MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414110459 · doi:10.1109/ojap.2025.3608115

Uniformly 3-D-Printed Low-Cost Hedgehog Spherical Lens Antenna

2025· article· en· W4414110459 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Omid Bagheri, Erik Yann Harmgarth, Omar M. Ramahi, Yahia M. M. Antar, George Shaker

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Journal of Antennas and Propagation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAntenna Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermittivityConical surfaceBandwidth (computing)DielectricImpedance matchingHorn antennaLens (geology)Electrical impedanceBroadband

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a design strategy for a low-profile, low-cost, uniformly 3D-printed dielectric spherical lens antenna, tailored for high-gain communication applications. The proposed approach employs a cost-effective and modified fabrication process inspired by the Hedgehog form to simplify the traditional gradient-index (GRIN) permittivity distribution. This simplification is achieved through a spherical array of tapered dielectric rods with constant relative permittivity exposed to air, utilizing the concept of effective permittivity equivalence over conventional GRIN techniques. The incorporation of traveling-wave dielectric conical rods facilitates broadband operation by accommodating a wide range of phase velocities and enabling gradual impedance transitions, making the lens intrinsically wideband; in practice, the overall system bandwidth is limited by the impedance bandwidth of the feeding antenna. When integrated with an X-band horn antenna, full-wave electromagnetic simulations show a peak realized gain of 21.7 dB at 10 GHz, representing a 9.1 dB improvement over the horn alone, together with a 3-dB gain bandwidth of 40%. To compensate for phase variations in the GRIN distribution, the spherical lens employs a slightly asymmetric Hedgehog configuration with deliberately overlapped unit cells, which improves field concentration and primary radiation, yielding an aperture efficiency of 60%. A prototype was fabricated, and its performance was validated in a real-world lab setting through S-parameter analysis, closely matching simulation results and confirming the design’s high effectiveness and efficiency.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Open Journal of Antennas and PropagationSame topicAntenna Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207