Near-field scan technique for reducing Radiated
Emissions in Automotive EMC
Andrei-Marius Silaghi1 / Relu-Adrian Aipu2
1
Dept. of Measurements and Optical Electronics
Politehnica University Timisoara
Timisoara, Romania
Andrei.silaghi@student.upt.ro
Abstract—The radiated emissions (RE) measurement is one of
the tests that are mandatory in a full qualification stage in order
to validate an electronic or electric product for series production.
The purpose of this paper is to present a near-field scan
technique for mitigating RE levels in order to reduce the time to
market for the product. The magnetic near-field data are
measured by using an EHX+ system from EMSCAN and the
results are validated with the far-field measurements data
obtained in a semi-anechoic chamber. Acquired data are used for
finding a solution to mitigate the emissions in radiated emissions
testing in order to pass the limits imposed by the OEM (Original
Equipment Manufacturer).
Keywords—radiated emissions; near-field probe; monopole
antenna; far-field; EHX+; EMSCAN; automotive
I. INTRODUCTION
Within the field of EMC, the term Radiated Emissions (RE)
refers to the unintentional release of electromagnetic (EM)
energy from an electronic device. The allowable REs from an
electronic device are regulated by various organizations and
agencies. RE are caused by the flow of current on conducting
surfaces [1].
Most standards specify that the radiated emissions tests
must be performed in far-field with the use of a semi-anechoic
chamber (SAC). Since near-field measurements are faster,
cheaper and easier to perform, a great interest comes in
finding a correlation between the near-field and far-field data.
This paper reports an assessment of a part of the existing
equipment used for radiated emissions testing. It is shown how
a near-field scan technique can improve the results of radiated
emissions testing and how the source of the unwanted signal
could be found and eliminated. In the end, the results have
been confirmed with the standardized far field measurement.
Radiated emissions is one of the tests that are currently
conducted within the EMC Laboratory. Other emission tests
include: conducted emissions with LISN, emissions with
stripline and with current probe [2].
Several authors tackle the problem of reducing RE levels
by using near-field scan techniques [3] - [8].
Baudry et al. present a completely automated near-field
scanning system developed to determine the electric
fieldradiated by electronic systems. For accurate
978-1-5090-5997-3/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Aldo De Sabata1 / Petre-Marian Nicolae2
2
Dept. of Electrical Eng, Energetics and Aeronautics
University of Craiova
Craiova, Romania
Relu.aipu@continental-corporation.com
measurements, a 3D positioning system of the probe is used
[3]. Another study that was made for predicting radiated fields
by using a near-field method is in Shi et al. [4]. Authors
demonstrate that by using near-field scanning data, radiated
EM interference can be predicted with an equivalent current
approach, which may include enclosures with apertures [4].
Dong et al. also present the possibility of near field
scanning to determine Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)
from an integrated circuit, by measuring the current
distribution in IC packaging. Results show that this is an
effective tool to investigate EMI problems on chip-level [5].
Rinas et al. propose an approach to optimize the
characterization method of PCBs by near field scanning and
equivalent source identification [6]. Another automated test
bench is presented by Kuehn et al. in [7]. It is used for chip-
level EMI determination and relies on active optical sensors [7].
Li et al. present a novel equivalent source technique to
estimate EMI. To reconstruct equivalent magnetic dipole
array, amplitude near field scanning data are used [8].
In this paper, some case studies of RE level reduction are
presented and commented. In Section II, the general standard
for emission measuring (CISPR 25:2002) is briefly reviewed.
In Section III, we present EHX+ setup used for near-field
measurement. Section IV presents results obtained in different
situations. Conclusions are drawn in the last Section.
II. CISPR 25 AUTOMOTIVE STANDARD
Radiated Emission tests are performed according to CISPR
25 in the SAC, inside an EMC laboratory. Practical
experimental setups in the anechoic chamber are presented in
Fig. 1.
Each Device Under Test (DUT) power supply lead has
been connected to a 50ȍ/5μH artificial network. Battery
voltage has been maintained to 13.5±0.5V for 12V systems.
The DUT was placed at a 50 mm height on a non-
conductive material (polystyrene). The front side of the DUT
has to be located at least 200mm from the edge of the ground
plane [9].
The total length of the harness between the DUT and the
load simulator did not exceed 2000 mm (part of the harness
831
parallel to the front edge of the ground plane has to be
1500±75 mm) [9].
Fig. 1 Monopole test setup.
In Fig. 1, the following elements can be identified:
antenna, DUT, battery, harness, LISN, ground plane, low
dielectric constant support, high quality coaxial cable, bulkhead
connector, measuring instrument and RF absorber material [9].
The height of the phase center of the antenna is imposed as
1000 mm ± 10 mm with respect to the room floor. The
distance between the wiring harness and the antenna is
1000 mm ± 10 mm. From 30 MHz to 1000MHz,
measurements have been performed in vertical and horizontal
polarizations. These requirements are stated in the CISPR-
25:2002 standard [9].
For the measurement of radiated emissions some key
components are involved. These components are: the semi-
anechoic chamber, the antenna, the LISN, the pre-amplifier
and the EMI receiver. The chain measurement system is
linked via low attenuation shielded cables [2].
Usually, for emissions testing we use a monopole antenna
for the range 0.1 to 30 MHz. A biconical antenna is used for
the range 30 to 200 MHz, a log-periodic antenna for 200 MHz
to 1 GHz and a horn antenna for1 GHz to 3.2 GHz [2].
III. EMSCAN TEST SETUP
EMxpert provides near-field magnetic data to help
diagnose EMC design issues. It consists of EHX (high-
frequency scanner) and ERX (high-resolution scanner). PCB
designers can scan any board to identify both constant and
time-base emission sources in the frequency range of 150 KHz
- 8 GHz [10].
EHX consists of a patented scanner and compact adaptor,
and a customer-supplied spectrum analyzer and PC running
EMxpert software (Fig. 2) [10]. Free Keysight IO software
application must also be installed on the customer-supplied PC.
The patented scanner consists of 1,218 H-field (magnetic) probes
spaced every 7.5 mm into an electronically switched array,
which provides an effective 3.75 mm resolution. The system
operates from 150 kHz to 4 GHz or 150 kHz to 8 GHz [10].
832
The EHX scanner board is connected to the spectrum
analyzer by means of RF input signal and also to the EMxpert
adapter. The spectrum analyzer receives a trigger signal from
Fig. 2 EMSCAN general setup
the EMxpert adapter and is connected to the PC by means of
LAN cable. The EMxpert adapter is also connected to the PC
by a USB cable (Fig. 2 [10]).
This near-field scanner does not require a shielded room
but the DUT may sometimes pick signals from GSM Band or
FM Band. A solution to avoid this is to measure a noise floor
in the test environment before running any scans (first a
spectral scan in the frequency of interest and after that a
spatial scan) [10].
EMxpert software provides 4 types of scanning: spectral
scan (measures and displays the maximum amplitude versus
frequency of the magnetic field strength over the scanned area),
spatial scan (measures the magnetic field of radiated
electromagnetic emissions from the DUT of a single frequency
as a function of position), spectral/spatial scan (measures the
magnetic field strength of emissions from an object as a
function of both frequency and position on the PCB) and
handheld probe scan (provides a method to easily collect and
display data from sensors other than the EMxpert probes ) [10].
The same near-field scanner was considered in several
papers [11]-[14]. In 1993 Archambeault presented how this
tool can be used for predicting EMI levels. By using Hertzian
dipole approach, the data can be used to predict the electric
field strength from a PCB [11]. Rostamzadeh [12] inspected
the penetration of the injected RF currents on an automotive
module by using EMSCAN. The power distribution robustness
has been investigated by spatial and spectral scans [12].
For the evaluation of the magnetic near-field scanner,
comparisons were made with measurements undergone in a
semi-anechoic chamber and theoretical models using CST
Microwave Studio by Smart and Aubrey [13]. By using a
Genetic Algorithm, Fan predicted radiated emissions from
near-field magnitude only measurements with near-field
scanner [14].
 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS In Fig. 5, an initial test considered as failed is reported. We
can see that the peak detector is above the narrowband limit at
A. Initial far-field test 831.25 kHz, so we also measured with average detector. The
The DUT that was subjected to RE test has been an difference between the peak (a level of 28.8 dBuV/m) and
electronic device used for airbag control unit (ACU). average (a level of 26.3 dBuV/m) detectors at that frequency is
below 6 dB so we can conclude that the test was not passed.
After performing this test method and comparing it with
the initial measurements from the original product validation
test report, the project team concluded that this new violation
of the limits at 0.831MHz is caused by a new component
change in the new design.

Fig. 3 Monopole antenna in the semi-anechoic chamber

After a change in the production cycle, and a change of

component suppliers, a new validation of the design must be
performed in order to make sure that the new design with the
new components is still EMC approved (Fig. 3). In this way, a
validation program with the critical test methods has been
agreed with the final customer and the project has been sent to
the laboratory for testing.
We made measurements for RE test in the frequency
range: 100 kHz-3GHz with monopole antenna, biconical
antenna and log-periodical antenna. Problems regarding
emissions were noticed only in the frequency range: 100 kHz
– 26 MHz where a spike that violated the limits at 0.831MHz
was noticed (Fig.5)
For the monopole measurement (100 kHz - 26 MHz), we
used a Rod Antenna HFH2-Z6, an ESR 7 EMI Test Receiver
from Rohde&Schwarz with the frequency range 9kHz - 7 GHz
and two V-LISN 5uH from Schwarzbeck (Fig. 3).
The receiver was set to 9 kHz bandwidth (1 second dwell Fig. 4 CISPR 25 Pass/fail criteria.
time) and peak and average detectors have been used.
B. Near-field measurements
We considered the discrimination method outlined in Fig.
4 to establish if the tests are pass or fail. This is done in This was a blocking point because there were more than 25
accordance with the standard CISPR 25 ed.2002 [9]. new components and the time needed to investigate all these
According to that method, we start with a measurement with new components exceeded more than a few weeks.
peak detector and compare it with the narrowband limit. In order to find a solution so that the tests for radiated
When data were above this limit we measured with emissions are pass, we used the near field system EHX+ to
average detector and compared the difference between peak find the source of emissions. The troubleshooting technique for
and average. If the difference between peak and average this kind of test is described in [15]. RE typically being the
detectors was lower than 6 dB, we had a narrowband number one failure from EMI issues. The emissions were
measurement and the sample failed the test. If that difference recorded up to 1MHz, because generally speaking, resolving the
is greater than 6 dB, we had a broadband measurement and if lower frequency harmonics will also reduce the higher ones
the data was below the broadband limit, the sample passed the [15].
test.

833
 We can see in Fig. 6 the test board that is used for near-
field measurements and also the DUT that was subjected to
test. The DUT was connected at a 12 V battery source by
using its harness.
We started with a spatial scan of the entire DUT to find the
location with the biggest emissions (Fig. 7). In a spatial scan a
frequency of interest has to be selected, for which the
magnetic field is calculated (in our case 831 kHz). By
comparing this spatial scan with the layout of the project, we
discovered the place where the emissions came from. The
DUT consisted of two layers, bottom and top layer.

Fig. 6 Test setup with EHX+

Fig. 5 Initial test – failed

After a short investigation with a handheld probe for

magnetic field (100C Beehive), it was concluded that the
highest signal was coming from the TOP layer, and this put us
in difficulty because the top layer cannot be scanned with the
use of EHX+ board because of the dimensions of the two
capacitors placed there for filtering (Fig. 6)
Fig. 7 Spatial scan with EHX
The power source of the DUT appears to be the problem. It
consists of two types of DC-DC converters: one Buck and one
Boost. Although operating at low frequencies
(approximatively 415 kHz) [16], these converters generate
harmonics that appear in the far field test.
Afterwards, we made a spectral scan (Fig. 8) in that
location and discovered that the fundamental frequency that
comes from that place is 417 KHz. In the far field test we can
see this fundamental frequency, but the second harmonic has
more significant influence in the test due to the lower limit
imposed by the OEM in the frequency range of 0.5-2 MHz.

Fig. 8 Spectral scan with EHX

834

Fig. 9 Handheld probe on DUT
After finding the geometrical place with EHX+ system, we
used Handheld probes to find the exact location (Fig. 9).
TABLE I. RESULTS WITH HANDHELD PROBE
Frequency Case I Case II Case III
417 kHz 57.5 57.3 59.2
835 kHz 47.2 47.3 48.6
Fig. 10 Spectral scan with EHX+ after the coil replacement
The following EMC probes were available: 100A EMC probe
(small handheld magnetic probe), 100B EMC probe (very
smallhandheld magnetic probe), and 100C EMC probe (large
handheld magnetic probe) all manufactured by Beehives
Electronics.
We started with the smaller H-field probe (100A) and
sniffed around the power source. At that location, two coils
have been discovered: a large one (coil 1) and a small one
(coil 2). To obtain greater resolution, we switched to a larger-
diameter H-field probe (100C) [15].
In Table I we can see different scenarios that were
undergone with the Handheld probes. Both frequencies of
interest are listed (417 kHz and 835 kHz) and also the
measured valued from the spectral scan (the highest peak was
recorded in the table).
The following cases were investigated:
• Case I: sniffing on Buck DC-DC coil;
• Case II: shield on Buck coil and sniff on Boost
DC-DC coil (we can conclude that the problem
comes from the Boost coil);
• Case III: Boost coil rotated (worse results)
After replacing the Boost coil we made another spectral
scan (Fig. 10). The results are clearly visible: at both
frequencies (417 kHz and 835 kHz), the amplitude has been
reduced, so we could presume that the results from far-field
will also change in a positive manner.
C. Final far-field test
After the near-field investigations a last far-field test in
the semi-anechoic chamber was made. This test (Fig. 11) is a
pass because at the same frequency the peak is above the
narrowband limit but the difference between the peak (29
dBuV/m) and average (21.7 dBuV/m) detectors is above 6 dB.
Case IV
36.1
29.6
Fig. 11 Final test which is passed
Thus by using a near-field scan technique we found the
source of emissions and managed to find a solution so that the
electronic device could pass the limits imposed by the OEM.
Also, by using this solution, a cheaper and easier way has been
adopted in comparison with several tests in a semi-anechoic
chamber, which would have been necessary.
Further analysis of the DC-DC converter used for this
ACU will be reported in another work, thus in this paper we
focused on a troubleshooting technique for a fast response in
the EMC laboratory with the purpose to start as soon as
possible the mass production of the equipment.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we reported the use of a near-field scan
technique for troubleshooting EMI problems (especially for
RE tests).
We presented the International Standard CISPR 25 with
the frequency range and equipment used for RE testing.
Afterwards we presented EMSCAN tool used for near-field
measurements.
835
 Finally we presented a case study where the mass
production of the electronic component (ACU) was stopped
based on the fact that the RE test method failed with the new
components layout. We started with a far-field measurement
in a semi-anechoic chamber, which was a fail. In order to find
the source of the perturbation, we chose to investigate the
DUT with a special near field scanning tool in order to find a
fast solution and to reduce the time of production stop.
By using a near-field method with spatial and spectral
scans, we obtained a solution to reduce RE levels. Also, in this
investigation it was used handheld probes to have greater
resolution and to eliminate the blind spots where the near field
tool cannot scan (more than 1.5cm from the PCB).
The final test, which confirms the solution, was performed
in the semi-anechoic chamber and lead to a pass result, after
we implemented the proposed solution. The authors did not
further analyze the root cause of the electronic problem
(layout analysis of the converter) because this will be subject
of future work together with the project team.
Based on this combined technique of far field and near
filed scanning, we were able to assist the project team to
unblock the production process and to considerably reduce the
time-to-market of the product.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge the support given by
Continental Automotive Timisoara (Qualification Laboratory).
The research was partially supported by the Ministry of
Education and Research of Romania through UEFISCDI,
project code PN-III-P1-1.2-PCCDI-2017-0917.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Rybak, M. Steffka, Automotive Electromagnetic Compatibility,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA, 2004.
[2] A. Silaghi, C. Balan, E. Tolan, A. De Sabata, The influence of
measurement setups in radiated emissions testing, Engineering of
Modern Electric Systems (EMES), 2017 14th International Conference
on, 1-2 June 2017, Oradea (Romania), pp. 220-223, 2017.
[3] D. Baudry, F. Bicrel, L. Bouchelouk, A. Louis, B. Mazari, P. Eudeline,
Near-field techniques for detecting EMI sources, Electromagnetic
836
Compatibility, 2004. EMC 2004. 2004 International Symposium on, 9-
13 August 2004, Silicon Valley (USA), pp. 11-13, 2004.
[4] J. Shi, M. Cracraft, J. Zhang, R. DuBroff, K. Slattery, Using near-field
scanning to predict radiated fields, Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2004.
EMC 2004. 2004 International Symposium on, 9-13 August 2004,
Silicon Valley (USA), pp. 14-18, 2004.
[5] X. Dong, S. Deng, T. Hubing, D. Beetner, Analysis of chip-level EMI
using near-field magnetic scanning, Electromagnetic Compatibility,
2004. EMC 2004. 2004 International Symposium on, 9-13 August 2004,
Silicon Valley (USA), pp. 174-177, 2004.
[6] D. Rinas, S. Niedzwiedz, J. Jia, S. Frei, Optimization methods for
equivalent source identification and electromagnetic model creation
based on near-field measurements, EMC Europe 2011 York, 26-30
September 2011, York (UK), pp.298-303, 2011.
[7] S. Kuehn, M. Wild, M. Gomez, E. Grobbelaar, P. Sepan, B. Kochali,
A.Fuchs, J. Lienemann, N. Kuster, EMC/EMI near-field testbed for EM
phasor measurements using active optical sensors, Electromagnetic
Compatibility (APEMC), 2015 Asia-Pacific International Symposium
on, 26-29 May 2015, Taipei (Taiwan), pp.402-405, 2015.
[8] J. Li, X. Wei, L. Gao, Y. Shu, An effective equivalent radiation source
based on near-field scanning for electromagnetic interference estimation,
Electromagnetic Compatibility (APEMC), 2017 Asia-Pacific Int. Symp.
on, 20-23 June 2017, Seoul (South Korea), pp. 315-317, 2017.
[9] International Standard CISPR 25, “Vehicles, boats and internal
combustion engines - Radio disturbance characteristics ”, 2.0 ed. 2002.
[10] EMxpert EHX User manual v5.0.6.1-10.15
[11] B. Archambeault, Predicting EMI emission levels using EMSCAN,
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1993. Symposium Record., 1993 IEEE
International Symposium on, 9-13 August 1993, Dallas (USA), pp. 48-
50, 1993.
[12] C. Rostamzadeh, Investigation of conducted immunity and spatial
distribution of RF currents for a 2-sided PCB, Electromagnetic
Compatibility, 2008. EMC 2008. IEEE International Symposium on, 18-
22 August 2008, Detroit (USA), pp. 1-5, 2008.
[13] K. Smart, T. Aubrey, Evaluation of a magnetic near field scanner,
Microwave Conference 2009. APMC 2009. Asia Pacific, 7-10
December 2009, Singapore (Singapore), pp. 413-416, 2009.
[14] H. Fan, Far field radiated emission prediction from magnetic near field
magnitude-only measurements of PCBs by Genetic Algorithm,
Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2009. EMC 2009. IEEE International
Symposium on, 17-21 August 2009, Austin (USA), pp. 321-324, 2009.
[15] K. Wyatt, 2017 EMC Pre-compliance test guide, Interference
technology: www.interferencetechnology.com
[16] P.M. Nicolae, I.D. Nicolae, and R.A. Aipu, „Some Considerations
Concerning Radiated Emissions Produced by a Board Display”, in
Annals of University of Craiova, Electrical Engineerieng Series, no. 40,
2016, pp. 60-65