Design of a Dual-Polarization Dipole Antenna for a Cylindrical Phased Array in Ku-Band
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. In reviewer’s point of view, the below items are more crucial and need to be included.
- What is the research gap found by current research? For instance, what are the main challenges encountered by conformal phase array antenna?
- What is the motivation of proposed antenna? How can proposed design help to overcome the drawbacks of previous designs?
- What are the technical contributions and novelty of current works?
2. It is also not evident how the proposed design can be used to address the research gaps of current study. Significant improvements need to be made by authors to emphasize the significance of this paper. For example, how many percentages of bandwidth improvements are obtained by the proposed design?
3. Please include more current references (within last 5 years). The literature review presented in this paper are very limited. Table can be used to summarize published works in terms of the bandwidth, gain and any other useful information.
4. Main contributions in Lines 61-62 needs to be improved significantly. Some main innovation claimed such as the dual pairs of dipoles which has good isolation is not something new. Authors should provide further elaboration if some new concepts (e.g., modifications of dipole shapes) have been introduced.
5. Some of the explanation in methodology are missing, for example in Line 89, the author should further explain the usage of side bending and its effects.
6. Significant improvement is needed for the results and discussion. Some results reported such as those in Line 91-92, for example comparison between both designs (eg. bandwidth improvement in percentage) is not shown in the paragraph.
7. The results obtained from Figure 4(a) are not properly discussed, for example two same data (S12 measured) can be found in the same graph. I also have concern on the results presented in Figure 4 as some of the S-parameters are not appropriate.
8. Results presented in Figure 8 lacks of depth discussion. Some formatting issues found in Line 158.
9. Some grammatical errors can be found in the paper, for example: Line 158.
10. Quality of figures presented in this paper are quite poor and the fonts are too small to read. Please improve the quality of figures.
11. The overall linguistic quality of this paper needs further improvement.
12. Please include limitations and future works of current study.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- In reviewer’s point of view, the below items are more crucial and need to be included.
- What is the research gap found by current research? For instance, what are the main challenges encountered by conformal phase array antenna?
- What is the motivation of proposed antenna? How can proposed design help to overcome the drawbacks of previous designs?
- What are the technical contributions and novelty of current works?
Reply: We supplements some recent references. The existing problems is summarized. At the end of the article, the comparison of the proposed antenna with the research in recent years is carried out to highlight the contribution of this article.
- It is also not evident how the proposed design can be used to address the research gaps of current study. Significant improvements need to be made by authors to emphasize the significance of this paper. For example, how many percentages of bandwidth improvements are obtained by the proposed design?
Reply: We adds a comparison of our study with the research in recent years at the end of the article. In the conclusion of Figure 2, the comparisons of relative bandwidth and port isolation is added to show the performance of the proposed design.
- Please include more current references (within last 5 years). The literature review presented in this paper are very limited. Table can be used to summarize published works in terms of the bandwidth, gain and any other useful information.
Reply: More references are included in the article and a table (Table 3) comparing the proposed antenna with existing work is proposed.
- Main contributions in Lines 61-62 needs to be improved significantly. Some main innovation claimed such as the dual pairs of dipoles which has good isolation is not something new. Authors should provide further elaboration if some new concepts (e.g., modifications of dipole shapes) have been introduced.
Reply: The main contributions of the antenna design is described in line 75-78 in the article, which is written in red.
- Some of the explanation in methodology are missing, for example in Line 89, the author should further explain the usage of side bending and its effects.
Reply: The effects of side bending is further explained in line 104-105, 107-113, writing in red.
- Significant improvement is needed for the results and discussion. Some results reported such as those in Line 91-92, for example comparison between both designs (eg. bandwidth improvement in percentage) is not shown in the paragraph.
Reply: The comparison between the both designs is conducted in line 107-113, writing in red.
- The results obtained from Figure 4(a) are not properly discussed, for example two same data (S12 measured) can be found in the same graph. I also have concern on the results presented in Figure 4 as some of the S-parameters are not appropriate.
Reply: We are sorry that there was a mistake in the legend with “|S11| measured” written as “|S12| measured”. It is revised now.
- Results presented in Figure 8 lacks of depth discussion. Some formatting issues found in Line 158.
Reply: A table (Table 2) listing the gains at different scan angles is added in the article. And Figure 8 is further discussed in line 179-183 in the article, which is written in red.
- Some grammatical errors can be found in the paper, for example: Line 158.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. The paper is revised carefully.
- Quality of figures presented in this paper are quite poor and the fonts are too small to read. Please improve the quality of figures.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. The figures are enlarged and the qualities are improved.
- The overall linguistic quality of this paper needs further improvement.
Reply: The paper is revised again.
- Please include limitations and future works of current study.
Reply: At the end of the article, the limitations of this study are summarized and future research is prospected.
Thank you again for your helpful comments and suggestions!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting study on satellite communication systems/satellite antennas. The authors proposed, simulated, and experimentally validated a dual-polarization dipole antenna that is used for a cylindrical 60-phased array antenna in Ku-band. The authors demonstrated that this dual-polarization dipole antenna can be brought into play for wide-scan conformal arrays in radar systems. The study was good, the paper is well structured, and is suggested as suitable for publication.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an interesting study on satellite communication systems/satellite antennas. The authors proposed, simulated, and experimentally validated a dual-polarization dipole antenna that is used for a cylindrical 60-phased array antenna in Ku-band. The authors demonstrated that this dual-polarization dipole antenna can be brought into play for wide-scan conformal arrays in radar systems. The study was good, the paper is well structured, and is suggested as suitable for publication.
Reply: Thank you for very much your comments!
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors presented the Design of a Dual-Polarization Dipole Antenna for a Cylindrical Phased Array in Ku-band. I appreciate the work that the authors have done. However, this article missed some of the essential principles that need to be fixed, as follows:
Introduction:
-The introduction needs to be improved. A total of 9 references are not enough!!
The authors must summarise the techniques for dual polarization antennas [1-3]. Please see these articles, which may add value to the introduction.
[1] Broadband Circular Polarised Printed Antennas for Indoor Wireless Communication Systems: A Comprehensive Review. Micromachines 2022, 13, 1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13071048.
[2] Dual-Polarized Dipole Antenna for Wireless Data and Microwave Power Transfer. Electronics2022, 11, 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11050778.
[3] Design of a Tri-Band Wearable Antenna for Millimeter-Wave 5G Applications. Sensors 2022, 22, 8012. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22208012.
-In line 60, the authors mentioned that "In this letter". Electronics is a journal, not a letter!!!
-In Figure 2. Effect of side bending on antenna bandwidth. The authors should have labelled which curve is the reflection coefficient (S11) and which angle is for transmission coefficient (S21)?
-In Figure 4. Simulation and measurement results of the dipole antenna (a)|S11|, |S22| and |S12| 118
(b) co/cross-pol radiation patterns.
Where is the transmission coefficient (S21)?? The authors proposed all the S-parameters except the S21?!
-From the fabricated antenna in Figure 7. The prototype of the phased array. (a)Array photograph (b)the measurement scene. The antenna prototype does not look like a dipole antenna; it is array metamaterial?? Please check.
-Where is the radiation efficiency (RE) graph? Please propose the RE graph in %.
-Please propose a table and compare it with the existing works of literature!
-The Conclusions should be rewritten with the updated results above.
-That's all for me at this moment. However, the authors are required to revise the comments above carefully!
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors presented the Design of a Dual-Polarization Dipole Antenna for a Cylindrical Phased Array in Ku-band. I appreciate the work that the authors have done. However, this article missed some of the essential principles that need to be fixed, as follows:
- The introduction needs to be improved. A total of 9 references are not enough!!
The authors must summarise the techniques for dual polarization antennas [1-3]. Please see these articles, which may add value to the introduction.
[1] Broadband Circular Polarised Printed Antennas for Indoor Wireless Communication Systems: A Comprehensive Review. Micromachines 2022, 13, 1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13071048.
[2] Dual-Polarized Dipole Antenna for Wireless Data and Microwave Power Transfer. Electronics2022, 11, 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11050778.
[3] Design of a Tri-Band Wearable Antenna for Millimeter-Wave 5G Applications. Sensors 2022, 22, 8012. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22208012.
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. More references are summarized and added in the article, with some are written in green.
- In line 60, the authors mentioned that "In this letter". Electronics is a journal, not a letter!!!
Reply: We are very grateful that you point out our mistake. It is modified as “In this article” now in line 73 which is highlighted in yellow.
- In Figure 2. Effect of side bending on antenna bandwidth. The authors should have labelled which curve is the reflection coefficient (S11) and which angle is for transmission coefficient (S21)?
Reply: Figure 2 is modified. For clearness, S11 and S12 are shown in two figures, Figure 2(a) and Figure 2(b), respectively.
- In Figure 4. Simulation and measurement results of the dipole antenna (a)|S11|, |S22| and |S12| 118
(b) co/cross-pol radiation patterns.
Where is the transmission coefficient (S21)?? The authors proposed all the S-parameters except the S21?!
Reply: We are sorry that there was a mistake in the legend with “|S11| measured” written as “|S12| measured”. It is revised now. In Figure 4, The green line and the purple line are the simulated and measured |S12| respectively.
- From the fabricated antenna in Figure 7. The prototype of the phased array. (a)Array photograph (b)the measurement scene. The antenna prototype does not look like a dipole antenna; it is array metamaterial?? Please check.
Reply: Figure 7 shows the prototype of the dipole array. Because the dipole is butterfly-shaped, it may look like array metamaterial, but it is really an antenna array.
- Where is the radiation efficiency (RE) graph? Please propose the RE graph in %.
Reply: We are sorry that the radiation efficiency is not considered and mentioned in the article.
- Please propose a table and compare it with the existing works of literature!
Reply: Thank you for your suggestion. A table (Table 3) comparing the proposed antenna with existing work is proposed in the article.
- The Conclusions should be rewritten with the updated results above.
Reply: The conclusion is modified.
Thank you again for your helpful comments and suggestions!
Reviewer 4 Report
The article proposes a dual-polarized dipole antenna for cylindrical phased array applications. It is well-written and interesting to read. I have some comments as follows.
1. In Section 2, simulation and measurement results were shown with one-port fed. Since dual polarization and port isolation is mentioned, can you give some discussions or show some results on that?
2. Can you give details of your simulations? What simulation tool was used, how simulations were setup, etc.
3. Can you also give more details of your measurement? The photo is Section 3 is helpful, but it would also be great to give more info about measurement equipment, measurements setup, etc. A photo of a single antenna would also be helpful.
4. Figure 3 has two (a). There seems to be three curves in Figure 2, but only two annotations.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article proposes a dual-polarized dipole antenna for cylindrical phased array applications. It is well-written and interesting to read. I have some comments as follows.
- In Section 2, simulation and measurement results were shown with one-port fed. Since dual polarization and port isolation is mentioned, can you give some discussions or show some results on that?
Reply: In Section 2, the discussion of Figure 2 is added, and for clearness, S11 and S12 are shown in two figures, Figure 2(a) and Figure 2(b), respectively.
- Can you give details of your simulations? What simulation tool was used, how simulations were setup, etc.
Reply: The simulation was performed with Ansys HFSS 2019. This is described in line 105 and highlighted in blue.
- Can you also give more details of your measurement? The photo is Section 3 is helpful, but it would also be great to give more info about measurement equipment, measurements setup, etc. A photo of a single antenna would also be helpful.
Reply: The array is measured in a 6.4m×5m×3.2m microwave anechoic chamber. Its equipment and some measurement details are added in the article in line 171-175 and are highlighted in blue.
- Figure 3 has two (a). There seems to be three curves in Figure 2, but only two annotations.
Reply: Sorry, the two (a) in Figure 3 is a written mistake. It is corrected now. Figure 2 is also modified.
Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
For Item 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, the corrections have been made accordingly.
For Item 6, 7, 8, the authors do not have good fundamental knowledge to interpret the results correctly. There are many results are wrong interpreted and significant improvement are needed to rectify these issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have revised some of the comments. However, there is still room to be improved. For example:
- The introduction is still insufficient; a total of 18 references is still not enough; try to make the references up to 25 references. Please, explain and summarise the techniques for dual polarization antennas [1-3]. Please see these articles, which may add value to the introduction.
[1] Broadband Circular Polarised Printed Antennas for Indoor Wireless Communication Systems: A Comprehensive Review. Micromachines 2022, 13, 1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13071048.
[2] Dual-Polarized Dipole Antenna for Wireless Data and Microwave Power Transfer. Electronics, 2022, 11, 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11050778.
[3] Design of a Tri-Band Wearable Antenna for Millimeter-Wave 5G Applications. Sensors 2022, 22, 8012. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22208012.
-The authors did not incorporate the antenna efficiency graph, and in my opinion, it is essential. If the authors can not measure the antenna efficiency, please at least propose the simulation one.
-Please propose a graph showing the current antenna distribution to see the following current saturated on dipole array elements.
-In Table 3, please add another two columns for gain and radiation efficiency, respectively, and compare the existing works of literature!
That's all for me at this moment! The authors are required to revise the comments above carefully. Thanks
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have revised the given comments. However, there are still typos and spacing errors that need to be carefully checked.
Best regards,
