electronics

Article
A Design Rule to Reduce the Human Body Effect on
Wearable PIFA Antennas
Giovanni Andrea Casula
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica ed Elettronica, Università di Cagliari, Piazza D’Armi, 09123 Cagliari, Italy;
a.casula@diee.unica.it; Tel.: +39-070-675-5783




Received: 30 January 2019; Accepted: 14 February 2019; Published: 21 February 2019


Abstract: The robustness of wearable Ultra-High Frequency (UHF)-band planar inverted-F Antennas
(PIFAs) with respect to coupling with the human body is an extremely difficult challenge for the
designer. In this work a design strategy is presented to help the designer to adequately shape and
extend the antenna ground plane, which has been derived by accurately analyzing the distribution
of the electric and magnetic energy densities of the antenna in a region around the antenna borders.
The optimal extension of the ground plane will be discussed for three different grounded antennas,
both in terms of free space wavelength, and in terms of electric energy density magnitude. Following
these rules, the antenna robustness with respect to the coupling with the human body can be
significantly improved, but with a minimal impact on the antenna size. The antenna robustness
has been successfully tested considering several models for the human phantom in the simulation
environment. The numerical simulations, performed using Computer Simulation Technology (CST)
Microwave Studio, have been confirmed by experimental data measured for one of the analyzed
grounded antenna configurations.

Keywords: grounded antennas; PIFA antennas; wearable antennas; body-antenna coupling

1. Introduction
Recent advances in miniaturization of communicating devices and design of smart networks,
allowed a rapid development of and a growing interest in body area networks and personal area
networks, because of their very strong potential for several applications and services, such as personal
healthcare, sport, space, entertainment, smart homes, and so on.
These applications require an easy integration into clothes of both antennas and sensors, as well
as high-data-rate wireless devices, so that the wearer can be able to communicate wirelessly with
several devices.
However, the proximity of the human body with the wearable antenna is a very difficult problem
to face, as it can severely worsen the on-body device performance, and, consequently, the global
performances of the system itself [1,2]. A wearable antenna should be designed to maximize its
robustness with respect to the random variations in the body-antenna coupling scenario (due to
the continuous changes in the distance between the antenna and the body caused by the wearer
movements), because the radio link is greatly influenced by this coupling. In addition, each individual
typically has different dielectric and geometrical parameters for the human body tissues [3,4].
The impact of the human body on the wearable antennas can be mitigated by enlarging the
ground plane of the antenna, but this solution is not adequate in UHF applications, such as Radio
Frequency Identification systems, because it could produce uncomfortable antennas for the wearer.
Therefore, it would be extremely useful to the designer to have an effective design strategy, leading
to a suitable ground plane (and layout) configuration which guarantees simultaneously a satisfying
robustness to the antenna-body distance variation, and a compact antenna size.

Electronics 2019, 8, 244; doi:10.3390/electronics8020244 www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics

Electronics 2019, 8, 244 2 of 18

A design criterion to limit the effect of the coupling with the human body, is described in
references [5–11], and consists of using an appropriate ground plane shape and size able to confine the
electric energy density of the antenna in a region far from its border. These works, however, give no
details about the design of the optimal antenna ground plane, which could allow the designer to obtain
the best trade-off between compactness (i.e., wearability) and robustness with respect to the human
body coupling. This is necessarily a compromise solution, because the antenna robustness increases for
larger ground planes, but this improvement is in contrast with one of the most important requirements
of wearable applications, i.e., the antenna size must be kept as small as possible.
The aim of this paper is to provide a reasonable compromise between the antenna robustness
and its overall dimension. A preliminary work has been presented in reference [12], where numerical
results on a PIFA antenna have been presented, comparing the antenna performance for different
ground plane extensions, and relating this performance to the antenna energy density distribution.
The preliminary results presented in reference [12] are significantly extended and experimentally
validated in this paper, and the optimal ground plane enlargement, required to design an antenna with
an adequate robustness, will be discussed here for three different grounded antennas for wearable
applications, both in terms of free space wavelength, and in terms of electric energy density amplitude.
Finally, this paper also investigates if the choice of the human body phantom can affect the results,
considering four different models for the human phantom, showing that the antenna robustness has a
similar behavior for all the tested phantoms. Numerical simulations have been performed using CST
Microwave Studio. While all the three PIFAs configurations considered here as the initial layouts of our
numerical tests have been selected from the open scientific literature, where they have been already
adequately tested and characterized both numerically and experimentally, one of the analyzed PIFAs
has been experimentally characterized, obtaining a good agreement between numerical simulations
and experimental validation. This confirms the usefulness of the proposed design strategy.

2. Numerical Simulation Results

In this section, the energy-based design criteria derived in reference [7] for wearable UHF-Band
PIFAs, which provide a general strategy to increase the antenna robustness regardless of the
optimization of the antenna dimension, have been extended to find an optimal dimension and shape
for the antenna ground plane, which allows us to achieve the best trade-off between the antenna size
and its robustness.
The idea proposed here to increase the antenna robustness, obtaining at the same time an optimal
dimension and shape for the antenna ground plane, consists of extending the antenna layout following
the “profile” of the electric energy density in the antenna near-field region close to the ground plane
border. The first step of this optimization process is an adequate enlargement of the ground plane,
which must be extended enough to include almost all the electric energy density around the antenna
borders. After this ground plane extension, the distribution of the energy density over the enlarged
ground plane is analyzed, and a suitable threshold is defined for the amplitude of the electric energy
density, in correspondence of which the ground plane is truncated. It will be shown that a further
extension of the ground plane is not required, since the resulting increase in the antenna robustness is
negligible enough for ground plane extensions, which include values of the electric energy density
beyond the selected threshold. Therefore, this strategy allows us to obtain a good compromise solution
between antenna robustness and size and can be considered a general rule connecting the energy
density amplitude with the optimal ground plane extension.
The proposed design rule has been successfully applied in this paper to three PIFAs from the
open literature. The PIFAs under test span a wide fraction of the UHF spectrum for wearable antenna
applications and are, specifically, two RFID tag antennas operating in the UHF band [7,13,14], and a
folded PIFA for on-body communications working at 2.4 GHz [7,15].
To account for the presence of the human body, the simplified three-layer model already used
in [7] has been considered in the simulated environment, as shown in Figure 1. It is composed of
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 3 of 18

Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

• skin layer (εr = 41.32, σ = 0.855 S/m @ 900 MHz) with a thickness of 1.5 mm
•
• fat
fat layer
layer (ε
(εrr == 5.46,
5.46, σσ ==0.05
0.05S/m
S/m@@900900MHz)
MHz)with
witha athickness
thicknessofof2020mm
mm
•
• muscle
muscle layer (εrr = 54.97, σ = 0.934 S/m @ 900 MHz) with a thickness ofof3030mm
layer (ε = 54.97, σ = 0.934 S/m @ 900 MHz) with a thickness mm

Figure 1. A wearable antenna on the phantom model used to perform the numerical investigation of
the antenna robustness to the body proximity.
proximity.

The robustness of each antenna with respect to the human body proximity has been evaluated
by computing two key parameters for different antenna distances, d, from the phantom, as indicated
in Figure 1. These
These parameters
parametersare
arethe
theradiation
radiationefficiency,
efficiency, and thethe
, and power transmission
power transmissioncoefficient,
coefficient,
τ,
τdefined as:as:
, defined
 Z I N − Zo 2
 
τ = 1−  2 (1)
ZIINN −+ZZ0o 
Z
τ = 1− (1)
IN0 + Z 0
where in ZIN is the antenna input impedance, andZZ is a reference impedance, equal to the antenna
input impedance at the resonance frequency (Im(ZIN ) = 0) when the antenna is adherent to the human
where
body model is =the
in ZIN (d antenna input impedance, and Z0 is a reference impedance, equal to the antenna
0 mm).
inputTheimpedance
best ground at the resonance
plane frequency
configuration (Im(Z
is the ) = 0) whena the
oneINexhibiting antennavalue
reasonable is adherent
of τ × to
η, the
withhuman
a τ as
body model (d = 0 mm).
great as possible, with both stable (or increasing) with respect to the antenna-body distance, d.
The best ground plane configuration is the one exhibiting a reasonable value of τ × η, with a τ as
2.1. Wearable Planar
great as possible, Inverted-F
with Antenna
both stable at UHF Frequencies
(or increasing) with respect to the antenna-body distance, d.
The first antenna under test is a PIFA antenna suitable for wearable tags at UHF frequencies [13].
2.1. Wearable Planar Inverted-F Antenna at UHF Frequencies
The geometrical parameters used in the numerical simulations are summarized in Figure 2, and the
Theand
electric firstmagnetic
antenna underenergytest is a PIFA
densities areantenna
shownsuitable
in Figure for2c,d,
wearable tags at UHF
respectively. Thefrequencies [13].
electric energy
The geometrical
density shows a parameters
single peak,used closeintothe numerical
the antenna open simulations are summarized
end, whereas the magnetic in Figure
energy 2, and the
density
electric
shows two andpeaks,
magnetic eachenergy
one closedensities are shown
to the antenna in Figure
lateral edges. 2c,d, respectively. The electric energy
density showstoachoose
In order single thepeak, close profile
optimal to the antenna open end,
for the ground planewhereas
extension,the the
magnetic
groundenergy density
plane must be
shows
enlarged two peaks,to
enough each one close
include to thepart
the great antenna
of thelateral
electricedges.
energy density around the antenna borders.
In order
In Figure 3a, to
the choose
electrictheenergy
optimal profileisforreported
density the ground when plane
the extension,
ground plane the ground
extension plane must be
is equal to
∆L = 40 mm.
enlarged enough This toextension
include the great us
allows partto of theinto
take electric energy
account thedensity
most ofaround the antenna
the electric energyborders.
density
In Figure 3a,around
distribution the electric energy density
the antenna borders, is which
reported when
is the the ground
magnitude plane
of the extension
energy in theisborders ΔL =
equal tolower
40
thanmm.104 times
This extension
the electricallows
energy us to take
density peak, into account
as shown in the most
Figure ofwhere
3a,b, the electric
the energyenergy density
distribution
distribution
is plotted with around the scales.
different antennaThe borders,
maximum which of is
thethe magnitude
electric energyofdensity
the energyis in in the
fact × 10−4lower
1.5borders J/m3
than 10 3a),
(Figure 4 times the electric
while the value energy
of thedensity
energypeak,densityas shown in Figure
at the upper 3a,b,of
border where the energy
the elongated distribution
ground plane
is lower
plottedthan × 10−7 scales.
with1.0different J/m3 (Figure
The maximum of the electric
3b). Considering energydistribution,
this energy density is ina fact 1.5 ×threshold
suitable 10−4 J/m3
(Figure
must be3a), whilefor
defined thethe
value of the energy
amplitude of the density at the upper
electric energy border
density, and ofthethe elongated
ground planeground plane
is truncated
is
in lower than 1.0 × with
correspondence 10−7 J/m (Figure
the 3values of3b). Considering
the electric energy this energy
density distribution,
equal a suitable
to this threshold, as threshold
indicated
must be defined
in Figure 3c, where forthe
thenormalized
amplitude of the electric
electric energyenergy
densitydensity, and the plane
on the ground ground forplane is truncated
the antenna with
∆Lcorrespondence
in = 40 mm is represented with thewithvalues of thelines.
contour electric energy density
A reasonable choiceequal to threshold
for this this threshold, as indicated
is a value which is
in Figure 3c,times
a thousand where the than
lower normalized electric
the absolute energy density
maximum on theenergy
of the electric ground plane(i.e.,
density for the × 10−7 J/m
1.5 antenna 3,
with
Δ
asLindicated
= 40 mm is inrepresented with contour
Figure 3b), because lines. Aplane
the ground reasonable
areas on choice
whichforthe
this threshold
values is a value
of energy which
density are
is a thousand
lower than thistimes lowerand
threshold thancanthebeabsolute
reasonably maximum
neglected. of the electric energy density (i.e., 1.5 × 10−7
J/m3, as indicated in Figure 3b), because the ground plane areas on which the values of energy density
are lower than this threshold and can be reasonably neglected.
Electronics 2018, 8,
Electronics 2019, 7, 244
x FOR PEER REVIEW 44 of
of 18
18
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

Figure 2. Front view (a), and lateral view (b) of the considered antenna. (c) Electric and (d) Magnetic
2. Front view (a), and lateral view (b) of the the considered
considered antenna.
antenna.
Figure 2.
energy densities close to the ground plane, at the resonant frequency. W(c) Electric and (d) Magnetic
g = 49 mm, Lg = 60 mm, Wa =
energy densities close
close to
tothe
theground
ground plane,
plane, atatthe resonant
the frequency.
resonant WgW
frequency. = g49=mm, Lg = L60
49 mm, mm,
g = Wa =
60 mm,
8 mm, La = 10 mm, Wf = 3 mm, Lf = 10 mm, h = 4 mm.
8 mm,
W a =8L a = 10
mm, Lamm,
= 10W f = 3 mm,
mm, Wf = L3f mm,
= 10 mm,
Lf = h10= mm,
4 mm. h = 4 mm.

Figure 3.
Figure (a) Electric
3. (a) Electric energy
energy density
density on
on the
the ground
ground plane
plane for
for the
the antenna with ∆L
antenna with ΔL == 40
40 mm.
mm. (b)
(b) Electric
Electric
Figure density
energy 3. (a) Electric
on theenergy
ground density
plane on the ground
for antenna plane
with ∆L
for =the
40antenna
mm withwith
energy density on the ground plane for the antenna with ΔL = 40 mm with the maximum peakset
the Δ L = 40 mm.peak
maximum (b) Electric
settotoa
energy
value 10 3 times lower
density
3 on the ground
than the plane
one for
shown the
in antenna
(a). (c) with Δ
a value 10 times lower than the one shown in (a). (c) Normalized Electric energy density onsetthe
L
Normalized = 40 mm with
Electric the
energy maximum
density on peak
the ground to
a value
plane for10the
3 times lower
antenna with ∆L
than the
= 40one
mm shown in (a). (c)
represented with Normalized
contour Electric
lines. (d) energyofdensity
Profile
ground plane for the antenna with ΔL = 40 mm represented with contour lines. (d) Profile of the the on the
extended
planefollowing
ground plane for the antenna
the electric ΔL = 40
withenergy mm represented
density shown in (b),with ∆L = 30lines.
withcontour
extended ground plane following the electric energy density shown in (b), with ΔL = 30 mm.
mm. (d) Profile of the
extended ground plane following the electric energy density shown in (b), with ΔL = 30 mm.
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 5 of 18

For wearable applications, the antenna size is a very strict requirement, and the wearable antenna
should be as comfortable and unobtrusive as possible for the wearer. For this reason, it is very
important to evaluate the optimal ground plane extension. It is also necessary to design an antenna
with an adequate robustness, not only in terms of free space wavelength, but also in terms of electric
energy density magnitude. Moreover, this choice is also frequency independent. For the considered
antenna, the ground plane extension which follows the profile of the electric energy density, obtained
using a threshold a thousand times lower than the absolute maximum of this energy density, is equal
to λ/10 at the center frequency (30 mm at 963.5 MHz), as indicated in Figure 3. It will be shown that
this enlargement of λ/10 is adequate to ensure a very good robustness for all the tested antennas, and,
therefore, it can be used as a “rule-of-thumb” in the design of robust grounded wearable antennas.
To evaluate the increase on antenna robustness due to different ground plane extensions,
in Figures 4–6 a parametric analysis of the PIFA antenna shown in Figure 2 has been performed,
by varying the extension ∆L of the structure towards the vertical direction (which is the direction
of the maxima of the electric energy density), as shown in Figure 3. The variations of τ (Figure 4),
η (Figure 5), and τ × η (Figure 6) with respect to the distance d from the human body are shown, and it
is apparent that the robustness of the antenna with respect to the presence of the human body can be
significantly increased if the ground plane is extended towards the antenna section corresponding
to the location of the maximum of the electric energy density. As expected, the antenna robustness
increases along with increasing values of the ground plane enlargement. However, the results obtained
using a large ground plane extension (∆L = 40 mm), and the extension which follows the profile of
the electric energy density (∆L = 30 mm) are comparable in terms of antenna robustness. Therefore,
the enlargement of the ground plane which follows the profile of the electric energy density, equal to
∆L = 30 mm = λ/10 (λ being the free space wavelength at 963.5 MHz), can be reasonably considered
an optimal ground plane extension, giving a very good compromise between the antenna robustness
and its overall dimension. On the other hand, when the size of the antenna is a critical issue, the results
shown in Figures 4–6 suggest that even smaller extensions can be used, still preserving an adequate
robustness of the structure. As an example, also with a minimal extension of ∆L = λ/20 (corresponding
to only 15 mm at 963.5 MHz), the obtained antenna presents a discrete input matching (τ decreases to
0.65 for d = 50mm), and the efficiency parameter τ × η keeps close to 0.3. This behavior can be still
considered to be satisfactory, especially if compared with the PIFA antenna without any extension,
whose performance is extremely degraded by the human body proximity, both in terms of input
matching and radiation efficiency (τ becomes lower than 0.6 for d only equal to 5 mm, while τ × η is
around 0.1).
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 6 of 18
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

Figure 4. ττwith
withrespect
respectto
tothe
thedistance
distancefrom
from the
the body
body phantom
phantom for
for different
different extensions
extensions of the antenna
ground plane.

Figure 5. ηη with
with respect
respect to
to the
the distance
distance from
from the
the body
body phantom
phantom for
for different
different extensions of the antenna
ground plane.
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 7 of 18
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18

Figure 6. τ × η with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the
Figure 6. τ × η with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the
antenna ground plane.
antenna ground plane.
2.2. Standard Planar Inverted-F Antenna at UHF Freqiencies
2.2. Standard Planar Inverted-F Antenna at UHF Freqiencies
The above analysis has been repeated for a PIFA-type tag antenna working in the UHF frequency
bandThe [14].above analysisconfiguration
The original has been repeated for a PIFA-type
proposed in referencetag[14]
antenna working in
(and reported inthe UHF7)frequency
Figure has been
band [14]. The original configuration proposed in reference [14] (and reported
modified by reducing the ground plane size to exactly fit the radiating patch dimension (Wg in Figure 7) has=been
Wp
modified
and Lg = by Lp).reducing the ground
The electric plane size
and magnetic to exactly
energy fit the
densities areradiating
shown in patch dimension
Figure (Wg = Wp
7d,e, respectively.
andexpected
As Lg = Lp).for The electric and
a standard magnetic
PIFA, energy densities
the maximum are shown
of the electric energyindensity
Figureis7d,e,
closerespectively.
to the antennaAs
expected
open end,for a standard
whereas PIFA, the of
the maximum maximum of theenergy
the magnetic electricdensity
energyisdensity
close toisthe
close to the shorting
antenna antenna open
edge.
end, whereas the maximum of the magnetic energy density is close to the antenna
Also in this case, the optimal profile for extending the ground plane has been chosen after analyzing shorting edge.
Alsoelectric
the in this energy
case, thedensity
optimaldistribution
profile for extending the ground
of the antenna with aplanegroundhas plane
been chosen after analyzing
enlargement equal to
the electric energy density distribution of the antenna with a ground plane enlargement
∆L = 40 mm (Figure 8a), since this extension allows to take into account the great part of the electric equal to ΔL
= 40 mm (Figure 8a), since this extension allows to take into account the great
energy density around the antenna borders. The same threshold of Section 2.1 has been chosen (i.e., part of the electric
aenergy
value density
which isaround
thousandthe antenna
times lowerborders.
thanThe same threshold
the absolute maximum of Section
of the 2.1 has been
electric energychosen (i.e.,
density),
a value
and which isplane
the ground thousand times
has been cutlower than the absolute
in correspondence of themaximum
values of the of the electric
electric energy
energy density),
density equal
to this threshold (Figure 8c). This threshold corresponds to an extension equal to λ/10 at thedensity
and the ground plane has been cut in correspondence of the values of the electric energy center
equal to this
frequency threshold
of 916.25 MHz (Figure 8c). This
(32.5 mm), as inthreshold Section 2.1. to an extension equal to λ/10 at the
the case ofcorresponds
center frequency of 916.25 MHz (32.5 mm), as in the case of Section 2.1.
 2018, 8,
Electronics 2019, 7, 244
x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

Figure 7. Top view (a), and side view (b), (c) of the considered antenna. Electric (d) and Magnetic (e)
Figure
Figure 7.
energy 7. Top
Top view
densities on(a),
view theand
(a), and side
side view
antenna view (b),
ground (c)
(c) of
(b),plane, the
of at considered
thethe
considered antenna. Electric
antenna. Electric
resonant frequency. Wp = W (d)
(d) and
g =and
Magnetic
Magnetic
40 mm, Lp = L(e)(e)
g =
energy
energy
70.5 densities
densities
mm, on
on the
Ls = 24 mm, Lf antenna
the =antenna ground
17.5 mm,ground plane,
plane,
h1 = 2.465 atatthe
mm, h2 =resonant
the resonant = 3 mm. WW
0.1 mm,frequency.
hfrequency. p =W
p= Wg g==40 mm,LLp p==LLgg ==
40mm,
70.5 mm, LLss == 24
70.5 mm, mm, LLff ==17.5
24 mm, mm,hh11==2.465
17.5mm, mm,h2h2= =
2.465mm, 0.10.1 mm,
mm, h =h 3= mm.
3 mm.

Figure 8. (a) Electric energy density on the ground plane for the antenna with ∆L = 40 mm. (b) Electric
Figure 8. (a) Electric energy density on the ground plane for the antenna with ΔL = 40 mm. (b) Electric
energy density on the ground plane for the antenna with ∆L = 40 mm with the maximum peak set to a
Figure 8.
energy
value 3 (a)
10density
Electric
times on
energy
the
lower ground
than
density on
the plane forthe
one shown the ground plane
inantenna ΔLthe
withfor
(a). (c) Normalized
antenna
= 40 mm with
electric theΔL
with
energy
= 40 mm. peak
maximum
density
(b) Electric
set to
on the ground
energy
a value density
10 3 on lower
times the ground
than plane
the forshown
one the antenna
in (a).with
(c) ΔL = 40 mm electric
Normalized with theenergy
maximum peakon
density setthe
to
plane for the antenna with ∆L = 40 mm represented with contour lines. (d) Profile of the extended
a value plane
ground 103 timesfor lower
the than the
antenna with Δ
one Lshown
= 40 mmin (a). (c) Normalized
represented with electriclines.
contour
ground plane following the electric energy density shown in (b), with ∆L = 32.5 mm.
energy(d)density
Profile on
of the
the
ground plane
extended ground for plane
the antenna
following theΔelectric
with L = 40 energy
mm represented with in
density shown contour ΔL =(d)
lines.
(b), with Profile of the
32.5mm.
extended ground plane following the electric energy density shown in (b), with
In order to study the effect of the enlargement of the ground plane on the antenna robustness, Δ L = 32.5mm.
In order
in Figures to astudy
9–11 the effect
parametric of the of
analysis enlargement of the ground
the PIFA antenna shownplane on the
in Figure antenna
7 has been robustness,
performed,
in In order
Figures toastudy
9–11 the effect
parametric of theofenlargement
analysis the PIFA of theshown
antenna groundinplane
Figureon7 the
has antenna
been robustness,
performed, by
by varying the extension ∆L of the structure towards the horizontal direction (which is the direction
varying the extension ΔL of the structure towards the horizontal direction (which is the direction by
in Figures 9–11 a parametric analysis of the PIFA antenna shown in Figure 7 has been performed, of
varying the extension ΔL of the structure towards the horizontal direction (which is the direction of
Electronics 2018, 8,
Electronics 2019, 7, 244
x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

the maxima of the electric energy density), as shown in Figure 8. The variations of τ (Figure 9), η
of the maxima
(Figure 10), and ofτ ×the electric11)
ηelectric
(Figure energy
with density),
respectastoas
theshown in Figure
distance d from 8. The variations of shown.
τ (Figure 9),
the maxima of the energy density), shown in Figure 8. the
Thehuman bodyofare
variations τ (Figure Also
9), η
ηin(Figure 10),
this case, and τ
the results × η (Figure
obtained 11) with respect
ΔLrespect to the distance d from the human body are shown.
(Figure 10), and τ × η (Figure 11) for
with = 40 mm (large
to the ground
distance planethe
d from extension) and for
human body arethe extension
shown. Also
Also
which infollows
this case, the results obtained for ∆L = density
40 mm ((large ground
ΔL = 32.5 plane extension) and for thea
in this case, thethe profile
results of the
obtained electric
for ΔL = energy
40 mm (large ground planemm) are very
extension) similar,
and for theand even
extension
extension
minimal which
extension follows the profile of
of λ/20of(corresponding the electric
to only energy
16 mm density (∆L = 32.5 mm) are very similar,
which follows the profile the electric energy density (ΔLat= 916.25
32.5 mm) MHz), can ensure
are very similar,a and
significant
even a
and even
improvement a minimal extension
of theofantenna of λ/20 (corresponding
robustness if compared to only 16 mm at 916.25 MHz), can ensure a
minimal extension λ/20 (corresponding to only 16 with
mm the PIFA antenna
at 916.25 MHz), can without
ensureany extension
a significant
significant
(see Figuresimprovement
9–11). of the antenna robustness if compared with the PIFA antenna without any
improvement of the antenna robustness if compared with the PIFA antenna without any extension
extension (see Figures 9–11).
(see Figures 9–11).

Figure 9. τ with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the antenna
Figure
ground 9. τ with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the antenna
Figure 9.plane.
τ with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the antenna
ground plane.
ground plane.

Figure 10. η with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the antenna
Figure 10. η with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the
ground plane.
antenna ground
Figure 10. plane.
η with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the
antenna ground plane.
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 10 of 18
Electronics
Electronics 2018,
2018, 7,
7, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 10
10 of
of 18
18

Figure
Figure 11. ττ ××
11. τ × ηηη with
withrespect
with respect to
respect to the
to the distance
the distance from
distance from the
from the body
the body phantom
body phantom for
phantom for different
different extensions
extensions of
of the
the
antenna ground
antenna ground plane.plane.

2.3. Planar
2.3. Planar Inverted-F Antenna Antenna at 2.45
2.45 GHz
2.3. Planar Inverted-F
Inverted-F Antenna at at 2.45 GHz
GHz
The
The analysis of Sections 2.1 and 2.2 has
has been performed
performed also to to a folded PIFAPIFA for on-body
The analysis
analysis of of Sections
Sections 2.1
2.1 and
and 2.22.2 has been
been performed also also to aa folded
folded PIFA for for on-body
on-body
communications at
communications at2.45
2.45GHzGHz[15].
[15].TheThe geometrical parameters used in the numerical simulations,
communications at 2.45 GHz [15]. The geometrical parameters used in the numerical simulations, the
geometrical parameters used in the numerical simulations, the
the antenna
antenna layout,
layout, and and
the the electric
electric and and magnetic
magnetic energy
energy densitiesare
densities areshown
shownin inFigure
Figure12.
12. The
The magnetic
magnetic
antenna layout, and the electric and magnetic energy densities are shown in Figure 12. The magnetic
energy density
energy density shows aa single single peak close
close to the antenna shorting edge, whereas
whereas the electric
electric energy
energy density shows shows a single peak peak close to to the
the antenna
antenna shorting
shorting edge,
edge, whereas the the electric energy
energy
density shows
density two peaks, with each one close
close to the
the antenna lateral
lateral edges. The The optimal profile
profile for the
the
density shows
shows two two peaks,
peaks, with
with each
each one
one close to to the antenna
antenna lateral edges.
edges. The optimal
optimal profile forfor the
ground
ground plane extension has been chosen after analyzing the electric energy density for the antenna
ground plane
plane extension
extension has has been
been chosen
chosen after
after analyzing
analyzing the
the electric
electric energy
energy density
density for
for the
the antenna
antenna
with
with ∆L
Δ = 20
20 mm
mm (Figure
(Figure 13a,b),
13a,b), since
since this
this extension
extension allows
allows us
us toto take
take into
into account
account the
the major
major part
part of
with ΔL = 20 mm (Figure 13a,b), since this extension allows us to take into account the major part of
L = of
the
the electric
electric energy
energy density
density around
around the
the antenna
antenna borders.
borders. The
The same
same threshold
threshold of
ofSections
Section 2.1
2.1 and
and 2.2 has
2.2 has
the electric energy density around the antenna borders. The same threshold of Section 2.1 and 2.2 has
33 times
been chosen
been chosen (i.e., a value which is 10 lower than
than the absolute
absolute maximum of of the electric
electric energy
been chosen (i.e.,(i.e., aa value
value which
which is is 10
103 times
times lower
lower than thethe absolute maximum
maximum of the the electric energy
energy
density), and
density), and the groundground plane has has been cut cut in correspondence of the
the values of of the electric
electric energy
density), and the the ground plane plane has been been cut in in correspondence
correspondence of of the values
values of the
the electric energy
energy
density equal
density to this threshold (Figure 13c). Again, this threshold corresponds toto
ananextension equal to
density equal to this threshold (Figure 13c). Again, this threshold corresponds to an extension equal
equal to this threshold (Figure 13c). Again, this threshold corresponds extension equal
to λλ/10
λ/10
to at the center frequency (12.5 mm at 2.45 GHz).
/10 at
at the
the center
center frequency
frequency (12.5
(12.5 mmmm at at 2.45
2.45 GHz).
GHz).

Figure
Figure 12.
12. 3D
3D view
view (a),
(a), of
of the
the considered
considered antenna.
antenna. (b)
(b) Electric
Electric and
and (c)
(c) Magnetic
Magnetic energy
energy densities
densities close
close
to the ground plane, at the resonant frequency. L1 = 26 mm, L2 = 3.5 mm, L3 = 2.5 mm, WW
to the ground plane,
plane, at
at the
the resonant
resonant frequency.
frequency. L
L11==26
26 mm,
mm, L L
22= = 3.5
3.5 mm,
mm, L3L=3 2.5
= 2.5
mm,mm,
W = 26
== 26
26 mm,
mm,mm,LLpp
L = 20.5
==p20.5 mm,mm,h = h =
3.5 3.5
mm.
20.5 mm, h = 3.5 mm. mm.
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 11 of 18
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

(a)Electric
Figure 13. (a) Electric energy
energy density on the ground plane for for the antenna
antenna with ΔL = 20 mm. (b)
with ∆L (b) Electric
Electric
energy density on thethe ground
ground plane
planeforforthe
theantenna
antennawithwith∆LΔL==2020mm
mmwith
withthe
themaximum
maximumpeak peaksetsettotoa
value 103 times lower than the one shown in (a). (c) Normalized electric energy density on the ground
a value 10 times lower than the one shown in (a). (c) Normalized electric energy density on the
3

plane forplane
ground the antenna with ∆L with
for the antenna = 20 mmΔL =represented with contour
20 mm represented withlines.
contour(d) lines.
Profile(d)
of Profile
the extended
of the
ground plane
extended groundfollowing the electricthe
plane following energy density
electric energy shown in (b),
density shown in∆L
with (b),=with ΔL = 12.5 mm.
12.5 mm.

In Figures
In Figures14–16
14–16a parametric
a parametric analysis of theofPIFA
analysis the antenna shown in
PIFA antenna Figurein12Figure
shown has been12performed,
has been
by varying the extension ∆L of the structure towards the vertical direction (which
performed, by varying the extension ΔL of the structure towards the vertical direction (which is the is the direction of
the maxima of the electric energy density), as shown in Figure 13. The variations
direction of the maxima of the electric energy density), as shown in Figure 13. The variations of τ of τ (Figure 14),
η (Figure
(Figure 15),
14), and τ ×15),
η (Figure η (Figure
and τ ×16) with respect
η (Figure to the
16) with distance
respect to thed from the human
distance body
d from the are shown,
human body
and confirm that, also for this third presented example, the robustness of the
are shown, and confirm that, also for this third presented example, the robustness of the antenna antenna increases for
increasingfor
increases values of the values
increasing groundofplane enlargement,
the ground plane but the performance
enlargement, but the between the configuration
performance between the
with a large ground plane extension (∆L = 20 mm), and the configuration
configuration with a large ground plane extension (ΔL = 20 mm), and the configuration with with an extension which
an
extension which follows the profile of the electric energy density (ΔL = 12.5 mm) is very similar.even
follows the profile of the electric energy density (∆L = 12.5 mm) is very similar. Also in this case, Alsoa
minimal
in extension
this case, even a (for example
minimal λ/30, (for
extension example λ/30,
corresponding to only 4 mm at 2.45
corresponding to GHz),
only 4 can
mmensure
at 2.45aGHz),
good
improvement of the antenna robustness if compared with the PIFA antenna
can ensure a good improvement of the antenna robustness if compared with the PIFA antenna without any extension.
Despite this,
without the folded Despite
any extension. PIFA (due tothe
this, its folded
folded layout) alsotopresents
PIFA (due its foldeda discrete
layout) robustness
also presents without any
a discrete
ground plane
robustness enlargement.
without any ground plane enlargement.
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 12 of 18
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

Figure 14.  with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the antenna
Figure 14.
ground14.  with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the antenna
plane.
Figure τ with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the antenna
Figure 14.
ground  with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the antenna
plane.
ground plane.
ground plane.

Figure 15.ηwith
Figure 15. withrespect
respect to the
to the distance
distance fromfrom the body
the body phantom
phantom for different
for different extensions
extensions of the
of the antenna
Figure 15. 
antennaplane. with respect
ground plane. to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the
ground
Figure 15.
antenna  with
ground respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the
plane.
antenna ground plane.

Figure 16. τ × η with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the
Figure 16.  × with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the
antenna
Figure
antenna16.  × plane.
ground
ground with
plane.respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the
Figure 16.
antenna  × plane.
ground with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different extensions of the
antenna ground plane.
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 13 of 18

Three different examples, with different antenna layouts and different operating frequencies,
have been investigated to find a criterion for increasing the antenna robustness with respect to the
human body proximity, obtaining at the same time an optimal dimension and shape for the antenna
ground plane. The choice of the proper shape and extension of the antenna ground plane have been
derived by accurately analyzing the distribution of the electric and magnetic energy densities of the
antenna in a region around the antenna borders. The best compromise solution is to extend the ground
plane following the profile of the electric energy density, since with this choice it is possible to obtain a
very robust antenna while also reducing its overall size. The optimal extension of the ground plane
has been evaluated both in terms of free space wavelength, and in terms of electric energy density
magnitude, and for the three discussed examples the same values have been obtained, namely:

• an optimal enlargement equal to λ/10;

• an optimal threshold equal to 10−3 times of the maximum value of the electric energy density.

It is worth highlighting that the previous design rules are frequency independent, and therefore
can be very helpful for the designer, because they can be applied to general antenna layouts, and for
different applications in a wide range of operating frequencies. Following these rules, the antenna
robustness with respect to the coupling with the human body can be significantly improved, but with
a minimal impact on the antenna size.

3. Experimental Validation
The PIFAs considered in Section 2.1, Section 2.2, and Section 2.3 as the initial layouts of our
numerical tests have been already completely characterized, both numerically and experimentally,
since they have been selected from the open scientific literature. The PIFA antenna analysed in
Section 2.1 will be experimentally characterized.
Therefore, a prototype of the antenna in Figure 3d has been realized (Figure 17a), and the
commercial chip “Impinji Monza 4” has been soldered to the antenna gap. We used the same
measurement setup of [10], where the human tissue has been experimentally simulated by using
a simplified phantom, consisting of a PVC tank of dimension 25 cm × 15 cm × 10 cm, having a
thickness of 1 mm, filled up with a tissue-simulating liquid with muscle-like parameters at 870 MHz
(εr = 56.6, σ = 1.33 S/m), made with deionized water (53%), saccharose (45.6%) and sodium chloride
(1.4%) [16]. This solution allows us to place the liquid phantom as close as possible to the antenna, and
Electronics
the minimum 2018, 7,achievable
x FOR PEER REVIEW
distance is 1 mm (the thickness of the PVC tank wall). 13 of 17

Figure 17. (a) Prototype of the antenna in Figure 3d, with ∆L = 30 mm, Wg = 49 mm, Lg = 60 mm.
Figure 17. (a) Prototype of the antenna in Figure 3d, with L = 30 mm, Wg = 49 mm, Lg = 60 mm. (b)
(b) Measured read range of the antenna under test.
Measured read range of the antenna under test.

Table 1. Measured read range of the antenna under test for 10 different measure campaigns. For each
antenna distance from the body phantom, the mean value (in green) and the standard deviation (in
red) are reported.

d=1 d=5 d=10 d=15 d=20 d=25 d=30 d=35 d=40 d=45 d=50
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 14 of 18

As in reference [10], the commercial UHF reader Zebra RFD8500 Handheld, fixed on a mobile
mount, and remote-controlled by a smartphone application via Bluetooth®wireless technology, is used
to measure the read range for the antenna under test.
The spacing between the antenna and the phantom has been modified by using pads of different
thickness of expanded polystyrene (EPS), with dielectric permittivity close to 1, and the read range is
measured for different spacings between the antenna and the body phantom.
The results of the experimental verification are reported in Figure 17b, and confirm both the
robustness of the proposed antenna with respect to its distance by the human-body, as well as the
behavior observed in Figure 6 for ∆L = 30 mm. In fact, the read range is very satisfactory for the
antenna adherent to the body phantom (which is close to 3 m), and increases when the distance
between the antenna and the human body increases. Moreover, the curve of the reading range is
very similar to the curve of the simulated τ × η, confirming a good agreement between numerical
simulations and experimental validation. The read range measurements have been performed several
times, and in Table 1 the results of each measure are reported. For each antenna distance d from the
body phantom, ten different measurements were performed, and Figure 17b reports the corresponding
mean value of the reading range for the considered distance d.

Table 1. Measured read range of the antenna under test for 10 different measure campaigns. For each
antenna distance from the body phantom, the mean value (in green) and the standard deviation (in
red) are reported.

d=1 d=5 d = 10 d = 15 d = 20 d = 25 d = 30 d = 35 d = 40 d = 45 d = 50
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm
Measure #1 2.75 3.10 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.65 3.80 3.90 4.00 4.30 4.45
Measure #2 2.80 3.05 3.25 3.30 3.50 3.65 3.85 3.90 4.00 4.25 4.45
Measure #3 2.75 3.15 3.25 3.30 3.45 3.70 3.80 3.95 4.10 4.25 4.40
Measure #4 2.70 3.10 3.20 3.40 3.45 3.60 3.75 3.85 4.10 4.30 4.50
Measure #5 2.80 3.05 3.35 3.35 3.50 3.70 3.90 3.85 4.05 4.35 4.50
Measure #6 2.75 3.20 3.25 3.45 3.40 3.65 3.85 3.80 3.95 4.35 4.40
Measure #7 2.85 3.10 3.30 3.40 3.50 3.70 3.80 3.80 4.05 4.30 4.45
Measure #8 2.70 3.05 3.35 3.30 3.45 3.55 3.75 3.90 4.00 4.20 4.40
Measure #9 2.75 3.15 3.30 3.35 3.55 3.60 3.80 3.95 3.95 4.25 4.50
Measure #10 2.70 3.20 3.20 3.45 3.50 3.55 3.85 3.90 4.00 4.30 4.50
Mean Value [m] 2.755 3.115 3.275 3.37 3.48 3.635 3.815 3.88 4.02 4.285 4.455
Standard Dev. 0.0025 0.0034 0.003 0.0034 0.0018 0.0034 0.0022 0.0029 0.0029 0.0022 0.0019

4. Comparison of Antenna Performance for Different Human Body Models

The robustness of PIFA antennas discussed in Section 2 has been numerically investigated using
a simplified three-layer model [7] in the simulated environment, whose electrical parameters are
reported in Figure 1. On the other hand, the experimental validation, described in Section 3, has been
performed using a simplified phantom, consisting of a PVC tank filled up with a tissue-simulating
liquid with muscle-like parameters, because this phantom can be easily implemented. It is therefore
important to analyse if the choice of the human body phantom can affect the results. This is an
important task, since different parts of the human body should be modelled using different layers,
with appropriate thickness and electrical parameters, and wearable devices can be positioned close to
different parts of the human body during their normal operation, such as chest, arm, head, leg. In this
section, the performance of the PIFA antenna described in Section 2.1, and experimentally validated in
Section 3, will be numerically compared considering as human phantoms (Figure 18):

• the three-layer model [7] described in Figure 1;

• the one-layer model [10] used for the experimental validation (Figure 18a);
• the simplified reference model of the human torso (a stratified elliptical cylinder) used in [10]
(Figure 18b);
• a simplified model of the human arm (Figure 18c).
extension of these layers, the antenna working close to the human arm model shows a greater
efficiency, due to the limited dimension of the arm itself (Figure 18c). Finally, in Figure 22, the
variation of  × with respect to the distance from the body phantoms is reported, and the results
show a similar behavior of the antenna in presence of very different body phantoms, confirming the
very high robustness of the PIFA antenna with optimal ground plane extension ( L = 30 mm) with
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 15 of 18
respect to each of the four considered human body models. Therefore, the optimized antenna shows
a good robustness regardless of the human body model chosen in the simulation environment.

One-layer model (tissue-simulating

Figure 18. (a) One-layer (tissue-simulating liquid
liquid with
with muscle-like
muscle-like parameters),
parameters), withwith εεrr == 56.6
and σ σ= = 1.33
1.33 S/m.
S/m.(b) (b)Simplified
Simplifiedmodel
modelofofthe human
the human torso, with
torso, withparameters:
parameters: Skin + fat
Skin ellipse
+ fat axes
ellipse 50
axes
50 × cm,
× 20 εr =ε14.5
20 cm, r = and
14.5 σ
and= 0.25
σ = S/m.;
0.25 Muscle
S/m.; ellipse
Muscle axes
ellipse 46.5
axes × 17
46.5 ×
cm,
17 εcm,
r = 55.1
ε r = and
55.1 σ =
and 0.93
σ = S/m;
0.93 Bone
S/m;
ellipseellipse
Bone axes 42.6 12.6×cm,
axes×42.6 εr cm,
12.6 = 20.8 and
εr = σ =and
20.8 0.33σ S/m;
= 0.33Internal organs ellipse
S/m; Internal organs axes 41 axes
ellipse 41 ×εr10
× 10cm, = 52.1
cm,
εand σ = 0.91
r = 52.1 andS/m. (c) Simplified
σ = 0.91 model of the
S/m. (c) Simplified modelhuman arm,
of the witharm,
human parameters: Skin + fatSkin
with parameters: ellipse axes
+ fat 10 ×
ellipse
axes
8cm,10εr × 8 cm,
= 14.5 εr =σ 14.5
and and
= 0.25 σ =Muscle
S/m; 0.25 S/m; Muscle
ellipse axesellipse
9.5 × 7.5cm, εr ×
axes 9.5 7.5 cm,
= 55.1 andεrσ== 55.1
0.93and = 0.93ellipse
S/m.;σ Bone S/m.;
Bone
axes 2ellipse
× 2cm,axes × 2and
εr = 220.8 cm,σεr= =0.33
20.8S/m.
and σ = 0.33 S/m.

In Figure 19, the frequency response of the PIFA antenna described in Figure 2, with the optimal
extension of the ground plane ∆L = 30 mm, is reported for the four different analyzed human body
phantoms for the case of antenna adherent to the human body (d = 0 mm). The value of τ is very close
for all the considered phantoms, and only a small frequency shift can be observed. This means that
the impedance input of the optimized antenna is slightly affected by the human body, even for very
different phantom models, and this confirms the high robustness of the optimized antenna. Similar
results are obtained in Figure 20, where the variation of τ is reported with respect to the distance
from the body phantom for the four different body phantom models considered in the numerical
analysis. Figure 21 shows the variation of the efficiency η with respect to the distance from the body
phantom, and in this case it is apparent that, while the antenna working in proximity of the three-layer
model, the one layer model and the simplified human torso has similar efficiencies, because of the
similar extension of these layers, the antenna working close to the human arm model shows a greater
efficiency, due to the limited dimension of the arm itself (Figure 18c). Finally, in Figure 22, the variation
of τ × η with respect to the distance from the body phantoms is reported, and the results show a
similar behavior of the antenna in presence of very different body phantoms, confirming the very high
robustness of the PIFA antenna with optimal ground plane extension (∆L = 30 mm) with respect to
each of the four considered human body models. Therefore, the optimized antenna shows a good
robustness regardless of the human body model chosen in the simulation environment.
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 17
Electronics 2019,
Electronics 2018, 8,
7, 244
x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of
16 of 18
17
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 17

Figure 19. Variation of  with respect to frequency for different body phantom models.
Figure 19. Variation of  with respect to frequency for different body phantom models.
Figure
Figure 19. Variation of
19. Variation with respect
of τ with respect to
to frequency
frequency for
for different
different body
body phantom
phantom models.
models.

Figure 20. Variation of  with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different body
Figure 20. Variation of τ with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different body
phantom Variation of  with respect to the distance from the body
Figure 20.models. phantom for different body
phantom
Figure
phantom Variation of  with respect to the distance from the body
20.models.
models. phantom for different body
phantom models.

Figure 21. Variation of η with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different body
Figure 21. Variation of  with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different body
phantom models.
phantom Variation of 
Figure 21.models. with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different body
Figure
phantom Variation of 
21.models. with respect to the distance from the body phantom for different body
phantom models.
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 17 of 18
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 17

Figure 22. Variation

Figure 22. of τ ×
Variation of with respect
×η with respect to
to the
the distance
distance from
from the
the body
body phantom
phantom for
for different
different body
body
phantom models.
phantom models.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
The robustness of the performance of wearable antennas with respect to the human body coupling
The numerically
has been robustness of the performance
investigated. aiming ofto an wearable
appropriateantennas withto respect
criterion choose anto optimal
the human body
extension
coupling has been numerically investigated. aiming to an appropriate
for the ground plane. The optimal extension of the ground plane has been evaluated both in terms criterion to choose an optimal
extension
of for wavelength
free space the ground plane. and inThe termsoptimal extension
of electric energy of density
the ground plane hasThe
magnitude. been bestevaluated
compromiseboth
solution found is to extend the ground plane following the profile of the electric energy density. Forbest
in terms of free space wavelength and in terms of electric energy density magnitude. The the
compromise solution found is to extend the ground plane following
presented examples, the optimal extension of the ground plane is equal to λ/10 and the optimalthe profile of the electric energy
density. For
threshold the presented
is equal to 1/1000 examples,
of the maximum the optimal
value of extension
the electricof the ground
energy plane
density. The equal to analysis
is proposed /10 and
is frequency independent and can be applied to general antenna layouts, Allowing us to improve The
the optimal threshold is equal to 1/1000 of the maximum value of the electric energy density. the
proposed analysis is frequency independent and can be applied to general
antenna robustness with respect to the coupling with the human body, but having a minimal impact antenna layouts, Allowing
us to
on theimprove
antennathe antenna
size. robustness
The antenna with respect
robustness has been to the coupling
compared with
also the four
using human body, models
different but havingfor
a minimal impact on the antenna size. The antenna robustness has
the human body, showing a similar behavior for all the tested phantoms. The described criterionbeen compared also using four is
different models for the human body, showing a similar behavior for all
therefore very useful for designing wearable pifa antennas, allowing us to easily design compact and the tested phantoms. The
described
robust criterion
antennas. is therefore
Future veryinvolve
work will useful forthedesigning
design ofwearable pifa antennas,
new antennas allowing
configurations us toon
based easily
the
design compact and robust antennas. Future work will involve the
presented rules. Moreover, it should be investigated if this criterion can also be applied when the design of new antennas
configurations
wearable antenna based on the
is bent presented
around the humanrules.body
Moreover,
(i.e., if it
theshould be investigated
proposed ground plane if this criterion
extension can
is able
also be applied when the wearable antenna is bent around the
to ensure to the wearable antenna an adequate robustness also with respect to flexibility).human body (i.e., if the proposed
ground plane extension is able to ensure to the wearable antenna an adequate robustness also with
respect toThis
Funding: flexibility).
research received no external funding.
Conflicts
Funding: of Interest:
This The
research author no
received declares no funding.
external conflict of interest

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest

References
References
1. Nepa, P.; Rogier, H. Wearable antennas for off-body radio links at VHF and UHF bands (below 1 GHz):
Challenges. state-of-the-art and future trends. IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag. 2015, 57, 30–52. [CrossRef]
1. Nepa, P.; Rogier, H. Wearable antennas for off-body radio links at VHF and UHF bands (below 1 GHz):
2. PHall, S.; Hao, Y.; Nechayev, V.I.; Alomainy, A.; Constantinou, C.C.; Parini, C.; Kamarudin, M.R.; Salim, T.Z.;
Challenges. state-of-the-art and future trends. IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag. 2015, 57, 30–52.
Heel, D.T.M.; Dubrovka, R.; et al. Antennas and Propagation for On-Body Communication Systems.
2. PHall, S.; Hao, Y.; Nechayev, V.I.; Alomainy, A.; Constantinou, C.C.; Parini, C.; Kamarudin, M.R.; Salim,
IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag. 2007, 49, 41–58.
T.Z.; Heel, D.T.M.; Dubrovka, R.; et al. Antennas and Propagation for On-Body Communication Systems.
3. Islam, M.A.; Kiourti, A.; Volakis, J.L. A Novel Method of Deep Tissue Biomedical Imaging Using a Wearable
IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag. 2007, 49, 41–58.
Sensor. IEEE Sens. J. 2016, 16, 265–270. [CrossRef]
3. Islam, M.A.; Kiourti, A.; Volakis, J.L. A Novel Method of Deep Tissue Biomedical Imaging Using a
4. Merli, F.; Fuchs, B.; Mosig, J.R.; Skrivervik, A.K. The effect of insulating layers on the performance of
Wearable Sensor. IEEE Sens. J. 2016, 16, 265–270.
implanted antennas. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2011, 59, 21–31.
4. Merli, F.; Fuchs, B.; Mosig, J.R.; Skrivervik, A.K. The effect of insulating layers on the performance of
implanted antennas. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2011, 59, 21–31.
5. Casula, G.A.; Altini, M.; Michel, A.; Nepa, P. On the performance of low-profile antennas for wearable
UHF-RFID tags. In Proceedings of the 2015 1st URSI Atlantic Radio Science Conference (URSI AT-RASC),
Gran Canaria, Spain, 16–24 May 2015.
Electronics 2019, 8, 244 18 of 18

5. Casula, G.A.; Altini, M.; Michel, A.; Nepa, P. On the performance of low-profile antennas for wearable
UHF-RFID tags. In Proceedings of the 2015 1st URSI Atlantic Radio Science Conference (URSI AT-RASC),
Gran Canaria, Spain, 16–24 May 2015.
6. Altini, M.; Casula, G.A.; Mazzarella, G.; Nepa, P. Numerical investigation on the tolerance of wearable
UHF-RFID tags to human body coupling. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2015 Antennas and Propagation
Symposium, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 20–24 July 2015.
7. Casula, G.A.; Michel, A.; Nepa, P.; Montisci, G.; Mazzarella, G. Robustness of Wearable UHF-Band PIFAs to
Human-Body Proximity. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2016, 64, 2050–2055. [CrossRef]
8. Casula, G.A.; Michel, A.; Montisci, G.; Nepa, P.; Valente, G. Energy-Based Considerations for Ungrounded
Wearable UHF Antenna Design. IEEE Sens. J. 2017, 17, 687–694. [CrossRef]
9. Michel, A.; Colella, R.; Casula, G.A.; Nepa, P.; Catarinucci, L.; Montisci, G.; Mazzarella, G.; Manara, G. Design
Considerations on the Placement of a Wearable UHF-RFID PIFA on a Compact Ground Plane. IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag. 2018, 66, 3142–3147. [CrossRef]
10. Casula, G.A.; Montisci, G.; Valente, G.; Gatto, G. A robust printed antenna for UHF wearable applications.
IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2018, 66, 4337–4342. [CrossRef]
11. Casula, G.A.; Montisci, G.; Michel, A.; Nepa, P. Robustness of complementary wearable ungrounded
antennas with respect to the human body. J. Electromagn. Waves Appl. 2017, 31, 1685–1697. [CrossRef]
12. Casula, G.A. A Design Rule to Reduce the Human Body Effect on Antennas for Short Range NF-UHF RFID
Systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 2nd URSI Atlantic Radio Science Meeting (AT-RASC), Meloneras, Spain,
28 May–1 June 2018.
13. Occhiuzzi, C.; Cippitelli, S.; Marrocco, G. Modeling. design and experimentation of wearable RFID sensor
tag. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2010, 58, 2490–2498. [CrossRef]
14. Lin, M.-H.; Chiu, C.-W. Human-body effects on the designof card-type UHF RFID tag antennas.
In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Antennas Propag (APURSI’11), Spokane, WA,
USA, 3–8 July 2011; pp. 521–524.
15. Lin, C.-H.; Saito, K.; Takahashi, M.; Ito, K. A compact planar inverted-F antenna for 2.45 GHz on-body
communications. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2012, 60, 4422–4426. [CrossRef]
16. Hartsgrove, G.; Kraszewsky, A.; Surowiec, A. Simulated biological materials for electromagnetic radiation
absorption studies. Bioelectromagnetics 1987, 8, 29–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).