RF Performance Comparison of SIW Slot Radiator and Inverted-F SIW-Based Radiating Structure for X-Band Applications
The main objective of this research is to assess and compare the effectiveness of two radiators: the innovative SIW slot radiator and the inverted F-shaped SIW-Based Radiating Structure. The evaluation focuses on two crucial parameters, namely the Standing Wave Ratio (SWR) and the Input Reflection Coefficient (S11). Both radiators are evaluated at a frequency of 10 GHz, with a characteristic impedance of 50 Ω. The study employs ANSYS HFSS for full-wave electromagnetic simulations and IBM SPSS Statistics for data processing and statistical analysis. A sample size of 27 for each group, totaling 54 samples, was used. Precise readings for alpha (0.05) and beta (0.2) were taken, and a pretest with 80% power was conducted during the evaluation. The SIW slot radiator yielded remarkable results, with a lower Input Reflection Coefficient magnitude of -27.0050 dB, a SWR magnitude of 1.09, and a broader bandwidth of 200 MHz. In contrast, the inverted F SIW-Based Radiating Structure exhibited relatively inferior performance, with a Input Reflection Coefficient of -24.4889 dB, a slightly higher SWR of 1.126, and a narrower bandwidth of 89.4 MHz. The optimal dimensions for both radiators were determined to be 19.8 mm x 16.8 mm. Statistical analysis confirmed a significant difference between the two radiators, as evidenced by p-values of 0.000 and 0.024 (p < 0.05) for the SWR and Input Reflection Coefficient, respectively. The novel SIW slot radiator generally demonstrates superior performance, with higher SWR and lower Input Reflection Coefficient values compared to the inverted F-shaped SIW-Based Radiating Structure.
Authors
- G Anitha (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1628-3688)
Institutions
- Saveetha University (IN)
Publication Details
- Published
- 2025-03-21
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1109/icsses64899.2025.11009835
- Citations
- 4
- Primary Topic
- Microwave Engineering and Waveguides
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 2.92