This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
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
10 GHz typically require knowledge of the power density very
close to the radiator (at 2-mm distance), which can be obtained
through the total electric and magnetic fields. However, phase
measurements are often not feasible in this frequency range, in
particular in the reactive near field. We developed a novel phase
reconstruction approach based on plane-to-plane reconstruction
algorithms. It uses E-field polarization ellipse information, which
can be obtained extremely close to the source with probes based on
the pseudo-vector sensor design. The algorithm’s robustness and
accuracy were analyzed and optimized for distances of a fraction
of the wavelength λ, and a comprehensive set of realistic exposure
conditions was simulated to evaluate the algorithm. For distances
greater than λ/5, the error of the spatially averaged peak incident
power density is found to be below 0.5 dB. Measurements in four
different antenna prototypes revealed that the simulated deviation
of reconstructed averaged power density was consistently below
1.1 dB for distances as close as 2 mm, i.e., smaller than the esti-
mated total experimental assessment uncertainty of 1.4 dB. This
demonstrates that the power density can be reliably determined by
measurements as close as λ/5 from any transmitter.
Index Terms—Compliance testing, human exposure, near-field
measurements, phase reconstruction, specific absorption rate
(SAR).
I. INTRODUCTION
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
compliance with electromagnetic safety guidelines, with skin
heating as the limiting factor in most of the relevant frequency
range.
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-
rum, Merelbeke, Belgium, and in part by the Swiss Commission for Technology
and Innovation. (Corresponding author: Serge Pfeifer.)
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
Technologies in Society, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, CH-
8092 Zürich, Switzerland (e-mail:, pfeifer@itis.ethz.ch; crespo@itis.ethz.ch;
neufeld@itis.ethz.ch; kuehn@itis.ethz.ch; christ@itis.ethz.ch; capstick@itis.
ethz.ch; kuster@itis.ethz.ch).
E. Carrasco was with the Foundation for Research on Information Technolo-
gies in Society, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, CH-8092 Zürich,
Switzerland. He is now with the Technical University of Madrid, E-28040
Madrid, Spain (e-mail:,eduardo.carrasco@upm.es).
T. Samaras is with the Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thes-
saloniki, GR-54124 Thessaloniki, Greece (e-mail:,theosama@auth.gr).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEMC.2018.2837897
0018-9375 © 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
Human exposure to millimeter-wave sources has so far mainly
been considered as a far-field problem, but it becomes a near-
field problem with integration into mobile devices. This presents
potential problems regarding the introduction of 5G technology,
as current safety guidelines [1] may not be appropriate for lo-
calized sources. Furthermore, there is a lack of measurement
equipment available to test compliance very close to 5G mil-
limeter wave devices with regard to current safety guidelines,
i.e., the averaged power density S incident to human skin.
Computation of S, in general, requires knowledge of the com-
plex E- and H -field vectors in the plane of incidence. Further-
more, there is interest in gaining knowledge about the overall
spatial field distribution for antenna characterization or pro-
duction tests. Reconstruction of these quantities from sparse
measurements is feasible as they are constrained by Maxwell’s
equations (which in a source-free homogeneous medium re-
duces to the Helmholtz equation [2]). In this paper, it is shown
how these quantities (for all three Cartesian components) can
be recovered from E-field polarization ellipses that can be mea-
sured with pseudo-vector probes [3] or similar methods [4]. The
recent EUmmWV2 probe by SPEAG [5] can provide such mea-
surements in the frequency range of 1–110 GHz at distances as
close as 2 mm to the source, which corresponds to a fraction of
the wavelength λ.
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
do not use the field component orthogonal to the measurement
plane. They usually focus on recovering the phase of a single
linearly polarized field component, and recovering the relative
phase for the cross polarization is not considered. Without these
relative phases, the power density in the reactive near field can-
not be calculated. Studies that did investigate relative phases
were usually limited to the two components parallel to the mea-
surement plane at distances of a few wavelengths [9] or in the far
field [10]. Furthermore, performance of these algorithms is typ-
ically assessed by looking at the predicted far-field pattern [7],
[8], [11], which does not guarantee that the reconstructed phase
in the near field closely resembles the true phase.
The reconstruction algorithm presented here, together with
the ability of the EUmmWV2 probe to measure extremely close
to the source without perturbing the field, permits reconstruc-
tion of the E- and H -fields, as well as the power density on
measurement planes as close as a fraction of λ. The robustness
of the algorithm is assessed with analytic arrays of dipoles, and
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
TABLE I
UNCERTAINTY BUDGET FOR THE DASY6/ICEY MEASUREMENT SYSTEM WITH
THE EUMMWV2 PROBE FOR EVALUATION DISTANCES TO THE ANTENNAS
≤ 50 mm IN THE FREQUENCY RANGE 28–90 GHZ [13], BASED ON [15]
Columns: uncertainty (Un), probability distribution (PD), divisor (Div), sensitivity
coefficient (ci ), standard uncertainty (Std Un), and degrees of freedom (vi or veff ).
Probability distributions: rectangular (R) and Gaussian (N).
the algorithm is validated for a comprehensive set of realistic
antennas, using finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simula-
tions as well as measurements with the EUmmWV2 probe of
four different antennas.
II. MEASUREMENT METHODS
The EUmmWV2 probe allows minimally disturbing near-
field E-field polarization ellipse measurements in the mil-
limeter wave domain up to 110 GHz. The probe is based on
the pseudo-vector probe design [3], which not only measures
the magnitude of the field, but also derives its polarization ellipse
from different probe rotation angles. The probe concept has also
the advantage that the sensor angle errors or distortions of the
field by the substrate of the probe can be largely compensated by
calibration. This is particularly important as, at the considered
frequency range, field distortions by the substrate are depen-
dent on the wavelength. The design involves two small 0.8-mm
diode-loaded dipole sensors that are connected by high-resistive
lines, mechanically protected by high-density foam, printed on
both sides of a 0.9-mm-wide and 0.12-mm-thick glass substrate.
The body of the probe is specifically constructed to minimize
distortion of the scattered fields. The probe is calibrated between
10 and 110 GHz by means of the three-antenna method [12]. It
has been integrated into the DASY6 [13] and ICEy [14] near-
field scanning systems. The uncertainty budget of the measure-
ment system is listed in Table I. The EUmmWV2 probe during
measurement of a 90-GHz antenna is shown in Fig. 1.
III. FIELD RECONSTRUCTION ALGORITHM
A. Algorithm Description
Gerchberg and Saxton originally showed, in the context of op-
tics, how the missing phase information can be retrieved from in-
tensity measurements of the diffraction pattern (i.e., the Fourier
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
amplitude measurements on two parallel planes at different dis-
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,
while maintaining the propagated phases. The field is then prop-
agated back to the first plane, and the amplitudes are replaced
with the measured amplitudes at that plane, again keeping the
phase values as computed by the propagation. This forward and
backward propagation and amplitude replacement is repeated
multiple times; this iterative enforcement of physical constraints
yields a convergence of the phase distribution [6]. Propagation
in both directions between the planes is possible, as the plane
wave expansion decomposes the field into base functions (plane
waves) with known propagation across space (see, e.g., [17]).
Such approaches are also known as plane-to-plane (PTP) phase
retrieval algorithms or iterative Fourier techniques. Note that
when back-propagating, evanescent waves are discarded by set-
ting spectral components, for which k z is imaginary to zero (see,
for example, [17]), as even very small errors are amplified expo-
nentially. Experiments including all or parts of the evanescent
waves confirmed that results were worse than when discarding
them, especially when adding noise or using measurement data.
PTP algorithms generally treat the vector components indi-
vidually and do not account for their interdependence. As we
need the information about the relative phases between the three
components to compute the H -field and S, the additional knowl-
edge about the polarization ellipse at the different measurement
points must be considered. The polarization ellipse is the ellipse
traced in space by a time-harmonic vector V(t) ∈ R3 , which
may reduce to a line (linear polarization) or circle (circular
polarization). It can be conveniently described by a complex
 
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),
trace the same ellipse, with a different phase at t = 0, cor-
responding to different φ (see Fig. 2). Rather than imposing
only the amplitude of all components of the measured field af-
ter propagation, we additionally determine and impose phase
shifts for two components, such that the polarization ellipse
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.

PFEIFER et al.: TOTAL FIELD RECONSTRUCTION IN THE NEAR FIELD USING PSEUDO-VECTOR E-FIELD MEASUREMENTS 3

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

PFEIFER et al.: TOTAL FIELD RECONSTRUCTION IN THE NEAR FIELD USING PSEUDO-VECTOR E-FIELD MEASUREMENTS 5

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
antennas.
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.
6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
Fig. 6. Relative error of the peak time- and spatially averaged Poynting vector
(see (2)) for the simulated antenna configurations, at different first measurement
plane distances z 1 from the source AUT plane.
TABLE II
DEVIATION OF SIMULATED E- AND H-FIELD AMPLITUDES FOR THE FOUR
FABRICATED ANTENNAS TO THE RECONSTRUCTION FROM SIMULATION
(REC-S) AND TO THE RECONSTRUCTION FROM MEASUREMENT (REC-M)
The E- and H -field vector magnitudes were averaged over 1 cm2 to minimize
the dependence on exact sampling positions, which can be relevant at such close
distances to the AUT.
1
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
and increased for 60 and 90 GHz by 0.12 and 0.25 dB, respec-
tively. Increasing the distance between the two measurement
planes from λ/4 to λ had a little effect for all frequencies (less
than 0.05 dB), similar to when no averaging acquisition model
was used (see Section III-B4). Due to the small influence of the
probe spatial averaging compared to other parameters, it was
neglected in the rest of this paper.
6) Probe Positioning Errors: The polarization ellipses are
computed from measurements at three different rotation an-
gles of the probe. The absolute positioning tolerance of the
DASY measurement system had been determined to be better
than 200 μm when used in combination with the light-beam
alignment unit. This may lead to slightly different measurement
locations for the three rotation angles, as currently all measure-
ment points are scanned with one rotation, before advancing to
the next rotation. To quantify the effect, these positioning errors
were modeled as random position shifts between the three rota-
tion angles, with an SD of 100 μm on x-, y-, and z-position. With
these random position shifts, the mean error in Sav at z 1 = 2 mm
TABLE III
COMPARISON OF SIMULATION VALUES OF Sav TO RECONSTRUCTION FROM
SIMULATION (REC-S) AND RECONSTRUCTION FROM MEASUREMENTS
(REC-M) FOR THE FOUR FABRICATED ANTENNAS
The power was normalized to 0-dBm radiated power.
increased by less than 0.02 dB at any of the evaluated test fre-
quencies (30, 60, and 90 GHz).
7) Conclusion: We found that 24 × 24 or 32 × 32 sampling
points at a grid spacing of λ/4 represent a good tradeoff be-
tween the number of measurement points and the resulting error
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
was also varied in the following section, where reconstruction
is evaluated using simulations of different realistic antenna con-
figurations.
IV. APPLICATION TO SIMULATION EXAMPLES
Considering the spatial restrictions of a cellular device, and
having in mind the main manufacturing processes (e.g., printed
circuit board and low-temperature cofired ceramic), the potential
options for 5G-phased arrays are mostly reduced to 2-D planar
or quasi-planar configurations. The selection of reference AUTs
should cover the relevant range of frequencies, polarizations,
as well as different beam steering configurations to assess the
robustness of the developed algorithm under all relevant condi-
tions. The following six AUTs were selected (see Fig. 5):
1) a horn antenna loaded with a slot array, y linear polariza-
tion, one at 30 GHz and one at 90 GHz;
2) a cavity-fed dipole array, y linear polarization, one at
30 GHz and one at 60 GHz;
3) a planar 3 × 3 array of half-wavelength square patches
at 60 GHz. The antennas were excited independently for
each x/y polarization port, and the following configu-
rations were produced: a) circular polarization and (b)
two simultaneous beams pointing at θ = 30◦ , φ = 0◦ and
θ = 10◦ , φ = −90◦ , for x- and y-linear polarizations, re-
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.

PFEIFER et al.: TOTAL FIELD RECONSTRUCTION IN THE NEAR FIELD USING PSEUDO-VECTOR E-FIELD MEASUREMENTS 7

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
the FDTD method with SemCAD [23] with high resolution to
generate reliable reference fields for the validation and perfor-
mance analysis of the developed algorithm. To emulate measure-
ment data, E-field polarization ellipses (with randomized initial
phase and polarization direction) were extracted; for the refer-
ence fields, the FDTD results including full phase information
were used.
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
newly developed reconstruction algorithm and the algorithm pa-
rameters described in Section III-B7. A number of reconstruc-
tion planes z 1 were evaluated, with the distance to the source
ranging from λ/20 to λ.
Similar to the purely theoretical antenna array of infinitesimal
dipoles (see Section III-B), the error generally decreased with
the distance z 1 of the first measurement plane to the AUT plane
for all antenna setups (see Fig. 6). The distance of the considered
planes is well within the  reactive near field; the reactive near-
field boundary R = 0.62 D 3 /λ amounts to R > 5λ for the
patch array, R > 3λ for the dipole arrays, and R > 6λ for the
slot arrays.
V. APPLICATION TO MEASUREMENTS
Four antennas were manufactured for experimental valida-
tion, namely the slot arrays at 30 and 90 GHz and the cavity-fed
dipole arrays at 30 and 60 GHz. They were measured using
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.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
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
determined by comparison of the maximum E-field at a large
distance, i.e., at 50 mm averaged over a circular area of (4λ)2 .
Two measurement sets were acquired for each antenna: one
with the first measurement plane at 2 mm and one at 10 mm.
The E- and H -fields from measurements and simulations were
compared, and the reconstruction accuracy of the peak time-
and spatially averaged Poynting vector (circular averaging area
of 1 cm2 ) for the four antennas was evaluated in the same way as
for the simulation examples (see Section IV). For comparison
of measurements and simulation, the vector magnitude of the
E- and H -fields was also averaged over a circular area of 1 cm2
to be less dependent on exact sample locations, which can be
relevant at such close distances from the source plane.
The agreement between measurements and simulations are
within the estimated expanded uncertainty, which is 1.2 dB for
the E-field (see Table I), and 1.4 dB for the H -field and power
density S (which includes reconstruction uncertainty of 0.5 dB;
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
H -field (see Table II) and 1.09 dB for the averaged power den-
sity Sav (see Table III). The deviation of the reconstructed aver-
aged incident power density was very close to the measurement
deviation in the E-field. This indicates that the reconstruction
algorithm is robust, and uncertainty in the reconstructed power
density mainly originates from deviations in the measurements
of the amplitudes. One possible explanation for the differences
in the E-field amplitude are small positioning errors for the dis-
tance to the measurement plane. However, for the purpose of
evaluating the field reconstruction algorithm, the source of these
differences is not relevant.
The measurement of the E-field components is shown in
Fig. 7 for the cavity-fed dipole array antenna at 30 GHz. The
two larger components, E y and E z , show very similar field
distributions to the simulation; small deviations are expected
because of modeling uncertainty (agreement between exposure
setup and simulated setup). For E x , the deviation is greater,
which could be due to the alignment of the measurement grid;
a perfect alignment of the grid with the antenna axes is difficult
to achieve and not necessary for reconstruction of the incident
power density Sav .
The corresponding reconstructed H -field and time-averaged
Poynting vector are depicted in Fig. 8. The pattern shows more
noise than for the E-field at a distance of 2 mm (λ/5). This
is due to the transformation of the reconstructed E-field to the
spectral domain, which is affected by the phase reconstruction;
the phase distribution is not perfectly smooth after propagation
and enforcing of the polarization ellipse, which introduces this
noise in the close near field. It should be noted that this noise
does not substantially influence the error metric (2), as can be
seen by comparing deviations for the E-field (see Table II)
and Sav (see Table III). At a distance of λ, this noise mostly
disappears (see Fig. 8(b)).
VI. CONCLUSIONS
A novel algorithm for the reconstruction of the full electro-
magnetic complex vector field has been presented. In contrast
to methods found in the literature, which commonly operate on
individual vector components, this algorithm uses E-field po-
larization ellipse information and reconstructs the three vector
components and their relative phases. Such E-field polariza-
tion ellipse measurements can be obtained with probes based
on the pseudo-vector sensor design. These EUmmWV2 probes
enable accurate measurements extremely close to the source, as
they are small and offer great amplitude precision with negligi-
ble scattering. The reconstruction algorithm together with such
probes permits reconstruction of the E- and H -fields, as well as
the power density on measurement planes as close as 2 mm.
A sensitivity analysis has shown that the distance of the first
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.
PFEIFER et al.: TOTAL FIELD RECONSTRUCTION IN THE NEAR FIELD USING PSEUDO-VECTOR E-FIELD MEASUREMENTS
reconstruction accuracy: reconstruction at distances much closer
than λ/5 becomes unreliable (see Figs. 4(b) and 6). In contrast,
the algorithm is not sensitive to measurement errors (see Sec-
tion III-B5), and also positioning errors of the probe only have
a negligible effect on the reconstructed averaged power density
(see Section III-B6).
Six very different antenna configurations that represent real-
istic exposure conditions have been simulated. The algorithm
yields very accurate reconstructed power densities; for distances
greater than λ/5, the error of the spatially averaged peak inci-
dent power density is found to be less than 0.5 dB, and for λ/2
below even 0.2 dB.
Of these six antenna configurations, the four for which field
reconstruction was found to be more challenging in simulations
were fabricated. Measurements and reconstruction results for
these four antennas were compared to simulation data. For mea-
surement data, the reconstructed peak incident averaged power
density deviates by 1.1 dB in the worst case from corresponding
simulations, for antennas at 30, 60, and 90 GHz at the clos-
est distance of 2 mm. The deviations are within the expanded
uncertainty of 1.4 dB (expanded measurement system uncer-
tainty of 1.2 dB (see Table I) plus reconstruction uncertainty
of 0.5 dB (see Fig. 6)); considering that the total uncertainty
in addition includes modeling uncertainty (agreement between
exposure setup and simulated setup, as well as numerical uncer-
tainty), the agreement between reconstructed measurement and
simulation constitutes a successful validation and demonstrates
that the power density can be reliably determined with minimal
uncertainty as close as λ/5 from the source.
At distances to the AUT plane much smaller than λ/5, source
reconstruction techniques or a generalization of the approach
to nonplanar sampling and alternative base functions could po-
tentially be used to obtain better reconstructions of the incident
power density.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the valuable
advice by Prof. Q. Balzano, Dr. K. Pokovic, and Dr. F. Bomholt.
REFERENCES
[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.
[2] J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley,
1998.
[3] K. Pokovic, T. Schmid, J. Frohlich, and N. Kuster, “Novel probes and
evaluation procedures to assess field magnitude and polarization,” IEEE
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 240–244, May 2000.
[4] W. Joseph, L. Verloock, and L. Martens, “Reconstruction of the polariza-
tion ellipse of the EM field of telecommunication and broadcast antennas
by a fast and low-cost measurement method,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn.
Compat., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 385–396, May 2006.
[5] SPEAG, “EUmmWV2 E-field mm-wave probe for general near-
field measurements,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.speag.
com/products/dasy6/probes/new-eummwv2-vector-e-probe/
[6] A. P. Anderson and S. Sali, “New possibilities for phaseless microwave
diagnostics. Part 1: Error reduction techniques,” IEE Proc. H—Microw.
Antennas Propag., vol. 132, no. 5, pp. 291–298, Aug. 1985.
[7] S. F. Razavi, “Planar near-field phaseless measurement techniques for
antenna characterizations and diagnostics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Electrical
and Computer Engineering Department, Univ. California, Los Angeles,
CA, USA, 2011.
9
[8] X. Li, “Investigation of the iterative Fourier technique for phaseless planar
near-field antenna measurements,” master’s thesis, Dept. Elect. Comput.
Eng., Univ. Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2015.
[9] S. F. Razavi and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Polarization extraction in planar near-
field phaseless measurements,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 56,
no. 10, pp. 3233–3240, Oct. 2008.
[10] P. Hallbjörner, “Retrieving field magnitude and polarisation ellipse from
phaseless measurements of linear polarisations, including error analysis,”
IEEE Proc.—Microw. Antennas Propag., vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 28–33, Feb.
2003.
[11] G. Junkin, “Planar near-field phase retrieval using GPUs for accurate
THz far-field prediction,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 61, no. 4,
pp. 1763–1776, Apr. 2013.
[12] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 3rd ed. New York,
NY, USA: Wiley–Interscience, 2005.
[13] 5G Module V1.0Beta Application Note: 5G Compliance Testing with
DASY6, SPEAG, Zürich, Switzerland, 2017.
[14] ICEy Interference & Compatibility Evaluation System, Schmid & Partner
Engineering AG (SPEAG), Zürich, Switzerland, 2017. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://www.speag.com/products/icey/
[15] Measurement Procedure for the Evaluation of Power Density Related to
Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields From Wireless Communi-
cation Devices Operating Between 6 GHz and 100 GHz, IEC TR 63170
ED1, 2018.
[16] R. W. Gerchberg and W. O. Saxton, “Phase determination from image and
diffraction plane pictures in electron-microscope,” Optik, vol. 35, no. 2,
pp. 237–246, 1972.
[17] J. J. H. Wang, “An examination of the theory and practices of planar
near-field measurement,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 36, no. 6,
pp. 746–753, Jun. 1988.
[18] I. Lindell, Methods for Electromagnetic Field Analysis (Oxford Engineer-
ing Science Series). Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon, 1992.
[19] T. Isernia, F. Soldovieri, G. Leone, and R. Pierri, “On the local minima
in phase reconstruction algorithms,” Radio Sci., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1887–
1899, Nov./Dec. 1996.
[20] International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (IC-
NIRP), “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying elec-
tric,magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz),” Health Phys.,
vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 1–32, Apr. 1998.
[21] Federal Communications Commission, “Evaluating compliance with FCC
guidelines for human exposureto radiofrequency electromagnetic fields,”
Federal Commun. Commission, Washington, DC, USA, Tech. Rep. OET
Bull. 65, Aug. 1997.
[22] IEEE Standard for Safety Levels With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Standard
C95.1-2005 (Revision of IEEE Standard C95.1-1991), Apr. 2006, pp. 1–
238.
[23] SEMCAD X: EM/T Simulation Platform, v16.0, Schmid & Partner En-
gineering AG (SPEAG), Zürich, Switzerland, 2016. [Online]. Available:
www.semcad.com
Serge Pfeifer studied electrical engineering and in-
formation technology at the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH) Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland,
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lau-
sanne, Switzerland, and the University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, U.K. He received the Master’s degree in
2008 and the the Ph.D. degree from the Sensory-
Motor Systems Laboratory, Institute of Robotics and
Intelligent Systems, ETHZürich, in 2014.
His research was centered around robotic medical
devices to restore gait, using biomechanical simula-
tions and machine learning to enhance control algorithms. During his Ph.D.
research, he spent five months with Northwestern University in Chicago as
a Visiting Researcher working on system identification techniques applied to
biological systems. After his Ph.D. research, he joined the Foundation for Re-
search on Information Technologies in Society, Zürich, and SPEAG’s R&D
team, where his focus is on algorithms for evaluation of electromagnetic fields,
3-D surface reconstruction, and control strategies for automated measurement
systems.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10
Eduardo Carrasco (S’96–M’08–SM’18) received
the bachelor’s degree in telecommunication engi-
neering from the National Autonomous University
of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico, in 2000, and the
Ph.D. degree in telecommunication engineering from
the Technical University of Madrid (UPM), Madrid,
Spain, in 2008.
From 1999 to 2001, he was a Broadcast Operations
Systems Specialist with DIRECTV Latin America. In
2002, he received a grant from the Vodafone Founda-
tion to pursue a degree in telecommunications man-
agement with Spain’s School for Industrial Organization, Madrid. From January
to April 2008, he visited the Microwave Engineering Laboratory, University of
Perugia, Perugia, Italy, as part of his Ph.D. research work. From June 2009 to
June 2012, he was a Postdoctoral Researcher with the Electromagnetism and
Circuits Theory Department, UPM, where he participated in various projects
supported by the Spanish Government, the Mexican Council of Science and
Technology, the European Union’s Sixth and Seventh Framework (FP6 and
FP7) Programs, and the European Space Agency. From 2012 to 2014, he was a
Marie-Curie Fellow with the Adaptive Micronano Wave Systems Group, Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. He was
an Electromagnetic, Dosimetry, and Antenna Engineer with the Foundation for
Research on Information Technologies in Society, Zürich, Switzerland, from
January 2015 to September 2017. Since October 2017, he has been an Assistant
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.
Pedro Crespo-Valero received the master’s degree in
ingeniero de telecomunicación from the Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, in 2001, and
the Ph.D. degree in computational electromagnetics
and microwave engineering from the École Polytech-
nique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland,
in 2007.
During this period, he participated in sev-
eral research projects on electromagnetic simulation
techniques with European institutions such as the Eu-
ropean Space Agency. In 2007, he joined the Software
R&D Group, Schmid & Partner Engineering AG, Zürich, Switzerland, where
he participated in the development of professional simulation and measurement
software tools for the communications and medical industries. Since 2017, he
has been part of the Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in
Society, Zürich, where he works on the creation of a new generation of simula-
tion software for neural stimulation in collaboration with an international team
funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
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
the Computer Vision Laboratory, Swiss Federal In-
stitute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland, in 2004
and 2008, respectively.
Before that, he studied philosophy, theology, and
law in the U.K. In 2004, he joined the Foundation
for Research on Information Technologies in Soci-
ety, Zürich, where he has been the Head of the Computational Life Sciences
Group since 2008. He is responsible for the development of a multiphysics
simulation platform targeted at the life sciences as well as applied studies in
this area and serves as a consultant to companies and government agencies
on magnetic resonance imaging safety of implants and exposure safety, con-
tributing to international standards. Since 2009, he has been a Chief Scientific
Officer with Zürich MedTech, Zürich. He has authored and coauthored numer-
ous journal and conference papers, as well as book chapters. He is a Scientific
Reviewer for various journals and government agencies. His main research in-
terests include the development of simulation and treatment planning software,
personalized modeling, solver and algorithm development, medical image anal-
ysis and anatomical model generation, applied simulations particularly in the
field bioelectromagnetics, interactions between physical exposure and physiol-
ogy (e.g., EM and FUS-induced heating and neuromodulation), measurement
technology, uncertainty assessment, and standardization.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY
Sven Kühn received the Dipl.Ing. (M.Sc.) degree in
information and communication technologies from
the Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz,
Germany, in 2004, and the Ph.D. in Electrical En-
gineering from the Integrated Systems Laboratory,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich,
Zürich, Switzerland, in September 2009.
At the end of 2004, he joined the Foundation
for Research on Information Technologies in Soci-
ety, Zürich, where he started to work on numerical
and experimental methods for the assessment of hu-
man exposure to electromagnetic fields. In August 2009, he joined Schmid
& Partner Engineering, where he heads sensor design, pursuing R&D work
toward a new product generation of miniature electrooptical sensors. He also
leads the development of the DASY NEO product and electromagnetic com-
patibility analysis tools. He became a co-founder of Zürich MedTech in 2006.
He has authored or coauthored numerous journal and conference papers, as
well as book chapters. He serves as a Scientific Reviewer for various journals.
His main research interests include experimental and numerical dosimetry in
bioelectromagnetics, classical electromagnetic compatibility, near-field sensors,
radio frequency circuit, and antenna design and optics, as well as biomedical
applications thereof.
Dr. Kühn is a recipient of the Medal of the ETH Zürich and the Prize of the
Hans Eggenberger Foundation.
Theodoros Samaras received the Physics degree
from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thes-
saloniki, Greece, in 1990, the M.Sc. degree in med-
ical physics (with distinction) from the University of
Surrey, Guildford, U.K., in 1991, and the Ph.D. de-
gree from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in
1996.
In 1998, he was with the BIOEM/EMC Group,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, where
he studied the effect of heat diffusion in electro-
magnetic dosimetry. He subsequently moved to the
Hyperthermia Unit of the Erasmus Medical Centre of Rotterdam, where he
conducted research on treatment quality of superficial microwave hyperther-
mia for cancer treatment with a Marie-Curie Fellowship from the European
Commission. In December 1999, he joined the Aristotle University of Thessa-
loniki, where he is currently a Professor. He has authored and coauthored several
papers in peer-reviewed journals. His research interests include numerical tech-
niques and computer modeling with applications in biomedical technology and
telecommunications, as well as therapeutic applications and safety of nonioniz-
ing radiation.
Prof. Samaras is a member of the European Commission’s Scientific Com-
mittee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks.
Andreas Christ was born in Offenbach, Germany,
in 1968. He received the Dipl.Ing. degree in electri-
cal engineering from the Technical University Darm-
stadt, Darmstadt, Germany, in 1996. In 1997, he
joined Niels Kuster’s research group, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland, where
he received the Ph.D. degree in 2003.
He continued his research study with the Numer-
ical Dosimetry Group, Foundation for Research on
Information Technologies in Society, Zürich. He is
involved in the assessment of interaction mechanisms
of electromagnetic fields and biological tissue. He has authored and coauthored
more than 20 publications in peer-reviewed journals and presented his studies
in more than 30 international conferences. His research interests include com-
putational electrodynamics with the finite-difference time-domain method, the
development of anatomical models for dosimetric simulations, the numerical
modeling of medical devices, and the development of numerical and experimen-
tal techniques to evaluate the safety of magnetic resonance imaging for patients
with medical implants.
Dr. Christ is a member of the IEEE Standards Association, where he chairs
the Working Group 1 of Technical Committee 34: Wireless Handset SAR Cer-
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.
PFEIFER et al.: TOTAL FIELD RECONSTRUCTION IN THE NEAR FIELD USING PSEUDO-VECTOR E-FIELD MEASUREMENTS
Myles H. Capstick received the B.Sc. and Ph.D. de-
grees in electronic engineering from the University of
Wales, Bangor, U.K., in 1987 and 1991, respectively.
He became a Lecturer with the School of Elec-
tronic Engineering Science, University of Wales, in
1990. In 1996, he joined the Department of Electron-
ics, University of York, where he was first a Lecturer
and later a Senior Lecturer. In May 2006, he joined the
Foundation for Research on Information Technolo-
gies in Society, Zürich, Switzerland. His expertise is
across a wide range of areas encompassing radio fre-
quency (RF), microwave, and millimeter-wave systems, circuits, antennas and
measurements, communications systems, electromagnetic compatibility, and
dosimetry. He has experience of the design and manufacture of RF equipment
for use in dosimetry and, in particular, the equipment used in all the human
volunteer trials within the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research
Program of the U.K. Department of Health, as well as studies using human
phantoms. For in vitro and in vivo research, he has designed systems includ-
ing reverberation chamber systems, resonant transverse electromagnetic line
systems, systems for live imaging of cells during exposure to both extremely
low frequency and RF EMF. Within the medical research field, RF hyperther-
mia and magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia equipment, magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) RF and gradient field exposure test systems for medical im-
plant safety assessment are areas of activity. He has also worked on health risk
and occupational exposure assessment of body-worn antennas, wireless power
transfer devices, and MRI. Furthermore, he has developed new measurement
instrumentation for improved assessment of safety in electromagnetic fields and
for measurement of miniature body-worn devices. His research interests in-
clude electronic engineering science for biomedical and health risk assessment
applications.
11
Niels Kuster (F’10) received the M.S. and Ph.D. de-
grees in electrical engineering from the Swiss Fed-
eral Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich, Zürich,
Switzerland, in 1984 and 1992, respectively.
From 1993 to 1999, he was an Assistant Pro-
fessor with the Department of Electrical Engineer-
ing, ETH Zürich. In 2001, he became a Professor
with the Department of Information Technology and
Electrical Engineering, ETH Zürich. Since 1999, he
has been the Founding Director of the Foundation
for Research on Information Technologies in Society
(IT’IS), Zürich. In 2010, he initiated the sister institute IT’IS USA, a nonprofit
research unit incorporated in the State of Maryland, of which he is currently
the President. During his career, he has been an Invited Professor with the
Electromagnetics Laboratory of Motorola Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL, and, in
1998, with the Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan. He also founded several
spin-off companies: Schmid & Partner Engineering AG, MaxWave AG, Zürich
MedTech AG, BNNSPEAG Ltd., SR Scientific GmbH, etc., and advises other
companies as a board member. He has authored more than 200 publications on
measurement techniques, computational electromagnetics, computational life
sciences, dosimetry and exposure assessments, and bioexperiments. His pri-
mary research interests include electromagnetic technologies, in silico tissue
models, and personalized medicine.
Dr. Kuster is a member of several standardization bodies and serves as a con-
sultant on the safety of wireless technologies for government agencies around
the globe. He is a delegate of the Swiss Academy of Science. He served as
the President of the Biolectromagnetics Society from 2008 to 2009 and as a
board member of various societies. In 2012, he was a recipient of the presti-
gious d’Arsonval Award, the highest scientific honor of the Bioelectromagnetics
Society.