A parametric analysis was carried out by varying the dimensions of length, the width of slots, and the patch. This proposed wideband CPW-fed micro-strip patch antenna is simulated using Computer Simulation Technology software. The simulation results of the antenna 5 are wideband bandwidth, along with compact size of antennas and meandered gain, which is used suitable for C-Band and wireless applications.
TABLE II: Comparative analysis of antennas parameters, Bandwidth, Gain, Return loss, and VSWR between Antennas 1, 2, 3, 4, and Antennas 5 (Proposed)
| Size(mm) | Frequency range (GHz) | BW (%) & Gain (dB) | |S11| in dB & VSWR |
Antenna 1 | 35 x 39 | 2.51-3.96GHz (1.45) And 5.2- 5.9GHz(.7) | 44.823%, 12.61 % and 2.07, 3.67 | -28.43 & 1.07 at 2.63, -13.82 & 1.5 at 3.05, -12.56 & 1.62 at 3.27,-20.84 & 1.19 at 3.64 And − 14.88 & 1.43 at 5.45 |
Antenna 2 | 35 x 39 | 3.23–7.96 (4.73) | 84.5 % & 3.50 | -58.38 & 1.01 at 3.39, 39.59 & 1.013 at 4.76 18.92 & 1.25 at 5.28 48.46 & 1.01 at 6.19 46.13 & 1.01 at 6.35 22.29 & 1.15 at 7.31 |
Antenna 3 | 35 x 39 | 3.24–7.96 (4.72) | 79.32% & 3.67 | -43.52 & 1.0042 at 3.41, -27.02 & 1.36 at 3.72, -22.09 & 1.2 at 4.74,48.27 & 1.16 at 5.36, -45.814 & 1.004 at 6.33, -21.57 & 1.18 at 7.3 |
Antenna 4 | 35 x 39 | 2.5–2.6(.1) & 3.15–3.42(.27) & 3.64–7.92(4.28) | 74% & 3.71 | -10.46 & 1.87 at 2.61,-48.066 & 1.002 at3.27, -13.63 & 1.5 at 3.9, -36.66 & 1.02 at 4.69, -21.54 & 1.18 at 5.3, -43.17 & 1.002 at 6.15, -38.95 & 1.009 at 6.3, -21.19 & 1.19 at 7.33 |
Antenna 5 (Proposed) | 35 x 39 | 3.20–7.94(4.74) | 85 % & 3.60 | -49.93 & 1.004 at 3.35, -14.472 & 1.49 at 3.87, -30 & 1.04 at 4.73,-22.10 & 1.16 at 5.3, -45.74 & 1.002 at 6.15, -67.89 & 1.002 at 6.35, -21.85 & 1.18 at 7.3 |
The impact of process variations on the electrical response of patch antennas was also investigated. A wideband microstrip patch antenna is proposed using CPW-fed, microstrip feed, and coaxial feed which may be useful for the Next Generation Wireless Technologies. After the design and analysis of a compact wideband microstrip antenna with CPW-Fed structure is comparable to existing results of the literature survey.
TABLE III: Comparison analyses of different designed antennas parameters with proposed antennas parameters
S. No. | Published literature references | Size (mm) | Operating frequency band | Substrate & permittivity | Feeding method |
1 | Pan et al. | 48x58 | 2.01–4.27 GHz & 5.06–6.79 GHz | Teflon (2.65) | Micro strip feed |
2 | Karli & Ammor | 60x70 | 2.72–2.76 GHz & 6.62-7.5GHz | FR-4 | Microstrip feed |
3 | Tsai | 50x50 | 1.90–2.75 GHz & 3.65-6.75GHz | FR-4(4.4) | CPW-Fed |
4 | Wu et al | 75x75 | 2.410–2.785 GHz & 4.575-6.355GHz | FR-4(4.7) | Coaxial feed |
5 | Jen-Yea Jan, Chien-Yuan Pan, Kuo-Yung Chiu, and Hua-Ming Chen | 50x50 | 3.3–3.8 GHz,3.2–4.2 GHz | FR-4(4.4) | CPW-fed |
6 | M.T. Islam, N. Mishran, M.N. Shakib, Y. Bahrin | 37x37 | 5.02–5.42 GHz | RT5880 (2.2) | CPW-fed |
7 | Proposed antenna | 35x39 | 1.78–5.56 GHz & 6.49–8.02 GHz | FR-4(4.3) | CPW-Fed |