www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Microwaves, Antennas & Propagation Received on 14th October 2008 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054

ISSN 1751-8725

Design and optimisation of Yagi-Uda antenna arrays

M. Khodier M. Al-Aqil
Department of Electrical Engineering, Jordan University of Science & Technology, P.O. Box 3030, Irbid 22110, Jordan E-mail: majidkh@just.edu.jo

Abstract: The geometry optimisation of linear and two-dimensional (2D) Yagi-Uda antenna arrays is presented. The objective from the optimisation is to increase the directivity and/or minimise the sidelobe level. The optimisation parameters are the lengths and/or the separations between the array elements for the linear array, and lengths and element locations for the 2D array. The current distribution over the array elements is found using the method of moments that takes into consideration mutual coupling between array elements. From the current distribution and the array geometry, the radiated electric eld is computed, from which the directivity and other array parameters are calculated. The particle swarm optimisation (PSO) method is used in the optimisation process. Various numerical examples are presented and discussed, and the results are compared with other optimisation methods whenever possible.

Introduction

Owing to their high gain, simple structure and design, YagiUda antenna arrays have been extensively used in HF (3 30 MHz), VHF (30 300 MHz) and UHF (300 3000 MHz) bands, famously for television signal reception and direction nding [1]. Printed Yagi-Uda arrays were also investigated for communication and radar applications [2 4]. In the design and synthesis of Yagi-Uda antennas, the objective is to nd the antenna structure that satises a set of performance criteria such as gain, sidelobe level (SLL), beam width, input impedance and physical size. The antenna parameters that affect these criteria are several with the most important being elements separation, elements length, the number of reectors or directors and elements radii. Therefore for optimum design of Yagi-Uda antenna, all the antenna parameters should be taken into account in order to nd the optimum synthesis of the antenna with respect to some radiation criteria. Many researchers have investigated performance optimisation of Yagi-Uda antenna. Extensive laboratory experiments have been performed in [5] to accurately determine the spacing and lengths of the elements that provide maximum gain. In [6 8], gradient-based techniques have been used to optimise spacings and lengths 426 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

of Yagi-Uda antenna for maximum gain. A disadvantage of gradient-based techniques is that its performance is largely dependent on the choice of initial solution, and in practice, it is difcult to provide good initial solution. The design problem becomes even more difcult when other performance measures such as impedance, SLL and beam width are also considered in the optimisation process. Evolutionary optimisation techniques that are effective in solving multimodal function optimisation problems have also been applied in antenna design. Genetic algorithms (GA) have been used to design wire antennas in [9], and the optimised designs were veried experimentally. In [10], binary-coded GA has been applied in the design of YagiUda antennas to maximise the gain and to achieve other desired antenna characteristics. Simulated annealing (SA) has been used to optimise gain, impedance and bandwidth of Yagi-Uda antennas [11]. The computational intelligence method has been also presented for the design of Yagi-Uda antennas [12, 13]. Recently, particle swarm optimisation (PSO) method was proposed as a simple and efcient tool for solving function optimisation problems. The PSO method is an evolutionary computation technique that mimics the social behaviour of bird ocks and sh schools. PSO has been applied in complex multidimensional optimisation problems [14 16]. The method has been IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054

www.ietdl.org
applied successfully in antenna design problems [16 19]. Recently, the PSO method has been used in [20, 21] to optimise the design of a linear Yagi-Uda antennas, and in [22] the PSO is used in the design of circular Yagi-Uda arrays for beamforming applications. In this paper, we apply the PSO method to design linear and twodimensional (2D) Yagi-Uda antenna arrays. To the best our knowledge, this is the rst time a 2D Yagi-Uda antenna is designed using the PSO method. q p 2 2 impedance, R0 dnm z2 , R dnm (z hn )2 , R q 2 dnm (z hn )2 and dnm 8 q < (xn xm )2 (yn ym )2 , : a2 , n=m nm (4)

Yagi-Uda array analysis

All integrations in this paper are evaluated numerically using adaptive Simpson quadrature. The normalised array factor is calculated using 2  N  X cos(kh cos u) coskh  n n jksin u(xn cos fyn sin f)  e AF(u, f)  In    n1 sinkhn sin u (5)

We consider an array consisting of N elements of length ln , where n 1, 2, . . . N , directed along the z-axis and centred on the x y plane, and their positions determined by xn and yn where n 1, 2, . . . , N . The driven element is centred at the origin (x 0, y 0) and the rest of element centrs are distributed on the x y plane. Elements radius are xed to a 0:003369l. Thus the lengths and spacing of the elements are left as the design variables for optimisation by the PSO. The range of ln was allowed to vary between 0.1l and l, xn between 20.5l and (N/2)l, and yn between zero and l. The current distribution over each element is assumed to be sinusoidal along the z-axis as [23] In (z) In sin(k(hn jzj)) sin khn (1)

PSO method

where k 2p/l is the wave number, and hn ln/2. This assumption is correct for the length of the elements is not a multiple of the wavelength, which is the case studied here (all dipole lengths are around l/2). The current amplitudes in each element {In n 1, 2 . . . , N } are evaluated using the formula I Z 1 V (2)

The PSO is a robust stochastic evolutionary computation technique based on the movement and intelligence of swarms, and was introduced in 1995 by Kennedy and Eberhart [14]. In comparison with other stochastic evolutionary algorithms like GA, PSO has fewer complicated operations, fewer dening parameters and generally fewer lines of code, including the fact that the basic algorithm is very easy to understand and implement. Because of these advantages, the PSO has received increasing attention in recent years. As an evolutionary algorithm, the PSO algorithm depends on the social interaction between independent agents, here called particles, during their search for the optimum solution using the concept of tness. The main steps of the PSO algorithm are discussed below. After dening the solution space and the tness function, the PSO algorithm starts by randomly initialising the position and velocity of each particle in the swarm. The ith particle in the swarm is assigned a position and a velocity vectors as follows Xi [xi1 Vi [vi1 xi2 vi2 ... ... xiN ] viN ] (6) (7)

where V is a vector of N elements that contains the feeding voltage at the centre of each element, and Z is the impedance matrix of N N dimension that contains the values of mutual impedance between the elements. The fed element is exited from a small gap at its centre, x 0 and y 0 with unit voltage and the rest of elements are passive, which means that the voltage at their centres is zero. Thus, the voltage vector is written as V [0 1 0 0 . . . 0]t where element #2 is the driven element, and t stands for the transpose. The impedance matrix depends on the array geometry and its elements are evaluated using [23] znm hn  jkR j h0 e ejkR 4p sin khm sin khn hn R R  ejkR0 sin(k(hn jzj)) dz 2 cos khm R0

(3)

where znm is the mutual impedance between element n and element m, 1 n, m N , h0 the free-space wave IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054

where N represents the number of parameters need to be optimised, like the transmission powers of the MSs in the cell, 1 i M, and M is the number of particles in the swarm (population size). It has been found that relatively small population size can sufciently explore a solution space while avoiding excessive tness evaluations and less computational time. Parametric studies have found that a population size of about 30 is optimal for many problems, and even smaller population sizes of around 10 20 particles have been effective for engineering problems. In this paper, we selected it to be 20 particles in the swarm (by trial and error). Each particles position vector represents a possible solution to the optimisation problem (e.g. the minimum powers we need to nd, or may represent the electric phase, amplitude or space between the elements of the antenna array). Each position vector is scored to obtain a scalar tness (cost) function based on 427

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org
Table 1 Directivity optimisation for six-element Yagi-Uda array (optimisation of directors spacing) Element # length [l/l] x-position [x/l] from [6, 7] 1 0.51 20.25 2 0.50 0.00 3 0.43 0.336 4 0.43 0.734 5 0.43 1.044 6 0.43 1.451 12.87 F/B ratio 9.34 dB total size 1.701l FNBW 758 F/B ratio 9.77 dB total size 1.6591l FNBW 798 D [dBi] Other parameters

x-position [x/l] using PSO

20.25

0.00

0.2827

0.6814

1.006

1.4091

13.234

how well it solves the problem. These particles then y through the N-dimensional problem space subject to both deterministic and stochastic update rules to new positions, which are subsequently scored. The velocity of each particle depends on the distance of the current position to the positions that resulted in good tness values. To update the velocity matrix, each particle remembers its own personal best position that it has ever found (called its local best) and each particle also knows the best position found by any particle in the swarm (called the global best). The personal best position vector denes the position at which each particle attained its best tness value up to the present iteration Pi [pi1 pi2 ... piN ] (8)

by all particles, and is dened by G [g1 g2 ... gN ] (9)

All the information needed by the PSO algorithm is contained in X, V, P and G. These vectors are updated such that each particle takes the path of a damped oscillatory movement towards its personal best and the global best positions. To achieve this, the velocity of each particle is updated according to
t vt wvt1 c1 U1 (pt xt1 ) c2 U2 (gn xt1 ) in in in in in

(10)

The global best position vector denes the position in the solution space at which the best tness value was achieved

where the superscripts t and t 2 1 refer to the time index of the current and the previous iterations, U1 and U2 are two different uniformly distributed random numbers in the interval [0, 1]. The parameters c1 and c2 are the scaling factors that determine the relative pull of local and global best. Previous work has shown that a value of 2.0 is a good

Figure 1 Radiation pattern and layout of the array obtained in Table 1 428 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054

www.ietdl.org
Table 2 Directivity optimisation for six-element Yagi-Uda array (optimisation of element spacing) Element # length [l/l] x-position [x/l] from [6, 7] 1 0.51 20.25 2 0.5 0.0 3 0.43 0.352 4 0.43 0.707 5 0.43 1.061 6 0.43 1.434 12.89 F/B ratio 8.83 dB total size 1.684l FNBW 738 F/B ratio 9.80 dB total size 1.597l FNBW 778 D [dBi] Other parameters

x-position [x/l] using PSO

20.163

0.3133

0.7106

1.0342

1.4366

13.3

choice for both parameters. The parameter w is a number, called the inertia weight, in the range [0, 1], which species the weight by which the particles current velocity depends on its previous velocity and how far the particle is from its personal best and global best positions. Numerical experiments have shown that the PSO algorithm converges faster if w is linearly damped with iterations starting at 0.9 and decreasing linearly to 0.4 at the last iteration. Such damping will slow down the velocity of the particles as they get closer to the global best position, and therefore enhancing convergence speed of the PSO algorithm. The damping of w with time step t is given as follows w(t) wmax wmax wmin t tmax (11)

predetermined value vmax , beyond which the velocity should not exceed to keep the particles in the solution space as follows if (jvnew j .vmax ), then vnew vmax v jvnew j new (12)

The position vector is updated according to Xit Xit1 Vit (13)

where tmax is the maximum number of iterations, and wmax and wmin selected to be 0.9 and 0.4, respectively. The updated velocity is ultimately subject to a restricted

The PSO algorithm, like other evolutionary algorithms, uses the concept of tness to guide the particles during their search for the optimum position vector in the N-dimensional space. The tness denes how well the position vector of each particle satises the requirements of the optimisation problem. The particles position vector that resulted in the best tness is chosen as the global best position vector, and this information is passed to all other

Figure 2 Radiation pattern and layout of the array obtained in Table 2 IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054 429

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org
Table 3 Directivity optimisation for six-element Yagi-Uda array (optimisation of director spacing and length) Element # length [l/l] x-position [x/l] 1 0.4855 20.25 2 0.4924 0 3 0.4449 0.2096 4 0.4276 0.5992 5 0.4223 1.0110 6 0.4291 1.3989 D [dBi] 13.8437 Other parameters F/B ratio 9.50 dB total size 1.597l FNBW 798

particles to use in adjusting their velocity and position vectors accordingly. More details about the PSO method, various versions, parameter selection and implementation can be found in [14 22, 24]. The standard PSO algorithm as explained above can be summarised in the following steps: 1. Initialise the position and velocity vectors of the particles randomly in the solution space. 2. Use the current position vector of each particle to evaluate the objective (or the tness) function. 3. Compare the particles tness value with the particles personal best position, denoted by pbest. If the current value is better (here better numerically means larger) than pbest, then replace pbest by the current value, and the particles position vector by the current position vector. 4. Compare the current tness value with the global previous best value, denoted by gbest. If the current value is better than gbest, then set gbest and the global best position vector to the current value and position, respectively. 5. Update the particles velocity and position.

Repeat starting from step (2) until a stopping criterion is met: a good tness value or a maximum number of iterations.

Numerical results

Different numerical examples are presented for the design of a linear and 2D Yagi-Uda array. For all the examples discussed below, only one driven element centred at origin is used and the radius of all elements is xed at a 0:003369l. Element lengths and locations are normalised to the wavelength.

4.1 Linear array

In the following examples, the PSO is used to maximise the directivity of the array, which is calculated using ( D max 2p p
0 0

4p AF(u, f) sin(u) dudf

) (14)

The objective (or tness) function of the PSO method is given by (14).

Figure 3 Radiation pattern and layout of the array obtained in Table 3 430 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054

www.ietdl.org
Table 4 Directivity optimisation for six-element Yagi-Uda array (optimisation of element spacing and length) Element # PSO length [l/l] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gain [dB] Total size (in wavelength) 13.8748 F/B ratio 9.65 dB total size 1.590l FNBW 818 F/B ratio 7.55 dB total size 1.690l FNBW 718 F/B ratio 12.41 dB total size 1.615l FNBW 818

0.4934 0.5003 0.4422 0.4273 0.4220 0.4285 0.2627 0.6530 1.0645 1.4552

x-position [x/l] 20.1345 0 Ref. [7] length [l/l]

0.4760 0.4520 0.4360 0.4300 0.4340 0.4300 0 0.2890 0.6950 1.0180 1.4400

15.356

x-position [x/l] 20.25 Ref. [25] length [l/l]

0.4840 0.4680 0.4420 0.4240 0.4200 0.4280 0.2280 0.6430 1.0480 1.4320

13.84

x-position [x/l] 20.1830 0

4.1.1 Example 1: The goal is to optimise element

positions with their centres on the x-axis (yn 0, zn 0, n 1, 2 . . . N ). The Yagi-Uda array has one driven centred at the origin, one reector centred at x 0:25 and four directors. We x element lengths to 0.5 for the driven element, 0.51 for the reector and 0.34 for the directors and try to nd their optimum locations. Table 1 illustrates the results from PSO algorithm, and Fig. 1 shows the radiation pattern of the optimised array and the array layout. The directivity obtained is 13.3 dB and the array size is 1.5996l. The same problem is optimised in [6, 7] and the result is also shown in Table 1. We note that the directivity obtained from PSO is more of about 0.36 dB. Other array parameters such as front-to-back (F/B) ratio, total size and rst null beamwidth (FNBW) are also shown in the table. We note that the total size of the PSO array is less of about 0.084l than that of [6, 7]. It should be mentioned here that the F/B ratio, FNBW and the

directivity were all optimised in [6, 7], but here only the directivity is optimised.

4.1.2 Example 2: Table 2 shows the results of optimising both the directors and the reector positions. Compared with [6, 7], we obtain more than 0.41 dB in directivity and less than 0.0419l in total array size. Fig. 2 shows the radiation pattern and layout of the optimised array. 4.1.3 Example 3: More enhancements in directivity can be achieved if we include element lengths as another parameter to be optimised. Table 3 illustrates these results of optimising six-element Yagi-Uda array while xing the reector spacing to 0.25l, and Fig. 3 shows the radiation pattern and the array geometry. The directivity in this case is about 13.8437 dB, which is 0.6097 dB larger than the result in Table 1.

Figure 4 Radiation pattern and layout of the array obtained in Table 4 IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054 431

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org
4.1.4 Example 4: In this example, the reector location is also optimised, and the obtained results are illustrated in Table 4. The corresponding array pattern and layout are shown in Fig. 4. The same problem is optimised in [7] using the perturbation technique, and in [25] using the comprehensive learning particle swarm optimisation (CLPSO) and the results are shown in Table 4. The gain is larger than the previous sections and the total size of the array is also smaller. Thus, we can obtain more enhancements in the array by optimising all parameters of the array. It is worth to say that the tness function of the PSO algorithm is not a function of the array size; however, we may form tness function in order to minimise the total array size.
Here, we used the following objective function ( f2 R max
f AF(f) 21 p 0 AF(f)

) (15)

where AF(f ) is the normalised array factor in the azimuthal plane u p/2. The PSO algorithm is used to maximise the function R, which represents the radiation per cent towards the range f [f1 f2 ]. The following examples are considered.

4.2 2D array
The above examples illustrated the synthesis of linear YagiUda array where for all the previous examples yn 0. In this part, we consider 2D array with element centres distributed in the x y plane, as shown in Fig. 5. The PSO algorithm is applied to optimise element positions along the x and y axes.

4.2.1 Example 5: We consider a four-element Yagi-Uda array with element lengths set to L 0:5l and initially randomly chosen xn and yn values. Table 5 tabulates the result produced by the PSO algorithm and Fig. 5 illustrates the pattern obtained and the array geometry. Table 6 also shows the results for six-element array and Fig. 6 illustrates the pattern and the array geometry. 4.2.2 Example 6: Here, the element lengths and locations are optimised. Table 7 and Fig. 7 illustrate the results for fourelement Yagi-Uda array. Also Table 8 and Fig. 8 give results

Figure 5 Illustrates the pattern obtained and the array geometry

a Top view of the proposed 2D Yagi-Uda array b Radiation pattern and layout of the array of Table 5

432 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054

www.ietdl.org
Table 5 Radiation ratio optimisation for four-element Yagi-Uda array (optimisation of element locations) Element # length [l/l] x-position [x/l] y-position [ y/l] 1 0.5 2 0.5 3 0.5 0.009 4 0.5 0.009 R 81:92% radiation ratio for f [458 458]

20.0801 0 0 0

20.5331 0.5331

Table 6 Radiation ratio optimisation for six-element Yagi-Uda array (optimisation of element locations) Element # length [l/l] x-position [x/l] y-position [ y/l] 1 0.5 20.1447 0 2 0.5 0 0 3 0.5 20.1453 0.5270 4 0.5 20.1450 20.5273 5 0.5 0.3065 20.7178 6 0.5 0.3061 0.7178 R 91:90% radiation ratio for f [458 458]

Figure 6 Radiation pattern and layout of the array of Table 6

Table 7 Radiation ratio optimisation for four-element Yagi-Uda array (optimisation of element lengths and spacing) Element # length [l/l] x-position [x/l] y-position [ y/l] 1 0.4815 20.0508 0.0001 2 0.3849 0 0 3 0.5053 0.0170 20.5789 4 0.5055 0.0168 0.5793 R 83:47% radiation ratio for f [458 458]

IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054

433

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org

Figure 7 Radiation pattern and layout of the array of Table 7

Table 8 Radiation ratio optimisation for six-element Yagi-Uda array (optimisation of element lengths and spacing) Element # length [l/l] x-position [x/l] y-position [ y/l] 1 0.4719 20.0602 0.0005 2 0.2969 0 0 3 0.5071 20.1763 0.5545 4 0.5083 20.1766 20.5457 5 0.4128 0.4028 20.0019 6 0.3886 0.8547 20.0037 R 96:79% radiation ratio for f [458 458]

Figure 8 Radiation pattern and layout of the array of Table 8 434 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010 IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054

www.ietdl.org
for six-element array. We notice that by optimising both element lengths and locations, the radiation ratio can be increased compared to the case of locations optimisation only. [11] RATTAN M., PATTERH M.S., SOHI B.S.: Optimization of YagiUda antenna using simulated annealing, J. Electromagn. Waves Appl., 2008, 22, (2/3), pp. 291 299 [12] VENKATARAYALU N.V., RAY T.: Optimum design of Yagi Uda antennas using computational intelligence, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 2004, 52, (7), pp. 1811 1818 [13] VENKATARAYALU N.V., RAY T.: Single and multi-objective design of Yagi Uda antennas using computational intelligence. Proc. Cong. Evolutionary Computation, Canberra, Australia, 2003, pp. 1237 1242 [14] KENNEDY J., EBERHART R.C.: Particle swarm optimization. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks, Piscataway, NJ, 1995, pp. 1942 1948 [15] SHI Y., EBERHART R.C. : A modied particle swarm optimizer. Proc. Cong. Evolutionary Computation, Anchorage, USA, 1998, pp. 69 73 [16] CLERC M. : The swarm and the queen: towards a deterministic and adaptive particle swarm optimization. Proc. Cong. Evolutionary Computation, Washington, DC, USA, 1999, pp. 1951 1957 [17] GIES D., RAHMAT-SAMII Y.: Particle swarm optimization for recongurable phase differentiated array design, Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett., 2003, 38, (3), pp. 168 175 [18] ROBINSON J., RAHMAT-SAMII Y.: Particle swarm optimization in electromagnetics, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 2004, 52, (2), pp. 397 407 [19] BOERINGER D.W., WERNER D.H.: Particle swarm optimization versus genetic algorithms for a phased array synthesis, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 2004, 52, (3), pp. 771 779 [20] BASKAR S., ALPHONES A., SUGANTHAN P.N., LIANG J.J.: Design of Yagi Uda antennas using comprehensive learning particle swarm optimization, IEE Proc.-Microw. Antennas Propag., 2005, 152, (5), pp. 340 346 [21] BAYRAKTAR Z., WERNER P., WERNER D.: Miniature threeelement stochastic yagi-uda array optimization via particle swarm intelligence. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium, 2005, vol. 2B, pp. 263 266 [22] [9] ALTSHULER E.E., LINDEN D.S.: Wire-antenna designs using genetic algorithms, IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., 1997, 39, (2), pp. 33 43 [10] JONES E.A., JOINES W.T.: Design of Yagi Uda antennas using genetic algorithms, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 1997, 45, (9), pp. 1386 1392 IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054
MAHMOUD K.R. , EL-ADAWY M. , IBRAHEM S.M.M. , BANSAL R. ,

Conclusions

The PSO method was successfully applied to optimise the geometry of linear and 2D Yagi-Uda arrays. The mutual couplings between array elements are taken into consideration in the method of moment solution. The PSO method is used to nd the optimum elements locations and/or lengths such that the array directivity is maximised. Numerical examples were presented for linear and 2D arrays, and the results were compared with other methods when available. In general, the PSO method was able to produce an array with larger directivity without increasing the overall size of the array. This work could be easily extended by adding constraints on other antenna array parameters in the optimisation process such as impedance bandwidth, SLL and beamwidth.

References

[1] BALANIS C.A.: Antenna theory: analysis and design (Wiley, 1997, 2nd edn.) [2] QIAN Y.X. , DEAL W.R., KANEDA N., ITOH T.: Microstrip-fed quasi-Yagi antenna with broadband characteristics, Electron. Lett., 1998, 34, (23), pp. 2194 2196 [3] SOR J., QIAN Y.X., ITOH T.: Coplanar waveguide fed quasiYagi antenna, Electron. Lett., 2000, 36, (1), pp. 1 2 [4] GRAJEK P.R., SCHOENLINNER B., REBEIZ G.M.: A 24-GHz highgain Yagi Uda antenna array, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 2004, 52, (5), pp. 1257 1261 [5] EHRENSPECK H.W., POEHLER H.: A new method for obtaining maximum gain from Yagi antennas, IRE Trans. Antennas Propag., 1959, 7, pp. 379 386 [6] CHENG D.K., CHENG C.A.: Optimum element spacings for Yagi Uda arrays, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 1973, 21, pp. 615 623 [7] CHENG D.K., CHENG C.A.: Optimum element lengths for Yagi Uda arrays, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 1975, 23, pp. 815 [8] CHENG D.K.: Gain optimization for Yagi Uda arrays, IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., 1991, 33, pp. 42 45

Performance of circular YagiUda arrays for beamforming applications using particle swarm optimization algorithm, J. Electromagn. Waves Appl., 2008, 22, (2/3), pp. 353 364 [23] SOPHOCLES J.: Orfanidis, Electromagnetic waves and antennas, 2003, Ch. 21, www.ece.rutgers.edu/~orfanidi/ewa 435

MAHMOUD K.R., ZAINUD-DEEN S.H.:

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

www.ietdl.org
[24] KHODIER M., CHRISTODOULOU C.G.: Linear Array geometry synthesis with minimum sidelobe level and null control using particle swarm optimization, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., 2005, 53, (8), pp. 2674 2679 [25] BASKAR S., ALPHONES A., SUGANTHAN P.N., LIANG J.J.: Design of Yagi Uda antennas using comprehensive learning particle swarm optimization, IEE Proc. Microw. Antennas Propagat., 2005, 152, (5), pp. 340 346

436 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2010

IET Microw. Antennas Propag., 2010, Vol. 4, Iss. 4, pp. 426 436 doi: 10.1049/iet-map.2009.0054