Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, Vol.

102, 63–77, 2020

Compact Two-Port MIMO Antenna with High Isolation Using

Parasitic Reflectors for UWB, X and Ku Band Applications

Tathababu Addepalli1, * and Vaddinuri R. Anitha2

Abstract—In this communication, a compact two-port multiple input multiple output (MIMO)
antenna with high isolation is presented for multiband applications. The size of the proposed structure is
0.15λ0 × 0.27λ0 (λ0 , measured at lower frequency, is 2.95 GHz), and the antenna elements are separated
by a distance of 0.04λ0 . The truncated partial ground offers good impedance performance with a
fractional bandwidth of 136.5% from 2.95 to 15.65 GHz and covers the uninterrupted ultra-wideband
(UWB), X and Ku band applications. High isolation of more than 25 dB is attained by placing parasitic
elements between the antennas in a precise manner. The proposed structure is simulated, fabricated,
tested, and verified practically. The radiation efficiency is more than 90% of the entire band. The peak
gain values vary from 1.2 to 6.8 dB in the desired band, and its maximum value is 6.8 dB at 11.6 GHz.
Diversity performance is also studied. The proposed structure offers an envelope correlation coefficient
(ECC) of less than 0.04, diversity gain (DG) of greater than 9.996 dB, total active reflection coefficient
(TARC) of below −10 dB, mean effective gain (MEG) of around −3 dB, and channel capacity losses
(CCL) values are below 0.2 bits/sec/Hz. The measured and simulation results are in good concord.

1. INTRODUCTION

Multiple input multiple output (MIMO) technology plays a key role in present wireless communications
due to its features like higher data rate, more channel capacity than single element system, high
signal to noise ratio (SNR), good quality of transmission, excellent diversity performance and more
reliability without the need for additional transmitter power and bandwidth. In MIMO technology,
multiple antennas are placed side by side at the transmitting and receiving ends. Due to the small
space between antenna elements in portable devices, mutual coupling is introduced, which degrades the
system performance. Hence, coupling is a primary limiting factor in MIMO technology [1]. In 2002, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assigned an unlicensed band from 3.1 to 10.6 GHz named
ultra-wideband (UWB). However, UWB system suffers from signal (multipath) fading in a multipath
environment. The MIMO technology effectively mitigates the fading problem using diversity techniques
like spatial multiplexing and space-time coding. The combination of UWB with MIMO technology has
more applications in wireless technology due to its wide bandwidth and high diversity performance, but
it is still agonized with the coupling problem.
The review of several techniques for isolation enhancement (or mutual coupling reduction)
between antenna elements in MIMO systems is discussed in [2]. In addition, various decoupling
structures were presented in [3–27] such as novel printed circuit structures [3], wideband planar
structure [4], defected ground structure loaded with meandered lines [5], miniature double-layer
EBG structure [6], the orthogonal arrangement of a modified rectangular shaped radiators [7], fence
type decoupling structure [8], and metamaterial-based structure [9]. Also, the isolation is improved
Received 4 March 2020, Accepted 29 April 2020, Scheduled 18 May 2020
* Corresponding author: Tathababu Addepalli (babu.478@[Link]).
1 Department of ECE, JNTUA, Ananthapur, A.P, India. 2 ECE, Antenna Research Lab, Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College,

Tirupathi, A.P, India.

64 Addepalli and Anitha

between radiating elements using F-shaped stubs placed between elements [10], resistive loading [11],
a quasi self-complementary arrangement of antenna elements [12], two meandering monopoles using
inverted L-shaped stubs [13], wideband neutralization line [14], and a modified T-shaped stub [15].
Other decoupling structures have been discussed which include protruded parasitic stubs between
MIMO antenna elements [16–18], double grounded CRR structure between semi-hexagonal-shaped ring
antennas [19], a T-shaped slot in the ground plane [20], a simple ground stub between linearly polarized
monopoles [21], a rectangular-shaped ground plane with an extruded T-shaped stub [22], inserting two
inverted L-shaped stubs on the ground plane [23], using polarization diversity and ground slots [24],
adopting T-stepped ground stub [25], a Y-shaped slot cut at the bottom center of the common ground
plane [26], and two inverted L-strips are loaded over a conventional rectangular patch antenna [27]. The
antennas discussed in [3–27] have acceptable bandwidth and isolation. Still, most of the designs are not
enough compact to fit into the portable devices, and the isolation techniques are a bit complex. Hence,
there is a scope for a compact MIMO antenna with high isolation.
In this paper, a simple and compact UWB-MIMO antenna with high isolation using parasitic
reflectors is presented. The overall size of the proposed MIMO antenna is 0.15λ0 ×0.27λ0 (16×28 mm2 ),
and the antenna elements are separated by a distance of 0.04λ0 (4 mm). The truncated partial ground
provides good impedance performance, and high isolation is achieved by placing parasitic reflectors
between the elements. The proposed antenna is also studied by changing the ground length, major axis,
and the axial ratio of the antenna element, feed width, and the antenna adjacent parasitic element.
The positions of parasitic elements are also essential for isolation improvement. The proposed design
achieves wide impedance bandwidth from 2.95 to 15.65 GHz and isolation above 25 dB throughout the
band. The advantages of the proposed antenna are compact size, high isolation, high radiation efficiency,
good peak gain values, low ECC, high DG values, good TARC values, acceptable MEG values, and low
CCL values.

2. ANTENNA DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

The proposed compact structure is designed and simulated using ANSYS HFSS Electronics Desktop
16.2 simulator. The structure is fabricated on a low-cost FR4 material which has relative permittivity
(εr ) of 4.4 and loss of tangent 0.02. The designed antenna consists of two elliptical-shaped monopole
antennas which are separated by parasitic elements. The geometry of the proposed structure is as
shown in Figure 1 with the optimization values L = 16 mm, W = 28 mm, S = 4 mm, ellipse major axis
(M.A) = 5.8 mm, ellipse axial ratio (A.R) = 0.95, Lg = 3 mm, Lf = 7 mm, W f = 1.9 mm, A = 10 mm,
B = 12 mm, C = 14 mm, D = 0.3 mm, E = 2.38 mm, and F = 2.6 mm.

Figure 1. Proposed structure geometry.

The evolutionary stages of the proposed structure are described in Figure 2, and the S-parameters
are depicted in Figure 3. In stage 1 (Antenna I), an elliptical-shaped monopole antenna is designed
using basic elliptical radiator equations [28]. Due to the compactness of elliptical radiator, partial
ground plane, feed width, and substrate dimensions, the antenna resonates from 3.95 GHz to 13.5 GHz
with ‘S11’ value of −22.8 dB at 5.45 GHz. However, Antenna I does not cover the lower UWB as
Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, Vol. 102, 2020 65

Antenna I Antenna II Antenna III

Antenna IV Antenna V

Antenna VI Antenna VII

Figure 2. Proposed structure evolution stages.

(a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) ‘S11’ values of evolution stages of proposed structure; (b) ‘S21’ values of evolution stages
of proposed structure.
66 Addepalli and Anitha

Figure 4. Proposed structure ‘S11’ and ‘S21’ values with various ‘S’ values.

observed from Figure 3(a). So, to get impedance matching between the antenna element and port, a
small half of the elliptical-shaped strip is removed from the center of the ground in stage 2 (Antenna II)
which results in small improvement in the impedance bandwidth from 3.85 to 14.45 GHz with ‘S11’ of
−37.8 dB at 5.6 GHz. In stage 3 (Antenna III), another ellipse-shaped monopole antenna is placed at
a distance of 4 mm from the first element to form a MIMO antenna. The isolation of Antenna III is
analyzed for different lengths such as 4 mm, 5 mm, 6 mm, 7 mm, and 8 mm. The variation of ‘S11’ and
‘S21’ values of the MIMO structure with changes in distance S are as shown in Figure 4. It is observed
from Figure 4 that as the distance between elements is decreased, the isolation is reduced, but the lower
cutoff frequency is moved to a lower value. At S = 4 mm, the lower band value is moved to 3.31 GHz
due to reflections between elements, and the isolation above 11.3 dB is obtained in the entire band.
To enhance the isolation, a small strip (10 mm × 0.3 mm) is placed between the elements in stage 4
(Antenna IV), which results in the isolation of more than 13 dB. Later in stage 5 (Antenna V), the
isolation of greater than 16 dB is achieved by including two parallel strips of dimensions 12 mm × 0.3 mm
beside the small strip. In stage 6 (Antenna VI), two more strips are placed, which give rise to the
isolation of higher than 19 dB for the entire band. Finally, the proposed antenna, as displayed in stage 7
(Antenna VII), is obtained by adding two parallel strips of size 16 mm × 0.3 mm at the abreast of the
strips of Antenna VI. The results in Figure 3(b) show that isolation is greatly improved to more than
25 dB. These strips give good impedance matching and good isolation between elements. The proposed
structure covers the entire UWB band, X band, and Ku band applications. Figure 5 illustrates the
surface current distribution of Antenna-III to Antenna VII when port 1 is excited. It is observed from
the figure that there is a significant improvement in the isolation of currents from port 1 to port 2 when
the inclusion of strips is increased.
The parametric study of the ellipse-shaped monopole antenna parameters such as major axis (M.A)
& axial ratio (A.R), ground length, feed width, and parasitic strip length has been done for the optimal
values of the proposed structure which is shown in Figure 6. The antenna is analyzed for the values:
M.A = 5.7 to 5.9 mm and A.R = 0.9 to 1.0 mm, Lg = 2 to 4 mm, W f = 1.6 to 2.2 mm, and strip
length = 12 to 16 mm. The partial ground plane with a truncated structure gives wider bandwidth.
The width of the feed plays a key role in impedance matching between port and antenna. As identified
from the figure, the desired performance is achieved for the following optimized values: M.A = 5.8 mm,
A.R = 0.95 mm, Lg = 3 mm, W f = 1.9 mm, and strip length = 16 mm, and hence are adopted in
this work. The effect of elliptical cutting in the ground on impedance matching is also studied and is
presented in Figure 7.
Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, Vol. 102, 2020 67

Antenna III Antenna IV

Antenna V Antenna VI

Antenna VII (Proposed)

Figure 5. Surface current distribution of the evolution stages of the proposed structure, when port 1
is excited.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1. Impedance Performance

The proposed structure is simulated and fabricated, and the parameters are measured. The ‘S11’,
‘S22’, ‘S12’, and ‘S21’ values of the fabricated prototype are measured using a vector network analyzer
(Agilent N5224A). Figure 8 describes the S-parameters of the simulated and fabricated antennas. It is
observed that the proposed design operates from 2.95 GHz to 15.65 GHz with resonances at 3.8 GHz,
10.0 GHz, and 13.6 GHz. The measured and simulated results are in good agreement except small
deviations due to dielectric losses, conducting losses, tolerances in the soldering and fabrication process.
Figure 9 shows the radiation efficiency and peak gain values of the proposed structure. The radiation
efficiency of an antenna mainly depends on impedance matching between the port and an antenna
element. It is identified that the proposed structure offers high efficiency values between 90 and 97%.
The high efficiency antennas are used for rectifying antenna (Rectanna) applications. Also, the peak
gain values vary from 1.2 to 5.3 dB in respective bands, and the maximum is 6.8 dB at 11.6 GHz.
The impedance bandwidth of the proposed structure without any parasitic elements is only 3.32–
13.2 GHz, and isolation is more than 11.3 dB in the entire band. After placing parasitic strips, the
bandwidth is improved to 2.95–15.65 GHz and isolation to above 25 dB in most of the band. Hence, the
strips are used for impedance matching and isolation enhancement. Figure 10 illustrates the function of
the parasitic strip as a reflector. The surface current distribution and 3-D polar radiation patterns with
strips, when port 1 is excited and port 2 terminated and vice-versa, are shown in the same figure. It is
seen that the parasitic strips act as reflectors by stopping the surface currents entering from one antenna
to another antenna. The middle plots in Figure 10 are 3-D polar radiation patterns of the proposed
structure without parasitic strips. The remaining two plots in Figure 10 (left and right) represent the
68 Addepalli and Anitha

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 6. (a) Parametric analysis of major axis and axial ratio; (b) Parametric analysis of ground
length; (c) Parametric analysis of feed width; and (d) Parametric analysis of strip length.

effect of strips on radiation pattern and stopping the surface currents when port 1 and port 2 are excited
with 50 Ω strip lines, respectively.

3.2. Radiation Performance

The radiation patterns of the proposed structure are measured in an anechoic chamber. The horn
antenna is used as a reference antenna, and the proposed structure is used as an antenna under test.
Figure 11 illustrates the simulated and measured 2-D radiation patterns (E and H fields) at various
frequencies like 3.8 GHz, 6.0 GHz, 8.0 GHz, 10.0 GHz, and 13.6 GHz in the desired band. It is found that
the E and H patterns are bidirectional and omnidirectional, respectively. But at higher frequencies,
i.e., at 13.6 GHz, the energy will be distributed to all the modes. Hence, the patterns are disturbed at
higher bands.

4. MIMO ANTENNA PERFORMANCE

To investigate the diversity performance of the MIMO antenna, metrics like ECC, DG, TARC, MEG,
and CCL are required. The ECC has interpreted the correlation between the channels and will give the
Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, Vol. 102, 2020 69

Figure 7. Effect of elliptical cutting in ground Figure 8. Simulation and measurement S-

on impedance matching. parameters results.

Figure 9. Simulated radiation efficiency and peak gain results.

spatial distribution of signal power in an outdoor environment. ECC is measured in different methods
like using S-parameter values, radiation patterns, both S-parameters and radiation efficiencies, and
equivalent circuits [29]. Low correlation values indicate good diversity performance. The measurement
of ECC using S-parameters is a simple and easy technique. The ECC in terms of S-parameters for a two-
port antenna is represented in Equation (1), and Equation (2) is a representation of ECC measurement
using far-field radiation patterns.
N

∗
− Sni Snj
n=1
ρij =    (1)
 N N
  
 1− |Sni |2
1− |Snj |2

n=1 n=1
70 Addepalli and Anitha

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Figure 10. Surface current distribution with 3-D polar plots; (a) at 3.8 GHz; (b) at 6.0 GHz; (c) at
8.0 GHz; (d) at 10.0 GHz; and (e) at 13.6 GHz.

where ρij is the correlation between the ith and jth elements of the ‘N ’ element antenna system. For
two-port system, it is represented as
∗ S + S ∗ S |2
|S11 12
ECC =   21 22
2 2
1 − |S11 | − |S21 | 1 − |S22 |2 − |S12 |2
2
Fi (θ, φ) · Fj (θ, φ) dΩ
ECC = 2 2
(2)
Fi (θ, φ) dΩ · Fj (θ, φ) dΩ

where Fi and Fj are the ith and jth antenna radiated fields. The simulated ECC and DG are plotted in
Figure 12. The proposed structure has favorable ECC values, which are below 0.04 (acceptable practical
value is below 0.5).
The diversity gain (DG) of a two-port MIMO antenna is represented in Equation (3) in terms of
ECC and is depicted in Figure 12. The maximum value of DG for the MIMO system is 10 dB. The
Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, Vol. 102, 2020 71

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(f)
(e)

Figure 11. 2-D Radiation patterns (E and H fields); (a) at 3.8 GHz; (b) at 6.0 GHz; (c) at 8.0 GHz;
(d) at 10.0 GHz; (e) at 13.6 GHz; and (f) Photograph from anechoic chamber.

proposed structure gives DG values above 9.996 dB in the complete band. From Figure 12, it is observed
that the proposed structure provides a good diversified performance.

DG = 10 1 − ECC2 (3)
In MIMO technology, multiple antennas are placed side by side with a smaller distance at the
transmitting and receiving ends for compact device applications. Due to a smaller distance, the radiation
of one antenna will affect the parameters of the adjacent antenna. The ‘S11’ or ‘S22’ of individual
antennas does not give faithful results. So, a new term is introduced for the reflection coefficient of the
whole system named TARC [30, 31]. It considers the changes in self impedances and mutual impedances
between individual antennas. TARC is defined in equation (4), and it is represented in terms of S-
parameters for the ‘N ’ elements in Equation (5). Figure 13 shows the comparison (simulated and
72 Addepalli and Anitha

Figure 12. Simulated ECC and DG values.

Figure 13. Simulated & measured S11 and TARC values.

measured results) of S11 values of antennas II, III, and S11 & TARC values of the proposed structure.
The acceptable values of TARC are less than or equal to ‘0’ dB. The simulated and measured TARC
values of the proposed structure are below −10 dB for the entire band.
 
t available power − radiated power Pa − Pr
Γa = = (4)
available power Pa

N
 2
 |bi |
i=1
Γta =  , (5)
N

 |ai |2
i=1

where ‘ai’ is the ith port forward wave amplitude, [b] = [S][a]. For two-port antenna system, it is
represented as 
(S11 + S12 )2 + (S21 + S22 )2
TARC =
2
Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, Vol. 102, 2020 73

Figure 14. Simulated & measured MEG and Figure 15. Simulated & measured channel
MEG1/MEG2 values. capacity loss (CCL) values.

Mean effective gain (MEG) and MEG ratio are essential parameters for estimating the diversity
performance of the MIMO antenna, which are given in Equations (6), (7), and (8). Figure 14 shows
the simulated and measured results of MEG (mean effective gain) and MEG1/MEG2. The proposed
structure gives required MEG and MEG ratio values, which are around −3 dB and ‘0’ dB, respectively.
The channel capacity losses mainly depend on the transmission coefficient values of the MIMO structure.
The CCL equation in terms of reflection coefficients (‘S11’ and ‘S22’) and transmission coefficients (‘S12’
and ‘S21’) for the two-element system are given in Equation (9). The structure has high isolation values
above 25 dB in most of the band. Hence, the proposed structure has low values of channel capacity
losses, and these are below 0.2 bits/sec/Hz for the entire band, as shown in Figure 15.
MEG1 = 1 − |S11 |2 − |S12 |2 (6)
2 2
MEG2 = 1 − |S22 | − |S21 | (7)
2 2
MEG1 1 − |S11 | − |S12 |
= (8)
MEG2 1 − |S22 |2 − |S21 |2
  
CCL = − log2 1 − |S11 |2 − |S12 |2 1 − |S22 |2 − |S21 |2 −
 ∗ ∗
 ∗ ∗

S11 S12 + S21 S22 S22 S21 + S12 S11 (9)
The performance comparisons of the proposed structure with other structures in terms of antenna
electrical size, impedance bandwidth, isolation, peak gain, radiation efficiency, ECC, and TARC are

Table 1. Performance comparison of the proposed structure with other structures.

Isolation
Antenna Size Impedance Peak Radiation
(Most of TARC
Reference (In terms bandwidth gain efficiency ECC Applications
the band) (dB)
of λ0 ) (GHz) (dB) (%)
(dB)
Issac Wi-Fi,
0.37λ0 × 0.64λ0 1.6–4 ≥ 20 3.8 - - -
et al. [3] WiMAX
Radhi
0.48λ0 × 0.96λ0 3.1–10.6 ≥ 31 3.5 dBi ≥ 75 −29 dB - UWB
et al. [4]
Qinlong, 1.56–2.71
0.31λ0 × 0.33λ0 ≥ 15 - ≥ 80 0.04 - GPS
et al. [5] & 4.82–5.90
74 Addepalli and Anitha

Qian Lower
0.50λ0 × 0.60λ0 3–6 ≥ 21 - - - -
et al. [6] UWB
Hao,
0.35λ0 × 0.35λ0 2.3–13 ≥ 20 3 − 6.1 - 0.2 - UWB
et al. [7]
Lili
0.35λ0 × 0.50λ0 3–11 ≥ 25 >3 ≥ 80 0.004 - UWB
et al. [8]
Amjad
0.69λ0 × 0.82λ0 5.61–5.93 ≥ 20 - - 0.1 - WiMAX
et al. [9]
Amjad
0.25λ0 × 0.41λ0 2.5–14.5 ≥ 20 0.3–4.3 - 0.04 - UWB
et al. [10]
Park
0.35λ0 × 0.36λ0 3–9 ≥ 17 1–5.5 dBi ≥ 87 0.02 - UWB
et al. [11]
Zhu
0.35λ0 × 0.35λ0 3–12 ≥ 20 - - 0.40 - UWB
et al. [12]
Deng
0.30λ0 × 0.41λ0 3.1–10.6 ≥ 16 - ≥ 70 0.15 - UWB
et al. [13]
Zhang Lower
0.34λ0 × 0.36λ0 3.1–5 ≥ 22 - - - -
et al. [14] UWB
Ankan,
0.17λ0 × 0.23λ0 2–10. 6 ≥ 22 > 3.5 dBi - 0.2 - UWB
et al. [15]
Mchbal,
0.26λ0 × 0.32λ0 3.1–11.1 ≥ 20 - - 0.002 - UWB
et al. [16]
Rohit,
0.20λ0 × 0.40λ0 3–11 ≥ 15 1.5–5 ≥ 80 0.8 - UWB
et al. [17]
Liu
0.22λ0 × 0.37λ0 3.1–11 ≥ 15 1–5 dBi ≥ 70 0.1 - UWB
et al. [18]
Rohit,
0.20λ0 × 0.35λ0 3.1–11 ≥ 20 3–4 ≥ 75 0.2 - UWB
et al. [19]
Li
0.25λ0 × 0.25λ0 2.9–11.6 ≥ 16 0–6 dBi - 0.02 - UWB
et al. [20]
Prashant Upper
0.61λ0 × 0.77λ0 8.0–11.5 ≥ 20 - ≥ 85 ∼0 ≤ −10
et al. [21] UWB
Chandel UWB
0.16λ0 × 0.33λ0 2.8–20 ≥ 20 1.6–6 - 0.02 ≤ −10
et al. [22] X band and Ku
Chandel UWB
0.17λ0 × 0.32λ0 2.9–20 ≥ 20 0–7 ≥ 75 0.01 ≤ −20
et al. [23] X band and Ku
0.13
Aziz 5.19–5.41 & WLAN &
0.36λ0 × 0.47λ0 ≥ 22.5 - ≥ 79.8 & ≤ −10
et al. [24] 7.30–7.66 X band
0.002
Ling
0.21λ0 × 0.27λ0 3.1–11 ≥ 15 1–3 ≥ 70 0.03 - UWB
et al. [25]
Tao
0.18λ0 × 0.23λ0 3–12.4 ≥ 20 4 ≥ 70 0.1 - UWB
et al. [26]
Anil UWB
0.14λ0 × 0.24λ0 2.87–17 ≥ 21 0–6 - 0.01 ≤ −20
et al. [27] X band and Ku
UWB
Proposed 0.15λ0 × 0.27λ0 2.95–15.65 ≥ 25 1.2–6.8 ≥ 90 0.04 ≤ −10
X band and Ku
Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, Vol. 102, 2020 75

tabulated in Table 1. It is found that the proposed structure has several advantages like very compact
size, wide impedance bandwidth, high isolation and radiation efficiency, low ECC, and good TARC
values.

5. CONCLUSIONS

A compact UWB-MIMO antenna with high isolation using parasitic reflectors is presented in this
communication. The overall structure size is 0.15λ0 ×0.27λ0 and consists of two ellipse-shaped radiators
with parasitic strips which are used for isolation enhancement. The results demonstrate that the
proposed structure operates from 2.95 to 15.65 GHz with good impedance matching. The high isolation
of greater than 25 dB is attained in most of the band with the inclusion of parasitic strips between the
elements. Also, the peak gain values of 1.2–6.8 dB and radiation efficiency values of above 90% are
achieved. It also offers low ECC (< 0.04), high DG (> 9.996 dB), satisfactory TARC (≤ −10 dB), MEG
(∼ −3 dB), and CCL (0.2 bits/sec/Hz). Thus, the proposed structure is suitable for UWB, X band, and
Ku band applications.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to forward forthright gratitude to Rakesh Kumar Singh, Scientist ’F’ and Head,
Stealth technologies and test ranges, Directorate of radar seekers and systems (DRSS), RCI, DRDO,
Hyderabad, India for giving lab facilities for experimentation and measure the radiation patterns of the
fabricated antenna as a segment of research work.

REFERENCES

1. Nadeem, I. and D.-Y. Choi, “Study on mutual coupling reduction technique for MIMO antennas,”
IEEE Access, Vol. 7, 563–586, 2019, DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2885558.
2. Malviya, L. and K. Machavaram, “MIMO antennas with diversity and mutual coupling reduction
techniques: A review,” International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies, Vol. 9,
No. 8, 1763–1780, 2017, DOI: 10.1017/S1759078717000538.
3. Isaac, A. A., H. Al-Rizzo, S. Yahya, A. Al-Wahhamy, and S. Abushamleh, “Decoupling of two
closely-spaced planar monopole antennas using two novel printed-circuit structures,” Microwave
Optical Technology Letters, Vol. 60, No. 12, 2954–2963, 2018, DOI: 10.1002/mop.31405.
4. Radhi A. H., R. Nilavalan, Y. Wang, H. S. Al-Raweshidy, A. A. Eltokhy, and N. Ab Aziz, “Mutual
coupling reduction with a wideband planar decoupling structure for UWB-MIMO antennas,”
International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies, Vol. 10, No. 10, 1143–1154, 2018,
DOI:10.1017/S1759078718001010.
5. Li, Q., M. Abdullah, and X. Chen, “Defected ground structure loaded with meandered lines for
decoupling of dual-band antenna,” Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications, Vol. 33,
No. 13, 1764–1775, 2019, DOI: 10.1080/09205071.2019.1643261.
6. Li, Q., A. P. Feresidis, M. Mavridou, and P. S. Hall, “Miniaturized double layer EBG structures for
broadband mutual coupling reduction between UWB monopoles,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas
and Propagation, Vol. 63, No. 3, 1168–1171, 2015, DOI: 10.1109/TAP.2014.2387871.
7. Hu, H. and Z. Lu, “A compact UWB-MIMO antenna for portable applications,” Journal of Elec-
tromagnetic Analysis and Applications, Vol. 8, 240–246, 2016, DOI: 10.4236/jemaa.2016.810022.
8. Wang, L., Z. Du, H. Yang, R. Ma, Y. Zhao, X. Cui, and X. Xi, “Compact UWB-MIMO antenna with
high isolation using fence-type decoupling structure,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation
Letters, Vol. 18, No. 8, 1641–1645, 2019, DOI: 10.1109/LAWP.2019.2925857.
9. Iqbal, A., O. A. Saraereh, A. Bouazizi, and A. Basir, “Metamaterial-based highly isolated MIMO
antenna for portable wireless applications,” Journal of Electronics, Vol. 7, No. 10, 1–8, 2018, DOI:
10.3390/electronics7100267.
76 Addepalli and Anitha

10. Iqbal, A., O. A. Saraereh, A. Ahmad, and S. Bashir, “Mutual coupling reduction using
F-shaped stubs in UWB-MIMO antenna,” IEEE Access, Vol. 6, 2755–2759, 2017, DOI:
10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2785232.
11. Park, J.-D., M. U. Rahman, and H. N. Chen, “Isolation enhancement of wideband MIMO
array antennas utilizing resistive loading,” IEEE Access, Vol. 7, 81020–81026, 2019, DOI:
10.1109/Access.2019.
12. Zhu, J., S. Li, B. Feng, L. Deng, and S. Yin, “Compact dual-polarized UWB quasi-self-
complementary MIMO/diversity antenna with band-rejection capability,” IEEE Antennas and
Wireless Propagation Letters, Vol. 15, 905–908, 2016, DOI: 10.1109/LAWP.2015.2479622.
13. Deng, J.-Y., L.-X. Guo, and X.-L. Liu, “An ultra wideband MIMO antenna with a high
isolation,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, Vol. 15, 182–185, 2016, DOI:
10.1109/LAWP.2015.2437713.
14. Zhang, S. and G. F. Pedersen, “Mutual coupling reduction for UWB-MIMO antennas with a
wideband neutralization line,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, Vol. 15, 166–169,
2015, DOI: 10.1109/LAWP.2015.2435992.
15. Bhattacharya, A., B. Roy, S. K. Chowdhury, K. Anup, and Bhattacharjee, “An isolation enhanced,
printed, low-profile UWB-MIMO antenna with unique dual band-notching features for WLAN and
WiMAX,” IETE Journal of Research, 1–8, 2019, DOI: 10.1080/03772063.2019.1612284.
16. Mchbal, A., N. Amar Touhami, H. Elftouh, and A. Dkiouak, “Mutual coupling reduction using a
protruded ground branch structure in a compact UWB owl-shaped MIMO antenna,” International
Journal of Antennas and Propagation, 1–10, 2018, DOI: 10.1155/2018/4598527.
17. Mathur, R. and S. Dwari, “A compact planar reconfigurable UWB-MIMO antenna with on-demand
WiMAX/WLAN rejection,” IET Microwaves, Antennas Propagation, Vol. 13, No. 10, 1684–1689,
2019, DOI: 10.1049/iet-map.2018.6048.
18. Liu, L., S. W. Cheung, and T. I. Yuk, “Compact MIMO antenna for portable UWB applications
with band-notched characteristic,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 63,
No. 5, 1917–1924, 2015, DOI: 10.1109/TAP.2015.2406892.
19. Mathur, R. and S. Dwari, “A compact UWB-MIMO with dual grounded CRR for isolation
improvement,” International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer-aided Engineering, 1–9, 2018,
DOI: 10.1002/mmce.21500.
20. Li, Z., C. Yin, and X. Zhu, “Compact UWB MIMO vivaldi antenna with dual band-notched
characteristics,” IEEE Access, Vol. 7, 38696–38701, 2019, DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.
21. Chaudhary, P., A. Kumar, and B. K. Kanaujia, “A low-profile wideband circularly polarized MIMO
antenna with pattern and polarization diversity,” International Journal of Microwave and Wireless
Technologies, 1–7, 2019, DOI: 10.1017/S175907871900134X.
22. Chandel, R., A. K. Gautam, and K. Rambabu, “Design and packaging of an eye-shaped
multiple-input-multiple-output antenna with high isolation for wireless UWB applications,” IEEE
Transactions on Components, Packaging and Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 8, No. 4, 635–642,
2018, DOI: 10.1109/TCPMT.2018.2806562.
23. Chandel, R., A. K. Gautam, and K. Rambabu, “Tapered fed compact UWB-MIMO-
diversity antenna with dual band-notched characteristics,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation, Vol. 66, No. 4, 1677–1684, 2018, DOI: 10.1109/TAP.2018.2803134.
24. Dkiouak, A., A. Zakriti, and M. El Ouahabi, “Design of a compact dual-band MIMO antenna
with high isolation for WLAN and X-band satellite by using orthogonal polarization,” Journal of
Electromagnetic Waves and Applications, 1–14, 2019, DOI: 10.1080/09205071.2019.1657504.
25. Wu, L., H. Lyu, and H. Yu, “A novel compact UWB-MIMO antenna with quintuple notched-
band characteristics,” Wireless Personal Communications, Vol. 108, No. 3, 1827–1840, 2019, DOI:
10.1007/s11277-019-06498-5.
26. Tao, J. and Q. Feng, “Compact ultra wideband MIMO antenna with half-slot struc-
ture,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, Vol. 16, 792–795, 2017, DOI:
10.1109/LAWP.2016.2604344.
Progress In Electromagnetics Research C, Vol. 102, 2020 77

27. Gautam, A. K., A. Saini, N. Agrawal, and N. Z. Rizvi, “Design of a compact protrudent-shaped
ultra-wideband multiple-input-multiple-output/diversity antenna with Band-rejection capability,”
International Journal of RF and Microwave Computer-aided Engineering, 1–11, 2019, DOI:
10.1002/mmce.21829.
28. Ray, K. P., “Design aspects of printed monopole antennas for ultra-wide band applications,”
International Journal of Antennas and Propagation, 1–8, 2008, DOI: 10.1155/2008/713858.
29. Sharawi, M. S., A. T. Hassan, and M. U. Khan, “Correlation coefficient calculations for MIMO
antenna systems: A comparative study,” International Journal of Microwave and Wireless
Technologies, Vol. 9, No. 10, 1991–2004, 2017, DOI:10.1017/S1759078717000903.
30. Manteghi, M. and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Multiport characteristics of a wideband cavity backed
annular patch antenna for multi polarization operations,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation, Vol. 53, No. 1, 466–474, 2005, DOI: 10.1109/TAP.2004.838794.
31. Addepalli, T. and V. R. Anitha, “Design and parametric analysis of hexagonal shaped MIMO
patch antenna for S-band, WLAN, UWB and X-band applications,” Progress In Electromagnetics
Research C, Vol. 97, 227–240, 2019.