Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T14:52:21.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A novel isolation improvement technique using fractal neutralization line with dual band rejection attributes in a compact UWB MIMO antenna

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2022

Jeet Banerjee
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, School of Engineering and Technology, Adamas University, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Abhik Gorai*
Affiliation:
School of Electronics Engineering, KIIT Deemed University, Bhubaneswar, India
Rowdra Ghatak
Affiliation:
Microwave and Antenna Research Laboratory, ECE Department, National Institute of Technology Durgapur, Durgapur, West Bengal, India
*
Author for correspondence: Abhik Gorai, E-mail: abhik.gorai@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A closely confined coplanar waveguide (CPW) fed MIMO antenna sheltering the entire ultra-wideband (UWB) spectrum with high isolation as well as dual-band rejection attributes is presented and evaluated. The intended wideband multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) radiator embodies a pair of similar planar monopole elements (PME) together with the integration of the ingredients like a defected ground structure with Koch fractal boundaries, parasitic strips, cross-linked C-shaped parasitic resonators, and a Hilbert fractal neutralization line. The suggested UWB MIMO antenna houses an extensive bandwidth spanning between 2.64 and 12 GHz, sharply rejecting a pair of bands centered at 3.3 and 4.5 GHz. The wideband diversity antenna is realized in a closely packed measure of 26.50 mm (L) × 29.84 mm (W). A minute inter-element spacing of 0.51 mm is attained with the suggested layout. The numerical and experimental investigations of vital diversity parameters such as the envelope correlation coefficient, mean effective gain, total active reflection coefficient, as well as multiplexing efficiency depict high diversity performance. The consistency amidst the simulation as well as the empirical results recommends the worthiness of the intended antenna for handy UWB and UWB MIMO systems.

Information

Type
Antenna Design, Modelling and Measurements
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with the European Microwave Association
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The optimum layout of the UWB MIMO radiator (mm). SW = 29.84, SL = 26.5, D = 0.51, R1 = 8.5, R2 = 10.75, R3 = 2.5, R4 = 1, R5 = 0.41, PL = 10.88, PL1 = 4.92, PW1 = 0.275, PW2 = 0.125, PR1 = 0.5, PR2 = 6.65, G1 = 0.48, G2 = 5.71, G3 = 2.91, G4 = 1.01, G5 = 10, G6 = 1.4, G7 = 4.67, G8 = 0.3, GL = 14.5, GW1 = 15.6, GW2 = 4.05, FW = 2.8, FW1 = 0.3, C1 = 8, C2 = 3, C3 = 7.5, C4 = 2.61, C5 = 0.8, C6 = 2.30, C7 = 2.55, NW = 0.33, NWS = 0.7, NL1 = 6.57, NL2 = 1.27, NL3 = 1.5, NL4 = 0.15, NLS = 0.7, NG = 0.3, NG1 = 2.89, H1 = 3, H2 = 1.5.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Modifications of S-parameters and collation of isolation improvement among initial steps of radiator design (a) S11 characteristics (b) S12 characteristics.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Modifications in the resonance characteristics of the UWB MIMO antenna with steps of antenna evolution. (a) Construction of the MIMO configuration. (b) Comparison of S11 characteristics for final stages of antenna design. (c) Comparison of S12 characteristics for final stages of antenna design.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Design of NL and its effect on isolation characteristics of the antenna. (a) Sequential steps of evolution for the 2nd order HFNL. (b) Variation of isolation with increasing iterations of the HFNL.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Variation of (a) S11 characteristics with the position of the HFNL, (b) S12 with the position of the HFNL. (c) S11 characteristics with the width of the HFNL, (d) S12 characteristics with the width of HFNL.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Simulated surface current dispersal over the antenna at (a) 3.1 GHz (without isolation improvement structures). (b) 5.75 GHz (with engraved modified rectangular defect in the common ground plane). (c) 3.1 GHz (without the introduction of HFNL). (d) 3.1 GHz (with HFNL). (e) 9.5 GHz (bottom view, depicting the incorporation of Koch fractal boundaries and complementary Koch fractal boundary). (f) 4.5 GHz (bottom view depicting the cross linked C-shaped resonators).

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Simulated, measured, and equivalent circuit response for the S-parameters of the proposed UWB MIMO antenna (Enclosure: realized antenna prototype).

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Equivalent circuit model and the variation of input impedance for the suggested UWB diversity antenna. (a) Equivalent circuit model. (b) Variation of input impedance and reactance. C1 = C12 = 4 pF, C2 = C11 = 14 pF, C3 = C10 = 15 pF, C4 = C9 = 4.4 pF, C5 = C8 = 0.13 pF, C6 = 0.08 pF, C7 = 0.08 pF, L1 = L12 = 1 nH, L2 = L11 = 0.166 nH, L3 = L10 = 0.08 nH, L4 = L9 = 0.085 nH, L5 = L8 = 1.6 nH, L6 = L7 = 0.085 nH, R1 = R3 = R4 = R5 = R6 = R8 = 50 Ω, R2 = R7 = 350 Ω.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. Radiation patterns of the suggested UWB MIMO antenna (The orientation of the radiator is in y–z plane). (a) 3.1 GHz, (b) 5 GHz, and (c) 7 GHz.

Figure 9

Fig. 10. Simulated and measured realized gain as well as radiation efficiency of the suggested antenna.

Figure 10

Fig. 11. Measured ECC and DG of the recommended antenna.

Figure 11

Fig. 12. Multiplexing efficiency of the proposed antenna.

Figure 12

Fig. 13. Measured mean effective gain (MEG) of the intended antenna.

Figure 13

Fig. 14. TARC for the suggested radiator.

Figure 14

Fig. 15. Group delay variations of the intended radiator (inset: Obtained signal in face-face orientation).

Figure 15

Table 1. Comparison of the recommended UWB MIMO antenna with previously reported antennas