This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LEMCPA.2021.3056145, IEEE
Letters on Electromagnetic Compatibility Practice and Applications
SUBMITTED TO IEEE LETTERS ON ELECTORMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY PRACTICE AND APPLICATIONS 1

Interactions Between Slots, Apertures, and External

Features in Shielding Enclosures
James C. West, Senior Member, IEEE, Mehdi Bahadorzadeh, Charles F. Bunting, Fellow, IEEE,

Abstract—A susceptibility was identified experimentally when 0

Without Ear
With Ear
an external feature was added near an irregular aperture that -10

spanned two faces of the shielding enclosure of an equipment

Power (dBm)
-20

under test. The susceptibility was due to a resonant response -30

that occurred at a lower frequency than that expected by the -40

resonances of the aperture, enclosure cavity, or external feature
-50
considered in isolation. Numerical modeling showed that currents 200 300 400 500 600 700
Frequency (MHz)
800 900 1000

induced on the exterior of the enclosure when the external

feature is in place couple to the currents surrounding the
aperture, leading to a longer resonant length than provided by the
aperture alone. The resonant response giving the susceptibility
was observed with various changes in aperture and external
feature dimensions, provided that the aperture spanned two faces
and the external feature was aligned with the enclosure edge
that the aperture spanned. The low-frequency susceptibility can Mechanism of measured low-frequency susceptibility
be mitigated by electrically connecting the external feature to revealed through simulation
the enclosure edge to interrupt the external current path. The
higher-frequency resonant coupling due to the irregular aperture
alone was not affected by the suppression of the external current.
indicated a mitigation technique to avoid similar susceptibil-
Index Terms—Electromagnetic shielding; Immunity testing; ities in the future. Preliminary results were reported in [7].
Computational electromagnetics Refined experimental and numerical results are reported here
and the mitigation approach is further evaluated.

I. I NTRODUCTION II. G EOMETRY

Slots, apertures, and other features in electronic equipment
enclosures for cooling, access, or installation that allow elec-
tromagnetic energy to enter or exit the enclosure, potentially
introducing electromagnetic interference between systems [1],
[2]. Analytical prediction of the coupled fields are available
only for ideal, regularly shaped apertures, such as isolated
rectangles or circles on a single wall, under special conditions,
such as high frequency or at aperture resonances [3], [4].
Reliable determination of equipment susceptibilities require
extensive experimental [5] or numerical [6] investigation of
a particular configuration when the aperture is irregularly
shaped. The situation is further complicated when conducting
features external to the shielding enclosure are located near
The geometry of the shielding box is shown in Fig. 1. The
main enclosure is a 31.8 cm long by 28.5 cm wide by 17.5
cm high rectangular box made of aluminum. The enclosure
includes a hybrid slot/aperture feature that extends across two
faces, as shown. The slot section is 2.5 mm in height and
extends 23 cm along the base-edge of the 31.8 cm by 17.5 cm
side panel (labeled “Side B” in the figure) of the enclosure.
It is connected to the 2.75 cm by 4.75 cm aperture on the
Take-Home Messages:
p External
features can couple with irregular apertures
in shielding enclosures to introduce unexpected suscep-

p
the aperture. The external features can electromagnetically tances.
couple to the aperture and affect the field introduced within the Measured susceptances are numerically modeled and

p
enclosure. Small changes in the overall geometry can introduce analyzed.
very large changes in the susceptibility at specific frequencies. Currents induced on external features and enclosure ex-
Recently, an unexpected susceptibility was identified within terior can couple to currents surrounding opening to give

p
an enclosure box when an external feature was added near low-frequency resonant susceptances.
an irregular enclosure aperture. The susceptibility appeared at The unexpected susceptances can be mitigated by inter-

p
a frequency well below the first resonance of the irregular rupting the external current paths.
aperture. A numerical study has been performed to reveal the Seemingly negligible changes in external geometry can
electromagnetic phenomena that led to the susceptibility, and yield large differences in shielding effectiveness at some
frequencies. Testing of enclosures should be performed
The authors are with the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, with the final installation configuration.
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. jim.west@okstate.edu

2637-6423 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASELSAN A.S.. Downloaded on April 28,2021 at 05:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LEMCPA.2021.3056145, IEEE
Letters on Electromagnetic Compatibility Practice and Applications
SUBMITTED TO IEEE LETTERS ON ELECTORMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY PRACTICE AND APPLICATIONS 2

Fig. 2: Measurement probe position.

Fig. 1: Enclosure box geometry viewed from two angles.

Labeled are the slot, aperture, ear, and gap between
the ear body and enclosure body. Fig. 3: Measurement in anechoic chamber.

adjacent 28.5 cm by 17.5 cm face (“Side A”) to create a single
opening that connects the interior and exterior environments.
A removable external conducting feature, termed the “ear”,
is also shown in the figure. The main body of the ear is
15 cm in vertical height by 4 cm wide by 0.5 cm thick.
The ear is electrically connected to the extended base plate
of the enclosure through the 2.5 cm length, 0.5 cm by 0.5 cm
cross-section stem as shown, giving a total length of 17.5 cm
that matches that of the enclosure height. The main body of
the ear is separated from the edge of the box by the 3 mm
“gap” so does not make electrical contact along the edge of
the enclosure. The gap represents the electrical isolation of
the ear and enclosure body that was introduced when the
individual components of production equipment were coated
with non-conductive paint [8]. The gap was expanded to 3 mm
to allow efficient numerical modeling while fully maintaining
the electromagnetic effects to be analyzed here.
A probe was introduced into the box to provide a controlled
geometry that allows direct validation of the numerical simu-
lations against measurement. It was placed 2.82 cm from the
corner of the enclosure that included the aperture, equidistant
from each wall, as shown in Fig. 2. The measurement probe
was a 12 cm long, 2 mm radius wire fed through a surface-
mount SMA connector, forming an electric monopole with a
50 Ω feed impedance.
Several resonances would be associated with the individual
structures when considered in isolation. The dominant mode of
the enclosure cavity is 724 MHz. The first resonance of the slot
portion of the hybrid opening would appear at 613 MHz [9].
The first resonance of the aperture would be expected at
2.73 GHz. As will be seen, however, the joined slot/aperture
hybrid yields a lower resonant frequency than either of these
features alone. The first resonance of the measurement probe
would occurs when it is approximately 0.235 wavelengths
in length at 588 MHz [10]. The ear would also act as a
monopole if placed over a ground plane in isolation from the
remaining structure, with a first resonance at approximately
410 MHz, although the irregular shape would likely change
that somewhat.
III. M EASUREMENTS
The measurements were performed in an anechoic chamber
that includes both high-frequency pyramidal foam and low-
frequency ferrite-tile absorbers for operation from 80 MHz
to 18 GHz. The test configuration is shown in Fig. 3. Mea-
surements were performed from 200 MHz to 1 GHz using
a vector network analyzer. The source antenna was a wide-
band log-periodic antenna placed 3 m from the test enclosure.
The test box was oriented so that the incident field was
normally incident on the 31.8 cm by 15.7 cm face of the
enclosure that included the slot. The ear (when installed) and
slot were therefore directly illuminated while the side aperture
was not. The S21 scattering parameter between the source
antenna and measurement antenna feed ports was directly
measured. The measured S21 was then converted to the power
that would be received by a 1 V/m plane wave incident on the
enclosure using the antenna factor specifications provided by
the manufacturer at both vertical and horizontal polarization.
The measured received powers both without and with the
ear in place with a vertically polarized incident field are shown

2637-6423 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASELSAN A.S.. Downloaded on April 28,2021 at 05:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LEMCPA.2021.3056145, IEEE
Letters on Electromagnetic Compatibility Practice and Applications
SUBMITTED TO IEEE LETTERS ON ELECTORMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY PRACTICE AND APPLICATIONS 3

0 The illuminating field was an ideal, 1 V/m magnitude uniform

Without Ear
With Ear plane wave incident normally on the wall of the enclosure
-10 that contains the slot, matching the illumination of the mea-
surements. The simulations were initially performed with the
Power (dBm)

-20
wire monopole probe modeled to match the measurement
configuration. A 50 Ω port was placed at the base of the
-30
modeled monopole probe, representing the VNA measurement
-40
port at the enclosure SMA feed.

-50
A. Validation
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Frequency (MHz)
Figure 5 shows the numerically calculated power dissipated
in the 50 Ω port when the incident field was vertically polar-
Fig. 4: Experimentally measured received power at measure- ized and the measurement probe was placed in the position
ment port with normally incident 1 V/m vertically shown in Fig. 2. The figure shows overall good agreement
polarized plane wave. with measurements performed with the same geometry in
Fig. 4. The 730 MHz cavity-resonance effects are predicted,
0
Without Ear as is the shift in the 400 MHz resonance and appearance of
With Ear
-10
the 230 MHz response when the ear is added. The primary
differences are that the relative signal levels are higher in the
Power (dBm)

-20 simulations, likely due to fabrication tolerances in the physical

-30
-40
-50
200 300 400 500 600 700
Frequency (MHz)
Fig. 5: Numerical simulation of power measured by measure-
ment probe.
in Fig. 4. In both cases, the effect of the first cavity resonance
is apparent at 730 MHz. When the ear is not in place (solid
line), there is a wide-band response from 400 MHz to above
600 MHz, somewhat elevated at 400 MHz. The response
monotonically decreases with decreasing frequency below
400 MHz. The measured response is significantly changed
when the ear is in place (dashed line). The lower limit of the
broad response is shifted up to 465 MHz. More surprisingly, a
new, strong resonant response appears centered near 230 MHz,
the peak of which is not fully captured in the coarse frequency
sampling of the measurements. This frequency is well below
that expected from the resonant frequencies of the individual
enclosure components. The peak is more than 10 dB greater
than the signal without the ear in place. The magnitude and
center frequency was affected by the precise placement of the
ear. The resonant response led to an unexpected susceptibility
at 230 MHz in the equipment under test when the ear was in
place.
The susceptibility also appeared at a similar level when
the incident field was horizontally polarized. These results are
omitted for brevity.
IV. N UMERICAL I NVESTIGATION
A numerical study was undertaken to identify both the
mechanism by which the unexpected measured susceptibility
was created and a mitigation approach. The numerical cal-
culations were performed using the CST Studio Suite [11].
enclosure and imperfect conversion of the measurements from
S21 into power. However, the mechanisms leading to the
various resonances are clearly captured in the simulations,
so the numerical model can be used to analyze the physical
mechanisms responsible.
800 900 1000
B. Measurement Probe Effects
It was noted that the anomalous response at 230 MHz in
Figs. 4 and 5 could be an artifact of direct interactions between
the measurement monopole and the aperture/slot, and/or the
ear. The numerical simulations were therefore repeated with
the monopole removed and the electric fields excited within
the enclosure directly monitored. The electric field strengths at
a point on the axis of the now-removed probe, 2.5 cm above
the base plate (3.77 cm from the aperture corner) are show
in Fig. 6(a). The broad responses from 400 MHz to above
600 MHz when the monopole is in place are reduced to single
resonant responses at 440 MHz or 490 MHz when the ear is or
is not in place, respectively. The measurement probe resonance
at 588 MHz therefore affected the measured response. More
importantly for this study, however, the resonance response
at 230 MHz again appears when the ear is in place but not
when the ear is removed. The field test point is moved to one-
quarter of each dimension of the enclosure (7.95 cm, 7.125 cm,
3.925 cm) from the aperture/slot corner (11.37 cm total) in part
(b) of Fig. 6. The 230 MHz resonance is observed when the
ear is in place, although at a reduced level due to the greater
distance from the aperture corner.
Additional results not shown demonstrated that the
230 MHz resonance effect appears throughout the enclosure
when the ear is attached, with the excited field strength
exceeding that when the ear is not attached by approximately
20 dB and the absolute level of the response dependent
upon the distance from the aperture corner. As the resonance
remains when the measurement probe is removed, it is due
solely to the interactions between the ear and the enclosure
and is not a measurement artifact. The mechanism that yields
this resonance is now considered.

2637-6423 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASELSAN A.S.. Downloaded on April 28,2021 at 05:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LEMCPA.2021.3056145, IEEE
Letters on Electromagnetic Compatibility Practice and Applications
SUBMITTED TO IEEE LETTERS ON ELECTORMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY PRACTICE AND APPLICATIONS 4

wall. The slot is the only coupling between the internal and
Without Ear
20 With Ear external environments in this configuration. The field at the test
Electric Field Strength (dB V/m)

point 11.37 cm within the enclosure (matching Fig. 5(b)) is

10 shown as the solid blue trace in Fig. 7. Two resonances where
the signal coupled into the cavity are maximized appear in the
0
response. The higher-frequency resonance at 730 MHz is again
-10
due to the first cavity mode. The lower frequency resonance is
at 660 MHz, slightly higher than the frequency where the slot
-20 is λ/2 in length, where λ is the electromagnetic wavelength.
The surface currents induced on the structure by the incident
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Frequency (MHz)
plane wave at the 660 MHz resonance, numerically found by
CST, are shown in Fig. 8(a). The current pattern corresponds
(a) At the point 3.77 cm from the aperture corner identified in Fig. 2.
a classic half-wave slot resonance, and the slot behaves as a
resonant magnetic dipole [9]. The surface current null is at the
Without Ear center of the slot, corresponding to maximum magnetic current
20 With Ear
Electric Field Strength (dB V/m)

of the equivalent magnetic dipole. The resonance frequency of

10 the slot is somewhat higher than expected (660 MHz versus
613 MHz), likely because slot does not appear in an ideal
0 planar surface but on the edge of an enclosure near a corner.
The surface currents induced when both the aperture and
-10
slot, but not the ear, are retained are shown in Fig. 8(b).
-20
The operating frequency is 440 MHz, corresponding to the
resonance in the solid trace in Fig. 6. The slot+aperture
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 opening is again acting as a resonant structure similar to a
Frequency (MHz)
magnetic dipole. However, the effective length of the dipole
(b) At a point 11.37 cm from the aperture corner. is longer than with the slot alone due to the added aperture,
Fig. 6: Numerical simulation of the electric field excited at giving the lower frequency resonance. The null in the currents
points within the enclosure when the measurement surrounding the slot has shifted toward the aperture, showing
monopole is removed. the larger effective magnetic dipole arm length compared that
in Fig. 8(a). Additional simulations showed that the resonant
Aperture Removed
20 Ear Shorted Full Length frequency could be increased or decreased, with corresponding
Electric Field Strength (dB V/m)

Ear Shorted at Body
10
0
-10
-20
200 300 400
Fig. 7: Numerical simulation fields excited at the point
11.37 cm within the enclosure with various modifi-
cations to the enclosure/ear structure.
C. Resonance Mechanism
The surface currents excited on the enclosure structure with
various geometrical changes, as found numerically, are now
considered to reveal the mechanisms that lead to the strong
coupling of the 230 MHz signal into the enclosure box. The
calculations shown were performed without the measurement
probe in place to avoid any undesired interactions. Nearly
identical surface currents were observed at the 230 MHz
frequency of primary interest when the probe was included.
We first consider a modified enclosure that replaces the
aperture section of the slot/aperture structure with a conducting
shift in the current null, by reducing or enlarging the dimen-
sions of the aperture.
Finally, the surface currents induced at the 230 MHz reso-
nance frequency in the dashed trace of Fig. 6 when the ear is
attached are shown in Fig. 8(c). Strong currents are flowing
around the slot and aperture, as expected, but also the vertical
corner of the box near the ear. The edge and slot currents join
together to give a continuous current path that appears to act
500 600 700 800 900 1000
as a single resonant system that is considerably longer than the
Frequency (MHz)
slot or edge alone. The long length of the resonance allows the
low frequency energy to couple into the cavity. This behavior
was surprising since the vertical edge does not include an
opening between the two regions above the aperture.
Additional simulations showed that reducing the height of
the ear or increasing the size of the air gap between the ear and
enclosure edge raised the frequency of the resonant coupling.
However, a low-frequency susceptibility remained under all
configurations considered where an external ear-type structure
that was attached only to the base ground plane was included.
D. Mitigation
As noted, the low-frequency susceptibility results because
strong currents induced on the edge of the enclosure effectively
increase the continuous current path length of the slot/aperture
structure and yield a low-frequency resonance. Mitigation was
therefore approached by interrupting the current path. Two

2637-6423 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASELSAN A.S.. Downloaded on April 28,2021 at 05:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LEMCPA.2021.3056145, IEEE
Letters on Electromagnetic Compatibility Practice and Applications
SUBMITTED TO IEEE LETTERS ON ELECTORMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY PRACTICE AND APPLICATIONS 5

(a) Slot alone with no aperture or ear. Frequency = 660 MHz. (b) With aperture and slot but without ear. Frequency = 450 MHz.

(c) Full structure with ear. Frequency = 230 MHz. (d) Full structure with ear shorted to enclosure edge. Frequency =
230 MHz.

(e) Full structure with ear. Frequency = 490 MHz. (f) Full structure with ear shorted to enclosure edge. Frequency =
490 MHz.

Fig. 8: Surface current magnitudes excited on the enclosure and ear. (The ear partially blocks the view of the
aperture in parts (c) through (f).)

approaches were numerically tested. In the first, the ear was
moved slightly to remove the air gap so that the main body
of the ear was electrically connected to the enclosure body
everywhere above the aperture. In the second, the ear was
short-circuited to the body only at the point directly above the
aperture; the air gap was retained above the short circuit point.
The fields within the enclosure at the monitor point induced
by the incident plane wave are shown as the red dot-dashed
and yellow dashed lines in Fig. 7. The two responses are quite
similar, and both geometrical changes are equally effective in
removing the low-frequency susceptibility.
The induced surface currents at 230 MHz with the ear
shorted to the enclosure only at the base of its main body are
shown in Fig. 8d. While weak currents are still induced both on
the edge above the short and around the slot, the short circuit
point isolates them and they cannot act as a single resonant
feature. The 230 MHz coupling is there not established.
Interestingly, a resonant 490 MHz field coupling appears at
the same magnitude whenever the ear is in place, independent
of whether the ear body is electrically isolated from (dashed
trace in Fig. 6) or connected to (dashed or dot-dashed trace
in Fig. 7) the enclosure. The induced surface currents at
490 MHz when the ear is not and is shorted to the edge
are shown in parts e) and f) of Fig. 8, respectively. As at
230 MHz, the unshorted ear induces currents on the vertical
edge of the enclosure. However, the currents surrounding the
aperture/slot opening and on the extension of the ear where it is
connected to the ground plane are virtually unchanged. Unlike
at 230 MHz, the vertical-edge currents do not contribute to the
field coupled into the cavity at this frequency. The 490 MHz
response is due to the first magnetic dipole resonance of
the aperture/slot opening, with the frequency perturbed from
440 MHz to 490 MHz by the currents on the stem of the ear
where it is connected to the ground plane.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
The measurements and subsequent numerical analysis have
shown that placement of conducting features external to a

2637-6423 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASELSAN A.S.. Downloaded on April 28,2021 at 05:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LEMCPA.2021.3056145, IEEE
Letters on Electromagnetic Compatibility Practice and Applications
SUBMITTED TO IEEE LETTERS ON ELECTORMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY PRACTICE AND APPLICATIONS
shielding enclosure but near an aperture can introduce an
unexpected, low-frequency susceptibility. Placement of the ear
feature near and parallel to an exterior edge of an enclo-
sure excited currents along the exterior edge that coupled
to currents surrounding an opening that straddled the edge.
The longer effective current path yielded a resonant response
that is much lower in frequency than that expected from
the aperture/slot opening alone, allowing energy to penetrate
into the cavity. This is a somewhat specialized configuration,
but was encountered in production equipment when non-
conductive paint electrically isolated the external feature from
the enclosure body [8]. The susceptance was mitigated by
insuring that the external conductor was electrically connected
to the enclosure body near the aperture,isolating the current
path along the edge. We also note that the first resonance
of the aperture/slot opening was shifted from 440 MHz and
490 MHz when the ear was added, independent of whether
the ear body was electrically connected to the enclosure edge.
This shift was not due to excited enclosure edge currents, but
rather resulted from currents on the stem of the ear.
The results also reveal that caution must be used when
performing a computational electromagnetic analysis of a
structure. Placement of the ear body closer to the enclosure
than the resolution of computational model grid resolution
could establish an unintended electrical connection between
the components, thereby eliminating the resonance that led to
the susceptibility. The 3 mm air gap used here was chosen to
permit a reasonably coarse mesh in the numerical simulations
for efficient evaluation while retaining the primary physical
effects that gave the resonance. The numerical results could
2637-6423 (c) 2021 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ASELSAN A.S.. Downloaded on April 28,2021 at 05:42:44 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
6
then be experimentally validated and used to identify the
responsible resonant effect.
R EFERENCES
[1] H. A. Mendez, “Shielding theory of enclosures with apertures,” IEEE
Trans. Electromag. Compat., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1556–1516, May 1978.
[2] M. Li, J. L. Drewniak, S. Radu, J. Nuebel, T. H.Hubing, R. E.
DuBroff, and T. P. van Doren, “An EMI estimate for shielding-enclosure
evaluation,” IEEE Trans. Electromag. Compat., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 295–
304, Aug. 2001.
[3] M. P. Robinson, T. M. Benson, C. Christopoulos, J. F. Dawson, M. D.
Ganley, A. C. Marvin, S. J. Porter, and D. W. P. Porter, “Analytical
formulation for shielding effectives of enclosures with apertures,” IEEE
Trans. Electromag. Compat., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 240–248, Aug. 1998.
[4] D. A. Hill, M. T. Ma, A. R. Ondrejka, B. F. Riddle, M. L. Crawford, and
R. T. Johnk, “Aperture excitation of electrically large, lossy cavities,”
IEEE Trans. Electromag. Compat., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 169–178, Aug.
1994.
[5] S. B. Cohn, “The electric polarizability of apertures of arbitrary shape,”
Proc. IRE, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 1069–1071, Sep. 1952.
[6] G. Manara, M. Bandinelli, and A. Monorchio, “Electromagnetic pene-
tration and coupling to wires through apertures of arbitrary shape,” IEEE
Trans. Electromag. Compat., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 391–396, 1998.
[7] M. Bahadorzadeh, C. F. Bunting, J. C. West, J. Jantz, G. Wells,
G. Wilson, and J. Ringer, “Using a scaled model of a structure to
study radiation immunity properties,” in Proc. 2019 IEEE Int. Symp.
Electromag. Compat., 22-26 July, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2019, pp.
390–393.
[8] ——, “Study of tunnel box radiation immunity,” in Proc. 2019 IEEE
Int. Symp. Electromag. Compat., 22-26 July, New Orleans, Louisiana,
2019, pp. 101–105.
[9] H. Song, J. Chen, D. Zhou, D. Hou, and J. Lin, “An equivalent model of
magnetic dipole for the slot coupling of shielding cavity,” in Proceedings
of the 8th International Symposium on Antennas, Propagation and EM
Theory, November 2–5, Kunming China, 2008, pp. 970–973.
[10] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 3rd ed. Hoboken,
New Jersey: Wiley, 2005, p. 510.
[11] D. S. S. Corp., “CST Studio Suite,” Vèlizy-Villacoublay, France, 2019.