Table 3 Performance comparison between proposed antenna in a 1 × 2 MIMO configuration and other works.
Refs | Center-to-center spacing (λ0) | 1 × 2 MIMO size (\({\lambda }_{0}^{3}\)) | Center frequency (GHz) | Bandwidth (%) | Isolation (dB) | Stable radiation patterns | Beam squint (°) | Complexity | Design method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.51 | 1.1 × 0.51 × 0.07 | 29 | 3.7 | > 36 | Yes | 0 | Low | Bending rectangular patch antennas with two slits in each antenna | |
0.1 | 0.5 × 0.5 × 0.18 | 10 | 27.8 | > 18 | No | 42 | High; using air-gap and one dielectric block with high permittivity | A dielectric block above the array | |
32* | 0.35 | 1.16 × 0.75 × 0.18 | 3.5 | 2.85 | > 20 | No | 30 | Medium; using air-gap | Array of slot metasurface above the patch antennas |
0.58 | 1.44 × 0.9 × 0.05 | 5.4 | 14.8 | > 20 | No | 30 | Medium; using parasitic elements | Multiple square parasitic elements in proximity of the rectangular patch antennas | |
0.375 | 1.58 × 0.81 × 0.13 | 4.9 | 6 | > 20 | Yes | 0 | Low; using strips between elements | Field superposition | |
This work | 0.9 | 1.8 × 0.9 × 0.08 | 27 | 29.6 | > 18 | Yes | 0 | Low | Manipulating the surface currents of the modes |
