Mutual Coupling Effect on Ultrawideband Linear Antenna Array Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the mutual coupling effect between array elements of two- and four-element ultrawideband (UWB) linear arrays on their performances. For simplicity, it is assumed that both antenna arrays are fed by independent microstrip lines with the same power amplitudes and equal phases. From our study, array bandwidth improvement is achieved for both array types when the mutual coupling is strong enough or interelement spacing is small. The mutual coupling also enhances the array realized gain especially in the midfrequency band (5–8.5 GHz) while it deteriorates the gain outside that frequency range. Proper tuning for interelement spacing with enough mutual coupling enhances the array realized gain at most frequencies and makes it more stable across the desired frequency range. From the radiation pattern results, the grating lobes appear in UWB arrays when the element spacing is greater than two wavelengths at the upper edge frequency, 10.6 GHz, or half wavelength at the lower edge frequency 3.1 GHz. Two fabricated array prototypes with corporate feed are fabricated and tested to validate the theoretical analysis. The effect of using T -junction power divider is clear on the reflection coefficient |S11| . Both numerically simulated and experimental results successfully demonstrate our analysis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".