TDG11

TM
2011
EMC Test &
Design Guide
technologies
Grounding ......................................... 68
Lightning, Transients & ESD...... 52, 84
Shielding............................................ 68
Testing & Test Equipment.................. 8
industries & applications

Design................................................. 68
Military................................................ 84
Smart Grid.......................................... 60
Standards............................................. 8
directories
2012 EMC Test Lab Directory........... 26
Consultant Services......................... 31
Suppliers............................................ 40
interferencetechnology.com
Weve Bent The Rules
Our family of Radiant Arrow bent element antennas are

up to 75% smaller than standard log periodic antennas.
Covering 26 MHz to 6 GHz, these antennas produce the
necessary power levels to generate significant E-fields
for radiated susceptibility testing.
16,000 Watts of Pure Power
Stand back! Weve exceeded our old limits with the

new 16000A225 amp. It covers 10 kHz to 225 MHz
and delivers 16,000 watts of power.
Weve Pushed The Technology Envelope

We ripped that envelope wide open
with our small, lightweight
Solid State Hybrid
Power Modules.
They deliver high
output power
(up to 5 watts) across an
ultra-wide instantaneous
bandwidth (4 to 18 GHz).
Our New Dual Band Amplifiers

Break Down Old Barriers
With two amplifiers in a single

package, you can finally go all the
way from 0.8 to 18 GHz with the
reliability of solid state.
Our New EMI Receiver:

Amazing Speed, Incredible Accuracy
The CISPR-compliant DER2018 covers 20 Hz to 18 GHz and beyond.

It combines sensitivity, dynamic range and speed with a more
intuitive interface.
Accuracy, Linearity & Bandwidth.

Need We Say More?
Our two newest laser-powered E-Field probes,

FL7040 2 MHz to 40 GHz and FL7060
2 MHz to 60 GHz; each do the work of
multiple probes, with outstanding accuracy
and linearity.
All-In-One Fully Integrated Test Systems

More Power To You
Theyre smaller and lighter.

Yet our new S Series amps are
available from 0.8 to 4.2 GHz,
20 to 1200 watts and everything
in between.
Get more done in less time with everything right at

your fingertips. Since its all
provided by AR, you obtain
the best accuracy, lowest risk
and greatest support in a fully
tested system prior to shipping.
www.arworld.us
ISO 9001:2008
Certified
rf/microwave instrumentation
Other ar divisions: modular rf receiver systems ar europe
USA 215-723-8181. For an applications engineer, call 800-933-8181.
In Europe, call ar United Kingdom 441-908-282766 ar France 33-1-47-91-75-30 emv GmbH 89-614-1710 ar Benelux 31-172-423-000
Copyright 2011 AR. The orange stripe on AR products is Reg. U.S. Pat. & TM. Off.
contents 2011
ON THE COVER:
Artistic rendering of a probability
function graph (Page 49).
42
16
52
TESTING & TEST EQUIPMENT

Why So Many EMC Standards? ....................................8
steVE hayes, TRaC Global; Jack McFadden, Wyle Laboratories; Steve osteen,
Advanced Compliance Solutions, Inc.; KenNETH Wyatt, Wyatt Technical Services; and
DAVID ZIMMERMAN, Spectrum EMC Consulting
Automotive RF Immunity Test Set-Up Analysis:

Why Test Results Cant Compare.................................16
MART COENEN, EMCMCC bv; HUGO PUES, Melexis NV; and THIERRY BOUSQUET,
Continental
Time-Domain EMI Measurement System Up to 26 GHz

with Multichannel APD Measuring Function ..............42
Hassan Hani Slim, christian Hoffman, Stephan Braun and ARND FRECH,
gAUSS Instruments GmbH; JOHANNES A. RUSSER, Institute for Nanoelectronics,
Technische
surge & transients
26
SPECIAL
FEATURE
2012 EMC test

lab directory
More than 300 EMC Test
Laboratories, arranged
geographically, with
details of services offered
and contact phone
numbers, are presented
as a quick reference guide
to EMC testing services.
Transient Voltage Suppressors (TVS) for Automotive

Electronic Protection .....................................................52
SOO MAN (SWEETMAN) Kim, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.
interference technology
emc test & design guide 2011
contents 2011
60
84
68
SMART GRID
EMC and the Smart Grid...............................................60
William A. Radasky, Metatech Corporation
DESIGN
Designing Electronic Systems for EMC: Grounding for
the Control of EMI...........................................................68
William G. DUFF, SEMTAS Corporation
Electrostatic discharge
Departments
06
Editorial
26
Test Lab
Directory
96
Index of
Advertisers
A Comparison between Gelatinous and Tacky Coated

Type Packaging Carriers.................................................84
Robert J. vermillion, RMV Technology Group, LLC, and DOUG SMITH, DC Smith
Consultants
InterferenceTechnologyThe EMC Directory & Design Guide, The EMC Symposium Guide, and The EMC Test & Design Guide are distributed annually at no charge to qualified
engineers and managers who are engaged in the application, selection, design, test, specification or procurement of electronic components, systems, materials, equipment, facilities or
related fabrication services. To be placed on the subscriber list, complete the subscription qualification card or subscribe online at InterferenceTechnology.com.
ITEM media endeavors to offer accurate information, but assumes no liability for errors or omissions in its technical articles. Furthermore, the opinions contained herein do not necessarily
reflect those of the publisher.
ITEMTM, InterferenceTechnologyThe EMC Directory & Design GuideTM, and Interference Technology.comTM are trademarks of ITEM media and may not be used without
express permission. ITEM, InterferenceTechnologyThe Annual EMC Guide, The EMC Symposium Guide, The EMC Test & Design Guide and InterferenceTechnology.com,
are copyrighted publications of ITEM media. Contents may not be reproduced in any form without express permission.
Cant find what you need? Click here to fill out Custom Filter Requirements form.
from the editor

We Are the (Engineering) world
lectromagnetic interference knows no borders, so an

international collaboration seems to make the most sense
when it comes to tackling the issues confronting the
EMC industry, from testing standards to job qualifications. Of
course, this sentiment is also logistically impractical and clearly
not a reflection of reality, but there are some areas where an
international approach is being applied.
Take, for instance, Germanys efforts to reverse its engineering shortage.

About 76,200 engineering jobs are vacant in Germany, according to a recent
assessment by the Association of German Engineers (VDI), and the nations
leaders have employed two approaches to address the problem: facilitating
cross-border recruiting and targeting the promotion of young talent in the
field.
To make it easy for engineers to move around Europe, engineering associations
and other groups across Europe are working with the European Commission
to launch the new Engineering Card. The card, which German engineers
can apply for now and other countries are planning to launch, provides
standardized information about the engineers qualifications and skills for
greater transparency. Setting comparable standards helps remove barriers in
changing jobs between individual member states and emphasizes professional
mobility.
To accomplish the second aim of increasing the numbers of young people
entering the field, the German engineering associations are spearheading
several promotional initiatives targeting young students and are also lobbying
lawmakers to establish a nationwide educational policy for teaching technology
in primary and secondary schools.
Such an approach, useful for all countries, is also being expanded to the
recruitment of girls and women, populations that are still under-represented
in engineering. More and more initiatives are encouraging young women to
be enthusiastic about technology and not be guided by old gender roles. As
more role models in the form of professional engineers report on their career
development in lectures, workshops and information sessions around the
globe, the message will continue to sink in to everyones benefit.
For the first time this year, Interference Technology is also expanding its scope,
by including international listings in its EMC Test Laboratory Directory, which
begins on Page 26. Common sense tells us that most engineers and designers
prefer to use local testing facilities so our easy-to-use directory of labs and
their services are grouped alphabetically by geography.
However, this first effort is far from complete. If you own or work for an EMC
test lab and we have missed you or omitted one of your services, please let us
know. Well continue to update the digital edition of the directory throughout
the year. You can e-mail your additions, revisions, and suggestions to me at
slong@interferencetechnology.com.
Sarah Long
Editor
S u b s c r i p t i o n s
ITEM, InterferenceTechnologyThe EMC Directory & Design Guide, The EMC Symposium Guide, The EMC Test & Design Guide and The Europe
EMC Guide are distributed annually at no charge to engineers and managers who are engaged in the application, selection, design, test, specification
or procurement of electronic components, systems, materials, equipment, facilities or related fabrication services. Subscriptions are available through
interferencetechnology.com.
2011 EMC
Test & Design Guide
Editor
Sarah Long
Editorial Assistant
Cait ODriscoll
Graphic Designer
Ann Schibik
Marketing Specialist
Jacqueline Gentile
Business Development Manager
Bob Poust
Business Development Executives
Tim Bretz Daryl McFadyen
Leslie Ringe Jan Ward
Administrative Manager
Eileen M. Ambler
Administrative Assistants
Karen Holder Irene H. Nugent
Product Development Manager
Helen S. Flood
ITEM
Publisher Emeritus
Robert D. Goldblum
President
Graham Kilshaw
Publisher
Paul Salotto
USA
1000 Germantown Pike, F-2
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Phone: (484) 688-0300
Fax: (484) 688-0303
info@interferencetechnology.com
www.interferencetechnology.com
china, taiwan, hong kong
Beijing Hesicom Consulting Company
Lily Liu
+86-010-65250537
E-mail: service@leadzil.com
JAPAN
TV SD Ohtama, Ltd.
Midori Hamano
+81-44-980-2092
E-mail: m-hamano@tuv-ohtama.co.jp
ITEM MEDIA endeavors to offer accurate information,
but assumes no liability for errors or omissions.
Information published herein is based on the latest
information available at the time of publication.
Furthermore, the opinions contained herein do not
necessarily reflect those of the publisher.
ITEM TM, InterferenceTechnology and
InterferenceTechnology.comTM are trademarks of
ITEM MEDIA and may not be used without express
permission. ITEM, InterferenceTechnology and
InterferenceTechnology.com are copyrighted
publications of ITEM MEDIA. Contents may not be
reproduced in any form without express permission.
Copyright 2011 ITEM MEDIA ISSN 0190-0943
emc Directory & design guide 2011
Stay current with the latest EMC/EMI news,

standard updates, technical articles,
product news, and industry events.
Join the growing number of subscribers subscribe online today.
Your online resource for EMC/EMI information.
Publishing Careers With
www.itempubs.com
testing / standards
W h y S o M a n y EMC S ta n d a r d s ?
Why Are There So Many EMC Standards?

Industry experts ponder this and other standards-related issues
Steve Hayes
TRaC Global, Worcestershire, United Kingdom
JACK McFADDEN
Wyle Laboratories, Huntsville, Alabama, USA
STEVE OSTEEN
Advanced Compliance Solutions, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA
Kenneth Wyatt
Wyatt Technical Services, Woodland Park,
Colorado, USA
David zimmerman
Spectrum EMC Consulting, Eagan, Minnesota
ctober 2011 sees the end of the transitional period from previous versions
of EN55022 to the latest version,
which now requires testing above 1 GHz for
the first time. At the same time, beginning
of October 2011, the Official Journal of the
European Union listing the harmonized
standards for the EMC Directive has also
been updated. Notable (and predicted) is
the inclusion of both generic standards for
emissions (EN61000-6-3 and -4). Both these
standards now include emission requirements above 1 GHz in the same way that
EN55022 has. While the transitional period
for EN55022 has just ended, it has just begun for the generic standards, making them
mandatory only from January 2014. (See
box on Page 10 for more on EMC testing
above 1 GHz).
This issue recently inspired Steve Hayes,
CEng MIET, managing director for EMC
8
and safety at TRaC Global Ltd., to pose a

question to his colleagues on LinkedIn,
asking: Is this transitional period, where
a manufacturer can choose to use either
standard to demonstrate compliance to the
EMC Directive, too long? After all, the product churn in todays world is largely much
faster than this and, hence, manufacturers
may see at least another product launch
before above-1 GHz test requirements are
required. Equally, the protection of the
RF spectrum will be under pressure while
millions of new products enter the market
without any control of their electromagnetic
emissions for another two years.
Interference Technology invited Jack
McFadden, senior project engineer at Wyle
Laboratories; Steve OSteen, EMC director
at Advanced Compliance Solutions, Inc.;
Ken Wyatt of Wyatt Technical Services; and
David Zimmerman, president of Spectrum
EMC Consulting, to expand on this and
other questions posed by Hayes.
HAYES: Is the transitional period from old
to new standards too long?
zimmerman: This is an excellent point,
and a shortcoming of the European Union
EMC compliance system, in my opinion. In
fact, there are other product family standards that will lag behind in the emission
requirement above 1 GHz, and some may
not change in the next 10 years. In answer
to the question, in many cases, the time
between the need for testing, and the date
that a standard exists that requires testing,
is too long to ensure that EMC conflicts
testing / standards
are avoided.
OSTEEN: The product churn cycle is a significant variable
which will vary widely across all industries so I would not
dismiss it so easily. There needs to be balance between whats
economically prudent for the manufacturer and technically
responsible in the interests of EMC. Equipment manufacturers are still held responsible for any interference caused by
their equipment and are forced to resolve field complaints
whether the interference is above 1 GHz or not.
I think the current two-year transition is adequate to
allow the manufacturer to complete the redesign and address any compliance concerns during preliminary reviews.
Large manufacturers who have their own compliance labs
and permanent compliance staff are aware of the coming
requirements and will typically get a jump on any issues
which would be necessary due to their broad product line.
Smaller manufacturers with fewer internal compliance
resources will have to resort to alternate means via their
local independent compliance lab, which would likely introduce some additional delay during the transition. From
the perspective of the small independent compliance test
lab, this particular example (EN61000-3 and -4) is not a
concern, considering most labs have already completed the
site validation above 1 GHz for EN55022:2006 + A1:2007.
Any new revision of a standard that requires radical changes
in the way a test is performed or in the way equipment is
being used or introduces the need for a new category of test
equipment could certainly require a significant amount of
the transition time.
STEVE HAYES is managing director for the EMC and Safety

business of TRaC Global in Worcestershire, United Kingdom, and
has been involved in EMC and product approvals for 19 years. In
addition to being the UK principal expert on EMC standardization
of Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) products, he is also the
convenor of CISPR/B/WG1 who has the responsibility of writing the
International standard, CISPR 11. Hayes wrote the CE marking annex
to the UKs defense EMC standard, and was co-convenor of CENELEC
TC210/ WG9, responsible for writing a guide on approval of military
systems with commercial requirements.
JACK McFADDEN is senior project engineer at Wyle Laboratories in Huntsville, Ala., where he provides customer support in the
field of electromagnetic interference/compatibility: generate quotes,
develop budget, test schedule, create test plans/test procedures/
reports, technician work instruction/direction, software validation,
training, and mitigation as needed. McFadden served as chair of
the Huntsville chapter of the IEEE EMC Society in 2010-2011. He a
certified EMC engineer through iNARTE.
STEVE OSTEEN is EMC Director at Advanced Compliance
Solutions, Inc. and is responsible for EMC-related issues and support at all ACS compliance facilities. OSteen has worked in EMC and
Product Safety disciplines for 20 years, which were divided among
independent compliance facilities as well as on the manufacturing
side. Currently, OSteen devotes much of his time to standards and
equipment research, test plan and test procedure generation, EMC
training and compliance mitigation issues. He also takes the lead
role when out-of-scope requests are issued requiring standards
and equipment research.
wyatt: From the manufacturers and test labs point of

view, a two to three year transition period is good in that
it provides a defined length of time to procure new equipment (typically, long lead times to develop budgets, evaluate
equipment, etc.), and update test procedures. More importantly for the manufacturers, because the EU does not
allow grandfathering of existing products, this provides
sufficient time to re-qualify existing products with longer
lifetimes. Not all product lives are measured in months.
KENNETH WYATT is senior EMC engineer at Wyatt Technical Services, LLC, in Woodland Park, Colo. Wyatt has worked as a
product development engineer for 10 years at various aerospace
firms on projects ranging from DC-DC power converters to RF and
microwave systems for shipboard and space systems. He spent
most of his career as a Sr. EMC engineer for Hewlett-Packard and
Agilent Technologies. A prolific author and presenter, he has written
or presented topics, including RF amplifier design, RF network analysis software, EMC design of products and use of simple tools and
techniques to troubleshoot radiated emission, ESD and RF immunity.
HAYES: Do you think the limits in EMC standards are too

onerous? You can put a mobile phone (acknowledged as
generating a high RF field) next to a PC or mobile electronic gadget without electrical interference occurring.
Based on this, could the limits be increased?
wyatt: The example specified may be true in some cases,
but not necessarily for all products. For example, products
with sensitive analog circuitry, such as measuring equipment, medical products and sensors, are very likely to be
affected by mobile phones and two-way radios or other
ambient signals.
DAVID ZIMMERMAN is an EMC engineer and president

of Spectrum EMC Consulting in Eagan, Minn. Zimmerman offers
consulting for the improvement of operations at EMC laboratories
by increasing the accuracy of measurements, and streamlining
processes resulting in higher efficiency; training in the performance
of EMC testing and EMC standards at customer sites; coordination
and oversight of product testing at any EMC test facility; writing test
procedures and reports to a wide variety of EMC standards; and
generating technical files for EMC Directive requirements.
zimmerman: I would have to agree with the general consensus that the limits are properly set. A lot of work goes
into determining what the limits should be. In fact, there are
standards committees that are hard at work to make testing
to these limits more thorough. Things like testing all sur10
Solve Your Systems Needs
Fully Integrated Test Systems

Solutions For Any Application from DC to 50 GHz
Whether you choose one of our standard test systems or have AR build a system to your specs youll be amazed at
how easy, accurate, efficient, and affordable testing can be. Everything you need is right at your fingertips. It all works together perfectly,
because everything has been carefully selected and assembled by AR engineers, using the most dependable and most innovative
equipment on the market today.
Why An AR System Is The Smart Way To Test:
No company has more experience and expertise in

EMC test equipment than AR
Reduced Test Time get products to market faster
Increased Accuracy
Lower Risk
Performance Guarantee AR manufactures the majority of the system

components allowing us to match and guarantee their performance
Everything is fully tested before being shipped
Single source for support & service
More Compact & Portable everything can be on one platform.
AR can deliver a solution that integrates all your testing needs: radiated immunity, conducted immunity,
conducted emissions, radiated emissions, electrostatic discharge, lightning simulation whatever you need.
We have the expertise and experience to supply turn-key and fully automated systems needed to test various
standards including IEC 61000, MIL-STD 461 and 464, DO-160, wireless, automotive, HIRF and HERO.
www.arworld.us
ISO 9001:2008
Certified
testing / standards
faces of an EUT, and bore sighting of
the antenna above 1 GHz for example.
OSTEEN: No. In the example above, you
give one possible interference source
and one receptor for which general
rules should not be based. Compliance
levels and performance criteria should
be based on historical data and sound
engineering judgment and should apply to new standards as well as revised
standards. Again, a balance must be
achieved between the manufacturers
desire to market their products and
their compliance responsibilities.
HAYES: Why are the automotive EMC
standards so different from commercial ones given that the environment
is the same? The basic premise that in
a vehicle electrical noise is generated
by the spark ignition system and the
limits are set based on interference
to only the FM radio band seem
somewhat dated.
mcfadden: I need to start with the
questions premises that given that
the environment is the same. I do not
agree with this premise. The environment is different. It would be easier
if everything was black and white, if
one size could really fit all. The world
exists with various shapes, sizes and
colors. There are vast environmental
differences between the automotive
and most commercial industries. One
example, an engine control unit (ECU)
operating temperatures are minimum
of -40C to a maximum of +150C,
reference SAE J1211, Table 1. The typical commercial products have a much
more benign temperature operating
range. I will not take the time to go into
detail to discuss the commercial vs.
automotive industry differences within
the power bus, grounding schemes and
etc. Just keep in mind, temperature
itself alters the behavior of electronic
components.
Just as there are differences within
the thermal environment, there are
also differences within the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic
spectrum varies from one location to
another location. As an experiment,
take a look at analog compass as you
pass over a bridge or go through a
12
EMC Testing above 1 GHz

For more infor mation on
EN55022:2006 +A1:2007 and its
new requirements, see Steve Hayes
article, EMC Testing above 1
GHz: The Deadline Looms, in the
Interference Technology 2012 Europe EMC Guide. Download a pdf
at www.interferencetechnology.eu.
You will find the article under the
United Kingdom section.
toll booth. The needle in the analog

compass will lose magnetic north for
a brief period then return to normal
after the magnetic disturbance has
passed. Electronic compasses may also
be affected but it depends on their update rate, time within the disturbance
area and the embedded software used
within the electronic compass. The
premise that the vehicle noise is limited to just concerns from the ignition
firing (spark) effect on the radio is no
longer true. It has not been true since
the dawn of the electronic ignition. The
electrical/electronic sub-components,
sensors and modules are placed all over
the vehicle. Windows open through
the activation of a switch. The vehicle
doors lock or open with press of a button. Airbags deploy when the vehicle
system senses a crash. Some vehicles
can actually speak to you, give you
directions and make phone calls. The
vehicle technology has drastically increased over the past few decades. As
the technology has increased, so has
the complexity of the vehicle, causing the electromagnetic compatibility
concerns to grow. For example, airbags
deployment must be during a crash and
the airbags should not deploy as you
drop off someone at the airport. Yet the
automotive technology successes have
been so pervasive that the vehicles
quality and reliability are often taken
for granted.
Even if we were to visit Alice in
Wonderland and the environment
was truly the same you need to answer this question. What is the risk
if there is a susceptibility condition?
Going back to the case of the analog

compass; you will see a momentary

deviation from normal operation with
the compass (product) returning to
normal operation after the disturbance
has passed. It may be inconvenient but
it is not life threatening. Now what if
the automobiles operation was affected
(susceptible) to its environment? What
is the worst possible outcome? The
vehicle accelerates without driver action and crashes into another vehicle.
So the risk between most commercial
products and automotive industry is
different. The automotive standards
need to be set higher to account for
this risk (and they are). If we were to
prescribe to one size fits all then
we would need to raise the universal
standard to the represent the highest
(worse case) risk. We would be, in effect, adding cost to the commercial
products without value. The value
the individual standards have is that
they permit the industry to address
their individual needs. You tailor your
product requirements to meet needs of
its intended environment in order to
reduce the risk. Or in other words, the
individual standards are designed for
safe and proper operation of the product within its intended environment.
wyatt: I would disagree the environments are the same for office versus
field. More and more automotive products today use fly by wire technology
with a myriad of microprocessor-based
subsystems. Hey, even the transmission on my truck has its own processor! Because rapidly moving vehicles
can quickly turn into deadly weapons,
safety standards (and corresponding
EMC standards) are necessarily more
stringent. There have been numerous incidents where poorly shielded
vehicles have developed operational
issues (braking, cruise control, etc.)
due to aftermarket two-way radios
being installed.
zimmerman: This appears to be another case where standards take a path
of their own based on the committee
that is writing them. These standards
are driven in large part by the manufacturers and not the consumers. From
my limited experience in this area, it
seems that as long as the equipment
testing / standards
category. Getting all of the industry experts to agree on

common limits, performance criteria and methods would
not be feasible. All of these Product Specific Standards are
typically not written exclusive to one environment but are
focused on a category of equipment but more importantly,
its the performance criteria that separates these categories.
Could you imagine a Product Specific Standard that would
apply to all devices employed in a residence, taking into account for the variety of test levels, variety of test methods
and performance criteria would result in an unnecessarily
complex and unmanageable standard.
In addition, standard writing committees are constantly
addressing the need to revise current Product Specific Standards in an effort to address compliance concerns for new
technologies that happen to fall within the scope of that
standard. These new environment-based standards would
be in constant revision and release and would continue to
lag behind the technology curve. I can certainly see the appeal of the environment-based standard system, but I dont
think each of these standards could effectively address the
specific requirements and concerns associated with each
product type found in that environment.
installed in vehicle does not interfere with the other installed

equipment, there is no need for concern about interference
beyond that which is known.
HAYES: Why are there so many EMC standards? Surely
the environment is the same whether you use a toaster or
PC in the home, yet the test standards (and in some cases,
limits) are different. Could a one standard fits all based
on environment be produced? Imagine the savings that
could be made not having to investigate which standard
is the most appropriate.
wyatt: I believe there has been a trend in harmonizing
many standards. I know this was moderately high on our
agenda when I was serving on a standards working group.
There will always be differences in certain products, I suppose. From a manufacturers point of view, its sometimes
difficult to figure out the appropriate standard to use for a
given product type, however, Ive found that most test labs
or consultants can assist with this. When all else fails, there
ARE the generic standards.
OSTEEN: In my opinion, this would be very difficult to accomplish based on the engineering time and expertise devoted to tailoring the Product Specific Standards to address
potential issues and performance criteria for each product
14
mcfadden: The environment is not the same. The environment of a toaster and personal computer (PC) in the home
has some similarities but they are truly different upon closer
inspection. The similarities are the utility power and the
general location (home). Most toasters do not have intentional frequency generators within the circuitry. The
typical toaster has one input power cable connecting it to
the power bus. They are more electrical in design rather
than electronic. The PC typically has several intentional
frequency generators within its circuitry. It is a digital
(electronic) device. The PC has multiple cable connections bringing it to printers, Ethernet, monitors and etc.
It can generate interference over a larger spectrum than
the typical interference measured from a toaster. The
PC can also be affected by interference from a larger
spectrum than a typical toaster. The toaster and PC may
share the same home, but its reaction and its impact to
its environment is completely different.
If the environment is not the same and the products
function/operation are not the same is it possible to make
one universal standard? I believe all things are possible,
but many are improbable. It is possible to generate one
universal standard. The question that should be answered
is what would be the cost of the universal standard?
Would the universal standard be a value added or will
the universal standard generate additional cost without
benefit? It comes down to determining acceptable risks.
The regulating bodies and industry have determined
that individual standards that tailor products to specific
categories are the most effective way to keep the desired
product quality while keeping the cost aligned. This leads
to a great deal of confusion when you are searching for
the appropriate standard. Many times the governing standard will reference another common standard to require

testing / standards
INT E RF E R E N C E T E C HNOL O G Y
certainly get at least as many different standards as there

are groups writing them.
the product to be tested with these specific tests at these

specific levels (limits) while using this other standards
methodology. This is true for the EN 55011, Industrial,
scientific and medical (ISM) radio-frequency equipment
Electromagnetic disturbance characteristics Limits
and methods of measurements; and EN55024, Information
technology equipment Immunity characteristics Limits
and methods of measurement and a host of others.
If you wanted to develop one universal standard then you
would require acceptance and input from all of the regulating bodies as well as all of the industries. The industries
concerns regarding their products are highly exclusive.
Their concern is only for their particular product(s). Now
consider the logistics of bringing all the industries and all
the regulating bodies, then have them willing to be inclusive. You are going against human nature and it is going to
be painful. If you have had any experience in attempting to
achieve consensus with a small body of people, imagine the
challenge of getting a global industries and their regulating
bodies to agree. I am not saying it is impossible. I believe it
could be done. I just believe it is improbable.
HAYES: Will ISO and IEC ever align their test methods,
limits and procedures? Surely we dont need multiple
ways of assessing the same issue electrical interference?
wyatt: Well, I sure hope so, for the sake of everyones
sanity.
zimmerman: The likelihood of this happening is not great.
Peace in the Middle East has a similar chance of happening
in our lifetime. Standards writing bodies have a lot of pride
and defend their positions with great zeal. If you check
the About ISO Web page, you will see that it starts by
stating ISO is the worlds largest developer and publisher
of International Standards. Size matters. If you go to the
About IEC Web page, you will find this statement: The
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is the
worlds leading organization that prepares and publishes
International Standards for all electrical, electronic and related technologies. So the IEC is the world leader. You can
see where these two groups will not want to concede their
ranking. Would it make sense to align these test methods?
The general consensus would be a resounding yes, but this
does not mean that it will happen anytime soon. n
zimmerman: The problem is that there are many differing

opinions about what tests and limits are needed for a given
environment. As long as there are two or more groups
writing a standard for a given environment you will most
ADVANCE D T E S T S E R V I C E S
Use of this U.S. DoD image does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
NVLAP LAB CODE 200816-0
EMI/EMC/HIRF Test Services for Aerospace and Defense

L-3 Cincinnati Electronics experienced and NARTE-certified staff provides turnkey solutions,
including comprehensive procedures and reports that complement extensive automated MIL-STD-461
and RTCA/DO-160 test capabilities. Our modern facilities include technologically advanced
reverberation and semi-anechoic chambers, and our mobile services provide customers the added
convenience of on-site testing.
Contact us at 1-800-543-8220 or EnvSvcsSales.CE@L-3com.com.
Cincinnati Electronics
L-3com.com
15
testing & test equipment
A u t o m o t i v e RF I m m u n i t y Te s t S e t - u p A n a ly s i s :
W h y Te s t R e s u lt s C a n t C o m par e
Automotive RF Immunity Test Set-up

Analysis: Why Test Results Cant Compare
Mart Coenen
EMCMCC bv
Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Hugo Pues
Melexis NV
Tessenderlo, Belgium
Thierry Bousquet
Continental
Toulouse, France
ABSTRACT
hough the automotive RF emission
and RF immunity requirements are
highly justifiable, the application of
those requirements in an non-intended
manner leads to false conclusions and
unnecessary redesigns for the electronics
involved. When the test results become too
dependent upon the test set-up itself, interlaboratory comparison as well as the search
for design solutions and possible correlation
with other measurement methods loses
ground. In this paper, the ISO bulk-current
injection (BCI) and radiated immunity (RI)
module-level tests are discussed together
with possible relation to the DPI and TEM
cell methods used at the IC level.
Keywords: Bulk Current injection (BCI),
Radiated Immunity (RI), Direct Power Injection (DPI), TEM cell, wire harness, automotive module, Electronic Control Unit (ECU)
and Electronic Sub-Assembly (ESA)
I. INTRODUCTION
The increasing use of electronics in vehicles
16
requires a very high level of reliability to

assure the safety of the vehicle occupants
as well as all other road users. Aside all
mechanical vibration, thermal and moisture
requirements, the new sensors and active
actuators used have to be robust against
the electromagnetic threats which originate
from causes both within and around the
vehicle. Already in the past, RF emission and
immunity requirements were set by ISO, in
particular by TC22/SC3/WG3 who deals
with electromagnetic interference. Due to
the growing use of these requirements, it is
increasingly important to avoid faulty application and interpretation of them. This
has a two-fold drawback:
Module compliance doesnt necessarily
mean in-vehicle compliance after integration and
Compliance to over-testing over a large
range has an inverse impact on economics
The playing field is wide and involves
car-manufactures as well as the Electronic
Control Unit (ECU) and Electronic SubAssembly (ESA) manufactures, down to
the silicon design to achieve a more integral
economic solution.
New vehicle developments like using
non-conductive composite materials, zero
emission exhaust requirements for combustion motors, the introduction of the
hybrid motor or full electric vehicle put an
ever higher burden on economics as well as
safety reliability for the electronics used.
The RF immunity requirements have
therefore been extended beyond the 30 V/m,
2011, University of Zagreb
emc Test & design guide 2011
Fully Automated EMC Testing

Easier & Better Than Ever.
With More Control And A More Intuitive Interface.

ARs new SW1007 software performs Radiated Susceptibility and Conducted Immunity tests automatically. So thats one less thing you have
to worry about. Actually, its a lot less things including test accuracy and customized test reports.
New features include:
New user interface thats easier to navigate
Tracking/notification of equipment calibration dates
Ability to control more equipment
Updated test set-up screen
Improved report control

More calibration options:
The SW1007 comes with standards built in:
IEC/EN, DO160, MIL-STD-461. GR1089, ISO/Automotive. You can change
the test standards with just one click; and adding test standards is simple.
FREE Software Available Now!
To request your free SW1007 EMC test software, complete the form at www.ar-worldwide.com/SW1007.
Or ask your AR sales associate for a free hard copy. Its easy to use. Its accurate and its free. Thats a win/win/win. Unless, of course,
you really enjoy spending all that time running tests manually.
www.arworld.us
ISO 9001:2008
Certified
The calibration of the BCI clamp is described in detail in

the latest version of the standard [2, 8, 9].
With the BCI test, there are two options implemented:
open loop and closed loop. With the open loop test, the
voltage coupled into the calibration test jig to achieve the
required current through a 50 load (where the opposite
side of the test jig is loaded with 50 as well) is recorded
and the forward power level is maintained during the immunity test while the injection probe is positioned at the
three harness locations.
With the closed loop test, the RF current is increased
up to a level where the DUT fails or the current limit or the
forward power limit is reached: 4x the nominal RF power
as used during calibration to meet the induced current
requirements.
However, the open loop test method was intended to
apply for non-grounded DUTs and the closed loop should
apply for grounded DUTs only (as RF currents will flow
intentionally).
Applying a closed loop bulk current of 100 mA into a
insulated sensor with a capacitance to the reference plane
of 20 pF at 3 MHz would require an output power of nearly
1500 Watt from a 50 RF generator when no power limit
is applied. Applying the open loop test would only require
0,5 Watt, a difference of 35 dB in RF power.
The second pitfall comes in three: the length of the harness, the equivalent RF termination at both ends of the
harness and the BCI clamp itself.
The cable harness above the reference plane represents
a transmission line with a characteristic impedance of 150
200 , Figure 1. Even in the ideal case when the cable
harness is only terminated by two ANs to ground, being
equal to 25 in common-mode, there is a serious mismatch
between the harness transmission line impedance and the
ANs in parallel.
When a capacitor to ground is used for one of the (signal)
lines in the load box circuit, the harness termination impedance mismatch will even be higher and standing waves over
the harness will result.
Figure 1. The characteristic impedance calculation of a cable harness

over a metal plate (Agilent AppCad (freeware)).
in the 20 1000 MHz frequency range, as specified in the

European Automotive Directive 2004/104/EC with its many
amendments [1].
Most car manufacturers use extended immunity requirements downwards from 20 MHz to 150 kHz, typically by
using the bulk current injection (BCI) test method. Where
the highest level according the standards is 100 mA, levels
up to 600 mA are already specified by some car-manufacturers. BCI test set-up drawbacks and pitfalls are described
in chapter II.
100 V/m has been set as typical radiated immunity (RI)
requirement for non-safety related ECU/ESA and 200
600 V/m for those ECU/ESAs which are safety related. The
frequency range for the radiated emission and immunity of
applications has been extended upwards from 1 GHz to 2 or
even 6 GHz. This will be elucidated in chapter III.
In chapter IV, the necessary conditions to obtain possible
correlation with IC test methods will be given and conclusions will be given in chapter V.
II. BCI TEST SET-UP
The BCI test set-up, according ISO 11452-4 (2005) [2] is
specified in the frequency range 1 400 MHz. The BCI test
defines that the cable harness length = 1 0,1 meter and it
shall be positioned at 50 mm above a metal reference plane
at 0,2 meter from the front edge of the metal plated table,
see figure 1. The metal plated table is defined 1,5 meter wide
and 0,9 meter high positioned above a conductive floor. The
battery shall be connected through an artificial network
(AN, also known as Impedance Stabilizing Network: ISN)
with an impedance of 50 // 5 H but this network is only
defined in the frequency range 0,1 - 100 MHz.
An RF-impedance undefined load simulator box is prescribed in-between the cable harness to the DUT and the
ANs. The BCI probe shall be placed at distances, d, from the
connector of the DUT; 150, 450, 750 10 mm for the openloop method and 0,9 0,1 m for the closed-loop method. If
a current measurement probe is used during the test it shall
be placed at 50 10 mm from the connector of the DUT.
18
Figure 2. Simulated BCI clamp turns ratio effect on resonances 1) 1:5,

2) 1:2, 3) 1:1 load box impedance is 1 , DUT is floating, open loop test.

C o e n e n, P u e s, B o u s q u e t
On the opposite side of the harness, the DUT will be left

floating or grounded. In either case, another ideal condition
for resonances. However, these harness resonance frequencies are fully determined by the cable harness length which
might include the wiring inside the load box up to the ANs.
The third item in this equation is the BCI clamp itself
as the turn ratio between primary and secondary of this
transformer determines the resistive loading of the harness loop. Dependent on the frequencies designed for, the
BCI clamp turns ratio also varies between manufactures,
this between 1:1 and 1:5 which alters the equivalent damping resistance between 50 and 2 (when excluding the RF
losses of the clamp itself).
The length of the cable harnesses tested with varies
between 1 - 2 meter determined by the specification of the
end-user i.e. car manufacturer and has typically the same
topology as used with the RI test set-up.
In the simulated results of figure 2, the DUTs RF voltage
towards the reference plane is given from a floating sensor
under the condition when the load box represents low RF
impedance at the end of the harness. 0 dB represent the
nominal voltage. Due to the open-ended transmission line,
the induced voltage appears in full at the lower frequencies.
This DUT to reference plate voltage, divided by the distance
gives the local E-field strength. Excesses over 30 dB both
above and below nominal can be noted which are also mea-
Figure 3. Measured BCI clamp turns ratio 1:2; load box impedance is
1 , DUT is floating, open loop test, nominal level is 100 dBV.
sured from the test set-up and can also be seen in real RF
immunity test results, figure 3. The resonances occur at all
harmonics of where the harness length equals n/4. When
the cable harness is 2 meter long, the first resonance occurs
at 37,5 MHz, see figure 3.
19
the cable harness characteristic impedances as well.

Only for the artificial BCI and RI test set-up, the cable
harness will be used at 50 mm apart from a metal reference
plane i.e. vehicle frame. In real cars, where the harness is
routed against the vehicles frame characteristic impedances
of 50 20 can be found. The common-mode termination
to achieve best compliance with the test set-up will divert
from the optimal impedances occurring in real vehicle applications.
III. RI TEST SET-UP
The RI test set-up, according ISO 11452-2 (2004) [3] defines
that the cable harness (length 1,5 0,1 meter) shall be
positioned at 50 mm above a metal reference plane at 0,1
meter from the front edge of the metal plated table. The RI
test is specified in the frequency range 80 MHz 18 GHz.
The antenna front is at 1 meter from the cable harness (0,9
meter from the metal plated table top and the antenna center
is at the harness center. The metal plated table is defined 2
meter wide and 0,9 meter height above a conductive floor.
The battery is still connected through an artificial network
(AN). Also here the impedance undefined load box is defined
in-between the cable harness to the DUT and the ANs.
The ISO standard reads: The load simulator box shall be
placed directly on the ground plane. If the load simulator
has a metallic case, this case shall be bonded to the ground
Figure 4. Simulated BCI clamp turns ratio 1:1, 2, 5; load box impedance
is 150 , DUT is floating, open voltage and open loop test condition.
However, when the load box is replaced by a grounded

network which represents, in total, the characteristic impedance of the cable harness, the influence of the current
injection probe reduces as well as that the cable harness
length related resonances and variation diminish: 3 dB,
see figure 4. To enable these values in real vehicles, also the
equivalent RF common-mode impedances at the ESA/ECU
ports to the sensors connected have to be adapted to meet
20
plane. Alternatively, the load simulator may be located adjacent to the ground plane (with the case of the load simulator
bonded to the ground plane) or outside of the test chamber,
provided the test harness from the DUT passes through an
RF boundary bonded to the ground plane. When the load
simulator is located on the ground plane, the DC power supply lines of the load simulator shall be connected through
the AN(s). This open description allows for a very broad
variety of RF impedances represented by the load box.
As result of different dimensions defined in the BCI and
the RI standards, the widest metal plated table is used with a
long cable harness. The cable harness is fixed at 50 mm above
the metal plane and pretty undefined RF terminated by the
load simulation box, which may or may not be grounded.
On the opposite side of the harness, the DUT shall be
placed on an insulating support; also 50 mm height and the
DUT shall be grounded by a ground strap (when defined by
application).
When performing radiated immunity tests e.g. according
IEC 61000-4-3, the E-field strength in front of the antenna
is measured at 1 meter distance at center level, without any
nearby object to the antenna. In the ISO RI case, the antenna
is placed in front of the metal plated table which is at 0,9
meter distance as the distance to the cable harness has to be
set to 1 meter. The E-field strength is measured 0,15 meter
above the metal plate at 0,1 meter from the edge without
Figure 5. Worst-case E-field to induced voltage ratio from a 2 meter

cable harness at 50 mm above a metal reference plate while the load
box/AN impedance is varied; red = 2,5 k , blue = 50 sensor to GRP
impedance.
the cable harness present. The antenna height is adjusted

such that the antenna center is also at the harness cable
height: 0,95 m above the ground reference plane. For each
frequency, the RF generator settings e.g. forward power is
recorded to obtain the field strength at that single E-field
sensor position.
Due to the close proximity of the metal table, the an-
21
the maximum induced voltage reduces when the commonmode termination resistance at one end of the harness cable
topology becomes terminated close to its characteristic
impedance; 150 - 200 in this case. Again this test set-up
optimum common-mode termination impedance will be
less in real vehicle applications.
The differences between the red and blue line results
in figure 5 indicate that the worst-case resonances occurring under no-load conditions are substantially worse than
when loaded with 50 , by about 10 dB. In either case, the
induced voltage decreases when the load box impedance is
increased. No valid simulation model has been found yet to
describe these cases.
tennas radiation pattern is affected by mutual coupling.

More problematic w.r.t. RI test result comparison is the
antenna used as the formal antenna factor and gain factor
are given for an antenna in free space. When high(er) gain
horn antennas are used, the distance at which a plane EM
field can be expected has to be multiplied by the gain factor.
When the wavelength is 1 meter, the theoretical near-field to
intermediate-field transition occurs at 1/(2) meter distance.
When the antenna gain is 12 dB e.g. with horn antennas, the
distance to achieve this condition is 2 times further away
as with a log-periodic antenna with a gain of 6 - 7 dB. The
E-fieldstrength requirements can be met but the plane-wave
conditions are not. As such, the local E-fieldstrength over
the cable harness length has become antenna dependent
thus unpredictable and non-calculable.
Similar to the BCI test set-up, the voltage i.e. current
induced in the cable harness will depend on the RF termination at both ends of the harness. To verify this, a test set-up
has been built using a horn antenna at 1 meter distance
from the harness while sweeping through the frequency
band from 400 MHz to 1 GHz. The antenna polarization
was changed from horizontal to vertical while measuring
the induced voltages in-between an insulated sensor and
the reference plate. The worst case induced voltage was
recorded and the load box impedance was varied between 1
and 200 , see figure 5. What was already expected is that
22
IV. POSSIBLE (COR)RELATION WITH DPI OR

OTHER EMC IC TEST METHODS
Based on the lack of site-to-site correlation and the lack of
sufficient bounds in-between the BCI set-ups, it will be very
hard to find any correlation with DPI or TEM-cell results
according IEC 62132-2, IEC 62132-4 or other test methods
[4 - 7]. What has remained from the measurements in the
80-ies is the relation between the E-fieldstrength applied to
exterior of the vehicle and the levels of the induced currents
obtained on the internal harnesses of the car which appears
to be 1 mA/V/m.
When with BCI a current is applied of 200 mA, which
across 50 equals 10 Volt during calibration, this harness voltage, applied

in open loop control will increase at
resonance (worst-case) to about 200
300 Volt. Unfortunately, the same
holds for closed loop BCI where due
to the impedance at the sensor the local
voltage may go to high extremes of >
500 Volt, as described earlier.
With the TEM cell test method as
described in IEC 62132-2, only the IC
itself will be exposed to EM-fields,
none of the external components or
the sensor front-end will be incorporated in the EM-field, unless the whole
application board is applied on the 4 by
4 inch (or 100 x 100 mm) PCB structure as described in IEC 62132-1 [4].
The E-field applied will be RF voltage
applied divided by distance between
septum to outer enclosure, being 45
mm in a FCC TEM cell; a distance
slightly less than the harness height
of the BCI/RI test set-up.
When 5 Watt RF power is applied
to the IC related TEM cell, terminated
by 50 , the inside E-fieldstrength will
become 350 V/m, which is more than
enough to satisfy the 200 V/m requirements but hardly enough when all the
excessive voltages occurring at resonances have to be taken into account.
From figure 5 it can be derived that
the maximum induced voltage from
a 2 meter harness exposed to 200
Volt/m (in the frequency range 400
1000 MHz) will be 20 Volt when a low
impedance termination at the load
box is considered. This RF signal level
divided by the sensor height above
the reference plane of 50 mm yields
400 Volt/m, so slightly over 5 Watt
RF power should be enough to satisfy
this excessive condition (under the
assumption that a large broadband
horn antenna will be used rather than
a log-per or any other type of antenna
structure suitable in that frequency
range). When the cable harness exposed is characteristic terminated in
common-mode at the load box side, the
worst case induced voltage reduces by
8 dB (2,5 x) which means that testing
with only 160 V/m is enough; quite
similar to what is occurring at the BCI/
RI sensor position.
The DPI test is typically done by apinterferencetechnology.com
plying up to 30 dBm on the global pins

(those port pins connected to wires
leaving the PCB into a cable harness)
and up to 12 dBm to the local pins (for
those pins connected to local on-board
components only). The coupling occurs from a 50 source in series with
a coupling capacitance of max. 6,8 nF
or a value which can still be handled
by the circuit connected to. For the
CAN-bus interfaces, these RF voltages

requirements have been raised even
further to 36 dBm (4 watt; which equals
28 Volt RMS open voltage to an input
or 40 Volts peak). Dedicated ESD protection structures need to be defined
and special insulation techniques have
to be used.
All RF voltages applied to each pin
with the DPI tests are referenced to the
23

common Vss/ground reference layer of
the PCB. As such the delta voltages
appearing on the PCB application have
to be known between the various pins.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The present ISO standards carry many
faces by their implementations; open/
closed loop, cable harness length, load
box impedances, the grounding of the
loading box as well as the DUT, etc.,
which leads to an ambiguous definition
of these test set-ups, yielding severe
differences in test results.
The closed loop E-field measurement with the RI measurements
close to the surface of the conductive
table is incorrectly related on incident
and reflective EM-field effects and
therefore, together with the antenna
chosen poorly correlated with EMsimulations. Also as different kind of
antennas are allowed, these do yield
differences in test results.
Open loop testing should be restricted to electrically floating sensors
and closed loop testing shall apply to

electrically grounded applications. The
use of the open loop and closed loop
testing shall be defined in the BCI standard in relation to how the DUT will be
used in its application and not be left
to the interpretation of an individual
EMC test engineer or specification
from a car manufacturer.
As real in-vehicle applications will
deviate from the artificial ISO test
set-up topologies, over-testing will
not guarantee immunity compliance
when the ESA/ECU will be integrated
into a vehicle. The equivalent ESA/
ECU RF common-mode impedance
port definitions have to be aligned
with the BCI/RI test set-ups or better
vice versa, this to achieve comparable
test data. Resonances in the test set-ups
shall be avoided and equal measures
shall be taken at the ESA/ECU ports
also to avoid resonances while being
integrated into a vehicle.
It is necessary to enforce (by standard) a unified AN (including the load
simulation box) which is encapsulated

into one metal box. This box shall be
grounded to the reference plane and
shall yield a defined CM output impedance at the ESA/ECU port of 150 - 200
over the whole frequency range of
application rather than 25 (two ANs
in parallel) again in parallel to the load
box input filter topology in a limited
frequency band.
Care shall be taken with the real
characteristic common-mode impedance occurring in a vehicle which will
be around 50 and thus less that the
artificial impedances one used with
the test set-ups. Changing the cable
harness height over the reference plane
to achieve 50 could be a better alternative but will require new evidence
building compared to the data gathered
over the last 25 years.
The induced RF voltages occurring
from the BCI can be forecasted by an
analogue circuit simulator for both
open and closed loop measurement
set-ups for the various application
Comprehensive EMI Solutions, On Time & On Budget

From design, quick-turn protos, and worldwide
ISO9001 manufacturing, we are the superlative
EMI solutions provider. The cornerstones of our mission are
simple: Quality. Integrity. Service. Value. It is this commitment to

total solutions without compromise that has led to our established
position as a premier designer, manufacturer & distributor of EMI
filters and magnetic products.
Plug into our comprehensive solutions. Radius Power
is a leader in the design & manufacture of power products used

to condition, regulate and govern electronic performance. The
company provides a broad line of EMI Filters, Power Entry Modules,
Power Transformers & Inductors to meet front-end requirements for
AC & DC power line applications. We offer free pre-compliance testing for conducted emissions at our labs or yours!
Bring us your EMI challenge & we will provide an optimized solution usually within 48 hours. Call Radius today.
714-289-0055 PH 714-289-2149 FAX
1751 N. BATAVIA ST. ORANGE, CA 92865
www.radiuspower.com
24
conditions of the BCI clamp. When the common mode

termination impedances are set to the characteristic impedance of the cable harness under these test conditions, the
turns ratio of the BCI clamps becomes close to irrelevant.
The root causes for the differences in test results inbetween the BCI and RI test set-ups have been described
and based on these findings the requirements for a TEM-cell
or DPI test set-up can be adapted accordingly. The RF voltages induced from both the BCI and RI test set-ups could
compare with the TEM cell and DPI test methods under the
condition that resonances are avoided and common-mode
cable harness impedance requirements are met. Fortunately,
these two measures coincide in one action.
When the relations between the BCI/RI and the DPI/
TEM- cell test methods become justified, earlier compliance
to the requirements can be proven which then shortens
development cycles by months and probably will reduce a
substantial amount of non-predictable redesigns.
ous fields and has published many papers and publications. He has been
actively involved in international EMC standardization since 1988 and
was awarded with the IEC 1906. He is the former project leader of the
standards: IEC 61000-4-6 and IEC 61000-4-2 but has moved his focus
towards EMC in integrated circuits. He was the former convenor of IEC
TC47A/WG9 and until last year, a member of IEC TC47A/WG2. Coenen
is CEO of EMCMCC bv. He can be reached at mart.coenen@emcmcc.nl.
Hugo Pues is senior development engineer of EMC at Melexis NV. He
can be reached at hpu@melexis.com.
Thierry Bousquet is ASICs Development Engineer EMC at Continental.
He can be reached at thierry.bousquet@continental-corporation.com. n
MORE ON OUR website
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work carried out is supported by a Dutch Governmental
innovation program WBSO, under number: ZT09051042.SO
Dealing with testing issues? Interference Technology's

website includes a Testing Channel focused on the
latest products and developments and a Testing Forum
to facilitate conversations with your colleagues. Just go
to www.interferencetechnology.com/testing
REFERENCES
[1]
Commission Directive 2004/104/EC of 14 October 2004 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 72/245/EEC relating to
the radio interference (electromagnetic compatibility) of vehicles
and amending Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor
vehicles and their trailers (followed by numerous amendments)
[2]
ISO 11452-4, Road vehicles - Component test methods for
electrical disturbances from narrowband radiated electromagnetic
energy - Part 4: Bulk current injection (BCI)
[3]
ISO 11452-2, Road vehicles - Component test methods for
electrical disturbances from narrowband radiated electromagnetic
energy - Part 2: Absorber-lined shielded enclosure
[4]
IEC 62132-1, Integrated circuits - Measurement of electromagnetic immunity, 150 kHz to 1 GHz - Part 1: General conditions
and definitions
[5]
IEC 62132-2, Integrated circuits - Measurement of electromagnetic immunity - Part 2: Measurement of radiated immunity
- TEM cell and wideband TEM cell method
[6]
IEC 62132-3, Integrated circuits - Measurement of electromagnetic immunity, 150 kHz to 1 GHz - Part 3: Bulk current
injection (BCI) method
[7]
IEC 62132-4, Integrated circuits - Measurement of electromagnetic immunity 150 kHz to 1 GHz - Part 4: Direct RF power
injection method
[8]
Pignari S.A., Grassi F., Marliani F., Canavero F. G., "Experimental characterization of injection probes for bulk current injection," www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA05/pdf/EA.4(0494).pdf
[9]
Crovetti P.S., Fiori F, "A Critical Assessment of the ClosedLoop Bulk Current Injection Immunity Test Performed in Compliance With ISO 11452-4," IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and
Measurement, April 2011.
Mart Coenen has more than 30 years of experience in EMC in variinterferencetechnology.com
25
Company Name
Contact
BE
City
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
R
FC
TI F
CP
I CA
AR
TI O
T1
FC
Ns
5&
CP
18
AR
T
IMM
68
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/A
2L A
PRO
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
S
03
TI N
>2
G
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
T
I
160
ON
SH
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
ES FECT
IVE
T
NE
SS
2012 emc test lab directory
2012 EMC Test Laboratory Directory
Company Name
Contact
Huntsville
EMC Compliance
(256) 650-5261
Huntsville
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
(256) 544-0694
Huntsville
Redstone Technical Test Center (U.S. Army)
(256) 876-3556
Huntsville
Wyle Laboratories
(256) 837-4411
Ft. Huachuca
EPG Blacktail Canyon Test Facility
(520) 533-5819
Phoenix
Compliance Testing, LLC, aka Flom Test Lab (480) 926-3100
Phoenix
Sypris Test & Measurement
(602) 395-5911
Scottsdale
General Dynamics C4 Systems
(480) 441-5321
Tempe
Lab-Tech, Inc.
(480) 317-0700
Tempe
National Technical Systems
(480) 966-5517
Tucson
RMS EMI Laboratory
(520) 665-5990
Agoura
Compatible Electronics, Inc.
(818) 597-0600
Anaheim
EMC TEMPEST Engineering
(714) 778-1726
Brea
CKC Laboratories, Inc.
(714) 993-6112
Brea
(714) 579-0500
Calabasas
National Technical Systems (NTS)
(800) 270-2516
China Lake
NAWCWD EMI Lab
(760) 939-4669
Chino
Robinsons Enterprise
(909) 591-3648
Costa Mesa
Independent Testing Laboratories, Inc.
BE
City
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
R
FC
TI F
CP
I CA
AR
TI O
T1
FC
Ns
5&
CP
18
AR
T
IMM
68
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/A
2L A
PRO
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
S
03
TI N
>2
G
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
T
I
160
ON
SH
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
ES FECT
IVE
T
NE
SS
Common sense tells us that most engineers and designers prefer to use local testing facilities. We have created
an easy-to-use directory of labs and their services grouped alphabetically by state and city, so that our readers can identify
those labs closest to them. We have endeavored to make this directory as accurate as possible; however, we realize that
we have not found every lab or listed every service offered. If you own or work for an EMC test lab and we have missed
you or omitted one of your services, please let us know. You can add a listing or update your current listing by logging onto
www.interferencetechnology.com and following the easy step-by-step instructions. You can also e-mail your additions, revisions, and suggestions to slong@interferencetechnology.com.
Alabama
Arizona

California

(714) 662-1011
(310) 537-4235
El Dorado Hills
Sanesi Associates
(916) 496-1760
El Segundo
Wyle Laboratories
(310) 322-1763
Escondido
RF Exposure Lab, LLC
(760) 737-3131
Fremont
(510) 249-1170
26
E. Rancho Dominguez Liberty Bel EMC/EMI Services
The International Journal

of Electromagnetic Compatibility
TM
Europe EMC Guide

Articles Buyers Guides Standards Updates EMC Events
2011
2010
EMC Directory
2012
& Design Guide

technologies
United Kingdom..............25
EMC Design ................................................... 90
Deutschland. ....................53
Lightning, Transients &ESD............................

&ESD ............................68
Filters ...............................................................
...............................................................61
Sheilded Conduits ............................................
............................................82
France. .................................79
Shielding............................................................
............................................................82
............................................................
Standards ........................................................
........................................................106
Italia.......................................99
Testing & Test Equipment...............................

Equipment...............................10
directories
Espaa.............................. 109
Company Directory.........................................
Directory.........................................162
Polska................................. 119
Consultant Services .......................................

.......................................128
Government Directory....................................
Directory ....................................146
Nederland........................ 129
Products & Services Index...........................

Index ...........................152
Schweiz............................ 134
Standards Recap ............................................

............................................129
Belgique............................ 141
industries & applications
sterreich....................... 145
Automotive ........................................................
........................................................32
Professional Societies....................................
Societies ....................................138
Aerospace .................................................. 32, 72

Medical ..............................................................
..............................................................32
Military ............................................................
............................................................124
Telecom..............................................................
..............................................................32
..............................................................
chanGe service requested
ITEM PUBLICATIONS
1000 Germantown pike, f-2
plymouth meetinG, pa 19462-2486
presorted
standard
us postaGe
paid
permit no. 225
mechanicsburG, pa
More online at interferencetechnology.eu

Cover_DDG10.indd 1
Europe
4/26/2010 4:59:06 PM
North America
China
Japan
Subscribe online for weekly EMC news and updates at
ITEM
TM
CA
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
R
FC
TI F
CP
I CA
AR
TI O
T1
FC
Ns
5&
CP
18
AR
T
IMM
68
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/A
2L A
PRO
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
S
03
TI N
>2
G
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
T
I
160
ON
SH
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
ES FECT
IVE
T
NE
SS
Company Name
Contact
Fremont
Compliance Certification Services
(510) 771-1000
Fremont
Elliott Laboratories
(408) 245-7800
Fremont
Elma Electronics, Inc.
(510) 656-3400
Fremont
EMCE Engineering, Inc.
(510) 490-4307
Fullerton
DNB Engineering, Inc.
(800) 282-1462
Fullerton
(714) 879-6110
Gardena
Parker EMC Engineering
(910) 823-2345
Garden Grove
Semtronics
(714) 799-9810
Gilroy
Scientific Hardware Systems
(408) 848-8868
Irvine
7Layers, Inc.
+10949 7166512
Irvine
Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America Inc.
(949) 465-6206
Irvine
Northwest EMC
(888) 364-2378
Lake Forest
(949) 587-0400
Lake Forest
Intertek Testing Services
(949) 448-4100
Los Angeles
Field Management Services
(323) 937-1562
Los Gatos
Pulver Laboratories, Inc.
(408) 399-7000
Mariposa
(209) 966-5240
Menlo Park
(650) 463-2900
Milpitas
CETECOM, Inc.
(408) 586-6200
Mountian View
Electro Magnetic Test, Inc.
(650) 965-4000
Mountain View
EMT Labs
(650) 965-4000
Mountain View
EMC Compliance Management Group
(650) 988-0900
Newark
Elliott Laboratories
(510) 578-3500
BE
City
North Highlands Northrop Grumman ESL
(916) 570-4340
Oakland
ITW Richmond Technology
(510) 655-1263
Orange
G & M Compliance, Inc.
(714) 628-1020
Pico Rivera
Stork Garwood Laboratories, Inc.
(562) 949-2727
Pleasanton
MiCOM Labs
(925) 462-0304
Pleasanton
TV Rheinland of North America
(925) 249-91923
Poway
APW Electronic Solutions
(858) 679-4550
Rancho St. Margarita Aegis Labs, Inc.
(949) 454-8295
Redondo Beach
Northrop Grumman Space Tech. Sector
(310) 812-3162
Riverside
(800) 282-1462
Riverside
Global Testing
(951) 781-4540
Sacramento
Northrop-Grumman EM Systems Lab
(916) 570-4340
San Clemente
Stork Garwood Laboratories, Inc.
(949) 361-9189
San Diego
Lambda Electronics
(619) 575-4400
San Diego
NEMKO
(858) 755-5525
San Diego
TV SD America, Inc.
(858) 678-1400
Santa Clara
Montrose Compliance Services, Inc.
(408) 247-5715
San Jose
Arc Technical Resources, Inc.
(408) 263-6486
San Jose
ATLAS Compliance & Engineering, Inc.
(866) 573-9742
San Jose
Safety Engineering Laboratory
(408) 544-1890
San Jose
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
(408) 754-6500
28
Company Name
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
RT
FC
IFIC
CP
AT
AR
IO N
T1
FC
s
5&
CP
18
AR
T6
IMM
8
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/
PRO A 2L A
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
ST
03
ING
>2
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
TI O
-16
SH
N
0
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
F
EC
ES
TIV
T
EN
ES
S
City
& canada
Contact
BE
u n i t e d s tat e s
San Ramon
Electro-Test, Inc.
(925) 485-3400
Santa Clara
MET Laboratories, Inc.
(408) 748-3585
Santa Clara
Montrose Compliance Services, Inc.
(408) 247-5715
Sunnyvale
Bay Area Compliance Labs.
(408) 732-9162
Sunnyvale
Elliott Laboratories, Inc.
(408) 245-7800
Sunnyvale
(408) 720-0006
Sunol
ITC Engineering Services, Inc.
(925) 862-2944
Torrance
Lyncole XIT Grounding
(310) 214-4000
Trabuco Canyon
RFI International
(949) 888-1607
Union City
(510) 489-6300
Van Nuys
(818) 830-9111
Boulder
Ball Aerospace & Technology Corp.
(303) 939-4618
Boulder
Percept Technology Labs, Inc.
(303) 444-7480
Boulder
Colorado

(303) 786-7999
Colorado Springs INTERTest Systems, Inc.
(719) 522-1402
Lakewood
Electro Magnetic Applications, Inc.
(303) 980-0070
Littleton
(303) 798-2243
Longmont
EMC Integrity, Inc.
(888) 423-6275
Rollinsville
Criterion Technology
(303) 258-0100
Connecticut
East Haddam
Global Certification Laboratories, Ltd.
(860) 873-1451
East Haddam
Turnkey OATS Construction, LLC
(860) 873-8975
Middletown
Product Safety International
(860) 344-1651
Milford
Harriman Associates
(203) 878-3135
Newtown
TV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
(203) 426-0888
Norwalk
Panashield, Inc.
(203) 866-5888
Stratford
Total Shielding Systems
(203) 377-0394
District of Columbia
Washington
American European Services, Inc.
(202) 337-3214
Boca Raton
Advanced Compliance Solutions, Inc.
(561) 961-5585
Boca Raton
Jaro Components
(561) 241-6700
Cocoa Beach
Elite Electronic Engineering Company
(800) ELITE-11
Dade City
Product Safety Engineering, Inc.
(352) 588-2209
Dade City
TV SD America, Inc.
(352) 588-1033
Jupiter
East West Technology Corporation
(561) 776-7339
Lake Mary
Test Equipment Connection
(800) 615-8378
Largo
Walshire Labs, LLC
(727) 530-8637
Melbourne
Rubicom Systems, Division of ACS
(321) 951-1710
Newberry
Timco Engineering, Inc.
(888) 472-2424
Orlando
(800) 839-4959
Orlando
Qualtest, Inc.
(407) 313-4230
Palm Bay
Harris Corporation EMI/TEMPEST Lab
(321) 727-6209
Florida
29
FL
Company Name
Contact
Alpharetta
EMC Testing Laboratories, Inc.
(770) 475-8819
Alpharetta
U.S. Technologies, Inc.
(770) 740-0717
Buford (Atlanta)
Advanced Compliance Solutions, Inc.
(770) 831-8048
Lawrenceville
Motorola Product Testing Services
(770) 338-3795
Peachtree
Panasonic Automotive
(770) 515-1443
Acme Testing Company
(360) 595-2785
Addison
(630) 620-5800
Downers Grove
Elite Electronic Engineering, Inc.
(630) 495-9770
Montgomery
E.F. Electronics Co.
(630) 897-1950
Mundelein
Midwest EMI Associates, Inc.
Northbrook
Palatine
BE
City
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
R
FC
TI F
CP
I CA
AR
TI O
T1
FC
Ns
5&
CP
18
AR
T
IMM
68
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/A
2L A
PRO
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
S
03
TI N
>2
G
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
T
I
160
ON
SH
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
ES FECT
IVE
T
NE
SS
Georgia

idaho
Plummer
Illinois

(847) 918-9886
(847) 272-8800
Trace LaboratoriesEMC
(847) 934-5300
Peoria
EMC Testing Inc., A Caterpillar Company
(309) 578-1213
Poplar Grove
LF Research EMC Design & Test Facility
(815) 566-5655
Rockford
(815) 315-9250
Rockford
Ingenium Testing, LLC
(815) 315-9250
Romeoville
Radiometrics Midwest Corp.
(815) 293-0772
Wheeling
D.L.S. Electronic Systems, Inc.
(847) 537-6400
Woodridge
Zero Ground LLC
(866) ZERO-GND
Crane
Naval Surface Warfare Ctr., Crane Div.
(812) 854-5107
Fort Wayne
Raytheon
(260) 429-4335
Indianapolis
Raytheon Technical Services Co., EMI Lab
(317) 306-8471
Kokomo
Delphi Delco Electronic Systems
(765) 451-5011
Kimballton
Liberty Labs, Inc.
(712) 773-2199
Elk Horn
World Cal, Inc.
(712) 764-2197
Rogers Labs, Inc.
(913) 837-3214
Lexington
Lexmark International EMC Lab
(606) 232-7650
Lexington
(859) 226-1000
Lexington
dBi Corporation
(859) 253-1178
Indiana

Iowa
Kansas
Louisburg
Kentucky

Maryland
Annapolis
30
Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems (410) 266-1700
Company Name
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
RT
FC
IFIC
CP
AT
AR
IO N
T1
FC
s
5&
CP
18
AR
T6
IMM
8
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/
PRO A 2L A
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
ST
03
ING
>2
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
TI O
-16
SH
N
0
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
F
EC
ES
TIV
T
EN
ES
S
City
& canada
Contact
BE
Baltimore
(410) 354-3300
Beltsville
Antenna Research Associates
(301) 937-8888
Columbia
DRS Advanced Programs
(410) 312-5800
Columbia
PCTest Engineering Lab
(410) 290-6652
Damascus
F-Squared Laboratories
(301) 253-4500
Elkridge
ATEC Industries, Ltd.
(443) 459-5080
Frederick
The American Association for
Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA)
(301) 644-3217
Gaithersburg
Washington Laboratories, Ltd.
(301) 216-1500
Hunt Valley
Trace LaboratoriesEast
(410) 584-9099
Patuxent River
Naval Air Warfare Ctr., Aircraft Div.
(301) 342-1663
Rockville
P.J. Mondin, P.E. Consultants
(301) 460-5864
Rockville
Spectrum Research & Testing Laboratory, Inc.
(301) 670-2818
Salisbury
Filter Networks
(410) 341-4200
Westminster
Electrical Test Instruments, Inc.
(410) 857-1880
Consultant Services
Braco Compliance Limited

A-Tick, C-Tick and Telepermit local agent
for Australia and New Zealand.
Bruce Maule
Braco Compliance Limited.
PO Box 31188, ILAM,
Christchurch 8444, NZ
+64 21 208 4303 enquiries@bracocompliance.com
www.bracocompliance.com
628 LeVander Way

S. St. Paul, MN 55075

Braco_BC ad.indd 1
31
10/10/2011 1:56:55 PM
MA
Company Name
Contact
BE
City
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
R
FC
TI F
CP
I CA
AR
TI O
T1
FC
Ns
5&
CP
18
AR
T
IMM
68
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/A
2L A
PRO
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
S
03
TI N
>2
G
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
T
I
160
ON
SH
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
ES FECT
IVE
T
NE
SS
Massachusetts
Billerica
Quest Engineering Solutions
(978) 667-7000
Billerica
(978) 663-2137
Boxborough
(978) 263-2662
Boxborough
(978) 266-1001
Foxboro
N.E. Product Safety Society, Inc.
(508) 543-6599
Gloucester
Euroconsult, Inc.
(978) 282-8890
Lexington
Design Automation, Inc.
(781) 862-8998
Littleton
Curtis-Straus LLC, subsidiary of Bureau Veritas (978) 486-8880
Littleton
(978) 486-0432
Mansfield
Motorola Test Lab Services Group
(508) 851-8484
Marlboro
IQS, Div. of The Compliance Management Group (508) 460-1400
Marlboro
The Compliance Management Group
(508) 281-5985
Milford
Test Site Services, Inc.
(508) 634-3444
Newton
EMC Test Design, LLC
(508) 292-1833
Peabody
TUV SUD America Inc.
(800) TUV-0123
Pittsfield
Lightning Technologies, Inc.
(413) 499-2135
Wilmington
Thermo Fisher Scientific
(978) 275-0800
Woburn
Chomerics, Div. of Parker Hannifin Corp. (781) 935-4850
Woburn
NELCO
(781) 933-1940
TV SD America, Inc.
(248) 393-6984
Michigan
Auburn Hills
Belleville
Willow Run Test Labs, LLC
(734) 252 9785
Burton
Trialon Corporation
(810) 341-7931
Detroit
National Technical Systems
(313) 835-0044
Grand Rapids
(800) WORLDLAB
Holland
TV SD America, Inc.
(616) 546-3902
Milford
Jacobs Technology, Inc.
(248) 676-1101
Novi
(248) 305-5200
Novi
(248) 427-5300
Plymouth
TV SD America, Inc.
(734) 455-4841
Saginaw
Delphi Steering EMC Lab
(989) 797-0318
Sister Lakes
AHD EMC Lab
(269) 313-2433
Warren
Detroit Testing Laboratory, Inc.
(586) 754-9000
(888) 364-2378
Minnesota
Brooklyn Park
32
Northwest EMC, Inc.
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
RT
FC
IFIC
CP
AT
AR
IO N
T1
FC
s
5&
CP
18
AR
T6
IMM
8
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/
PRO A 2L A
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
ST
03
ING
>2
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
TI O
-16
SH
N
0
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
F
EC
ES
TIV
T
EN
ES
S
& canada
City
Company Name
Contact
BE
Glencoe
International Certification Services, Inc.
(320) 864-4444
Maple Grove
TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
(763) 315-5012
Millville
TV SD America, Inc.
(507) 798-2483
Minneapolis
Alpha EMC, Inc.
(763) 561-4410
Minneapolis
Environ Laboratories, LLC
(800) 826-3710
Minneapolis
Honeywell
(612) 951-5773
New Brighton
TV SD America, Inc.
(651) 631-2487
New Hope
Conductive Containers, Inc.
(763) 537-2090
Oakdale
(651) 730-1188
Rochester
IBM
(507) 253-6201
St. Paul
3M
(651) 778-4577
Taylor Falls
TV SD America, Inc.
(651) 638-0297
Boeing-St. Louis EMC Lab
(314) 233-7798
NCEE Labs
(402) 472-5880
PolyPhaser Corp.
(775) 782-2511
Missouri
St. Louis
Nebraska
Lincoln
Nevada
Minden
New Hampshire

Goffstown
Retlif Testing Laboratories
(603) 497-4600
Hudson
Core Compliance Testing Services
(603) 889-5545
Sandown
Compliance Worldwide, Inc.
(603) 887-3903
New Jersey
Annandale
NU Laboratories, Inc.
(908) 713-9300
Bridgeport
Analab, LLC
(800) analab-X
Bridgewater
Lichtig EMC Consulting
(908) 541-0213
Camden
L-3 Communication Systems-East
(856) 338-3000
Clifton
NJ-MET
(973) 546-5393
Edison
Metex Corporation
(732) 287-0800
Edison
TESEQ, Inc.
(732) 417-0501
Fairfield
SGS U.S. Testing Co., Inc.
(800) 777-8378
Farmingdale
EMC Technologists, A Div. of I2R Corp.
(732) 919-1100
Hillsborough
Advanced Compliance Laboratory, Inc.
(908) 927-9288
Holmdel
Global Products Compliance Laboratory
(732) 332-6000
Lakehurst
Naval Air Warfare Ctr., Aircraft Div.
(732) 323-2085
Lakewood
BAE Systems
(732) 364-0049
Lincroft
Don HEIRMAN Consultants
(732) 741-7723
Piscataway
Telcordia Technologies, Inc.
(800) 521-2673
Rutherford
SGS International Certification Services, Inc. (800) 747-9047
Sayreville
(732) 721-6116
33
City
Company Name
Contact
BE
NY
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
R
FC
TI F
CP
I CA
AR
TI O
T1
FC
Ns
5&
CP
18
AR
T
IMM
68
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/A
2L A
PRO
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
S
03
TI N
>2
G
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
T
I
160
ON
SH
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
ES FECT
IVE
T
NE
SS
Thorofare
NDI Engineering Company
(856) 848-0033
Tinton Falls
(732) 936-0800
Wayne
(973) 628-1363
New Mexico
Albuquerque
Advanced Testing Services, Inc.
(505) 292-2032
White Sands
USA WSMR, Survivability Directorate
(575) 678-6107
Bohemia
Dayton T. Brown, Inc.
(800) TEST-456
College Point
Aero Nav Laboratories, Inc.
(718) 939-4422
Deer Park
MCG Surge Protection, Inc.
(800) 851-1508
Deer Park
Universal Shielding Corp.
(631) 667-7900
Groton
Diversified T.E.S.T. Technologies
(607) 898-4218
Groton
Source 1 Compliance
(315) 730-5667
Johnson City
BAE Systems Controls, Inc.
(607) 770-3771
Johnstown
Electro-Metrics Corp.
(518) 762-2600
Liverpool
Diversified Technologies
(315) 457-0245
Liverpool
Source1 Solutions
(315) 730-5667
Medford
American Environments Co.
(631) 736-5883
Medina
TREK, Inc.
(585) 798-3140
New York
Melville
(631) 271-6200
Northport
Mohr, R.J., Assoc., Inc.
(631) 754-1142
Owego
Lockheed Martin Federal Systems
(607) 751-2938
Palmyra
Source1 Solutions
(315) 730-5667
Poughkeepsie
IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie EMC Lab
(607) 752-2225
Rochester
Chomerics, Div. of Parker Hannifin
(781) 939-4158
Rochester
Spec-Hardened Systems
(585) 225-2857
Rochester
TV Rheinland of North America
(585) 426-5555
(631) 737-1500

Ronkonkoma
North Carolina
Cary
CertifiGroup
(800) 422-1651
Cary
(919) 481-9319
Fayetteville
Partnership for Defense Innovation R&D Lab (910) 307-3000
Greensboro
Electrical South, LP
(800) 950-9550
Greenville
Lawrence Behr Associates (LBA)
(252) 757-0279
New Bern
iNARTE, Inc.
(252) 672-0111
Raleigh
MicroCraft Corporation
(919) 872-2272
Res. Triangle Pk. Educated Design & Dev., Inc. (ED&D)
(919) 469-9434
Res. Triangle Pk. IBM RTP EMC Test Labs
(919) 543-0837
Res. Triangle Pk.
(919) 549-1400
Youngsville
Flextronics International EMC Labs
(919) 554-0901
Youngsville
TV Rheinland Of North America
(919) 554-3668
34
Company Name
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
RT
FC
IFIC
CP
AT
AR
IO N
T1
FC
s
5&
CP
18
AR
T6
IMM
8
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/
PRO A 2L A
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
ST
03
ING
>2
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
TI O
-16
SH
N
0
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
F
EC
ES
TIV
T
EN
ES
S
City
& canada
Contact
BE
Ohio
Brooklyn Heights Sypris Test & Measurement
(216) 741-7040
Burton
F-Squared Laboratories, Inc.
(877) 405-1580
Chesterland
EU Compliance Services, Inc.
(440) 918-1425
Cleveland
CSA International
(216) 524-4990
Cleveland
NASA GRC EMI Lab
(216) 433-2533
Cleveland
Smith Electronics
(440) 526-4386
Fairborn
(937) 427-3444
Mason
L-3 Cincinnati Electronics
(513) 573-6100
Mentor
EU Compliance Services, Inc.
(440) 918-1425
Springboro
Pioneer Automotive Technologies
(937) 746-6600
Integrated Sciences, Inc.
(918) 493-3399
Beaverton
Tektronix
(407) 551-2738
Hillsboro
Cascade TEK
(503) 648-1818
Hillsboro
ElectroMagnetic Investigations, LLC
(503) 466-1160
Portland
Northwest EMC, Inc.
(888) 364-2378
Oklahoma
Tulsa
Oregon
35
WA
Company Name
Contact
BE
City
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
R
FC
TI F
CP
I CA
AR
TI O
T1
FC
Ns
5&
CP
18
AR
T
IMM
68
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/A
2L A
PRO
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
S
03
TI N
>2
G
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
T
I
160
ON
SH
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
ES FECT
IVE
T
NE
SS
Portland
TV SD America, Inc.
(503) 598-7580
Tillamook
ElectroMagnetic Investigations, LLC
(503) 466-1160
Pennsylvania
Annville
CHAR Services, Inc.
(717) 867-2788
Boalsburg
Seven Mountains Scientific, Inc.
(814) 466-6559
Glenside
Electro-Tech Systems, Inc.
(215) 887-2196
Harleysville
(215) 256-4133
Hatfield
Laboratory Testing, Inc.
(800) 219-9095
New Castle
Keystone Compliance LLC
(724) 657-9940
Norristown
LCR Electronics, Inc.
(610) 278-0840
Pottstown
BEC Inc.
(610) 970-6880
State College
Videon Central, Inc.
(814) 235-1111
W. Conshohocken Alion Science & Technology
(610) 825-1960
Willow Grove
Nelson Design Services
(215) 784-9600
Knoxville
Global Testing Labs LLC
(865) 525-0137
Knoxville
Southern Testing Services, Inc.
(865) 966-5330
Austin
Austin EMC
(512) 219-6650
Austin
BAE Systems IDS Test Services
(512) 929-2410
Austin
(512) 287-2500
Cedar Park
TDK RF Solutions, Inc.
(512) 258-9478
Euless
Ronald G. Jones, P.E.
(817) 267-1476
Houston
DNV Certification
(281) 721-6600
Lewisville
Nemko USA
(972) 436-9600
Plano
(972) 509-2566
Plano
(972) 202-8800
Richardson
(972) 231-4443
Round Rock
Professional Testing (EMI), Inc.
(512) 244-3371
San Antonio
Southwest Research Institute
(210) 684-5111
Coalville
(435) 336-4433
Ogden
Little Mountain Test Facility (LMTF)
(801) 315-2320
Salt Lake City
Communication Certification Laboratory
(801) 972-6146
Salt Lake City
L3 Communication SystemsWest
(801) 594-2560
Essex Junction
Huber & Suhner
(802) 878-0555
Middlebury
Green Mountain Electromagnetics, Inc.
(802) 388-3390
Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont
36
Company Name
Contact
Falls Church
Raytheon Prototype Services
(703) 849-1562
Fredericksburg
Vitatech Engineering, LLC
(540) 286-1984
BE
City
& canada
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
RT
FC
IFIC
CP
AT
AR
IO N
T1
FC
s
5&
CP
18
AR
T6
IMM
8
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/
PRO A 2L A
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
ST
03
ING
>2
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
TI O
-16
SH
N
0
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
F
EC
ES
TIV
T
EN
ES
S
Virginia
Herndon
Rhein Tech Laboratories, Inc.
(703) 689-0368
McLean
American TCB
(703) 847-4700
Reston
TEMPEST, Inc. (VA)
(703) 709-9543
Richmond
Technology International, Inc.
(804) 794-4144
Washington
Acme
Acme Testing Company
(360) 595-2785
Bothell
CKC Laboratories, Inc
(425) 402-1717
Sultan
Northwest EMC, Inc.
(888) 364-2378
Butler
Emission Control, Ltd.
(262) 790-0092
Cedarburg
L.S. Research
(262) 375-4400
Genoa City
D.L.S. Electronic Systems, Inc.
(847) 537-6400
Milwaukee
Curtis Industries/Filter Networks
(414) 649-4200
Neenah
International Compliance Laboratories
(920) 720-5555
Wisconsin

Canada
Alberta

Airdrie
Electronics Test Centre - Airdrie
(403) 912-0037
Calgary
EMSCAN Corporation
(403) 291 0313
Calgary
(403) 568-6605
Medley
Aerospace Engrg. Test Establishment (DND) (780) 840-8000
British Columbia
Abbotsford
Protocol EMC
(604) 218-1762
Kelowna
Celltech Labs, Inc.
(250) 765-7650
Pitt Meadows
Tranzeo EMC Labs Inc.
(604) 460-4453
Richmond
LabTest Certification, Inc.
(604) 247-0444
Kanata
Electronics Test Centre
(613) 599-6800
Merrickville
EMC Consulting, Inc.
(613) 269-4247
Missisauga
Intertek ETL Semko
(905) 678-7820
Nepean
APREL Laboratories
(613) 820-2730
Nepean
Multilek Inc.
(613) 226-2365
Oakville
Ultratech Group of Labs
(905) 829-1570
Ottawa
ASR Technologies
(613) 737-2026
Ontario

37
City
Company Name
Contact
BE
LLC
OR
E
Cb
/cab / TEL
COR
/ TC
EM
DI A
B
ISS
IO N
EM
S
P/L
IG H
TN
ES
ING
D
EF
FE
eu
CT
ro
S
CE
R
FC
TI F
CP
I CA
AR
TI O
T1
FC
Ns
5&
CP
18
AR
T
IMM
68
UN
LI G I T Y
HT
NI N
GS
MIL
TR
- ST
IKE
D1
MIL
8 8/
125
- ST
D4
61/
NV
4 62
LA
P/A
2L A
PRO
AP
DU
PRO
CT
RA
SA
VE
DH
FE
TY D
AZ
TE
RS
S
03
TI N
>2
G
repai 00 V/
ME
TE
r /C
R
RT
C A A LI B
RA
DO
T
I
160
ON
SH
IEL
DI
TE NG EF
MP
ES FECT
IVE
T
NE
SS
Ottawa
Nemko
(613) 737-9680
Ottawa
Power & Controls Engineering Ltd.
(613) 829-0820
Ottawa
Raymond EMC Enclosures Limited
(800) EMC-1495
Scarborough
Vican Electronics
(416) 412-2111
Toronto
CSA International
(866) 797-4272
Toronto
Global EMC Inc.
(905) 883-8189
Quebec
Montreal
Centre de Recherche Industrielle du Quebec (514) 383-1550
Quebec
Comlab, Inc.
(418) 682-3380
Quebec
FISO Technologies
(418) 688-8065
ASIA
EUROPE
CHINA
AUSTRIA
Beijing
Teseq Company Limited
+86 10 8460 8080
Seibersdorf
Shanghai
KIKUSUI Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd
43 (0) 50550 2805
Shanghai
CETECOM Shanghai
+86 (0) 21 6879 5890
DENMARK
Shenzhen
MET Laboratories Inc.
+86 755 82911867
Horsholm
Kowloon
Intertek China
(852) 2 173 8810
Kowloon
Chomerics Asia Pacific
(852) 2 428 8008
ISRAEL
972-8-9797799
JAPAN
Watari
Cosmos Corporation
81 (0)598-60-1827
Chiba
EMC Kashima Corporation
81 478-82-0963
Tokyo
CETECOM Japan
+81 (0) 3 6663 8990
Tokyo
Technology International
81 (0)3 5793 1558
KOREA
Gyeonggi-do CETECOM MOVON Ltd, Korea
+82-(0)31-321-2988
Seoul
82 (0) 2 2026 0191
TAIWAN
New Taipei City MET Laboratories, Inc.
+886 2 8227 8887
Taipei City
+886 2 2564 3338
38
CETECOM Taiwan
Austrian Research Centers
Delta
43 (0) 50550 2805
+45 72 19 49 99
Blomberg
Phoenix Testlab GmbH
+49 5235 9500 0
Dortmund
EMC Test NRW GmbH
+49 231 97 42-750
Egling

MOOSER Consulting GmbH
+49 8176 92250
Erlangen

Siemens AG
Essen
CETECOM GmbH (Germany)
+49 20 54 95 19 0
Karlsruhe
Siemens AG
+49 721 595-2039
Services: Emissions, EMP/Lighting Effects, ESD, Euro

Certifications, Immunity, MIL-STD 461/462, Product Safety
Ludwigsburg

Mooser EMC Technik GmbH
Israel Testing Laboratories
GERMANY
HONG KONG
Lod
Services: Emissions, EMP, Lighting Effects, Immunity, MIL-STD

188/125, MIL-STD 461/462, Shielding Effectiveness, Tempest
+49 9131 7-32977
Services: Emissions/ ESD/ Immunity
+49 7141 648260
Services: Emissions, ESD, Euro Certifications, Immunity, MIL-STD

461/462, RS03>200 V/meter
Moggast
EMCCons Dr. Rasek GmbH & Co
Services: BELLCORE/TELCORDIA, CB/CAB/TCB, EMISSIONS, EMP/

LIGHTNING EFFECTS, ESD, EURO CERTIFICATIONS, FCC PART 15 & 18,
FCC PART 68, IMMUNITY, LIGHTNING STRIKE, MIL-STD 188/125, MIL-STD
461/462, NVLAP/A2LA APPROVED, PRODUCT SAFETY, RADHAZ TESTING,
RS03 > 200 V/METER, REPAIR/CALIBRATION, RTCA DO-160, SHIELDING
EFFECTIVENESS
Munich
+49 9194 9016
+49 89 787475 160
Neckartenzlingen Hirschmann Car Communication GmbH
+49 7127 14 1437
Ratingen
7Layers
+49 210 27490
Services: Emissions, EMP, Lighting Effects, ESD, Euro

Certifications, FCC Part 15 & 18, Immunity, Lightning Strike,
MIL-STD 461/462, Shielding Effectiveness, Tempest
& canada
Saarbruecken CETECOM GmbH
+49 681 598 8438
Eindhoven
EMCMCC
+ 49 271 382702
Services: Emissions, ESD, Euro Certifications, Immunity,

MIL-STD 461/462, RS03>200 V/meter
Eindhoven
Philips Innovation Services
Services: Emissions, ESD, Immunity
Eindhoven
Philips Applied Technologies EMC
31 40 27 44316
Woerden
D.A.R.E.!! Consultancy
31 348 430 979
Woerden
D.A.R.E.!! Instruments
31 348 430 979
Siegen
EMC Testhaus Dr. Schreiber GmbH
Services: Emissions, EMP, Lighting Effects, ESD, Euro

Certifications, Immunity, Lightning Strike, MIL-STD 461/462,
Product Safety, Repair/Calibration, RTCA DO-160, Shielding
Effectiveness
Straubing
EMV Testhaus GmbH
+49 9421 56868-0
Straubing
TV SD SENTON GmbH
+49 9421 5522 0
Services: Emissions, ESD, Euro Certifications, FCC Part 15 & 18,
Immunity, MIL-STD 461/462, RTCA DO-160
Unterleinleiter EMCCons Dr. Rasek GmbH & Co
+31-6-53811267
+31-40-2746762
UNITED KINGDOM
+49 9194 9016
Services: BELLCORE/TELCORDIA, CB/CAB/TCB, EMISSIONS, EMP/

LIGHTNING EFFECTS, ESD, EURO CERTIFICATIONS, FCC PART 15 & 18,
FCC PART 68, IMMUNITY, LIGHTNING STRIKE, MIL-STD 188/125, MIL-STD
461/462, NVLAP/A2LA APPROVED, PRODUCT SAFETY, RADHAZ TESTING,
RS03 > 200 V/METER, REPAIR/CALIBRATION, RTCA DO-160, SHIELDING
EFFECTIVENESS
Aylesbury
3C Test Ltd
+44 (0) 1327 857500
Basingstoke
RFI Global Services Ltd. (UL)
+44 (0) 1256 31 2112
Eastleigh
Hursley EMC Services
+44 (0) 23 8027 1111
Wismar
CEcert GmbH
+49 3841 2242 906
Essex
RN Electronics Ltd
01277 352219
Eiserfelder
EMC Testhaus Schreiber GmbH
+49 271 382702
Farnborough
QinetiQ
+44 (0) 1980 662 895
Stra e
H+H High Voltage Technology GmbH
+49 2371 1853 0
High Wycombe Chomerics Europe
+44 (0) 1494 455 400
Hagen
HF-SHIELDING Joachim Broede GmbH
+49 54 05-99 99 04
Leicestershire Cre8 Associates Ltd
+44 (0) 1162 479787
Northamptonshire 3C Test Ltd
+44 (0) 1327 857500
GREAT BRITAIN
Hampshire
TUV Product Service/BABT
+44 1489 558100
Merseyside
SGS International Certification Services
+44 1513 506666
GREECE
Athens
EMC LLAS S.A.
30 210 7798365
NORWAY
Oslo
Nemko, Inc.
47 229 60330
Spain
Barcelona
GCEM-UPC
+34 93 401 10 21

Immunity
Intertek Semko AB
Services: CB/CAB/TCB, Emissions, ESD, Euro Certifications, FCC Part

15 & 18, Immunity, Product Safety
+44 (0)1327 857500
Oakley
Cranage EMC & Safety
+44 (0) 1630 658 568
Pontllanfraith Blackwood EMC, LTD
+44 (0) 1495 229 219

+44 (0)1942296190
St. Helens
Rainford EMC Systems

Immunity, MIL-STD 188/125, Product Safety, RTCA DO-160
Solihull
TRW Conekt
+44 (0) 121 627 4242`
Stebbing
Electromagnetic Testing Services Ltd
+44 (0) 1371 856 061
Wimborne
AQL EMC Limited
+44 (0) 1202 86 11 75

+44 (0) 1684 571700
OCEANIA
+46 8 750 00 00
AUSTRALIA
SWITZERLAND
Berikon
Euro EMC Service
+41 566 33 73 81
Zrich
SGS International Certification Services
+41 44 445 16 80
Melbourne
EMC Technologies Pty Ltd
+613 9365 1000
Five Dock
EMI Solutions
0403 137652
NEW ZEALAND
THE NETHERLANDS
Dordrecht
Holland Shielding Systems BV
Services: EMP, Lighting Effects, ESD, MIL-STD 188/125, MIL-STD 461/462,

Shielding Effectiveness, Tempest
Silverstone Circuit 3C Test Ltd.
Worcestershire TRaC Global (EMC Projects Ltd)
SWEDEN
Kista
Northants
Christchurch
+31-7-8-6131366
Braco Compliance Ltd
+64 21 208 4303
39
Suppliers of Filters & Ferrites
Suppliers of Amplifiers
AR Worldwide RF/Microwave Instrumentation; Souderton, PA

215-723-8181; 800-933-8181; www.ar-worldwide.com
Fair-Rite Products Corp.; Wallkill, NY; 888-324-7748

www.fair-rite.com
CPI (Communications & Power Industries) Canada Inc.;

Georgetown, ON, Canada; 905-877-0161; www.cpii.com/cmp
Schurter Inc.; Santa Rosa, CA; 707-636-3000
www.schurterinc.com
Radius Power Inc.; Orange, CA; 714-289-0055

www.radiuspower.com
Instruments for Industry; Ronkonkoma, NY; 631-467-8400

www.ifi.com
Suppliers of Shielding
Suppliers of Antennas
Spira Manufacturing Corporation; N. Hollywood, CA

818-764-8222; www.spira-emi.com
AH Systems; Chatsworth, CA; 818-998-0223
www.AHSystems.com
Suppliers of Conductive Materials
Spectrum Control; Fairview, PA; 814-474-2207

www.spectrumcontrol.com
Dontech Incorporated; Doylestown, PA; 215-348-5010

www.dontechinc.com
40
Tech-Etch, Inc.; Plymouth, MA; 508-747-0300

www.tech-etch.com
Your weekly
EMC update!
Suppliers of Software
Interference Technology eNews

brings you a weekly dose of:

CST - Computer Simulation Technology; Framingham, MA; 508-665 4400

www.cst.com
N
ews
S tandards Updates
N
ew Product Announcements
C onferences and Events
C ontract and Award Announcements
S urveys
F orums
P roduct and Services Directories
J obs
White Papers and Application Notes
Get all this and more delivered directly to

your inbox once a week.
EM Software & Systems; Hampton, VA; 757-224-0548

www.emssusa.com
Join the growing number of subscribers to

stay up to date subscribe online today.
Suppliers of Test Equipment
Sign up today at
Narda Safety Test Solutions; Hauppauge, NY; 631 231-1700

Web Site: www.narda-sts.it
EM TEST AG; Reinach, Switzerland; +41 61 717 91 91

www.emtest.com
41
A Ti m e - D o m a i n EMI M e a s u r e m e n t S y s t e m u p t o 26 G H z
w i th M u lt i c ha n n e l A P D M e a s u r i n g F u n c t i o n
A Time-Domain EMI Measurement System

Up to 26.5 GHz with Multichannel APD
Measuring Function
Hassan Hani Slim
Christian Hoffmann
Stephan Braun
Arnd Frech
GAUSS INSTRUMENTS GmbH
Munich, Germany
Johannes A. Russer
Institute for Nanoelectronics, Technische
Universitt Mnchen, Munich, Germany
I. INTRODUCTION
he advances in radio systems in the
past and their ongoing progress has
been joined by advances in measurement systems and, hence, they require
further development of measurement and
specification standards. Electric and electronic systems have to be designed and
realized such that the escape of unwanted
electromagnetic energy into the environment is minimized. Electromagnetic
compatibility denotes a situation where
electrical and electronic systems are not
mutually interfering by electric, magnetic
or electromagnetic interference [1], [2]. The
high bandwidth and the low power levels
used in modern communication systems
make them highly sensitive to electronic
disturbances.
The conducted and radiated electromagnetic interference (EMI) of electric and electronic equipment has to be measured to certify that the equipment fulfills international
standards of electromagnetic compatibility,
e.g. defined by [3]. For the measurement of
the EMI spectrum over a broad frequency
42
band with high spectral resolution spectral

analyzers or EMI receivers are used that
have to fulfill certain requirements, e.g.
defined in [4]. We developed a time-domain
electromagnetic interference measurement
system that uses ultra high-speed analogto-digital converters and real-time digital
signal processing systems to enable ultra
fast tests and measurements for electromagnetic compliance that fulfill the demand for
measurements of todays complex electronic
equipment and systems [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].
Today, time domain electromagnetic interference measurement systems that use ultra
high-speed analog-to-digital converters and
real-time digital signal processing systems
enable ultra fast tests and measurements for
electromagnetic compliance for frequencies
up to 26 GHz [7], [10]. Compared with traditional measurement receivers, the novel
time-domain measurement systems reduce
scan times by several orders of magnitude.
With such systems more complex measurements become feasible, like the complete angular characterization of a device
under test (DUT) or the broadband search
for low-level narrowband emissions. This
allows to define new limits and new evaluation methods to validate equipment.
An interesting way to characterize stochastic EMI signals is to use the amplitude
probability distribution (APD) [11]. The
APD is defined as the part of time the
measured envelope of an interfering signal
exceeds a certain level [12]. The APD is
closely related to the bit error rate of digital
systems and, therefore, a definition of the
emission limits on the basis of the APD
Explore the EM
simulation universe
Y Get equipped with leading edge EM technology.
Now even more choice for EMC/EMI simulation.
CSTs tools enable you to characterize, design and
The
optimize electromagnetic devices all before going
CST STUDIO SUITE enables numerous applications to
extensive
range
of
tools
integrated
in
into the lab or measurement chamber. This can help
be analyzed without leaving the familiar CST design
save substantial costs especially for new or cutting
environment. This complete technology approach
edge products, and also reduce design risk and
enables unprecedented simulation reliability and
improve overall performance and profitability.
additional security through cross verification.
Involved in emc/emi analysis? You can read about
Y Grab the latest in simulation technology. Choose
how CST technology is used for EMC/EMI analysis
the accuracy and speed offered by CST STUDIO SUITE.
at www.cst.com/emc. If youre more interested in

microwave components or signal integrity analysis,
weve a wide range of worked application examples
live on our website at www.cst.com/apps.
CHANGING THE STANDARDS
CST of America, Inc. | To request literature, call (508) 665 4400 | www.cst.com
0
10
APD
10
10
10
10
10
0
5
10
Amplitude [dBV]
15
20
Figure 1. Single channel APD block diagram.
Figure 2. APD graph of a single channel.
would be appropriate for digital equipment. Furthermore,

using the APD, information such as the rms voltage or average power can be obtained [13]. The possibilities in describing the amplitude statistics by the APD function encourage
the definition of a new type of limit-lines that depends on
the statistical behavior. The APD has been used for the
analysis of fluctuating signals [14] and multi-carrier systems
like orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)
radars and communication systems [11]. However, a major
drawback for evaluating the APD so far has been the time
required to evaluate the emissions at a specific frequency
channel. In the presented time-domain system, the APD

is evaluated and processed on several hundred channels
simultaneously. This improvement and aforementioned
advantages provided by using the APD function, encourage its incorporation in electromagnetic interference (EMI)
measurement standards.
In this article we will describe the general concept of
the APD function based analysis. Subsequently, we will
introduce the real-time time-domain system that was used
to implement APD function based analysis [10]. Then the
new developed multi-channel APD will be described. Fi-
44
The latest thermal management

news delivered to your inbox
Get to know ElectronicsCooling eNews
ElectronicsCooling
ElectronicsCooling
ElectronicsCooling eNews
delivers practical information,
ElectronicsCooling
including the latest news,
ElectronicsCooling
trends, product updates, events
and other content on thermal
management advances in the
medical, power generation,
military, aerospace and
computer industries.
Font: Franklin Gothic Book Regular/BOLD
RGB: r - 108 / g - 141 / b - 59
PMS: 7491c
WEB COLOR CODE: #6C8D3B
EC Green - CMYK: c - 62 / m - 27 / y - 100 / k - 9
EC YELLOW - CMYK: c - 0 / m - 35 / y - 85 / k - 0
WEB COLOR CODE: #FBB040
RGB: r-251 /g-176 / b-54
Join the growing

number of subscribers
and stay up to date
Subscribe online today.
www.electronics-cooling.com
ITEM
TM
Figure 3. Real-time time-domain multi-resolution system.
nally, a measurement using aviation emission detectors is

performed and compared to CISPR detectors.
II. THE AMPLITUDE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION
The amplitude probability distribution provides for a description of the signal amplitude statistics. For a random
variable , a value (t) is allocated to each element t. In the
case of emission measurements, the random variable (t)
represents the amplitude of a measured emitted signal at a
Figure 4. Multi-stage broadband down-converter.
specific time t, and a specific frequency f. The frequency

f depends on the intermediate frequency (IF) used, while
the time t is the dwell time of the performed measurement. The APD of a certain value v is given by
APD(v) = P((t) > v),
(1)
where P is the probability of (t) being above this

threshold v. Eq. (1) can be represented by the block diagram shown in Fig. 1, described in CISPR 16-1-1 [4]. The
measurement systems input signal is sampled by an N-bit
analog-to-digital converter (ADC), which provides for
2N distinct output levels. The following block is a RAM
memory block which counts the number of occurrences
of each amplitude level. Finally, the right-most block of
Fig. 1 generates the APD function graph of each level according to (1). The measurement results of the APD of a
single channel is plotted in Fig. 2. The minimum measurable probability of the APD, which is shown to be 10 -4 in
the graph, depends on the number of samples measured
which is proportional to the measurement time.
III. REAL-TIME TIME-DOMAIN MEASUREMENT
SYSTEM
Nowadays, various signal processing algorithms, such as
for example the fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm,
can be realized on configurable integrated circuits (IC)
like field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) or complex programmable logic devices (CPLDs). This yields
46
S l i m , H o ff m a n n , B r a u n , F r e c h , R u s s e r
compact and affordable systems. Furthermore, this opened the possibility

to realize real-time time-domain EMI
measurement systems [15]. These novel
time-domain EMI systems could realize additional measurement features
that surpassed the systems available
on the market till then.
The real-time time-domain EMI
measurement system uses ultra-high
speed analog-to-digital converters
(ADCs) to sample the emission signals.
A wide band antenna in addition to a
low pass filter precedes the ADCs, as
shown in Fig. 3. Hence, we can detect
the required bandwidth while avoiding
aliasing effects due to high frequencies.
The ADCs are arranged in a multiresolution architecture to increase the
dynamic range of the receiver [15]. The
baseband of the receiver is 1.1 GHz,
where frequencies above this limit are
down-converted to the baseband by
means of a down-converting frontend [16].
The sampled data is then accumulated in memory till the number of
samples is sufficient for the required
frequency resolution. Thereupon the
samples in time-domain are transformed and stored into frequency
bins using the short time fast Fourier
transform (STFFT). The fast Fourier
transform can benefit from repetition and symmetry properties for the
discrete Fourier transform (DFT), and
can be implemented into configurable
integrated circuits. The frequency bins
generated are applied afterwards to
different detectors for being weighted,
as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Figure 5. 6 - 26.5 GHz down-converter.
point (P1dB) of the radio-frequency (RF)

front-end, the system achieves high
sensitivity through an ultra-low system
noise floor power spectral density of
below -150 dBm/Hz and a high IF dynamic range exceeding 60 dB over the
complete frequency range [10].
The basic block diagram of the
multi-stage broadband down-converter is shown in Fig. 4. Input signals in

the frequency range from 1.1-6 GHz
are converted to the band below 1.1
GHz and sampled by the ADCs. The
down-converter includes an LNA to
ensure high sensitivity. A single fixed
preselection bandpass filter suppresses
A. Multi-Stage Broadband
Down-Converter
The sampling rate of current ADCs
with high resolution is limited. Therefore, a multi-stage broadband downconverter was added to the system in
order to increase the upper frequency
limit to 18 GHz [9]. The current system enables measurements in the frequency range from 10 Hz to 26.5 GHz
and adds the required IF-filters for the
military and aviation EMC standards
MIL-STD-461F [17] and DO-160F [18].
With integrated low-noise amplifiers
(LNA) and a high 1 dB compression
47
20
Magnitude [dBV]
10
10
Figure 7. Parallel channel APD measurement system.
20
30
0.15
10
15
20
Frequency [MHz]
25
bandpass filters with bandwidths between 3 and 5 GHz.

The bands are switched via low-loss single-pole-quintuplethrow (SP5T) PIN-diode switches. An integrated, broadband
LNA amplifies the input signal and increases the system
sensitivity. The amplified signal is then down-converted
by a broadband mixer with low conversion loss and a low
phase-noise local oscillator signal generated by a phase
locked loop (PLL)-synthesizer.
In order to measure low-power emission signals in the
higher GHz-range, a high system sensitivity is needed. To
decrease the system noise figure, passive components with
low insertion loss have to be used in the preselection, as the
noise figure of a passive device is equal to its insertion loss.
These components before the LNA are mainly defining the
system noise figure F, according to [19]
30
Figure 6. Conducted emission measurement of a vacuum cleaner.
the image frequency band and acts as a preselection filter,

increasing the dynamic range for broadband, noise-like and
narrowband out-of-band input signals. Input signals above 6
GHz are in a first step down-converted to the range below 6
GHz. The block diagram of the 6-26.5 GHz down-converter
is given in Fig. 5. The preselection consists of 5 ultra-wide
F2 1 F3 1
FN 1
+
+ ... + N 1
,
G1
G1 G2
Gk

k=1
F = F1 +
(2)
where Gi is the available power gain of stage i and Fi is

the noise figure of stage i. The implemented PIN-diode
switches exhibit a low insertion loss below 3.6 dB for all
paths. The isolation exceeds 30 dB over the complete frequency range from 6-26.5 GHz.
B. Measurement
Fig. 6 illustrates a conducted emission measurement
performed on a vacuum cleaner power cord. Quasi-peak
and CISPR-RMS-AVG detectors are used to weight the
measured emission extracted using a 9 kHz IF-filter as
required by CISPR 16-1-1. In addition, a positive detector
is used to weight the emission by a 1 kHz IF-filter, required
by DO-160F.
The lower noise level measured using the positive detector in comparison to the quasi-peak detector is due to the
smaller equivalent noise bandwidth of the 1 kHz IF-filter.
IV. THE PARALLEL CHANNELS APD SYSTEM
The schematic of the APD measuring function introduced
in this paper is shown in Fig. 7. The frequency bins generated by the short time fast Fourier transform (STFFT)
block are passed into a multichannel amplitude quantizer.
48
40
PF
Positive
Average
Probability Function
Amplitude [dBV]
30
20
10
10
2145
0
2150
2155
2160
Frequency [MHz]
2165
2170
Figure 8. Probability function measurement in comparison to positive

and average detectors.
Figure 9. 3-D plot of an APD measurement evaluation with an emission

limitline, taken from [20].
The quantized amplitude resolution in the new EMI measurement system can vary between 0.25 dB and 3 dB. The
output of the quantizer per channel k determines the address
i of the counter in the corresponding memory block RAM
(i, k) that is incremented. The process of quantizing and
incrementing counters is executed
until the defined dwell time Td elapses,
whereupon the APD(k) is calculated
using the equation
that the APD curve is more powerful for evaluation than the
single detectors in one graph. This could help in decreasing
measurement time, while keeping all the valuable information of emissions which are being measured.
(3)
A. The Probability Function

In addition to the APD plotting, the
time-domain EMI measurement system can plot the probability function.
A measurement of a Wi-Fi signal was
performed between 2.14 GHz and
2.175 GHz using the APD measuring
function. For the purpose of comparison, the same measurement was
repeated using positive peak and average detectors. The results of both measurements are plotted in Fig. 8. The
average curve overlaps the part of the
APD curve with the highest probability, while the positive detector curve
overlaps the highest measured values
of the emitted signal. The measurement was performed with a dwell time
of 1 s and an amplitude resolution of
0.25 dB. An 120 kHz IF-filter defined
in CISPR 16-1-1 and a frequency step
of 50 kHz were used. It can be seen
49
B. The New Limitline Definition

The implementation of the multichannel APD measuring
function provided the means for introducing new evaluation methods for emission measurements. In Fig. 9, a three
dimensional surface is plotted representing a multichannel
APD measurement of a DVB-T channel (taken from [20]).
Currently used limitlines are defined by their amplitude. In
the 3-D graph of Fig. 9, they will be represented by a plane.
The new limitlines proposed are defined by their amplitude
and probability. This will be beneficial for non-stationary
signals. The new limitlines will be projected as a straight line
into the APD 3-D spectrum. As an example, the limitline
shown in Fig. 9 has an amplitude of 20 dBV and a cumulative probability of 10 -2. The DUT fails at the frequencies
where the spectrum covers the limitline. This is the case for
frequencies below 758 MHz according to Fig. 9.
more depth of information about the measured emissions.

This system allows the definition of new limitline concepts
which can be used e.g. to evaluate the fluctuation of signals.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the Bayerische Forschungsstiftung for funding this project.
REFERENCES
[1] C. R. Paul, Introduction to Electromagnetic Compatibility. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1992.
[2] C. Christopoulos, Principles and Techniques of Electromagnetic
Compatibility, ser. ISBN 0-849378923. CRC Press, 1995.
[3] Comit International Spcial des Perturbations Radiolectriques, Feb. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Comit_International_Spcial_des_Perturbations_Radiolectriques
[4] Specification for radio disturbance and immunity measuring
apparatus and methods part 1-1: radio disturbance and immunity
measuring apparatus measuring apparatus, CISPR16-1-1-am1 3rd
ed., 2010.
[5] F. Krug and P. Russer, The time-domain electromagnetic interference measurement system, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, vol. 45, pp. 330338, 2003.
[6] F. Krug, D. Mller, and P. Russer, Signal processing strategies with
the TDEMI measurement system, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 14021408, 2004.
[7] S. Braun and P. Russer, A low-noise multiresolution high-dynamic
ultra-broad-band time-domain EMI measurement system, IEEE
Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 53, no. 11,
pp. 33543363, 2005.
[8] S. Braun, T. Donauer, and P. Russer, A real-time time-domain EMI
measurement system for full-compliance measurements according to
CISPR 16-1-1, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 259267, 2008.
[9] C. Hoffmann and P. Russer, A real-time low-noise ultra-broadband
time-domain EMI measurement system up to 18 GHz, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 53, 2011.
[10] C. Hoffmann, A. Boege, and P. Russer, A low-noise time-domain
EMI measurement system for measurements up to 26 GHz, Proceedings of the 30th URSI General Assembly 2011, Istanbul, Turkey, 1320
August, 2011.
[11] K. Wiklundh, Relation between the amplitude probability
distribution of an interfering signal and its impact on digital radio
receivers, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol.
48, pp. 537544, 2006.
[12] Y. Yamanaka and T. Shinozuka, Measurement and estimation
of BER degradation of PHS due to electromagnetic disturbances from
microwave ovens, Electronics and Communications in Japan (Part I:
Communications), vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 5563, 1998
[13] M. Kanda, Time and amplitude statistics for electromagnetic
noise in mines, IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility,
vol. 17, pp. 122129, 1975.
[14] K. Gotoh, Y. Matsumoto, S. Ishigami, T. Shinozuka, and M.
Uchino, Development and evaluation of a prototype multichannel
APD measuring receiver, Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, pp. 136, 2007.
[15] S. Braun, M. Al-Qedra, and P. Russer, A novel realtime time-
V. CONCLUSION
A real-time time-domain EMI measurement system from 10
Hz up to 26.5 GHz was presented. This system satisfies the
requirements for valid emission measurement according to
CISPR 16-1-1, MIL-STD-461F and DO-160F standards. The
EMI measurement system is equipped with a multichannel APD measuring function. It has been shown that the
multichannel APD measuring function based analysis can
be implemented on current technology and that it can give
50
domain EMI measurement system based on field programmable gate

arrays, in Proceedings of the 17th International Zurich Symposium
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 2006, EMC Zurich 2006, Singapore,
Feb. 2006, pp. 501504.
[16] C. Hoffmann and P. Russer, A time-domain system for CISPR
16-1-1 compliant measurements above 1 GHz, in Proceedings of the
Asia-Pacific Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Jeju Island,
Korea May, 1619, 2011. APEMC 2011, 2011, pp. 14.
[17] Requirements for the control of electromagnetic interference
characteristics of subsystems and equipment, MIL-STD-461F, 2010.
[18] Environmental conditions and test procedure for airborne equipment, DO-160F, 2007.
[19] W. B. Davenport and W. L. Root, An Introduction to the Theory of
Random Signals and Noise. Wiley-IEEE Press, Oct. 1987.
[20] H. H. Slim, C. Hoffmann, S. Braun, and P. Russer, A novel multichannel amplitude probability distribution for a time-domain EMI
measurement system according to CISPR 16-1-1, EMC Europe 2011,
York, UK, 2011.
frequency engineering and electronic systems. He received the Bachelor

of Science and the Dipl.-Ing. degree both from the Technische Universitt
Mnchen in 2005 and 2006, respectively. After finishing his diploma
thesis in the field of near-infrared spectroscopy at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland, he joined the Institute for
High-Frequency Engineering at the Technische Universitt Mnchen as a
research assistant working towards the Dr.-Ing. degree. He is co-founder
and managing director of GAUSS INSTRUMENTS GmbH, working
in the field of EMC and RF measurement instrumentation and highspeed digital signal processing. He can be reached at frech@tdemi.com.
Johannes A. Russer received his Dipl.-Ing. (M.S.E.E.) degree in electrical
engineering and information technology from the Universitt Karlsruhe,
Germany, in 2003. In 2004 he joined the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign as a research assistant where he received his Ph.D.E.E. degree
in 2010. From 2007 to 2010 he has been working for Qualcomm Inc. as an
intern. Since 2010 he is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute of
Nanoelectronics of the Technische Universitt Mnchen (TUM), Germany.
The current research interests of Johannes A. Russer include the modeling of multiphysics problems, numerical electromagnetics and stochastic
electromagnetic fields. He is a member of IEEE, VDE and of the Eta Kappa
Nu honor society. He can be reached at jrusser@tum.de. n
Hassan H. Slim received the Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) degree in Computer and Communication Engineering in 2005 from Business and Computer University College (BCU) in Beirut, Lebanon. He obtained his Masters
of Science (M.Sc.) degree in Microwave Engineering in 2007 from the Technische Universitt Mnchen (TUM), Germany. Since 2008 he is working towards his Dr.-Ing. degree at the Institute for High-Frequency Engineering at
TUM, Germany under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Peter Russer. His current
research is focused on investigations of electromagnetic compatibility
(EMC) techniques above 1 GHz, in addition to signal processing techniques and automation routines applied in EMC. Since June 2011 he is
working with GAUSS INSTRUMENTS GmbH as a software design engineer. He is a member of IEEE. He can be reached at hslim@tdemi.com.
Christian Hoffmann received the Dipl.-Ing. degree in Electrical
Engineering from the Technische Universitt Mnchen (TUM), Munich,
Germany, in 2008. From 2008 to 2011 he was working at the Institute for
High-Frequency Engineering at TUM, Germany as a research assistant.
He is currently employed as an RF Design Engineer at GAUSS INSTRUMENTS GmbH, Munich, Germany, where he is working towards the
Dr.-Ing. degree. His research interests include measurement techniques
in the microwave and millimeter wave regime, microwave and millimeter wave passive and active circuits and digital signal processing.
His research is focused on the investigation of electromagnetic compatibility in time-domain above 1 GHz. Christian Hoffmann is a member
of the IEEE and VDE. He can be reached at choffmann@tdemi.com.
Stephan Braun studied Electrical Engineering at Munich University of Technology (TUM), and received his Dipl.-Ing. degree in 2003.
From 2003-2009 he was research assistant at the Institute for HighFrequency Engineering, where he received his Dr.-Ing. degree in 2007.
Dr. Braun is now managing director of GAUSS INSTRUMENTS. His
research interests are EMC and microwave measurement technology,
as well as RF-circuits and digital signal processing. Further interests
are fast digital circuits and configurable digital logic. Dr. Braun is
Member of the VDE and IEEE. He can be reached at braun@tdemi.com.
Arnd Frech studied electrical engineering at the Technische
Universitt Mnchen (TUM), Munich, Germany with focus on highinterferencetechnology.com
51
surge & transients
Tr a n s i e n t V o lta g e S u p p r e s s o r s f o r A u t o m o t i v e
Elec tronic Prot ec tion
Transient Voltage Suppressors (TVS) for

Automotive Electronic Protection
SOO MAN (SWEETMAN) KIM

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc.
Malvern, Pennsylvania, USA
major challenge in automotive design

is protecting electronics such as
control units, sensors, and entertainment systems against damaging surges,
voltage transients, ESD, and noise that are
present on the power line. Transient voltage
suppressors (TVS) are ideal solutions for
automotive electronic protection and have
several important parameters for these applications, including power rating, stand-off
voltage, breakdown voltage, and maximum
breakdown voltage. Following are definitions for these parameters.
POWER RATING
The power rating of a TVS is its surgeabsorbing capability under specific test or
application conditions. The industrial-stanFigure 1. Test waveform
of TVS (Bellcore 1089).
Bellcore 1089 represented
the closest approximation
to the medium- and
high-power conditions
encountered by TVS
devices at the time when
they were developed and
proved an easier basis for
the range of purposes and
applications in which these
devices are used than ISO7637-2 [2] or JASO A-1 [3].
52
dard test condition of 10 s/1000 s pulse

form (Bellcore 1089 spec. [1]) is shown in
Figure 1. This test condition differs from the
TVS transient voltage absorbing capability
test condition of 8 s/20 s pulse form, as
shown in Figure 2.
BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE (VBR)
The breakdown voltage is the voltage at
which the device goes into avalanche breakdown, and is measured at a specified current
on the datasheet.
MAXIMUM BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE
(VC: CLAMPING VOLTAGE)
The clamping voltage appears across the
TVS at the specified peak pulse current
rating. The breakdown voltage of a TVS is
measured at a very low current, such as 1
mA or 10 mA, which is different from the
actual avalanche voltage in application conditions. Thus, semiconductor manufactures
specify the typical or maximum breakdown
voltage in large current.
STAND-OFF VOLTAGE (V WM):
WORKING STAND-OFF REVERSE
VOLTAGE
The stand-off voltage indicates the maximum voltage of the TVS when not in
breakdown, and is an important parameter
of protection devices in circuits that do
not operate under normal conditions. In
automotive applications, some regulation
of the automotive electronics is provided
by jump-start protection. This condition
supplies 24 V DC in 10 minutes to 12-V type
electronics, and 36 V DC in 10 minutes to
Our vertical
integration gives
you custom specialty
connectors FAST!
Our specialty connector team is committed to producing

custom EMI filtered and unfiltered connectors with the
industrys shortest lead times. We make our own planar
and tubular capacitors, connector shells, shields, seals and
grommets. And our expertise in finding the ideal EMI filtering
method means youll get a higher performing connector, 100%
tested for critical electrical parameters. Give me a call to see
how well design and build an audio, circular or hermetically
sealed connector specifically for your military, commercial
or industrial application.
Dave Arthurs
Product Application Engineer
Spectrum Advanced
Specialty Products
Put our
innovative new products

problem-solving
expertise to work for you!
Antennas
& Assemblies
Coaxial Filters
& Interconnects
Power Filters
& Film Modules
At the NEW Spectrum Advanced Specialty Products, weve

expanded our product capability to include a wider range of
sophisticated components and assemblies. Our engineering teams
continue to provide custom application-specific solutions exceeding
our customers mechanical, electrical and power requirements.
The Spectrum design process begins with our extensive library
of standard components, which we frequently develop into custom
assemblies offering you a more complete, high performance
solution... saving you time and money.
Specialty Connectors
& Harnessing
Check out our

NEW Specialty
Connector Video @
SpecEMC.com/specvid
See how our expertise can work for you,

call 888.267.1195 or visit SpecEMC.com
Advanced Ceramics
surge & transients
Figure 3. Parameters of voltage and current.

Figure 2. Test waveform of TVS. ESD protection devices are
traditionally tested and specified for their ability to absorb an 8 s/20 s
surge pulse since this allows better differentiation between the abilities
of various devices than the IEC61000-4-2 pulse test, which all devices
should be able to pass regardless of their stated ESD capability.
24-V type electronics without damage or malfunction of

the circuit. Thus, the stand-off voltage is one of the key
parameters in TVS for automotive electronics.
54
Figure 4. Typical vehicle power bus.
surge & transients
Figure 6. For
ISO-7637-2 test
conditions,
the standard
condition is a
VS range of 65
V to 87 V, and Ri
(line impedance)
range of 0.5
to 4 .
Figure 5. (right) Output voltage of alternator in

load dump condition.
PRIMARY PROTECTION OF THE

AUTOMOTIVE POWER LINE
(LOAD DUMP)
Automotive electronics, such as electronic control units, sensors, and en-
56
tertainment systems, are connected to

one power line. The power sources for
these electronics are the battery and
alternator, both of which have unstable
output voltages that are subject to temperature, operating status, and other
conditions. Additionally, ESD, spike
noise, and several kinds of transient
and surge voltages are introduced into
the power and signal line from automotive systems that use solenoid loads,
such as fuel injection, valve, motor,
electrical, and hydrolytic controllers.

WHAT IS LOAD DUMP?
The worst instances of surge voltage are
generated when the battery is disconnected when the engine is in operation,
and the alternator is supplying current
to the power line of the vehicle. This
condition is known as load dump, and
most vehicle manufacturers and industry associations specify a maximum
voltage, line impedance, and time duration for this load dump status, as shown
in Figure 5. The source impedance for
load dump is higher than for the normal
transient tests because the battery is
disconnected and only the alternator,
whose internal coil acts like a current
limit resistor, is sourcing the power.
The following general considerations
of the dynamic behavior of alternators
during load dump apply:
a) The internal resistance of an alternator, in the case of load dump, is mainly
a function of alternator rotational
speed and excitation current.
b) The internal resistance Ri of the load
dump test pulse generator shall be obtained from the following relationship:
Ri = ( 10 X Unom X Nact ) /
( 0.8 X Irated X 12,000 min -1 ),
where
Unom is the specified voltage of the
alternator;
Nact is the specified current at an
alternator speed of 6,000 min-1 (as
given in ISO 8854);
Irated is the actual alternator speed,
in reciprocal minutes.
Two well-known tests simulate
this condition: the U.S.s ISO-7637-2
Pulse 5 and Japans JASO A-1 for 14-V
powertrains and JASO D-1 for 27-V
surge & transients
K im
V TOTAL (Vp)
(V)
JASO A-1
Vs
V
70
88
ISO 7637-2 Pulse 5
78.5 to 100.5
65 to 87
VA
V
RI
()
TIME
(ms)
CYCLE TIME
12.0
0.8
200
12.0
1.0
200
13.5
0.5 to 4.0
400
Table 1. Major load dump test conditions for 14-V powertrains.
powertrains. In this section we review the application of

TVS for load dump in 14-V powertrains.
SPECIFICATION AND RESULTS OF LOAD DUMP
TESTS
The U.S.s ISO-7637-2 Pulse 5 and Japans JASO A-1 tests for
14-V powertrains are simulated in Table 1.
Some vehicle manufacturers apply different conditions
for the load dump test based on ISO-7637-2 Pulse 5. The peak
clamped current of the load dump TVS will be estimated
by the following equation:
Calculation for peak clamping current
IPP= (Vin VC) Ri
IPP: Peak clamping current
Vin: Input voltage
VC: Clamping voltage
Ri: Line impedance
The current and voltage waveforms of Vishays SM5S24A
Figure 7a. Clamped voltage and current of SM5S24A in ISO 7637-2

test.
Figure 7b. Clamped voltage and current of load dump TVS failures in
ISO7637-2 test.
Figure 7c. Maximum clamping capability of Vishay load dump TVS in

ISO7637-2 test.
57
surge & transients
in the ISO-7637-2 test of 87V Vs, 13.5V V batt., 0.75 Ohm

Ri and 400ms pulse width as shown in Figure 7A.
In Figure 7B the clamped voltage and current of load
dump TVS fail in the ISO-7637-2 test of 87V Vs, 13.5V V
batt., 0.5 Ohm Ri and 400ms pulse width because the device
was over-dissipated. The clamping voltage drops to near
zero, and the current passed through the device is increased
to the maximum allowed by the line impedance.
The maximum clamping capability of Vishay load dump
TVS of ISO-7637-2 pulse 5 test condition with 13.5V V batt
and 400ms pulse width is shown in Figure 7C. To prevent

failure, such as that shown in Figure 7B, it is important to
respect the maximum rating of the TVS.
PROTECTION AGAINST NEGATIVE-GOING
TRANSIENTS AND REVERSED SUPPLY VOLTAGE
There are two kinds of load dump TVS for the primary protection of automotive electronics: epitaxial and non-epitaxial.
Both product groups have similar operating breakdown characteristics in reverse bias mode. The difference is that epitaxial
TVSs have low forward voltage drop
(VF) characteristics in forward mode,
and non-epitaxial TVSs have relatively
high VF under the same conditions.
This characteristic is important to the
reverse voltage supplied to the power
line. Most CMOS ICs and LSIs have
very poor reverse voltage capabilities.
The gates of MOSFETs are also
weak in reverse voltage, at - 1 V or
lower. In the reversed power input
mode, the voltage of the power line
is the same as the voltage of the TVS
VF. This reverse bias mode causes
electronic circuit failure. The low forward voltage drop of EPI PAR TVSs
is a good solution to this problem.
Another method to protect circuits
from reversed power input is utilizing a polarity protection rectifier into
the power line, as shown in Figure 8.
A polarity protection rectifier should
have sufficient forward current ratings, and forward surge and reverse
voltage capabilities.
Smaller
Lighter
Lower Cost
Dont be held captive by bulky, expensive and long lead times of the old Transient
Voltage Suppression solutions. Carlisle Interconnect Technologies new-patented
TVS design incorporates the TVS diodes directly into the Printed Circuit Board
(PCB) adjacent to the contacts they protect. This approach saves weight, size and
cost which is critical in high performance applications. CarlisleIT can also include an
electromagnetic interference (EMI) filter array in the same package with a little more
shell length. Contact us today for all your high voltage and lightening protections needs.
480.730.5700
jerrik@CarlisleIT.com
58
For more information

visit www.CarlisleIT.com
SECONDARY PROTECTION OF
THE AUTOMOTIVE POWER LINE
The primary target of protection
circuits in automotive systems is
high surge voltages, but the clamped
voltage is still high. Secondary protection is especially important in 24- V
powertrains, such as found in trucks
and vans. The main reason for this is
the maximum input voltages for most
regulators and dc-to-dc converter ICs
for automotive applications are 45 V
to 60 V. For this kind of application,
using secondary protection, as shown
in Figure 9, is recommended.
Adding resistor R onto the power
line reduces the transient current,
allowing smaller power-rating TVSs
as the secondary protection. Current
requirements for microprocessor and
logic circuits in electronic units are
surge & transients
K im
Figure 8. Reverse bias status.
Figure 9. Secondary protection circuit.
150 mA to 300 mA, and the minimum output voltage of a

12-V battery is 7.2 V at -18C, or 14.4 V for a 24-V battery
under the same conditions. In a 24-V battery under the
above conditions, the supply voltage at a 300-mA load is 8.4
V at R = 20 , and 11.4 V at R = 10 at a minimum voltage
of 14.4 V (24-V battery voltage in - 18 C).
V L = (Vmin (Vmin IL)) ((Vmin IL) R)
V L: Voltage to load
Vmin: Minimum input voltage
IL: Load current
R: Resistor value
Power rating of R = I2R
This supply voltage is higher than the minimum
input voltages for most voltage regulators and DC/
DC converter ICs to avoid wrong operation of circuit
by low voltage input.
While safety and reliability issues are important
considerations in automotive systems, they are beyond
the scope of this article.
[5]
IEC 61000-4-5 International Standard Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Part 4-5: Testing and measurement techniques,
surge immunity test. www.iec.ch
Soo Man (Sweetman) Kim studied electronic engineering at YoungNam
University in Korea and has worked for Vishay General Semiconductor
on field application engineering and product marketing applications for
rectifier and TVS devices since 1987. n
CONCLUSION
In this article, weve described all the transients and
their modes that can damage automotive electronic
systems. Weve gone on to discuss the important
parameters of TVSs, and have demonstrated that
with the appropriate specifications, these devices can
protect circuits against all transients and the load
dump condition.
References
[1]
Bellcore 1089, https://www.scte.org
[2]
ISO/DIS-7637-2.3 2004 Road vehicles Electrical disturbances from conduction and coupling Part 2. Electrical
transient conduction along supply lines only. www.iso.ch
[3]
JASO D 001-94 Japanese Automobile standard, http://
www.jsae.or.jp
[4]
ES-XW7T-1A278 - AC Component and Subsystem Electromagnetic Compatibility, Worldwide Requirements and Test
Procedures, Ford Motor Company, http://www.fordemc.com
59
smart grid
EMC a n d t h e S M A R T G RID
EMC and the Smart Grid
William A. Radasky
Metatech Corporation
Goleta, California, USA
n April 2011 this author published an

article dealing with the threats and potential impacts to the future U.S. Smart
Grid from high power electromagnetic
(HPEM) threats including High-altitude
Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) from a
nuclear detonation in space over the U.S.,
Intentional Electromagnetic Interference
(IEMI) from terrorists or criminals who may
attack and create regional blackouts using
electromagnetic weapons, and finally from
an extreme geomagnetic storm (initiated
by solar activity) that could create damage
to the high-voltage electric grid [1]. This
author has previously referred to these three
electromagnetic environments as a triple
threat [2].
In this article I will summarize the efforts underway to deal with all electromagnetic threats (including EMC) to the Smart
Grid under the Smart Grid Interoperability
Panel (SGIP). This author is a participant in
this effort and feels there is value in informing those with interests in the EMC field to
know the progress of that effort.
This article begins with brief definitions of the current power system and
the future Smart Grid, followed by an explanation of the SGIP program in general
and the EMC activities in particular. At
the end of this article some information
concerning the approach to determine the
appropriate electromagnetic environments
60
for new Smart Grid electronic equipment

is provided.
It should be emphasized that the EMC
work in SGIP is not finished, and this information should be considered as a snapshot
of the current situation.
What is the Smart Grid?
The basic electric power grid today consists
of basic elements of generation, transmission, distribution and users (residential,
commercial and industrial) as shown in Figure 1. Note that the figure indicates the presence of wind power at the subtransmission
level and solar panels at both commercial
and residential facilities. However, as wind
power and solar proliferate and become a
higher percentage of power generation, their
variability will make it more difficult to keep
energy supply and demand in balance. Due
to the pressures from many stakeholders,
there is a rush to push renewable energy
to much higher levels than we have today.
In order to cope with the increased
variable power generation and the fact that
many of these power plants are not always
controlled by a control center (e.g., roof top
solar systems) there will be a need for more
sensors and controls in the power network,
both at the transmission and distribution
level. It will be important for the utility
controlling the voltage and frequency of
the network to have situational awareness
of the connected power system. This means
that new sensors and higher speed communications networks will be needed as shown
smart grid
of this article on the Electromagnetic

Interoperability Issues Working Group
(EMIIWG).
The Scope and Tasks of
the EMIIWG in SGIP
After considerable discussion and
presentation of EMC issues that should
be dealt with as part of the SGIP process, the SGIP decided to form a new
working group in the fall of 2010. The
Chairman of this working group is Dr.
Galen Koepke from NIST in Boulder,
Colorado. The kickoff meeting of the
EMIIWG was held on 1 November
2010. The working group was assigned
the following scope and tasks [7].
Figure 1. Basic elements of a power grid [3].
in Figure 2.
One of the new types of sensors to
be used in a Smart Grid is the Smart
Meter that is electronic in nature and
possesses a communications capability
to provide information to the power
utility with respect to power usage and
also where downed power lines may be
located due to a storm or other event.
These meters are being installed at
many locations throughout the country, although the actual design of these
meters may vary in different parts of
the country.
From an EMC point of view the
Smart Grid introduces some new elements that should be considered from
an EMC point of view. The design and
placement of sensors with varying
bandwidths may be affected by the
electromagnetic environment present.
While the electric power industry is
well aware of the severe electromagnetic environment found in high and
medium voltage substations, there may
not be as much understanding of the
appropriate EM environment in a wind
farm, or in an industrial manufacturing area. In addition the presence of
new transmitters being introduced create the potential of interference. EMC
immunity specifications are also not
routine in the U.S. for home appliance
manufacturers, who may not account
62
for the more complex EM environment

present today in the home. Finally the
performance criteria for equipment operation in the presence of EM environments are different when there is the
need for equipment to communicate
without human intervention, in addition to operate.
The SGIP Program
In 2007 NIST was given the primary
responsibility to coordinate development of a framework that includes
protocols and model standards for
information management to achieve
interoperability of smart grid devices
and systems. [5]
Interoperability is defined by NIST
as the ability of diverse systems and
their components to work together
it enables integration, effective cooperation, and two-way communication among the many interconnected
elements of the electric power grid [4].
In order to provide an open, consensus-based process, an organizational
structure was developed known as
the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel
(SGIP). Figure 3 illustrates the organization of the SGIP with a figure that
has been updated to include a new
EMC related working group [4,6].
While there are many parts to the
SGIP, we are going to focus in the rest

Scope
This Working Group will investigate
enhancing the immunity of Smart Grid
devices and systems to the detrimental effects of natural and man-made
electromagnetic interference, both
radiated and conducted. The focus is to
address these electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) issues and to develop recommendations for the application of
standards and testing criteria to ensure
EMC for the Smart Grid, with a particular focus on issues directly related
to interoperability of Smart Grid devices and systems, including impacts,
avoidance, generation and mitigation
of and immunity to electromagnetic
interference. These recommendations
from the Electromagnetics Interoperability Issues Working Group can be
considered by the SGIP for follow-on
activity (PAP creation, SGTCC action,
etc.). With its focus on interoperability,
this effort is not a general review of
electromagnetics and electric power
related issues, such as power quality,
which are being addressed in different
groups outside the SGIP.
Tasks
1. Review potential electromagnetic
issues and the existing state of EMC of
the power grid and associated systems,
including current and proposed Smart
Grid enhancements.
2. Segment the Smart Grid devices
and systems and electromagnetic environments into a minimal set of
categories for which electromagnetic
ITEM
get to know
Environmental Test & Design (ETD)

shock
vibration
temperature
acoustics
HALT
eco design
waste
HASS
sustainability
Examining Electronics And Their Environments

An electronic newsletter that focuses on the inter-relationship
between electronic products, systems and devices and
their environments.
ETD coverage includes:

The impact of shock, vibration, temperature and
acoustics on electronic products, and how they
are designed to withstand these influences.
The impact of electronic products upon their
environments in terms of acoustical noise,
vibrations, and other emissions.
Qualification and analysis of electronic products
from a lifecycle perspective and the use of HALT,
HASS, ESS testing and other screening methods.
news
standards
compliance
Visit www.etdnews.com to subscribe today
For more information, please contact our Business Development Manager, Bob Poust
bpoust@etdnews.com | 484-688-0300 ext. 15
Publishing Careers With
www.itempubs.com
smart grid
Figure 2. Communications links (shown in blue) that may be needed as part of a Smart Grid [4].
issues and EMC requirements can be

identified. These categories should
64
be compatible with the environment

classifications of IEC 61000-2-5 where
possible.
3. Prioritize or rank the categories in (2) according to the
potential impact on Smart Grid
reliability. The priorities should
consider the extent and severity of
possible failures and the availability requirements for the relevant
interface as defined in NISTIR
7628.
4. Identify and/or propose EMC
terminology and definitions applicable to the Smart Grid and
compatible with international
standards.
5. Identif y and compile the
source-victim matrix for each
category identified in (2).
6. Identif y or develop EMC
performance metrics for systems
in each category identified in (2).
7. Identify appropriate EMC
standards and requirements to
meet performance metrics.
8. Identify areas where EMC
standards are not available and
appropriate SDOs where such standards should be developed.
9. Identify and propose Priority
Action Plans to address standards
or guidelines in high priority categories if needed.

10. Propose strategic recommendations for EMC of Smart Grid systems,

beginning with the highest priority
categories. These recommendations
should reflect a long-term strategy
to maintain EMC as the Smart Grid
evolves.
11. Consider the need, and if appropriate, the nature of a conformity
assessment program for EMC for coordination with the SGIP Smart Grid
Testing and Certification Committee.
In terms of technical progress, the
EMC work has been divided into two
focus teams: Power Delivery and Power
Customer. The separation point is the
customer meter. The two teams are
contributing to a report to the SGIP
that will identify and recommend
existing EMC standards that are appropriate for the various equipment
locations and will further identify
standards that are not adequate or even
available for the purposes of Smart
Grid. It is planned that the recommendations from the EMIIWG will be
included in the next release of the SGIP
Framework.
It is beyond the scope of this paper
to discuss all of the items in the task
list, but instead the focus will be on
task 2, which involves the determination of the appropriate EM environemc Test & design guide 2011
smart grid
Figure 3. Organization of SGIP [4,6].
ment for Smart Grid equipment.

The Electromagnetic
Environment
One of the key aspects to the work of
66
the EMIIWG is to determine whether

adequate EMC immunity standards
exist for future Smart Grid equipment
that are consistent with the electromagnetic environment where they are
intended to operate. As this author
was a member of IEC TC 77/WG 13
that prepared Edition 2 of IEC 610002-5, Description and classification of
electromagnetic environments [8],
some discussion of the approach taken
is presented here.
IEC 61000-2-5 Edition 2:
P rovides information about EM
phenomena expected at different
locations
Introduces the approach to describe
electromagnetic phenomena by their
disturbance degrees
Classifies the EM environments into
different types of locations and describes them by means of attributes
C ompiles tables of disturbance
levels for EM phenomena that are
considered relevant for those types
of locations
The location classes in Edition 2 of
61000-2-5 have been consolidated to
three locations including Residential,
Commercial/Public, and Industrial.
Edition 1 defined more locations, but
it was decided to provide more detailed
environments for fewer locations. Also
in the IEC there is a separate EMC
generic specification to cover power

system electronics, IEC 61000-6-5 [9].

It is likely that IEC 61000-2-5 will be
more applicable to the power customer
aspect of the EMIIWG, while IEC
61000-6-5 and other IEC and IEEE
product standards will be more applicable to the Power Delivery aspect of
the work. As progress has been more
rapid on the power customer side of
the Smart Grid problem, the remaining
discussion will only cover the environment information in IEC 61000-2-5.
The process used in IEC 61000-2-5
involved three major steps:
1) Define the location classes with regard to the types of exposures (both
conducted and radiated) and the
distances expected from particular
types of emitters.
2) C ompile a comprehensive list of
radiated and conducted phenomena
and disturbance levels along with
formulas to compute field levels
where appropriate (include formulas
for near-field exposure).
3) C ombine the results to develop
recommendations for disturbance
levels for a given location for all
applicable phenomena.
Figure 4 illustrates this process in
graphical form.
It should be mentioned that two
main improvements were made with
regard to phenomena in IEC 610002-5 Edition 2. The first was to ensure
that all conducted phenomena were
updated since the last edition fifteen
years ago, to include for example, more
recent power harmonic environments
due to switched mode power supplies.
In the area of radiated phenomena,
significant work was done with the
support of ITU-T to keep up with new
broadcast services (frequencies and
power levels) and other radio services
such as RFID.
While the process to identify the
appropriate EM environments, immunity test standards and equipment
performance criteria when tested are
well underway in the EMIIWG for both
the power customer and the power delivery aspects of the EMC problem, the
results are not yet final. It is expected
that after the EMIIWG report is finalized and sent to the SGIP, then further
details can be provided to interested
smart grid
Radask y
Figure 4. Graphical approach for determining disturbance levels for all phenomena at a given
location [8].
readers.
Summary
This article has presented some background to the problem of EMC and the
Smart Grid in the United States. The
SGIP program and the scope and tasks
of the EMIIWG have been summarized
for the reader. Links are provided in the
references for those who have interest
to explore further. This article also
discusses the approach used by the
EMIIWG to develop an understanding
of the EM environment that would be
present at locations where Smart Grid
equipment may be placed, so that it will

be possible to determine the adequacy
and availability of EMC immunity test
standards for the Smart Grid Program.
References
[1]
Radasky, W. A., High Power Electromagnetic (HPEM) Threats to the Smart
Grid, Interference Technology EMC Directory and Design Guide, April 2011.
[2]
Rada sk y, W. A ., Protec t ion of
Commercial Installations from the Triple
Threat of HEMP, IEMI, and Severe Geo
magnetic Storms, Interference Technology

EMC Directory and Design Guide, April
2009.
[3]
Olofsson, M., A. McEachern and W.
Radasky, EMC in Power Systems Including
Smart Grid, APEMC, Jeju Island, Korea,
May 2011.
[4]
http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/nistandsmartgrid.cfm
[5]
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, U.S. Public Law 110-140.
[6]
Koepke, G., N IST Sma r t Grid
Framework and the SGIP EMII Working
Group, Tutorial Presentation at the IEEE
International EMC Symposium, Long Beach,
California, August 2011.
[7] http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/ElectromagneticIssuesWG
[8]
IEC 61000-2-5 Edition 2, Description and classification of electromagnetic
environments, International Electrotechnical Commission, May 2011.
[9]
IEC 61000-6-5, Immunity for power
station and substation environments, International Electrotechnical Commission, July
2001.
Dr. William A. Radasky, Ph.D., P.E., received

his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1981.
He has worked on high power electromagnetics
(HPEM) applications for more than 43 years.
In 1984 he founded Metatech Corporation in
Goleta, California, which performs work for
customers in government and industry. He has
published over 400 reports, papers and articles
dealing with transient electromagnetic environments, effects and protection during his career.
He is Chairman of IEC SC 77C and IEEE EMC
Society TC-5. He is an EMP Fellow and an IEEE
Life Fellow.
Dr. Radasky is very active in the field of EM
standardization, and he received the Lord Kelvin
Award from the IEC in 2004 for outstanding
contributions to international standardization.
He served as Chairman of the IEC Advisory Committee on EMC (ACEC) from 1997 to 2008. He is
currently working with the EMC Working Group
commissioned by the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP) to evaluate the performance
of Smart Grid communications in the face of
everyday EM environments and interference
caused by HPEM threats. n
67
design
G r o u n d i n g f o r t h e C o n t r o l o f E MI
Designing Electronic Systems for EMC:

Grounding for the Control of EMI
William G. Duff
SEMTAS Corp.
Fairfax Station, Virginia, USA
here are two primary reasons for

grounding devices, cables, equipments, and systems. The first reason
is to prevent shock and fire hazards in the
event that an equipment frame or housing
develops a high voltage due to lightning
or an accidental breakdown of wiring or
components.
The second reason is to reduce EMI effects resulting from electromagnetic fields,
common impedance, or other forms of
interference coupling.
Historically, grounding requirements
arose from the need to provide protection
from electrical faults, lightning, and industrially generated static electricity. Because
most power-fault and lightning control
relies on a low-impedance path to earth, all
major components of an electrical power
generation and transmission system were
earth grounded to provide the required
low-impedance path. As a result, strong
emphasis was placed on earth grounding
of electrical equipment, and the overall
philosophy was ground, ground, ground
without regard to other problems, such as
EMI, that may be created by this approach.
When electronic equipments were introduced, grounding problems became evident.
These problems resulted from the fact that
the circuit and equipment grounds often
provided the mechanism for undesired EMI
coupling. Also, with electronic systems,

the ground may simultaneously perform
two or more functions, and these multiple
functions may be in conflict either in terms
of operational requirements or in terms of
implementation techniques. For example, as
illustrated in Figure 1, the ground network
for an electronic equipment may be used
as a signal return, provide safety, provide
EMI control, and also perform as part of an
antenna system.
Therefore, in order to avoid creating EMI
problems, it is essential to recognize that an
effective grounding system, like any other
portion of an equipment or system, must be
carefully designed and implemented.
Grounding is a system problem and
in order for a grounding arrangement to
perform well it must be well conceived and
accurately designed and implemented. The
grounding configurations must be weighed
with regard to dimensions and frequency,
just like any functional circuit.
The objective of this chapter is to help
engineers, designers, and technicians to
optimize the functionality and reliability
of their equipment by providing an orderly
systems approach to grounding. Such an approach is highly preferable to the empirical
and sometimes contradictory approaches
that are often employed.
Characteristics of Grounding
Systems
Ideally, a ground system should provide
a zero-impedance path to all signals for
This article is excerpted from "Designing Electronic Systems for EMC," by William G. Duff, June 2011, SciTech Publishing,
www.scitechpub.com/emc/
68
design
Figure 1. The multiple functions of grounds.
which it serves as a reference. If this were the situation,

signal currents from different circuits or equipments that
are connected to the ground could return to their respective
sources without creating unwanted coupling between the
circuits or equipments. Many interference problems occur
because designers treat the ground as ideal and fail to give
proper attention to the actual characteristics of the grounding system. One of the primary reasons that designers treat
the ground system as ideal is that this assumption is often
valid from the standpoint of the circuit or equipment design
parameters (i.e., the impedance at power or signal frequen-
70
Figure 2. Ground
can be a misleading,
ambiguous term
if one does not
consider its electrical
parameters.
Duff
cies is small and has little or no impact

on circuit or equipment performance).
However, the non-ideal properties of
the ground must be recognized if EMI
problems are to be avoided.
Impedance Characteristics
Every element (conductor) of a grounding system, whether it be for power
grounding, signal grounding, or lightning protection, has properties of resistance, capacitance, and inductance.
Shields and drain wires of signal cables,
the green wire power safety ground,
lightning down conductors, transformer vault buses, structural steel
members all conductors have these
properties. The resistance property is
exhibited by all metals. The resistance
of a ground path conductor is a function of the material, its length, and its
cross-sectional area. The capacitance
associated with a ground conductor
is determined by its geometric shape,
its proximity to other conductors, and
the nature of the intervening dielectric.
The inductance is a function of its
size, geometry, length, and, to a limited extent, the relative permeability
of the metal. The impedance of the
grounding system is a function of the
resistance, inductance, capacitance,
and frequency.
Because the inductance properties
of a conductor decrease with width and
increase with length, it is frequently
recommended that a length-to-width
ratio of 5:1 be used for grounding
straps. This 5:1 length-to-width ratio
provides a reactance that is approximately 45 percent of that of a straight
circular wire.
The impedance of straight circular wires is provided as a function of
frequency in Table 5.1 for several wire
gauges and lengths. Typical ground
plane impedances are provided in
Table 5.2 for comparison. Note that
for typical length wires, ground plane
impedances are several orders of magnitude less than those of a circular
wire. Also note that the impedance of
both circular wires and ground planes
increase with increasing frequency
and become quite significant at higher
frequencies.
A commonly encountered situation
design
AWG# =10,D=2.59mm
AWG# =2,D=6.54mm
AWG# =22,D=.64mm
Freq.
=
1cm
=
10cm
= 1m
= 10m
=
1cm
=
1cm
=
10cm
= 10cm
= 1cm
= 1cm
= 1m
= 10cm
10Hz
20Hz
30Hz
50Hz
70Hz
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.20
5.27
51.4
52.0
52.8
55.5
59.3
517
532
555
624
715
5.22m
5.50m
5.94m
7.16m
8.68m
32.7
32.7
32.8
32.8
32.8
327
328
328
329
330
3.28m
3.28m
3.28m
3.30m
3.33m
3.28m
3.28m
3.29m
33.2m
33.7m
529
529
530
530
530
5.29m
5.29m
5.30m
5.30m
5.30m
52.9m
53.0m
53.0m
5.30m
5.30m
529m
530m
530m
530m
530m
100Hz
200Hz
300Hz
500Hz
700Hz
5.41
6.20
7.32
10.1
13.2
56.7
99.5
137
219
303
877
1.51m
2.19m
3.59m
5.01m
11.2m
20.6m
30.4m
50.3m
70.2m
32.9
33.2
33.7
35.3
37.7
332
345
365
425
500
3.38m
3.67m
4.11m
6.28m
8.66m
34.6m
39.6m
46.9m
64.8m
84.8m
530
530
530
530
530
5.30m
5.30m
5.30m
5.32m
5.34m
53.0m
53.0m
53.0m
53.2m
53.4m
530m
530m
531m
533m
537m
1kHz
2kHz
3kHz
5kHz
7kHz
18.1
35.2
52.5
87.3
122
429
855
1.28
2.13
2.98
7.14m
14.2m
21.3m
35.6m
49.8m
100m
200m
300m
500m
700m
42.2
62.5
86.3
137
189
632m
1.13m
1.65m
2.72m
3.79m
632
1.13m
1.65m
2.72m
3.79m
8.91m
16.8m
25.0m
41.5m
58.1m
116m
225m
336m
559m
783m
531
536
545
571
609
53.9m
56.6m
60.9m
72.9m
87.9m
545m
589m
656m
835m
1.04
10Hz
20Hz
30Hz
50Hz
70Hz
174
348
523
871
1.22m
4.26
8.53
12.8
21.3
29.8
71.2m
142m
213m
356m
496m
1.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
268
533
799
1.33m
1.86m
5.41m
10.8m
16.2m
27.0m
37.8m
82.9m
165m
248m
414m
580m
1.11
2.23
3.35
5.58
7.82
681
1.00m
1.39m
2.20m
3.04m
8.89m
15.2m
22.0m
36.1m
50.2m
113m
207m
305m
504m
704m
1.39
2.63
3.91
6.48
9.06
100kHz
200kHz
300kHz
500kHz
700kHz
1.74m
3.48m
5.23m
8.71m
12.2m
42.6
85.3
128
213
298
712
1.42
2.13
3.56
4.98
10.0
20.0
30.0
50.0
70.0
2.66m
5.32m
7.98m
13.3m
18.6m
54.0
108
162
270
378
828
1.65
2.48
4.14
5.80
11.1
22.3
33.5
55.8
78.2
4.31m
8.59m
12.8m
21.4m
30.0m
71.6
142
214
357
500
1.00
2.00
3.01
5.01
7.02
12.9k
25.8k
38.7k
64.6k
90.4k
1MHz
2MHz
3MHz
5MHz
7MHz
17.4m
34.8m
52.3m
87.1m
122m
426
853
1.28
2.13
2.98
7.12
14.2
21.3
35.6
49.8
100
200
300
500
700
26.6m
53.2m
79.8m
133m
186m
540m
1.08
1.62
2.70
3.78
8.28
16.5
24.8
41.4
58.0
111k
223k
335k
558k
782k
42.8m
85.7m
128m
214m
300m
714m
1.42
2.14
3.57
5.00
10.0k
20.0k
30.1k
50.1k
70.2k
129
258
387
646
904
10MHz
20MHz
30MHz
50MHz
70MHz
174m
348m
523m
871m
1.22m
4.26
8.53
12.8
21.3
29.8
71.2
142
213
356
498
1.00k
2.00k
3.00k
5.00k
7.00k
266m
532m
798m
1.33
1.86
5.40
10.8
16.2
27.0
37.8
82.8
165
248
414
580
1.11k
2.23k
3.35k
5.58k
7.82k
428
857
1.28
2.14
3.00
7.14
14.2
21.4
35.7
50.0
100k
200k
301k
501k
702k
1.29k
2.58k
3.87k
6.46k
9.04k
100MHz
200MHz
300MHz
500MHz
700MHz
1GHz
1.74m
3.48m
5.23m
8.71m
12.2
17.4
42.6
85.3
128
213
298
426
712
1.42k
2.13k
3.56k
4.98k
7.12k
10.0k
20.0k
30.0k
50.0k
70.0k
2.66
5.32
7.98
13.3
18.6
26.6
54.0
108
162
270
378
540
828
1.65
2.48
4.14
5.80
8.28
11.1k
22.3k
33.5k
55.8k
78.2k
4.28
8.57
12.8
21.4
30.0
42.8
71.4
142
21.4
357
500
714
1.00k
2.00k
3.01k
5.01k
7.02k
10.0k
12.9k
25.8k
38.7k
64.6k
90.4k
= microhms
m = milliohms
= ohms
*AWG = American Wire Gage

D = Wire diameter in mm
= wire length in cm or m
Non-Valid Region for which /4
Table 1. Impedance of Straight Circular Copper Wires.
is that of a ground cable (power or

signal) running along in the proximity of a ground plane. This situation is
illustrated in Figure 3 for equipment
grounding. Figure 4 illustrates a representative circuit of this simple ground
path. The effects of the resistive elements of the circuit will predominate
at very low frequencies.
The relative influence of the reactive
elements will increase at increasing
frequencies. At some frequency, the
magnitude of the inductive reactance
(jL) equals the magnitude of the capacitive reactance (1/jC), and the circuit becomes resonant. The frequency
of the primary (or first) resonance can
be determined from:
allel or series resonant, respectively. At

parallel resonance, the impedance seen
looking into one end of the cable will
be much higher than expected from
R + jL. (For good conductors, e.g.,
copper and aluminum, R L; thus,
jL generally provides an accurate
estimate of the impedance of a ground
conductor at frequencies above a few
hundred hertz). At parallel resonance:

(1)
where L is the total cable inductance,
and C is the net capacitance between
the cable and the ground plane. At
resonance, the impedance presented by
the grounding path will either be high
or low, depending on whether it is par-
where R(ac) is the cable resistance at the

frequency of resonance. Then:
Zp = QL
(2)
where Q, the quality factor, is defined

as:

(3)
(4)
71
design
STEEL, COND-17, PERM-200
COPPER, COND-1, PERM-1

Freq.
t = .03
t = .1
t = .3
t=1
t=3
t = 10
t = .03
t = .1
t = .3
t=1
t=3
t = 10
10Hz
20Hz
30Hz
50Hz
70Hz
574
574
574
574
574
172
172
172
172
172
57.4
57.4
57.4
57.4
57.4
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
5.74
5.75
5.75
5.76
5.78
1.75
1.83
1.95
2.30
2.71
3.38m
3.38m
3.38m
3.38m
3.38m
1.01m
1.01m
1.01m
1.01m
1.01m
338
338
338
338
338
101
102
103
106
110
38.5
49.5
62.3
86.2
105
40.3
56.6
69.3
89.6
106
100Hz
200Hz
300Hz
500Hz
700Hz
574
574
574
574
574
172
172
172
172
172
57.4
57.4
57.4
57.4
57.4
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
5.82
6.04
6.38
7.36
8.55
3.35
5.16
6.43
8.27
9.77
3.38m
3.38m
3.38m
3.38m
3.38m
1.01m
1.01m
1.01m
1.01m
1.01m
338
340
342
350
362
118
157
199
275
335
127
197
219
283
335
126
179
219
283
335
1kHz
2kHz
3kHz
5kHz
7kHz
574
574
574
574
574
172
172
172
172
172
57.4
57.5
57.5
57.6
57.8
17.5
18.3
19.5
23.0
27.1
10.4
16.1
20.3
26.2
30.9
11.6
16.5
6.43
8.27
9.77
3.38m
3.38m
3.38m
3.38m
3.38m
1.01m
1.02m
1.03m
1.06m
1.10m
385
495
623
862
1.05m
403
566
693
896
1.06m
403
566
694
896
1.06m
403
566
694
896
1.06m
10Hz
20Hz
30Hz
50Hz
70Hz
574
574
574
574
574
172
172
172
173
173
58.2
60.4
63.8
73.6
85.5
33.5
51.6
64.3
82.7
97.7
36.9
52.2
63.9
82.6
97.7
36.9
52.2
63.9
82.6
97.7
3.38m
3.40m
3.42m
3.50m
3.62m
1.18m
1.57m
1.99m
2.75m
3.35m
1.27m
1.79m
2.19m
2.83m
3.35m
1.26m
1.79m
2.19m
2.83m
3.35m
1.26m
1.79m
2.19m
2.83m
3.35m
1.26m
1.79m
2.19m
2.83m
3.35m
100kHz
200kHz
300kHz
500kHz
700kHz
574
575
575
576
578
175
183
195
230
171
140
161
203
262
309
116
165
202
261
309
116
165
202
261
309
116
165
202
261
309
3.85m
4.95m
6.23m
8.62m
10.5m
4.03m
5.66m
6.93m
8.96m
10.6m
4.00m
5.66m
6.94m
8.96m
10.6m
4.00m
5.66m
6.94m
8.96m
10.6m
4.00m
5.66m
6.94m
8.96m
10.6m
4.00m
5.66m
6.94m
8.96m
10.6m
1MHz
2MHz
3MHz
5MHz
7MHz
582
604
638
736
855
335
516
643
827
977
369
522
639
826
977
369
522
639
826
977
369
522
639
826
977
369
522
639
826
977
12.7m
17.9m
21.9m
28.3m
33.5m
12.6m
17.9m
21.9m
28.3m
33.5m
12.6m
17.9m
21.9m
28.3m
33.5m
12.6m
17.9m
21.9m
28.3m
33.5m
12.6m
17.9m
21.9m
28.3m
33.5m
12.6m
17.9m
21.9m
28.3m
33.5m
10MHz
20MHz
30MHz
50MHz
70MHz
1.04m
1.61m
2.03m
2.62m
3.09m
1.16m
1.15m
2.02m
2.61m
3.09m
1.16m
1.15m
2.02m
2.61m
3.09m
1.16m
1.15m
2.02m
2.61m
3.09m
1.16m
1.15m
2.02m
2.61m
3.09m
1.16m
1.15m
2.02m
2.61m
3.09m
40.0m
56.6m
69.4m
89.6m
106m
40.0m
56.6m
69.4m
89.6m
106m
40.0m
56.6m
69.4m
89.6m
106m
40.0m
56.6m
69.4m
89.6m
106m
40.0m
56.6m
69.4m
89.6m
106m
40.0m
56.6m
69.4m
89.6m
106m
100MHz
200MHz
300MHz
500MHz
700MHz
3.69m
5.22m
6.39m
8.26m
9.77m
3.69m
5.22m
6.39m
8.26m
9.77m
3.69m
5.22m
6.39m
8.26m
9.77m
3.69m
5.22m
6.39m
8.26m
9.77m
3.69m
5.22m
6.39m
8.26m
9.77m
3.69m
5.22m
6.39m
8.26m
9.77m
126m
179m
219m
283m
335m
126m
179m
219m
283m
335m
126m
179m
219m
283m
335m
126m
179m
219m
283m
335m
126m
179m
219m
283m
335m
126m
179m
219m
283m
335m
1GHz
2GHz
3GHz
5GHz
7GHz
10GHz
11.6m
16.5m
20.2m
26.1m
30.9m
36.9m
11.6m
16.5m
20.2m
26.1m
30.9m
36.9m
11.6m
16.5m
20.2m
26.1m
30.9m
36.9m
11.6m
16.5m
20.2m
26.1m
30.9m
36.9m
11.6m
16.5m
20.2m
26.1m
30.9m
36.9m
11.6m
16.5m
20.2m
26.1m
30.9m
36.9m
400m
566m
694m
896m
1.06
1.26
400m
566m
694m
896m
1.06
1.26
400m
566m
694m
896m
1.06
1.26
400m
566m
694m
896m
1.06
1.26
400m
566m
694m
896m
1.06
1.26
400m
566m
694m
896m
1.06
1.26
*t is in units of mm
= microhms
m = milliohms
= ohms
NOTE: Do not use table at frequencies in MHz above 5/ m since the

separation distance in meters, m, of two grounded equipments
will exceed 0.05 where error becomes significant.
Table 2. Metal Ground Plane Impedance in Ohms/Square.
Above the primary resonance, subsequent resonances (both parallel and

series) will occur between the various
possible combinations of inductances
and capacitances (including parasitics)
in the path.
Series resonances in the grounding
circuit will also occur between the inductances of wire segments and one or
more of the shunt capacitances.
The impedance (Zs) of a series resonant path is:

(5)
Therefore,

(6)
The series resonant impedance is

thus determined by, and is equal to,
the series ac resistance of the par72
ticular inductance and capacitance in

resonance. (At the higher ordered resonances, where the resonant frequency
is established by wire segments and not
the total path, the series impedance of
the path to ground may be less than
predicted from a consideration of the
entire ground conductor length).
An understanding of the highfrequency behavior of a grounding
conductor is simplified by viewing it as
a transmission line. If the ground path
is considered uniform along its run, the
voltages and currents along the line can
be described as a function of time and
distance. If the resistance elements in
Figure 4 are small relative to the inductances and capacitances, the grounding
path has a characteristic impedance,
Z0, equal to L/C where L and C are
the per-unit length values of inductance and capacitance. The situation
illustrated in Figure 3 is of particular

Figure 3. Idealized equipment grounding.
Figure 4. Equivalent circuit of a ground

cable parallel to a ground plane.
interest in equipment grounding. The

input impedance of the grounding
path, i.e., the impedance to ground
seen by the equipment case, is:
Zin = jZ tan
(7)
where,
=LC= the phase constant for
the transmission line
= the length of the path from the
box to the short
where is less than /2 radians, i.e.,
when the electrical path length is less
than a quarter wavelength (/4), the
input impedance of the short-circuited
line is inductive with a value ranging
from 0 (= 0) to (= /2 radians).
As = increases beyond /2 radians
in value, the impedance of the grounding path cycles alternately between its
open- and short-circuit values.
Thus, from the vantage point of the
device or component that is grounded,
the impedance is analogous to that
offered by a short-circuited transmission line. Where = /2, the impedance offered by the ground conductor
behaves like a lossless parallel LC
resonant circuit. Just below resonance,
the impedance is inductive; just above
resonance, it is capacitive; while at resonance, the impedance is real and quite
high (infinite in the perfectly lossless
case). Resonance occurs at values of
equal to integer multiples of quarter
wavelengths, such as a half wavelength,
three-quarter wavelength, etc.
Duff
design
Figure 5. Typical impedance vs. frequency behavior of a grounding

conductor.
Figure 6. Photograph of the swept frequency behavior of a grounding

strap.
Typical ground networks are complex circuits of Rs,

Ls, and Cs with frequency-dependent properties including
both parallel and series resonances. These resonances are
important to the performance of a ground network. Resonance effects in a grounding path are illustrated in Figure
5. The relative effectiveness of a grounding conductor as a
function of frequency is directly related to its impedance
behavior (Figure 6).
It is evident from Figures 5 and 6 that, for maximum efficiency, ground conductor lengths should be a small portion
of the wavelength at the frequency of the signal of concern.

The most effective performance is obtained at frequencies
well below the first resonance.
Antenna Characteristics
Antenna effects are also related to circuit resonance behavior. Ground conductors will act as antennas to radiate or
pick up potential interference energy, depending on their
73
design
Figure 7. Common-mode impedance coupling between circuits.
Figure 8. Conductive coupling of extraneous noise into equipment

interconnecting cables.
lengths relative to a wavelength, i.e., their efficiency. This

fact permits a wavelength-to-physical-length ratio to be
derived for ground conductors. The efficiency of a conductor
as an antenna is related to its radiation resistance. Radiation
resistance is a direct measure of the energy radiated from
the antenna. A good measure of performance for a wire is
a quarter-wave monopole, which has a radiation resistance
of 36.5 . An antenna that transmits or receives 10 percent
or less than a monopole can be considered to be inefficient.
To be effective, a ground wire should be an inefficient
antenna. A convenient criterion for a poor antenna, i.e., a
74
good ground wire, is that its length be /10 or less. Thus, a

recommended goal in the design of an effective grounding
system is to maintain ground wires exposed to potentially
interfering signals at lengths less than 1/10 of a wavelength
of the interfering signal.
Ground-Related Interference
Interference is any extraneous electrical or electromagnetic
disturbance that tends to disrupt the reception of desired
signals or produces undesirable responses in a circuit or
system. Interference can be produced by both natural
and man-made sources, either external or internal to
the circuit. The correct operation of complex electronic
equipment and facilities is inherently dependent upon the
frequencies and amplitudes of both the signals utilized
in the system and the potential interference emissions
that are present. If the frequency of an undesired signal
is within the operating frequency range of a circuit, the
circuit may respond to the undesired signal (it may even
happen out of band). The severity of the interference is a
function of the amplitude and frequency of the undesired
signal relative to that of the desired signal at the point
of detection.
Ground-related interference often involves one of
two basic coupling mechanisms. The first mechanism
results from the fact that the signal circuits of electronic
equipments share the ground with other circuits or
equipments. This mechanism is called common-ground
impedance coupling. Any shared impedance can provide
a mechanism for interference coupling. Figure 7 illustrates the mechanism by which interference is coupled
between culprit and victim circuits via the commonground impedance. In this case, the interference current,
I, flowing through the common-ground impedance, Z,
will produce an interfering signal voltage, Vc, in the victim
circuit. It should be emphasized that the interference
current flowing in the common impedance may be either
a current that is related to the normal operation of the
culprit circuit or an intermittent current that occurs due
to abnormal events (lightning, power faults, load changes,
power line transients, etc.).

Duff
design
Figure 10. Grounding hierarchy.
Even if the equipment pairs do not use the signal ground

as the signal return, the signal ground can still be the cause
of coupling between them. Figure 8 illustrates the effect of
a stray current, IR, flowing in the signal ground. The cur-
Figure 9. Common-mode radiation into and from ground loops.
75
design
rent IR may be the result of the direct coupling of another

equipment pair to the signal ground. It may be the result
of external coupling to the signal ground, or induced in the
ground by an incident field. In either case, IR produces a voltage V N in the ground impedance ZR. This voltage produces a
current in the interconnecting loop, which in turn develops
a voltage across ZL in Equipment B. Thus, it is evident that
interference can conductively couple through the signal
ground to all circuits and equipment connected across the
non-zero impedance elements of that ground.
The second EMI coupling mechanism involving ground
is a radiation mechanism whereby the ground loop, as
shown in Figure 9, acts as a receiving or transmitting
antenna. For this EMI coupling mechanism, the characteristics of the ground (resistance or impedance) do not
play an important role, because the induced EMI voltage
(for the susceptibility case) or the emitted EMI field (for
the emission case) is mainly a function of the EMI driving
function (field strength, voltage, or current), the geometry
and dimensions of the ground loop, and the frequency of
the EMI signal. It should be noted that both the conducted
and radiated EMI coupling mechanisms identified above
involve a ground loop. However, it should be recognized
that ground loop EMI problems can exist without a physical connection to ground. In particular, at RF frequencies,
distributed capacitance to ground can create a ground loop
condition even though circuits or equipments are floated
with respect to ground.
Also, it should be noted that, for both of the EMI coupling
mechanisms involving the ground loop, the EMI currents
in the signal lead and the return are flowing in the same
direction. This EMI condition (where the currents in the
signal lead and the return are in phase) is referred to as
common-mode EMI. The EMI control techniques that will
be effective for ground loop problems are those that either
reduce the coupling of EMI into the ground loop or provide
suppression of the common-mode EMI that is coupled into
the ground loop.
Figure 11. Single-point or star grounding arrangement.
Figure 12. Degeneration of single-point ground by interconnecting

cables and parasitic capacitance.
Circuit, Equipment, and System

Grounding
In the previous section, EMI coupling mechanisms resulting from circuit, equipment, and system grounding were
identified and discussed.
At this point, it should be obvious that grounding is very
important from the standpoint of minimizing and controlling EMI. However, grounding is one of the least understood
and most significant culprits in many system-level EMI
problems. The grounding scheme of a system must perform
the following functions:
A nalog, low-level, and low-frequency circuits must have
noise-free dedicated returns. Due to the low frequencies
involved, wires are generally used (more or less dictating
a single-point or star ground system).
A nalog high-frequency circuits {radio, video, etc.} must
have low impedance, noise-free return circuits, generally
in form of planes or coaxial cables.
Figure 13. Multipoint grounding system.
76
Duff
design
Daisy Chaining (Poor)
Heavier Ground Path (Better)
Ground Plane (Better Still)
or:
Parallel Ground Wires (Better)
Ground Grid (Better Still)
Figure 14. Means of decreasing common-impedance coupling by

decreasing ground path impedance. From the bad practice of daisychain (top), the improvement evolves toward a plane (left) or a grid
(right).
Figure 15. Float circuits or equipments.
77
design
Figure 16. Capacitive grounding.
Figure 19. Common-mode isolation transformer.

Figure 17. Inductive grounding..
Figure 18. Common-mode chokes.
Returns of logic circuits, especially high-speed logic, must

have low impedances over the whole bandwidth (dictated
by the fastest rise times), since power and signal returns
share the same paths.
Returns of powerful loads (solenoids, motors, lamps, etc.)
should be distinct from any of the above, even though
they may end up in the same terminal of the power supply regulator.
Return paths to chassis of cable shields, transformer
shields, filters, etc. must not interfere with functional
returns.
W hen the electrical reference is distinct from the chassis
ground, provision and accessibility must exist to connect
and disconnect one from the other.
More generally, for signals that communicate within
the equipment or between parts of a system, the grounding
scheme must provide a common reference with minimum
ground shift (unless these links are balanced, optically
isolated, etc.). Minimum ground shift means that the
common-mode voltage must stay below the sensitivity
threshold of the most susceptible device in the link.
All the above constraints can be accommodated if their
functional returns and protective grounds are integrated
78
Figure 20. Use of optical isolation to combat common-mode

impedance.
into a grounding system hierarchy as shown in Figure 10.

The application of this concept is the subject of the following discussion.
Modern electronic systems seldom have only one ground.
To mitigate interference, such as due to common-mode
impedance coupling, as many separate grounds as possible
are used. Separate grounds in each subsystem for structural
grounds, signal grounds, shield grounds, and primary and
secondary power grounds are desirable if economically and
logistically practical. These individual grounds from each
subsystem are finally connected by the shortest route back to
the system ground point, where they form an overall system
potential reference. This method is known as a single-point
ground and is illustrated in Figure 11.
Single-Point Grounding Scheme
The single-point or star type of grounding scheme shown
in the figure avoids problems of common-mode impedance
coupling discussed in the previous section. The only com
Duff
design
Figure 23. Single-point signal ground.
Figure 21. Balanced configuration with respect to common-mode voltage.
Figure 22. Floating Signal Ground.
mon path is in the earth ground (for

earth-based structures), but this usually consists of a substantial conductor of very-low impedance. Thus, as long as
no or low ground currents flow in any low-impedance common paths, all subsystems or equipments are maintained at
essentially the same reference potential.
The problem of implementing the above single-point
grounding scheme comes about when (1) interconnecting
cables are used, especially ones having cable shields that
have lengths on the order of 1/20 of a wavelength or greater,
and (2) parasitic capacitance exists between subsystem or
equipment housings or between subsystems and the grounds
of other subsystems. This situation is illustrated in Figure 12.
Here, cable shields connect some of the subsystems
together so that more than one grounding path from a particular subsystem to the ground point exists. Unless precautions are taken, common-impedance ground currents could
flow. At high frequencies, the parasitic capacitive reactance
represents low-impedance paths, and the bond inductance of
a subsystem-to-ground point results in higher impedances.
Thus, again, common-mode currents may flow or unequal
potentials may develop between subsystems.
Figure 24. Single-point ground bus system using a common bus.
Multipoint Grounding Scheme

Rather than have an uncontrolled situation as shown in
Figure 12, the other grounding alternative is multipoint
grounding as illustrated in Figure 13. For the example shown
in Figure 13, each equipment or subsystem is bonded as
directly as possible to a common low-impedance ground
plane to form a homogeneous, low-impedance path. Thus,
common-mode currents and other EMI problems will be
minimized. The ground plane then is earthed for safety
purposes.
Selection of a Grounding Scheme
The facts are that a single-point grounding scheme operates
better at low frequencies, and a multipoint ground behaves
best at high frequencies. If the overall system, for example, is
a network of audio equipment, with many low-level sensors
and control circuits behaving as broadband transient noise
sources, then the high-frequency performance is irrelevant,
since no receptor responds above audio frequency.
For this situation, a single-point ground would be effec
79
design
point grounding (for

hybrid grounds), if
used, would be to
avoid low-frequency
ground current loops
a n d /o r c o m m o n mode impedance
coupling.
I n s u m m a r y,
many system-level
EMI problems can
be avoided by paying
careful attention to
Figure 25. Multiple-point ground configuration. the grounding scheme used. Commonmode, common-ground impedance
problems may be reduced by applicative. Conversely, if the overall system tion of one or more of the following
were a receiver complex of 30 to 1,000 techniques.
MHz tuners, amplifiers, and displays,
Eliminate common impedance
then low-level, low-frequency perfor- by using a single point ground (Figure
mance is irrelevant. Here, multipoint 11) if possible. This configuration is
grounding applies, and interconnect- usually optimal for power frequencies
ing coaxial cables should be used.
and signal frequencies below 300 kHz.
The above comparison of audio Separate and isolate grounds on
versus VHF/UHF systems makes clear
the basis of signal type, level, and
the selection of the correct approach.
frequency as illustrated in Figure 10.
The problem then narrows down Minimize ground impedance as
to one of defining where low- and
illustrated in Figure 14 by ushigh-frequency crossover exists for
ing ground bus, ground plane, or
any given subsystem or equipment.
ground grid.
The answer here in part involves the Float circuits or equipments if
highest significant operating frepractical from a safety standpoint
quency of low-level circuits relative
as illustrated in Figure 15. The efto the physical distance between the
fectiveness of floating circuits or
farthest located equipments.
equipments depends on their physiThe determination of the crossover
cal isolation from other conductors.
frequency region involves considerIn large facilities, it is difficult to
ation of (1) magnetic versus electric
achieve a floating system.
field coupling problems and (2) Use an inductor or capacitor in
ground-plane impedance problems
the ground connection to provide
due to separation. Hybrid single and
high- or low-frequency isolation,
multipoint grounding systems are
respectively, as illustrated in Figures
often the best approach for crossover
16 and 17.
region applications.
Use filters or ferrites in ground loops
When printed circuits and ICs are
to limit common-mode currents or
used, network proximity is considerprovide a common-mode voltage
ably closer. Thus, multipoint grounddrop.
ing is more economical and practical Use a common-mode choke as ilto produce per card, wafer, or chip.
lustrated in Figure 18 or a common
Interconnection of these components
mode isolation transformer as ilthrough wafer risers, motherboards,
lustrated in Figure 19 to suppress
etc. should use a grounding scheme
ground-loop EMI. These devices
following the illustrations of previous
may provide on the order of 60 dB of
paragraphs.
common-mode rejection at frequenThis will likely still represent
cies up to several hundred kilohertz.
a multipoint or hybrid ground- Use optical isolators and/or fiber
ing approach in which any singleoptics to block common-mode EMI
80
Duff
effects as illustrated in Figure 20.

Optical isolators provide a high degree of common-mode rejection at
frequencies up to and including the
HF band (i.e., 3 to 30 MHz). Optical isolators are usually limited to
digital applications (they are not applicable to low-level analog circuits).
Use balanced circuits to minimize
effects of common-mode EMI in
the ground loop as illustrated in
Figure 21. With a perfectly balanced
circuit, the currents flowing in the
two parts of the circuit will produce
equal and opposite voltages across
the load, so the resulting voltage
across the load is zero. Balanced
circuits can provide significant
(greater than 20 dB) commonmode reduction for low-frequency
conditions. However, at higher
frequencies (above 30 MHz), other
effects start to predominate, and the
effectiveness of balanced circuits
diminishes.
Common-mode radiated EMI effects
resulting from emissions that are radiated or picked up by a ground loop may
be reduced by the application of one or
more of the following techniques:
M i n i m i ze t he com mon-mode
ground loop area by routing interconnecting wires or cable close to
the ground.
Reduce the common-mode ground
loop currents by floating circuits or
equipments; using optical isolators;
or inserting common-mode filters,
chokes, or isolation transformers.
Use balanced circuits or balanced
drivers and receivers.
Ground System
Configurations
The ground system for a collection of
circuits within a system or facility can
assume any one of several different
configurations. Each of these configurations tends to be optimal under certain conditions and may contribute to
EMI problems under other conditions.
In general, the ground configurations
will involve either a floating ground,
a single point ground, a multipoint
ground, or some hybrid combination
of these.
A floating ground configuration is
design
illustrated in Figure 22. This type
of signal ground system is electrically isolated from the ground and
other conductive objects. Hence,
noise currents present in the ground
system will not be conductively
coupled to the signal circuits. The
floating ground system concept is
also employed in equipment design to
isolate signal returns from equipment
cabinets and thus prevent unwanted
currents in cabinets from coupling
directly to signal circuits.
Effectiveness of floating ground
systems depends on their true isolation from other nearby conductors;
floating ground systems must really
float. In large facilities, it is often
difficult to achieve and maintain an
effective floating system. Such a floating system is most practical if a few
circuits or a few pieces of equipment
are involved and power is applied
from either batteries or dc-to-dc
converters.
A single-point ground for an
equipment complex is illustrated in
Figure 23. With this configuration,
the signal circuits are referenced to a
single point, and this single point is
then connected to the facility ground.
The ideal single-point signal ground
network is one in which separate
ground conductors extend from one
point on the facility ground to the
return side of each of the numerous circuits located throughout a
facility. This type of ground network
requires an extremely large number
of conductors and is not generally
economically feasible. In lieu of the
ideal, various degrees of approximation to single point grounding are
employed.
The configuration illustrated in
Figure 24 represents a ground bus
arrangement that is often used to
provide an approximation to the
single-point grounding concept. The
ground bus system illustrated in
Figure 24 assumes the form of a
tree. Within each system, the individual subsystems are single-point
grounded. Each of the system ground
points is then connected to the tree
ground bus with a single insulated
conductor.

81
design
300 kHz.
The multiple-point ground illustrated in Figure 25 is the
third configuration frequently used for signal ground
networks. This configuration establishes many conductive
paths to various electronic systems or subsystems within
a facility. Within each subsystem, circuits and networks
have multiple connections to this ground network. Thus,
in a facility, numerous parallel paths exist between any two
points in the multiple point ground network.
Multiple-point grounding frequently simplifies circuit
construction inside complex equipment. It permits equipment employing coaxial cables to be interfaced more easily,
since the outer conductor of the coaxial cable does not have
to be floated relative to the equipment cabinet or enclosure.
However, multiple-point grounding suffers from an
important disadvantage. Power currents and other highamplitude, low-frequency currents flowing through the
facility ground system can conductively couple into signal
circuits to create intolerable interference in susceptible lowfrequency circuits. Also, multiple ground loops are created,
and this makes it more difficult to control radiated emission
or susceptibility resulting from the common-mode ground
loop effects. In addition, for multiple-point grounding to
be effective, all ground conductors between the separate
points must be less than 0.1 wavelength of the interference
signal. Otherwise, common-ground impedance and ground
radiated effects will become significant. In general, multiplepoint grounding configurations tend to be optimum at
higher frequencies (i.e., above 30 MHz).
To illustrate one form of a hybrid-ground system, Figure
26 shows a 19-in cabinet rack containing five separate sliding
drawers. Each drawer contains a portion of the system (top
to bottom): (1) RF and IF preamp circuitry for reception of
microwave signals, (2) IF and video signal amplifiers, (3)
display drivers, displays, and control circuits, (4) low-level
audio circuits and recorders for documenting sensitive
multichannel, hard-line telemetry sensor outputs, and (5)
secondary and regulated power supplies. The hybrid aspect
results from:
The RF and IF video drawers are similar. Here, unitlevel boxes or stages (interconnecting coaxial cables
are grounded at both ends) are multipoint grounded
to the drawer-chassis ground plane. The chassis is then
grounded to the dagger pin, chassis ground bus as suggested in Figure 27. The power ground to these drawers,
on the other hand, is using a single-point ground from
its bus in a manner identical to the audio drawer.
The chassis or signal ground and power ground busses
each constitute a multipoint grounding scheme to the
drawer level. The individual ground busses are singlepoint grounded at the bottom ground distribution
block. This avoids circulating common-mode current
between chassis or signal ground and power grounds,
since power ground current can vary due to transient
surges in certain modes of equipment operation.
Interconnecting cables between different drawer levels are
run separately, and their shields, when used, are treated
Figure 26. Grounding arrangement used in cabinet racks.
The single-point ground accomplishes each of the three

functions of signal circuit grounding. That is, a signal reference is established in each unit or piece of equipment, and
these individual references are connected together. These,
in turn, are connected to the facility ground at least at one
point, which provides fault protection for the circuits and
provides control over static charge buildup.
An important advantage of the single-point configuration
is that it helps control conductively coupled interference. As
illustrated in Figure 23, closed paths for noise currents in
the signal ground network are avoided, and the interference
currents, or voltages in the facility ground system, are not
conductively coupled into the signal circuits via the signal
ground network. Therefore, the single-point signal ground
network minimizes the effects of any noise currents that
may be flowing in the facility ground.
In a large installation, a major disadvantage of a singlepoint ground configuration is the requirement for long
conductors. In addition to being expensive, long conductors
prevent realization of a satisfactory reference for higher
frequencies because of large self-impedances. Furthermore,
because of stray capacitance between conductors, single
point grounding essentially ceases to exist as the signal
frequency is increased. In general, for typical equipments,
systems, or facilities, single-point grounds tend to be optimum for frequencies below approximately
82
Duff
design
provide maximum EMI protection. A detailed discussion
of specific grounding considerations associated with these
EMI control techniques or devices is beyond the scope of
this book. However, it is important to emphasize the importance of grounding on the performance of these techniques
or devices, and details may be found in the references.
Suggested Readings
[1] Morrison, Ralph, and W. H. Lewis, Grounding and Shielding in
Facilities, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1990.
[2] Morrison, Ralph, Grounding and Shielding Techniques in Instrumentation, 3rd ed., Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1990.
[3] Denny, Hugh W., Grounding for the Control of EMI, Gainesville,
VA, Interference Control Technologies, Inc.
[4] Grounding, Bonding and Shielding for Electronic Equipment and
Facilities, MIL-HDBK-419.
Dr. William G. Duff is the president of SEMTAS. Previously, he was the
chief technology officer of the Advanced Technology Group of SENTEL. Prior
to working for SENTEL, he worked for Atlantic Research and taught courses
on electromagnetic interference and electromagnetic compatibility. He is
internationally recognized as a leader in the development of engineering
technology for achieving EMC in communication and electronic systems. He
has 42 years of experience in EMI/EMC analysis, design, test and problem
solving for a wide variety of communication and electronic systems. n
Figure 27. Block diagram detail of hybrid grounding arrangement.
in the same grounding manner as at the drawer level.

The audio and display drawers shown in Figure 27
use single-point grounding throughout for both
their unit-level boxes (interconnecting twisted cable
is grounded at one end to its unit) and power leads.
Cable and unit shields are all grounded together at
the common dagger pin bus. Similarly, the outgoing power leads and twisted returns are separately
bonded on their dagger pin busses.
To review the above scheme, the following is observed:
The audio and display drawers have ground runs
of about 0.6 m and an upper frequency of operation
of about 1 MHz (driver and sweep circuits). Thus,
single-point grounding to the strike pins is indicated.
The RF and IF drawers process UHF and 30 MHz
signals over a distance of a meter so that multipoint
grounding is indicated.
The regulated power supplies furnish equipment
units having transient surge demands. The longest
length is about 1.5 m, and significant transient frequency components may extend up in the HF region.
Here, hybrid grounding is indicated: single-point
within a drawer and multipoint from the power bus
to all drawers.
EMI Control Devices and Techniques
The performance of some EMI control techniques or
devices may be significantly influenced by grounding.
In particular, cable shields; isolation transformers; EMI
filters; ESD, lightning, and EMF protection techniques;
and Faraday shields must be properly grounded so as to
83
electrostatic discharge
A C o m pa r i s o n b e t w e e n G e l at i n o u s a n d T ac k y C o at e d T y p e
P ac k ag i n g C a r r i e r s
A Comparison between Gelatinous and Tacky

Coated Type Packaging Carriers
For Manual Pick & Placement of Class 0 ESD Sensitive Devices
within the ESD Protected Area (EPA)
junction with tweezers for manual pick

and placement) were selected for test and
evaluation.
Robert J. Vermillion
RMV Technology Group, LLC
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California USA
Doug Smith
DC Smith Consultants
Los Gatos, California, USA
or years, semiconductor and aerospace

engineers have fielded questions regarding the suitability of using gelatinous and tacky coated packaging materials
for the distribution, storage, and sale of ESD
sensitive devices. Since this type of packaging is often utilized for ESD sensitive devices
on an ANSI/ESD S4.1-2006 ESD work surface without ionization, the question arises:
Does the practice of anchoring components
without requiring specially designed packaging or ionization constitute a compliant
method in protecting Ultrasensitive Class
0 ESD devices?1
The authors intent
is to analyze gelatinous and tacky coated
technologies for compliance within a static
controlled environment or ESD Protected
Area (EPA). Two product carrier t ypes, a
cross-link gelatinous
polymer insert (Figure
1) and a coated polymer insert with static
dissipative properties
Figure 1. A cross-link gelatinous polymer insert.
(each used in con84
Background
To gain a better understanding of potential
risks associated with the use of inadequate
packaging within an ANSI/ESD S4.1-2006
or MIL-PRF-87893B-1997 protective ESD
work station, one needs only to compare
todays technology miniaturization to 1969
when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. In May
2011, Astronaut Col. Buzz Aldrin, Ph.D.
stated that a hand held smart phone has
more processing power than NASAs Apollo
11 computer. In 1971, the Intel 4004 microprocessor was 2300 transistors equivalent.
Now, according to Processor News, Intels
CPU breaks the 2 billion transistor barrier
with the Tukwila (Reference Illustration 1).
As technology has progressed from ferrite
cores, to individual transistors, to billions
of transistors, the ESD sensitivity of these
devices has increased exponentially. The
relative robustness of devices with ESD
sensitivities of 1000 volts in the early 80s
has been replaced with device threshold
below 50 volts today. The disk drive sectors GMR, (giant magnetoresistive), PMR
(perpendicular magnetic recording), TMR
(tunneling magnetoresistive), and HAMR
(heat assisted magnetic recording) generally identified as EAMR (Energy Assisted
Magnetic Recording) heads are known for
ESD sensitivity at <5 volts for the past five
years or more. Today HBM sensitivity is
1. <50 volts
Figure 2. Product A undergoing Surface Resistance testing.

Reference illustration 1. According to Processor News, Intels
CPU breaks the 2 billion transistor barrier with the Tukwila.
about 1 volt. Increasing the necessity of protecting devices

from ESD events at these low levels will ensure both yield
and reliability.
Because of increased device sensitivity, in-process packaging and handling materials should be capable of offering
the aerospace & defense, semiconductor, medical device,
disk drive and automotive community protection from
electrostatic discharge by meeting the requirements called
out in ANSI/ESD S541-2008. Section 7.0 - Classification of
ESD Packaging Material Properties that states:
Materials and packages useful in preventing damage to
sensitive electronic devices exhibit certain properties that
include:
Low Charging (antistatic)
Resistance:

-Conductive

-Dissipative

-Insulative
Shielding:

-Electrostatic Discharge

-Electric-field
Figure 3. Volume Resistance testing for Product B.
of the packages:
1. Surface Resistance (ANSI/ESD STM11.11) at 12%+/3%RH
2. Volume Resistance (ANSI/ESD STM11.12) at 12%+/3%RH
3. Electrostatic Decay; Gelatinous/Tacky inserts to Ground
[MIL-STD-3010B (Modified),12%+/-3%RH]
4. Faraday Cup testing per ESD adv.11.2 at 12%+/-3%RH
5. Peak Voltages of Products A and B inserts at 12%+/3%RH after Charge and Grounding
6. Contact Discharge of Tweezers making intimate Contact with an ESD Sensitive Device after 1kV charging at
30%RH.
a. Current Probe

i. with ionization

ii. without ionization
Methodology and Test Results

As previously stated, two products were evaluated for suitability in an EPA Class Zero ESD workstation. Product A is
a cross-linked gelatinous polymer package insert. According
to the supplier claims, Product B is a tacky static dissipative
coating property independent of the conductive surface below. Both the gelatinous polymer and tacky surface coating,
hold devices in place either upside down or horizontal to a
work station and require minimal effort for physical removal
of the devices from the packaging.
In this article, the battery of ESD tests represents a snapshot of what is required for compliance to a formalized
materials qualification process. The following testing methods were utilized to determine the ESD safe performance
86
Surface and Volume Resistance versus

Relative Humidity (RH)
It is a misconception to assume that ESD testing at low
and high relative humidities will produce similar measurements. Arguably, this may be true for humidity independent
technologies, but materials that rely upon moisture to facilitate electrical conductivity such as antistatic polymers
may produce significantly different readings at 50% RH in
comparison to ESD testing at 12% RH. Many organizations
maintain 30%RH to 70%RH within an EPA.
In accordance with ANSI/ESD STM11.11-2006 and
ANSI/ESD STM11.12-2007, Products A and B were preconditioned at 12% +/-3% RH and 730F +/-50F for 48 hours prior

Product A Base Outside
Product A Lid Outside
Product A Inside Lid
Product A Inside Polymer
Number
Resistance
Constant
V
Number
Resistance
Constant
V
Number
Resistance
Constant
V
Number
Resistance
Constant
V
1.0E+04
10v
1.1E+04
10v
2.8E+04
10v
4.7E+12
100v
2.5E+04
10v
3.1E+04
10v
4.2E+04
10v
1.5E+12
100v
4.0E+04
10v
4.1E+04
10v
3.2E+04
10v
3.2E+12
100v
4.3E+04
10v
4.8E+04
10v
5.2E+04
10v
4.6E+12
100v
7.4E+04
10v
1.1E+04
10v
5.5E+04
10v
2.2E+12
100v
8.1E+04
10v
4.3E+04
10v
6.1E+04
10v
2.6E+12
100v
Average
4.6E+04
Average
3.1E+04
Average
4.5E+04
Average
3.2E+12
Median
4.2E+04
Median
3.6E+04
Median
4.7E+04
Median
2.9E+12
Minimum
1.0E+04
Minimum
1.1E+04
Minimum
2.8E+04
Minimum
1.5E+12
Maximum
8.1E+04
Maximum
4.8E+04
Maximum
6.1E+04
Maximum
4.7E+12
St. Dev.
2.8E+04
St. Dev.
1.7E+04
St. Dev.
1.3E+04
St. Dev.
1.3E+12
PASSED
Product B Lid Outside
PASSED
Product B Base Outside
PASSED
Product B Inside Lid
FAILED
Product B Inside Polymer
Number
Resistance
Constant
V
Number
Resistance
Constant
V
Number
Resistance
Constant
V
Number
Resistance
Constant
V
3.2E+02
2.5v
8.4E+02
2.5v
2.9E+02
2.5v
7.3E+05
10v
4.4E+02
2.5v
5.4E+02
2.5v
2.4E+02
2.5v
6.5E+05
10v
3.3E+02
2.5v
3.3E+02
2.5v
2.6E+02
2.5v
5.4E+05
10v
4.4E+02
2.5v
7.3E+01
2.5v
6.8E+01
2.5v
4.5E+05
10v
3.3E+02
2.5v
1.8E+02
2.5v
3.7E+02
2.5v
2.0E+05
10v
2.5E+02
2.5v
3.7E+02
2.5v
4.7E+02
2.5v
1.4E+05
10v
Average
3.5E+02
Average
3.9E+02
Average
2.8E+02
Average
4.5E+05
Median
3.3E+02
Median
3.5E+02
Median
2.7E+02
Median
5.0E+05
Minimum
2.5E+02
Minimum
7.3E+01
Minimum
6.8E+01
Minimum
1.4E+05
Maximum
4.4E+02
Maximum
8.4E+02
Maximum
4.7E+02
Maximum
7.3E+05
St. Dev.
7.4E+01
St. Dev.
2.7E+02
St. Dev.
1.4E+02
St. Dev.
2.4E+05
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
PASSED
Table 1. Surface Resistance: 12.1%RH, 73.2 0F after 48 Hours of preconditioning.
88
V e r m i l l i o n, S m i t h
Product B
Product A
Table 2. The gelatinous-like substrate of Product A measured above

the threshold of <1.0 x 1011 ohms for an average of 3.2 x 1012 ohms
(failed); Product B findings, however, were in the static dissipative
range for an average of 4.5 x 105 ohms (passed).
to testing. Figure 2 illustrates Product A undergoing Surface

Resistance testing; Figure 3 illustrates Volume Resistance
testing for Product B. Products A and B surface resistance
measurements are benchmarked in Table 1.
For Product A, the exterior carbon loaded rigid plastic
cases measured in the lower static dissipative range. Product
B produced conductive readings (Table 1) for said cases. Both
cases are suitable for use in an EPA. Since the components
make intimate contact with Products A and B substrates, a
carbon case would not represent a CDM hazard. As illustrated in Table 2, the gelatinous-like substrate of Product
Number
Resistance
Constant
V
Number
Resistance
Constant
V
1.7E+12
100v
1.3E+06
100v
6.2E+12
100v
9.6E+05
100v
1.4E+12
100v
1.2E+06
100v
2.4E+12
100v
5.9E+05
10v
1.7E+12
100v
8.2E+06
100v
1.9E+12
100v
6.4E+05
10v
Average
2.6E+12
Average
2.2E+06
Median
1.8E+12
Median
1.1E+06
Minimum
1.4E+12
Minimum
5.9E+05
Maximum
6.2E+12
Maximum
8.2E+06
St. Dev.
1.8E+12
St. Dev.
3.0E+06
FAILED
PASSED
Table 3. Volume Resistance: 12.1%RH, 73.2 0F after 48 hours of

preconditioning.
The Interference Technology website

organizes information in the way you need it.
Are you having an EMI testing problem and
need advice or are you an EMI testing specialist
and can help others by sharing your knowledge?
Look no further than our EMI Testing Forum
where you can post your comments and questions as well as help peers by answering posts.
Check the forum regularly, and stay informed!
Other Channels Include:

Aerospace EMC
Military EMC
Telecom / NEBS
Amplifiers
Automotive EMC
Antennas
EMI Connectors
EMI Ferrites
EMI Filters
EMI Shielding
89
Figure 4a. For Product A, the test was stopped (left) after 3 seconds.
Product B (right), however, facilitated electrostatic decay through the
grounded polymer insert and carbon case on top of a charge plate.
Table 4
A measured above the threshold of <1.0 x 1011 ohms for

an average or 3.2 x 1012 ohms (failed); Product B findings,
however, were in the static dissipative range for an average
of 4.5 x 105 ohms (passed).
Volume Resistance testing is important as it represents a
packages ability to maintain continuity when placed atop a
grounded work station. In Product A, a charged gelatinous
surface (despite being grounded) could represent an ESD
hazard when stainless steel tweezers make contact with
ESD sensitive devices.
Product A Volume Resistance (Table 3) average measured
insulative at 2.6 x 1012 ohms (failed). Product B, however,
measured static dissipative at 2.2 x 10 6 ohms (passed).
Figure 4b. Even after grounding for 5 seconds, the Product A

gelatinous insert substrate did not bleed off charge.
Electrostatic Decay per

Mil-STD-3010B-2008 (Modified)
3010B specifies that the charged object at +/- 5000 volts

should drain the voltage to +/- 500 volts or lower. For several
years, a common voltage range of +/-1000 volts to +/-100
volts has been utilized. A decay time of less than 2.0 seconds
Electrostatic Decay
This test method measures the rate of decay of a charged
isolated object to 10 percent of its original value. Mil-STD-
Figure 5. The packages were removed from the plate, grounded for a period of 5.0 seconds and allowed to free fall into a Faraday Cup.
90
Product A
Insert to Plate
Product A
Insert to Plate
Product B
Insert to Plate
Product A
Insert to Plate
Number
Seconds
Start
V
Number
Seconds
Start
V
Number
Seconds
Start
V
Number
Seconds
Start
V
3.0
1000v
3.0
-1000v
0.01
1000v
0.01
-1000v
3.0
1000v
3.0
-1000v
0.06
1000v
0.01
-1000v
3.0
1000v
3.0
-1000v
0.01
1000v
0.01
-1000v
3.0
1000v
3.0
-1000v
0.06
1000v
0.01
-1000v
3.0
1000v
3.0
-1000v
0.02
1000v
0.03
-1000v
3.0
1000v
3.0
-1000v
0.04
1000v
0.01
-1000v
Average
3.0
Average
3.0
Average
0.03
Average
0.01
Median
3.0
Median
3.0
Median
0.03
Median
0.01
Minimum
3.0
Minimum
3.0
Minimum
0.01
Minimum
0.01
Maximum
3.0
Maximum
3.0
Maximum
0.06
Maximum
0.03
St. Dev.
0.0
St. Dev.
0.0
St. Dev.
0.02
St. Dev.
0.01
FAILED
FAILED
PASSED
PASSED
Table 5. Static Decay: +/-1kV to +/-100 volts in <2.0 seconds.

Electrostatic Decay
The perfect pair

Electrostatic Discharge
ESD Simulator
Table 6. Product A overlaps in Table 6 and is above the limit of

<2.0 seconds. Product B, however, passed.
www.haefely-onyx.com
is called out in MIL-PRF-81705E and the former EIA-541

as passing. This test represents a material's ability to dissipate induced voltage with proper grounding. Decay tests
have difficulty with materials of complex construction
such as ESD convoluted foams, vacuum-formed polymers
and small items that could fall below the measuring range
of the testing equipments fixturing.
For Product A, the test was stopped (see Figure 4a, left)
after 3 seconds. Product B (see Figure 4a, right), however,
facilitated electrostatic decay through the grounded
polymer insert and carbon case on top of a charge plate.
Even after grounding for 5 seconds, the Product A gelatinous insert substrate did not bleed off charge (see Figure
ECOMPACT4
Transient Immunity
Tester
845-279-3644
join our group!
www.hipotronics.com
emcsales@haefely.com
www.linkedin.com/companies/hipotronics
ITEMTDGFall2011
91
Product B
Product A
Number
nC
Start V
Number
nC
Start V
9.18
1000v
0.01
1000v
4.68
1000v
0.06
1000v
1.89
1000v
0.34
1000v
5.09
1000v
0.01
1000v
-1.45
1000v
0.01
1000v
0.13
1000v
0.13
1000v
Average
3.25
FAILED
Average
0.09
PASSED
Median
3.29
Median
0.04
Minimum
-1.45
Minimum
0.01
Maximum
9.18
Maximum
0.34
St. Dev.
3.85
St. Dev.
0.13
Table 8. Faraday Cup results.
surement device as illustrated in Figure 6. It is important

to test for hot spots since an ESD sensitive device could be
placed over this area and damaged by tweezer removal. If
the overall surface measures <50 volts and one spot peaks
out at 200 volts, this could represent a potential hazard to a
100 volt ESD sensitive device with tweezer contact. Product
A peak voltage surpassed the range of the non-contact voltage system at -1023.5 volts. Product B peaked at -30 volts.
Contact Discharge Measurements with
and without Ionization using Tweezers
Conducting Contact Discharge
Measurements with and without
Ionization
Both Products A (glossy looking insert) and B (satin appearing insert) were placed on a charge plate with a US quarter
atop the packaging inserts. Under ionization, Product A was
neutralized to remove charge. A 6 x 6 20pF charge plate
was then charged to 1000 volts. A grounded person makes
intimate contact with the quarter and then grounds the
charge plate. This simulates a grounded operator at an ANSI/
ESD S4.1 workstation making intimate contact with stainless steel tweezers and an ESD sensitive device. If charge is in
proximity to an ESD sensitive device, contact between metal
to metal surfaces could produce an electrostatic discharge.
An F-65 current probe is positioned over the quarter
and grounded stainless steel tweezers made contact with
the coin (see Figures 7 and 10). In the left-hand section of
Figure 8, illustrating charge on the plate, note the dip when
a quarter was touched after said plate was charged to 1000
volts. This finding is due to the capacitance between the
quarter and the now grounded quarter (after being touched
by a person wearing a grounded wriststrap.
Product A produced a remarkable discharge curve as
illustrated in Figure 8. In this case, the discharge current
was 4.4 Amperes (vertical scale on the scope screen was
1 Amp/div and horizontal scale was 2 ns/div) with a subnanosecond risetime and about 2.0 ns pulse width. Six
separate discharges were measured that ranged from about
3.0 Amperes to 4.4 Amperes peak. Ten years ago it would
take 20mA lasting one nanosecond to kill a disk drive head.
Table 7. 12.1%RH after 48 hours.
4b). The plate voltage remained at 1023.8 volts and -1023.6

volts respectively. It should be noted that when the charge
plate voltage reaches +/-1000 volts, a decay timer will start.
Product A overlaps in Table 6 and is above the limit of <2.0
seconds. Product B, however, passed as illustrated in table 6.
Faraday Cup (Q=CV) per ESD Adv. 11.2
After 48 hours of preconditioning at 12%+/-3%RH in the
test chamber, Products A and B were placed under an ionizer
that was balanced to less than 10 volts. Ionization removed
potentially stored charges prior to Faraday cup testing. Then,
the products were placed on a charge plate set at 1000 volts.
The packages were removed from the plate, grounded for a
period of 5.0 seconds and allowed to free fall into a Faraday
Cup as illustrated in Figure 5. Some organizations require
a passing score of <+/-1.0 nC that is about <+/-100 volts.
Table 7 illustrates the results of testing for Products A and
B. Product A failed the test. Product B passed the test and
was within the acceptance limits.
Table 8 illustrates the Faraday Cup results. The green and
purple lines exhibit the upper and lower limit of +/-1.0nC.
Product A results are illustrated by a blue line and Product
B is illustrated with a red line. Product B passed the test.
Non Contact Voltage Testing
The technique of pinpointing hidden charges (hot spots)
is accomplished by the use of a non-contact voltage mea92
Figure 10. Inserting tweezers through current probe. Illustrates the

tweezers being inserted through the current probe.
Figure 6. The technique of pinpointing hidden charges is accomplished

by the use of a non-contact voltage measurement device.
Figure 11. Notice on the left how the ionization slowly discharged the
charged plate over a few seconds so that little or no discharge occurred
when the quarter was touched by the tweezers.
Figure 7. An F-65 current probe is positioned over the quarter and

grounded stainless steel tweezers made contact with the coin.
devices from the gelatinous type surface while Product B

did not produce a discharge.
Product A with Ionization
Figure 11 illustrates a small discharge current waveform
of about 70 mA that occurred on four of six attempts. For
two attempts, no discharge was recorded. Notice on the left
side of Figure 11 how the ionization slowly discharged the
charged plate over a few seconds so that little or no discharge
occurred when the quarter was touched by the tweezers.
Under ionization, Product A (dark red) produced negligible
to no discharges. Product B did not require ionization at
30%RH as illustrated in Figure 11 and Table 10.
Figure 8. Product A produces a remarkable discharge curve.
Conclusions
In summary, the practice of anchoring components with
an attraction mechanism can constitute an ESD compliant
method in protecting Ultrasensitive Class 0 ESD devices but
only after conducting careful evaluation and qualification
of the product.
Product A gelatinous type platform for staging ESD sensitive devices measured insulative and was not in compliance
with the ANSI/ESD S541-2008 (ESD Packaging & Materials) standard. Product Bs tacky-like substrate was static
dissipative facilitating electrostatic decay and low charging
at 12%RH. Without ionization, Product A did not prevent
ESD events when conductive tweezers-quarter contact was
made. However, Product A, did not pose issues under a flow
of Steady State DC ionized air. In contrast, Product B did not
require ionization to prevent discharges of an ESD sensitive
device. Without considering the insert, both carbon loaded
cases were in compliance with ANSI/ESD S541-2008. The
supplier should be contacted for the products intended application. However, the end user must still validate supplier
Figure 9. In the case of Product B, touching the quarter by the grounded

person, initiated a passing charge decay of the plate (left).
NOTE: Trigger level was set to 20 mA, which is ground zero for practical purposes.
In the case of Product B, as illustrated in Figure 9, touching the quarter by the grounded person, initiated a passing
charge decay of the plate (see Figure 9 Left). Consequently,
there was no resulting discharge when the quarter was
touched by stainless steel tweezers inserted through the
current probe. This test was repeated six times with no
discharge current recorded. Note, the vertical scale on the
scope was only 100 mA/div, 10 times more sensitive than
Figure 8, with a trigger level of less than 20 mA and yet still
no discharge was recorded. Therefore, Product A could pose
a hazard during placement and removal of ESD sensitive
93
Product A Insert to Grounded Plate

without Ionization
Product A Insert to Grounded Plate

with Ionization
Product B Insert to Grounded Plate

without Ionization
Number
mA
Start V
Number
mA
Start V
Number
mA1
Start V
3200
1000v
75
1000v
<20
1000v
3200
1000v
60
1000v
<20
1000v
3050
1000v
75
1000v
<20
1000v
3100
1000v
75
1000v
<20
1000v
3400
1000v
1000v
<20
1000v
4400
1000v
1000v
<20
1000v
Average
3392
Average
48
Average
<20
Median
3200
Median
68
Median
<20
Minimum
3050
Minimum
Minimum
<20
Maximum
4400
Maximum
76
Maximum
<20
St. Dev.
508
St. Dev.
37
St. Dev.
FAILED
PASSED
PASSED
Table 9. Contact Discharge: 30.2%RH after 24 hours of preconditioning.

1
Note: Trigger level was set to 20 mA, which is ground zero for practical purposes.
94
Bob Vermillion, CPP/Fellow, is a Certified ESD & Product Safety Engineer-iNARTE with subject matter expertise in the mitigation of Triboelectrification for a Mars surface and in troubleshooting robotics and systems
for the aerospace, disk drive, medical device, pharmaceutical, automotive
and semiconductor sectors. A co-author of several ANSI level ESD documents, Vermillion serves on the BoD with iNARTE and is a member of the
ESDA Standards Committee. Speaking engagements include ESD Seminars
in the United States and abroad and ongoing guest lecturer invitations for
California State Polytechnic University, San Jose State University, University of California at Berkeley and Clemson University. In 2011, Vermillion
will conduct a Materials/Packaging Seminar for Oxford University. Vermillion is Chief Technology Officer of RMV Technology Group, LLC, a NASA
Industry Partner and 3rd Party ESD Materials Testing, Training and Consulting Company. He can be reached at 650-964-4792 or bob@esdrmv.com.
Table 10
claims to determine what packaging style is appropriate for

use in an ESD Control Area.
Doug Smith, recently returning from lecturing at Oxford University,

specializes in high-frequency measurements, circuit/system design and
verification and EMC, among others. Smith's consulting activities focus on
design verification and problems at the system, circuit, and device level as
well as EMC and immunity (including ESD) problems. By applying specialized knowledge and measurement technology that he has developed over
the years, Smith often solves design or field problems in a much smaller
amount of time that could take engineers weeks, months or years of effort
using conventional engineering methods of investigation. He can be reached
at 408-858-4528 or doug@dsmith.org. n
Special Acknowledgement
A special thank you to Mr. Brad Alhm, President,Conductive
Containers, Inc. in providing samples of Product B (brada@
corstat.com).
A special thank you to Melissa Jolliff, Subject Matter Expert
in the field of Electrostatic Discharge Mitigation.
References:
[1]. Dr. John Kolyer and Watson, "ESD from A to Z," 2nd Edition.
[2]. Mil Handbook 1686C-1995.
[3]. Mil Handbook 263B-1994.
[4]. EIA STANDARD (defunct) Packaging Materials Standards for ESD
Sensitive Items, EIA-541, June 24, 1988, Appendix C, "Triboelectric
Charge Testing of Intimate Packaging Materials".
[5]. ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007
ANSI/ESD S541-2008
ANSI/ESD S3.1-2006
ANSI/ESD S4.1-2006
ANSI/ESD STM4.2-2006
ESDA Adv. 11.2-1995
[6]. Albert Escusa and Bob Vermillion, "Using An ESD Packaging
Materials Qualification Matrix for Contract Manufacturing and
Supplier Conformance," Sep 1, 2006.
[7]. Dr. John M. Kolyer, Ph.D., Rockwell International Telephone
interview in 2004.
[8]. John Kolyer and Donald Watson, The Charged Device Model &
Work Surface Selection, October 1991, pp. 110-117
[9]. Humidity & Temperature Effects on Surface Resistivity, John
Kolyer and Ronald Rushworth Evaluation Engineering, October
1990, pp. 106-110 Military Handbook-263B-1994
[10]. Triboelectric Testing at KSC Under Low Pressure and Temperature ESD Association Proceedings 2002, Dr. Ray Gompf, PE
[11]. ITRS Technical Requirements Electrostatics, The ITRS is devised and intended for technology assessment only and is without
regard to any commercial considerations pertaining to individual
products or equipment Intel Website, Moores Law
2011-RMV Technology Group, LLC-All Rights Reserved.
Complete Compliance
All new MODULAR Compact

Immunity Tester TRA3000
Modular Plug and Play design. Congure as needed
now, add more circuits later using just a screw driver.
No soldering. Ethernet interface with on-board web
server and I/P addressing enables computer control
from any computer with a web browser, even over
your LAN! USB and RS232 interfaces included.
Complete solution to IEC 61000-4-16 continuous and
short duration test requirements. Full line of AUTOMATED three phase and I/O line CDNs up 100 Amps
per phase.
Congure with available accessories to meet some or
all of the following CE MARK requirements:
IEC 61000-4-2, -4, -5, -8, -9, -11, -16, -29
Call Today 703-365-2330

www.hvtechnologies.com emcsales@hvtechnologies.com
95
index of advertisers
REQUEST INFORMATION FROM OUR ADVERTISERS
When you contact our advertisers, please remember to tell them you saw their ad in Interference Technology.
Advanced Test Equipment Rentals

Agilent Technologies
49
3
IFI - Instruments for Industry

Intermark USA
AH Systems, Inc. INSIDE BACK COVER
Item publications
ALCO TECHNOLOGIES
KENSINGTON ELECTRONICS
31
46, Back cover

57
7, 27, 35, 45, 63, 85
64, 66
AMERICOR electronics, ltd.

14
AR RF/Microwave Instrumentation

inside front cover, 11, 17
Kimmel Gerke Associates Ltd.
31
L-3 Communications cincinnati electronic
15
BRACO compliance ltd.
31
leader Tech
70
Braden Shielding Systems
69
Macton Corporation
47
CARLISLE INTERCONNECT TECHNOLOGIES
58
Met Laboratories inc.
51
Chomerics, Div. of Parker Hannifin Corp.
75
Montrose Compliance Services
31
CPI - CommUNICATIONS & Power Industry
13
Narda safety test solution srl
21
CST - Computer Simulation Technology
43
nts - national technical systems
CURTIS INDUSTRIES
54
Pearson Electronics, Inc.
50
Electri-Flex Company
94
PPM Ltd. (Pulse Power & Measurement)
22
EM TEST USA
44
Quell corp.
55
EMC Partner AG
25
Radius Power
24
EMCCons Dr. Rasek GmbH & Co
48
19
EMI Filter Company
59
Schurter Inc
ENR / Seven Mountains Scientific
87
Seal science West
83
ETC - Electronics Test Centre - Kanata
23
Spectrum Advanced Specialty Products
53
Fair-Rite Products Corp.
56
Spira Mfg. Corp.
61
Fotofab Corp
73
Swift Textile Metalizing
74
Tech-Etch, Inc.
77
GORE
80, 81
Haefely EMC Division
91
TESEQ
20
HV TECHNOLOGIES, Inc.
95
Tri-Mag
54
IEEE EMC Society Symposium
65
wyle laboratories
96

TDG11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

TDG11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TDG11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TM

industries & applications

Weve Bent The Rules

Our family of Radiant Arrow bent element antennas are

16,000 Watts of Pure Power

Stand back! Weve exceeded our old limits with the

Weve Pushed The Technology Envelope

Our New Dual Band Amplifiers

With two amplifiers in a single

Our New EMI Receiver:

The CISPR-compliant DER2018 covers 20 Hz to 18 GHz and beyond.

Accuracy, Linearity & Bandwidth.

Our two newest laser-powered E-Field probes,

All-In-One Fully Integrated Test Systems

Theyre smaller and lighter.

Get more done in less time with everything right at

TESTING & TEST EQUIPMENT

Automotive RF Immunity Test Set-Up Analysis:

Time-Domain EMI Measurement System Up to 26 GHz

surge & transients

2012 EMC test

Transient Voltage Suppressors (TVS) for Automotive

emc test & design guide 2011

A Comparison between Gelatinous and Tacky Coated

emc test & design guide 2011

from the editor

lectromagnetic interference knows no borders, so an

Take, for instance, Germanys efforts to reverse its engineering shortage.

emc Directory & design guide 2011

Stay current with the latest EMC/EMI news,

Publishing Careers With

Why Are There So Many EMC Standards?

and safety at TRaC Global Ltd., to pose a

STEVE HAYES is managing director for the EMC and Safety

wyatt: From the manufacturers and test labs point of

HAYES: Do you think the limits in EMC standards are too

DAVID ZIMMERMAN is an EMC engineer and president

emc test & design guide 2011

Solve Your Systems Needs

Fully Integrated Test Systems

Why An AR System Is The Smart Way To Test:

No company has more experience and expertise in

Performance Guarantee AR manufactures the majority of the system

EMC Testing above 1 GHz

toll booth. The needle in the analog

compass; you will see a momentary

category. Getting all of the industry experts to agree on

installed in vehicle does not interfere with the other installed

emc test & design guide 2011

certainly get at least as many different standards as there

the product to be tested with these specific tests at these

zimmerman: The problem is that there are many differing

NVLAP LAB CODE 200816-0

EMI/EMC/HIRF Test Services for Aerospace and Defense

testing & test equipment

Automotive RF Immunity Test Set-up

requires a very high level of reliability to

emc Test & design guide 2011

Fully Automated EMC Testing