10g 16ms half sine shock test profile

EN 60068-2-27 Shock Testing of Anti-Shock Rubber Mounts

We’ve been vibration and shock testing of some heavy equipment designed for the construction environment. This is one of the toughest environments for product environmental testing. It’s wet, it’s dusty, it gets hot and cold… sometimes all at the same time! Not only that but it’s a very physical environment where rough treatment is the norm.

This customer is well versed in the art of protecting their equipment from such conditions using a robust frame with the key part of the product mounted on beefy rubber shock mounts.

This slow motion footage of captured of the unit undergoing shock testing really shows you just how useful these parts are.

Test was being performed to EN 60068-2-27, 10g shocks with a 16ms half sine profile. There is significant pulse pre- and post-loading as the piezolectronic accelerometer I use has a pretty poor low frequency response and this seems to help.

10g 16ms half sine shock test profile

The use of these anti shock mounts isn’t without issue. In this case, the springiness/stiffness of the anti shock mount combined with the mass of the equipment leads to a resonance at around 25Hz with quite large displacement of the main equipment mass.

The losses in the anti shock mounts causes a damping effect leading to a softer, wider resonance. The equivalent of resistance in an LC resonator causing a reduction in the Q of the circuit.

Compared to a much sharper resonance (caused by a different physical structure) the overall gain is much lower. The tradeoff is selecting a stiffer mount to damp the resonances but at the expense of transmitting more force through to the unit under protection.

25Hz soft resonance vs other sharper resonance

 

 

Compromise EFT Test Setup

When the customer supplied cable isn’t long enough to fit inside the standard EFT/B capacitive clamp what do you do?

One answer, for pre-compliance testing, is to make your own clamp from aluminium foil cut to length and separated from the GRP by expanded foam blocks.

The capacitive clamp is not a sophisticated piece of test equipment and a close compromise can be achieved quickly with commonly available lab materials.

Details of a compromise EFT test setup using aluminium foil and foam blocks.

Making sure there is good contact to the GRP from the generator is important which is partly achieved by taping the cable down with some conductive adhesive aluminium tape.

Overall area of the injection plate is reduced by 25% from the standard capacitive clamp plate area. Therefore the injection voltage was increased by 25% to compensate for the reduced capacitance.

Safety warning: don’t touch the foil when the generator is running!

Obviously not good enough for exact testing to the standard but it is within the spirit of the test and will give some useful information.

Useful Test Adapters for EMC Testing and Electronics Development

Working in an EMC test lab means I get to see all kinds of equipment. No two devices are ever the same so I have to make up / adapt cables to interface various devices. If you work with a wide range of products or just want a bit more versatility in your lab then read on.

I have no affiliation to any of these products, I just use them a lot.

Clever Little Boxes

These versatile little test adapters from Clever Little Boxes are great for being able to quickly hook up one thing to another. As you can see they come in all shapes and sizes. I’ve got a box full of various ones, including the ones shown in the above photo.

Go Bananas

The ubiquitous 4mm “banana” plug and socket is super common on power supplies and other kinds of test equipment. They give a surprisingly low resistance connection for their size which, along with their simplicity, goes a long way to explaining their popularity.

If you’ve ever made up a cable assembly with standard connectors then you know they can be a pain. That’s why I really like these connectors that have a spring loaded gate that accepts a bare wire up to 2.5mm^2.

I’ve just got the standard red and black colours to keep things simple. These work well when paired with a set of crocodile clips

Get Me a Crocodile Sandwich…

I really like to pair these crocodile clips with the 4mm connectors above for super versatile connections to anything big like metal frames or enclosures of equipment.

Hook and Spring

Big numb adapters get a bit crowded when trying to connect onto individual connector pins or component legs. That’s where these teeny spring clips come in. I’ve often ended up with one of my development boards looking like an electronic porcupine with these stuck all over them!

 

Something More Permanent for Sir?

If I’m wiring up anything using mains voltages that I want to be a bit more permanent and safe then my go to are these spring terminal blocks from Wago. They are like choc block terminal strips with the main exception that these are not rubbish. Rated at 32A they can accept much larger wires that you would think and the spring clips retain the wires with a remorseless grip.

They come in multiple ways although I tend to use 2, 3 and 5 by default. Best of all they are ridiculously cheap. Just don’t get your thumbnail caught underneath the orange lever when it clicks down otherwise you’ll be using some language that is distinctly NSFW.

So “be prepared” (Scout motto) and happy testing.

James

 

p.s. don’t get me started on the adaptor vs adapter debate.

 

radiated emissions plot

RS-232 to USB Converters – EMC Problems Part Two

A while ago, I wrote about EMC immunity problems with USB to serial converters and how it was easy to fix with a small 100pF capacitor to ground on the TXD and RXD lines for a bit of filtering. Well, now I’ve found the opposite problem of EMC radiated emissions failures caused by these periodically problematic products.

In this case it appears to be harmonics of the 48MHz internal clock of a SiLabs CP2102 being conducted out of the converter on the TXD and RXD pins.

These little boards are generally used as development tools in a laboratory setting but there’s nothing to stop this IC or module being integrated into a product where these problems would manifest themselves.

The below plot shows the radiated emissionsbefore (light blue) and after (red). This module was connected to it’s host by 10cm unshielded wires, not an unreasonable application by any means.

radiated emissions plot

And what was the fix? Yep, you guessed it, some 0603 100pF capacitors on the output pins to ground. I bet that would help with immunity too! 😉

crude differential mode surge spice circuit

Surge Testing, MOV Position and Fuse Current

I’ve been working on a power supply product for a customer with a very tight limit on the AC mains fuse rating. One of the problems this causes is during differential mode surge testing.

When the metal oxide varistor (MOV) connected line-to-line fired, the resulting current was enough to blow the fuse after a couple of surges at the specified 1kV surge (1.2/50us, 2 ohm). Clearly there wasn’t enough headroom for the product to pass the test. A different MOV with a higher clamping voltage would have reduced the peak current but at the cost of higher voltage stress elsewhere in the circuit.

I decided to look at if the position of the varistor within the circuit made a difference to the surge current in the fuse. It started off in the middle of the mains filter (PCB routing convenience I suspect) but perhaps mounting it before the filters would help? What about at the end of the filter chain, then the X2 capacitors can go to work on the surge pulse first.

The easiest way to try these scenarios was to stick it into SPICE (I like SiMetrix) and have a look at the variables. I crudely modelled the input stage of the power supply as shown below. I guessed at many of the series impedances for the fuse and the capacitor. However the leakage inductances and DCR for the inductors I measured using my excellent Peak Electronics LCR45 component meter. The MOV was simply a 1N4004 diode with a 400V reverse breakdown and the surge was only applied in the +ve direction.

crude differential mode surge spice circuit

I varied the position of the “MOV” between positions A, B and C to see if there was a difference in the surge current through the fuse (R15). Interestingly enough, there was.

surge test spice output

Red = A, Green = B, Blue = C

So the further down the filter chain that the MOV is placed, the less the peak surge current (56% lower) and the RMS current (23% lower) through the fuse.

The results were positive too. The power supply went from failing on the 5th strike at 1kV to passing 10 strikes at 1.75kV. A marked improvement resulting in a more robust product.

 

conducted rf immunity calibration impedance and measurement voltages

When is a Test Level Not a Test Level?

Answer: When you don’t read the standard properly!

I was verifying my EN 61000-4-6 conducted RF immunity test setup after the construction of some new test adaptors and acquisition of some new equipment when came across something that left me scratching my head. I figured it out eventually and updated my calibration procedure with a note but it did have me puzzled for an hour!

Like most conducted immunity signal generators, the one I use combines a signal generator and modulator with a power amplifier and some front panel controls/readouts for performing the basic functions. It also has an RF Input for calibrating Coupling/Decoupling Networks (CDNs) which measures the voltage at the 150/50 ohm calibration adaptor and sets the output voltage of the generator to the correct level. My generator has a LED bargraph display showing the level which provides a reassuring visual confirmation that everything is OK.

 

Confused by Conducted, Stumped by the Scope

Having calibrated my new CDN at 3V, since I had a scope within reach, I decided to run the test but monitor the output of the calibration adaptor with the scope to make sure it was all working OK.

I did not see the expected 3V level, instead the RMS measurement on the scope was 0.5V and the pk-pk was just over 1.5V. I checked my 50 ohm thru termination on the scope input and even swapped it for a different one. My second scope also read the same voltage so it clearly wasn’t the scope. Puzzling.

I swapped the CDN for one that had been previously calibrated CDN and the lower than expected output voltage persists. Try turning up the generator voltage to 10V and I can’t even achieve 3V on the scope. Yet when I swap the connection from the scope to the RF generator it proclaims that yes, that is indeed the level that the generator says it is outputting.

Putting a BNC T-piece in series and monitoring the voltage with the RF input terminating the signal still achieves the same result. Is the generator RF input broken and reading the wrong voltage?

I checked the operating manual of the generator – the cal setup I’ve been using for years is correct. Then I carefully read the standard, focusing on the section that deals with calibration of the test adaptors. All became clear…

 

Open Circuit Voltage vs Loaded Voltage

EN 61000-4-6 specifies the test levels in terms of Uo, open circuit voltage. However the generator level setting part of the calibration is based on a measurement of Umr, the measured output voltage. This is a slightly simplified version of Figure 9 from the 2014 version of the standard showing the impedances of each part of the system.

conducted rf immunity cdn calibration impedances

Tucked away at the bottom of the calibration section is the formula that links the two together.

Uo = Umr / 6

Which yields the following values that the input of the generator or the scope should be looking to measure:

Test LevelUo (Vrms)Umr (Vrms)
110.167
230.5
3101.67

For the measurement, the impedance of the decoupling part of the CDN is big enough that the termination of the AE port is not significant to the measurement, making most of the current flow through the EUT port network. You should be able to open or short the 150 ohm AE port termination and not see the measured output voltage change significantly.

By simplifying the above image and a bit of Ohms law you can clearly see that Umr is 1/6 of Uo.

conducted rf immunity calibration impedance and measurement voltages

Of course these are RMS voltages. If your scope that you are measuring with doesn’t have an RMS function then you’ll probably be measuring the peak to peak voltages. The conversion factor is:

Vpk-pk = Vrms x 2 x sqrt(2)

Which when added to the above table makes life a bit easier.

Test LevelUo (Vrms)Umr (Vrms)Umr (Vpk-pk)
110.1670.467
230.51.4
3101.674.67

 

Panic Over

Armed with this new knowledge I revisited my calibrations to find that yes, everything was measuring correctly. The RF generator, being designed specifically for conducted RF immunity testing, takes care of the divide by 6 in it’s calculations.

As an ex-colleague was often heard to remark “every day is a school day” and today’s lesson was a good one. I hope this article saves you a bit of head scratching next time you are verifying your conducted RF immunity test setup.