Display,

actuators,
Sensor Input Processing Output signals,
control

Pulse Metrology – Part 2

Part 39 in a series of tutorials on instrumentation and measurement
Nicholas G. Paulter and Donald R. Larson
Official contribution of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
not subject to copyright in the U.S.A.

T
his article is the second part of a two-part se- Pulse Metrology
ries discussing pulse metrology. One who
Standards (continued from Part 1)
is doing pulse measurement needs to know
what has been measured, to what accuracy, and with Parameter computation: As with terms and definitions,
what uncertainty. Part 1 introduced the field of me- the purpose is to have consistent methods of comput-
trology and began an explanation of standards in ing a given parameter, which is essential to communicate
pulse metrology and some of the commonly pulse parameters and for comparison between

39
used pulse terms [1]. measurement facilities. Any term
Part 2 continues with that describes a pulse parame-
topics within the pulse me- ter and can also be computed
trology standards, with
9 is provided with a computa-
a bias toward the work
performed by the au-
4 2
Thirtynine
tion algorithm in the IEEE
Std 181-2011[2]. Adherence
thors, formerly in the 3 to the IEEE Std 181-2011 re-
in a 47
area of pulse measure-
ments in support of
the digital telecommu-
Series
56
81
20
quires that if the method
of computation used is dif-
ferent from that described
nications industries and in the IEEE Std 181-2011, then
presently in the areas of this computational method must
weapons testing, concealed be clearly described. If the source code
weapon detection, through-barrier im- of the algorithm used in the computation is not
aging, and imaging metrology. In this Part, we will available for scrutiny, this algorithm should be exhaus-
address parameter computation, test methods, and tively tested. We have observed differences between the
the use of artifacts (test objects) and conclude the IEEE Std 181-2011 computation methods and those used in
tutorial with discussions of traceability and measure- commercial software for certain pulse parameters. To max-
ment uncertainty. imize the accuracy of the comparison of parameter values,

June 2012 IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine 43

1094-6969/12/$25.00©2012IEEE
it is important to limit, or at least understand, the difference in
computation methods. As an example, the effects of several dif-
ferent algorithms for determining the state levels of a step-like
waveform were examined and shown to provide similar but not
identical results [3]. These methods were affected by noise and
periodicity of features on the nominally static levels of step-like
waveforms.
Test methods: Certain pulse parameters, such as impulse spec-
trum amplitude [4], can be measured in more than one way. For
impulse spectrum amplitude, for example, we had developed
several different methods and adopted the one exhibiting the
least measurement uncertainty [4] (which also happened to be
the one having the greatest reproducibility and repeatability
and lowest cost to implement). Because test methods may yield
different results, test methods are not prescribed in the IEEE
Std 181. Instead, measurement laboratories develop their own
systems for measuring given parameters and rely on the use of
transfer standards to demonstrate equivalence of the methods.
Standards development organizations (SDOs) can develop
test method standards if there is sufficient interest within the
user and manufacturer communities. Whatever test method is
selected, that method must be well documented and have an
accurate and realistic uncertainty analysis. The test method
and any changes must be documented to ensure that qual-
ity of the measurement process is maintained as described in
ISO 17025 [5]. Test methods developed by a dominant manu-
facturer or a national metrology institute (NMI) often become
the de facto test method standard, requiring those entities to
maintain that capability as a reference for industry and other
interested parties. Furthermore, because of the globalization
of commerce, NMIs must perform interlaboratory compari-
sons to ensure their test methods yield consistent results and
to have their measurement capabilities listed in the Bureau In-
ternational des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) database of Calibration
and Measurement Capabilities.
Artifacts (test objects): Artifacts are used to ensure the same
measurement result is obtained from different measurement
systems or from the same measurement system but at different
times or under different conditions. Artifacts in pulse metrology
are physical devices, such as reference pulse generators, delay
lines or generators, impedance standards, samplers, etc. The
choice of artifacts depends on the parameter to be tested. For ex-
ample, in the NIST reference ballistic chronograph (a device for
measuring bullet velocity) and the electroshock weapons (ESW)
measurement systems (developed by the authors), synthesized
frequency sources are used to calibrate the waveform recorder
timebase; these sources are traceable to the second. The applica-
tion of pulse metrology to the reference ballistic chronograph is
described in [6]. A short discussion of the different artifacts used
in pulse metrology is now provided.
◗◗ Pulse generators and/or samplers - Most often the pulse
generator or sampler is adequate to act as an artifact. Cali-
brated pulse generators are used as artifacts for sampler
calibration and calibrated samplers are used as arti-
facts for pulse generator calibration. The artifact should
possess an impulse response (sampler) or output pulse
44 IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine June 2012
(pulse generator) whose temporal parameters (transi-
tion duration, for example) are of shorter duration than
that of the item being measured. Much research has been
directed to the case when this is not true, that is, when the
device or instrument under test has an impulse response
or output pulse with temporal parameters similar to that
of the artifact. The following different approaches have
been developed to address this issue.
•• One method [7], [8] to calibrate either the pulse genera-
tor or sampler uses specially-designed semiconductor
devices based on the semiconductor’s photoconduc-
tive (PC) response. This method can generate long
to ultra-short-duration electrical pulses depending
on the duration of the driving optical pulses. A PC
pulse generator or sampler can be the artifact. The
key to making a PC system work is synchronization
between the optical pulses used for pulse genera-
tion and sampling, which is achieved by splitting one
optical pulse into two daughter pulses. One daughter
pulse is used to drive the PC pulse generator and the
other pulse to drive the PC sampler. For a PC sampler/
pulser, the measurement process is described math-
ematically as an autocorrelation and, consequently,
phase information on these two PC functions is lost,
which is a deterrent to their use in measuring devices
with similar temporal characteristics. However, if the
PC device has temporal characteristics that are fast
enough relative to the temporal characteristics of what
is being measured, then the PC device will have a negli-
gible effect on the measurement.
•• A similar approach to that just described uses a PC
pulser and an electro-optic (EO) sampler [9]–[11],
where both functions are derived from a common opti-
cal pulse. The EO sampler, in conjunction with the
optical pulse, is assumed to be so fast that the collec-
tive effect on the measurement of the electrical pulse
is negligible. In this case, the EO-sampler-measured
electrical pulse becomes the reference pulse and the
PC pulser becomes the artifact. In 1984, NIST imple-
mented the EO-sampler method to measure the output
of optical detectors [12]. Since about 1990, the National
Physical Laboratory (NPL) has focused on such
EO-based approaches [9] and, more recently, so has the
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) [10]. In
2005, NIST management decided to migrate from the
nose-to-nose (NTN) method to the EO method, and
now relies exclusively on EO sampling [13] to calibrate
pulse generators.
•• Another approach similar to the above is the use of
a non-optically driven pulse generator (such as an
avalanche diode or other nonlinear semiconductor
device) and either a PC or EO sampler to measure the
output of this generator [14], [15]. This method also
requires synchronization between the pulse gener-
ator and the sampler, which could be accomplished
using pulses from a pulse laser (acting as the master

oscillator) to minimize jitter. This jitter may be signif-
icant, being similar in magnitude to, and perhaps in
some cases greater than, the transition duration of the
generated electrical pulse.
•• Another method is the nose-to-nose (NTN) method
for determining the impulse response of sampling
heads [16]. This method is based on a specific type of
sampling head that, when strobed by the trigger signal
with a non-zero offset, generates a pulse (called the
“kick-out” pulse) that has temporal features resem-
bling that of the sampling aperture. The kick-out
pulse can be used as the pulse artifact or its impulse
response as the sampler artifact. This measurement
produces a result that is mathematically described
as a convolution, so phase information is not lost.
Because the kick-out pulses are nominally identical,
the ability to accurately measure the kick-out pulse
and assign uncertainties to its amplitude profile is
important. We developed an uncertainty analysis
for the NTN method [17], [18] that provides bounds
for the uncertainties of the kick-out pulse generator
and sampler waveforms and spectra (magnitude and
phase). Other national and industrial labs use and
study the nose-to-nose method (see for example, [19]–
[23]), however, as noted above, several metrology labs
are pursuing the EO method because of its potential
to provide a traceable measurement process [9], [10],
[13], [24].
◗◗ Delays - Delay artifacts can be accurately measured
using the calibrated timebase of a waveform recorder
or by comparing it to a reference delay, which is accom-
plished using an electronic device or a transmission line
(including variable-delay trombone lines). Electronic
delays include time mark generators and electronic
delay lines. Both of these devices are subject to jitter and
so cannot be used to accurately measure short delays.
However, for long delays where the jitter is inconse-
quential relative to the measured delay (but it still must
be measured and included in the delay uncertainty),
electronic delays can be used. Transmission line delays
are based on the pulse propagation velocity in the trans-
mission line and the length of the transmission line.
Because of these facts, transmission lines are useful only
for short delays. However, if optical pulses are used to
achieve the delay, fairly long optical fibers can be used
to provide microseconds of reference delay. Examples of
measuring delays and establishing reference delays can
be found in [25] and [26].
◗◗ Frequency synthesizer - The timebase of the waveform
recorder can be calibrated using a frequency synthesizer
whose output is traceable to the second. The synthesizer
allows calibration of any epoch and consequently of any
delay. The accuracy of this delay artifact depends on the
number of periods of the sinusoidal signal captured in
a waveform epoch relative to the required delay. This
method requires that several frequencies be used to
June 2012 IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine 45
Display,
actuators,
Sensor Input Processing Output signals,
control
accurately provide a measure of a long delay with short-
duration sampling intervals.
◗◗ Impedance - Impedance artifacts are important in the cali-
bration of pulse generators and waveform recorders [27].
The impedance artifact may be either a well-character-
ized transmission line or wide-bandwidth resistive load.
Resistive loads are convenient because they are lumped
elements and are not as subject to mechanical damage
as is a transmission line. We use resistive loads to cali-
brate our ESW measurement system. However, resistive
loads at high frequencies exhibit parasitic features that
cause their impedance to vary from design values. Trans-
mission line impedance artifacts, on the other hand,
especially coaxial ones, have accurate formulas that
describe their impedance as a function of frequency for
the geometry and materials of construction. However,
transmission lines can be easily damaged. Also, transmis-
sion lines have a given length and, consequently, a fixed
round trip propagation time. This allows the transmis-
sion line to be used as an impedance calibration only for
a measurement epoch equal to or less than the round-trip
pulse propagation time of the transmission line.
Traceability
Traceability, specifically metrological traceability [28], is “a
property of a measurement result whereby the result can be
related to a reference through a documented unbroken chain
of calibrations, each contributing to the measurement un-
certainty.” Therefore, traceability is a general measurement
characteristic and provides the means by which different en-
tities can ensure that comparisons of quantities are accurate,
consistent, and reproducible. Traceability may be accomplished
using the fundamental SI units or measurements of artifact stan-
dards. To use an artifact standard for traceability, the artifact
is sent between a reference laboratory and a subordinate lab-
oratory whose measurement results are not as accurate as or
uncertainties are not as small as that of the reference lab.
Pulse metrology is concerned with amplitude levels and the
instants that these levels change. The amplitude can be traced
to the volt, an SI “derived unit” with appropriate instrumenta-
tion (an example is given in [29]). The durations are traced to the
SI unit of the second via calibration of the waveform recorder
timebase using known frequencies (an example is given in [30].)
Pulse parameter interlaboratory comparisons [31], [32] are
essential to assess the consistency of pulse measurement and
to improve and advance pulse metrology. These comparisons
must have an established procedure for: transferring the arti-
fact standard; defining the measurement process, including
processing, data formats, data precision, etc.; and defining the
policy with which measurement results are disseminated and
measurement differences addressed.
Measurement Uncertainty
Measurement uncertainty provides information on how likely a
measured value is to the actual value (reference). Elements con-
tributing to pulse parameter uncertainty include: the response
 Tables of the pulse parameters
corresponding to these wave-
forms are given in [18].

Summary
Pulse metrology is a measure-
ment science that provides
reproducible and repeatable
measurements of pulse signals
with defensible uncertainties.
These uncertainties describe
the sensitivity of the measur-
and, the thing for which one
wants to find a number, to
various parameters and ef-
fects. Pulse metrology affects
the commercially-important
telecommunications, data
communications, and com-
puting industries. For more
information on pulse measure-
ment service offerings by NIST
see [36], by PTB see [37], and by
Fig. 1. Reconstructed waveforms showing uncertainties due to uncertainties in the magnitude (ux) NPL see [38].
and phase (uθ) of the spectrum. Although this Part 2 and
the previous Part 1 are only a
of sensors and instrumentation, background effects (tempera- partial introduction to pulse metrology, hopefully they dem-
ture, humidity, electromagnetic interference), data extraction onstrate the importance of this work and the challenge to
algorithms, human variability for manually-operated systems, continuously provide the manufacturing and user communities
calibration uncertainty, artifact uncertainty, and connection with measurement capability that exceeds their present require-
variability. The effect of the deconvolution process on the re- ments and that can be expanded to meet future requirements.
sultant (reconstructed) waveform must also be considered. The
reconstructed waveform represents the best estimate for the References
waveform that would have been measured by an instrument [1] N. G. Paulter and D. R. Larson, “Pulse metrology: Part 1,” IEEE
having an ideal impulse response. Instrum. Meas. Mag., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 39–44, 2011.
◗◗ Pulse parameter uncertainty: There are many pulse param- [2] IEEE Standard on Transitions, Pulses, and Related Waveforms, IEEE
eters defined in the IEEE Std 181, and all of these can be Standard 181-2011.
subjected to a measurement uncertainty analysis. However, [3] O. M. Solomon, D. R. Larson, and N.G. Paulter, “Comparison of
the underlying uncertainty processes are often much some algorithms to estimate the low and high state level of pulses,”
more complicated than expected and, therefore, uncer- Proc. IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference
tainty analyses have been developed only for the most 2001, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 96–101, 2001.
commercially-important parameters. As an example of the [4] N. G. Paulter and D. R. Larson, “Impulse spectrum amplitude
complexity of pulse parameter uncertainty analysis see [33]. uncertainty analysis,” Metrologia, vol. 43, pp. 477–485, 2006.
◗◗ Waveform uncertainty: One of the most difficult uncertain- [5] ISO/IEC General requirements for the competence of testing and
ties to determine is the sample-by-sample uncertainty of calibration laboratories, ISO/IEC 17025:2005 (2005).
the reconstructed waveform. To do this requires that the [6] N. G. Paulter and D. R. Larson, “Reference ballistic chronograph,”
impulse response of the reference sampler or the output Optical Engineering, vol. 48, pp. 043602-1–043602-7, Apr. 2009.
of the reference pulse generator be known. NIST has [7] D. H. Auston, “Picosecond optoelectronic switching and gating in
developed a covariance based method for computing silicon,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 26, pp. 101–103, 1975.
measurement uncertainties [34], [35]. [8] N. G. Paulter, “High-speed optoelectronic pulse generation and
Fig. 1 shows waveforms in which the magnitude of the sampling system,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. IM-37, pp. 449–453,
spectrum of these waveforms has been changed by adding 1988.
various amounts (given by n) of a ratioed magnitude [9] D. Henderson, A. G. Roddie, and A. J. A. Smith, “Recent
uncertainty (ux) and in which the phase of the spectrum developments in the calibration of fast sampling oscilloscopes,”
of these waveforms has been changed by adding various IEE Proceedings-A, vol. 139, pp. 254–260, Sept. 1992.
amounts (given by m) of a ratioed phase uncertainty (uθ). [10] S. Seitz, M. Bieler, M. Spitzer, K. Pierz, G. Hein, and U. Siegner,

46 IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine June 2012


“Optoelectronic measurement of the transfer function and time
response of a 70 GHz sampling oscilloscope,” Meas. Sci. Technol.,
vol. 16, no. 10, pp. L7–L9, Oct. 2005.
[11] J. A. Valdmanis and G. A. Mourou, “Subpicosecond electrooptic
sampling: Principles and applications,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron.,
vol. QE-22, no. 1, pp. 69–78, Jan. 1986.
[12] R. J. Phelan, Jr., D. R. Larson, N. V. Frederick, and D. L. Franzen,
“Detectors for Picosecond Optical Power Measurements,” in
Optical Radiation Measurements, A. A. Sanders, Ed., San Diego, CA:
International Society for Optical Engineering, Aug., 1984.
[13] D. F. Williams, P. D. Hale, T. S. Clement, and J. M. Morgan,
“Calibrating electro-optic sampling systems,” IEEE MTT-S Int.
Microwave Symp. Dig., pp. 1527–1530, May 2001.
[14] M. G. Li, E.A. Chauchard, Chi H. Lee, and H-L.A. Hung,
“Intermixing optical and microwave signals in GaAs microstrip
circuits for phase locking applications,” IEEE Trans. Microwave
Theory and Techniques, vol. 38, 1924–1931, Dec. 1990.
[15] K. J. Weingarten, M. J. W. Rodwell, and D. M. Bloom, “Picosecond
optical sampling of GaAs integrated circuits,” IEEE. J. Quantum.
Elect., vol. 24, pp. 198–220, 1988.
[16] K. Rush, S. Draving, and J. Kerley, “Characterizing high-speed
oscilloscopes,” IEEE Spectrum, pp. 38–39, 1990.
[17] N. G. Paulter and D. R. Larson, “Sources of uncertainty in the nose-
to-nose sampler calibration method,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.,
vol. 52, pp. 1618–1626, Oct. 2003.
[18] N. G. Paulter and D. R. Larson, “Uncertainty in the nose-to-nose
sampler calibration method due to the assertion that the generator
and receiver functions are identical,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.,
vol. 56, pp. 2570–2576, Dec. 2007.
[19] Jiang-miao Zhu, Ming-liang Liu, and Feng Lu, “The theoretical
analysis of nose-to-nose calibration procedure,” Acta Electronica
Sinica, vol. 33, no.3, pp. 480–483, Mar. 2005.
[20] M. El Yaagoubi, G. Neveux, D. Barataud, T. Reveyrand, J.-M.l
Nebus, F. Verbeyst, F. Gizard, and J. Puech, “Time-domain
calibrated measurements of wideband multisines using a large-
signal network analyzer,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory and
Techniques, vol. 56, pp. 1180–1192, May 1980.
[21] J. B. Scott, “Rapid millimeter-wave sampler response
characterization to well beyond 120 GHz using an improved
nose-to-nose method,” IEEE MTT-S Int. Microwave Symp. Dig., pp.
1511–1514, June 2003.
[22] J.-G. Lee, J.-S. Kang, T.-W. Kang, and S.-Ho Won, “Microwave scope
response characterization using a nose-to-nose method,” 34th Int.
Conf. Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves, 2009. IRMMW-THz
2009, Sept. 2009.
[23] X. Qinghua, L. Maoliu, and Z. Yichi, “Phase response of arbitrary
frequency grid reconstruction of sampling oscilloscopes based on
the NTN calibration,” Chinese J. Scientific Instrument, 2011-05.
[24] L. Maoliu, “Progess in high-speed sampling oscilloscope
calibration technique - on quantity transfer chain for traceable
waveform standard calibration,” Foreign Electronic Measurement
Technology, 2010-10.
[25] D. R. Larson, N. G. Paulter, and K. C. Blaney, “Characterization and
calibration of an optical time domain reflectometry calibrator,” in
Proc. NCSLI 2006 Workshop and Symposium, Nashville, TN, USA,
Aug. 2006.
June 2012 IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine 47
Display,
actuators,
Sensor Input Processing Output signals,
control
[26] D. R. Larson and N. G. Paulter, “Nanosecond delay with
subpicosecond uncertainty,” Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 78,
pp. 084701-1–084701-5, Sept. 2007.
[27] N. G. Paulter and D. R. Larson, “Impedance of transfer standards
used in the calibration of high-speed samplers and pulse
generators,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 56, pp. 1930–1934, Oct.
2007.
[28] ISO-IEC International vocabulary of metrology — Basic and general
concepts and associated terms (VIM), ISO-IEC Guide 99.
[29] T. M. Souders, B. C.Waltrip, O. B. Laug, and J. P. Deyst, “A wide-
band sampling voltmeter,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 46, no. 4,
pp. 947–953, Aug. 1997.
[30] G. N. Stenbakken and J. P. Deyst, “Time-base nonlinearity
determination using iterated sine-fit analysis,” IEEE Trans. Instrum.
Meas., vol. 47, pp. 1056–1061, Oct. 1998.
[31] N. G. Paulter, A. J. A. Smith, D. R. Larson, T. M. Souders, and
A. G. Roddie, “NIST-NPL interlaboratory pulse measurement
comparison,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 52, pp. 1825–1833,
Dec. 2003.
[32] M. Bieler, S. Seitz, M. Spitzer, G. Hein, K. Pierz, U. Siegner, M. A.
Basu, A. J. A. Smith, and M. R. Harper, “Rise-time calibration of
50-GHz sampling oscilloscopes:intercomparison between PTB and
NPL,” IEEE Trans. on Instrum. Meas., vol. 56, pp. 266–270, Apr. 2007.
[33] N. G. Paulter and D. R. Larson, “Pulse parameter uncertainty
analysis,” Metrologia, vol. 39, 2002, pp. 143–155.
[34] P. D. Hale, A. Dienstfrey, C. M. Wang, D. F. Williams, A.
Lewandowski, D. A. Keenan, and T. S. Clement, “Traceable
waveform calibration with a covariance-based uncertainty
analysis,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 3554–3568,
Oct. 2009.
[35] C. M. Wang, P. D. Hale, and D. F. Williams, “Uncertainty of
timebase corrections,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 58, no. 10,
pp. 3468–3472, Oct. 2009.
[36] “High-Speed Measurements,” NIST, Physical Measurement
Laboratory. [Online] Available: http://www.nist.gov/pml/
div686/sources_detectors/measurements.cfm.
Nicholas G. Paulter (paulter@nist.gov) began his career in
pulse metrology at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in
1980 where he worked on high-speed photoconductors. In
1989, he joined the National Institute of Standards and Tech-
nology (NIST) in Colorado and later in Gaithersburg, MD,
to develop pulse measurement techniques and analysis.
In 2006, he left the Quantum Electrical Metrology Division
to become a program manager with the Law Enforcement
Standards Office at NIST, Gaithersburg, overseeing the
application of pulsed terahertz and microwaves to law en-
forcement and homeland security. He is a Fellow of the IEEE.
Donald R. Larson has been involved in pulse metrology most of
his career starting in the Optoelectronics Division of the NIST,
Boulder, CO, from 1976 until 1998. In 1998, he moved to the
Quantum Electrical Metrology Division at NIST, Gaithersburg,
MD. Since 2006, he has been with the NIST Law Enforcement
Standards Office (OLES). He is a Senior Member of both the
OSA and the IEEE.