1. Introduction
The deployment of fifth-generation (5G) technology [
1,
2] since its inception in 2019 has brought about a new era of connectivity, characterized by unprecedented data speeds, enhanced network capabilities, and massive device connectivity in wireless communication. Compared to 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE), 5G is poised to unlock a significantly lower latency rate and higher download speeds as part of 5G performance objectives [
3]. The rapid development of 5G has reshaped the landscape of technology and society, primarily driven by advancements in antenna and sensor technologies [
4].
Antennas, essentially transducers of electromagnetic (EM) waves, serve as vital conduits that enable the seamless transmission of wireless communication signals. Notably, the realm of antenna technologies is currently undergoing an accelerated phase of research and development efforts focused on refining and innovating antenna designs. The surge in innovative has gained significant momentum in recent years, driven by the pursuit of performance optimization, expansion of frequency capabilities, and the adaption to evolving communication demands. The dynamic evolution of antenna technologies underscores their foundational role as essential components for modern wireless communication systems.
The integration of antenna and sensor technologies has led to innovations in areas such as Internet of Things (IoT) [
5,
6] where smart devices equipped with both antennas and sensors can facilitate remote communication and data collection across a diverse range of applications, from smart homes to industrial monitoring and beyond. Antenna sensors are engineered to incorporate the capabilities of both antennas and sensors, enabling them to transmit and receive EM signals while continuously sensing specific parameters of interest in their surroundings such as temperature, humidity, and more. Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) [
7] typically employ the use of resonator-based electrically small antennas (ESAs) [
8] as a strategic choice, owing to their compactness and effective operation within the designated frequency range. To ensure minimal disruption to the building’s aesthetics, smart antenna sensors are embedded into building structures such as walls, ceilings, and facades, or precast concrete structural elements to provide critical information related to structural health, water content, and even aging of building materials over time. These embedded antenna sensors [
9] can serve as a multifaceted function in the context of modern urban infrastructure, contributing to enhanced monitoring, analysis, and decision-making processes based on real-time data collected.
Although ESAs demonstrate proficiency in achieving reduced physical dimensions for WSN applications, their compactness often led to compromised performance characteristics in terms of impedance bandwidth and radiation efficiency. As such, achieving antenna miniaturization is challenging for radio frequency (RF) antenna engineers due to fundamental limitations in size and performance governed by the
Chu limit [
10]. The minimum quality (
Q) factor is given by:
where
, and
a is the radius of the hypothetical sphere circumscribing the largest antenna dimension. Since the radius of an ESA is lesser than the radian length (
ka <1) as defined by Wheeler [
11,
12], the minimum
Q-factor which is inversely related to the bandwidth-efficiency product entails tradeoffs in performance. The reduction in electrical size correspondingly leads to lower radiation resistance, poorer radiation efficiency, and a maximum achievable gain of 3 dBi according to the Harrington bound [
13].
To optimize the radiation characteristics of ESAs, the use of metamaterial (MTM) structures [
14,
15] incorporated together with the radiating element is popularly adopted by researchers for microwave applications. The split-ring resonators (SRR) introduced by Pendry
et al. [
16] and its dual, the complementary split-ring resonators (CSRR), introduced by Falcone
et al. [
17], have successfully demonstrated the synthesis of MTM resonators to achieve antenna miniaturization without sacrificing performance. The SRR, an equivalent of a
LC-resonator tank, is excited by a nearby feeding structure through inductive or capacitive coupling, and radiates efficiently at the resonant frequency. This class of resonant MTM structures, known as metaresonators, has since become a well-established technique for achieving antenna miniaturization [
18] while maintaining desirable performance characteristics from their evolved structures [
19]. Their resonance characteristics are characterized by their high
Q-factor, indicating a narrow frequency bandwidth in which they efficiently operate. Considering that metaresonators are capable of achieving strong resonance at a specific frequency, they are valuable for applications that require precise frequency tuning and selective responses. For the application of lumped circuit model analysis, the maximum electrical length
a of the antenna’s unit cell is limited to
, where λ is the wavelength corresponding to the operating frequency. With advancements in printed circuit board (PCB) technology, the design of metaresonators into PCBs offers several benefits which include compactness, seamless integration, improved signal integrity, and tailored EM responses.
Without changing the intrinsic design of the antenna system, the operational characteristics of embedded antennas can be extrinsically modified by the presence of the embedding material surrounding the antenna’s radiating element. Changes in the effective dielectric constant, loss tangent, and electrical conductivity of the antenna’s structure perturbs the EM field distribution, which induces changes in the characteristic impedance and impedance matching between the antenna and its feeding structure. Additionally, the embedding material may introduce losses due to its inherent dielectric properties, resulting in increased radiation losses and reduced radiation efficiency. Consequently, critical network performance parameters including resonant frequency, impedance matching, and bandwidth may be adjusted, leading to a change in the antenna’s operating regime.
Prior research work have demonstrated the feasibility of tuning an antenna’s frequency response using material loading techniques [
20,
21]. This embraced methodology can be considered an analogous framework that provides a basis for studying the EM performance of antennas embedded in concrete [
22], especially within the context of WSNs applications. Sum
et al. [
23] have demonstrated the change in loading reactance of the MTM in metaresonators from their reflection coefficients (S
11) within the 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi frequency band by incorporating varying weight percentages of iron(III) oxide (Fe
2O
3) inclusions into Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) as the embedding material, leading to observable shifts in their corresponding S
11 parameter plots. Unlike MTMs which are limited by parasitic resistive losses [
24], engineered materials such as cementitious composites can potentially achieve lower dielectric and/or magnetic losses with negligible parasitic effects. With the advent of 5G, there is a growing motivation to investigate the EM performance of concrete-embedded antenna sensors at the 3.5 GHz 5G frequency band which can be realized through the employment of material loading.
In this article, we aim to investigate the effects of material loading on an evolved antecedent-based design of a hexagonal-stubbed complementary split-ring resonator (CSRR)-loaded ESA, operating at a resonant frequency of 3.5 GHz through a multifaceted study. Using a simulation-based approach, the design methodology for the proposed MTM unit cell structure disposed on an FR-4 substrate is first introduced before delving into the analysis of the operational performance characteristics of the CSRR-loaded ESA. Following the conceptualization phase, a physical antenna prototype is fabricated on a PCB as proof-of-concept for the in-situ evaluation of S11 parameter plots. Subsequently, a simulation-based parametric study is performed on fabricated antenna prototypes embedded into Ordinary Portland Cement pastes with varying weight percentages of iron(III) oxide (up to 4-wt%). The interoperability of the materially loaded antenna was assessed in two key aspects, specifically resonant frequency and impedance matching, using shift ratios and Δ|S11| at resonance as primary metrics. Shift ratios ranging from -5.25% to -16.8%, in tandem with |S11| changes, indicating a systemic downward shift in resonant frequency and corresponding variations in impedance matching induced by changes in the antennas’ loading reactance. Finally, an inversion modeling procedure is employed using perturbation theory to extrapolate the relative permittivity of the various dielectric embedding materials from their corresponding shift ratios. Compared with theoretical predictions, a satisfactory degree of fidelity was observed in relative permittivity values range, specifically from 2.04 to 2.27. Our proposed analysis paves the way to optimize the EM performance of concrete-embedded antenna sensors operating at mid-band 5G frequencies and establishes a foundational framework for estimating unknown EM parameters of cement-based composites.
This article is organized as follows.
Section 2 proposes the design principles for the hexagonal CSRR-loaded ESA, including a comparison between simulated and measured network parameters.
Section 3 presents the framework for the material loading mechanism, simulation findings of the designed antenna subjected to material loading, concept of perturbation theory, and the subsequent experimentation and analysis.
Section 4 details the inversion modeling procedure employing perturbation theory to extrapolate the relative permittivity of the various dielectric embedding materials. The main conclusions drawn in this article are summarized in Section 5.
4. Conclusions
This article has successfully investigated the effects of material loading on an evolved antecedent-based design of a hexagonal-stubbed complementary split-ring resonator (CSRR)-loaded ESA through simulation and experimentation. As demonstrated by the |S11| parameter plots, variations in the chemical composition and dielectric parameters of the embedding materials can have a considerable influence on the frequency response, specifically in terms of resonant frequency shift and impedance matching which are the two key aspects focused in this research work.
In addition, perturbation theory is adopted in an inversion modeling procedure to numerically extrapolate the relative permittivity of the dielectric embedding materials based on corresponding shift ratios. Dielectric loss tangents were also qualitatively extrapolated to establish a causal relationship between the notch depth in the |S11| parameter plots and impedance matching based on simulation-derived results.
Future research can consider to incorporate other aggregate types such as fine-sand or fly-ash cenospheres in cement-based composites and compare the different effects of material loading on a resonant antenna. Depending on the intended application, material loading offers the potential as an antenna miniaturization technique to flexibly tune the antenna’s resonant frequency to align with the desired resonant frequency. This approach eliminates the need for employing techniques like impedance matching networks to overcome inherent performance limitations. Moreover, the utilization of material loading techniques with perturbation theory can provide a foundational framework for estimating unknown EM parameters of cement-based composites.
Overall, this research endeavor highlights the implications of building materials on the EM performance of concrete-embedded antenna sensors. Our proposed analysis can help optimize the design of concrete-embedded antenna sensors for mid-band 5G frequencies, considering the inherent shifts in resonant frequency and adjustments in impedance matching upon embedment.
Figure 1.
Proposed CSRR unit cell structure: (a) Topology; (b) Equivalent-circuit model.
Figure 1.
Proposed CSRR unit cell structure: (a) Topology; (b) Equivalent-circuit model.
Figure 2.
Simulation model: (a) Perspective view; (b) Back view.
Figure 2.
Simulation model: (a) Perspective view; (b) Back view.
Figure 3.
EM field distributions: (a) Electric field; (b) Magnetic field intensity; (c) Surface current.
Figure 3.
EM field distributions: (a) Electric field; (b) Magnetic field intensity; (c) Surface current.
Figure 4.
Simulated 3D radiation pattern plot at 3.50 GHz. .
Figure 4.
Simulated 3D radiation pattern plot at 3.50 GHz. .
Figure 5.
Simulated 2D radiation pattern plots at 3.50 GHz: (a) Azimuth plane (x-z plane); (b) Elevation plane (y-z plane).
Figure 5.
Simulated 2D radiation pattern plots at 3.50 GHz: (a) Azimuth plane (x-z plane); (b) Elevation plane (y-z plane).
Figure 6.
Simulated |S11| vs. frequency.
Figure 6.
Simulated |S11| vs. frequency.
Figure 7.
Front and back of antenna prototypes fabricated on a PCB.
Figure 7.
Front and back of antenna prototypes fabricated on a PCB.
Figure 8.
Antenna prototype fed by a 50-Ω RF mini coaxial cable.
Figure 8.
Antenna prototype fed by a 50-Ω RF mini coaxial cable.
Figure 9.
Comparison between simulated and measured |S11| vs. frequency.
Figure 9.
Comparison between simulated and measured |S11| vs. frequency.
Figure 10.
Schematic of an embedded CSRR-loaded ESA circumscribed by a sphere of radius a and far-field sphere bounded by .
Figure 10.
Schematic of an embedded CSRR-loaded ESA circumscribed by a sphere of radius a and far-field sphere bounded by .
Figure 11.
Simualtion model of CSRR-loaded ESA in embedding medium.
Figure 11.
Simualtion model of CSRR-loaded ESA in embedding medium.
Figure 12.
Comparison of simulated |S11| vs. frequency for different loss tangent.
Figure 12.
Comparison of simulated |S11| vs. frequency for different loss tangent.
Figure 13.
Equivalent-circuit model for embedded antenna system.
Figure 13.
Equivalent-circuit model for embedded antenna system.
Figure 14.
Fabricated antenna prototypes fed by an RF mini coaxial cable.
Figure 14.
Fabricated antenna prototypes fed by an RF mini coaxial cable.
Figure 15.
Materially loaded antenna prototype: (a) Schematic; (b) Actual (after demolding).
Figure 15.
Materially loaded antenna prototype: (a) Schematic; (b) Actual (after demolding).
Figure 16.
Categorical |S11| profiles before and after embedment of antenna prototypes: (a) 0-wt%; (b) 1-wt%; (c) 2-wt%; (d) 3-wt%; (e) 4-wt% Fe2O3 inclusions.
Figure 16.
Categorical |S11| profiles before and after embedment of antenna prototypes: (a) 0-wt%; (b) 1-wt%; (c) 2-wt%; (d) 3-wt%; (e) 4-wt% Fe2O3 inclusions.
Figure 17.
Flowchart for relative permittivity extrapolation.
Figure 17.
Flowchart for relative permittivity extrapolation.
Table 1.
Dimensions of proposed antenna design.
Table 1.
Dimensions of proposed antenna design.
Design Parameter |
Symbol |
Value |
Maximum cell dimension (@ 3.50 GHz) |
|
8.57 mm |
Substrate thickness |
tsubstrate
|
1.60 mm (63 mils) |
Ground plane thickness |
tground
|
0.0178 mm (0.5 oz) |
Copper thickness |
tcopper
|
0.0178 mm (0.5 oz) |
Width of copper trace |
lwidth
|
0.127 mm (5 mils) |
Trace separation/clearance |
lseparation
|
0.127 mm (5 mils) |
Through-hole via inner radius |
lradius,in
|
0.127 mm (5 mils) |
Annular ring outer radius |
lradius,out
|
0.254 mm |
Optimized stub length |
lstub
|
0.83 mm |
Trace characteristic impedance |
- |
50 Ω |
Table 2.
Simulated network performance parameters.
Table 2.
Simulated network performance parameters.
f0 / GHz |
|S11| / dB |
VSWR |
BW / GHz |
FBW / % |
Q |
3.50 |
-20 .0 |
1.22 |
0.055 |
1.57 |
63.5 |
Table 3.
Measured network performance parameters.
Table 3.
Measured network performance parameters.
f0 / GHz |
|S11| / dB |
VSWR |
BW / GHz |
FBW / % |
Q |
3.445 |
-23.49 |
1.15 |
0.07 |
2.03 |
49.2 |
Table 4.
Compositional parameters and mix design for the casting of embedding material.
Table 4.
Compositional parameters and mix design for the casting of embedding material.
Parameter/Constituents |
Level(s) |
Mass of constituents (kg/m3) |
Sample # |
Cement type (control) |
OPC CEM I |
1222 |
- |
Water (control) |
w/c = 0.50 |
611 |
- |
Weight percentage of Fe2O3 |
0-wt% 1-wt% 2-wt% 3-wt% 4-wt% |
0.0 12.2 24.4 36.6 48.8 |
#1A, #1B #2A, #2B #3A, #3B #4A, #4B #5A, #5B |
Table 5.
Evaluation of S.R. and Δ|S11| at resonance.
Table 5.
Evaluation of S.R. and Δ|S11| at resonance.
MUT |
f0 / GHz |
f1 / GHz |
Δf / GHz |
S.R. |
|S11, before|/dB |
|S11, after|/dB |
Δ|S11|/dB |
#1A |
3.45 |
3.26 |
-0.19 |
-5.51 % |
-24.7 |
-32.0 |
-7.3 |
#1B |
3.43 |
3.25 |
-0.18 |
-5.25 % |
-23.5 |
-29.7 |
-6.2 |
#2A |
3.46 |
2.88 |
-0.58 |
-16.8 % |
-23.7 |
-23.2 |
+0.5 |
#2B |
3.45 |
2.87 |
-0.58 |
-16.8 % |
-26.9 |
-25.5 |
+1.4 |
#3A |
3.44 |
2.91 |
-0.53 |
-15.4 % |
-27.6 |
-27.9 |
-0.3 |
#3B |
3.46 |
2.91 |
-0.55 |
-15.9 % |
-27.0 |
-27.1 |
-0.1 |
#4A |
3.46 |
2.94 |
-0.52 |
-15.0 % |
-22.2 |
-31.1 |
-8.9 |
#4B |
3.44 |
2.93 |
-0.51 |
-14.8 % |
-21.6 |
-27.0 |
-5.4 |
#5A |
3.44 |
2.92 |
-0.52 |
-15.1 % |
-28.1 |
-33.8 |
-5.7 |
#5B |
3.46 |
2.98 |
-0.48 |
-13.9 % |
-28.6 |
-36.7 |
-8.1 |
Table 6.
Extrapolated parameters for various dielectric embedding materials.
Table 6.
Extrapolated parameters for various dielectric embedding materials.
MUT |
Dielectric Embedding Material |
|
| |
(relative) |
- |
Simulation-defined |
+0.26 |
2.20 |
- |
#1A |
OPC/ 0-wt% Fe2O3
|
+0.11 |
2.05 |
Low |
#1B |
OPC/ 0-wt% Fe2O3
|
+0.10 |
2.04 |
Low |
#2A |
OPC / 1-wt% Fe2O3
|
+0.33 |
2.27 |
High |
#2B |
OPC / 1-wt% Fe2O3
|
+0.33 |
2.27 |
High |
#3A |
OPC / 2-wt% Fe2O3
|
+0.30 |
2.24 |
High |
#3B |
OPC / 2-wt% Fe2O3
|
+0.31 |
2.25 |
High |
#4A |
OPC / 3-wt% Fe2O3
|
+0.29 |
2.23 |
Low |
#4B |
OPC / 3-wt% Fe2O3
|
+0.29 |
2.23 |
Low |
#5A |
OPC / 4-wt% Fe2O3
|
+0.29 |
2.23 |
Low |
#5B |
OPC / 4-wt% Fe2O3
|
+0.27 |
2.21 |
Low |