A Compact Monopole Wideband Antenna Based on DGS
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors propose a monopole printed antenna based on DGS slots for general ultra-wideband applications. The antenna is modeled and optimized in numerical software, and fabricated, where good agreement is achieved between the simulation and measurement results.
The authors should correct the following:
- in the Section 2. the authors need to cite the sources of the given formulas in the initial design. Also, some of the parameters are explained twice (patch width…).
- in the Section 2.2. the authors need to explain how they got the dimensions of a patch and ground plane U- and G-shape, and semi-circular slot. In Section 2.4. they mention that HFSS was used, but it needs to be explained earlier in the text and with more details (about the methods, numerical and optimization process, segments,…)
- The caption for the Table at page 7 needs to be given properly. In that table, the parameter some parameters are very precise, in microns, like Ws (17.13 mm) and Lf1 (8.87 mm), so comment on the tolerance of these parameters in practice. Also, comment on which parameter had the biggest influence on S11 results.
-in the Section 2.5.i the conclusion for Lvs values in Figure 7 (a) is not correct 'Shorter lengths resulted in narrower bandwidth. ' Please comment.
- in Figure 9. b) it is necessary to explain is this maximum gain, at which angles, … also, how is antenna gain given in dB and not in dBi? Additionally, in Table 3. what is dB/dBi ? In the Conclusion also, what is 7.4 dB?
- in the whole paper there is no results about VSWR and yet the authors are giving the conclusions about it, Section 4, so it is better to talk in terms of S11 results, or give the graph for VSWR results.
- also, in Section 4. give the results for radiation pattern of the fabricated antenna, as it is usual for the chamber antenna measurements and for this kind of papers.
- it is necessary to give and comment the radiation efficiency of this antenna.
- in the Conclusion, why the authors say that this antenna can be used in satellite application, as it is usual to obtain the circular polarization? Comment on- what is polarization of this antenna?
-the authors should introduce each abbreviated phrase the first time that it is used in the text, and later use just the abbreviation.
- there are some typos in the text ('. antennas.', 'Figure.1', …)
Author Response
Response to reviwer-1:
Section 4
Q1. It is better to talk in terms of S11 results, or give the graph for VSWR results. Also give the results for radiation pattern of the fabricated antenna, as it is usual for the chamber antenna measurements and for this kind of papers.
Answer: The measured 2D radiation patterns of the antenna at 6 GHz, 7.5 GHz, 9.5 GHz, and 11 GHz reveal its radiation characteristics and performance. The wideband operation and ground plane slots significantly shape these patterns. At 6 GHz, the pattern features a broad main lobe, indicating effective energy distribution and good directivity with low sidelobes. At 7.5 GHz, the main lobe is prominent but slightly shifted, showing increased gain and improved radiation efficiency. At 9.5 GHz, the pattern is more defined with a narrower main lobe, suggesting enhanced directivity due to optimal slot operation. At 11 GHz, the well-focused main lobe indicates strong performance at the center frequency, with minimized sidelobes for excellent radiation efficiency. Over all, the analysis shows that the antenna performs well across the tested frequencies. The L-slot and circular slot enhance radiation characteristics, contributing to better directivity and gain, validating the design choices and ground plane modifications.
Q2. It is necessary to give and comment the radiation efficiency of this antenna.
Answer: Thank you for this suggestion, the radiation efficiency has now been added and it’s explanation is given in the paper.
Section 2.
Q3. The authors need to cite the sources of the given formulas in the initial design.
Also, some of the parameters are explained twice (patch width…).
Answer: Thank you for these observations, the formulae has now been cited, and all the repetitions are carefully revised.
Q4. The authors need to explain how they got the dimensions of a patch and ground plane of U- and G-shape, and semi-circular slot.
Answer: Thank you very much for the observation, the given formula to calculate patch width and length was not clear, but now its corrected but the dimension of U-shaped patch, L-slot and semi-circular slot of G-shaped patch are obtained by optimization of the structure, and this was explained in detail in section 2.2 of the manuscript.
Section 2.4
Q5. They mention that HFSS was used, but it needs to be explained earlier in the text and with more details (about the methods, numerical and optimization process, segments,)
Answer: High Frequency Simulation Software (HFSS) is a commercially available software for designing, optimization and analysis of various microwave devices. In our case it was used to carry out the initial design, and parametric optimization of the structure, to achieve an optimal design. Though, this was not extensively discussed in the manuscript, as it is not the main point of the article.
The caption for the Table at page 7
Q6. It needs to be given properly. In that table, the parameter, some parameters are very precise, in microns, like Ws (17.13 mm) and Lf1 (8.87 mm).
So, comment on the tolerance of these parameters in practice. Also, comment on which parameter had the biggest influence on S11 results.
Answer: Thank you for the insight for WVS =8.87mm, but not Lf1 is the width of the L-slot vertical and S=17.13 mm, not Ws is length of the L-slot horizontal. So, increasing the dimension of either WVS or S create an overlap and also decreasing these dimensions creates a gap. In both cases the antenna couldn’t have good parametric results. The ground plane width (28mm) is the sum of WVS, S and the unremoved at LS.
Section 2.5 (i)
Q7. The conclusion for Lvs values in Figure 7 (a) is not correct 'Shorter lengths resulted in narrower bandwidth. ' Please comment.?
Answer: Thank you so much for such observation. Regarding this part we do mean that the lower the length of Lvs, the shorter the bandwidth coverage of the antenna, and this resulted in generating a dual-band response as provided in Fig.7(a).
Figure 9 (b)
Q8. It is necessary to explain this maximum gain, at which angles??, … also, how is antenna gain given in dB and not in dBi? …………. the 2D-gain plot of 7.4db/dbi
In Table 3 and conclusion
Q9. what is dB/dBi? In the Conclusion also, what is 7.4 dB?
Answer: The maximum gain of the antenna was measured at 00 elevation, and the gain of the antenna is measured in dB, and the gain 7.4 dB is quoted as the peak gain of the antenna.
Q10. In the whole paper there is no results about VSWR and yet the authors are giving the conclusions about it:
Answer: Thank you for this observation, the VSWR plot is now added and explain in the paper.
In the Conclusion
Q11. Why the authors say that this antenna can be used in satellite application, as it is usual to obtain the circular polarization?
Answer: Thank you for this observation, the antenna could be used for satellite communication not satellite application, since the range of frequencies (4.08-18.92) GHz are potential frequencies used for satellite communications.
Comment on
Q12. what is polarization of this antenna?
Answer: Thank you, correction is taken and the polarization of this antenna linear but slightly shows Elliptical characteristics.
Q13. The authors should introduce each abbreviated phrase the first time that it is used in the text, and later use just the abbreviation. There are some typos in the text ('. antennas.', 'Figure.1', …)
Answer: Thank you for the insightful observation, we have carefully revised and corrected those mistakes.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, a small unipolar wideband antenna based on DGS is prepared by simulation and experiment. However, there are some problems:
- The corresponding author is wrong, please modify it.
- Figure 12, which is not described in the text, please add.
- The author should give the antenna preparation process.
- There is a big gap between the test results shown in Figure 13 and the simulation results. The author should find out the reason, and prepare the antenna again and test it.
Author Response
Response to reviwer-2
Q1. The corresponding author is wrong, please modify it.
Answer: Thank you so much for this observation, this has now been corrected.
Q2. Figure 12, which is not described in the text, please add.
Answer: Thank you so much for the observations, Figure 12 is described under Fabrication, measurement and comparison section.
Q3. The author should give the antenna preparation process.
Answer: Thank you for this wonderful question, although we might not want to discuss this in detail in the manuscript as it’s not the main contribution of the paper, but the antenna after it’s design using HFSS, the DXF file was exported and was arrange in AutoCAD for fabrication. The fabricated prototype was carefully soldered in the laboratory with an SMA connector that can be used to excited the antenna in order to obtain some measured results such as S-parameters and radiation characteristics properties. The general set-up for the anechoic chamber room was provided in Figure 14(b). With due respect this is in summary the antenna preparation process.
Q4. There is a big gap between the test results shown in Figure 13 and the simulation results. The author should find out the reason, and prepare the antenna again and test it.
Answer: Limitations in the fabricated antenna's bandwidth and S11 values are attributed to fabrication tolerances, discrepancies between actual and nominal dielectric constants, dielectric losses, environmental influences, impedance matching issues and the transition effects between the SMA connector and microstrip. Despite these differences, the overall consistency between simulated and measured results confirms the antenna's suitability for various wireless communication applications. Future designs should focus on minimizing these discrepancies through improved fabrication processes and material selection. The antenna measurement was conducted again and it was still within this limit.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper itself still needs to be revised and improved, and there is still a distance from publication：
1、Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the evolution process of the structure, but the structure evolution is not complete, and there are arrows in Figure 1 that should not appear. It is suggested that the list of specific parameters corresponding to the evolution process should be given in the paper to show the change process and facilitate other readers to repeat it.
2、In the process of structural design changes in this paper, the comparison of the direction diagram before and after the design at different frequencies, no matter the comparison analysis of the diagram or the table, the change of gain, the change of directivity and the change of beam width before and after the design, are not reflected。
3、The comparison of the literature listed in this paper is not representative, except for a few two journal articles, more are conferences, which is difficult to explain the advanced nature of the structure. Secondly, the structural size given in the list is suggested to be converted into wavelength under the unification. Then aperture efficiency and beamwidth are also suggested
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is suggested to find professional knowledge and improve the language expression from the perspective of English
Author Response
Response to reviwer-3
Q1. The paper itself still needs to be revised and improved, and there is still a distance from publication.
Answer: Thank you for this suggestion, the overall paper was carefully revised, and to the best of our knowledge it’s now up to the standard for publication.
Q2. Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the evolution process of the structure, but the structure evolution is not complete, and there are arrows in Figure 1 that should not appear. It is suggested that the list of specific parameters corresponding to the evolution process should be given in the paper to show the change process and facilitate other readers to repeat it.
Answer : Thank you for these observations, the arrows are added to indicate the evolution stages or transition from one design stage to another. Regarding the attributed parameters at each stage, this was discussed in section 2.3 of the manuscript.
Q3. In the process of structural design changes in this paper, the comparison of the direction diagram before and after the design at different frequencies, no matter the comparison analysis of the diagram or the table, the change of gain, the change of directivity and the change of beam width before and after the design, are not reflected.
Answer: Thank you for this observation, basically our target is to enhance band width and gain so that the variation of these parameters at different frequency or evolution stage explained more and we didn’t explain others because its not our focus area to improve.But, in respect of your request we have now added the parameters you mentioned in Table 1 in the manuscript.
Q4. The comparison of the literature listed in this paper is not representative, except for a few two journal articles, more are conferences, which is difficult to explain the advanced nature of the structure. Secondly, the structural size given in the list is suggested to be converted into wavelength under the unification. Then aperture efficiency and beam width are also suggested.
Answer: Thank you for this observation, we have now added some other journal papers in the comparison table which are [12], [20] and [23]. Regarding the electrical length the authors find it much suitable and easier to indicate the dimensions based on the original sizes given in the cited papers.
Q5. Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is suggested to find professional knowledge and improve the language expression from the perspective of English
Answer: Thank you for this suggestion, the paper was given to a native English speaker to help us correct and improve the general writing English .
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The design presented in this paper is based on widely used methods (DGS and monopole antennas) and does not introduce any noteworthy innovations. Although it presents a novel set of characteristics, it is not particularly innovative in comparison to other comparable works that have already been published in this field.
2. Although the paper emphasizes simulations and measurements, the theoretical framework and analysis are inadequately developed.
3. The fabrication process is mentioned briefly, but the details of the fabrication setup, material properties, and testing conditions are not described in enough detail.
4. The references are outdated. The latest one is scheduled for April 2024.
Author Response
Response to reviwer-4
Q1. The design presented in this paper is based on widely used methods (DGS and monopole antennas) and does not introduce any noteworthy innovations.
Answer: Thank you for your feedback. You are correct that our design incorporates widely used methods, such as DGS and monopole antennas. These methods have been extensively researched and have shown reliable performance across various applications, making them a logical choice for our work. However, our goal was not simply to reproduce existing designs but to explore how these methods can be enhanced and integrated for improved bandwidth, compactness, efficiency, and gain enhancement. In particular, we introduced a compact monopole wideband antenna based DGS which we believe addresses a gap in current designs by improving the bandwidth, gain and efficiency of the proposed design. While this may seem like a minor modification, it allows for practical deployment of such design in wireless applications, which we believe will contribute to more efficient and cost-effective solutions in the field.
Q2. Although it presents novel set of characteristics, it is not particularly innovative in comparison to other comparable works that have already been published in this field.
Answer: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. You raise an important point about the novelty of our work in comparison to other published studies in this field. We certainly acknowledge the significant contributions of prior research and appreciate the opportunity to further clarify the value of our own approach. While our design may not present a groundbreaking concept, we believe it offers a unique combination of characteristics and applications that distinguish it from existing solutions. For instance, our work focuses on compact DGS ultra-wideband for wireless usage which, while incremental, could provide significant improvements in terms of bandwidth, gain, efficiency, integration, and cost-effectiveness. We also believe that innovation in this field is often a process of gradual refinement and practical adaptation. Our work aims to address the requirement for bandwidth limitation, higher gain and operational efficiency in a way that has not been fully explored, and we hope it can contribute meaningfully to real-world applications. Again, thank you for your comments. We would be happy to discuss our work further and explore ways to enhance its novelty or broaden its scope, should there be additional suggestions or ideas.
Q3. Although the paper emphasizes simulations and measurements, the theoretical framework and analysis are inadequately developed.
Answer: "Thank you for your constructive feedback. We understand your concern about the theoretical framework and analysis, and we appreciate the point you've raised. The focus of our paper was to present a practical solution, and we prioritized simulations and measurements to validate the performance of the proposed design in real-world conditions. Given the nature of our work, we felt that demonstrating the practical applicability of our approach through empirical data was a crucial contribution. However, we agree that the theoretical aspect could be more thoroughly developed to provide a stronger foundation for the results. While we included some theoretical analysis to support our design, we acknowledge that a more comprehensive exploration of the underlying theory could add clarity and depth to our work. We plan to expand on the theoretical framework in future work, especially focusing on operation mechanism, and the design inception. We believe that the practical validation of the design is an important contribution to the field, and the simulations and measurements offer valuable insights that are often not captured in purely theoretical models. That said, we see the value in further strengthening the theoretical analysis, and we are open to suggestions on specific areas that should be developed further. We look forward to your continued feedback and suggestions on how we can improve the theoretical aspect of our work.
Q4. The fabrication process is mentioned briefly, but the details of the fabrication setup, material properties, and testing conditions are not described in enough detail.
Answer: Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your observation regarding the fabrication process. More detailed information about the fabrication setup, specific material properties, and the testing conditions are now added in the revised version.
Q5. The references are outdated. The latest one is scheduled for April 2024.
Answer: Thank you for your feedback, more references are now added in the manuscript.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have some comments
1) Citation of (1)-(7) should be given. Variables should be italicized.
2) Abbreviation repetition definition in line 172.
3) Fig.3d and 3e should be given in the same figure. Your Fig.3(d) is obtained by an unoptimized structure from my understanding. Therefore, this kind of comparison is unfair to prove your structure is better.
4) where is sub-Figure (a) in Fig.4.
5) what is different for these three structures in line 209? If there is no difference, only show it once.
6) When you have a large slot on the ground, your structure changes from patch-type antenna to monopole. The improvement of the impedance match is obvious. Could you give more evidence to indicate your novelty?
7) Could you give a simulation result for stage 2 in Fig.4 with a small Q defined in Fig.(c). I want to see the circle slot in Stage 3 as vital.
8) check lines 16, 225, and 313, 314. 318. 427.
9) No definition of coordinates to know the starts of phi and theta.
10) line 16, what do you mean by 2D Gain? and also line 424.
11) where is your measured radiation pattern? Please provide them.
12) The monopole antenna has an issue of surface current along the cable. Do you find this issue when you measured antennas? If you find it, how do you solve it? Do you just change the cable orientation, and location to find the best measured S11? Any choke coil? If a choke coil is used, please provide the S11 measurement setup.
13）why do you use cut defined by variable c?
I do not know there is a place called 'Houzhou' in China. line 7.
Author Response
Response of reviwer-5
Q1. Citation of (1)-(7) should be given. Variables should be italicized.
Answer: Thank you for this observation, the equation (1)-(7), has now been cited, and all the variables are italicized.
Q2. Abbreviation repetition definition in line 172.
Answer: Thank you for this observation, it has now been corrected .
Q3. Fig.3d and 3e should be given in the same figure. Your Fig.3(d) is obtained by an unoptimized structure from my understanding. Therefore, this kind of comparison is unfair to prove your structure is better.
Answer: G-shaped antenna with DGS without DGS is done in same figure
Q4. where is sub-Figure (a) in Fig.4.
Answer: Thank you for your feedback, the figure is given under section 2.3 of the manuscript.
Q5. what is different for these three structures in line 209? If there is no difference, only show it once.
Answer: Thank you for your feedback, the figures were now deleted as suggested.
Q6. When you have a large slot on the ground, your structure changes from patch-type antenna to monopole. The improvement of the impedance match is obvious. Could you give more evidence to indicate your novelty?
Answer: To support the novelty of our design and the transition from a patch-type antenna to a monopole structure due to the large slot on the ground, consider the following points:
Evidence of Novelty
- Slot Design Innovation: The specific design and dimensions of the L-slot and semi-circular slot are innovative approaches to modify the ground plane. By creating these slots, you effectively control the current distribution and radiation characteristics, leading to improved gain and efficiency.
- Enhanced Gain: The peak gain of around 7.4 dB is notably higher than typical patch antennas, which often achieve less gain due to their inherent design limitations. This improvement suggests that the monopole-like behavior due to the ground slots contributes to better radiation performance.
- Radiation Pattern Modification: The change in the radiation pattern from patch to monopole can be demonstrated through 2D and 3D gain plots. These plots can highlight how the slots affect the main lobe directionality and side lobe levels, further supporting your design's effectiveness.
- Comparative Analysis: Comparing our design with conventional patch antennas in terms of performance metrics (gain, bandwidth, and efficiency) will strengthen our argument. Highlighting the differences quantitatively showcases the advantages of our innovative approach. Over all, by emphasizing the significant improvements in impedance matching, dual-band operation, bandwidth, and gain, along with innovative slot designs, we can effectively demonstrate the novelty of our antenna design. These factors not only enhance the performance characteristics but also position our work within the context of advancements in antenna technology.
Q7. Could you give a simulation result for stage 2 in Fig.4 with a small Q defined in Fig.(c). I want to see the circle slot in Stage 3 as vital.
Answer: Here below is the simulation results of Evolution Stage-2:
Evolution-2 Simulation results
a/BW1 = (4.18-7.64) GHz=3.46GHz, S11= -19.37dB@5.25GHz, VSWR=1.24 @5.25GHz
b/ BW2 = (8.12-8.37) GHz=0.25GHz, S11= -30.25dB@6.77GHz, VSWR=1.06 @5.25GHz
c/ BW3 = (12.9-17.45) GHz=4.55GHz, S11= -12.73dB@13.57GHz, VSWR=1.6 @13.57GHz
d/BW4 = (18.77-19.86) GHz=1.09GHz, S11= -10.88dB@19.51GHz, VSWR=1.8 @19.51GHz
e/3D gain = 4.32dBi f/Directivity=4.22dBi g/ Realized gain=4.23dBi
Q8. check lines 16, 225, and 313, 314. 318. 427
Answer: Its checked & done
Q9. No definition of coordinates to know the starts of phi and theta.
Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. We have now added a clear definition of the coordinate system used, including the reference directions and ranges for the angular variables φ (phi) and θ (theta). Specifically, we define θ as the polar angle measured from the positive z-axis (0 ≤ θ ≤ π), and φ as the azimuthal angle measured in the x–y plane from the positive x-axis (0 ≤ φ < 2π). This clarification has been included in the revised manuscript on lines 383-387.
Q10. line 16, what do you mean by the peak 2D Gain? and also line 424.
Answer: Thank you for the observation, Here is the clarification of 2D gain plot and peak 2D gain plot of the antenna?
- 2D Gain Plot: Displays the gain of the antenna as a function of azimuth and elevation angles in a two-dimensional plane. Shows the entire radiation pattern, including all lobes and nulls. It illustrates how the antenna radiates in different directions. Gain values can vary across different angles, providing a comprehensive view of the antenna's performance.
- Peak 2D Gain Plot: Focuses specifically on the maximum gain achieved in the 2D gain plot, often isolating the main lobe. Highlights the highest gain point, which indicates the best direction for signal transmission or reception. It simplifies the overall radiation pattern to emphasize the most effective direction, which is particularly useful for applications requiring directional performance. Overall, the 2D gain plot provides a full view of the antenna's radiation characteristics, while the peak 2D gain plot zeroes in on the maximum gain, aiding in the evaluation of optimal performance in specific directions.
Q11. where is your measured radiation pattern? Please provide them.
Answer: Thank you for your feedback, the measured radiation patterns are now provided in the manuscript. The analysis and figures are given under section 4 and lines 478 - 481 of the edited manuscript.
Q12. The monopole antenna has an issue of surface current along the cable. Do you find this issue when you measured antennas? If you find it, how do you solve it? Do you just change the cable orientation, and location to find the best measured S11? Any choke coil? If a choke coil is used, please provide the S11 measurement setup.
Answer: Thank you for your insightful questions regarding the monopole antenna and the issue of surface current along the cable. In my measurements, I did observe some impact from surface currents. To mitigate this issue, I experimented with various cable orientations and placements, which helped in optimizing the S11 measurements. Additionally, I utilized a choke coil to further isolate the antenna from the cable's effects. The choke coil effectively minimized the surface currents. For the S11 measurement setup, I used a vector network analyzer (VNA) connected to the antenna through the choke coil, ensuring proper grounding and shielding to reduce any unwanted interference.
Q13. why do you use cut defined by variable c ?
Answer: Thank you for your feedback, this is just a parameter assignment, to indicated the cut-section.
- Thank you for your feedback: the name of a place Houzhou now correct as Huzhou.
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article presents a compact wideband monopole with DSG. Some comments are shown below.
- The G-shaped design was adopted and its s11 was shown in Fig. 2(d). Please give the working mechanism of the proposed antenna, such as the current path or the operating length of an operating frequency.
- The antenna with DGS shows a very wide bandwidth than it without DGS. Please give more and exact explanations for the antenna with DSG, not just describe it slightly in capacitance, inductance and resistance changes. For example, it can give an impedance plot and some explanations.
- The parametric analysis only shows the parameters of the L-slot and the semi-circular slot. Please give the some parametric analysis of the G-shaped antenna.
- The parametric analysis only shows the variations of the S11s, but it does not have many explanations. Please give more details explanations. Maybe, the authors can plot the impedance plots and give more explanations.
Author Response
Response to reviwer-6
Q1. The G-shaped design was adopted and its S11 was shown in Fig.2 (d).
Please give the working mechanism of the proposed antenna,
such as the current path or the operating length of an operating frequency?
Answer: Thank you for the feed back. The DGS based monopole patch antenna shows distinct characteristics due to the L-slot and semi-circular slot defects in the ground plane. Analyzing the surface current distribution at frequencies of 2.5 GHz, 7.5 GHz, 12.5 GHz, and 17.5 GHz offers insights into the antenna's performance.
- At low Frequency (2.5 GHz): The surface current is mainly concentrated at the edges of the patch, indicating strong coupling with the ground. The L-slot has minimal impact on current distribution, with most current remaining within the patch.
- Near middle Frequency (7.5 GHz): As frequency increases, the surface current patterns become more complex. The current spreads more uniformly across the patch while maintaining significant edge currents. The L-slot enhances impedance matching and bandwidth, while the semi-circular slot improves radiation characteristics.
- Near Center Frequency (12.5 GHz): At this frequency, the current distribution is well-balanced, with strong currents in the patch and around the slots. Ground plane defects enhance radiation efficiency, resulting in a low S11 parameter (-48.59 dB) and low VSWR (1.01). This reflects optimal antenna performance and effective energy radiation.
- At high Frequency (17.5 GHz): The current distribution indicates operation in a higher order mode, with currents concentrated towards the center of the patch. The slots enable a unique distribution that supports higher frequency operation, achieving a peak gain of about 7.4 dB. This shift in distribution affects radiation patterns and overall gain.
Over all, the surface current distribution analysis reveals key insights into the patch antenna's performance. The L-slot and semi-circular slot effectively optimize current flow, enhancing bandwidth and gain. As frequency increases, the current distribution becomes more complex, leading to improved radiation efficiency at the target frequency of 11.5 GHz. This analysis underscores the importance of ground plane modifications in achieving desired antenna characteristics.
Q2. The antenna with DGS shows a very wide bandwidth than it without DGS. Please give more and exact explanations for the antenna with DSG, So not just describe it slightly in capacitance, inductance and resistance changes. For example, it can give an impedance plot and some explanations.
Answer: Thank you for the feedback, the impedance plot and its corresponding explanation has now been added in the updated manuscript. The changes can be found in section 4 and lines 481 - 505.
Q3. The parametric analysis only shows the parameters of the L-slot and the semi-circular slot. Please give, some parametric analysis of the G-shaped antenna?
Answer: Thank you for this observation, this is analysis now been added to the edited manuscript which performs parametric analysis of G-shaped antenna in section 3.6.
Q4. The parametric analysis only shows the variations of the S11s, but it does not have many explanations. Please give more detail explanations. May be, the authors can plot the impedance plots and give more explanations.
Answer: Thank you for your feedback, this is analysis now been added to
the edited manuscript in section 3.6 and lines 401-432.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has responded well to the reviewers' comments and revised the manuscript. Agree to publish.
Author Response
Thank you for taking time to revise and suggest comments for our manuscript, it really helped us improved the overall paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has responded and revised in accordance with the previous opinions. There are no other opinions for now, and the revision requirements have been met.
Author Response
Thank you for taking time to revise and suggest comments for our manuscript, it really helped us improved the overall paper.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for your reply letter.
1) Please reply to the Q3 again. You have not replied to it completely.
2) Please add the simulation result in Q7 to the manuscript.
3) Q10 is not clearly replied. My suggestion is to avoid using 'peak 2D gain'. Peak 2D gain is not properly used. There is no definition of '2D gain'. Consider to use peak gain in E-plane or H-plane.
Author Response
Q1. Please reply to the Q3 again. You have not replied to it completely.
- Answer: Thank you for taking time to carefully revised our manuscript, the G-shaped ant with DGS without DGS has now been plotted in the same figure as can, can be found in the manuscript in Figure 3(d).
Q2. Could you give a simulation result for stage 2 in Fig.4 with a small Q defined in Fig.(c). I want to see the circle slot in Stage 3 as vital.
- Answer: Thank you for such observation, the simulation results of Evolution Stage-2, and the summary of the results for the three stages are provided in Table 1, and these changes can be found in the manuscript in Figure 5, and Table 1 respectively.
-
Q3. Q10 is not clearly replied. My suggestion is to avoid using 'peak 2D gain'. Peak 2D gain is not properly used. There is no definition of '2D gain'. Consider to use peak gain in E-plane or H-plane.
- Answer: Thank you for such wonderful observation we have carefully done the changes and can be found highlighted in the manuscript.
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no comments.
Author Response
Thank you for taking time to revise and suggest comments for our manuscript, it really helped us improved the overall paper.
