2010 Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, April 12 - 16, 2010, Beijing, China

CISPR standard for calibration of EMC antennas

Martin Alexander#1, Akira Sugiura*2
#
National Physical Laboratory
Hampton Road, Teddington, Middx., TW11 0LW, UK
1
martin.alexander@npl.co.uk
*
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
4-2-1 Nukui-kita, Koganei, Tokyo, 184-8795 JAPAN
2
sugi@nict.go.jp

Abstract— Electronic products placed on the market must
exhibit radiated emissions below those levels specified in
applicable international standards. Low uncertainty
measurement of these emissions requires antennas calibrated
with low uncertainties. This paper presents methods from the
draft standard CISPR 16-1-6 for measuring the free-space
antenna factor of antennas from 30 MHz to 18 GHz. Included is
the measurement of antenna factors at various heights above a
ground plane, a situation where the measured antenna factor can
vary typically by ±2 dB. Also included numerical modelling of
wire antennas which is used to estimate the uncertainty
components in radiated emissions measurements that arise from
the properties of antennas, such as mutual coupling, radiation
patterns and phase centres. The emphasis is on calibration
methods that are both straightforward and economical.
antenna [7] was introduced as an absolute reference for site
validation and this is elaborated in [6]. The calculable dipole
was used as the basis of a measurement method and
acceptance criterion for the validation of Calibration Test
Sites (CALTS). This basis was published in 2004 as CISPR
16-1-5 [8] for validating a 10 m site in horizontal polarisation.
Some methods of antenna calibration described below use
separations other than 10 m and use vertical polarisation;
CISPR is adding methods to 16-1-5 for the validation of these
other site configurations. Fig. 1 shows an example of a
CALTS. The methods of antenna calibration will be published
as a separate standard, CISPR 16-1-6 [9], with a deadline of
February 2012 for the final draft.

I. INTRODUCTION
In the late 1970s it was reported that errors in EMC testing
of up to ±6 dB were due to a poor knowledge of antenna
factor (Fa). In 1982 the Standard Site Method was introduced
[1] which established that in order to improve accuracy and
reproducibility of measurements, EMC testing and antenna
calibration should be carried out over a large conducting
ground plane. In 1988 ANSI published a standard [2] that
gave detailed procedures for site validation and antenna
calibration.
In 1994 CISPR/A began including measurement
uncertainties in EMC testing, adopting uncertainty budgets
from NIS81 [3]. This document included antenna associated
magnitudes of uncertainties, derived by NPL. In 1994
CISPR/A formed an ad-hoc group to address calibration of Fig. 1 NPL CALTS 60 m x 30 m sheet steel ground plane, flat to ±6 mm.
antennas and proposed to specify free-space antenna factors
II. NUMERICAL MODELLING
(Fafs), which are an inherent property of an antenna,
independent of environment. When an antenna is scanned in Numerical modelling plays a crucial role in verifying a
height above a ground plane the antenna factor tends to vary CALTS [6]. It is also useful in establishing practical methods
periodically about the Fafs. This ad-hoc group was named for antenna calibration. Sensitivity calculations help to predict
Antcal and began the CISPR standard on uncertainties 16-4-2 the minimum height above a ground plane needed to reduce
[4], whose budgets were modelled on [3]. the effect of mutual coupling of the antenna to its image in the
It quickly became apparent that the first priority was to ground plane down to a given uncertainty. The software most
specify a test site for the calibration of antennas as there were used is NEC [10] which gives very accurate predictions of the
no methods published that were sufficiently rigorous. A performance of wire antennas such as tuned dipoles, biconical
method of normalised site attenuation (NSA) [5] was and log-periodic dipole array (LPDA) antennas [11]. Fig. 2
introduced, which was an important step, with both shows how the measurement of Fafs at different heights can
advantages and shortcomings as described in an vary by 1 dB due to the mutual coupling of a biconical
accompanying paper [6]. In 1991 the calculable dipole antenna to its image in the ground plane. Numerical

978-1-4244-5623-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 Crown 786

techniques can predict radiation patterns, which otherwise
would be costly to measure. Knowledge of the antenna pattern
is needed to determine the minimum height above ground
needed to create sufficient free-space conditions. Annex C of
[9] presents radiation patterns out to ±60° for dipole, biconical
and LPDA antennas.
Fig. 2 NEC modelled height dependence of Fa of a biconical antenna.
Numerical methods are also used to calculate the Fa of
calculable dipole antennas, which are used as standard
antennas (STA) for the calibration of other antennas and for
the validation of test sites [8]. These dipoles can be used to
verify the measured Fa of EMC antennas, and to give
confidence in both the measurement method employed and the
test site used. They can also indicate where improvements in
the method and site need to be made.
III. OVERVIEW OF DRAFT CISPR 16-1-6
Draft document CISPR 16-1-6 describes antenna
calibration by the three-antenna method (TAM) and the
standard antenna method (SAM), both in free-space
environments and over a large conducting ground plane. It
also explains why a ground plane can be used despite the
requirement to measure the free-space antenna factor. There
are 8 calibration methods covering the frequency range
30 MHz to 2 GHz. These methods cater for a range of antenna
types and give the user choice according to the type of
measurement facility available and the uncertainties required.
The standard site method (SSM) used by ANSI [2] is one of
these methods
Another method covers the calibration of horn antennas and
high frequency LPDA antennas in the frequency range 1 GHz
to 18 GHz. The method for calibrating monopole antennas has
been copied from CISPR 16-1-4 [12] and a clause is reserved
for the future addition of a method for calibrating loop
antennas over the frequency range 9 kHz to 30 MHz.
Each method has a description of the antenna set-up, the
measurement method and the calculation of Fa. There is an
example uncertainty budget for each of the calibration
methods, giving the uncertainty of the antenna factor obtained.
Uncertainty budgets tend to overestimate the total uncertainty
and a useful way to achieve a more realistic uncertainty is to
compare Fafs measured by two or more methods.
787
There is a parallel activity to include the specification of
the test site, and its method of validation for each antenna
calibration method in CISPR 16-1-5.
Most precision methods are both expensive and need high
levels of expertise. Some methods are easier to implement and
may be lower in cost, coined ‘convenient’ methods. As a
rough guide, an acceptable uncertainty for a convenient
method for Fa is ≥ ± 1 dB and the aim for a precision
method is an uncertainty of ≤ ± 1 dB.
The standard contains much information on best practice in
the use of measuring equipment and cables. This includes the
measurement of coupling between two antennas, with clauses
on mismatch, signal to noise ratio and antenna functional
checks. Some Annexes describe, with helpful information and
possible variations, how to get the best out of the calibration
methods. Annex C has NEC modelled sensitivity analyses of
the influence of mutual coupling between antennas and
between an antenna and its ground image.
Calibrations are not always straightforward and there are
issues to be aware of [13]. For example, some older models of
biconical antennas have poor baluns, which can cause
common mode current to flow on the feeder cable. This can
cause measurement errors of more than ±5 dB, especially
when the feed cable is aligned with the antenna elements. The
effect can be partially mitigated by putting ferrite clamps on
the feed cable near the antenna input. Clause 4.4.2 of CISPR
16-1-4 [12] describes a test for poor baluns.
A problem with some LPDA antennas is that the RF
conductivity between the dipole elements and the transmission
line can break down, sometimes due to oxidation, causing
narrowband resonances, which can give an increase in Fa by
more than 5 dB.
The cross-polar performance of LPDA antennas is
determined by their design. In designs where each half of each
dipole is not in line by a wide spacing, the cross-polar
rejection can be poor. Clause 4.4.3 [12] describes a test with a
criterion that the cross-polar level must be at least 20 dB
below the co-polar level in the boresight direction, otherwise a
larger uncertainty term would ensue.
The 9 methods are summarised below, where AUC is the
antenna under calibration and Fa(h) is the antenna factor at a
height of h above the ground plane.
A. LPDA and hybrid antennas 6 m height, 200 MHz to 2 GHz
The TAM is used. The antennas are placed vertically
polarised at a separation of 3 m and at a height of 6 m above a
ground plane [14], to reduce the effect of any ground
reflection to an acceptable level. The influence of the masts
and feed cables are negligible due to reduced directivity in the
backward direction of the antenna.
B. Horn and LPDA antennas in a fully anechoic chamber,
1 GHz to 18 GHz
The principle is the same as method A, but at higher
frequencies the antenna separation can be less, typically 1 m
to 3 m, and absorber can be shorter and therefore less costly.
However, if an indoor-screened room is used, it has the
advantage of creating an environment that is both free of RF
interference and independent of weather conditions.
C. Standard site method, utilising a ground plane, 30 MHz to
1 GHz
This is a three-antenna method described in references [1]
and [2] and involves mounting the AUC horizontally polarised
at a height of 2 m above a ground plane and while the other
antenna is scanned in height from 1 m to 4 m. Scanning gives
rise to an increase in uncertainty of up to ±0,5 dB, which is
added to the Fa in order for it to be called Fafs.
D. LPDA and hybrid antennas by height scanning over a
ground plane, 30 MHz to 1 GHz
This is a SAM in which the STA is a calculable dipole
antenna. The AUC is mounted horizontally polarised at a
height of 2 m and a second LPDA at a distance of 10 m is
height scanned from 1 m to 2,7 m. The AUC is substituted by
the STA and the process is repeated. The Fa of the AUC is
calculated from the known Fa of the STA.
E. Tuned dipole at frequency related heights at which Fa ≈
Fafs, utilising a ground plane, 30 MHz to 300 MHz
If a tuned dipole is placed above a ground plane at heights
that are multiples of λ/4, its impedance will be approximately
that of its free-space impedance. This property enables lower
heights calibrations to be performed allowing Fafs to be
measured down to 30 MHz. The Fa of a horizontally polarised
tuned dipole can vary by 6 dB in the height range 1 m to 4 m,
but if a 30 MHz dipole is placed at a height of 5 m the
difference between Fa and Fafs is less than 0,3 dB. Even then,
this can be reduced or even eliminated by fine tuning the
height. This is a SAM in which the STA is a calculable dipole.
F. Measurement of Fa(h) by the TAM, utilising a ground
plane, 30 MHz to 300 MHz
The TAM is used. The AUC is mounted, horizontally
polarised, at a height h1 above a ground plane. Fa(h) can be
determined rigorously for a dipole or biconical antenna at any
required height by ensuring that the two other antennas are set
to the same height h2 in the pairings of three antennas.
A special case of this method is to place the AUC and
paired antennas a height of 6 m, at which the differences
between Fa(h) and Fafs are less than 0,3 dB as indicated in
Fig. 2. Alternatively, the antennas could be vertically
polarised, resulting in negligible influence from the ground
plane. However such an approach will cause increased
reflections from the vertical masts and feed cables. These
reflections may be difficult to minimise at 6 m height.
G. Measurement of Fa(h) by the SAM, utilising a ground
plane, 30 MHz to 300 MHz
Fa(h) of a horizontally polarised dipole or biconical
antenna can be found by the SAM, using a calculable dipole
for the STA.
IV. TWO EXAMPLES OF CONVENIENT METHODS
788
Two convenient methods are given here in more detail. One
is the measurement of Fafs of biconical antennas on a ground
reflection site by the SAM, using vertical polarisation. The
other is the measurement of Fafs of LPDA antennas by the
TAM using absorber on the ground between the antennas to
create free-space conditions.
H. Biconical antennas using vertical polarisation above a
ground plane, 30 MHz to 300 MHz by the SAM
A sufficiently uniform field can be achieved by positioning
a vertically polarised monocone at a distance of 10 m or
greater from the AUC. This is the principle of the ground
reflection range, and is illustrated in Fig. 3.
10 m to 20 m
1.5 m to 2 m
Ground plane
Fig. 3 Setup for biconical antennas vertically polarised above ground plane.
The big advantage of this method is that, because there is
negligible mutual coupling of a vertically polarised antenna to
its image, a lower antenna height can be used. This puts the
antenna within easy reach of the operator. This is the SAM in
which the STA is a broadbanded calculable dipole. Usually 2
dipoles, resonant at 80 MHz and 180 MHz are needed to cover
the frequency range 30 MHz to 300 MHz. A biconical antenna
that is robust and reproducible and meets the balun balance of
4.4.2 of CISPR 16-1-4 [12], is calibrated using the calculable
dipoles. This biconical antenna can then be designated as a
transfer standard antenna that can be used to calibrate other
biconical antennas in a single swept frequency measurement,
either on this site or in a FAR.
I. LPDA and hybrid antennas above absorber, 200 MHz to
2 GHz by the TAM
This method is very similar to method A except that lower
antenna heights can be used when absorber is placed on the
ground in the region of specular reflection between the
antennas. Because a tip-tip separation as small as 2 m can be
used, only a small area of absorber is needed; see. Fig. 4.
2.5 m
2.5 m
Absorber
Ground plane
Fig. 4 Setup for LPDA antennas above 1 m high absorber.
 The guideline for separation is a minimum of two
wavelengths between resonant elements. To calculate Fafs it
is necessary to know the phase centres of the three LPDA
antennas. This can be found from the geometry of their
radiating elements.
Alternatively the antennas can be calibrated in an anechoic
chamber as shown in Fig. 5. If preferred, antennas can be
mounted horizontally polarised, which for some antenna
mounting adaptors makes it easier to maintain the alignment
of the pair of antennas to a common axis.
A lower height of 2,5 m means that the antennas can be
fixed in place and aligned and connected to cables with the aid
of a small footstool or step ladder. This allows the antenna
separation to be measured in situ, which is more difficult
when antennas are out of reach because of the test height.
Fig. 5 NPL 9 m x 6 m FAR, LPDA antennas 2.5 m apart, as Fig. 4.
V. SUMMARY
The draft CISPR 16-1-6 Antenna Calibration standard
includes several methods of calibrating EMC antennas. The
default parameter is free-space space antenna factor, Fafs,
which is the appropriate factor for the measurement of
radiated emissions in the free-space environment of a FAR.
Some radiated emission testing is done utilizing a conducting
ground plane, which involves measurements at unspecified
antenna heights. Fa varies with height due to mutual coupling
of the antenna with its image in the ground plane. Fa(h) of a
tuned dipole at 30 MHz can change by 6 dB in the height
range 1 m to 4 m. In practice, due to the heights at which
maxima occur for horizontal and vertical polarization, the
largest variation in Fa in emissions testing is 2 dB.
It would be too involved to record the height at each
frequency and to implement it in the emissions results, so a
generic Fa is chosen. This could be an average of Fa(h), but
Fafs is just as suitable because of the cyclical variation about
Fafs of Fa with height, see Fig. 2. Because Fafs is an inherent
property of an antenna independent of its surroundings, it is
preferred to Fa(h)average.
Fa(h) is needed to be known in order to determine the
variation of Fa with height and therefore the uncertainty
789
incurred when Fa(h) is not used to in the determination of E-
field strength in an emissions test, for reasons explained.
There are single calibration methods for the frequency
ranges for monopole and horn antennas, but there are multiple
methods for the range 30 MHz to 1 GHz. This is in part
because there are antennas with uniform H-plane patterns
(dipoles and biconicals) and antennas with directive patterns
(LPDA), and in part because some methods lend themselves
to greater precision while others are more economical to
implement. This gives the operator a choice of methods
according to cost and the desired uncertainty of Fa.
The standard also contains, in a single document, much
information on the best practice in measurement methods and
uncertainty budgets, and some background information that
should be helpful to the operator who is gaining expertise in
the field of EMC antenna calibration.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The contributions of the Antcal team, of which the authors
are convenors, are acknowledged: Manfred Stecher (R&S,
DE), Werner Schaefer (CISCO, US), Yu Ji (NIM, Au),
Alexander Kriz (ARCS, AT), Darren Carpenter (BT, UK) and
previous members since 1994. This work was supported by
the National Measurement Office, an Executive Agency of the
UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
REFERENCES
[1] A.A. Smith, "Standard-site method for determining antenna factors",
IEEE Trans. EMC, 1982, 24, 316-322.
[2] American National Standard for Electromagnetic Compatibility -
Radiated emission measurements in electromagnetic interference (EMI)
control - Calibration of antennas (9 kHz to 40 GHz). ANSI C63.5:2006
[3] NIS81, “The treatment of uncertainty in EMC measurements”, May
1994. UKAS, 21 High St., Feltham, TW13 4UN, UK, replaced by
LAB34 August 2002.
[4] CISPR 16-4-2:2003, Specification for radio disturbance and immunity
measuring apparatus and methods, Uncertainty in EMC measurements
[5] A.A. Smith, R.F. German and J.B Pate,. "Calculation of site attenuation
from antenna factors", IEEE Trans. EMC, 1982, 24, 301-316.
[6] M. Alexander, “Using the calculable dipole antenna for antenna
calibration and validation of EMC test sites”, APEMC 2010, Beijing,
12-16 April 2010.
[7] M.J. Salter and M.J. Alexander “EMC antenna calibration and the
design of an open-field site”, Jnl. of Phys. E, Meas. Sci. Technol., 1991,
2, 510-519.
[8] CISPR 16-1-5:2003, Specification for radio disturbance and immunity
measuring apparatus and methods - Antenna calibration test sites for
30 MHz to 1 000 MHz
[9] Draft CISPR 16-1-6, EMC Antenna Calibration, FDIS due Feb 2012.
[10] J.C. Logan and A.J. Burke, Numerical Electromagnetic Code, 1981,
Naval Oceans Systems Centre, CA, USA.
[11] Z. Chen and A. Cook, “Low uncertainty broadband EMC measurement
using calculable precision biconical antennas,” IEEE Intl. Symposium
on Electromagnetic Compatibility, pp. 505-510, vol. 2, 2000
[12] CISPR 16-1-4:2007, Specification for radio disturbance and immunity
measuring apparatus and methods - Ancillary equipment - Radiated
disturbance, Amendment 1 (2007)
[13] M.J. Alexander, M.J. Salter, D.G. Gentle, D.A. Knight, B.G. Loader
and K.P. Holland, Measurement Good Practice Guide No. 73:
“Calibration and use of antennas, focusing on EMC applications”, NPL,
December 2004. www.npl.co.uk/publications/guides
[14] M. Stecher and B. Klos, “Calibration and application of a wideband
hybrid antenna”, EMC’04 Symposium, Sendai, 1-4 June 2004.