# A Comparison of Faulty Antenna Detection Methodologies in Planar Array
## 5 Results and Discussion
### Optimization Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Array Size**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Failure Type**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Remarks**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Optimization**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Detection Accuracy (\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Average**} \\  & & & & **Method** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **Variance** & **Time (s)** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{(64 elements)} & \multirow{3}{*}{Random} & Random & & 100 & 100 & 0 & 19,487.64 \\  & & Locations & & 100 & 100 & 0 & 6476.57 \\  & & Row & 2, Row 5 & Pattern & 100 & 100 & 0 & 5983.26 \\  & & Column 2, & Search & 100 & 100 & 0 & 4209.83 \\  & & \multirow{3}{*}{Group (2 \(\times\) 2)} & 4 groups & (PS) & 100 & 100 & 0 & 4896.90 \\  & & \multirow{3}{*}{Random} & \multirow{3}{*}{Locations} & & 100 & 100 & 0 & 8987.35 \\  & & & Column 2, & & 100 & 100 & 0 & 9412.45 \\  & & Column 5 & & 100 & 100 & 0 & 7126.88 \\  & & \multirow{3}{*}{Random} & \multirow{3}{*}{Locations} & & 12.5 & 37.5 & 39.06 & 100.53 \\  & & & Locations & & 25 & 37.5 & 91.15 & 46.27 \\  & & Column 2, & & 12.5 & 37.5 & 91.15 & 67.76 \\  & & Column 5 & & 18.75 & 25 & 183.74 & 119.44 \\  & & \multirow{3}{*}{Random} & \multirow{3}{*}{(SA)} & & 16.67 & 50 & 208.33 & 107.13 \\  & & Locations & & & 25 & 33.33 & 486.11 & 47.05 \\ (36 elements) & & & Column 2, & & 8.33 & 33.33 & 36.17 & 63.41 \\  & & Column 5 & & & 37.5 & 62.5 & 91.15 & 61.97 \\  & & Random & & & 18.75 & 31.25 & 156.25 & 7017.62 \\  & & \multirow{3}{*}{Random} & \multirow{3}{*}{Particle Swarm} & \multirow{3}{*}{12.5} & \multirow{3}{*}{31.25} & \multirow{3}{*}{169.27} & \multirow{3}{*}{7557.90} \\  & & Column 5 & & & 6.25 & 25 & 39.06 & 6416.27 \\  & & Column 2, & & & Swarm & 12.5 & 31.25 & 169.27 & 7557.90 \\  & & \multirow{3}{*}{Group (2 \(\times\) 2)} & \multirow{3}{*}{4 groups} & \multirow{3}{*}{Optimization} & \multirow{3}{*}{6.25} & \multirow{3}{*}{18.75} & \multirow{3}{*}{370.37} & \multirow{3}{*}{7359.38} \\  & & Random & & & 25 & 50 & 300.93 & 16,156.54 \\ (36 elements) & & Row & 2, Row 5 & & 16.67 & 58.33 & 23.15 & 10,139.34 \\  & & Column 2, & & & 25 & 33.33 & 331.31 & 9590.11 \\  & & Column 5 & & & & & \\  & & Group (2 \(\times\) 2) & 3 groups & & 12.5 & 31.25 & 169.27 & 11,212.62 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of Optimization Algorithm. by a set of survey conditions, which will lead to convergence to find a global minimum in long run. The SA method in general provides 12.5% to 37.5% accuracy for all types of failure in an 8 \(\times\) 8 array size in a planar array. For the 6 \(\times\) 6 array size, the accuracy ranges from 8.33% to 62.5% for all types of failure. On the other hand, the PSO method showed an accuracy range of between 6.25% and 31.25% for all types of failure in an 8 \(\times\) 8 array-sized planar array. While in the 6 \(\times\) 6 array, the range is from 12.5% to 58.33%. The algorithms were written for the optimization methods to minimize the SNR as the objective function by varying the failed locations. SNR is calculated by the failed radiation pattern, because in real-time the only available data will be the failed radiation pattern. In addition, this work considered failed locations as completely failed elements. In the literature, for linear arrays, some methods are successful in finding 50% or 75% failure of faulty elements [19; 39]. Moving forward, we can work on including detection failure elements that are not completely failed. PSO and SA methods have tried to minimize the SNR, but the optimized failed locations given by the methods are not accurate. The percentage accuracy is given by the optimized location versus the initial failed location comparison. For each type of failure, optimization algorithms were run five times. Table 2 below summarizes the results.