EMC Europe 2016 Benchmark from magnetic field measurement devices Diego Cuartielles (AUDI AG - I/EE-252) Version 1.1

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "EMC Europe 2016 Benchmark from magnetic field measurement devices Diego Cuartielles (AUDI AG - I/EE-252) Version 1.1"

Samuel Kennedy
6 years ago
Views:

1 EMC Europe 2016 Benchmark from magnetic field measurement devices Diego Cuartielles (AUDI AG - I/EE-252) Version 1.1

2 Index Scope Measurement Devices Measurement Configuration Measurement Results Conclusions 2 Title, Department, Name, Date

3 Index Scope Measurement Devices Measurement Configuration Measurement Results Conclusions 3 Title, Department, Name, Date

4 Scope In the last years were low magnetic field measurements widespread. For the measurement of low magnetic fields is possible to use several standards and several measurement devices can be used too. While the choice from one or another standard can depend on the target mark and device; always more than one measurement device are appropriate to fulfil the measurement. The intention from this presentation is to show the differences between the several measurement devices against two type of signals, one type of assessment and for the inhomogeneous signal with different distances to the source. 4 Title, Department, Name, Date

5 Scope Signals: Sinus / homogeneous signal PWM / inhomogeneous signal Assessment: ICNIRP 1998 Distance to the source (harness) for the inhomogeneous signal: 1 cm, 2 cm, 3 cm and 4 cm The reason to choose the ICNIRP 1998 General Public assessment is based in the amount of probes that actually can fulfil this measurement and are appropriated to do it. 5 Title, Department, Name, Date

6 Index Scope Measurement Devices Measurement Configuration Measurement Results Conclusions 6 Title, Department, Name, Date

7 Measurement Devices The probes that were available at the moment of this study are shown in the next table: Measurement device Frequency range Measurements Probe Narda ELT Hz 400 khz Analogue, %, µt 100 cm 2 Narda EHP-50C 5 Hz 100 khz FFT, %, µt, freq. intern Chauvin Arnoux C.A Hz 30 khz FFT, %, µt, freq. intern Combinova MFM Hz 400 khz FFT, %, µt, freq. 100 cm 2 7 Title, Department, Name, Date

8 Measurement Devices Narda ELT-400 Chauvin Arnoux C.A 42 Combinova MFM 3000 Narda EHP-50C 8 Title, Department, Name, Date

9 Index Scope Measurement Devices Measurement Configuration Measurement Results Conclusions 9 Title, Department, Name, Date

10 Measurement Configuration: Homogeneous field layout Helmholtz coil Signal Sinus: Frequency: 50 Hz, 100 Hz & 1 khz 10 Title, Department, Name, Date

11 Measurement Configuration: Inhomogeneous field layout 1. Last 2. Ground plane 3. Low relative permittivity support (er<=1,4); thickness mm 4. Ground straps 5. Harness 6. LISN under CISPR PWM generator 8. Battery 9. Measurement Probe 11 Title, Department, Name, Date

12 Measurement Configuration: Inhomogeneous field layout 12 Title, Department, Name, Date

13 Measurement Configuration: Inhomogeneous field layout Measurement Probe From 1 cm to 4 cm Harness Insulating material Ground plane Signal PWM: Voltage amplitude: 12 V Current amplitude: 10 A Frequency: 50 Hz, 100 Hz, 1 khz & 5 khz Duty cycle: 50 % 13 Title, Department, Name, Date

14 Index Scope Measurement Devices Measurement Configuration Measurement Results Conclusions 14 Title, Department, Name, Date

15 Measurement Results: Homogeneous field 250,0 % 200,0 % % ICNIRP 1998 Gen. Pub. 150,0 % 100,0 % 50,0 % 0,0 % 50 Hz 100 Hz 1000 Hz Combinova MFM ,5 % 139,0 % 97,4 % Narda EHP-50C 57,9 % 192,9 % 103,5 % Narda ELT ,5 % 125,2 % 65,0 % Chauvin Arnoux C.A ,0 % 154,0 % 101,5 % 15 Title, Department, Name, Date

16 Measurement Results: Inhomogeneous field per frequency Distance cm Distance cm Distance cm Distance cm 16 Title, Department, Name, Date

17 Measurement Results: Inhomogeneous field per distance Frequency Hz Frequency Hz Frequency Hz Frequency Hz 17 Title, Department, Name, Date

18 Index Scope Measurement Devices Measurement Configuration Measurement Results Conclusions 18 Title, Department, Name, Date

19 Conclusions Homogeneous field: Differences between results are for the Narda ELT-400, Combinova MFM 3000 and the Chaucin Arnoux C.A 42 under the 40 % The Narda EHP-50C in addition show differences over the 80 % Inhomogeneous field: The Chaucin Arnoux C.A 42 shows differences over 400 % while with the other probes are these differences less than the half Excluding the Chaucin Arnoux C.A 42, up the 1000 Hz tends all probes to the same results The Narda EHP-50C shows a strange behaviour at 1 cm distance, but over the 1 cm behaves the probe similar to other probes The Combinova MFM 3000 measure until the 1000 Hz a lower field than other probes. 19 Title, Department, Name, Date

20 Conclusions General conclusion This study has shown huge differences between each measuring devices Note: all measuring devices were marked as adequate for the ICNIRP 1998 assessment This study has the intention to show the differences between the existing probes for the measurement of low frequency magnetic fields, but not to assure which of them measure correctly or not Some probes could have a software or hardware update and other probes may be obsolete; but all of them were calibrated up to date To Do: The study shall be extended for others probes that are still in the market and shall be repeated with the updated versions of the existing probes A simulation of both measurement layouts shall be necessary to give an assessment of the probes 20 Title, Department, Name, Date

21 Danke! 21 Title, Department, Name, Date

Exposure Level Tester ELT-400

Safety Evaluation within a Magnetic Field Environment Exposure Level Tester ELT-400 Direct Evaluation of Field Exposure Compared to Major Standards (IEEE C95.6) Automatic Exposure Evaluation for Various