Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 22;8:1358. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-19796-y

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Comparison between the performance of the inverse-designed device (A to C) and a blazed grating (D to F) optimized to bend electromagnetic radiation by 30° independently of the polarization. The simulated far-field intensities are represented for angles from −80° to 80° and for frequencies from 26 GHz to 38 GHz for perpendicular (B,E) and parallel (C,F) polarizations. As can be seen, the inverse-designed metadevice transmits a much lower power to undesired grating orders (23% for perpendicular polarization and 18% for parallel polarization) than the blazed grating (47% for perpendicular polarization and 51% for parallel polarization). Simulated rejection ratios at 33 GHz are 10.1 dB and 12.4 dB for the inverse-designed bending device, compared to 6.6 dB and 3.8 dB for the triangular grating for perpendicular and parallel polarizations respectively.