energies

Article
Shielding Effectiveness Simulation of Small
Perforated Shielding Enclosures Using FEM
Zdeněk Kubík * and Jiří Skála

Department of Applied Electronics and Telecommunications, University of West Bohemia, Pilsen 30614,
Czech Republic; skalaj@kae.zcu.cz
* Correspondence: zdekubik@kae.zcu.cz; Tel.: +420-377-634-268

Academic Editor: Rodolfo Araneo

Received: 6 January 2016; Accepted: 18 February 2016; Published: 25 February 2016

Abstract: Numerical simulation of shielding effectiveness (SE) of a perforated shielding enclosure is

carried out, using the finite element method (FEM). Possibilities of model definitions and differences
between 2D and 3D models are discussed. An important part of any simulation is verification of
the model results—here the simulation result are verified in terms of convergence of the model in
dependence on the degrees of freedom (DOF) and by measurements. The experimental method is
based on measurement of electric field inside the enclosure using an electric field probe with small
dimensions is described in the paper. Solution of an illustrative example of SE by FEM is shown and
simulation results are verified by experiments.

Keywords: electromagnetic compatibility (EMC); measurement; shielding effectiveness (SE);

shielding enclosure; finite element method (FEM); simulation

1. Introduction
Nowadays, electronic devices contain a lot of highly energized parts, including processors,
field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), power supplies and high-speed communications buses.
But all these parts work on relatively low voltage levels and, therefore, they may often become
victims of electromagnetic interference. One of its sources is high-speed data transmission. For these
reasons, there exist many standards and recommendations concerning electromagnetically compatible
environments. One part of electronic devices supporting a good level of EMC is electromagnetic
shielding. Electromagnetic shielding mostly consists of shielding enclosures, gaskets, and ventilation
structures. The shielding effectiveness (SE) is the term describing the quality of the shielding. There
exist standards for SE measurement of shielding enclosures, but these standards do not respect the
current trend—reduction of the device dimensions. For example, the IEEE standard for measuring
the effectiveness of electromagnetic shielding enclosures [1] describes the measurement procedure for
any enclosure having a smallest linear dimension greater or equal to 2.0 m. The question is, how to
measure SE of such enclosures; the dimension of the measuring antenna depends on the wavelength
and this antenna must be placed inside the shielding enclosures. If this is not possible, numerical
or analytical methods can be used for determining SE. Analytical methods for SE calculation of the
shielding enclosures with aperture are described in [2,3]. The numerical methods are well usable
here, because it is easy to change geometry of the model. There are many suitable methods, including
finite element method (FEM), method of moments (MoM), finite difference time domain method
(FDTD) and others derived from them. Many papers can be found that deal with SE modelling—very
interesting ones are [4–7]. This paper starts from previous articles [8–10] that are related to the problem
of SE simulation.

Energies 2016, 9, 129; doi:10.3390/en9030129 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2016, 9, 129 2 of 12

1.1. Shielding effectiveness

The shielding effectiveness for electric and magnetic field is defined as the ratio (expressed in
decibels) between the absolute value of electric field E1 (or magnetic field H1 ) at a point in space
without the shielding and the absolute value of electric field E2 (or magnetic field H2 ) at the same
point in space with the shielding [1]:

|E1 |
SEE “ 20 ¨ log rdBs , (1)
|E2 |

|H1 |
SEH “ 20 ¨ log rdBs (2)
|H2 |
These definitions are applicable for theoretical calculations and for situation where dimensions
of the measuring antenna are negligible compared with the dimensions of the measured shielding
enclosure. In real measurement cases, however, the measuring antenna does not have negligible
dimensions and the measured values depend on the location of the antenna inside the enclosure. This
problem is caused by the cavity resonances of the enclosure that decrease the SE.
Similar problems exist for simulations—there it is necessary to use the definition where the field
is integrated through the whole cavity of the enclosure. The global shielding effectiveness (GSEs) for
an electric/magnetic field is defined by [11]:
r
E1 dV
GSEE “ 20 ¨ log V
r rdBs , (3)
V E2 dV
r
H1 dV
GSEH “ 20 ¨ log rV rdBs (4)
V H2 dV
Numerous factors decrease the SE of enclosures. There exist two most important factors: the first
one is the cavity resonance of the box and the second one are the presence of apertures in the enclosure.
The cavity resonance frequencies f r are given by the formula [12]:
c´ ¯
1 m 2 ´ n ¯2 ´ p ¯2
fr “ ? ` ` rHzs (5)
2 µε a b c

where µ and ε represent the material parameters—permeability and permittivity of the cavity, a, b
and c are the dimensions of the cavity (inside dimensions of the enclosure) and indexes m, n and
p correspond to the resonance mode. The influence of the cavity resonances on SE is not easy to
determine, because the influence of the field strength inside the cavity on the resonance depends on
the quality factor Q of the resonator, which is often unknown.
Apertures in the enclosures have also a significant effect on the SE. The theoretical SE of a circular
aperture with diameter r placed in a perfect shielding plate is [13]:

λ
SEap “ 20 ¨ log rdBs (6)
2π ¨ r
and the SE for structure with n apertures (where the distance between apertures is less than a
half-wavelength) is given by [13]:

λ
SEn´ap “ 20 ¨ log ? rdBs (7)
2π ¨ r ¨ n

One of the ways for obtaining a high SE of the shielding enclosure is using cable glands, shielded
air vent panels (honeycomb structures), and shielding gaskets.
Energies 2016, 9, 129 3 of 12
Energies 2016, 9, 129  3 of 12 

1.2. Definitions of Numerical Models

1.2. Definitions of Numerical Models 
The most important numerical methods for SE simulation are the finite element method, finite
The most important numerical methods for SE simulation are the finite element method, finite 
difference time domain method, method of moments, and their modifications. The general geometries
difference time domain method, method of moments, and their modifications. The general geometries 
of the models are similar for all these methods, but the definitions—initial and boundary conditions,
of the models are similar for all these methods, but the definitions—initial and boundary conditions, 
distribution of
distribution  of mesh—could
mesh—could  be be 
different. The The 
different.  model consists
model  of a free
consists  of space surrounding
a  free  the excitation
space  surrounding  the 
source and geometry of the shielding enclosure (see Figure 1). Of course, from the definition of the SE,
excitation source and geometry of the shielding enclosure (see Figure 1). Of course, from the definition 
there
of  the isSE, 
necessary
there  is tonecessary 
calculate to 
two models—one
calculate  with the enclosure
two  models—one  andenclosure 
with  the  one without
and itone 
(only with the
without  it 
observation area of the same dimensions as the internal dimension of the enclosure).
(only with the observation area of the same dimensions as the internal dimension of the enclosure). 

 
Figure 1. General description of SE model. 
Figure 1. General description of SE model.

The  setting  of  correct  boundary  conditions  of  the  model  is  necessary  for  obtaining  correct 
The setting of correct boundary conditions of the model is necessary for obtaining correct results.
results. For example, the model boundary is usually modeled as a perfect magnetic ( n  H  0 ) or 
For example, the model boundary is usually modeled as a perfect magnetic (n ˆ H “ 0) or electric
electric ( n  E  0 ) conductor, but a better choice is to use perfectly matched layer (PML), where the 
(n ˆ E “ 0) conductor, but a better choice is to use perfectly matched layer (PML), where the transition
transition of the source signal is improved. The boundary of the box should be modeled as a perfect 
of the source signal is improved. The boundary of the box should be modeled as a perfect electric
electric conductor (PEC), when the material of the box is made from a highly conducting material. 
conductor (PEC), when the material of the box is made from a highly conducting material. The
The definition of the source depends on the method used, and for FEM it is possible to use a source 
definition of the source depends on the method used, and for FEM it is possible to use a source of
of electric or magnetic field. 
electric or magnetic field.
The 
The SESE simulations
simulations  can 
can be be  solved 
solved in  two 
in two or  three 
or three dimensions. 
dimensions. For a 2DFor  a  2D  simulation, 
simulation, it  is 
it is necessary
necessary 
to compute to two
compute 
modelstwo  models  represented 
represented by  two 
by two slices slices 
of the of  the  enclosure. 
enclosure. Two sets Two  sets  of 
of results results 
from 2D
from 2D simulations exhibit results comparable with a 3D simulation. The main difference is in the 
simulations exhibit results comparable with a 3D simulation. The main difference is in the solution
solution time, the 3D simulation requires much longer time. On the other side, 2D FEM models can 
time, the 3D simulation requires much longer time. On the other side, 2D FEM models can be calculated
be calculated by a solver with 
by a solver with hp-adaptivity hp of‐adaptivity of the mesh, which provides very accurate results [8]. 
the mesh, which provides very accurate results [8].

2. 3D Finite Element Method (FEM) Numerical Model 
2. 3D Finite Element Method (FEM) Numerical Model
For finite element analysis in the frequency domain, the governing wave equation can be written as: 
For finite element analysis in the frequency domain, the governing wave equation can be written as:

1 1    E   k 22  ε  jσjσ E  
ˆ ˙
∇ˆ  p∇ ˆ Eq “ k00  εrr ´  E (8)
µr μ r  ωε
ωε0 0

where 
where µ μrr  represents 
represents the 
the relative 
relative permeability, 
permeability, εrr  stands 
stands for 
for the 
the relative 
relative permittivity, 
permittivity, σ 
σ is  electric 
is electric
conductivity, ε00 represents the vacuum permittivity, and 
conductivity, ε represents the vacuum permittivity, and k00 is the wave number of free space defined 
is the wave number of free space defined
by the equation: 
by the equation:
? ω
k 0 “ ω ε 0 µ0 “ ω (9)
k0  ω ε0μ 0  c   (9)
The source is modeled as an electric point dipole, thecvector of electric current dipole moment
beingThe source is modeled as an electric point dipole, the vector of electric current dipole moment 
P “ r0; 0; 1s m ¨ A.
The
being  0;0;1   mbox
P shielding  A is
.  approximated by a PEC, where:
The shielding box is approximated by a PEC, where: 
nˆE “ 0 (10)
nE0  (10)
For the analysis of fringing fields, a sphere of air was added around the model that is overlaid with
For the analysis of fringing fields, a sphere of air was added around the model that is overlaid 
a perfectly matched layer (PML). PML absorbs all radiated waves with small reflections by stretching
with  a  perfectly  matched  layer  (PML).  PML  absorbs  all  radiated  waves  with  small  reflections  by 
stretching the virtual domains into the complex plane using the following coordinate transform for 
the general space variable t: 
Energies 2016, 9, 129 4 of 12

the virtual domains into the complex plane using the following coordinate transform for the general
space variable t:
t n
Energies 2016, 9, 129  ˆ ˙ 4 of 12 
t1 “ p1 ´ iq λF (11)
Energies 2016, 9, 129 
∆w n 4 of 12 
 t 
t´  
where ∆w is the width of the PML region, n represents  1the
 i PML
λF   order, λ is the frequency, and(11)
F denotes
  w n 2
the scaling factor. The imaginary unit i satisfies the
t  equation i = ´ 1.
where  Δw  is  the  width  of  the  PML  region,   1  i the 
t´ n  represents  λF  PML  order,  λ  is  the  frequency,  and 
(11)F 
 w 
3. Illustrative Example
denotes the scaling factor. The imaginary unit  i satisfies the equation i2 = − 1. 
where  Δw  is  the  width  of  the  PML  region,  n  represents  the  PML  order,  λ  is  the  frequency,  and  F 
A rectangular prism shielding enclosure was
3. Illustrative Example 
denotes the scaling factor. The imaginary unit  used for this illustrative
i satisfies the equation  i2 = − 1.  example of SE simulation.
Its dimensions are 291 mm ˆ 277 mm ˆ 243 mm and the thickness of its wall is 1 mm. The circular
A rectangular prism shielding enclosure was used for this illustrative example of SE simulation. 
aperture3. Illustrative Example 
of 10 mm diameter
Its  dimensions  is placed
are  291  mm  in the
×  277  mm  center
×  243  of the
mm  and  the area 277 mm
thickness  of  its ˆ 243is mm
wall  (see
1  mm.  Figure
The  2a). The
circular 
cavity dimensions are 289 mm ˆ 275 mm ˆ 241 mm.
A rectangular prism shielding enclosure was used for this illustrative example of SE simulation. 
aperture of 10 mm diameter is placed in the center of the area 277 mm × 243 mm (see Figure 2a). The 
cavity dimensions are 289 mm × 275 mm × 241 mm. 
Its 
Figure dimensions  are  291 
2b represents mm  ×  277  mm 
a spherical area× of243 
themm FEMand model.
the  thickness 
Thereof are
its  visible
wall  is  1 four
mm. regions,
The  circular 
the first of
Figure 2b represents a spherical area of the FEM model. There are visible four regions, the first 
aperture of 10 mm diameter is placed in the center of the area 277 mm × 243 mm (see Figure 2a). The 
them representing the PMLs (on the model boundary) followed by a free space (surrounding enclosure).
cavity dimensions are 289 mm × 275 mm × 241 mm. 
of  them  representing  the  PMLs  (on  the  model  boundary)  followed  by  a  free  space  (surrounding 
Inside the free space region there are placed the excitation source and shielding enclosure. The model
Figure 2b represents a spherical area of the FEM model. There are visible four regions, the first 
enclosure).  Inside  the  free  space  region  there  are  placed  the  excitation  source  and  shielding 
represents
of  the worst
them  case; radiation
representing  the  PMLs from themodel 
(on  the  source impactsfollowed 
boundary)  the wallby  with thespace 
a  free  aperture.
enclosure. The model represents the worst case; radiation from the source impacts the wall with the  All parts were
(surrounding 
computed using
enclosure).  Equations (8)–(11) by the software COMSOL Multiphysics.
Inside  the  free  space  region  there  are  placed  the  excitation  source  and  shielding 
aperture. All parts were computed using Equations (8)–(11) by the software COMSOL Multiphysics. 
enclosure. The model represents the worst case; radiation from the source impacts the wall with the 
 
aperture. All parts were computed using Equations (8)–(11) by the software COMSOL Multiphysics. 

 
(a)  (b) 
  The 
Figure  2.  (a)  Dimensions  of  shielding  enclosure  in  millimeter;  (b)  area  of  the  FEM  model. 
Figure 2. (a) Dimensions of shielding(a)  enclosure in millimeter; (b) area of the FEM model. The excitation
(b) 
excitation source is placed at the red point, the enclosure is placed on the opposite side of the model. 
source isHere the dimensions are in m. 
placed at the red point, the enclosure is placed on the opposite side of the model. Here the
Figure  2.  (a)  Dimensions  of  shielding  enclosure  in  millimeter;  (b)  area  of  the  FEM  model.  The 
dimensions are in m.
excitation source is placed at the red point, the enclosure is placed on the opposite side of the model. 
The FE mesh is shown in Figure 3. The size of the mesh was chosen with respect to the accuracy 
Here the dimensions are in m. 
Theof the model—its important parts (shielding enclosure, free space area) were meshed more densely, 
FE mesh is shown in Figure 3. The size of the mesh was chosen with respect to the accuracy
while for PMLs we used sparser mesh. Five layers were used for modeling PMLs. 
The FE mesh is shown in Figure 3. The size of the mesh was chosen with respect to the accuracy 
of the model—its important parts (shielding enclosure, free space area) were meshed more densely,
of the model—its important parts (shielding enclosure, free space area) were meshed more densely, 
while for PMLs we used sparser mesh. Five layers were used for modeling PMLs.
while for PMLs we used sparser mesh. Five layers were used for modeling PMLs. 

 
Figure 3. Distribution of the FE mesh. (a) FE mesh in the whole model. There are visible five layers of 
the PMLs, the black box inside the model represents a very fine FE mesh of the shielding enclosure;   
(b) detail of the FE mesh around the circular aperture of the enclosure. 
Figure 3. Distribution of the FE mesh. (a) FE mesh in the whole model. There are visible five layers of 
Figure 3. Distribution of the FE mesh. (a) FE mesh in the whole model. There are visible five layers of
the PMLs, the black box inside the model represents a very fine FE mesh of the shielding enclosure; 
the PMLs, the black box inside the model represents a very fine FE mesh of the shielding enclosure;
(b) detail of the FE mesh around the circular aperture of the enclosure. 
(b) detail of the FE mesh around the circular aperture of the enclosure.
Energies 2016, 9, 129 5 of 12

Energies 2016, 9, 129  5 of 12 

The model was solved in the frequency domain. The simulation started at 500 MHz and ended at
2500 The model was solved in the frequency domain. The simulation started at 500 MHz and ended 
MHz. The frequency step—with respect to the computation time—was chosen 2.5 MHz. Overall,
at  2500  MHz.  The 
800 simulation runsfrequency  step—with 
were carried out. respect  to  the  computation  time—was  chosen  2.5  MHz. 
Overall, 800 simulation runs were carried out. 
Important part of the simulation is verification of the result accuracy. Computing of the total
Important part of the simulation is verification of the result accuracy. Computing of the total 
electric energy inside the model is one possibility to check the solution accuracy:
electric energy inside the model is one possibility to check the solution accuracy: 
We
we “ We rJ{m 33s (12)
w e V [J/m ]   (12)
V
where V represents the whole volume of the model and energy We is calculated from the expression:
where V represents the whole volume of the model and energy We is calculated from the expression: 
ż ż
1 1 11 2
We “
V 2
dV
We  2 ED dV  2 εε00E
ED “
V 2 
V
E2 dV
V
rJs 
dV [J] (13)
(13)

The accuracy of the solution is good if the total electric energy does not change with the number
The accuracy of the solution is good if the total electric energy does not change with the number 
of the
of  the degrees
degrees ofof freedom
freedom (DOFs). For
(DOFs).  thethe 
For  same
same number of DOFs,
number  the accuracy
of  DOFs,  will be
the  accuracy  better
will  for lower
be  better  for 
frequencies;
lower  much more
frequencies;  DOF
much  must
more  be used
DOF  must  forbe 
high frequencies.
used  for  high  Figure 4 shows
frequencies.  the dependences
Figure  4  shows  the of
total electric energies
dependences  onelectric 
of  total  the number of DOFs
energies  on  of thenumber 
the  model. There are three
of  DOFs  dependences
of  the  corresponding
model.  There  are  three 
to frequencies 500 MHz, 1500 MHz and 2500 MHz. The accuracy of the result at 500 MHz is obviously
dependences corresponding to frequencies 500 MHz, 1500 MHz and 2500 MHz. The accuracy of the 
good. Different situation occurs with frequency 1500 MHz; the good accuracy of result begins
result at 500 MHz is obviously good. Different situation occurs with frequency 1500 MHz; the good 
at 1.15 million of DOFs. The worst situation is at frequency 2500 MHz—the total electric energy
accuracy of result begins at 1.15 million of DOFs. The worst situation is at frequency 2500 MHz—the 
of the model is changing and the accuracy of the result cannot be guaranteed. A model with more  
total electric energy of the model is changing and the accuracy of the result cannot be guaranteed. 
DOF must be solved for high frequencies. The solution of such a model with a high number of DOF,
A model with more DOF must be solved for high frequencies. The solution of such a model with a 
however, requires longer calculation time and higher demands on hardware.
high number of DOF, however, requires longer calculation time and higher demands on hardware. 

-3
x 10
1.2 500 MHz
1500 MHz
1 2500 MHz

0.8
w [Jm-3]

0.6
e

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
DOF [-] x 10
6
 
Figure 
Figure 4. 
4. Total 
Total energy 
energy dependence 
dependence on 
on degree 
degree of 
of freedom 
freedom in 
in the 
the model 
model with 
with shielding 
shielding enclosure. 
enclosure.
Example of the model convergence for frequencies 500 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 2.5 GHz. 
Example of the model convergence for frequencies 500 MHz, 1.5 GHz and 2.5 GHz.

Examples  of  simulation  results  are  shown  in  Figures  5  and  6.  These  figures  represent 
Examples of simulation results are shown in Figures 5 and 6. These figures represent distributions
distributions of electric fields in the model at frequencies 752.5 MHz and 1172.5 MHz. The frequency 
of electric fields in the model at frequencies 752.5 MHz and 1172.5 MHz. The frequency 752.5 MHz
752.5 MHz responds to the lowest resonance mode of the cavity (theoretically at frequency 752.94 MHz). 
responds to the lowest resonance mode of the cavity (theoretically at frequency 752.94 MHz). Figure 5
Figure 5 represents a sectional view of the model. There can be seen its slices in the  x‐y plane and   
represents a sectional view of the model. There can be seen its slices in the x-y plane and z-x
z‐x plane, respectively. 
plane, respectively.
There are visible minima and maxima of electric field inside the cavity; if the field is changing in 
any direction, it responds to resonance mode 1 (or higher) in the same direction. One change from 
minimum  to  maximum  and  again  back  to  minimum  (or  inverse)  represents  one  index  of  the 
resonance  mode.  No  change  of  electric  field  responds  to  zero  resonance  mode  indexes.  The  first 
resonance mode TE110 is at the frequency 752.5 MHz, (x‐y‐z axes, dimensions 289 mm × 275 mm × 
241 mm). A 3D view of the same solution is shown in Figure 6. 
Energies 2016, 9, 129 6 of 12
Energies 2016, 9, 129  6 of 12 
Energies 2016, 9, 129  6 of 12 

  
Figure 5. Distribution of the electric field E [V/m] in the model: (a) Frequency 752.5 MHz, x‐y plane; 
Figure 5. Distribution of the electric field E [V/m] in the model: (a) Frequency 752.5 MHz, x-y
Figure 5. Distribution of the electric field E [V/m] in the model: (a) Frequency 752.5 MHz, x‐y plane; 
(b) frequency 752.5 MHz, z‐x plane; (c) frequency 1172.5 MHz, x‐y plane; and (d) frequency 1172.5 
plane; (b) frequency 752.5 MHz, z-x plane; (c) frequency 1172.5 MHz, x-y plane; and (d) frequency
(b) frequency 752.5 MHz, z‐x plane; (c) frequency 1172.5 MHz, x‐y plane; and (d) frequency 1172.5 
MHz, z‐x plane. 
1172.5 MHz, z-x plane.
MHz, z‐x plane. 

  
Figure 6. Distribution of electric field E [V/m] in the 3D model, frequency 752.5 MHz. 
Figure 6. Distribution of electric field E [V/m] in the 3D model, frequency 752.5 MHz. 
Figure 6. Distribution of electric field E [V/m] in the 3D model, frequency 752.5 MHz.
Figure 7 shows the dependence of simulated GSE on frequency and theoretical SE of circular 
Figure 7 shows the dependence of simulated GSE on frequency and theoretical SE of circular 
Thereplaced 
aperture  are visible minimashielding 
in  ideally  and maxima ofthat 
plate  electric field insidefrom 
is  calculated  the cavity; if the
Equation  field
(6).  is changing
There  in
are  visible 
aperture  placed  in  ideally  shielding  plate  that  is  calculated  from  Equation  (6).  There  are  visible 
any direction, it responds to resonance mode 1 (or higher) in the same direction. One
influences of cavity resonances on SE—drops on the GSE trace, which represent decreases of GSE.  change from
influences of cavity resonances on SE—drops on the GSE trace, which represent decreases of GSE. 
minimum to maximum and again back to minimum (or inverse) represents one index of the resonance
Each drop responds to one TE resonance mode of the cavity. Of course, no drops of SE occur in the 
Each drop responds to one TE resonance mode of the cavity. Of course, no drops of SE occur in the 
mode. No change of electric field responds to zero resonance mode indexes. The first resonance mode
theoretical dependence. 
theoretical dependence. 
TE110 is at the frequency 752.5 MHz, (x-y-z axes, dimensions 289 mm ˆ 275 mm ˆ 241 mm). A 3D
view of the same solution is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 7 shows the dependence of simulated GSE on frequency and theoretical SE of circular
aperture placed in ideally shielding plate that is calculated from Equation (6). There are visible
influences of cavity resonances on SE—drops on the GSE trace, which represent decreases of GSE.
Each drop responds to one TE resonance mode of the cavity. Of course, no drops of SE occur in the
theoretical dependence.
Energies 2016, 9, 129 7 of 12
Energies 2016, 9, 129  7 of 12 
Energies 2016, 9, 129  7 of 12 
40
40 Theoretical SE
35 Simulated GSE
Theoretical SE
35 Simulated GSE
30
30

[dB][dB]
25
25
/ GSE
20
GSE 20
15
SE /SE

15
10
105

50
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0 f [MHz]
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 
f [MHz]
Figure 7. Simulation  result  of  global  shielding  effectiveness  (GSE)  from  3D  FEM  model    compared 
Figure 7. Simulation result of global shielding effectiveness (GSE) from 3D FEM model compared
with theoretical calculation of SE for a circular aperture. Drops in the simulated results are caused by 
Figure 7. Simulation  result  of  global  shielding  effectiveness  (GSE)  from  3D  FEM  model  compared 
with theoretical calculation of SE for a circular aperture. Drops in the simulated results are caused by
cavity resonances. 
with theoretical calculation of SE for a circular aperture. Drops in the simulated results are caused by 
cavity resonances.
cavity resonances. 
4. Measurement Methods 
4. Measurement Methods
4. Measurement Methods 
The shielding effectiveness is defined by Equations (1), (2) and the measurement methods are 
The shielding effectiveness is defined by Equations (1), (2) and the measurement methods are
based on the following principle; there is measured electric (or magnetic) field at a point of the space 
The shielding effectiveness is defined by Equations (1), (2) and the measurement methods are 
basedwith  and following
on the without  the  shielding 
principle; enclosure 
there [14,15]. 
is measured One  measurement 
electric (or magnetic)method 
field atwith  measuring 
a point of the space
based on the following principle; there is measured electric (or magnetic) field at a point of the space 
antenna is shown in Figure 8. 
withwith 
and without the shielding enclosure [14,15]. One measurement method with measuring antenna
and  without  the  shielding  enclosure  [14,15].  One  measurement  method  with  measuring 
is shown in Figure 8.
antenna is shown in Figure 8. 
 
 

 
Figure 8. Experimental shielding  effectiveness  measurement  in  an  anechoic  chamber.  This  method 
 
uses transmitting and receiving antennas, while the control and evaluation of the measured data is 
Figure 8. Experimental shielding 
Figure effectiveness  measurement
8. Experimental shielding effectiveness
provided by a personal computer.  measurement  in 
inan 
ananechoic 
anechoic chamber. 
chamber.This  method 
This method
uses transmitting and receiving antennas, while the control and evaluation of the measured data is 
uses transmitting and receiving antennas, while the control and evaluation of the measured data is
provided by a personal computer. 
There is no problem with shielding effectiveness measurement of large enclosures—there are 
provided by a personal computer.
standards for their measurement [1,16,17]. However, SE measurement methods are not unified [18]. 
On  There is no problem with shielding effectiveness measurement of large enclosures—there are 
the  other  hand,  shielding  effectiveness  measurement  of  small  enclosures  is  quite  problematic. 
There is no problem with shielding effectiveness measurement of large enclosures—there are
standards for their measurement [1,16,17]. However, SE measurement methods are not unified [18]. 
The  dimensions  of  the  measurement  antenna  or  electromagnetic  field  probe  are  not 
standards
On  the for their
other  measurement
hand,  [1,16,17]. However,
shielding  effectiveness  measurement  SE measurement methods
of  small  enclosures  are not
is  quite 
negligible—which depends on the wavelength—and this parameter is limiting factor for shielding  unified [18].
problematic. 
On the
The other hand,
dimensions  shielding
of  the effectiveness
measurement  measurement
antenna  of
or  small enclosures
electromagnetic  is quite
field  problematic.
probe 
effectiveness measurement of small enclosures, where it is necessary to place the measuring antenna  are  not The
negligible—which depends on the wavelength—and this parameter is limiting factor for shielding 
dimensions of the measurement antenna or electromagnetic field probe are not negligible—which
inside  the  shielding  enclosures.  An  antenna  inside  the  enclosure  represents  another  problem;  the 
effectiveness measurement of small enclosures, where it is necessary to place the measuring antenna 
depends on the wavelength—and this parameter is limiting factor for shielding effectiveness
antenna represents filling of the cavity and it can influence the electromagnetic field inside it. The 
inside  the  shielding  enclosures.  An  antenna 
it is inside  the  enclosure  represents 
cavity filling influences space inside it and the resonance frequencies can be shifted. 
measurement of small enclosures, where necessary to place the another 
measuring problem; 
antenna the  the
inside
antenna represents filling of the cavity and it can influence the electromagnetic field inside it. The 
shielding The  measurement 
enclosures. should  be 
An antenna performed 
inside in  the  far 
the enclosure field  region, 
represents where problem;
another the  characteristic 
the antenna
cavity filling influences space inside it and the resonance frequencies can be shifted. 
impedance is conclusively defined; the theoretic distance is given by the expression: 
represents filling of the cavity and it can influence the electromagnetic field inside it. The cavity filling
The  measurement  should  be  performed  in  the  far  field  region,  where  the  characteristic 
influences space inside it and the resonance frequencies λ can be shifted.
r [m]
impedance is conclusively defined; the theoretic distance is given by the expression:  (14)
2π
The measurement should be performed in the far field  region, where the characteristic impedance
is conclusively defined; the theoretic distance isr given λ by the expression:
 [m]
where r represents the transition between near and far fields and λ represents the wavelength.  (14)
2π  
λ
where r represents the transition between near and far fields and λ represents the wavelength. 
r “ rms (14)
2π
where r represents the transition between near and far fields and λ represents the wavelength.
Energies 2016, 9, 129 8 of 12

In practice, the dimensions of the receiving antenna are often larger or comparable with the
wavelength, and the distance between the near and far fields is defined by the Rayleigh criterion
Energies 2016, 9, 129  8 of 12  [19]:

In  practice,  the  dimensions  of  the  receiving  2

2Dantenna  are  often  larger  or  comparable  with  the 
r “ rms
wavelength, and the distance between the near and far fields is defined by the Rayleigh criterion [19]: 
(15)
λ
2
where D represents the characteristic dimension 2 D receiving antenna.
r of the [m] (15)
λ  
5. Experimental Measurements
where D represents the characteristic dimension of the receiving antenna. 
The experimental measurements were performed in the semi-anechoic chamber at the University
5. Experimental Measurements 
of West Bohemia that is constructed for measurement at 3 m distance between the antenna and
The  experimental 
device under testing (DUT). measurements  were  performed 
This 3 m distance providesin a the  semi‐anechoic 
uniform chamber  field
electromagnetic at  the 
in the
University 
frequency rangeof from
West 26
Bohemia 
MHz up that tois 18
constructed 
GHz. The for maximum
measurement  at  3 of
value m electric
distance field
between  the  on
depends
antenna and device under testing (DUT). This 3 m distance provides a uniform electromagnetic field 
the high-frequency power amplifier; for the 3 m distance we are able to produce 10 V/m in the
in the frequency range from 26 MHz up to 18 GHz. The maximum value of electric field depends on 
frequency range from 80 MHz up to 3 GHz. Two types of HF power amplifiers are used: a FLH-200B
the  high‐frequency  power  amplifier;  for  the  3  m  distance  we  are  able  to  produce  10  V/m  in  the 
(frequency range from 20 MHz to 1 GHz, maximum output power 200 W) and a FLG-30C (1–3 GHz,
frequency range from 80 MHz up to 3 GHz. Two types of HF power amplifiers are used: a FLH‐200B 
30 W)(frequency range from 20 MHz to 1 GHz, maximum output power 200 W) and a FLG‐30C (1–3 GHz, 
and two types of antennas—BTA-M log periodic antenna (frequencies from 80 MHz to 2.5 GHz)
and a30 
BBHA 9120E
W)  and  two  horn
types antenna (500 MHz–6log 
of  antennas—BTA‐M  GHz). For the
periodic  measurement
antenna  (frequencies  of from 
electric
80  field
MHz  anto   ETS
HI-6005 electric field probe was used.
2.5 GHz) and a BBHA 9120E horn antenna (500 MHz–6 GHz). For the measurement of electric field 
The measurement method described in chapter Measurement Methods was used in this case, but
an ETS HI‐6005 electric field probe was used. 
The measurement method described in chapter Measurement Methods was used in this case, 
the ETS HI-6005 electric field probe was replaced by a receiving antenna (see Figure 8). The BTA-M log
periodic antennaHI‐6005 
but  the  ETS  radiateselectric  field  from
the power probe amplifiers.
was  replaced 
Theby first
a  receiving  antenna 
measurement was Figure  8).  The 
(see performed without
the shielding enclosure; the electric field strength was measured with the E-field probe. Thewas 
BTA‐M  log  periodic  antenna  radiates  the  power  from  amplifiers.  The  first  measurement  second
performed without the shielding enclosure; the electric field strength was measured with the E‐field 
measurement was performed with the shielding enclosure; the E-field probe was inserted inside the
probe. The second measurement was performed with the shielding enclosure; the E‐field probe was 
box. The shielding effectiveness was calculated from measured values using Equation (1).
inserted  inside  the  box.  The  shielding  effectiveness  was  calculated  from  measured  values  using 
The frequency range of experimental measurement for the enclosure dimensions (Figure 2) is
Equation (1). 
from 500 MHz to 2.5 GHz. The lowest frequency was set bellow the first cavity resonance of the
The frequency range of experimental measurement for the enclosure dimensions (Figure 2) is 
enclosure. From
from  500  theto 
MHz  dimension of the
2.5  GHz.  The  cavity
lowest  and Equation
frequency  was  set (5), the the 
bellow  lowest
first cavity
cavity resonance frequency
resonance  of  the 
(and enclosure. From the dimension of the cavity and Equation (5), the lowest cavity resonance frequency 
the first transversal electric mode TE110) is 752.94 MHz.
(and the first transversal electric mode TE110) is 752.94 MHz. 
Figure 9 shows the experimental measurement in the semi-anechoic chamber. The shielding
enclosureFigure  9  shows 
and optical the  experimental 
cable measurement 
from the electric in  the are
field probe semi‐anechoic  chamber.  The 
visible in foreground shielding 
(the paper box
enclosure  and  optical  cable  from  the  electric  field  probe  are  visible  in  foreground  (the  paper  box 
below the enclosure is the stand); the transmitting antenna and absorbers are visible in background.
below the enclosure is the stand); the transmitting antenna and absorbers are visible in background. 
The optical cable was pulled through the cable gland representing a waveguide and the SE is not
The optical cable was pulled through the cable gland representing a waveguide and the SE is not 
influenced by the next aperture in the shielding enclosure (the critical frequency of the waveguide is
influenced by the next aperture in the shielding enclosure (the critical frequency of the waveguide is 
approximately 8.79 GHz).
approximately 8.79 GHz). 

 
Figure 9. Experimental measurement in the anechoic chamber. The shielding enclosure is placed on 
Figure 9. Experimental measurement in the anechoic chamber. The shielding enclosure is placed on
the paper stand (set 1.5 m above ground in the axis of the transmitting antenna) in the foreground of 
the paper stand (set 1.5 m above ground in the axis of the transmitting antenna) in the foreground of
the picture, the transmitting log‐per antenna is placed in the background of the picture. 
the picture, the transmitting log-per antenna is placed in the background of the picture.
Energies 2016, 9, 129 9 of 12
Energies 2016, 9, 129  9 of 12 
Energies 2016, 9, 129  9 of 12 

6. Results Comparison 
6. Results Comparison
6. Results Comparison 
The  simulated GSE
The simulated GSE  dependence 
dependence on  frequency 
on frequency of  model
of the 3D the  3D  model  compared 
compared with the SE with  the  SE 
experimental
The  simulated  GSE  dependence  on  frequency  of  the  3D  model  compared  with  the  SE 
experimental measurement is shown in Figure 10. There is visible a good agreement of the resonance 
measurement is shown in Figure 10. There is visible a good agreement of the resonance frequencies.
experimental measurement is shown in Figure 10. There is visible a good agreement of the resonance 
frequencies.  These are
These frequencies frequencies  are bepossible 
possible to to  be 
calculated calculated 
using Equationusing 
(5). Equation  (5).  Small between
Small differences differences 
the
frequencies.  These  frequencies  are  possible  to  be  calculated  using  Equation  (5).  Small  differences 
between the calculated and measured (or simulated) frequencies are caused by the 2.5 MHz steps of 
calculated and measured (or simulated) frequencies are caused by the 2.5 MHz steps of measurement
between the calculated and measured (or simulated) frequencies are caused by the 2.5 MHz steps of 
measurement (or simulation). 
(or simulation).
measurement (or simulation). 
40
40 Measured SE
Measured GSE
Simulated SE
30 Simulated GSE
30
20
[dB]

20
/ GSE[dB]

10
SESE/ GSE

10
0
0
-10
-10
-20
500
-20 1000 1500 2000 2500
500 1000 1500
f [MHz] 2000 2500
f [MHz]  
 
Figure 10. Comparison of results between measured SE and simulated GSE of 3D model. 
Figure 10. Comparison of results between measured SE and simulated GSE of 3D model.
Figure 10. Comparison of results between measured SE and simulated GSE of 3D model. 

The values of GSE are almost better than the measured values; it could be caused by using of 
The values of GSE are almost better than the measured values; it could be caused by using of 
The values of GSE are almost better than the measured values; it could be caused by using of the
the PEC boundary condition for the shielding enclosure. 
the PEC boundary condition for the shielding enclosure. 
PEC boundary condition for the shielding enclosure.
The simulation results for frequencies higher 2 GHz are tentative, because the convergence of 
The simulation results for frequencies higher 2 GHz are tentative, because the convergence of 
The simulation results for frequencies higher 2 GHz are tentative, because the convergence of the
the model is not guaranteed (see Figure 4). The mean values are 23.39 dB for GSE and 23.59 dB for SE 
the model is not guaranteed (see Figure 4). The mean values are 23.39 dB for GSE and 23.59 dB for SE 
model is not guaranteed (see Figure 4). The mean values are 23.39 dB for GSE and 23.59 dB for SE (the
(the mean error being 0.2 dB). 
(the mean error being 0.2 dB). 
mean error being 0.2 dB).
The 2D model definitions are shown in Figure 11. The source representing an electric current 
The 2D model definitions are shown in Figure 11. The source representing an electric current 
The 2D model definitions are shown in Figure 11. The source representing an electric current
dipole with current  I0 = 1 A is placed on the left. Absorbing boundary condition (ABC) was applied 
dipole with current II00 = 1 A is placed on the left. Absorbing boundary condition (ABC) was applied 
dipole with current  = 1 A is placed on the left. Absorbing boundary condition (ABC) was applied
along the model boundary, which represents a free space surrounding model. The shielding box is 
along the model boundary, which represents a free space surrounding model. The shielding box is 
along the model boundary, which represents a free space surrounding model. The shielding box is
approximated by a PEC. 
approximated by a PEC. 
approximated by a PEC.

 
 
Figure  11.  Area  of  the  2D  FEM  model,  including  dimension  in  millimeters  and  setting  of  the 
Figure  11.
Figure 11.  Area 
Area of 
of the 
the 2D 
2D FEM 
FEM model, 
model, including 
including dimension 
dimension in 
in millimeters 
millimeters and  setting  of
and setting of  the
the 
boundary conditions. 
boundary conditions. 
boundary conditions.
The  comparison  between  the  2D and  3D  simulations  of  the  GSE dependence on  frequency  is 
The  comparison  between  the  2D and  3D  simulations  of  the  GSE dependence on  frequency  is 
The comparison between the 2D and 3D simulations of the GSE dependence on frequency is
shown in Figure 12. The results from one 2D simulation are shown here, while other results of 2D 
shown in Figure 12. The results from one 2D simulation are shown here, while other results of 2D 
shown in Figure
simulations  12. The
including  results
results  fromhpone
of  the  2D simulation
‐adaptivity  models are shown
were  here, while
described  other
in  [8].  results
These  of
results 
simulations  including  results  of  the  hp‐adaptivity  models  were  described  in  [8].  These  results 
2D simulations including results of the hp-adaptivity models were described in [8]. These results
correspond with enclosure dimension 289 mm × 275 mm (it represents a slice of the 3D model in the 
correspond with enclosure dimension 289 mm × 275 mm (it represents a slice of the 3D model in the 
zcorrespond with
‐axis).  There  are enclosure dimension
only  TExx0  289 2D 
modes  for  mmsimulations; 
ˆ 275 mm (it represents
higher  modes a slice of zthe
in  the  3Dcannot 
‐axis  model be 
in
z‐axis).  There  are  only  TExx0  modes  for  2D  simulations;  higher  modes  in  the  z‐axis  cannot  be 
calculated.  Another  simulation  (model  which  represents  a  y‐axis  slice  of  the  3D  model)  must  be 
calculated.  Another  simulation  (model  which  represents  a  y‐axis  slice  of  the  3D  model)  must  be 
solved for determining of all TE modes. 
solved for determining of all TE modes. 
Energies 2016, 9, 129 10 of 12

the z-axis). There are only TExx0 modes for 2D simulations; higher modes in the z-axis cannot be
calculated. Another simulation (model which represents a y-axis slice of the 3D model) must be solved
for determining of all TE modes.
Energies 2016, 9, 129  10 of 12 

40
Simulated GSE, 3D
Simulated GSE, 2D
30

20
GSE [dB]

10

-10

-20
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
f [MHz]  
Figure 
Figure 12. 
12. Comparison 
Comparison of 
of results 
results between 
between global 
global shielding 
shielding effectiveness 
effectiveness of 
of the 
the 2D 
2D and 
and 3D 
3D FEM 
FEM
model simulations. 
model simulations.

7. Conclusions 
7. Conclusions
This paper describes the problems with determining the shielding effectiveness of perforated 
This paper describes the problems with determining the shielding effectiveness of perforated
shielding enclosures. General shielding effectiveness theory was defined for a perfect environment 
shielding enclosures. General shielding effectiveness theory was defined for a perfect environment and
and  conditions, 
conditions, but 
but this this  theory 
theory does not does  not  correspond 
correspond with real with  real  cases—these 
cases—these are  by
are influenced influenced 
dimensions by 
dimensions  of  antennas  (vs .  spot  observation  points  in  general  SE  theory). 
of antennas (vs. spot observation points in general SE theory). For this reason a new definition For  this  reason  a  new 
definition 
called globalcalled  global effectiveness
shielding shielding  effectiveness  (GSE)  was  Even
(GSE) was established. established.  Even exist
when there when  there  exist 
standards for
standards  for  measurement  of  the  SE,  these  are  applicable  only  in  certain 
measurement of the SE, these are applicable only in certain cases, where large enclosures are examined,cases,  where  large 
enclosures  are  examined, 
but these measurement methodsbut  arethese 
notmeasurement  methods 
applicable for very small are  not  applicable 
enclosures having thefor  very  linear
smallest small 
enclosures having the smallest linear dimension smaller than 2.0 m. 
dimension smaller than 2.0 m.
Numerical methods can be helpful for determining of SE. There are lots of numerical methods 
Numerical methods can be helpful for determining of SE. There are lots of numerical methods
(FEM, FDTD, MoM,
(FEM, FDTD, MoM, etc.)  etc.) which are used for SE calculations. The paper presents the FEM model of 
which are used for SE calculations. The paper presents the FEM model of the
the perforated shielding enclosure, various definitions and geometries are discussed. The 3D model 
perforated shielding enclosure, various definitions and geometries are discussed. The 3D model is
is supplemented with the complete set of results, while the 2D model only with a part of results. The 
supplemented with the complete set of results, while the 2D model only with a part of results. The
disadvantage of 3D models is large hardware requirement and long solution time. 2D models are not 
disadvantage of 3D models is large hardware requirement and long solution time. 2D models are not
time consuming. Also 
time consuming. Also hp ‐adaptivity of FE mesh can be used for 2D models, in this case it is guaranteed 
hp-adaptivity of FE mesh can be used for 2D models, in this case it is guaranteed
the correctness of results (the convergence of the model from the mathematical viewpoint). 
the correctness of results (the convergence of the model from the mathematical viewpoint).
The verification of the numerical results using the total electric energy inside the model is an 
The verification of the numerical results using the total electric energy inside the model is an
important part of the paper. The dependence of the total electric energy on DOF shows the solution 
important part of the paper. The dependence of the total electric energy on DOF shows the solution
accuracy; the model with more DOF must be solved for high frequencies (with the same accuracy as 
accuracy; the model with more DOF must be solved for high frequencies (with the same accuracy as for
for 
low low  frequencies 
frequencies with awith 
lowera number
lower  of number  of  DOF). 
DOF). This This 
solution, solution, 
however, however, 
requires longer requires  longer 
computational
computational 
time and more time  and hardware.
powerful more  powerful  hardware. 
The simulation The  simulation 
results were verified results  were  verified Our
by measurements. by 
measurements.  Our  measurement  method  uses  a  small  electric  field  probe 
measurement method uses a small electric field probe instead of receiving antenna, the dimensions instead  of  receiving 
antenna,  the correspond
of the probe dimensions toof  the  probe 
a cube with 70 correspond 
mm edge.to  Thea  cube  with  70 measurement
experimental mm  edge.  The  wasexperimental 
performed
measurement  was  performed  in  a  semi‐anechoic  chamber  and  it  was 
in a semi-anechoic chamber and it was based on general SE theory (however, the dimensions based  on  general  SE  theory 
of the
(however, the dimensions of the electric field probe are not negligible—it is not a dot observation 
electric field probe are not negligible—it is not a dot observation point). The probe dimensions allow
point). The probe dimensions allow SE measurement of a small shielding enclosure with dimensions 
SE measurement of a small shielding enclosure with dimensions of less than 2.0 m.
of less than 2.0 m. 
The miniaturization of electronic devices provides a space for SE numerical calculations—there
The miniaturization of electronic devices provides a space for SE numerical calculations—there 
are no possibilities for SE measurement (or very limited). The importance of numerical calculations for
are no possibilities for SE measurement (or very limited). The importance of numerical calculations 
shielding effectiveness in the future, therefore, will grow. The future research will be focused on SE
for shielding effectiveness in the future, therefore, will grow. The future research will be focused on 
SE  simulation  and  measurement  of  the  complex  perforated  shielding  enclosures,  including 
ventilation structures or cable glands. 

Acknowledgments: This research has been supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the 
Czech  Republic  under  the  RICE—New  Technologies  and Concepts  for Smart  Industrial  Systems,  project  No. 
Energies 2016, 9, 129 11 of 12

simulation and measurement of the complex perforated shielding enclosures, including ventilation
structures or cable glands.

Acknowledgments: This research has been supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech
Republic under the RICE—New Technologies and Concepts for Smart Industrial Systems, project No. LO1607
and by the project SGS-2015-002.
Author Contributions: Both authors contributed equally to this work. Both authors performed the measurement
and designed the simulations, discussed the results and commented on the manuscript at all stages.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the
decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

FEM Finite element method

GSE Global shielding effectiveness
SE Shielding effectiveness
FDTD Finite difference time domain method
MoM Method of moments
ABC Absorbing boundary condition
PEC Perfect electric conductor
DOF Degrees of freedom

References
1. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE standard method for measuring the effectiveness
of electromagnetic shielding enclosures. In IEEE Std 299–2006 (Revision of IEEE Std 299–1997); IEEE:
New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 1–52.
2. Robinson, M.P.; Benson, T.M.; Christopoulos, C.; Dawson, J.F.; Ganley, M.D.; Marvin, A.C.; Porter, S.J.;
Thomas, D.W.P. Analytical formulation for the shielding effectiveness of enclosures with apertures.
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 1998, 40, 240–248. [CrossRef]
3. Liu, E.; Du, P.-A.; Nie, B. An extended analytical formulation for fast prediction of shielding effectiveness of
an enclosure at different observation points with an off-axis aperture. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2013,
56, 589–598. [CrossRef]
4. Araneo, R.; Lovat, G.; Celozzi, S. Compact electromagnetic absorbers for frequencies below 1 GHz.
Prog. Electromagn. Res. 2013, 143, 67–86. [CrossRef]
5. Olyslager, F.; Laermans, E.; De Zutter, D.; Criel, S.; De Smedt, R.; Lietaert, N.; De Clercq, A. Numerical and
experimental study of the shielding effectiveness of a metallic enclosure. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat.
1999, 41, 202–213. [CrossRef]
6. Lozano-Guerrero, A.J.; Diaz-Morcillo, A.; Balbastre-Tejedor, J.V. Resonance suppression in enclosures with
a metallic-lossy dielectric layer by means of genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the IEEE International
Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC 2007), Honolulu, HI, USA, 9–13 July 2007; pp. 1–5.
7. Li, M.; Nuebel, J.; Drewniak, J.L.; DuBroff, R.E.; Hubing, T.H.; Van Doren, T.P. EMI from cavity modes of
shielding enclosures-FDTD modeling and measurements. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2000, 42, 29–38.
8. Kubik, Z.; Skala, J. Influence of the cavity resonance on shielding effectiveness of perforated shielding boxes.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Compatibility and Power Electronics (CPE), Ljubljana,
Slovenia, 5–7 June 2013; pp. 260–263.
9. Kubík, Z.; Karban, P.; Pánek, D.; Skála, J. On the shielding effectiveness calculation. Computing 2013, 95,
111–121.
10. Hromadka, M.; Kubik, Z. Suggestion for changes in shielding effectiveness measuring standard. In
Proceedings of the 4th International Youth Conference on Energy (IYCE), Siófok, Hungary, 6–8 June 2013;
pp. 1–4.
Energies 2016, 9, 129 12 of 12

11. Celozzi, S. New figures of merit for the characterization of the performance of shielding enclosures.
IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 2004, 46. [CrossRef]
12. Tesche, F.M.; Ianoz, M.V.; Karlsson, T. EMC Analysys Methods and Computational Models; John Wiley & Sons
Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1992; ISBN: 0-471-15573-X.
13. Chatterton, P.A.; Houlden, M.A. EMC Electromagnetic Theory to Practical Design; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.:
Chichester, UK, 1992; ISBN: 0-471-92878-X.
14. Holloway, C.L.; Ladburry, J.; Coder, J.; Koepke, G.; Hill, D.A. Measuring shielding effectiveness of small
enclosures/cavities with a reverberation chamber. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on
Electromagnetic Compatibility, Honolulu, HI, USA, 9–13 July 2007; pp. 1–5.
15. Greco, S.; Sarto, M.S. Hybrid mode-stirring technique for shielding effectiveness measurement of enclosures
using reverberation chambers. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic
Compatibility, Honolulu, HI, USA, 9–13 July 2007; pp. 1–6.
16. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE recommended practice for measurement of
shielding effectiveness of high-performance shielding enclosures. In IEEE Std 299–1969; IEEE: New York,
NY, USA, 1969.
17. United States Military Standard MIL-STD-285. Method of Attenuation Measurements for Enclosures,
Electromagnetic Shielding, for Electronic Test Purposes; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC,
USA, 1956.
18. Butler, J. Shielding effectiveness—why don’t we have a consensus industry standard? In Proceedings of the
Professional Program Proceedings Electronics Industries Forum of New England, 1997, Boston, MA, USA,
6–8 May 1997; pp. 29–35.
19. IEEE. IEEE standard definitions of terms for radio wave propagation. In IEEE Std 211–1997; IEEE: New York,
NY, USA, 1998.

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).