SMART ANTENNAS PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF BEAMFORMING ALGORITHMS

N.Karthik*, B.Bhuvaneswari, K.Malathi, R.Rajesh Kumar, M.Gulam Nabi Alsath, A.Henridass

Department of ECE, CEG Campus, Anna University, Chennai 600025, India. E-mail: karthik.rnatarajan@gmail.com

Abstract-There has been a growing demand for mobile communications and for the more efficient use of the radio spectrum, smart antenna systems are used. There are a number of techniques available for estimating the direction of arrival of the signals. This paper presents the analysis, simulation and performance of adaptive beamforming algorithms on a five element microstrip patch array which is used as a smart antenna for wireless mobile communications. Here, the performance comparison of the different beamforming algorithms namely, LMS, NLMS, Griffiths LMS and RLS algorithms is done. The array factors obtained in MATLAB and standard EM simulation software are compared and the performance of the different adaptive beamforming algorithms is analyzed. Keywords: LMS, NLMS, Beam-forming, Direction of arrival, smart antennas, antenna array, RLS.

achieving high efficiency networks that maximize capacity and improve quality and coverage. Smart antennas can increase the system capacity by dynamically turning out interference while focusing on intended user [1]. Smart antennas can provide higher system capacities, increase signal to noise ratio, reduce multipath and co-channel interference. Based on the time delays due to the impinging signals onto the antenna elements, the digital signal processor computes the direction-of-arrival (DOA) of the signal of interest (SOI), and then it adjusts the excitations (gains and phases of the signals) to produce a radiation pattern that focuses on the SOI while tuning out any interferers or signals-not-of-interest (SNOI). The base station listens to the signals sent by the cellular telephones.

I.

INTRODUCTION

There has been a steady increase in the development of broadband wireless access technologies for wireless Internet services. This is due to the increase in the number of users and new high bit rate data services. The rise in traffic will lead to insufficient capacity in the networks which will be a problem for service providers. Co-channel interference is a major limitation in capacity caused by the increasing number of users. Also, Internet usage in mobile has resulted in increase in airtime usage thus saturating the systems capacity. Wireless carriers have begun to explore new ways to maximize spectral efficiency of their networks and improve their return on investment. The development of smart antennas for wireless communications has emerged as one of the leading technologies for

Fig.1 Smart Antenna system.

A digital signal processor located at the base station works in conjunction with the antenna array and is responsible for adjusting various system parameters to filter out any interferers or signals-not-of-interest (SNOI) while enhancing desired communication or signals-of-interest (SOI). Thus, the system forms the radiation pattern in an adaptive manner, responding dynamically to the signal environment and its alterations. Two major configurations of smart antennas: 1. Switched Beam: A finite number of fixed, predefined patterns or combining strategies. 2. Adaptive Array: A theoretically infinite number of patterns that are adjusted in real time according to the spatial changes of SOIs and SNOIs. In Switched Beam approach, the antennas form multiple fixed beams with heightened sensitivity in particular directions. Such an antenna system detects signal strength, chooses from one of the several predetermined fixed beams, and switches from one beam to another as the cellular phone moves throughout the sector. In Adaptive Array approach, the antenna adjusts to the RF environment as it changes. Hence, the adaptive antenna technology can dynamically alter the signal patterns to optimize

the performance of the wireless system. Hence, it provides more degrees of freedom since they have the ability to adapt in real time the radiation pattern to the RF signal environment [2]. The accurate estimation of direction of arrival of all signals transmitted to the adaptive array antenna contributes to the maximization of its performance with respect to recovering the signal of interest and suppressing any present interfering signals. Data from an array of sensors are collected, and the objective is to locate point sources assumed to be radiating energy that is detectable by the sensors. DOA estimation algorithms can be categorized into two groups; the conventional algorithms and the subspace algorithms. Suitable DOA estimation algorithms can be used [4]. II. FIVE ELEMENT MICROSTRIP PATCH ANTENNA A five element microstrip patch antenna array designed for a frequency of 5.2 GHz is depicted in Fig.2 and S-parameter (Reflection coefficient) for the same is shown in Fig.3. The specifications for the designed array is as follows, Substrate used : FR-4 with r = 4.3 Substrate height: 1.6mm Type of feed: Co-axial Dimension of single patch: 13.35x17.72 mm2 Number of array elements: 5 Spacing between elements: /2

Fig. 2 Design of five element microstrip patch Antenna Array

MATLAB and standard EM simulation software are compared. The performance of the different adaptive beam-forming algorithms is analyzed. The simulation parameters used to simulate the smart antenna system are Angle of arrival of intended user = 40 Angle of arrival of unintended user = -20 A. Least Mean Square algorithm (LMS)
Fig. 3 S-Parameter (Reflection Coefficient) characteristics (f0 = 5.2 GHz)

III. ADAPTIVE BEAMFORMING ALGORITHMS The process of combining the signals from different antenna elements is known as beamforming. Beamforming is generally accomplished by phasing the feed to each element of an array so that signals received or transmitted from all elements will be in phase in a particular direction. Adaptive Beamforming is a technique in which an array of antennas is exploited to achieve maximum reception in a specified direction by estimating the signal arrival from a desired direction (in the presence of noise) while signals of the same frequency from other directions are rejected. This is achieved by varying the weights of each of the sensors (antennas) used in the array. Though the signals emanating from different transmitters occupy the same frequency channel, they still arrive from different directions. This spatial separation is exploited to separate the desired signal from the interfering signals. The optimum weights are iteratively computed using complex algorithms based upon different criteria. In this paper, LMS algorithm, NLMS algorithm, Griffiths LMS, RLS algorithms are simulated in MATLAB. The tap weights obtained are fed as inputs to the simulated antenna array. The array factors obtained in

The least mean square (LMS) algorithm belongs to the trained algorithms category in which a reference signal is used to update the weights at each iteration. Here, we are searching for the optimal weight that would make the array output either equal or as close as possible to the reference signal. The error signal e (n) is fed into the weight updating algorithm. The criterion for determining the weights is based on minimizing the mean squared error (MSE) between beamformer output and reference signal [3]. Let d (n) be the reference signal, x(n) be the input signal and w(n) be the filter weights. The filter coefficients that minimize the mean squared error are found by solving the Wiener-Hopf equation

Wopt = Rxx-1

(1)

Where Wopt is the optimum filter weights, Rxx is the autocorrelation matrix of the input signal and is the cross correlation between the input and the output signal. Since the MSE has a quadratic form, moving the weights in the negative direction of the gradient of the MSE should lead us to the minimum of the error surface. LMS algorithm is based on a traditional optimization technique called the method of steepest descent. A model of LMS Beamformer is shown in Fig.4.

The output of the array is, y (n) = wH(n) x(n) Error: e (n) = d (n) - y (n) Weight: w (n+1) = w (n) + x (n) e*(n)

(2) (3) (4)

Array Factor

Simulation d (n) = cos (2*pi*f*t); Normalized distance of separation of antenna elements = 0.5 No. of antenna elements = 5 X (n)
Adaptive Complex Weight w (n)
y(n)

Theta/Degree

Update

y(n )

Fig. 5 Normalized Array Factor of LMS Algorithm in MATLAB and EM Simulation software.

w (n+1) = w (n) + x (n) e*(n)

e(n)

+
d(n)

Fig. 4 LMS Beamformer.

The constant , also called the step size, determines how close the weights approach the optimum value after each iteration and it controls the convergence speed of the algorithm. The larger the value of , the faster the convergence but lowers the stability around the minimum value. The smaller the value of , the slower the convergence but higher the stability around the optimum value. Typical values for the step size are 0 < < 2/max where max is the largest eigen value of correlation matrix R. A comparison of the array factor for LMS algorithm obtained in MATLAB and standard simulation software is shown in Fig.5. Directivity of LMS algorithm obtained in EM simulation software is shown in Fig.6.

Directivity (dB)

Fig. 6 Directivity of LMS Algorithm in dB in EM simulation software.

B. Normalized Least Mean Square Algorithm (NLMS) One of the difficulties in the design of the LMS adaptive filter is the selection of the step size. Since Rxx is generally unknown, finding the value of is difficult [6]. The difficulty is overcome by replacing the value of step size with a parameter where is the normalized step size with 0 < < 2.

n) = / ||x (n) ||2

(5)

Replacing in the weight vector update equation with n) leads to Normalized LMS algorithm (NLMS) which is given by w (n+1) = w (n) + x(n) e*(n)/ ||x(n)||2 (6) Simulation d (n) = cos (2*pi*f*t); Normalized distance of separation of antenna elements = 0.5 No. of antenna elements = 5. A comparison of the array factor for NLMS algorithm obtained in MATLAB and standard simulation software is shown in Fig.7. Directivity of NLMS algorithm obtained in EM simulation software is shown in Fig.8.

C. Griffiths Least Mean Square Algorithm (Griffiths LMS) A DOA based LMS algorithm is due to Griffiths, and is referred to as the modified LMS algorithm, the Griffiths algorithm, or the steered direction algorithm. Here, the direction to which the beam is to be steered will be the input to the algorithm. The LMS algorithm which needs the reference signal is modified to use the direction instead of the reference signal. The weights can be updated as, w(k) = w(k-1) + (k) (s2Vs-X(k)Yp*(k) ) (7) where, w(k) w(k-1) (k) s X(k) Y(k) Vs - Weights - Previous weights - a constant - Signal Power - input samples - Output of the array - Steering Vector of Signal Direction

Array Factor

Theta/Degree

Fig. 7 Normalized Array Factor of NLMS Algorithm in MATLAB and EM Simulation software.

Simulation d (n) = cos (2*pi*f*t); Vs = exp (j*2*pi*d*sin(thetaS)) Normalized distance of separation antenna elements = 0.5 No. of antenna elements = 5

of

Directivity (dB)

Array Factor

Fig. 8 Directivity of NLMS Algorithm in dB in EM simulation software.

Theta/Degree

Fig. 9 Normalized Array Factor of Griffiths LMS Algorithm in MATLAB and EM Simulation software

resulting rate of convergence is therefore typically an order of magnitude faster than the simple LMS algorithm. This improvement in performance, however, is achieved at the expense of a large increase in computational complexity. The RLS algorithm requires 4N2 + 4N + 2 complex multiplications per iteration, where N is the number of weights used in the adaptive array.
Fig. 10 Directivity of Griffiths LMS Algorithm in dB in EM simulation software.

Directivity (dB)

w (k+1) = w(k) + g(k)( d*(k) - xH(k)w(k)) (8) Where, g(k) = Rxx-1(k)x(k) Rxx-1(k) = -1Rxx-1(k-1) - -1 g(k) xH(k) Rxx-1(k-1) Rxx (k) = Rxx (k-1) + x (k) xH (k) (10) (11) (9)

A comparison of the array factor for Griffiths LMS algorithm obtained in MATLAB and standard simulation software is shown in Fig.9. Directivity of Griffiths LMS algorithm obtained in EM simulation software is shown in Fig.10. D. Recursive Least Squares Algorithm (RLS) One of the drawbacks of the LMS algorithm is its slow convergence speed under certain conditions, for example when the Eigen value spread of R is large. This leads to the development of the Recursive Least Squares (RLS) algorithm, which replaces the step size with the inverse of R. The RLS adaptive algorithm approximates the Wiener solution directly using the method of least squares to adjust the weight vector, without imposing the additional burden of approximating an optimization procedure. In the method of least squares, the weight vector w(k) is chosen so as to minimize a cost function that consists of the sum of error squares over a time window, i.e., the least-square (LS) solution is minimized recursively . In the method of steepest-descent, on the other hand, the weight vector is chosen to minimize the ensemble average of the error squares [5]. An important feature of the RLS algorithm is that it utilizes information contained in the input data, extending back to the time instance the algorithm was initiated. The

Simulation d(n) = cos(2*pi*f*t); Vs = exp (j*2*pi*d*sin(thetaS)) Normalized distance of separation of antenna elements = 0.5 No. of antenna elements = 5.

Array Factor

Theta/Degree

Fig. 11 Normalized Array Factor of RLS Algorithm in MATLAB and EM Simulation software.

A comparison of the array factor for RLS algorithm obtained in MATLAB and standard simulation software is shown in Fig.11. Directivity of RLS algorithm obtained in EM simulation software is shown in Fig.12.

V. CONCLUSION In this paper, performance of various beam-forming algorithms for smart antenna system is compared. From the calculated and simulated results, it is found that RLS algorithm takes longer time compared to LMS and its variants to execute a single iteration. The maximum directivity is obtained at the intended angle in case of RLS whereas in case of LMS and its variants, there is a deviation in the maximum directivity angle. In case of LMS and its variants, convergence time is long but RLS takes less number of iterations to converge. Moreover, the nulls are placed exactly at the interfering angle in the case of RLS when compared to LMS and its variants. Thus RLS is better compared to LMS and its variants. REFERENCES
[1]. Constantine A. Balanis, Panayiotis I. Ioannidis, (2007) Introduction to Smart Antennas, First Edition, Morgan and Claypool Publishers. Frank B. Gross, (2005) Smart Antennas for Wireless Communications with MATLAB, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Suchita W. Varade, K.D. Kulat, (2009)Robust Algorithms for DOA Estimation and Adaptive Beamforming for Smart Antenna Application, Second International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology, ICETET-09 Richard Roy and Thomas Kailath, ESPRIT Estimation of Signal Parameters Via Rotational Invariance Techniques - Second IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Vol.37, No.7, July 1989. Lei Wang and Rodrigo C. de Lamare, Constrained Constant Modulus RLS-based Blind Adaptive Beamforming Algorithm for Smart Antennas - Communication Research Group, Department of Electronics, The University of York, YO10 5DD, UK. Rui Fa, Rodrigo C. de Lamare and Danilo Zanatta-Filho, Reduced-Rank STAP Algorithm for Adaptive Radar Based on Joint Iterative Optimization of Adaptive Filter Communication Research Group, Department of Electronics, The University of York, YO10 5DD, UK.

Directivity (dB)
Fig.12 Directivity of RLS Algorithm in dB in EM simulation software.

IV. COMPARISON OF ALGORITHMS The comparison of LMS, Normalized LMS, Griffiths LMS, RLS algorithms are done as follows,
Table 1: Comparison of Beamforming Algorithms.
Algorithm Based on complexity Based on beamforming direction Maximum directivity formed at angle 37 37 37 Based on convergence

[2].
Number of iterations to converge (MMSE<=0.0001) 57 57 35

LMS NLMS Griffiths LMS RLS

Time taken for 100 iterations (ms)* 15.625 15.625 15.625

[3].

[4].

31.25

40

30

*Simulation

performed in Intel CPU T2400 @ 1.83GHz processor.

[5].

[6].