You are on page 1of 11

This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.

Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.


Total Field Reconstruction in the Near Field Using

Pseudo-Vector E-Field Measurements
Serge Pfeifer , Eduardo Carrasco , Senior Member, IEEE, Pedro Crespo-Valero, Esra Neufeld, Sven Kühn,
Theodoros Samaras, Andreas Christ, Myles H. Capstick , and Niels Kuster, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—Exposure assessments in the frequency range above Human exposure to millimeter-wave sources has so far mainly
10 GHz typically require knowledge of the power density very been considered as a far-field problem, but it becomes a near-
close to the radiator (at 2-mm distance), which can be obtained field problem with integration into mobile devices. This presents
through the total electric and magnetic fields. However, phase
measurements are often not feasible in this frequency range, in potential problems regarding the introduction of 5G technology,
particular in the reactive near field. We developed a novel phase as current safety guidelines [1] may not be appropriate for lo-
reconstruction approach based on plane-to-plane reconstruction calized sources. Furthermore, there is a lack of measurement
algorithms. It uses E-field polarization ellipse information, which equipment available to test compliance very close to 5G mil-
can be obtained extremely close to the source with probes based on
limeter wave devices with regard to current safety guidelines,
the pseudo-vector sensor design. The algorithm’s robustness and
accuracy were analyzed and optimized for distances of a fraction i.e., the averaged power density S incident to human skin.
of the wavelength λ, and a comprehensive set of realistic exposure Computation of S, in general, requires knowledge of the com-
conditions was simulated to evaluate the algorithm. For distances plex E- and H -field vectors in the plane of incidence. Further-
greater than λ/5, the error of the spatially averaged peak incident more, there is interest in gaining knowledge about the overall
power density is found to be below 0.5 dB. Measurements in four
spatial field distribution for antenna characterization or pro-
different antenna prototypes revealed that the simulated deviation
of reconstructed averaged power density was consistently below duction tests. Reconstruction of these quantities from sparse
1.1 dB for distances as close as 2 mm, i.e., smaller than the esti- measurements is feasible as they are constrained by Maxwell’s
mated total experimental assessment uncertainty of 1.4 dB. This equations (which in a source-free homogeneous medium re-
demonstrates that the power density can be reliably determined by duces to the Helmholtz equation [2]). In this paper, it is shown
measurements as close as λ/5 from any transmitter. how these quantities (for all three Cartesian components) can
Index Terms—Compliance testing, human exposure, near-field be recovered from E-field polarization ellipses that can be mea-
measurements, phase reconstruction, specific absorption rate sured with pseudo-vector probes [3] or similar methods [4]. The
(SAR). recent EUmmWV2 probe by SPEAG [5] can provide such mea-
surements in the frequency range of 1–110 GHz at distances as
I. INTRODUCTION close as 2 mm to the source, which corresponds to a fraction of
the wavelength λ.
IFTH-GENERATION (5G) technologies will bring
F millimeter-wave communication to mobile devices. This
will lead to new requirements on test systems for assessment of
In contrast, existing phase retrieval algorithms were devel-
oped for distances of a few wavelengths [6]–[8]. As a conse-
quence of this, and due to a lack of measurement methods, they
compliance with electromagnetic safety guidelines, with skin do not use the field component orthogonal to the measurement
heating as the limiting factor in most of the relevant frequency plane. They usually focus on recovering the phase of a single
range. linearly polarized field component, and recovering the relative
phase for the cross polarization is not considered. Without these
Manuscript received February 23, 2018; revised April 24, 2018; accepted
April 30, 2018. This work was supported in part by the Mobile and Wireless Fo- relative phases, the power density in the reactive near field can-
rum, Merelbeke, Belgium, and in part by the Swiss Commission for Technology not be calculated. Studies that did investigate relative phases
and Innovation. (Corresponding author: Serge Pfeifer.) were usually limited to the two components parallel to the mea-
S. Pfeifer, P. Crespo-Valero, E. Neufeld, S. Kühn, A. Christ, M. H. Cap-
stick, and N. Kuster are with the Foundation for Research on Information surement plane at distances of a few wavelengths [9] or in the far
Technologies in Society, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, CH- field [10]. Furthermore, performance of these algorithms is typ-
8092 Zürich, Switzerland (e-mail:,;; ically assessed by looking at the predicted far-field pattern [7],;;; capstick@itis.; [8], [11], which does not guarantee that the reconstructed phase
E. Carrasco was with the Foundation for Research on Information Technolo- in the near field closely resembles the true phase.
gies in Society, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, CH-8092 Zürich, The reconstruction algorithm presented here, together with
Switzerland. He is now with the Technical University of Madrid, E-28040
Madrid, Spain (e-mail:, the ability of the EUmmWV2 probe to measure extremely close
T. Samaras is with the Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thes- to the source without perturbing the field, permits reconstruc-
saloniki, GR-54124 Thessaloniki, Greece (e-mail:, tion of the E- and H -fields, as well as the power density on
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at measurement planes as close as a fraction of λ. The robustness
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEMC.2018.2837897 of the algorithm is assessed with analytic arrays of dipoles, and

0018-9375 © 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.


≤ 50 mm IN THE FREQUENCY RANGE 28–90 GHZ [13], BASED ON [15]

Fig. 1. Horn antenna loaded with an array of slots on a ground plane at 90 GHz
and EUmmWV2 probe tip.

domain) and intensity measurements in the real image domain

using an iterative algorithm [16]. Based on this, Anderson and
Sali presented an approach that recovers phase information from
Columns: uncertainty (Un), probability distribution (PD), divisor (Div), sensitivity amplitude measurements on two parallel planes at different dis-
coefficient (ci ), standard uncertainty (Std Un), and degrees of freedom (vi or veff ).
Probability distributions: rectangular (R) and Gaussian (N).
tances to the source [6]. It assumes a random initial phase dis-
tribution, propagates the field to the other measurement plane,
and then replaces the amplitudes with the measured amplitudes,
the algorithm is validated for a comprehensive set of realistic while maintaining the propagated phases. The field is then prop-
antennas, using finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simula- agated back to the first plane, and the amplitudes are replaced
tions as well as measurements with the EUmmWV2 probe of with the measured amplitudes at that plane, again keeping the
four different antennas. phase values as computed by the propagation. This forward and
backward propagation and amplitude replacement is repeated
II. MEASUREMENT METHODS multiple times; this iterative enforcement of physical constraints
yields a convergence of the phase distribution [6]. Propagation
The EUmmWV2 probe allows minimally disturbing near- in both directions between the planes is possible, as the plane
field E-field polarization ellipse measurements in the mil- wave expansion decomposes the field into base functions (plane
limeter wave domain up to 110 GHz. The probe is based on waves) with known propagation across space (see, e.g., [17]).
the pseudo-vector probe design [3], which not only measures Such approaches are also known as plane-to-plane (PTP) phase
the magnitude of the field, but also derives its polarization ellipse retrieval algorithms or iterative Fourier techniques. Note that
from different probe rotation angles. The probe concept has also when back-propagating, evanescent waves are discarded by set-
the advantage that the sensor angle errors or distortions of the ting spectral components, for which k z is imaginary to zero (see,
field by the substrate of the probe can be largely compensated by for example, [17]), as even very small errors are amplified expo-
calibration. This is particularly important as, at the considered nentially. Experiments including all or parts of the evanescent
frequency range, field distortions by the substrate are depen- waves confirmed that results were worse than when discarding
dent on the wavelength. The design involves two small 0.8-mm them, especially when adding noise or using measurement data.
diode-loaded dipole sensors that are connected by high-resistive PTP algorithms generally treat the vector components indi-
lines, mechanically protected by high-density foam, printed on vidually and do not account for their interdependence. As we
both sides of a 0.9-mm-wide and 0.12-mm-thick glass substrate. need the information about the relative phases between the three
The body of the probe is specifically constructed to minimize components to compute the H -field and S, the additional knowl-
distortion of the scattered fields. The probe is calibrated between edge about the polarization ellipse at the different measurement
10 and 110 GHz by means of the three-antenna method [12]. It points must be considered. The polarization ellipse is the ellipse
has been integrated into the DASY6 [13] and ICEy [14] near- traced in space by a time-harmonic vector V(t) ∈ R3 , which
field scanning systems. The uncertainty budget of the measure- may reduce to a line (linear polarization) or circle (circular
ment system is listed in Table I. The EUmmWV2 probe during polarization). It can be conveniently described by a complex
measurement of a 90-GHz antenna is shown in Fig. 1. vector, often called a phasor P ∈ C 3 , where V(t) = Re Pe jωt ,
with Re denoting the real part. Note that all Pe jφ , φ ∈ [0, 2π),
III. FIELD RECONSTRUCTION ALGORITHM trace the same ellipse, with a different phase at t = 0, cor-
responding to different φ (see Fig. 2). Rather than imposing
A. Algorithm Description only the amplitude of all components of the measured field af-
Gerchberg and Saxton originally showed, in the context of op- ter propagation, we additionally determine and impose phase
tics, how the missing phase information can be retrieved from in- shifts for two components, such that the polarization ellipse
tensity measurements of the diffraction pattern (i.e., the Fourier of the measured data is reproduced (see [18] for in-depth de-
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.


orthogonal to the measurement plane, as our simulations showed

no benefit of additionally varying this direction when already
the size and location parameters are varied. With the best initial
guess, the algorithm is run for a number of iterations or until
it converges (see Section III-B1). Note that for an arbitrary
nonplanar antenna or device, the distance of the measurement
plane z 1 (or z 2 ) to the source plane is the shortest distance to any
radiating element or scatterer. Once the phase of the E-field is
recovered, the H -field can be computed by means of the plane
Fig. 2. Example of a polarization ellipse traced by the time-harmonic vector
V(t) in the x-y plane. Note that the shape of the ellipse is determined by the wave spectrum (see, e.g., [17]).
phase shift between the components Vx and Vy . The time-averaged Poynting vector or power density can then
be found using
scriptions and methods for polarization ellipses). This way, the S= Re E × H∗
correct phase relationship between the components is enforced, 2
while the phase distribution on the plane converges. The ap- where Re denotes the real part, E and H are the E- and H -field
proach for enforcing the polarization ellipse is as follows. Let phasors in the spatial domain, and ∗ represents the complex
the measured polarization ellipse be defined as the complex conjugate. The full algorithm is summarized as follows.
vector P ∈ C 3 at every sampling point, and the propagated E-
field Ep ∈ C 3 . The quantities P, φ, and Ep are different for each Input: measurements of the E-field polarization ellipses
measurement point. The problem is, therefore, to find φ for each P1,2 (R) at planes z = z 1,2 with z 1 < z 2 on a uniform
measurement point such that Pe jφ matches Ep the best. There grid
are different ways of defining best; here, φ was chosen such that Output: E- and H -fields on both planes ( j = 1, 2)
the larger component of the x, y components of the whole mea- including phase information: E j (R), H j (R), Poynting
surement (i.e., the main polarization component) was used as the vector S j
leading component, and its phase after propagation (∠E c ) was Initialization: different guesses of E0 (R) at the source
p p
retained. It follows that φ = ∠E c − ∠Pc , where ∠E c and ∠Pc plane z 0 based on the AUT dimensions and location (see
denote the phases of the main polarization component c ∈ [x, y] text for details)
of Ep and P, respectively.
The enforced ellipse is, therefore, for all E0 (R) do
Pa (Ep ) = Pe j(∠Ec −∠Pc ) . As we do not measure the polarization transform to spectral domain: E0 (R) →  E0 (K)
direction, the complex conjugate Q = P∗ describes the same run polarization ellipse plane-to-plane
ellipse, rotating in the opposite direction. There is, therefore, (PEPTP)-algorithm for 50 iterations
a second possibility to enforce the same ellipse, which is to end for
find θ such that Qe jθ best matches Ep . The same method is select E0 (K) where the MSE in the propagated |E2 (R)|
used as for P, which yields pθ = ∠E c − ∠Q c , and the enforced is smallest after 50 iterations
ellipse is Pb (Ep ) = Qe j(∠Ec −∠Q c ) . Out of the two possibilities Field reconstruction:
Pa (Ep ) and Pb (Ep ), the one is selected that requires a smaller use selected  E0 (K) from Initialization
change of the phase of Ep ; this is done individually for each run PEPTP-algorithm for 500 iterations
sampling point. The resulting enforced ellipse is denoted as for j = 1, 2 do
E = P(Ep ) in the rest of this paper. compute H j ←  Ej
It is known from the literature that phase-retrieval algorithms transform to the spatial domain:  E j (K) → E j (R),
are prone to being trapped in local minima [19]. This problem  j (K) → H j (R)
can be mostly eliminated with a good initial guess. Based on compute S j (R) ← E j (R) × H j (R)∗
the work of Razavi [7], who optimized the initial guess with a end for
genetic algorithm, we implemented a simplified approach: We PEPTP-algorithm: propagate initial guess to z 1 :
use a small variation of the basic method presented by Li [8],  z 1 −z 0
E0 (K) −−−→ 
which assumes a constant magnitude and phase for the size of E1 (K)
the antenna under test (AUT) at the source plane (z = 0); this repeat
transform to the spatial domain: 
p p
is then propagated to the first measurement plane z 1 , and the E1 (K) → E1 (R)
resulting phase distribution is used as initial guess. We apply enforce polarization P1 : P(E1 ) → E1
this method for different guesses of the AUT size and location transform to the spectral domain: E1 (R) →  E1 (K)
z 2 −z 1
propagate to z 2 :  E1 −−−→ 
(50%, 100%, and 200% of the size, and a shift of −λ, 0, and λ E2
transform to the spatial domain: 
p p
in both x- and y-directions, leading to 27 different guesses). Of E2 (K) → E2 (R)
these initial guesses, the one is chosen that leads to the smallest enforce polarization P2 : P(E2 ) → E2
mean squared error (MSE) of the E-field magnitude on the transform to the spectral domain: E2 (R) →  E2 (K)
−(z 2 −z 1 )
second plane after 50 iterations; this number was chosen as a 
back-propagate to z 1 : E2 −−−−→ E1  p

tradeoff between the observed convergence and the computation until converged or the number of iterations reached
time. The beam direction for the initial guess is assumed to be
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.


B. Algorithm Assessment
To analyze the robustness of the algorithm and to find suitable
parameters, analytical scanned-beam arrays of N × M infinites-
imal Hertzian dipoles spaced by λ/2 were simulated. As most of
the studies from the literature used measurement planes at dis-
tances of a few wavelengths, a key question was how close to the
AUT the algorithm could be applied. The frequency was fixed
at 30 GHz, which is at the lower end for the 5G-relevant fre-
quency spectrum; spatial averaging areas of S used in all major
standards are independent of the frequency and are, therefore, Fig. 3. Mean error convergence of the peak time- and spatially averaged
incident power density Sav on the first measurement plane z 1 , for a set of 200
electrically smaller at lower frequencies. The size of the array randomized dipole arrays. PE: using polarization ellipse information and a single
was selected randomly with N and M between 1 and 9 from initial guess. PE-MI: using polarization ellipse with multiple initial guesses
a uniform distribution. The beam steering angles θ (elevation (see text).
angle) and φ (azimuth angle) were chosen from Gaussian dis-
tributions with standard deviations (SDs) of 15◦ . Additionally, peaks in decibels, defined by
the array was shifted in x and y by random amounts (Gaussian  
distributions with SD of λ) to simulate the situation, in which the max (Sav )
err(Sav ) (dB) = 10 log   (2)
max Sav
AUT parameters are not exactly known, as is often the case in
compliance testing. Finally, the dipole array was rotated around ref
the global z-axis by a random angle α (Gaussian distribution where Sav denotes the simulated reference value and Sav is the
with SDs of 30◦ ) to create field patterns with components in all reconstructed value (from simulations or measurements).
three Cartesian coordinates. If not denoted otherwise, a uniform The convergence of the mean error of the time- and spatially
grid of 32 × 32 sampling points was used for both measure- averaged peak incident power density Sav on the first measure-
ment planes, with the sampling points and the planes separated ment plane (according to (2)) is shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen
by λ/4. that convergence is achieved after approximately 100 iterations
For each of the following parameter studies, we used 200 of when multiple initial guesses are used. Because the iterations of
such randomly generated antenna arrays to avoid being domi- the algorithm are computationally cheap, a fixed number of 500
nated by effects only occurring for very specific antennas. Based iterations were used in the following.
on the findings in these theoretical studies, a set of suitable al- 2) Extent and Spacing of the Measurement Planes: To find
gorithm parameters were selected; the algorithm with this set of suitable measurement and reconstruction grid sizes, we used
parameters was then applied to simulations of realistic antennas different uniform grids ranging from 4 × 4 to 64 × 64 points.
(see Section IV) and measurements (see Section V). The spacing of the grid points was varied from λ/2 to λ/6. Two
1) Error Metric and Convergence: Performance of phase distances of the first measurement plane to the AUT plane were
retrieval algorithms is often assessed by looking at the far-field considered: z 1 = λ/5 and z 1 = λ. It can be seen that the error
pattern produced by the reconstructed field [7], [8], [11]. Good is large for planes with few sampling points, but does not de-
prediction of the far field does not necessarily imply a good crease anymore for planes with more than 24 × 24 points (see
phase reconstruction or power density estimate in the near field. Fig. 4(a)). Furthermore, finer grid sampling than λ/4 did not im-
However, for compliance testing in 5G applications, accurate prove the results substantially and even deteriorated results for
reconstruction in the near field is crucial. Therefore, an error grids with fewer points than 24 × 24, likely due to smaller cov-
metric was employed for the quantity that is used in all major erage of the plane, and arising difficulties due to truncation when
standards [20]–[22] to show compliance for frequencies above transforming to the spectral domain when the field decay toward
10 GHz: the time- and spatially averaged incident power density the edge is not substantial. Note that the large errors for smaller
over an area, which is given by planes are also due to the peak not actually being captured by
the plane when the random shift of the AUT location was too
 large. These findings are valid for the considered antenna size;
1 1  
Sav = Re E × H∗ · nd A (1) for larger antennas, the plane size likely needs to be increased,
A A 2 and the random shift needs to be reduced (i.e., placement of the
plane above the AUT needs to be more accurate).
where Re denotes the real part and n is the unit vector normal 3) Distance of the First Plane to the Source: The distance
to the surface. A circular area A of 1 cm2 was used, which is of the first measurement plane from the source plane has a large
the smallest area (and hence, strictest criterion) found in any influence on the error in the reconstructed field and power den-
of these standards. Note that for planar geometries parallel to sity. To quantify this effect, different distances of the first plane
the x-y plane, Sav corresponds to the averaged z-component z 1 to the source were used for the randomized antenna arrays,
of Re (S). The quantity was evaluated at the first measurement ranging from λ/20 to λ. Distances of λ/8 and closer lead to
plane z 1 to get as close to the source as possible, while still errors of more than 2 dB (see Fig. 4(b)). This is likely due to
being able to rely on measurements for the amplitudes (and evanescent waves, which become more important with decreas-
polarization ellipses). As an error metric, we use the ratio of the ing distance to the source and are not considered when back-
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.


Fig. 4. Error (mean and SD) of the peak time- and spatially averaged power density Sav for a set of 200 randomized dipole arrays using (a) different uniform
grids (number of points and grid spacing ds is varied) and (b) different distances of the first measurement plane z 1 (measurement grids denoted in legend).

propagating from the second to the first measurement plane (as

explained in Section III-A). For distances equal to or greater
than λ/5, the mean error was below 0.6 dB for all the grids
investigated here. Decreasing the grid step size did not improve
the results substantially. More sampling points with smaller
grid spacing even yielded a slightly larger error at close dis-
tances, which could be due to more unknowns to be solved
for. We concluded that a plane size of 24 × 24 or 32 × 32 at a
grid spacing of λ/4 leads to a good tradeoff between the num-
ber of measurement points and the error for distances larger
than λ/6, with a mean error below 0.4 dB for the considered
4) Separation of the Two Planes: Compared to the other pa-
rameters, the distance z between the two measurement planes
had a little effect on the reconstructed power density. The error
was assessed at a distance of z 1 = λ/5 of the first measurement
plane, for a plane of 32 × 32 points spaced by λ/4. The dis-
tance z was chosen as λ/16, λ/8, λ/4, λ/2, λ, and 2λ. The
mean error ranged from 0.34 dB (SD: 0.22 dB) for z = λ/4
to 0.37 dB (SD: 0.29 dB) for z = λ/16.
5) Measurement Errors: The robustness of the reconstruc-
tion algorithm was assessed by adding a random error to each
measurement point, again for 200 different randomized antenna Fig. 5. Antenna configurations used for the FDTD simulations. Details for the
arrays, at frequencies of 30, 60, and 90 GHz. The error was slot array and the cavity-fed dipole array can be found in [15]. For the planar
3 × 3 patch: grounded substrate (t = 0.15 mm, εr = 2.5, σ = 0.0038 S/m),
modeled by a Gaussian distribution with an SD of 15% of the S = 2.5 mm, P = 1.44 mm, and x = y = 0.33 mm (offset of the feed with
true value, which corresponds to the expanded standard uncer- respect to the center of the patch for each linear polarization). (a) Slot array on
tainty from the uncertainty budget of the measurement system a horn antenna (30 and 90 GHz). (b) Cavity-fed dipole array (30 and 60 GHz).
(c) Planar 3 × 3 patch array at 60 GHz.
(see Table I). The relative error of the peak time- and spatially
averaged power density was assessed at the measurement plane
z 1 = 2 mm for all frequencies. the averaging area of 1 cm2 , which is electrically larger at higher
Without any modeled measurement errors, the mean errors frequencies.
(with SD) for 30, 60, and 90 GHz were 0.31 dB (SD: 0.22 dB), Another factor that may affect reconstruction accuracy is
0.25 dB (SD: 0.23 dB), and 0.27 dB (SD: 0.39 dB), respectively. the effective spatial averaging due to the dimensions of the
When adding the error model, the mean errors increased to dipole sensors. This was modeled through a cylindrical aver-
0.45 dB (SD: 0.29 dB), 0.29 dB (SD: 0.25 dB), and 0.32 dB (SD: aging volume instead of using the simulated value from a sin-
0.41 dB). This represents an increase of the mean error by 0.14, gle point; the cylinder had a radius of 0.3 mm and a height of
0.04, and 0.05 dB. As the increase of the output error is similar to 0.6 mm, approximately outlining the volume covered by the two
or smaller than the added error at the input, it can be concluded dipole sensors of the probe at the three rotation angles during a
that the algorithm is not sensitive to random measurement errors. measurement. The relative error of Sav was assessed at
The reason for the decrease with increasing frequency is likely z 1 = 2 mm. When using this acquisition model instead of a
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.



The power was normalized to 0-dBm radiated power.

Fig. 6. Relative error of the peak time- and spatially averaged Poynting vector
(see (2)) for the simulated antenna configurations, at different first measurement
increased by less than 0.02 dB at any of the evaluated test fre-
plane distances z 1 from the source AUT plane. quencies (30, 60, and 90 GHz).
7) Conclusion: We found that 24 × 24 or 32 × 32 sampling
TABLE II points at a grid spacing of λ/4 represent a good tradeoff be-
DEVIATION OF SIMULATED E- AND H-FIELD AMPLITUDES FOR THE FOUR tween the number of measurement points and the resulting error
FABRICATED ANTENNAS TO THE RECONSTRUCTION FROM SIMULATION in Sav for the considered antenna arrays that ranged up to a size
of 4λ × 4λ; for larger antennas, the extent of the measurement
plane likely needs to be increased. The separation of the two
measurement planes did not have a big effect; the smallest error
was found for a separation of λ/4. The algorithm is not sensitive
to random measurement errors. The distance of the first mea-
surement plane to the AUT plane had the biggest effect on the
reconstruction error on that plane. At a distance of z 1 = 2 mm,
for the frequencies 30, 60, and 90 GHz, the reconstruction er-
ror was approximately 0.4 dB. Because of the importance of
the distance of the first measurement plane z 1 , this parameter
The E- and H -field vector magnitudes were averaged over 1 cm2 to minimize
was also varied in the following section, where reconstruction
the dependence on exact sampling positions, which can be relevant at such close is evaluated using simulations of different realistic antenna con-
distances to the AUT. figurations.
As the reconstruction from simulation uses the polarization ellipse information,
the amplitudes of the E-field are reconstructed without error.


single point, the mean errors for 30 GHz decreased by 0.03 dB Considering the spatial restrictions of a cellular device, and
and increased for 60 and 90 GHz by 0.12 and 0.25 dB, respec- having in mind the main manufacturing processes (e.g., printed
tively. Increasing the distance between the two measurement circuit board and low-temperature cofired ceramic), the potential
planes from λ/4 to λ had a little effect for all frequencies (less options for 5G-phased arrays are mostly reduced to 2-D planar
than 0.05 dB), similar to when no averaging acquisition model or quasi-planar configurations. The selection of reference AUTs
was used (see Section III-B4). Due to the small influence of the should cover the relevant range of frequencies, polarizations,
probe spatial averaging compared to other parameters, it was as well as different beam steering configurations to assess the
neglected in the rest of this paper. robustness of the developed algorithm under all relevant condi-
6) Probe Positioning Errors: The polarization ellipses are tions. The following six AUTs were selected (see Fig. 5):
computed from measurements at three different rotation an- 1) a horn antenna loaded with a slot array, y linear polariza-
gles of the probe. The absolute positioning tolerance of the tion, one at 30 GHz and one at 90 GHz;
DASY measurement system had been determined to be better 2) a cavity-fed dipole array, y linear polarization, one at
than 200 μm when used in combination with the light-beam 30 GHz and one at 60 GHz;
alignment unit. This may lead to slightly different measurement 3) a planar 3 × 3 array of half-wavelength square patches
locations for the three rotation angles, as currently all measure- at 60 GHz. The antennas were excited independently for
ment points are scanned with one rotation, before advancing to each x/y polarization port, and the following configu-
the next rotation. To quantify the effect, these positioning errors rations were produced: a) circular polarization and (b)
were modeled as random position shifts between the three rota- two simultaneous beams pointing at θ = 30◦ , φ = 0◦ and
tion angles, with an SD of 100 μm on x-, y-, and z-position. With θ = 10◦ , φ = −90◦ , for x- and y-linear polarizations, re-
these random position shifts, the mean error in Sav at z 1 = 2 mm spectively.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.


Fig. 7. E-field magnitude of the individual components x, y, z and the vector magnitude for the dipole array (30 GHz) at 2 and 10 mm distance. In each subfigure,
the left column depicts simulation data and the right column reconstruction from measurements. (a) Distance z 1 = 2 mm. (b) Distance z 1 = 10 mm.

Each of these configurations was simulated by means of Similar to the purely theoretical antenna array of infinitesimal
the FDTD method with SemCAD [23] with high resolution to dipoles (see Section III-B), the error generally decreased with
generate reliable reference fields for the validation and perfor- the distance z 1 of the first measurement plane to the AUT plane
mance analysis of the developed algorithm. To emulate measure- for all antenna setups (see Fig. 6). The distance of the considered
ment data, E-field polarization ellipses (with randomized initial planes is well within the  reactive near field; the reactive near-
phase and polarization direction) were extracted; for the refer- field boundary R = 0.62 D 3 /λ amounts to R > 5λ for the
ence fields, the FDTD results including full phase information patch array, R > 3λ for the dipole arrays, and R > 6λ for the
were used. slot arrays.
We evaluated the reconstruction accuracy of the peak time-
and spatially averaged Poynting vector (circular averaging area
of 1 cm2 ) for the different setups with the previously discussed V. APPLICATION TO MEASUREMENTS
newly developed reconstruction algorithm and the algorithm pa- Four antennas were manufactured for experimental valida-
rameters described in Section III-B7. A number of reconstruc- tion, namely the slot arrays at 30 and 90 GHz and the cavity-fed
tion planes z 1 were evaluated, with the distance to the source dipole arrays at 30 and 60 GHz. They were measured using
ranging from λ/20 to λ. the 5G Module 1.0 and the EUmmWV2 probe of the DASY6
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.


Fig. 8. H -field vector magnitude |Htot | (upper row) and time-averaged incident power density Re(Sz ) (lower row) for the dipole array (30 GHz) at 2 and
10 mm distance. Left column: simulation data. Middle column: reconstruction from simulation data. Right column: reconstruction from measurements.
(a) Distance z 1 = 2 mm. (b) Distance z 1 = 10 mm.

system [13]. The radiation efficiency of the antenna arrays was because of modeling uncertainty (agreement between exposure
determined by comparison of the maximum E-field at a large setup and simulated setup). For E x , the deviation is greater,
distance, i.e., at 50 mm averaged over a circular area of (4λ)2 . which could be due to the alignment of the measurement grid;
Two measurement sets were acquired for each antenna: one a perfect alignment of the grid with the antenna axes is difficult
with the first measurement plane at 2 mm and one at 10 mm. to achieve and not necessary for reconstruction of the incident
The E- and H -fields from measurements and simulations were power density Sav .
compared, and the reconstruction accuracy of the peak time- The corresponding reconstructed H -field and time-averaged
and spatially averaged Poynting vector (circular averaging area Poynting vector are depicted in Fig. 8. The pattern shows more
of 1 cm2 ) for the four antennas was evaluated in the same way as noise than for the E-field at a distance of 2 mm (λ/5). This
for the simulation examples (see Section IV). For comparison is due to the transformation of the reconstructed E-field to the
of measurements and simulation, the vector magnitude of the spectral domain, which is affected by the phase reconstruction;
E- and H -fields was also averaged over a circular area of 1 cm2 the phase distribution is not perfectly smooth after propagation
to be less dependent on exact sample locations, which can be and enforcing of the polarization ellipse, which introduces this
relevant at such close distances from the source plane. noise in the close near field. It should be noted that this noise
The agreement between measurements and simulations are does not substantially influence the error metric (2), as can be
within the estimated expanded uncertainty, which is 1.2 dB for seen by comparing deviations for the E-field (see Table II)
the E-field (see Table I), and 1.4 dB for the H -field and power and Sav (see Table III). At a distance of λ, this noise mostly
density S (which includes reconstruction uncertainty of 0.5 dB; disappears (see Fig. 8(b)).
see Fig. 6). Simulation uncertainty for the local fields of the
physical antenna has not been estimated and considered. The
maximum deviation was 0.91 dB for the averaged E-field and VI. CONCLUSIONS
H -field (see Table II) and 1.09 dB for the averaged power den- A novel algorithm for the reconstruction of the full electro-
sity Sav (see Table III). The deviation of the reconstructed aver- magnetic complex vector field has been presented. In contrast
aged incident power density was very close to the measurement to methods found in the literature, which commonly operate on
deviation in the E-field. This indicates that the reconstruction individual vector components, this algorithm uses E-field po-
algorithm is robust, and uncertainty in the reconstructed power larization ellipse information and reconstructs the three vector
density mainly originates from deviations in the measurements components and their relative phases. Such E-field polariza-
of the amplitudes. One possible explanation for the differences tion ellipse measurements can be obtained with probes based
in the E-field amplitude are small positioning errors for the dis- on the pseudo-vector sensor design. These EUmmWV2 probes
tance to the measurement plane. However, for the purpose of enable accurate measurements extremely close to the source, as
evaluating the field reconstruction algorithm, the source of these they are small and offer great amplitude precision with negligi-
differences is not relevant. ble scattering. The reconstruction algorithm together with such
The measurement of the E-field components is shown in probes permits reconstruction of the E- and H -fields, as well as
Fig. 7 for the cavity-fed dipole array antenna at 30 GHz. The the power density on measurement planes as close as 2 mm.
two larger components, E y and E z , show very similar field A sensitivity analysis has shown that the distance of the first
distributions to the simulation; small deviations are expected measurement plane to the source has the biggest influence on
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.


reconstruction accuracy: reconstruction at distances much closer [8] X. Li, “Investigation of the iterative Fourier technique for phaseless planar
than λ/5 becomes unreliable (see Figs. 4(b) and 6). In contrast, near-field antenna measurements,” master’s thesis, Dept. Elect. Comput.
Eng., Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2015.
the algorithm is not sensitive to measurement errors (see Sec- [9] S. F. Razavi and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Polarization extraction in planar near-
tion III-B5), and also positioning errors of the probe only have field phaseless measurements,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 56,
a negligible effect on the reconstructed averaged power density no. 10, pp. 3233–3240, Oct. 2008.
[10] P. Hallbjörner, “Retrieving field magnitude and polarisation ellipse from
(see Section III-B6). phaseless measurements of linear polarisations, including error analysis,”
Six very different antenna configurations that represent real- IEEE Proc.—Microw. Antennas Propag., vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 28–33, Feb.
istic exposure conditions have been simulated. The algorithm 2003.
[11] G. Junkin, “Planar near-field phase retrieval using GPUs for accurate
yields very accurate reconstructed power densities; for distances THz far-field prediction,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 61, no. 4,
greater than λ/5, the error of the spatially averaged peak inci- pp. 1763–1776, Apr. 2013.
dent power density is found to be less than 0.5 dB, and for λ/2 [12] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 3rd ed. New York,
NY, USA: Wiley–Interscience, 2005.
below even 0.2 dB. [13] 5G Module V1.0Beta Application Note: 5G Compliance Testing with
Of these six antenna configurations, the four for which field DASY6, SPEAG, Zürich, Switzerland, 2017.
reconstruction was found to be more challenging in simulations [14] ICEy Interference & Compatibility Evaluation System, Schmid & Partner
Engineering AG (SPEAG), Zürich, Switzerland, 2017. [Online]. Avail-
were fabricated. Measurements and reconstruction results for able:
these four antennas were compared to simulation data. For mea- [15] Measurement Procedure for the Evaluation of Power Density Related to
surement data, the reconstructed peak incident averaged power Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields From Wireless Communi-
cation Devices Operating Between 6 GHz and 100 GHz, IEC TR 63170
density deviates by 1.1 dB in the worst case from corresponding ED1, 2018.
simulations, for antennas at 30, 60, and 90 GHz at the clos- [16] R. W. Gerchberg and W. O. Saxton, “Phase determination from image and
est distance of 2 mm. The deviations are within the expanded diffraction plane pictures in electron-microscope,” Optik, vol. 35, no. 2,
pp. 237–246, 1972.
uncertainty of 1.4 dB (expanded measurement system uncer- [17] J. J. H. Wang, “An examination of the theory and practices of planar
tainty of 1.2 dB (see Table I) plus reconstruction uncertainty near-field measurement,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 36, no. 6,
of 0.5 dB (see Fig. 6)); considering that the total uncertainty pp. 746–753, Jun. 1988.
[18] I. Lindell, Methods for Electromagnetic Field Analysis (Oxford Engineer-
in addition includes modeling uncertainty (agreement between ing Science Series). Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 1992.
exposure setup and simulated setup, as well as numerical uncer- [19] T. Isernia, F. Soldovieri, G. Leone, and R. Pierri, “On the local minima
tainty), the agreement between reconstructed measurement and in phase reconstruction algorithms,” Radio Sci., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1887–
1899, Nov./Dec. 1996.
simulation constitutes a successful validation and demonstrates [20] International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (IC-
that the power density can be reliably determined with minimal NIRP), “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying elec-
uncertainty as close as λ/5 from the source. tric,magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz),” Health Phys.,
vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 1–32, Apr. 1998.
At distances to the AUT plane much smaller than λ/5, source [21] Federal Communications Commission, “Evaluating compliance with FCC
reconstruction techniques or a generalization of the approach guidelines for human exposureto radiofrequency electromagnetic fields,”
to nonplanar sampling and alternative base functions could po- Federal Commun. Commission, Washington, DC, USA, Tech. Rep. OET
Bull. 65, Aug. 1997.
tentially be used to obtain better reconstructions of the incident [22] IEEE Standard for Safety Levels With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
power density. Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Standard
C95.1-2005 (Revision of IEEE Standard C95.1-1991), Apr. 2006, pp. 1–
[23] SEMCAD X: EM/T Simulation Platform, v16.0, Schmid & Partner En-
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the valuable gineering AG (SPEAG), Zürich, Switzerland, 2016. [Online]. Available:
advice by Prof. Q. Balzano, Dr. K. Pokovic, and Dr. F. Bomholt.

[1] B. Thors, D. Colombi, Z. Ying, T. Bolin, and C. Törnevik, “Exposure to
RF EMF from array antennas in 5G mobile communication equipment,”
IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 7469–7478, 2016.
Serge Pfeifer studied electrical engineering and in-
[2] J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley,
formation technology at the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH) Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland,
[3] K. Pokovic, T. Schmid, J. Frohlich, and N. Kuster, “Novel probes and
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lau-
evaluation procedures to assess field magnitude and polarization,” IEEE sanne, Switzerland, and the University of Edinburgh,
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 240–244, May 2000.
Edinburgh, U.K. He received the Master’s degree in
[4] W. Joseph, L. Verloock, and L. Martens, “Reconstruction of the polariza-
2008 and the the Ph.D. degree from the Sensory-
tion ellipse of the EM field of telecommunication and broadcast antennas
Motor Systems Laboratory, Institute of Robotics and
by a fast and low-cost measurement method,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Intelligent Systems, ETHZürich, in 2014.
Compat., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 385–396, May 2006.
His research was centered around robotic medical
[5] SPEAG, “EUmmWV2 E-field mm-wave probe for general near-
devices to restore gait, using biomechanical simula-
field measurements,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.speag.
tions and machine learning to enhance control algorithms. During his Ph.D.
com/products/dasy6/probes/new-eummwv2-vector-e-probe/ research, he spent five months with Northwestern University in Chicago as
[6] A. P. Anderson and S. Sali, “New possibilities for phaseless microwave
a Visiting Researcher working on system identification techniques applied to
diagnostics. Part 1: Error reduction techniques,” IEE Proc. H—Microw.
biological systems. After his Ph.D. research, he joined the Foundation for Re-
Antennas Propag., vol. 132, no. 5, pp. 291–298, Aug. 1985.
search on Information Technologies in Society, Zürich, and SPEAG’s R&D
[7] S. F. Razavi, “Planar near-field phaseless measurement techniques for
team, where his focus is on algorithms for evaluation of electromagnetic fields,
antenna characterizations and diagnostics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Electrical
3-D surface reconstruction, and control strategies for automated measurement
and Computer Engineering Department, Univ. California, Los Angeles,
CA, USA, 2011.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.


Eduardo Carrasco (S’96–M’08–SM’18) received Sven Kühn received the Dipl.Ing. (M.Sc.) degree in
the bachelor’s degree in telecommunication engi- information and communication technologies from
neering from the National Autonomous University the Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz,
of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico, in 2000, and the Germany, in 2004, and the Ph.D. in Electrical En-
Ph.D. degree in telecommunication engineering from gineering from the Integrated Systems Laboratory,
the Technical University of Madrid (UPM), Madrid, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich,
Spain, in 2008. Zürich, Switzerland, in September 2009.
From 1999 to 2001, he was a Broadcast Operations At the end of 2004, he joined the Foundation
Systems Specialist with DIRECTV Latin America. In for Research on Information Technologies in Soci-
2002, he received a grant from the Vodafone Founda- ety, Zürich, where he started to work on numerical
tion to pursue a degree in telecommunications man- and experimental methods for the assessment of hu-
agement with Spain’s School for Industrial Organization, Madrid. From January man exposure to electromagnetic fields. In August 2009, he joined Schmid
to April 2008, he visited the Microwave Engineering Laboratory, University of & Partner Engineering, where he heads sensor design, pursuing R&D work
Perugia, Perugia, Italy, as part of his Ph.D. research work. From June 2009 to toward a new product generation of miniature electrooptical sensors. He also
June 2012, he was a Postdoctoral Researcher with the Electromagnetism and leads the development of the DASY NEO product and electromagnetic com-
Circuits Theory Department, UPM, where he participated in various projects patibility analysis tools. He became a co-founder of Zürich MedTech in 2006.
supported by the Spanish Government, the Mexican Council of Science and He has authored or coauthored numerous journal and conference papers, as
Technology, the European Union’s Sixth and Seventh Framework (FP6 and well as book chapters. He serves as a Scientific Reviewer for various journals.
FP7) Programs, and the European Space Agency. From 2012 to 2014, he was a His main research interests include experimental and numerical dosimetry in
Marie-Curie Fellow with the Adaptive Micronano Wave Systems Group, Swiss bioelectromagnetics, classical electromagnetic compatibility, near-field sensors,
Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. He was radio frequency circuit, and antenna design and optics, as well as biomedical
an Electromagnetic, Dosimetry, and Antenna Engineer with the Foundation for applications thereof.
Research on Information Technologies in Society, Zürich, Switzerland, from Dr. Kühn is a recipient of the Medal of the ETH Zürich and the Prize of the
January 2015 to September 2017. Since October 2017, he has been an Assistant Hans Eggenberger Foundation.
Professor with the Department of Signals, Systems and Radiocommunications,
UPM. His main research interests include the design of antennas and arrays,
including reflect and transmit arrays, from microwave to terahertz frequencies,
as well as electromagnetic field exposure, hyperthermia treatment planning, and
other bioelectromagnetics topics. Theodoros Samaras received the Physics degree
from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thes-
saloniki, Greece, in 1990, the M.Sc. degree in med-
Pedro Crespo-Valero received the master’s degree in
ical physics (with distinction) from the University of
ingeniero de telecomunicación from the Universidad
Surrey, Guildford, U.K., in 1991, and the Ph.D. de-
Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, in 2001, and
gree from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in
the Ph.D. degree in computational electromagnetics
and microwave engineering from the École Polytech-
In 1998, he was with the BIOEM/EMC Group,
nique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, where
in 2007.
he studied the effect of heat diffusion in electro-
During this period, he participated in sev-
magnetic dosimetry. He subsequently moved to the
eral research projects on electromagnetic simulation
Hyperthermia Unit of the Erasmus Medical Centre of Rotterdam, where he
techniques with European institutions such as the Eu-
conducted research on treatment quality of superficial microwave hyperther-
ropean Space Agency. In 2007, he joined the Software
mia for cancer treatment with a Marie-Curie Fellowship from the European
R&D Group, Schmid & Partner Engineering AG, Zürich, Switzerland, where
Commission. In December 1999, he joined the Aristotle University of Thessa-
he participated in the development of professional simulation and measurement
loniki, where he is currently a Professor. He has authored and coauthored several
software tools for the communications and medical industries. Since 2017, he
papers in peer-reviewed journals. His research interests include numerical tech-
has been part of the Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in
niques and computer modeling with applications in biomedical technology and
Society, Zürich, where he works on the creation of a new generation of simula-
telecommunications, as well as therapeutic applications and safety of nonioniz-
tion software for neural stimulation in collaboration with an international team
ing radiation.
funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
Prof. Samaras is a member of the European Commission’s Scientific Com-
mittee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks.
Esra Neufeld received the Dipl.Natw. (M.Sc.) degree
in interdisciplinary sciences (main topics: theoretical
physics, quantum electronics, organic and physical
chemistry; master’s thesis: computational sciences)
and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Andreas Christ was born in Offenbach, Germany,
the Computer Vision Laboratory, Swiss Federal In- in 1968. He received the Dipl.Ing. degree in electri-
stitute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland, in 2004 cal engineering from the Technical University Darm-
and 2008, respectively. stadt, Darmstadt, Germany, in 1996. In 1997, he
Before that, he studied philosophy, theology, and joined Niels Kuster’s research group, Swiss Federal
law in the U.K. In 2004, he joined the Foundation Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland, where
for Research on Information Technologies in Soci- he received the Ph.D. degree in 2003.
ety, Zürich, where he has been the Head of the Computational Life Sciences He continued his research study with the Numer-
Group since 2008. He is responsible for the development of a multiphysics ical Dosimetry Group, Foundation for Research on
simulation platform targeted at the life sciences as well as applied studies in Information Technologies in Society, Zürich. He is
this area and serves as a consultant to companies and government agencies involved in the assessment of interaction mechanisms
on magnetic resonance imaging safety of implants and exposure safety, con- of electromagnetic fields and biological tissue. He has authored and coauthored
tributing to international standards. Since 2009, he has been a Chief Scientific more than 20 publications in peer-reviewed journals and presented his studies
Officer with Zürich MedTech, Zürich. He has authored and coauthored numer- in more than 30 international conferences. His research interests include com-
ous journal and conference papers, as well as book chapters. He is a Scientific putational electrodynamics with the finite-difference time-domain method, the
Reviewer for various journals and government agencies. His main research in- development of anatomical models for dosimetric simulations, the numerical
terests include the development of simulation and treatment planning software, modeling of medical devices, and the development of numerical and experimen-
personalized modeling, solver and algorithm development, medical image anal- tal techniques to evaluate the safety of magnetic resonance imaging for patients
ysis and anatomical model generation, applied simulations particularly in the with medical implants.
field bioelectromagnetics, interactions between physical exposure and physiol- Dr. Christ is a member of the IEEE Standards Association, where he chairs
ogy (e.g., EM and FUS-induced heating and neuromodulation), measurement the Working Group 1 of Technical Committee 34: Wireless Handset SAR Cer-
technology, uncertainty assessment, and standardization. tification and Subcommittee 2: Computational Techniques.
This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.


Myles H. Capstick received the B.Sc. and Ph.D. de- Niels Kuster (F’10) received the M.S. and Ph.D. de-
grees in electronic engineering from the University of grees in electrical engineering from the Swiss Fed-
Wales, Bangor, U.K., in 1987 and 1991, respectively. eral Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich, Zürich,
He became a Lecturer with the School of Elec- Switzerland, in 1984 and 1992, respectively.
tronic Engineering Science, University of Wales, in From 1993 to 1999, he was an Assistant Pro-
1990. In 1996, he joined the Department of Electron- fessor with the Department of Electrical Engineer-
ics, University of York, where he was first a Lecturer ing, ETH Zürich. In 2001, he became a Professor
and later a Senior Lecturer. In May 2006, he joined the with the Department of Information Technology and
Foundation for Research on Information Technolo- Electrical Engineering, ETH Zürich. Since 1999, he
gies in Society, Zürich, Switzerland. His expertise is has been the Founding Director of the Foundation
across a wide range of areas encompassing radio fre- for Research on Information Technologies in Society
quency (RF), microwave, and millimeter-wave systems, circuits, antennas and (IT’IS), Zürich. In 2010, he initiated the sister institute IT’IS USA, a nonprofit
measurements, communications systems, electromagnetic compatibility, and research unit incorporated in the State of Maryland, of which he is currently
dosimetry. He has experience of the design and manufacture of RF equipment the President. During his career, he has been an Invited Professor with the
for use in dosimetry and, in particular, the equipment used in all the human Electromagnetics Laboratory of Motorola Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL, and, in
volunteer trials within the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research 1998, with the Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan. He also founded several
Program of the U.K. Department of Health, as well as studies using human spin-off companies: Schmid & Partner Engineering AG, MaxWave AG, Zürich
phantoms. For in vitro and in vivo research, he has designed systems includ- MedTech AG, BNNSPEAG Ltd., SR Scientific GmbH, etc., and advises other
ing reverberation chamber systems, resonant transverse electromagnetic line companies as a board member. He has authored more than 200 publications on
systems, systems for live imaging of cells during exposure to both extremely measurement techniques, computational electromagnetics, computational life
low frequency and RF EMF. Within the medical research field, RF hyperther- sciences, dosimetry and exposure assessments, and bioexperiments. His pri-
mia and magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia equipment, magnetic resonance mary research interests include electromagnetic technologies, in silico tissue
imaging (MRI) RF and gradient field exposure test systems for medical im- models, and personalized medicine.
plant safety assessment are areas of activity. He has also worked on health risk Dr. Kuster is a member of several standardization bodies and serves as a con-
and occupational exposure assessment of body-worn antennas, wireless power sultant on the safety of wireless technologies for government agencies around
transfer devices, and MRI. Furthermore, he has developed new measurement the globe. He is a delegate of the Swiss Academy of Science. He served as
instrumentation for improved assessment of safety in electromagnetic fields and the President of the Biolectromagnetics Society from 2008 to 2009 and as a
for measurement of miniature body-worn devices. His research interests in- board member of various societies. In 2012, he was a recipient of the presti-
clude electronic engineering science for biomedical and health risk assessment gious d’Arsonval Award, the highest scientific honor of the Bioelectromagnetics
applications. Society.