Shape and Weighting Optimization of a Subarray for an mm-Wave Phased Array Antenna

Applied Sciences

Dae Woong Woo¹  Juho Yun²  Taeyong Jeong²  Keum Cheol Hwang²  Jihyung Kim³  Kyunghyun Oh³ 

[1] Agency for Defense Development, Daejeon 34186, Korea;Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea;Specific Radar Team, Hanwha Systems, Yongin 17121, Korea;

关键词: phased array antenna;    subarray;    quadratic programming;    aperiodic array;    weighting optimization;    low sidelobe level;   

DOI  :  10.3390/app11156803

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

This paper discusses how to optimize the weighting of individual subarrays to derive the low sidelobe level (SLL) based on quadratic programming (QP) and how to derive QP parameters to ensure that the objective function is composed of the quadratic function form, with the actual number identical to the standard objective function of QP. Next, in order to analyze the SLL, a 24 × 24 phased array antenna was compared with 96 transmit–receive modules (TRMs) attached only to the subarray stage and a phased array antenna with 576 TRMs attached to all radiating elements without a subarray. Optimized weighting was applied to the array antennas with a subarray, and Taylor weighting was applied to the array antennas without a subarray. The number of TRMs used in the phased array antenna with the optimized weighting was reduced by 83.3% compared to the phased array antenna in which TRMs were attached to all radiating elements. The SLL and the half-power beamwidths (HPBWs) of the two antennas were practically identical in a narrow beam-scanning environment. Finally, an array pattern (AP) in which mutual coupling between the radiating elements was considered was calculated to verify the optimized weighting. Moreover, the optimized weighting was applied to CST Microwave Studio (an EM full-wave simulation) to compare the results from the AP calculation and a simulation. It was confirmed that the two results above are largely indistinguishable. The analysis found that the HPBW is 3.6${}^{\circ }$ × 3.6${}^{\circ }$ and the SLL is −26.18 dB from AP calculations in the boresight direction. When each 5${}^{\circ }$ beam was scanned at the azimuth and elevation, the corresponding HPBW values were 3.7${}^{\circ }$ × 3.7${}^{\circ }$ and 3.7${}^{\circ }$ × 3.7${}^{\circ }$ and the SLLs were −22.70 dB and −24.44 dB according to the AP calculations.

【 授权许可】

Unknown