Uncertainty Emc

LAB34
T H E E X P R E S S I O N O F U N C E RTA I N T Y I N E M C T E S T I N G
LAB34
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
The Expression of Uncertainty

in EMC Testing
CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Introduction
Concepts
Steps in establishing an uncertainty budget
Compliance with specification
References
11
Acknowledgements
11
Appendix A Examples of typical uncertainty budgets
12
Appendix B Calculation of kp
32
Appendix C Calculation of uncertainty in logarithmic or linear quantities 33
THE UNITED KINGDOM ACCREDITATION SERVICE (UKAS) IS RECOGNISED BY THE UK

GOVERNMENT AS THE NATIONAL BODY RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING AND
ACCREDITINGTHE COMPETENCE OF ORGANISATIONS IN THE FIELDS OF CALIBRATION,
TESTING, INSPECTIONAND CERTIFICATION OF SYSTEMS, PRODUCTS AND PERSONNEL.
United Kingdom Accreditation Service, 21-47 High Street, Feltham, Middlesex, TW13 4UN
Web site: www.ukas.com Publication requests Tel: 020 8917 8421 (9 am 1 pm) Fax: 020 8917 8500
United Kingdom Accreditation Service 2002. UKAS Copyright exists in all UKAS publications.
1 N0 F1 3| 6AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
EPAG
D I TEI O
E D I T I O N 1 | AU
GU
06
2
PAG
E S1T 02F0 3
LAB34
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
The standard ISO/IEC 17025 used for laboratory

accreditation by UKAS requires a laboratory to
produce for all measurements an estimate of the
uncertainty of its measurements using accepted
methods of analysis, through the production and
application of suitable uncertainty of
measurement procedures. This requirement is
relevant not only to the Electromagnetic
Compatibility (EMC) testing a laboratory may
perform but also any in- house calibrations.
This publication gives recommendations for the
treatment of uncertainty contributions in UKAS
accredited EMC Testing Laboratories. The
recommendations are generally in line with the
guidelines produced by the International
Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM), as
described in the Guide to the Expression of
Uncertainty in Measurement, 1993, ISO Geneva.
(The Guide). LAB 34 does not deal with the
theory of modelling of the measurement but
attempts to simplify the calculation process while
maintaining practical veracity in the uncertainties
produced. LAB 34 also takes a simple approach
to the effect of correlation in the influence
quantities and treats all contributions in the
examples in Appendix A as being uncorrelated.
used and the method of test. Examples of

uncertainty budgets are given in Appendix A for
some common EMC measurements and have
been made as realistic as possible.
1.4
If a test specification standard requires

uncertainties to be calculated using a method
that differs from the recommendations in this
publication then the method in the standard shall
be used.
1.5
ISO/IEC 17025 also recognises that the

complexity of tests may in some cases preclude a
rigorous evaluation of uncertainty. In such cases
a listing of the potential contributors to
uncertainty should be made and should include
estimates of the magnitude of each component
uncertainty. These estimates may be based on
previous experience and make use of data from
method validation. The laboratory should ensure
that the form of reporting of the result does not
give a wrong impression of the uncertainty.
1.6
In cases where a well-recognised test method

specifies limits to the values of major sources of
uncertainty of measurement and specifies the
form of presentation of the results the
requirement to estimate uncertainty of
measurement can be considered to have been
satisfied by following the test method and its
reporting instructions, (see also section 4.5).
This publication does not define or recommend

what the uncertainty contributions are, or should
be, since these are dependent on the equipment
2 CONCEPTS
2.1
2.2
2.3
The objective of a measurement is to determine

the value of the measurand, i.e. the specific
quantity subject to measurement. When applied
to EMC testing, the general term measurand may
cover many different quantities, e.g. the
emissions from a radiated emissions test, or the
test level in a radiated immunity test. A
measurement begins with an appropriate
specification of the measurand, the generic
method of measurement and the specific detailed
measurement procedure.
In general, no measurement or test is perfect and
the imperfections give rise to error of
measurement in the result. Consequently, the
result of a measurement is only an approximation
to the value of the measurand and is only
complete when accompanied by a statement of
the uncertainty of that approximation.
Errors of measurement may have two
components, a random component and a
PAG E 2 0 F 3 6
systematic component. Uncertainty arises from

random effects and from imperfect correction for
systematic effects.
2.4
Random errors arise from random variations of the

observations (random effects). Every time a
measurement is taken under the same conditions,
random effects from various sources affect the
measured value. A series of measurements
produces a scatter around a mean value. A number
of sources may contribute to variability each time a
measurement is taken, and their influence may be
continually changing. They cannot be eliminated
but increasing the number of observations and
applying statistical analysis may reduce the
uncertainty due to their effect.
2.5
Systematic errors arise from systematic effects,

i.e. an effect on a measurement result of a
quantity that is not included in the specification
of the measurand but influences the result. These
remain unchanged when a measurement is
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
repeated under the same conditions, and their

effect is to introduce a displacement between the
value of the measurand and the experimentally
determined mean value. They cannot be
eliminated but may be reduced, e.g. a correction
may be made for the known extent of an error
due to a recognised systematic effect.
2.6
The Guide has adopted the approach of grouping

uncertainty components into two categories based
on their method of evaluation. Type A evaluation
is done by calculation from a series of repeated
observations, using statistical methods. Type B
evaluation is done by means other than that used
for Type A, for example, judgement based on data
in calibration certificates, previous measurement
data, experience with the behaviour of an
instrument, manufacturers specifications or other
relevant information.
2.7
Components of uncertainty are evaluated by the

appropriate method and each is expressed as a
standard deviation and is referred to as a
standard uncertainty.
2.8
The standard uncertainty components are

combined to produce an overall value of
uncertainty, known as the combined standard
uncertainty.
2.9
An expanded uncertainty is usually required to

meet the needs of industrial, commercial, health
and safety, or other applications. It is intended to
provide a greater interval about the result of a
measurement than the standard uncertainty with,
consequently, a higher probability that it
encompasses the value of the measurand. It is
obtained by multiplying the combined standard
uncertainty by a coverage factor, k. The choice of
factor is based on the coverage probability or
level of confidence required (see paragraph 3.6).
3 STEPS IN ESTABLISHING AN UNCERTAINTY BUDGET
3.1
Decide on the range of measurement to which

the budget will apply.
An uncertainty budget is a list of the probable
sources of error with an estimation of their
uncertainty limits and probability distribution. It
is likely that some uncertainty contributions will
not be the same for the complete range of the
measurement and a decision has to be made
about the breakdown that will be most
appropriate. A single budget covering the
complete range may mean that a larger
uncertainty is assigned than is strictly necessary.
However, this may be preferable in some cases
where it is not necessary to over-complicate the
calculation and reporting process. Priority should
be given to calculating the uncertainty in the
region of the test specification limit, or limits.
3.2
Type A evaluation of uncertainty components.
3.2.1 Random effects result in errors that vary in an

unpredictable way while the measurement is
being made or is repeated under the same
conditions. The uncertainty associated with these
contributions can be evaluated by statistical
techniques from repeated measurements. An
estimate of the standard deviation, s(qj), of a
series of n readings, qj , is obtained from:
s(qj) =
1
(n-1)
(qj) - q)
j=1
where q is the mean value of the

n measurements.
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
3.2.2 The random component of uncertainty can be

reduced by making repeat measurements in the
process of testing the equipment under test (EUT).
This yields the standard deviation of the mean,
given by:
s(q),
s(qj)
s(q) =
n
3.2.3 Practical considerations will normally mean that

the number of repeat readings will be very small
and will often be limited to only a single reading.
In these circumstances the formula for s(qj) in
clause 3.2.1 is inapplicable, as is that in clause
In the case of a single reading or a
3.2.2 for s(q).
very small number of readings, it is satisfactory to
use a predetermination of s(qj) for the
measurement system, based on a larger number
of repeats, provided the system, method,
configuration and conditions etc. are truly
representative of the test. However, for EMC
uncertainties, such a predetermination will not
include the contributions of the particular EUT.
This is due to the difficultly in determining what
would constitute a representative EUT and the
practical issues in performing the measurements.
The value of n to be used under these
in clause
circumstances in the formula for s(q)
3.2.2 is the number of measurements made in
the process of testing and not the number of
measurements made in the predetermination.
Repeat measurements should be undertaken
when the measured result is close to the
specification limit.
PAG E 3 0 F 3 6
LAB34
3 STEPS IN ESTABLISHING AN UNCERTAINTY BUDGET CONTD
3.2.4 A value for the random contributions of the

measurement system is in any case an essential
part of the uncertainty assessment and a type A
evaluation should be made on the `typical'
processes and configuration involved in the test.
For example, in the case of open site
measurements, the type A evaluation could
include reconnecting the antenna and receiver
and adjusting the antenna height to maximise the
receiver reading.
3.2.5 The standard uncertainty, u(xi ), of an estimate xi
of an input quantity q, based on a type A
evaluation is therefore:
u(x ) = s(q)
i
3.3
Type B evaluation: list all the other significant

contributions to uncertainty with an estimation
of their limit value.
3.3.1 Contributions to uncertainty arising from

systematic effects are those that remain constant
while the measurement is being made but can
change if the measurement conditions, method or
equipment is altered. If there is any doubt about
whether a contribution is significant, or not, it
should be included in the uncertainty budget in
order to demonstrate that it has been considered.
3.3.2 Normally, all corrections that can be applied to

the measured result should be applied. However,
in some cases it may be impractical or
unnecessary to attempt to correct for all known
errors. For example, the calibration certificate for
an EMC receiver may give actual measured input
results at specific readings, with an associated
uncertainty. It is possible to correct subsequent
readings by using this calibration to achieve a
reduced uncertainty. However, it is more
practical to use indicated values with no
corrections applied, in which case the
manufacturer's specification should be used,
provided it has been confirmed by an accredited
calibration or, where this is not obtainable, a
route acceptable to UKAS.
3.3.3 The individual uncertainty contributions must be

in terms of the variation in the quantity being
measured (measurand), rather than the influence
quantity, and all in the same units. Most EMC
measurements are derived from readings using
logarithmic scales (e.g. dV), corrections for the
gain or loss of system components are in dB,
specification limits are generally given in dB and
instrument specification limits are normally in dB.
PAG E 4 0 F 3 6
In these cases it is recommended that the

uncertainty calculations are made in dB. In some
cases, for example, where the addition of signals
is the dominant contribution it may be more
correct to calculate the uncertainty in terms of
absolute values, (linear units), e.g. V/m.
The use of dB, percentages or absolute values is
discussed in Appendix C.
3.3.4 It is relatively straightforward to assign a value to

the uncertainty contribution when there is
already evidence on which to base the value,
such as a calibration certificate or manufacturer's
specification. In other cases there may be little
or no data available and estimation has to be
made based on experience or on relevant
published material.
3.3.5 Most contributions to uncertainty can be

adequately represented by a symmetrical
distribution about the nominal or measured
result, for instance the uncertainty attributed to a
receiver. However, some contributions are not
symmetrical and these are most simply dealt with
by calculating separate positive and negative
values for the total uncertainty. The decision on
whether this is appropriate will depend on the
difference between the two values and the need
for rigour in the uncertainty estimation. An
example of an asymmetric uncertainty is the
consideration of mismatch uncertainty in
logarithmic units. The solution in this case is to
make the calculation in simple linear units and to
select the minus value for conversion back to
logarithmic units to include the worst case.
3.3.6 The basis of the simplified approach taken in LAB

34 relies upon uncorrelated contributions, i.e.
contributions that have no interrelationships. The
judicious selection of test equipment and
measurement method can ensure that correlation
between individual contributions is avoided or
minimised. If adverse correlation between any
contributions is known or suspected then the most
straightforward approach is to group the
contributions together, sum the standard
uncertainty of these contributions arithmetically
and then include this sum into the budget as one
contribution. In some situations it is necessary to
use the same items of test equipment for different
steps in the measurement process. For example, in
the pre-calibration for radiated immunity
measurements it is essential that the same transmit
antenna is used for the calibration and testing.
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
3.4
Assign a probability distribution and determine

the standard uncertainty of each contribution.
3.4.3 U Shaped:
This distribution is applicable to mismatch
uncertainty [6]. The value of the limit for the
mismatch uncertainty, M, associated with the
power transfer at a junction is obtained from
20 log10(1|G||L|)dB, or 100((1|G||L|)2-1)%
where G and L are the reflection coefficients
for the source and load. As stated in paragraph
3.3.5, mismatch uncertainty is asymmetric about
the measured result, (when considered in
logarithmic units), however, the difference this
makes to the total uncertainty is often
insignificant and it is acceptable to use the larger
of the two limits i.e. the negative summation,
20 log10(1-|G||L|).
The probability distribution of the measured

quantity describes the variation in probability of
the true value lying at any particular difference
from the measured or assigned result. The form of
the probability distribution will often not be
known, and an assumption has to be made, based
on prior knowledge or theory, that it approximates
to one of the common forms. It is then possible to
calculate the standard uncertainty, u(xi ), for the
assigned form from simple expressions. The four
main distributions of interest to EMC measurement
are normal, rectangular, triangular, and U shaped.
For U-Shaped Distributions:
3.4.1 Normal:
This distribution can be assigned to uncertainties
derived from multiple contributions. For example,
when a UKAS calibration laboratory provides an
expanded uncertainty for an instrument this will
have been calculated at a minimum level of
confidence of 95% and can be assumed to be
normal. The standard uncertainty of a
contribution to uncertainty with assumed normal
distribution is found by dividing the expanded
uncertainty by the coverage factor, k, appropriate
to the stated level of confidence. For Normal
Distributions:
u(xi) =
u(xi) =
3.4.4 Triangular:
This distribution means the probability of the true
value lying at a point between two prescribed
limits increases uniformly from zero at the
extremities to the maximum at the centre. A
triangular distribution should be assigned where
the contribution has a distribution with defined
limits and where the majority of the values
between the limits lie around the central point.
expanded uncertainty
k
For triangular distributions:
where k = 2 if the reported level of confidence is

95%. (Strictly speaking for a level of confidence
of 95%, k = 1.96, however, the difference this
makes to the combined uncertainty is negligible)
u(xi) =
u(xi) =
ai
3
where ai is half the length of the interval given by

the prescribed limits of the individual uncertainty
contribution.
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
ai
6
where ai is half the length of the interval given by

the prescribed limits of the individual uncertainty
contribution.
3.4.2 Rectangular:
This distribution means that there is equal
probability of the true value lying anywhere
between two prescribed limits. A rectangular
distribution should be assigned where a
manufacturer's specification limits are used as
the uncertainty, unless there is a statement of
confidence associated with the specification, in
which case a normal distribution can be
assumed. For Rectangular Distributions:
M
2
3.5
Determine the combined standard uncertainty.
3.5.1 Sensitivity Coefficients

In some cases an input quantity may not be in
the same units as the associated output quantity.
For example, the uncertainty in the measurement
distance on an open site should be converted to
the uncertainty in the received signal strength. In
this case the input quantity is length, but the
output quantity is electrical. It is therefore
necessary to introduce a sensitivity coefficient so
that the output quantity (y), can be related to the
input quantity (xi ). This sensitivity coefficient is
referred to as ci . The sensitivity coefficient is
effectively a conversion factor from one unit to
another.
PAG E 5 0 F 3 6
LAB34
Any contributions with known or suspected

adverse correlation should be added together,
then for N contributions:
3.5.1 Sensitivity Coefficients contd

The relationship between the input quantity and
the output quantity may not be linear. The partial
derivative f/xi can be used to obtain the
sensitivity coefficient and this is one of the
reasons that mathematical modelling is used to
describe measurement systems. In practice the
derivation of the partial derivatives can be
difficult and the effort involved is not always
justified by the results obtained. A linear
approximation such as the quotient f/xi , where
f is the change in f resulting from a change xi
in xi , is often sufficient. The choice of xi is
important and The Guide provides guidance,
recommending that xi = u(xi ) is appropriate.
In the examples calculated in Appendix A, a
pragmatic approach has been taken and a value of
1 has been assumed for the sensitivity coefficients.
It is appreciated that this approach is
mathematically imprecise however the
approximations involved do not cause an overall
change in the expanded uncertainty of any
significance and well within the five percent
criteria, i.e. it is generally considered that an
assumption or approximation that causes less than a
5% error in the reported uncertainty is acceptable.
3.5.2 Correlated Input Quantities

The combined standard uncertainty of the output
estimate will only apply when there is no
correlation between any of the input estimates, that
is, the input quantities are independent of each
other. It may be the case that some input quantities
are affected by the same influence quantity, e.g.
temperature, or by the errors in a particular
instrument that is used for separate measurements
in the same process. In such cases the input
quantities are not independent of each other and
the equation for obtaining the standard uncertainty
of the output estimate must be modified. However,
as mentioned previously, if correlation between
any contributions is known or suspected then the
most straightforward approach is to sum the
standard uncertainty of these contributions
arithmetically. However, this approach is correct
only if the quantities concerned are perfectly
correlated, The Guide should be referred to if a
more detailed approach is required.
3.5.3 Combined Standard Uncertainty
uc(y) =
ui (y)
2
i=1
3.6
Determine the expanded uncertainty.

The expanded uncertainty, U, defines an interval
about the measured result that will encompass
the true value with a specified level of
confidence, p%. The expanded uncertainty is
obtained by multiplying the combined standard
uncertainty by a coverage factor, k, thus:
u = kuc(y)
The level of confidence recommended by UKAS
for EMC testing is 95% which can in most cases
be obtained with k = 2.
However there are exceptions when a coverage
factor of k = 2 does not provide a 95%
confidence level. These situations would be
characterised by one or more of the following:
(a) A random (type A) contribution to
uncertainty that is relatively large
compared with other contributions and
based on only a small number of repeat
readings. In this case there is the
possibility that the probability distribution
will not be normal in form and a value of
k=2 will give a level of confidence of less
than 95%. A revised value of k, kp is
required to provide a 95% confidence
and this can be obtained using the
procedure given in Appendix B.
(b) The absence of a significant number of
uncertainty components having wellbehaved probability distributions, such as
normal and rectangular;
(c) Domination of the combined value by
one component. There is not a clear-cut
definition of a dominant component but a
practical guide would be where one
component was more than five times
greater than any other.
The combined uncertainty, uc(y), is obtained by

taking the square root of the sum of squares of
the individual standard uncertainties. If any of the
standard uncertainties are not already in terms of
the measured quantity then they should be
converted using the appropriate sensitivity
coefficient, ci then:
ui(y) = ciu(xi)
PAG E 6 0 F 3 6
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
3.7
Reporting of result.
The extent of the information given when
reporting the result of a test and its uncertainty
should be related to the requirements of the client,
the specification and the intended use of the
result. The methods used to calculate the result
and its uncertainty should be available either in
the report or in the records of the test including:
(a) Sufficient documentation of the steps and
calculations in the data analysis to enable
a repeat calculation if necessary;
(b) All corrections and constants used in the
analysis, and their sources;
(c) Sufficient documentation to show how the
uncertainty is calculated.
When reporting the result and its uncertainty, the

use of excessive numbers of digits should be
avoided. In most cases the uncertainty need be
expressed to no more than two significant figures.
At least one more figure should be used during the
stages of estimation and combination of
uncertainty components in order to make
negligible the effects of rounding errors. (This may
be particularly noticeable when calculating kp from
the degrees of freedom where large differences in
higher values of veff may be seen, however this has
no effect in the final value of kp chosen.)
In line with UKAS and EA recommendations

uncertainties should be rounded to express them
in no more than two significant figures, the
measured value should also be rounded such that
its last digit corresponds to the last digit of
measurement uncertainty. Generally, the
uncertainty should be expressed in units of the
measurand whenever possible.
Alternatively, for results that are plotted or
tabulated, an overall uncertainty may be given
which applies to all the results.
3.7.1 Special cases

In exceptional cases, where a particular factor or
factors can influence the results, but where the
magnitude cannot be either measured or
reasonably assessed, the statement will need to
include reference to that fact, for example:
The reported expanded uncertainty is based on
a standard uncertainty multiplied by a coverage
factor of k=2, providing a level of confidence of
approximately 95%, but excluding the effects
of . . . . . .
Examples of this could be the effects of the semianechoic chamber and EUT reflections in the older
radiated immunity test methods or screened room
in emission measurements for military EMC tests.
Unless otherwise specified, the result of the

measurement should be reported, together with
the expanded uncertainty appropriate to the 95%
level of confidence, in the following manner:
Measured value 30.1 [units]

Uncertainty of measurement 4.1 [units]
The reported expanded uncertainty is based on
a standard uncertainty multiplied by a coverage
factor of k=2, providing a level of confidence of
approximately 95%.
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
PAG E 7 0 F 3 6
LAB34
4 COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATION
4.1
ISO/IEC 17025 requirements state that where

relevant, (e.g. when a product is tested against a
declared specification), then the report must
contain a statement indicating whether the results
show compliance or non-compliance with the
specification. When the client or the specification
requires a statement of compliance, there are a
number of possible cases where the uncertainty
has a bearing on the compliance statement and
these are examined below.
4.2
Ideally the specification would clearly state that

the measured result, extended by the uncertainty
at a given level of confidence, shall not fall
outside a defined limit or limits. However it is
currently rare for this to be the case.
4.3
More often, the specification requires a

compliance statement in the certificate or report
but makes no reference to taking into account
the effect of uncertainty on the assessment of
compliance. In such cases it may be appropriate
for the user to make a judgement of compliance,
based on whether the result is within the
specified limits with no account taken of the
uncertainty. This is often referred to as shared
risk, since the end-user takes some of the risk
that the product may not meet the specification.
In this case there is an implicit assumption that
the magnitude of the uncertainty is acceptable
and it is important that the laboratory should be
in a position to determine and report the
uncertainty. The shared risk scenario is normally
only applicable when both the laboratorys client
and the end user of the equipment are party to
the decision. It would not normally apply to
regulatory compliance testing unless expressly
referenced by the appropriate regulatory or
standards making bodies. Even in these cases the
acceptable measurement uncertainty should be
stated and the laboratory should demonstrate that
its uncertainty meets the specified allowance or
consider the difference in the manner of 4.5
below. Careful consideration of the use of the
shared risk approach should be given prior to its
application.
4.4
An agreement between the client and the

laboratory or a code of practice or specification
may state that uncertainty can be ignored when
judging compliance. All parties should know
what that uncertainty is and the basis for the
approach, i.e. the reference document. The
responsibility for calculating and reporting the
uncertainty rests with the test laboratory.
4.5
In the case where the specification defines the

magnitude of the uncertainty that has been
taken into account when establishing the test
limits then the laboratory should demonstrate
that their uncertainty calculation is within this
allowed figure. If this is not the case, then the
laboratory should show how they have
accommodated the difference within their
testing and reporting methodology.
4.6
EMC testing is carried out on a very wide range

of products intended for a variety of applications.
It is therefore not possible, or appropriate, for all
cases that UKAS recommend standard rules for
judging compliance, however in the absence of
any specified criteria, the following approach will
enable a method of reporting for demonstrating
the relevant parts of ISO/IEC 17025 are achieved.
4.6.1 Emissions
(a) If the limits are not breached by the measured
result, extended by the expanded uncertainty
interval at a level of confidence of 95%, then
compliance with the specification can be
stated, (Case A, Fig 1 and Case E, Fig 2);
(b) Where an upper specification limit is
exceeded by the result even when it is
decreased by half of the expanded uncertainty
interval, then non-compliance with the
specification can be stated, (Case D, Fig 1);
(c) If a lower specification limit is breached even
when the measured result is extended
upwards by half of the expanded uncertainty
interval, then non-compliance with the
specification can be stated (Case H, Fig 2);
(d) If the measured value falls sufficiently close to
a limit such that half of the expanded
uncertainty interval overlaps the limit, it is not
possible to confirm compliance or noncompliance at the stated level of confidence.
The test result and expanded uncertainty
should be reported together with a statement
indicating that compliance was not
demonstrated. A suitable statement to cover
these situations (Cases B and C, Fig 1 and
Cases F and G, Fig 2) would be, for example:
The measured result is above (below) the
specification limit by a margin less than the
measurement uncertainty; it is therefore not
possible to state compliance based on the
95% level of confidence. However, the result
indicates that compliance (non-compliance)
is more probable than non-compliance
(compliance) with the specification limit.
Note: In these circumstances if a confidence
limit of less than 95% is acceptable, a
statement of compliance/non-compliance may
be possible.
PAG E 8 0 F 3 6
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
however because we are raising the level by this

amount only 5% remains below the level hence
we are achieving a confidence of 95% that the
required specification level has been applied.
Testing at the specified immunity level only gives
a 50% confidence that the required specification
level has been applied, (see Figure 3).
4.6.2 Immunity
In the case of immunity testing against a
specified interference level, e.g. a radiated field
strength, it is recommended that, in the absence
of other guidance, the test is performed at the
specified immunity level increased by the
standard uncertainty multiplied by a factor k of
1.64 which under normal circumstances would
give a confidence of approximately 90%,
4.7
Further guidance can be found in ILAC document

ILAC-G8:1996, (Reference 9).
Figure 1:
Case A
Case B
Case C
Case D
The measured result

is within the limits,
even when
extended by the
uncertainty interval.
The measured result

is below the upper
limit, but by a
margin less than
half of the
uncertainty interval;
it is therefore not
possible to state
compliance based
on the 95% level of
confidence.
The measured result

is above the upper
limit, but by a
margin less than
half of the
it is therefore not
possible to state
non-compliance
based on the 95%
level of confidence.
The measured result

is beyond the upper
limit, even when
extended
downwards by half
of the uncertainty
interval.
However, the result

indicates that
compliance is more
= uncertainty interval probable than noncompliance.
However, the result

indicates that noncompliance is more
than probable than
compliance.
Specified
upper limit
Specified
lower limit
The product
therefore complies
with the
specification.
= measured result
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
The product
therefore does not
comply with the
specification.
PAG E 9 0 F 3 6
LAB34
Figure 2:
Case E
Case F
Case G
Case H
The measured result

is within the limits,
even when
extended by the
The measured result

is above the lower
limit, but by a
margin less than
half of the
it is therefore not
possible to state
compliance based
on the 95% level of
confidence.
The measured result

is below the lower
limit, but by a
margin less than
half of the
it is therefore not
possible to state
non-compliance
based on the 95%
level of confidence.
The measured result

is beyond the lower
limit, even when
extended upwards
by half of the
However, the result

indicates that
compliance is more
= uncertainty interval probable than noncompliance.
However, the result

indicates that noncompliance is more
probable than
compliance.
Specified
upper limit
Specified
lower limit
The product
therefore complies
with the
specification.
= measured result
The product
therefore does not
comply with the
specification.
Figure 3:
This is the estimated

uncertainty of our
applied level
We have at least 95%

confidence that the
actual applied level is
in this range but only
a 50% confidence that
the required level has
been reached
Required
Immunity
Test Level to apply

which gives a 95%
confidence that specified
level has been achieved
is the standard
uncertainty multiplied by
a factor k=1.64
10
Immunity
test level
Frequency
PAG E 1 0 0 F 3 6
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
REFERENCES
[1]
Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in

Measurement, ISO/IEC/OIML/BIPM (Prepared by
ISO/TAG 4/WG 3: January 1993)
[2]
The Expression of Uncertainty and Confidence in

Measurement, UKAS Publication M3003, Edition
1 December 1997.
[3]
Expression of the Uncertainty of Measurement in

Calibration. EA-4/02, December 1999.
[4]
Guide to the evaluation and expression of

uncertainties associated with the results of
electrical measurements, Def Stan 0026/Issue 2
Sept 1988.
[5]
Uncertainties in the measurement of mobile

radio equipment characteristics Part 1, ETSI
Technical Report, ETSI TR 100 028-1, V1.4.1,
December 2001.
[6]
Uncertainties in the measurement of mobile

radio equipment characteristics Part 2, ETSI
Technical Report, ETSI TR 100 028-2, V1.4.1,
December 2001.
[7]
Harris, I.A. and Warner, F.L. Re-examination of

mismatch uncertainty when measuring power
and attenuation. IEE Proc. Vol 128 Pt H No.1
February 1981.
[8]
General requirements for competence of testing

and calibration laboratories, ISO/IEC 17025,
December 1999.
[9]
The expression of uncertainty in testing, UKAS

Publication LAB 12, Edition 1, October 2000.
[10]
Guidelines on Assessment and Reporting of

Compliance with Specifications, ILAC Publication
ILAC-G8, 1996.
[11]
(CISPR/A/355/FDIS) proposed CISPR 16-4 ed 1

Specification for radio disturbance and immunity
measuring apparatus and methods- part 4
uncertainty in EMC measurements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This revision was co-sponsored by the Department of

Trade and Industry's National Measurement System
Policy Unit through a project of work in the 1997-2000
Electrical Programme at the National Physical
Laboratory.
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
UKAS would like to acknowledge the contribution of

Mr P Carter of aCEmark Europe Ltd (www.acemark.com)
who provided the majority of updated uncertainty
budget examples in this document.
PAG E 1 1 0 F 3 6
LAB34
APPENDIX A - EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL UNCERTAINTY BUDGETS
A1.
Introduction
The following examples give the likely
uncertainty contributions for the more common
EMC measurements. Where the uncertainty
contribution is considered negligible a `0` has
been used.
The examples given have been made as detailed
as is considered reasonable but with a view to
the magnitude of the typical final uncertainties
and the environment in which the budgets will
be used. In particular, as stated in section 3.5.1, a
pragmatic approach to the sensitivity coefficients
has been taken and the majority were set at 1.
This approach is based on the simplistic
assumption that having established a maximum
range in which a particular influence may vary,
then that maximum value is used as the basis of
calculation for our estimate of the error and
entered into the budget with an associated
sensitivity coefficient of 1. It should be noted
however, that this approach has only been taken
when the error contribution can be derived or
calculated and added in comparable units to the
other contributions, it is likely to give slightly
more pessimistic results but is considerably easier
to prepare the budget.
The CISPR Document currently referenced

(CISPR/A/355/FDIS) of CISPR 16-4 ed 1, has been
used as guidance, however laboratories are
advised that the approach taken in this document
does not provide a foundation for the type A
contributions which laboratories should derive
from a series of repeatability experiments.
Laboratories are required to include such
contributions in their uncertainty calculations per
ISO/IEC 17025 5.4.6.3, however as the
methodology for deriving test limits based on
laboratory uncertainty is defined in the
referenced FDIS, it is considered acceptable
when comparing the laboratories uncertainty
budgets to the CISPR budgets to omit the
repeatability contribution when deciding if the
CISPR limit should be modified in accordance
with the ULAB / UCISPR see section 4.1 of the
referenced CISPR 16-4 document.
The contributions and values in the examples are
not intended to imply mandatory requirements.
Laboratories shall determine the uncertainty
contributions for the tests they are performing
based on their own derived and available data.
The approach adopted for emission

measurements including sensitivity coefficients
generally is to follow the methodology currently
being implemented in CISPR. Values have been
altered in some cases to reflect more closely the
practical accuracy achievable by test laboratories
for measurements such as cable loss.
PAG E 1 2 0 F 3 6
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
A2.
Conducted emissions
Measurements made on a site that conforms to
the requirements of CISPR 22. The mathematical
model for the measurement process is assumed
to be:
CDL=RI+LC+LAMN+dVSW+dVPA+dVPR+dVNF+dZ+FSTEP+M+RS+REUT
Symbol
Quantity
Units
Comment
CDL
Disturbance Level
dBV
This is the result of the measurement (measurand).
RI
Receiver Reading
dBV
Value is read from the receiver. The uncertainty is

function of the least significant digit in the display
readout or the Marker function on an analyser.
LC
Attenuation AMN-receiver
dB
Attenuation of connection between artificial mains

network and the receiver
LAMN
AMN Voltage division factor
dB
Artificial Mains Network Voltage division factor

(Insertion Loss)
dVSW
Receiver Sine Wave
dB
Receiver error due to Sine Wave Voltage
dVPA
Receiver Pulse Amplitude
dB
Receiver error due to Pulse amplitude response
dVPR
Receiver Pulse repetition
dB
Receiver error due to Pulse Repetition response
dVNF
Noise Floor Proximity
dB
Error due to finite signal to noise ratio
dZ
AMN Impedance
dB
The AMN impedance is specified as a range of

acceptability, this budget uses the nominal
impedance variation as a triangular distribution.
This implies that the nominal impedance is achieved
throughout the frequency range and only a small
chance of encountering the particular combinations
of frequency, AMN impedance, and EUT impedance
needed to produce those extremes.
FSTEP
Frequency step error
dB
If using an automated receiver there is an error

depending on the frequency step size with respect
to the measurement bandwidth. This can be found
by applying a signal to the generator and adjusting
the frequency of the signal to + and - half the step
size and noting the amplitude change on the receiver
Mismatch
dB
No correction is made for mismatch between the

receiver and the AMN plus cable. The uncertainty
is derived from a combination of the reflection
coefficient magnitudes.
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB
The repeatability of the measurement system is

determined by obtaining the standard deviation of a
series of repeated readings on a stable EUT (eg a
noise source). It should include typical variations that
will occur in normal testing in this example 10
readings were made.
REUT
Repeatability of EUT
dB
This will only need to be considered if the measured

result is close to the specification limit to the extent
that variations due to the EUT may affect
compliance.
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
PAG E 1 3 0 F 3 6
LAB34
Conducted Disturbances from 9 kHz to 150 kHz using 50/50H AMN
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
0.03
0.001
2.000
0.20
0.040
2.000
0.10
0.010
1.00
rectangular 1.732
0.58
0.333
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVPR
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVNF
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
dZ
AMN Impedance
3.60
triangular
2.449
1.47
2.160
FSTEP
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
Mismatch
-0.89
U-shaped
-0.63
0.397
Symbol
Source of Uncertainty
Value
Probability Divisor ci
distribution
RI
Receiver Reading
0.05
rectangular 1.732
LC
0.40
normal 2
LAMN
0.20
normal 2
dVSW
Receiver Sine Wave
dVPA
1.414
Receiver VRC 0.15
AMN+Cable 0.65
RS
Measurement System Repeatability
0.50
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
REUT
0.00
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(FS)
Combined Standard Uncertainty
normal
2.17
4.691
U(FS)
Expanded Uncertainty
normal k= 2.00
4.3
0.007
0
>3000
0.007
>3000
Conducted Disturbances from 150kHz to 30 MHz using 50/50H AMN
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
0.03
0.001
2.000
0.20
0.040
2.000
0.10
0.010
1.00
rectangular 1.732
0.58
0.333
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVPR
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVNF
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
dZ
AMN Impedance
2.70
triangular
2.449
1.10
1.215
FSTEP
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
Mismatch
-0.89
U-shaped
-0.63
0.397
Symbol
Value
distribution
RI
Receiver Reading
0.05
rectangular 1.732
LC
0.40
normal 2
LAMN
0.20
normal 2
dVSW
Receiver Sine Wave
dVPA
1.414
Receiver VRC 0.15
AMN+Cable 0.65
RS
0.50
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
REUT
0.00
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(FS)
normal
1.94
3.746
U(FS)
normal k= 2.00
3.9
PAG E 1 4 0 F 3 6
0.007
0
>2000
0.007
>2000
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
A3.
Discontinuous Interference
For discontinuous interference that uses equipment
as defined in CISPR 16-1 no practical way exists of
combining the pulse duration errors with the
common errors already shown for continuous
emissions. Therefore the uncertainty budget
example given below is based on the assumption
that the discontinuous interference analyser has
been demonstrated, through calibration, to meet

the requirements of section 14 of CISPR 16-1. The
uncertainty budget therefore will be the same as
for conducted emissions.
to be:
CDL=RI+LC+LAMN+dVSW+dVPA+dVPR+dVNF+dZ+FSTEP+M+RS+REUT
Symbol
Quantity
Units
Comment
CDL
Disturbance Level
dBV
RI
Receiver Reading
dBV

LC
dB
Attenuation of connection between artificial mains

network and the receiver
LAMN
dB
Artificial Mains Network Voltage division factor

(Insertion Loss)
dVSW
Receiver Sine Wave
dB
dVPA
dB
dVPR
dB
dVNF
dB
Error due to a low signal to noise ratio
dZ
AMN Impedance
dB
The AMN impedance is specified as a range of

acceptability, this budget uses the nominal
impedance variation as a triangular distribution.
This implies that the nominal impedance is achieved
throughout the frequency range and only a small
chance of encountering the particular combinations
of frequency, AMN impedance, and EUT impedance
needed to produce those extremes.
FSTEP
dB

depending on the frequency step size with respect to
the measurement bandwidth. This can be found by
applying a signal to the generator and adjusting the
frequency of the signal to + and - half the step size
and noting the amplitude change on the receiver
Mismatch
dB

receiver and the AMN plus cable. The uncertainty is
derived from a combination of the reflection
coefficient magnitudes as described in section 3.4.3
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB

series of repeated readings on a stable EUT (e.g. a
readings were made.
REUT
dB

compliance.
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
PAG E 1 5 0 F 3 6
LAB34
Discontinuous Emissions from 150kHz to 30 MHz using 50/50H AMN
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
0.03
0.001
2.000
0.20
0.040
2.000
0.10
0.010
1.00
rectangular 1.732
0.58
0.333
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVPR
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVNF
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
dZ
AMN Impedance
2.70
triangular
2.449
1.10
1.215
FSTEP
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
Mismatch
-0.89
U-shaped
-0.63
0.397
Symbol
Value
distribution
RI
Receiver Reading
0.05
rectangular 1.732
LC
0.40
normal 2
LAMN
0.20
normal 2
dVSW
Receiver Sine Wave
dVPA
1.414
Receiver VRC = 0.15
AMN+Cable = 0.65
RS
0.50
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
REUT
0.00
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(FS)
normal
1.94
3.746
U(FS)
normal k= 2.00
3.9
A4.
Measurement of Radiated Field Strength
0.007
0
>2000
0.007
>2000
The mathematical model for the measurement

process is assumed to be:
Measurements made on an open site that

conforms to the requirements of CISPR 22.
FS=RI+dVsw+dVPA+dVPR+dVNF+AF+CL+AD+AH+AP+AI+SI+DV+DBal+DCross+FSTEP+M+RS+REUT
Symbol
Quantity
Units
Comment
FS
Field Strength
dBV
Ambient Signals
dBV
The uncertainty due to ambient signals is not

included in this budget because it is very level
dependent. The effect of ambient signals must be
considered in the measurement procedure and step
taken to deal with likely errors as directed in
CISPR16 (or is it CISPR22).
RI
Receiver Indication
dBmV

dVsw
Receiver Sine Wave
dB
dVPA
dB
dVPR
dB
dVNF
dB
Error due to signal to noise ratio reducing
AF
Antenna Factor Calibration
dB/m
The antenna factor is obtained from the calibration

certificate, as is the uncertainty and probability
distribution.
PAG E 1 6 0 F 3 6
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
Symbol
Quantity
Units
Comment
CL
Cable Loss
dB
The cable loss is obtained from the calibration

certificate, as is the uncertainty and probability
distribution.
AD
Antenna Directivity
dB
No correction is made for errors due to antenna

directivity. The uncertainty should be based on prior
knowledge of the polar pattern of the generic type of
antenna. This uncertainty will vary with antenna type
and measurement distance. Up to 3dB is possible for
Vertical polarisation at 3m distance. To maintain the
requirements of CISPR it may be necessary to alter
the angle of the antenna to focus on the EUT as the
height changes.
AH
Antenna Factor Height

Dependence
dB
No correction is made for errors in the antenna

factor due to variations in its height above the
ground plane. The uncertainty is derived from
theoretical and practical experience of experts in
antenna calibrations and will vary with antenna type.
The probability distribution is assumed to be
rectangular. The effect is seen in Horizontal
polarisation and can be as high as 2dB
AP
Antenna Phase Centre Variation dB
No correction is made for antenna phase centre

variation. The uncertainty is derived from theoretical
and practical experience of experts in antenna
calibrations. The probability distribution is assumed
to be rectangular. There may be an additional
consideration when using combination antennas
such as Bilogs, where the Bow Tie elements are
calibrated at a distance greater than that required,
this can cause additional uncertainty in the free
space factors up to above 200 MHz
AI
Antenna Factor Frequency

Interpolation
dB
No correction is made for any difference between

the antenna factor at the frequency being measured
and the nearest calibration frequency. The
uncertainty will depend on the interval of calibration
points over the frequency range and the rate of
change of antenna factor with frequency. The
probability distribution is assumed to be rectangular.
SI
Site Imperfections
dB
No corrections are made for site imperfections. The

uncertainty can be assessed from a study of the
normalised site attenuation, see special note in
section ?? (it would probably be better to give
guidance that would be too large for this section)
DV
Measurement Distance Variation dB
No correction is made for errors in the measurement

distance (between antenna and EUT). The uncertainty
in received signal strength in dB is obtained from an
estimate of the uncertainty in the measurement
distance.
DBal
Antenna Balance
dB
An indication of the balance of the Antenna, allows

coupling into the return cable of the antenna,
coupling at a maximum when Antenna and Cable
are in parallel as when Antenna is in Vertical
Polarisation
DCross
Cross Polarisation
dB
Assumed to be negligible for a biconical antenna but

some cross polarisation occurs with a log periodic
Antenna, also negligible for a dipole
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
PAG E 1 7 0 F 3 6
LAB34
Symbol
Quantity
Units
Comment
FSTEP
dB

depending on the frequency step size with respect to
the measurement bandwidth. This can be found by
applying a signal to the generator and adjusting the
frequency of the signal to + and - half the step size
and noting the amplitude change on the receiver
Mismatch
dB

receiver and the antenna plus cable. The uncertainty
coefficient magnitudes.
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB

series of repeated readings on a stable EUT (e.g. a
readings were made.
REUT
dB

compliance.
PAG E 1 8 0 F 3 6
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
Radiated Field Strength 30 dBV/m to 60 dBV/m

Biconical antenna 30 MHz to 300 MHz - Vertical Polarisation at 3 m and 10 m
Symbol
Value
distribution
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
RI
Receiver Indication
0.05
rectangular 1.732
0.03
0.001
dVsw
Receiver Sine Wave
1.00
normal 2
2.000
0.50
0.250
dVpa
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVpr
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVnf
0.50
normal 2
2.000
0.25
0.063
AF
1.00
normal 2
2.000
0.50
0.250
CL
Cable Loss
0.50
normal 2
2.000
0.25
0.063
AD
Antenna Directivity
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
AH

Dependence
2.00
rectangular 1.732
1.15
1.333
AP
Antenna Phase Centre Variation
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
AI

Interpolation
0.25
rectangular 1.732
0.14
0.021
SI
Site Imperfections
4.00
triangular
2.449
1.63
2.667
DV
Measurement Distance Variation
0.60
rectangular 1.732
0.35
0.120
Dbal
Antenna Balance
0.30
rectangular 1.732
0.17
0.030
D Cross
Cross Polarisation
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
Fstep
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
Mismatch
-1.25
U-shaped
-
1.414
-0.88
0.781
0
0
0
0.0069
Receiver VRC
Antenna +Cable VRC
0.2
0.67
RS
Measurement System Repeatability 0.50
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
REUT
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(FS)
normal
2.71
7.327
U(FS)
normal k=
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
0.00
2.00
5.4
0
>7500 0.0069
>7500
PAG E 1 9 0 F 3 6
LAB34

Log periodic antenna 300 MHz to 1 GHz - Vertical Polarisation at 3 m
Symbol
Value
distribution
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
RI
Receiver Indication
0.05
rectangular 1.732
0.03
0.001
dVsw
Receiver Sine Wave
1.00
normal 2
2.000
0.50
0.250
dVpa
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVpr
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVnf
0.50
normal 2
2.000
0.25
0.063
AF
1.00
normal 2
2.000
0.50
0.250
CL
Cable Loss
0.50
normal 2
2.000
0.25
0.063
AD
Antenna Directivity
3.00
rectangular 1.732
1.73
3.000
AH

Dependence
0.50
rectangular 1.732
0.29
0.083
AP
1.00
rectangular 1.732
0.58
0.333
AI

Interpolation
0.25
rectangular 1.732
0.14
0.021
SI
Site Imperfections
4.00
triangular
2.449
1.63
2.667
DV
0.60
rectangular 1.732
0.35
0.120
Dbal
Antenna Balance
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
D Cross
Cross Polarisation
0.90
rectangular 1.732
0.52
0.270
Fstep
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
Mismatch
-0.54
U-shaped
-
1.414
-0.38
0.144
0
0
0
0.0069
Receiver VRC
Antenna +Cable VRC
0.2
0.3
RS
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
REUT
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(y)
normal
3.00
9.014
U(y)
normal k=
PAG E 2 0 0 F 3 6
0.00
2.00
6.0
0
>11000 0.0069
>11000
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34

Log periodic antenna 300 MHz to 1 GHz - Vertical Polarisation at 10 m
Symbol
Value
distribution
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
RI
Receiver Indication
0.05
rectangular 1.732
0.03
0.001
dVsw
Receiver Sine Wave
1.00
normal 2
2.000
0.50
0.250
dVpa
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVpr
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVnf
0.50
normal 2
2.000
0.25
0.063
AF
1.00
normal 2
2.000
0.50
0.250
CL
Cable Loss
0.50
normal 2
2.000
0.25
0.063
AD
Antenna Directivity
1.00
rectangular 1.732
1.58
0.333
AH

Dependence
0.10
rectangular 1.732
0.06
0.003
AP
0.20
rectangular 1.732
0.12
0.013
AI

Interpolation
0.25
rectangular 1.732
0.14
0.021
SI
Site Imperfections
4.00
triangular
2.449
1.63
2.667
DV
0.30
rectangular 1.732
0.17
0.030
Dbal
Antenna Balance
0.90
rectangular 1.732
0.52
0.270
D Cross
Cross Polarisation
0.00
rectangular 1.732
0.00
0.000
Fstep
0.40
rectangular 1.732
0.23
0.053
Mismatch
-0.54
U-shaped
-
1.414
-0.38
0.144
0
0
0
0.0069
Receiver VRC
Antenna +Cable VRC
0.2
0.3
RS
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
REUT
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(y)
normal
2.43
5.911
U(y)
normal k=
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
0.00
2.00
4.9
0
>5000 0.0069
>5000
PAG E 2 1 0 F 3 6
LAB34
A5.
Measurement of Disturbance Power

to be:
PD= RI +dVSW+dVPA+dVPR+dVNF+LC+LAC+dE+M+RS+REUT
Symbol
Quantity
Units
Comment
PD
Disturbance Power
dBpW
Ambient Signals
dBpW
The uncertainty due to ambient signals is not

included in this budget because it is very level
dependent. The effect of ambient signals must be
considered in the measurement procedure and step
taken to deal with likely errors as directed in CISPR
16-2.
RI
Receiver Indication
dBV

obtained from the manufacturer's specification
supported by appropriate calibration. It includes the
uncertainty of CW calibration and pulse response.
The probability distribution is assumed to be normal
(k=2).
dVSW
Receiver Sine Wave
dB
dVPA
dB
dVPR
dB
dVNF
dB
error due to signal to noise ratio reducing
LC
Attenuation Clamp/receiver
dB
Cable losses between the receiver and the Absorbing

Clamp
LAC
Absorbing Clamp Ins Loss
dB
Error in the insertion loss calibration of the absorbing

clamp, imported from Calibration certificate
dE
Effect of environment
dB
effect due to reflecting/conducting objects in the area

surrounding the clamp and test system
Mismatch
dB

receiver and the antenna plus cable. The uncertainty
coefficient magnitudes as described in section 3.4.3
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB

series of repeated readings on a stable EUT (eg a
readings were made. See section 3.2.5
REUT
dB

compliance. See section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3
PAG E 2 2 0 F 3 6
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
Disturbance Power 30 MHz to 300 MHz
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
0.03
0.001
rectangular 1.732
0.58
0.333
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
1.50
rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
dVNF
0.00
normal 2
2.000
0.00
0.000
LC
Attenuation Clamp/receiver
0.10
normal 2
2.000
0.05
0.003
LAC
Absorbing Clamp Ins Loss
3.00
normal 2
2.000
1.50
2.250
dE
Effect of environment
0.80
rectangular 1.732
0.46
0.213
Mismatch
-0.63
U-shaped
-0.45
0.199
Symbol
Value
distribution
RI
Receiver Reading
0.05
rectangular 1.732
dVSW
Receiver Sine Wave
1.00
dVPA
dVPR
1.414
0.2
0.35
RS
0.50
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
REUT
0.00
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(FS)
normal
2.18
4.749
U(FS)
normal k= 2.00
4.36
A6.
Electrostatic Discharge
The approach for the presentation of the
uncertainty budget for ESD tests relates to note 2
of clause 5.4.6.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:1999 which
states, In those cases where a well-recognized
test method specifies limits to the values of the
major sources of uncertainty of measurement and
specifies the form of presentation of calculated
results, the laboratory is considered to have
satisfied this clause by following the test method
and reporting instructions. Therefore the
requirements for measurement uncertainty in ESD
0.007
0
>3000
0.007
>3000
testing are deemed to have been satisfied if the

laboratory can show that the ESD generator
meets the requirements of the relevant standard,
(e.g. EN 61000-4-2:1995 section 6), and the
testing is reported in accordance with the
relevant standards, (e.g. EN 61000-4-2:1995
section 9 and ISO/IEC 17025:1999 section 5.10).
An example of the presentation of this
justification is shown below for the negative
discharge current, negative voltage and negative
rise time in EN 61000-4-2:1995.
Negative Discharge Current

From Calibration Certificate
From Standard
2kV
First
Peak Current
Current at 30ns
Current
at 60ns
Measured
First Peak
Current
7.69
1st peak
Worst
case
+5%
Measured
Current
at 30ns
30ns
Worst
case
+5%
Measured
Current
at 60ns
60ns
Worst
case
-5%
8.07
4.54
4.77
1.92
1.82
Nominal
7.5
Min
6.75
2.8
1.4
6.75
2.8
1.4
Max
8.25
5.2
2.6
8.25
5.2
2.6
Tolerance in %
10%
30%
30%
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
PAG E 2 3 0 F 3 6
LAB34
Negative Discharge Current

From Standard
First
Peak Current
Current at 30ns
4kV
Nominal
Current
at 60ns
Measured
First Peak
Current
15.1
1st peak
Worst
case
+5%
Measured
Current
at 30ns
30ns
Worst
case
+5%
Measured
Current
at 60ns
60ns
Worst
case
-5%
14.35
8.95
9.40
4.17
4.38
15
Min
13.5
5.6
2.8
13.5
5.6
2.8
Max
16.5
10.4
5.2
16.5
10.4
5.2
Tolerance in %
10%
30%
30%
From Standard
First
Peak Current
Current at 30ns
6kV
Current
at 60ns
Measured
First Peak
Current
22.1
1st peak
Worst
case
+5%
Measured
Current
at 30ns
30ns
Worst
case
+5%
Measured
Current
at 60ns
60ns
Worst
case
-5%
21.00
13.6
14.28
6.59
6.92
Nominal
22.5
12
Min
20.25
8.4
4.2
20.25
8.4
4.2
Max
24.75
15.6
7.8
24.75
15.6
7.8
Tolerance in %
10%
30%
30%
From Standard
First
Peak Current
Current at 30ns
8kV
Current
at 60ns
Measured
First Peak
Current
30.2
1st peak
Worst
case
+5%
Measured
Current
at 30ns
30ns
Worst
case
+5%
Measured
Current
at 60ns
60ns
Worst
case
-5%
31.71
18.6
19.53
8.83
9.27
Nominal
30
16
Min
27
11.2
5.6
27
11.2
5.6
Max
33
20.8
10.4
33
20.8
10.4
10%
30%
30%
Tolerance in %
Negative Discharge Voltage

Standard Parameters
Calculated Range
Indicated Voltage
Tolerance
Max.
Min.
From calibration
certificate
Max Value
Min Value
kV
kV
kV
kV
kV
kV
10
2.20
1.80
2.01
2.04
1.98
10
4.40
3.60
4.00
4.05
3.95
10
6.60
5.40
5.94
6.01
5.87
10
8.80
7.20
8.05
8.14
7.96
15
10
16.50
13.50
14.98
15.14
14.82
PAG E 2 4 0 F 3 6
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
Negative Rise Time

Standard Parameters
T max.
1ns
T min
0.7ns
Calculated Range
Measured
Rise
Time
Worst
Case max.
+6%
Worst
Case min.
-6%
2kV
0.72
0.763
0.677
4kV
0.741
0.785
0.697
6kV
0.751
0.796
0.706
8kV
0.758
0.803
0.713
Indicated Voltage
- Indicates
areas that are potentially not
within the standard
The comparison also needs to be performed for the

positive discharge current, positive voltage and positive
rise times.
The tolerances in EN 61000-4-2:1995 are reduced by
the uncertainty reported on the calibration certificate for
the measurement. If all the parameters are within the
tolerances required by the standard, reduced by the
uncertainty reported on the calibration certificate, then
the laboratory has confidence that the ESD generator is
compliant with the standard with a 95% confidence
level.
If, as in the example above, the comparison shows that
the ESD generator falls outside the tolerances required
by the standard, reduced by the uncertainty reported on
the calibration certificate, then the laboratory may have
to adjust the generator to ensure it does fit or report a
reduced confidence level. It may not always be possible
to demonstrate that a generator is within the tolerances
required by the standard because of the magnitude of
the uncertainties available from calibration laboratories.
The following is an example form of words that can be
put on a test report to describe the procedure followed.
It has been demonstrated that the ESD generator meets
the specified requirements in the standard with at least a
95% confidence.
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
PAG E 2 5 0 F 3 6
LAB34
A7.
Radiated Immunity
the value is related to the standard severity level

(e.g.3 V/m) to provide an increased test level
which accounts for the uncertainty in the test
configuration.
The measurement uncertainty budget below is

based on the assumption that it has been
demonstrated during calibration that the 6 dB
field uniformity has been achieved. Once the
expanded uncertainty has been calculated then

FS=FSM+FSAW+PD+PAH+FD+RS+REUT
Symbol
Quantity
Units
Comment
FS
Field Strength
dBV
FSM
Field Strength monitor
dBV
As reported on the Field Probe calibration certificate
FSAW
Field Strength
acceptability window
dB
Usually a set parameter to allow the software to

accept a value for field strength that is within an
acceptable window of the calibration level.
PD
Forward power
Measurement Drift
dB
A function of the power meter or other device

connected to monitor forward power
PAH
Power Amplifier Harmonics
dB
Contribution due to inclusion of amplifier distortion

in power meter reading
FD
Effect of field disturbance
dB
Possible effects due to table and/ supporting

structures
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB

series of repeated readings on a stable EUT. It should
include typical variations that will occur in normal
testing.
REUT
dB

compliance.
Re-establishment of pre-calibrated field level
Symbol
Value
distribution
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
FSM
1.20
Normal 2
FSAW
2.000
0.60
0.360
Field Strength acceptability window 0.50
Rectangular 1.732
0.29
0.083
PD
Forward power Measurement Drift
0.20
Rectangular 1.732
0.12
0.013
PAH
0.35
Rectangular 1.732
0.20
0.041
FD
0.35
Rectangular 1.732
0.20
0.041
RS
0.50
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
0.007
REUT
0.00
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(FS)
normal
0.89
0.788
U(FS)
normal k=
2.00
1.78
k=1.64
90%
1.46
PAG E 2 6 0 F 3 6
0
89
0.007
89
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
Based on the guidance in section 4.6, the test levels

should be increased by the expanded uncertainty and
the test performed at the following levels. This approach
may be modified subject to the other sections of
section 4.
Specified Level
Test level
For 1 Volts
1.18
For 3 Volts
3.55
For 10 Volts
11.83
Note however that the value of k has been modified to

1.64 giving an expanded uncertainty of 90%, when the
level is adjusted by this amount the resulting confidence
that the actual level required had been applied would be
approximately 95%.
The previous example can be adapted to provide an

estimation of the uncertainty using a dynamic feedback
mechanism, e.g. for IEC 801-3:1994 testing.
It should be noted that although this uncertainty appears
to be less than the calibrated field example above, the
method itself is inherently less accurate due to the
unknown influence of the unspecified semi-anechoic
chamber and the significant variations caused by
reflections from the EUT. A statement such as the
uncertainty does not include the influence possible due
to the semi-anechoic chamber or the variations of
measured field strength due to reflections from the EUT
would help to clarify that these influences are not
accommodated within the specified method.
Dynamic feedback field level
Symbol
Value
distribution
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
FSM
1.20
Normal 2
FSAW
2.000
0.60
0.360
Field Strength acceptability window 0.50
Rectangular 1.732
0.29
0.083
PAH
0.35
Rectangular 1.732
0.20
0.041
FD
0.35
Rectangular 1.732
0.20
0.041
RS
0.50
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
0.007
REUT
0.00
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(FS)
normal
0.88
0.775
U(FS)
normal k=
2.00
1.76
k=1.64
90%
1.44
0
86
0.007
86
Based on the guidance in section 4.6, the test levels

should be increased by the expanded uncertainty and
the test performed at the following levels. This approach
may be modified subject to the other sections of
section 4.
Specified Level
Test level
For 1 Volts
1.18
For 3 Volts
3.54
For 10 Volts
11.81
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
PAG E 2 7 0 F 3 6
LAB34
A8.
Electrical fast transient/burst immunity
A10.
The approach to the presentation of the

uncertainty budget for the fast burst transients test
should follow the example and justification
presented in section A6 for the ESD test.
A9.
Conducted Immunity
The Measurement in case A is assumed to have
been performed according to the CDN method
of the EN 61000-4-6. Case B applies when the
current is limited according to section 7.3 of
EN 61000-4-6.
Surge Immunity
uncertainty budget for the surge transient test
should follow the example and justification
presented in section A6 for the ESD test.
Case A
CVL=VRMS+VLAW+PD+PAH+MVC+MAC+RS+REUT
Case B
MIC=SA+CC+MCC+MCA+RS+REUT
Symbol
Quantity
Units
Comment
CVL
Conducted Induced
Voltage Level
dBV
This is the level we are trying to achieve - the

equivalent of the measurement (measurand).
MIC
Maximum Induced Current
dBmA
This is the result of the measurement (measurand) if

the current maximum is achieved.
VRMS
RMS Voltmeter
dB
Specified for the measuring device for the output RF

voltage level.
VLAW
Voltage level
acceptability window
dB
Usually a set parameter to allow the software to

accept a value for induced voltage that is within an
acceptable window of the calibration level.
PD
Signal generator Drift
dB
A function of the Signal Generator output level and

long term repeatability
PAH
dB
Contribution due to inclusion of amplifier distortion

in voltmeter or power meter reading
CC
Current coil Calibration
dB
Contribution from the calibration of the current coil.

The calibration result is used to calculate the
equivalent dBuV reading on the Spectrum Analyser
dependant on current induced.
SA
Spectrum Analyser
dB
Contribution from the spectrum analyser absolute

accuracy and Frequency response
MVC
Mismatch Voltmeter to CDN
dB
Mismatch due to the Voltmeter connection to the

output of the CDN
MAC
Mismatch Amplifier to CDN
dB
Mismatch due to the Amplifier connection to the

input of the CDN
MCC
Mismatch Coil to Cable
dB
Mismatch due to the Coil (current probe) connection

to the Cable
MCA
Mismatch Cable to Analyser
dB
Mismatch due to the Cable connection to the

Spectrum Analyser
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB

testing.
REUT
dB

compliance.
PAG E 2 8 0 F 3 6
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
Case A - Re-establishment of pre-calibrated Conducted field level
Symbol
Value
distribution
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
VRMS
RMS Voltmeter
0.70
Rectangular 1.732
0.40
0.163
VLAW
Voltage level acceptability window
0.50
Rectangular 1.732
0.29
0.083
PD
Signal generator Drift
0.20
Rectangular 1.732
0.12
0.013
PAH
0.70
Rectangular 1.732
0.40
0.163
MVC
Mismatch
-0.54
U-shaped
-
1.414
-0.38
0.144
0
0
0
-1.16
U-shaped
-
1.414
-0.82
0.673
0
0
0
0.007
rms Voltmeter= 0.2

CDN=0.3
MAC
Mismatch
Amplifier= 0.5
CDN+6dB attenuator=0.25
RS
0.50
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
REUT
0.00
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(V)
normal
1.22
1.490
U(V)
normal k=
2.00
2.4
k=1.64
90%
2.06
In the example below the test level was increased by the

full uncertainty of 2.3 dB to ensure that any changes in
the EUT behaviour are identified when subjected to the
specification test level. However, In the standard EN
61000-4-6 the requirement specified in EN 61000-4-6
paragraph 6.4.1 gives a tolerance on the set level of +/2 dB or 25%. The following paragraph may be relevant:
0
320
0.007
320
*Alternatively, it is reasonable that the manufacturer

should be able to benefit from any tolerances in the test
levels as stated in the test specification, in this case it
may be acceptable to the client to only increase the test
level by any additional uncertainty over and above that
allowed, i.e. in the example below the level would be
increased by 0.06 dB instead of 2.06 dB.
Case B - Limiting of pre-calibrated Conducted Voltage Level by Monitor Coil
Symbol
Value
distribution
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
SA
Spectrum Analyser
1.50
Rectangular 1.732
0.87
0.750
CC
Current coil Calibration
1.00
normal 2
2.000
0.50
0.250
MCC
Mismatch between Coil and Cable -0.26

Coil=0.3
Cable=0.1
U-shaped
-
1.414
-0.19
0.035
0
0
0
MCA
Mismatch between
Cable and Analyser
-0.18
U-shaped
-
1.414
-0.12
0.015
0
0
0
0.007
Cable=0.1
Analyser=0.2
RS
0.50
normal 1
1.000
0.50
0.250
REUT
0.00
normal 1
1.000
0.00
0.000
uc(V)
normal
1.14
1.300
U(V)
normal k=
2.00
2.3
k=1.64
90%
1.87
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
0
>200
0.007
>200
PAG E 2 9 0 F 3 6
LAB34
Once the expanded uncertainty has been calculated

then the value is related to the standard severity level
(e.g. 3 Vrms) to provide an increased test level which
Specified Level
accounts for the uncertainty in the test configuration.

This guidance is based on section 4.6 and may be
modified subject to the other provisions of section 4.
Test level
*Alternative Test level
Uo/150
Limit level
For 1 Volts
1.27
1.01
6.67mA
8.27
For 3 Volts
3.80
3.02
20mA
24.80
For 10 Volts
12.68
10.07
60mA
74.41
A11.
Voltage dips, short interruptions and voltage

variations immunity tests Immunity
uncertainty budget for the voltage dips, short
interruptions and voltage variations test follows
the example and justification presented in section
A6 for the ESD test.
A12. Internal Calibration

Laboratories are required to calculate an
uncertainty budget for all internal calibrations
performed. Insertion loss is a common internal
calibration performed and this will be used as the
basis for the example.
IL=IE+CE+SEM+EDM+TR+RS+REUT
Symbol
Quantity
Units
Comment
IL
Insertion Loss
dBuV
IE
Instrument error
dB
Error due to vertical amplifier of analyser a nominal

0.1 dB is entered for the low loss case but may need
to be increased if High losses are measured i.e.
0.1dB/10dB may be the specification.
CE
Calibration error due

to mismatch
dB
Mismatch between Source and Detector ports
SEM
Source-EUT mismatch
Mismatch between Source and EUT input
EDM
EUT Detector mismatch
Mismatch between EUT output and Network

Analyser detector or receive port
TR
Tracking term
RS
Measurement System
Repeatability
dB

testing. See section 3.2.5.
REUT
dB

compliance. See section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. The
standard uncertainty can be derived from the
standard deviation divided by the n of samples.
PAG E 3 0 0 F 3 6
Mismatch between Source and Detector ports

through the low loss of EUT not relevant if loss >
6dB
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
Insertion Loss Uncertainty Budget
Symbol
Value
distribution
ui(y)
(ui(y))2 vi or
veff
Ui4(y)
IE
Instrument error
0.1000
Rectangular 1.732
0.06
0.003
CE
Calibration error due to mismatch

Source Match =0.1
Detector Match =0.1
-0.0873 u-shaped
-
1.414
-0.06
0.004
SEM
Source-EUT mismatch
Source Match =0.1
EUT Match =0.1
-0.0873 u-shaped
-
1.414
-0.06
0.004
EDM
EUT Detector mismatch

EUT Match =0.1
Detector Match =0.1
-0.0873 u-shaped
-
1.414
-0.06
0.004
TR
Tracking term
Source Match =0.1
Loss coefficient forward =0.95
Loss coefficient reverse =0.95
Detector Match =0.1
-0.0787 u-shaped
-
1.414
-0.06
0.003
RS
0.0516
normal 1
1.000
0.05
0.003
7.9E-7
REUT
0.0408
normal 1
1.000
0.04
0.002
9.3E-7
uc(FS)
normal
0.15
0.022
>200
1.7E-06
U(FS)
normal k = 2.00
0.30
>200
The example assumes that the cables or items tested

were configurable within the measurement set-up
without the use of adaptors. Considering the case where
an N male to male adaptor was used during calibration,
there would need to be a small uncertainty contribution
for its loss and match, this is considered small up to the
1 GHz range. A more rigorous approach would be
needed to address measurements above 1 GHz.
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
PAG E 3 1 0 F 3 6
LAB34
APPENDIX B
The criteria given in paragraph 3.6 to determine the

need to use the procedure given in this Appendix is
based on the conclusion that if uc(y) / u(qk ) > 2.35 and
n > 2 and all the other contributions are assumed to
have infinite degrees of freedom, then veff > 30,
(i.e. 2.354), giving a value for kp of less than 2.09, which
can be approximated by k = 2.
Calculation of kp
When random errors in a measurement system are
comparable in magnitude to the systematic errors the
expanded uncertainty calculated from U=kuc(y) may
mean that the level of confidence is less than that
required, e.g. <95%, unless a large number of repeat
readings has been made.
This is based on the assumption that approximations

should not change the value of the reported uncertainty
by more than 5% (i.e. k has to be less than 2.1 before it
can be approximated to 2).
In these circumstances a coverage factor kp will need to

be obtained from the t-distribution, based on the
effective degrees of freedom, veff, of uc(y) and the
required level of confidence.
The effective degrees of freedom are calculated from:
veff =
uc4(y)
u14(y) u24(y) u34(y)
u 4(y)
+
+
+ N
.....
v1
v2
v3
vN
The degrees of freedom, vi, of the standard uncertainties

based on type B evaluation can be assumed to be
infinite in most cases, but if the uncertainty is obtained
from a limited number of repeated measurements or
observations then vi = n - 1, as in the case of the type A
evaluations.
The value of kp is obtained from t-distribution tables for
the appropriate level of confidence. The following table
gives values of kp for various degrees of freedom veff for
a level of confidence of 95%, (actually 95.45%). Values
of kp for other levels of confidence are given in
reference [1].
Veff
10
20
30
kp
13.97
4.53
3.31
2.87
2.65
2.52
2.43
2.37
2.28
2.13
2.09
2.0
PAG E 3 2 0 F 3 6
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
APPENDIX C
Calculation of uncertainty in logarithmic or linear

quantities
Many measurements made for EMC testing are in terms
of logarithmic quantities with their uncertainties in dB.
Test specifications are also given in these terms, e.g.
dBV. However, other measurements are made in linear
terms with uncertainties in relative values, e.g.
percentage values. When an evaluation is made to
combine the uncertainty contributions the resulting
expanded uncertainty may be different depending on
whether logarithmic or linear uncertainty contributions
have been used in the calculation.
It is important to note that when using a simplified

approach to uncertainty calculations, that is one where
all the sensitivity coefficients are unity, the mathematical
model, when using relative uncertainties, must contain
only multiplication or division of the contributions. The
uncertainty budget A12 in Appendix A is an example of
this. The simple mathematical model for logarithmic
quantities must contain only additions or subtractions of
the contributions. An example of this can be seen in
uncertainty budget A2.
Whether it is more appropriate to combine uncertainties

in linear form or logarithmic form will depend upon
whether their probability distributions can be better
described in linear or logarithmic form. If the
uncertainties for the major contributions are supplied in
terms of dB it can only be assumed that the probability
distribution that is assigned to them should also be in
dB. The RSS evaluation of the combined uncertainty is
then more accurately calculated if the uncertainty
contributions remain as logarithmic functions. Likewise,
if the uncertainties for the major contributions are
supplied in linear terms then the uncertainty calculation
is more correct using contributions in linear quantities.
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
PAG E 3 3 0 F 3 6
PAG E 3 4 0 F 3 6
LAB34
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
LAB34
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2
PAG E 3 5 0 F 3 6
PAG E 3 6 0 F 3 6
LAB34
E D I T I O N 1 | AU G U S T 2 0 0 2

Uncertainty Emc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uncertainty Emc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uncertainty Emc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAB34

The Expression of Uncertainty

Steps in establishing an uncertainty budget

Compliance with specification

Appendix A Examples of typical uncertainty budgets

Appendix C Calculation of uncertainty in logarithmic or linear quantities 33

THE UNITED KINGDOM ACCREDITATION SERVICE (UKAS) IS RECOGNISED BY THE UK

The standard ISO/IEC 17025 used for laboratory

used and the method of test. Examples of

If a test specification standard requires

ISO/IEC 17025 also recognises that the

In cases where a well-recognised test method

This publication does not define or recommend

The objective of a measurement is to determine

systematic component. Uncertainty arises from

Random errors arise from random variations of the

Systematic errors arise from systematic effects,

repeated under the same conditions, and their

The Guide has adopted the approach of grouping

Components of uncertainty are evaluated by the

The standard uncertainty components are

An expanded uncertainty is usually required to

3 STEPS IN ESTABLISHING AN UNCERTAINTY BUDGET

Decide on the range of measurement to which

Type A evaluation of uncertainty components.

3.2.1 Random effects result in errors that vary in an

where q is the mean value of the

3.2.2 The random component of uncertainty can be

3.2.3 Practical considerations will normally mean that

3 STEPS IN ESTABLISHING AN UNCERTAINTY BUDGET CONTD

3.2.4 A value for the random contributions of the

Type B evaluation: list all the other significant

3.3.1 Contributions to uncertainty arising from

3.3.2 Normally, all corrections that can be applied to

3.3.3 The individual uncertainty contributions must be

In these cases it is recommended that the

3.3.4 It is relatively straightforward to assign a value to

3.3.5 Most contributions to uncertainty can be

3.3.6 The basis of the simplified approach taken in LAB

Assign a probability distribution and determine

The probability distribution of the measured

For U-Shaped Distributions:

For triangular distributions:

where k = 2 if the reported level of confidence is

where ai is half the length of the interval given by

where ai is half the length of the interval given by

Determine the combined standard uncertainty.

3.5.1 Sensitivity Coefficients

Any contributions with known or suspected

3.5.1 Sensitivity Coefficients contd

3.5.2 Correlated Input Quantities

3.5.3 Combined Standard Uncertainty

Determine the expanded uncertainty.

The combined uncertainty, uc(y), is obtained by

When reporting the result and its uncertainty, the

In line with UKAS and EA recommendations

3.7.1 Special cases

Unless otherwise specified, the result of the

Measured value 30.1 [units]

4 COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATION