Some Issues in the Design of Recent MIMO
Antenna Systems
Mohammad S. Sharawi
Electrical Engineering Department
King Fahd University for Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM)
Dhahran, 31261 Saudi Arabia
Email: msharawi@kfupm.edu.sa
Abstract—Multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) technology
was introduced to overcome the saturated data rate capabilities of
conventional single antenna systems given the limited bandwidth
and power levels. For the past 10 years, MIMO solutions were
provided for various wireless systems and it became a pillar
in the fourth generation (4G) wireless standards and beyond.
The proliferation of wireless devices in various applications and
form factors made engineers and researchers propose numer-
ous solutions for MIMO antenna systems. These multi-antenna
systems need careful examination and design steps to be useful
and provide the anticipated increase in data rates. Recently, it
has been observed that several proposed MIMO designs suffer
from some common fundamental issues that are highlighted and
discussed in this work. The goal is to clarify and avoid them in
the future.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The demand for higher data rates will keep increasing
by the year. The market projections for such increase show
that average monthly traffic rates will increase by more than
40% each year, reaching 24.3 Exabytes in 2019 [1]. Mobile
wireless terminals are currently using up more than 50% of this
traffic. The 4G wireless standards implemented multiple-input-
multiple-output (MIMO) technology to be able to provide a
noticeable increase in the data rates on mobile terminals given
the scarce bandwidth and power resources service providers
suffer from.
MIMO requires the use of multiple antennas within a single
device. The close proximity of such antennas and parallel
operation dictates careful design and characterization. A large
number of works have been proposed in literature covering
all types of consumer electronic devices [2]. A quick search
of the term ”MIMO antenna” returned over 21,831 matches
(papers) in IEEE Xplore data base, and 2,679 in Wiley
Microwave and Optical Technology letters data base (this is
not comprehensive, but was used to show the magnitude of
the numbers, while other major journals can show the same
trends as well). Out of these total numbers, more than 83%
and 88% of the papers appeared in the past 10 years (2006-
2015), in IEEE Xplore and Wiley, respectively. This shows
the magnitude and importance of this area in supporting actual
consumer electronic applications.
Although the momentum is still going in the area of MIMO
antenna system design for various applications, since MIMO
978-1-5090-6011-5/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
will be also part of 5G standards, some major issues have been
identified recently when it comes to providing novel designs
and assessing their performance metrics. In this paper, we will
cover some of these issues and shine some light on them.
The wrong use of these metrics leads to wrong conclusions
on the performance of the devices containing these MIMO
antennas. A major issue is the confusion and mixup between
port isolation and field correlation. The majority of recent
works utilized an easy method for calculating the far field
correlation coefficient values without paying attention to the
conditions under which such a method is valid. Thus, putting
a major question over the conclusions made on the correla-
tion coefficient values obtained and whether they satisfy the
minimum standard requirements for MIMO antenna systems.
In this work, we re-stress the fundamental definitions of
channel capacity, correlation coefficient and port isolation.
Then, we discuss some of the common fundamental issues
in some recent designs and some of the misinterpretations of
MIMO performance metrics used. Authors should always seek
novel geometries with new features, and reviewers should be
aware of the latest works to ensure novelty of submitted works.
II. F UNDAMENTAL D EFINITIONS
Let us start by revisiting the fundamental definitions of the
major parameters used to assess the performance of MIMO
antenna systems; the channel capacity – 𝐶, the correlation
coefficient –𝜌 (or envelope correlation coefficient – 𝜌𝑒 ) and
the isolation (port efficiency). Usually other metrics such as
diversity gain can be found by knowing the aforementioned
basic quantities.
( ( ))
𝑃𝑇 H
𝐶 = 𝐵𝑊 𝑙𝑜𝑔2 𝑑𝑒𝑡 IN + 2 HH (1)
𝜎 𝑀
where 𝐶 is the channel capacity in bits/s, 𝐵𝑊 is the band-
width in Hz, IN is the identity matrix with rows/columns
equal to the receiver antenna elements (𝑁 ), 𝑀 is the number
of transmitter elements, 𝑃𝑇 is the signal power (equally
distributed if no channel state information is available), 𝜎 2 is
the noise power, and H is the complex channel matrix between
the transmitter and receiver [3].
∫ ∫ − → →
− 
 
 4𝜋
𝐹 𝑖 (𝜃, 𝜙) ∙ 𝐹 ∗𝑗 (𝜃, 𝜙)𝑑Ω
2
∣𝜌∣ ≈ 𝜌𝑒 = ∫ ∫ − → ∫∫ − → (2)
4𝜋
∣ 𝐹 𝑖 (𝜃, 𝜙)∣2 𝑑Ω 4𝜋 ∣ 𝐹 𝑗 (𝜃, 𝜙)∣2 𝑑Ω
 −
→
where 𝐹 𝑖,𝑗 is the complex radiated fields for elements 𝑖, 𝑗,
respectively, ∙ denotes Hermitian product, and (⋅)∗ is the
complex conjugate. It should be noted that (2) is only valid
for an isotropic wireless channel, and any other channel should
incorporate the cross-polarization discrimination ratio (𝑋𝑃 𝑅),
along with the effect of the incoming wave distribution func-
tion as indicated in [4] and many other references. The large
formula for that calculation is omitted here to save space. 𝜌𝑒 is
preferred over 𝜌 because we prefer to deal with power inputs
compared to voltage based ones.
Finally, port isolation is measured using the well known
s-parameters, via 𝑆𝑥𝑦 . Port isolation identifies the amount of
coupling between the two ports mainly due to the common
ground currents between adjacent ports. One more important
note, authors should be aware of the various conditions and
between port parameters and radiated fields in terms of field
correlation. Although several other methods relying on port
parameters appeared recently (details omitted for brevity), an
example is given here that shows otherwise, thus more detailed
investigation of port based methods should be conducted. It
was shown in [6] that even for two dipoles in air with no port
coupling (high isolation), large field correlation was obtained.
Another example is shown in Fig.2. Two closely placed MIMO
antennas are designed and simulated. The port isolation is high
(Fig. 2(b)), and their patterns are shown in Fig. 2(c). The
comparison between the port S-parameters and the fields is
shown in Fig. 2(d), and the differences is clear.
60mm
10

special cases that appeared in literature when trying to assess

these quantities to simplify their calculations and should

32mm
12 10

explicitly mention them when using a formula over the other.

13
III. I SSUES IN THE DESIGN OF MIMO ANTENNA S YSTEMS FR4 14
(a)
AND THEIR ASSESSMENT

A very common mistake that is still being practiced is using

isolated GND planes between MIMO antennas as shown in
Fig. 1. For the sake of generality, simple monopole antennas
are shown, but the idea can be applied to any type or antenna
geometry. In Figure 1(a), the direct split in the GND plane (b)
can yield a direct enhancement in the port isolation. This is
a direct consequence of the fact that there will be no current
coupling through the GND plane since it is not continuous.
This GND split is not practical, since in a real system, the
signals should have a common reference plane, i.e. a single
common GND plane. This direct split should be avoided.

substrate substrate

ANT-2 ANT-1 ANT-2 Port - 1 (c) Port - 2

ANT-1

Port-2
GND (d)
2

GND GND GND

1 2 1

Port-1 Port-2 Port-1

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Diagram of a MIMO antenna system with not connected GND planes,
(a) case 1, (b) case 2.

Another common issue identified is in the evaluation of
𝜌𝑒 . A large amount of references rely on the S-parameter
derived equation shown in [5] without paying attention to the
constraints listed. A major constraint for using the S-parameter
equation to evaluate 𝜌𝑒 is that antennas should be 100%
efficient. This is rarely the case in printed antennas. Another
fact that should be remembered is that there is no direct link
Fig. 2. Comparison between S-parameter based ECC and field based ECC
of a 2-element patch MIMO antenna system, (a) geometry, (b) S-parameters,
(c) Radiation patterns, (d) ECC comparison.
Although several papers mention that improving port iso-
lation enhances the correlation performance, this is not true
in a direct way. It is well known that port isolation will
improve the efficiency of the system, which can affect its
diversity performance by reflecting on the amount of radiated
power, but not on the radiation pattern shape that directly affect
the amount of channel isolation and thus affects the channel
capacity.
More examples will be presented in the conference showing
that the assessment of MIMO antenna systems should be
focused on the correct metrics and fundamental concepts that
directly affect the channel behaviour.
IV. C ONCLUSIONS
Coming up with novel printed MIMO antennas for next
generation wireless terminals will still be of high value. The
design of such antennas needs careful attention in satisfying
practical system level constraints as well as needs careful
assessment of performance metrics. In this paper, we present
some of te misuses that have been recently identified, and
the corrective actions are suggested. Specifically, we touch
upon the in-practicality of the use of isolated ground planes to
improve port isolation, the misconception and mixup between
port isolation and field correlation and finally the evaluation
of the correlation coefficient in the proper way.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided
by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) at King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia, under project number FT161006.
R EFERENCES
[1] Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast
Update 20142019 White Paper, URL: 𝑤𝑤𝑤.𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜.𝑐𝑜𝑚.
[2] M. S. Sharawi, Printed MIMO Antenna Engineering, Artech House,
2014.
[3] A. Goldsmith, Wireless Comunications, Cambridge University Press,
2005.
[4] M. P. Karaboikis, V. C. Papamichael, G. F. Tsachtsiris, C. F. Soras
and W. T. Makios, “Integrating Compact Printed Antennas onto Small
Diversity/MIMO Terminals,” IEEE Trans. Antenn. Prop., Vol. 56, No.
7, pp. 2067-2078, 2008.
[5] S. Blanch, J. Romeu and I. Corbella, “Exact Representation of Antenna
System Diversity Performance from Input Parameter Description,”
Electronics Letters, Vol. 39, No.9, pp. 705-707, 2003.
[6] S. Mikki and Y. M. M. Antar, “On Cross Correlation in Antenna Arrays
With Applications to Spatial Diversity and MIMO Systems,” IEEE
Trans. Antenn. Prop., Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 1798-1810, 2015.