AbstractAn UWB-MIMO channel model with a novel

antenna array model which includes mutual coupling is

proposed. The array model uses equivalent circuits to consider
antenna elements, and the ideas of mutual inductance and
mutual capacitance to consider mutual coupling between
antennas. The results show that mutual coupling changes the
amount of power needed to send the same signals, leads to power
transfer between antennas, and alters arrays radiation
efficiency. The effect of mutual coupling is also impacted by the
amplitude and phase relations of input signals even if the total
input signal power is fixed. We then deduce the channel capacity
of the proposed channel model. It is shown both in theory and
numerical examples that mutual coupling can increase, decrease,
or maintain capacity depending on the conditions. The condition
of best mutual coupling of an n by n MIMO system is derived,
which can be used to decide optimum power allocation for a
given transmit array, and determine the frequency response of
the transmit array that is best mutually coupled for a given
transmit power allocation.
Index TermsUWB-MIMO, mutual coupling, antenna array
model, channel capacity
I. INTRODUCTION
OR a long time, MIMO channel models have been in the
realm of information theory, signal processing and
coding. These models, such as the Rayleigh fading model in
[1], scattering model in [2], and space-time model in [3], can
provide insights on how to realize optimal channel capacity
through power allocation [4], code design [5], and transceiver
architecture [6-8], and guide our measurements and
simulations to specify channel characteristics in different
environments [9-13], such as indoor and outdoor scenarios.
For mathematical conveniences, many of these models have
simplified the physical essence of the transmit and receive
arrays. But in the analysis of mutual coupling, some authors
claim it can increase channel capacity due to decorrelation
effect [14,15], while others believe it leads to capacity loss by
causing additional correlation or reduced radiation efficiency
[16,17]. It is recognized that mutual coupling arises
F
Manuscript received by
This work is supported by
Kun Chen is with School of Physical Electronics, University of Electronic
Science and Technology of China (UESTC), Chengdu, 610054, China (email:
passonchen@gmail.com)
Shaoqiu Xiao is with the Institute of Applied Physics, UESTC (email:
xiaoshaoqiu@uestc.edu.cn)
Mengna Yang is with with School of Physical Electronics, UESTC (email:)
Shanshan Gao is with the Institute of Applied Physics, UESTC
Bing-Zhong Wang is with
from the interactions between different antenna elements, that
is, the field generated by one antenna changes the current
distribution of the other antennas. As a result, the radiation
pattern and input impedance of each element are disturbed
[15]. This is from the perspective of physics instead of
information theory. To figure out the effect of mutual coupling
on channel capacity, we have to introduce the physical aspects
of transmit and receive arrays into MIMO channel models in
an appropriate way, the absence of which contributes to the
above controversy.
Recently, researchers have made a great leap ahead in
combining the physical and mathematical aspects of
communication [18,19]. Regarding an antenna array with n
elements as a 2n-port network, the authors construct the input
and output relationship of the array via scattering or
impedance matrix. The mathematical and physical layers of
communication are then connected by inserting the transmit
and receive arrays into the channel. However, the two
outstanding works mostly focus on the deterministic relations
of the channel, and dont allow much independence of the
spatial channel. In fact, the gains of signals traveling in the
spatial channel are highly dependent on the realistic
environments, and would be better considered from the angle
of statistics, which is a usual convention. Besides, as it is
difficult to get the analytic form of scattering or impedance
matrix of an array, mutual coupling and its effects are not
explicitly investigated in the works. In [20], the conclusion
that mutual coupling uplifts capacity should be thought with
care in that the given S-parameters are not measured ones and
have an entry with magnitude greater than one, which lack
generality.
In this paper, some modifications are made for the models
aforementioned to account for the effect of mutual coupling
explicitly and extensively. Firstly, a new antenna array model
is adopted, in which the mutual coupling between antenna
elements is treated through more basic ideasmutual
inductance and mutual capacitance. Secondly, the channel is
divided into three successive sub-channels: the transmit array,
the spatial channel and the receive array. The first and third
sub-channels are investigated in a circuit model, and the
spatial channel is considered from statistical views. Each part
has a channel matrix, which is its frequency response matrix.
Finally, the UWB channel capacity of the revised model is
deduced, and the impact of mutual coupling on channel
capacity is revealed both from theory and through numerical
simulations.
The Effect of Antenna Mutual Coupling on
UWB-MIMO Channel Capacity
Kun Chen, Shaoqiu Xiao, IEEE Member, Mengna Yang, Shanshan Gao
and Bing-Zhong Wang, IEEE Member
1
KUN CHEN et al: MUTUAL COUPLING ON UWB-MIMO CHANNEL CAPACITY
II. ARRAY MODEL WITH MUTUAL COUPLING
Figure 1 shows a channel model with a new antenna array
model, which is based on the following assumptions about the
transmit and receive arrays.
Assumption 1: All the elements in the array can be
modeled by lumped parameters from the view of circuit.
Assumption 2: The input of each antenna element comes
from a constant voltage source.
In this figure, the left and right parts represent the proposed
transmit and receive antenna array models, respectively, while
in the middle is the spatial channel. There are n transmit
antennas and m receive antennas. Each antenna element is
modeled by a series

of an inductor, a capacitor, and a resistor.
The resistor in the transmit array element is chosen so that the
power consumed by it is equal to the radiated power of the
element. As for each receive array element, the resistor stands
for the loaded resistance, and the power dissipated by it is the
power taken away by the receiver for further processing. The
source of the transmitter is prearranged, while that of the
receiver is the received signals. Of course, based on the
linearity of antennas, we can insert one more resistor in each
element model to include the loss property, but the influence
of this operation on the output voltage of each antenna is just
multiplying its output without the loss resistor by a scalar.
When all the antenna elements are the same, the output of the
array is just multiplying its output without the loss resistors by
a scalar. To simplify the analysis, we first consider the case
when all antenna elements are the same. Therefore the loss
resistors are neglected and the array is regarded lossless. We
will later discuss the case with loss.

Fig.1 The MIMO channel model with new antenna array model.
It is custom to regard an array as a multi-port network and
use impedance matrix to depict its properties. The non-
diagonal elements of the impedance matrix originate from the
interactions between antenna elements, i.e., mutual coupling.
But due to the difficulty in getting the analytic form of
impedance matrix of an array, we resort to more basic ideas
mutual inductance and mutual capacitanceto help us treat
mutual coupling. Mutual inductance is an old idea, and
according to [21], the mutual capacitance concept
evolves from the duality principle as the
correspondent part of mutual inductance.
We focus on the transmit array, and the case of the
receive array is similar. The voltage relationship of the
transmit array is
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
o
t l c t
U U U U + + (1)
where ( )
t
U , ( )
l
U , ( )
c
U , ( )
o
t
U are 1 n
vectors, representing source voltages, voltages between two
ends of inductors, capacitors, and resistors in the frequency
domain, respectively. We also have
( ) ( )
l t
U j LI (2)
( ) ( )
1
c t
C
U I
j

(3)
( ) ( ) ( )
1 o
t t t
I diag R U

(4)
where ( )
t
I is the 1 n current vector,
[ ]
1 2
, ,
T
t t t tn
R r r r L represents the radiation resistors, and
11 1
1
, ,

, ,
t t n
tn tnn
l l
L
l l

1
1
1
1
]
L
MON M
L
,
11 1
1
, ,

, ,
t t n
tn tnn
c c
C
c c

1
1
1
1
]
L
MON M
L
(5)
tij
l and
tij
c represent the self-inductance
ti
l and self-
capacitance
ti
c when
i j
; the mutual inductance and
mutual capacitance when
i j
. Its easy to know that both L
and C are symmetric, namely
T
L L
and
T
C C
.
Combining (1) to (4), we arrive at the input-output
relationship of the array as
( ) ( ) ( )
o
t t t
U H U (6)
where ( )
t
H is the frequency response and has the form
( ) ( )
( )
1
1 1
1
I
t
t t
C diag R
H j L diag R
j

+ +
_

,
(7)
If we think of the array as a channel,
( )
t
H can then be
viewed as a channel matrix. Similarly, we can also find a
channel matrix
( )
r
H for the receive array, which we omit
for brevity.
Let [ ]
1 2
, , ,
T
t t t tn
U u u u L be the input voltage signals in
time domain,
[ ]
1 2
, , ,
T
o o o o
t t t tn
U u u u L the output. It can be seen
that the power instantly supplied to and radiated by the i-th
transmit antenna are /
o
ti ti ti ti
p u u r and
2
/
o o
ti ti ti
p u r ,
respectively. The power received and taken away by the i-th
receive antenna are /
o o
ri ri ri ri
p u u r and
2
/
ri ri ri
p u r ,
correspondingly.
III. EFFECT OF MUTUAL COUPLING ON ARRAY PERFORMANCE
To illustrate the effect of mutual coupling on the input and
output of the array, we consider a 2-element transmit array.
Suppose the array works at the angular frequency
1 t
u
tn
u
1 t
c
1 t
r
1
o
t
u
1 t
l
tn
l
tn
c
o
tn
u tn
r
1 r
u
1 r
c
1 r
r
1
o
r
u
1 r
l
rm
r
o
rm
u
rm
u
rm
l
rm
c
2
2
9
0
2 10 / rad s , and has the specifications
0 11 0 22
100
t t
l l ,
1
0 11 0 22
0.02
t t
c c

, and
1 2
50
t t
r r . The non-diagonal elements of L and C are
given as
12 21 11 t t cr t
l l l l ,
12 21 11 t t cr t
c c c c , where
cr
l and
cr
c can be viewed as relative mutual inductance and
capacitance. Let
1
cos( )
t
V u t ,
2
cos( )
t
u t V be
the input voltages, where is the phase difference of the two
signals,

and

are constrained by the condition
2 2
200 + so that the total average input signal power is
100 . It should be mentioned that both signal power and
physical power appear in this paper, but in contrast to what has
been done in [19], they are distinguished here. Physical power
is called power for simplicity.

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
lcr
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
i
n

&

P
o
u
t
/
w


Ant. 1Pin
Ant. 2Pin
ArrayPin
Ant. 1Pout
Ant. 2Pout
ArrayPout
(a)

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
ccr
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
i
n

&

P
o
u
t
/
w


Ant. 1Pin
Ant. 2Pin
ArrayPin
Ant. 1Pout
Ant. 2Pout
ArrayPout
(b)
Fig. 2 Input and output power of the two elements and the array as a function
of
cr
l (a) or
cr
c (b) when 10,
2

Fig. 2 shows the average input and output power of the two
elements and the whole array. In both (a) and (b), its easy to
see that the total average input and output powers of the array
are equal. This satisfies the assumption that the antenna array
is lossless. Then we find the input/output power of the array
changes with
cr
l and
cr
c . Since the input voltages do not
change with
cr
l or
cr
c , this fact can be interpreted as: with
different mutual coupling, different amount of powers are
dissipated to send the same voltage signals, which are
regarded as information carrier. Compared with the case where
no mutual coupling exists, situations with mutual coupling
may require more, or less, or the same amount of power. As
the radiation resistors of the two elements are equal and the
array is lossless, the output signal power of each element is
proportional to its input power. Therefore, the total output
signal power of the array can be increased, decreased, or
maintained under the influence of mutual coupling.
The figure also says that in cases when mutual coupling
does not change the amount of physical input or output power
of the array, the signal power allocation between the two
elements when there is mutual coupling can be different from
when no mutual coupling is present. We also see that at some
regions of
cr
l and
cr
c , the input power of one element can be
below zero, yet its output above zero. The two phenomena
indicate that there is power transfer between the two elements
because of mutual coupling. Possibly the power transfer is so
large that one element may not be able to get input power from
its own source, but only from the source of the other element.
-5
0
5
-5
0
5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
ccr
lcr
A
r
r
a
y

P
o
u
t
/
w
(a)
-5
0
5
-5
0
5
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
ccr
lcr
P
o
w
e
r

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
/
w
(b)
Fig. 3 Total average input/output power (a) and power transferred from
3
KUN CHEN et al: MUTUAL COUPLING ON UWB-MIMO CHANNEL CAPACITY
Antenna 1 to Antenna 2 (b) as a function of both
cr
l or
cr
c when
10,
2

.
The combined effect of mutual inductance and capacitance
on the array input/output power and power transfer when
10,
2

is displayed in Fig. 3. We can see that at some

pairs of mutual inductance and mutual capacitance, the array
output power and power transferred can be extremely large.
That is to say, mutual coupling has a particularly great impact
on the performance of the array in these situations.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
lcr
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
i
n

&

P
o
u
t
/
w


pi/2
pi/3
pi/4
pi/6
pi/12
0
(a)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
lcr
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

P
i
n

&

P
o
u
t
/
w


pi/2
pi/3
pi/4
pi/6
pi/12
0
(b)
Fig. 4 Output power of the array versus relative mutual inductance for
different values of . (a) 10 ; (b) 7.5
Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the output power of the array and
power transfer between the two elements when different input
voltage pairs are supplied as a function of relative mutual
inductance (mutual capacitance is assumed to be zero). Like
previous cases, the total average input signal power is fixed at
100. It is observed that, with the same mutual inductance,
array output power and power transfer will be different if the
amplitude combinations and phase differences of the input
signals are in different cases, respectively. Taking both mutual
inductance and capacitance into account, we can further claim
that the effect of mutual coupling on the performance of the
array is closely related to the input signals.
In above analysis,
1 2
50
t t
r r . To consider the case
with loss, we can insert one more resistor in each element
model. It is of equal effect if we divide both
1 t
r and
2 t
r into
two parts: one for loss; the other for radiation. In this way, we
can analyze array radiation efficiency. Suppose Antenna 1 has
a higher radiation efficiency than Antenna 2. As we can see
from above results, under the impact of mutual coupling,
power can be transferred both from Antenna 1 to 2 and in the
reverse direction. If it transfers from Antenna 1 to 2, the
radiation efficiency of the array is lowered; from Antenna 2 to
1, the radiation efficiency of the array is improved.
We can generalize the conclusions drawn from this example
to the case of arrays with more than two antennas and fed with
voltage signals that have fixed total signal power. Briefly, to
input the same voltage signals into an antenna array, mutual
coupling influences the power needed by each antenna. If
mutual coupling exists, more power, or less power, or the
same amount of power may be required in comparison to the
situation with mutual coupling absent. Mutual coupling will
lead to power transfer between antenna elements, and alter
power distribution among elements even if it doesnt change
the total power. As a result of power transfer between antenna
elements with different radiation efficiencies, the radiation
efficiency of the array will also be impacted. The effect of
mutual coupling on the input and output power of the array
and power transfer among elements are affected by the input
signals amplitude and phase relations.
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
lcr
p
o
w
e
r

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
/
w


pi/2
pi/3
pi/4
pi/6
pi/12
0
(a)
4
4
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
lcr
p
o
w
e
r

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
/
w


pi/2
pi/3
pi/4
pi/6
pi/12
0
(b)
Fig. 5 Power transferred from Antenna 1 to 2 versus relative mutual
inductance for different values of . (a) 10 ; (b) 7.5
IV. EFFECT OF MUTUAL COUPLING ON CHANNEL CAPACITY
The proposed channel model has been shown in Fig. 1. We
have dealt with the input-output relationship of the transmit
array, and it is similar with the receive array. For the spatial
channel, we assume it to be the UWB indoor channel, which
can be depicted by the following equation [22]:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1
p 1
P
o o
r p t
p
U t A U t N t

(8)
where

is the sampling period, ( ) N t is the additive white

Gaussian noise.
p
A
(
1, 2, , P p L
) stand for the amplitude
fading matrices of paths 1 to P , which are assumed to be
independent of each other and have independently identically
distributed entries
pij pij pij

, where ( )
pij pij
sign
and
pij pij
.
pij

takes values of 1 + and 1 with equal

probability, and
pij

accords to Nakagami distribution

( )
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
, 1
0
,
,
p
p
p
x
x
x
x e
p x

<

_
,
'


,

(9)
where ( )
2
p p
E ( ) ( )
2 2
2 / Var
p p
E 1
]
.In this
paper, is assumed to be constant. As the power of the
amplitude fading is exponentially decreasing with the excess
delay [22], we further assume
1 p p
q


(10)
where 1 q < is also a constant.
In frequency domain, we have the input-output relationship
of the spatial channel as
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
o o
r s t
U H U N + (11)
where ( )
( ) 1
1
P
j p
s p
p
H A e

. Now we can reach the

overall input-output relationship of the channel in frequency
domain, which is
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
r t
U H U N + (12)
where
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
r s t
H H H H (13)
is the overall channel matrix.
Let ( )
1 2
, , ,
P
A A A A L denote a realization of
amplitude fading, ( )
t n n
S C

the power spectral density of
( )
t
U t , and the noise is assumed to be additive white
Gaussian with power spectral density
0 m
N I . A power
constraint is exerted on the input, which comes as
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1
2
B
T
t t t t
B
E U t U t tr S d S

(14)
The mutual information of the MIMO system is
( ) ( ) ( )

1
log det
2
t
o
B
m
A
B
H S H
N
I d

+
1
1
]

(15)
In what follows, we limit our discussion to the case when (1)
there are equal number of antennas at the transmitter and
receiver, namely
n m
; (2) the receiver has identical
antenna elements and suffers from no mutual coupling so that
( ) ( )
r r m
H I is a scalar of unit matrix. This limit offers
conveniences yet in essence does not affect the generality of
the conclusions. Given that ( ) ( ) det det + +
1 2 2 1
I M M I M M ,
the above mutual information can be written as
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
2

1
log det
2
B
o r
m t s s A
B o
I S H H d
N

+
1
1
]

(16)
where ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
o
t t t t
S H S H is the power spectral
density of ( )
o
t
U t .
When the transmitter has no information of the spatial
channel matrix, the best transmitting policy is to make the
output signal power of the transmit array uniformly distributed
across the frequency band and transmit antennas, namely
( )
[ ] , ,
, otherwise.
o
t
o
m
t
S
B B
S
Bm

'

0
(17)
or
( )
( ) ( ) [ ]
1

, ,
, otherwise.
o
t
t t
t
S
H H B B
S
Bm

1
]
'

0
(18)
where
o
t
S is the total output signal power of the transmit array.
The capacity is then
5
KUN CHEN et al: MUTUAL COUPLING ON UWB-MIMO CHANNEL CAPACITY
( )
( ) ( )
2

0
1
C log det
2
o B
t r
m s s
A
B
S
H H d
N Bm

+
1
1
1
]

(19)
The condition 18can be utilized in two approaches:
first, for a given transmit system, we can decide the power
allocation strategy that maximizes the transmission rate;
second, for a specific power allocation, we can determine the
frequency response of the transmit array with best mutual
coupling. It should be mentioned that to achieve the largest
capacity, we have to make sure that the total output signal
power of the transmit array is the largest.
If the spatial channel matrix is available at the transmitter,
we can use the water filling algorithm to find the transmit
policy that achieves capacity by maximizing (16). According
to [22], when the signal to noise ratio at the transmitter is high
enough, say 10dB, there is little difference between the
performance of uniform power allocation and that of water
filling algorithm. We have used water filling to simulate the
ergodic channel capacity of a 2 2 MIMO system. The
transmit array is just that in the previous section, and receive
array is assumed to be identical with the transmit array except
that the receive array has no mutual coupling. We also set
4 ,
1
=1 ,
15 p
,
0.95 = q
.The signal to noise ratio is
10dB at the transmitter, and the sampling period 1/ B .
The spatial channel matrix is produced randomly according to
corresponding distributions. Each value of capacity is the
average of 500 samples. The results are shown in Fig. 6. It is
clearly demonstrated that mutual coupling can make channel
capacity increase, decrease, or remain unchanged. Also from
this figure, the potential of mutual coupling to improve the
capacity is very significant, which gives rise to the problem
that best mutual coupling at the transmitter and receiver has to
be realized for a system to achieve maximum capacity.
-5
0
5
-5
0
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
ccr
lcr
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
/
b
p
s
/
H
z
(a)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
lcr or ccr
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
/
b
p
s
/
H
z


ccr=0
lcr=0
(b)
Fig. 6 Mean capacity versus relative mutual inductance and mutual
capacitance. (a) 3-D view; (b) 0
cr
l or 0
cr
c .
. CONCLUSION
The effect of mutual coupling on the performance of
antenna arrays is investigated through a new array model.
When the total input signal power is fixed, mutual coupling
can affect the amount of physical power needed to send the
signals. Compared with the case when no mutual coupling is
present, cases with mutual coupling may require more, less, or
equal amount of physical power. Mutual coupling also leads to
power transfer among different antenna elements and
influences arrays radiation efficiency. As a result, array output
signal power is also impacted by mutual coupling. In addition,
the effect of mutual coupling on arrays is closely related to the
amplitude and phase of the input signals.
By combining the array model and UWB-MIMO channel
model, we construct a new channel model that helps us study
the impact of mutual coupling on channel capacity extensively
and explicitly. We find that mutual coupling may increase,
decrease, or maintain capacity according to specific
conditions. To maximize channel capacity, we have to make
sure that the transmit array and receive array are best mutually
coupled. The condition of best mutual coupling for the
transmit array is drawn, which can be used to decide power
allocation strategy that maximizes capacity when the
frequency response of transmit array is given. For a given
power transmit scheme, the condition can be also used to
determine theoretically the frequency response of the transmit
array with best mutual coupling.
REFERENCES
[1] Telatar, E., Capacity of Multi-antenna Gaussian Channels. European
Transactions on Telecommunications, 1999. 10(6): p. 585-595.
[2] Fuhl, J., A.F. Molisch, and E. Bonek, Unified channel model for mobile
radio systems with smart antennas. Radar, Sonar and Navigation, IEE
Proceedings -, 1998. 145(1): p. 32-41.
[3] Hao, X., et al., A generalized space-time multiple-input multiple-output
(MIMO) channel model. Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions
on, 2004. 3(3): p. 966-975.
6
6
[4] Yoo, T. and A. Goldsmith, Capacity and power allocation for fading
MIMO channels with channel estimation error. Information Theory,
IEEE Transactions on, 2006. 52(5): p. 2203-2214.
[5] Sheng, Y. and B. Jean-Claude, Optimal Space-Time Codes for the
MIMO Amplify-and-Forward Cooperative Channel. Information Theory,
IEEE Transactions on, 2007. 53(2): p. 647-663.
[6] Paulraj, A.J., et al., An overview of MIMO communications - a key to
gigabit wireless. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2004. 92(2): p. 198-218.
[7] Spencer, Q.H., et al., An introduction to the multi-user MIMO downlink.
Communications Magazine, IEEE, 2004. 42(10): p. 60-67.
[8] Hongwei, Y., A road to future broadband wireless access: MIMO-
OFDM-Based air interface. Communications Magazine, IEEE, 2005.
43(1): p. 53-60.
[9] Costa, N. and S. Haykin, A Novel Wideband MIMO Channel Model and
Experimental Validation. Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions
on, 2008. 56(2): p. 550-562.
[10]El-Sallabi, H., et al. Wideband Spatial Channel Model for MIMO
Systems at 5 GHz in Indoor and Outdoor Environments. in Vehicular
Technology Conference, 2006. VTC 2006-Spring. IEEE 63rd. 2006.
[11]Forenza, A. and R.W. Heath, Jr. Impact of antenna geometry on MIMO
communication in indoor clustered channels. in Antennas and
Propagation Society International Symposium, 2004. IEEE. 2004.
[12]Kai, Y., et al. Second order statistics of NLOS indoor MIMO channels
based on 5.2 GHz measurements. in Global Telecommunications
Conference, 2001. GLOBECOM '01. IEEE. 2001.
[13]Kai, Y., et al. A wideband statistical model for NLOS indoor MIMO
channels. in Vehicular Technology Conference, 2002. VTC Spring 2002.
IEEE 55th. 2002.
[14]Svantesson, T. and A. Ranheim. Mutual coupling effects on the capacity
of multielement antenna systems. in Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
Processing, 2001. Proceedings. (ICASSP '01). 2001 IEEE International
Conference on. 2001.
[15]Clerckx, B., et al. Mutual coupling effects on the channel capacity and
the space-time processing of MIMO communication systems. in
Communications, 2003. ICC '03. IEEE International Conference on.
2003.
[16]Fletcher, P.N., M. Dean, and A.R. Nix, Mutual coupling in multi-element
array antennas and its influence on MIMO channel capacity. Electronics
Letters, 2003. 39(4): p. 342-344.
[17]Kildal, P.S. and K. Rosengren, Correlation and capacity of MIMO
systems and mutual coupling, radiation efficiency, and diversity gain of
their antennas: simulations and measurements in a reverberation
chamber. Communications Magazine, IEEE, 2004. 42(12): p. 104-112.
[18]Wallace, J.W. and M.A. Jensen, Mutual coupling in MIMO wireless
systems: a rigorous network theory analysis. Wireless Communications,
IEEE Transactions on, 2004. 3(4): p. 1317-1325.
[19]Ivrlac, et al., Toward a Circuit Theory of Communication. Circuits and
Systems I: Regular Papers, IEEE Transactions on, 2010. 57(7): p. 1663-
1683.
[20]Morris, M.L. and M.A. Jensen, Network model for MIMO systems with
coupled antennas and noisy amplifiers. Antennas and Propagation, IEEE
Transactions on, 2005. 53(1): p. 545-552.
[21]Zheng-Ling Yang, Mutual Capacitance-Duality Principle Evolved from
Planar Network, Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 1992.
39(12): p. 1005-1006.
[22]Feng, Z. and T. Kaiser, On the Evaluation of Channel Capacity of UWB
Indoor Wireless Systems, Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on,
2008. 56(12): p. 6106-6113.
7