Some Facts and Challenges in array antenna synthesis

O. M. Bucci(1), M. D’Urso(1), T. Isernia(2)

(1) Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettronica e delle Telecomunicazioni
University Federico II of Naples, Viale Claudio 21, I-80125, Napoli
(2) DIMET, Universita’ Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria, Lo. Feo di Vito, I-89100, Reggio Calabria
E-mail: {bucci,micdurso}@unina.it, tommaso.isernia@unirc.it

Abstract: Antennas synthesis is one of the canonical problem in applied electromagnetism. Many efforts have been
done in recent years to solve the problem in convenient and accurate way. In this framework, global optimization
based procedures have been widely applied. On the other side, the diffused enthusiasm for these ‘physically
inspired’ global optimization techniques has induced to neglect, in a number of cases, some characteristics of the
problem which may be useful in the synthesis process. With reference to the synthesis of array antennas, we first
show that in a number of problems proposed in the literature global optimisation is not required at all, as the
problem is indeed convex with respect to all the available degrees of freedom. Then, we also show that a proper
exploitation of convexity with respect to a part of the unknowns (when available) allows to achieve design solutions
significantly better than those available in the literature. Finally, some challenging synthesis problems which still
need attention (and possibly new solution approaches) are briefly introduced.

1. INTRODUCTION problems which are convex with respect to a sub-set

In the last years, global optimisation based
procedures have been widely adopted in the literature
[1-3] as a convenient way to get the optimal global
solution to antenna synthesis problems. On the other
side, the diffused enthusiasm for different kinds of
‘physically inspired’ global optimization techniques
has induced to neglect, in a number of cases, some
characteristics of the problem which may be useful in
the optimization process, thus reducing their
computational complexity (which, as well known,
grows very rapidly with the number of unknowns).
As a consequence, in many contributions available in
the literature, sub-optimal solutions have been
generally achieved, above all in the case of very large
scale problems. In these cases, due to the limited time
at our disposal, solutions which can be significantly
worse than the actually globally optimal ones are
generally achieved. This is particularly true in case of
very large antennas, wherein even the relatively
simple problem of analyzing a radiating source raises
computational complexity issues [4].
In this contribution, our interest is on array synthesis
problems. In particular, as in a number of
contributions global optimization procedures are used
without any actual need, we first start by recalling
that a number of synthesis problems can be dealt with
as Convex Programming (CP) problems, so that a
single optimum value exist [5]. As a consequence,
local optimization procedures will suffice to solve the
problem in a globally optimal fashion. Then, we
focus our attention on a peculiar class of synthesis
of the variables (for each value of the other ones),
while being not-convex with respect to all the
remaining ones [6]. With reference to these problems,
we briefly recall the rationale of a recently proposed
hybrid synthesis approach which properly take into
account the convexity of the problem with respect to
a part of the unknowns [6], thus showing it is
possible to reduce the computational burden of the
common global optimization based schemes and to
obtain better performances [6] with respect to other
approaches available in the literature. Numerical
examples confirming the effectiveness of the
proposed hybrid approach are given [6]. Finally,
some Conclusions and Challenges for future work are
also given.
2. A CLASS OF PROBLEMS NOT
REQUIRING GLOBAL OPTIMISATION
As a number of researchers exploit global
optimization procedures also in cases wherein they
are not actually needed, let us recall herein some
contents of [5] and related [6] papers. In particular,
for a fixed geometry array, let us consider the
problem of choosing the complex excitation
coefficients in such a way to maximize the field in a
given direction, while enforcing an arbitrary mask for
the sidelobes. Although the proposed approach is
much more general, let us refer, by the sake of
simplicity, to the case wherein one can introduce an
array factor AF(θ,ϕ). Then, by choosing the reference
phase in such a way that ∠AF(θ0,ϕ0)=π in the target
direction (θ0,ϕ0), the problem can be conveniently
formulated as :
Min Re ⎡ AF (θ 0 , ϕ0 ) ⎤⎦ (1)
( I1 ,...I N ) ⎣
subject to
Im ⎡ AF (θ , ϕ ) ⎤ = 0 (2)
⎣ 0 0 ⎦
2
AF (θ1 , ϕ1 ) ≤ SLL (θ1 , ϕ1 )
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅ (3)
2 subject to
AF (θ M , ϕ M ) ≤ SLL (θ M , ϕ M )
wherein I1,…,IN are the degrees of freedom of the
problem, and {θ1,ϕ1},..,{θM,ϕM}, is a sufficiently fine
discretization of the sidelobe regions.
Then, as (1) is linear in terms of the unknowns, and
constraints (2) are convex with respecto to them, the
overall problem is reduced to the minimization of a
linear function on a convex set. As one can easily
understand from one or two dimensional examples,
such a problem (belonging to the class of CP
problems) admits a single minimum, so that global
optimization is not required. The same statement also
holds true in many other cases including :
- near field constraints;
- non superdirectivity constraints;
- constraints on excitations variations;
- conformal arrays
and any combination of them. Also, under the same
kind of constraints, the same general conclusions
(i.e., global optimization procedure are not required)
also hold true in case one wants to optimize
directivity (which is readily achieved by minimizing
the radiated power for a given maximum) or
designing an optimal difference pattern (see [7] for
more details). Finally, it is also worth to note that in
case of centrosymmetric linear or planar arrays the
overall focusing (or difference pattern) synthesis
reduces to an even simpler Linear Programming (LP)
problem [5-7]. As a consequence of all the above, a
number of contributions in the literature, wherein the
focusing problem is solved by means of global
optimization procedures (see [3] and related papers)
appear to be questionable, as ‘local’ approaches will
find better solutions in a shorter time.
3. A CLASS OF PROBLEMS WHEREIN
PARTIAL CONVEXITY CAN BE EXPLOITED
As soon as the geometry of the array is not any more
fixed (so that collocations of the different antennas
have to be determined as well), the above synthesis
problems are not any more convex. On the other side,
they are still convex with respect to excitations for
each given set of tentative locations. Then, it makes
sense to consider the following class of problems:
Let us denote by X=[x1,x2,…xN] a first subset of
variables to be determined, and by Y=[y1,y2,…yN] a
second subset of variables to be optimized.
Moreover, let us suppose the synthesis problem at
hand can be formulated as:
Min
( x1 ,... xN , y1 ,...., yM )
[ F ( X , Y )] (4)
G1 ( X,Y ) ≤ 0
⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅ (5)
GP ( X,Y ) ≤ 0
Finally, let us suppose that both the objective
function F and the constraints G1,…GP, are convex
with respect to x for each fixed value of y. Then,
opposite to the simple approach of using global
optimizations acting simultaneously on all variables,
let us consider a hybrid optimization procedure trying
to take advantage from the convexity of the problem
with respect to a part of the unknowns. To this end,
let us define the auxiliary function f(y), defined as:
f (Y ) = Min
( x1 ,... xN )∈Cy
[ F ( X,Y )] (6)
wherein, for each fixed Y, CY is the convex set
defined by the intersection of the constraints (5).
Note f(Y) is a function of the second subset of
variables. While not being generally available in an
analytical fashion, the function f(Y) can be computed
as the solution of a CP problem. Its solution will
provide not only the (unique) minimum value of
F(X,Y) for the given value of Y, but even, as a by-
product, one of the values of X where such a
minimum is achieved1. Then, the overall problem
can be conveniently formulated as the global
optimization of the function f(Y). As a matter of fact,
such a strategy allows the number of unknowns dealt
with in the global optimization process to be reduced
with respect to the simpler and largely adopted
solution of performing the global optimization
simultaneously on all variables. This latter would
deal with N+M unknowns while only M variables are
involved in the global optimization process of our
approach. As a consequence, global optimization
1
Note the minimum can be achieved in a single point
or even in a convex subset of the entire convex set.
tools will have to deal with a reduced number of
unknowns, thus saving computational times or even
finding better solutions with respect to previous
approaches. In particular, much better performances
have been found in both cases wherein N is a
significant part of the overall number of unknowns
(given by N+M) [6] and in all those cases wherein
N+M is very large [6] (according to the fact that the
that computational complexity of global optimization
procedures grows very rapidly with the number of
unknowns). On the other side, the proposed approach
also has a draw-back. In fact, as it is computed
through the solution of an auxiliary CP problem, the
evaluation of the objective function f(Y) is usually by
far more cumbersome than the evaluation of F(X,Y),
which has also to be taken into account. In particular,
such a circumstance affects the choice of the global
optimization one has to adopt. GA based procedures,
which require computation of the objective function
for each element of the population (at each
generation), could result in an excessively large
computational burden. Therefore, Simulated
Annealing has been adopted in our optimization
schemes [6]. Several synthesis problems belong to
the class we have just depicted. Let us consider three
examples:
3.1 Sparse and weighted linear arrays
As a first example, one can consider the the problem
to determine the excitations and locations of a linear
array in such a way to maximize the field in a given
direction while keeping the sidelobes below a given
arbitrary mask [5,6]. In such a case, by defining X=[I
1,..,I N], where I1,..,IN are the excitations of the array,
and Y=[d1,..,dN], where d1,..,dN are the unknown
locations of the elements of the array, it can be easily
shown that the synthesis problem can be reduced to a
CP for any fixed set of locations, so that the overall
formulation proposed above can be applied [6].
According to the general theory in [6], the objective
function is given by the real part of the array factor as
evaluated in the direction of the main lobe while
constraints G1,…GP are given by a sufficiently fine
discretization of the constraints on the sidelobes
level, plus additional constraints on locations of the
different element of the arrays [6]. It is worth to note
that in standard benchmark problems [2,8], the hybrid
approach largely outperforms previous results. In
particular, it is possible to achieve Sidelobe Levels
(SLL) which can be as low as 6dB below the levels
reported in the literature, wherein global optimization
is performed simultaneously on both the sets of
unknowns (weights and locations), by using a SA [2]
or a GA [8] optimization scheme, respectively.
3.2 Sparse and weighted planar array
Another application of the proposed hybrid approach
is given by the optimal synthesis of sum patterns by
planar arrays with unknown locations. In this case the
set of unknowns Y contain a couple of real numbers
for each element of the array, as both coordinates of
the plane have to be determined. As an example of
the performances one can achieve, let us first
compare the effectiveness of the hybrid approach
proposed above with the one proposed in [9]. The
problem amounts to consider the synthesis of a sparse
planar array containing a maximum of 63 elements
not-uniformly located on a rectangular lattice of 4λ x
3λ [9]. In particular, the aim is to optimize the
locations and weights of the elements such to
maximize the beam pattern in the broadside direction,
while the beam width of the main lobe has been fixed
as in [9]. By only using N=29 radiating elements, the
hybrid method herein proposed is able to achieve a
SLL=-19dB. All the parameters of the proposed
hybrid procedure have been fixed as described in [6].
Note that by using the GA based procedure in [11], at
the same working conditions, a SLL=-10.5dB has
been achieved (decreased to SLL=-12.49dB when
using N=32 elements [9]). Therefore, even if a low
number of SA cycles has been considered in the
numerical procedure, a proper exploitation of the
convexity of the problem with respect to a part of
unknown can allow to significantly improve the final
results.
3.3 A new flexible antenna
Encouraged from the very good results above, we
next considered the problem to synthesize arrays such
to have at the same time a good degree of flexibility
and a very simple feeding network. To this end, the
concept of interleaved arrays was considered [1].
Roughly speaking, an interleaved array is nothing
but an array partitioned into sub-arrays, whereas each
sub-array is dedicated to a different function (for
example, each sub-array radiates a different field). In
[1] interesting examples are shown wherein by
properly aggregating the different elements of the
overall arrays into two sub-arrays, (and properly
phasing the unitary excitations) different functions
(such as sum and difference pattern) are obtained. In
the following, to further extend capabilities, the
concept of interleaved arrays is exploited in a
different fashion, as both the clustering into sub-
arrays and the excitations of the different antennas
constituting the overall system are degrees of
freedom of the synthesis problem. Note that by virtue
of the approach proposed above, provided sum and
difference patterns are of interest, our global
optimization problem has exactly the same number
and kind of unknowns (that is, aggregations) that in
the problem considered in [1]. As a basic problem,
we considered the synthesis of a system such to
radiate two independently steerable pencil beams by
means of a feeding network as simple as possible.
Moreover, each individual beam has to fulfill given
constraints on the sidelobes (in order, for example, to
reduce cross-talk within given bounds). By using the
above recalled concept of interleaved arrays, a very
simple architecture can be considered, whereas the
excitations of each element of the overall system, as
well as its belonging to the first or second sub-array,
have to be determined. Again, such a problem can be
dealt with in an effective fashion by the approach
described in Sect. 2. As a matter of fact, it suffices to
fix Y=[b1,..,b N] where bi is a binary variable such to
be zero to minimize the sidelobe level of two
interleaved arrays. The final beam patterns achieved
in [1] correspond to a SLL=-13.5dB. In order to have
some additional similarity we also enforced the
constraints |In|2<1, n=1,..,N. By using the above
hybrid approach], by virtue of the additional degrees
of freedom on the excitations amplitudes, better
performances are obtained with respect to [1]. In
particular, a pattern with a lower SLL=-16.6dB is
obtained. It is also interesting to note that the
achieved final clustering of the elements (see [6]) is
quite different from the one in [1]. Needless to say, a
proper phasing of the two sub-arrays allows to
steering them in an independent fashion. It is
interesting to note that ‘the elementary bricks’, as
synthesized above, can allow to achieve, by means of
a very simple feeding network, an array performing a
jammer rejection at the physical layer or to realize in
a simple way flat-top pattern [6]. if the i-th element
belongs to the first sub-array, and it is equal to 1 if
the i-th element belongs to the second sub-array.
Then X=[I1,..,IN] contains the (complex) excitations
of the different elements, while the constraints G,..GP
contains all the bounds on the sidelobes for the two
patterns, plus a constraint enforcing (approximate)
equality for the maxima of the two independent
beams. As an example, we considered one of the
array configurations adopted in [1] constituted by 60
total elements λ/2 spaced. In [1], the goal of the
synthesis was to use a GA based procedure to
optimize the placement of the elements on an
assigned aperture
4. CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES
The above discussion and examples clearly show that
a proper exploitation of the characteristics of the
different synthesis problems allows (much) improved
design solutions with respect to ‘blind’ approaches
simply standing on the shoulders of global
optimization procedures. A different perspective has
been presented herein, wherein the need, role and
way to exploit global optimization has been carefully
discussed. Then, in view of the very good results
which have been achieved, a number of challenging
questions arise:
i) Is there any other problem belonging to
the two classes discussed above ?
ii) Up to what extent, and how, can the
above results be extended to antennas
other than arrays, (as for example
reflectors or lenses) ?
iii) Is there any clever way to deal with
other more cumbersome synthesis
problems (such as shaped beam
synthesis, phase only synthesis or even
the case where locations of the array
elements are the only available degrees
of freedom ) ?
Some discussion on these three items will be given at
the Conference.
5. REFERENCES
[1] R. L. Haupt, “Interleaved Thinning Linear
Arrays”, IEEE Trans. Ant. Propag., vol. 53, pp.
2858-2864, 2005.
[2] A. Trucco, V. Murrino, “Stochastic optimization
of linear sparse array”, IEEE Jour. Oce. Eng., vol.
24, 1999.
[3] S. M. Mikki, A. A. Kishk, “Quantum Particle
Swarm Optimization for Electromagnetics”, IEEE
Trans. Ant. Propag., vol. 54, pp. 2764-2775, 2006.
[4] O. M. Bucci, “Computational complexity in the
analysis of large antennas” Radio Science, 2004
[5] O.M. Bucci, L. Caccavale, T.Isernia “Optimal
focusing of uniformly spaced arrays subject to
arbitrary upper bounds in non-target directions”,
IEEE Trans. Ant. Propag, vol. 50, 2002.
[6] M. D’Urso and T. Isernia, “Solving some array
synthesis problems by means of an effective
hybrid approach”, IEEE Trans. Ant. Propag., vol.
55, no.3, March 2007.
[7] O.M. Bucci, M. D’Urso, T. Isernia, “Optimal
synthesis of difference patterns subject to arbitrary
sidelobe bounds by using arbitrary array
antennas”, IEE Proc. Microw. Ant. Propag., vol.
152, pp.129-137, 2005.
[8] A. Lommi, A. Massa, E. Storti, A. Trucco,
“Sidelobe reduction in sparse linear arrays by
genetic algorithms”, Micr. Opt. Tech. Letters, 32,
pp.194-196, Feb. 2002.
[9] S. Caorsi, A. Lommi, A. Massa, S. Piffer and A.
Trucco, “Planar antenna array design with a multi-
purpose GA-based procedure”, Micr. Opt. Tec.
Letters, vol. 35, 2002.