International Journal of Reconfigurable and Embedded Systems (IJRES)

Vol. 13, No. 2, July 2024, pp. 450~457

ISSN: 2089-4864, DOI: 10.11591/ijres.v13.i2.pp450-457  450

Reliability analysis of GAN based transmit modules for active

array antenna of phased array radar

Sajidha Thabassum B.1, Veena Kalludi Narasimhaiah2

1
Department of Electronics and Communications, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bangalore, India
2
School of Electronics and Communications, REVA University, Bangalore, India

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Reliability is one of the most important requirements in our day to day life
considering consistency, availability and failure free performance of the
Received Feb 19, 2023 product over it’s define mission time. As complexity of the system increases,
Revised Dec 12, 2023 design for reliable systems is a big challenge. The objective of the reliability
Accepted Jan 5, 2024 prediction analysis is to evaluate the predicted reliability of the active
transmit receive modules (TRMs) under specified operating conditions, and
to demonstrate that the predicted reliability meets the requirements, also to
Keywords: identify any parts present in the design which leads to higher failure rates.
The research shows reliability of generative adversarial network (GAN)
Derating based TRMs covering from design to finalization of components as early as
Failure rate practicable in today's short product lifecycles. Using the reliability
Mean time between failures prediction process, we describe a method for providing design engineers
Prediction with reliability feedback on their decisions. Using a conventional reliability
Reliability prediction model, the Telcordia (Bellcore) parts stress prediction model, and
some standard rules of thumb, we describe an initial implementation of this
technique. It provides systematic identification of likely modes of failure,
possible effects of each failure, and the criticality of each failure with regard
to reliability, system readiness, mission success, and demand for
maintenance/logistic support.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Sajidha Thabassum B.
Department of Electronics and Communications, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology
Bangalore, India
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
In recent days, the establishment of many private sector manufacturing industries either the small
scale or the large scale have come into picture when compared to the antiquity. Simultaneously the worker
ship has also increased a bit for these manufacturing industries. The main intension of both the sectors is to
provide a good quality of the product with a few expenses. The solution to eliminating design errors can be
illustrated with the above divergence-from-randomness (DFR) models starting from scratch. The layer-by-
layer DFR model supports robust and error-free circuitry. The first step, schematic stress simulation, aims to
eliminate electrical and stress errors during the schematic design phase. A model was initially used first to
primarily to simulate component stresses (i.e. P, V, I, and Tj). Its capability is to perform stress and load
reduction analysis on any size circuit diagram (i.e. hundreds of pads to tens of thousands of pads) and any
type of electrical circuit (e.g. analog, digital, radio frequency (RF) or source) at the schematic level prior to
layout and fabrication [1]–[4]. Therefore, there is a high degree of flexibility to improve the design at a lower
cost than fixing the product after testing the first article. The second step, mean time between failures
(MTBF) part stressing, uses simulated stresses to achieve circuit reliability with more accurate and realistic

Journal homepage: http://ijres.iaescore.com

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  451

MTBF predictions, thereby eliminating the weakest links in the conductive design to poor performance and
high failure rates. Figure 1 shows the DFR model to build a reliable product.

Figure 1. DFR model to build a reliable product

The third step, failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA) failure mode on machine and
tree analysis (TA), further improves circuit reliability by predicting critical failure modes in advance and thus
can mitigate the technical risks detected by FMECA, followed by analysis [5]–[9]. Analyze test capabilities
to detect error coverage and isolate errors. The fourth phase, the fault tree analysis/event tree analysis
(FTA/ETA), prevents the security risks that defense, aerospace and automotive or any other critical industry
needs. This takes design to the next level in improving availability with reliability block diagram (RBD)
model redundancy and increasing revenue-using asset performance management (APM) to reduce O and M
optimization costs [5]. The next one is FMECA is a reliability evaluation/layout approach, which examines
the capability failure modes inside a machine and its gadget, with the intention to decide the consequences on
gadget and machine overall performance. Each capability failure mode is classed in keeping with its effect on
venture fulfillment and personnel/gadget protection [6]. The FMECA consists of separate analyses, the
failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and the criticality analysis (CA). FMECA determines the
consequences of every failure mode on machine overall performance: i) it provides statistics for growing
fault tree evaluation and RBD fashions, ii) it provides a foundation for figuring out root failure reasons and
growing corrective movements, iii) it facilitates research of layout options to do not forget excessive
reliability at the conceptual ranges of the layout, and iv) it aids in growing take a look at strategies and
troubleshooting strategies.
FMECA also provides a basis for qualitative reliability, maintainability, protection, and logistics
analyses. The outcomes of the FMECA is: it highlights those factor that are used to requiring corrective
movement, also rank every failure in keeping with the severity category of the failure impact on venture
fulfillment and personnel/gadget protection. FMECA provide estimates of machine vital failure costs, aids in
providing a quantitative rating of machine and/or subsystem failure modes and identify reliability/protection
vital additives [7], [8].
FTA/ETA is the dynamic process of accident occurrence and development can be described using
FTA. Finding the direct and indirect causes as well as combinations of these causes is convenient. Qualitative
analysis can determine the importance of causes and hidden hazards and can forecast the likelihood that
accidents will occur. However, the FTA closely combines both professional expertise and mathematics [9]. A
strong mathematical foundation and significant professional expertise are required for the formulation and
analysis of the fault tree. The FTA is used to demonstrate how a mixture of individual contributing failures,
events, and/or mistakes may result in an unwanted top-level failure (or event). Figure 2 shows the FTA
model to perform risk analysis of a product. A system is a group of parts assembled into a certain
architectural configuration for the sole purpose of carrying out the function of that system [10]–[12]. The
integrity of the constituent parts and the architecture of the systems both affect the functional failure
probability of that function. The necessity for a thorough analytic technique to pinpoint every potential
failure combination that could lead to the loss of the system's integrity increases with system complexity.
One such method is FTA [13].
FTA is diagrammatic depiction of reliability, availability, and maintainability (RAM) analysis. It is a
top-down approach (also called deductive approach). Used to study those progresses through progressively
more intricate (i.e. lower) layers of the design until the likelihood of the top event the feared event occurring
in light of its surroundings and mode of operation can be foreseen [14]. The top event often indicates the
observed symptom when using FTA for fault diagnosis as opposed to the system problem as when it is used

Reliability analysis of GAN based transmit modules for active array antenna … (Sajidha Thabassum B.)
452  ISSN: 2089-4864

for reliability analysis. FTA is a reasonably easy method that can be used to get information about known
system flaws from system professionals [15]–[18]. One of the benefits of the approach, particularly when
used in complicated systems, is that it can depict the occurrence of multiple errors at once [19].

Figure 2. FTA model to perform risk analysis of a product

RBD is a graphical representation of the system's components and their relationships with regard to
reliability is called a RBD [20]. The figure depicts the system's functional state (i.e., success or failure) in
terms of the states in which each of its constituent parts is functioning. For instance, in a simple series
configuration, every component must be operational for the system to function, in a simple parallel
configuration; at least one component must be operational, and so on [21], [22].
APM is a method of asset management that prioritizes business goals in addition to the usual
objectives of asset availability and reliability [23]. In industrial companies, APM has emerged as a key
enabler of digital transformation for asset management. Modern APM blends classic asset management
approaches with new digital technologies for dramatic breakthroughs in dependability, maintenance
execution, and business performance [24], [25].

2. PROPOSED METHOD
To begin with system reliability prediction which is the way, which helps us to measure reliability,
availability, maintainability, and safety of the system from component failures. This prediction also helps to
compare the quantitative proposed design with respect to the design objective, which helps to meet the design
requirements. Reliability prediction assists us to find the unreliability of the system and helps to assess the
life cycle of the product. Mathematically it is defined as the probability of a failure free occurrence of a
system, which should undergo through certain time and environmental conditions as shown in (1):

𝑅(𝑡) = 𝑒 −𝜆𝑡 (1)

𝑅(𝑡) is reliability of the system with respect to time, 𝜆 is failure rate per million hours (106 hours), and t is
mission time in hours. These failures occurred in a period of time was expressed as 𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹 which was
formulated as shown in (2) and (3).

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡

𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹 = (2)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡

1
𝑀𝑇𝐵𝐹 = (3)
𝜆

Here 𝜆 is failure rate per million hours (106 hours). Reliability was calculated on the system dual
transmit receive module (DTRM) it contains a transmit and a receive block in it. The T/R modules are the
basic building blocks of the active aperture phased array radar. The dual transmit/receive module consists of
two independent T/R modules of 100 W each with individual output and common input connectors. The
power supply is common to digital control circuitry and active monolithic microwave integrated circuit

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, July 2024: 450-457
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  453

(MMIC) devices. DTRMs are generative adversarial network (GAN) device technology based pre-amplifier
and amplifier, hence onwards DTRMs are called GAN based DTRM. DTRM unit consists of RF/microwave
hardware, digital subsystems, and power supply modules with system and application software. The DTRMs
provide suitable power with relative phase for transmit and suitable taper with relative phase in receive.
There are two transmit and receive channels in each DTRM. The functionality of DTRM is to transmit a
desired waveform in a pre-determined spatial direction and receive signal from multiple channels in spatially
excited volume.
Based on the results of reliability prediction MTBF and failure rate were calculated. The operational
data, which was used to find the failure rate of the component, may get overstressed. This operational data,
which was overstressed, is used to find the derating of the component. The term derating is explained as the
probability of rising of reliability of the system based on the stress levels under the manufacturers stress
ratings. It tells how the component has often been overstressed due to temperature, mechanical and electrical
stresses. The main objective this paper is to find out the reliability prediction using part stress method, which
provides MTBF and the failure rate of the system, and to observe the derating components of the system.
Reliability of a certain individual component can be processed using MIL-HDBK 217FN2. This includes the
military standard componential formulae and total description of reliability prediction including manual
calculations. Reliability prediction can be calculated using two ways like parts count and parts stress
methods.

2.1. Parts count method

In the process of parts count method input values like operating voltage, rated voltage, junction
temperature, and power dissipation. Will not be used as the board was still in preliminary design phase. The
occurred failure rate and the MTBF depends on the given quality factor for individual componential level.
This parts count method is calculated using a mathematical formula as shown in (4):

𝜆𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝 = 𝑛𝛴𝑖 = 1𝑁𝑖 (𝜆𝐺𝜋𝑄 ) (4)

where, 𝜆𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝 is total failure rate in million hours, 𝜆𝐺 is generic failure for the ith generic parts, 𝜋𝑄 is
quality factor for the ith generic part, 𝑁𝑖 is quantity of the ith generic part, and N is number of different
generic part categories.

2.2. Parts stress method

The part stress analysis is used to determine parts failure rates in the detailed design stage when few
assumptions about the parts used their stress derating, their quality factor, and operating stresses. This
method is one of the most important method, which provides estimate of reliability based on parts stress data,
for each component as formulated in (5):

𝜆𝑃 = 𝜆𝑏(𝜋𝑇 𝜋𝐴 𝜋𝑅 𝜋𝑆 𝜋𝐶 𝜋𝑄 𝜋𝐸 ) (5)

where, 𝜆𝑃 is the part failure rate, 𝜆𝑏 is the base failure rate, 𝜋𝐸 is the environment factor, 𝜋𝑄 is the quality
factor, 𝜋𝐶 is complexity factor, 𝜋𝑆 is stress factor, 𝜋𝑅 is resistance factor, 𝜋𝐴 is application factor, and 𝜋𝑇 is
temperature factor.

3. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Reliability analysis of the DTRM was calculated for both Tx and Rx. Reliability prediction i.e.
failure rate and MTBF were calculated using ITEM software Ver.8.3.3. Some assumptions were used to
calculate failure rate, MTBF and derating as mentioned.

3.1. Assumptions for reliability prediction

− The following assumptions have been made in order to complete this analysis.
− The analysis has been performed using parts stress method in accordance with MIL-HDBK-217FN2.
− The operating environment considered for DTRM is airborne inhabited fighter (AIF) controlled
at 55 °C.
− Operational duty cycle is 100% continuous.
− In some cases, the part classification did not match those available in the reliability software. The closet
match was chosen.
− Failure rates of the components which are not supported by the ITEM software have been obtained from
MTBF values of the components from manufacturer/data sheet.
Reliability analysis of GAN based transmit modules for active array antenna … (Sajidha Thabassum B.)
454  ISSN: 2089-4864

− Product of generic failure data and other 𝜋- factors as per MIL-HDBK-217F as applicable for parts
stress method for reliability prediction has been considered.
− For unknown junction to case thermal resistance (θJC) value of some of the semi-conductors the
assumed θJC value is 700 C/W.
− For tantalum capacitors (congestion window reduced (CWR) style), the circuit resistance is considered
as 0.6 ohms.
− Mechanical items such as housings, screws, and base plates. we are not included in the analysis and
assumed to have negligible failure rate.
− Chip type resistors were assumed RM resistors styles with non-established reliability quality level
(depends on datasheet).
− Ceramic chip, micro commercial component (MCC) capacitors were assumed clock and data recovery
(CDR) capacitor styles with non- established reliability quality level (depends on datasheet).

3.2. Failure rate prediction and mean time between failures analysis for overall dual transmit receive
module
Reliability analysis was done for AIF environment at 55 °C using parts stress method. The occurred
failure rate was 133.1306 failures per million hours (FPMH) and the corresponding MTBF was 7,511.4149
hours. Table 1 shows the analysis of MTBF and failure rate. The total mission reliability for 24 hours was
0.99680996. Failure rate is 133.1306 FPMH.

Table 1. Analysis of MTBF and failure rate

Part number Description Qty F.r. X e-6 F.r. (k,qty) xe-6 Contrib. To NHA [%]
Xxxx DTRM RX PCB 1 87.1289 87.1289 65.4462
Xxxx DTRM TX PCB 1 46.001 46.001 34.5537

The Figure 3 shows failure rate of DTRM over the temperature and it can be seen from the above
bar chart as temperature increases failure rate of the DTRM increases, hence adequate cooling need to be
provided for these solid state devices to maintain better reliability and failure free performance. The Figure 4
shows failure rate of DTRM over the various types pf platform ranging from ground benign (controlled)
(GB), ground mobile (GM), ground fixed (GF), AIF aircraft to multiple platforms. The quality level is
accordingly varying as the platform complexity increases, as we can see from the above graph for ground
benign the failure rate is less as compared to AIF, and missile launch (ML), as the quality level is
dynamically varying based on the platform environmental conditions. Acronyms for different environment:
airborne inhabited cargo (AIC), airborne uninhabited cargo (AUC), airborne uninhabited fighter (AUF),
missile flight (MF), naval sheltered (NS), naval unsheltered (NU), and space flight (SF).

Figure 3. Failure rate vs temperature

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, July 2024: 450-457
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  455

Figure 4. Failure rate vs environment

MTBF can be described as the number of hours to pass before a failure for a component, assembly
or a system occurs. MTBF is inverse of failure rate whereas the MTBF increases reliability of the system
increases gradually. As graphed in Figure 3 as the temperature increases the failure rate of the system
increases and MTBF decreases. As there was a down, fall in MTBF reliability of the system increases.
Figure 5 shows the MTBF vs temperature.

Figure 5. MTBF vs temperature

MTBF may also varies due to the environment. We were aware that the MTBF. Based on different
types of environments MTBF varies accordingly. Among them AIF environment was chosen and the
occurred MTBF is 7,511.42 as shown in Figure 6.

Reliability analysis of GAN based transmit modules for active array antenna … (Sajidha Thabassum B.)
456  ISSN: 2089-4864

Figure 6. MTBF vs environment

4. CONCLUSION
In accordance with MIL-STD-217FN2, we investigated the failure rate and predicted the MTBF of
GAN-based TRMs operating at 55 °C. A look at the individual block failure rate, the MTBF, and the percent
contribution can provide insight into the failure rate of the DTRM over the course of time. However, because
the failure rate of the DTRM increases in tandem with the temperature, these solid-state devices need to be
cooled in the appropriate manner in order to maintain their dependability and prevent any issues from
occurring. At a temperature of 55 °C, the failure rate of the entire system is 26.7367 FPMH. This indicates
that the MTBF of the GAN-based TRM is 37,401.71 hours (1/λ).

REFERENCES
[1] T. Budny, “VTS Zatoka radar system reliability and availability analysis,” International Journal of Reliability, Quality and Safety
Engineering, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 537–545, 2007, doi: 10.1142/S0218539307002787.
[2] C. Zeng et al., “Reliability investigations of AlGaN/GaN HEMTs based on on-state electroluminescence characterization,” IEEE
Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 69–74, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TDMR.2014.2360891.
[3] T. Auld, M. P. McHenry, and J. Whale, “US military, airspace, and meteorological radar system impacts from utility class wind
turbines: implications for renewable energy targets and the wind industry,” Renewable Energy, vol. 55, pp. 24–30, 2013, doi:
10.1016/j.renene.2012.12.008.
[4] X. Xu, G. Liao, Z. Yang, and C. Wang, “Moving-in-pulse duration model-based target integration method for HSV-borne high-
resolution radar,” Digital Signal Processing: A Review Journal, vol. 68, pp. 31–43, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.dsp.2017.05.007.
[5] G. Y. Kulikov and M. V. Kulikova, “Accurate continuous–discrete unscented Kalman filtering for estimation of nonlinear
continuous-time stochastic models in radar tracking,” Signal Processing, vol. 139, pp. 25–35, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.sigpro.2017.04.002.
[6] M. He, Y. Nian, and Y. Gong, “Novel signal processing method for vital sign monitoring using FMCW radar,” Biomedical Signal
Processing and Control, vol. 33, pp. 335–345, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2016.12.008.
[7] H. Z. Feng, H. W. Liu, J. K. Yan, F. Z. Dai, and M. Fang, “A fast efficient power allocation algorithm for target localization in
cognitive distributed multiple radar systems,” Signal Processing, vol. 127, pp. 100–116, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.sigpro.2015.12.022.
[8] S. Meng, A. Xu, X. Zhao, C. Yang, and T. Li, “COST-based design PMA for certain navigation radar,” Procedia Engineering,
vol. 23, pp. 235–240, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2495.
[9] B. Yan, J. Qin, J. Dai, Q. Fan, and J. B. Bernstein, “Reliability simulation and circuit-failure analysis in analog and mixed-signal
applications,” IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 339–347, Sep. 2009, doi:
10.1109/TDMR.2009.2020740.
[10] Y. Z. Chiou, “Failure mechanisms of gan metalsemiconductormetal photodetectors after stressing,” IEEE Transactions on Device
and Materials Reliability, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 82–86, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1109/TDMR.2009.2034978.
[11] J. J. M. De Wit, A. Meta, and P. Hoogeboom, “Modified range-doppler processing for FM-CW synthetic aperture radar,” IEEE
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 83–87, Jan. 2006, doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2005.856700.
[12] H. P. Rao and G. Bosman, “Study of RF reliability of GaN HEMTs using low-frequency noise spectroscopy,” IEEE Transactions
on Device and Materials Reliability, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 31–36, Mar. 2012, doi: 10.1109/TDMR.2011.2173497.
[13] J. M. Muñoz-Ferreras and R. Gómez-García, “Beyond the stop-and-go assumption in pulse-doppler radar sensors,” IEEE Sensors

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 13, No. 2, July 2024: 450-457
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  457

Journal, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 3046–3051, Sep. 2014, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2014.2323422.
[14] S. Li et al., “Reliability concern of 650-V normally-OFF GaN devices under reverse freewheeling stress,” IEEE Transactions on
Electron Devices, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 3492–3495, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TED.2020.2999026.
[15] X. Fan, W. Guo, and J. Sun, “Reliability of high-voltage gan-based light-emitting diodes,” IEEE Transactions on Device and
Materials Reliability, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 402–408, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TDMR.2019.2917005.
[16] S. Levada, M. Meneghini, G. Meneghesso, and E. Zanoni, “Analysis of DC current accelerated life tests of GaN LEDs using a
weibull-based statistical model,” IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 688–693, Dec. 2005,
doi: 10.1109/TDMR.2005.860817.
[17] M. A. H. Khan, R. Debnath, A. Motayed, and M. V. Rao, “Accelerated stress tests and statistical reliability analysis of metal-
oxide/gan nanostructured sensor devices,” IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 742–747,
Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TDMR.2020.3028786.
[18] M. Meneghini, G. Meneghesso, and E. Zanoni, “Analysis of the reliability of AlGaN/GaN HEMTs submitted to on-state stress
based on electroluminescence investigation,” IEEE Transactions on Device and Materials Reliability, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 357–361,
Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1109/TDMR.2013.2257783.
[19] S. Joglekar, C. Lian, R. Baskaran, Y. Zhang, T. Palacios, and A. Hanson, “Finite element analysis of fabrication- and operation-
induced mechanical stress in AlGaN/GaN transistors,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 29, no. 4, pp.
349–354, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1109/TSM.2016.2600593.
[20] M. Ťapajna et al., “Non-arrhenius degradation of AlGaN/GaN HEMTs grown on bulk GaN substrates,” IEEE Electron Device
Letters, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1126–1128, Aug. 2012, doi: 10.1109/LED.2012.2199278.
[21] Y. Liu, Y. K. Deng, R. Wang, X. X. Jia, and X. D. Han, “Comparison and analysis of point target reference spectrum of FMCW
synthetic aperture imaging sensor,” Eurasip Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, vol. 2012, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Dec. 2012, doi:
10.1186/1687-6180-2012-210.
[22] H. S. Shin and J. T. Lim, “Omega-K algorithm for spaceborne spotlight SAR imaging,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 343–347, May 2012, doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2011.2168380.
[23] I. G. Cumming, Y. L. Neo, and F. H. Wong, “Interpretations of the omega-K algorithm and comparisons with other algorithms,”
in International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), IEEE, 2003, pp. 1455–1458. doi:
10.1109/igarss.2003.1294142.
[24] S. Chen, S. Zhang, H. Zhao, and Y. Chen, “A new chirp scaling algorithm for highly squinted missile-borne SAR based on FrFT,”
IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 3977–3987, Aug. 2015,
doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2014.2360192.
[25] R. Lorusso and G. Milillo, “Stop-and-go approximation effects on COSMO-SkyMed spotlight SAR data,” in International
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), IEEE, Jul. 2015, pp. 1797–1800. doi: 10.1109/IGARSS.2015.7326139.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Sajidha Thabassum B. received her B.E. degree in electronics engineering from

Vijayanagar College of Engineering (Gulbarga University) Bellary with a distinction and
M.Tech. from Visvesvaraya Technological University. Currently she is working as assistant
professor in Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, College, B’lore. Her main area of work
involves evaluation of radar systems and antenna design. She can be contacted at email:
[email protected] and [email protected].

Dr. Veena Kalludi Narasimhaiah received her Ph.D. degree in wireless sensor
networks which was awarded by Kuvempu University under the guidance of Dr. B.P. Vijaya
Kumar, Professor and Head, Department of Information Science and Engineering, MSRIT,
Bangalore. She is working as an associate professor in the School of Electronics and
Communication Engineering, REVA University. She has had around 50 international journals
which are indexed in Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science. She was qualified for
GATE All India level exam in 1999 and joined NITK Surathkal for M. Tech in Digital
Electronics and Advanced Communication Course. She has had many national and
international patents under his belt, out of which few patents are granted. She can be contacted
at email: [email protected].

Reliability analysis of GAN based transmit modules for active array antenna … (Sajidha Thabassum B.)