Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Achievements and Limits of An Automated AE - Channel - Verification Process
Achievements and Limits of An Automated AE - Channel - Verification Process
EWGAE 2004
1
Equipment Verification, why, when, who?
When:
After purchase of equipment,
After modification of equipment,
After use under extraordinary conditions
Routinely, (to be decided by test agency).
Manual: Automated:
12 Test patterns,12 verifications 112 Test patterns, 220 verifications,
required by EN13477-2 sufficient for a calibration run
Indicates general faults Precise accuracy check over a high
Needs 4-12 hours for 32 channels resolution for each parameter
(procedure dependent) Less than 1 hour for 32 channels
High demands on operator Low demands on operator qualification
concentration and reliability - almost foolproof
Needs AE-calibrator plus a Needs only one device: An Arbitrary
function generator for the Function Generator (AFG) (waveform
frequency response check programmable)
Doesn’t replace AE-channel Provides clear and detailed report in
calibration MS-Word format
With a calibrated AFG the automated
verification procedure delivers
traceable results, like a calibration!
Personal Computer
USB/ AE-Controller Parallel
Arbitrary Ethernet/ (PCI-Bus-Intfc) Interface
Function RS232 ASYC (LPT1)
Generator
generates
Printer port
simulated
AE-System controls
AE-signals
Arbitrary AMSY4/ parametric
under AMSY-5
Function counter.
software Generator (Vallen-Systeme)
PCTD
control. Parametric Counter,
33120A / digitally controlled (PCTD) identifies
The user 33220A each
connects it Parametric Analog Inputs
waveform
(Agilent)
to the AE-Channel (ASIPP) #1 pattern in the
channel AE-Channel (ASIPP) #N AE data file
under test
Vallen-Systeme GmbH Icking (Munich) Germany 7
Functional Blocks and their Interactions
Pulses: Open/close Rectangular shaped sine2 shaped bursts continuous sine wave
a test bursts
Test 1+2: checks DDT + RAT (Timings) Test 5: 35 amplitudes 30 to 100 dB, to check
Test 3: 9 durations, checks D, E, Cts, A, E.
Test 6: 5 levels continuous sine-waves, to
Test 4: 50 freqs, checks freq. response, R;
check RMS, floating threshold
Vallen-Systeme GmbH Icking (Munich) Germany 9
Example: A vs. T for a 24-Channel Verification
Step1: Test 1-6, 24 channels, channel by channel S2: T4 2nd Filter S3:T7
sine-wave
burst,
rectangular
shaped
(no filter,
calculated)
Ring-Down
20µs
Problem:
Duration: “Should be”: 205 µs measured: 225,4 µs ÆOffset: 20,2 µs
Counts: “Should be”: 41 measured: 43 ÆOffset: 2
Energy: “Should be”: 10420 eu measured:10555 eu ÆOffset: 135 eu
Reason:
Ring-Down-Effect. Ring down is constant for all durations, so it can be compensated.
Solution:
Difference “measured value” – “should be value” of shortest duration pattern is used as
an offset to correct the other measurements within this test.
Vallen-Systeme GmbH Icking (Munich) Germany 18
Test 3: Duration Variation – Deviation Diagrams
DSET CHAN PCTD A R D E CNTS Comment:
[dB] [µs] [µs] [eu]
744 1 70 61,4 9,0 225,4 106E02 43 Pattern #1
817 1 72 61,4 9,0 449,6 219E02 88 Pattern #2
891 1 74 61,4 9,0 919,6 462E02 182 Pattern #3
971 1 76 61,4 9,0 1919,2 979E02 382 Pattern #4
1053 1 78 61,4 9,0 4024,0 207E03 802 Pattern #5
1126 1 80 61,4 9,0 8483,2 437E03 1695 Pattern #6
1199 1 82 61,4 9,0 17907,2 925E03 3580 Pattern #7
1290 1 84 61,1 9,0 37836,8 195E04 7568 Pattern #8
1362 1 86 61,4 9,0 80000,0 413E04 16000 Pattern #9
Dur-deviation [%] vs. D [µs] max.: 0,9% Eny-deviation [%] vs E [eu] max.: 0,1%
(Offset 20.4 µs) allowed: 5,0% (Offset 135 eu) allowed: 5,0%
Vallen-Systeme GmbH Icking (Munich) Germany 19
Test 4: Artefact in Frequency Response
Test 4 starts with 1.5MHz (sine-squared shape), decreasing by 10% per burst.
The increase of amplitude at frequencies below the band-width is an artefact.
Reason: AFG produces frequency impurities. Solution: None, does not disturb.
RMS-
Delay:
HW / SW
specific
Step 3:
Sends calibration pulse through the AE channel for functional verification,
channel by channel, automated