1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to the field of antennas. Specifically, it relates to the control (including beam and null steering and tuning) of phased arrays and subarrays by using parasitic control elements in the aperture of each individual antenna element in the array.
2. Related Art
Array antennas refer to the class of antennas which are formed by phase-coherent combining of the outputs from multiple stationary antenna elements. The array antenna's spatial beam pointing characteristics are determined by the positions of the individual radiators (elements) and the amplitudes, phases, and time-delays of their radiation. The amplitudes, phases, and time-delays are, in general, controlled by the excitation of the individual antenna elements within the array. The antenna array characteristics are also controlled, and usually limited, by the properties of the individual elements in the antenna array and the way in which they interact with each other. These properties include the frequency properties of the individual elements as well as the element gain patterns.
In many cases, antenna arrays are subdivided into smaller arrays known as subarrays. Subarrays, when used, are constructed for ease of mechanical construction as well as for providing a way to minimize the amount of feed and phase control or time-delay structure needed to control the radiation of the individual elements.
The versatility of phased array antennas is convincingly evidenced by their broad range of military and commercial applications including communications, radar, and electronic countermeasures. For all of their advantages, however, performance of phased array antennas is limited. Phased arrays are usually limited in the range of angles over which they can effectively steer a beam without significant losses in overall system gain.
There are two primary reasons for this. These can be seen by first considering an array made up of N individual antenna elements. The overall array gain. G(2), for this N-element system in the direction θ when each element is uniformly illuminated, can be written (in dBi) as,
G(θ)=10 log(N)+g(θ)+10 log(1−|Γ(θ)|2)−α (1)
where g(θ) is the embedded gain pattern for an individual antenna element in the direction θ, Γ(θ) is the active reflection coefficient, and α represents losses in the beam forming network that are independent of Γ(θ). Equation (1) presumes the array is being steered in the θ direction. Thus, the expression does not represent the array pattern but, rather, it represents the gain in the scan direction. In particular Γ(θ) is the effective reflection coefficient when the individual array elements are phased so as to produce a beam in the θ direction. Also g(θ) and Γ(θ) are assumed to be the same for all of the N elements. This latter assumption is an approximation. In practice there will be element-to-element differences. Indeed, for applications involving moderate sized arrays the element-to-element variations in g(θ) may have significant impacts on the array performance.
However, for this example we consider (1) to be a reasonably accurate summary of the array characteristics. Suppose Ĝ is the desired system gain given by a requirement or specification. This specification can be met at angles for which,
g(θ)+10 log(1−|Γ(θ)|2)≧Ĝ−10 log(N)+α (2)
If g(θ) gets too small and/or |Γ(θ)| gets too close to 1, then condition (2) cannot be satisfied. Thus, presuming that the losses α are acceptable, drop off in g(θ) and increase in |Γ(θ)| are the two basic factors that limit the coverage of the array. For certain steer angles the mutual coupling among the elements can become substantial. This leads to an increase in |Γ(θ)| and, consequently, the system may not be able to meet specifications for that range of angles.
In other words, the embedded element gain characteristics as a function of angle and frequency are fundamental limits in the range of angles the array can be scanned to and the frequencies at which it will operate.
Introducing reconfigurability at the individual antenna element level leads to the possibility of much higher performance in gain, pattern shaping, and frequency agility of the individual array elements which then leads to enhanced overall array performance. The purpose of reconfiguration to the array is to adapt the gain characteristics of the individual antenna elements so as to get the maximum possible performance from the antenna system.
Reconfiguration can be used to expand the range of operational functions in a number of ways. First, the embedded array elements can be frequency tuned, and bandwidth can be improved by using reconfiguration to broaden the bandwidth of the embedded elements. In addition, for high gain arrays, beam squint is usually the limiting factor on instantaneous bandwidth. Reconfiguration can alleviate this problem by providing control of the element phase centers. Scan coverage can be improved and scan blindness alleviated by controlling the embedded antenna gain patterns of the elements as well as by providing control of the active impedance as the beam is scanned. Applying limited phase control to the elements themselves can alleviate some of the complexity of the feed manifold.
The invention disclosed here provides reconfigurable antenna arrays designed by selectively placing load impedances in the aperture of the individual antenna elements within an antenna array. These loads can be controlled to change the operational characteristics of the individual antenna element. These characteristics include directivity control, tuning, instantaneous bandwidth, and RCS. By controlling the properties of the individual antenna elements within the array, the performance properties of the array can be changed.
Specifically, this invention builds on parent application Ser. No. 10/206,101 that describes the use of loaded parasitic components within the radiating aperture of an antenna element for the purpose of controlling the RF properties of the antenna element. It also describes the use of a feedback control subsystem that is part of the antenna system which adjusts the RF properties of the parasitic components based on some observed metric of the received waveform. This antenna system is referred to as a controlled parasitic antenna (CPA). By using a feedback control subsystem to control the electromagnetic properties of the antenna aperture, this antenna system can provide multifunctionality and/or mitigate problems associated with reception of an interfering signal or signals within a very compact volume.
In the present invention, by controlling reactive loads or switches attached to a parasitic element co-located with the individual radiating elements within an array or sub-array, the frequency properties of the array can be controlled and the scan angles can be increased. This approach holds promise for overcoming many of the limitations of current phased arrays.
One way of increasing the coverage of the array is by the use of reconfigurable elements. Such elements make use of one or more active control devices embedded in the aperture (specifically in parasitic elements in the aperture) of the individual radiating elements within the array. The impedance of the control device or devices would depend on the value of an applied bias voltage V or voltages (V1, V2, . . . ). A change in bias values would change the impedances and, consequently, the antenna properties of the element would change. This means that the embedded element gain and the active reflection coefficient become functions of V or (V1, V2, . . . ) as well as θ. That is, these factors in Expression (1) above can be expressed as g(θ, V1, V2, . . . ) and Γ(θ, V1, V2, . . . ). This disclosure teaches that it is possible to design reconfigurable elements so that the coverage of the array can be expanded considerably by varying the state of the elements.
It will also be shown that the implementation of two-state (switchable) devices as controls could be very effective for expanding the coverage of a phased array system. The bias voltages would only need to take on two different values (usually 0 volts and some other voltage that exceeds a switching threshold). The number of independent biases needed would depend on the number of two-state devices per element.
The exemplary embodiment also addresses the loss of array gain that occurs in certain scan directions of an array that seeks to scan from end-fire to angles greater than 25-30 degrees from end-fire. Typically, for a given aperture the maximum achievable gain at angles of about 20° from end-fire is 2-3 dB less than what can be achieved at end fire or at larger scan angles (30° or more from end fire). This will be referred to as the gain depression problem. This problem is particularly acute for applications where a large scan angle range starting at end-fire is desired and the mid-range directions from 15-25 degrees are particularly important. The direction θD relative to end-fire at which this gain depression is most severe will be called the depression scan angle. The value of θD depends on the array size and the electrical length between array elements. This gain reduction can be due to reduced values of g(θD) or increased values of |Γ(θD)|, or both at the scan depression angle. Significant increases in |Γ(θ)| for certain ranges of scan angles is common with phased arrays and is referred to as scan blindness. For such scan angles there is a significant drop in array efficiency. Reconfiguration can be effective in alleviating scan blindness problems. If this is done at the angle θD, the gain depression problem tends to persist due to depressed values in the embedded element pattern g(θD) at this angle. This disclosure demonstrates this problem and teaches potential ways of improving the gain depression problem.
There may be situations where both pre and post feedback loops are used. Examples might be where a return loss (VSWR) signal is measured after the matching network and is fed into the adaptive control unit so that the antenna may be retuned to minimize the VSWR. At the same time a receiver error measurement (such as bit error rate) might be made and sent to the adaptive control unit so that the gain pattern may be controlled to minimize the received error.
The semicircular dotted line in
In
The measurements shown in
Upon examining
The initial study was aimed at showing that the use of controllable elements can be effective for expanding the coverage of a phased array system that is constrained to a certain aperture. The technology for accomplishing this is mature and control devices are available with substantial power handling capability. This limited effort has enabled us to demonstrate that reconfiguration can have a very significant impact on g(θ) and |Γ(θ)|, which were discussed in the previous sections.
We performed a limited study to test the concept of switching the state of an element to alter its properties. The eventual goal would be to optimally design such elements in a manner that is favorable to the design of a phased array with substantially broader coverage than would otherwise be possible without the element reconfiguration. This test was limited in scope and focused primarily on laboratory demonstration and experimentation. Active switch devices and biases were not used, as would be the case in an actual application. Instead we built elements and arrays that could be manually switched between two different configurations. This manual switching was accomplished by using silver paint to short an otherwise open end of the element to the ground plane. The paint could be easily removed to restore the ‘open state’ of the antenna element or array of elements. These two configurations simulated two different element states that could be achieved by using an electronic switch. The properties of the elements were measured and/or computed for both states. In most cases we were able to make good comparisons between measurements and predictions. The results are encouraging and show that both the embedded patterns and active return loss can be significantly controlled using reconfigurable parasitic elements within the phased array.
A reconfigurable array element that offers significant improvement with respect to the reconfigurable lines of the previous section is depicted with loaded parasitics in
The element shown above has two parts. One is an active ‘arm’that connects to the feed port, which is basically a via through the ground plane. On either side of the active arm is a parasitic loop. Each end of one of these loops terminates at a port, which is also a via through the ground plane. Impedances can be applied at these latter ports. These load impedances affect the antenna characteristics of the element. Even though there are 4 load ports there were only two independent load values for the examples that are shown in this section. These are indicated in the above figure. For the studies to be shown these impedances were chosen to maximize the V-pol gain for various scan angles at 10.5 GHz.
A reconfigurable array element that is a variation of the element shown in
An array based on the reconfigurable element of
A reconfigurable array element that is a variation of the element shown in
A 16-element array was modeled and
It was mentioned above that the switch values were variables in the optimization for each scan direction. In most cases the optimization procedure chose both switches to be on with some relative phase between the V-pol and H-pole feeds. The beams for these scans are solid in
Reconfiguration of parasitically controlled elements in a phased array can be used to expand the range of operational functions in a number of ways. First, the embedded array elements can be frequency tuned, and bandwidth can be improved by using reconfiguration to broaden the bandwidth of the embedded elements. In addition, for high gain arrays, beam squint is usually the limiting factor on instantaneous bandwidth. Reconfiguration can alleviate this problem by providing control of the element phase centers. Scan coverage can be improved and scan blindness alleviated by controlling the embedded antenna patterns of the elements as well as by providing control of the active impedance as the beam is scanned. Applying limited phase control to the elements themselves can alleviate some of the complexity of the feed manifold.
A presently preferred method of designing the reconfigurable antennas of this invention is to selectively place controlled parasitic elements in the aperture of each of the antenna elements in the phased array. The parasitic elements can be controlled to change the operational characteristics of the antenna element. The parasitic elements are controlled by either switching load values in and out that are connected to the parasitic elements or are controlled by applying control voltages to variable reactance circuits containing devices such as varactors. The parasitic elements can be controlled by the use of a feedback control subsystem that is part of the antenna system which adjusts the RF properties of the parasitic components based on some observed metric. The controllable characteristics include directivity control, tuning, instantaneous bandwidth, and RCS.
These as well as other objects and advantages of this invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art upon careful study of this entire application. The appended claims are intended to cover not only the described exemplary embodiments of this invention but also all modifications and variations thereof apparent to those skilled in the art in light of the teachings of this patent application.
This is a continuation-in-part of commonly assigned application Ser. No. 10/206,101 filed Jul. 29, 2002 entitled “A Small Controlled Parasitic Antenna System and Method for Controlling Same to Optimally Improve Signal Quality” and naming Thomas L. Larry as sole inventor (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,876,337 which is hereby incorporated by reference).
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3218645 | Ehrenspeck | Nov 1965 | A |
3560978 | Himmel et al. | Feb 1971 | A |
3656167 | Lea | Apr 1972 | A |
3725938 | Black et al. | Apr 1973 | A |
3790943 | Pickles et al. | Feb 1974 | A |
3846799 | Gueguen | Nov 1974 | A |
3877014 | Mailloux | Apr 1975 | A |
3950753 | Chisholm | Apr 1976 | A |
3996592 | Kline et al. | Dec 1976 | A |
4260994 | Parker | Apr 1981 | A |
4387378 | Henderson | Jun 1983 | A |
H26 | Dinger | Feb 1986 | H |
4631546 | Dumas et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4700197 | Milne | Oct 1987 | A |
5235343 | Audren et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5293172 | Lamberty et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5294939 | Sanford et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5767807 | Pritchett | Jun 1998 | A |
5905473 | Taenzer | May 1999 | A |
5923305 | Sadler et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
6034638 | Thiel et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6040803 | Spall | Mar 2000 | A |
6133882 | LaFleur et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6198943 | Sadler et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6249255 | Eggleston | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6317100 | Elson et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6407719 | Ohira et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6448937 | Aiken et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6492942 | Kezys | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6515635 | Chiang et al. | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6600456 | Gothard et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6677898 | Cheng et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
20030193446 | Chen | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030210206 | Phillips et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040036651 | Toda | Feb 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050088358 A1 | Apr 2005 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10206101 | Jul 2002 | US |
Child | 10719011 | US |