2017
DOI: 10.1109/lawp.2017.2742059
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The CBFM-Enhanced Jacobi Method for Efficient Finite Antenna Array Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…× Diag(exp( j δ phase e phase )) × a(θ, δ pos e pos ) (41) where δ (•) is used to indicate whether a certain kind of imperfection exists, I M is the M × M unitary matrix, Diag(•) forms diagonal matrices with the given vector on the diagonal, E mc is a toeplitz matrix with parameter vector e mc [22], and a(θ, δ pos e pos ) is the actual array responding vector corresponding to the signal from direction θ when position error e pos is embedded in the array geometry. The array responding function given in (41) has been largely simplified when compared with its counterpart in practical applications, which can be measured more precisely with computational electromagnetic methods, such as [54]- [56]. The array imperfection formulations in (37)- (40) can also be modeled more precisely following previous studies, such as [57]- [60] for mutual coupling.…”
Section: A Simulation Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…× Diag(exp( j δ phase e phase )) × a(θ, δ pos e pos ) (41) where δ (•) is used to indicate whether a certain kind of imperfection exists, I M is the M × M unitary matrix, Diag(•) forms diagonal matrices with the given vector on the diagonal, E mc is a toeplitz matrix with parameter vector e mc [22], and a(θ, δ pos e pos ) is the actual array responding vector corresponding to the signal from direction θ when position error e pos is embedded in the array geometry. The array responding function given in (41) has been largely simplified when compared with its counterpart in practical applications, which can be measured more precisely with computational electromagnetic methods, such as [54]- [56]. The array imperfection formulations in (37)- (40) can also be modeled more precisely following previous studies, such as [57]- [60] for mutual coupling.…”
Section: A Simulation Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The array response function given by ( 37) has been simplified compared with the actual application, which can be measured more accurately by the computational electromagnetic method [51][52][53]. The array imperfection formulations in ( 33)- (36) can also be modelled more accurately based on techniques from previous studies, such as mutual coupling [22,23].…”
Section: Musicmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, the convergence of a preconditioned iterative method may still be suboptimal when dealing with large and ill-conditioned problems. This limitation may be largely overcome by introducing the CBFM into a classical iterative scheme, as has been demonstrated in [43], [44] for the case of the CBFM-enhanced Jacobi method. Similarly, the relation between the Krylov methods and the CBFs (or MBFs in general) has been discussed in [45]- [48].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper, we compare the performances of different iterative solvers enhanced by the CBFM, which are used for the analysis of MoM-based systems related to different array configurations of disjoint antenna elements. While the analyses performed in [43]- [48] provide insight into the performances of particular iterative methods, a comprehensive comparative analysis of different iterative techniques in terms of their respective convergence rates and computational requirements, which is based on a wider palette of MoM-based problems, has not been reported in the literature yet. Similar comparison of the MBF-enhanced iterative techniques has been performed in [49], however, it is based on the finite element approach and limited to the analysis of the plane wave scattering by a collection of cylindrical obstacles, while our comparison is based on the MoM analysis of realistic antenna elements.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation