Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T14:27:31.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Further realization of a flexible metamaterial-based antenna on indium nickel oxide polymerized palm fiber substrates for RF energy harvesting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2020

Taha A. Elwi*
Affiliation:
Department of Communication Engineering, Al-Ma'moon University College, Baghdad, Iraq Electrical and Computer Engineering Campus, Long Island, NYiT University, USA
Ali M. Al-Saegh
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Engineering Techniques, Al-Ma'moon University College, Baghdad, Iraq
*
Author for correspondence: Taha A. Elwi, E-mail: taelwi82@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the design and fabrication of a low-profile Hilbert-shaped metamaterial (MTM) array-based antenna, forming a rectangular patch with partial ground plane backing; the rest is slotted with traces for RF energy harvesting. The antenna is mounted on a 28 mm × 32 mm indium nickel oxide polymerized palm fiber (INP) substrate and compared to the identical one based on FR4 substrate. The two prototypes are printed with silver nanoparticles. Numerical and experimental tests are applied to the antenna performance in terms of S11 and radiation patterns. The obtained antenna gain bandwidth product of the INP prototype is found to be significantly better than the FR4 prototype. The proposed INP antenna gain at 5.8 and 8 GHz frequencies is found to be about 4.56 and 7.38 dBi, respectively, while the FR4 antenna gain is found to be 4.56 and 6.85 dBi at 5.8 and 8 GHz, respectively. Finally, the resultant DC voltage and the efficiency of conversion from harvested RF energy are measured experimentally at 5.8 and 8 GHz for both proposed prototypes.

Information

Type
Metamaterials and Photonic Bandgap Structures
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and the European Microwave Association 2020
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Antenna geometry; (a) 3-D decomposed view, (b) MTM unit cell 3-D view, (c) MTM unit cell front view, and (d) antenna front view. All dimensions are in mm scale.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Numerical model of the proposed cases; (a) case 1, (b) case 2, and (c) case 3.

Figure 2

Table 1. Antenna geometrical details

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Antenna performance in terms of S11 spectra for all cases in (a) and 2-D radiation patterns at 5.8 GHz in (b) and at 8 GHz in (c).

Figure 4

Fig. 4. In (a) current distributions and (b) dispersion diagram.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. S11 spectra change with respect to G variation.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. S11 spectra change with respect to Sw change.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Fabricated prototypes; (a) and (b) for the FR4 substrate, while (d) and (e) for the INP substrate. The SEM images for the print out on the FR4 and INP substrates are shown in (c) and (f), respectively.

Figure 8

Fig. 8. Measured antenna performance in comparison to the simulated results; (a) S11 based on FR4 prototype, (b) S11 based on INP prototype, (c) radiation patterns at 5.8 GHz based on FR4 prototype, (d) radiation patterns at 5.8 GHz based on INP prototype, (e) radiation patterns at 8 GHz based on FR4 prototype, and (f) radiation patterns at 8 GHz based on INP prototype.

Figure 9

Fig. 9. Antenna performance with bending effects; (a) and (b) S11 spectra with FR4 and INP, respectively. (c) and (d) Radiation patterns at 5.8 and 8 GHz, respectively, with FR4. (e) and (f) Radiation patterns at 5.8 and 8 GHz, respectively, with INP.

Figure 10

Table 2. Antenna performance comparison between the proposed cases

Figure 11

Fig. 10. RF energy harvester circuit prototype.

Figure 12

Fig. 11. RF energy harvesting measurements: (a) output DC voltage at 5.8 GHz, (b) conversion efficiency at 5.8 GHz, (c) output DC voltage at 8 GHz, (b) conversion efficiency at 8 GHz.

Figure 13

Table 3. Comparison of the proposed antenna validation