Nick Janda Thesis Aug2004 CTC

Development of a Predictive Shielding Effectiveness Model for
Carbon Fiber/Nylon Based Composites

By

Nicholas B. Janda

Bachelor of Science, Case Western Reserve University, 2003

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of

Michigan Technological University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of

Master of Science

In

Chemical Engineering

Houghton, Michigan
August 2004

Nicholas B. Janda

This thesis, Development of a Predictive Shielding Effectiveness Model for
Carbon Fiber/Nylon Based Composites, is hereby approved in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in the field of Chemical
Engineering.

DEPARTMENT Chemical Engineering

Signatures:

Thesis Advisor: ____________________________
Dr. Julia A. King

Thesis Co-advisor: ___________________________
Dr. Jason M. Keith

Department Chair: ______________________________
Dr. Michael Mullins

Date: ________________________________________

i
Abstract

Development of a Predictive Shielding Effectiveness Model for Carbon
Fiber/Nylon Based Composites

The need for electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding materials has increased recently
due to the more prevalent use of personal communications devices (cell phones, pdas).
Metals have typically been used the material of choice for shielding applications. Design
weight limitations for highly portable devices, however, has limited the applicability of metals
for these applications. A need for light weight materials capable of providing EMI shielding
exists.

Through the addition of conductive fillers to normally electrically insulating polymer resins,
electrically conductive composites can be used for shielding applications, providing light
weight shielding materials. Shielding theory for composite materials, however, is largely
undeveloped, unlike for metals. These models developed for metals cannot be used to
accurately predict the shielding effectiveness provided by a composite containing a wide range
of conductive fillers .

The shielding effectiveness (SE) of two different carbon fiber/nylon based composites was
studied over the radio frequency range (300 to 1000 MHz). The effects of incident
electromagnetic wave (EM) frequency, filler volume percent, filler size (radius), and filler
orientation on the measured SE were examined.

The objective of this analysis is to characterize the factors involved in determining the SE of a
composite from first principles. From this analysis, a model predicting shielding effectiveness
for carbon fiber/nylon based composites is developed. The model is expected to perform well
at low filler loadings, but also can be used to accurately predict shielding effectiveness at filler
loadings above the percolation threshold, as seen from comparisons of the model to
experiments with ThermalGraph and Fortafil carbon fibers in nylon 6,6.

ii
Acknowledgements

I must first acknowledge the Michigan Technological University Graduate School for
providing me the opportunity to further pursue my degree. I have traveled a long road to get
to this point and feel fortunate to complete my degree at Michigan Tech.
I also need to thank Dr. Warren Perger for providing the guidance, knowledge and focus
needed to complete the project. Thank you for teaching me how to think/see like a wave
and providing such truisms as in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
I must thank my co-advisors, Dr. Julia King and Dr. Jason Keith. Your input and aid was
always valued. I truly appreciated your consistent enthusiasm and support when the project
left the realm of typical Chemical Engineering. Thank you for your patience in dealing with
an atypical situation, project and student.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the MATLAB assistance of Troy Oxby and
Dr. Jason Keith. Thank you for helping me rediscover my programming skills and showing
me that the program has more to offer than just Simulink.
The generosity of the National Science Foundation must be acknowledged. The funding
provided through Award Number DMI-9973278 allowed for prior fabrication of the samples
investigated in this study.
I must thank Brian Ott and Chris Copeland for providing a nearly endless amount of
distractions. Carrie Majkrzak, you deserve a medal of honor for sharing an office with me for
the past year.
Finally, I need to thank my Mom and Dad. Thank you for putting up with my educational
pursuits and never losing faith when things did not go smoothly. Your help and support along
the way has never gone unappreciated. A special thank you to my Mom: thanks for never
letting your level of frustration reach a point to where you felt it was necessary to strangle
your son.

iii
Table of Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures................................................................................................................v
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. vii

CHAPTER 1: Introduction..........................................................................................1
1.1 Electromagnetic Radiation and Interference...................................................1
1.2 Polymer Based Composite Materials..............................................................3
1.3 Predicting Shielding Effectiveness in Composite Materials...........................3
1.4 Project Outline ................................................................................................5

CHAPTER 2: Project Materials and Sample Formulation......................................6
2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................6
2.2 Materials .........................................................................................................6
2.3 Sample Preparation.........................................................................................8
2.3.1 Extrusion.................................................................................................8
2.3.2 Injection Molding..................................................................................10
2.4 Formulations .................................................................................................12

CHAPTER 3: Experimental and Characterization Methods.................................13
3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................13
3.2 Electrical Resistivity.....................................................................................13
3.2.1 Transverse Electrical Resistivity Test Method .....................................13
3.2.2 Longitudinal Electrical Resistivity Test Method..................................13
3.3 Shielding Effectiveness.................................................................................15
3.4 Balance of Power Analysis ...........................................................................18
3.5 Fiber Volume Fraction, Fiber Length and Aspect Ratio...............................19
3.6 Orientation ....................................................................................................20
3.6.1 Fiber Orientation...................................................................................20
3.6.2 Transmission Orientation Dependence.................................................20

CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results.........................................................................22
4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................22
4.2 Shielding Effectiveness Results....................................................................22
4.2.1 Pure Nylon 6,6 ......................................................................................22
4.2.2 ThermalGraph DKD X......................................................................23
4.2.3 Fortafil 243............................................................................................25
4.3 Balance of Power Results .............................................................................26
4.4 Orientation Results........................................................................................29

CHAPTER 5: Electromagnetic Theory ....................................................................32
5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................32
5.2 Shielding Theory...........................................................................................32

iv
5.3 Scattered Field Theory..................................................................................33
5.4 Scattered Field Equation Derivation.............................................................35
5.4.1 Maxwells Equations ............................................................................35
5.4.2 Permittivity - Absorption Loss..............................................................36
5.4.3 Phasor Notation.....................................................................................38
5.4.4 Wave Equation Solution Incident Field.............................................39
5.4.5 Wave Equation Solution Scattered Field...........................................42
5.5 Scattering Width ...........................................................................................49

CHAPTER 6: Shielding Effectiveness Model Design..............................................52
6.1 Introduction...................................................................................................52
6.2 Review of Problem Description and Focus ..................................................52
6.3 Analysis of Scattering Equations..................................................................53
6.3.1 Dependence on Frequency, Optical Radius and Distance From Scatterer
to Observer............................................................................................................53
6.3.2 Deterministic Nature of Scattering Equations ......................................55
6.4 Accounting for Collision Probability............................................................57
6.5 Scaling Factor Analysis ................................................................................59
6.6 Shielding Effectiveness Model Results ........................................................62
6.7 Scaling Factor - Linear Fit ............................................................................65
6.8 White Model Comparison.............................................................................68

CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and Future Work..........................................................71
7.1 Thesis Goal ...................................................................................................71
7.1.1 Conclusions from Electrical Resistivity/Conductivity Experiments ....71
7.1.2 Conclusions from Shielding Effectiveness Experiments......................71
7.1.3 Conclusions from Power Balance Analysis..........................................72
7.1.4 Conclusions from Fiber Orientation Studies.........................................72
7.1.5 Conclusions from Model Development and Analysis ..........................72
7.2 Future Work..................................................................................................74

CHAPTER 8: References ...........................................................................................76

Appendix A: Formulation Summary .......................................................................78
Appendix B: Shielding Effectiveness Experiment Results.....................................81
Appendix C: Balance of Power Results (mW) ........................................................88
Appendix D: Reflected, Absorbed and Transmitted Signal Results in dB...........95
Appendix E: Scaling Factor Analysis.....................................................................102
Appendix F: Shielding Effectiveness Model Results ............................................109
Appendix G: Shielding Effectiveness Model Results............................................116
Appendix H White Model Derivation ..................................................................123
H.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................123
H.2 Absorption Term Derivation ..........................................................................124
H.2 Reflection Loss Term Derivation ...................................................................125
Appendix I: Proposed Model Comparison to White Model ................................128

v
List of Figures

Figure 1.1-1: IEEE Standard for Safety Limits on Human Exposure to RF Fields (3) .2
Figure 2.3-1: Leistritz Extruder Used for Compounding of Composites ......................8
Figure 2.3-2: Extruder Screw Design, Note Flow is From Right to Left ......................9
Figure 2.3-3: Niigata Injection Molder........................................................................10
Figure 2.3-4: Four Cavity Mold...................................................................................11
Figure 2.3-5: Shielding Effectiveness Disk .................................................................11
Figure 3.2-1: Bar From Which Longitudinal Electrical Resistivity Samples Were Cut
...............................................................................................................14
Figure 3.2-2: (A) Experimental Set-up for Four Probe Test Method, .........................15
Figure 3.3-1: Shielding Test Fixtures With Support................................................16
Figure 3.3-2: Transmission Holder Without Sample...................................................16
Figure 3.3-3: Cross Sectional View of Transmission Holder (24) ..............................17
Figure 3.3-4: Reference and Load Shielding Effectiveness Disks (24).......................17
Figure 3.3-5: Reference Disk Alignment on Trasmission Fixture (25) .......................18
Figure 3.4-1: Shielding Test Apparatus Schematic (25)..............................................19
Figure 3.6-1: Dipole Antenna and Sample Holder ......................................................21
Figure 4.2-1: Shielding Effectiveness for Pure Nylon 6,6...........................................23
Figure 4.2-2: Shielding Effectiveness As a Function of Filler Volume Percent At
Select Frequencies ................................................................................24
Figure 4.2-3: Shielding Effectiveness Results for ThermalGraph DKD X.............25
Figure 4.2-4: Shielding Effectiveness Results for Fortafil 243 ...................................26
Figure 4.3-1: Balance of Power Results (mW) for NCN20 (ThermalGraph)..........28
Figure 4.3-2: Balance of Power Results (mW) for NDN20 (Fortafil 243)..................28
Figure 4.4-1: NDN40 Fiber to Incident Wave Orientation Dependence for
Transmitted Signal Strength ...............................................................29
Figure 4.4-2: Depictions of Perpendicular and Parallel Fiber to Wave Orientations ..30
Figure 4.4-3: Carbon Fiber/Epoxy Sheet Fiber to Incident Wave Orientation
Dependence for Transmitted Signal Strength......................................31
Figure 5.2-1: Representation of Shielding Phenomena for Plane Waves Passing
Through a Homogeneous Barrier (10)..................................................33
Figure 5.3-1: A cylinder Impinged by a Uniform Plane Wave....................................34
Figure 5.4-1: Electromagnetic Frequency Spectrum (25)............................................37
Figure 5.4-3: Cylindrical Coordinate System..............................................................41
Figure 5.4-4: Block diagram Depicting the Two Step Process for Solving for the
Radiated Fields Given a Current and Charge Source (32)..............43
Figure 5.4-5: Diagram of the Position Vectors. The vector potential A at is
obtained by integrating the current J at ' . (3) .................................46
Figure 5.4-6: Uniform Plane Wave of TM
z
Orientation Impinging a Single
Cylindrical Scatterer With Radius a (32)............................................48
Figure 6.3-1: Near Zone ( = 1.0 x 10
-4
m) Scattering Width for Both Fibers............54
Figure 6.3-2: Far Zone ( = 50 m) Scattering Width for Both Fibers .........................55

vi
Figure 6.3-3: Theoretical Shielding Effectiveness of a Single Carbon Fiber Scattering
an Incident Wave ..................................................................................56
Figure 6.4-1: Sample Wavelength Sized Window For Shielding Disk .......................58
Figure 6.5-1: Scaling Factor Analysis for NCN05 ......................................................59
Figure 6.5-2: Scaling Factor Analysis for NDN05......................................................60
Figure 6.6-1: Model Predicted and Experimentally Determined Shielding
Effectiveness for NCN05......................................................................63
Effectiveness for NDN05......................................................................63
Figure 6.6-3: Model Fit Quality Analysis for ThermalGraph Based Composites...64
Figure 6.6-4: Model Fit Quality Analysis for Fortafil Based Composites ..................65
Figure 6.7-1: Linear Fit Applied to ThermalGraph Scaling Factor Data.................66
Figure 6.7-2: Linear Fit Applied to Fortafil Scaling Factor Data................................66
Effectiveness for ...................................................................................67
Effectiveness for ...................................................................................68
Figure 6.8-1: White Model and Proposed Model Comparison and Experimentally
Determined Shielding Effectiveness for NCN10..................................69
Figure 6.8-2: White Model and Proposed Model Comparison for NDN40 ................70

vii
List of Tables

Table 2.2-1: Properties of DuPont Zytel 101 NC010 (15).............................................6
Table 2.2-2: Properties of BP/Amoco ThermalGraph DKD X (16)..............................7
Table 2.2-3: Properties of Akzo Nobel Fortafil 243 PAN based 3.2mm Chopped and
Pelletized Carbon Fiber (17)......................................................................7
Table 2.3-1: Extrusion Conditions for Nylon 6,6 (19)...................................................9
Table 2.3-2: Injection Molding Conditions for Conductive Nylon .............................11
Table 2.4-1: Loading Levels for Composite Samples Studied ....................................12
Table 6.5-1: ThermalGraph Scaling Factor Results.................................................61
Table 6.5-2: Fortafil Scaling Factor Results ................................................................61

1
CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1.1 Electromagnetic Radiation and Interference

In todays electronic age, electromagnetic (EM) fields are radiated from numerous
sources. EM waves with frequencies in the range of approximately 0.3 to 1000 MHz (Radio
Frequency - RF range) are used for communications signals (radio, television, cellular
telephones). The emitted fields from these communications devices can interfere with the
operation of other nearby electronic equipment. This situation is known as electromagnetic
interference (EMI). Some adverse effects of EMI are connectivity problems in cellular
phones, interrupted television signals and even data corruption on computer hard drives.
Along with interfering with the operation of electronic devices, EMI in the RF band may have
harmful biological effects. Some studies have found a correlation between length of exposure
time to the EM fields emitted from power lines and leukemia occurrences (1). There is also
increasing concern that EMI might adversely affect the operation of biological devices such as
pacemakers (2). IEEE currently provides a standard for safety limits on exposure to RF
electromagnetic waves, shown in Figure 1-1.
As the number of communications devices in use has drastically increased over the recent
past decades, stringent regulations controlling the field strength emitted by electronic devices
have been instigated by the Federal Communications Commission, producing a need for EMI
controlling materials (4). Along with external interference concerns, the trend of personal
electronics miniaturization has resulted in devices containing densely packed electronic
components. Due to the close proximity, the EM fields generated by the internal components
may interfere with each other, resulting in electromagnetic incompatibility problems. A
material capable of controlling the amount of EMI radiated between the components is
essential.

2

Figure 1-1: IEEE Standard for Safety Limits on Human Exposure to RF Fields (3)

EMI radiation control is known as shielding. Materials with known shielding ability are
used to encase an electronic product to prevent it from emitting or receiving unwanted
electromagnetic energy. The ability of a material to resist the passage of an EM signal is
quantified as shielding effectiveness (SE). The SE of a material is ratio of the power received
with and without a material present for the same incident signal power. It is expressed in units
of decibels (dB), as shown in Equation 1.1-1

2
1
10
P
P
log SE
10 dB
[1.1-1]

Where:

1
P = received power with the material present (watts)

2
P = received power without the material present (watts)

3
1.2 Polymer Based Composite Materials

Until recently, electrically conductive metals were most commonly used to provide EM
shielding. For example, plastic computer cases are usually lined with a thin metal shroud to
control EMI emissions. Weight considerations decrease the viability of metal shields in
portable electronics. For example it is disadvantageous to use internal metal shrouds lap-top
computer cases. The demand for low cost, low weight shielding materials has shifted the
focus to plastics. Most polymer resins are electrically insulating, and therefore, typically
incapable of providing EM shielding. Through the addition of conductive fillers, such as
conductive metal fibers or carbon fibers, the electrical conductivity of these resins is increased
and acceptable shielding ability is obtained (4-7). An electrically conductive composite can
be used for computer cases and cell phone housings without the need for an extra metallic
shield. These devices retain the light weight desired by consumers and meet the FCC
guidelines.
1.3 Predicting Shielding Effectiveness in Composite Materials

The utility of different types of fillers for shielding applications has been thoroughly
researched (2,4-7). Bigg has experimentally studied composites based on: carbon black,
carbon fibers, metal fibers, metal flakes and metal-coated glass fibers (4-7). The long standing
reliance on shielding metals has produced a void in shielding theory for composite materials.
In contrast, the shielding behavior for metals is well understood (8). The work of White is
typically referenced in the EMI composite shielding literature (2,4-7,9) as a viable model for
shielding effectiveness in composites. The White model, however, is predicated on
assumptions that decrease its applicability and validity for composite materials. The model
proposed by White was derived for a homogeneous planar metallic barrier (10). Applying it
to a composite assumes that the filler particles behave similar to a uniform pure metal. Unlike

4
a pure metal, the composite are not homogeneous and the material will not present uniform
resistance to the EMI signal.
Theoretical work focusing on shielding effectiveness of composite materials is currently
limited to the plane wave shielding characteristics of periodic, anisotropic laminated
composites (11-14). Both Chen and Krohn developed theory to model the shielding behavior
of laminated composites made of several plies of fiber-reinforced panels with various fiber
orientation patterns. The panels were assumed to be composed of regularly spaced,
unidirectional collimated fibers imbedded in a polymer resin. The resin was modeled as a
dielectric material, translucent to electromagnetic waves. Chen and Krohn both predicted a
direct relationship between impinging wave frequency and shielding effectiveness (11-14).
Also noticed was a preferred fiber orientation for the strength of signal reflected from the
composite. Fibers oriented parallel with the electric field were predicted to reflect 20 dB more
than fibers oriented perpendicular (13).
The complexity of non-periodic, non-laminar composites has typically discouraged
researchers from focusing on composites formed via injection molding. The works of Chen
and Krohn provide some insight into the shielding behavior of composite materials but the
usefulness of their proposed models for non-laminar composites is quite limited. The
materials analyzed by Krohn consisted of only 5 large filaments, spaced widely apart
(Filament radius: 317 m, Spacing: 5.69 cm) (14). These conditions are unrealistic for
injected molded parts typical used in personal communications devices. Injected molded parts
commonly utilize densely packed conductive fillers with radii several orders of magnitude
smaller.
Because of the simplistic nature of the analyses conducted by Chen and Krohn, the
probability of the incident electric field colliding with a fiber was not investigated. Since the
unwanted signal will only be impeded when it encounters a conductive filler within the
composite, determining the probability of a signal/filler interaction is key. Both researchers

5
instead focused on developing direction dependent, effective expressions to describe the
properties of the material as a whole (11-14). For complex anisotropic composites containing
non-uniform fiber spacing, tensor expressions describing the effective properties of the
composite are difficult to obtain.
The probability of a wave/fiber collision is dependent on a multitude of factors: the
apparent size of the filler (scattering width), the wavelength of the incident wave, the
orientation of the filler to the wave and the volume fraction of filler in the resin. The amount
of shielding provided by a single strand of filler is dependent on the electrical conductivity of
the filler and frequency of the incident wave. Pursuant to the goal of predicting shielding
effectiveness in conductive composite materials, each factor will be characterized and
investigated in this study. A model capable of predicting shielding effectiveness in complex
injection molded composites will be proposed.
1.4 Project Outline
Chapter 2 discusses the creation of carbon fiber/nylon based composites. The properties
important in determining the shielding effectiveness of a material (electrical conductivity,
filler orientation, filler volume fraction) and the shielding effectiveness of the composites are
measured using techniques shown in Chapter 3. The results from the analyses are detailed in
Chapter 4. A theory to describe the shielding effectiveness of a material is developed in
Chapter 5. A basic discussion of electromagnetic wave theory is presented, starting with the
basic laws of electricity and magnetism and culminating with the derivation of an equation
describing a reflected electric field. The equations developed in Chapter 5 will be applied to
the data accumulated during the shielding experiments, resulting in the creation of a predictive
model for the shielding effectiveness of nylon 6,6 based composites in Chapter 6. Chapter 7
will present the conclusions obtained throughout the analysis and possible future areas of work
to investigate.

6
CHAPTER 2: Project Materials and Sample Formulation

2.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the methods used in the fabrication of the polymer composite
samples. These samples were produced by Quinton Krueger (25) and Jessica Heiser (20).
The properties of both the matrix and filler materials are also given.
2.2 Materials

The thermoplastic matrix used was DuPont Zytel 101 NC010, an unmodified semi-
crystalline nylon 6,6 polymer of medium viscosity. The properties are listed in Table 2.2-1
below.

Table 2.2-1: Properties of DuPont Zytel 101 NC010 (15)
Melting Point 262C
Tg (Glass Transition Temp, DAM) 60C-70C (approx.)
50% Relative Humidity 23C (approx.)
Melt Flow Rate 12.35 g/10 min
Shear Viscosity at 1000 sec
1
shear rate and 280C 137 Pa-sec
Tensile Strength at 23C (DAM) 82.7 MPa
Flexural Modulus at 23C (DAM) 2,827.0 MPa
Tensile Elongation at Break at 23C (DAM) 60%
Notched Izod Impact, 23C 53.0 J/m
Density at 23C 1.14 g/cm
3

Electrical Conductivity at 23C 10
-15
S/cm
Electrical Resistivity at 23
o
C 10
15
ohm-cm
Thermal Conductivity at 23C 0.25 W/mK
DAM = Dry As Molded

7
Two different carbon fiber fillers were employed in this project: BP/Amocos
Thermalgraph
TM
DKD X and Akzo Nobels Fortafil 243 PAN (polyacrylonitrile) based fiber.
ThermalGraph DKD X is a milled, 200 m long, petroleum pitch-based carbon fiber that is
both highly anisotropic and graphitized. This particular fiber was used due to its ability to
improve thermal and electrical conductivity of the conductive resin. Table 2.2-2 lists the
properties below. Akzo Nobels Fortafil 243 PAN based 3.2 mm chopped, surface treated and
pelletized carbon fiber was also used to improve the electrical and thermal conductivity of the
resin. A proprietary polymer was used as a binder for the pellets that also promoted adhesion
with nylon. Table 2.2-3 lists the properties for this fiber.
Table 2.2-2: Properties of BP/Amoco ThermalGraph DKD X (16)
Tensile Strength >1.39 GPa
Tensile Modulus 687-927 GPa
Electrical Resistivity 2.2 ohm-m
Thermal Conductivity 400-700 W/m K
Fiber Density 2.15 to 2.25 g/cm
3

Bulk Density 0.25 to 0.55 g/cm
3

Fiber Diameter 10 microns
Filament Shape Round
Average Filament Length 200 microns
Filament Length Distribution <20 % less than 100 microns
<20% greater than 300 microns
Carbon Assay 99+ wt%
Surface Area 0.4 m
2
/g

Table 2.2-3: Properties of Akzo Nobel Fortafil 243 PAN based 3.2mm Chopped and Pelletized
Carbon Fiber (17)
Tensile Strength 3800 MPa
Tensile Modulus 227 GPa
Electrical Resistivity 16.7 ohm -m
Thermal Conductivity 20 W/m K (axial direction)
Bulk Density 356 g/liter
Fiber Diameter 7.3 microns
Filament Shape Round
Fiber Mean Length 3.2 mm (entire range is 2.3 mm to 4.1 mm)
Carbon Assay 95%
Binder Content
2.6 wt% proprietary polymer that adheres pellet
together and promotes adhesion with nylon matrix

8
2.3 Sample Preparation

For this project, the fillers were used as received. The Zytel 101 NC010 was dried in an
indirect heated dehumidifying drying oven (dewpoint of the recirculating air = -40
o
C). After
drying, the polymer was stored in moisture barrier bags.

2.3.1 Extrusion
An American Leistritz Extruder Corporation Model ZSE 27 was used for all polymer
extrusion throughout the course of the project. The extruder, shown in Figure 2-1, has a 27
mm co-rotating intermeshing twin screw with 10 zones and a length/diameter ratio of 40. The
screw design used produced minimal filler degradation while still providing adequate dispersal
of the filler within the polymer. This screw design is shown in Figure 2-2

Figure 2-1: Leistritz Extruder Used for Compounding of Composites

9
The polymer pellets (Zytel) were introduced in Zone 1. The second side stuffer, located
at Zone 7, was used to introduce the carbon fibers into the polymer melt. Two Schenck
AccuRate gravimetric feeders were used to accurately control the amount of each material
added to the extruder. A complete list of all formulations extruded is provided in Appendix A
and the extrusion conditions for each are discussed in detail by Weber (18), Clingerman (19)
and Heiser (20). Typical extrusion conditions are listed in Table 2.3-1.
Atmospheric
Vent
Atmospheric
Back Vent
Side Stuffer Side Stuffer
Main Feed
40D 36D 32D 28D 24D 20D 16D 12D 8D 4D
G
F
A

2
-
3
0
-
3
0

G
F
A

2
-
3
0
-
9
0

G
F
A

2
-
4
0
-
9
0

G
F
A

2
-
3
0
-
6
0

G
F
A

2
-
4
0
-
9
0

K
B

5
-
2
-
3
0
-
6
0

K
B

5
-
2
-
3
0
-
3
0

K
B

5
-
2
-
3
0
-
9
0

K
B

5
-
2
-
3
0
-
6
0

K
B

5
-
2
-
3
0
-
3
0

K
S

1
-
2
-
1
0

E

G
F
A

2
-
3
0
-
6
0

G
F
A

2
-
4
0
-
9
0

G
F
A

2
-
4
0
-
9
0

K
B

5
-
2
-
3
0
-
9
0

K
B

5
-
2
-
3
0
-
6
0

K
B

5
-
2
-
3
0
-
3
0

K
B

5
-
2
-
3
0
-
6
0

G
F
A

2
-
2
0
-
3
0

G
F
A

2
-
3
0
-
9
0

G
F
A

2
-
4
0
-
9
0

K
S

1
-
2
-
1
0

A

0D

For Screw Type Elements
GFA-d-ee-ff
G = co-rotating
F = conveying
A = Free-Meshing
d = number of threads
ee = pitch (length in millimeters for one
complete rotation)
ff = length of screw elements in millimeters

Kneading disks
KBj-d-kk-ll
KB = kneading block
J = number of kneading segments
k = length of kneading block in millimeters
l = twisting angle of the individual kneading
segments
Kneading disks
KS1-d-hh-i
KS1 = Kneading disc
h = length of kneading disc in millimeters
i = A for initial disc and E for end disc

Zones
0D to 4D is Zone 1 (water cooled, not
heated)
4D to 8D is Zone 2/Heating Zone 1
Nozzle is Heating Zone 10
Figure 2-2: Extruder Screw Design, Note Flow is From Right to Left

Table 2.3-1: Extrusion Conditions for Nylon 6,6 (19)
Zone 1 Temperature (by feed hopper) 210
o
C
Zone 2 Temperature 250
o
C
Zone 3 to Zone 5 Temperature 270
o
C
o
C
o
C
Total Throughput 19.0 kg/hr
Screw rpm 300 rpm

10
2.3.2 Injection Molding
The test specimens were molded using a Niigata injection molding machine, model
NE85UA
4
, (Figure 2-3). Implementing a 40 mm diameter single screw with a length/diameter
ratio of 18, the lengths of the feed, compression and metering sections of the single screw
were 396 mm, 180 mm and 144 mm, respectively. Two different molds were used for this
project. The four cavity mold shown in Figure 2-4 was used to produce 3.2 mm thick ASTM
Type I tensile bars (end gated) and 6.4 cm diameter disks of 3.2 mm thickness. The tensile
bars were used for longitudinal electrical conductivity measurements while the disks were
used for transverse electrical conductivity tests. Figure 2-5 shows the mold from which the
shielding disks of 130 mm diameter and 3.2 mm thickness were created. The molding
conditions for each formulation using the four-cavity mold are discussed in detail in
Clingerman, Weber and Heiser (18-20). The typical operating conditions for the injection
molding machine can be found in Table 2.3-2.

Figure 2-3: Niigata Injection Molder

11
Table 2.3-2: Injection Molding Conditions for Conductive Nylon (20)
Zone 1 Temperature (by feed hopper) 285
o
C
o
C
o
C
Zone 4 Temperature (die nozzle heater) 310
o
C
Mold Temperature 88
o
C
Screw rpm 54 rpm
Injection Pressure 154 MPa
Hold Pressure 109 MPa
Back Pressure 3 MPa
Injection Time 15 seconds
Cooling Time 15 seconds
Interval Time 2 seconds

Figure 2-4: Four Cavity Mold

Figure 2-5: Shielding Effectiveness Disk
Mold

12
2.4 Formulations

Test specimens were labeled according to the material, weight percent filler, and the
order that the specimen came out of the injection molder using the following nomenclature:
N W X Y - ##

N = National Science Foundation Project
W = Filler used
X = Polymer
Y = Weight percent of conductive fiber
## = Sample Number, indicating the order that the sample came out of the injection molder

All formulations were designated with an N as the first letter to denote that they were
from a previous NSF project (Award Number DMI-9973278). Following was a multi-letter
combination to denote the filler (W). C denoted the ThermalGraph carbon fiber, while D
referred to Fortafil 243. X was used to designate the polymer matrix used, with N referring
to nylon 6,6. The Y in the above formula was the weight percent of the conductive filler.
Following the above naming convention, a sample labeled NCN15-3, refers to the third
composite sample from the mold containing 15 wt% ThermalGraph DKD X carbon fiber in a
nylon 6,6 matrix.
Table 2.4-1 shows the concentrations of the resins produced for use in this project.

Table 2.4-1: Loading Levels for Composite Samples Studied
Fiber Loading Levels, wt%
ThermalGraph DKD X 5.0, 10.0, 15.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0
Fortafil 243 5.0, 7.0, 10.0, 15.0, 20.0, 30.0, 40.0

13
CHAPTER 3: Experimental and Characterization Methods

3.1 Introduction
In this section, the techniques used to determine the properties of the composite samples,
which were used to test the shielding effectiveness model developed in this thesis, are
discussed. These properties include: transverse (through-plane) and longitudinal (in-plane)
electrical resistivity (inverse of the electrical conductivity), shielding effectiveness, filler
volume fraction, filler orientation, filler length and aspect ratio.
3.2 Electrical Resistivity

3.2.1 Transverse Electrical Resistivity Test Method
For samples with an electrical resistivity greater than 10
4
ohm-cm, a through-plane (also
called transverse), volumetric electrical conductivity test was conducted on the as molded test
specimen. In this method, a constant voltage (typically 10 V or 100 V) was applied to the test
specimen and the resistivity was measured according to ASTM D257 using a Keithley 6517A
Electrometer/High Resistance Meter and an 8009 Resistivity Test Fixture (21). The Keithley
6524 High Resistance Measurement Software was used to automate the conductivity
measurement. For each formulation, a minimum of six specimens were tested. Each test
specimen was an injection molded disk that was 6.4 cm in diameter and 3.2 mm thick. Since
the presence of water can affect a samples conductivity, all samples were tested dry as
molded (DAM).

3.2.2 Longitudinal Electrical Resistivity Test Method
The volumetric longitudinal electrical resistivity (in-plane) was measured on all samples
with an electrical resistivity less than 10
4
ohm-cm. Test specimens cut from the center gauge
portion of a tensile bar, Figure 3-1, were surface ground on all sides and cut into sticks 2 mm

14
wide, 2 mm thick and 25.4 mm long. As with the transverse electrical resistivity test method,
the presence of water can have a marked effect on the measured conductivity of the sample,
so all were tested dry as molded.
Typically for each formulation, a total of six specimens were cut from a single tensile
bar, with four tensile bars generally used to obtain a total of twenty four test specimens.
After machining, test specimens were dried in a vacuum oven at 660 mmHg and 60C for
two hours and then sealed in moisture barrier bags. These samples were then tested using a
four probe technique, as shown in Figure 3-2(a). This technique measures resistivity by
applying a constant current (typically 5 to 10 mA) with a Keithley 224 Programmable
Current Source and measuring the voltage drop over the center 6 mm of the sample with a
Keithley 182 Digital Sensitive Voltmeter. The electrical resistivity is then calculated from
Equation 3.2.1 (22):

L i
t w V
ER

[3.2-1]
Where:
ER = electric resistivity (ohm-cm)
V = voltage drop over center 0.6 cm of sample (volts)
w = sample width (cm)
t = sample thickness (cm)
i = current (amps)
L = length over which V is measured (0.6 cm)

Figure 3-1: Bar From Which Longitudinal Electrical Resistivity Samples Were Cut

Flow & Measurement

15

2mm
2mm
25mm
V from
center 6mm
Constant current
in through sample
Constant
current out of
sample
Sample
Volt
Meter
Current
Source
(A) (B)
2mm
2mm
25mm
V from
center 6mm
Constant current
in through sample
Constant
current out of
sample
Sample
Volt
Meter
Current
Source
2mm
2mm
25mm
V from
center 6mm
Constant current
in through sample
Constant
current out of
sample
2mm
2mm
25mm
V from
center 6mm
Constant current
in through sample
Constant
current out of
sample
Sample
Volt
Meter
Current
Source
Sample
Volt
Meter
Current
Source
(A) (B)

Figure 3-2: (A) Experimental Set-up for Four Probe Test Method,
(B) Sample Dimensions and Longitudinal Current Flow (19)

3.3 Shielding Effectiveness

The electromagnetic shielding effectiveness of each formulation was measured
according to ASTM D 4935-89 (Reapproved 1994), for planar materials using a plane-wave,
far-field EM wave. Although it provides a method of measuring far-field SE, the nature of
the shielding test apparatus used in this study allowed for measurement of near-field shielding
effectiveness values (23). To be able to measure near-field power values, one must be able to
fully characterize the impinging wave directly before it collides with the shielding media.
The method is valid over a frequency range of 30 MHz to 1.5 GHz.
An Electro-Metrics, Inc. shielding effectiveness test fixture (model EM-2107A) was
used to hold the sample with a HP 8752C network analyzer generating and receiving the EM
signals. Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 show the shielding test apparatus and sample holder.
Figure 3-5 shows a cross-sectional view of the test fixture.

16

Figure 3-3: Shielding Test Fixtures With
Support

Figure 3-4: Transmission Holder
Without Sample

For each formulation, one reference sample and at least 5 load samples were tested over a
frequency range of 30 MHz to 1.0 GHz. A reference sample consists of a large ring and a smaller
inner disk as shown in Figure 3-6. The shielding effectiveness (SE) of a material is the ratio of
the power received with and without a material present for the same incident power. For these
experiments, therefore, it is the difference ratio of the load sample to the reference sample. It is
expressed in units of decibels (dB), as shown in Equation 3.3-1 (4).

2
1
10
P
P
log SE
10 dB
[3.3-1]

Where:

1

2

The input power used was 0 dBm, corresponding to 1 mW. The dynamic range (difference
between the maximum and minimum signals measurable by the system) of the system was 80 dB.

17

Figure 3-5: Cross Sectional View of Transmission Holder (24)

Figure 3-6: Reference and Load Shielding Effectiveness Disks (24)

18

Figure 3-7: Reference Disk Alignment on Trasmission Fixture (25)

Figure 3-7 shows the placement of the reference sample on the transmission fixture. The
small disk and larger outer ring must be precisely aligned on the fixture to obtain accurate
readings. The nylon 6,6-based samples were tested DAM. The results from the analysis are found
in Appendix B and discussed in Chapter 4.
3.4 Balance of Power Analysis

The shielding effect test apparatus was also used to determine the contribution of reflection
(scattered) and absorption to the overall shielding effectiveness of a sample. The HP 8752C
Network analyzer is capable of measuring the transmitted power from test fixture and reflected
power from the top of the sample holder. Accounting for cable loss for both the input and output
cables from the fixture, as seen in Figure 3-8, the amount of signal reflected and transmitted
through the sample can be directly measured. The absorbed signal power can then be calculated
using a conservation of power analysis:
Absorbed (W) =I ncident (W) Reflected (W) Leakage (W) [3.4-1]

Transmission Fixture
Small Reference Disk
Large Reference Ring
Hollow Coupling Area

19

Figure 3-8: Shielding Test Apparatus Schematic (25)

The transmitted and reflected power was measured for at least 6 load samples for each
formulation. Results from the balance of power analysis are discussed in Chapter 4 and listed in
Appendices C and D.
3.5 Fiber Volume Fraction, Fiber Length and Aspect Ratio

A solvent digestion method was used to determine the weight percent of the filler in the
composite sample. As described in ASTM Standard D5226, this method completely dissolves the
polymer, leaving only clean filler particles (26). A 0.2 g sample cut from the center of a
transverse ER disk was used. Formic acid was used to dissolve the nylon 6,6 based composites at
23
o
C. The filler was separated from the solvent/polymer mixture through vacuum filtration. The
mass of the dried filler particles was then compared to the weight of the original mass of the
composite/filler sample to determine the weight percent of the filler within the sample. 2 to 4
samples were tested per formulation. These filler volume fraction results are shown in detail
elsewhere (20,25). In all cases, the actual filler content of each formulation matched the target
amount within acceptable tolerances.
HP Analyzer
Shielding Apparatus
Regulator
Input Cable
Output Cable
Air Cylinder

20
After the fibers were extracted frm the nylon 6,6 matrix, they were dispersed onto a glass
slide and viewed using an Olympus SZH10 optical microscope with an Optronics Engineering
LX-750 video camera. The images (at 60x magnification) were collected using Scion Image
version 1.62 software and then processed using Adobe Photoshop 5.0 and the Image Processing
Tool Kit v. 3.0. The length of each fiber was measured and the aspect ratio (AR),
Diameter
Length
AR
,
was calculated. For each formulation, between 200 and 3000 individual fibers were measured
(18-19,27). These results are shown in Appendix A.
3.6 Orientation

3.6.1 Fiber Orientation
The orientation of the carbon fibers within the composite was determined by viewing a
polished sample with an optical microscope. For each formulation, a 12.7 mm x 12.7 mm section
was cut from a SE test disk. The sample was mounted in epoxy and positioned such that the
depth of the sample could be viewed (3.2 mm). The samples, in the epoxy plug, were polished
and then viewed via an Olympus BX60 reflected light microscope at a magnification of 200x.
Scion Image version 1.62 software was used to collect the images, which were later processed in
Adobe Photoshop 5.0 using Image Processing Kit v. 3.0. The average orientation of 1000 to 4000
fibers per formulation was determined (28). Appendix A shows the results of this analysis.
3.6.2 Transmission Orientation Dependence
The effect of fiber orientation on the transmitted signal strength was investigated using the
fixture shown below in Figure 3-9. A large circular metal plate was affixed to a sheet of
plexiglass that was held in place by slots cut into a PVC pipe. The plate reduced the possibility of
wave diffraction around the composite sample interfering with the measured transmitted signal
strength. The shielding disk samples were placed in the remaining slot on the sample holder, in
front of the antenna and large metal plate. A dipole antenna was positioned directly behind the
metal plate with a transmission cable connecting it to the HP 8752C network analyzer. An

21
electric field of known orientation (parallel to the plane of the floor) and strength was sent
through the sample to be received by the antenna. The transmitted signal strength was measured
over a frequency range of 500 to 2000 MHz. The shielding disk sample was then rotated 90
degrees and the process repeated. All measurements were conducted in an anechoic chamber to
reduce the error inducing effects of outside interference and incident field reflection.

Figure 3-9: Dipole Antenna and Sample Holder

22
CHAPTER 4: Experimental Results

4.1 Introduction
The results from the balance of power analysis and shielding effect experiments, described
in Chapter 3, are discussed in this chapter. Also presented are the results from the fiber
orientation studies.
4.2 Shielding Effectiveness Results
From the data measured using the techniques discussed in Chapter 3, the shielding
effectiveness for each individual sample for each formulation was calculated using Equation
4.2.1.

2
1
10
P
P
log SE
10 dB
[4.2-1]
Where:

1

2

The SE results compiled in this investigation compared favorably to the work of Krueger (25) and
Heiser (20).

4.2.1 Pure Nylon 6,6
As expected, the pure matrix of only nylon 6,6 showed essentially no ability to shield
electromagnetic fields due to its dielectric nature. Ideally, an impinging electromagnetic wave
should encounter no resistance when passing through a dielectric material. Assuming the
material exhibits no conversion of the incident energy into heat while the wave travels through
the dielectric (condition known as a non-lossy dielectric), the shielding effectiveness should be
zero. Figure 4.2-1 shows the pure nylon 6,6 matrix following this behavior. Little shielding
effectiveness was measured, approximately 0.1 dB at the higher frequencies. This corresponds to
shielding only 2% of the incident field strength.

23

Figure 4-1: Shielding Effectiveness for Pure Nylon 6,6

The solid line in Figure 4.2-1 represents the mean shielding effectiveness for the
formulation. For each formulation, the mean was calculated from at least 4. Typically, 6 samples
were measured. The upper dashed line corresponds to the highest SE value recorded for any of
these samples. Similarly, the lower dashed line refers to the lowest SE value recorded. It is
possible for a single trial to produce a maximum at one frequency and a minimum at another.
This, however, was frequently not the case. A single specific specimen of a formulation typically
would produce SE values that were either high, average or low.

4.2.2 ThermalGraph DKD X
The introduction of ThermalGraph carbon fiber into the nylon 6,6 matrix resulted in
enhanced EM shielding characteristics. Increasing the amount of filler within the sample resulted
in decreased electrical resistivity (ER) and increased shielding effectiveness. Also observed was
the effect of increased frequency on the measured SE values. This trend is expected and has been
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Frequency (MHz)

24
reported elsewhere (9-14). As frequency is increased, the wavelength of the EM wave decreases
and becomes for comparable to the size of the fiber. Thus, higher frequency waves are more
likely to encounter fiber embedded in the polymer matrix. Similarly, as the weight percent of
fiber is increased, there is an improved probability that the wave will collide with a fiber. The
fibers, as opposed to the polymer rich areas, are more likely to scatter or absorb the wave, as the
nylon is virtually invisible to the wave. Hence, SE increases as frequency increases.
For all formulations studied, listed in Table 2.4-1, SE increased at higher frequencies. The
SE results for the ThermalGraph DKD X composites at 300, 500 and 800 MHz are shown in
Figure 4-2. Figure 4-3 shows both how shielding effectiveness directly increased as a function of
filler weight percent and frequency.

Figure 4-2: Shielding Effectiveness As a Function of Filler Volume Percent At Select
Frequencies
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Volume Percent Fiber (%)
300 MHz
500 MHz
800 MHz

25

Figure 4-3: Shielding Effectiveness Results for ThermalGraph DKD X

4.2.3 Fortafil 243
The addition of Fortafil 243 fibers into the matrix produced similar SE trends. Like the
ThermalGraph DKD X, the SE for the Fortafil samples increased with both frequency and filler
weight percent. The Fortafil samples, however, showed markedly better shielding behavior. For
example, NCN40 was found to have the best shielding effect performance among the
ThermalGraph samples, approximately 14 dB at 1.0 GHz. In comparison, NDN40 was found
to have a maximum shielding effectiveness of 72 dB at 1.0 GHz. This disparity between the
behaviors of the two fillers tracked with the ER results (Appendix A). As shown in Tables 2.2-2
and 2.2-3, both the Fortafil and ThermalGraph fibers have similar electrical resistivities. When
both fibers, however, were introduced into the nylon 6,6 matrix in equal weight percents, the
Fortafil sample was found to be two orders of magnitude more conductive than the
ThermalGraph. Thus, improved shielding for the Fortafil samples was observed.
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Frequency (MHz)
5 wt%
10 wt%
15 wt%
20 wt%
30 wt%
40 wt%

26
A corresponding trend was noticed in the percolation thresholds for Fortafil and
ThermalGraph electrical resistivity. A prior investigation determined the thresholds to be 9.5
and 3.4 volume percent, respectively (19). Previous work has suggested that the increased
shielding effectiveness afforded by the Fortafil 243 filler may be due in part to the increased
heteroatoms present on the surface of the individual fibers. Fortafil 243 results in improved
adhesion with the nylon matrix material which might explain increased composite SE (20,28-29).
The Fortafil based formulations are listed in Table 2.4-1. The SE results for the Fortafil based
composites are shown in Figure 4-4. Again, as frequency and filler weight percent were
increased, shielding effectiveness increased.

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

(
d
B
)
5 wt%
7 wt%
10 wt%
15 wt%
20 wt%
30 wt%
40 wt%

Figure 4-4: Shielding Effectiveness Results for Fortafil 243

4.3 Balance of Power Results
From the frequency dependent transmitted and reflected power data accumulated from the
balance of power experiments, the relative effects of electric field reflection (scattering) and

27
absorption on the SE performance of a the composite samples was determined. Although the
experimental apparatus does not allow for direct measurement of the absorption power loss, a
simple power balance accounting for all methods of signal degradation allows for indirect
calculation of the absorption term, Equation 4.3-1.
Absorbed (W) = Incident (W) Reflected (W) Leakage (W) [4.3-1]

No noticeable change in transmitted or reflected signal strength was noticed when the
flanges of the shielding test fixture were wrapped with an EM insulator (aluminum foil).
Therefore, the effect of leakage on the behavior of the system was assumed to be negligible. The
HP 8752C network analyzer did not provide consistent incident signal power over the frequency
range investigated. The source EM signal was found to decrease monotonically with increased
frequency (from 1.0 mW at 30 MHz to approximately 0.9 mW at 1.0 GHz). To normalize the
input power at 1.0 mW across the frequency range, the measured transmitted and reflected power
was scaled-up according to the discrepancy between the desired set value and actual applied
signal.
Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 show the results of the analysis for NCN20 and NDN20.
Graphs for the remaining formulations can be found in Appendix C. The dashed lines again
indicate the maximum and minimum measured value during the course of the experiment. The
graphs are also expressed in dBm in Appendix D using the following equation to convert:
( ) P
dBm 10
log 10 P [4.3-2]
Where:
P
dBm
= Power (dBm)
P = Reflected or Absorbed Power (mW)

28

Figure 4-5: Balance of Power Results (mW) for NCN20 (ThermalGraph)

Figure 4-6: Balance of Power Results (mW) for NDN20 (Fortafil 243)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted

29
The reflected power was equal to or greater than the absorbed power for each formulation
(with the exception of the pure nylon 6,6 sample). As the weight percent of both fillers was
increased, the reflection term became more dominant, indicating that it is the prevailing form of
signal loss. The reflection term also showed significantly more frequency dependence. Over the
frequency range under investigation, the absorbed power was relatively constant while the
reflected power varied greatly.
4.4 Orientation Results
From the transmission orientation dependence analysis, it was determined that for the
injected molded shielding disks the transmitted signal strength from an incident plane wave is
independent of disk orientation. Figure 4.4-1 shows the result from the analysis of NDN40.
500 1000 1500 2000
-95
-90
-85
-80
-75
-70
-65
-60
-55
Frequency (MHz)
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

(
d
B
)

Figure 4-7: NDN40 Fiber to Incident Wave Orientation Dependence for Transmitted Signal
Strength

Perpendicular
Parallel

30
This result, however, did not conclusively prove that transmitted signal strength was
independent of fiber orientation. To further investigate fiber orientation dependence, the
experiment was repeated replacing the injection molded samples with a thin sheet of
unidirectional carbon fiber/epoxy (Hexcel Carbon Fiber/Epoxy AS4/3501-5A - 35 wt% carbon
fiber). The carbon fiber/epoxy sheet was analyzed with the fibers oriented in the plane of the
electric field and again with the fibers oriented transversely to the field. Figure 4.4-2 shows these
orientations.

Figure 4-8: Depictions of Perpendicular and Parallel Fiber to Wave Orientations

With this material, definite fiber orientation dependence was observed as the transmitted
signal strength differed by an average of 10 dB. Figure 4.4-2 shows this directional dependence.
The results are in partial agreement with the work of Chen. Chen also noticed that the best
shielding occurred when fibers were aligned in the plane of the impinging field (11-13). Casey
has suggested that the tensor constitutive parameters of the system can be estimated to
mathematically model the system (30). Casey, however, analyzed time-domain behavior while
this project has focused on the frequency domain response of the polymer composites.
E E
Perpendicular
Orientation
Parallel
Orientation

31
500 1000 1500 2000
-80
-75
-70
-65
-60
-55
-50
-45
-40
Frequency (MHz)
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

(
d
B
)

Figure 4-9: Carbon Fiber/Epoxy Sheet Fiber to Incident Wave Orientation Dependence for
Transmitted Signal Strength

Although the orientation image analysis, results in Appendix A, found a general orientation
to the carbon fibers within the disk, the fibers were not sufficiently oriented to show any
significant dependence. Therefore, sample orientation with the electric field is not a dominant
factor in determining the shielding effectiveness of the composite. When theoretically modeling
the system, a fiber/wave orientation, however, must be chosen. Because parallel alignment of the
electric field and fiber was found to produce the greatest shielding, this orientation will be
selected for use in later analyses.
Perpendicular
Parallel

32
CHAPTER 5: Electromagnetic Theory

5.1 Introduction

A theory to describe the shielding effectiveness of a material is developed in this chapter. A
basic discussion of electromagnetic wave theory is presented, starting with the basic laws of
electricity and magnetism and culminating with the derivation of an equation describing a
scattered field.
5.2 Shielding Theory
When an electromagnetic field is passed through an object, there are two specific
phenomena that determine how the field strength is lost as it interacts with the object: attenuation
(from absorption) and scattering (also known as reflection). As the wave impinges the surface of
the object, it forces charges in the object to oscillate at the same frequency of the incident wave.
This forced oscillating charge behaves as an antenna and reradiates the incident signal. The entire
signal is not reradiated in the direction of the incident wave, resulting in measured signal loss.
The field is emitted in many directions in a pattern associated with a signal charge oscillating
antenna, and hence the field is scattered. As the charge is forced to vibrate in the medium, energy
is lost in the form of heat. This mode of signal loss is known as attenuation due to absorption. It
is important to note that depending on the properties of the object the wave may not encounter
enough free and mobile charges to result in any marked signal loss.
Figure 5-1 below, depicts both loss phenomena for an incident field as it passes through a
medium. In the figure, an incident field collides with an object known to exhibit some shielding
behavior. Only a fraction of the incident field passes into the object as a portion of the signal is
scattered at the media interface. The amplitude of the entering signal, represented by the dashed
line within the object, then decreases with increased depth of penetration. Internal reflections are

33
possible, especially in the case of non-homogeneous materials, but typically play only a minor
role in determining the extent of transmission power loss (10).

Figure 5-1: Representation of Shielding Phenomena for Plane Waves Passing Through a
Homogeneous Barrier (10)

5.3 Scattered Field Theory

Although the results from the electrical resistivity and shielding effectiveness experiments
show correlation, it has been argued that resistivity tests alone cannot provide enough information
to predict SE (9). The resistivity experiments do not take into account all of the filler present,
only the fibers aligned in a conductive network. The fibers not connected in the network,
however, still have the potential of scattering or absorbing electromagnetic fields.
From the balance of power analysis described in Chapter 3 and discussed in Chapter 4, it
was determined that absorption played only a minor role in determining the shielding
effectiveness of the composite disks, leaving field scattering (reflection) as the largest SE
contributor. Because the pure nylon samples showed an inability to shield, it is proposed that the
scattering behavior of the system can be attributed singularly to the presence of the fibers. Thus,
a single cylindrical fiber will serve as the focus for the derivation of the relevant equations.
A
B

Scattered
Fields
Transmitted
Fields

34
Figure 5-2 shows a simple plane wave traveling in the x-direction and the electric field
oscillating in the z-direction colliding with a cylinder. The magnitude of the incident plane wave
is E
0
. Although Figure 5-2 shows a single point of scattering, the plane wave will strike the
cylinder in multiple places, and thus, produce multiple points of scattering. Each point of impact
will emit a scattered wave of the same frequency and wavelength of the incident wave. The
amplitude of the scattered wave, indicating the strength of the wave, however, will be less than
E
0
.

Figure 5-2: A Cylinder Impinged by a Uniform Plane Wave

x
z
y
z
H

H

z

Point of
Scattering E
0

35
5.4 Scattered Field Equation Derivation

5.4.1 Maxwells Equations
To solve for the scattered fields, an understanding of basic electromagnetics is required.
Maxwells equations provide the fundamental basis.

t
B
E
[5.4-1]

t
D
J H
+ [5.4-2]
0 B [5.4-3]

v
D [5.4-4]
Where:
E = electric field strength (volts/meter)
D = electric flux density (coulombs/meter
2
)
H = magnetic field strength (amperes/meter)
B = magnetic flux density (webers/meter
2
)
J = electric current density (amperes/meter
2
)

v
= electric charge density (coulombs/meter
2
)

To solve Maxwells equations, the following constitutive relations, Equations 5.4-5 and 5.4-6, are
required, which relate electric field and magnetic field strength to electric flux density and
magnetic flux density, respectively. The constitutive relations provide information about the
environment in which the electromagnetic fields propagate. (3)
E D

[5.4-5]
H B [5.4-6]
Where:

= complex permittivity (Farads/meter)

= permeability (Henrys/meter)

36
5.4.2 Permittivity - Absorption Loss
Permittivity is a measure of how much a medium changes to absorb energy when subject
to an electric field. As seen in Equation 5.4-5, it is defined as the ratio
E
D
. Complex permittivity
is further defined by:

[5.4-7]
Where:
= permittivity (real part) (Farads/meter)
= conductivity (Siemens/meter)
= angular frequency (radians/second)
j = 1 (imaginary number)
The following equation relates angular frequency to frequency, f :
f 2 [5.4-8]
f c [5.4-9]
Where:
c = speed of light (Faradays/meter)
= wavelength (meters)

The imaginary part of Equation 5.4-7 describes the absorption loss at a given frequency. The
relation
is termed the loss factor (31). The ratio of the loss factor to the real part of the
permittivity indicates whether or not a material will exhibit large absorption losses. If the ratio is
large for a given frequency, the material is regarded as a good conductor (31).

1 [5.4-10]

Although the real part of the permittivities for ThermalGraph and Fortafil are not known,
both have electrical conductivity values within two orders of magnitude of copper

37
(ThermalGraph 4.55 x 10
5
S/m, Fortafil 0.60 x 10
5
S/m), a material known for exhibiting good
electrical conduction and little absorption losses. Thus, both fillers are assumed to demonstrate
similar properties. For copper, with a conductivity of 5.80 x 10
7

Siemens/m, the frequency at
which the above ratio (Equation 5.4-10) approaches unity is in the optical range (10
14

Hz) (31).
Therefore, it can be expected that both ThermalGraph and Fortafil will display little to no
absorption losses up to infrared frequencies (10
12

Hz). The frequency range covered in this
analysis peaked at 10
9
Hz, hence, the filler particles can be assumed to be perfect conductors and
only the real part of the permittivity (

) will be considered. Figure 5-3 shows the frequency
spectrum.

Figure 5-3: Electromagnetic Frequency Spectrum (25)

38
5.4.3 Phasor Notation
Substituting the constitutive relations, Equation 5.4-5 and 5.4-6, into the original Maxwell
expressions, Equations 5.4-1 - 4, yields the following modified Maxwells equations:

t
H
E
[5.4-11]

t
E
J H
+

[5.4-12]
0 H [5.4-13]

v
E
) ( [5.4-14]
The time derivatives in Equations 5.4-11 and 5.4-12 can be placed into phasor notation by using
the rule of equivalence for time-harmonic quantities. A phasor is a complex quantity that
represents a time-harmonic physical quantity. Phasor notation is a more convenient method of
representing the equations associated with electromagnetics.

The following sinusoidal, time-harmonic real physical quantity, ) (t V ,
) cos( ) (
0
+ t V t V [5.4-15]
can be expressed as a complex quantity using Eulers Identity.
x j x e
jx
sin cos + [5.4-16]
In phasor notation ) (t V can be written as:
) Re{ ) (
0
t j j
e e V t V

[5.4-17]
Where:
Re{ } = denotes taking the real part

39
For convenience, the Re{ } symbol and frequency-time dependence term,
t j
e

, are generally
omitted in the literature and will not be written for the phasors listed in the remainder of this
chapter.

j
e V t V
0
) ( [5.4-18]
Therefore, j can be used to replace a time derivative when representing a time-harmonic
function as a complex quantity.
) Re{ ) Re{ ) (
0 0
t j j t j j
e e V j e e V
t
t V
t

[5.4-19]

j
e V j t V
t
0
) (
[5.4-20]
Finally, Equations 5.4-11 and 5.4-12 can be expressed as:
H j E [5.4-21]
E j J H

+ [5.4-22]
5.4.4 Wave Equation Solution Incident Field
Although the plane waves created by the HP 8752C network analyzer and transmitted
through the shielding apparatus do not propagate through free space, it was assumed the conical
wave guide of the test fixture (Figure 3-5) allowed the EM fields to behave as if they are in a
source free media. This assumption was made to simplify the mathematics required to
characterize the incident electrical field.


40
For a source free media, no source currents or charges are present to interact with the
plane wave, 0 J and 0
v
. This stipulation simplifies Equations 5.4-14 and 5.4-22 as
follows:
0 E [5.4-23]
E j H

[5.4-24]
Using the well known tensor indentity listed in Equation 5.4-25, further simplification of
Equation 5.4-21 is possible (3).
a a a
2
) ( ) ( [5.4-25]
Applying the identity with the phasor form of the Maxwell equation describing the electric field
produces Equation 5.4-26.
H j E [5.4-21]
) ( ) (
2
E H j E [5.4-26]
Substituting Equations 5.4-23 and 5.4-24 into Equation 5.4-26 yields a general second order
differential equation describing the electric field, Equation 5.4-28, which is typically referred to
as the wave equation (3)
) 0 ( ) (
2

E j j E [5.4-27]
0
2 2
+ E E [5.4-28]
The collection of terms,
2
, can be lumped together under a single variable
2
.

[5.4-29]

is called the wavenumber. For free space, the wavenumber,
0
, is the number of waves in a
distance of 2 wavelengths. This relation becomes more apparent after substituting the free space
values of and
into Equation 5.4-29.

41

0
= permeability of free space (
7
10 4

Henrys/meter)

0
= permittivity of free-space (
0
2
1
c
=
9
10
36
1

Farads/meter)

2
0
1 2
c
c
[5.4-30]

2
0
[5.4-31]

Since the geometry of the system in question is cylindrical in nature (fiber shape) the electric
equation should be solved in cylindrical coordinates of the following form:
) , , ( z E [5.4-32]
Where , and z are cylindrical coordinates diagrammed in Figure 5-5.

Figure 5-5: Cylindrical Coordinate System

External to the fiber, the plane wave introduced in Section 5.3 and shown in Figure 5-2 travels in
the x-plane with an electric field oscillating in the z-plane. Therefore, only the partial derivatives
with respect to the x-direction for the z component of the field, given by equation 5.4-28, are of
concern.
0
0 0
2
2
2
+
z
z
E
x
E
[5.4-33]

42
Finally, Equation 5.4-34, describing the electric field of the simple plane wave can be found as a
solution to the simplified wave equation, Equation 5.4-33.

cos
0 0
0 0
j x j
e E z e E z E

[5.4-34]
Where:
z = unit vector pointing in the direction of increasing z

The incident field,
i
E , can further be expressed as:

0
0 0
) cos( ) ( ) (
n
n n
n
i
n J j E z E [5.4-35]
Where:

n
= {
0 2
0 1
n
n

The summation arises from the representation of the plane wave as an infinite sum of cylindrical
wave functions (32).

5.4.5 Wave Equation Solution Scattered Field
A solution for the incident electric field can be found with relative ease because of the no
source/ free space assumption made at the beginning of the derivation. For an electromagnetic
signal to propagate through or interact with an object, however, oscillating currents must exist
within the object. The creation of a scattered electric field requires the induction of a current
source on the scattering object. Thus, the Maxwells equations must include the current density
term, J .
H j E [5.4-21]
E j J H

+ [5.4-22]
Solving the two differential equations is challenging when the value of J is not known. Because
of the presence of the curl operator, the electric field wraps around the current source. Thus,

43
the math required for solving Equations 5.4-21 and 5.4-22 can be quite challenging. Introduction
of two intermediate auxiliary functions A and allows for easier determination of a solution.
Figure 5-6 illustrates this concept. A is defined as having the same vector direction as
J (traveling in the same direction). The solution for A can then be used to determine E .
Aandare defined by the following relationships (3):
A B (definition of A) [5.4-36]

A j E (definition of ) [5.4-37]

Figure 5-6: Block diagram Depicting the Two Step Process for Solving for the Radiated Fields
Given a Current and Charge Source (32)

Using the tensor identity described in 5.4-25 with Equation 5.4-36 gives a second order
differential equation for A in terms of magnetic flux. The scattered fields are produced by a
current source, J . Therefore, the equations must be solved for in terms of J .
A A A B
2
) ( ) ( [5.4-38]
The curl of the magnetic flux density, B , can be found using the constitutive relation given in
Equation 5.4-6.
H B [5.4-6]
Sources
J ,
v
Vector Potentials
A,
Radiated Fields
E , H

Integration Path 1
Integration Path 2 Differentiation Path 2

44
) ( ) ( H H B [5.4-39a]
Inserting this new expression, Equation 5.4-39a into Equation 5.4-38 gives:
A A H
2
) ( ) ( [5.4-39b]
The divergence of Ais defined by the Lorentz condition (3):
0 +

j A (Lorentz Condition) [5.4-40]
A j H
2
) ( ) (

[5.4-39c]
The curl of the magnetic field, expressed in terms of a current source J and electric field E ,
(Equation 5.4-22) produces the following equation:
A j E j J
2
) ( ) ( +

[5.4-39d]
Rearranged, Equation 5.4-39d becomes:
) (
2
+ +

j E j A J [5.4-39e]
The definition of can then be used to express the electric field:
) ( ) (
2
+ +

j A j j A J [5.4-39f]
A simple rearrangement of Equation 5.4-39f produces the second order differential equation for
the vector potential, A, in terms of a current source ( J ).
) ( ) (
2 2
+ +

j j A A J [5.4-39g]
J A A +

2 2
[5.4-41]

Similarly, a second-order differential equation for can be found using the definition
of , Equation 5.4-14 and the Lorentz condition. The divergence of the definition of ,
Equation 5.4-37, can be used to represent the expression in known terms.
A j E [5.4-38]

45
Taking the divergence gives:
) ( A j E [5.4-42a]
) ( ) ( A j E [5.4-42b]

The divergence of the electric field has previously been related in Equation 5.4-14.
) ( ) (
A j
v
[5.4-42c]
The Lorentz condition again defines the quantity A :
) ( ) j ( j
v

[5.4-42d]

Upon rearrangement, a second order differential equation for in terms of surface charge (
v
)
is realized.

+
v

2 2
[5.4-43]
An infinitesimal antenna is an extremely short and thin wire driven by a current source (3).
This theoretical antenna is a good approximation for the tiny antenna produced from the induced
oscillating charge on the surface of the fiber. Assuming that the antenna oscillates in the z-plane
over an infinitesimal length ( z ), a current density ( J ) multiplied by the cross-sectional area
( A ) equal to I with the origin is set at the center of the antenna ( ' = 0), the vector potential
generated by the antenna is given by (3):

j
ze I z
A

[5.4-44]
One can clearly see the similarity of the above equation and the equation for a scalar potential of
a point charge, Equation 5.4-45.
Scalar Potential =

0
4
q
[5.4-45]
Where:
q = point electric charge (Coulombs)

46
Using this definition for an infinitesimal antenna, the general solutions for A and can be
found and are listed in Equations 5.4-46 and 5.4-47.

v
j
e J
dV A
'
) ' (
'
4
) (
'

[5.4-46]

v
j
v
e
dV
'
) ' (
'
4
1
) (
'

[5.4-47]
Where:
= vector indication the position of the potentials
' = position vector of the sources
' = distance between observation point and '

Figure 5-7 shows the position vectors and ' . Equations 5.4-46 is integrated over all points
where the source, ) ' ( J , is not zero (3).

Figure 5-7: Diagram of the Position Vectors. The vector potential A at is obtained by
integrating the current J at ' . (3)

'

'

) ' ( J

47
Through use of the solutions for A and and their associated definitions, an expression
for the scattered field,
i
E , can be developed. Since the scattered waves travel outward from the
cylindrical fibers, the E-field solution must be expressed by cylindrical wave functions (32).

n
n n
s
H c E z E ) (
) 2 (
0
[5.4-48]
Where:

n
c = unknown amplitude coefficients

) 2 (
n
H = Hankel Fuction of the second kind
given by:

n n
) (
n
jY J H
2
[5.4-49]
Where:

n
J = Bessel Function of the first kind

n
Y = Bessel Function of the second kind

Equation 5.4-48 includes only the z component of the scattered field and ignores the and
directions. The results of the orientation analysis, discussed in Chapter 4, made this
simplification possible. From the fiber orientation shielding preference study, it was found that
aligning a length of a carbon fiber parallel to the electric field produced the most shielding.
Therefore, to model the maximum amount of scattering, we can narrow our focus to this
orientation, known as TM
z
mode. Figure 5-8 shows a wave traveling in the x-plane with the
electric field (E) pointing in the z-plane and the magnetic field pointing in the y-plane. This
orientation allows for the electric field to oscillate charges over the greatest distance in the fiber,
(the length of the fiber) and thus produce the largest scattered field intensity.

48

a
E
x
z
H
y

Figure 5-8: Uniform Plane Wave of TM
z
Orientation Impinging a Single Cylindrical
Scatterer With Radius a (32)

To solve for the unknown amplitude coefficients,
n
c , the wave must be expressed in its
entirety,
T
E , including both the scattered and incident fields (
s
E and
i
E ).

s i T
E E E + [5.4-50]
For a perfect conductor, no charge or electric field can exist within the material. Therefore, at the
surface of the fiber, = a, there is no electric field.
0 ) , 2 0 , ( z a E
T
[5.4-51]
Coupled with the boundary condition listed below that states that the tangential electric fields on
both sides of a surface (within the fiber and outside) must be equal,
n
c is found to be:
0 ) ( 2 1
E E n (Boundary Condition) [5.4-52]

jn
n
n n
n
e
a H
a J
j c
) (
) (
) 2 (
[5.4-53]

49
The scattered field, Equation 5.4-48, can now be expressed as [Equation 11-85a in Balanis] (32):

n
jn
n
n n n
s
e
a H
H a J
j E z E

) (
) ( ) (
) 2 (
) 2 (
0
[5.4-54]

n n
n n
n
n
n
a H
H a J
j E z ) cos(
) (
) ( ) (
) (
) 2 (
) 2 (
0

[5.4-55]
Where:

n
= {
0 2
0 1
n
n

5.5 Scattering Width

The radar cross section, , is defined as the measure of a target's ability to reflect (scatter)
incident radar signals in the direction of the radar receiver, i.e. it is a measure of the ratio of
backscatter power. Backscatter is defined as reflecting the signal from the target directly back to
the source. Simply, radar cross section provides an indication of how well a given target reflects
incident electric field energy. A small radar cross section indicates that the object in question
backscatters little of the incident signal. The less power backscattered, the less power received by
the source, meaning the object appears small to the source. This is the fundamental principle
behind stealth technology.
Scattering width, in principle, is very similar to shielding effectiveness. Shielding
effectiveness is a measure of how much energy from an impinging wave transmits through an
object while radar cross section indicates how much power is backscattered. In theory, the two
should show similar trends and, in fact, be related. Equation 5.4-55 shows the mathematical
definition of scattering width (32).

1
1
]
1
2
2
2
2
lim
i
s
D
E
E

[5.5-1]

50
Where:
= radial distance from center of target to the observer (meters)

s
E = scattered electric field strength (volts/meter)

i
E = incident electric field strength (volts/meter)

Substitution of Equation 5.4-45 into Equation 5.5-1 yields the following expression for the
scattering width:

1
]
1

2
0
) 2 (
) 2 (
2
) cos( ) (
) (
) (
) ( 2
lim

n H
a H
a J
j
n
n
n
n
n
n
D
[5.5-2]

Application of the limit, , produces the far-field scattering width. Because of the
design of the shielding test apparatus, near-field measurements were made, instead. Although it
appears that the source and receiver are 34.4 cm apart, as shown in Figure 5.4-2, they are actually
very close together. Since the test fixture is essentially a conical wave guide, it behaves as a
transmission line, conducting the signal right up to the shielding disk sample. Therefore, the
source and receiver are very close to the scattering event.


Because the investigation was concerned with the near-field scattering width (small values
of ), the limit was removed. Further simplification of the equation was also made by selecting a
specific phase angle. When using the shielding apparatus to measure the intensity of the scattered
signal the orientation of the incident wave and fibers in the shielding disks was such that the
back-scattered wave ( = 180) was measured. Equation 5.5-2 then reduces to:

51

2
0
) 2 (
) 2 (
2
) (
) (
) (
) ( 2

+

n
n
n
n
n
n
D
H
a H
a J
j
[5.5-3]
Where:
a = optical radius of object (meters)
=
0
=
2
(meters
-1
)

n
= {
0 2
0 1
n
n

As can be seen in Equation 5.5-3, the scattering width is frequency dependent. The amount
of power backscattered from the impinged object will depend upon the frequency of the incident
field. Since the scattering width is the width of an object as it appears to the wave, at low
frequencies, the wavelength of the impinging wave is too large to discern the exact detail of an
object. Thus, to the wave, the width of the object at these low frequencies will appear to be larger
than at higher frequencies (such as visible light). It is this concept that provides the foundation
for the development of the shielding effectiveness model in Chapter 6.

52
CHAPTER 6: Shielding Effectiveness Model Design

6.1 Introduction
This chapter will present the methods and supporting logic utilized in the development of the
shielding effectiveness model. The equations for the scattering width and scattered electric field
strength developed in Chapter 5 will be applied to the data accumulated during the shielding
experiments described in Chapter 3, resulting in the creation of a predictive model for the
shielding effectiveness of nylon 6,6 composites containing ThermalGraph and Fortafil carbon
fibers.
6.2 Review of Problem Description and Focus
From the orientation analysis described in Chapter 4, it was determined that the composite
shielding disks are comprised of somewhat uniformly oriented cylindrical carbon fibers in a
nylon 6,6 matrix. Thus, the disks are complex non-homogeneous, non-isotropic systems.
Because of the dielectric nature of the nylon 6,6 matrix, the impinging wave sees only a
collection of fibers, some of which are in a conductive network arrangement. It is the interaction
of the wave with these fibers that determines the shielding effectiveness of the composite.
As discussed in Chapter 5, the scattered electric field produced by a plane wave impinging a
carbon fiber can be modeled with Equation 5.4-55.

n
) (
n
) (
n n
n
n
s
) n cos(
) a ( H
) ( H ) a ( J
) j ( E z E
2
2
0
[5.4-55]
Where:
a = optical width of object, fiber diamter (meters)
=
0
=
2
(meters
-1
)
= distance from scatterer to observer (meters)

n
= {
0 2
0 1
n
n

From this equation, the scattering width of the fiber can be calculated using Equation 5.5-3:

53

2
0
) 2 (
) 2 (
2
) (
) (
) (
) ( 2

+

n
n
n
n
n
n
D
H
a H
a J
j
[5.5-3]
Like shielding effectiveness, both measurements give a sense as to how much power from the
incident signal is lost when colliding with an object. Because it was proposed that
scattering/reflection was the dominant loss mechanism for the composite disks, the scattering
width equation for a perfect conductor should be applicable to the carbon fibers within the nylon
6,6 matrix.
6.3 Analysis of Scattering Equations
6.3.1 Dependence on Frequency, Optical Radius and Distance From Scatterer
to Observer

The scattered field and scattering width equations are functions of the impinging wave
frequency (from ), the optical radius of the object and the distance from the center of the
scatterer and scattered signal receiver (observer), known as . Figure 6-2and Figure 6-1 show the
result of the comparison. For the frequency range investigated (30 to 1000 MHz), in both near
( 0.1 mm) and far zone ( 50 m), the scattering width of a single fiber of ThermalGraph
was found be comparable to that of Fortafil. In the near zone, the scattering widths of
ThermalGraph and Fortafil were calculated to be 290 m and 280 m at 1000 MHz. This
result was expected as both fibers have similar diameters measured in the optical range
(ThermalGraph 10.0 m and Fortafil 7.0 m). The 2 orders of magnitude difference between
scattering width and respective optical fiber diameter was expected. Consistent between both
near and far zones was the effect of frequency on the scattering width of the fiber. Both fibers
appeared to be much larger at low frequencies than high frequencies.
Also noticeable is the large dependence on . In the near zone, the fibers appear almost 4
orders of magnitude smaller than in the far zone. For the remainder of the analysis, near zone
scattering will be investigated using = 1.0 x 10
-4
m. This value was chosen as a best estimate.

54
The actual distance between the scatterer (fiber) and observer should be a fraction of the sample
thickness, 3.2 mm. Nevertheless, the choice of will not affect the quality of the final model
results. It will, however, influence the numerical values of the derived model parameters.

Figure 6-1: Near Zone ( = 1.0 x 10
-4
m) Scattering Width for Both Fibers

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
x 10
-4
Frequency (MHz)
ThermalGraph
Fortafil

55

Figure 6-2: Far Zone ( = 50 m) Scattering Width for Both Fibers

6.3.2 Deterministic Nature of Scattering Equations
The deterministic nature of the scattered electric field and scattering width equations is a
major drawback in the applicability of the equation for non-homogeneous materials. The
equations include no prediction of whether or not the wave actually hits the object in
question. They simply give an indication of the power of the field scattered when impinged
with a plane wave. The wavelengths investigated ranged from 10 to 0.3 m (30 MHz 1.0
GHz). The fibers are on average 6 orders of magnitude smaller than the impinging wave.
This huge discrepancy in size produces a high probability that the wave will never see a fiber.
Thus, the reflected power portion of shielding effectiveness cannot be directly modeled with
the scattered field equation. This can best be seen by plotting the shielding effectiveness of a
single fiber of ThermalGraph due solely to scattering by using the solution for the scattered
electric field, Equation 5.4-55 and the definition of SE.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
Frequency (MHz)
ThermalGraph
Fortafil

56

,
_

0
) 2 (
) 2 (
0
10
) cos(
) (
) ( ) (
) (
log 20
E
n
a H
H a J
j E
SE
n
n
n n
n
n
[ 6.3-1]

Figure 6-3: Theoretical Shielding Effectiveness of a Single Carbon Fiber Scattering an Incident
Wave

The results above presumably indicate that a shielding disk containing only a single carbon fiber
would produce a shielding effectiveness of at least 9 dB. From the experiment results shown in
Appendix B, one can clearly see this is completely unrealistic. A minimum fiber volume percent
of 18.52 was required to obtain a shielding effectiveness of 9 dB for ThermalGraph. The result
is not wrong; it is just not representative of the actual situation. There is no guarantee that the
incoming signal collides with the lone fiber.
Also, the inverse frequency dependence at first might appear to not agree with the results
from the Shielding Effectiveness tests. Increased frequency was found to increase shielding
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
Frequency (MHz)
ThermalGraph
Fortafil

57
effectiveness. Increased frequency, however, results in decreased scattered field strength, and
therefore, decreased shielding effectiveness for a single fiber and decreased scattering width
(Figure 6-1). One would correctly assume that since a larger object produces a stronger back-
scattered field, it would be a better shielding material. This fact must be accounted for in the
shielding effectiveness model.
6.4 Accounting for Collision Probability
The probability of a wave collision with a fiber is dependent on a multitude of factors: the
apparent size of the fiber (radar cross section), the wavelength of the incident wave and the
volume fraction of fibers within the nylon 6,6 matrix. Prior assumptions in this analysis have
eliminated the influence of other factors such as fiber length and fiber orientation on the
probability of a collision. Because of the multiplicative behavior of the factors, it is quite
challenging to single out the direct effect of each component. This research will focus on
quantifying the cumulative effect of the factors.
As previously mentioned and shown in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-3, the scattering width of
the cylindrical carbon fibers reduces in size as frequency in increased. The chance of a collision
with a fiber, however, increases with increased frequency (reduced wavelength). Both effects can
be accounted for by dividing the scattering width (
D 2
) by wavelength () to form a new term,
D 2
, known as the bistatic scattering width. This ratio gives an indication of the size of the
fiber in a window one wavelength long. It shows the relative importance of the scattering width
and fiber visibility due to the incident wavelength. The scattering width of a ThermalGraph
fiber varies from 3.7 to 3.0 x 10
-4
m from 30 MHz to 1.0 GHz. The size of the incoming wave,
however, shows greater frequency dependence (10 to 0.3 m). Therefore, even though the
scattering width of the fiber decreases slightly, the relative size of the fiber (
D 2
) in a unit cell of
length increases greatly with respect to frequency. Figure 6-4 shows the unit cell/window.

58

Figure 6-4: Sample Wavelength Sized Window For Shielding Disk

Inside the window, it is assumed that there is a single fiber surrounded by the wave
transparent nylon 6,6. The fiber has an actual diameter of d which is smaller than its scattering
width. It is hypothesized that the shielding effectiveness of this window is proportional to the
scattering width of the fiber. As the scattering width is increased within the window, the
remaining area available for nylon 6,6 is decreased and an increase in shielding effectiveness will
occur. Thus, it is proposed that the bistatic scattering width is related to shielding effectiveness
by a constant factor, Equation 6.4-1.
t tan cons
Data Effect Shielding
D

2
[6.4-1]
d

2 D

59
6.5 Scaling Factor Analysis
The constant was calculated for each formulation by using Equation 6.4-1 and the respective
D 2
(calculated from Equation 5.5-3) for either ThermalGraph or Fortafil and is called the
Scaling Factor in this work. The Scaling Factor is defined as the average of the Shielding
Effectiveness data divided by the ratio
D 2
over the range from 300 MHz to 1000 MHz. A
separate Scaling Factor was determined for each material formulation. Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6
show the analysis for NCN05 and NDN05. Following the same convention from the shielding
effectiveness plots, the upper and lower dotted lines indicate the maximum and minimum
constants calculated at that given frequency. The solid line represents this average value. The
remaining scaling factor graphs can be found in Appendix E.

Figure 6-5: Scaling Factor Analysis for NCN05
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Frequency (MHz)
Scaling Factor = 861.503

60

Figure 6-6: Scaling Factor Analysis for NDN05

Although the formulations have been referred to by their respective weight percents
throughout this document, shielding effectiveness is a filler volume fraction dependent
phenomenon. It is the volume of space occupied by the fibers that determines the amount of
obstruction the wave will encounter. By calculating a scaling factor for each individual
formulation, volume percent is essentially accounted for even though the original equations were
derived for a single fiber. The scaling factor relates the volume percent of filler in the composite
to the cumulative effect of a large amount of wavelength sized windows containing a single fiber.
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
10500
11000
11500
Scaling Factor = 8.1833 x 10
3
Frequency (MHz)

61
Table 6.5-1 and Table 6.5-2 list the results of the analysis for both ThermalGraph and
Fortafil, respectively.
Table 6.5-1: ThermalGraph Scaling Factor Results
Weight Percent Volume Percent Scaling Factor (dB)
5.0 2.71 861.5
10.0 5.56 1,309.3
15.0 8.55 3,282.0
20.0 11.70 5,686.0
30.0 18.52 11,562
40.0 26.12 20,266

Table 6.5-2: Fortafil Scaling Factor Results
Weight Percent Volume Percent Scaling Factor (dB)
5.0 3.24 8,183.3
7.0 4.56 13,635
10.0 6.58 26,082
15.0 10.08 57,668
20.0 13.69 70,235
30.0 21.29 97,111
40.0 29.49 111,480

Due to the higher SE experimental data for Fortafil, the scaling factors for Fortafil are
much larger than for ThermalGraph when compared at similar filler volume percents. At low
volume percents, the quality of the mean scaling factor fit is relatively good for both fibers. As
volume percent is increased, however, the shielding effectiveness data/bistatic scattering width
ratio appears to no longer approximate to a constant value. This occurs around a volume percent
of 18 for ThermalGraph and 6 for Fortafil. Because this non-constant behavior is noticed at
different fiber volume percents for the two fibers, the direct cause is unknown. It is however
assumed that because the physical model is founded on the shielding ability of a single fiber, the
theory of Equation 6.4-1 is only valid at low volume percents. Deviations from this linear theory

62
arise at higher volume percents due to the greater likelihood that the unit cell shown in Figure 6-4
contains more than one fiber, most likely arranged in a conductive network.
6.6 Shielding Effectiveness Model Results
Combining the scaling factors collected in the analysis above with the bistatic scattering
width equation produces an equation capable of predicting the shielding effectiveness of a nylon
6,6 sample containing either ThermalGraph or Fortafil carbon fibers, Equation 6.6-1 below:

D
Factor Scaling (dB) iveness Effect Shielding

2
[6.6-1]
Where:

2
0
2
2
2
2
n
) (
n
) (
n
n
n
n D
) ( H
) a ( H
) a ( J
) j (
[5.5-3]

a = radius of object (optical range) (meters)
= 5.0 x 10
-6
(ThermalGraph)
= 3.65 x 10
-6
(Fortafil)
=
0
=
2
(meters
-1
)
= distance from scatterer to observer (meters)

n
= {
0 2
0 1
n
n

Figure 6-7 and Figure 6-8 show the model predicted shielding effectiveness for NCN05 and
NDN05. Comparisons of the shielding effectiveness predicted by the model (shown in Equation
6.6-1) to the actual shielding effectiveness data compiled during the experiments are found in
Appendix F.

63

Figure 6-7: Model Predicted and Experimentally Determined Shielding Effectiveness for NCN05

Figure 6-8: Model Predicted and Experimentally Determined Shielding Effectiveness for NDN05
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model

64
The model accurately predicts shielding effectiveness values for low fiber volume percent
composites that exhibit low shielding effectiveness (majority of the ThermalGraph samples).
The ability of the model to accurately estimate shielding effectiveness decreases rapidly as the
volume percent is increased. The range of utility is from NCN05 to NCN30 and NDN05 to
NDN07. By plotting the actual shielding effectiveness data divided by the model predicted value,
the deviation of the model can be seen giving a sense to the quality of the model fit. Ideally, the
plot for each formulation should equal 1. Figure 6-9 and Figure 6-10 below show the results.
NCN10 shows a different trend than the other formulations. The quality of the fit is reversed.
The model predicts values too high at low frequencies and too low at high frequencies. It is
assumed that this behavior is a

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Frequency (MHz)
F
i
t

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
5 wt%
10 wt%
15 wt%
20 wt%
30 wt%
40 wt%

Figure 6-9: Model Fit Quality Analysis for ThermalGraph Based Composites

65
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Frequency (MHz)
F
i
t

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
5 wt%
7 wt%
10 wt%
15 wt%
20 wt%
30 wt%
40 wt%

Figure 6-10: Model Fit Quality Analysis for Fortafil Based Composites

6.7 Scaling Factor - Linear Fit
As discussed in Section 6.5, the scaling factors are functions of only filler volume percent.
Ideally, applying a fit to the scaling factor/volume percent data should produce a master equation
(Equation 6.7-1) for predicting shielding effectiveness for both ThermalGraph and Fortafil.
A linear fit was chosen to follow the prior assumption that the scaling factor linearly relates the
volume percent of filler to the cumulative effect of a large amount of wavelength sized windows
containing a single fiber. Equation 6.7-2 and Figure 6.7-1 and Equation 6.7-3 and Figure 6.7-2
show the results from the linear fit for ThermalGraph and Fortafil, respectively.

ThermalGraph

D
Fit
Factor Scaling . Approx (dB) SE

2
[6.7-1]
3188.9) % Vol. (848.8285 (dB) SE
Fit
[6.7-2]

66
Fortafil

D
Fit
Factor Scaling . Approx (dB) SE

2
[6.7-1]
3007.1) % Vol. (4085.7 (dB) Factor Scaling + [6.7-3]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
4
Volume Percent Filler
S
c
a
l
i
n
g

F
a
c
t
o
r

(
d
B
)

Figure 6-11: Linear Fit Applied to ThermalGraph Scaling Factor Data

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
x 10
4
Linear Scaling Factor Fit
Volume Percent Filler
S
c
a
l
i
n
g

F
a
c
t
o
r

(
d
B
)

Figure 6-12: Linear Fit Applied to Fortafil Scaling Factor Data

R
2
= 0.9737
R
2
= 0.9348

67
Although both scaling factors appear to show some semblance of linear filler volume percent
behavior, the equations derived from the fit include enough error to significantly reduce the
ability of the model (Equation 6.7-1) to accurately predict shielding effectiveness. The fit for
ThermalGraph is quite good between 5 and 20 filler volume percent. The scaling factor
equation for ThermalGraph, however, predicts a negative value (corresponding to negative SE)
for composites with filler volume percents less than 4. The scaling factor equation for Fortafil
does not estimate negative values at any volume percent but is based on a lower quality fit.
Deviations from perfect linear behavior are again assumed to be a result of focusing on only the
interaction of the incident signal and a single fiber, ignoring the effects fibers oriented in a
conductive network. Figures 6.7-3 and 6.7-4 show the model fit using the linear scaling factor
equations for NCN05 and NDN05. The accuracy of these model results are noticeably worse
than those shown in Figures 6.6-1 and 6.6-2. The remainder of the model results are shown in
Appendix G.

Figure 6-13: Model Predicted and Experimentally Determined Shielding Effectiveness for
NCN05 using Linear Scaling Factor Fit Equation
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data

68

Figure 6-14: Model Predicted and Experimentally Determined Shielding Effectiveness for
NDN05 using Linear Scaling Factor Fit Equation

6.8 White Model Comparison
This new model is a significant improvement over models proposed by White and Bushko
for predicting shielding effectiveness in composite materials having low electrical conductivities.
As shown in Appendix H, the White model equation was derived for homogeneous, isotropic
materials (9-10).

,
_
+
r
r
r r dB
f
f t

10
log 10 168 34 . 3 SE [6.8-1]
Where:
t = thickness of material (inches)
f = frequency (Hertz)

r
= conductivity relative to copper

r
= magnetic permeability relative to copper

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data

69
The assumption of homogeneity produces the greatest error when applying the White model
to a complex composite system. As discussed in Section 6.3.2, a shielding effectiveness model
for a media containing a collection of both shielding (fiber) and non-shielding (nylon 6,6)
materials must include a method for predicting the occurrence of shielding material/wave
collisions to be capable of accurately predicting shielding effectiveness.
The White model relies on effective electrical conductivity of the sample to determine the
shielding effectiveness. As previously mentioned, Bushko has proposed that electrical
conductivity does not provide enough information to be the main SE predictor (9). This becomes
readily apparent when applying the White model to the NCN10 formulation. NCN10 was found
to have a conductivity of 1.31 x 10
-16
Siemens/cm. If the shielding disk was completely and
uniformly comprised of a material with this conductivity, one would expect it to provide little
shielding. The shielding disk, however, was found exhibit to some shielding ability, Figure 6-15.

Figure 6-15: White Model and Proposed Model Comparison and Experimentally Determined
Shielding Effectiveness for NCN10

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Frequency (MHz)
Proposed Model
SE Data
White Model

70
The theory proposed by White does give a good estimate of shielding effectiveness for nylon
6,6 based composites exhibiting high electrical conductivity. It is assumed that as the
conductivity of the sample increases due to the development of aligned fiber networks, the
impinging wave no longer sees an ensemble of individual fibers. Instead, the wave encounters a
homogeneous-like collection of fibers behaving as a single object. For NDN40, the formulation
found to have the highest electrical conductivity, the White model approximates the SE with
decent accuracy, Figure 6.8-2. The White model is only applicable to highly conductive
composites. It uses the conductivity of the disk to describe the system. Conductivity is a
homogeneous quantity and the sample only approaches homogeneity when the fibers are present
in sufficient quantity (high volume percent). By focusing on the ability of the individual fibers to
shield the model proposed in this text is, however, generally more capable of predicting shielding
effectiveness in composites.

Figure 6-16: White Model and Proposed Model Comparison for NDN40
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Frequency (MHz)
Proposed Model
SE Data
White Model

71
CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and Future Work

7.1 Thesis Goal
The goal of this investigation was to develop a model to predict the shielding effectiveness
of nylon 6,6/carbon fiber based composites. It has been shown that prediction of SE for
composite materials depends on the electrical conductivity of the filler, filler orientation, filler
size, filler volume percent and frequency of the impinging electric field. This chapter will briefly
summarize the results and conclusions obtained during the development of the shielding
effectiveness model. Future work considerations will also be presented.
7.1.1 Conclusions from Electrical Resistivity/Conductivity Experiments
For both ThermalGraph and Fortafil based composites, electrical resistivity increased with
increased filler weight percent. The Fortafil based composites were found to have dramatically
better conductivities than the ThermalGraph composites at similar weight percents. Overall
effective values for electrical conductivity of the composite samples were found to be
inconclusive when used to predict SE. The electrical resistivity for the composite as a whole
ignores the shielding contribution of fibers not aligned in a conductive matrix.
7.1.2 Conclusions from Shielding Effectiveness Experiments
The introduction of ThermalGraph carbon fiber into the nylon 6,6 matrix resulted in
enhanced EM shielding characteristics. Increasing the amount of filler within the sample also
produced increased shielding effectiveness. Also observed was the effect of increased frequency
on the measured SE values.
The addition of Fortafil 243 fibers into the matrix produced similar SE trends. Like the
ThermalGraph DKD X, the shielding effectiveness for the Fortafil samples increased with both
frequency and filler weight percent. The Fortafil samples, however, showed markedly better

72
shielding behavior. This disparity between the behaviors of the two fillers tracked with the ER
results.

7.1.3 Conclusions from Power Balance Analysis
The reflected power was equal to or greater than the absorbed power for each formulation
(with the exception of the pure nylon 6,6 sample). As the weight percent of both fillers was
increased, the reflection term became more dominant, indicating that it is the prevailing form of
signal loss. The reflection term also showed significantly more frequency dependence. Over the
frequency range under investigation, the absorbed power was relatively constant while the
reflected power varied greatly. From these results, it was proposed that focusing solely on signal
loss due to reflection would sufficiently describe the system.
7.1.4 Conclusions from Fiber Orientation Studies
Although the orientation image analysis found a general orientation to the carbon fibers
within the disk, the fibers were not sufficiently oriented to show any significant dependence.
Therefore, sample orientation with the electric field was concluded to not be a dominant factor in
determining the shielding effectiveness of the composites investigated in this study. For highly
aligned composite materials, it was found that fiber orientation does influence transmitted field
strength. Fibers aligned in the plane of the wave were found to reflect more signal than fibers
aligned perpendicular to the electric field. It was decided that the theoretical shielding
effectiveness model would use a parallel fiber/wave orientation to maximize the predicted
shielding effectiveness.
7.1.5 Conclusions from Model Development and Analysis
The shielding disks are complex non-homogeneous, non-isotropic systems. Because of the
dielectric nature of the nylon 6,6 matrix, the impinging wave sees only a collection of fibers,

73
some of which are in a conductive network arrangement. It is the interaction of the wave with
these fibers that determines the shielding effectiveness of the composite.
It has been shown that scattering width, in principle, is very similar to shielding effectiveness.
Shielding effectiveness is a measure of how much energy from an impinging wave transmits
through an object while scattering width indicates how much power is backscattered. The two
should show similar trends and, in fact, be related. Because it was proposed that
scattering/reflection was the dominant loss mechanism for the composite disks, the scattering
width equation for a perfect conductor should be applicable to the carbon fibers within the nylon
6,6 matrix.
Determining or at least providing a method to account for the probability of a wave/fiber
collision is paramount when developing a shielding effectiveness model. The probability of a
wave/fiber collision is dependent on a multitude of factors: the apparent size of the filler
(scattering width), the wavelength of the incident wave and the volume fraction of filler in the
resin. The chance of a collision increases with increased frequency (reduced wavelength). This
effect can be accounted for by dividing the scattering width (
D 2
) by wavelength () to form a
new term,
D 2
, known as the bistatic scattering width. This ratio gives an indication of the size
of the fiber in a window one wavelength long. It was hypothesized that the shielding
effectiveness of this window is proportional to the scattering width of the fiber. It was proposed
that the bistatic scattering width is related to shielding effectiveness by a constant factor.
Scaling factors were calculated for each formulation. The scaling factors were shown to
relate the volume percent of filler in the composite to the cumulative shielding effect of a large
amount of wavelength sized windows containing a single fiber.
The proposed model, an extrapolation of the shielding behavior of a single fiber was found
to accurately predict shielding effectiveness at low filler volume percents. Deviations from the
experimentally compiled SE data were noticed at high filler volume percents. It was

74
hypothesized that the formation of conductive networks of fibers within the sample, which occur
at higher loading levels, produced non-linear shielding effectiveness behavior with respect to
filler volume percent.
7.2 Future Work
To strengthen the linearity hypothesis serving as the basis of the proposed model, it is
suggested that composites of different filler loading levels be formulated and analyzed. With the
increased number of data points, trends will be further elucidated. The analysis of more
ThermalGraph based composites with low loading levels will probably serve as most useful in
determining the validity of the hypothesis.
The model proposed in this thesis is relatively simplistic in approach. Most noticeably, the
effects of fiber to wave orientation, wave absorption, multiple scattering within the composite and
conductive fiber network formation have either been neglected or assumed to be insignificant in
this analysis. Ideally, a shielding effectiveness model for the composites analyzed should be able
to account for these factors.
A statistical simulation such as a Monte Carlo analysis should be implemented to better
predict the probability of fiber/wave collisions. A similar analysis could be used along with the
probability function obtained during the orientation analysis to better quantify the effect of the
non-uniformly oriented fibers. The scattering equations can be derived for different orientations,
including oblique. Theoretically, given the orientation of fibers within the composite, one should
be able to determine the cumulative shielding effect of the collection of fibers with orientation
dependence.
If the continuation of this research investigates shielding at higher frequencies, multiple
scattering will become more dominant. A Monte Carlo analysis could also be used to model the
multiple scattering that occurs within the composite. Similar studies have used Monte Carlo
simulations to study multiple light scattering of polymers (33-34).

75
The greatest challenge and possibly the key to fully understanding shielding effectiveness in
composites lies in determining the effect of the conductive network fiber alignment. The
percolation threshold gives an indication as to the minimum volume percent of fibers needed to
form a network so prediction of network formation is relatively simple. Further refinements need
to be made to determine the extent of the network.
Also, what the wave sees when it encounters the network needs to be investigated. An
impinging electric field will induce currents in the network. Because of the conductivity and
large size of the network, the currents will have a high probability of occurring and will be large.
The scattered field from a network comprised of a known number of fibers will be much greater
than that from an ensemble of fibers containing the same number but not connected. It is the
conductive networks that most likely produce the disparity between the shielding performance of
ThermalGraph and Fortafil. The fibers are similar in shape, size and electrical properties.
Modeling the composite based on these characteristics alone does not fully describe the system
behavior. The propensity of Fortafil to form the networks at low filler volume percents (lower
than ThermalGraph) must be included in the model.
The model proposed in this thesis meets the original goal of the investigation. It predicts
shielding effectiveness for carbon fiber/nylon based composites as a function of frequency and
filler volume percent. The analysis leading to the creation of the proposed model has produced
more questions than answers. This thesis will serve as both an end result and a foundation for
future work.

76
CHAPTER 8: References
1. Thomas, P., Harvard Health Letter., 18, 9, p.1 (1993).
2. Das, N.C., Khastgir, D., Chaki, T.K., and Chakraborty, A., J. Elastomers and Plastics, 34,
p.199 (2002).
3. Liang Chi Shen, Jin Au Kong, Applied Electromagnetism, 3
rd
ed. PWS Publishers, Boston,
(1995).
4. Huang, J., Adv. Polym. Tech., 14, 2, p.137 (1995).
5. Bigg, D. M., Polym.Comp., 8, 1, p.1 (1987).
6. Bigg, D. M., Polym.Comp., 7, 2, p.89 (1986).
7. Bigg, D. M., Adv. Polym. Tech., 4, 3/4, p.255 (1977).
8. Schulz, R. B., Plantz, V. C., and Brush, D. R., IEEE Trans. Elect. Compat., 30, 5, p.187
(1988).
9. Bushko, W. C., Stokes, V. K., Wilson, J., ANTEC 99, p.1499 (1999).
10. White, D.R. J., EMI/EMC Handbook Series, Germantown, MD: Don White Consultants, Inc.,
4 (1971).
11. Chu, H. C., Chen, C. H., IEEE Trans. Elect. Compat., 38, 1, p.1 (1996).
12. Lin, M. S., Lin, C. M., Wu, R. B., Chen, C. H., IEEE Trans. Elect. Compat., 35, 3, p.357
(1993).
13. Lin, M. S., Chen, C. H., IEEE Trans. Elect. Compat., 35, 1, p.21 (1993).
14. Krohn, T. L., Medgyesi-Mitschang, L. N., IEEE Trans. Antenna Propagat., 37, 2, p.219
(1989).
15. DuPont Zytel Nylon Resin Product and Properties, Version 95.9, Printed in USA. (2001).
16. Amoco Performance Products: High Thermal Conductivity Pitch Based Graphite Fibers,
Amoco Polymers; Alpharetta, GA 30005. (2001).
17. Akzo Nobel Electrically Conductive Fortafil 243 Product Literature, Akzo Nobel Chemicals
Inc., 300 S. Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL, 60606.
18. Weber, E., PhD Dissertation, Development and Modeling of Thermally Conductive
Polymer/Carbon Composites, (2001).
19. Clingerman, M. L., PhD Dissertation, Development and Modeling of Electrically
Conductive Composite Materials, (2001).

77
20. Heiser, J. A., MS Thesis, Conductive, Shielding, Tensile and Impact Properties of Carbon
Filled Nylon 6,6 Based Resins, (2003).
21. Standard Test Methods for D-C Resistance or Conductance of Insulating Materials, ASTM
Standard D257-91, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. (1998).
22. King, J.A., Tucker, K.W., Meyers, J.D., Weber, E.H., Clingerman, M.L., and Ambrosius,
K.R., Polym. Compos., 22, 1, p.142 (2001).
23. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, D4935-89. Standard Test Method for Measuring the
Electromagnetic Shielding Effectiveness of Planar Materials. D4935-89. Copyright ASTM,
(1989).
24. Shielding Effectiveness Test Fixture Electro-Metrics Model EM-2107-A Manual, Jan,
(1999).
25. Krueger, Q. J., M.S. Thesis, "Electromagnetic Interference and Radio Frequency Interference
Shielding of Carbon-Filled Conductive Resins", (2002).
26. Standard Practice for Dissolving Polymer Materials, ASTM Standard D5226-98, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (1998).
27. Konell, J. P., Ph.D. Dissertation "Characterization and Tensile Modulus Modeling of
Conductive Resins", (2002).
28. Krueger, Q. J., and King, J. A., Adv.Polym. Tech, 22, 2, p.96 (2003).
29. J. A. Heiser, J. A. King, J. P. Konell, and L. L. Sutter, Polym. Comp., 25, 4, p.407 (2004).
30. Casey, K. F., IEEE Int. Symp. Electr. Compat., p.228 (1978).
31. Ramo, Whinnery and Van Duzer., Fields and Waves in Communication Electronics, Wiley,
New York, (1965).
32. Balanis, C. A., Advanced Engineering Electromagnetics, Wiley, New York, (1989).
33. Cipelleti, L., Physical Review E., 55, 6, p.7733 (1996).
34. Alvarez, A., Wang, C., Ye, Z., J. Comput. Physics, 154, p.231 (1999

78
Appendix A: Formulation Summary
Composite
Formulation
Name
Description Wt% Vol%
Volumetric
Electrical
Resistivity
(ohm-cm) *
Fiber Length
(m)
Aspect
Ratio
Through Plane
Orientation
(degrees)

NN Zytel 101 NC010 100 100 Avg 1.45E+16 - - -
s 7.70E+15 - - -
n 11 - - -

NCN05 Zytel 101 NC010 95 97.29 Avg 1.06E+16 88.5 8.85 72.477
ThermalGraph DKD X 5 2.71 s 4.00E+15 60.99 6.099 21.310
n 12 2750 2750 831

NCN10 Zytel 101 NC010 90 94.44 Avg 7.65E+15 95.326 9.5326 71.609
n 12 415 415 2058

NCN15 Zytel 101 NC010 85 91.45 Avg 5.24E+15 105.8 10.58 66.455
n 12 6183 6183 2595

NCN20 Zytel 101 NC010 80 88.30 Avg 5.04E+08 96.54 9.654 68.558
n 11 397 397 4183

NCN30 Zytel 101 NC010 70 81.48 Avg 120.74 94.726 9.4726 63.374
ThermalGraph DKD X 30 18.52 s 53.15 44.99 4.499 23.810
n 19 713 713 4405

79
Table A-1: Overall Summary (continued)
Composite
Formulation
Name
Volumetric
Electrical
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)*
Fiber Length
(m)
Aspect
Ratio
Through Plane
Orientation
(degrees)

NCN40 Zytel 101 NC010 60 73.88 Avg 10.08 89.364 8.9364 65.113
ThermalGraph DKD X 40 26.12 s 3.63 40.983 4.0983 22.446
n 18 634 634 4142

NDN05 Zytel 101 NC010 95 96.76 Avg 2.65E+15 140.95 19.308 79.941
Fortafil 243 5 3.24 s 2.96E+14 126.25 17.294 12.082
n 6 1147 1147 299

NDN07 Zytel 101 NC010 93 95.44 Avg 2.23E+07 149.899 20.534 63.87
Fortafil 243 7 4.56 S 2.22E+07 114.317 15.660 24.86
N 6 1095 1095 1125

NDN10 Zytel 101 NC010 90 93.42 Avg 4.13 149.997 20.547 63.53
Fortafil 243 10 6.58 s 1.94 115.661 15.844 21.14
n 12 1276 1276 850

NDN15 Zytel 101 NC010 85 89.92 Avg 1.19 130.310 17.851 70.799
Fortafil 243 15 10.08 s 0.31 100.261 13.734 20.261
n 18 1798 1798 1520

NDN20 Zytel 101 NC010 80 86.31 Avg 0.47 120.718 16.537 64.038
Fortafil 243 20 13.69 s 0.11 95.557 13.091 22.686
n 24 1519 1519 826
Table A-1: Overall Summary (continued)

80
Composite
Formulation
Name
Volumetric
Electrical
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)*
Fiber Length
(m)
Aspect
Ratio
Through Plane
Orientation
(degrees)

NDN30 Zytel 101 NC010 70 78.71 Avg 0.14 114.415 15.673 61.183
Fortafil 243 30 21.29 s 0.01 87.399 11.972 23.243
n 24 419 419 2311

NDN40 Zytel 101 NC010 60 70.51 Avg 0.093 86.291 11.821 65.71
Fortafil 243 40 29.49 s 0.005 59.767 8.187 22.90
n 24 2714 2714 951

*
Transverse Electrical Resistivity Measured: NN, NCN05, NCN10, NCN15, NCN20, NDN5 and NDN7
Longitudinal Electrical Resistivity Measured: NCN30, NCN40, NDN10, NDN15, NDN20, NDN30 and NDN40

81
Appendix B: Shielding Effectiveness Experiment Results

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)

Figure B-1: NN Shielding Effectiveness
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)

Figure B-2: NCN05 Shielding Effectiveness

82
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)


83
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)


84
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

Figure B-8: NDN05 Shielding Effectiveness

85
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s


86
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
31
31.5
32
32.5
33
33.5
34
34.5
35
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s


87
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
55
60
65
70
75
80
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s


88
Appendix C: Balance of Power Results (mW)

Figure C-1: NN Balance of Power

Figure C-2: NCN05 Balance of Power
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Transmitted
Reflected
Absorbed

89


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted

90


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted

91


Figure C-8: NDN05 Balance of Power
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted

92


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted

93


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted

94



0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Frequency (MHz)

Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Frequency (MHz)
Absorbed
Reflected
Transmitted

95
Appendix D: Reflected, Absorbed and Transmitted Signal Results in dB

Figure D- 1: NN dB results

Figure D- 2: NCN05 dB results
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected

96


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected

97


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-15
-10
-5
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected

98


Figure D- 8: NDN05 dB results
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected

99


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected

100


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed Reflected

101


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Frequency (MHz)
Transmitted
Absorbed
Reflected

102
Appendix E: Scaling Factor Analysis

Figure E-1: Scaling Factor for NCN05

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Frequency (MHz)
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Frequency (MHz)

103



300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
Frequency (MHz)
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
Frequency (MHz)

104



300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
x 10
4
Scaling Factor = 11562
Frequency (MHz)
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
4
Scaling Factor = 20266
Frequency (MHz)

105

Figure E-7: Scaling Factor for NDN05


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
10500
11000
11500
3
Frequency (MHz)
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
x 10
4
4

Frequency (MHz)

106



300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
x 10
4
4

Frequency (MHz)
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
x 10
4
4

Frequency (MHz)

107



300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
x 10
4
4

Frequency (MHz)
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
x 10
5
4

Frequency (MHz)

108

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
x 10
5
5

Frequency (MHz)

109
Appendix F: Shielding Effectiveness Model Results
D
Factor Scaling (dB) SE

2

Figure F-1: SE Model Fit for NCN05

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model

110


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model

111


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model

112

Figure F-7: SE Model Fit for NDN05

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model

113


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model

114


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model

115

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Frequency (MHz)
SE Data
Model

116
Appendix G: Shielding Effectiveness Model Results
D
Fit Fit
SF (dB) SE

2

Figure G-1: SE Model Fit for NCN05

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data

117


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data

118


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data

119

Figure G-7: SE Model Fit for NDN05

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data

120


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data

121


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data

122

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Frequency (MHz)
Model
SE Data

123
Appendix H: White Model Derivation
H.1 Introduction
Investigations into shielding effectiveness theory have previously been conducted by
others such as White (10) and Bushko (9). The work of White is frequently cited in shielding
effectiveness literature. The White model serves as the basis for the work of Bushko, the
most recent reference to composite SE modeling. The model is an extrapolation of the
absorption (skin depth) and transmission coefficient concepts of basic electromagnetics.
Shown below is Equation H-1 that was derived to estimate shielding effectiveness of planar
materials (9).

,
_
+
r
r
r r dB
f
f t

10
log 10 168 34 . 3 SE [H-1]
Absorption Loss:
r r
f t . 34 3 [H-1a]
Reflection Loss:
,
_
r
r
f
log
10
10 168 [H-1b]

Where:

r

r

This equation was originally developed for solid homogeneous metals assuming the same
loss mechanisms previously discussed (absorption and reflection). Each portion of the
equation has been calculated and represented in reference to a 0.001 (2.54 x 10
-5
m) thick
sheet of copper. The derivations for the absorption and reflection loss terms in Equation H-1
are shown below.

124
H.2 Absorption Term Derivation
For a highly conductive material, the wavenumber, , can be approximated by (3):
( ) j f
,
_
1
2
2

[H-2]
As stated in Chapter 5, the loss due to absorption is mathematically represented by the
imaginary portion of the wavenumber. The portion is defined as the skin depth, (3).

f
1
[H-3]
The skin depth is the distance within the medium where the amplitude of the wave has
decreased to
e
1
times its original value, where e is the natural number (e 2.718). A large
skin depth value indicates that the wave will experience little attenuation due to absorption
while passing through the medium. The absorption coefficient, , is the inverse of the skin
depth (3).

0
1
f [H-4]

Where:

0
= magnetic permeability of free space
= 4 x 10
-7
(Henrys/meter)

= conductivity (Siemens/meter)

For a thin copper sheet, 0.001 thick with conductivity of 5.82 x 10
7
S/m at a frequency of
1.0 MHz, the absorption coefficient is 15158 m
-1
, resulting in an transmitted field
strength amplitude of -3.34 dB.

125
34 3 20
0
0
10
.
E
e E
log E
t
dB

,
_
[H-5]
White approximates the absorption loss for an arbitrary metallic material to be linearly
dependent on thickness relative to the original thin copper sheet and proportional to the ratio
of the absorption coefficients for the new material and copper. The ratio includes a frequency
term to retain absorption frequency dependence.
Absorption Term:
r r
f t . 34 3 (with f [MHz] Bushko)
Absorption Term:
r r
f t .
3
10 34 3

(with f [Hz] White)

H.2 Reflection Loss Term Derivation
The reflection loss is related to the mismatch of impedances that occurs when the wave
passes from free space to the shielding medium. It is this mismatch of impedances that
determines how much of the impinging wave actually enters the material; the bigger the
discrepancy between the impedances, the greater the amount of reflected signal. The
impedance of a material is defined as:

[H-6]
In Chapter 6, it was shown that permittivity ( ) is complex and is defined by Equation 6.4-7:

[6.4-7]
Because copper is a conductor, the real part of the permittivity is not defined and is ignored
when calculating the impedance. The impedance for the copper sheet at 1.0 MHz,
Cu
,
therefore is 2.604 +2. 604j x 10
-4
and the impedance of free space,
0
, 377 . The
transmission coefficient is the ratio of impedances at the interface of the two different

126
mediums. It must be calculated at both interfaces, where the signal enters and leaves. For the
first interface, it is given by (13):

Cu
Cu
T

0
12
2
[H-7]
) j ( . T + 1 382 1
12
x 10
-6

and for the second interface, the coefficient is (13):

Cu
T

0
0
21
2
[H-8]

21
T 2.0 (1.382 x 10
-6
)j
Multiplying
12
T and
21
T together yields the fraction of the original signal strength that exits
the shielding media. Squaring this result gives the power loss due to the mismatched
impedances. The power loss can be represented in SE dB using Equation H-9.
( )
21 12
10 T T log Loss
dB
[H-9]
108
dB
Loss
The negative loss value indicates that the strength of the signal is reduced as it passes through
the media. To represent it as a portion of total shielding effectiveness the sign must be
changed to a positive. To use the above value to determine the reflection loss for a material
other than copper at a given frequency, the relative reflection loss as compared to the copper
sheet must be calculated. This relative loss is given by:

,
_
r
r
f log
10 [H-10]
Where:

r

r

127
A negative value again indicates that less signal passes through the new media as compared
to copper. Therefore, a negative value means a greater shielding effectiveness and the
equation should be subtracted from the other portions of the shielding effectiveness equation.
If the frequency ( f ) is expressed units of [Hz] instead of [MHz], an extra 60 dB must be
added to the loss calculated in H-9.
( ) 60 0 1 10 1 10
6
MHz . Hz log dB [H-11]
The total shielding effectiveness of a material is the sum of the absorption and reflection
terms (9):

,
_
+
r
r
r r dB
f
log f t . SE

10
10 168 34 3 [H-1]
Where:

r

r

128
Appendix I: Proposed Model Comparison to White Model

Figure I-1: White Model and Proposed Model Comparison for NCN05

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Frequency (MHz)
Proposed Model
SE Data
White Model
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Frequency (MHz)
White Model
SE Data Proposed Model

129
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)

SE Data
White Model
Proposed
Model

130
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)

Proposed
Model
White Model
SE Data
White Model
Proposed
Model
SE Data

131

Figure I-6: White Model and Proposed Model Comparison for NDN05

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Frequency (MHz)
Proposed Model
SE Data
White Model
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Frequency (MHz)
White Model
SE Data Proposed Model

132


300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
Frequency (MHz)
Proposed Model
SE Data
White Model
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Frequency (MHz)
Proposed Model
SE Data
White Model

133
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)

SE Data
White Model
Proposed
Model
SE Data
White Model
Proposed
Model

134
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Frequency (MHz)
S
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g

E
f
f
e
c
t

(
d
B
)


SE Data
White Model
Proposed Model

Nick Janda Thesis Aug2004 CTC

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Nick Janda Thesis Aug2004 CTC

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Development of a Predictive Shielding Effectiveness Model for

Carbon Fiber/Nylon Based Composites

= complex permittivity (Farads/meter)

into Equation 5.4-29.

E E n (Boundary Condition) [5.4-52]

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen