CISPR TR 16-3:2000/AMD1:2002
(Amendment)Amendment 1 - Specification for radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus and methods - Part 3: Reports and recommendations of CISPR
Amendment 1 - Specification for radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus and methods - Part 3: Reports and recommendations of CISPR
Contains a new clause 6: Reports on uncertainties in standardized emission compliance testing. Gives guidance to those who are involved in the development or modification of CISPR emission standards and gives useful background information for those who apply the standards in practice.
General Information
Relations
Buy Standard
Standards Content (Sample)
TECHNICAL
TR CISPR 16-3
REPORT
AMENDMENT 1
2002-06
Amendment 1
Specification for radio disturbance and immunity
measuring apparatus and methods –
Part 3:
Reports and recommendations of CISPR
Amendement 1
Spécifications des méthodes et des appareils de mesure
des perturbations radioélectriques et de l'immunité aux
perturbations radioélectriques –
Partie 3:
Rapports et recommandations du CISPR
IEC 2002 Droits de reproduction réservés Copyright - all rights reserved
International Electrotechnical Commission, 3, rue de Varembé, PO Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
Telephone: +41 22 919 02 11 Telefax: +41 22 919 03 00 E-mail: inmail@iec.ch Web: www.iec.ch
PRICE CODE
Commission Electrotechnique Internationale
T
International Electrotechnical Commission
Международная Электротехническая Комиссия
For price, see current catalogue
– 2 – TR CISPR 16-3 Amend. 1 IEC:2002(E)
FOREWORD
This amendment has been prepared by CISPR subcommittee A: Radio interference measure-
ments and statistical methods.
The text of this amendment is based on the following documents:
CDV Report on voting
CISPR/A/297/CDV CISPR/A/329/RVC
Full information on the voting for the approval of this amendment can be found in the report
on voting indicated in the above table.
The committee has decided that the contents of the base publication and its amendments will
remain unchanged until 2004. At this date, the publication will be
• reconfirmed;
• withdrawn;
• replaced by a revised edition, or
• amended.
A bilingual version of this publication may be issued at a later date.
_____________
Page 2
CONTENTS
Add the following after subclause 5.2:
6 Reports on uncertainties in standardized emission compliance testing
6.1 Introductory note
6.2 General and basic considerations
6.3 Voltage measurements
6.4 Radiated emission measurements
Page 239
Add the following new clause:
6 Reports on uncertainties in standardized emission compliance testing
6.1 Introductory note
Clause 6 of CISPR 16-3 is a collection of documents (reports) dealing with the issue of
uncertainties in standardized emission compliance tests.
The primary goal of this clause is to give guidance to those who are involved in the develop-
ment or modification of CISPR emission standards. In addition, this clause is useful
background information for those who apply the standards in practice.
TR CISPR 16-3 Amend.1 IEC:2002(E) – 3 –
Subclause 6.2 is still under consideration. Subclause 6.2 will contain details on the scope of
clause 6 and will present the general aspects of standards compliance uncertainty in emission
testing. To compensate for the absence of 6.2, this introductory note on uncertainties in
standardized compliance testing is given. This note can be deleted after subclause 6.2 is
included in clause 6.
The term Standards Compliance Uncertainty (SCU) is used to distinguish the associated
uncertainty contributions from those arising from the measurement instrumentation only.
In a standardized emission compliance test, the emission level of an electrical or electronic
product is measured, after which compliance with the associated limit is determined. The
measured level only approximates the true level to be measured, due to uncertainties in the
influence quantities. However, in classical metrology, all relevant influence quantities are
specified and the classical Measurement Instrumentation Uncertainty (MIU) can be identified.
In EMC compliance testing, very relevant influence quantities turn out to be non-specified,
while no quantitative information is available about their values. Hence, the estimate of the
associated uncertainty will, in general, differ significantly from the estimate following the
classical measurement uncertainty considerations. Therefore, the term Standards Compliance
Uncertainty (SCU) has been introduced to distinguish between the uncertainties encountered
during an EMC compliance test, and the classical Measurement Instrumentation Uncertainty
(MIU) used in metrology.
NOTE The measurement instrumentation uncertainty budgets of various CISPR emission tests are published in
CISPR 16-4.
Subclause 6.2 will give some general and basic considerations on the subject of SCU in
emission tests and can be considered as an ‘uncertainty handbook’ on uncertainties in
emission compliance testing. The following aspects will be addressed in this handbook.
a) The definition of SCU and that of some other relevant EMC and uncertainty specific terms.
b) The various classes of uncertainties that can be encountered for EMC testing and the
distinction between SCU and MIU.
c) Description of the steps to be taken to incorporate uncertainty considerations for a certain
purpose. In this subclause also, guidance is given on the application of SCU in the
compliance criterion.
The guidance given in this handbook shall be used when modifying existing or when drafting
new CISPR recommendations.
The result of the application of this handbook to existing or new CISPR recommendations will
lead to proposals to improve and harmonize the uncertainty aspects of these CISPR
recommendations. Such proposals will also be published as a report within this clause 6.
The structure of documents related to the CISPR SCU work is depicted in the figure below.
Report 6.2 (under consideration) is the first part dealing with the basic and general aspects of
the SCUs in EMC emission measurements. Subclause 6.3 contains the uncertainty
considerations related to voltage measurements. Subclause 6.4 is reserved for SCU-
consideration of radiated emission measurements.
Also for immunity tests, uncertainty work is projected. The SCU considerations of immunity
tests differ from the emission SCU considerations at particular points. For instance, for an
immunity test, the measurand is often a functional attribute of the EUT and not a quantity.
This may cause additional specific problems. The SCU documents related to immunity tests
will be published in a separate clause within CISPR 16-3.
– 4 – TR CISPR 16-3 Amend. 1 IEC:2002(E)
STANDARDS COMPLIANCE UNCERTAINTY
Clause 6 Clause 7
EMISSION IMMUNITY
6.2 General and basic considerations
7.1 General and basic considerations
6.3 Voltage measurements
7.2 Conducted immunity tests
6.4 Radiated emission measurements
7.3 Radiated immunity tests
7.4 ………….
IEC 1526/02
Figure 6.1-1 – Standards compliance uncertainty
6.2 General and basic considerations
Under consideration.
6.3 Voltage measurements
6.3.1 Introduction
This report deals with modeling of CISPR standardized voltage measurements in order to
identify the possible contributions to the standards compliance uncertainty, with the exception
of
a) product variability that is covered by the CISPR 80%/80% sampling procedure, and
b) test house induced uncertainties (see report 6.2).
After a discussion of the voltage measurement basics in 6.3.2.2, voltage measurements using
a voltage probe are discussed in 6.3.3. Voltage measurements using a V-terminal artificial
mains network applied to Class II appliances with only a mains cable are discussed in 6.3.4.
Additional voltage measurements, for example, those on appliances equipped with a
protective earth, appliances with more than one connected cable and appliances connected to
ancillary equipment are under consideration.
6.3.2 Voltage measurements (general)
6.3.2.1 Introduction
Subclause 6.3.2.2 presents a consideration of the voltage measurements basics, followed by
some remarks about voltage measurements using a voltage probe (6.3.3). After that, the most
commonly used conducted emission measurement is discussed, i.e. the emission
measurement using a V-type artificial mains network (6.3.4). Throughout the discussion, it is
assumed that the EUT is a two-terminal device: only one two-wire mains cable is connected to
the EUT. N-terminal devices (N > 2) with or without connections to ancillary equipment are
under consideration.
6.3.2.2 Voltage measurements basics
6.3.2.2.1 Specification of the measurement loop
A voltage is always measured between two specified terminals. Figure 6.3 -1 illustrates such
a measurement. U is the voltage of interest. The measurement leads transport the signal to
the terminals 3 and 4 of the load impedance Z formed by the input impedance of the
L
TR CISPR 16-3 Amend.1 IEC:2002(E) – 5 –
voltmeter, and U is the actual measured voltage. The EUT, leads and voltmeter load
impedance form a loop of which the contour is denoted by C, and the loop area by S.
C
S
Z U U Z
d 12 34 L
EUT Measurement leads Receiver
IEC 1527/02
Figure 6.3-1 – Basic circuit of a voltage measurement
In particular when the internal impedance of the disturbance source is unknown (as is usually
the case in compliance testing) care shall be taken that Z >>Z otherwise the measured
L d
voltage depends in an unknown way on Z , thus creating large contributions to the standards
L
compliance uncertainty. Consequently, Z has to be specified starting from estimated or
L
measured values of Z of the class of subject EUTs.
d
NOTE 1 Specifying only one terminal, the ‘hot’ terminal, and assuming that the other terminal can be any point
that is ‘grounded’ is only allowed in electrostatics, i.e. at d.c. (zero frequency) (see 6.3.3).
NOTE 2 Stray capacitances may limit the maximum value of Z (see 6.3.3).
L
6.3.2.2.2 Measurement loop constraint
The result of the voltage measurement has a physical meaning if, and only if, the circum-
ference of the measurement loop, the contour C, is electrically small, i.e. if the circumference
of the loop is small compared to the wavelength of the signal, or signal component to be
measured.
If this condition is not satisfied, resonance effects will occur, creating large and undefined
uncertainty contributions. These uncertainties may be reduced to an acceptable level placing
the load impedance close to the terminals where the voltage has to be measured and to
transport the measurement signal to the receiver via a transmission line, such as a coaxial
cable. The characteristic impedance of that line should match the input impedance of the
receiver. The possible mismatch is often expressed as a voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR).
See also 6.3.4.6.2.
If the condition ‘C electrically small’ is satisfied, the use of a lumped element equivalent
circuit to describe a voltage measurement is allowed. Unless indicated otherwise, it is
assumed that this condition has been satisfied.
6.3.2.2.3 The measured voltage
Faraday’s law is always applicable to a voltage measurement loop. For the loop given in
figure 6.3-1 this means that
v
v v
∂ v
E ⋅dl = − B ⋅ds (6.3-1)
∫ ∫∫
∂t
c S
v v
where the electric field E and the magnetic fluxBare generated by the disturbance source
inside the EUT, or by some ambient disturbance source. Unless specified otherwise, the latter
source is assumed to be negligibly small; for example, the measurement set-up is sufficiently
screened.
– 6 – TR CISPR 16-3 Amend. 1 IEC:2002(E)
From equation (6.3-1) it follows that the voltage U is given by
4 3 2
r
v v v v v v
∂ v
(6.3-2)
U = E ⋅dl =U − E ⋅dl − E ⋅dl − B ⋅ds
34 12
∫ ∫∫ ∫∫
∂t
3 1 4 S
where U is the voltage to be measured. In this equation the contribution of the magnetic field
term to U often dominates. Therefore, the voltage measuring method shall include a
sufficiently accurate description of the layout of the measuring leads.
A numerical example illustrating the importance of the influence of the physics described by
Faraday’s law on the measurand is given in annex 6.3-A.
Z
Z Z
dm1 dm2
½ U ½ U
dm dm
Z Z Z
13 cm 23
U
cm
IEC 1528/02
Figure 6.3-2 – Basic circuit of a loaded disturbance source (N = 2)
6.3.2.3 The disturbance source and types of voltage
At the interface the disturbance voltage is measured while the measurement loop constraints
are satisfied. The source creating that voltage can be described by a lumped element n-port.
Since differential-mode (DM) and common-mode (CM) phenomena are of importance, the
number of terminals of the n-port equals N + 1, where N is the actual number of terminals.
The additional terminal represents the surroundings of the source to which coupling via
electric and magnetic fields is possible and to which the source may have a galvanic
connection. It is the task of the standard drafter to define the surroundings in such a way that
this additional terminal is a relevant reference point in the voltage measurement.
In this section N = 2 is assumed, so that a three-terminal network results and the equivalent
circuit of figure 6.3-2 applies. An example of an EUT presenting an N = 2 disturbance source
is
a) an appliance with only a two-wire mains lead, and
b) the voltage is to be measured at the mains connector terminals.
TR CISPR 16-3 Amend.1 IEC:2002(E) – 7 –
U
dm
U
U
cm
U
IEC 1529/02
Figure 6.3-3 –Relation between the voltages
In figure 6.3-2, all elements are − in principle − frequency-dependent. Z and Z
dm1 dm2
represent the internal impedance of the equivalent DM source with open-circuit voltage U .
dm
In general, Z ≠ Z as at the frequencies of interest the circuit will seldom be
dm1 dm2
symmetrical. Z is the internal impedance of the equivalent CM source with open-circuit
cm
voltage U . The load is represented by the impedances Z and Z between the actual
cm 13 23
terminals 1 and 2 and the reference 3, and the impedance Z between the actual terminals.
Denoting the voltages across Z and Z by U and U , the relation between these voltages
13 23 13 23
and U and U , is given in figure 6.3-3.
dm cm
6.3.2.3.1 Interference probability
The DM- and the CM-conducted emission voltage level are, in general, a figure of merit for
the interference potential of an appliance when the main coupling mechanism to the victim is
crosstalk. In addition, the CM-conducted emission voltage level is generally also a figure of
merit when the main coupling mechanism is (far-field) radiation. However, in the latter case,
the CM current is generally a more direct figure of merit (see 6.3-B5). The so-called
unsymmetrical conducted emission levels U or U give, in general, no information about
13 23
the interference potential of an appliance. Additional information about the phase angle
between U and U is needed to convert these voltages into the relevant voltages U and
13 23 dm
U . So in compliance probability studies, both the DM and CM properties of the disturbance
cm
signal have to be considered.
6.3.2.3.2 C
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.