizontal radiation is important to
avoid fixed echoes and to prevent acoustic leakage.
Despite the difficulties of making accurate measure-
ments of acoustic intensity in the field, the measured
beam pattern in Figure 6 confirms that the sidelobe
suppression has been achieved.
In practice, we use an acoustic shield around the
antenna aperture to enhance the sidelobe suppression.
The effect of the acoustic shield is estimated by refer-
ring to the numerical study for a circular antenna given
by Strand (1971) or Adekola (1976). In the case of the
array antenna, the following expression is assumed to
give the directivity function R(θ).
(1 + cos θ )
R (θ ) =
2
∑ pi exp [ − j 2 π xi sin θ / λ ] /
i
(1 + cos θ0 )
2
∑ pi exp [ − j 2 πxi sin θ0 / λ ]
i
where
216
Pi = ∑ A ( n) exp [ jxn sin θ0 ]
n =1
exp [ j 2 π (di −n − h) / λ ] γ (di −n )
pi is the acoustic pressure of the ith finite area in
the upper aperture at a height h, A(n)exp[jxnsin θ0]
is the acoustic emission from the nth array element,
and γ(di–n) is the decay of the acoustic signal with dis-
tance di–n given by Strand (1971). The factor
exp[j2π(di–n–h)/λ] describes the change of phase of the
acoustic signal over distance di–n. The array antenna
used in the present study has been evaluated. The array
14698080, 1998, 2, Downloaded from https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1350482798000681 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Acoustic antenna for a phased array Doppler sodar
aperture is 9.6λ in width and the size of the acoustic
shield is 16.8λ in upper aperture and 6λ in height. The
farfield gain pattern is computed for various heights of
the shield, as listed in Table 3. The estimation repre-
sented in Figure 7 shows that the acoustic shield is use-
ful for the array antenna. For the case of 6λ, we can
expect a sidelobe reduction of 10 dB compared with the
value without the shield for a vertical beam and of 5 dB
for a steering beam of θ0 = 20° in the horizontal direc-
tion. As shown in Figure 7, a shield higher than 12λ
impairs the function of the antenna, because the main
lobe of the tilted beam becomes asymmetric and
decreases in level relative to the sidelobes. The tilt of an
acoustic shield larger than the beam tilt seems to keep
the synthesised beam shape.
4. Comparison experiment
The phased array Doppler sodar with the above-men-
tioned design was tested using the tower instruments
for comparison. An experiment was held at the
Meteorological Research Institute (MRI) of Japan in
July 1995. Sonic anemometers were mounted on the
213 m instrumented tower at three levels: 100, 150 and
200 m. The sodar system was located about 350 m to
Table 3. Height and tilt of an acoustic shield used in the
numerical estimation. Tilt is calculated from the sizes of
9.6λ in the lower and 16.8λ in the upper aperture of the
shield. The underlined value is adopted in this study
h 0 3λ 6λ 9λ 12λ 15λ
height (m) 0 0.48 0.97 1.46 1.94 2.43
tilt (°) 50 31 22 17 13
153
 14698080, 1998, 2, Downloaded from https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1350482798000681 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Y Ito

Figure 7. Estimation of the effect of an acoustic shield for (a) a vertical beam and (b) a steering beam of θ0 = 20°. Directivity
pattern is computed for various heights of the shield. A height of 6λ is practically suitable for sidelobe suppression and is adopted
in this study.

the north of the tower. The data acquisition was carried
out every one second for all tower sensors. On the
other hand, the sodar was cycled through five beams
once every 15 s. Four steering beams were tilted 20o
from the vertical to the north, south, east and west
directions for the phased array sodar. The 10 min aver-
aged windspeed was compared between the sodar and
the sonic anemometer at each level.
Figure 8 shows the scatter diagrams of wind speed and
direction at the 200 m level. The wind direction data
154
plotted in Figure 8 exclude the data for windspeeds
less than 1 m s–1. The results of comparisons at 150 m
and 100 m were almost the same as those at 200 m. To
examine the reliability and accuracy of the wind mea-
surements, three basic criteria adopted by Kaimal et
al. (1984) are used for the present analysis. These cri-
teria are the bias b, the rms difference (the compara-
bility) c, and the standard deviation of the difference
(the precision) p. The results of these criteria and the
correlation coefficient R are summarized in Table 4.
They are compared with those measured by the 5×5
 14698080, 1998, 2, Downloaded from https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1350482798000681 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Acoustic antenna for a phased array Doppler sodar
are generally better than those obtained in the previ-
ous experiment (Gaynor & Baker, 1991). Though the
local topography of the BAO is flatter than that of the
MRI, the degree of agreement between the sodar and
tower data obtained in the MRI is better than in the
BAO. As the data processing is the same in both sys-
tems shown in Table 4, such difference seems to be
dependent on the directive performance of the
antenna.

5. Conclusions
The beam formation method employed in the new
phased array Doppler sodar has improved the beam
directivity by making a better arrangement of the trans-
ducer elements and using the aperture tapering tech-
nique. Evaluation shows that:

(a) an aperture diameter D larger than 9.5λ/cos θ0 for

the tapered array antenna provides a main beam
that is narrower than 10o,
(b) acoustic spacing d/λ between transducer elements
of less than about 0.8λ (1+sin θ0)–1 obviates the large
sidelobe,
(c) aperture tapering based on the eight-stage
Chebyshev distribution can suppress the sidelobe
level by 10 dB below the non-tapered basic beam
pattern.

These characteristics expected from the numerical

evaluation were confirmed in the operational field test.
An acoustic shield with a suitably designed aperture
and height will reduce the sidelobes by 5–10 dB in the
horizontal direction. The intercomparison shows that
the precision of the wind data compared with the tower
instrument is as good as or even better than that of the
previous experiment.

Figure 8. Scatter plots of (a) 10 min averaged wind speeds Acknowledgement

and (b) directions from the phased array Doppler sodar versus
the sonic anemometer at the 200 m level. R denotes the corre-
lation coefficient and Stv is the rms difference.
array system in the ISIE. Statistical values obtained in
the MRI are 0.14–0.28 m s–1 for b, 0.54–0.57 m s–1 for
c and 0.47–0.52 m s–1 for p at three levels. These values
The author is much indebted to Prof. Y. Mitsuta of
Kyoto University and Dr T. Hanafusa of the
Meteorological Research Institute for valuable discus-
sion and help with the experiments. The comparison
experiment was conducted by the MRI in joint research
with the Nuclear Safety Research Association.

Table 4. The statistics of intercomparison between the sodar and tower wind speed

Statistic MRI (1995) 16×16 array BAO (1988) 5×5 array

height (m) height (m)
100 150 200 100 150 200
N 394 376 352 463 427 344
b (m s–1) 0.14 0.27 0.28 –0.74 –0.59 –0.49
c (m s–1) 0.54 0.54 0.57 1.14 1.14 0.91
p (m s–1) 0.52 0.47 0.50 0.87 0.98 0.77
R 0.96 0.96 0.96

155

Y Ito
References
Adekola, S. A. (1976). Toward a more general integral for-
mulation of the pressure field of an echosonde aperture
antenna. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 60: 230–239.
Beran, D. W. & Clifford, S. F. (1972). Acoustic Doppler mea-
surements of the total wind vector. Second Symp. on
Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, San
Diego, CA, Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100–110.
Bradley, S. G. & Roberts, N. L. (1990). Design and evaluation
of a compact Doppler acoustic sounder. In Proceedings of
Fifth International Symp. on Acoustic Remote Sensing (S. P.
Singal, ed.) Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, India, 141–146.
Gaynor, J. E., Baker, C. B. & Kaimal, J. C. (1990). The inter-
national sodar intercomparison experiment, acoustic
remote sensing. In Proceedings of Fifth International Symp.
on Acoustic Remote Sensing (S. P. Singal, ed.) Tata
McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, India, 67–74.
Gaynor, J. E. & Baker. C. B. (1991). Fine time-scale compar-
isons between Doppler sodar and sonic anemometer-
derived winds. In Proceedings of Seventh Symp. on
Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, New
Orleans, LA, Am. Meteorol. Soc., 401–404.
Ito, Y. (1997). Errors in wind measurements estimated by
five-beam phased array Doppler sodar. J. Atmos. Oceanic
Technol., 14: 792–801.
Ito, Y., Kobori, Y., Horiguchi, M., Takehisa, M. & Mitsuta,
Y. (1989). Development of wind profiling sodar. J. Atmos.
Oceanic Technol., 6: 779–784.
Ito, Y., Uzawa, T., Hanafusa, T. & Mitsuta, Y. (1995).
Development and operational characteristics of a phased
array Doppler sodar. In Proceedings of Ninth Symp. on
Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation,
Charlotte, NC, Am. Meteorol. Soc., 507–511.
Kaimal, J. C., Baynton, H. N. & Gaynor, J. E. (1980). Low
level intercomparison experiment, instruments and observ-
ing methods. Rep. No.3, WMO, Geneva, Switzerland, 191
pp.
156
14698080, 1998, 2, Downloaded from https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1017/S1350482798000681 by Algeria Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Kaimal, J. C., Gaynor, J. E. Finkelstein, P. L. Graves, M. E. &
Lockhart, T. J. (1984). An evaluation of wind measure-
ments by four Doppler sodars. BAO Rep. No.5, Wave
Propagation Laboratory, NOAA/ERL, Boulder, CO, 110
pp.
Khanna, R. M. & Sharma, O. (1996). Design and study of an
acoustic antenna for a phased array Doppler sodar. In
Proceedings of Eighth International Symp. on Acoustic
Remote Sensing (M. A. Kallistratova, ed.), Moscow, Russia,
3.67–3.71.
Liaskas, T. J., Stephanou, G. J. & Martakos, D. (1994). Beam
pointing errors of phased arrays for digital switched beam
acoustic radars. Int. J. Remote Sensing, 15: 333–344.
Skolnik, M. I. (1962). Introduction to radar systems.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 294–329.
Stephanou, G. J. & Mavrakis, D. H. (1986). Switched beam
planar arrays suitable for high resolution acoustic
sounders. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, GE-24: 745–750.
Strand, O. N. (1971). Numerical study of the gain pattern of
a shielded acoustic antenna. J. Acoust. Soc Am., 49:
1698–1703.
Takehisa, M, Ito, Y. & Mitsuta, Y. (1991). Precision and rela-
tive accuracy of a phased array Doppler sodar. In
Proceedings of Seventh Symp. on Meteorological
Observations and Instrumentation, New Orleans, LA,
Am. Meteorol. Soc., 405–408.
van der Maas, G. J. (1954). A simplified calculation for
Dolph-Tchebyscheff arrays. J. Appl. Phys., 25: 121–124.
Vogt, S. & Thomas, P. (1994). Test of a phased array sodar by
Intercomparison with tower data. J. Atmos. Oceanic
Technol., 11: 94–102.
Vogt, S., Beyrich, F., Kalthoff, N. & Weisensee, U. (1994).
Comparison of two Doppler sodar systems with a
radiosonde system during the SANA 1993 field experi-
ment. In Proceedings of Seventh International Symp. on
Acoustic Remote Sensing (W. D. Neff, ed.), Boulder, CO,
3.145–150.