Mireya Fernández, Marcos Quílez, Ferran Silva
Electromagnetic Compatibility Group (GCEM)
Technical University of Catalonia (UPC).
Barcelona, SPAIN
mireya@eel.upc.es
Jordi Montalà
Lear Corporation
Valls Tarragona, Spain
Abstract—Modern automobiles incorporate increasing amount of
electronic systems, many with vehicle safety concerns, working in
a harsh electromagnetic environment .The vehicle components
immunity to electromagnetic interferences is fundamental and is
covered by international standards like ISO 11452x and SAE
J1113x series for automotive EMC immunity testing. Also the
automobile manufacturers have its own EMC immunity
requirements covering the different types of disturbances:
radiated, conducted and ESD. Usually the uncertainty related to
the determination of the applied immunity level is not considered
in the automotive EMC standards but it roles an important issue
in the test reliability and repeatability. In this paper we describe
a methodology for uncertainty assessment in EMC immunity
tests particularizing it on Bulk current injection test.
Keywords BCI; uncertainty assessment; automotive EMC
I. INTRODUCTION
Modern automobiles incorporate increasing amount of
electronic systems on board, many of them, like ABS,
AIRBAG, etc., with vehicle safety concerns. These electronics
devices have to work in a harsh electromagnetic environment
generated by other electronic equipment inside the vehicle and
by other elements outside it like radio transmitters. Therefore
the vehicle components immunity to electromagnetic
interferences is fundamental [1]. There are international
standards like ISO 11452x and SAE J1113x for automotive
EMC immunity testing, and also the automobile manufacturers
has its own requirements regarding EMC immunity which
cover the different types of disturbances: radiated, conducted
and ESD.
Usually the uncertainty related to the determination of the
applied immunity level is not considered in the automotive
EMC standards but it roles an important issue in the test
reliability and repeatability. The American Association for
Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) automotive EMC program
[2] requires the laboratories to demonstrate the compliance
with ISO/IEC 17025 [3]. This laboratory accreditation standard
includes the assessment of measurement uncertainty.
Each immunity test has its own particular setup defined in
its respective standard, but the methodology for the uncertainty
assessment is similar for all the tests. A systematic way to
assess the uncertainty is to follow the test chain taking into
account the contribution to the uncertainty of all chain links;
the proposed procedure has four steps.
The first step is to identify all the elements that could
contribute to the uncertainty. It is important not only to think in
the recording instruments, antennas, probes etc. but also in all
the interconnection elements like wires, cables, attenuators,
directional couplers, termination loads etc. and also its position
at the test site.
The second one is to evaluate the uncertainty of every
element that we have considered in the first step. The ISO
guide for the expression of uncertainty in measurements
considers two methods for the uncertainty evaluation. Type A
uncertainty evaluation assumes a normal probability density
function and uses statistical methods for obtaining the
uncertainty. Type B uncertainty evaluation is based in non
statistical methods and uses all the available information like
manufacturer specification, calibration reports etc. to assess the
uncertainty.
The next step consists on analyzing how the uncertainties
of all elements are combined in order to found the total
uncertainty for the test. To display easily all this information
and calculate the total uncertainty we build the uncertainty
budget for the test. Uncertainty budgets display in one table all
the necessary information to assess the uncertainty of a
measurement: the contributions of all factors, their sensibility
coefficients and their probability density functions among other
parameters.
Finally, the fourth step is to decide how the information
obtained in the uncertainty assessment is used. For example,
the United Kingdom Accreditation Service suggests increasing
the test level by an amount related with the immunity setup
uncertainty [4].
II. MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
When we perform a measurement, we assign a numerical
value to a property of an object or to a physical variable, the
measurand, (for example the value of the applied net power
when an EUT malfunction occurs performing a BCI test). The
measurement result is a number that quantifies this property,
but this number by itself gives little information. There is also
needed a parameter that quantifies the quality of the
measurement result. This parameter is the measurement
uncertainty. That is, a measurement result m has an uncertainty
u(m). In a more general way, a measurand Y is a function of
several input quantities (X
1
, X
2
,…X
n
):
) ,..., , (
2 1 n
X X X f Y = (1)
This work was sponsored in part by the Spanish research project: “DPI20010897C0201”
078038444X/04/$20.00 (C) IEEE
An estimate of the measurand Y, expressed in lowercase
(y), can be obtained from the input quantities estimates x
1
…x
n
( )
n
x x x f y ,.... ,
2 1
= (2)
where the function f represents the measurement procedure.
Every input quantity estimate x
i
has associated an standard
uncertainty u(x
i
). The measurement standard uncertainty will
be a combination of the standard uncertainties of the input
quantities estimates and of the input quantities estimates. It is
named combined standard uncertainty:
) .... , ), ( )...., ( ), ( ( ) (
2 1 2 1 n n c
x x x x u x u x u g y u = (3)
where g is a function related with f.
It is important not to confuse the terms uncertainty and
error. While the error is the difference between the measured
value and the “true value” of the measurand,  yY (so can’t be
obtained), the uncertainty is a quantification of the doubt about
the measurement result [5].
Usually the measurement uncertainty comes from several
sources, so to assess the uncertainty of a measurement we must
analyze carefully all the possible contributing sources. This
could be a very complicated task, but there are several rules
that can clarify the process.
Regardless of which are the uncertainty sources, the
international consensus method for estimating measurement
uncertainty provides two ways for evaluating it: Type A
Evaluation: the uncertainty is estimated by using statistical
methods, and Type B Evaluation the uncertainty is estimated
from other information (past experience, calibrations
certificates, manufacturers specifications, etc. )[6],[7],[8].
A. Type A uncertainty evaluation
Type A evaluation of uncertainty is performed by an
statistical analysis of experimental data. The procedure for the
evaluation is the following:
1 Extract a sample (a set of n independent results), q
k
from
the population (all the possible results obtained when
measuring a magnitude q). The expectation of the population is
the true value of q, and the best estimate of q is the arithmetic
mean of the sample.
∑
=
=
n
k
k
q
n
q
1
1
(4)
2 The experimental standard deviation is used to estimate
the dispersion of results:
( ) ( )
2
1
1
1
∑
=
−
−
=
n
j
j
q q
n
q s (5)
In fact s(q) gives information about the dispersion of the
sample.
3 To estimate the dispersion of the arithmetic mean we use
its experimental standard deviation, defined as:
n
q s
q s
) (
) ( = (6)
This parameter is an estimator of the standard uncertainty so:
n
q s
q s q u
) (
) ( ) ( = = (7)
Equation (7) is only valid if the n measurements are
statistically independent. If the measurements are correlated,
the mean and the experimental standard deviation of the mean
may be inappropriate estimators of the desired statistics. In
such cases the data should be analyzed by statistical methods
adequate for treating series of correlated randomly varying
measurements [8], [9].
B. Type B uncertainty evaluation
Type B evaluation of uncertainty is performed by means of
nonstatistical methods. If only an estimate xi from an input
quantity Xi is available, the evaluation of standard uncertainty
is based on all available information on the possible variability
of the input quantity (previous measurement data, knowledge
of behavior of materials and instruments, manufacturer’s
specifications, data provided in calibrations etc.). The more
common ways of type B standard uncertainty evaluations are:
a) From the previous knowledge of the measured input
quantity Xi, a probability distribution of Xi can be supposed. In
this case, the expectation of Xi, E(Xi), is an estimate of the
input quantity and the standard deviation of Xi , σ(Xi), is an
estimate of the measurement uncertainty.
b) If only the limits of the distribution are known, the
uniform distribution or the triangular distributions are used.
The uniform (or rectangular) distribution is the most simplified
option for the analysis and it represents the worst case. The
triangular distribution is used when it is known that there is a
central tendency for the values of the variable of interest.
Although these two distributions are the most used, sometimes
other distributions are employed. Table 1 contains the most
common distributions and its relevant parameters.
TABLE I PROBABILITY FUNCTIONS FOR TYPE B UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION.
Rectangular or Uniform distribution
− +
−
=
a a
x f
1
) (
12
) (
− +
−
=
a a
x u
if a+ =a =a
a
x f
2
1
) ( =
3
) (
a
x u =
Normal distribution
± a, encompass 99.7 %
of the distribution.
( )
2
2
2
2
1
) , , (
σ
µ
σ π
σ µ
−
−
=
x
e x f
3
) (
a
x u =
Triangular distribution
if a+ =a =a
¦
¦
¹
¦
¦
´
¦
≤ ≤
−
≤ ≤ −
+
=
a x
a
x a
x a
a
a x
x f
0
0
) (
2
2
6
) (
a
x u =
U distribution
a x a
x a
x f ≤ ≤ −
−
=
2 2
1
) (
π
2
) (
a
x u =
a+
1/(a+a)
a
a
a
a a+
2/(a+a)
a a
a a
a +a
078038444X/04/$20.00 (C) IEEE
C. Calculating the combined standard uncertainty.
Uncertainty budget
Many times the measurement result is a combination of
several magnitudes (2) and its uncertainty is a combination of
the uncertainties of input magnitudes and of the input
magnitudes themselves (3). If the different magnitudes used to
obtain the measurement result are independent, the combined
standard uncertainty can be calculated considering a firstorder
Taylor series approximation as follows:
∑
=
≅
N
i
i c
y u y u
1
2
) ( ) ( (8)
where u
i
(y) is the contribution to the standard uncertainty of y
resulting from the standard uncertainty of the input quantity x
i
.
) ( ) (
i i i
x u c y u ⋅ = (9)
c
i
is the sensitivity coefficient associated to the input quantity
and is calculated:
i
i
x
f
c
∂
∂
= (10)
Substituting (9) and (10) in (8) the combined uncertainty
can be expressed as:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2
2
1 1
2 2
1
2
i
N
i
i
N
i
i i
N
i
i c
x u
x
f
x u c y u y u
∑ ∑ ∑
= = =
(
¸
(
¸
∂
∂
= = ≅ (11)
When the input magnitudes are dependents the combined
standard uncertainty can be calculated as follows:
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑∑
=
−
= + = = =
+ = ≅
N
i
N
i
N
i k
k i k i i i
N
i
k i k
N
k
i c
x x u c c x u c x x u c c y u
1
1
1 1
2 2
1 1
) , ( 2 ) ( ) , ( ) ( (12)
where c
i
is the sensitivity coefficient and u(x
i
,x
k
) is the
covariance between the input magnitudes x
i
and x
k
. This
covariance can be obtained from the standard uncertainty of
input quantities and its correlation coefficient:
) , ( ) ( ) ( ) , (
k i k i k i
x x r x u x u x x u ⋅ ⋅ = (13)
The uncertainty analysis for a measurement should include
a list of all sources of uncertainty and the associated standard
uncertainties and the methods to evaluate them. A good
practice to show all this information is the measurement
uncertainty budget that should include the input quantities and
its estimates, the associated standard uncertainty, the
probability functions used (p.d.f), the sensitivity coefficients
and the contribution to the total uncertainty. Table 2 shows a
typical uncertainty budget.
TABLE II. TYPICAL UNCERTAINTY BUDGET
Input
quantity
Xi
Estimate
xi
Standard
uncertainty
u(xi)
p.d.f. Sensitivity
coefficient
ci
Contribution to the
standard uncertainty
ui(y)
X1 x1 u(x1) ... c1 c1·u(x1)
X2 x2 u(x2) ... c2 c2·u(x2)
... ... ... ... ... ...
XN xN u(xN) ... cN cN·u(xN)
Y y uc(Y)
D. Expanded Uncertianty.
In some applications it is often necessary to give a measure
of uncertainty that defines an interval around the measurement
result that may be expected to encompass a large fraction of the
distribution of values expected for the measurand [8].
This measure of uncertainty is called expanded uncertainty
and is denoted by U. The expanded uncertainty is obtained by
multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage
factor k:
) ( y u k U
c
⋅ = (14)
The result of a measurement is now expressed as:
U y Y ± = (15)
where y is the best estimate of the value attributable to the
measurand Y, and yU and y+U defines an interval about the
measurement result that includes a large fraction p of the
probability distribution characterized by the result and its
combined standard uncertainty, and p is called sometimes level
of confidence of the interval.
The coverage factor k is chosen for providing an interval
Y= y ± U corresponding to a particular level of confidence p.
This choice is not easy to do in practice because it requires an
extensive knowledge of the probability distribution
characterized by the result and its combined standard
uncertainty. But, by the Central Limit Theorem the probability
distribution of a variable obtained from a combination of
several variables with different probability distributions, can be
approximated by a normal distribution. The larger the number
of variables, the more exact is the approximation.
In order to obtain a stricter approximation of expanded
uncertainty, we should consider that the calculation of an
interval having a specific level of confidence requires the
distribution of a variable [yY]/u
c
(y). If the measurand Y is a
normally distributed quantity, and y is the best estimation of Y
(that is the arithmetic mean of n independent observations of
Y) with experimental deviation of the mean s(y) = u
c
(y), the
variable [yY]/u
c
(y) follows a Student tdistribution with ν=n1
degrees of freedom.
The coverage factor is now obtained from the tdistribution
tables for a determinate confidence level and ν=n1 degrees of
freedom. When the degrees of freedom tend to ∞ the Student t
distribution tends to a normal distribution.
III. THE BULK INJECTION CURRENT TEST
Bulk Current Injection test (BCI), is an immunity test
commonly used in the automotive and aircraft industry. Its
objective is to determine the immunity of a vehicle component
to RF electromagnetic fields when the interference is coupled
to the cables, by inducing disturbance signals directly into the
wiring harness by means of a current injection probe. The
injection probe is a current transformer through which the
wires connected to the device under test are passed. The
immunity test includes different severity levels and different
test frequencies (from 1 MHz to 400 MHz). The test procedure
is defined both in ISO 114524 [10] and SAE J1113/4 [11].
According to these standards, BCI test can be performed in two
078038444X/04/$20.00 (C) IEEE
different ways: the calibrated injection probe method and the
current monitoring probe method.
The calibrated injection probe method uses the applied net
power as the reference parameter for calibration and test. The
specific test level (voltage, current or power) shall be calibrated
before the test. The measurement setup for this test is shown
in Fig. 1.
The current monitoring probe method uses an injection
probe and a monitoring probe. The monitoring probe shall be
calibrated in order to obtain the output voltage as a function of
the frequency and to relate this output voltage with the input
current by using a well known termination impedance. Fig 2
shows the block diagram for the current monitoring probe
method test.
IV. CALIBRATED INJECTION PROBE METHOD UNCERTAINTY
ASSESSMENT
As we state in the introduction the first step for the assessment
of the uncertainty is to identify the elements in the
measurement chain that could contribute to the uncertainty.
From the measurement setup of fig. 1 we can see that the
measurement chain is composed by: the current injection
probe, the directional coupler, the power meter, the amplifier
and the RF generator. In this case we will consider the
following contributions to the uncertainty: the current injection
probe uncertainty (CIP), determined when calibrate the probe
at the beginning of the test, the mismatch between the
directional coupler and the injection probe (M
DCIP
), the
directional coupler coupling factor accuracy (DC
acc
), the
mismatch between directional coupler and powermeter
(M
DCPM
), the power meter probe effects (PMP), the power
meter accuracy (PM
acc
), the mismatch effects between
amplifier and directional coupler (M
ADC
), the amplifier effects
(A) and the RF generator effects (RFG).
The uncertainty of the current injection probe is determined
when we calibrate it. The calibration procedure follows the
standard ISO114524 Annex A [10]. In order to determine the
injected current flowing, the net power measurement across a
calibration fixture is used.
RF
generator
Broadband
Amplifier
Power
meter
DUT
Control / Loads
Battery
Current
injection
probe
Directional
Coupler
Figure 1. Calibration Injection probe method block diagram.
Power
meter
RF
generator
DUT
Control / Loads
Battery
Current
injection
probe
Directional
Coupler
Broadband
Amplifier
Spectrum
Analyzer
Current
monitoring
probe
Figure 2. Current Injection probe method block diagram.
The necessary elements for performing this calibration are:
an RF signal generator, a broadband power amplifier, a
directional coupler (with 30 dB minimum decoupling
coefficient), a power meter plus power measurement probes,
the injection current probe being calibrated, an spectrum
analyzer or equivalent, an RF coaxial load 50 Ω with a
maximum VSWR 1.2:1, and an attenuator. A signal coming
from a RF signal generator is amplified and coupled to the
current injection probe through a directional coupler while the
net power is recorded. The injected current produce a voltage
over a known load impedance that is recorded by a spectrum
analyzer or similar. So the relationship between the current
injected and the net power is established.
Now we must think about which characteristics of the
elements of the measurement chain can affect to uncertainty in
the calibration of the current injection probe. For example,
regarding the spectrum analyzer or similar we need to think in
receiver reading accuracy and the receiver response to
continuous waves, pulses etc, also we can think in the accuracy
of the attenuator, the effect of the amplifier harmonics, or the
mismatch in the connection between elements.
Analyzing the measurement chain for the calibration of the
current injection probe we found that the terms that would
contribute to current injection probe uncertainty are:
RFG A M PM PMP
M D M M V V V AT V V
ADC ACC
DCPM ACC DCIP ATL pr pa sw r
+ + + + +
+ + + + + + + + = δ δ δ
(16)
where Vr is the receiver reading (spectrum analyzer or similar)
uncertainty, AT the attenuator uncertainty, δVsw δVpa, δVpr
are respectively the receiver sinewave voltage accuracy, the
receiver pulse amplitude response, and the receiver pulse
response variation with repetition frequency uncertainty related
terms, MATL, MDCIP, MDCPM , MADC, are the uncertainty
terms associated respectively to the mismatch between
attenuator and load, the directional coupler and the injection
probe, the directional coupler and the powermeter and the
amplifier and the directional coupler, DC
ACC
is the directional
coupler coupling factor uncertainty, PMP, PM
ACC
, A, and RFG
the power meter probe, power meter, amplifier and RF
generator uncertainty terms. All the terms are expressed in dB.
078038444X/04/$20.00 (C) IEEE
The uncertainty associated to the most of these terms can be
calculated by using the associated tolerances that manufacturer
specifications or calibration reports provide. This could be the
case for example of the parameters associated to the accuracy
of an element of the measurement chain. The correction in the
readings due to these parameters is supposed to be zero with a
rectangular probability distribution having a halfwidth of the
given tolerance. The uncertainty associated to these parameters
will be:
dB
a
u
3
= (17)
where a is the tolerance of the considered parameter.
If the source that we use to assess the uncertainty is a
calibration report, usually the uncertainty associated to an
element is given as an expanded uncertainty that is as an
interval b with a given coverage factor k. The standard
uncertainty associated to this parameter can be calculated as:
dB
k
b
u = (18)
The mismatches between the different elements of the
measurement chain contribute to increase the uncertainty in the
measurement. The uncertainty associated to the mismatch
terms can be calculated considering that the limits for
mismatch effects between two elements are given by [12]:
(
¸
(
¸

.

\

Γ Γ + Γ Γ + Γ + Γ ± = ±
2
21 22 11 22 11 10
1 log 20 S S S S S M
r e r e r e
δ (19)
Γ
e
is the reflection coefficient seen looking into the output port
of the emitter element, and Γ
r
is the coefficient reflection of the
receiver element.
The probability distribution of δM is approximately U
shaped, with width not greater than (δM
+
δM

) and standard
deviation not greater than the halfwidth divided by 2 . The
uncertainty will be:
dB
M
u
2
δ
= (20)
For the amplifier and RF signal generator contributions we
must consider among other terms the effect of the harmonic
content. The power meter measure the power in its work
bandwidth, so all the generator and amplifier harmonics in the
power meter measurement bandwidth will contribute to the
uncertainty. The uncertainty due to the harmonic contents can
be calculated using the following expression assuming a
rectangular distribution [13]:
3
10 1 log 20
1
10



.

\

+ ×
=
∑
=
∆
N
i
i
u (21)
where ∆i is the iharmonic amplitude respect to the
fundamental and N the number of harmonics in the power
meter measurement bandwidth.
The uncertainty budget for the current injection probe
calibration is given in table III.
TABLE III. UNCERTAINTY BUDGET FOR CURRENT INJECTION PROBE
CALIBRATION
Input quantity Xi p.d.f
u(xi)
dB
c
i
ci·u(x
i
)
Receiver reading: Vr Uniform a 1 a·1
Attenuator effects: AT Uniform b 1 b·1
R. Sine Wave Voltage δVsw
R. Pulse amplitude resp. δVpa
R. Pulse repetition rate resp. δVpr
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
c
d
e
1
1
1
c·1
d·1
e·1
Mismatch attenuator load MATL U shaped f 1 f·1
Mismatch DC injection probe MDCIP U shaped g 1 g·1
Direct. Coupler accuracy DCACC Uniform h 1 h·1
Mismatch DC power meter MDCPM U shaped i 1 i·1
Power meter probe effects PMP Normal j 1 j·1
Power meter accuracy PMACC Uniform l 1 k·1
Mismatch amplifier DC MADC U shaped m 1 l·1
Amplifier effects A Uniform n 1 m·1
RF generator effects RFG Uniform o 1 n·1
Total Uncertainty  
∑
⋅
2 2
) (
i i
x u c
Once known the uncertainty associated to the injection
probe, we can evaluate the uncertainty in the calibration
injection probe method. The elements of measurement chain
can be determined from the diagram of Fig.1. The elements
considered for the uncertainty assessment are: the current
injection probe uncertainty CIP, the mismatch between the
directional coupler and the injection probe M
DCIP
, the
directional coupler coupling factor accuracy DC
ACC
, the
mismatch effects between the directional coupler and the
powermeter: M
DCPM
, the power meter probe effects: PMP, the
power meter accuracy: PM
ACC
, the mismatch effects between
the amplifier and the directional coupler: M
ADC
, the amplifier
effects: A and the RF generator effects RFG.
The uncertainty budget for the calibrated current injection
probe is shown in table IV.
TABLE IV. UNCERTAINTY BUDGET FOR THE BULK CURRENT INEJECTION
TEST USING THE CALIBRATED CURRENT INJECTION PROBE METHOD
Input quantity Xi p.d. f.
u(xi)
dB
Ci ci·u(xi)
Current Injection Probe CIP  p 1 p·1
Mismatch attenuator load MATL U shaped q 1 q·1
Mismatch DC inject. probe MDCIP U shaped r 1 r·1
DC accuracy DCACC Uniform s 1 s·1
Mismatch DC power meter MDCPM U shaped t 1 t·1
Power meter probe effects PMP Normal u 1 u·1
Power meter accuracy PMACC Uniform v 1 v·1
Mismatch amplifier DC MADC U shaped w 1 w·1
Amplifier effects A Uniform x 1 x·1
RF signal generator effects RFG Uniform y 1 y·1
Total Uncertainty   
∑
⋅
2 2
) (
i i
x u c
078038444X/04/$20.00 (C) IEEE
V. CURRENT MONITORING PROBE METHOD UNCERTAINTY
ASSESSMENT
The current monitoring probe method is described in Fig 2.
The elements involved in the measurement chain are: the
current monitoring probe, the receiver or spectrum analyzer,
the current injection probe, the directional coupler, the power
meter, the amplifier, and the RF signal generator. Previous to
perform the test is necessary to calibrate the current monitoring
probe. The standard describes the procedure to perform this
calibration with the following elements: RF signal generator,
broadband power amplifier, directional coupler, power meter,
current monitoring probe being calibrated, spectrum analyzer
or equivalent, RF termination 50 Ω. The uncertainty of all this
parameters will contribute to the current monitoring probe
uncertainty.
The methodology to analyze the measurement chain and to
decide the relevant parameters to be taken into account in the
uncertainty assessment is the same that one used for the
calibrated injection probe method. The elements considered in
the uncertainty assessment are: the current monitoring probe
uncertainty CPM, the receiver related parameters Vr, δV
sw
,
δV
pa
, δV
pr
, the attenuation of the connection between current
monitoring probe and receiver L
c
, the mismatches between
elements M
DCIP
, M
ADC
, M
DCPM
, the power meter related
parameters PMP, PM
acc
, directional coupler coupling factor
accuracy DC
acc
, amplifier effects A, RF generator effects RFG.
Table V contains the uncertainty budget for the current
monitoring probe method.
TABLE IV. UNCERTAINTY BUDGET FOR THE BULK CURRENT INEJECTION
TEST USING THE CALIBRATED CURRENT INJECTION PROBE METHOD
Input quantity Xi p.d.f.
u(xi)
dB
Ci c
i
·u(x
i
)
Current monitoring probe CMP  a 1 a·1
Receiver reading: Vr Uniform b 1 b·1
Attenuation c. m. p. Rec Lc Uniform c 1 c·1
Rec Sine Wave Volt. δVsw
Rec Pulse amp. Resp. δVpa
Rec.Pulse rep. rate resp. δVpr
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
d
e
f
1
1
1
d·1
e·1
f·1
Mismatch DC inject. probe MDCIP U shaped g 1 g·1
DC accuracy DCACC Uniform h 1 h·1
Mismatch DC power met. MDCPM  i 1 i·1
Power meter probe effects PMP Normal j 1 j·1
Power meter accuracy PMACC Uniform k 1 k·1
Mismatch amplifier DC MADC U shaped l 1 l·1
Amplifier effects A Uniform m 1 m·1
RF signal generator effects RFG Uniform n 1 n·1
Total Uncertainty (worst case)   
∑
⋅
2 2
) (
i i
x u c
VI. CONCLUSSIONS
We have presented a simple systematic way to tackle the
uncertainty assessment for the automotive bulk current
injection test. The method consist on analyzing carefully the
elements of the measurement chain and its relationships, then,
calculate the uncertainty of every element of the measurement
chain that could influence in the test uncertainty, third build
the uncertainty budged and calculate the total uncertainty, and
finally decide how the calculated uncertainty could modify the
immunity limits. The uncertainty calculations are necessary to
fulfil the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 for the accreditation
of test laboratories. The proposed methodology could be used
for the uncertainty assessment in any kind of measurement
situations.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Dearing and G. Senko EMI immunity testing for automotive
components. Conformity June 2003. available at:
http://www.conformity.com
[2] American Association for Laboratory Accreditation. A2LA Automotive
EMC Laboratory Accreditation Program (AEMCLAP). Requirements.
Available at www.a2la.org
[3] ISO/IEC 17025: 1999. General Requirements for the Competence of
Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO.
[4] UKAS. LAB34. The Expression of Uncertainty in EMC Testing
[5] S. Bell. “A Beginner’s Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement” National
physical Laboratory. United Kingdom. Measurement Good Practice
Guide nº 11 (Issue 2).
[6] T. M. Adams. A2LA Guide for the Estimation of Uncertainty in Testing.
American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (July, 2002)
[7] Expression of Uncertainty of Measurement in Calibration. European Co
operation for Accreditation (1999).
[8] Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. First edition
1995. International Organization for Standardization. Switzerland.
[9] D.W. Allan, “ Should the Classical Variance Be Used as a Basic
Measure in Standards Metrology?”, IEEE Trans. on Instrumentation and
Measurement, IM36, 646654, 1987.
[10] ISO 114524: 1995. Road vehicles – Electrical disturbances by
narrowband radiated electromagnetic energy – Component test methods
– Part 4: Bulk current injection method (BCI). ISO
[11] SAE J11134:1997 Immunity to radiated electromagnetic fields – Bulk
current injection (BCI) method. SAE
[12] CISPR 164:2002 Specification for radio disturbance and immunity
measuring apparatus and methods  Part 4: Uncertainty in EMC
Measurements. IEC
[13] Agilent AN 1315. Optimizing RF and Microwave Spectrum Analyzer
Dynamic Range. Application Note
078038444X/04/$20.00 (C) IEEE
In this case. The measurement standard uncertainty will be a combination of the standard uncertainties of the input quantities estimates and of the input quantities estimates.=a f ( x) = 1 2a u ( x) = a 3 ∑q k =1 n k (4) a +a Normal distribution 2 The experimental standard deviation is used to estimate the dispersion of results: s(q ) = 1 n −1 ∑ (q j =1 n j −q ) 2 ± a. x 2 .. manufacturers specifications. etc. This could be a very complicated task. The triangular distribution is used when it is known that there is a central tendency for the values of the variable of interest. In such cases the data should be analyzed by statistical methods adequate for treating series of correlated randomly varying measurements [8].7 % of the distribution.. [9]. and Type B Evaluation the uncertainty is estimated from other information (past experience. µ .. The expectation of the population is the true value of q. qk from the population (all the possible results obtained when measuring a magnitude q).An estimate of the measurand Y. σ ) = 1 2π σ e − (x − µ )2 2σ 2 u ( x) = a 3 Triangular distribution (5) 2/(a+a) aa a a+ In fact s(q) gives information about the dispersion of the sample. the international consensus method for estimating measurement uncertainty provides two ways for evaluating it: Type A Evaluation: the uncertainty is estimated by using statistical methods. is an estimate of the measurement uncertainty.. The more common ways of type B standard uncertainty evaluations are: a) From the previous knowledge of the measured input quantity Xi.x n ) Equation (7) is only valid if the n measurements are statistically independent.x n ) This parameter is an estimator of the standard uncertainty so: u ( q ) = s (q ) = s (q) n (2) (7) where the function f represents the measurement procedure. Usually the measurement uncertainty comes from several sources. sometimes other distributions are employed. u ( x 2 ). but there are several rules that can clarify the process.. Type A uncertainty evaluation Type A evaluation of uncertainty is performed by an statistical analysis of experimental data.. data provided in calibrations etc. the uniform distribution or the triangular distributions are used.. While the error is the difference between the measured value and the “true value” of the measurand. so to assess the uncertainty of a measurement we must analyze carefully all the possible contributing sources.. and the best estimate of q is the arithmetic mean of the sample. the expectation of Xi. Rectangular or Uniform distribution 1/(a+a) a aa a+ (3) where g is a function related with f.  yY (so can’t be obtained).=a x+a 2 −a≤ x≤0 f ( x) = a a−x 0≤ x≤a a2 U distribution u ( x) = a 6 a 2 (6) a a f ( x) = 1 π a2 − x2 −a≤ x≤a u ( x) = 078038444X/04/$20.[7]. )[6]. b) If only the limits of the distribution are known. It is named combined standard uncertainty: u c ( y ) = g (u ( x1 ). f ( x. The procedure for the evaluation is the following: 1 Extract a sample (a set of n independent results)..). B. Type B uncertainty evaluation Type B evaluation of uncertainty is performed by means of nonstatistical methods. q= 1 n f ( x) = 1 a+ − a− a − a− u ( x) = + 12 if a+ =a. Although these two distributions are the most used. It is important not to confuse the terms uncertainty and error.00 (C) IEEE . the uncertainty is a quantification of the doubt about the measurement result [5]. Table 1 contains the most common distributions and its relevant parameters. can be obtained from the input quantities estimates x1…xn y = f (x1 . the evaluation of standard uncertainty is based on all available information on the possible variability of the input quantity (previous measurement data. u ( x n ).. manufacturer’s specifications. TABLE I PROBABILITY FUNCTIONS FOR TYPE B UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION. Every input quantity estimate xi has associated an standard uncertainty u(xi). x 2 . the mean and the experimental standard deviation of the mean may be inappropriate estimators of the desired statistics. 3 To estimate the dispersion of the arithmetic mean we use its experimental standard deviation. encompass 99. is an estimate of the input quantity and the standard deviation of Xi . E(Xi). a probability distribution of Xi can be supposed.[8]. A.. x1 . σ(Xi). If only an estimate xi from an input quantity Xi is available. knowledge of behavior of materials and instruments. Regardless of which are the uncertainty sources. The uniform (or rectangular) distribution is the most simplified option for the analysis and it represents the worst case. expressed in lowercase (y). calibrations certificates. If the measurements are correlated. defined as: s(q ) = s (q) n if a+ =a.
. III. Table 2 shows a typical uncertainty budget. The injection probe is a current transformer through which the wires connected to the device under test are passed.. by the Central Limit Theorem the probability distribution of a variable obtained from a combination of several variables with different probability distributions.... The expanded uncertainty is obtained by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor k: U = k ⋅ uc ( y ) ∑ u ( y) 2 i i =1 N (8) (14) The result of a measurement is now expressed as: Y = y ±U (15) where y is the best estimate of the value attributable to the measurand Y. where ui (y) is the contribution to the standard uncertainty of y resulting from the standard uncertainty of the input quantity xi . This choice is not easy to do in practice because it requires an extensive knowledge of the probability distribution characterized by the result and its combined standard uncertainty. by inducing disturbance signals directly into the wiring harness by means of a current injection probe. the variable [yY]/uc(y) follows a Student tdistribution with ν=n1 degrees of freedom. Its objective is to determine the immunity of a vehicle component to RF electromagnetic fields when the interference is coupled to the cables. xN y u(x1) u(x2) . x k ) = u ( xi ) ⋅ u ( x k ) ⋅ r ( x i . TYPICAL UNCERTAINTY BUDGET p. The test procedure is defined both in ISO 114524 [10] and SAE J1113/4 [11]. The immunity test includes different severity levels and different test frequencies (from 1 MHz to 400 MHz). If the different magnitudes used to obtain the measurement result are independent. Sensitivity coefficient ci Contribution to the standard uncertainty ui(y) Input Estimate Standard quantity xi uncertainty Xi u(xi) X1 X2 . This measure of uncertainty is called expanded uncertainty and is denoted by U. A good practice to show all this information is the measurement uncertainty budget that should include the input quantities and its estimates. The larger the number of variables. cN c1·u(x1) c2·u(x2) .. the more exact is the approximation. This covariance can be obtained from the standard uncertainty of input quantities and its correlation coefficient: u ( xi .C. the probability functions used (p. and yU and y+U defines an interval about the measurement result that includes a large fraction p of the probability distribution characterized by the result and its combined standard uncertainty. Calculating the combined standard uncertainty.. can be approximated by a normal distribution. The coverage factor is now obtained from the tdistribution tables for a determinate confidence level and ν=n1 degrees of freedom.00 (C) IEEE . THE BULK INJECTION CURRENT TEST where ci is the sensitivity coefficient and u(xi. the associated standard uncertainty. is an immunity test commonly used in the automotive and aircraft industry..xk) is the covariance between the input magnitudes xi and xk. In some applications it is often necessary to give a measure of uncertainty that defines an interval around the measurement result that may be expected to encompass a large fraction of the distribution of values expected for the measurand [8]. In order to obtain a stricter approximation of expanded uncertainty.f). But. BCI test can be performed in two 078038444X/04/$20. xk ) (12) i =1 k =1 i =1 i =1 k = i +1 N N N N −1 N The coverage factor k is chosen for providing an interval Y= y ± U corresponding to a particular level of confidence p. When the degrees of freedom tend to ∞ the Student tdistribution tends to a normal distribution. and p is called sometimes level of confidence of the interval.. According to these standards...f. TABLE II. the sensitivity coefficients and the contribution to the total uncertainty.. cN·u(xN) uc(Y) Bulk Current Injection test (BCI).. the combined standard uncertainty can be calculated considering a firstorder Taylor series approximation as follows: uc ( y ) ≅ D. (9) ui ( y ) = ci ⋅ u ( xi ) ci is the sensitivity coefficient associated to the input quantity and is calculated: ci = ∂f ∂xi (10) Substituting (9) and (10) in (8) the combined uncertainty can be expressed as: uc ( y ) ≅ ∑ i =1 N ui2 ( y ) = ∑ N ci2u 2 ( xi ) = When the input magnitudes are dependents the combined standard uncertainty can be calculated as follows: uc ( y ) ≅ i =1 ∑ 2 N ∂f 2 u ( xi ) ∂x i =1 i (11) ∑∑ ci ck u ( xi . XN Y x1 x2 .. .. we should consider that the calculation of an interval having a specific level of confidence requires the distribution of a variable [yY]/uc(y). u(xN) .. .. xk ) = ∑ ci2u 2 ( xi ) + 2 ∑ ∑ ci ck u ( xi . c1 c2 .d. If the measurand Y is a normally distributed quantity... Uncertainty budget Many times the measurement result is a combination of several magnitudes (2) and its uncertainty is a combination of the uncertainties of input magnitudes and of the input magnitudes themselves (3).d. Expanded Uncertianty. and y is the best estimation of Y (that is the arithmetic mean of n independent observations of Y) with experimental deviation of the mean s(y) = uc(y). x k ) (13) The uncertainty analysis for a measurement should include a list of all sources of uncertainty and the associated standard uncertainties and the methods to evaluate them.
All the terms are expressed in dB. Now we must think about which characteristics of the elements of the measurement chain can affect to uncertainty in the calibration of the current injection probe. the directional coupler and the powermeter and the amplifier and the directional coupler. PMP. From the measurement setup of fig. The measurement setup for this test is shown in Fig. 078038444X/04/$20. and RFG the power meter probe. MATL. The specific test level (voltage. current or power) shall be calibrated before the test. the mismatch effects between amplifier and directional coupler (MADC). a directional coupler (with 30 dB minimum decoupling coefficient). The current monitoring probe method uses an injection probe and a monitoring probe. an RF coaxial load 50 Ω with a maximum VSWR 1. the power meter probe effects (PMP). power meter. Calibration Injection probe method block diagram. a power meter plus power measurement probes. MDCIP. determined when calibrate the probe at the beginning of the test. PMACC. A signal coming from a RF signal generator is amplified and coupled to the current injection probe through a directional coupler while the net power is recorded. the power meter. As we state in the introduction the first step for the assessment of the uncertainty is to identify the elements in the measurement chain that could contribute to the uncertainty. the directional coupler. the amplifier effects (A) and the RF generator effects (RFG). the amplifier and the RF generator. the injection current probe being calibrated. So the relationship between the current injected and the net power is established.00 (C) IEEE .2:1. amplifier and RF generator uncertainty terms. the effect of the amplifier harmonics. AT the attenuator uncertainty. or the mismatch in the connection between elements. δVsw δVpa. MDCPM . the directional coupler and the injection probe. the power meter accuracy (PMacc). the directional coupler coupling factor accuracy (DCacc). the mismatch between the directional coupler and the injection probe (MDCIP). 1. a broadband power amplifier. The calibrated injection probe method uses the applied net power as the reference parameter for calibration and test. A. CALIBRATED INJECTION PROBE METHOD UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT Spectrum Analyzer Directional Coupler DUT Current monitoring probe RF generator Broadband Amplifier Current injection probe Power meter Control / Loads Battery Figure 2. Analyzing the measurement chain for the calibration of the current injection probe we found that the terms that would contribute to current injection probe uncertainty are: V = Vr + AT + δVsw + δV pa + δV pr + M ATL + M DCIP + D ACC + M DCPM + PMP + PM ACC + M ADC + A + RFG (16) DUT Current injection probe Power meter Control / Loads Battery where Vr is the receiver reading (spectrum analyzer or similar) uncertainty. The calibration procedure follows the standard ISO114524 Annex A [10]. pulses etc. 1 we can see that the measurement chain is composed by: the current injection probe. Directional Coupler RF generator Broadband Amplifier The necessary elements for performing this calibration are: an RF signal generator. regarding the spectrum analyzer or similar we need to think in receiver reading accuracy and the receiver response to continuous waves. the mismatch between directional coupler and powermeter (MDCPM). Fig 2 shows the block diagram for the current monitoring probe method test. IV. The monitoring probe shall be calibrated in order to obtain the output voltage as a function of the frequency and to relate this output voltage with the input current by using a well known termination impedance. DCACC is the directional coupler coupling factor uncertainty.different ways: the calibrated injection probe method and the current monitoring probe method. an spectrum analyzer or equivalent. In order to determine the injected current flowing. and an attenuator. and the receiver pulse response variation with repetition frequency uncertainty related terms. In this case we will consider the following contributions to the uncertainty: the current injection probe uncertainty (CIP). the net power measurement across a calibration fixture is used. The injected current produce a voltage over a known load impedance that is recorded by a spectrum analyzer or similar. The uncertainty of the current injection probe is determined when we calibrate it. also we can think in the accuracy of the attenuator. For example. the receiver pulse amplitude response. are the uncertainty terms associated respectively to the mismatch between attenuator and load. MADC. Figure 1. Current Injection probe method block diagram. δVpr are respectively the receiver sinewave voltage accuracy.
1. The elements of measurement chain can be determined from the diagram of Fig. The power meter measure the power in its work bandwidth. f. Sine Wave Voltage δVsw R. The uncertainty associated to the mismatch terms can be calculated considering that the limits for mismatch effects between two elements are given by [12]: 2 δM ± = 20 log10 1 ± Γe S11 + Γr S 22 + Γe Γr S11 S 22 + Γe Γr S 21 (19) Γe is the reflection coefficient seen looking into the output port of the emitter element. Ci ci·u(xi) Current Injection Probe CIP U shaped U shaped p q r s t u v w x y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  p·1 q·1 r·1 s·1 t·1 u·1 v·1 w·1 x·1 y·1 Mismatch attenuator load MATL Mismatch DC inject. δVpa R. Input quantity UNCERTAINTY BUDGET FOR CURRENT INJECTION PROBE CALIBRATION Xi p.d. The uncertainty associated to these parameters will be: u= a 3 dB TABLE III. so all the generator and amplifier harmonics in the power meter measurement bandwidth will contribute to the uncertainty. Pulse repetition rate resp. TABLE IV. The uncertainty due to the harmonic contents can be calculated using the following expression assuming a rectangular distribution [13]: 20 × log1 + u= Input quantity Xi p. If the source that we use to assess the uncertainty is a calibration report.The uncertainty associated to the most of these terms can be calculated by using the associated tolerances that manufacturer specifications or calibration reports provide. The uncertainty will be: u= δM 2 dB (20) For the amplifier and RF signal generator contributions we must consider among other terms the effect of the harmonic content. The standard uncertainty associated to this parameter can be calculated as: u= b dB k Receiver reading: Vr Attenuator effects: AT R. Pulse amplitude resp. the power meter accuracy: PMACC. with width not greater than (δM+δM) and standard deviation not greater than the halfwidth divided by 2 . UNCERTAINTY BUDGET FOR THE BULK CURRENT INEJECTION TEST USING THE CALIBRATED CURRENT INJECTION PROBE METHOD u(xi) dB The mismatches between the different elements of the measurement chain contribute to increase the uncertainty in the measurement.f u(xi) dB ci 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  ci·u(xi) (17) where a is the tolerance of the considered parameter. Coupler accuracy DCACC Mismatch DC power meter MDCPM Power meter probe effects PMP Power meter accuracy PMACC Mismatch amplifier DC MADC Amplifier effects A RF generator effects RFG Total Uncertainty Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform U shaped U shaped Uniform U shaped Normal Uniform U shaped Uniform Uniform a b c d e f g h i j l m n o a·1 b·1 c·1 d·1 e·1 f·1 g·1 h·1 i·1 j·1 k·1 l·1 m·1 n·1  ∑ ci2 ⋅ u( xi ) 2 (18) Once known the uncertainty associated to the injection probe.d. usually the uncertainty associated to an element is given as an expanded uncertainty that is as an interval b with a given coverage factor k. the amplifier effects: A and the RF generator effects RFG. we can evaluate the uncertainty in the calibration injection probe method. the directional coupler coupling factor accuracy DCACC. and Γr is the coefficient reflection of the receiver element. This could be the case for example of the parameters associated to the accuracy of an element of the measurement chain. RF signal generator effects RFG Total Uncertainty  ∑ c i2 ⋅ u( x i ) 2 078038444X/04/$20. The probability distribution of δM is approximately Ushaped. The elements considered for the uncertainty assessment are: the current injection probe uncertainty CIP. The correction in the readings due to these parameters is supposed to be zero with a rectangular probability distribution having a halfwidth of the given tolerance. The uncertainty budget for the calibrated current injection probe is shown in table IV. the power meter probe effects: PMP. The uncertainty budget for the current injection probe calibration is given in table III.00 (C) IEEE . δVpr Mismatch attenuator load MATL Mismatch DC injection probe MDCIP Direct. the mismatch between the directional coupler and the injection probe MDCIP. the mismatch effects between the amplifier and the directional coupler: MADC. the mismatch effects between the directional coupler and the powermeter: MDCPM. probe MDCIP DC accuracy DCACC Uniform Normal U shaped Uniform Uniform  ∑ 3 ∆i N 10 10 i =1 Mismatch DC power meter MDCPM U shaped Power meter probe effects PMP Power meter accuracy Mismatch amplifier DC Amplifier effects PMACC Uniform MADC A (21) where ∆i is the iharmonic amplitude respect to the fundamental and N the number of harmonics in the power meter measurement bandwidth.
available at: http://www. Rec Lc Rec Sine Wave Volt. directional coupler. The standard describes the procedure to perform this calibration with the following elements: RF signal generator. Allan. Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. the receiver or spectrum analyzer. the amplifier. The Expression of Uncertainty in EMC Testing S. Requirements. Conformity June 2003. Senko EMI immunity testing for automotive components. δVsw Rec Pulse amp. RF generator effects RFG. Optimizing RF and Microwave Spectrum Analyzer Dynamic Range.V. Application Note [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Input quantity Xi p. p. Available at www. directional coupler coupling factor accuracy DCacc. δVpa. T. The elements involved in the measurement chain are: the current monitoring probe. Bell. δVsw. The elements considered in the uncertainty assessment are: the current monitoring probe uncertainty CPM. A2LA Automotive EMC Laboratory Accreditation Program (AEMCLAP). CONCLUSSIONS The current monitoring probe method is described in Fig 2. The method consist on analyzing carefully the elements of the measurement chain and its relationships. MDCPM. ISO. TABLE IV. probe MDCIP DC accuracy DCACC Mismatch DC power met. amplifier effects A.00 (C) IEEE . A2LA Guide for the Estimation of Uncertainty in Testing. The methodology to analyze the measurement chain and to decide the relevant parameters to be taken into account in the uncertainty assessment is the same that one used for the calibrated injection probe method. δVpa Rec. “A Beginner’s Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement” National physical Laboratory. American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (July. and finally decide how the calculated uncertainty could modify the immunity limits. and the RF signal generator. MADC. United Kingdom. broadband power amplifier. calculate the uncertainty of every element of the measurement chain that could influence in the test uncertainty. the mismatches between elements MDCIP. International Organization for Standardization. SAE CISPR 164:2002 Specification for radio disturbance and immunity measuring apparatus and methods . RF termination 50 Ω. 2002) Expression of Uncertainty of Measurement in Calibration. the attenuation of the connection between current monitoring probe and receiver Lc. IEC Agilent AN 1315. European Cooperation for Accreditation (1999). Dearing and G. Road vehicles – Electrical disturbances by narrowband radiated electromagnetic energy – Component test methods – Part 4: Bulk current injection method (BCI). the current injection probe. δVpr.conformity. General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO 114524: 1995.d. current monitoring probe being calibrated. the power meter. IM36. ISO SAE J11134:1997 Immunity to radiated electromagnetic fields – Bulk current injection (BCI) method.a2la.org ISO/IEC 17025: 1999. Resp. CURRENT MONITORING PROBE METHOD UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT VI. m.f. “ Should the Classical Variance Be Used as a Basic Measure in Standards Metrology?”. D. power meter. Adams. Table V contains the uncertainty budget for the current monitoring probe method. spectrum analyzer or equivalent. Measurement Good Practice Guide nº 11 (Issue 2).Part 4: Uncertainty in EMC Measurements. The uncertainty of all this parameters will contribute to the current monitoring probe uncertainty. the receiver related parameters Vr. MDCPM Power meter probe effects PMP Power meter accuracy PMACC Mismatch amplifier DC MADC Amplifier effects A RF signal generator effects RFG Total Uncertainty (worst case) Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform U shaped Uniform Normal Uniform U shaped Uniform Uniform  a b c d e f g h i j k l m n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] ∑ ci2 ⋅ u( xi ) 2 078038444X/04/$20. First edition 1995. then. LAB34. on Instrumentation and Measurement. REFERENCES [1] J. Switzerland. The proposed methodology could be used for the uncertainty assessment in any kind of measurement situations. Previous to perform the test is necessary to calibrate the current monitoring probe. UNCERTAINTY BUDGET FOR THE BULK CURRENT INEJECTION TEST USING THE CALIBRATED CURRENT INJECTION PROBE METHOD u(xi) dB We have presented a simple systematic way to tackle the uncertainty assessment for the automotive bulk current injection test. the directional coupler.com American Association for Laboratory Accreditation. δVpr Mismatch DC inject.Pulse rep. M. 646654. rate resp.W. 1987. the power meter related parameters PMP. IEEE Trans. The uncertainty calculations are necessary to fulfil the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 for the accreditation of test laboratories. third build the uncertainty budged and calculate the total uncertainty. Ci ci·u(xi) a·1 b·1 c·1 d·1 e·1 f·1 g·1 h·1 i·1 j·1 k·1 l·1 m·1 n·1 Current monitoring probe CMP Receiver reading: Vr Attenuation c. UKAS. PMacc.