Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted.

For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubspermissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 1
Tolerance Analysis of Antenna Arrays through
Interval Arithmetic
N. Anselmi, L. Manica, Member, IEEE, P. Rocca, Senior Member, IEEE, and A. Massa, Member, IEEE
AbstractAn analytical method based on Interval Analysis
(IA) is proposed to predict the impact of the manufacturing
tolerances of the excitation amplitudes on the radiated array
pattern. By expressing the array factor according to the rules
of the Interval Arithmetic, the radiation features of the linear
array are described in terms of intervals whose bounds are
analytically determined as functions of the nominal value and
the tolerances of the array amplitudes. A set of representative
numerical experiments dealing with different radiated beams and
linear array sizes is reported and discussed to point out the
features and potentials of the proposed approach.
Index TermsAntenna Arrays, Linear Arrays, Tolerance
Analysis, Interval Analysis, Interval Arithmetic.
I. INTRODUCTION
M
ODERN wireless communication systems require antennas
able to guarantee high-quality and reliable data links. In many
practical applications, arrays generating patterns with high
peak directivity and low secondary lobes are necessary [1].
Towards this end, several strategies have been proposed to syn-
thesize suitable values for the control points (i.e., ampliers,
phase shifters, time delays) of the corresponding beamforming
network (BFN) to guarantee the desired radiation features
[2][3][4][5]. However, each element of the antenna system,
both the radiating elements and the BFN control points,
can differ from the ideal one because of the manufacturing
tolerances. Such errors unavoidably cause some modications
of the radiated beam and performance degradations usually
arise. For example, tolerances in the implementation of the
levels of amplication and/or in the delays introduced by the
phase shifters could result in a pattern with relatively high
sidelobes [4]. To prevent such a circumstance, the antenna
system must be suitably calibrated before being installed with
a consequent waste of time and human resources.
In the past, methods to estimate the impact of manufacturing
tolerances on the pattern features, namely the sidelobe level
(SLL), the peak directivity, and the mainlobe direction, have
been proposed. In this framework, errors on the amplitude
and phase values of the excitations as well as on the array
element positions have been taken into account [6][7][8][9] by
means of statistical techniques where random and statistically-
independent errors among the array elements have been as-
sumed. Another probabilistic method based on white noise
gain and expected beam-power pattern has been proposed
Manuscript received January 1, 2013
Dr. Anselmi, Dr. Manica, Dr. Rocca, and Prof. Massa are with
the ELEDIA Research Center@DISI, University of Trento, Via Som-
marive 5, Povo 38123 Trento - Italy (e-mail: {nicola.anselmi, luca.manica,
paolo.rocca}@disi.unitn.it; andrea.massa@ing.unitn.it)
N1 N2 N3 n n1 n+1
E
l
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
Element Index, n
0 1 2
sup{An}
inf{An}
n
{An1}
{A1}

(sup)
n+1

(inf)
n+1
Fig. 1. IA-based Approach - Reference amplitudes (n, n = 0, ..., N 1),
upper (sup {An}, n = 0, ..., N1) and lower (inf {An}, n = 0, ..., N
1) bounds of the corresponding tolerance interval (An, n = 0, ..., N 1).
in [2] for assessing the robustness of the array performance
against the statistics of the errors on the array sensors.
Moreover, in the eld of superdirective arrays, great attention
has been paid to the synthesis of solutions that are robust
with respect to the errors in the amplitude gains and phases
[12][13][14]. The problem of quantization errors due to the
use of digitally-controlled phase shifters or ampliers with a
limited number of possible values has been addressed [4][5],
as well.
As for the robust array design, probabilistic methods [10] have
been investigated since no antenna can be realized in practice
by continuously and arbitrarily reconguring the values of
the control points. Moreover, statistical approaches have been
recently applied to estimate the maximum tolerance of each
array element to generate a beam pattern having prescribed
radiation performance [11]. However, such approaches cannot
be considered as completely reliable and guaranteeing a robust
array realization because of the impossibility to test the innite
number of combinations of the control point values within a
given error threshold.
In this work, an innovative method based on the Interval Anal-
ysis is presented to evaluate in a deterministic, exhaustive, and
analytic fashion, unlike the probabilistic approaches already
proposed [2][6][7][8][9], the effects of the manufacturing
tolerances in the control points of the BFN on the radiation
pattern of linear antenna arrays. Firstly proposed to determine
the error bounds on the rounding operations in numerical
computation [15][16], IA has then been applied to solve linear
and non-linear equations [17] as well as optimization problems
[18][19]. In electromagnetics, the use of IA has been limited
to some pioneering works dealing with the robust design of
magnetic devices [20][21] and reliable systems for target track-
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 2
ing based on range-only multistatic radar [22]. Recently, IA
has been also applied to inverse scattering problems [23][24]
where both the problem and the cost function, quantifying the
mismatch between measured and reconstructed data, have been
formulated according to the arithmetic of intervals.
Thanks to the intrinsic capability of the IA to deal with uncer-
tainties, the rules of interval arithmetic are here considered for
determining the tolerance, namely the upper and lower bounds,
of the array factor and the corresponding power pattern when
manufacturing tolerances arise on the excitation amplitudes.
Towards this aim, the array analysis is addressed rstly by
expressing the quantities affected by errors or tolerances in
terms of interval numbers and then the arithmetic of intervals
is used to analytically determine the bounds of the radiation
functions.
The outline of the paper is as follows. The problem is
mathematically formulated in Sect. II where, after introducing
the interval representation for the values of the antenna control
points and of the array factor, the upper and lower bounds
of the array factor (Sect. II.A) and the power pattern (Sect.
II.B) are analytically determined by means of IA. A set of
representative numerical examples is reported in Sect. III to
assess the reliability of the proposed method (Sect. III.A) as
well as its effectiveness when dealing with arrays different in
the aperture size or the radiated SLL (Sect. III.B). Eventually,
some conclusions are drawn in Sect. IV where the advantages
of the proposed IA-based method for array tolerance analysis
are highlighted, as well.
II. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Let us consider a linear array of N isotropic radia-
tors uniformly-spaced along the x-axis and the correspond-
ing amplitude weights characterized by known or measur-
able tolerances,
(sup)
n
and
(inf)
n
, around the nominal (ex-
pected/reference) value
n
(n = 0, ..., N 1). Accordingly,
the levels of amplication or attenuation actually realized
through the BFN can be represented by the intervals A
n
dened by their bounds (Fig. 1), inf {A
n
}
n

(inf)
n
and
sup {A
n
}
n
+
(sup)
n
,
A
n
= [inf {A
n
} ; sup {A
n
}] , n = 0, ..., N 1 (1)
or, in a dual fashion, in terms of the interval midpoint,
{A
n
}
inf{An}+sup{An}
2
=
n
+

(sup)
n

(inf)
n
2
, and width,
{A
n
} sup {A
n
} inf {A
n
}=
(sup)
n
+
(inf)
n
,
A
n
=
_
{A
n
}
{An}
2
; {A
n
} +
{An}
2
_
,
n = 0, ..., N 1.
(2)
By considering the amplitude tolerances (1), the array factor
can be mathematically expressed as follows
AF() =
N1

n=0
A
n
e
jn()
(3)
where j =

1 is the complex variable and

n
() =
(nkdsin +
n
), k =
2

being the free-space wavenumber,

the wavelength, (
n
, n = 0, ..., N1) the phase weights of the
array elements, d the inter-element spacing, and
_

2
;

2

the angular direction measured from boresight (i.e., =

2
).
As it can be noticed (3), the array factor is a (complex)
interval number (see Appendix I) for each angular direction,

_

2
;

2

whose bounds can be analytically computed by

using the arithmetic of complex intervals [25] according to the
mathematical rules summarized in Appendix II and exploited
in Sect. II.A.
A. Array Factor Interval Denition
In order to determine an explicit expression for AF(),

_

2
;

2

, as a function of the amplitude tolerances,

(sup)
n
and
(inf)
n
, and nominal values
n
(n = 0, ..., N 1),
let us rewrite the complex interval (3) in terms of its real,
AF
R
()=

N1
n=0
A
n
cos
n
(), and imaginary, AF
I
()=

N1
n=0
A
n
sin
n
(), components
AF() = AF
R
() + jAF
I
() . (4)
With reference to AF
R
(), let us substitute (1) within the
expression of the n-th term of AF
R
(), (AF
R
())
n
. It
follows that
AF
R
() =

N1
n=0
(AF
R
())
n
=

N1
n=0
[inf {A
n
cos
n
()} ; sup {A
n
cos
n
()}] .
(5)
Since the following relationships hold true
sup {A
n
} cos
n
() inf {A
n
} cos
n
()
if cos
n
() 0
sup {A
n
} cos
n
() < inf {A
n
} cos
n
()
if cos
n
() < 0,
(6)
the width of the n-th term of AF
R
(), {(AF
R
())
n
}=
sup {A
n
cos
n
()} inf {A
n
cos
n
()}, turns out being
equal to
{(AF
R
())
n
} =
_

(sup)
n
+
(inf)
n
_
|cos
n
()| , (7)
while the corresponding interval mid-point, {(AF
R
())
n
}=
inf{An cos n()}+sup{An cos n()}
2
, is equal to
{(AF
R
())
n
} =
n
cos
n
() +
+
_

(sup)
n

(inf)
n
2
_
cos
n
()
(8)
Since the sum of the widths/mid-points of real intervals
is equal to the width/mid-point of the interval sum (see
Appendix III), {AF
R
()} =

N1
n=0
{(AF
R
())
n
} and
{AF
R
()} =

N1
n=0
{(AF
R
())
n
}, hence
{AF
R
()} =
N1

n=0
_

(sup)
n
+
(inf)
n
_
|cos
n
()| (9)
and
{AF
R
()} =

N1
n=0
{
n
cos
n
() +
+
_

(sup)
n

(inf)
n
2
_
cos
n
()
_
(10)
Analogously, the width and midpoint of AF
I
() can be
proved being equal to
{AF
I
()} =
N1

n=0
_

(sup)
n
+
(inf)
n
_
|sin
n
()| (11)
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E
x
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
Element Index, n
Taylor -
n
= 1%
Interval Amplitude, A
n
Reference Amplitude,
n
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E
x
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
Element Index, n
Taylor -
n
= 5%
Interval Amplitude, A
n
Reference Amplitude,
n
(a) (b)
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
o
w
e
r

P
a
t
t
e
r
n

[
d
B
]
u
sup{P(u)}
inf{P(u)}
P(u)
(q)
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
o
w
e
r

P
a
t
t
e
r
n

[
d
B
]
u
sup{P(u)}
inf{P(u)}
P(u)
(q)
(c) (d)
Fig. 2. Example 1 (N = 10, d =

2
, n = {1, 5}%; Taylor pattern: SLL
ref
= 20 dB, n = 2) - Reference amplitudes (n, n = 0, ..., N 1) and
amplitude tolerance intervals (An, n = 0, ..., N 1) (a)(b) and bounds (sup{P(u)} and (inf {P(u)}) of the corresponding power pattern P(u) intervals
(c)(d) when (a)(c) n = 1% and (b)(d) n = 5%. Although the interval amplitudes are not appreciable for small values of n [Fig. 2(a)], the tolerance
effects on the power pattern are evident in dB scale [Fig. 2(c)].
and
{AF
I
()} =

N1
n=0
{
n
sin
n
() +
+
_

(sup)
n

(inf)
n
2
_
sin
n
()
_
(12)
respectively.
By substituting (9)(10) and (11)(12) in (2)
inf
_
AF
R
()
AF
I
()
_
=
_
AF
R
()
AF
I
()
_

_
AF
R
()
AF
I
()
_
2
(13)
sup
_
AF
R
()
AF
I
()
_
=
_
AF
R
()
AF
I
()
_
+

_
AF
R
()
AF
I
()
_
2
(14)
the bounds of the two components of AF() assume the
following mathematical expressions
sup
_
AF
R
()
AF
I
()
_
=

N1
n=0
__

n
+

(sup)
n

(inf)
n
2
_

cos
n
()
sin
n
()
+
_

(sup)
n

(inf)
n
2
_
|cos
n
()|
|sin
n
()|
_
(15)
inf
_
AF
R
()
AF
I
()
_
=

N1
n=0
__

n
+

(sup)
n

(inf)
n
2
_

cos
n
()
sin
n
()

_

(sup)
n

(inf)
n
2
_
|cos
n
()|
|sin
n
()|
_
.
(16)
Finally, the interval of the array factor (4) in terms of
(sup)
n
,

(inf)
n
, and
n
(n = 0, ..., N 1) is then obtained by
substituting (15) and (16) in the following
AF() = [inf {AF
R
()} ; sup {AF
R
()}]
+j [inf {AF
I
()} ; sup {AF
I
()}]
(17)
being
_

2
;

2

.
B. Power Pattern Interval Denition
In many practical applications (e.g., communications and
radars), the dependence on the manufacturing tolerances of
the bounds of the power pattern, P () = |AF ()|
2
=
AF () AF

(), instead of the array factor, AF (), are pre-

ferred. To determine upper and lower values of the (real) power
pattern interval, let us consider that the complex interval,
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubspermissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 4
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
1 0.5 0 0.5 1
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

P
o
w
e
r

P
a
t
t
e
r
n

[
d
B
]
u
inf{SLL} sup{SLL}
sup{P(u)}
inf{P(u)}
(a)
3

[
d
B
]
3

[
d
B
]
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

P
o
w
e
r

P
a
t
t
e
r
n

[
d
B
]
u
inf{BW}
sup{BW}
sup{P(u)}
inf{P(u)}
(b)
Fig. 3. IA-based Approach - Upper and lower bounds of the intervals (a)
SLL and (b) BW.
TABLE I
Example 1 (N = 10, d =

2
; TAYLOR PATTERN: SLL
ref
= 20 dB,
n = 2). AMPLITUDE DISTRIBUTION.
n n n n
0 0.542 5 1.000
1 0.629 6 0.913
2 0.771 7 0.771
3 0.913 8 0.629
4 1.000 9 0.542
P() AF() AF

(), according to (43) and (4), can be

rewritten as
P() = AF
2
R
() +AF
2
I
() (18)
where AF
R
() and AF
I
() are real number intervals. The
analysis of the two terms in (18) is dual, then only the deriva-
tion of AF
2
R
() will be detailed, while the expressions for
AF
2
I
() will be obtained by trivial extension. With reference
to (44) and concerning the real term, two different conditions
have to be taken into account:
Case (inf {AF
R
()} > 0 or
sup {AF
R
()} < 0) - From (44), AF
2
R
() =
_
min
_
(inf {AF
R
()})
2
, (sup {AF
R
()})
2
_
;
max
_
(inf {AF
R
()})
2
, (sup {AF
R
()})
2
__
, then
let us analyze the square value of (13) and (14) given by
_
sup
inf
{AF
R
()}
_
2
=
2
{AF
R
()} +
+

2
{AFR()}
4
{AF
R
()} {AF
R
()} .
(19)
Since
2
{AF
R
()},

2
{AFR()}
4
, and {AF
R
()} are
all positive quantities, it follows that
(sup {AF
R
()})
2
(inf {AF
R
()})
2
if {AF
R
()} 0
(inf {AF
R
()})
2
(sup {AF
R
()})
2
if {AF
R
()} < 0 .
(20)
Consequently, it turns out that
AF
2
R
() =
_
_
|{AF
R
()}|
{AFR()}
2
_
2
;
_
|{AF
R
()}| +
{AFR()}
2
_
2
_
;
(21)
Case (inf {AF
R
()} 0
sup {AF
R
()}) - From (44), AF
2
R
() =
_
0; max
_
(inf {AF
R
()})
2
, (sup {AF
R
()})
2
__
,
then it results that (13)(14)
AF
2
R
() =
_
0;
_
|{AF
R
()}| +
{AFR()}
2
_
2
_
(22)
As for the term AF
2
I
(),
Case (inf {AF
I
()} > 0 or sup {AF
I
()} < 0) -
Analogously to (21)
AF
2
I
() =
_
_
|{AF
I
()}|
{AFI()}
2
_
2
;
_
|{AF
I
()}| +
{AFI ()}
2
_
2
_
;
(23)
Case (inf {AF
I
()} 0 sup {AF
I
()}) - Analo-
gously to (22)
AF
2
I
() =
_
0;
_
|{AF
I
()}| +
{AFI()}
2
_
2
_
(24)
By combining the four previous cases and applying (38), it
results that
P() = [inf {P()} ; sup {P()}] (25)
where
inf {P()} =
_
|{AF
R
()}|
{AFR()}
2
_
2
+
+
_
|{AF
I
()}|
{AFI ()}
2
_
2
sup {P()} =
_
|{AF
R
()}| +
{AFR()}
2
_
2
+
+
_
|{AF
I
()}| +
{AFI ()}
2
_
2
(26)
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 5
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
B
W


[
u
]
Solution Index, q
inf{BW}
sup{BW}
BW
(q)
BW
ref
-25
-20
-15
-10
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
S
L
L


[
d
B
]
Solution Index, q
inf{SLL}
sup{SLL}
SLL
(q)
SLL
ref
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
D


[
d
B
]
Solution Index, q
inf{D}
sup{D}
D
(q)
D
ref
(a) (c) (e)
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
B
W


[
u
]
Solution Index, q
inf{BW}
sup{BW}
BW
(q)
BW
ref
-25
-20
-15
-10
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
S
L
L


[
d
B
]
Solution Index, q
inf{SLL}
sup{SLL}
SLL
(q)
SLL
ref
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
D


[
d
B
]
Solution Index, q
inf{D}
sup{D}
D
(q)
D
ref
(b) (d) (f)
Fig. 4. Example 1 (N = 10, d =

2
, n = {1, 5}%; Taylor pattern: SLL
ref
= 20 dB, n = 2) - Bounds and nominal value of the intervals (a)(b)
BW, (c)(d) SLL, and (e)(f ) D when (a)(c)(e) n = 1% and (b)(d)(f ) n = 5%.
if (inf {AF
R
()} > 0 or sup {AF
R
()} < 0) and
(inf {AF
I
()} > 0 or sup {AF
I
()} < 0),
inf {P()} =
_
|{AF
R
()}|
{AFR()}
2
_
2
sup {P()} =
_
|{AF
R
()}| +
{AFR()}
2
_
2
+
+
_
|{AF
I
()}| +
{AFI ()}
2
_
2
(27)
if (inf {AF
R
()} > 0 or sup {AF
R
()} < 0) and
(inf {AF
I
()} 0 sup {AF
I
()}),
inf {P()} =
_
|{AF
I
()}|
{AFI()}
2
_
2
sup {P()} =
_
|{AF
R
()}| +
{AFR()}
2
_
2
+
_
|{AF
I
()}| +
{AFI ()}
2
_
2
+ (28)
if (inf {AF
R
()} 0 sup {AF
R
()}) and
(inf {AF
I
()} > 0 or sup {AF
I
()} < 0), and
inf {P()} = 0
sup {P()} =
_
|{AF
R
()}| +
{AFR()}
2
_
2
+
+
_
|{AF
I
()}| +
{AFI ()}
2
_
2
(29)
if (inf {AF
R
()} 0 sup {AF
R
()}) and
(inf {AF
I
()} 0 sup {AF
I
()}).
The nal expression of P() in terms of
(sup)
n
,
(inf)
n
,
and
n
(n = 0, ..., N 1) is then obtained by substituting
(9)(10)(11)(12) in (25) throughout (26)(27)(28)(29).
III. NUMERICAL RESULTS
In the following, the proposed IA-based analysis method is
assessed by reporting and discussing the most representative
results of a wide set of numerical simulations. Besides the
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
E
x
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
Excitation Index, n
Dolph - SLL=-30 [dB]

n
=1%

n
=5%

n
=10%
(a)
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
o
w
e
r

P
a
t
t
e
r
n

[
d
B
]
u
Dolph - SLL=-30 [dB]
P(u)
P(u) -
n
=1%
P(u) -
n
=5%
P(u) -
n
=10%
(b)
Fig. 5. Example 2 (N = 20, d =

2
, n = {1, 5, 10}%; Dolph-
Chebyshev pattern: SLL
ref
= 30 dB) - Reference amplitudes (n,
n = 0, ..., N 1) and amplitude tolerance intervals (An, n = 0, ..., N 1)
(a) and bounds (sup {P(u)} and (inf {P(u)}) of the corresponding power
pattern intervals P(u) (b) when n = {1, 5, 10}%.
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 6
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
S
L
L

[
d
B
]
|SLL
ref
| [dB]
SLL
ref
SLL -
n
=1%
SLL -
n
=5%
SLL -
n
=10%
(a)
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
B
W


[
u
]
|SLL
ref
| [dB]
BW
ref
BW -
n
=1%
BW -
n
=5%
BW -
n
=10%
(b)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
D

[
d
B
]
|SLL
ref
| [dB]
D
ref
D -
n
=1%
D -
n
=5%
D -
n
=10%
(c)
Fig. 6. Example 3 (N = 20, d =

2
, n = {1, 5, 10}%; Dolph-
Chebyshev pattern: SLL
ref
[60; 10] dB) - Bounds and nominal
value of the intervals (a) SLL, (b) BW, and (c) D versus SLL
ref
when
n = {1, 5, 10}%.
method validation, a numerical study on the bounds of some
key pattern features [i.e., SLL, half-power beam width (BW),
and peak directivity (D)] is presented dealing with arrays
of different sizes or radiating different SLLs. Without loss
of generality, the condition
(inf)
n
=
(sup)
n
=
n
, n =
0, ..., N1 has been assumed throughout the whole numerical
assessment.
A. Method Validation
Let us consider a linear array of N = 10 elements uniformly-
spaced by d =

2
. The reference/nominal amplitudes,
n
,
n = 0, ..., N 1 given in Tab. I, generate a Taylor pattern
with SLL
ref
= 20dB and n = 2, n 1 being the number
of sidelobes on each side of the mainlobe with peaks at
SLL
ref
[3][5]. To investigate on the effects of amplitude
tolerances on the radiation pattern, the following two cases
have been considered:
n
=
1
100

n
and
n
=
5
100

n
.
The corresponding intervals A
n
= [inf {A
n
} ; sup {A
n
}],
n = 0, ..., N1 are indicated with the bars in Figs. 2(a)-2(b),
where the nominal amplitudes are reported, as well. Moreover,
the power pattern intervals P(u) [u sin()], u [1, 1]
computed by means of interval arithmetic are shown in Fig.
2(c) and Fig. 2(d) in terms of their upper, sup {P(u)}, and
lower, inf {P(u)}, bounds. For a preliminary indication that
the patterns potentially radiated by the array with manu-
facturing tolerances lay within the IA bounds, Q = 5000
different beams have been generated by randomly selecting the
amplitude values as
(q)
n
=
n
r
(q)
n

n
, q = 1, ..., Q, r
(q)
n

[0, 1] being a random variable with uniform distribution.
Although a complete analysis is not possible since it would
require the generation of all (innite) patterns generated by
the arrays whose amplitudes can vary with continuity within
the intervals of tolerance inf {A
n
} A
n
sup {A
n
},
n = 0, ..., N 1, the fact that all Q beams are within the
IA analytically-dened bounds (inf {P(u)} P
(q)
(u)
sup {P(u)}, q = 0, ..., Q 1) [Figs. 2(c)-2(d)] fully conrm
the theoretical proof given by the Inclusion Function Theorem
[19]. Customized to array analysis, the theorem states that,
when the condition

A
n
A
n
, n = 0, ..., N 1 is veried,
namely that interval

A
n
is included within interval A
n
for all
n = 0, ..., N1, the interval power pattern

P() yielded from
the interval amplitudes
_

A
0
,

A
1
, ...,

A
N1
_
and computed
according to the rules of Interval Arithmetic is included within
the bounds of P() generated with {A
0
, A
1
, ..., A
N1
},
namely

P() P(). The same conclusion holds true when

A
n
is a degenerate interval, namely an interval containing
a single amplitude value
n
where
(inf)
n
=
(sup)
n
= 0,
n = 0, ..., N 1. As a consequence, it follows that P()
contains all power patterns generated by amplitude values

n
A
n
, n = 0, . . . , N 1.
To better quantify the effects of the amplitude tolerances on
the array radiation properties, the intervals related to SLL,
BW, and D have been dened and computed. Towards this
end, let the end-points of SLL dened as follows [Fig. 3(a)]
inf {SLL} = max
/
{inf {P()}}
max

{sup {P()}} [dB]

(30)
sup {SLL} = max
/
{sup {P()}}
max

{inf {P()}} [dB]

(31)
where denotes the mainlobe region, while those of BW
[Fig. 3(b)]
inf {BW} =
(inf)
3dB, r

(inf)
3dB, l
(32)
sup {BW} =
(sup)
3dB, r

(sup)
3dB, l
(33)

(inf)
3dB, l
= min{ : inf {P()} = sup {P()} 0.5} and

(inf)
3dB, r
= max{ : inf {P()} = sup {P()} 0.5} be-
ing the angular directions corresponding to the two points
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubspermissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 7
TABLE II
Example 3 (N = 20, d =

2
, n = {1, 5, 10}%; DOLPH-CHEBYSHEV
PATTERN: SLL
ref
[60; 10] dB). VALUES OF UPPER AND LOWER
BOUNDS OF SLL.
SLL [dB]

SLL
ref

[dB] n = 1% n = 5% n = 10%
10 [10.29; 9.68] [11.49; 8.43] [13.10; 6.96]
15 [15.42; 14.50] [17.20; 12.66] [19.80; 10.61]
20 [20.63; 19.18] [23.53; 16.37] [28.70; 13.58]
25 [26.01; 23.63] [31.36; 19.45] [58.90; 15.78]
30 [31.69; 27.74] [45.53; 21.76] [; 14.85]
35 [37.96; 31.36] [; 23.06] [; 15.45]
40 [45.70; 34.35] [; 22.74] [; 16.38]
45 [59.46; 36.60] [; 21.81] [; 16.11]
50 [; 37.88] [; 21.00] [; 15.41]
55 [; 36.85] [; 21.88] [; 14.96]
60 [; 36.10] [; 22.84] [; 14.51]
TABLE III
Example 3 (N = 20, d =

2
, n = {1, 5, 10}%; DOLPH-CHEBYSHEV
PATTERN: SLL
ref
[60; 10] dB). VALUES OF UPPER AND LOWER
BOUNDS OF BW.
BW [u] 10
1

SLL
ref

[dB] n = 1% n = 5% n = 10%
10 [0.72; 0.77] [0.63; 0.88] [0.50; 0.93]
15 [0.83; 0.88] [0.73; 0.98] [0.58; 1.05]
20 [0.93; 0.98] [0.80; 1.08] [0.63; 1.20]
25 [1.00; 1.05] [0.88; 1.18] [0.68; 1.33]
30 [1.08; 1.15] [1.03; 1.22] [0.73; 1.45]
35 [1.15; 1.23] [1.00; 1.38] [0.78; 1.55]
40 [1.23; 1.30] [1.08; 1.45] [0.80; 1.63]
45 [1.28; 1.38] [1.11; 1.53] [0.85; 1.73]
50 [1.35; 1.43] [1.12; 1.60] [0.88; 1.80]
55 [1.40; 1.48] [1.20; 1.65] [0.93; 1.88]
60 [1.45; 1.55] [1.25; 1.73] [0.95; 1.93]
of inf {P()} on both sides of the peak of the main-
beam having power 3 dB below max

{sup {P()}}. Du-

ally,
(sup)
3dB, l
= min{ : inf {P()} = inf {P()} 0.5}
and
(sup)
3dB, r
= max{ : inf {P()} = inf {P()} 0.5}
are the angular directions in correspondence with the
two points of sup {P()} having power 3 dB below
max

{inf {P()}}.
As for the interval of the directivity, D, it is analytically given
in case d =

2
by
D =

N1
n=0
I
n

N1
n=0
|I
n
|
2
(34)
whose bounds are computed according to the rules of Interval
Arithmetic [19][25] (Appendix II), . In (34), I
n
= A
n
e
jn
,
n = 0, ..., N 1. Since physical bounds on the achievable
maximum directivity have been already derived [4], they have
been used to improve the interval denition of D. For example,
in case of linear arrays with d =

2
, the maximum directivity
can not overcome the value sup {D} = 10 log
10
N that is
obtained with uniform excitations.
The plots in Fig. 4 show the end-points of BW, SLL, and D
when the amplitude tolerances are 1% [Figs. 4(a)-4(c)-4(d)]
and 5% [Figs. 4(b)-4(d)-4(e)] of the nominal/reference
TABLE IV
Example 3 (N = 20, d =

2
, n = {1, 5, 10}%; DOLPH-CHEBYSHEV
PATTERN: SLL
ref
[60; 10] dB). VALUES OF UPPER AND LOWER
BOUNDS OF D.
D [dB]

SLL
ref

[dB] n = 1% n = 5% n = 10%
10 [10.60; 10.95] [9.91; 11.65] [9.04; 12.52]
15 [12.24; 12.59] [11.55; 13.01] [10.67; 13.01]
20 [12.62; 12.97] [11.93; 13.01] [11.05; 13.01]
25 [12.48; 12.83] [11.79; 13.01] [10.92; 13.01]
30 [12.22; 12.56] [11.53; 13.01] [10.65; 13.01]
35 [11.95; 12.29] [11.25; 12.98] [10.38; 13.01]
40 [11.69; 12.04] [10.99; 12.73] [10.12; 13.01]
45 [11.46; 11.81] [10.77; 12.51] [9.90; 13.01]
50 [11.26; 11.61] [10.56; 12.30] [9.69; 13.01]
55 [11.08; 11.43] [10.38; 12.12] [9.51; 12.99]
60 [10.92; 11.26] [10.22; 11.96] [9.35; 12.84]
Pattern Tolerance,
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
1 0.5 0 0.5 1
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
o
w
e
r
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
[
d
B
]
u
sup{P(u)}
inf{P(u)}
Fig. 7. IA-based Approach - Pattern tolerance index .
values. For completeness, the values of the pattern features
of the Q randomly generated beam patterns are reported
together with those of the nominal/reference one. As it can
be observed, the upper bound for SLL when
n
n
=
1
100
is sup {SLL}
n=1%
= 19.23 dB with an increment of
0.77 dB with respect to the reference value. The lowest
SLL is instead inf {SLL}
n=1%
= 20.81 dB.
As expected, the bounds widen when the tolerance
increases to
n
n
=
5
100
. As a matter of fact, it
turns out that inf {SLL}
n=5%
= 23.04 dB and
sup {SLL}
n=5%
= 16.50 dB. Similar outcomes also
arise for the intervals of the mainlobe width at 3 dB
( inf {BW}
n=1%
= 0.19 [u], sup {BW}
n=1%
=
0.21 [u] vs. inf {BW}
n=5%
= 0.17 [u],
sup {BW}
n=5%
= 0.23 [u]) and the peak directivity
( inf {D}
n=1%
= 9.62 dB, sup {D}
n=1%
= 9.96 dB
vs. inf {D}
n=5%
= 8.92 dB, sup {D}
n=5%
=
10.00 dB), the nominal values of the two pattern features
being equal to BW
ref
= 0.20 [u] and D
ref
= 9.79 dB.
B. Pattern Tolerance Analysis
In practical applications, it is of great interest to evaluate the
worst admissible performances of an array in the presence
of control points of the BFN characterized by given error
tolerances. Towards this end, the proposed IA-based approach
turns out to be a useful tool as proved in the following
experiments.
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubspermissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 8
TABLE V
Example 3 (N = 20, d =

2
, n = {1, 5, 10}%; DOLPH-CHEBYSHEV
PATTERN: SLL
ref
[60; 10] dB). VALUES OF THE PATTERN
TOLERANCE INDEX .

SLL
ref

[dB] n = 1% n = 5% n = 10%
10 0.1912 0.9604 1.9379
15 0.3213 1.6198 3.2996
20 0.5346 2.7201 5.6473
25 0.4978 2.5590 5.4611
30 0.4610 2.4081 5.2499
35 0.4318 2.2937 5.0303
40 0.4076 2.1860 4.7887
45 0.3875 2.0827 4.5477
50 0.3705 1.9866 4.3216
55 0.3553 1.8998 4.1170
60 0.3418 1.8225 3.9358
As a rst illustrative example, let us consider an array
with N = 20 elements spaced by d =

2
and refer-
ence excitations generating Dolph-Chebyshev pattern with
SLL
ref
= 30 dB characterized by manufacturing toler-
ances
n
=
_
1
100
,
5
100
,
1
10
_

n
as shown in Fig. 5(a).
The reference power pattern as well as the upper and lower
bounds of the IA-computed pattern interval P() are re-
ported in Fig. 5(b), while the interval bounds of SLL,
BW, and D are given in Tab. II, Tab. III, and Tab. IV,
respectively. As for the SLL bounds, it turns out that,
as expected, the interval width gets larger when the am-
plitude tolerance increases: {SLL}
n=1%
= 3.95 dB,
{SLL}
n=5%
= 23.77 dB, and {SLL}
n=10%

dB (Tab. II). In the latter case (
n
= 10%), the width
in decibel tends to innity since inf {P()} 0. Concern-
ing the worst level of the secondary lobes, the values are
sup {SLL}
n=1%
= 27.74 dB, sup {SLL}
n=5%
=
21.76 dB, and sup {SLL}
n=10%
= 14.85 dB (Tab. II).
It is interesting noticing that in case the array is designed to
afford a sum beam with SLL
ref
= 30 dB, an error of
n
=
1% on the nominal amplitudes implies a maximum increment
of the secondary lobes of 2.26 dB, while the SLL upper
bound increases of 8.24 dB and 15.15 dB when
n
=
5
100

n
and
n
=
1
10

n
, respectively. Similarly, the widths of the
intervals BW[Fig. 6(b) - Tab. III] and D [Fig. 6(c) - Tab. IV]
proportionally increase as the realization accuracy of the con-
trol points gets worse. More specically, the width of the main
lobe at 3 dB remains almost unaltered when small manu-
facturing errors are present ( {BW}
n=1%
= 0.07 [u]),
while the bounds broadening is non-negligible otherwise being
{BW}
n=10%
= 0.72 [u] (Tab. III). As for the peak
directivity, the variations of the interval range grow almost
proportionally to the tolerance value: {D}
n=5%
4
{D}
n=1%
and {D}
n=10%
7 {D}
n=1%
since {D}
n=1%
= 0.34dB, {D}
n=5%
= 1.47dB,
and {D}
n=10%
= 2.36dB.
The second example deals with excitations affording Dolph-
Chebyshev patterns with SLL
ref
[60; 10] dB. The
upper and lower bounds of the arising intervals SLL, BW,
and D are summarized in Fig. 6 where the values of the
0.1
0.3
0.5
1.0
3.0
5.0
10.0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
P
a
t
t
e
r
n

T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e

I
n
d
e
x
,

|SLL
ref
| [dB]

n
=1%

n
=5%

n
=10%
Fig. 8. Example 3 (N = 20, d =

2
, n = {1, 5, 10}%; Dolph-
Chebyshev pattern: SLL
ref
[60; 10] dB) - Behavior of the pattern
tolerance index versus SLL
ref
when n = {1, 5, 10}%.
nominal patterns are indicated, as well. For completeness and
to allow the interested reader to reproduce the obtained results,
the interval end-points are reported in Tab. II (SLL), Tab.
III (BW), and Tab. IV (D). From Fig. 6(a), it is interesting
to note that high tolerances on the amplitude weights limit
the possibility to yield low sidelobes also adopting nominal
excitations that ideally afford smaller values of the SLL
ref
.
As a matter of fact, the curves of sup {SLL} are at over
some threshold values of SLL
ref
(e.g., SLL
ref
25 dB
when
n
= 10% or SLL
ref
30 dB when
n
= 5% or
SLL
ref
40 dB when
n
= 1%). In practice, an error
of
n
= 1% does not guarantee to synthesize secondary
lobes below 37 dB, while larger tolerances imply beams
with sidelobes greater than 22 dB (
n
= 5%) and 15 dB
(
n
= 10%), respectively. From the point of view of the
array designer, these results point out that the manufacturing
tolerances on the amplitudes must be smaller than
n
= 1%
in case one would like to be sure to have a pattern with SLL <
40 dB. As for the interval BW [Fig. 6(b)], the bounds turn
out to be symmetric or almost symmetric with respect to the
reference values. More in detail, the interval width as well as
the bounds of BW slightly increases versus SLL
ref
. Unlike
BW, the interval D [Fig. 6(c)] is not symmetric with respect
to the nominal value since physical limits have been exploited
for a more precise denition of the upper bound. Moreover,
the non-monotonic behavior of the directivity [Fig. 6(c)] is
related to its dependence on the total power radiated by the
antenna as for the pattern tolerance index (Fig. 7)
=
_
1
1
(sup {P()} inf {P()}) du
_
1
1
P () du
=
_
1
1
{P()} du
_
1
1
P () du
(35)
shown in Fig. 8 whose value, on the other hand, increases
proportionally to the amplitude tolerance.
The last numerical example is concerned with arrays different
in size to point out a key advantage of the proposed IA-based
method since it enables the analysis of arrays with an arbitrary
number of elements thanks to the analytic relationships derived
with the arithmetic of intervals. Accordingly, linear uniform
(d =

2
) arrays with N = {10, 20, 40, 50, 100, 200} ele-
ments and reference excitations generating a Dolph-Chebyshev
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubspermissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 9
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
10 20 40 50 100 200
S
L
L

[
d
B
]
Number of Elements, N
SLL
ref
SLL -
n
=1%
SLL -
n
=5%
SLL -
n
=10%
(a)
10 20 40 50 100 200
B
W


[
u
]
Number of Elements, N
BW
ref
BW -
n
=1%
BW -
n
=5%
BW -
n
=10%
(b)
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
10 20 40 50 100 200
D

[
d
B
]
Number of Elements, N
D
ref
D -
n
=1%
D -
n
=5%
D -
n
=10%
(c)
Fig. 9. Example 4 (N [10; 200], d =

2
, n = {1, 5, 10}%; Dolph-
Chebyshev pattern: SLL
ref
= 20 dB) - Bounds and nominal value of the
intervals (a) SLL, (b) BW, and (c) Dversus N when n = {1, 5, 10}%.
pattern with SLL = 20 dB have been studied. Likewise
the previous example, amplitude tolerances within the range

n
=
_
1
100
,
5
100
,
1
10
_

n
have been chosen for illustrative
and comparative purposes.
The results are summarized in Fig. 9 and Tab. VI (SLL and
BW) and Tab. VII (D). Figure 9 shows that, similarly to the
study on the dependence on SLL
ref
of the previous example,
the bounds of BW [Fig. 9(b)] are almost symmetric to the
nominal value while the upper bound of D [Fig. 9(c)] is
limited by the physical threshold [4]. As for the sidelobe
level, the bounds of SLL maintain almost constant values
TABLE VI
Example 4 (N [10; 200], d =

2
, n = {1, 5, 10}%;
DOLPH-CHEBYSHEV PATTERN: SLL
ref
= 20 dB). VALUES OF THE
UPPER AND LOWER BOUNDS OF SLL AND BW.
N n = 1% n = 5% n = 10%
SLL [dB]
10 [20.65; 19.21] [23.54; 16.44] [28.56; 13.63]
20 [20.63; 19.18] [23.53; 16.37] [28.70; 13.58]
40 [20.63; 19.18] [23.54; 16.37] [28.70; 13.57]
50 [20.63; 19.18] [23.54; 16.37] [28.71; 13.57]
100 [20.63; 19.18] [23.54; 16.37] [28.71; 13.57]
200 [20.15; 18.76] [23.23; 16.13] [29.06; 13.41]
BW [u] 10
1
10 [1.89; 2.00] [1.64; 2.20] [1.27; 2.46]
20 [0.91; 0.96] [0.79; 1.05] [0.61; 1.18]
40 [0.44; 0.47] [0.38; 0.52] [0.30; 0.58]
50 [0.35; 0.37] [0.31; 0.41] [0.24; 0.46]
100 [0.18; 0.19] [0.15; 0.20] [0.12; 0.23]
200 [0.09; 0.09] [0.08; 0.10] [0.06; 0.11]
TABLE VII
Example 4 (N [10; 200], d =

2
, n = {1, 5, 10}%;
DOLPH-CHEBYSHEV PATTERN: SLL
ref
= 20 dB). VALUES OF THE
UPPER AND LOWER BOUNDS OF D AND .
N n = 1% n = 5% n = 10%
D [dB]
10 [9.66; 10.00] [8.96; 10.00] [8.09; 10.00]
20 [12.62; 12.97] [11.92; 13.01] [11.05; 13.01]
40 [15.32; 15.66] [14.62; 16.02] [13.75; 16.02]
50 [16.11; 16.46] [15.42; 16.99] [14.54; 16.99]
100 [18.31; 18.66] [17.62; 19.36] [16.75; 20.00]
200 [20.37; 19.55] [19.32; 21.06] [18.45; 21.94]

10 0.2695 1.3614 2.7871

20 0.5356 2.7200 5.6467
40 0.5974 3.0487 6.4108
50 0.6096 3.1151 6.5736
100 0.6342 3.2507 6.9157
200 0.6460 3.3163 7.0892
despite the array size [Fig. 9(a)]. This means that the tolerance
on the secondary lobes is a function of the tolerance of the
current distribution, but it is independent on the number of
array elements. For the sake of completeness, the values of
the pattern tolerance index are included in Tab. VII, as well.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
An innovative approach based on Interval Analysis and the
arithmetic of intervals has been proposed for the analysis of
the effects on the pattern features when manufacturing errors
are present in the array amplitudes. To the best of the authors
knowledge, this is the rst time that IA has been exploited
for the tolerance analysis in linear arrays. Accordingly, the
problem has been rst recast into the IA-based framework
by introducing the interval numbers aimed at describing the
tolerances on the amplitude coefcients and the arising array
factor interval. The arithmetic of intervals has been then used
to analytically dene the bounds of the power pattern interval.
The proposed method has shown being able to:
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubspermissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 10
0 Re
Im
inf{X} sup{X}
inf{Y}
sup{Y}
Re{C}
C
I
m
{
C
}
Fig. 10. IA-based Approach - Complex interval number.
naturally cope with the uncertainties and the tolerance
errors in the values of the array amplitudes;
dene exact and analytical bounds of the array factor and
the corresponding power pattern by exploiting the rules
of interval arithmetic;
be robust and reliable thanks to the inclusion function
property of IA.
As for the numerical assessment, the effectiveness of the
proposed approach in evaluating the impact on the pattern
features of the manufacturing tolerances has been studied by
addressing several tolerance-analysis problems concerned with
different beams and array dimensions. More in detail, the
numerical results have shown that
the higher the amplitude errors, the larger are the admis-
sible deviations from the reference/nominal values of the
pattern features;
the errors on the amplitude excitations limit the possi-
bility to arbitrary reduce the SLL also increasing the
tapering of the amplitude coefcients;
the method efciently deals with the analysis of large an-
tenna arrays, as well, thanks to the analytical formulation.
Further advances will consider the extension of the proposed
IA-based method to the analysis of the tolerances when errors
are present on the excitation phases and/or on the positions of
the array elements. Towards this aim, both the Cartesian (as
done in this paper) and polar representation [25] of complex
intervals will be taken into account and compared. Moreover,
the formulation will be extended to deal also with planar (2D)
or conformal (3D) array congurations.
APPENDIX I - COMPLEX INTERVAL DEFINITION
A complex intervals C (Fig. 10) is dened by a
pair of ordered intervals C = X + jY, where X
Re {C} = [inf {X} ; sup {X}] and Y Im{C} =
[inf {Y} ; sup {Y}] are real-valued intervals
1
. Accordingly,
C contains the complex values x + jy where
1
The two real intervals, namely X and Y, dening C are ordered because
the complex intervals C

= Y + jX obtained by inverting the order of the

two real intervals identies a different region of the complex plane. Hence,
C

= C.
C =
_
x + jy

inf {X} x sup {X}

inf {Y} y sup {Y}
_
. (36)
APPENDIX II - COMPLEX INTERVAL ARITHMETIC
The operations dened for the arithmetic of complex inter-
vals (e.g., addition, subtraction, multiplication, conjugation)
are extensions of those used for the arithmetical operations
between real intervals [18][19]. Since the arithmetic of real
intervals just requires the knowledge of the end points of the
two intervals involved in the operations, the same holds for the
arithmetical operations of complex intervals. In the following,
the key operations of the complex interval arithmetic are
summarized:
Addition of Complex Intervals
The sum of the complex intervals C = X + jY and
C

= X

+ jY

is
C+C

= (X+X

) + j (Y+Y

) (37)
where X,Y and X

,Y

are real intervals. Moreover, the

sum X + Y, with X = [inf {X} ; sup {X}] and Y =
[inf {Y} ; sup {Y}], turns out being [19]
X+Y = [inf {X} + inf {Y} ; sup {X} + sup {Y}] .
(38)
The subtraction of complex intervals is a particular case
of addition where the sign of an interval is inverted. The
negative of C, namely C, is dened as
C = XjY (39)
where X = [sup {X} ; inf {X}] and Y =
[sup {Y} ; inf {Y}], respectively.
Multiplication of Complex Intervals
The product of the complex intervals C = X+ jY and
C

= X

+ jY

is
CC

=
_
XX

YY

_
+ j
_
XY

+YX

_
(40)
where the product between two real interval
numbers, X = [inf {X} ; sup {X}] and Y =
[inf {Y} ; sup {Y}], is
XY = [min{inf {X} inf {Y} , inf {X} sup {Y} ,
sup {X} inf {Y} , sup {X} sup {Y}} ;
max{inf {X} inf {Y} , inf {X} sup {Y} ,
sup {X} inf {Y} , sup {X} sup {Y}}] .
(41)
Complex Conjugation of a Complex Interval
The complex conjugate of the complex interval C = X+
jY, namely C

, is dened as
C

= XjY. (42)
Multiplication of a Complex Interval and its Complex
Conjugate
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 11
The product between the complex interval C = X+jY
and its complex conjugate C

= X jY is the real
interval
CC

= X
2
+Y
2
(43)
where
X
2
=
_

_
_
min
_
(inf {X})
2
, (sup {X})
2
_
,
max
_
(inf {X})
2
, (sup {X})
2
__
if inf {X} > 0 or sup {X} < 0
_
0; max
_
(inf {X})
2
, (sup {X})
2
__
if inf {X} 0 sup {X} .
(44)
Division of Complex Intervals
The division of the complex intervals C = X+ jY and
C

= X

+ jY

is
C
C

=
_
XX

+YY

X
2
Y
2
;
YX

+XY

X
2
Y
2
_
. (45)
APPENDIX III - SUM OF INTERVAL WIDTHS/MID-POINTS
It is proved in the following that the sum of the
widths/mid-points of real intervals is equivalent to the
width/mid-point of the interval sum. Towards this aim, let
us consider two real intervals X = [inf {X} ; sup {X}]
and Y = [inf {Y} ; sup {Y}], having widths {X} =
sup {X} inf {X}, {Y} = sup {Y} inf {Y}
and mid-points {X} =
inf{X}+sup{X}
2
, {Y} =
inf{Y}+sup{Y}
2
, respectively. According to (38), the sum
of two real intervals turns out equal to X + Y =
[inf {X} + inf {Y} ; sup {X} + sup {Y}]. The width of
the interval sum, {X+Y}, is dened as the distance
between the right and left end-point of X+Y as
{X+Y} = (sup {X} + sup {Y})(inf {X} + inf {Y}) .
(46)
Since all terms in (46) are real numbers, it can be rewritten as
{X+Y} = (sup {X} inf {X}) + (sup {Y} inf {Y})
= {X} + {Y} (47)
thus assessing that the width of an interval sum is equivalent
to the sum of the interval widths.
As for the mid-point {X+Y}, it is given in terms of the
end-points of X+Y as
{X+Y} =
(inf {X} + inf {Y}) + (sup {X} + sup {Y})
2
(48)
or
{X+Y} =
(inf {X} + sup {X})
2
+
(inf {Y} + sup {Y})
2
= {X} + {Y} (49)
thus proving that the mid-point of an interval sum is equivalent
to the sum of the interval mid-points.
REFERENCES
[1] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 3rd ed. New York,
NY: Wiley & Sons., 2005.
[2] H. L. Van Trees, Optimum Array Processing (Part IV). New York, NY:
Wiley & Sons., 2002.
[3] R. S. Elliott, Antenna Theory and Design, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
& Sons., IEEE Press., 2003.
[4] R. J. Mailloux, Phased Array Antenna Handbook, 2nd ed. Norwood,
MA: Artech House, 2005.
[5] R. L. Haupt, Antenna Arrays - A Computation Approach. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley & Sons., 2010.
[6] J. Ruze, The effect of aperture errors on the antenna radiation pattern,
Nuovo Cimento (Suppl.), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 364-380, 1952.
[7] R. E. Elliott, Mechanical and electrical tolerances for two-dimensional
scanning antenna arrays, Trans. IRE, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 114-120, Jan.
1958.
[8] M. I. Skolnik, Nonuniform arrays, Ch. 6 in Antenna Theory, R. E.
Collin and F. J. Zucker, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1969, pp. 227-
234.
[9] J. K. Hsiao, Design of error tolerance of a phased array, Elect. Lett.,
vol. 21, no. 19, pp. 834-836, Sep. 1985.
[10] W. F. Richards and Y. T. Lo, Antenna pattern synthesis based on
optimization in probabilistic sense, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol.
23, no. 1, pp. 165-172, Jan. 1975.
[11] J. Lee, Y. Lee, and H. Kim, Decision of error tolerance in array element
by the Monte Carlo method, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 53,
no. 4, pp. 1325-1331, Apr. 2005.
[12] S. Doclo and M. Moonen, Design of broadband beamformers robust
against gain and phase errors in the microphone array characteristics,
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 2511-2526, Oct. 2003.
[13] M. Crocco and A. Trucco, Design of robust superdirective arrays with
a tunable tradeoff between directivity and frequency-invariance, IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 2169-2181, May 2011.
[14] M. Crocco and A. Trucco, Stochastic and analytic optimization of
sparse aperiodic arrays and broadband beamformers with robust superdi-
rective patterns, IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Language Process., vol. 20,
no. 9, pp. 2433-2447, Nov. 2012.
[15] R. Moore, Interval Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: New
Jersey, USA, 1966.
[16] E. Hansen, On solving systems of equations using interval arithmetic,
Mathematics of Computation, vol. 22, no. 102, pp. 374-384, Apr. 1968.
[17] A. Neumaier, Interval iteration for zeros of systems of equations, BIT,
vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 256-273, 1985.
[18] E. R. Hansen, Global optimization using Interval Analysis - The
multidimensional case, Numerische Mathematik, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 247-
270, 1980.
[19] E. Hansen and G. W. Walster, Global Optimization Using Interval
Analysis. New York, NY: CRC Press, 2004.
[20] G. Saxena and D. A. Lowther, The use of interval mathematics in
electromagnetic design, IEEE Trans. Mag., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 3588-
3591, Sep. 2001.
[21] L. Egiziano, P. Lamberti, G. Spagnuolo, and V. Tucci, Robust design
of electromagnetic systems based on interval Taylor extension applied
to a multiquadric performance function, IEEE Trans. Mag., vol. 44, no.
6, pp. 1134-1137, Jun. 2008.
[22] G. L. Soares, A. Arnold-Bos, L. Jaulin, C. A. Maia, and J. A. Vas-
concelos, An interval-based target tracking approach for range-only
multistatic radar, IEEE Trans. Mag., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1350-1353,
Jun. 2008.
[23] P. Rocca, M. Carlin, and A. Massa, Imaging weak scatterers by means
of an innovative inverse scattering technique based on the interval
analysis, Proc. 6th European Conf. Antennas Propag. (EUCAP 2012),
Prague, Czech Republic, 26-30 Mar. 2012, pp. 1139-1140.
[24] M. Carlin, P. Rocca, G. Oliveri, and A. Massa, Interval analysis as
applied to inverse scattering, Proc. Int. Symp. Antennas Propag. (APS-
URSI 2012), Chicago, Illinois (USA), 8-14 Jul. 2012, pp. 1-2.
[25] R. Boche, Complex interval arithmetic with some applications, Tech.
Report Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Sunnyvale, California,
pp. 1 - 33, Feb. 1966.
Copyright (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted. For any other purposes, permission must be obtained from the IEEE by emailing pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 0, 2013 12
Nicola Anselmi received the Bachelor De-
gree and the Master Degree in Telecomunication Engineering
from the University of Padova, in 2009 and from the University
of Trento, Italy, in 2012, respectively. From November 2012 he
is a member of the ELEDIA Research Center and his research
interests are mainly focused on optimization techniques and
antenna array design and synthesis.
Luca Manica was born in Rovereto, Italy.
He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Telecommunication
Engineering both from University of Trento, Italy, in 2004 and
2006, respectively. He received the PhD degree from the Inter-
national Graduate School in Information and Communication
Technologies, University of Trento, Italy. He is a member of
the ELEDIA Research Center and his main interests are the
synthesis of the antenna array patterns and fractal antennas.
Paolo Rocca received the MS degree
in Telecommunications Engineering from the University of
Trento in 2005 (summa cum laude) and the PhD Degree in
Information and Communication Technologies from the same
University in 2008. He is currently an Assistant Professor
at the Department of Information Engineering and Computer
Science (University of Trento) and a member of the ELEDIA
Research Center. He is the author/co-author of over 180 peer
reviewed papers on international journals and conferences. He
has been a visiting student at the Pennsylvania State University
and at the University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria. Dr.
Rocca has been awarded from the IEEE Geoscience and
Remote Sensing Society and the Italy Section with the best
PhD thesis award IEEE-GRS Central Italy Chapter. His main
interests are in the framework of antenna array synthesis and
design, electromagnetic inverse scattering, and optimization
techniques for electromagnetics. He serves as an Associate
Editor of the IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters.
Andrea Massa received the "laurea"
degree in Electronic Engineering from the Uni versity of
Genoa, Genoa, Italy, in 1992 and Ph.D. degree in electronics
and comp uter science from the same university in 1996. From
1997 to 1999 he was an Assis tant Professor of Electromag-
netic Fields at the Department of Biophysical and Electronic
Engineering (University of Genoa) teaching the university
course of Electromagnetic Fields 1. From 2001 to 2004,
he was an Associate Professor at the University of Trento.
Since 2005, he has been a Full Professor of Electromagnetic
Fields at the University of Trento, where he currently teaches
electromagnetic elds, inverse scattering techniques, antennas
and wireless communications, and optimization techniques.
At present, Prof. Massa is the director of the ELEDIA Re-
search Center at the University of Trento and Deputy Dean of
the Faculty of Engineering. Moreover, he is Adjunct Professor
at Penn Stat University (USA), and Visiting Professor at the
Missouri University of Science and Technology (USA), at
the Nagasaki University (Japan), at the University of Paris
Sud (France), and at the Kumamoto University (Kumamoto
- Japan). He is a member of the IEEE Society, of the
PIERS Technical Committee, of the Inter-University Research
Center for Interactions Between Electromagnetic Fields and
Biological Systems (ICEmB), and he has served as Italian
representative in the general assembly of the European Mi-
crowave Association (EuMA).
His research work since 1992 has been principally on electro-
magnetic direct and inverse scattering, microwave imaging,
optimization techniques, wave propagation in presence of
nonlinear media, wireless communications and applications
of electromagnetic elds to telecommunications, medicine and
biology. Prof. Massa serves as an Associate Editor of the IEEE
Transactions on Antennas and Propagation.