Expression of Uncertainty in EMC

The Expression of Uncertainty in
EMC Testing
[UKAS Publication ref: LAB 34 (DRAFT)]
Contents
Section
1
2
3
4
5
6
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Introduction
Concepts
Steps in establishing an uncertainty budget
Compliance with specification
References
Acknowledgements
Examples of typical uncertainty budgets
Calculation of kp
Calculation of uncertainty in logarithmic or linear quantities
Draft Edition 1 = February 2001
Page
3
3
4
10
13
13
14
38
39
Page 1 of 40
LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

About the United Kingdom Accreditation Service
The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is recognised by the
UK Government as the national body responsible for assessing and accrediting
the competence of organisations in the fields of calibration, testing, inspection
and certification of systems, products and personnel.
DRAFT
LAB 34 Draft Edition 1 February 2001
United Kingdom Accreditation Service
21 47 High Street
Feltham
Middlesex TW13 4UN
UK
Tel: 020 8917 8555
Fax: 020 8917 8500
website: www.ukas.com
United Kingdom Accreditation Service 2001
Page 2 of 40
Introduction
1.1
The standard ISO/IEC 17025 used for laboratory accreditation by UKAS requires a
laboratory to produce for all measurements an estimate of the uncertainty of its
measurements using accepted methods of analysis, through the production and
application of suitable uncertainty of measurement procedures. This requirement is
relevant not only to the EMC testing a laboratory may perform but also any in house
calibrations.
1.2
This publication gives recommendations for the treatment of uncertainty

contributions in UKAS accredited EMC Testing Laboratories. The recommendations
are generally in line with the guidelines produced by the International Committee for
Weights and Measures (CIPM), as described in the Guide to the Expression of
Uncertainty in Measurement, 1993, ISO Geneva. (The Guide). However, LAB 34
does not specifically deal with the theory of modelling of the measurement but
attempts to simplify the calculation process while maintaining practical veracity in the
uncertainties produced. LAB 34 also takes a simple approach to the effect of
correlation in the influence quantities and treats all contributions in the examples in
Appendix A as being uncorrelated.
1.3
This publication does not define or recommend what the uncertainty contributions
are, or should be, since these are dependent on the equipment used and the
method of test. Examples of uncertainty budgets are given in Appendix A for some
common EMC measurements and have been made as realistic as possible.
1.4
If a test specification standard requires uncertainties to be calculated using a method

that differs from the recommendations in this publication then the method in the
standard shall be used.
1.5
ISO/IEC 17025 also recognises that the complexity of tests may in some cases
preclude a rigorous evaluation of uncertainty. In such cases a listing of the potential
contributors to uncertainty should be made and should include estimates of the
magnitude of each component uncertainty. These estimates may be based on
previous experience and make use of data from method validation. The laboratory
should ensure that the form of reporting of the result does not give a wrong
impression of the uncertainty.
1.6
In cases where a well-recognised test method specifies limits to the values of major
sources of uncertainty of measurement and specifies the form of presentation of the
results the requirement to estimate uncertainty of measurement can be considered
to have been satisfied by following the test method and its reporting instructions.
Concepts
2.1
The objective of a measurement is to determine the value of the measurand, i.e. the
specific quantity subject to measurement. When applied to EMC testing, the general
term measurand may cover many different quantities, e.g. the measurement of
emissions from radiated emissions test, or the test level in a radiated immunity test. A
measurement begins with an appropriate specification of the measurand, the generic
method of measurement and the specific detailed measurement procedure.
2.2
In general, no measurement or test is perfect and the imperfections give rise to

error of measurement in the result. Consequently, the result of a measurement is
DRAFT
Page 3 of 40
only an approximation to the value of the measurand and is only complete when
accompanied by a statement of the uncertainty of that approximation.
2.3
Errors of measurement may have two components, a random component and a

systematic component. Uncertainty arises from random effects and from imperfect
correction for systematic effects.
2.4
Random errors arise from random variations of the observations (random effects).
Every time a measurement is taken under the same conditions, random effects from
various sources affect the measured value. A series of measurements produces a
scatter around a mean value. A number of sources may contribute to variability each
time a measurement is taken, and their influence may be continually changing. They
cannot be eliminated but increasing the number of observations and applying
statistical analysis may reduce the uncertainty due to their effect.
2.5
Systematic errors arise from systematic effects, i.e. an effect on a measurement

result of a quantity that is not included in the specification of the measurand but
influences the result. These remain unchanged when a measurement is repeated
under the same conditions, and their effect is to introduce a displacement between
the value of the measurand and the experimentally determined mean value. They
cannot be eliminated but may be reduced, e.g. a correction may be made for the
known extent of an error due to a recognised systematic effect.
2.6
The Guide has adopted the approach of grouping uncertainty components into two
categories based on their method of evaluation. Type A evaluation is done by
calculation from a series of repeated observations, using statistical methods. Type B
evaluation is done by means other than that used for Type A. For example, by
judgement based on data in calibration certificates, previous measurement data,
experience with the behaviour of the instruments, manufacturers specifications and
all other relevant information.
2.7
Components of uncertainty are evaluated by the appropriate method and each is

expressed as a standard deviation and is referred to as a standard uncertainty.
2.8
The standard uncertainty components are combined to produce an overall value of

uncertainty, known as the combined standard uncertainty.
2.9
An expanded uncertainty is usually required to meet the needs of industrial,

commercial, health and safety, or other applications. It is intended to provide a
greater interval about the result of a measurement than the standard uncertainty
with, consequently, a higher probability that it encompasses the value of the
measurand. It is obtained by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a
coverage factor, k. The choice of factor is based on the coverage probability or
level of confidence required (see paragraph 3.6).
Steps in establishing an uncertainty budget
3.1
Decide on the range of measurement to which the budget will apply.
DRAFT
An uncertainty budget is a list of the probable sources of error with an estimation of

their uncertainty limits and probability distribution. It is likely that some uncertainty
contributions will not be the same for the complete range of the measurement and a
decision has to be made about the breakdown that will be most appropriate. A single
budget covering the complete range may mean that a larger uncertainty is assigned
than is strictly necessary. However, this may be preferable in some cases where it is
Page 4 of 40
not necessary to over complicate the calculation and reporting process. Priority
should be given to calculating the uncertainty in the region of the test specification
limit, or limits.
3.2
Type A evaluation of uncertainty components.
3.2.1
Random effects result in errors that vary in an unpredictable way while the
measurement is being made or is repeated under the same conditions. The
uncertainty associated with these contributions can be evaluated by statistical
techniques from repeated measurements. An estimate of the standard
deviation, s( q k ) , of a series of n readings, q k , is obtained from:
s( q k ) =
1
(n1)
(q
k =1
q )2
where q is the mean value of n measurements.

3.2.2
The random component of uncertainty can be reduced by making repeat

measurements in the process of testing the equipment under test (EUT). This yields
the standard deviation of the mean, s( q ) , given by:
s( q ) =
s( q k )
n
DRAFT
3.2.3
Practical considerations will normally mean that the number of repeat readings will be
very small and will often be limited to only a single reading. It is satisfactory to use a
predetermination of s( q k ) for the measurement system, based on a larger number
of repeats, provided the system, method, configuration and conditions etc. are truly
representative of the test. However, such a predetermination will not include the
contributions of the particular EUT. The value of n to be used under these
circumstances is the number of measurements made in the process of testing and
not the number of measurements made in the predetermination. Repeat
measurements should be undertaken when the measured result is close to the
specification limit.
3.2.5
A value for the random contributions of the measurement system is in any case an
essential part of the uncertainty assessment and a type A evaluation should be
made on the `typical' processes and configuration involved in the test. For example,
in the case of open site measurements, the type A evaluation could include
reconnecting the antenna and receiver and adjusting the antenna height to maximise
the receiver reading.
3.2.6
The standard uncertainty, u(xi), of an estimate xi of an input quantity q, based on a

type A evaluation is therefore:
u( x i ) = s( q )
3.3
Type B evaluation: list all the other significant contributions to uncertainty

with an estimation of their limit value.
Page 5 of 40
3.3.1
Contributions to uncertainty arising from systematic effects are those that remain
constant while the measurement is being made but can change if the measurement
conditions, method or equipment is altered. If there is any doubt about whether a
contribution is significant, or not, it should be included in the uncertainty budget in
order to demonstrate that it has been considered.
3.3.2
Normally, all corrections that can be applied to the measured result should be
applied. However, in some cases it may be impractical or unnecessary to correct for
all known errors. For example, the calibration certificate for an EMC receiver may
give actual measured input results at specific readings, with an associated
uncertainty. It is possible to correct subsequent readings by using this calibration to
achieve the lowest possible uncertainty. However, it is more practical to use indicated
values with no corrections applied, in which case the manufacturer's specified
uncertainty should be used, provided it has been confirmed by an accredited
calibration or, where this is not obtainable, a route acceptable to UKAS.
3.3.3
The individual uncertainty contributions should be in terms of the variation in the

quantity being measured, rather than the influence quantity, and all in the same
units. Most EMC measurements are derived from readings using logarithmic scales
(eg dBV), corrections for the gain or loss of system components are in dB,
specification limits are generally given in dB and instrument specification limits are
normally in dB. In these cases it is recommended that the uncertainty calculations
are made in terms of dBs. In some cases, for example, where the addition of signals
is the dominant contribution it may be more correct to calculate the uncertainty in
terms of absolute values, e.g. V/m.
DRAFT
The use of dB, percentages or absolute values is discussed in Appendix C.

3.3.4
It is relatively straightforward to assign a value to the uncertainty contribution when

there is already evidence on which to base the value, such as a calibration certificate
or manufacturer's specification. In other cases there may be little or no data
available and estimation has to be made based on experience or on other relevant
published material.
3.3.5
Most contributions to uncertainty can be adequately represented by a symmetrical

distribution about the nominal or measured result, for instance the uncertainty
attributed to a receiver. However, some contributions are not symmetrical and these
are most simply dealt with by calculating separate positive and negative values for
the total uncertainty. The decision on whether this is appropriate will depend on the
difference between the two values and the need for rigour in the uncertainty
estimation. An example of an asymmetric uncertainty is the addition of two signals at
the same frequency where the resultant is dependent on their relative phase, as
occurs with multiple reflections in a screened room and mismatch uncertainty.
3.3.6
The basis of the simplified approach taken in LAB 34 relies upon uncorrelated
contributions. The judicious selection of test equipment and measurement method
can ensure that adverse correlation between individual contributions is avoided or
minimised. If adverse correlation between any contributions is known or suspected
then the most straightforward approach is to sum the standard uncertainty of these
contributions arithmetically. In some situations it is necessary to use the same items
of test equipment for different steps in the measurement process. For example, in
the pre-calibration for radiated immunity measurements it is essential that the same
transmit antenna is used for the calibration and testing.
3.4
Assign a probability distribution and determine the standard uncertainty of

each contribution.
Page 6 of 40
The probability distribution of an uncertainty describes the variation in probability of

the true value lying at any particular difference from the measured or assigned
result. The form of the probability distribution will not necessarily be a regular
geometric shape and an assumption has to be made, based on prior knowledge or
theory, that it approximates to one of the common forms. It is then possible to
calculate the standard uncertainty, u(xi), for the assigned form from simple
equations. The four main distributions of interest to EMC measurement are normal,
rectangular, triangular and U shaped.
3.4.1
Normal:
This distribution can be assigned to uncertainties derived from multiple contributions.
For example, when a UKAS calibration laboratory provides a total uncertainty for an
instrument this will have been calculated at a minimum level of confidence of 95%
and can be assumed to be normal. The standard uncertainty of a contribution to
uncertainty with assumed normal distribution is found by dividing the uncertainty by
the coverage factor, k , appropriate to the stated level of confidence. For Normal
Distributions:
u ( xi ) =
uncertaint y
k
where k = 2 if the reported level of confidence is 95%. (Strictly speaking for a level of
confidence of 95%, k = 1.96, however, the difference this makes to the combined
uncertainty is not significant)
3.4.2
DRAFT
Rectangular:
This distribution means that there is equal probability of the true value lying
anywhere between the prescribed limits. A rectangular distribution should be
assigned where a manufacturer's specification limits are used as the uncertainty,
unless there is a statement of confidence associated with the specification, in which
case a normal distribution can be assumed. For Rectangular Distributions:
u( xi ) = ai
3
where a i is the semi-range limit value of the individual uncertainty contribution.
3.4.3
U Shaped:
This distribution is applicable to mismatch uncertainty[6]. The value of the limit for the
mismatch uncertainty, M, associated with the power transfer at a junction is obtained
2
from 20 log10 (1| G || L| )dB , or 100((1| G || L | ) - 1)% where G and L are
the reflection coefficients for the source and load. As stated in para 3.3.5, mismatch
uncertainty is asymmetric about the measured result, however, the difference this
makes to the total uncertainty is often insignificant and it is acceptable to use the
larger of the two limits ie 20 log10 (1 - | G || L | ) . For U-Shaped Distributions:
Page 7 of 40
u( x i ) =
3.4.4
M
2
Triangular:
This distribution means that there is greater probability of the true value lying
centrally between two prescribed limits. A triangular distribution should be assigned
where a the contribution has a distribution with defined limits and were the majority of
the values within the limits lie around the central point.
For triangular distributions:
u ( xi ) =
ai
6
where a i is the semi-range limit value of the individual uncertainty contribution.

3.5
Determine the combined standard uncertainty.
3.5.1
Sensitivity Coefficients
DRAFT
In some cases the input quantity to the process may not be in the same units as the
output quantity. For example, the uncertainty in the measurement distance on an
open site should be converted to the uncertainty in the received signal strength. In
this case the input quantity is length, but the output quantity is electrical. It is
therefore necessary to introduce a sensitivity coefficient so that the output quantity
(y), can be related to the input quantity (xi). This sensitivity coefficient is referred to
as ci. The sensitivity coefficient is effectively a conversion factor from one unit to
another.
The relationship between the input quantity and the output quantity may not be
linear. The partial derivative f / xi can be used to obtain the sensitivity coefficient
and this is one of the reasons that mathematical modelling is used to describe
measurement systems. In practice the derivation of the partial derivatives can be
difficult and the effort involved is not always justified by the results obtained. A linear
approximation such as the quotient f/xi, where f is the change in f resulting from a
change xi in xi, is often sufficient.
3.5.2
Correlated Input Quantities

The combined standard uncertainty of the output estimate will only apply when there
is no correlation between any of the input estimates, that is, the input quantities are
independent of each other. It may be the case that some input quantities are affected
by the same influence quantity, eg temperature, or by the errors in a particular
instrument that is used for separate measurements in the same process. In such
cases the input quantities are not independent of each other and the equation for
obtaining the standard uncertainty of the output estimate must be modified. However,
as mentioned previously, if correlation between any contributions is known or
suspected then the most straightforward approach is to sum the standard uncertainty
of these contributions arithmetically. The Guide should be referred to if a more
detailed approach is required.
Page 8 of 40
3.5.2
Combined Standard Uncertainty

The combined uncertainty,uc (y), is obtained by taking the square root of the sum of
squares of the individual standard uncertainties. If any of the standard uncertainties
are not already in terms of the measured quantity then they should be converted
using the appropriate sensitivity coefficient, ci, then:
ui (y) = ci .u( xi )
Any contributions with known or suspected adverse correlation should be added
together, then for m contributions:
m
uc (y) =
u (y)
2
i
i= 1
3.6
Determine the expanded uncertainty.

The expanded uncertainty, U, defines an interval about the measured result that will
encompass the true value with a specified level of confidence, p%. The expanded
uncertainty is obtained by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a
DRAFT
U = k uc (y)
coverage factor, k, thus:

The level of confidence recommended by UKAS for EMC testing is 95% which can be
obtained with k = 2.
However there are exceptions when a coverage factor of k = 2, does not provide a
95% confidence level. These situations would be characterised by one or more of
the following:
(a) A random contribution to uncertainty that is relatively large compared with
other contributions and based on only a small number of repeat readings. In this
case there is the possibility that the probability distribution will not be normal in
form and a value of k=2 will give a level of confidence of less than 95%. [This
would not usually arise if the uncertainty assessment involved only one Type A
evaluation and the number of readings is greater than 2, (i.e. if uc (y)/s(q ) < 3 )
and the combined standard uncertainty is more than twice the Type A
uncertainty]. This revised value of k is k p and can be obtained using the
procedure given in Appendix B.
(b) The absence of a significant number of uncertainty components having wellbehaved probability distributions, such as normal and rectangular;
(c) Domination of the combined value by one component with an unknown
probability distribution. There is not a clear-cut definition of a dominant
Page 9 of 40
component but a practical guide would be where one component was more than
five times greater than any other.
3.7
Reporting of result.
The extent of the information given when reporting the result of a test and its
uncertainty should be related to the requirements of the client, the specification and
the intended use of the result. The methods used to calculate the result and its
uncertainty should be available either in the report or in the records of the test
including:
(a) Sufficient documentation of the steps and calculations in the data analysis to
enable a repeat of the calculation if necessary
(b) All corrections and constants used in the analysis, and their sources.
(c) Sufficient documentation to show how the uncertainty is calculated.
When reporting the result and its uncertainty, the use of excessive numbers of digits
should be avoided. In most cases the uncertainty need be expressed to no more
than two significant figures (although at least one more figure should be used during
the stages of estimation and combination of uncertainty components in order to
minimise rounding errors).
DRAFT
Unless otherwise specified, the result of the measurement should be reported,

together with the expanded uncertainty appropriate to the 95% level of confidence, in
the following manner:
Measured value 100.1 (units)
Uncertainty of measurement 0.1 (units)
The reported expanded uncertainty is based on a standard uncertainty

multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2, providing a level of confidence of
approximately 95%.
Alternatively an overall uncertainty may be given for results that are plotted or
tabulated.
3.7.1
Special cases
In exceptional cases, where a particular factor or factors can influence the results,
but where he magnitude cannot be either measured or reasonably assessed, the
statement will need to include reference to that fact, for example:
The reported expanded uncertainty is based on a standard uncertainty
multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2, providing a level of confidence of
approximately 95%, but excluding the effects of . . . . . .
Examples of this could be the effects of the semi-anechoic chamber and EUT
reflections in the older radiated immunity test methods or screened room in
emissions measurements for military EMC tests.
Compliance with specification
Page 10 of 40
4.1
ISO/IEC 17025 requirements state that where relevant, (e.g. when a product is tested
against a declared specification), then the report must contain a statement indicating
whether the results show compliance or non-compliance with the specification. When
the client or the specification requires a statement of compliance, there are a number
of possible cases where the uncertainty has a bearing on the compliance statement
and these are examined below.
4.2
Ideally the specification would clearly state that the measured result, extended by the
uncertainty at a given level of confidence, shall not fall outside a defined limit or
limits. However it is rare for this to be the case.
4.3
More often, the specification requires a compliance statement in the certificate or

report but makes no reference to taking into account the effect of uncertainty on the
assessment of compliance. In such cases it may be appropriate for the user to make
a judgement of compliance, based on whether the result is within the specified limits
with no account taken of the uncertainty. This is often referred to as shared risk,
since the end-user takes some of the risk that the product may not meet the
specification. In this case there is an implicit assumption that the magnitude of the
uncertainty is acceptable and it is important that the laboratory should be in a
position to determine and report the uncertainty. It may be acceptable to ignore
measurement uncertainty for non-safety critical performance, such as the EMC
immunity characteristics of radio and television for example, but when testing a heart
pacemaker or the ABS system on a vehicle the user may require that the risk of the
product not complying is negligible. Careful consideration of the use of the shared
risk approach should be given prior to its application.
4.4
An agreement between the client and the laboratory or a code of practice or

specification may state that uncertainty can be ignored when judging compliance.
Similar considerations as forshared risk (4.3 above) apply in such circumstances. All
parties should know what that uncertainty is and the responsibility for calculating and
declaring the uncertainty rests with the test laboratory.
4.5
EMC testing is carried out on a very wide range of products intended for a variety of
applications. It is not therefore possible, or appropriate, for UKAS to recommend
standard rules for judging compliance. In the absence of any specified criteria, for
example as detailed above, the following approach is recommended:
DRAFT
(a) If the limits are not breached by the measured result, extended by the expanded
uncertainty interval at a level of confidence of 95%, then compliance with the
specification can be stated, (Case A, Fig 1 and Case E, Fig 2);
(b) Where an upper specification limit is exceeded by the result even when it is
decreased by half of the expanded uncertainty interval, then non-compliance with the
specification can be stated, (Case D, Fig 1);
(c) If a lower specification limit is breached even when the measured result is
extended upwards by half of the expanded uncertainty interval, then non-compliance
with the specification can be stated (Case H, Fig 2);
(d) If the measured value falls sufficiently close to a limit such that half of the
expanded uncertainty interval overlaps the limit, it is not possible to confirm
compliance or non-compliance at the stated level of confidence. The test result and
expanded uncertainty should be reported together with a statement indicating that
compliance was not demonstrated. A suitable statement to cover these situations
(Cases B and C, Fig 1 and Cases F and G, Fig 2) would be, for example:
Page 11 of 40

The measured result is above (below) the specification limit by a margin less
than the measurement uncertainty; it is therefore not possible to state
compliance based on the 95% level of confidence. However, the result
indicates that compliance (non-compliance) is more probable than noncompliance (compliance) with the specification limit.
Note: In these circumstances if a confidence limit of less than 95% is acceptable, a
statement of compliance/non-compliance may be possible.
4.6
Further guidance can be found in ILAC document ILAC-G8:1996, (Reference 9)
DRAFT
Page 12 of 40

Figure 1
Figure 2
DRAFT
Page 13 of 40
References
[1]
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, ISO/IEC/OIML/BIPM

(Prepared by ISO/TAG 4/WG 3: January 1993)
[2]
The Expression of Uncertainty and Confidence in Measurement, UKAS Publication

M3003, Edition 1 December 1997.
[3]
Guidelines for the expression of uncertainty of measurement in calibration. WECC

Doc. 19-1990.
[4]
Guide to the evaluation and expression of uncertainties associated with the results of
electrical measurements, Def Stan 0026/Issue 2 Sept 1988.
[5]
Uncertainties in the measurement of mobile radio equipment characteristics,

Technical Report, ETR028, March 1992.
[6]
Harris, I.A. and Warner, F.L. Re-examination of mismatch uncertainty when

measuring power and attenuation. IEE Proc. Vol 128 Pt H No.1 February 1981.
[7]
General requirements for competence of testing and calibration laboratories, ISO/IEC

17025, December 1999.
[8]
The expression of uncertainty in testing, UKAS Publication LAB 12, Edition 1,

October 2000.
[9]
Guidelines on Assessment and Reporting of Compliance with Specifications, ILAC

Publication ILAC-G8, 1996.
[10]
Cox, M.G. Model-based treatment of uncertainty in EMC measurement: a basis for a

proposed draft contribution to a new edition to UKAS NIS 81 , NPL, July 2000.
[11]
Goedbloed, J.J. An Introduction to Uncertainties in Standardised EMC Compliance

Testing, October 2000.
[12]
Carter, P.W. Examples of common measurement uncertainty budgets in EMC

Testing, January 2001
Acknowledgements
ETSI
DRAFT
This revision was co-sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry's National
Measurement System Policy Unit through a project of work in the 1997-2000 Electrical
Programme at the National Physical Laboratory.
UKAS would like to acknowledge the contribution of Mr P Carter who provided the majority of
updated uncertainty budget examples in this document.
Page 14 of 40
APPENDIX A - Examples of typical uncertainty budgets

A1. Introduction
The following examples give the likely uncertainty contributions for the more common EMC
measurements. Where the uncertainty contribution is considered insignificant a `0` has been used.
The examples given have been as detailed as reasonable but with a view to the magnitude of the typical
final uncertainties and the environment in which the budgets will be used. In particular a pragmatic
approach to the sensitivity coefficients was taken and the majority were set at 1. This approach, whilst
based on the simplistic assumption that having established a maximum range for a particular influence
and to use that value as a real number at that maximum to represent our estimate of the error, seemed
the most straight forward, it should be noted that this approach has only been taken when the error
contribution can be derived or calculated and added in comparable units to the other contributions, it is
likely to give slightly more pessimistic results but is considerably easier to prepare the budget.
The approach adopted for emissions measurements including sensitivity coefficients has been generally
to follow the methodology currently being implemented in CISPR. Values have been altered in some
cases to more closely reflect the practical accuracy achievable by test labs for measurements such as
cable loss.
The contributions and values are not intended to imply mandatory requirements. Laboratories
should determine the uncertainty contributions for the tests they are performing.
DRAFT
Page 15 of 40
A2. Conducted emissions

Measurements made on a site that conforms to the requirements of CISPR 22. The mathematical
model for the measurement process is assumed to be:
FS=Vr+Lc+Lamn+dVsw+dVpa+dVpr+dVnf+dZ+Fstep+dM+Rs+Reut
Symbol
Quantity
FS
Field Strength
Vr
LC
LAMN
dVsw
dVpa
dVpr
dVnf
dZ
Fstep
dM
RS
REUT
Units
Comment
dB V/m This is the result of the measurement (measurand).
Value is read from the receiver. The uncertainty is function of

dBV the least significant digit in the display readout or the Marker
function on an analyser.
Attenuation of connection between artificial mains network
Attenuation AMN-reciever
dB
and the receiver.
Artificial Mains Network Voltage division factor (Insertion
AMN Voltage division factor dB
Loss).
Receiver Sine Wave
dB Receiver error due to Sine Wave Voltage.
Receiver Pulse Amplitude
dB Receiver error due to Pulse amplitude response.
Receiver Pulse repetition
dB Receiver error due to Pulse Repetition response.
Noise Floor Proximity
dB Error due to signal to noise ratio reducing.
The AMN impedance is specified as a range of acceptability,
this budget uses the nominal impedance variation as a
AMN Impedance
dB triangular distribution. This implies that the nominal
impedance is achieved throughout the frequency range and
only .
If using an automated receiver there is an error depending on
the frequency step size with respect to the measurement
bandwidth. This can be found by applying a known signal to
Frequency step error
dB the receiver and adjusting the Generator frequency of the
signal to an offset from the receiver frequency to + and - half
the step size and noting the minimum amplitude change on the
receiver.
No correction is made for mismatch between the receiver and
the AMN plus cable. The uncertainty is derived from a
Mismatch
dB
combination of the reflection coefficient magnitudes as
described in section 3.4.3.
The repeatability of the measurement system is determined by
obtaining the standard deviation of a series of repeated
Measurement System
dB readings on a stable EUT (e.g. a noise source). It should
Repeatability
include typical variations that will occur in normal testing in
this example 10 readings were made. See section 3.2.5.
This will only need to be considered if the measured result is
Repeatability of EUT
dB close to the specification limit to the extent that variations due
to the EUT may affect compliance. See section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.
Receiver Reading
DRAFT
Page 16 of 40
Conducted Disturbances from 9 kHz to 150 kHz using 50Ohm/50uH AMN
Symbol
Source of Uncertainty
Value
vi or
Probability
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
Vr
Receiver Reading
0.05 rectangular 1.732 1
0.03
0.001
6.94444E-11
LC
0.40
normal 2
2.000 1
0.20
0.040
0.00000016
LAMN AMN Voltage division factor
0.20
normal 2
2.000 1
0.10
0.010
0.00000001
dVsw Receiver Sine Wave
0.58
0.333
1.11111E-05
dVpa Receiver Pulse Amplitude
0.87
0.750
0.00005625
dVpr Receiver Pulse repetition
0.87
0.750
0.00005625
dVnf Noise Floor Proximity
0.00
0.000
AMN Impedance
3.60
2.449 1
1.47
2.160
0.00046656
0.00
0.000
Mismatch
-0.89 U-shaped
1.414 1 -0.63
0.397
1.57601E-05
dZ
f
M
Receiver VRC 0.15

RS
AMN+Cable 0.65
Measurement System Repeatability 0.50
REUT Repeatability of EUT
triangular
normal 1
1.000 1
0.50
0.250
0.006944444
DRAFT
u c (FS) Combined Standard Uncertainty

U(FS) Expanded Uncertainty
0.00
normal 1
1.000 1
normal
normal k=2.00
0.00
0.000
2.17
4.691
4.3
2915 0.007550546
2915
Page 17 of 40
Conducted Disturbances from 150kHz to 30 MHz using 50Ohm/50uH AMN

Symbol
Value
Probability
v or
Divisor ci ui(y) (ui(y))^2 i
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
Vr
Receiver Reading
0.05 rectangular 1.732 1 0.03
0.001
6.94444E-11
LC
0.40
normal 2
2.000 1 0.20
0.040
0.00000016
0.20
normal 2
2.000 1 0.10
0.010
0.00000001
1.00 rectangular 1.732 1 0.58
0.333
1.11111E-05
1.50 rectangular 1.732 1 0.87
0.750
0.00005625
1.50 rectangular 1.732 1 0.87
0.750
0.00005625

dZ
f
M
0.00 rectangular 1.732 1 0.00
0.000
AMN Impedance
2.70
2.449 1 1.10
1.215
0.000147623
0.00 rectangular 1.732 1 0.00
0.000
Mismatch
-0.89 U-shaped
0.397
1.57601E-05
Receiver VRC = 0.15

RS
Antenna +Cable VRC = 0.65

0.00
triangular
1.414 1 -0.63
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
1.94
3.746
DRAFT
u c (y) Combined Standard Uncertainty

U(y) Expanded Uncertainty
normal k=2.00
3.9
1941
0.006944444
0
0.007231608
1941
Page 18 of 40
A3. Discontinuous Interference

For discontinuous interference that uses equipment as defined in CISPR 16-1 no practical way exists
of combining the pulse duration errors with the common errors already shown for continuous
emissions. Therefore the uncertainty budget example given below is based on the assumption that the
discontinuous interference analyser has been demonstrated, through calibration, to meet the
requirements of section 14 of CISPR 16-1. The uncertainty budget therefore will be the same as for
conducted emissions.
FS=Vr+Lc+Lamn+dVsw+dVpa+dVpr+dVnf+dZ+Fstep+dM+Rs+Reut
Symbol
Quantity
Units
Comment
dB V/mThis is the result of the measurement (measurand).

Value is read from the receiver. The uncertainty is function of
Vr
Receiver Reading
dBV the least significant digit in the display readout or the Marker
function on an analyser.
Attenuation of connection between artificial mains network
LC
dB
and the receiver.
Artificial Mains Network Voltage division factor (Insertion
LAMN AMN Voltage division factor dB
Loss).
dVsw
Receiver Sine Wave
FS
Field Strength
dVpa
dB
Receiver error due to Pulse amplitude response.
dVpr
dB
Receiver error due to Pulse Repetition response.
dVnf
dB
dZ
AMN Impedance
dB
Fstep
dB
dM
Mismatch
dB
Error due to signal to noise ratio reducing.

The AMN impedance is specified as a range of acceptability,
this budget uses the nominal impedance variation as a
triangular distribution. This implies that the nominal
impedance is achieved throughout the frequency range and
only.
If using an automated receiver there is an error depending on
the frequency step size with respect to the measurement
bandwidth. This can be found by applying a known signal to
the receiver and adjusting the frequency of the signal offset
from the receiver frequency to + and - half the step size and
noting the minimum amplitude change on the receiver.
the AMN plus cable. The uncertainty is derived from a
DRAFT
Page 19 of 40
Symbol
Quantity
Units
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB
REUT
dB
Comment
readings on a stable EUT (e.g. a noise source). It should
close to the specification limit to the extent that variations due
Discontinuous Emissions from 150kHz to 30 MHz using 50Ohm/50uH AMN
Symbol
Value
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
vi or
veff
ui^4(y)
Vr
Receiver Reading
0.05 rectangular 1.732
0.03
0.001
6.94E-11
LC
0.40
normal 2
2.000
0.20
0.040
1.6E-07
0.20
normal 2
2.000
0.10
0.010
1E-08
0.58
0.333
1.11E-05
0.87
0.750
5.63E-05
0.87
0.750
5.63E-05
0.00
0.000
2.70
2.449
1.10
1.215
0.000148
0.00
0.000
-0.89
-0.63
0.397
1.58E-05
dZ
DRAFT
AMN Impedance
Fstep Frequency step error

dM
Mismatch
Receiver VRC = 0.15
RS


0.00
triangular
U-shaped
1.414
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
1.94
3.746
normal
normal k=2.00
3.9
0.006944
0
1941
0.007232
1941
Page 20 of 40
A4. Measurement of Radiated Field Strength

Measurements made on an open site that conforms to the requirements of CISPR 22. The mathematical model
for the measurement process is assumed to be:
F S =R I+A F +CL+A D +A H +A P +A I+SI+DV +M+Fstep+R S +R EUT
Symbol
Quantity
FS
Field Strength
RI
dVsw
dVpa
dVpr
dVnf
AF
CL
AD
AH
AP
AI
SI
Units
Comment
dBV/mThis is the result of the measurement (measurand).

The uncertainty due to ambient signals is not included in
this budget because it is very level dependent. The effect of
Ambient Signals
dBV/mambient signals must be considered in the measurement
procedure and step taken to deal with likely errors as
directed in CISPR 22.
Value is read from the receiver. The uncertainty is function
Receiver Indication
dBV of the least significant digit in the display readout or the
Marker function on an analyser.
Receiver Sine Wave
dB Receiver error due to Pulse amplitude response.
dB Receiver error due to Pulse Repetition response.
dB Error due to signal to noise ratio reducing.
The antenna factor is obtained from the calibration
Antenna Factor Calibration
dB/m
certificate, as is the uncertainty and probability distribution.
The cable loss is obtained from the calibration certificate, as
Cable Loss
dB
is the uncertainty and probability distribution.
No correction is made for errors due to antenna directivity.
The uncertainty should be based on prior knowledge of the
Antenna Directivity
dB polar pattern of the generic type of antenna. This
uncertainty will vary with antenna type and measurement
distance.
No correction is made for errors in the antenna factor due to
variations in its height above the ground plane. The
Antenna Factor Height
uncertainty is derived from theoretical and practical
dB
Dependence
experience of experts in antenna calibrations and will vary
with antenna type. The probability distribution is assumed
to be rectangular.
No correction is made for antenna phase centre variation.
The uncertainty is derived from theoretical and practical
Antenna Phase Centre Variation dB
experience of experts in antenna calibrations. The
probability distribution is assumed to be rectangular.
No correction is made for any difference between the
antenna factor at the frequency being measured and the
nearest calibration frequency. The uncertainty will depend
Antenna Factor Frequency
dB on the interval of calibration points over the frequency
Interpolation
range and the rate of change of antenna factor with
frequency. The probability distribution is assumed to be
rectangular.
No corrections are made for site imperfections. The
Site Imperfections
dB uncertainty can be assessed from a study of the normalised
site attenuation.
DRAFT
Page 21 of 40
Symbol
Quantity
Units
DV
Measurement Distance
Variation
dB
Fstep
dB
Mismatch
dB
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB
REUT
dB
Comment
No correction is made for errors in the measurement distance
(between antenna and EUT). The uncertainty in received
signal strength in dB is obtained from an estimate of the
uncertainty in the measurement distance.
If using an automated receiver there is an error depending
on the frequency step size with respect to the measurement
bandwidth. This can be found by applying a known signal
to the receiver and adjusting the Generator frequency of the
signal to an offset from the receiver frequency to + and - half
the step size and noting the minimum amplitude change on
the receiver.
No correction is made for mismatch between the receiver
and the antenna plus cable. The uncertainty is derived from
a combination of the reflection coefficient magnitudes as
The repeatability of the measurement system is determined
by obtaining the standard deviation of a series of repeated
readings on a stable EUT (e.g. a noise source). It should
close to the specification limit to the extent that variations
due to the EUT may affect compliance. See section 3.2.2 and
3.2.3.
DRAFT
Page 22 of 40
Radiated Field Strength 30 dBmV/m to 60 dBmV/m

Biconical antenna 30 MHz to 300 MHz - Vertical Polarisation at 3 m and 10 m
Symbol
RI
Value
Probability
v or
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
0.05
rectangular
1.732 1 0.03
0.001
6.94444E-11
1.00
normal 2
2.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.00000625
1.50
rectangular
1.732 1 0.87
0.750
0.00005625
1.50
rectangular
1.732 1 0.87
0.750
0.50
normal 2
2.000 1 0.25
0.063
0.00005625
3.90625E-07
0.250
0.00000625
0.063
3.90625E-07
0.083
6.94444E-07
0.000177778
0
AF
CL
AD
Receiver Indication

Cable Loss
1.00
0.50
Antenna Directivity
0.50
normal 2
2.000 1 0.50
normal 2
2.000 1 0.25
rectangular
1.732 1 0.29
AH
Antenna Factor Height Dependence
2.00
rectangular
1.732 1 1.15
1.333
AP
Antenna Phase Centre Variation
0.00
rectangular
1.732 1 0.00
0.000
AI
SI

Interpolation
Site Imperfections
DV
Measurement Distance Variation
0.25
4.00
Mismatch
0.60
triangular
1.732 1 0.14
2.449 1 1.63
0.021
4.34028E-08
2.667
0.000711111
0.120
Measurement System Repeatability

rectangular
1.732 1 0.35
0.00000144
0
6.09653E-05
0.00
rectangular
1.732 1 0.00
0.000
-1.25
U-shaped
1.414 1 -0.88
0.781
Receiver VRC 0.2

Antenna +Cable VRC 0.67
RS
rectangular
DRAFT

M
0.50
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.00
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
2.72
7.381
normal
k=2.00
5.4
0.006944444
0.008022258
6791
6791
Page 23 of 40

Log periodic antenna 300 MHz to 1 GHz - Vertical Polarisation at 3 m
Symbol
RI
Receiver Indication
Value
Probability
v or
distribution
veff
0.05 rectangular 1.732 1 0.03
ui^4(y)
0.001
6.94444E-11
0.00000625
1.00
2.000 1 0.50
0.250
1.50 rectangular 1.732 1 0.87
0.750
0.00005625
1.50 rectangular 1.732 1 0.87
0.750
0.00005625
0.063
3.90625E-07
0.250
0.00000625
0.063
3.90625E-07
3.000
0.0009
0.083
6.94444E-07
1.11111E-05

AF
CL
Cable Loss
AD
AH
0.50
1.00
0.50
Antenna Directivity
normal 2
normal 2
normal 2
normal 2
2.000 1 0.25
2.000 1 0.50
2.000 1 0.25
3.00 rectangular 1.732 1 1.73

0.50 rectangular 1.732 1 0.29
AP
1.00 rectangular 1.732 1 0.58
0.333
AI
0.25 rectangular 1.732 1 0.14
0.021
SI

Interpolation
Site Imperfections
DV
4.00
2.667
0.000711111
0.120
0.00000144
0.000
1.414 1 -0.38 0.144
2.08578E-06
2.449 1 1.63
0.60 rectangular 1.732 1 0.35
Mismatch
0.00 rectangular 1.732 1 0.00
-0.54 U-shaped
Receiver VRC = 0.2

RS
triangular
4.34028E-08
DRAFT

M

0.50
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.00
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
2.96
8.744
normal k=2.00
5.9
0.006944444
0.008696712
8792
8792
Page 24 of 40

Log periodic antenna 300 MHz to 1 GHz - Vertical Polarisation at 10 m
Symbol
RI
Receiver Indication

Value
Probability
v or
distribution
veff
0.05 rectangular 1.732 1 0.03

1.00
normal 2
2.000 1 0.50
1.50 rectangular 1.732 1 0.87
ui^4(y)
0.001
6.94444E-11
0.250
0.00000625
0.750
0.00005625
0.00005625
1.50 rectangular 1.732 1 0.87
0.750
0.50
0.063
3.90625E-07
0.250
0.00000625
0.063
3.90625E-07
0.083
6.94444E-07
0.083
6.94444E-07
0.013
1.77778E-08
AF
CL
Cable Loss
AD
Antenna Directivity
AH
1.00
0.50
normal 2
normal 2
normal 2
2.000 1 0.25
2.000 1 0.50
2.000 1 0.25
0.50 rectangular 1.732 1 0.29

0.50 rectangular 1.732 1 0.29
AP
AI
0.25 rectangular 1.732 1 0.14
0.021
SI

Interpolation
Site Imperfections
4.00
2.449 1 1.63
2.667
0.000711111
DV
0.40 rectangular 1.732 1 0.23
0.053
2.84444E-07
0.053
2.84444E-07
1.414 1 -0.38 0.144
2.08578E-06

M
0.20 rectangular 1.732 1 0.12
DRAFT
Mismatch
0.40 rectangular 1.732 1 0.23
-0.54 U-shaped
Receiver VRC = 0.2

RS
triangular
4.34028E-08

0.50
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.00
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
2.34
5.494
normal k=2.00
4.7
0.006944444
0.007785442
3878
3878
Page 25 of 40
A5. Measurement of Disturbance Power

FS= RI +dVsw+dVpa+dVpr+dVnf+Lc+Lac+dE+M+Rs+Reut
Symbol
FS
Quantity
Field Strength
Ambient Signals
RI
Receiver Indication
Units
Comment
dBpW This is the result of the measurement (measurand).

The uncertainty due to ambient signals is not included in this
budget because it is very level dependent. The effect of ambient
dBV/m
signals must be considered in the measurement procedure and
step taken to deal with likely errors as directed in CISPR 22.
Value is read from the receiver. The uncertainty is obtained from
the manufacturer's specification supported by appropriate
dBpW calibration. It includes the uncertainty of CW calibration and
pulse response. The probability distribution is assumed to be
normal (k=2).
dB
Receiver error due to Sine Wave Voltage.
dB
Receiver error due to Pulse amplitude response.
dB
Receiver error due to Pulse Repetition response.
DRAFT
dB
Error due to signal to noise ratio reducing.
Cable losses between the receiver and the Absorbing Clamp.

Error in the insertion loss calibration of the absorbing clamp,
imported from Calibration certificate.
Effect due to reflecting/conducting objects in the area
surrounding the clamp and test system.
the antenna plus cable. The uncertainty is derived from a
readings on a stable EUT (e.g. a noise source). It should include
typical variations that will occur in normal testing in this
example 10 readings were made. See section 3.2.5.
Lc
Attenuation Clamp/receiver
dB
Lac
Absorbing Clamp Ins Loss
dB
dE
Effect of environment
dB
Mismatch
dB
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB
dB

Page 26 of 40
Radiated Disturbance Power 30 MHz to 300 MHz

Symbol
RI
Value
Receiver Indication
Probability
v or
distribution
veff
0.00
normal 2
2.000
1
1
1
1
1
0.03
0.58
0.87
0.87
0.00
ui^4(y)
0.001
6.94E-11
0.333
1.11E-05
0.750
5.63E-05
0.750
5.63E-05
0.000
0
6.25E-10
Lc
Attenuation Clamp/receiver
0.10
normal 2
2.000
0.05
0.003
Lac
Absorbing Clamp Ins Loss
3.00
normal 2
2.000
1.50
2.250
0.000506
dE
Effect of environment
0.213
4.55E-06
Mismatch
-0.63
1 -0.45 0.199
3.95E-06
0.2
RS
0.35

0.00
u-shaped
1.414
0.46
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
2.10
4.414
normal
0.006944
0
2574
0.007572
DRAFT
normal k=2.00
4.20
2574
Page 27 of 40
A6. Electrostatic Discharge

The approach for the presentation of the uncertainty budget for ESD tests relates to note 2 of clause
5.4.6.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:1999 which states, In those cases where a well-recognized test method
specifies limits to the values of the major sources of uncertainty of measurement and specifies the
form of presentation of calculated results, the laboratory is considered to have satisfied this clause by
following the test method and reporting instructions. Therefore the requirements for measurement
uncertainty in ESD testing are deemed to have been satisfied if the laboratory can show that the ESD
generator meets the requirements of the relevant standard, (e.g. EN 61000-4-2:1995 section 6), and
the testing is reported in accordance with the relevant standards, (e.g. EN 61000-4-2:1995 section 9
and ISO/IEC 17025:1999 section 5.10).
An example of the presentation of this justification is shown below for the negative discharge current,
negative voltage and negative rise time in EN 61000-4-2:1995.
Negative Discharge Current
From Standard
2kV
Nominal
Min
Max
Tolerance in %
First
Peak Current Current
Current at 30ns at 60ns
7.5
4
2
6.75
2.8
1.4
8.25
5.2
2.6
From calibration certificate

1st Peak
Measured Worst Measured
30ns
Measured 60ns
First Peak case. Current at Worst Current at Worst
Current
+5%
30ns case. +5% 60ns case. -5%
7.69
8.07
4.54
4.77
1.92
1.82
6.75
2.8
1.4
8.25
5.2
2.6
DRAFT
10%
30%
30%
First
4kV
Nominal
15
8
4
Min
13.5
5.6
2.8
Max
16.5
10.4
5.2
Tolerance in % 10% 30% 30%
First
6kV
Nominal
22.5
12
6
Min
20.25
8.4
4.2
Max
24.75 15.6
7.8
1st Peak
Worst Measured
30ns
Measured 60ns
Current
+5%
30ns case. +5% 60ns case. +5%
15.1
14.35
8.95
9.40
4.17
4.38
13.5
5.6
2.8
16.5
10.4
5.2
1st Peak Measured

30ns
Measured 60ns
First Peak Worst Current at Worst Current at Worst
Current case. -5% 30ns case. +5% 60ns case. +5%
22.1
21.00
13.6
14.28
6.59
6.92
20.25
8.4
4.2
24.75
15.6
7.8
Page 28 of 40

Negative Discharge Current
From Standard
First
8kV
Nominal
30
16
8
Min
27
11.2
5.6
Max
33
20.8
10.4
From calibration Certificate

1st Peak
Worst Measured
30ns
Measured
60ns
Current
+5%
30ns case. +5% 60ns case. +5%
30.2
31.71
18.6
19.53
8.83
9.27
27
11.2
5.6
33
20.8
10.4
Negative Discharge Voltage

Standard Parameters
Indicated Voltage.
kV
2
4
6
8
15
Tolerance.
%
10
10
10
10
10
Max.
kV
2.20
4.40
6.60
8.80
16.50
Min.
kV
1.80
3.60
5.40
7.20
13.50
INA426
kV
2.01
4.00
5.94
8.05
14.98
Measured Values
Max Min
Max Min
Value ValueINA424 Value Value
kV kV
kV
kV kV
2.04 1.98 1.99 2.02 1.96
4.05 3.95 3.94 3.99 3.89
6.01 5.87 5.85 5.92 5.78
8.14 7.96 7.94 8.03 7.85
15.14 14.82 14.82 14.98 14.66
Negative Rise Time

Measured Values
Measured Worst Case Worst Case
Indicated Voltage.
Rise Time. max. +6% min. -6%
2kV
0.72
0.763
0.677
4kV
0.741
0.785
0.697
6kV
0.751
0.796
0.706
8kV
0.758
0.803
0.713
DRAFT
Standard Parameters
T max.
1ns
T min
0.7ns
- Indicates areas that are potentially not within the standard
The comparison also needs to be performed for the positive discharge current, positive voltage and
positive rise times.
The tolerances in EN 61000-4-2:1995 are reduced by the uncertainty reported on the calibration
certificate for the measurement. If all the parameters are within the tolerances required by the
standard, reduced by the uncertainty reported on the calibration certificate, then the laboratory has
confidence that the ESD generator is compliance with the standard with a 95% confidence level.
If, as in the example above, the comparison shows that the ESD generator falls outside the tolerances
required by the standard, reduced by the uncertainty reported on the calibration certificate, then the
laboratory may have to adjust the generator so it did fit or report a reduced confidence level. It may
not always be possible to demonstrate that a generator is within the tolerances required by the standard
because of the magnitude of the uncertainties available from calibration laboratories.
The following is an example form of words that can be put on a test report to describe the procedure
followed.
It has been demonstrated that the ESD generator meets the specified requirements in the
standard with at least a 95% confidence.
Page 29 of 40
A7. Radiated Immunity

The measurement uncertainty budget below is based on the assumption that it has been demonstrated
during calibration that the 6 dB field uniformity has been achieved. Once the expanded uncertainty has
been calculated then the value is related to the standard severity level (e.g.3 V/m) to provide an
increased test level which accounts for the uncertainty in the test configuration.
The mathematical model for the measurement process is assumed to be:
FSM = FSAW + PD + PAH + FD + RS + REUT
Symbol
Quantity
FSM
Felds Strength monitor
FSAW
PD
PAH
FD
dBuVAs reported on the Field Probe calibration certificate

Usually a set parameter to allow the software to accept a
Field Strength acceptability
dB value for field strength that is within an acceptable window
window
of the calibration level.
A function of the power meter or other device connected to
Forward power Measurement Drift dB
monitor forward power.
Contribution due to inclusion of amplifier distortion in
Power Amplifier Harmonics
dB
power meter reading.
Possible effects due to table and/ supporting structures.
Effect of field disturbance
dB
Mismatch
RS
Units Comment
Not applicable.
The repeatability of the measurement system is determined
by obtaining the standard deviation of a series of repeated
dB readings on a stable EUT. It should include typical
variations that will occur in normal testing. . See section
3.2.5.
This will only need to be considered if the measured result
is close to the specification limit to the extent that
dB
variations due to the EUT may affect compliance. See
section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.
DRAFT
Measurement System
Repeatability
Page 30 of 40
Re-establishment of pre-calibrated field level
Symbol
Value
FSM Felds Strength monitor
1.20
vi or
Probability
distribution
veff
Normal 2
2.000 1 0.60
FSAW Field Strength acceptability window 0.50 Rectangular 1.732 1 0.29

PD Forward power Measurement Drift 0.20 Rectangular 1.732 1 0.12
PAH Power Amplifier Harmonics
0.35 Rectangular 1.732 1 0.20
FD Effect of field disturbance
0.35 Rectangular 1.732 1 0.20
RS
0.360
0.00001296
0.083
6.94444E-07
0.013
1.77778E-08
0.041
1.66736E-07
0.041
1.66736E-07
0.006944444
0.50
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.00
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
0.65
0.428

normal k=2.13
ui^4(y)
1.39
0
26
0.00694549
26
The above budget can be adapted to provide an estimation of the uncertainty using a dynamic feedback
mechanism, e.g. for IEC 801-3:1994 testing.
It should be noted that although this uncertainty appears to be less than the calibrated field example
above, the method itself is inherently less accurate due to the unknown influence of the unspecified
semi-anechoic chamber and the significant variations caused by reflections from the EUT. A
statement such as the uncertainty does not include the influence possible due to the semi-anechoic
chamber or the variations of measured field strength due to reflections from the EUT would help
to clarify that these influences are not accommodated within the specified method.
DRAFT
Dynamic feedback field level
Symbol
Value
vi or
Probability
Divisor ci ui(y)(ui(y))^2
distribution
veff
FSM Felds Strength monitor
1 0.60
0.360
0.00001296
1 0.29
0.083
6.94444E-07
1 0.20
0.041
1.66736E-07
1 0.50
0.250
0.006944444
normal 1
1.000 1 0.00
0.000
normal
0.58
0.333
1.20 Normal 2 2.000

FSAW Field Strength acceptability window 0.50 Rectangular 1.732
0.35 Rectangular 1.732
RS Measurement System Repeatability 0.50 normal 1
1.000
0.00
ui^4(y)
normal k=2.28
Specified
Level
(V/m)
1.37
0
16
0.006945139
16
Test
level
(V/m)
For 1 Volts 1.17

For 3 Volts 3.51
For 10
Volts
11.64
Page 31 of 40
A8. Electrical fast transient/burst immunity

The approach for the presentation of the uncertainty budget for the fast burst transients test follows
the justification presented the section A6 for the ESD test.
A9. Surge Immunity

The approach for the presentation of the uncertainty budget for the surge transient test follows the
justification presented the section A6 for the ESD test.
A10. Conducted Immunity

FSM = FM +FSAW+PD+PAH+CC+SA +M+RS+REUT
Symbol
Quantity
Units dB
FM
rms Voltmeter
dB
FSAW
Window Measurement of
Voltage
dB
PD
Signal generator Drift
dB
PAH
Power Amplifier Harmonics
dB
CC
Current coil Calibration
dB
SA
Spectrum Analyser
dB
Mismatch
dB
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB
REUT
dB
Comment
Specified for the measuring device for output rms of the RF
voltage.
Usually a set parameter to allow the software to accept a value
for field strength that is within an acceptable window of the
calibration level.
A function of the Signal Generator output level and long term
repeatability.
Contribution due to inclusion of amplifier distortion in power
meter reading.
Contribution from the calibration of the current coil.
Contribution from the spectrum Analyser absolute accuracy
and Frequency response.
The uncertainty is derived from a combination of the reflection
coefficient magnitudes.
readings on a stable EUT. It should include typical variations
that will occur in normal testing. See section 3.2.5.
DRAFT
Page 32 of 40
Re-establishment of pre-calibrated Conducted field level
Symbol
FM
Value
rms Voltmeter
FSAW Window Measurement of Voltage

PD
Signal generator Drift


M
Mismatch
RS
Mismatch
1
1
1
0.40
0.29
0.12
2.668E-06
0.083
6.944E-07
0.013
1.778E-08
2.668E-06
2.086E-06
0.163
-0.54 U-shaped
1 -0.38 0.144
1.414
0.40
ui^4(y)
0.163
rms Voltmeter= 0.2

CDN= 0.3
M
vi or
Probability
distribution
veff
-1.16 U-shaped
1.414
1 -0.82 0.673
4.524E-05
Amplifier= 0.5
CDN+6dB attenuator= 0.25
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
1.22
1.490
0.00
normal
normal k=2.05
2.5
0.0069444
0
317
0.0069978
317
DRAFT
Limiting of pre-calibrated Conducted field level by monitor coil
Symbol
Value
Probability
v or
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
SA
Spectrum Analyser
0.87
0.750
5.625E-05
CC
Current coil Calibration
1.00
normal 2
2.000
0.50
0.250
6.25E-06
Mismatch
-0.26 U-shaped
1.414
1 -0.19
0.035
1.225E-07
Coil=
0.3
Cable=
0.1
Mismatch
-0.18 U-shaped
Cable=
0.1
Analyser=
RS
0.2

0.00
1.414
1 -0.12
0.015
2.37E-08
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
1.14
1.300
normal
normal k=2.05
2.3
0.0069444
0
241
0.0070071
241
Page 33 of 40
Once the expanded uncertainty has been calculated then the value is related to the standard severity
level (e.g.3 Vrms) to provide an increased test level which accounts for the uncertainty in the test
configuration.
Test
level
(V)
For 1 Volts 1.33
Specified
Level
For 3 Volts 4.00

For 10
Volts
13.34
Limit
level
(mA)
6.67mA 8.73
Uo/150
20mA
26.18
60mA
78.53
A11. Voltage dips, short interruptions and voltage

variations immunity tests Immunity
The approach for the presentation of the uncertainty budget for the voltage dips, short interruptions
and voltage variations test follows the justification presented the section A6 for the ESD test.
DRAFT
Page 34 of 40
A12. Internal Calibration

Laboratories are required to calculate an uncertainty budget for all internal calibrations performed. The
following is an example of a budget for the internal calibration of an electrical fast transient/burst
generator.
FSM = FSAW + PD + PAH + FD + RS + REUT
Symbol
Quantity
Units
VC
Voltage measurement error
FR
Frequency response error
VR
Oscilloscope Linearity
AR
Attenuator repeatability error
AC
Attenuator Calibration Error
MA
Mismatch of attenuator
Comment
Imported accuracy from calibration/Specification of
Oscilloscope vertical amplifier (2% on Datasheet)
Estimation of the frequency response of the attenuator between
the 15MHz of the function generator and the estimated 75MHz
equivalent frequency of the EFTB output
Estimated Imported accuracy from calibration/specification of
Oscilloscope vertical amplifier
Derived from a series of measurements, calculating the mean
value of the attenuator multiplier and this resulting repeatability
from the standard deviation of multiplier results
Calculated in the first table below
DRAFT
Estimated value of the VRC of the input and output of the

attenuators as a combined pair
Mismatch of Function generator used to calibrate the attenuator
MFG Mismatch of Function Generator
MOsc Mismatch of Oscilloscope
Mismatch of the Oscilloscope used to calibrate both the

attenuator and in the EFT Generator Calibration
MEFT Mismatch of EFTB Generator
Mismatch of the EFT Generator derived from the estimated

source impedance of 40 to 60 Ohms.
TC
Timebase accuracy of
oscilloscope
OR
Oscilloscope risetime
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
Imported accuracy from calibration/Specification of

Oscilloscope Timebase amplifier.
Specified as <700pS calculated in terms of effect on risetime for
minimum of 3nS and maximum of 5nS pulsewidth.
In the case of the calibration of the EFTB Generator this should
be calculated from taking each measurement a number of times.
If the variation is small then calculate the standard deviation
from 4 measurements. If the variation is larger a greater number
of measurements should be made. This is a combined error of
the eut and the measurement system just fill in one line and
leave the other as zero.
Page 35 of 40
Calibration of Attenuator
Symbol
Value
Probability
v or
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
FR
Frequency Response error
1.0 Rectangular 1.732 1 0.58
0.333
1.11E-05
VR
1.0
Normal 2
2.000 1 0.50
0.250
6.25E-06
AR
Attenuator repeatability error
0.3
Normal 1
1.000 1 0.25
0.063
0.000447
1.414 1 -0.70 0.488
2.38E-05
Mismatch of calibration
MFG
MOsc
MFG
MA
-0.99 U-shaped
VRC Function Generator 0.033

VRC Oscilloscope 0.15
Mismatch of Function Generator/Attenuator -0.49 U-shaped

VRC of Function Generator 0.033
VRC of Attenuator pair 0.075
Mismatch of Oscilloscope/Attenuator
-2.24 U-shaped
1.414 1 -0.35 0.122
1.49E-06
0
0
1.414 1 -1.58 2.503
0.000626
MA
MOsc

RS
0.5
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.006944
0.1
normal 1
1.000 1 0.09
0.007
6.17E-06
DRAFT
normal
1.94
normal k= 2.00
3.759 12659 0.001117
3.9
12659
Calibration of EFTB Generator output level into 50 ohm
Symbol
Value
Probability
v or
distribution
veff
ui^4(y)
VC
Voltage measurement error
2.0
Normal 2
2.000 1 1.00
1.000
0.0001
VR
1.0
Normal 2
2.000 1 0.50
0.250
6.25E-06
AR
Attenuator Calibration Error
Normal 2
2.000 1 1.94
3.759
0.001413
U-shaped
1.414 1 -2.11 4.433
0.001965
MEFT
MA
MA
MOsc
RS
3.9
Mismatch of EFTB Generator/Attenuator -2.98
VRC of EFTB Generator 0.2
Mismatch of Oscilloscope/Attenuator
-2.24

U-shaped
1.414 1 -1.58 2.503
0.000626
0.5
normal 1
1.000 1 0.50
0.250
0.006944
0.1
normal 1
1.000 1 0.14
0.019
3.84E-05
normal
normal k=2.00
3.49 12.214 13447

7.0
13447
0.011094
Page 36 of 40
Calibration of EFTB Generator Risetime minimum

Symbol
Value
TC
Timebase accuracy of oscilloscope
0.0
VR
RS
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
Normal 2
2.000
-2.1 rectangular 1.732
0.0
0.01
vi or
veff
6.25E-14
0.000201
0.035156
-1.19
-1.417
normal 1
1.000
0.75
0.563
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
0.92
-0.855
normal k=2.13
ui^4(y)
0.000
normal
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
2.0
0
21
0.035357
21
Calibration of EFTB Generator Risetime maximum

Symbol
Value
TC
0.0
VR
RS
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
Normal 2
2.000
-0.6 rectangular 1.732
1
1
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
0.01
-0.34
vi or
veff
0.000
6.25E-14
-0.114
1.3E-06
DRAFT
0.0
normal 1
1.000
0.75
0.563
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
0.67
0.448
normal
normal k=2.65
ui^4(y)
1.8
0.035156
0
0.035158
Calibration of EFTB Generator Pulsewidth
Symbol
Value
TC
0.0
VR
RS

0.0
0.0
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
Normal 2
2.000
rectangular 1.732
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
0.01
6.25E-14
1.03E-13
0.035156
-0.01
0.000
1.000
0.75
0.563
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
0.75
0.562
normal k=2.37
1.8
ui^4(y)
0.000
normal 1
normal
vi or
veff
0
9
0.035156
Page 37 of 40
Calibration of EFTB Generator 15 mS Period

Symbol
Value
TC
0.0
VR
RS
0.0
0.0
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
vi or
veff
ui^4(y)
2.000
0.01
0.000
6.25E-14
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
0.035156
Normal 2
normal 1
1.000
0.75
0.563
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
0.75
0.563
normal
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
normal k=2.37
1.8
0
9
0.035156
Calibration of EFTB Generator 300mS Burst Interval

Symbol
Value
TC
0.0
VR
RS
0.0
Probability
Divisor ci
distribution
Normal 2
2.000
rectangular 1.732
normal 1
1.000
ui(y) (ui(y))^2
0.01
vi or
veff
0.000
6.25E-14
0
0.035156
0.00
0.000
0.75
0.563
DRAFT

0.0
normal 1
1.000
normal
normal k=2.37
0.00
0.000
0.75
0.563
1.8
ui^4(y)
0
0.035156
Page 38 of 40
APPENDIX B
Calculation of kp
When random errors in a measurement system are comparable to the systematic errors the expanded
uncertainty calculated from U = kuc (y) may mean that the level of confidence is less than that
required, eg <95%, unless a large number of repeat readings have been made.
In these circumstances a coverage factor k p will need to be obtained from the t-distribution, based on
the effective degrees of freedom, v eff , of uc(y) and the required level of confidence.
The effective degrees of freedom is calculated from:
v eff =
u4c (y)
u (y) u (y) u43 (y)
u4m (y)
+
+
......+
v1
v2
v3
vm
4
1
4
2
The degrees of freedom, vi , of the standard uncertainties based on type B evaluation can be assumed
to be infinite in most cases but if the uncertainty is obtained from a limited number of data points or
observation then v i = n - 1, as in the case of the type A evaluations.
DRAFT
The value of k p is obtained from t-distribution tables for the appropriate level of confidence. The
following table gives values of k p for various degrees of freedom v eff for a level of confidence of 95%,
(actually 95.45%). Values of k p for other levels of confidence are given in reference [1]
veff
kp
13.97
10
20
50
4.53
3.31
2.87
2.65
2.52
2.43
2.37
2.28
2.13
2.05
2.0
The criteria given in para 6.3 to determine the need to use the procedure given in this Appendix is
based on the conclusion that if uc(y) / u(qk ) > 3 and all the other contributions are assumed to have
infinite degrees of freedom, then veff > 81 (34 ), giving a value for kp of less than 2.05, which can be
approximated by k = 2.
Page 39 of 40
APPENDIX C
Calculation of uncertainty in logarithmic or linear
quantities
Many measurements made for EMC testing are in terms of logarithmic quantities with their
uncertainties in dBs, test specifications are also given in these terms, e.g. dBV. However, other
measurements are made in linear terms with uncertainties in relative values, e.g. percentage or absolute
values. When an RSS evaluation is made to combine the uncertainty contributions the resulting
expanded uncertainty may be different depending on whether logarithmic or linear uncertainty
contributions have been used in the calculation.
Whether it is correct to combine uncertainties in linear form or logarithmic form will depend upon
whether their probability distributions can be better described in linear or logarithmic form. If the
uncertainties for the major contributions are supplied in terms of dB it can only be assumed that the
probability distribution that is assigned to them should also be in dBs. The RSS evaluation of the
combined uncertainty is then more accurately calculated if the uncertainty contributions remain as
logarithmic functions. Likewise, if the uncertainties for the major contributions are supplied in linear
terms then the uncertainty calculation is more correct using contributions in linear quantities.
It is important to note that when using a simplified approach to uncertainty calculations, that is one
where all the sensitivity coefficients are unity, the mathematical model when using relative
uncertainties must contain only multiplication or division of the contributions. The uncertainty budget
A12 in Appendix A is an example of this. The simple mathematical model for logarithmic quantities
must contain only additions or subtractions of the contributions. An example of this can be seen in
uncertainty budget A2.
DRAFT
Page 40 of 40

Expression of Uncertainty in EMC

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Expression of Uncertainty in EMC

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Expression of Uncertainty in

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

This publication gives recommendations for the treatment of uncertainty

If a test specification standard requires uncertainties to be calculated using a method

In general, no measurement or test is perfect and the imperfections give rise to

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

Errors of measurement may have two components, a random component and a

Systematic errors arise from systematic effects, i.e. an effect on a measurement

Components of uncertainty are evaluated by the appropriate method and each is

The standard uncertainty components are combined to produce an overall value of

An expanded uncertainty is usually required to meet the needs of industrial,

Steps in establishing an uncertainty budget

Decide on the range of measurement to which the budget will apply.

An uncertainty budget is a list of the probable sources of error with an estimation of

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

Type A evaluation of uncertainty components.

where q is the mean value of n measurements.

The random component of uncertainty can be reduced by making repeat

The standard uncertainty, u(xi), of an estimate xi of an input quantity q, based on a

Type B evaluation: list all the other significant contributions to uncertainty

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

The individual uncertainty contributions should be in terms of the variation in the

The use of dB, percentages or absolute values is discussed in Appendix C.

It is relatively straightforward to assign a value to the uncertainty contribution when

Most contributions to uncertainty can be adequately represented by a symmetrical

Assign a probability distribution and determine the standard uncertainty of

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

The probability distribution of an uncertainty describes the variation in probability of

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

where a i is the semi-range limit value of the individual uncertainty contribution.

Determine the combined standard uncertainty.

Correlated Input Quantities

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

Combined Standard Uncertainty

Determine the expanded uncertainty.

coverage factor, k, thus:

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

Unless otherwise specified, the result of the measurement should be reported,

The reported expanded uncertainty is based on a standard uncertainty

Compliance with specification

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

More often, the specification requires a compliance statement in the certificate or

An agreement between the client and the laboratory or a code of practice or

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

Further guidance can be found in ILAC document ILAC-G8:1996, (Reference 9)

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

Draft Edition 1 = February 2001

LAB 34 (DRAFT) =The expression of uncertainty in EMC testing

Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, ISO/IEC/OIML/BIPM

The Expression of Uncertainty and Confidence in Measurement, UKAS Publication

Guidelines for the expression of uncertainty of measurement in calibration. WECC

Uncertainties in the measurement of mobile radio equipment characteristics,

Harris, I.A. and Warner, F.L. Re-examination of mismatch uncertainty when