Development of Metamaterial Inspired Non-Uniform Circular Array Superstate Antenna Using Characteristic Mode Analysis
, Boddapati Taraka Phani Madhav 1, Sudipta Das 2, Niamat Hussain 3,*, Syed Samser Ali 4 and Kommanaboyina Vasu Babu 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposed a multi-layered nonuniform metasurface structured antenna. The mode analysis technique is interesting, but the relation between proposed design and analysis could not be found. For example, there is no derivation and explanation for why author choose the mixed design of the 40 and -40 degree among the -60 ~ 90 degrees. There are some comments below that should be corrected to emphasize the main attribution of this work better.
1. In Figure 1: Information about the spacing between unit cells or the position of the feed probe should be added.
2. In Figure 1 and Figure 11 (beampattern figure): Axis information should be added.
3. In Figure 2, there are 3 mode analysis comparison (modal, transient, terminal, mode analysis), but there is no analysis for transient and terminal. Author should add explanation, analysis, and references for these two modes.
4. It would be better that the contents of Figure 2 and Figure 11( the measured and simulated reflection coefficient) be displayed in one figure.
5. In Figure 3, it would be better that beam pattern analysis for each mode and combinational mode be added instead of simple eigen value figure.
6. There is no Figure 5.
7. In Figure 6, Real data plot should be clear.
8. Figure 7, 8, 9 and Table 2, 3, 4 describe the same information, so the author should analyze the characteristic mode for each angle without any unnecessary.
9. In Figure 10, it would be better that beam pattern analysis for each current distribution be added.
10. In page 14, there are two Figure 11s.
11. In Figure 11(beampattern figure), it would be better that the value scale for each pattern be equally adjusted.
12. In Figure 11(beampattern figure), it would be better that it should be replaced by the beampattern comparison between measurement and simulation at resonant frequency.
13. there are duplicate sentences in 270~275 and 280~285
Author Response
Respected Review
We are so grateful to the Reviewers for helping us to improve the quality of our work. We are very thankful to you for the appropriate and enlightening comments, which helped us greatly in improving the content, structure, and quality of the manuscript. Your comments immensely helped us in presenting the manuscript more meaningfully. We modified the manuscript according to your valuable comments. We sincerely hope that the modified manuscript is according to your expectations. The responses to the comments are given in this response letter.
Best Regards
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form. Below are my comments:
11. First at all, I would like to know the differences between the work proposed in this article and the work proposed in reference 34. What is new?
22. What are the main scientific contributions of this article? Please, add it at the end of the introduction;
33. There are no measured and simulated (2D) radiation patterns. Also, add a photograph of the measurement setup;
44. Improve the quality of Figure 1b. Make it clear which dimensions r and R are;
55. Improve the quality of Figure 4;
66. Column 1 of Table 5 is unnecessary;
77. In Figures 7 and 8, I recommend the same color pattern for the graphics legends;
88. The dimensions shown in Table 5 for the antenna proposed in reference 34 are wrong. Please check the dimensions and data of the other works cited in detail;
99. The dimensions of the antenna proposed by you in Table 5 are wrong. If the antenna has a radius of 27.5 mm, the area should be 27.52 x pi = 756.25 pi.
That’s all for me at this moment.
Author Response
Respected Reviewer
We are so grateful to the Reviewers for helping us to improve the quality of our work. We are very thankful to you for the appropriate and enlightening comments, which helped us greatly in improving the content, structure, and quality of the manuscript. Your comments immensely helped us in presenting the manuscript more meaningfully. We modified the manuscript according to your valuable comments. We sincerely hope that the modified manuscript is according to your expectations. The responses to the comments are given in this response letter.
Best Regards
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments from reviewers have been addressed by the authors and the manuscript has been revised in a proper manner except for below one.
1. In Figure 2,5,6: The dotted line is too unclear, so that it should be improved.
2. In Figure 11: The left scale labels of (d), (e) are cut in tail.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for considering our work and providing valuable inputs, which helped us greatly in improving the content, structure, and quality of the manuscript. Your comments immensely helped us in presenting the manuscript more meaningfully.
We modified the manuscript according to your valuable comments. We sincerely hope that the modified manuscript is according to your expectations.
Thank you.
Please find the response to every comment as follows:
Reviewer 1:
The comments from reviewers have been addressed by the authors and the manuscript has been revised in a proper manner except for below one.
Comment 1. In Figure 2,5,6: The dotted line is too unclear, so that it should be improved.
Response: As per the learned reviewer comment, the dotted lines which are unclear are replaced with normal lines in clear representation.
Comment 2. In Figure 11: The left scale labels of (d), (e) are cut in tail.
Response: As per the suggestion, we have corrected the figures and represented the same in the revised paper for your kind consideration.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for addressing my comments.
Again, the dimensions of the antenna proposed by you in Table 5 are wrong. If the antenna has a radius of 27.5 mm, the area should be 27.52 x pi = 756.25 pi mm2. Please, check this carefully.
Other than that, I believe that the article is ready for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for considering our work and providing valuable inputs, which helped us greatly in improving the content, structure, and quality of the manuscript. Your comments immensely helped us in presenting the manuscript more meaningfully.
We modified the manuscript according to your valuable comments. We sincerely hope that the modified manuscript is according to your expectations.
Thank you.
Please find the response to every comment as follows:
Reviewer 2:
Dear authors, Thank you for addressing my comments.
Comment 1: Again, the dimensions of the antenna proposed by you in Table 5 are wrong. If the antenna has a radius of 27.5 mm, the area should be 27.52 x pi = 756.25 pi mm2. Please, check this carefully.
Response: As per the learned reviewer's comment, we have corrected the dimension in Table 5 and presented the same in the revised paper for your kind reference.
Comment 2: Other than that, I believe that the article is ready for publication.
Response: We are very much thankful for your valuable suggestions for the improvement of our article.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
The article is ready for publication.
