BSI PD CISPR/TR 16-4-1:2009:2010 Edition
$215.11
Specification for radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus and methods – Uncertainties, statistics and limit modelling. Uncertainties in standardized EMC tests
| Published By | Publication Date | Number of Pages |
| BSI | 2010 | 122 |
This part of CISPR 16-4 gives guidance on the treatment of uncertainties to those who are involved in the development or modification of CISPR electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) standards. In addition, this part provides useful background information for those who apply the standards and the uncertainty aspects in practice.
The objectives of this part are to:
-
identify the parameters or sources governing the uncertainty associated with the statement that a given product complies with the requirement specified in a CISPR recommendation. This uncertainty will be called “standards compliance uncertainty” (SCU, see 3.1.16);
-
give guidance on the estimation of the magnitude of the standards compliance uncertainty;
-
give guidance for the implementation of the standards compliance uncertainty into the compliance criterion of a CISPR standardised compliance test.
As such, this part can be considered as a handbook that can be used by standards writers to incorporate and harmonise uncertainty considerations in existing and future CISPR standards. This part also gives guidance to regulatory authorities, accreditation bodies and test engineers to judge the performance quality of an EMC test-laboratory carrying out CISPR standardised compliance tests. The uncertainty considerations given in this part can also be used as guidance when comparing test results (and their uncertainties) obtained by using different alternative test methods.
The uncertainty of a compliance test also relates to the probability of occurrence of an electromagnetic interference (EMI) problem in practice. This aspect is recognized and introduced briefly in this part. However, the problem of relating uncertainties of a compliance test to the occurrence of EMI in practice is not considered within the scope of this part.
The scope of this part is limited to all the relevant uncertainty considerations of a standardized EMC compliance test.
PDF Catalog
| PDF Pages | PDF Title |
|---|---|
| 4 | CONTENTS |
| 9 | FOREWORD |
| 11 | INTRODUCTION Tables Table 1 – Structure of clauses related to the subject of standards compliance uncertainty |
| 12 | 1 Scope 2 Normative references |
| 13 | 3 Terms, definitions, and abbreviations |
| 14 | 3.1 Terms and definitions |
| 17 | 3.2 Abbreviations 4 Basic considerations on uncertainties in emission measurements 4.1 Introductory remarks |
| 19 | 4.2 Types of uncertainties in emission measurements Figures Figure 1 – Illustration of the relation between the overall uncertainty of a measurand due to contributions from the measurement instrumentation uncertainty and the intrinsic uncertainty of the measurand |
| 22 | Figure 2 – The process of emission compliance measurements and the associated (categories of) uncertainty sources (see also Table 2) Table 2 – Categories of uncertainty sources in standardised emission measurements |
| 23 | Table 3 – Example of detailed standard induced uncertainty sources for a radiated emission measurement |
| 24 | Table 4 – Different types of uncertainties used within CISPR at present |
| 25 | Table 5 – Examples (not exhaustive) of the translation of ‘uncertainty sources’ into ‘influence quantities’ for an emission measurement on an OATS per CISPR 22 |
| 27 | 4.3 Relation between standards compliance uncertainty and interference probability Figure 3 – Relationship between uncertainty sources, influence quantities and uncertainty categories |
| 28 | Figure 4 – Involvement of the subcommittees CISPR/H and CISPR/A in the determination of the measurands and application of uncertainties |
| 29 | 4.4 Assessment of uncertainties in a standardised emission measurement Figure 5 – The uncertainty estimation process |
| 31 | Figure 6 – Example of a fishbone diagram indicating the various uncertainty sources for an absorbing clamp compliance measurement in accordance with CISPR 16-2-2 |
| 33 | 4.5 Verification of the uncertainty budget |
| 35 | Figure 7 – Illustration of the minimum requirement (interval compatibility requirement) for the standards compliance uncertainty |
| 37 | 4.6 Reporting of the uncertainty |
| 39 | 4.7 Application of uncertainties in the compliance criterion |
| 40 | Figure 8 – Graphical representation of four cases in the compliance determination process without consideration of measurement uncertainty during limits setting |
| 41 | Figure 9 – Graphical representation of four cases in the compliance determination process with consideration of measurement uncertainty during limits setting. Figure 10 – Generic relation between overall uncertainty of measurand and some major categories of uncertainties |
| 43 | Figure 11 – Graphical representation MIU compliance criterion for compliance measurements, per CISPR 16-4-2 |
| 46 | 5 Basic considerations on uncertainties in immunity testing 6 Voltage measurements 6.1 Introductory remarks 6.2 Voltage measurements (general) |
| 47 | Figure 12 – Basic circuit of a voltage measurement |
| 48 | Figure 13 – Basic circuit of a loaded disturbance source (N = 2) |
| 49 | Figure 14 – Relation between the voltages |
| 50 | 6.3 Voltage measurements using a voltage probe 6.4 Voltage measurement using a V-terminal artificial mains network |
| 51 | Figure 15 – Basic circuit of the V-AMN voltage measurement (N = 2) |
| 52 | Figure 16 – Basic circuit of the V-AN measurement during the reading of the received voltage Um (the numbers refer to Figure 15) |
| 53 | Figure 17 – The absolute value of the sensitivity coefficient c2 as a function of the phase angle difference q of the impedances Z13 and Zd0 for several values of the ratio |Z13/Zd0| |
| 55 | Figure 18 – Variation of the parasitic capacitance, and hence of the CM-impedance, by changing the position of the reference plane (non-conducting EUT housing) |
| 57 | Figure 19 – Influence quantities in between the EUT (disturbance source) and the V-AMN |
| 58 | 7 Absorbing clamp measurements 7.1 General |
| 59 | 7.2 Uncertainties related to the calibration of the absorbing clamp |
| 60 | Figure 20 – Schematic overview of the original clamp calibration method |
| 61 | Figure 21 – Diagram that illustrates the uncertainty sources associated with the original clamp calibration method |
| 62 | Table 6 – Influence quantities associated with the uncertainty sources given in Figure 21 for the original clamp calibration method |
| 66 | 7.3 Uncertainties related to the absorbing clamp measurement method Figure 22 – Schematic overview of the clamp measurement method |
| 67 | Figure 23 – Diagram that illustrates the uncertainty sources associated with the clamp measurement method |
| 68 | Table 7 – Influence quantities associated with the uncertainty sources given in Figure 23 for the clamp measurement method |
| 72 | Figure 24 – Measurement results of an absorbing clamp RRT performed by six test laboratories in the Netherlands using a drill as EUT Table 8 – Measurement results of an absorbing clamp RRT performed by six test laboratories in Germany using a vacuum cleaner motor as EUT |
| 73 | 8 Radiated emission measurements using a SAC or an OATS in the frequency range of 30 MHz to 1 000 MHz 8.1 General Table 9 – Summary of various MIU and SCU values (expanded uncertainties) for the clamp measurement method derived from different sources of information |
| 74 | 8.2 Uncertainties related to the SAC/OATS radiated emission measurement method Figure 25 – Schematic of a radiated emission measurement set-up in a SAC |
| 76 | Figure 26 – Uncertainty sources associated with the SAC/OATS radiated emission measurement method |
| 78 | Table 10 – Influence quantities for the SAC/OATS radiated emission measurement method associated with the uncertainty sources of Figure 26 |
| 79 | Table 11 – Relation between/and type of EUT and set-up-related uncertainties |
| 84 | Table 12 – Example of uncertainty estimate associated with the NSA measurement method, 30 MHz to 1 000 MHz |
| 85 | Table 13 – Relationship between intrinsic and apparent NSA |
| 90 | 9 Conducted immunity measurements 10 Radiated immunity measurements |
| 91 | Annex A (informative) Compliance uncertainty and interference probability |
| 92 | Figure A.1 – Measured field strength distributions X1 and Y1, emission limit and level to be protected of relevance in the determination of the corresponding interference probability determined by distributions X2 and Y2 |
| 93 | Annex B (informative) Numerical example of the consequences of Faraday’s law |
| 94 | Figure B.1 – Voltage and current limits as given in CISPR 15:2005, Tables 2b and 3, and the ratio UL/IL Figure B.2 – Factor Ks derived from the data in Figure B.1 and Equation (B.4) |
| 95 | Annex C (informative) Possible amendments to CISPR publications with regards to voltage measurements |
| 97 | Figure C.1 – Schematic diagram of a V-AMN yielding an improved figure-of-merit about the actual compliance probability via two current probes |
| 98 | Annex D (informative) Analysis method of results of an interlaboratory test |
| 99 | Annex E (informative) Uncertainty budgets for the clamp calibration methods Table E.1 – Uncertainty budget for the original absorbing clamp calibration method in the frequency range 30 MHz to 300 MHz |
| 100 | Table E.2 – Uncertainty budget for the original absorbing clamp calibration method in the frequency range 300 MHz to 1 000 MHz |
| 101 | Annex F (informative) Uncertainty budget for the clamp measurement method Table F.1 – Uncertainty budget for the absorbing clamp measurement method in the frequency range 30 MHz to 300 MHz |
| 102 | Table F.2 – Uncertainty budget for the absorbing clamp measurement method in the frequency range 300 MHz to 1 000 MHz |
| 103 | Annex G (informative) Uncertainty estimates for the radiated emission measurement methods |
| 104 | Table G.1 – Uncertainty estimate for the radiated emission measurement method in the frequency range 30 MHz to 200 MHz at a measurement distance of 3 m |
| 105 | Table G.2 – Uncertainty estimate for the radiated emission measurement method in the frequency range 200 MHz to 1 000 MHz at a measurement distance of 3 m |
| 106 | Table G.3 – Uncertainty data of some influence quantities for the radiated emission measurement method in the frequency range 30 MHz to 200 MHz at measurement distances of 3 m, 10 m, or 30 m |
| 107 | Table G.4 – Uncertainty data of some influence quantities for the radiated emission measurement method in the frequency range 200 MHz to 1 000 MHz at measurement distances of 3 m, 10 m, or 30 m |
| 108 | Annex H (informative) Results of various round robin tests for SAC/OATS-based radiated emission measurements |
| 109 | Table H.1 – Summary of various MIU and SCU uncertainty values for the SAC/OATS-based radiated emission measurement method, assembled from various sources |
| 110 | Figure H.1 – Expanded uncertainties of emission measurement results for five different emulated EUTs each with five different cable termination conditions [24] Figure H.2 – Interlaboratory comparison measurement results of twelve 10 m SACs [see “HP (2000)” in Table H.1] |
| 111 | Figure H.3 – ILC measurement results radiated emission SAC/OATS 3 m (11 sites) [32] |
| 112 | Figure H.4 – ILC measurement results radiated emission SAC/OATS 3 m (14 sites) [13], [25] |
| 113 | Figure H.5 – Measured correlation curve of 3 m and 10 m SAC/OATS-emission measurement of a battery-fed table-top type of EUT, compared with the free-space rule-of-thumb ratio [13], [25] |
| 114 | Annex I (informative) Additional information about distinctions between the terms measurement uncertainty and standards compliance uncertainty |
| 116 | Bibliography |
Related products
-
BSI PD CISPR/TR 16-4-1:2009:2010 Edition
Specification for radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus and methods – Uncertainties, statistics and limit…
