Hi Ralph,
In this example you are using an isotropic antenna element. So even though in this cut the beam is more focused, it has strong lobe all around the array axis, so in some sense the energy is not well focused.
If we change the element type to a more realistic pattern, such as cosine antenna pattern, then you can see the directivity of the ULA starts to be better than the URA
figure
ha = phased.ULA('NumElements',16,'Element',phased.CosineAntennaElement);
plotResponse(ha,3e8,3e8,'RespCut','Az','Format','Polar','Unit','dbi');
hold on;
ha = phased.URA('Size',[4 4],'Element',phased.CosineAntennaElement);
plotResponse(ha,3e8,3e8,'RespCut','Az','Format','Polar','Unit','dbi');
If you use a Hertzian dipole, the ULA is also better
figure
ha = phased.ULA('NumElements',16,'Element',phased.ShortDipoleAntennaElement);
plotResponse(ha,3e8,3e8,'RespCut','Az','Format','Polar','Unit','dbi');
hold on;
ha = phased.URA('Size',[4 4],'Element',phased.ShortDipoleAntennaElement);
plotResponse(ha,3e8,3e8,'RespCut','Az','Format','Polar','Unit','dbi');
In short, I'm not saying that you are wrong since I don't really have a theoretical result to back me up. But I'm also not convinced that the toolbox is giving the wrong answer. If you do have a number that I can compare to, please let me know and I'd love to take a look.
Thanks
Best Answer