IEEE TRANSACIIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. AP-21, NO.
5, SEPTEMBER 1973 615
Optimum Element Spacings for Yagi-Uda Arrays
DAVID K. CHENG
Abstract-A method is developedfor the maximization of the
forwardgainof a Yagi-Udaarray by adjusting the interelement
spacings. Theeffects of a bite dipole radius andthe mutual coupling
between the elements are taken into consideration. Currents in the
array elements areapproximated by three-termexpansionswith
complex coefficients which convert the governing integral equations
intosimultaneousalgebraicequations.The array gain is maxi-
mized by the repeatedapplication of aperturbationprocedure
which converges rapidlyto yield aset of optimum, generally unequal,
element spacings. This method eliminatesthe need for a haphazard
trial-and-errorapproachorforinterpreting a vast data collection.
Illustrative examples are given.
I. INTRODUCTION
B ECAUSE of t,heir simplicity and versatility, Yagi-
Udaantenna a.rrays [l], [a] have found many
important practical a.pplicat,ions. A conventional Yagi-
Uda array consists of a row of para.lle1straight cylindrical
dipoles, of which only the second one is driven by a source
and a.11 others are parasitic. Fig. 1 represents a typical
arrangement. The driven element no. 2 is norma.llytuned
to resonance. Element no. 1 is a reflector which is usually
longer than thedriven element, while elements no.3 to N
are directors and are shorter than the driven element.
An important performance index ofYagi-Uda arrays
is the gain, or directivity if element losses are neglected.
Arra.y directivity depends on the radius and length of the
dipole element,sas well as on the totalnumber of elements
and the spacingsbetween them. Theoretically, each of
those pa.rameters can be varied individually, making the
problem of finding an absolute optimumcombination
practically impossible. Attemptshave been madeby
various investigators t,o maximize the gain of Yagi-Uda
arrays [3)-[5]. However, the result,s havenot been
meaningful on account of inherent rough approximations.
Ehrenspeck and Poehler [SI examined experimentally
and systemat,ically,a methodfor obtaining maximum ga,in
from a Yagi-Uda array with equally spaced directors of
equal length. They concluded that the phase velocity of
the surface wa,ve traveling along the row of directors
could be used as a. design criterion. This phase velocity
depends, of course,on the element length and spacing
paramet.ers in a very complicated way. The surfa.ce-wave
concept has also been used to calculate the phase velocity
ofinfinitelylonguniformdipole arrayswith assumed
current distribut,ions [7], [SI, t o determine cutofffre-
quencies [9] and choose design parameters [lo 1, and t o
analyze long Yagi-Uda, arrays [ll].
ManuscriptreceivedDecember27,1972;revisedFebruary 23,
1973.
The aut6ore are with the Departmentof Electrical andComputer
Engineering, Syracuse Univermty, Syracuse,N.Y. 13210.
AND C. A. CHEN
U
1 2 3 1 L N
Fig. 1. Typical Yagi-Uda array.
Recently, Bojsen et al. [12] used a numerical approach
to obtain curves showing -the variation of maximum gain
with element spacing for endike half-wave dipole arrays,
of which only oneelement is excited and the rest are
parasitics center-loaded with reactances. Sinusoidalcur-
rent distributions were assumed and the effects of dipole
radius were neglected. Their results appear to dispute the
propriety of basing the optimumdesign solely on traveling-
wave considera,tions.The nonuniformity in both the ampli-
tudes and the progressive phase shifts of the currents in
the elemenk of a Yagi-Uda array has been pointed out
by Thiele [13].
Morris [14] used a three-term approximation for an-
tenna currents to solve the governing simultaneous inte-
gral equations for Yagi-Uda arrays. He obtained a large
amount of interesting da$a for typical arrays nith 2, 4,
and 8 equally spaced directors of equal length. Of partic-
ular sigficance is the evidence that the arraygain drops
sharply when the director spacing is larger than about
0.4X, whichconfirms the findings of Ehrenspeckand
Poehler [SI.
The purposes of this paper are to demonstrate that the
forward gain can be increased by spacing the directors .
nonuniformly and to present a method for determining
the spacings needed for gain optimization. The method
employs a spacing perturbation technique [15] which
converges quite rapidly. The three-term theory developed
by King and his associates [lS] is used t o convert the
integra.1equations into a set of algebraic equations. Typical
numerical results are presented, and radiation patterns
and current distributions on the arrayelements are plotted.
The spacing perturbation technique could be used in
conjunction with the method of moments [17] which also
converts integral equations into simultaneous algebraic
equations. However, in subsectioning the array elements,
matrices of much larger dimensionswould have to be
manipulated. This limits the number of array elements
that can be handled, Furthermore, the currents on the
pa.rasitic elements depend much morecritically upon those
on other mutually coupled elements. The effects of small
errors multiply and there would be convergence problems
616 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTEXNASAND PROPAGATION, SEPTEWBER 1973

unless more subsections than those normally required for and two simultaneous matrix equations for the column
driven elements are taken.In using the three-term theory matrices of complex coefficients ( A ( 2 )and
) {A(3)}:
the largest matrices t o be handledfor an N-element array
are of a dimension N X N and no convergence problems +
[ W ) ] { A ( 2 ) ) [@~(3)]{A(~)j
= - ( @ ~ ( l ) J A 2 ( l ) (12)

are encountered. [XPd(2)]{A(2)}+ [ 9 d ( 3 ) ] [ A ( 3=

) } - {\E&)}Az(~).(13)

11. CURRENT DISTRIBUTIONS

IN YAGI-UDAARRAY The expression for *=a(') and the elements of the AT X 1
column matrices { @z(l) ) and {9z,J1) ) as well as those for
We shall s u m m h e in this section the integral-equation the N X N square matrices [ W ] , [ W ] , [9d(2)], and
formulation for the currents in the N elements of an [ @ P ] a,re rather involved. They can be found in [16)
Yagi-Uda array using athree-termapproximation for and [ls]. It is noted that when the geometrical dimen-
the driven element and two terms with complexcoeffi- sions are known,the complex coefficientsAd'), {A(?) 1, and
cients for the para.sitic elements [E]. The N simultaneous { A @ ) )can be eva,luated from (11)-(13). From (7), the
integral equations t o be solved are current distributions in all the elements of a Yagi-Uda
array can then bedetermined.
2N hi
/-hi li(Xi') Kkia ( z k , z i ' ) dzf When the driven element (no. 2) in a Yagi-Uda array
is a half-wavedipole, as it often is, &hz = r/2 and
cos @oh2 = 0. Some of the quantities in the preceding
formulation mill become indeterminate. Although they
yield definite values in the l i t i n g process, an alternative
formulation is preferred in order to avoid computational
dif6culties. The integral equation (1) for the driven half-
wave dipole becomes [18]

5
N hi

1i(2i')~2S(e,Zl) dz;

[iVoz(~inBo I z 1 - 1) + Oz COS 602)

-
- j
- 30 (14)

with

(3)
0 2 = j30
N

i=l
/
h i

-hi
I ; ( z < ) K 2 j ( O J x dz;.
l) (15)

Rki ( z k ) = [( z k - z / ) 2 + bk?]'" (4) It is convenient to modify ( z ) in (8) t o the following

form:
Rki(hk) = [(hk - Z()z + bki2]1'2 (5)
S2(1)( 2 ) = sin Bo I x I - 1 (16)
bkk = a. (6)
butretain Si(2)( x ) and ( x ) as they were in (9) and
I n solving the simultaneous integral equations (1), the (10). Using an overbar t o denote the quantities for this
current distributions l i (2) are assumed t o have thefollow- modified formulation, we have, instead of (11)-( 13),
ing form:
a
li(2) = Ai(m))Xi(m) ( 2 ) (7)
m=l

with
Xi("(2) = sin/9O(hi- I z I) (8)
Xi'') ( z ) = COS / 3 -
~ COS &hi (9)
Xi(3) ( x ) = cos +/3& - cos +pohi (10)
m d AJl) = 0 for i # 2 (parasitic elements). Substitution
of (7) in (1) and use of certain approximate relations for
the integrals involved yield
.[l - cos (31) / Ices r+)- r+> cos

+ [1 - cos -
C)Il. 1 - sm - (20)
CHENG AND CHEN: SPACINGS FOR YAGI-UDA AFtRAYS 617

k P 2

k = 2

--here small amounts Adk and Adi, respectively. The perturbed

distance can be obtained from (4)
RkiP = [(zk - zi')2 f (bx-i i- A& - Adi)2]1'2

if (Adk - << Rk?.Withthis change in distance a

typical term in the integrals contained in (1) and (14)
can be mitten as

I h;

-I& i
SiCmn)
(2:) KkiP(Zk,Zi!) dzl

k # i, m = 1,2,3. (30)
The elenlents of [ ! @ d @ ) ] and [ + d c 3 ) ] in (19) are thesame
as those for [ \ k J m ) ] in (13) for m = 2 and 3. The elements We note that the additional term due to spacing pertur-
of [6(2)]and [ & ( 3 ) ] are the same as those for [+c2)] and bation is proportional to the difference (Adk - A&). As
[W] except when k = 2. For k = 2, we have a consequence, we write the new, perturbed matrices in
(12) and (13) as
= (0)- ip2id'(2) (26)
&(2) IpZi(2)
[@(m)]p = [@(m)] + [A@m)], nt = 2,3 (31)
&(3) = qrti(3) (0)- q r 2 & p 3 ) (27) [?Pdm)-Jp = [9?dm)] + [AfPdm)], m = 2,3 (32)
where f P 2 i ( 2 ) ( 0 ) and \k2i(3) (0) are { @2c1) )P = { +2(l) +
1 { Aa2") ] (33)
{ q az(1) 1 -!- { A*zd(') 1 (34)
ezi(")(0)
= 1 hi

-hi
dzi',
Si(m)(zi')Kzi(O,z() m = 2,3. (28)
{Ip#}P =

where the kith elements of the square deviation matrices

and the Mh elements of the column deviation matrices
The current distributions in the e1ement.s of a Yagi-
are defined with the aid of the Kronecker delta 6ki as
Uda array m<th a half-wave driven element (no. 2) can
follows :
then be determinedby solving forthe complex coefficients
& P { . i . ( 2 ) ) , and { A ( 3 )from
J ) (17)-(19) and using (7) [A@'")]ki = (Adk - (1 - &i), .m = 2,3
with Sz(l) ( 2 ) in ( 16) replacing S P )(2) of (8).
(35)
[A\ka'"']ki = ( A & - A d j ) $ k ~ ( ~ )-( l6ki) ?n. = 2,3
PERTURBATION
111. SPACING
(36)
With a view to adjusting the elementspacingsin a
Yagi-Uda array for ma,ximum gain, we assume that the { A@2(')}k = (Ad&- Adz) $kzC1) (1 - 8k2) (37)
posit.ions of the kth a.nd the ith elements be displaced by { I,+ = (Ad&- Adz) $b%(') (1 - &e). (38)
618 IEEE TF~ANSACIXONSON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, s m m 1973
~

The expressions for the newly defined complex coefficients we have

4,Jm), Ijkkid(m), 4 k Z ( l ) , and yiM(1) are given in Appendix I.
[Fz]
The coefficients { A @)) and { A ( 3 ) }for the current terms
in (7) will also be changed.
{A(Z)jP =
We write
{ A @ )+
} {bA(Z)} (39)
{ Ai4- (1' }
Iid(3?1) = [
[@)]
['@')]
[6(3)]

[@d@)ll
-1

ICFJ { Ad}

{AW'jp = {A(3))+ { A(46)

i4(3)). (40)
Substitution of the perturbed matrices (31)-(34), (39),
and (40) into (12) and (13) yields,when second-order IV. R A D I A ~ O NFIELDFROM PEETURBED
ARRdy
deviation terms areneglected:
The radiation field of a spacing-perturbed linear array
[O(Z)]{AA(2)} + [9(3)-J{ AA(3)} at a distance Ro from a reference origin is

(42) For small Ad;, that is; for

I n view of (35)-(38), the kth element of the right-hand ( Adi) /di << 1, exp [jfh(di + A&) sin 8 cos 41
side of (41) can be written as can be approximated by
1y

[PzIddi
(1 + jSoAdi sin e cos 4) *exp ( jSdi sin e cos 4).
i=l
Using the perturbed current coefficients in (39) and (40),
where [Pz] is an N X N square matrix defined in Appen- we obtain from (47)
..* 11. Similarly, a.nother N X N matrix [P3] can be
6 O N
defined (also in Appendix 11) from the right-hand side +j -
E'(e,#,) 'v E(@,,#,) exp ( jsdi sin g, cos 4)
of (42), and (41) and (42) become Bo i-I

[
[o(z)-J p
[*d")]

From (43),
( 3 q

[\Ed(3)ll

{AA(2)}
1 1{
{ A A ~

{a@))
=
CPZl

[p34
{Ad). (43)

and { A A ( 3 ) } can be found by matrix

*
{ j&,( Adi) sin e cos 4
[Mi(') (e) A ;()'
+[ ~ p ( e )
~
+Mi(3)(e) A p ]

+ 1tli(3)((e)

where E(B,4) is the radiation field of theunperturbed

. A A ~ ( ~ ) ] (48)
)

inversion.
array, a,nd

The perturbed current coefficients { A @ ) } pand ( ~ - l ( ~ ) can

}p
then be determined from (39) and (40).
The preceding formulation holds for @oh;f ~ / as 2 long
as it is less than 5 ~ / 4 .In case the driven element is a
haU-wave dipole Dohz = ~ / 2 ,the matrices [O(')], [ W ] ,
[\Ed(')], and [ \ E d ( 3 ) ] in (43) should be changed to [@)I,
[&3)], [$d'"], and [%d(31], respectively, as developed in
Section 11, and

IA4 (45)
CaENG AND CHEN: SPACINGS FOR YAGI-UDA ARRAYS 619

With (51), we can m i t e (48) as Using (52), (61) ca.n be expressed ax

E'(4dJ) = E(&+) + a(e,$) Pi,' = Pi, + 2{Ad}T{B3}4- {Ad}T[ReCz]{Ad} (62)
= E(4+) + DIT{Adl (52) where the radiated power of the unperturbed array
where the superscript T denotes transposition. Equation
(52) is useful because the deviation field AE due t o spac-
ing perturbation is expressed explicitly in terms of {Ad}.
We are now ready Do consider the problem of gain opti- i r2a
mization of Yagi-Uda arrays by spacing perturbation.
V. GAIN OPTIMIZATION BY SPACING PERTURBATION
and
The gain of an a.rray in the direction (eo,&) is
i r2* rz

(53)
{ B I }and [Cl] have previously been defined, respectively,
where Pi, is the t,ime-average input power. With spacing in (56) and (57) ;and [CZ]is a positive definite Hermitian
perturbation E becomes E', Pi, becomes Pin', and the matrix.
perturbed gain becomes The objective of gain optimization by spacing pertur-
bation is t o find the small changes in theelement spacings
(54) such thak the array gain in a. given direction is increased
a.nd t o repeat the process until further increases in gain
From (52), are negligible. Hence, it is essential that
I Evo,do)12 = (E* + AE*) (E' + AE) AG(eo,do) = G'(eo,b) - G(@o,+o) (66)
= I E 1' + 2{Ad)T{B~]
+ {Ad]'[Cl]{Ad] be positive. Substitution of (53)- (62) in (66) yields
(55)
where
{BI)= Re (E'{D*}) (56)
and
CCll = {D}*{D}T. (57)
I n (56), Re ( E {D*) ) = real part of the product of E
a,nd the complex conjugate of the column matrix ID}. Note that thenegative sign in (68) for { B }in the numer-
The AT X N square matrix [C,] is positive semi-definite, ator of AG(Bo,dJo) in (67) implies that the array gain d
and, since {Ad] is a real mat,rix, [Cl] in the last term of decrease for an improper choice of { Ad}.
( 5 5 ) can be replaced by m e Cl]. Pi,,' in (54) is In order t o be certain that AG(&,&) slcill be positive,
Pin' = $ R e [Voz*IzP(O)] = Pi, + (Ad)T{B2) (58)
we make use of a known relation in the theory of matrices
[15], [19]. Applied to the present problem, the relation
where asserts that if m e Cz] is positive definite, then
. - -:Va Re [A2(')&(')(0)
p In
({BITIRe C2T1(B])({AdIT[Re CZ]{A~})
+ +
Z ( ~ ) A z ( ~ ) X(~0()1
A z ( ~ ) S (0) ~ ) (59) 2 ({Ad)T(B])2. (69)
and the kth element of the column matrix (B2}
is
I n (69), the equality sign holds when
{ A d ) = a[Re CZ]-~{B} (70)
For a.lossless array,theinput power equals the total
power ra,diated, a.nd Pin' can be mitten in an alternative where CY is a positive consta.nt. Hence, if t>hespacing
form : changes in { A d } are chosen, such that,
{Ad] = a[Re C2]-1(2{B~] - 60G{B2)) (71)
then
 620 IEEE TRANSACTIONS
AND
ON ANTENNAS PROPAGATION, SEPTENBER 1973

/:h,,
TABLE I
GAINOPTIMIZATION YAGI-UDA
FOR SIX-ELEMENT ~ A Y
(PERTURBATION OF SPACINGS)
DECECMR
2h1 = 0.51X, 2h9 = 0.50% 283 = 2h4 = 2h5 = 2hs = 0.43X,
a = 0.003369X

InitiSlArray 0.250 0.310 0.310 0.310

0.310 8.06 \

,[<h,
Optimizedhray 0.250 0.336 0.398 0.310 0.407 11.81 -6 - 5 4 - 3 - 2 -I 0 I 2 3 4

A')?\,
10-2A/V
6 0

/ 0.15 , ) , jI
0.05
I
-6-5-4-3-2-1 0 I 2 3 4 5 -5-4-3-2 -I 0 I 2 3 4 -2-1 0 I 2 3 4 5
lO-'A/V

Fig. 3. Currents in optimizedsix-elementYagi-Udaarray by

0.5- perturbation of all element epacings. 2hl = 0.51X, 2 b = 0.5OX
c
- 0.4- 2h3 = 2h4 = 2h5 = 2hs = 0.43XJ u = 0.003369X. - Re(l), - -
Im(I).
-
0.3 -

0.2 -

0.1 -

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135

150 165 160
# DEGREES

Fig. 2. Normalized patterns of six-element Yagi-Uda arrap

(Example 1).

TABLE II
GAINOPTWATTIONFOR SIX-ELEMENT
YAGI-UDA
ARRAY
OF ALL ELEXENT
(PERTURBATTON SPACINGS)

b2dX bdX b43/X bdX bdX Gain

Initial Array 0.280 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.310 7.53

Optimized
Array 0.250 0.352
0.355 0.354 0.373
11.85 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
rp DEGREES

Fig. 4. Normalized
patterns of six-element
Yagi-Uda
arrays
(Example 2).
The a in (71) should be sufficiently small to sat,isfy the
condition ( Adi) / d i << 1.
Equation (71) represents the requisite fmt perturba-
tion, with which AG and G' are determinedfrom (72) 0.310X. The director spacings are to be adjusted for gain
and (66) respectively. A second perturbation can then maximization (reflector spacing fixed).
)

be performed using the new G' as the initial gain, andthe Since the driven element is a half-wave dipole, the
process repeated until further increases are negligible. It formulation outlined in (14)-(28) is used to determine
has beenfound that. this iterative procedure converges the current distributions in the array element.s, the radi-
rapidly a.fter a fewcycles. We t.hen have an unequally ated field, and the gain. The ga.in of t,he initia.1 array is
spaced Yagi-Uda a.rray which yields a maximum gain. found t o be S.06 (9.06 dB), which checks well with the
result obtained by Morris [14]. Now we keep the relative
positions of the reflect.or and the driven element fixed
VII. NUblERICaL EXAMPLES
(bzl = 0.250X) and perturb the positions of the directors
I n this sect,ionwe present the computed results of three in accordance with (70) in order to increase the gain. Six
examples which illustzate the effectiveness of increasing iterations yield the result,s shown in Table I. The opti-
the gain or directivity of Yagi-Uda arra.ys by spacing mized array is unequally spaced and has a gain of 11.81
pcrturba,tion. (10.72 dB), an increase of 46.5 percent (1.66 dB). The
E n m p E e 1: Six-element Yag-Uda array with a half- computed relative field intensities inthe direction of
wave driver (2h2 = 0.5OX; one reflector, 2hi = 0.51X; four maximum radiat,ion are 0.910 and 0.958, respect,ively,for
directors, 2h3 = 2h.j = 2h.5 = 2h6 = 0.43X; 0, = 0.003369X). the initial and op t,imized arrays. The normalized radiation
In the initial array, bB1= 0.25OX, ba2 = b43 = b s = bS5= patterns are shown in Fig. 2. It is seen t.hat the pattern
 CHENG AND CHEN: SPACINGS FORYAGI-UDA ARRAYS 621

TABLE III
GAINOPTIMIZATION FOR TEN-WNT YAGI-UDA AILRAY
(PERTORBATION OF D ~ ~ E C TSPACINGS)
OR
2hl = 0.51X, 2hZ = 0.50X, 2hi = 0.43X (i = 3, 4, .**, lo), ~a = 0.003369X

bl/x bdX b,,/X bdX b6dX b16/h bm/X bpdX blO.O/X Gain

Initial Array 0.250 0.330 0,330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 0.330 12.36
Optimized Array 0.250 0.319 0.357 0.326 0.400 0.343 0.320 0.355 0.397 16.20

for t.he opt,imum array has not only a narrower main
beam but also lowersidelobes, a fact. which has been
noted previously [20].
Example 2: Six-element,Yagi-Uda array 1it.h a half-
wave driver (2h2 = 0.50X; one reflector, 2hl = 0.5lX; four
directors, 2h3 = 2hl = 2h5 = 2$ = 0.43X; a = 0.003369h).
In the initial a,rray, b ~ 1= 0.280X, b32 = b.13 = b s = bG5=
0.310X. All element spacings a.re to be adjusted for gain
optimization.
The reflector spacing bP1in the initial srray is arbitrar-
ily chosen to be 0.280X, and all ot,her element spacings are
given as 0.310X. The gain of thisinitial array is 7.53
(8.77 dB). Now all element spacings are adjusted simul-
taneously in t,he optimization procedure t,o increase t.he
gain. The results are summarized in Table 11. The gain
of the optimized array is 11.85 (10.74 dB), an increase of
57.3 percent (1.97 dB).
The real and imaginary pa,rts of t.he currents in the
elements of t.he optimized array withunequal spacings
are plot,ted in Fig. 3, which includes t,he effects of mutual
coupling and finite dipole radius. It is interest,ing to find
that, thedirector spacing for t,he optimized array is 0.2501,
which confirmswith what hasbeen foundby other investi-
gators [lS]. The normalized radiation patterns for both
the initial and t,he optimized arrays are given in Fig. 4.
Again, the pat.t>ernfor t,he optimized a.rray has a narrower
mainbeamas well as lowersidelobes. The computed
relative field intensities in the direction of ma.ximum
radia,t,ionare 0.920 and 0.976, respectively, for t,he initial
a.nd optimized arrays.
Example 3: Ten-element Yag-Uda a.rray xith a half-
wa.ve driver (2ha = 0.5OX; one reflector, 2hl = 0.5lX; eight
directors, 2hi = 0.43X, i = 3,4,.. -,lo;a = 0.003369h). In
the init,ial array, bPl = 0.250X, bB = b43 = = b10,9 =
0.3101. The director spacings are t.0 be adjusted for gain
maximization.
Wit,h t.en elements in a Yagi-Uda array, it mould be
impract,icalto use the moment method wit.h subsectioning
for numerical solut-ion. However, only 10 X 10 matrices
a.re involved in t,he present formulation. The results for
the opt,imized array are summarized inTable 111. The
calculated gain for t.he array with eight equa.llyspaced
directors is 12.36 (10.92 dB) which checks very closely
n-ith the result of hIorris [14]. The gain of the optimized
array is 16.20 (12.10 dB, an increase of 31 percent (1.18
dB). Even for this example, the t,otalcomput,ingtime for
seven iterat,ions on an IBM 370/155 computer t,ook only
about 5 min.
VIII. CONCLUSIOK
A method has been developed for the maximization of
t.he forward gain of a I'agi-Uda array by adjusting the
interelement spa.cings. The effects of a finite element
radius and the mutual coupling beheen t.he array elements
are taken intoconsideration. A three-term expansion with
complexcoefficientsisused to approximate the current
distribution in the elements and to convert the governing
integral equations int.0 simultaneous algebraic equations.
The array gain is ma.ximized by the repeated application
of a perturbation procedure which converges rapidly to
yield a set, of opt,imum, generally unequal, element spac-
ings. 1llust.rative examples are given to show typical gain
increases that a.re attaina.ble with this technique.
Although the formulat,ion using t,he three-term theory
a.ppears tedious, t.he end result is in a fairly simple form.
The matrix equations need not be reformulated for differ-
ent a.rrays once they have been obt.ained.The formulation
itself is on firm grounds and has been expounded in many
research a.rticles and several books. As far a.s its applica-
tion to t,he present problem is concerned, the only numer-
ically tedious part is the evaluation of definite integrals
of the type given in (24), (25), (A-7), and (A-8). The
method of momentswith subsectioning cannot conven-
ient.ly be used here because the critica.1 dependenceof the
currents in the parasitic elements on mutual coupling
demands h e subsectmiorlingand the consequent manipu-
lat,ion of complex matrices of very large dimensions.
The largest matrices encountered in the spacing per-
turbation technique using the t,hree-term theory are of a
dimension X X N for an LY-element array. Theconvergent
iterat.ive procedure yields the opt.imum spacings for maxi-
mum gain nit.hout the needfor a haphazard trial-and-
error approach or for interpreting a vast dat,a collection.
I
APPENDIX
Expressions for 4 d r n ) 4kk2(1),
, $ d m ) , and $ k B d ( l ) in (35)-
(38) :
[ ; ; y l L k ) - $kid'(%) COSPOh.k, k # i
=
k = i
(-4-1)
$kZ(') (h.k) - (1 - 6k2) $ k ~ a ' ( ' ) COS p&, k #2
+&) =
k = 2
(A-2)
622 ANTENNAS
IEEEON
TRANSACTIONS AND PROPAGATION, SEPTEMBER 1973

tities represent 14) k#2 (A-

A2 = [l - COS B&k] [COS r$) r$)] r$)

- COS - [COS - cos B o h . k ] [ 1 - cos r*)] (A-6)

(A-7)

and
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATIOR, VOL. -21, NO. 5, 6231973
SEPTEMBER

ing maximum gain for Yagi antennas,” IRE Trans. Antennas

[7] D. L. Sengupta, “On %hephase velocity of wave propagation
[SI F.Serracchioli and C. A. Lev& “The calculated phase velocity
[9] L.C. She: “Characteristm of propagat.ingwaves on Yagi-Uda
REFERENCES
c11 H. Yagi, “Beam transmission of ultra shortwava,” Proc. IRE,
vol. 16, pp. 715-741, June 1928.
c21 S. Uda and Y. Mushiake, Yagi-Udu Antenna. Tokyo, Japan:
Prupagai., vol. AP-7, pp. 379-386, Oct. 1959.
along an i d b i t e Yagj structure,” f R E Trans. Antennas
Propagai., vol. AP-7, pp. 234239, July 1959.
of long end-fire dipolearrays,” IRE Trans. Antennas Propagat.,
_ ..
vol. AP-7, pp. S42443434, Dec. 1959.
structure. IEEE Trans. Micruwave T h w w Tech.. vol. MTT-
19, pp,. 536-542, June 1971.
- , Directivity and bandwidth of single-band and double-
band Yagi arrays,” IEEE .Trans. Antennas Propagat. (Com-
mun.), vol. AP-20, pp. 778-780, Nov. 1972.
R. J. Mailloux, “The longYagi-Uda array,” IEEE Trans.
Antmnm Propagat., voL AP-14, pp. 128-137, Mar. 1966.
J. H. Bojsen, H. Schaer-Jacobsen, E. Nilsson, and J. B.
Andersen, ’‘Ivlax1IIO(um gam of Yagi-Uda arrays,” Electron.
Lett., vol. 7, no. 18, pp. 531-532, Se t. 9, 1971.
G. A. Thiele, ‘‘Analysis of Yagi-&a-type antennas,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-17, pp. 24-31, Jan. 1969.
I. L. Morris, Optimizationofthe Yagi.Ama.y,Ph.D. dissertation,
Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass., 1965.
F.I. Tseng and D. I(.Cheng, “Spacingperturbation techniques
for array optimization,” R d w Sn’., vol. 3 (New Series), pp. __
451-457; &fay 1968. .
R. W. P. King, R. E. Mack, and S. S. Sandler, Arrays of
Cylindrical Dipoles. New York: Cambridge U&v. Prees, 1968.
R. F. Harrineton. Field Comvutation bu Mument Meulods.
New York: Ivl~cmihn,1968. a

Maruzen Co., 1954,
c31 W. Walkinshaw, ‘‘Theoreticaltreatment of short Yagi aerials,”
J . Inst. Ekc. Eng., vol. 93, pt. IIIA, no. 3, pp. 598-614, 1946.
c41 D. G. Reid, “The gain of an idealized Yagi array,” J . Inst.
Eke. Eng., vol. 93, pt. IIIA,no. 3, pp. 564-566, 1946.
C51 R. M. Fishenden and E. R. Wiblin, “Design of Yagi aerials,”
Proe. Inst. Elee. Eng., vol. 96, pp. 5-12, Mar. 1949.
C6 1 H. W.Ehrenspeck and H. Poehler, “A new method for obtain-
D. K. Cheng and C. A. Chen, “Optimum element spacings for
Yagi-Uda arrays,” Syracuse Univ.,Syracuse,N.Y.,Tech.
Rep. TR-72-9, Nov. 1972.
D. K. Cheng, “Optimization techniques for antenna arrays,”
Proc. IEEE, vol. 59, pp.. 1664-1674, Dec. 1971.
D. L. Sengupta, “On d o r m and linearly tapered long Yagi
antennas,” IRE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-11, pp.
11-17, Jan. 1960.

A New Method for Calculating Correction

Factors for Near-Field Gain Measurements
ARTHUR C. LUDWIG AND RICHARD A. NORMAN

Absfract-A new method is presented for calculating near-field I. INTRODUCTION

antenna gain correction factors directly from measured far-field
pattern data by using a spherical waveexpansion of the pattern.
This eliminates the need for any assumptions regarding antenna
aperture field distributions. The only significant assumption in the
I
T IS welllrnonm t,hat, t,he apparent gain of t.wo an-
t,ennas separated by a finitmedistance differs from t,he
gain in the limiting case of infinite separat.ion, and many
new method is to neglect multiple scattering between the antennas.authorshave dealt m-it,h the problem of correcting for
The method is applied to the case of a horn antenna. Calculated
results are compared to direct measured results, demonstrating this effect [1]-[7]. Allof t,hese prior techniques are
agreement to within 0.03 dB. analytical
The method is also compared to the and typically involve an assumption that the
method of Chu and Semplak, with similar agreement. The sensi- fields are known to have a specific analytic form on some
tivity of the results to truncation error and noise in the data is also
surface. Even t,hough t,he results generally agree very well
investigated and contrasted to sensitivity of prior methods to errors
with experimental dat,a, it, is difficult to assign an exact
in the assumed field distribution.
tolerance to the computed correction factors due to the
various assumptions used [8], [9].
Manuscript received January 29, 1973;revised April2, 1973. This It is the purpose of this paper to present an a.lt,ernate
work was supported by NASA under Contract NAS 7-100. a,pproach based on the use of experimental data, rat,her
The authors are with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. 91103. than an assumed field distribut,ion. This method will be