Fig 1.
Generic model of medical care using wearable electronics [3].
Fig 2.
Topology of the proposed antenna (a) front view (b) back view.
Fig 3.
Evolution process of the proposed antenna (a) design steps (b) corresponding reflection coefficients attained at various steps.
Table 1.
Summary of the optimized dimensions (mm) of the proposed design.
Fig 4.
Surface currents density attained in the final step at (a) 2.45 GHz (b) 5.80 GHz.
Fig 5.
Layout of the proposed AMC unit cell with optimized dimensions (a) front side (b) back side.
Fig 6.
Simulation setup for in-phase characterization of the proposed unit cell.
Fig 7.
Simulated reflection phase of the unit cell displays a 0 degree phase at desired frequencies.
Fig 8.
Surface currents density of the proposed AMC unit cell at (a) 2.45 GHz (b) 5.80 GHz.
Fig 9.
Fabricated prototype (b) setup for reflection coefficient measurement.
Fig 10.
Reflection coefficient comparison of the proposed antenna in off-body flat state.
Fig 11.
Far-field gain comparison of the proposed antenna in (a) E-plane (b) H-plane.
Fig 12.
Simulated three dimensional (3D) gain pattern at (a) 2.45 GHz (b) 5.80 GHz.
Table 2.
Summary of the performance comparison of the proposed antenna in off body flat state.
Fig 13.
Layout of the bent antenna at various angles in both principal planes.
Fig 14.
Off-body reflection coefficients comparison under flat and bent states in (a) E-Plane (b) H-Plane.
Table 3.
Performance summary of the proposed antenna under various bending angles.
Fig 15.
Geometry of the 2×2 AMC-integrated design; (a) and (b) CST model; (c) photograph of the fabricated prototype; (d) measurement scenario of the AMC integrated antenna.
Fig 16.
Simulated reflection coefficient obtained from parametric study with respect to x from the AMC array.
Table 4.
Parametic analyis with respect to ‘x’ between the AMC arry and the antenna.
Fig 17.
Reflection coefficient comparison of the proposed AMC integrated antenna at x = 0.07λo.
Fig 18.
Far-field gain measurement setup.
Fig 19.
Far-field gain comparison of the AMC integrated antenna in (a) E-plane (b) H-plane.
Fig 20.
3D gain pattern of the proposed AMC integrated antenna at (a) 2.45 GHz and (b) 5.80 GHz.
Table 5.
Performance summary of the proposed antenna with and without AMC integration.
Table 6.
Fig 21.
Antenna without integrated AMC mounted on a three-layer human body tissue: (a) simulation model, (b) testing scenario.
Fig 22.
On-body reflection coefficients comparison without AMC at x = 0.07λo.
Fig 23.
On-and off-body gain comparison of the proposed antenna in E-plane at (a) 2.45 GHz (b) 5.80 GHz.
Table 7.
On-body performance summary of the proposed antenna.
Fig 24.
On-body analysis of the proposed AMC-integrated antenna placed on a human body phantom (chest): (a) CST model, (b) testing scenario of the proposed design mounted on the volunteer’s chest.
Fig 25.
On-body reflection coefficient comparison of the proposed antenna without and with AMC integration at x = 0.07λo.
Fig 26.
On- and off-body gain comparison with and without AMC integration in the E-plane at (a) 2.45 GHz and (b) 5.80 GHz.
Fig 27.
On-body 3D gain pattern of the proposed integrated design at (a) 2.45 GHz and (b) 5.80 GHz.
Fig 28.
SAR distribution of the proposed antenna considering 1g of tissue mass: (a) without AMC integration, (b) with AMC integration (note the different scales).
Table 8.
Comparative study of the proposed integrated antenna with the existing literature.