Study of Loop Probe Dimensions Influence on a
Probe Calibration Factor in Near-Field
Measurements
Aleksandar Atanasković, Tijana Dimitrijević, Nebojša Dončov,
Jugoslav Joković, and Bratislav Milovanović
Abstract—Near-field measurements of electromagnetic fields
demand to remove the influence of the probes, transmission lines
and measurement circuits on the measurement results. This
paper is focused on investigation of a magnetic loop probe
influence in order to obtain the correct probe calibration factor.
The additional correction of the probe calibration factor is
presented to take into account the possibility of usage of probes
with different dimensions.
Keywords—magnetic probe, near-field measurement,
calibration factor.
I. INTRODUCTION
Near-field scanning measurement, as an efficient method
for studying electromagnetic interference (EMI), is
increasingly being used for the characterization of intentional
emission from antennas and unintentional emission from
electronic equipment [1-3]. Investigation of the electric and
magnetic field in the near-field of electronic circuits is highly
important in electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) studies.
To perform the near-field measurement, one of the main
parts is a scanning near-field probe. The probe output is
actually directly proportional to the intensity of the field at the
probe position, however, the probe itself may influence the
measured field which has to be taken into account. Since the
probe may affect the measured quantity, a calibration
procedure is recommended to be carried out in order to
remove the probe influence and extract realistic field level
from the near-field measurements.
For an efficient characterization of stochastic
electromagnetic fields, successfully calibrated near-field
probes are especially important [4-6], since two-point
measurements for capturing the correlation information may
require probes of different thicknesses which is dependent on
the height from the device under test (DUT) where the
scanning is performed. Also, the probes can be placed very
Aleksandar Atanasković, Tijana Dimitrijević, Nebojša Dončov, Jugoslav
Joković are with the Faculty of Electronic Engineering, University of Nis,
Aleksandra Medvedeva 14, 18000 Nis, Serbia
(e-mail: {aleksandar.atanaskovic, tijana.dimitrijevic, nebojsa.doncov,
jugoslav.jokovic}@elfak.ni.ac.rs).
Bratislav Milovanović is with the Singidunum University, Educational
Center Niš, Danijelova 32, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia (e-mail:
batam@pogled.net).
978-1-7281-0878-0/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
close to each other, because of the required resolution of the
scanning plane, so that mutual coupling of probes may exist.
One of the approaches for the probe calibration factor
correction Kerns proposed in [7]. In [8] miniaturized
magnetic-field probes have been reported for measurements in
high-frequency planar circuits. The measurement probe
influence on the far- and near-field evaluation of an
electromagnetic source was investigated in [9]. Miniature
electric near-field probes for measuring 3-D fields in planar
microwave circuits are given in [10], whereas Shi applied the
theory of probe compensated near-field measurement by
applying the Lorentz reciprocity theorem to the problem of
characterizing EMI through the use of near-field scanning
measurements [11]. A study of magnetic probe calibration,
both horizontal and vertical, and investigation of an influence
of the probes on the accuracy of the calibration method is
described in [3].
To conduct a magnetic field measurement, a magnetic
loop probe with a single turn is usually used. It consists of a
miniature magnetic loop connected to a coaxial cable. In order
to obtain information about an electromagnetic field above the
observed structure, the calibration of the probe should be
carried out. The probe calibration is determined as the relation
between the field level and the voltage signal induced in the
probe. Thereby, the calibration factor is not dependent on the
DUT and it is only the probe's parameter. It is obtained at the
fixed point above the DUT. The field measured by the probe
is converted into the voltage signal, while the reference field
is obtained from 3D full-wave simulator. Both ate further used
to calculate the calibration factor as presented in [12].
The presence of a probe and its characteristics in a near-
field measurement procedure inevitably influence the field
due to interference. Since a derivation of the probe calibration
factor depends on the measured voltage induced in the probe
and the simulated magnetic field, it means that the calibration
procedure should be repeated if loop probes of different
dimensions are used. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the
magnetic loop probe influence in terms of the probe
dimensions, i.e. loop radius and wire radius, on the probe
calibration factor in order to enable the possibility of applying
the corrected calibration factor when the loop probe with
different dimensions is used.
335
II. LOOP PROBE CALIBRATION The model of a microstrip line is realized in the full-wave
In order to characterize the presence of a near-field simulator based on the TLM method and simulated result
scanning probe and its impact on measured near-field values, representing y component of the magnetic field in the point
a probe calibration factor needs to be determined. For that that would correspond to the center of the loop probe at the
purpose, it is necessary to compare the measured voltage height 10 mm, is obtained in the frequency domain
signal from the loop probe and the magnetic field obtained by (0÷3) GHz.
full-wave simulations. Therefore, the probe calibration factor Fig. 3. presents the probe calibration factor calculated up
can be calculated as [12] to 3 GHz according to the voltage determined by the
measured S21 on the VNA and simulated magnetic field, which
 μA   μ A are also plotted in the figure. A good agreement is achieved
CF  dB  = H sim  dB − U p [ dB μV ] (1) between the calculated calibration factor (CF) and the data
 μVm   m  given by the manufacturer [13].
where CF is the probe calibration factor, Hsim is the simulated
magnetic field and Up is the measured voltage signal.
In the assembled measurement setup for the calibration
procedure (Fig.1), the scanning probe is fixed at the height z =
10 mm above the center of a microstrip line (x = 0, y = 0)
(Fig.2). The line is placed along the x-axis, x = (-80 ÷ 80) mm,
with one terminal connected to the output port of the VNA,
while the other terminal is terminated with 50 Ω. The input
port of the VNA is connected to the loop probe. The input
power of the test line is set to 0 dBm, and measurements are
performed in the frequency range 300 kHz ÷ 3 GHz. Data
obtained by the VNA correspond to the S21 parameter of two
ports, which can be further manipulated to obtain the probe's
response as the voltage, which is needed to calculate the probe
Fig. 3. The probe calibration factor, the simulated y component of the
calibration factor [12]. magnetic field and the measured voltage [12].

III. LOOP PROBE DIMENSIONS INFLUENCE ON A PROBE

CALIBRATION FACTOR
Several factors affect a calibration procedure in terms of
accuracy, such as, for instance, the dimension of the probe
which is investigated in this section.
To perform simulations that correspond to the realistic
measurement procedure of the near field, CST Microwave
Studio solver based on the TLM tetrahedral mesh is used. The
simulation model is presented in Fig.4, and it is built to be in
Fig. 1. Block diagram of the frequency-domain measurement setup. accordance with the measurement setup shown in Fig. 1. As a
radiating test structure, a terminated microstrip test board
having 50 Ω impedance was chosen. The 50 Ω microstrip line
was modelled on the FR4 substrate with characteristics as
follows: substrate relative permittivity εr = 4.35, substrate
(a) height h = 1.6 mm, the line width w = 3.05 mm and the line
length l = 160 mm. The loop probe, consisting of a single turn
magnetic loop of radius rl and a straight wire of radius rw, is
simulated using the compact TLM wire model, which should

(b)
Fig. 2. (a) Test microstrip line, (b) Test board and the RF-R 50-1 loop probe Fig. 4. Simulation model of a microstrip line and a loop probe.
placed above the board in the anechoic chamber.

336

Fig. 5. Comparison of measured and simulated transmission coefficient
between the loop probe and the microstrip line input.
correspond to the passive H-field loop probe LANGER RF-R
50-1 with head size diameter of 10 mm [13] used as the near-
field probe in the measurement. The loop is placed vertically
above the microstrip line, at the distance between the center of
Fig. 6. Simulated transmission coefficient for different loop probe radius and
fixed wire radius equal to rw = 1.1 mm.
Fig. 7. Simulated transmission coefficient for different wire radius and fixed
loop probe radius equal to rl = 5 mm.
337
the loop and the microstrip line surface equal to h = 10 mm.
The loop is oriented in such a way that it allows for the
horizontal magnetic field component Hy to be observed.
Fig.5. presents the comparison of results, representing a
transmission coefficient between a loop probe and an input
into the microstrip line, obtained by measurements and
simulations when the loop probe, with dimensions of the
probe radius and the wire radius rl = 5 mm, rw = 1.1 mm,
respectively, is included in the simulation model. As can be
seen, the agreement between measured and simulated results
is satisfactory. Discrepancies are the result of the imperfection
of the measurement procedure and setup, mostly because the
dimensions of the commercial probe are not available.
Simulations are performed for the different radius of the
loop rl = 2.5, 5 and 7.5 mm, and for different wire radius
rw = 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 1.1 mm, while the distance between the
loop center and the microstrip line is kept constant.
Simulation results of the transmission coefficient between the
loop and the microstrip line input, for the different radius of
the loop and the different wire radius, are shown in Figs. 6
and 7, respectively.
Fig. 8. Correction factor for different loop probe radius with reference to
rl = 5 mm and for constant wire radius rw = 1.1 mm.
Fig. 9. Correction factor for different wire radius of the loop probe with
reference to rw = 1.1 mm and for constant loop probe radius rl = 5 mm.
 According to the simulated results obtained for different
loop probe dimensions, correction factors with regards to the
loop radius rl = 5 mm and the wire radius rw = 1.1, are
determined and presented in the frequency range of interest in
Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. When the loop probe of the radius
equal to 2.5 mm is used, the correction factor in respect to the
probe of 5 mm loop radius fluctuates between 8 dB and
12 dB, while for the probe radius of 7.5 mm, the correction
factor is variable between -8 dB and -5 dB. Regarding the
probe of the constant loop radius, the correction factor in
reference to the probe of 1.1 mm wire radius has the highest
value for the smallest wire radius (0.1 mm) which varies from
2 to 3 dB, whereas the correction factor for the other two sizes
is less than 1 dB. Therefore, these correction factors could be
accounted for when the scanning probe of different loop
radius and wire radius is used in the measurement, hence
avoiding additional calibration procedure to be carried out.
IV. CONCLUSION
This paper investigates a magnetic loop probe influence in
terms of probe dimensions on a probe calibration factor in
order to enable the possibility of applying the corrected
calibration factor when the probe with different dimensions is
used. Presented results are based on a simulation model that
corresponds to the measurement setup consisting of a
microstrip line as the test structure and a loop probe as the
scanning probe.
The same setup was used to determine the probe
calibration factor in order to eliminate the measurement error
and to extract realistic field parameters, and it will be further
used to characterize the field correlation of devices with
uncorrelated sources that have a stochastic field distribution.
The investigation described here along with the calibration
procedure previously conducted and further research of the
additional scanning probe influence on the measured results
will allow for the efficient and accurate near-field
measurement of the radiated emissions from electronic
equipment.
Finally, the model of a near-field probe used herein is
simply described as a wire structure, which will allow further
development of models representing a more complex semi-
rigid coax cable shape and a possibility to compare them with
the lumped element model. In such a way, the numerical
model will fully resemble the near-field measurement
procedure and it can contribute to the improvement of the
near-field image resolution in space, time and frequency
domains.
338
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We want to thank prof. David Thomas and Dr.
Christopher Smartt with the George Green Institute for
Electromagnetic Research, University of Nottingham, UK,
who helped us to carry out the measurements and simulations.
This work has been supported by the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technological Development of Serbia, project
numbers III 43012, III 44009.
REFERENCES
[1] B. Ravelo, Y. Liu and A. K. Jastrzebski, "PCB Near-Field Transient
Emission Time-Domain Model," in IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1320-1328, Dec.
2015.
[2] D. W. P. Thomas et al., "Near-field scanning of stochastic fields
considering reduction of complexity," 2017 International Symposium
on Electromagnetic Compatibility - EMC EUROPE, Angers, 2017, pp.
1-6.
[3] Tian, G., Li, J., Liu, X. et al. "Study on Magnetic Probe Calibration in
Near-field Measurement System for EMI Application," J Electron Test
(2017) December 2017, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 741–750.
[4] J. A. Russer and P. Russer, “Modeling of noisy electromagnetic field
propagation using correlation information”, IEEE Transactions on
Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 76-89, 2015.
[5] J.A. Russer, N. Uddin, A. S. Awny, A. Thiede, and P. Russer, “Near-
field measurement of stochastic electromagnetic fields”, IEEE
Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 79-85,
2015.
[6] M. Haider, B. Stošić, M. H. Baharuddin, N. Dončov, D. W. P. Thomas,
P. Russer, J. A. Russer, “Modeling of aperture fields for cavities
excited by stochastic current sources”, Microwave Review, vol. 22, no.
2, pp. 21-26, 2016.
[7] D. M. Kerns, “Analytical techniques for the correction of near-field
antenna measurements made with an arbitrary but known measuring
antenna,” in Abstracts URSI-IRE Meeting, 1963, pp. 6–7.
[8] Y. Gao, A. Lauer, Q. Ren and I. Wolff, "Calibration of electric coaxial
near-field probes and applications," IEEE Transactions on Microwave
Theory and Techniques, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1694-1703, Nov. 1998.
[9] W. Joseph and L. Martens, "The influence of the measurement probe
on the evaluation of electromagnetic fields," IEEE Transactions on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 339-349, May 2003.
[10] Yingjie Gao and I. Wolff, "Miniature electric near-field probes for
measuring 3-D fields in planar microwave circuits," IEEE Transactions
on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 907-913,
July 1998.
[11] Jin Shi, M. A. Cracraft, K. P. Slattery, M. Yamaguchi, and R. E.
DuBroff, "Calibration and compensation of near-field scan
measurements," IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 642-650, Aug. 2005.
[12] T. Dimitrijević, A. Atanaskovic, N. S. Doncov, D. W. P. Thomas, C.
Smartt, Mohd H. Baharuddin, "Calibration of the Loop Probe for the
Near-Field Measurement," European Microwave Conference in
Central Europe (EuMCE 2019), Prague, Czech Republic, May 13-15,
2019, pp:575-578.
[13] https://www.langer-emv.de