Fig 1.
Non uniform symmetrical linear array.
Fig 2.
Chebyshev array pattern of 20 number of sensors with damaged sensor (w11,w12,w13,w14).
Table 1.
Comparison analysis for initial and damaged array.
Fig 3.
Chebyshev pattern of 20 numbers of sensors recovered by GSCO technique.
Fig 4.
Chebyshev pattern of 32 numbers of sensors recovered by GSCO technique.
Table 2.
Excitation weights of Chebyshev, faulty and recovered pattern.
Table 3.
Comparison analysis for initial, damaged and recovered array by GSCO.
Table 4.
Excitation weights of Chebyshev, faulty and recovered pattern.
Fig 5.
Taylor pattern of 30 numbers of sensors with sidelobes -35 dB recovered by GSCO technique.
Fig 6.
Chebyshev pattern of 30 numbers of sensors with sidelobes -35 dB recovered by GSCO technique.
Table 5.
Excitation weights of Taylor pattern, faulty and recovered pattern.
Fig 7.
Chebyshev pattern of 100 sensors with sidelobes -40 dB recovered by GSCO technique.
Fig 8.
Taylor pattern of 100 sensors with sidelobes -40 dB and n = 4 recovered by GSCO technique.
Fig 9.
Chebyshev pattern of 32 number of sensors with random number of failure w1,w3,w4,w7 and sidelobes -40 dB recovered by GSCO technique.
Fig 10.
Chebyshev pattern of the conventional [25] and proposed method with random number of failure (w2,w5,w6).
Fig 11.
Chebyshev pattern of the conventional [25] and proposed method with random number of failure (w2,w5,w6) and main beam pointing at an angle θ = 120°.
Table 6.
Comparison with the existing techniques.
Fig 12.
Convengence of the conventional [20] and proposed method at different values of errors.
Fig 13.
Error versus minimum number of sensors by conventional [20] and Proposed method.