Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Chiong Ching Lai
Sven Erik Nordholm
Yee Hong Leung
A Study into
the Design
of Steerable
Microphone
Arrays
123
SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer
Engineering
Signal Processing
Series editors
Woon-Seng Gan, Singapore, Singapore
C.-C. Jay Kuo, Los Angeles, USA
Thomas Fang Zheng, Beijing, China
Mauro Barni, Siena, Italy
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11560
Chiong Ching Lai Sven Erik Nordholm
•
123
Chiong Ching Lai Yee Hong Leung
Department of Electrical and Computer Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering Engineering
Curtin University Curtin University
Perth, WA Perth, WA
Australia Australia
The book aims to provide discussions on the design of robust steerable broadband
beamformer, from modelling (signal source, acoustic environment and sensor array)
to designing beamformer weights to achieve desired response. The focus of this
book is on nearfield-only, farfield-only, mixed nearfield–farfield, fixed and steerable
robust broadband beamformer designs.
This book has been structured such that each subsequent chapter extends the
previous chapter to provide an additional feature. The technical discussion starts
from Chap. 2, which provides discussions on the signal source models, acoustic
environments and sensor arrays. Chapter 3 starts to discuss design formulations for
the fixed broadband beamformer, including the beamformer structure used. This
provides a good starting point as fixed broadband beamformer design is simple and
easy to understand without the complicated formulation to include beam steering
and robustness. Chapter 4 extends the design formulation in the previous chapter to
include beam steering capability. The formulation in Chap. 4 is later extended in
Chap. 5 to include robustness against practical mismatches and errors. The for-
mulations in this chapter encapsulate all the properties from the chapters before it.
Readers will be able to understand and possibly design robust steerable beam-
former after reading this book. Interested readers can further refer to the references
cited for detailed discussion on specific beamformer topics not covered by this
book.
v
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Beamforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Practical Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Chapter Organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Acoustic Environment, Source Models and Sensor
Arrays Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Environment and Channel Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Source Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1 Distributed and Point Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.2 Nearfield and Farfield Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Sensor Arrays Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4.1 Spatial Aliasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4.2 Array Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5 Spiral Arm Array Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5.1 Ring Radii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.5.2 Twist Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3 Broadband Beamformer Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 Beamformer Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.1 Weight-and-Sum Beamformer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.2 Filter-and-Sum Beamformer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Design Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.1 Weighted LS Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.2 Weighted TLS Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
vii
viii Contents
xi
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Beamforming
Signals received by arrays of sensors located in space can be filtered either construc-
tively or destructively to achieve spatial selectivity. Such spatial filtering technique
is called beamforming, which aims to form beams towards a desired direction in
space in order to receive signal radiating from that direction while attenuating sig-
nals from other directions [1–3]. As such, beamforming is often applied to separate
signals that are overlapping in spectral domain but originate from different spatial
locations. Since beamforming operates on the spatial domain, it requires processing
the data collected over a spatial aperture. As such, beamformer are always used in
conjunction with an array of sensors distributed in space to provide a versatile form
of spatial filtering.
The major advantage of beamforming is that it provides spatial discrimination or
directivity of received signals, an additional degree of separation that can be used
together with other signal processing techniques. For example, signals originating
from different spatial locations but occupying same spectral band that otherwise
cannot be separated using temporal filtering can still be separated using beamforming.
In addition, the spatial discrimination of beamforming also allows optimised signal
processing to be selectively applied to the spatially separated signals. This divide-
and-conquer approach can be applied for demanding signal processing requirements
which are otherwise very complicated to solve.
One interesting aspect of beamforming is that its main beam can be made steerable
to cater for spatially moving signal source. The steerability in this context means that
the main beam can be steered electronically without any mechanical movement of the
sensor array. The steering is normally achieved by using a steering parameter without
the need to redesign the beamformer every time the steering angle changes. Hence,
a steerable beamformers can provide a dynamic response, as opposed to a fixed
beamformer, where its main beam can be steered on-the-fly after the beamformer is
deployed to the field. Steerable beamformers have been shown to be useful in various
applications such as wireless communications and audio communications [4–7].
Beamforming has found its way into wide range of practical applications, ranging
from day-to-day applications to specialised fields. In day-to-day applications, beam-
forming using microphone arrays has become a common technology used in end-
user electronic devices. Modern audio conferencing, either through dedicated audio
conferencing devices or through personal computers, employs microphone array
beamforming for optimised speech enhancement, and noise and echo suppression.
This provides better speech quality and user experience for conference participants
than single microphone systems [8, 9]. For speech-activated commands in gaming
consoles, mobile phones and smart televisions, microphone array beamforming is
utilised to improve accuracy and robustness of the command triggering, including in
noisy environments [10]. In professional audio recordings, microphone arrays have
been used to provide high fidelity surround sound recordings and reproductions for
audio entertainment such as live orchestras, concerts and surround audio for movies
[11–13].
In biomedical field, beamforming is used in hearing aids, where the main beam is
normally formed towards the front, while a null is placed at the back of a patient. In
foetal heart monitoring system, an array of ultrasonic transducers is used to form a
beam localised towards the foetal heart. This can improve the accuracy of the moni-
toring system as noises picked up from other physiological sources such as maternal
aorta and movement of the foetus can be suppressed [14]. For cancer treatment,
non-invasive microwave beamforming is used for localised selective hyperthermia
treatment or heat-activated chemotherapeutic drug release [15]. In medical ultrasound
imaging, the imaged medium is insonified with focused beams. The backscattered
echoes are then beamformed to eliminate the contribution of signals backscattered by
other structures off the imaging beam. Recent development utilises more advanced
beamforming techniques to improve resolution, contrast and depth penetration with-
out sacrificing its lateral resolution [16, 17].
Geophysical imaging and exploration have also exploited the use of beamform-
ing technology. Seismic beamforming with beam steering has been used as high-
resolution tool for mapping earth’s subsurfaces, which can be used for mineral explo-
ration [18]. For mapping and monitoring earth surface, beamforming-based Synthetic
1.2 Practical Applications 3
References
1. B.D. Van Veen, K.M. Buckley, Beamforming: a versatile approach to spatial filtering. IEEE
Signal Process. Mag. 5(2), 4–24 (1988)
2. D.H. Johnson, D.E. Dudgeon, Array Signal Processing—Concepts and techniques (Prentice
Hall, 1993)
3. S. Nordholm, H. Dam, C. Lai, E. Lehmann, Broadband Beamforming and Optimization, in
Academic Press Library in Signal Processing: Array and Statistical Signal Processing, ed. by
A.M. Zoubir, Vol. 3 (Massachusetts: Elsevier, 2014), pp. 553–598
4. C. Sun, A. Hirata, T. Ohira, N.C. Karmakar, Fast beamforming of electronically steerable
parasitic array radiator antennas: theory and experiment. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 52(7),
1819–1832 (2004)
5. L.C. Parra, Steerable frequency-invariant beamforming for arbitrary arrays. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 119(6), 3839–3847 (2006)
6. C.C. Lai, S. Nordholm, Y.H. Leung, Design of robust steerable broadband beamformers with
spiral arrays and the farrow filter structure, in Proceedings of the International Workshop
Acoustics, Echo, Noise Control, Tel Aviv, Israel, 30 Aug–2 Sep 2010
7. C.C. Lai, S. Nordholm, Y.H. Leung, Design of steerable spherical broadband beamformers
with flexible sensor configurations. IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process. 21(2), 427–
438 (2013)
8. M. Brandstein, D. Wards (eds.), Microphone arrays—Signal processing techniques and appli-
cations (Springer, Berlin, 2001)
9. J. Benesty, J. Chen, Y. Huang, Microphone Array Signal Processing, vol. 1 (Springer Science
& Business Media, 2008)
References 5
10. K. Chan, S. Low, S. Nordholm, K. Yiu, S. Ling, Speech recognition enhancement using beam-
forming and a genetic algorithm, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Network
and System Security, Oct 2009, pp. 510–515
11. A. Fukada, A challenge in multichannel music recording, in Audio Engineering Society Con-
ference: 19th International Conference: Surround Sound—Techniques, Technology, and Per-
ception, 2001
12. R. Glasgal, Ambiophonics. achieving physiological realism in music recording and reproduc-
tion, in Audio Engineering Society Convention, vol. 111, 2001
13. A. Farina, R. Glasgal, E. Armelloni, A. Torger, Ambiophonic principles for the recording and
reproduction of surround sound for music, in Audio Engineering Society Conference: 19th
International Conference: Surround Sound—Techniques, Technology, and Perception, 2001
14. R. Hoctor, K. Thomenius, Method and apparatus for non-invasive ultrasonic fetal heart rate
monitoring, Patent, Dec 2008, US Patent 7,470,232
15. E. Zastrow, S. Hagness, B. Van Veen, J. Medow, Time-multiplexed beamforming for noninva-
sive microwave hyperthermia treatment. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 58(6), 1574–1584 (2011)
16. F. Vignon, M. Burcher, Capon beamforming in medical ultrasound imaging with focused beams.
IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 55(3), 619–628 (2008)
17. J.F. Synnevag, A. Austeng, S. Holm, Benefits of minimum-variance beamforming in medical
ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 56(9), 1868–1879 (2009)
18. J. Guign, A. Stacey, C. Clements, S. Azad, A. Pant, A. Gogacz, W. Hunt, N. Pace, Acoustic
zoom high-resolution seismic beamforming for imaging specular and non-specular energy of
deep oil and gas bearing geological formations. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 21, 568–591 (2014)
19. A. Patyuchenko, C. Tienda, M. Younis, S. Bertl, P. Lopez-Dekker, G. Krieger, Digital beam-
forming sar interferometer based on a multi-beam reflectarray antenna, in Proceedings of the
European Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar, June 2014, pp. 1–4
20. W.Q. Wang, Q. Peng, J. Cai, Digital beamforming for near-space wide-swath sar imaging, in
International Symposium Antennas, Propagation and EM Theory, Nov 2008, pp. 1270–1273
21. U. Nickel, Fundamentals of signal processing for phased array radar, in Research Institute for
High-Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques (FHR), 2006
22. Z. Li, R. Duraiswami, Flexible and optimal design of spherical microphone arrays for beam-
forming. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 15(2), 702–714 (2007)
23. D. Fuhrmann, G. San Antonio, Transmit beamforming for mimo radar systems using signal
cross-correlation. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 44(1), 171–186 (2008)
24. A. Hassanien, S. Vorobyov, Transmit/receive beamforming for mimo radar with colocated
antennas, in IEEE Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Apr 2009, pp.
2089–2092
25. S. Cao, Y. Zheng, R. Ewing, Transform sensing of phased array radar, in IEEE Radar Confer-
ence, May 2014, pp. 1143–1148
26. J. Thorner, Approaches to sonar beamforming, in IEEE Proceedings of the Southern Tier
Technical Conference, Apr 1990, pp. 69–78
27. S. Kogon, Robust adaptive beamforming for passive sonar using eigenvector/beam associa-
tion and excision, in Proceedings of the Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing
Workshop, Aug 2002, pp. 33–37
28. T. Zhou, S. Li, H. Li, L. Yin, Application of aperture extrapolation beamformer in multibeam
bathymetric sonar, in IEEE Conference on Signal Processing, Oct 2010, pp. 2349–2352
29. A. Faulkner, P. Alexander, J. de Vaate, System design for ska capable aperture arrays, in
International Conference Electromagnetics in Advanced Applications (ICEAA), Sept 2012,
pp. 752–755
30. J.D. Mol, J.W. Romein, The LOFAR beam former: implementation and performance analysis,
in EuroPar’, vol. LNCS, vol. 6853, Part II, Bordeaux, France, Aug 2011, pp. 328–339
31. G. Hovey, T. Burgess, B. Carlson, Z. Ljusic, B. Veidt, H. Zhang, A broadband fpga digital beam-
former for the advanced focal array demonstrator (afad), in General Assembly and Scientific
Symposium, Aug 2011, pp. 1–4
Chapter 2
Acoustic Environment, Source Models
and Sensor Arrays Theory
Abstract In the simplest form, a signal propagating from one point to another
undergoes signal filtering from the propagation medium. Beamforming is a signal
processing method to undo this filtering, such that the desired signal is retained at
the receiver end, in addition to possibly suppression of unwanted signals. Hence,
the underlying acoustic environment of the target application needs to be studied
and modelled before a beamformer can be designed. This chapter discusses the fun-
damentals of acoustic environment modelling including different models for signal
sources, propagation mediums and sensor arrays.
2.1 Introduction
A signal propagating from one spatial location to another, where it is then observed,
undergoes magnitude attenuation and time delay. This attenuation and time delay
can be considered as filtering by the propagation medium. In the simplest form,
a beamformer is usually used to undo or equalise this medium filtering such that
the original signal can be extracted, with possibly further suppression of unwanted
interferences and noise, as shown in Fig. 2.1. Of course, this concept can be easily
extended to design advanced beamformers such as beamformers with steerable main
beam and beamformers that works for both nearfield and farfield sources. Never-
theless, the design of beamformers consists of two parts: (a) modelling of acoustic
environment and (b) designing the actual beamformers. This chapter provides the
study for acoustic environment modelling, including the models for signal sources,
propagation mediums and array geometries. All these models have direct influences
in the design process of beamformer weights in the subsequent chapters.
Interference source
Moving sound
source
Sensor
array
...
Background noise
Beamforming
Desired output
Interference source
(a)
th 2
ted pa B
Reflec
ath
ect p
Dir
Reflected path 1
Foreign
A
object
Room enclosure
(b)
Reflected path 1
Signal at
Direct path
point B
Signal at
point A
Reflected path 2
Fig. 2.2 Signal propagation through a medium. a Signal propagation in an enclosure. b Signal
propagation block diagram
LTI system
Signal at Signal at
point A point B
where A (·) is the transfer function describing the signal propagation from point r to
point rk in the modelled propagation medium, and ω = 2π f , with f the frequency
of the signal. In array signal processing, A (·) is also called array response. Note
that (2.1) is only possible if the propagation medium is a LTI system or slowly time
varying linear system. A more elaborate expression which includes solving the wave
equations for a general propagation medium can be found in [3].
A source is a physical device which generates energy, in this case sound energy, to
be transmitted through a propagation medium. From signal processing point of view,
it is the origin of an excitation in a system. In beamforming, the signal source needs
to be appropriately modelled since its mathematical model forms part of the array
response.
Body of source
x
Fig. 2.4 Cross-sectional view of distributed source model
Point source
x
mathematical model, point source model is widely used in array signal processing.
With the concept of point source, it is possible to model approximately a complex
source by sampling its surface and treat each spatial point as a point source.
For a point source located in space, the wave fronts that radiate outwards from it
are spherical in shape. Hence, when signal observation is performed close to this
signal source, such curvature in these wave fronts that impinge onto the observation
12 2 Acoustic Environment, Source Models and Sensor Arrays Theory
1 ω
A (r, rk , ω) = exp −j rk − r (2.2)
4π rk − r c
where rk = (rk , φk ) is the position of the kth sensor, and · denotes Cartesian dis-
tance. The attenuation in (2.2) is due to the decay of signal amplitude as it propagates
outwards from its source. The constant 4π can be dropped for convenience since only
the relative gain and phase difference between the sensors are important.
Although (2.2) gives a generic frequency response from an arbitrarily located
signal source to an arbitrarily located sensor, the nonlinear Cartesian distance in the
equation may complicate beamformer designs. A simplified source model can be
obtained by considering the source to be at infinite distance away from the sensor
array, i.e. r → ∞. The reason for this is that when the source is far enough from
the sensor array, the wave front impinging on the array becomes planar (as opposed
to spherical), which can simplify the propagation model. However, in this farfield
P oint source
rk − r
rk r
y Wavefront
propagation from
x
a nearfield source
Sensor
Arbitrary
sensor array
source model, a reference point is required and is normally taken as the origin of the
coordinate system or the centre of mass of the sensor array. The received signal at
each sensor is then modelled relative to this reference point. For the reference point
taken as the coordinate system’s origin, the response of the kth sensor is then given
by
r ω
A0 (r, rk , ω) = exp −j (rk − r − r) . (2.3)
rk − r c
and
where r̂ = rr
is the unit vector or normalised source position. The array response
for a farfield source is thus given by [4]
2La2
r> (2.9)
λ
14 2 Acoustic Environment, Source Models and Sensor Arrays Theory
φ
d
Reference sensor
y
φk
φx
Center of array as
reference point
Fig. 2.7 Farfield source model for uniform a linear and b circular arrays
where r = r, La is the largest array aperture size and λ is the operating signal’s
wavelength. This criterion is based on the acceptable quadratic phase error and its
detailed discussion can be found in [8–11]. Due to the simplicity of farfield source
model, various nearfield beamforming solutions are derived from this model, such as
radial transformation [4], nearfield compensation [5], and radial reciprocity method
[12].
2.4 Sensor Arrays Theory 15
Sensors placed in space play the role of sampling received signal in space. This spatial
sampling is similar to temporal sampling in digital signal processing (DSP) systems.
Therefore, the sensors must be well distributed in space such that sufficient spatial
information can be captured from the spatial sampling of the received signal. At the
same time, the spacing of the sensors is required to be less than half the wavelengths
of the received signals to avoid spatial aliasing. Generally, spatial discrimination
capability depends on array aperture size, i.e. as aperture size increase, discrimination
improves. The absolute aperture size is not important, rather its size relative to the
wavelengths of the received signals is critical. However, the aperture size is normally
restricted due to practical reasons such as cost and design decision. There is no
single golden rule on the placement of sensors, and the placement choice is entirely
application specific.
In beamforming or spatial filtering, sensors placed in space play the role of spatially
sampling the received wave. Hence, similar to Nyquist criterion in temporal sampling,
the smallest distance d between adjacent sensors must be [13]
λ
d≤ (2.10)
2
in order to avoid spatial aliasing. The wavelength λ and frequency f of a signal are
related by
c = fλ (2.11)
where the constant c is the signal propagation speed (e.g. c = 343ms−1 for air in room
temperature and pressure). Criterion (2.10) is a necessary condition for narrowband
beamformers to avoid spatial aliasing. As an example, consider an endfire linear array
with 6 elements and its inter-element spacing of 4 cm. The highest signal frequency
that it can resolve before spatial aliasing occurs is fmax ≈ 4.3 kHz. The beampatterns
of a weight-and-sum beamformer designed for frequency f = 3 kHz and 7 kHz using
this array are shown in Fig. 2.8. The figure clearly demonstrates the occurrence of
spatial aliasing when (2.10) is violated. For broadband beamformers, the wavelength
λ is chosen to be the smallest signal wavelength, which corresponds to the highest
frequency component in a broadband signal. This selection guarantees no spatial
aliasing for all frequencies up to the chosen frequency [14].
16 2 Acoustic Environment, Source Models and Sensor Arrays Theory
(a) 0
−10
−30
−40
−50
−60
−70
−200 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 200
Azimuth angle, φ (degree)
No spatial aliasing.
(b) 0
−10
Magnitude response (dB)
−20
−30
−40
−50
−60
−200 −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 200
Azimuth angle, φ (degree)
Spatial aliasing occurs.
Fig. 2.8 Endfire linear array with inter-element spacing of 4 cm for a without and b with spatial
aliasing
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2.10 Examples of two-dimensional arrays. a Circular array b Concentric circular array
c Rectangular planar array
18 2 Acoustic Environment, Source Models and Sensor Arrays Theory
(a)
z−axis
y−axis x−axis
(b)
z−axis
y−axis x−axis
Fig. 2.11 Examples of three-dimensional arrays. a Spherical surface array. b Spherical volume
array
2.4 Sensor Arrays Theory 19
The array geometry that is used extensively to illustrate beamformer design formu-
lations in the following chapters is a modified concentric circular array as shown
in Fig. 2.12. This array geometry can be called spiral arm array since its sen-
sors are extending spirally outwards from its centre. It consists of Kring concen-
tric rings, indexed by kring = 0, . . . , Kring − 1, with Ksen sensors, indexed by
ksen = 0, . . . , Ksen − 1, uniformly spaced along the circumference of each ring.
th
The kring ring is further twisted by an angle φkring . Hence, the total number of
sensors for such array is K = Kring Ksen , and each sensor can also be indexed by
k = (kring − 1)Ksen + ksen .
The positions (in cylindrical coordinate system) of the sensors are given by
2π ksen
rk = rkring , + φkring (2.12)
Ksen
20 2 Acoustic Environment, Source Models and Sensor Arrays Theory
Direction of
signal propagation
y
φ
r0 φkring
rKring −1 x
2π
r1 Ksen
0th ring
1st ring
where the centre of the array is taken as the origin of the coordinate system. The ring
radii rkring and the twist angle φkring are design parameters. Its array response (with the
centre of array taken as the reference point) to a farfield source impinging the array
from azimuth angle φ is given by
ωrkring 2π ksen
Afar (r, rk , ω) = exp −j cos φ − − φkring . (2.13)
c Ksen
This spiral arm array geometry possesses a few desirable characteristics that make
it an attractive candidate for broadband beamforming. Firstly, its multiring nature
allows each ring to compensate for separate frequency bands in a cooperative manner
to achieve larger bandwidth for broadband beamforming [20]. Besides, since it is a
two-dimensional array, it provides full 360◦ coverage of the azimuthal dimension,
without any ambiguity (as opposed to linear array).
Secondly, its circular symmetry property means that it has uniform resolution
throughout the entire azimuthal dimension [15]. This allows the beamformer to have
a response that is symmetric about its look direction. Moreover, the circular symmetry
property can be exploited in the design of steerable beamformer to provide full 360◦
beam steering (see Sect. 4.5).
Thirdly, each ring of the spiral arm array geometry has undergone a slight twist
(c.f. Fig. 2.10b). This rotation introduces irregularity and reduces the periodicity in
its geometry, thus providing irregular spatial sampling of the received signals, which
2.5 Spiral Arm Array Geometry 21
can help to suppress spatial aliasing [19, 21]. This property is useful in broadband
beamformer designs, especially with limited number of sensor, due to conflicting
array aperture size requirements, i.e. the spacing between sensors need to be small
enough to avoid spatial aliasing for high-frequency components but large enough to
maintain directivity for low-frequency components.
One of the design parameters for the spiral arm array is its ring radii. From Nyquist
sampling theorem (2.10), the spacing between adjacent sensors must not be larger
than half the wavelength of the highest operating frequency in order to avoid spatial
aliasing. In contrast, the array aperture need to be sufficiently large to provide the
required spatial resolution for the low-frequency components. In order to satisfy these
contrasting requirements, the concept of narrowband signal processing is employed,
where each concentric ring from the proposed spiral arm array is designed to handle
a single-frequency component. Under this scheme, each ring radius is then selected
to satisfy the Nyquist criterion for its corresponding operating frequency given by
c
rkring ≤ (2.14)
π
4fkring sin Kring
0.8
Linear
Logarithmic
Reference
0.7
0.6
0.5
Ring radius, r (m)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Frequency, f (Hz)
Fig. 2.14 Beampatterns for fixed beamformer using a logarithmic and b linear discretisation of
ring radii
2.5 Spiral Arm Array Geometry 23
Table 2.1 Design parameters for fixed beamformer to illustrate different ring radii discretisation
Design parameters Value
Number of rings, Kring 5
Number of sensors per ring, Ksen 5
Ring twist angle, φkring 0◦
Sampling frequency, fS 8 kHz
Spectral range, Ω [0.2, 3.8] kHz
Spatial pass region, Φpb |φ| ≤ 15◦
Spatial stop region, Φsb |φ| ≥ 25◦
FIR filter length, N 64
Speed of propagating wave, c 343 m/s
However, with the finite number of rings covering a broadband signal, equation
(2.14) results in the discretisation of the broadband frequency range into Kring bands.
Judging from (2.14), which involves an inverse relationship between rkring and fkring ,
the logarithmic discretisation of fkring will outperform the linear discretisation. This
is because the uniform step size in linear discretisation does not provide sufficient
resolution at low frequencies where the value of the function (2.14) changes more
rapidly than at high frequencies. On the other hand, the logarithmic discretisation
with non-uniform step size fits nicely for (2.14), both at low and high frequencies.
This observation is shown in Fig. 2.13, where
c
rkring = (2.15)
π
4fkring sin Kring
for fkring ∈ [0.2, 3.8] kHz (the reference) is discretised into Kring = 5 bands
using both linear and logarithmic discretisation schemes. To further highlight this
observation, the beampatterns for a fixed beamformer with linear and logarithmic
ring radii sampling are shown in Fig. 2.14. The beamformers are designed using
the weighted LS formulation in Sect. 3.3.1 with the parameters in Table 2.1, and
rkring = {0.0319, 0.0666, 0.1391, 0.2904, 0.6063} m for linear discretisation and
rkring = {0.0319, 0.0418, 0.0606, 0.1102, 0.6063} m for logarithmic discretisation.
Unfortunately, the selection of the ring twist angle is not as straightforward as for
the ring radii. The amount of twist for each ring can be different and independent of
one another. However, if φkring is a multiple of K2π
ring
, then the spiral arm array will be
similar to the array in Fig. 2.10b.
24 2 Acoustic Environment, Source Models and Sensor Arrays Theory
(a) −7.2
−7.4
LS design error (dB)
−7.6
−7.8
−8
−8.2
−8.4
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
Rotation angle, φa (degree)
(b) −9
−9.5
−10
LS design error (dB)
−10.5
−11
−11.5
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40
Rotation angle, φa (degree)
Fig. 2.15 Plot of weighted LS design errors versus φa for a Kring = 4 and b Kring = 5
2.5 Spiral Arm Array Geometry 25
Then, a simple line search algorithm can be used to find the optimum candidate for
φa , which is highly dependent on the overall beamformer design formulation and
specification. Figure 2.15 shows the cost (3.63) for the weighted LS farfield-only
steerable beamformer designs in Chap. 4 with φa ∈ [−36◦ , 36◦ ] for Kring = 4 and
5. Other design parameters are as given in Tables 4.1. From Fig. 2.15 and due to
the circular
symmetry of the spiral arm array, the optimum
◦
Kring = 4 is
values for
◦
φa = ± 12◦ + 180 Ksen
z
and for Kring = 5 is φa = ± 14.4◦ + 180 Ksen
z
, where z is a
non-negative integer.
Note that (2.16) is only one of many possible choices for φkring and results in the
proposed spiral arm array shown in Fig. 2.12. Other choices will result in different
variants of spiral arm array geometries.
2.6 Conclusions
References
7. H. Chen, S. Wee, Y. Zhu Liang, Optimal design of nearfield wideband beamformers robust
against errors in microphone array characteristics. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers
54(9), 1950–1959 (2007)
8. P. Hacker, H. Schrank, Range distance requirements for measuring low and ultralow sidelobe
antenna patterns. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 30(5), 956–966 (1982)
9. R. Hansen, Measurement distance effects on low sidelobe patterns. IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag. 32(6), 591–594 (1984)
10. L. Ziomek, Three necessary conditions for the validity of the fresnel phase approximation for
the near-field beam pattern of an aperture. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 18(1), 73–75 (1993)
11. J.G. Ryan, Criterion for the minimum source distance at which plane-wave beamforming can
be applied. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104(1), 595–598 (1998)
12. R. Kennedy, D. Ward, T. Abhayapala, Nearfield beamforming using radial reciprocity. IEEE
Trans. Signal Process. 47(1), 33–40 (1999)
13. B.D. Van Veen, K.M. Buckley, Beamforming: a versatile approach to spatial filtering. IEEE
Signal Process. Mag. 5(2), 4–24 (1988)
14. J. Dmochowski, J. Benesty, S. Affes, On spatial aliasing in microphone arrays. IEEE Trans.
Signal Process. 57(4), 1383–1395 (2009)
15. A. Manikas, A. Alexiou, H. Karimi, Comparison of the ultimate direction-finding capabilities
of a number of planar array geometries, in Proceedings of the IEE Radar, Sonar and Navigation,
vol. 144, no. 6, Dec 1997, pp. 321–329
16. A. Sleiman, A. Manikas, The impact of sensor positioning on the array manifold. IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag. 51(9), 2227–2237 (2003)
17. S.M. Jaeger, W.C. Horne, C.S. Allen, Effect of surface treatment on array microphone self-
noise, in Proceedings of the AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Lahaina, HI, 12–14 June
2000
18. D. Wetzel, F. Liu, B. Rosenberg, L. Cattafesta, Acoustic characteristics of a circulation control
airfoil, in Proceedings of the AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, Miami, FL, 11–13 May
2009
19. J. Hald, J.J. Christensen, A class of optimal broadband phased array geometries designed for
easy construction, in International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering,
Dearborn, MI, 19–21 Aug 2002
20. S.C. Chan, H.H. Chen, Uniform concentric circular arrays with frequency-invariant
characteristics—theory, design, adaptive beamforming and DOA estimation. IEEE Trans. Sig-
nal Process. 55(1), 165–177 (2007)
21. D.H. Johnson, D.E. Dudgeon, Array Signal Processing—Concepts and Techniques (Prentice
Hall, 1993)
Chapter 3
Broadband Beamformer Design
3.1 Introduction
Known design methods for temporal filter design can be applied to design broad-
band beamformers [2, 3]. One such method is to minimise the error between the
beamformer response and a desired response. In this chapter, such approach will
be used in formulating the design of broadband beamformers. The design formula-
tions are generalised for both nearfield and farfield source models in order to achieve
mixed nearfield–farfield beamformer, i.e. beamformer that works for both nearfield
and farfield sources. These generalised formulations are much more flexible as the
same formulations can be used to design nearfield-only and farfield-only beamform-
ers, since both of them are special cases of the design formulations.
In practice, a beamformer structure can take up any form and its choice is closely
related to its target application. However, two general beamformer structures are
the weight-and-sum and filter-and-sum beamformers which will be discussed in this
section.
(a) x(n)
z −1 ··· z −1
(b)
.. ..
. .
(K − 1)th
mic W (K − 1)
y(n)
τ (K − 1)
Fig. 3.1 Similarity in FIR filter structure and weight-and-sum beamformer structure. a N-tap FIR
filter structure, b generic array response and delay-and-sum beamformer model arranged in similar
structure to FIR filter structure
K−1
Y (ω) = X (rk , ω) W (k) (3.1)
k=0
where X (rk , ω) is the received narrowband signal and W (k) is the complex weight
at kth sensor.
The narrowband beamformer structure in Fig. 3.2 operates only at one frequency
point. However, simple extension by means of Fourier transform (FT) and frequency-
dependent complex weights, or transfer function, Wk (ω) can be used to extend the
structure to operate over a broadband frequency range (see Fig. 3.3). In such struc-
ture, a broadband signal is decomposed into separate frequency components and
a weight-and-sum beamformer with frequency-dependent complex weights is then
30 3 Broadband Beamformer Design
0 th mic W (0)
1 st mic W (1)
.. ..
. .
(K − 1) th
mic W (K − 1)
y(n)
.. ..
. .
(K − 1)th
mic W (K − 1, ω)
y(n)
FT IFT
where
K−1
Y (ω) = X (rk , ω) W (k, ω) , (3.3)
k=0
X (rk , ω) = F {x (rk , t)} is the FT of the received signal x (rk , t) at the kth sensor and
F {·} is the FT operation. By incorporating the array response, the narrowband signal
received at the kth sensor can be written as
where X (ω) = F{x (t)} is the FT of the source signal x (t) and A (r = rs , rk , ω) is
the transfer function of the propagation medium between the source signal, located
at spatial position rs , and the kth sensor. Substituting (3.4) into (3.3) results in the
transfer function of the weight-and-sum beamformer, due to a source at the single
point rs ,
Y (ω)
K−1
H (ω) = = W (k, ω) A (r = rs , rk , ω) . (3.5)
X (ω)
k=0
The beamformer response, due to a source located at any point r is thus given by
K−1
H (r, ω) = W (k, ω) A (r, rk , ω) . (3.6)
k=0
Taking the inverse Fourier transform (IFT) of (3.6) results in its impulse response
K−1
= w (k, t) a (r, rk , t) (3.9)
k=0
where w (k, t) and a (r, rk , t) are impulse responses of transfer function W (k, ω)
and propagation medium A (r, rk , ω), respectively, and denotes convolution. The
output of such beamformer is given by
32 3 Broadband Beamformer Design
1st mic
w (1, t)
.. ..
. .
(K − 1)th
mic
y(n)
w (K − 1, t)
K−1
y (t) = w (k, t) x (rk , t) (3.10)
k=0
= h (r = rs , t) x (t) (3.11)
where
is the received signal at the kth sensor, with the source signal x (t) located at position
rs . Equation (3.10) results in the filter-and-sum beamformer structure as shown in
Fig. 3.4. Often, the filters w (k, t) is implemented by N-taps FIR filters shown in
Fig. 3.1a, i.e.
N−1
W (k, ω) = w (k, n) exp (−jωnTS ) (3.13)
n=0
Define the error between the beamformer’s response H (r, ω) and a desired response
Hd (r, ω) to be
where ∗ denotes complex conjugate. The response from (3.6) can be written com-
pactly as
JLS (ω) = wH (ω) Q (ω) w (ω) − wH (ω) q (ω) − qH (ω) w (ω) + h (ω) (3.23)
where
Q (ω) = V (r, ω) a (r, ω) aH (r, ω) dr (3.24)
R
q (ω) = V (r, ω) Hd (r, ω) a (r, ω) dr (3.25)
R
h (ω) = V (r, ω) |Hd (r, ω)|2 dr. (3.26)
R
dJLS (ω)
=0 (3.27)
dwH (ω)
Q (ω) w (ω) − q (ω) = 0 (3.28)
w (ω) = Q−1 (ω) q (ω) . (3.29)
where wk is the real FIR filter weights attached to the kth sensor, and e (ω) is the
complex exponentials for FT, and they are given by
with the sampling period TS = f1S and fS is the sampling frequency. The FIR filter
weights can be obtained by solving (3.30) for all k. One way of solving (3.30) is by
minimising the mean squared error given by the cost function
H
Jw (k, ω) = e (ω) wk − Wopt (k, ω) 2 dω ∀k (3.33)
Ω
where Wopt (k, ω) is the optimum transfer function obtained by solving (3.29).
Another method of solving for the FIR filter weights is to embed (3.30) directly
into the design formulation. Define
where the cost function JLS,FIR now includes an additional integration over the fre-
quency ω for minimising the weighted LS error during optimisation. Solving the
minimisation problem of
results in the optimum FIR filter weights wopt,FIR for the desired response Hd (r, ω).
Likewise, the minimisation problem of (3.39) can be solved using matrix calculus.
Substituting (3.34) and (3.35) into (3.38) allows JLS,FIR to be written in matrix form
where
QFIR = V (r, ω) aFIR (r, ω) aH
FIR (r, ω) drdω (3.41)
Ω R
qFIR = V (r, ω) Hd (r, ω) aFIR (r, ω) drdω (3.42)
Ω R
hFIR = V (r, ω) |Hd (r, ω)|2 drdω. (3.43)
Ω R
dJLS,FIR
=0 (3.44)
dwTFIR
T
QFIR + QFIR wFIR − qFIR + q∗FIR = 0 (3.45)
−1
wFIR = {QFIR } {qFIR }. (3.46)
Note
that since
QFIR is a Hermitian matrix, QTFIR + QFIR = 2{QFIR } and
qFIR + q∗FIR = 2{qFIR }, where {·} denotes real part.
It is important to note the differences between (3.29) and (3.46). Equation (3.29)
solves for the optimum transfer function frequency by frequency, whereas (3.46)
solves for the optimum FIR filter weights by minimising the sum of weighted mean
squared error across frequency range of interest. In addition, the problem size of
(3.46) is much larger than (3.29) due to the Kronecker product.
The design formulations of (3.16) and (3.39) minimise the error between the beam-
former’s actual and desired response in the weighted LS sense. It is also possible
to design optimised beamformer weights by means of minimising different types of
error, such as TLS error defined as [4–6]
R V (r, ω) |ξ (r, ω)|2 dr
JTLS (ω) = , (3.47)
R0 U (r, ω) |H (r, ω)|2 dr + 1
where the weighting function U (r, ω) can be different to V (r, ω) and integration
region R0 can be different to R, too. Solving the minimisation problem of
results in an optimum transfer function Wopt (k, ω) for the desired response Hd (r, ω)
in TLS sense. In theory, the optimum impulse response can be obtained by taking
the IFT of Wopt (ω).
Define
Q (ω) q (ω)
QTLS (ω) = (3.49)
qH (ω) h (ω)
Q0 (ω) 0
Q0,TLS (ω) = (3.50)
0 1
w (ω)
wTLS (ω) = (3.51)
−1
Q0 (ω) = U (r, ω) a (r, ω) aH (r, ω) dr, (3.52)
R0
Note that (3.53) is the Rayleigh–Ritz ratio whose minimum is given by the smallest
generalised eigenvalue of QTLS (ω) and Q0,TLS (ω). Hence, the minimisation prob-
lem (3.48) can be solved analytically and the solution vector wTLS (ω) is simply the
generalised eigenvector of QTLS (ω) and Q0,TLS (ω) that corresponds to their small-
est generalised eigenvalue [4, 6, 7]. The optimum beamformer transfer functions
wopt (ω) are extracted from wTLS (ω) after scaling its last element to −1. Since the
analytical solution of this design formulation is given by the eigenvector of its matri-
ces, this formulation is also called eigenfilter design method.
Again, the optimum impulse response hopt (k, t) can be obtained by taking the
IFT of wopt (ω). Alternatively, if N-taps FIR filter is used to implement the filter-
and-sum beamformer, the optimum FIR filter weights can be solved directly from
the optimisation problem in the similar way as in Sect. 3.3.1. Define a weighted TLS
cost function
V (r, ω) |ξFIR (r, ω)|2 drdω
JTLS,FIR = Ω R . (3.54)
Ω R0 U (r, ω)
|HFIR (r, ω)|2 drdω + 1
results in the optimum FIR filter weights wopt,FIR . Using (3.34) and (3.35), JTLS,FIR
in (3.54) can be written as
where
QFIR qFIR
QTLS,FIR = H (3.57)
qFIR hFIR
Q0,FIR 0
Q0,TLS,FIR = (3.58)
0 1
wFIR
wTLS,FIR = (3.59)
−1
Q0,FIR = U (r, ω) aFIR (r, ω) aH
FIR (r, ω) drdω. (3.60)
Ω R0
The optimum FIR filter weights are obtained by solving for the generalised eigen-
vector of QTLS,FIR and Q0,TLS,FIR that corresponds to their smallest generalised eigen-
value, and scaling the last element of vector wTLS,FIR to −1.
The main advantage of this weighted TLS design formulation is that no matrix
inversion is required to solve the design analytically [8] and the formulation is unbi-
ased [9], as opposed to the weighted LS design formulation. The weighted TLS
design formulation, which minimises the Rayleigh quotient, can be solved using
SVD which is numerically robust [9].
The design formulations discussed in Sects. 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 can be readily extended to
design beamformers that work for both nearfield and farfield sources at the same time.
For such beamformer, which is also known as mixed nearfield–farfield beamformer,
its response is invariant to radial distance r. In order to achieve such design, the
desired beampattern needs to be independent of r, i.e.
From here onward, the vector r which gives the spatial position in polar coordinate
is separated into (r, φ) for clarity. As such, the integrations for r in both the LS and
the TLS cost functions are replaced by
·dr = ·drdφ, (3.62)
R R Φ
3.4 Mixed Nearfield–Farfield Design Formulation 39
where R is the range of interest for r, Φ is the range of interest for azimuth angle φ and
R = {r, φ : r ∈ R, φ ∈ Φ}. The range R needs to cover both nearfield and farfield
regions so that both the nearfield and the farfield design formulations are mixed into
a single design when designing mixed nearfield–farfield beamformers [6, 10]. In this
design, the array response (2.3) is used as it describes a generic normalised array
response, which covers both nearfield and farfield sources.
Note that the mixed nearfield–farfield beamformer design is achieved by simply
forcing the desired response Hd (r, φ, ω) to be independent of r as in (3.61). There
is no extra design formulation required to achieve such design. Previously discussed
design formulations (weighted LS in Sect. 3.3.1 and weighted TLS in Sect. 3.3.2)
can be readily applied to obtain the optimum transfer function or optimum FIR filter
weights for mixed nearfield–farfield beamformer designs.
There are a number of performance metrics that can be used to evaluate the per-
formance of a beamformer. Different metrics attempt to quantify different aspects
of a beamformer. Firstly, the performance error, defined as the error between the
actual beamformer response and the desired response, is used to analyse the behav-
iour of a beamformer at different design parameter values, both within and outside
its design specifications. This provides the overall picture on the performance of a
beamformer as well as conveying the situation where the beamformer breaks down.
The performance errors, defined as
ξLS (r) = |H (r, φ, ω) − Hd (r, φ, ω)|2 dφdω (3.63)
Ω Φ
Ω Φ
|H (r, φ, ω) − Hd (r, φ, ω)|2 dφdω
ξTLS (r) = (3.64)
Ω Φ
|H (rd , φ, ω)|2 dφdω
are used for LS- and TLS-based beamformer, respectively. The parameter rd in (3.64)
refers to the value of r which the beamformer is designed for.
Secondly, the directivity, defined as [11, 12]
|H (r, φ, ω)|2
D (r, φ, ω) = (3.65)
1
2π Φ
|H (r, φ0 , ω)|2 dφ0
is used to evaluate the beamformer gain against isotropic noise. This is because the
numerator represents the power of the signal arriving from φ and the denominator
represents the isotropic noise power at the array. Note that φ0 is an integration variable
and is used to distinguish from φ in the numerator.
40 3 Broadband Beamformer Design
Thirdly, the array gain measurement can be used to measure the signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR) improvement of a beamformer. It is defined as the ratio of SNR at the
output of beamformer to the SNR at an input sensor and is given by [12]
−1
Aw (ω) = wH (ω) w (ω) (3.66)
K−1 −1
= k e (ω) e (ω) wk
wH H
. (3.67)
k=0
A number of design examples are presented here to illustrate the design formulations
discussed. For all the design examples provided in this section, the array geometry
used is the spiral arm array discussed in Sect. 2.5. The sensor array and beamformer
design specifications used are as tabulated in Table 3.1. For each design formulation,
different design examples as given in Table 3.2 are provided to cover the nearfield-
only, farfield-only and mixed nearfield–farfield beamformer designs.
The nearfield–farfield boundaries for a broadband source with f ∈ Ω are derived
from (2.9) and (2.11). They are given by
2La2 min (f )
r1 = (3.68)
c
Table 3.1 Specifications for spiral arm array geometry and fixed beamformer design
Design parameters Value
Number of rings, Kring 4
Number of sensors per ring, Ksen 5
Ring radii, rkring 0.0319, 0.0852, 0.2272,
0.6063 m
Ring twist angle, φkring 12◦
Sampling frequency, fS 8 kHz
Spectral range, Ω [0.2, 3.8] kHz
Spatial pass region, Φpb |φ| ≤ 15◦
Spatial stop region, Φsb |φ| ≥ 25◦
FIR filter length, N 64
Speed of propagating wave, c 343 m/s
3.6 Design Examples and Evaluation 41
and
2La2 max (f )
r2 = . (3.69)
c
That is a broadband source, for all f ∈ Ω, is a nearfield source for r < r1 , a farfield
source for r > r2 and a mixture of both for r1 ≤ r ≤ r2 . The largest array aperture
size La is the diameter of the outermost ring, i.e. La = 1.2126 m from Table 3.1. This
results in r1 = 1.71 m and r2 = 32.58 m. Hence, r = 1 m is chosen for nearfield-only
designs and r = 100 m for farfield-only designs. For mixed nearfield–farfield designs,
1 ≤ r ≤ 100 m is chosen such that both nearfield and farfield regions are covered. In
these examples, the sensors are assumed to be omnidirectional microphones operat-
ing in air. For simplicity, the weighting functions are selected to be V (r, ω) = 1 and
U (r, ω) = 1. The desired beamformer response Hd (r, φ, ω), which is chosen to be
invariant to r, is defined as
exp −jωTS N−1 , φ ∈ Φpb , ω ∈ Ωpb
Hd (r, φ, ω) = 2 . (3.70)
0 , φ ∈ Φsb
The integral w.r.t. ω in the design formulations can be solved analytically (see Appen-
dix A), while the other integrals are approximated by uniformly spaced Riemann sum
with the number of points as specified in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Number of uniform discretisation points for numerical evaluation of integrals
Parameter Number of points
Azimuth angle range, Φ 360
Source radial distance, R 50
42 3 Broadband Beamformer Design
30
25
20
Performance error, ξLS(r) (dB)
15
LSnear
10 LS
far
LSmixed
−5
−10
0 1 2
10 10 10
Source radial distance, r (m)
The plot of performance error (3.63) for LS-based designs is shown in Fig. 3.5.
The figure shows that the LSnear design only works at its designed distance of r = 1 m
and is inoperable for r
= 1 m. For the LSfar design, its performance error decreases as
the value of r increases from nearfield to farfield distance. When the value of r is suf-
ficiently large, around r ≥ 40 m, its performance error remains almost constant. This
means that the LSfar design will work for r ≥ 40 m even though the design specifica-
tion is only for r = 100 m. This is in agreement with (2.9) and the fact that as r → ∞,
the wavefronts that impinge on the sensor array approach planar wavefronts, which
is the concept behind farfield source model. Lastly, as expected, the LSmixed design
is operable for 1 ≤ r ≤ 100 m, which spans both nearfield and farfield distances, as
shown by its constant, low performance error. The mixed nearfield–farfield design
formulation essentially averages the beamformer performance in both nearfield and
farfield in order to achieve mixed nearfield–farfield capability. Consequently, its min-
imum performance error is higher compared to both the LSnear and LSfar designs.
The directivity plots for these LS-based designs, shown in Figs. 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8,
are also in line with the observations from Fig. 3.5. Note that the x-axes for the direc-
tivity plots are in logarithmic scale, and the directivities are evaluated with φ = 0.
3.6 Design Examples and Evaluation 43
15
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
0 1 2
10 10 10
Source radial distance, r (m)
Figures 3.6 and 3.7 show that for the LSnear and LSfar designs, when the values of
r are outside their design specifications, their directivity values at low frequencies
decrease significantly. This implies that the designs only fail at low frequencies and
they continue to work at high frequencies. This observation is in agreement with the
array gain plot in Fig. 3.9, which shows positive array gain (i.e. SNR improvement)
at frequency above 1800 Hz but negative array gain at low frequencies. This negative
gain implies that any mismatch or error between the design model and practical envi-
ronment will be significantly amplified, thus degrading the SNR at low frequencies.
This is because at low frequencies, the designs behave as super-directive beamform-
ers which are sensitive to any mismatch, in this case, the mismatch in r between
the design specifications and the actual operating r. The LSmixed design has slightly
higher array gain than both LSnear and LSfar designs as it is designed to account for
such mismatch and, thus, works for both nearfield and farfield sources. However, its
array gain is still quite low and it is possible to further improve the array gain, as will
be discussed in Chap. 5.
For TLS-based designs, their performance errors are shown in Fig. 3.10 with
their directivity plots shown in Figs. 3.11, 3.12 and 3.13 and their array gains shown
in Fig. 3.14. In general, TLS-based designs achieve similar performance as their
corresponding LS counterparts. However, the performance errors for TLS-based
designs in Fig. 3.10 cannot be compared to that of LS-based designs in Fig. 3.5
44 3 Broadband Beamformer Design
15
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
0 1 2
10 10 10
Source radial distance, r (m)
15
3500
3000
10
Directivity index, DI (dB)
2500
Frequency, f (Hz)
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
0 1 2
10 10 10
Source radial distance, r (m)
10
−10
−20
Array gain, A (dB)
−30 LSnear
w
LSfar
LSmixed
−40
−50
−60
−70
−80
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Frequency, f (Hz)
45
TLS
near
TLS
40 far
TLS mixed
35
30
(r) (dB)
25
TLS
Performance error, ξ
20
15
10
−5
0 1 2
10 10 10
Source radial distance, r (m)
15
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
0 1 2
10 10 10
Source radial distance, r (m)
15
3500
3000
10
Directivity index, DI (dB)
2500
Frequency, f (Hz)
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
0 1 2
10 10 10
Source radial distance, r (m)
15
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
0 1 2
10 10 10
Source radial distance, r (m)
20
−20
Array gain, A (dB)
−40
w
TLS
near
TLSfar
TLS
mixed
−60
−80
−100
−120
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Frequency, f (Hz)
Fig. 3.15 Beampatterns for TLSnear design evaluated for a r = 1 m and b r = 100 m
3.6 Design Examples and Evaluation 49
because their performance metrics are different (c.f. (3.64) with (3.63)). Due to
the scaling term in the denominator of (3.64), it appears that TLS-based designs
achieve lower performance error than their corresponding LS counterparts. This
scaling also gives the impression that there is no trade-off (increase in performance
error for achieving mixed nearfield–farfield capability) for the TLSmixed design as
compared to the TLSnear and TLSfar designs due to different scaling between the three
designs. Beampatterns for the TLSnear and TLSmixed designs, evaluated at r = 1 m
and r = 100 m are shown in Figs. 3.15 and 3.16 to further illustrate the observations
made.
3.7 Conclusions
As a summary, broadband beamformers can achieve both spatial and spectral selec-
tivity at the same time. This is because they are multidimensional filters acting on
both spatial and spectral domains. The design formulations for broadband beam-
formers presented in this chapter achieve such selectivity by minimising the error
between the beamformer response and a desired response. These design formula-
tions are generalised to cover both nearfield and farfield source models. This allows
three different types of beamformer, namely nearfield-only, farfield-only and mixed
nearfield–farfield beamformers to be designed from the same design formulations.
Design examples provided show beamformer characteristics of spatial selectivity,
frequency invariant response as well as operability for both nearfield and farfield
sources (for mixed nearfield–farfield designs) as expected from the design formula-
tions. When operating outside the design specifications, the beamformers start to fail
at the low frequencies. This is because at low frequencies the beamformers behave
as super-directive beamformers which are very sensitive to errors, i.e. the discrep-
ancy between the operating environment and the assumptions made in the design
formulations.
References
1. G.W. Elko, Microphone array systems for hands-free telecommunication. Speech Commun.
20(3–4), 229–240 (1996)
2. B.D. Van Veen, K.M. Buckley, Beamforming: a versatile approach to spatial filtering. IEEE
Signal Process. Mag. 5(2), 4–24 (1988)
3. H. Krim, M. Viberg, Two decades of array signal processing research: the parametric approach.
IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 13(4), 67–94 (1996)
4. S.C. Pei, C.C. Tseng, A new eigenfilter based on total least squares error criterion. IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. I Fundam. Theory Appl. 48(6), 699–709 (2001)
5. S.V. Huffel, J. Vandewalle, The total least squares problem: computational aspects and analysis.
Soc. Ind. Appl. Math. (1991)
6. S. Doclo, M. Moonen, Design of far-field and near-field broadband beamformers using eigen-
filters. Signal Process. 83(12), 2641–2673 (2003)
References 51
Abstract The design formulation for fixed broadband beamformers can be extended
to steerable broadband beamformers using a polynomial filter structure to achieve
beam steering. The main advantage of a steerable broadband beamformer is that once
its coefficients are designed, its main beam can still be steered dynamically without
the need to redesign the beamformer weights. This feature is useful in applications
where a desired signal source does not always remain fixed at a single spatial location,
but is moving. These electronically steerable broadband beamformers allow the main
beam to be beamed and locked onto the same signal source even if it moves to another
spatial location.
4.1 Introduction
achieved by using the Wigner rotation matrix [4]. Other methods include designing a
modal beamformer, where the received signals are first decomposed into orthogonal
modes and then linearly combined to achieve a desired response [5, 6]. For this
modal beamformer, beam steering is achieved by means of modulating the modes.
In this chapter, the design formulations of SBBFs based on weighted LS and
weighted TLS are presented. These formulations are extensions from the design of
fixed broadband beamformer in Chap. 3 by replacing the filter at each sensor with
a polynomial filter structure. This structure extends the fixed beamformer with an
additional dimension for beam steering, parameterised by a single real coefficient.
M−1
K−1
H (r, ω, ψ) = f (m, ψ) A (r, rk , ω) W (k, m, ω) (4.1)
m=0 k=0
= d (r, ω, ψ) wSBBF (ω) ,
H
(4.2)
where M is the number of filters per sensor, W (k, m, ω) is the transfer function for
the mth filter at the kth sensor, and Eq. (4.2) is obtained by defining
W (0, 1, ω) f (1, ψ)
.. ..
. .
W (0, M − 1, ω) f (M − 1, ψ)
W (1, 1, ω) f (1, ψ)
.. ..
. .
W (1, M − 1, ω) f (M − 1, ψ)
.. ..
. .
th W (K − 1, 0, ω) f (0, ψ)
(K − 1) mic
FT
W (K − 1, 1, ω) f (1, ψ)
.. ..
. .
W (K − 1,
M − 1, ω) f (M − 1, ψ)
y(n)
IFT
Fig. 4.1 Frequency-domain SBBF structure using the generalised Farrow structure
56 4 Steerable Broadband Beamformer Design
f (1, ψ)
w (0, 1, t)
.. ..
. .
f (M − 1, ψ)
w (0, M − 1, t)
f (1, ψ)
w (1, 1, t)
.. ..
. .
f (M − 1, ψ)
w (1, M − 1, t)
.. ..
. .
th f (0, ψ)
(K − 1) mic
w (K − 1, 0, t)
f (1, ψ)
w (K − 1, 1, t)
.. ..
. .
f (M − 1, ψ)
y(n)
w (K − 1, M − 1, t)
Fig. 4.2 Time-domain SBBF structure using the generalised Farrow structure
4.2 Beamformer Structure 57
The impulse response of such beamformer can be obtained by taking the IFT of
(4.1), i.e.
M−1
K−1
h (r, t, ψ) = f (m, ψ) a (r, rk , t) w (k, m, t) . (4.7)
m=0 k=0
over the frequency range Ω results in an optimum transfer function Wopt (k, m, ω) for
the desired response Hd (r, ω, ψ). The optimum impulse response can be obtained
by taking the IFT of Wopt (k, m, ω).
The minimisation problem (4.10) can also be solved using matrix calculus. Using
(4.3) to (4.6), the cost function in (4.9) can be written as
JLS (ω) = wH
SBBF (ω) QSBBF (ω) wSBBF (ω) − wSBBF (ω) qSBBF (ω)
H
− qH
SBBF (ω) wSBBF (ω) + hSBBF (ω) (4.11)
58 4 Steerable Broadband Beamformer Design
where
QSBBF (ω) = V (r, ω, ψ) d (r, ω, ψ) dH (r, ω, ψ) drdψ (4.12)
Ψ R(ψ)
qSBBF (ω) = V (r, ω, ψ) Hd (r, ω, ψ) d (r, ω, ψ) drdψ (4.13)
Ψ R(ψ)
hSBBF (ω) = V (r, ω, ψ) |Hd (r, ω, ψ)|2 drdψ. (4.14)
Ψ R(ψ)
dJLS
=0 (4.15)
dwSBBF (ω)
H
Note that (4.17) has the same form as (3.29) for fixed beamformer design, since
both of them follow the same design formulation process. The differences that dis-
tinguish the two formulations are in the matrix Q (ω) and the vector q (ω).
Now, suppose that N-taps FIR filter is used to implement the SBBF structure in
Fig. 4.2, i.e.
N−1
W (k, m, ω) = w (k, m, n) exp (−jnω) (4.18)
n=0
= e (ω) wSBBF,FIR (k, m)
H
(4.19)
where
The FIR filter weights wSBBF,FIR (k, m), which are real, can be obtained by solving
(4.19) for all k and m. One way of doing this is to minimise the mean-squared error
given by the cost function
H
Jw (ω) = e (ω) wSBBF,FIR (k, m) − Wopt (k, m, ω)2 dω ∀m, k (4.21)
Ω
where Wopt (k, m, ω) is the optimum transfer function obtained by solving (4.17).
Alternatively, the optimum FIR filter weights wSBBF,FIR (k, m) can be obtained
directly from the design formulation. Define
4.3 Design Formulations 59
T
wSBBF,FIR (k) = wTSBBF,FIR (k, 0) , · · · , wTSBBF,FIR (k, M − 1) (4.22)
T
wSBBF,FIR = wTSBBF,FIR (0) , · · · , wTSBBF,FIR (K − 1) (4.23)
dFIR (r, ω, ψ) = d (r, ω, ψ) ⊗ e (ω) . (4.24)
Note that wSBBF,FIR is the FIR filter weights vector with the weights w (k, m, n),
for all k, m, and n, stacked into a long vector following the stacking pattern in
(4.20) and (4.22). This vector can be stacked differently, but requires the vector
dFIR (r, ω, ψ) in (4.24) to be reordered to match the new stacking order.
Using (4.23) and (4.24), the SBBF response is thus given by
where the cost function JLS,FIR now includes an additional integration over the fre-
quency ω for minimising the weighted LS error during optimisation. Solving the
minimisation problem
min JLS,FIR (4.28)
wSBBF,FIR
results in the optimum FIR filter weights wopt,SBBF,FIR for the desired response
Hd (r, ω, ψ). Likewise, the minimisation problem (4.28) can be solved using matrix
calculus. Using (4.23) and (4.24), the cost function (4.27) can be written in matrix
form as
where
QSBBF,FIR = V (r, ω, ψ) dFIR (r, ω, ψ) dFIR
H
(r, ω, ψ) drdωdψ (4.30)
Ψ Ω R(ψ)
qSBBF,FIR = V (r, ω, ψ) Hd (r, ω, ψ) dFIR (r, ω, ψ) drdωdψ (4.31)
Ψ Ω R(ψ)
hSBBF,FIR = V (r, ω, ψ) |Hd (r, ω, ψ)|2 drdωdψ. (4.32)
Ψ Ω R(ψ)
60 4 Steerable Broadband Beamformer Design
dJLS,FIR
=0 (4.33)
dwTSBBF,FIR
wSBBF,FIR = {QSBBF,FIR }−1 {qSBBF,FIR }. (4.34)
Note that (4.34) has the same form as (3.46), since the SBBF design method in this
section follows the same weighted LS design method for the fixed beamformer design
in Sect. 3.3.1. The difference is that the design formulation for SBBF is extended to
include beam steering parameter.
In terms of weighted TLS design formulation, define the weighted TLS cost function
as
Ψ R(ψ) V (r, ω, ψ)
|ξ (r, ω, ψ)|2 drdψ
JTLS (ω) = . (4.35)
Ψ R0 U (r, ω, ψ)
|H (r, ω, ψ)|2 drdψ + 1
results in an optimum transfer function Wopt (k, m, ω) for the desired response
Hd (r, ω) in TLS sense. Again, the cost function (4.35) can be written in matrix
form as
TLS,SBBF (ω) QTLS,SBBF (ω) wTLS,SBBF (ω)
wH
JTLS (ω) = . (4.37)
wHTLS,SBBF (ω) Q0,TLS (ω) wTLS,SBBF (ω)
where
QSBBF (ω) qSBBF (ω)
QTLS,SBBF (ω) = (4.38)
H
qSBBF (ω) hSBBF (ω)
Q0,SBBF (ω) 0
Q0,TLS,SBBF (ω) = (4.39)
0 1
wSBBF (ω)
wTLS,SBBF (ω) = (4.40)
−1
Q0,SBBF (ω) = U (r, ω, ψ) d (r, ω, ψ) dH (r, ω, ψ) drdψ (4.41)
Ψ R0
4.3 Design Formulations 61
The optimum transfer function is obtained by solving for the generalised eigen-
vector of QTLS,SBBF and Q0,TLS,SBBF that corresponds to their smallest generalised
eigenvalue and scaling the last element of vector wTLS,SBBF (ω) to −1.
For the filter implementation using N-taps FIR filter, the weighted TLS cost func-
tion becomes
|ξ
Ψ Ω R(ψ) V (r, ω, ψ) FIR (r, ω, ψ)| drdωdψ
2
JTLS,FIR = . (4.42)
Ψ Ω R0 U (r, ω, ψ)
|HFIR (r, ω, ψ)|2 drdωdψ + 1
to solve for the optimum FIR filter weights wSBBF,FIR . In matrix form, JTLS,FIR is
given by
wTTLS,SBBF,FIR QTLS,SBBF,FIR wTLS,SBBF,FIR
JTLS,FIR = T (4.44)
wTLS,SBBF,FIR Q0,TLS,SBBF,FIR wTLS,SBBF,FIR
where
QSBBF,FIR qSBBF,FIR
QTLS,SBBF,FIR = H (4.45)
qSBBF,FIR hSBBF,FIR
Q0,SBBF,FIR 0
Q0,TLS,SBBF,FIR = (4.46)
0 1
wSBBF,FIR
wTLS,SBBF,FIR = (4.47)
−1
Q0,SBBF,FIR = U (r, ω, ψ) dFIR (r, ω, ψ) dH
FIR (r, ω, ψ) drdωdψ. (4.48)
Ψ Ω R0
Likewise, the optimum FIR filter coefficients are obtained by solving for the
generalised eigenvector of QTLS,SBBF,FIR and Q0,TLS,SBBF,FIR that correspond to their
smallest generalised eigenvalue and scaling the last element of vector wTLS,SBBF,TLS
to −1.
The SBBF design formulations discussed can also be extended to mixed nearfield–
farfield SBBFs following the similar procedure in Sect. 3.4. For such beamformers,
their response, which is invariant to radial distance r, is given by
where the vector r that gives the spatial position in polar coordinate is separated into
(r, φ) for clarity.
Note that this mixed nearfield–farfield beamformer design is achieved by simply
forcing the desired response Hd (r, φ, ω, ψ) to be independent of r as in (4.49). For
this design, the integration range for r needs to cover both nearfield and farfield
distances. There is no extra design formulation required, and the formulations in
Sect. 4.3 can be readily applied to obtain the optimum transfer function or optimum
FIR filter weights for mixed nearfield–farfield beamformer designs.
For a SBBF in two-dimensional space, it is desirable for the main beam to be steerable
for the whole (360◦ ) azimuthal plane. This feature can be achieved without neces-
sarily designing the steering function f (m, ψ) to cover for the whole 360◦ steering
range. This can be done by exploiting the circular symmetry in the array geometry
used. Consider a circular symmetric sensor array as shown in Fig. 4.3, which can
Sector 3 Sector 0
y
Sector 4 Sector 5
x
4.5 Steering Function 63
(a)
w7
w8 w2 w1 w6
Steering
w3 w0 range, Ψ
w9 w4 w5 w11
y
w10
x
(b) 80◦
Steering
range, Ψ
w6
w7 w1 w0 w11
w2 w5
w8 w3 w4 w10
y
w9
x
Fig. 4.4 Exploiting circular symmetry in sensor array by permuting beamformer weights to achieve
full 360◦ steering angle. a No weight permutation. Steering range is −30◦ ≤ ψ ≤ 30◦ , i.e. within
Sector 0. b Weights permuted to Sector 1. Steering range is now 30◦ < ψ ≤ 90◦ , i.e. steering angle
of ψ = 80◦ is achievable
be divided into 6 equiangular sectors. Suppose that a SBBF is designed using this
sensor array such that the steering range only covers ψ ∈ [−30◦ , 30◦ ]. The resulting
optimum beamformer weights associated with each sensor are illustrated in Fig. 4.4a.
Due to the circular symmetry of the array, steering the main beam to, for example, 80◦
is still possible with this design. This is achieved by first permuting the beamformer
64 4 Steerable Broadband Beamformer Design
weights as shown in Fig. 4.4b, and then, apply a steering of 20◦ using the steering
function f (m, ψ). The rule for designing f (m, ψ) by exploiting this property is that
given a L circular symmetric sensor array, i.e. an array that can be divided into L
equiangular
the steering function f (m,
sectors, ψ) needs to be designed to cover
◦
180◦ ◦
ψ ∈ − 180 L
, L
in order to achieve full 360 steering by means of beamformer
weights permutation.
Apart from circular symmetry in array geometry, the required steering range for ψ
also depends on the definition of the steering function f (m, ψ). For example, define
f (m, ψ) = ψ m , (4.50)
Equation (4.51) means that if f (m, ψ) is as defined in (4.50), the steering range
for ψ needs to cover only the positive angle. For example, for a L circular symmetric
sensor array with f (m, ψ) as defined in (4.50), the design range for ψ only needs to
◦
cover ψ ∈ 0, 180 L
, and yet full 360◦ steering can be achieved.
The steering function f (m, ψ) can also be viewed as mixing coefficients, parame-
terised by the steering angle ψ, for the filtered signal. Generally, f (m, ψ) is nor-
malised to avoid huge variation at different steering angles. One way is to normalise
f (m, ψ) such that
f (m, ψ) = 1, ∀ψ. (4.52)
m
Similar performance metrics as in Sect. 3.5 are adopted to evaluate the performance of
the SBBF design formulations. However, the metrics need to be modified to account
for beam steering. Hence, the performance errors for SBBF are now defined as
ξLS (r, ψ) = |H (r, φ, ω, ψ) − Hd (r, φ, ω, ψ)|2 dφdω, (4.54)
Ω Φ
Ω Φ
|H (r, φ, ω, ψ) − Hd (r, φ, ω, ψ)|2 dφdω
ξTLS (r, ψ) = (4.55)
Ω Φ
|H (rd , φ, ω, ψ)|2 dφdω
and are used to evaluate LS- and TLS-based SBBF designs, respectively. The para-
meter rd in (4.55) refers to the value of r that the beamformers are designed for.
Likewise, the directivity for SBBF is defined as
|H (r, φ, ω, ψ)|2
D (r, φ, ω, ψ) = . (4.56)
1
2π Φ
|H (r, φ0 , ω, ψ)|2 dφ0
In contrast to Sect. 3.5, the array gain averaged across designed steering range as
defined by
Aw (ω) = Aw (ω, ψ) dψ (4.57)
Ψ
where
M−1 −1
K−1
Aw (ω, ψ) = f (m, ψ) wH
SBBF,FIR
H
(k, m) e (ω) e (ω) wSBBF,FIR (k, m)
m=0 k=0
(4.58)
is used to evaluate and compare the SNR improvement for SBBFs. This averaged
metrics allow the array gains for multiple SBBF designs to be superimposed on a
single plot for comparison.
For all the design examples provided in this section, the same spiral arm array as
discussed in Sect. 2.5 is used with all required design specifications as tabulated in
Table 4.1, where appropriate 2π wrapping has been considered for spatial pass region
and stop region. With these design parameters, the same nearfield–farfield boundary
as in Sect. 3.6 applies.
66 4 Steerable Broadband Beamformer Design
Table 4.1 Specifications for spiral arm array geometry and SBBF design
Design parameters Value
Number of rings, Kring 4
Number of sensors per ring, Ksen 5
Ring radii, rkring 0.0319, 0.0852, 0.2272, 0.6063 m
Ring twist angle, φkring 12◦
Sampling frequency, fS 8 kHz
Steering range, Ψ −36◦ ≤ ψ ≤ 36◦
Spectral range, Ω [0.2, 3.8] kHz
BWφ
Spatial pass region, Φpb (ψ) |φ − ψ| ≤ 2
BWφ
Spatial stop region, Φsb (ψ) |φ − ψ| ≥ 2 + T Wφ
Spatial passband width, BWφ 30◦
Spatial transition width, T Wφ 10◦
FIR filter length, N 64
Speed of propagating wave, c 343 m/s
For each of the design formulations, the design examples as given in Table 4.2 are
provided. The weighting functions are selected to be V (r, ω) = 1 and U (r, ω) = 1.
The integrals w.r.t. ω and ψ are solved analytically (see Appendix B), while the other
integrals are approximated by uniformly spaced Riemann sum with the number of
points as specified in Table 4.3. The steering function is as defined in (4.53) with
α = 72◦ . The desired beamformer response Hd (r, φ, ω, ψ), which is chosen to be
invariant to r, is defined as
exp −jωTS N−1 , φ ∈ Φpb (ψ) , ω ∈ Ωpb
Hd (r, φ, ω, ψ) = 2 . (4.59)
0 , φ ∈ Φsb (ψ)
4.7 Design Examples and Evaluation 67
Table 4.3 Number of uniform discretisation points for numerical evaluation of integrals
Parameter Number of points
Azimuth angle range, Φ 360
Source radial distance, R 50
Figure 4.5 shows the performance error (4.54) for the LSnear design, with the
dashed lines indicating the boundaries of the steering range −36◦ ≤ ψ ≤ 36◦ . Note
that the y-axis is in logarithmic scale. The plot clearly shows that the beamformer
only works within its designed specifications, i.e. at r = 1 m, and its main beam can
be steered to any steering angle in Ψ . Outside these specifications, its performance
error increases significantly, implying that the beamformer is no longer operable.
The performance error for the LSfar design is shown in Fig. 4.6. Its performance
error decreases as the value of r increases from nearfield to farfield distance and
remains at about −10 dB for roughly r ≥ 40 m. This means that the design will work
for r ≥ 40 m even though the design specification is only for r = 100 m. This is
in agreement with (2.9) that provides the quantitative boundary between nearfield
and farfield distances. Lastly, for the LSmixed design shown in Fig. 4.7, it has low
30
2
10
25
20
Source radial distance, r (m)
15
1
10
10
0
0
10
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
30
2
10
25
20
Source radial distance, r (m)
10
0
0
10
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
performance error within the range 1 ≤ r ≤ 100 and ψ ∈ Ψ , showing that the LSmixed
design works for both nearfield and farfield sources and have beam steering capability
as designed.
The directivity (4.56), evaluated at r = 5 m for both LSnear and LSfar , is shown
in Figs. 4.8 and 4.9, respectively. The figures show that the steerable broadband
beamformers exhibit similar behaviour to their corresponding fixed broadband beam-
formers in Sect. 3.6; that is, when operating outside their design specifications, the
designs only fail at low frequencies. This is in agreement with the array gains shown
in Fig. 4.10, which shows huge negative gain (i.e. SNR degradation) at low frequen-
cies. The reason is that at low frequencies, the designs behave as super-directive
beamformers and are sensitive to the mismatch in r between the design specification
and the actual operating r. This mismatch is significantly amplified and thus causing
degradation in the SNR at low frequencies. The LSmixed beamformer is designed to
operate in both nearfield and farfield regions, possess consistent directivity as shown
in Fig. 4.11. All directivity plots are evaluated with φ = ψ.
For TLS-based designs, their performance errors (4.55) are shown in Figs. 4.12,
4.13, and 4.14, with their directivity plots shown in Figs. 4.15, 4.16, and 4.17 and
their array gains shown in Fig. 4.18. In general, TLS-based designs provide similar
observations to their LS counterparts.
4.7 Design Examples and Evaluation 69
30
2
10
25
20
Source radial distance, r (m)
10
0
0
10
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
15
3500
3000
10
Directivity index, DI (dB)
2500
Frequency, f (Hz)
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
15
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
10
−10
−20
Array gain, Aw (dB)
LS
near
−30 LS
far
LSmixed
−40
−50
−60
−70
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Frequency, f (Hz)
15
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
30
2
10
25
20
Source radial distance, r (m)
15
1
10
10
0
0
10
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
30
2
10
25
20
Source radial distance, r (m)
10
0
0
10
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
30
2
10
25
20
Source radial distance, r (m)
15
1
10
10
0
0
10
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
15
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
15
3500
3000
10
Directivity index, DI (dB)
2500
Frequency, f (Hz)
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
15
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
20
−20
Array gain, A (dB)
−40
w
TLS
near
TLS
far
TLS
mixed
−60
−80
−100
−120
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Frequency, f (Hz)
Fig. 4.20 Beampattern for TLSmixed design evaluated at r = 100 m and ψ = −50◦
76 4 Steerable Broadband Beamformer Design
Although all the examples are designed only for −36◦ ≤ ψ ≤ 36◦ , full 360◦ beam
steering is still possible by exploiting the circular symmetry of the array as discussed
in Sect. 4.5.1. As an illustration, Figs. 4.19 and 4.20 show the beampatterns for the
TLSmixed design, evaluated at r = 1 m and ψ = 100◦ , and r = 100 m and ψ = −50◦ ,
respectively.
4.8 Conclusions
In this chapter, the design formulation of SBBFs, realised with the polynomial filter
structure, is provided. The major advantage of such structure is that the main beam of
the beamformer can be steered easily and directly with a single real parameter. These
design formulations are extended from the design formulations of non-steerable
beamformers in Chap. 3. The extension involves introducing an extra dimension of
freedom, i.e. the order of polynomial filter structure, to achieve beam steering, which
is an additional design dimension on top of the existing features of spatial selectivity
and frequency-invariant response. These features are validated through the design
examples provided.
References
1. C.W. Farrow, A continuously variable digital delay element, in IEEE International Symposium
on Circuits Systems (ISCAS), vol. 3, Espoo, Finland, 7–9 June 1988, pp. 2641–2645
2. M. Kajala, M. Hamalainen, Filter-and-sum beamformer with adjustable filter characteristics, in
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics on Speech Signal Processing
(ICASSP), vol. 5, Salt Lake City, UT, 7–11 May 2001, pp. 2917–2920
3. C.C. Lai, S. Nordholm, Y.H. Leung, Design of robust steerable broadband beamformers with spi-
ral arrays and the farrow filter structure, in Proceedings of the International Workshop Acoustics,
Echo, Noise Control, Tel Aviv, Israel, 30 Aug–2 Sep 2010
4. L.C. Parra, Steerable frequency-invariant beamforming for arbitrary arrays. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
119(6), 3839–3847 (2006)
5. J. Meyer, G. Elko, A highly scalable spherical microphone array based on an orthonormal decom-
position of the soundfield, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics
Speech Signal Processing (ICASSP), vol. 2, Orlando, FL, 13–17 May 2002, pp. 1781–1784
6. C.C. Lai, S. Nordholm, Y.H. Leung, Design of steerable spherical broadband beamformers
with flexible sensor configurations. IEEE Trans. Audio, Speech, Lang. Process. 21(2), 427–438
(2013)
Chapter 5
Robust Formulation
5.1 Introduction
[1–5]. As a result, the array aperture size is not sufficient to provide good signal
directivity and every array element essentially “sees” the same signal sample. In
order to achieve high directivity in such beamformers, the dynamic range of the
beamformer weights needs to be very large. Although these large weights can increase
the beamformer’s gain theoretically, which is desired, it causes the beamformers to
be extremely sensitive to errors and perturbations which exist in practice.
The most common method to introduce robustness to such errors is to include a
white noise gain (WNG) constraint in beamformer weights design. This is equivalent
to the diagonal loading method if the designs are expressed in matrix form [2–5, 17–
19]. Although perturbations and deviations from practical models can be translated
to WNG, there is no clear link between the two. Hence, it is difficult to select an
appropriate level of WNG for any given set of errors in practice. This is the main
limitation of the WNG method, though it does provide a quick and simple method
to achieve robustness.
The other method to achieve robustness is to include tolerance towards errors
in the ideal models to account for practical imperfections. Beamformers are then
designed by optimising an objective function, which includes the tolerance, based
on either their worst-case or mean performances [4, 20–22]. Mean performance is
defined as the beamformer performance is averaged using a probability density func-
tion that is used to model the error distribution. Both of these approaches have their
own advantages and drawbacks. Optimising for the worst-case performance ensures
the resulting beamformers can operate for all conditions, including the worst-case
scenario. However, such designs are too pessimistic in the sense that the worst-case
scenario may be too far from the mean scenario and may only occur infrequently.
On the other hand, optimising for the mean performance ensures the beamformers
can operate in the vicinity of the mean conditions. Hence, if there is a sudden occur-
rence which shifts the operating condition far away from the mean condition, the
beamformer may fail.
For the mean performance optimisation, it can be extended to include a stochastic
model to describe the error characteristics [6, 23]. This enables explicit quantifica-
tion of the parameters related to practical environments, sources, and array models
which are known probabilistically, thus allowing a more direct and meaningful quan-
tification of physical parameters and their desired tolerance. Besides, such stochastic
model is applicable in most cases, where the errors are random and only their sto-
chastic characteristics are known. In addition, the stochastic error model is more
appealing in the sense that the errors are weighted by their PDF, i.e. errors that occur
more frequently are weighted higher than those that occur less frequently. Hence, its
mean performance, where the errors are concentrated, is optimised to achieve opti-
mum performance. In order to provide sufficient robustness against the actual error
in practical applications, the variance of the modelled error should be greater than the
variance of the actual error (e.g. from manufacturer’s datasheet or measurements).
This chapter discusses a stochastic error model for designing robust broadband
beamformers, which is an extension to the model in [6, 23]. The discussion includes
formulations involving multiplicative errors, additive errors, and their combinations.
The multiplicative error model is useful to model errors that can be translated into
5.1 Introduction 79
It is known that the performance of beamformers will degrade in the presence of errors
and their robustness can be measured in terms of WNG [18, 25]. Thus, conventional
robust design formulation involves imposing the WNG constraint given by
K −1 M−1
|W (k, m, ω)|2 ≤ ρW
2
NG ∀ω (5.1)
k=0 m=0
or
wHS B B F w S B B F ≤ ρW
2
NG ∀ω (5.2)
K −1 M−1
N −1
|w (k, m, n)|2 ≤ ρW
2
NG (5.3)
k=0 m=0 n=0
or
Both the constraints in (5.1) and (5.3) essentially limit the magnitude of the transfer
function W (k, m, ω) and FIR filter weights w (k, m, n) such that their amplification
80 5 Robust Formulation
Sensor errors ε (r, rk , ω) such as gain and phase errors can often be modelled as
multiplicative errors [6, 23], i.e.
where ρ (r, rk , ω) is the gain error factor and γ (r, rk , ω) is the phase error. The
perturbed array response can then be written as
or in vector form as
where
where 1 is a column vector with all unity elements and its subscript denotes its length.
The critical equation for the beamformer design formulations in Chap. 4 stems from
the absolute error squared |ξ (r, ω, ψ)|2 which exists in both the weighted LS and TLS
formulations. Hence, in order to incorporate the perturbed array response d̂ (r, ω, ψ)
into those design formulations, the ideal, non-perturbed array response d (r, ω, ψ)
and
Note that the sensor gain and phase errors can be considered as random variables
and it is the error vector ε (r, ω) that is of interest. Let
and suppose we want to optimise for the mean performance by using the gain and
phase PDF as weighting functions for the weighted sum of cost functions for all
feasible sensors, i.e.
and
where f E0 ,...,E K −1 (ε0 , . . . , ε K −1 ) is the joint PDF for all the sensor’s errors. From now
on, the dependencies (r, ω) are dropped from ε for notational convenience (their
dependencies are understood from the context), and the kth element of a vector is
denoted by [·]k or simply by a subscript k. Assuming independence between errors
from different sensors, then
[ε̄ (r, ω)]∗k = εk f Ek (εk ) dεk (5.16)
where f Ek (εk ) is the PDF of the kth sensor’s error. The entry at the k1 th row and k2 th
column (for k1 = k2 ) in matrix Ē (r, ω) is given by
82 5 Robust Formulation
∗
Ē (r, ω) k1 ,k2 = εk1 εk∗2 f Ek1 εk1 f Ek2 εk2 dεk1 dεk2
∗
= εk1 f Ek1 εk1 dεk1 εk2 f Ek2 εk2 dεk2 (5.17)
where σk21 is the second moment of the gain random variable. Let
σ = diag σ02 , · · · , σ K2 −1 (5.19)
where diag (·) stacks its parameters into a diagonal matrix. The matrix Ē (r, ω) can
be written as
Ē (r, ω) = ε̄ (r, ω) ε̄ H (r, ω) 1 K 1TK − I K + σ (5.20)
where
and the subscript mul denotes multiplicative error. If the gain and phase errors are
assumed to be independent, (5.16) can be simplified into
5.3 Stochastic Error Model 83
[ε̄ (r, ω)]∗k = ρk exp ( jγk ) f Pk (ρk ) f Γk (γk ) dρk dγk
= ρk f Pk (ρk ) dρk cos (γk ) f Γk (γk ) dγk
+ j sin (γk ) f Γk (γk ) dγk (5.26)
and therefore,
ε̄ (r, ω) = ρ̄ γ̄ c + j γ̄ s (5.27)
where
ρ̄ k = ρk f Pk (ρk ) dρk (5.28)
c
γ̄ k = cos (γk ) f Γk (γk ) dγk (5.29)
s
γ̄ k = sin (γk ) f Γk (γk ) dγk (5.30)
with f Pk (ρk ) and f Γk (γk ) the PDFs of the gain and phase errors of the kth sensor.
The superscripts c and s in (5.27) are to distinguish between the cosine and sine
terms and show that they can be solved separately. In [6, 8, 23], it is shown that
stochastic error modelling with multiplicative errors is useful for modelling errors
such as mismatches between array elements, errors in sensor positions, and errors in
presumed source positions.
Applying the same formulation process, the following perturbed array response
and error models for design formulations using FIR implementation are obtained,
where
Q F I R (r, ω, ψ) = d F I R (r, ω, ψ) dHF I R (r, ω, ψ) . (5.35)
Instead of multiplicative errors, suppose the sensor’s errors are additive due to, for
example, source spreading or local scattering [24], i.e.
84 5 Robust Formulation
Then, following the same procedure discussed in Sect. 5.3.1, it can be derived that
and
where G (ω, ψ) = g (ω, ψ) gH (ω, ψ) and g (ω, ψ) = f (ψ). Following the same
procedure to optimise for the mean performance as in Sect. 5.3.1 yields
where
Ēadd (r, ω, ψ) = Ē (r, ω) + ε̄ (r, ω) aH (r, ω)
+ a (r, ω) ε̄ H (r, ω) ⊗ G (ω, ψ) (5.41)
ε̄add (r, ω, ψ) = ε̄ (r, ω) ⊗ g (ω, ψ) (5.42)
and the subscript add denotes additive error. Likewise, for FIR implementation, the
following additive error model is obtained
Ē F I R,add (r, ω, ψ) = Ē (r, ω) + ε̄ (r, ω) aH (r, ω)
+ a (r, ω) ε̄H (r, ω) ⊗ G F I R (ω, ψ) (5.45)
ε̄ F I R,add (r, ω, ψ) = ε̄ (r, ω) ⊗ g F I R (ω, ψ) (5.46)
The derivations in Sects. 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 can be combined to give a general error model
that covers both multiplicative and additive errors. This results in the perturbed array
response given by
where Ēmul (r, ω), ε̄mul (r, ω), Ēadd (r, ω, ψ), and ε̄add (r, ω, ψ) are defined, respec-
tively, in (5.22), (5.24), (5.41), and (5.42). It should be noted that although the sub-
scripts mul and add distinguish the multiplicative and additive errors, their deriva-
tions are essentially based on the derivations of Ē (r, ω) in (5.14) and ε̄ (r, ω) in
(5.15). The model for FIR implementation has the same form and is given by
In order to incorporate the error model in Sect. 5.3 into the weighted LS beamformer
design formulation in (4.9), its objective function needs to be modified slightly. Let
the new objective function be the weighted sum of mean absolute error squared, i.e.
J¯L S (ω) = V (r, ω, ψ) E |ξ (r, ω, ψ)|2 drdψ
Ψ R
= wHS B B F (ω) Q̄ S B B F (ω) w S B B F (ω) − wHS B B F (ω) q̄ S B B F (ω)
− q̄HS B B F (ω) w S B B F (ω) + h S B B F (ω) (5.52)
86 5 Robust Formulation
where
Q̄ S B B F (ω) = V (r, ω, ψ) Q̄ (r, ω, ψ) drdψ (5.53)
Ψ R
q̄ S B B F (ω) = V (r, ω, ψ) Hd (r, ω, ψ) d̄ (r, ω, ψ) drdψ. (5.54)
Ψ R
The matrix Q̄ (r, ω, ψ) and vector d̄ (r, ω, ψ) are as defined in Sect. 5.3, depending
on the error model used, i.e. either as multiplicative error, or as additive error, or both.
The design of robust weighted LS SBBF can be achieved by minimising (5.52). Its
analytical solution is given by
w S B B F (ω) = Q̄−1
S B B F (ω) q̄ S B B F (ω) ∀ω ∈ Ω. (5.55)
where
Q̄ S B B F,F I R = V (r, ω, ψ) Q̄ F I R (r, ω, ψ) drdωdψ (5.57)
Ψ Ω R
q̄ S B B F,F I R = V (r, ω, ψ) Hd (r, ω, ψ) d̄ (r, ω, ψ) drdωdψ. (5.58)
Ψ Ω R
As for the weighted TLS design formulation, define the new objective function as
Ψ R0 V (r, ω, ψ) E{|ξ (r, ω, ψ)| }drdψ
2
¯
JT L S (ω) =
(5.60)
Ψ R0 U (r, ω, ψ) E{|H (r, ω, ψ)| }drdψ + 1
2
which gives
5.4 Robust Formulation Using Stochastic Error Model 87
Q̄0,S B B F (ω) = U (r, ω, ψ) Q̄ (r, ω, ψ) drdψ. (5.61)
Ψ R0
Then, the design of robust weighted TLS SBBF can be achieved by minimising
(5.60), which can be solved similarly to that described in Sect. 4.3.2 by substituting
Q S B B F (ω) with Q̄ S B B F (ω), Q0,S B B F (ω) with Q̄0,S B B F (ω), and q S B B F (ω) with
q̄ S B B F (ω)
Likewise, for FIR implementation, its objective function with the stochastic error
model is given by
Ψ Ω R0 V (r, ω, ψ) E{|ξ F I R (r, ω, ψ)|2 }drdψ
J¯T L S,F I R =
(5.62)
Ψ R0 U (r, ω, ψ) E{|HF I R (r, ω, ψ)|2 }drdωdψ + 1
and
Q̄0,S B B F,F I R = U (r, ω, ψ) Q̄ F I R (r, ω, ψ) drdωdψ. (5.63)
Ψ R0
For evaluating and comparing between non-robust and robust beamformer designs,
the performance error (4.54) is used for both LS- and TLS-based beamformer designs.
The reason for removing the denominator term (c.f. (4.55)) when evaluating the TLS-
based beamformers is to remove the scaling effect due to different denominator values
between non-robust and robust TLS designs. In addition to the performance error,
the directivity in (4.56) and the array gain in (4.57) are also used. Note that the array
gain is also related to sensitivity or tolerance factor of a beamformer against errors
and perturbations, where such sensitivity is defined as [26]
1
Tse (ω) = . (5.64)
Aw (ω)
Equation (5.64) shows that as the array gain increases, sensitivity decreases, which
translates to better robustness against errors and perturbations.
In order to illustrate the robustness achieved by using the stochastic error model,
a number of robust SBBF design examples are presented and compared with their
88 5 Robust Formulation
Table 5.1 Number of uniform discretisation points for numerical evaluation of integrals
Parameter Number of points
Frequency range, Ω 256
Steering range, Ψ 73
Azimuth angle range, Φ 181
corresponding non-robust counterparts in Sect. 4.7. The same spiral array as described
in Sect. 2.5 and the design specifications as listed in Table 4.1 are used for designing
the robust beamformers.
The stochastic error model introduces additional complexity into the integrals in
the robust design formulation. As such, the integrals are difficult to solve analytically
and they are approximated by uniformly spaced Riemann sum with the number of
discretisation points as specified in Table 5.1. This numerical approach in approxi-
mating the integrals causes the design problem size to be large. As such, only robust
farfield SBBFs given by Table 5.2 are provided.
For the robust designs, both the multiplicative-only and additive-only error models
are used. The errors in all sensors are assumed to follow the same PDF model, which
is independent of both frequency ω and azimuth angle φ, with the gain and phase
error PDFs given by
N (1, 0.05) , ρk ≥ 0
f Pk (ρk ) = (5.65)
0 , otherwise
f Γk (γk ) = U (−0.05 rad, 0.05 rad) (5.66)
where N (μ, σ ) is the Gaussian PDF with mean μ and standard deviation σ and
U (a, b) is the uniform PDF with minimum value a and maximum value b. Note that
(5.65) is essentially a cropped Gaussian PDF. For comparison purposes, the same
PDF model of (5.65) and (5.66) is used in both multiplicative-only and additive-only
robust designs. In practice, the PDF model used should match the perturbation model
of the target applications.
The array gain (as well as the sensitivity) of the designed beamformers is shown in
Fig. 5.1. The figure shows that the low array gain at low frequencies for both the
5.6 Design Examples and Evaluation 89
20
−20
Array gain, A w (dB)
TLS robust
TLS non−robust
−40
LS robust
LS non−robust
−60
−80
−100
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Frequency, f (Hz)
non-robust LS and TLS designs has been improved in their robust counterparts.
The array gain for both the robust LS and TLS designs is more consistent across
frequencies, suggesting consistent SNR improvement across frequencies. In terms
of sensitivity, the improved array gain in the robust designs suggests that both the
robust designs are less sensitive (i.e. more robust) towards mismatches, errors, and
perturbations.
where b̂r (k, l) is the perturbed lth filter coefficient of the kth sensor. Figure 5.2 shows
the perturbed sensor responses, where each line corresponds to the response for each
sensor. Here, it is noted that the perturbation model (5.67) is pessimistic relative to
the actual sensor response from the calibration graph provided by the manufacturers.
90 5 Robust Formulation
(a) 5
−5
−10
Magnitude (dB)
−15
−20
−25
−30
−35
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Frequency, ω (xπ rad/s)
(b)
−20
−21
−22
−23
Bulk delay (number of samples)
−24
−25
−26
−27
−28
−29
−30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Frequency, ω (xπ rad/s)
Fig. 5.2 a Magnitude and b phase delay for perturbed sensor responses
5.6 Design Examples and Evaluation 91
100
TLS robust
TLS non−robust
LS robust
LS non−robust
80
60
(dB)
LS
Performance error, ξ
40
20
Fig. 5.3 Averaged performance error with perturbation in sensor characteristics for non-robust and
robust multiplicative-only designs
The reason for choosing this model is that it is simple, and if the design is robust
against such perturbations, then they will most likely be robust against the actual
perturbations and mismatches in real sensors.
The performance error for the design examples with this perturbation is shown
in Fig. 5.3, where each plot is obtained by averaging the performance error from
50 different realisations of the perturbation model in (5.67). It is clear from this
figure that robustness is achieved in the designs with the stochastic error model. The
trade-off for achieving this robustness is the increased performance error relative
to the ideal situation (without perturbation) as shown in Fig. 5.4. This trade-off is
typical in any robust design. A further highlight of the achieved robustness using
the stochastic error model is illustrated in Figs. 5.5 and 5.6, where the directivity,
with perturbation, for both non-robust and robust LS and TLS designs, are shown.
From these figures, the robust designs successfully maintain their directivity in the
presence of perturbations, unlike their non-robust counterparts.
The robustness achieved in the design examples is not limited to perturbation in the
sensor characteristics, but also to other perturbations such as in the sensor positions.
92 5 Robust Formulation
40
TLS robust
TLS non−robust
LS robust
LS non−robust
30
20
Performance error, ξLS (dB)
10
−10
−20
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
Fig. 5.4 Performance error without perturbation for non-robust and robust multiplicative-only
designs
Errors in sensor position cause variations in gain and phase delay of the signal arriving
at the sensor, which fit readily into the multiplicative error model.
Here, the same design examples are evaluated in the presence of errors in sensor
positions. The sensor positions are perturbed
within a circular region (with the radius
given by the Gaussian distribution N 0, (0.001)2 ) around their nominal values,
and the perturbed positions (in x–y coordinate) are given by
r̂k ∼ xk + N 0, (0.001)2 cos (U (0, π )) , yk + N 0, (0.001)2 sin (U (0, π ))
(5.68)
where [xk , yk ] is the nominal position of the kth sensor in x–y coordinate. Figure 5.7
shows the performance error for the robust and non-robust designs in the presence of
perturbation in sensor positions. Each plot is obtained by averaging the performance
error from 50 different realisations of the perturbation model in (5.68). In the presence
of perturbation, the robust designs still achieve low performance error, suggesting
that they still work under the introduced perturbations in the sensor positions.
5.6 Design Examples and Evaluation 93
(a) 15
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
(b) 15
3500
3000
10 Directivity index, DI (dB)
2500
Frequency, f (Hz)
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
Fig. 5.5 DIs with perturbation in sensor characteristics for non-robust a LS and b TLS designs
94 5 Robust Formulation
15
(a)
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
15
(b)
3500
3000
10
Directivity index, DI (dB)
2500
Frequency, f (Hz)
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
Fig. 5.6 DIs with perturbation in sensor characteristics for robust multiplicative-only a LS and b
TLS designs
5.6 Design Examples and Evaluation 95
100
TLS robust
TLS non−robust
LS robust
LS non−robust
80
60
Performance error, ξLS (dB)
40
20
Fig. 5.7 Averaged performance error with perturbation in sensor positions for non-robust and
robust multiplicative-only designs
In order to evaluate the design examples against additive error model, errors due to
local scattering are considered [24]. In this perturbation model, additional propaga-
tion paths from signal source to the sensor array are present in addition to the direct
line-of-sight propagation path as shown in Fig. 5.8. The array element response with
such perturbation model is given by
1
L
 (r, k, ω) = A (r, k, ω) + ρi A (ri , k, ω) (5.69)
L i=1
Direct path
in ideal case
φ φi
Additional path due
to local scattering
Sensor array
Point source
100
TLS robust
TLS non−robust
LS robust
LS non−robust
80
60
Performance error, ξLS (dB)
40
20
Fig. 5.9 Average performance error with local scattering perturbation for non-robust and robust
additive-only designs
Figure 5.9 shows the performance error for the design examples, where each plot
is obtained by averaging the performance error from 50 different realisations of the
perturbation model in (5.69) to (5.71). As expected, the robust additive-only designs
5.6 Design Examples and Evaluation 97
40
TLS robust
TLS non−robust
LS robust
LS non−robust
30
20
Performance error, ξLS (dB)
10
−10
−20
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
Fig. 5.10 Performance error without perturbation for non-robust and robust additive-only designs
5.7 Conclusions
In conclusion, stochastic error models offer an effective approach for modelling real-
world perturbations and errors into a robust beamformer design formulation. This is
because in this formulation, errors are modelled as random variables, which makes
sense since real-world perturbations can be considered as random. Hence, this error
model can capture the stochastic properties of the errors to be integrated into the
design model, where the errors are weighted by their rate of occurrence or PDFs.
98 5 Robust Formulation
15
(a)
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
15
(b)
3500
3000
10
Directivity index, DI (dB)
2500
Frequency, f (Hz)
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
Fig. 5.11 Directivity with simulated local scattering for non-robust a LS and b TLS designs
5.7 Conclusions 99
15
(a)
3500
3000
10
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
15
(b)
3500
3000
10
Directivity index, DI (dB)
2500
Frequency, f (Hz)
2000 5
1500
0
1000
500
−5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60
Steering angle, ψ (degree)
Fig. 5.12 Directivity with simulated local scattering for robust additive-only a LS and b TLS
designs
100 5 Robust Formulation
The design optimisation in this chapter provides a good way to achieve robustness
in the sense that the designs are optimised for the mean performance, where the
errors are more likely to happen. This provides a fair balance between robustness
and performance as it is not as pessimistic as the method of optimising for the
worst-case error. Furthermore, the method of optimising for the mean performance
effectively embeds the error model into the beamformer design models. Hence, the
robust design formulations can be extended, modified, and solved in similar ways as
their non-robust counterparts.
In addition, as most practical errors can be translated into errors occurring during
the sampling of signals by a sensor, they can be modelled as either multiplicative
complex error, or additive complex error, or both. This error modelling provides a
better connection between the real-world error and design model, unlike the WNG
method where such connection is vague. Hence, a more quantitative robustness spec-
ification is possible with this error model.
References
14. O. Besson, P. Stoica, Decoupled estimation of DOA and angular spread for a spatially distributed
source. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 48(7), 1872–1882 (2000). Jul
15. D. Astely, B. Ottersten, The effects of local scattering on direction of arrival estimation with
MUSIC. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 47(12), 3220–3234 (1999). Dec
16. W. Liu, D. McLernon, M. Ghogho, Design of frequency invariant beamformer without temporal
filtering. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 57(2), 798–802 (2009). Feb
17. C.C. Lai, S. Nordholm, Y.H. Leung, Design of robust steerable broadband beamformers with
spiral arrays and the farrow filter structure, in Proceedings of International Workshop on
Acoustic Echo and Noise Control, Tel Aviv, Israel, 30 Aug–2 Sep 2010
18. E.N. Gilbert, S.P. Morgan, Optimum design of directive antenna arrays subject to random
deviations. Bell Syst. Technol. J. 34, 637–663 (1955). May
19. A. Elnashar, S. Elnoubi, H. El-Mikati, Further study on robust adaptive beamforming with
optimum diagonal loading. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 54(12), 3647–3658 (2006). Dec
20. S.A. Vorobyov, A.B. Gershman, L. Zhi-Quan, Robust adaptive beamforming using worst-case
performance optimization: a solution to the signal mismatch problem. IEEE Trans. Signal.
Process. 51(2), 313–324 (2003). Feb
21. S. Vorobyov, H. Chen, A. Gershman, On the relationship between robust minimum variance
beamformers with probabilistic and worst-case distortionless response constraints. IEEE Trans.
Signal. Process. 56(11), 5719–5724 (2008). Nov
22. Z.L. Yu, W. Ser, M.H. Er, Z. Gu, Y. Li, Robust adaptive beamformers based on worst-case
optimization and constraints on magnitude response. IEEE Trans. Signal. Process. 57(7), 2615–
2628 (2009). Jul
23. C.C. Lai, S. Nordholm, Y.H. Leung, Design of robust steerable broadband beamformers incor-
porating microphone gain and phase error characteristics, in IEEE International Conference
on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Prague, Czech Rep., 22–27 May 2011,
pp. 101–104
24. D. Astely, B. Ottersten, The effects of local scattering on direction of arrival estimation with
music. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 47(12), 3220–3234 (1999)
25. S. Yan, H. Sun, U. Svensson, X. Ma, J. Hovem, Optimal modal beamforming for spherical
microphone arrays. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 19(2), 361–371 (2011). Feb
26. H.L.V. Trees, Optimum Array Processing (Wiley, 2004)
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Future Work
6.1 Summary
The design of beamformer weights, both for fixed and for steerable beamformers,
requires the underlying signal source and acoustic environment of the target appli-
cation to be identified and modelled. In general, there is no single generic model that
works best for any application and the models are highly dependent on the target
applications. As such, utmost care is needed to provide these mathematical models
before designing the beamformer weights. The main aim of modelling the signal
source and acoustic environment is to capture the essential information on the prop-
erties of the signal source, propagation medium, and how the signal energy is being
transferred from a source to a receiver. In most cases, reasonable assumptions are
made to significantly simplify the underlying mathematical models.
Once the mathematical models are defined, a beamformer design process involves
selecting beamformer weights such that a certain desired response is achieved. This
selection can be done by optimising the weights such that the error between actual
and desired responses is minimised. This weight selection by means of optimisation
depends on how the error is calculated (e.g. LS or TLS) and different optimisa-
tion approaches (e.g. constrained or unconstrained optimisations and minimising the
maximum error), which results in beamformers with different performances. One
of the challenges in these approaches is that the design problem size can be large,
especially for SBBFs due to the additional steering dimension. In some cases, the
inherent properties of the design formulations can be exploited, such as (1) exploit-
ing the symmetry nature of the matrices in the design formulations and (2) solving
analytically two of the integrations in weighted TLS and LS design formulations.
In practice, the mathematical models used for a beamformer design do not always
capture mismatches, uncertainties, and errors in real-world environment. As such,
robustness in beamformers is necessary to ensure that the designed beamformers
will work when deployed into practical environments. One technique to achieve such
robustness is the stochastic approach where these practical imperfections are mod-
elled as random variables. The main benefit of using such a model is that the design
is optimised for the mean performance, which is more likely the operating condition
in practice compared to the pessimistic approach of optimising for the worst-case
scenario. This stochastic model is embedded directly into the mathematical model
of the sensor arrays, which means that the same non-robust design formulation can
be used to achieve robustness.
A number of future directions that can be further pursued from the discussion of this
book are as follows:
1. Tracking beamformer
One of the interesting extensions of the work presented is to integrate a source
detection and tracking algorithm [1–3] together with SBBFs for automatic audio
reception with source-tracking capability [4]. Such integration is depicted in
Fig. 6.1 where the output of the source-tracking system, normally in terms of
estimated source location or direction, is used to steer the main beam towards the
direction of the signal source for audio reception. This automation releases the
necessity for a human operator in audio acquisition and recording applications
such as smart homes and robots.
2. Investigation on the steering function
Proper selection of the steering function f (m, ψ), as well as array geometry for
SBBFs, results in desirable characteristics that can be exploited in the design of
SBBFs (see Sect. 4.5). Such characteristics lead to a reduced design problem size
yet achieve full steering range. In the light of this, detailed investigation on the
6.2 Future Work 105
.. Source
. tracking
Estimated
location
The current trend for sensor array processing is targeting low-cost and low-sensor-
count array. A lot of emphasis is put on signal processing to achieve required per-
formance with limited hardware. As such, beamforming is normally accompanied
with other single-channel or multichannel signal processing (depending on the target
applications) for further performance boost [10, 11]. However, with beamforming
and other signal processing algorithms maturing, manufacturers are looking at other
approach for performance boost. Since the cost for DSP computations continues to
drop, DSP cost is no longer a bottleneck to impede on beamforming technology.
This trend will spark more research interest in array signal processing including
beamforming.
References
1. E.A. Lehmann, Particle filtering methods for acoustic source localisation and tracking. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Telecommunications Engineering, The Australian National Uni-
versity, 2004
2. E.A. Lehmann, A.M. Johansson, Particle filter with integrated voice activity detection for
acoustic source tracking. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2007(1), 28–38 (2007)
3. A.M. Johansson, Acoustic sound source localisation and tracking in indoor environments.
Ph.D. dissertation, School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2008
4. S. Timofeev, A.R.S. Bahai, P. Varaiya, Adaptive acoustic beamformer with source tracking
capabilities. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 56(7), 2812–2820 (2008)
5. J. Meyer, G. Elko, A highly scalable spherical microphone array based on an orthonormal
decomposition of the soundfield, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Acoustics Speech Signal Processing (ICASSP), vol. 2, Orlando, FL, 13-17 May 2002, pp.
1781–1784
6. T.D. Abhayapala, D.B. Ward, Theory and design of high order sound field microphones using
spherical microphone array, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics
Speech Signal Processing (ICASSP), vol. 2, Orlando, FL, 13–17 May 2002, pp. 1949–1952
7. Z. Li, R. Duraiswami, Flexible and optimal design of spherical microphone arrays for beam-
forming. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 15(2), 702–714 (2007)
8. C.C. Lai, S. Nordholm, Y.H. Leung, Design of steerable spherical broadband beamformers
with flexible sensor configurations. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 21(2), 427–438
(2013)
9. O. Hoshuyama, A. Sugiyama, Robust adaptive baemforming, in Microphone Arrays, ed. by
M. Brandstein, D. Ward (Springer, Berlin, 2001), Chap. 5, pp. 87–110
10. M. Brandstein, D. Wards (eds.), Microphone Arrays—Signal Processing Techniques and Appli-
cations (Springer, Berlin, 2001)
11. J. Benesty, J. Chen, Y. Huang, Microphone Array Signal Processing, vol. 1 (Springer Science
& Business Media, 2008)
Appendix A
Closed Form Integration for Fixed
Beamformer Design
A.1 Solution for ·dω
The design formulations for fixed beamformers in Chap. 3 involve the integration
w.r.t. the operating frequency ω. For the FIR implementation design formulations,
a closed form solution for this integration is possible if: (1) the weighting functions
are independent of frequency, ω, and (2) the desired response is taken to be the ideal
brick wall response as given by (3.70).
Under these two assumptions, (3.41) can be simplified to
QFIR = V (r) aFIR (r, ω) aH
FIR (r, ω) dωdr (A.1)
R Ω
= V (r) AFIR (r) dr (A.2)
R
and (3.42) to
qFIR = V (r) Hd (r, ω) aFIR (r, ω) dωdr (A.3)
R Ω
where
AFIR (r) = aFIR (r, ω) aFIR
H
(r, ω) dω (A.5)
Ω
qFIR (r) = Hd (r, ω) aFIR (r, ω) dω. (A.6)
Ω
It is possible to obtain closed form solutions for both (A.5) and (A.6). Let
the element of matrix AFIR (r, ω) at the lr th row and the lc th column is given by
r2
[AFIR (r, ω)]lr ,lc = ×
rk1 − rrk2 − r
fs
exp jω rk1 − r − rk2 − r + (n1 − n2 ) (A.8)
c
= ρa (lr , lc ) exp (jωγa (lr , lc )) (A.9)
where
lr = k1 N + n1 (A.10)
lc = k2 N + n2 (A.11)
r2
ρa (lr , lc ) = (A.12)
rk − rrk2 − r
1
fs
γa (lr , lc ) = rk1 − r − rk2 − r + (n1 − n2 ) (A.13)
c
where the spectral passband Ωpb and stopband Ωsb are given by
(1) (2)
Ωpb = {ω : −π ≤ ω ≤ π, ωpb ≤ |ω| ≤ ωpb } (A.15)
(1) (2)
Ωsb = {ω : −π ≤ ω ≤ π, |ω| ≤ ωsb , ωsb ≤ |ω| ≤ π } (A.16)
and for lr = lc ,
(1) (2) (1) (2)
[AFIR (r)]lr ,lc = 2ρa (lr , lc ) ωsb + ωpb − ωpb + π − ωsb . (A.19)
Note that the matrix AFIR (r) is Hermitian and any of its N × N submatrices
are toeplitz. These properties can be exploited to reduce computational load in
Appendix A: Closed Form Integration for Fixed Beamformer Design 109
populating this matrix and solving for beamformer weights. The Hermitian prop-
erty is as expected since the FIR weights are real.
For the integration of A.6, its analytical integration is given by
(2) (2) (1) (1)
qFIR (r) l = 2ρq (l) ωpb sinc ωpb γq (l) − ωpb sinc ωpb γq (l) (A.20)
where
l = kN + n (A.21)
r
ρq (l) = (A.22)
r − r
k
fs N −1
γq (l) = (rk − r − r) + n − . (A.23)
c 2
Appendix B
Closed Form Integrations for Steerable
Beamformer Design
B.1 Solution for ·dω
Similarly for the steerable beamformers in Chap. 4, a closed form solution for the
integration w.r.t. ω can be obtained if: (1) the weighting functions are independent of
frequency ω, and (2) the desired response is taken to be the ideal brick wall response
as given by (4.59). Under these assumptions, (4.30) can be simplified to
QSBBF,FIR = V (r, ψ) [aFIR (r, ω) ⊗ f (ψ)] [aFIR (r, ω) ⊗ f (ψ)]H drdωdψ
Ψ Ω R(ψ)
(B.1)
= V (r, ψ) aFIR (r, ω) aFIR
H
(r, ω) dω ⊗ f (ψ) f H (ψ) drdψ
Ψ R(ψ) Ω
(B.2)
= V (r, ψ) AFIR (r) ⊗ f (ψ) f H (ψ) drdψ (B.3)
Ψ R(ψ)
The closed form solution for AFIR (r) is given by (A.18) and (A.19), and from
(A.20) the closed form solution for (B.7) is given by
qFIR (r) , φ ∈ Φpb (ψ)
qFIR (r, ψ) = . (B.8)
0 , φ ∈ Φsb (ψ)
B.2 Solution for ·dψ
A closed form solution for the integration w.r.t. ψ in the design formulation of
steerable beamformer can also be obtained if the weighting function V (r,ψ) is
separable into V (r, ψ) = V1 (r) V2 (ψ). Specifically, the aim was to solve ·dψ
in (B.3) and (B.6) without solving any other integrations. This requires reordering
the integrals in those two equations. From here onwards, the notation R(ψ) ·dr is
explicitly written as R Φ(ψ) ·dφdr.
From the steerable beamformer specifications in Table 4.1,
where ψ (1) ≤ ψ (2) . These regions are depicted graphically in Fig. B.1 for the case
ψ (2) − ψ (1) > BWφ and in Fig. B.2 for ψ (2) − ψ (1) ≤ BWφ , with the regions in green
for Φpb (ψ) and red for Φsb (ψ).
Due to the definition of Hd (r, ω, ψ) in (4.59), Eq. (B.8) is non-zero only at Φ =
Φpb (ψ). This region Φpb (ψ) is depicted by the green region in Figs. B.1 and B.2.
For the case of ψ (2) − ψ (1) > BWφ in Fig. B.1, the three parts of Φpb (ψ) are given,
respectively, by
BWφ BWφ
Part 1: Φ1 = {φ : ψ (1) − ≤ φ ≤ ψ (1) + },
2 2
BWφ
Ψ1 (φ) = {ψ : ψ (1) ≤ ψ ≤ φ + }; (B.13)
2
BWφ BWφ
Part 2: Φ2 = {φ : ψ (1) + < φ ≤ ψ (2) − },
2 2
Appendix B: Closed Form Integrations for Steerable Beamformer Design 113
Fig. B.1 Integration region bounded by Φ (ψ) and Ψ for ψ (2) − ψ (1) > BWφ
Fig. B.2 Integration region bounded by Φ (ψ) and Ψ for ψ (2) − ψ (1) ≤ BWφ
114 Appendix B: Closed Form Integrations for Steerable Beamformer Design
BWφ BWφ
Ψ2 (φ) = {ψ : φ − ≤ψ ≤φ+ }; (B.14)
2 2
BWφ BWφ
Part 3: Φ3 = {φ : ψ (2) − < φ ≤ ψ (2) + },
2 2
BWφ
Ψ3 (φ) = {ψ : φ − ≤ ψ ≤ ψ (2) }. (B.15)
2
in (B.16). Suppose that the steering function f (m, ψ) is as defined in (4.53), the
element in the mth row of f (φ) is given by
g2 (φ) m
ψ
[f (φ)]m = dψ (B.19)
g1 (φ) α
(g2 (φ))m+1 − (g1 (φ))m+1
= . (B.20)
(m + 1) α m
The same integral, but for the case ψ (2) − ψ (1) ≤ BWφ , can be solved similarly.
The difference is that its integration region (see Fig. B.2) is given by
BWφ BWφ
Part 1: Φ1 = {φ : ψ (1) − ≤ φ ≤ ψ (2) − },
2 2
BWφ
Ψ1 (φ) = {ψ : ψ (1) ≤ ψ ≤ φ + }; (B.21)
2
BWφ BWφ
Part 2: Φ2 = {φ : ψ (2) − < φ ≤ ψ (1) + },
2 2
Ψ2 (φ) = {ψ : ψ (1) ≤ ψ ≤ ψ (2) }; (B.22)
Appendix B: Closed Form Integrations for Steerable Beamformer Design 115
BWφ BWφ
Part 3: Φ3 = {φ : ψ (1) + < φ ≤ ψ (2) + },
2 2
BWφ
Ψ3 (φ) = {ψ : φ − ≤ ψ ≤ ψ (2) }. (B.23)
2
Now that the analytical integration w.r.t. ψ for (B.8) is obtained, the next task
is to solve the same integral for (B.7), whose integration region Φ (ψ) covers both
spatial pass region and stop region (see (B.9)). For the case of ψ (2) − ψ (1) > BWφ
in Fig. B.1, the region Φpb (ψ) is as given by (B.13)– (B.15), and the region Φsb (ψ)
is given by
(1) BWφ
Part 4: Φ4 = {φ : −π ≤ φ ≤ ψ − + T Wφ },
2
Ψ4 (φ) = {ψ : ψ (1) ≤ ψ ≤ ψ (2) }; (B.24)
BWφ BWφ
Part 5: Φ5 = {φ : ψ (1) − + T Wφ < φ ≤ ψ (2) − + T Wφ },
2 2
BWφ
Ψ5 (φ) = {ψ : φ + + T Wφ ≤ ψ ≤ ψ (2) }; (B.25)
2
BWφ BWφ
Part 6: Φ6 = {φ : ψ (1) + + T Wφ ≤ φ ≤ ψ (2) + + T Wφ },
2 2
BW φ
Ψ6 (φ) = {ψ : ψ (1) ≤ ψ ≤ φ − + T Wφ }. (B.26)
2
BWφ
Part 7: Φ7 = {φ : ψ (2) + + T Wφ < φ ≤ π },
2
Ψ7 (φ) = {ψ : ψ (1) ≤ ψ ≤ ψ (2) }. (B.27)
Note that (B.24)–(B.27) are also true for the region Φsb (ψ) in Fig. B.2 (for the
case of ψ (2) − ψ (1) ≤ BWφ ). Substituting (B.13)–(B.15) and (B.24)–(B.27) into
(B.7) results in
QSBBF,FIR = AFIR (r, φ) ⊗ f (ψ) f H (ψ) dψ dφdr (B.28)
R Φ Ψ (φ)
= AFIR (r, φ) ⊗ f (ψ) f H (ψ) dψ dφ + . . . +
R Φ1 Ψ1 (φ)
AFIR (r, φ) ⊗ f (ψ) f H (ψ) dψ dφ dr (B.29)
Φ7 Ψ7 (φ)
Note that the matrix fliplr (F (φ)) is toeplitz and only contains 2M − 1 unique
entries, where fliplr (·) is the operation of flipping a matrix horizontally.