## 3 Results and Discussion
### Study of Geometric Parameter Distortion  
The results of the proposed numerical experiment are presented in Figures 7-11. The distributions of the resonant frequency values, \(f_{\rm r}\), for various slot widths, \(w\); resonator to resonator distances, \(d\); and for various dielectric laminate thicknesses, \(t\), are shown in Figures 7-9 for the CR, JCR, and SRR structures, respectively. The following general remarks can be drawn from the obtained distributions:  
* The resonant frequency, \(f_{\rm r}\), increases with the increase of the slot width. In the case of the SRR structure, the relation is quasi-linear, contrary to other evaluated structures (CR and JCR), especially if the laminate thickness \(t\) is bigger than the optimal one. * In the case of the SRR, the influence of the element to element distance \(d\) was negligible. For the CR structure, the \(f_{\rm r}\) slightly (for lower \(w\) values) and noticeably (for higher \(w\) values) increased with the increase of the \(d\) parameter. In the case of the JCR, independent of the \(w\) value, \(f_{\rm r}\) increased with the increase of distance \(d\). * Increase of the thickness of the dielectric substrate \(t\) (indirectly, an increase in frequency dependent equivalent permeability of substrate and capacitance in equivalent circuit [27; 28; 29]) causes a decrease of resonant frequency \(f_{\rm r}\). Figure 6: Comparison of the simulated and measured frequency responses of the selected metasurfaces. Figure 8: Resonant frequency, \(f_{\rm r}\), distribution as a function of the slot width, \(w\); resonator to resonator distance, \(d\); and dielectric laminate thickness, \(t\), in cases of Jerusalem cross (JCR) cell geometry: (**a**) \(t=0.5\) mm, (**b**) \(t=1.0\) mm, (**c**) \(t=1.5\) mm, (**d**) \(t=2.0\) mm, and (**e**) \(t=2.5\) mm. Figure 7: Resonant frequency, \(f_{\rm r}\), distribution as a function of slot width, \(w\); resonator to resonator distance, \(d\); and dielectric laminate thickness, \(t\); in cases of cross (CR) cell geometry: (**a**) \(t=0.5\) mm, (**b**) \(t=1.0\) mm, (**c**) \(t=1.5\) mm, (**d**) \(t=2.0\) mm, (**e**) \(t=2.5\) mm. Figure 9: Resonant frequency, \(f_{\rm r}\), distribution as a function of slot width, \(w\); resonator to resonator distance, \(d\); and dielectric laminate thickness. \(t\), in cases of split ring resonator (SRR) cell geometry: (**a**) \(t=0.5\) mm, (**b**) \(t=1.0\) mm, (**c**) \(t=1.5\) mm, (**d**) \(t=2.0\) mm, and (**e**) \(t=2.5\) mm. The quantitative description of the obtained results is presented in Table 2. Variations of the resonant frequency caused by the changes of the unit cell selected geometrical parameters are shown in the following two cases:  
* whole parameters space is utilized (\(t\in\)0.5-2.5\(\cdot\) mm, \(w\in\)0.3-1.5\(\cdot\) mm, and \(d\in\)2-10\(\cdot\) mm);
* dielectric substrate thickness is restricted to \(t=\) 1.5 mm (\(w\in\)0.3-1.5\(\cdot\) mm and \(d\in\)2-10\(\cdot\) mm). As one can observe, in both cases, the smallest variation caused by the changes of unit cells' geometric parameters is for the CR structure, while the biggest is for the split-ring resonator. Thus, from the point of view of analyzed parameters changes, the CR structure seems to be the most stable and robust in terms of potential structure variations. The next parameter that was evaluated was the amplitude of the frequency response for resonance \(|\)s\({}_{11}\)(\(f_{\tau}\))\(|\). This parameter is not as reliable as the resonant frequency, because it is strongly dependent on,