IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. ASSP-34, NO.

3, JUNE 1986 393

Practical Supergain
HENRY COX, FELLOW, IEEE, ROBERT M. ZESKIND, SENIOR MEMBER, IEEE,
AND THEO KOOIJ, MEMBER, IEEE
Abstract-The problem considered is that of designing endfire line
array shadings which provide a useful amount of supergain without
extreme sensitivity to random errors. Optimum shading weights are
obtained subject to a constraint on the gain against uncorrelated white
noise. The results of optimum array gain versus white noise gain con-
straint aye presented parametrically for arrays of different interele-
ment spacings, and different noise fields. Results are presented for
spherically and cylindrically isotropic noise, and other wavenumber
limited noise fields, used in modeling ocean ambient noise. It is found
that nearly optimum performance can be obtained in a simple delay
and sum beamformer by shading to reduce sidelobes and modest
oversteering to reduce mainlobe width without too large a reduction in
mainlobe sensitivity.
I
INTRODUCTION
T has long been known that a significant increase in the
endfire beam array gain of a line array over that of con-
ventional beamforming can be achieved in isotropic noise
fields when adjacent elements are separated by less than
one-half wavelength 11-[4]. This phenomenon has been
called supergain at endfire. For example, for N very
closely spaced elements, endfire array gain approaching
N 2 can be achieved in spherically isotropic noise [3] and
a corresponding array gain o f 2 N 1 can be achieved for
a cylindrically isotropic noise field 121.
Early work involved steering Dolph-Chebyshev shaded
arrays past endfire to narrow their mainlobes [6], [7]. For
closely spaced elements, this can be done without a grat-
ing lobe entering visible space. It soon became apparent
[5] that the theoretical gains of optimum performance were
not obtainable in practice due to the extreme sensitivity
of these highly tuned systems to small random errors en-
countered in real world applications. Important errors,
such as amplitude and phase errors in sensor channels, are
nearly uncorrelated from sensor to sensor and affect the
beamformer in a similar manner to spatially white noise.
Hence, the array gain against uncorrelated or spatially
white noise is a good measure the array processor's
robustness to errors.
Gilbert and Morgan [8] first addressed the problem of
maximizing array gain against isotropic noise with a con-
straint on gain against uncorrelated noise and showed a
monotonic dependence between the gain and the con-
straint. A closely related problem was examined by Uz-
soky and Solymar [lo]. We consider the generalized ver-
Manuscript received April 22, 1985; revised October 14, 1985.
H. and R. M. Zeskind are with the BBN Laboratories, Inc., Ar-
T. Kooij is with the Office of Naval Technology, Arlington, VA 222
IEEE Log Number 8407205.
lington, VA 22209.
sion 1 13of that problem; that of finding the set of optimal
complex weights which maximizes the array gain against
correlated noise subject to an inequality constraint on the
gain against spatially white noise. In this problem, the
white noise gain is specified for a desired level of insen-
sitivity to random errors.
The solution of the constrained optimization problem
yields endfire array gain which is less than the uncon-
strained supergain value but greater than for conventional
beamforming. Constrained optimal solutions represent a
good tradeoff between increased array gain and sensitivity
to errors.' The complex.weights may be implemented in a
frequency domain beamformer. These weights generally
do not have a linear phase relationship associated with the
simple delay and beamformer.
In this paper we first consider the sensitivity con-
strained optimization problem and present results for sev-
eral types of background noise. Then the problem of
achieving near optimum performance with a delay and
sum beamformer is examined and a design technique pre-
sented. It is found that near optimum performance can be
achieved using a simple delay and sum beamformer with
proper delay selection and amplitude shading.
SENSITIVITY CONSTRAINED OPTIMAL BEAMFORMING
Consider a line array of N equally spaced sensors. The
Hermitian cross-spectral density matrix of the sensor out-
puts at a frequency f is given by
where a: is the noise power spectral density averaged over
the N sensors, and is the average signal power spectral
density of the N sensors. The signal cross-spectral density
matrix is P and that for the noise 1s Q. Both P and Q are
normalized to have their traces equal to N. The quantity
o:/aZ is the input signal-to-noise spectral ratio.
The output spectral density of a beamformer z( f ) can
be expressed as the Hermitian form
z ( f ) w*( f ) R(f) w f f ) (2)
where w( f ) is the vector of complex beamformer weights
at frequencyfand the asterisk denotes complex conjugate
transpose. The array gain G is defined as the output sig-
nal-to-noise ratio divided by the input signal-to-noise ra-
tio and is given by
0096-3518/86/0600-0393$01.00 O 1986 IEEE

394 lEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. ASSP-34, NO. 3, JUNE 1986
The maximum gain is achieved by the complex weight
vector w which maximizes ( 3 ) .
The problem of maximizing the array gain ( 3 ) subject
to a constraint on the white noise gain, defined as
is most easily formulated as that of finding the vector w
which minimizes 1/G with a constraint on l/G,,,, That is,
minimizing
where E is a Lagrange multiplier. Finding the w which
minimizes ( 5) is equivalent to finding the w which maxi-
mizes the reciprocal of ( 3 , which in turn is an eigenvalue
problem. The optimum w is chosen to be proportional to
the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue of
[Q EZ] - ' P. When there is a single coherent wavefront
from direction 0, P is a dyad or rank one matrix which
may be written as P rn (f, 0) m* (f, 0). Then the sen-
sitivity constrained optimum w is any nonzero'scalar rnul-
tiple of
[Q ~11-I 0). (6)
The Lagrange multiplier provides a continuous param-
eterization between the array gain and the white noise
gain. The relationship between these gains is monotonic
in that increasing the white noise gain from its uncon-
strained optimum value at E 0 to its maximum value,
10 log N, E causes the constrained optimum array
gain to decrease monotonically from its unconstrained
maximum to the array gain of a uniformly shaded con-
ventional beamformer.
As an example, consider an eight-element uniformly
spaced endfire line array [ 12] . Figs. 1-4 present curves
of constrained optimal array gain versus the white noise
gain for several values of the ratio of element spacing s
to plane wave wavelength X. The Lagrange multiplier E is
a parameter along the curves. Fig. 1 shows the results for
a spherically isotropic noise field, and Fig. 2 shows re-
sults for a cylindrically isotropic noise field. Figs. 3 and
show similar results for other models of ocean ambient
noise.
For very large E , the sensitivity constrained weight vec-
tor of (6) will tend to m, since the matrix I will dominate
Q. But m is just conventional endfire bearnforming with
uniform shading and plane wave phasing. Therefore, as
the desired white noise gain constraint is increased, the
weight vector of (6) and the array gain approach that of
conventional beamforming. The upper limit on G,, for
this example, is 10 log 8 9 dB, the conventional array
gain against uncorrelated noise. As the minimum accept-
able value of G, is decreased, the constrained optimal
array gain increases approaching the asymptotic iimit
for closely spaced elements of N 2 for spherically
isotropic noise field and 2N for cylindrically isotropic
G
1
-50 -30 -20 70
Fig. 1. Array gain versus G,, for an eight-element endfire line array in
spherically isotropic noise.
1'
01
-50 -40 -20 -10
0 70
Fig. 2. Array gain versus G, for an eight-element endfire line array in
cylindrically isotropic noise.
0
-50 -40 - 3 0 - 2 0 -70 0 10
Idis]
Fig. 3 . Array gain versus G, for an eight-element endfire line array in
surface noise.
noise field. Notice that there is an initial very sharp rise
in the curves that occurs as G, is allowed to decrease from
9 dB. We will use 3 dB as a design constraint for G ,
which permits a significant increased endfire array gain

COX et al.: PRACTICAL SUPERGAIN
395
G
3
-SO
7.3
6.2
t
-40 -30 0
WHITE
Fig. 4. Array gain versus G, for an eight-element endfire line array in
distant shipping noise.
1
8.8
Fig. 5. Constrained optimum weights for cylindrically isotropic noise
where SIX 0.3, G, 3 dB. (a) l W , 2 1 . (b) Phase perturbation.
SIA
Fig. 6 . Optimum beampattern (cylindrically isotropic noise)
G 6.9 =9
Fig. 7. Conventional beampattern (cylindrically isotropic noise).
against isotropic noise or ocean ambient noise without ex-
cessive sensitivity to random errors.
Fig. presents t hew which is the solution to (6) when
G, 3 dB, 0.3, in a cylindrically isotropic noise
field. The upper curve in Fig. is the magnitude of the
weights, while the lower curve is the phase departure from
plane wave phasing. The endfire beampattern resulting
from these constrained optimal weights is shown in Fig.
6. Comparing Fig. 6 to the conventional endfire beam-
pattern in Fig. 7, we observe that the weights of (6) result
in a much narrower mainlobe and reduced sidelobe levels.
RELATIONSHIP TO OVERSTEERING
The 3 dB beamwidth of a uniformly spaced line array
steered to endfire is approximately 2J o886x I L. If the
elements are spaced at one-half wavelength, a grating lobe
appears at the opposite endfire. By decreasing the element
spacing slightly, the grating lobe vanishes from visible
space. There is little corresponding broadening of the
mainlobe since, at endfire, the beamwidth depends on the
square root of array length. The net result is a nearly 3
dB increase in endfire array gain which is sometimes
called the endfire anomaly.
It is possible to oversteer or steer past endfire by
using time delays phases) matched to a propagation
velocity which is less than the speed propagation c .
The delay r, applied to the nth element at position is
7, (1
which is matched to a wave propagating at a velocity
(1 where 6 is a small positive constant which deter-
mines the amount of oversteering. Oversteering has the
effects of reducing the mainlobe width in visible space,
reducing mainlobe sensitivity, and bringing into visible
space new lobes at the opposite endfire. The sidelobe sen-
sitivities are not changed but their levels relative to the
reduced mainlobe are increased. The closeness of the ele-
ment spacing determines the amount of oversteering which
can be introduced without bringing in a grating lobe at the

396 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. ASSP-34, NO. 3, JUNE 1986
opposite endfire. Early work in superdirective arrays in-
volved extreme shading for greatly reduced sidelobes, and
extreme oversteering of arrays with very closely spaced
elements resulting in a very narrow mainlobe of greatly
reduced sensitivity. These designs were soon found to be
extremely sensitive to various errors making them im-
practical. In our parlance, the extreme oversteering re-
sulted in an unsatisfactorily low gain against uncorrelated
noise.
The question naturally arises: Can one achieve near
constrained optimum performance using mild oversteer-
ing? An examination of Fig. 5 is encouraging since the
phases of the optimum weights are nearly linear in ele-
ment position. Fig. 6 shows that the optimum beam pat-
tern of an eight-element array with s/ h 0.3 and having
a 3 dB white noise gain constraint has a peak sidelobe
level of about 13 dB. This 13 dB plus a 6 dB loss in
mainlobe sensitivity which reduced the white noise gain
from 9 dB (10 log 8) to 3 dB suggests that a design which
has 19 dB sidelobe before oversteering might give similar
performance. As a candidate design, we will place slightly
more emphasis on sidelobe control. We proceed as fol-
lows.
1) Shade the array for 25 dB sidelobes before over
steering. This should result in 19 dB sidelobes after over-
steering. For simplicity we use 25 dB Taylor [9] shading.
2) Oversteer the array a limited amount such that the
resulting white noise gain is 3 dB. This approximately
corresponds to oversteering by an amount such that the 6
dB down point on the mainlobe is at endfire.
Since we oversteer only a fraction of the mainlobe, only
a fraction of an additional lobe enters visible space at the
opposite endfire. The appearance of a grating lobe will be
avoided if
N - 2
2 N
so that is slightly less than X/2.
The design procedure is illustrated in Figs. 7, 8, and 9.
Fig. 7 shows the beampattern of an unshaded array steered
to endfire. Fig. 8 shows the corresponding beampattern
when 25 dB shading is used. The shading has cost about
0.4 dB loss in white noise gain. Fig. 9 shows the beam-
pattern of the shaded array with oversteering such that G,
is 3 dB. The gain of this array against two-dimensional
isotropic noise is only 0.2 dB lower than the constrained
optimum of Fig. 6 . Nearly uniform 19 dB down sidelobes
have been achieved. Thus, the simple shaded delay and
sum oversteered beamformer is nearly optimum for this
example.
The time delays of (7) were adjusted i n the previous
example to meet a 3 dB white noise gain constraint for a
cylindrically isotropic noise field. The question naturally
arises as to the performance of this simple delay and sum
beamformer when the noise field is not the one assumed
in adjusting the time delay, i.e., the effect of model mis-
match. For the uniformly spaced eight-element line array
with G, 3 dB and s/X 0.3, the constrained optimal
SIX ~ 0 . 3
=6.7
Fig. 8. Beampattern with 25 dB shading (cylindrically isotropic noise)
=9.3
Fig. 9. Shaded and oversteered beampattern (cylindrically isotropic noise).
array gain for spherically isotropic noise is found from
Fig. 1 to be 14.1 dB. Using the Taylor shadings and time
delays of the previous example, it was found that the array
gain achieved by the simple delay and sum beamformer
was 13.7 dB, only 0.4 dB lower than the constrained op-
timum.
Thus, the shaded and oversteered design gives nearly
optimum performance in both cylindrically and spheri-
cally isotropic noise fields. The reason for this is fairly
obvious. In both cases oversteering exploits the fact that
the noise fields are limited in wavenumber to those wave-
numbers corresponding to real angles. The oversteered
beamformer exploits in a slightly different way the same
properties of the band-limited noise as does the con-
strained optimum.
As a second example, consider a 32-element line array
with one-quarter wavelength spacing and a white noise
constraint of 8 dB in a spherically isotropic noise field.
The interelement spacing is 0.25 X. Conventional endfire
steering with uniform weights yields the beampattern of

COX er ai.: PRACTICAL SUPERGAIN 397
Fig. 10. Conventional beampattern (spherically isotropic noise).
Fig. 1 1 . Optimum beampattern (spherically isotropic noise).
Fig. 12. Beampattern with 25 dB shading (spherically isotropic noise).
Fig. 10 with an array gain of 15 dB and coincidently G,
15 dB. The constrained optimum beampattern for G,,,
8 dB is shown in Fig. 11. It achieves an array gain of
19.8 dB, a nearly 5 dB increase in array gain over con-
Fig. 13. Shaded and oversteered beampattern (spherically isotropic noise).
ventional beamforming while retaining reasonable ro-
bustness against random errors. Fig. 12 shows the effect
of 25 dB Taylor shading on the array steered to endfire.
The value of G, is reduced by about 0.4 dB. Finally, Fig.
13 shows the shaded array oversteered such that G,,, 8
dB. The array gain of 19.3 dB, within dB of optimum,
is achieved with a simple delay and sum beamformer.
CONCLUSION
Using constrained optimum beamforming, it is possible
to achieve a significant increase in endfire array gain for
a variety of noise fields consisting of plane waves. An
essential feature of these noise fields is that they are band
limited in wavenumber corresponding to waves propagat-
ing at a fixed phase velocity. Thus, they have no energy
corresponding to slow waves. The constraint on the white
noise gain limits the sensitivity of the array gain to small
deviations from idealized assumptions. The use of real
shadings plus mild oversteering in a simple delay and sum
beamformer has been found to give nearly optimum per-
formance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors express their appreciation to M. M. Owen,
BBN Laboratories, Incorporated, who developed optimi-
zation and simulation software which has been central to
our recent work in optimum and adaptive beamforming.
REFERENCES
[l] W. W. Hansen and J. R. Woodyard, A new principle in directional
antenna design, Proc. IRE, vol. 26, Mar. 1938.
[2] S . A. Schelkunoff, A mathematical theory of linear arrays, Bell
Tech. J . , vol. 2, Jan. 1943.
[3] A. I. Uzkov, An approach to the problem of optimum directive an-
tenna design, Comptes Rendus (Doklady) de lrlcademic des
ences del LURSS, vol. LIII, no. 1946.
H. J. Riblet, Note on the maximum directivity of an antenna,
IRE, vol. 36, May 1948.
[5] T. T. Taylor, A discussion of the maximum directivity of an an-
tenna, Proc. IRE, vol. 36, Sept. 1948.
[6] R. H. Duhamel, Optimum patterns for endfire arrays, Proc. IRE,
vol. 41, May 1953.
[7] R. L. Pritchard, Optimum directivity for linear point arrays, Proc.
J . Acoust. Amer., vol. 25, Sept. 1953.

398 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ACOUSTICS, SPEECH, AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. ASSP-34, NO. 3, JUNE 1986
[8] E. N. Gilbert and S . P. Morgan, Optimum design of antenna arrays
subject to random variations, Bell Syst. Tech. J . , vol. 34, May 1955.
[9] T. T. Taylor, Design of line-source antennas for narrow beamwidth
and low side lobes, IRE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. AP-3, Jan.
1955.
[lo] M. Uzsoky and L. Solymar, Theory of super-directive linear ar-
rays, Acta Phys. Acad. Sci. Hungary, vol. 6 , no. 2, 1956.
[!I] H. Cox, Sensitivity considerations in adaptive beamforming, in
Signal Processing, J. W. R. Griffiths, P. L. Stocklin, and C. Van
Schooneveld, Eds. New York and London: Academic, 1973.
[I21 T. Kooij, Adaptive array processors for sensitivity constrained op-
timization, Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic Univ. America, Washing-
ton, DC, June 1977.
[I31 H. Cox, Spatial correlation in arbitrary noise fields with application
to ambient sea noise, J. Acoust. SOC. Amer., vol. 54, Nov. 1973.