Expression of Uncertainty in EMC
Expression of Uncertainty in EMC
Expression of Uncertainty in EMC
EMC Testing
[UKAS Publication ref: LAB 34 (DRAFT)]
Contents
Section
1
2
3
4
5
6
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Introduction
Concepts
Steps in establishing an uncertainty budget
Compliance with specification
References
Acknowledgements
Examples of typical uncertainty budgets
Calculation of kp
Calculation of uncertainty in logarithmic or linear quantities
Page
3
3
4
10
13
13
14
38
39
Page 1 of 40
DRAFT
LAB 34 Draft Edition 1 February 2001
United Kingdom Accreditation Service
21 47 High Street
Feltham
Middlesex TW13 4UN
UK
Tel: 020 8917 8555
Fax: 020 8917 8500
website: www.ukas.com
United Kingdom Accreditation Service 2001
Page 2 of 40
Introduction
1.1
The standard ISO/IEC 17025 used for laboratory accreditation by UKAS requires a
laboratory to produce for all measurements an estimate of the uncertainty of its
measurements using accepted methods of analysis, through the production and
application of suitable uncertainty of measurement procedures. This requirement is
relevant not only to the EMC testing a laboratory may perform but also any in house
calibrations.
1.2
1.3
This publication does not define or recommend what the uncertainty contributions
are, or should be, since these are dependent on the equipment used and the
method of test. Examples of uncertainty budgets are given in Appendix A for some
common EMC measurements and have been made as realistic as possible.
1.4
1.5
ISO/IEC 17025 also recognises that the complexity of tests may in some cases
preclude a rigorous evaluation of uncertainty. In such cases a listing of the potential
contributors to uncertainty should be made and should include estimates of the
magnitude of each component uncertainty. These estimates may be based on
previous experience and make use of data from method validation. The laboratory
should ensure that the form of reporting of the result does not give a wrong
impression of the uncertainty.
1.6
In cases where a well-recognised test method specifies limits to the values of major
sources of uncertainty of measurement and specifies the form of presentation of the
results the requirement to estimate uncertainty of measurement can be considered
to have been satisfied by following the test method and its reporting instructions.
Concepts
2.1
The objective of a measurement is to determine the value of the measurand, i.e. the
specific quantity subject to measurement. When applied to EMC testing, the general
term measurand may cover many different quantities, e.g. the measurement of
emissions from radiated emissions test, or the test level in a radiated immunity test. A
measurement begins with an appropriate specification of the measurand, the generic
method of measurement and the specific detailed measurement procedure.
2.2
DRAFT
Page 3 of 40
only an approximation to the value of the measurand and is only complete when
accompanied by a statement of the uncertainty of that approximation.
2.3
2.4
Random errors arise from random variations of the observations (random effects).
Every time a measurement is taken under the same conditions, random effects from
various sources affect the measured value. A series of measurements produces a
scatter around a mean value. A number of sources may contribute to variability each
time a measurement is taken, and their influence may be continually changing. They
cannot be eliminated but increasing the number of observations and applying
statistical analysis may reduce the uncertainty due to their effect.
2.5
2.6
The Guide has adopted the approach of grouping uncertainty components into two
categories based on their method of evaluation. Type A evaluation is done by
calculation from a series of repeated observations, using statistical methods. Type B
evaluation is done by means other than that used for Type A. For example, by
judgement based on data in calibration certificates, previous measurement data,
experience with the behaviour of the instruments, manufacturers specifications and
all other relevant information.
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.1
DRAFT
Page 4 of 40
not necessary to over complicate the calculation and reporting process. Priority
should be given to calculating the uncertainty in the region of the test specification
limit, or limits.
3.2
3.2.1
Random effects result in errors that vary in an unpredictable way while the
measurement is being made or is repeated under the same conditions. The
uncertainty associated with these contributions can be evaluated by statistical
techniques from repeated measurements. An estimate of the standard
deviation, s( q k ) , of a series of n readings, q k , is obtained from:
s( q k ) =
1
(n1)
(q
k =1
q )2
s( q ) =
s( q k )
n
DRAFT
3.2.3
Practical considerations will normally mean that the number of repeat readings will be
very small and will often be limited to only a single reading. It is satisfactory to use a
predetermination of s( q k ) for the measurement system, based on a larger number
of repeats, provided the system, method, configuration and conditions etc. are truly
representative of the test. However, such a predetermination will not include the
contributions of the particular EUT. The value of n to be used under these
circumstances is the number of measurements made in the process of testing and
not the number of measurements made in the predetermination. Repeat
measurements should be undertaken when the measured result is close to the
specification limit.
3.2.5
A value for the random contributions of the measurement system is in any case an
essential part of the uncertainty assessment and a type A evaluation should be
made on the `typical' processes and configuration involved in the test. For example,
in the case of open site measurements, the type A evaluation could include
reconnecting the antenna and receiver and adjusting the antenna height to maximise
the receiver reading.
3.2.6
u( x i ) = s( q )
3.3
Page 5 of 40
3.3.1
Contributions to uncertainty arising from systematic effects are those that remain
constant while the measurement is being made but can change if the measurement
conditions, method or equipment is altered. If there is any doubt about whether a
contribution is significant, or not, it should be included in the uncertainty budget in
order to demonstrate that it has been considered.
3.3.2
Normally, all corrections that can be applied to the measured result should be
applied. However, in some cases it may be impractical or unnecessary to correct for
all known errors. For example, the calibration certificate for an EMC receiver may
give actual measured input results at specific readings, with an associated
uncertainty. It is possible to correct subsequent readings by using this calibration to
achieve the lowest possible uncertainty. However, it is more practical to use indicated
values with no corrections applied, in which case the manufacturer's specified
uncertainty should be used, provided it has been confirmed by an accredited
calibration or, where this is not obtainable, a route acceptable to UKAS.
3.3.3
DRAFT
3.3.5
3.3.6
The basis of the simplified approach taken in LAB 34 relies upon uncorrelated
contributions. The judicious selection of test equipment and measurement method
can ensure that adverse correlation between individual contributions is avoided or
minimised. If adverse correlation between any contributions is known or suspected
then the most straightforward approach is to sum the standard uncertainty of these
contributions arithmetically. In some situations it is necessary to use the same items
of test equipment for different steps in the measurement process. For example, in
the pre-calibration for radiated immunity measurements it is essential that the same
transmit antenna is used for the calibration and testing.
3.4
Page 6 of 40
Normal:
This distribution can be assigned to uncertainties derived from multiple contributions.
For example, when a UKAS calibration laboratory provides a total uncertainty for an
instrument this will have been calculated at a minimum level of confidence of 95%
and can be assumed to be normal. The standard uncertainty of a contribution to
uncertainty with assumed normal distribution is found by dividing the uncertainty by
the coverage factor, k , appropriate to the stated level of confidence. For Normal
Distributions:
u ( xi ) =
uncertaint y
k
where k = 2 if the reported level of confidence is 95%. (Strictly speaking for a level of
confidence of 95%, k = 1.96, however, the difference this makes to the combined
uncertainty is not significant)
3.4.2
DRAFT
Rectangular:
This distribution means that there is equal probability of the true value lying
anywhere between the prescribed limits. A rectangular distribution should be
assigned where a manufacturer's specification limits are used as the uncertainty,
unless there is a statement of confidence associated with the specification, in which
case a normal distribution can be assumed. For Rectangular Distributions:
u( xi ) = ai
3
where a i is the semi-range limit value of the individual uncertainty contribution.
3.4.3
U Shaped:
This distribution is applicable to mismatch uncertainty[6]. The value of the limit for the
mismatch uncertainty, M, associated with the power transfer at a junction is obtained
2
from 20 log10 (1| G || L| )dB , or 100((1| G || L | ) - 1)% where G and L are
the reflection coefficients for the source and load. As stated in para 3.3.5, mismatch
uncertainty is asymmetric about the measured result, however, the difference this
makes to the total uncertainty is often insignificant and it is acceptable to use the
larger of the two limits ie 20 log10 (1 - | G || L | ) . For U-Shaped Distributions:
Page 7 of 40
u( x i ) =
3.4.4
M
2
Triangular:
This distribution means that there is greater probability of the true value lying
centrally between two prescribed limits. A triangular distribution should be assigned
where a the contribution has a distribution with defined limits and were the majority of
the values within the limits lie around the central point.
For triangular distributions:
u ( xi ) =
ai
6
3.5.1
Sensitivity Coefficients
DRAFT
In some cases the input quantity to the process may not be in the same units as the
output quantity. For example, the uncertainty in the measurement distance on an
open site should be converted to the uncertainty in the received signal strength. In
this case the input quantity is length, but the output quantity is electrical. It is
therefore necessary to introduce a sensitivity coefficient so that the output quantity
(y), can be related to the input quantity (xi). This sensitivity coefficient is referred to
as ci. The sensitivity coefficient is effectively a conversion factor from one unit to
another.
The relationship between the input quantity and the output quantity may not be
linear. The partial derivative f / xi can be used to obtain the sensitivity coefficient
and this is one of the reasons that mathematical modelling is used to describe
measurement systems. In practice the derivation of the partial derivatives can be
difficult and the effort involved is not always justified by the results obtained. A linear
approximation such as the quotient f/xi, where f is the change in f resulting from a
change xi in xi, is often sufficient.
3.5.2
Page 8 of 40
3.5.2
ui (y) = ci .u( xi )
Any contributions with known or suspected adverse correlation should be added
together, then for m contributions:
m
uc (y) =
u (y)
2
i
i= 1
3.6
DRAFT
U = k uc (y)
(b) The absence of a significant number of uncertainty components having wellbehaved probability distributions, such as normal and rectangular;
(c) Domination of the combined value by one component with an unknown
probability distribution. There is not a clear-cut definition of a dominant
Draft Edition 1 = February 2001
Page 9 of 40
component but a practical guide would be where one component was more than
five times greater than any other.
3.7
Reporting of result.
The extent of the information given when reporting the result of a test and its
uncertainty should be related to the requirements of the client, the specification and
the intended use of the result. The methods used to calculate the result and its
uncertainty should be available either in the report or in the records of the test
including:
(a) Sufficient documentation of the steps and calculations in the data analysis to
enable a repeat of the calculation if necessary
(b) All corrections and constants used in the analysis, and their sources.
(c) Sufficient documentation to show how the uncertainty is calculated.
When reporting the result and its uncertainty, the use of excessive numbers of digits
should be avoided. In most cases the uncertainty need be expressed to no more
than two significant figures (although at least one more figure should be used during
the stages of estimation and combination of uncertainty components in order to
minimise rounding errors).
DRAFT
Special cases
In exceptional cases, where a particular factor or factors can influence the results,
but where he magnitude cannot be either measured or reasonably assessed, the
statement will need to include reference to that fact, for example:
The reported expanded uncertainty is based on a standard uncertainty
multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2, providing a level of confidence of
approximately 95%, but excluding the effects of . . . . . .
Examples of this could be the effects of the semi-anechoic chamber and EUT
reflections in the older radiated immunity test methods or screened room in
emissions measurements for military EMC tests.
Page 10 of 40
4.1
ISO/IEC 17025 requirements state that where relevant, (e.g. when a product is tested
against a declared specification), then the report must contain a statement indicating
whether the results show compliance or non-compliance with the specification. When
the client or the specification requires a statement of compliance, there are a number
of possible cases where the uncertainty has a bearing on the compliance statement
and these are examined below.
4.2
Ideally the specification would clearly state that the measured result, extended by the
uncertainty at a given level of confidence, shall not fall outside a defined limit or
limits. However it is rare for this to be the case.
4.3
4.4
4.5
EMC testing is carried out on a very wide range of products intended for a variety of
applications. It is not therefore possible, or appropriate, for UKAS to recommend
standard rules for judging compliance. In the absence of any specified criteria, for
example as detailed above, the following approach is recommended:
DRAFT
(a) If the limits are not breached by the measured result, extended by the expanded
uncertainty interval at a level of confidence of 95%, then compliance with the
specification can be stated, (Case A, Fig 1 and Case E, Fig 2);
(b) Where an upper specification limit is exceeded by the result even when it is
decreased by half of the expanded uncertainty interval, then non-compliance with the
specification can be stated, (Case D, Fig 1);
(c) If a lower specification limit is breached even when the measured result is
extended upwards by half of the expanded uncertainty interval, then non-compliance
with the specification can be stated (Case H, Fig 2);
(d) If the measured value falls sufficiently close to a limit such that half of the
expanded uncertainty interval overlaps the limit, it is not possible to confirm
compliance or non-compliance at the stated level of confidence. The test result and
expanded uncertainty should be reported together with a statement indicating that
compliance was not demonstrated. A suitable statement to cover these situations
(Cases B and C, Fig 1 and Cases F and G, Fig 2) would be, for example:
Page 11 of 40
DRAFT
Page 12 of 40
Figure 2
DRAFT
Page 13 of 40
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Guide to the evaluation and expression of uncertainties associated with the results of
electrical measurements, Def Stan 0026/Issue 2 Sept 1988.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
Acknowledgements
ETSI
DRAFT
This revision was co-sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry's National
Measurement System Policy Unit through a project of work in the 1997-2000 Electrical
Programme at the National Physical Laboratory.
UKAS would like to acknowledge the contribution of Mr P Carter who provided the majority of
updated uncertainty budget examples in this document.
Page 14 of 40
DRAFT
Page 15 of 40
Symbol
Quantity
FS
Field Strength
Vr
LC
LAMN
dVsw
dVpa
dVpr
dVnf
dZ
Fstep
dM
RS
REUT
Units
Comment
DRAFT
Page 16 of 40
Symbol
Source of Uncertainty
Value
vi or
Probability
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
Vr
Receiver Reading
0.03
0.001
6.94444E-11
LC
Attenuation AMN-reciever
0.40
normal 2
2.000 1
0.20
0.040
0.00000016
0.20
normal 2
2.000 1
0.10
0.010
0.00000001
0.58
0.333
1.11111E-05
0.87
0.750
0.00005625
0.87
0.750
0.00005625
0.00
0.000
AMN Impedance
3.60
2.449 1
1.47
2.160
0.00046656
0.00
0.000
Mismatch
-0.89 U-shaped
1.414 1 -0.63
0.397
1.57601E-05
dZ
f
M
AMN+Cable 0.65
Measurement System Repeatability 0.50
triangular
normal 1
1.000 1
0.50
0.250
0.006944444
DRAFT
0.00
normal 1
1.000 1
normal
normal k=2.00
0.00
0.000
2.17
4.691
4.3
2915 0.007550546
2915
Page 17 of 40
Source of Uncertainty
Value
Probability
v or
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2 i
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
Vr
Receiver Reading
0.001
6.94444E-11
LC
Attenuation AMN-reciever
0.40
normal 2
2.000 1 0.20
0.040
0.00000016
0.20
normal 2
2.000 1 0.10
0.010
0.00000001
0.333
1.11111E-05
0.750
0.00005625
0.750
0.00005625
0.000
AMN Impedance
2.70
2.449 1 1.10
1.215
0.000147623
0.000
Mismatch
-0.89 U-shaped
0.397
1.57601E-05
0.00
triangular
1.414 1 -0.63
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
1.94
3.746
DRAFT
normal k=2.00
3.9
1941
0.006944444
0
0.007231608
1941
Page 18 of 40
Quantity
Units
Comment
Field Strength
dVpa
dB
dVpr
dB
dVnf
dB
dZ
AMN Impedance
dB
Fstep
dB
dM
Mismatch
dB
DRAFT
Page 19 of 40
Symbol
Quantity
Units
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB
REUT
Repeatability of EUT
dB
Comment
The repeatability of the measurement system is determined by
obtaining the standard deviation of a series of repeated
readings on a stable EUT (e.g. a noise source). It should
include typical variations that will occur in normal testing in
this example 10 readings were made. See section 3.2.5.
This will only need to be considered if the measured result is
close to the specification limit to the extent that variations due
to the EUT may affect compliance. See section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.
Symbol
Source of Uncertainty
Value
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
vi or
veff
ui^4(y)
Vr
Receiver Reading
0.03
0.001
6.94E-11
LC
Attenuation AMN-reciever
0.40
normal 2
2.000
0.20
0.040
1.6E-07
0.20
normal 2
2.000
0.10
0.010
1E-08
0.58
0.333
1.11E-05
0.87
0.750
5.63E-05
0.87
0.750
5.63E-05
0.00
0.000
2.70
2.449
1.10
1.215
0.000148
0.00
0.000
-0.89
-0.63
0.397
1.58E-05
dZ
DRAFT
AMN Impedance
Mismatch
Receiver VRC = 0.15
RS
0.00
triangular
U-shaped
1.414
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
1.94
3.746
normal
normal k=2.00
3.9
0.006944
0
1941
0.007232
1941
Page 20 of 40
Symbol
Quantity
FS
Field Strength
RI
dVsw
dVpa
dVpr
dVnf
AF
CL
AD
AH
AP
AI
SI
Units
Comment
DRAFT
Page 21 of 40
Symbol
Quantity
Units
DV
Measurement Distance
Variation
dB
Fstep
dB
Mismatch
dB
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB
REUT
Repeatability of EUT
dB
Comment
No correction is made for errors in the measurement distance
(between antenna and EUT). The uncertainty in received
signal strength in dB is obtained from an estimate of the
uncertainty in the measurement distance.
If using an automated receiver there is an error depending
on the frequency step size with respect to the measurement
bandwidth. This can be found by applying a known signal
to the receiver and adjusting the Generator frequency of the
signal to an offset from the receiver frequency to + and - half
the step size and noting the minimum amplitude change on
the receiver.
No correction is made for mismatch between the receiver
and the antenna plus cable. The uncertainty is derived from
a combination of the reflection coefficient magnitudes as
described in section 3.4.3.
The repeatability of the measurement system is determined
by obtaining the standard deviation of a series of repeated
readings on a stable EUT (e.g. a noise source). It should
include typical variations that will occur in normal testing in
this example 10 readings were made. See section 3.2.5.
This will only need to be considered if the measured result is
close to the specification limit to the extent that variations
due to the EUT may affect compliance. See section 3.2.2 and
3.2.3.
DRAFT
Page 22 of 40
Symbol
RI
Source of Uncertainty
Value
Probability
v or
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2 i
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
0.05
rectangular
1.732 1 0.03
0.001
6.94444E-11
1.00
normal 2
2.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.00000625
1.50
rectangular
1.732 1 0.87
0.750
0.00005625
1.50
rectangular
1.732 1 0.87
0.750
0.50
normal 2
2.000 1 0.25
0.063
0.00005625
3.90625E-07
0.250
0.00000625
0.063
3.90625E-07
0.083
6.94444E-07
0.000177778
0
AF
CL
AD
Receiver Indication
1.00
0.50
Antenna Directivity
0.50
normal 2
2.000 1 0.50
normal 2
2.000 1 0.25
rectangular
1.732 1 0.29
AH
2.00
rectangular
1.732 1 1.15
1.333
AP
0.00
rectangular
1.732 1 0.00
0.000
AI
SI
DV
0.25
4.00
Mismatch
0.60
triangular
1.732 1 0.14
2.449 1 1.63
0.021
4.34028E-08
2.667
0.000711111
0.120
rectangular
1.732 1 0.35
0.00000144
0
6.09653E-05
0.00
rectangular
1.732 1 0.00
0.000
-1.25
U-shaped
1.414 1 -0.88
0.781
RS
rectangular
DRAFT
0.50
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.00
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
2.72
7.381
normal
k=2.00
5.4
0.006944444
0.008022258
6791
6791
Page 23 of 40
Symbol
RI
Source of Uncertainty
Receiver Indication
Value
Probability
v or
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2 i
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
0.001
6.94444E-11
0.00000625
1.00
2.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.750
0.00005625
0.750
0.00005625
0.063
3.90625E-07
0.250
0.00000625
0.063
3.90625E-07
3.000
0.0009
0.083
6.94444E-07
1.11111E-05
CL
Cable Loss
AD
AH
0.50
1.00
0.50
Antenna Directivity
Antenna Factor Height Dependence
normal 2
normal 2
normal 2
normal 2
2.000 1 0.25
2.000 1 0.50
2.000 1 0.25
AP
0.333
AI
0.021
SI
DV
4.00
2.667
0.000711111
0.120
0.00000144
0.000
2.08578E-06
2.449 1 1.63
Mismatch
-0.54 U-shaped
RS
triangular
4.34028E-08
DRAFT
0.50
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.00
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
2.96
8.744
normal k=2.00
5.9
0.006944444
0.008696712
8792
8792
Page 24 of 40
Source of Uncertainty
Receiver Indication
Value
Probability
v or
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2 i
distribution
veff
normal 2
2.000 1 0.50
ui^4(y)
0.001
6.94444E-11
0.250
0.00000625
0.750
0.00005625
0.00005625
0.750
0.50
0.063
3.90625E-07
0.250
0.00000625
0.063
3.90625E-07
0.083
6.94444E-07
0.083
6.94444E-07
0.013
1.77778E-08
AF
CL
Cable Loss
AD
Antenna Directivity
AH
1.00
0.50
normal 2
normal 2
normal 2
2.000 1 0.25
2.000 1 0.50
2.000 1 0.25
AP
AI
0.021
SI
4.00
2.449 1 1.63
2.667
0.000711111
DV
0.053
2.84444E-07
0.053
2.84444E-07
2.08578E-06
DRAFT
Mismatch
-0.54 U-shaped
RS
triangular
4.34028E-08
0.50
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.00
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
2.34
5.494
normal k=2.00
4.7
0.006944444
0.007785442
3878
3878
Page 25 of 40
Quantity
Field Strength
Ambient Signals
RI
Receiver Indication
Units
Comment
dB
dB
dB
DRAFT
dB
Lc
Attenuation Clamp/receiver
dB
Lac
dB
dE
Effect of environment
dB
Mismatch
dB
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB
dB
Page 26 of 40
Source of Uncertainty
Value
Receiver Indication
Probability
v or
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2 i
distribution
veff
0.00
normal 2
2.000
1
1
1
1
1
0.03
0.58
0.87
0.87
0.00
ui^4(y)
0.001
6.94E-11
0.333
1.11E-05
0.750
5.63E-05
0.750
5.63E-05
0.000
0
6.25E-10
Lc
Attenuation Clamp/receiver
0.10
normal 2
2.000
0.05
0.003
Lac
3.00
normal 2
2.000
1.50
2.250
0.000506
dE
Effect of environment
0.213
4.55E-06
Mismatch
-0.63
1 -0.45 0.199
3.95E-06
0.2
RS
0.35
Measurement System Repeatability 0.50
0.00
u-shaped
1.414
0.46
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
2.10
4.414
normal
0.006944
0
2574
0.007572
DRAFT
normal k=2.00
4.20
2574
Page 27 of 40
2kV
Nominal
Min
Max
Tolerance in %
First
Peak Current Current
Current at 30ns at 60ns
7.5
4
2
6.75
2.8
1.4
8.25
5.2
2.6
DRAFT
10%
30%
30%
First
Peak Current Current
4kV
Current at 30ns at 60ns
Nominal
15
8
4
Min
13.5
5.6
2.8
Max
16.5
10.4
5.2
Tolerance in % 10% 30% 30%
First
Peak Current Current
6kV
Current at 30ns at 60ns
Nominal
22.5
12
6
Min
20.25
8.4
4.2
Max
24.75 15.6
7.8
Tolerance in % 10% 30% 30%
1st Peak
Worst Measured
30ns
Measured 60ns
First Peak case. Current at Worst Current at Worst
Current
+5%
30ns case. +5% 60ns case. +5%
15.1
14.35
8.95
9.40
4.17
4.38
13.5
5.6
2.8
16.5
10.4
5.2
Page 28 of 40
Tolerance.
%
10
10
10
10
10
Max.
kV
2.20
4.40
6.60
8.80
16.50
Min.
kV
1.80
3.60
5.40
7.20
13.50
INA426
kV
2.01
4.00
5.94
8.05
14.98
Measured Values
Max Min
Max Min
Value ValueINA424 Value Value
kV kV
kV
kV kV
2.04 1.98 1.99 2.02 1.96
4.05 3.95 3.94 3.99 3.89
6.01 5.87 5.85 5.92 5.78
8.14 7.96 7.94 8.03 7.85
15.14 14.82 14.82 14.98 14.66
DRAFT
Standard Parameters
T max.
1ns
T min
0.7ns
The comparison also needs to be performed for the positive discharge current, positive voltage and
positive rise times.
The tolerances in EN 61000-4-2:1995 are reduced by the uncertainty reported on the calibration
certificate for the measurement. If all the parameters are within the tolerances required by the
standard, reduced by the uncertainty reported on the calibration certificate, then the laboratory has
confidence that the ESD generator is compliance with the standard with a 95% confidence level.
If, as in the example above, the comparison shows that the ESD generator falls outside the tolerances
required by the standard, reduced by the uncertainty reported on the calibration certificate, then the
laboratory may have to adjust the generator so it did fit or report a reduced confidence level. It may
not always be possible to demonstrate that a generator is within the tolerances required by the standard
because of the magnitude of the uncertainties available from calibration laboratories.
The following is an example form of words that can be put on a test report to describe the procedure
followed.
It has been demonstrated that the ESD generator meets the specified requirements in the
standard with at least a 95% confidence.
Page 29 of 40
Quantity
FSM
FSAW
PD
PAH
FD
RS
Units Comment
Not applicable.
The repeatability of the measurement system is determined
by obtaining the standard deviation of a series of repeated
dB readings on a stable EUT. It should include typical
variations that will occur in normal testing. . See section
3.2.5.
This will only need to be considered if the measured result
is close to the specification limit to the extent that
dB
variations due to the EUT may affect compliance. See
section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.
DRAFT
Measurement System
Repeatability
Page 30 of 40
Symbol
Source of Uncertainty
Value
1.20
vi or
Probability
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2
distribution
veff
Normal 2
2.000 1 0.60
0.360
0.00001296
0.083
6.94444E-07
0.013
1.77778E-08
0.041
1.66736E-07
0.041
1.66736E-07
0.006944444
0.50
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.00
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
0.65
0.428
normal k=2.13
ui^4(y)
1.39
0
26
0.00694549
26
The above budget can be adapted to provide an estimation of the uncertainty using a dynamic feedback
mechanism, e.g. for IEC 801-3:1994 testing.
It should be noted that although this uncertainty appears to be less than the calibrated field example
above, the method itself is inherently less accurate due to the unknown influence of the unspecified
semi-anechoic chamber and the significant variations caused by reflections from the EUT. A
statement such as the uncertainty does not include the influence possible due to the semi-anechoic
chamber or the variations of measured field strength due to reflections from the EUT would help
to clarify that these influences are not accommodated within the specified method.
DRAFT
Dynamic feedback field level
Symbol
Source of Uncertainty
Value
vi or
Probability
Divisor ci ui(y)(ui(y))^2
distribution
veff
1 0.60
0.360
0.00001296
1 0.29
0.083
6.94444E-07
1 0.20
0.041
1.66736E-07
1 0.50
0.250
0.006944444
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
0.58
0.333
0.00
ui^4(y)
normal k=2.28
Specified
Level
(V/m)
1.37
0
16
0.006945139
16
Test
level
(V/m)
11.64
Page 31 of 40
Symbol
Quantity
Units dB
FM
rms Voltmeter
dB
FSAW
Window Measurement of
Voltage
dB
PD
dB
PAH
dB
CC
dB
SA
Spectrum Analyser
dB
Mismatch
dB
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB
REUT
Repeatability of EUT
dB
Comment
Specified for the measuring device for output rms of the RF
voltage.
Usually a set parameter to allow the software to accept a value
for field strength that is within an acceptable window of the
calibration level.
A function of the Signal Generator output level and long term
repeatability.
Contribution due to inclusion of amplifier distortion in power
meter reading.
Contribution from the calibration of the current coil.
Contribution from the spectrum Analyser absolute accuracy
and Frequency response.
The uncertainty is derived from a combination of the reflection
coefficient magnitudes.
The repeatability of the measurement system is determined by
obtaining the standard deviation of a series of repeated
readings on a stable EUT. It should include typical variations
that will occur in normal testing. See section 3.2.5.
This will only need to be considered if the measured result is
close to the specification limit to the extent that variations due
to the EUT may affect compliance. See section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.
DRAFT
Page 32 of 40
Symbol
FM
Source of Uncertainty
Value
rms Voltmeter
Mismatch
RS
Mismatch
1
1
1
0.40
0.29
0.12
2.668E-06
0.083
6.944E-07
0.013
1.778E-08
2.668E-06
2.086E-06
0.163
-0.54 U-shaped
1 -0.38 0.144
1.414
0.40
ui^4(y)
0.163
vi or
Probability
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2
distribution
veff
-1.16 U-shaped
1.414
1 -0.82 0.673
4.524E-05
Amplifier= 0.5
CDN+6dB attenuator= 0.25
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
1.22
1.490
0.00
normal
normal k=2.05
2.5
0.0069444
0
317
0.0069978
317
DRAFT
Limiting of pre-calibrated Conducted field level by monitor coil
Symbol
Source of Uncertainty
Value
Probability
v or
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2 i
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
SA
Spectrum Analyser
0.87
0.750
5.625E-05
CC
1.00
normal 2
2.000
0.50
0.250
6.25E-06
Mismatch
-0.26 U-shaped
1.414
1 -0.19
0.035
1.225E-07
Coil=
0.3
Cable=
0.1
Mismatch
-0.18 U-shaped
Cable=
0.1
Analyser=
RS
0.2
Measurement System Repeatability 0.50
0.00
1.414
1 -0.12
0.015
2.37E-08
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
1.14
1.300
normal
normal k=2.05
2.3
0.0069444
0
241
0.0070071
241
Page 33 of 40
Once the expanded uncertainty has been calculated then the value is related to the standard severity
level (e.g.3 Vrms) to provide an increased test level which accounts for the uncertainty in the test
configuration.
Test
level
(V)
For 1 Volts 1.33
Specified
Level
13.34
Limit
level
(mA)
6.67mA 8.73
Uo/150
20mA
26.18
60mA
78.53
DRAFT
Page 34 of 40
Symbol
Quantity
Units
VC
FR
VR
Oscilloscope Linearity
AR
AC
MA
Mismatch of attenuator
Comment
Imported accuracy from calibration/Specification of
Oscilloscope vertical amplifier (2% on Datasheet)
Estimation of the frequency response of the attenuator between
the 15MHz of the function generator and the estimated 75MHz
equivalent frequency of the EFTB output
Estimated Imported accuracy from calibration/specification of
Oscilloscope vertical amplifier
Derived from a series of measurements, calculating the mean
value of the attenuator multiplier and this resulting repeatability
from the standard deviation of multiplier results
Calculated in the first table below
DRAFT
TC
Timebase accuracy of
oscilloscope
OR
Oscilloscope risetime
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
Page 35 of 40
Calibration of Attenuator
Symbol
Source of Uncertainty
Value
Probability
v or
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2 i
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
FR
0.333
1.11E-05
VR
Oscilloscope Linearity
1.0
Normal 2
2.000 1 0.50
0.250
6.25E-06
AR
0.3
Normal 1
1.000 1 0.25
0.063
0.000447
2.38E-05
Mismatch of calibration
MFG
MOsc
MFG
MA
-0.99 U-shaped
-2.24 U-shaped
1.49E-06
0
0
0.000626
MA
MOsc
RS
0.5
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.006944
0.1
normal 1
1.000 1 0.09
0.007
6.17E-06
DRAFT
normal
1.94
normal k= 2.00
3.9
12659
Symbol
Source of Uncertainty
Value
Probability
v or
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2 i
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
VC
2.0
Normal 2
2.000 1 1.00
1.000
0.0001
VR
Oscilloscope Linearity
1.0
Normal 2
2.000 1 0.50
0.250
6.25E-06
AR
Normal 2
2.000 1 1.94
3.759
0.001413
U-shaped
0.001965
MEFT
MA
MA
MOsc
RS
3.9
Mismatch of EFTB Generator/Attenuator -2.98
VRC of EFTB Generator 0.2
VRC of Attenuator pair 0.075
Mismatch of Oscilloscope/Attenuator
-2.24
VRC of Attenuator pair 0.075
VRC Oscilloscope 0.15
Measurement System Repeatability
U-shaped
0.000626
0.5
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.006944
0.1
normal 1
1.000 1 0.14
0.019
3.84E-05
normal
normal k=2.00
13447
0.011094
Page 36 of 40
Source of Uncertainty
Value
TC
0.0
VR
Oscilloscope risetime
RS
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
Normal 2
2.000
0.0
0.01
vi or
veff
6.25E-14
0.000201
0.035156
-1.19
-1.417
normal 1
1.000
0.75
0.563
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
0.92
-0.855
normal k=2.13
ui^4(y)
0.000
normal
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
2.0
0
21
0.035357
21
Source of Uncertainty
Value
TC
0.0
VR
Oscilloscope risetime
RS
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
Normal 2
2.000
1
1
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
0.01
-0.34
vi or
veff
0.000
6.25E-14
-0.114
1.3E-06
DRAFT
0.0
normal 1
1.000
0.75
0.563
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
0.67
0.448
normal
normal k=2.65
ui^4(y)
1.8
0.035156
0
0.035158
Symbol
Source of Uncertainty
Value
TC
0.0
VR
Oscilloscope risetime
RS
0.0
0.0
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
Normal 2
2.000
rectangular 1.732
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
0.01
6.25E-14
1.03E-13
0.035156
-0.01
0.000
1.000
0.75
0.563
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
0.75
0.562
normal k=2.37
1.8
ui^4(y)
0.000
normal 1
normal
vi or
veff
0
9
0.035156
Page 37 of 40
Source of Uncertainty
Value
TC
0.0
VR
Oscilloscope risetime
RS
0.0
Measurement System Repeatability 0.8
0.0
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
vi or
veff
ui^4(y)
2.000
0.01
0.000
6.25E-14
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
0.035156
Normal 2
normal 1
1.000
0.75
0.563
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
0.75
0.563
normal
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
normal k=2.37
1.8
0
9
0.035156
Source of Uncertainty
Value
TC
0.0
VR
Oscilloscope risetime
RS
0.0
Measurement System Repeatability 0.8
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
Normal 2
2.000
rectangular 1.732
normal 1
1.000
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
0.01
vi or
veff
0.000
6.25E-14
0
0.035156
0.00
0.000
0.75
0.563
DRAFT
0.0
normal 1
1.000
normal
normal k=2.37
0.00
0.000
0.75
0.563
1.8
ui^4(y)
0
0.035156
Page 38 of 40
APPENDIX B
Calculation of kp
When random errors in a measurement system are comparable to the systematic errors the expanded
uncertainty calculated from U = kuc (y) may mean that the level of confidence is less than that
required, eg <95%, unless a large number of repeat readings have been made.
In these circumstances a coverage factor k p will need to be obtained from the t-distribution, based on
the effective degrees of freedom, v eff , of uc(y) and the required level of confidence.
The effective degrees of freedom is calculated from:
v eff =
u4c (y)
u (y) u (y) u43 (y)
u4m (y)
+
+
......+
v1
v2
v3
vm
4
1
4
2
The degrees of freedom, vi , of the standard uncertainties based on type B evaluation can be assumed
to be infinite in most cases but if the uncertainty is obtained from a limited number of data points or
observation then v i = n - 1, as in the case of the type A evaluations.
DRAFT
The value of k p is obtained from t-distribution tables for the appropriate level of confidence. The
following table gives values of k p for various degrees of freedom v eff for a level of confidence of 95%,
(actually 95.45%). Values of k p for other levels of confidence are given in reference [1]
veff
kp
13.97
10
20
50
4.53
3.31
2.87
2.65
2.52
2.43
2.37
2.28
2.13
2.05
2.0
The criteria given in para 6.3 to determine the need to use the procedure given in this Appendix is
based on the conclusion that if uc(y) / u(qk ) > 3 and all the other contributions are assumed to have
infinite degrees of freedom, then veff > 81 (34 ), giving a value for kp of less than 2.05, which can be
approximated by k = 2.
Page 39 of 40
APPENDIX C
Calculation of uncertainty in logarithmic or linear
quantities
Many measurements made for EMC testing are in terms of logarithmic quantities with their
uncertainties in dBs, test specifications are also given in these terms, e.g. dBV. However, other
measurements are made in linear terms with uncertainties in relative values, e.g. percentage or absolute
values. When an RSS evaluation is made to combine the uncertainty contributions the resulting
expanded uncertainty may be different depending on whether logarithmic or linear uncertainty
contributions have been used in the calculation.
Whether it is correct to combine uncertainties in linear form or logarithmic form will depend upon
whether their probability distributions can be better described in linear or logarithmic form. If the
uncertainties for the major contributions are supplied in terms of dB it can only be assumed that the
probability distribution that is assigned to them should also be in dBs. The RSS evaluation of the
combined uncertainty is then more accurately calculated if the uncertainty contributions remain as
logarithmic functions. Likewise, if the uncertainties for the major contributions are supplied in linear
terms then the uncertainty calculation is more correct using contributions in linear quantities.
It is important to note that when using a simplified approach to uncertainty calculations, that is one
where all the sensitivity coefficients are unity, the mathematical model when using relative
uncertainties must contain only multiplication or division of the contributions. The uncertainty budget
A12 in Appendix A is an example of this. The simple mathematical model for logarithmic quantities
must contain only additions or subtractions of the contributions. An example of this can be seen in
uncertainty budget A2.
DRAFT
Page 40 of 40