Enhanced performance of an aperture-coupled rectangular microstrip antenna on a simplified unipolar compact photonic band gap (UC-PBG) structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the concepts of photonic band gap (PBG) material and unipolar compact photonic band gap (UC-PBG) structure have been proposed by several researchers for improved performance of microstrip antennas and microwave circuits. When etched on high dielectric constant substrate materials they suppress surface waves. The photonic band gap (PBG) substrate normally has periodic air columns micro-machined in the substrate material. However, in the UC-PBG case, a periodic metallic pattern is etched on a grounded dielectric substrate. The metallic pattern consists of square pads separated by capacitive gaps and narrow lines connecting adjacent cells, thereby, creating strong LC coupling. The effect is manifested by a reduced guided wavelength of the propagating modes, and, therefore, reduced lattice period of the UC-PBG pattern. However, the unit cell for creating such a UC-PBG structure seems complex in design and uses more metal or copper area which may increase the cost of production. The authors propose a simpler UC-PBG unit cell design. Its effect on the impedance bandwidth, gain and cross-polarization level performance on an aperture-coupled rectangular microstrip antenna is discussed. The simulation results are reported.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".