## 3 Results and Discussions
### Performance Comparisons  
After reflectarray prototype fabrication, a comparison is made in terms of size and other performance parameters with available reflectarray structures from the literature. To provide a valid comparison among all the reflectarray dimensions resonating at different frequencies, the dimensions are compared here in terms of their operating wavelength in Table 3. In addition to array size, the gain and beamwidth of the reflectarrays are also compared in the same table. From the comparison table, it can be observed that the proposed fractal reflectarray has a gain of 20.9 dB at 12 GHz with the lowest unit cell patch dimension of 0.29 \(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.29 \(\lambda\) compared to other designs. The reflectarray designed in [16] achieves a maximum gain of 27 dBi at 15 GHz; however, it has a large patch size of 1.7 \(\lambda\)\(\times\) 1.7 \(\lambda\)., which consequently contributes to an overall increase in the reflectarray dimensions. Another reflectarray design in [10] also generates a high gain of 22 dBi compared to the proposed array. However, its patch size is again higher than the reflectarray proposed here. The proposed reflectarray is compared in terms of two additional parameters, SLLs and spillover efficiency, with other designs in the comparison table.  
Although the proposed reflectarray may not be the best among all other designs available in the recent literature, its balanced performance characteristics, with a gain above 20 dB and a comparatively narrow beamwidth of less than 15 degrees at 12 GHz, make it a suitable candidate for Ku-band satellite internet communications. To further demonstrate the usage of the proposed reflectarray, it is tested in a real-time satellite communication scenario in MATLAB, including interference analysis and various time conditions, in the next section.  
Figure 8: Simulated and measured radiation patterns for both E-Plane and H-Plane of the proposed antenna for a scan angle of 30 degrees.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Reflectarray Design** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Unit cell Patch** \\ **Dimension** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Resonating** \\ **Frequency (GHz)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Gain** \\ **(dB)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Beamwidth** \\ **(Degree)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Side Lobe Levels** \\ **(SLLs) (dB)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Spillover** \\ **Efficiency (\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Fixed Size Patch [6], 2014 & 0.3\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.3\(\lambda\) & 10 & 16.2 & 20 & \(-\)10 & - \\ \hline Fractal reflectarray [14], 2016 & 0.6\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.6\(\lambda\) & 10 & 14.26 & 23 & \(-\)5 & - \\ \hline Phoenix Unit cell [10], 2014 & 0.4\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.4\(\lambda\) & 10 & 22 & 14 & \(-\)12 & 88\% \\ \hline Compound Uni cell, [15], 2020 & 0.49\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 0.49\(\lambda\) & 28 & - & - & \(-\)10 & - \\ \hline Dual-band reflectarray [16], 2021 & 1.7\(\lambda\)\(\times\) 1.7\(\lambda\) & 15 & 27 & 13 & \(-\)15 & 80\% \\ \hline Proposed Minkowski Fractal & & & & & & \\ Reflectarray Structure & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Performance comparison among reflectarray designs.