IMTC 2003 -Instrumentation and Measurement

Technology Confcrencc
Vail, CO,USA, 20-22 May 2003

AC and DC Shunts - Can You Believe Their Specs?

Dennis E. Destefan, Robert S. Stant
High Current Technologies, Inc. 7250 W. 118th Place, Unit A, Broomfield, CO 80020 USA
Ph: 303-404-3879 Email: info@highcurrenttech.com

John D. Ramboz
RAMTech Engineering, Inc. 10345 Carlson Circle, Clermont, FL 3471 1 USA
Ph: 352-242-0366 Email: ramtek2000@aol.com

a t - Link new information regarding high current shunis
(greater than 100 A), especially uc shunts, has been published in
the last 30 yeors to ihe auihors knowledge. Since ihe advent of
new measuremeni capabiliiies, sensors, and lower uncerininiies,
recentfindings regarding theperformance of ac and dc shunis are
presenfed. The findings are significant for users and calibration
laboratories. Errors due to curreni feedpoini selection, addc
difference, frequency response, the proximity effects of
ferromagneiic materials, and the effecis of nearby conduciors are
discussed. Factors thai must be included in the deferminafionof
measuremeni uncertainty are provided and discussed.
m: Shunts, 4-terminal resistors, direct current
measurement, alternating current measurement, pulsed current,
calibration.
I. INTRODUCTION
Shunts, high current (greater than 100 A) four-terminal
resistors, are in wide use in the metrology community and in
industrial measurement applications. Such applications
include the measurement of dc, ac, and pulsed (transient)
electric currents. The typical range of direct currents is from
a few amperes to several thousands of amperes. Depending
on the application, maximum current ratings range from
several thousand amperes to 100 kA for pulsed current
shunts. Altemating current measurements include steady
state sinusoidal currents, complex currents, and pulsed or
transient currents. The pulsed currents may he gated
sinusoidal bursts, complex bipolar, or unipolar transients.
Heat dissipation typically limits the maximum current
rating for shunts. Self-heating of shunts is the result of 12R
Joule heating within the resistance material of the shunt. The
amount of shunt self-heating increases rapidly by the square
of the current. Because of this, a very large amount of heat
can be developed in high current shunts. Special resistance
alloys, such as Constantan, Manganin, and Zeranin, have
been formulated to have very small temperature coefficients
of resistance to combat the rise of temperature in shunts.[l]
Although great attention is given to shunt materials and
designs having low temperature coefficients and manageable
temperature rises, temperature related errors vely often are
nof the principal contributor of overall error. Other subtle
sources of error often dominate and are discussed below.
DC shunts have as their major design goals adequate
power dissipation and minimal resistance changes with
temperature. Also considerations are given to minimal
thermoelectric errors and long term stability of the 4-terminal
resistance.
AC shunts that are used for the measurement of sinusoidal
currents, transient currents, and complex steady state currents
have additional requirements to assure adequate performance
for their intended measurement application. The additional
requirements include a frequency-flatness of the 4-terminal
impedance magnitude for the frequencies of interest and a
low phase shin or linearity of phase over the frequencies of
interest.
In many cases, ac shunts should also have the same
requirements as the dc shunts with the possible exception of
the need for low thermoelectric voltages. Depending on the
measurement instrumentation used, thermoelectric voltages
may he blocked by using ac coupling. However, the use of ac
coupling may lead to additional dynamic or frequency related
errors. The errors would depend on the relative comer
frequency and related phase errors created by the high pass
transfer function of the ac coupling.
Thermoelectric voltages may he dynamic and not
completely blocked by ac coupling. This is especially true
for transient currents where shunt heating occurs dynamically
for the duration of the current pulse. The entire thermal
process not only involves the dynamic Joule heating effects,
hut also the simultaneous heat transfer cooling process.
Cooling can occur through conduction to current conductors,
convection, and to some extent, radiation. This'composite set
of thermal conditions dynamically affects thermoelectric
errors, changes the hulk resistance of the shunt, and may
significantly effect thermally induced mechanical stress. In
some cases the thermal effects may take several hours to
reach thermal equilibrium and the thermal electric errors to
reach non-detectahle levels.
Further, at very high currents, mechanical forces are
generated due to the strong magnetic fields; this can lead to
additional mechanical stress being impressed onto the shunt.

0-7803-7705-2/03/$17.0002003 IEEE 1577

Full rated current tests are the only way to fully assess the
impact of these stress related and thermally related errors.
Direct current shunts range in quality, and associated
costs, from about $20 US for manufacturer specified 4-
terminal resistance tolerance of *I% to shunts with iO.O2%
tolerance at a cost of approximately $2,000 US. The cost of
ac shunts range from several hundred dollars US to 510,000
US or more for special, custom designs. Generally, the
tolerances for ac shunts are worse than those of dc shunts.
The fundamental research into the theory and design of ac
shunts was done just after the turn of the 20Lhcentury.[2,3]
Additional research into ac shunts was conducted ahout 60
years ago.[4] These works include theoretical as well as
experimental results. One of the latest works was published
nearly 40 years ago by Praeg [ 5 ] . His work was based largely
on the works of [2-41. Praeg provides ‘refinements . o n
previous work in [2-41 and additional work on coaxial shunts.
Most of the ac shunts manufactured today are based on the
early fundamental work presented in references 2-4.
However the range of frequencies and the quality of test
currents, i.e., low distortion of sinusoidal currents that could
be generated, were limited at that time compared to today’s
technology. Further, the uncertainty of the measurements has
been significantly improved in the last 60 to 90 years -
especially in the area of low voltage measurement. In most
cases, the voltages generated by shunts are small since the 4-
terminal impedance can be as low as a few micro-ohms.
Recent papers into the construction and performance of dc
shunts are provided in [6-81.
Shunts can be represented as an equivalent circuit as
shown in Fig. I. For ac.shunts, all of the elements’shown in
the drawing can be considered. For dc shunts, all of the
inductances and capacitances have no affect, leaving only the
resistive elements and the thermal voltages. The main shunt
resistance is represented as &. The value of R, changes as a
function of temperature, time, current connections, current
connection torque, stress, and frequency. Connected on
either side of R, is the current terminal resistance, r,
located between the voltage sense terminals and the current
terminals. The contact resistance, r,,.,, is located where the
current cables or bus bars connect to the shunt current
terminals. The inductances, L,,, are the self-inductances of
the current terminals and generally are negligible. There are
two inductances that exist in the shunt between the voltage
sensing leads. The inductacne, L,, is the self-inductance of
the shunt and the mutual inductance, M, which can have a
positive or negative sign. A capacitance, Crhunl, bridges a
portion of the shunt. Each signal lead contains a series self-
inductance, Llead;and resistance, qead. Finally, the cable
capacitance, CEablc, exists across the voltage sensing leads.
(Other elements such as leakage resistances and eddy current
impedances are ignored in this model.)
Thermal voltages are generated at the points where
voltage-sensing leads are attached to the shunt due to a
“thermocouple” effect. The thermoelectric voltages, Vthemal,
are represented here as dc batteries. Under idea! conditions,
1578
these two thermoelectric voltages are equal and the affect on
the measurement is nil. However, in practice, they are never
exactly equal and a net difference voltage r e d t s due to the
thermal electric effect. Because of the polarities involved, a
temperature gradient must exist between the voltage sense
points to have a net thermoelectric emor voltage be generated.
For ac shunts, an induced voltage can result from the
magnetic flux that can couple to the mutual inductance, +M.
The quadrature voltage that is generated will be equal to
+M(di/dt). Although the quantity *M can be considered, in
most instances as fixed, flux coupling from current carrying
cables can affect the coupled flux. Thus the error caused by
this effect depends on the current path to and from the shunt,
or other instances, from flux generated from other nearby
conductors.
CLhUnt
II
sfress, conneclions)
instrumentation
Fig. 1. Equivalent circuit of an current shunt. Adescription of each of
the circuit elements is given in the text.
It is common for manufacturers of d,c shunts and
calibration laboratories to determine a shunt’s iresistance with
a single, short-term current application of a, low (significantly
less than full rated), direct current. Any heating effects are
not detected using this method. In some instances, the test
current may be as low as !/SOth of the full current rating. This
is poor calibration practice and often leads to significant
errors in the resistance determination. At low currents and
low shunt voltages, the thermoelectric potentials can’cause
large relative percentage errors unless current polarity
reversal methods are utilized.
In one particular 600-A shunt measured, heating errors
were greater than 1% from low current to full rated current.
Depending on the test currents, shunt materials, construction
and resistance, the errors which can result from this low
current testing can easily exceed 1%.
Many shunts have multiple current feed-point terminals.
This configuration is typically found when a shunt is
mounted to high current, flat, wide bus bars having multiple
bolts for attachment. Without complete specification of the
proper terminal connections and the calibration methods
used, errors of as great as 1% may be incurred in the
calibration process and unknowingly passed to the users. It is
also common to find temperature coefficients of resistance to
 be much larger than expected based on the ideal resistance
‘alloy characteristics. Temperature coefficients as high as 30
times greater than predicted by widely published material
specifications have been measured in shunts. [8,9] Many
engineers and metrologists also assume that the temperature
coefficient of a constructed shunt is the same as the
theoretical curves for the resistive element material before
fabrication. This is a poor and risky assumption. This is not
the case in most shunts. Depending on the accuracy desired
one MUST determine the temperature coefficient for each
shunt. To determine the actual temperature coefficients, each
shunt must be tested at maximum permissible current.
It is also believed that an ac shunt can he calibrated at dc
and have the ac/dc difference be negligible. Some of this
belief is based on the theoretical works cited. In most cases,
the users rely on the determination of the resistance or
impedance of a shunt by manufacturers or calibration
laboratories. Many users are surprised to find large
discrepancies between manufacturer values and the values
from several different calibration laboratories. These
discrepancies may far exceed the assigned calibration
tolerances or measurement standard uncertainties.
Shunts are sometimes calibrated using a bipolar dc
reversal method that minimizes thermoelectric errors. This
method is recommended for consistent results in a calibration
laboratoly. It also aids in closer transferal of results between
laboratories. Many users in industrial situations cannot
utilize dc reversal methods in their applications. These
thermoelectric errors, while removed from the calibration
process, are many times overlooked by users and not
accounted for in error budgets.
To provide a useful calibration to a user, calibration
laboratories must understand how a shunt will be used. In
some cases, the testing procedure should be altered to
replicate the users operation of the shunt, such as the short
term or long term application of current, unique current
connections, etc. When determining an uncertainty, many
factors must be considered beyond those being derived from
a single low current measurement. Otherwise, errors of
several percent my unknowingly result.
It is common, but not well documented, that some
manufacturers recommend that currents be limited to one-half
or two-thirds of the rated current. For example a 300 A
shunt, according one manufacturer, should never be used with
currents greater than 200 A. This requirement may often be
related to whether the shunt is operated in still ambient air or
with forced air-cooling. When performing calibrations, this
limitation should be carefully investigated and verified with
the.shunt manufacturer.
Subtle and less known effects can also influence the
measurement accuracy when calibrating or using shunts.
These may include:
.Current feed-point sensitivify (dc and ac effect): Many
high current shunts have current terminal configurations that
allow attachment of current cables in more than a single way,
namely, multiple current feed-point locations. This affects
1579
the current streamlining into the shunt and can cause changes
in the 4-terminal resistance and impedance. A related
problem is that many shunts have current lugs that may have
cables connected to them on either of two faces. Some shunts
also exhibit sensitivity to the torque used on the nut-bolt
cable or bus attachment.
Field coupling to the shuntfrom cables (ac effect): It is
possible for the current conductors to take many different
paths when approaching and leaving the proximity of the
shunt. The interaction of the magnetic fields from these
cables can cause a redistribution of the current within the
shunt, thus resulting in a change in the 4-terminal impedance.
Also, mutual couplings can exist between the current circuit
and the voltage sensing circuit. A voltage can be induced
into the voltage sensing measurement circuit, which in tum,
leads to errors. This can he treated as a mutual inductance
that creates a quadrature voltage error component. It will
affect both the magnitude and the phase angle of shunt
impedance. These errors and problems are installation
dependent and are difficult to evaluate. The resulting errors
are also frequency sensitive in terms of the mutual couplings
and the skin effect and can easily reach several percent at
power frequencies.
Proximity to ferromagnetic materials (ac effect): The near
proximity of the shunt to ferromagnetic materials can alter
the current distribution of the current within the shunt, which
may result in a change of the 4-terminal resistance or mutual
inductance. This is a little known fact. It is also common
practice to place shunts on steel (ferromagnetic materials)
tables, carts, or steel frames which can cause systematic
errors that are not detected by common calibration methods.
A further complication of this effect is that the nearby ferrous
material will experience magnetic saturation at high currents.
This will, in tum, create a nonlinear coupling with current
amplitude. Hence, the errors due to the proximity of
ferromagnetic materials can be sensitive to the current and
frequency content. A secondaly problem of having
ferromagnetic material in the ac field is that of heating due to
eddy current losses. This beating may or may not create
measurement errors; most certainly it can cause hazardous
bum conditions to personnel.
Physical orientation (dc and ac effect): The convection
cooling of a shunt may be sensitive to the orientation of the
shunt. This is especially true for “blade”, ”ribbon”, and
“strip” types of shunt construction. The amuunt of cooling
and the temperature gradients resulting in the shunt will
change significantly for different orientations. It is good
practice to calibrate the shunt in the same orientation in
which it will be used.
Induced error voltages into voltage sensing instruments
(ac and possibly dc effect): Voltmeters or digitizers that
measure the voltage drop across the shunt may themselves be
sensitive to nearby ac magnetic fields produced by the current
that is being measured; precautions should be taken to guard
against any such effects. It is also suspected that strong dc
fields may affect solid state electronics. Inductive and
resistive voltage dividers that may be used in the measuring
setup may likewise he sensitive to ac magnetic fields. These
instruments may have to be kept at distances of 3 meters or
more from the current carrying busses to reduce errors to an
acceptable level.
11. APPROACH
The work presented herein utilizes new and well-
characterized current sensors, improved measurement
capabilities, and enhanced measurement uncertainties with
NIST traceability to determine performance of numerous dc
and ac shunts. The availability of high-frequency, high-
current current sources now permit the evaluation of shunts at
frequencies and current levels that in the past were difficult to
achieve.
The equipment used to collect the data included well-
characterized and calibrated dc and ac current sources, and dc
and ac ratiometers. The ratiometers comprised of DMMs and
16-bit digitizers. In all instances, traceable impedance
standards were used as references.
In general, the uncertainty of the standards used to support
this work was 0.02% to 0.06% for direct currents to 1000A.
The uncertainty of the measurement standards for altemating
current range from 0.04% for currents to 1000 A and 0.2%
for pulsed currents to 100 kA.[10] The above uncertainties
have a coverage factor of k = 2 .
111. RESULTS
An example of common dc meter shunts that have
significant errors relative to their manufacturer's specification
of *I% is shown below in Fig. 2. The figure shows a
histogram of 125 individual, 500-A shunts with a
manufacturer's tolerance specification of *I%. These shunts
were used with isolation and scaling electronics for a welding
process. The data shown is only for the shunt, independent of
the isolation electronics. Some of these shunts had been in
use prior to calibration and others were new. It is seen that a
few had significant deviations, -5% to +11%, from their
nominal value of 100 pa. These were most likely defective,
had been damaged or abused. However, this large
population, excluding these outliers, had a mean resistance
value of 99.09 fl. This would indicate that the
manufacturer's reference measurement system was biased
having a mean error of -0.91% offset, or that the shunts
drifted relative to the nominal values. The drifting is not
supported from up to 4 years of calibration data with the
majority of shunts having stability much, much better than
the 0.91%.
From these data, it is concluded that a significant number
(43% of total population) of the shunts were out of tolerance.
!I is interesting to note that the manufacturer of the
electronics assumed that the shunts were within tolerance and
centered at the mean value. Because of this assumption,
1580
much of the final product was in error by at least the -0.91%.
The user had accepted the manufacturers :ipecified values
without having had the shunts checked or calibrated.
Surprising results are not unique to lower cost dc meter
shunts. In another instance, nine laboratory standard quality
shunts were calibrated. Two of these were nominally rated
for 1000 A and seven were rated for 300 A. All of these
shunts had a stated accuracy of approximately 0.02%. Both
of the 1000-A shunts agreed with the manufacturer's stated
uncertainty. Six of the 300-A shunts agreed with the
specifications. One shunt was found to be in error by -0.14%
from the nominal value. This was a significant error relative
to the manufacturer's specification and the uncertainty of the
measurement standards. All of the shunts exhibited good
resistance temperature coefficients, i.e., good thermal
stability. The 300 A-shunt that was out of tolerance did not
have any apparent evidence of abuse or damage. It also
showed excellent stabilitv over 3 davs of testine.
I -- Hisloogram
I
I -- I
Fig. 2. Distribution of 4terminal resistances for 125 each,
50 mV/500 A dc meter shunts upon initial calibration (manufacturer's
nominal resistance = 100 @).
The calibration performance of two dc, laboratory
standard shunts with long calibration histories are shown in
Fig. 3. One shunt was rated at 100 A and the second was
rated at 500 A. Each shunt had a Type-T thermocouple
bonded to the resistance element as described in [SI. The
500-A shunt was tested at 150, 300 and 500 A. The 100-A
shunt was tested at 20, 50, 7 5 , and 100 A. Note that neither
of these shunts reached the commonly accepted critical
temperature of 100 "C at their full current rating. The data
shown for the 500-A shunt represents 15 calibrations over a
period of 20 years. The 100-A shunt was calibrated 10 times
over a period of 14 years. The 100-A shunt r:hows very close
agreement with a classical resistance-temperature curve,
regardless of temperature and corresponding current level.
The 500-A shunt shows a classical resistance-temperature
curve with tightly grouped calibration data helow
approximately 48 "C. However, for the 500-A shunt
(temperatures above 48 "C) the measured values diverge
significantly from the curve. Such performance is not
 detected unless shunts are tested at maximum permissible
,.
currents. If this shunt was not evaluated over the full range
of currents the as5ig;ed uncertainty would have been
significantly understated.
Even more inteksting is the performance of ac shunts.
AC shunts 'are manufactured with a variety of configurations
or geometries, including coaxial, folded bifilar designs, and
other a&ngements. The goal of all of these different designs
is to minimize the series inductance, and to minimize the
mutual coupling between the voltage sensing circuit and the
current circuit. Also, part of the design goal is to maintain a
uniform distribution of current in the resistive element over a
wide range of frequencies, i.e., minimal skin effect.
20 38 10 M 60
Shunt temperature Ide(JrFe9Cl
Fig. 3. Calibration results for a 100 A (14 years) and 500 A (20 years)
shunt.
The ac shunts that have been tested yielded widely varying
results. Many of these shunts did not meet the
manufacturer's specifications and/or theoretical design goals.
A 35-pn coaxial ac shunt was measured at dc and up to
400Hz. The acidc differences ranged from -0.15% to
+0.36% at power frequencies as shown in Fig. 4. These
differences increased to nearly 2% at 400 Hz. Further, the
frequency dependence changes dramatically with the
presence and location of ferromagnetic materials near the
shunt, the routing of the current conductors, and the selection
of current terminal combinations. This shunt had a calculated
-3 dB bandwidth greater than 500 kHz based on theoretical
analysis. The -3 dB bandwidth was predicted based on
original research work 50 to 80 years ago. Limitations of
equipment in that time era precluded high frequency steady
state testing and relied on short duration impulse currents to
predict frequency bandwidth based on rise time relationships.
Using modem power sources and improved instrumentation
available today, the bandwidths measured on ac shunts are
often far less than that predicted by theory. This raises
questions of the validity of the models or the construction
methods used as compared to the models.
1581
Note, even at dc the shunt resistance varies with feed point
connection pairs. The spread in dc resistance was 0.64% with
the connections shown.
ss.70
1M)O
F"Wr=YiHL born->
L o cr c -+Ea ..A.BF -x-op L - O - E D I
Fig. 4. Shunt impedance frequency response using 5 separate
current feed-point locations. The legend at the bottom of the figure
indicates the different terminal pairs used for the current feed points
The inset shows the current connections to terminals D and F.
The dependence of the frequency response on the selection
of current terminals is also shown in Fig. 4. Each curve in
the figure is a different pair of current terminals on the same
shunt. The uncertainty of the values shown is 0.08% (20
confidence level). Based on bandwidth and theory, the shunt
should have an error of less than 1 ppm at 400 Hz relative to
the dc resistance value. Unusual behavior can be seen on
several of the plots where the response "kinks" downward
with an increase of frequency. This would infer that the
phase response would also behave unusually. Note the
increasing impedance with frequency or a generally inductive
behavior. This behavior may be the result of current feed-
point sensifivify andfield coupling from cable.
A 6-pR pulsed current shunt used in association with
pulsed current measurements to 60 kA was tested. It was a
hi-fold design. The acidc difference errors of nearly -1%
were found at 50 Hz and 60 Hz, -4.5% at 200 Hz and -6% at
I kHz. This shunt was tested in the configuration as used by
the customer. The ferromagnetic material proximity errors
were significant. A 3.8-cm x 3.8-cm by I-meter steel angle
was placed at various positions near the shunt. At 50 Hz the
impedance changes relative to dc was as great as 11.6% and
at 500 Hz these changes ranged from +3.6% to -5.6%. This
shunt also displayed significant feed point sensitivity.
As another example, a manufacturer tested 6 high pulsed
current shunts at low steady state currents. They were then
tested at a standards lahoratoly at low currents. The two low
current test results were generally in agreement. They were
then tested at up to 30 kA pulsed current. In three shunts
impedance values became very erratic and unstable. The
range of impedance errors was as great as *5%. The ultimate
conclusion was that large electro-mechanical forces were
generated within the shunt due to the high current. These
forces are suspected of affecting a brazed connection within
the shunt causing the instability. Without testing at
maximum permissible current, this defect would have gone
undetected in the calibration process. These problems did not
show up until currents greater than 15 kA.
Assigning an uncertainty for a shunt based on a single, low
current evaluation is in most instances, inadequate. Shunts
must be evaluated at maximum permissible current where the
shunt will he used and in ways that reflect how it will he
used. Further, all sources of error must be evaluated or the
measurement application should he taken into account with
input from the user. Calibration and use of shunts has many
error contributions that are often greater than the uncertainties
of the Calibration equipment. Where shunts are to he used for
ac measurements, ac effects must he measured and must he
included in the ac performance.
The assumption that the acidc difference is zero or
negligible based on theory, without measurement
confirmation, can lead to very significant errors in the
estimated uncertainty. Calibration laboratories should
communicate with users to assist in the selection of shunt
measurements that are meaningful for the user's actual
current measurements with the shunt. Users should request
proper and thorough testing from calibration laboratories so
they get a realistic uncertainty estimate. Users and
calibration laboratories must recognize that shunts can be
stable with time, erratic and unpredictable, or possess a
predictable drift rate.
Depending on the combination of errors noted above, it is
verypossihle to have a shunt specified by the manufacturer to
1% with errors of several percent at power frequencies and 5
to 10% at 1 kHz while theory predicts a -3 dB frequency of
5OOWz. If not properly evaluated and a thorough ac
calibration done, the user will he under the false impression
that the shunt is providing a 1% measurement, when in
actuality measurements are in error by 2 to 10% or greater.
Further, because of the dependence on the current path,
connection location, and the proximity of ferromagnetic
materials, it is possible that users will incorporate varying
systematic errors up to many percent and never know the
errors are present. Many of these effects increase with
frequency.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The result of the testing strongly suggests that some shunt
manufacturers are producing some products significantly
outside of its stated tolerance. Errors can he corrected
through proper measurement methods and by ensuring a
chain of traceability to National Standards. Some of the
findings presented point to the need for improved calibration
methods in manufacturer's and user laboratories, better shunt
1582
construction methods, and a more thorough understanding
and application of existing theory. Many manufacturers
should more thoroughly specify their product to help prevent
over ranging shunts and to reduce t h e confusion over what
can be expected from their product for critica.1 measurement
applications.
Important facts that must considered when 'using and/or
calibrating shunts are: . ..
li.
All shunts must he individually tested.
Shunts must be tested at the maximum,
permissible current level.
Theory may not predict actual performance.
Many error sources may go undetected.
V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
W e thank the various customers who gave permission to
use the results of shunt testing. This paper would have not
been possible without their permissions and equipment. We
also acknowledge the cooperation and many beneficial
discussions of the technical staff at Szmdia National
Laboratories Primaty Standards Laboratory.
REFERENCES
[I] Metals Handbook 9th ed. Vol. 3 StainlessStecls.00 1
Materials and
Svecial Pumase Metals, pp. 640 -645. American :Society for Metals,
Metals Park, OH 44073. N o year available.
[2] Silsbcc, F.B., "Notes on the Design of4-Terminal Rcsistance Standards
for Altcmating Currents," Bureau o f Standards Joumal of Research,
vol. 4, RP133, July 1929, pp. 73-107.
[31 Silsbee, F.B., "A Shldy ofthe Inductance of Four-Terminal Resisrance
'
Standards," Bulletin ofthe Bureau of Standards, voI 13. no. 1, June 15,
1916,pp. 375-422.
[4] Park, I. H., "Shunts and lnductors for Surge-Cur" Mcaeurements,"
Joumal of Research ofthe Nat'l Bur. of Stand., RP 1823, vol. 39, Sept.
1947.
[5] Pracg, W.F., "Stress Sensitivity of Manganin Resistor in High-Cuncnt
Precision Coaxial Shunt," IEEE Trans. IPS~N. and Meas., vol. IM-15.
No. 4, Dec. 1966.
[6] Braudaway, D. W., "Precision resistors: A Raview o f Material
Charactcristics, Resistor Design, and Construction Practices," IEEE
Trans. on Instru. and Meas., vol. 48, no. 5, Oct. 1999, pp 878 - 883.
171 Braudawily, D. W., '' Prccision resistors: A R w i c u of the Techniqucs
of Mcasurement, Advantages, Disadvantages, and Results," lEEE
Trans. on Instru. and Meas., vol. 48, no. 5, Oct. 1999, pp 884 - 888.
[8] Braudaway, D. W., " Behavior of Resistors and Shunts: With Today's
High-Prccision Measurement Capability and a Century of Matcrials
Experience, What Can Go Wrong?," IEEE Trans. on Instm. and Meas.,
vol. 48, no. 5, Oct. 1999, pp. 884- 888.
[9l Ramboz, J. D.. High-Currcnt Measurement Techniqucs, Pan I I 100 kA
Sourcc Characteristics and Preliminary Shunt and Rogowski Coil
Evaluations, NlSTIR 89-4040, March 1989.
[IO] Ramboz, J. D., Destcfan, D. E,, Slant, R.S., "lhc Verification of
Rogowski Coil Lineariry from 200 A to Grcilter than LOO kA using
Ratio Methods", IEEE Instm. and Mcas. Technology Conf.,
Anchorage, Alaska, USA, May 21-23,2002,pp.687-692