very-near-field solutions for far-field...
Post on 17-May-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Very-Near-Field Solutions
for
Far-Field Problems
Agenda
Corporate Information
Introduction to Very-Near-Field
Very-Near-Field Implementation
EMxpert Validation
What About Far-Field?
EMxpert Demonstration
Customer Case Studies
Conclusion
Corporate Introduction
An Established Company
Very-near-field magnetic measurements expert
– Unique patented products for RF/MW and EMS/EMI
Private Canadian corporation since 1989
– Worldwide coverage
Recognized innovative products
A Leader
World Leading Developer of Visual Real-Time
EM and RF Test Solutions
Antenna and PCB Designers
Product Integration and Verification Engineers
Diagnostic Tool
Pre-Compliance Not Compliance
Chamber on your Desktop
EMxpert
– EMC/EMI diagnostic tool enabling designers to rapidly diagnose and solve EM problems in a single design cycle in their own lab environment
RFxpert
– APM tool enabling engineers to quickly evaluate and optimize their designs with real-time antenna performance characterization at their desk
Fundamentals
High-density planar antenna array
High-speed electronic switching
Very near-field measurements
Far-field predictions
Real-time real-fast
No chamber
Far-Field / Near-Field / Very-Near-Field
Introduction to Very-Near-Field
What is Far-Field?
d
d
What is Near-Field?
Anything not in the far-field
Stay out of the reactive region!
d
What is Very-Near-Field?
C.A.Balanis – Antenna Theory : Analysis and Design 3rd Ed.
More Realistic Approximation
For a case of D = 1 m
Reactive region can extend beyond the measurement distance of EMC test
Situation for many EMC problems – No radiating near-field
for low frequencies
J.C.Bolomey - Engineering Applications of the Modulated Scatterer Technique
Far-Field Measurements
Far-field site far away and demanding a large area
Open-air-test-site (OATS) avoids reflections
Difficult nowadays because of EM noise pollution
Image: www.noiseblog.com
Far-Field Measurements cont.
Controlled environment
Anechoic or semi-anechoic chamber
Image: www.geosig.com
Near-Field Measurements
Near-field scanning for antenna measurement
Very-Near-Field Measurements
Origin of all emissions
– Insight into root causes
Size limited to DUT size
Extrapolate far-field from very-near-field
A Better One
Very-Near-Field Implementation
EMxpert
Real-time measurements ( <1 sec)
Compact tabletop instrument
Cost effective solution
Powerful Scanner
1218 probes in a 29 x 42 array – 2436 loops in X
Antennas – Sensitive down to -135 dBm
– Inefficient for EMI isolation
– Broadband
• 50 kHz to 4 GHz
• 150 kHz to 8 GHz
3.75mm resolution
Scan area 21.8cm x 31.6cm
Isolated case for safe testing
System Configuration
External Trigger
USB LAN/USB
Control RF
EMSCAN Scanner
Spectrum Analyzer
EMSCAN Adapter
EMSCAN Application
Spectral Scan
Spatial Scan
Modes of Operation
Benefits of Very-Near-Field Testing
Real-Time
Changes in real-time – Intermittent events
– Functional testing
A/B Comparison
Obsolescence management
Production unit versus gold standard
Conducted Immunity Insights
Injected signal path
Component susceptibility
Common Mode
How signals couple onto connectors creating common mode problems
Effectiveness of Filters
Effectiveness of Shielding
Simulation
EMxpert Validation
Simulation
EMC Analysis for a PCB mounted switching regulator using Electromagnetic Simulator
Mitsuharu Umekawa
EDA Application Engineering
Electronic Measurement Group
Agilent Technologies
Microwave Workshop and Exhibition
December 1st , 2011
Simulation
Validation of ADS Momentum simulation models
EMC Toyo corporation (EMSCAN Representative)
Tokyo, Japan
November 1, 2011
What about Far-Field?
Pre-compliance Testing
Relative
Virtual
Predictive
Correlation between VNF and FF
Relative Testing
Case Study
PCBs containing split planes on ground plane fail EMI requirements more often than those without
Measured at DVT Solutions in Calgary Canada
Case Study Parameters
Impact of Open-Ended Micro-Strip Line Designs
– Very-Near-Field Levels Analysis
• Effects of joining split planes at discrete locations with simple short along ground plane split
• Effects of placing 470pF chip capacitors between split planes at discrete locations along ground plane split
– Far-Field Levels Verification
• Changes in the far-field levels from ground plane split with shorts and chip capacitors between split planes
Test PCBs
Test Case 2 Ground Plane
c/w Split
Test Case 1 Ground Plane
w/o Split
Test Cases 3 - 7 Split Plane
c/w Modifications
Case 1: Micro-strip Line
Case 2: Ground Split
Cases 3 to 4: Shorting Jumper
Test Case 4 Edge
Test Case 3 Center
Cases 5 to 7: Chip Capacitors
C (pF)
Frequency (MHz)
Z (Ohm)
470 220 1.54
470 780 0.43
1410 220 0.51
1410 780 0.14
Test Case 5 1 x 470pF in Center
Test Case 6 1 x 470pF at Edge
Test Case 7 3 x 470pF in Center
Very-Near-Field Setup of EMxpert
Very-Near-Field Measurements 220 MHz Spatial Scan
Very-Near-Field Effects of Split
Solid Ground Split Ground
Shorting Jumper
Solid Ground
Split Ground
Jumper Center
Jumper Edge
Capacitor
Solid Ground
470pF Center
1410pF Center
470pF Edge
220 MHz Analysis
Analysis of current distributions with uniformity being prioritized over actual level
– Case 3 Jumper centre
– Case 7 Three capacitors centre
– Case 5 Single capacitor centre
– Case 6 Single capacitor edge (no mitigation)
– Case 4 Jumper edge (no mitigation)
Very-Near-Field Measurements 780 MHz Spatial Scan
Very-Near-Field Effects of split
Solid Ground Split Ground
Shorting Jumper
Solid Ground
Split Ground
Jumper Center
Jumper Edge
Capacitor
Solid Ground
470pF Center
1410pF Center
470pF Edge
780 MHz Analysis
Visualization of hot spots for quick identification of mitigation techniques from best to worst
– Case 7 Three capacitors centre
– Case 5 Single capacitor centre
– Case 3 Jumper centre
– Case 6 Single capacitor edge
– Case 4 Jumper edge
Very-Near-Field Conclusion
3-capacitor centre preferred as solution across all bands
Chamber Far-Field Measurements
Far-Field Measurements
Frequency
(MHz)
Microstrip
Line
(dBuV/m)
Split
(dBuV/m)
Split+Jumper
(dBuV/m)
Split+470pF
(dBuV/m)
Split+1.41nF
(dBuV/m)
Test Case 1 Test Case 2
Test Case 3
Test Case 4
Test Case 5 Test Case 6 Test Case 7
Label Full Ground Split Center Edge One Cap
Center
One Cap
Edge
Three Cap
Center
220 MHz 27.2 56.2 24.3 53.5 48.4 40.2 34.1
780 MHz 35.1 59.4 53.3 62.8 49.4 68.0 49.3
Far-Field Conclusions
3-capacitor centre or jumper centre preferred
Depending on the frequency of higher concern
Summary of VNF and FF
Case 220MHz FF Level
220MHz FF order
220MHz NF order
780MHz FF level
780MHz FF order
780MHz NF order
Full Ground 27.2 - 35.1 -
Split Ground 56.2 - 59.4 -
Jumper Centre 24.3 1 1 53.3 3 3
Jumper Edge 53.5 5 5 62.8 4 5
470pF Centre 48.4 4 3 49.4 2 2
470pF Edge 40.2 3 4 68.0 5 4
1410pF Centre 34.1 2 2 49.3 1 1
VNF Correlation with FF
High correlation between very-near-field and far field results when fault type taken into account
Purely looking at very-near-field emission levels without considering distribution can be misleading
– Spatial results are critical
Can be used for system testing with Golden Sample
– A/B comparison
Test Duration for all 7 Test Cases
EMxpert
– 1 ¾ hours for 2 frequencies
Automated probe
– 21 hours for 2 frequencies
Chamber
– 28 hours for 2 frequencies
Virtual Chamber
Virtual Chamber Testing
Far-field measurements without chamber or OATS – Testing as long as in a chamber or OATS
Systematic very-near-field and far-field measurements – Ambient noise
– Cable noise
– DUT emissions
Caveat is constant ambient noise
Virtual Chamber Testing
Device Emission: Shows up in near-field scan and far-field position scans but not in far-field ambient
Device Emission at an Ambient Frequency: Shows as ambient in the far-field ambient scan and as a marked peak in the near-field scan; suspected to be a legitimate peak that happens to occur very close to an ambient signal
Suspected Device Emission: Signal that is not in the far-field ambient or near-field device scan but appears in the position scans; it is a suspected cable emission
Ambient Frequency: A signal that shows up in the far-field ambient scan and nowhere else
Predictive Application
Far-Field Prediction
Software to predict Open Area Test Site (OATS) or free space radiated EMI of PCB
– Compensated EMxpert very-near-field data
– PCB structure and design models
Absorber mat 2 mm
PCB Modelling
PCB usually consists of ASICs, plane splits, traces, loops and slots
ASIC key source of EM radiations – Source is nothing but switching noise generated by ASIC
Traces, loops, plane splits and slots enhances radiation – Efficient antennas
Model assigned to PCB design with out-of-10 weighing factor – Individual weighing factor closely represents physical design of
PCB
Model Attributes
Single Source ASIC Split Loop Slot Trace
Nominal 5 5 4 3 3
Multiple Sources ASIC Split Loop Slot Trace
Balanced 2 2 2 2
Mixed 3 4 1
Digital 5 2 2 1
High Density 8
Methodology
VNF FF
EMxpert Export Correct Import Model Transform
10 to 30 minutes
Far-Field Prediction
World’s fastest pre-compliance
– FCC/ANSI, CISPR and user-defined limit lines
Demonstration
Demonstration
Customer Case Studies
NFC Testing
Spectral/Spatial Motorola RAZR LTE
Amp [-122.7 to -80.2 dBm] Freq [1574.000 to 1576.000 MHz]
Resolution Bandw idth: 300.0 Hz
Attenuator Value: 0 dB
Scanner Module: ISM-L4G-Xi-M7, 29 X 42
Date: 12/7/2012 2:01:44 PM
Frequency(MHz) Auto
1576.001575.001574.00
Am
plitu
de(dB
m) A
uto
-80.0
-81.0
-82.0
-83.0
-84.0
-85.0
-86.0
-87.0
-88.0
-89.0
-90.0
-91.0
-92.0
-93.0
-94.0
-95.0
-96.0
-97.0
GPS Interference Testing
Customer Burn-In Tests Case Study Medical Industry
PCB with Pre-Programmed Tests
Wi-Fi module
High speed RAM
HDD
Microcontroller
HDD Tests
Noise from the HDD is being coupled on to the Wi-Fi antenna cable.
HDD Tests with Ferrite
One solution is a ferrite place on the antenna cable.
RAM Tests
Burn-in test of the RAM shows coupling to HDD and Wi-Fi cable.
Customer SERDES Case Study Automotive Industry
Objectives
Quantify the EMI emissions profile by comparing half-duplex deserializer (SERDES) to next generation full-duplex design
Determine whether full-duplex design impacts EMI profile and, if so, quantify the difference
Results courtesy of National Semiconductor / Texas Instruments
Test Method
Design team placed original half-duplex board on the EMxpert scanner to generate a baseline measurement.
Powered the device under test (DUT) and activated the scan
Test Results
Baseline results
Full-duplex results
Conclusion
No spikes and very similar peak emissions
Better EMI profile (more blue in the spatial scan)
No appreciable change occurred in full-duplex mode – Implementation of the full-duplex feature with no additional mitigation measures.
Design team conducted the scans on the EMxpert system in their offices
Results in minutes
To test the new design in a third party chamber would have required that an engineer travel to an off-site test facility for the better part of a day
Customer SSCG Case Study Automotive Industry
Objective
Generate compelling and quantified evidence to present to automotive industry customers that SSCG feature reduces EMI emissions .
Results courtesy of National Semiconductor / Texas Instruments
Test Setup
Place device under test (DUT) on the EMxpert scanner with SSCG turned “OFF”, power and capture emissions profile
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the feature, run identical test, but with SSCG function turned “ON.”
Test Results
SSCG OFF
SSCG ON
Conclusion
The design team was able to compare 4 different methods to implement SSCG
They were able to carefully compare results that rather dramatically highlighted the benefit of the SSCG feature
Feature drastically reduces overall electromagnetic radiation
Whenever the customer support team presented the above comparison, it universally resulted in a customer response of “Wow”!
Reason: Automotive engineers’ biggest challenge is reducing EMI Any features that reduce EMI result in faster time-to-market, less shielding, and lower costs
Conclusion
Summary
Advantages
– Continuous peak hold scan for spurious events
– Real-time view of emission sources and currents
– Fast pre-compliance regulatory data
– Low acquisition cost and zero operational cost
Benefits
– Test time reduction > 100 x
– Rapid design iteration, prototyping & optimization
– Reduced chamber investment or third party testing
– Cost effective preparation to compliance
Business Case
In a single product life cycle, avoiding one board re-spin and retest can save $$$
Third party testing – 8 hours driving
– Night in a hotel
– $3000 for chamber time
– 4 days for debugging
Exciting Value Proposition
Substantially Reduce Project Development Costs
Dramatically Increase Designer Productivity
Significantly Accelerate Time-to-Market
1 Hour in a Chamber or 1 Second with EMSCAN?
EMxpert – Magic Goggles
www.emscan.com
Thank You
top related