Reconfigurable Compact Spider Microstrip Antenna with New Defected Ground Structure

Abstract

Two novel Defected Ground Structures (DGS) were first proposed, which have better results than that of the dumbbell (published shape). Using the general model of DGS, its equivalent parameters were extracted. The two new proposed shapes of DGS were then used to design a novel compact spider microstrip antenna to minimize its area. The size of the developed antenna was reduced to about 90.5% of that of the conventional one. This antenna with two different novel shapes of DGS was designed and simulated by using the ready-made software package Zeland-IE3D. Finally, it was fabricated by using thin film and photolithographic technique and measured by using vector network analyzer. Good agreements were found between the simulated and measured results.

Multiband antenna structure for heterogeneous wireless communication systems using DGS technique

“…In [9], the wideband slotted planar antenna occupies a large volume of 50.95 × 59.00 × 1.575 mm 3 as compared with proposed antenna design. The second advantage of the proposed antenna has large impedance bandwidth as compared with antennas reported in [4, 10–14].…”

“…requiring different frequency bands of operation [3–4]. The WLAN and WiMAX applications, covering the bands of 2.4/5.2/5.8 and 2.3/2.5/3.5/5.5 GHz, have stimulated much interest in the research of antennas with multiple bands or broadband [1–14]. For these modern communication systems, antenna with reduced size, wide bandwidth, and multiband operation are becoming important design considerations for practical applications.…”

“…In this DGS technique, the ground plane metal of a microstrip (or stripline or coplanar waveguide (CPW)) circuit is intentionally modified to enhance the performance of antenna [13]. The advantage of the proposed antenna has a more compact size as compared with the antennas reported in [9, 12–14]. In [9], the wideband slotted planar antenna occupies a large volume of 50.95 × 59.00 × 1.575 mm 3 as compared with proposed antenna design.…”