IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON A N E N N A S AND PROPAGATION, VOL. AP-24, KO.

5, SEPTEMBER

1976

585

Adaptive Arrays
SIDNEY P. APPLEBAUM,
FELLOW, EEE

Abstract-A method for adaptively optimizing signal-to-noise the ratio of an arrayantenna i presented.Optimumelementweightsare s derived for a prescribed environment and a given signal direction. The derivation is extended to the optimization of a generalized signal-tonoiseratio wbich permits specification of preferred weights the for normalquiescentenvironment.Therelation of the adaptivearray to sidelobe cancellation is shown, and a real-time adaptive implementation is discussed. For illustration, the performance ofan adaptive linear array is presented for various jammer configurations.

I. INTRODUCTION
RRAY ANTENNAS consisting of many controllable radiating elements are very versatile sensors. The pattern of the array canbe steered by applying linear phase weighting across the array and can be shaped amplitude by and phase weighting theoutputs of thearray elements. Most arrays are built with fixed weights designedto produce a pattern that a compromisebetween resolution, gain,and is low sidelobes. The versatility of the array antenna, however, invites the useof more sophisticated techniques for array weighting. Particularly attractiveare adaptiveschemes that can sense and respond to a time-varying environment. In this report, we showhowadaptivetechniques can be applied to an antenna array to reduce its susceptibility to jamming or interference of any kind. We begin with a derivation of the control law for the array weights that will maximize the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the array output in the presence of any spatial configuration of noise sources.

+
s

Fig. 2-1. Functional representation of optimum linear coherent combiner.

11. SIGNAL-TO-NOISE OPTIMIZATION It is well known thata uniformly weighted array gives the maximum SNR when the noise contributionsfromthe element channels have equal power and are uncorrelated. These conditions are approximately valid when receiver noise and uniformly distributed sky noise are prethe pk2 = E(nk*nl) (2- 1) dominant noise contributions. (They pertain exactly in linear halfwave space array antennas.)However, when there where the asterisk (*) denotes the complex conjugate. We is directional interference from other in-band transmitters, note that jammers, or natural phenomena,the noise out of the element = E(nl*nk) = C(kl*. (2-2) channels will be correlated, and uniform weighting will not optimize the SNR. When the K channels represent the output of the element of an array antenna, the covariance terms pkl are determined by receiver noise and the spatial distribution of all ManuscriptreceivedApril 20, 1 9 7 6 . This paperis reprintedfrom SyracuseUniversity Research Corporation, Syracuse, NY, Technical noise sources seen by the antenna. Here we assume that Report SURC TR 66-001, August 1966 (revisedMarch 1975). This study was performed under the sponsorship of the Advanced Projects thecovariances are known.The desired signal, when it Agency, Ballistic Missile Defense Office (Project Defender), on Con- occurs, is assumed to be present in the Kchannelsin proportract AF 30 (6021-3523, ARPA Order 5 6 1 , Program Code 4720. The author was with the Syracuse University Research Corporation, tion to the knowncomplex numbers s k . The signal in channel Syracuse, NY. He is now with theGeneral Electric Company, Syracuse, k is represented as m k , where a defines the level and time NY 1 3 2 0 1 . Editors Note: This paper was first published as a techniczl report. variation of the signal. In a linear arrayantenna with Its circulation was somewhat limited, consequently, this classic report equally spaced elements, the s k are determined by the is being reprintedin this issue with the kind permissionof the Syracuse direction of the desired signal. Thus, if the desired direction University Research Corporation.

In this report, we consider the problem of determining the array weights that will maximize the SNR for any type of noise environment. The problem may be viewed as that of finding an optimum coherent combiner for K channels as shown in Fig. 2-1. We assume in this discussion that all signals have bandpass frequency spectra. All signals are represented by their complex envelopes. These are assumed to modulate a common carrier reference that never appears explicitly. Each of the K channels contains noise component whose a complex envelope is denoted by n k . The envelope power in the kth channel is denoted by p k k and the covariance of n k and n, by

EEE ~ S A C I I O N S ON ANTENNAS

AEiD PROPAGATION,

S E P T E ~ ~ E 1976 R

"n

Fig. 2-2. Functional representation of combiner that is equivalent to one shown in Fig. 2-1.

is 0 rad from mechanical boresight, we have

The expected output noise power will be

P = E{Ivn12> = E{IW,NI~I n
= E{(WrN)*(N:W)l

sk = exp ( j E sin e) d 1
where d is the element spacingand 1 is the wavelength. . The problem is to choose the weights w, (see Fig. 2-1),so that the SNR at the output of the combiner is maximized. We will show that the optimum weights are determined by

= E{W,*N*N, W } .

(2-12) onlythenoise
(2- 13)

MW
where

,US*

The expectationoperator E willaffect terms; hence, Pn = W,*E{N*N,}W

= W,*MW

(2-14)
(2-1 5)

M =

[&i]

= covariance matrix of the noise outputs

(2-5) where
M = E{N*N,} = [pkz].

As noted earlier, M is the covariance matrix of the noise components. If the noise components are uncorrelated, the matrix M will be a diagonal matrix. In general, however, M may have nonzero entries in any position. Since pkZ= P , ~ * , the matrix M is Hermitian, that is, M , = M*. It is also positive definite since the output noise power P, is greater are column vectors and , is an arbitrary constant. u To derive ( - ) we start by writing expressions for the than zero whenever W # 0. 24, Since M is a positive definite Hermitian matrix, it can be signal and noise outputs of the combiner. The signal output "diagonalized" by a nonsingular coordinate transformation. is K This means that a transformation exists that will transform us = u w,s,. (2-8) the problem intoonein which all channels have equal l= 1 i power noise components that are uncorrelated. This may be conveniently expressedin matrix notation as Assume that the transformation matrixis A and consider us = u w , s = aS,W (2-9) the block diagram shownin Fig. 2-2.After the transformation shown there, the signal and noise components, rewhere the subscript t means transposed.Similarly, the noise spectively, become output may be expressed as = AS (2-1 6 ) V, = W,N = N,W (210) and where AN. (2- 7) 1

m=

N =

['. n]
*K

(2-1 1)

A caret (*) has been used to denote quantities after the transformation. The transformation matrix A followed by

APPLEBAUM : ADAFINE ARRAYS

587

a combiner, as shown in Fig. 2-2, may be made equivalent to the combiner of Fig. 2-1 by properly relating the weights used in each case. If theoutputs of thetransformation matrix A are combined with the weights I?k, theoutput signal will be us = E@$ (2- 18)
= aqrAS.

where

llSll2
and
III?112

= =

3:s

(2-33) (2-34) thus, dividing both

mt*I?.

19)

(2-

From (2-27)we have P, = 11 @/I2; sides of (2-32) by P,,, obtain we

Similarly, the output noise will be u, =

(2-35) (2-20) (2-21) This puts an upper bound on the SNR. However, if we substitute t = pS* into (2-18) and (2-27),we obtain ?
us =

Iqfi

= JP~AN.

Comparing (2-19) and (2-21) with (2-9) and (2-IO),we note that combining the channels after the transfonnation matrix A with the weight vector @ is equivalent to using the weight vector A r m without transformation the matrix. Thus, for equivalent outputs we have W = A,@. (2-22)

Crp3,"S
=

= rp113112

(2-36) (2-37)

and

P n

IPI'IISII~.

of Dividing the magnitude square (2-36) by (2-37), wehave

The output noise power expressed in terms of the quantities in Fig. 2-2 is

!Pn x

lCr1211S112.

(2-38)

P,,= E { ] P t R} I'
= E{@,*fi*flrW} = wr*E{fi f i r } ) $ ' . *

(2-23) (2-24) (2-25)

By (2-39, this is the maximum possible value of the SNR. Thus, we have shown that &* is the optimum value for I?. The optimum value of W may now be obtained from (2-22) :

IV,,, = AfI?oopt= A,,&"

or using (2-16), W,, = pA,A*S* and, finally, from (2-30),

(2-39) (2-40)

Since the transformation matrix A decorrelates the noise components and equalizes their powers, the covariance matrix the of noise components after A is simply the identity matrix of order K ; thus,

E(fi*fi,} = 1,.
Using (2-26) in (2-25), we obtain

(2-26)

w,,,

= pM-lS*.

(2-41)

P,, =

@,*m=

11I?l12.

(2-27)

Thus the optimum weight vector W,,, for the combiner in Fig. 2-1 is the value of W that satisfies the equation MW
=

If the configurations of Figs. 2-1 and 2-2 are equivalent, we may write, from (2-14) and (2-22),
P,, = W" * ,
=

pS*.

(2-42)

The SNR corresponding to the optimum weighting can be obtained by substituting (2-16) into (2-38). The result is (2-43) It is important to emphasize that the solution, or controllaw, expressed by (2-42) maximizes the SNR. In Section 6, we show how theoptimum weights may be determined adaptively in real time.

fit;*~*~~,W'.

(2-28) (2-29) (2-30)

Comparing this with (2-27), we see that

A"MA, = 1,

and, therefore,

M = (A,A*)-l.

Equation (2-29) expresses the fact that the transformation matrix A diagonalizes the matrix M . It is well known that the optimum choice for the weighting vector @ in Fig. 2-2, where the noise components i?k have equal power and are uncorrelated, is given by

111. GENERALIZED SIGXAL-TO-NOISE OPTIMIZATION If an array is designed so that the weights are adaptively controlled to satisfy (2-42), then the array designer is forced to accept the SNR as the governing criterion for all noise environments, including thenormal "quiescent" environ= pS* (2-31) ment (no jamming). In most applications, however, array designers are willing to compromise on SNR in order to where p is an arbitrary constant. obtain some control of the pattern shape, particularly sideTo show that (2-31) is the optimum, apply the Cauchylobe levels. For example, Dolph-Chebyshev weights can be Schwartz inequality to (2-18). This yields used to obtain 30 dB sidelobes with less than 2 dB loss in 1412 5 1~1211~11211~112 (2-32) SNR. is apparent, that It then, we need criterion a for the

mop,

588

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, SEPTEMBER 1976

control of array weights that will give more flexibility in beam shaping. A tractable approach can be developed as follows. Suppose that, in the normal quiescent environment, the most desirable array weights are given by the weight vector W,. We assume that W , represents an optimumcompromise between gain, sidelobes, etc. Let the covariance matrix in the normal quiescent environment be M,, and define the column vector T by the equation M,W, = ,UT* (3-1)

In the normal quiescent environment where W = M,, (3-5) and (3-8) both reduce to

W, and

(GSN),=

14

(W,),*M,W,.

(3-9)

In order toput (3-6) and (3-8) intomoremeaningful forms, we notethatthecovariancematrix differs from M, becauseof the presenceof additional noise sources (jamming). If these are statistically independent of the noise sources in the quiescent environment, we may write
M = M,

where p is a normalizing constant. The point of view we wish to present is that in choosing W, as being optimum, we have, in effect, decided to optimize to anequivalent signal vector T instead of the actual signal vector S. If the environment changesso that the covariance matrix becomes M , then from the results of the previous section, to continueoptimizing on T, the weights should be adjusted so that

+ Mi

(3-10)

where M j is the covariance matrix of the noise components due to the additional noise sources. Using (3-10) and (3-11) in (3-6) and (3-9), we can obtain the following expressions : (3-11)
.

M W = pT*

M,W,.

(3-2)

From the results of the previous section, we also know that controlling the array so as to always satisfy (3-2) is equivalent to maximizing the ratio (3-3)

(GSN),=
1 *, I

(W,):M,M - 1M w, 1 (W,):M,M - %,W,

(GW,

(3-12)

The ratio in the denominatorof (3-1 1) is the ratio of the jammer noise output to the quiescent noise output when the weights are fixed at W,. Designating this ratio by (JIN),, This is a more general criterion maximizing the SNR, than which it includes as a special case when T = US.We refer we may write (3-11) and (3-12) as to T as a generalized signal vector and the ratio, (3-3), as (3-13) the generalized signal-to-noise ratio (GSN). The GSN is a measure of how close the weights are to the generalized signalvector T inthedotoninnerproduct sense, and relative to output noise. Since the level of T i s arbitrary, (3-14) the numerical valueof the GSN by itself has nosignificance. It is only significant in comparisons in which the vector T is held k e d . Comparison of the GSN of a fixed array with that of an adaptive array is of interest. Suppose, then, that the weight (3-16) vector is held fixed at W, for all noise environments. Then the GSN will be and (3-4) Using (3-l), this mayb e written as When the weights are fixed, we note from (3-13) that the

GSN varies almost as the inverse of the jammer-to-noise

ratio. From (3-14), however, we see that the effectof the jammer on the GSN with adaptive control isreducedby For an adaptive array controlled by (3-2), we have thefactor r. Thisfactor r is analogous to the jammer cancellation ratio.thatappears in analyses sidelobe of cancellation;a it is figure-of-merit that describes the performance of an adaptive array in a specific noise environment. 1 - - (W,*MW) (3-7) The output noise power of an adaptive array controlled 1PI2 accordingto (3-2)will not remainconstant as the noise 1 environment varies. This may require using an AGC follow= -(( W,):M,M - 1M,W,). (3-8) ing the array combiner to maintain a constant noise level. lP12

APPLEBAUM:ADAFTWEARRAYS

589

Without the AGC, the change in the noise level will be AP,, = W,*MW - (Wq),*MqWq. Substituting W
=

(3-18)

as it should be. It is also interestingto observe that the value of q is the negative of APn (see (3-21)) when (3-24) satisfied. is IV. LINEAR ADAPTIVE ARRAY

M-'M,Wq from (3-3), we get

- (W,),*M,W,

APE = (M-'M,W,),*MM-'MqW,
=

(3-19) (3-20) (3-21)

(W,),*M,M

",W,
-

= - (M\),*M,M

lMjWq.

Since Mq, M j , and M are positive definite Hermitian matrices, M - and, hence, M,M - 'Mi also positive are definite Hermitian matrices. This implies that, because of the minus sign in (3-21), the output noise level will decrease when additional noise sources are added to the environment. It is interesting to observe that the control law given by (3-2) can also bedeveloped from another point ofview. = PqlK Assume, again,thatthe weightvector W, represents an where optimumcompromise between gain, sidelobes, and other p , noise power output of each element, factors in the quiescent environment. When the environment K number of array elements, changes due to the introduction of jamming noise sources, 1, identity matrix of order K. we recognize that the weight vector W, may no longer be optimum. How should the weights be changed so that the Now let the desired weight vector the in quiescent environeffects of the jamming are reduced? We want a criterion mechanical ment for a signal in the direction 0, from which reduces the jamming effects and still recognizes the boresight be optimality of W, in the quiescent environment. A suitable Q1 criterion is to choose a weight vector W that minimizes the a2 exp -jBs quantity q, where
g = W,*Mj W

To illustratetheconcepts and results of the previous section, we consider here a linear, uniformly spaced array that is weighted in accordance with (3-2). We assume first that in the quiescent environment the noise output of the element channels have equal powers and are uncorrelated. The covariance matrix in the quiescent environment would then be a diagonal matrix of the form

+ ( W - W,),*M,(W

- W,).

(3-22)

a, exp -M - 1)Ps The first term in (3-22) represents the output noise power due to the jammingsources. The second term is a measure In (4-3), the u1 are amplitude weights (real numbers) and of the deviation of the weight vector W from the quiescent + optimum W,. The deviation is measured with respect to a P, = sin e,. (4-4) /. metric based on the quiescent covariance matrix M,. In so doing, the importance minimizing of the deviation, If the amplitude weights are all equal, the resultant pat11 W - W,Il, is emphasizedwhen the noise introduced by terns will be of the form (sin Kx)/(sin x). In general, thejamming is small compared tothe quiescent noise; however, they will not be equal. The pattern obtained with conversely, when the jamming power is large compared to any weight vector W, will be the quiescent noise, minimizing thejammingpower will K receive greater weight. G,(P) = a, exp j ( r - 1)(B - P 3 (4-5) The expression for 4, (3-22), can be manipulated into the I= 1 form where 4 = (Wq)r*(MqM-"j)Wq /3 = 2nd e.n 8. 1. + ( M W - M,W,),*M-'(MW - M,W,). (3-23) This can be expressed in matrix notation as It is easy to verify that (3-23) does reduce to (3-22). Now, as has already been remarked, M- and M,M - ' M i are positive definite Hermitian matrices. This implies that both terms in (3-23) are nonnegative. Since the first term is fixed, q will have its minimumvalue when the second term is minimized. The minimumvalue of the second term is 0, and this occurs if, and only if,

MW

M,W,.

(3-24)

Since the weights onthearrayarecontrolledinacThis is thesameas (3-2). Notethatinthe quiescent environment M reduces to M , and W is then equal to W, cordance with (3-2), the control law for the weights W in

590

TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, SEPTEMBER 1976

any noise environment will be

therefore,

MW = MqWq = pqWq
or W = pqM
Wq.

(4-9)

UHW, = Gq(Bj) 1

10) (4and finally,

'

The noise environment we wish to studyis that caused by a single jammer added to the quiescent environment. Let thejammerbelocated at the angle Bj frommechanical boresight. Then if the jamming signal in the first element channel is J ( t ) , thejamming signal intheIth channel, assuming narrow bandwidth, willbe J ( t ) exp j(I - l ) P j , where (4-1 1) Bj = 2nd sin ej. 3, The covariance of the jammingsignals in the kth and Ith channels, therefore, will be pj exp -j(k - l)Bj, where pi is the envelope jamming power in each channel. The covariance matrix due to the jamming signal, therefore, will be

lil
(4-22)

H"UHWq = Gq(Pj)Bj*

where

Substituting (4-22) in (4-19), get we W

=

W, -

(
Pq

+ KPj

' j

) G,(#Ij)Bj*.

(4-24)

Mj = pj(exp C-Ak - OBjI). (4- 12) This is a Hermitian matrix of order K in which all terms onthe samediagonalareequal. Because of its simple structure, it can be conveniently expressed as

The pattern obtained with theweight vector W may now be expressed as

G@) = B,W
= B,Wq

(4-25)

(
Pq

+ KPj

) Gq(Bj)B,Bj*.

(4-26)

M, = pjH*UH
where H i s the diagonalmatrix

(4- 3) 1

From (4-7), however,

BtWq = Gq(P)

(4-27)

rl

and it is easy to show that

B,Bj* = C@ Bj)

(4-28)

where and U is a K x K matrix of ones. The covariance matrix for the total noise environment, quiescent plus jammer, is just thesum of the two covariance matrices thus, substituting (4-27) and (4-28) into (4-26) gives M = Mq M j (4-1 ) 5 G@) = Gq(P) ' j Gq(Pj)C@- pj). (4-30) = pqlK pjH*UH. (416) ~q + KPj To obtain the weight vector W from (4-IO), we require the This says that the pattern of the adaptively controlled inverse of M . Using the property H* = H - ' , it is easy to linear array in the presence of a jammer consists of two verify that parts.The first is the quiescent pattern Gq@), andthe second, whichis subtracted from the first, is a (sin Kx)/ (sin x) shaped beam centered on the jammer. Thisis shown in Fig. 4-1. The gain of the array in the direction of the Using (4-17) in (4-lo), jammer will be

+ +

(Pq + KPj) H'UH) Wq Wq - ( + KPj) H*UHWq.

( 1 .

(4-18) (4-19) Since C(0) = K, (431) reduces to

G@j) =

Pq

From the definitions of Wq and H we have

HW, = '

Pq

+ KPj

) GqGj>*

(4-32)

a 1 a 2

exPj@j -

P3
P3

(4-20)

UK

e x ~ j ( K 1(j - )P

If the array weights remained fixed at Wq in the presence of the jammer, the gain the direction of the jammerwould in be Gq(Pj).Hence,adaptive the control reduces the gain in

APPLEBAUM : ADAFTWE ARRAYS

591
D e s i r e d Signal Jamming Signal

C a n c e l l a t i o n Pattern

B
Fig. 4-1. Sketch of pattern of adaptively controlled array. (Resultant pattern is difference between quiescent and cancellation pattern.)

the direction of the jammer by the factor

yq

Theratio in thedenominator of (4-33), Kpj/p,, is the jammer-to-noise ratio in the cancellation beam, C(g - pi). Since G(B) is a voltage gain pattern, it is tempting to conclude that the performance of the array against the jammer power had been improved by the square of the inverse of Equation (4-33). This, however, would not be correct. The proper measure of the improvement against the jammer is the cancellation ratio r defined by (3-16) and (3-17), which are repeated for convenience: (3-16) and (3-17) To evaluate (3-17) in the present context, we note that

against the jammer, which is to be expected. The adaptive control will be most effective against jammers in the sidelobe region of the quiescent pattern. In that case, we will < have ( J / N ) , << Kpj/pq: so that y(J/N), < 1 and, hence, r z y. Thus, foraJammer in the sidelobe region, the adaptive control will cancel the jammer power by approximately the jammer-to-noise ratio in the cancellation beam. It is interesting to note that this result is the same as the reduction in voltagegain of the pattern in the direction of the jammer and that it is almost independent of the choice of Wqand, hence, of the shapeof the quiescent beam.
V. SIDELOBE CANCELLATION .

and
MjMj
=

KpjMj

(4-35)

therefore,

(
Pq

+ KPj
1

pq

) Mj.

(4-37)

Using (4-37) in (3-17), we see that

y =

1 + - KPj
Pj

The concepts presented in this report actually are a generalization of the coherent sidelobe cancellation techniques. Forthe sake of completeness andasa second illustration of the applicationof the concepts, we shall show that sidelcbe cancellation may be viewed as a special case of an adaptive array. A sidelobe cancellation system is shown in Fig. 5-1. It consists of amain, high gain antenna whose output is designated as channel 0 and K auxiliary antennas. The auxiliary antenna gains are designed to approximate the average sidelobe level of the main antenna gain pattern. The amount of desired target signal received by the auxiliaries is negligible compared tothetarget signal in themain channel. purpose The of the auxiliaries is to provide independent replicas of jamming signals in the sidelobes of the main pattern for cancellation. To apply the concepts of the adaptive array we assume that the outputsof the channels are weighted and summed. The problem is to find an appropriate control law for the weights. The first step is to select a T vector. In this case, since the signal collectedby the auxiliaries isnegligible and the main antenna has a carefully designed pattern, we choose the K + 1 column vector

Now the maximumpossible value of ( J / N ) ,is Kpj/pq,and this will occur only if the jammeris at the peak of the main beam of a (sin Kx)/(sin x ) quiescent beam. In that case, we obtain r = 1, indicating no improvement of performance

592

IEEE TRANSACTIONSON ANTENNASAND

PROPAGATION, SEPTEMBER

1976

W
0

Y
4
Fig. 5-1.

Sidelobe cancellation system.

T vector, it is possible to achieve an optimum combiner with only K control loops.To do this, we observe that if the M'W' = pT (5-2) weight vector W' is optimum for a given noise environment where M' is the K + 1 by K + 1 covariance matrix of all (a given M'), then any multiple of W' will also be optimum the channels and W' is the K 1 column vector of all the since the figure of merit, GSN, is a ratio in which the level of W' does not matter. This means, in effect, that we may weights. Now let M be the K by K covariance matrix of the let the parameter p in (5-2) vary freely. Thus, instead of auxiliary channelsonly and W be the K column vector of the fixing p and trying to control w, to satisfy (5-6), we can auxiliary channel weights. Equation (5-2) now may be fix w, at a nonzero value if we are sure that no solution to (5-2) will require wto be 0. However, since the inner product , partitioned as follows : W,'T = w,,the GSN will never be optimized with w, = 0. With w, fixed at 8,, only need control loops for the we (5-3) auxiliaries, andthecontrol law is given by (5-7) with w, = 9 , , In (5-2) we have set M W = - )%,A. (5-8)

The optimum controllaw would then be

Since theinnerproduct W i T = f i 0 is fixed, andthe p o = poo' of M' = noise power output of the main channel control law, (5-8), optimizes the ratio of the inner product (5-4) to the output noise power, it must clearly be minimizing and the output power. Thus, (5-8) is the sidelobe cancellation control law for minimizing the output noise power. Equa(5-5) tion (5-8) has been obtained using this criterion in previous studies of sidelobe cancellation.

VI. IMPLEMENTATION
Note that pLl: is the cross-correlation of the output of the Ith auxiliary with the output of the main channel. Equation (5-3) may be written as two separate equations: a scalar equation, p , ~ -I-A,* W = p , (5-6) and a matrix equation, MW
=

-wOA.

(5-7)

The control law expressed by (5-2) can be implemented using K + 1 control loops to control the K 1 weights wo,wl,* -,w,. However, because of the unique form of the

The control loops for an adaptive array can be implemented using thesamecircuitry as isused forcoherent sidelobe cancellation. The basic idea is shownthe in functional block diagram in Fig. 6-1. Thenotation used there gives the complex envelope of signals on phase coherent carriers. The signal in each channel u, is multiplied by the weight w,, and then the weighted signals are summed. The multiplication and summation occur on carrier frequencies at IF. The weights w k are derived by correlating u, with the sum signal substracting the correlation from the desired vector component t,*, and then using a high gain amplifier.

x,

APPLEBAUM: ADAPTIVE ARRAYS

593
kth
Array Elements

f
I
Same f o r each e l r m e n t .
I

I I

Fig. 6-1.

Functional block diagram of implementation of element control loop for adaptive array.

For each

Wk,

we have
Wk =

tk*

uk*

I= 1

WlU1)

(6-1)

or
K w I
1=1

loops The are designed sothe that weights w k will vary slowly compared tobandwidth the of the signals ul. Hence, the weights will be uncorrelated with ul. Thus, if we apply the expectation operator to both sides of (6-4) we get

(uk*ul

+ 5) = fk*
G
=

for k = 1;. * , K (6-2)

where

(A;
+

when k = 1 all other k.

This equation determines the dynamic behavior of the expected value of w k . The K equations obtained from (6-5) may be represented in matrix form as
z - = -(GM dt

Recalling that uk*u,, is an element of thecovariance matrix M , the K equatjons represented by(6-2) may be written as

dW

+ GT*.

(6-6)

It can be shown easily that matrix equations of this form are stable if the matrix GM + 1, has only positive eigenThis differs from the optimum control law, (3-2), by the values. Since M is a positive definite Hermitian matrix, 1, is also a positive definite Hermitian matrix. It, addition of a term inversely proportional to gain.This term GM therefore, hasonly positive eigenvalues. Thus, the irnpleintroduces an error analogous to the servo error of a type 0 servo. Its effect can be made negligible with sufficiently mentation shown in Fig. 6-1 is stable under all conditions for the assumptions made. In practice, second-order effects, high gain. The preceding discussion demonstrates that the steady- neglected in the preceding analysis, may make the loops state solution of the control loops is essentially the desired unstable if the loop gains are allowed to become excessive. one. The dynamic behavior of the control loops is deterVII. COMPUTER SIMULATION mined by the integrators shown in Fig. 6-1. In practice Figs. 7-1 through 7-9 show the results of the computer these are high ( , single-pole circuits. - The differential 2 simulation of an adaptive array. The array used in these equations describing thedynamic behavior of theloops studies was a 21-element linear array with half-wavelength can be shown to be spacing. The servo error discussed previously was neglected, and it was assumed that the arrayweights were determined by the control law

(M

k]

W = T*.

where

is the timethe of integrator constant

circuits.

MW

T*.

(7- 1)

594

IEEE TRANSACXIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, SEPTEMBER 1976

*O

-50

-60

-Lo

I
I

I
0
I

-0.5

0.5

10 .

SIN

e
2 0

(4
20 -1
10

100

0-10
-10h

-20

-20 c9
v

-40 -30

c, U ~

-40- -

~ -

,:I ~~

~~

-50 -50

-60
-60 -1.0
-1.0
-0.5

& +
I

-0.5

0.5

I
I

10 .

0
SIN 9

0.5

10 .

SIK

(b) Fig. 7-2. Patterns with eight randomly located narrowband jammers. Nulls are produced at locations of jammers. Nulls below -60 dB are plotted as 60 dB. (a) -20 dB sidelobes (quiescent). (b) -40 dB sidelobes (quiescent).

(3)

Fig. 7-1.

Quiescent patterns(no jammers present). (a) -20 dB sidelobes. (b) -40 dB sidelobes.

APPLEBAUM: ADAprrvE ARRAYS

595

10 2o

20

l0 [ o

A
4 R

-60

I
-1I.O

,
-0.5

*
SIN

-60
0.5

1.0

I -Lo

-0.5

0 1

0.5

1 0 :

SIN

20

(a)

(a)

10-

20

0-

10,
0

-10-

-20 -30
-40

-10

m a v

m a v

-20 -30

-50

-60

-50 -1.0
-0.5

0
SIN

0.5

1.0

e
SIN

(b) Fig. 7-3. Jammer configurations consist of five clusters of three each. Each cluster is about half a sidelobe width wide. Jammer-to-noise ratio in each element is 0 dB. (a) -20 dB sidelobes (quiescent). (b) -40 dB sidelobes (quiescent).

(b) Fig. 7-4. Same as Fig, 7-3 with 15 dB jammer-to-noise ratio.

..

IEEE IXANSACTIONS

ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, SEPTEMBFX

1976

20

3
m

-20

-30

d
-40 -50 -60 1 0 :

0.5

-! lO

'

-0.5

0 ' SIN

0.5

1 1.0

SIN

e
20

-10

.i
-1.0
-0.5

(a)

(a)

1
h

10.

-10
-20

I
7 0
0.5

z!

rn

1
1.0

-60

-1.0

- - +
-0. .5
0

0.5

10 .

SIN
(b)

SIN
(b)

Fig. 7-5. Same as Fig. 7-3 with 30 dB jammer-to-noise ratio.

Fig. 7-6. Nine jammers are clustered andspan almost two sidelobes.

APPLEBAUM: A D A m ARRAYS

597

2o

20

10
0

-10

-20

5 d

-30 -40
-50

- 0 1 ' .

-. 5 0 '

O.!i

1.0

-60

-Lo

+
-d.5
SIN 0 '

0.5

1.0

(a)

0 -10

:i
h

20

0
-10
-20

m . u

5 d

-30
-40

-50

-1.0

-0.5

0.5

10 .

-60

1
1.0

-0.5

0.5

SIN cb)

SIN

(b)

. -z -

..

598
20

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, SEPTEMBER1976

io

I
0

0-

-10

3
m

-20

-60

-1
-1.0

-0.5

0.5

10 .

SIN

SIN
(3)

(a)

Fig. 7-9. (a) One jammer is a t boresight knd cluster of three is in sidelobe. Quiescent patter is (sin Kx)/(sin x ) beam. Shape of main beam is unaltered by presence of jammer since cancellation beam has same shape. Main effectis drastic lowering of level of pattern. (b) -30 dB Dolph-Chebyshev quiescent pattern. Deep notch is produced in center of main beam. This occurs because main beam of quiescent pattern is broader than main beam of (sin KY)/ (sin x ) cancellation beam. There is much less effect on pattern level than in first case.

Various vectors T were used to give different quiescent beams. The quiescent beamsstudied were a (sin Kx)/(sin x ) beam and Dolph-Chebyshev beams with 20, 30, and 40 dB sidelobes: The matrix M was computed for various spaiial configurations of jammers, andnarrowbandwidth was a s s d e d . Wide bandwidth be can simulated by using narrdwband calculations and spreading the jamniers spatiSlly. Thus, many of the figures show configurations of clustiired jammers. Each cluster may be regardedas asingle wideband jammer. The equivalent bandwidth A of a f cluster of jammers expressed as a fraction of the center frequency is Af - - -A(sin 8) (7-2) f, sin 8, where

0 I 8 I n/2 from - 1 I sin 8 I 1. The desired target direction corresponds to the center of the plots. Except for Fig. 7-9, only 20 and 40 dB Dolph-Chebyshev patterns are shown. For ease of comparison, two plots are given in each figure with the same jammer environment assumedin both cases.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This report has been reprinted because of the recurring interest in this study. Except for format changes in some figures, the text corresponds to that in previous editions. The antenna gain patterns in Section 7 were replotted on a Calcomp plotter (originally they were plotted using a line printer). The author extends his thanks to D. J. Chapman for handling these format changes. The author also wishes A(sin 0) spread of the cldster in sin 8 space, to thank J. W. Stauffer, presently of the General Electric sin 8, center of the cluster. Company, for useful discussions, suggestions, and help The results are shown as plotsof the pattern of the array with the artwork of the original report. This report has also in presence the of jammers. The abscissa is sin 8 for been identified as SPL TR 69-76 and SPL TR 66-1.