# Analysis of High-Power Radar Propagation Environments Around the Test Site
## 5 Conclusions  
In this paper, we proposed a novel evaluation method for the strength of EM waves in the area by analyzing the propagation environment in a radar testing site. To analyze the propagation environment of the radar test site, actual terrain was precisely modeled using DEM data provided by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. For the scenario of steering towards the Rx. system, the maximum electric fields of 0.19 V/m and 0.08 V/m in the X-band and Ku-band were calculated, respectively. In the misaligned scenario, the maximum electric fields of 1.52 V/m and 2.77 V/m in the X-band and Ku-band were calculated, respectively. These results were significantly lower than the reference level of 61 V/m. To more effectively reduce the impact around the radar site in the misaligned scenario, the absorber structures were placed in front of the radar. With the installation of a 1 m absorber, a comparison of the received electric field showed an attenuation rate of 39.47% and 39.35% in each frequency band. To verify the reliability of the results analyzed through the integrated simulation model, measurements were conducted at the actual radar site and compared with the simulation results. The theoretical and average measured received powers of \(-61.9\) dBm and \(-62.03\) dBm, respectively, showed good agreement with the simulated result of \(-64.64\) dBm. This procedure indicated that the proposed  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Position** & \(\mathbf{x_{1}}\) & \(\mathbf{x_{2}}\) & \(\mathbf{x_{3}}\) \\ \hline \(\mathbf{y_{1}}\) & \(-61.02\) (\(p_{1}\)) & \(-61.58\) (\(p_{2}\)) & \(-62.41\) (\(p_{3}\)) \\ \(\mathbf{y_{2}}\) & \(-63.08\) (\(p_{4}\)) & \(-59.12\) (\(p_{5}\)) & \(-62.32\) (\(p_{6}\)) \\ \(\mathbf{y_{3}}\) & \(-60.17\) (\(p_{7}\)) & \(-62.44\) (\(p_{8}\)) & \(-66.12\) (\(p_{9}\)) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Measurement results for analysis verification (dBm).  
Figure 10: Measurement setup in actual radar site.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Measured** & **Simulated** & **Theoretical** \\ \hline Distance (m) & 120.59 & 120.66 & 120.59 \\ Average received & \(-62.03\) & \(-64.64\) & \(-61.9\) \\ power (dBm) & \(-62.03\) & \(-64.64\) & \(-61.9\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Comparison of measurement and simulation results.  
method provided comparable results in theory, simulation, and measurement. These results demonstrated the reliability of the propagation environment analysis using the proposed integrated simulation model.  
Conceptualization, J.K., T.J., J.J. and H.C.; methodology, J.K., T.J. and J.J.J.; software, J.K. and T.J.; validation, J.K., T.J., J.J. and H.C.; formal analysis, J.K. and T.J.; investigation, J.K., T.J. and J.J.; writing--original draft preparation, J.K.; writing--review and editing, J.K., T.J. and H.C.; visualization, J.K.; supervision, H.C.; project administration, H.C.; funding acquisition, H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This work was supported by a grant-in-aid of KER (Korea Electromagnetic Revolution), grant number 314-86-10610.  
Not applicable.  
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.  
Author [PERSON] was employed by the company Korea Electromagnetic Revolution Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.