REFLECTION SUPPRESSION TO IMPROVE ANECHOIC CHAMBER PERFORMANCE

Greg Hindman & Allen C. Newell

Nearfield Systems Inc.
19730 Magellan Drive
Torrance, CA 90502

ABSTRACT
Reflections in anechoic chambers can limit the
performance and can often dominate all other error
sources. This paper will show the results of a new
technique developed by NSI to suppress reflections and
improve performance in anechoic chambers. The
technique, named Mathematical Absorber Reflection
Suppression (MARS), is a post-processing technique that
involves analysis of the measured data and a special
filtering process to suppress the undesirable scattered
signals. The technique is a general technique that can be Figure 1 – NSI-700S-50 Spherical NF Test Range
applied to any spherical range. It has also been applied to
extend the useful frequency range of microwave absorber
in a spherical near-field system. The paper will show
typical improvements in pattern performance, and will
show validation of the MARS technique using data
measured on an antenna in a conventional anechoic
chamber.
Keywords: radome, absorber, reflection, spherical near-
field, suppression

1. Introduction
This paper describes a proprietary technique developed
by NSI to suppress reflections in a spherical near-field
test range. Figure 2 – NSI-700S-60 Spherical NF Test Range
NSI first implemented the MARS technique to support
operation in a hemi-spherical automotive near-field test
system that NSI recently installed for Nippon Antenna in
Itzehoe Germany [1]. NSI has also extended the MARS
technique for operation with other spherical near-field
test systems with limited or no absorber, as well as for
use in improving the reflection performance in a
traditional anechoic chamber [2].

Figure 3 – NSI-700S-90 Spherical NF Test Range

297
 2. MARS Description
The purpose of the MARS approach is to reduce the
influence of scattering on far-field pattern results. We
use a mathematical post processing technique that
requires a minimum amount of detailed information about
the AUT, probe and antenna range geometry. The
processing is applied during regular near-field to far-field
processing. The technique is general enough to apply to
different types of spherical measurement geometries and
to different antenna types. NSI has developed a
mathematical operator that is applied to the measured data
that helps to distinguish between the correct antenna
properties and scattering. Successful processing requires
more measured data than for the AUT without scattering
for best performance - typically requires one half the
spacing in theta and phi than recommended by sampling
criteria. This will usually require about double the test
time, compared to normal measurements.

3. Testing antenna in 3 different systems

We will compare test results – patterns, directivity, and
Figure 4 – NSI-RF-SG284 gain horn tested at NSI on
beam-widths from measurements of a NSI-RF-SG284
NSI-700S-90 ARCH Spherical NF in open
measured on 3 different spherical NF antenna ranges over
environment with NO anechoic chamber – notice
a frequency range of 2.6 to 3.95 GHz. The range
ripple in pattern at about -25 dB level due to range
configurations are summarized in the table below:
reflections
Figure Type Location NSI Scanner Absorber
#1 Chamber Customer NSI-700S-50 12” pyramid
#2 Chamber NSI NSI-700S-60 8” pyramid
#3 Open lab NSI NSI-700S-90 NONE!

All the ranges are running NSI2000 Data acquisition and

processing software, and we used the Agilent PNA for
the RF subsystem. Data in the customer facility was
measured using a NSI-RF-WR284 open ended waveguide
probe, and the data in the other two ranges was measured
using an NSI dual-port probe. Range positioner axis
alignment was performed using NSI’s electrical
alignment technique documented in [3] [4] [5].
Figures 4 shows the near-field measured data of the SGH
on the 700S-90 arch range with no absorber or chamber,
using NSI’s 3-D field viewer. One can easily see the
ripple in the 3-D display and pattern cuts at about the -25
dB level due to range reflections. In figure 5, we show
the result in NSI-s 700S-60 scanner in the anechoic
chamber at NSI, and the reduced reflections are apparent.

Figure 5 – NSI-RF-SG284 gain horn tested at NSI on

NSI-700S-60 Spherical NF in chamber

298
 4. MARS Far-field Pattern Results MARS processing yields the result in figure 7. Clear
Figure 6 shows the far-field calculated pattern of the SGH improvement in the main beam pattern shape due to
on the NSI-700S-90 scanner with no absorber or chamber reduction of the effects of the reflections is seen.
at 3.15 GHz.

Figure 6 – NSI-RF-SG284 Standard Gain Horn tested Figure 7 – NSI-RF-SG284 Standard Gain Horn tested
on NSI-700S-90 scanner with no absorber or chamber on NSI-700S-90 scanner with no absorber or chamber
– MARS correction OFF – MARS correction enabled

299
The same type of SGH was tested with our 700S-50 Far-field amplitude of NSI-R F-SG284_700S-60_017.ns i - Far-field amplitude of NSI-R F-SG284_700S-90_021.ns i
3.2 GHz
scanner in a customer chamber with 12” pyramidal
absorber, and on the NSI-700S-60 scanner at NSI with 8” 700S-60inchamber 700S-90nochamber, withMARS

pyramidal absorber. A comparison between the results 0

Plot 1- Plot 2

in the two chambers shows a -34 dB error level (figure 8)

-5

Far-field amplitude of NSI-RF-SG284.nsi - Far-field amplitude of NSI-RF-SG284_700S-60_017.nsi -10

3.2 GHz

-15
700S-50inchamber 1 700S-60inchamber 2
-20
Plot 1- Plot 2

Amplitude (dB)
0
-25
-5
-30
-10
-35
-15
-40
-20
Amplitude (dB)

-45
-25
-50

-30 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75

Azimuth(deg)

-35
Figure 10 – Far-field comparison at 3.20 GHz of SGH
-40 data taken in chamber versus on 700S-90 ARCH
range with no absorber or chamber, with MARS
-45
correction enabled
-50
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75
Azimuth(deg) Measuring the SGH in the open lab environment of the
Figure 8 – Far-field comparison at 3.2 GHz of SGH 700S-90 scanner with no absorber or chamber, yields
data taken in NSI chamber vs. customer chamber quite a different result as shown in figure 9. Here the
unsuppressed reflections give rise to only about a -21 dB
error level from a comparison to the chamber data.
Far-field amplitude of NSI-R F-SG284_700S-60_017.ns i - Far-field amplitude of NSI-R F-SG284_700S-90_021.ns i
3.2 GHz
However, using the MARS suppression technique shows
the result in figure 10, where the error level has been
700S-60inchamber 700S-90nochamber suppressed back to about -33 dB – almost as good as the
0
Plot 1- Plot 2 comparison between the two anechoic chambers. Thus
we can conclude that the MARS suppression gives about
-5
a 12 dB improvement in chamber performance.
-10

-15

-20
Amplitude (dB)

-25

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75
Azimuth(deg)

Figure 9 – Far-field comparison at 3.20 GHz of SGH

data taken in chamber versus on 700S-90 ARCH
range with no absorber or chamber, with no MARS
correction

300
 5. MARS Directivity Results Figures 13 and 14 show the results in the two anechoic
chambers. The table below summarizes the 4 plots.
To check the performance over a broader frequency
range, we can use the multi-frequency data on the SGH to
Scanner Chamber Max diff. Ave diff.
calculate the directivity performance versus the NRL
(dB) (dB)
directivity calculations with and without the MARS
700S-90 No - MARS off 1.67 0.54
processing. Figure 11 and 12 show this result. The
maximum difference from the NRL curve with MARS off 700S-90 No - MARS ON 0.57 0.32
is about 1.7 dB, whereas when the MARS processing is 700S-50 Yes 0.45 0.26
applied, the large discrepancies disappear and the 700S-60 Yes 0.37 0.17
maximum difference drops to only about 0.5 dB.
Directivity vs. Frequency of c:\i-drive\nsi97\data\AMTA 2005 MARS\NSI-RF-SG284_700S-90_021.nsi
Directivity vs. Frequency of C:\NSI2000\Data\SGH\NSI-RF-SG284.nsi
700S-50 SNF in chamber - no MARS correction - Worst-case difference 0.45 dB; average 0.26 dB
700S-90 SNF - no MARS correction - Worst-case difference 1.67 dB; average 0.54 dB

Measured Directivity NRL Gain Calculation

Measured Directivity NRL Gain Calculation 21.0
21.0

20.5
20.5

20.0
20.0

19.5
19.5

19.0
Directivity(dBi)
19.0
Directivity(dBi)

18.5
18.5

18.0
18.0

17.5
17.5

17.0
17.0

16.5
16.5

16.0
16.0
2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9
2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75
Frequency (GHz)
Frequency (GHz)

Figure 11 – Directivity vs. frequency on 700S-90 Figure 13 – Directivity vs. frequency on 700S-50 in
ARCH range with no absorber or chamber, compared chamber at customer site, compared to NRL
to NRL directivity, with no MARS correction directivity (only 14 frequencies)
Directivity vs. Frequency of C:\i-drive\nsi97\data\AMTA 2005 MARS\NSI-RF-SG284_700S-60_017.nsi
Directivity vs. Frequency of c:\i-drive\nsi97\data\AMTA 2005 MARS\NSI-RF-SG284_700S-90_021.nsi
Worst-case difference 0.37 dB; average 0.17 dB
700S-90 SNF - MARS correction ON - Worst-case difference 0.57 dB; average 0.32 dB

Measured Directivity NRLGain Calculation

Measured Directivity NRL Gain Calculation 21.0
21.0

20.5
20.5

20.0
20.0

19.5
19.5

19.0
19.0
Direc tivity(dBi)
Directivity(dBi)

18.5
18.5

18.0
18.0

17.5
17.5

17.0
17.0

16.5
16.5

16.0
16.0
2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75
2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75
Frequency (GHz)
Frequency (GHz)

Figure 12 –Directivity versus frequency on 700S-90 Figure 14 – Directivity vs. frequency on 700S-60 in
ARCH range with no absorber or chamber, compared chamber at NSI, compared to NRL directivity
to NRL directivity, with MARS correction

301
 6. MARS Beamwidth Results
Beamwidth vs. Frequency
45
Figures 15 and 16 show the beamwidth result for the two
40
chambers and the results are quite similar as expected. 35
Figure 17 shows the poor results for the 700S-90 range

B e a m w id t h ( d e g )
30

with no absorber or chamber. Figure 18 shows the 25

20
improved results using the MARS suppression. 15
10
Beamwidth vs. Frequency
5
45 3 dB BW 6 dB BW 10 dB BW
0
40 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
35
Beamwidth (deg)

Frequency (GHz)
30
25
20 Figure 18 –Beamwidth versus frequency on 700S-90
15 scanner – no absorber or chamber – WITH MARS
10
5 7. Summary
0 3 dB BW 6 dB BW 10 dB BW
2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8
Frequency (GHz)
NSI has developed and validated a novel technique to
suppress reflections on spherical near-field ranges. The
Figure 15 –Beamwidth versus freq - 700S-60 chamber technique is quite general and can be used to achieve
acceptable results with use of minimal absorber or even
Beamwidth vs. Frequency with no anechoic chamber. It can also improve the
45 reflection levels in a traditional anechoic chamber by 10
40
dB or more, allowing improved accuracy as well as the
35
Beamwidth (deg)

30 ability to use existing chambers down to lower

25 frequencies than the absorber used might indicate.
20
15
10
8. REFERENCES
5
0 3 dB BW 6 dB BW 10 dB BW [1] Betjes, P., Pototzki, D., van Rensubrg, D.., " A hemi-
2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 spherical near-field system for automotive antenna
Frequency (GHz) testing", AMTA 27th Annual Meeting & Symposium,
Newport, RI, Oct. 2005.
Figure 16 –Beamwidth versus freq - 700S-50 chamber
[2] Hindman, G, Newell, A.C., " Reflection Suppression
Beamwidth vs. Frequency in a large spherical near-field range", AMTA 27th Annual
45
Meeting & Symposium, Newport, RI, Oct. 2005.
40
35 [3] Newell, A. C., Hindman, G., "The alignment of a
Beamwidth (deg)

30
25
spherical near-field rotator using electrical
20 measurements" In the proceedings of the 19th annual
15 AMTA Meeting and Symposium, Boston, MA, 1997.
10
5
0 3 dB BW 6 dB BW 10 dB BW [4] Newell, A. C., Hindman, G., "Quantifying the effect
2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 of position errors in spherical near-field measurements",
Frequency (GHz) In the proceedings of the 20th annual AMTA Meeting
and Symposium, pp 145-149, Montreal, Canada, 1998.
Figure 17 –Beamwidth versus frequency on 700S-90
scanner – no absorber or chamber [5] Newell, A.C., "The effect of measurement geometry
on alignment errors in spherical near-field
measurements", AMTA 21st Annual Meeting &
Symposium, Monterey, California, Oct. 1999.

302