** **
19 Sep 2019

19 Sep 2019

# Near-field measurement of continuously modulated fields employing the time-harmonic near- to far-field transformation

Fabian T. Faul Jonas Kornprobst Torsten Fritzel Hans-Jürgen Steiner Rüdiger Strauß Alexander Weiß Robert Geise and Thomas F. Eibert

^{1},

^{1},

^{2},

^{2},

^{2},

^{3},

^{3},

^{1}

**Fabian T. Faul et al.**Fabian T. Faul Jonas Kornprobst Torsten Fritzel Hans-Jürgen Steiner Rüdiger Strauß Alexander Weiß Robert Geise and Thomas F. Eibert

^{1},

^{1},

^{2},

^{2},

^{2},

^{3},

^{3},

^{1}

^{1}Chair of High-Frequency Engineering, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstraße 21, 80333 Munich, Germany^{2}Aeroxess UG, 81925 Munich, Germany^{3}Institute of Electromagnetic Compatibility, University of Braunschweig, Schleinitzstraße 23, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany

^{1}Chair of High-Frequency Engineering, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstraße 21, 80333 Munich, Germany^{2}Aeroxess UG, 81925 Munich, Germany^{3}Institute of Electromagnetic Compatibility, University of Braunschweig, Schleinitzstraße 23, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany

**Correspondence**: Fabian T. Faul (fabian.faul@tum.de)

**Correspondence**: Fabian T. Faul (fabian.faul@tum.de)

Received: 08 Feb 2019 – Revised: 17 Apr 2019 – Accepted: 01 May 2019 – Published: 19 Sep 2019

Near-field far-field transformations (NFFFTs) are commonly performed for time-harmonic fields. Considering arbitrary in-situ measurement scenarios with given transmission signals, time-varying aspects of modulated signals have to be taken into consideration. We investigate and characterize two methods for the measurement of modulated fields, which work with a time-domain representation of the radiated fields and, at the same time, allow to employ the standard time-harmonic NFFFT. One method is based on the fact that the modulation signal can be assumed to be constant in a short enough measurement interval under the condition that the modulation and carrier frequencies are several decades apart. The second method performs long-time measurements in order to obtain the complete frequency spectrum in every single measurement. Both methods are verified by the NFFFT of synthetic field data.

With the rise of wireless communication technologies, also the demand for antenna characterization increases. One of the most important characteristics of an antenna is its far-field (FF) radiation pattern. A common method to obtain the radiation pattern involves near-field (NF) measurements of the antenna from which the FF can be calculated in the post-processing. This is known as the NF to FF transformation (NFFFT) (Yaghjian, 1986), where advanced algorithms such as the fast irregular antenna field transformation algorithm (FIAFTA) offer various source representations and additional diagnostic capabilities (Schmidt et al., 2008; Eibert et al., 2015). NF measurements are usually performed in anechoic chambers, since they provide an echo free measurement environment, which forms a defined and acceptable approximation of free space. However, it is sometimes necessary to perform in-situ measurements, especially if an antenna is too large to be mounted in available anechoic chambers or if an antenna shall be measured in its real environment. In such more natural environments, the FIAFTA offers modelling capabilities suitable for in-situ measurements, like handling a reflective ground (Mauermayer and Eibert, 2018; Eibert and Mauermayer, 2018) as well as echo suppression of known and unknown scatterers (Yinusa and Eibert, 2013). In-situ measurements can be, for example, perfomed with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), where a large problem is that common receiver equipment can easily measure only the magnitudes of the fields (Virone et al., 2014; Fritzel et al., 2016; García-Fernández et al., 2017). Since available algorithms for phaseless NFFFT are not yet completely reliable (Paulus et al., 2017), we assume an in-situ measurement scenario where magnitude and phase are available.

In this work, we tackle the problem of handling modulated fields arising in in-situ measurements. To do so, NFFFT algorithms are reviewed first. For time-harmonic fields, the NFFFT can be formulated as a linear inverse problem, where equivalent sources, e.g., equivalent surface current densities on a surface enclosing the AUT, plane wave spectra or spherical multipoles, are to be retrieved. Solving this inverse problem, an equivalent source model is attained that reconstructs the measured NF and from which the FF is calculated. State-of-the-art algorithms for time-harmonic signals work in the spectral domain, i.e., for single-frequency signals. For modulated signals, the single-frequency assumption does not hold any more. Even if there are NFFFT algorithms that work in the time domain and can deal with modulated fields (Oetting and Klinkenbusch, 2005), most NFFFTs deal with time-harmonic fields and work in the frequency domain. Further, frequency domain NFFFTs are usually faster and more efficient than their time-domain counterparts. To overcome this problem, we present two methods to measure or process the time-varying electromagnetic fields in a way that they can be used in a time-harmonic NFFFT algorithm. Still, the application we have in mind are UAV-based in-situ measurements of modulated signals. Worth mentioning is a certain drawback of UAVs which are normally not able to hover at a specific position for a longer time. This leads to errors due to some uncertainty in the position of the NF measurements which depends on the measurement time. Therefore, the measurement time must be kept as short as possible in UAV-based measurement setups.

The paper is structured as follows. In Sect. 2, the Fourier transform and the specialties of the measurement of time-varying fields are briefly reviewed. Then, two different techniques to measure modulated fields are described and compared. In both cases, the NFFFT is based on the common time-harmonic NFFFT, in particular the FIAFTA. Finally, in Sect. 3, transformation results of synthetic NF data show the validity of both measurement techniques.

To cope with continuously modulated (i.e. continuously time-varying with a certain periodicity and without abrupt phase and magnitude changes) fields within the time-harmonic NFFFT, the field signals must be available in the frequency domain. In this work, we concentrate on the case of continuously amplitude modulated fields. This is only for the reason of simplicity and demonstration as all investigations hold true for the generic case. A continuously modulated field

dependent on time *t* and a specific position *r*_{0}, is considered. *m*(*t*) is the time-varying
modulation signal, *E*(*r*_{0}) the field amplitude evaluated at the
position *r*_{0} but constant in time, *f*_{c} is the carrier
frequency of the field signal and *ϕ*_{0} is the carrier phase. In general,
the relation between time and frequency domain is given by the Fourier
transform, which is

and, its inverse

where *f* is the frequency, *x*(*t*) the time-domain signal and *X*(*f*) its
corresponding frequency spectrum. However, when it comes to the measurement
of real-world signals, a window function *w*(*t*) should be introduced which is
only non-zero in the measurement interval and vanishes outside. *w*(*t*) is
considered as a rectangular window for the transformation of finite-length
signals. Regarding the window function, Eq. (2) changes to

which is known as the short-time Fourier transform (STFT)
(Allen, 1977). The opening time of *w*(*t*) is directly related to the
measurement time, which is relevant for the following subsections.

## 2.1 Long-time measurement approach

One approach towards the NFFFT of modulated fields is to measure the field
signal in the time-domain for such a long time that all relevant frequency
components can be resolved and distinguished, followed by a Fourier
transform. This approach is called *long-time measurement* (LTM) in
the following. Within the LTM, the Fourier transform is performed for every
measurement position which results in a frequency spectrum per position. From
all spectra together, one frequency component can be extracted and
transformed to the FF by virtue of the time-harmonic NFFFT. This is repeated
for all frequencies present in the field signal. In the FF, the spectrum can
be composed of the different frequency components which have been transformed
by the NFFFT. An inverse Fourier transform eventually results in the
time-varying FF. The principle consists of four steps and is illustrated in
Fig. 1.

The LTM technique relies in particular on the fact that the amplitude and phase relations between the single frequency components are retained throughout the complete processing chain, from the measurement, no matter whether in time domain or in frequency domain, over the NFFFT, until the final signal composition in the FF.

A drawback of the method is the measurement time *T*_{meas}, i.e.,
the width of the window function *w*(*t*) in Eq. (4), which is
required to record the field at one position. *T*_{meas}, in turn,
defines the achievable frequency resolution Δ*f*, i.e., the difference
in frequency that is distinguishable in the spectral domain. The relation
between *T*_{meas} and Δ*f* is a consequence of
Küpfmüller's uncertainty principle (Hoffmann, 2005) and is

This implies that *T*_{meas} can become very long when a fine
frequency resolution is necessary to correctly model the spectral behavior of
the measured signal.

## 2.2 Short-time measurement approach

In contrast to the LTM, the width of the window function can also be chosen
much shorter. This basically avoids the issue of long measurement times but
brings along other effects which have to be treated carefully. If
*T*_{meas} is chosen to be shorter than required by
Eq. (5), the single frequency components are
indistinguishable in the spectrum. However, if *T*_{meas} is further
reduced to such a short time span that the modulation present in the field
signal can be considered to be constant in the measurement interval,
effectively only the carrier signal is measured. This is illustrated in
Fig. 2.

Assuming a constant modulation signal *m*_{i}=*m*(*t*_{i}) during the *i*th
measurement interval around a certain time stamp *t*_{i},
Eq. (1) changes to

This means that the envelope of the modulated field signal is sampled by
every measurement. The result is a time-harmonic field value at the carrier
frequency of the field signal, weighted with the constant factor *m*_{i}. If
the whole time-varying NF is sampled in this way, all measurement
samples that share the same constant weighting factor *m*_{i} build a set of
field values with the same modulation state. This is for instance possible if
the modulation signal *m*(*t*) is periodic with *T*_{m}, i.e.,

The modulation signal could be for example an amplitude modulation

where *A* is a constant amplitude factor, *f*_{m} the modulation
frequency and *ϕ*_{m} the phase of the modulation signal. The
measured NF data sets can be used for the field transformation with the
time-harmonic NFFFT algorithm. Due to the linearity of the field
transformation, the far-field will also be weighted by the same constant
factor *m*_{i}. The consecutive measurement and transformation of different
modulation states results in the time varying far-field signal, see
Fig. 3.

Since this technique requires a shorter measurement time and allows for a
faster measurement, it is called *short-time measurement* (STM) in the
following. The advantage of the STM over the LTM approach is the shorter
measurement time which makes this approach suitable for field measurements
with UAVs. Due to the short measurement time, we assume that position changes
of an employed UAV play no role and that the modulation signal does not
change significantly during the measurement interval. The short measurement
time implies a broader bandwidth (according to
Eq. 5) than for the LTM. In particular, the
measurement bandwidth has to be larger than the signal/modulation bandwidth.
A necessary condition is that the carrier frequency *f*_{c} is much
higher than the modulation frequency *f*_{m}. If this condition holds,
the measurement interval still contains several periods of the carrier
signal, but the modulation signal is assumed to be constant during the
measurement interval. Such a scenario is depicted in
Fig. 2.

Further, both approaches work only if the time-varying field signal is periodic since one transformable field data set consists of components from multiple measurements which have to be taken one after the other. Even if the measurement time can be short for single measurements, the reconstruction of the modulation signal requires that the sampling theorem is fulfilled for consecutive measurements. This is due to the fact that the STM is a sampling of the signal envelope. Therefore, the sampling theorem is given by (Gibson, 1993)

where Δ*T* is the time between two consecutive measurements.

Sometimes it may be assumed that the far-field radiation pattern for the
carrier frequency and for the modulation sidebands does not change
significantly, since *f*_{c}≫*f*_{m}. In this case and when
only the far-field radiation pattern at *f*_{c} is of interest, the
STM approach can be simplified. The field at the carrier frequency can be
determined by dividing the measured field value by the modulation factor
*m*(*t*_{meas}) resulting in

The applicability of the STM and LTM approaches is demonstrated by numerical results. The NF data is generated synthetically from a horn antenna that is represented by Hertzian dipoles. To create a realistic antenna model, the surface currents of a time-harmonic full-wave simulation of the horn antenna were approximated by 2232 Hertzian dipoles on the PEC surface. The full-wave simulation was performed in CST Microwave Studio (CST, 2014) at a frequency of 3 GHz. Figure 4 shows the arrangement and locations of the dipoles.

The antenna has an aperture of 222.4 mm × 148.27 mm and is
operated in transmit mode with an amplitude modulated (AM) signal *s*(*t*) at a
carrier frequency of *f*_{c}=3 GHz. The AM-signal is
given by

where *M*=0.5 is the modulation index and *f*_{m}=200 Hz the modulation frequency. The modulation phase has been
chosen to *ϕ*_{m}=0 for the presented simulations but other
phases have also been tested. Since the model uses time-harmonic Hertzian
dipoles, the AM is introduced by calculating the fields from the dipole model
for the carrier frequency *f*_{c} as well as for the upper and lower
sideband frequencies *f*_{c}±*f*_{m}, where all dipoles
are modulated synchronously. The time-varying NFs are then computed by the
inverse Fourier transform Eq. (3) regarding their
frequencies. Here, the excitation of the Hertzian dipoles was chosen
according to the currents found from the full-wave simulation as described
before. Starting with the time signal, the synthetic time-varying NF is
processed according to the STM and LTM approaches and a NFFFT is performed
using FIAFTA.

Figure 5 shows the FF time signal at the center point
$(\mathit{\theta}=\mathrm{90}{}^{\circ},\mathit{\varphi}=\mathrm{270}{}^{\circ})$ of the main beam of the horn
antenna for the co-polarization *E*_{θ}. The reference signal has been
calculated directly from the dipole model, using the FF approximation for
Hertzian dipoles, see Balanis (2005). The STM time signal is
attained via a series of NFFFTs as described in Sect. 2.2. Each
marker corresponds to one NFFFT and 100 calculations have been performed in
total. The LTM time signal is calculated as the inverse Fourier transform
from the FF frequency spectrum as described in Sect. 2.1. The
deviation of the STM and LTM from the reference signal is calculated by

where *E*_{ref} is the reference FF signal obtained directly from the
dipole model and *E*_{STM∕LTM} is the FF signal obtained from the STM
and LTM. The highest errors for the STM and the LTM are below −80 dB in
this plot. However, considering all radiation directions the largest error
between the STM ∕ LTM and the reference signal is −62 dB. This error
is equal to the error of the NFFFT, which means that both, STM and LTM, do
not introduce any noticeable error to the data. This is expected since the
sampling theorem is fulfilled.

The FF main cuts at the carrier frequency are depicted in Fig. 6. The carrier frequency FF of the STM is calculated according to Eq. (10) while the carrier frequency can be extracted directly from the frequency spectrum within the LTM. The error of both measurement techniques is also shown.

A key difference between the STM and the LTM is the actual measurement time.
Lacking a real-world measurement scenario, this can be only estimated based
on the presented example. For the LTM, the field signal has been measured at
each position for a time span of Δ*T*_{LTM}=40 ms
which includes several modulation periods. Since there are *N*=11250
measurement locations, the total measurement time for the LTM is estimated to
${T}_{\mathrm{LTM}}=N\mathrm{\Delta}{T}_{\mathrm{LTM}}=\mathrm{450}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}\mathrm{s}$. In the
simulation for the STM, the time interval of a single measurement is
considered to be ideally zero, which does not change the measurement
principle but reduces computation time. However, a realistic measurement time
for the STM in the simulated example is Δ*T*_{STM}=100 µs, which corresponds to a measurement bandwidth of
10 kHz. Further, in the example 100 times more field samples have been used
for the STM in comparison to the LTM to ensure collecting all modulation
states at all positions. In sum, this results in an overall measurement time
of ${T}_{\mathrm{STM}}=\mathrm{100}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}N\mathrm{\Delta}{T}_{\mathrm{STM}}=\mathrm{112.5}\phantom{\rule{0.125em}{0ex}}\mathrm{s}$ for
the STM. However, certainly, the positioning will take most of the time in
this example but the STM seems to be in advantage regarding pure measurement
time.

Two different techniques for the measurement of modulated fields have been presented, which both extend the time-harmonic NFFFT to the case of modulated electromagnetic fields. The validity of the measurement approaches was shown by NFFFTs of synthetically generated NF data of a horn antenna model. It has been demonstrated that the resulting deviation of the LTM and STM are on a very similar accuracy level and that the introduced error does not significantly deviate from the error of the single-frequency-time-harmonic NFFFT. Comparing the two methods, the advantage of the STM over the LTM is the faster measurement time, which enables the use of this technique for UAV-based antenna measurements and other applications where short measurement times are mandatory.

The underlying research data can be requested from the authors.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

This article is part of the special issue “Kleinheubacher Berichte 2018”. It is a result of the Kleinheubacher Tagung 2018, Miltenberg, Germany, 24–26 September 2018.

This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (grant no. 20E1711A), as well as by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) in the framework of the Open Access Publishing Program.

This paper was edited by Romanus Dyczij-Edlinger and reviewed by Adrian Amor-Martin and Heyno Garbe.

Allen, J.: Short term spectral analysis, synthesis, and modification by discrete Fourier transform, IEEE T. Acoust. Speech, 25, 235–238, https://doi.org/10.1109/TASSP.1977.1162950, 1977. a

Balanis, C. A.: Antenna Theory – Analysis and Design, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, 3rd Edn., 151–170, 2005. a

CST: CST MICROWAVE STUDIO 2014, https://www.cst.com/products/cstmws (last access: 4 August 2019), 2014. a

Eibert, T. F. and Mauermayer, R. A. M.: Equivalent sources based near-field far-field transformation above dielectric half space, in: Proc. 40th Annual Meeting and Symposium of the Antenna Measurement Techniques Association (AMTA), Williamsburg, VA, 2018. a

Eibert, T. F., Kilic, E., Lopez, C., Mauermayer, R. A. M., Neitz, O., and Schnattinger, G.: Electromagnetic field transformations for measurements and simulations (invited paper), Prog. Electromagn. Res., 151, 127–150, https://doi.org/10.2528/PIER14121105, 2015. a

Fritzel, T., Strauß, R., Steiner, H., Eisner, C., and Eibert, T. F.: Introduction into an UAV-based near-field system for in-situ and large-scale antenna measurements (invited paper), in: Proc. IEEE Conference on Antenna Measurements Applications (CAMA), Syracuse, NY, https://doi.org/10.1109/CAMA.2016.7815762, 2016. a

García-Fernández, M., Álvarez López, Y., Arboleya, A., González-Valdés, B., Rodríguez-Vaqueiro, Y., Gómez, M. E. D. C., and Andrés, F. L.-H.: Antenna diagnostics and characterization using unmanned aerial vehicles, IEEE Access, 5, 23563–23575, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2754985, 2017. a

Gibson, J. D.: Principles of Digital and Analog Communications, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, 2nd Edn., 90–95, 1993. a

Hoffmann, R.: Grundlagen der Frequenzanalyse, expert Verlag, Renningen, Germany, 2005. a

Mauermayer, R. A. M. and Eibert, T. F.: Spherical field transformation above perfectly electrically conducting ground planes, IEEE T. Antenn. Propag., 66, 1465–1478, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2018.2794406, 2018. a

Oetting, C.-C. and Klinkenbusch, L.: Near-to-far-field transformation by a time-domain spherical-multipole analysis, IEEE T. Antenn. Propag., 53, 2054–2063, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2005.848465, 2005. a

Paulus, A., Knapp, J., and Eibert, T. F.: Phaseless near-field far-field transformation utilizing combinations of probe signals, IEEE T. Antenn. Propag., 65, 5492–5502, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2017.2735463, 2017. a

Schmidt, C. H., Leibfritz, M. M., and Eibert, T. F.: Fully probe-corrected near-field far-field transformation employing plane wave expansion and diagonal translation operators, IEEE T. Antenn. Propag., 56, 737–746, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2008.916975, 2008. a

Virone, G., Lingua, A. M., Piras, M., Cina, A., Perini, F., Monari, J., Paonessa, F., Peverini, O. A., Addamo, G., and Tascone, R.: Antenna pattern verification system based on a micro unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), IEEE Antenn. Wirel. Pr., 13, 169–172, https://doi.org/10.1109/LAWP.2014.2298250, 2014. a

Yaghjian, A.: An overview of near-field antenna measurements, IEEE T. Antenn. Propag., 34, 30–45, https://doi.org/10.1109/tap.1986.1143727, 1986. a

Yinusa, K. A. and Eibert, T. F.: A multi-probe antenna measurement technique with echo suppression capability, IEEE T. Antenn. Propag., 61, 5008–5016, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.2013.2271495, 2013. a