Digital Beamforming of Multiple Simultaneous Beams for

Improved Target Search

Kai-Bor Yu
Lockheed Martin MS2
Syracuse, NY 13221-4840 USA
kai-bor.yu@lmco.com

AbstractThis paper describes several digital beamforming

radar techniques for improving target detection and
determination of the angular location of a target using multiple
simultaneous received beams. These techniques improve target
search and angle estimation performance over the conventional
monopulse processing in the elimination of beam-shape loss.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Conventional monopulse processing (Scheme 1) involves one

beam in transmit and multiple simultaneous beams on
receive. Typically a sum beam without any tapering is
employed in the transmit array for full power operation. A
uniform weighting will have transmit antenna pattern
narrowest beamwidth but higher sidelobes. Recently, beamspoiling has been applied to broaden the transmit antenna
beamwidth [1]. On receive two or more beams are formed for
target detection and angle estimation, i.e. the sum beam, the
delta-azimuth and the delta-elevation beam. The sum beam is
used for surveillance search and target detection. Once a
target is detected, the ratio of delta-azimuth beam over the
sum beam is used for azimuth angle estimation, and the ratio
of delta-elevation beam over the sum beam is used for
elevation angle estimation. This approach for angle
estimation is computationally efficient as it requires only the
computation of the monopulse ratios and a table look-up for
the angles. Received beams are typically tapered for sidelobe
control leading to wider received beamwidth. Taylor
weighting is used for the sum beam and Bayliss weighting is
used for the difference beams. A target at the peak of the
beam has the highest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) compared to
the rest of the beam. Thus a target away from the center of
beam suffers from beam-shape loss resulting to lower SNR
and degradation in target detection and angle estimation
performance. The beam-shape loss and degradation in target
detection and angle estimation performance can be recovered
if multiple simultaneous received beams are employed. A
full digital array (i.e. an array digitized at element-level)
supports different processing architectures with different
processing performance and computational complexities.

978-1-4244-2871-7/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE

Furthermore, these processing schemes can be combined to

balance the performance and the computational burden.
In Section 2, we discuss the processing architectures and
algorithms using multiple simultaneous received beams. First,
we review the processing architecture of the MaximumLikelihood Method [2, 3, 4]. This approach has been
advocated for improved radar target search and track for its
merits in the elimination of the beam-shape loss. Second, we
discuss a new processing algorithm that uses multiple sets of
monopulse beams. Third, we show how the monopulse
processing scheme and the ML processing scheme can be
combined to balance the performance and processing
requirement. In section 3, some simulations are included to
illustrate the performance of the processing schemes. Section
4 is the summary.
II. ALGORITHMS USING MULTIPLE SIMULTANEOUS RECEIVED
BEAMS

Emerging radar technology employs digital beamforming

(DBF) at the sub-array level or at the element level. The
digital degrees-of-freedom (DOFs) available provide
flexibilities and capabilities compared to analog
beamforming. These capabilities include improved dynamic
range, improved interference suppression and clutter
performance and forming of multiple simultaneous received
beams. In this paper, we consider the benefits in the
elimination of beam-shape loss and the extension of the
coverage performance using multiple simultaneous received
beams.
Radar flexibilities and capabilities increase with the level of
digitization. Element level digitization supports forming of
arbitrary number of beams and types of beams where some
approximations are required if we have only sub-array
digitization. For example, it is not possible to form Taylor
and Bayliss beams simultaneously from digital sub-array
outputs unless multiple RF sub-arrays are employed. The
elements within the sub-arrays are typically tapered for the
Taylor beam and a direct sum of the sub-array outputs will

generate the desired Taylor sum beam. An approximation on

the Bayliss difference beam can be generated by using an
average Bayliss-on-Taylor taper for each sub-array. An
approximation is also required for forming cluster of squinted
sum beams from digital sub-arrays.
Another consideration in the algorithm development is the
processing complexity. The computational burden can be
attributed to the forming of multiple simultaneous beams and
the pulse compression and Doppler processing associated
with each beam. Also, there is substantial computational cost
associated with the angle search of the ML method. The ML
approach to angle estimation requires a two-dimensional
iterative or grid search over the entire beam.
Here we review the Maximum-Likelihood Beam-Space
Processing (MLBP) scheme (Scheme 2) as applied to the
digital array radar system where digital inputs can be
element-based or sub-array-based. These inputs are first
digital beamformed to generate a number of beams. The
cluster of sum beams includes a center beam surrounded by 4
squinted sum beams located on the 3dB contour or the 6 dB
contour on a 2 x 2-shape or diamond-shape configuration.
The digital beamforming can be expressed as following:
N

r( i ) (t ) = w(i ) (n)rn (t )
n =1

i = 0,...4
where

{rn (t )}nN=1 ,{w(i ) (n)}nN=1 ,{r(i ) (t )}i4= 0 , are the digital

element or sub-array data, beamforming weights and the

corresponding beamforming outputs respectively. The
beamforming outputs are used for the maximum-likelihood
angle estimation with the following functional to be
maximized:

(u , v) =

g H (u , v) R 1r

g H (u , v) R 1 g (u , v)

where g (u , v ), R, r are the beam patterns, covariance matrix

of the noise data and the output beam data respectively. The
maximum can be determined using iterative search or grid
search. This method is computational intensive. It also
requires memory storage for the set of antenna beam patterns.
Once u and v are searched to sufficient accuracy, the
corresponding target magnitude can be used for target
detection. The target amplitude estimate is given by the
following:

s =

g H (u, v) R 1r
g H (u , v) R 1 g (u , v)

g (u , v) is the array patterns evaluated at the ML

angle estimate (u , v). The ML approach in fact eliminates
where

the beam-shape loss by pointing the beam at the desired

angular direction. However, it requires a search for all angles
at every range cell, thus it is computational very intensive.
Some modifications are required for its use in the search
radar application. A detect before angle estimate approach
can be developed similar to monopulse scheme where ML
processing is invoked only after target detection using the
center sum beam. The modified scheme using the center
beam for detection followed by MLE angle estimation
(Scheme 2A) achieves the benefits of the elimination of
beam-shape loss in angle estimation but still suffers the
beam-shape loss for the detection. Another modification can
be derived to use all the sum beams for detection, and the ML
processing can be invoked once a target is detected by one or
more beams (Scheme 2B). This approach eliminates the
beam-shape loss and the requirement to search for the target
angle for every range cell; it still requires an extensive angle
search once a target is detected.
Multiple simultaneous beams can be generated by using
multiple sets of weighting coefficients. Suppose B0 is the
transmit beam center. On receive 4 sets of monopulse beams
are generated to provide target search and angle estimation
processing. The squinted beams B1, B2, B3 and B4 are
located at a distance of a 3 dB or 6 dB beamwidth away from
B0 and can be in the configuration of 2 x 2-shaped or
diamond-shape.
The deterministic beamforming for simultaneous beams
followed by target detection and angle estimation (Scheme 3)
is given by Figure 1 and is described in the following steps:
Step 1: The sub-array or element data are combined digitally
to generate 4 sets of monopulse beams given by
N

r( i ) (t ) = w( i ) (n)rn (t )
n =1
N

r( iA) (t ) = w( iA) (n)rn (t )

n =1
N

r( iE) (t ) = w( iE) (n)rn (t )

n =1

i = 1,2,3,4
The weighting coefficients of the squinted beams can be
constructed from those of the center beam by steering:

Step 4: The directional-cosines are derived with respect to the

i-th beam. These coefficients can be transformed back to the
center beam reference:

w(i ) = w . * e(u (i ) , v ( i ) )
where
e(u (i ) , v (i ) ) = exp( j

(u (i ) x + v (i ) y )

u = u ( i ) + u (i )

i = 1,2,3,4

v = v (i ) + v (i )

x, y are column vectors depicting the horizontal and vertical

antenna element co-ordinates,

(u (i ) , v (i ) )i4=1 are the steering

directions or centers of the squinted beams, and .* refers to

point-wise multiplication of two vectors. Similarly, the deltaazimuth and delta-elevation beams are defined as following:

w(iA) = w A . * e(u (i ) , v (i ) )
w(iE) = w E . * e(u ( i ) , v ( i ) )
i = 1,2,3,4
Using these weights, the antenna patterns are given by:

g ( i ) (u , v) = g (u u (i ) , v v (i ) )
g ( iA) (u , v) = g A (u u (i ) , v v ( i ) )
g ( iE) (u , v) = g E (u u ( i ) , v v ( i ) )
i = 1,2,3,4
Step 2: Detection processing is accomplished by selecting the
maximum of the magnitudes of all the sum beams and
compared to a threshold, i.e.

max

r( i ) (t ) threshold i *

i beam gives the maximum detection performance. The sum

beam and the delta beam measurements are then used for the
monopulse angle estimation.
Step 3: The ratio of the corresponding delta-azimuth beam
over the ith sum beam is used to determine the azimuth angle
and the ratio of the corresponding delta-elevation beam over
the ith sum beam is used to determine the elevation angle
using look-up tables:

(i )
A

(i )
E

= real{

r( iA) (t )

= real{

r( iE) (t )

(i )

r (t )
r( i ) (t )

} u (i ) = u u (i )
} v

(i )

= v v

(i )

Employment of multiple simultaneous beams eliminates the

beam-shape loss of conventional monopulse in target
detection and angle estimation, thus enables search
performance over larger area. This scheme eliminates the
beam-shape loss and extends the coverage performance like
the MLE approach at the expense of the computational cost
as it is required to carry the computational load of forming 12
beams and the associated pulse compression and Doppler
processing.
One of the benefits of DBF is that it supports multiple
processing schemes simultaneously. Furthermore these
schemes can be combined to balance the computational
complexity and performance. We here describe a scheme on
combining the monopulse and the MLE schemes. The
rational is that monopulse processing is computational most
efficient and performs very well when the target is within the
beam. The MLE scheme has optimal performance in the
elimination of beam-shape loss and in the extension of the
coverage at the cost of computational burden in the angle
search. Multiple sets of monopulse beams eliminate beamshape loss and extend coverage at the expense of
computational requirement of beamforming of 12 channels
and carrying out the associated pulse compression and
Doppler processing. Thus we combine the monopulse
processing and MLE processing by constructing a scheme
with 1 set of monopulse beams in the center and 4 additional
sum beams at the 3 dB or 6 dB away from the center beam
center as in the MLBP scheme. The 5 sum beams are used for
detection as in Scheme 2B. Once a target is detected, we
determine which sum beam generates the detection. If the
detection is attributed to the center sum beam, we know the
target is within the center beam, and monopulse processing is
used for the target detection, otherwise, the target is on the
edge or outside of the center beam, thus MLE processing
using the 5 sum beams is invoked. In this approach (Scheme
4), the beam-shape loss is eliminated and the coverage
extended and monopulse processing is utilized when the
target is within the beam. This scheme is illustrated in Figure
2.
III.

SIMULATION RESULTS

In this section, we assess the beam-shape loss and the angle

estimation performance of the discussed schemes using
simulation. We consider an array with digital beamforming
at the element level with half-wavelength spacing. For each
processing scheme, the antenna gain performance and the
angle estimation are generated by stepping the target source

over the 3 dB and 6 dB received beamwidth on a grid spacing

of 2 msine along both the u axis and the v axis. The transmit
beam is assumed to be spoiled uniformly over the entire 6 dB
beamwidth and thus the effect is included in the SNR for the
performance evaluation. The antenna gain and the angle
estimation performance are evaluated at each grid point and
are averaged over the 3 dB and 6 dB beamwidth. For the
angle estimation performance, the SNR is set to be 18 dB
when the target is at the peak of the beam. A Monte-Carlo
simulation of 100 times is used to determine the angle
performance for each grid point. The beam-shape loss and the
angle estimation performance are summarized in Table 1 and
Table 2 respectively. The values averaged over 3dB
beamwidth serve as the basic performance parameters and the
values averaged over the 6 dB beamwidth are used to
evaluate the capability in coverage performance extension.
The performance of the monopulse processing is used as the
benchmark for comparison.
The beam-shape loss for
monopulse processing is 1.1 dB and 2.6 dB over the 3dB
beamwidth and 6 dB beamwidth respectively. The RMSE for
angle estimation is 2.87 msine and 4.03 msine for the 3dB
beamwidth and 6 dB beamwidth respectively. The results
show that the beam-shape loss can be recovered by ML
processing or by employment of multiple simultaneous
received beams. The beam-shape loss using 4 sets of
monopulse beams (Scheme 3) is 0.7 dB over both the 3 dB
and the 6 dB beamwidth, and the beam-shape loss using 5
sum beams (Scheme 2B) is 0.4 dB over both the 3 dB and 6
dB beamwidth. For angle estimation, Scheme 3 with multiple
sets of monopulse beams has the best performance results
where Scheme 4 approaches the performance of the
monopulse scheme within the 3 dB beamwidth and the
performance of MLE scheme within the 6 dB beamwidth.

IV.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

C. Kerce, G. Brown and M. Mitchell, Phase-Only Transmit Beam

Broadening for Improved Radar Search, Proceedings of 2007 IEEE
Radar Conference. April 17-20, 2007, pp. 451-456.
R. M. Davies and R.L. Fante, A Maximum-Likelihood Beamspace
Processor for Improved Search and Track, IEEE Transactions of
Antennas and Propagation, vol.49, no. 7, July 2001, pp. 1043-1053.
Y. Liu, C.G. Wong and W. Kennedy, Computationally Efficient Angle
Estimation Using Maximum Likelihood in a Digital Beam-Forming
Radar, Proceedings of 2007 IEEEl Radar Conference, April 17-20,
2007, pp. 337-342.
E. Baranoski and J. Ward, Source localization using adaptive
subspace beamformer outpus, Proc. 1997 IEEE Conf. Acoustics,
Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP97), vol. 5, pp.3773-3776.

{ ( i ) }i4=1

Target Detection

max( ( i ) ) T
i-th Beam

DBF

{(Ai ) }i4=1

{(Ei ) }i4=1

Angle
Estimation
( i )
u ( i ) = f 1 (Re{ (Ai ) })

( i )
v ( i ) = f 1 (Re{ (Ei ) })

(u ( i ) , v ( i ) )

Figure 1 Multiple sets of monopulse beams (Scheme 3)

SUMMARY

Conventional monopulse processing suffers beam-shape loss

in target detection and angle estimation. MLBP eliminates
beam-shape loss at the expense of computational cost. The
computational burden is on the implementation of the 2dimensional angle search.
DBF of multiple sets of
monopulse beams eliminates beam-shape loss and extends
detection and angle estimation coverage at the expense of
computational cost. The computational burden is due to the
digital beamforming of 12 beams and the associated pulse
compression and Doppler processing.
DBF provides
flexibility in the processing schemes and these schemes can
be combined to improve the performance and computational
complexity. A scheme is developed where monopulse
processing is employed if target is in the center beam and a 5
beam MLE is employed if the target is on the edge of the
center beam or in the outer beams. In this manner,
computational complexity is controlled, beam-shape loss is
eliminated and the coverage performance is extended.

Target
Detection

{ ( i ) }i4=0

max( (i ) ) T

No
i=0

MLE
using
5
Beam

Yes

D
B
F

(A0 )
(E0 )

Center
Beam
Monopulse
Processing

Figure 2 Switching monopulse and MLE processing

(Scheme 4)

Scheme

Beam-Shape Loss
averaged over 3 dB
beamwidth

Beam-Shape Loss
averaged over 6 dB
beamwidth

1.1 dB

2.6 dB

0 dB

0 dB

1.1 dB

2.6 dB

0.4 dB

0.4 dB

0.7 dB

0.7 dB

0.4 dB

0.4 dB

Monopulse
Processing
(Scheme 1)
MLBP
(Scheme 2)
MLBP with center
beam for detection
(Scheme 2A)
MLBP with all beams
for detection
(Scheme 2B)
Multiple sets of
monopulse beams
(Scheme 3)
Combined Monopulse
& MLE
(Scheme 4)

Table 1 Summary of beam-shape loss performance

Scheme

Total angle

Total angle

RMSE

RMSE

averaged over averaged over

Monopulse

3 dB

6 dB

beamwidth

beamwidth

2.87 msine

4.03 msine

3.15 msine

3.46 msine

2.60 msine

2.62 msine

2.96 msine

3.37 msine

Processing
(Scheme 1)
MLBP
(Scheme 2)
Multiple sets of
monopulse beams
(Scheme 3)
Combined
Monopulse & MLE
(Scheme 4)

Table 2 Summary of RMSE angle estimation performance