0% found this document useful (0 votes)
10 views25 pages

Ergodicity in Reverberant Chamber

Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 25

RESEARCH

PROJECT
ERGODICITY IN REVERBERANT
CHAMBERS
1 • Renato Alvarez
• Juan Valverde
Tutor: Prof. Nathalie Raveu

January, 2019
2
REVERBERANT CHAMBERS

 Uniformity of the EM field inside the chamber

 Electromagnetic compatibility tests


 Inmunity tests
 Emission measurements
 Shielding effectiveness
Image Source: https://www.researchgate.net  Material Characterization

ERGODICITY!
3
OUTLINE
 Ergodicic Hypothesis
 Reverberant Chambers Theory
 Statistical Model of Electromagnetic Field
 Ergodicity Measurement Experiment
 Conclusions and Perspectives
ERGODIC HYPOTHESIS
4

Spatial Average = Time [1]


Average
= ⟨ 𝑿 (𝒕) ⟩
=𝟏
⟨ 𝑿 ( 𝑵 )⟩
• Example: Measurement of Capacitance

1 Day production Part of the ensemble each day


D1 D2 DN
B

= …….

https://www.online-stopwatch.com/spanish/countdown-eggtimer.php

𝑪𝟏 + 𝑪𝟐 +… 𝑪 𝑴 𝑪 𝑫 𝟏 + 𝑪 𝑫 𝟐 +… 𝑪 𝑫𝑵
=
𝑴 (¿ 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒔 ) 𝑵 (¿ 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒔 )

[1] KEANE, M.. (2010). Understanding Ergodicity. Weleyan University. pp 3-8


5
OUTLINE
 Ergodic Hypothesis
 Reverberant Chambers Theory
 Statistical Model of Electromagnetic Field
 Ergodicity Measurement Experiment
 Conclusions and Perspectives
6
ERGODICITY IN REVERBERATION
CHAMBERS
h

w
STIRRE [1]

RS
l
https://www.ditutor.com
• c – speed of light
• m
• n coefficient
modes
• p
• Resonant frequency
• Electrically Big chambers
Image Source: https://www.researchgate.net • Stirrers introduces different boundary
conditions
• Standing Wave pattern[2]
[1] HILL, D. (2009). Electromagnetic Fields in Cavities. USA. Wiley and Sons. pp 44-46
[2] THIAN, Z, (2017) Efficient Measurement Techniques in Reverberation Chamber, Liverpool, Univeristy of Liverpool, pp
7
REVERBERATION CHAMBERS (RC)
• Weyl’s formula, cumulative number of modes depending on frequency (f) [2]:

[1][2]

• Density of modes (number of modes per frequency interval)[2]

[1][2]

• Many modes Deterministic analysis is impractical and difficult. [1][3]

• EM fields varies randomly with Stirrer positions then statistical approach is the
solution. [1]

• Many modes EM field becomes statistically uniform and isotropic. [2] [4]
[1] HILL, D. (2009). Electromagnetic Fields in Cavities. USA. Wiley and Sons. pp 30-31
[2] THIAN, Z, (2017) Efficient Measurement Techniques in Reverberation Chamber, Liverpool, Univeristy of Liverpool, pp 5-24.
[3] KOSTAS, J – BOVERIE, B. (1991).Statistical Model for a Mode-Stirred Chamber. IEEE. pp. 2
[4] TSIGROS, C. (2014) Efficiency analysis of innovative tuning methods for immunity testing in reverberation chamber and comparison to anechoic
room, Leuven university. pp. 59-60.
REVERBERANT CHAMBERS
8

One mode – no uniformity of Many Modes– statistic


Electrical Field uniformity of Electrical Field

[1]

IMPORTANT: According to IEC61000-4-24


• Lowest Usable frequency (first frequency which has at least 100 cumulative
modes and a density of[2]1.5 modes/MHz)
[1] TSIGROS, C. (2014) Efficiency analysis of innovative tuning methods for immunity testing in reverberation chamber and comparison to anechoic room, Leuven university. pp. 36-
37
9
OUTLINE
 Ergodic Hypothesis
 Reverberant Chambers Theory
 Statistical Model of Electromagnetic Field
 Ergodicity Measurement Experiment
 Conclusions and Perspectives
STATISTICAL MODEL
10  Based on plane-wave integration model and its statistic properties

[1] [2][3]

Where Ω is the solid angle, k the wavenumber vector, F is angular spectrum


vector
MEAN VALUE

 Applying the statistical properties of the angular spectrum [1][2]

MEAN SQUARE VALUE OF E


FIELD, INDEPENDENT OF
[1] [2][3] POSITION

[1] HILL, D. (2009). Electromagnetic Fields in Cavities. USA. Wiley and Sons. pp 94-101
[2] TSIGROS, C. (2014) Efficiency analysis of innovative tuning methods for immunity testing in reverberation chamber and comparison to anechoic room, Leuven university. pp. 206-211
[3] THIAN, Z, (2017) Efficient Measurement Techniques in Reverberation Chamber, Liverpool, Univeristy of Liverpool, pp 36-41
11
STATISTICAL MODEL
 − ∞¿ ∞
If the mean and variance are specified for a PDF over the , then we get Gaussian PDF.

Same the real and imaginary part of Ey


and Ez

For𝐄 𝐱 𝐄𝐲 , 𝐄𝐳 and and for Total Electric Field E


 Chi – is the statistics that fits the best for many independent random variables.

• m independent Gaussian random variables a1, a2, am


PDF • zero mean
• standard deviation σ
• m number of degrees of freedom (dof)
• Γ is the Gamma function, Γ(m)=(m-1)!

|𝑬 𝒙|=√ 𝑬 𝟐 𝟐 PDF

𝒙𝒓 +𝑬 𝒙𝒊
Same for Ey and Ez

PDF
Total Electric
Field
VALIDATION OF STATISTICAL MODEL
12
 Liverpool University, f=2 GHz, with 120 samples
 Two stirrers are stepwise rotated at the same time

[1]

 Electric Field magnitude Ex has a chi square or Rayleigh Distribution confirming


the statistical properties of EM fields in Reverberant Chambers.
[1] THIAN, Z, (2017) Efficient Measurement Techniques in Reverberation Chamber, Liverpool, University of Liverpool, pp 39
13
OUTLINE
 Ergodic Hypothesis
 Reverberant Chambers Theory
 Statistical Model of Electromagnetic Field
 Ergodicity Measurement Experiment
 Conclusions and Perspectives
MEASUREMENT SET-UP
14
APPLICATION EXAMPLE
 Leuven University.
 Cubic chamber
 LUF=276 MHz.
 2 moving antennas each
 Antenna A (83 rail steps)
 Antenna B (67 rail steps)
 150 total steps
 The two antennas never work
at the same time
 22 test frequencies from 800 a
2500 MHz
 158400 measurements (79200
for space and 79200 for time).
 1 probe or sensor measuring Ex,
l=2.48 m.
Ey, Ez.
[1] TSIGROS, C. (2014) Efficiency analysis of innovative tuning methods for immunity testing in reverberation chamber and comparison to anechoic room, Leuven University. pp. 213-
222
15 AVERAGE OVER
 SPACE
Fixed tunner position and moving probe over space

Tuner steps Measurements


1 <ExS1> <EyS1> <EzS1> <ErmsS1>
2 <ExS2> <EyS2> <EzS2> <ErmsS2>
…. …. …. …. ….
…. …. …. …. …
150 <ExS150 <EyS150 <EzS150 <ErmsS150
> > > >
𝐸 𝑥 + …+ 𝐸 𝑥
⟨ 𝐸 𝑥 𝑆𝑛 ⟩ = 𝑝1

8
𝑝8
(8 probe locations)

√ 2
⟨ 𝐸 𝑟𝑚𝑠 ⟩ = ⟨ 𝐸 𝑥𝑆𝑛 ⟩ +⟨ 𝐸 𝑦 𝑆𝑛 ⟩ + ⟨ 𝐸 𝑧𝑆𝑛 ⟩
𝑺𝒏
2 2

𝐸 𝑥 … .. 𝐸𝑥
𝑝1 𝑝8
- Electric field in “x” axis, positions p1 to p8
• n – Number of tuner position
[1] TSIGROS, C. (2014) Efficiency analysis of innovative tuning methods for immunity testing in reverberation chamber and comparison to anechoic room, Leuven university. pp. 213-
16
AVERAGE OVER TIME
 Fixed probe in one position and tuner steps variation
Probe Measurements
locations
P1 <Ext1> <Eyt1> <Ezt1> <Ermst1>
P2 <Ext2> <Eyt2> <Ezt2> <Ermst2>
…. …. …. …. ….
…. …. …. …. …
P8 <Ext8> <Eyt8> <Ezt8> <Ermst8>

𝐸 𝑥 + 𝐸 𝑥 +… + 𝐸 𝑥
⟨ 𝐸 𝑥 𝑡𝑚 ⟩ = 𝑡𝑝1 𝑡𝑝 2 (150 tuner steps)
𝑡𝑝1 50

150

⟨ 𝐸 𝑟𝑚𝑠 ⟩ =√ ⟨ 𝐸 𝑥𝑡𝑚 ⟩ + ⟨ 𝐸 𝑦𝑡𝑚 ⟩ + ⟨ 𝐸 𝑧𝑡𝑚 ⟩


2 2 2
𝒕𝒎

𝐸 𝑥 ….. 𝐸 𝑥
𝑡𝑝 1
- Electric field in “x” axis, for each tunner positi
𝑡𝑝 8

• m – Number of point in space


[1] TSIGROS, C. (2014) Efficiency analysis of innovative tuning methods for immunity testing in reverberation chamber and comparison to anechoic room, Leuven university. pp. 213-
ERGODICITY MEASUREMENT
17
RESULTS FOR Erms
⟨ 𝑿 (𝒕) ⟩
=𝟏
4 ⟨ 𝑿 ( 𝑵 )⟩
f=800
f=1634MHz
f=2514 MHz
MHz
2

Ergodicity
1

Time step

• Ergodicity approaches to 1 while frequency increase


[1] TSIGROS, C. (2014) Efficiency analysis of innovative tuning methods for immunity testing in reverberation chamber and comparison to anechoic room, Leuven university. pp. 213-
Ergodicity measurement results
18 f=800 MHz

Ergodicity

f=2514 MHz

Ergodicity
Time step

f=1634 MHz
2
Ergodicity

Time step

Time step
ANALYSIS
19

• Higher the frequency


the process becomes
Ergodic.
X=2400
• 2 points of interest in Y=1.03
1824 MHz and 2400
MHz in which this rule is
not completely true.

MAX

MIN

Authors: Renato Alvarez and Juan Valverde


N7 REVERBERANT CHAMBER
20
LUF
Chamber Dimensions: l=3.2 m, w=2.2 m, h=2.4 m

IEC
Standart

IEC
Standart

Authors: Renato Alvarez and Juan Valverde Authors: Renato Alvarez and Juan Valverde

• The lowest Usable frequency is 312 MHz.


• Any measurement should be for frequencies higher than 312 MHz to ensure EM field
uniformity and hence Ergodicity.
N7 REVERBERANT CHAMBER VS. EXPERIMENT
21 CHAMBER
 N7 Chamber Dimensions:
 l=3.2 m, w=2.2 m, h=2.4 m

 Cubic Chamber: l=2.48 m.

Authors: Renato Alvarez and Juan Valverde

 N7 Reverberant Chamber has slightly more cumulative modes than the experiment one.
 Number of modes are proportional to the dimensions of the chamber.
22
OUTLINE
 Ergodic Hypothesis
 Reverberant Chambers Theory
 Statistical Model of Electromagnetic Field
 Ergodicity Measurement Experiment
 Conclusions and Perspectives
23
CONCLUSIONS
 Statistical analysis is the solution when measuring Ergodicity.

 Analysis methods must be confident with Maxwell’s equations and statistical properties.

 Frequency modes implies uniformity of the Electric Field, which means the system
becomes Ergodic.

 All measurements must be done for frequencies equal or higher than the LUF.
24
PERSPECTIVES
 Few studies about the measurement of Ergodicity in Reverberant Chambers, in fact is a
field that can be more developed.
 A lot of ways to change boundary conditions can be done in order to get many
frequency modes:
 Mechanical Stirrers
 Frequency Stirrers or Electronic Stirrers
 Source Stirring
 Changing the dimensions of the chamber.
STATISTICAL MODEL
25  E field is defined by 3 rectangular components.

 Based on the statistical property of:

AVERAGE VALUE OF
EACH COMPONENT
REAL AND IMAGINAY
ARE “0” - MEAN

 From the isotropy property, the square mean of these components is derived by:

+ VARIANCE

You might also like