I am making an RF PCB with a surface-mount antenna on it. It is a quarter-wave antenna, so the ground plane should also be as long as a quarter wavelength for good RF performance.

For example, a 915MHz antenna needs a ground plane 3.3 inches (8.4cm) long. Let's imagine my PCB is 1 inch wide. As a 4 layer PCB, it would cost $10 * 3.3in^2 = $33 at OSH Park. Every time I screw up a design, that's $33 more wasted.

I read an article by Antenova about tiny ground planes. I noticed this method for dealing with small ground planes:

Your ground plane does not have to be your host PCB. A copper extension can be added. However, care must be taken not to loop this piece of copper around and underneath the existing ground. An example of this is a watch application. In this case, the ground extension can be run into the watch strap.

Copper extension? I have free access to CNC machines that can mill FR-1 copper boards! I can extend my ground plane past my tiny PCB... right?

Option 1: My first idea was to place a copper sheet (FR-1) under the RF PCB and use through-holes to solder the PCB to the copper sheet. Here's a side view and a top view of that stack-up:

Option 1: large ground plane underneath PCB

That FR-1 copper sheet should extend the size of my RF ground plane. I then remembered this bit from the article:

However, care must be taken not to loop this piece of copper around and underneath the existing ground.

Uh-oh. I now have a small ground plane (PCB layer 2) with a large ground plane (FR-1 copper sheet) underneath it! There will be about 60 mils (1.5mm) between the small ground and the large ground, with only the border of through-holes connecting them. So I had another idea.

Option 2: I can connect the copper sheet to the edge of my PCB with a row of through-holes. This will avoid overlapping any of the ground planes.

Option 2: large ground plane connected at PCB edge only

This fixes my last issue, but that edge connection is weaker and could easily snap.

The big question: does expanding a PCB ground plane with another copper plane tend to help or hurt RF performance? If so, can I get away with Option 1? It's my favorite.

I am just worried that the through-hole connections between the two planes will look like a big impedance bump to the RF signals. If through-holes are a bad choice, I can always get creative with land pads under the PCB, but those will make bottom-layer routing complicated.

I cannot find other examples of this practice on the internet. If you ask me to tune it with impedance matching, there is only so much I can do with a tiny ground plane. Also, getting access to a VNA would be a long and tedious process.

I can't use flexible dipole antennas because I have size and rigidity constraints.

This is a problem that I am trying to solve with creativity. I can't keep throwing money at my problems.


2 Answers 2


Option 1 should be best. It has less GND impedance than Option 2 because it is closer to the antenna and it has better capacitive coupling to the other GND layers.

I do not understand the cited text and I can not think of a single reason why you not should connect all the GNDs you have together as good and close as possible.

An antenna is like a children swing: The better it is fixed on earth, the better and stronger children can swing with it.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Regarding the article, they must be warning against bending the ground plane in a U-shape without electrically connecting the two parallel halves. I will drop as many through-hole connections as my design permits. \$\endgroup\$
    – Phil
    Commented Feb 6, 2020 at 2:27

Once happened something similar to us, also at 900MHz. We had a ceramic antenna soldered in our PCB with a very small ground plane. As the performance was very poor we contacted the antenna manufacturer and they propose adding a copper tape directly to our ground plane, that improved a lot the efficiency.

The copper tape was something like this: https://www.sparkfun.com/products/10561

So yes, increasing the copper plane length improves the efficiency of the antenna. From this presentation from Laird you can see: https://connectivity-staging.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2019-04/engineers-approach-antenna-selection-implementation-webinar.pdf enter image description here

About option one or two. The option two sure works as it is the same that we did. But I am not sure that the option one doesn't work. Hope it helps!


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.