Advertisement

Determining the effect of relative size of sensor on calibration accuracy of TEM cells

  • Yun-Sheng Jiang
  • Cui MengEmail author
  • Han-Bing Jin
  • Ping Wu
  • Zhi-Qian Xu
  • Liu-Hong Huang
Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

The time-domain calibration coefficient of a D-Dot sensor should be identical across various transverse electromagnetic (TEM) cells to comply with the IEEE Std 1309. However, in our previous calibration experiments, poor consistency was observed. The size of D-Dot sensors relative to TEM cells is considered the main reason for this poor consistency. Therefore, this study aims at determining the calibration coefficient of a D-Dot sensor. We calculate the theoretical coefficient as a reference. Practical calibration experiments involve the processing of TEM cells with three different sizes. To observe the response more clearly, corresponding models are constructed and numerical simulations are performed. The numerical simulations and experimental calibration are in good agreement. To determine the calibration accuracy, we quantify the accuracy using the relative error of the calibration coefficient. By comparing the coefficients obtained, it can be concluded that the perturbation error is about 15% when the relative size is over 1/3. Further, the relative size should be less than 1/5 to obtain a relative error below 10%.

Keywords

D-Dot Electromagnetic sensor Time-domain calibration Accuracy Numerical simulation 

References

  1. 1.
    D. Yang, Z. Cao, X. Qin et al., Readout electronics of a prototype spectrometer for measuring low-energy ions in solar wind plasma. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 27, 135 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-016-0136-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Cheng, M. Ding, K. Wu et al., Damage effect of typical electronic device under EMP, in Proc. ISEIM, Kyoto, Japan, 2011, pp. 491–494.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEIM.2011.6826320
  3. 3.
    Y.-M. Fang, X.-Y. Xu, J.-S. Tian et al., Design of a control system with high stability for a streak camera using isolated ADC. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 22 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-018-0361-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IEEE Standard for Calibration of Electromagnetic Field Sensors and Probes, Excluding Antennas, from 9 kHz to 40 GHz, IEEE Standard 1309, 1996.  https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.1996.81094
  5. 5.
    M.L. Crawford, Generation of standard EM fields using TEM transmission cells. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. EMC 16(4), 189–195 (1974).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.1974.303364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Middlekoop, Time-domain calibration of field sensors for electromagnetic pulse (EMP) measurements. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 40(2), 455–459 (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1109/CPEM.1990.109984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Garn, M. Buchmayr, W. Müllner, Precise calibration of electric field sensors for radiated-susceptibility testing. Frequenz 53(9–10), 189–194 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1515/FREQ.1999.53.9-10.189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Meng, X. Guo, X. Chen et al., Test research of consistency for amplitude calibration coefficients of pulsed electric field sensor. Nucl. Tech. 30(1), 73–77 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0253-3219.2007.01.017 (in Chinese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Morioka, Probe response to a non-uniform E-field in a TEM cell, in Proc. CPEM, Daejeon, 2010, pp. 327–328.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CPEM.2010.5543818
  10. 10.
    S. Jeon, J. Kwon, D. Kim, Study of a four-port TEM cell with the statistical approach for the calibration of EM field probe, in Proc. IEEE CAMA, Antibes Juan-les-Pins, 2014, pp. 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CAMA.2014.7003341
  11. 11.
    W. Huan, Z. Chen, Compensation method for the coupling error between the EUT and TEM cell in E-field probe isotropic calibration, 2015 IEEE ISEMC, Dresden, 2015, pp. 1195–1200.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEMC.2015.7256339
  12. 12.
    IEEE Standard for calibration of electromagnetic field sensors and probes, excluding antennas, from 9 kHz to 40 GHz, IEEE Standard 1309, 2013.  https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2013.6673999
  13. 13.
    X. Zhang, C. Meng, Y. Liu, Relationship between the shape of electric field probes and their measuring performances, in Proc. APEMC, Beijing, China, 2010, pp. 405–408.  https://doi.org/10.1109/APEMC.2010.5475730
  14. 14.
    A. Al Agry, R. A. Schill, S. Garner et al., Electromagnetic dot sensor-calibration, in Proc. IEEE PPC, Washington. DC, USA, 2009, pp. 1348–1353.  https://doi.org/10.1109/PPC.2009.5386391
  15. 15.
    Y.J. Rao, H. Gnewuch, C.N. Pannell et al., Electro-optic electric field sensor based on periodically poled LiNbO3. Electron. Lett. 35(7), 596–597 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1049/el:19990374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.E. Baum, E.L. Breen, J.C. Giles et al., Sensors for electromagnetic pulse measurements both inside and away from nuclear source regions. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. EMC 20(1), 22–35 (1978).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.1978.303690 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Q. Cheng, J. Ni, C. Meng et al., Study of measurement techniques for strong pulsed electric field. Electron. Test 9, 6–11 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Wei, Y. Gu, R. Zhou et al., Design, calibration and measurement of D-dot monitor for Yang accelerator water transmission line. High Power Laser Part. Beams 5, 830–834 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E.G. Fubini, P.J. Sutro, A wide-band transformer from an unbalanced to a balanced line. Proc. IRE 35(10), 1153–1155 (1947).  https://doi.org/10.1109/JRPROC.1947.232923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    C. E. Baum, Tiny fast-pulse B-dot and D-dot sensors in dielectric media, Dep. Elect. Comp. Eng., Univ. New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, SSN 544, 2009Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C.E. Baum, An equivalent-charge method for defining geometries of dipole antennas, AFWL, Rep. SSN 72, 1969Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)—part 4-33: testing and measurement techniques—measurement methods for high-power transient parameters, IEC 61000-4-33, 2005Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. Yang, Test technology and application of high power electromagnetic field, M.S. thesis, Tsinghua University (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Specification for radio disturbance and immunity measurement apparatus and methods Part 1–4: radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus–ancillary equipment–radiated disturbances, CISPR 16-1-4 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)—part 4-20: testing and measurement techniques—emission and immunity testing in transverse electromagnetic (TEM) waveguides, IEC 61000-4-20 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Y. Jiang, C. Yang, C. Meng, Theoretical research on calibration accuracy of high power transient electromagnetic field sensors, in Proc. IEEE CAMA, Syracuse, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CAMA.2016.7815733
  28. 28.
    Uncertainty of measurement—part 3: guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM: 1995), ISO/IEC GUIDE 98-3 (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    C. Rostamzadeh, B. Archambeault, S. Connor, FDTD analysis of symmetric TEM cell, in Proc. EMC, Chicago, IL, USA, 2005, pp. 525–529.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ISEMC.2005.1513571

Copyright information

© China Science Publishing & Media Ltd. (Science Press), Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Nuclear Society and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yun-Sheng Jiang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cui Meng
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Han-Bing Jin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ping Wu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhi-Qian Xu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Liu-Hong Huang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Particle and Radiation ImagingMinistry of EducationBeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of Engineering PhysicsTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations