Suitability of Dual-Band, Dual-Polarized Patch Antennas with a Superstrate for the Miniaturization of Ku-Band Antenna Arrays for Automotive Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      In section 3……. author discusses the circularly polarized antennas needed in satellite applications, ……... We have decided to design a dual-band, dual-linearly polarized antenna. These two statements contradict to each other.

2.      The author used the antenna array word in their title but there is no antenna array proposed in the paper. Please update the title accordingly.

3.      In Figure 3 (S-parameters) and Figure 6 (normalized elevation cuts) are poorly validated with simulated results; if possible, the author should remeasure data with proper calibration.

4.      In axial ratio figure 4 (c), the author discusses a 5 dB reference value; however, generally, standard 3 dB is the reference level for axial ratio. Please cite the relevant source why a 5 dB reference level is taken.

5.      Some typos in the study should be corrected, e.g., From the measured gain curves in Figure 4 (a) it is clearly visible that the superstrate yields a 3…6 dB gain improvement across the entire DL-band.

6.      The Keyword can be written in alphabetical order.

7. The author must include a comparison table with other Ku-band automotive application-based proposed antennas.

8.      Overall, the Authors should clearly identify their novel contribution, which must be proved through well-validated results.

 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review my paper. Attached are the responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The provided article titled "Suitability of Dual-Band Dual-Polarized Patch Antennas with Superstrate for Miniaturization of Ku-Band Antenna Arrays for Automotive Applications" addresses the potential integration of low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite services into automotive platforms to enhance wireless connectivity. The paper focuses on the challenges of integrating large antennas into vehicles and proposes a solution using a dual-band dual-polarized patch antenna with a superstrate, aiming for miniaturization and improved gain. However, to enhance its accessibility and real-world applicability, further explanations of technical concepts, practical implementation considerations, and a broader context within the field of automotive connectivity could be valuable.

·         How does the paper address potential challenges or limitations related to the use of superstrates in antenna design? Are there specific scenarios where this approach might not be effective?

·         The paper mentions a discrepancy between measured and simulated results. Could you elaborate on the potential implications of these differences in practical scenarios, especially in automotive applications?

·         Considering the trade-offs between antenna gain, size, and complexity, does the proposed superstrate-loaded design have any drawbacks or limitations that could affect its suitability for automotive integration?

·         The paper highlights the potential benefits of reduced size and complexity for automotive integration. Could you provide more insight into the specific manufacturing and integration challenges that the proposed design helps overcome?

·         Given the shift in S11 matching frequency between simulations and measurements, could this discrepancy affect the overall performance of the antenna array, especially in terms of bandwidth and data rate?

·         How does the proposed antenna design, with its improved gain and smaller size, compare with existing automotive antenna solutions in terms of performance, cost, and integration feasibility?

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review my paper. Attached are the responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper proposes a low-profile dual-band dual-polarized vertical-stacked patch antenna with superstrate loading, and shows that inclusion of the superstrate improves the antenna gain by at least 3 dB. There are some comments as follows:

 

1-Layout of the proposed design should be provided and dimensions should be added in the provided layout.

2-A comparison table should be added and proposed design should be compared with other related works.

3-The equations and figures which are not related to authors should be cited.

4-The use of "mitigate" may not be appropriate in the below context. It would be better to use "reduce" or "eliminate" instead.

 

 "The extension of LEO services to non-terrestrial mobile communications has the potential to mitigate network white spots and provide worldwide geographic coverage."

 

5-The paper could also discuss potential challenges or limitations in implementing the proposed design in real-world automotive applications.

 

6-The introduction could be strengthened by providing more background information on the mutual coupling reduction in antenna array. This would help to contextualize the importance and relevance of the proposed antenna design. Below paper maybe helpful: https://doi.org/10.3390/s23167089

 

7- The methodology section could be expanded to provide more detailed information on the simulation tools and techniques used to evaluate the performance of the proposed antenna design. This would help readers to better understand the approach taken and the validity of the results presented.

 

8- The conclusion could benefit from a more comprehensive summary of the key findings and implications of the study.  

 

9- The paper should be written according to the journal rules and template.

 

10- Quality of figures should be improved specially Fig.1, Fig2(d) and Fig 2(e). Maybe it is beter to provide Fig2(d) and Fig 2(e) as separated figure and

 

11- Provide fractional band width (FBW) for both DL and UL bands.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review my paper. Attached are the responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All the comments are addressed. 
I have given minor revisions related to the formatting of the paper.
The article is accepted in its present form for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors addressed most of my concerns.

Minor editing of English language required