Modeling and validation of a new reconfigurable patch antenna through equivalent lumped circuit‐based design for minimum tuning effort

Abstract

This study presents a modeling of a new reconfigurable patch antenna with equivalent lumped circuit. Instead of intuitive approaches, including structural changes used in the literature, the proposed reconfigurable antenna design is based on minimum tuning effort using only capacitance adjustments. The proposed design resolves impedance mismatch problem, which occurs due to the nature of using several frequencies by only capacitance adjustments rather than physical structure adjustments. Reconfigurable patch antenna for 2.45 GHz (Wi‐Fi), 3.6 GHz (Wi‐max and 5G), 5.4 GHz (WLAN and 5G) was considered for novel design strategy. A complete equivalent circuit model is configured and validated through AWR software. Full wave analysis of the proposed antenna is performed using CST software. A prototype of the proposed antenna is also fabricated on a FR4 substrate with the dimensions of 48.19 x 38.36 x 1.53 mm3 and measured to validate the full wave analysis and circuit theory solution results. It is shown that the equivalent circuit model, full wave analysis, and measurement results are in good agreement.

Remote‐controlled reconfigurable hexa‐band antenna for radio frequency energy harvesting systems

“…The proposed antenna and antenna in Shah et al 1 ) is greater than the maximum impedance bandwidth of the antennas (3.5%), 2 (9.1%), 11 and (14.4%) 22 whereas lesser than the antennas (41.5%), 1 (70.6%), 20 and (54.8%). 21 But it is observed that the antennas having larger bandwidth at higher frequencies 4.8 and 5.4 GHz reported in Shah et al 1 and Koc Polat et al, 20 respectively, whereas the proposed antenna achieved large bandwidth at low frequency 3.3 GHz. However, antenna in Chaurasia et al 21 has a larger bandwidth at low frequency (3.1 GHz) with penalty of large antenna size (713 mm 2 ).…”

“…A maximum gain of 3.2, 2.8, 2.6, 3.3, 2.8, and 2.3 dBi at 2.1, 2.8, 3, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 GHz is observed, respectively. The peak gain of the proposed antenna has a maximum peak gain of 3.2 dBi at lower frequency (2.1 GHz) as compared to gain of the antennas (1.8 dBi), 1 (3 dBi), 2 (1.76 dBi), 20 and (2.45 dBi) 22 reported in Table 2. However, antenna in Chaurasia et al 21 7A-F, it has been observed that the cross-polarization level is significantly smaller as compared to co-polarization level as predicted.…”

“…A comparative study in terms of year of publication, substrate, number of PIN diodes used/resonating band, resonating frequency, impedance bandwidth, and peak gain of the proposed antenna and reported antennas 1,2,11,[20][21][22] is presented in Table 2. The proposed antenna and antenna in Shah et al 1 ) is greater than the maximum impedance bandwidth of the antennas (3.5%), 2 (9.1%), 11 and (14.4%) 22 whereas lesser than the antennas (41.5%), 1 (70.6%), 20 and (54.8%).…”

“…A comparative study in terms of year of publication, substrate, number of PIN diodes used/resonating band, resonating frequency, impedance bandwidth, and peak gain of the proposed antenna and reported antennas 1,2,11,[20][21][22] is presented in Table 2. The proposed antenna and antenna in Shah et al 1 ) is greater than the maximum impedance bandwidth of the antennas (3.5%), 2 (9.1%), 11 and (14.4%) 22 whereas lesser than the antennas (41.5%), 1 (70.6%), 20 and (54.8%). 21 But it is observed that the antennas having larger bandwidth at higher frequencies 4.8 and 5.4 GHz reported in Shah et al 1 and Koc Polat et al, 20 respectively, whereas the proposed antenna achieved large bandwidth at low frequency 3.3 GHz.…”

“…Further, a comparative overview in terms of substrate, number of PIN diodes used/resonating band, resonating frequency, impedance bandwidth, and peak gain of the proposed antenna and recently published antennas 1,2,11,[20][21][22] is presented in Table 2 and discussed in Section 4. The overall size (496 mm 2 ) of the proposed antenna is smaller as compared to size of the antennas in Shah et al (528 mm 2 ), 1 Selvam et al (2500 mm 2 ), 2 Zhu et al (1848 mm 2 ), 11 Koc Polat et al (1850.88 mm 2 ), 20 Iqbal et al (713 mm 2 ), 21 and Idris et al (7744 mm 2 ) 22 reported in Table 2. The proposed antenna is novel in terms of compact size (496 mm 2 ), six bands of reconfigurability, improved harvesting voltage (3.9 V), and enhanced antenna performance.…”