Fig. 1. Schematic of this work: the multi-physics field-modulated metasurface with coded microwave reflectivity, digitalized infrared emissivity, and acoustic wave absorptivity.

Fig. 2. Metasurface design architecture. (a) Overall design principle. (b) EM metasurface graphic design. (c) Sound cavity architecture design.

Fig. 3. The analysis of the polarization rotator. (a) The overall effect schematic. (b) Principle schematic. (c) The performance of the polarization rotator. (d) The comparison of the magnitude between code 0 and code 1. (e) The comparison of the phase between code 0 and code 1. (f) The cross-polarization reflective phase difference between code 0 and code 1.

Fig. 4. The balance between infrared and microwave performance. (a) The overall infrared design schematic. (b) The microwave performance of mode 0, mode 1, and mode 2 (co-polarization reflectivity, cross-polarization reflectivity, PCR, and cross-polarization reflective phase; phase and phase difference are in degrees). (c) The surface current distribution on mode 0, mode 1, and mode 2 at 8 GHz, 9 GHz, and 10 GHz, respectively. (d) The electric distribution on mode 0, mode 1, and mode 2 at 8 GHz, 9 GHz, 10 GHz, respectively.

Fig. 5. Sound absorption structure diagram of microperforated plate. (a) Schematic diagram of the microperforated plate structure. (b) Schematic diagram of the sound absorption principle.

Fig. 6. (a) The electric distribution in the microperforated plate metasurface. (b) The effective dielectric constants of metasurfaces. (c) The equivalent magnetic permeability. (d) The comparison of cross-polarization performance. (e) The comparison of co-polarization performance.

Fig. 7. The simulation results. (a) The overall design idea of the microperforated plate metasurface. (b) Two sample designs for microperforated plates. (c) The sound pressure level (SPL) distribution in rectangular sample and columnar sample. (d) The acoustic absorptivity of the microperforated plate metasurface and conventional metasurface. (e) The comparison of the far-field simulation results between metasurface and copper plate (θ and ϕ in degrees). (f) The infrared thermal imaging simulated in MATLAB.

Fig. 8. The experimental results. (a) The experimental samples and microwave experiment environment. (b) (i) The simulated RCS of the metasurface and copper plate. (ii) The comparison of the simulated values and experimented values about the RCS reduction. (c) The average infrared emissivity of mode 0, mode 1, and mode 2. (d) The overall infrared imaging of the samples. (e) Thermal robustness tests of infrared digital camouflage imaging at 50°C, 90°C, and 120°C. (f) (i) The acoustic experiment device. (ii) The comparison of the simulated and experimented values of the sound wave absorptivity.