12.

Interpreting test results

Interpreting test result is a very important, but difficult burden.
When doing this, we have to consider the following co-ordinates:
types of EMC testing
standards of EMI testing
measurements uncertainty
planning of the test and presentation of the results.
12.1. Type of EMC testing
!he EMC tests are made in all stages of the product "design, production and mar#et
certification$. %igure &'.& shown the basically type of test (&'.)*.
In the development testing are included simple bench tests, which help in the
evaluation of the electromagnetic behaviour of the e+uipment, sometimes guiding to
an optimum ,ust from the beginning.
Considering large and comple- pro,ects, from economically reasons, it is
preferable to model a situation rather than ma#ing a difficult and e-pensive test. %or
determining the limitation and validity of the modelling results, e-periments for the
simple situations are a best option. In this way, analytically calculated and measured
results "for estimating the model errors$ are compared.
!he preconformance tests ta#e place during a pro,ect, are made in appropriate
test houses "company facilities or e-ternal test house$, complying with the specified
standards. In this case, by a rigorous and elaborate analyse of the resulting data, paths
for improving the e+uipment design are available.
!he conformance tests certify if the e+uipment complies with emission and
susceptibility standards "meet the EMC limits$. !hese measurements are made in
accordance with a test plane written by the EMC test laboratory e-perts in
con,unction with the designer team.
EMC testing
Development
testing
Measurement to verify
modeling results
Preconformance
test
Conformance
testing
%igure &'.&. !ypes of EMC testing
12.2. Standards of EMC testing
!he basically aim of EMC standards is to specify measurement methods and limits of
radio fre+uency interference.
.ecause each emission or immunity standard specifies particular test methods
and limits of electromagnetic interference, it is difficult to compare tests even within
the same country or community.
Moreover any specifically standard undergoes a process of evolution and
updating during the development of industry and society.
!here are a large number of EMC standards in use in the world, and also many
national and international organisations involved with EMC.
/ classification of these standards follows: "%ig. &'.'$
/ccording to the application domain, we have:
military standards
civil or commercial standards .
%or the differences between these two types of standards, both e+uipment
"E0!$ re+uirements and the environments in witch they operate are responsible.
1aturally, the military standards are more stringent than civil ones and a part of
measurement techni+ues or test facility pass from military into civil standards.

EMC
standards
Military Civil or commercial
Emissions Immunity or
susceptibility
Emissions Immunity or
susceptibility
a$
EMC
standards
Basic Product Generic
b$
%igure &'.'. !ypes of EMC standards
!he standards generally cover emissions and susceptibility separately: the
emissions standards are made with a view to spectrum management, and the
susceptibility standards are made with a view to verify if the e+uipment is 2fit for
purpose3.
!he European 4tandardising .ody 5 CE1E6EC, which is mandated to
oversee the harmonisation of national standards and to prepare new ones, divide the
EMC standards in (&'.&7*, (&'.8*:
basic standards
generic standards:
product standards.
Basic standards define and describe the EMC problem, the principle
measuring instrumentation and test methods. !hey contain no specific limits or
criteria of immunity, but they define general framewor# and conse+uently, are
referenced in the generic and product standards.
Product standards are specific to a particular product type "dedicated product$
or to a group of similar products "product family$.
Generic standards were developed to compensate the lac# of product
standards. !he generic standards are applicable to particular environments:
the residential, commercial and light industrial environment
the industrial environment.
If the manufacturer intend to sell the e+uipment for using in both environments, then
the most stringent re+uirements must be applied, namely emission limits to the
residential standard and immunity levels of the industrial standard.
9enerally, the standards present the limits by means of graphs or tables.
/n e-ample of limit presentation is shown in %igure &'.: (&'.&7* where:
E1 ;7 7)&-& EMC generic emission standard. <art &: =esidential, commercial and
light industry environment.
E1 ;7 7)&-' EMC generic emission standard. <art ': Industrial environment.
E1 ;; 7&& 6imits and methods of measurement of radio disturbance
characteristics of industrial, scientific and medical "I4M$ radio-fre+uency
e+uipment.
E1 ;; 7'' 6imits and methods of measurement of radio disturbance
characteristics of information technology e+uipment.
!he tendencies in European Community EMC standardisation are:
/pproval and ratification of new product standards using the generic standard
contents "conse+uently, the importance of the last ones is diminished$. !he
product standards will contain much more information on configuration and
operation of the e+uipment, thus decreasing the errors due the e+uipment under
test.
Improving the procedures in order to guarantee a greater degree of uniformity in
standards "technical procedures, treatment of measurement results$.
12.3. Measurements uncertainty
Every test or measurement is affected by errors. .ecause the measurement errors are
un#nowable, the limits of the errors affecting the measurement process, at a given
confidence, are estimated with uncertainty.
12.3.1. Importance of the problem
/ good evaluation of the measurements uncertainty is essential when
interpreting the emission and susceptibility limits "both type approval testing, and in
standardisation for calculating the limits$ and production control.
!he EMC test laboratories must presents the test data together with the
uncertainties of their measurements "the total uncertainty is included with every
measurement$.

measured
A
"&'.&$
where:
- /
measured
is the measured value "voltage, current, electric field, magnetic field,
radiated power or power density$ e-pressed in units of the measurand or in d..
- is the total "e-panded$ uncertainty of measurement, e-pressed in units of
measurement result, percentage "%$ or decibel "d.$.
:7 M> &77 M> &777 M>
:7
'7
?7
;7
@7
87
d.ABm
:7 M> &77 M> &777 M>
:7
'7
?7
;7
@7
87
d.ABm
C<
C<
a$
b$
%ig. &'.: =adiated emission limits for the +uasi-pea# detector: a$ E1 ;7 7)&-& "and
E1 ;; 7&& 9roup & Class . and E1 ;; 7'' Class .$ b$ E1 ;7 )&-' "and E1 ;;
7'' for E1 ;;7&& 9roup & Class . the limits of En ;; 7'' Class . apply at a
distance of :7 m$
!here are two methods "interpretations$ for the determination of compliance
with a specification limit (&'.:*:
a$ !he measured level must be at or below the specification limit, 6.
L A
measured

, "&'.'$
which for emission tests becomes:
E measured E
L A
, , "&'.:$
and for immunity tests:
I measured I
L A
, "&'.?$
!his interpretation considers that the specification limit includes the e-panded "total$
uncertainty.
b$ !he measured level plus the e-panded uncertainty must be e+ual or less than the
specification limit "%ig. &'.?$.
L A
measured
+
, "&'.;$
which for emission tests becomes:
E E measured E
L A +
, , "&'.@$
and for immunity tests:
I I measured I
L A
, "&'.8$
Due to the variability with the fre+uency of the electromagnetic propagation
conditions in the test facility and the measurement antenna performance "its voltage-
standing-wave-ratio EA4W=E and its coupling to the ground plane are dependent on
the fre+uency$, we encounter a great variability of the measurement uncertainty over
freuency. !ypically, the uncertainty is larger near the band edges.
In Electromagnetic Interference testing it is of great importance to carefully
analyse and minimise the errors. !his is due to the potential legal and economic
conse+uences from erroneous test results.
Minimising of the errors and thus the corresponding uncertainties it is
necessary when dealing with great performance and security e+uipment or with the
simplest but of large series e+uipment "e.g. appliances$.
/
E
f
The specification limit (
E
!
!he measured value
"A
E# measured
$
!he e-panded
uncertainty "
E
$
/
I
f
The specification limit (
I
!
!he measured
value "A
I# measured
$
!he e-panded
uncertainty "
I
$
b$ a$
%igure &'.?. Determination of EMC compliance: a$ Emission tests b$ Immunity tests
In the second case, a great measurement error imposes a great protection
margin and thus a higher degree of EMC than really needed. !he cost of these
protections "e.g. supplementary shielding$ for all production is very high.
Moreover the overdesigning for EMC considerations may contribute to the
increasing the product weight and to the reduction of their reliability and
maintainability.
12.3.2. Some basics in errors and uncertainty estimation
Error is defined as the difference between the measured value and the true
value of the measurand (&'.&:*.
%igure &'.; indicates the error in case of a measurement number & "arrow &$.
.ecause the true value is by nature indeterminate, it is possible only an estimation of
the e-pected limits of error. !his is done using the statistic.
!he error and their corresponding uncertainty may be random or systematic. .oth
types of errors are highlighted in %ig.&'.;
!hus are made 2n3 measurements of a same +uantity "arrows &,', F,n,
referring to %ig &'.;$.
!he mean value of this set of n measurements or the sample average is:

=
=
n
i
i
%
n
m
&
&
"&'.)$
!he sample standard deviation is:
&
$ "
&
'

=
n
m %
s
n
i
i
%
"&'.G$
"andom uncertainty
of the mean of a sample
Error for
measurement no.&
%re+uency of
occurrence
Aalue of
+uantity
-
ct
-
t
-a Ha
-
&
Systematic uncertainty (1!
which can be removed by
calibration

'
:
@).: %
G;.; %
GG.8 %
& n '
m
Population &ith
Gaussian distribution
'ample or set of (n)
individual measurement
!he true value
"un*no&able by
measurement$
!he conventional
true or calibration
laboratory value
Systematic
uncertainty (2!
%ig.&'.;. =andom and systematic measurement uncertainties
Whole population of the possible measured values in this e-ample is presumed
to have a normal "9aussian$ distribution. !he probability density function is:
'
'
'
$ "
'
&

=
%
e y "&'.&7$
where:
- is the value obtained by a measurement
is the average of the population of the - variable
is the standard deviation of the population.
n
%
n
i
i
=

=
&
'
$ "

"&'.&&$
!he standard deviation would be used to estimate e-pected limits of the error "the
random error$.
%or the normal distribution, there is a G;.; I probability that any particular measured
value to be within the range " -' H'$.
9enerally the uncertainty of the measurement "random uncertainty$ is
=
J #, where
# is varying with the confidence level. In %ig.&'.; is indicated the probability for #
e+ual with &,' and :, respectively @).: I G;.; I GG.8 I.
!he and of the population "n $ are un#nown, and they are estimated with m
and s
-
of the sample "n finite of measurements$.
!here is a difference between m "mean for a sample$ and "mean for whole
population$. !his difference is considerate as a random component of uncertainty.
!he standard deviation of the mean or average is:
n
s
s
%
m
=
"&'.&'$
!he random uncertainty of the mean of a set of measurement "sample$ is:
m +
ts
m
=
"&'.&:$
where t is the 4tudent parameter, function of confidence level e-pressed in (%* and
number of measurement in the set 2n3.
4ome important notifications:
the random uncertainty of the mean is smaller than the random uncertainty of a
individual measurement "ts
m
K ts
-
$
for a very large number of measurements, the random uncertainty of the mean
tends to >ero and thus the mean of the set tends to the population mean "n
involves
7
m
+ and m$.

.esides the normal "9aussian$ distribution, and 4tudent distribution in EMC
measurement the errors may have a rectangular and a 0-shaped distribution.
%or a uniform or rectangular distribution "in which any value within the
range of the distribution has e+ual probability$, %ig. &'.@, the sample standard
deviation of the data "s
-
$ and the standard deviation of the average "s
m
$ are (&'.&:*:
:
e
s
%
=
"&'.&?$
M
s
s
%
m
=
"&'.&;$
where:
e is the plusBminus limits of the rectangular distribution for a particular error
M is the number of data points in the reported average test result.
In case of unsymmetrical plusBminus limits "e
H
Be
-
$ the standard deviation of the data is:
: '
+

=
e e
s
% "&'.&@$
%or a # $ shaped distribution "in which most of the value are grouped at both
ends of the range of the distribution$, the standard uncertainty of the data s
-
is (&'.:*:
' '
+

=
e e
s
%
"&'.&8$
Effecting a large number of measurements, the random uncertainty is
decreased, conse+uently becomes dominant the systematic uncertainty.
%or the systematic measurement errors "bias$ and their corresponding
systematic uncertainty, are to be blamed (&'.&&*:
the use of imperfect measurement devices, measurement procedures and
standards
the environment influences during the e-perience.
!he systematic error is the average result of a large number of repeated
measurements of the same measurand minus a true value of the measurand, namely -
-
t
if referring to %ig &'.;. .ecause the true value cannot be determined, in practice a
conventional true value or a calibration laboratory value "-
ct
$ is used. In this mode
(&'.)* the systematic uncertainty is divided in systematic uncertainty "&$, namely, -
-
ct
and systematic uncertainty "'$, namely, La J ma-. -
t
5 -
ct
.
%re+uency of
occurrence of
values
Aalues of
+uantity
e
-
J e e
H
J e
m
Mean
value
%igure &'.@. =ectangular distribution
Conclusions%
In case of random errors it is stated a &alue of uncertainty (random
uncertainty!' a correction is not possible.
The decrease of random uncertainty is possibly by ma(ing a large
number of measurements.
The decrease of systematic errors and of associated uncertainty could be
done by better calibration.
)y calibration' the mean of the population mo&es to*ards the con&entional
true &alue +
ct
(,ig 12.-!.
The uncertainty in a typical measurement topology is greater than the
calibration uncertainty (instrumentation uncertainty is legitimate for certain
conditions!. This is the reason that is preferable that the calibration geometry to
be the same as the used measurement geometry (e.g. Standard Site Method or
generally' the substitution method!
.lso some systematic errors may be estimated and compensate by
applying appropriate corrections.

12.3.3. Model for determining of the measurement uncertainty
!here are two classification systems utilised in the uncertainty computing -
%ig. &'.8. (&'.&:*:
International Mrganisation for 4tandardisation 5 I4M classifications.
Engineering classifications.
!he I', classification groups errors and their uncertainty in two categories,
depending on the e-istence or not of available data to calculate the standard deviation.
In this classifications there are two type of evaluation:
#ncertainty sources
classification
I',
classification
Engineering
classification
!ype / 4ystematic type !ype . =andom type
%igure &'.8. Classification system of uncertainty sources
- !ype A evaluation, when there are data to calculate the standard deviation
of the measurand.
- !ype B evaluation, when the standard deviation is determinate on the basis
of assumed "or #nown$ distributions, e-perience, measurement
specifications, "results of these specified measurements were not
prevailed$.
!ype / and type . classification indicate two different ways of evaluating uncertainty
components, both types are based on probability distributions and uncertainty
components are +uantified by standard deviation (&'.&?*.
!he standard deviations both for type /, and for type . evaluation is calculate by root
sum s+uaring their corresponding multiple uncertainties from multiple sources of
errors.
!he standard deviation for type /, derived from 2i3 uncertainty sources of type / is:
' ' '
...
' & i
A A A A
+ + + =
"&'.&)$
!he standard deviation for type ., derived from 2,3 uncertainty sources of type . is:
' ' '
...
& & -
B B B B
+ + + =
"&'.&G$
!hen is calculated the total "e-panded$ uncertainty
!, I4M
.
' '
, B A I', !
* + = "&'.'7$
where # is the statistical constant "e.g. # J t
G;
, namely 4tudentNs 2t3 for G;%
confidence and a number of measurements 2n3$
In this relation the errors were assumed to be independent. If no, their degrees of
dependence will be considered.
!he engineering classification groups the errors, in accordance with their
effect on the e-periment or test, in random and systematic types.
!he random uncertainty of the result as well as the systematic uncertainties is the root
sum s+uare of the elemental random uncertainties, respectively of the elemental
systematic uncertainties.
!he total "e-panded$ uncertainty for the engineering estimation is determined by root
sum s+uaring of the systematic uncertainty and random uncertainty of the result:
' '
, + ' E.G !
+ = "&'.'&$
where:

4
is the systematic uncertainty of the result

=
is the random uncertainty of the result.
,bservations/
a$ %or both situations, all the errors have to be considered and included in type
/ or type ., respectively systematic or random category.
b$ !he total "e-panded$ uncertainty calculated for the same confidence, is
identical for both classification systems "I4M and engineering classifications$.

!, I4M
J
!, E19
c
&
$ In the I4M classification system, the measurement uncertainty is
determined per standards and it is based on the mode of obtaining the data
"measurements, e-perience or theory$. !hus this system is preferred for determination
of the compliance with a specification limit conforming to a standard.
c
'
$ !he engineering classifications is preferred in analysing and minimising
the errors because it provides insight into how to improve the test uncertainty.
Applicability in EMC measurement/
%or determining measurement uncertainty .ronaugh and Msburn (&'.:*
suggested the following analysis steps:
&. Define the specific EMC measurement by using the specifical standard that
governs the measurement. It is recommended to draw a bloc# diagram with all the
test instrumentation used, including cable ground planes and test facilities.
'. Identify the e+uipment EdrivingE the uncertainty of the measurement.
:. /ssignment of individual uncertainty for each element in the test set up that affect
the measurement uncertainty. .y using the sources of uncertainty data
"manufacturerOs information, calibration data, measurement, previous e-perience,
and ,udgement based on other data$, each element is included in type / or type .
evaluation. %or each element it is calculate or estimate the standard deviations.
?. Combine the individual standard deviations conforming to "&'.&)$ and "&'.&G$.
;. Compute the total "e-panded$ uncertainty conforming to:
' '
, B A I', !
* + =
!ypically, it is used the level of confidence 1 J G;I, resulting # J ' for normal
distribution and t
G;
for 4tudent distribution.
%igure &'.) presents, traced with dot line, the value measured of E functions of
fre+uency. %or the fre+uency f
&
, where was found for electric field the ma-imum
value "E
&
$, is advisable to repeat the measurement n times. !hus it is determined for
these n measurements the mean value E
&
and the standard deviation "9auss
distribution$ or E
&m
and s in case of 4tudent distribution. !he probability as the true
value to be within the range "E

-' E

H'$ is G;.; I, "for contrary, the probability

is ?.; I$. !he distribution being symmetrical, it is only '.'; I chance that the true
value will be above the value E

H', which might be the allowed limit.

%or obtaining a smaller measurement uncertainty it is recommended:
to calibrate many instruments test together with a view to produce only one
uncertainty in stead of two or many individual uncertainty, which must be added
d.ABm
E

H '
E

- '
'
E
&
f
&
f
G;.; I
0102 3
0102 3
E
<robability density
function of E for
fre+uency f
&
!he measured
value depending
on fre+uency
%igure &'.). Interpreting the measurement uncertainty in EMC
conforming to "&'.&)$ or "&'.&G$. %or e-ample, calibrating a transducer plus a
transmission line plus a EMI receiver, or a cable plus a preamplifier plus a cable$
to repeat the measurement with a view to using the type / evaluation instead of
type . evaluation "the rectangular distribution becomes 4tudent or normal
distribution$.
12.3./. )asically terms
%or describe the +uality of test data are generally used the terms as error, precision,
repeatability, measured accuracy.
.oth accuracy and uncertainty are used to describe the +uality of the measured
data.
/ccuracy is a positive statement of the e-pected limits of the data errors and the
uncertainty is the negative one.
In measurement and especially in EMC test there is a tendency to migrate
from accuracy and repeatability of measurement to uncertainty and
reproducibility of measurements because:
accuracy is ambiguous "e.g. what is twice accuracy of & I P ' I or 7.; IP$,
and uncertainty is unambiguous "twice uncertainty of & I is ' I$
by definition "closeness of the agreement between the result of measurement and a
true value of the measurand$ accuracy is indeterminate, and uncertainty, by his
statistical nature, may estimate the limits of error at a given confidence
uncertainty is determined on the base both systematic error "systematic
uncertainty$, and random error "random uncertainty$, thus include both +ualitative
concept accuracy and repeatability
reproducibility have a great importance in EMC measurement.
"epeatability "of result of measurement$ is closeness of agreement between
the result of measurement of the same measurand, performed by obeying all the
following conditions (&'.&?*, (&'.&*, (&'.G*:
the same measured procedure
the same observer
the same measuring instrument, used under the same conditions
the same location
repetition over a short period of time.
"eproducibility is closeness of agreement in results of the same measured
when some but not all of these enumerated conditions are met.
In these definitions it is no considered the variation in the value being caused
by change of the measured itself. !his variation is the repeatability, respectively the
reproducibility of the measurand, which must be also considered.
.oth the repeatability and the reproducibility may be e-pressed +ualitatively
in terms of the dispersion characteristics of the results.
!he repeatability is considered in random errors and thus is included in
uncertainty.
%or considering the reproducibility of the EMC measurement, we have to
#now "or to determinate$:
the stability of the test site
the stability of the test instruments
the stability of the measuring method
the stability of the source " E+uipment 0nder !est 5 E0!$.
In (&'.@*, for many test site "M/!4$, is evaluated the reproducibility
"variability$ of radiated emissions measurements from on day to the ne-t one, on a
site and the reproducibility "variability$ from site to site. .ecause the lac#s of
reference site, the data from individual sites were compared to the average of all
participating sites function of fre+uency.
%or determining the reproducibility of the method, the emission radiation must
be measured through different methods for the same device. It is calculated the
standard deviation of the average for many measurements "e.g. ; measurement$, for
each fre+uency (&'.?*.
=eferring to the reproducibility of the emission and immunity of the
e+uipment under test, we have to consider both the variability from one device to
another within a production lot and the variability of the +uantity of interest
"electromagnetic interference not being a controlled and stable process$.
0bser&ations referring to reproducibility%
"eproducibility of the measurement must be considered in set up and layout
of the E0! and test instrumentation with a view to decrease the variability of the
measurement.
The automated EMI testing improves EMI measurement reproducibility,
because each test run is identically performed, under software control. Moreover, the
automated EMI testing has advantages: fle-ibility in using and changing the
correction factors for input transducers possibility of e-haustive analysis of the
results "e.g. better statistical processing$ and preparation of test reports performed in a
short time. 1evertheless, because of the comple-ity and the possible more
contributions to uncertainty, the automated EMI testing re+uires more attention in test
set up and performing.
/ good reproducibility not involves a decrease of measurement uncertainty.
4ometime the increase of reproducibility involves the decrease of the precision and
how much the measurement is really representative.
12./. 1lanning of the test and presentation of the measurement results
I In EMC testing there is a great number of factors that affect the
measurement uncertainty, +uite large, especially in radiated emission measurements.
/ccording to the areas where uncertainty can be introduced into measurements, these
factors are grouped in:
control factors
coupling factors
measurement instrument factors.
!he control factors are those affecting the physical or electrical environment
of all the components involved in the test. !hese e-ternal perturbing parameters are
general called the influence +uantities.
!he coupling factors, mainly, refer to sensor and its lin#age to the measurand.
!he instrument factors are regarding calibration of the measuring instrument,
traceability to a national standard and the manner of using the instrument.
%or each measurement these uncertainty factors must be identify and evaluated
to estimate the measurement uncertainty.
II .esides, in an EMC testing are involved numerous, miscellaneous elements
(&'.&'*:
E+uipment under test "E0!$
!est environment or test site
!he measuring method
!est e+uipment
4et up of the E0! and test e+uipment
Quman observer.
Each element involved in an EMC test is evaluated for its contribution to the
measurement uncertainty.
/n e-emplification of uncertainty factors in an EMC measurement is shown in %ig.
&'.G.
III In EMC testing must be performed a great number of measurements "many
operating modes and fre+uencies of E0! and many test procedures$. !his gives a
reason to utilise a sampling practice and each measurement is made only once. !hus
is impossible to calculate the statistics of the measurements. !he repeated
measurement of the measurand, in view to decrease the random uncertainty, is made
only in limited cases "e.g the levels of the Etop si-E or Etop tenE fre+uencies$.
E0!
4E14M=
"/1!E11/$
!E4! 4I!E
!=/14MI4IM1
6I1E
!E4!
I!EM4
EMI =ECEIAE=
4<EC!=0M
/1/6R4E=
!QE Q0M/1
M<E=/!M=
Impedance
mismatch
"coupling
factors$
/0SI6I/=R
EC0I<ME1! M%
E0!
Isolating test
instrumentation
from the E4!
'E.',+
DA!A
"measurement
instrument
factors$
CALIB+A!I,.
DA!A
"measurement
instrument
factors$
Control
factors
Connection test site 5 e%terior
Coupling factors
%igure &'.G. 0ncertainty factors in EMC measurement.
#nder these circumstances' it is of great importance the planning of the
tests in &ie* of obtaining the most effecti&e accumulation and presentation of the
re2uired data.
%or determining the compliance with EMI emission and susceptibility
re+uirements, the EMI measurements must be made conforming to a test plan and the
results of the test must be detailed in EMI test report.
!he EMC test laboratory e-perts, in con,unction with the design team, write
the test plan, for conformance test. !he test plan is a vital element for the overall
efficiency and must contain all the information concerning the test "e.g. grouped by
the points li#e in %ig. &'.&7.$
The test report contain three parts (&'.'*:
!est set-up and instrumentation.
!est results and analysis.
Conclusions and recommendations.
a! In the section EThe test set3up and instrumentationE are included:
- Data on E0! operation "operating modes employed, control setting, all
monitoring points for emission or immunity$.
- / bloc# diagram with all test instrumentation actually used in test
procedures "nomenclature and serial numbers$. !his diagram also includes
cables, ground planes, test facilities and is important for determining and
analysing the measurement uncertainty.
- Information concerning the used transducers and test e+uipment. "the most
recent calibration, the calibration procedures, traceability to a national
standard$.
- <hotographs or diagrams of the test set-up and the E0!.
b b! Test results and analysis
!he presentation of the results must be offered in an easy and accessible
format, to allow correspondence to the applicable specification limits. 9raphical
presentations permit an easy comparison to specified limits.
/lthough the data sheet format depends of the particular case "e.g. standard used$,
there are some information to be included. !wo e-amples of data sheets, one for
emission test and another for susceptibility test are presented in (&'.'*.
4upplementary information "presentations or calculations$ re+uested by
customers or authorities "e. g. the si- highest emission emissions within &7 d. or '7
d. of the specification limit and so on$ may be included as appendices.
c! Conclusions and recommendations
In this section it is clearly certified whether the E0! complies or not with the
specified EMI limits "emission or susceptibility$.
If failure happens, the wea# point should be clearly stated and solutions for
improvement are proposed.
Considering a small number of professional de&ices' every product must be
tested for compliance with the standard limits of emission and susceptibility.
%or the mass3produced de&ices it is technically and economically not
,ustifiable to apply an absolute limit "each product verified to comply the standards$
(Dvora#*. In this case, statistical techni+ues to determine pass-fail criteria for long
time "e.g. E)7B)7E rule$ are used (&'.?*, (&'.;*. !his rule prescribes that minimum
samples "; @$ to be tested and re+uires that, with a confidence level of )7I, at least
)7I of the production to be conform to the limit.
)ibliography
(&'.&* .ennet W. 4.: +adiated EMI measurement +eproducibility, IEEE International
symposium on EMC, 04/, &G)8.
EMI test
EMI test plan EMI test report
!est site !est set up and
instrumentation
!est instruments
4et up of E0! and
test instruments
Mperation of the E0!
for testing
EMI test procedures
Data format
!est results and
analysis
Conclusions and
recommendation
%igure &'.&7. EMI test plan and report
(&'.'* .ronaught E. 6. 6ambdin W. 4.: Electromagnetic Interference !est
Methodology and Procedures, 9ainesville, Interference Control !echnologies,&G)G.
(&'.:* .ronaugh E.6., Msborn T. D. M. :A Process for the Analysis of the Physics of
Measurement and Determination of Measurement 4ncertainty in EMC !est
Procedures# IEEE International symposium on EMC, 4anta Clara, California, 04/,
&GG@.
(&'.?* Dvora# !. T. : !he Problem of Limits Interpretation in !ype Approval and
Production Control, IEEE International symposium on EMC, 04/, &G)&.
(&'.;* Qeise E. =. and Qeise =. E. W.: 4ncertainty +ationale 6or Compliance
Margin 6actors# IEEE International symposium on EMC, 04/, '777.
(&'.@* Uolb 6. E. : 'tatistical Comparison of 'ite 7 to 7 'ite Measurement
+eproducibility, IEEE International symposium on EMC, 4anta Clara, California,
04/, &GG@.
(&'.8* Maddoc#s /. T.: !he European Emission 'pecifications, IEEE International
symposium on EMC, 4anta Clara, California, 04/, &GG@.
(&'.)* Morgan D.: A 8andboo* for EMC !esting and Measurement# 6ondon, <eter
<eregrinus 6td., &GG?.
(&'.G* =oleson 4. : Monitoring repeatability at radiated Emission !est 6acilities,
IEEE International symposium on EMC, 04/, &G)8.
(&'.&7* 4techer M.: !he European Immunity standards, IEEE International
symposium on EMC, 4anta Clara, California, 04/, &GG@.
(&'.&&* 4ydenham <, Q, "ed$: 8andboo* of measurement 'cience, Aolume &,
Chichester, 1ew Ror#, ,ohn WileyV 4ons, &G)@.
(&'.&'* White D. =. T. and Mardiguian M.: Errors in EMC Compliance !esting and
their control, IEEE International symposium on EMC, 04/, &G)'.
(&'.&:* Webster T. 9. "ed$: !he Measurement# Instrumentation# and 'ensor
8andboo*, C=C <ress. IEEE <ress, 0nited 4tates of /merica, &GGG.
(&'.&?* WWW I4MBIECBMIM6B.I<M: 9uide to the E-pression of 0ncertainty in
Measurement &GG'.
(&'.&;* WWW =eviews: IEEE !ransactions on Instrumentation and Measurement IEEE
!ransactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility IEEE !ransactions on /ntennas and
<ropagation IEEE !ransactions on <ower Delivery IEEE !ransactions on
Magnetics.
(&'.&@* WWW 4ymposiums: International 4ymposium on EMC from /nglia "Ror#$,
4wiss "Xurich$, %rance, <oland "Wroclaw$, IEEE International 4ymposium on EMC
"04/$, Conference on <recision Electromagnetic Measurement "<aris &GG'
.raunschweig &GG@ Washington &GG) 4ydney '777$.