You are on page 1of 5

An Overview of Automotive EMC Standards

Poul Andersen Poul Andersen Consulting Richmond, Michigan, USA

Abstract This paper provides an overview of the EMC standards that have been developed for automotive and agricultural equipment, and related industries utilizing internal combustion engines. Keywords-automotive, vehicle; component; emissions; immunity; electrostatic discharge

Committee with task forces to address emissions, immunity, low frequency magnetic fields and integrated circuit EMC test methods. The two international standards organizations that are significant for automotive standards are the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Both are chartered by the United Nations. Although there are technical committees within IEC that impact the automotive industry, the main activity is within the Special International Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR). The scope of Subcommittee D of CISPR reads as follows: To prepare and revise CISPR statements and publications on limits and particular methods of measurement concerning interference from the ignition systems and other components of the electrical system of motor vehicles and from other equipment fitted with internal combustion engines, including interference to radio reception in a vehicle arising from devices within the vehicle itself. The documents of CISPR/D are applicable beyond road vehicles to industries which utilize internal combustion engines and include lawn equipment, generators, chain saws, etc. The ISO is more specifically product oriented and Technical Committee 22 (TC22) deals with Road Vehicles. Since CISPR/D has jurisdiction over the protection of radio reception, ISO TC22 coordinates its activities with CISPR/D so that there is no overlap of documents and that there are no gaps in EMC requirements. ISO TC23 addresses agricultural equipment and has largely adopted the standards developed in TC22. Within TC22, Subcommittee 3 addresses the electrical system of the vehicle and Working Group 3 of Subcommittee 3 is responsible for the ISO Road Vehicle EMC documents. Many of the same experts are part of ISO TC22/SC3/WG3 and CISPR/D and its working groups, so there is inherent sharing of ideas and concerns. Participation in international standards development is normally through National Committee representation. In the United States, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has been commissioned by Congress to represent the US in all international commercial standards development. Treaties are under the jurisdiction of the US State Department. ANSI delegates standards development to various SDOs and for the automotive sector, SAE is the SDO.



Automotive EMC became a concern the day the first radio was installed in a vehicle. While a few techniques were used to reduce the ignition system noise, it wasnt until after WWII that automotive standards began to be written. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) responded with SAE J551, which was first published in December 1947, a one page document. Initially, the reduction of ignition noise was the only concern. With the incorporation of electronic systems in vehicles in the 1970s, there was a need for a more comprehensive and systematic approach to the control of EMC. Typically the emission standards have established limit levels and the immunity standards do not. The immunity test levels are established by the user of the test method. Since the United States has been a significant participant in the international standards activity, many of the SAE test methods have been introduced as international standards. II. AUTOMOTIVE EMC STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS Standards organizations exist on several levels industry, national, international and governmental. Industry standards are the commercial implementation of EMC standards and are the most significant from a practical standpoint. The other standards activities exist for the purpose of providing commonly accepted test methods and test levels, or the definition of regulations. Many countries have a national standards development organization (SDO) for automotive standards. In the United States, this is the SAE. The Surface Vehicle Section of SAE has been active in EMC standards since the late 1940s. (The Aerospace Section of SAE also has an EMC Standards Committee.) The initial concern was the popping noise produced in the radio receiver resulting from spark ignition noise. This committee was organized as part of the engine electrical standards group. As electronic systems were introduced into the vehicle electrical system, a second committee addressing electromagnetic immunity was organized as part of the electrical systems group. Over time the two standards committees migrated to be under the Electrical Systems Group. In 2005, the two committees were merged into the Automotive EMC Standards

1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE


While industry would just as soon not have to deal with regulations, they are a fact of life and automotive EMC regulations have been implemented in many countries. The US does not have a specific automotive EMC regulation, only Part 15 of the FCC Rules. There however, transportation electronics is exempted from the rigorous documentation. The crux of an agreement of many years ago between the American Automobile Manufacturers Association and the FCC is that as long as the auto manufacturers designed to meet J551, the FCC would not implement specific regulations. Over time the FCC has not been receiving complaints regarding automobile caused radio interference and no regulations have been implemented. The most significant automotive EMC regulation is that of the European Union. Their document includes requirements for both emissions and immunity and is used in all of the EU countries. It has served as the model for the regulation in the European Economic Community and several countries throughout the world. III. THE MOST IMPORTANT STANDARD The most important standard is the one that a manufacturer has to meet. Whether it is the end product manufacturer that needs to meet a regulation or a component supplier that needs to meet their customers requirement, it is the same situation. The standard or specification needs to take into account the intended use of the product, the countries in which it will be marketed, the types of radio receivers anticipated to be installed in the vehicle, how critical the electronic systems on the vehicle are, and the consequences of malfunction. The EMC requirements are clearly defined for the direct suppliers to the automotive industry referred to as the Tier I suppliers. The requirements are typically less clearly defined for the Tier II suppliers (Suppliers to the Tier Is) and perhaps even less so for the Tier III suppliers. This is where teamwork needs to come into play to end up with a product that meets all requirements and is the most economical overall design. If in doubt as to the application and requirements, ask questions. IV. TEST PLAN For both emissions test and immunity tests, a carefully developed test plan is needed to assure a meaningful test being conducted. A thorough understanding of the design and function of the test object is mandatory to draft a valid test plan. It is the communication tool that links the product standard and the test lab. Some of the automotive companies require that the test plan be approved before testing commences. The test plan needs to carefully incorporate all of the requirements and to define any variations to the referenced test method. In some cases the test methods include alternatives. These selected alternatives or options

need to be included in the test plan. SAE J1113-1 includes an example test plan in one of its appendices. V. EMISSIONS STANDARDS

A. CISPR 12 Vehicles, boats and internal combustion engines Radio disturbance characteristics Limits and methods of measurement for the protection of off-board receivers Going back a few decades, there was the SAE standard used in the US and Canada and the CISPR standard used mainly in Europe. Both were intended to protect receivers along the roadside. Having been developed independently, they had significant differences in the test configuration, instrumentation requirements and the test levels. Through an intensive concerted effort, detail by detail, the differences were resolved and today a common standard exists that is used throughout the world. The document continues to be refined and adapted to current technology. The Sixth edition is being developed and is ready to be circulated as a Committee Document for Voting (CDV) in CISPR/D. The voting results will be discussed at the CISPR meeting in mid-September. The document does not discriminate regarding the propulsion system; it is applicable whether the propulsion system in internal combustion, electric motor or hybrid. The document frequency range is 30 to 1000 MHz and defines the test configuration at an outdoor test site with no ground plane. The measurement distance is 10 m or, with constraints, 3 m. The antenna height is fixed at 3 m for the 10 m measurement distance and 1.8 m for the 3 m measurement distance. A tuned dipole (80 MHz length below 80 MHz) is defined as the reference antenna with an informative annex providing a method for correlating a broadband antenna to the reference antenna. In the latest draft edition, clarification has been made regarding measuring instrument settings (scan rate, frequency steps, dwell time, bandwidths) B. CISPR 25 Vehicles, boats and internal combustion engines Radio disturbance characteristics Limits and methods of measurement for the protection of on-board receivers This document is intended to be used by vehicle manufacturers (and their suppliers) to control emissions from vehicle electronic systems to provide acceptable reception for radios installed on vehicles. Work was started on this document in CISPR/D about 1984. A second working group in CISPR/D was created to address this document. The document includes a test method and recommended limits for complete vehicles, and several test methods and recommended limits for components. The array of component tests included conducted voltage, conducted current, radiated emissions using a TEM cell,

1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE


radiated emissions in an absorber lined chamber and, as a new method in an informative annex, radiated emissions in a strip line. For the radiated emissions test in an absorber lined chamber, the antenna is positioned in front of the test harness for frequencies up to 1 GHz and in front of the DUT for frequencies above 1 GHz. For the component test, five test levels are included in the example limits. In general practice, the two most stringent levels are typically used by industry. CISPR 25 has been circulated as a second Committee Draft (CD) and is also to be discussed at the CISPR meeting in mid-September. C. SAE J551-5 Performance Levels and Methods of Measurement of Magnetic and Electric Field Strength from Electric Vehicles, Broadband, 9 kHz to 30 MHz This document was developed quite a few years ago when electric vehicles were being developed. It covers the frequency range of 9 kHz to 30 MHz and was intended to augment the requirements of SAE J551-2 (CISPR 12). It defines both e- and h-field measurement methodology and has recommended limits. At the present time, this document has little usage, but with additional hybrid vehicle activity, it may find new usage. The concerns addressed in the document relate mostly to on-board radio reception. Obviously, this overlaps CISPR 25, which covers the frequency spectrum starting at 150 kHz. VI. IMMUNITY TEST STANDARDS

In order to effectively perform immunity testing of a product, the intended performance has to be known, as well as the permissible deviations to that performance under test conditions. Over the years there have been several attempts to develop methodology to qualify performance. There have been two approaches to this: to define the nature of an observed deviation in performance, or to specify the acceptable deviations in performance as a function of the test environment. After many years of discussion, the SAE and ISO (TC22/SC3/WG3) have come to common agreement on wording for Function Performance Status Classification (FPSC). Four status levels are defined: Status I The function performs as designed during and after the test. Status II The function does not perform as designed during the test but returns automatically to normal operation after the test. Status III The function does not perform as designed during the test and does not return to normal operation without a simple driver/passenger intervention such as turning off/on the DUT or cycling the ignition switch after the disturbance is removed. Status IV The function does not perform as designed during and after the test and cannot be returned to proper operation without more extensive intervention such as disconnecting and reconnecting the battery or power feed. The function shall not have sustained any permanent damage as a result of the testing. Fig. 1 illustrates the general implementation.

A. SAE J1812- Function Performance Status Classification for EMC Immunity Testing
Test Severity Levels

Function Performance Status

L4i Unexpected event n 4 (Status IV type, Status I, II and III allowed) Unexpected event n 3 (Status III type, Status I and II allowed) L2i Unexpected event n 2 (Status II type, Status I allowed) Nominal function event n 1 (Status I type)



Figure 1.

General FPSC Concept

1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE


The concept recognizes that systems (and therefore modules) are complex and include a variety of functions. Some of these may be critical to the proper function of the system, others may be less critical. The concept allows the definition of different Categories and the application of different test levels and imposition of different performance requirements for different functions within a module. An example for an ESD test is given in Table 1. Having a single test and performance level may not be of significance for products that are being tested at a few V/m field strength. But, if the testing is being done with field strengths on the order of 100 V/m, there is a significant impact on the cost of hardening a module to RF energy and more comprehensive performance is mandated. TABLE 1. Test Level L4i L3i L2i L1i Example application of FPSC to an ESD test Category 1 15 kV 8 kV 4 kV 2 kV 2 15 kV 8 kV 6 kV 4 kV 3 25 kV 15 kV 8 kV 6 kV

ISO TC22/SC3/WG3 made the decision that this unified concept will be incorporated into all documents presently under development and that the Part 1s (General information and definitions) of the ISO 7637, 11451 and 11452 series of documents will be amended to include the concept as quickly as possible B. Immunity Test Methods All of the vehicle immunity test methods are considered to be applicable to any type of propulsion system, regardless of system voltage. All of the component test methods are applicable to low voltage (below 50 V) electrical systems. However, some of the component tests (those that require galvanic contact) are not readily applicable to high voltage (above 50 V) systems of vehicles. Unlike the emissions tests, which are quite unified, the matrix of immunity tests is more extensive. The generic tests are listed in Table 2. The question has been raised from time to time, why do we have so many different test methods. Some of the test methods address unique frequency ranges. For those test methods that have overlapping frequency ranges, there are a variety of reasons for the duplication. One of the reasons is historical preference. Another is advantages/disadvantages of comparable test methods. For example, comparing the direct injection test with BCI, they both have the same

Immunity Test Name Conducted Transient Coupled Transient Audio Frequency Conducted Direct RF Injection BCI Stripline TEM Radiated RF Field Antenna Source Radiated RF Field Mode Tuned Reverberation Radiated RF Field Mode Stirred Reverberation Transmitter Simulation Magnetic Field Electric Field ESD

TABLE 2. Matrix of Automotive Immunity Tests Vehicle Component Composite Application Application Frequency Range S,I NA S,I NA S,I 16 Hz to 250 kHz S,I 0.5 to 400 MHz S,I S,I 1 to 400 MHz S,I I 1 to 400 MHz S,I S,I 10 kHz to 200 MHz S,I S,I 30 MHz to 18 GHz S S S,I S S,I S SAE document, I ISO document S,I S I S,I S S,I 400 MHz to 18 GHz 400 MHz to 18 GHz 1.8 MHz to 2.5 GHz 16 Hz to 150 kHz 60 Hz NA

1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE


frequency range. BCI has the advantage of a quicker test and is also applicable to HV components (no galvanic contact), while the direct injection method provides much greater diagnostic information that can assist in resolving immunity problems. C. Immunity Test Modulation The application of amplitude modulation (AM) in the automotive immunity tests differs from traditional AM. In traditional AM the modulation would be added on top of the carrier signal so that a test signal with 80% modulation would have an amplitude of 1.8 times that level of the carrier signal. While this is readily achievable for moderate field strengths (i.e., 3 to 10 V/m), it would require an extremely large (and costly) amplifier to create the test signal for testing a vehicle. In that test, the antenna separation is typically about 5 m and the field strengths on the order of 100 V/m or more. Therefore, the concept of constant peak AM was defined as shown in Fig. 2. This allows the test signal to be generated using large, but readily available commercial amplifiers. The amplitude fluctuations are more likely to cause a disruption of the operation of a DUT than a CW test signal.

VII. COMMONALITY OF TEST METHODS There has been a concerted effort to define similar test setups among the test methods to allow common use of equipment and test harnesses. As examples, the test bench set-up for radiated emissions of CISPR 25 and the radiated immunity test of ISO 11452-2 are nearly identical. The bench set-up for the Bulk Current Immunity (BCI) test of ISO 11452-4 and the bulk current emissions test of CISPR 25 are nearly identical. A single test harness with (1700 +300, -0) mm length dimension is used in the radiated emissions test of CISPR 25, the immunity tests of ISO 11452-2 and ISO 11452-5 and the recently introduced indirect discharge ESD test of SAE 1113-13 and ISO 10605. The obvious goal of this effort has been to reduce the costs of performing automotive EMC tests. VIII. STANDARDS ARE LIVING DOCUMENTS Virtually all SDOs have a requirement that each standard be reaffirmed, revised or withdrawn within 5 years of publication. As greater understanding for each method is reached, the repeatability, efficiency and correlation of the test methods are improved. The SAE EMC Committee and the US CISPR/D and ISO WG3 Advisory Groups are receptive to comments and suggestions for improvement of the test methods or for considering new test methods to meet new product developments either in the automotive sector or in the electromagnetic environment.

Figure 2. Constant Peak AM Most automotive electronic circuitry does not detect frequency variations. Therefore a CW test signal is normally used to simulate transmissions from frequency modulation transmitters. Above 800 MHz, pulse modulation signals are used in addition to CW to simulate the emissions from digital communication and radar sources.

1-4244-0293-X/06/$20.00 (c)2006 IEEE