Also found in: Acronyms.
References in periodicals archive ?
Then we performed ten independent trials of IFT and MIFT and arbitrarily chose the synthesis result of one single trial to illustrate the difference as shown in Figure 1.
The maximum sidelobe level (MSLL) obtained by MIFT is -19.
Then, to further demonstrate the effectiveness of MIFT, we consider applying MIFT to various linear arrays for the purpose of getting lower SLL as well as an appropriate beamwidth.
It can be seen that the result yielded by MIFT has obviously high percentage of element distributions with low MSLL than the result produced by IFT.
We can see that MIFT method needs approximately 1% of the iterations that IFT needs.
In the second test case, MIFT is applied to the same antenna array but with the object fill factor [f.
To demonstrate the robustness of MIFT, we further calculate the variation of average MSLL among 30 trials versus different fill factors as the red curve shown in Figure 4.
The computational time is 21 seconds by MIFT, which is about one seventeenth of the time consumed by IFT [33].
Applying MIFT to a massively thinned array with [f.
Table 1 shows the comparative results of the above four illustrations produced by MIFT and IFT.
However, in both MIFT and IFT, the amount of zero padding obviously influences synthesis result.