Design and Evaluation of Uniform and Nonuniform Planar Arrays Geometries Using Rectangular Patch Antennas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the design, simulation, and performance analysis of patch antenna arrays using uniform and nonuniform planar geometries for 5 GHz applications. Array configurations of$1 \times 2,2 \times 2$, and$4 \times 4$are designed and evaluated their performances through simulation. The study investigates the impact of uniform spacing versus customized spacing and feedline design in nonuniform arrays. CST Studio Suite is used to analyze key performance parameters such as return loss (S11), bandwidth, VSWR, radiation and total efficiency, gain, directivity, and side lobe level (SLL). Results show that nonuniform designs offer superior S11 and bandwidth in several configurations and highlight trade-offs in efficiency and SLL. The work contributes in the modular feedline optimization applied across different array geometries$(1 \times 2,2 \times 2$, and$4 \times 4$), enabling better impedance matching and bandwidth enhancement for compact$\mathbf{5 ~ G H z}$systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".