Low Profile Sinuous Slot Antenna for UWB Sensor Networks
, Mária Gamcová 1, Iveta Gladišová 1, Pavol Kurdel 2, Alexey Nekrasov 3,4,5,* and Colin Fidge 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for working on UWB antenna design.... Low profile sinuos antenna is designed for UWB sensor networks.... The manuscript is interesting in terms of designs, which needs further modifications as well.... Before the manuscript goes for publication, some imp. points need to be revised according to the comments as given:
(1) Please update the literature which is very poor...There has been a lot of latest papers on UWB antennas based on different techniques and different topologies. Please introduce it and update in the introduction accordingly: (a) Resonator Based Switching Technique between Ultra Wide Band (UWB) and Single/Dual Continuously Tunable-Notch Behaviors in UWB Radar for Wireless Vital Signs Monitoring. (b) Bandwidth Enhancement and Frequency Scanning Array Antenna Using Novel UWB Filter Integration Technique for OFDM UWB Radar Applications in Wireless Vital Signs Monitoring (c) A New Compact Planar Antenna for Switching between UWB, Narrow Band and UWB with Tunable-notch Behaviors for UWB and WLAN Applications (d) A Compact Multiple Notched Ultra-Wide Band Antenna with an Analysis of the CSRR-TO-CSRR Coupling for Portable UWB Applications (e) Compact UWB bandnotch antenna with transmission-line-fed
(2) Compare your design in terms of design guidelines, operating band, antenna gain, efficiency, etc and show superiority of your work in the remarks column. This will be very helpful for reader to understand the novelty. (show efficiency and gain plot as well)
(3) Please provide references for the equations like eq (1) and (2) which is taken from basic books of antennas (Balanis and stutzman, anyone is fine).
(4) Make the traces of all figures plot colored.... (Fig 5 and 6 etc)
(5) Time domain analysis of UWB antenna is very important. But if authors think that it is not possible at a time, they may utilize it in their future work.....
(6) Please also provide parametric analysis by analyzing different parameters of the antenna.... this will be helpful to see the variations on response of different parameters....
(7) Developing the equivalent circuit in ADS or AWR will be very useful....If authors can provide, it will be interesting and helpful....
(8) Please provide the specs of the anechoic chamber with snapshots.....
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your high appreciation of our paper, for its reviewing, and for your comments and suggestions. We hope that we have understood your comments and suggestions well. In accordance with your comments and suggestions, we have prepared our response and made some corrections as required within the allotted time of 10 days.
Reviewer 1:
(1) Please update the literature which is very poor...There has been a lot of latest papers on UWB antennas based on different techniques and different topologies. Please introduce it and update in the introduction accordingly: (a) Resonator Based Switching Technique between Ultra Wide Band (UWB) and Single/Dual Continuously Tunable-Notch Behaviors in UWB Radar for Wireless Vital Signs Monitoring. (b) Bandwidth Enhancement and Frequency Scanning Array Antenna Using Novel UWB Filter Integration Technique for OFDM UWB Radar Applications in Wireless Vital Signs Monitoring (c) A New Compact Planar Antenna for Switching between UWB, Narrow Band and UWB with Tunable-notch Behaviors for UWB and WLAN Applications (d) A Compact Multiple Notched Ultra-Wide Band Antenna with an Analysis of the CSRR-TO-CSRR Coupling for Portable UWB Applications (e) Compact UWB bandnotch antenna with transmission-line-fed
Response to Reviewer 1:
We agree with the reviewer that, space permitting, several more relevant references can be added to the paper. Accordingly we have added References 13 to 18 and have cited them in the Introduction in a new paragraph:
‘A number of recent publications describe similar UWB antennas [14–19], but these solutions do not work at such low frequencies and do not achieve such a large relative bandwidth and compact dimensions as our solution presented below.’
Reviewer 1:
(2) Compare your design in terms of design guidelines, operating band, antenna gain, efficiency, etc and show superiority of your work in the remarks column. This will be very helpful for reader to understand the novelty. (show efficiency and gain plot as well)
Response to Reviewer 1:
The new paragraph in the Introduction (Lines 55-57) emphasises the novelty of our results:
‘A number of recent publications describe similar UWB antennas [14–19], but these solutions do not work at such low frequencies and do not achieve such a large relative bandwidth and compact dimensions as our solution presented below.’
Also, gain results are now given in the Discussion and Conclusions section (Lines 219-220).
Reviewer 1:
(3) Please provide references for the equations like eq (1) and (2) which is taken from basic books of antennas (Balanis and stutzman, anyone is fine).
Response to Reviewer 1:
These formulas are from ‘DuHamel, R. H. Dual polarized sinuous antennas. U.S. Patent 4 658 262, April 1987’ which was already listed in the paper’s Reference section. However, we agree with the reviewer that clearer acknowledgements to this work should have been included and have now added citations to it (Reference 12) where the relevant equations are introduced.
The other references recommended by the reviewer are now also included as:
Balanis, C.A. Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design; 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, USA, 2016; p. 1095, ISBN 978-1-118-64206-1.
Stutzman, W.L.; Thiele, G.A. Antenna Theory and Design; 3th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, USA, 2013; p. 823, ISBN 978-0-470-57664-9.
Reviewer 1:
(4) Make the traces of all figures plot colored.... (Fig 5 and 6 etc)
Response to Reviewer 1:
Yes, we agree with the review that this will improve the legibility of the figures and this has been done.
Reviewer 1:
(5) Time domain analysis of UWB antenna is very important. But if authors think that it is not possible at a time, they may utilize it in their future work.....
Response to Reviewer 1:
Figure 11 and the following paragraph have been added to the end of Results section:
‘In our experiments, we measured the impulse response for our antennas and compared it to available commercial antennas. The commercial antennas were QRH400 (Quad Ridged Horn Antenna) for the 0.4–6 GHz frequency band and the DRH10 (Double Ridged Waveguide Horn Antenna) for the 0.74–10.5 GHz band supplied by RFspin. Figure 11 shows the measured results for the CPWG antenna. The measurements were performed using an 8-Channel Digital Sampling Converter SD-10806 in the 0.1–6 GHz frequency range supplied by Geozondas Ltd.’
Reviewer 1:
(6) Please also provide parametric analysis by analyzing different parameters of the antenna.... this will be helpful to see the variations on response of different parameters....
Response to Reviewer 1:
The following text and Figure 5 have been added in the first paragraph of the Results section:
‘During the simulations, many combinations of parameters (described above) were tuned, leading to a great deal of data. Of these, the most favorable ones were chosen in terms of the bandwidth and minimum frequency at which achieves a satisfactory parameter value s11. Figure 5 illustrates the effect of the values of the parameters a and d as an example.’
Reviewer 1:
(7) Developing the equivalent circuit in ADS or AWR will be very useful....If authors can provide, it will be interesting and helpful....
Response to Reviewer 1:
Unfortunately, ADS and AWR software are not available for us, and so we cannot use them. Thus, we have been unable to include this addition to the article.
Reviewer 1:
(8) Please provide the specs of the anechoic chamber with snapshots.....
Response to Reviewer 1:
The specification has been provided by adding the following text in Line 161:
‘…(with dimensions 5.3 m x 3.8 m x 3.1 m including the RF absorber cones and shielding walls)…’
Reviewer 2 Report
In this work, the low profile sinuous slot antenna has been proposed. The Authors have discussed the design of a low profile sinuous slot antenna with sinusoidal curved shaped CPWG feeding for UWB applications. I have the following comments to the manuscript:
In line [76], τp is defined as cell growth; while later in line [86] τP (with uppercased P) is used. Then again in line [96] τp (with lowercased p) and defined τ as the cell growth index. Use of similar symbols has made the explanation bit confusing.
In line [89-90] how two arms are related to linear polarization? Can you please explain it further with references?
In line [99-100] the author have said, “The main idea of modifying the antenna by forming ripples on its cells is to increase the antenna’s bandwidth towards lower frequencies while maintaining the same outer dimensions”. But, author are mainly focused at experiment made on CPW and CPWG mode of ripple antenna excitation and have only evaluated and compared those measurement results. Authors are required to clarify the statement by either experiments or references.
Is Impulse UWB radar a commercially available radar?
The effect of adding ripples in some cells and removing the ripples during manufacture should be explained.
Line [202]. Is measured characteristics and experiment are from reference [15]? The reference is confusing.
The authors should write more antenna applications in the field of UWB sensors networks as described in title of this paper.
I recommend improving the second part of the paper to achieve a good quality paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your high appreciation of our paper, for its reviewing, and for your comments and suggestions. We hope that we have understood your comments and suggestions well. In accordance with your comments and suggestions, we have prepared our response and made some corrections needed within the allotted time of 10 days.
Reviewer 2:
In line [76], τp is defined as cell growth; while later in line [86] τP (with uppercased P) is used. Then again in line [96] τp (with lowercased p) and defined τ as the cell growth index. Use of similar symbols has made the explanation bit confusing.
Response to Reviewer 2:
The usage of symbols is correct, so no change has been made.
Reviewer 2:
In line [89-90] how two arms are related to linear polarization? Can you please explain it further with references?
Response to Reviewer 2:
We have used the claim 32 from Raymond H. DuHamel’s Patent US4658262A which is available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4658262A/en. The paper now includes the statement:
‘When N is greater than 2, the sinuous antenna is able to provide two patterns with orthogonal linear polarizations.’
Reviewer 2:
In line [99-100] the author have said, “The main idea of modifying the antenna by forming ripples on its cells is to increase the antenna’s bandwidth towards lower frequencies while maintaining the same outer dimensions”. But, author are mainly focused at experiment made on CPW and CPWG mode of ripple antenna excitation and have only evaluated and compared those measurement results. Authors are required to clarify the statement by either experiments or references.
Response to Reviewer 2:
We have provided a new reference [26] Kramer B. A.: Size Reduction of an UWB Low-Profile Spiral Antenna, Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2007, p. 112 -115. (See Line 109).
(We could provide another reference too, if it is needed.)
Reviewer 2:
Is Impulse UWB radar a commercially available radar?
Response to Reviewer 2:
Yes, from Geozondas Ltd, and this is now made explicit in the paper (line 207).
Reviewer 2:
The effect of adding ripples in some cells and removing the ripples during manufacture should be explained.
Response to Reviewer 2:
This has been done in lines 203-206.
Reviewer 2:
Line [202]. Is measured characteristics and experiment are from reference [15]? The reference is confusing.
Response to Reviewer 2:
The confusing reference has been deleted.
Reviewer 2:
The authors should write more antenna applications in the field of UWB sensors networks as described in title of this paper.
Response to Reviewer 2:
The following text has been added to the first paragraph of the Introduction section:
‘Currently, UWB technology is also widely used in sensor networks, providing high robustness to interference as well as low complexity of transmitters and receivers while decreasing energy consumption. The IEEE 802.15.4a standard defines UWB-based sensor networks with a high degree of flexibility, including modulation, coding, and multiple access schemes.’
Reviewer 2:
I recommend improving the second part of the paper to achieve a good quality paper.
Response to Reviewer 2:
This has been done with the inclusion of the new references.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for revising the manuscript....
Authors have carefully responded my comments and introduced within the manuscript....
I appreciate their efforts as they have improved the manuscript within a short time and provided further experiments as recommended....
All my concerns are met and i will recommend the manuscript in current form.....
Reviewer 2 Report
The author answer to all my comments and have improved the paper in the last version of the manuscript .It can be accepted in present form.
