See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260589398

EMI filter design: Part III: Selection of filter topology for optimal
performance

Article in IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine · June 2012

DOI: 10.1109/MEMC.2012.6244975

CITATIONS READS
19 16,872

1 author:

V. Tarateeraseth
Srinakharinwirot University
57 PUBLICATIONS 406 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Conducted Emission Characteristics of an Active Snubber Boost Converter View project

All content following this page was uploaded by V. Tarateeraseth on 04 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EMI Filter Design
Part III: Selection of Filter Topology for Optimal Performance
Vuttipon Tarateeraseth, Member, IEEE,
Department of Electrical Engineering,
Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand.
E-mail: vuttipon@ieee.org

Abstract – In the first two parts of the electromagnetic interference (EMI) filter design series, the conducted EMI generation mechanism and
the method on the measurement of noise source impedances of a switched-mode power supply were described. In this final part, the selection
of filter topology for optimal performance is explained. With good accuracy of both amplitude and phase of termination impedances, an EMI fil-
ter can be designed systematically to give optimal performance.

I. Introduction

To comply with the conducted electromagnetic interference (EMI) limits, the passive EMI filter is still widely used in a switched-mode
power supply (SMPS). However, one challenging task is to design the EMI filter systematically with a minimum guess. A few papers exist
on systematic design procedures of EMI filters [1], [2]. The main difference between the two papers is that in [2] the noise source and
load impedances are taken into account in the EMI filter design procedure, but they are not considered in [1]. Without the noise source
and load impedances in the design process, it will lead to an over-designed EMI filter performance, as the filter performance is strongly
dependent on the terminating impedances [3] - [5]. In this final part of EMI filter design series, a systematic and effective design proce-
dure for the power line EMI filters to be used in SMPS applications is described [7] - [8]. The proposed procedure is validated and dem-
onstrated by practical design examples.

II. Equivalent Circuit of EMI Filters

The structure of a typical generic filter topology of a power supply filter which is composed of common mode choke (CM choke), differ-
ential mode choke (DM choke), X-capacitors and Y-capacitors, as shown in Fig. 1. It should be noted that the most common power sup-
ply filter topology is some version of the generic filter topology [9]. The main objective of an EMI filter is to suppress the conducted DM
and CM emissions generated by the SMPS and denoted as currents ID and IC in Fig. 1. The noise currents measured at LISN and denoted
as I′D and I′C should be lower than the conducted EMI limit line. Like other passive filter circuits, the passive EMI filters are made from
passive components; specific types of resistor, inductor and capacitor are used. More details of those components and equivalent cir-
cuits of EMI filter are described in this section.

'

'

'

Fig. 1: The structure of a typical generic filter topology of a power supply filter.

60 ©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2

 Zs = high impedance 20 dB/decade Zl = high impedance Zs = low impedance 20 dB/decade Zl = low impedance

Zs Zs

vs Zl vo′ vs Zl vo′

Source C-filter Load Source L-filter Load

(a) (b)
Zs = high impedance 40 dB/decade Zl = low impedance Zs = low impedance 40 dB/decade Zl = high impedance

Zs Zs

vs Zl vo′ vs Zl vo′

Source CL-filter Load Source LC-filter Load

(c) (d)
Zg = high impedance 60 dB/decade Zl = high impedance Zg = low impedance 60 dB/decade Zl = low impedance

Zs Zs

vs Zl vo′ vs Zl vo′

Source π -filter Load Source T-filter Load

(e) (f)

Fig. 2: Basic filter configurations. (a) C-filter; (b) L-filter; (c) CL-filter; (d) LC-filter; (e) p-filter; (f) T-filter.
Fig. 2: Basic filter configurations. (a) C-filter; (b) L-filter; (c) CL-filter; (d) LC-filter; (e) π-filter; (f)
Even though EMI filter circuits are diverse, they are composed of equivalent DM filters and equivalent CM filters that are based on basic
T-filter.
filtering circuits i.e. C-filter, L-filter, LC-filter, CL-filter, p-filter and T-filter as shown in Fig. 2 [10], [11]. The basic filtering circuits provide
different insertion loss (IL) rates: 20 dB/decade for C- and L-filters, 40 dB/decade for CL- and LC-filters and 60 dB/decade for p- and T-fil-
ters. However, the IL rates of the filters are strongly dependent on the impedances seen at either ends of the filters. The filter behavior
can be significantly affected, if the terminating impedances at both ends are not appropriate.

The C-filter will provide 20 dB/decade IL rate with a high impedance system but it is ineffective if it is employed in a low impedance sys-
tem. On the other hand, the L-filter is suitable for a low impedance system but not for a high impedance system. To gain higher IL rates,
CL-, LC-, p- and T-filters need to be used. Again, to prevent the ineffectiveness of the filter performances, filter configurations should be
chosen appropriately with their connecting impedances at both ends. The appropriate impedances for basic filter configurations are
summarized in Fig. 2 (a) -(f).

Fig. 3 shows a typical EMI filter. It is composed of two X-caps (CX) connecting between the line and neutral wires, two Y-caps (CY ) con-
necting between both line and ground and neutral and ground wires and a CM choke (LC). A discharging resistor is used only for dis-
charging the (CX) and it does not affect the noise suppression performance of the filter; thus, it can be ignored. The given EMI filter
shown in Fig. 3 can be converted to the schematic shown in Fig. 4 (a). Fig. 4 (a) can be further converted to equivalent DM and CM cir-
cuits as shown in Fig. 4 (b) and (c), respectively.

Due to the DM and CM noise current directions, the CM choke and the Y-caps (CY1 and CY2) affect both CM and DM emissions while the
X-caps (CX1 and CX2) affect the DM noise [12]. When the CM noise propagates through the EMI filter, the CM noise is suppressed by the

©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2 61

 Common mode choke Discharging resistor

NOISE
LISN
SOURCE

CX CY

Fig. 3: Structure of a typical EMI filter.

Fig. 3: Structure of a typical EMI filter.

equivalent CM filter. Since CY is placed by facing the noise source, the equivalent CM filter is a CL-configuration filter as shown in Fig. 4
(c). At the same time, the DM noise is eliminated by the equivalent DM filter, which is a p-configuration filter as shown in Fig. 4 (b).

The equivalent CM filter comprises of the CM inductance (LCM) of the CM choke at the LISN side and the parallel of CY1 and CY2 (CYT ) at
the SMPS side as shown in Fig. 4 (c). The equivalent DM filter resulted from the total leakage inductance of two windings of the CM
choke (LDM = Llk,p +Llk,s), the CX2 at the LISN and the CXT at the SMPS as shown in Fig. 4 (b). As the DM noise passing through the Y-caps
in series, the CXT is a parallel combination of CX1 and the series of CY1 and CY2. However, it is possible also to increase the DM noise
reduction by adding the DM chokes (LD) in series with the CM choke; in that case, the LDM is a summation of the total leakage induc-
tance and the LD.

III. Systematic EMI Filter Design

There are many factors which can deteriorate the designed EMI filter performance e.g. the termination impedances [2], [11], [12], the lay-
out of the EMI filter components [13], and the connection between the EMI filter and a LISN [14] - [15]. In addition, the use of an EMI fil-
ter with a SMPS might perturb the overall system stability, if a DM input impedance of SMPS is larger than a DM impedance of a EMI fil-
ter connected to it [16].

Conventional filter design procedure used in communication systems and microwave applications is well developed by assuming that
the terminated source and load impedances are 50 W matched [12], [17]. This assumption cannot directly apply to the design of SMPS
EMI filters, where the actual noise source and terminated load impedances are far from 50 W. In practice, EMI filters are influenced by
the noise source impedance and by the terminated load impedance [4] - [5], [18] and the filter design by assuming 50 W noise source and
termination impedances leads to deviation of EMI filter performance from the actual operating conditions.

In this section, the systematic EMI filter design procedure is explained and its validation is demonstrated by the following design exam-
ples. As an example, the EMI filter is designed for the SMPS (VTM22WB, 15W, +12VDC/0.75A, -12Vdc/0.5A). The SMPS is powered
through the LISN (Electro-Metrics MIL 5-25/2) following the CISPR 16-1 standard requirement. The output of the SMPS is connected to a
resistive load at its full load condition. To separate the total noise into DM and CM components, the output ports of the LISN are con-
nected to the noise discrimination network [19]. The DM and CM disturbances are monitored by the spectrum analyzer (HP 8595 E, 9 kHz
- 6.5 GHz).

As shown in Fig. 5, the EMI filter design procedure can be summarized as follows. First, the DM and CM disturbances of the SMPS with-
out EMI filter are measured; the required insertion losses (ILDM,req and ILCM,req) can be determined by subtracting the emission limit from
the measured DM and CM noise levels without filter. Next, the DM and CM impedances of the LISN (ZLISN,DM and ZLISN,CM) and of the
SMPS (ZSMPS,DM and ZSMPS,CM) under its actual operating conditions must be considered. As shown in second part of EMI filter design
series, the magnitude and phase of LISN and SMPS impedances were extracted and compared; as a result, the suitable equivalent DM
and CM parts of the EMI filter can be chosen. Once all needed parameters are known, the equivalent DM and CM filter components can
be determined using the IL formulas (ILDM,estimate and ILCM,estimate). Before assembling the EMI filter prototype, the actual insertion loss
(ILDM,actual and ILCM,actual) are recalculated using the measured impedances of the designed EMI components.

Additionally, the power cable between the LISN and the EMI filter can also degrade the EMI filter performance at high frequency [14] - [15].
Moreover, the filter resonances and the interaction between the filter capacitor and the noise source impedance can not only degrade the EMI
filter performance at high frequency but can also cause a stability problem in the SMPS. In such a case, the filters must be damped [12], [26].

62 ©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2

 5
16

ICM1 IDM
A. Determination of the required insertion losses
L LC L Base on the knowledge of the DM and CM imped-
The conducted emissions of the SMPS without the filter are measured
ances of thewith theSMPS
LISN and LISN alone. previously
as extracted The
CY1 in the second part of EMI filter design series, a step-
measurement setup is shown in CFigs.
X2 6. The Cline-to-ground
X1 and neutral-to-ground conducted
by-step proposed procedure emissions
to design the EMI filter
LISN I I CY2 SMPS is given in Section IV. Finally, the effect of incorrect
are shown in Figs. 7 CM2
(a) and
DM
(b), respectively. Obviously, the SMPS can
filter never meet
configuration to the the required
EMI filter EMIis
performance
N N verified in Section V.
limit without an EMI filter. With the help of the discrimination network proposed in [19], the DM and
G EMI FILTER G
CM conducted emissions of the SMPS without the filter are measured and shown#in
IV. Realization Figs. 7 (c)
1: Proposed and
EMI (d),
Filter
ICM = ICM1 + ICM2 Design Procedures For SMPS
respectively. Thus, the required DM (a)and CM filter insertion losses can be found by subtracting from the
The intended conducted EMI limit to be met by the
measured DM and CM Lemissions, given
LDM in Figs. 7 (e) and (f). SMPS is the CISPR 22 Class B limit [27]. The LISN
CX2 CXT ZSMPS, DM specified by this standard can only measure the total
ZLISN, DM VO,DM
′ conducted emissions consisting of both the DM and
B. Selection of the DM/CM filter topologies basedVS,on termination CM components. Therefore, a discrimination network
impedances
DM
is needed to separate the DM and CM components
N from the LISN so that they can be measured sepa-
Next step is to choose the proper EMI filter topology. From the DM and CM impedances comparison
rately [19].
(b)

between SMPS and LISN shown in second part of EMI filter design series, it can be seen that the SMPS
L,N LCM
ZSMPS, A. Determination of the required insertion losses
DM impedance magnitude is higher than
CYTthat of the LISN
CM by a few tens ohm to a few hundred ohm over
ZLISN, CM VO,′ CM
The conducted emissions of the SMPS without the
the frequency range of measurements. The comparison
VS, CM of CM impedances shows that the CM impedance
filter are measured with the LISN alone. The mea-
G surement setup is shown in Figs. 6. The line-to-
of the SMPS is much larger than that of the LISN one over the frequency range of interest. With this
ground and neutral-to-ground conducted emissions
(c)
are shown in Figs. 7 (a) and (b), respectively. Obvi-
information, the proper EMI filter circuit can be chosen. Since theously,
Fig. 4: Equivalent circuit of typical EMI filter: (a) schematic of Fig. 3; (b) equivalent
capacitor, to be effective, must be
the SMPS can never meet the required EMI
Fig. 4: Equivalent circuit of typical EMI filter: (a) schematic of Fig. 3; (b) equivalent DM filter; (c)
DM filter; (c) equivalent CM filter. limit without an EMI filter. With the help of the dis-
placed inequivalent
parallel to a high impedance and the inductor must be connected
CM filter. in series with a low impedance
crimination network proposed in [19], the DM and
CM conducted emissions of the SMPS without the filter are measured and shown in Figs. 7 (c) and (d), respectively. Thus, the required
[3], CL-filter configurations of both equivalent DM and CM filters are chosen where the X-caps and
DM and CM filter insertion losses can be found by subtracting from the measured DM and CM emissions, given in Figs. 7 (e) and (f).
Y-caps are at the SMPS side and the CM choke is at the LISN side as illustrated in Fig. 8 (a).
B. Selection of the DM/CM filter topologies based on termination impedances
The EMI filter is composed of one CM choke (LC ), one DM capacitor (CX ), and two CM capacitors
Next step is to choose the proper EMI filter topology. From the DM and CM impedances comparison between SMPS and LISN shown in
(CY 1 and C 2 ). ofDue
secondYpart
to the leakage inductance of LC ,SMPS
EMI filter design series, it can be seen that the
the CM choke also doubles up as two DM inductors
DM impedance magnitude is higher than that of the LISN by a few
tens ohm to a few hundred ohm over the frequency range of measurements. The comparison of CM impedances shows that the CM
in the impedance
line and ofneutral lines. The DM and CM interpretation of Fig. 8 (a) leads to two separate circuits,
the SMPS is much larger than that of the LISN one over the frequency range of interest. With this information, the proper
shownEMI
in filter
Figs. circuit can be chosen. Since the capacitor, to be effective, must be placed in parallel to a high impedance and the inductor
8 (b) and (c), respectively. Fig. 8 (b) presents the DM-suppressing part of the filter and is
must be connected in series with a low impedance [3], CL-filter configurations of both equivalent DM and CM filters are chosen where
the X-caps and Y-caps are at the SMPS side and the CM choke is at the LISN side as illustrated in Fig. 8 (a).
composed by LDM , which is the DM inductance due to LC , and by CXT , which represents the effective
The EMI filter is composed of one CM choke (LC), one DM capacitor (CX), and two CM capacitors (CY1 and CY2). Due to the leakage induc-
DM capacitor (C 1 and
tance of L , theY CM
C 2 indoubles
chokeYalso
seriesupand then in parallel with CX ).neutral
as two DM inductors in the line and
Fig. lines.
8 (c)The
presents the CM-suppressing
DM and CM interpretation of Fig. 8 (a)
C

part ofleads
thetofilter
two separate circuits, shown in Figs. 8 (b) and (c), respectively. Fig. 8 (b) presents the DM-suppressing part of the filter and is
and is composed by LCMdue
composed by LDM, which is the DM inductance
, which is the CM inductance due to LC capacitor
to LC, and by CXT , which represents the effective DM
and by (CCY and
T , which
CY2 in series
Y1
and then in parallel with CX). Fig. 8 (c) presents the CM-suppressing part of the filter and is composed by LCM, which is the CM induc-
is the effective CM capacitor (CY 1 and CY 2 in parallel).
tance due to LC and by CYT, which is the effective CM capacitor (CY1 and CY2 in parallel).
From Figs. 8 (b) and (c), the expressions of DM and CM filter insertion losses are rewritten as
From Figs. 8 (b) and (c), the expressions of DM and CM filter insertion losses are rewritten as
     
LDM CXT ZSM P S,DM LDM + CXT ZSM P S,DM ZLISN,DM
(1)
 2 
ILDM,estimate = 20 log s
 +s + 1 ,
ZLISN,DM + ZSM P S,DM ZLISN,DM + ZSM P S,DM

©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2 63

 17

START

Noise source and load

Measure DM and CM noise
impedances measurement
sources without EMI filter
using direct clamping
using discrimination network
two- probe approach

Determine the required IL for Select the DM/CM filter

DM/CM noises comparing to topologies based on noise
the EMI regulation source and load impedances

Calculate the DM/CM filter

components using IL formulas
of the selected topologies
comparing to the required IL

Calculated IL above No Adjust the DM/CM filter

required IL at low components of the selected
frequency? DM/CM filter topologies

Yes

Recalculate the required IL

using the measured impedances
of the selected components

Recalculated IL No Improve the self resonant

above required IL at frequencies of the selected - Check the length (l)
all frequency? components of the power cord
between EMI filter
and LISN
Yes
( l < λ 10 )
Assemble EMI filter prototype - Check the radiation
coupling exists
Yes between SMPS and
EMI filter
No No - Minimize inductive
PASS Fail at low
and capacitive
Regulation? frequency?
couplings existing
in EMI filter
Yes - Damp filter resonant
- Damp source
impedance-filter
END
capacitor resonance

Fig. 5:EMI
Fig. 5: Flow diagram of the proposed Flow
filterdiagram of the
design procedure. proposed EMI filter design procedure.

64 ©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2

 L L

220 V
50 Hz
LISN SMPS R
N N

G G

VLISN(L-G) VDM
CM/DM
VLISN(N-G) Discrimination VCM
Network
Spectrum Analyzer

Fig. 6: Schematic of DM andFig.

CM6:noise
Schematic of DM and
measurements CM noise
without measurements
EMI filter without EMI filter being inserted.
being inserted.
6

     
LCM CY T ZSM P S,CM LCM + CY T ZSM P S,CM ZLISN,CM
(2)
 2 
ILCM,estimate = 20 log s
 +s + 1 ,
ZLISN,CM + ZSM P S,CM ZLISN,CM + ZSM P S,CM

where
where

s = j2πf,
s = j2pf,

frequency
f = frequency
f = normally
normally spanningspanning in the
in the conducted EMIconducted
range [Hz], EMI range [Hz],

CY T CYT== CC
Y1//CY2 [F],
Y 1 //CY 2 [F],

CXT = CX//(CY1 + CY2) [F],

CXT = CX //(CY 1 + CY 2 ) [F],
LCM = CM inductance of CM choke [H],
LCM = CM inductance of CM choke [H],
LDM = Equivalent DM inductance of CM choke [H],
LDM = Equivalent DM inductance of CM choke [H],
ZSMPS,DM = DM SMPS impedance [W],

ZSM P S,DM
ZSMPS,CM DM
== CM SMPS
SMPS impedance
impedance [W], [Ω],

ZSM P S,CM CM
== DM
ZLISN,DM SMPS
LISN impedance
impedance [W], [Ω],

ZLISN,DM == CM
ZLISN,CM DMLISNLISN
impedance [W].
impedance [Ω],
Based on Eqs. (1) - (2), the EMI filter component values are ready to be determined.
ZLISN,CM = CM LISN impedance [Ω].

BasedC. on
CM Eqs.
filter design
(1) - (2), the EMI filter component values are ready to be determined.
For the equivalent CM filter design, as shown in Fig. 8 (c), there are two unknown parameters that are the CM inductance of CM choke
and the capacitance of Y-caps. Since the size of the EMI filter is strongly dependent on the size of CM choke, the Y-caps capacitance
C. CM must
filterbe design
chosen as large as possible, to minimize the CM inductance value. The Y-capacitors are usually constrained by safety require-
ments, e.g. EN 60335-1 Class I portable, and therefore the maximum capacitance connected to ground cannot exceed about 4700 pF on
eachequivalent
For the phase for 250 VAC
CM50filter
Hz mains [10]. Hence,
design, CY1 and CY2
as shown inare chosen
Fig. to be there
8 (c), 1000 pF are
each.two
Substituting
unknown the known CM LISN and
parameters SMPS
that
impedances and the chosen CM capacitors into (2) and assuming that the filter elements are ideal, the required CM inductance is cho-
are the sen
CMin such a way that of
inductance the CM
distance between
choke andthethe
ILCM,estimate and the ILof
capacitance is minimized
Y-caps.
CM,req Sincewhich
theis about
size 2ofmH.the
Hence,
EMI twofilter
1000 pFis
Class Y capacitors and a 2 mH CM choke (NEC/TOKIN SC-02-10A1) are chosen for the CM filter.
strongly dependent on the size of CM choke, the Y-caps capacitance must be chosen as large as possible,
©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2
to minimize the CM inductance value. The Y-capacitors are usually constrained by safety requirements, 65
Substituting the known DM LISN and SMPS impedances and the measured DM inductance of the CM
choke into (1), the required X-cap capacitance is chosen in such a way that the distance between the
D. DM filter design
ILDM,estimate and the ILDM,req is minimized: this leads to a capacitance value of about 1.5 µF.
Once the CM choke and the CM capacitors are selected, the equivalent DM filter design is addressed. The equivalent DM filter, as
shown in Fig. 8 (b), has two unknown parameters, i.e. DM inductance and X-caps capacitances. Because the CM choke was chosen, its
DM inductance (leakage inductance) is about 17.6 μH. With this information, only the X-caps capacitance must be determined.
E. Actual insertion losses and validations
For X-type capacitors, since there is no safety issue, the value can be chosen as large as possible but larger capacitors usually exhibit a
low self resonant frequency (SRF) and high inrush current [29]. Substituting the known DM LISN and SMPS impedances and the mea-
Before building the EMI filter, its real performance must be assessed, and the parasitic effects of the filter
sured DM inductance of the CM choke into (1), the required X-cap capacitance is chosen in such a way that the distance between the
ILDM,estimate and the ILDM,req is minimized: this leads to a capacitance value of about 1.5 μF.
components need to be considered. The impedance behavior of the filter components, chosen according
to the above considerations, were measured by means of a HP 4396B impedance analyzer (100 kHz -
E. Actual insertion losses and validations
1.8 GHz), and the results are shown in Figs. 9 (a) - (f). The actual insertion losses of the DM and CM
Before building the EMI filter, its real performance must be assessed, and the parasitic effects of the filter components need to be con-
filterssidered. The impedance behavior of the filter components, chosen according to the above considerations, were measured by means of a
of Figs. 8 (b) and (c) can be worked out as an adaptation of (1) and (2) with the inclusion of the
HP 4396B impedance analyzer (100 kHz - 1.8 GHz), and the results are shown in Figs. 9 (a) - (f). The actual insertion losses of the DM and
CM filters of Figs. 8 (b) and (c) can be worked out as an adaptation of (1) and (2) with the inclusion of the parasitic effects of the filter
parasitic effects of the filter components:
components:

 
 ZCXT (ZLDM + ZLISN,DM ) + ZSMP S,DM (ZCXT + ZLDM + ZLISN,DM ) 
ILDM,actual = 20 log 
 , (3)
ZC (ZLISN,DM + ZSMP S,DM )
XT


 
 ZC (ZLCM + ZLISN,CM ) + ZSMP S,CM (ZCY T + ZLCM + ZLISN,CM ) 
ILCM,actual = 20 log  Y T ,
 (4)
ZCY T (ZLISN,CM + ZSMP S,CM )

where
where

ZLDM = Effective DM impedance of the CM choke [W],

ZLDM = Effective DM impedance of the CM choke [Ω],
ZLCM = CM impedance of the CM choke [W],
ZLCM = CM impedance of the CM choke [Ω],
ZCYT = Effective CM impedance of CY1//CY2 [W],
ZCY T = Effective CM impedance of CY 1 //CY 2 [Ω],
ZCXT = Effective DM impedance of CX//(CY1 + CY2) [W].
ZC = Effective DM impedance of CX //(CY 1 + CY 2 ) [Ω].
Using the measured impedances
XT
of all the chosen filter components (shown in Fig. 9 (a) - (f)), as well as the LISN and SMPS impedance
characteristics, the actual insertion losses of the DM and the CM filters (computed by means of (3) and (4)) are plotted in Figs. 11 (a) and
Using the measured
(b), respectively. impedances
For comparison, of all
the required DMthe
and chosen filter components
CM filter insertion (shown
losses are also shown insame
in the Fig.figures.
9 (a) Both
- (f)), as well
the actual DM
and CM filter insertion losses are higher than the required ones, which indicate that the designed EMI filter is able to suppress the DM
as theandLISN and SMPS
CM conducted impedance
emissions characteristics,
below the CISPR the actual insertion losses of the DM and the CM filters
22 Class B limit.

Finally, to verify the noise reduction performance of designed EMI filter, conducted EMI (DM, CM, L-G and N-G noise voltages) are mea-
sured when the designed EMI filter is added in. The schematic of the measurement setup are shown in Fig. 10. Figs. 11 (c) and (d) show
the measured DM and CM conducted emissions after the designed EMI filter is inserted. Both the DM and CM conducted emissions are
below the limit, confirming that the designed EMI filter fulfills the requirement. As a final compliance check, Figs. 11 (e) and (f) show the
line-to-ground and the neutral-to-ground conducted emissions, respectively, and their results indicate that the filtered SMPS complies
with the regulations limits.

V. Realization # 2: Effect of Incorrect Filter Configuration

To illustrate the effect of an incorrect filter configuration that leads to non-optimal performance of the EMI filter, the same EMI filter
already designed in realization #1 is mounted in a reverse configuration; this means that the CM choke position is now shifted to the
SMPS end. The new EMI filter configuration is shown in Fig. 12 (a). The equivalent DM and CM filters are LC-configuration filters as
shown in Figs. 12 (b) and (c), respectively.

The actual DM and CM filter insertion losses of the LC-configuration filters can be rewritten as follows,

66 ©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2

 19

Total noise: line−to−ground Total noise: neutral−to−ground

200 200
V V
L−G N−G
180 180
Limit line Limit line
160 160
Magnitude [dBuV]

Magnitude [dBuV]
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 5 6 7 8
20 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(a) (b)
Differential Mode Emission Common Mode Emission
200 200
V V
DM CM
180 180
Limit line Limit line
160 160
Magnitude [dBuV]

Magnitude [dBuV]
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 5 6 7 8
20 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(c) (d)
Differential Mode Insertion Loss Requirement Common Mode Insertion Loss Requirement
200 200
ILDM,req ILCM,req

150 150
Magnitude [dB]

Magnitude [dB]

100 100

50 50

0 0

−50 5 6 7 8
−50 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(e) (f)

Fig.
Fig. 7: 7: Measured
Measured conducted
conducted emission
emission without without filter.
filter. (a) Line-to-ground; (a) Line-to-ground;
(b) neutral-to-ground; (c) DM; (d)(b)
CM;neutral-to-ground; (c) DM;
(e) required DM filter insertion
loss; (f) required CM filter insertion loss.
(d) CM; (e) required DM filter insertion loss; (f) required CM filter insertion loss.

©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2 67

 20

L LC L 8

(computed by means of (3) and (4)) are plotted in Figs. 11 CY1and (b), respectively. For comparison, the
CX (a)
LISN SMPS
required DM and CM filter insertion losses are also shown inCY2
the same figures. Both theRactual DM and
N N
CM filter insertion losses are higher than the required ones, which indicate that the designed EMI filter
G EMI FILTER G
is able to suppress the DM and CM conducted emissions below the CISPR 22 Class B limit.
Finally, to verify the noise reduction performance of designed EMI filter, conducted EMI (DM, CM,
VLISN(L-G) VDM
CM/DM
L-G and N-G noise voltages) are measured
VLISN(N-G) when the designed
Discrimination VCMEMI filter is added in. The schematic of the
Network
measurement setup are shown in Fig. 10. Figs. 11 (c) and (d) show the measured DM and CM conducted
Spectrum Analyzer
emissions after the designed EMI filter is inserted. Both the
(a) DM and CM conducted emissions are below

the limit, confirming that the designed EMI L

filter fulfills
LDM the requirement. As a final compliance check,
CXT
Figs. 11 (e) and (f) show the line-to-ground and the neutral-to-ground ZSMPS, DMemissions, respectively,
conducted
ZLISN, DM VDM
and their results indicate that the filtered SMPS complies with the regulations limits.
VSMPS, DM
N
V. R EALIZATION # 2: E FFECT OF I NCORRECT F ILTER C ONFIGURATION
(b)

To illustrate the effect of an incorrect filter configuration that leads to non-optimal performance of the
L//N LCM
EMI filter, the same EMI filter already designed in realization #1 is mounted ZSMPS,inCMa reverse configuration;
CYT
ZLISN, CM
this means that the CM choke position VCM
is now shifted to the SMPS end. The new EMI filter configuration
VSMPS, CM
is shown in Fig. 12 (a). The equivalent DM and CM filters are LC-configuration filters as shown in Figs.
G
12 (b) and (c), respectively.
(c)
The actual DM and CM filter insertion losses of the LC-configuration filters can be rewritten as follows,
Fig. 8: Conducted EMI Fig. 8: Conducted
measurement in theEMI measurement
presence infilter.
of the EMI the presence of the
(a) Test setup EMI
with filter. discrimination
CM/DM (a) Test setupnetwork;
with CM/DM
(b) DM part of the filter;
(c) CM part of the filter.discrimination network; (b) DM part of the filter; (c) CM part of the filter.
 
 (Z + ZLISN,DM )(ZSM P S,DM + ZLDM ) + ZCXT 2 ZLISN,DM 
CXT 2
ILDM,actual = 20 log  ,
 ZCXT 2 (ZLISN,DM + ZSM P S,DM ) 

(5)
 
 (Z + ZLISN,CM )(ZSM P S,CM + ZLCM ) + ZCY T ZLISN,CM 
 CY T
ILCM,actual = 20 log  .
 ZC (ZLISN,CM + ZSM P S,CM )
YT


(6)

Based ononequations
Based equations (5)(5) - the
- (6), (6),actual
the actual DMfilter
DM and CM and CM filter
insertion losses insertion
are plotted inlosses
Figs. 13are plotted
(a) and in Figs. By
(b), respectively. 13comparing
(a) and
with the required DM and CM filter insertion losses, they show that the actual DM filter insertion loss deteriorates marginally at low fre-
(b), respectively.
quency, but theBy comparing
actual withloss
CM filter insertion theis required DM
unable to meet theand CMCMfilter
required insertion
filter insertion losslosses,
below 1.8they show
MHz. The DM that thecon-
and CM
ducted emissions, shown in Figs. 13 (c) and (d) respectively, confirm that the DM conducted emission exceeds the limit marginally at low
actual frequency
DM filter and insertion loss deteriorates
the CM conducted marginally
emission exceeds atbelow
the limit badly low 1.8
frequency,
MHz. but the actual CM filter insertion
loss isFinally,
unable to meet theand
the line-to-ground required CM filter
neutral-to-ground insertion
conducted lossarebelow
emissions 1.8and
measured MHz.
shownThe DM
in Figs. and
13 (e) and CM conducted
(f), respectively. As the

68
emissions, shown in Figs. 13 (c) andIEEE(d)
©2012 respectively,
Electromagnetic confirm
Compatibility that– Volume
Magazine the DM conducted
1 – Quarter 2 emission exceeds
 21

CM choke impedance: NEC/TOKIN CM choke impedance: NEC/TOKIN

16000 100
Z Z
L L
14000 CM CM
Z Z
L L
12000 DM 50 DM
Magnitude [Ohm]

Phase [degree]
10000

8000 0

6000

4000 −50

2000

0 5 6 7 8
−100 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(a) (b)
Z capacitor impedance
C ZC capacitor impedance
X
10 X

ZC 100
X
ZC
X
8
50
Magnitude [Ohm]

Phase [degree]

0
4

−50
2

0 5 6 7 8 −100 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(c) (d)
Z capacitor impedance (C =C ) Z capacitor impedance (C =C )
C Y1 Y2 C Y1 Y2
Y Y
600 −76
ZC = ZC ZC = ZC
Y1 Y2 Y1 Y2
500 −78
Magnitude [Ohm]

Phase [degree]

400 −80

300 −82

200 −84

100 −86

0 5 6 7 8
−88 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(e) (f)

Fig. Fig.
9: 9:Measured impedance
Measured impedance of filter
of the chosen thecomponents.
chosen Plots
filter components.
(a) and Plots
(b) refer to the CM (a) and (b)(c) and
choke (NEC/TOKIN); refer to tothe
(d) refer CM
the C X = choke
1.5 μF capacitance; (e) and (f) refer to the CY1 = CY2 = 1000 pF capacitances.
(NEC/TOKIN); (c) and (d) refer to the CX = 1.5 µF capacitance; (e) and (f) refer to the CY 1 = CY 2 =
1000 pF capacitances. ©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2 69
 L L

220 V
50 Hz
LISN EMI FILTER SMPS R
N N

G G

VLISN(L-G) VDM
CM/DM
VLISN(N-G) Discrimination VCM
Network
Spectrum Analyzer
Fig.noise
Fig. 10: Schematic of DM and CM 10: Schematic of DMwith
measurements and EMI
CM noise
filtermeasurements with EMI filter being inserted.
being inserted.

For Fig. 11 – see page 71

CM conducted emission dominates below 1.8 MHz, the SMPS does
not comply with the limit at frequencies below 1.8 MHz.
24

L LC L
VI. Conclusion
CY1 CX
In this final article of EMI filter design series, we focus on systemat- LISN CY2 SMPS R
ic EMI filter design procedure. With known amplitude and phase N N
information of LISN and SMPS impedances, EMI filters can be
designed systematically. Using a SMPS as a practical design exam- G EMI FILTER G
ple, it has been demonstrated that
VLISN(L-G) VDM
• The optimal filter configuration and the correct filter component CM/DM
VLISN(N-G) Discrimination VCM
values can be chosen.
Network
Spectrum Analyzer
• The incorrect filter configuration leads to non-optimal filter (a)
attenuation, thus causing the same SMPS to fail the required
EMI limit badly. L LDM
CXT ZSMPS, DM
Nevertheless, in the proposed design procedure, it is not only specific ZLISN, DM VDM
for a single-stage passive EMI filter but factors like component vol- VSMPS, DM
ume and component price are not taken into account. It might be dif- N
ficult to choose between a CL-configuration of equivalent DM filter
(b)
with one huge CX (CX = 1.5μF) and a pi-configuration with two smaller
CX (CX1 = CX2 = 0.47μF) since both can comply with regulations. Opti- L//N LCM
mization might be applied to take into account physical and economi- CYT ZSMPS, CM
cal parameters of the filter. The possible further applications of the ZLISN, CM VCM
EMI filter design procedure are for diverse types of systems, like VSMPS, CM
three-phase AC industrial motor drives, large uninterruptible power G
supplies (UPS), wind turbine power stations, etc. and DC supplies,
(c)
e.g. photovoltaic inverters-whose input impedances need to be
determined. Fig. 12:
Fig. (a) Realization
12: (a) #4:
Realization #4: reversed
reversed EMI
EMI filter filter configuration.
configuration. (b) DM filter; (c)(b)
CM DM
filter. filter;

(c) CM filter.

VII. Acknowledgment

The author would like to acknowledge the useful suggestions and

comments from Assoc. Prof. See Kye Yak and Prof. Flavio G. Canavero
on the content of this series of articles.

70 ©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2

 23

Differential Mode Insertion Loss Comparison Common Mode Insertion Loss Comparison
200 200
IL IL
DM,req CM,req
ILDM,actual ILCM,actual
150 150
Magnitude [dB]

Magnitude [dB]
100 100

50 50

0 0

−50 5 6 7 8
−50 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(a) (b)
Differential Mode Emission Common Mode Emission
70 70
VDM VCM
Limit line Limit line
60 60
Magnitude [dBuV]

Magnitude [dBuV]

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 5 6 7 8
20 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(c) (d)
Total noise: line−to−ground Total noise: neutral−to−ground
70 70
VL−G VN−G
Limit line Limit line
60 60
Magnitude [dBuV]

Magnitude [dBuV]

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 5 6 7 8
20 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(e) (f)

Fig. 11: Effect of the insertion of the EMI filter. (a) Required and actual DM insertion losses; (b) required and actual CM insertion losses; (c)
Fig.measured
11: Effect of theemission
DM conducted insertion of the
with filter; EMI filter.
(d) measured (a) Required
CM conducted andfilter;
emission with actual DM insertion
(e) measured losses;
total conducted (b)forrequired
emissions line-to-
ground; (f) measured total conducted emission for neutral-to-ground.
and actual CM insertion losses; (c) measured DM conducted emission with filter; (d) measured CM
©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2 71
 25

Differential Mode Insertion Loss Comparison Common Mode Insertion Loss Comparison
200 200
IL IL
DM,req CM,req
ILDM,actual ILCM,actual
150 150
Magnitude [dB]

Magnitude [dB]
100 100

50 50

0 0

−50 5 6 7 8
−50 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(a) (b)
Differential Mode Emission Common Mode Emission
120 120
V V
DM CM
Limit line Limit line
100 100
Magnitude [dBuV]

Magnitude [dBuV]
80 80

60 60

40 40

20 5 6 7 8
20 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(c) (d)
Total noise: line−to−ground Total noise: neutral−to−ground
120 120
V V
L−G N−G
Limit line Limit line
100 100
Magnitude [dBuV]

Magnitude [dBuV]

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 5 6 7 8
20 5 6 7 8
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz]

(e) (f)

Fig.
Fig. 13: 13: Non-optimized
Non-optimized filter. and
filter. (a) Required (a)designed
Required and designed
DM insertion DM insertion
losses; (b) required losses;
and designed (b) required
CM insertion and designed
losses; (c) measured DM con-
ducted emission; (d) measured CM conducted emission; (e) measured total conducted emission for line-to-ground; (f) measured total conducted
CM insertion
emission losses; (c) measured DM conducted emission; (d) measured CM conducted emission; (e)
for neutralto-ground.

measured total conducted emission for line-to-ground; (f) measured total conducted emission for neutral-
to-ground.
72 ©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2
 [22] H. J. Chiu, T. F. Pan, C. J. Yao and Y. K. Lo, “Automatic EMI Measurement and Filter
References Design System for Telecom Power Supplies,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 56,
no. 6, pp. 2254–2261, Dec 2007.
[23] S.Wang, R. Chen, J.D. vanWyk, F. C. Lee, and W.G.Odendaal, “Developing
[1] F .-Y. Shih and et al., “A procedure for designing EMI filters for AC line applica-
tions,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 170–181, Jan 1996. parasitic cancellation technologies to improve EMI filter performance for
[2] S. Ye, W. Eberle and Y.F. Liu, “A novel EMI filter design method for switching switching mode power supplies,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 47,
power supplies,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1668–1678, no. 4, pp. 921–929, Nov 2005.
Nov 2004. [24] T. C. Neugebauer and D. J. Perreault, “Parasitic capacitance cancellation in
[3] J. J. Goedbloed, Electromagnetic Compatibility, Prentice Hall, 1990. filter inductors,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 282–288, Jan
[4] B. Audone and L. Bolla, “Insertion loss of mismatched EMI suppressors,” IEEE 2006.
Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 384–389, Sep 1978. [25] T. C. Neugebauer and D. J. Perreault, “Filters and components with induc-
[5] S. M. Vakil, “A technique for determination of filter insertion loss as a function tance cancellation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 483–490, Mar./
of arbitrary generator and load impedances,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Com- Apr. 2004.
pat., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 273–278, Sep 1978. [26] D. M. Mitchell, DC-DC Switching Regulator Analysis, McGraw-Hil, 1988,
[6] V. Tarateeraseth, Hu Bo, K. Y. See and F. Canavero, “Accurate extraction of ch. 4.
noise source impedance of SMPS under operating condition,” IEEE Trans. [27] Limits and Methods of Measurement of Radio Interference Characteristics of
Power Electron., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 111–117, Jan 2010. Information Technology Equipment, CISPR 22, 2004.
[7] V. Tarateeraseth, K. Y. See, F. Canavero and R.W.Y. Chang, “Systematic elec- [28] R. L. Ozenbaugh, EMI Filter Design, Marcel Dekker, second edition, 2001.
tromagnetic interference filter design based on information from in-circuit [29] S. Wang, F. C. Lee, and J.D. Van Wyk, “A study of integration of parasitic
impedance measurement,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 52, no. 3, cancellation techniques for EMI filter design with discrete components,” IEEE
pp. 588–598, Aug 2010. Trans. Power Electron., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 3094–3102, Nov 2008.
[8] V. Tarateeraseth, K. Y. See, L.B. Wang and F.G. Canavero, “Systematic Power [30] D. Zhang, D. Y. Chen, M. J. Nave12 and D. Sable, “Measurement of noise source
Line EMI Filter Design for SMPS,” Proc. of 10th International Symposium on impedance of off-line converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 15, no. 5,
EMC (EMC Europe 2011), York (UK), pp. 586-591, September 26 30, 2011. pp. 820–824, Sep 2000.
BIOGRAPHIES
[9] Clayton R. Paul, Introduction to Electromagnetic Compatibility, John Wiley &
Sons, second edition, 2006. [10] Tim Williams, EMC for product designers,
Newnes, forth edition, 2007.
eeraseth[11]received the B.
M. J. Nave, Power Eng.Design
Line Filter (second-class
for Switched Modehonors)Power Supplies, New Biography
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991.
[12] L. Tihanyi, Electromagnetic Compatibility in Power Electronics, IEEE Press,
e both in electrical
1997. engineering from King’s Mongkut Vuttipon Tarateeraseth received the
[13] S. Wang, F. C. Lee, D. Y. Chen and W. G. Odendaal, “Effects of parasitic B. Eng. (second-class honors) and
ology Ladkrabang
parameters on(KMITL), Thailand,
EMI filter performance,” IEEE Trans.andPower Ph.D.
Electron., vol. 19, M. Eng. degree both in electrical engi-
no. 3, pp. 869–877, May 2004.
[14] S. A. Pignari and A. Orlandi, “Long-cable effects on conducted emissions neering from King’s Mongkut Institute of
communications engineering
levels,” IEEE Trans. from vol.
Electromagn. Compat., Politecnico di Feb 2003.
45, no. 1, pp. 43–54, Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Thai-
[15] S. Wang, J. D. Van Wyk and F. C. Lee, “Effects of interactions between filter land, and Ph.D. in electronics and com-
e 2011, he parasitic
is a lecturer at Department
and power interconnects of performance,”
on EMI filter ElectricalIEEE Trans. munications engineering from Politecnico
Power Electron., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 3344–3352, Dec 2007.
[16] T. Nussbaumer, M. L. Heldwein and J. W. Kolar, “Differential mode input filter di Torino, Italy. Since 2011, he is a lectur-
kharinwirotdesign University, Thailand.
for a three-phase buck-type PWM From 2010-2011,
rectifier based on modeling of the er at Department of Electrical Engineer-
EMC test receiver,” IEEE Trans.Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1649–1661, Oct ing, Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand.
t College of 2006.Data Storage Innovation, KMITL. Prior From 2010-2011, he was a lecturer at Col-
[17] J. C. Shifman, “A Graphical Method for the Analysis and Synthesis of Electro-
lege of Data Storage Innovation, KMITL. Prior to 2007, he worked
as a head magnetic
of297–318,
pp.
Interference Filters,” IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat., vol. 7, no. 3,
environment
Sep 1965. testing laboratory at Delta as a head of environment testing laboratory at Delta Electronics
[18] B. Garry and R. Nelson, “Effect of impedance and frequency variation on (Thailand) for three years. He also worked as an EMC engineer
and) for three insertionyears.
loss for aHe also
typical powerworked
line filter,” inas
1998anProc.EMC
IEEE EMC Sympo-
for 2 years under the Joint Development of Teaching Materials to
sium, pp. 691–695.
[19] K. Y. See, “Network for conducted EMI diagnosis,” IEE Electronics Letters, vol. Improve EMC Skills of Academic Staff and Postgraduate Elec-
ars under the Joint Development of Teaching Materials to Improve
35, no. 17, pp. 1446–1447, Aug 1999.
EMC Skills of
tronic Designers Project funded by European Commission. His
[20] M. Kumar and V. Agarwal, “Power line filter design for conducted electromag-
research interests are mainly in the fields of EMI reduction tech-
nd Postgraduate Electronic
netic interference Designers
using time-domain Project IEEE
measurements,” funded by European
Trans. Electro- Commission. His
magn. Compat., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 178–186, Feb 2006. niques, EMC/EMI modeling, EMC instruments and measurements
[21] Yuang-Shung Lee, Yu-Lin Liang, and Ming-Wang Cheng, “Time Domain Mea- and EMI filter design. He is author or coauthor of more than 40
are mainly in the fields of EMI reduction techniques, EMC/EMI modeling, EMC
surement System for Conducted EMI and CM/DM Noise Signal Separation,” technical papers published in international journals and confer-
International Conference on Power Electronics and Drives System, vol. 2,
easurements2005, and pp. EMI filter design. He is author or coauthor ofence
1640–1645. more proceedings
than 40 and one book chapter.
technical
n international journals and conference proceedings and one book chapter.

©2012 IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Magazine – Volume 1 – Quarter 2 73

View publication stats