Performance comparison of 60 GHz printed patch antennas with different geometrical shapes using miniature hybrid microwave integrated circuits technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a comparative study of several printed antennas having different shapes of the patch (rectangular, square, triangular, trapezoidal, circular, elliptical, and annular ring), suitable for 60 GHz wireless applications. All these microstrip patch antennas have been designed and fabricated on a very thin ceramic substrate to enable a high level of integration with other integrated circuits including passive circuits (such as power dividers, hybrid couplers, and passive filters), and active circuits (such as low noise amplifier (LNA), radio frequency (RF) mixers, and frequency multipliers). In that event, all of those circuits will be incorporated on a single and very small planar substrate to reduce overall size, and to avoid lossy millimetre‐wave connectors. To analyse and compare the performances, advanced design system of Keysight Technologies was used for circuits design and simulation. This comparison is based on the obtained results particularly in radiation characteristics and inputs return loss, by determining the main associated parameters such as the bandwidth, voltage standing wave ratio, gain, directivity, efficiency, and cross‐polarisation level. This comparative study would be very helpful for RF design engineers to select suitable antenna geometry while designing microstrip patch antenna arrays at 60 GHz millimetre‐wave band.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".