Fig 1.
Equivalent circuit of different MS configurations.
(a) Symmetric unit-cell MS, (b) asymmetric unit-cell MS.
Fig 2.
Simulated modal significance of the utilized 2 × 2 unit cell MS with P = 27.5 mm, W0 = 27.3 mm, and h = 3.04 mm.
Fig 3.
Simulated surface current and far-field of (a) Mode 1, and (b) Mode 2.
Fig 4.
Geometry of the proposed compact MS-based CP antenna.
P = 27, W0 = 27.1, h1 = h2 = 1.52, l1 = 37, w1 = 5, l2 = 21, w2 = 5, G = 20 (unit: mm).
Fig 5.
Simulated performance of different antennas.
(a) |S11|, (b) AR, and (c) realized gain.
Fig 6.
Simulated current distributions at 2.45 GHz.
(a) MS, (b) CP source.
Fig 7.
Simulated (a) |S11| and (b) AR of the proposed antenna for different values of W0.
Fig 8.
Simulated (a) |S11| and (b) AR of the proposed antenna for different values of l1.
Fig 9.
Simulated (a) |S11| and (b) AR of the proposed antenna for different values of w2.
Fig 10.
Simulated (a) |S11| and (b) AR of the proposed antenna for different values of G.
Fig 11.
Simulated and measured |S11| of the proposed antenna.
Fig 12.
Simulated and measured AR and gain of the proposed antenna.
Fig 13.
Simulated and measured radiation patterns at 2.45 GHz of the proposed antenna.
Table 1.
Comparison among the compact CP antennas.