A Compact Broadband Planar Inverted-F Antenna with Dual-Resonant Modes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper introduces and demonstrates a new patch antenna for 5G terminal application, which combines high compactness, broad operation bandwidth and “good” radiation pattern. The antenna relies on the combination of two resonant modes tailored by two slot pairs engraved in a rectangle metal patch. One slot pair broadens the operation bandwidth by spectrally tuning one resonance close to the other. The other slot pair induces a better impedance matching of the antenna to a coaxial cable. The manuscript is rather clear and the experimental demonstration is convincing. This study could be accepted for publication in Applied Science provided that the authors address the following comments.

Major comments

    - Throughout the manuscript, the authors often limit the analysis of their antenna to the use of vague terms as “good” or “improved”.  As an example, in Table 3 and related discussion, terms “good” and “deteriorated” are solely used to describe and compare antenna radiation patterns. The discussion of the impedance matching is also restricted to this wording. This rather basic terminology should be replaced by various discussions based on quantitative data.

-      -  Could Table 2 be turned into a multi-panel figure with only two columns? This way, the current maps would be broadened and thus more readable. The comments in the first column of table 2 could a priori be included in the various panels of the figure.

-      - In Table 2:

o   What does the color code chosen to display the current maps mean? Could a colormap and a short description be added?

o   How the radiation patterns are normalized? Is it possible with this normalization to quantitatively compare the radiation patterns from the left and right columns (in terms of radiation intensity)? The normalization process should be detailed to clarify the results.

-    - Description of Fig. 4. The values of antenna impedance at the two mode resonances the antenna should be given, both with slots1 (a) and slots 1 and 2 (b). These values should be compared to assess the performance of slot 2 regarding impedance matching. 

    - Section 3.1.2, second paragraph: the 2-3 first sentences of the paragraph are difficult to understand. Could the authors reformulate their ideas with a little more detail?

         - Last sentence of page 7: “the fabrication and experimental errors” should be shortly discussed. What is the fabrication accuracy? what could be the experimental errors?

Minor comments

-          The acronym SIW should be defined

-          The first sentence of the last paragraph of the introduction should be rephrased (“Since few…”)

-          Section 2 First sentence: “Figure 1…”: “demonstrate” should be turned into “shows”

-          Last sentence of page 2: “HFSS 18.9” should be defined. At least a reference should be added.

-          Fig. 8: a typo in the legend should be corrected: “frequency”

-          Paragraph after Fig. 8: term “measured and simulated results” should be rephrased.

-          Parameter “S11” should be defined.

-          Section 3.3:  Are both the slots 1 and 2 included in the parametric simulations?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your time and effort in providing valuable comments and suggestions. These comments and suggestions not only helped us with the improvement of the manuscript, but also suggested neat ideas for future studies.

The comments we received had been carefully studied and we have tried our best to revise our manuscript to address all the concerns being raised.

Attached is our response letter and revised manuscript. All changes are marked in red text. We hope our revised manuscript will meet the standard of Applied Sciences.

Best regards!

Yours sincerely,

Wenwen Yang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The analyzed work addresses the field of using a planar compact broadband antenna with double resonance modules for 5G applications. The strong point of the work is the presentation from an experimental point of view of how to make an improved antenna.

It is necessary to check the explanation of the abbreviations in the text in relation to the first position of their use, for example Line 40 (SIW).

It is necessary to check the positioning of Figures and Tables in the text as close as possible to their presentation position, for example Figure 3, but also others.

Figure 6 needs to be corrected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your time and effort in providing valuable comments and suggestions. These comments and suggestions not only helped us with the improvement of the manuscript, but also suggested neat ideas for future studies.

The comments we received had been carefully studied and we have tried our best to revise our manuscript to address all the concerns being raised.

Attached is our response letter and revised manuscript. All changes are marked in red text. We hope our revised manuscript will meet the standard of Applied Sciences.

Best regards!

Yours sincerely,

Wenwen Yang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.  Introduction content is very less. It shall be improved with more informative and illustrative content. It can be re framed including the objectives of the article. Article should be proofread by Native English speaker. 

2. Literature survey is not adequate. Moreover, literature cited in the paper are out of date. Many new papers on antenna design are not included.

3. It looks antenna centric study. The design of antenna along with is not performed in the article.

4. Add some lines with Pointing out the Conclusion Part and the future direction of research and development will be appreciated.

5. Add more graphs for VSWR, power consumption and Energy graphs. Compare it too with recent papers.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your time and effort in providing valuable comments and suggestions. These comments and suggestions not only helped us with the improvement of the manuscript, but also suggested neat ideas for future studies.

The comments we received had been carefully studied and we have tried our best to revise our manuscript to address all the concerns being raised.

Attached is our response letter and revised manuscript. All changes are marked in red text. We hope our revised manuscript will meet the standard of Applied Sciences.

Best regards!

Yours sincerely,

Wenwen Yang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments have been correctly addressed. This interesting study can be published in Appl. Sci.

Reviewer 3 Report

It shall be accepted.